The Lining of Irrigation Canals

10/12/13
The Lining of Irrigation Canals
CANAL LINING
HAIDERGARH & JAUNPUR BRANCHES
1 1.1
INTRODUCTION
The Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branch canals exist unlined canal systems of the Sarda Sahayak Project. These branch canals and the connected distribution networks are proposed to be redesigned, rehabilitated and modernized under the Pilot Reform Options for Irrigation and Drainage Operations as a part of the development objective of UPWSRP. The hydraulic profile along with other rehabilitation features of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur branch canals has been redesigned and the long section with typical cross section in various reaches has been decided accordingly. The details of Geometricstics of the proposed Haidergarh Branch in the reach from km 0.0 to 23.0 and the Jaunpur branch in its entire length of 119.54 km is presented in Table 1 & 2 below. The definitions of the terms mentioned in the tables are given below. L: Q: b: So: h: P: length of reach (km) design discharge (m3/s) bottom with of the canal (m) longitudinal slope (m/km) normal water depth (m) wetted perimeter (m)
1.2
A: wetted cross section (m2) V: average flow velocity (m/s)
Table 1: Geometric & Hydraulic Characteristics of the

Haidergarh Branch
From
km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
km 4.00 7.40 6.40 23.0
L
km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m3 / s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
So
m/ km 0.091 0.104 0.104 0.104
h
m 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m /s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
Table 2: Geometric & Hydraulic Characteristics of the Jaunpur Branch
From
km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15
To
km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00
L
km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85
Q
m 3/ s 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0
b
m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60
So
m /km 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122
h
m 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99
P
m 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38
A
m2 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99
V
m /s 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89
idup.gov.in/wps/UpidHm/UPWSRP/WSRP_StandardsAndGuidelines/Canal Lining.htm
1/30
10/12/13
67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.54 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.24 59.2 52.6 47.24 32.99 18.69

21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 0.122 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46
1.3
The conservation of water is becoming increasingly important as the demand for this vital natural resource continues to rise rapidly and new sources of supply become scarcer. A major portion of the canal length in the State is unlined, which canals loose between 35%-50% of water they carry depending upon the soil characteristics of the region they traverse, and the hydraulic and discharge parameters. The importance of lining irrigation channels with the view to save these losses cannot be over emphasized. Canal lining will play an increasing role in conserving losses and thereby extend and improve the irrigation facilities. Some of the broad benefits of canal lining are described below : Saving of seepage water and its value. Land and produce saved as water logging in adjacent land may be avoided. Saving in cost of, earth work, masonry structures, and cross-drainage works. Cost of land acquisition saved due to reduction in top width in case of lined channels. Due to reduced exposed area, evaporation and transportation losses are also reduced. Higher velocity obviates silting problems inherent in unlined canals. Improves Canal hydraulics, equity and reliability of water distribution. Smaller channel section to pass full supplies due to lower rugosity coefficient and higher velocities in lined sections. Lining does not permit weed growth and therefore transpiration losses would be non-existent. Ease and saving in operation and maintenance of the canal. In the perspective of high lining cost, a good economic justification for the considerable capital expenditure has to be evolved. Expenditure on a project is justified if the resulting annual benefits exceed the annual cost including interest on the capital investment. The financial justification for lining in a new project differs from that in an existing unlined canal in that, large number of advantages such as smaller capital outlay due to smaller cross section, reduction in land required and saving in cost of earth work, masonry structures and cross drainage works are already lost. For lining to be economically viable, the capitalized value of benefits should be equal to or grater than extra cost involved in providing lining. The project area is presently served by irrigation systems which receive their allocated water from the main feeder canal of the Sarda Sahayak Project. Ground water, replenishment from rainfall and seepage from the irrigation system and return flows is an additional source of irrigation water in the project area. This resource will need to be extracted upto the extent of replenishble volumes for intensification of agriculture as well as prevent land degradation caused due to water logging and salinity. Lining of canals to reduce infiltration to ground water and resultant water logging on one hand and to ensure additional supplies in the systems on the other hand has to be techno economically feasible and this aspect has to be studied and results evaluated. The implementation of lining works is a costly matter and deserves thorough attention in all its engineering and economical aspects. Essentially, this issue can be summarized as the answers to the following questions:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1.4
1.5
Is it convenient to line the above mentioned branch canals? If yes, how to line them, that is, what type (or types) of lining to be adopt? In general, the lining of irrigation canals produces significant tangible and intangible benefits. But its implementation and maintenance entails also a relatively high cost. Although there are cases were the need for lining an irrigation canal is obvious, usually a benefit-cost analysis is required for its justification.
2
2.1
REASONS FOR IM PLEM ENTING LINING

The purpose of this report is to present the main considerations regarding the issue of whether to line or not, the
2/30
10/12/13
following irrigation canals:

2.2
The Haidergarh Branch along the 23.0 km long reaches between its headworks structure and the take-off of the Jaunpur Branch. The Jaunpur Branch, along its whole length of 120 kms. The principal reasons far and against considering the possibility to invest in the lining of the above mentioned branch canals are discussed herein after. The seepage losses to be expected from the branch canals are estimated followed by a description of the most commonly used lining methods. Finally, the expected cost of implementing the recommended types of lining according to some alternative schemes is estimated, the benefits produced by the lining are evaluated and the corresponding benefit/cost ratio calculated. The principal reasons for considering the lining of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur branches are: To reduce the water losses due to seepage and thus gain water for irrigation To stop the process of water logging of the lands adjacent to and along the above mentioned canals. The area so reclaimed can be reintegrated for agricultural use. Several sources report that the total amount of water lost by seepage from unlined irrigation canals are between 20% to 60% of the total amount of water diverted at the head of the system . In Uttar Pradesh, it is reported that measurements show that only 56% of the water diverted at the head-works of the irrigation system reaches the fields and almost the same percentage is reported as having been observed in the Punjab and from these, 25% correspond to losses occurring in the main canals (branches and distributaries) . In those cases, where this resource is scarce, seepage losses may constitute a serious impediment to the attaining of the purposes envisaged by the project. Even assuming the seepage losses were taken into consideration by the original designers, the additional water, saved by the lining, can bring significant marginal benefits. The second factor, water logging, is the state of the land in which the subsoil water table is located at or near the surface with the result that the pores of the soil in the root zone of the crops are totally or almost totally saturated, so that normal air circulation is impeded and anaerobic conditions develop. One of the consequences of water logging agricultural land is that the yield of crops grown on it is reduced well below the normal or even impeded at all.
2.3

2.4
[1]
[2]
2.5
Another outcome of the water table being so close to the land surface is the deposition of salts in the root zone due to the evaporation of the water saturating, or almost saturating, the root zone. With the continuation of this process the soil becomes alkaline that is, highly infertile and ultimately infertile. The high water table impedes the reclaiming of these deteriorated soils by washing down the accumulated salts. As an example of the effect of water logging, the yield of crops will be adversely affected by the presence of a water table at depths equal or less than the following Wheat............... Cotton............... Rice...................
[3]
: 0.9 to 1.2 m 1.5 to 1.8 m 0.6 m Sugarcane ..... Folder crops... 0.9 m 1.2 m
Other adverse effects of the water logging of the soil are: difficulties in performing the required cultivation operations and activities, growth of water weeds and other unwanted aquatic plants, restricted root growth, lower soil temperatures and development of plant diseases.
ESTIM ATION OF SEEPAGE LOSS
3.1
General
3.1.1 As affirmed above, seepage prevention is the principal issue involved in the decision whether to consider lining the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches.
idup.gov.in/wps/UpidHm/UPWSRP/WSRP_StandardsAndGuidelines/Canal Lining.htm 3/30
10/12/13
The factors determining the amount of seepage in an unlined irrigation canal can be classified as belonging to one of the following four groups:
Years of service of the canal 3.1.2 The most important soil factor involved in the estimation of the amount of seepage is the permeability of the soil in which the canal is built. Canals constructed in clay or mixtures of clay and gravel are almost impervious while canals built in sandy soils will lose considerable amounts of water due to seepage. If the canal is already lined, the permeability of the lining and its physical condition (continuous, cracked, broken, etc) are among the main determinants of the amount of seepage to expect. The geometric factors involved in the estimation of seepage are the shape and dimensions of the canal, the depth to the water table, the depth to an impervious layer etc. 3.1.3 Seepage losses increase with the increase in the difference between the water level in the canal and the water table. When this difference equals or exceeds 5 times the width of the water surface in the canal, seepage will be at a maximum. Observations and theoretical analysis have demonstrated that shallow and wide canals are to be preferred in case of high groundwater and narrow but deep canal are better in area characterized by low groundwater. The main hydraulic factors are the depth of flow in the canal and the velocity of the flow (as explained below). 3.1.4 Sediment in the canal, especially as suspended load, tends to decrease the quantity of seepage by sealing the pores of the layer of soil along the wetted perimeter. This reduces considerably the permeability of that layer and consequently, the seepage from the canal decreases. With time, the thickness and impermeability of this peripheral layer increase and the seepage rate decreases. On the other side, high flow velocities in the canal tend to disturb this relatively impermeable thin layer and increase the seepage from the canal. 3.1.5 Though no quantitative assessment of seepage from the branch canal has been made by way of any observation / collection of data, there is however, a general perception that some percentage of the flow is lost by way of seepage. An overview of the command adjacent to the branch canals also indicates land degradation and salinization in considerably large areas which is reflective of shallow ground water table conditions, , contributed by seepage from the branch canals apart from other causes. Seepage losses from branch canal infiltrate into the ground water contributing to water logging and salinity. Gradual rise in the ground water level has been observed, particularly in areas adjacent to the branch canals, eversince commissioning of the project in 1978. During the review committee meeting, held in PACT office, on 17.05.05 and 22.05.05 it was suggested by the members that the subject matter of control of seepage, by providing suitable lining on the existing canal or on a redesigned branch canal as a lined canal may be studied. 3.1.6 Redesigning of the existing branch canal as a lined section will not be feasible option because the water depth parameter cannot be changed due to the limitation of the existing hydraulic profile, particularly the water depth of the feeder channel. Constriction in width only will involve not only additional quantities of earthwork but also changes in existing structures and distribution network inlets. The lining proposals therefore are being analyzed for the exiting branch canal hydraulic profile. 3.2 Estimation Methodologies
Soil and lining (if exists) characteristics Geometry and hydraulics of the canal Sediment characteristics
3.2.1 There are several methods for the estimation of the seepage losses from canals. These methods can be classified as:
Empirically developed formulas Solutions arrived at by analytical methods and by electric analogy When comparing the results obtained by the various methods, attention must be paid to the units adopted and to the form of expressing the seepage losses (as seepage discharge per unit length of the canal, or per area of wetted perimeter, or even as a percentage of the discharge in the canal).
4/30
10/12/13
3.3
Empirical methods and formulas
3.3.1 Davis and Wilson formula These authors suggest the following formula for the estimation of seepage in lined and unlined canals
[4]
S = 0.45 C h1/3 / (4 106 + 3,650 V1/2)

where: S is the seepage, in m3/sec/m2 of wetted surface (perimeter) of the canal, h is the water depth, in meters, V is the flow velocity in the canal, in m/s, C is a numerical coefficient whose value depends on the type of soil or lining:
Canal lined with a concrete layer 10 cm thick .. Canal lined with a layer of compacted clay 15 cm thick . Canal lined with light asphalt layer .. Canal lined with a layer of compacted clay 7.5 cm thick Canals lined with cement mortar . Unlined canals in clayey soils ... . Unlined canals in ordinary loams .. Unlined canals in sandy loams Unlined canals in loamy sands Unlined canals in fine sandy soil Unlined canals in medium sandy soils . Unlined canals in gross sandy and gravelly soils .
C=1 C=4 C=5 C=8 C=10 C=12 C=20 C=25 C=30 C=40 C=50 C=70
Unlined canals in canals in clayey loams ..........................C=15
In the present case, an average value of C=15 was adopted for design purposes. 3.3.2 Seepage Estimation according to USA methods 3.3.2.1 USBR Formula The USBR [5] utilizes the following formula for estimating seepage from unlined canals:
S = 0.2 C A1/2
where: S is the seepage in cfs/mile of canal A is the wetted area of the canal in. ft2. C is a constant whose value depends on the type of soil Following are the recommended values for the coefficient C:
Cemented gravel and hardpan with sandy loam ...C=0.34 Clay and clayey loam .. Sandy loam . Sandy soil. Sandy soil with rock .. Sandy soil with gravel . C=0.41 C=0.66 C=1.20 C=1.68 C=2.20
For the purpose of estimation of the seepage losses at the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches, a value of C=0.41 has been assumed as depicting the actual soil conditions.
5/30
10/12/13
3.3.2.2 USA design Directives

Another empirical estimation of the seepage losses in unlined irrigation canals [6] USA is as follows :
Type of soil Clay and impermeable loamy clay canals Ordinary clayey loams Sandy clays Clayey Sands Sandy soils Sand and gravel mixtures Ordinary gravelly soils Gravelly soils, very permeable Seepage losses (m 3/day/m 2 of wetted perimeter) 0.08 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.76 0.90 to to to to to to to to 0.11 0.23 0.31 0.46 0.53 0.76 0.91 1.83
commonly adopted for design in
The estimation of the seepage losses by means of the above table was performed with a mean value of 0.15 m3/day/m2 of wetted perimeter (which gives a value of 5.66 cfs per million ft2 of wetted perimeter) 3.3.3 The Egyptian Irrigation Department Formula Following is a formula adopted for design by the Egyptian Department of Irrigation [7] :
S = 86.4 C hm1/2
where: S is the seepage in m3/day/m2 of wetted perimeter of canal hm is the main depth of the flow in meters. C is a numerical parameter whose value varies from 0.0015 for clay to 0.0030 for sandy soils. A value of 0.020 was assumed for this coefficient. 3.3.4 Seepage Estimation Methods Adopted in India In Punjab, the following formula has been reported as recommended for the estimation of seepage losses in [8] irrigation canals :
S=Ch
where: S is the seepage losses in cfs/million ft2 of wetted area of the canal h is the depth of flow in ft C is a numerical coefficient whose value, in the Punjab, varies between 1.1 and 1.8. A value of C=1.4 was assumed for design purposes. Other formulas, utilized in Punjab For unlined canals: For lined canals:
[9]
are:
S = 1.90 Q0.0825 and
S = 0.35 Q0.056
where, in both formulas: S is the seepage losses, in m3/s per million m2 of wetted perimeter Q is the discharge in the canal, in m3/s 3.3.5 Other Approaches 3.3.5.1 In the northern plains of India, the following values for seepage losses are reported
6/30
10/12/13
Type of soil Impervious clay-loam Medium clay-loam, with hardpan not deeper than 1 m below canal bed Ordinary clay-loam Sandy clay loam Sandy loam Loose sandy soils Gravelly sandy soils Porous gravelly soils, very permeable Very gravelly soils

Seepage losses (m 3/s/million m 2 of wetted perimeter 0.9 1.2 1.8 2.7 3.6 5.2 7.0 8.8 10.6 to to to to to to to to to 1.2 1.8 2.7 3.6 5.2 6.1 8.8 10.6 21.2
From the values appearing in the above table, seepage losses amounting to 2.438 m3/s/million m2 of wetted perimeter were selected as reflecting the soil conditions. This value is equivalent to the most widely adopted value of 8 cfs/million ft2, normally assumed for seepage losses in unlined canals. This value of seepage loss has also been adopted for redesign of the project area canal systems. 3.3.5.2 In the Uttar Pradesh State, the following formula is utilized for the estimation of seepage losses in unlined [10] irrigation canals :
S = (b + h)2/3 / 200
where: S is the seepage losses, in m3/s per kilometer length of canal, b is the bed width of the canal, in meters, h is the depth of the flow, in meters This formula does not take into consideration the influence of the soil characteristics on the amount of seepage. 3.4 Analytic and Electric Analogy Methods Several analytical approaches and methods based on electric analogy for the estimation of seepage from earthen [11] canals have been proposed . All of them require field surveys and calibrations to establish the appropriate values of the various coefficients involved. But, the results regarding the amount of seepage are not more accurate than those obtained with the much more simple empirical methods. In addition, these methods require assumptions that simplify considerably the situation and do not reflect the influence of sediment in the water as well as other time dependent factors which decrease gradually the amount of seepage losses. 3.5 Seepage from Lined Canals Very few sources giving the way of estimating seepage losses from lined canals have been found in the relevant technical literature. The formula of Davis and Wilson (see section 2.2.1) permits to estimation of these losses for some common types of lining. According to IS:4745-1968, the expected seepage losses from hard surface lined canals are assumed as 0.60 m3/s/million m2 of wetted perimeter, which is equivalent to about 0.05 m3/day/m2 of wetted perimeter. Other authorities also report various rates of seepage expected from lined irrigation canals. within the range of 0.015 to 0.050 m3/day/m2 of wetted perimeter. Taking into account an average of all the above mentioned estimations, seepage losses amounting to 0.03 m3/day/m2 of wetted perimeter have been adopted in the present case for the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches after lining with buried plastic or asphaltic membranes, which are much more impermeable that concrete and brick lining.
[12]
These rates vary
10/12/13
Since the implementation of an impermeable lining on the side slopes of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches is very costly compared with the cost of lining the bottom, an estimate has been made of the amount of seepage to be expected if only the bottom will be lined. For this situation, no practical and empirical methods could be found in [13] the technical literature so the estimation has been made utilizing an analytic method . The adopted method gives the seepage to be expected from a partially lined canal, in our case with only the bottom lined, as a fraction of the seepage estimated for the same cross section but if unlined. This fraction is a function of side slope of the canal and of the ratio between the bottom width and the water depth. 3.6 Conclusions As described above, analytical and electric analogy methods are costly to apply and the results obtained do not justify the efforts involved in determining the numerical values of the various coefficients. Moreover, with the passage of time, fine sediment is deposited along the wetted perimeter of the canal with the result that a more impervious layer than the surrounding soil is created, a fact that reduces considerably the accuracy of the computations performed by analytical methods. Therefore, the most commonly used empirical and practical methods proposed in the technical literature, which have been described above, will be adopted. Since no comparative study has been made regarding the relative accuracy of these methods of seepage estimation, the seepage adopted for the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches will be taken as the average of the amounts estimated with each of these methods. The detailed calculations of seepage loss by use of different empirical methods described above are given in the following tables (Table 3 to 18). The Tables 19 to 22 that follow give the estimated amount of seepage per kilometer length of canal calculated by means of the various methods described above for both, the existing unlined condition and after their being lined along their entire perimeter. The seepage losses given are the average seepage losses per kilometer of canal and also the total losses for the whole reaches comprising the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches included in the project. The last four Tables 23 to 26 present the net gain is water (considered as the difference between the seepage losses estimated for the unlined cross section and those expected under both, completely lined and bottom lined only conditions. The summary is presented in Table 27. It must be stressed that besides the amounts of seepage estimated in the following tables that at some places seepage losses can be much higher than calculated due to special local soil conditions that favour that occurrence. Another interesting point is that compared to the other methods of seepage estimation, the formula adopted in Uttar Pradesh gives the smallest seepage rate. The average value of seepage loss estimated by the different methods described above compares very well with the most widely used value as mentioned in Para 3.3.5.1 above.
ESTIM ATION OF SEEPAGE LOSSES ALONG HAIDERGARH BRANCH Table 3: According to Davis and W ilson (Unlined) @ 0.45 . C . H1/3 / (4 . 106 + 3,650 .V1/2) per sqm.
From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m 3/s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
h
m
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m /s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
Seepage
m 3/s/km m 3/s 0.95 0.76 1.98 1.43
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
15 15 15 15
0.236 0.223 0.220 0.217
0.222
5.11
Table 4: According to the US Bureau of Reclamation (Unlined) @ 0.2 *C *A1/2

From
Km 0.00
To
Km 4.00
L
Km 4.00
Q
m 3/s 165.5
b
m 55.50
h
m
P
m 66.53
A
m2 183.88
V
m /s 0.90
Seepage
m 3/s/km m 3/s 0.26
1.50
3.06
0.41
0.065
8/30
10/12/13
4.00 7.40 16.40 7.40 16.40 22.98 3.40 9.00 6.58 165.5 163.2 159.7 51.80 50.90 50.00

1.50 1.50 1.50 3.06 3.06 3.06 62.83 61.93 61.03 172.55 169.80 167.05 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.063 0.062 0.062 0.21 0.56 0.40
0.062
1.43
Table 5: According to the Egyptian Department of Irrigation (Unlined) @ 86.4 . C . Hm1/2

From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m 3/s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
h
m
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m /s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
Seepage
m 3/s/km m 3/s 0.46 0.37 0.97 0.70
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
0.116 0.109 0.108 0.106
0.109
2.50

From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m 3/s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m /s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
c
0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.233 0.220 0.217 0.214
m 3/s
0.93 0.75 1.95 1.41
0.219
5.03
Table 7: According to First India's Punjab's Formula (Unlined)

From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m3/s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
h
m
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m/s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
Seepage
m3/s/km m3/s 1.06 0.85 2.22 1.60
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
0.265 0.250 0.246 0.243
0.249
5.72
Table 8: According to Second India's Punjab's Formula (Unlined)

From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m 3/s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m /s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
c
---------
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.193 0.182 0.179 0.176 m 3/s 0.77 0.62 1.61 1.16
0.181
4.16
Table 9: Northern Indian Plains (Unlined)

From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m 3/s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m /s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
c
2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.162 0.153 0.151 0.149 m 3/s 0.65 0.52 1.36 0.98
0.153
3.51
Table 10: UP Formula (Unlined) Losses @ (b+h)2/3 /200 m3/sec/km

From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m 3/s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m /s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
c
---------
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.075 0.072 0.071 0.071 m 3/s 0.302 0.245 0.643 0.465
0.072
1.65
9/30
10/12/13
ESTIM ATION OF SEEPAGE LOSSES ALONG JAUNPUR BRANCH Table 11: According to Davis and W ilson (Unlined) @ 0.45 . C . H1/3 / (4 . 106 + 3,650 .V1/2) per sqm.
From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
Q
m 3/s 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.2 33.0 18.7
b
m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26
P
m 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75
A
m2 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66
V
m /s 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46
c
15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.164 0.160 0.144 0.143 0.138 0.138 0.123 0.113 0.103 0.096 0.089 0.072 0.066 m 3/s 2.67 0.92 0.77 1.15 0.85 0.36 1.46 1.23 1.04 1.95 1.18 0.40 0.21
0.119
14.19
Table 12: According to the US Bureau of Reclamation (Unlined) @ 0.2 *C *A1/2

From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
Q
m 3/s 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.24 32.99 18.69
b
m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26
P
m 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75
A
m2 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66
V
m /s 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46
c
0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.052 0.052 0.049 0.048 0.047 0.047 0.044 0.042 0.040 0.038 0.036 0.032 0.030 m 3/s 0.86 0.30 0.26 0.39 0.29 0.12 0.53 0.46 0.40 0.77 0.48 0.18 0.10
0.043
5.13
Table 13: According to USA Design Directives (Unlined) for ordinary clayey loam
From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
Q
m 3/s 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.2 33.0 18.7
b
m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26
P
m 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75
A
m2 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66
V
m /s 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46
c
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.072 0.072 0.069 0.068 0.067 0.067 0.060 0.056 0.054 0.052 0.049 0.043 0.039 m 3/s 1.18 0.41 0.37 0.55 0.41 0.17 0.72 0.61 0.55 1.06 0.65 0.24 0.13
0.059
7.05
From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60
Q
m 3/s 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8
b
m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40
h
m
P
m 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58
A
m2 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36
V
m /s 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93
Seepage
m 3/s/km m 3/s 2.56 0.89 0.75 1.13 0.83 0.35
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10
0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020
0.157 0.154 0.141 0.140 0.136 0.136
10/30
10/12/13
44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.2 33.0 18.7

23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.121 0.112 0.103 0.097 0.091 0.074 0.068 1.44 1.22 1.04 1.97 1.19 0.42 0.22
0.117
14.02 Seepage
Table 15: According to First Indian Punjab's Formula (Unlined)

From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
Q
m 3/s 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.2 33.0 18.7
b
m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26
P
m 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75
A
m2 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66
V
m /s 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46
c
1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
m 3/s/km 0.192 0.188 0.162 0.161 0.155 0.155 0.137 0.126 0.111 0.102 0.094 0.072 0.067
m 3/s 3.14 1.08 0.87 1.30 0.95 0.40 1.63 1.37 1.12 2.07 1.24 0.41 0.22
0.132
15.79
Table 16: According to Second Indian Punjab's Formula (Unlined)

From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
Q
m 3/s 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.2 33.0 18.7
b
m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26
P
m 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75
A
m2 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66
V
m /s 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46
c
---------------------------
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.118 0.116 0.110 0.109 0.107 0.107 0.094 0.087 0.083 0.079 0.074 0.062 0.055 m 3/s 1.92 0.67 0.59 0.88 0.65 0.28 1.13 0.95 0.84 1.61 0.98 0.35 0.18
0.092
11.02
Table 17: Northern Indian Plains (Unlined)

From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
Q
m 3/s 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.2 33.0 18.7
b
m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26
P
m 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75
A
m2 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66
V
m /s 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46
c
2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.102 0.100 0.097 0.096 0.094 0.094 0.085 0.079 0.076 0.073 0.069 0.060 0.055 m 3/s 1.66 0.58 0.52 0.77 0.58 0.24 1.01 0.86 0.77 1.49 0.91 0.34 0.18
0.083
9.90
Table 18: UP Formula (Unlined) Losses @ (b+h)2/3 /200 m3/sec/km
From
Km
To
Km
L
Km
Q
m 3/s
b
m
h
m
P
m
A
m2
V
m /s
Seepage
m 3/s/km m 3/s
11/30
10/12/13
0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25 123.2 121.2 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.2 33.0 18.7

28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26 41.70 41.22 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75 121.50 118.48 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46 --------------------------0.051 0.051 0.050 0.050 0.049 0.049 0.045 0.042 0.042 0.041 0.039 0.035 0.033 0.062 0.061 0.060 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.055 0.052 0.051 0.050 0.048 0.044 0.042
0.006
0.70
Table 19: Average of all M ethods and Estimation of Total Seepage Losses (Unlined)- HAIDERGARH BRANCH
Davis and Wilson From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
USA Bureau of Reclamation
USA Design directives
Egyptian Dep. of Irrigation
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58 0.236 0.223 0.220 0.217 0.065 0.063 0.062 0.062 0.116 0.109 0.108 0.106 0.233 0.220 0.217 0.214
First Indian Punjab's Formula

0.265 0.250 0.246 0.243
Second Indian Punjab's Formula

0.193 0.182 0.179 0.176
Northern Indian Plains
UP Formula
Average (m 3/s/km)
Total For the Reach (m 3/s)

0.67 0.54 1.41 1.02
Seepage Losses in m 3/s/km of canal

0.162 0.153 0.151 0.149 0.075 0.072 0.071 0.071 0.168 0.159 0.157 0.155
Total losses due to seepage in the unlined present condition.
0.158
3.64
Table 20: Average of all M ethods and Estimation of Total Seepage Losses (Unlined)- JAUNPUR BRANCH
Davis and Wilson From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
USA Bureau of Reclamation
USA Design Directives
Egyptian Dep. of Irrigation
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25 0.164 0.160 0.144 0.143 0.138 0.138 0.123 0.113 0.103 0.096 0.089 0.072 0.066 0.052 0.052 0.049 0.048 0.047 0.047 0.044 0.042 0.040 0.038 0.036 0.032 0.030 0.072 0.072 0.069 0.068 0.067 0.067 0.060 0.056 0.054 0.052 0.049 0.043 0.039 0.157 0.154 0.141 0.140 0.136 0.136 0.121 0.112 0.103 0.097 0.091 0.074 0.068
First Indian Punjab's Formula

0.192 0.188 0.162 0.161 0.155 0.155 0.137 0.126 0.111 0.102 0.094 0.072 0.067
Second Indian Punjab's Formula

0.118 0.116 0.110 0.109 0.107 0.107 0.094 0.087 0.083 0.079 0.074 0.062 0.055
Northern Indian Plains
UP Formula
Average (m 3/s/km)
Total For the Reach (m 3/s)

1.85 0.64 0.55 0.82 0.61 0.26 1.06 0.89 0.77 1.47 0.89 0.32 0.17
Seepage Losses in m 3/s/km of canal

0.102 0.100 0.097 0.096 0.094 0.094 0.085 0.079 0.076 0.073 0.069 0.060 0.055 0.051 0.051 0.050 0.050 0.049 0.049 0.045 0.042 0.042 0.041 0.039 0.035 0.033 0.114 0.112 0.103 0.102 0.099 0.099 0.089 0.082 0.076 0.072 0.068 0.056 0.052
Total losses due to seepage in the unlined present condition...
0.086
10.30
Table 21: Estimation of Seepage Losses along the Haidergarh Branch after Lining
From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Q
m 3/s 165.5 165.5 163.2 159.7
b
m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00
Z
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
h
m 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06
P
m 66.53 62.83 61.93 61.03
A
m2 183.88 172.55 169.80 167.05
V
m /s 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96
m3/day/m2
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.023 0.022 0.022 0.021 m 3/s 0.092 0.074 0.194 0.139 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
Estimated seepage losses after lining.
0.022
0.50
Table 22: Estimation of Seepage Losses along the Jaunpur Branch after Lining
From
Km 0.00 16.32
To
Km 16.32 22.08
L
Km 16.32 5.76
Q
m 3/s 123.2 121.2
b
m 28.90 28.60
h
m
P
m 41.70 41.22
A
m2 121.50 118.48
V
m /s 1.01 1.02
m3/day/m2
Seepage
m 3/s/km 0.014 0.014 m 3/s 0.236 0.082
1.50 1.50
3.55 3.50
0.030 0.030
12/30
10/12/13
22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25 99.7 97.7 94.1 92.8 77.8 69.0 59.2 52.6 47.2 33.0 18.7 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60

1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26 39.66 39.36 38.58 38.58 34.72 32.38 31.18 30.07 28.39 24.65 22.75 104.03 103.08 99.36 99.36 85.89 77.99 69.62 63.96 58.71 44.95 40.66 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.82 0.80 0.73 0.46 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.008 0.074 0.110 0.082 0.035 0.144 0.122 0.109 0.213 0.130 0.048 0.026
Estimated seepage losses after lining.
0.012
1.41
Table 23 : Gain in Discharge due to Lining of the Haidergarh Branch

Seepage (m 3/s/km) Unlined Lined
0.168 0.159 0.157 0.155 0.023 0.022 0.022 0.021
From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Net gain
m 3/s/km 0.145 0.137 0.135 0.133 m 3/s 0.580 0.466 1.217 0.877
Total net gain in discharge m 3/s
3.141
Table 24: Gain in Discharge due to Lining of the Jaunpur Branch

Seepage From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
(m 3/s/km )
Net gain
m 3/s/km 0.099 0.097 0.089 0.088 0.086 0.086 0.077 0.071 0.066 0.062 0.058 0.048 0.044 m 3/s 1.617 0.560 0.474 0.711 0.525 0.223 0.914 0.770 0.663 1.258 0.762 0.268 0.143
Unlined
0.114 0.112 0.103 0.102 0.099 0.099 0.089 0.082 0.076 0.072 0.068 0.056 0.052
Lined
0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.008
Total net gain in discharge
8.89
m3/s
Table 25: Gain in Discharge due to Lining the Bottom Only Haidergarh Branch
From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
SU
Seepage per Km (m 3/s/Km) SBL/SU SBL b/h

18.14 16.93 16.63 16.34 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.050 0.052 0.052 0.053
Net gain
m 3/s/km 0.118 0.107 0.104 0.102 m 3/s 0.470 0.364 0.940 0.671
0.168 0.159 0.157 0.155
b: SU: SBL:
Bottom width Expected seepage in unlined section Expected seepage in bottom lined section
Total Gain:
2.45 m 3/s
13/30
10/12/13
Table 25: Gain in Discharge due to Lining the Bottom Only Jaunpur Branch
From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
Seepage per Km (m 3/s/Km) SU SBL/SU SBL b/h

0.114 0.112 0.103 0.102 0.099 0.099 0.089 0.082 0.076 0.072 0.068 0.056 0.052 8.14 8.17 8.98 8.89 8.84 8.84 7.85 7.22 7.77 7.96 7.53 7.30 6.46 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.048 0.048 0.041 0.041 0.040 0.040 0.039 0.037 0.034 0.031 0.030 0.026 0.025
Net gain
m 3/s/km 0.065 0.064 0.062 0.061 0.059 0.059 0.050 0.045 0.043 0.041 0.038 0.031 0.027 m 3/s 1.062 0.369 0.329 0.490 0.361 0.154 0.597 0.486 0.434 0.835 0.494 0.172 0.088
b: SU: SBL:
Bottom width
h:
Water depth
Total Gain:
5.87 m 3/s
Expected seepage in unlined section Expected seepage in bottom lined section
The following table present a summary of the estimated seepage losses at the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches under unlined (existing) and lined (total and partial lining) conditions
Table 27: Summary of the Estimated Seepage Losses

Branch At Head works
Haidergarh Jaunpur Both 165 123 165
Discharge (m3/s) Total seepage Losses Unlined

3.64 10.15 13.79
Lining of Bottom and Sides

0.5 1.4 1.9
Lining of Bottom only

1.5 5.5 7.0
4
4.1
COM M ON TYPES OF LINING

General
4.1.1 The main factors to be considered when selecting the type of lining to adopt are:

4.2
Economy: the cost of the lining must be justified by the benefits due to its implementation. Structural stability: the lining must withstand the static and dynamic pressures and forces exerted on it under variable conditions. Impermeability: the type of lining chosen must reduce the seepage losses considerably in order to justify its adoption (which, in the present project, it is its principal aim). Durability: the lining must be able to withstand the destructive effect of chemical action of salts, abrasion due to the sediment transported by the water, the sunshine, the moisture changes, the destructive effect of weeds, rodents, vandalism, etc. Reparability: All types of lining get damaged with the pass of time so the type adopted must permit an easy performance of the repair and or replacement operations. Fast implementation: As the implementations of the lining require total or partial interruption of the canal, types of linings which can be installed in shorter times have obvious advantages. Types of Lining
14/30
10/12/13
4.2.1 The most common types of lining irrigation canals can be classified as:
Hard surface linings Earth linings Elastic membrane linings
4.2.2 Hard Surface Linings 4.2.2.1 General Considerations
4.2.3 The most common types of hard surface lining are:
Concrete (reinforced or unreinforced) Asphaltic-concrete mixture Soil cement Mortar Bricks HDPE cellular confinement systems filled with concrete Concrete filled synthetic mattresses Hard surface linings require a sub-grade well compacted in such a way that no settlement will occur and that the surface of the sub-grade be set at the exact elevations and slopes. This can be rather difficult in the case of the bottom of the Haidergarh and the Jaunpur Branches which may entail the replacement of the top layer of unsuitable soil. The main problem regarding seepage prevention with hard surface lining is that after cracking, the seepage can be large. According to calculations made with a numerical model, the seepage from a canal whose rigid canal lining has been cracked to a 1% of the lined area will reach almost 70% of the amount of seepage in the same canal but unlined. So, in order to ensure a high degree of impermeability of the hard surface linings, it is recommended to lay under the concrete lining a synthetic geomembrane or to spray over the soil surface, before [14] installing the lining, an asphalt mixture in such a way as to form an impermeable layer 5 to 8 mm thick . It must be noted that the application of synthetic impermeable membranes may be problematic if the side slope of the canal is relatively steep due to the low friction angle between the membrane and the soil and between the membrane and the overlying hard surface lining. In this case, anchoring measures, which can increase considerably the cost of the lining, must be installed.
4.2.4 Criteria for design of lined canals, guidelines for selection of type of lining and code of practices for lining of canals with different materials have been issued by the Bureau Of Indian Standards. Some of the important codes on the subject are listed below for reference.
1 2 3 4 5 6 IS 10430 : 2000 IS 3872 : 2002 IS 3873 : 1993 IS 9698 : 1995 IS 7113 : 2003 IS 7873 : 1975 (Reaffirmed 1985) IS 4516 : 2002 IS 4558 : 1995 IS 5256 : 1992 Criteria for Design of Lined Canals and Guidelines for Selection for Type of Lining. Lining of Canals with Burnt Clay Tiles Code of Practice Laying Cement, Concrete / Stone Slab Lining on Canals Code of Practice Lining of Canals with Poly-Ethylene Film Code of Practice Soil Cement Lining for Canals - Code of Practice Code of Practice for Line Concrete Lining for Canals Stone Pitched Lining for Canals - Code of Practice Under Drainage of Line Canal - Code of Practice Sealing Expansion Joins in Concrete Lining of Canals - Code of Practice
7 8 9
Brief description of various types of lining is given herein after.

10/12/13
4.2.4.1
Concrete Linings Concrete, cast in place or pre-cast, with or without reinforcement is a most common type of lining irrigation canals. The disadvantages of this type of lining are its relative high cost, the long period of time required for its installation and its lack of capability to adjust itself to differential settlement of the underlying soil. Water losses from seepage in concrete lined canals can be as low as 0.04 (or even 0.03) m3/day/m2 of wetted [15] perimeter but it increases considerably with time due to deterioration of the lining (especially cracking). In the case of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches, the thickness of the concrete layer should be not less than 10 cm. This layer should be reinforced by a steel bar mesh. The amount of reinforcement in each direction should be 0.25 to 0.30 percent of the concrete area (for example, bars 6 mm @ 10 cm or bars 8 mm @ 15 to 20 cm). Shotcrete or gunite lining is a cement and sand mixture (consisting of about 1 part of cement to 2 to 4 parts of sand), with added water, applied pneumatically under pressure using a special nozzle to the canal surface to be lined. If deemed necessary, the lining can be reinforced by means of a wire mesh. The thickness of this type of lining varies from 2.5 to 8 cm according to the design discharge of the canal. If an almost total imperviousness is required, before the shotcrete mixture is applied, a geomembrane can be installed.
4.2.4.2
Exposed Asphalt-Cement Lining This type of lining consists of a mixture of 6.5% to 8.5% (by weight) of asphalt and cement and selected well graded aggregates passing the inch sieve, mixed hot and applied by hand or by means of adequate equipment to form a layer of 5 to 10 cm thick depending on the design discharge of the canal. Due to the high temperatures expected in the project area during the warm season, and its susceptibility to be penetrated by the grow of vegetation, lining with exposed asphaltic material is not suitable in this case.
4.2.4.3
Soil-Cement and Mortar Linings A 15 to 20 cm thick layer of soil-cement, which is a mixture of between 2 and 8 percent cement by weight and selected soil containing not more than 10% to 35% passing the 200 sieve, have been reported in USA as successfully utilized for canal lining. . Although the cost of this type of lining is much lower than concrete lining, it easily cracks so seepage may restart occurring. In order to attain a satisfactory degree of imperviousness, a synthetic geomembrane or a sprayed layer of bitumen must be installed under the soilcement lining.
4.2.4.4
Brick lining Brick lining is very common in India and as such has been utilized in the lining of the side slopes of the Haidergarh Branch and, although to a less extent, also in the Jaunpur Branch. Seepage losses from single-brick layer linings in good conditions can be as low as 0.05 m3/day/m2 of wetted perimeter but also in this type of lining, as occurs with all hard surface linings, seepage will increase with time and even reach a much higher rate approaching the rate corresponding to the canal in unlined condition. In order to reduce the amount of seepage through this type of lining, a 0.5 to 1.0 mm thick impermeable synthetic geomembrane, sandwiched between two unwoven geotextile fabrics can be laid over the soil and under the hard surface lining. Alternatively, the geomembrane can be substituted with a 3 to 8 mm thick layer of But [16] due to the relatively low friction angles between the synthetic geomembrane and de soil and between the geomembrane and mortar layer under the bricks a 1.5:1 side slope cannot ensure the stability of the lining against sliding. Since due to space restrictions it not possible to decrease the inclination of the side slope to 2:1 or even flatter, a 6 to 8 mm thick bitumen (asphalt) layer sprayed in situ under the lining. This has been utilized [17] in Pakistan and the result of that has been a brick lining which is highly impervious . The following illustration shows, schematically, this type of impermeable brick-bitumen lining (Figure 1).
16/30
10/12/13
Figure 1 : Brick Asphalt Lining

LEYEND A.. Sub-grade (compacted, sterilized and smoothened). B.. 100 mm thick layer of selected local sand and silt C......... 6 to 8 mm thick impermeable asphaltic hot-mixed sprayed membrane D......... 1 cm thick 1:4 (cement to sand) mortar E......... 7 cm thick brick Example of Brick-Asphalt Impermeable Side Canal Slope Lining In the figure 1, the asphaltic membrane is shown as sprayed between the layers of sand (layer B) and cement mortar (layer D) but some authorities recommend that the asphalt layer be sprayed directly over the side slope soil that is, under the sand layer. The specifications of the bitumen (asphalt) layer are:
Flash point (Cleveland open cup) not less than 220C Softening Point (ring and ball) between 80C and 95C Penetration at 0C (200 g. 60 sec) not less than 30 scale Penetration at 25C (100 g. 5 sec) 50 to 60 scale Penetration at 46C (50 g. 5 sec) not more than 120 scale Ductility at 25C (5 cm per minute), not less than 3.5 cm Loss at 163C in 5 hours, not less than 1% Penetration of residue at 25C (100 gr. 5 sec) not less than 60% of penetration before heating Bitumen soluble in carbon tetrachloride, not less than 97% The asphalt should be applied at a temperature between 175C and 210C. In order to prevent the penetration of the impermeable asphaltic layer by vegetation, the soil under the lining should be previously sterilized.
4.2.4.5
Concrete Filled HDPE Cellular Confinement Systems Cellular confinement systems linings are geocells made of HDPE (High Density Poly-Ethylene) filled with concrete. The thickness of this type of lining can be 5, 7.5, 10, 15 or 20 cm. depending upon the discharge in the canal, the velocity and degree of turbulence of the flow, etc. This type of lining is more elastic than other hard surface linings and can adjust itself to moderated differential settlements of the underlying soil. In order to ensure an almost complete impermeability of this type of lining it is recommended to install a geomembrane or asphaltic layer under it. Regarding the synthetic geomembrane, in the present project, where the side slope of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur branch canals, canal where the lining will be installed cannot be flatter than 1.5 (horizontal) to 1.0 (vertical), the laying of such a geomembrane under the concrete filled mattress may pose sliding problems whose solution requires special anchoring measures, like synthetic tendons firmly connected to the soil. Therefore, an asphaltic layer, as described in section 3.2.5, is to be preferred. No reports regarding the seepage to be expected for this type of lining has been reported in the relevant
17/30
10/12/13
technical literature but with the provision of an asphaltic layer under the concrete filled cellular confinement system, a very good degree of impermeability is to be expected 4.2.4.6 Concrete filled synthetic mattresses This type of lining consists of a polypropylene, polyester or nylon mattress filled with concrete under pressure. The thickness of the resulting layer is between 10 and 20 cm, according to the hydraulic characteristics of the flow in the canal. Also for this type of lining, as explained for the cellular confinements systems, it is recommended to achieve the desired degree of impermeability of by means of spraying an asphaltic layer (with the characteristics described in section 3.2.5) over the soil surface before installing the concrete filled mattress.. The degree of impermeability of this type of lining, provided an asphaltic layer is installed under it, is very high. 4.2.4.7 Earth Lining In order to reduce the age losses from irrigation canals it is very common to line them with a layer of a well compacted soil of very low hydraulic conductivity like clay. In this kind of lining care must be given to the avoidance of cracks in the earth lining due to moisture changes. It may be required an additional layer of a more light soil over the impervious layer of clayey soil in order to impede the formation of the above mentioned cracks. Also, in those places where erosion can occur due to the hydraulic characteristics of the flow, a protective lining must be provided over the impermeable earth lining. In the vicinity of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches, no site where clayey soil can be economically extracted and transported to where it must be laid was found so this type of lining was not considered as applicable in the present case. 4.2.4.8 Synthetic Membrane Linings Synthetic impermeable membrane linings can be done either with an exposed membrane or with a buried [18] membrane. In the case of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches, exposed membrane linings are not recommended because they deteriorate quickly due to sun exposure, weed puncture, livestock traffic, maintenance equipment and even vandalism. Therefore, they will not be considered at all. The impermeability of the bottom of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches can be achieved by means of a synthetic geomembrane buried sufficiently deep as to prevent its being damaged by all kind of objects transported by the current. In order to determine the depth of the cover over the geomembrane, the following considerations are made: During the period when the canal is empty for maintenance and cleaning operations), as in the Jyad season (see following pictures), an uplift force, due to the pressure exerted by the ground water, can endanger the stability of the geomembrane laid under the bottom. In order to impede the lifting of the geomembrane, the weight of the saturated soil over it (the cover) must exceed the uplift, that is, the following condition must be fulfilled:
SAT ( d dS) W (hGW + d)

where: d: dS : hGW : SAT: W: depth of the geomembrane under the bottom of the canal depth of degradation or scour of the canals bottom height of the groundwater table relative to the bottom of the canal saturated specific weight of the soil covering the geomembrane specific weight of the water
That is, the depth of the buried membrane under the bottom of the canal must satisfy the following condition:
d (SAT dS + W hGW ) / (SAT - W )

10/12/13
The following pictures show the emptied Jaunpur Branch during maintenance period. The deposition of silt on the side slopes and the presence of dunes on the bottom of the canal can be clearly seen. Also local degradation of the bed can be distinguished The effect of these dunes on the stability of the buried geomembrane must be considered [19] According to sediment transport theory , the maximum height of the dunes is estimated as 1/6 of the water depth h assuming that approximately 50% of the dune height will be under the original bottom of the canal, that is: dS/h 1/12.
d (SAT h / 12 + W hGW ) / (SAT - W )

In the present project, the saturated specific weight of the soil can be compute from
SAT and
where, in both equations:
= (G + e) W / ( 1 + e)
e = G/ DRY - 1
G: is the Specific weight of the solid material and e: is for the void ratio DRY is the dry specific weight of the soil. For both, the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches, the critical values of G and DRY according to the soil investigations performed along the two canals, respectively from where e=0.71 and thence SAT = 1,970 Kgr/m3 can be computed. Inserting the calculated value of SAT in the corresponding equations, the following relation is established:
,
that maximize d, are,
2,650 Kgr/m3 and 1,550 Kgr/m3
d 0.17 h + hGW
The groundwater table, along the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches, as measured at the end of the monsoon season, when at its highest elevation, is located under the proposed canal bottom (hGW is always negative or zero). The US Bureau of reclamation recommends to add 0.25 m to the required theoretical depth therefore the required depth of the geomembrane under the canal bottom will be computed as:
d = 0.17 h + 0.25 m
The following Table 28, gives the recommended values of the geomembrane laying depths (rounded to the nearest 5 cm multiple) as computed with the above equation.
Table 28: Geomembrane width and depth

b: width of the canal bottom to be lined d: laying depth under the bottom of the canal
Name of Branch Canal Haidergarh Reach To Km
4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20
b Length Km
4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60
d m
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.75
From Km
0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
m
55.5 51.8 50.9 50.0 28.9 28.6 28.3 28.0 27.4 27.4
Jaunpur
0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60
19/30
10/12/13
44.20 55.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 55.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45 10.95 11.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25

23.8 21.6 21.3 20.7 19.2 16.5 14.6 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.65 0.65
The minimum thickness of the covering layer of soil, as recommended by the USA Bureau of Reclamation is estimated as: d min = h/12 + 0.25 m. According to the above relation, for the Haidergarh Branch, were h3.10 m, d 0.50 m and for the Jaunpur Branch, the depth d will vary between 0.55 m at the upstream extreme of the canal to 0.45 m at its downstream extreme. However, consideration must be given also to the problem of degradation of the bottom due to the tractive force exerted by the flowing water on the material laying on the bottom of the canal, especially when the canal is operated just after finishing the cleaning and maintenance [20] activities. According to Shields theory for incipient motion the grain size that withstands the tractive force in bottom of a canal can be computed as:
Dm = h So / [KSH (S / w -1)]
Where: h: the depth of the flow (m) So: KSH: S : w: Dm: the longitudinal slope ( o/oo) the Shields coefficient (whose value, depending upon the flow and sediment Characteristics, is obtained from Shields diagram in the technical literature the density of the sediment material (gr/cm3) the density of the water (gr/cm3) the main size of the sediment particle that withstands movement (mm) For the Haidergarh Branch, with h3.10 m, So=0.106 o/oo, and S / w =2.65, the required main size of the sediment material is Dm4 mm. For the Jaunpur Branch, with the depth of flow (h) varying between 3.55 m and 2.26 m at the upstream and the downstream reaches respectively, and with a longitudinal bottom slope So=0.122 o/oo, the save size of the sediments decreases gradually from Dm=5 mm upstream to Dm= 3 mm downstream.. [21] The following figure gives the gradation of the soil material recommended for covering the geomembrane by the US Bureau of Reclamnation. It can be seen that the size requirements for Dm, being more or less as estimated above, correspond to a graded sandy gravel soil.
20/30
10/12/13
According to the USBR, the characteristics of the soil to be adopted for covering the geomembrane should be such as to permit to attain relatively high in situ density corresponding to a compaction of at least 95% Standard Proctor. But, to achieve this degree of compaction, the soil particle shape must be angular or subangular. This may require a thin geotextile (of about 200 gr/m2) over the membrane or, alternatively, to adopt a two-type soil cover consisting of a 15 to 30 cm thick finer-size layer of soil on the bottom, next to the geomembrane, and the required coarser soil over it. Even after taking into consideration some armoring of the canals bottom, the existing soil characteristics cannot provide the above estimated particle sizes corresponding to a graded sandy gravel soil. Therefore, if the existing soil is to be used for the covering of the geomembrane, it is recommended to increase the depth of laying the geomembrane to the values given in the table above. The surface of the soil under the geomembrane must be free from objects capable of harming it (especially puncturing it) like stones, sticks, roots, etc. In some instances, it may even be necessary to replace the original soil with a layer of clean soil some 20 to 25 cm thick under and over the geomembrane. Instead, or additionally, a non woven geotextile could be provided. Also, the application of a soil sterilant will be required to prevent the unwanted growth of weeds and other kind of vegetation that can damage the membrane. The impermeable geomembranes can be made of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Flexible Polypropylene (FPP) etc. Since they will be always buried, their UV (ultraviolet) resistance is not critical (unless exposed to the sun for weeks during their installation. In order to keep the cost of the lining as low as possible while not compromising on safety, an HDPE type of membrane is recommended. According to the US bureau of Reclamation, the membranes to be adopted should be at least 0.50 mm thick to permit their seaming by means of welding, and fulfill minimum mechanical and chemical requirements especially those regarding tear and puncture resistance and seams strength. Other authorities specify a 1.0 mm thick membrane because its higher strength and resistance against puncture, but at then the geomembrane will have a rather poor flexibility to adapt itself to settlements of the soil under it. In the present project, to achieve enough strength and resistance but at the same time not to lose flexibility, a thickness of 0.75 mm is recommended. Following are the main characteristics (specifications) of the HDPE:
Property 1 2 3 Thickness Minimum Density Tensile Properties - Yield Stress Test Method D 5199 D 1505 D 792 D 638 Value 0.75 mm 0.94 gr/ml 11 KN/m
21/30
10/12/13

- Break Stress - Yield elongation - Break elongation Tear resistance Puncture resistance Stress crack resistance Carbon black content 20 KN/m 12% 700% 93 N 240 N 300 hr 2.0% to 3.0%
4 5 6 7
D 1004 D 4833 D 5397 D 1603
The US Environmental Protection Agency has issued technical guidance regarding the minimum requirements for [22] geomembrane installation survivability . According to that guidance, for typical conditions usually met in canal lining works (hand or machine placement of geomembranes on smooth subgrades), the following minimum requirements are to be fulfilled:
Geomembrane Property Thickness Tensile (25 mm strip) Tear Puncture Impact Test Method (ASTM) D 1593 D 882 D 1004 D 4833 D 3998 Minimum Value 0.75 mm 9.0 Kn/m 46 N 140 N 12 Joules
It can be seen that regarding tensile, tear and puncture resistance, which are the most important parameters, the HDPE geomembrane proposed is amply sufficient. The joining of the geomembrane will be by means of welding with special equipment provided by the manufacturer and performed under the supervision. Usually, an overlap of about 15 cm (6) is required. Figure 3, 4 & 5 show typical stages in the installation of the geomembrane. Although the pictures depict a lining job performed on much smaller canals than in our case they are very representative also regarding the Haidergarh and Jaunpur branches.
Fig 3: Unrolling the HDPE Geomembrane into the canal profile
22/30
10/12/13
Fig 4: W elding the seams
Fig 5: Burying the geomembrane The following figures show typical alternative cross sections of the lined canals (bottom lining only and whole section lining) The method of anchoring the geomembrane to a rigid structure, as recommended by the geomembrane manufacturers, is similar to the detail shown in the relevant figure in connection to the anchoring to the toe wall. However, this is a rather costly method whose purpose is to achieve a complete and impermeable connection to the structure. Another consideration must be given to the scour that is expected to occur in the vicinity of structures. This scour can reach a depth far exceeding the depth of the laying of the geomembrane in the canal (between 0.80 m and 0.60 m). Therefore, near structures (piers, abutments, cutoffs etc), the geomembrane must be laid well under the scouring depth. In the present situation, where some seepage can be afforded, consideration must be given not to adopt this method and simply interrupt the geomembrane lining upstream and downstream the hydraulic structure. The increase in the seepage losses, assuming they are proportional to the lengths of the lined and unlined reaches of the canal, will be insignificant. Therefore, analyzed marginally, the small gain in water due to anchoring the lining to structures is hardly justified by its relative high cost. 4.3 a) Conclusions Lining at the bottom The best alternative to make the bottom of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches impermeable is to install a
10/12/13
buried geomembrane. Besides being the most economic type of bottom lining considered impermeable, other lining methods require a careful preparation of the sub-grade -especially compaction- which, considering the conditions probably to be met in the field, will be quite difficult to perform. In addition, from all the impermeable lining methods described above, the one based on a synthetic geomembrane seems to be the fastest to implement, which is an important consideration in the light of the limited lapse of time that can be devoted for the performance of the lining works each year. The cost of lining the bottom with a 0.75 mm thick HDPE geomembrane buried to a depth between 0.85 and 0.65 m, based on information received from the geomembrane manufacturers and installation contactors and of the unit cost of the civil engineering component works involved, has been estimated as Rs. 250 per m2. b) Lining at the side slopes Regarding the lining of the canals side slopes, reinforced concrete, brick, a concrete filled cellular confinement system or a concrete filled synthetic mattress can be adopted, provided an impermeable bitumen layer is to be laid under the hard surface lining. Based on the unit costs of labour, materials and equipment required, and on information received from the manufacturers agents in India of cellular confinement systems, and concrete filled synthetic mattresses, the costs of implementation of various types of hard surface linings have been estimated. Excluding the cost of the earthworks, the toe wall and shoulder structures, all of them assumed to cost similar for all the linings considered, the prices per m2 of lining, including the impermeable geomembrane or bitumen layer, are as follows:
One single layer of brick lining: .. Rs. 400 per m2 A 10 cm thick reinforced concrete lining ................... Rs. 630 per m2 A 10 cm thick concrete filled cellular confinement system.. Rs. 690 per m2 The cost of a concrete filled synthetic mattress is very similar to that of a concrete filled cellular confinement system. All the above mentioned linings need a cutoff wall at the toe of the embankment, The cost of this cutoff wall is estimated as Rs. 900/linear meter of cutoff wall. In addition, anchoring the lining at the shoulder (top of the embankment) is needed. The details of the anchoring vary with the different types of lining but their cost is similar and can be estimated as Rs. 700 per linear meter of shoulder In view of the estimated costs shown above, the obvious choice for lining the side slopes of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches is the single layer of bricks, over an impermeable bitumen layer sprayed in situ.
Taking into consideration earthworks to compacting, straightening and, smoothening the soil surface, the cost of lining the canal side slopes (CSS), per unit length of the side slope, as described above, has been estimated as CSS = 800 x (h+f) + 1,600 (in Rp. per linear meter long of a canal) where h and f stand for the water depth and the freeboard (in meters), respectively. This cost refers to the lining of one side of the canal only, that is, the total cost for lining one meter lengthwise of the canal will be twice the cost computed by the above formula.
5
5.1
CONVENIENCE OF LINING
General In order to justify, based on economical considerations, the decision whether or not to implement the lining of the Haidergarh Branch, and/or of the Jaunpur Branch, the corresponding Benefit/Cost ratio of its doing will be calculated. For comparison, all the costs and benefits will be expressed as equivalent annual sums. The equivalent annual cost of the lining, as well as the equivalent annual cost of reclaiming the waterlogged area has been computed by means of the well known compound interest formula (or depreciation formula):
AC = P C x (I/100) / [1-(1+I/100)-n]
10/12/13
where Ac is the equivalent annual cost (Rs./ Year) PC is the initial (present) cost (Rs.) I is the interest or depreciation value (in %) n is the useful life in years For the benefit/cost analysis, it has been assumed that the crops to be irrigated by the saved water due to the implementation of the lining are wheat (in the dry season) and rice ine the monsoon season. The net wheat and rice areas have been calculated as the respective water duties times the discharge saved times the conveyance efficiency (the small difference in the values is due to truncation errors in the discharge Q). Costs The costs consist of execution of the lining (initial cost) and the annual cost
required for maintenance.
Regarding maintenance, it can be assumed that the basic maintenance operations required in the existing unlined canal branches, such as periodical extraction of the sediment deposited, repair of the roads over the embankment crests, etc will remain unchanged after the implementation of the lining. Therefore, the difference in the maintenance cost between the same canal, if lined or unlined, will be due to the maintenance of the lining itself. The annual maintenance cost of the lining being usually assumed as 1% of its initial cost. Benefits The net benefits are due mainly to additional income obtained by the augmentation in the rice and wheat crops made possible by the increment in the amount of water available to irrigation because of the reduced seepage at the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches, minus the equivalent annual cost of the initial cost required to perform the works involved in the reclamation of the waterlogged land along the two irrigation branch canals and minus the total annual cost of performing the agricultural practices.. Scenarios The Benefit/Cost ratio will be estimated separately for the Haidergarh Branch and for the Jaunpur Branch and also for the simultaneous lining of the two branches. For each branch canal, two possibilities will be considered:
The lining of the whole cross section The lining of the bottom only of the canal. The following Table 29, presents the amounts of bottom and side slope lining for the Haidergarh and Jaunpur branches
Table 29: Total Lining Surfaces

Branch Bottom Haidergarh Jaunpur Both Branches 1,185,220 2,799,589 3,984,809 Lined Surface (m2 ) Side Slopes 328,108 1,585,336 1,913,444 Length of toe and shoulder (m) 45,960 238,900 284,860
5.2
Benefit/Cost Ratio Parameters The following parameters were adopted for the estimation of the benefit/cost ratio due to the implementation of the lining of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches.
- Useful life of lining .. - Annual interest rate.. - Annual maintenance cost of the lining - Irrigation Duty of wheat at outlet from minor - Irrigation Duty of rice at outlet from minor 30 10.00% 1.00% 1,800 900 of initial cost Ha/(m 3 /s) Ha/(m 3 /s) years
25/30
10/12/13

- Conveyance efficiency (distributaries + minors, etc) - Annual cost of agricultural practice for wheat.. - Annual cost of agricultural practice for rice.. - Wheat production from one hectare . - Rice production from one hectare - Total annual benefit obtained from one Ton of wheat - Total annual benefit obtained from one ton of rice. - Area of waterlogged land that can be reclaimed along the Haidergarh Branch - Area of waterlogged land that can be reclaimed along ` the Jaunpur Branch.. - Initial cost of reclaiming one hectare of waterlogged land.. - Useful life of reclaimed waterlogged land. 75 10,000 10,000 3.40 3.80 7,000 5,500 1,100 6,000 40,000 50 % Rs./Ha/year Rs./Ha/year Ton/Ha/crop season Ton/Ha/crop season Rs./Ton Rs./Ton Ha Ha (Rs./Ha) [23] Years
The next two Tables 30 & 31 show the calculation of the costs of lining the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches. The two Tables 32 to 33 given after them present the details of the computation of the equivalent annual costs and benefits and the corresponding Benefit/Cost ratio. The proposals for lining the Haidergarh and Jaunpur branch canals in the bed only with geomembrane has no social and environmental disadvantages and do not add to the cost parameters. Infact when implemented. The proposal is likely to add the value of soil and yields in the areas which are presently adversely affected and also add to the incomes of the farm house holds which will indirectly enhance the B/C ratio. The crops assumed to be irrigated with the additional water made available are wheat during the Rabi (winter) season and paddy rice during the Kharif (monsoon) season.
Table 30: Estimation of the Cost of Lining of the Haidergarh Branch

Reach To
Km 4.00 7.40 16.40 22.98
From
Km 0.00 4.00 7.40 16.40
L
Km 4.00 3.40 9.00 6.58
Cross Section dimensions b Z h f

m 55.50 51.80 50.90 50.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 m 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06 m 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Cost of Lining per Km of Canal ( Rs./Km)

Bottom 13,875,000 12,950,000 12,725,000 12,500,000 Side slopes 9,536,000 9,536,000 9,536,000 9,536,000 All the Section 23,411,000 22,486,000 22,261,000 22,036,000
Cost of Lining the whole Reach ( Rs.)

Only the Bottom 55,500,000 44,030,000 114,525,000 82,250,000 296,305,000 All the Section 93,644,000 76,452,400 200,349,000 144,996,880 515,442,280
Total.
Table 31: Estimation of the Cost of Lining of the Jaunpur Branch

Reach To
Km 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20 119.45
From
Km 0.00 16.32 22.08 27.42 35.48 41.60 44.20 56.15 67.00 77.10 97.45 110.60 116.20
L
Km 16.32 5.76 5.34 8.06 6.12 2.60 11.95 10.85 10.10 20.35 13.15 5.60 3.25
Cross Section dimensions b Z h f

m 28.90 28.60 28.30 28.00 27.40 27.40 23.80 21.60 21.30 20.70 19.20 16.50 14.60 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 m 3.55 3.50 3.15 3.15 3.10 3.10 3.03 2.99 2.74 2.60 2.55 2.26 2.26 m 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Cost of Lining per Km of Canal (Rs./Km)

Bottom 7,225,000 7,150,000 7,075,000 7,000,000 6,850,000 6,850,000 5,950,000 5,400,000 5,325,000 5,175,000 4,800,000 4,125,000 3,650,000 Side slopes 10,080,000 10,000,000 9,440,000 9,440,000 9,360,000 9,360,000 9,248,000 9,184,000 8,784,000 8,560,000 8,480,000 8,016,000 8,016,000 All the Section 17,305,000 17,150,000 16,515,000 16,440,000 16,210,000 16,210,000 15,198,000 14,584,000 14,109,000 13,735,000 13,280,000 12,141,000 11,666,000
Cost of Lining the whole Reach (Rs.)

Only the Bottom 117,912,000 41,184,000 37,780,500 56,420,000 41,922,000 17,810,000 71,102,500 58,590,000 53,782,500 105,311,250 63,120,000 23,100,000 11,862,500 699,897,250 All the Section 282,417,600 98,784,000 88,190,100 132,506,400 99,205,200 42,146,000 181,616,100 158,236,400 142,500,900 279,507,250 174,632,000 67,989,600 37,914,500 1,785,646,050
Total.
Table 32: Estimation of the Benefit/Cost Ratio due to Lining the W hole Cross Section
26/30
10/12/13
Item
Initial cost of the lining (Rs.) Equivalent annual cost of the lining (Rs./year)
Branch canal
Haidergarh only
515,442,280 54,677,730 5,154,423 59,832,152 3.14 1,100 4,234 2,117 44,000,000 4,437,804 42,338,336 21,169,168 63,507,504 100,765,239 44,243,561 145,008,800 81,501,296
Jaunpur only
1,785,646,050 189,419,991 17,856,461 207,276,451 8.87 6,000 11,977 5,989 240,000,000 24,206,202 199,774,555 59,887,278 179,661,833 285,063,441 125,164,410 410,227,852 230,566,019
Both
2,301,088,330 244,097,720 23,010,883 267,108,604 12.01 7,100 16,211 8,106 284,000,000 28,644,005 162,112,891 81,056,445 243,169,336 385,828,680 169,407,971 555,236,651 312,067,315
Annual maintenance cost of the lining (Rs./year) Total equivalent annual cost of the lining (Rs./year) Discharge saved due to lining (m 3 /s) Area of waterlogged land to be reclaimed for irrigation (Ha) Net wheat area that can be irrigated with the saved water (Ha) Net rice area that can be irrigated with the saved water (Ha) Cost of reclaiming the waterlogged land (Rs) Equivalent annual cost of reclaiming the waterlogged land (Rs/year) Annual cost of agricultural practices for wheat (Rs./year) Annual cost of agricultural practices for rice (Rs./ceyear) Total annual cost of agricultural practices (Rs./year) Total annual benefits from wheat (Rs./year) Total annual benefits from rice (Rs./year) Total annual benefits from agriculture (Rs/year) Total net annual benefits due to the lining (Rs./year)
Benefit/cost ratio
1.36
1.11
1.17
Table 33: Estimation of the Benefit/Cost Ratio due to Lining the Bottom Only
Item
Initial cost of the lining (Rs.) Equivalent annual cost of the lining (Rs./year)
Branch canal
Haidergarh only
296,305,000 31,431,812 2,963,050 34,394,862 2.44 1,100 3,298 1,649 44,000,000 4,437,804 32,976,914 16,488,457 49,465,371 78,485,055 34,460,875 112,945,930
Jaunpur only
699,897,250 74,244,574 6,998,973 81,243,547 5.86 6,000 7,912 3,956 240,000,000 24,206,202 79,117,991 39,558,996 118,676,987 188,300,819 82,678,301 270,979,120
Both
996,202,250 105,676,386 9,962,023 115,638,408 8.30 7,100 11,209 5,605 284,000,000 28,644,005 112,094,905 56,047,453 168,142,358 266,785,874 177,139,176 383,925,050
Annual maintenance cost of the lining (Rs./year) Total equivalent annual cost of the lining (Rs./year) Discharge saved due to lining (m 3 /s) Area of waterlogged land to be reclaimed for irrigation (Ha) Net wheat area that can be irrigated with the saved water (Ha) Net rice area that can be irrigated with the saved water (Ha) Cost of reclaiming the waterlogged land (Rs) Equivalent annual cost of reclaiming the waterlogged land (Rs/year) Annual cost of agricultural practices for wheat (Rs./year) Annual cost of agricultural practices for rice (Rs./ceyear) Total annual cost of agricultural practices (Rs./year) Total annual benefits from wheat (Rs./year) Total annual benefits from rice (Rs./year) Total annual benefits from agriculture (Rs/year)
27/30
10/12/13
Total net annual benefits due to the lining (Rs./year)

63,480,559 152,302,133 215,782,692
Benefit/cost ratio
1.85
1.87
1.87
5.3
Conclusions The following Table 34 presents the Benefit/Cost ratios due to the lining of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches.
Table 34: Summary of Benefit/Cost Ratios due to Lining

Canal to be lined
Hairdergarh Branch Jaunpur Branch Both branches
Extent of Lining Entire Cross Section Bottom only

1.36 1.11 1.17 1.85 1.87 1.87
The main conclusions from the economic appraisal of the convenience of lining the Haidergarh and Jaunpur branch canals are: I. II. For all the possible alternatives the benefit/cost ratio indicates the convenience of performing the lining. When considering the lining of the whole cross section, the Benefit/Cost ratio for the Haidergarh Branch is higher than that for the Jaunpur Branch. When only the lining of the bottom is considered, the results are reversed and the B/C for the Jaunpur Branch becomes the highest. Partial lining of the canals is more convenient than lining the whole cross section. This can be understood easily because the cost of lining the sides of the canal is relatively high and the decrease in the amount of seepage is relatively low. From the details given below, it can be seen that the marginal costs benefits and Benefit/Cost ratios of lining the side slopes of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches, once their bottoms have been lined, are as follows:
Branch canal Marginal cost (Rs.) Marginal benefits(Rs.) Benefit/Cost ratio Haidergarh Branch 25,437,291 18,020,737 0.71 Jaunpur Branch 126,032,904 78,263,886 0.62
III.
That is, for the Haidergarh Branch, once the bottom has been lined, no significant gain is obtained by lining the side slopes whereas for the Jaunpur Branch this work is uneconomic. IV. V. If lining of the bottom only is to be considered further, then this work is slightly more convenient for the Jaunpur Branch than for the Haidergarh Branch (Benefit/Cost ratios of 1.87 and 1.85, respectively). The Benefit/Cost ratio for lining both branch canals will be between those estimated for each branch canal separately but closer to the ratio obtained for the Jaunpur Branch. The above mentioned Benefit/Cost ratios were estimated assuming an annual interest of 10%. If the interest is lower, the Benefit/Cost ratio becomes higher and on the contrary, raising the annual interest makes less convenient the lining. The internal rates of return for the lining of the whole cross section and for the lining of the bottom only are estimated as follows: Branch canal Haidergarh Jaunpur VIII. Lining the whole cross section 14.56% 11.45% Lining only the bottom 20.34% 20.68%
VI.
VII.
The above economic analysis was based on the assumption that the additional water available to irrigation is utilized to supply the needs of new land to be put under irrigation. Another possibility, that may be even more attractive economically, is that the additional water will be used to complete the normally required water needs in land already under irrigation but receiving less water than what is needed. As a result of this additional water supply, the weight of the crops grown in these areas will increase considerably.
28/30
10/12/13
IX.
It is also possible that after a detailed soil survey along the canals, some places will be identified where in order to reclaim the waterlogged areas adjacent to the canal it is necessary to line the whole cross section of the canal whereas in the rest of the canal it is sufficient to line only the bottom. Assuming that these places are uniformly distributed along the two branch canals, the following table shows the total equivalent annual costs and benefits involved in the lining for various percentages of canal lengths that will be lined at the side slopes (all the canal is lined at the bottom). The Table 35 given below shows that the benefit/Cost ratio decreases with an increase in the percentage of canal length that is lined also at the side slopes.
Table 35: Benefit/Cost ratios for partial side slope lining

Branch 0% Haidergarh Jaunpur Both 1.85 1.87 1.87 Percentage of total canal length requiring lining also at the side slopes 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1.80 1.79 1.80 1.75 1.72 1.73 1.70 1.64 1.66 1.65 1.57 1.59 1.61 1.49 1.52 1.56 1.41 1.45 1.51 1.34 1.38 1.46 1.26 1.31 1.41 1.19 1.24
100% 1.36 1.11 1.17
Typical Cross Section of bottom lined canal is shown in Figure 6.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

[6]
See, for example, table 1 in D. B. Kraatz, Irrigation Canal Lining, Irrigation and Drainage Paper, FAO, Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome 1971 All these figures are reported by Sally, H.L.in his book Lining of Earthen Irrigation Channels, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1965.
See Varshney, R.S., Gupta, S.C. and Gupta, R.L., Theory ad Design of Irrigation Strustures, Nem Chand & Bros, Roorkee, 1979. This method is described in Dhillon, G.S., Estimation of Seepage Losses from Lined Canals, Indian Journal of Power and River Valley Development, 1967.
The formula is given in the USBR publication Canals and Related Structures, Boulder Colorado, USA Bazuil, Traite dIrrigation, Eyrolles, Paris Doorenbos, J., A Literature Survey of Seepage in Canals, IILRI, Wegeningen, The Netherlands, 1963 Controlling Sepage Losses from Irrigation Canals, World Wide Survey, ICID, New Delhi , 1967
[7] [8]
[9]
Modi, P. N., Irrigation, Water Resources and Water Power, Standard Book House, New Delhi, 1988 [10] Modi, P. N., Irrigation, Water Resources and Water Power, Standard Book House, New Delhi, 1988 [11] See, for example: Bouwer, H., Theory of Seepage from Open Channels, Advances in Hydroscience, Vol. 5, Academic Press inc., New York, 1969. Doorenbos, J., A Literature Survey of Seepage in Canals, IILRI, Wegeningen, The Netherlands, 1963 [12] See, for example Irrigation Canal Lining, FAO, 1977 ; Plusquellec, H., Applications of Geosynthetics in Irrigation and Drainage Projects, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), New Delhi, India, 2004 [13] Subramanya, K., Madhav, M. R. and Mishra, G. C., Studies on Seepage from Canals with Partial Lining, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil engineers, Vol. 99, No. HY12, December 1973. [14] For a specification of the synthetic geomembrane or the asphalt mixture characteristics, see the corresponding sections that follow. [15] Plusquellec, H., Applications of Geosynthetics in Irrigation and Drainage Projects, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), New Delhi, India, 2004 [16] The interface friction angles between geosynthetics (geomembranes and geotextiles) and between geosyntetics and different types of soils and lining materials can be found in Koerner R. Designing with Geosynthetics, Fifth Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2005. [17] Nazir, A. and Razzak, A., A Stable and Impervious Lining for Canals of West Pakistan, Proceedings of the West Pakistan Engineering Congress, Lahore, Pakistan, 1960. [18] USBR, Linings for Irrigation Canals, USA Department of the Interior, USA Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., 1963 [19] Graf, W. H., Fluvial Hydraulics, John Wiley $ Sons, New York, 2000., R.J. Garde and K.G. Ranga Raju, in the third edition of their book Mechanics of Sediment Transportation and Alluvial Stream problems (New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, 2000) cite Goncharovs studies on dune characteristics which with the soil characteristics of the Haidergarh and Jaunpur Branches will give a maximum dune height of about 10% to 12% of the maximum depth of flow in the canal. For the sake of safety, the dune height recommended by Graf will be adopted. [20] Yang, Ch. T., Sediment Transport, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, 1996 [21] The figure , originally given by Morrison, W. R. and Starbuck, J. G. in Performance of Plastic canal Liings, US Bureau of Reclamation REC-ERC-84-1, 1984 was taken from Koerner Robert M., Design with Geosynthetics, Fifth Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2005. [22] [23] See Table 5.13 in Koerner Robert M., Design with Geosynthetics, Fifth Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2005 Assumed for the purpose of the economic analysis only.
29/30
10/12/13
30/30

The Lining of Irrigation Canals

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Lining of Irrigation Canals

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

10/12/13