DESIGN OF PIPE DISTRIBUTION NETWORK IN THE

COMMAND OF A CANAL OUTLET FOR OPTIMAL

CROP PLANNING

M. Tech. (Agril. Engg.) THESIS

By

Rahul Raghuwanshi

DEPARTMENT OF SOIL AND WATER ENGINEERING

SV COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

AND TECHNOLOGY & RESEARCH STATION

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

RAIPUR (C. G.) 2016

DESIGN OF PIPE DISTRIBUTION NETWORK IN THE

COMMAND OF A CANAL OUTLET FOR OPTIMAL

CROP PLANNING

Thesis

Submitted to the

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur

by

Rahul Raghuwanshi

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF

Master of Technology

in

Agricultural Engineering

(Soil and Water Engineering)

Roll No: 220114032 ID No. –20141520490

JUNE, 2016

i

Acknowledgements

It takes a lot of good people to make a good project .If this proves to be a

good project, which I hope it will, credits are due to many.

I wish to express my deep sense of respect and indebtedness to my major

adviser Er. Dhiraj Khalkho, Scientist/Assistant Professor, Department of Soil and

Water Engineering, SVCAET & RS, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, IGKV,

Raipur, for his valuable, talented, inspiring, constructive criticism, and ceaseless

encouragement provided during the entire project work.

I feel great pleasure in expressing my sincere and deep sense of gratitude to

Er. P. Katre, Assistant Professor, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, for

his valuable guidance, constant inspiration and moral support throughout the

research work.

I am very thankful to senior member of the faculty Dr.V.K. Panday, Dean,

SVCAET & RS ,Dr. M.P. Tripathi Prof. & Head of Department of Soil and Water

Engineering, Dr B.P. Mishra Head of Department Farm Machinery and Power and

Dr S. Patel Head of Department of Agricultural Processing and Food Engineering,

Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, IGKV, Raipur, for their constant

encouragement during project completion.

I have a great pleasure in expressing my sincere thanks to other advisory

committee members, Dr. M.P. Tripathi Dr. R.K. Naik, Dr. V.N. Mishra, and Dr.

R.R. Saxena for their priceless guidance, worthy suggestions and constant

encouragement throughout the project.

I am extremely thankful to all the members of Faculty of Agricultural

Engineering including,Dr. R. K. Sahu, Dr. A .K. Pali, Er. A. P. Mukherjee, Dr.

JItendra Sinha, Dr. A. K. Dave, Er. M. Quasim Dr. S. V. Jogdand, Dr. V.M. Victor,

Er.P.S. Pisalkar, Er.N. K. Mishra,Dr. D. Khokhar, Er. A. A. Kalne, and Er. Yatnesh

Bisen, for their time to time co-operation during the course of study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page No.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I

LIST OF TABLES VI

LIST OF FIGURES VII

LIST OF NOTATIONS VIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IX

I INTRODUCTION 1

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5

2.1 Irrigation Survey 5

2.2 Pipe Distribution Network 6

2.3 Crop Planning 12

III MATERIALS AND METHODS 18

3.1 Details of the Study Area 18

3.1.1 Study area 18

3.1.2 Agro climate 18

3.1.3 Land use pattern 20

3.1.4 Soils 20

3.2 Data Collection 21

3.3 Software used 22

3.4 Site selection 22

3.5 Irrigation facility of the study area 22

3.6 Survey of the Study Area 23

3.6.1 Topographic survey 23

3.7 Losses Estimated through Questionnaire Information 25

3.7.1 Estimation of demand of water for irrigation 25

3.7.2 Water required by crops during kharif 25

3.7.3 Determination of effective rainfall for paddy 25

3.7.4 Water required by crops during rabi 26

3.7.5 Total water requirement 26

3.7.6 Estimation of volume of water supplied from

outlet

26

3.8 Application efficiency and losses 26

3.9 Scenario development for increasing conveyance

efficiency

27

3.10 Underground Pipeline system 27

3.11 Design of underground pipeline system 28

3.11.1 Selection of type of system 28

3.11.2 Pipe material of the pipe line 28

3.11.3 Design velocity 28

3.11.4 Diameter of pipeline and frictional head losses 29

iv

3.11.4.1 Darcy-Weisbach equation 29

3.11.4.2 Reynolds number 30

3.11.4.3 Colebrook White- equation 30

3.11.4.4 Hazen-Williams formula 31

3.11.5 Minor losses 31

3.11.6 Design of ancillary structures 32

3.11.6.1 Gravity inlet 32

3.11.6.2 Air vent 33

3.11.6.3 Outlets 33

3.12 Optimal crop planning 34

3.12.1 Productivity, net benefit and cost of cultivation

of crops 34

3.12.2 Objective function 34

3.12.3 Water constraint 35

3.12.4 Area availability constraint 35

3.12.5 Affinity constraint 36

3.12.6 Nutritional constraint 36

3.12.7 Case 1 (Existing Scenario) 36

3.12.8 Case 2 (Proposed scenarios) 37

3.12.9 Case 3 38

3.12.10 Case 4 38

3.12.11 Case 5 39

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41

4.1 Site Selection 41

4.2 Topographic Survey 42

4.3 Irrigation Facility of the Study Area 42

4.3.1 Field observation: 43

4.4 Losses Estimation 44

4.4.1 Irrigation required in kharif season 44

4.4.2 Irrigation required in rabi season 44

4.4.3 Total irrigation demand 45

4.4.4 Estimation of volume of water delivered 45

4.4.5 Assessment of water losses 45

4.4.6 Application Efficiency 46

4.4.7 Improving conveyance efficiency by providing

closed conduit canal network 46

4.5 Design of Underground Pipeline System 47

4.5.1 Selection of type of system 47

4.5.2 Pipe material of the pipe line 47

4.5.3 Diameter of pipeline and frictional head losses 48

4.5.3.1 Trial -1 48

4.5.3.1.1 Method -(1) Darcy-

Weisbach equation 48

4.5.3.1.2 Method- (2) Hazen-Williams

equation 49

4.5.3.2 Trial-2 51

v

3.5.3.2.1 Method - (1) Darcy-

Weisbach equation 51

3.5.3.2.2 Method- (2)Hazen-

Williams equation 52

4.5.4 Head loss due to valves and fittings 54

4.5.5 Bed slope of pipeline 54

4.5.6 Energy line and outlets 55

4.5.7 Design of ancillary structures 56

4.5.7.1 Gravity inlet 56

4.5.7.2 Outlets of the system 58

4.5.7.3 Air vents 60

4.6 Scenario Development for Crop Diversification 62

4.7 Optimal Crop Planning 62

4.8 Comparison between Existing and Suggested Plan 63

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 65

VI BIBLIOGRAPHY 68

VII APPENDICES 73

RESUME

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page No.

3.1 Number of days of canal flow in a particular year in kharif

season

22

3.2 Number of days of canal flow in a particular year in rabi

season

23

3.3 Net irrigation requirements of different crops in kharif 25

3.4 Water requirements of different crops 26

3.5 Net profit of different crops 34

4.1 Field elevations 42

4.2 Values of head loss with corresponding distance by Darcy's

formula with pipe diameter 160 mm

49

4.3 Values of head loss with corresponding distance by Hazzen-

williams formula with pipe diameter 160 mm

50

4.4 Values of head loss with corresponding distance by Darcy's

formula with pipe diameter 200 mm

52

4.5 Values of head loss with corresponding distance by Hazzen-

williams formula with pipe diameter 200 mm

53

4.6 Depth of pipeline below ground level (m) 55

4.7 Table shows reduced level of outlet and water surface 56

4.8 Land allocation (in ha) and maximum benefit from different

crops

62

4.9 Land allocation for different crops (in %) and maximum

benefit

63

4.10 Comparison between present and suggest pattern 64

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

3.1 Study area at Munrethi village, Raipur 19

3.2 Topographic survey of the study area 24

4.1 Topography of study area 43

4.2 Average days in a month of canal flow in kharif season 44

4.3 Average days in a month of canal flow in rabi season 45

4.4 Irrigation requirement in Rabi and Kharif 46

4.5 Volume of water lost in Rabi and Kharif 47

4.6 Application efficiency and losses 48

4.7 Head loss by Darcy's equation with diameter 160 mm 49

4.8 Head loss by Hazzen-williams equation with diameter 160mm 50

4.9 Head loss by Darcy's equation with diameter 200 mm 51

4.10 Head loss by Hazzen-williams equation with diameter 200 mm 53

4.11 Different bed slope 54

4.12 Outlets of the system 55

4.13 Gravity inlet 58

4.14 Diversion box and outlet 60

4.15 Air valve 60

4.16 Layout of pipe distribution network 61

viii

LIST OF NOTATIONS

Friction factor

e Roughness of pipe

Kinematic viscosity of irrigation water

C Hazen – Williams Coefficient of relative roughness of the

pipe material

˚C Degree Celsius

% Percentage

'' Inch

° Degree

' Minute

'' Second

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MSP Minimum Support Price

Qt Quintal

PDN Pipe Distribution Network

CDN Canal Distribution Network

BGL Below ground level

Qt ha-1

Quintal per hectare

Rs. Rupees

Rs ha-1

Rupees per hectare

Rs Qt-1

Rupees per quintal

et al. Et alibi

Ha Hectare

Cm Centimetre

M Meter

m2 Square meter

m3 Cubic meter

m3 s

-1 Cubic meter per second

Lps Litre per second

ha-cm Hectare centimetre

ha-m Hectare metre Agril. Agricultural Agril. Engg. Agricultural Engineering PVC Polyvinyl chloride

IWMI International Water Management

Institute

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

CCI Close Conduct Irrigation

NLBC Nasic Left Bank Canal

Cusec Cubic feet per second

Km-h-1

Kilometer per hour

m s-1

Meter per hour

xi

irrigation potential created and utilized is 1.809 Mha and1.151 Mha in

Chhattisgarh. Thus there is gap between irrigation potential created and utilized,

and it is up most important to minimize the gap. This can be achieved by use of

pipe distribution network. Thus, the objective of this study is to emphasis on the

use of Pipe Distribution Network instead of Canal Distribution Network in the

command area of irrigation project to improve water use efficiency. The growing

demand of food for large population can only be met by optimum utilization of

available water and appropriate allocation of available land to different crops.

Therefore, a study entitled “Design of pipe distribution network in the command of

a canal outlet for optimal crop planning” was undertaken by Department of Soil and

Water Engineering, SVCAET & RS, FAE, Raipur during 2015-16. For planning of

pipe distribution network Munrethi village in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh, which

lies in the canal command of kurud irrigation tank was selected for this study. The

average rainfall of Raipur district was reported to be 1219 mm which is mostly

received between middle of June to end of September with occasional showers

during winter. A low-lying deep bluish black soil (Kanhar) with high moisture

retention capacity was dominated in the study area.

In present study, the water losses were estimated with the help of data

collected through personal interview with farmers of the study area using

questionnaire. Presently, field to field irrigation is practiced which restricts the

farmers to cultivate paddy during both kharif as well as rabi season. It was found

that 648 ha-cm water is required to delivered to apply 54 cm depth (CWR-ER) of

water during the growing period of kharif crop. However, 1008 ha-cm was

estimated to be delivered which means 360 ha-cm water is lost and drained

unutilized. similarly during rabi season 1440 ha-cm water is required for 120 cm

depth of irrigation. The actual water delivered was found to be as high as 2244 ha-

cm, further the estimated losses was found to be water loss of 804 ha-cm during

rabi season. The application efficiency of the chak of 12 ha was estimated to be

64.18 % and losses were found to be 35.82%.

Adoption of buried pipeline distributary systems had lead to the reduction in

water conveyance and distribution losses, reduction in the land area taken up by the

distribution system and reduction in the maintenance and operating costs of the

xii

irrigation system. A chak of 12 ha having 640m length was selected for design of

underground pipe distribution network and controllable turnout structures. The inlet

structure of rectangular shape having 1m2 area and 2.7m height is designed just

below the canal bank to trap silt. A screen is fixed to the inlet through that water

enters into underground pipeline to keep the thrash out of pipeline. A 20 cm

diameter pipe is suitable for delivering water on bed slope of 0.8% up to the last

point i.e., 560 m away from the inlet. The head loss calculated from Darcy-

Weisbach equation and Hazzen-Williams equation is 2.63 m and 1.77 m. The head

loss found to be less than that of available head of 4.77 m. Air vents of 5 cm

diameter were also provided at appropriate points to release entrapped air. Eight

number of outlets were proposed in the design of the underground pipeline system.

The outlets deliver water to a diversion box of 45 × 45 × 45 cm. Two outlets of 200

mm diameter were proposed in each diversion box, one for right hand side of fields

and other for left side fields for delivering irrigation water directly to the farmers

fields. This conveyance and distribution irrigation system overcomes the problem

of field to field irrigation system.

In this study a Linear Programming model was developed to maximize the

net returns of the farmers considering, available land and water resources, crop

water requirement and net return from different crops. A suitable crop plan which

includes crops such as cereals, pulses, and oilseed were suggested. On the basis of

this crop plan the outcome can be increased by Rs. 51793.00 as compared to

existing cropping pattern, moreover the ample amount of precious water, 1.30 ha-

cm (20%) in kharif and 5.82 ha-cm (40 %) during rabi could be saved and utilized

for additional area under crop.

xiv

ufydk forj.k ra= dh ;kstuk cukus ds fy, NRrhlx<+ ds jk;iqj ftys ds eqjSaBh xkWao dks tks dq:n

flapkbZ VSad dh ugj dekaM esa fufgr gS] bl v/;;u ds fy, pquk x;k FkkA jk;iqj ftys dh vkSlr o"kkZ

1219 feeh Fkh] tks T;knkrj twu ds e/; ls flracj ds var rd izkIr gksrh gSA mPp ueh cuk, j[kus

dh {kerk okyh xgjh uhyh&dkyh feV~Vh ¼dUgkj½ dk v/;;u {ks= esa izHkqRo FkkA

orZeku v/;;u esa] ikuh dh gkuh dk vuqeku fdlkuksa ds lkFk iz’ukoyh ,oa O;fDrxr

lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls ,d= vkadM+ksa dh enn ls yxk;k x;k FkkA orZeku esa [ksr ls [ksr flapkbZ fof/k

fdlkuksa }kjk viukbZ xbZ gS] tks mUgsa jch vkSj [kjhQ nksuks l=ksa esa /kku ysus ds fy, izfrcaf/kr djrh

gSA ;g ik;k x;k fd [kjhQ dh Qly ds nkSjku ikuh dh 54 lseh xgjkbZ ykxw djus ds fy, 648

gsDVs;j lseh ikuh forfjr djus dh vko’;drk FkhA gkykafd 1008 gsDVs;j lseh forfjr fd;k x;k Fkk]

ftlesa fd 360 gsDVs;j lseh ikuh dh gkfu dk vkdyu fd;k x;kA blh rjg jch l= ds nkSjku 120

lseh flapkbZ dh xgjkbZ fy, 1440 gsDVs;j ls-eh ikuh vko’;drk FkhA okLrfod :i esa 2244 gsDVs;j

lseh ikuh forfjr fd;k x;k ftlesa dh 804 gsDVs;j lseh ikuh dh gkfu dk vkdyu fd;k x;kA 12

gsDVs;j ds pd dh mi;ksx n{krk 64-18 izfr’kr vkSj gkuh 35-82 izfr’kr gksus dk vkdyu fd;k x;kA

Hkwfexr ufydk forj.k iz.kkyh viukus ls ikuh okgu vkSj forj.k uqdlku esa deh forj.k vkSj

flapkbZ iz.kkyh ds j[kj[kko vkSj ifjpkyu ykxr esa deh] flapkbZ iz.kkyh }kjk Hkwfe {ks= vf/kxzg.k esa deh

vkfn ykHk izkIr gq,A 640 eh- yackbZ okys 12 gsDVs;j ds ,d pd dks Hkwfexr ufydk forj.k ra= dh

fMtkbu ds fy, pquk x;k FkkA ugj rV ij 1 oxZ eh- {ks=Qy vkSj 2-7 ehVj ÅWpkbZ okyk vk;rkdkj

vkdkj dh izos’k lajpuk cukbZ x;h gSA xkn dks Hkwfexr ikbi ykbu esa izos’k ls jksdus ds fy;s NUuh

yxkbZ xbZ A 20 ls-eh O;kl dh ufydk izos’k ls vafre fcUnq ;kfu 560 ehVj dh nwjh rd 0-8 izfr’kr

ds <yku ij fcNkbZ xbZA ikuh igqpkus ds fy, mi;qDr gSaA nkc gkfu dh x.kuk MklhZ&folcsp vkSj

gstu&fofy;El lehdj.k ls dh x;h gS tks Øe’k% 2-63 eh vkSj 1-77 eh gSaA nkc gkfu] 4-77 eh ds

miyC/k nkc dh rqyuk esa de gSA QWalh gok fudkyus ds fy, 5 lseh O;kl dh gok ufy;ka Hkh mfpr

fcanqvksa ij iznku dh x;h gSA Hkwfexr ufydk iz.kkyh ds fMtkbu esa vkB fudkl izLrkfor gSA fudkl

45 x 45 x 45 lseh ds ifjorZu+ ckWDl esa ikuh fudyrk gSA fdlkuksa ds [ksrksa esa lh/ks ikuh igqpkus ds

fy, izR;sd ifjorZu+ ckWDl esa 200 feeh O;kl ds 2 fudkl izLrkfor fd;s x;s gS] ,d nkfgus vkSj nwljk

ckbaZ vksjA bl okgu vkSj forj.k flapkbZ iz.kkyh ls [ksr ls [ksr flapkbZ iz.kkyh dh leL;k dks nwj fd;k

tk ldrk gSA

bl v/;;u esa miyC/k Hkwfe vkSj ty lalk/kuksa] Qly ikuh dh vko’;drk vkSj fofHkUu Qlyksa

ls 'kq) ykHk dks /;ku esa j[kdj 'kq) ykHk dks vf/kdre djus ds fy, ,d js[kh; dk;Zdze ekWMy

fodflr fd;k x;k FkkA vukt] nygu vkSj frygu Qlyks dks lfEefyr dj ,d mi;qDr Qly

;kstuk dk lq>ko fn;k x;k gSA bl Qly ;kstuk ds vk/kkj ij ekStwnk Qly i)fr dh rqyuk esa ykHk

51793-00 :i;s rd c<+k;k tk ldrk gSA blds vykok cgqeqY; ikuh] [kjhQ esa 1-30 gsDVs;j lseh ¼20

izfr’kr½ vkSj jch ds nkSjku 5-82 gsDVs;j lseh ¼40 izfr’kr½ cpk;k vkSj vfrfjDr {ks= ds fy, mi;ksx

fd;k tk ldrk gSA

1

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

Water is life for existence of all living being on the earth. Water ensures

food security, feed livestock, maintain organic life and fulfill domestic and

industrial needs (Kolhe, 2012). The population of mankind is increasing at

distressing rate and human is tapping natural resources to cater his need. The

available resources including water and food are falling shorter to cope up with the

need of mankind. To overcome this problem it is very essential to conserve the

water in many ways and utilize it so that food production should be sufficient to

serve for mankind need at reasonably low cost. To increase food production from

agriculture land, irrigation is one of the tool to conserve the water and utilize it for

agriculture production. Irrigation of agriculture land is done using various methods

such as flow through open channel, lift irrigation, drip irrigation, underground

pipelines etc. (Satpute et al. 2015). Irrigation sector is the biggest consumer of

water as more than 80% of available water resources in India are being presently

utilized for irrigation purposes.

Presently the annual agricultural output is just sufficient to sustain our food

grain requirement. To meet the challenge of regular expansion of size of

population, the productivity of the water and land has to be increased, as both the

resources are limited. Water is a major and vital input to increase agricultural

productivity. Hence it is a Supplying water to the crop at right time, right place and

right quantity is the main objective of good irrigation management, but in case of

surface water reservoirs, the irrigation water is conveyed to the farm with the

conventional wide spread open channel water distribution network. In fact, the

above system is not capable to meet time based crop water need due to depletion of

water use efficiency of the system with age. As the time passes lot of deficiencies

including low water use efficiency get involved in this type of network ( Bhalage et

al., 2015).

Ultimate irrigation potential of India is 140 million hectare. Irrigation

potential to the tune of about 102 million hectare has been created through

2

major/medium/minor surface water irrigation projects and use of ground water.

However, potential utilization is about 87 million hectare only. However, the

average water use efficiency of Irrigation Projects is assessed to be only of the

order of 30 - 35%. Thus there is gap between irrigation potential created and

utilized, and it is up most important to minimize the gap. This can be achieved by

use of pipe distribution network (Kolhe, 2012). The following major reasons have

been identified for low Water Use Efficiency of Irrigation projects. (1) Poor or no-

maintenance of canals/distributaries/minors of irrigation systems resulting in

growth of weed & vegetation, siltation, damages in lining etc. (2) Distortion of

canal sections due to siltation or collapse of slopes resulting in some channels

carrying much less and some other channels carrying much more than their design

discharges. (3) Non Provision of lining in canal reaches passing through permeable

soil strata. (4) Leakages in gates and shutters. (5) Damaged structures. (6) No

regulation gates on head regulators of minors causing uneven distribution of water.

(7) Over irrigation due to non-availability of control structures and facilities for

volumetric supply of irrigation water to farmers. (8) Poor management practices.

(9) Lack of awareness among farmers about correct irrigation practices and

cropping pattern.

Engineering, agronomic, organizational and management aspects generally

control the performance of an irrigation scheme. None the less, the water

conveyance and distribution systems are of prime importance in irrigation projects.

These systems are mostly of earthen open channels in minor irrigation systems and

suffer from serious problems such as, low conveyance and distribution efficiencies,

low command areas and high maintenance costs. About 2% to 4% of the cultivable

land area is taken up by the open channel distribution system ( Michael, 1978).

The objective of this study is to emphasis on the use of Pipe Distribution

Network (PDN) instead of Canal Distribution Network (CDN) in command area of

irrigation project to improve efficiency of water use. By virtue of PDN the water

use efficiency can be improved to 70 to 80 % from existing efficiency of 25 to 40

%. Thus there is about two to three times increase in the water use efficiency for

irrigation, which means that there will be 55 to 65 % improvement in overall water

use efficiency as irrigation itself is 80% shareholder in water use. In other words,

3

from the same reservoir, double the command areas could be irrigated, or additional

equal volume of water is made available which can be distributed to another

purposes (Kolhe, 2012).

There are at least ten reasons International Water Management Institute

(IWMI) proposal for pipelining the distribution system in canal systems. These

reasons are as follows: (1) The original plan of surface distribution is not working,

despite massive efforts by the government to acquire the land needed for the

purpose; (2) An alternative water distribution arrangement is already emerging in

the form of unregulated appropriation of water by farmers near the main and branch

canals using gravity, siphoning, lifting and conveying through earthen channels of

overland rubber pipes. (3) Contrary to C. C. Patel’s (one of India’s best known

irrigation engineers of the 1970s) claim, retrofitting surface canals by buried

pipelines is a widely used practice in the developed world, and according to the

Government of India’s Minor Irrigation Census III, even within India, at least 8

Mha are irrigated using buried pipeline networks that convey water from the water

source to the fields (Govt. of India, 2005). (4) Using land for building canals in

times of growing land scarcity is proving to be an inefficient process, for every

hectare that canals actually irrigate today. (5) Pipelining is considered too costly in

comparison to constructing earthen canals, but this is true only when land is free or

acquired at a fraction of the market price, and if land required for canals is valued at

market price, pipelining becomes a cost-effective alternative. (6) A canal network is

a vast evaporation pan, Pipelining can save a large part of this loss. (7) Gujarat’s

reservoir irrigation systems maintain a storage of some 35,000 m3 ha

-1 of net

irrigated area by canals, this is very high compared to groundwater irrigation where

storage needed per hectare of net irrigated area is about one-tenth (piped water

delivery from SSP system can mimic tubewell irrigation and raise productivity of

irrigation water applied). (8) Without pipelining, there is a serious danger that

reservoirs storage will reach a much smaller area than was originally planned. (9)

While pipelining will certainly be more energy-intensive compared to gravity

canals, if managed well, it will significantly improve the overall farm energy

balance on a larger area, reducing the need for groundwater pumping, and

enhancing recharge from water, thereby reducing the energy used in groundwater

4

pumping; and (10) Pipelining opens up huge possibilities for public-private

partnerships and farmer participation in irrigation management in ways that surface

canals have failed to provide, and it would majorly enhance the financial, economic

and environmental sustainability, spreading its benefits far and wide through

thousands of irrigation cooperatives that are likely to come up if encouraged and

supported, as they have been in Maharashtra.

In view of above facts the present study has been planned to assess the

losses in present irrigation method and use of pipe distribution network to reduce

the conveyance losses. The attempt has also been made for crop planning as per

availability of water.

The specific objectives of the proposed study are:

1. To asses and study existing water distribution system in the study area.

2. To design a pipe distribution network for the study area.

3. Optimal crop planning based on designed pipe distribution system.

5

CHAPTER-II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter deals with the salient features of the work done at difference

places relevant to the present study. The important results obtained, methodology

followed, various tools and practices adopted by different research workers as

related to the objectives of the present study have been summarized in brief.

2.1 Reviews on irrigation surveys

Shaikh et al. (2015) was conducted a study to demonstrate the applicability

and efficiency of an irrigation survey method for digging up reliable information to

estimate application losses. A sample of 220 tertiary channels was drawn randomly

to get information from the growers of the Mirpurkhas subdivision, Jamrao canal

irrigation scheme of Pakistan. Pre and post soil moisture status based practical

measurements of losses were also carried out at 20 different sites. The results

showed that the irrigation methods and soil types have a pronounced effect on

application losses whereas crop type has no effect on application efficiency. The

survey based losses results were validated against measured losses whilst values

available in literature compared favorably. Based on the encouraging results of his

study, he concluded that irrigation survey studies are useful in understanding the

irrigation scheme losses pattern which in turn provide opportunities for

improvement.

Tindula et al. (2011) have conducted a study to collect information on the

irrigation methods. The results were compared with earlier surveys to assess trends

in cropping and irrigation methods. A one-page questionnaire was developed to

collect information on irrigated land by crop and irrigation method. The

questionnaire was mailed to 10,000 growers in California who were randomly

selected from a list of 58,000 growers by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics

Service. Results were found that, From 1972–2010, the planted area has increased

from 15 to 30% for orchards and from 6 to 15% for vineyards. The area planted

with vegetables has remained relatively static, whereas that planted to field crops

has declined from 67 to 41% of the irrigated area. The land irrigated with low-

6

volume (drip and micro-sprinkler) irrigation has increased by approximately 38%,

whereas the amount of land irrigated by surface methods has decreased by

approximately 37%.

Berrada, et al. (2001) was conducted a survey through a questionnaire

developed by Colorado State University scientist in the fall of 1996 to assess

irrigation water management in the Full Service Area (FSA) of the Dolores Project.

Forty four percent of the farm operators in the FSA responded to the survey. An

encouraging outcome of the survey is the large number of respondents who

indicated the need for information on irrigation equipment innovations, irrigation

scheduling, and other information that could help them conserve water and get the

most out of their water allocation.

2.2 Reviews on pipe distribution network

Satpute et al. (2012) says that conventionally on almost all command area

of irrigation projects in India, the water for irrigation is supplied through the

network of turnout, sub minor, distributor, branch canal and main canal. Here,

almost 50 % of water is lost during the storage and distribution. There are many

disadvantages of the conventional system of irrigation. Their design overall project

efficiency (OPE) of the conventional system is obliviously low and ranges between

41 to 48 % only. Actual OPE, is only 20-35 % in most of the irrigation projects due

to many difficulties and constraints. From his study, it is concluded that as compare

with traditional open channel gravity irrigation system, in PDN Water application

efficiency on Farm is 85 %, Efficiency of lateral is 95 %, Efficiency of sub-main is

98% and Efficiency of Main is 98 %. which shows that there is potential increase in

efficiency of overall system. Likewise culturable command area which is 643 ha

was covered under irrigation using open channel irrigation system increased by 2

times, i.e. 1207 ha of area now being irrigated using PDN system.

Mniruzzaman, et al.(2002) assess the performance of PVC and plastic pipe

water distribution system for command area development and irrigation time saving

by minimizing water losses. In the system, total discharge from deep tube well

(DTW) was diverted to two or three directions by using PVC and plastic pipe of

different length and diameters. Technical and economic feasibility of the system

7

were also evaluated. The conveyance loss was 2.8 to 9.5% in PVC and plastic pipe

whereas in earthen channel it varied from 30 to 33% in silty-clay loam soil, which

indicate that on an average 83% water can be saved by improved pipe distribution

system. By improving the pipe system about 37 to 41% command area was

increased in both locations. The BCR of the pipe irrigation system varied from 2.74

to 1.43 on the basis of the 15 to 45 % discount rates.

Kolhe (2012) carried out study on Optimal Utilization of Irrigation Water

by Use of Pipe Distribution Network (PDN) instead Of Canal Distribution Network

(CDN) in Command Area. The objective of the study is to emphasis on the use of

Pipe Distribution Network (PDN) instead of Canal Distribution Network (CDN) in

command area of irrigation project to improve efficiency of water use. By virtue of

PDN the water use efficiency can be improved to 70 to 80 % from existing

efficiency of 25 to 40 %. Thus there is about two to three times increase in the

water use efficiency for irrigation, which means that there will be 55 to 65 %

improvement in overall water use efficiency. This study based on the design of

PDN of Nagthana-2 Minor Irrigation (MI) project, located at Amravati district of

Maharashtra state, which was initially designed to irrigate Culturable Command

Area (CCA) of 600 ha by conventional CDN, and now planned for gravity PDN

and result implies that same volume of water could irrigate CCA of 1200. In his

study, focus is placed on the use of PDN instead of CDN in command area of

irrigation project to improve efficiency of water use. By virtue of PDN the water

use efficiency can be improved to 70 to 80 % from existing efficiency of 25 to 40

%.

Patel et al. (2014) carried out study in replacement of sub minors with

pressurized irrigation systems in canal command area. He says that there is no

possibility to irrigate the entire command area of SSP through conventional flow

irrigation. There is strong need for efficient and cost effective use of limited delta to

cover the entire command area where optimization of water use is the prime

consideration. It has been recognized that use of modern irrigation methods like

drip and sprinkler irrigation is the only alternative using Pressurized Irrigation

Network System (PINS). Pressurized Irrigation Network System (PINS) is

substitute arrangement for sub-minors and field channels in an open canal network.

8

Gadekar et al. (2015) carried out study on Nashik Left Bank Canal, Nashik.

The reach of this canal is 64 km which is running open to atmosphere through the

alluvial type of soil. The objective of study is to use closed circular conduits for the

entire 64 km reach of canal in place of open canal irrigation [OCI] network to

minimize the conveyance losses. They were estimated that 15.55 Mm3 of the water

within the stretch of 64 km can be saved by using CCI for NLBC. The benefit-cost

ratio as calculated for CCI system over OCI is 3.18 which is greater than 1,

therefore CCI system can be thought for the implementation so as to optimally

utilize the irrigation water.

Mtolera et al. (2014) studied Optimization of Tree Pipe Networks Layout

and Size, Using Particle Swarm Optimization, a commonly used design method for

irrigation pipe network (IPN). Layout and size often involves trial and error

approach. This makes it difficult to minimize capital investment and energy cost.

Study was done to optimize simultaneously size and layout of the irrigation pipe

networks using particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique. This technique was

linked to the MATLAB software to reduce the pipeline investment cost in irrigation

projects. The performance of PSO technique was tested and results were compared

with non-optimized (Step-by-step) and genetic algorithm optimization methods.

The proposed PSO technique with an increase in the search space showed a quick

response in the size of the swarm and the initial swarm compared to the non-

optimized (Step-by-step) design method and genetic algorithm.

Yousef and Faisal (2007) has done case study on the use of a semi-buried

poly–vinyl chloride (PVC) pipeline system in Al-Hassa Oasis, Saudi Arabia and its

contribution in improving water conservation. Deteriorated concrete canals at Al-

Hassa Irrigation Project, enhanced irrigation water losses, and the annual cost of

maintenance became un economical for the long term. The PVC pipes easy

maintenance, durability, modification, and flexibility, give them the potential to be

an economical alternative to replace a concrete lateral canal at Al- Hassa Irrigation

Project. PVC pipes were selected to construct a pipeline, 362 m in length. An

energy head, 2.7m of water, was used in determining the pipeline capacity and its

internal diameter, using the continuity equation. The conveyance and the

9

distribution efficiencies increased by 25.3 % and 25% respectively due to

installation of the pipeline.

Bhalage et al. (2015) reported that in India, the average water use efficiency

of Irrigation Projects is assessed to be only of the order of 30-35%. There is no

doubt that modernization of irrigation system like concrete lining to the inner

surface of the open channel, canal automation etc. will save water significantly. But

these techniques require huge capital investment, hence uneasy to adopt. On this

background it is appropriate to know the innovative, simple, low cost, easy to

adopt, water conveyance techniques used in the command of few irrigation projects

in Maharashtra. The findings show that pioneering techniques shall be implemented

in the command areas of irrigation projects as and where found techno

economically feasible to achieve improvement in crop yield and good water

management with high water use efficiency.

Srivastava et al. (2006) Reported that due to rolling topography and coarse

soil texture, the irrigation efficiency is quite poor. With rolling topography, a scope

exists to shift from surface irrigation to hybrid application system comprising

gravity fed pipe conveyance and surface irrigation for rice in monsoon season and

pumped pressurized irrigation system for post-monsoon crops. A system

comprising an adjunct reservoir, a common mainline with option of sprinkler and

drip at desirable location was designed for one outlet of a minor irrigation system

and was evaluated for its hydraulics and irrigation efficiency. The system reduced

the turbidity of the canal water from 11-16 NTU to 2-3 NTU in three stages i.e.

adjunct reservoir, catch well and filtration unit. It was found that the irrigation

efficiency of sprinkler and drip irrigation systems were 77.2% and 90.19%

respectively in comparison to 46.14% in case of surface irrigation system. The

uniformity coefficients of sprinkler irrigation system and emission uniformity of

drip irrigation system were 81.4% and 94.2% respectively. Thus the above system

can be successfully used in minor irrigation commands, for increasing irrigation

efficiency as well as yields. The economic analysis of the system indicated that if

the cost of hybrid drip and sprinkler irrigation system is less than Rs. 38,000.00 /ha,

then saving water through this system will be more economical.

10

Schulze et al. (1985) Reported that two types of irrigation delivery system

are currently being utilized in the Texas Rice Belt, (1) Conventional Surface Canals

and (2) Subsurface Pipeline Systems. Surface canals have been used for many years

and are commonly in used today. Water losses in surface canal delivery systems,

however, range from 25% to 65%, thus indicate potential advantages of a more

efficient water delivery system, such as an underground pipe line irrigation delivery

system.

Horrocks et al. (1994) Analysed new underground pipelines, which replaced

open-channel canals in the Duchesne River area of north-eastern Utah, provided the

necessary water pressure for local farmers in this arid region to switch to sprinkler

irrigation systems. The new pipelines and sprinkler irrigation systems greatly

reduced the amount of water previously lost to canal seepage and flood irrigation.

The new pipelines and sprinkler irrigation systems, however could be easily

damaged or clogged by debris and sediment carried in the water. Self-operating,

low-maintenance, and low-cost pipeline inlet facilities had to be designed to

remove sediment and debris from river water prior to its entering each new canal

pipeline. The unique inlet designed for the new Taddy Canal pipeline has been

operating successfully for four years. It was relatively inexpensive to construct, is

completely self-operating, and requires much less maintenance than mechanical

inlet facilities. It has functioned so well that there have been no reports of any

pipeline or sprinkler damage from water-carried sediment or debris.

Shah et al. (2010) carried out study on Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) and

reported that against an ultimate potential of 1.8 million hectares (Mha), Gujarat’s

famous Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) is irrigating less than 100,000 hectares (ha) by

gravity flow 5 years after the dam, and the main and branch canals were completed.

The key problem is that farmers who are to benefit from irrigation refuse to part

with the land needed to construct a surface distribution system below the outlet.

They argues that the government should consider a buried piped distribution system

as an alternative to sub-minors and field channels. The idea, however, is strongly

criticized by irrigation engineers, based on the poor track record of piped

distribution under government management.

11

Smout, I. K., (1999) reported that low-pressure pipelines on surface

irrigation distribution systems serve about 4.5% of the world irrigation area. The

main benefits compared with open channels are reduced leakage rates and land take

requirements, and flexibility in irrigation timing which is important for diversified

cropping systems. His research has shown that low-pressure buried-pipeline

distribution systems can make a major contribution to improving water

management in surface irrigation, both by reducing leakage from the distribution

system and by providing users with a more flexible irrigation supply. These

contributions, however, depend on the standard of survey, design and construction,

and the limited knowledge of buried-pipe distribution systems among irrigation

engineers is an important constraint. The resulting benefits also depend on the

management of the system, and on agricultural, economic and social factors.

Mridha (1992) Was monitored the operation of irrigation systems on eight

deep tubewells in Tangail district, Bangladesh, from 1989 to 1991. These systems

used buried non-reinforced concrete pipe to distribute water from deep tubewells

and irrigate diversified crops during the dry season. The potential of buried pipe

networks for surface irrigation at low heads is documented, and performance under

farmer's management is outlined. The utilization rates of all the tubewells were

disappointing, averaging 3.5 hrs/day at a discharge of 32.5 lps compared to the

design of 56 l/s. The irrigated area averaging 16.6 ha was typically less than half of

the design (40 ha). The reasons for this poor performance were found to be a

combination of social, managerial and agro-economic factors.

Rahman et al. (2011) was carried out study to examine the conveyance

efficiency and rate of irrigation water loss in DTW schemes in Bogra, Thakurgaon

and Godagari zones of Barind Management Development Authority, Bangladesh.

There were various types of water distribution identified in these schemes with

including Poly Venyl Chloride (PVC) buried pipe, cement concrete (CC)

rectangular, Ferro trapezoidal, Ferro semicircular and rectangular earth drain. The

average conveyance efficiency of PVC buried pipe for Bogra, Thakurgaon and

Godagari zones ranged from 94.46% to 95.37% and rate of water loss ranged from

5.45% to 9.55% in three study zones. About 80% farmers recommended buried

pipe irrigation system and about 20% semi-circular channel.

12

Ahmed (1984) reported that new buried pipe systems give high conveyance

and distribution efficiencies besides yielding other economic and non-economic

advantages. However, a conversion from earthen channel to buried pipe requires a

large additional investment.

Jadhav et al. (2014) conducted study on water loss from tank as well as

canal network through seepage was determined and evaporation loss was estimated

for Panchnadi Minor Irrigation Project in Konkan region. The conveyance

efficiency of the lined, unlined section of the main canal and field channel was

observed as 75.3, 52.1 and 34.8%, respectively. He developed Scenario for

increasing conveyance efficiency by canal lining or adaption of closed conduit and

concluded that, if whole canal network is converted in closed conduit then and

additional area of 92.6 ha can be brought under irrigation i.e. about 2.6 times more

than the existing area.

Radhakrishna and Ravikumar (2014). In order to minimize the losses in

conveyance of water from the source to the target site, the buried pipe Distributary

systems have been designed and developed, which is the first of its kind for tank

command irrigation with the adoption of solar pump to lift water from the jack well

in order to reduce the dependence on the erratic electric supply at village level. The

effect of on-demand water supply on different crops yield during Kharif and rabi

2003 to 2008 indicated that there was a significant change in the yield of crops and

cropping pattern in command area due to intervention of on demand water supply.

During 2003 kharif, the WUE of 18.5 kg/ha. cm and 13.0 kg/ha cm in paddy and

mulberry, respectively. However, during 2007 the WUE was 88.12 and 39 kg/ha.

cm in paddy and mulberry, respectively.

2.3 Reviews on Optimal Crop Planning

Shyam and Chauhan (1992) carried out a study in the command area of one

of the main canals of the Gola River in Uttar Pradesh, India. The available water at

the main canal was distributed among two branch and three distributory canals

exactly in proportion of the culturable command area. A linear programming model

for maximizing aggregate net return was used to allocate the land area under

selected crop activities. . Available land area, water, running hours of main canal,

13

carrying capacity of different canals and maximum and minimum area restrictions

under different crops were the different constraints imposed in the model. The

results were compared with the existing cropping pattern and income levels, and it

was found that the cropping pattern obtained through the model gave a 10% higher

aggregate net return than the existing one. Of the 3 command areas, the one with

the highest tubewell water supply had the maximum coverage of area, net return

and income per hectare.

Khare et.al. (2005) developed conjunctive use plan for the Sapon irrigation

command area of Indonesia. He stated that for optimal use of available surface and

groundwater, in any canal command area would results in their better utilization by

maximizing the benefits from the crop production. He presented a simple

economic-engineering optimization model to explore the possibilities of

conjunctive use of surface and groundwater using linear programming with various

hydrological and management constraints and to arrive at an optimal cropping

pattern for optimal use of water resources for maximization of net benefits. The

Lindo 6.1, optimization package has been used to arrive at optimal allocation plan

of surface water and groundwater.

Singh et al. (2005) used a linear programming model to develop an optimal

crop planning for Badliya command area in Rajasthan for maximizing crop

benefits. The study revealed that by efficiently managing resources of the command

area, net return could be increased from 71.57 lacs under existing cropping pattern

to 90.22 lacs (26.06%) under optimal cropping pattern. In order to get maximum

benefits, with 72% area allocated to Bengal gram [Cicer- arietinum] and wheat,

total water utilization was 70% of the available water and total manpower

utilization was 27%. The study also indicates that crop planning at the command

area level has the potential to enhance crop production by 60% and net return by 23

to 27%.

Sethi et al. (2006) provided an optimal crop planning and water resources

allocation in a coastal groundwater basin in Balasore district of Orissa province

(eastern India). Intensive rice cultivation during monsoon and winter seasons has

resulted in extensive pumping of groundwater by a network of shallow, mini-deep

and deep tube wells. The seawater intrusion front is also progressing inland in an

14

alarming rate. As non-structural measure, the Deterministic linear programming

(DLP) and chance-constrained linear programming (CCLP) models were developed

to allocate available land and water resources optimally on seasonal basis so as to

maximize the net annual return from the study area, considering net irrigation water

requirement of crops as stochastic variable. These models were solved using the

quantitative systems for business (QSB) software package. Sensitivity analysis of

the models has been carried out by varying three ranges of cropping scenarios (20,

40 and 50% deviation from the existing cropping pattern) and combinations of

surface water and groundwater at various risk levels (10, 20, 30 and 40%).The

study reveals that 40% deviation of the existing cropping pattern is the optimal that

satisfies the minimum food requirement and maintain geo-hydrological balance of

the basin. The sensitivity analysis of conjunctive use of surface water and

groundwater shows 20% surface water and 30% groundwater availability as the

optimum water allocation level. The proposed cropping and water resources

allocation policies of the developed models were found to be socio-economically

acceptable.

Rajmani and Singh (2009) conducted a study for assessment of conjunctive

use planning of water resource in the Sharda Sahayak Command Area of Sultanpur

district of Uttar Pradesh (India). The water demand and available water resources in

the study area are evaluated considering surface water and groundwater. They

presented a simple economic engineering optimization model to explore the

possibilities of conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater using linear

programming and to arrive at an optimal cropping pattern for optimal utilization of

water for maximum net benefits. The results indicated that conjunctive use options

are feasible and can be easily implemented in the study area.

Boustani and Mohammadi (2010) determined an optimal cropping pattern

for arid and semiarid regions with deficit water resources in the South of Iran. Fars

province is located in the southern part of Iran with mean annual precipitation from

50 to 1000 mm and in most parts of this province water resources for agriculture

are deficit. Jahrom region with semi-arid climate is located in Fars province with

mean annual rainfall of 373 mm. Therefore an optimal cropping pattern was

determined for this region based on water deficit condition. For this purpose, multi-

15

objective programming approach was applied in order to reduce water consumption

use. The results of this study showed that, there was tradeoffs among reduce water

use, reduce risk and getting a specific gross margin. Therefore sustainable use of

resources is affected by output condition in market. Furthermore, the area of maize

and vegetables were increased in all of selected solutions as compared to their

current area.

Aggarwal (2010) estimate the gap in demand and supply of water resources

at the block level during kharif and rabi season in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar and

it was calculated that the average annual water demand exceeded average annual

evapotranspiration requirements by 29285 ha-m out of which 15262 ha–m (52%) in

kharif and 14023 ha-m (48%) in rabi season. The maximum average annual water

deficit of 386 mm in Nawaanshahar block and minimum deficit of 92 mm in Saroa

block was observed during period under study. The analysis revealed that the

cropping pattern is the major factor responsible for higher water demand leading to

water deficit in the district.

Ayare et al. (2010) estimated the irrigation water requirement of major

crops and total water available in the Natuwadi dam located in Konkan region of

Maharashtra A linear programming model was formulated to suggest optimal

cropping pattern giving the maximum return at different water availability levels.

The objective function of the model was subject to following constraints: total

water available and land during Rabi season, minimum area under rice and

sugarcane for local food requirement and preference to grow particular crop in a

specific area. This model has given the optimal cropping pattern for a command

area of 2050 ha at water availability levels of 100, 90, 80 and 70 per cent and net

returns of 120,109.50, 99.10 and 88.64 million rupees, respectively. It is found that,

the water available in the command area may support optimally 36.50, 1018, 50,

273, 45, 98 and 127 ha of rice, banana, sugarcane groundnut, chilli, brinjal and

maize for fodder, respectively, to get maximum returns of 120 million rupees at

100% water availability levels. Banana appears to provide the most consistent profit

in the command area.

Shuklodhan et al. (2011) conducted a study in Tuntapur tank system to

estimate the probable annual runoff entering the tank, the water demand from its

16

command area and to prepare an optimized plan using water balancing technique

while suggesting improvements. The study shows that water being used by the

farmers in excess of the real requirement and that there was a good scope for

improving the water management in the command area. Therefore alternative

cropping plans were proposed by considering the different tank storage levels

namely 100, 80, 60, 40 and 20 per cent of the maximum live storage of the tank

naming them as plan-I, plan-II, plan-III, plan-IV and plan-V respectively. Water

balancing technique was used to work out the proposed cropping pattern and area

under different crops, based on the available water in the tank. The areas for paddy

and groundnut were selected based on their suitability for the soils concerned and

the topography. The logic behind reducing the paddy area is to reduce the water

requirement and replacing that area by a light.

Yurembam and Kumar (2015) was developed a Linear Programming model

to maximize the net returns of the farmers considering, available land and water

resources, crop water requirement and net return from different crops. The

objective function of the model was subject to the following constraints: Water

availability; Land availability, Crop area, and preference to grow a particular crop

in a specific area. Based on three rainfall patterns i.e. normal, deficit and surplus the

optimization was performed. Under deficit rainfall condition the optimized results

of area allocation from the command was obtained as 20.66% kharif paddy, 17.95%

soybean and 1.71% maize during Kharif followed by 24.17% wheat and 2.30% pea

during Rabi season. For normal pattern the maximum return can be achieved

through 27.75% area under kharif paddy, 70.38% under soybean, and 1.71% under

maize during Kharif followed by 34.63% area under wheat and 2.30% area under

pea. Likewise the net return can be maximized by growing summer paddy on

98.13% area during Kharif and wheat on 97.54% area during Rabi season.

Shinde et al. (2015). Proposed cropping pattern scenario for Kalwande

Minor Irrigation Scheme based on the irrigable command area and volume of water

required. The paddy crop is the dominant crop in the study area and grown in kharif

season. Similarly in some of the areas, paddy is grown in rabi season. The alternate

cropping pattern suggested that the rabi paddy should not be encourage in the

command area due high demand of water and low net returns. His Result showed

17

that the maximum net returns obtained under single crop i.e for vegetables were

Rs.143.38 lakh. The maximum net returns obtained under double crop i.e. for

horticultural + vegetables were Rs.139.3 lakh. The horticultural + vegetables

+pulses cropping pattern on 5.50 ha, 5.50 ha and 100 ha respectively provides

maximum returns under available water source. He concluded that the rabi paddy

would not be found feasible in terms of water availability and benefits obtained.

The vegetable and horticultural crop showed potential in the command area with

the available water source to get maximum net returns.

18

CHAPTER-III

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This chapter describes the materials and methodologies adopted in the study

for analyzing the existing irrigation system and design of underground pipe line

irrigation system to minimize the losses. The chapter also presents the

comprehensive management plan of the existing crop and water resources in order

to obtain the sustainable output from the agriculture. The details of the study area

and the sequential methodologies adopted in the present study are described herein.

3.1 Details of the Study Area

3.1.1 Study Area

The study area, lies at Munrethi village in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh.

The area comes under canal command of Kurud irrigation tank. The field lies at 81º

48’ 14.17’’ E longitude and 21º 16’ 21.93’’ N latitude in Munrethi village. The

length of main canal is 12.42 km and length of distributory and minor is 6.30 km.

The head discharge of canal is 42 Cusecs. Total existing area under cultivation is

1388 ha in Kharif and 101 ha in Rabi. Other leading details of kurud irrigation tank

are present in the appendix I.

3.1.2 Agro climate

Study area comes under the Chhattisgarh plains in Raipur district. It is the

largest agro climatic region covering 55.1 % of the total geographical area of the

state. Baster plateau covers 24% and Northern hills region covers 20.9% of the total

geographical area of the state. The normal yearly average rainfall of Raipur district

is 1219 mm which is mostly received between middle of June to end of September

with occasional showers in winter. The maximum temperature of Abhanpur, Raipur

is 43.50 ºC during summer and minimum temperature drops to as low as 13.0 ºC

during winter season. The relative humidity usually observed low around 30% -

40% and reaches up to a peak value of 79 %. Evapotranspiration is maximum in the

month of May, which is more than 120 mm. Mean monthly wind velocity varies

from 12.1 km hr-1

in the month of June to 4.1 km hr-1

in the month of November.

The

19

Fig 3.1: Study area at Munrethi village, Raipur

20

Raipur district experiences sub-tropical climate, characterized by extreme summer

from March to May and rainy season extends from June to September with well

distributed rainfall. The number of rainy days in this area is 60-65 days. The district

receives 89% of the total rainfall during June to September.

3.1.3 Land use pattern

The total area of district Raipur is 12, 94,412 ha. Out of this, 4, 75,978 ha

are under forest that constituted 36.77 % of the total geographical area. The gross

cropped area in district Raipur is 5,92,725 ha which is 45.79% of the total

geographical area. The net cropped area of the district is 5,49,965 ha. It is very

amazing fact that in Raipur 94.11 % of the net cropped area is used only for rice

cultivation. The net irrigated area is only 2,85,981.8 ha that forms 52 % of the net

cropped area whereas the net irrigated area of Chhattisgarh is just 24% of the net

cropped area. Dhamtari has the highest net irrigated area (77%) out of the net

cropped area. Barren land is 9747 ha that forms 0.75 %. During kharif season crops

were grown in 5,42,757 ha and in rabi season crops were grown in only 1,17,658

ha which is only 21.69% of the net cropped area. Double cropped area of Raipur

district is 1,10,450 ha (20%). The 100% area of selected field is under rice

cultivation in kharif as well as in rabi. Rice cultivation in kharif depends upon

rainfall and irrigation whereas in rabi cultivation is totally depends upon irrigation.

Depending upon availability of water in the tank farmer takes rice or fields are left

fellow.

3.1.4 Soils

The soils of the Chhattisgarh Plain are considered as its principal natural

resource, and are the mainstay of the predominantly agricultural population of the

region. The main soils on the toposequence are described as under.

Kanhar (clayey)

A low-lying deep bluish black soil with high moisture retention capacity. It

is well suited for rabi crops, particularly wheat. The power of water absorption in

this soil is greater and this is very useful in growing of Rabi crops in the region.

Scientifically known as vertisols. Kanhar covers 21% area of Raipur district.

Mostly kanhar soils are present in the study area.

21

Dorsa (clay-loam)

This type of soil is intermediate in terms of soil moisture retention between

kanhar and matasi. This is best described as loamy, and has a colour between

brown and yellow. This is more suitable for paddy and comes under alfisol. These

soils are good for soybean, pigeon pea and other oilseed and pulses. Dorsa soil

covers about 27% of total geographical area of Raipur. Only two farmer reported

that dorsa soil in his field.

Matasi (sandy loamy)

This is a yellow sandy soil with an admixture of clay. It has limited

moisture retention capacity. It covers 39% of total geographical area of Raipur.

Though used for paddy, it is ideal for short duration maize and deep-rooted pulses.

It is found in better-drained areas and at relatively higher altitudes. This type of soil

comes under inceptisols These soils having good potential for raising short duration

vegetables both in Kharif and Rabi with the support of stored harvested water.

These soils are not present the study area.

Bhata (laterite)

This soil is a coarse-textured, red sandy-gravelly soil, found on upland tops.

It is deficient in minerals and other productivity enhancing nutrients, and is often

suitable only for coarse millets. Scientifically, it is known as entisol. Bhata soil

occupies 12% of total geographical area of Raipur district. . These soils are not

present in the study area.

3.2 Data Collection

This study depends mainly on primary data from the study area, beside

secondary data from relevant official sources. The method selected for primary data

collection was direct personal interviewing of the sample respondents by using

structural questionnaires. The primary data collected includes crop type and verity,

yield, soil type, colapa operations ( opening, operating time, closing), method of

irrigation, time required to irrigate whole command area, method of field

preparation, depth of pounding etc.

Secondary data which was collected from relevant institutional sources such

as details of Kurud irrigation tank, Cadastral map and Canal flow data is collected

22

from Water Resource Department, Raipur. Only four year canal flow data from

2012-2015 were available.

3.3 Software used

Different software are used in the study to solve the various problems.

Selection of software is done on the basis of availability and user friendly

operation. Geographical Information System (ArcGIS 10.1) was used in the study

for preparation of different location maps of the study area. AutoCAD 2013 was

used for making of proposed design sketch. TORA version 2.00 was used for

optimal crop planning.

3.4 Site selection

Several sites of Mahanadi main canal (distributory no. 21A) and Kurud

irrigation tank in Raipur district, near IGKV was visited for planning and design of

pipe distribution network in the command of a canal outlet.

3.5 Irrigation facility of the study area

Canal is only source of irrigation in the study area. The basin irrigation

method of paddy cultivation is common in the area. Large plot in the field are

divided into small basins. Water is pounded to a depth of 5-10 cm or more in the

field from transplanting to 10-15 days before harvesting. Previous four year canal

flow data from 2012-2015 is collected from Water Resource Department, Govt. of

C.G. for study of opening and closing time of canal. Field survey as well as farmers

survey also conducted for extracting necessary information required for this

research purpose Tables shows days of canal operation in different years in rabi

and kharif season.

Table 3.1: Number of days of canal flow in a particular year in kharif season

Month Year

2012 2013 2014 2015

August 21 6 14 16

September 30 31 23 14

October 31 11 22 25

November 5 0 8 0

Total 87 48 67 55

23

Table 3.2: Number of days of canal flow in a particular year in rabi season

Month Year

2012 2013 2014 2015

January 19 20 0 0

February 26 28 0 0

March 29 28 0 0

April 28 26 0 0

May 4 6 0 0

Total 87 88 0 0

Source: Water Resource Department, Raipur, Chhattishgarh

3.6 Survey of the Study Area

The reconnaissance survey of the study area with the farmers was made first

by moving around the area. The Bunds are boundaries and used to demarcate the

study area from the surrounding area.

3.6.1 Topographic survey

After mapping the study area the next step taken was to conduct

topographic survey in order to depict the average slope of the study area.

Topographic survey was undertaken to show the relative position of elevations of

all the points within the study area in relation to others. A reconnaissance of the

area to be surveyed and decisions on the benchmark, base lines and possible

procedure to be adopted in the survey was carried out as initial steps of a

topographic survey. This map included the contour lines and location of natural

features. The normal survey procedure was adopted to record the elevation of grid

points. The topography of the area was attempted to be depicted by the contour map

of the area. In order to start the grid survey, the whole study area near the main

ridge line divided into a series of squares. The elevations of the ground at the

corners of the squares were taken with the help of dumpy level. For this the

benchmark was selected near the canal road, the well-identified and rigid point.

With reference to this bench mark, all the points in the field were covered up to

know their elevations. Thus in contour survey the grid spacing was kept as 40 m.

24

Fig 3.2: Topographic survey of the study area

25

3.7 Losses Estimated through Questionnaire Information

In the present study, the losses were as estimated through questionnaire for

the study area. Structural questioners was developed with the help of Scientists of

IGKV, Raipur and farmers survey is conducted.

3.7.1 Estimation of demand of water for irrigation

It has been estimated high percentage of the total available water is used by

the agriculture purpose. In Asia, an estimated 85-90% of all the freshwater used is

for agriculture (Shiklomanov, 1999). After the survey of study area it was found

that only paddy is grown in kharif as well as in rabi season. The data on crops, soil,

irrigation practices and time of irrigation were collected from farmers survey. These

data were analyzed for the calculation of demand of water for the irrigation.

3.7.2 Water required by crops during kharif

Total water requirement of the crop during kharif is estimated on the basis

of net irrigation requirement. Net irrigation requirement of crops is determined by

deducting effective rainfall from crop water requirement. Thus, total water

requirement of the paddy is assessed with the available data.

3.7.3 Determination of effective rainfall for paddy

Effective rainfall is that water which is available for plant growth after the

deep percolation and surface runoff. The effective rainfall is measured by following

formula (Ref: published paper by National Resources Management and

Environment department):

Pe = 0.8 P – 25 (if P > 75 mm/month) ...................(1)

Pe = 0.6 p – 10 (if P < 75 mm/month) ...................(2)

The requirement of water for different crops in kharif is given in the Table

Table 3.3: Net irrigation requirements of different crops in kharif

Crop

Water requirement

(cm)

Average Water

requirement (cm)

Net Irrigation

required (cm)

Paddy 120 120 64

Soybean 50 50 0

26

3.7.4 Water required by crops during rabi

Summer paddy is the only crop grown in the area during rabi season. The

total water requirement of the crop is supplied with the irrigation.

Table 3.4: Water requirements of different crops

S. No. Crop Water requirement (cm)

1.

2.

3.

4 .

5.

Wheat

Gram

Lethyrus

Mustard

Tomato

45

30

30

30

50

Source- Krishi Diary (I.G.K.V)

3.7.5 Total water requirement

It is the sum of total water required for irrigation in rabi and kharif season.

This is the amount of water which is required to fulfil crop water requirement in

both the season.

3.7.6 Estimation of volume of water supplied from outlet:

Farmers survey is conducted for digging up reliable information to estimate

volume of water supplied. 150 mm of pipe outlet is provided to irrigate the study

area of 12 ha. Maximum design discharge of outlet is 1 cusec. Measurement of

water required to irrigate the chak was not possible because of the reason that water

is not supplied from the tank for irrigation in rabi season. The approach to estimate

losses through questionnaire was adopted all over the area with the assumptions

that, farmers know well about their practices such as irrigation application depth,

time of irrigation, soil types, no. of irrigation etc (Saikh, 2015).

3.8 Application efficiency and losses

The basis of application losses calculations was kept considering the definition of

application efficiency given by Bos and Nugteren (1990), which is quantitatively

expressed as

Where,

27

AE = Application efficiency

Dm = Depth of irrigation water required (cm)

Df = Depth of irrigation water applied (cm)

3.9 Scenario development for increasing conveyance efficiency

Pipe flow offers many advantages over open channels in water conveyance

and distribution. The average conveyance efficiency of PVC buried pipe ranged

from 94.46 per cent to 95.37 per cent and rate of water loss ranged from 5.45 per

cent to 9.55 per cent. The conveyance efficiency of pipe flow increased up to 95 per

cent (Rahman et al., 2011).

3.10 Underground Pipeline system

Low-pressure pipelines on surface irrigation distribution systems serve

about 4.5% of the world irrigation area. The main benefits compared with open

channels are reduced leakage rates and land take requirements, and flexibility in

irrigation timing which is important for diversified cropping systems (Smout,

I.K.,1999). Underground pipeline systems (also known as buried pipe lines) are

being increasingly used for conveying irrigation water on the farm. Under most of

the conditions pipeline system will function well for several years. However, they

need a higher initial cost as compared to open channels (Murthy, 2002). In

supportive to present study, Campbell (1984) reported that pipe systems in northern

India assured flow delivery at the design discharge to the furthest irrigator with a

minimum losses and unauthorized diversions route. Adoption of buried pipeline

distributary systems had lead to the reduction in water transit and distribution

losses, reduction in the land area taken up by the distribution system and reduction

in the maintenance and operating costs of the irrigation system. The salient features

of the command area and the existing land profile, the main channels and sub

channels were considered while designing the buried pipeline system. The

information on the outlets of buried pipe system for cluster of plots has been

considered and the rate of water discharge in the pipe system for cluster of plots has

been worked out. The buried pipe distributary system was designed based on the

rate of water discharge in the pipe system for cluster of plots, crop water demand of

the command area and cropping pattern. A chak of 12 ha having 640 m length was

28

chosen for design of underground pipe distribution network and controllable

turnout structures.

Requirements of good distribution net work

A good distribution system should satisfy the following requirements:

It should provide desired quantity of water economically and efficiently to

each part of the chak.

It should have enough capacity to meet crop water requirements during peak

use periods.

The system should be large enough to allow delivery of water in the time

allotted when water is supplied on rotation or turn basis.

3.11 Design of underground pipeline system

Several literature are reviewed for design of underground pipe distribution

system. The design of pipeline system consist of following:

3.11.1 Selection of type of system

Buried pipeline systems may be classified depending on the working

pressure as, Low pressure systems (less than 10 m), Medium pressure systems (10

m to 20 m) and High pressure system (more than 20 m) (Murthy, 2002). The low

pressure systems are used for water conveyance while the medium pressure ones

are used with drip systems and high pressure ones with sprinkler system. Low

pressure pipeline systems can be classified on the method of pressure control into

closed, semi-closed and open systems and on the method of providing head into

gravity, pumped or mixed systems.

3.11.2 Pipe material of the pipe line

Concrete, Verified clay, Rigid P.V.C. pipes and mild steel pipes are

materials used for underground pipelines. Among these Concrete and PVC are most

commonly used.

3.11.3 Design velocity

Recommended maximum velocities in low pressure pipelines are in the

range of 1.3 to 1.5 ms-1

. Higher velocities reduce the diameter of pipe and hence

cost but result in higher frictional losses and higher cost of water hammer

29

protection. Minimum flow velocities should be around .5m/s in order to prevent

sedimentation of fine sand.

Where;

Q = Discharge from outlet ( )

A = Area of cross-section of pipe ( )

V = Velocity of flow through pipe (ms-1

)

3.11.4 Diameter of pipeline and frictional head losses

The diameter of pipeline is determined taking into consideration of rate of

flow and the frictional losses in the pipeline and the ancillary structures (Murthy,

2002). These losses depend on the mean flow velocity through the pipe, internal

diameter of the pipe, internal pipe surface, and the turnout's structures. Accurate

estimation of friction losses in pipes is an important engineering task. Due to their

simplicity, empirical equations are often used for determining pressure drops in

pipes The most widely used empirical equations for calculation of pressure drops in

pipes are Darcy-Weisbach equation (Yousef and Faisel 2007) and Hazen-Williams

equation (Sodiki and Emmanuel, 2008).

3.11.4.1 Darcy-Weisbach equation

It is widely accepted that the Darcy-Weisbach equation for calculating head

loss is a highly accurate pipe flow resistance equation. The Darcy-Weisbach

equation is rational, dimensionally homogeneous, and applicable to other fluids as

well as to water (Liou, 1998).

Where,

= Friction factor

= head loss due to wall friction (m)

= Length of pipe (m)

30

= Mean Velocity (ms-1

)

= Internal diameter (m)

= Acceleration due to gravity (ms-2

)

In estimating the friction factor, , Reynolds number ( ) and the relative

roughness of the pipe ( ⁄ ) were determined.

3.11.4.2 Reynolds number ( )

Where,

= Reynolds number

= Mean Velocity (ms-1

)

= Internal diameter of pipe (m)

= kinematic viscosity of irrigation water (m2s

-1)

3.11.4.3 Colebrook-White equation

The average value of roughness (e) was obtained from literature. These

values of D, Re , and e were used in determining the friction factor, f. For all pipes,

many engineers consider the Colebrook-White equation more reliable in evaluating

f. The equation is

(

)

Where,

= Friction factor

e = Roughness of pipe (mm)

= Internal diameter (m)

= Reynolds number

Colebrook-White equation is difficult to solve as appears on both sides of

the equation. Typically, it is solved by iterating through assumed values of until

31

both sided become equal. The hydraulic analysis of pipelines and water distribution

systems, using the equation, often involves the implementation of a tedious and

time-consuming iterative procedure that requires the extensive use of computers.

The use of such empirical equations preceded by decades the development of the

Moody diagram which gives the relation between, Re and relative roughness.

3.11.4.4 Hazen-Williams formula

An alternative method of calculating the frictional head loss to the D'Arcy -

Weisbach equation is the Hazen-Williams formula expressed in terms of readily

measurable variables as (Sodiki, 2002). The Hazen–Williams equation is

an empirical relationship which relates the flow of water in a pipe with the physical

properties of the pipe and the pressure drop caused by friction. It is used in the

design of water pipe systems such as fire sprinkler systems, water supply networks,

and irrigation systems. The Hazen–Williams equation has the advantage that the

coefficient C is not a function of the Reynolds number, but it has the disadvantage

that it is only valid for water. Also, it does not account for the temperature

or viscosity of the water.

Where,

= Head loss due to wall friction (m)

L= Length of pipe (m)

D = Diameter of pipe (m)

Q = Flow rate (m3s

-1)

C = Hazen – Williams Coefficient of relative roughness of the pipe material

3.12.5 Minor losses

In general for pipe system, head losses due to bends and valves comprises

only 5 to 10 % of total pipe friction losses and are frequently referred to as minor

head loss.

32

where,

Hm = minor head loss (m)

Km = minor head loss coefficient

V = velocity before feature causing friction losses (ms-1

)

For uniform grades knowing the length of pipeline to be laid and the

difference in elevations at the starting and end points, the upward or downward

slope (So) can be determined. The gradient of hydraulic head is calculated from the

height of water in the inlet structure and the length of run of pipeline. Provision has

to be made to take care of losses at the bands, valves and risers.

Height of water surface above the pipeline as

The combined hydraulic gradient is calculated as follows:

Sf = Se + So ( for down slope)

Sf = Se - So ( for up slope)

A diameter for the pipeline be selected and the frictional losses calculated.

The calculated friction loss should be less than the value of Sf calculated. If not the

diameter of pipeline is increased.

3.11.6 Design of ancillary structures

3.11.6.1 Gravity inlet

When water enters the pipe line from an open channel a gravity inlet is

used. A screen is fixed to the inlet to keep the thrash out of pipeline. The top of the

structure is provided with cover to prevent accident and to keep the thrash out from

blown into it. It is larger than the size of pipeline. The larger capacity of stand

permits dissipation of the velocity stream and release of entrapped air before the

water enters the pipeline. If the irrigation water contains appreciable quantities of

sand, a trap can be built into the inlet structure to remove most of the suspended

material. When the stand functions as a sand trap also, it has an extra large diameter

to ensure low velocity of water and its bottom is set about 60 cm below the bottom

33

of the pipeline. When the channel water contains considerable quantities of debris

and weed seed, a debris screen is provided at the inlet to clean the water before it

enters the pipeline. Commonly, the stream is allowed to fall through a fine screen

into a gravity inlet. The screen will need frequent cleaning. In small scale

installations, inlet consists of simple masonry tanks of required height and about

one meter square. The concrete bed is made at the bottom of 10 cm thickness for

stands up to 3 m height.

Total height of inlet stand = 0.60 m below the bottom of pipe + Diameter of pipe +

Depth of pipeline below the ground + Max. Depth of flow in the canal + freeboard

3.11.6.2 Air vent

Air vent are vertical pipe structure to release air entrapped in the pipe line

and to prevent vacuums. Entrapped air must be removed to permit an even flow and

avoid danger of water hammer. They are installed at all high points in the line, at

sharp turns, at points of there is a downward deflection of more than 10 degree,

directly downstream of any structure that may entrap air, and at the end of pipeline.

They are also require immediately upstream from gates where closure of gates

would make such points the downstream end of laterals or line. Vents are generally

installed at 150 m on an uniform slope.

3.11.6.3 Outlets

These are needed to deliver the water from the pipeline system to the fields.

The outlet consists of riser pipe jointed to the main pipe line vertically. At the end

of the riser pipe near ground level a valve is fitted. Opening and closing of the

valve control the flow of water. The diameter of the riser pipe is kept the same as

the pipeline system where the entire flow of the pipeline is to be released through

the valve. A field block of 1 ha provided with a separate outlet of 1 cusec (27 lps)

capacity, with the valve located about 15 cm above the field level with a division

box (protection against scouring would be convenient (Mridha,1992). While

designing pipe distribution network outlet are provided as per requirement of

farmers and minimum application loss. The separate outlet may be provided for

each farmer. If size of field is so small then one outlet will be proved for one or

more farmer.

34

3.12 Optimal Crop Planning

The growing demand of food for large population can only be met by

optimum utilization of available water and efficient allocation of available land to

different crops. In this study a Linear Programming model was developed to

maximize the net returns of the farmers considering, available land and water

resources, crop water requirement and net return from different crops. (Yurembam

and Kumar, 2015)

3.12.1Productivity, net benefit and cost of cultivation of crops

In the study area and whole Munrethi village farmers usually grows only

paddy in both seasons. Farmers are dependent on canal irrigation for crop

production. The data on the other crops such as cereals, pulses and oilseed collected

from other farmers of nearby villages of Raipur district and also from IGKV

Raipur.

Table 3.5: Net profit of different crops

Crops Cost of

Cultivation

(Rs/ha)

Market price

(MSP)

(Rs/Qt)

Average Yield

(Qt/ha)

Net Profit

(Rs/ha)

Paddy 20514 1440 38 34206

Wheat 14114 1525 25 24011

Gram 16118 3500 15 36382

Lathyrus 7197 3200 9 21603

Mustard 13514 3350 11 23334

Soybean 8598 2600 12 22602

Tomato 26576 800 123 71824

3.12.2 Objective function

The objective function is formulated to maximize the net benefits

within given constraint and design cropping pattern which can be expressed

as

35

∑

Where,

Z= Maximize net annual benefit

ns= Number of season

nc= Number of crop

i= Number of season of the study area

j= Number of crops

Aij= Area under jth

crop in the ith

season (ha)

NBj = Net benifit of jth

crop in the ith

season (Rs)

The objective function is to be maximized subject to variety of constraints:

3.12.3 Water constraint

The irrigation requirement for all the crops in command area shall be met by

surface only. Therefore, water constraint for the crops can be written as:

∑

Where,

Di = Depth of irrigation water required by jth

crop (m)

Ai = Area of jth

crop for ith

season (ha)

V = Total water use (ha-m)

3.12.4 Area availability constraint

The total area under different crops should be less than or equal to the

available cultivable area in rabi and kharif season.

∑

Where,

A = Available cultivable land (ha)

36

3.12.5 Affinity constraint

The affinity constraints are required for allocating area to the crops whose

net benefit are less but farmer have affinity to grow such crops. Therefore, affinity

constraint for the crops can be written as:

∑

Where,

A = Available cultivable land (ha)

3.12.6 Nutritional constraint

Since it is required to allocate land resources to some oil seed crops and

pulses to fulfil the nutritional requirement.

∑

Where,

A = Available cultivable land (ha)

3.12.7 Case 1 (Existing Scenario)

The study area is irrigated by canal only in rabi and kharif. There is no any

source of groundwater in study area. Paddy is the only crop grown in both seasons.

Max Z: 34206 Ap1 +34206Ap2

Water constraint:

0.54 Ap1≤6.48

1.20Ap2 ≤14.4

Land constraint

Ap1≤ 12

Ap2 ≤ 12

37

Where,

Ap1 = Area of paddy in kharif.

Ap2 = Area of paddy in rabi.

3.12.8 Case 2 (Proposed scenarios)

100% area under rice in kharif season and area of rice is reduced from

existing 100 % in rabi as it is very high water requirement crop. The area of rice

and wheat is assumed to be 80% of total area in which wheat is 40%. 20% of area is

allotted to oil seed and pulses in which 50 % of area is must be allotted to pulse.

Accordingly the constraints are formulated as given below:-

Max Z = 34206Ap1+34206Ap2+2334Am2 +24011Aw2+36382Ag2

Water constraints

0.54 Ap1 ≤ 6.48 (kharif)

1.20 Ap2 + 0.45 Aw2 + 0.30 Am2+ 0.30Ag2 ≤ 14.40 (rabi)

Land constraints

Ap1 ≤ 12

Ap2 + Aw2 ≤ 9.6 (80% of A)

Aw2 ≥ 3.84 40 % of (80 % of A)

Am2 + Ag2 ≤ 2.4 20% of A

Ag2 ≤ 1.2 50 % (20% of A)

Ap1, Ap2, Aw2, Am2,Ag2 ≥ 0

Where,

Aw2 = Area of wheat in rabi

Am2= Area of mustard in rabi

Ag2 = Are aof gram in rabi

38

3.12.9 Case 3

Area under rice in kharif season is same as in case 2 and area of rice is

reduced to 40 % in rabi . The area of wheat and gram is assumed to be 40% of total

area in which area under gram is 65%. 10% area is allotted to oilseed (mustard)

crop and 10% is allotted to vegetable (tomato). Accordingly the constraints are

formulated as given below:

Max Z : 34206Ap1 + 34206Ap2 +36382Ag2 +71824At2 +24011Aw2 +23334Am2

Water constraints

0.54 Ap1 ≤ 6.48 (kharif)

1.20 Ap2+ 0.30Ag2 + 0.50 At2 + 0.45 Aw2 + 0.30 Am2≤ 14.40 (rabi)

Land constraints

Ap1 ≤ 12

Ap2 ≤ 4.8 (40% of A)

Aw2 + Ag2 ≤ 4.8 (40% of A)

Ag2 ≥ 3.12 65 % of (40 % of A)

At2 ≤ 1.2 (10% of A)

Am2 ≤ 1.2 (10% of A)

Ap1, Ap2, Ag2 Aw2, At2,Am2, ≥ 0

Where,

At2 = Area of tomato in rabi

3.12.10 Case 4

Oilseed crops as soybean can be grown in kharif season with modern land

improvement practices like ridge and furrow method. So 20 % area is allotted to

soybean in kharif season. Pulse crop as gram and lathyrus can be grown in 20 % of

total area in rabi. Lathyrus is grown in at least 40% area of total pulse area. Rice

and wheat may cover 70 % of total cropped area and rice is restricted to only upto

39

40% of total area. 10 % area is allotted to mustard in rabi. Accordingly the

constraints are formulated as given below:

Max Z: 34206 Ap1+ 20002 As1+ 34206Ap2 + 23334Am2 + 24011Aw1 + 36382Ag2 +

21603Al2

Water constraint

0.54 Ap1+ 0As1 ≤ 6.48

1.2 Ap2 + 0.30Am2 + 0.45 Aw1 + 0.30Ag2 + 0.30 Al2 ≤ 14.4

Land constraint

Ap1+ As1 ≤ 12

As1 ≥ 2.4

Ag2+Al2 ≤ 2.4 (20 % of total area)

Al2 ≤ .96 (40 % of (20% of total area)

Ap2 +Aw2 ≤ 8.4 (70 % of total area)

Ap2 ≤ 4.8 (40% of total area)

Am2 ≤ 1.2 (10% of total area)

Ap1,As1,Ap2,Am2,Aw1,Ag2,Al2 ≥ 0

Where,

Al2 = area of lathyrus in rabi

3.12.11 Case 5

Area under rice and soybean in kharif season is same as in case 4 and area

of rice is reduced to 40 % in rabi. The area of wheat and gram is assumed to be

40% of total area in which area under gram is 75%. 20% is allotted to vegetable

(tomato). Accordingly the constraints are formulated as given below:

Max Z : 34206Ap1 + 20002 As1+ 34206Ap2 +36382Ag2 +71824At2 +24011Aw2

Water constraints

0.54 Ap1+0 As1 ≤ 6.48 (kharif)

40

1.20 Ap2+ 0.30Ag2 +0.50 At2 + 0.45 Aw2 ≤ 14.40 (rabi)

Land constraints

Ap1 + As1 ≤ 112

As1 ≥ 2.4

Ap2 ≤ 4.8 (40% of A)

Aw2 + Ag2 ≤ 4.8 (40% of A)

Ag2 ≥ 3.6 75 % of (40 % of A)

At2 ≤ 2.4 (20% of A)

Ap1, Ap2, Ag2 Aw2, At2 , ≥ 0

41

CHAPTER-IV

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter deals with the results obtained in the present study and the

discussion there on. As described in previous Chapter III, discussions on present

irrigation method, Assessment of water losses, Design of Pipe Distribution Network

and crop planning are discussed in following heads.

4.1 Site Selection

. While selecting the sites, preference was given to

1. Area where Rabi and Kharif crops are grown through canal irrigation only,

as deficiency of water generally occurs in Rabi season. Kharif season is a

monsoon season and sufficient amount of water is available for irrigation.

2. Cooperation of the scheme population is very important for planning and

successful working of irrigation system.

4.2 Topographic Survey

After selecting the study area the next step taken was to conduct

topographic survey in order to depict the average slope of the study area.

Topographic survey was undertaken to show the relative position of elevations of

all the points within the study area in relation to others. Elevations are recorded in

40 m grid. The value of 40 m is selected on the basis of survey conducted by Water

Resource Department for construction of watercourse. One totally defunct

watercourse was present on middle bund of the field, so survey is also conducted

along the middle bund and 40 m left and 40 m right values are also recorded. The

topography of the area was found relatively flat with an average slope of 0.8%. A

reconnaissance survey conducted with farmers of study area, they were also

reported that, water enters to their field from canal outlet and get divided into two

streams after that flows longitudinally along the main bund. An average value of

left side and right side is calculated, because bund has relatively higher elevations

then fields and these elevations are assumed as elevations near the middle bund. An

elevation in 40 m grid shown in table 4.1 and topography is shown in fig 4.1.

42

Table 4.1: Field elevations

Distance

(m)

Left side

(m)

Middle

(m)

Right side

(m)

Av. of left &

right side (m)

0 99.38 99.46 99.33 99.36

40 99.25 99.96 99.29 99.27

80 98.78 99.15 99.03 98.91

120 98.69 98.83 98.74 98.72

160 98.25 98.48 98.30 98.28

200 97.83 98.28 97.75 97.79

240 97.41 97.83 97.27 97.34

280 97.18 97.60 97.00 97.09

320 96.77 97.34 96.61 96.69

360 96.43 97.03 96.51 96.47

400 96.40 96.64 96.23 96.31

440 95.87 96.26 95.71 95.79

480 95.78 96.05 95.66 95.72

520 95.33 95.64 95.12 95.23

560 95.27 95.59 95.10 95.18

600 93.92 94.10 94.23 94.07

640 93.81 94.28 93.55 93.68

4.3 Irrigation Facility of the Study Area

4.3.1Field observation

There was no tubewell/borewell found in the study area. Farmers are

completely depends on rainfall and canal irrigation in Kharif and only on canal

irrigation in Rabi for crop production. In kharif season, canal is opened in the

month of August and continued till the end of October. Transplanting method is

adopted by the farmers due to availability of irrigation facility. There is no shortage

of water in Kharif season as this is monsoon season and long dry spells are fulfilled

by the supplementary canal irrigation. It is found in the farmers survey besides

monsoon rainfall farmers continued to irrigate their crop.

In Rabi season also all farmers of study area cultivate paddy. The whole of

the water requirement of the crop is fulfilled by canal irrigation except occasional

effective rainfalls. Water from the main canal is directly enters into the field from

the 6" diameter pipe and is also called as colapa in local language. The design

43

Fig 4.1: Topography of study area

discharge of 6" colapa is 1cusec. There is no working watercourse in the study

area. One totally defunct watercourse was found in the survey of the field. Field to

field irrigation method is practiced by the farmers. Conveyance losses in this

method are more as water has to travel long distance from earthen bed to reach at

last field. Obstruction by the crop also reduces velocity and increase losses.

Longitudinal distance of the field is 640 meters from colapa to the end of last field.

Natural drainage channel was present below this which drains excess water from

the field. There is no opening or closing gate or no valve is provided in the colapa,

Farmers use mud bags to close it. Leakage of water is always continuing. From the

farmers interaction it was also found that head end and middle farmers face

problem in the application of fertilizers, insecticide, weedicide etc. as they cannot

stop water flowing from their field.

4.4 Losses Estimation

The approach to estimate losses through questionnaire were adopted all over

the area with the assumptions that

1. The farmers know well about their practices such as irrigation application depth,

time of irrigation, soil types etc., and

2. The guidelines for the required depth of irrigations for different crops used by

the research department in the study area is applicable to the whole study area and

irrigation surveys are representative samples of the population.

93.00

94.00

95.00

96.00

97.00

98.00

99.00

100.00

101.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Ele

vat

ions

(m)

Distance (m)

Left side (m)

Middle (m)

Right side (m)

44

4.4.1 Irrigation required in kharif season

In the study area paddy is grown by transplanting method. Water

requirement of paddy is 120 cm. Depth of effective rainfall calculated by empirical

formula which is obtained as 66 cm. Depth of irrigation required to fulfill crop

water requirement in kharif season is 54cm. Total volume of water required to

irrigate 12 ha land with 10 cm is 120 ha-cm, while time required is 5.12 days or 123

hr. Total water required to apply 54 cm depth is 648 ha-cm. Canal flow data

collected from Water Resources Department. Canal opened in the month of August

and closed in last week of October or first week of November. This shows that in

addition to monsoon rainfall farmers need irrigation for crop. From the farmers

survey it is also found that, on an average 10 cm water is pounded in the field. In

monsoon season irrigation is done on the basis of demand. On an average canal

flows 65 days in kharif season. This also shows that, farmers need irrigation besides

the effective rainfall of 66 cm.

4.4.2 Irrigation required in rabi season

In the study area only paddy is grown in rabi season also. In this season

there is an occasional rainfall which is not considered as effective rainfall. Total

water requirement of crop is fulfilled by canal irrigation. The depth of application is

10 cm per irrigation and volume of water required per irrigation is 120 ha-cm. Total

water requirement for irrigation in 12 ha is 1440 ha-cm.

Fig 4.2: Average days in a month of canal flow in kharif season

14.25

24.5 22.25

3.25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

August September Octomber November

Day

s

Month

45

Fig 4.3: Average days in a month of canal flow in rabi season

4.4.3 Total irrigation demand

Total irrigation demand is the sum of water required for irrigation in rabi

and kharif season. Total water required for irrigation is 2088 ha-cm.

4.4.4 Estimation of volume of water delivered

The data collected in survey showed that 8 days are required to irrigate the

whole command area of 12 ha. Design discharge of outlet is 1cusec. On the basis of

these values, volume of water delivered per irrigation is calculated. Total estimated

volume of water supplied in one irrigation is 187 ha-cm. From this value, the actual

depth of irrigation supplied to crop is obtained as 15.58 cm. which is 5.58 cm more

than the desired depth of 10cm. Hence, on every irrigation 5.58 cm of extra depth is

applied. The actual depth of water applied by farmers in the field is 84 cm in kharif

and 187 cm in rabi. Volume of water delivered in rabi and kahrif is 2244 ha-cm

and 1008 ha-cm. Total volume of irrigation water used for production in both

season is 3252 ha-cm.

4.4.5 Assessment of water losses

The difference in water required for desired depth of irrigation by farmers

and actual depth of water delivered to achieve desired depth from outlet was

considered as water losses. To achieve the desired depth of 10 cm, farmers supply

15.58 cm of depth. It is the extra depth of 5.58 cm which converted into losses.

Demand of water per irrigation of 10 cm depth is 120 ha-cm but volume of water

19.5

27 28.5

27

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

January February March April May

Day

s

Month

46

delivered to the field is 187 ha-cm. This excess volume of 67 ha-cm is loss per

irrigation. Volume of water lost in kharif 360 ha-cm and volume of water lost in

rabi 804 ha-cm. Total volume of water lost in both seasons is 1164 ha-cm.

4.4.6 Application Efficiency

In the present study, the losses were as estimated through questionnaire for

the study area. The basis of application losses calculations was kept considering the

definition of application efficiency given by Bos and Nugteren (1990). Application

Efficiency of the check was estimated as 64.18% and losses were estimated as

35.82 %. These losses include evaporation loss, seepage loss and runoff loss.

Evaporation losses are negligible as compared seepage losses and runoff losses, and

these two losses can be minimized with effective conveyance system.

4.4.7 Improving conveyance efficiency by providing closed conduit canal

network

Rahman et al. (2011) revealed that average conveyance efficiency of PVC

buried pipe ranged from 94.46 % to 95.37 %t and rate of water loss ranged from

5.45% to 9.55%. The evaporation losses, however of the negligible amount as

compared to seepage losses, can also be controlled through the closed conduit

networking. The pipe line/closed conduit networking can also facilitate the adaption

of micro irrigation.

Fig 4.4: Irrigation requirement in Rabi and Kharif (ha-cm)

Rabi, 1440

Kharif, 648

47

Fig 4.5: Volume of water lost in Rabi and Kharif (ha-cm)

Fig 4.6: Application efficiency and losses (%)

4.5 Design of Underground Pipeline System

4.5.1 Selection of type of system

Topographic survey of the study area is conducted and average ground

slope was calculated as 0.8%, Hence it is found that topography is relatively flat.

The closed pipe system does not require dissipation of excess energy head and the

entire pipeline is hydraulically connected. These are the systems which are widely

adopted now in flat agricultural land (Murthy,2002). Hence closed pipe system is

selected and designed for the study area.

4.5.2 Pipe material of the pipe line

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyethylene (PE) are used to a great extent

in irrigation. However, the availability of low-cost PVC pipes and easy handling

Kharif, 360

Rabi, 804

Application

efficiency

64.18

Losses

35.82

48

because of their light–weight, gives them the potential of being the alternative to

replace the concrete open channel. PVC pipes are not affected by any of the

chemical. Concrete pipe are affected by chemical conditions of soil. The cost of

PVC pipe depends on the pipe diameter and thickness.

4.5.3 Diameter of pipeline and frictional head losses

The pipeline friction head losses were estimated to be compared with

available head at the inlet of pipeline. If the friction head losses are less than the

available head, the diameter chosen is correct. The friction head losses in pipes was

calculated by Darcy-Weisbach equation and Hazen-Williams equation

4.5.3.1 Trial -1

4.5.3.1.1 Method -(1) Darcy-Weisbach equation

The major effort in the application of this equation is the determination of

the pipe friction coefficient which is a function of the Reynolds number Re. In

estimating the friction factor, f, Reynolds number (Re) and the relative roughness of

the pipe (e/D) were determined first. The mean pipeline flow velocity is calculated

by assuming pipe diameter.

In first trial diameter of pipe is assumed is, 160mm. The mean velocity of

flow is calculated by Continuity equation. The mean velocity of flow from 160 mm

is equal to 1.34 ms-1

. To get the Re, the kinematic viscosity of the irrigation water

(i.e., v =1.12×10-6 m2s

-1), the flow velocity (i.e., V =1.24 ms

-1) and its internal

diameter (i.e., D = 0.150 m) were used. A valve of 191428 for Reynolds number

was calculated.

Then an average value (i.e., e = 0.0165 mm) of its roughness was obtained

from literature. These values of D, Re , and e were used in determining the friction

factor, f, using the semi-empirical equation. The value of f was found to be 0.0239,

which was then used with the Darcy–Weisbach formula used to calculate the head

loss of turbulent flow in the pipeline on a rational basis.

Head loss due to friction in pipe only found as 7.62 m for the length of 560

m, which greater then available head of 4.77 m. Hence, gravity flow cannot

possible with this diameter up to desired length of 560 m.

49

Fig 4.7: Head loss by Darcy's equation with diameter 160 mm

Table 4.2: Values of head loss with corresponding distance by Darcy's formula with

pipe diameter 160 mm

Distance

(m)

Left

side

Middle

bund

Right

side

Av. of Left

&Right side

Head loss by

Darcy’s Eq.

Energy line

by Darcy Eq.

0 99.38 99.46 99.33 99.36 0.00 100.36

40 99.25 99.96 99.29 99.27 0.54 99.82

80 98.78 99.15 99.03 98.91 1.09 99.27

120 98.69 98.83 98.74 98.72 1.63 98.73

160 98.25 98.48 98.30 98.28 2.18 98.18

200 97.83 98.28 97.75 97.79 2.72 97.64

240 97.41 97.83 97.27 97.34 3.27 97.09

280 97.18 97.60 97.00 97.09 3.81 96.55

320 96.77 97.34 96.61 96.69 4.36 96.00

360 96.43 97.03 96.51 96.47 4.90 95.46

400 96.40 96.64 96.23 96.31 5.45 94.91

440 95.87 96.26 95.71 95.79 5.99 94.37

480 95.78 96.05 95.66 95.72 6.53 93.83

520 95.33 95.64 95.12 95.23 7.07 93.29

560 95.27 95.59 95.10 95.18 7.62 92.74

4.5.3.1.2 Method- (2) Hazen-Williams equation

Again assuming the diameter of pipeline same as canal outlet i.e., 160 mm

and head loss due to friction is calculated by another most commonly used equation

known as Hazen-Williams equation. This equation calculates the head losses in

92.00

93.00

94.00

95.00

96.00

97.00

98.00

99.00

100.00

101.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Ele

vati

on

, (m

)

Distance, (m)

Left side

Middle bund

Right side

50

terms of readily available variables. Slope factor used in this equation is slope of

energy gradient line. A value of Hazen-Williams constant c is equal to 150 obtained

from literature. Maximum design discharge is same as 0.027 m3s

-1. Total head loss

for length of 560 m due to friction in pies only calculated 5.25 m. This is more than

the available head of 4.77 m.

Fig 4.8: Head loss by Hazzen-williams equation with diameter 160 mm

Table 4.3: Values of head loss with corresponding distance by Hazzen-williams

formula with pipe diameter 160 mm

Distance

(m)

Left

side

Middle

bund

Right

side

Av.of Left

&Right

side

Head loss

by Hazzen-

William eq.

Energy line

by Hazzen

William eq.

0 99.38 99.46 99.33 99.36 0.00 100.36

40 99.25 99.96 99.29 99.27 0.37 99.99

80 98.78 99.15 99.03 98.91 0.75 99.61

120 98.69 98.83 98.74 98.72 1.12 99.24

160 98.25 98.48 98.30 98.28 1.50 98.86

200 97.83 98.28 97.75 97.79 1.87 98.49

240 97.41 97.83 97.27 97.34 2.25 98.11

280 97.18 97.60 97.00 97.09 2.62 97.74

320 96.77 97.34 96.61 96.69 2.99 97.37

360 96.43 97.03 96.51 96.47 3.37 96.99

400 96.40 96.64 96.23 96.31 3.75 96.61

440 95.87 96.26 95.71 95.79 4.12 96.24

480 95.78 96.05 95.66 95.72 4.50 95.86

520 95.33 95.64 95.12 95.23 4.87 95.49

560 95.27 95.59 95.10 95.18 5.25 95.11

93.00

94.00

95.00

96.00

97.00

98.00

99.00

100.00

101.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Ele

vat

ion

, (m

)

Distance, (m)

Left sideMiddle bundRight sideAv.of Left &Right sideEnergy line by Hazzen william

51

4.5.3.2 Trial-2

Next available higher size of diameter in market is 200 mm. Assuming

diameter of pipe 200 mm repeating the calculations.

3.5.3.2.1 Method - (1) Darcy-Weisbach equation

The mean velocity of flow from 200 mm is equal to 0.86 m s-1

. To get the

Re, the kinematic viscosity of the irrigation water (i.e., v =1.12×10-6

m2 s

-1), the

flow velocity (i.e., V = 0.86 m s-1

) and its internal diameter (i.e., D = 200 mm) were

used. A valve of 153571 for Reynolds number was calculated.

Then an average value (i.e., e = 0.0165 mm) of its roughness was obtained

from literature. These values of D, Re , and e were used in determining the friction

factor, f, using the semi-empirical equation. The value of f was found to be 0.0249,

which was then used with the Darcy–Weisbach formula used to calculate the head

loss of turbulent flow in the pipeline on a rational basis. Head loss due to friction in

pipe only found as 2.63 m for the length of 560 m, which less then available head

of 4.77 m.

Fig 4.9: Head loss by Darcy's equation with diameter 200 mm

93.00

94.00

95.00

96.00

97.00

98.00

99.00

100.00

101.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Ele

vat

ion,m

Distance,m

Left side

Middle bund

Right side

Av.of Left &Right side

52

Table 4.4: Values of head loss with corresponding distance by Darcy's formula with

pipe diameter 200 mm

Distance

(m)

Left

side

Middle

bund

Right

side

Av. of Left &

Right side

Head loss

by Darcy’s

Eq.

Energy line

by Darcy

Eq.

0 99.38 99.46 99.33 99.36 0.00 100.36

40 99.25 99.96 99.29 99.27 0.19 100.17

80 98.78 99.15 99.03 98.91 0.38 99.99

120 98.69 98.83 98.74 98.72 0.56 99.80

160 98.25 98.48 98.30 98.28 0.75 99.61

200 97.83 98.28 97.75 97.79 0.93 99.43

240 97.41 97.83 97.27 97.34 1.13 99.23

280 97.18 97.60 97.00 97.09 1.31 99.05

320 96.77 97.34 96.61 96.69 1.50 98.86

360 96.43 97.03 96.51 96.47 1.69 98.67

400 96.40 96.64 96.23 96.31 1.88 98.48

440 95.87 96.26 95.71 95.79 2.07 98.30

480 95.78 96.05 95.66 95.72 2.25 98.11

520 95.33 95.64 95.12 95.23 2.44 97.92

560 95.27 95.59 95.10 95.18 2.63 97.73

3.5.3.2.2 Method - (2) Hazen-Williams equation

Again assuming the diameter of pipelines same as canal outlet i.e., 200 mm

and head loss due to friction is calculated by another most commonly used equation

known as Hazen-Williams equation. This equation calculates the head losses in

terms of readily available variables. Slope factor used in this equation is slope of

energy gradient line. A value of Hazen-Williams constant c is equal to 150 obtained

from literature. Maximum design discharge is same as 0.027 m3/s. Total head loss

for length of 560 m due to friction in pies only calculated as 1.77 m, which is less

than the available head 4.77 m.

53

Fig 4.10: Head loss by Hazzen-williams equation with diameter 200 mm

Table 4.5: Values of head loss with corresponding distance by Hazzen-williams

formula with pipe diameter 200 mm

Distance

(m)

Left

side

Middle

bund

Right

side

Head loss by

Hazzen-

William Eq.

Energy line

by Hazzen

William Eq.

0 99.38 99.46 99.33 0.00 100.36

40 99.25 99.96 99.29 0.13 100.23

80 98.78 99.15 99.03 0.25 100.11

120 98.69 98.83 98.74 0.38 99.98

160 98.25 98.48 98.30 0.51 99.85

200 97.83 98.28 97.75 0.63 99.73

240 97.41 97.83 97.27 0.76 99.60

280 97.18 97.60 97.00 0.89 99.47

320 96.77 97.34 96.61 1.01 99.35

360 96.43 97.03 96.51 1.14 99.22

400 96.40 96.64 96.23 1.27 99.09

440 95.87 96.26 95.71 1.39 98.97

480 95.78 96.05 95.66 1.52 98.84

520 95.33 95.64 95.12 1.65 98.71

560 95.27 95.59 95.10 1.77 98.59

Calculated value of head loss obtained from Darcy–Weisbach equation is

considered as final value of head loss. The reason is that this equation estimate

more accurate values then other equations.

93.00

94.00

95.00

96.00

97.00

98.00

99.00

100.00

101.00

0 200 400 600 800

Ele

vati

on

, m

Distance,m

Left sideMiddle bundRight sideAv.of Left &Right sideEnergy line by Hazzen william

54

4.5.6 Head loss due to valves and fittings

All outlets are assumed to be opened at the same time, therefore, their

energy losses were considered in the friction head losses of the pipeline. They were

estimated by applying a coefficient K, which was obtained from literature, to the

velocity head at the outlet. Total value of minor head loss is obtained as 0.13 m.

4.5.7 Bed slope of pipeline

Bed slope of pipeline is equal to existing ground slope and minimum depth

of pipeline below ground level is 0.50 m. While selecting the bed slope both of

these factors are considered. Also slope is selected such that it does not require over

fall structure because they cause loss of head available head. Fig 4.13 shows

different bed slope grades with natural topography of study area. 0.7% and 0.75%

slopes do not confirm the depth below ground level requirement. Bed slope of pipe

line is selected as 0.8% as it confirms the depth below ground level requirement

without any auxiliary structure.

Fig 4.11: Different bed slope

Table shows depth of pipeline with respect to ground elevation at left side,

Right side, Middle bund and average valve of left and right field. The value

decreases from 0.5 m after 560 m length however length of pipeline is 560 m.

93.00

94.00

95.00

96.00

97.00

98.00

99.00

100.00

101.00

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Ele

vati

on

,m

Distance,m

Left sideMiddle bundRight sideAv.of Left &Right side.7%BGL0.75% BGL.8%BGL

55

Table 4.6: Depth of pipeline below ground level (m)

Distance

(m)

Difference

between left

side and .8%(m)

Difference

between right

side and .8%(m)

Difference

between

Av. and

.8%(m)

Difference

between middle

bund and .8%(m)

0 0.63 0.58 0.60 0.70

40 0.81 0.86 0.83 1.52

80 0.67 0.92 0.79 1.04

120 0.89 0.94 0.92 1.03

160 0.78 0.83 0.80 1.01

200 0.67 0.59 0.63 1.12

240 0.57 0.43 0.50 0.99

280 0.67 0.48 0.58 1.08

320 0.58 0.41 0.49 1.14

360 0.56 0.64 0.59 1.15

400 0.85 0.67 0.76 1.08

440 0.64 0.47 0.55 1.03

480 0.87 0.75 0.81 1.14

520 0.73 0.53 0.63 1.05

560 1.00 0.82 0.91 1.31

4.5.8 Energy line and outlets

The head loss due to friction up to distance of 560 m is 2.63 m and minor

losses are 0.13 m. Hence the total head loss is 2.76 m. Height of water in the inlet

structure is .90 m and gain of head due to slope is 4.18 m. Total head available is

5.08 m. Average height from underground pipeline to middle bund is 1.0 m. The

1m height from the pipeline sufficient for all outlets.

Fig 4.12: Outlets of the system

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Ele

vati

on

,m

Distance,m

Outlet

Left side

Middle bund

Right side

Water surface

Pipeline

56

Table 4.7: Table shows reduced level of outlet and water surface

Distance (m) Left side Middle bund Right side Water surface Pipeline Outlet

0 99.38 99.455 99.33 100.51 98.755 99.905

40 99.245 99.96 99.29 100.378 98.435

80 98.78 99.15 99.03 100.246 98.115 99.265

120 98.69 98.825 98.74 100.114 97.795

160 98.25 98.48 98.3 99.982 97.475 98.625

200 97.825 98.275 97.745 99.85 97.155

240 97.405 97.825 97.265 99.718 96.835 97.985

280 97.18 97.6 97 99.586 96.515

320 96.77 97.335 96.605 99.454 96.195 97.345

360 96.43 97.025 96.51 99.322 95.875

400 96.4 96.635 96.225 99.19 95.555 96.705

440 95.87 96.26 95.71 99.058 95.235

480 95.78 96.05 95.66 98.926 94.915 96.065

520 95.33 95.64 95.12 98.794 94.595

560 95.27 95.585 95.095 98.662 94.275 95.5

600 93.92 94.1 94.225 - - -

640 93.81 94.28 93.55 - - -

4.5.9 Design of ancillary structures

4.5.9.1 Gravity inlet

The new pipelines could be easily damaged or clogged by debris and

sediment carried in the water. Low maintenance and low-cost pipeline inlet

facilities were designed for underground pipelines for successful operation. A

screen is fixed to the inlet from where water enters into underground pipeline to

keep the thrash out of pipeline. The top of the structure is provided with cover to

prevent accident and to keep thresh from blown into it. Removable cover of high

strength of steel bars may be provided. The inlet structure is designed just below

the canal bank and the gap between the bank and structure is filled to provide path

to reach at top. The length and width of structure is 1m each. Depth of pipeline

below the ground level is 0.60 m, diameter of pipe line is 0.20 m and another 0.60

m depth is provided to trap the silt. Total Depth of structure below the ground level

is 1.20 m. Maximum depth of flow of water in canal is 1.05 m and freeboard of

0.25 m also provided. So height of structure above the ground level is 1.30 m and

below ground level is 1.4 m. Total height of structure is 2.7 m.

57

Fig 4.13 (a): Isometric view

Fig 4.13 (b): Top view

58

Fig 4.13 (c): Side view

Fig. 4.13: Gravity inlet (all dimensions are in cm)

4.5.9.2 Outlets of the system

The entire command area of 12 ha was divided into 16 sections for

delivering water directly into farmers field which are away from canal outlet. 8

sections are left side of the middle bund and 8 sections are right side of the middle

bund. Eight outlets were proposed in the underground pipeline system. The outlets

deliver water to a diversion box of 45 × 45 × 45 cm. Two outlets of 200 mm

diameter were proposed in each diversion box, one for right side fields and other

for left side fields. 200 mm diameter pipe will be fixed in the diversion of suitable

length extended outside of box which should be closed by end plugs when water is

not required. The diameter of all outlets i.e., from underground pipeline to surface

diversion boxes and diversion boxes to the each side field will be same and equal to

200 mm due to reason that full flow will be diverted into any of the section. The

distance between two outlets is selected as 80 m.

59

Fig. 4.14 (a): Top view

Fig. 4.14 (b): Side view

60

Fig 4.14 (c): Isometric view

Fig 4.14: Diversion box and outlet (all dimensions are in cm)

4.5.9.3 Air vents

Air vents are vertical pipe structures to release air entrapped in the pipeline

and to prevent vacuum. The area of vent pipe should not less than the half the area

of pipeline. In no case should the diameter of the small pipe be less than 5 cm.

5 cm diameter PVC pipe is selected for air vent. First air vent is installed at

80 cm below the inlet tank. Last air vent is installed at the end of pipeline. Three air

vents are installed at 150 m, 300 m and 450 m respectively. The height of air vent is

0.25cm (freeboard) above energy line.

Fig 4.15: Air valve

61

Fig 4.16: Layout of pipe distribution network

62

4.6 Scenario Development for Crop Diversification

In Present case when field to field irrigation system is adopted in the study

area all the farmers are competed to take paddy crop in their field. Use of pipe

distribution network facilitate diversified cropping pattern. In this system water can

be conveyed directly to the fields of farmers and other water sensitive crops like

vegetables and low water requirement crops like pulses can also be grown in the

study area.

4.7 Optimal Crop Planning

In the study area seven crops viz. paddy, soybean, wheat, gram, lathyrus,

mustard, and tomato were selected for optimal crop planning on the basis of

maximum net return. In Present Paddy covers 100 % area in rabi and kharif both

seasons. Remaining other crops are not grown in the study area. In the command

area paddy is grown by transplanting method. Soybean and mustard as oil crops,

wheat as cereal, gram and lathrus as pulses and tomato as vegetable was considered

here for optimal crop planning as they are the livelihood crops for the farmers and

are part of their daily food routine. Depth of net irrigation for paddy in kharif and

rabi is 54 cm and 120 cm respectively. For soybean, depth of irrigation is 0 cm

because its requirement is already fulfilled by the rainwater. For other crops net

depth of irrigation required is shown in table 3.4 and is fulfilled by canal irrigation

only. It was also found that, in the study area 648 ha-cm water required during

kharif season and 1440 ha-cm water is required in rabi season to fulfil net depth of

irrigation. This is considered as available amount irrigation water for both seasons.

Table 4.8: Land allocation (in ha) and maximum benefit from different crops

Cases Paddy

kharif

Paddy

Rabi

Soybean

Kharif

Wheat

rabi

Gram

rabi

Lathyrus

rabi

Muatard

Rabi

Tomato

rabi

Max.

Benifit

(Rs)

1 12 12 - - - - - - 820944

2 12 5.76 - 3.84 1.20 - 1.20 - 771360

3 12 4.80 - 1.68 3.12 - 1.20 1.20 842700

4 9.6 4.8 2.40 3.6 1.44 0.96 1.2 - 728140

5 9.6 4.8 2.4 1.20 3.6 - - 2.4 872737

63

Table 4.9: Land allocation for different crops (in %) and maximum benefit

Cases Paddy

kharif

Paddy

Rabi

Soybean

kharif

Wheat

rabi

Gram

rabi

Lathyrus

rabi

Muatard

rabi

Tomato

rabi

Max.

Benifit

(Rs)

1 100 100 - - - - - - 820944

2 100 48 - 32 10 - 10 - 771360

3 100 40 - 14 26 - 10 10 842700

4 80 40 20 30 12 8 10 - 728140

5 80 40 20 10 30 - - 20 872737

It is evident from the table 4.7 and 4.8 that the benefit is more in case 1

(820944 Rs) which is the current practice of taking paddy in both the season as

compared to the case 2 and case 4. In case 3, benefits are slightly more (842700

Rs). In case 5, net benefits are highest (872737 Rs). Thus it is necessary for the

farmers of command area to change the cropping pattern in rabi and kharif both

seasons for getting more profit. Water resources are sufficient for irrigating all

crops during kharif and rabi season. It is also clear from the above table that to get

higher profit from available land and water resources, all type of crops must be

taken by the farmers. This will also ensure their nutritional security.

In case 5 benefits are highest and it covers crops such as cereals, pulses,

oilseed and vegetable and benefits are also 51793 Rs. more than existing condition,

also there is water saving 1.30 ha-m (20 %) in kharif and 5.82 ha-m (40.14%) in

rabi. This water can be used for irrigating additional area.

4.8 Comparison between Existing and Suggested Plan

In the existing pattern total profit from same crop in two seasons were

820944 Rs, where as the profit in the suggested pattern is 872737 Rs as per case 5.

In case 5 Wheat, Gram, Mustard, and Tomato are introduced and summer paddy is

reduced. The area under kharif paddy and soybean, is 80% and 20%. The area

under rabi paddy, wheat, Gram, and Tomato is 40, 10, 30, and 20% respectively. In

this case 40.41% and 20% of available water will be saved in rabi and kharif

respectively.

64

Table 4.10: Comparison between present and suggest pattern

Crop area

(ha)

Paddy

kharif

Soybean

kharif Paddy

rabi

Wheat

Rabi

Gram

rabi

Tomato

rabi

Max.

Benifit (Rs)

Existing

pattern 12

12 - - - 820944

Suggested

pattern 9.60

2.40 4.80 1.20 3.60 2.40 872737

65

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Water which is life for the existence of all living beings on the earth. Water

ensures food security, feed livestock, maintain organic life and fulfill domestic and

industrial needs (Kolhe,2012). The population of mankind is increasing at

distressing rate and human is tapping natural resources to cater his need. The

available resources including water and food are falling shorter to cope up with the

need of mankind. To overcome this problem it is very essential to conserve the

water in many ways and utilize it so that food production should be sufficient to

serve for mankind need at reasonably low cost. To increase food production from

agriculture land, irrigation is one of the tool to conserve the water and utilize it for

agriculture production. Irrigation sector is the biggest consumer of water as more

than 80% of available water resources in India are being presently utilized for

irrigation purposes.

Underground pipe line system (also known as buried pipe line) is being

increasingly used for conveying irrigation water on the farm. Main advantage of

these system are saving of land, elimination of seepage losses, and relatively little

maintenance need. Under most of the conditions a properly installed pipeline

system will function well for several years, however they need high initial cost as

compared to open channel.

The present study has been planned to assess the losses in present irrigation

method and use of pipe distribution network to reduce the conveyance losses. The

attempt has also been made for crop planning as per availability of water. The study

area, lies at Munrethi village in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh. Study area is comes

under canal command of Kurud irrigation tank. The average rainfall of Raipur

district is 1219 mm which is mostly received between middle of June to end of

September with occasional showers in winter. A low-lying deep bluish black soil

(Kanhar) with high moisture retention capacity was found to be dominating in the

area.

66

In the present study, the losses were estimated through questionnaire for the

study area. The current practice followed for irrigation was found to be field to field

irrigation with water being delivered from the colapa and then it passes through all

the field one by one. This practice restricts the farmers to cultivate paddy in the

canal command area. Total water required to apply 54 cm depth (CWR-ER) of

irrigation in kharif is 648 ha-cm but volume of water delivered was 1008 ha-cm

and amount of water lost and unutilized in kharif 360 ha-cm. Similarly total water

requirement in rabi for irrigation of 12 ha is 1440 ha-cm, however volume of water

delivered was 2244 ha-cm and amount of water lost and unutilized was 804 ha-cm.

Total water required for irrigation was 2088 ha-cm and total amount of water lost

and unutilized was estimated as 1164 ha-cm. Application Efficiency of the chak

was estimated as 64.18% and losses were estimated as 35.82 % based on the current

irrigation practice being followed.

Adoption of buried pipeline distributary systems had lead to the

reduction in water conveyance and distribution losses, reduction in the land area

taken up by the distribution system and reduction in the maintenance and operating

costs of the irrigation system. A chak of 12 ha having 640 m length was chosen for

design of underground pipe distribution network and controllable turnout structures.

The inlet structure of rectangular shape having 1m2 area and 2.7 m height is

designed just below the canal bank to trap silt. A screen is fixed to the inlet from

where water enters into underground pipeline to keep the thrash out of pipeline. A

20 cm diameter pipe is suitable for delivering water on bed slope of 0.8% up to the

last point at 560 m. The head loss calculated from Darcy-Weisbach equation is 2.63

m and head loss calculated from Hazzen-Williams equations 1.77 m which is less

than against the available head of 4.77 m. Air vents was found to be of 5 cm are

also provided at appropriate points to release entrapped air. The entire command

area of 12 ha was divided into 16 sections for delivering water directly into

farmer’s field which are away from canal outlet. 8 sections are left side of the

middle bund and 8 sections are right side of the middle bund. Eight outlets were

proposed in the underground pipeline system. The outlets deliver water to a

diversion box of 45 × 45 × 45 cm. Two outlets of 200 mm diameter were proposed

in each diversion box, one for right side fields and other for left side fields. 200 mm

67

diameter pipe will be fixed in the diversion of suitable length extended outside of

box which should be closed by end plugs when water is not required. The diameter

of all outlets i.e., from underground pipeline to surface diversion boxes and

diversion boxes to the each side field will be same and equal to 200 mm due to

reason that full flow will be diverted into any of the section. The distance between

two outlets is selected as 80 m.

In this study optimal crop plan is proposed which covers all crops

such as cereals, pulses, oilseed and vegetable. In the existing pattern total

profit from same crop (paddy) in two seasons were 820944 Rs., where as the profit

in the suggested pattern is 872737 Rs. as per case 5. In case 5 Wheat, Gram,

Mustard, and Tomato are introduced and paddy is reduced. The area under kharif

paddy and soybean, is 80% and 20%. The area under rabi paddy, wheat, Gram, and

Tomato is 40, 10, 30, and 20% respectively. In suggested cropping pattern benefits

are 51793 Rs. more than existing condition, also there is water saving 1.30 ha-m

(20%) in kharif and 5.82 ha-m (40%) in rabi. This water can be used for irrigating

additional area.

SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE WORK

1. Possibilities of gravity flow PDN may be explored in the other part of canal

command.

2. Gravity flow branched PDN may be planned for other part of canal

command.

68

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aggarwal, M., (2010). Water resource planning at block level Shaheed Bhagat

Singh Nagar - a case study. Journal of Agricultural Engineering , 25(2): 50-

57.

Ahmed, C.H., (1984). Bogra Underground Asbestos Cement Pipe System. An

Economic Analysis, Proceedings of Workshop on Improved

Distribution System for Minor Irrigation in Bangladesh, Bangladesh

Agricultural Research Council (BARC).

Ayare, B.L., Mane, M.N., Sharma. A., and Dekhale, D. H (2010). Optimal cropping

pattern in command area. International Journal of Agricultural

Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 1, 5-10.

Bansal, R. K. (2008). A Textbook of Fluid Mechanics pub. Laxmi Publications

Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Berrada A., Stack, M.W., and Cardon, G.E., (2001). Assessment of Irrigation Water

Management and Demonstration of irrigation Scheduling tools In full

Service Area of the Dolores Project, Part I Survey Results, Technical

Report, Colorado State University.

Bhalage, P., Jadiab, B.B., and Sangale, S. T., ( 2015 ). Case Studies of Innovative

Irrigation Management Techniques, International Conference On Water

Resources, Coastal And Ocean Engineering, Aquatic Procedia 4

pp1197 – 1202.

Bos, M.G. and Nugteren J., (1990). On Irrigation Efficiencies. International

Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen.

Boustani, F and Mohammadi, H (2010). Determination of Optimal Cropping

Pattern Due to Water Deficit: A Case Study in the South of Iran. American-

Eurasian Journal Agriculture. & Environmental Science, 7 (5): 591-595

Campbell, D.E., (1984). Pipe distribution systems in groundwater development.

Agricultural Administration, Vol.16, pp. 209-227.

69

Gadekar, R. G., Kute, S., and Sathe, N. J. (2015). Optimal Utilization Of Irrigation

Water: A Case Study On Nashik Left Bank Canal [nlbc], Nashik, Indian

Journal of applied research, Vol. 5, pp.15-17.

Hinton, R. D., Quosy, D. E.D. EI., Mankarious, W. F., Talaat, A.A., and Khedr, M.,

(1997). The Performence of low pressure pipeline irrigation pipeline in

Hammmami, Egypt, Implications for design and Management, HR

Wallingford, England

Horrocks, G., Wimmer, H. L. and McMllin, P. (1994). Sedimentation and Debris

Removal Inlet Structure for Canal Pipilines, Journal of Irrigation and

Drainage Engineering, Vol.120, No. 3,pp 607-616

Jacimovic, N., Stamenic, M., Kolendic P., Dordevic D., Radanov, B. and Vladicl.,

(2015). A Novel Method for the Inclusion of Pipe Roughness in the Hazen -

Williams Equation, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Transactions, vol.

43 pp 35-39

Jadhav, P. B., Thokal, R. T., Mane, M.S., Bhange, H.N., and Kale, S.R. (2014).

Conveyance Efficiency Improvement through Canal Lining and Yield

Increment By Adopting Drip Irrigation in Command Area,

International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and

Technology, Volume 3, Special Issue 4, pp 120-119.

Khare. D, Jat. M. K and Ediwahyunan C., (2005).Assessment of conjunctive use

planning options: A case study of Sapon irrigation command area of

Indonesia. Journal of Hydrology (2006) 328, 764-777

Kolhe P.S., (2012). “Optimal Utilization of Irrigation Water by Use of Pipe

Distribution Network (PDN) Instead Of Canal Distribution Network (CDN)

In Command Area”, India Water Week 2012, New Delhi.

Krishi Dairy (2008). Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Raipur Publiction.

Liou,C.P., (1998). Limitations and proper use of Hazen- Williams equations,

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 124 (9) pp 951-954

Mniruzzaman, M., Alam, M.M., Sarkar, G.W., Islam, M.T., and Islam, M.N.,

(2012). Water Saving Techniques Through Improved Water Distribution

70

System In Deep Tubewell Area of Bangladesh, Online Journal of

Biological Sciences vol.2 (3). pp178-182

Michael, A.M. and Ojha, T. P. (1999). “ Principles of Agricultural Engineering Vol.

II” Pub. Jain Brothers, New Delhi.

Micheal, A.M, (1978). Irrigation: Theory and practice. 4th

Edition, Vikas Publishing

House Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Mridha, M. A. K., (1993). “Performance of Concrete Buried Pipe Distribution

System for Surface Irrigation under Farmers Management in Tangail,

Bangladesh”, Unpublished MPhil Thesis, Loughborough University,

England

Mtolera, I., Lihaibin. L., Bao, F. D., and Maxiao, Y., (2014). Optimization of Tree

Pipe Networks Layout and Size, Using Particle Swarm Optimization. E-

ISSN: 2224-2872 Volume 13, pp219-230

Murthy, V.V.N. (2002). Text Book of Land and Water Management Engineering,

Third Edition Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi

Patel, M., Sahita, I. W., and Agnihotry, P.G.,(2014). Replacement of Sub Minors

With Pressurized Irrigation Systems: In Canal Command Area, Global

Journal for Research Analysis, Vol.3 Issue 4, pp1-2

Radhakrishna, A. R. and Ravikumar A. S.,(2014). On Demand Water Supply And

Water Use Efficiency Through Burried Pipe System- A Case Study,

International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology,

Volume: 03 Special Issue: 06 pp156-159

Rahman, M., Kamal, A. H. M., Mamun, A. A., and Miah, S. U., (2011). Study on

the irrigation water distribution system developed by barind multipurpose

development authority. Journal of Bangladesh Association of Young

Resarchers Vol.1(2), pp 63-71.

Rai, R. K., and Deshmukh, S. A.,(2001). Comparative Study of Design of Sewer

Line Using Hazen Williams and Manning Equations, International

Journal of Engineering Research Volume No.5, Issue Special 1 pp : 175-

178

71

Rajmani and Singh, A.N. (2009). Assessment of conjunctive use planning of water

resources: a case study of Sultanpur district –U.P, India. Water &Energy

International. Vol. 66, No. 1, p 56-67

Satpute, M. M., Khandve, P. V., and Gulhane, M. L.,(2015). Pipe Distribution

Network for Irrigation – an Alternative to Flow Irrigation, Section VII:

Environmental Sciences, Proc. 99th Indian Science Congress, Part-II:

Abstracts of Poster Presentation. pp72-81

Schulze, E.W. (1985). An Economic Analysis of Underground Pipeline Irrigation

Delivery System Investments: A Case Study in the Texas Rice Belt,

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, pp. 1290-1297

Sethi. N.; Kumar, Panda, S and Chandra, B (2006).Optimal crop planning and

conjunctive use of water resources in a coastal river basin. Water Resources

Management, 16: 145-169

Shah, T., Krishnan, S., Hemant, P., Verma, S., Chandra, A., and Sudhir, C., (2010).

A case for pipelining water distribution in the Narmada Irrigation System in

Gujarat, India. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management

Institute. 25p. (IWMI Working Paper 141).

Shaikh, I. A.,Wayayok, A., Abdullah A. F. B., Soom, A. B. M. and Mangrio, M.,

(2015). Assessment of Water Application Losses through Irrigation

Surveys: A Case Study of Mirpurkhas Subdivision, Jamrao Irrigation

Scheme, Sindh, Pakistan, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol

8(11) pp 1-15

Shinde, S.E., Ingle1, P.M., Mane, M.S., Thokal R.T. and Ayare B.L.(2015)

Optimal Cropping Pattern for Sustainable Water Use in Canal Command

area, Research Journal of Recent Sciences, Vol. 3(4), pp 25-28

Shuklodhan, T.C., Santosh, D.T., Madhusudhan M.S., Umeshkumar, S. Mazar,

A. S., Shashidhara, N., and Satiskumar, U. (2011) Studies on Impact of

Water Management Practices on Sustainable Use of Water Resources

under Tuntapur Tank in Raichur District of Karnataka. International

72

Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology, Vol. 4, Iss.4, pp

383-388

Shyam, R and Chauhan, H.S. (1992): Equity based optimal crop planning for

Golawar Canal Command in Nainital, Bhabar (U.P.) India. Proceedings 16th

ICID European regional conference Vol2-Ecological, technological and

socio economical impacts on agricultural water management, 327-336

Singh, A.K., Jaspal Singh., Purohit, R.C., and Rashmi Singh (2005). Optimal crop

planning for Badliya command area in Rajasthan for maximizing crop

benefits - a case study. Indian-Journal-of-Soil-Conservation, 33(2): 166-169

Smout, I.K., (1999).Use of low-pressure pipe systems for greater efficiency,

Agricultural Water Management vol. 40 pp 107-110

Sodiki J. I., and Emmanuel, M. A., (2002). A Review on the Development and

Application of Methods for Estimating Head Loss Components in Water

Distribution Pipework, American Journal of Engineering Research,

Volume-3, Issue-9, pp-91-96

Srivastava, R. C., Mohanty, S., Singandhupe, R.B., Biswal A. K., Ray,L.I.P., and

D. Sahoo, (2006) Studies on Canal Water Based Pressurized Irrigation

System in a Minor Irrigation Command, Journal Agricultural

Engineering Vol. 43(4) pp 28-35

Tindula G. O. M., and Snyder, R. (2011). Survey of Irrigation Methods in

California in 2010, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,10/

1061 pp 233-238

Yousef, A. and Faisel, Z., (2007). Improving Conveyance and Distribution

Efficiency Through Conversion of an Open Channel Lateral Canal to a Low

Pressure Pipeline at Al- Hassa Irrigation Project, Saudi Arabia, The

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 32, Number 1 C

pp 77-86

Yuembam, G.S and Kumar, V. (2015). Optimization of land and water resource in

Nakatiya Minor Canal command area in Udham Singh Nagar,

Uttarakhand, India, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in

73

Computational and Applied Sciences, 11(3), December 2014- February

2015, pp. 213-216

74

APPENDIX I

Leading Details of Kurud Tank

S.No Name of scheme Kurud Tank Scheme

I General Data 1 District Raipur

2 Tahsil Raipur

3 River or Nalla Local Nalla

4 Location of dam Near village Kurud

5 Name of river basin Mahanadi

6 (a) Longitude 81º-50'-35"

(b) Latitude 21º-14'-0''

7 Toposheet No. 64G/15

8 Year of start 1903

9 Year of completion 1909

II Hydrological Data 1 Mean Rainfall(over....year) 36 Years

2 Annula monsoon 49"

3 Flood maximum observed 525

III Reservior Data 1 Catchment area 5.70 sq.miles /9017sqkm

2 Gross storage capacity 202.83 M.cft/5.74 M.cum

3 Dead storage capacity 1.00 M.cft/0.028 M.cum

4 Live storage cacpcity 201.83 M.cft/5.71 M.cum

5 FTL RL 93.00

6 MWL RL 95.00

7 TBL RL 100.00

8 LSL RL 75.00

IV Pick-up-weir/Anicut 1 Independent catchment area Not necessary

2 Designed discharge DO

3 Lowest discharge Not necessary

4 Crest of weir level Not necessary

5 Maximum water level Not necessary

6 TBL of afflux bund Not necessary

7 No size and sill level of head sluice Not necessary

8 No size and level of under sluice Not necessary

V Dam Data 1 Length of dam

(a) Earth 6500/1981.20

2 Maximum height of dam earth 33'6''/10.21 m

3 Length of W/w 410 Rft /125 m

VI Canal Data

75

1 (a) Length of main canal 7.76 mile/12.42 km

(b) Length of distributry and minor 3.93 mile/6.30 km

2 Head discharge 1.2 cusecs/42 cusecs

Duty adopted 0.25 cusecs

3 Number of villages to be served 8 Nos.

Total area commanded 6958 acres/2817 Ha

Total culturable area 68066 acres/2755 Ha

Total area under cultivation (existing)

Kharif 3428 acres/1388 Ha

Rabi 250 acres/101 Ha

Total 3679 acres/1489 Ha

VII Financial

Estimated cost 1.53 Lakhs

76

APPENDIX II

Calculation of water loss and Application Efficiency

Area of chak = 12 ha

Depth water pounded in the farmers field (As per farmers information) = 4''

= 10 cm

Time required to irrigate whole chak (As per farmers information) = 8 days

= 192 hr

Discharge of outlet (colapa) = .027 m3/s

= 27 lps

Total volume of water delivered for one irrigation = .027×60×60 ×24×8

= 18662 m3

= 18700 m3

= 187 ha-cm

Depth of irrigation furnished from an outlet =

=

= 15.58cm

Volume of water required to pound 10 cm depth = 10×12

= 120 ha-cm

= 12000 m3

Time required to pound 10 cm depth in the command area =

= 123 hr

77

Amount of water lost in kharif season

Total depth of irrigation required in kharif section = (Crop water requirement

- - Effective rainfall)

= (120-66)

= 54 cm

Depth of water supplied to furnish 54cm depth

= 84.13cm

= 84cm (say)

Total amount of water supplied in kharif season from an outlet = 12 × 84

= 1008 ha-cm

Total amount of water lost in kharif = (84-54)× 12

= 360 ha-cm

= 36000 m3

Amount of water lost in rabi season

In rabi season complete water requirement of 120 cm is supplied by irrigation.

Depth of water supplied to furnish 120 cm depth

= 186.96 cm

= 187 cm (say)

Total volume of water supplied in rabi = 2244 ha-cm

Total amount of water lost in rabi season = (187-120)×12

= 804 ha-cm

= 80400 m3

78

Total amount of water lost in rabi and kharif season = 360+804

= 1164 ha-cm

= 116400 m3

Application Efficiency (AE):

The definition of application efficiency given by Bos and Nugteren (1990) which is

quantitatively expressed as

AE

= .6418

= 64.18%

Losses = 1-AE

= 1-.6418

= .3582

= 35.82 %

79

APPENDIX III

Calculation of pipe diameter and frictional head losses

Trial 1 : Assuming diameter of pipeline 160 mm

Velocity of flow through pipe (v)

Q = A ×V

.027 =

V = 1.34m/s

Reynolds number (Re):

=

= 191428

Colebrook-White equation:

Value of roughness (e) = .0165mm

For all pipes, Colebrook-White equation more reliable in evaluating f. The equation

is

= .0239

Darcy-Weisbach equation:

80

Hazen-Williams formula

5.25m

Trial 2 : Assuming diameter of pipeline 200 mm

Velocity of flow through pipe (v)

Q = A ×V

.027 =

V = .86 m/s

Reynolds number (Re)

=

= 153571

Value of roughness (e) = .0165mm

For all pipes, Colebrook-White equation more reliable in evaluating f. The equation

is

81

= .0249

Darcy-Weisbach equation

Hazen-Williams formula

1.77 m

Calculation of minor head losses

Number of 90º bend = 8

value of K for 90º bend = .3

Number of ball valves = 8

value of K for ball valves =.1

Hm2 = .0301m

82

Total minor head loss = Hm1 +Hm2

Hmt = Hm1 + Hm2

Hmt = .1017+.0301

= .13 m

Total head loss from Darcy-Weisbach equation = 2.63 +.13

= 2.76 m

Total head loss from Hazen-Williams formula = 1.77 +.13

= 1.90 m

Total available head at outlet = Head in canal + Difference in elevation at inlet and last

outlet - total head loss

83

APPENDIX IV

RAINFALL DATA

Rainfall data of 2010

Month Rainfall (mm)

January 15.4

February 8.4

March 0.8

April 4.8

May 20

June 100.6

July 419.6

August 156.2

September 298.4

October 44.6

November 7.2

December 57.2

Rainfall data of 2011

Month Rainfall (mm)

January 0.0

February 12.2

March 0.4

April 83.40

May 43.60

June 146.3

July 304.6

August 411.8

September 321.0

October 24.8

November 0

December 0

Rainfall data of 2012

Month Rainfall (mm)

January 57.9

February 2.2

March 0

April 15.8

May 0

June 214.2

July 489.4

August 449.3

September 205.8

October 12

November 32.9

December 0

84

Rainfall data of 2013

Month Rainfall (mm)

January 1.2

February 12.6

March 0

April 34.6

May 10.2

June 210.5

July 502.7

August 464.5

September 193.2

Octomder 40.4

November 0

December 0

Rainfall data of 2014

Month Rainfall (mm)

January 0

February 78.2

March 11

April 21

May 34.6

June 71.6

July 485.4

August 185.3

September 230.3

Octomder 24.8

November 0

December 0

Determination of effective rainfall for paddy

Pe = 0.8 P – 25 (if P > 75 mm/month)

Pe = 0.6 p – 10 (if P < 75 mm/month)

p = 238.29 mm/month

Pe = 1656 mm/month

Pe = 16.5cm (say)

Therefore Effective Rainfall during kharif season = 66 cm

85

APPENDIX IV

Optimal crop planning by taking different cases (case1 to 5)

Case 1

86

Case 2

87

Case 3

88

Case 4

89

Case 5