Designing To Find The Head Works Paramet PDF

Chapter 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 General
Flooding has been one of the biggest and most continuous natural disasters in the world. In an effort to
avert disasters in terms of loss of life and damage to properties caused by flooding, dams were built all
over the world to control the flow of rivers. A dam is defined as a natural or manmade embankment,
designed to prevent flooding of the landward side of the embankment, with a specific purpose to hold
back water. Dams can also provide additional advantages apart from flood management, such as to
provide water for irrigation, furnish hydroelectric power, and improve the navigability of waterways.
If dam failure occurs, the sudden release of water can increase the size of the flooded area and this will
result in death, destruction of property, loss of cultivation for long period of time depending on the
extent of damage and other disastrous impacts. To avert this disaster, dam design, construction,
maintenance and supervision holds a very important role. In order to avoid dam failure, it is important
to analyze possible causes of failure. The most common causes are overtopping, erosion, seepage,
boiling and piping.
Overtopping the tank bund is a one of the most common dam failure of small tanks in Sri Lanka. It is
due to no proper investigation is being done before rehabilitation or the remedial measures taken. This
type of failures occurs due to uneven floods. Flood forecasting is mainly based on the passed records of
rain falls on such catchments. But 99% of small tanks have not continuously measuring rain gauges at
catchments. Therefore the designers used to get the rain fall data corresponds to the nearby location.
Although it is the most advisable method to be adopted, that would be a giant mistake if the nearby
location is so far away from the location which we are going to design.
1.2 Background
Worldwide much attention is given to the prevention of failure of medium sized to large dams with
little attention being paid to small dams. However, small reservoirs are a very important source of both
primary and productive water for rural communities. Failure of small dams reduces the security of
water availability and therefore threatens the livelihoods of the affected communities. Little attention is
normally given to the risk of failure of these small dams because dam failure is normally viewed in the
context of the risk that is posed to life and property downstream of the dam.
Consequently medium to large sized dams are considered to pose high risk if they fail as compared to
small dams, which are usually considered to be of low risk, as they do not normally result in huge
losses of life and property damage if they fail. As a result, small dams are neglected and are generally
in a poor physical condition and are susceptible to failure. In this study dam failure refers to the
inability of a dam to hold water due to breaching or siltation. Risk of failure refers to the probability or
possibility of failure. Physical condition refers to the state of the components of a dam such as
spillways and dam wall in terms of the presence of deficiencies such as cracks, erosion and seepage.
1
1.3. Divulkele Tank
Divulkele Tank (Earlier it was known as Waddakachchi Tank) is a minor tank situated at Kantale
Divisional Secretary area in Trincomalee District in Eastern Province. That is maintained by Agrarian
Services Department, Kantale Division, Trincomalee Range.
Divulkele Tank is a Minor scheme for providing irrigation facilities to about 80ha. But within last few
years this tank has breached several times due to floods. The Agrarian Services Department has done
the augmentation of the tank at the same time, but in the recent flood occurred during December 2012
the tank was severely breached. Now the farmers who are cultivating under the tank, is displaced due to
the prevailing situation.
Due to this frequent breaching of the tank, the farmers are always requesting from the Irrigation
Department to strengthen the dam by increasing the dam and spill.
1.4 Present Condition
Now the tank has breached. Farmers of the village are cultivating under stream water that is coming
over the catchment, stored by coffer damming.
Fig. 1.4 – Temporally Coffer Damming
1.4.1 Breached Section
Fig. 1.4.1 – Breached Section of the Dam
2
1.4.2 Tank Bund
Fig. 1.4.2 – Tank Bund

The bund is overgrown with jungle as the tank is abandoned due to the breaching
1.4.3 Tank Bed
Fig. 1.4.3 – Tank Bed
There is no water in the bead as the tank is breached. Only the water stream is there begin from the
catchment.
3
1.4.4 Sluice
Fig. 1.4.4 – Tower Sluice
1.4.5 Main Canal
Fig. 1.4.5 – Main Canal
4
1.4.6 Spill
Fig. 1.4.6 – Natural Spill & Tail Canal
1.4.7 Command Area
Fig. 1.4.7 – Command area
5
1.5 Scheme Data
1.5.1 Name
Divulkele Tank (Waddakachchi Tank)
1.5.2 Scheme location.

Divulkele Tank is situated in Trincomalee district of Eastern province. This tank is located in
the topographical map of Sri Lanka by coordinates;
32(200,229.8E, 325,342.5N)
G/7(8.6x4.5)
1.5.3 Access
The tank could be reached by proceeding along Ambepussa-Trincomalee(A6)road, up to 85th
mile post junction in between Habarana and Kantale (which is called Sugar factory junction)
and turn right and proceed along Sugar Factory tarred road to a distance of about 8 km) and at
sugar factory barrier again turn right towards channel No: D-10 (Kantale scheme) and proceed
along the graveled road up to Thalgaswewa junction and again turn left and proceed about 2km
along the graveled road to LB end of the Divulkele Tank.
1.6 Technical data

1.6.1 General
Province - Eastern Province
District - Trincomalee
R.D.I Division - Trincomalee
I.E Division - Kantale
D.S. Division - Kantale
Co-ordinate - 32(200,229.8E, 325,342.5N)
1.6.2 Reservoir Data

Catchment Area - 11.33 sq. mile
Command Area - 80 ha (but 1000 ha Available)
High Flood Level (H.F.L) - N/A
Full Supply Level (F.S.L) - 99.70m
Capacity at F.S.L (Gross Capacity) - N/A
Dead Storage - N/A
6
1.6.3 Dam Embankment data
Type - Homogenous Earth fill
Length - 1921 m
Bund Top Level (B.T.L) - 100.00m(vary)
Bund Top Width - 2 m (Vary)
Side Slopes - 1:2 (U/S & D/S)-Vary
1.6.4 Spillway
Type - Natural
Crest Level - 99.70 m
Length - 70 m
Location - 1+836
1.6.5 Sluice data

No of Sluice - 01 No
Type - Tower
Sill Level - 96.50m
Size - 450mm
Location - 0+650
1.6.7 Main canal data
Type - Earthen
Gradient - 0.00035
Side Slope - 1:1.5 (Vary)
Length - 550m
Discharge - N/A
Bed Width - 0.90 m (Vary)
Full Supply Depth - 0.85m (Vary)
1.7 Objective
 To find the reason for frequent breaching

 To check the possibility of raising the tank bund & spill
 Introducing new design parameters
 Undertake take Operation Study and ensure water rights to all paddy fields by introducing a water
management plan
7
Chapter 2
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
A dam is a barrier constructed across a watercourse for the purpose of storing water. The most common
type is the earth fill or earthen dam. There are also concrete dams (gravity, arch, multi-arch, and
buttress types) and dams constructed of masonry, timber, rock fill, steel, and combinations of these
materials. Earth dams may be further classified as simple, core, and diaphragm. The simple
embankment type consists of reasonably uniform material throughout, sometimes with a blanket of
highly impervious material placed on its upstream face. This type of dam is also referred to as a
homogeneous embankment dam. Core embankments have a central zone or core of carefully chosen
material, which is less pervious than the rest of the dam. This dam is also referred to as a zoned
embankment dam. Diaphragm type dams incorporate a relatively thin section of concrete, steel, or
wood - sometimes referred to as a cutoff wall - in the central portion of the embankment, which forms a
barrier to the flow of water percolating through the dam. Figure 2.1 illustrates the principal parts of an
earth fill dam. Understanding the purpose of these is essential to any evaluation of a dam’s condition.
Figure 2.1- The principal parts of an earth fill dam.
2.2 Main Design Aspects of Flood Irrigation Schemes

2.2.1 Description
Irrigation of the lands in the flood plains of a watercourse with relatively flat uniform slopes is better
achieved by heading up the water in the water course with an Anicut or Regulator constructed
downstream of the lands and flooding them than by adoption of conventional canal system. This
method of irrigation is called “flood irrigation” and the crop cultivated is generally paddy.
Usually there will be several such Anicuts in a cascade in the valley, locate according to the bed
gradient of the water course and the elevation of the land upstream of the structure, for flood irrigation
of the entire valley.
8
2.2.2 Irrigable Extent
The irrigable extent mainly depends on the topography and the base flow in the stream. The base flow
should be sufficient to meet the requirements of evepo-transpiration, evaporation and deep-percolation
from the flood lands.
2.3 Definitions
2.3.1 Seasons
The main season is the cultivation period in which the largest rainfall precipitation takes place. This is
called Maha (October to March) in the Dry Zone. The second cultivation period for the year is the
season with the lesser rainfall called Yala (April to September) in the Dry Zone. The terms Maha and
Yala may be interchanged by local custom due to reversal of the quantum of rainfall.
2.3.2. Categories of Schemes
The definition of a small dam varies worldwide. However it is based on the height and the storage
capacity of the reservoir. The World Commission on Reservoirs defines it as having a dam wall of less
than 15 m in height and holding less than one million cubic meters of water. In the United States of
America (USA), a small dam is defined as having a wall height of six meters or less, or having a
capacity of less than 1.23 * 105 m3 of water.
However according to the Sri Lanka standards of irrigation, works or schemes are categorized as village
works, Medium works and Major works as follows;
Village Work assures irrigation waters to an extent not exceeding 200 acres during the main season,
and a portion of this extent for the other season. Traditionally under a village tank deliveries of water
are made from a supply canal to a block of several holdings and not individually to each holding.
A village work is also defined as one providing drainage facilities to mitigate floods for an extent not
exceeding 200 acres.
Medium Work assures irrigation waters, or provides flood mitigation to, from over 200 acres to about
1,500 acres during the main season, and to a portion of this extent for the other season.
New farmers under a medium reservoir are supplied with water from a network of canals on an
individual basis. Existing lands that are incorporated under a medium reservoir may follow the
traditional pattern of irrigation as for new lands.
Major Work assures irrigation waters or provides flood mitigation to above 1,500 acres during each
season.
The pattern of irrigating farms of new and existing lands under a Major reservoir is the same as for a
Medium Reservoir.
2.3.3 Spillway
The spillway is designed to safely discharge run-off from storms of determined frequency based on a
permissible risk. The outflow from storms of different durations and the above determined frequency
are computed and the spillway designed for the highest outflow.
2.3.4 Embankment height and Slopes
The Embankment Height will be determined by adding to the full supply level (FSL) the afflux and
freeboard taking wave height and wave ride-up in to accounts.
9
A safely check of the design is done by assuming a higher inflow for a peak flood and overtopping
conditions. If the safety check shows failure the Embankment height and/ or spill size is adjusted to
satisfy the safety check.
For optimum economy, various spill sizes and types and the corresponding bund heights should be cost
and the combination with the lowest total cost chosen.
2.3.5 Sluices
The intake and the opening sizes of the sluice in a reservoir should be the minimum to release the
necessary demand when the reservoir is at its lowest stage called the Minimum Operation Level. The
hydraulics of the sluice is that of open canal flow in a part full conduit based on the principle of steady
non-uniform flow. The sill elevation of a sluice a sluice should be so located to provide minimum dead
storage in the reservoir. The dead storage in the large reservoirs is mainly required to accommodate
possible silt deposits. According to the Irrigation standards in Sri Lanka, dead storage will be mainly
required to meet domestic needs and those of cattle. In large reservoirs the dead storage is computed on
the basis of the silt that would be deposited in a defined period of time from analysis of silt samples in
the supply stream for the reservoir or in a comparable stream.
If the sill elevation of the sluice is determined from other considerations such as maximum possible
command, topography etc. then the resulting dead storage should be checked as to whether it satisfies
the above conditions. If not, a compromise should be made to satisfy as best as possible all the
requirements mentioned above.
10
Chapter 3
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Primary & Detail Investigation of the Site
3.1.1 Preliminary Investigation
Fig. 3.1.1 – Recording details for PIR
The Preliminary Investigation is personally done by me with the help of community of the Divulkele
village. The farmers of the Divulkele Tank Farmer Organization gave me their fullest cooperation for
preparing the PIR (Annex-01).
3.1.2 Detail Investigation

The following operations were carried out for the determination of detail investigation of the site. The
top most instruments in surveying such as Total stations & GPS were used and the drawings were
developed using Auto CAD & Surfer (Mapping Software) Software.
3.1.2.1 LS & CSS survey of the Tank Bund

LS & CSS (Annex-06) were used to designing process and could be taken an idea about whole the dam
and its cross section.
Fig. 3.1.2.1 – Levelling
11
3.1.2.2 Breach Site Survey
Breached Site Survey was carrying out to identifying the depth of Core trench and its material
properties. 04 Nos of auguring tests on the LHS and 03 Nos auguring tests on the RHS of the breached
section on the tank bund were cried out (see Annex. 12 for soil test report)
Fig. 3.1.2.2(a) – Recording details for PIR
Fig. 3.1.2.2 (b) Images of Breach Section
Fig. 3.1.2.2 (c )Auguring a Bore Hole
12
Fig. 3.1.2.2 (d) Auguring Samples of a Bore Hole
3.1.2.3 Tank Bed Survey

Tank bed surveying is carrying out to identifying the capacity of the tank. The area-capacity diagram
with bed contour map was available at the office of Irrigation Engineer, Kantale. The data was used for
the flood study (Annex 07)
3.2 Identifying the factors leading to breach the tank
The factors are leading to breaching a tank, are more critical to failure of an earthen dam. Therefore the
following analyses were done to obtain the most critical factor of failure for this tank.
3.2.1 Condition of soil
Condition of the soils of the dam were analyzed by using the soil test reports. (Annex 12)
3.2.2 Seepage pattern
To estimate the volume of under seepage through the dam, that may be expected, it is necessary to
determine the coefficient of permeability of the pervious foundation. This coefficient is a function of
the size and gradation of the coarse particles, of the amount of fines, and of the density of the mixture.
Three general field test methods are used to determine the coefficient of permeability of foundations:
(1) Pump-out tests, in which water is pumped from a well at a constant rate and the
drawdown of the water table observed in wells placed on radial lines at various
distances from the pumped well.
(2) Tests conducted by observation of the velocity of flow as measured by the rate of travel
of a dye or electrolyte from the point of injection to an observation well.
(3) Pump-in tests, in which water is pumped into a drill hole or test pit and the rate of
seepage observed under a given head.
13
Various laboratory test methods are also used to determine the coefficient of permeability, such as
falling head and constant head permeability tests. The pump-out tests are relatively expensive, but in
results are more dependable than other methods. The rate-of-travel method is costly and difficult to
interpret. The pump-in tests are economical for small dams.
Amount of under seepage can be obtained from Darcy’s formula given below.
Q = kiA
Where:
Q = discharge volume per unit of time,
k = coefficient of permeability for the foundation, discharge through a unit area at unit
hydraulic gradient.
i = hydraulic gradient = h/L = difference in head divided by length of path.
A = gross area of foundation through which flow takes place.
The accuracy of the amount of under seepage as determined by Darcy’s formula depends on the
homogeneity of the foundation and the accuracy with which the coefficient of permeability is
determined.
The coefficient of permeability for this calculation is obtained from the past information’s together with
soil type of foundation material.
3.2.2.1 Determination of phreatic line
Line of seepage or phreatic line or saturation line is defined as the line within the dam
section below which there are positive hydrostatic pressures in the dam. The hydrostatic pressure on the
phreatic line is equal to the atmospheric pressure, and hence, equals zero. Above the phreatic line, there
is a zone of capillary saturation, called the capillary fringe, in which the hydrostatic pressures are
negative. The appreciable flow through the dam body, below the phreatic line, reduces the effective
weight of this soil, and thus reduces the shear strength of the soil due to pore pressure. But on the other
hand, the insignificant flow through the capillary fringe, leads to greater shear strength, because the
capillary tension in water slightly safer side, and hence neglected. Position of phreatic line, will enable to
determine the following parameters.
(i) It gives separation line between dry and the submerge soil.
(ii) It gives the top stream line.
(iii) Seepage line.
(Ref - Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering by S.K.Garg, page 195)
14
Soil properties of the dam
AH 01 AH 02
Depth Soil Type Depth Soil Type
0 m – 1.0 m SP 0m – 1.4 m SP
1.0 – 3.8 m SM 1.4 – 4.4 m Sand
AH 03 AH 04
0 m – 1.2 m SP 0m – 1.3 m SP
1.2 – 3.6 m Sand 1.3 – 3.8 m SM
Note: Depths are taken from BTL
Soil properties of the foundation

AH 01 & 03 AH 02
0 m – 2.6 m SM 0m – 3m SM
2.6m – 3.1m Decomposed Rock 3m – 3.3m Decomposed Rock
Note: Depths are taken from the bed of the breached section
Table.3.2.1.1(a) Bore hole analysis
Typical Values of Coefficient of Permeability (k)

Coefficient of Permeability
No Soil Type
(k), cm/sec
1 Coarse Sand (SP) 0.4
2 Silty Sand (SM) 1.0
3 Sandy Clay (SC) 0.15
Table.3.2.1.1(b) Coefficient of Permeability
Coefficient of Permeability (k 1) for sandy clay = 0.15 cm/sec
Average Coefficient of Permeability (k 2) for sand = (0.4 + 1.0) / 2
= 0.7 cm/sec
SC k1 d1
SP & SM k2 d2
15
Average Coefficient of Permeability (K) for foundation material
( )
( )
cm/sec
Coefficient of permeability of dam material (SM) , k = 0.534 cm/s

Bund Top Level (BTL) = 100.900m
Sill Level = 96.500m
High Flood Level (HFL) = 100.300m
Top width of dam = 2.0m
U/S & D/S Slope = 1:2
Fig. 3.2.1.1 (a) Cross Section of the Dam
Fig. 3.2.1.1 (b) Phreatic line in earth dam (without D/S Filter)
Taking the focus (F) at the downstream toe of the dam as the origin (Fig.), the equation of the base
parabola is given as;
16
√ , where S is the distance of the point (x,y) from the directrix, called focal distance.
Now select the point A, in such a way that DB≈0.3CB
AB = 0.3 x 7.6m = 2.28 m
Then D is plotted at a distance 2.28m from B (Fig). This is the start point of the parabola. Now the co-
ordinates of the point D with respect to F as origin is (14.28m,3.8m). substituting this co-ordinate in the
equation of the base parabola, it gives
√
√
S = 0.5m
The vertex (J) of the base parabola shall be situated at a distance equal to 0.5S or 0.25m from F,
beyond the D/S toe of the dam, as shown in Fig.
A few more co-ordinates of the base parabola at known distances (X) are worked out in Table.. using
√ ; Where S = 0.5m
√
0 0.50
2 1.50
4 2.06
6 2.50
8 2.87
10 3.20
12 3.50
14.28 3.80
Table.3.2.1.1(c) Tabulation for the parabola
The base parabola with all these ordinates is then drawn. Now this parabola has to be corrected at entry
and exit. At entry, the phreatic line is started from the point B in such a way that it becomes at right
angles to the U/S face of AB of the dam. A reverse curvature BP1 is , therefore given as shown in fig…
At exit, the point K at which the phreatic line intersects the D/S face can be easily obtained by using the
following equation, i.e.
( )( )
Here tan = or
17
in degrees
( )
300 0.36
600 0.32
900 0.26
0
120 0.18
0
135 0.14
1500 0.1
1800 0.0
Table.3.2.1.1(d) tabulation for and /( )
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
∆𝑎/(𝑎+∆𝑎))
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
0 50 100 150 200
in degrees
Fig. 3.2.1.1 (c ) Relation between and /( )
( ) = Distance FJ, i.e. the distance of the focus from the point at which the base parabola
intersects the D/S face, can be measured from Fig… and then knowing a, the point K is plotted and the
phreatic line BIK is completed.
Alternatively, the value of a can also be determined from the following equation, if ( ) is not to
be measured, as the dam section is not to be plotted to scale.
√( ) ( )
Here = 12m, H = 3.8m , sin 26.560 = 0.447, Cos 26.560=0.894
√( ) ( )
3.035m
18
Discharge through the dam section can be obtained from the following equation,
Where K = 0.534 cm/sec = 5.34 x10-3m/sec

S = 0.5m
m3/m run/sec
m3/m run/sec
Therefore , Seepage through Dam = 2.67 lit/s/m
According to the “Design of Irrigation Headworks by Eng. A.J.P. Ponrajah, page 15” it has mentioned
that the monthly seepage loss may be assumed to be 0.5% of the volume of water stored in the reservoir.
Reservoir Capacity at H.F.L = 179.83ham = 1,798,300 m3

Seepage loss per Month = 1,798,300 x 0.5 %
= 89,915 m3
Seepage loss per Day = 89,915/30
= 2997.17 m3
Seepage loss per Hour = 2997.17/24
= 124.88 m3
Seepage loss per Second = 124.88 /3600
= 0.0346 m3
= 34.68 lit/s
Effective length of the Dam = 22m

Allowable Seepage loss per unit length = 34.68 / 22
= 1.57 lit/s/m
The maximum allowable seepage should be greater than the measured seepage.
Allowable Seepage > Measured Seepage
But according to the above analysis, measured seepage is more than the allowable seepage, hence the
reservoir seepage is excess. (Allowable Seepage < Measured Seepage)
19
3.2.3 Flood study
Sequence of flood study & Formulae used in computations
( )
01. ( )
02. ( )
03. ( ) ( n n) ( a n a a na )
04. Duration of storm, Dhrs= time of concentration, Tc hrs (Triangular Hydrograph)
n n na
Hence
n n na
( )
Duration of spilling, ( )
05. Duration of storm, Dhrs > time of concentration, Tc hrs (Trapezoidal Hydrograph)
n n
( )
* +
If by above formulae Q0 exceeds QI, then assume Q0=QI
( )
Duration of spilling, * +
( )
06. Spill size designed for safety against overtopping (as para 4.2.5 Design of Irrigation Headworks
for Small Catchments by AJP Ponrajah) by adopting the longer of the design and check lengths
subjected to economic considerations. Excessive spill length is reduced by the application (of
para 5.4, Design of Irrigation Headworks for Small Catchments by AJP Ponrajah)
07. Limit on duration of spilling is as para 5.4, Design of Irrigation Headworks for Small Catchments
by AJP Ponrajah
08. For convenience, maximum critical out flow and duration of storm are obtained by tabulation
instead of plotting
A. Design Parameters
1. Design return period = 50 years as embankment height < 30 ft
2. Hydrological zone = No: 01
3. Longest watercourse = 6.0 miles
4. Assumed design afflux for initial trial = 2ft
5. Detention at HFL = 316.18 Acft
6. Catchment area = 11.33 Sq. miles
7. Catchment slope = 0.3%
8. Fetch = 0.5
9. Freeboard = 3ft
10. Detention at BTL = 1685Acft
20
B. Determination of critical storm
Velocity in catchment = 1.5fps from table 4.2.6

C= 0.3 from table 4.2.4
X = 88.91
Y = 0.721
A = 11.33 sq.mile x 640 = 7251.2 Acs
n a ( )
n a n ( )
n
( )
I = 88.91 x 367 -0.721 = 1.26
Duration of storm, Dhrs= time of concentration, Tc hrs (Triangular Hydrograph)

I = Tc = 1.26 in/hr
The peak run-off is given by the QI = CI A, Where

C - Run-off coefficient.
I - Rain fall intensity.
A - Catchment area
QI = 0.3 x 1.26x7251.2 = 2740 Cusec
n na na
Duration of spilling,
n n( )
( )
21
Duration Intensity of Inflow Outflow Spilling
of storm Rainfall QI Qo duration
D(hrs) I(in/hr) (Cusecs) (Cusecs) Ds(hrs)
6.12 1.26 2740 2113.3 15.87
6.25 1.24 2695 2104.1 16.01
6.50 1.20 2620 2091.8 16.28
For check condition, C=2x0.3 = 0.6

Duration Intensity of Inflow Outflow Spilling
of storm Rainfall QI Qo duration
D(hrs) I(in/hr) (Cusecs) (Cusecs) Ds(hrs)
6.12 1.26 5482 2148.7 31.22
6.25 1.24 5395 2131.1 31.64
6.50 1.20 5221 2082.5 32.59
C. Spill size and checks
Assuming the spill type to be a Clear over spill;
Design length of spill = L, is given by Q=CLH1.5

Where Q – Critical Outflow =2113cusec
C – Coefficient = 3.33
L – Length of spill
H – Design afflux = 2ft
L = 2113/(3.33x21.5) = 224ft = 68m
Assuming the spill type to be a Natural spill;
Design length of spill = L, is given by Q=CLH1.5

Where Q – Critical Outflow = 2111cusec
C – Coefficient = 2.8
L – Length of spill
H – Design afflux = 2ft
1.5
L = 2113/(2.8x2 ) = 267ft = 81m
For check condition
L = 2148/(2.8x21.5) = 272ft = 83m, hence adopt longer length of 83m, say 85m
Design duration of spilling 15.87< 72 hrs and hence OK

Check duration of spilling 29.58< 72 hrs and hence OK
22
Checks for magnitude of the flood in 2011
Peramaduwa tank is one of medium scheme situated in Kantale region. Considering its discharge at the
flood in 2011 January, magnitude of the flood of Divulkele tank is;
Catchment area of Peramaduwa Tank = 13.6 sq.mile

Spill length = 328ft
Q=CLH1.5
Q=2.8x328x31.5
Q=4773cusec
a n d d n
= 3966 cusec
This is greater than the earlier design discharge 2113cusec(50 year return period), therefore this necessary
to check the overtopping condition
Check for the safety of the bund

Q=CLH1.5
3916=2.8x272xH1.5
H=3.0ft
The distance between the designed bund top and the FSL is 1.0m (3ft), hence the bund is safe enough
Hence it is necessary to re-design the spill length,
New Design Values
Design Spill Type = Natural Spill

Design Spill Length = 110m
Design F.S.L. = 99.70m
Design Afflux = 0.76m
As per table 5.9, page 82 & 84 Design of Irrigation Headworks for small catchments
Fetch = 1.08km
Normal Free Board = 1.30m
Minimum Free Board = 1.00m
Design H.F.L. = FSL + Afflux

Design H.F.L. = 99.70 + 0.6
Design H.F.L. = 100.30m
Design B.T.L. = FSL+Afflux +Minimum Free Board

Design B.T.L. = 99.70+0.6 +1.0
Design B.T.L. = 101.30m
23
3.2.4 Operation Study
Sequence of Operation Study
The following is the sequence adopted for operation study.

1. Determine the available command area that could be fully cultivated for Maha
2. Assume initial storage as storage at minimum operation level
3. Assume reservoir capacity and commence operation with Maha carrying out sufficient trials
ensure residual storage in any month of the season is as close as possible initial storage and
that there is spillage in at least one month
4. If operation in step 3 shows failure for Maha, then repeat step 3 with increased initial storage.
The increase being limited to cumulative yield up to November
5. If by step 4 Maha continues to fail, then repeat step 4 with reduced extent for Maha
6. As an alternative for step 4 & 5, the operation may be repeated with an earlier or late date of
commencement of cultivation
Design Data
 Gross Catchment area = 11.33Sq.mile (29.35km2)

 Net Catchment Area = 11.02 Sq.mile (28.54km2)
Fig. 3.2.4 – Topo Inset
 Available command area for full Maha cultivation
The required capacity of the reservoir and the irrigable extent depends not only on the amount of
rainfall and run-off, but on the distribution of such rainfall over the crop season.
The reservoir capacity and the irrigable extent will be determined from an operation study taking in to
account the inflow from all sources in the catchment, diversion inflow from other catchments,
evaporation and seepage losses from the reservoir and the irrigation requirements of the crop cultivated.
24
For small catchments, the observed run-off is usually not available. However seasonal run-off or yield
is available in the form of Iso-Yield curves prepared by the Hydrology division of the Irrigation
Department. These curves subject to certain limits are considered sufficient for the operation study for
reservoirs within the scope of the booklet “Design of Irrigation head works for small catchments”
The seasonal yield from the Iso-Yield curves subject to the limitations is distributed on a monthly basis
proportional to the monthly rainfall for the year under study.
Here in this tank the available command area for Maha cultivation is 500ha
 Depth-Area-Capacity obtained from reservoir bed surveys

Contour Cumulative
Contour Mean Area Volume
interval Area(ha) Volume
(m) (m2) (ham)
(m) (ham)
96.000 - 0 - - -
97.000 1.0 5.88 2.94 2.90 2.90
98.000 1.0 42.62 24.25 24.20 27.10
99.000 1.0 60.34 51.48 51.40 78.50
99.500 0.5 73.95 67.14 33.60 112.10
100.000 0.5 87.57 80.76 40.40 152.50
101.000 0.5 95.00 91.28 91.30 243.60
101.200 0.2 100.20 97.60 19.50 263.30
Table 3.2.4(a) – Area Capacity table
Operation study – Design works
Water balance equation

In studying the available water resources to meet demand for cultivation of crops, a
Water balance equation is developed considering the following:
 Inflow
The inflow of water which is the yield from catchment, diversions from other catchments and
return or drainage flows from upstream cultivations.
 Demand
The Demand which is the irrigation requirement. This is the water released from the
sluice/sluices. Application and conveyance losses are accounted for in Demand.
 Losses
Losses which are the evaporation from water surface or the reservoir and seepage loss from bed
of the reservoir.
 Spillage
Spillage which is the amount of inflow that flows out from the spill/spills when the reservoir is
full
Water balance equation as follows:
Storage at beginning of the month + Inflow – Losses – Demand – Spillage = Storage at

end of the month
25
The steps to be followed are:-
Step 01- Selection of crop with crop factor

Step 02- Selection of Evapo transpiration of reference crop
Step 03- Computation of crop water requirement
Step 04- Requirement for land preparation
Step 05- Computation of Field Irrigation Requirement
Step 06- Computation of monthly rainfall using rainfall data
Step 07- Computation of Effective rainfall
Step 08- Determination of Irrigation Requirement at the sluice
Step 09- Computation of Monthly Evaporation
Step 10- Computation of inflow from catchment and diversion
Step 11- Calculation of losses
Step 12- Calculation of Field Demand
Step 13- Determination of spillage
Step 01- Selection of crop with crop factor
Crop generally classified as Paddy and OFC. Rice is the main food for Sri Lankans. Therefore people
from Sri Lanka mostly tend to cultivate paddy. Also the farmers at Divulkele tank is also tend to
cultivate paddy on both Yala & Maha. Hence, the paddy crop is chosen for this study.
Crop factor and growth stage
The growth of the crop to maturity is considered in four stages.
1. Initial
2. Development
3. Mid
4. Late
These values of crop factor and Number of days for maturity differ from stage to stage and crop to crop.
The variety of Crop normally practices in the scheme are 105 days paddy and 90 days paddy for Maha
and Yala respectively. Therefore above paddy varieties are selected for this study
Duration of each stage

Crop type Initial Development Mid Late
Paddy (105 days) 20 30 30 25
Paddy (90 days) 10 25 30 25
Table 3.2.4(b) – Stages of Paddy cultivation
Crop factor - Kc
Crop type Initial Development Mid Late
Paddy (105 days) 1.00 1.15 1.20 0.90
Paddy (90 days) 1.00 1.15 1.20 0.90
Table 3.2.4(c) – Crop Factors for Paddy
26
Step 02- Selection of Evapotranspiration of reference crop
The rate at which water is removed from an extended surface of a short green crop which fully shades
the ground exerts little or negligible resistance to the flow of water and is always well supplied with
water. Grass height is 15-20 cm. This value is constant for any crop for specified area. Considering
climatic condition prevailed in Tricomalee is almost same as at Maha Illuppallama; as both areas fall in
Intermediate zones. Therefore evapotranspiration of reference crop is taken from Maha Illuppallama
values.
Month ET-ref (mm) Month ET-ref (mm)

January 119.38 July 190.50
February 127.00 August 193.04
March 157.48 September 190.50
April 149.86 October 157.48
May 162.56 November 109.22
June 175.26 December 114.30
Table 3.2.4(d) – Evapotranspiration in Mahailuppallama
Step 03- Calculation of crop water requirement
Crop water requirement is the defined as the “depth of water needed to meet the water loss through
evapo-transpiration of a disease free crop, growing in large fields under non-restricting soil conditions
including soil water and fertility and achieving full production potential under given growing
environment”.
To calculate the ET-crop two values have to be known
1. Crop factor – Kc
2. Reference crop evapo transpiration - ET ref
3. Crop water requirement (CWR)= Kc x ET ref
Specimen calculation for Maha season:

Month No.of days Month No.of days
January 31 July 31
February 28 August 31
March 31 September 30
April 30 October 31
May 31 November 30
June 30 December 31
Table 3.2.4(e) – Dates corresponds to the months
27
Annex; 9,10,11
Cultivation started on 15th of October
 Kc value for Initial stage = 1.00

 No.of days for initial stage in October = 17
 Kc value for October = 1.00x17/31 = 0.548
 Kc value for Mid stage =1.15
 No.of days for initial stage in November = 03
 No.of days for mid stage in November = 27
 Kc value for November = (1.00x3+1.15x27)/30 = 1.135
 Kc value for Development stage =1.20
 No.of days for mid stage in December = 03
 No.of days for development stage in December = 28
 Kc value for December = (1.15x3+1.20x28)/31 = 1.195
 Kc value for late stage = 0.90
 No.of days for development stage in January = 31
 No.of days for late stage in January = 25
 Kc value for January = (1.20x2+0.90x25)/31 = 0.830
Similarly Kc for Maha season can be computed as above.
 CWR for October = Kc x ET ref = 0.548x157.48 = 86.30 mm

 CWR for November = Kc x ET ref = 1.135x109.22 = 123.96 mm
 CWR for December = Kc x ET ref = 1.195x114.30 = 136.59 mm
 CWR for January = Kc x ET ref = 0.830x119.38 = 99.09 mm
Similarly CWR for yala season can be computed as above.
Step 04- Requirement for land preparation
Land preparation consists of land soaking and land tillage. The amount of water and number of
application required for land soaking and tillage varies with considerably with type of soils. Generally
encountered in the lowland farms for paddy two applications are required of 102 mm in 5 days and
76mm in 10 days totaling 178mm over 15 days. Commonly land preparation done using rainfall in
Maha season. Stored water in tank will supply in yala season for land preparation. Hence, the same
assumption is considered in this study.
Requirement for land preparation = 102 + 76 = 178 mm
Step 05- Computation of Field Irrigation Requirement
Field irrigation requirement is the amount of water delivered to field which include losses from surface
run-off, deep percolation and leakage through dykes. These losses are given in percentage of efficiency.
It is called as Field irrigation efficiency or application efficiency. Generally this value is 60% and 55 %
for lowland and upland respectively.
 FIR = Crop water requirement/ Field irrigation efficiency

 FIR = CWR/Ea
28
Area under study is of lowland category. Hence, Ea taken as 60%
Specimen calculation for Maha season:

Annex; 9,10,11
 FIR for October = CWR/Ea = 86.30/0.60 = 143.83 mm

 FIR for November = CWR/Ea = 123.96/0.60 = 206.61 mm
 FIR for December = CWR/Ea = 136.59/0.60 = 227.65 mm
 FIR for January = CWR/Ea = 99.09/0.60 = 165.14 mm
Step 06- Calculation of monthly rainfall using rainfall data
Precipitation from the clouds in the form of water drops is called rain. Rainfall is a random process and
it is difficult to ensure the next day’s rainfall. It is possible to say that certain months are usually dry
certain months are wet. It is also possible to certain extent to quantify and say that, usually in a certain
area so many mm of rain can be experienced in certain month or year but difficult to say the amount of
rainfall for every year accurately. Therefore 75% probability rainfall mostly used for this kind of study,
Which was developed from the past rainfall data for long period.
Sri Lanka is divided into 24 Agro-Ecological regions (Annex 05) and computed the 75% probability
rainfall for each region. Divulkele tank is located in DL 1 Agro ecological zone.
The data extracted from the 75% probability rain fall in Annex 13 obtained from the” Design of Small
catchment by A.J.P Ponrajah, is appended below;
Monthly 75% Probability of Rainfall for DL 1

Month Rainfall Rainfall Month Rainfall Rainfall
(inches) (mm) (inches) (mm)
January 3.0 76.20 July 0.0 0.00
February 1.0 25.40 August 0.5 12.70
March 2.0 50.80 September 1.0 25.40
April 5.0 127.00 October 5.0 127.00
May 2.0 50.80 November 6.0 152.40
June 0.5 12.70 December 5.0 127.00
Table 3.2.4(f) Monthly 75% Probability of rainfall for DL 1
Step 07- Calculation of Effective rainfall
Effective rainfall is that portion of the total monthly rainfall considered effective in satisfying the total
or part of the requirement. It can be used for CWR or Land preparation or losses in farm. Effective
monthly rainfall can be calculated from following equation.
 Effective rainfall Pe = 0.67 ( R – 25.4 ) mm
R is 75% probability rainfall for a month in mm
29
Annex 9,10,11
Sample calculation:
 October Pe = 0.67 ( R – 25.4 ) = 0.67 (127.00-25.40) = 68.07 mm
 June Pe = 0.67 ( R – 25.4 ) = 0.67 (12.70-25.40) = -8.51 mm
Negative value taken as zero.

Following table gives the result of every month
Monthly Effective Rain fall
Month Effective Rainfall Month Effective Rainfall
(mm) (mm)
April 68.07 October 68.07
May 17.02 November 85.09
June 0.00 December 68.07
Table 3.2.4(g) Monthly effective rainfall
Step 08- Determination of Irrigation Requirement at the sluice
Irrigation requirement is the amount of water to be delivered from the point of diversion which includes
all field losses, loss from seepage, percolation, and evaporation in conveyance and operational losses.
These losses are given in percentage of efficiency. It is called as system efficiency or conveyance
efficiency. Generally this value varying between 65% to 80%. The following equation is used for
calculation of IR
 I.R = (FIR - Effective rainfall)/system efficiency
Conveyance efficiency only applying for water delivered from the sluice. Effective rainfall is to be
deducted from FIR.
Specimen calculation:
 IR for October = ( FIR-Pe ) / Ec= (143.83-68.07)/0.75 = 101.01 mm
 IR for November = ( FIR-Pe ) / Ec= (206.61-85.09)/0.75 = 162.02 mm
 IR for December = ( FIR-Pe ) / Ec= (227.65-68.07)/0.75 = 212.77 mm
 IR for January = ( FIR-Pe ) / Ec= (165.14-34.04)/0.75 = 174.81 mm
Step 09- Calculation of Monthly Evaporation
Evaporation is a physical process by which a liquid is transformed into gaseous state. It is continuous
from the surface of the water in the reservoir. The rate of evaporation varies with the climatic condition
including the wind velocity over the surface. Evaporation rate is high in shallow reservoir compared
with deeper reservoir.
The evaporation is measured in the field by the pan evaporation method. Pan is filled with water 5cm
below the rim, and water level should not drop to more than 7.5 cm below the rim. Depth of is measure
every day and find the evaporated depth. This measurement was recorded for long period of years and
average values are calculated for every month.
30
Evaporation station is not available at Divulkele tank. Therefore monthly evaporation values available
at Kathale station are chosen for this study (Annex 03).
The values obtained from the evaporation data developed in “Design of Small catchment “ by AJP
Ponrajah (Annex 14) are as follows
Monthly Evaporation – Kanthale

Month Evaporatio Evaporatio Month Evaporatio Evaporatio
n (feet) n (mm) n (feet) n (mm)
January 0.276 84.12 July 0.481 146.61
February 0.268 81.69 August 0.472 143.87
March 0.348 106.07 September 0.442 134.72
April 0.330 100.58 October 0.369 112.47
May 0.404 123.14 November 0.264 80.47
June 0.478 145.69 December 0.251 76.50
Table 3.2.4(h) Monthly Evaporation - Kantale
Step 10- Calculation of inflow from catchment and diversion
Iso Yield Maps

The fig 1&2 are maps showing the Iso Yield curves for maha and yala season. This will gives the
specific Yield for the season. These maps are produced by hydrological division of ID from observed
stream flow records for Maha and Yala season separately. If the point of interest is between two
curves, it can be interpolated to find the Specific Yeild for the season.
Maha season – October to March

Yala season – April to September
Co-Ordinate of Divulkele Tank: G/7 (8.60 x 4.50)
The scheme is located near to 600 Acft/sq.miles Iso-yeild curves in Maha (Annex 02) and 100
Acft/sq.miles Iso-yeild curves in yala season ( Annex 04) Hence, above values are considered for the
calculation
 For Maha Season

600 Acft/sq.miles = ((600/2.47) x 0.3048)/1.6092 = 28.599 ham/km2
 For Yala Season
100 Acft/sq.miles = ((100/2.47) x 0.3048)/1.6092 = 4.767 ham/km2
Seasonal Yield
The net catchment area multiply by Specific seasonal Yield gives the Seasonal Yield for the season.
Seasonal Yield computed as above should be limited to lie between 35% and 7.5% of the seasonal rain
fall. If the seasonal Yield exceeds the upper limit of 35% or less than lower limit of 7.5% of the volume
of rainfall, then specific Yield is adjusted to the limit values.
 Seasonal yield = Specific Seasonal Yield x Net catchment area
Net catchment Area of Divulkele scheme: 28.54 km2

31
Specimen Calculation for October in Maha Season
Monthly 75 % Probability Rainfall for Maha season

Month Rain fall (mm)
October 127.00
November 152.40
December 127.00
January 76.20
February 25.40
March 50.80
Total 558.80
Maha specific Yield for Maha = 28.599 ham/km2
Maha seasonal rain fall for 1km2 = (558.80/1000) m x 100 ha = 55.88 ham
Run-off = (28.599/55.88)*100 = 51.18%
But, upper limit of this factor is 35%
Hence, Specific Yield is adjusted to 35% of 55.88 ham = 19.56 ham/km2
Seasonal yield for Maha = 19.56 ham/km2 x 28.54 km2 = 558.24 ham
Value of seasonal yield distributed to every months of respective season according to the monthly
rainfall ratio.
Seasonal yield for October = (127.00/558.80) x 558.24 = 126.87 ham
Month Seasonal Yield (ham)

October 126.87
November 152.25
December 126.87
January 76.12
February 25.37
March 50.75
32
Specimen Calculation for April in Maha Season
Monthly 75 % Probability Rainfall for Yala season

Month Rain fall (mm)
April 127.00
May 50.80
June 12.70
July 0.00
August 12.70
September 25.40
Total 228.60
Yala specific Yield for Maha = 4.767 ham/km2
Yala seasonal rain fall for 1km2 = (228.60/1000) m x 100 ha = 22.86 ham
Run-off = (4.767/22.86)*100 = 20.85%
This is within the limit of 7.5% - 35%
Hence, Specific Yield for Yala season = 4.767 ham/km2
Seasonal yield for Maha = 4.767ham/km2 x 28.54 km2 = 136.05 ham
Value of seasonal yield distributed to every months of respective season according to the monthly
rainfall ratio.
Seasonal yield for April = (127.00/228.60) x 136.05 = 75.58 ham

Month Seasonal Yield (ham)
April 75.58
May 29.80
June 7.56
July 0.00
August 7.56
September 15.12
33
Step 11- Calculation of losses
Generally the losses are occurred from reservoir as follows:
 Evaporation
 Seepage
Evaporation
Evaporation occurs from the reservoir water surface. This varies with the change of water spread area
of the reservoir day by day. But, in this Study, the Water spread area at the beginning of respective
month is considered for the computation.
Evaporation loss = Water spread area x Monthly evaporation
Water spread area for a certain month can be obtained from Depth-Area-Capacity table or Depth-Area-
Capacity curve of the scheme (Appendix 1 & 2).
Month of October
Evaporation loss = 6 ha x (112.47/1000) m = 0.67 ham
Seepage
Seepage occurs through the bed and flanks of the reservoir. This loss depends on the permeability of the
reservoir bed and flanks. Mostly these losses due to deep percolation. These losses also differ from
month to month. Seepage losses are considerably low in value when compare to evaporation losses.
Therefore 0.5% of capacity of the reservoir assumed as seepage losses. However, storage of the
reservoir at the beginning of respective month is considered for the computation.
Seepage losses = Storage of the tank x (0.5/100)
Storage of the tank for certain month calculated from water balance equation.
Specimen calculation: (See Annex)
Month of October
Seepage loss = 15 ham x (0.5/100) = 0.08 ham
Step 12- Calculation of Field Demand

Demand is the amount of required water by volume for the specific area in the scheme.
Demand =IR x Command Area
Month of October
Command area = 80 ha
Demand = (101.01/1000)m x 80.00 = 8.08 ham
34
Step 13- Calculation of spillage
Water balance equation
Storage at beginning of the month + Inflow – Losses – Demand – Spillage = Storage at end of the
month
If the storage exceeds the capacity of the tank, water spills over the spillway structure
 Spillage = (Storage at the beginning + Inflow - Outflow - Demand - Losses) - Capacity of tank
Determination of Command area for Maha and yala
 As the present irrigable extant is 80ha for Maha, the analysis were started with that. (Annex.01,
trial 01) it is clear that more spilling is excess. That means the irrigable area can be increased.
Therefore several trial & error analysis were done with using an Excel application.
 Finally the command area of Maha is 421ha & Yala is 240.3ha were found.
35
3.3 Introducing a Water management Plan
3.3.1 Identifying the irrigable area

After carrying out the operation study irrigable area was found for Maha- 421 ha & Yala- 240.3
ha separately.
3.3.2 Developing an issue tree

The table gives the available land distribution through the farmers (See annexed 02 for issue tree).
However the additional command area arrived by the operation study (SI 3.2) can be reached
under the available canal system without developing a new canal system as more lands available
under that.
Name of the Lot No

No of Lots Acreage (ha)
Canal From To
FC-01 01 09 09 21.85
FC-02 10 26 17 41.68
FC-03 27 33 07 17.40
Total Acreage 80.93
3.3.2.1 Proposed irrigable area under the above canal system
Available Additional TOTAL

Name of the
command area command area COMMAND
Canal
(ha) (ha) AREA
FC-01 21.85 90.70 112.55
FC-02 41.68 175.20 216.88
FC-03 17.40 74.17 91.57
TOTAL 80.93 340.07 421.00
The total command area = 421 ha
36
FC-03, 1+200
0+550
91.57 ha
FC-02, 1+150
0+340
216.88 ha
FC-01, 1+400
0+040 112.50ha
0+000
Fig. 3.2.2 Issue Tree
37
3.3.3 Computation of Irrigation requirements
3.3.3.1 Computation of Land Soaking Irrigation Requirement
Land soaking Irrigation Requirement at farm level

LSIR at farm level = Sn/ts + Ev + P -Re l/s/ha
8.64 * Ea
Where Sn – Saturation Requirement in mm.
ts - Land Soaking period in days.
Ev – Evaporation in mm / day
P – Percolation in mm / day.
Re – Effective rain fall in mm / day.
Ea – Application efficiency on farm.
8.64 – Conversion factor for (mm / day) to (l / s / ha).
LSIR at diversion point = Sn/ts + Ev + P -Re l/s/ha
8.64 * Ea * Ec
Where Ec – Conveyance Efficiency.
The Saturation Requirement Sn for a particular soil can be determined by estimating the amount of water
needed to bring the prevailing moisture in the soil to saturated condition. The different type of agricultural
soil, the volumetric moisture content at saturation is given in the Annex 15
Sn = ( øs – øi ) Dr
Where øs – Volumetric moisture content at saturation.

Øi – Initial moisture content of soil.
Dr – Depth of soil layer. ( Root zone depth of paddy is generally as 9 inches = 225 mm )
Considering a Yala season which is commencing water issues on 1st of May for 105days of low land
paddy,
Considering Kantale area in Trincomalee District, the type of soil is Sandy Clay Loam
øi = 0.018
øs = 0.432
Hence, Sn = ( øs – øi ) Dr
= (0.432 – 0.018) 225 mm
= 93.15 mm
38
LSIR at diversion point = Sn/ts + Ev + P -Re l/s/ha
8.64 * Ea * Ec
Sn = 93.15 mm
ts = 07 days.
Ev = By referring to Kantalai Evaporation Pan in Table 3.2.4(h)
= 0.330 x 12 x 25.4 mm
30 day
= 3.353 mm / day
P = 4 mm / day in general.
Re = 0 mm/day, ( Re=0 if R ≤ 25.mm/day, for April R=2.27mm/day)
Ea = 0.9
Ec = 0.8
LSIR at diversion point = ( 93.15/7 + 3.353 + 4 - 0 ) l/s/ha
8.64 x 0.9 x 0.8

= 3.321 l/s/ha.
3.3.3.2 Computation of Land Preparation Irrigation Requirement
LPIR diversion point = Ds/tp +EV +P – Re

8.64*Ea*Ec
Where DS - Submergence depth 50mm -75mm for 14 days
tp - 14 days.
Ev - Evaporation in mm/day.
P - Percolation less in mm/day.
Re - Effective rain fall in mm/day.
8.64 - Conversion factor & mm/day to l/s /ha
Ea - Application Efficacy
Ec - Conveyance Efficacy
Once the moist are content is gone to submerge condition the farmers are expected to plough the
land. During the land preparation vegetation and weeds should be submerged under water and allow to
decompose thoroughly. For this purpose water has to be maintained at a level of above the ground
surface. This is called depth of submergence DS which depends on the type of vegetation and implements
used for vegetation. Usually this value is between 50mm to 75mm for 14 days of land preparation.
39
Ds = 50mm
tp =14 days
P = 4mm/day
EV = 3.353mm/day (value and in 2.1.1)
Ea =0.9
Ec =0.8
Hence, LPIR at diversion point = DS/tp +Ev +P –Re

8.64*Ea*Ec
= 50/14 + 3.353+4+0
= 1.756 l/s/ha
3.3.3.3 Computation of Field Crop Irrigation Requirement
FCIR = ETcrop + P-Re ET crop = Kc*ET Ref

8.64*Ea *Ec
= Kc+ETref +P-Rc
8.64*Ea *Ec
Where Kc - crop factor (Varies according to the stages in growth of paddy)
ETRef -The value for par Evaporation Radiation Penman
P -Percolation less in mm/day
Re -Effective Rain fall in mm/day
Others are same as described earlier.
Consider 105days (15 week) paddy.
Crop Irrigation.
Initial stage Development stage Mid-season stage Late season stage
20 days 30 days 30 days 25 days

Harvesting
13 weeks 2 weeks
Irrigation period Terminal
Drainage
(No Irrigation)
40
Kc curve
Kc
1.2 1.2
1.1
1.0 1.0
0.9
Irrigation period Terminal drainage
0 20 50 80 105 Days
`
Kc = 1.0
ETo for month of April = 5.00 mm/day ( Ref. Design of irrigation Headworks for Small
Catchments by AJP Ponrajah, Page 19)
FCIR in initial stage =1.0 x5.00 +4-0 l/s/ha

(20 days in May) 8.64x0.9x0.8
=1.447 l/s/ha
FCIR in Development stage =1.15 x5.00 +4-0 l/s/ha Kc=1.15

(up to end of May -10 days ) 8.64x0.9x0.8
=1.567 l/s/ha
FCIR in Development stage =1.15 x5.24 +4-0 l/s/ha Kc=1.15

(up to 20th June- 20 days ) 8.64x0.9x0.8 ETref=5.24 for May
=1.612 l/s/ha
FCIR in Mid-season stage =1.2 x5.24 +4-0 l/s/ha Kc=1.2

(up to 30th June – 10days) 8.64x0.9x0.8
=1.654 l/s/ha
FCIR in Mid-season stage =1.2 x5.84 +4-0 l/s/ha Eref =5.84 for June
(1st 20days of July) 8.64x0.9x0.8
=1.770 l/s/ha
FCIR in Late season =0.9 x5.84 +4-0 l/s/ha Kc=0.9
(Last 10days of July) 8.64x0.9x0.8
=1.488 l/s/ha
41
In the above each & every requirements, the maximum is land soaking Irrigation Requirement which is
equal to 3.321 l/s/ha
3.3.3.4 Achievement of maximum irrigation requirement.

The area to be legalized with channel system is 421 ha. The maximum irrigation requirement is in land
soaking which is equal to 3.321 l/s/ha.
Hence, the required Discharge for the new irrigable area is = A x 3.321 l/s
= 421 ha x 3.321 l/s/ha
= 1,398.14 l/s
= 1.398 m3s-1
≈ 1.40 m3s-1
3.3.4 Design a canal system

Water flowing down in an irrigation canal carries a certain amount of silt. Silt is defined to be the solid
material by the flowing water, either in suspension or in solution. At low velocities the silt is deposited in
canal, while high velocities cause scour to the canal bed and sides. Both these factors impair efficient
distribution of water to the fields and result in excessive expenditure on maintenance.
Irrigation channel is designed to convey “the daily peak water requirement” for the growing of the
selected crops. The elements of an irrigation canals are shown below.
T
Free board
c d
B
Fig. 3.3.4 Typical section of a Canal
Canal Velocities
The canal velocity is determined by according to the Manning’s formula as follows
V = 1/n x R2/3 x S1/2
42
where V – mean velocity in ms-1
R- Hydraulic mean radius
S – Canal bed gradient
n – rugosity coefficient for the material.
The velocity determined as above should be between the limiting velocities for the silting and
scours respectively.
The above is ensured by the following relationship.

Critical Velocity Ration CVR = V/VC
= 0.90 to 1.25
Where Vc is the critical velocity and is determined by Kennedy’s formula
VC = 0.55 d 0.64
Lower value of CVR are applicable to canals capacity of 2m3/sec
The maximum permissible velocity of the canal as follows.
Earthen canal capacity in l/s Max. Permissible velocity in

m/s
Up to 700 0.45
700 < Q <= 8400 0.75
Q > 8400 1.0
Drainage canal 1.5
Rugosity coefficients
The following values of rugosity (n) are adopted in the Manning’s formula for canal design for
the different type of material.
Earth excavated - 0.025

Rock excavated - 0.035
Concrete coverage - 0.015
Cement mortar - 0.018
For the rehabilitation of earthen canal - 0.035 to 0.04
43
Side slopes
Side slopes of the excavated canals are provided as follows to approximate to observed regimen
slope.
Q <= 3 m3/s 1V: 1.5 H
Q > 3 m3/s 1V: 2.0 H
Q for Drain 2V: 1 H
Gradient
The following factors are considered in selecting a suitable gradient for a canal.
A. Limitation of max. Permissible velocity.
B. Relative loss in command.
C. Increase in seepage loss.
To satisfy the limitation of maximum permissible velocity the gradient of the canal should be
within the range 0.00030 to 0.00040. Relative loss in command is not affected by change in gradient
provided if there is no change land slope and increase in seepage losses occurs with the reduction in canal
gradient.
From the above condition the following gradient are recommended for field canals and
distributary canals 0.0004 for main canals and branch canals 0.00035
Free Board
In order to provide a possible variation in the operating condition of the canal the bund top level
is set above the FSL of the canal. The normal free board for different discharge of the canals are tabulated
below.
DISCHARGE (m3/s) FREE BOARD

(m)
Q <= 1 0.45
1 < Q <= 2 0.50
2 < Q <= 5 0.75
5 < Q <= 20 1.0
20 < Q <=50 1.25
Q > 50 1.50
44
Variation of canal section
Variation of command area (discharge) of about 7% to 15% the canal sections to be varied
accordingly.
3.3.4.1 Design of main canal
The proposed irrigable area = 80 ha
The maximum irrigation requirement is in land soaking which is equal to 3.321 l/s/ha.
Hence, required Discharge for the main canal is
= 421 x 3.321
Qreq = 1,398.14 l/s ≈ 1,400 l/s
Qreq ≈ 1.40 m3s-1
FB = 0.45m
Vc = 0.55 x (FSD)0.64
Design bed level at end of the diverted main chl. (0+550) = 96.31m RL
Designed bed level at the beginning of the diverted main chl. (0+000) = 96.50m RL
Length of main chl. =550m
Chl. Gradient =(96.50 – 96.31)
550
S = 0.000345 ≈ 0.00035
Qreq = 1400 l/s
Hence side slope should 1V: 1.5 H
Earthen chl. is to be newly excavated
Hence n = 0.025 (Manning’s coefficient)
The table below shows several trial & error analysis to find a suitable Breadth (B) and Depth (D) for the
main canal
45
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
n 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
S 0.00035 0.00035 0.00035 0.00035 0.00035
A(m2) 6.375 3.5 9 3 2.8
P(m) 7.40825 5.6055 8.711 5.1055 4.9055
R(m) 0.8605271 0.6243868 1.0331764 0.5876016 0.5707879
V(m/s) 0.6770235 0.5466757 0.7647926 0.5249879 0.5149248
Qdes(l/s) 4,316.02 1,913.37 6,883.13 1,574.96 1,441.79
Qreq(l/s) 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00
V/Vc 0.95 0.99 0.89 0.95 0.94
B(m) 2 2 1.5 1.5 1.3
D(m) 1.5 1 2 1 1
Specimen Calculation for the trial-05 which is for the most suitable section selected, is appended below
BW =1.3m
FSD =1.0m 1 D
1
A =2.8 m2 1.5 1.5
P =4.9055 m B
R =A/P = 0.5707879
V =1/n x R2/3 x S1/2 A = BD +1.5 D2
=0.5149248 P =B+3.6055 D
Vc = 0.55D 0.64
=0.55
Qreq =1,400 < Qdes = 1,441.79 l/s
V/Vc = 0.94 which is between the limitable values of 0.9 – 1.25
According to the discharge requirement the free board should be 0.5m to cater the additional flow in the
channel.
46
3.3.4.2 Design of Feeder Canals
Qreq for FC-01 = A x 3.321 l/s

= 112.55 ha x 3.321 l/s/ha
= 373.78 l/s
= 0.374 m3s-1

= 216.88 ha x 3.321 l/s/ha
= 720.258 l/s
= 0.720 m3s-1

= 91.57 ha x 3.321 l/s/ha
= 304.11 l/s
= 0.304 m3s-1
The table below shows the selected parameters for the FCC by several trial & error analysis
FC-01 FC-02 FC-03

n 0.025 0.025 0.025
S 0.00035 0.00035 0.00035
A(m2) 1.02 1.68 0.9
P(m) 2.9633 3.7844 2.7633
R(m) 0.3442108 0.4439277 0.3256975
V(m/s) 0.3675449 0.4354806 0.3542449
Qdes(l/s) 374.90 731.61 318.82
Qreq(l/s) 373.78 720.26 304.11
V/Vc 0.93 0.91 0.9
B(m) 0.8 0.9 0.6
D(m) 0.6 0.8 0.6
47
3.3.5 Planning of Water Schedule
Water Management is the intergraded process of storage, diversion, conveyance, regulation,

measurement, distribution and application of the rotational amount of water at the proper time and
removal of excess water from the farms to promote increased production in conjunction with improved
cultural practices.
Criteria selected for scheduling of irrigations should permit favorable crop yields, optimum use of
water, minimize irrigation costs, facilitate other farm operations, overcome problems of slow
penetration of irrigation water, control ground water level, accomplish leaching of salts etc.
All of the above criteria have not been considered in the methods of scheduling of irrigations described
in this report. But sufficient criteria have been included in the methods for schedules to be operational.
Calculation of Weekly crop water requirement (ETcrop) for Maha Season
Crop
Type of Paddy Initial Development Mid Late Total nos
Stage Stage Stage Season of Days
Stage
Lowland Days 20 30 30 25 105
Paddy
(105 Kc 1 1.15 1.2 0.9
days)
Kc Values for Maha
Initial Stage Kc = 1.00

(1st Day to 20th Day)
Crop Development Stage (20th Day to 50th Day)

Specimen Calculation for;
Kc value for 21st Day = (1.2-1.0)/(50-20)x(21-20) + 1.0
= 1.007
Kc value for 49th Day = (1.2-1.0)/(50-20)x(49-20) + 1.0
= 1.193
Mid Stage Kc = 1.20

(50th Day to 80th Day)
48
Late Season Stage

Kc value for 100th Day = 1.2 - (1.2-0.9)/(105-80)x(100-80)
= 0.96
1.4
1.2
1
Kc Values
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of Days
Fig. 3.3.5(a)Variation of Crop coefficient with Number of Days in Maha Season
49
Weekly ETcrop Values for Maha Season
Daily ETref Weekly Daily ETref Weekly
Day Week Date Kc Ave Kc Etcrop(mm) Day Week Date Kc Ave Kc Etcrop(mm)
Kc mm/day ETref Kc mm/day ET0
1 15-Oct 1.000 5.080 78 31-Dec 1.200 3.687
2 16-Oct 1.000 5.080 79 1-Jan 1.200 3.851
3 17-Oct 1.000 5.080 80 2-Jan 1.200 3.851
4 1 18-Oct 1.000 1.000 5.080 5.080 5.080 81 12 3-Jan 1.188 1.183 3.851 3.828 4.527
5 19-Oct 1.000 5.080 82 4-Jan 1.176 3.851
6 20-Oct 1.000 5.080 83 5-Jan 1.164 3.851
7 21-Oct 1.000 5.080 84 6-Jan 1.152 3.851
8 22-Oct 1.000 5.080 85 7-Jan 1.140 3.851
9 23-Oct 1.000 5.080 86 8-Jan 1.128 3.851
10 24-Oct 1.000 5.080 87 9-Jan 1.116 3.851
1.0
11 2 25-Oct 1.000 1.000 5.080 5.080 5.080 88 13 10-Jan 1.104 1.104 3.851 3.851 4.251
12 26-Oct 1.000 5.080 89 11-Jan 1.092 3.851
13 27-Oct 1.000 5.080 90 12-Jan 1.080 3.851
14 28-Oct 1.000 5.080 91 13-Jan 1.068 3.851
15 29-Oct 1.000 5.080 92 14-Jan 1.056 3.851
16 30-Oct 1.000 5.080 93 15-Jan 0.9 1.044 3.851
17 31-Oct 1.000 5.080 94 16-Jan 1.032 3.851
18 3 1-Nov 1.000 1.001 3.641 4.258 4.262 95 14 17-Jan 1.020 1.020 3.851 3.851 3.928
19 2-Nov 1.000 3.641 96 18-Jan 1.008 3.851
20 3-Nov 1.000 3.641 97 19-Jan 0.996 3.851
21 4-Nov 1.007 3.641 98 20-Jan 0.984 3.851
22 5-Nov 1.013 3.641 99 21-Jan 0.972 3.851
23 6-Nov 1.020 3.641 100 22-Jan 0.960 3.851
24 7-Nov 1.027 3.641 101 23-Jan 0.948 3.851
25 4 8-Nov 1.033 1.033 3.641 3.641 3.762 102 15 24-Jan 0.936 0.936 3.851 3.851 3.605
26 9-Nov 1.040 3.641 103 25-Jan 0.924 3.851
27 10-Nov 1.047 3.641 104 26-Jan 0.912 3.851
28 11-Nov 1.053 3.641 105 27-Jan 0.900 3.851
29 12-Nov 1.060 3.641
30 13-Nov 1.067 3.641
31 14-Nov 1.073 3.641
32 5 15-Nov 1.080 1.080 3.641 3.641 3.932
33 16-Nov 1.087 3.641 Summary
34 17-Nov 1.093 3.641
35 18-Nov 1.100 3.641
1.15 Week Etcrop(mm)
36 19-Nov 1.107 3.641
37 20-Nov 1.113 3.641 1 5.080
38 21-Nov 1.120 3.641 2 5.080
39 6 22-Nov 1.127 1.127 3.641 3.641 4.102 3 4.262
40 23-Nov 1.133 3.641 4 3.762
41 24-Nov 1.140 3.641 5 3.932
42 25-Nov 1.147 3.641 6 4.102
43 26-Nov 1.153 3.641 7 4.287
44 27-Nov 1.160 3.641 8 4.425
45 28-Nov 1.167 3.641 9 4.425
46 7 29-Nov 1.173 1.173 3.641 3.654 4.287 10 4.425
47 30-Nov 1.180 3.641 11 4.425
48 1-Dec 1.187 3.687 12 4.527
49 2-Dec 1.193 3.687 13 4.251
50 3-Dec 1.200 3.687 14 3.928
51 4-Dec 1.200 3.687 15 3.605
52 5-Dec 1.200 3.687
53 8 6-Dec 1.200 1.200 3.687 3.687 4.425
54 7-Dec 1.200 3.687
55 8-Dec 1.200 3.687
56 9-Dec 1.200 3.687
57 10-Dec 1.200 3.687
58 11-Dec 1.200 3.687
59 12-Dec 1.200 3.687
60 9 13-Dec 1.200 1.200 3.687 3.687 4.425
61 14-Dec 1.200 3.687
62 15-Dec 1.200 3.687
63 16-Dec 1.200 3.687
64 17-Dec 1.2 1.200 3.687
65 18-Dec 1.200 3.687
66 19-Dec 1.200 3.687
67 10 20-Dec 1.200 1.200 3.687 3.687 4.425
68 21-Dec 1.200 3.687
69 22-Dec 1.200 3.687
70 23-Dec 1.200 3.687
71 24-Dec 1.200 3.687
72 25-Dec 1.200 3.687
73 26-Dec 1.200 3.687
74 11 27-Dec 1.200 1.200 3.687 3.687 4.425
75 28-Dec 1.200 3.687
76 29-Dec 1.200 3.687
77 30-Dec 1.200 3.687
50
Calculation of Weekly crop water requirements (ETcrop) for Yala Season
Type of Paddy Initial Crop Mid Late Total

Stage Development Stage Season nos of
Stage Stage Days
Lowland Paddy Days 20 30 30 25 105
(105 days)
Kc 1 1.15 1.2 0.9
Kc Values for Yala Season
Initial Stage Kc= 1.00

(1st Day to 20th Day)
Crop Development Stage

Kc value for 21st Day = (1.2-1.0)/(50-20)x(21-20) + 1.0
= 1.007
Kc value for 49th Day = (1.2-1.0)/(50-20)x(49-20) + 1.0

= 1.193
Mid Stage Kc= 1.20
Late Season Stage

Specimen Calculation for
Kc value for 96th Day = 1.2 - (1.2-0.9)/(105-80-)x(96-80)
= 1.008
1.4
1.2
1
Kc Value
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of Days
Fig. 3.3.5(b) Variation of Crop coefficient with Number of Days in Yala season
51
ETcrop Values for Yala Season Summary
Wee Daily ETref Weekly
Day Date Kc Ave Kc Etcrop(mm) Week Etcrop(mm)
k Kc mm/day ETref
1 1-May 1.000 5.244 1 5.244
2 2-May 1.000 5.244 2 5.244
3 3-May 1.000 5.244 3 5.249
4 1 4-May 1.000 1.000 5.244 5.244 5.244 4 5.417
5 5-May 1.000 5.244 5 6.033
6 6-May 1.000 5.244 6 6.584
7 7-May 1.000 5.244 7 6.853
8 8-May 1.000 5.244 8 7.010
9 9-May 1.000 5.244 9 7.115
10 10-May
1.0
1.000 5.244 10 7.374
11 2 11-May 1.000 1.000 5.244 5.244 5.244 11 7.374
12 12-May 1.000 5.244 12 7.270
13 13-May 1.000 5.244 13 6.784
14 14-May 1.000 5.244 14 6.339
15 15-May 1.000 5.244 15 5.828
16 16-May 1.000 5.244
17 17-May 1.000 5.244
18 3 18-May 1.000 1.001 5.244 5.244 5.249
19 19-May 1.000 5.244
20 20-May 1.000 5.244
21 21-May 1.007 5.244
22 22-May 1.013 5.244
23 23-May 1.020 5.244
24 24-May 1.027 5.244
25 4 25-May 1.033 1.033 5.244 5.244 5.417
26 26-May 1.040 5.244
27 27-May 1.047 5.244
28 28-May 1.053 5.244
29 29-May 1.060 5.244
30 30-May 1.067 5.244
31 31-May 1.073 5.244
32 5 1-Jun 1.080 1.080 5.842 5.586 6.033
33 2-Jun 1.087 5.842
34 3-Jun 1.093 5.842
35 4-Jun 1.100 5.842
1.15
36 5-Jun 1.107 5.842
37 6-Jun 1.113 5.842
38 7-Jun 1.120 5.842
39 6 8-Jun 1.127 1.127 5.842 5.842 6.584
40 9-Jun 1.133 5.842
41 10-Jun 1.140 5.842
42 11-Jun 1.147 5.842
43 12-Jun 1.153 5.842
44 13-Jun 1.160 5.842
45 14-Jun 1.167 5.842
46 7 15-Jun 1.173 1.173 5.842 5.842 6.853
47 16-Jun 1.180 5.842
48 17-Jun 1.187 5.842
49 18-Jun 1.193 5.842
50 19-Jun 1.200 5.842
51 20-Jun 1.200 5.842
52 21-Jun 1.200 5.842
53 8 22-Jun 1.200 1.200 5.842 5.842 7.010
54 23-Jun 1.200 5.842
55 24-Jun 1.200 5.842
56 25-Jun 1.200 5.842
57 26-Jun 1.200 5.842
58 27-Jun 1.200 5.842
59 28-Jun 1.200 5.842
60 9 29-Jun 1.200 1.200 5.842 5.929 7.115
61 30-Jun 1.200 5.842
62 1-Jul 1.200 6.145
63 2-Jul 1.200 6.145
64 3-Jul 1.200 6.145
65 4-Jul 1.200 6.145
1.2
66 5-Jul 1.200 6.145
67 10 6-Jul 1.200 1.200 6.145 6.145 7.374
68 7-Jul 1.200 6.145
69 8-Jul 1.200 6.145
70 9-Jul 1.200 6.145
71 10-Jul 1.200 6.145
72 11-Jul 1.200 6.145
73 12-Jul 1.200 6.145
74 11 13-Jul 1.200 1.200 6.145 6.145 7.374
75 14-Jul 1.200 6.145
76 15-Jul 1.200 6.145
77 16-Jul 1.200 6.145
78 17-Jul 1.200 6.145
79 18-Jul 1.200 6.145
80 19-Jul 1.200 6.145
81 12 20-Jul 1.188 1.183 6.145 6.145 7.270
82 21-Jul 1.176 6.145
83 22-Jul 1.164 6.145
84 23-Jul 1.152 6.145
85 24-Jul 1.140 6.145
86 25-Jul 1.128 6.145
87 26-Jul 1.116 6.145
88 13 27-Jul 1.104 1.104 6.145 6.145 6.784
89 28-Jul 1.092 6.145
90 29-Jul 1.080 6.145
91 30-Jul 1.068 6.145
92 31-Jul 1.056 6.145
93 1-Aug 0.9 1.044 6.227
94 2-Aug 1.032 6.227
95 14 3-Aug 1.020 1.020 6.227 6.215 6.339
96 4-Aug 1.008 6.227
97 5-Aug 0.996 6.227
98 6-Aug 0.984 6.227
99 7-Aug 0.972 6.227
100 8-Aug 0.960 6.227
101 9-Aug 0.948 6.227
102 15 10-Aug 0.936 0.936 6.227 6.227 5.828
103 11-Aug 0.924 6.227
104 12-Aug 0.912 6.227
105 13-Aug 0.900 6.227
52
Results obtained under item 3.3.3
LSIR = 3.321 l/s/ha.
LPIR = 1.756 l/s/ha
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
FCIR 1.486 9.524 1.487 1.514 1.613 1.701 1.745 1.770 1.787 1.828 1.828 1.812 1.734
Cropping Calendar for Yala Season
FCIR FCIR Percentage

ET o LSIR LPIR Stage Stage Crop Crop
Week Kc Land Land
(mm/day) (l/s/ha) (l/s/ha) 01 02 Idle Irrigation Irrigation Total
Soaking preparation
(l/s/ha) (l/s/ha) 1 2
1 - - 3.321 - - - 30% 70% - - - 100% Land Soaking
2 - - 3.321 1.756 - - 30% 70% 100% Land Preparation 1
3 - - - 1.756 - - 100% 100% Land Preparation 11
4 1.000 5.244 - 1.756 1.486 - 30% 70% 100%
5 1.000 5.244 - - 9.524 1.486 70% 30% 100%
6 1.001 5.249 - - 1.487 9.524 70% 30% 100%
7 1.033 5.417 - - 1.514 1.487 70% 30% 100%
8 1.080 6.033 - - 1.613 1.514 70% 30% 100%
9 1.127 6.584 - - 1.701 1.613 70% 30% 100%
10 1.173 6.853 - - 1.745 1.701 70% 30% 100% Crop

11 1.200 7.010 - - 1.770 1.745 70% 30% 100% Irrigation
12 1.200 7.115 - - 1.787 1.770 70% 30% 100%
13 1.200 7.374 - - 1.828 1.787 70% 30% 100%
14 1.200 7.374 - - 1.828 1.828 70% 30% 100%
15 1.183 7.270 - - 1.812 1.828 70% 30% 100%
16 1.104 6.784 - - 1.734 1.812 70% 30% 100%
17 - - - - - 1.734 - 30% 30%
Table. 3.3.5 (a) Cropping Calendar for Yala season
53
Calculation of Total Water Requirement at Head Sluice (0+000)
Specimen Calculation for 4th week
Q = (1.756 x 30/100 + 1.486 x 70/100) x 112.55

= 176.364 l/s/ha
Conveyance Losses from 1+400 to 0+000

= 0.02x1400x176.364/1000
= 4.938 lit/sec
Opening Days for 4th week = (Total requirement x 7 Days) /Designed Discharge
= 0.68 m3/s x 7days /1.4 m3/s
= 3.4 days
≈ 4 days
FCIR FCIR
Weekly crop water requirement (lit/s)
LSIR LPIR Stage Stage
Week
(l/s/ha) (l/s/ha) 01 02 112.55 216.88 91.57
(l/s/ha) (l/s/ha) ha ha ha
1 3.321 - - - 112.134 216.078 91.231
2 3.321 1.756 - - 250.480 482.666 203.789
3 - 1.756 - - 197.638 380.841 160.797
4 - 1.756 1.486 - 176.364 339.848 143.489
5 - - 1.486 1.486 167.247 322.280 136.071
6 - - 1.487 1.486 167.311 322.402 136.123
7 - - 1.514 1.487 169.465 326.554 137.876
8 - - 1.613 1.514 178.179 343.345 144.965
9 - - 1.701 1.613 188.501 363.234 153.363
10 - - 1.745 1.701 194.898 375.562 158.568
11 - - 1.770 1.745 198.347 382.207 161.374
12 - - 1.787 1.770 200.529 386.412 163.149
13 - - 1.828 1.787 204.379 393.831 166.281
14 - - 1.828 1.828 205.784 396.540 167.425
15 - - 1.812 1.828 204.467 394.001 166.353
16 - - 1.734 1.812 197.748 381.053 160.886
17 - - 1.734 58.533 112.791 47.622
54
Conveyance
Conveyance Conveyance
FCIR FCIR loss From Total Water Conveyance Total Conveyanc Total Total
Water req Total Water req loss From loss From
LSIR LPIR Stage Stage 1+200 to 0+000 Requirem req for loss From Require e loss From Requirement Requirement
Week for 91.57 Requirement for 216.88ha 1+150 to 1+400 to Opening Days
(l/s/ha) (l/s/ha) 01 02 & 0+550 to ent at 112.55ha 0+340 to ment at 0+040 to at 0+000 at 0+000
ha(FC-03) at 0+340 (FC-02) 0+000 (FC- 0+000 (FC-
(l/s/ha) (l/s/ha) 0+340 0+340 (FC-01) 0+040 0+040 0+000 (lit/s) (m3 /s)
02) 01)
(FC-03)
1 3.321 - - - 212.873 6.003 218.876 504.181 11.596 734.653 261.645 7.326 4.408 1008.032 0.806 1008.838 1.01 5.05 ≈ 6
2 3.321 1.756 - - 203.789 5.747 209.536 482.666 11.101 703.304 250.480 7.013 4.220 965.017 0.772 965.789 0.97 4.85 ≈ 5
3 - 1.756 - - 160.797 4.534 165.331 380.841 8.759 554.932 197.638 5.534 3.330 761.433 0.609 762.042 0.76 3.8 ≈ 4
4 - 1.756 1.486 - 143.489 4.046 147.535 339.848 7.817 495.200 176.364 4.938 2.971 679.474 0.544 680.018 0.68 3.4 ≈ 4
5 - - 1.486 1.486 136.071 3.837 139.909 322.280 7.412 469.601 167.247 4.683 2.818 644.349 0.515 644.864 0.64 3.2 ≈ 4
6 - - 1.487 1.486 136.123 3.839 139.962 322.402 7.415 469.779 167.311 4.685 2.819 644.593 0.516 645.108 0.65 3.25 ≈ 4
7 - - 1.514 1.487 137.876 3.888 141.764 326.554 7.511 475.829 169.465 4.745 2.855 652.895 0.522 653.417 0.65 3.25 ≈ 4
8 - - 1.613 1.514 144.965 4.088 149.053 343.345 7.897 500.295 178.179 4.989 3.002 686.464 0.549 687.013 0.69 3.45 ≈ 4
9 - - 1.701 1.613 153.363 4.325 157.688 363.234 8.354 529.276 188.501 5.278 3.176 726.231 0.581 726.812 0.73 3.65 ≈ 4
10 - - 1.745 1.701 158.568 4.472 163.040 375.562 8.638 547.240 194.898 5.457 3.283 750.878 0.601 751.479 0.75 3.75 ≈ 4
11 - - 1.770 1.745 161.374 4.551 165.924 382.207 8.791 556.922 198.347 5.554 3.342 764.164 0.611 764.775 0.76 3.8 ≈ 4
12 - - 1.787 1.770 163.149 4.601 167.750 386.412 8.887 563.049 200.529 5.615 3.378 772.570 0.618 773.188 0.77 3.85 ≈ 4
13 - - 1.828 1.787 166.281 4.689 170.970 393.831 9.058 573.859 204.379 5.723 3.443 787.403 0.630 788.033 0.79 3.95 ≈ 4
14 - - 1.828 1.828 167.425 4.721 172.146 396.540 9.120 577.806 205.784 5.762 3.467 792.820 0.634 793.454 0.79 3.95 ≈ 4
15 - - 1.812 1.828 166.353 4.691 171.045 394.001 9.062 574.108 204.467 5.725 3.445 787.745 0.630 788.375 0.79 3.95 ≈ 4
16 - - 1.734 1.812 160.886 4.537 165.423 381.053 8.764 555.241 197.748 5.537 3.331 761.857 0.609 762.466 0.76 3.8 ≈ 4
55
17 - - 1.734 47.622 1.343 48.965 112.791 2.594 164.350 58.533 1.639 0.986 225.508 0.180 225.689 0.23 1.15 ≈ 2
Water Distribution Schedule for Yala Season
Opening
Week Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Days
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
1 6.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
2 5.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

3 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

4 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

5 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

6 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

7 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

8 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

9 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

10 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

11 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

12 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

13 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

14 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

15 4.0
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

16 4.0
1.4 1.4
17 2.0
TOTAL 2.8 7.0 11.2 15.4 19.6 22.4 22.4 22.4 21.0 18.2 14.0 8.4 4.2 1.4
Table 3.3.5(b) Water Schedule for Yala season
56
Chapter 4
4.0 Results
By the methodology adopted in S.I. 3.0 the observed results are summarized below.
4.1 Condition of Soil of the Dam
It is clear the soil reports show that the materials which have been used for the construction of dam are
sandy soils (SM/SP). This causes to excess the seepage through dam as the permeability is high in
sandy soils. Therefore a suitable measure is to be taken to resolve this problem.
4.2 Results obtained from the Flood Study
Flood study was carried out to find out the spill length. It was found 85m length of natural Spill and the
new design parameters of the tank are;
Design Spill Type = Natural Spill
Design Spill Length = 85m
Design F.S.L. = 99.70m
Design Afflux = 0.60m
Design H.F.L. = 100.30m
Design free board = 1.0m
Design B.T.L. = 101.30m
4.3 Results obtained from the Operation Study
The operation study was carried out to finding the irrigable area. By several trial & error applications
with using of Microsoft Excel it was found that the acreage for Maha is 421ha & Yala is 240 3ha.
4.4 Results obtained from the Water Management Study
Results ensured that the water rights to all paddy fields by introducing a new water management plan
for the Divulkele Tank.(Table 3.3.5 (b) )
57
4.5 Overall Outcome of the design exercise
Tank Parameters Existing Proposed

Reservoir Data
Catchment Area 11.33 sq. mile 11.33 sq. mile
Command Area 80 ha 421 ha
High Flood Level (H.F.L) - 100.30m
Full Supply Level (F.S.L) 99.70 99.70m
Capacity at F.S.L (Gross
127.61ham 127.61ham
Capacity)
Dead Storage N/A Nil
Dam embankment data
Type Homogenous Earth fill Homogenous Earth fill
Length 1921 m 1921 m
Bund Top Level (B.T.L) 101.00m(vary) 101.30m
Bund Top Width 2m 2m
Side Slopes 1:2 (U/S & D/S)-Vary 1:2 (U/S & D/S)
Spillway
Type Natural Natural
Crest Level 99.70 m 99.70 m
Length 70 85 m
Location 1+836 1+836
Sluice data
No of Sluice 01 01
Type Tower Tower
Sill Level 96.50m 96.50m
Size 450mm 450mm
Location 0+650 0+650
Main canal data
Type Earthen Earthen
Gradient 0.00035 0.00035
Side Slope 1:1.5 (Vary) 1:1.5 (Vary)
Length 550m 550m
Discharge N/A 1.4m3/s
Bed Width 0.90 m (Vary) 1.3m
Full Supply Depth 0.85m (Vary) 1.0m
58
Chapter 5
5.0 Analysis
In the design exercise of this project, it was observed that the condition of the soil in the dam is not
suitable for the Embankment and due to the existing soils a huge amount of seepage is excess. Further the
length of the spill also is not enough and that problem can be resolved by further extending of 15m of the
existing natural spill. But a suitable remedy is to be taken to encounter the seepage problem. Here below
analysis show how selected a possible structural option to reducing the seepage in future.
5.1 Structural Options for reducing the seepage
The most common Possible structural options available for minimize the seepage are,
1. Construction of an upstream cut off core trench up to the impervious layer.
2. Cement-Bound and Jet-Grouted Curtain Cutoffs.
3. Providing a Core Trench to the bund
4. Providing a sand Filter.
5.1.1 Construction of an upstream core trench up to the impervious layer.
Seepage through a pervious foundation should be cut off by an upstream core trench. Although the core
trench depth was maintained at 1/3 of the bund height, it has not reached the impervious layer. It should
extend to bedrock or other impervious stratum. This is the most positive means of controlling the amount
of seepage and ensuring that no difficulty will be encountered by piping through the foundation or by
uplift pressures at the downstream toe.
5.1.2 Cement-Bound and Jet-Grouted Curtain Cutoffs.
Cement-bound curtain is another means of establishing a cutoff in pervious foundations. The curtain is
constructed by successively overlapping individual piles. Each mixed-in-place pile consists of a column
of soil intimately mixed with mortar to form a pile like structure within the soil. Such a pile is constructed
by injecting mortar through a vertical rotating hollow shaft, the lower end of which is equipped with a
mixing head for combining the soil with the mortar as the latter is injected.
5.1.3 Providing a Core Trench

Providing a core trench with a puddle clay material. This proposal can consider as a long term solution for
prevent dam failure.
5.1.4 Providing a sand Filter
The purpose of the sand filter is to permit free flow and dissipation of pressure without disruption of the
Embankment structure.
59
5.2 Merits of the four structural options.
1. This is the most positive means of controlling the amount of seepage.

2. Ensuring that no difficulty will be encountered by piping through the foundation.
3. Prevent the uplift seepage pressures at the downstream toe.
4. Reduce the capacity loss through seepage.
5.2.2 Cement-bound and jet-grouted curtain cutoffs.
1. Reduce the amount of seepage.

2. Ensuring the no difficulty will be encountered by piping through the foundation.
3. Reduce the uplift seepage pressure at the downstream toe.
4. Reduce the capacity loss through seepage.
5.2.1 Providing a Core Trench to the Bund
1. Reduce the amount of seepage.

2. Prevent piping of the dam.
3. Reduce uplift pressure.
4. Low cost compare to the other options.
1. Relieve the uplift pressure from seepage.

2. Readily permit discharge of seepage water from the Embankment.
3. Prevent piping of the fines from the embankment.
4. Adequately convey the total amount of seepage to the downstream channel.
5.3 Demerits of the four structural options
1. Difficulty will be encountered in construction.

2. Has to fully emptying the reservoir for long period. Which results no cultivation.
3. Socio economic problems will be encountered due to emptying the tank.
4. Environmental equilibrium will destroyed during the construction.
5. High cost for rehabilitation.
5.3.2 Cement-Bound and Jet-Grouted Curtain Cutoffs.
1. High Cost for rehabilitation.

2. Suitable for granular soils.
60
5.3.3 Providing a Core Trench to the Bund
1. It should be cut open the whole dam

2. Take much time
3. High cost of construction
1. High Cost of construction.

2. Environmental equilibrium will unstable during the construction.
5.4 Selected Option for reducing the seepage through Dam
Considering the merits and demerits of above four structural options available, option one and two have
to give up due to high cost and construction difficulties compare to the other two options. When
considering option three can only suit to re-construction of the dam at the breached section. Then the
most suitable option available is the Construction of a sand filter for the effective section of the dam.
61
6.0 Conclusion
The proposed Restoration of Divulkele Tank is a needed investment to prevent deterioration of

structural stability of the reservoir dam. The improvements planned under this work will
 Greatly reduce probability of future dam failure due to flooding
 Strengthening of dam to hold the capacity safely at full supply level
At the beginning of this project the entire objective was to find the reason for the frequently breaching
of this tank. At the time in 2011 when I was preparing the project proposal this tank was breached. To
date also the conditions of this tank remains the same. So it is necessary to rehabilitate this tank
immediately for the wellbeing of the farmers’ society of Divulkele. By analyzing the results it was
observed the factors which led to breaching of the tank are summarized below;
01. In adequate of spill length

The existing natural spill length is 70m, but the length of spill obtained by the flood analysis
for 50 year return period and to be withstand highest observe flood 85m and 110m
respectively. Therefore spill should be modified to cater the release of design outflow. There
is a suitable location available at the LB end of the bund thereby the extended length of
proposed spill 40m (110-70) could be located.
02. Seepage through the embankment
Here, in this tank, excessive seepage is also to be control. At the preliminary investigation the
farmers said that rehabilitation of this tank was never done properly in each and every
rehabilitation activities of the past. This entire rehabilitation works have been done by the
supervision of local authority to which this tank belongs. As farmers mentioned they have not
selected suitable soils for the dam filling and even testing of soil compaction was never done.
However, these comments could be accepted by analyzing the soil properties of the dam. It
clearly shows that the materials are not suitable for an embankment due to high permeability.
Also the bund has no any core trench even several times rehabilitations were done.
Therefore this breached section should be refilled by using a puddle core trench and suitable
soil (SC type) for embankment. But this application could not be applied for the whole dam
as the dam should be cut opened to do this. Therefore the core trench is proposed to be
provided at the breach. And sand filter is to be furnished for the section where the excessive
seepage is observed.
The cost may be obtained by estimating the project, Considering the project impacts, this
construction can be implemented without serious environmental problems. It seems that this
project would be both environmentally and socially beneficial in the long run.
After finding the solution for breaching, the tank was re-designed by me. At the first step it was found
that the available irrigable extent 80ha can be increased up to 421ha by doing operation study. This was
62
the second objective proposal because the farmers asked to check the possibility to increase the
irrigable extent as they have more land available without using for cultivations. This extent was
achieved by the initial design parameters of this tank. Hence no need further height of spill.
However spill length should be increased for releasing existing flow. The final object was to ensure the
water rights to all paddy fields by introducing a water management plan. This could be done with a new
canal designs as the available canal capacities are not adequate.
I found the coefficient of permeability by identifying the soil type and looking values from charts. But
for more accurate value insitu permeability test should be done.
A process of increasing irrigable extent eventually brings in more lands under cultivation leading to a
proportional increase in the agricultural product for the increasing population. By this unemployment
among people could be reduced and the living standard of the village people will be increased. With the
implementing of the above proposal, People in Divulkele irrigation scheme can build a future that is
more prosperous and more secure than the present condition.
63
7.0 Recommendations
The possibility for the breach of the tank could be as follows.
1. In sufficient spill length which leads to overtopping of the bund and finally breaching
2. Excessive seepage through the bund may cause piping/slip failure of the bund.
Here in our case I have proposed solution for both problems.
By calculating the required spill length the over topping of the bund will be prevented.
By providing a sand blanket, the water sweep in to the body of the bund will be removed.
Third option, by providing upstream cut-off wall would reduce the seepage to a great extent.
In order to fulfill farmers requirement safety of the tank is assured and the extent can be increased from
80ha to 421ha
64
8.0 References
1. Eng. A.J.P.Ponrajah (1984),” Design of Irrigation Headworks for Small Catchments” ,

Irrigation Department, SRI LANKA.
2. Eng. A.J.P.Ponrajah(1989)” ,Technical Guidelines for Irrigation Works” , Irrigation

Department, SRI LANKA.
3. Prof.(Eng)Kulathilaka “Geotechnical Engineering Lecture Notes”, University of Moratuwa,

SRI LANKA.
4. SK Garg (2005), “Soil Mechanics and foundation Engineering (SI Units)”,Khanna Publishers,
INDIA.
5. Prof. T.N.Ramamurthy & Prof. T.G. Sitharam (2010), “Geotechnical Engineering (Soil
Mechanics )” , S.Chand & Company Ltd. INDIA
6. P.N.Khanna (2008), “Indian Practical Civil Engineers’ Hand Book”, Engineers’ Bublishers,
INDIA.
7. Dr.Munendra Kumar, “Concise Hand Book of Civil Engineering (Volume I)”, Academic
(India) Publisher, INDIA.
8. RK Malhotra “Guidelines on civil Engineering Rehabilitation NEIAP II” ,INDIA.
9. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation” Design of Small Dams”, USA.
65
9.0 Bibliography
1. www.geo-slope.com
2. www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/cv
3. Ohio Department of Natural Resources ,Division of Water Fact Sheet

.
4. Seepage through a Levee, G. C. Mishra
5. http://www.fao.org/docrep/R4082E/r4082e00.htm#Contents
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_content
7. http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/SoilMech/classification/soilclas.htm
8. http://www.fao.org/docrep/S2022E/S2022E00.htm
66
10.0 APPENDIX
Annex - 01
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR SMALL SCHEMES
1. NAME OF SCHEME AND LOCATION
Name of Scheme Divulkele Tank

a) Location
Co-ordinates : 32(200,229.52E,325,343N), G/7(8.6X4.5)
Village : Divulkelegama (Waddakachchi Wewa)
D.S. Division : Kantale
Agrarian Service Center : Agbopura
District : Trincomalee
b) Means of access
Proceed along Colombo-Habarana, Trincomalee main road up to 85th mile post
junction in between Habarana and Kantale ( Which is also called Sugar factory
junction) then turn right and proceed along the tar road up to sugar factory
barrier and then turn right and proceed along the graveled road up to
Thalgaswewa junction. Then turn left and proceed along the graveled road which
leads to the RB end of the Divulkele tank bund
c) Location Map: The Topo-Inset
67
2. DESCRIPTION OF SCHEME AND ITS CONDITIONS
a) Engineering
i. Type of Scheme(Tank,working,Brached) : Breached Tank
ii. Head works, Length of bund : 1921m
Bund top width : 2m (vary)
Sluice size,type,Nos : Tower sluice, dia.450mm
Spill type & Length : Natural Spill, 50m
iii. Canal System RB : N/A
LB : poor in condition
iv. Condition of infrastructure: Tank bund which is over grown with jungle
is in poor condition, with a large breached section.
v. Major improvements during last 15 years : Several times by the
Agrarian Services Department
vi. Reasons for deterioration: due to severe floods occurred
vii. Safety on infrastructure : bund should be strengthen and furnishing a
Rip-rap
viii. Need of rehabilitation : for the implementation of Paddy cultivation
ix. Other scheme in catchment : Tract 09 tank
x. Irrigable extent from which return flow available : 100 ha
xi. Effect of rehabilitation on schemes downstream : Nil
xii. Other sources of inflow: Nil
b) Hydrology & Command Area
i. Catchment area Gross : 29.35 Sq.km
Net : 28.54 Sq.km
ii. Agro-ecological region : DL1
iii. Seasonal specific yield Yala: 100 Acft/sq.miles (4.767 ham/km2)

Maha: 600 Acft/sq.miles (28.599 ham/km2)
iv. Approximate Capacity
v. 75% Probability rainfall
October 127.00 April 127.00
November 152.40 May 50.80
December 127.00 June 12.70
vi. Total Maha rainfall volume (T.Maha/1000) x 100 =55.88 ham
Total Yala rainfall volume (T.Yala /1000) x 100 =22.86 ham
vii. Runoff (seasonal specific yield/total rainfall volume) x 100
Maha runoff : 51.18%
Yala runoff : 20.85%
68
The seasonal yield computed should be limited to lie between 35% and 75% of
seasonal rainfall. Hence the adjusted specific yields are
For Maha =19.56 ham/km2
For Yala =4.767 ham/km2
viii. Then monthly specific yield/Total rainfall = (vii)/(v)
For Maha season =558.24 ham
For Yala season =136.05 ham
Monthly yield = 75% probability rainfall x Catchment area x (viii)
ix. The Monthly yield (ham) then
October 126.87 April 75.58

November 152.25 May 29.80
December 126.87 June 7.56
x. Probable command = Total Maha Yield/0.3084ham = 1810 ham

xi. Total irrigable area available under tank
xii. Acreage cultivated (average) Maha 40 ha Yala 15 ha
xiii. Addl. Acreage available Maha 460 ha Yala 445ha
xiv. Details of area that will be submerged if the FSL is raised : That will be
affected to sugar cane
xv. Spilling history : overtopping the bund during last flood in 2010&
2013
c) Agro Socio Economic Situation

i. Population : 50 families
ii. Farm families: 50 families
iii. Cropping pattern: Paddy
iv. Yield : N/A
v. Other occupation: N/A
vi. Income from agriculture: N/A
vii. Farming practice: N/A
viii. Status of farmers (Displaced, Resident, Resettle) : Resident
ix. If displaced, whether resettlement is possible after rehabilitation
x. Name of farmer Organization: Samagi FO
xi. Whether registered with DAS : N/A
xii. If so, registration No and year: N/A
69
xiii. Present status of F.O. (Functioning efficiently, Satisfactory, Not
functioning)-Not functioning
xiv. Whether farmers agreed to contribute 10% of IFF construction cost –
N/A
xv. Whether farmers agreed to lake over scheme for O&M after
rehabilitation-N/A
xvi. Whether any crop diversitycation is possible-N/A
xvii. Is there any additional income from
a). Inland fishing in the scheme – N/A

b). livestock – N/A
xviii. If not, is it possible to introduce
a). Inland fishing in the scheme – N/A

b). livestock – N/A
3.PROPOSAL FOR REHABILITAION
I. Head Works – Improvements to tank bund by earth filling

II. Canal System – to be improved
III. Access – N/A
IV. Area benefited and others – 100 ha can be cultivated
4.PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE

I. Head works
Access
Anicut
Bund 3.5million
Sluice
Spills 1.0 million
II. Canal System
Main canal LB
Main canal RB 0.2 million
Field canals 0.3 million
Drainage canal
Others 0.1 million
Total civil cost 5.1 million
III. Over heads etc.
Eng. & Administration 12% 0.6 million
Phy. Contingencies 5% 0.3 million
Price contingencies10% 0.5 million
VAT 15%` 0.8 million
Total cost 7.3 million
70
5.RECOMMENDATIONS
 A process of increasing irrigable extent eventually brings in more lands under cultivation
leading to a proportional increase in the agricultural product as well as increase of
population. Also unemployment among people could be reduced and the living standard
of the people will be increased.
 With the implementing of the above proposal, People in Divulkele irrigation scheme can
build a future that is more prosperous and more secure than for the time being.
Prepared by
Ekanayake EMSMK
August 2012
71
Annex - 02
72
Annex - 03
73
Annex - 04
74
Annex - 05
75
Annex - 06
76
Annex - 07
77
Annex - 08
78
Annex-09
OPERATION STUDY FOR DIVULKELE TANK
Trial : 01
Water Level at Beginning: 15ham
FSL: 99.70m
Capacity at FSL: 140.00 ham
Month Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Crop factor 0.548 1.135 1.195 0.830 1.102 1.193 0.881
ET-ref (mm) 157.48 109.22 114.30 119.38 127.00 157.48 149.86 162.56 175.26 190.50 193.04 190.50
ET-crop (mm) 86.30 123.96 136.59 99.09 179.14 209.09 167.83
Land preparation (mm) 178.00
FIR (mm) 143.83 206.61 227.65 165.14 178.00 298.57 348.48 279.72
Monthly rainfall (mm) 127.00 152.40 127.00 76.20 25.40 50.80 127.00 50.80 12.70 0.00 12.70 25.40
Effective rainfall (mm) 68.07 85.09 68.07 34.04 0.00 17.02 68.07 17.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FIR-Eff rainfall (mm) 75.76 121.52 159.58 131.11 0.00 0.00 109.93 281.55 348.48 279.72 0.00 0.00
Irrigation requirement (mm) 101.01 162.02 212.77 174.81 0.00 0.00 146.57 375.40 464.63 372.96 0.00 0.00
Evaporation (mm) 112.47 80.47 76.50 84.12 81.69 106.07 100.58 123.14 145.69 146.61 143.87 134.72
Storage at beginning (ham) 15.00 132.94 270.60 377.97 436.87 459.08 506.26 570.37 576.58 555.69 532.80 536.83
Inflow-catchment (ham) 126.87 152.25 126.87 76.12 25.37 50.75 75.58 29.80 7.56 0.00 7.56 15.12
Infow (Additional) (ham) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Evaporation (ham) 0.67 0.80 0.92 1.18 0.98 1.27 1.61 1.97 2.33 1.47 0.86 1.35
Seepage (ham) 0.08 0.66 1.35 1.89 2.18 2.30 2.53 2.85 2.88 2.78 2.66 2.68
Demand (ham) 8.18 13.12 17.23 14.15 0.00 0.00 7.33 18.77 23.23 18.65 0.00 0.00
Spillage (ham) 130.60 237.97 296.87 319.08 366.26 430.37 436.58 415.69 392.80 396.83 407.92
Storage at end (ham) 132.94 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00
Results:
Season Maha Yala
Command Area ( ha ) 80 50
Command Area ( Acs ) 198 124
Comments
Can be increased the extant as much water is available
Trial : 02
FSL: 99.70m
Crop factor 0.548 1.135 1.195 0.830 1.102 1.193 0.881
ET-ref (mm) 157.48 109.22 114.30 119.38 127.00 157.48 149.86 162.56 175.26 190.50 193.04 190.50
ET-crop (mm) 86.30 123.96 136.59 99.09 179.14 209.09 167.83
FIR (mm) 143.83 206.61 227.65 165.14 178.00 298.57 348.48 279.72
Evaporation (mm) 112.47 80.47 76.50 84.12 81.69 106.07 100.58 123.14 145.69 146.61 143.87 134.72
Evaporation (ham) 0.67 0.80 0.92 1.18 0.98 1.27 1.61 1.97 2.33 1.47 0.86 1.35
Seepage (ham) 0.08 0.66 1.33 1.84 2.12 2.23 2.47 2.75 2.69 2.47 2.27 2.29
Demand (ham) 10.10 16.20 21.28 17.48 0.00 0.00 14.66 37.54 46.46 37.30 0.00 0.00
Spillage (ham) 125.61 228.95 284.57 306.84 354.08 410.92 398.46 354.53 313.30 317.73 329.21
Results:
Season Maha Yala
Comments
Can be increased the extant as much water is available
79
Annex - 10
Trial : 03
FSL: 99.70m
Crop factor 0.548 1.135 1.195 0.830 1.102 1.193 0.881
ET-ref (mm) 157.48 109.22 114.30 119.38 127.00 157.48 149.86 162.56 175.26 190.50 193.04 190.50
ET-crop (mm) 86.30 123.96 136.59 99.09 179.14 209.09 167.83
FIR (mm) 143.83 206.61 227.65 165.14 178.00 298.57 348.48 279.72
Evaporation (mm) 112.47 80.47 76.50 84.12 81.69 106.07 100.58 123.14 145.69 146.61 143.87 134.72
Storage at beginning (ham) 15.00 100.31 185.80 224.86 228.06 251.31 299.53 317.86 219.43 74.61 -41.01 -33.25
Evaporation (ham) 0.67 0.80 0.92 1.18 0.98 1.27 12.07 14.78 12.82 4.11 0.00 0.00
Seepage (ham) 0.08 0.50 0.93 1.12 1.14 1.26 1.50 1.59 1.10 0.37 -0.21 -0.17
Demand (ham) 40.81 65.46 85.96 70.62 0.00 0.00 43.68 111.87 138.46 111.14 0.00 0.00
Spillage (ham) 45.80 84.86 88.06 111.31 159.53 177.86 79.43
Storage at end (ham) 100.31 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 74.61 -41.01 -33.25 -17.96
Results:
Season Maha Yala
Comments
Irrigable area should be decreased
Trial : 04
FSL: 99.70m
Crop factor 0.548 1.135 1.195 0.830 1.102 1.193 0.881
ET-ref (mm) 157.48 109.22 114.30 119.38 127.00 157.48 149.86 162.56 175.26 190.50 193.04 190.50
ET-crop (mm) 86.30 123.96 136.59 99.09 179.14 209.09 167.83
FIR (mm) 143.83 206.61 227.65 165.14 178.00 298.57 348.48 279.72
Evaporation (mm) 112.47 80.47 76.50 84.12 81.69 106.07 100.58 123.14 145.69 146.61 143.87 134.72
Evaporation (ham) 0.67 3.22 5.51 7.40 7.19 9.76 10.86 14.78 12.82 5.86 0.58 1.08
Seepage (ham) 0.08 0.50 0.92 1.09 1.07 1.16 1.36 1.50 1.12 0.53 0.05 0.08
Demand (ham) 40.81 65.46 85.96 70.62 0.00 0.00 35.18 90.10 111.51 89.51 0.00 0.00
Spillage (ham) 43.38 77.87 74.88 91.98 131.81 160.00 83.42
Results:
Season Maha Yala
Comments
Irrigable area should be reduced
80
Annex - 11
Trial : 05
FSL: 100.00
Crop factor 0.548 1.135 1.195 0.830 1.102 1.193 0.881
ET-ref (mm) 157.48 109.22 114.30 119.38 127.00 157.48 149.86 162.56 175.26 190.50 193.04 190.50
ET-crop (mm) 86.30 123.96 136.59 99.09 179.14 209.09 167.83
FIR (mm) 143.83 206.61 227.65 165.14 178.00 298.57 348.48 279.72
Evaporation (mm) 112.47 80.47 76.50 84.12 81.69 106.07 100.58 123.14 145.69 146.61 143.87 134.72
Evaporation (ham) 0.67 3.22 5.51 7.07 6.86 9.33 10.86 14.78 12.82 5.28 0.58 0.54
Seepage (ham) 0.08 0.49 0.90 1.05 1.02 1.11 1.31 1.45 1.07 0.48 0.01 0.04
Demand (ham) 42.43 68.05 89.36 73.42 0.00 0.00 35.18 90.10 111.51 89.51 0.00 0.00
Spillage (ham) 24.18 55.29 49.87 67.35 107.66 135.88 59.36
Results:
Season Maha Yala
Comments
Water Level at the beginning of the season and end of the season is not same, therefore yala extent should bereduced
Trial : 06
FSL: 99.70m
Crop factor 0.548 1.135 1.195 0.830 1.102 1.193 0.881
ET-ref (mm) 157.48 109.22 114.30 119.38 127.00 157.48 149.86 162.56 175.26 190.50 193.04 190.50
ET-crop (mm) 86.30 123.96 136.59 99.09 179.14 209.09 167.83
FIR (mm) 143.83 206.61 227.65 165.14 178.00 298.57 348.48 279.72
Evaporation (mm) 112.47 80.47 76.50 84.12 81.69 106.07 100.58 123.14 145.69 146.61 143.87 134.72
Evaporation (ham) 0.67 3.22 6.12 6.90 6.62 9.33 10.86 14.78 12.82 5.28 0.29 4.04
Seepage (ham) 0.08 0.49 0.89 1.05 1.02 1.11 1.31 1.45 1.07 0.48 0.00 0.04
Demand (ham) 42.53 68.21 89.58 73.59 0.00 0.00 35.22 90.21 111.65 89.62 0.00 0.00
Spillage (ham) 38.92 38.92 38.92 38.92 38.92 38.92 38.92
Results:
Season Maha Yala
Command Area ( ha ) 421 240.3
Comments
Stisfactory residual storage in September 18.33 ham and this could be accepted as against the initial storage of 15 ham.
81
Annex-12
Soil Investigation Report of the Embankment closed to the Breached section
of Divulkele Tank
Auger Hole - 01
Top Soil (Dark Brown color)
0.1m
Brown color, about 60-65% fine to medium sand with 10-15% medium plastic
fines. Moderatlely compacted. No moisture in place.
0.4m
Light brown color SM about 70-75% fine to medium sand with low to non-
plastic fine.
0.6m
Light brown color SP about 65-70% medium sand and mix with little amount of
coarse Sand , non-plastic clay fines. Unable to augur due to a rock particle.
1.05m
Auger Hole – 02
Top Soil (Dark Brown color)
0.1m
0.55m
Light brown color SM about 70-75% fine to medium sand with low to non-
plastic fine, Moderatlely Compacted
1.3m
coarse Sand , non-plastic clay fines, loosely compacted. Unable to augur due to
hard surface de-rock.
2.25m
Auger Hole - 03
Top Soil
0.075m
2.3m
coarse Sand , non-plastic clay fines. Loosely compacted. No moisture in place.
2.55m
82
Auger Hole - 04
Top Soil
0.075
2.3m
coarse Sand , non-plastic clay fines. Loosely Compacted. No moisture in place.
2.55m
83
Annex-13
MONTHLY 75% PROBABILITY RAINFALL IN INCHES
REGION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
WU 1 2.5 2.0 5.0 9.0 12.5 21.0 17.0 15.0 13.0 16.0 11.0 5.0
WU 2 3.5 2.0 3.5 6.5 5.5 11.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 11.0 8.0 5.0
WU 3 3.5 2.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 4.5
WM 1 3.0 2.5 6.0 11.0 15.0 17.0 12.0 11.5 12.0 17.0 10.0 5.0
WM 2 1.0 0.5 3.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 3.5 4.5 10.5 7.0 4.0
WM 3 3.5 1.5 2.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 9.0 8.0 6.0
WL 1 3.0 2.5 6.0 10.0 13.0 10.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 15.0 10.5 5.0
WL 2 1.5 2.0 4.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 11.5 8.0 3.0
WL 3 2.0 1.5 2.5 6.0 8.0 6.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 9.5 6.5 2.5
WL 4 2.0 1.5 2.5 6.0 8.0 6.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 9.5 6.5 2.5
IU 1 14.0 5.5 4.0 7.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 12.0 14.0 17.0
IU 2 11.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 7.0 9.0 12.0
IU 3 4.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 7.0 8.0 6.0
IM 1 12.0 4.5 3.5 4.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 6.0 9.0 13.0
IM 2 2.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 6.0 10.0 5.0
IM 3 5.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 6.0 7.0 6.5
IL 1 1.5 1.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 7.5 6.0 3.0
IL 2 10.0 3.5 2.5 3.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 5.0 8.0 11.0
IL 3 2.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 7.5 6.5 3.5
DL 1 3.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 5.0 6.0 5.0
DL 2 7.0 2.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 5.0 7.5 8.5
DL 3 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 4.5
DL 4 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 4.5
DL 5 2.0 0.5 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 4.0
84
MONTHLY EVAPORATION IN FEET
NO STATION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1 Kalawewa 0.321 0.342 0.430 0.402 0.449 0.476 0.498 0.509 0.519 0.396 0.332 0.315
2 Colombo 0.306 0.308 0.348 0.332 0.312 0.292 0.308 0.344 0.320 0.258 0.255 0.292
3 Iranamadu 0.250 0.272 0.363 0.337 0.384 0.418 0.416 0.405 0.402 0.320 0.227 0.221
4 Tabbowa 0.295 0.316 0.396 0.370 0.381 0.394 0.409 0.454 0.425 0.356 0.277 0.269
5 Periyakalapuwa 0.332 0.350 0.458 0.451 0.472 0.506 0.498 0.520 0.528 0.446 0.335 0.336
6 Kanthalai 0.276 0.268 0.348 0.330 0.404 0.478 0.481 0.472 0.442 0.369 0.264 0.251
7 Nachchaduwa 0.323 0.360 0.488 0.407 0.420 0.444 0.446 0.488 0.480 0.352 0.294 0.313
8 Ridigama 0.344 0.351 0.407 0.360 0.432 0.422 0.428 0.496 0.428 0.401 0.318 0.330
9 Thondamanar 0.379 0.371 0.438 0.457 0.561 0.540 0.498 0.502 0.512 0.443 0.353 0.366
10 Kande-ela 0.197 0.216 0.278 0.218 0.226 0.176 0.196 0.202 0.213 0.207 0.203 0.194
11 Inginiyagala 0.240 0.240 0.304 0.302 0.334 0.397 0.416 0.410 0.382 0.300 0.237 0.212
12 Batalagoda 0.304 0.337 0.382 0.329 0.310 0.301 0.306 0.342 0.348 0.312 0.256 0.285
13 Topawewa 0.293 0.303 0.363 0.374 0.496 0.556 0.616 0.548 0.530 0.399 0.321 0.276
14 Gaint's tank 0.346 0.366 0.395 0.416 0.422 0.450 0.434 0.431 0.417 0.388 0.355 0.337
15 Unnichchai 0.300 0.288 0.378 0.402 0.436 0.451 0.454 0.460 0.434 0.390 0.328 0.300
16 Tissamaharama 0.358 0.349 0.387 0.391 0.413 0.432 0.440 0.447 0.411 0.386 0.310 0.310
Note: The location of evaporation stations are given in

Pan coefficient of 0.8 has been used in above values
85
Annex-14
Annex-15
The volumetric moisture content at saturation
86

Designing To Find The Head Works Paramet PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing To Find The Head Works Paramet PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

1.4 Present Condition

Fig. 1.4 – Temporally Coffer Damming

1.4.1 Breached Section

Fig. 1.4.1 – Breached Section of the Dam

Fig. 1.4.2 – Tank Bund

1.4.3 Tank Bed

Fig. 1.4.3 – Tank Bed

Fig. 1.4.4 – Tower Sluice

1.4.5 Main Canal

Fig. 1.4.5 – Main Canal

Fig. 1.4.6 – Natural Spill & Tail Canal

1.4.7 Command Area

Fig. 1.4.7 – Command area

1.5.2 Scheme location.

1.6 Technical data

1.6.2 Reservoir Data

1.6.5 Sluice data

 To find the reason for frequent breaching

Figure 2.1- The principal parts of an earth fill dam.

2.2 Main Design Aspects of Flood Irrigation Schemes

2.3.2. Categories of Schemes

3.1.1 Preliminary Investigation

Fig. 3.1.1 – Recording details for PIR

3.1.2 Detail Investigation

3.1.2.1 LS & CSS survey of the Tank Bund

Fig. 3.1.2.1 – Levelling

Fig. 3.1.2.2(a) – Recording details for PIR

Fig. 3.1.2.2 (b) Images of Breach Section

Fig. 3.1.2.2 (c )Auguring a Bore Hole

3.1.2.3 Tank Bed Survey

3.2 Identifying the factors leading to breach the tank

3.2.1 Condition of soil

3.2.2 Seepage pattern

3.2.2.1 Determination of phreatic line

(Ref - Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering by S.K.Garg, page 195)

Soil properties of the foundation

Typical Values of Coefficient of Permeability (k)

Coefficient of permeability of dam material (SM) , k = 0.534 cm/s

Fig. 3.2.1.1 (a) Cross Section of the Dam

Fig. 3.2.1.1 (c ) Relation between and /( )

Here = 12m, H = 3.8m , sin 26.560 = 0.447, Cos 26.560=0.894

Where K = 0.534 cm/sec = 5.34 x10-3m/sec

Therefore , Seepage through Dam = 2.67 lit/s/m

Reservoir Capacity at H.F.L = 179.83ham = 1,798,300 m3

Effective length of the Dam = 22m

Sequence of flood study & Formulae used in computations

04. Duration of storm, Dhrs= time of concentration, Tc hrs (Triangular Hydrograph)

Velocity in catchment = 1.5fps from table 4.2.6

I = 88.91 x 367 -0.721 = 1.26

Duration of storm, Dhrs= time of concentration, Tc hrs (Triangular Hydrograph)

The peak run-off is given by the QI = CI A, Where

For check condition, C=2x0.3 = 0.6

C. Spill size and checks

Assuming the spill type to be a Clear over spill;

Design length of spill = L, is given by Q=CLH1.5

Assuming the spill type to be a Natural spill;

Design length of spill = L, is given by Q=CLH1.5

For check condition

Design duration of spilling 15.87< 72 hrs and hence OK

Catchment area of Peramaduwa Tank = 13.6 sq.mile

Check for the safety of the bund