TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3

2. Canal Design........................................................................................................... 3

3. Balancing Depth in Canal Design ..................................................................... 3

4. Side Slope................................................................................................................ 4

5. Bed Slope ................................................................................................................ 5

6. Cross-Section of Canal ......................................................................................... 6

7. Permissible Velocity ............................................................................................ 7

8. Methodology for Path Selection ....................................................................... 7

8.1 Initial Path Selection from Google Earth Pro .................................................9

8.2 Data Generation, Transfer, and Contour Generation ....................................10

9. Selected Parameters for Design of Canal ................................................. 10

10. Results .................................................................................................................. 11

10.1 Results from Design of Canal Using Kennedy’s Theory .............................11

10.2 Results from Design of Canal Using Laceys’s Theory ................................12

11. Detailed Comparison of Canal Design Results: Kennedy’s Theory vs.

Lacey’s Theory..................................................................................................... 12

11.1 Comparative Analysis of Channel Design Theories: Kennedy vs. Lacey ....14

12. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 15

1
Executive Summary
The proposed irrigation canal project from Marala Headworks to Bopalwala Village aims
to enhance local agricultural output through a dependable water supply. Results from
design calculations using Kennedy’s theory indicate a width of 28.25568492 meters, a
depth of 2.99 meters, and a bed slope of 0.000232558. Conversely, calculations based on
Lacey’s theory reveal a width of 34.1751197 meters, a depth of 2.908939122 meters, and
a bed slope of 0.000138088. These findings are crucial for optimizing hydraulic
efficiency and stability in conveying water to local farmlands. By carefully considering
these parameters, the project ensures an approach that balances technical feasibility,
economic viability, and environmental sustainability. Utilizing advanced tools such as
Google Earth Pro, QuickGrid, and Surfer software, the project identified the most suitable
canal path (path-3) while minimizing environmental disruption.

2
1. Introduction
The proposed irrigation canal, originating from Marala Headworks on the Chenab River
in Sialkot, Punjab, and extending to Bopalwala Village, holds significant importance for
the local agricultural community. It aims to supply water from the Chenab River to nearby
farmlands, improving irrigation practices and boosting agricultural productivity.

The area where the canal will pass is characterized by sandy-loam soil, which is a mix of
sand, silt, and clay particles. This soil type offers good drainage, preventing water buildup
and creating favorable conditions for plant growth. The construction of the canal will
greatly benefit farmers by providing a consistent water supply for irrigation, reducing their
reliance on unpredictable rainfall.

With a discharge rate of 122.5 cubic meters per second, the canal will ensure a reliable
water source throughout the year. This will enable farmers to cultivate crops continuously,
leading to increased agricultural output and improved food security. Additionally, the
availability of water from the canal will support the growth of a variety of crops,
contributing to economic growth and enhancing the livelihoods of local communities.

2. Canal Design
When designing canals, it's crucial to create an efficient system that effectively conveys
and distributes water. Hydraulic design, which determines the canal's ability to handle
water flow, is essential. It considers different discharge scenarios, including typical and
minimum flows, to ensure the canal meets various operational needs. By accounting for
these factors, engineers can design resilient canal systems capable of adapting to different
conditions. This comprehensive approach maximizes the canal's effectiveness in
supporting agricultural activities. Overall, the goal is to create a cost-effective and reliable
canal system that fulfills its intended functions.

3. Balancing Depth in Canal Design

The balancing depth is a critical factor in canal engineering, representing the depth at
which the volume of earthwork required for cutting (excavation) is equal to the volume of

3
earthwork required for filling (embankment). It is a fundamental aspect of designing canal
cross-sections to ensure optimal efficiency and stability.

 Determining Balancing Depth:

Engineers analyze various factors, including the width of the canal, the desired flow rate,
and the characteristics of the surrounding terrain, to determine the appropriate balancing
depth. By adjusting the depth, engineers aim to achieve a balance between the volume of
earth to be excavated and the volume of earth to be deposited for constructing canal banks.

 Achieving Balance:

Achieving a balanced cut and fill volume is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, it
contributes to cost-effectiveness by minimizing the overall amount of earthwork required
for canal construction. Secondly, it enhances stability, as the design of slopes and side
slopes can be optimized to accommodate the balanced volumes, reducing the risk of
erosion and instability.

Figure 3.1: Balancing depth

4. Side Slope

The design of canal side slopes is a critical aspect of ensuring the stability and functionality
of irrigation channels (Thandaveswara, 2016). It primarily depends on the engineering
properties of the material through which the canal is excavated, with different materials
requiring varying degrees of slope for stability. Practical considerations, such as
preliminary suitability and economic factors, also influence the selection of side slopes.
In deeper cuts, side slopes above the water surface may need to be steeper to prevent

4
erosion. Observations suggest that in unlined earthen canals, side slopes usually range
from 1.5:1 to 1:1, while lined canals often have steeper side slopes, especially when
concrete is used. Additionally, side slopes through rock cuts can be vertical if necessary.
Chow's table offers recommendations for suitable side slopes based on material type,
aiding engineers in making informed decisions to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of
canal structures.

(Side Slopes for Various Canal Materials {Adapted from Thandaveswara, n.d.)
{ Unit-5 Design of Canals }
Material Side Slope
Rock Nearly Vertical
Muck and Peat Soils 1/4 : 1
Stiff Clay or Earth (with concrete lining) 1/2 : 1 to 1 : 1
Earth (with stone lining or each for large channels) 1:1
Firm Clay or Earth (for small ditches) 1 1/2 : 1
Loose, Sandy Earth 2:1
Sandy Loam or Porous Clay 3:1

Table 4.1: Side Slope for various canal materials

5. Bed Slope

The longitudinal slope of a canal refers to the gradual change in elevation along the length
of the canal. It plays a vital role in determining how water flows through the canal and is
influenced by various factors, including the topography of the surrounding landscape, the
required head (or pressure) needed to maintain the desired flow rate, and the intended
purpose of the canal. In irrigation channels, such as those used in agricultural settings,
minimizing the longitudinal slope is critical for maximizing the command area. The
command area refers to the total area of land that can be effectively irrigated by water
from the canal. By keeping the slope as gentle as possible, engineers can ensure that water
flows evenly and efficiently across the land, reaching all areas of the command area
without excessive loss or pooling.

Canal slopes typically range from 1:4000 to 1:20000, indicating that for every unit of
horizontal distance, there is a corresponding change in elevation of 4000 to 20000 units.

5
These relatively shallow slopes help maintain a consistent flow of water while also
optimizing land usage. A shallower slope allows for more gradual water movement,
reducing the risk of erosion and ensuring that water reaches the farthest reaches of the
command area.

(Bed Slope for Various Types of Canal {Adapted from Thandaveswara, n.d.)
{ Unit-5 Design of Canals }
Type of Canal Longitudinal Slope
Irrigation Canals 1:4000 to 1:20000
Natural Rivers Up to 1:10

Table 5.1: Side Slope for various canal materials

6. Cross-section of Canal

From the Manning and Chezy equations, it's evident that a channel's conveyance improves
as the hydraulic radius increases or the wetted perimeter decreases. Among various cross-
sectional shapes, the most hydraulically efficient is a semicircle, offering the minimum
wetted perimeter for a given area. However, this efficient section may not always be the
most economical. Practical considerations include:

a) Minimization of Excavation: While the hydraulically efficient section minimizes area

requirements, the excavation needed to achieve this may be significant, especially
when considering overburden removal.

b) Construction Challenges: Natural conditions may not always allow for the
construction of a hydraulically efficient and stable section. Lining the channel may be
necessary, adding to construction costs.

c) Cost of Excavation: The cost of excavation depends on factors such as the amount of
material to be removed and the topography of the land. Disposal costs also impact
overall expenses. d. Channel Slope: The slope of the channel bed is another variable
to consider. While a reduced slope may require a larger flow area, it could reduce
excavation costs. For instance, a channel slope of 0.2% may require a wider flow area
compared to a slope of 0.1%, impacting excavation costs accordingly.

6
7. Permissible Velocity

Permissible velocities are crucial considerations in the design of irrigation canals,

ensuring their effectiveness and durability. The minimum permissible velocity is set
to prevent sediment buildup and the growth of vegetation, which can hinder water
flow. Typically, this velocity ranges from 0.60 to 0.90 meters per second for low silt
loads and around 0.75 meters per second to deter vegetation growth. On the other
hand, the maximum permissible velocity varies depending on factors such as the
material and slope of the canal. For standard irrigation and power canals, conservative
values are adopted to minimize energy loss and maintain safety.

(Permissible Velocity Ranges for various Types of Materials

{Adapted from Thandaveswara, n.d.){ Unit-5 Design of Canals }
Material Permissible Velocity Range
Earthen 0.6 - 1.2 m/s (2 - 4 ft/s)
Rocky or Gravelly 1.2 - 1.8 m/s (4 - 6 ft/s)
Concrete-Lined > 2.4 m/s (> 8 ft/s)

Table 7.1: Side Slope for various canal materials

8. Methodology for Path Selection

a) Initial Path Identification:

a. Tool Used: Google Earth Pro
b. Objective: Identify potential paths for the canal.
c. Process:
i. Three potential paths (option-1, option-2, and option-3) were explored
from point A to point B using Google Earth Pro.
ii. Comprehensive contour data was gathered by covering the entire area
to guide route selection.
b) Data Extraction and Preparation:
a. Data Collected: Latitude, longitude, and elevation data.
b. Transfer to Excel:
i. The data extracted from Google Earth Pro was organized and
transferred into Microsoft Excel.

7
 ii. This step facilitated the handling and preparation of data for contour
generation.
c) Contour Generation:
a. Tool Used: QuickGrid software
b. Process:
i. The Excel data containing latitude, longitude, and elevation
information was imported into QuickGrid.
ii. QuickGrid was used to generate contour maps, providing a detailed
representation of the terrain.
d) Data Processing in Surfer:
a. Tool Used: Surfer software
b. Process:
i. The contour maps generated by QuickGrid were imported into Surfer.
ii. Surfer was used to process and analyze the contour data in more detail.
iii. The software allowed for further refinement and visualization of the
terrain features.
e) Analysis and Design Optimization:
a. Objective: Evaluate and compare the potential paths to determine the
most suitable and economical design.
b. Factors Considered:
i. Balance Cut and Fill: Assessed the earthwork balance to minimize
the volume of material that needs to be excavated (cut) or added (fill),
thereby reducing construction costs.
ii. Topography: Analyzed the terrain features to ensure the canal path
aligns with natural contours, minimizing disruptions and construction
challenges.
iii. Environmental Impact: Evaluated the potential environmental
impact of each path to ensure minimal disruption to the ecosystem.
f) Final Path Selection:
a. Decision Process:

8
 i. Based on the comprehensive analysis, the most suitable path was
selected.
ii. The selected path was determined to be the most economical, efficient,
and environmentally friendly option.
b. Outcome:
i. The chosen path ensures efficient water flow and cost-effectiveness,
balancing technical, economic, and environmental considerations.

8.1. Initial Path Selection from Google Earth Pro

 The initial path selection is a crucial part of the canal design process because it
determines the route the canal will follow. In this step, Google Earth Pro is used to
visually assess the terrain and identify possible paths for the canal. Google Earth Pro
offers high-resolution satellite images and detailed topographic data, which help in
analyzing the area thoroughly. By zooming in and exploring the landscape, different
route options can be evaluated.
 Several important factors are considered during this process to ensure the selected
path is practical and feasible. These factors include the shape of the land, existing
infrastructure, and current land use patterns. The aim is to choose a route that
minimizes disruption to the land and avoids obstacles such as densely populated
areas, major infrastructure, or environmentally sensitive zones.
 Three potential routes are identified: Path-1, Path-2, and Path-2. The total distance
of each potential path is measured using the measuring tool in Google Earth Pro.
This distance is important because it affects the overall cost and feasibility of
building the canal. Path 3 is chosen for Canal construction due to the least depth of
cut and depth of fill compared to the other paths. The elevation range varies from
235m to 263m. The lowest elevation encountered is 235m, and the highest is
263m.This path shows a narrower range of elevation changes compared to Path-1
and path-2.
 Additionally, the entire area surrounding the potential paths is analyzed to ensure
complete contour data coverage. This involves assessing elevation changes and
identifying key features like rivers, hills, and valleys. Using Google Earth Pro, the

9
 initial path selection is done with a thorough understanding of the terrain and existing
conditions, paving the way for an informed and cost-effective canal design.

8.2. Data Generation, Transfer, and Contour Generation

The process of data generating and transfer is crucial for accurate analysis and
visualization in canal design. It starts with collecting geographic data using Google
Earth Pro, a tool that allows users to extract precise latitude, longitude, and elevation
data for specific locations along the proposed canal path. By navigating through
satellite images and topographic data in Google Earth Pro, key points along the canal
route are identified, and their coordinates and elevations are carefully recorded. Once
these data points are collected, they are transferred to Microsoft Excel. Excel is used
to organize and prepare the data for further analysis.

Next, the data is used in QuickGrid, a specialized software tool for contour generation
and terrain analysis. The data from Microsoft Excel, including latitude, longitude, and
elevation values, is imported into QuickGrid. QuickGrid uses advanced features and
algorithms to convert these data points into detailed contour lines that show the
elevation levels of the terrain. The software creates a grid of points representing
elevation at various locations along the canal path and connects these points using
interpolation techniques to form continuous contour lines.

These contour lines show areas of equal elevation and provide a visual representation
of the terrain's topography along the canal route. The contours help in understanding
the land's slope, shape, and elevation changes. This information is crucial for
assessing the feasibility of the proposed canal path and identifying potential
challenges such as steep slopes or valleys.

9. Selected Parameters for Design of Canal

 Diameter of Soil Particles:

10
This parameter indicates the size of soil particles present in sandy loam soil. In this case,
the diameter is specified as 0.33 mm. Understanding the size of soil particles is crucial as
it influences factors such as permeability, porosity, and erodibility of the soil.

 Bed Slope (So):

The bed slope represents the slope of the canal bottom. Here, it's provided as 1:4300,
indicating a very gentle slope. As mentioned, minimizing the slope helps maximize the
command area of the canal while reducing erosion and energy loss.

 Critical Velocity Ratio (m):

This parameter, set at 1 for sandy loam, is used to calculate the critical velocity necessary
to prevent sedimentation and scouring in the canal. For sandy loam, a critical velocity ratio
of 1.0 is recommended.

 Coefficient of Rugosity (N):

Manning's roughness coefficient, N, characterizes the resistance to flow within the canal.
For earthen conditions with no vegetation, an N value of 0.025 is specified. Higher N
values indicate rougher canal walls, leading to increased frictional resistance.

 Side Slope:

The side slope refers to the inclination of the canal's walls. A 3:1 side slope is
recommended for channels constructed in sandy loam or porous clay soils, according to
Chow's 1959 guidelines. The chosen side slope helps ensure stability and prevents soil
erosion.

10. Results

10.1. Results from Design of Canal Using Kennedy’s Theory

11
 Results Obtained from Kennedy’s Design Theory
Parameter Value
Discharge (Q) 122.5 m³/sec
Bed Slope (So) 1:4300 (0.000232558)
Critical Velocity (Vo) 1.100581487 m/sec
Depth (D) 2.99 m
Width (B) 28.25568492 m
B/D Ratio 9.45 (Within range)
Actual Velocity (V) 1.1006465 m/sec
Critical Velocity Ratio (CVR) 1.000 (OK)

Table 10.1.1: Results Obtained from Kennedy’s Design Theory

10.2. Results from Design of Canal Using Laceys’s Theory

Results Obtained from Lacey’s Design Theory

Parameter Value
Discharge (Q) 122.5 m³/sec
Velocity (V) 0.981577409 m/sec
Bed Slope (S) 0.000138088
Depth (D) 2.908939122 m
Width (B) 34.1751197 m
B/D Ratio 11.75 (Within range)

Table 10.2.1: Results Obtained from Lacey’s Design Theory

11. Detailed Comparison of Canal Design Results: Kennedy’s

Theory vs. Lacey’s Theory

1. Discharge (Q)

 Kennedy’s Theory: 122.5 m³/sec

 Lacey’s Theory: 122.5 m³/sec
 Both theories use the same discharge value as the basis for design, ensuring a direct
comparison of other parameters.

12
2. Velocity (V)

 Kennedy’s Theory: 1.1006465 m/sec

 Lacey’s Theory: 0.981577409 m/sec
 Kennedy’s theory predicts a velocity that is approximately 12.15% higher than
Lacey’s theory. The higher velocity in Kennedy's design is intended to prevent
sediment deposition by maintaining a flow that is capable of carrying sediment
particles.

3. Bed Slope (So or S)

 Kennedy’s Theory: 0.000232558

 Lacey’s Theory: 0.000138088
 Kennedy’s bed slope is approximately 68.42% steeper than Lacey’s bed slope. The
steeper slope in Kennedy’s design is needed to achieve the higher velocity required
to prevent silting.

4. Depth (D)

 Kennedy’s Theory: 2.99 m

 Lacey’s Theory: 2.908939122 m
 Kennedy’s theory results in a depth that is about 2.78% greater than Lacey’s theory.
The slightly greater depth in Kennedy's design helps in achieving the necessary flow
velocity for sediment transport.

5. Width (B)

 Kennedy’s Theory: 28.25568492 m

 Lacey’s Theory: 34.1751197 m
 Lacey’s theory results in a width that is approximately 20.94% wider than Kennedy’s
theory. The wider channel in Lacey's design accommodates the flow at a lower
velocity, ensuring stability in sediment transport.

6. B/D Ratio

13
 Kennedy’s Theory: 9.45
 Lacey’s Theory: 11.75
 Lacey’s theory has a B/D ratio that is 24.34% higher than Kennedy’s theory. This
higher B/D ratio indicates a wider and shallower channel cross-section in Lacey’s
design, which is more stable and balanced for sediment transport.

11.1. Comparative Analysis of Channel Design Theories: Kennedy vs.

Lacey

1. Flow Velocity:

o Kennedy’s Theory: The higher velocity (1.1006465 m/sec) is essential to

prevent sediment deposition by keeping particles in suspension. This necessitates
a steeper slope (0.000232558) to maintain the critical velocity.

o Lacey’s Theory: The lower velocity (0.981577409 m/sec) is part of a design that
assumes natural sediment transport balance. This allows for a gentler slope
(0.000138088), reducing the potential for both erosion and excessive deposition.

2. Bed Slope:

o Kennedy’s Theory: A steeper bed slope ensures higher velocities that help to
prevent silting. The steeper slope (0.000232558) results in a narrower and deeper
channel.

o Lacey’s Theory: A gentler bed slope corresponds with lower velocities and a
stable channel regime. This slope (0.000138088) leads to a wider and shallower
channel that is naturally stable.

3. Channel Depth and Width:

o Kennedy’s Theory: The design results in a slightly deeper (2.99 m) but narrower
channel (28.25568492 m) to achieve higher velocities. This depth and width

14
 balance the need to prevent sedimentation while accommodating the given
discharge.

o Lacey’s Theory: The design leads to a shallower (2.908939122 m) and wider

channel (34.1751197 m), optimizing for stable sediment transport at lower
velocities. This creates a more stable channel that is less prone to both erosion
and deposition.

4. B/D Ratio:

o Kennedy’s Theory: A smaller B/D ratio (9.45) reflects the design of a narrower
and deeper channel, suited for maintaining higher velocities to prevent silting.

o Lacey’s Theory: A larger B/D ratio (11.75) indicates a design optimized for
natural stability, with a wider and shallower cross-section that supports balanced
sediment transport.

12. Conclusion

In conclusion, the project detailed analysis and comparison of canal design theories, such
as Kennedy’s and Lacey’s, provide valuable insights into optimizing irrigation canal
systems. By balancing factors like flow velocity, bed slope, and channel dimensions, we
can tailor canal designs to specific terrain conditions and operational requirements.
Through data analysis, the project identified the most suitable canal path while minimizing
environmental impact and maximizing cost-effectiveness. Among the identified routes
Path-1, Path-2, and Path-3—Path-3 emerges as the best choice for construction due to its
minimal depth of cut and fill. With an elevation ranging from 235m to 263m, Path-3
exhibits a narrower range of elevation changes compared to alternatives, indicating greater
stability and efficiency in implementation. This integrated approach ensures that the
proposed irrigation canal will not only enhance agricultural productivity but also promote
long-term sustainability, cost effectiveness and resilience.

15
Reference

Davis, C.V and K.E. Sorensen, 1969. Handbook of applied hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, N.Y.

Labye, Y., M.A, Olsen, A. Galand, and N.Tsiourtis. 1988. Design and optimization of
irrigation distribution networks. FAO Irrigation and drainage Paper 44, Rome, Italy. 247
pp

Carte, A.C. 1953. Critical tracctive force on channel side slopes. Hydrualic laboratory
Report No HYD-366. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Garg, Santosh Kumera, 1976. Irrigation Engineering and Hydrualic Structures. Kahanna
Publishers, Delhi.

Lane, E.W, 1950. Critical forces on channel side slopes. Hydrualic Laboratory Report No.
HYD295. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Co.

16