prr.hec.gov.pkprr.hec.gov.pk › jspui › bitstream › 123456789 › 2703 › 1 › 2683s.pdf ·...

NUMERICAL SIMULATION FOR OPTIMIZATION OF CANAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM

BY

ENGR. MAZHAR HUSSAIN

2005-Ph.D.-Civil-07

SUPERVISOR

PROF. DR. ABDUL SATTAR SHAKIR

JUNE 2013

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY LAHORE, PAKISTAN


ENGR. MAZHAR HUSSAIN

2005-Ph.D.-Civil-07

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

(Prof Dr. Abdul Sattar Shakir) (Prof. Dr. Abdul Razzaq Ghumman)

CHAIRMAN DEAN

Civil Engineering Department Faculty of Civil Engineering

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

LAHORE, PAKISTAN

DEDICATED TO

BELOVED PARENTS

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the guidance, support and encouragement of my supervisor Prof. Dr. Abdul Sattar Shakir. I am very thankful to him that he provided me support with kindness and full attention during this time. It is of course a result of his loving behavior that I am able to complete my research work.

It is also honor and pleasure for me that I found full cooperation from my department especially the professors. Especially thanks to Prof. Dr. Habibur Rehman who provided me valuable suggestions and improvement in the research work.

I am heartily thankful for useful suggestions and improvement and time afforded for me, by Prof. Dr. Noor Muhammad, of Civil Engineering Department.

I am thankful to Dr. Muhammad Riaz, Director, Project Management Implementation Unit, (PMIU), Irrigation Department, Government of the Punjab, who provided me full access and support regarding data and information about research work.

I am also thankful to the field staff of Irrigation Department at Balloki, Okara, Sahiwal and Khenewal Division for providing me valuable information about the Lower Bari Doab Canal Command System. Also, I greatly acknowledge the officers-in-charge of all canal divisions of LBDC system who shared with me very important knowledge and operational experiences. Especially, Muhammad Zubair, Superintendent Engineer, (Rtd), LBDC Circle, Irrigation Department, Government of the Punjab, who reviewed sections of chapter 3.

Many thanks are also devoted to Mr. Pierre-Olivier Malaterre, ICGREF, Cemagref, for timely support and guidance regarding SIC Model.

Finally, I feel honor to express especial thanks to my fellows and my best friends for their cooperation during the research period.

ii


ABSTRACT

Agricultural production needs to provide food and fiber for the burgeoning global population which is expected to touch 9.25 billion mark by 2050 from the current 7 billion. Agriculture accounts for about 84% of total water use in Asia, 72% worldwide, and 87% in developing countries. The need for improving irrigation management has been figuring high in most of the under developed countries in Asia and Pacific region since beginning of 21st century. The total actual renewable water resources decreased from 2,961 m3 per capita in 2000 to 1,030 m3 per capita in 2013 which puts Pakistan in the category of red zone countries. This realization has shifted the attention of the researchers and policy makers to focus on improving the performance of the irrigation systems. To achieve equity in distribution of canal water, new techniques for managing irrigation water resources and for better performance of the irrigation system is required to be given priority under water stress and constraints environment. The simulation models provide information about actual state of the flow anywhere in the canal at any time and are appropriate tools.

One dimensional hydrodynamic model, Simulation of Irrigation Canal, SIC is applied for the research study to simulate the hydraulic and operational conditions of Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) for better management and operation. The model was set up using observed cross sectional survey canal data of 2008-2010. The observed data of water levels, gate openings and out flows, for August 20-27, 2010 was used for calibration of the model. The steady state calibration of the hydraulic model compiles all canal reaches and structures for the actual conditions. The calibration of the model showed close agreement between observed and simulated water levels. As a whole, simulated and actual water levels represented a good calibration of the hydraulic model. The calibration results indicated that the computed water levels were within range of 20-35 cm than the observed water levels. After calibration, the model was validated using observed field data of six irrigation periods during 2006 to 2011, (May 10-17, 2006; August 24-31, 2007; November 8-15, 2008; October 07-14, 2009; February 20-27, 2010 & July 7-14, 2011). The results indicated that the computed water levels were within range of 17-32 cm than the observed water levels. It showed that the model-computed water levels were in close agreement with the observed values for head, middle and tail reaches of the canal. The three statistical approaches i.e., Coefficient of Efficiency -E (Nash-Sutcliff coefficient), coefficient of determination -R2 and the Student’s t- test were adopted for evaluation of model performance. The analysis indicated that the model perfromance is resaonably accepatable.

Numerical Simulation of Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) canal was performed to compute water levels for 100% to 40% of design discharge with and without gate operations. The results showed that without gate operations, at 80% of design discharge at head, the cross regulators need to be operated to feed 25% offtakes to their design discharges. Therefore, gate operation is required at 80% of design discharge. The simulated discharges of offtakes for 100%, 80% and 60% of design discharge at LBDC head indicated that the reduction in the discharges for tail portion offtakes is remarkably more than the offtakes at the head and middle portion when the discharge at the head of the main canal is reduced from 100% to 60%. This indicated that the reduction in discharge from 100% to 60% at the head of a main canal, adversely affects

ABSTRACT NUMERICAL SIMULATION FOR OPTIMIZATION OF CANAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM

iii

the equity conditions along the main canal. The percent reduction varied from 3-20% from head reach to 25% to 42% in the tail portion. Based on results of this study, it is recommended to adopt normal range of operation as 80% for distribution operation instead of 70%.

This study suggests new “Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP)” parameter as better representative of performance indicator to check the overall hydraulic and operational performance of canal. This indicator helps canal mangers to evaluate the operational plans. When the value of Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP) is between 0.8 to 1, the canal performance is “Good” and is graded as value equal to 1. When CEP is between 0.8 to 0.4, the performance is “Satisfactory”, the canal is graded equal to value 0.5, while when CEP is less than 0.4 and greater than 1, the canal performance is “Poor” and is graded as value equal to 0.

The actual water delivery schedule for period June 15 to July 8, 2011 (Kharif season) was tested and results were compared with optimized plan for performance assessment in terms of equitable distribution of canal water. These indicators are: (a) Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR); (c) Reliability (Pd). (c) Equity (Pe) in water distribution; (d) combined efficiency performance (CEP). The simulations made with ID hydrodynamic SIC Model for LBDC provide information on canal behavior and help canal mangers to optimize operational plan for implementation. Additional modules are developed to better integrate SIC model as Support Tool in the Decision making process of the canal managers. Thus before implementing a new operational procedure in the field, the canal managers can evaluate its likely consequences on the system.

The proposed distribution plan with head discharge of 220 m3/s of Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) was simulated. The results concluded that the average daily delivery performance ratio (DPR) for actual plan (Kharif 2011) is 0.94 while for optimized plan; the average DPR value is 0.97 showing improvement by 4% on average for optimized plan. The reliability (Pd) of irrigation supply indicated that for actual plan, the Pd value is 0.048, while for proposed plan, it is 0.056 indicated improvement by 16.6%. The equity (Pe) in terms of water distribution along LBDC main canal concluded that the equity slope for optimized plan is 0.02 as compared to 0.077 of actual plan. The Pe for actual plan is 0.9 while for optimized plan it is 0.97 indicating 8% improvement. The evaluation of combined efficiency performance (CEP) of offtakes concluded that for actual plan, the number of offtakes graded as “Good” are 31 while for the proposed plan, the number of offtakes graded as “Good” are 46. The analysis indicated that CEP value for Optimized plan is 0.82 while for actual plan, CEP value is 0.77, showing 13% improvement.

In Pakistan, computer oriented research to study hydraulic behavior of large complex network using canal simulation hydraulic models is less common and not constantly implemented. This research study uses hydrodynamic model for simulations of main canal under different operating conditions. The canal managers can optimize the operational plans and implement their decisions in more efficient way than the current practices. The findings of this research serves as a decision support tool for the canal irrigation system managers to formulate effective and responsive control operation strategies under varying flow scenarios.

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AFS Authorized full supply

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

BCM Billion Cubic meters

Blk Balloki Division

CBDC Central Bari Doab Canal

CCA Cultural Command Area

CI Cropping Intensity

DST Decision Support Tool

DSS Decision Support System

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GCA Gross Command Area

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GoP Government of Pakistan

IBIS Indus Basin Irrigation System

Khw Khenewal Division

L Left

LBDC Lower Bari Doab Canal (main canal)

LBDCIP Lower Bari Doab Canal Irrigation Project

LCC Lower Chenab Canal

LJC Lower Jhelum Canal

MCM Million cubic meters

masl Meter above sea level

NP Non-Perennial

xvii

NWP National Water Plan

NWSS National Water Sector Strategy

Okr Okara Division

P Perennial

PID Provincial Irrigation Department

PMIU Punjab Monitoring and Implementation Unit

R Right

Shw Sahiwal Division

SIC Simulation of Irrigation Canal

UN United Nations

UGBC Upper Gugera Branch Canal

XR Cross regulator

WAA Water Apportionment Accord

xviii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A flow cross-sectional area in m2

B Canal bed width in m

CVR Spatial Coefficient of Variation

CVt Temporal Coefficient of Variation

CEP Combined Efficiency Performance

DPR Delivery Performance Ratio

f Lacey’s Silt factor

F Squared Froude number

FSD Full supply depth in m

G Acceleration due to gravity in m/sec2

Km Kilo meter

MCM Million Cubic Meter

n Manning roughness coefficient value

Pd Reliability

Pe Equity in distribution

Q flow rate in cubic meter per second

Qa Actual discharges delivered in m3/sec

Qd Design discharge in m3/sec

Qh Head discharge in m3/sec

Qt Tail discharge in m3/sec

S0 Longitudinal bed slope in m/m

Sf friction (resistance) loss gradient

Ss Side slope

Te Elapsed time (T)

xix

T Time period in Days

TMC Thousand Million Cubic Feet

V Velocity in m/sec

WL Water level in meter above sea level (masl)

WSS Water Surface (energy) slope

X Longitudinal distance (m)

y Flow depth in m

Z Infiltrated seepage volume per unit length of channel (m2)

xx

MEASURES AND EQUIVALENTS

1 meter = 3.28 feet

1 ha = 2.47 acres

1 km = 0.620 miles

35.310 cubic feet = 1 cubic meter (m3)

1233.5 cubic m = 1 Acre foot (AF)

1 Acre foot = 43,560 cubic ft

1.234 Billion cubic meter (Bm3) = 1 million acre foot (MAF)

1 cubic ft per second = 1.983 Acre-ft per day

28.5 litre per second (l/s) = 1 cubic feet per second (cusec)

= 0.0285 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

= 28.3 Million Cubic Meters

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication Acknowledgement Abstract Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Appendices List of Abbreviations List of Symbols Measures and Equivalents

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1

1.2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 1

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 2

1.4 NEED OF RESEARCH........................................................................................... 3

1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ............................................................. 4

1.6 RESEARCH STUDY AREA AND EXTEND ....................................................... 4

1.7 THESIS OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 5

1.8 FUTURE WORK .................................................................................................... 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 8

2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 8

2.2 HYDRAULIC MODELING ................................................................................. 10

2.2.1 Semi-implicit discretization ...................................................................... 11

2.2.2 Boundary conditions and initial conditions .............................................. 11

2.3 CANAL CONTROL HYDRAULICS ................................................................... 12

2.4 CANAL FLOW SIMULATION MODELS USAGE ........................................... 13

2.5 REVIEW OF COMPUTER BASED DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS................. 16

v

2.6 SELECTION OF MODEL .................................................................................... 21

2.6.1 Evaluation framework for selection of canal flow models ....................... 21

2.6.2 Comparison of SIC with other hydraulic models ..................................... 21

2.6.3 Selection of hydraulic model for research ................................................ 27

2.7 HYDRAULIC MODEL (SIC)............................................................................... 28

2.8 OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL PLAN .................................................... 29

2.9 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL .............................................................................. 30

3 REVIEW AND APPRAISAL OF PROBLEMS OF LBDC ....................................... 31

3.1 APPRAISAL OF PROBLEMS ............................................................................. 31

3.2 INDUS BASIN IRRIGATION SYSTEM (IBIS) .................................................. 32

3.3 REGULATION OF A PARTICULAR CANAL SYSTEM .................................. 35

3.4 PAST STUDIES ON LBDC.................................................................................. 38

3.5 LOWER BARI DOAB CANAL SYSTEM ........................................................... 38

3.5.1 Physical system ......................................................................................... 38

3.5.2 Management set up ................................................................................... 43

3.5.3 Operational difficulties ............................................................................. 44

3.6 SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 46

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS ....................................... 47

4.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 47

4.1.1 Model input data and output ..................................................................... 48

4.1.2 Research study area .................................................................................. 48

4.1.3 Data collection .......................................................................................... 52

4.1.4 Main canal data ......................................................................................... 53

4.1.5 Off-taking head regulator data .................................................................. 53

4.1.6 Decision support tool ................................................................................ 53

4.1.7 Performance indicators ............................................................................. 55

vi

4.2 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 61

4.2.1 Cross sectional data .................................................................................. 61

4.2.2 Main longitudinal profile .......................................................................... 61

4.2.3 Discharge data at head .............................................................................. 65

4.2.4 Discharge measurement data at control points ......................................... 65

4.2.5 Inline structure data .................................................................................. 66

4.2.6 Calibration of inline structure data ........................................................... 68

4.2.7 Frequency analysis of LBDC .................................................................... 73

4.2.8 Equity head to tail discharge ..................................................................... 77

4.2.9 Equity in distribution ................................................................................ 77

4.2.10 Analysis of head discharge data at offtakes ............................................ 78

4.2.11 Distributary head regulators data ............................................................ 79

4.2.12 Offtakes structures .................................................................................. 81

4.2.13 Metrological data .................................................................................... 81

4.2.14 Tube wells pumpage ............................................................................... 81

4.2.15 Cropping pattern and intensity ................................................................ 82

4.3 ANALYSIS OF DATA OF OTHER IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ......................... 84

5 SIMULATION OF LOWER BARI DOAB CANAL .................................................. 87

5.1 SIMULATION MODEL SET UP ......................................................................... 87

5.1.1 LBDC system network layout in model ................................................... 87

5.1.2 Cross-sections data ................................................................................... 87

5.1.3 Hydraulic and regulating structures .......................................................... 89

5.1.4 Initial and boundary conditions ................................................................ 89

5.1.5 Canal losses .............................................................................................. 90

5.2 CALIBRATION OF SIC MODEL........................................................................ 91

5.3 MODEL VALIDATION ....................................................................................... 94

vii

5.3.1 Statistical analysis ..................................................................................... 98

5.3.1.1 Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient .................................................................... 98

5.3.1.2 Coefficient of determination ................................................................ 99

5.3.1.3 Student t- test ....................................................................................... 99

6 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR OPTIMIZATION OF CANAL OPERATION .. ........................................................................................................................................ 103

6.1 LBDC OPERATION WITH VARIOUS FLOW RATES ................................... 103

6.1.1 LBDC without gate operations ............................................................... 103

6.1.2 LBDC with gate operations .................................................................... 107

6.2 PERFORMANCE OF INLINE STRUCTURES ................................................. 111

6.2.1 Computation of water depth at various flows ......................................... 115

6.3 OPERATIONAL SCENARIO AT 50% HEAD DISCHAGRE .......................... 117

6.4 OPERATIONAL SCENARIO AT 80% HEAD DISCHAGRE .......................... 121

6.5 OPERATIONAL SCENARIO AT 100% HEAD DISCHAGRE ........................ 125

6.6 SIMULATION OF DISTRIBUTION OPERATION .......................................... 129

6.7 HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOUR UNDER UNSTEADY STATE .......................... 132

6.7.1 Estimating lag times using simulation results ........................................ 132

6.8 OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL PLAN .................................................. 135

6.8.1 Inflow hydrograph .................................................................................. 139

6.8.2 Proposed plan .......................................................................................... 140

6.8.3 Evaluation of operational plans .............................................................. 142

6.8.3.1 Delivery performance ratio (DPR) ..................................................... 142

6.8.3.2 Reliability (Pd) .................................................................................... 152

6.8.3.3 Equity in water distribution (Pe) ........................................................ 155

6.8.3.4 Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP) ......................................... 157

6.9 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FOR OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS ........ 159

6.9.1 Performance indicators at 50% of design discharge ............................... 159

viii

6.9.1.1 Combined efficiency performance (CEP) .......................................... 159

6.9.2 Performance indicators at 100% design discharge ................................. 161

6.10 OPERATIONAL GOODNESS ........................................................................... 163

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 165

7.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 165

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 167

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 168

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Geographical position of study area, Punjab, Pakistan. .......................................... 6

Figure 1.2: Study area showing main canal (LBDC) and its command system, Punjab, Pakistan ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2.1: Preissmann four point grid ................................................................................... 12

Figure 2.2: Main window of hydraulic model SIC - version 4.27a (Cemagref, 2007) ............ 28

Figure 2.3: Main structure of hydraulic model SIC ................................................................. 29

Figure 3.1: Map showing Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) ............................................. 34

Figure 3.2: A typical layout of irrigation system in Pakistan .................................................. 36

Figure 3.3: Schematic diagram for flow to LBDC .................................................................. 39

Figure 3.4: Average monthly supplies to LBDC ..................................................................... 40

Figure 3.5: Water supplied verses required for LBDC system ................................................ 41

Figure 3.6: Water entitlement and deliveries for LBDC during 2007 to Rabi 2011-12 .......... 41

Figure 3.7: Organizational set up of LBDC System ................................................................ 44

Figure 4.1: Methodology for research study ............................................................................ 49

Figure 4.2: Prototype window of decision support tool. .......................................................... 54

Figure 4.3: Typical cross sections of LBDC ............................................................................ 61

Figure 4.4: Longitudinal profile of LBDC ............................................................................... 64

Figure 4.5: Actual daily head supply discharge during 2006 to 2011 ..................................... 65

Figure 4.6: Discharge hydrograph at XR km 33.22 during the year 2006 -11(Rabi) .............. 68

Figure 4.7: Discharge hydrograph at XR km 33.22 during the year 2006 -11(Kharif) ........... 69

Figure 4.8: Discharge hydrograph at XR km 69.32 during the year 2006 -11(Rabi) .............. 69

Figure 4.9: Discharge hydrograph at XR km 69.32 during the year 2006 -11(Kharif) ........... 70

Figure 4.10: Discharge hydrograph at control point km 165.19 during the year 2006 -11(Rabi) ................................................................................................................................... 70

x

Figure 4.11: Discharge hydrograph at control point km 165.19 during the year 2006 -11(Kharif) ................................................................................................................................ 71

Figure 4.12: Line diagram of LBDC........................................................................................ 72

Figure 4.13: Frequency chart for LBDC .................................................................................. 74

Figure 4.14: Daily delivery performance ratio LBDC at head ................................................ 75

Figure 4.15: Average yearly delivery performance ratio LBDC at head ................................. 75

Figure 4.16: Daily delivery performance ratio at tail of LBDC .............................................. 76

Figure 4.17: Average yearly delivery performance ratio of LBDC at tail ............................... 76

Figure 4.18: Head to tail equity of LBDC ............................................................................... 77

Figure 4.19: Equity in canal water distribution along LBDC .................................................. 78

Figure 4.20: Average delivery performance ratio at offtakes heads from 2006 to 2011 ......... 79

Figure 4.21: Delivery performance ratio at head of Upper Gugera Branch Canal .................. 85

Figure 4.22: Delivery performance ratio at tail of Upper Gugera Branch Canal .................... 85

Figure 4.23: Delivery performance ratio at head of CBDC ..................................................... 86

Figure 4.24: Delivery performance ratio at tail of CBDC ....................................................... 86

Figure 5.1: Layout of LBDC system in SIC model ................................................................. 88

Figure 5.2: Inflow hydrograph at u/s boundary of model for calibration ................................ 89

Figure 5.3: Rating curve at downstream boundary of model................................................... 90

Figure 5.4: Calibrated water surface levels along main canal ................................................. 93

Figure 5.5: Variation of water levels due to varied values of Manning’s n values ................. 94

Figure 5.6: Inflow hydrograph during May 10-17, 2006 ......................................................... 95

Figure 5.7: Inflow hydrograph during August 24-31, 2007..................................................... 95

Figure 5.8: Inflow hydrograph during November 8-15, 2008 ................................................. 96

Figure 5.9: Inflow hydrograph during October 7-14, 2009 ..................................................... 96

Figure 5.10: Inflow hydrograph during February 20-27, 2010 ................................................ 97

Figure 5.11: Inflow hydrograph during July 7-14, 2011 ......................................................... 97

Figure 5.12: Validated and observed water levels during July 7-14, 2011.............................. 98

xi

Figure 5.13: Comparison of simulated and observed water levels for calibration ................ 100

Figure 6.1: Computed water surface levels along LBDC (without gate operation) .............. 105

Figure 6.2: Computed water surface levels along LBDC (with gate operation) ................... 108

Figure 6.3: Main canal offtaking head regulator crest parameters ........................................ 111

Figure 6.4: Depth-discharge curves for different structures .................................................. 116

Figure 6.5: Main canal operation at 50% of design discharge. .............................................. 118

Figure 6.6: Main Canal operation at 80% of design discharge .............................................. 122

Figure 6.7: Main canal operation at 100% of design discharge ............................................. 126

Figure 6.8: Off takes discharge reduction due to reduction of discharge in main canal ........ 130

Figure 6.9: Percent reduction of offtake discharges at Q100 to Q80 and Q100 to Q60 in main canal ....................................................................................................................................... 131

Figure 6.10: Upstream boundary conditions for unsteady state ............................................ 133

Figure 6.11: Time lag for the disturbance to reach from the head to tail LBDC ................... 133

Figure 6.12: Time lags verses water levels at tail of LBDC under various flows. ................ 134

Figure 6.13: Time lags at control points for different flow transitions. ................................. 135

Figure 6.14: Discharge releases at head of main canal between June 15 to July 8, 2011 ..... 139

Figure 6.15: Range of (Qact/Qdes) vs no. of days discharge occurs during ......................... 140

Figure 6.16: Flow chart for optimization of operational plan ................................................ 141

Figure 6.17: DPR of offtakes in June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif (actual) ............................... 146




Figure 6.21: DPR of offtakes in June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif – optimized plan ................ 148

Figure 6.22: DPR of offtakes in June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif –optimized plan ................. 148



Figure 6.25: Reliability of the offtakes for June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif (actual) .............. 153

xii

Figure 6.26: Reliability of the offtakes –optimized plan ....................................................... 154

Figure 6.27: Equity in canal water distribution in June 15 to July 8, 2011 (kharif) actual ... 156

Figure 6.28: Equity in canal water distribution in June 15 to July 8, 2011-optimized Plan .. 156

Figure 6.29: Combined efficiency performance of offtakes during June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif (actual) ......................................................................................................................... 158

Figure 6.30: Combined efficiency performance – optimized plan ........................................ 159

Figure 6.31: Combined efficiency performance – optimized plan ........................................ 161

Figure 6.32: Combined Efficiency Performance – Optimized Plan ...................................... 163

Figure 6.33: Combined efficiency performance – operational goodness .............................. 164

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Evaluation framework (proposed by Cemagref, 2005) ........................................... 23

Table 2-2: General information for evaluation criteria of hydraulic flow models ............ 24

Table 2-3: Properties for evaluation criteria of hydraulic flow models .............................. 25

Table 2-4: Qualities for evaluation criteria of hydraulic flow models ................................ 26

Table 2-5: Characteristics and limitations of SIC model ......................................................... 30

Table 4-1: Details of SIC model data input and output ........................................................... 51

Table 4-2: Details of data collection ........................................................................................ 52

Table 4-3: Matrix for weighting factors ................................................................................... 59

Table 4-4: CEP grading ........................................................................................................... 59

Table 4-5: Water delivery system performance measures relative to system objective .......... 60

Table 4-6: Performance standards for irrigation system .......................................................... 60

Table 4-7: Main canal hydraulic parameters (existing) ........................................................... 62

Table 4-8: Main canal proposed hydraulic parameters (rehabilitation) ................................... 63

Table 4-9: Details of inline structure where stop logs being operated for regulation .............. 66

Table 4-10: Hydraulic parameters of inline control structures ................................................ 67

Table 4-11: Frequency analysis of LBDC ............................................................................... 73

Table 4-12: Delivery performance ratio at head and tail of LBDC ......................................... 74

Table 4-13: Hydraulic parameters of offtaking head regulators .............................................. 80

Table 4-14: Details of tube wells in the LBDC command Area (Basharat et al, 2011) .......... 82

Table 4-15: Existing cropping pattern and intensities in LBDC .............................................. 83

Table 5-1: Canal losses in LBDC ............................................................................................ 91

Table 5-2: Manning roughness coefficient of main canal reaches .......................................... 92

Table 5-3: Statistical parameters at various locations for calibration period ......................... 101

Table 5-4: Statistical parameters at various locations for validation periods ........................ 102

Table 6-1: Results of simulated water surface levels (without gate operations) ................... 106

xiv

Table 6-2: Simulated water levels at 80% and 60% with gated operations ........................... 109

Table 6-3: Simulated water levels at 50% showing ponding (m) .......................................... 110

Table 6-4: Water depths, working heads and water drawing capacity of the head regulators of offtaking channels .................................................................................................................. 112

Table 6-5: Locations of control points in Sahiwal canal division ......................................... 114

Table 6-6: Location of control points in Khenewal canal division ........................................ 115

Table 6-7: Simulation results showing water levels along main canal at .............................. 119

Table 6-8: Simulation results showing target discharges and gate openings......................... 120

Table 6-9: Simulation results showing water levels along main canal at .............................. 123

Table 6-10: Simulation results showing target discharges and gate openings ....................... 124

Table 6-11: Simulation results showing water levels along main canal at ............................ 127

Table 6-12: Simulation results showing target discharges and gate openings ....................... 128

Table 6-13: Grouping of distributaries for water delivery schedule kharif 2011 .................. 136

Table 6-14: Preference table .................................................................................................. 138

Table 6-15: Comparison between actual gate settings and optimum gate openings of offtakes................................................................................................................................................ 143

Table 6-16: Average delivery performance ratio of actual and optimized plan .................... 150

Table 6-17: Delivery performance ratio of actual and optimized plan .................................. 151

Table 6-18: Reliability values of actual vs optimized plan .................................................... 152

Table 6-19: Equity in distribution actual vs optimized plan .................................................. 155

Table 6-20: Combined efficiency performance (CEP) grading actual vs optimized plan ..... 157

Table 6-21: Combined efficiency performance (CEP) offtakes actual vs optimized plan .... 158





Table 6-26: CEP grading under different operational scenarios ............................................ 164

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Table A-1: Statistics of canal area in Punjab province, Table-A-2: availability of water in Punjab canal commands ........................................................................................... 176

Appendix B: Details of observed cross sections data of LBDC ........................................... 179

Appendix C: Rating Tables (head discharge relationship) for inline structures .................... 183

Appendix D: Frequency analysis of offtakes ......................................................................... 189

Appendix E: Validated and observed water levels of six irrigation periods .......................... 213

Appendix F: Details of coding .............................................................................................. 229

Appendix G: Hydrodynamic model SIC Details .................................................................. 237

CHAPTER 1

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND

Irrigated agriculture in Pakistan is under immense pressure because of emerging challenges of food security, competing demands among sectors and climate change. (PC, 2012). The operation of an irrigation system is as important as its design and is one of the most challenging management exercises. The irrigation channels are designed to be operated at or near full supply capacity. The operational flows significantly below the design capacity lead inequities in distribution of water. (Haq et al, 2012). In water scarce environment, when channels are closed and rotations instituted, pronounced inequities have been observed to exist among channels with respect to the relative length of time of channel closure. The growing inequities in canal water distribution have been identified as being major issue that reflects on the system performance, ultimately productivity and sustainability of irrigated agriculture. (MFA, 2011). Managing water resources efficiently and effectively entail development and adoption of appropriate technologies. The equitable and efficient management of water supply is the need of time. At present, the more pressing water problem is the efficient and timely delivery of water. Many existing water distribution systems are inefficient and fast deteriorating. Irrigation water use efficiencies are in the order of 30% to 40% against design assumption of 50% to 65% overall efficiency. The end result is low cropping intensity (less than 130% for Philippines, Pakistan and Cambodia) and very low unit area productivity (David, 2005). Hydraulic numerical models of irrigation canals are valuable tools to simulate actual canal behavior and check its design and operational practices under different scenarios. (Cemagref, 2007).

1.2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

The irrigation supplies and distribution of water in an adequate, equitable and reliable manner is primary essential condition to achieve productivity. Irrigation is important among the strategies for increasing agricultural production in Pakistan. Efficient management of irrigation water is more important, as the new sources of irrigation supplies become scarce and new irrigation development work requires huge investment. The performance of irrigation schemes is influenced by many factors such as socio economics, environmental and technical. The objective of the irrigation system is to deliver water to the beneficiary farmers in an equitable manner in its command area to ensure maximum agricultural production.

Equity of water distribution is the operational objective of the canal irrigation system in Pakistan. Equity i.e. deliveries in proportional to the cropped area served, is leading principle of delivery scheduling. The equitable distribution of irrigation water in the system is implemented and operated when actual canal supplies meet the design

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

2

discharges. Under water scarce condition and environment, the canals are operated less then design supplies and rotational programmes are practiced. To maintain the proportional water deliveries, water level in the canal are kept close to design Water levels. Water levels in the irrigation system are controlled through head and cross regulators. The poor performance is evident from low productivity coupled with poor efficiency of water use and rapid deterioration of irrigation system.

Pakistan has fortuned with several large irrigation projects used mainly for irrigation. The conveyance and distribution networks of the projects consist of open canals under manual control. They have been designed to serve large irrigation areas in accordance with collective land use requirements. Nowadays the operational conditions are changed and the irrigation projects exist with problems of inequitable water distribution and high operational losses. The need for improved management of the old canals is recognized and thus provides a good opportunity for the adaptation of hydraulic simulation tools.

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The United Nations (2011) has placed Pakistan among the “water hotspots” of Asia-Pacific region, saying that the country is facing major threats of increasing water scarcity, high water utilization, deteriorating water quality and climate change risk. Pakistan is one of the world’s most arid countries, with an average rainfall of under 240 mm a year. According to the benchmark water scarcity indicator (the Faulkenmark indicator, 1992) Pakistan’s estimated current per capita water availability of around 1,030 m3 places it in the “red zone ” category.

There is now an increasing clamor to search for more cost effective and efficient irrigation technologies. From view point of equity in access to irrigation water, there is still a need to maintain and build large gravity systems. To rehabilitate or develop irrigation system, greater emphasis is now given to irrigation canal computer software’s (canal simulation models) and hardware (lined canals and more water control facilities) that minimizes the canal losses. For Central Asia, water use is as high 129 m3 per hectare and only 21% of this is effectively used, the remaining 79% is lost. (ENVSEC, 2005).

Equity, as related to water delivery system can be defined as the delivery of the fair shares of water to the users throughout the system. Physical deterioration of irrigation systems has several technical implications. In historical irrigation systems, the canal banks and cross sections have deteriorated at many locations and therefore hydraulic conditions anticipated at design stage cannot attain. The canal cross structures and offtakes are unable to carry the present day discharge requirements. For many drop / falls structures, the crest elevations have been changed causing inequity in irrigation deliveries. This requires both operational and strategic changes if improvement and efficient irrigation management are to be achieved. Operation changes include physical restoration and implementation of new management techniques for the main system and strategic changes addresses the policies, priorities and management of institution at agency level and farmers’ participation.

Considerable effort has been devoted over time to introduce new technology and polices aiming at increasing water efficiency. Hydraulic calibration of canal is prerequisite in effective canal management and increased attention is now being paid


3

to water management, a very important activity in improving the performance of an irrigation system. Better management usually refers to improvement of allocation and irrigation water efficiently. Simulation models are increasingly being used in problem solving and in decision making.

1.4 NEED OF RESEARCH

The advances in computer modeling in the field of irrigation system management are making it possible to better understand the complex problems of irrigation system’s operation in detail. Mathematical models are now being used worldwide to simulate the hydraulic behavior of irrigation canals under steady and unsteady flow conditions. It is important to improve the management of irrigation system because of the growing water shortages in many areas of the world and the need for increased agriculture production to provide food for a growing population.

Due to increasing demand for irrigation water, efforts have been made to improve efficiency of irrigation system through improved management and operation. With advanced technological innovation, irrigation has become efficient. The simulation models provide information about actual state of the flow anywhere in the canal at any time. Through computer simulations, numerical results are obtained for (a) water surface profiles of any canal reach and entire canal (b) depth/discharge at any canal delivery points, and also flow velocity as a function of time (c) gate setting provide fixed flow rate through the gates (d) canal reaches water storages/pool operations, etc.

The optimum utilization is becoming increasingly important to attain the maximum beneficial use. Due to water scarce conditions worldwide, time may soon come, when the additional irrigation supplies will be only through the saving of water being lost. During the past two decades, the irrigation management researchers (Seckler et al., 1988; Small et al., 1990; Molden et al., 1990; Bos et al., 1994; Latif et al., 1998; Bhutta and Vander Velde., (1992); Murray Rust et al., 1998; Bos et al., 2005; Roerink et al., 2007; Grusse et al., 2009) have attempted to understand the factors that influence the performance of irrigation system. They have developed various analytical framework, criteria and indicators to quantify the water delivery performance and prescribing the management and physical interventions to improve the performance. Water distribution, contrary to the system‘s objective, is not equitable (World Bank 2005). Equity in water allocation and distribution has many dimensions and levels; inter and intra canal equity, inter and intra distributary equity, and inter and intra watercourse equity. Inequity in irrigation water distribution is the most serious problem for the farmers.

With this approach in mind, the research is focused to simulate a large canal to evaluate its performance for better management and operation. This research combines theoretical information and hydraulic simulation model for major canal of irrigation system in Pakistan. The actual operational plans are evaluated with the model simulated results. The inflow discharge for different operational scenarios is taken and target discharges at offtakes are defined in the hydraulic model. The actual gate openings and optimized gate settings are evaluated. The operational plan is optimized in terms of four performance indicators i.e., Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR), Reliability (Pd), Equity (Pe) and Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP). Based on the availability of water resources for the main canal and the water delivery


4

schedule, an operational plan for all gate setting along the canal is tested and evaluated by means of steady flow simulation. Water levels and discharges at any point of interest along the canal are computed by the model and the results are evaluated for equitable distribution of water at the offtakes. Decision Support Tool (DST) is developed as a part of this study to evaluate various possible water distribution scenarios in the context of efficient water distribution. This study will enable the canal managers to formulate operational plans with the simulation model and check it before implementation for optimal utilization of water resources at field level.

1.5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

Objectives of this research were to:

a) Optimize the canal irrigation system for equitable water distribution. b) Develop Decision Support Tool for irrigation system managers.

To achieve these objectives, the following scope of research was defined:

(i) Conduct a literature review obtaining previous reference material on past studies involving simulation of irrigation canals.

(ii) Review and appraisal of the hydraulic problems of canal irrigation system. (iii) Review of existing canal flow simulation models. (iv) Selection of hydrodynamic flow model for research work. (v) Collect data required to build Model. (vi) Formulate Methodology for research work. (vii) Setting up of the model using selected simulation canal flow model, (viii) Calibration of model (ix) Validation of model. (x) Application of the model. (xi) Simulate the hydraulic behavior of irrigation system to meet objective (a). (xii) Develop Decision Support Tool for system managers to meet objective (b).

1.6 RESEARCH STUDY AREA AND EXTEND

The Research Study area Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) System, which lies between 29053’0”’N latitudes and 71034’49” E longitudes, situated in the East-South in the Bari Doab, bounded by river Ravi in North-West and Sukh Beas Drainage channel in the South. The Lower Bari Doab (LBDC) main Canal originates from the Balloki Headworks on the left bank of river Ravi. Figure 1.1 shows the geographical position of study area located in four administrative districts Okara, Kasur, Sahiwal and Khenewal of Punjab Province, Pakistan and Figure 1.2 shows the main canal (LBDC) and its command system. The main canal flows for 201.37 km with discharge of 278.70 m3/s at head, supplying water to its 64 offtakes. The offtaking channels consist of 53.9 km branch canal, 2413.5 km distributaries / minors and 3927 outlets. For research study, the LBDC has been taken for modeling and simulation. Such a large irrigation canal is planned for simulation under this research study and performance assessment for equitable distribution of water.


5

The large canal irrigation system having more than five dozen offtakes and main canal length about two hundred kilometer is first of its kind which is selected due to (a) the oldest canal irrigation system, (b) easy access to study area , (c) getting 97 percent the total canal command area as perennial canal supply which makes unique from other irrigation system in the province, (d) easy access to data availability, (e) physical remodeling and up-gradation underway due to hydraulic, management and operational problems.

1.7 THESIS OVERVIEW

The research thesis is presented in seven (7) chapters. The importance and need of the research is presented in Chapter -1. The objectives, scope of research is also presented in this Chapter. The review of literature is presented in Chapter-2. The selection of model for research work and the details of Hydraulic Model, Simulation of Irrigation Canal (SIC) are presented in Chapter 2. The review and appraisal of hydraulic problems of LBDC are presented in Chapter 3. The methodology and data analysis is presented in Chapter -4. The simulation of Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) is described in Chapter 5. The performance assessment and decision support tools for optimization of operation of LBDC are highlighted in chapter 6. The results and discussions are also presented in chapter 6. The conclusions and recommendations based on research study are given in Chapter -7. The references and appendices are given at the end.

1.8 FUTURE WORK

The modeling and simulation of a large canal network is a complex task. It involves thousands of trials to get desired results. The present research involves simulation of main canal to analyze its hydraulic behaviour. There is need further research in this field. This study needs to be expanded in future research work for secondary as well as tertiary level.


6

Figure 1.1: Geographical position of study area, Punjab, Pakistan.

Study Area


7

Figure 1.2: Study area showing main canal (LBDC) and its command system, Punjab, Pakistan

CHAPTER 2

8

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This Chapter covers the up to date literature review about the hydraulic modeling of canal irrigation system worldwide. The past work about computer simulation in the field of irrigation and hydraulics in respect of equitable distribution of irrigation water is described and main crux of research work already accomplished are presented herein. The review of existing canal simulation models is discussed and selection of hydraulic model for the present research is also highlighted.

Efficient irrigation system is a pre-requisite for higher agriculture production as it helps in increasing the crop intensity. (Ahmad et al, 2012). The National Water Sector Strategy (2010) envisages raising irrigation efficiency to 50 percent from the current level of 40 percent. The delivery of water fluctuates to the canal system depending upon the surface water availability in the rivers and storage dams and farmers do get fluctuating supplies of water. The supply of water to the canal system and the farmers is linked to the land holding. There is no mechanism to ensure and arrange delivery of water to the farmers on demand and in terms of volume which will form the basis of entitlement or ownership of surface water delivered through canal system. (Haq, et al, 2012). By providing knowledge and skill to farmers, governmental bodies, service providers, and farmers associations, irrigation system can be better managed and wastage of water can be stopped as well as water productivity can be increased. The problem is not only the scarcity of water, but management of water is also a problem (World Bank Report, 2005). Agriculture accounts for about 84% of total water use in Asia, 72% worldwide, and 87% in developing countries. Agricultural production needs to provide food and fiber for the burgeoning global population which is expected to touch the 9.25 billion mark by 2050 from the current 7 billion (United Nations, 2008). There are large spatial and temporal variations in water availability which is less than the threshold level of 2000 m3, below which an area is considered as water stressed.

Agriculture is the largest sector of the economy, with primary commodities accounting for 25% of GDP and 47% of total employment, and contributes more than 60% of foreign exchange. (National Census, 1998; NWP, 2010). The Indus River is the country’s only major river system. The country has the world’s largest irrigation system, one of great technical, institutional and social complexity. According to the United Nations “UN World Water Development Report” (2008), the total actual renewable water resources decreased from 2,961 m3 per capita in 2000 to 1,420 m3 per capita in 2005 which puts Pakistan in the category of high stress countries. Water scarcity has become one of our greatest challenges. Pakistan is rapidly moving from a

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

9

“water stressed country to a water scarce country” mainly due to high population growth. (Briscoe 2006; Shafique 2010). Now, the situation is alarming as per capita water availability is decreased to 1030 m3 which puts Pakistan in red zone category.

Ghumman et al, (2011) has investigated performance of an irrigation system in Punjab Pakistan at distributary level. They applied four economic indicators and one equity indicator, Delivery performance ratio (DPR) on small irrigation canal, Farooqa Distributary offtaking from Lower Jhelum Canal (LJC), with off take discharge of three (3) m3/s. The DPR of the outlets located at different locations were assessed. The pattern indicated that head outlets draw more water than their design share at the cost of tail end outlets. Equity, as related to the water delivery system, requires the delivery of the fair share water to the farmers throughout the system. They further concluded that the LJC system does not fulfill the criteria for equity.

The large numbers of irrigation projects have been constructed for a reliable water supply for agriculture. Evaluation reports indicate that the water delivery and application efficiencies, and cropping intensities have not fulfilled planner’s expectations due to poor water management. The major irrigation projects in Asia are reported to perform at low overall efficiency of 30-35%. The crop yields, both per hectare and per cubic meter of water, are much lower than international benchmarks, and much lower even than in neighboring areas of India. (World Bank, 2006). A gap exists between irrigation potential created and that utilized. Thus in future irrigation has to become more efficient and produce more per unit volume of water. This realization has shifted the attention of the researchers and policy makers to focus on improving the performance of the irrigation systems.

Haq et al, 2012 reported that Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) reflects a situation in which the primary resource constraint on agriculture production is water. The system is designed to allocate this scarce resource over a large geographic area on equitable basis and the irrigation water delivery to the farmers is linked to the land holdings. The water demand has however increased tremendously over time due to population growth and agriculture development way beyond the system design. The canals are resultantly providing only 40 to 50 percent of the crop water requirements and farmers have turned to groundwater for meeting the balance crop water requirements. The progressive groundwater development for conjunctive use signals an extremely important milestone in the context of basin management, as in some freshwater aquifers, groundwater is providing close to 50% of the crop water requirements.

The irrigation canals are designed for a capacity determined by the maximum irrigation requirements. For most of the time, the canal flows less than the maximum flow and it is necessary to control the discharge and the water levels by means of structures. The main objective of the flow control system is to deliver a discharge (i) in the right amount i.e., at the right flow rate, frequency, and duration, (ii) with sufficient head, (iii) equitable and at the right place (iv) at the right period in time and (v) in a reliable and assured way.

Numerical Simulation Models are used for concept development, extension of physical model results, design analysis/evaluation and field evaluation. Mathematical


10

models can provide answer to the main problems being faced by the Canal Managers (a) to simulate actual hydraulic and operational conditions, (b) for calibration & validation of design parameters, (c) simulation of distribution network to evaluate Hydraulic Response of the Canal System. (Cemagref, 2011).

The performance of large irrigation systems may be evaluated using several criteria, including agricultural productivity, reliability of water supply, and equity of water distribution over the command area. Major canal irrigation schemes often suffer from inequitable distribution of water due to overuse in head reaches, which is partly caused by farmer’s preferences for intensive crops like rice and sugarcane. (Bhutta and Van der Velde 1992; Bos 1997; Gorantiwaret al, 2006).

Gaur et., al, 2008, has reported that the variability in water supply is also linked with the issue of equity, and the spatial uniformity of water supply can be expected to change under different water supply regimes.

2.2 HYDRAULIC MODELING

Hydraulic models of open channel flow can be physically or mathematically based. Mathematical models for simulation and analysis of transient open channel flow usually involve both conceptual and empirical components. The physical relationships which are known to govern the unsteady, non-uniform flow phenomena of open channels are embodied in the equations of Saint-Venant, originally published in 1871 (Chow, 1959). The following are the assumptions:

The canal is divided into homogenous zones. Only smooth transition phenomenon are considered, and Propagation of a surge cannot be simulated.

This first-order, hyperbolic non-linear differential equations are commonly known as the equations of continuity and momentum. They can be expressed in the following form:

The continuity equation accounts for the conservation of the mass of the water by considering the inflow water mass, outflow water mass, and the change in storage. The continuity equation is shown in eq. 2.1 below:

(Eq. 2.1)

The unsteady flow is treated as a two dimensional steady state flow, while an additional variable for the time element is introduced. This time variable accounts for the variation in velocity, and hence brings in acceleration, which produces force and causes an additional energy loss in the flow. The general dynamic equation for gradually varied unsteady state flow is shown in eq. 2.2 below:

(Eq. 2.2)

0

qt

A

x

Q

kqvgASx

ZAg

x

AQ

t

Qf

/2


11

Where Q is flow rate (m3/s); A is flow cross-sectional area (m2); Z is infiltrated seepage volume per unit length of channel (m2); Sf is friction (resistance) loss gradient; t is elapsed time (T); x is longitudinal distance (m) and g is acceleration due to gravity (m/s2). Where, A = area, such as A=Q/V, q = lateral inflow (q=0, k=0) or outflow (q<0, k=10, in m2/sec, and are the distance steps and time steps, v is the velocity in the canal reach in m/sec. The continuity equation is a statement of mass balance and the momentum equation deals with energy conservation. The friction loss gradient, Sf, is usually defined by an empirical equation such as the Manning or Chezy equations.

The Saint Venant’s equations have no known analytical solutions. These are solved numerically by discretizing the equations by different numerical schemes like four point semi implicit scheme known as Preissmann’s scheme etc. Thus, a solution of the governing equations for surface irrigation models can be used in canal flow models, with each individual application employing the specific boundary conditions unique to its configuration.

2.2.1 Semi-implicit discretization

The exact integration of continuity and dynamic Saint Venant’s equations is not possible. A solution of the equations is obtained by the approximate step methods. A four point semi implicit scheme known as Preissmann’s scheme (Figure 2.1) is used for the model to numerically solve Saint Venant equations. The equation is discretized by replacing partial derivatives with finite differences. Also each reach is transformed into series of n computational cross sections connected to each other by two linear equations. This gives 2 (n-1) equations in discharge and elevation. The two missing equations for the system resolution are provided by the upstream and downstream boundary conditions. And finally 2n equations are solved by using double sweep algorithm. The value of θ is 0.90. (Abbott et al, 1967), (Abbott, 1979).

2.2.2 Boundary conditions and initial conditions

The partial differential equations must be completed by the initial and boundary conditions in order to be solved. The boundary conditions are the hydrographs 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 from the steady flow computation.

x t


12

Figure 2.1: Preissmann four point grid

2.3 CANAL CONTROL HYDRAULICS

A large variety of methods for controlling flow in canals have been proposed and applied throughout the world in recent years. Some of these methods include local and system-wide automation, remote sensing and control, and hydraulic simulation through computer modeling. In general, canal regulation schemes can be classified as either upstream or downstream control. In upstream control the gates are operated to regulate the water level on the upstream side of each control structure. This is the traditional and most common type of canal control, especially in manually operated systems. With downstream control, as the name implies, gates are operated to regulate the water level on the upstream side of each control structure. Downstream control has been used in irrigation canals for providing on- demand delivery of water by means of specially design control structures which operate independently of each other, and thus provide localized control.

Ideally, the objective of a primary irrigation delivery system, or "main system", is to convey water through canals to farmlands in a manner which optimizes both individual field and overall agriculture production. One way to achieve water management improvements in irrigation systems is through the use of advanced technologies to improve the operation of irrigation systems, and consequently, the management of water therein. With regard to improvements concerning the operation of irrigation system, there are many available models for large scale water management of conveyance and distribution networks and there are others that can be implemented at the farm level.

Operational deficiencies can arise from differences between system design criteria and expected water distribution capacity and flexibility. Many existing irrigation systems have been designed based on steady state, peak flow criteria which preclude the ability to operate the system according to actual expectancies. Additional operational problems often associated with the delivery of water to irrigated areas include: (1) water level fluctuations in the main system; (2) sluggish system response


13

to changing demands; (3) inequitable distribution of water among the users, particularly between users on the upstream end of the system and users on the downstream end of the system; and (4) too much or too little available water with respect to user needs at any given time.

Two typical ways an irrigation system is operated are: (1) a rigid operational mode, in which water is distributed according to predetermined schedules and amounts; and (2) demand based water delivery. Rigid delivery modes facilitate the task of system operators, because the water is delivered by set distribution plans whereby unforeseen operational conditions are minimized. However, rigid water delivery schemes do not promote adequate levels of water management at the field, because the water is usually not available at the right times, in the desired amounts, or for the required duration.

Demand-based operating schemes dictate that water will be delivered at any time and in any amount to users, given some limits, thereby providing great flexibility to the users. Farmers prefer to on-demand operational schemes, but the system is difficult to operate and may be expensive, both in terms of hardware and labor. However, very few, if any, irrigation systems are operated with unrestricted flexibility in terms of delivery timing, flow rate, and duration.

The afore-mentioned difficulty for managers is related to the control of hydraulic transients along conveyance and distribution channels during daily operation. Whenever an irrigation distribution and delivery system is operated, water flowing through the network will spend variable amounts of time in transit until arrival a delivery locations. Depth fluctuations along main canal cause off takes to work inappropriately, due to variable deliveries, making agriculture irrigation less efficient. As a consequence users may lose confidence in managers. Changes in flow rates and structures (i.e., gates, weirs, and others) settings generate hydraulic transients that may or may not stabilize before subsequent changes are induced.

2.4 CANAL FLOW SIMULATION MODELS USAGE

The purpose of the hydraulic model usage varies and such models are applied specifically to address and solve various problems. Samad et al 2000 used delivery performance ratio to assess the water delivery performance in an irrigation district in the Doroodzan irrigation system in Iran. The measurements were applied to three selected irrigation canals and their tertiary outlets during five consecutive irrigation cycles. The canals were located at the head, middle and tail end of the irrigation district. Performance indicators reveal that the physical system and the management could respond to the delivery of the intended supply. The indicators showed a better reliability performance than the equity performance in water delivery at the tertiary outlets. The results from the Doroodzon Irrigation System revealed that the system could not deliver water according to the real crop water requirements. The actual overall efficiency was used to quantify the water delivery performance in terms of deficit and excess water. The equity and reliability performance was illustrated by using the spatial and temporal variation of the expected overall efficiency at the district level.


14

Kumar et al (2001) used canal hydraulic model Canal Man to understand the hydraulic behaviour of right bank main canal (RBMC) of length 33.17 km of Kangsabati irrigation project, West Bengal, India to evaluate performance and to improve the operation and management. They concluded that the hydraulic model CanalMan can be successfully used for operation and to improve large and complex irrigation project.

Ochieng et al (2002) reviewed irrigation canal simulation models and concluded that simulation models address the problems of operation and maintenance and valuable aids in development, design and redesign but require firm and considerable commitment of time and personnel.

Ghumman et al (2004) investigated the optimal use of canal water in Pakistan using one dimensional hydrodynamic model CanalMan and used this model to evaluate hydraulic behavior of small channel.

Umagiliyag et al (2005), studied uncoordinated, individual interventions at different control points resulted in operational losses and inefficient water distribution and focused theoretical aspects related to hydraulic calibration as well as practical procedures to calibrate the canal using CanalMan.

Trifonov et al, (2005) studied that the mathematical models simulating canal behavior under different flow conditions can produce the necessary information for evaluating appropriate canal operational procedures for better canal performance. They made an assessment of the operation of an existing canal under manual control aimed at a selection of inflow hydrograph for less operational losses. Malaterre (2005) presented a SIC; ID Hydrodynamic model for river and irrigation canal modeling and regulation.

Jeroen Vos (2005) evaluated the performance of the water delivery in a large scale irrigation system on the north coast of Peru. Flow measurements were carried out along the main canal, along two secondary canals, and in two tertiary blocks in the Chancay-Lambayeque irrigation system. The most important finding was the unexpectedly high accomplishment rate of the actual delivery at field level compared with the on request schedule. Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR) was very close to unity.

Gorantiwar, (2006) has studied the different dimensions of equity such as water distribution over the season, water distribution during each irrigation, and benefits generated. It also includes distribution and conveyance losses while allocating water equitably to different allocation units. They explained an approach with the help of the area and water allocation model which uses the simulation–optimization technique for optimum allocation of land and water resources to different crops grown in different allocation units of the irrigation scheme.

Molden (2007) have concluded that performance measures so developed facilitated analysis of irrigation water delivery systems in terms of adequacy, efficiency, dependability, and equity of water delivery. The performance measures provided a quantitative assessment not only of overall system performance, but also of contributions to performance from the structural and management components of


15

the system. Spatial and temporal distributions of required, scheduled, deliverable and delivered water were used to calculate the performance measures. These variables may be estimated by a combination of field measurement and simulation techniques. The performance measures can be incorporated in an irrigation system monitoring program and can provide a framework for assessing system improvement alternatives. They are amenable to decomposition analysis of systems, allowing assessment of trends in performance among distinctly defined sub regions or comparison of performance at different levels of system network hierarchy. Example applications to systems typical of Sri Lanka and Egypt indicate the usefulness of the measures in system evaluation.

Different computer canal flow models like Canal Man, DUFLON, CARIMA, MODIS USM, MIKE II, HEC-RAS and SIC have been used on large and small irrigation schemes. (Cemagref 2007).

Patamanskaet al (2008) used computer based mathematical model CASCADA to attain better canal operation and management and suggested to determine canal control operation rule by decreasing time lag of water delivery. Islam et al 2008 used “CanalMod” for hydraulic modeling of irrigation project RBMC for improved operation and management of the irrigation system.

Pérez (2009) has studied a methodology based on indicators, developed to study the quality of service provided in irrigation distribution networks. The indicators were divided into network descriptors and operational indicators, some calculated periodically and others in real time. The methodology has been applied to the Palos de la Frontera irrigation district (Spain) using information on flows, volumes, and pressures collected via remote metering devices linked to a central computer database. The results showed that the service provided in the district has good quality in terms of flow adequacy, distribution efficiency, and pressure and supply reliability. Problems dealing with the remote control system have been identified. Categories for the indicators have been established, studying the percentage of control points included in each and their probability of occurrence. The methodology is useful to determine the main problems in a distribution service and areas in the network which need improvement.

Korkmaz (2009) has determined the water delivery performance at secondary and tertiary canal level of the Menemen Left Bank Irrigation system, an open canal irrigation system located in Turkey, for the irrigation seasons of the years 2005-2007. At secondary canal level, water supply ratio was used, and at tertiary level, the indicators of adequacy, efficiency, dependability, and equity were used. In calculating these indicators in this study, the amounts of water diverted to the canals, efficiency of water conveyance, and of water application were measured. Of these indicators, the water supply ratio was determined for the secondary canal, and the other indicators were determined for a total of six selected tertiary canals at the head, middle, and lower end of the secondary. At secondary level, the water supply ratios obtained to total irrigation water requirements for the months of July and August, when requirement for irrigation water is at a maximum, was determined to be less than one, while the water supply ratios obtained to net irrigation water requirement was found to be more than one. With regard to water delivery performance at tertiary level,


16

adequacy, efficiency, dependability, and equity were found to be poor for each of the three years of the study, with efficiency rising to “fair” level only in 2005. In order to raise the water delivery performance of the system, it was necessary to reduce water conveyance losses to increase the water application efficiency, to prepare water distribution plans which take in tertiary canals, and to measure and monitor the water diverted to the canals.

Lozano et al (2010) studied simulation of automatic control of irrigation canal using SIC. Olumuyiwa et al (2010) has studied management and diagnostic tool in water management of open canal irrigation schemes “Irrigation Canal Simulation Model (ICSM)”. It is being adopted for efficient water management in large irrigation schemes in developed countries. The basic components of ICSMs and their development were reviewed with the focus of presenting their principles and procedures. The key issues on how to simulate water flow in irrigation canal and the prevailing conditions that can allow such issues to be studied and quantified were analyzed and linked with the requirements and practical uses of the ICSMs. The applicability of such tool to the South Africa irrigation schemes was also assessed. The cost effectiveness in terms of time, energy, human and materials resources savings are among the advantages for their adoption.

2.5 REVIEW OF COMPUTER BASED DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS

Decision Support Systems (DSS) are a specific class of computerized information system that supports organizational decision-making activities. A properly designed DSS is an interactive software-based system intended to help decision makers compile useful information from raw data, documents, personal knowledge, and/or other models to identify and solve problems and make decisions. Alter (1980), reported that a DSS can take many different forms and the term can be used in many different ways on the one hand. Finlay (1994) and others define a DSS broadly as "a computer-based system that aids the process of decision making." In a more precise way, Turban (1995) defines it as "an interactive, flexible, and adaptable computer-based information system, especially developed for supporting the solution of a non-structured management problem for improved decision making. DSS tools have been used in different situations to assist managers take decisions on complex problems by giving them alternatives and presenting them with tools like 'What if Analysis', 'Scenario Analysis" etc., The objective of the DSS developed under the study is to strengthen and assist the canal managers in decision making and problems solving for better operation and management the irrigation system.

In the past, various computer-based decision-support tools have been developed and introduced to help irrigation canal managers in the operation and management of the systems. A number of such tools are currently being used in different irrigation schemes worldwide to address mainly the problems of low rainfall effectiveness and consequent over reliance in stored water, high degree of inequity of water distribution within the systems, water scheduling and inadequate irrigation water in the different crop season.

Haq et al (1993) reported number of computer operated models as Decision Support tools in Sri Lanka. Some are briefly discussed here. A computer based


17

Decision Support tool was used in Hakwatuna Oya Tank Project, Hiriyala Division, North Western Province in Sri Lanka. The Tool was to develop and test a microcomputer-based management information system-cum-water delivery scheduling model including the establishment of a monitoring and control network.

Computer models were developed for water scheduling, system operation and evaluation in Left Bank Canal system of the Gal Oya Scheme in Sri Lanka. The model have been in operation since 1984 in system with a communication network for monitoring providing information on daily basis. The performances on system operation and management are being evaluated seasonally and there is significant improvement in terms of water distribution, area irrigated in yala season and amount of water used in both and yala seasons. The main achievements in the use of computer models coupled with the communication system are: a smooth operation of the system throughout the cultivation season: confidence among the farmers including tail-end farmers in using the results of the model; and improved inputs such as fertilizer, weedicides and insecticides due to assured water supply.

The computer based decision Support tools were also developed for Kirindi Oya System and Kantale Scheme in Sri Lanka for Water scheduling purposes. The IMIS-model in Kirindi Oya, the ECL model in Kanthalai and the INCA model in Hakwatuna Oya was applied.

Steven (1996) developed a simplified tool to estimate the Canal Water distribution at the Distributary Level in Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia Irrigation Project (Chishtian Sub Division) in Punjab, Pakistan. The main objective of this study was to develop a tool that predicts, (a), the canal water distribution to the tertiary units as a function of the inflow, (b), state of the distributary, (c) outlet structure characteristics and interventions therein.

Under a four-year project scheduled in 1999 with funding from the Royal Netherlands Embassy, IWMI has worked with the Punjab Irrigation Department in establishing a decision support system for the Eastern Sadiqia canal, with particular emphasis on the Hakra Branch canal that branches off its tail. About half of the subdivisions already have a base radio station, so the others will receive similar equipment. In addition, a radio communication station was located at each cross-regulator. Many of the flow control structures in two subdivisions have already been calibrated. The unsteady flow simulation model was used to calibrate the branch canal and distributaries in the Malik subdivision and the results were placed in the IMIS programme. The same was also done for the Haroonabad subdivision at the head of the Hakra Branch canal.

In Pakistan, the first experience in using the simulation irrigation system was over Stage 1 of the Chashma Right Bank canal. (Zaigham et al, 1999). The results indicated that some portions of the canal lining needed to be raised another 75 cm in order to have sufficient freeboard. An important output of the study was the identification of operational constraints at low flow, such as a drastic drop in velocity, which should be avoided to ensure appropriate distribution of both water and incoming sediment along the canal. The complete design for the CRBC with a designed discharge of 138 m3/s was simulated, mostly to study various operating


18

scenarios, but also to provide the consultants with feedback regarding any required design modifications. The main reason for placing the design of the Chashma Right Bank canal on simulation was to reach an agreement on how the canal will be operated when construction is completed. The main canal and the distributary head regulators are being operated by the federal Water & Power Development Authority. Two provinces are being served, NWFP and Punjab, so two provincial irrigation departments are involved. There is considerable debate, particularly among the provinces, about the day-to-day operation of that canal.

Another irrigation system simulated was Pehur High Level Canal in Khaiber Pakhtoon Khan Province of Pakistan. (Zaigham et al, 1996, Pongput K. 1996). The canal network of Pehur High-Level, tail of Machai Branch and the downstream Maira Branch canal has been designed using automatic downstream water level control gates. This is the first case in Pakistan of employing automatic gates in a canal. The existing Upper Swat canal was designed in 1915 to divert 51 m3/s from the Swat River. The Pehur High-Level canal was under construction to convey 28 m3/s from the Tarbela reservoir on the Indus river to the tail of the Machai branch of the Upper Swat canal. IWMI has a contract with the Irrigation Department of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to provide operational support upon the commissioning of the Pehur High-Level canal. The first assignment was to use unsteady flow models to check the consultant's design (Habib, Pongput and Skogerboe, 1996). Simulation was used to check the remodelling of the Machai Branch. Another unsteady flow model, Canalman, developed at Utah State University, was used for the Pehur High-Level, tail of Machai Branch and Maira Branch canal network because this software package contains an algorithm for automatic gates. The design was subjected to a series of severe operating conditions, which showed that, in general, the system could be expected to perform well. However, IWMI also identified some of the operational complications involved in managing a combined system of upstream and downstream control, as well as the increased likelihood of sediment deposition in the Maira Branch canal. Besides the hydraulic stability provided by the automatic gates, an important feature in the consultant's design is an escape structure with a designed discharge of 29 m3/s which was located at the confluence of the Pehur High-Level canal and its Machai and Maira branches; this confluence reach acted as a regulating reservoir with an overflow escape structure. This combination of automatic downstream water level control gates and confluence reach provided excellent hydraulic stability under extreme operating conditions.

Visser (1996) has reported that Water distribution in Pakistan is mainly based on the principles of proportionality and equity. At present, the water distribution within the distributary, i.e. supply of water to the tertiary outlet structures, is characterized by a high variability and inequity.

Srinivasa Rao et al (2005) concluded that a Decision Support System has been developed in order to improve irrigation management in Andhra Pradesh, India. The objective was to improve the efficiency of the existing system and thus ensuring judicious distribution of the water distribution services to all areas. The information base for the DSS includes data on water resources cropping pattern, crop water requirement, irrigation schedule, and Canal and Distributary network including geographical boundaries served by the network. The prime out put of this web based


19

application would be a user friendly interface with step by step guidelines for decision making. This system would enable the officials to plan releases of water to the Canal and Distributary network taking into account the water availability, cropping pattern, crop water requirements and geographical distribution.

Mohseni S.A., et al., (2007), introduced mathematical model which could present optimal operation considering downstream requirements of turnouts, canal inlet flow, actual constraints and real conditions of canal system. They used four performance indicators of delivery including efficiency, adequacy, equity and stability as an objective function in the process of optimization. The results indicated that optimal performance improved very well in comparison with the present situation. The weighting coefficients of indicators are determined using sensitivity analysis in optimization process. Consistency test on the derived coefficients shows that proposed method is appropriate. Applying weighting coefficients for performance indicators in the processes of optimization has resulted in 7 to 21 percent improvement compared to the case of equal weighting coefficients. Also, the results indicate that the developed model (ICSS-DOM) (ICSS-Delivery Optimization Model) is an efficient tool for the evaluation and optimization of irrigation canal performance, producing good and valid results in a relatively short and suitable time.

Rao et al, (2009) has developed a decision support system for canal water releases (CWREDSS) to provide demand-based optimal canal water releases for reducing the gap between canal supplies and demands for increasing the water-use efficiency in canal command areas. The decision support tool system was evaluated under different situations of the command area of Guvvalagudem major distributary of the Nagarjunasagar Left Canal, Andhra Pradesh, India, as a case study. Results indicate that the CWREDSS is capable of developing releases under different scenarios of varying cropping patterns, groundwater use situations and different rainfall probability levels of the study area, and reducedsp the gap between demands and supplies considerably. Decision Support Tool provides suggestions/decisions under different situations of water deficit/surplus. CWREDSS helps irrigation engineers, agronomists and agro-meteorologists in the planning, operation and management of irrigation systems.

Guanghua, G., et. al., (2011), has evaluated frequently used canal system performance indicators. These indicators are used individually to tune the control parameters for a simple proportional-integral (PI) controller on a test canal. They evaluated these controllers on this test canal through simulation. Based on these results, they developed a single performance indicator that was a combination of the individual indicators. They showed that this indicator represents a good compromise for future tuning.

Pawde, A. W., et al. (2013) determined two decision variables one is rate of water delivery and second start time of delivery points, which were determined by the model within the specified range. They used particle swarm optimization to solve the problem and applied on the two water scheduling problems for generating the optimal water schedule. The schedules generated by the model shows that the inflow hydrographs of supply canals are approximately constant throughout the rotation period with least operation of canal head gate which could results in minimum


20

conveyance losses. This model could be used for the preparation of a rotational schedule for the existing irrigation canal system and a more economic design of the supply canals for a new irrigation canal system.

Mohseni et. al., (2012), applied hydrodynamic model, ICSSDOM and proposed method on E1L4 of Distributaries' canal of Dez irrigation network. They worked out the most appropriate weighting coefficients of indicators for performance optimization of irrigation canals using a logical approach which is independent of any professional judgment. According to the results while the weighting coefficient of indicator is considered as a direct proportion of difference between ideal and present performance, the improvement percent is better than the other conditions. The other important aim in this research was assessing performance of irrigation canals according to different periods of operation (6hours, 8hours, 12hours and 24hours). The results showed that the eight-hour period of operation leads to the more performance improvement.

Hashemy, S., Monem, M., Maestre, J., and Van Overloop, P. (2013) used Model Predictive Control (MPC) to control the water level of an accurate model of a realistic main canal, consists of 13 canal reaches, using an in-line storage operational strategy. Four different test scenarios were selected to cover a range of conventional to unconventional operational strategy by imposing limitations on the head-gate opening. Different target bands were created between the predefined allowed maximum and minimum water level for the canal reaches and the MPC was obliged to keep the water levels within these ranges. The results show that the in-line storage improves current operational performance of the canal system by compensating the existing delay times of flow traveling in the canal and gradual increasing and decreasing of the inflow that avoids large wave occurrences in the canal reaches.

Mazhar H. et., al., (2013) used SIC model to study the hydraulic behaviour of large canal in Pakistan. He studied the steady and unsteady simulation of Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) for different operational scenarios. The SIC model was applied on main canal having design discharge of 278.70 m3/sec and total of length of 201.37 km. He concluded that canal model SIC is a tool that can be considered to simulate the canal under different set of operational plans. This served as decision support tool for canal managers for better operation and management of irrigation system.

Punjab Monitoring and Implementation Unit (PMIU) of Punjab irrigation Department Punjab Pakistan has initiated digitization of the daily gauges and discharge data of all the rivers, main canals, branch canals, feeders, distributaries, minors and sub minors for ensuring proper management of the Irrigation System. A specially designed system has been developed for each channel whereby data about authorized discharge, indented supply, gauge reading, and actual releases of every channel is entered in it on daily basis by each Canal Division. Water accounts for 24 main canals regarding entitlements, deliveries and balance share are being posted on the Punjab Portal www.punjab.gov.pk as well as irrigation web site http://irrigation.punjab.gov.pk. Data on the website is updated on 10-daily basis. Irrigators can watch the data of their channels and also can see the previous 10 daily trends of the flows in the channels. (www.punjab.gov.pk)


21

2.6 SELECTION OF MODEL

Due to growing water scarcity problems worldwide, rapid developments have been made in application of computer models in the recent years. Today, with latest computer innovation and technology, most of the common used canal flow models have been upgraded and follow the efficient numerical algorithms and windows based friendly interfaces. A large number of computer simulation models exist worldwide. Their nature, capability and scope vary according to the requirement of system modeled. These tools are extensively used in irrigation and drainage engineering. In these fields commercial software’s are now available for a number of different aspects including planning, design, management and operation of irrigation systems. Potentially hydraulic simulation models are employed in the field of irrigation engineering, mainly at the conveyance and distribution levels of irrigation networks to test the effectiveness and efficiency of different operational procedures.

To develop a new model involves money and cost. There are many programs, of many types, for many purposes, varying in quality. Computer programs have many facets. The assumptions, limitations, or specific solution techniques are not only of interest to the program developer, but may also affect the usefulness of the program for practicing engineers and researchers.

Rogers et al. (1991), presented evaluation and comparison criteria, especially for canal hydraulic models, at the ASCE Hawaii Conference. They stated that "model evaluation is intended to describe each program's capabilities, application, and usefulness." ASCE (1993) has established criteria which were applied to different canal flow models. Also the Task Committee on Irrigation Canal System Hydraulic Modeling (ASCE, 1998) examined a number of the computer programs available for simulating open-channel flow. Among them are MODIS, DUFLOW, CANAL, CARIMA, USM. The task committee was originally set up to examine existing computer programs for their suitability and to foster communication among developers and users (Clemmens, et al.,1991). The Food Agricultural Organization, (FAO, 1993) proposed a descriptive form for selection of model as discussed in section 2.6.1 below.

2.6.1 Evaluation framework for selection of canal flow models

The Cemagref, a French Organization after taking into account the results of the FAO, 1993 and ASCE meetings, software engineering considerations, and other work done, proposed an evaluation framework as shown in Table 2-1. Its broad set-up is largely the same as that of Rogers et al (1991). The main criteria for selection of key indicators are highlighted in Table 2-1 below:

2.6.2 Comparison of SIC with other hydraulic models

Clemmens et al, 2005 has studied that all of the available models adequately simulate water level response. Examples of studies and the simulations models used to analyze control algorithms include Malaterre (1998), who used “SIC”, Merkley and Walker (1991) who used “CANAL”, Liu et al. (1998) who used CASIM, Deltour and Sanfilippo (1998) who used SIC.


22

The to-date available simulation models are SIC (Cemagref, France), PROFILE, FLOP, Mike II (Danish Hydraulic Institute), DORC (HR Wallingford), SOBEK (Delft Hydraulic), ODIRMO (Delft University of Technology), CanalMan, HEC-RAC, ROOTCANAL. Among available models, four hydraulic flow models, SIC, MIKE II, CanalMan and HEC RAS were studied. The criteria for selection of key indicators defined by Cemagref 2005 were considered. Accordingly, a comparison is made as shown in Table 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4.


23

Table 2-1: Evaluation framework (proposed by Cemagref, 2005)

General information

program name

made by

Cost

reference person

programming

language

manual availability

key reference publication

Properties Scope and purpose subject

Purpose

capabilities/options

limitations

Hardware

requirements

Qualities Program qualities theoretical quality

technical quality

interface

documentation

availability


24

Table 2-2: General information for evaluation criteria of hydraulic flow models

Program name SIC MIKE II CanalMan HECRAS

made by

Cemagref-Montpelier Cedex 1. France

Software Support Centre, DHI,Agern Allé 5,DK-2970 Hørsholm,Denmark

Department of Biological and Irrigation Engineering Utah State University, Logan, Utah

US Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers

CostProfessional ver. = 14000 Euros , Research & edu ver = 1000 Euros

Varies VariesFree ver can be down loaded from net.

reference personP. Kosuth. Head, Irrigation Division.

Danish Hydraulic Institute, DHI Gary P. Merklay Gary G. Brunner

programming FORTRAN, TURBO PASCAL.NET Framework 3.5 SP1 and .NET Framework 4.0 (Full Profile)

FORTRAN, FORTRAN, TURBO PASCAL

language English, French, Spanish English English English

manual availability yes yes yes yes

key reference publication

P Kosuth. Application of a Simulation Model (SIC) to Improve Irrigation Canals Operation: examples in Pakistan and Mexico

[email protected] [email protected] page at: http://www.wrc-hec.usace.army.mil/.


25

Table 2-3: Properties for evaluation criteria of hydraulic flow models


Scope and purpose

subject Irrigation and Hydraulics River Engineering Irrigation Engineeringchannel flow analysis and floodplain determination.

Purpose Hydraulic Simulation

Flood analysis and flood alleviation design studies, Real time flood forecasting,Dam break analysis,Optimisation of reservoir and canal gate / structure operations,Ecological and water quality assessments in rivers and wetlands

To perform one-dimensional steady flow, unsteady flow, sediment transport/mobile bed computations, and water temperature modeling.

HEC-RAS is equipped to model a network of channels, a dendritic system or a single river reach.

capabilities/options

Steady and unsteady flow computations can be performed on any type of hydraulic networks (linear, looped, or branched.)

Professional engineering software tool for the simulation of hydrology, hydraulics, water quality and sediment transport in estuaries, rivers, irrigation systems and other inland waters.

Results from CanalMan include flow depths and water surface elevations in the canal reaches. Volumetric flow rates and control strcutres ( gate) settings - all as a function of time.

software tool for the simulation of hydrology, hydraulics, water quality and sediment transport in estuaries, rivers, irrigation systems and other inland waters.

Hardware requirements

IBM-PCIPS2 or compatible. Minimum 1,1 Mb RAM, 20 Mb HD. Maths

2.0 GHz Intel Pentium or higher and compatibles, or equivalents,40 GB (or higher),SVGA, resolution 1024x768 in 16 bit colour,64 MB RAM (256 MB RAM or higher recommended), 24 bit true colour,DVD drive compatible with dual-layer DVDs is required for installation,

Pentium III or higher and compatibles, or equivalents,40 GB (or higher),SVGA, resolution 1024x768 in 16 bit colour,64 MB RAM (256 MB RAM or higher recommended), 24 bit true colour,DVD drive compatible with dual-layer DVDs is required for installation,

MS Windows 95, 98, ME, NT4.0 2000, OR XP, Colour Video Display. Pentium III or High, 100MB HD


26

Table 2-4: Qualities for evaluation criteria of hydraulic flow models


QualitiesProgram qualities

theoretical quality

The model is built around three main computer programs (TALWEG, FLUVIA and SIRENE) that respectively carry out the topography and geometry generation, the steady flow computations and unsteady flow computations. The three units can be run independently or in sequence.

MIKE II is a main computer software package in PASCAL. It is an implicit model. The model can describe super critical as well as sub flow conditions through numerical description.

CanalMan implicitly sloves an integrated form of the Saint-Venant equations of continuity and motion for one dimensional unsteady open channel flow.

For steady flow, HEC RAS is based on the solution of the one-dimensional energy equation. Energy losses are evaluated by friction and contraction / expansion. The momentum equation may be used in situations where the water surface profile is rapidly varied. These situations include hydraulic jumps, hydraulics of bridges, and evaluating profiles at river confluences.

technical quality

Computational Acuracy, SIC solves the Saint Venant eq.s an duse classical implicit Pressmann scheme. Implicit coeficnet is set to 0.6, the time step can be selecd from 0.01 to 999.99 minutes. The distance step can be chssen by the user. (default 200m) . Numerical Solution criteria, (ASCE Bench marks tets, Mass Conservation Test , Robustness

Implicit coeficnet is set to 0.6, the time step can be selecd from 0.01 to 999.99 minutes. The distance step can be chssen by the user. (default 200m) . Numerical Solution criteria, (ASCE Bench marks tets, Mass Conservation Test , Robustness

Implicit coeficnet is set to 0.6, the default time step is 10mbut it can be changes. The distance step can be chssen by the user. Numerical Solution criteria, (ASCE Bench marks tests)

The distance step can be chssen by the user. (default 200m) . Numerical Solution criteria, (ASCE Bench marks tets, Mass Conservation Test , Robustness

interface User-friendly interface User-friendly interface User-friendly interface User-friendly interface

documentation yes yes yes yes

availability yes yes yes yes


27

2.6.3 Selection of hydraulic model for research

One dimensional hydrodynamic computer model, Simulation of Irrigation canal (SIC) was selected for use on LBDC irrigation system on following considerations:

(i) SIC model has management and design mode which helps the canal managers to develop effective operation plans that minimize water wastages, and allow only a safe discharge to flow in the canal thereby maximizing efficient use of water and prolonging the canal life span.

(ii) The managers can also create and test new scenarios using computer simulation. Such new scenarios could be change of cropping pattern, new irrigation schedules, introduction of more/less water demanding crops and increasing crop diversity. The tool could assist managers to identify potential emergency operational problems for early intervention.

(iii) The SIC software (Simulation of Irrigation Canals) is one of the latest hydraulic models developed by Cemagref. The SIC hydraulic model combines efficient numerical algorithms and up-to-date user-friendly interfaces.

(iv) The SIC model has been extensively used in more than 33 countries on different canal irrigation systems. (Cemagref, 2007). It has been already used in many different countries: France, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Mexico, Jordan, and Senegal (Cemagref, 2007). In Pakistan SIC has been used in by International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Lahore, Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), Center of Excellence in Water resources Engineering (CEWRE), Lahore and Operation and Regulation Cell (Swat Canal Area Water Board) NWFP, Mardan.

(v) The SIC model has potential to simulate the variable inflows and the characteristics of alluvial channels. Above all, it is dedicated to Irrigation canals. This model is robust from numerical stability point of view. Computational accuracy of the SIC model is better than the other similar software (Contractor et al. 1993). It can accommodate irregular shape of canal cross sections and simulate flow for a very long canal system with several off-take points and in-line control structures. It is simply impossible to run hundreds of trials on a real canal and have access to all the desired data, but with a simulation model those trials can be done quickly and safely, with full access to all data.

(vi) The Simulation model SIC can give results of the simulation process both in graphical and tabular forms. Water depths and discharges in every section of the simulated canals can be provided for a given control action (gate opening, position and opening duration). The results from this tool provides for the canal managers with the clear picture of the hydraulic behaviors of all the hydraulic structures and canal reach at both steady and unsteady conditions. The unsteady condition can show when the perturbation (wave) reaches each section of the


28

canal. The time at which steady state condition is achieved at different sections of the canal can also be monitored.

The SIC is a simulation tool, once it has been properly calibrated to a physical condition of the canal, the software can be used to simulate the behaviour under various operational scenarios. This model has good library of hydraulic structures and global performance indicators under unsteady flow conditions. Developed in close 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 has been selected in the present research study. Some more description about SIC model is given in following sections.

2.7 HYDRAULIC MODEL (SIC)

A mathematical hydraulic simulation SIC model developed by French Institute, Cemagref, Agriculture and Environmental Engineering Research, Montpellier, Cedex, France, (Cemagref, 2007), provides opportunity to canal managers: (i) to simulate the steady and unsteady state hydraulic and operational scenarios in irrigation canals (ii) to test and compare changes/rehabilitations in the canal designs, and (iii) to evaluate management practices. The main window of the SIC model is shown in Figure 2.2. For research study, SIC’s Research and Educational version 4.27 was purchased. This has the capability to simulate large irrigation system. The characteristics and limitations of the SIC model are given in Table 2-5.

Figure 2.2: Main window of hydraulic model SIC - version 4.27a (Cemagref, 2007)


29

Figure 2.3: Main structure of hydraulic model SIC

The SIC Model is divided into a topographical unit and two separate computational units for steady and unsteady flows respectively. The detailed discussion regarding the mathematical formulation and operation procedures are well documented by Baume et al. (2003). The model is composed of three modules namely topographic, steady and unsteady modules. The main structure of Hydraulic Model SIC is shown in Figure 2.3. The brief description about the modeling process and hydraulic laws which govern the mechanism of SIC Model is given in Appendix-G.

2.8 OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL PLAN

Under the research study, simulation of main canal for its hydraulic behaviour with wide range of discharge is carried out. To evaluate the water delivery schedule for different operational scenarios, the Hydraulic model SIC is interfaced with the hydraulic data file in Module 1. This data file is in ASCII and can be opened in text editor. The data editor files which are converted into Excel files for integration with Module -1. Module 1 is linked with the Module 2 for optimization of operational plan. Macro Command checks the offtake openings for each offtake with target discharge. The Hydraulic model computes the optimized gate openings/settings automatically and this information is used in Module 2 for performance assessment.


30

2.9 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL

For preparation of decision support tool, hydraulic model is linked with two modules. These modules are developed in VB.net environment. The VB.net is used as front end and sequential queries language (SQL) server is used as back end. This code transfers all the field site data from Excel to SQL Server in Database. The necessary data manipulation is done in SQL Server Database i.e. making relations between data tables and then creating SQL Queries. These related data tables and Queries in the Database are then used in VB.net to show the required results. Graphs are also generated from this database. In Module 2, the operational plan is optimized using four performance indicators like Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR), Reliability (Pd), Equity (Pe), and Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP).

Table 2-5: Characteristics and limitations of SIC model

Abbr. Limitations Remarks

IBR 50 Number of branches (in case of confluences, diversions,

loops).

IB 350 Number of reaches (a reach is a portion of the canal

between two offtakes, inflows or outflows).

NSD 2500 Number of cross sections where hydraulic values will be

calculated, they can be data sections you enter (max

2500) or automatically interpolated sections)

24 Points per data sections

2500 Descriptions points in computer’s memory

15000 Descriptions points in computer’s memory

NSS 200 Number of singular sections (where there is one or

several weir gate, etc.)

NTO 500 Number of cross devices (weir, gate etc.)

1500 Lines in the .FLU file

CHAPTER 3

31

3 REVIEW AND APPRAISAL OF PROBLEMS OF LBDC

This Chapter describes the potential problems of Irrigation Systems of Pakistan in general and that of Lower Bari Doab Canal System, in particular. The different aspects of regulation of irrigation deliveries are also highlighted. The physical, management and operational problems of Lower Bari Doab Canal are also presented.

3.1 APPRAISAL OF PROBLEMS

The World Bank Report (2005) titled “Pakistan Water Economy Running Dry” summarized issues and challenges of water sector management of Pakistan as given below:

Growing water shortage Progressive deterioration of irrigation infrastructure Lack of transparency and inequities in water distribution Degradation of resource base Over-exploitation of groundwater Gaps in governance and trust Low water productivity Inadequate knowledge base.

Inefficient management of the conveyance and distribution of water in the

main system often fails to achieve an equitable water supply below the turnouts regardless of the best efforts of farmer’s organizations and Irrigation Department. This has shifted the attention to the improvement of canal irrigation performance through management and operation of the system. At present numerous problems have an impact on the performance of the Irrigation System. The main problems range from temporal water scarcity, low delivery efficiency, inequitable distribution of water at different level (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Irrigation Channels are designed and operated at, or near, full supply capacity. Operational flow significantly below the design capacity leads to both, inequities in the geographic distribution of water and problems of excessive deposits of silt in the canals beds.

To satisfy the increased demand of various individuals and groups of farmers who use their power to influence the distribution of water in their favour, it becomes difficult to follow operational rules. When channels are closed and rotations are instituted, pronounced inequities are usually observed among channels with respect to the relative length of channel closure. The growing inequities in canal water

CHAPTER 3 REVIEW AND APPRAISAL OF PROBLEMS OF LBDC

32

distribution have been identified as being major issue that reflects on the system performance. (Haq et al, 2012)

Increasing water demand, deferred maintenance, siltation of channel prisms, excessive withdrawals by outlets, and illegal water extractions all contribute towards the increasing inequity in the system. Equity in water allocation and access in irrigation is a major concern in Pakistan, as it is in many countries with large scale irrigation systems. It is a problem of those farmers at the tail end of irrigation systems not receiving their allotted share of water because those at the head end tend to take more than their share. This is related to poverty issues because the tail end farmers are usually the poorer ones, partly because of inequitable water distribution. (NWSS, 2002)

In Pakistan, agriculture is the major consumer of water and utilizing more than 95% of country’s water resources. About 80% of the cropped area is irrigated, and 90% of the agricultural output comes from irrigated land. Climatic change and global warming is also affecting the availability of water at critical times during the crop growth and the inadequate physical and institutional infrastructure is not sufficient to cope with its adverse impacts. The water demand varies in both space and time, however, the water supply is at the best fixed and its availability is at the mercy of nature. (Bhatti et al 2009).

3.2 INDUS BASIN IRRIGATION SYSTEM (IBIS)

Pakistan is predominantly an arid to semi-arid country with an average annual rainfall of 250 mm. The 90% of the agriculture production comes from 19.42 Million Hectare (82% of the total cropped area) of irrigated area, the fourth largest in the world after India, China and USA. Agriculture share in the freshwater use is about 90 % from the Indus River System through Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) - the world’s largest contiguous irrigation system (PC, 2012). The Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) commands an area of 16.68 Mha, comprises 3 major reservoirs, 16 barrages and two headworks, 12 inter link canals and 44 canal systems as shown in Figure 3.1. The Indus Basin Treaty 1960 and Water Accord 1991 are two major milestones accomplished. The Indus Basin Water Management Framework was based on the following considerations during 1947-1990.

The primary resource constraints on agriculture are assured and timely supply of water.

System Design based on water allocation to a larger geographic area on equitable basis.

Water allocation to the farmer is linked to the agriculture land. After the reconstruction of reservoirs Rabi water use is increased some water

allocated to non-perennial channels. Historic water rights of the main canals are protected and adhoc water sharing

arrangement was based on these 10 daily water allocations Excess and shortages to be shared proportionate to the design allocations


33

There is a gap of crop water requirements and the water availability from canal irrigation network due to system design (Haq, 1998; Haq and Khan 2002). The surface water through canal network provides almost 50% of crop water requirements. The annual total Indus Basin Surface Water Resources are 190.23 BCM, in which Kharif 158.16 BCM and in Rabi 32.07 BCM (GOP, 2010).

IBIS has numerous restrictions as a result of historical development of each canal command project and has little or no relevance with current needs of agriculture. Structural designs and water rights of canals are main causes of existing problems of canal irrigation in the country. The surface water source in Pakistan is Indus River and its tributaries are Chenab, Jhelum, Kabul, Sutlej and Ravi. The Eastern Rivers are Sutlej and Ravi, and Western rivers are Jhelum, Chenab, Kabul and Indus River. The IBIS supports the irrigation of 75% of the country’s cultivated areas and 34% of the countries electric generation. (Haq et. Al., 2012).

The salient characteristics and limitations of the canal system are given below:

a. The existing Indus Basin System has strong links with the past in water and land ownership concepts, planning and management operations. The water allocations to the main canals irrigated area have a wide range, from 0.19 to 1.17 l/s/ha (2.47 to 17 cusecs per 1000 acres) for a period of six months during the summer (non-perennial system) or for the full year (perennial irrigation) These allocations were made between 1882 and 1971 during the designs of different canal systems (RAP, 1979, Bhatti and Kijine 1990, Kuper 1997).

b. Water allocations vary within the secondary canals, which are influenced by many factors like water demand, etc. The time based schedule of water distribution at water course level among the farmers exists since the development of canal irrigation networks. (Haq et al, 2012).

c. Every canal system drawing irrigation supplies from rivers has acquired legal

rights to continue to receive those supplies in quantities and at time corresponding to the pattern of its historic withdrawals over the years. This is an accepted principle of water law in Indus Basin.


34

Figure 3.1: Map showing Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS)

d. The unique feature of Pakistan's irrigation system is that it commands 16.68 million hectare area with contiguous system (Haq et al 2012). Availability of water is not according to crop water needs. Thus in Pakistan water, not the land, is a key constraint.


35

e. It was an implicit irrigation development strategy to design canal with low Water Allowances, make non-optimistic assumptions on water availability, design the system for low irrigation intensities and to meet the objectives of bringing crops to maturity on the largest possible area with the minimum consumption of water.

f. The irrigation system is so constructed that there are no head gates at the turn out (outlet) and other regulation structures. Thus if a particular canal has full supply discharge there should be water in every watercourse on that canal. The watercourse system does not always flow full, but depends on supplies in the canals.

g. Most of the canal irrigation systems of Pakistan cover large areas and there are a few escape structures on them which are operated in emergency when closure/reduction is required quickly downstream.

h. The hydraulic design of a stable alluvial channels (distributary) requires constant flow at full supply as much as possible (consequently the outlet normally delivers constant quantum of supply in the watercourses automatically without any manual regulation). Otherwise, regime of the channel gets seriously upset resulting in silting (for lower discharges) or scouring (for higher discharges). On the other hand, the main canals and branches can operate with any available discharge as these are provided with adequate number of control structures

i. The current elaborate system of irrigation entitlements throughout the IBIS (i.e., 20 minutes/acre/week for field crops, double for fruit orchards) through a defined capacity and regulated outlet that is uniformly administered. (Shahid, 2010).

3.3 REGULATION OF A PARTICULAR CANAL SYSTEM

A main canal network is an open-channel water distribution system, which conveys water from a source (reservoir or river diversion) to various offtakes that deliver water to user groups via secondary and /or tertiary canals. A typical irrigation system in Pakistan is shown in Figure 3.2. The hydraulic modeling of such a network needs to take into consideration the real canal topography, the main canal network topology in addition to its geometric description. A gravity irrigation system comprises the hydraulic structures to transport water and to deliver water at a certain point at the required time in the right amount and at the right elevation to the command area.


36

Figure 3.2: A typical layout of irrigation system in Pakistan

Two aspects of canal irrigation systems are important regarding irrigation water deliveries. One is the effective operation of the system above the point of delivery and the other is the effective delivery and application at the farm. Thus the farm irrigation depends on the operation of the system. The delivery point to fields is the turnout (outlet) from the distributary/minor. Up to this point (outlet), the regulation of the irrigation water is governed by the Irrigation Department under administrative policies for a particular canal. The functional responsibility of the Provincial Irrigation Department is to deliver reliable and equitable supplies to canal offtakes and ultimately to the outlets. System management decisions are made by the officials of the Department within Government policies, water rights, technical limitations and availability of supplies. A canal system is sanctioned to draw a certain percentage of the river water and is designed for a fixed discharge. However, canal systems are authorized to draw water up to a maximum limit referred to as the authorized full supply (AFS).

The main canals off-takes from controlled weirs/barrages on the river. The branch canals that off-take from the main canals; always have controlled regulations at their heads. The distributaries off shooting from main canals or from branches are also fitted with steel gates at their heads or masonry works for regulation with "Karies". Cross regulations in the main canals or branch canals are frequently provided at D/S of distributary Headworks for regulation in the distributaries. Minors and sub-minors originating from distributaries generally do not have gates at their heads and supplies are diverted through open masonry structures which work automatically on proportionate basis with rise and fall in water level of the


37

distributary. Finally, the water is diverted to the water courses through uncontrolled outlets which have fixed capacity and take full discharge only when channel is running at full supply level. Rarely main canals/ branches have outlets and these are strictly discouraged.

In one irrigation canal generally, one or more Executive Engineers are in charge of operation and maintenance while their jurisdiction is called a Division. There are three to four Sub Divisions under the charge of an Executive Engineer in a Division. There is one regulation officer of the canal which is either Executive Engineer or Sub-Divisional Officer of head reach of the canal who is responsible for regulation. The Executive Engineer makes their own schedules for running of the canal, branch, distributaries and minors in their areas based on the availability of water. Distributaries are formed in several groups and water is supplied to these groups in weekly rotations when supply in parent canal is less than capacity. The first few groups get full water supply during the first week while the shortages are transferred to the last group. During the next week, the group which has suffered water shortage during the previous week gets full supply and shortages are transferred to the other groups which have received full water supply during the previous week. These schedules come into operation when there is shortage of supply in rivers/reservoirs.

The quantity of water released to any canal is according to the programme framed by the Director Regulations (one each for Punjab and Sind Provinces for the Irrigation Departments, located at Lahore and· Karachi respectively ) to distribute the water supplies to canals of these provinces. Each Director estimates the availability of water at each barrage located in his Province, in 10 daily periods for the whole of the Rabi and early Kharif seasons in advance. He then distributes water according to water rights and requirements in consultation with the engineers in charge of respective canal. Canal regulation is watched daily during the whole season. Further canals are closed for inspections of their beds, sides, structures and for minor repairs annually. It is generally done, each year during the months of January/February for two to three weeks, depending upon the nature of repairs to be made in each canal command.

The monitoring, analysis, and evaluation of hydraulic phenomenon in large irrigation projects is quite a difficult task because of the vast network of canals, equipped with numerous manually operated gates at each bifurcation points and large number of irrigation structures. A continuous flow of water is delivered to the farmers through watercourses on a rotational basis. As the surface supplies are generally less than crop water requirements, the irrigation systems are designed for an equitable distribution of water. Hydraulic problems are particularly severe in irrigation canals. On the one hand surface levels must be kept constant to the different offtakes and on the other hand water discharge regularly decreases along any irrigation canal due to off taking withdrawal by the farmers. Both these phenomena’s induce hydraulic instability to the channel regime. To meet these regime conditions, operations on canals are so imposed to maintain full supply discharges and water surface levels.


38

3.4 PAST STUDIES ON LBDC

Two past projects aimed at improvement of irrigated agriculture (i) On farm water management (OFWM) project (ii) Irrigation System Improvement (ISRP) have been implemented under various phases. In OFWM project, the channel-wise renovation of water courses of LBDC system was improved while under ISRP works involved were strengthening of banks providing sufficient free boards and lining of some channels reaches. A detailed feasibility study was prepared in 1995 by NESPAK-NDC-AHT for LBDC Command area inclusive of institutional reforms on the concept of public utility as well as system improvements. Later in 1999, a study involving the updating of the feasibility study was completed by Pakistan Drainage Consultants (PDC), a joint venture of ACRADIS Euroconsult-NESPAK-NDC-Laymeyar Int’l AHT-Seer and MYASCO. The study was focused for rehabilitation of irrigation system and improvement. The study suggested improvement to be made is:

Optimum utilization of water resources Ensuring equitable distribution and reliability of supplies Efficient O&M of the irrigation system Harmonizing the physical infrastructure with the suggested reforms

3.5 LOWER BARI DOAB CANAL SYSTEM

3.5.1 Physical system

Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) off-takes from Balloki Barrage which is located southwest of Lahore at a distance of about 68 km in Punjab Province (Figure 1.1).The Balloki Barrage was constructed during 1911-13 and LBDC was commissioned in 1914. The main canal is 201.37 km long earthen canal. Its design discharge is 278.70 m3 /sec at its head; bed width varies from 60 m to 20 m and its average slope is 0.27 cm per km. The water levels are maintained all along the canal by means of 24 inline structures comprising of three (3) measuring devices, twelve (13) falls, eight (8) cross regulators (gated/stop-logs operated). Canal irrigation water is issued to the 61 secondary canals. The off-taking discharge distys/minors vary from 0.08 m3/sec to 28.32 m3/sec. In addition, there are 14 direct outlets from main canal and one head regulator at km 107.77 to feed flood supplies to Pakpattan Canal (Montgomery Pakpattan (MP) Link Canal). There exists also one gated escape regulator (Kassowal Escape) at 160.50 km offtakes on right side of main canal.

The traditional warabandi system is being implemented in the system. The area lies in the cotton – wheat zone, with cotton being the major crop in Kharif and wheat in Rabi. A fixed duration, variable discharge, and variable frequency delivery scheduling is practiced. The duration of water supply per irrigation is seven days.

The LBDC serves a cultivable command area of about 0.700 million hectares in Districts Kasur, Okara, Sahiwal and Khenewal. Approximately 275,000 farm families in the LBDC command derive their livelihoods directly from crops grown over the command area including wheat, rice, maize, cotton, sugarcane, fodder, flowers, vegetables, and citrus and other orchard crops. LBDC is an important and progressive agriculture area in Punjab, Pakistan and offers significant potential for increased productivity.


39

After completion of Mangla Dam in 1967 under Indus Basin Treaty (1960), the major requirements of LBDC are met through supplies from the Chenab and Jhelum rivers by transfer through Marala-Ravi Link and Qaiderabad-Balloki link canals. Both of these Link canals fall into river Ravi u/s of Balloki headworks. The area irrigated through LBDC system falls under Mangla command. The Schematic diagram for flow to LBDC is shown in Figure 3.3.

A severe hydrological deficit in the LBDC Command area makes difficult for the Irrigation Department to supply water for ensuring a cropping intensity higher than 150 percent. Even if during the Rabi season (October to March), the most of the command area is under cultivation, it is rather difficult to ensure adequate irrigation supplies during the Kharif season (April to September). The rotational program is in practice due to shortage of supplies. Thus the operational context of the scheme is one of water scarcity.

The irrigation requirements of the whole canal system are based on 1:2 Kharif Rabi ratio with a design cropping intensity of 66.6%. Due to changed cropping patterns the existing cropping intensity has increased which make it difficult to meet irrigator’s requirements especially during Rabi season. A rotational program has to be practiced by the operators almost throughout the year due to short available supplies at head coupled with constraints of running the system to its designed capacity.

The increasing high fluctuation of canal water supply at head source (Balloki), enforcement of rotations, inappropriate operation practices, poor performance level of service delivery to farmers, lack of control of conjunctive use canal and groundwater use, institutional set up failing to address the present day requirements, are challenges posed by population growth, climate change, and water scarcity. (LBDCIP, 2010).

Figure 3.3: Schematic diagram for flow to LBDC


40

The surface slopes, generally in south western direction, are very mild. The depth to ground water in the project area is more than 1m. The groundwater quality is fresh in about 75% of the area. In about 7% of the area the water quality is highly saline and not fit for irrigation. However, some parts are underlain by fresh ground water which is used to supplement surface water supply. Annual average rainfall varies from about 472 mm at head end and 212 mm at tail end of the command.

Most of the area receives the perennial supplies except about 17240 hectares (LBDCIP, 2010) of non-perennial area which mainly comprises of forest plantation. More than 48,000 tube wells are present and extract 3954 MCM /year for supplementing canal irrigation supplies, contributing more than 50 percent of the crop water requirements at crop root level and account for more than 56.35% percent of the total available supplies at the head.

The LBDC System faces severe hydraulic problems. The Irrigation system has deteriorated over time. The canal sections cannot draw their design discharge. The structures are in precarious state and need overall improvement allow efficient operation and equitable water delivery.

The Punjab Government through Provincial Irrigation Department has started the rehabilitation and Improvement project of LBDC Canal system to operate at its authorized discharge. Figure 3.4 shows the average monthly supplies to LBDC system during the period 2000 to 2012. It shows that present supplies have been reduced about 19 percent when compared with the monthly average supplies available during 1976 to 1991.

Figure 3.4: Average monthly supplies to LBDC

The water supplied verses required at field level is depicted in Figure 3.5. The difference has grown up more than 36 percent which shows a severe water deficit environment in LBDC System and cannot fulfill the present day crop water

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Ave

rage

Su

pp

lies

(MC

M)

Months

2000-2012

1976-1991


41

requirements. Resultantly, this creates inequitable water distribution in the command system. Water entitlement and deliveries for LBDC during Khraif 2007 to Rabi 2011-12 is shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.5: Water supplied verses required for LBDC system

Figure 3.6: Water entitlement and deliveries for LBDC during 2007 to Rabi 2011-12

Problems being faced at present in running the LBDC System are given below:

10

120 130 135200 200 210 220 200

100 110 90

380

570

795

400460

560

825

1025

800

530

210 220

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Vol

ume

MC

M

Months

Field Available

Field Requirement

347.42

206.74

326.62

185.45

314.39

189.37

308.27

246.62

345.22

252.00

324.42

197.44

309.25

181.29

282.58

178.11

284.30

233.65

303.14

231.69

150

200

250

300

350

400

Kha

rif

2007

Rab

i 200

7-08

Kha

rif

2008

Rab

i 200

8-09

Kha

rif

2009

Rab

i 200

9-10

Kha

rif

2010

Rab

i 201

0-11

Kha

rif

2011

Rab

i 201

1-12

Vol

ume

(MC

M)

Time (crop season)

Entitlement (MCM) Deliveries (MCM)


42

(a) Inadequate canal supplies

The annual sanctioned perennial volume for the LBDC command is 6,056MCM (IRSA, 1991) made up 3,428MCM in Kharif and 2,628MCM in Rabi. As per water balance studies for LBDC carried out by PIAP Consultants, 2006, canal water met 33% of the crop consumptive requirement of 6,423MCM for 2000 to 2006. The shortfall was met by pumping of groundwater and by occasional rainfall. The present annual cropping intensity is 162.43 percent with 77.88 % in Kharif and 76.97 % in Rabi. (LBDCIP, 2010). Of the irrigation supplies available to crops, 56.35% is supplied by the canals and 43.75 % by the farmers’ tube wells. However, the total available supplies remain short in critical periods of the crop water requirements and results in water stress causing a reduction in crop yield. Shakir et al, (2008) studied that Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC), one of the oldest irrigation systems in the region, receives annual canal water supplies 36% less than crop water requirements. However, this shortage further increases to 56% if actual canal supplies of last ten years are compared with the crop water requirements.

Basharat et al., (2012) worked out average annual deliveries of about 4849 MCM fed to LBDC command area using data of 2001-09 against annual crop water requirement of 6953 MCM. They reported 48.75% of these canal releases is available for crop consumptive use and 44.12 % adds to groundwater via canals and water courses seepage and field application losses. The net canal supply available to crops is about 2364 MCM which is about 33.8 % of crop consumptive use requirements. They also have highlighted 3954 MCM pumping as consumptive use in LBDC command area which is about 68% and effective rainfall 1406 MCM. The farmers face net shortage of 494 MCM of irrigation water. In the current situation, on an average, contribution to crop consumptive requirement from groundwater 2689 MCM is 18% more from canal supplies 2364 MCM.

(b) Unreliable supplies

Fluctuations of supplies at Balloki headworks causes the fluctuations in the LBDC system. The analysis of Actual daily Head supply discharge during 2006 to 2011 at head (source) of LBDC has revealed (chapter 4, section 4.2.3) that there is wide variation of head release supply in Kharif and Rabi season for the year 2006 to 2011.

(c) Distribution pattern inequity

The off takes do not draw their authorized discharges and inequity in distribution pattern exists too. Some areas fed with more water while other less resulting in inefficient use of resources. For example, Gugera Branch, offtakes at km 17.93, has never got its design supply of 27.75 m3/sec during the period 2006 to 2011 (Refer Section 4.2.9, chapter 4). The canal was run in kharif season for the maximum 80% of design discharge and 60% in Rabi.


43

3.5.2 Management set up

The irrigation Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the whole LBDC Command system up to water course head. The LBDC System is within the jurisdiction of Irrigation Zone Multan and is headed by Chief Engineer Multan. The organization set up is depicted in Figure 3.7. Under the Superintending Engineer who heads the LBDC Irrigation Circle based in Sahiwal, Executive Engineer (XENs) are technically and administratively responsible for each of the four Divisions. Each XEN is responsible for distribution of available flows to the distributaries and minors in his division as well as for supply to the downstream division. Within each division there are 3 Sub division headed by Sub Divisional officers. The Irrigation Department releases the water from head Balloki accordingly to indent prepared by concerned XENs. All cross regulators and escape structure along the main canal are operated to maintain required water levels while distributary head regulators are operated for their design discharges on rotational basis due to shortage of water.

Day to day O&M is carried out by the Beldars. One Beldar is responsible for patrolling and routine maintenance of two miles of main canal and four miles of distribution canal, in addition to recording water levels and operating gates. Intake gates are usually set to maintain designed Full Supply Levels (FSLs) in the off taking distributaries or minors. Gauge readers record daily water levels in the canal system and maintain registers. Except at a few, fall structures cannot be used to accurately determine discharges and volumes of water supplied.

Distributaries and Minor of canal division is generally divided into three groups i.e. Group A, B,& C. Preference has been fixed A,B & C as first Second & Third Priority Respectively. The Rotational Programme is issued on the approval of Superintending Engineer LBDC Canal Circle Sahiwal. Under head supply less than 80% of design supply, the rotational programme is exercised.

More recently 2006, the management practices are characterized by a relatively high degree of decentralization in the form of Farmer’s Organization, most operations (manual) at the structures being implemented locally according to local objectives (targeted water levels). Overall coordination and intra-division communication occur in cases of severe perturbations along the canal.

Under the spirit of irrigation sector reforms program in Punjab, PIDA established 52 Farmer’s organization in Lower Bari Doab Canal Area Water Board, Sahiwal. These organizations are responsible for the maintenance of their canals, equitable distribution of water, collection of water charges and dispute resolutions. The Government is well aware to enhance and maintain the efficiency of irrigation network according to changing needs of time. Lower Bari Doab Canal which is being improved and rehabilitated by Irrigation Department with the financial cooperation from Asian Development Bank. The reforms in irrigation management mainly focus on decentralization, participatory management, improved services and sustainability of the infrastructure. Under the implementation of reforms process, the management functions of various entities are transformed and functions of Irrigation Department are shared by newly established institutions viz. Punjab Irrigation and Drainage Authority (PIDA) at provincial level (representation of farmers and the government),


44

Area Water Boards (AWB) at Canal Command level, Farmer Organizations (FOs) at Distributaries level and Khal Panchayats (KP) at Watercourse level.

The canal managers maintain phases of constant water release at the head regulator and fixed water delivery pattern but do not allow a proper control of water deliveries during more difficult phases of management such as changes in head regulator discharge, starting water issues from one canal division to the next, rainfall events, etc.

Figure 3.7: Organizational set up of LBDC System

3.5.3 Operational difficulties

The Canal system being almost a century old is facing serious operational and maintenance problems. LBDC is unable to convey the authorized discharge of 278.70 m3/s due to a number of functional and safety issues like inadequate capacity and deterioration of old structures and canal prism. Its distribution network is also deteriorated and facing operational problems. Rehabilitation and Upgrading (R&U) of Lower Bari Doab Canal Network has been considered important for long term sustainability. Pakistan Government with the assistance of Asian Development Bank (ADB) has initiated Physical Rehabilitation works on LBDC System which is expected to be completed till 2015.


45

The absence of discharge measuring devices and adequate communication system is also the cause for inadequate operation of the system. The fact that against a 7-day warabandi rotation, the distributary preferential system rotation during periods of shortages is on 7-day basis and the indenting is done for 10 day period causes theses operations to be unsynchronized, which further contributes to inequitable distribution.

With the period of time, many changes have been taken place in the cropping

pattern; much greater areas have been included into command and with the operations of the system as at present the water requirements of the command area much higher than the supplies available in the system.

The major weakness of warabandi system is the supply of water to the farm field according to the turn and not according to the crop water requirements of the crop. Another weakness is the fact that water course losses are not taken into account for the calculations of the turn which lead to the inequitable distribution of irrigation water.

The canal operation and regulation system being practiced is generally lacking the followings:

a) When channels run in rotation then the channels in last group takes uncertain and varied supply during the week. Most of the delivered supply becomes wastage as seepage in distributary and water courses or excessive percolation in fields, due to less flow rate in the water course.

b) The agricultural activities suffer badly when channels suddenly start to run on rotation. Thus the process of agricultural inputs other than water suffers badly which affects the crops yield and agricultural production.

c) Releases in channels fluctuate most of the time and supply condition in non-perennial distributaries in Rabi season does not distribute the supply equitably among outlets. Sharp fluctuations and running of distributary less than at least 7 days are observed mostly in lower off-takes of parent canal and necessarily in Rabi season. This seriously affects irrigators whose consecutive turns falls in closure periods.

d) Often at sowing period of crops the canal runs at full supply discharge but as supply dwindles channels start to run in rotation.

e) Inequitable distribution of available supply among distributaries and among outlets along a distributary when it runs either less than the designed capacity or in rotation less than 7 days while some channels runs at full capacity for longer periods.

f) Water scheduling and delivery is a very important aspect of management of irrigation system. Water scheduling and delivery is defined as the deliveries of


46

water in time in command area. There are three essential components in policy or schedule: (i) frequency of time of delivery to the field, (ii) duration of delivery, (iii) delivery flow rate to field. The attention requires for providing the framework for water scheduling particularly in large irrigation system.

g) The schedule can be considered either rigid or flexible. The flexible system permits farm operator participation that allows more delivery of water at time of requirement at field. The farm operator can open or close water supply valve at request of local farmers. But this system also required good communication between farm operator and water authority. On other side in rigid system, water is delivered according to a fixed flow rate and frequency. The rigid system causes more problems and complexities, because requirement of water varies at fields. There can be various factors for change in requirement of water at field like rain or crops type (required less or more water). The flexible system is the better option in water scheduling.

3.6 SUMMARY

Lower Bari Doab Canal is a century old irrigation system. Over time, physical deterioration has occurred. Canal banks have weakened at number of places. The inline structures are prone to danger and cannot sustain present day discharge requirements. As a result, the canal cannot carry its design discharge. The water shortages in the system have created in equitable distribution of water among the offtakes. The beneficiaries are directly affected which has affected agriculture production. Keeping in view the gravity of the problem, the research study is focused to simulate a large canal for its hydraulic behaviour. The equity in water distribution for performance assessment is addressed under water stress environment of one of big irrigation canal system in Punjab Pakistan

CHAPTER 4

47

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter describes the methodology for the research undertaken and data required for the research study. The details of data collection and analysis are highlighted in the following sections.

4.1 METHODOLOGY

The hydraulic model “Simulation of Irrigation Canal SIC” has been employed for the research study. The methodology for the research study is illustrated in Figure 4.1. The required information/data for the research (Ref section 4.1.3, Table 4.3) was collected from concerned departments. The data was analyzed for main canal as well as for off takes (Ref Section 4.2). The frequency analysis for main canal and offtakes was carried out. After data analysis, the model was set up using cross sectional survey data of 2008-2010. The information / data required for model set up has been described in Table 4-1.

After model set up, the model was calibrated using data of one irrigation period in Kharif season from August 20-27, 2011. After calibration, the model was validated using data of six irrigation periods during 2006 to 2011. (May 10 to May 17, 2006; Aug. 24 to Aug 31, 2007; Nov 8 to Nov 15, 2008; Oct. 07 to Oct 14, 2009; Feb 20 to Feb 27, 2010 & 7 July to July 14, 2011). After validation, the model was applied for simulation of Lower Bari Doab canal under steady and unsteady flow conditions. After application, the simulation results were integrated with Decision Support Tools which has been developed for Lower Bari Doab Main Canal for performance assessment. The Decision Support Tools are developed in Excel worksheets. The distribution plans using data of schedule of water delivery kharif 2011 for the period during June 15, 2011 to July 8, 2011 were tested and compare the actual results with simulated values for performance assessment in terms of equitable distribution of canal water.

By using decision support tools, operational plan can be tested as many times as required by giving the target discharges at the offtakes and the main hydraulic conditions of the scenarios tested.

The performance indicators are assessed in Decision Support Tools while evaluating operational plan. The graphical representation of various outputs has been

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSIS

48

included in Decision Support Tools. These indicators are: (a) Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR); (c) Reliability (Pd). (c) Equity (Pe) in water distribution; (d) A new indicator is introduced under the study for hydraulic performance assessment “combined efficiency performance (CEP)”.

4.1.1 Model input data and output

The application of model required site specific field data to define and calibrate the model. Study oriented data was needed to interpret and evaluate particular scenarios. The description of the model data input and output is described in Table 4-1. The model was set up using the topographical and geometric data. The hydraulic parameters of inline structures and off takes were also given to the model. The initial and boundary conditions were also given to the model. The model was calibrated and validated for different irrigation periods. Then, the simulation of LBDC was completed with various percent of design discharges. The water levels at all locations along the main canal and discharges at offtakes were computed.

4.1.2 Research study area

There are 44 canals systems in Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) out of total 24 canals system are in Punjab. Punjab has 56.5 % of total population of Pakistan and the area is 25.8 % of total area of Pakistan. Table A-1 (Appendix- A) shows statistics of canal area in Punjab province. It shows CCA (cultivatable command area), GCA (gross command area) and percentage perennial area. Table A-2 (Appendix- A) shows availability of water in Punjab canal commands. The LBDC irrigation system has progressively spent almost century. The research area is shown in Figure 1.1 (chapter1) and situated in the East-South in the Bari Doab, bounded by river Ravi in North-West and Sukh Beas Drainage channel in the South. The research area is selected due to following reasons.

Easy access to study site

The research study is located 67 km from provincial capital city, Lahore in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. The site is linked up with major cities of Punjab like Okara, Sahiwal, Khenewal via Grand Truck Road and easy to approachable in all seasons.

Perennial Area

The total culturable command area of Lower Bari Doab Canal is about 0.707 M ha. The 97% of the total canal command area is perennial and gets canal supply throughout the year which makes unique from other irrigation systems in the province. (Table –A-1 and Table A-2 of Appendix-A).


49

Figure 4.1: Methodology for research study


50

Data availability

The main canal as well as off-take data were easy accessible. The site trips were made for collection of data. The discharge data of all important structures was physically taken. Water levels and gate openings of offtakes as well as inline structures were observed at site. From head to tail of main canal, the relevant information and off takes data of channels were also gathered.

Century old Irrigation system

The main canal and allied command system was commissioned in 1914-17. Since then, the man canal has attained regime conditions and new command area has included. Due to which this century old canal system cannot fulfill the present day requirements of crop water needs. The whole canal command system faces severe hydraulic, management and operational problems.

On-Going Physical up-gradation and rehabilitation

The Government of Punjab through Provincial Irrigation Department has started physical remodeling of the Lower Bari Doab Canal Irrigation system to restore its design discharge.


51

Table 4-1: Details of SIC model data input and output

Objective Type Data input Output

Calibration Topology

(Geometric &

Topographic)

Length of canal reaches Length of Branches* Cross section of canal reaches in

abscissa elevation form Location of offtakes structures Location of inline structures Crest levels of structures Reference elevations Singular sections**

Determination of Manning’s roughness, n coefficient of canal reaches (Calibration)

Hydraulic Upstream boundary condition in term of discharge at first node of the model

Downstream boundary condition water level or rating curve at the last node of the model (at tail of LBDC)

Discharge at beginning and end of canal reaches

Water level at beginning and end of canal reaches

Validation Hydraulic Calibrated Manning’s roughness coefficient of canal reaches

Discharge at head (at first node of the model)

Water levels in canal reaches and discharges Water surface profiles

Simulation/

operational

studies

Hydraulic Discharge at canal head Opening and closure of canal head Opening and closing of offtakes

Water levels in canal reaches and discharges Water surface profiles

* In SIC model Branch means a group of reaches serially linked to one another, In model four canal division (Balloki, Okara, Sahiwal and Khenewal) represents four branches along the length of the canal. ** Sections containing cross structures (inline structures) are called singular sections


52

Table 4-2: Details of data collection

Type of Data Description Year Source

Topographic

data

Canal Cross section survey data 2005-2006* Provincial

Irrigation

Department

2008-2010** LBDCIP

Consultants

Longitudinal profile of main

canal.

2010-11 LBDCIP

Consultants

Geometric data

of structures

Main canal inline structures

data.

Off takes structures data

Punjab Irrigation

Department

Hydraulic Data Daily water level/Discharge

data at head, control points

along the main canal and at tail;

Head Gauge Discharge data of

offtakes;

Head Discharge Relationship of

offtakes and inline structures

along the main canal.

Gate openings of offtakes and

inline structures

2006-2011 (5-year: (April 01, 2006 to Oct 2011)

Project Monitoring

and Implementation

Unit (PMIU);

Provincial

Irrigation

Department.

* Initially, the cross sectional data of main canal @ 304.5 m was collected from Provincial Irrigation Department and used for initial model run. ** The cross sectional observed data was collected @ 250m and used for research work.

4.1.3 Data collection

The required data for the hydraulic model have been collected from the Provincial Irrigation Department, Project Monitoring and Implementation Unit (PMIU) and through field trips. The details of data collected are summarized in Table 4-2.The study area has been visited number of times for collection of field data and field observations. The data collected have been analyzed for main canal and off take.


53

4.1.4 Main canal data

The main canal data covers longitudinal profile, cross sectional data, and inline structure data. The latest longitudinal profiles of main canal were collected which show last design data (existing) as well as proposed data for rehabilitation. The hydraulic parameters like Discharge, bed width, flow depth, velocity, Manning coefficient in different reaches along the canal are depicted and discussed in section 4.2. The full supply levels and bed levels both for the last design and proposed design for rehabilitation have been indicated. The latest cross sectional survey data observed between the years 2008-10 have been used and is shown in Appendix B.

There are 23 inline structures including cross regulators, falls and meter flume on the main canal. The details are given in Section 4.2. These are inserted as singular section in the model. All offtakes were inserted as node in SIC model. Downstream boundary condition was based on actual water levels. The inflow to the network is incorporated as upstream boundary condition and taken positive, whereas outflow on offtakes nodal points is taken negative.

4.1.5 Off-taking head regulator data

The offtakes data covers actual supply to the off takes, head discharge relationship, off take structural data, off taking channel information was collected from the Provincial Irrigation Department. The analysis of off taking structure data is given in Section 4.2. The Project Monitoring and Implementation unit (PMIU) of Provincial Irrigation Department has been entrusted for rapid monitoring of water distribution in a canal system i.e. between the headwork’s and tail off takes / outlets. Presently daily data about discharges / gauges of main canals, branch canals, distys and minors is prepared by the field staff in the analog form and retained in the divisional offices except that gauges / discharges of Main / Branch canals are transmitted to PMIU for computerization.

4.1.6 Decision support tool

As a part of Decision Support Tool, two prototype Modules are developed in VB.net. The prototype window of DST is shown in Figure 4.2. The results of simulation of LBDC Main Canal are integrated in Module 1, while Module 2 is used to optimize the operational plan using performance indicators for different operational scenarios. Decision Support Tool is used to facilitate and strengthen the canal managers for problems solving and timely decisions making for better operation and management in respect of equitable distribution of water. The details of module are as under:

The VB.net is used as front end and sequential queries language (SQL) server is used as back end. The coding is done in VB.net and is attached as Appendix F. This code transfers all the field site data from Excel to SQL Server in Database.

The necessary data manipulation is done in SQL Server Database i.e. making relations between data tables and then creating SQL Queries. These related data tables and Queries in the Database are then used in VB.net to show the required results like DPR, Pd, Pe and CEP. Graphs are also generated from this database.


54

Figure 4.2: Prototype window of decision support tool.

a) Module 1

The SIC Model is interfaced with the hydraulic data file in Module 1. This data file is in ASCII and can be opened in text editor. The data editor files which are converted into Excel files for integration with Module -1. Module 1 is linked with the Module 2 for optimization of operational plan.

The Topography module of SIC Model checks the inputted topographic data of the canal and generates the data files used by the other two units. The Steady Module calculates the water surface profile as well as the offtakes and cross regulator gate openings for any set of water demands. The Unsteady Module simulates the flow conditions in the canal after modifications of internal and external boundary conditions; gate settings, water inflows and outflows.

b) Module 2

In Module 2, the operational plan is optimized using performance indicators as

Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR) Reliability (Pd ) Equity in Distribution (Pe) Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP)

Through simulation data editor’s files, the required hydraulic information is converted to Excel files which are used for optimization in Module 2 and representation of the graphical results. The Graphic and tabulated outputs are designed to provide operational assistance to the canal managers. With Decision


55

Support Tool, the canal managers can use simulated hydraulic information for decision making and preparation / evaluation of operational plans for efficient operation and management. The canal manager can do number of trial using Decision Support Tools and can arrive at best distribution plan for implementation at field.

4.1.7 Performance indicators

An indicator can be used in two distinct ways. It tells a manager what the current performance of the system and, in conjunction with other indicators, may help him to identify the correct course of action to improve performance within that system. The ultimate purpose of performance assessment is to achieve efficient, productive and effective irrigation systems by providing relevant feedback to management at all levels. As such, it may assist management or policy makers in determining whether performance is satisfactory and, if not, which corrective actions need to be taken in order to remedy the situation. An indicator may be external and internal.

External indicators

The external indicators compare input and output of an irrigation system to describe overall performance. These indicators are expressions of various forms of efficiency, for example water use efficiency, crop yield, and budget. But they do not provide any detail on what internal processes lead to these outputs and what should be done to improve the performance. They, however, could be used for comparing the performance of different irrigation projects, nationally or internationally. Once these external indicators are computed, they are used as a benchmark for monitoring the impacts of modernization on improvements in overall performance.

Internal Indicators

The internal indicators quantitatively assess the internal processes (inputs - resources used and the outputs - services to downstream users) of an irrigation project. Internal indicators are related to operational procedures, management and institutional set-up, hardware of the system, water delivery service etc. These indicators are necessary in order to have comprehensive understanding of the processes that influence water delivery service and overall performance of a system. Thus they provide insight into what could or must be done to improve water delivery service and overall performance (the external indicators).

Following four performance indicators are used to assess performance of Lower Bari Doab Main Canal; the Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR), Reliability (Pd) and equity (Pe), Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP).

(a) Delivery performance ratio (DPR)

The simplest, and yet probably the most important, operational performance indicator is the delivery performance ratio (DPR) (Clemmens and Dedrick, 1984; Clemmens and Bos, 1990; Molden and Gates, 1990; Bos et al., 1991). DPR is defined as the ratio of the actual discharge to the design discharge.


56

(Eq.4.1)

Where,

Qa: Actual discharges delivered (m3/s)

Qd: Design discharge (m3/s)

T: Time in Days

n: Number of Events

Molden et al., (2007) discussed the characteristics of DPR (Eq. 4.1) classifying it as the most important hydraulic and operational performance indicator. It enables the manger to determine the extent to which the water actually delivered against the design discharge. The DPR allows for instantaneous checking of whether discharges are more or less than the design or target discharges.

The nominal range of the proportionality is 70 to 110 percent of the design flow. Rotational flows operational strategy is adopted among the offtakes, when incoming flows to the canal system are between 50 to 60 percent of the design flow because at low flows proportionality becomes more difficult to maintain and misappropriation of irrigation supplies to offtakes increases.

Based on preceding discussion on operation philosophy of irrigation system in Pakistan, it is logical to accept the minimum lower DPR of 0.7 and upper limit above 1.3 is considered as poor performance. Following is the criteria; 0.9 ≤ DPR ≤ 1.1 good performances; 0.9 - 0.7 ≤ DPR ≤ 1.3-1.1 satisfactory performance and 1.3 ≤ DPR ≤ 0.7 poor performance. (Molden et al., 2007).

The delivery performance ratio (DPR) based on actual discharge to design discharge (Eq. 4.1) is also compared with target discharge (governed by cultivation area and cropping calendar).

(b) Reliability (Pd)

Reliability of water distribution indicates the ability of system to deliver the design irrigation supplies in given time span. In context of Pakistan a system that achieves steady state is considered as reliable. Reliability of deliveries are an essential condition for confidence building between stakeholders 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 successful move towards technical and institutional measures aiming at better water management through farmers’ participation in operation and maintenance of the irrigation system.

Molden and Gates (1990) defined the reliability (Pd) as the degree of temporal variability in the ratio of amount delivered to the amount required over a region. Reliability of water distribution is calculated as given in Eq. 4.2.

(Eq. 4.2)

R d

atd Q

QCV

RP

1

n d

a

Q

Q

TDPR

1


57

Where,

Pd Reliability

Qa Actual discharges delivered (m3/s)

Qd Design discharge (m3/s)

CVt Temporal Coefficient of Variation

R Time period in Days

Where is temporal coefficient of variation (ratio of standard deviation to

mean) of the ratio over time period. The criteria suggested by (Molden and

Gates, 1990) are, if Pd ≤ 0.10, the reliability of irrigation supplies is good, whereas

0.10 < Pd <0.20 it is satisfactory and Pd ≥ 0.20, it is poor.

(c) Equity (Pe)

In rotational water distribution system, equity is one of the major objectives of the irrigation system. Molden and Gates (1990) defined equity as spatial uniformity of the ratio of the delivered amount to the required amount (QD/QR) as shown in Eq. 4.3:

Eq.4.3)

Where is the spatial coefficient of variation of the ratio QD/QR

for a specific time period T over the region, R. This indicator describes the degree of

variability in relative water delivery from point to point over the region. To access the

equity with respect to design discharge, a value of Pe is introduced. The closer the

value of Pe is to zero, the greater the degree of equity (spatial uniformity) in delivery.

Molden and Gates (1990) suggested boundaries between Good, Fair and Poor

performance in term of equity, Pe, values of 0.1 and 0.25.

(d) Combine efficiency performance (CEP) Three performance indicators Delivery Performance ratio (DPR), Reliability

(Pd) and Equity (Pe) are used for analysis and evaluation of the distribution plan in the research study. Delivery performance ratio deals with the ratio of the actual discharge to the design discharge over a span period. It indicates only how much percentage of actual discharge to the design discharge is delivered to the offtake.

tCV

d

a

Q

Q

T R

DRe Q

QCV

TP

1

R

DR Q

QCV


58

Reliability deals with the temporal variability in the ratio of amount delivered to the amount required over a region and takes into the effect of coefficient of variation.

Equity deals with spatial coefficient of variation of the ratio QD/QR for a

specific time period T over the region, R.

The analysis of discharge data Lower Bari Doab Canal indicated that there is wide variation of discharge fed to main canal and as such DPR values varies between low range 0.2 to upper limit 1.45. Similarly, the reliability of irrigation supplies is also fluctuating and mostly reliability values varied between 0.1 to 0.35. Resultantly, there is wide variation of results of indicators. This requires adopting an indicator giving an overall operational performance of canal. For this a new index is considered keeping in view the field conditions as well as current practices for running the canal system.

A new efficiency index “combined efficiency performance” is developed under the research study. This new index takes into the effect of three indicators, delivery performance ratio (DPR), reliability (Pd) and Equity (Pe). A weightage factor based on the field survey and performance of results of above three indicators is given to each indicator.

CEP = C1 DPR + C2 (1-Pd) + C3 Pe (Eq. 4.4) Where C1 is the delivery coefficient equal to 0.5, C2 is the reliability

coefficient, taken as 0.3 and C3 is the equity coefficient, taken equal to 0.2. The matrix, on which the factors are based, is given in Table 4-3.

Weighting factors are estimated values which indicate relative importance or

impact of each indicator. The weighting factors are used to establish priorities of activities for individual indicators. It determines an overall performance rating for operational as well as hydraulic behaviour of canal. It is utmost important that the weighting factors should be reviewed periodically for the project considered and may be adjusted as per departmental priorities change during the performance cycle.

When the value of Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP) is between 0.8 to 1, the canal performance is “Good” and is graded as value equal to 1. When CEP is between 0.8 to 0.4, the performance is “Satisfactory”, the canal is graded equal to value 0.5, while when CEP is less than 0.4 and greater than 1, the canal performance is “Poor” and is graded as value equal to 0.These CEP Grading are shown in Table 4-4.


59

Table 4-3: Matrix for weighting factors

Indicators Elements Descriptor Rating Weight

Numerical rating

Delivery performance Ratio

Discharge Fully delivered 40% 0.5

Exceeds some expectations 20%

Meets fully expectations 30%

Partial delivered 10%

Reliability, Pd Time Fully delivered 50% 0.3




Equity, Pe Distribution Fully delivered 60% 0.2




Table 4-4: CEP grading

Measure CEP grading

“Good” 1

“Satisfactory” 0.5

“Poor” 0

The four performance indicators as highlighted above are used for

performance assessment under different operational scenarios at 100%, 80% and 50% of head discharge of LBDC. The analysis is carried out to check hydraulic performance of main canal using indicators in respect of equitable distribution of water. The gate settings are checked through simulation given the target discharge of offtakes. The offtake simulated discharge is used for optimization of operation plans. The following Table 4-5 and Table 4-6 summarizes the water delivery objectives adopted for LBDC System and limits of indicators used while evaluating operational scenarios.


60

Table 4-5: Water delivery system performance measures relative to system objective

Delivery System Objectives

Actual

Delivery performance ratio, DPR

Reliability, Pd

Equity, Pe

Combined efficiency performance, CEP

C1 DPR + C2 (1-Pd) + C3 Pe C1 = 0.5, C2 = 0.3, C3 = 0.2

Table 4-6: Performance standards for irrigation system

Measure

Scale

Good Fair Poor

DPR 0.9-1.1 0.9-0.7 and 1.3-1.1 >1.3 and <0.7

Pd 0-0.1 0.11-0.20 >0.20

Pe 0-0.1 0.11-.025 >0.25

CEP

Grading

0.8-1.0

1

0.4-0.8

0.5

<0.4 and >1.0

0

n d

a

Q

Q

TDPR

1

R d

atd Q

QCV

RP

1

T R

DRe Q

QCV

TP

1


61

4.2 DATA ANALYSIS

4.2.1 Cross sectional data

The observed cross sectional survey data during the year 2008 to 2010 was collected from the Provincial Irrigation Department (PID). The representative cross sections data used for the study is reproduced in Appendix -B. Figure 4.3 shows the typical cross sections of LBDC main canal. The firm line indicates the proposed cross section for rehabilitation while the dash line depicts the existing cross section.

4.2.2 Main longitudinal profile

The longitudinal profile of Lower Bari Doab Canal is depicted in Figure 4.43. It shows the existing full supply levels and bed levels observed during 2008. It also shows the proposed full supply level and bed levels under rehabilitation. The main canal hydraulic parameters derived from LBDC longitudinal profile is given in Table 4-7 and Table 4-8 below.

Figure 4.3: Typical cross sections of LBDC


62

Table 4-7: Main canal hydraulic parameters (existing)

Reach Distance in km B (m)

FSD (m)

Q (m3/s)

f WSS

From To

0.00 8.28 73.15 3.51 278.70 0.85 0.090 8.28 19.11 71.62 3.54 274.09 0.85 0.090 19.11 33.21 68.30 3.38 247.35 0.85 0.090 33.21 49.30 66.75 3.35 236.87 0.85 0.090 49.30 58.35 64.92 3.23 198.44 0.84 0.090 58.35 69.32 63.40 3.23 210.45 0.84 0.090 69.32 78.83 62.48 3.23 207.70 0.84 0.090 78.83 87.00 60.35 3.14 195.98 0.85 0.095 87.00 100.29 60.35 3.11 193.54 0.85 0.095 100.29 103.01 54.86 2.96 164.71 0.85 0.095 103.01 107.77 54.86 2.96 164.12 0.85 0.095 107.77 114.59 49.68 2.80 135.17 0.83 0.095 114.59 119.31 49.68 2.80 134.18 0.83 0.095 119.31 131.21 49.07 2.74 129.76 0.83 0.095 131.21 137.31 46.63 2.67 119.40 0.82 0.075 137.31 140.67 42.97 2.56 101.50 0.82 0.100 140.67 150.53 42.97 2.56 101.08 0.82 0.100 150.53 156.58 41.76 2.53 96.21 0.82 0.100 156.58 160.70 41.45 2.53 95.02 0.82 0.100 160.70 165.24 39.62 2.47 87.68 0.8 0.100 165.24 174.09 39.32 2.44 86.46 0.82 0.100 174.09 178.57 27.13 2.04 42.93 0.75 0.100 178.57 183.24 27.13 2.04 42.93 0.75 0.100 183.24 195.12 25.91 1.95 39.00 0.75 0.100 195.12 199.24 24.99 1.92 35.77 0.77 0.110 199.24 201.37 21.33 1.77 26.59 0.77 0.110

Note: B = bed width in m, FSD = full supply depth in m,

Q = Reach discharge in m3/sec, f = Lacey’s Silt factor,

WSS = Water surface (energy) slope, km = Kilo meter


63

Table 4-8: Main canal proposed hydraulic parameters (rehabilitation)

Note: B = bed width in m, FSD = full supply depth in m,

Q = Reach discharge in m3/s, ss = side slope, n = Manning’s roughness coefficient value,

WSS = Water surface (energy) slope, km = Kilo meter, V = Velocity in m/sec

Reach Distance in Km B (m)

FSD(m)

SS (IV:H)

Q (m3/s)

n WSS

V

(m/s) From To 0.00 8.99 67.05 4.04 1 278.70 0.024 0.096 0.97 8.99 19.81 67.05 4.00 1 274.09 0.024 0.096 0.96 19.81 34.07 60.96 3.90 1 20.67 0.22 0.096 0.68 34.07 49.30 60.96 3.74 1 236.87 0.023 0.10 0.98 49.30 60.03 60.96 3.72 1 222.80 0.023 0.090 0.93 60.03 69.32 60.96 3.55 1 210.45 0.023 0.095 0.92 69.32 79.40 59.43 3.51 1 207.70 0.023 0.10 0.94 79.40 87.55 59.43 3.34 1 195.98 0.023 0.105 0.94 87.55 100.82 59.43 3.31 1 193.54 0.023 0.105 0.93 100.82 103.89 51.81 3.27 1 164.71 0.023 0.105 0.92 103.89 108.32 51.81 3.26 1 164.12 0.023 0.105 0.91 108.32 114.59 48.77 3.01 1 135.17 0.023 0.105 0.87 114.59 119.31 48.77 3.00 1 134.18 0.023 0.105 0.87 119.31 131.21 47.24 2.99 1 129.76 0.023 0.105 0.86 131.21 137.31 45.72 2.86 1 119.40 0.023 0.1111 0.86 137.31 141.22 39.62 2.82 1 101.50 0.023 0.1111 0.85 141.22 151.08 39.62 2.82 1 101.08 0.023 0.1111 0.85 151.08 156.58 39.62 2.69 1 96.21 0.023 0.1170 0.84 156.58 161.19 39.62 2.67 1 95.02 0.023 0.1170 0.84 161.19 165.24 38.10 2.65 0.5 87.68 0.023 0.1170 0.84 165.24 174.58 38.10 2.63 0.5 86.46 0.023 0.1170 0.83 174.58 178.57 22.86 2.27 0.5 42.93 0.023 0.137 0.78 178.57 183.72 22.86 2.27 0.5 42.62 0.023 0.1333 0.78 183.72 195.12 22.86 2.15 0.5 39.08 0.023 0.1333 0.76 195.12 198.72 22.86 2.13 0.5 35.97 0.022 0.12 0.77 198.72 201.37 20.42 1.92 0.5 28.63 0.022 0.12 0.69


64

Figure 4.4: Longitudinal profile of LBDC

140

150

160

170

180

190

0.00

3.35

7.10

8.28

12.2

418

.01

19.8

122

.34

27.4

331

.70

33.2

139

.46

41.6

346

.92

49.3

056

.99

59.8

860

.96

69.3

274

.37

78.8

382

.29

87.5

593

.59

100.

1410

3.01

105.

7610

7.77

110.

7311

4.59

118.

8712

2.60

130.

6813

4.11

137.

3114

1.22

147.

2115

0.53

152.

3915

6.58

160.

7016

3.97

167.

6317

3.91

174.

5817

9.82

183.

7219

2.01

198.

1119

9.24

Existing Full supply Level

Exisitng Bed Level

Existing Bank Level

Ele

vati

ons

(mas

l)

Distance (km) from LBDC head


65

4.2.3 Discharge data at head

The actual head discharge data of LBDC main canal from April 2006 to March 2011 (5 years) have been plotted and shown in Figure 4.5 below. The maximum daily head discharge value during this period has been observed as, 246.39 m3/s on September 2007.

Figure 4.5: Actual daily head supply discharge during 2006 to 2011

The canal supply to LBDC is supply driven. The annual sanctioned perennial volume for the LBDC Command as per 1991 water accord is 6,056 MCM with Kharif 3,428 MCM and Rabi 2,629 MCM (WAA, 1991). The design discharge for LBDC is 278.70 m3/s and includes 31.2 m3/s to be supplied to Sutlej canal command via the seasonal Montgomry-Pakpattan (MP) link which takes off at km 107.768.

4.2.4 Discharge measurement data at control points

There are three control (critical) points (km 33.22, km 69.35, and km 165.19) along the main canal where discharge is being controlled for intra canal divisions. The observed gauge discharge data at critical points were collected for different years from 2006 to 2011 and is shown in the Figures 4.6 to 4.11. At other seven locations along the main canal where the cross regulators (wooden stop logs) are used for heading up of water levels in the canal in periods of low supply as shown in the Table 4-9.

Qd = 278.70 m3/ s

3/


66

Table 4-9: Details of inline structure where stop logs being operated for regulation

Sr. No.

Location of cross regulators (km)

Location of cross regulators (ft)

Stop logs required to raise water levels to feed off takes

Off taking Disty

Number (Dy No.)

1 19.11 62+713 Gugera Branch 7 2 60.03 196+958 2RA Disty 24 3 131.21 430+505 7R and 11L Disty 42,41 4 160.69 527+246 14 AL Disty 51 5 174.09 571+200 8BR and 15 AL Disty 61,59 6 183.24 601+200 16 L Disty 62 7 195.12 640+200 9R Disty 64

4.2.5 Inline structure data

The inline control structures on main canal includes gated Head regulator at source, falls, cross regulators and tail structure. On un-gated falls, the water levels upstream are controlled by the stop logs system while on gated falls and cross regulators, the upstream water levels are controlled by the operation of gates. The details of all control structures are given in the Table 4-10. A line diagram showing layout of main canal structures is shown in Figure 4.12. The head regulator of LBDC is a gated structure manually controlled.


67

Table 4-10: Hydraulic parameters of inline control structures

Source HR LBDC 0 0.00 15 6.10 191.23 - - - gated

1 MF/Fall 27167 8.28 7 8.91 190.11 - - - ungated

2 Cross Regulator 62713 19.11 11 5.73 188.36 8.00 5.49 187.52 stop log

3 Cross Regulator 108929 33.20 11 5.73 185.02 8.00 5.49 186.07 gated

4 Fall 161752 49.30 7 6.63 185.77 7.00 6.63 185.77 ungated


6 MF/Fall 227472 69.33 7 6.17 179.34 7.00 6.17 179.34 ungated

7 Fall 258654 78.83 7 6.17 176.47 9.00 4.95 176.32 gated

8 Fall 285654 87.06 7 6.31 173.78 1.00 43.89 173.93 ungated

9 Fall 329053 100.29 7 5.76 170.88 7.00 5.49 170.53 gated

10 Fall 340850 103.89 7 7.09 168.56 - - -

Reach 353388 107.71 5 6.10 166.67 9.00 4.11 166.87

Reach 375954 114.59 7 6.71 165.68 - - -

11 Fall 391454 119.31 7 6.86 165.98 9.00 3.89 165.73 ungated


13 Cross Regulator 450500 137.31 7 6.55 163.24 7.00 6.55 163.24 gated

14 MF/Fall 461550 140.67 6 6.02 162.80 1.00 30.48 162.54 ungated

15 Fall 493890 150.53 6 5.90 159.95 9.00 3.43 159.86 ungated

16 Fall 513733 156.58 8 6.19 157.19 8.00 6.19 157.19 ungated


18 MF/Fall 542168 165.24 5 5.50 154.71 - - - ungated


20 Fall 585900 178.57 5 5.00 151.68 - - - ungated



23 Fall 652200 198781 4 4.20 144.20 - - - ungated

Reach 653700 199.24 - - 143.83 - - - -

24 Tail LBDC 660700 201.37 6 2.44 144.22 6.00 2.44 144.22 ungated

S.no. Name of structure RD (ft)Distance

along LBDC in km

Existing No. of Bays

Balloki canal Division (km 0 - km 33.48)

Okara Division (km 33.48 to km 69.32)

Sahiwal Division (km 69.32 to km 160.69)

Khanewal Division (km 160.69 to km 201.37)

Existing Bay

Width (m)

Existing Crest Level

Proposed No. of Bays

Propsoed Bay

Width (m)

Propsoed Crest Level

gated/ungate


68

4.2.6 Calibration of inline structure data

The data required for calibration of inline structure at km 33.22 (RD 109+000), km 69.35 (RD 227+454), km 78.83 (RD 258+654), km 107.89 (RD 354+000), km 165.19 (RD 542+000) were collected. The head discharge and rating tables are reproduced in Appendix -C.

The discharge hydrograph at km 33.22, km 69.32, km 165.19 during the period from 2006 to 2010-11 is shown in Figures 4.5 to 4.10. The analysis indicated that discharge is fed to LBDC based on the available supplies at head. The canal structures were operated to raise the water levels for feeding the offtakes. It also indicated that the year 2009-10 was drought year and supplies were less than the availability and could not fulfill the irrigation water requirement.

Figure 4.6: Discharge hydrograph at XR km 33.22 during the year 2006 -11(Rabi)

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Months

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

October November December FebruaryJanuary March


69

Figure 4.7: Discharge hydrograph at XR km 33.22 during the year 2006 -

11(Kharif)

Figure 4.8: Discharge hydrograph at XR km 69.32 during the year 2006 -11(Rabi)

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Months

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

April May June AugustJuly Septemnber

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250

Dis

char

ge (

m3/

s)

Months

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11



70

Figure 4.9: Discharge hydrograph at XR km 69.32 during the year 2006 -11(Kharif)

Figure 4.10: Discharge hydrograph at control point km 165.19 during the year 2006 -

11(Rabi)

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Months

2007 2008

2009 2010

2011

April May June AugustJuly September

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Months

2006-07 2007-08

2008-09 2009-10

2010-11



71

Figure 4.11: Discharge hydrograph at control point km 165.19 during the year 2006 -

11(Kharif)

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Months

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

April May June AugustJuly Septemnber


72

Figure 4.12: Line diagram of LBDC


73

4.2.7 Frequency analysis of LBDC

The frequency analysis of Main canal (LBDC) for the period April 2006 to September 2011 (5 years) was carried out for kharif and Rabi season as shown in Table 4-11 below. The frequency bar chart for main canal (LBDC) is shown in Figure 4.13. The frequency analysis indicated that the main canal was run less than 81-90% of range of discharge in 2006-07 and 71-80% of range of design discharge in 2010-11. The daily and yearly average delivery performance ratio at head of LBDC Main canal is shown in Figures 4.14 and 4.15. The average five (5) year DPR values for Kharif and Rabi at head of main canal have been compared with the threshold values as highlighted in section 4.1.7., was 0.73 and 0.45 respectively. However, these values at tail for the same period have been worked out as 0.82 and 0.64 respectively (Figure 4.16 and 4.17).

The maximum value in these five year at head of main canal was 0.80 in 2007-08 in kharif season while in Rabi for the same year was 0.39. This shows that canal performed good in kahrif season however; its performance was poor in Rabi season. In case of DPR value at Tail of main canal, the maximum value was o.86 in the year 2009-10, however, in Rabi season, the DPR value at tail is 0.71 in 2010-11. This shows that the tail of main canal perform good in both kharif as well as Rabi season. The DPR values are summarized in Table-4-12. This shows that the canal performed satisfactory in kharif season however, in Rabi season the canal performed below threshold values and found poor due to less supply available at head as well as at tail of LBDC. The reliability analysis indicates the main canal response is also poor.

Table 4-11: Frequency analysis of LBDC

Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi

>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 104 10 119 2 106 0 50 1 1 0

71 ‐ 80 29 24 37 26 39 2 81 0 106 10

61 ‐ 70 7 32 16 43 22 27 15 3 28 71

<60 43 115 11 112 16 152 37 178 48 100

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence Occurrence Occurrence Occurrence Occurrence

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Frequency Analysis of LBDC

% age

Rangeof

Discharge


74

Table 4-12: Delivery performance ratio at head and tail of LBDC

Figure 4.13: Frequency chart for LBDC

DPR Kharif DPR Rabi DPR Kharif DPR Rabi

2006‐07 0.73 0.45 0.85 0.64

2007‐08 0.80 0.47 0.85 0.70

2008‐09 0.77 0.39 0.86 0.59

2009‐10 0.70 0.40 0.88 0.54

2010‐11 0.65 0.52 0.68 0.71

avg 5 yr 0.73 0.45 0.82 0.64

Time

(years)

Head Tail


75

Figure 4.14: Daily delivery performance ratio LBDC at head

Figure 4.15: Average yearly delivery performance ratio LBDC at head

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

28‐May‐05 10‐Oct‐06 22‐Feb‐08 6‐Jul‐09 18‐Nov‐10 1‐Apr‐12

Delivery Perform

ance Ratio (DPR)

Time in Days

Daily DPR


76

Figure 4.16: Daily delivery performance ratio at tail of LBDC

Figure 4.17: Average yearly delivery performance ratio of LBDC at tail


77

4.2.8 Equity head to tail discharge

The head to tail equity in terms of discharge is also analyzed for data of five years as shown in Figure 4.18. The details are presented in section 4.1.7 (d). The analysis of head to tail discharge for the period from 2006-07 to 2010-11indicated that there exists inequity in canal water from head to tail of main canal. The equity in terms of head to tail discharge of main canal varies between 20% to 40% during the analyzed period with respect to design equity

Figure 4.18: Head to tail equity of LBDC

4.2.9 Equity in distribution

The equity in distribution along the main canal is shown in Figure 4.19.The graph shows a representation of ratio of measured discharge to design discharge at head in ordinate while along x-axis ratio of off take head regulator location in km to total length of main canal. The analysis indicated that LBDC main canal has inequity in canal water distribution along the main canal having wide spread trend of discharge.


78

Figure 4.19: Equity in canal water distribution along LBDC

4.2.10 Analysis of head discharge data at offtakes

The five year average delivery performance ratio of all offtakes discharge

from 2006-07 to 2010-11 is shown in Appendix -D. The average values of DPR for Kharif and Rabi period are shown in Figure 4.20. The average DPR in Kharif season is 0.67 which shows satisfactory indicator while in Rabi season average DPR is 0.38 which is quite less than the threshold value and shows poor performance in Rabi due to less supply into offtakes.

Frequency analyses of observed discharge (percent of design discharge) for the year 2009-10 are given in Appendix-D. The data shows that annual closure of all the off takes was for a period of seventy five days. The period was more the actual recommended period of one month.

The analysis of discharges of offtakes Division wise shows that in Balloki Division, the two offtakes draw more than 110 percent of design discharge for 2 days (one percent of operation time). In Okara Division, the 5 offtakes draw more than 110 percent of design discharge for 15 days (5 percent of operation time). In Sahiwal Division, the 4 offtakes abstract less than 60 percent of design discharge for 62 days (22 percent of operation time), whereas In Khenewal Division, the 5 offtakes draw less than 60 percent of design discharge respectively for 64 days ( 23 percent of operation time). The analysis indicates that 8 distributaries (Appendix-D) at full supply level for 52 days (19 percent of operation time), and 4 offtakes operated at 81-90 percent of design discharge for 62 days (22 percent of operation time).


79

Figure 4.20: Average delivery performance ratio at offtakes heads from 2006 to 2011

4.2.11 Distributary head regulators data

The design criteria for distributary head regulators consider the full supply operations as the target. The working heads are computed with reference to the full supply water levels. The position of cross regulators and the level of the downstream command area are two constraints on the working head, which compel the presence of higher working heads in the main canal. The crest levels of the head regulators are kept higher than the main canal bed level. The Hydraulic Parameters of off taking ditsy regulators are given in Table 4-13. A few characteristics of distributary head regulators are:

i. The head regulators are not designed as the proportionate dividers and the share of the discharge delivered are controlled by the gate operations.

ii. The square barrels or culverts are off takes structures. iii. The constraints of command area, a natural surface slope and design

assumption has resulted into high crest levels and the non-modular functioning of the head regulators.

Kharif DPR 0.67


80

Table 4-13: Hydraulic parameters of offtaking head regulators

Note: Blk = Balloki Divison, Okr = Okara Division, Shw. = Sahiwal Division, Khw =

Khenewal Division, L = Left, R = Right, NP = Non-Perennial

Dy No. Offtake Name RD km Canal Div side Qdisty No of bays bay width (m) crest lvl gate width (m) gate height (m) No of bays bay width (m) crest lvl

m3/sec existing existing existing existing existing proposed proposed proposed

1 Jaja Disty. (N.P.) 23000 7.01 Blk R 0.566 1 0.762 190.800 1 0.762 191.2502 Katarmal Minor (N.P.) 26800 8.17 Blk R 0.210 1 0.762 190.870 1 0.762 191.2503 Gurkay Minor (N.P.) 26810 8.17 Blk R 1.105 1 1.067 190.860 1 1.600 190.9504 Ghuman Kalan Minor (N.P.) 26815 8.17 Blk R 0.566 190.540 190.9505 Blair Feeding Channel Minor 45737 13.94 Blk L 0.425 190.300 190.9506 Aujla Disty (N.P.) 51375 15.66 Blk R 0.312 1 0.914 189.500 1 0.610 189.6507 Gugera Branch Canal 58818 17.93 Blk R 22.327 4 2.438 188.060 2.666 2.569 3 2.743 187.9008 Hallah Disty. 59100 18.01 Blk R 0.798 1 1.524 188.630 1 1.448 189.2709 L Plot Minor 91700 27.95 Blk R 0.227 186.970 189.270

10 K plot Minor 91715 27.95 Blk L 0.387 190.110 189.27011 Thatti Kalsan Disty 92218 28.11 Blk R 0.276 1 0.762 186.990 1.523 2.042 1 0.610 187.83012 1AL Feeder 108640 33.11 Blk L 7.052 186.490 3 1.981 187.15013 Khokar Disty 108754 33.15 Blk R 0.310 1 0.610 187.280 1 0.762 187.60014 1L Disty 108760 33.15 Blk L 2.301 187.600 2 1.905 187.52015 1 R Disty 132704 40.45 Okr R 2.322 1 2.438 184.270 1 2.133 185.54016 New Minor 136580 41.63 Okr R 0.081 184.320 185.54017 Ber Wali Dy 146454 44.64 Okr R 0.238 1 1.219 184.580 1 0.457 185.69018 1RA Disty 152454 46.47 Okr R 0.284 1 0.914 184.620 1 0.610 185.39019 2L Disty 153940 46.92 Okr L 3.982 2 2.286 185.190 2.514 1.316 2 2.286 184.40020 Plantation Minor 160704 48.98 Okr L 0.070 1 0.533 184.170 1 0.533 185.43021 1RB Disty 161204 49.13 Okr R 0.567 1 1.829 184.850 1 1.829 184.62022 Bijliwala Mr 187904 57.27 Okr R 0.216 183.500 184.62023 2R Disty 187954 57.29 Okr R 0.831 1 1.829 182.320 1 1.676 181.80024 2 R A Dy 195601 59.62 Okr R 1.189 182.100 2.271 1.018 181.80025 4L Disty 196454 59.88 Okr L 6.270 2 2.438 181.190 2 2.591 180.89026 3R Disty 226454 69.02 Okr R 2.010 181.200 180.89027 5L GAMBER Disty 257509 78.48 Shw L 6.106 3 1.980 175.640 3 1.980 175.64028 4R JHIL WALA Disty 258144 78.68 Shw R 3.367 2 2.130 176.100 2 2.130 176.55029 5R YOUSAF WALA Disty 285200 86.92 Shw R 0.493 1 3.050 173.770 1 1.220 174.72030 5AR Disty 314995 96.01 Shw R 0.348 172.290 1 1.090 172.36031 9L GANJI BAR Disty 322254 98.22 Shw L 20.178 6 2.440 170.560 2.666 3.063 6 2.440 170.76032 6R SAHIWAL Disty 328554 100.14 Shw R 1.841 2 1.830 171.370 2 1.830 171.67033 SP (MP) LINK (N.P) 353588 107.77 Shw L 0.000 4 2.440 166.660 4 2.440 166.66034 6CR Disty 363000 110.64 Shw R 0.204 1 0.230 167.400 1 0.230 167.48035 6BR Disty 366000 111.55 Shw R 0.331 1 0.300 167.130 1 0.300 167.25036 BAHAB Disty 387700 118.17 Shw R 2.928 1 2.440 165.890 2.667 2.094 1 2.440 166.34037 6AR Disty 387800 118.20 Shw R 0.235 1 1.520 166.050 1 1.520 166.87038 9AL Disty 387847 118.21 Shw L 0.379 1 1.830 165.500 2.057 2.484 1 1.520 166.87039 6DR Disty 402250 122.60 Shw R 0.215 1 0.220 166.180 1 0.220 165.80040 10L HARAPPA Disty 405705 123.65 Shw L 0.683 1 1.220 164.950 1 1.220 166.26041 11L DAD FATIANA Disty 428772 130.68 Shw L 5.050 4 2.440 164.730 2.667 1.765 4 2.440 164.73042 7R BAKARKE Disty 429705 130.97 Shw R 1.691 1 0.910 164.430 2.057 2.188 1 0.500 165.19043 7AR Disty 450050 137.17 Shw R 0.439 1 0.460 163.930 1 1.070 163.93044 12AL Disty (N.P) 450304 137.25 Shw L 0.977 1 1.830 163.060 2 0.744 162.93045 12L CHICHAWATNI Disty 450500 137.31 Shw L 16.301 5 2.440 162.820 5 2.440 162.93046 13L Disty 483500 147.36 Shw L 3.334 1 2.590 160.090 2.667 1.372 1 2.590 160.09047 7BR Disty 488000 148.74 Shw R 0.314 1 1.430 160.980 1 1.430 160.98048 7CR Disty 513243 156.43 Shw R 0.170 1 0.760 157.240 0.838 1.219 1 0.760 157.73049 13AL Disty (N.P) 513733 156.58 Shw L 0.170 1 0.760 157.240 0.838 1.219 1 0.760 157.65050 14 L Kassowal Dy 526965 160.61 Shw L 6.973 156.800 2.667 2.487 0.760 157.65051 14 AL Dy 527000 160.62 Shw L 0.127 156.500 0.760 157.65052 7DR Disty 527216 160.69 Shw R 0.568 156.240 0.568 1.295 0.760 157.65053 Kassowal Escape 527246 160.70 Khw R 0.000 155.800 2.667 1.448 0.760 157.65054 7ER Dy 540180 164.64 Khw R 0.733 155.800 0.760 157.65055 14 BL 1st Disty 542000 165.19 Khw L 0.085 155.400 0.760 157.65056 14 BL 2nd Disty 542015 165.20 Khw L 0.227 155.400 0.760 157.65057 Koranga Fazal Shah Feeder 570600 173.91 Khw R 13.760 1 4.570 152.770 4.570 1.067 1 4.570 142.77058 15 L Dulwan Dy 570700 173.94 Khw L 14.006 4 2.440 152.100 2.667 2.353 4 2.440 152.10059 15 AL Disty 570715 173.95 Khw L 0.766 1 1.780 153.380 2.057 1.070 1 1.780 153.38060 8 R Tulamba Dy 570800 173.97 Khw L 4.710 4 2.440 152.100 2.667 2.353 4 2.440 152.10061 8BR Disty 570815 173.98 Khw R 0.704 1 2.440 153.280 2.667 1.420 1 2.440 153.28062 16 L Disty 600595 183.05 Khw L 0.949 1 1.750 150.360 1.753 1.951 1 1.750 150.36063 8 AR Disty 600600 183.05 Khw R 1.600 2 1.830 149.800 2.667 1.874 2 1.830 149.80064 9R Disty 639700 194.97 Khw R 2.103 1 2.440 147.470 2.713 1.219 1 2.440 147.47065 16 AL Disty 652658 198.92 Khw L 0.089 144.540 0.457 1.448 2.440 144.54066 Forest Disty 653700 199.24 Khw R 8.609 144.100 2.440 144.54067 10 R J. Branch & Tail LBDC 660700 201.37 Khw TR 24.214 6 2.440 144.220 6 2.440 144.220


81

4.2.12 Offtakes structures

The details of structures of offtakes (distributaries head regulators) are shown in Table 4-13. The details about calibration of offtakes done by Project Monitoring and Implementation Unit (PMIU) were collected. The rating tables showing head discharge relationship are shown in Appendix C. First Class discharge observation were carried out by the Monitoring Teams PMIU and a series of observations were made over a wide range of 1/4, 1/2,3/4 and full supply with the greatest care to maintain the highest degree of accuracy. The value of K and n in the equation Q= K. Dn were determined by the method of least squares. Similarly to calibrate the structures, a series of observations were taken to obtain the values of n and C for the preparation of discharge tables.

4.2.13 Metrological data

The Lower Bari Doab Canal command area has dry winter season from November to February with day time temperature averaging about 180 C. However, during December and January the temperature may drop to 00C at night, therefore resulting in frost. May to August is warm and humid with average day time temperature of 350C, which may rise to maximum 440C in the month of June. The temperature starts decreasing from the month of September. Mean annual rainfall in command area varies from about 472 mm in the head area to 212 mm towards tail end area. About 75 percent of the total rainfall occurs within two distinct periods: February-April, and June-August. The winter rain is mainly due to depressions moving East across the region from the Middle East, while monsoon is in summer (June- July). (Multan Met Office, Met Department, GoP.2010)

4.2.14 Tube wells pumpage

The canal flow of 0.23 lps/ha (3.3 cfs/1000acres) at water course head, for a present cropping intensity of about 162.43% cannot meet peak demand, leading to complementary tube well irrigation. Total groundwater abstraction in the LBDC command based on the 2005 data was estimated as 3954 MCM (3.205 MAF) as shown in the Table 4.14. The reported number of tube wells in LBDC command in 1994-95 was about 20,000 in 2001 rising to 48,102 in 2005 (Basharat, 2011). In Pakistan tube-well owners (private sector) are active water seller to neighbors (World Bank Report, 2005).

The percent increase of tube wells within five years is significant. This indicates that surface water does not meet the crop water requirements and farmers in the command system use consumptive water of pump as well as surface. The abstraction of ground water by the farmers is more towards middle and tail end of main canal as compare to head portion indicating high demand of water at tail middle and tail end of command area of the system. The additional demand of water in kharif season was met about 46% in the year 2005 and was supplemented with surface water.


82

Table 4-14: Details of tube wells in the LBDC command Area (Basharat et al, 2011)

Div Avg. Q

(m3/ sec) used

No of Tube wells Average Operation Hours Groundwater pumping (MCM)

Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Annual

Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Fresh Saline

BLK 0.71 1,344 675 2,019 596 119 371 74 63.8 39.7 103.5

OKR 0.88 12,987 952 13,939 923 185 214 43 1091.1 252.0 1344.1

SAH 0.87 13,545 5,630 19,175 628 125 405 81 816.9 527.0 1343.8

KHW 0.91 10,570 2,399 12,969 709 142 425 85 726.7 435.7 1162.4

38,446 9,656 48,102 2,856 571 1,415 283 2698.5 1255.4 3953.8

4.2.15 Cropping pattern and intensity

Data regarding the type of crop grown, cropping pattern, and intensity were obtained from Provincial Irrigation Department (ID) which is shown in the Table 4-15. The table shows the annual cropping intensity for LBDC system is 162.43 with Kharif 77.78% while for Rabi 76.97%. In the study area, the main crops during the Kharif are cotton (43.2%), maize (8.22%), and fodders (16.57%), whereas wheat (71.3%), and fodders (16.74%) are the main crops in the Rabi season.

Due to demand of more water for irrigation in the study area, farmers use pumped groundwater for irrigation. The conjunctive use of pumped water with the canal surface water has caused the cropping intensity to increase from originally design value of 64% to 162.43%. This requires adopting more efficient methods to improve the system performance for better operation and management.


83

Table 4-15: Existing cropping pattern and intensities in LBDC

CCA = 703580 ha

Crops Cropped Area

(ha)

Intensity (% of Culturable

Command Area-CCA)

Kharif

Cotton 236,771 43.21Maize Autumn 45,056 8.22Rice 86,551 15.80Fodder (Kharif)-jowar/bajra 73,325 13.38Fodder (Kharif)-maize 17,480 3.19Vegetables (Kharif) 15,585 2.84Potato 23,172 4.23Other Kharif crops 49,984 9.12Total Kharif 547,924 100.00CI, % (Kharif) 77.88 Rabi Wheat 85,243 71.13Maize Spring 54,569 10.08Fodder (rabi) - alfalfa/clovers 90,642 16.74Other rabi crops 11,123 2.05Total rabi 541,577 100.00CI, % (rabi) 76.97 0.01 Perennial crops Sugarcane 35,373 66.38Orchards (mango, citrus, guava) 17,919 33.62Total Perennial 53,292 100.00CI, % (Perennial) 7.57 Total cropped area 1,142,793 Total Annual CI, % 162.43

(Source : LBDCIP, 2010)


84

4.3 ANALYSIS OF DATA OF OTHER IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Two canal systems, Upper Gugera Branch Canal (UGBC) and Central Bari Doab Canal (CBDC) are also considered for analysis.

The discharge flow data of Upper Gugera (UG) Branch canal and Central Bari Doab Canal (CBDC) was collected for the period Kharif 2012 and Rabi 2012-13 from Punjab Monitoring and Implementation Unit (PMIU) of Provincial Irrigation Department. The data was analyzed in term of Delivery Performance ratio and Equity.

Upper Gugera Branch Canal (UGBC)

The discharge flow data of Upper Gugera Branch is analyzed and is shown in Figures 4.21 and 4.22. The delivery performance ratio at tail of Upper Gugera Branch canal for Kharif 2012 and Rabi 2012-13 is found as 0.76 and 0.50 respectively. At head of Upper Gugera Branch canal, the Delivery Performance ratio is 0.67 and 0.45 for Kharif 2012 and Rabi 2012-13 respectively. This indicated that the DPR at Head and tail of UGBC is 0.56 and 0.63 respectively for the year 2012-13.

Central Bari Doab Canal (CBDC)

The discharge flow data of Central Bari Doab Canal (CBDC) is also analyzed and shown in Figures 4.23 and 4.24. The delivery performance ratio for Kharif 2012 and Rabi 2012-13 is found as 0.84 and 0.74 respectively. At head of CBDC, the Delivery Performance ratio is 0.74 and 0.66 for Kharif 2012 and Rabi 2012-13 respectively. This indicated that the DPR at Head and tail of CBDC is 0.70 and 0.79 respectively for the year 2012-13.


85

Figure 4.21: Delivery performance ratio at head of Upper Gugera Branch Canal

Figure 4.22: Delivery performance ratio at tail of Upper Gugera Branch Canal


86

Figure 4.23: Delivery performance ratio at head of CBDC

Figure 4.24: Delivery performance ratio at tail of CBDC

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

2/11

/201

2

4/1/

2012

5/21

/201

2

7/10

/201

2

8/29

/201

2

10/1

8/20

12

12/7

/201

2

1/26

/201

3

3/17

/201

3

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

(D

PR)

Time in Days

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2/11

/201

2

4/1/

2012

5/21

/201

2

7/10

/201

2

8/29

/201

2

10/1

8/20

12

12/7

/201

2

1/26

/201

3

3/17

/201

3

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

(D

PR)

Time in Days

CHAPTER 5

87

5 SIMULATION OF LOWER BARI DOAB CANAL

This chapter firstly covers the details about model set up. Secondly, the calibration of the model and validation procedures is presented. Thirdly, to check the model performance, the statistical approaches are described.

5.1 SIMULATION MODEL SET UP

For hydraulic model set up, main canal network layout, the canal cross sections, canal geometry, hydraulic structure parameters, upstream and downstream boundary conditions, Manning’s coefficient, canal losses and discharge data were given in the model as explained below. The following data were used for the calibration:

Canal profiles of main canal. Design and existing dimensions and sill levels of all regulating devices. Stage discharge measurement of all off takes Seepage losses Daily water levels and gate openings of offtakes and inline structures Water levels in the main canal Discharge measurements, gate opening, up and down stream water levels

5.1.1 LBDC system network layout in model

The schematic of LBDC system was prepared in the model as shown in Figure 5.1. The alignment of main canal was marked in the model and nodes have been defined at structures points all along the main canal. The topographical information, upstream and downstream connections, and cross sectional distance was required for channel network. There is elevation difference in canal bed of 47 m between the head and tail ends of the LBDC main canal.

5.1.2 Cross-sections data

The reach geometry is defined by the cross section profiles. The cross section data were available at discrete points along the canal system. A space interval of 76 m was used. Each point was input in terms of abscissa and its elevation. The sections were introduced from the left bank. The elevations were indicated with reference to the bench mark. At cross regulators and falls, the cross sections were defined upstream and

CHAPTER 5 SIMULATION OF LOWER BARI DOAB CANAL

88

Figure 5.1: Layout of LBDC system in SIC model

Source

DO2.89

DO3.29

DO5.39

DO6.24

HRJ7.1

DO7.21

HRK8.1

HRG8.1

HRGK8

BF8.28

DO12.1

HR15.6

HRGB17

HRH18

BF19.1

DO20.8

HRLP27

HRKP27

HRTK28

DO31.6

HRA33

HRKK33

BF33.2

HRD40

HRN41

HRB44

HRC46

HRK46

HRP48

HRR49

BF49.2

HRB57

HRS57

HRC59

HRO59

BF59.8

HRK69

BF69.3

HRG78

HRJ78

BF78.8

HRY86

BF87

HR5A96

HR9L98

HRS100

BF100

MP107

B107

DO107

D107

HMP107

BF107

H6C110

H6B111

DO114

HRB118

H6A118

H9A118

BF119

H6D122

HRH123

HRD130

HRB130

BF131

H7A137

HRD137

HRL137

BF137

BF140

DO144

HR147

H147

HR148

BF150

DO155

HR156

H156

BF156

DO160

ESK160

HR160

H160

BF160

DO164

HR164

H1B165

H2B165

BF165

DO173

D173

HR173

HL173

HRT173

HRB173

BF174

BF178

HR183

HA183

BF183

HR194

BF195

SML198

HR198HR199201


89

downstream. A singular section is section in which one or more hydraulic structures are defined. A reference elevation was defined for each cross section. All elevations were entered in absolute value in the geometry file.

5.1.3 Hydraulic and regulating structures

The LBDC system consists of 24 in line cross devices with head and tail regulators at start and end of canal. These cross devices were controlled according to the discharge at the particular location. The hydraulic parameters at these control points such as location, gate type, number and width of bays, sill level / crest level and type of structure were defined in the topographical / topological module of the model.

5.1.4 Initial and boundary conditions

The LBDC layout, the initial and boundary conditions were defined. The first node of the layout is the initial boundary condition and was given to the model in terms of discharge, while downstream boundary condition was at last node of the layout at the tail of main canal. The initial conditions were defined as discharges for the entire canal network which was taken as 5 m3/s. The downstream boundary was given to model in terms of discharge rating curve. The inflow hydrograph is defined at this point as shown in Figure 5.2. Downstream boundary condition “the depth- discharge relation” (rating curve) is shown in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.2: Inflow hydrograph at u/s boundary of model for calibration

180.00

185.00

190.00

195.00

200.00

205.00

8/20/2010

8/21/2010

8/22/2010

8/23/2010

8/24/2010

8/25/2010

8/26/2010

8/27/2010

Discharge

(m

3/s)

Time (days)


90

Figure 5.3: Rating curve at downstream boundary of model

5.1.5 Canal losses

The main canal losses are based on the following relation (MIP, 1964):

(Eq. 5.1)

Where K = canal seepage losses in cusecs per canal mile, Q is the reach discharge in cusecs, C = coefficient equal to 5.0 for Punjab canals and is expected to be same in future too. The exponent “n” has value equal to 0.50. In the model, the canal losses were converted into units of litre per second per kilometer.

The canal seepage losses vary from 50 l /s/km to 225 l/s/km based on the geometry of the main canal. Seepage losses increase rapidly with increase in discharge so a good estimate of these losses at all flow rates was required for calibration. There are direct outlets offtakes directly from main canal. The accumulated discharge of direct outlets is less than one m3/sec and is included in the seepage losses. The canal seepage loss for LBDC is shown in Table-5-1.

144.20

144.40

144.60

144.80

145.00

145.20

145.40

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Wat

er L

evel

s (m

asl)

Discharge in m3 /sec

nQCK .


91

Table 5-1: Canal losses in LBDC

Reach (km) Canal losses in from to l/s/km 0.00 8.28 202.78 8.28 19.11 201.06

19.11 33.21 191.10 33.21 49.30 185.85 49.30 60.03 181.34 60.03 69.32 176.70 69.32 78.83 175.12 78.83 87.06 170.35 87.06 100.29 169.12 100.29 103.89 156.02 103.89 107.77 155.38 107.77 114.59 141.25 114.59 119.31 140.28 119.31 131.21 138.25 131.21 137.31 132.44 137.31 140.67 121.99 140.67 150.53 121.54 150.53 156.58 118.44 156.58 160.69 117.90 160.69 165.24 113.10 165.24 174.09 112.02 174.09 178.57 80.91 178.57 183.24 80.17 183.24 195.12 76.96 195.12 199.24 73.65 199.24 201.37 63.72

5.2 CALIBRATION OF SIC MODEL

The calibration of the model entails an accurate assessment of the parameters in determining the flow dynamics. The accuracy of the prediction depends upon a large body of accurate field measurements and the boundary conditions. For LBDC, a reasonable amount of the reliable field data was available due to the continuous monitoring of the last five years by Project Monitoring and Implementation Unit of Irrigation Department. Additional information in terms of water levels, gate openings etc, was collected through field trips.

The Manning’s roughness coefficient for canal and coefficient of discharge of gated regulators were the parameters to be calibrated. The discharge at a structure was also considered control parameters for the operation of the gate in the structure. The time step was set as 20 min and distance step was fixed as 76 m based on the actual canal observed cross sections. The observed data of water levels, gate openings and out flows, for August 20-27, 2010 was used for calibration of the model. For steady


92

state, the model was calibrated with imposed discharges of the offtakes and the actual gate openings of the cross-regulators. The Manning’s coefficient for different reaches varies from 0.022 to 0.024 and are shown in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Manning roughness coefficient of main canal reaches

Main canal reaches (km) Manning

Roughness Value from to

0.00 19.11 0.022

19.11 137.31 0.023

137.31 156.58 0.0235

156.58 174.09 0.023

174.09 201.37 0.024

The steady state calibration of the hydraulic model compiles all canal reaches and structures for the actual conditions. The calibration of the model showed close agreement between observed and simulated water levels. Figure 5.4 shows the models results closely matching the actual inputs and assumptions.

As a whole, computed and actual water levels showed less than 9% difference and represented a good calibration of the hydraulic model. The results indicated that the computed water levels were within 20-35 cm range (3% -14% of water depth) than the observed water levels because actual bed levels are lower. The maximum difference were observed downstream of the controlled falls/bridges (where stop logs were used) and gated cross regulators. The calibration results showed no appreciable difference in water levels and no capacity problem existed as sufficient free board of 0.75 m to 1.25 m could absorb the normal fluctuations within a range of 20.8 percent.

The model was calibrated for the varied values of Manning’s roughness coefficient by comparing the observed and simulated discharges. The water levels (Figure 5.5) were computed for varied values of n, from 0.022 to 0.024 with base value of 0.023 to assess the impact of roughness change due to change in velocity and variable flows. The results showed maximum difference of 35 cm in water levels and this trend was observed declining towards tail. By changing “n” value by ±4%, it has been observed that there is no appreciable impact on water levels in canal.


93

Figure 5.4: Calibrated water surface levels along main canal

140

150

160

170

180

190

0 3 6 8

12

18

19

22

27

30

33

37

41

46

49

55

60

61

69

74

79

82

88

91

98

101

104

108

110

115

118

122

128

131

137

141

146

149

152

157

161

162

165

174

174

179

183

189

195

199


WSL‐Observed

WSL‐model

Bed Levels

Lev

els

(mas

l)


94

Figure 5.5: Variation of water levels due to varied values of Manning’s n values

5.3 MODEL VALIDATION

The calibration model was then validated for different irrigation periods (Kharif/Rabi) from 2006 to 2011. The inflow hydrographs are shown in Figures 5.6 to 5.11. Based on measured water levels, gate openings and out flows, the validation was done by taking data of six irrigation periods (May 10-17, 2006; August 24-31, 2007; November 8-15, 2008; October 07-14, 2009; February 20-27, 2010 & July 7-14, 2011). For six different irrigation periods, as a whole, computed and actual water levels showed less than 11% difference and showed good representation of validation. The best validated irrigation period was July 7-14, 2011. The difference between observed and validated water levels was within range of 5-8 cm and is shown in Figure 5.12. The results indicated that the computed water levels were within 17-32 cm range than the observed water levels. It was concluded that the model-computed water levels were in close agreement with the observed values for head, middle and tail reaches of the canal. The validated and the observed water levels for six irrigation periods at five locations km 8.28, km 33.22, km 69.35, km 165.19, km 201.37 along the main canal are shown in Appendix E.

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 8

19

33

49

60

69

79

87

100

103

104

115

119

131

137

151

157

161

165

174

179

195

195

199

201

"n" 0.023 to 0.024 "n" 0.023 to 0.022

Diff

eren

ce o

f wat

er le

vels

(cm

)



95

Figure 5.6: Inflow hydrograph during May 10-17, 2006

Figure 5.7: Inflow hydrograph during August 24-31, 2007

5/10

/200

6

5/11

/200

6

5/12

/200

6

5/13

/200

6

5/14

/200

6

5/15

/200

6

5/16

/200

6

5/17

/200

6

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Time (days)

230.00

235.00

240.00

245.00

250.00

255.00

260.00

8/24

/200

7

8/25

/200

7

8/26

/200

7

8/27

/200

7

8/28

/200

7

8/29

/200

7

8/30

/200

7

8/31

/200

7

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Time (days)


96

Figure 5.8: Inflow hydrograph during November 8-15, 2008

Figure 5.9: Inflow hydrograph during October 7-14, 2009

170.00

175.00

180.00

185.00

11/8

/200

8

11/9

/200

8

11/1

0/20

08

11/1

1/20

08

11/1

2/20

08

11/1

3/20

08

11/1

4/20

08

11/1

5/20

08

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Time (days)

90.00

95.00

100.00

105.00

110.00

115.00

120.00

125.00

130.00

10/7

/200

9

10/8

/200

9

10/9

/200

9

10/1

0/20

09

10/1

1/20

09

10/1

2/20

09

10/1

3/20

09

10/1

4/20

09

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Time (days)


97

Figure 5.10: Inflow hydrograph during February 20-27, 2010

Figure 5.11: Inflow hydrograph during July 7-14, 2011

110.00

115.00

120.00

125.00

130.00

135.00

140.00

145.00

2/20

/201

0

2/21

/201

0

2/22

/201

0

2/23

/201

0

2/24

/201

0

2/25

/201

0

2/26

/201

0

2/27

/201

0

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Time (days)

200.00

205.00

210.00

215.00

220.00

225.00

7/7/

2011

7/8/

2011

7/9/

2011

7/10

/201

1

7/11

/201

1

7/12

/201

1

7/13

/201

1

7/14

/201

1

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

s)

Time (days)


98

Figure 5.12: Validated and observed water levels during July 7-14, 2011

5.3.1 Statistical analysis

To evaluate the model performance statistically, three statistical approaches have been adopted. These are Coefficient of Efficiency -E (Nash-Sutcliff coefficient), coefficient of determination -R2 and the Student’s t- test. The theoretical background and possible range of limits is described below.

5.3.1.1 Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient

The Nash Sutcliffe coefficient (Nash et al, 1970: Graunwald et al, 1999), also called the coefficient of efficiency (E) is a way to measure the fit between the predicted (model) and observed (measured) values. The computation of E essentially is the sum of the deviations of the observations from a linear regression line with a slope of 1. Nash–Sutcliffe efficiencies can range from −∞ to 1. If the measured value is the same as all predictions, E is 1. An efficiency of 1 (E = 1) corresponds to a perfect match of modeled water levels to the observed water levels. If the E is between 0 to 1, it indicates deviations between measured and predicated values. If E is negative, predictions are very poor, and the average value of output is a better estimate than the model prediction. An efficiency of 0 (E = 0) indicates that the model predictions are as accurate as the mean of the observed data, whereas an efficiency less than zero (E < 0) occurs when the observed mean is a better predictor than the model or, in other words, when the residual variance (described by the numerator in the expression above), is larger than the data variance (described by the denominator).

The Nash Sutcliffe coefficient for the predicted and measured values is computed for main canal water levels as shown below.

187.00

187.50

188.00

7/7/

2011

7/8/

2011

7/9/

2011

7/10

/201

1

7/11

/201

1

7/12

/201

1

7/13

/201

1

7/14

/201

1

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)

WSL Observed (km 33.22)

WSL Validated (km 33.22)


99

(Eq. 5.2)

i = 1, 2, 3,……

Where, E = the coefficient of efficiency (Nash Sutcliffe coefficient)

WLm = Water level measured (observed),

WLp = Water level predicted (model), and

WLmea_avg = arithmetic average water level measured (observed)

5.3.1.2 Coefficient of determination

The coefficient of determination, denoted R2, is used in the context of model performance. R2 is most seen as a number between 0 and 1.0, used to describe how well a regression line fits a set of data. An R2 near 1.0 indicates that a regression line fits the data well, while an R2 closer to 0 indicates a regression line does not fit the data very well. The coefficient of determination of a linear regression model is the quotient of the variances of the fitted values and observed values of the dependent variable. If we denote yi as the observed values of the dependent variable, as its mean, and as the fitted value, then the coefficient of determination, r2 is:

(Eq. 5.3)

5.3.1.3 Student t- test

The Student t- test compares the difference between two means in relation to the variance in the data of water levels (expressed as the standard deviation of the difference between the means). Mathematically, it is expressed as;

(Eq. 5.4)

Where t = student t value, if calculated t value exceeds the tabulated t value, we say that means are significantly different at that level of probability.

= Variance of difference between the two means

, = Mean value

The above three statistical approaches were applied. A plot of simualted and measured water levels over a calibration period is shown in Figure 5.4. The statistical results between the measured and simulated water levels along the main canal for calibration period are shown in Figure 5.13. The values of the coefficient of

n

iavgmeam

n

i

n

ipmavgmeam

WLWL

WLWLWLWLE

1

2_

1 1

22_

)(

)()(

d

xxt

21

d

1x

2x

2

22

)(

)(

yy

yyR

i

i


100

determination R2 and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient were one in both cases. This shows that model perfomance is good. In addition to theses criteria, Student’s t-test was also applied to test the differecne of means of meausred and simualted water levels. The means of measured and simualted water levels were 0.092 and 0.102 witth statndard deviations of 0.082 ans 0.073 resepctively. The calcualted value of variable T is o.53, which is well within the table value, i., ±2.70, at 1% level of significance. Hence, there is no significant differecne between the means of measured and simualted data. This further concludes that the mdoel perfromance is reasonable accepatable.

Figure 5.13: Comparison of simulated and observed water levels for calibration

The statistical analysis was also carried out in terms of main canal flow rates at important control points along the LBDC main canal. These statistical methods were; deviation of flow volume (Dv ), Nash-Sutcliff coefficient (E). A student’s t- test was also applied to test the difference of the means of observed and simulated flows at control points. The following equations are used for statistical analysis.

For flow volume deviation (Dv), the following equation is used. The Dv, should be small for model to be acceptable (Dv equals zero for a perfect model). It is mathematically expressed as

(Eq. 5.5)

Where V = measured flow volume; and simulated flow volume

Simulated water levels‐ masl

Observed

water

levels ‐

masl

100(%)'

V

VVDV

'V


101

For Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient, the following equation is used.

(Eq. 5.6)

where Qo is observed discharge, and Qm is modeled discharge. Qot is observed

discharge at time. is the average observed discharge. The range values of E are same as indicated above.

Table-5-3 shows the statistical results between the measured and simulated flow rates along the main canal for calibration period. The values of the deviation of the flow volume were acceptable for all locations. The Nash Sutcliffe Coefficient values were, however, low for tail reaches. This is because of large fluctuations in daily observed discharges with respect to the mean flow observed discharges. The student’s t-value also indicates that the model results were acceptable at 1% level of significance for all locations.

Table-5-4 highlights the statistic comparison between the measured and simulated flow rates validation periods of six years (2006-2011). The results indicate that Dv values are satisfactory for all locations along the main canal. The Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient values were low, as in the calibration period. The Student’s t-values show that the validation results were acceptable at 1% level of significance for all the locations. The validation of the model for different irrigation periods of Kharif and Rabi between the years 2006 to 2011 showed that the hydraulic model performed well. After validation, the model was used to simulate steady state as well as unsteady state conditions.

Table 5-3: Statistical parameters at various locations for calibration period

Distance from system

source (km)

Statistical Parameters

Dv E t-value

8.28 0.09 0.73 1.13

33.22 0.05 0.51 1.09

69.35 0.12 0.24 1.65

165.19 0.10 0.19 1.35

201.37 0.06 0.26 0.45

2_

01

0

2

10

)(

)(1

QQ

QQE

T

t

t

tm

T

t

t

OQ


102

Table 5-4: Statistical parameters at various locations for validation periods

Year Statistical

Parameters

Locations along the main canal from system source

Km 8.28 Km 33.22 Km 69.35 Km165.19 Km 201.37

2006 Dv 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.05

E 0.69 0.88 0.45 0.93 0.34

t‐value 1.06 0.90 0.78 1.23 0.56

2007 Dv 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.16 0.06

E 0.44 0.36 0.66 0.52 0.33

t‐value 0.81 1.29 1.65 1.21 0.89

2008 Dv 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.09

E 0.55 0.87 0.34 0.44 0.68

t‐value 1.29 0.98 1.11 1.32 0.99

2009 Dv 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.12 0.16

E 0.43 0.67 0.31 0.78 0.45

t‐value 1.10 0.87 0.94 1.12 1.38

2010 Dv 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.09

E 0.25 0.45 0.66 0.67 0.65

t‐value 0.89 1.13 1.14 0.95 1.31

2011 Dv 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.05

E 0.55 0.56 0.89 0.45 0.32

t‐value 0.78 1.14 1.30 0.69 1.12

CHAPTER 6

103

6 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR OPTIMIZATION OF CANAL OPERATION

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter covers about the Decision Support Tool for optimization of operation of Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC). The results and discussions are presented about simulation and optimization of canal. To meet the objectives of the research study, the model is applied for LBDC under various inflows at head for optimization. The operational plan is tested and performance of main canal is checked for its equitable distribution of irrigation water using indicators; delivery performance ratio, reliability, equity and combined efficiency performance.

6.1 LBDC OPERATION WITH VARIOUS FLOW RATES

The LBDC Irrigation System was planned to allocate and utilize river supplies according to the demand of the planned cropping patterns in the area. The original main canal was designed for the peak water demand with the provision of cross regulators and gated distributary head regulators. The secondary and tertiary systems were designed without additional control structures. Based on ten daily water entitlements as per water apportionment accord 1991 and considering the shortages in the system, the water allocation varies from the lowest discharge value in Rabi season from 40% of design discharge to 100% in Kharif Season.

The LBDC has been simulated with a wide range operation at 100%, 80%, 60%, 50% & 40% of its design discharge. The water depths significantly changed if cross regulators were not operated. The operation of main canal depends upon the target schedule of operations and operational flexibility of the system. The hydraulic computations and water levels under two basic situations were computed and described herein.

a. LBDC without gate operations. b. LBDC with gate operations.

6.1.1 LBDCwithoutgateoperations

Under steady state hydraulic conditions, the water levels were computed for different flow range of discharge of the main canal. In this situation, the water was released from the source along the canal. The observed discharge data of LBDC for August 2007 was used. The off take discharge was abstracted from the main flow. For

CHAPTER 6 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR OPTIMIZATION OF OPEATION OF CANALRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

104

different flows ranging from 100%, 80%, 60%, 50% & 40% of design discharge; the water levels were computed are shown in Figure 6.1.

In this case, all cross regulators/falls were operated as weir structures. The gates were not operated and no afflux was allowed. The results show water levels for the full range of discharges. At 100% discharge, the simulated water levels and observed water levels were within the range of 3-11%. The simulated water levels indicated that 16 number offtakes in LBDC main canal could not be fed when discharge in the main canal would be below 80% design discharge.

The results of water surface levels at various discharges without gate operation at cross regulators in the main canal indicated that offtakes would be capable to draw the discharge between 100% to 60% design discharges. The results of simulated water surface levels (without gate operations) are shown in Table 6-1.

At 50% and 40% of design discharge, the simulated water surface levels were less than main canal offtakes crest levels and were unable to take off take discharge.

The analysis indicated that for 100% to 60% of design discharge, the range of depths varied from minimum about half meter to maximum 3.43 meters. This range of depth would be manageable for distribution of supplies through off-takes.

CHAPTER 6 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATION OF CANALRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

105

Figure 6.1: Computed water surface levels along LBDC (without gate operation)

140

150

160

170

180

190

0 3 7 9

16

19

22

28

33

34

41

47

49

57

61

69

75

79

85

91

98

103

106

108

114

118

123

131

137

141

146

151

153

161

161

165

174

175

183

189

195

199

WSL-act yr 2007

WSL-100% Qdesign

WSL-80%Qdesign

WSL-60%Qdesign

WSL-50%Qdesign

WSL-40%Qdesign

Bed Levels

Leve

ls (

mas

l)


CHAPTER 6 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATION OF CANAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

106

Table 6-1: Results of simulated water surface levels (without gate operations)

100% 80% 60% 50% 40%

1 191.615 190.815 190.115 189.865 189.065 High crested offtake






7 190.357 189.557 188.857 188.607 187.807

8 190.146 189.346 188.646 188.396 187.596

9 188.933 188.133 187.433 187.183 186.383

10 188.933 188.133 187.433 187.183 186.383

11 188.875 188.075 187.375 187.125 186.325

12 187.586 186.786 186.086 185.836 185.036

13 187.586 186.786 186.086 185.836 185.036


15 187.010 186.210 185.510 185.260 184.460

16 186.922 186.122 185.422 185.172 184.372

17 186.736 185.936 185.236 184.986 184.186

18 186.461 185.661 184.961 184.711 183.911

19 186.391 185.591 184.891 184.641 183.841

20 186.352 185.552 184.852 184.602 183.802

21 186.187 185.387 184.687 184.437 183.637


23 183.395 182.595 181.895 181.645 180.845

24 183.337 182.537 181.837 181.587 180.787

25 183.182 182.382 181.682 181.432 180.632

26 181.384 180.584 179.884 179.634 178.834

27 178.659 177.859 177.159 176.909 176.109

28 178.659 177.859 177.159 176.909 176.109

29 174.197 173.397 172.697 172.447 171.647

30 173.340 172.540 171.840 171.590 170.790

31 173.197 172.397 171.697 171.447 170.647

32 172.935 172.135 171.435 171.185 170.385

33 168.927 168.127 167.427 167.177 166.377

34 168.638 167.838 167.138 166.888 166.088

35 168.543 167.743 167.043 166.793 165.993

36 167.830 167.030 166.330 166.080 165.280

37 167.830 167.030 166.330 166.080 165.280

38 167.830 167.030 166.330 166.080 165.280

39 167.175 166.375 165.675 165.425 164.625

40 167.108 166.308 165.608 165.358 164.558

41 166.340 165.540 164.840 164.590 163.790

42 166.340 165.540 164.840 164.590 163.790


44 164.721 163.921 163.221 162.971 162.171

45 164.715 163.915 163.215 162.965 162.165

46 161.990 161.190 160.490 160.240 159.440

47 161.960 161.160 160.460 160.210 159.410

48 158.528 157.728 157.028 156.778 155.978

49 158.427 157.627 156.927 156.677 155.877

50 157.784 156.984 156.284 156.034 155.234

51 157.784 156.984 156.284 156.034 155.234

52 157.281 156.481 155.781 155.531 154.731

53 157.281 156.481 155.781 155.531 154.731

54 157.001 156.201 155.501 155.251 154.451

55 156.937 156.137 155.437 155.187 154.387

56 156.876 156.076 155.376 155.126 154.326

57 154.322 153.522 152.822 152.572 151.772

58 154.304 153.504 152.804 152.554 151.754

59 154.301 153.501 152.801 152.551 151.751

60 154.297 153.497 152.797 152.547 151.747

61 154.297 153.497 152.797 152.547 151.747

62 151.963 151.163 150.463 150.213 149.413

63 148.598 147.798 147.098 146.848 146.048

64 147.425 146.625 145.925 145.675 144.875

65 145.742 144.942 144.790 143.992 143.192

66 145.450 144.700 144.610 143.700 142.900

67 145.215 144.640 144.490 143.465 142.665

Simulated water levels at various dischagresRemarksDy No.


107

6.1.2 LBDCwithgateoperations

The water levels and gate operations were computed for distribution of conveyance and delivery at the selected flow rates. This scenario provides base line set of information by computing backwater and gate openings while maintaining the required water levels in the LBDC. Based on historical discharge supplies to LBDC through head regulator at Balloki, the water levels at 100%, 80%, 60%, 50%, and 40% of the design discharges were computed and are shown in Figure 6.2. The minimum afflux was attained for the range of flow rates to feed the off-takes in the canal reaches. These optimal operating conditions represent ideal operations of the main canal which could be adopted if a variable distribution of water could be managed at the secondary levels.

At 100% design discharge at head of LBDC, all the off-takes can draw their design discharge except high crested off-takes (Dy. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 22 & 43, Table 6-1) without any operation of the gates of cross regulators. The cross regulators were operated to feed off-takes with higher than actual water levels. At 60% and 80% of design discharge at head of LBDC, the cross regulators need to be operated to feed some of the offtakes (25% of offtakes) in all the four canal irrigation divisions as shown in Table 6-2. The range of ponding varied from was 0.3m to 0.62m. The 16 number offtakes (Dy no. 12, 13, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 34, 39, 47, 50, 51, 54, 59 & 61 (Table 6-2) were needed to be fed to their design discharges.

At 50% of the design discharge at head of LBDC, the substantial ponding was required to feed the offtakes and can draw their due share of supply with the operations of cross regulators gates. The range of ponding varied from 0.3 m to 1.2 m. (Table 6-3). At 40% of design discharge at head of LBDC, the water levels upstream of cross regulators were not at the full supply levels. To feed distributaries at 40% proportionate deliveries, water levels upstream of cross regulators would be raised to the 100% level. At head supply less than 50% of the design discharge, some of the cross regulators have to maintain a working head for the farthest distributary immediately downstream of the upstream cross regulators.

The canal is simulated with target water levels at cross regulators to minimize the water depth fluctuations in the main canal and to maintain suitable supply (80% -100% of Qd) to the offtakes. The offtakes are situated upstream of falls/cross regulators for optimal utilization of reach storage. An offtake draws water from the maximum pool without affecting the water depth and operation of the other distributaries. The constant depth or fixed level operation is a control method for the operation of the supply based and the upstream control system. The 10 daily water allocations to LBDC are based on actual requirements of the command area i.e, crop based while the canal operations are supply based. (LBDCIP. 2010).


108

Figure 6.2: Computed water surface levels along LBDC (with gate operation)

140

150

160

170

180

1900 3 6 8 12 18 19 22 27 30 33 37 41 46 49 55 60 61 69 74 79 82 88 91 98 101

104

108

110

115

118

122

128

131

137

141

146

149

152

157

161

162

165

174

174

179

183

189

195

199

WSL- act yr 2007

WSL-100% Qdesign

WSL-80% Qdesign

WSL-60% Qdesign

WSL-50% Qdesign

WSL-40% Qdesign

Bed levels

Lev

els

(mas

l)

Distance (km) from LBDC Head


109

Table 6-2: Simulated water levels at 80% and 60% with gated operations

80% 60%

col.(1) col.(2) col.(3) col.(4) col.(5) col.(6)

1 7.01 190.935 190.205 High crested offtake




8.22 MF/FALL



7 17.93 189.677 188.947

8 18.01 189.466 188.736

19.14 Cross regulator

9 27.95 188.253 187.523

10 27.95 188.253 187.523

11 28.11 188.195 187.465

12 33.11 186.906 186.176 Ponding = 0.3 m

13 33.15 186.906 186.176 Ponding = 0.3 m


33.22 Cross regulator 0.000 0.000

15 40.45 186.330 185.600

16 41.63 186.242 185.512

17 44.64 186.056 185.326

18 46.47 185.781 185.051

19 46.92 185.711 184.981 Ponding = 0.3 m

20 48.98 185.672 184.942 Ponding = 0.3 m

21 49.13 185.507 184.777 Ponding = 0.3 m

49.30 Fall 0.000 0.000


23 57.29 182.715 181.985

24 59.62 182.657 181.927 Ponding = 0.3 m

25 59.88 182.502 181.772

60.02 fall 0.000 0.000

26 69.02 180.704 179.974 Ponding = 0.3 m

69.30 fall 0.000 0.000

27 78.48 177.979 177.249

28 78.68 177.979 177.249

78.83 fall 0.000 0.000

29 86.92 173.517 172.787 Ponding = 0.62 m

86.95 fall 0.000 0.000

30 96.01 172.660 171.930

31 98.22 172.517 171.787

32 100.14 172.255 171.525

100.29 fall 0.000 0.000

33 107.77 168.247 167.517

34 110.64 167.958 167.228 Ponding = 0.32 m

35 111.55 167.863 167.133

36 118.17 167.150 166.420

37 118.20 167.150 166.420

38 118.21 167.150 166.420

119.30 Fall 0.000 0.000

39 122.60 166.495 165.765 Ponding = 0.32 m

40 123.65 166.428 165.698

41 130.68 165.660 164.930

42 130.97 165.660 164.930



44 137.25 164.041 163.311

45 137.31 164.035 163.305


46 147.36 161.310 160.580

47 148.74 161.280 160.550 Ponding = 0.32 m

150.53 fall 0.000 0.000

48 156.43 157.848 157.118

49 156.58 157.747 157.017

156.59 fall 0.000 0.000

50 160.61 157.104 156.374 Ponding = 0.62 m

51 160.62 157.104 156.374 Ponding = 0.62 m

52 160.69 156.601 155.871

53 160.70 156.601 155.871


54 164.64 156.321 155.591 Ponding = 0.32 m

55 165.19 156.257 155.527

56 165.20 156.196 155.466

165.24 fall

57 173.91 153.642 152.912

58 173.94 153.624 152.894

59 173.95 153.621 152.891 Ponding = 0.62 m

60 173.97 153.617 152.887

61 173.98 153.617 152.887 Ponding = 0.62 m

174.09 fall

62 183.05 151.283 150.553

63 183.05 147.918 147.188

183.27 fall

64 194.97 146.745 146.015

65 198.92 145.062 144.550

66 199.24 144.770 144.400

67 201.37 10 R J. Branch & Tail L 144.535 144.350

Simulated water levels at RemarksType of structureskmDy No.


110

Table 6-3: Simulated water levels at 50% showing ponding (m)

1 7.01 0.57 189.865 191.150 1.285

2 8.17 0.21 189.771 191.010 1.239

3 8.17 1.10 189.771 191.060 1.289

4 8.17 0.57 189.771 190.740 0.969

8.22 MF/FALL

5 13.94 0.42 188.914 190.750 1.836

6 15.66 0.31 188.646 189.950 1.304

7 17.93 22.33 188.607 189.400 0.793


8 18.01 0.80 188.396 189.080 0.684

9 27.95 0.23 187.183 187.420 0.237

10 27.95 0.39 187.183 189.000 1.817

11 28.11 0.28 187.125 187.440 0.315

12 33.11 7.05 185.836 186.940 1.104

13 33.15 0.31 185.836 187.000 1.164

14 33.15 2.30 185.836 187.000 1.164


15 40.45 2.32 185.260 186.000 0.740

16 41.63 0.08 185.172 186.000 0.828

17 44.64 0.24 184.986 185.030 0.044

18 46.47 0.28 184.711 185.070 0.359

19 46.92 3.98 184.641 185.640 0.999

20 48.98 0.07 184.602 184.620 0.018

21 49.13 0.57 184.437 185.300 0.863

0 49.30 Fall

22 57.27 0.22 181.670 182.000 0.330

23 57.29 0.83 181.645 182.770 1.125

24 59.62 1.19 181.587 182.550 0.963

25 59.88 6.27 181.432 181.640 0.208

60.02 fall

26 69.02 2.01 179.634 180.000 0.366

69.30 fall

27 78.48 6.11 176.909 177.000 0.091

28 78.68 3.37 176.909 177.000 0.091

78.83 fall

29 86.92 0.49 172.447 173.000 0.553

86.95 fall

30 96.01 0.35 171.590 172.740 1.150

31 98.22 20.18 171.447 172.000 0.553

32 100.14 1.84 171.185 171.820 0.635

100.29 fall

33 107.77 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000

34 110.64 0.20 166.888 167.850 0.962

35 111.55 0.33 166.793 167.580 0.787

36 118.17 2.93 166.080 166.340 0.260

37 118.20 0.24 166.080 166.500 0.420

38 118.21 0.38 166.080 167.000 0.920

119.30 Fall

39 122.60 0.22 165.425 166.500 1.075

40 123.65 0.68 165.358 165.400 0.042

41 130.68 5.05 164.590 165.180 0.590

42 130.97 1.69 164.590 164.880 0.290


43 137.17 0.44 162.980 164.380 1.400

44 137.25 0.98 162.971 163.510 0.539

45 137.31 16.30 162.965 163.270 0.305


46 147.36 3.33 160.240 160.540 0.300

47 148.74 0.31 160.210 161.430 1.220

150.53 fall

48 156.43 0.17 156.778 157.690 0.912

49 156.58 0.17 156.677 157.690 1.013

156.59 fall

50 160.61 6.97 156.034 157.250 1.216

51 160.62 0.13 156.034 156.950 0.916

52 160.69 0.57 155.531 156.690 1.159

53 160.70 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000


54 164.64 0.73 155.251 156.250 0.999

55 165.19 0.08 155.187 155.850 0.663

56 165.20 0.23 155.126 155.850 0.724

165.24 fall

57 173.91 13.76 152.572 153.220 0.648

58 173.94 14.01 152.554 152.800 0.246

59 173.95 0.77 152.551 153.830 1.279

60 173.97 4.71 152.547 152.650 0.103

61 173.98 0.70 152.547 153.730 1.183

174.09 fall

62 183.05 0.95 150.213 150.810

63 183.05 1.60 146.848 150.250

183.27 fall

64 194.97 2.10 145.675 147.920

65 198.92 0.09 143.992 144.990

66 199.24 8.61 143.700 144.550

67 201.37 24.21 143.465 144.450

Dy No.

Simulated water

level 50% of

Qdesign

Water levels

required at head of

offtakes

Ponding (m)

required

Qdesign of

offtake

(m3/s)

km


111

6.2 PERFORMANCE OF INLINE STRUCTURES

The delivery capacity of the main canal means their ability to deliver the variable flows to the secondary system. This is different from the conveyance capacity which is the potential of the canal to pass the required discharge through the canal reaches. The performance of the structures is checked for different flow rates i.e., 40%, 50%, 60%, 80% and 100% of main canal design discharge at head.

The steady state results of the off takes discharges are shown in Table 6-4. It shows the water depths with reference to the crests in the main canal at different flow rates. The upstream water depth with reference to the crest for all the distributary head regulators is computed. The downstream full supply depth is taken from design data/ drawings. A negative depth with reference to the crests indicates that the water levels are lower than the crest levels of the regulator. The symbols used in the Table 6-4 are shown in Figure 6.3. Ha is the upstream water depth with respect to crest of offtaking channel in m and Hb is the downstream water depth with respect to crest. Ho is the working head in m (the difference between main canal water level minus water level at head of offtaking channel in the distributary).

Figure 6.3: Main canal offtaking head regulator crest parameters

Ha Hb Flow

C

Gate

Ho = Working head


112

Table 6-4: Water depths, working heads and water drawing capacity of the head

regulators of offtaking channels

100% 80% 60% 50% 40%

col.(1) col.(2) col.(3) col.(4) col.(5) col.(6) col.(7) col.(8) col.(9) col.(10) col.(11) col.(12) col.(13) col.(14) col.(15)

Balloki Division (0 - 33 km)

Source LBDC HR 0.00

1 Jaja Disty. (N.P.) 7.10 0.566 0.170 0.52 0.45 -0.39 -0.30 -0.08 0.326 0.580 224.000 278.703 80%2 Katarmal Minor (N.P.) 8.17 0.210 0.370 0.65 0.56 -0.49 -0.38 -0.10 0.200 0.220 224.000 278.703 80%3 Guruke Minor (N.P.) 8.17 1.105 0.130 0.66 0.58 -0.50 -0.39 -0.10 0.390 1.150 224.000 278.703 80%4 Ghuman Kalan Minor (N.P.) 8.17 0.566 0.400 0.57 0.50 -0.44 -0.33 -0.09 0.100 0.590 224.000 278.703 80%5 Blair Fleeding Channel Minor 13.94 0.425 0.200 0.50 0.40 0.34 0.23 0.10 0.240 0.430 220.000 274.703 80%6 Aujla Disty (N.P.) 15.66 0.312 0.500 0.86 0.75 -0.65 -0.50 -0.13 0.200 0.320 220.000 274.087 80%7 Gugera Branch Canal 17.86 22.327 0.480 2.15 1.87 1.63 1.24 0.32 1.097 23.540 165.000 274.090 60%8 Halla Disty. 18.01 0.798 0.170 1.52 1.32 1.16 0.88 0.23 1.125 0.850 220.000 274.087 80%

Cross regulator 19.119 L plot minor 27.95 0.227 LC

10 K plot Minor 27.95 0.387 LC11 Thatti Kalsan Disty 28.10 0.276 1.010 1.90 1.65 1.44 1.10 0.29 0.366 0.310 149.000 247.409 60%12 1AL Feeder 33.11 7.052 0.280 2.20 1.91 1.67 1.28 -0.30 1.676 7.250 197.933 247.409 80%13 Khokar Disty 33.15 0.310 0.200 0.99 0.86 0.75 0.57 -0.17 0.640 0.320 197.933 247.409 80%14 1L Hussainabad Disty 33.10 2.301 0.270 0.95 0.83 0.72 0.55 -0.18 0.520 2.320 197.930 247.409 80%

Cross regulator 33.21Okara Division (33 - 69)

15 1R Dhuliani Disty 40.45 2.301 0.220 2.67 2.32 2.03 1.55 0.40 2.066 2.510 189.493 236.873 80%16 New minor 41.60 0.081 0.100 2.73 2.37 2.07 1.58 0.41 2.000 0.084 189.493 236.873 80%17 Berwali Minor 44.64 0.238 0.250 1.97 1.72 1.50 1.14 0.30 1.200 0.250 142.493 236.873 60%18 1RA Chamanwali Disty 46.47 0.284 0.340 1.77 1.54 1.34 1.03 0.27 0.994 0.300 189.493 236.873 80%19 2L Kalasan Disty 46.92 3.982 0.300 1.16 1.01 0.77 0.55 0.17 0.420 3.990 142.113 236.873 60%20 Plantation Minor 48.98 0.070 0.400 2.00 1.74 1.52 1.16 0.30 1.300 0.080 189.493 236.873 80%21 1RB Renala Disty 49.13 0.567 0.320 1.29 1.12 0.80 0.75 0.19 0.420 0.590 142.113 236.873 60%

Cross regulator 49.3022 Bijliwala Disty 57.27 0.216 LC23 2R Suchanawala Disty 57.29 0.831 0.400 1.02 0.89 0.78 0.59 -0.15 0.300 0.840 134.000 222.798 60%24 2RA Coleyana Disty 59.62 1.189 0.200 1.06 0.92 0.81 0.62 -0.16 0.300 1.200 134.000 222.798 60%25 4L Okara Disty 59.88 6.270 0.210 1.25 1.09 0.95 0.73 -0.29 0.722 6.310 134.000 222.798 60%

Cross regulator 59.8826 3R Kala Sing Disty 69.02 2.010 0.310 1.15 1.00 0.87 0.67 -0.23 0.550 2.100 134.000 222.798 60%

Cross regulator 69.32Sahiwal Division (69 - 160)

27 5L GAMBER Disty 78.48 6.106 0.320 2.20 1.91 1.67 1.28 0.33 1.618 6.450 167.000 207.703 80%28 4R JHIL WALA Disty 78.68 3.367 0.750 2.54 2.21 1.93 1.47 0.38 1.079 3.410 124.611 207.703 60%

Cross regulator 78.8329 5R YOUSAF WALA Disty 86.92 0.493 0.280 1.77 1.54 1.35 1.03 0.27 1.033 0.500 118.000 195.978 60%

Cross regulator 86.95

30 5AR Disty 96.01 0.348 0.150 1.10 0.96 0.84 0.64 -0.20 0.786 0.360 155.000 193.543 80%31 9L GANJI BAR Disty 98.22 20.178 0.120 1.80 1.57 1.37 1.04 -0.39 1.417 21.010 155.000 193.543 80%32 6R SAHIWAL Disty 100.14 1.841 0.200 1.45 1.26 1.10 0.84 -0.24 1.036 1.860 155.000 193.543 80%33 SP (MP) LINK (N.P) 107.77


34 6CR Disty 110.73 0.204 0.320 1.00 0.87 0.76 0.58 -0.22 0.400 0.220 81.110 135.174 60%35 6BR Disty 111.55 0.331 0.370 0.90 0.78 0.68 0.52 -0.21 0.201 0.340 81.110 135.174 60%

Max. Discharge in LBDC

(m3/s)

Min. Discharge Required in LBDC

for Operation of Disty

(m3/s)

Discharge in percent

required in LBDC for

Operation of Disty

km

Downstream water

depth w.r.t. crest in m (

Hb)

Max. Discharge

(m3/s)Dy. No. Name of structure

Simulated Upstream Water Depth with respect to Crest (Ha) in m

(Ho)Working Head in

m

Qdesign

(m3/s)


113

Table 6-4: Water depths, working heads and water drawing capacity of the head

regulators of offtaking channels (contd.)

100% 80% 60% 50% 40%col.(1) col.(2) col.(3) col.(4) col.(5) col.(6) col.(7) col.(8) col.(9) col.(10) col.(11) col.(12) col.(13) col.(14) col.(15)

36 BAHAB Disty 118.17 2.928 0.700 1.94 1.69 1.47 1.12 0.29 0.969 2.945 108.000 134.183 80%37 6AR Disty 118.20 0.235 0.300 1.78 1.55 1.36 1.03 0.27 1.259 0.240 108.000 134.183 80%38 9AL Disty 118.21 0.379 0.300 2.33 2.03 1.77 1.35 0.35 1.734 0.400 108.000 134.183 80%

Cross regulator 119.3139 6DR Disty 122.60 0.215 0.350 0.93 0.81 0.70 0.54 0.14 0.319 0.230 77.797 129.765 60%40 10L HARAPPA Disty 123.65 0.683 0.160 2.06 1.91 1.57 1.20 0.31 1.746 0.700 104.000 129.765 80%41 11L DAD FATIANA Disty 130.68 5.050 0.190 1.61 1.40 1.22 0.93 0.24 1.200 5.600 104.000 129.765 80%42 7R BAKARKE Disty 130.97 1.691 0.270 1.88 1.80 1.43 1.09 0.28 1.585 1.700 104.000 129.765 80%


43 7AR Disty 137.15 0.439 0.410 1.83 1.59 1.21 1.06 0.27 1.200 0.450 95.000 119.400 80%44 12AL Disty (N.P) 137.31 0.977 0.420 1.65 1.44 1.05 0.96 0.25 1.000 1.000 95.000 119.400 80%45 12L CHICHAWATNI Disty 137.25 16.301 0.400 1.90 1.65 1.20 1.10 0.28 1.244 16.800 95.000 119.400 80%

Cross regulator 137.3146 13L Disty 147.36 3.334 0.250 2.00 1.74 1.52 1.16 0.30 1.512 3.400 81.000 101.076 80%47 7BR Disty 148.74 0.314 0.500 0.70 0.61 0.53 0.41 0.11 0.016 0.330 61.000 101.076 60%

Cross regulator 150.5348 7CR Disty 156.43 0.170 0.200 1.20 1.04 0.91 0.70 -0.18 0.841 0.190 77.428 96.205 80%49 13AL Disty (N.P) 156.51 0.170 0.210 1.18 1.02 0.89 0.68 -0.18 0.802 0.185 77.428 96.205 80%

Cross regulator 156.5850 14 L Kassowal Dy 160.69 6.973 0.190 0.58 0.51 0.44 0.34 -0.09 0.320 7.000 77.428 96.205 80%51 14 AL Dy 160.62 0.12752 7DR Disty 160.69 0.568 0.270 0.78 0.68 0.59 0.45 -0.12 0.400 0.600 77.428 96.205 80%53 Kassowal Escape 160.70

Cross regulator 160.70Khanewal Division (160 - 201km)

54 7ER Dy 164.58 0.733 0.580 1.94 1.69 1.30 1.12 0.29 1.000 0.750 77.000 96.205 80%55 14 BL 1st Disty 165.19 0.085 0.200 0.75 0.65 0.57 0.44 0.11 0.450 0.089 77.000 96.205 80%56 14 BL 2nd Disty 165.20 0.227 0.200 0.80 0.70 0.61 0.46 0.12 0.500 0.230 77.000 96.200 80%


57 Koranga Fazal Shah Feeder 173.91 13.760 1.100 1.53 1.33 1.17 0.89 0.23 0.030 13.800 37.500 62.305 60%58 15 L Dulwan Dy 173.94 14.006 0.150 2.20 1.91 1.67 1.27 -0.33 1.835 14.200 50.000 62.305 80%59 15 AL Disty 173.94 0.766 0.320 0.91 0.80 0.69 0.53 -0.14 0.500 0.800 48.000 60.000 80%60 8 R Tulamba Dy 173.94 4.710 0.200 1.01 0.88 0.77 0.59 -0.15 0.560 4.800 50.000 62.305 80%61 8BR Disty 173.97 0.704 0.200 1.02 0.89 0.78 0.59 -0.15 0.600 0.740 48.000 60.000 80%

Cross regulator 174.0962 16 L Disty 183.05 0.949 0.380 1.60 1.39 1.22 0.93 -0.24 0.814 0.980 29.000 48.120 60%63 8 AR Disty 183.05 1.600 0.850 2.16 1.88 1.64 1.25 -0.32 0.680 1.700 29.000 48.120 60%


64 9R Disty 194.97 2.103 0.270 0.50 0.44 0.38 0.29 -0.08 0.100 2.250 25.500 42.481 60%Cross regulator 195.12

65 16 AL Disty 198.92 0.089 0.270 0.97 0.84 0.73 0.56 -0.14 0.459 0.100 19.500 32.342 60%66 Forest Disty 199.24 8.609 0.210 0.49 0.423 0.369 0.282 0.0729 0.200 8.710 19.500 32.342 60%67 10 R Jahanian Disty/tail regulator 201.37 24.214 0.600 1.68 1.463 1.278 0.975 0.2523 0.600 24.250 17.800 29.538 60%

Min. Discharge Required in LBDC

for Operation of Disty

(m3/s)

Max. Discharge in LBDC

(m3/s)

Discharge in percent

required in LBDC for

Operation of Disty

Qdesign

(m3/s)

(Ho)Working Head in

m

Max. Discharge

(m3/s)Dy. No. Name of structure km

Simulated Upstream Water Depth with respect to Crest (Ha) in m Downstrea

m water depth w.r.t. crest in m (

Hb)


114

Offtakes in Balloki Canal Division

Two cross regulators at km 19.2 and km 33.20 are used for maintaining the water levels in the main canal to feed off takes in Balloki Canal Division. The range of head Ha (Ha is the u/s water head over crest) varies from 0.13 m for Dy no. 6 offtaking from km 15.66 to 0.5 m for Dy.no. 4. The simulated results indicated that the minimum discharge required in the main canal for operation of offtakes is 80%.

Offtakes in Okara Canal Division

Three cross regulators at km 49.30, km 59.88 and km 69.32 are used for maintaining the water levels in the main canal to feed off takes in Okara Canal Division. The range of head Ha varies from 0.10 m for offtake no. 19 (2L Kalsan Dy.) offtaking from km 46.92 to 0.4 m for offtake no. 15 (1R Duliani Dy.) The simulated results indicated that the minimum discharge required in the main canal varied from 60% to 80 % for operation of offtakes in Okara Division.

Offtakes in Sahiwal Canal Division

Following eight locations of cross regulators in the main canal as given in Table 6-5 are used for raising of water level during low supply to feed offtaking channels. The range of head Ha varies from 0.12 m for Dy no 31 offtaking from km 98.22 to 0.70 m for Dy no. 36. The simulated results indicated that the minimum discharge required in the main canal varied from 60% to 80% for operation of offtakes in Sahiwal Division. The locations of control points in Sahiwal Canal Division are given in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5: Locations of control points in Sahiwal canal division

Sr. No.



Gate operations required to raise water levels to feed off takes

Off taking Disty Number

(Dy No.)

1 78.83 260+500 5L Gamber Dy, 4L Jhilwala Dy 27, 28 2 86.95 330+800 5R Yousufwala dy 29

3 100.29 355+388 5AR, 9L Gangibar Dy, 6R Sahiwal Dy

30,31,32

4 119.30 393+254 6CR, 6BR, Bahab dy, 6ARR, 9AL Dy

34,35,36, 37, 38

5 131.20 432+305 6DR, 10L, 11L, 7R Dy 39, 40, 41, 42

6 137.50 450+500 7AR, 12AL, 12L 43, 44, 45 7 150.53 495+690 13L, 7BR 46, 47 8 160.70 528+850 14L, 14AL, 7DR,


115

Offtakes in Khenewal Canal Division

In Khenewal division, the range of head Ha varies from 0.20 m for Dy no. 55 offtaking at km 165.19 to 1.10 m for Dy no. 57 offtaking at km 173.91. The simulated results indicated that the minimum discharge required in the main canal varied from 60% to 80 % for operation of offtakes in Khenewal canal Division. Following four locations of cross regulators in the main canal are used for raising of water level during low supply to feed offtaking channels. The location of control points in Khenewal Canal Division are given in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6: Location of control points in Khenewal canal division

Sr. No.



Gate operations required to raise water levels to feed off takes

Off taking Disty

Number (Dy No.)

1 165.24 260+500 7ER, 14BL(1), 14BL(2) 54,55,56 2 174.09 330+800 15L,15AL,8R,8BR 58,59,60,61 3 183.24 355+388 16L,8AR 62,63 4 195.12 393+254 9R,16AL 64

When discharge in the main canal is below 60%, the head regulators of offtaking channels (Dy no. 29, 38, 39, 43, 47 &52) in Sahiwal canal division and head regulators of offtaking channels (Dy no. 19, 22, 23, 24, & 26 ) in Okara Division and offtaking channels (Dy no. 63 & 64) in Khenewal Division could not draw their supplies because of higher crests of structures.

6.2.1 Computation of water depth at various flows

The canal reach depth in different reaches along the main canal have been worked out using simulated results as shown in Figure 6.4. The volume of the reach storage in a reach depends upon:

Distance of the farthest upstream offtake in a reach from the regulator. Maximum incremental working head required by any offtake of the cross

regulator Length of the reach and Flow conditions of the upstream cross regulator


116

Figure 6.4: Depth-discharge curves for different structures

The number of offtakes in a reach varies from eight to one, and the distance of the farthest offtake varies 11km to few meters. The height of the offtake structure with reference to the main canal bed also varies. By utilizing the water depth computation, the depth of the storage can be estimated from the difference in water levels for two particular steady states. These states could be from zero (no ponding) to a particular storage level, or two different storage levels.

A simple approach to estimate the storage depth for a particular distribution pattern and the time required to achieve this is described below:

The storage depth at the tail of a reach (upstream of the regulator) is used as a reference parameter and the time required to achieve this depth is computed. The simulation of water levels with and without ponding at different flow rates were used to assess the required storage depth upstream of different regulators.

The discharge - depth curves for the control points are shown in Figure 6.4. Following steps explain how these data were used to compute the required level of ponding and the time required to achieve this at the end of canal division to feed offtakes.

At 50% inflow, depth without ponding at km 69.30 = 1.22m (Figure 6.2) The required depth to feed off take at the end of Okara Division at proportionate

discharge =2.06 m The required depth to feed off take at the end of Okara Division at full supply

discharge=2.87 m Storage depth for proportionate discharge =0.84m

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

40 50 60 80 100

Balloki HR km 0

Okara km 33.22

Sahiwal km 86.95

Khenewal km 160.67

Tail LBDC km 201.37

Discharge in percentage

Dep

th (

m)


117

Storage depth for full supply discharge =1.65m Considering the water surface rise equal to 0.15 m per hour (Canal operational rules

PID), then Time required to achieve the storage for proportionate discharge = 0.84/0.15 = 5.6

hours Time required to achieve storage in full supply discharge =1.65/0.15 = 11 hours

6.3 OPERATIONAL SCENARIO AT 50% HEAD DISCHAGRE

The LBDC is simulated at various inflows (100%, 80%, 60%, 50% and 40% of Qd). The following paragraphs present the simulated results at 50%, 80% and 100% inflow in the main canal to compute the gate openings for offtakes.

The operation of LBDC is simulated at 50% of inflow discharge in the main canal to check the hydraulic behavior of main canal structures. The simulation results showing gate operations and water levels are presented in the Figure 6.5, Table 6-7 & 6-8. The model was set to compute the gate openings while design discharge of offtake was given as a target discharge.

For this scenario, the inflow discharge of 141.60 m3/s was released at source. The sum of all the offtake discharges is 126.55 m3/s and the supplied discharge to the offtakes is 125.54 m3/s. The eleven number offtakes in Balloki, Okara and Khenewal divisions having high crested elevations were closed under this case (as per distribution plan in practice). The total seepage outflow was 14.33 m3/s. The simulation results indicated that the tail discharge was 15.66 m3/s. The water levels at all control points along the main canal were computed and are shown in Table 6-8. This results indicated that to feed offtakes in Balloki and Okara Canal Divisions, the heading up water levels upstream of cross regulators at km 33.20 and km 69.32 was 0.35 m (depth of water is 1.85 m) and 0.45 m (depth of water is 1.95 m) respectively while for Sahiwal Canal Division, the head up at cross regulators km 131.21, km 160.69 was 0.38 m (depth of water 1.28 m) and 0.55m (depth of water is 1.45m). In Khenewal canal division, the heading up of water level at cross regulators km 178.57 and km 195.12 was 0.45 m (depth of water 1.25 m) and 0.62 m (depth of water 1.51m) respectively.

The performance indicators at 50% of design discharge are evaluated with the optimized operational plan using Decision Support Tool as highlighted in section 6.8.2. The results are discussed in section 6.9.1.


118

Figure 6.5: Main canal operation at 50% of design discharge.

140

150

160

170

180

1900 3 6 8 12 18 19 22 27 30 33 37 41 46 49 55 60 61 69 74 79 82 88 91 98 101

104

108

110

115

118

122

128

131

137

141

146

149

152

157

161

162

165

174

174

179

183

189

195

199

Bank Levels

WSL‐50%

Bed Levels

Wat

erS

urfa

ce L

evel

(m

asl)



119

Table 6-7: Simulation results showing water levels along main canal at

Discharge 50% at head

STEADY FLOW COMPUTATION RESULTS

TOTAL DISCHARGE RELEASED AT SOURCE (m3/sec) 141.601

TOTAL TARGETED DISCHARGE AT NODES (m3/sec) -126.554

TOTAL SUPPLIED DISCHARGE AT NODES (m3/sec) -125.543

TOTAL SEEPAGE OUTFLOW (m3/sec) -14.132

TOTAL OUTFLOW AT TAIL (m3/sec) 15.672

CYCLE, 1ST WEEK

CROSS DEVICES - HYDRAULIC INFORMATION

Cross DevicesDistance from

source (m) Discharge (m3/s)U/S water Level (m)

D/S water Level (m)

Source 0 141.603 189.76 189.05Meter Flume 8280 137.451 189.01 188.52X-Reg (stoplog) 19114 135.524 187.55 187.18X-Reg (stoplog) 33208 133.570 185.09 184.78Okara Division (33 - 69)

Fall 49300 127.912 183.64 181.61X-Reg (stoplog) 59876 120.311 180.65 179.72Meter Flume 69325 113.643 178.88 176.98Sahiwal Division (69 - 160)

Fall 78834 112.160 176.13 174.14Fall 87063 105.828 173.36 171.70Fall 100290 104.513 170.44 167.83Fall 103886 88.945 167.57 166.57Meter Flume 119309 72.459 165.23 164.92X-Reg (stoplog) 131212 70.073 163.79 162.79Fall 137306 64.476 162.22 161.91Meter Flume 140674 54.811 159.16 156.46Fall 150530 54.581 155.55 154.84

Fall 156578 51.951 155.92 155.25X-Reg (stoplog) 160697 51.308 155.28 154.83Khanewal Division (160 - 201km)

7ER Dy 164584 47.347 154.38 152.67Fall 165245 47.347 151.60 151.01

X-Reg (stoplog) 174093 46.690 151.79 151.36Fall 178574 23.184 150.91 149.93X-Reg (stoplog) 183237 23.016 149.46 146.10X-Reg (stoplog) 195123 21.105 144.91 143.57Fall 198720 19.422 144.58 143.01Tail Regulator 201372 15.461 144.44


120

Table 6-8: Simulation results showing target discharges and gate openings

Offtake nameDistance from source (km)

Target discharge

(m3/s)Status Gate Opening (m)

Source LBDC HR 0 141.603 INFLOW TO MC

Jaja Disty. (N.P.) 7.10 -0.566 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Guruke Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -1.104 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Katarmal Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -0.25 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Ghuman Kalan Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -0.566 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Aujla Disty (N.P.) 15.66 -0.311 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Gugera Branch Canal 17.86 -22.326 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 2.200

Halla Disty. 18.01 -0.798 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.200

L Plot Minor 27.95 -0.227 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

K plot Minor 27.95 -0.386 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Thatti Kalsan Disty 28.10 -0.275 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.000

Akhtar abad Feeder 33.11 -5.281 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.800

1AL Feeder 33.11 -0.200 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.400

1L Hussainabad Disty 33.10 -2.225 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.550

Khokar Disty 33.15 -0.309 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.500

1R Dhuliani Disty 40.45 -2.301 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

New minor 41.60 -0.0897 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Berwali Minor 44.64 -0.169 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.300

1RA Chamanwali Disty 46.47 -0.284 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.500

2L Kalasan Disty 46.92 -3.981 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.500

Plantation Minor 48.98 -0.069 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.200

1RB Renala Disty 49.13 -0.567 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Bijliwala Disty 57.27 -0.216 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

2R Suchanawala Disty 57.29 -0.831 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

2RA Coleyana Disty 59.62 -0.770 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

4L Okara Disty 59.88 -6.269 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.100

3R Kala Sing Disty 69.02 -2.01 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620

5L GAMBER Disty 78.484 -6.105 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

4R JHIL WALA Disty 78.685 -3.367 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

5R YOUSAF WALA Disty 86.925 -0.492 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.230

5AR Disty 96.006 -0.348 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.340

9L GANJI BAR Disty 98.218 -20.178 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

6R SAHIWAL Disty 100.138 -1.840 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

SP (MP) LINK (N.P) 107.768 -28.32 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

6CR Disty 110.728 -0.203 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.120

6BR Disty 111.551 -0.331 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.220

BAHAB Disty 118.165 -2.928 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.000


9AL Disty 118.210 -0.379 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.200

6DR Disty 122.600 -0.215 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.230

10L HARAPPA Disty 123.653 -0.682 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620

11L DAD FATIANA Disty 130.683 -5.049 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.000

7R BAKARKE Disty 130.968 -1.690 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

7AR Disty 137.153 -0.438 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

12L CHICHAWATNI Disty 137.246 -16.301 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

12AL Disty (N.P) 137.306 -0.977 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.344

7AR I Disty 147.210 -0.141 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.340

13L Disty 147.364 -3.334 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.850




7DR Disty 160.688 -0.568 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

14 L Kassowal Dy 160.688 -6.972 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

7ER Dy 164.584 -0.732 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Koranga Fazal Shah Feeder 173.910 -13.760 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

15 L Dulwan Dy 173.941 -14.005 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

8 R Tulamba Dy 173.941 -4.709 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

15 AL Disty 173.941 -0.766 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

8BR Disty 173.971 -0.704 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

16 L Disty 183.052 -0.948 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.400

8 AR Disty 183.054 -1.599 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.500

9R Disty 194.971 -2.103 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.500

16 AL Disty 198.920 -0.088 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Kassowal Escape 199.500 -28.32 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Forest Disty 199.238 -8.609 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.62010 R Jahanian Disty/tail regulator 201.37 -15.5 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING


121


The LBDC is simulated at 80% inflow to compute the gate openings for offtakes to check the operation of main canal. The simulation results showing gate operations and water levels are presented in the Figure 6.6, Table 6-9 & 6-10. The model was set to compute the gate openings while design discharge of offtake was given as a target discharge. For this scenario, the inflow discharge of 220.45 m3/s was released at source. The sum of all the offtake discharges is 189.83 m3/s and the supplied discharge to the offtakes is 190.512 m3/s. The total seepage outflow was 21.92 m3/s. The simulation results indicated that the tail discharge was 22.051 m3/s.

The performance indicators at 80% of design discharge are evaluated with the optimized operational plan using Decision Support Tool as highlighted in section 6.8.2. The results are discussed in section 6.8


122

Figure 6.6: Main Canal operation at 80% of design discharge

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

0 3 6 8 12 18 19 22 27 30 33 37 41 46 49 55 60 61 69 74 79 82 88 91 98 101

104

108

110

115

118

122

128

131

137

141

146

149

152

157

161

162

165

174

174

179

183

189

195

199

Bank Levels

WSL‐80% Qdesign

Bed Levels

Wat

erS

urfa

ce L

evel

(m

asl)

Distance (km) from LBDC Head


123


Discharge 80% at head







CYCLE, 1ST WEEK


Cross DevicesDistance

from source (m)

Discharge

(m3/s)U/S water Level (m)

D/S water Level (m)

Source 0 220.90 - 191.51Meter Flume 8280 214.42 190.60 190.00X-Reg (stoplog) 19114 211.42 188.95 188.80X-Reg (stoplog) 33208 208.37 186.55 185.89Okara Division (33 - 69)Fall 49300 199.54 185.25 183.19X-Reg (stoplog) 59876 187.69 182.40 181.45Meter Flume 69325 177.28 180.35 178.45Sahiwal Division (69 - 160)Fall 78834 174.97 177.80 175.80Fall 87063 165.09 174.85 173.15Fall 100290 163.04 171.95 169.35Fall 103886 138.75 169.42 169.41Meter Flume 119309 113.04 166.45 166.15X-Reg (stoplog) 131212 109.31 165.25 164.26Fall 137306 100.58 163.70 163.39Meter Flume 140674 85.50 161.55 161.55Fall 150530 85.15 160.60 157.95Fall 156578 81.04 157.15 156.92X-Reg (stoplog) 160697 80.04 156.49 156.05Khanewal Division (160 - 201km)7ER Dy 165245 73.86 155.55 153.90Fall 165245 73.86 155.55 153.90X-Reg (stoplog) 174093 72.84 153.00 152.55Fall 178574 36.17 152.52 151.56X-Reg (stoplog) 183237 35.91 151.10 147.45X-Reg (stoplog) 195123 32.92 146.50 146.05Fall 198720 30.30 144.80 144.61Tail Regulator 201372 22.04 144.51 -


124



Target discharge (m3/s) StatusGate Opening

(m)


Jaja Disty. (N.P.) 7.10 -0.566 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Guruke Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -1.104 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Katarmal Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -0.25 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Ghuman Kalan Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -0.566 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Aujla Disty (N.P.) 15.66 -0.311 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)










1R Dhuliani Disty 40.45 -2.301 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

New minor 41.60 -0.0897 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)





1RB Renala Disty 49.13 -0.567 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

Bijliwala Disty 57.27 -0.216 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

2R Suchanawala Disty 57.29 -0.831 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.850

2RA Coleyana Disty 59.62 -0.770 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620



5L GAMBER Disty 78.484 -6.105 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.200

4R JHIL WALA Disty 78.685 -3.367 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.760



9L GANJI BAR Disty 98.218 -20.178 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 2.000

6R SAHIWAL Disty 100.138 -1.840 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.000










7R BAKARKE Disty 130.968 -1.690 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

7AR Disty 137.153 -0.438 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

12L CHICHAWATNI Disty 137.246 -16.301 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)







7DR Disty 160.688 -0.568 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

14 L Kassowal Dy 160.688 -6.972 GATE - OFF (Q = 0)

7ER Dy 164.584 -0.732 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.500

Koranga Fazal Shah Feeder 173.910 -13.760 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 2.100

15 L Dulwan Dy 173.941 -14.005 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 2.000

8 R Tulamba Dy 173.941 -4.709 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.500

15 AL Disty 173.941 -0.766 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620





16 AL Disty 198.920 -0.088 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING


Forest Disty 199.238 -8.609 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620

10 R Jahanian Disty/tail regulator 201.37 -15.5 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING


125


The LBDC is simulated at 100% inflow to compute the gate openings for offtakes to check the operation of main canal. The simulation results showing gate operations and water levels are presented in the Figure 6.7, Table 6-11 & 6-12. The model was set to compute the gate openings while design discharge of offtake was given as a target discharge. For this scenario, the inflow discharge of 278.737 m3/s was released at source. The sum of all the offtake discharges is 240.05 m3/s and the supplied discharge to the offtakes is 240.88 m3/s. The total seepage outflow was 27.71 m3/s. The simulation results indicated that the tail discharge was 27.88 m3/s.

The performance indicators at 100% design discharge were assessed with the optimized operational plan using Decision Support Tool as highlighted in section 6.8.2. The results are discussed in section 6.9.2.


126

Figure 6.7: Main canal operation at 100% of design discharge

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

0 3 7 8 12 18 20 22 27 32 33 39 42 47 49 57 60 61 69 75 79 83 88 94 100

103

106

108

111

115

119

123

131

134

137

141

147

151

152

157

161

164

168

174

175

180

184

192

198

199

Bank Levels

WSL‐100%

Bed Levels

Wat

erS

urfa

ce L

evel

(m

asl)



127


discharge 100% at head







CYCLE, 1ST WEEK


Cross DevicesDistance

from source (m)

Discharge

(m3/s)U/S water Level (m)

D/S water Level (m)

Source 0 278.78 - 192.43Meter Flume 8280 270.60 191.68 191.19X-Reg (stoplog) 19114 266.81 190.22 189.85X-Reg (stoplog) 33208 262.96 187.76 187.50Okara Division (33 - 69)Fall 49300 251.82 186.31 184.28X-Reg (stoplog) 59876 236.86 183.32 182.39Meter Flume 69325 223.73 181.55 179.65Sahiwal Division (69 - 160)Fall 78834 220.81 178.80 176.81Fall 87063 208.35 176.03 174.37Fall 100290 205.76 173.11 170.50Fall 103886 175.11 170.16 169.36Meter Flume 119309 142.65 167.90 167.55X-Reg (stoplog) 131212 137.95 166.46 165.42Fall 137306 126.93 164.89 164.25Meter Flume 140674 107.91 162.76 162.65Fall 150530 107.45 161.83 159.19Fall 156578 102.28 158.59 158.36X-Reg (stoplog) 160697 101.01 157.95 157.50Khanewal Division (160 - 201km)7ER Dy 165245 93.21 157.05 155.34Fall 165245 93.21 157.05 155.34X-Reg (stoplog) 174093 91.92 154.46 154.02Fall 178574 45.64 153.58 152.60X-Reg (stoplog) 183237 45.31 152.13 148.77X-Reg (stoplog) 195123 41.55 147.58 146.24Fall 198720 38.24 145.85 145.68Tail Regulator 201372 27.81 145.38 -


128



Target discharge

(m3/s)Status Gate Opening (m)


Jaja Disty. (N.P.) 7.10 -0.566 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.000

Guruke Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -1.104 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.000

Katarmal Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -0.25 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.000

Ghuman Kalan Minor (N.P.) 8.17 -0.566 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.000

Aujla Disty (N.P.) 15.66 -0.311 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.000










1R Dhuliani Disty 40.45 -2.301 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620

New minor 41.60 -0.0897 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.230





1RB Renala Disty 49.13 -0.567 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620

Bijliwala Disty 57.27 -0.216 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.320

2R Suchanawala Disty 57.29 -0.831 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.850

2RA Coleyana Disty 59.62 -0.770 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620



5L GAMBER Disty 78.484 -6.105 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.300

4R JHIL WALA Disty 78.685 -3.367 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.000



9L GANJI BAR Disty 98.218 -20.178 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 2.300

6R SAHIWAL Disty 100.138 -1.840 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.100










7R BAKARKE Disty 130.968 -1.690 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.500


12L CHICHAWATNI Disty 137.246 -16.301 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 2.100








14 L Kassowal Dy 160.688 -6.972 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.200

7ER Dy 164.584 -0.732 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620

Koranga Fazal Shah Feeder 173.910 -13.760 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.900

15 L Dulwan Dy 173.941 -14.005 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.900

8 R Tulamba Dy 173.941 -4.709 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 1.400








Forest Disty 199.238 -8.609 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING 0.620

10 R Jahanian Disty/tail regulator 201.37 -15.5 GATE - COMPUTED OPENING


129

6.6 SIMULATION OF DISTRIBUTION OPERATION

The standing instructions to run the distribution operations of offtakes are at 100% design discharge. However, the range of discharge at the head of a distributary accepted by the Irrigation Department for "normal" distributary operations in actual practice is between 100% to 70% of the design discharges.

The model is applied to predict the off takes discharges for inflow discharge range of 100% to 40% in the main canal. The operational policy by the Irrigation Department is to run the offtakes for equitable distribution of water. (LBDCIP, 2010).

The simulated discharges of offtaking channels for 100%, 80% and 60% of full supply discharges of main canal are shown in Figure 6.8. The results indicated that the reduction in the discharges for tail portion offtakes is remarkably more than the offtakes at the head and middle portion when the discharge at the head of the main canal is reduced from 100% to 60%. It can be concluded that tail portions are getting less than their share of water at 100% of main canal head discharge.

The percent reduction of discharges along the main canal is shown in Figure 6.9. This indicated that the reduction in discharge from 100% to 60% at the head of a main canal, adversely affects the equity conditions along the main canal. The percent reduction varied from 3-20% from head reach to 25% to 42% in the tail portion. The results indicated that possible change in the acceptable range for normal distributary operations by the Irrigation department is needed. The study suggests changing normal range of operation from 70% to 80% for distribution operation.


130

Figure 6.8: Off takes discharge reduction due to reduction of discharge in main canal

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

7.01

8.17

13.9

4

17.9

3

27.9

5

28.1

1

33.1

5

40.4

5

44.6

4

46.9

2

49.1

3

57.2

9

59.8

8

78.4

8

86.9

2

98.2

2

110.

64

118.

17

118.

21

123.

65

130.

97

137.

25

147.

36

156.

43

160.

61

160.

69

165.

19

173.

91

173.

95

173.

98

183.

05

198.

92

201.

37

Off

take

Dis

char

ge in

m3 /

sec

Distance (km) from head of main canal (LBDC)

Simulated Qofftake at Q100%MC




131

Figure 6.9: Percent reduction of offtake discharges at Q100 to Q80 and Q100 to Q60 in main canal

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64

Per

cent

red

cuti

on o

f D

isch

arge

Distributary number

% reduction with Q60

% reduction with Q80

CHAPTER 6 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATION OF CANAL

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

132

6.7 HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOUR UNDER UNSTEADY STATE

Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) is a long gravity canal of 201.37 km. It is important to work out time lags and stabilization time in all reaches of main canal. The steady state conditions are especially important for the gravity channels and most desirable for the duration of a delivery pattern to achieve an equitable distribution and efficient operations of the system. LBDC is modeled for unsteady operation to know the hydraulic behaviour.

6.7.1 Estimating lag times using simulation results

The unsteady flow simulation is important to check the responsiveness of main canal reaches and structures under critical situations like flow transitions, storage depletion, filling up of the canal and unplanned operations of cross regulators and escapes.

The following steps have been considered to estimate the lag times at the control structures of the main canal by using the simulation results.

The target steady states were defined for different scenarios of inflows with a proportionate delivery to each off-take.

The upstream boundary condition for unsteady state is given in Figure 6.10. The downstream boundary condition for the model is rating curve at the tail of

LBDC Main canal which is similar as used in steady state. The internal boundary conditions at control points were given in terms of

coefficient of discharge as similar in the steady state. The Manning’s n value for the canal is also similar as steady state. Simulation has been completed without any gate operation to have first

approximation of the time lags. The gates were operated to achieve a proportionate delivery using time lags. The time lags are estimated for the final state when 80% to 100% stability is

achieved at different structures in a reach.

The results of simulations for flow profiles at the head and tail of main canal for transitions from 100 to 60 percent of inflows were shown in Figure 6.11. The analysis indicated that the time lag for the disturbance to reach from the head to tail is 2.5 to 3 days.


133

Figure 6.10: Upstream boundary conditions for unsteady state

Figure 6.11: Time lag for the disturbance to reach from the head to tail LBDC

This was ideal condition under smooth transition. It showed that transition time does not vary in a wide range for different scenarios of discharges. This happened due to firstly little change in velocity at different discharges as gates were not operated and secondly filling up reaches were not involved as moving from higher to lower discharges.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Dis

char

ge (

m3 /

sec)

Time (hour)

opening discharge (m3/sec) afterlong closure

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.00

4.21

9.18

13.3

9

19.1

3

23.3

3

27.5

4

31.9

4

38.2

5

42.4

6

47.4

3

51.6

4

57.3

8

60.8

2

66.1

7

70.0

0

76.5

0

Q - head 100%

Q - head 60%

Q - head 80%

Time (hours)

Dis

char

geat

hea

d in

m3 /

sec


134

The main canal have different response times depending upon reach length. The lag time and filling time are two important components to compute the response time. The time lags were estimated when stability was achieved at different structures in a reach.

The response time for different transitions for the control point at tail of LBDC was worked out and is shown in Figure 6.12. The analysis indicated that the stabilization time was twice of the reaching time of a disturbance. The time of disturbance reaching the control point was smaller for higher discharges but the difference of time was nominal.

Figure 6.12: Time lags verses water levels at tail of LBDC under various

flows.

The time lags at each control points were computed and are shown in Figure 6.13. Each reach has been considered stabilized when delivery to the off taking canal is 80% stabilized. The net difference between the two scenarios has been estimated as 16.5 hours at km161.19. The increased time lags have been observed due to reduced velocities in smaller discharge scenarios.

143.50

144.00

144.50

145.00

145.50

146.00

0.55 1.10 1.40 1.75 2.20 2.75 3.00 3.50 3.60

Water levels 100%

Water levels 80%

Water levels 60%

Water levels 50%

Time (days)

Wat

er L

evel

s(m

asl)


135

Figure 6.13: Time lags at control points for different flow transitions.

6.8 OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL PLAN

To test an operational plan, the schedule of water delivery pattern implemented during Kharif season 2011 (Table-6-13 and Table 6-14) is considered. The canal manager can adopt any operational plan with the simulation model and get optimized results for implementation at field. The use of Decision Support Tools (DSTs) makes the manager to take timely decision for better operation and management.

Based on the water issue pattern at the main canal source and the water delivery schedule, propagation of water along the canal is studied in order to provide some guidance concerning the time and amplitude of gate settings required to achieve the targets. This analysis is mainly done manually by studying the water delivery pattern. The steady flow simulations results are used to generate indications about the optimal amplitude of gate openings required during the different stabilized phases of the water releases.

An operational plan for all gate setting along the canal is tested and evaluated by means of steady flow simulation. Water levels and discharges at any point of interest along the canal are computed by the model and the results are evaluated in terms of achieved water deliveries at the offtakes. If considered as satisfactory (when simulated indicators; DPR, Pd, Pe and CEP, values are greater than actual), the plan is considered appropriate and proposed for implementation; if not, the decision maker can revise it according to the weaknesses detected by looking at the simulation results and retesting it as many times as needed.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

0 9 20 34 49 60 69 79 88 101

104

108

115

119

131

137

141

151

157

161

165

175

179

184

195

199

201

Time lags at 40% disch

Time lags at 80% disch

Distance (km) from main canal head

Tim

e (D

ays)


136

Table 6-13: Grouping of distributaries for water delivery schedule kharif 2011

Note: Group AI is classified for Balloki Canal Division offtakes, A-II for Okara canal division offtakes, B for Sahiwal canal

division offtakes while C for Khenewal canal division offtakes.

1 Jaja Disty. (N.P.) 7.01 Blk 0.566 A-I Open

2 Katarmal Minor (N.P.) 8.17 Blk 0.411 A-I Open

3 Gurkay Minor (N.P.) 8.17 Blk 1.105 A-I Open

4 Ghuman Kalan Minor (N.P.) 8.17 Blk 0.566 A-I Open

5 Blair Feeding Channel Minor 13.94 Blk 0.425 A-I Open

6 Aujla Disty (N.P.) 15.66 Blk 0.312 A-I Open

7 Gugera Branch Canal 17.93 Blk 27.752 A-I Open

8 Hallah Disty. 18.01 Blk 0.798 A-I Open

9 L Plot Minor 27.95 Blk 0.227 A-I Open

10 K plot Minor 27.95 Blk 0.387 A-I Open

11 Thatti Kalsan Disty 28.11 Blk 0.276 A-I Open

12 1AL Feeder/DY 33.11 Blk 2.260 A-I Open

13 Khokar Disty 33.15 Blk 0.310 A-I Open

14 1L Disty 33.15 Blk 2.301 A-II Open

15 1 R Disty 40.45 Okr 2.301 A-II close

16 New Minor 41.63 Okr 0.090 A-II close

17 Ber Wali Dy 44.64 Okr 0.169 A-II close

18 1RA Disty 46.47 Okr 0.284 A-II open

19 2L Disty 46.92 Okr 3.982 A-II close

20 Plantation Minor 48.98 Okr 0.070 A-II open

21 1RB Disty 49.13 Okr 0.567 A-II open

22 Bijliwala Mr 57.27 Okr 0.216 A-II open

23 2R Disty 57.29 Okr 0.831 A-II open

24 2 R A Dy 59.62 Okr 0.000 A-II close

25 4L Disty 59.88 Okr 6.270 A-II open

26 3R Disty 69.02 Okr 2.010 A-II open

27 5L GAMBER Disty 78.48 Shw 6.106 B open

28 4R JHIL WALA Disty 78.68 Shw 3.367 B open

29 5R YOUSAF WALA Disty 86.92 Shw 0.493 B close

30 5AR Disty 96.01 Shw 0.348 B close

31 9L GANJI BAR Disty 98.22 Shw 20.178 B open

32 6R SAHIWAL Disty 100.14 Shw 1.841 B open

33 SP (MP) LINK (N.P) 107.77 Shw 0.000 B close

Open / close

Allocation

(m3/s)GroupCanal DvDy No. Name of structure km


137

Table 6-13: Grouping of distributaries for water delivery schedule kharif 2011 (contd.)



34 6CR Disty 110.64 Shw 0.204 B open

35 6BR Disty 111.55 Shw 0.331 B open

36 BAHAB Disty 118.17 Shw 2.928 B open

37 6AR Disty 118.20 Shw 0.235 B closed

38 9AL Disty 118.21 Shw 0.379 B open

39 6DR Disty 122.60 Shw 0.215 B open

40 10L HARAPPA Disty 123.65 Shw 0.683 B closed

41 11L DAD FATIANA Disty 130.68 Shw 5.050 B open

42 7R BAKARKE Disty 130.97 Shw 1.691 B open

43 7AR Disty 137.17 Shw 0.439 B open

44 12AL Disty (N.P) 137.25 Shw 0.977 B open

45 12L CHICHAWATNI Disty 137.31 Shw 16.301 B open

46 13L Disty 147.36 Shw 3.334 B closed

47 7BR Disty 148.74 Shw 0.314 B closed

48 7CR Disty 156.43 Shw 0.170 B closed

49 13AL Disty (N.P) 156.58 Shw 0.170 B closed

50 14 L Kassowal Dy 160.61 Shw 6.973 B open

51 14 AL Dy 160.62 Shw 0.000 B closed

52 7DR Disty 160.69 Shw 0.568 B closed

53 7ER Dy 164.64 Khw 0.733 B closed

54 14 BL 1st Disty 165.19 Khw 0.000 B closed

55 14 BL 2nd Disty 165.20 Khw 0.000 B closed

56 Koranga Fazal Shah Feeder 173.91 Khw 13.760 C open

57 15 L Dulwan Dy 173.94 Khw 14.006 C open

58 15 AL Disty 173.95 Khw 0.766 C open

59 8 R Tulamba Dy 173.97 Khw 4.710 C open

60 8BR Disty 173.98 Khw 0.704 C open

61 16 L Disty 183.05 Khw 0.949 C open

62 8 AR Disty 183.05 Khw 1.600 C open

63 9R Disty 194.97 Khw 2.103 C open

64 16 AL Disty 198.92 Khw 0.089 C open

65 Forest Disty 199.24 Khw 8.609 C open

66 10 R J. Branch & Disty 201.37 Khw 24.214 C open

Open / close

Canal DvAllocation

(m3/s)GroupDy No. Name of structure

km from source


138

Table 6-14: Preference table

Water delivery schedule kharif 2011



From To 1st 2nd 3rd

April 4, 2011 April 11, 2011 C A B

April 12, 2011 April 19, 2011 A B C

April 20, 2011 April 27, 2011 B C A

April 28, 2011 May 5, 2011 C A B

May 6, 2011 May 13, 2011 A B C

May 14, 2011 May 21, 2011 B C A

May 22, 2011 May 29, 2011 C A B

May 30, 2011 June 6, 2011 A B C

June 7, 2011 June 14, 2011 B C A

June 15, 2011 June 22, 2011 C A B

June 23, 2011 June 30, 2011 A B C

July 1, 2011 July 8, 2011 B C A

July 9, 2011 July 16, 2011 C A B

July 17, 2011 July 24, 2011 A B C

July 25, 2011 August 1, 2011 B C A

August 2, 2011 August 9, 2011 C A C

August 10, 2011 August 17, 2011 A B C

August 18, 2011 August 25, 2011 B C A

August 26, 2011 September 2, 2011 C A B

September 3, 2011 September 10, 2011 A B C

September 11, 2011 September 18, 2011 B C A

September 19, 2011 September 26, 2011 C A B

September 27, 2011 October 4, 2011 A B C

October 5, 2011 October 12, 2011 B C A

Preferecne Table


139

6.8.1 Inflow hydrograph

The inflow discharge for the period June 15 to July 8, 2011 is shown in Figure 6.14 indicating discharge release of 220 m3/s at head of main canal of LBDC. The actual discharge is less than the design discharge but close to the share/allocation. Number of occurrence (Figure 6.15) indicates that the canal was run for 15 days when percentage range of discharge lied between 71-80 percent while for 9 days, it was between 61-70 percent.

Figure 6.14: Discharge releases at head of main canal between June 15 to July 8,

2011

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

11‐Jun‐11 16‐Jun‐11 21‐Jun‐11 26‐Jun‐11 1‐Jul‐11 6‐Jul‐11 11‐Jul‐11

Dis

chag

e m

3 /se

c

Time in days

Actual Q

Designed Q

share


140

Figure 6.15: Range of (Qact/Qdes) vs no. of days discharge occurs during

June 15 to July 8, 2011

6.8.2 Proposed plan

Based on allocation at main source of LBDC, the manager requirement is to find out an appropriate gate settings / openings at the gated regulators and the offtakes. The Flow chart for optimization of operational plan is shown in Figure 6.16. The steps involved in developing and evaluating a proposed plan are highlighted as under:

1) Define Target discharge (design) of each offtake. 2) Run SIC Model 3) Get optimized gate openings/settings 4) Using Decision Support Tool Module 1 (SIC results), Check gate settings/

openings. 5) Using Decision Support Tool Module 2, Compute indicators

a. Delivery performance ratio (DPR) b. Reliability (Pd) c. Equity (Pe) in distribution of canal d. Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP)

5. Compare Indicators with the target values, if okay, then proposed plan will be appropriate, implement the plan at field, otherwise revise the plan by detecting the weakness and repeat the procedure from step 1 to step 5.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

>110 101 ‐ 110 91 ‐ 100 81 ‐ 90 71 ‐ 80 61 ‐ 70 <60

Occurren

ce (no. of days)

%age range of discharge

Kharif


141

Figure 6.16: Flow chart for optimization of operational plan

Operational Plan i.e.,Define /revise Target (Q)

for each offtake

Run SIC Model

Get optimumgate openings

Decision Support Tool (DST) Module 1

Decision Support Tool (DST) Module ‐2(Indicators)

Compare Indicators (DPR, Pd, \PE, CEP) with the

target values If Ok

End

Yes

No

Mod 2DPR, Pd,

Mod 1Model SIC Results


142

6.8.3 Evaluation of operational plans

The actual operational plans for kharif 2011 is compared with the simulated results. The inflow discharge value of 220 m3/sec (80% of Qdesign in the main canal) was taken for the model and target discharges at offtakes were defined in the SIC model. The actual gate openings and optimized gate settings are compared and are shown in Table 6-15. The operational plan is optimized in terms of performance indicators i.e., Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR), Reliability (Pd), Equity (Pe) and Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP). The results are discussed as under:

6.8.3.1 Delivery performance ratio (DPR)

The proposed distribution plan at 80% of design discharge is optimized. The DPR values are computed and are shown in Figure 6-17 to 6-24. The results are depicted in Table 6-16 and Table 6-17.

The average daily delivery performance ratio for Kharif 2011, between June 15 to July 8, 2011 is 0.94 while for proposed plan the average DPR value is 0.97. The average DPRs for optimized plan in Balloki, Okara, Sahiwal and Khenewal Canal Divisions are 0.91, 1.0, 1.0 and 0.98 respectively. However, the actual values are 0.90, 0.98, 0.92, 0.96 in Balloki , Okara, Sahiwal and Khenewal canal divisions respectively.


143

Table 6-15: Comparison between actual gate settings and optimum gate openings

of offtakes

1 Jaja Disty. (N.P.) 7.01 Blk - - Open

2 Katarmal Minor (N.P.) 8.17 Blk - - Open

3 Gurkay Minor (N.P.) 8.17 Blk 0.500 0.500 Open

4 Ghuman Kalan Minor (N.P.) 8.17 Blk - - Open

5 Blair Feeding Channel Minor 13.94 Blk - - Open

6 Aujla Disty (N.P.) 15.66 Blk 0.450 0.480 Open

7 Gugera Branch Canal 17.93 Blk 2.300 2.400 Open

8 Hallah Disty. 18.01 Blk 1.350 1.400 Open

9 L Plot Minor 27.95 Blk - - close

10 K plot Minor 27.95 Blk - - close

11 Thatti Kalsan Disty 28.11 Blk 1.000 1.100 Open

12 1AL Feeder/DY 33.11 Blk 0.410 0.400 Open

13 Khokar Disty 33.15 Blk 0.500 0.550 Open

14 1L Disty 33.15 Blk 0.510 0.500 Open

15 1 R Disty 40.45 Okr - - close

16 New Minor 41.63 Okr - - close

17 Ber Wali Dy 44.64 Okr - - close

18 1RA Disty 46.47 Okr 0.500 0.450 open

19 2L Disty 46.92 Okr - - close

20 Plantation Minor 48.98 Okr 0.220 0.200 open

21 1RB Disty 49.13 Okr 0.860 0.850 open

22 Bijliwala Mr 57.27 Okr - - close

23 2R Disty 57.29 Okr 0.850 0.900 open

24 2 R A Dy 59.62 Okr - - close

25 4L Disty 59.88 Okr 1.250 1.300 open

26 3R Disty 69.02 Okr 0.620 0.820 open

27 5L GAMBER Disty 78.48 Shw 1.200 1.500 open

28 4R JHIL WALA Disty 78.68 Shw 0.760 1.000 open

29 5R YOUSAF WALA Disty 86.92 Shw - - close

30 5AR Disty 96.01 Shw - - close

31 9L GANJI BAR Disty 98.22 Shw 2.000 2.090 open

32 6R SAHIWAL Disty 100.14 Shw 1.000 1.000 open

33 SP (MP) LINK (N.P) 107.77 Shw - - close

Dy No. Name of structure km Canal Div.Gate opening

actual (m)Optimum gate opening (m)

Open / close


144

Table 6-15: Comparison between actual gate settings and optimum gate

openings of offtakes (contd.)

34 6CR Disty 110.64 Shw - - open

35 6BR Disty 111.55 Shw - - open

36 BAHAB Disty 118.17 Shw 1.100 1.000 open

37 6AR Disty 118.20 Shw - - closed

38 9AL Disty 118.21 Shw 0.350 0.450 open

39 6DR Disty 122.60 Shw - - open

40 10L HARAPPA Disty 123.65 Shw - - closed

41 11L DAD FATIANA Disty 130.68 Shw 1.200 1.335 open

42 7R BAKARKE Disty 130.97 Shw 0.500 0.550 open

43 7AR Disty 137.17 Shw - - open

44 12AL Disty (N.P) 137.25 Shw 0.900 0.850 open

45 12L CHICHAWATNI Disty 137.31 Shw 2.300 2.260 open

46 13L Disty 147.36 Shw - - closed

47 7BR Disty 148.74 Shw - - closed

48 7CR Disty 156.43 Shw - - closed

49 13AL Disty (N.P) 156.58 Shw - - closed

50 14 L Kassowal Dy 160.61 Shw 1.400 1.350 open

51 14 AL Dy 160.62 Shw - - closed

52 7DR Disty 160.69 Shw - - closed

53 Kassowal Escape 160.69 Shw - - closed

54 7ER Dy 164.64 Khw - - closed

55 14 BL 1st Disty 165.19 Khw - - closed

56 14 BL 2nd Disty 165.20 Khw - - closed

57 Koranga Fazal Shah Feeder 173.91 Khw 2.350 2.200 open

58 15 L Dulwan Dy 173.94 Khw 2.000 2.010 open

59 15 AL Disty 173.95 Khw - - open

60 8 R Tulamba Dy 173.97 Khw 0.900 0.950 open

61 8BR Disty 173.98 Khw 0.550 0.560 open

62 16 L Disty 183.05 Khw 0.600 0.620 open

63 8 AR Disty 183.05 Khw 1.000 1.050 open

64 9R Disty 194.97 Khw 0.900 0.920 open

65 16 AL Disty 198.92 Khw - - open

66 Forest Disty 199.24 Khw 1.200 1.220 open

67 10 R J. Branch & Disty 201.37 Khw - - open

Dy No. Name of structurekm from source

Canal DvGate opening

actual (m)Optimum gate opening (m)

Open / close


145

Balloki Division Offtakes

In Balloki canal division, two offtakes (6 and 13) draw excess discharge as their DPR value is quite high ranging between 1 to 1.36. While two offtakes (dy no. 9 and 10) have high crest and are used for lift schemes. For model, these two offtakes were not considered and kept close. The 35% offtakes (Dy no. 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14) have DPR values between 0.7 to 1.04 indicates “good performance” while rest offtakes indicates “satisfactory to poor performance”.

Okara Division offtakes

In Okara Canal Division, the four offtakes (15, 16, 17 and 22) were closed as per actual kharif 2011 distribution plan. These four offtakes were also closed in the simulation model. The 92% offtakes have DPR values between 0.9 to 1.1 and shows “good performance” during the period while one offtake (Dy no. 18) shows “satisfactory performance”.

Sahiwal Division Offtakes

In Sahiwal Canal Division, seven offtakes were closed as per actual distribution plan. These offtakes were 29, 30, 37, 40, 46, 51 and 52. These offtakes were also closed in the simulation model. The 80% offtakes (Dy no. 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49) have DPR values between 0.9 to 1.1 and indicates “good performance”. The 12% offtakes (Dy no. 27, 30 & 45) indicates “satisfactory performance” while 8% offtakes (Dy no. 32, 47) have DPR values less than 0.7 and shows “poor performance”

Khenewal Division Offtakes

In Khenewal Canal Division, the 70% offtakes (Dy no. 54, 57, 58, 59, 60 & 61) have DPR values in the range 0.9 to 1.1 and indicates “good performance” while 20% offtakes (Dy no. 62 & 64) shows “satisfactory performance” The 10% offtakes (Dy no. 55) indicates “poor performance”.

As indicated in Table 6-16, as a whole, 43 number offtakes performed “Good” as per actual plan, however as per optimized plan, the number of offtakes was 47 as ranked “Good” which shows 9% improvement.


146

Figure 6.17: DPR of offtakes in June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif (actual)


0.58

0.92 0.92

0.530.60

1.49

0.700.80

1.00 1.04

1.36

0.850.90

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 avg

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

Distributry No

Balloki Canal Division

DPR

0.89

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.99

1.00 1.00

0.98

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

1.02

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 avg

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

Distributry No

Okara Canal Division

DPR


147



0.890.96

1.01

0.67

10.95

0.80

1.04

0.950.91

0.80 0.80

1

0.79

1.20

0.92

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 avg

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

Distributry No

Sahiwal Canal Division

DPR

1.00 1.010.96 0.94 0.98

0.85

1.15

0.78

0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 avg

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

Distributry No

Khenewal Canal Division

DPR


148

Figure 6.21: DPR of offtakes in June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif – optimized

plan

Figure 6.22: DPR of offtakes in June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif –optimized plan

0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.85

1.00

0.80 0.80

1.00 1.00 1.00

0.90 0.91

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 avg

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

Distributry No


DPR

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 avg

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

Distributry No

Okara Canal Division DPR


149



1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 avg

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

Distributry No

Sahiwal Canal Division DPR

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000.98

1.00

0.85

0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Del

iver

y P

erfo

rman

ce R

atio

Distributry No

Khenewal Canal Division DPR


150

Table 6-16: Average delivery performance ratio of actual and optimized plan

Distribution Plan & No.

Average DPR Values


Okara Canal Division

Sahiwal Canal Division

Khenewal Canal Division


Kharif 2011

(Actual)

0.90

0.98

0.92

0.96

Proposed Plan (Optimized)

0.91

1.0

1.0

0.98


151

Table 6-17: Delivery performance ratio of actual and optimized plan

Distribution

Plan

No. of offtakes

DPR Range

Good Satisfactory Poor

0.9<DPR<1.1 0.9-0.7<DPR<1.3-1.1 0.7<DPR>1.3

Balloki

Canal

Div.

Okara

Canal

Div.

Sahiwal

canal

Div.

Khenew

al Canal

Div.

Balloki

Canal

Div.

Okara

Canal

Div.

Sahiwal

canal

Div.

Khenewa

l Canal

Div.

Balloki

Canal

Div.

Okara

Canal

Div.

Sahiwal

canal

Div.

Khenew

al Canal

Div.

June 15 to July

8, 2011

Kharif 2011

(Actual)

5

11

20

7

4

1

3

2

5

-

1

1

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

5

10

23

9

6

2

2

2

2

-

-

-


152

6.8.3.2 Reliability (Pd)

A plot between reliability, Pd and offtakes number for optimized plan as well as for actual distribution plans for the period Kharif 2011 are depicted in Figures 6.25 to 6.26. The results are shown in Table 6-18. The proposed plan after simulation indicates that 59 no of offtakes were ranked as “Good”, while as per actual plan, the number of offtakes performed as “Good” were 53 which indicated improvement by 11%. The Pd values falls between 0.01 to 0.21 in Balloki division, 0 to 0.16 in Okara Division, 0 to 0.37 in Sahiwal Division while in Khenewal Division, the values range between 0 to 0.23. For actual plan, the reliability value, Pd was 0.048, while for optimized plan, the Pd was 0.056 indicated 16.6% improvement.

Table 6-18: Reliability values of actual vs optimized plan

Distribution Plan.

No of offtakes Reliability,

Pd Range Pd

Good

Pd <0.1

Satisfactory

0.1<Pd <0.2

Poor

Pd>0.2


Kharif 2011

(Actual)

53

6

5

0.048

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

59

5

-

0.056


153

Figure 6.25: Reliability of the offtakes for June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif (actual)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Rel

iabi

lity

(Pd)

Distributary naumbers

Pd

Poor, Pd > 0.2

Satisfactory, Pd 0.1 to 0.2

Good , Pd <0.1


154

Figure 6.26: Reliability of the offtakes –optimized plan

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

Rel

iabi

lity

(Pd)

Distributary naumbers

Pd

Good, Pd<0.1


155

6.8.3.3 Equity in water distribution (Pe)

The equity in terms of water distribution along LBDC is evaluated. A plot between the ratio of measured discharge verses design discharge as a vertical ordinate and ratio of offtake locations to the canal length is shown in Figures 6.27 to 6.28 for actual distribution plan for kharif 2011 and also for proposed plan. The results are shown in Table 6-19.

Based on the results, it is concluded that the equity slope for optimized plan is 0.02 as compared to 0.077 of actual plan. The Equity, Pe value in case of actual plan was 0.90 while for optimized plan it is 0.97 indicating 8% improvement.

Table 6-19: Equity in distribution actual vs optimized plan

Distribution Plan Equity Slope Pe


Kharif 2011

(Actual)

0.077

0.90

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

0.020

0.97


156

Figure 6.27: Equity in canal water distribution in June 15 to July 8, 2011 (kharif) actual

Figure 6.28: Equity in canal water distribution in June 15 to July 8, 2011-optimized Plan

y = ‐0.077x + 1

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Rat

io (

Mea

sure

d /D

esig

n Q

)

Ratio (Off take Head regulator location /Total canal Length)

Ratio (Measured Q/Design Q Linear (Ratio (Measured Q/Design Q)

y = ‐0.02x + 1

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Rat

io (

Mea

sure

d /D

esig

n Q

)

Ratio (Off take Head regulator location /Total canal Length)

Ratio (computed Q/Design Q Linear (Ratio (computed Q/Design Q)


157

6.8.3.4 Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP)

The combined efficiency performance (CEP) of LBDC offtakes is assessed for actual kharif 2011 distribution plan and also for optimized plan. The results are depicted in Table 6-20 and Table 6-21. A plot between CEP and distributary numbers is shown in Figures 6.29 to 6.30. The offtakes having CEP value equal to one performed well from operational point of view. Those offtakes having CEP value between 0.8 to 1 behaved as “Good”, graded as 1, while offtakes having CEP value between 0.4 to 0.8 are graded as 0.5 having “Satisfactory” performance. Those offtakes having CEP value between over 1 and less than 0.4, show poor performance and graded as zero.

The analysis indicated that CEP value for Optimized plan is 0.82 while for actual plan, CEP value is 0.77, showing 13% improvement. Based on the results, it is concluded that the actual plan for kharif 2011, the number of offtakes ranking as “Good” are 31 (46% of total offtakes) while for the proposed plan, the number of offtakes ranking as “Good” are 46 (73% of total offtakes).

As per actual plan, nine offtakes showed poor performance, however, in optimized plan, the two offtakes performed poor. In optimized plan, the 15 offtakes gave satisfactory performance while in actual plan, 23 offtakes gave satisfactory operational performance.

Table 6-20: Combined efficiency performance (CEP) grading actual vs optimized plan

Distribution Plan

CEP Grading CEP

1 0.5 0


Kharif 2011

(Actual)

31

23

9

0.77

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

46

15

2

0.82


158

Table 6-21: Combined efficiency performance (CEP) offtakes actual vs optimized plan

Distribution Plan.

Dy. No.

CEP measure

“Good” “Satisfactory” “Poor”

June 15 to July 8,

2011

Kharif 2011

(Actual)

2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,

1, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, 32, 36, 37, 40, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 64,

65, 66

6, 9, 12, 13, 30, 47, 55, 56, 63

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

2, 3, 6, 9, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61,

62, 63, 64, 65, 66

1, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 17, 22, 29, 30, 32, 36, 37,

40, 46,

34, 55

Figure 6.29: Combined efficiency performance of offtakes during June 15 to July 8, 2011 kharif (actual)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67

Com

bine

d E

ffic

ienc

y P

erfo

rman

ce

Distributary Number

Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP)

CEP 0.6‐0.8; "Satisfactory'

CEP 0.8‐1.0; "Good" CEP>1 or <0.4; "Poor"


159

Figure 6.30: Combined efficiency performance – optimized plan

6.9 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FOR OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS

The operation of main canal is checked at 50%, 80% and 100% of design discharge as already completed in Section 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 respectively. The distribution plan at 80% of design discharge is already optimized and explained in section 6.8.3. However, optimized values of CEP indicator as assessed for 50% and 100% operational scenarios by using Decision Support Tool are as under.

6.9.1 Performance indicators at 50% of design discharge

6.9.1.1 Combined efficiency performance (CEP)

The combined efficiency performance (CEP) of LBDC offtakes is assessed for actual kharif 2011 distribution plan and also for optimized plan. The results are depicted in Figure 6.31. The analysis indicated that CEP value for Optimized plan is 0.67 while for actual plan, CEP value is 0.74, showing 10% improvement. Based on the results as shown in Table 6.22 and Table 6-23, it is concluded that the actual plan for kharif 2011, the number of offtakes ranking as “Good” are 29 while for the proposed plan, the number of offtakes ranking as “Good” are 40. As per actual plan, 13 offtakes showed poor performance, however, in optimized plan, the five offtakes performed poor. In optimized plan, the 19 offtakes gave satisfactory performance while in actual plan, 22 offtakes gave satisfactory operational performance.

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67

Com

bine

d E

ffic

ienc

y P

erfo

rman

ce

Distributary Number

Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP)

CEP 0.6‐0.8; "Satisfactory'CEP>1 or <0.4; "Poor"

CEP 0.8‐1.0; "Good"


160


Distribution Plan

CEP Grading CEP

1 0.5 0


Kharif 2011

(Actual)

29

22

13

0.67

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

40

19

5

0.74


Distribution Plan.

Dy. No.

CEP measure


June 15 to July 8,

2011

Kharif 2011

(Actual)

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 60, 62, 66,

6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 17, 30, 31,32, 37, 40, 43,45,46, 47,48, 49, 50, 51,52,54,55,

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 56,57,58,59,61,63, 64,65,

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,32, 34, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 49, 50, 51,52,54,55,60, 62, 66

6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 17, 43,45,46, 47,48, 56, 57,58,59,61,63, 64,65

1, 2, 3, 4, 5


161

Figure 6.31: Combined efficiency performance – optimized plan

6.9.2 Performance indicators at 100% design discharge

The analysis indicated that CEP value for Optimized plan is 0.98 while for actual plan, CEP value is 0.94, showing 4% improvement. Based on the results, it is concluded that the actual plan for kharif 2011, the number of offtakes ranking as “Good” are 41 (64% of total offtakes) while for the proposed plan, the number of offtakes ranking as “Good” are 54 (84% of total offtakes). As per actual plan, 5 offtakes showed poor performance, however, in optimized plan, the one offtakes performed poor. In optimized plan, the 9 offtakes gave satisfactory performance while in actual plan, 18 offtakes gave satisfactory operational performance.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567

Com

bine

d E

ffic

ienc

y P

erfo

rman

ce

Distributary Number

CEP


162


Distribution Plan

CEP Grading CEP

1 0.5 0


Kharif 2011

(Actual)

41

18

5

0.94

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

54

9

1

0.98


Distribution Plan.

Dy. No.

CEP measure


June 15 to July 8,

2011

Kharif 2011

(Actual)

2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63

4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 22, 29, 32, 36, 37, 50, 51, 52, 54, 64, 65,

66

1, 9, 12, 13, 30,

Proposed Plan

(Optimized)

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66

9, 12, 13, 30, 15, 16, 36, 37,

50,

1


163

Figure 6.32: Combined Efficiency Performance – Optimized Plan

6.10 OPERATIONAL GOODNESS

The three operational scenarios at 100%, 80% and 50% design discharge at head are evaluated. The results are presented in Table 6-22. For head discharge of 278.7 m3/sec, the actual plan is tested with the optimized plan. The CEP values are 0.94 and 0.98 for actual and optimized plan respectively. When the discharge at head is 80% of design discharge, the CEP values are o.77 and 0.82 for actual and optimized plan respectively. However, for 50% head supply, the CEP values are 0.67 and 0.74.

To test the Goodness of fit, the CEP values for actual plan and optimized plan are plotted. Figure 6.33 shows the operational goodness for three operational scenarios. The linear regression gives the coefficient value equal 0.998 indicates its goodness of fit. The coefficient of determination, R2 is a measure how well the regression line represents the data. It shows the percent of data that is the closest to the line of best fit. In this case, R2 = 0.998. It denotes the strength of the linear association between actual and optimized plan values of CEP. The CEP indicator gives a fair representative goodness fit for range of operational plans for better management and hydraulic performance of canal irrigation system. A correlation greater than 0.8 is described as strong where as a correlation less than 0.5 is described as weak.

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355575961636567

Com

bine

d E

ffic

ienc

y P

erfo

rman

ce

Distributary Number

CEP


164

Table 6-26: CEP grading under different operational scenarios

Operational Scenarios

Discharge at Head

(m3/sec)

Percent of Design Q at

Head

CEP Grading

Actual Operational

Plan

Optimized Operational Plan

I 278.70 100% 0.94 0.98

II 220.45 80% 0.77 0.82

III 141.60 50% 0.67 0.74

Figure 6.33: Combined efficiency performance – operational goodness

y = 0.8945x + 0.1371R² = 0.9983

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Opt

imiz

ed

Actual

CHAPTER 7

165

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the research study, the following conclusions are drawn:

7.1 CONCLUSIONS

1. Numerical Simulation and Optimization of a major canal in Pakistan has been successfully completed. Simulations have been carried out using state of art hydrodynamic canal model namely, SIC model for Lower Bari Doab Canal.

2. Optimization has been carried out to improve hydraulic indicators; Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR), Reliability (Pd), Equity (Pe), and Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP) for the study canal to use spreadsheets helps in getting and optimization operational plan.

3. The LBDC main canal is simulated with and without gate operations for wide range of operations at 100%, 80%, 60%, 50% & 40% of its design discharge to compute water levels. Without gate operations, at 80% of design discharge at head, the cross regulators need to be operated to feed 25% offtakes (Dy no. 12, 13, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 34, 39, 47, 50, 51, 54, 59 and 61) to their design discharge. Therefore, gate operation is required at 80% of design discharge.

4. The simulated discharges of offtakes for 100%, 80% and 60% of design discharge at LBDC head indicated that the reduction in the discharges for tail portion offtakes is remarkably more than the offtakes at the head and middle portion when the discharge at the head of the main canal is reduced from 100% to 60%. This indicated that the reduction in discharge from 100% to 60% at the head of a main canal, adversely affects the equity conditions along the main canal. The percent reduction varied from 3-20% from head reach to 25% to 42% in the tail portion.

5. The time lags and stabilization time in all reaches of main canal were also checked. The results of simulations for transitions from 100 to 60 percent of inflows indicated that the time lag for the disturbance to reach from the head to tail is 2.5 to 3 days. The analysis indicated that the stabilization time was twice of the reaching time of a disturbance. Each reach has been considered stabilized when delivery to the off taking canal is 80% stabilized.

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

166

6. A new parameter “Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP)” is proposed in this

study which can be a better indicator of performance to check the overall hydraulic and operational performance of canal. When the value of Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP) is between 0.8 to 1, the canal performance is “Good” and is graded as value equal to 1. When CEP is between 0.8 to 0.4, the performance is “Satisfactory”, the canal is graded equal to value 0.5, while when CEP is less than 0.4 and greater than 1, the canal performance is “Poor” and is graded as value equal to 0. This indicator helps canal mangers to evaluate the operational plans and take decisions for problem solving and can be confidently adopted for canal irrigation systems.

7. The Decision Support Tool, developed, helps to optimize the operational plans in terms of equitable distribution of canal water by considering performance indicators namely; Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR), Reliability (Pd), Equity (Pe) and Combined Efficiency Performance (CEP). An actual water distribution plan of Kharif season 2011 was tested and compared with the model simulated results. The proposed distribution plan with head discharge of 220 m3/s of Lower Bari Doab Canal (LBDC) was simulated. The results indicated that: The average daily delivery performance ratio (DPR) for actual plan

(Kharif 2011) is 0.94 while for optimized plan; the average DPR value is 0.97. The average DPRs for proposed plan in Balloki, Okara Sahiwal and Khenewal Canal Division are 0.91, 1.0, 1.0 and 0.98, respectively. However, as per the actual plan, the DPR values are 0.90, 0.98, 0.92, 0.96 in Balloki, Okara, Sahiwal and Khenewal canal divisions, respectively. The DPR for optimized plan improved by 4% on average. The number of offtakes as per actual plan were 43 as hydraulically performed “Good”, however, the number of offtakes as per optimized plan were 47 indicating improvement by 9%.

The reliability (Pd) of irrigation supply in all the four canal divisions was also evaluated. For actual plan, the Pd values range between 0.01 to 0.21 in Balloki division, 0 to 0.16 in Okara Division, 0 to 0.37 in Sahiwal Division while in Khenewal Division, the values range between 0 to 0.23. For actual plan, the Pd value is 0.048, while for proposed plan, the Pd is 0.056, indicated improvement by 16.6%. The proposed plan after simulation indicates that 59 offtakes were ranked as “Good”, as compared to 53 offtakes.

The equity (Pe) in terms of water distribution along LBDC main canal is evaluated. It is concluded that the equity slope for optimized plan is 0.02 as compared to 0.077 of actual plan. The Equity (Pe) value for actual plan is 0.90 while for optimized plan; it is 0.97 indicating 8% improvement.

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

167

The combined efficiency performance (CEP) of offtakes is evaluated for

actual plan Kharif 2011 and also for proposed distribution plan. The analysis indicated that CEP value for Optimized plan is 0.82 while for actual plan, CEP value is 0.77, showing 13% improvement. Based on the results, it can be concluded that the actual plan for kharif 2011, the number of offtakes ranking as “Good” are 31 (46% of total offtakes) while for the proposed plan, the number of offtakes ranking as “Good” are 46 (73% of total offtakes).

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Following recommendations are made:

1. As this research study is completed with current canal cross sections and structures parameters, the simulation model so developed has been calibrated and validated with the actual canal conditions. However, the model needs to be upgraded with rehabilitated cross sections and structural parameters to account for the modeling effects. It is recommended that hydrodynamic model needs to be calibrated and validated with actual field data and discharge observations along the canal and offtakes after commissioning of LBDC. However, Optimization Module will remain valid for the canal system even after remodeling.

2. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended to adopt normal range of operation as 80% for distribution operation instead of 70% of design discharge.

3. Lower Bari Doab Canal is simulated for hydraulic behaviour and performance is assessed using indicators for better management and operation. In future studies, the canal system can be modeled and performance assessment be carried out for secondary and tertiary level.

4. The study recommends to institutionalize the performance indicators at department level proposed in this research study for better operation and management of canal irrigation systems to conserve precious water resources.

5. The Decision Support Tool is developed for Lower Bari Doab Canal System and is a useful tool for canal managers for decision making. However, with minor modification, it is recommended that this tool can also be used for other irrigation systems.

REFERENCES

168

REFERENCES

Abbott, M.B. (1979). Computational hydraulics; elements of the theory of free surface flows, Pitman Publishing, Ltd, London.

Abbott, M.B., and Ionescu, F. (1967) “On the numerical computation of nearly horizontal flows” J. Hydr. Res. Delft, The Netherlands, 5(2), 239-257.

Ahmad, I., Sufi., A., B., and Hussain T., 2012, “Managing Water Resources for Food Security in Pakistan” Pakistan Engineering Congress, centenary Celebrations 1912-2012. Paper No 712. Pg 111-127.

Alter, Steven L. 1980, Decision Support Systems, Current practice and continuing challenges, Reading, Massachussets, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1980, 316 pp.

ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models of Watershed Management Committee, Irrigation and Drainage Division (1993a), “Criteria for evaluation of watershed models.” J. Irrig. and Drain Engrg., ASCE, 119(3), 429-442.

ASCE 1993, Unsteady flow- modeling of Irrigation canals. J. Irrig., Drain. Eng. 119(4):615-630

ASCE 1998, Special Issue on canal automation. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 124(1).

Basharat M, and Tariq A.R, 2012. Spatial climatic variability and its impact on irrigated hydrology in a canal command. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, issue No. 37-8.

Baume Jean-Pierre, Malaterre Pierre-Olivier, Belaud Gilles, Le Guennec Benoit, 2003, "SIC: a 1D Hydrodynamic Model for River and Irrigation Canal Modeling and Regulation", pp 1-81, ISBN 85-88686-14-7, 2003

Baume, J.P., P.O. Malaterre, P.Y. Vion, X, Lirico. 2003. Simulation of irrigation Canals. User Guide and theoretical concepts modeling approach. Version 4.27. Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research. CEMAGREF. Montpellier. France

Baume, J.P., P.O. Malaterre, and G.B. Benoit. 2005. SIC: A 1D hydrodynamic model for river and irrigation canal modeling and regulation Simulation of irrigation Canals. User Guide and theoretical concepts modeling approach. Version 4.27. Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research. CEMAGREF. Montpellier. France

Bhatti Asif M., Pongsak Suttinon and Seigo Nasu, 2009, Agriculture Water Demand Management in Pakistan: A Review and Perspective Society for Social

REFERENCES

169

Management Systems (SSMS-2009).

Bhatti. M.A and J.W.Kijni, 1990. Irrigation Allocation Problems at tertiary level in Pakistan. IIMI Irrigation Management Network Paper 90/3C. London. Overseas Development Institute.

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 Gugera branch, Punjab, Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 5:229-247

Bhutta, M. and E.J. VenderVelde. 1992. Equity of water distribution along secondary canal in Punjab, Pakistan. Irrig. & Drainage Syst. 6:161-171.

Bos M. G., Burton M. A. and Molden D. J. 2005. Irrigation and drainage performance assessment (Practical guidelines). CABI Publishing, CAB International Wallingford. Oxfordshire. UK. 158 p.

Bos, M.G. (1997) Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage. Irrigation and drainage Systems 11(2), 119-137.

Bos, M.G., D.H. Murray Rust, D.J. Merry, H.G. Johnson and W.B. Snellen. 1994. Methodologies for assessing performance of irrigation and drainage management. Irrig. & Drainage Syst. 7(4):231-261.

Bos, M.G. and J. Nugteren. 1990. On irrigation efficiencies 4th edition (1st edition1974). ILRI Publication 19. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement. The Netherlands. 141p.

Briscoe, J. and Qamar, U., (2006). The World Bank, Pakistan’s Water Economy Running Day, Oxford University Press, ppt 24, 25, 55, 56.

Cemagref 2005, 2007, 2011, Simulation of Irrigation Canal (SIC), User’s Guide, Volume-1, Cemagref-agriculture and Environment Engineering Research, 34033 Monpellier Cedex 1, France, 2011.

Chow, V. T., 1959, Open Channel Hydraulics, MacGraw Hill Co.

Clemmens, A. J.; M.G., Bos, 1991, Statistical methods for irrigation system water delivery performance evaluation, Irrigation and Drainage system, November 1991, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 345-365

Clemmens, J.A., 1993. Unsteady-Flow Modeling of Irrigation Canals. Task Committee on Irrigation Canal Systems. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 119(4):615-631.

Clemmens et., al., (2005)., “Simulation of Automatic Canal Controls Systems”, J. Irrig. Drain.

REFERENCES

170

Engg. August 1, 2005.

Contractor Dinshaw N, and Wytze Schuurmans, 1993, "Informed Use and Potential Pitfalls of Canal Models", Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Vol 119, n° 4, July/August 1993.

David, (2005), Water Resources and Irrigation Policy Issues in Asia. Asian Journal of Agricultural and Development, Vol. 1, No1.

Deltour, J.,L., and Sanfilippo, F., 1998, Introduction of Smith Predictor into dynamic regulation. J. Irrig. Drain Engg., 124(4):47-52.

ENVSEC, 2005, Environmental and security, transforming risks into cooperation. Central Asia, Farghana /osh /khujand, UNEP, UNDP, OSCE, NATO, 2005, http:/ www.envsec.org/centasia/pub/ferghana-report-enq.pdf.

FAO, 1993, Food Agriculture Organization, FAO Agriculture Series, ISSN 0081-4539

Falkenmark, M., and Ayebolele, N., B., (1992), “Freshwater Resources”, in J. Dooge et al., eds., An agenda for science for environment and development into the 21st century. (Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Finlay, P.N., (1994). Introducing decision support systems. Oxford, UK Cambridge, Mass, NCC; Blackwell; Blackwell Publishers.

Gaur; T.W Biggs; M.K. Gumma; G.Parthasaradhi; and H.Turral, 2008, Jouranl of Irrigation And Drainage Engineering, Vol.134, ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437/2008/1-26-35.

Ghumman A.R, R.A.Khan, H.N.Hashmi, M.A. Kamal and I.T.Khan (2011), “Performance assessment of canal irrigation in Pakistan”, African Journal of Agriculture Research Vol. 6(12), pp2692-2698, 18 June, 2011.

Ghumman, A R, Tarrar M A K, Tahir A A., (2004). Investigation of Optimal use of canal water in Pakistan. International conf. on water resources & arid environment.

Gorantiwar, S., Smout, I., and Vairavamoorthy, K. (2006). ”Performance-Based Optimization of Land and Water Resources within Irrigation Schemes. I: Method.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 132(4), 332–340.

Grunwald, S., and Frede, H-G.1999. Using the Modified Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution Model in German Watershed. Catena, 37: 319-328.

Guanghua, G., Changde, W., Clemmens, A.J. 2011. Optimizing Indicator Choosing for Canal Control System and Simulation Study. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, Delft, the Netherlands, 11-13 April 2011.

Grusse P. L., Mailhol J.C., Bouaziz A., Zairi A., Raki M., Chabaca M., Djebbara M. and Ruelle P. 2009. Indicators and framework for analyzing the technical and economic

REFERENCES

171

performance of irrigation systems at farm level. Journal of International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage (ICID), Vol. 58 Issue-S3 :307-319.

Haq A.U. and Khan, M.H. 2002. Water Sharing Issues and Management Regime under Drought Conditions. Workshop Paper presented at Centre of Excellence in Water resources UET, Lahore Pakistan.

Haq, A, Khan, M.A., Husnain M. (2012), “Water resources management in Pakistan; The challenges, climate change, implications and way forward” Centenary Celebrations (1912-2012) Pakistan Engineering Congress, Proceedings Vol, 72, ppt 221-249.

Haq, A.U. 1998. Case Study of Punjab Irrigation Department. Consultancy Report No.C-12 IIMI Pakistan, Lahore.

Haq, Jacques Rey, R. Sakthivadivel and B.M.S. Samarasekera, 1993, Use of computer operated models as Decision Support Tools in Operation and Management of Irrigation Systems – Sri Lankan Experience.

Hashemy, S., Monem, M., Maestre, J., and Van Overloop, P. (2013). "Application of an In-Line Storage Strategy to Improve the Operational Performance of Main Irrigation Canals Using Model Predictive Control." J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000603 (Feb. 18, 2013).

IRSA 1991, Inter Provincial Water Accord, IRSA, Government of Pakistan.

IWASRI, 1998, Groundwater Development Potential of Pakistan, International Water and Salinity Reclamation Institute.

Jacques Rey, and H.M. Hemakumara, 1994, Decision Support System (DSS) for water Distribution System, Theory and Practice, Working Paper 31, IIMI,

Jeroen Vos 2005, “Understanding water delivery performance in a large-scale irrigation system in Peru”, Irrigation and Drainage Volume 54, Issue 1, pages 67-78 Feb 2005.

Kobkiat Pongpu, Habib, Zaigham; t & Gaylord V. Skogerboe. 1996. Unsteady flow simulation of the designed Pehur high-level canal and proposed remodeling of Machai and Maira branch canals, North West Frontier Province, Pakistan. IIMI, Pakistan National Programme, Report No R-20, December, 147 pp

Korkmaz, N., Avci, M., Unal, H., Asik, S., and Gunduz, M. (2009). ”Evaluation of the Water Delivery Performance of the Menemen Left Bank Irrigation System Using Variables Measured On-Site.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 135(5), 633–642.

Kumar P. Mishara A. Raghuwanshi N. S. and Singh R. (2007), “Application of unsteady flow hydraulic model to a large and complex irrigation system” Journal of Agricultural water Management, 2002, vol. 54 pp. 49-66.

Kumar, P.,A Mishra, N.S. Raghuwanshi and R. Sing (2001). Application of unsteady flow

REFERENCES

172

hydraulic model to a large and complex irrigation system. Agriculture water management 54 (2001) 49-66.

Kuper, Parcel, 1997. Irrigated Management Strategies for improved salinity and sodicity control, PhD Thesis, Wageningen Agriculture University, Department of Water Resources, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Liu F, Feyan J, Malaterre PO, Baume JP, Kosuth P (1998) Development and evaluation of canal automation algorithm CLIS. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 124(I):40-46.

Latif M. and Tariq J. 2009. Performance assessment of irrigation management transfer from government-managed to farmer-managed irrigation system: a case study. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, volume 58 275-286, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/ird.424

Latif, M. and Waheed-uz-Zaman. 1998. Constraints and main issues of irrigation system in the Indus basin of Pakistan. J. Drainage & Water Mgt. Pakistan Council of Res. in Water Resources. 2(2):1-11.

LBDCIP 2010, Revised PC-1, Lower Bari Doab Canal Rehabilitation Project, Provincial Irrigation Department (PID), Government of Punjab.

Lozano, D & Arranjo, C & Rijo M & Matoes, L, (2010), “Simulation of automatic control of an Irrigation Canal”, Agriculture Water Management”, Elsevier, Vol. 7. (1), pages 91-100.Jan.

Mohseni, S.A., Movahed; M.J. Monem, (2007), Introduction of a New Mathematical Model for the Evaluation and Optimization of Irrigation Canal Performance, Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, ISSN, 1028-7655, v.11(40),

Mazhar H. et., al., Shakir A., S., Khan N., M., (2013); Steady and Unsteady Simulation of Lower Bari Doab Canal using SIC Model. Pak J. Engg., and App. Sci., Vol., 12, Jan 2013., page 60-72.

Mohseni- movahed, S.A. , Norouzpour, S. (2012), Irrigation canals performance optimization based on sensitivity analysis of weighting coefficients of indicators and different periods of operation IWRJ, (Volume: 5, Issue: 8)

Malaterre, P.O., Baume J.P., Belaud G., Guennee B. L., (2005) SIC: A ID Hydrodynamic Model for river and irrigation canal modeling and regulation. Pp1-81, 1SBN. 85-88686-14-7, 2005.

Malaterre, P.O., and J.P. Baume. 1998. 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 Somalia. Marrakech, Morocco. PP:3-12.

Manual of Irrigation Practice, (MIP), First Edition, Reprint 1964, Public Works Department,

REFERENCES

173

Irrigation Branch, Government of West Punjab, 1964

Merkly G.P, 1998., CanalMan: A hydraulic Simulation Model for Unsteady Flow in Branching Canal Networks, User’s Guide , Dept. of Biological and Irrigation Engineering , Utah State University, USA.

Merkley, G.P., W.R., Walker and F.N. Gichuki. 1991. Transient hydraulic modeling for improved canal system operation. Agriculture Water Management. 18: 181-194.

Ministry of Food and Agriculture, MFA, Government of Pakistan (GoP), 2011).

Molden, D.; Burton, M.; Bos, R. 2007. Performance assessment, Irrigation Service Delivery and Poverty reduction; Benefits of Improved System management. Irrigation and Drainage. Journal of International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID). 56 (2-3) 301-320.

Molden, D.J. and T.L. Gates. 1990. Performance measure of irrigation water delivery systems. J. of Irrig. Drainage Engg. 116(6): 804-823.

Murray-Rust D.H., Halsema G. Van, (1998), Effects of construction defects on hydraulic performance of Kalpani distributary, NWFP, Pakistan, Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 12(4): 323-339.

Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V.1970. River Flow Forecasting through Conceptual models Part-1- A Discussion of Principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3):282-290

National Water Policy (NWP), 2004, Government of Pakistan, Final report on Water resources of Pakistan Availability and Requirements. Vol-II. Ministry of Water &Power.

National Water Policy 2010, Federal Flood Commission /Chief Engineering Advisor Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad, Government of Pakistan.

National Water Sector Strategy, (NWSS), 2010, Pakistan Water Sector Strategy Ministry of Water and Power Office of the Chief Engineering Advisor/ Chairman Federal Flood Commission. Volume 2 October 2010.

Pakistan Metrological Department, 2006, Agrometeoroligical Bulletin of Pakistan for June 2006, published by National Agromet Centre of PMD, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Patamanska G., 2008. Using Computer Based Simulation Model to attain better Canal Operation and Management. Institute for Land Reclamation and Mechanization, Sofia, Bulgaria. 2008.

Planning Commission (PC), 2012, Government of Pakistan, Canal Water Pricing for Irrigation in Pakistan, Assessment, Issues and Options, Government of Pakistan.

Program Monitoring and Implementation Unit, PMIU, 2012, Punjab Irrigation Department,

REFERENCES

174

(http://irrigation.punjab.gov.pk).

Pawde, A. W., Mathur, Y. P. and Kumar, R. (2013), Optimal Water Scheduling in Irrigation Canal Network using Particle Swarm Optimization. Irrig. and Drain., 62: 135–144. doi: 10.1002/ird.1707

Perez U., L., Díaz, J., Poyato, E., and Luque, R. (2009). ”Quality of Service in Irrigation Distribution Networks: Case of Palos de la Frontera Irrigation District (Spain).” J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 135(6), 755–762

Rao I, and T. B. S. Rajput, 2009, Decision support system for efficient water management in canal command areas, Current Science, Vol. 97, No. 1, 10 July 2009.

RAP – Revised Action Program for Irrigated Agriculture 1978-79. Vol-I,II, III,IV, w

Regulation Rules Balloki Headworks, 2010, Balloki Headworks Division, Balloki Lower Bari Doab Canal Circle, Project Director LBDCIP, Lahore.

Roerink G.J. and Noordman E. J. M. 2007. Irrigation Performance Assessment Tool. Wageningen, Alterra.

Seckler, D., R.K. Sampth and S.K. Raheja. 1988. An index for measuring performance of irrigation management systems with an application. Water Resources Bullet. 24 (4): 855-860.

Shafique, M.S., Nature of Water Crisis in Pakistan and aPotential Way out, 2010, http://Koolblue.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/nature-of-water-ccrisis-in-Pakistan-a-potential-way-out.

Shahid, A. C. 2010. Pakistan: Indus Basin Water Strategy – Past, Present and Future, The Lahore Journal of Economics15: SE (September 2010): pp. 187-211

Shakir A.S, and A. Bashir, Aun: June, 2005, “ Sustainable Development of Water Resources in Pakistan and Environmental Issues” proceedings of 1st International Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development”, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abottabad, Pakistan.

Shakir et al., 2008, Impact of Canal Water Shortages on Groundwater in the Lower Bari Doab Canal System in Pakistan. Pak. J. Engg. & Appl. Sci Vol 9. Jul., 2011 pp. 87-97.

Small, L.E.M. and M. Svendsen. 1990. A framework for assessing irrigation performance. Irrig. & Drainage Syst. 4: 282-312.

Srinivasa Rao, (2005), Decision Support System for Irrigation Water Management

Steven, (1996), Canal Water Distribution at the Secondary Level in the Punjab, Pakistan

REFERENCES

175

Tahir, Zubair and Habib, Zaigham 2000. Land and Water Productivity trends: across Punjab

Trifonov, II.,Patamanska G., (2005). Utilization of the Existing Irrigation Canals Potentail, In Proc.21st European Regional Conference “Integrated Land and Water Resources and Management towards Sustainable Rural Developemnt”, Francfurt (Oder), Germany and Slubice, Poland.

Turban, Efraim (1995), Decision support and expert systems: Management support systems, (ISBN 0024217018 ), Prentice Hall (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.)

Umagiliyage, A.H.L., Najim, M.M.M., Hewavitharana, P., 2005. Hydraulic Calibration of canal reaches and structures through simulation. Water Professional’s day Symposium. Peradeniya Sri Lanka.

United Nations, 2011, Statistical year book for Asia and the pacific 2011by UN ESCAP.

United Nations, World Water Development Report, 2012, Volume 1: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk.

Visser, 1996, Canal Water Distribution at the Secondary Level in the Punjab, Pakistan Development of a simplified tool to estimate the Canal Water Distribution at the Distributary Level, Report 70

World Bank (2006), Better Management of Indus Basin Waters Strategic Issues and Challenges, www.worldbank.org.pk

World Bank, (2005) Shaping the Future of Water for Agriculture. Washington: The World Bank [online] available from <www.worldbank.org>.

Habib, Z., K. Pongput, G.V. Skogerboe. 1996, “Unsteady flow simulation of the designed Pehur High Level Canal and proposed remodeling of Machai and Maira Branch Canals, North West Frontier Province, Pakistan. International Water Management Institute. Lahore. Pakistan. R-20: 125-147.

Habib, Z., S.K. Shah., M. Kaleemullah, A. Vabree, M.D. Ahmad and A. Sophyani. (1999). Hydraulic Simulation to evaluate and predict Design and operation of the Chashma Right Bank Canal, International Management Institute Lahore. Pakistan. R-79: 119-121.

Habib, Z., Marcel Kuper. 1998. Performance assessment of the water regulation and distribution system in the Chishtian subdivision at the main and secondary canal levels. IIMI, Pakistan National Programme, Report No R-59, 110 pp.

Waijjen, E.G., W.W. Hart., W. Kupar., and R. Brower. 1997. Using hydrodynamic flow model to plan maintenance activities and improving irrigation water: application to Forwah Distributary in Punjab. Pakistan Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 11(4): 367-386.

APPENDIX A

176

Appendix A: Table A-1: Statistics of canal area in Punjab province, Table-A-2: availability of water in Punjab canal commands

APPENDIX A

177

Table A-1: Statistics of canal area in Punjab Province, Pakistan

Canal Command Kharif Season Rabi Season

Canal Waters

Tube well Water

Rain Total Water

Canal Waters

Tube well Water

Rain Total Water

UCC 208 335 410 953 41 335 26 402

CBDC 327 294 295 916 249 294 36 580

Upper Dipalpur 349 311 255 915 71 311 25 407

Lower Dipalpur 464 280 250 994 64 280 25 369

LCC East (Gugera) 372 242 270 883 244 242 25 510

LCC West (Jhang) 273 316 284 872 179 316 25 520

Upper Jehlum 429 294 480 1203 309 294 25 627

Lower Jehlum 252 304 305 861 159 304 25 488

Thai 324 107 310 742 230 107 44 380

L.B.D.C. 426 292 250 968 262 292 25 579

Haveli 370 307 250 926 194 307 25 526

Mailsi 389 422 183 993 83 422 25 530

Pakpattan 402 222 250 874 205 222 25 451

Fordwah 444 82 250 776 38 82 25 145

East Sadiqia 508 83 240 831 357 83 25 465

Abbasia 375 89 145 609 411 89 25 525

Bahawal 520 167 150 837 243 167 25 436

Qaim 718 0 224 942 199 0 25 224

Panjnad 536 163 65 764 168 163 25 357

D.GKhan 727 48 138 913 233 48 25 306

Muzaffargarh 609 133 206 949 134 133 25 292

Rangpur 238 205 237 680 33 205 25 263

APPENDIX A

178

Table A-2: Availability of water in Punjab canal commands

Canals Year of Operation

GCA CCA % Area Perennial

Upper Chenab 1912 618836 580147 60%

M.R. Link 1956 71002 63616 0%

C.B.D.C 1859 284639 265700 100%

Depalpur (Upper) 1928 152223 141711 0%

Depalpur (Lower) 1928 263620 247718 0%

B.R.B.D. 0%

Lower Chenab (East) 1892 773321 647502 95%

Lower Chenab (West) 1892 724140 588614 95%

Upper Jehlum 1915 236625 220094 69%

Lower Jehlum 1901 662982 614488 86%

Thai 1947 950802 773843 100%

L.B.D.C. 1913 740374 675667 97%

Haveli 1939 457382 411711 36%

Mailsi 1928 303916 277956 32%

Pakpattan (Upper & Lower) 1927 570971 516233 60%

Ford\vah 1927 188118 173111 15%

East Sadiqia 1926 497749 424850 981%

Abbasia 1929 120739 96139 48%

Bahawal 1927 365681 299776 47%

Qaim 1927 18310 17121 11%

Panjnad 1929 613172 551926 33%

D.GKhan 1958 388706 368546 0%

Muzaffargarh 1958 383473 331764 0%

Rangpur 1939 144831 139769 0%

APPENDIX B

179

Appendix B: Details of observed cross sections data of LBDC

APPENDIX B

180

APPENDIX B

181

APPENDIX B

182

APPENDIX C

183

Appendix C: Rating Tables (head discharge relationship) for inline structures

APPENDIX C

184

6609

n = 1.67K= 119.6

0.5511.05

Gauge 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

0 44 51 58 66 74 82 91 100 110 120 130 140 151 162 174 185 197 210 222 235

1 249 262 276 290 305 319 334 349 365 381 397 413 429 446 463 481 498 516 534 552

2 571 590 609 628 648 668 688 708 728 749 770 791 813 834 856 878 901 923 946 969

3 992 1016 1039 1063 1087 1112 1136 1161 1186 1211 1236 1262 1288 1314 1340 1367 1393 1420 1447 1474

4 1502 1529 1557 1585 1614 1642 1671 1700 1729 1758 1787 1817 1847 1877 1907 1938 1968 1999 2030 2061

5 2093 2124 2156 2188 2220 2252 2285 2318 2351 2384 2417 2450 2484 2518 2552 2586 2620 2655 2690 2724

6 2760 2795 2830 2866 2902 2938 2974 3010 3047 3083 3120 3157 3195 3232 3270 3307 3345 3383 3422 3460

7 3499 3537 3576 3615 3655 3694 3734 3774 3814 3854 3894 3935 3975 4016 4057 4098 4139 4181 4223 4264

8 4306 4348 4391 4433 4476 4519 4562 4605 4648 4691 4735 4779 4823 4867 4911 4955 5000 5045 5090 5135

9 5180 5225 5271 5317 5362 5408 5455 5501 5547 5594 5641 5688 5735 5782 5829 5877 5925 5973 6021 6069

10 6117 6166 6214 6263 6312 6361 6410 6460 6509 6559 6609 6659 6709 6760 6810 6861 6911 6962 7013 7065

11 7116 7167 7219 7271 7323 7375 7427 7480 7532 7585 7638 7691 7744 7797 7851 7904 7958 8012 8066 8120

12 8174 8229 8283 8338 8393 8448 8503 8559 8614 8670 8725 8781 8837 8894 8950 9006 9063 9120 9177 9234

184.23 604.47Eleavtions Q (m3/sec)

0.00 184.23 1.25

0.30 184.54 7.05

0.61 184.84 16.17

0.91 185.15 28.09

1.22 185.45 42.54

1.52 185.76 59.27

1.83 186.06 78.16

2.13 186.37 99.09

2.44 186.67 121.95

2.74 186.98 146.70

3.05 187.28 173.24

3.35 187.59 201.53

3.66 187.89 231.49

Bed Scoured Zero RL of Gauge To be Fixed at = 604.47Mean Depth Date of Observation = 10/5/2008

DISCHARGE TABLE OF LOWER BARI DOABCANAL AT RD 108+954Discharge Observed =BM Value & Location = 623.09 (BM on L.Wing Wall of LBDC at RD 108+954)

Discharge (Q) = KDn Design Bed Level = 604.47

184.00

184.50

185.00

185.50

186.00

186.50

187.00

187.50

188.00

188.50

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00

wa

ter

leve

ls (

m)

Discharge in m3/sec

Rating Table at Meter Flume km 33.21 LBDC

Q (m3/sec)

APPENDIX C

185

C =B =

5.7 ft

Gauge 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.950 0 4 12 22 34 48 63 80 97 116 136 157 179 202 226 250 276 302 329 3571 385 414 444 475 506 538 571 604 638 672 708 743 779 816 854 892 930 969 1009 10492 1089 1130 1172 1214 1257 1300 1343 1388 1432 1477 1522 1568 1615 1662 1709 1756 1805 1853 1902 19513 2001 2052 2102 2153 2205 2257 2309 2362 2415 2468 2522 2576 2631 2686 2741 2797 2853 2910 2966 30244 3081 3139 3197 3256 3315 3375 3434 3494 3555 3616 3677 3738 3800 3862 3924 3987 4050 4114 4178 42425 4306 4371 4436 4501 4567 4633 4699 4766 4833 4900 4968 5036 5104 5173 5241 5310 5380 5450 5520 55906 5661 5731 5803 5874 5946 6018 6090 6163 6236 6309 6383 6456 6531 6605 6680 6754 6830 6905 6981 7057

179.34 588.42Eleavtions Q (m3/sec)

0 179.3417 0

0.30 179.65 10.90

0.61 179.95 30.84

0.91 180.26 56.67

1.22 180.56 87.26

1.52 180.87 121.95

1.83 181.17 160.32

GAUGE = BM VALUE & LOCATION 596.07 (TOP OF U/S PIER NOSE)

Date of Observation 11/6/2008

3.09 CREST LEVEL 588.42124.25 DISCHARGE(Q)=CBH3/2 ZERO RL OF GUAGE TO BE FIXED AT 588.42

DISCHARGE TABLE OF LBDC AT RD 227+454

DISCHARGE OBSERVED 5241.38 CsAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE 6920.00 Cs

179.00

179.50

180.00

180.50

181.00

181.50

0 50 100 150

wat

er

leve

ls (

m)

Discharge in m3/sec

Rating Table at XR/Fall km 69.324 LBDC

Q (m3/sec)

APPENDIX C

186

C = 3.39B = 123.8H= 4.58

Gauge 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

0 0 5 13 24 38 52 69 87 106 127 148 171 195 220 246 272 300 329 358 3881 420 451 484 517 551 586 622 658 695 733 771 810 849 889 930 971 1013 1056 1099 11422 1187 1231 1277 1323 1369 1416 1463 1511 1560 1609 1658 1708 1759 1810 1861 1913 1966 2019 2072 21263 2180 2235 2290 2345 2402 2458 2515 2572 2630 2688 2747 2806 2866 2926 2986 3047 3108 3169 3231 32944 3356 3419 3483 3547 3611 3676 3741 3806 3872 3938 4005 4072 4139 4207 4275 4343 4412 4481 4551 46205 4691 4761 4832 4903 4975 5047 5119 5192 5265 5338 5411 5485 5560 5634 5709 5785 5860 5936 6012 60896 6166 6243 6321 6399 6477 6555 6634 6713 6793 6872 6952 7033 7114 7195 7276 7357 7439 7522 7604 76877 7770 7853 7937 8021 8105 8190 8275 8360 8445 8531 8617 8703 8790 8877 8964 9052 9139 9227 9316 94048 9493 9582 9672 9761 9851 9941 10032 10123 10214 10305 10397 10489 10581 10673 10766 10859 10952 11045 11139 112339 11327 11422 11517 11612 11707 11803 11899 11995 12091 12188 12284 12382 12479 12576 12674 12772 12871 12969 13068 13167

10 13267 13367 13466 13566 13667 13767 13868 13969 14071 14172 14274 14376 14479 14581 14684 14787 14890 14994 15098 15202

176.65 579.58Q (m3/sec)

0 176.6474 0

0.305 176.95 11.89

0.610 177.26 33.62

0.914 177.56 61.74

1.219 177.87 95.04

1.524 178.17 132.85

1.829 178.48 174.62

2.133 178.78 220.05

2.438 179.09 268.85

2.743 179.39 320.79

3.048 179.70 375.73

DISCHARGE TABLE OF LBDC AT RD 258+654

DISCHARGE OBSERVED (Qo)= 4112.13 CsAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE= 9292.00 Cs

DISCHARGE(Q)=CBH3/2 CREST LEVEL = 579.58ZERO RL OF GAUGE TO BE FIXED AT=579.58

DATE OF OBSERVATION = 17-2-2010 BM VALUE & LOCATION = 591.38(TOP OF PPT WALL)

176.00

176.50

177.00

177.50

178.00

178.50

179.00

179.50

180.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

wa

ter

leve

ls (

m)

Discharge in m3/sec

Rating Table at XR/FALL km 78.83 LBDC

Q (m3/sec)

APPENDIX C

187

n = 1.67k= 125.38 6.55 ft

ft

Gauge 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.950 0 0 0 1 3 5 9 12 17 22 27 33 39 46 53 61 69 78 86 961 105 115 125 136 147 158 170 182 194 207 220 233 247 261 275 289 304 319 335 350

2 366 382 399 416 433 450 468 486 504 522 541 560 579 599 618 638 659 679 700 7213 742 764 785 807 829 852 875 898 921 944 968 992 1016 1040 1065 1090 1115 1140 1165 11914 1217 1243 1270 1296 1323 1350 1377 1405 1433 1460 1489 1517 1546 1574 1603 1633 1662 1692 1721 1751

5 1782 1812 1843 1874 1905 1936 1968 1999 2031 2063 2096 2128 2161 2194 2227 2260 2294 2327 2361 23956 2430 2464 2499 2534 2569 2604 2639 2675 2711 2747 2783 2820 2856 2893 2930 2967 3004 3042 3080 31187 3156 3194 3232 3271 3310 3349 3388 3428 3467 3507 3547 3587 3627 3668 3708 3749 3790 3831 3873 39148 3956 3998 4040 4082 4125 4167 4210 4253 4296 4339 4383 4427 4470 4514 4559 4603 4647 4692 4737 47829 4827 4873 4918 4964 5010 5056 5102 5148 5195 5242 5289 5336 5383 5430 5478 5526 5573 5622 5670 571810 5767 5815 5864 5913 5963 6012 6062 6111 6161 6211 6261 6312 6362 6413 6464 6515 6566 6617 6669 6720

166.0165 544.7

Q (m3/sec)

0 166.0165 0

0.304785 166.3212 2.973662

0.60957 166.626 10.36534

0.914355 166.9308 21.01388

1.219141 167.2356 34.46616

1.523926 167.5404 50.46729

1.828711 167.8452 68.81903

2.133496 168.15 89.37978

2.438281 168.4547 112.0363

2.743066 168.7595 136.7035

3.047851 169.0643 163.3248

DISCHARGE TABLE OF LBDC AT 354+000

OBSERVED DISCHARGE (Qo)= 2892.95 CsAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE = 5795.00 Cs

BED SILTED= 0.10 DESIGN BED LEVEL = 544.7DATE OF OBSERVATION = 12/3/2010 ZERO RL OF GAUGE TO BE FIXED AT = 544.70

BM VALUE & LOCATION = 557.72TOP OF MP LINK HEAD PEIR

DISCHARGE (Q) = KDn MEAN DEPTH (D) =

165.50

166.00

166.50

167.00

167.50

168.00

168.50

169.00

169.50

0 50 100 150

wa

ter

leve

ls (

m)

Discharge in m3/sec

Rating Table at XR/FALL km 107.893 LBDC

Q (m3/sec)

APPENDIX C

188

3045

n = 1.67K= 108.13

1.247.38

Gauge 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 8 11 15 20 24 30 35 41 47 54 61

2 68 76 84 92 101 110 119 129 139 149 159 170 181 192 203 215 227 240 252 265

3 278 291 305 319 333 347 361 376 391 407 422 438 454 470 486 503 520 537 554 571

4 589 607 625 644 662 681 700 719 739 758 778 798 818 839 859 880 901 923 944 966

5 987 1009 1032 1054 1077 1099 1122 1146 1169 1193 1216 1240 1264 1289 1313 1338 1363 1388 1413 1438

6 1464 1490 1516 1542 1568 1595 1621 1648 1675 1702 1730 1757 1785 1813 1841 1869 1898 1926 1955 1984

7 2013 2042 2072 2101 2131 2161 2191 2221 2252 2282 2313 2344 2375 2407 2438 2470 2501 2533 2565 2598

8 2630 2662 2695 2728 2761 2794 2828 2861 2895 2929 2963 2997 3031 3066 3100 3135 3170 3205 3240 3276

9 3311 3347 3383 3419 3455 3491 3528 3564 3601 3638 3675 3713 3750 3787 3825 3863 3901 3939 3977 4016

162.63 533.58Q (m3/sec)

0 162.63 0

0.304785 162.93 0

0.60957 163.24 1.9258

0.914355 163.54 7.873124

1.219141 163.85 16.68083

1.523926 164.15 27.95242

1.828711 164.46 41.46134

2.133496 164.76 57.00935

2.438281 165.07 74.48315

2.743066 165.37 93.76947

Bed Silted Zero RL of Gauge To be Fixed at = 533.58Mean Depth Date of Observation = 8/5/2008

DISCHARGE TABLE OF LOWER BARI DOABCANAL AT RD 431+000Discharge Observed =BM Value & Location = 547.44 (BM on Top of L.Wing Wall)

Discharge (Q) = KDn Design Bed Level = 533.58

162.00

162.50

163.00

163.50

164.00

164.50

165.00

165.50

166.00

0 50 100

wa

ter

leve

ls (

m)

Discharge in m3/sec

Rating Table at XR/Fall km 131.362 LBDC

Q (m3/sec)

APPENDIX E

189

Appendix D: Frequency analysis of offtakes

APPENDIX E

190

Table D-1: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Balloki Division)


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 51 5 140 0 109 0 11 0 32 0

<60 132 176 43 183 74 181 172 182 151 181

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Frequency Analysis of Dy‐1

Range

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 170 84 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 39 168 117 153 125 178 142 180 144

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

<60 13 56 15 65 18 55 5 38 2 36

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 180 182 181

OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence Occurrence Occurrence Occurrence

Frequency Analysis of Dy 2


>110 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 114 2 120 0 0 0 25 0 20 0

91 ‐ 100 7 0 4 0 4 0 10 0 46 0

81 ‐ 90 1 13 20 0 1 0 23 0 23 0

71 ‐ 80 1 0 2 0 6 0 2 0 26 0

61 ‐ 70 28 75 14 91 21 91 27 91 27 91

<60 32 91 22 92 151 90 96 91 41 90

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


Frequency Analysis of DY 3

APPENDIX E

191

Table D-1: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Balloki Division) (contd.)


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 27 75 14 91 21 90 27 92 27 91

<60 64 106 169 92 160 91 156 90 156 90

183 181 183 183 181 181 183 182 183 181


OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 27 75 14 91 21 90 27 92 27 91

<60 64 106 169 92 160 91 156 90 156 90

183 181 183 183 181 181 183 182 183 181


Range

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 126 13 46 0 72 0 80 0 120 8

101 ‐ 110 1 0 92 0 61 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

81 ‐ 90 0 15 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 28 74 16 90 21 90 44 90 27 90

<60 28 75 25 93 22 91 59 92 33 83

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

192



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 128 7 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 30 2 68 0 0 0 57 20 77 17

61 ‐ 70 3 39 67 27 124 27 34 25 60 34

<60 22 133 48 156 59 154 37 136 46 130

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 181 183 181

Occurrence Occurrence


%age

Range of

discharge

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence Occurrence Occurrence


>110 126 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 120 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 92 0 61 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 74 0 90 0 90 0 90 0 90

<60 0 75 0 93 0 91 0 92 0 83

126 149 92 183 61 181 80 182 120 173


Range

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 157 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 47 153 50 147 85 173 100 178 120

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 13 31 15 68 18 43 5 41 2 30

<60 13 49 15 65 18 53 5 41 2 30

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 182 181


OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

193



>110 157 27 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 39 153 70 135 70 173 106 179 108

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

61 ‐ 70 13 56 15 50 18 55 5 38 2 36

<60 13 57 15 62 18 55 5 38 2 36

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 110 110 120 88 120 87 120 90 33 110

<60 73 71 63 95 63 94 63 92 150 71

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 2 6 2 2 37 2 4 51 16

91 ‐ 100 0 20 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1

81 ‐ 90 0 31 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

71 ‐ 80 0 23 6 0 0 3 0 1 0 0

61 ‐ 70 120 40 60 100 80 80 80 100 70 50

<60 63 65 107 81 101 58 101 77 62 112

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

194



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 20 31 31

101 ‐ 110 159 69 155 115 141 70 100 20 108 50

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0

61 ‐ 70 12 54 14 40 21 60 20 65 21 49

<60 12 58 14 28 21 50 20 77 21 50

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 4 23 118 3 81 49 106 5 0 100

91 ‐ 100 0 2 7 2 1 1 7 14 80 1

81 ‐ 90 0 0 13 33 53 34 34 11 7 2

71 ‐ 80 0 5 9 8 1 5 1 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 14 60 17 59 23 50 17 67 46 46

<60 14 91 19 78 24 42 18 85 50 32

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


OccurrenceRange

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

195

Table D-2: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Okara Division)


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 149 75 172 100 151 50 129 50 159 67

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 24 4 49

81 ‐ 90 0 8 0 5 0 7 6 9 3 14

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 17 45 6 50 16 60 10 50 6 30

<60 17 53 5 28 16 64 11 49 11 21

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Range

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 146 110 167 0 120 80 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 4 80 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 19 20 6 39 30 60 121 85 110 81

<60 18 50 6 61 33 41 60 96 73 100

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 181 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 5 87 97 138 85 150 55

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 19 51 6 60 16 40 22 50 15 80

<60 164 130 177 118 79 44 22 44 14 45

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

196

Table D-2: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Okara Division) (contd)


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 137 90 152 80 155 91 149 45 143 70

91 ‐ 100 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 23 30 15 40 14 50 17 63 20 40

<60 23 61 15 63 14 40 17 73 19 45

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 181 183 181


% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 146 17 138 83 128 83 136 50 134 84

91 ‐ 100 6 47 7 6 8 1 1 0 3 7

81 ‐ 90 0 12 2 6 4 0 0 1 0 5

71 ‐ 80 1 1 2 8 1 5 1 0 3 11

61 ‐ 70 15 40 15 50 21 49 23 62 22 36

<60 15 64 19 30 21 44 22 68 21 38

183 181 183 183 183 182 183 181 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 139 80 153 90 139 50 133 90 144 90

91 ‐ 100 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 22 48 15 40 22 40 25 50 20 30

<60 22 51 15 51 22 92 25 41 19 47

183 181 183 183 183 182 183 181 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

197



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 137 80 140 90 120 81 135 90 138 96

91 ‐ 100 0 35 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 23 30 15 50 41 51 24 48 23 42

<60 23 32 15 43 22 50 24 43 22 43

183 181 183 183 183 182 183 181 183 181


% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 149 70 153 0 155 31 175 82 144 110

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 17 55 15 93 14 75 4 50 20 35

<60 17 56 15 90 14 75 4 50 19 36

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011




>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 145 0 136 36 2 2 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 3 4 20 0 4 5 7 1 3

81 ‐ 90 1 0 1 11 0 3 0 0 0 22

71 ‐ 80 4 7 0 4 0 1 2 0 3 5

61 ‐ 70 98 55 16 71 23 77 136 99 124 86

<60 80 116 17 77 24 60 38 74 50 65

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



APPENDIX E

198



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 101 32 50 1 90 1 13 17 66 31

91 ‐ 100 1 16 35 2 37 10 57 14 18 3

81 ‐ 90 1 4 10 19 4 4 14 23 32 6

71 ‐ 80 18 20 9 7 4 30 15 4 8 18

61 ‐ 70 28 50 26 20 13 20 27 14 22 9

<60 34 59 53 134 35 116 57 110 37 114

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011




>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0

101 ‐ 110 0 7 115 9 30 25 26 34 19 8

91 ‐ 100 1 20 16 36 7 11 2 4 8 11

81 ‐ 90 0 7 4 5 0 5 0 5 1 2

71 ‐ 80 5 10 8 8 1 8 3 2 2 2

61 ‐ 70 140 63 18 50 111 38 110 59 50 59

<60 37 74 22 75 34 94 42 78 61 99

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011




>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 121 75 118 50 130 50 126 80 122 70

91 ‐ 100 1 21 0 3 2 0 4 0 1 1

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 1 11

71 ‐ 80 0 0 22 13 0 0 0 0 2 0

61 ‐ 70 30 5 19 44 22 39 24 25 29 49

<60 31 80 24 71 26 91 28 76 28 50

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



APPENDIX E

199

Table D-3: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Sahiwal Division)


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 144 116 181 55 55 10 30 16 51 10

91 ‐ 100 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 15 2 1

81 ‐ 90 1 4 0 3 4 1 3 13 3 2

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

61 ‐ 70 19 7 1 62 121 86 60 62 100 118

<60 19 44 1 63 3 82 90 76 26 50

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 105 67 125 48 164 10 155 37 123 56

91 ‐ 100 48 9 54 1 0 42 2 29 3 5

81 ‐ 90 0 22 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0

71 ‐ 80 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1

61 ‐ 70 15 38 2 66 4 49 13 20 23 59

<60 15 39 2 67 15 77 13 95 32 60

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011




>110 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 154 80 159 52 171 16 149 96 156 76

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 6 0 0

61 ‐ 70 5 44 12 56 4 71 12 20 13 38

<60 9 57 12 74 8 83 18 60 14 67

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



APPENDIX E

200

Table D-3: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Sahiwal Division) (contd.)


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

101 ‐ 110 130 57 50 0 82 16 137 46 0 0

91 ‐ 100 30 0 0 0 13 6 0 4 106 4

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 18 6 7 24 27 96

71 ‐ 80 0 0 2 1 12 1 1 5 7 0

61 ‐ 70 11 10 99 78 20 1 15 6 19 40

<60 12 114 32 104 38 151 23 98 23 41

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 183 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011




>110 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 143 117 168 78 137 57 142 79 130 136

81 ‐ 90 4 22 1 21 20 23 18 22 14 4

71 ‐ 80 0 2 7 9 9 0 6 4 11 2

61 ‐ 70 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

<60 20 38 7 75 17 100 17 76 27 39

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 57 70 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 39 0 0 8 54 12 87 7 39 0

71 ‐ 80 33 0 0 7 19 48 65 43 92 43

61 ‐ 70 17 0 0 0 1 0 6 13 4 0

<60 37 111 183 168 47 121 25 119 48 138

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

201



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

101 ‐ 110 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 154 138 180 109 158 103 163 105 151 123

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<60 11 43 2 74 25 78 20 74 32 57

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 154 138 179 109 164 109 165 103 155 126

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0

61 ‐ 70 0 0 0 9 10 3 2 2 2 4

<60 11 43 4 65 8 69 16 74 16 51

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 13 71 0

91 ‐ 100 50 66 22 71 162 60 68 40 80 101

81 ‐ 90 108 9 0 21 3 13 10 26 2 6

71 ‐ 80 0 1 0 4 5 13 1 12 2 1

61 ‐ 70 5 10 0 3 1 8 1 4 0 2

<60 20 95 161 84 12 87 27 87 28 71

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

202



>110 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 15 0 0 0 0 0 121 94 153 115

91 ‐ 100 152 95 139 82 158 65 33 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 20 32 4 7 26 2 0 18 8

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

<60 16 65 10 95 18 90 27 88 12 58

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 13 0 0 29 174 89 163 86 148 134

91 ‐ 100 144 139 169 70 0 0 2 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 4 3

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 7

61 ‐ 70 3 0 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 0

<60 22 42 5 78 6 90 17 97 31 37

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 183 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 162 44 158 63 131 64 120 77 90 41

91 ‐ 100 5 56 6 35 16 9 0 5 3 43

81 ‐ 90 2 8 4 12 9 4 10 3 15 11

71 ‐ 80 1 6 2 3 5 1 1 1 9 5

61 ‐ 70 0 0 5 0 7 8 1 1 7 7

<60 13 67 8 70 15 95 51 96 59 74

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 183 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

203



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 25 0 0

101 ‐ 110 2 0 1 0 1 0 83 39 0 0

91 ‐ 100 157 109 147 99 169 85 8 33 161 136

81 ‐ 90 1 0 19 1 0 1 0 2 8 1

71 ‐ 80 0 20 9 2 6 7 1 2 0 4

61 ‐ 70 3 10 3 4 1 1 3 3 2 7

<60 20 42 4 75 6 87 16 77 12 33

183 181 183 181 183 181 183 181 183 181


% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 40 7 0 0 4 5 2 0 2 0

91 ‐ 100 122 44 98 57 109 27 101 33 81 77

81 ‐ 90 12 35 72 33 42 17 36 31 38 42

71 ‐ 80 1 13 2 15 10 10 20 12 7 13

61 ‐ 70 3 6 3 16 3 8 5 7 9 6

<60 5 76 8 62 15 114 19 99 46 43

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence


>110 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 13 0 0 29 174 89 163 86 148 134

91 ‐ 100 144 139 169 70 0 0 2 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 4 3

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 7

61 ‐ 70 3 0 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 0

<60 22 42 5 78 6 90 17 97 31 37

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 183 183 181

2010‐2011



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010

APPENDIX E

204



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 13 71 0

91 ‐ 100 50 66 22 71 162 60 68 40 80 101

81 ‐ 90 108 9 0 21 3 13 10 26 2 6

71 ‐ 80 0 1 0 4 5 13 1 12 2 1

61 ‐ 70 5 10 0 3 1 8 1 4 0 2

<60 20 95 161 84 12 87 27 87 28 71

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 25 0 0

101 ‐ 110 2 0 1 0 1 0 83 39 0 0

91 ‐ 100 157 109 147 99 169 85 8 33 161 136

81 ‐ 90 1 0 19 1 0 1 0 2 8 1

71 ‐ 80 0 20 9 2 6 7 1 2 0 4

61 ‐ 70 3 10 3 4 1 1 3 3 2 7

<60 20 42 4 75 6 87 16 77 12 33

183 181 183 181 183 181 183 181 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 27 0 0 0 64 36 34 0 17 40

91 ‐ 100 118 89 162 90 80 47 84 30 35 91

81 ‐ 90 4 15 5 11 7 10 19 57 70 2

71 ‐ 80 5 20 6 3 11 4 15 16 13 3

61 ‐ 70 4 7 1 0 1 4 0 3 8 1

<60 25 50 9 79 20 80 31 76 40 44

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181


Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

205

Table D-3: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Sahiwal Division)

(contd.)


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

101 ‐ 110 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 154 138 180 109 158 103 163 105 151 123

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<60 11 43 2 74 25 78 20 74 32 57

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

2010‐2011



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 40 7 0 0 4 5 2 0 2 0

91 ‐ 100 122 44 98 57 109 27 101 33 81 77

81 ‐ 90 12 35 72 33 42 17 36 31 38 42

71 ‐ 80 1 13 2 15 10 10 20 12 7 13

61 ‐ 70 3 6 3 16 3 8 5 7 9 6

<60 5 76 8 62 15 114 19 99 46 43

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 27 0 0 0 64 36 34 0 17 40

91 ‐ 100 118 89 162 90 80 47 84 30 35 91

81 ‐ 90 4 15 5 11 7 10 19 57 70 2

71 ‐ 80 5 20 6 3 11 4 15 16 13 3

61 ‐ 70 4 7 1 0 1 4 0 3 8 1

<60 25 50 9 79 20 80 31 76 40 44

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence

APPENDIX E

206



>110 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 143 117 168 78 137 57 142 79 130 136

81 ‐ 90 4 22 1 21 20 23 18 22 14 4

71 ‐ 80 0 2 7 9 9 0 6 4 11 2

61 ‐ 70 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

<60 20 38 7 75 17 100 17 76 27 39

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

2010‐2011



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 162 44 158 63 131 64 120 77 90 41

91 ‐ 100 5 56 6 35 16 9 0 5 3 43

81 ‐ 90 2 8 4 12 9 4 10 3 15 11

71 ‐ 80 1 6 2 3 5 1 1 1 9 5

61 ‐ 70 0 0 5 0 7 8 1 1 7 7

<60 13 67 8 70 15 95 51 96 59 74

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 183 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

101 ‐ 110 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 154 138 180 109 158 103 163 105 151 123

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<60 11 43 2 74 25 78 20 74 32 57

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence

APPENDIX E

207



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 13 71 0

91 ‐ 100 50 66 22 71 162 60 68 40 80 101

81 ‐ 90 108 9 0 21 3 13 10 26 2 6

71 ‐ 80 0 1 0 4 5 13 1 12 2 1

61 ‐ 70 5 10 0 3 1 8 1 4 0 2

<60 20 95 161 84 12 87 27 87 28 71

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

2010‐2011



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010

APPENDIX E

208

Table D-4: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Khenewal Division)


>110 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 154 80 159 52 171 16 149 96 156 76

91 ‐ 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 11 4 6 0 0

61 ‐ 70 5 44 12 56 4 71 12 20 13 38

<60 9 57 12 74 8 83 18 60 14 67

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

101 ‐ 110 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 154 138 180 109 158 103 163 105 151 123

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<60 11 43 2 74 25 78 20 74 32 57

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

2010‐2011



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 25 0 0

101 ‐ 110 2 0 1 0 1 0 83 39 0 0

91 ‐ 100 157 109 147 99 169 85 8 33 161 136

81 ‐ 90 1 0 19 1 0 1 0 2 8 1

71 ‐ 80 0 20 9 2 6 7 1 2 0 4

61 ‐ 70 3 10 3 4 1 1 3 3 2 7

<60 20 42 4 75 6 87 16 77 12 33

183 181 183 181 183 181 183 181 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

209

Table D-4: Frequency Analysis of discharges of off takes (Khenewal Division) (Contd.)


>110 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 15 0 0 0 0 0 121 94 153 115

91 ‐ 100 152 95 139 82 158 65 33 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 20 32 4 7 26 2 0 18 8

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

<60 16 65 10 95 18 90 27 88 12 58

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 162 44 158 63 131 64 120 77 90 41

91 ‐ 100 5 56 6 35 16 9 0 5 3 43

81 ‐ 90 2 8 4 12 9 4 10 3 15 11

71 ‐ 80 1 6 2 3 5 1 1 1 9 5

61 ‐ 70 0 0 5 0 7 8 1 1 7 7

<60 13 67 8 70 15 95 51 96 59 74

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 183 183 181


% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



>110 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 13 0 0 29 174 89 163 86 148 134

91 ‐ 100 144 139 169 70 0 0 2 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 4 3

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 7

61 ‐ 70 3 0 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 0

<60 22 42 5 78 6 90 17 97 31 37

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 183 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

210



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 27 0 0 0 64 36 34 0 17 40

91 ‐ 100 118 89 162 90 80 47 84 30 35 91

81 ‐ 90 4 15 5 11 7 10 19 57 70 2

71 ‐ 80 5 20 6 3 11 4 15 16 13 3

61 ‐ 70 4 7 1 0 1 4 0 3 8 1

<60 25 50 9 79 20 80 31 76 40 44

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 144 116 181 55 55 10 30 16 51 10

91 ‐ 100 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 15 2 1

81 ‐ 90 1 4 0 3 4 1 3 13 3 2

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

61 ‐ 70 19 7 1 62 121 86 60 62 100 118

<60 19 44 1 63 3 82 90 76 26 50

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

2010‐2011



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 162 44 158 63 131 64 120 77 90 41

91 ‐ 100 5 56 6 35 16 9 0 5 3 43

81 ‐ 90 2 8 4 12 9 4 10 3 15 11

71 ‐ 80 1 6 2 3 5 1 1 1 9 5

61 ‐ 70 0 0 5 0 7 8 1 1 7 7

<60 13 67 8 70 15 95 51 96 59 74

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 183 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011


APPENDIX E

211



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

101 ‐ 110 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 154 138 180 109 158 103 163 105 151 123

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

<60 11 43 2 74 25 78 20 74 32 57

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 146 110 167 0 120 80 0 0 0 0

91 ‐ 100 0 0 4 80 0 0 0 0 0 0

81 ‐ 90 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

71 ‐ 80 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

61 ‐ 70 19 20 6 39 30 60 121 85 110 81

<60 18 50 6 61 33 41 60 96 73 100

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 181 183 181

2010‐2011



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010


>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 121 75 118 50 130 50 126 80 122 70

91 ‐ 100 1 21 0 3 2 0 4 0 1 1

81 ‐ 90 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 1 11

71 ‐ 80 0 0 22 13 0 0 0 0 2 0

61 ‐ 70 30 5 19 44 22 39 24 25 29 49

<60 31 80 24 71 26 91 28 76 28 50

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181



% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011

Occurrence

APPENDIX E

212



>110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

101 ‐ 110 40 7 0 0 4 5 2 0 2 0

91 ‐ 100 122 44 98 57 109 27 101 33 81 77

81 ‐ 90 12 35 72 33 42 17 36 31 38 42

71 ‐ 80 1 13 2 15 10 10 20 12 7 13

61 ‐ 70 3 6 3 16 3 8 5 7 9 6

<60 5 76 8 62 15 114 19 99 46 43

183 181 183 183 183 181 183 182 183 181

Occurrence

% age

Range of

Q

2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2009‐2010 2010‐2011



APPENDIX E

213

Appendix E: Validated and observed water levels of six irrigation periods

APPENDIX E

214

Figure E-1: Validated and observed water levels during May 10-17, 2006

190

190.5

191

5/10

/200

6

5/11

/200

6

5/12

/200

6

5/13

/200

6

5/14

/200

6

5/15

/200

6

5/16

/200

6

5/17

/200

6

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



187.00

187.50

188.00

5/10

/200

6

5/11

/200

6

5/12

/200

6

5/13

/200

6

5/14

/200

6

5/15

/200

6

5/16

/200

6

5/17

/200

6

Wat

er S

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

215



180.00

180.50

181.00

5/10

/200

6

5/11

/200

6

5/12

/200

6

5/13

/200

6

5/14

/200

6

5/15

/200

6

5/16

/200

6

5/17

/200

6

Wat

er S

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)


WSL Validated (KM 69.35)

155.50

156.00

156.50

5/10

/200

6

5/11

/200

6

5/12

/200

6

5/13

/200

6

5/14

/200

6

5/15

/200

6

5/16

/200

6

5/17

/200

6

Wat

er S

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)

WSL Observed (KM 165.19)


APPENDIX E

216

Figure E4: Validated and observed water levels during May 10-17, 2006


144.000

144.500

145.000

5/10

/200

6

5/11

/200

6

5/12

/200

6

5/13

/200

6

5/14

/200

6

5/15

/200

6

5/16

/200

6

5/17

/200

6

Wat

er S

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



190.5

191

191.5

8/24

/200

7

8/25

/200

7

8/26

/200

7

8/27

/200

7

8/28

/200

7

8/29

/200

7

8/30

/200

7

8/31

/200

7

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

217

Figure E-6: Validated and observed water levels during August 24-31 2007


187.50

188.00

188.50

8/24

/200

7

8/25

/200

7

8/26

/200

7

8/27

/200

7

8/28

/200

7

8/29

/200

7

8/30

/200

7

8/31

/200

7

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



180.00

180.50

181.00

8/24

/200

7

8/25

/200

7

8/26

/200

7

8/27

/200

7

8/28

/200

7

8/29

/200

7

8/30

/200

7

8/31

/200

7

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

218




156.00

156.50

157.00

8/24

/200

7

8/25

/200

7

8/26

/200

7

8/27

/200

7

8/28

/200

7

8/29

/200

7

8/30

/200

7

8/31

/200

7

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



144.500

145.000

145.500

8/24

/200

7

8/25

/200

7

8/26

/200

7

8/27

/200

7

8/28

/200

7

8/29

/200

7

8/30

/200

7

8/31

/200

7

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

219

Figure E-11: Validated and observed water levels during Nov 8-15, 2008


190

190.5

191

11/8

/200

8

11/9

/200

8

11/1

0/20

08

11/1

1/20

08

11/1

2/20

08

11/1

3/20

08

11/1

4/20

08

11/1

5/20

08

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



186.50

187.00

187.50

11/8

/200

8

11/9

/200

8

11/1

0/20

08

11/1

1/20

08

11/1

2/20

08

11/1

3/20

08

11/1

4/20

08

11/1

5/20

08

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

220



179.50

180.00

180.50

11/8

/200

8

11/9

/200

8

11/1

0/20

08

11/1

1/20

08

11/1

2/20

08

11/1

3/20

08

11/1

4/20

08

11/1

5/20

08

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



155.50

156.00

156.50

11/8

/200

8

11/9

/200

8

11/1

0/20

08

11/1

1/20

08

11/1

2/20

08

11/1

3/20

08

11/1

4/20

08

11/1

5/20

08

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

221


Figure E-16: Validated and observed water levels during Oct 7-14, 2009

144.000

144.500

145.000

11/8

/200

8

11/9

/200

8

11/1

0/20

08

11/1

1/20

08

11/1

2/20

08

11/1

3/20

08

11/1

4/20

08

11/1

5/20

08

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



189

189.5

190

10/7

/200

9

10/8

/200

9

10/9

/200

9

10/1

0/20

09

10/1

1/20

09

10/1

2/20

09

10/1

3/20

09

10/1

4/20

09

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

222



185.50

186.00

186.50

10/7

/200

9

10/8

/200

9

10/9

/200

9

10/1

0/20

09

10/1

1/20

09

10/1

2/20

09

10/1

3/20

09

10/1

4/20

09

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)

WSL Observed (km33.22)

WSL Validated (km33.22)

179.00

179.50

180.00

10/7

/200

9

10/8

/200

9

10/9

/200

9

10/1

0/20

09

10/1

1/20

09

10/1

2/20

09

10/1

3/20

09

10/1

4/20

09

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)

WSL Observed (km69.35)

WSL Validated (KM69.35)

APPENDIX E

223



154.50

155.00

155.50

10/7

/200

9

10/8

/200

9

10/9

/200

9

10/1

0/20

09

10/1

1/20

09

10/1

2/20

09

10/1

3/20

09

10/1

4/20

09

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



143.000

143.500

144.000

10/7

/200

9

10/8

/200

9

10/9

/200

9

10/1

0/20

09

10/1

1/20

09

10/1

2/20

09

10/1

3/20

09

10/1

4/20

09

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

224

Figure E-21: Validated and observed water levels during Feb 20-27, 2010


189

189.5

190

2/20

/201

0

2/21

/201

0

2/22

/201

0

2/23

/201

0

2/24

/201

0

2/25

/201

0

2/26

/201

0

2/27

/201

0

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



185.50

186.00

186.50

2/20

/201

0

2/21

/201

0

2/22

/201

0

2/23

/201

0

2/24

/201

0

2/25

/201

0

2/26

/201

0

2/27

/201

0

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

225



179.00

179.50

180.00

2/20

/201

0

2/21

/201

0

2/22

/201

0

2/23

/201

0

2/24

/201

0

2/25

/201

0

2/26

/201

0

2/27

/201

0

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)


WSL Validated (KM69.35)

154.50

155.00

155.50

2/20

/201

0

2/21

/201

0

2/22

/201

0

2/23

/201

0

2/24

/201

0

2/25

/201

0

2/26

/201

0

2/27

/201

0

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

226

Figure E25: Validated and observed water levels during Feb 20-27, 2010

Figure E-26: Validated and observed water levels during July 7-14, 2011

143.500

144.000

144.500

2/20

/201

0

2/21

/201

0

2/22

/201

0

2/23

/201

0

2/24

/201

0

2/25

/201

0

2/26

/201

0

2/27

/201

0

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



190

190.5

191

7/7/

2011

7/8/

2011

7/9/

2011

7/10

/201

1

7/11

/201

1

7/12

/201

1

7/13

/201

1

7/14

/201

1

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

227



187.00

187.50

188.00

7/7/

2011

7/8/

2011

7/9/

2011

7/10

/201

1

7/11

/201

1

7/12

/201

1

7/13

/201

1

7/14

/201

1

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



180.00

180.50

181.00

7/7/

2011

7/8/

2011

7/9/

2011

7/10

/201

1

7/11

/201

1

7/12

/201

1

7/13

/201

1

7/14

/201

1

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX E

228



155.50

156.00

156.50

7/7/

2011

7/8/

2011

7/9/

2011

7/10

/201

1

7/11

/201

1

7/12

/201

1

7/13

/201

1

7/14

/201

1

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



144.000

144.500

145.000

7/7/

2011

7/8/

2011

7/9/

2011

7/10

/201

1

7/11

/201

1

7/12

/201

1

7/13

/201

1

7/14

/201

1

Wat

er s

urfa

ce L

evel

s -m

(m

asl)

Time (days)



APPENDIX G

229

Appendix F: Details of coding

APPENDIX G

230

CODING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DECISION SUPPORT TOOL (DST)

Public Class frmDistyDetail

Private Sub cboDivision_SelectedIndexChanged(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles cboDivision.SelectedIndexChanged

If IsNumeric(cboDivision.SelectedValue) Then

cGlobal.mDivisionID = cboDivision.SelectedValue

pFiltervDistyDetail(cGlobal.mDivisionID)

Dim sqlDisty = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.Disties Where d.DivisionID = cGlobal.mDivisionID Select d Order By d.DistyID).ToList()

dgvDisty.DataSource = sqlDisty

cGlobal.mDistyID = sqlDisty(0).DistyID

Dim sqlvDistyDetail = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.vDistyDetails

Where d.DistyID = cGlobal.mDistyID And (d.ExDischargeDate >= dtpFrom.Value And d.ExDischargeDate <= dtpTo.Value)

Order By d.DistyID).ToList()

dgvDistyDetail.DataSource = sqlvDistyDetail

With sqlDisty(0)

txtDPR.Text = .AvgDPR

txtPd.Text = .Pd

txtPe.Text = .Pe

txtCEP.Text = .CEP

txtOpDPR.Text = .AvgOpDPR

txtOpPd.Text = .OpPd

txtOpPe.Text = .OpPe

txtOpCEP.Text = .OpCEP

End With

If Month(dtpFrom.Value) >= 4 And Month(dtpFrom.Value) <= 9 Then 'Think about Months Range

txtRK.Text = "Rabi"

APPENDIX G

231

Else

txtRK.Text = "Kharif"

End If

dgvDistyCodes.DataSource = sqlDisty

'Check the code later

'Dim sqlvAgDistyDetail = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.vDistyDetails

' Group By d.DivisionID, d.DistyID

' Into AvgDPR = Average(d.Dpr), AvgOpDPR = Average(d.OpDpr)

' Where DivisionID = cGlobal.mDivisionID

' Order By DivisionID, DistyID).ToList()

'dgvvAgDistyDetail.DataSource = sqlvAgDistyDetail

End If

End Sub

Private Sub frmDistyDetail_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load

dtpFrom.Format = DateTimePickerFormat.Custom

dtpFrom.CustomFormat = "dd-MMM-yyyy"

dtpFrom.Value = Convert.ToDateTime("2011-04-01")

dtpTo.Format = DateTimePickerFormat.Custom

dtpTo.CustomFormat = "dd-MMM-yyyy"

dtpTo.Value = Convert.ToDateTime("2011-09-30")

cboDivision.DataSource = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.Divisions Select d).ToList()

cboDivision.DisplayMember = "DivisionName"

cboDivision.ValueMember = "DivisionID"

dgvDistyCodes.DataSource = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.Disties

Order By d.DistyID Select d).ToList()

End Sub

Private Sub pFiltervDistyDetail(ByVal pDivisionID As Decimal)

Dim sqlvDistyDetail = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.vDistyDetails).ToList()

APPENDIX G

232

If pDivisionID <> 0 Then

sqlvDistyDetail = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.vDistyDetails

Where d.DivisionID = pDivisionID And (d.ExDischargeDate >= dtpFrom.Value And d.ExDischargeDate <= dtpTo.Value)


Else

sqlvDistyDetail = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.vDistyDetails

Where (d.ExDischargeDate >= dtpFrom.Value And d.ExDischargeDate <= dtpTo.Value)


End If

Dim mDPR As Double

Dim mOpDPR As Double

Dim mSqDPR As Double

Dim mSqOpDPR As Double

Dim mStDevDPR As Double

Dim mStDevOpDPR As Double

Dim mAvgDPR As Double

Dim mAvgOpDPR As Double

Dim Cnt As Int32

For Each Dy In sqlvDistyDetail

cGlobal.mDistyID = Dy.DistyID

Cnt = 0

mDPR = 0

mOpDPR = 0

mSqDPR = 0

mSqOpDPR = 0

For i = 0 To sqlvDistyDetail.Count - 1

If sqlvDistyDetail(i).DistyID = cGlobal.mDistyID Then

mDPR = mDPR + sqlvDistyDetail(i).Dpr

APPENDIX G

233

mOpDPR = mOpDPR + sqlvDistyDetail(i).OpDpr

Cnt = Cnt + 1

End If

Next

mAvgDPR = Math.Round(mDPR / Cnt, 3)

mAvgOpDPR = Math.Round(mOpDPR / Cnt, 3)

For i = 0 To sqlvDistyDetail.Count - 1

If sqlvDistyDetail(i).DistyID = cGlobal.mDistyID Then

mSqDPR = mSqDPR + (sqlvDistyDetail(i).Dpr - mAvgDPR) ^ 2

mSqOpDPR = mSqOpDPR + (sqlvDistyDetail(i).OpDpr - mAvgOpDPR) ^ 2

End If

Next

mStDevDPR = Math.Round(Math.Sqrt(mSqDPR / Cnt), 3)

mStDevOpDPR = Math.Round(Math.Sqrt(mSqOpDPR / Cnt), 3)

'Here send these values to table "Disty"

Dim mDisty = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.Disties Where d.DistyID = cGlobal.mDistyID Select d Order By d.DistyID).FirstOrDefault()

mDisty.AvgDPR = mAvgDPR

mDisty.StDevDPR = mStDevDPR

mDisty.AvgOpDPR = mAvgOpDPR

mDisty.StDevOpDPR = mStDevOpDPR

cGlobal.mChannelEnt.SaveChanges()

Next

End Sub

Private Sub pDispData(ByVal pDivisionID As Decimal, ByVal pDistyID As Decimal)

Dim sqlDisty = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.Disties Where d.DistyID = cGlobal.mDistyID Select d Order By d.DistyID).FirstOrDefault()

With sqlDisty

txtDPR.Text = Math.Round(Convert.ToDouble(.AvgDPR), 3)

txtPd.Text = Math.Round(Convert.ToDouble(.Pd), 3)

APPENDIX G

234

txtPe.Text = Math.Round(Convert.ToDouble(.Pe), 3)

txtCEP.Text = Math.Round(Convert.ToDouble(.CEP), 3)

txtOpDPR.Text = Math.Round(Convert.ToDouble(.AvgOpDPR), 3)

txtOpPd.Text = Math.Round(Convert.ToDouble(.OpPd), 3)

txtOpPe.Text = Math.Round(Convert.ToDouble(.OpPe), 3)

txtOpCEP.Text = Math.Round(Convert.ToDouble(.OpCEP), 3)

End With


Where d.DistyID = pDistyID And (d.ExDischargeDate >= dtpFrom.Value And d.ExDischargeDate <= dtpTo.Value)



End Sub

Private Sub dgvDisty_KeyUp(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.Windows.Forms.KeyEventArgs) Handles dgvDisty.KeyUp

If e.KeyCode = Keys.Up Or e.KeyCode = Keys.Down Then

cGlobal.mDistyID = Convert.ToDecimal(dgvDisty.Rows(dgvDisty.CurrentRow.Index).Cells(0).Value)

pDispData(cboDivision.SelectedValue, cGlobal.mDistyID)

End If

End Sub

Private Sub dgvDisty_MouseClick(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.Windows.Forms.MouseEventArgs) Handles dgvDisty.MouseClick

cGlobal.mDistyID = Convert.ToDecimal(dgvDisty.Rows(dgvDisty.CurrentRow.Index).Cells(0).Value)

pDispData(cboDivision.SelectedValue, cGlobal.mDistyID)

End Sub

Private Sub cboGraphs_SelectedIndexChanged(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles cboGraphs.SelectedIndexChanged

cGlobal.mGraph = cboGraphs.SelectedItem

Select Case cboGraphs.SelectedItem

Case "DPR Ex."

cGlobal.mTitleY = "Delivery Performance Ratio (Ext)"

APPENDIX G

235

Case "Pd Ex."

cGlobal.mTitleY = "Reliability (Ext)"

Case "Pe Ex."

cGlobal.mTitleY = "Equity (Ext)"

Case "CEP Ex."

cGlobal.mTitleY = "Combined Efficiency Performance (Ext)"

Case "DPR Op."

cGlobal.mTitleY = "Delivery Performance Ratio (Opt)"

Case "Pd Op."

cGlobal.mTitleY = "Reliability (Opt)"

Case "Pe Op."

cGlobal.mTitleY = "Equity (Opt)"

Case "CEP Op."

cGlobal.mTitleY = "Combined Efficiency Performance (Opt)"

End Select

Dim mfrmGraphs As New frmGraphs()

mfrmGraphs.MdiParent = frmMDI

mfrmGraphs.Show()

End Sub

Private Sub btnAll_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles btnAll.Click

cGlobal.mDivisionID = 0 'All

pFiltervDistyDetail(cGlobal.mDivisionID)

Dim sqlDisty = (From d In cGlobal.mChannelEnt.Disties Select d Order By d.DistyID).ToList()

dgvDisty.DataSource = sqlDisty

cGlobal.mDistyID = sqlDisty(0).DistyID


Where d.DistyID = cGlobal.mDistyID And (d.ExDischargeDate >= dtpFrom.Value And d.ExDischargeDate <= dtpTo.Value)


APPENDIX G

236


With sqlDisty(0)

txtDPR.Text = .AvgDPR

txtPd.Text = .Pd

txtPe.Text = .Pe

txtCEP.Text = .CEP

txtOpDPR.Text = .AvgOpDPR

txtOpPd.Text = .OpPd

txtOpPe.Text = .OpPe

txtOpCEP.Text = .OpCEP

End With

If Month(dtpFrom.Value) >= 4 And Month(dtpFrom.Value) <= 9 Then 'Think about Months Range

txtRK.Text = "Rabi"

Else

txtRK.Text = "Kharif"

End If

dgvDistyCodes.DataSource = sqlDisty

End Sub

Private Sub dgvDisty_CellContentClick(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.Windows.Forms.DataGridViewCellEventArgs) Handles dgvDisty.CellContentClick

End Sub

End Class

APPENDIX G

237

Appendix G: Hydrodynamic model SIC Details

APPENDIX G

238

SIC MODEL

Appendix One dimensional hydrodynamic model “Simulation of Irrigation Canal, SIC” consists of three modules namely, topographic, steady and unsteady module. The details are discussed below:

TOPOGRAPHIC MODULE

Topographical Module (Unit I) is used to create the topography and geometry files to be further used by the computational programs of Steady Module (Unit II) and Unsteady Module Unit III. Unit I allow to input and verify data obtained from a topographical survey of the canal. Unit I consists of three programs: EDITAL, TALWEG and RESTAL.

The module processes the geometric data for the steady and unsteady state simulations. The numerical and graphical results give longitudinal and cross sectional profiles, canal width, depth, perimeters and reach volumes for each computational section.

A main canal network is a water distribution system, which conveys water from a source to various offtakes that deliver water to 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 to its geometric description. All the topographic components used by the model are managed in Unit 1. For one-dimensional hydraulic modeling, each reach is described by n cross-sections perpendicular to the main flow direction (Figure G-1). Cross-sections are chosen to represent as closely as possible the shape and the slope of the reach.

Figure G-1: Cross sections in a reach (Baume et al. 2003).

APPENDIX G

239

If the distance between two data cross-sections is too great, intermediate cross-sections are computed by numerical interpolation in order to improve the accuracy of the computed backwater curve.

Description of system network

The hydraulic network is divided into homogeneous sections, the reaches being located between an upstream node and a downstream node. The hydraulic modeling of main canal or part of the canal network, takes into account the real canal topography, the canal network topology and its geometric description. The major physical components are control works, regulators, distributors gated and un-gated diversions. The hydraulic model defines the canal reach either between the two off takes or between two cross regulators. The location of each off-take is defined as a nodal point. The network is divided into homogeneous reaches located between an upstream and a downstream node and also considering the administrative canal divisions. The model provides flexibility to group the reaches for linkage. The physical parameters involve canal geometry, (cross sections representing the flow depth, canal longitudinal slope, and reaches length, off-takes from the canal, description and dimensions of the structures along /across the canal. The hydraulic parameters involve discharge coefficients of the cross structures and off takes, boundary conditions of the off takes/tail end of the system, seepage losses and Manning coefficients. Some parameters are directly measured from the field; some are taken from the design/specifications while some needs to be adjusted by running the model so that simulated values and measured field parameters are compatible with each other.

Selection of branches

A branch in the model is not the same as a branch in a canal. A branch is a group reaches serially linked to one another. Figure G-2 depicts how a LBDC network is subdivided into reaches and branches. 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 automatically numbered by the program according to the order in which they are input in the data file. The calculation of a water surface profile proceeds upwards, commencing at the downstream end. Therefore, a relationship between water surface elevation and discharge is needed as a downstream boundary condition to start the calculation.

Upstream and downstream boundary conditions

For hydraulic model, the inflow discharge at the first node of the network takes as the initial boundary condition while rating curve (Q-H relations) as the downstream boundary conditions at the last (downstream) node of the network. The first node of the canal is defined upstream of the first structure, so it is a starting point where the water taken by the head regulator is available. Downstream boundary conditions are important

APPENDIX G

240

under variable flow conditions. The depth discharge relation at this location is the starting point for the flow profile and must always be subcritical.

Figure G-2: Typical network showing canal reaches and branches.

Description of the cross sections

Various types of cross sections are defined in the model. The reach geometry is defined by the cross section profiles, characterizing the shape and volume of the canal at a particular location. The elevations are indicated with reference to a unique datum (benchmark for the bed level with reference to the sea level) along the canal. The cross sections can be entered in the model by three different formats, abscissa – elevations, width-elevations and parametric format. For model set up, the abscissa – elevation format was used and typical cross section is shown in Figure G-3 below. The section is entered from left bank. The model does not process the bank itself, and all points after the highest bank level are ignored.

APPENDIX G

241

Figure G-3: A typical cross section of abscissa-elevation format

Singular section

The model defines the cross regulators and weirs in the main canal as singular sections within a reach to have accurate water levels and flow conditions for the structure. Two cross-sections are required for the simulation of the structure, one at the upstream and second at the downstream of the structure with same abscissa especially if there is change in geometry. Otherwise, the next section downstream is used to interpolate a section at one meter downstream of the singular section. Figure G-4 shows the typical case of the interpolated section between i and j.

Figure G-4: A typical cross section as a singular section in a canal reach.

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 characteristics of the system (topology, geometry and branches). The (.TAL) files are used by the other programs of unit I. Once in the data editor, the

APPENDIX G

242

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.

a) The inverse reach option permits to reverse the direction of the flow in the reach.

b) The split reach option permits to divide one reach into two reaches with a new intermediate node.

c) The merge reaches option permits to join two adjoining reaches and to erase the intermediate node.

d) 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 true and they must be classified into linear branches.

Geometry computation

TALWEG program checks the topographic data file (.TAL) and interpolates cross calculation sections that are necessary for Units II and III files (.MIN), (.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 printout file containing information on the program's progress and possible warning or error messages. The (.LST) file permits to visualize possible mistakes. At the end of this stage, the topographic files used by Units II and III are created.

Numerical results

RESTAL program generates a (.LST) file that contains a table giving the description of the calculation sections. The program is started by selecting the Numerical Results option in the main menu of Unit I. The printout files (.LST) and (.MIN) contains all calculation cross sections in width-elevation format, by default.

STEADY MODULE

Steady flow computations are carried out under Unit II. It allows analyzing the water surface profile for any combination of discharges or settings at offtakes and cross structures. The required setting at offtakes is required to satisfy a given distribution plan and maintaining full supply depth targets upstream of cross structures.

APPENDIX G

243

The steady state module computes the water surface profile in a canal. The water surface profile is used as initial condition for the unsteady flow in unsteady module. The steady state computations allow testing the influence of modifications to structures or canal maintenance. This module is further divided into two sub-modules. One sub-module computes off-take gate openings to satisfy given target discharges and other sub-module computes the cross regulators gate openings to obtain a given target water surface elevation upstream of the regulator. The steady state equation requires upstream and downstream boundary conditions and hydraulic roughness coefficient along the canal. The steady state equation is discretized in order to obtain a numerical solution using Newton’s method which uses a bisection algorithm for computation convergence.

To calculate the water surface profile under sub critical steady flow conditions in a reach, the following classic hypotheses of uni-dimensional hydraulics in canals are considered.

The flow direction is sufficiently rectilinear, so that the free surface in a across section could be considered horizontal.

The transversal velocities are negligible and the pressure distribution is hydrostatic.

The friction forces are taken into account through the Manning-Strickler coefficients.

Management and design mode

The option Management Mode allows to modifying main operational parameters. It is useful to test the effect of operations at cross structures or 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 only targeted discharges.

This option Design Mode allows to modifying all the hydraulic parameters concerning the canal. It allows testing of the effect of Manning roughness coefficient, seepage or lateral inflow of a new designed canal on the water surface profile. This EDIFLU File menu presents several options:

First option new permits to create a hydraulic data file (.FLU). Second option Open permits to modify a hydraulic data file (.FLU). Third option Verification permits to verify a hydraulic data file (.FLU)

and create the corresponding (.DON) file. Fourth option ESC key permits to exit EDIFLU and return to the SIC

main menu.

Calibration mode

The calibration mode is used to update roughness coefficients (Manning-Strickler coefficients) and discharge coefficients of cross structures. The calibration depends on the water levels measured along the canal and discharges of the offtake. These

APPENDIX G

244

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 measured on the real system for the calibration of the model.

Calculation of the parameters

This option permits to modify parameters influencing the calculation algorithm in steady flow, when offtakes are in discharge computation mode or in calibration mode. Default parameters calculate a solution with excellent precision. In certain cases, one can facilitate or accelerate the algorithm convergence using the tuning parameters. The relaxation coefficient accelerate or to slow down the correction of the discharge distribution at the offtakes, during the iterations.

Differential equation of the water surface profile

The equation of the water surface profile in a reach can be written as follows:

(Eq. G-1)

And (Eq. G-2)

Where,

g = gravitational constant =9.81 m/s2

n = Manning roughness coefficient

R = hydraulic radius (m)

A = cross sectional area (m2)

H = total head (m)

q = lateral inflow (q > 0, k = 0) or outflow (q < 0, k = 10, (m2/s)

Q = discharge (m3/s)

Sf = linear head losses (m2/3 /s2)

2)1(

gA

qQKS

dx

dHf

3/42

22

RA

QnS f

APPENDIX G

245

Figure G-3: Nomenclature for equation of the water surface profile in a reach

To solve equation G-1, upstream and downstream boundary conditions and hydraulic roughness coefficient along the canal should be known. The equation does not have an analytical solution and is discretized in order to obtain a numerical solution. The water surface profile is integrated, step by step from the downstream end.

Integrating equations between sections i and j:

(Eq.G-3)

(Eq. G-4)

Integrating equation G-4, between i and j:

(Eq. G-5)

A subcritical solution exists if the curves Hi (Zi) and Hj +dH (Zi) intersect.

For this it is necessary that:

(Eq. G-6)

Zci is the critical elevation defined at (i) by = 1

i

j

i

j

i

j

f dxSkdxgA

qVdH 0

02

)(2

ijfjfi

i

i

j

jijij dx

SS

A

V

A

V

g

kqdxHH

)()( ijii ZdHHZH

0)()( ciici ZHZdHHj

APPENDIX G

246

(Eq. G-7)

δ > 0: Subcritical solution F, and δ < 0: Supercritical solution. The critical depth is assumed systematically. The water surface profile is therefore over estimated. This is satisfactory approach to design bank elevation, and offtake is not usually located at supper critical locations and therefore the calculation at these offtake is correct. If a solution does exist, one has to numerically solve an equation of the form f (Zi) =0. Different approaches are adopted in SIC to solve the equations, with the aim of reducing the size of the matrix used. The function f(zi) does not have a continuous first derivative, because the geometry of the computational section is known only at certain points. Hence, equation f(Zi) = 0 is numerically solved using Newton’s method, which used a bisection algorithm for computation convergence.

Figure G-5: Limits of equation of the water surface profile in a reach

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 Newton-Raphson method, the non-linear system is expanded into Taylor series and only the first order terms are kept. Once an initial state is known it is then possible to compute variations of water elevations and discharges in the entire network.

In-line structure equations

When inline structure (cross structures) exists on a canal (defined as a singular section) the water surface profile equation cannot be used locally to calculate the water surface elevation upstream of the structure. The hydraulic laws of the different structures

13

2

i

ii

gA

BQ

APPENDIX G

247

must be applied. The modeling of these devices is handled in many different ways by open channel mathematical models, because:

the equations used for the hydraulic devices are many, and do not cover all possible operating conditions.

In most cases, the range of discharge coefficient needs to be determined empirically through field experiments; and

In particular, it is difficult to maintain the continuity between the different flow conditions, for example, at the instant of transition between free-flow conditions and submerged conditions, or between open channel conditions and pipe flow conditions.

The following set of mathematical equations, used by the model, assumes a smooth transition of discharge computations for transitions in flow conditions. A distinction has been made between devices with high sill elevations (weir or orifice) and devices with low sill elevation (weir or undershot gates).

Weir / orifice structures (high sill elevation)

The equation for free flow weir applicable when h1< W and h3< 2/3h1 is given as:

For weir free flow,

(Eq. G-8)

(Eq. G-9)

Figure 2.9: Section view of undershot orifice structure (weir cross device)

Where Kf is the coefficient to reduction for submerged flow conditions. The flow reduction coefficient is a function of (h2/h1) and the value of this ratio, at the instant of free flow to submerged flow transition are obtained when (h2/h1) > = 0.75

Weir / undershot gate (low sill elevation)

The following equations are used to compute the discharge through a structure.

2/31)(2 hgLKQ ff

23

12 hgLQ f

APPENDIX G

248

The standard discharge equation;

(Eq. G-10)

The free flow weir equation is the same as the standard discharge equation where µf is the discharge coefficient. L is the width of the structure and h1 is the upstream water level from the crest.

For submerged flow, the equation changes to:

(Eq. G-11)

Where kf is the coefficient of the reduction for submerged flow, µf is the discharge coefficient under submerged flow conditions.

Undershot gate-Free flow:

(Eq. G-12)

Undershot gate-Submerged:

(Eq. G-13)

Totally submerged flow:

(Eq. G-14)

Where µ and µ1 are the discharge coefficients for free flow and submerged flow respectively. Also in above equations, the kf and kf1 are the coefficients computed by the model to define the flow under different conditions. In all cases, an equivalent free flow equation is determined and defined in the model.

(Eq. G-15)

Discharge equation for offtakes

In the model, the secondary canal (off takes) is defined as a part of loop model to compute the water delivery under steady state flow conditions. Whereas, for the main canal model, the program is able to calculate the corresponding off take gate opening, knowing the off take target discharge for the following three types of downstream conditions at the head of the secondary canal.

1. Constant downstream water surface elevation 2. Downstream water surface elevation, Z2 that varies with the water surface

elevation upstream of a free flow weir. (Eq. G-16)

3. Downstream water surface elevation that follows a rating curve of the type:

232 HgLQ f

23

12 hgLkQ ff

23

112

3

1 )(2 WhhgLQ

23

112

3

1 )(2 WhhkgLQ f

23

1112

3

1 )(2 WhkhkgLQ ff

12 hWgL

QC f

23

22 )(2)( DZZgLZQ

APPENDIX G

249

(Eq. G-17)

Figure G-7: Nomenclature for offtakes used in the model

UNSTEADY MODULE

Unsteady flow computations are carried out under Unit III. It allows testing various distributions plans at offtakes, and operations of main canal head regulator and cross structures (manual or automatic). Starting from an initial steady flow regime, it is possible to select the best way to achieve a new distribution plan among several options. The efficiency of the operations can be accessed through several indicators computed at offtakes. The program is started by selecting the option Data Editor in the main menu of unit III Unsteady Flow. This program permits to edit (.SIR) files used for unsteady flow calculations (Unit III).

This module computes the water surface profile in the canal using Saint-Venant’s equations. The initial water surface profile is provided by steady flow module. The unsteady module is used to make calculations in unsteady flow. This module allows studying the transition from one operational state or schedule to another. Further, it helps to understand the behavior of canal reaches and structures under transitional conditions. This allows testing various water rotations schedules, different manipulations on the head gate and regulation structure details. A flow profile is developed over space and time, which simulates the gradually varied unsteady state flow caused by a change in inflow, or the structure’s operations. This module also calculates the off take discharges when knowing the off take openings. But unlike steady state module, it is not possible to automatically compute a regulator gate opening when the upstream water level is fixed, i.e., water levels are always computed by the model.

Following five options are available and can be used in any order:

Operations at nodes or offtakes (in terms of discharge, opening, weir width, etc., as a function of the time),

Operations at cross structures (in terms of gates opening or weir elevations as a function of time).

Targeted discharges, discharge as functions of the time, for each offtake.

)()(0

202

D

D

ZZ

ZZQZQ

APPENDIX G

250

Ponds at nodes, containing the height-surface description of ponds in which some storage will occur in unsteady flow,

Computation parameters, containing the start simulation time, the end simulation time, the time step calculation, and various others parameters used for the calculation in unsteady flow.

Canal responsiveness

The steady state conditions are especially important for the gravity channels and most desirable for the duration of a delivery pattern to achieve an equitable distribution and efficient operations of the system. There are two basic reasons for the change of state in a canal or a reach.

A change of discharge (inflows), which is scheduled, or unscheduled (including emergency closure)

a change in outflows (delivery pattern) In reality, many long term and short term actions could cause an unsteady state in a delivery canal.

A change of allocation from the head A shift of rotational schedule The operation of a gate to maintain a targeted level. An unscheduled release of storage. A change in delivery pattern Farmers’ refusal for night irrigation Heavy Rainfall Evaporation Defective hardware

To minimize the duration of an unsteady state, most of these conditions could be improved or managed, but a general target could not be set for the irrigation systems. In fact, the planned delivery schedules, operational and design constraints determine the range and extend to which an unsteady variation allowed.

Lag times and filling times

The response time of a system is the time required to transit from one steady state to another steady state. The shift from the previous state to a new state is influenced by the definition of both states, the length of the system and the responsiveness of the individual structures. Hence, different sections or reaches of main canal can have different response times. A hydraulic model could be used to simulate the effect of various factors while moving from one steady state to another. However, the assumptions considered by the model must be taken into account when interpreting the model results.

APPENDIX G

251

Travel time of unsteady flow

Wave of Small Height:

The time taken by a small wave on a water surface to travel a certain distance, "L", can be approximated by:

(Eq. G-18)

(Eq. G-19)

Where,

Tw the travel time of the wave over the distance L, in s

L the distance, in m,

v the velocity in the canal reach, in m/s

c the celerity (wave velocity), in m/sec

g the gravitational constant, g = 9.8 m/sec2

y the water depth in the canal, in m

In this approximation, diffusion processes are ignored and a constant velocity is assumed, which gives a faster time of travel to the flow.

Gradually varied monoclinal wave

An important percussion regarding operations of the irrigation channel is to gradually introduce an unsteady state, especially when increasing or decreasing a flow in a channel reach. Similarly, a surge should be avoided while operating the gates. The uniformly progressive flow in a canal is more equivalent to a monoclinal rising wave. The velocity of this propagation is always higher than the mean velocity of the flow and is computed based on the Manning or Chazy formula, as a ratio of 1.67 or 1.50 of the normal velocity.

Standard equation to compute filling-up of a canal

An approximation formula for the filling time of a canal reach is obtained when the canal reach is simplified as a storage basin, and neglecting the non-uniform flow. This simplification is acceptable when the non-uniformity of the flow can be neglected, for instance, in the case when a regulator at the end of the canal reach determines the water level in the whole canal reach.

cv

LTw

gyc

APPENDIX G

252

The differential equation would be:

(Eq. G-20)

Where:

V is the storage Volume, in m3

T is the time, in seconds

Q is the discharge “in” and “out” of the reach, in m3/sec

The canal reach with a water level control structure at the downstream boundary, transits to an unsteady state when the inflow, changes. Consequently, the water level at the control point will change, and so, the outflow

The time, necessary for a (partial) water level change at the control structure, can be approximated with the following formula.

(Eq. G‐21)

Where:

T(x) is the time where “x” of the water level change at the control structure is achieved, in s,

L is the length of reach of the canal, in m,

i is the gradient (bed slope) of the canal,

m is the of the side slope, 1v:mH

b is the bed width of the canal, in m,

Qin is the inflowing discharge into the reach at T > 0 in m3/sec

Qout is the out flowing discharge from the reach at T =0, m3/sec

Ho is the initial (To ) energy head above the control, in m,

Hn is the ultimate (T100 ) energy head above the control, in m,

Hm is the mean water depth above the control, thus 1/2Ho+1/2Hn in m,

do is the initial water depth above the bed at the control , in m,

outin QQT

V

xin

Hmucb

mHmdbHmL

QQ

miLmdbiLxT

uc

o

outin 100

100)()212(21)( 0

2

)(xT

APPENDIX G

253

H is the equilibrium water depth when Qin = Qout, in m,

c is the discharge coefficient of the rating curve at the control,

bc is width of the control, in m,

u is the exponent of the rating curve at the control, u = 1.5 for an overflow and u = 0.5 for an undershot structure.

Figure G-8: Filling and response time of a canal reach.

prr.hec.gov.pkprr.hec.gov.pk › jspui › bitstream › 123456789 › 2703 › 1 › 2683s.pdf ·...

Documents