Improvement in Canals of Gudha Medium Irrigation Project, District Bundi, Rajasthan state, India
IMPROVEMENTS IN CANALS
OF
GUDHA IRRIGATION PROJECT
?
Y.C.AGRAWAL[1]
Abstract: Gudha project was selected for Research Programme under the Irrigation Management & Training Project. The objective of Research Studies is to identify deficiencies, suggest cost & time effective interventions for optimal utilisation of irrigation water for crop production including monitoring & evaluation of interventions. Two minors were selected, work on which was started in May 1985. Most of the work was completed by middle of year 1990. The improvements benefited the farmers.
?
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Gudha Dam is located in Bundi district of Rajasthan State (India). The Gudha Irrigation Project is in operation since 1958-59.
The gross storage capacity of dam at FRL is 95.57 million m3. The Culturable Commanded Area (CCA) of the project is 10,860 ha. The maximum irrigation so far achieved is 8676 ha. Thus 80% intensity of irrigation has been achieved so far. The duty of water was envisaged as 114.33 ha per million m3 (8 acres per million ft3) but maximum duty of 127.77 ha per million m3 (8.96 acres/ million ft3) could be achieved in the year 1985-86 since raising the Full Reservoir Level by 1.07 m in the year 1983. Salient features of Gudha Irrigation Project are given in Table 1.
In the commanded area of this project, there are about 3000 wells, which are used for irrigation also. With the help of these wells, sugarcane is also produced in this area. Since September 1986, water levels in 114 wells were recorded, scattered in whole of the commanded area. These observations show lowering of water level in the wells. However as per water levels, recorded in post irrigation period in January 1989, the water level was within root zone (0-1.5 m) of the plants in some scattered patches. Such patches are more in left command as compared to right command.
The Irrigation Management under Research Programme consists of intensive attack on real problems of irrigation system by detailed and comprehensive interventions based on the basic concepts.? Two minors were selected for Research Project, one in left command and other in right command. (Figure 1)
- Minor No.2 of Left Main Canal
- Minor No.3 of Right Main Canal
In the Modernisation Project Report, duty of water at outlet head has been mentioned as 1286 ha per m3 /sec (90 acres per ft3/sec). The research unit decided to follow the same for the two minors.
Salient features of commanded area of the two minors are given in Table 2 & 3
2.0 MINOR NO.2 OF LEFT MAIN CANAL
The minor off takes from Left Main Canal at its Km 4.663 from Right Bank, near Raghunathpura village. It has a 0.61m diameter pipe type gated head regulator. The minor does not have any other control structure. Existing length of minor is 5.67 km. The existing CCA of minor is 489 ha. The minor irrigates the cultivated lands of villages Raghunathpura, Mangli Kalan, Mangli Khurd, Bichari and Chatarganj.
The minor irrigated 401 ha i.e. 82% of CCA in the year 1987-88, 321 ha in Rabi(1st October to 31st March) and 80 ha in Kharif(1st April to 30th September).? The main crops grown in the area are wheat (247 ha), Pea (84 ha) and sugarcane (80 ha).
Initially the minor was constructed with a design discharge of 0.155 m3/sec. Masonry structures like Village Road Bridges, drops etc. were designed to carry this design discharge. There are 16 Village road bridges, drops etc. across this minor. The drops were in damaged condition. Minor was no where lined. The number of authorised outlets was 28, but 42 pipe type outlets exist which are of 0.15 m diameter. There was a Replogle flume at Km 0.045, crest of which was damaged by the cultivators.
The existing length of minor is 5.67 km. From head regulator to its crossing with National Highway, the length of minor is 5.03 km and downstream National highway the existing length is only 0.64 km.
The old CCA of the minor was assessed as 489 ha. This includes 189 ha downstream National Highway (Km 5.03). (Figure 4 & 5).The existing and proposed design data as per intervention, of the minor have been shown in Table 4.
2.1? ALIGNMENT OF MINOR
2.1.1 HEAD REGULATOR TO ITS CROSSING WITH NATIONAL HIGHWAY
The present alignment of minor from Km 2.90 to Km 5.03 is very near to the river and on right side of the commanded area. This resulted in additional length of minor, excessive seepage losses in the minor and extra length of field channels.
As such a straight alignment was proposed on the left side of existing road which is in the middle of commanded area. But following difficulties were observed.
?
(i) In the middle reach, the stratum was ‘shale’. In this reach, the seepage losses were expected to be high and due to this reason, lining would have been essential.
?
(ii) Near Km 2.90 and Km 5.03, the alignment was in depression by about 0.90 to 1.80 m. In these portions, cultivators opposed the construction of minor in their fields. Also due to 0.90 to 1.80 m filling there would have been necessity of lining the minor.
?
Looking to the above reasons, proposal of change in alignment of minor from Km 2.90 and Km 5.03 was dropped.
?
2.1.2 NATIONAL HIGHWAY CROSSING (5.03) TO END (OLD) OF MINOR
?
Downstream National Highway (Km 5.03), the minor turns to the left for its remaining length of 0.64 km. But it was unable to irrigate the CCA of 189.86 ha. As such three new alignments for the minor downstream National Highway were considered.
???
(i) To construct the minor in a length of about 0.518 km along existing field channel and then along existing cart track which was in the middle of the commanded area. But it was seen that beyond one-kilometre length, there were low-lying fields. As such minor was to go in filling.
?
(ii) To construct minor in a length of about 0.518 km along existing field channel. Then construct it along existing cart track (183 m in length) and then turning right angles along an existing cart track and then turning left at right angles to end at the existing lift field channel.
?
Although as far as possible, the alignment was in the middle of commanded area, but after 0.518 km, it was to go in depression. Also cultivators were opposed to this alignment due to three reasons
- It will spoil their cart track due to seepage from minor,
- Minor will be constructed in their fields and
- Minor will also cause stagnation of water in their fields.
?
(iii) To construct the minor by improving the existing field channel in a length of 1.740 km. This alignment is not in depression and is on right side of the commanded area. At some distance, minor will run very near to the Mej River, which is 9-12 m deep below ground level.
?
The cultivators also wanted that the minor be constructed along alignment at (iii) because,
?
- They will loose no land for construction of minor.
- They have existing system of branch field channels off taking??? from this main field channel, to irrigate their lands.
- Their cart track will not be affected due to seepage from minor/?? new field channel.
- Their fields are sloping away from this main field channel.
?
Considering the above facts, the alignment of minor downstream National Highway was finalised along the alignment at (iii).
?
2.2 COMMANDED AREA OF MINOR ----- CONTOUR SURVEY
?
The ground levels were taken along lines 152 m apart and perpendicular to the minor. Levels at every 30.50 m were taken along such lines. On the basis of this survey, contours were drawn on the farm map. With the help of this map the revised culturable area of the minor has been divided in 19 outlet areas. The details are available in Table 5.
Command statement of the minor as per intervention (Table 6) was prepared with the help of contour farm map and adequacy of existing full supply level was checked. Where ever higher FSL was required to irrigate the command area by gravity flow, it was raised in the revised L – section.
?
2.2.1. Shifting of Outlet Area No.1 left side & right side to L.M.C.:
?
It was observed that field levels of left side and right side Outlet area No.1 are not in the flow command of the Minor. As such fresh levels were taken in these two outlet areas in a grid of 30.5 x 30.5 m and fresh contours were drawn. These contours confirmed the earlier opinion that the two outlet areas are not in the flow command of the minor. At present cultivators used to put obstructions in the minor at existing first drop at Km 0.120 to raise the full supply level in the minor as high as possible to irrigate their fields and thus obstructing flow of design discharge in the minor.
?
As such these two outlets areas have been shifted to the parent canal i.e. Left Main Canal. Right side outlet area No.1 (CCA 9.66 ha) could be irrigated by an existing outlet at Km 4.38 of the left main canal. For left side outlet area No.1 (CCA 14.35 ha) a new outlet has been provided in left main canal. Two lined link field channels will be constructed from these outlets to provide water for these two outlet areas.
?
2.3 REVISED L-SECTION OF MINOR
?
It was decided to keep the minimum outlet discharge as 14.15 litre /sec (0.5 ft3/sec) and accordingly minimum outlet area size has been kept 18.21 ha (45 acres). With the help of contour sheet, the commanded area of minor has been divided into 19 new outlet areas. The conveyance losses have been considered as 2.44 m3 /sec per million m2 (8 ft3/sec per million ft2) of wetted perimeter of minor. As per draw off statement, the design discharge of the minor at head has been kept as 0.397 m3/sec, for a CCA of 464.75 ha and duty of water of one ft3/sec for 90 acres, as compared to earlier design discharge of 0.155 m3/sec.
?
The commanded area is having rock out - crop at many places. The fields are sloping away from these out crops on all sides. Also cultivators provide temporary obstructions in the minor at many places to raise the existing?? full supply level in the minor by about 0.30 m.
?
The two outlet areas in the head reach have been transferred to the parent canal i.e. L M C.? As such, in the head reach, the bed of the minor has been lowered by about 0.60 m to avoid any unauthorised withdrawal of water from minor for these two old outlet areas, to keep the minor in cutting and to eliminate existing drop at Km 0.120.
?
In the remaining length of minor, existing full supply level has been raised in such a way, that minor may irrigate the commanded area by flow irrigation easily, except a few higher patches of few hectares. These higher patches could be irrigated by lifting water from field channels, as too much higher full supply level would have caused seepage and salinity problems in the fields adjoining to the minor. Generally the bed slope was proposed as 1 in 2000 and V/Vo was proposed more than one. The bed width and FSD were proposed as 1.07 m and 0.53 m.
?
2.4 REMODELLING OF MASONRY STRUCTURES
?
In the revised design as per intervention, design discharge of minor has increased and full supply level has been raised. This has caused the necessity of remodelling the existing village road bridges, drops and pedestrian crossing. During water flow in the minor at full supply depth, survey was done with the help of levelling instruments to measure the loss of head at each existing masonry structure across the canal. The results of measured head loss are given in Table 7. The design of these structures was revised to minimise head loss for revised design discharge. Remodelling of masonry structures was taken up in hand.
Two new drops were proposed and constructed at Km 1.140 and Km 3.720 with a drop of 0.30 and 0.32 m.? The existing 0.30-m diameter pipe type bridge across the National Highway should be removed and a new slab type bridge should be constructed for increased design discharge of 0.156 m3/sec. The minor should be extended downstream National Highway along its existing field channel. Proposed drops and village road bridges will be constructed across the minor in this portion.
?
2.5 WATER LOGGING/SALINITY PROBLEM
?
There is problem of stagnation of water, salinity and water logging in the head reach of minor. Problem will get solved after implementation of proposed improvements in the minor.
?
2.6 MEASURING STRUCTURES AT HEAD AND TAIL
?
The first drop at Km 0.465 with a drop of 0.75 m will be used as a Meter drop. After completion of extension of minor, a gauge pillar will be provided at the end of minor to determine the quantity of water reaching at the end of minor.
2.7 SEEPAGE LOSS STUDIES AND LINING OF THE MINOR
?
2.7.1. The seepage losses in the minor were measured by Ponding method at many places, in beginning, middle and the end portions of minor. These are mentioned in Table 8.
?
2.7.2. The soil strata of the bed of minor were got tested for grain size distribution of the soil. The results have been shown in Table 9. There is good service road along the minor. Also there is a metalled road from Km 1.37 to Km 5.03 parallel and near to the minor.
?
2.7.3. Considering the seepage losses as high, it has been decided to provide lining in the minor in its following portions.
?
(1) Km 0 to 0.300 ???? (2) Km 1.550 to 1.620
(3) Km 3.600 to 3.825 ? ???? (4) Km 4.050 to 4.760 (Village Road Bridge)
(5) Km 5.070 (drop) to 5.259
?
2.8 UNAUTHORISED OUTLETS/OVER SIZED OUTLETS
?
Against 28 authorised outlets there are 42 outlets, all but one of 0.15 m diameter. Now only 19 outlets have been proposed. As such all-existing outlets will be removed and properly designed Adjustable Proportional Module's will be provided at these 19 locations.
?
2.9 NON AVAILABILITY OF WATER IN TAIL REACHES
?
Due to remodelling of bridges, drops, pedestrian crossing and lining of minor as at 2.7.3 with proper raising of banks, the availability of water has increased downstream National Highway in a CCA of 189.86 ha , as per the gauges recorded and personal enquiry from cultivators downstream National Highway.
?
3.0 MINOR NO.3 OF RIGHT MAIN CANAL
This minor off takes from left bank of Right Main Canal at its Km 11.857. This minor irrigates the lands of two villages Sather and Baroda. Minor was having no masonry structure across it except one head regulator containing two rows of 0.30 m diameter pipes. The design discharge of minor was only 0.226 m3 /sec. The old length of minor was 2.28 km. The irrigation done in 1985-86 was 226 ha. The revised design data of the minor are available in Table 10.
3.1 COMMANDED AREA OF MINOR
The ground levels were taken along lines 152 m apart and perpendicular to the minor. Levels at every 30.50 m were taken along such lines. On the basis of this survey, contours were drawn on the farm map. With the help of this map the revised culturable area of the minor has been divided in 11 outlet areas and a new sub minor has also been proposed with 4 outlet areas . The details are available in Table 11.
3.2 REVISED L- SECTION OF MINOR
The CCA of the minor was re-assessed, which was determined as 536 ha. The revised commanded area of the minor has been shown in Table 11.? As such minor was redesigned for a duty of water of 90 acres per ft3/sec at outlet head, with intensity of irrigation as 98.5%. As per revised draw off statement, the revised design discharge is 0.433 m3/sec. For earthen section, revised design data of the minor are given in Table 10. In the portion Km 0 to 0.518, the minor has been lined with rectangular masonry section having bed width, full supply depth and bed slope as 1.7 m, 0.50 m and 1 in 2500 respectively. To cover increased CCA, the minor has been extended by 1.28 km increasing the total length of minor to 3.56 km.
At Km 0.88 (left side), a new sub minor was proposed and constructed to irrigate the increased CCA. CCA and design discharge of sub minor are 121.80 ha and 0.101 m3/sec. The length of this new sub minor is 1.74 km. The bed width, full supply depth and bed slope have been kept as 0.91 m, 0.34 m and 1 in 4000 for a trapezoidal earthen section with side slope 1:1. (Figure 2 & 3)
Command statement of the minor & sub minor as per intervention (Table 13 & 14) were prepared with the help of contour farm map and adequacy of old full supply level was checked. Where ever higher FSL was required to irrigate the command area by gravity flow, it was raised in the revised L – section.
3.3 INSUFFICIENT CONTROL STRUCTURES AND BRIDGES
A new head regulator of minor has been constructed with 0.91 m wide and 0.61 m deep opening replacing the old head regulator.
Except one head regulator, there was no masonry structure across the minor. As per revised L- section, two drops at Km 0.91 & 2.77 and three drop cum Village Road Bridges at Km 0.52,1.68 & 2.53 have been constructed. One 0.45 m diameter pipe type Village Road Bridge and one tail structure have been constructed at Km 3.57 (end of minor). Two drainage crossings have been constructed at Km 2.99 and 3.55. Also nine Adjustable Proportional Modules outlets have been constructed to supply water from the minor in correct quantity.
One head regulator of sub minor with 0.61 m wide opening has been constructed. At Sub Minor, two Village Road Bridge at Km 0.06 and 1.68 have been constructed. Drop cum Village Road Bridge at Km o.32 and Drop at Km 0.91 have also been constructed.
3.4 MEASURING STRUCTURES AT HEAD AND TAIL OF MINOR
It is proposed to utilise the first drop at Km 0.52 as a measuring structure. At the end of minor, tail structure will be used to determine the quantity of water reaching at the end of minor.
3.5 SEEPAGE LOSS STUDIES AND LINING OF MINOR
3.5.1 Seepage loss studies were done by Ponding method in four portions of the minor as shown in Table 15.
?
3.5.2. The strata of the bed of minor were got tested for grain size distribution of the soil. The results have been shown in Table 16.
?
3.5.3.On the basis of seepage loss studies, the minor has been lined in following portions to reduce the excessive seepage losses and erosion of minor’s bed & sides downstream of drops.
?
(1) Km 0 to Km 0.58???? (2) Km 0.76 to Km 0.97
(3) Km 1.68 to Km 1.74?????? (4) Km 1.98 to Km 2.77
(5) Km 2.77 to Km 2.83
Lining has been proposed in the following portions to reduce the excessive seepage losses.
(1) Km 2.83 to Km 3.57?????? (2) Km 0 to Km 0.32 of sub minor
3.6 CONSTRUCTION OF FIELD CHANNELS
For the micro network planning, for construction of field channels, topographical survey of the commanded area, in a grid of 15 m x 15 m with 0.10 m contour interval, was being done.
3.7 EVALUATION OF INTERVENTIONS AND FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS
During the year 1987-88, the minor could irrigate only 259 ha. In Feb. 1988 the discharge of the minor was observed by “surface float method”. The observed discharge at full supply level was 0.212 m3/sec against a design discharge of 0.433 m3/sec. As such the designs of minor and its drops were checked.
(1)? It was observed that roughness coefficient for design of masonry lining from Km o.37 to 0.52 was considered as 0.018, which should have been considered as 0.025.
(2)? The crest levels of drops are generally 0.10 m to 0.15 m higher than the designed levels. As such these should be lowered. The crests have been lowered in November 1988.
(3)? The waterway width of the vertical drops should be equal to the water surface width at full supply level in the minor downstream of drop.
As such water way width of crest of drops is to be increased by 0.45 m at Km 0.52. The width is to be increased like wise at other drops.
(4)? The effect of removing the excessive height of crest of drops, on the carrying capacity of minor was observed in 1988-89. It was observed that at Full Supply Depth, the minor was able to carry 0.283 m3/sec discharge, in comparison of 0.212 m3/sec carried in Feb. 1988.
(5)? Masonry lining has also been done from Km 0 to 0.58 of the minor. It will further help in improving the carrying capacity of minor from Km 0 to Km 0.52.
(6)? At well type drop at Km 2.77, there were no upstream wings. This has caused breaching of banks of minor, scouring in bed & sides upstream of drop, and silting of bed downstream of drop. The same have been constructed.
(7)? Looking to the soil strata containing 64% sand and presence of salts, it is proposed to provide masonry lining from Km 2.59 to Km 3.57(end of minor) to reduce excessive seepage losses and damage to the banks of minor.
(8)? The cultivators have not constructed field channels in the additional area brought under the irrigation command of the minor by extension of minor and construction of sub minor. Therefore only small increase in irrigated area has been observed.
4.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION IN GUDHA COMMAND
?
The water scheduling in whole of the Gudha command is decided by Water Distribution committee comprising of District Collector, Officers of Irrigation and Agriculture departments, public representatives and cultivators. As per actual requirements and winter rainfall, the Executive Engineer Irrigation Division Bundi in consultation with all related people makes some deviations.
?
However it is estimated that after completion of works as per Research Programme findings and as envisaged in Modernisation Project Report, the water management in the Gudha Project will improve.
?
?
?
?
?
?
Conclusion:
?
1. L-section of a canal should be finalised on the basis of micro network survey and outlet area boundaries.
?
2. Pipes should not be used in any masonry structure across a canal i.e. in head regulator, road bridges, siphons, etc. Only slab type openings should be provided across the canal to avoid head loss in canal and blockage of pipes by villagers.
?
3. Lining should be provided in the canal in portions of excessive seepage losses and dispersive soil.
?
4. Conjunctive use of canal and ground water should be encouraged by creating canal water scarcity and giving incentive for using ground water.
?
5. The field channels should be lined in a length of at least 30 m in the head reach downstream the outlet and other filling portions to avoid loss of head/ water.
?
6. The roughness coefficient in canal design should be adopted after carefully considering all factors and performance of canals in the adjoining areas.
?
7. The length of crest of drop perpendicular to the flow direction must be equal to downstream water surface width at full supply level.
?
8. Well type drops should be properly designed and proper downstream energy dissipation arrangements should be provided. Upstream wings in a suitable length should be provided.
?
9. Cultivators should be educated to use water efficiently adopting proper methods of irrigation and to prevent wastage of water.
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
TABLE 1 . Salient Features Of Gudha Irrigation Project
?
S. No.
? (1)
?
Item
?
?
( 2 )
?
Present data??????????????????????????????????? ( 3 )
?
Proposed data as per Modernisation Project Report
( 4 )
?
1
?
Gross catchment area
?
754 km2
(291 mile2)
?
754 km2
(291 mile2)
?
2
?
Average annual monsoon rainfall(Average of 50 years)
?
711 mm (28")
?
711 mm (28")
?
3
?
Gross storage capacity
?
77.81 M m3
(2748 M ft3)
?
95.57 M m3
(3375 M ft3)
?
4
?
Live storage capacity
?
75.83 M m3
(2678 M ft3)
?
93.59 M m3
(3305 M ft3)
?
5
?
Total length of Dam
?
2286 m
(7500 ft)
?
2408 m (7900 ft)
?
6
?
Expected annual flow irrigation in normal year with duty of 8 acres per million ft3
?
8670 ha
(21424 acres)
?
10700 ha
(26440 acres)
?
7
?
Top width of earthen dam
?
4.50 m? (15')
?
4.50 m?? (15')
?
8
?
Depth of water above cill
?
9.45 m (31')
?
10.50 m (34.50')
?
9
?
Gross commanded area
?
18133 ha
(44807 acres)
?
18133 ha
(44807 acres)
?
10
?
Culturable commanded area
?
10370 ha
(25625 acres)
?
10860 ha
(26824 acres)
?
11
?
No. of villages benefited
?
RMC 25 Nos.}
LMC 20 Nos.}? 45 Nos.
?
12
?
No. of minors
?
20
?
20
?
13
?
Intensity of irrigation
- Rabi(1st October to 31st March)
- Kharif(1st April to 30th Sept.)
?
?
60%
Nil
?
?
85%??? } 98.5%
13.50% }
14
?
?LEFT MAIN CANAL
(i)Discharge at head
(ii)Culturable Commanded Area
?
?
3.20 m3/sec
(112.97 ft3/sec)??? 3444 ha
(8510 acres)
?
?
3.36 m3/sec
(118.57 ft3/sec )
3524 ha
(8708 acres)
15
?
?
?
?
?RIGHT MAIN CANAL
(i)Discharge at Head
?
(ii)Culturable Commanded Area
?
?
6.37 m3/sec
(225 ft3/sec )
6927 ha
(17116 acres)
?
?
7.06 M3/sec
(249.45 ft3/sec )
7331 ha
(18116 acres)
?
? TABLE 2. Salient features of Commanded Area of the Minors
?
?
S. No.
(1)
?
Item
?
(2)
?
Minor 3? RMC
(3)
?
Minor 2? LMC
(4)
?
Remarks
?
(5)
?
1
?
Gross commanded area (ha)
?
581
?
628
?
?
2
?
Proposed Culturable commanded area (ha)
?
536
?
464.75
?
?
3
?
Proposed –Area to be irrigated @ 98.5% of C.C.A.
?
528
?
458
?
?
4
?
OLD Culturable commanded area
?
272
?
489
?
?
5
?
Old –Area to be irrigated @ 60% of C.C.A.
?
163
?
293
?
?
6
?
Difference of Proposed & old Culturable commanded area
?
264
?
(-)24.25
Outlet Area No.1 of Minor 2 LMC transferred to LMC
?
7
?
Difference of Proposed & Old –Area to be irrigated
?
365
?
165
?
?
8
?
?
?
Irrigated area
Maximum
?
Total?? (% of C.C.A.)
Kharif? (% of C.C.A.)
Rabi??? (% of C.C.A.)
?
1985-86
226 ha
?
83
10?
73?
?
1987-88
401 ha
?
82 ?
16?
66?
?
?
9
?
Discharge(m3/sec)
Proposed
Old
?
?
0.433
0.266
?
?
0.397
0.155
?
?
10
?
Length (kilometre)
Proposed
Old
?
?
3.56
2.28
?
?
6.78
5.67
?
?
?
?
TABLE 3.? Revised salient features of Minor No. 2 of LMC and Minor?? No. 3 of RMC as per intervention
?
S. No.
?
Particulars
?
Minor No.2 of? Left Main Canal
?
Minor No.3 of Right Main Canal
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4)
?
1
?
Off take point
?
Km 4.663
(15300 ft)
?
Km 11.857?
?(38900 ft)
?
2
?
Length of minor
?
7.080 km
(23220 ft )
?
3.566 km
(11700 ft)
?
3
?
Gross commanded area
?
628 ha
(1553 acres)
?
581 ha
(1436 acres)
?
4
?
Culturable commanded area
?
464.75 ha????? (1148.38 acres)
?
536 ha
(1325 acres)
?
5
?
Intensity of Irrigation
?
85% in Rabi????? } Total 98.5%?????
13.5% in Kharif? }
?
6
?
Design discharge at head
?
??? 0.397 m3/sec????? (14.03 ft3/sec)
?
0.433 m3/sec???? (15.13 ft3/sec)
?
7
?
Bed width
?
1.07 metres
(3.50 feet)
?
1.52 metres
(5 feet)
?
8
?
Full supply depth
?
0.53 m
(1.75 feet)
?
0.50 metres
(1.65 feet )
?
9
?
Water surface slope
?
1 in 2000
?
1 in 2500
?
10
?
No. of outlets
?
19
?
11
?
TABLE 4. Design data of Minor No.2 of Left Main Canal
Existing design data
Proposed design data as per intervention
?
Reach in
Km
?
Desi- gn disc- harge in m3/sec (ft3/sec)
?
Velo-city in m/sec (ft/ sec)
?
Bed width in metre (ft)
?
Full supp-ly depth in
?M (ft)
?
Water surf-ace slope
?
Reach in
Km
?
Desi-gn disc- harge in m3/
sec (ft3/sec)
?
Velo-city in m/sec (ft/ sec)
?
Bed width in metre (ft)
?
Full supp-ly depth in??? m (ft)
?
Water surf-ace slope
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4)
?
(5)
?
(6)
?
(7)
?
(8)
?
(9)
?
(10)
?
(11)
?
(12)
?
0-0.12
?
0.155(5.48)
?
0.26
(o.85)
?
0.91 (3)
?
0.50 (1.65)
?
1 in 5000
?
0-0.80
?
0.397 (14.03)
?
0.47 (1.56)
?
1.07 (3.5)
?
0.53 (1.75')
?
1 in 2000
?
0.12-0.99
?
0.155(5.48)
?
0.36 (1.19)
?
0.91 (3)
?
0.38 (1.25)
?
1 in 5000
?
0.80-1.56
?
0.348
(12.29)
?
0.46
(1.52)
?
0.91
(3)
?
0.53
(1.75)
?
1 in 2000
?
o.99-1.56
?
0.14 (4.97)
?
0.36
(1.19)
?
o.91
(3)
?
0.36
(1.2’)
?
1 in 2000
?
1.56-1.86
?
0.323 (11.42)
?
0.65 (2.14')
?
0.91 (3)
?
0.40 (1.30)
?
1 in 750
?
1.56-
1.68
?
0.13 (4.46)
?
0.49 (1.63)
?
0.61 (2)
?
0.33(1.10')
?
1 in 750
?
1.86-2.90
?
0.305 (10.78)
?
0.45 (1.48)
?
0.91? (3)
?
0.50 (1.65)
?
1 in 2000
?
1.68-
2.28
?
?
0.13 (4.46
?
0.29 (0.94)
?
0.91? (3)
?
0.41 (1.35)
?
1 in? 3500
?
2.90-4.20
?
0.251 (8.87)
?
0.43 (1.41)
?
0.91? (3)
?
0.44 (1.45)
?
1 in? 2000
?
2.28-
3.36
?
0.11 (4.01)
?
0.28(0.91)
?
0.91 (3)
?
0.38 (1.25)
?
1 in 3500-
?
4.20-4.76
?
0.189 (6.69)
?
0.40 (1.32)
?
0.76 (2.5)
?
0.43 (1.4)
?
1 in? 2000
?
3.36-
4.14
?
0.09 (3.19)
?
0.16 (0.54)??
?
0.76 (2.5)
?
0.38 (1.25)
?
1? in 3500
?
4.76-5.07
?
0.156 (5.51)
?
0.38 (1.25)
?
0.76 (2.5)
?
0.38 (1.25)
?
1 in 2000
?
4.14-
5.04
?
0.07
(2.58)
?
0.25 (0.83)
?
0.61
(2)
?
0.36 (1.2)
?
1 in? 3500
?
5.07-6.18
?
0.12(4.22)
?
0.36(1.17)
?
0.76 (2.5)
?
0.33
(1.1)
?
?
1 in? 2000
?
5.04-5.67
?
0.05
(1.80)
?
0.23
(0.75)
?
0.61
(2)
?
0.30
(1.0)
?
1 in? 3500
?
6.18-7.08
?
0.06
(1.74)
?
0.28
(0.93)
?
0.61
(2')
?
0.23
(0.75)
?
1 in 2000
TABLE 5. Revised commanded area of Minor No.2 of LMC as per intervention
?
?
S.
No.
?
Dist-ance from head in Km
?
Out-let No.
?
Left or Right
?
Name of village
?
Gross commanded area in Hectares (acres)
?
Culturable commanded area in Hectares (acres)
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4)
?
(5)
?
(6)
?
(7)
?
1
?
0.463
?
1
?
Left
?
Raghunathpura
?
26.78(66.18)
?
24.59(60.76)
?
2
?
0.463
?
1
?
Right
?
-do-
?
32.72(80.86)
?
32.25(79.70)
?
3
?
0.954
?
2
?
-do-
?
Mangli kalan
?
35.38(87.42)
?
25.80(63.76)
?
4
?
1.836
?
3
?
-do-
?
-do-
?
36.50(90.20)
?
21.55(53.36)
?
5
?
2.100
?
2
?
Left
?
-do-
?
20.03(49.50)
?
19.26(47.60)
?
6
?
2.752
?
3
?
-do-
?
-do-
?
53.14(131.32)
?
42.58(105.22)
?
7
?
3.094
?
4
?
Right
?
Mangli khurd
?
37.70(93.16)
?
21.29(52.60)
?
8
?
3.193
?
4
?
Left
?
-do-
?
63.25(156.28)
?
32.63(80.62)
?
9
?
4.152
?
5
?
Right
?
-do-
?
20.74(51.24)
?
16.20(40.04)
?
10
?
4.435
?
5
?
Left
?
-do-
?
45.61(112.70)
?
39.18(96.82)
?
?
?
5.040
?
Road bridge on National Highway
?
Sub total
?
371.86(918.86)
?
275.39(680.48)
?
11
?
5.055
?
6
?
Right
?
Mangli khurd
?
21.73(53.70)
?
20.73(51.22)
?
12
?
5.070
?
6
?
Left
?
Mangli khurd Chatarganj
?
37.92(93.70)
?
24.53(60.62)
?
13
?
5.573
?
7
?
Right
?
Bichari
?
28.39(70.14)
?
26.48(65.44)
?
14
?
5.573
?
8
?
-do-
?
-do-
?
18.92(46.76)
?
18.83(46.54)
?
15
?
5.608
?
7
?
Left
?
Chatarganj
?
63.20(156.16)
?
22.32(55.16)
?
16
?
5.850
?
8
?
-do-
?
Bichari
?
18.10(44.72)
?
16.94(41.86)
17
6.442
?9
Right
Bichari
19.03(47.02)
17.86(43.70)
?
18
?
6.690
?
9
?
Left
?
-do-
?
23.29(57.56)
?
21.78(53.82)
?
19
?
7.080
?
Tail
?
-
?
-do-
?
26.39(65.22)
?
20.05(49.54)
?
?
?
Table 6. Command Statement of Minor No. 2 of Left Main Canal as per Intervention
?
?
?
S. No.??
?
Outlet Area No./ outlet No.
?
Km
?
Critical N.S.L. In outlet area
?
Length of field channel from outlet to critical NSL? in Km.
?
F.S.L./ WL in field at? naka point (NSL+0.15 cm)
?
Water slope of field channel 0.25%0?? (1/4000)
?
FSL/WL required at head. 6+0.25 x 5
?
FSL in disty/ minor required at outlet 8+0.3
?
F.S.L. in disty/ minor at outlet as per old L-section
?
Position of existing FSL lower(-) or Higher (+)
?
N.S.L.
?
Location Khasra No.
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4 a)
?
(4 b)
?
(5)
?
(6)
?
(7)
?
(8)
?
(9)
?
(10)
?
(11)
?
1
?
1 R
?
0.463
?
294.65
?
493
?
0.420
?
294.80
?
0.25? 0
?
294.8+0.25x.42=294.905
?
295.20
?
294.37
?
-0.83
?
2
?
1 L
?
0.463
?
294.045
?
420
?
0.255
?
294.195
?
0.25? 0
?
294.26
?
294.56
?
294.37
?
-0.19
?
3
?
2 R
?
0.954
?
292.695
?
15
?
0.00
?
292.845
?
0.25
?
292.845
?
293.149
?
292.87
?
-0.279
?
4
?
3 R
?
1.836
?
290.915
?
178
?
0.00
?
291.065
?
0.25
?
291.065
?
291.365
?
291.37
?
-
?
5
?
2 L
?
2.100
?
290.76
?
117
?
0.00
?
290.91
?
0.25
?
290.91
?
291.21
?
290.95
?
-0.26
?
6
?
3 L
?
2.752
?
289.37
?
1248
?
0.600
?
289.52
?
0.25
?
289.67
?
289.97
?
290.62
?
+0.65
?
7
?
4 R
?
3.094
?
290.365
?
290
?
0.42
?
290.515
?
0.25
?
290.62
?
290.92
?
290.34
?
-0.58
?
8
?
4 L
?
3.193
?
290.56
?
279
?
0.18
?
290.71
?
0.25
?
290.755
?
291.055
?
290.30
?
-0.755
?
9
?
5 R
?
4.150
?
290.03
?
104
?
0.135
?
290.18
?
0.25
?
290.22
?
290.52
?
289.52
?
-1.000
?
10
?
5 L
?
4.435
?
290.365
?
41/150
?
0.51
?
290.515
?
0.25
?
290.64
?
290.94
?
289.68
?
-1.26
?
11
?
6 R
?
5.055
?
289.85
?
127/195
?
0.27
?
289.00
?
0.25
?
289.064
?
289.367
?
288.85
?
-0.517
?
12
?
6 L
?
5.070
?
288.885
?
124/181
?
0.00
?
289.035
?
0.25
?
289.035
?
289.335
?
288.84
?
-0.495
?
13
?
7 R
?
5.573
?
288.44
?
150 m from head
?
0.15
?
288.59
?
0.25
?
288.627
?
288.927
?
287.79
?
-1.137
?
14
?
7 L
?
5.573
?
287.51
?
1333/ 1530
?
0.09
?
287.66
?
0.25
?
287.68
?
287.98
?
287.78
?
-0.20
?
15
?
8 R
?
5.608
?
287.65
?
779
?
0.12
?
287.80
?
0.25
?
287.83
?
288.13
?
287.79
?
-0.34
?
16
?
8 L
?
5.850
?
287.285
?
776
?
0.00
?
287.435
?
0.25
?
287.435
?
287.735
?
287.655
?
-0.08
?
17
?
9 R
?
5.442
?
286.925
?
795
?
0.18
?
287.075
?
0.25
?
287.12
?
287.42
?
286.66
?
-0.76
?
18
?
9 L
?
6.690
?
286.385
?
111/ 1210
?
0.24
?
286.535
?
0.25
?
286.595
?
286.895
?
286.52
?
0.375
?
19
?
10 T
?
7.080
?
285.845
?
17
?
0.24
?
285.995
?
0.25
?
286.055
?
286.355
?
286.34
?
0.015
1 chain=100’=30.48m
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
TABLE 7. Existing masonry structures and calculated head loss across the??????????? Minor no.2 of Left Main Canal
?
S. No.
Km
?
Name and size of structure
?
Design discharge in
m3/sec
?
Design Bed Width in m
?
Design Full Supply Depth in m
?
Veloc-ity? in m/sec
?
Head loss in m
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
领英推荐
?
(4)
?
(5)
?
(6)
?
(7)
?
(8)
?
1
?
0.00
?
Head regulator 0.61 m dia. pipe
0.397
-
-
-
?
0.15
?
?
2
?
0.033
?
Bridge?? 1.22 m wide incomplete
0.397
1.067
0.533
0.475
?
0.03
?
3
?
0.045
?
Flume 1.22 m wide
0.397
1.067
0.533
0.475
?
0.03
?
4
?
0.120
?
Drop .91 m wide drop .20 m
0.397
1.067
0.533
0.475
?
-
?
5
?
0.465
?
Drop .91 m wide drop .50 m
0.397
1.067
0.533
0.475
?
-
?
6
?
0.770
?
Bridge?? 1.22m wide(Incomplete)
0.397
1.067
0.533
0.475
?
0.03
?
7
?
0.800
?
Drop (fully destroyed)? drop 0.06 m
0.397/
0.348
1.067/
0.914
0.533/
0.533
0.475/
0.463
?
_
?
8
?
1.14
?
Bridge?? 0.84 m wide
0.348
0.914
0.533
0.463
?
0.05
?
9
?
1.56
?
Bridge?? o.457 m wide
0.348/
0.323
0.914/
0.914
0.533/
0.396
0.463/
0.652
?
0.24
?
10
?
1.75
?
Bridge?? .91 m wide(Incomplete)
0.323
0.914
0.396
0.652
?
0.06
?
11
?
1.86
?
Drop .61m wide(Incomplete)
0.323/
0.305
0.914/
0.914
0.396/
0.503
0.652/
0.451
?
0.12
?
12
?
1.96
?
Bridge?? .61m wide (Incomplete)
0.305
0.914
0.503
0.451
?
0.08
?
13
?
2.28
?
Bridge?? 0.76 m wide
0.305
0.914
0.503
0.451
?
0.05
?
14
?
2.90
?
Bridge? 0.76 m wide
0.305/
0.251
0.914/
0.914
0.503/
0.442
0.451/
0.430
?
0.05
?
15
?
4.08
?
Bridge? .46 m dia pipe
0.251
0.914
0.442
0.430
?
0.19
?
16
?
4.44
?
Pedestrian crossing (0.30 m dia pipe)
0.189
0.762
0.427
0.402
?
0.55
?
17
?
4.76
?
Drop cum Bridge? (.30 m dia pipe)
0.189/
0.156
0.762/
0.762
0.427/
0.381
0.402/
0.381
?
0.38
?
18
?
5.04
?
?Bridge (.30 m dia pipe)
0.156
0.762
0.381
0.381
?
0.38
?
TABLE 8. Seepage-loss study in Minor No. 2 of LMC by Ponding method
?
?
S. No.
?
???
?
Reach
?
?
?
?????????????? ?????????
?
Losses in m3 /sec per million m2 (ft3 /sec per million ft2)
?
Type of strata
?
?
?
?????????????????????????????????
1
2
3
4
?
1
?
Km 0.152? to 0.198
(chain 5 to 6.50)
?
7.62(25)
?
Shale in bed, clay in sides.
?
2
?
Km 1.19? to 1.22
(chain 39 to 40)
?
5.49(18)
?
Bed and sides of clay mixed with silt.? Minor is in partial cutting and filling.
?
3
?
Km 1.55? to 1.56
(chain 51 to 51.23)
?
7.32(24)
?
Shale in bed, clay in sides. Reach is upstream of village road Bridge
?
4
?
Km 2.74? to 2.83
(chain 90 to 93)
?
2.44(8)
?
Clay in bed & sides. Maximum filling reach.
?
5
?
Km 3.66? to 3.72? (chain 120 to 122)
?
7.32(24)
?
Shale in bed, clay in sides. River 180 m away and 11 m deep
?
6
?
Km 4.05? to 4.08
(chain 133 to 134)
?
7.62(25)
?
Clay with silt in bed & sides. Reach is upstream of village road Bridge
?
7
?
Km 4.27? to 4.30
(chain 140 to 141)
?
12.20(40)
?
Silt in bed and sides.? River 115 m away and 10 m deep.
?
8
?
Km 4.42? to 4.45
(chain 145 to 146)
?
17.98(59)
?
Silt in bed & sides. River 190 m away and 10 m deep
?
9
?
Km 4.60? to 4.65?? (chain 151 to 152.50)
?
19.51(64)
?
Silt in bed & sides. River is 225 m away and 9 m deep
?
10
?
R D 5.15? to 5.18? (chain 169 to 170)
?
7.92(26)
?
Silt in bed & sides. Reach is downstream of National Highway.
?
1 chain = 100’ = 30.48 m
?
TABLE 9. Particle-size analysis of bed material of Minor No.2 of LMC
?
?
S. No.
?
?
Reach
?
?
Grain size distribution
?
Clay %
(<0.002 mm)
?
?
Silt %
(0.002 to 0.02 mm)
?
?
Sand %
(0.02 to 2 mm )
?
1
2
3
4
5
?
1
?
Km 0.29
(Chain 9.50)
?
?
17.45
?
50.6
?
32
?
2
?
Km 1.16
(Chain 38)
?
?
90
-
?
10
?
3
?
Km 2.74
(Chain 90)
?
?
33
?
63
?
4
?
4
?
Km 4.11
(Chain 135)
?
?
20
?
44
?
36
?
5
?
Km 4.85
(Chain 159)
?
?
36
?
-
?
-
?
1 chain=100’=30.48 m
?
TABLE 10.Revised design data of Minor No.3 of Right Main Canal as per Intervention (for earthen section)
?
?
S. No.
?
Reach
in
Km
(feet)
?
Design dischar-ge in m3/sec (ft3/sec)
?
Velocity in m/sec (ft/sec)
?
Bed width in metre (feet)
?
Full supply depth in metre
(feet)
?
Water surface slope
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4)
?
(5)
?
(6)
?
(7)
?
1
?
0-0.518?
(0-1700')
?
0.433
(15.13)
?
0.44
(1.44)
?
1.52
(5)?
?
0.50
(1.65)
?
1 in 2500
?
2
?
0.518-0.914?? (1700-3000')
?
0.31
(11.07)
?
0.41
(1.36)
?
0.91
(3)?
?
0.53
(1.75)
?
1 in 2500
?
3
?
0.914-1.676?
(3000-5500')
?
0.198
(7.01)
?
0.37 (1.21)
?
0.61? (2)
?
0.49? (1.60)??
?
1 in 2500
?
4
?
1.676-2.774?? (5500-9100')
?
0.076
(2.67)
?
0.29
(0.96)
?
0.61? (2)
?
?0.30? (1.0)?
?
1 in 2500
?
5
?
2.774-3.566? (9100- 11700)
?
0.045
(1.60)
?
0.26
(0.85)
?
0.46? (1.5)
?
0.26?? (0.85)
?
1 in 2500
TABLE 11. Revised commanded area of Minor No.3 of RMC as per intervention
Distance from head in Km
Outlet? No.
?
Left
Or
Right
Gross commanded area
In
Hectare? (Acre)
Culturable commanded area
in
Hectare? (Acre)
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4)
?
(5)
?
0.396?
?
1
?
Right
?
48.56 (120)
?
46.13 (114)
?
0.518?
?
2
?
Right
?
43.30 (107)
?
42.49 (105)
?
0.518?
?
3
?
Left
?
71.23 (176)
?
55.44 (137)
?
0.884?
?
Sub minor
?
Left
?
126.67 (313)
?
121.81 (301)
?
0.914?
?
4
?
Left
?
27.11 (67)
?
25.09 (62)
?
1.524?
?
5
?
Right
?
72.44 (179)
?
65.16 (161)
?
1.676?
?
6
?
Right
?
67.58 (167)
?
59.49 (147)
?
1.676?
?
7
?
Left
?
29.95 (74)
?
29.14 (72)
?
2.433?
?
8
?
Left
?
17.81 (44)
?
15.78 (39)
?
2.682?
?
9
?
Right
?
21.04 (52)
?
20.64 (51)
?
3.566?
?
10
?
Tail(R/S)
?
21.04 (52)
?
20.64 (51)
?
3.566?
?
11
?
Tail(L/S)
?
36.02 (89)
?
34.40 (85)
? Total 581.14 ha (1436 acres) 536.23 ha(1325Acres
?
?
?
TABLE 12. Proposed Design data of Outlets / Adjustable Proportional Module’s of Minor No. 3 of Right Main Canal as per Intervention
?
?
Location of outlets
?
Details of minor
?
C.C.A. of Outlet areas? in
ha
(Acre)
?
Design disch-arge of outlet in lt./sec
(ft3/sec )
?
Type of outlet
?
Outlet crest width in metre (feet)
?
Design Water depth over crest?? (H)??? in? metre (feet)
?
Crest level FSL-H
?
Reduc-ed level of soffit roof block of APM
?
Minimum modular head?? in metre
?
Remarks
?
R.D. in Cha-ins
?
Out-let No.
?
Bed level?? in?? metre
?
Full supply depth in metre (feet)
?
Full supply level in metre
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4)
?
(5)
?
(6)
?
(7)
?
(8)
?
(9)
?
(10)
?
(11)
?
(12)
?
(13)
?
(14)
?
(A) Open Flume Outlet
?
13
?
1(R)
?
291.71
?
0.50 m
(1.65)
?
292.21
?
46.13
(114)
?
35.96
(1.27)
?
Cast iron open flume with roof block
?
0.15 m
(0.5)
?
0.273 m
(0.895)
?
291.937
?
292.26
?
0.04 m
?
Variation? gauge with zero at canal design FSL be fixed at outlet on canal side
?
17
?
3(L)
?
291.67
?
0.50 m (1.65)
?
292.17
?
55.44 (137)
?
43.04 (1.52)
?
-do-
?
0.15 m (0.5)
?
0.308 m
(1.01)
?
291.862
?
292.22
?
0.05 m
?
-do-
?
30
?
4(L)
?
290.37
?
0.53 m
(1.75)
?
290.20
?
25.09 (62)
?
19.54 (0.69)
?
-do-
?
-do-
?
0.182 m
(0.596)
?
290.718
?
290.95
?
0.03 m
?
-do-
?
50
?
5(R)
?
288.67
?
0.49 m
(1.60)
?
289.16
?
65.16 (161)
?
50.69 (1.79)
?
-do-
?
-do-
?
0.343 m
(1.125)
?
288.817
?
289.21
?
0.05 m
?
-do-
?
55
?
6(R)
?
288.61
?
0.49 m
(1.60)
?
289.10
?
59.49 (147)
?
46.16 (1.63)
?
-do-
?
-do-
?
0.322 m
(1.057)
?
288.778
?
289.15
?
0.05 m
?
-do-
?
55
?
7(L)
?
288.61
?
0.49 m
(1.60)
?
289.10
?
2914 (72)
?
22.65 (0.80)
?
-do-
?
-do-
?
0.200 m
(0.658)
?
288.900
?
289.15`
?
0.03 m
?
-do-
?
80
?
8(L)
?
286.64
?
0.30 m
(1.0)
?
286.94
?
15.78 (39)
?
12.18 (0.43)
?
-do-
?
-do-
?
0.133 m
(0.435)
?
266.807
?
286.99
?
0.02 m
?
-do-
?
88
?
9(R)
?
285.17
?
0.30 m
(1.0)
?
285.47
?
?20.64? (51)
?
16.14 (0.57)
?
-DO-
?
-DO-
?
0.16 m
(0.525)
?
285.310
?
285.52
?
0.03 m
?
-do-
?
117
?
Tail (L)
?
283.47
?
0.26 m
(0.85)
?
283.73
?
34.40 (85)
?
26.90 (0.95)
?
Mason-ry open flume
?
0.098 m
(0.32)
?
0.305 m
(1.0)
?
283.425
?
-
?
0.045 m
?
0.45 m (1.5') gauge with zero at crest level
be fixed?? u/s of the crest
?
117
?
Tail(R)
?
283.47
?
0.26 m
(0.85)
?
283.73
?
20.64 (51)
?
16.14 (0.57)
?
-do-
?
0.06 m
(0.2)
?
0.305 m
(1.0)
?
283.425
?
-
?
0.045 m
?
(B)Adjustable Proportional Module (A.P.M.)
?
17
?
2(R)
?
291.67
?
0.5 m
(1.65)
?
292.17
?
42.49? (105)
?
33.13 (1.17)
?
APM
?
0.15 m
(0.5)
?
0.317 m
?
291.853
?
291.975
?
0.09 m
?
y=0.122 m?? variation gauge be fixed on outlet canal? side
1 chain =100’= 30.48 m
?
?
?
Table 13. Revised Command Statement of Minor No. 3 of Right Main Canal as per Intervention
?
?
S.
No.
?
Outlet area No./ outlet No.
?
Km (Chain)
?
Critical NSL in the outlet area
?
Length of field channel from outlet to critical NSL in Km.
?
FSL/WL in field/? Naka point (NSL + 0.15 m)
?
Bed slope of field channel 0.25%? (1 in?? 4000)
?
FSL/WL required at head 6+ 0.25 x 5
?
FSL in Disty./ minor required at outlet (8+0.30)
?
FSL in Disty. / minor at outlet as per old L-section.
?
Position of existing FSL lower (-) or Higher(+) in? metre
?
N.S.L.
?
Location Khasra No.
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4 a)
?
(4 b)
?
(5)
?
(6)
?
(7)
?
(8)
?
(9)
?
(10)
?
(11)
?
1
?
1 (R)
?
0.396 (13)
?
292.19
?
1198
?
0.338??
?
292.34
?
0.09
?
292.43
?
292.73
?
> 292.21
?
-0.52??
?
2
?
2 (R)
?
0.518 (17 U/S)
?
291.23.
?
1696
?
0.523??
?
291.38
?
0.13
?
291.51
?
291.81
?
< 292.17
?
+0.36???
?
3
?
3 (L)
?
0.518 (17 U/S)
?
292.57
?
?918
?
0.161??
?
292.72
?
0.04
?
292.76
?
293.06
?
> 292.17
?
-0.89???
4
Sub minor
0.884 (29)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
5
?
4 (L)
?
0.914 (30 U/S)
?
291.30
?
1253
?
0.805??
?
291.45
?
0.20
?
291.65
?
291.95
?
> 290.87
?
-1.05??
?
6
?
5 (R)
?
1.524 (50)
?
289.52
?
2592
?
0.242??
?
285.67
?
0.06
?
289.73
?
290.03
?
> 289.16
?
-0.87??
?
7
?
6 (R)
?
1.676 (55 U/S)
?
288.52
?
1641
?
0.049???
?
288.67
?
0.01
?
288.68
?
288.98
?
< 289.10
?
+0.12??
?
8
?
7(L)
?
1.676 (55 U/s)
?
288.58
?
1637
?
0.362??
?
288.73
?
0.09
?
288.82
?
289.12
?
> 289.10
?
-0.02??
?
9
?
8(L)
?
2.438 (80)
?
286.15
?
2414
?
0.201??
?
286.30
?
0.05
?
286.35
?
286.65
?
< 286.94
?
+0.29??
?
10
?
9 (R)
?
2.638 (88)
?
285.39
?
1537
?
0.443??
?
285.54
?
0.11
?
285.65
?
285.95
?
> 285.48
?
-0.47??
?
11
?
Tail (Right)
?
3.566 (117 D/S)
?
283.55
?
1239
?
0.423??
?
283.70
?
0.10
?
283.80
?
284.10
?
> 284.13
?
+0.03??
?
12
?
Tail (Left)
?
3.566 (117 D/S)
?
283.69
?
2465
?
0.101??
?
283.84
?
0.02
?
283.86
?
284.16
?
> 284.13
?
+0.03??
1 chain=100’=30.48 m
?
?
TABLE 14. Command Statement Of Sub Minor Of Minor No. 3 Of Right Main Canal As Per Intervention
?
?
S. No.
?
Out- let area No./ out-let No.
?
? Km
(Chain)
Critical NSL in the outlet area
?
Length of field channel to critical NSL from outlet in Km.
?
FSL/WL in field/ Naka point (NSL + 0.15 m)
?
Bed slope of field channel 0.25% (1 in?? 4000)
?
FSL/WL requi- red at head 6+0.25x 5
?
FSL in Disty./ minor required at outlet (8+0.30)
?
FSL in Disty./ minor at outlet as per old L-section.
?
Position of exis-? ting FSL lower (-) or Higher(+)
?
N.S.L.
?
Location Khasra No.
?
(1)
?
(2)
?
(3)
?
(4 a)
?
(4 b)
?
(5)
?
(6)
?
(7)
?
(8)
?
(9)
?
(10)
?
(11)
?
1
?
1(L)(SM)
0.091(3)
?
289.625
?
1256
?
0.4
?
289.775
?
0.25?
?
289.875
?
290.175
?
290.52
?
FSL is higher
?
2
?
3(R) (SM)
?
0,762(25)
?
288.085
?
1621
?
0.2
?
288.235
?
0.25?
?
288.285
?
288.585
?
287.92
?
FSL is lower by 0.665 m
?
3
?
2(L)(SM)
?
0.762(25)
?
287.525
?
1320
?
0.3
?
287.675
?
0.25?
?
287.75
?
288.05
?
287.92
?
FSL is lower by 0.13 m
?
4
?
Tail(SM)
?
1.829(60)
?
285.175
?
1409
?
0.0
?
287.325
?
0.25?
?
285.325
?
285.625
?
285.50
?
FSL is lower by 0.125 m
1 chain=100’=30.48 m
?
TABLE 15. Seepage loss study in Minor No.3 Of RMC by Ponding method
?
?
S. No.????????????????????????????????????? (1)
?
Reach
Km
?????? (chain)?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????(2)
?
Seepage losses in m3/sec per million m2 (ft3/sec per million ft2) of wetted perimeter?????????????????????????????????? (3)
?
Type of strata of bed and sides?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (4)
?
?? 1
?
Km 0.21 to 0.30 (chain 7 to 10)
(FSL below NSL)
?
??? 3.96?? (13)
?
Clay with sub angular shingle (5%)
?
?? 2
?
Km 1.19 to 1.22 (chain 39 to 40)
(FSL below NSL)
?
??? 2.59? (8.50)
?
Clay
?
?? 3
?
Km 1.80 to 1.83 (chain 59 to 60)
(FSL below NSL)
?
??? 4.88?? (16)
?
Soft rock/ moorrum with sub angular shingle (25%)
?
?? 4
?
Sub minor
Km 0.18?? to 0.21 (chain 6 to 7)
(FSL above/ near NSL)
?
??? 7.62?? (25)
?
Disintegrated rock in bed and sides.
?
FSL:??? Full Supply Level
NSL:??? Natural Surface Level
Moorum: Gritty silicious material with humps or stones not exceeding 2???????? mm in size
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
TABLE 16. Particle-size analysis of bed material of Minor No.3 of RMC
?S.No .???????????????? (1)
?
Reach
Km
????? (chain)????? (2)
Grain size distribution
?
?? Clay %??? (3)
?
?? Silt %??? (4)
?
Sand %???? (5)
?
1
?
Km 0.61 (Chain 20)
?
94?
?
-
?
?6?
?
2
?
Km 1.37 (Chain 45)
?
40?
?
36?
?
24?
?
3
?
Km 2.67 (Chain 87.50)
?
20?
?
56?
?
24?
?
4
?
Km 2.97 (Chain 97.50)
?
14?
?
22?
?
64?
?
5
?
Km 3.35 (Chain 110)
?
?6?
?
30?
?
64?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
[1] Director (Retired) Minor Irrigation Schemes, Jaipur (Rajasthan :India)
E-mail: [email protected] ????????? Mobile: +919414056550? Phone : +91(141)2203508
Key words: micro network survey, soil tests, seepage loss, field channel, vertical drop
Sr. Adviser (Water Resources) at DHI
5 个月Thanks for sharing. This type of Action Research is welcome. Should be taken more frequently by project teams to enhance productivity of water. ??
Head Engineering & Maintenance at DD PHARMACEUTICAL PVT. LTD
5 个月Good to know!
Product | Program | Commerce | Telecom | Agile
5 个月An informative article. With the unbridled growth in global population, climatic extremes and massive depletions of water table, water is emerging as a precious resource and the 'new oil'. A well orchestrated policy for water conservation, utilization and channelization is needed to tackle the food security problems of the world and that of the agrarian economies that are periodically ravaged by the climatic extremes of draughts and floods. It calls for the realization that the economies of the world are interdependent more than ever and foodgrain and water shortages in one part of the world could send ripples in global economy.