Improving Operational Performance N Management of Canal Irrigation System

IMPROVING OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND
MANAGEMENT OF CANAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM

USING HYDRAULIC MODELING
SUBMITTED BY
JAVAID AKHTAR TARIQ

(2005-PhD-CEWRE- 05)
FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING
CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
2010
IMPROVING OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND
MANAGEMENT OF CANAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM
USING HYDRAULIC MODELING
by
JAVAID AKHTAR TARIQ

2005-PhD-CEWRE- 05
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING
Thesis Examination Date: _______________
Internal Examiner External Examiner

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Latif) (Prof. Dr. Bakhshal Khan Lashari)
Director, Director,
Center of Excellence In Water Institute of Irrigation & Drainage
Resources Engineering Engineering,
University of Engineering & Mehran University of Engineering
Technology, Lahore. & Technology. Janshroo, Sindh.
(Professor Dr. Muhammad Latif)

Director
CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
2010
This thesis was evaluated by the following Examiners:
External Examiners:
From Abroad:
(i) Dr. Bart Schultz,
Professor,
Department of Water Resources and
Hydraulic Engineering,
International Institute for Infrastructural,
Hydraulic and Environmental
Engineering (IHE). Delft.
The Netherlands
Email : b.schultz@unesco-ihe.org
(ii) Dr. Chandra A. Madramootoo,

Professor,
Department of Bioresource Engineering
and Brace Centre for Water Resources
Management, McGill University.
Macdonald Campus. Canada.
Email:
chandra.madramootoo@mcgill.ca
From Pakistan:
Prof. Dr. Bakhshal Khan Lashari,

Director,
Institute of Irrigation & Drainage
Engineering, Mehran University of
Engineering & Technology.
Jamshroo, Sindh -76062.
E Mail: director.ipg@muet.edu.pk
Internal Examiner:
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Latif,

Director,
Center of Excellence in Water
Resources Engineering, University of
Engineering & Technology, Lahore.
E Mail: center@xcess.net.pk
ABSTRACT
Water resources development and management acquired new dimensions in

Pakistan. Recently, the Government of Pakistan has taken strategic initiatives
and primarily focused on governance, decentralization and participation of the
farmers by transforming the Provincial Irrigation Department (PID) to the Frontier
Irrigation and Drainage Authority (FIDA). Management responsibilities are
decentralized at canal command level to Area Water Boards (AWBs) and most of
the existing functions at distributary level are performed by the farmer’s
organizations (FOs). Recently six distributaries have been handed over to the
farmer organizations under the irrigation management transfer (IMT) programme
in Swat Canal Area Water Board (SCAWB).
The study was conducted to analyse the operational performance using

hydraulic simulation modeling. To assess the impact of IMT on the performance
of the irrigation system a database oriented irrigation management information
system (IMIS) technique has been developed and utilized. The Simulation of
Irrigation Canal (SIC) hydrodynamic model was used to analyse the improved
operational scenarios for the irrigation systems operation at distributary level, to
provide the system managers and farmers organizations to update the managerial
control and plan operational activities through improved understanding of the
system. Results of the study revealed that irrigation supplies are in excess of the
crop water requirements. The relative water supply (RWS) index varies from
1.66 to 2.02 during summer, whereas in winter it varies from 2.22 to 2.55. The
delivery performance ratio (DPR) during summer varies from 0.78 to 0.83 and in
winter from 0.63 to 0.73. Irrigation supplies were reliable over the whole growing
season. Due to modernization of the irrigation systems and enhanced water
allowance, the annual cropping intensity and yield have increased significantly.
There is a prominent increase in yield of maize (40 percent), sugarcane (55
percent) and wheat (43 percent) while the cropping intensity has increased by 25
percent.
iv
The Irrigation service fee (ISF) collection analysis indicated that all the FOs
performed well during the first year (2004-05) of IMT and recovered 60 percent
of the assessed ISF; whereas during the 2005-06 and 2006-07, ISF collected
was very low. From these results it is evident that chances of successful cost
recovery do not seem to be high.
Operational and regulation aspects of the main system also play a pivotal role in
overall irrigation water management aspects. The SIC model was used to evaluate
the effectiveness of physical infrastructures of the Chowki Distributary. Open
flume outlets along the distributary behave as hyper-proportional irrespective of
their position. The head bifurcator outlets are behaving hyper-proportional,
whereas middle ones as perfect proportional and tail end as sub-proportional.
The trifurcator outlets are behaving as hyper-proportional. The major causes are
construction inaccuracies in setting the crest level, which lead the outlets to draw
more or less than the design discharge.
To improve the manual operation of the Chowki Distributary irrigation system,

different operational strategies were investigated and quantified. From the results
of this study, it is suggested to operate the distributary head regulator manually
based on fixed frequency operation. It is recommended that from May to July, the
distributary should be operated at 90-80 percent of design discharge, 90-75
percent of design discharge from August to October and 75-85 percent of design
discharge from December to April to adjust the over delivery due to high water
allowance. Hydraulic committees at each of the distributary should be
established to operate the distributary according to crop demand. Awareness
among the farmers should be created regarding the farm irrigation application
methods to avoid over-irrigation and wastage of water.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research assignment is a wonderful experience, it trains one, how to identify

and employ the available resources in the solution of practical problem. It also
shows how human beings can cooperate and work together in so many pleasant
ways to solve the socio technical problems. The present academic endeavor
provided me an opportunity to understand many intricacies of operation of canal
irrigation system after irrigation management transfer to farmers.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Professor Dr. Muhammad Latif,

who has always given me encouragement and offered useful suggestions for my
professional development. He provided much encouragement, motivation and
good counsel throughout my dissertation research. I could not have had this
education without him.
I wish to express my appreciation to Professor Dr. Muhammad Jamal Khan,

Chairman, Department of Water Management, who made it possible for me to
complete the doctorate and provided me an opportunity for training at IWMI
(Pakistan) on Hydrodynamic Models under HEC funded project, Strengthening
Department of Water Resources Management. I am grateful Engr. Sarfraz Munir
for teaching whole heartedly and with full devotion the SIC Model and its
operation during training at IWMI, Lahore.
I am immensely indebted to Engr. Wasim, Water Dispatch Officer (WDO),

SCAWB, for his assistance on operation of modernized irrigation system with
self regulating gates, their linkage with Pehur High Level Canal and discussions
on decorated lunches offered by him at historical century old Gohati, Zam and
Jagnnath Irrigation Rest Houses. Thanks are expressed to all Sub-engineers,
Overseers and field staff of the Operation and Regulation Cell, Gohati Sub
Division for their cooperation during the data collection period.
vi
I am thankful to Mr. Nubat Khan, President, Farmers Organization, Chowki
Distributary, who invited me to his village and discussed in detail the pros and
corns of FOs. He provided opportunity for interactions with Presidents of other
farmers’ organizations (FOs) and with farmers. I am also indebted to the farmers
of Yaqubi, Gumbd-II, Qasim-II, Toru, Chowki, and Pirsabak Distributaries, who
shared their knowledge, history and social constraints of Irrigation Management
Turnover (IMT) with me without hesitation. The interviews conducted were of
purely academic nature for developing some research objectives and not to
offend or defend parties involved in IMT and operation of irrigation system. I am
extremely grateful to some farmers, who were interviewed with condition of
anonymity and therefore their names are not mentioned to protect the privacy
and identity.
Many thanks are extended to Dr. Tahir Sarwar, Engr. Nisar Ahmad, Dr.
Muhammad Zubair Khan, and staff of Department of Water Management, for
their cooperation and encouragement. Administrative help and cooperation
extended during my studies at CERWRE by Mr. Abdul Ghaffar, Mr. Ehsan Khan,
Mr. Javed Nisar, Mr. Zafar Iqbal and Mr. Umer Daraz is sincerely acknowledged.
Last and foremost, I would especially like to express my deepest appreciation,

constant care, and endless, unconditional and limitless support, love and
encouragement of my wife, Summerine, and son, Moiz for their patience in
tolerating the duration of my studies.
Finally, I acknowledge the tremendous support which my mother has always

given me throughout my life.
Friday, February 12, 2010 Javaid A. Tariq

Bilal Hall, CEWRE-Lahore.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................. viii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF ABRIVATION ................................................................................. xviii
GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................xx
CONVERSION OF UNITS............................................................................. xxii
I INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
1.1 Historical Overview ..................................................................... 1

1.2 Recent Developments................................................................. 3
1.3 Problem Identification ................................................................. 4
1.4 Scope of the Study...................................................................... 6
1.5 Specific Objectives...................................................................... 8
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................. 9
2.1 Irrigation Management ................................................................ 9

2.2 Design and Management Interaction........................................ 13
2.3 Irrigation Management Information System (IMIS)................... 14
2.4 Irrigation Management Transfer ............................................... 15
2.5 Modernization of Irrigation Systems ......................................... 18
2.6 Flow Control in Irrigation Systems ............................................ 19
2.6.1 Canal Control Methods .................................................. 19

2.6.2 Upstream Control ........................................................... 21
2.6.3 Downstream Control ...................................................... 22
2.7 Performance Assessment......................................................... 23

2.8 Modeling Needs in Water Management ................................... 27
2.9 Hydraulic Modeling Software .................................................... 28
2.9.1 Branch-Network Dynamic Flow Model (BRANCH)........ 29

2.9.2 CANALMangement (CANALMAN) ............................... 30
2.9.3 CAlcul des Riveres MAilles (CARIMA) ......................... 30
viii
Table of Contents (Continued)
2.9.4 Dutch Flow (DUFLOW) ................................................. 32

2.9.5 Modelling Drainage and Irrigation System (MODIS) .... 33
2.9.6 Simulation of Irrigation Canals (SIC) ............................ 34
2.9.7 UnSteady Model (USM) ................................................ 34
2.9.8 ISIS Flow........................................................................ 35
2.10 Comparison of Irrigation Simulation Models............................. 37
III MATERIAL AND METHODS ............................................................... 39
3.1 Upper Swat Canal Irrigation System......................................... 39
3.1.1 Pehur High Level Canal (PHLC) ................................... 40

3.1.2 Crop Based Irrigation Operation
(CBIO) Implementation .................................................. 43
3.1.3 Institutional Setup........................................................... 44
3.2 Proposed Irrigation Management Information System ............. 44
3.2.1 Data Structures .............................................................. 47

3.2.2 Method of Information Generation… ............................. 48
3.3 Data Collection Methodology.................................................. ..49
3.3.1 Description of Selected Site ........................................ 49

3.3.2 Calibration of Hydraulic Structures.............................. 50
3.3.3 Discharge Measurement ............................................. 51
3.3.4 Metrological Data ........................................................ 55
3.3.5 Cropping Pattern, Intensity and Crop Yield ................ 57
3.4 Performance Indicators............................................................. 59
3.4.1 Relative Water Supply (RWS) .................................... 59

3.4.2 Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR) ............................ 60
3.4.3 Reliability (PD) .......................................................... 62
B B
3.5 Model Selection ........................................................................ 63
3.5.1 Model Input Data………….......................................... 64

3.5.2 Topographic and Geometric Data ................................ 65
3.5.3 Hydraulic Data…............................................................. 65
ix
IV SIMULATION OF IRRIGATION CANALS (SIC) MODEL.................... 68
4.1 Topographic Module ................................................................. 68
4.1.1 Description of Hydraulic Network................................... 69

4.1.2 Classification of Reaches............................................... 70
4.1.3 Modification in Topographic Data File ........................... 71
4.1.4 Geometric Computation ................................................. 71
4.1.5 Numerical Results .......................................................... 72
4.2 Steady Flow Computations ....................................................... 72
4.2.1 Management and Design Mode..................................... 73

4.2.2 Calibration Mode ............................................................ 73
4.2.3 Calculation of the Parameters........................................ 74
4.3 Unsteady Flow Computations................................................... 74

4.4 Modeling Capabilities................................................................ 75
4.4.1 Computational Processes .............................................. 75
4.5 Steady State Flow Calculations ................................................ 76
4.5.1 Loop Computation.......................................................... 78
4.6 Unsteady Flow Calculations ..................................................... 78

4.7 Cross Structures ....................................................................... 80
4.7.1 Equation at Singular Section.......................................... 81

4.7.2 Regulator........................................................................ 82
4.7.3 Offtakes Equations......................................................... 83
4.8 Performance Indicators............................................................. 84
4.8.1 Volume Indicators .......................................................... 84

4.8.2 Time Indicators............................................................... 86
x
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 88
5.1 Irrigation Management Information System.............................. 88
5.1.1 Cropping Pattern and cropping Intensities ................... 88
5.2 Relative Water Supply .............................................................. 91

5.3 Delivery Performance Ration and Reliability ............................ 96
5.4 Crop Yields.............................................................................. 102
5.5 Cost Recovery ........................................................................ 103
5.6 Actual Strategies for Operation of Irrigation System .............. 105
5.6.1 Current Operation of Chowki Distributary .................... 105
5.7 Calibration and Validation of SIC Model................................. 109
5.7.1 Model Evaluation Statistics (Error Index)..................... 112

5.7.2 Nash-Sutcliff Efficiency Coefficient (NSEC)................. 113
5.7.3 Percent Bias (PBIAS)................................................... 114
5.8 Evaluation of Hydraulic Behaviour of Irrigation System

using SIC Model ..................................................................... 115
5.8.1 Flexibility Analysis of Offtakes ..................................... 116
5.9 SIC as Decision Support Tool for Manual Operation

Irrigation System .................................................................... 123
VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 128
6.1 Summary................................................................................. 128

6.2 Conclusions............................................................................. 130
6.3 Recommendations .................................................................. 133
REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 134
xi
APPENDICES
Appendix-A Daily Observed Discharges and Statistical

Analysis of Discharges................................................. 145
Appendix-B Design Full Supply Level (FSL) and Simulated Water

Level at Different Offtakes ........................................... 158
Appendix-C Profile Survey of Distributary and Minors .................... 162
Appendix-D Derivation of Relation Between t-statistics, Root

Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Means Biased
Error (MBE) .................................................................. 184
Appendix-E Drawing and Figures.................................................... 187
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Description Page
3.1 Salient features of selected distributaries................................. 50

3.2
T Head discharge relations of selected distributaries.................. 51
3.3 Frequency analysis of discharges of selected distributaries .... 52
3.4 Climatic data used for determination of evapotranspiration ..... 57
3.5 Procedure developed for determination of sample size .......... 58
3.6 Data of the Chowki Distributary. ............................................... 66
3.7 Data of the Chowki Minor-I and Minor-II................................... 67
5.1 Pre and post IMT annual cropping intensities in the
study area ................................................................................. 89
5.2 Monthly average RWS of selected distributaries...................... 96
5.3 Average monthly DPR of selected distributaries .................... 101
5.4 Reliability of irrigation supplies of selected distributaries ....... 102
5.5 Pre and post IMT crop yields of Chowki Distributary.............. 102
5.6 Pre and post IMT crop yields of Pirsabak Distributary .......... 103
5.7 ISF assessed and recovered before IMT ............................... 104
5.8 ISF assessed after IMT........................................................... 105
5.9 ISF recovered after IMT .......................................................... 105
5.10 Manning roughness coefficient used in model calibration .........110
5.11 Calculated values of different statistical parameters
for model calibration.....................................................................114
5.12 Calculated values of different statistical parameters
for model validation ......................................................................114
5.13 DPR and Eop at different percent of design discharge. ................. 125
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig Description Page

2.1 Cubic matrix of irrigation management activities ........................ 12
2.2 Upstream control (Ankum 1993)............................................... 21
2.3 Downstream control (Ankum 1993) .......................................... 22
3.1 Map of Upper Swat Canal (USC) irrigation system .................. 41
3.2 Irrigation management information system .............................. 46
3.3 Observed discharges of Yaqubi Distributary during 2007 ........ 52
3.4. Observed discharges of Gumbad-II Distributary during 2007 .. 53
3.5 Observed discharges of Qasim-II Distributary during 2007...... 53
3.6 Observed discharges of Toru Distributary during 2007............ 54
3.7 Observed discharges of Pirsabak Distributary during 2007 ..... 54
3.8 Observed discharges of Chowki Distributary during 2007 ....... 55
3.9 Evaporation and rainfall during growing period ........................ 56
4.1 Cross section in a reach (Baume et al. 2003) .......................... 69
4.2 Canal network subdivided into reaches and branches............. 70
4.3 Preissmann four point grid ....................................................... 79
4.4 Weir-orifice cross device .......................................................... 81
4.5 Lateral offtake with a downstream condition. ........................... 83
4.6 Definition of effective volume.................................................... 85
4.7 Definition of time indicator ........................................................ 87
5.1 Relative water supply of Yaqubi Distributary ............................ 92
5.2 Relative water supply of Gumbad-II Distributary ...................... 93
5.3 Relative water supply of Qasim-II Distributary.......................... 93
5.4 Relative water supply of Toru Distributary................................ 94
5.5 Relative water supply of Pirsabak Distributary ......................... 94
5.6 Relative water supply of Chowki Distributary ........................... 95
xiv
Fig Description Page
5.7 Delivery performance ratio and CVT(DPR) B B
of Yaqubi Distributary................................................................ 97
5.8 Delivery performance ratio and CVT (DPR) B B
of Gumbad-II Distributary.......................................................... 97
of Qasim-II Distributary ............................................................. 98

of Toru Distributary. .................................................................. 98

of Pirsabak Distributary............................................................. 99
of Chowki Distributary ............................................................... 99

5.13 Demand and supply pattern of Chowki Distributary ............... 106
5.14 Irrigation water deliveries and ETo at Chowki Distributary..... 108
5.15 Comparison of observed and predicted water levels ............. 111
5.16 Comparison of observed and predicted
discharges at offtakes ............................................................ .111
5.17 Proportionality of the open flume outlets (scale: 1:1). ............ 118
5.18 Proportionality of the bifurcator outlets (scale: 1:1) ................ 120
5.19 Proportionality of the trifurcator outlets (scale: 1:1)................ 121
5.20 Spatial variation of delivery performance ratio............................122
5.21 Operational performance under fixed frequency
(90-80 percent of design discharge) ....................................... 126
xv
Appendix –A
A-I Daily observed discharges at Yaqubi Distributary ................. 145

A-II Statistical analysis of discharges of Yaqubi Distributary ........ 146
A-III Daily observed discharges at Gumbad-II Distributary ............ 147
A-IV Statistical analysis of discharges of Gumbad-II Distributary .. 148
A-V Daily observed discharges at Qasim-II Distributary ............... 149
A-VI Statistical analysis of discharges of Qasim-II Distributary...... 150
A-VII Daily observed discharges at Toru Distributary...................... 151
A-VIII Statistical analysis of discharges of Toru Distributary ............ 152
A-IX Daily observed discharges at Pirsabak Distributary ............... 153
A-X Statistical analysis of discharges of Pirsabak Distributary ..... 154
A-XI Daily observed discharges at Chowki Distributary ................. 155
A-XII Statistical analysis of discharges of Chowki Distributary........ 156
A-XIII Crop production estimate for wheat, sugarcane
and tobacco per ha. ................................................................ 157
A-XIV Crop production estimate for maize, alfalfa
and sugar beet per ha............................................................. 157
Appendix –B
B-I Design full supply level (FSL) at different offtakes ................. 158
B-II Simulated water level at 110,100 and 90 percent
of design discharges ............................................................... 159
B-III Simulated water level at 80, 70 and 65 percent
of design discharges ............................................................... 160
B-IV Simulated water level at 60 of design discharges ................. 161
xvi
Appendix –C
C-I Profile survey of Chowki Distributary ...................................... 162

C-II Profile survey of Chowki Minor-I ............................................. 176
C-III Profile survey of Chowki Minor-II ............................................ 182
Appendix – D
D-1 Derivation of relation between t- statistics, Root Mean Square

Error (RMSE) and Means Biased Error (MBE)....................... 184
Appendix -E
E-1 Diagramme and description of Crump’s weir......................... 187

E-2 Detail drawing of single bifurcators. ....................................... 189
E-.3 Section of Crump weir in irrigation network. .......................... 189
E-4 Field test of selected Crump weir. ......................................... 190
E-5 Drawing and description of double bifurcators. ..................... 191
E-6 Irrigation deliveries to Qasim-II, Gumbad-II
and Yaqubi Distributaries........................................................ 192
E-7 Irrigation deliveries to Chowki, Toru
and Pirsabak Distributaries ..................................................... 192
xvii
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
AOSM Adjustable Orifice Semi Module (A modified APM)

APM Adjustable Proportional Module (Crump’s Orifice Outlet)
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
AWB Area Water Board
BCM Billion Cubic Meter
CBIO Crop Based Irrigation Operations
CCA Cultivable Command Area ( Area served by irrigation canal)
CRBC Chasma Right Bank Canal System
CV Coefficient of Variations
DoA Department of Agriculture
DPR Delivery Performance Ratio
ETc Evapotranspiration Coefficient for particular crop
ETo Reference Crop Evapotranspiration
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
Farmer Organizations. (Management organizations for secondary
FO
level)
FSD Full Supply Delivery
Full Supply Level (The water level in the parent canal which will
FSL
allow the intake of a branching canal to pass the full design flow)
FSQ Full Supply Discharge
GCA Gross Command Area
GoP Government of Pakistan
IBIS Indus Basin Irrigation System
ICID International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage.
PIPD Provincial Irrigation and Power Department
IMMI International Irrigation Management Institute (Now IWMI)
IMIS Irrigation management Information System
IMT Irrigation Management Transfer
IWAA Indus Water Apportionment Accord
IWT Indus Water Treaty
Kc Crop Coefficient for calculation of Etc
xviii
LSC Lower Swat Canal
MAF Million Acre Foot
MIS Management Information System
MMH Minimum Modular Head
NDP National Drainage Programme
NWFP North West Frontier Province
OFWM Onfarm Water Management
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OF Open Flume
PHLC Pehur High Level Canal
PIDA Provincial Irrigation and Drainage Authority
PIM Participatory Irrigation Management
Reduced Distance ( Distance from head or intake of
RD
canal usually in feet ) 1 RD = 1000 ft (304.8 m).
RWS Relative Water Supply
SCARP Salinity Control and Reclamation Project
SCAWB Swat Canal Area Water Board
SDO Sub Divisional Officer
SE Superintending Engineer
USBR United State Bureau of Reclamation
USC Upper Swat Canal
Water Users Associations (Management organization
WUA
for tertiary level)
XEN Executive Engineer
xix
GLOSSARY
Abiana Irrigation Water Fee, charged on irrigated and matured crop.
AVIO The name has the French background, the letter S in the name AVIS
has been replaced by the letter O, the letter of the French word “Orifice”
to get the name AVIO.
AVIS The name has the French background, AV are the first two letters of the
word ‘aval’ which means downstream, and S is the of the French word,
‘surface’. It illustrate that the gate operates at a free surface flow.
BIVAL Volume control is to have a constant canal volume regardless of the

Control discharge in the down stream canal.
Chak Tertiary irrigation command.
Control Structures used on irrigation canals for controlling water level at cross
regulators, discharges at head regulators or both.
CROPWAT FAO Computer programme for calculation of crop water requirements.
Distributary Canal taking off from a secondary/branch canal usually supplying water
to tertiary/ minor canals or directly to field offtakes.
Duty Represent the irrigation capacity of a unit of water. It is the relation

between the area of the crop irrigated and quantity of irrigation water
required during the base period of the growth of the crop and express as
1000 acre per cusec.
ELFLO
Predictive Control or pool-end control uses two sensors per regulator.
Control
FSL Full Supply Level (The water level in the parent canal which will allow
the intake of a branching canal to pass the full design flow)
xx
Kharif First season of agricultural year. Summer cropping season from 15th
April to 15th October
Level-top Down stream control requires level-top canal, with horizontal

Canal embankments between the regulators to meet the zero flow conditions.
Warabandi Method of water allocation and distribution. Time is allocated according

to landholding size.
Water The amount of authorized supplied discharge per 1000 acre of cultivable
Allowance command area. The water allowance not only determines the size of an
outlet structures, but also form the basis for design of distributaries.
Rabi Second season of agricultural year. Winter cropping season from 15th
October to 15th April.
Response The time period between a change in the flow at the upstream end of a
Time canal reach and the arrival of the full modified flow at the down stream
end of the reach.
Travel The time period between a change in the flow at the upstream end of the
Time canal reach and the arrival of the first wave (disturbance) at the down
stream end. It depends on the factors such as hydraulic of the canal
under consideration and the flow rate before and after the changes.
xxi
CONVERSION OF UNITS
Length
1m = 3.281 ft
1 ft = 12 inches
1 ft = 30.48 cm
1 ft = 0.304 m
1 inch = 0.025 m
1 inch = 25.4 mm
1 inch = 2.54 cm
1 kilometer = 0.621 mile
Surface Area
1 ha = 2.471 acre
1 ha = 10-4 m2
1 acre = 0.4047 ha
Discharge
3 -1
1 ft s (1cusec) = 28.32 Ls-1
1 m3s-1 (1 cumec) = 35.31 ft3s-1
1 m3s-1 (1 cumec) = 1000 Ls-1
Water Allowance
3 -1
1 ft s per 1000 acre = 0.665 mm day-1
1 ft3s-1 per 1000 acre = 0.07 L s-1ha-1
10 ft3s-1 per 1000 acre = 6.55 mm day-1
10 ft3s-1 per 1000 acre = 0.77 L s-1ha-1
1 L s-1ha-1 = 8.64 mm day-1
Volume
1 MAF = 1.23 BCM
1 m3 1000 L
xxii
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The irrigation system of Pakistan is the largest integrated irrigation network in
the world serving approximately 18 million ha of cultivated land. The water of
the Indus River and its principal tributaries (the Kabul, the Swat, and Kunar
from the West, and the Jehlum, the Chanab, from the East) feed the system.
The concept of participation of a farming community in irrigated agriculture in
Indo-Pak subcontinent is not new as it has been practiced since time
immemorial (Gill 1998). The civil canals in the North West Frontier Province
(NWFP) of Pakistan are an example of Participatory Irrigation Management
(PIM) and these have been constructed, operated and maintained by the
stakeholders since long (1568-1800).
Irrigation development in Pakistan started on a technical foundation in the latter
part of 19th century with major objectives to reduce the risk of famine and
P
P
maintain political and social stability (Stone 1984). The irrigation system was
designed with an objective to optimize the production per unit of available
water, ensuring equitable distribution between canals, branches and also
among the offtakes (outlets). The duty (area irrigated by unit discharge during
the base period) was fixed relatively high in order to irrigate more land with low
cropping intensities. Another design objective was to keep the administrative
and operational requirements and cost as low as possible and therefore the
1
number of control structures in the canals was kept to a minimum. The
irrigation intensity was also kept low at an average of 75 percent. This design
practice is known as protective irrigation (Jurriens 1993, Jurriens et al. 1996).
The major constraints to maximize agriculture production in canal commands
are due to poor irrigation water management practices. Only 30 to 40 percent
of diverted river water to canals ultimately becomes available for the crops
(Kahlown and Kemper 2004). Aggregate irrigation water supply does not meet
the optimal yield of crops. The time pattern of water supplies is not matched
with time pattern of crop water needs. Uncertain and inequitable distribution of
supply results in water deficiencies in tail reaches, of canals while upper
reaches take excess irrigation supply (Bhutta et al. 1991; Latif and Pomee
2003). In the beginning of the season, farmers have no choice to decide the
cropping pattern and cropped area with respect to expected supply in the
coming season.
The irrigation system is operated on a continuous schedule at the main system
level and at fixed rotational schedule at farm level, the combination of this rigid
delivery allows for more economical delivery system operations. The irrigation
system consists of a network of alluvial channels. The hydraulic design of a
stable alluvial channel requires constant flow at full supply as much as
possible. Consequently the outlet normally delivers a constant quantum of
supply in the watercourses automatically without any manual regulation. If the
flow depth fluctuates, regime of the channel gets seriously upset resulting in
2
silting (for lower discharges) or scouring (for higher discharges). Most of the
channels are silted up at the head reaches which makes the distribution
inequitable i.e. upper outlets drawing excess discharge and the outlets in the
lower portions start suffering. To feed the outlet in the tail reach the canals have
to run with extra supply at the head, which further upsets the regime.
The irrigation systems in Pakistan has a number of inherent deficiencies
associated with poor operation and maintenance, which need to be improved to
bring out put at par with the world's most efficient irrigation systems. Inefficient
and ineffective irrigation management leads to a reduction in crop production
levels due to a decline in cropped areas and in crop yields per unit area, which
are considerably below potential. Due to mismanagement of the irrigation
system, a major lesson learned is that government agencies are not effective
for managing the irrigation system without involving the farmers.
1.2 RECENT DEVELOPMENT
The Government of Pakistan (GoP) has recently introduced Participatory
Irrigation Management (PIM) in the irrigation systems by contraction and
reduction of its role and correspondingly expanding the role of water users and
other private sector institutions in the process of irrigation management
turnover. The turnover process is designed to ensure sustainability of irrigated
agriculture, reduce financial burden on government, pass responsibility of
operation and maintenance to users, increase water use efficiency, to improve
sustainability of the systems. Participation is the core concept used to develop
3
the capacity and capabilities of farmers’ organizations to manage the irrigation
systems.
The Pakistan Government has revealed plans to introduce participatory
irrigation management (PIM). According to this policy decision, the major canal
commands are managed by Area Water Boards (AWBs) controlled by farmers’
organizations (FOs) and Government representatives. These AWBs distribute
water to farmers’ organizations (FOs) within that command. At the provincial
level, the existing Provincial Irrigation Departments are reconstituted as
Frontier Irrigation and Drainage Authorities (FIDAs) providing technical support
and supervision to AWBs. The new authorities have greater autonomy from the
provincial government, as well as greater accountability to the water users.
1.3 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Operational, maintenance and management aspects of the irrigation system play
a pivotal role in overall irrigation management aspects. Without improving this
part, no optimal results can be obtained. Improvement and modification to the
irrigation systems creates greater flexibility in adapting new modified cropping
patterns according to changing market requirements. Flow control of irrigation
water is essential for effective irrigation system performance. Efficient operation
of an irrigation system requires a constant flow of information between farmer
organization, operators, data collectors and overall operation policy makers.
Policy makers are interested in the general status of the systems (actual
situation versus target) and water availability. Operators require precise and
4
timely instructions on how to operate gates. Farmers want reliable information
on water availability and planned allocations so they can effectively plan
investments and activities. Field data on rainfall, river and canal flows, actual
cropping pattern, etc., should be promptly transmitted and processed for
effective use in operation, regulation and management of the irrigation
systems.
Presently, the irrigation systems are operated with concern largely for the
hydraulic aspects of water conveyance. The surprising characteristics of canal
hydraulic operation are the degree of variations that occur daily. Little effort has
been taken to improve the operation of the irrigation system and distribution of
supplies among distributaries with respect to crop water requirements within
available water supply at main canal head. At present irrigation systems face the
following chronic problems:
• Lack of effective monitoring and evaluation of water delivery performance

to check whether target discharges have been achieved.
• Insufficient information on the status of gates and control structures to

enable operators and managers to determine whether operation plans can
be effectively implemented.
• Lack of farmers’ participation at minor and distributary levels in water

distribution and maintenance.
Achieving adequacy, efficiency, reliability and equity of the delivered irrigation
water are the main objectives in operation and maintenance of the delivery
systems. Poor performance of the irrigation water delivery systems has often
been attributed to lack of flow control structures, operation, management and
5
maintenance of the irrigation systems. The objective of this research is therefore
to seek ways of addressing these inadequacies through a series of field activities
aimed at providing reasonably accurate measured information for assessing
performance of recent irrigation management transferred systems to farmers
organizations.
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
In present day context of irrigation management transfer, operation and
maintenance has been treated as a central issue, but it is a complex socio-
technical activity which has been inadequately studied and neglected despite
evidence that effectiveness to improve the conditions at the tertiary level i.e.
below the farmers offtakes (outlet), weakness in the operation of main and
distributary level irrigation system has to be rectified. This is the first study in
NWFP province by an outside agency on irrigation management turnover (IMT)
and operation of irrigation systems by farmers’ organizations.
Many studies in the past have focused on the effect of improved management
and institutional developments on irrigation systems performance using multi-
disciplinary approach e.g. Command Water Management Project (CWMP) and
Irrigation System Management Rehabilitation Project (ISMRP). Studies exploring
the effect of the relationship between joint operations and irrigation management
transfer to farmers’ organizations (FOs) hardly exists. This study investigates the
operational problems of the farmers managed irrigation systems and suggests
operational procedures for their improvement.
6
The physical (hardware) aspects of the construction of irrigation systems have
received intensive attention of Government of NWFP, while the maintenance
and management (software) have received very little attention. Maintenance of
irrigation network is essential for sustainability of agricultural production. For
example, improved irrigation maintenance can make multiple cropping possible
and can extend the irrigated area by making more efficient use of available
irrigation water. Much evidence exists indicating that improvements in operation
and maintenance of irrigation system can lead to substantial and sometimes
dramatic improvements in both equity water distribution and production.
However, various benefits can be derived from better irrigation management
transfer (IMT) of existing irrigation systems.
Finally, it can be argued effectively that, when viewing the irrigation system as
whole, increased attention to the operating policies and management plans
open the way for major advances in the irrigation system performance. This
study is mainly concerned with the operation based on Irrigation Management
Information System (IMIS), which impact the irrigation system’s ability to
effectively meet the needs of the farmers’ organizations. As the complete
irrigation infrastructure are recently constructed, modernized and optimally
maintained. The maintenance requirements presently at secondary
(distributary) level are very less, therefore not included in study.
7
1.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
The objective of the research was to develop a procedure for assessing
performance based on the capability and potential of farmers’ organizations using
irrigation management information systems (IMIS) and to adopt future strategies
to adjust the systems to improve the current performance through hydraulic
modeling. Specific objectives of the study were to:
1. Assess the impact of irrigation management transfer (IMT) on the

performance of the irrigation system using irrigation management
information system (IMIS) techniques.
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the physical infrastructure with Simulation

of Irrigation Canal (SIC) hydrodynamic model.
3. Develop operational strategies using a SIC hydrodynamic model to

improve the manual operation of the irrigation system with the
assistance of farmers’ organizations (FOs) and Area Water Boards
(AWBs).
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
Hardware of physical and the software of social structures and organization are
the two major inter related aspects of irrigation management. Farmers’
organization (FOs) and Area Water Boards (AWB) cannot succeed without a
well designed and well functioning physical irrigation system. Irrigation
Management basically refers to all aspects of irrigation beyond the design and
construction of facilities. The activities range from the main system down to the
farm level, with the middle reaches presenting the most difficult challenges of
coordination among the engineers and other technical staff and farmers, who are
ultimately managers of irrigation water. Various international agencies agreed
that the major problems with the poor functioning of irrigation systems lies in the
field of management. Governments, financers and researchers are concentrating
on management aspects in the conviction that improvement of management is a
major vehicle for improvement of irrigated agriculture. There is a need for some
integration of physical, biological, social organizational, administrative, economic
and legal factors to achieve system objectives of greater and more certain
agricultural production, with more benefits for the participants in the system and
for the nation as a whole (Uphoff 1986).
Management of irrigation water requires some essential activities that need to
be undertaken; researchers such as Hunt (1989) and Coward (1979) have
9
proposed different classifications of the activities needed to manage water.
Irrigation is a socio-technical matter not just because people are involved in the
process. Where administration, engineers and technicians play a role in irrigation
management, they affect the system performance in many crucial ways, and
unless main system management is both effective and responsive, farmers’
efforts to use water effectively will not be fruitful (Wade et al. 1980).
The design of large scale irrigation in South Asia is comprehensive or
conventional in which large amounts of water are captured and diverted at a
single point from a perennial (large or medium) river. Organizationally, the
conventional system design follows a top-down approach (Chamber 1988). In
the government agencies mostly centralized public bureaucracy make all
decisions with very little pre design or pre construction involvement of farmers.
This implies that farmers are least involved in planning, design or construction
and operation of system infrastructure. Bottrall (1981) designated management
of the main system as a blind spot and considers the delivery of appropriate
and reliable supplies at the outlet as a pre condition for proper utilization of
irrigation water. Levine (1980) pointed out that shortcomings, commonly
attributed to the system design, can some times be overcome by intensive and
dedicated system management. Inadequate operation and maintenance have
considerably reduced the benefits of large government managed irrigation
systems (Svendsen et al., 1983). Researchers (Plusquelle et al. 1994,
Plusquelle et al 1996 and Zimbelman 1987) believe that greatest potential for
10
increased agricultural production can be achieved through modernization and
by improving irrigation system management.
Focusing on irrigation management leads one view to irrigation not only as a
socio technical enterprise but also organizational and managerial, depending on
irrigation bureaucracies. While technical personnel are integral to irrigation
success, so are the objectives and capabilities of water users. Korten and Uphoff
(1981) suggested that government agencies responsible for the management of
many irrigation systems needed reorientation. Bureaucracy provides need
expertise, skills and organizational capabilities to manage modern technology
and public affairs. The distinction between managing systems in contrast to
administering is where the decision making is more information based in former
and contrastingly more rule based in the latter (Uphoff 1986).
Uphoff (1991) offered a more comprehensive set of water management
activities that could be identified in any irrigation system. His cubic matrix
shows linkages between the different management activities concerning
technology, management, and organization (Fig. 2.1). He proposes three
groups of activities namely control structure activities, water use activities and
organizational activities. Control structure activities include design,
construction, operation and maintenance. Water use activities include water
acquisition, allocation, distribution and drainage.
11
Fig. 2.1 Cubic matrix of irrigation management activities (Uphoff 1991).
To classify these activities, processes of conflict management, communication,
resource mobilization and decision making are required. Acquiring irrigation
supplies from barrages and weirs is considered socio-technical because
decision-making, resource mobilization, communication and conflict
management are intimately associated with the physical structures and resource
flows.
2.2 DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT INTERACTION
Technology has great implications on the availability of irrigation deliveries at
different points within an irrigation system as is emphasized by many
researchers including Horst (1990), Lankford and Gowing (1996) and Levine
12
(1980). The attention for the relation between design and management is now
growing. Every design puts its requirements and restriction on the
management. Management must be organized around the physical
components of the systems, which are specified by design. A number of
typologies exist to describe irrigation infrastructure and systems of water
control to deliver irrigation supplies according to different water distribution
schedules and objectives (Plusquellec 2002). Levine (1980) emphasized the
relationship between the design, operation and maintenance of irrigation
systems through water and crops. The objective of the system, like equitable
water distribution, or supply of adequate water for the pre-defined cropping
patterns, defines the choice of the technology to distribute water.
Horst (1998) recognized the link between design and management by raising
the question of whether it would be possible to design irrigation systems
keeping in view the human and institutional aspects and, if so, what the
consequence on the type of technology would be? He described different
irrigation water delivery systems and their implications on water delivery. His
research focuses on water division structures and how their operation can lead
to dysfunctionality. He regards irrigation structures as technical artifacts and
calls for transparent technology whose operation and significance can be
understood. He states that division of water is not only a technical matter, but it
also has a human dimension. The way farmers perceive these technical
artifacts may cause conflicts between the farmers if they are not satisfied with
the flow rate, duration and frequency of irrigation supply. These conflicts may
13
result in the farmers' intervention by damaging the structures and in the
operation of the system. He suggests for transparent technology that should
include general consensus by the farmers and agency on the allocation and
distribution of water; and a system of canals and structures which enables
farmers to understand the flows of water by their own perception.
2.3 IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (IMIS)
Irrigation management information system (IMIS) is as an organized method of
providing past, present and projected information relating to internal operations
and external intelligence. It supports planning control and operation functions of
an organization by furnishing uniform information in the proper time frame to
assess the decision-making. IMIS supports the planning, control and
operational functions of organizations. In this sense, an IMIS performs three
functions i.e. accept data input. These data come from internal and external
sources, or both. Second IMIS acts on data to convert it into information, and
third IMIS produces information for managers.
The need for introducing IMIS in the day-to-day operation and management of
an irrigation system has been emphasized by many researchers (Rey and
Hemakumara 1994; Jain 1995). It is recognized widely that effective IMIS is
critical to an organization’s success. IMIS serves as a conduit through which
managers understand their firms’ external environments and develop internal
relationships and structures necessary to reach and implement decisions that
will allow their organization to achieve success.
14
The definition of suitable operations policy of an irrigation system assumes an
increasing relevance in the context of growing scarcity and competing uses of
water. Simulation models and decision support systems (DSS) can play an
important role in the defining of an operational plan that must be easily
accessible to all the stakeholders. Many IMIS and DSS are developed by
researchers but are site specific in nature. Bazzani and Rosseli (2002)
developed a DSS for agricultural irrigation and economic environmental
assessment. Gao (2004) developed decision making support systems to
improve water management in pumped irrigation systems in China. The
decision making is based on the application of computer networks and specially
developed programmes. Significant technical benefits have been achieved
through the use of DSS.
2.4 IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER
Due to mismanagement of irrigation systems, major lessons learned are that
government agencies are not effective for managing the irrigation systems
without involving the farmers. There exists farmer managed irrigation systems
covering thousands of hectares in Colombia, Argentina, Mexico and even in
Nepal. The government agencies continue to operate the dams and regulate
the river flows while the operation, maintenance and water distribution lies with
the farmers. In the Philippines, involvement of farmers in planning, design and
construction of irrigation systems promotes farmers satisfaction with physical
facilities, and is a useful way to strengthen irrigation organizations, which then
can become the managers of the new or improved systems. Further, the effort
15
to strengthen farmers’ organizations and management transfer resulted in staff
reduction, enhanced fee collection, and the agency was able to meet full
operational expenses, including pay of their staff (Meinzen-Dick et al. 1995).
Vermillion (2001) and Svendsen and Meinzen-Dick (1997) termed the current
period as the reform era that is characterized by efforts to modify the basic
policies and institutional reforms to manage the irrigation systems by employing
the irrigation management transfer (IMT) approach. Levine et al. (1998)
assessed the achievement of water users in managing water allocations and
deliveries in Mexico. Results indicate that the joint management by the water
users has been reasonably successful in implementing water allocation and
cropping plans. Vermillion and Garcés (1996) reported that in Colombia, the
government adopted a national devolution policy as part of its general strategy
of economic liberalization and political decentralization and management
transfer encouraged a number of managerial changes expected to improve
management efficiency and accountability of staff.
IMT resulted in a significant change in the burden of cost from the government
to farmers. Most of the cases; it has been accepted by the farmers. It is
observed by many researchers (Bandaragod and Memon, 1997; Bandaragoda
1999; Brewer et al. 1999) that transfer has not had significant impacts on the
performance of operations and maintenance, or on the agricultural and
economic productivity of irrigated land. However, the research shows that rural
16
poor often get additional responsibility and costs from IMT rather than benefits
and authority to participate in decision making.
In Mexico under IMT, the water rights are transferred from government to
water users associations. Similarly in Sri Lanka and the Philippines, water
users are given partial management responsibilities, such as water delivery,
canal maintenance and paying for irrigation service charges. If executed with
sustaining policies and programs, IMT can play a significant role in poverty
alleviation. Farmers are agreeable to pay irrigation service fees (ISF) only the
benefits outweigh the costs (Hassan 2002). It is also recognized that IMT can
be successful only if the rural population benefits from this reform and if the
rural farmers are capable to finance irrigation. Furthermore, the future
performance of irrigation infrastructure largely depends on proper maintenance.
Due to insufficient cost recovery to maintain the irrigation infrastructure, the
performance of irrigation systems will deteriorate and the rural poor will not
receive water, required for their food security, On the other hand, if ISF is
increased, then the irrigation costs could be double or triple for the rural poor
who already hardly earn any income within the given context (Bhata 1997;
Dinar and Subramanian 1997, Hussain 2007) concluded that although
irrigation management transfer and participatory irrigation management have
generated some benefits to the poor, these have been implemented partially,
with no explicit pro poor elements.
17
2.5 MODERNIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Modernization of the irrigation systems is recognized as an essential
transformation in the management of irrigation systems contained by
agricultural areas. Such transformations may comprise improved structures,
physical or institutional or both; rules and water rights; water delivery services;
accountability mechanisms and incentives (Molden and Makin 1997).
Burt and Styles (1999) defined Irrigation modernization as a process of
technical and managerial upgrading (as opposed to mere rehabilitation) of
irrigation systems combined with institutional reforms, if required, with the
objective to improve resource utilization and water delivery service to farms.
Modernization of irrigation systems virtually always involves modification of
three things (Plusquellec 2002).
• Everyone in the systems, from the lowest operator to the highest

administrator, must adopt the concept of providing good service. This
requires that they understand the service concept, and truly have a
desire to provide as high a level of service to their customers as is
possible.
• Hardware must be modified in order to provide better service. The

hardware changes are the result of a deliberate analysis of service
requirements. Hardware modifications may be as simple as replacing
undershot gates (orifices) with manual long crested overshot gates
(weirs) for water level control, or the proper installation of flow control
points. In some cases, it may require more advanced supervisory control
and data acquisition (SCADA) systems and automation. The desired
level of water delivery service, existing budget and other constraints will
define the required hardware, and not vice versa.
• Operation rules must be changed. The way that water is ordered and
delivered, the form and frequency of communications (between
operators and their bosses, and between farmers and systems
personnel), and the way various control structures are manipulated on
18
an hourly or daily basis must be changed to match the defined service
objectives.
2.6 FLOW CONTROL IN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
A great deal of practical and theoretical work has been conducted on the
control and automation of canal systems. The various concepts of canal control
have been well summarized in the literature by several authors (Clemmens
1979; Clemmens and Replogle 1989; Ankum 2004). Additional details
concerning existing technologies have been reported by ASCE Task
Committee on Irrigation Canal System (1993).
2.6.1 Canal Control Methods
The most important kind of canal control methods are proportional flow control,
which is the most simple flow control method and has to be selected when an
irrigation main system does not require any management of the flow diversion.
Downstream control is considered to be flexible and demand-oriented whereas
upstream control is associated with rigid top-down water delivery. Fixed
upstream control (proportional distribution) is technologically simple in
operation and maintenance. Responsive centralized control, necessitate
sophisticated computer equipment, standard maintenance, skilled operators,
and is likely to produce significant levels of risk due to equipment failure.
Volume control in irrigation was developed by Sogreah of France under the
name called BIVAL control. Volume control solves the problems of too large
19
storage wedge in traditional downstream control. Volume control is often
recommended at new steep slopping canals, requires simultaneous
measurement of the water level at the head-end and the tail end of the canal
section to respond immediately to downstream demand (Ankum 2004). In 1967
the USBR developed an analog proportional controller using hydraulic filter
level offset method. It was replaced by improved electronic filter (ELFLO) to
produce self management flow control on sloping canals, where downstream
control would not be applicable because of the steep canal gradient (Ankum
1994). CARDD control (Canal Automation for Rapid Demand Deliveries) was
developed for regulation on the sloping canals by automatic downstream
control and measure three water levels per canal section (Burt 1987). Mixed
control, also called combined control may behave as an upstream or
downstream control system, depending on the water level in the canal section.
Its regulators have set-points at the upstream water level, as well as
downstream water level (Ankum 2004).
Downstream controlled systems are normally equipped with hydro-mechanical
gates, such as AVIS and AVIO gates have been developed by Neyrpic and are
commercially manufactured by Alstom Water Systems. AVIO and AVIS gates
operate in response to changes in the downstream water level. The difference
between AVIS and AVIO gates is that AVIS gates operate at free surface flow
in the upstream canal sections, while the AVIO gate closes the orifice. The
AVIO is suited to control flow from a reservoir through an orifice opening. The
AVIO and AVIS gates have a large float immediately downstream from the
20
radial gate pivot arm. When the downstream water level rises, the float rises
and the gate closes (Ankum 2004).
2.6.2 Upstream Control
Upstream control is a control technique in which a water level regulator
maintains a constant upstream water level at the regulator and maintains target
water levels for any discharge. Main systems under upstream control perform
quite unsatisfactory and introduce many operational problems (Ankum 1993).
Upstream control deserves its popularity because of the of the supply-based
control concept, where the irrigation agencies determine the amount of water
released to the tertiary canal. The performance of a tail-end regulator (R2) in

B B
Fig. 2.2 illustrates the operational problems. The intended discharge at (R2) isB B
initially available from the ponded canal, but will drop immediately with falling
head in the canal. The effect of the upstream release will be felt only when the
disturbance will arrive at (R2). The new steady-state is reached after the canal
B B
storage is filled (Ankum 1993).
Fig. 2.2 Upstream control (Ankum 1993).
21
2.6.3 Downstream Control
Downstream control is a control technique in which the water level regulators
respond to the conditions in the down stream canal reach and is self system
management and do not require water operators. Downstream control solves
the problems of response time and operational losses. Downstream control is
based on a demand-based control concept. Formers organizations can
determine the amount of water released at any time and water is available for
instant distribution. The regulators in the main canal maintain a constant water
level at the downstream side of the structure without regarding discharges.
Such regulation means more supply is given to the canal reach when the water
level drops. The effect of discharge at each regulator is automatically adjusted
to accommodate downstream demand for irrigation water (Fig. 2.3).
Fig. 2.3 Downstream control (Ankum 1993).
Downstream control requires level-top canals with horizontal embankments
between the regulators to meet the zero flow conditions (Fig. 2.3). An aspect of
22
downstream control with level-top canals is the criterion of the positive storage
wedge in the canal reaches, i.e. volume of water between the segment water
level (level-top) and lower full-flow water level. This leads two main advances of
the downstream control methods (Ankum 2004):
irrigation water can be supplied immediately at the desired discharge,

as it is available from the in-canal storage.
irrigation water is not wasted as a result of difference between supply

and demand, as this difference is stored in the in-canal storage.
2.7 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
The performance assessment concept is essential to successful management
of an irrigation system. The ultimate purpose of performance assessment is to
achieve efficient and effective irrigation performance by providing related
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. The
performance assessment of irrigation systems can be broadly categorized as
(Bos et al. 2005):
• Operational assessment provides system managers with information to

enable them to manage and operate the system.
• Accountability assessment provides information to assess the

performance of those responsible for the systems's performance.
• Intervention assessment is undertaken to determine how to improve

some aspects of the system’s performance.
• Sustainability assessment enables planners to assess the long term

viability of a system.
23
Performance assessment is key factor to improve daily operation, to diagnose
problems and monitor the effect of interventions to solve these problems. With
scarce water resources, the need for better performance of irrigation became
obvious. For an effective performance assessment programme a framework
need to be define. It is helpful to consider an irrigation system in the context of
nested systems to describe different types, uses of performance indicators and
address the important question of boundaries within which performance is
assessed (Small and Svendsen 1992). In this study the authors reported that,
the performance of irrigation water delivery systems and performance of
irrigated agriculture systems relies on the water conveyed by specific set of
canals. It is reasonable to assess the performance of Area Water Boards and
Farmers Organizations in terms of water delivery performance criteria like
reliability and equity.
Many engineers and researchers (Bos and Nugteren 1990, Levine 1982,
Abernethy 1986; Oad and McCornick 1989, Molden and Gates 1990, Murray
Rust and Snellen 1993; Merrey et al. 1994, Bos 1997, Malano and Burton 2001
and Bos et al. 2005) have tried to standardize performance indicators to permit
better comparison of irrigation systems. To assess the performance it is
important to confirm the indicators selected in respect to the objectives
established for that irrigation system. A good indicator tells a manager what
current performance of the system is, and, in combination with other indicators,
may help to identify the correct course of action to improve performance within
that system. The indicator should be empirically quantified and statistically
24
tested. Discrepancies between the empirical and theoretical basis of the
indicator must not be hidden by the format of the indicator. It must be
understood readily by all participants and the cost of measuring it regularly
must not be excessive.
Gorantiwar and Smout (2005) described two types of performance measures
i.e. the allocative type comprising productivity and equity; and the scheduling
type comprising adequacy, reliability, flexibility, sustainability and efficiency.
The methodologies to estimate these measures are explained by (Makin et al
1991; Latif et al. 1994; Goldsmith and Makin 1991) and provide the irrigation
authorities with information on the performance of irrigation management in the
system, their management capability to the response of variations in
climatological, physical and management aspects and insight to improve the
performance during different phases of irrigation water management. Indicators
which focus on the process of operating a system and break down of this
process into management and system components have been defined by
Molden and Gates (1991). The objective of using comparative indicators is to
evaluate outputs and impacts of intervention in individual systems, compare
performance of a system over time, and also to allow comparison of systems in
different areas and at different system levels (Molden et al. 1998).
The productivity is relevant when the outputs are measured in terms of
whichever input is scarce. Lenton (1986), Chambers (1988), Abernethy (1989)
25
listed various indicators of productivity. The productivity indicators are easy to
quantify and included in all studies related to performance of an irrigation
systems.
The sustainability indicators enable the irrigation authorities to know which
management strategy is more sustainable or environmentally friendly
(Gorantiwar and Smout 2005). Sustainability is the performance measure
related to upgrading, maintaining and degrading the environment in the
irrigation system. According to Abernethy (1986), sustainability is the most
difficult factor to encompass and refers to the issue of leaching, drainage and
salinization which if not attended properly, may shorten the system’s life.
The success of irrigation water management in the irrigation systems depends
on appropriateness of all these processes. Generally, process indicators are
used to assess actual irrigation performance relative to system-specific
management goals and operational targets. It is believed that, in comparison
with process indicators, the application of comparative indicators requires data
collection procedures that are less time and resource-consuming (Kloezen and
Garcés-Restrepo 1998). Indicators which focus on the process of operating a
system and break down the process into management and system components
have been defined by Molden and Gates (1991).
Irrigation delivery service, performance and control are primarily linked. Renault
(1999) developed analytical relationships between the controls of canal water
26
depth, and the sensitivity of irrigation delivery structures. Renault and
Hemakumara (1999) attempted to develop an analytical framework to address
sensitivity of irrigation off takes. Sensitivity of delivery takes into account the
impacts of the perturbations on the delivery to the command area of the offtake.
P
Renault et al. (2001) observed that, the flow behaviour along canal irrigation
network can be assessed by determining the sensitivity of the irrigation
structures. The importance of governing factors of the sensitivity and
proportionality indicators are analyzed using a theoretical approach as well as
practical results from historical data on a gated system in Sri Lanka and
structured system in Pakistan. They recommended that the sensitivity indicator
be determined for the full supply depth in the parent canal and the maximum
discharge through the offtake.
2.8 MODELING NEEDS IN WATER MANAGEMENT
Fast developments have been made in the development of computer models
and their applications to irrigation systems during recent years. In the fields of
irrigation and drainage, modeling has the potential for improvement in planning,
design, operation and management. Modeling and simulation play an
increasing role in enhancing the operational performance of irrigation systems.
A program called Gate Stroking is used in unsteady flow modeling to determine
gate setting systems. The usual procedure for unsteady flow modeling is to
determine flow rates and water levels from known boundary conditions and
27
gate settings. Gate stroking reverses this procedure and calculates gate
openings to achieve desired water levels and flows in the system. Specifically,
the program attempts to provide constant water levels upstream from each
check structure so that a flow rate to offtakes remains constant (Falvey and
Luning; 1979). The main applications envisioned for unsteady flow models are:
analysis of the system characteristics; and the development and testing of
operational plans, control strategies, and control algorithms.
2.9 HYDRAULIC MODELING SOFTWARE
There is a wide variety of canal flow simulation programs that deal with the
different types of flow in open channels. The main differences between those
programs can be seen as the size of the irrigation network that can be
simulated in one run, and the types of flow that a program can solve. Some
programs can solve the uniform flow type only, while others can solve both the
uniform and the unsteady flow types. There have been many applications of
hydraulic models for the analysis of canal system performance under proposed
operation, management delivery and schedules (Islam et al. 2008, Mishra et al.
2001, Gichuki et al. 1990; Merkley et at. 1990; Swain and Chin 1990).
Unsteady flow models can employ several solution methods of varying degrees
of sophistication (Hamilton and DeVries 1986), and with different levels of
accuracy and robustness. Hydraulic simulation models that can handle both
steady and unsteady flow are reviewed below. The models are listed in
alphabetical order.
28
2.9.1 Branch-Network Dynamic Flow Model (BRANCH)
BRANCH developed by United States Geological Survey (USGS) is hydrologic
analysis software used to simulate steady or unsteady flow in a single open-
channel connected in a looped pattern. It is applicable to a wide range of
hydrologic situations wherein flow and transport are governed by time-
dependent forcing functions. BRANCH is suitable for simulation of flow in
complex geometric configurations and having multiple interconnections, but can
be easily used to simulate flow in a single, uniform open-channel reach. Time
varying water levels, flow discharges, velocities, and volumes can be computed
at any location within the open-channel network. Stream flow routing and
computation by the BRANCH model is superior to simplified-routing methods in
open channel reaches.
The BRANCH model uses a weighted four-point, implicit, finite-difference
approximation of the unsteady flow equations. Flow equations are formulated,
using water level and discharge as dependent variables, to account for non-
uniform velocity distributions through the momentum Boussinesq coefficient, to
accommodate flow storage and conveyance separation to treat pressure
differentials due to density variations and to include wind shear as a forcing
function.
2.9.2 Canal Management (CANALMAN)
CANALMAN developed by the Department of Biological and Irrigation
Engineering, Utah State University, USA, is a hydraulic model to simulate
29
unsteady flow in branching canal systems with trapezoidal cross sections.
Canal reaches are separated by inline structures such as gates, weirs, etc.
CANALMAN uses an implicit solution technique to solve the complete Saint
Venant equations (Gichuki et al. 1990; Merkley et at. 1990). The simulation
time step can be varied from one to ten minutes. CANALMAN will simulate the
topology of most canal systems, including branch canals. A maximum of four
branches, with a total maximum of 40 reaches, can be simulated with a single
model set up. Channel friction gradients are computed using Manning's
equation. Boundary condition analysis in the model is of average accuracy.
A unique and valuable feature in CANALMAN is its capability to analyze water
advance on a dry bed, which is a problem for most other simulation software.
Initial filling of an empty canal can be studied with reasonable accuracy, which
should be particularly valuable to operators of small canals and laterals that are
frequently drained and filled. On the other hand, the program will not analyze
channel dewatering, rapid flow changes, negative flow at structures, hydraulic
jumps, and supercritical flow (Merkley and Rogers 1993). CANALMAN model
was used for operation and management of the Kangsabati irrigation project
(Kumar et al., 2001).
2.9.3 CAlcul des Riveres MAilles (CARIMA)
CARIMA (SOGREAH Consulting Engineers, Grenoble, France) Although
CARIMA was originally developed for flood propagation studies; it has been
30
used for regulation problems in irrigation canal systems. The program solves
the complete de Saint Venant equations with the unconditionally stable,
convergent Preissmann method to analyze unsteady flow conditions. The
nonlinear algebraic equations resulting from application of the Preissmann
methods are solved in a Newton-Raphson context. The initial conditions
required for starting any simulation run can be taken from the results of a
previous run, calculated by CARIMA using an automatic steady flow
stabilization procedure, or directly entered by the user. A zero discharge initial
condition is perfectly admissible; however, a zero depth condition (dry bed)
cannot be accommodated.
CARIMA routinely treats simple, branched, or looped systems, including
interconnected floodplain cells. Channel sections can be trapezoidal, circular,
or general (defined by either elevation and width or distance from bank and
elevation). CARIMA uses the Manning or Chezy equations. The resistance
coefficient can be specified as constant within an entire cross section or within
a subsection. The different types of external and internal boundary conditions
supported by CARIMA are: discharge hydrographs, stage hydrographs, rating
curves, pumps, composite rectangular weirs, composite rectangular gates,
local head loss, storage basins, culverts, inclined weirs, idealized flood control
dams, and automatic regulators. However, it contains no specific treatment of
hydraulic jumps or bores, and cannot normally accommodate dry bed
situations. This currently under development (Holly and Parrish 1991).
31
2.9.4 Dutch Flow (DUFLOW)
DUFLOW (The Tidal Water Division; Delft University, The International Institute
for Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, The Netherlands) , is a user-
orientated package for unsteady flow computations in networks of open
watercourses. Apart from uniform and non-uniform flow calculations, it can
address, for example, propagation of tidal waves in estuaries, flood waves in
rivers and operation of irrigation and drainage systems. Free flow in open
channels is simulated and control structures like weirs, culverts, siphons, and
pumps can be included. A simple rainfall runoff relationship is part of the model.
DUFLOW can be used for large river systems, but also for simpler irrigation
and drainage networks, for which input hydrographs can be specified. A four-
point implicit Preissmann scheme is used to solve the complete Saint Venant
equations of continuity and momentum. The user can select solutions of
linearized or fully nonlinear versions of the equations. The latter being solved
with a Newton-Raphson type scheme that starts from the linearized results.
DUFLOW does not include a separate steady-flow solution procedure and uses
the unsteady procedure to handle both types of flow. Cross sections are
defined at each node in terms of top width of flow at given depths. The Chezy
equation is used as the standard frictional resistance equation for channels,
culverts, and siphons. The Manning-Strickler equation can be used for channel
resistance. DUFLOW has the capability of adding wind shear, which can be
applied in any direction relative to the channel reach.
DUFLOW has some limitations in modeling canal networks. The maximum
number of channel sections and structures in a model is 250. Cross sections
32
can be defined with up to 15 depth-width pairs. DUFLOW cannot simulate
critical flow, hydraulic jumps, and dry-bed channels. It cannot model automatic
canal gate control mechanisms, but it is a menu driven program. It is public
domain software and is distributed at a nominal cost (Clemmens et al. 1991).
2.9.5 Modeling Drainage and Irrigation System (MODIS)
MODIS (Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands) is an implicit
hydrodynamic modeling package that computes the unsteady water flow in
open channels. Branched and looped open channel networks can be modeled
by the program. The simulation of structure operational plans and control are
easy to perform in MODIS. Furthermore the model has performance indicators
that allow for a fast diagnostic interpretation of the results. The MODIS model
can run in various computational modes, varying from steady state mode to full
dynamic mode, in which the complete Saint Venant equations are solved. The
applied numerical solution technique is based on finite differences using the
four point Preissmann implicit scheme. The friction term of the Saint Venant
equations is represented by the Manning-Strickler resistance formula. Real
time controlled canals can be simulated in MODIS. Several control algorithms
are standard in the model: multiple speed control, proportional-integral-
differential (PID) control, CARDD, BIVAL, and EL-FLO controls. To avoid
program termination in case of dry-bed flow, a Preissmann slot is automatically
added to trapezoidal cross sections. A sub routine prevents the slot from falling
dry by continuously checking the water levels. (Schuurmans 1993).
33
2.9.6 Simulation of irrigation Canals (SIC)
SIC (CEMAGREF, France) provides a detailed simulation of flow in a canal
system and thus allows for studies, for example, to reduce water losses and
inequity of supply to users. The model is based on one-dimensional hydraulic
analyses for transitional and steady-state flows. It is divided into three parts: a
topographical unit to generate the topography and topology of the scheme, and
two separate computational units for steady and unsteady flow. Special
features include a calibration module to compute both Manning's and discharge
coefficients, given measured flows and water levels.
It is also possible, for example, to calculate structure settings to achieve the
required flow at offtakes and proportion of flow in the canal. Seepage and
inflows can also be taken into account. But it cannot be applied in the cases of
supercritical flow and dry beds (Baume et al. 2005). The SIC model is
extensively used in Pakistan, Punjab (Waijjen et al. 1997), Sindh (Lashari et al.
1999) and especially in NWFP for design of Chashma Right Bank Canal Habib
et al. (1999) and Pehure High Level Canal to examine the hydraulic and
operational behavior Habib et al. (1996).
2.9.7 Unsteady Model (USM)
USM (US Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, USA) is hydraulic simulation
software that models gradually varied unsteady flow in canal systems. The
primary purpose and application of the program has been the hydraulic
analysis during the design of new canals and canal control systems. USM uses
34
the method of characteristics to calculate a numerical solution to the complete
Saint Venant equations of unsteady open channel flow. Two solution methods
are available: complete grid of characteristics and specified time interval. In the
first solution, the calculation time step varies as water depth and wave speed
change. The specified time interval solution uses a fixed time step. The method
of characteristics yields an accurate numerical solution, but requires a large
number of computations since the calculation time step must be small.
Therefore USM is more efficient for solving problems of short duration involving
rapid flow changes than for problems of long duration with gradual changes
(Rogers and Merkley 1993).
USM topology is limited to a linear series of up to 40 canal pools separated by
structures or boundary conditions. Branching or looping cannot be modeled
directly. The program can model trapezoidal, rectangular, circular, U-shaped,
trapezoidal with one vertical side, and trapezoidal membrane-lined sections.
Different values of cross section, roughness, slope, etc., may be entered for
each canal pool, but they are assumed to be constant for each pool.
Computational nodes are spaced in equal user defined intervals within a pool.
USM does not simulate advance on a dry bed, canal dewatering, hydraulic
jumps, bore waves, supercritical, flow, or negative flow through structures. The
maximum time span for a single simulation is 24 hours (McGarry 1990).
2.9.8 ISIS Flow
ISIS Flow (Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd, Hydraulics Research
Wallingford Ltd UK) is a computer program used for modeling steady and
35
unsteady flows in open channels and flood plains. Any sensible looped or
branched open channel network can be modeled using the program. The
program is modular and the channel network is modeled by breaking it down
into hydraulic components referred to as units. ISIS Flow contains units to
represent a wide variety of hydraulic structures including several types of
sluices and weirs, side spills and head losses through bridges. Closed conduits
and culverts are represented by cross sections and several standard shapes
are available. Other units include reservoirs (to represent flood storage areas,
for example) and junctions. Free surface (flow depths and discharges) is
computed using a method based on the equations for shallow water waves in
open channels. Two methods are available for computation of steady flow
problems: the direct method and the pseudo time stepping Method. In ISIS
Flow, the model external boundaries are represented as either flow-time, stage
time or stage flow (rating curve) relationships including specifying tide curves
and hydrological boundaries.
A special hydraulic feature in ISIS Flow is its capability on modeling
supercritical flow. This is achieved by neglecting the part of the convective
momentum term in the momentum equation when the Froude number exceeds
a specified upper value. Also ISIS Flow can relatively cope with dry bed
situations by introducing a minimum water depth when the depth approaches
zero. ISIS Flow solves the differential form of the momentum equation, the
solution at a hydraulic jump or bore can never be accurate. Instead of a sharp
change in stage, the change will be smeared over several nodes.
36
2.10 COMPARISON OF IRRIGATION SIMULATION MODELS
The review of hydraulic modeling software presented above illustrates a great
variety of models which cover a wide spectrum of features and capabilities that
indeed emphasize the importance of such modeling tool in the study and
design of irrigation systems. Some points of interest to highlight are: some
models like CARIMA and ISIS were originally designed for flood routing and
river modeling. Later they modified to include the ability of irrigation networks
analysis. The rest of the reviewed models were specifically designed to model
irrigation networks except BRANCH which is suitable for river modeling only as
it cannot model irrigation structures.
Many models were designed to satisfy particular needs in the design and
operation of irrigation networks: CANALMAN is mainly concerned about the
management of irrigation systems and excels in the analysis of canal filling
procedures. USM was designed to focus on the analysis of emergency
operations of newly designed canal structures. ISIS Flow includes a large built-
in structure library. MODIS targets controlled irrigation canals with its capability
of duplicating most manual and automatic structure operations besides
calculation of some performance indicators that helps in monitoring system
performance.
All the reviewed models solve the complete Saint Venant equations for
unsteady flow calculations. The four-point Preissmann implicit scheme is used
for solving the equations in all the models except USM where the method of
37
characteristics is used. The four-point Preissmann implicit scheme is usually
more robust and can cope with more varied hydraulic conditions at the
expenses of accuracy, while the method of characteristics achieves the
opposite. It is interesting to notice though that most of the models reviewed
have almost the same limitations in their modeling capabilities: supercritical
flow cannot be handled (except ISIS); zero water levels (dry beds) cannot be
solved (except CANAlMAN and MODIS); canal dewatering cannot be
simulated; hydraulic jumps and bore waves cannot be simulated.
Mishra et al. (2001) applied MIKE 11 to improve the operation and
management of Kangsabati project, India. Shahrokhnia et al. (2005) used HEC-
RAS model to evaluate the performance of Doroodzan irrigation network in
Iran. From aforementioned review it appears that hydraulic models are
appropriate tools, if properly calibrated and validated to understand and
diagnose the hydraulic behaviour of the irrigation system and consequently can
be utilized to improve the operational performance of the irrigation systems.
38
Chapter III
Material and Methods
3.1 UPPER SWAT CANAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM
The Upper Swat canal (USC) irrigation system was commissioned in 1914 that
irrigates a large proportion of the fertile Peshawar Valley. The Upper Swat
Canal (USC), which takes water from Swat River through Amandara head
works, was originally designed for a discharge of 68.6 m3s-1 (2420 cusecs) to
P P P P
irrigate an area of 127,500 hectares (315,000 acres) of Charsadda, Mardan,
Swabi and parts of Malakand Agency plains (Fig. 3.1). The canal, after
traversing the narrow ridge of Malakand hills through the Benton Tunnel,
eventually bifurcates at Dargai into two branches of Machai Branch at left and
Abazai Branch at right side. After the construction of the Benton Tunnel, it was
realized that, though constructed to the full design section, its discharge
capacity was not more than 51 m3s-1 (1800 cusecs) due to its unlined and
P P
P P
rough surface. As a result of this constraint, the authorized full supply discharge
of the canal was fixed at 51 m3s-1 (1800 cusecs) and the cultivable command
P P P P
area (CCA) reduced to 111,700 hectares (276,000 acres).
To bridge the gap of water shortages, an auxiliary tunnel was designed and
constructed for a discharge of 51 m3s-1 (1800 cusecs).

P P
As a result of the
P P
construction of this tunnel the capacity of the Upper Swat Canal (USC) was
also increased up to 100 m3s-1 (3531.50 cusecs). About 75 km length of the

P P P P
39
Upper Swat Canal (RD 0+ 000 to 242 + 000) was rehabilitated under the Swabi
Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (Swabi SCARP Project) in 1998, while
the remaining portion of about 50 km was remodeled under the Pehur High
Level Canal (PHLC) Project in 2002. Rehabilitation and modernization of the
USC permitted more irrigation development in the upper reaches of the canal.
The water allowance was increased from 0.39 Ls-1ha-1 to 0.77 Ls-1ha-1. The
P P
USC is operated under upstream control, in which adjustments to canal
discharge are made at the head of the main canal system. Response time near
the tail of the canal system is typically 4-5 days. The flow is continuous into the
head of the system, and split in proportional to the command area into the
distributaries (secondary) canals. Tertiary canals offtakes (outlets) flow
continuously and each serving a command area typically between 50 to 250
ha.
3.1.1 Pehur High Level Canal (PHLC)
Pehur High Level Canal was constructed during 1997. It is 26.2 km long having
majority of its length as lined channel. Secondly the Maira branch obtains
irrigation supplies from the PHLC at confluence point of RD 242+ 000. The
PHLC provides supply to Maira Branch with gross water allocation of 0.645
BCM from Tarbela reservoir. The canal is designed and constructed with a
capacity of 28.30 m3s-1 (1000 cusecs).

P
P
P
P
40
Fig. 3.1 Map of Upper Swat Canal (USC) irrigation systems.
41
Regulation of the PHLC and the tail of the combined system in Maira Branch
are achieved through downstream control. Water is stored in the PHLC and
Maira Branch in ponded reaches. The points of control are hence shifted to the
distributary head regulators. When more or less water is required in the
distributary, the head regulator gate is adjusted accordingly and no water is
wasted as it retained within the main canal. The tail of the canal system also
receives the designed water supplies. This is achieved through self-regulating
float operated cross regulator (AVIS and AVIO type) gates that are installed at
about 5 km intervals. These gates are sensitive to water level and open and
close automatically in order to maintain downstream water levels. This effect is
carried up through the system to Tarbela Dam, where a control system SCADA
(supervisory control and data acquisition) operates the Gandaf Outlet valves
(Fig. 3.1) in response to water levels in the PHLC head reach (Bozakov and
Laycock 1997; Laycock et al. 2005).
The water distribution at the distributary level is regulated through manual
operated undershot sliding gates traditionally. In order to facilitate their
operation and monitoring the irrigation supply, Crump’s weirs are installed in
the head reaches of the distributaries. Proportional dividers (bifurcators and
trifurcators) are Crump’s weir with splitter wall to divide the flow in proportion to
the irrigated area served by each offtake and the downstream parent channel.
The Crump’s weir (Bos 1989; Herschy 2009) has an upstream face sloping at
1:2 and downstream face slope 1:3. For large structure with discharge greater
42
than 5 m3s-1 the downstream face slope is 1:5. The minimum width of any
offtake is 0.15 m. The width of the offtake channel is adjusted by increasing or
decreasing the length of weir crest. Proportional divisors are used where the
smallest offtake discharge is not less than 10 percent of the incoming parent
canal flow. For the flow between 2-10 percent, double bifurcators (Fig.
Appendixes E-1) are used with secondary splitter to achieve the desired
discharge. Relative lower discharges are obstructed through open flumes (OF)
and adjustable orifice semi module (AOSM).
3.1.2 Crop Based Irrigation Operation (CBIO) Implementation
The concept of crop based irrigation operation (CBIO) is to reduce the amount
of groundwater recharge, which will consequently reduce waterlogging as
compared to supply based system. The CBIO is modification of supply based
system due to increased water allowance in the study area (Pongput 1998). It
has been designed to replace the fixed schedule warabandi system, which
oversupplies at early and late crop growth stages and under supplies during
peak demand. Canal operations under CBIO started in December 2003 but
PHLC discharge dropped by almost 50 percent (from 19.83 m3s-1 to 9.92 m3s-1
P P P P P P P
after CBIO implementation, as half the offtakes were alternately closed for one
week due to low demand. Presently CBIO has been abounded by the
Operation and Regulation Cell of Swat Area Water Board (SAWB) because of
the resistance from FOs who wanted water for tobacco and hybrid maize.
43
3.1.3 Institutional Setup
The Frontier Irrigation and Drainage Authority (FIDA) is an autonomous
organization and established through legislation of NWFP Irrigation and
Drainage Authority Act 1997, an innovative act to devolve power in the
irrigation and drainage sector. FIDA is responsible for managing the irrigation
system from barrages to canal head works only. The Authority has established
pilot Swat Canal Area Water Board (SCAWB), Mardan. Farmers’ Organizations
(FOs) are established on the distributaries and minors which will take care of
the water distribution to the farmers. They maintain the distributaries, minors
and watercourses and collect ISF i.e. water charges (Abiana) from the farmers.
FIDA is supervised by a Board in which farmers play an important role.
3.2 PROPOSED IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
The importance of relevant and appropriate information in decision making
cannot be overemphasized. Day-to-day management frequently plays an
essential role in water conservation. Information is vital since daily decisions
regarding irrigation delivery and other aspects affect the well-being of many
farmers. In Provincial Irrigation Department (PID) necessary conditions existed
in accordance with established rules and bylaws, and there were mechanisms
for processing of these data to help managers to identify performance
deficiencies. However, the procedures followed were laborious and some time,
it was not possible to get the timely feed back of actual performance level to the
managers for their judgment and decision. Traditionally, Provincial Irrigation
44
Department (PID) processes data manually, the consequence which was, that
relevant information was either not available or it used to be incomplete and
many adhoc decisions were made. It was realized that there is a need for
improved data collection, recording and transmission procedures, to mitigate
the drawbacks of previous data collection by PID.
The success in implementing irrigation management information system (IMIS)
is largely attributed to preliminary diagnosis. The first step for the development
of irrigation management information system (IMIS) is to establish data
collection mechanism, so that FOs President of distributary gets timely
feedback on actual performance. The basic data for cropping pattern and
intensity was obtained from sampled farmers as explained in detail in Section
3.3.5. A simple worksheet based irrigation management information system
(IMIS) has been developed for the purpose of facilitating the operation and
monitoring tasks of irrigation systems by allocating irrigation water at various
offtakes to meet the irrigation demand of farmers and maintaining equity of
water distribution (Fig. 3.2).
45
SCAWB FOs
Irrigation Demand
Calibration of at offtake
Topographic Head Regulator
Survey and and Outlers
Hydraulic Data
of
Effective
Distributary
Rainfall
Structures
Monitoring ETo
Daily Inflow at Waterlevel at Referene
Distributary Intake and Evapotranspiration
Intake Outlets by
Hydraulic
Committee
Meteorological
Data
Calibration and
Validation of
SIC Performance
Hydrodynamic Evaluation based
Simulation of
Model on Selected
Canal
Indicators
Operation SIC
Cultivation
Hydrodynamic
Calender
Model
and
Cropping Patteren
Operation of
Irrigation
Network and Monitoring
Culturable
Adjustment of and
Commanded Area
Flow Control ISF
Operators Farmers
Fig. 3.2 Irrigation management information system (IMIS).
46
3.2.1 Data Structures
The IMIS (Fig. 3.2) is developed in MS Excel on the window 98 environment.
The model is an Excel file that is called workbook, which contains many
worksheets. The Excel workbook of the IMIS model is for only one distributary.
There are ten worksheets; namely;
Title Name of distributary and basic files information.
SCIA Seasonal cropping intensity and area under each crop.
CC (S,W) Annual cultivation calendar including planting and harvest

dates, cultivated area based on actual cropping intensity
during summer and winter.
Kc Crop coefficient during different growth periods.
Weighted Kc Determination of weighted Kc using equation (3.3);
Irrigation Total 10-days irrigation demand including crop water,

Demand leaching requirements and losses.
Supply at Supply at intake and daily water levels at the distributary

Intake intakes converted to discharge using head discharge
equations (Table 3.2).
SAQ Statistical analysis of discharges based on 10-daily period.
Irrigation Based on statistical analysis of discharge, irrigation

Supplied supplied at intake is computed.
PPC Performance parameters sheet calculate Relative water

supply (RWS), Delivery performance ratio (DPR),
Reliability (PD) using equations 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5
respectively.
This program is limited to the irrigation management aspects and it covers the
major issues of day-to-day management activities and also includes
performance oriented operation and monitoring of the infrastructure.
47
3.2.2 Method of Information Generation
Typical routine data collection consist of annual cultivation calendar, seasonal
cropping pattern and cropping intensity i.e. area under each crop in selected
outlet command area through farmers interviews, during the meetings with FOs
using structured questioners proforma. The methodology is discussed under
section 3.31 and 3.3.5.
Irrigation demand option provides computation of the irrigation demand for 10 -
days period based on the existing cropping pattern and intensity. The required
irrigation demand is communicated to SCAWB by the President of selected
distributaries. Accordingly the operators of SCAWB adjust the head regulator of
the distributaries. FOs monitors the water levels at the head regulator whereas
hydraulic committees of the individual Water Users Associations (WUA)
monitor the water levels at outlets. Daily water levels are submitted to the
respective FOs Office. The computer operator feed the water levels in IMIS
programme that evaluates the performance of selected distributaries as
discussed in detail in Chapter V. The evaluated performance was also
discussed with officials of SCAWB and President of FOs. They were convinced
based on the analysis that farmers are applying approximately twice as much
water as needed.
Furthermore, in consultation with Swat canal Area Water Board (SCAWB),
Chowki Distributary was selected for detail evaluation using IMIS in association
with the Simulation of Irrigation Canal (SIC) hydrodynamics model. SIC was
48
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the physical infrastructures discussed in
Section 5.8 and simulated different operational scenarios discussed in Section
5.9 to improve the operation and control the wastage of irrigation water due to
enhanced water allowance of the Chowki Distributary .
3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
3.3.1 Description of Selected Site
Six distributaries and minors (Table 3.I) of Maira Branch canal were selected
for evaluation the impact of irrigation management transfer turnover (IMT). The
farmers’ organizations (FOs) on these distributaries were formed during 2003
that belongs to Swat Canal Area Water Board (SCAWB).
The farm size and land tenure system has a major impact on the agricultural
development of the area, because the large farms have a comparatively higher
absorptive capacity for development than the small farms. In the study area, 50
percent of the irrigated land is cultivated by the land owners, 30 percent by
owner-cum tenants and 20 percent by the tenants. The higher representation of
the owners helped in formation of FOs as the land owners took more interest
and initiatives to share responsibilities in collective actions. In selected
distributaries 70 percent of the farmers have farm size less than 2 ha, 20
percent have farm size ranging from 2-4 ha and only 10 percent have farms of
4 to 10 ha.
49
Table 3.1 Salient features of selected distributaries.
Name of RD* Discharge GCA CCA Number of
No.
distributary (m) (m3s-1)
P
P
P
P
(ha) (ha) stakeholders
1 Yaqubi 19020 1.00 1546 1354 1153
2 Gumbad-II 35020 0.85 1373 1150 597
3 Qasim-II 41740 0.67 1013 911 330
4 Toru 43150 0.91 1437 1250 352
5 Chowki 44550 3.10 4580 4305 1485
6 Pirsabak 44550 2.39 3735 3181 1669
*RD - Reduced distance i.e. distance from the head or intake of canal. 1RD = 304.9 m (1000 feet)
3.3.2 Calibration of Hydraulic Structures
The selected distributaries are equipped with head gate regulators. Crump’s
weirs are installed in the head reach of each distributary for monitoring the
flows. Benchmarks were established on the head walls of the distributaries,
which were used as reference points for measuring water levels to calibrate the
Crump’s weirs. Head discharge relations were developed at different flow levels
using area velocity method (measuring the cross section area of the canal at
selected section and determining the flow velocity through the cross section
using current meter). Daily water levels were measured at selected
distributaries. For all the distributaries the head discharge equations were
developed as function of upstream water levels (Hu) to determine the B B
discharges as given in Table 3.2.
50
Table 3.2 Head discharge relations of selected distributaries.
Name of RD* Head (m) and Discharge(m3s-1)
No. R2
distributary (m) Relations
P
P
Q = 5.2*(3.281Hu+0.92)2.07
0.84
B B P
for Hu>0.19 m
1 Yaqubi 19020
B B
Q = 3.96*(Hu)1.5B P P 0.98
2 Gumbad-II 35020 Q = 3.96*(Hu)1.5B B P

P
0.97
3 Qasim-II 41740 Q = 3.92*(Hu)1.5B B P P 0.99
4 Toru 43150 Q = 3.96*(Hu)1.5B B P
P
0.99
1.5
5 Chowki 44550 Q = 3.96*(Hu) B B P P 0.98
1.5
6 Pirsabak 44550 Q = 6.93*(Hu) B P P 0.98
*RD - Reduced distance i.e. distance from the head or intake of canal. 1RD = 304.9 m (1000 feet)
3.3.3 Discharge Measurement
After calibration of the hydraulic structures and developing of head discharge
relations, daily water levels were observed which were converted into
discharges for the year 2007 (Figures 3.4 to 3.9). Frequency analyses of
discharge (percent of design discharge) are given in Table 3.3. The data shows
that annual closure of all the distributaries was for a period of seventy five days.
The period was more than the actual recommended period of one month. The
analysis of discharges shows that Gumbad-II Distributary draw more than 110
percent of design discharge for 2 days (one percent of operation time).
51
Table 3.3 Frequency analysis of discharges.
Distributaries Yaqubi Gumbad-II Qasim-II Toru Pirsabak Chowki
Percent of
design No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent No. of Percent
discharges days of time days of time days of time days of time days of time days of time
>110 0 0 2 1 15 5 6 2 5 2 0 0
101-110 8 3 21 8 38 14 37 13 52 19 1 0
91-100 16 6 93 33 60 21 80 29 71 25 11 4
81-90 72 26 36 13 38 14 48 17 84 30 62 22
71-80 109 39 47 17 44 16 28 10 36 13 135 48
61-70 36 13 23 8 23 8 17 6 19 7 30 11
<60 39 14 58 21 62 22 64 23 13 5 41 15
280 100 280 100 280 100 280 100 280 100 280 100
1.20
Q d = 0.95 m3 s -1
1.00
Discharge (m3s-1)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
4-May
12-May
20-May
28-May
7-Jul
15-Jul
23-Jul
31-Jul
4-Nov
12-Nov
20-Nov
28-Nov
5-Jun
13-Jun
21-Jun
29-Jun
8-Aug
16-Aug
24-Aug
3-Oct
11-Oct
19-Oct
27-Oct
1-Sep
9-Sep
17-Sep
25-Sep
1-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
25-Mar
2-Apr
10-Apr
18-Apr
26-Apr
6-Dec
14-Dec
22-Dec
30-Dec
Dates
Fig. 3.3 Observed discharges of Yaqubi Distributary during 2007.
52
3 -1
Discharge (m s ) Discharge (m3s-1)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1-Mar 1-Mar
9-Mar 9-Mar
17-Mar 17-Mar
25-Mar 25-Mar
2-Apr 2-Apr
10-Apr 10-Apr
18-Apr 18-Apr
26-Apr 26-Apr
4-May 4-May
12-May 12-May
20-May 20-May
28-May 28-May
5-Jun 5-Jun
13-Jun 13-Jun
21-Jun 21-Jun
29-Jun 29-Jun
7-Jul
7-Jul
15-Jul
15-Jul
23-Jul
53
23-Jul 31-Jul
3
3
31-Jul
Dates
Q d = 0.81 m s
8-Aug
Q d = 0.63 m s
Dates
-1
8-Aug
-1
16-Aug
16-Aug 24-Aug
24-Aug 1-Sep
1-Sep 9-Sep
9-Sep 17-Sep
17-Sep 25-Sep
25-Sep 3-Oct
3-Oct 11-Oct
11-Oct 19-Oct
19-Oct 27-Oct
27-Oct 4-Nov
4-Nov 12-Nov
Fig. 3.5 Observed discharges of Qasim-II Distributary during 2007.

12-Nov 20-Nov
20-Nov 28-Nov
Fig. 3.4 Observed discharges of Gumbad-II Distributary during 2007.
28-Nov 6-Dec
6-Dec 14-Dec
14-Dec 22-Dec
22-Dec 30-Dec
30-Dec
3 -1
Discharge (m s ) Discharge (m3s-1)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
1-Mar 1-Mar
9-Mar 9-Mar
17-Mar 17-Mar
25-Mar 25-Mar
2-Apr 2-Apr
10-Apr 10-Apr
18-Apr 18-Apr
26-Apr 26-Apr
4-May 4-May
12-May 12-May
20-May 20-May
28-May 28-May
5-Jun 5-Jun
13-Jun 13-Jun
21-Jun 21-Jun
29-Jun 29-Jun
7-Jul 7-Jul
15-Jul 15-Jul
23-Jul
54
23-Jul
31-Jul 31-Jul
Dates
Dates
8-Aug 8-Aug
16-Aug 16-Aug
3
Q d = 0.88 m s
24-Aug 24-Aug
-1
1-Sep 1-Sep
3
Q d =2.24 m s
9-Sep 9-Sep
-1
17-Sep 17-Sep
25-Sep 25-Sep
3-Oct 3-Oct
11-Oct 11-Oct
19-Oct 19-Oct
Fig. 3.6 Observed discharges of Toru Distributary during 2007.
27-Oct 27-Oct
4-Nov 4-Nov
Fig. 3.7 Observed discharges of Pirsabak Distributary during 2007.

12-Nov 12-Nov
20-Nov 20-Nov
28-Nov 28-Nov
6-Dec 6-Dec
14-Dec 14-Dec
22-Dec 22-Dec
30-Dec 30-Dec
4.00
3.50
Q d = 3.07 m 3 s -1
3.00
Discharge (m s )
3 -1
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
4-May
12-May
20-May
28-May
1-Mar
9-Mar
17-Mar
25-Mar
4-Nov
6-Dec
12-Nov
20-Nov
28-Nov
14-Dec
22-Dec
30-Dec
2-Apr
10-Apr
18-Apr
26-Apr
5-Jun
13-Jun
21-Jun
29-Jun
8-Aug
16-Aug
24-Aug
1-Sep
9-Sep
17-Sep
25-Sep
7-Jul
15-Jul
23-Jul
31-Jul
3-Oct
11-Oct
19-Oct
27-Oct
Dates
Fig. 3.8 Observed discharges of Chowki Distributary during 2007.
Similarly Qasim-II draws more than 110 percent of design discharge for 15
days (5 percent of operation time). Ironically, the Qasim-II Distributary abstract
less than 60 percent of design discharge for 62 days (22 percent of operation
time), whereas Toru draw less than 60 percent of design discharge respectively
for 64 days ( 23 percent of operation time). The Table 3.3 indicates that
Pirsabak distributaries at full supply level for 52 days (19 percent of operation
time), and Chowki Distributary operated at 81-90 percent of design discharge
for 62 days (22 percent of operation time).
3.3.4 Metrological Data
The Upper Swat Canal command area has cool, dry winter season from
November to February with day time temperature averaging about 18 oC. P

P
However, during December and January the temperature may drop to 0 oC at P

P
night, therefore resulting in frost.
55
10.0 100.0
Evaporation Rainfall
8.0 80.0
Evaporation (mmday-1)
Rainfall (mm)
6.0 60.0
4.0 40.0
2.0 20.0
0.0 0.0
Nov III
Jan III
July III
March III
May III
June II
Sept III
Nov I
Jan I
Feb II
April II
July I
Aug II
Oct II
Dec II
March I
May I
Sept I
Fig. 3.9 Evaporation and rainfall during growing period.
May to August is warm and humid with average day time temperature of 35 oC, P P
which may rise to maximum 41 oC in the month of June. The temperature starts P P
decreasing from the month of September. Mean annual rainfall in command
area varies from about 500 mm in the West to 1100 mm towards North-East.
About 75 percent of the total rainfall occurs within two distinct periods:
February-April, and June-August. The general trend of evaporation and rainfall
is shown in Fig. 3.9. The winter rain is mainly due to depressions moving East
across the region from the Middle East, while monsoon is in summer (June-
July). The metrological data including maximum-minimum temperatures,
relative humidity, rainfall, wind speed and sunshine hours are required to
calculate the reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo). B B
56
Table 3.4 Climatic data used for determination of evapotranspiration.
Climatic Station
Data Altitude: 315 m Latitude: 34.1/ N Longitude:72/ E
Climatic
Parameters Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Maximum Temp.
18.0 19.0 23.6 30.0 37.5 41.0 38.0 35.5 35.5 31.9 25.6 20.0
(°C)
Minimum Temp.
2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 21.0 25.0 26.0 25.5 22.0 14.0 7.5 3.0
(°C)
Relative Humidity
71.0 67.0 69.5 59.5 45.0 40.0 62.0 70.0 62.5 63.0 73.0 76.0
(%)
Wind Speed
16.0 25.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 36.0 54.0 42.0 24.0 13.0 9.0 10.0
(km/day)
Sunshine (hours
8.0 9.0 9.5 10.5 12.0 13.0 10.5 10.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0
per day)
Average Rainfall
35.0 47.0 80.0 35.5 21.0 20.0 127.0 133.0 42.0 13.0 18.5 24.0
(mm)
Effective Rainfall
10.8 19.9 40.5 12.1 3.5 7.0 75.5 79.3 16.6 0.0 1.2 4.5
(mm)
The data were obtained from Pakistan Air Force (PAF), Risalpur and Irrigation
Department, Swabi, weather station because both these stations are close to
the research site (Table 3.5). Long term rainfall records were collected from the
meteorological stations. General trend of evapotranspiration and rainfall during
growing period is shown in Fig. 3.9.
3.3.5 Cropping Pattern, Intensity and Crop Yield
Data regarding the type of crop grown, cropping pattern, intensity, and crop
yield were obtained using structured interviews. Cropping pattern and intensity
influence the paying capacity of the farmers. The interviews were memory
based of the respondents as data for full crop year was collected in one sitting.
57
Thirty percent of the beneficiaries are selected from 40 percent of the outlets
yielding sample size of 12 percent (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5 Procedure developed for determination of sample size.

Gumbad Qasim
Description Yaqubi Toru Pirsabak Chowki
-II -II
No. of offtakes (outlets)
19 8 8 10 25 26
(A)
No. of stakeholders (B) 1153 597 330 352 1669 1485
40 percent of the outlets
8 3 3 4 10 10
(C=0.4*A)
Distributary average
61 75 41 35 67 57
stakeholders (D=B/A)
Total stakeholders per 40
percent outlets at
488 225 123 140 670 570
distributary average
(E=C*D)
30 percent stakeholders of
40 percent outlets 146 67 37 42 201 171
(F=0.3*E)
No. of questionnaire per
18 22 12 11 20 17
outlet (G=F/C)
Sample size in percent
12 12 12 12 12 12
(H=100*F /B)
Those watercourses were chosen having higher command area and number of
farmers per watercourse. On Maira branch, there is little variation in crops
grown and cropping intensity, therefore sample size of 12 percent gives reliable
estimate of farmers. After determination of numbers of outlets and respondent
farmers on distributary, to facilitate the selection further, selected samples were
distributed as 20 percent from the head and 40 percent each from the middle
and tail respectively. The data collected was cross checked from reports and
staff of the Provincial Agriculture Department (PAD), Government of NWFP.
58
3.4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Different performance indicators have been developed that are often used to
assess performance of irrigation systems. In this study relative water supply,
water delivery capacity, delivery performance ratio and reliability have been
used that are briefly discussed below.
3.4.1 Relative Water Supply (RWS)
RWS measures the adequacy and is ratio of total water supply to the total water
demand at field level associated with the crops actually grown, with cultural
practices actually used for actual irrigated area (Levine 1982). The adequacy
indicator describes the extent to which the water demand of a system is met.
According to the definition total crop demand at field level includes consumptive
use and losses including non-beneficial ET, losses to drains and groundwater.
RWS is calculated at the intakes of the selected distributaries, which is the last
control point regulated by SCAWB. Mathematically the RWS is calculated as
given in Eq. 3.1.
⎧ n=10 ⎫
⎪⎪ ∑ (Qa + Pe ) ⎪⎪
RWS = ⎨ n=n1=10 ⎬ ......................................................................................... (3.1)
⎪ ∑ ( ETc ) ⎪
⎪⎩ n=1 ⎪⎭
Where
Qa : Actual irrigation water supplied (mm.day-1)

Pe : Effective Rainfall (mm.day-1)
ETc : Crop Evapotranspiration (mm.day -1 ) P P
Effective rainfall was determined using following relations (Eq. 3.2) suggested by
Abdulmumin et al. (1990) by considering climatic and soil factors for different arid
59
and sub humid climate, based on analysis of dependable rainfall (80 percent
probability of excedence) and estimated runoff and percolation losses.
Pe = 0.6 ∗ Pt − 10 for Pt < 70 mm ⎫

⎬ .................................................... (3.2)
Pe = 0.8 ∗ Pt − 24 for Pt > 70 mm ⎭
Where
Pe : Effective Rainfall (mm.day-1) P

P
Pt B : Total rainfall over the growing season (mm)
The CROPWAT (FAO, 1998) programme based on Penman-Monteith equation
was used for determination of daily ETo (mm.day-1). Spreadsheet was

B B P
P
developed for calculation of ETc of crops using Eq. 3.3 for multiple crops on ten
B B
daily bases. The crop coefficient (Kc) values for different crops and growth
stages were obtained from Doorenbos and Pruitt (1984), Allen et al. (1998),
and On Farm Water Management (OFWM), Irrigation Agronomy Field Manual
(1997).
⎧ ∑ K C * A Cropped ⎫
⎪ ⎪
ETC = ETo * K C = ETo * ⎨ 10 - days ⎬ .......................................................... (3.3)
⎪ ∑ (A Cropped ) ⎪
⎩ Total ⎭
Where
ETc : Crop Evapotranspiration (mm.day-1)

ETo : Evapotranspiration of Reference Crop (mm.day-1)
Kc : Crop Coefficient
KC : Weighted Crop Coefficient
3.4.2 Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR)
DPR is defined as the ratio of the actual discharge to the design discharge
(Clemmens and Bos 1990, Bos et al. 1994).
60
1 ⎛ Qa ⎞
DPR = ∑ ⎜⎜ Q ⎟⎟ ........................................................................................ (3.4)
T n ⎝ d ⎠
Where,
Qa : Actual discharges delivered (m3s-1)
B B
Qd : Design discharge (m3s-1)

B B
Molden et al., (2007) discussed the characteristics of DPR (Eq. 3.4) 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 (Eq. 3.4) allows for
instantaneous checking of whether discharges are more or less than the design
or target discharges.
The operational objectives of irrigation systems are to provide the equitable
distribution of available irrigation supplies to all the stakeholders as efficiently
and effectively as possible. The outlets are designed to provide the design
discharges based on full supply level (FSL) in the canal. Equitable distribution
of irrigation water is controlled by maintaining the canal water surface level for
a given discharge and it is achieved by properly operation of water control
structures as well as constant monitoring of the water levels at control points
located along the length of canal and at tail clusters.
The nominal range of the proportionality is 70 to 110 percent of the design flow.
Rotational flows operational strategy is adopted between the distributaries and
61
offtakes (outlets), when incoming flows to the canal system are between 55 to
60 percent of the design flow because at low flows proportionality become
more difficult to maintain and misappropriation of irrigation supplies to offtakes
(outlets) 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. The assessment criteria adopted
in this study is: 0.9 ≤ DPR ≤ 1.1 good performance; 0.9 - 0.7 ≤ DPR ≤ 1.3-1.1
satisfactory performance and 1.3 ≤ DPR ≤ 0.7 poor performance.
3.4.3 Reliability (PD) B B
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 AWB and FOs, and
indicates the ability of the system to deliver design supplies in a given time
span. It is considered essential for charging irrigation service fee and for
successful move towards technical and institutional measures aiming at better
water management through farmers’ participation in operation and
maintenance of the irrigation system.
62
Molden and Gates (1990) defined the reliability (PD) as the degree of temporal
B B
variability in the ratio of amount delivered to the amount required over a region.
Reliability of water distribution is calculated as given in Eq. 3.5.
⎛ Qa ⎞ 1
∑ CV (DPR ) ……………………………............. (3.5)
1
PD = ∑ CV T
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = T
R R ⎝ Qd ⎠ R R
⎛Q ⎞
Where CVT ⎜⎜ a ⎟⎟ is temporal coefficient of variation (ratio of standard
⎝ Qd ⎠
deviation to mean) of the ratio ⎛⎜ a Q ⎞⎟ over time period T. The criteria

Q
⎝ d ⎠
suggested by (Molden and Gates,1990) is, if CVT (DPR) ≤ 0.10 reliability of

B B
irrigation supplies is good, whereas 0.10 ≤ CVT (DPR) ≤ 0.20 it is satisfactory and
B B
CVT (DPR) ≥ 0.20, it is poor.

B B
3.5 MODEL SELECTION
Rapid developments have been made in application of computer models in
recent years. These tools are extensively used in irrigation and drainage
engineering. In these fields commercial softwares are now available for a
number of different aspects including planning, design, management and
operation of irrigation systems as already discussed in detail in Chapter II.
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.
The Simulation of Irrigation Canal (SIC) developed by CEMAGREF (1995) has
been particularly dedicated to irrigation canals. It is equally useful to engineers
63
and canal managers. It has been already used in many different countries:
France, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Mexico, Jordan, and Senegal. 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. 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 and impact of legal and ill legal interventions on water
distribution. This model has good library of hydraulic structures and global
performance indicators under unsteady flow conditions. This application for
hydraulic modeling is indispensable, since testing canal control algorithms on
real systems in practice is extremely difficult if not possible. Testing the
algorithms using hydraulic modeling is essential before implementing any
model on real systems. The SIC hydraulic model combines efficient numerical
algorithms and up-to-date user friendly interfaces. 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 was selected in the present study.
Some more description of the SIC model is given in Chapter-IV.
3.5.1 Model Input Data
Application of model requires site specific field data collection to define and
calibrate the model. Study oriented data is needed to be collected to interpret
64
and evaluate particular scenarios. The description of the model data input used
for Chowki Distributary is described below:
Topographic and geometric data

Hydraulic data
The input data is requirement for the study and unsteady states are the same.
3.5.2 Topographic and Geometric Data
Topographic survey of the Chowki Distributary was conducted during the closure
period of 2006-07. All data is given in Appendix Tables C-1 to CIII. The following
data was collected:
longitudinal profile survey of the Chowki Distributary and its Minors.

bed and bank elevation, bed width of the canal measured approximately at
every 100 m.
cross section of the distributary and minor at regular intervals of 50 m.
exact location of head regulator, offtakes (outlets), dimension and crest
levels of all offtakes (outlets).
3.5.3 Hydraulic Data
Hydraulic survey was conducted because the flows diverted to the offtakes are
simulated through these information. These data include following measured
and computed hydraulic parameters.
roughness coefficient for the different reaches of the distributary and

minors.
head discharge relation and discharge coefficient for the offtakes
(outlets).
downstream boundary condition.
There are 27 inline cross structures exist to control the discharge, were monitored
(width and crest elevation) and inserted as singular section in the model. Throat
width, sill elevation of twenty eight offtakes (Tables 3.6 and 3.7) were physically
65
measured and inserted as node in SIC model. Downstream boundary condition
for Chowki Distributary and its two minors were based on actual water levels and
discharge was feed as rating curve in the model. The inflow to the network is
considered as initial value and taken positive, whereas outflow on offtakes nodal
points is taken negative.
Table 3.6 Data of the Chowki Distributary.

No
RD
Side Type
Offtake CCA qd B B
Bt Bed Level CL
(m) Structure (ha) (m3s-1)
P
P
P
P
(mm) (m) (m)
1 260 L OF 51 0.04 110 354.77 355.04
2 309 R OF 132 0.09 76 354.77 354.86
3 819 L D BIF 169 0.12 200 352.23 352.33
4 987 L D BIF 259 0.18 315 349.73 349.83
5 1867 L OF 77 0.05 60 335.01 335.08
6 1877 R OF 135 0.09 94 335.00 335.08
7 2063 R OF 55 0.04 60 332.64 332.72
8 2795 L D BIF 130 0.09 197 325.52 325.62
9 2795 R S Chowki I 1121 0.78 650 325.52 325.62
10 2970 R OF 115 0.08 87 323.73 323.80
11 4289 L S TRI 166 0.12 206 323.22 323.37
12 4289 R S TRI 149 0.10 174 323.22 323.37
13 5510 R OF 73 0.05 62 322.62 322.69
14 5930 L S TRI 195 0.14 196 322.47 322.65
Chowki-II
15 6185 L S 677 0.47 784 321.27 321.54
(TRIF)
16 6185 R S BIF 199 0.14 230 321.27 321.54
17 6890 L OF 15 0.01 70 316.71 316.76
18 7622 L S BIF 150 0.10 529 310.68 310.95
19 7622 R S BIF 104 0.07 383 310.68 310.95
RD - Reduced distance i.e. distance from the head or intake of canal.
1RD = 304.9 m (1000 feet)
Bt: Throat Width; CL: Crest Level; qd : Design Discharge; L : Left ;
R : Right; C: Center; S : Single ; D : Double;
BIF: Bifurcator; TRI: Trifurcator ; OF : Open Flume;
FSL: Full Supply Level.
66
Table 3.7 Data of the Chowki Minors.
Bed
No
RD
Side Type
Offtake CCA qd B B
Bt
Level
CL
3 -1
(m) Structure (ha) (m s ) (mm) (m)
(m)
P P
P P
Chowki Minor -I
1 1060 L TRI 290 0.20 520 314.89 315.31
2 1060 R TRI 138 0.10 250 314.89 315.31
3 1060 L TRI 92 0.06 160 314.89 315.31
4 2430 L S BIF 337 0.24 570 306.09 306.37
5 2430 C S BIF 265 0.19 450 306.09 306.37
Chowki Minor -II

1 919 L S TRI 168 0.12 300 318.09 318.26
2 945 L S TRI 185 0.13 330 318.09 318.26
3 1825 BF S BIF 282 0.20 1306 311.02 311.35
4 1829 BF S BIF 42 0.03 194 311.02 311.35
RD - Reduced distance i.e. distance from the head or intake of canal.
1RD = 304.9 m (1000 feet)
Bt: Throat Width; CL: Crest Level; qd: Design Discharge; L : Left ;
R : Right; C: Center; S : Single ; D : Double;
BIF: Bifurcator; TRI: Trifurcator ; OF : Open Flume;
FSL: Full Supply Level.
67
CHAPTER IV
SIMULATION OF IRRIGATION CANALS (SIC) MODEL
The SIC (Simulation of Irrigation Canals) software is a mathematical model
which can simulate the hydraulic behaviour of the irrigation canals, under
steady and unsteady flow conditions. The SIC model is an efficient tool allowing
canal managers, engineers and researchers to quickly simulate a large number
of hydraulic conditions at the design or management level. The model is based
on one-dimensional hydraulic analyses for transitional and steady state flows. It
is divided into a topographical unit and two separate computational units for
steady and unsteady flows respectively. Computational accuracy of the SIC
model is better than the other similar software (Contractor et al. 1993). The
detailed discussion regarding the mathematical formulation and operation
procedures are well documented by Baume et al. (2003).
4.1 TOPOGRAPHIC MODULE
Unit I is used to create the topography and geometry files to be further used by
the computational programs of Unit II and III. Unit I allow to input and verify
data obtained from a topographical survey of the canal or from design
documents. Unit I consists of three programs: EDITAL, TALWEG and RESTAL.
A main canal network is a 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 tertiary canals. The hydraulic modeling of such
a network needs to take into consideration the real canal topography in addition
68
to its geometric description. All the topographic components used by the model
are managed in Unit 1. For one-dimensional hydraulic modeling, each reach is
described by n cross-sections perpendicular to the main flow direction (Fig.
4.1). Cross-sections are chosen to represent as closely as possible the shape
and the slope of the reach.
Fig. 4.1 Cross sections in a reach (Baume et al. 2003).
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.
4.1.1 Description of the Hydraulic Network
The hydraulic network is divided into homogeneous sections, the reaches being
located between an upstream node and a downstream node. Relations
between reaches occur only at the nodes. One can create a different reach for
a lined canal zone (low roughness), and an unlined canal zone (high
roughness). The division into reaches does not influence the results of the
hydraulic calculation. If different regulating or control devices exist across the
69
canal, they can be integrated within a reach and do not need any special
division. This approach facilitates the modeling of the hydraulic transition from
free flow conditions to submerged conditions at such devices. A branch is a
group of reaches serially linked to one another. The division into reaches and
branches is shown in Figure 4.2.
Fig. 4.2 Canal network subdivided into reaches and branches.
4.1.2 Classification of Reaches
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.
70
4.1.3 Modification in Topographic Data File
The first option starts the EDITAL program. This program allows the user to
creates, modify or complete a topographic data file (.TAL). This file contains the
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
topology is described the nodes are created by selecting in the Tools menu the
Node option and by clicking with mouse on the desired site. When nodes are
created, one must select the Reach option located on the same menu, then
click on the upstream node of the reach, and finally move the mouse and
unclick on the downstream node of the reach. The reach is then created and
oriented.
The inverse reach option permits to reverse the direction of the flow in
the reach.
The split reach option permits to divide one reach into two reaches with
a new intermediate node.
The merge reaches option permits to join two adjoining reaches and to
erase the intermediate node.
To erase a node or a reach, select in the Tools menu the option Erase
and click on the object to erase.
When reaches are described, they are displayed in blue if the coherence test is
true and they must be classified into linear branches.
4.1.4 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),
71
(.GEO), (.TIT) and (.DIS). It is possible to start the program by selecting the
Geometry Computation option in the unit I. A window will then permit to the
user to select the topographic data file (.TAL) to be treated. The same (.TAL)
file name, with the (.MIN) extension, will automatically create the topographic
results file, with (.GEO) extension, to create the topographic result file
necessary for unit III of the unsteady flow, with (.LST) extension, create the
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.
4.1.5 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.
4.2 STEADY FLOW COMPUTATIONS
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 offtake is required to satisfy a
72
given distribution plan and maintaining full supply depth targets upstream of
cross structures.
4.2.1 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:
The first option New permits to create a hydraulic data file (.FLU).
The second option Open permits to modify a hydraulic data file (.FLU).
The third option Verification permits to verify a hydraulic data file (.FLU)
and create the corresponding (.DON) file.
The fourth option ESC key permits to exit EDIFLU and return to the SIC
main menu.
4.2.2 Calibration Mode
The calibration mode is be 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
73
discharges of the offtake. These calibration water levels are entered in the
same way as the reference levels. The calibration results are written in the
(.LST) file. The calibration option must be used, when offtakes switched to the
imposed discharge computation mode, since the discharges must have been
measured on the real system for the calibration of the model.
4.2.3 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.
4.3 UNSTEADY FLOW COMPUTATIONS
Unsteady flow computations are carried out under Unit III. It allows testing
various distributions plans at offtakes, and operations of main sluices and cross
structures (manual or automatic). Starting from an initial steady flow regime, it
is be possible to select the best way to achieve a new distribution plan among
several options. The efficiency of the operations can be assessed 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
74
permits to edit (.SIR) files used for unsteady flow calculations (Unit III).
Following five options are available and can be used in any order:
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. These discharges will only be used to calculate the performance
indicators at offtakes.
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.
4.4 MODELING CAPABILITIES
The SIC model does not handle advance on a dry bed, neither channel
dewatering nor hydraulic jumps. When an error is detected during the
computation either in steady or unsteady flow a message is displayed in a
window, indicating the type of error and the location where illicit flow conditions
are detected (e.g. dry bed) and the program stops. Supercritical flow is ignored
in steady flow computations, by taking the critical depth at the corresponding
locations. Rating curves necessary to be defined as the downstream boundary
conditions and at the offtakes. Discharge hydrographs can be defined at nodes.
75
4.4.1 Computational Process
The SIC hydraulic model solves the complete Saint Venant equations. It uses
the classical implicit Preissmann scheme. The implicit coefficient of θ is set to
0.6. The time step can be selected from 0.01 to 999.99 minutes (default value
is 10 minutes). The distance step can be chosen by the user (default value is
200 meters). The gate opening operations can be described at each cross
structure and turnout. This can be done through the user-friendly interface or
through a regulation module.
4.5 STEADY STATE FLOW CALCULATIONS
Steady flow computations allow analyzing the water profile for any combination
of discharges or settings of the offtakes and cross structures. It allows also
computing the required settings of the offtakes and adjustable cross structures
in order to satisfy a given distribution plan and maintaining full supply depth
targets upstream of cross structures. The differential equation of water surface
profile in a reach can be written as:
dH ⎛ qQ ⎞
= −Sf + (k − 1)* ⎜⎜ ⎟ ........................................................................(4.1)
2 ⎟
dx ⎝ gA ⎠
⎛ n 2Q 2 ⎞
and S f = ⎜ 2 4 / 3 ⎟ ........................................................................................(4.2)
⎜A R ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Where
g : Gravitational constant = 9.81 m.s-2 P
n : Manning coefficient
R : Hydraulic radius (m)
A : Cross section area (m2)
H : Total head (m)
q : Lateral inflow (q>0, k=0) or outflow (q<0, k=1), (m3.s-1) P
P
P
P
Sf
B B : Linear head losses (m2/3.s-2) P P P P
Q : Discharge (m3.s-1)
P P P P
76
To solve the equation an upstream boundary condition in term of discharge and
downstream boundary condition in term of water surface elevation in required.
In addition, lateral flow and Manning roughness coefficient along the canal
should be known. As the equation doesn’t have analytical solution in the
general case, it is discretized in order to obtain numerical solution. Knowing the
upstream discharges and the downstream water elevation, the water surface
profile is integrated step-by-step starting from down stream end. Integrating
equation between two section i and j gives.
⎛ ∆X ij ⎞ ⎧⎪ V j Vi ⎪⎫ ⎛ S fi + S fj ⎞
(H j − H i ) − kq⎜
⎜ 2g
⎟
⎟ ⎨ − ⎬ + ⎜⎜ ⎟ ∗ ∆xij = 0 ..................................(4.3)
⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎪⎩ A j Ai ⎪⎭ ⎝ 2 ⎠
The Equation (4.3) can be written as follows:
H i ( Z i ) = H j + ∆H ( Z i ) ....................................................................................(4.4)
A subcritical solution exist if the curve H i ( Z i ) and H j + ∆H ( Z i ) intersect. For
this condition, it is necessary that: δ = H j + ∆H ( Z ci ) − H i ( Z ci ) > 0
Z ci is the critical elevation defined at (i) by ⎛⎜ Qi Bi ⎞

2
⎜ gA 3 ⎟⎟ = 1 ,
⎝ i ⎠
and δ > 0 , subcritical solution, and δ < 0 supercritical solution, and water
surface profile is over estimated. This is satisfactory approach to design bank
elevation, and offtake are not usually located at supper critical locations and
therefore the calculation at these offtake is correct. If a solution does exist, one
has to numerically solve an equation of the form f ( Z i ) = 0 . Different
approaches are adopted in SIC to solve the equations, with the aim of reducing
the size of the matrix used.
77
4.5.1 Loop Computation
The aim of the loop computation method is to use a two step approach, where
first upstream discharges for each reach are computed and then a standard
method is used to compute water profiles inside reaches. As in the case of the
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.
4.6 UNSTEADY FLOW CALCULATIONS
Unsteady flow computations allow testing various distribution plans at offtakes,
and operations of main sluices and cross structures (manual or automatic).
Starting from an initial steady flow regime, it will be possible to select the best
way to achieve a new distribution plan among several options. The efficiency of
the operations can be assessed through several indicators computed at
offtakes. SIC package is based on one-dimensional Saint Venant’s partial
differential equations that describe flow in open channels. Two equations are
needed to describe unsteady flow in open channels, which are the
mathematical translation of law of conservation of mass (continuity equation)
and momentum.
∂A ∂Q
+ = q ................................................................................................(4.5)
∂t ∂x
The momentum equation or dynamic equation is expressed as:
78
∂Q ∂ ⎛ Q2 ⎞ ⎛ ∂z ⎞
+ ⎜ ⎟ + g .A⎜ ⎟ = −(gA) ∗ S + K ∗ (qV ) .............................................(4.6)
∂t ∂x ⎜⎝ A ⎟ ⎜ ∂x ⎟ f
⎠ ⎝ ⎠
The partial differential equations must be completed by the initial and boundary
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.
Fig. 4.3 Preissmann four point grid.
Saint Venant’s equation has no known analytical solution in real geometry.
They are solved numerically by discretizing: the partial derivatives are replaced
by finite differences. The discretizing used in the SIC model is four point implicit
schemes known as Preissmann’s scheme (Fig. 4.3). This scheme is implicit
because the values of the variables at the unknown time step also appear (with
those of the known time step) in the expression containing spatial partial
derivatives.
79
The derivative ⎛⎜ ∂f ⎞⎟ and ⎛⎜ ∂f ⎞⎟ at point M is written as follows and are used to
⎝ ∂t ⎠ ⎝ ∂x ⎠
discretized Saint Venant’s equations.
⎛ ∂f ⎞ ⎛ f ′− f f ′− f ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 1 2 ⎜ A A + B B ⎟ ......................................................................(4.7)
⎝ ∂t ⎠ M ⎝ ∆t ∆t ⎠
⎛ ∂f ⎞ ⎛ f i− f j ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = 1 2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ......................................................................................(4.8)
⎝ ∂t ⎠ M ⎝ ∆t ⎠
⎛ ∂f ⎞ ⎛ fi − f j ⎞ ⎛ ∆f − ∆f i ⎞
⎜ ⎟ M = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + θ * ⎜⎜ j ⎟⎟ ........................................................(4.9)
⎝ ∂x ⎠ ⎝ ∆ x ⎠ ⎝ ∆ x ⎠
Discretization of Equation 4.10 yield Equation 4.10(a)
⎛ ∆x ⎞ ⎛ ∆x ⎞ ⎫
∆Qi − ⎜ ⎟Bi .∆Zi = ∆Qj + ⎜ ⎟Bj .∆Z j ⎪
⎝ 2θ.∆t ⎠ ⎝ 2θ.∆t ⎠ ⎪ ...........................................(4.10)
⎬
⎛ Qj − Qi ⎞ ⎛ ∆x ⎞
+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − ⎜ ⎟(qi − q j ) ⎪
⎝ θ ⎠ ⎝ 2θ ⎠ ⎪⎭
4.7 CROSS STRUCTURES
When cross structures exist on the canal (singular section) the water surface
profile equation cannot be used locally to calculate the water surface elevation
upstream of the structure. A cross structure can be composed of several
devices in parallel, such as gates, weirs, etc. The hydraulic laws of the different
devices present in the section must be applied. The modeling of these devices
is a delicate problem to solve when developing open channel mathematical
models. A distinction has been made between devices with a high sill elevation
80
are called Weir /Orifice and devices with a low sill elevation called Weir /
Undershot gates (Fig. 4.4).
Fig. 4.4 Weir – orifice cross device.
Q = µ F ∗ L ∗ 2 g (h1 ) .......................................(4.11)
1.5
Weir – Free flow
Q = (K F × µ F ) ∗ L ∗ 2 g (h1 )
1.5
Weir-Submerged flow ............................(4.12)
Where KF is coefficient of reduction for submerged flow condition. The flow

B B
⎛ h2 ⎞
reduction coefficient is a function of ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ and the value of this ratio α at the
⎝ h1 ⎠
instant of the free flow to submerged flow transition are obtained when
⎛ h2 ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ > α = 0.75
⎝ h1 ⎠
4.7.1 Equation at Singular Section
The water surface elevation at a singular section is computed using the
equations. The flow at the section is equal to the sum of the discharges through
each device (e.g., gate, weir).
81
∑ f (Z − Z j ) = Q .........................................................................................(4.13)
n
k i
k =1
Where n is the number of devices in the section and Q the flow at the section.
f k (Z i − Z j ) = Q is the discharge law of the device number k, for instance for a
submerged weir:
( )
fk (Zi , Zj ) = µ ∗L ∗ 2g ∗ (Zi − Zj ) ∗ (Zj − Zd ) ............................................(4.14)
If the discharge and the downstream elevation Zj are known, the water surface B B
elevation Zi upstream of the device can then be calculated.

B B
4.7.2 Regulator
At each singular section, in steady flow calculation, one particular gate can be
chosen to play the role of a regulator. Instead, the model will compute the
opening required to maintain a target water level immediately upstream. If the
gate opening is unknown and maximum possible opening and the target water
elevation (e.g. Full Supply Depth) upstream of the gate is known. This results in
an equation at the singular section and ends up with an equation of the
following type:
Q = ∑ f k (Z i , Z j ) = f r (Z i , Z j , W ) ..................................................................(4.15)
n
k =1
Where
k = 1 to n: for gates with fixed openings.
W : the regulator opening to be calculated.
Zi : known value (target upstream water elevation).
82
f k (Z i , Z j ) : The discharge going through the fixed gate number k for the target
upstream water elevation Zi and the downstream water elevation Zj. The
B B
equations considered are those described for the weirs and the gates.
f r (Z i , Z j , W ) : The discharge going through the regulator type gate for an
opening W and the target upstream water elevation Zi. The f k (Z i , Z j ) are
B
known values. Then equation (14) is reduced to f r (Z i , Z j , W ) = constant. One
then has to look for the zero of a function, but this time, the unknown is W.
4.7.3 Offtakes Equations
The lateral offtakes corresponds to points of outflows or inflow. Therefore, they
are obligatorily located at nodes (Fig. 4.5). Under steady flow conditions, SIC
can compute the real offtake discharge corresponding to a given offtakes gate
opening corresponding offtakes gate opening.
Fig. 4.5 Lateral offtake.
83
The offtakes are modeled according to the same hydraulic laws as for cross
structures. The originality of the approach stands on the consideration of a
possible influence of the offtake downstream condition with out modeling
completely downstream lateral canal. In order to include the possibility of
submerged flow conditions at the offtakes, three types of offtake downstream
conditions (i.e., at the head of the secondary canal) can be modeled:
a constant downstream water surface elevation.
a downstream water surface elevation Z2 that varies with the water B B
surface elevation upstream of a free-flow weir:
Q( Z 2 ) = µ * L * 2 g * (Z 2 − Z D )
1.5
.......................................................(4.16)
a downstream water surface elevation that follows a rating curve of

the type:
⎛ (Z − Z D ) ⎞
n
Q ( Z 2 ) = Qo * ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ ..................................................................(4.17)
⎝ (Z o − Z D ) ⎠
4.8 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Some performance indicators have been incorporated for the evaluation of the
water delivery efficiency at the offtakes. They allow integrating the information
on water delivery, either at a single offtake or at all the offtakes. There are two
kinds of indicators: volume indicators and time indicators.
4.8.1 Volume Indicators
The volume indicators refer to three kinds of volumes:
The demand volume(VD) which is the target volume at the off-takes,

B B
The supply volume (VS) which is the volume supplied at the offtakes,
B B
The effective volume (VEF), which is really the usable part of the supply
B B
volume.
84
The definition of the effective volume depends on two coefficients: W and X (in
percent).Only the supply discharge close to the water demand is thus taken
into account (Fig. 4.6).
⎛ w ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞ ⎫
If ⎜1 − ⎟.QD ≤ QS ≤ ⎜1 + ⎟.QD ⇒ QEF = QS ⎪
⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎪
⎛ w ⎞ ⎪ ....................................(4.18)
If QS < ⎜1 − ⎟.QD ⇒ QEF = 0 ⎬
⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎪
⎛ x ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞ ⎪
If QS > ⎜1 + ⎟.QD ⇒ QEF = ⎜1 + ⎟.QD ⎪
⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠ ⎭
The total effective volume (VEF) over a period of time T is given by following
B B
Equation (4.20):
T
V EF = ∫ Q EF dt ..........................................................................................(4.19)
0
Fig. 4.6 Definition of effective volume.
85
Adequacy: indicator measures the performance of the scheme in terms of
adequacy for offtakes between the head inlet and the target delivery point.
Adequacy for an offtake is expressed as the ratio of effective volume (VEF) to B B
targeted volume (VD). B B
⎛V ⎞ ⎧ 1 T ⎫
Adequacy = ⎜⎜ EF ⎟⎟ = ⎨ ∫ Q EF dt ⎬ .................................................................... (4.20)
⎝ VD ⎠ ⎩VD 0 ⎭
Operational Efficiency: indicator is the ratio of effective volume at the delivery
point within the targeted period of time, to the volume issued from the main
supply (Vs). The effective volume (VEF) is computed with restriction to the
B B
expected period of delivery as follows:
T2
VEF = ∫ QEF dt ..................................................................................................... (4.21)

T1
⎛V ⎞ ⎧ 1 T2 ⎫
E op = ⎜⎜ EF ⎟⎟ = ⎨ ∫ Q EF dt ⎬ .................................................................................. (4.22)
⎝ VS ⎠ ⎩ V S T1 ⎭
Where T1 is expected arrival of wave and T2 is expected finish of the wave.

B B B B
From the above definitions, DPR can obtain as follows:
⎛V ⎞ ⎛V Vs ⎞
DPR = ⎜⎜ S ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜ EF × ⎟⎟ ................................................................... (4.23)
⎝ VD ⎠ ⎝ VD V EF ⎠
4.8.2 Time Indicators
The time indicator is define TD as the total period of time during which the
B B
demand discharge is non-zero and TEF as the total period of time during which
the effective discharge is non-zero. Time indicator compares the duration of
86
delivery of the effective volume with that of the demand volume. This indicator
is dimensionless and can only be calculated for individual offtakes, it doesn't
have any significance for all the offtakes taken together. Baume et al. (2005)
define two time lags i.e. ∆T1 , ∆T2 . ∆T1 is the time separating the start of the
water demand and the start of the effective discharge. This time is positive if
the effective discharge arrives after the demand discharge (Figure 4.7).
Fig. 4.7 Definition of time indicator.
Where ∆T2 , is the time lag between the centers of gravity of the demand and
the effective delivery hydrograph. All these indicators are defined for each
offtake. They can be calculated for any particular period of the simulation that
the user wants to focus on. The effective duration of the delivery at tail (TEF) isB B
the total duration for which discharge is above the minimum limit. The indicator
of effective duration at tail is the ratio of effective duration (TEF) to targeted

B B
duration (TD).
B B
87
Chapter V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Irrigation management information system (IMIS) is prerequisite for irrigation
management turnover to response to the needs of end users. Performance
and operational efficiency can be enhanced if good communication system
exists to provide necessary feedback on the status of the system. The irrigation
management information system envisaged in this study has been explained in
Chapter III in schestimatic way of gathering, organizing, storing and making
available information’s regarding cropping calendar, cropping pattern, intensity,
actual irrigation water supplied and demand to farmer organizations and
operators of the irrigation system. The IMIS is helpful tool for monitoring the
irrigation systems and to evaluate their performance based on selected
performance indicators.
5.1.1 Cropping Pattern and Cropping Intensities
Land, water and climate play an important role in selection of crops. Agro-
climatic conditions of the study area are suitable for year round cultivation.
Cropping intensities is an index reflecting farm activities and it increases
significantly with assured and adequate irrigation water supplies. The irrigation
supplies not only influence the cropping pattern but use of inputs is directly
related to water availability. Irrigation intensities were determined by
88
interviewing the farmers and it was confirmed by walking along the
watercourses. The cropping intensity was found to be 80 percent and 90
percent respectively in summer and winter seasons. Thus making annual
cropping intensity of 170 percent (Table 5.1). Pre IMT data show 145 percent
annual cropping intensity thus indicating an increase of 25 percent in the
intensity. Whereas projected intensity was 190 percent.
Table 5.1 Pre and post IMT annual cropping intensities in the study area.
Summer Season Winter Season
Intensity (%) Intensity (%)
Planting Planting
Crop Days Pre Post Crop Days Pre Post
Date Date
IMT IMT IMT IMT
21-Jun 110 25 20 15-Oct 120 25 30
Maize Wheat
11-Jul 120 20 15 11-Nov 120 20 20
15-Feb 120 5 7 Sugar beet 1-Oct 210 2 7
Tobacco
1-Mar 120 5 6
Sugarcane 1-Oct 360 9 15 Sugarcane 1-Oct 360 9 15
Orchard 1-Oct 360 5 5 Orchard 1-Oct 360 5 5
Vegetables 1-Nov 2 5 Vegetables 31-Oct 3 5
1-Apr 120 1 2 Oil Seed 1-Oct 210 1 1
Fodder
1-Jun 120 1 2 Fodder 1-Sep 195 1 4
Other 1-Apr 185 2 3 Other 1-Sep 120 4 3
Total 75 80 Total 70 90
The principal crops grown in the study areas are wheat and sugarcane. Wheat
is the main cereal crop that is sown from the 2nd week of October to last week
of December mostly in traditional manner of broadcasting. Sugarcane has two
planting seasons: winter (October) and summer (February). It is the main cash
crop. October planting is for safeguarding the buds of the seedling cane from
89
frost and extends the growing period to achieve higher production. According to
farmers, the sugarcane planted in the area is intercropped with wheat and
sugar beets in winter and with tobacco in the summer. The normal growing
period of sugarcane is 10 to 12 months. The ratoon crop is used for two to
three cropping seasons after which it become uneconomical due to reduction in
yield. Sixteen to twenty irrigations are recommended depending on the variety
grown, soil and weather conditions. Farmers applied light and frequent
irrigation during germination and seedling stage of cane.
Tobacco is another important cash crop and it is planted from 15th November to
P P
15th December on nursery beds. The seedlings are then manually transplanted
P P
in the fields from 15th February to 15th March and harvested during June. The
P P P P
Tobacco is mainly virginia varieties (Spade and Kokar) supplied by the tobacco
companies. Farmers usually apply six to seven irrigations depending on
weather condition. The first irrigation is applied immediately after transplanting
and second after one week to ten days interval. Maize is the main summer
cereal crop and its present cropping intensity is 35 percent. The maize crop is
mostly sown by traditional method of broadcasting from 15th July to 15th August.
P
P
P
P
This results in a thick population which is then thinned. The plants removed are
used for fodder and remaining plants are allowed to mature for grain.
Cultivation of maize as a grain-cum-fodder crop is one of the reason for low
grain yield.
90
5.2 RELATIVE WATER SUPPLY
The primary objectives before irrigation management turn over were equity of
water distribution and reliability of irrigation deliveries. Whereas, adequacy was
not significant objective as system was operated under supply based. After IMT
and modernization of Maira Branch of Upper Swat Canal, the irrigation system
is operated more in demand responsive mode and irrigation supplies better
match the crop water demand. Therefore, adequacy of irrigation supply
becomes important criterion from farmers perceptive. The knowledge of
evapotranspiration and irrigation intensities is important to determine the
potential demand. This enables the system manger to adjust the gate and
deliver water more or less in broad pattern of demand.
The adequacy is assessed by relative water supply (RWS) by converting the
actual discharges into equivalent depth of water. RWS gives better
understanding of how farmers behave. The RWS of 2.0 means that twice as
much water is available than required, then the farmers are naturally relaxed in
managing water distribution. As RWS reached to 1.0, there need for more
management and as it approaches to 1.2, high degree of organization is
required to let every farmers have their faire share. The relative water supply
(RWS) index was determined for the ease of analysis on 10-daily bases i.e.
looking average condition of 10-days period throughout the year (Fig. 5.1 to
5.6). This approach smoothes out the curve and ignores the small fluctuations
in discharges. RWS on monthly basis is also shown in (Table 5.2) for overview.
The RWS is based on actual area cultivated in a particular season. This
91
procedure is adopted to measure the adequacy of irrigation supplies and to
know how farmers are actually irrigating their land. It is evident from Table 5.2
that the RWS values was very high during the months of November and
December indicating over irrigation and flexibility in farm irrigation operation.
The situation was confirmed by interviews and discussions with the farmers. It
was further revealed that rotational water distribution (warabandi) schedules at
tertiary level are not practiced strictly and mostly farmers do not irrigate at night
time.
6.0
5.0
Relative Water Supply
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
March II
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
Jan II
Feb I
Feb III
May II
June I
June III
Aug I
Aug III
Sept II
July II
Nov II
April III
April I
Fig. 5.1 Relative water supply of Yaqubi Distributary.
92
Relative Water Supply Relative Water Supply
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Oct I Oct I
Oct III Oct III
Nov II Nov II
Dec I Dec I
Dec III Dec III
Jan II Jan II
Feb I Feb I
Feb III Feb III
93
March II March II
April I April I
April III April III
May II May II
June I June I
June III June III
Fig. 5.3 Relative water supply of Qasim-II Distributary.

Fig. 5.2 Relative water supply of Gumbad-II Distributary.
July II July II
Aug I Aug I
Aug III Aug III
Sept II Sept II
Relative Water Supply Relative Water Supply
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Oct I Oct I
Oct III Oct III
Nov II Nov II
Dec I Dec I
Dec III Dec III
Jan II Jan II
Feb I Feb I
Feb III Feb III
94
March II March II
April I April I
April III April III
May II May II
Fig. 5.4 Relative water supply of Toru Distributary.
June I June I
Fig.5.5 Relative water supply of Pirsabak Distributary.

June III June III
July II July II
Aug I Aug I
Aug III Aug III
Sept II Sept II
6.0
5.0
Relative Water Supply
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Nov II
June III
Oct III
Dec III
Jan II
Feb III
April III
July II
Aug III
March II
May II
June I
Sept II
Oct I
Dec I
Feb I
April I
Aug I
Fig. 5.6 Relative water supply of Chowki Distributary.
Water delivery pattern is not related to ETo (Appendix Fig. B-3 and B-4). In the
early part of the year during the months of Jan to March-II because the
irrigation system was closed for annual repair and farmers rely only on rainfall.
Whereas, From March II to June III, irrigation deliveries exceed the ETo, this
meant that there is excess water in the system. Irrigation deliveries only match
the ETo during July to September.
The RWS values for the months of March to October were between 2.00 to
2.70, and during November and December, the values increased further (3.80
to 5.69) suggesting abundant water supply, that cause excess reduction in
yield. The RWS graphs for the selected distributaries clearly indicate that
almost all the distributaries the supply take place based on similar pattern,
suggesting that there is no functional difference among the distributaries in
different parts of the system.
95
Table 5.2 Monthly average RWS of selected distributaries.
Distributary Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Average
Yaqubi 2.41 4.05 4.90 0.25 0.35 1.47 1.57 1.62 1.51 2.19 1.77 1.27 1.95
Gumbt-II 3.02 4.53 5.69 0.25 0.35 1.44 2.31 2.24 1.92 2.19 1.79 1.66 2.28
Qasim-II 2.73 3.94 4.24 0.25 0.34 1.85 1.68 1.75 1.68 1.78 1.76 1.40 1.95
Toru 2.83 4.10 5.09 0.26 0.35 2.18 1.81 1.32 1.61 2.32 1.79 1.44 2.09
Pirsabak 2.43 4.12 5.67 0.26 0.34 2.08 1.60 1.65 1.40 2.23 1.84 1.28 2.08
Chowki 2.23 3.80 5.19 0.25 0.36 2.01 1.69 1.95 1.64 2.42 1.92 1.23 2.06
The Fig. 5.1 to 5.6 indicate that at the beginning of the Winter season RWS is
more than 2.00, thus permitting farmers to irrigate only day time and divert
irrigation water to drain during the night to avoid night irrigation. These results
indicate that moderate efforts are needed to bring the water supply closer to
crop water requirements by involving FOs in operation of irrigation system. The
continuous high RWS may ultimately cause waterlogging conditions.
5.3 DELIVERY PERFORMANCE RATIO AND RELIABILITY
The delivery performance ratios (DPR) for the selected distributaries were
calculated and the results are shown in Figures 5.7 to 5.12. Monthly average
DPRs are given in Table 5.3. The average DPR varied from 0.78 to 0.83 during
summer and 0.63 to 0.73 during winter months.
96
1.20 0.50
Delivery Performance Ratio 1.00

0.40
0.80
CVT(DPR)
0.30
0.60
DPR
0.20
0.40 CV T (DPR)
0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
March III
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
May I
June II
May III
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July III
July I
Nov II
April II
Fig. 5.7 Delivery performance ratio and CVT(DPR) of Yaqubi Distributary. B B
1.20 0.30
Delivery Performance Ratio
1.00
0.80 0.20
CVT(DPR)
CV T(DPR)
0.60
DPR
0.40 0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
March III
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
Fig. 5.8 Delivery performance ratio and CVT(DPR) of Gumbad-II Distributary. B B
97
1.20 0.70
0.60
1.00
DPR 0.50
0.80
CVT(DPR)
0.40
0.60 CVT(DPR)
0.30
0.40
0.20
0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
March III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
Fig. 5.9 Delivery performance ratio and CVT(DPR) of Qasim-II Distributary. B B
1.20 0.60
1.00 0.50
CVT(DPR)
0.80 0.40
0.60 DPR 0.30 CVT(DPR)
0.40 0.20
0.20 0.10
0.00 0.00
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
March III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
Fig. 5.10 Delivery performance ratio and CVT(DPR) of Toru Distributary. B B
98
1.20 0.40

1.00
0.30
0.80
CVT(DPR)
0.60 CV T(DPR) 0.20
DPR
0.40
0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
March III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
Fig. 5.11 Delivery performance ratio and CVT(DPR) of Pirsabak Distributary. B B
1.20 0.50
1.00
0.40
0.80
CVT(DPR)
0.30
0.60
CVT(DPR)
DPR 0.20
0.40
0.10
0.20
0.00 0.00
Oct I
Oct III
Dec I
Dec III
March III
May I
May III
June II
Aug II
Sept I
Sept III
July I
July III
Nov II
April II
Fig.5.12 Delivery performance ratio and CVT(DPR) of Chowki Distributary. B B
99
It is evident from the figures that all the distributaries irrespective of their
locations are drawing approximately 70-80 percent of their design discharges.
The traditional operation mode of running the main canal at or near the full
supply level and making necessary reduction in deliveries during the period of
heavy rainfall continued more or less unchanged. Reasonable equity of water
distribution at tertiary level is achieved during operation of irrigation system
except in January and February when system was closed for annual
maintenance.
The DPR values for March and April are low because after the annual closure,
the inflow is increased gradually according to the principles of operating alluvial
channels (PID 1997). In fact the irrigation system of Maira Branch is
combination of downstream and upstream control, which provides stable
discharges to selected distributaries.
If the discharge is more or less constant, than there will be low coefficient of
variation (CVT(DPR)), this implies that the farmers are confident abut the
B B
discharges they can expect. The Low CVT(DPR) mean that discharge
B B
tomorrow will be more or less same as today, allowing flexibility to farmers to
plan their irrigation application and water distribution among themselves and to
different fields.
The temporal CVT (DPR) is low i.e. < 0.2 are considered satisfactory and
B B
indicate that there is no communication problems between the gate operators.
100
The Figures 5.7 to 5.12 shows that CVT(DPR) is in acceptable range during
B B
October to December indicating that there is not much fluctuation in water
deliveries and the irrigation supplies are reliable and dependable in all the
distributaries (Table 5.4).
The CVT(DPR) are high in Toru Distributary in November, December and July
B B
because of the general tendency is to reduce the inflows in the irrigation
system due to heavy rains. The analyses of data indicate that high CVT(DPR) is
B B
associated with closure of irrigation canal from Amandrah head work in
response to heavy rainfall.
The variations in discharges are only due to intervention of SCAWB and reflect
the managerial operational response but due to increase in water allowance,
there is no significant response and initiative from the downstream of the
distributaries. This indicates that farmers’ input in canal operation is minimal
due to physical improvements that result in increased water availability.
Table 5.3 Average monthly DPR of selected distributaries.

Distributary Oct Nov Dec Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Average
Yaqubi 0.76 0.78 0.75 0.27 0.62 0.79 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.72
Gumbt-II 0.81 0.73 0.74 0.32 0.73 0.87 0.87 0.70 0.69 0.88 0.73
Qasim-II 0.91 0.79 0.66 0.39 0.70 0.93 1.02 0.66 0.80 0.89 0.78
Toru 0.84 0.72 0.72 0.41 0.67 0.64 0.89 0.86 0.76 0.84 0.74
Pirsabak 0.79 0.79 0.83 0.47 0.68 0.89 0.85 0.88 0.81 0.78 0.78
Chowki 0.78 0.62 0.82 0.34 0.60 0.88 0.84 0.86 0.81 0.77 0.73
101
Table 5.4 Reliability of irrigation supplies of selected distributaries.
Distributary Oct Nov Dec Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Average
Yaqubi 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.09 0.08 0.12
Gumbt-II 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.08 0.1 0.24 0.13 0.14 0.12
Qasim-II 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.06 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.47 0.22 0.14 0.18
Toru 0.05 0.30 0.36 0.07 0.29 0.36 0.24 0.30 0.21 0.08 0.23
Pirsabak 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.22 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.10
Chowki 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.27 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.09
5.4 CROP YIELDS
The yields of major crops were determined from the field data collected through
the farmers’ interviews of the Chowki and Pirsabak Distributaries (Table 5.5
and 5.6). Average yield of maize, tobacco, sugarcane and wheat was 1.7, 1.5,
40 and 3.5 tons per ha respectively on the Chowki Distributary whereas the
yield of the same crops were 1.5, 2, 38 and 3.3 tons per ha respectively at the
other Pirsabak Distributary after the IMT. There is significant increase in yield
of maize (40 percent), sugarcane (55 percent) and wheat (43 percent). The
increase in yield may be due to increase in water supply due to modernization
of the irrigation systems.
Table 5.5 Pre and post IMT crop yields (ton.ha-1) of Chowki Distributary
P
P
Average
Location Head Middle Tail Percentage
Post IMT Pre IMT
yield
Yield
Sample Size (35) (68) (68) (171) increase
Maize 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.2 41.0
Tobacco 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.0
Sugarcane 39.0 44.0 38.0 40.3 26.0 55.0
Wheat 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.5 2.5 40.0
102
Table 5.6 Pre and post IMT crop yields (ton.ha-1) of Pirsabak Distributary
P P
Location Head Middle Tail Average Percentage

Pre IMT
Post IMT yield
Yield
Sample Size (40) (80) (80) (200) increase
Maize 1.6 1.8 1.1 1.5 1.2 50.0
Tobacco 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.1 1.6 31.0
Sugarcane 40.0 46.0 30.0 38.7 26.0 48.0
Wheat 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.3 2.5 32.0
5.5 COST RECOVERY
The revenue expenditure gap of the irrigation system in Pakistan has been
consistently increasing at a relatively high rate over the past many years.
Bhatti (1995) considered the social factors i.e. corruption-cum-political
interference for increase in the expenditure and attributed it to growing illicit
practices well documented by Wade (1982). After IMT, FOs collects the
assessed ISF (Abiana) from the irrigators and retained 40 percent of the
recovered amount for operation and maintenance of the irrigation system, while
60 percent is paid to the Swat Canal Area Water Board (SCAWB).
In Pakistan Irrigation Service Fee (ISF) is levied on the type of the crops, grown
on the basis of area sown under each crop. Table 5.7 indicates that all the FOs
performed well during the Ist year (2004-05) of IMT and recovered 60 percent of
the assessed ISF except Toru and Pirsabak distributaries. But during 2005-06,
the ISF collection was very low (Tables 5.8 and 5.9). FOs has legal power to
penalizes defaulter by cutting or suspension of the irrigation supply if any farmer
is defaulter for two seasons but due to social setup such actions are difficult to
103
initiate by the FOs. If existing situation prevails, the self sufficiency of Toru and
Pirsabak distributaries may be threaten. Awareness campaign to motivate the
farmers for paying the irrigation charges may be helpful to encounter the
situation.
Analysis of net income received from different crop production per hectare
revealed that sugarcane is the most profitable crop followed by the wheat. The
existing cropping intensity of sugarcane and wheat is 30 and 50 percent
whereas ISF (Abiana) for both the crops are Rs. 3084 and Rs. 459 respectively
(Appendix Tables XIII and XIV). The smallest land holding in the area is 1.5
ha. Apparently, there is no financial constraint and hindrance in paying the ISF
(Abiana). Thus it can be argued that farmers are not willing to pay the ISF
(Abiana).
Table 5.7 ISF assessed and recovered before IMT (million Rupees).
Season Year Toru Chowki Qasim-II Pirsabak Gumbad-II Yaqubi
Rabi 2001-02 0.209 1.19 0.17 0.792 0.174 0.247
Kharif 2002 0.581 1.446 0.428 0.126 0.405 0.821
Rabi 2002-03 0.208 0.954 0.159 0.074 0.172 0.25
Kharif 2003 0.496 1.759 0.427 1.257 0.262 0.891

Rabi 2003-04 0.193 0.899 0.148 0.769 0.168 0.244
Total 1.687 6.248 1.332 3.018 1.181 2.453
Recovered 1.043 4.738 0.925 2.294 0.874 1.739
Recovery (%) 61.83 75.83 69.44 76.01 74.01 70.89
104
Table 5.8 ISF (Abiana) assessed after IMT (Million Rs.).
Year Toru Chowki Qasim-II Pirsabak Gumbad-II Yaqubi
2004-05 0.791 2.591 0.584 2.07 0.690 1.143
2005-06 0.662 2.941 0.638 2.023 0.679 1.176
2006-07 0.722 2.673 0.617 2.124 0.662 0.839
2007 0.546 1.841 0.450 1.535 0.563 0.97
Total Assessed 2.721 10.046 2.289 7.752 2.594 4.128
Table 5.9 ISF (Abiana) recovered after IMT (Million Rs.).

Year Toru Chowki Qasim-II Pirsabak Gumbad-II Yaqubi
2004-05 0.273 1.914 0.494 0.375 0.441 0.736
2005-06 0.388 1.687 0.377 0.265 0.257 0.396
2006-07 0.273 1.308 0.320 0.140 0.254 0.254
2007 0.162 0.508 0.035 0.040 0.165 0.064
Total Recovered 1.096 5.417 1.226 0.820 1.117 1.450
Recovered (%) 40.28 53.92 53.56 10.58 43.06 35.13
5.6 ACTUAL STRATEGIES FOR OPERATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM
5.6.1 Current Operation of Chowki Distributary
Chowki Distributary is managed by FOs in consultation with SCAWB. The
distributary falls in the Jagannath sub division jurisdiction. SDO Jagannath, with
consultation of FOs assess the crop water demand based on cropping pattern
and intensity. By adding full supply discharge of all offtaking distributaries, he
workout the indent. The accumulated requirements of all the distributaries are
communicated to the Water Dispatch officer of Regulation Cell Gohati, Swabi
for onward submission to SCAWB for receiving water share from FIDA.
105
Releases are governed by the indents, availability of water and share of the
canal. Indents are normally fulfilled if water is available. Unilateral procedures
were practiced before the IMT and under British colonial period. Water
demands were assessed by ‘patwaries’ and operational staff of the irrigation
department based on the patwaries assessment of irrigated area and cropping
pattern.
The distributary operations regulate the whole delivery system and especially
play key role in farm operation. Fig. 5.13 shows that distributary head regulator
is not operated in response to the demand. During the rainfall events and
period of low demand, i.e. Mid March-April and in November, the farmers
completely or partially closed their offtakes, without communications with FOs
which caused overtopping of the tail as there is no escape in the distributary,
and the only choice left with FOs is to reduce discharge at the head.
3.5
3.0
2.5
Discahrge (m s )
3 -1
Design Discharge
2.0
1.5
1.0
Supplied Discharges Demand Discharges
0.5
0.0
7-May
21-May
5-Nov
19-Nov
8-Oct
22-Oct
12-Mar
26-Mar
9-Apr
23-Apr
3-Dec
17-Dec
31-Dec
15-Jan
29-Jan
12-Feb
26-Feb
18-Jun
1-Jan
4-Jun
2-Jul
16-Jul
30-Jul
13-Aug
27-Aug
10-Sep
24-Sep
Fig. 5.13 Demand and supply pattern of Chowki Distributary.
106
Closing of main canal system is directly linked with heavy rainfall. The AWB
and Regulation Cell decide to close the entire system from the head work, if
rainfall of 70-100 mm occurred during pervious week. Response is immediate if
single heavy rainfall event falls.
After IMT and modernization of USC irrigation system, the intension is to
operate the system more in a demand responsive mode, so that irrigation
supply better matches to the actual demand. This type of operation can be
achieved through irrigation management information system (IMIS) and
required the knowledge of the potential demand of irrigation water determined
by evapotranspiration, cropping intensity and cropping pattern.
In post IMT adequacy becomes a significant criterion. In the demand
responsive systems the pattern of irrigation deliveries has significant
relationship to evapotranspiration. Irrigation deliveries were calculated by
converting the discharges into equivalent depths of irrigation application. This
approach gives close look to the distributary operation and utility of the
irrigation water by the farmers.
Fig. 5.14 reveals that the water deliveries pattern is not related to
evapotranspiration. In the beginning of the year, the irrigation system was
closed due to annual maintenance. From 15th March till to the 30th June
P
P
P
P
irrigation deliveries exceed the evapotranspiration i.e. exceeded the demand.
From July to September the deliveries were close to evapotranspiration.
107
However, after September the evapotranspiration fell below 5 mm day-1 while
irrigation deliveries were maintained at their normal high levels.
The analysis shows that during post IMT, there is no significant evidence of
operation of the distributary head regulator in response to increased water
deliveries. The traditional mode of running the distributary at or near the full
supply level was practiced except after the heavy rainfall.
14.0
Irrigation Deliveries (mm day per CCA)
12.0
10.0
-1
Irrigation Deliveries ETo

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
May I
May III
March I
March III
Nov I
Nov III
July I
July III
Sept III
Aug II
Sept I
Jan I
Jan III
April II
Feb II
June II
Oct II
Dec II
Fig. 5.14 Irrigation water deliveries and ETo at Chowki Distributary.
The existing operation pattern suggests that there is considerable potential for
development of effective responsive operation of the Chowki Distributary.
During the canal closure period the crop use water from the moisture stored in
root zone. The root zone moisture is supplemented by the rainfall during
108
January, February. Also during this period evapotranspiration demand of the
crop is less because most of the crops are in early growth stages.
5.7 CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION OF SIC MODEL
Model calibration is the processes of comparing the model prediction for a given
set of conditions with observed data for the same condition. A model is
considered to be successfully calibrated when the simulated values match with
the observed values. Validation involves testing the model predictive
capabilities. Validation requires comparing model prediction with information
other than that used in calibrating the model. It involves checking the model
results against observed data and adjusting parameters until result fall within
the acceptable range of error. The statistical evaluation is essential and provides
insight into model performance i.e. whether the predicted or simulated
discharges and water levels are consistent and agree reasonably well with the
observed values.
The calibration period is the portion of the period of study and is selected because
it represents the operation in the average sense. The data used for calibration of
the model in steady state condition consist of a set of water levels at crests of
bifurcators, trifurcators and open flumes for 100, 80 , 70 and 60 percent of design
discharges on 11th and 18th April, 28th April to 30th April, 4th and 6th June, 12th and
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
26th September,2007 respectively. Values of the Manning roughness coefficient

P P
used in model calibration are given in Table 5.10. After calibration of the model
for typical situations observed in the field, the model was validated with another
data set to recheck the results simulated by the model.
109
The coefficient of discharge for open flume in calibration and validation of SIC
model was used 0.94<Cd<0.98. Proportional dividers (bifurcator and trifurcators
outlets) are Crump’s weir with splitter wall to divide the flow in proportion to the
irrigated area served by each offtake and the downstream parent channel. The
coefficient of discharge for Crump’s weir used in calibration and validation of SIC
model was used 1.131 < Cd <1.149. The model generated output data i.e. water
depth and discharges at offtakes, were compared with the actual observed
value at full supply level (FSL) and design discharge. Fig. 5.15 shows the
comparison of observed and predicted values of water surface elevation.
Table 5.10 Manning roughness coefficient used in model calibration.

RD (m) Profile Type Manning (n)
0 - 20 Rectangular lined 0.016
20 - 1015 Trapezoidal lining 0.016
1015 - 1160 Overlay on pitching 0.016
1200 -1750 Trapezoidal lining 0.016
1750 - 6175 Overlay on pitching 0.016
6175 - 6500 Raise top of lining 0.016
6510 -7400 Parabolic type 3 0.014
7400 - 7600 Parabolic type 5 0.014
110
360.00
350.00
340.00
Elevation (m)
330.00
320.00
310.00
300.00
290.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
. 70 80
RD- Hundrad (m)
FSL Design (m) FSL Simulated (m) Bed Level
Fig. 5.15 Comparison of observed and predicted water levels.
The difference between the observed and simulated water levels ranged
between -0.16 and 0.06 m. Similarly an observed and predicted discharge of
offtake indicates that difference between observed and simulated discharges
ranged between - 0.12 to 0.04 m3s-1 (Fig. 5.16). P P P
1.00
0.80
Discharge (m s )
Simulated Discharge
3 -1
0.60
Observed Discharge
0.40
0.20
0.00
260
309
819
987
1867
1877
2063
2795
2795
2970
4289
4289
5510
5930
6185
6185
6890
7622
7622
Location of Offtakes from the Head Regulator- RD (m)
Fig. 5.16 Comparison of observed and predicted discharges at the offtakes.
111
5.7.1 Model Evaluation Statistics (Error Index)
The mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE) and means
biased error (MBE) are commonly used in model evaluation. These indices are
valuable because they indicate error in the same units as of the data, which
aids in analysis of the results (Moriasi et al., 2007). The above indices were
calculated using the following equations:
⎡1 n ⎤
( )
MAE = ⎢ ∑ Q ot − Q st ⎥ ................................................................................... (5.1)
⎣ n t =1 ⎦
0 .5
⎡1 n ⎤
RMSE = ⎢ ∑ Q ot − Q st ( )
2
⎥ ............................................................................ (5.2)
⎣ n t =1 ⎦
MBE =
1 n
∑
n t =1
( )
Q ot − Q st ........................................................................................ (5.3)
Zero values of the MAE, RMSE and MBE indicate a perfect fit. Model
evaluation statistics (error index) indicators provide generally a reasonable
procedure for model comparison; but they do not indicate objectively whether
results of model are statistically significant. Another statistical indicator (t-
statistic) can be used to be compared and at the same time can indicate
whether the model’s results are statistically significant at a particular confidence
level. The t-statistic defined through the MBE and RMSE errors are more
informative (Appendix-D), and produce better evaluation of a models’
performance (Jacovides and Kontoyiannis, 1994) and is given as:
⎛ ⎞
⎜d −d ⎟ ⎡ ( N − 1)( MBE ) 2 ⎤ 0.5
t=⎜ o
⎟=⎢ 2 ⎥
................................................................ (5.4)
⎜⎜ s d ⎟⎟ ⎣ ( RMSE ) − ( MBE ) ⎦
2
⎝ n ⎠
Where d o = 0 and significant level α = 0.005 with ν = 18 degrees of freedom.
112
The critical t value is obtained from standard statistical tables (Walpole and
Myers, 1999), i.e. tα / 2 , depends on the level of significance ( α ) and the degree
of freedom (N-1). In order for the model’s estimates to be judged statistically
insignificant at the (1 − α ) confidence level, the calculated t value must be less
than the critical t value. For present study the significance level was chosen to
be α =0.005. Paired t-test was performed treating the difference as a random
sample with mean d o = µ D = µ1 − µ 2 i.e. the null and alternative hypothesis
stated as H o : µ D = 0 i.e. µ1 = µ 2 = 0 H 1 : µ D ≠ 0 respectively.
5.7.2 Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Coefficient (NSEC)
The Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency Coefficient (NSEC) is a normalized statistic that
determines the relative magnitude of the residual variance compared to the
measured data variance, using Equation 5.5 (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970). It is a
dimensionless indicator and recommended for use by ASCE (1993). In general
model simulation can be judge satisfactory if NSE >0.50. The values less than
zero indicate unacceptable performance. NSEC is very sensitive to extreme
values because it squares the values of paired differences (Harmel and Patricia
2007).
⎧ n ⎫
(
⎪⎪ ∑ Q o − Q s
t t
)
2
⎪⎪
NSEC = 1 − ⎨ in=1 ⎬ ......................................................................... (5.5)
(
⎪ ∑ Q ot − Q o
⎪⎩ i =1
) 2
⎪
⎪⎭
Where Qot is observed discharges, and Qst is simulated discharges at any time t,
Q o mean of observed data and n is total number of observations.
113
5.7.3 Percent Bias (PBIAS)
Percent bias (PBIAS) measures the average tendency of the simulated data to
be and it is computed by Equation (5.6) (Moriasi et al. 2007). PBIAS has the
ability to clearly indicate poor model performance. The optimal value of PBIAS
is zero, with low magnitude values indicating accurate model simulation. A
positive value indicates tendency of the model for underestimation, while
negative values indicate overestimation bias.
⎧ n n
⎫
⎪⎪ ∑Q t
o − ∑ Q st ⎪
⎪
PBIS = ⎨100 × t =1
n
t =1
⎬ ......................................................................... (5.6)
⎪
⎪⎩ ∑
t =1
Q t
o
⎪
⎪⎭
Tables 5.11 and 5.12 present the results of statistical parameters at different
observed discharges for model calibration and validation respectively. It is
apparent from these tables that the values of all the statistical parameters are
small and well within the acceptable limits.
Table 5.11 Calculated values of different statistical parameters for model calibration.
Percent PBIAS
MAE RMSE MBE NSEC t calculated t (0.005, 18)
of Qd (%)
100 0.022 0.0359 0.0141 0.96 -9.83 1.806* 2.878
80 0.022 0.0369 0.0154 0.93 -13.43 1.942* 2.878
70 0.021 0.0363 0.0153 0.91 -15.30 1.978* 2.878

*Model results are accepted at 1 % level.
Table 5.12 Calculated values of different statistical parameters for model validation.
Percent PBIAS
MAE RMSE MBE NSEC t calculated t (0.005, 18)
of Qd (%)
90 0.022 0.0364 0.0148 0.95 -11.44 1.881* 2.878
85 0.022 0.0367 0.0151 0.94 -12.42 1.919* 2.878
60 0.020 0.0349 0.0148 0.89 -15.30 1.994* 2.878

*Model results are accepted at 1 % level.
114
Table 5.11 presents the results of statistical analysis at 100, 80, and 70 percent of
the design discharge (Qd) simulated discharge for calibration whereas model is
validated (Table 5.12) for 90, 85 and 60 percent of the design discharge (Qd). The
MAE ranged between 0.022 to 0.021 for different flow rates. Whereas MBA
ranged 0.014 to 0.0154 m3s-1 for calibration and validation. The statistical
analysis indicates that results are satisfactory for all the considered discharges.
The PBIAS varies between -10 percent to -17 percent. The model performance is
considered good if ±10 ≤ PBIAS (Percent) ≤ ±15. The NSEC values for different
percent of design discharge lies between 0.89 to 0.96. The model performance is
considered good as 0.75 ≤ NSEC ≤ 1.00. The observed and simulated mean
discharges at outlet structures for calibration and validation period is supported by
student’s t-test, since the computed values (Table 5.11 and 5.12) are lower than
the critical t( 0.005, 18) values. The SIC model estimate for discharge of outlet
structures is statistically significant i.e. there is no difference between simulated
and observed discharge at 99 percent of confidence level.
5.8 EVALUATION OF HYDRAULIC BEHAVIOUR OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM

USING SIC MODEL
The present effort by the government to introduce the IMT at distributary level is
to improve the water delivery through out the canal system in accordance with the
plans to facilitate the productive use of water for agricultural production, income
generation and social well being of the farmers and their families. On day-to-day
basis, the SCAWB is concerned with appropriate water distribution among the
distributaries whereas the FOs are concerned with the actual distribution among
115
the offtakes and water distribution among the farmers. The design of the physical
infrastructure, its location on the system and point of control and distribution
influence the performance of irrigation system as well as its management i.e.
(SCAWB and FOs) to a great extent. Murray-Rust and Snellen (1993) termed
these conditions as design-management environment, within which irrigation
system performance at the system level is assessed.
The irrigation system in Maria branch was designed as proportional distribution
(the flow entering the system is divided by mean of overflow Crump’s weirs:
bifurcators and trifurcators) having width proportional to cultivated area. The
discharge is only controlled at the head of the distributaries requiring minimal
operational inputs. The fixed proportional bifurcators, trifurcators and open flumes
are effective in meeting the equity objectives based on sharing of water
proportional to the irrigated land. The system provides less opportunity to farmers
to control over irrigation water, and it is only possible at the head of distributary.
The existing water distribution pattern of Chowki Distributary and its two minors
are analyzed with the help of SIC model.
5.8.1 Flexibility Analysis of Offtakes
Flexibility (F) is the capacity of an offtake to vary its discharge in response to
change in the discharge of parent distributary (Shanan 1992). It is defined as the
ratio of the rate of change of offtake discharge (dq:q) to the change of discharge
(dQ:Q) in parent distributary. The head discharge relations for distributary and
offtake are Q = β H cu and q = αH wn respectively. Where H cu and H wn are energy
116
head. Differentiating the head discharge equations with respect to H cu and H wn
respectively, after mathematical manipulations yield following relation.
⎞ ⎡ nαH w ⎤
n −1
⎛ dq
⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
⎜ q ⎟ ⎢ αH wn ⎥ n ⎛ H c ⎞
F= = = ⎜ ⎟ ............................................................... (5.7)
⎜ dQ ⎟ ⎢ uβH u −1 ⎥ u ⎜ H ⎟
⎜ ⎝ w ⎠
Q ⎟⎠ ⎢ βH u ⎥
c
⎝ ⎣ c ⎦
If F=1, then the variation at the head of the canal is transmitted proportionally
throughout the system; for F < 1, Variation at the head of canal is exaggerated in
the tail end offtakes; and for F >1, the variation at the head of the canal are
exaggerated in upper offtakes and minimized at the tail of the irrigation system.
The flexibility analysis of open flume outlets at different locations (RD-260, RD-
1877 and RD-6890) reveals that all these structures are behaving as hyper
proportional (Fig. 5.17). The open flumes are traditionally designed to deliver the
design discharges (Qd), if the sill of the flume is at 0.9 times the designed water
depth. The optimum crest setting of outlets is based on prevailing theories (Ali
1993) to pass the silt proportionally between the offtaking outlets and the parent
distributary. In traditional supply based design practices it is strongly
recommended that AOSM modules should be installed at the upper reaches of
the distributaries, and open flumes are recommended for middle and tail reaches.
117
In Chowki Distributary, FIDA installed the ASOM at RD-260 at crest level of
335.04 m having 0.11 m height of roof block with throat width of 0.11 m. The
actual constructed ASOM yields discharge of 0.04 m3s-1. P

P
P
P
Later, the farmers
removed the roof block and structure behaved as Open Flume and yielded 0.08
m3s-1 i.e. 231 percent more than the design discharge. Detail analysis reveled
P
P
P
P
that at this location ASOM is the best option. To construct an Open Flume, the
throat width should be 34 mm and crest level at 354.86 m. But the design theories
do not permit throat with less than 60 mm. Similar situation was encountered at
RD-6890, where open flume can be installed but due to design limitation an
ASOM was constructed, which was changed by the farmers to open flume.
300
Percent of Design Discharge at Open Flumes
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Percent of Design Discharge in Canal
OF(260) OF(309) OF(1867) OF(1877) OF(2063) OF(2970) OF(5510) OF(6890)
Fig. 5.17 Proportionality of the open flume outlets (scale: 1:1).
118
The open flume at RD-2603 is also behaving hyper proportional (Fig. 5.17), but it
is designed originally as open flume with minimum throat with of 60 mm delivering
141 percent of the design discharge. To reinstate it in original position to deliver
the design discharge, the throat width have to be reduced to 40 mm, but
technically the width less than 60 mm creates problem of choking due to debris.
It could be redesigned and replaced as ASOM width throat with and roof block
height as 110 mm with the same crest level, delivering the design discharge at full
supply level (FSL).
Analysis of data indicate the head bifurcators at RDs (L-819, L-987, L-2930M: 1
and C-2430M: 1) (Fig. 5.18) are perfectly proportional, where as bifurcators at
RDs (L-2795, R-2795, R-1685, M-1829 M: 2 and R-1829 M: 2) are hyper-
proportional and tail bifurcators at RDs. (L-7622 and R-7622) are sub-
proportional. Similarly Fig. 5.19 indicates that out of nine trifurcators, three at RDs
(L-4289, R-4289 and L-6185) behave as hyper-proportional and remaining are
proportional.
Modernization by combination of upstream and downstream control of irrigation
systems supported by the design concept that distributary will be operated at or
close to full supply level, aimed at moving from traditional protective irrigation to
productive irrigation after IMT and consequently the offtakes and secondary
minors will draw more or less constant discharge, if the distributary is operated
between 100-70 percent of design discharges. Therefore bifurcators and
trifurcators are constructed by keeping the management capacity of FOs, the
119
basic advantage of this type of system designed is that it needs minimum
managerial inputs as long as the FOs checked the upstream water level at the
intake Crump’s weir and ensures that it is within the designed range, then offtakes
will deliver the intended discharges. The system is flexible and required minimum
communication with SCAWB.
150
Perecent of Design Discharges of Bifercators
100
50
0
0 50 100 150
BIF(L-819) BIF(L-987) BIF(L-2795) BIF(R-2795)
BIF(R-6185) BIF(L-7622) BIF(R-7622) BIF(L-2430M:I)
BIF(C-2430M:I) BIF(M-1829M:II) BIF(R-1829M:II)
Fig. 5.18 Proportionality of the bifurcator outlets (scale: 1:1).
The critical design elements of the bifurcators, trifurcators and open flumes are
throat width, crest elevation and water surface elevation. The loss of
proportionality occurs mainly due to the change in throat width if the
implementation of the design dimensions has been carried out with insufficient
accuracy (Murray-Rust and Halsema 1998).
120
150
Percent of Desig Discharge at Trifercators

100
50
0
0 50 100 150
TRI(L-4289) TRI(R-4289) TRI(L-5930) TRI(L-6185) TRI(L-1060M:I)

TRI(R-1060M:I) TRI(L-1060M:I) TRI(L-919M:II) TRI(L-945M:II)
Fig. 5.19 Proportionality of the trifurcators outlets (scale: 1:1).
On the other hand as Crump’s weir is an over flow type of structure, discharge of
this type of structure is approximately proportional to 1.5 power of H, where H is
total head available above the crest of the weir. Consequently the Crump’s weir is
more sensitive to the value of H. This is also discussed by Shanan (1992), Horst
(1998). The BIF at RDs (L-819, L-987,L-2430M:1 and C-2430M:1) are considered
as fully proportional as 0.85 < F <1.15. The BIF at RDs (L-2795, R-2795, R-6185,
1825M:2 and 1829M2) are hyper-proportional as 1.15 < F <1.30 while BIF at
RDs. (L-7622 and R-7622) are fairly sub-proportional as 0.70 < F < 0.85. The
loss of proportionality is due the difference in designed the water levels and actual
regulated water level at the weir crest. The two trifurcators RDs (L-4289 and R-
4289) are behaving as hyper proportional and remaining are considered as
proportional (Fig. 5.19).
121
The loss of proportionality creates an environment in which hydraulic
performance of the irrigation system is disappointing. Proportionality is a serious
issue, as it ultimately leads to inequity. The equity of water distribution is
evaluated using spatial delivery performance ratio (DPR).
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
TRI-4289R
TRI-1060R
BIF-1825M
TRI-4289L
TRI-5930L
TRI-6185L
TRI-1060L
TRI-1060L
TRI-919L
TRI-945L
OF-309R
OF-1877R
OF-2063R
BIF-2795R
OF-2970R
OF-5510R
BIF-6185R
BIF-7622R
BIF-2430C
BIF-1829R
OF-260L
BIF-819L
BIF987L
OF-1867L
BIF-2795L
OF-6890L
BIF-7622L
BIF-2430L
110%Qd 100%Qd 90%Qd 85%Qd 80%Qd 75%Qd 70%Qd
Fig. 5.20 Spatial variation of delivery performance ratio.
The Fig. 5.20 shows mixed pattern of DPR. Horst (1990) argues that turnover of
irrigation system became important topic in last decade, although much
attention is paid to handing over procedure, organizational aspects but no
serious thought is given to technology to be handed over and under such
circumstances, turnover of management implies turnover of inappropriate
technology.
122
5.9 SIC AS DECISION SUPPORT TOOL FOR MANUAL OPERATION
OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Operations are the manipulation of physical structures in the irrigation systems
to implement management decisions about water allocation, delivery schedules
and distribution; it refers to the hydraulic reaction in the canal pools which
results from control actions. Operations are also the routine actions taken to
minimize the impact of perturbations by maintaining steady or quasi-steady
state of water surface profile in the system and to prevent overtopping at peak
discharges (Renault and Makin 1996). The primary function of operation is to
manage the changes in discharges and depth throughout the canal system.
Canal operation and flow control techniques are classically discussed by
Zimbelman (1987), Plusquellec et al. (1994) and Plusquellec (2002).
After IMT at distributary level, the Chowki Distributary was being operated
based on upstream control and a constant downstream depth as it was
operated before the IMT. It essentially combines demand-based needs with
supply-based operation. Operational decision-making is based on rule of thumb
and local experience of the operators. Operational decisions are based on the
observed discharge at Crump’s weir and manipulation of the distributary head
regulator gate. The regulator gates are operated only when changes of the
offtaking discharges are scheduled on request of the farmers. Major drawback
of conventional operation is the unavoidable discrepancy between forecast and
actual delivery flows, inaccuracies in design aggravate the water distribution at
123
tertiary level thereby wasting huge quantity of irrigation water. Most of the time,
distributary is not operated in response to the actual demand; the sums of all
operational errors are accumulated at the tail-end and the water users suffer
from too much water.
The analysis of operation revealed that the Chowki Distributary was
approximately operated 25 percent of time at 100-89 percent of deign discharge,
50 percent of times at 90-79 percent of deign discharge and 25 percent of times
at 70 percent of design discharge. As long as irrigation supply exceeds the
demand, and water is in abundance, the equity and proportionality will not create
any social problem.
Fixed frequency operations at distributary head regulator were analyzed with
SIC model. It is proposed that one operation of distributary head regulator at 7
a.m. to 9 a.m. in the morning and second operation between 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. in
the afternoon. The discharge at intake is increased in morning, whereas it is
reduced in afternoon, keeping in view the fact that existing irrigation deliveries
has no match with the crop demand. The reduced flow at night will ultimately
control the wastage of irrigation water. As the system is downstream controlled
above the distributary head regulator, thus there is no need to exchange
operational information with other gate operators, only discharge cum water
level have to be communicated to President FOs and AWB office.
124
Performance indicators as suggested by Godaliyadda et al. (1999) and Baume
et al. (2005) are used to assess the effectiveness of the delivery schedule as
explained in Chapter IV (Section 4.9.1).
The simplest operation of distributary is to run it on 80 percent of design
discharge was simulated using SIC model. The overall performance under this
scenario is given in Table 5.13 indicates that continuous operation at 80
percent of the design discharge, yields Delivery Performance of Ratio (DPR) 72
percent and Operational Performance (Eop) of 74 percent. The Eop is less than
unity because the volume of water supplied was more than the effective
volume. About 26 percent of water was lost due to excessive supply.
Table 5.13 DPR and Eop at Different percent of Design Discharge.

Percent VD VS VEFF
3 3 3 DPR Eop
of Qd (m ) (m ) (m )
80 231552.00 181999.00 85488.99 0.72 0.52
80-90 231552.00 185473.15 182134.64 0.80 0.98
75-90 231552.00 178989.70 140327.92 0.77 0.78
75-85 231552.00 174821.76 136011.33 0.76 0.78
The first operation of head regulator is proposed for the 2nd decade of March to
P
P
3rd decade of July. The operation of irrigation system is based on fixed

P P
frequency operation (90-80 percent of design discharge), to run the distributary
for 9 hours i.e. (7 a.m. to 4 pm) at 90 percent of design discharge (2.76 m3s-1) P
P
P
P
and for 15 hours (5 p.m. to 7 am) at 80 percent of design discharge (2.3 m3s-1).
P
P
P
P
The response of the simulated system at operated frequency (90-80 percent of
125
design discharge) is shown in Fig. 5.21. The global performance indicators of
all offtake i.e. Delivery Performance Ratio (DPR), Operational performance are
(Eop ) are 80 and 98 percent respectively, which indicates that no water is

opB
spilled as the volume supplied is approximately equal to the volume effectively
used (Table 5.13).
2.00
DPR Eop
Performance Indicators
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
260 309 819 987 1867 2063 2795 2970 4289 5510 5930 6185 6890
Head Middle Tail

Position of the Offtake from the Distributary Head Regulator-(m)
Fig. 5.21 Operational performance under fix frequency (90-80percentQd). B B
2.00
DPR Eop
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
260 309 819 987 1867 2063 2795 2970 4289 5510 5930 6185 6890
Head Middle Tail
Position of the Offtake from the Distributary Head Regulator - (m)
Fig. 5.22 Operational performance under fix frequency (90-75 percent Qd). B B
126
1st decade of August to 2nd decade of October fixed frequency operation at 90-
P P P P
75 percent of design discharge is proposed (Fig. 5.22). Simulation results
indicate that only offtakes at RD-2795 and RD-4289 have Eop 47 and 51
percent respectively. The simulated performance under both operations is in
acceptable range and potentially advantages as water losses at night due to
flexible water distribution will be less at all offtakes.
2.00
DPR Eop
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
260 309 819 987 1867 2063 2795 2970 4289 5510 5930 6185 6890
Head Middle Tail
Position of the Offtake from the Distributary Head Regulator- (m)
Fig. 5.23 Operational performance under fix frequency (75-85 percent Qd). B B
From December till end of April fixed frequency operation at 75-85 percent of
design discharge is proposed. Fig. 5.23 shows that the DPR are in acceptable
B
range, but operational performance (Eop) at two offtakes (RD-2795 and RD-
4289) are poor. This is potentially viable compromise because the crop
demand during the said period is less as compared to existing deliveries.
127
Chapter VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 SUMMARY
Irrigated agriculture is the largest consumer of water than any other sector in
the world. Worldwide 70 percent of fresh water is consumed by irrigation, but in
arid and semi arid countries like Pakistan more than 90 percent of water is
used to irrigate crops. In future its contribution will increase further in order to
meet the demand of growing population during next millennium. The challenge
for irrigation is to produce more with less water; this goal can only be achieved
with high level of performance. An effective water delivery system plays
important role in crop production in irrigated agriculture. Major function of the
delivery system is to transport the water from the source to the farm. Achieving
adequacy, efficiency, dependability and equity of the delivered irrigation water are
the main objectives in operation and management of delivery system.
A host of factors constraints the performance of traditionally agency managed
irrigation systems in Pakistan. To over the constraints, the government of
Pakistan has taken strategic initiative and primarily focused on governance,
decentralization and participation by transforming the Provincial Irrigation
departments (PIDs) to Frontier Irrigation and Drainage Authority (FIDA).
Management and operation have been decentralized at canal command level
to Area Water Boards (AWBs) and most of the existing functions at distributary
level are performed by the farmers organizations (FOs). The six distributaries
128
i.e. (Yaqubi, Gumbat-II, Qasim-II, Toru, Chowki and Pirsabak) have been
handed over to the farmers organizations under the IMT programme in Swat
Area Water Board.
To manage the irrigation system in crop demand responsive manner requires a
quantum of improvement in monitoring and communication by the FOs with
SCAWB in order to be able to utilize the modernized infrastructure in
purposeful manner. IMIS has been developed for providing minimum set of
information required for demand based operation of the farmers managed
irrigation systems. Better information on delivered discharges, and its
comparison with the design discharge through the use of DPR enabled the
development of a systematic monitoring programme of short term irrigation
delivery performance. Through the use of IMIS and SIC model performance of
the system and effectiveness of the operational strategies have been evaluated
that would help to create significant link between irrigation management and
agricultural production.
Performance indicators did not form the end product of this study, but it is
merely starting point for more thorough analysis to identify constraints to the
irrigation system performance. In fact this is guideline to the engineers of
SCAWB and FOs, who previously followed the century old concept to monitor
the system e.g. supply at the head of the distributaries and tail gauges. In the
study area, it is difficult to decide whether irrigation reforms (IMT) or
modernization of irrigation system have any positive impact on cost recovery,
129
ISF (Aabina) collection, productivity and poverty but combined effect of
modernization and IMT reform initiatives have enabled the farmers to
participate in the irrigation management in constructive mode from operation,
maintenance, dispute resolution, equitable distribution of water and it has
created confidence among the farmers through empowerment.
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
Results of this study revealed that increased control of the farmers has not lead
to major improvement in operational performance. However, these results may
be considered as indicative only as the system has been transferred recently.
Main conclusions of this study are:
1. The IMIS has potential to fulfill the FOs needs of information collection,
and data storage. It provides a comprehensive picture of performance of
the irrigation system. The SIC hydrodynamic model helps to understand
the hydraulic and physical limitations of the system and evaluates the
potential for improvement. The proposed operational plans using SIC
model provide valuable knowledge to the managers’ i.e. SCAWB and
FOs.
2. There is no evidence that IMT has resulted in significant improvement in
water distribution among the stakeholders. An analysis of RWS indicates
more liberal irrigation supply. During the period of October to December,
and March to April the RWS values were much higher than required,
indicating that farmers received more irrigation supplies resulting in over
130
irrigating their crops. This situation may cause rise in water table leading
to waterlogging and other environmental problem in the study area.
3. The assessment of DPR revealed that all the distributaries were drawing
less water than their design discharges. As water allowance is increased
to 0.77 Ls-1ha-1 (10 cusecs per 1000 acres), therefore time based equity
P
is not an issue in water distribution at the secondary level, and low
values of CVBTB(DPR) indicates that there is high probabilities of assured
irrigation deliveries, and allowing farmers to plan their irrigation
application effectively in the frame work of their rotation schedule
(warabandi). The high values of CVBTB (DPR) are associated because of
annual closures for irrigation system maintenance or reduction in
discharge from the headwork in response to heavy rainfall.
4. Cropping intensity as well as crop yield have increased significantly
either due to modernization of the irrigation system or enhanced water
allowance/supply.
5. The results of this study revealed that IMT has not resulted in an
increase in irrigation service fee (ISF) i.e. water charges to the farmers.
Since the ISF remained as pre IMT level therefore the chances of more
cost recovery does not seem to exist. During 2004-07 ISF recovered
was approximately 45 percent of the ISF assessed but it was very less
during the next year. Reduction in cost recovery will result reduction in
funds allocation for maintenance. Insufficient maintenance will further
decay the irrigation network.
131
6. All the open flumes outlets along the distributary behave as hyper
proportional irrespective of their position accept three which acted as
proportional. The major cause was faulty setting the crest levels of the
outlets which lead the open flume to draw more water than the design
discharge.
7. The head bifurcators were behaving as hyper-proportional, whereas
middle one as perfect proportional and tail end as sub-proportional. All
the trifurcators were behaving as hyper proportional except the TRI (RD-
5930).
8. The operational performance scenarios generated using SIC model
were found to be useful for operation of the distributary under unsteady
state condition. The fixed frequency operations at 80-90 percent of the
design discharge during May to July, 75-90 percent of the design
discharge from August to October, and 75-85 percent of the design
discharge from December to April will produce improved result and
reduce the wastage of water at night due to flexible water distribution.
132
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The study reveals that there exists considerable scope for making improvement
in operation of the irrigation system by closely adhering to the standard water
allocation and distribution rules. The following recommendations are proposed
in the light of this study.
To institutionalize IMIS, there is a need to create a special unit in

SCAWB, with emphasis on the exchange of experience and expertise on
implementation of IMIS with FOs and researchers with good
coordination. Funds need to be set a side for studies as well as
implementation of IMIS.
The current water allocation policy resulted in over supply and wastage
of water. Therefore, to improve farm irrigation management and to
reduce operational losses, water allowance may be reduced to 0.62 Ls-
1
ha-1 (8 cusecs per 1000 acres) instead of 0.77 Ls-1ha-1 (10 cusec per
P P
1000 acres) till the command area under this canal is not fully
developed.
Discharge measurement is an integral part of irrigation management

activities. Discharge measurement training and formation of hydraulic
committees at distributaries to monitor discharge at intakes and critical
points will be helpful for performance improvement.
The irrigated area is below the potential irrigated area and irrigation
intensity could be increased up to 190 percent by increasing sugarcane
intensity from 30 to 50 percent per annum.
Although good training was provided to most of the FOs by different

NGOs and consultants at the time of IMT but still there exists
continuous need for training and capacity-building to enhance abilities of
the FOs.
133
REFERENCES
Abdulmumin, S and J. Bastiaansen. 1990. Application of climatic data for

effective irrigation planning and management. Food and Agricultural
Organization of United Nations and World Meteorological Organization. pp.
163.
Abernethy, C.L. 1989. Performance criteria for irrigation systems. In J.R.

Rydzewski and K.Ward (Eds.) Proceedings on International Conference on
Irrigation Theory and Practice, University of Southampton, Southampton. UK.
Abernethy, C.L. 1986. Performance measurement in canal water management:

A discussion. ODI-IIMI Irrigation Management Network Paper 86/2d, pp. 25.
Ali, Iqbal. 1993. Irrigation and hydraulic structures: Theory, Design and
Practice. Institute of Environmental Engineering and research. NED University
of Engineering & Technology, Karachi. Pakistan. pp: 301-343.
Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira., D. Raes., M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration -

Guidelines for computing crop water requirements - FAO Irrigation and
Drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. Rome, Italy.
Ankum, P. 1993. Some ideas on the selection of flow control structures for
irrigation. Proc 15th Congress on Irrigation and Drainage. International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. New Delhi, India. The Hague, The
Netherlands. 1B (44): 855-869.
Ankum, P. 1994. Automation of flow control in irrigation systems. Publication of

the Irrigation and Polder Department. Faculty of Civil Engineering. University of
Technology. Delft, The Netherlands. 97p.
Ankum, P. 2004. Flow control in irrigation systems. International Institute for

Infrastructural, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering (IHE). Delft, The
Netherlands. 344 p.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1993. Criteria for evaluation of watershed

models. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 119(3):429-
442.
Bandaragoda, D. J., Y. Memon. 1997. Moving towards participatory irrigation

management. Report No. 26. International Irrigation Management Institute.
Lahore, Pakistan.
Baume, J.P., P.O. Malaterre, P.Y. Vion, X. Lirico. 2003. Simulation of irrigation
Canals. User guide and theoretical concepts modeling approach. Version 4.0.
Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research. CEMAGREF.
Montpellier, France.
134
Baume, J. P., P. O. Malaterre and G. B. Benoit. 2005. SIC: A 1D
hydrodynamic model for river and irrigation canal modeling and regulation.
Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research. CEMAGREF.
Montpellier, France. pp:1-81.
Bazzani, G. M., C. Rosseli. 2002 . A decision support system for an economic

environment assessment of agricultural irrigation and water policy design.
Proceeding of International Conference on Water and Irrigation Development. pp
: 485-491.
Bhata, R. 1997. Food security implications of raising irrigation charges in

developing countries. In: M. Kay, T. Franks and L. Smith (eds.) Water:
Economics, Management and Demand, Wye College, University of London.
London.
Bhatti, M.A. 1995. Water pricing and financial aspect of irrigation-Issues and
options. Pakistan Journal of Water Resources. PCRWR. Islamabad, Pakistan.
1(1):67-87
Bhutta, M.N, M. Latif and J.W. Kijne. 1991. A study of water distribution from a
branch to distributary canal: A case study of Gugara branch, Punjab, Pakistan.
Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 5:229-247.
Bos, M.G. 1997. Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage. Irrigation
and Drainage Systems. 11(2):119-137.
Bos, M.G. and J. Nugteren. 1990. On irrigation efficiencies. 4th edition [1st
edition 1974]. ILRI Publication 19. International Institute for Land Reclamation
and Improvement . The Netherlands. 141 p.
Bos, M.G., D.H. Murray-Rust, D.J. Merrey, H.G. Johnson, and W.B. Snellen.
1994. Methodologies for assessing performance of irrigation and drainage
management. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 7 (4): 231-261.
Bos, M.G., M.A.Burton and D.J.Molden. 2005. Irrigation drainage performance

assessment: Practical Guide Lines. CABI Publishing, CAB International
Wallingford. Oxfordshire. UK. 158 p.
Bottrall, A. 1981. Issue in main system management. Workshop on investment

decision to further develop and make use of South-East Asia’s irrigation
resources. Kasetsart University, Bangkok. Thailand.
Bozakov, P and A. Laycock. 1997. The Pehur High Level Canal-First steps
toward automation of Pakistan’s canal system. Regulation of Irrigation Canal.
Proceeding RIC’97 International Workshop, Marrakesh, Morocco. pp:109-121.
Brewer J., S. Kolavalli, A.H. Karlro., G. Naik, S. Ramnarayan, K.V. Raju, R.

Sakthivadivel. 1999. Irrigation management transfer in India: Policies,
processes and performance. Oxford & IBH Publishing. New Delhi, India: 354p.
135
Burt, C. M. 1987. Overview of canal control concepts. Planning, Operation,
Rehabilitation and Automation of Irrigation Water Delivery Systems. In (Ed)
Zimbelman, D.D., ASCE Symposium Proceedings., Portland, Ore. pp: 81-109.
Burt, C.M. and S.W. Styles. 1999. Modern water control and management
practices in irrigation: Impact on performance. Water Reports No. 19. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 224 p.
Chambers, R. 1988. Managing canal irrigation: Practical analysis from South

Asia. Institute of Development Studies. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Clark, D. 1998. Cropwat for windows: Users guide. Institute of irrigation and
Development Studies (IIDS). Southampton University. Southampton. UK.
Clemmens, J.A. 1993. Unsteady-Flow Modeling of Irrigation Canals. Task

Committee on Irrigation Canal System. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering. 119(4):615-631.
Clemmens, A.J. 1979. Control of modified demand irrigation distribution

systems. Irrigation and Drainage in the Nineteen-Eighties, Proc. ASCE
Specialty Conf., Albuquerque, N.M. 303-313.
Clemmens, A.J., and J.A. Replogle. 1989. Control of irrigation canal networks.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 115(1): 96-110.
Clemmens, A.J, and M.G. Bos. 1990. Statistical methods for irrigation system
water delivery performance evaluation. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 4:345-
365.
Clemmens, A.J., G. Sloan and J. Schuurmans. 1994. Canal control needs:

Example. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 120 (6):
1067-1085.
Clemmens, A.J., F.M. Holly and W. Schuurmans. 1993. Description and

evaluation of program Duflow. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
ASCE. 119(4):724-735.
Coward E. Walter Jr. 1979. Principles of social organizations in indigenous

irrigation system. Human Organization. 38: 28-36.
Davis, G.B., and M.H. Olson. 1985. Management information systems:

Conceptual foundations, structure, and development. McGraw-Hill. New York,
USA.
Dinar, A., and A. Subramanian. 1997. Water pricing experiences: An

international perspective. World Bank Technical Paper, No. 386, Washington,
DC. USA.
136
Doorenbos, J, and W.O. Pruitt. 1977. Crop water requirements. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 24. Food and Agricultural Organization. Rome, Italy.
Falvey, H.T., and P.C. Luning. 1979. Gate stroking. United State Bureau of
Reclamation. Denver, Colorado. 86 p.
Gao, Z. 2003. Decision-making support system for irrigation water management

of Jingati Chuan pumping irrigation scheme at the upper reaches of Yellow River.
Watsave Workshop. 51st IEC. Cape Town South Africa. pp:1-6.
P P
Gichuki, F. N., W.R. Walker and G.P. Merkley. 1990. Transient hydraulic model
for simulation canal network operation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, ASCE. 116(1):67-82.
Gill, A. M. 1998. Water resources management in Pakistan: Strategies, impact

and future prospects. Proceeding of International Symposium Water for 21st
Century: Demand, supply and development and socio-environmental issues.
Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering. University of
Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan. Proce. No. 07, Publication –
110: 73-92.
Godaliyadda, G.G.A., D. Ranault, H.M. Hemakumara and I.W. Makin. 1999.

Strategies to improve manual operation of irrigation system in Sri Lanka.
Irrigation and Drainage Systems.13:33-54.
Goldsmith, H., and I.W. Makin. 1991. A comparison of two methodologies for
assessment of irrigation performance under warabandi system. Irrigation and
Drainage Systems. 5:19-29.
Gorantiwar. S.D., and I.K. Smout. 2005. Performance assessment of irrigation

water management of heterogeneous irrigation schemes: Framework for
evaluation. Irrigation and Drainage Systems.19:1-36.
Gupta, H.V., S. Sorooshian., P.O. Yapo. 1999. Status of automatic calibration

for hydrologic models: comparison with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering. 4 (2):135–143.
Habib, Z., K. Pongput , G. V. Skogerboe. 1996. Unsteady flow simulation of the

Pehure High Level Canal and proposed remodeling of Machi 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. Vabre, M.D. Ahmad and A. Sophyani.

1999. Hydraulic simulation to evaluate and predict design and operation of the
Chashma Right Bank Canal. International Water Management Institute. Lahore,
Pakistan. R-79: 119-121.
137
Hamilton, D. L., and J.J. DeVries. 1986. Microcomputer simulation of canal
operation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 112(3):264-
273.
Harmel, R.D. and K.S. Patricia. 2007. Consideration of measurement

uncertainty in the evaluation of goodness-of-fit in hydrologic and water quality
modeling. Journal of Hydrology. 337:326-336.
Herschy, R.W. 2009. Steamflow measurement. Third Edition. Routledge, Taylor

& Francis Group. Milton Rark, Abingdon, Oxon, London.
Holly, F. M., and J.B. Parrish III. 1993. Description and evaluation of program
CARIMA. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE, 119(4):703-
714.
Horst, L.1998. The dilemmas of water division: Consideration of criteria for

irrigation system design. International Water Management Institute. Colombo.
Sri Lanka. pp. 15-25.
Hunt, Robert C. 1989. Appropriate social organization? Water users

association in bureaucratic canal irrigation systems. Human Organization.
48(1):79-90.
Hussain, I. 2007. Pro-poor intervension strategies in irrigated agriculture in

Asia: Issue, lessons, options and guidelines. Irrigation and Drainage. Journal of
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID). 56(2-3):119-126.
Hassan, M. 2002. Financial capacity and willingness of farmers to pay for

irrigation services in the post-reform scenario in Pakistan: Two Case Studies’.
Pakistan Development Review. 41 (1):49-67.
Ijir, T.A. and M.A. Burton. 1998. Performance assessment of the Wurno
Irrigation Scheme, Nigeria. Irrigation and Drainage. Journal of International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID). 47:31–46.
Islam. A, N. S. Raghuwanshi and R. Singh. 2008. Development and

application of hydraulic simulation model for irrigation canal network. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 134(1):49-59.
Jacovides, C.P. and H. Kontoyiannis. 1994. Statistical procedures for the

evaluation of evapotranspiration computing models. Agricultural Water
Management. 27:365-371.
Jain, S.P. 1995. Computerised monitoring and management information

system in irrigation department of Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Institute of
Engineers. 76:178-181.
138
Jurriens, M. 1993. Protective irrigation: Essentials and Implications. Water
Management in the next century. Transaction of 15th Congress on Irrigation and
P
P
Drainage. ICID.1-A: 333-348. New Delhi. India.
Jurriens, M., P.P. Mollinga, and P. Wester. 1996. Scarcity by design. Protective
irrigation in India and Pakistan. Liquid Gold Paper.1. Wageningen Agricultural
University and International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvements
(ILRI). Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Kahlown, M. A., and W.D. Kemper. 2004. Seepage losses as affected by

condition and composition of channel banks. Agricultural Water Management.
65(2):145-153.
Kloezen, W.H., and C. Garcés-Restrepo. 1998. Assessing irrigation

performance with comparative indicators: The case of the Alto Rio Lerma
Irrigation District, Mexico. Research Report 22. International Water
Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Korten, David C. 1980. Community Organization and Rural Development: A

Learning Process Approach. Public Administration Review. 40(5): 480-511.
Korten, D.C. and N. Uphoff. 1981. Bureaucratic Reorientation for Participatory

Rural Development. NASPAA Working Paper No. 1. National Association of
School of Public Affairs and Administration. Washington, D.C. USA.
Kumar, P. A. Mishra, .S. Raghuwanshi and R. Singh. 2001. Application of

unsteady flow hydraulic model to large and complex irrigation system.
Agricultural Water Management. 54:49-66.
Lankford, B.A. and J. Gowing. 1996. Understanding water supply control in

canal irrigation system: Analysis of irrigation water control. In: Howsam, P. and
R. C. Carter (Eds) Water Policy: Allocation and Management in Practice.
Proceeding of International Conference on Water Policy. Silsoe College.
Cranfield University. Cranfield. UK.
Lashari, B., M. Ali and S.A. Prathapar. 1999. Operational performance and use
of simulation model at Bareji Distributary Mirpurkhas. Sindh, Pakistan.2nd Inter-
Regional Conference on Environment and Water 99 held in Switzerland. pp: 1-
15.
Latif, M., and M.S. Pomee. 2003. Irrigation management turnover and option for
improved utilization of limited water resources in Pakistan. Irrigation and
Drainage. Journal of International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
(ICID). 52: 261-272
Latif, M. and S. Sarwar. 1994. Proposal for equitable water allocation for
rotational irrigation in Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 8:35-48.
139
Laycock, A., C. Swayne and J. Marues. 2005. Pehur high level canal, NWFP,
Pakistan. Proceeding of Institute of Civil Engineering: Water Management. UK.
158 (3):93-102.
Lenton, R.L. 1986. On the development and use of improved methodologies for
irrigation management. In: K.C.Nobe and R.K. Sampath (Eds.), Irrigation
Management in Developing Countries. West View Press, Boulder, Colorado.
pp. 47–66.
Levine, G. 1980. The relationship of design operation and management. In:

Coward E. Walter Jr. (Ed), Irrigation and Agricultural Development in Asia:
Perspective from the Social Sciences. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. USA.
Levine, G. 1982. Relative water supply: An explanatory variable for irrigation

systems. Technical Report 6. The Determinants of Irrigation Problems in
Developing Countries. Cornell University. Ithaca, New York, USA.
Levine, G., A. C. Galvan, D. Garcia, C. Garcés-Restrepo, and S. Johnson III.

1998. Performance of two transferred modules in the Lagunera region: Water
relations. Research Report 23. International Water Management Institute.
Colombo. Sri Lanka.
Levine, G. 1980. The relationship of design and management. In: Coward E.

Walter (Ed), Irrigation and Agricultural Development in Asia: Perspective from
the social Sciences. Cornell University Press. Ithaca. USA.
Loague K., and R.E. Green. 1991. Statistical and graphical methods for
evaluating solute transport models: Overview and application. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology. 7: 51–73.
Lucas, H. C., Jr. 1990. Information systems concepts for management.

McGraw Hill. New York.
Makin, I.W., H. Goldsmith and J.C. Skutsch. 1991. Ongoing performance

assessment : A case study of Kraseio Project. Thailand. Irrigation and Drainage
Systems. 5:31-42.
Malano, H. and M. Burton. 2001. Guideline for bench marking performance in

the irrigation and drainage sector. International Programme for Technology and
Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) Secretariat. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Italy.
Malaterre, P.O. and J.P. Baume. 1997. SIC 3.0, a simulation model for canal
automation design. International Workshop on Regulation of Irrigation Canals:
State of the art research and application. University of Semlalia. Marrakech,
Morocco. pp:3-12.
McGarry, E. G.1990. USM user's manual. Water Conveyance Branch Civil

Engineering Div. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo. USA.
140
McLeod, R., Jr.1995. Management information systems: A study of computer-
based information systems (6th ed.). Prentice Hall. India.
Meinzen-Dick, R. 1995. Timeliness of irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage System

9: 371–387.
Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, R. Reidinger and A. Manzardo.1995. Participation in

Irrigation. Paper No. 003. Social Policy and Resettlement Division.
Washington, DC. USA.
Merkley, G. P., and D.C. Rogers. 1993. Description and evaluation of program
CANAL. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 119(4):714-
724.
Merkley, G.P., W.R. Walker and F.N. Gichuki. 1990. Transient hydraulic
modeling for improved canal system operation. Agricultural Water
Management. 18:181-194.
Merrey, D.J., A. Valera, and L. Dassenaike. 1994. Does assessing

performance make a difference? Results from comparative study of three
irrigation systems. Journal of Irrigated Agriculture. 33 (3):276–293.
Mishra, A., A. Anand, R. Singh and N.S. Raghuwanshi, 2001. Hydraulic

modeling of Kangsabati main canal for performance assessment. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 127(1): 27-34
Molden, D. J., and T. K. Gates. 1990. Performance measures for evaluation of

irrigation water delivery systems. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering. ASCE. 116(6): 804-823.
Molden, D., M. Burton and M.G. Bos. 2007. Performance assessment, irrigation
delivery and poverty reduction: Benefits of improved system management.
Irrigation and Drainage. Journal of International Commission on Irrigation and
Drainage (ICID). 56(2-3): 307-320.
Molden, D., R. Sakthivadivel., C.J. Perry., C. Fraiture and W.H. Kloezen. 1998.
Indicator for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural system. Research
Report 20. International Water Management Institute. Sri Lanka.
Molden, D.J. and I.W. Makin. 1997. Institutional change in support of

modernization and management transfer. Modernization of irrigation schemes:
past experiences and future options, RAP publication 1997/22, FAO. Rome,
Italy.
Moriasi, D.N., J. G. Arnold, M. W. Van Liew, R. L. Bingner, R. D. Harmel,

and T. L.Veith. 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification
of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transaction of the ASABE. 50(3): 885-
900.
141
Murray-Rust, D.H, and W.B. Snellen. 1993. Irrigation system performance
assessment and diagnosis. International Irrigation Management Institute. Sri
Lanka.
Murray-Rust, D.H. and G.V. Halsema.1998. Effects of construction defects on

hydraulic performance of Kalpani Distributary, NWFP, Pakistan. Irrigation and
Drainage Systems. 12: 323–340.
Nash, J.E., and J. V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual
models: A discussion of principles. J. Hydrology. 10(3): 282-290.
Oad, R. and P.G. McCornick. 1989. Methodology for assessing the

performance of irrigated agriculture. ICID Bulletin. 38(1): 42-53
On Farm Water Management. 1997. Irrigation Agronomy (Vol. VI). Field

Manual. Federal Water Management Cell. Pakistan. pp.345
Perry, C.J. 1995. Determinants of function and dysfunction in irrigation

performance, and implications for performance improvement. International
Journal of Water Resources Development. 11(1): 25-38.
PIPD. 1987. General operation and maintenance procedures of canal

management, (Vol. I), Provincial Irrigation and Power Department (PIPD).
Government of NWFP. Pakistan. pp:162.
Plusquellec, H., C. Burt and H. Wolter. 1994. Water Control in Irrigation

Systems: Concepts, Issues and Applications. World Bank Technical Paper No
242. Washington. DC. USA.
Plusquellec, H. 2002. How design, management and policy affect the

performance of irrigation projects: Emerging modernization procedures and
design standards. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok. Thailand. pp: 174.
Pongput, K., J.C. Alurralde and G.V.Skogerbore. 1998. Scheduling model for
crop based irrigation operation. International Irrigation Management Institute,
Lahore. Pakistan.
Renault, D. 1999. Offtake sensitivity, operation effectiveness, and performance

of irrigation system. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE.
125(3):137-147.
Renault, D., A.H. Khan., M.H. Hemakumara and M.A. Memon. 2001.
Assessing sensitivity factors of irrigation delivery structures. Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 127(6): 346-354.
Renault, D and H.M. Hemakumara. 1999. Irrigation offtake sensitivity. Journal

of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 125(3):131:136.
142
Renault, D., I.W. Makin. 1998. Modernization of irrigation systems operation: a
desegregated approach of the demand. Proceedings of the Fifth International
meeting of ITIS network. Aurangabad. India.
Rey, J. and H.M. Hemakumara. 1994. Decision support system for water
distribution management: Theory and Practice. International Irrigation
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Working Paper 3: 5-20.
Rogers, C.D. and G.P. Merkley. 1993. Description and evaluation of program
USM. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 119(4): 696-702.
Sachdeva, R. K. 1990. Management handbook of computer usage. Oxford:

NCC Blackwell. UK.
Schuurmans, W. 1993. Description and evaluation of program MODIS. Journal

of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. 119(4): 735-742.
Shahrokhnia,M.A., and M. Javan. 2005. Performance assessment of

Doroodzan irrigation network by steady state hydraulic modeling. Irrigation and
Drainage Systems. 19:189-206.
Shanan, L. 1992. Planning and management of irrigation system in developing

countries. Agricultural Water Management. Elsevier: The Netherlands.
22(1+2):113-145.
Sharma, D. N., R. Oad and R. K. Sampath. 1991. Performance measure for

irrigation water delivery systems. ICID Bulletin. 40(1): 21-37.
Small, L.E. and M. Svendsen. 1990. A Framework for assessing irrigation

performance. Irrigation and Drainage Systems.4 (4): 283 - 312.
Steiner, R.A. and M.F. Walter. 1993. The effect of allocation schedules on the
performance of irrigation systems with different levels of spatial diversity and
temporal variability. Agricultural Water Management. 23: 213-224.
Stone, I. 1984. Canal irrigation in British India. Perspective on technological

changes in a peasant economy. Cambridge University Press. UK.
Svendsen, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick. 1997. Irrigation management institutions

in transition: a look back, a look forward. Irrigation and Drainage System.
11:139-156
Svendsen, M., D. Merry and W. Fitgerald. 1983. Meeting the challenges of

better irrigation management. Horizon (USA). 2(3): 17-25.
Swain,E.D., and Chin,D.A. 1990. Model flow in regulated open channel

networks. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE. 116(4):537-
556.
143
Uphoff, N., P. Ramamurthy and R. Steiner. 1991. Managing irrigation:
analyzing and improving the performance of bureaucracies. Sage Publication,
New Delhi, India.
Uphoff, N. 1986. Improving International irrigation management with farmers

participation: Getting the process right, Boulder Co. Westview Press. USA.
Vermillion, D L., and C.G. Restrepo. 1996. Results of management turnover in

two irrigation districts in Columbia. Research Report 4. International Irrigation
Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Vermillion, D.L. 2001. Property right and collective action in devolution of

irrigation system management. In: R.S.Meinzen-Dick, A. Knox and M. Di
Gregorio (Eds), Collective action, property right and devolution of natural
resources management: exchange of knowledge and implication for policy.
http://www.capri.cgiar.org.
Wade, R. 1982. The system of administrative and political corruption: Canal

irrigation in South India. Journal of Development Studies. 18(3): 287-328.
Wade, R. and R. Chambers. 1980. Managing the main irrigated agriculture: Canal
irrigation's blind spot. Economic and Political Weekly. Review of Agriculture.
15(39):A.107-A.112.
Waijjen, E.G., W.W. Hart., W. Kuper., and R. Brower. 1997. Using

hydrodynamic flow model to plan maintenance activities and improving
irrigation water: application to Fordwah Distributary in Punjab. Pakistan.
Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 11(4): 367-386.
Walpole, R.E. and R.H. Myers. 1989. Probability and Statistics for Engineers
and Scientists. Macmillan, New York.
Xevi, E., J. Gilley and J. Feyen. 1996. Comparative study of two crop yield
simulation models. Agriculture Water Management. 30: 155-173.
Zimbelman, D. D. 1987. Planning, operation, rehabilitation and automation of

irrigation water delivery systems. Proceedings of the symposium sponsored by
the Irrigation and Drainage Division of ASCE, Portland, Oregon. USA. 381pp.
144
Appendix-A
Table A-I Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Yaqubi Distributary.
Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 0.38 0.66 0.82 0.85 0.60 0.85 0.68 0.82 0.75
2 0.38 0.73 0.80 0.68 0.50 0.66 0.68 0.75 0.75
3 0.38 0.75 0.73 0.68 0.71 0.78 0.66 0.75 0.75
4 0.52 0.71 0.75 0.95 0.78 0.78 0.68 0.75 0.75
5 0.58 0.60 0.75 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.66 0.75 0.75
6 0.66 0.66 0.71 0.95 0.75 0.75 0.62 0.75 0.66
7 0.60 0.78 0.78 0.98 0.75 0.75 0.68 0.66 0.66
8 0.60 0.78 0.68 0.95 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.78 0.68
9 0.60 0.66 0.78 0.95 0.66 0.78 0.71 0.78 0.68
10 0.60 0.54 0.85 0.95 0.75 0.80 0.66 0.71 0.71
11 0.75 0.68 0.87 0.90 0.78 0.80 0.66 0.62 0.71
12 0.60 0.68 0.87 0.98 0.75 0.78 0.56 0.62 0.71
13 0.60 0.78 0.85 0.82 0.71 0.78 0.71 0.62 0.71
14 0.60 0.78 0.87 0.90 0.71 0.75 0.66 0.71 0.71
15 0.60 0.78 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.75 0.71 0.75 0.71
16 0.60 0.62 0.87 0.78 0.75 0.78 0.71 0.75 0.71
17 0.60 0.90 0.85 0.78 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.71
18 0.38 0.60 0.73 0.66 0.64 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.71
19 0.38 0.60 0.78 0.66 0.12 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71
20 0.38 0.60 0.85 0.66 0.15 0.78 0.90 0.87 0.75 0.71
21 0.38 0.58 0.80 0.64 0.13 0.78 0.75 0.78 0.71 0.71
22 0.38 0.58 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.71 0.73 0.78 0.66 0.71
23 0.38 0.58 0.90 0.73 0.78 0.78 0.73 0.78 0.68
24 0.38 0.58 0.78 0.73 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.82
25 0.38 0.58 0.85 0.82 0.85 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75
26 0.38 0.58 0.90 0.82 0.80 0.87 0.71 0.78 0.78
27 0.38 0.58 0.82 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.66 0.78 0.78
28 0.38 0.78 0.73 0.95 0.85 0.85 0.66 0.75 0.75
29 0.38 0.78 0.73 0.87 0.85 0.78 0.68 0.75 0.75
30 0.38 0.66 0.78 0.90 0.56 0.78 0.60 0.75 0.75
31 0.38 0.80 0.56 0.73 0.75
145
Table A-II Statistical analysis of discharges of Yaqubi Distributary.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 0.38 0.78 0.90 0.95 0.98 0.87 0.90 0.874 0.824 0.753
Min 0.38 0.38 0.54 0.64 0.12 0.50 0.60 0.559 0.62 0.663
Average 0.38 0.59 0.75 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.72 0.73 0.71
Ave(1-10) 0.53 0.69 0.77 0.88 0.70 0.77 0.68 0.75 0.72
Ave(11-20) 0.38 0.61 0.76 0.81 0.69 0.76 0.77 0.71 0.71 0.71
Ave(21-30) 0.38 0.63 0.81 0.82 0.76 0.78 0.70 0.76 0.75 0.71
Std(1-10) 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.31 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.00
Std(21-30) 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.22 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.00
CV(1-10) 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06
CV(11-20) 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CV(21-30) 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.11 0.29 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.00
146
Table A-III Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Gumbad-II Distributary.
1 0.46 0.78 0.78 1.03 0.68 0.61 0.71 0.74 0.74
2 0.46 0.64 0.85 0.52 0.68 0.85 0.71 0.78 0.74
3 0.46 0.71 0.85 0.52 0.58 0.85 0.55 0.78 0.71
4 0.71 0.78 0.85 0.49 0.56 0.85 0.85 0.78 0.71
5 0.74 0.81 0.85 0.46 0.52 0.92 0.68 0.78 0.64
6 0.81 0.68 0.85 0.68 0.52 0.92 0.64 0.78 0.64
7 0.74 0.68 0.85 0.52 0.52 0.92 0.88 0.78 0.64
8 0.71 0.68 0.96 0.85 0.58 0.96 0.85 0.68 0.64
9 0.71 0.78 0.92 0.68 0.58 0.92 0.85 0.68 0.61
10 0.71 0.81 0.71 0.68 0.74 0.85 0.68 0.78 0.71
11 0.74 0.71 0.68 0.52 0.74 0.85 0.78 0.55 0.71
12 0.58 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.58 0.92 0.68 0.55 0.71
13 0.71 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.52 0.68 0.74 0.55 0.71
14 0.58 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.52 0.92 0.68 0.74 0.71
15 0.46 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.52 0.96 0.81 0.78 0.71
16 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.68 0.58 0.68 0.81 0.68 0.71
17 0.74 1.03 0.85 0.68 0.58 0.92 0.85 0.52 0.71
18 0.46 0.64 0.92 0.64 0.85 0.52 0.92 0.78 0.55 0.71
19 0.46 0.55 0.85 0.64 0.30 0.52 0.68 0.71 0.81 0.71
20 0.46 0.52 0.92 0.85 0.46 0.52 0.61 0.92 0.81 0.71
21 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.92 0.43 0.52 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.71
22 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.74 0.68 0.68 0.92 0.71 0.68 0.71
23 0.46 0.92 0.92 0.99 0.68 0.78 0.88 0.71 0.71
24 0.46 0.92 0.85 0.96 0.68 0.78 0.92 0.64 0.74
25 0.46 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.92 0.81 0.74
26 0.46 0.99 0.85 0.96 0.88 0.74 0.92 0.88 0.61
27 0.46 0.88 0.92 0.78 0.71 0.88 0.85 0.81 0.61
28 0.46 0.85 0.92 0.74 0.68 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.68
29 0.46 0.52 0.92 0.85 0.74 0.92 0.81 0.85 0.68
30 0.46 0.78 0.92 0.96 0.68 0.81 0.52 0.85 0.78
31 0.46 0.92 0.68 0.78 0.78
147
Table A-IV Statistical analysis of discharges of Gumbad-II Distributary.
Max 0.46 0.99 1.03 0.99 1.03 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.81 0.74
Min 0.46 0.46 0.64 0.64 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.55 0.52 0.61
Average 0.46 0.68 0.83 0.83 0.66 0.65 0.84 0.77 0.70 0.70
Ave(1-10) 0.65 0.73 0.84 0.64 0.59 0.86 0.74 0.75 0.68
Ave(11-20) 0.46 0.63 0.85 0.76 0.66 0.56 0.81 0.77 0.65 0.71
Ave(21-30) 0.46 0.76 0.91 0.88 0.71 0.80 0.84 0.78 0.69 0.71
Std(1-10) 0.14 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.04 0.05
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.19 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.00
Std(21-30) 0.00 0.20 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.00
CV(1-10) 0.21 0.09 0.08 0.29 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.06 0.07
CV(11-20) 0.00 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.28 0.13 0.17 0.10 0.19 0.00
CV(21-30) 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.00
148
Table A-V Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Qasim-II Distributary.
1 0.37 0.54 0.67 0.81 0.81 0.27 0.37 0.64 0.31

2 0.44 0.42 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.27 0.42 0.64 0.29
3 0.44 0.56 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.49 0.49 0.62 0.29
4 0.51 0.54 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.54 0.49 0.67 0.29
5 0.37 0.54 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.49 0.62 0.37
6 0.56 0.49 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.49 0.54 0.62 0.27
7 0.39 0.49 0.62 0.11 0.11 0.49 0.56 0.64 0.37
8 0.39 0.49 0.64 0.09 0.09 0.54 0.54 0.17 0.29
9 0.37 0.46 0.67 0.12 0.12 0.62 0.56 0.17 0.31
10 0.37 0.49 0.70 0.12 0.12 0.27 0.70 0.64 0.37
11 0.42 0.51 0.67 0.49 0.49 0.29 0.70 0.56 0.37
12 0.42 0.59 0.67 0.14 0.14 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.37
13 0.46 0.67 0.49 0.62 0.62 0.49 0.54 0.51 0.42
14 0.49 0.67 0.54 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.62 0.59 0.44
15 0.49 0.67 0.62 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.64 0.46 0.37
16 0.46 0.70 0.62 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.62 0.46 0.51
17 0.46 0.72 0.54 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.62 0.62 0.62
18 0.37 0.39 0.67 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.59 0.62 0.56 0.62
19 0.37 0.44 0.62 0.49 0.27 0.27 0.64 0.62 0.51 0.42
20 0.37 0.49 0.64 0.62 0.16 0.16 0.59 0.67 0.64 0.37
21 0.37 0.42 0.64 0.59 0.27 0.27 0.59 0.56 0.51 0.62
22 0.37 0.42 0.64 0.62 0.49 0.49 0.62 0.59 0.75 0.49
23 0.37 0.37 0.67 0.81 0.49 0.49 0.67 0.67 0.75
24 0.37 0.37 0.62 0.84 0.49 0.49 0.67 0.59 0.56
25 0.37 0.42 0.64 0.70 0.44 0.44 0.62 0.59 0.70
26 0.37 0.44 0.67 0.70 0.33 0.33 0.62 0.42 0.67
27 0.37 0.33 0.37 0.78 0.42 0.42 0.54 0.42 0.62
28 0.37 0.67 0.64 0.75 0.59 0.59 0.54 0.56 0.64
29 0.37 0.62 0.64 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.31 0.56 0.64
30 0.33 0.54 0.62 0.56 0.17 0.17 0.62 0.62 0.64
31 0.33 0.62 0.17 0.17 0.64
149
Table A-VI Statistical analysis of discharges of Qasim-II Distributary.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 0.37 0.67 0.72 0.84 0.81 0.81 0.67 0.70 0.75 0.62
Min 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.49 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.37 0.17 0.27
Average 0.37 0.44 0.59 0.64 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.56 0.58 0.40
Ave(1-10) 0.42 0.50 0.65 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.51 0.54 0.31
Ave(11-20) 0.37 0.45 0.65 0.57 0.41 0.41 0.50 0.61 0.54 0.45
Ave(21-30) 0.36 0.46 0.61 0.71 0.41 0.41 0.58 0.57 0.66 0.49
Std(1-10) 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.09 0.20 0.04
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.10
Std(21-30) 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.09
CV(1-10) 0.16 0.09 0.05 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.17 0.36 0.13
CV(11-20) 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.40 0.40 0.19 0.10 0.11 0.22
CV(21-30) 0.05 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.14 0.11 0.18
150
Table A-VII Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Toru Distributary.
Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 0.75 0.72 0.47 0.89 0.65 0.65 0.79 0.79 0.11

2 0.82 0.75 0.50 0.79 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.72 0.11
3 0.82 0.62 0.50 0.79 0.86 0.82 0.79 0.72 0.35
4 0.68 0.86 1.20 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.72 0.35
5 0.53 0.93 1.20 0.93 0.86 0.82 0.82 0.72 0.35
6 0.72 0.65 1.04 0.82 0.59 0.75 0.82 0.72 0.50
7 0.79 0.65 0.93 0.89 0.59 0.79 0.82 1.16 0.38
8 0.59 0.65 0.96 0.82 0.21 0.72 0.82 1.08 0.35
9 0.59 0.50 0.93 0.82 0.65 0.82 0.82 1.08 0.50
10 0.59 0.59 0.93 0.82 0.47 0.86 0.82 0.96 0.53
11 0.41 0.62 0.96 1.00 0.47 0.86 0.86 0.82 0.53
12 0.44 0.68 0.96 0.82 0.79 0.82 0.80 0.82 0.56
13 0.65 0.86 0.65 0.82 0.82 0.65 0.72 0.82 0.93
14 0.65 1.00 0.68 0.93 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00 0.86
15 0.65 1.00 0.72 0.93 0.82 0.82 0.72 0.53 0.89
16 0.56 0.93 0.65 0.75 0.62 0.82 0.72 0.56 0.86
17 0.56 0.50 0.93 0.75 0.72 0.82 0.82 0.50 0.82
18 0.6 0.30 0.30 0.53 0.04 0.75 0.82 0.82 0.50 0.82
19 0.6 0.38 0.35 0.53 0.82 0.68 0.89 0.79 0.53 0.82
20 0.6 0.65 0.44 0.82 0.79 0.65 0.93 0.82 0.53 0.72
21 0.6 0.44 0.41 0.82 0.59 0.65 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.82
22 0.6 0.44 0.41 0.82 0.65 0.82 0.86 0.82 0.56 0.86
23 0.6 0.35 0.41 0.89 0.65 0.82 0.79 0.82 0.50
24 0.6 0.35 0.50 0.89 0.65 0.82 0.86 0.79 0.21
25 0.6 0.86 0.50 1.04 0.41 0.82 0.86 0.82 0.30
26 0.6 0.75 0.38 1.04 1.66 0.82 0.72 0.82 0.65
27 0.6 0.93 0.89 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.65
28 0.6 0.93 0.30 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.82 0.09
29 0.7 0.93 0.30 0.93 0.82 0.82 0.79 0.79 0.11
30 0.5 0.72 0.50 0.93 0.82 0.82 0.65 0.79 0.11
31 0.6 0.47 0.82 0.79 0.72
151
Table A-VIII Statistical analysis of discharges of Toru Distributary.
Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 0.72 0.93 1.00 1.20 1.66 0.93 0.93 0.86 1.16 0.93
Min 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.47 0.04 0.21 0.65 0.72 0.09 0.11
Average 0.59 0.63 0.60 0.84 0.81 0.73 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.59
Std 0.04 0.18 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.28 0.26
CV 0.07 0.29 0.36 0.24 0.30 0.21 0.08 0.05 0.44 0.44
Ave(1-10) 0.69 0.69 0.86 0.86 0.65 0.79 0.81 0.86 0.35
Ave(11-20) 0.59 0.52 0.67 0.74 0.76 0.71 0.82 0.79 0.66 0.78
Ave(21-30) 0.59 0.69 0.46 0.92 0.83 0.84 0.79 0.80 0.35 0.86
Std(1-10) 0.11 0.13 0.28 0.07 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.18 0.15
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.13 0.27 0.17 0.27 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.14
Std(21-30) 0.05 0.25 0.16 0.10 0.32 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.26 0.03
CV(1-10) 0.16 0.18 0.32 0.08 0.32 0.08 0.02 0.21 0.41
CV(11-20) 0.00 0.25 0.40 0.23 0.35 0.16 0.09 0.07 0.28 0.18
CV(21-30) 0.08 0.36 0.34 0.11 0.39 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.75 0.03
152
Table A-IX Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Pirsabak Distributary.
1 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.2

2 1.3 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.7 2.2
3 1.3 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.9
4 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.7 1.9
5 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.9
6 1.9 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.0
7 2.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9
8 1.9 1.5 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.9
9 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.9
10 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
11 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.8
12 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.9
13 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.5
14 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
15 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.7
16 1.1 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.6 2.1 1.8
17 1.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.9
18 1.9 1.4 2.2 1.6 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.9
19 1.9 1.4 2.2 1.6 1.3 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.7
20 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9
21 1.9 1.1 2.2 1.9 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.6
22 1.4 1.1 2.2 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.7 2.2 1.7 1.8
23 1.2 1.0 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.8
24 1.2 1.0 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7
25 1.2 1.1 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
26 1.2 1.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.8
27 1.2 1.6 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.8
28 1.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.8
29 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8
30 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.6 2.0 1.7 2.2
31 1.2 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7
153
Table A-X Statistical analysis of discharges of Pirsabak Distributary.
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max
1.87 2.18 2.31 2.12 2.38 2.06 1.99 2.18 2.25 2.18
Min
1.19 1.04 1.35 1.58 1.25 1.58 1.25 1.46 1.19 1.46
Average
1.42 1.50 2.00 1.89 1.94 1.82 1.73 1.76 1.76 1.85
Ave(1-10)
1.62 1.77 1.96 2.03 1.81 1.64 1.76 1.76 1.96
Ave(11-20)
1.87 1.46 2.09 1.84 1.87 1.85 1.80 1.67 1.68 1.77
Ave(21-30)
1.25 1.47 2.11 1.85 2.00 1.81 1.77 1.87 1.82 1.81
Std(1-10)
0.31 0.32 0.14 0.30 0.16 0.19 0.16 0.08 0.13
Std(11-20)
0.00 0.25 0.20 0.17 0.29 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.36 0.15
Std(21-30)
0.19 0.45 0.09 0.10 0.26 0.11 0.12 0.19 0.17 0.13
CV(1-10)
0.19 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.06
CV(11-20)
0.00 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.22 0.09
CV(21-30)
0.15 0.31 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.07
154
Table A-XI Daily observed discharges (m3s-1) at Chowki Distributary.
1 1.7 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.7 1.9 2.4 2.1 2.4

2 1.4 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.4
3 1.4 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.6 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.2
4 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.4 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.2
5 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.1
6 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4
7 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.3
8 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.4 2.0 2.3 2.3
9 1.8 1.8 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.4
10 1.8 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.2
11 1.7 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.4 1.6 2.2
12 1.8 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.1 1.9 1.6 2.4
13 1.9 2.7 2.3 2.3 1.6 2.4 2.4 1.6 2.5
14 1.3 2.8 2.5 2.5 1.6 2.4 1.9 2.4 2.4
15 1.6 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.4
16 1.2 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.4
17 1.2 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4
18 1.5 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4
19 1.5 1.4 2.7 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4
20 1.5 1.6 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.2
21 1.5 1.2 2.6 2.5 1.8 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.3
22 1.5 1.2 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5
23 1.5 1.0 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4
24 1.5 1.0 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4
25 1.4 1.2 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4
26 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3
27 1.4 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.3
28 1.4 2.9 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.1
29 1.7 3.0 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2
30 1.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.4
31 1.2 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5
155
Table A-XII Statistical analysis of discharges of Chowki Distributary.
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Max 1.7 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5
Min 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.6 2.1
Average 1.5 1.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3
Ave(1-10) 1.87 2.53 2.54 2.60 2.53 2.19 2.29 2.30 2.29
Ave(11-20) 1.55 1.54 2.60 2.41 2.35 2.25 2.30 2.19 2.09 2.36
Ave(21-30) 1.42 1.86 2.54 2.40 2.58 2.30 2.27 2.37 2.31 2.51
Std(1-10) 0.33 0.39 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.09 0.11
Std(11-20) 0.00 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.36 0.12 0.15 0.37 0.09
Std(21-30) 0.14 0.86 0.14 0.12 0.27 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.15
CV(1-10) 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.05
CV(11-20) 0.17 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.18 0.04
CV(21-30) 0.10 0.46 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06
156
Table A-XIII Crop production estimate for Wheat, Sugarcane and Tobacco per ha.*
Wheat Sugarcane Tobacco
Input
Rs.Price/ Rs.Price/ Rs.Price/
Unit Quntity Amount Unit Quntity Amount Unit Quntity Amount
Unit Unit Unit
Seed Kg 65 16 1053 Kg 5000 4 20000 Kg Free
Fertilizer Kg 427 15 6456 Kg 511 20 10220 Kg 643 19 12066
FYM Kg 2470 2.00 4940 Kg 1440 2 2880 Kg 6335 1.4 8552
Pesticide Kg 0.2 270 54 Kg 0.2 270 54 Kg 3.5 1350 4725
ISF (Abiana) ha 1 459 459 ha 1 3084 3084 ha 1 814 814
Curing Kg 1687 8 13496
Total Cost Rs 12962 Rs 36238 Rs 26157
Output (Yield) Kg 3500 14 47250 Kg 40000 2.50 100000 Kg 1687 45 75915
Straw* Rs. * Lumpsum 12500 Rs. Rs.
Total Income Rs. 42500 59750 Rs. 100000 Rs. 75915
Net Income Rs. 46788 Rs. 63762 Rs. 49758
* This is an estimate obtained from an informed and experienced grower.
Table A- XIV Crop production estimate for Maize, Alfalfa and Sugar beet per ha.*
Maize Alfalfa Sugar beet
Input
Rs.Price/U Rs.Price/ Rs.Price/
Unit Quntity Amount Unit Quntity Amount Unit Quntity Amount
nit Unit Unit
Seed Kg 100 16 1620 Kg 25 108 2700 Kg 6 452 2712
Fertilizer Kg 333 15 5035 Kg 348 11 3899 Kg 580 15 8700
FYM Kg 2838 1.4 3831 Kg 606 1.4 818 Kg 3590 1.5 5385
Pesticide Kg 0.1 270 27 Kg 0 0 0 Kg 0.1 27 2.7
ISF (Abiana) ha 1 459 459 ha 1 340 340 ha 1 1000 1000
Curing
Total Cost Rs 10972 Rs 7757 Rs 17799
Output (Yield) Kg 1700 11 18700 Kg 4794 22239 Kg 44778 1.2 53733
Straw* Rs. * Lumpsum 6000 Rs. Rs.
Total Income Rs. 24700 Rs. 22239 Rs. 53733
Net Income Rs. 13728 Rs. 14482 Rs. 35934
* This is an estimate obtained from an informed and experienced grower.
157
Appendix-B
Table B-I Design Full Supply Level (FSL) at different offtakes.

Bed FSL
RD CCA qd B H CL q
No Side Type Structure 3 -1 Level Design 3 -1 DPR
(m) (ac) (m s ) (m) (m) (m) ms
(m) (m)
P P P P P P
P P
1 260 L OF 127 0.04 0.11 0.60 354.77 355.04 355.64 0.04 0.99
2 309 R OF 325 0.09 0.08 0.78 354.77 354.86 355.64 0.08 0.91
3 819 L D BIF 417 0.12 0.20 0.82 352.23 352.33 353.15 0.12 1.00
4 987 L D BIF 640 0.18 0.32 0.79 349.73 349.83 350.62 0.18 0.97
5 1867 L OF 191 0.05 0.06 0.47 335.01 335.08 335.55 0.03 0.57
6 1877 R OF 333 0.09 0.09 0.45 335.00 335.08 335.53 0.05 0.48
7 2063 R OF 135 0.04 0.06 0.53 332.64 332.72 333.25 0.04 0.97
8 2795 L D BIF 320 0.09 0.20 0.71 325.52 325.62 326.33 0.09 1.03
Chowki
9 2795 R S 2769 0.78 0.65 0.71 325.52 325.62 326.33 0.77 0.98
I
10 2970 R OF 285 0.08 0.09 0.68 323.73 323.80 324.48 0.08 0.97
11 4289 L S TRI 411 0.12 0.21 0.58 323.22 323.37 323.95 0.18 1.55
12 4289 R S TRI 367 0.10 0.17 0.58 323.22 323.37 323.95 0.15 1.46
13 5510 R OF 181 0.05 0.06 0.63 322.62 322.69 323.32 0.05 0.97
14 5930 L S TRI 481 0.14 0.20 0.50 322.47 322.65 323.15 0.14 1.01
Chowki
15 6185 L S II 1672 0.47 0.78 0.45 321.27 321.54 321.99 0.47 0.99
(TRIF)
16 6185 R S BIF 491 0.14 0.23 0.45 321.27 321.54 321.99 0.14 0.99
17 6890 L OF 38 0.01 0.07 0.39 316.71 316.76 317.15 0.01 1.08
18 7622 L S BIF 370 0.10 0.53 0.23 310.68 310.95 311.18 0.12 1.10
19 7622 R S BIF 258 0.07 0.38 0.23 310.68 310.95 311.18 0.08 1.14
1 1060 L TRI 716 0.20 0.52 0.34 314.89 315.31 315.65 0.20 1.01
2 1060 R TRI 340 0.10 0.25 0.34 314.89 315.31 315.65 0.10 1.02
3 1060 L TRI 227 0.06 0.16 0.34 314.89 315.31 315.65 0.06 0.98
4 2430 L S BIF 832 0.24 0.57 0.35 306.09 306.37 306.72 0.23 0.99
5 2430 C S BIF 654 0.19 0.45 0.35 306.09 306.37 306.72 0.18 1.00
1 919 L S TRI 416 0.12 0.30 0.34 318.09 318.26 318.6 0.12 1.00
2 945 L S TRI 457 0.13 0.33 0.34 318.09 318.26 318.6 0.13 1.00
3 1825 BF S BIF 697 0.20 1.31 0.18 311.02 311.35 311.53 0.20 1.00
4 1829 BF S BIF 104 0.03 0.19 0.18 311.02 311.35 311.53 0.03 1.00
158
Table B-II Simulated Water Level at 110,100 and 90 percent of Design Discharges.
110% Qd 100% Qd 90% Qd
RD Water Water Water

No Structure q q q
(m) Level 3 -1 DPR Level 3 -1 DPR Level DPR
ms ms m3s-1
(m) (m) (m)
P P P P P P P P P P P P
1 260 OF 355.729 0.039 1.073 355.671 0.037 1.017 355.611 0.034 0.957
2 309 OF 355.705 0.094 1.026 355.647 0.085 0.922 355.586 0.075 0.817
3 819 BIF 353.199 0.128 1.086 353.145 0.117 0.987 353.089 0.105 0.887
4 987 BIF 350.675 0.194 1.069 350.626 0.177 0.977 350.576 0.161 0.887
5 1867 OF 335.833 0.063 1.160 335.791 0.058 1.064 335.747 0.052 0.967
6 1877 OF 335.817 0.095 1.009 335.774 0.087 0.922 335.730 0.079 0.836
7 2063 OF 333.444 0.059 1.547 333.401 0.054 1.411 333.357 0.049 1.277
8 2795 BIF 326.446 0.117 1.292 326.404 0.108 1.195 326.360 0.099 1.096
Chowki
9 2795 326.446 0.966 1.232 326.404 0.893 1.139 326.360 0.819 1.045
I
10 2970 OF 324.524 0.086 1.062 324.491 0.080 0.991 324.455 0.074 0.914
11 4289 TRI 323.926 0.169 1.453 323.893 0.154 1.325 323.859 0.139 1.198
12 4289 TRI 323.926 0.143 1.374 323.893 0.130 1.254 323.859 0.118 1.133
13 5510 OF 323.362 0.055 1.066 323.334 0.051 1.000 323.304 0.048 0.931
14 5930 TRI 323.160 0.141 1.038 323.135 0.131 0.962 323.108 0.120 0.883
Chowki
15 6185 II 322.052 0.569 1.201 322.026 0.526 1.111 322.000 0.484 1.023
(TRIF)
16 6185 BIF 322.052 0.167 1.200 322.026 0.154 1.110 322.000 0.142 1.022
17 6890 OF 317.145 0.012 1.071 317.130 0.011 1.045 317.113 0.011 1.015
18 7622 BIF 311.141 0.087 0.834 311.127 0.078 0.744 311.113 0.069 0.658
19 7622 BIF 311.141 0.063 0.866 311.127 0.056 0.773 311.113 0.050 0.683
1 1060 TRI 315.645 0.200 0.985 315.628 0.185 0.911 315.610 0.169 0.834
2 1060 TRI 315.645 0.096 0.997 315.628 0.089 0.922 315.610 0.081 0.845
3 1060 TRI 315.645 0.061 0.955 315.628 0.057 0.884 315.610 0.052 0.810
4 2430 BIF 306.714 0.228 0.966 306.689 0.203 0.863 306.663 0.179 0.760
5 2430 BIF 306.714 0.180 0.971 306.689 0.161 0.867 306.663 0.141 0.763
1 919 TRI 318.598 0.117 0.991 318.581 0.108 0.917 318.563 0.099 0.841
2 945 TRI 318.598 0.128 0.991 318.581 0.119 0.917 318.563 0.109 0.841
3 1825 BIF 311.598 0.319 1.617 311.588 0.300 1.520 311.578 0.282 1.426
4 1829 BIF 311.598 0.047 1.617 311.588 0.045 1.520 311.578 0.042 1.426
159
Table B-III Simulated Water Level at 80, 70 and 65 percent of Design Discharges.
80% Qd 70% Qd 65% Qd
RD Water Water Water

No Structure q q q
(m) Level 3 -1 DPR Level 3 -1 DPR Level 3 -1 DPR
ms ms ms
(m) (m) (m)
P P P P P P
P P P P P P
1 260 OF 355.552 0.032 0.894 355.487 0.029 0.818 355.468 0.029 0.795
2 309 OF 355.526 0.066 0.718 355.460 0.057 0.614 355.441 0.054 0.585
3 819 BIF 353.033 0.093 0.790 352.972 0.081 0.690 352.955 0.078 0.663
4 987 BIF 350.524 0.144 0.796 350.468 0.127 0.701 350.451 0.122 0.673
5 1867 OF 335.703 0.047 0.873 335.645 0.041 0.754 335.639 0.040 0.742
6 1877 OF 335.684 0.071 0.749 335.634 0.062 0.658 335.619 0.060 0.631
7 2063 OF 333.311 0.044 1.141 333.261 0.038 0.999 333.245 0.037 0.955
8 2795 BIF 326.315 0.090 0.997 326.265 0.081 0.892 326.250 0.078 0.861
Chowki
9 2795 326.315 0.746 0.951 326.265 0.667 0.850 326.250 0.644 0.821
I
10 2970 OF 324.418 0.068 0.838 324.377 0.061 0.756 324.364 0.059 0.730
11 4289 TRI 323.824 0.125 1.072 323.785 0.109 0.937 323.774 0.105 0.900
12 4289 TRI 323.824 0.105 1.014 323.785 0.092 0.886 323.774 0.088 0.851
13 5510 OF 323.274 0.044 0.864 323.239 0.040 0.787 323.229 0.039 0.766
14 5930 TRI 323.082 0.110 0.809 323.052 0.099 0.726 323.044 0.096 0.705
Chowki
15 6185 II 321.972 0.441 0.931 321.943 0.397 0.839 321.934 0.384 0.811
(TRIF)
16 6185 BIF 321.972 0.129 0.930 321.943 0.117 0.838 321.934 0.113 0.810
17 6890 OF 317.095 0.011 0.982 317.076 0.010 0.946 317.070 0.010 0.935
18 7622 BIF 311.098 0.060 0.569 311.083 0.051 0.485 311.079 0.049 0.463
19 7622 BIF 311.098 0.043 0.591 311.083 0.037 0.503 311.079 0.035 0.481
1 1060 TRI 315.592 0.154 0.760 315.572 0.138 0.681 315.566 0.133 0.658
2 1060 TRI 315.592 0.074 0.770 315.572 0.066 0.689 315.566 0.064 0.666
3 1060 TRI 315.592 0.047 0.738 315.572 0.042 0.661 315.566 0.041 0.638
4 2430 BIF 306.631 0.150 0.639 306.610 0.133 0.563 306.596 0.121 0.515
5 2430 BIF 306.631 0.119 0.641 306.610 0.105 0.566 306.596 0.096 0.517
1 919 TRI 318.545 0.090 0.767 318.526 0.081 0.692 318.520 0.079 0.669
2 945 TRI 318.545 0.099 0.767 318.526 0.090 0.692 318.520 0.087 0.669
3 1825 BIF 311.566 0.260 1.315 311.553 0.237 1.198 311.549 0.230 1.162
4 1829 BIF 311.566 0.039 1.315 311.553 0.035 1.198 311.549 0.034 1.162
160
Table B-IV Simulated Water Level at 60 Design Discharges.
60% Qd
RD
No Structure Water
(m) q
Level 3 -1 DPR
ms
(m)
P P P P
1 260 OF 355.420 0.026 0.732

2 309 OF 355.392 0.047 0.513
3 819 BIF 352.909 0.070 0.591
4 987 BIF 350.409 0.110 0.606
5 1867 OF 335.579 0.034 0.626
6 1877 OF 335.579 0.053 0.562
7 2063 OF 333.206 0.033 0.851
8 2795 BIF 326.211 0.071 0.782
Chowki
9 2795 326.211 0.585 0.746
I
10 2970 OF 324.331 0.054 0.667
11 4289 TRI 323.743 0.093 0.798
12 4289 TRI 323.743 0.078 0.755
13 5510 OF 323.202 0.036 0.709
14 5930 TRI 323.021 0.088 0.644
Chowki II
15 6185 321.911 0.351 0.741
(TRIF)
16 6185 BIF 321.911 0.103 0.740
17 6890 OF 317.055 0.010 0.905
18 7622 BIF 311.068 0.042 0.405
19 7622 BIF 311.068 0.031 0.421
1 1060 TRI 315.550 0.121 0.597
2 1060 TRI 315.550 0.058 0.604
3 1060 TRI 315.550 0.037 0.579
4 2430 BIF 306.581 0.109 0.464
5 2430 BIF 306.581 0.086 0.466
1 919 TRI 318.505 0.072 0.612
2 945 TRI 318.505 0.079 0.612
3 1825 BIF 311.539 0.212 1.076
4 1829 BIF 311.539 0.032 1.076
161
Appendix-C
Table C-I Profile Survey of Chowki Distributary.
Side Bed Longitudi

RD Bed level Manning Bank
Profile Type Slope Width nal
(m) (m) (n) Level (m)
(1:m) (m) Slope
Rectangular
0 354.93 0.016 0.00 3.50 0.0004 356.35
lined
Rectangular
12 354.93 0.016 0.00 3.50 0.0004 356.35
lined
Rectangular
20 354.92 0.016 0.00 3.50 0.0004 356.35
lined
20 354.85 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.17
50 354.83 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.16
100 354.81 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.14
150 354.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.12
200 354.77 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
250 354.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
260 354.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
260 354.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
320 354.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
320 354.74 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
330 354.74 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 3.00 0.0004 356.10
330 353.48 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.80
350 353.46 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.79
400 353.43 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.76
450 353.40 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.73
500 353.37 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.70
550 353.34 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.69
600 353.31 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.69
600 353.31 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0006 354.69
600 352.43 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.64
650 352.38 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
700 352.33 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
750 352.28 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
800 352.23 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
819 352.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
819 352.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
819 352.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.59
162
Table C-I (Continued)
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
819 352.02 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.31
850 351.99 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.31
885 351.96 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 353.31
885 349.81 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
895 349.80 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
900 349.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
950 349.74 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
987 349.71 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
987 349.71 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
987 349.71 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 351.07
987 349.53 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 350.87
1000 349.52 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 350.87
1015 349.50 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 350.87
Overlay on
1015 347.15 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
Overlay on
1050 347.12 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
Overlay on
1100 347.07 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
Overlay on
1150 347.02 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
Overlay on
1160 347.01 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 348.33
pitching
1160 344.66 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.83
1200 344.62 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.82
1250 344.57 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.82
1300 344.52 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.82
1310 344.51 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 345.82
1310 342.11 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1336 342.08 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1350 342.07 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1400 342.02 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1412 342.01 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 343.33
1412 339.61 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0008 340.83
1450 339.58 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0008 340.82
1500 339.54 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0008 340.82
1535 339.52 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0008 340.82
1535 337.56 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.73
1550 337.54 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.71
1600 337.49 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
163
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
1650 337.44 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
1700 337.39 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
1725 337.37 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
1750 337.34 Trap lining 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 338.66
Overlay on
1750 334.34 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.51
pitching
Overlay on
1800 334.29 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1850 334.24 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1900 334.19 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1910 334.18 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1910 334.18 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1920 334.19 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1920 334.18 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1930 334.19 0.016 1.00 2.30 0.0010 335.47
pitching
Overlay on
1930 332.23 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.43
pitching
Overlay on
1950 332.21 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.41
pitching
Overlay on
1960 332.20 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.40
pitching
Overlay on
2000 332.16 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.36
pitching
Overlay on
2050 332.11 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.31
pitching
Overlay on
2100 332.06 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.26
pitching
Overlay on
2110 332.05 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.25
pitching
Overlay on
2110 332.05 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.25
pitching
Overlay on
2120 332.05 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.24
pitching
Overlay on
2120 331.85 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.14
pitching
164
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
2130 331.84 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0010 333.14
pitching
Overlay on
2130 329.98 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.28
pitching
Overlay on
2150 329.97 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.27
pitching
Overlay on
2200 329.94 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.24
pitching
Overlay on
2250 329.91 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.21
pitching
Overlay on
2300 329.88 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.19
pitching
Overlay on
2310 329.87 0.016 1.00 1.95 0.0006 331.19
pitching
Overlay on
2310 328.26 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.57
pitching
Overlay on
2350 328.24 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.55
pitching
Overlay on
2400 328.21 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.52
pitching
Overlay on
2450 328.18 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.49
pitching
Overlay on
2500 328.15 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.46
pitching
Overlay on
2550 328.12 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.43
pitching
Overlay on
2575 328.10 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0006 329.43
pitching
Overlay on
2575 325.41 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2600 325.39 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2650 325.34 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2700 325.29 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2750 325.24 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2800 325.19 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2800 325.19 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2800 325.19 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
165
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
2810 325.18 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2810 325.18 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2810 325.18 0.016 1.00 1.90 0.0010 326.62
pitching
Overlay on
2810 324.10 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.38
pitching
Overlay on
2821 324.15 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.38
pitching
Overlay on
2821 324.15 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.38
pitching
Overlay on
2850 324.14 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.36
pitching
Overlay on
2900 324.12 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.34
pitching
Overlay on
2950 324.10 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.32
pitching
Overlay on
2970 324.09 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.32
pitching
Overlay on
2970 324.09 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.32
pitching
Overlay on
2980 324.09 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.31
pitching
Overlay on
2990 324.10 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.31
pitching
Overlay on
3000 324.10 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.30
pitching
Overlay on
3009 324.09 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.30
pitching
Overlay on
3030 324.08 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.29
pitching
Overlay on
3050 324.08 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.28
pitching
Overlay on
3070 324.07 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.28
pitching
Overlay on
3100 324.06 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.26
pitching
Overlay on
3150 324.04 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.24
pitching
Overlay on
3200 324.02 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.22
pitching
Overlay on
3230 324.00 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.21
pitching
Overlay on
3250 324.00 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.20
pitching
Overlay on
3300 323.98 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.18
pitching
166
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
3350 323.96 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.16
pitching
Overlay on
3400 323.94 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.14
pitching
Overlay on
3450 323.92 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.12
pitching
Overlay on
3500 323.90 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.10
pitching
Overlay on
3550 323.88 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.08
pitching
Overlay on
3600 323.86 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.06
pitching
Overlay on
3650 323.84 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.04
pitching
Overlay on
3700 323.82 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.02
pitching
Overlay on
3750 323.80 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 325.00
pitching
Overlay on
3800 323.78 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.98
pitching
Overlay on
3815 323.77 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.98
pitching
Overlay on
3816 323.77 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.98
pitching
Overlay on
3850 323.76 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.96
pitching
Overlay on
3897 323.74 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.95
pitching
Overlay on
3900 323.74 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.94
pitching
Overlay on
3950 323.72 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.92
pitching
Overlay on
4000 323.70 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.90
pitching
Overlay on
4018 323.69 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.90
pitching
Overlay on
4050 323.68 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.88
pitching
Overlay on
4100 323.66 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.86
pitching
Overlay on
4150 323.64 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.84
pitching
Overlay on
4200 323.62 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4250 323.60 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4290 323.58 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
167
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
4296 323.58 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4296 323.58 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4296 323.58 0.016 1.00 1.80 0.0004 324.83
pitching
Overlay on
4296 323.37 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.59
pitching
Overlay on
4297 323.40 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.59
pitching
Overlay on
4300 323.40 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.58
pitching
Overlay on
4350 323.38 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.56
pitching
Overlay on
4400 323.36 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.54
pitching
Overlay on
4450 323.34 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.52
pitching
Overlay on
4500 323.32 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.50
pitching
Overlay on
4550 323.30 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.48
pitching
Overlay on
4570 323.29 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.48
pitching
Overlay on
4600 323.28 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.46
pitching
Overlay on
4650 323.26 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.44
pitching
Overlay on
4700 323.24 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.42
pitching
Overlay on
4750 323.22 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.40
pitching
Overlay on
4800 323.20 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.38
pitching
Overlay on
4850 323.18 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.36
pitching
Overlay on
4900 323.16 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.34
pitching
Overlay on
4950 323.14 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.32
pitching
Overlay on
5000 323.12 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.30
pitching
Overlay on
5050 323.10 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.28
pitching
168
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
5100 323.08 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.26
pitching
Overlay on
5150 323.06 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.24
pitching
Overlay on
5200 323.04 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.22
pitching
Overlay on
5232 323.02 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.21
pitching
Overlay on
5250 323.02 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.20
pitching
Overlay on
5300 323.00 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.18
pitching
Overlay on
5350 322.98 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.16
pitching
Overlay on
5400 322.96 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.14
pitching
Overlay on
5450 322.94 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.12
pitching
Overlay on
5500 322.92 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.10
pitching
Overlay on
5510 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.10
pitching
Overlay on
5510 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.10
pitching
Overlay on
5520 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.10
pitching
Overlay on
5530 322.92 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.09
pitching
Overlay on
5540 322.92 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.09
pitching
Overlay on
5550 322.92 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.08
pitching
Overlay on
5560 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.08
pitching
Overlay on
5575 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.07
pitching
Overlay on
5576 322.91 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.07
pitching
Overlay on
5600 322.90 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.06
pitching
Overlay on
5650 322.88 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.04
pitching
Overlay on
5695 322.86 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.03
pitching
169
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
Overlay on
5700 322.86 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.02
pitching
Overlay on
5750 322.84 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5800 322.82 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5850 322.80 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5855 322.79 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5900 322.78 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5930 322.76 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5930 322.76 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0004 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5930 322.76 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 324.00
pitching
Overlay on
5930 322.75 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 323.82
pitching
Overlay on
5935 322.74 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 323.82
pitching
Overlay on
5935 321.44 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.43
pitching
Overlay on
5950 321.43 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.41
pitching
Overlay on
5998 321.38 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.36
pitching
Overlay on
6000 321.38 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.36
pitching
Overlay on
6013 321.37 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.35
pitching
Overlay on
6030 321.35 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.33
pitching
Overlay on
6050 321.33 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.31
pitching
Overlay on
6100 321.28 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.26
pitching
Overlay on
6150 321.23 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.25
pitching
Overlay on
6175 321.20 0.016 1.00 1.60 0.0010 322.25
pitching
170
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 322.25
6175 320.96
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 322.25
6185 320.95
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 322.25
6185 320.95
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 322.25
6185 320.95
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 321.93
6185 320.74
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.61 0.0010 321.91
6200 320.95
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.86
6250 320.83
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.81
6300 320.78
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.76
6350 320.73
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.75
6400 320.68
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.75
6450 320.63
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 321.75
6500 320.58
lining
Raise top of 0.016 1.00 0.40 0.0010 320.31
6500 319.28
lining
6510 319.34 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.71
6520 319.24 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.61
6520 319.24 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.61
6530 319.13 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.51
6530 319.13 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.51
6545 318.98 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.35
6545 318.98 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.35
6560 318.83 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.20
6560 318.83 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.20
6575 318.67 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.05
6575 318.67 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 319.05
6590 318.52 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.89
6590 318.52 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.89
171
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
6605 318.37 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.74
6605 318.37 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.74
6620 318.22 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.59
6620 318.22 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.59
6635 318.06 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.43
6635 318.06 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.43
6650 317.91 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.28
6650 317.91 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.28
6665 317.76 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.13
6665 317.76 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 318.13
6680 317.60 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.98
6680 317.60 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.98
6695 317.45 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.82
6695 317.45 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.82
6710 317.30 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.67
6710 317.30 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.67
6725 317.14 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.52
6725 317.14 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.52
6740 316.99 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.36
6740 316.99 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.36
6755 316.84 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.21
6755 316.84 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.21
6770 316.69 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.06
6770 316.69 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 317.06
6785 316.53 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.90
6785 316.53 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.90
6800 316.38 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.75
6800 316.38 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.75
6815 316.23 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.60
6815 316.23 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.60
6830 316.07 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.45
6830 316.07 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.45
172
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
6845 315.92 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.29
6845 315.92 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.29
6860 315.77 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.14
6860 315.77 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 316.14
6875 315.61 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.99
6875 315.61 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.99
6890 315.46 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.83
6890 315.46 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.83
6905 315.31 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.68
6905 315.31 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.68
6920 315.16 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.53
6920 315.16 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.53
6935 315.00 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.37
6935 315.00 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.37
6950 314.85 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.22
6950 314.85 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.22
6965 314.70 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.07
6965 314.70 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 315.07
6980 314.54 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.92
6980 314.54 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.92
6995 314.39 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.76
6995 314.39 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.76
7010 314.24 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.61
7010 314.24 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.61
7025 314.08 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.46
7025 314.08 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.46
7040 313.93 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.30
7040 313.93 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.30
7055 313.78 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.15
7055 313.78 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.15
7070 313.63 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.00
7070 313.63 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 314.00
7085 313.47 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 313.84
173
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
7085 313.47 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 313.84
7100 313.32 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0102 313.69
7100 313.31 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.69
7115 313.17 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.56
7115 313.17 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.56
7130 313.04 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.42
7130 313.04 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.42
7145 312.90 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.29
7145 312.90 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.29
7160 312.77 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.15
7160 312.77 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.15
7175 312.63 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.02
7175 312.63 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 313.02
7190 312.50 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.88
7190 312.50 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.88
7205 312.36 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.75
7205 312.36 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.75
7220 312.23 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.61
7220 312.23 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.61
7235 312.09 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.48
7235 312.09 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.48
7250 311.96 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.34
7250 311.96 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.34
7265 311.82 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.21
7265 311.82 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.21
7280 311.69 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.07
7280 311.69 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 312.07
7295 311.55 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.94
7295 311.55 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.94
7310 311.42 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.80
7310 311.42 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.80
174
Side Bed Longitudi
(1:m) (m) Slope
7325 311.28 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.67
7325 311.28 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.67
7340 311.15 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.53
7340 311.15 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.53
7355 311.01 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.40
7355 311.01 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.40
7370 310.88 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.26
7370 310.88 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.26
7385 310.74 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.14
7385 310.74 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.14
7400 310.61 Parabolic type 3 0.014 0.53 0.76 0.0090 311.14
7400 310.23 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 310.79
7580 310.07 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 310.70
7580 310.07 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 310.70
7580 310.07 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 310.70
7580 309.56 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.0009 309.93
175
Table C-II Profile Survey of Chowki Minor-I.
Side Bed
Bedlevel Manning Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Slope Width
(m) (n) Slope
(1:m) (m)
Trifurcator
0 324.15 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
Chowki Disty
10 Watercrossing 324.14 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
20 Step Drop 324.13 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
50 323.65 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
150 322.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
190 Footbridge 322.36 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
250 321.80 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
176
Table C-II (Continued)
Bed Side Bed
Manning Longitudinal
RD Structures level Profile Type Slope Width
(n) Slope
(m) (1:m) (m)
350 320.90 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
450 319.90 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
510 VR Bridge 319.24 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
530 319.02 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
550 318.80 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
177
Bed
Bed level Manning Side Longitudinal
RD Structures Profile Type Width
(m) (n) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
650 317.95 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
750 317.00 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
810 316.49 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
850 Wooden bridge 316.10 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
178
Bed
(m)
950 315.20 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
960 Fall 315.19 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
960 Fall 314.99 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1000 314.95 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1040 314.91 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1050 314.90 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1060 Trifurcator 314.89 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1080 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1080 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1080 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1080 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1090 Fall 314.88 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1090 Fall 314.08 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.75 0.001
1090 313.89 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1100 Pipe Culvert 313.88 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1130 Step drop 313.85 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1200 312.98 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
179
Bed
(m)
1300 312.03 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1340 Footbridge 311.59 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1400 310.93 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1420 Watercrossing 310.71 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
1500 310.42 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1600 310.22 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1650 310.12 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1750 309.77 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1850 309.42 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
180
Bed
(m)
1850 309.42 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
1910 VR Bridge 309.15 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2200 307.42 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2250 307.17 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.002
2350 306.32 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2400 306.12 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2430 Bifurcator 306.09 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
2440 306.10 Parabolic type 5 0.014 0.69 1.14 0.001
181
Table C-III Profile Survey of Chowki Minor-II
Bed Side Bed
Manning Longitudinal
RD Structures level Profile Type Slope Width
(m) Slope
(m) (1:m) (m)
0 Trifurcator 321.10 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
25 321.08 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
50 321.07 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
100 321.05 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
150 321.02 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
200 321.00 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
250 320.97 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
300 320.95 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
330 Fall 320.93 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0005
330 Fall 319.84 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
350 319.83 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
400 319.79 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
430 Footbridge 319.76 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
450 319.75 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
480 Footbridge 319.72 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
500 319.71 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
550 319.67 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
558 Fall 319.66 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 1 0.0008
558 Fall 318.30 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
570 Pvt. Bridge 318.29 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
600 318.27 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
650 318.24 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
700 318.21 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
750 318.18 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
800 318.15 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
850 318.12 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
880 Pvt. Bridge 318.11 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
900 318.09 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.0006
930 Outlet(L) 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
930 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
182
Table C-III (Continued)
Bed
(m) (m) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
930 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
930 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
940 Fall 317.87 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.9 0.001
940 Fall 316.31 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.6 0.001
940 316.31 Trap lining 0.016 1.0 0.6 0.001
950 316.20 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
960 315.98 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
980 315.79 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1000 315.55 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1010 315.33 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1030 315.09 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1050 314.85 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1065 314.62 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1080 314.39 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1100 314.15 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1110 313.93 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1130 313.69 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1150 313.45 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1170 313.41 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1185 313.18 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1205 312.94 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
183
Table C-III (Continued)
Bed
(m) (m) Slope (1:m) Slope
(m)
1220 312.71 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1250 312.45 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1270 312.21 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1300 311.95 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.002
1320 311.89 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1320 311.89 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1410 311.76 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1410 311.76 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1440 Pvt. Bridge 311.71 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1450 311.70 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1450 311.70 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1490 311.64 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1490 311.64 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1500 311.62 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1530 311.58 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1530 311.58 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1550 311.55 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1580 Fall 311.50 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.0015
1580 Fall 311.26 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1600 311.24 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1650 311.19 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1700 311.14 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1750 Escape 311.09 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1800 311.04 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
1825 Bifurcator 311.02 Parabolic type 4 0.014 0.6 0.92 0.001
184
Appendix-D
D-1 Derivation of relation between t-statistics, RMSE and MBE
∑d
1
d = i
...........................................................................................(D-1)
n
Where d the sample is mean defined as the value obtained by dividing
the sum of all observation by the total numbers of observation.
Standard deviation (Sd) is the positive square root of the variation;

symbolically
Sd =
∑ (d i
− d )2
...............................................................................(D-2)
n −1
If n. the sample size is small < 30, and σ2 is replaced with unbiased
estimate S2 , the statistic is defined as student-t distribution.
0.5
⎡ ⎛ di ⎞ ⎤
2
∑ ⎛⎜⎝ n ⎞⎟⎠
di
⎢ ∑ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎝n⎠ ⎦
= n −1* ⎣
d
t= = ....(D-3)
Sd
∑ (d − d ) * ∑ (d )
2 2
i 1 i
−d
n
n −1 n n
0.5
⎛1 ⎞
Root mean square error = RMS = ⎜
⎝n
∑ d ⎟
⎠
i
2
..................(D-4)
(RMS )2 = ⎛⎜ 1 d i2 ⎞⎟ ∑
⎝n ⎠
⎛1 ⎞
∑ d ⎟⎠ ..........................................(D-5)
n
Mean bias error = MBE = ⎜

⎝n
i
i =1
185
⎛ ∑d2 ⎞ ⎛ ∑d ⎞
2
S =⎜
2 ⎟−⎜ ⎟
⎜ n ⎟ ⎜ n ⎟ ..................................................................(D-6)
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
S 2 = (RMSE ) − (MBE ) 2 ................................................(D-7)

2
0.5
d ⎛ (n − 1)(MBE) 2 ⎞
t= = ⎜⎜ ⎟
2 ⎟
Sd ⎝ ( RMSE) 2
− ( MBE) ⎠
n
186
APPENDIX – E
E-1 Diagramme and Description of the Crump weir.
E-1 Diagrammatic illustration of the Crump weir.
The Crump’s weir act as short crested weir, where ⎛⎜ H 1 ⎞⎟ > 0 . 50 , where H1 is
⎝ L ⎠
total upstream energy head over the crest (Bos, 1989 § P: 40). Because the
influence of the stream line curvature become significant, and the structure acts
as a short crested weir. For the practical purpose, a short crested weir with
rectangular control section has head discharge (m3s-1) following head
discharge equation, where h1 upstream head (m) over the crest (Bos, 1989 § P:
180-184).
⎡2 0.5 ⎤
Q = ⎢ ∗ (2 g ) ⎥ ∗ (C d * C v ) ∗ ( Bc ∗ h1 ) .......................................................... (E-1)
1.5
⎣ 3 ⎦
187
The simplified head discharge equation for determination of discharge of
Crump’s weir is as follow
Q = 1.98 ∗ Bc ∗ h1 ........................................................................................... (E-2)

1.5
Limits of Application
Over the selected range of the ratio, being, ⎛⎜ h1 ⎞⎟ < 3 , the discharge
⎝ p1 ⎠
coefficient is a function of the dimensionless ratio ⎛⎜ h1 ⎞⎟ . Where p1 is
⎝ p1 ⎠
height of crest above approach channel bed.
The height of the weir crest should not be less than 0.06 m above the
approach channel bottom (p1< 0.06 m).
To reduce the influence of boundary layer effects at the sides of the
weir, the breadth of the weir be should not be less than 0.30 m and the
ratio ⎛⎜ c ⎞⎟ should not be less than 2.0; Where H is total energy head
B
⎝ H⎠
(m) above crest.
It comprises a weir with a 1:2 sloping upstream glacis and 1:5 slopes
facing on downstream. The slope has advantage, that the location of
hydraulic jump is more stable allowing a fairly high and constant
modular limit ⎛⎜ H 2 ⎞⎟ of between 0.73 and 0.77. Where H1 and H2 total

⎜ H ⎟
⎝ 1⎠
energy head at upstream and downstream head over crest.
188
E-2 Detail Drawing of Single Bifurcators.
Fig. E-2 Detail drawing of single bifurcators.
Fig. E-3 Section at A-A of Crump’s weir in irrigation network.
189
E-4 Field test of selected Crump weir.
Description RD unit 5930 6185 7622 1048 919
Water Level El.B FSL m 323.15 321.99 311.16 306.73 311.53

Upstream Bed u/s Bed
El.C m 322.47 321.27 310.68 306.09 311.02
Level Level
Crest Level El.F Crest m 322.65 321.54 310.95 306.37 311.35
El.I d/s W.L. m 323.95 321.79 310.94 308.53 311.18
Downstream d/s Bed
El.G m 322.16 321.03 310.33 305.8 310.66
Bed Level Level
El.F- El.C p m 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.33
El.B- El.F h m 0.50 0.45 0.21 0.36 0.18
El.B- El.C Hu m 0.68 0.72 0.48 0.64 0.51
El.I - El.G Hd m 0.52 0.55 0.36 0.49 0.39
Bc mm 1600 1800 1630 2500 1250
b m 1.60 1.80 1.63 2.50 1.25
h/p 2.78 1.67 0.78 1.29 0.55
Bc/h 3.20 4.00 7.76 6.94 6.94
d/s Flow
Modular Flow Downstream
Condition
190
E-5 Drawing and Description of Double Bifurcators
Fig. E-5 Drawing of double bifurcators.
The relation between the heads at double bifurcators is determined using
continuity equation between two points and following relation is obtained. Let F1
be the width of head Crump’s weir and F7 and F8 are width of crump’s weir at
double bifurcator point.
1 . 98 * F 1 * H 11 . 5 = 1 . 98 * (F 6 + F 7 ) * H 1 .5
2 ⎫
2/3 ⎪ .....................................................(E-3)
⎛ F1 ⎞ ⎬
∴ H = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ * H1 ⎪
⎝ F 6+ F7 ⎠
2
⎭
Generally the following relation is used for determination of the bifurcators’
discharges.
H 2 = 0 . 542 * H 1 ......................................................................................... (E-4)
191
E-6 Irrigation Deliveries to Qasim-II, Gumbad-II and Yaqubi Distributaries.
Fig. E-6 Irrigation deliveries to Qasim-II Gumbad-II and Yaqubi

distributaries.
E-7 Irrigation Deliveries to Chowki, Toru and Pirsabak Distributaries.
Fig. E-7 Irrigation deliveries to Chowki, Toru and Pirsabak distributaries.
192
JAVAID AKHTAR TARIQ
Candidate for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation: Improving Operational Performance and

Management of Canal Irrigation System
Using Hydraulic Modeling.
Major Field: Water Resources Engineering
Biographical Information:
Personal Data: Born in Peshawar, Pakistan,1st April, 1959; son of

Abdur Rahim Khan.
Education: Received Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) from Edwards College,

Peshawar in 1979, Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Engineering
(1984) from Department of Agricultural Engineering and Master of
Science in Water Resources Engineering (1988), from Department of
Civil Engineering, NWFP University of Engineering and Technology,
Peshawar. Awarded six months fellowship by Government of The
Netherlands in Irrigation Management (1991) at Department of Irrigation
and Civil Engineering, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Completed 5th Course (1994) on “Appropriate Modernization and
Management of Irrigation System” Organized by International Institute
for Infrastructures, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, (IHE), The
Netherlands. Completed the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Water Resources Engineering at Centre of Excellence in
Water Resources Engineering (CEWRE), University of Engineering and
Technology, Lahore in 2010.
Professional Experience: Presently Assistant Professor, Department of Water

Management; taught irrigation management courses at department and
conducted national and international trainings in irrigation water
management. Involved in research on “Development of standards and
specification of water management at farm level: Low cost lining method
and optimum design criteria for watercourse in NWFP” during 1987-88,
“Impact of rehabilitation on irrigation water distribution in Lower Swat
Canal irrigation system” during 1992-93 and “Management of small
scale waterlogging and salinity problems in major irrigated areas of
NWFP” during 2001-04. More than twenty students undertook research
under my supervision for their M.Sc. (H) thesis on matching irrigation
supply and demand, reducing tertiary level conveyance losses,
efficiency of irrigation application methods, interaction of between the
main irrigation and tertiary water management systems and warabandi
dynamics and organization of water management.
193

Improving Operational Performance N Management of Canal Irrigation System

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Improving Operational Performance N Management of Canal Irrigation System

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

IMPROVING OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND

MANAGEMENT OF CANAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM

JAVAID AKHTAR TARIQ

FOR THE DEGREE OF

CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

JAVAID AKHTAR TARIQ

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Thesis Examination Date: _______________

Internal Examiner External Examiner

(Professor Dr. Muhammad Latif)

CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

(ii) Dr. Chandra A. Madramootoo,

Prof. Dr. Bakhshal Khan Lashari,

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Latif,

Water resources development and management acquired new dimensions in

The study was conducted to analyse the operational performance using

To improve the manual operation of the Chowki Distributary irrigation system,

Research assignment is a wonderful experience, it trains one, how to identify

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Professor Dr. Muhammad Latif,

I wish to express my appreciation to Professor Dr. Muhammad Jamal Khan,

I am immensely indebted to Engr. Wasim, Water Dispatch Officer (WDO),

Last and foremost, I would especially like to express my deepest appreciation,

Finally, I acknowledge the tremendous support which my mother has always

Friday, February 12, 2010 Javaid A. Tariq

1.1 Historical Overview ..................................................................... 1

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................. 9

2.1 Irrigation Management ................................................................ 9

2.6.1 Canal Control Methods .................................................. 19

2.7 Performance Assessment......................................................... 23

2.9.1 Branch-Network Dynamic Flow Model (BRANCH)........ 29

2.9.4 Dutch Flow (DUFLOW) ................................................. 32

2.10 Comparison of Irrigation Simulation Models............................. 37

III MATERIAL AND METHODS ............................................................... 39

3.1 Upper Swat Canal Irrigation System......................................... 39

3.1.1 Pehur High Level Canal (PHLC) ................................... 40

3.2 Proposed Irrigation Management Information System ............. 44

3.2.1 Data Structures .............................................................. 47

3.3 Data Collection Methodology.................................................. ..49

3.3.1 Description of Selected Site ........................................ 49

3.4 Performance Indicators............................................................. 59

3.4.1 Relative Water Supply (RWS) .................................... 59

3.5 Model Selection ........................................................................ 63

3.5.1 Model Input Data………….......................................... 64

IV SIMULATION OF IRRIGATION CANALS (SIC) MODEL.................... 68

4.1 Topographic Module ................................................................. 68

4.1.1 Description of Hydraulic Network................................... 69

4.2 Steady Flow Computations ....................................................... 72

4.2.1 Management and Design Mode..................................... 73

4.3 Unsteady Flow Computations................................................... 74

4.4.1 Computational Processes .............................................. 75

4.5 Steady State Flow Calculations ................................................ 76

4.5.1 Loop Computation.......................................................... 78

4.6 Unsteady Flow Calculations ..................................................... 78

4.7.1 Equation at Singular Section.......................................... 81

4.8 Performance Indicators............................................................. 84

4.8.1 Volume Indicators .......................................................... 84

V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 88

5.1 Irrigation Management Information System.............................. 88

5.1.1 Cropping Pattern and cropping Intensities ................... 88

5.2 Relative Water Supply .............................................................. 91

5.6.1 Current Operation of Chowki Distributary .................... 105

5.7 Calibration and Validation of SIC Model................................. 109

5.7.1 Model Evaluation Statistics (Error Index)..................... 112