FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN

OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT

FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

DESIGN CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY FOR IRRIGATION NETWORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... i
1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. AUTHORIZATION.............................................................................................................................. 1
3. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
4. SALIENT FEATURES OF EXISTING CANAL SYSTEM .................................................................. 2
4.1 Main Pat Feeder Canal ................................................................................................................. 2
4.2 Extension Distribution System including Uch & Manuthi Distys .................................................... 2
5. HYDRAULIC DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 4
5.1 General .......................................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Hydraulic Units .............................................................................................................................. 4
5.3 Design Discharge of Feeder Channel & Distributaries ................................................................. 4
5.4 Design Longitudinal Water Surface Slope .................................................................................... 4
5.4.1 Main Pat Feeder Canal ............................................................................................................. 4
5.4.2 Extension Distribution System ............................................................................................... 4
5.5 CANAL ALIGNMENT .................................................................................................................... 5
5.5.1 Main Pat Feeder Canal ............................................................................................................. 5
5.5.2 Distributaries & Watercourses .............................................................................................. 5
5.5.3 Bend Radii ................................................................................................................................ 5
5.6 CONVEYANCE LOSSES .............................................................................................................. 6
5.6.1 Percolation / Seepage Losses ................................................................................................ 7
5.6.2 Design of Lined Section .......................................................................................................... 8
5.6.3 Design of Earthen / Unlined Section ..................................................................................... 8
5.6.4 Lacey's Silt Factor (f) ............................................................................................................... 9
5.6.5 Side Slopes ............................................................................................................................... 9
5.6.6 Bed Width to Depth (B/D) Ratio ............................................................................................ 10
5.6.7 Minimum Permissible Flow Velocity .................................................................................... 11
(a) Permissible Velocities for Lined Channels ............................................................................... 11
(b) Permissible Velocities for Unlined Canals ............................................................................... 11
5.6.8 Change of Distributary Canal Section ................................................................................. 12
5.6.9 Free Board .............................................................................................................................. 12
5.6.10 Berm Width ............................................................................................................................. 13
5.6.11 Hydraulic Gradient Line (HGL) ............................................................................................. 14
5.6.12 Flood Embankment ................................................................................................................ 14
5.6.13 Widths for Service Road & Non-Service Road Banks ........................................................ 19

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page i

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

5.7 Canal Lining................................................................................................................................. 19

5.7.1 Lining Thickness and Concrete Strength ............................................................................ 19
5.7.2 Joints ....................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 1: Location Map of Pat Feeder Canal System 3

Figure 2: Typical cross-sections for RD 0+000 to 103+886 15
Figure 3: Typical cross-sections for RD 71+556 to 155+300 16
Figure 4 Typical Sections for 155+300 to 208+035 17
Figure 5 : Typical Section for Right Side bank as Flood Protection Embankment 18
Figure 6 : USBR Guidelines for Lining Thickness 20
Figure 7: Manual of Irrigation Practice Punjab 21

List of Tables
Table 1: Salient Features of Existing Main Pat Feeder Canals .............................................. 2
Table 2: Salient Features of Distribution System ................................................................... 2
Table 4: Minimum Radius of Curvature for Lined Canals ..................................................... 6
Table 5: Minimum Radius of Curvature for Unlined Canals .................................................. 6
Table 6: Manning’s Roughness Coefficient “n” for Various Materials (Ref: V.T. Chow) ........ 8
Table 6A: Manning’s Roughness Coefficient “n” for Large Lined Canals in Pakistan ............ 8
Table 7: Average Values of Silt Factors ............................................................................... 9
Table 8: HGL Slopes for Various Soil Types ...................................................................... 14
Table 9: Recommended Width of Canal Banks ................................................................. 19

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page ii

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

1. BACKGROUND
The Pat Feeder Canal system is the largest irrigation scheme in Balochistan which irrigates
about 658,500_ acres of land. This system was constructed in 1963 to 1969 in Kachhi plains,
as a part of Guddu Barrage Project, for the design discharge of 90 cumecs. This part, known
as Main Pat Feeder Canal, branches off from Desert Pat Feeder Canal ( a right side off-take
channel of Guddu Barrage) at its RD 12+000, and traverses in a length of 171.40 Km (RD 0
to 171+400 m) to carry Indus water for irrigating areas of District Sohbatpur, Nasirabad and
Jafarabad in Balochistan. Later, in the year 2006 to 2017, the capacity of main Pat Feeder
canal was increased 242.42.72 cumecs (Balochistan province share) and its length increased
by 35.54 Km, known as Main Canal Extension (RD 171+500 to 208+035 m), to supply water
to the areas of District Jhal Magsi in Balochistan.
The graphical representation of Pat Feeder Canal system is shown in Figure -1.

2. THE PROJECT
In this project the existing canal system is proposed to be rehabilitated and remodelled for its
improvement and sustainability and to provide flood management works for some critical area.
The scope of work includes feasibility study, followed by detailed design, PC-I & tender
documents for the final & approved option for rehabilitation / remodelling of Pat Feeder canal
(main & extension), distribution network of main canal extension and flood management
system. The major works / components included in this project are:

▪ Remodelling of Pat Feeder canal (Main & Extension) as concrete lined channel.
▪ Remodelling of distribution system of main canal extension, including 05 No. distys. and
06 No. minors.
▪ Remodelling of Uch and Manuthi distributaries, off-taking from Desert Pat canal.
▪ Remodelling of existing allied structures on Pat Feeder canals (Main & Extension),
including cross-regulators, bridges, head regulators of distributary canals and direct outlets
▪ Remodelling of existing allied structures (cross & head regulators, falls, bridges etc) on 05
No. distys and 06 No. minors of main canal extension.
▪ Replacement of old and damaged mild steel gates and hoisting system with regulation
platforms on the regulators of Pat Feeder canal (Main & Extension).
▪ Installation of Automation System (SCADA) in cross-regulator structure at RD ______
▪ Rehabilitation / remodelling of existing and provision of new cross-drainage structures.
▪ Providing flood carrier channels and allied structures for the flood management of Qabula,
Bagh, Badra and Shahiwah areas.

3. AUTHORIZATION
The Balochistan Irrigation Department through their Executive Engineer Pat Feeder Canal
Division (herein after referred as “Client”), has awarded the consultancy services of this project
to M/s Rehman Habib Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (RHC) in association with M/S Ease Pak
Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd. (herein after referred as “Consultants”), within an agreed
timeline of 18 months to complete the project.

4. DESIGN CRITERIA
This document contains design criteria and methodology to cover all technical aspects for the
review and design of various types of works to be constructed under this project. It is intended
to ensure uniformity of design for both feasibility study and detailed design stages.
RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 1
 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Normally a simple statement of methods, equations and models to be used for design work is
considered to be a sufficiently representative statement of design criteria. Therefore, this
document contains design formulae and methodologies from various national, Indo-Pak and
international design standards. Manual of Irrigation Practice (MIP) - Punjab (Revised 2017)
has mainly been used for the design of canals and allied hydraulic structures, whereas, to
present this document in greater depth to improve understanding, USBR, USACE, FAO, V.T.
Chow etc and Indian design standards / books have also been consulted in this regard.

5. SALIENT FEATURES OF EXISTING CANAL SYSTEM

5.1 Pat Feeder Canals

The salient features of Pat Feeder canals are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Salient Features of Existing Main Pat Feeder Canals

Full
Design Water Bed
Sr. Channel Earthen Supply
Reach RD (m) Discharge surface width
No. Name / Lined Depth
(m3/s) slope (m)
(m)
1 0+000 - 32+914 268.72 Earthen 1 in 14286 72 3.96
2 32+914 - 71+356 243.18 Earthen 1 in 14286 70 3.79
3 Main Pat 71+356 - 103+686 224.49 Earthen 1 in 14706 70 3.71
Feeder
4 Canal 103+686 - 128+566 213.25 Earthen 1 in 14286 68 3.57
5 128+566 - 155+163 156.68 Earthen 1 in 14286 62 3.15
6 155+163 - 171+400 87.96 Earthen 1 in 11111 42 2.60
7 Main Canal 172+500 - 190+250 48.67 Earthen 1 in 12500 30 2.28
8 Extension 190+250 - 208+035 17.66 Earthen 1 in 12500 16 1.80

5.2 Distribution System

The Table -2 below, presents the salient features of distribution channels (05 distys. & 06
minors) of main canal extension and along with Uch & Manuthi Distys .

Table 2: Salient Features of Distribution System

Water Full
Design Bed
Sr. Earthen surface Supply
Channel Name Reach RD (m) Discharge width
No. / Lined slope Depth
(m3/s) (m)
(m/m) (m)
1 Qabula Disty 0+000 - 29+000 10.70 Earthen 1 in 6667 11.5 1.34
2 Murad Disty 0+000 - 32+000 15.72 Earthen 1 in 8333 14 1.60
Muheem Khan
3 0+000 - 20+957 4.54 Earthen 1 in 6250 7 1.04
Umrani Disty
4 Abad Disty 0+000 - 30+500 12.15 Earthen 1 in 6667 12.5 1.38
5 Sindhar Disty 0+000 - 24+500 3.80 Earthen 1 in 6667 6 1.05
6 Wazir Minor 0+000 - 19+195 3.52 Earthen 1 in 6250 6 0.98
Sardar Fateh Ali Earthen
7 0+000 - 10+857 2.05 1 in 6667 4 0.91
Minor
8 Bagh Minor 0+000 - 17+081 3.50 Earthen 1 in 5882 6 0.96
9 Shole Minor 0+000 - 5+250 0.43 Earthen 1 in 5263 1.5 0.57
10 Waryam Minor 0+000 - 7+200 0.49 Earthen 1 in 5263 1.5 0.61
RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 2
 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Water Full
Design Bed
Sr. Earthen surface Supply
Channel Name Reach RD (m) Discharge width
No. / Lined slope Depth
(m3/s) (m)
(m/m) (m)
11 Matt Minor 0+000 - 13+151 0.99 Earthen 1 in 5000 2.5 0.70
12 Manuthi Disty 0+000 - 22+000 16.99 Earthen Data not available yet.
13 Uch Disty 0+000 - 48+780 19.82 Earthen Data not available yet.

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 3

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Start of Extension
Canal
Bifurcation at
RD12+000

Main Canal Extension Desert Pat

RD 171+400 to 208+035 Feeder

Main Pat Feeder Canal

RD 0+000 to 171+400

Desert Pat
Feeder

Figure 1: Location Map of Pat Feeder Canals System

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 3

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

6. HYDRAULIC DESIGN

6.1 UNIT SYSTEM

The dimensions and units of properties used in solving hydraulic problems are expressed in
three fundamental quantities of Mass (M), Length (L), and time (T). All analyses and designs
will be carried out in the S.I Units and conversion to Foot-Pound-Second system of units will
be made only of important results as necessary.

6.2 DESIGN DISCHARGE OF FEEDER CHANNEL & DISTRIBUTARIES

The sanctioned discharges of Main Pat Feeder canal, main canal extension and its distribution
system including Uch & Manuthi Distys given in Table-1 & Table-2 respectively, have been
adopted as the design discharges for rehabilitation / remodelling of these channels.
The sanctioned discharges of Pat Feeder canals (Main & Extension) and distribution system
have been taken from the respective L-sections of last project design data, prepared JV of
NDC & ECIL Consultants. Whereas, for Uch and Manuthi distys, discharge data was taken
from L-sections prepared by the Balochistan Irrigation Department.

6.3 DESIGN LONGITUDINAL WATER SURFACE SLOPE

6.3.1 Main Pat Feeder Canals

In all cases of analysis and design for Pat Feeder canals’ improvement, the existing
longitudinal water surface slope, as mentioned in Table-1, shall be adopted .

RD to RD
WSS
m m
0 to 32+914 1 in 14286
32+914 to 71+356 1 in 14286
71+356 to 103+686 1 in 14706
103+686 to 128+566 1 in 14286
128+566 to 155+163 1 in 14286
155+163 to 172+400 1 in 11111
172+400 to 190+250 1 in 12500
190+250 to 208+035 1 in 12500

6.3.2 Extension Distribution System

For distribution canals, the selection of WSS is based on the criteria to bring maximum area
under command by gravity irrigation, therefore longitudinal WS Slopes have to be as flat as
possible and consistent with the need for minimum velocities to transport the sediment and to
minimize its deposition in the canal.
• For design review of existing distributaries of main extension canal, WS slope given in the
L-section of respective distributary shall be adopted.
• For new distributary canals, WS slope shall be provided based on following factors:
o FSL required at outlet to command the irrigation fields
o Type of channel prism; earthen or lined
o Maintain minimum non silting non scouring velocity in earthen channel

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 4

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

o Sediments remain in transport and minimise its deposition, both earthen & lined
sections
• Uch and Manuthi distys are also existing channels, WS slope given in their L-sections
shall be adopted.
However, the data of fresh topographic survey of command area, would also dictate the
finalization of new WS Slopes for irrigating the respective command areas.

6.4 CANAL ALIGNMENT

6.4.1 Main Pat Feeder Canals

Main Pat Feeder Canal is a contour canal with many bends throughout from head to tail
reaches. Channel is in very deteriorated condition as most of the reaches are not straight and
bends are also not of definite radius.
In all cases of analysis for main canal’s improvement, the canal alignment shall be improved
with max possible straight reaches with minimum bends in accordance with the design codes.

6.4.2 Distributaries

Following basic considerations have governed planning of distribution system:

▪ Alignment of distributaries would:
a. Have shortest length as well as ensure effective distribution of water to the land.
b. Avoid villages, roads, cart tracks, mosques, grave yards and other valuable properties,
as far as possible.
▪ Distributary off-take would be located at the highest point so as to command maximum
area.
▪ Outlets to be located at a point away from curves in the distributary channel.
▪ Alignment would attempt to provide minimum depth of cutting or filling or otherwise be
proceeded by "balancing cut & fill". In order to stick to this criterion, fall structures of varying
heights would be provided, where required.
▪ Alignment would have minimum number of curves, and acute curves would be avoided
particularly. It is a known fact that such channels experience non-uniform velocity as well
as silting on inner side of curve.
▪ Alignment would cater for the commanded area in such a way that length of the
watercourses does not exceed 2 miles. Where required, minors would be introduced.
▪ Alignment would be such that bed of long watercourse should not go as deep beyond
which gravity irrigation becomes difficult of respective chaks (placed on high contours). It
should be supportive to create contour chaks, thereby reducing requirements of levelling
and grading.
▪ Alignment would avoid any costly cross drainage works, if not avoidable as in our case.
▪ Escapes would be provided at proper places to act as safety valves.

6.4.3 Bend Radii

Radius of curvature (or bend radius) is linked with the canal freeboard. Due to bend in canal
alignment, rise in water levels occurs on outer side of the curve due to centrifugal motion of
flowing water. If this rise is more than normal, then freeboard is encroached due to high water
levels and sediment deposition takes place due to slow velocity flow. For earthen canals this
phenomenon may also cause cutting/ scouring at inner side of curvature due to high velocity
currents.

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 5

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

In case of unavoidable bend in the canal alignment, a super-elevation in introduced across

the channel bed, in order to achieve a uniform flow depth through out in the bend section. The
height of super-elevation is normally kept at par with the rise in water surface elevation across
the channel, which is calculated by the following relation:

v 2b
h=
gR
Where,
h = change in water surface elevation across channel (ft)
v = sub-critical average velocity (ft/s)
b = width of channel (ft)
g = acceleration due to gravity (ft2/s)
R= distance from curve center to channel center line (radius of the curve in ft.)

For negligible rise in water surface elevation at outer side of bend, USBR’s recommendation
for lined canals is:
R = (3 to 7) x water surface width
Generally, the larger factor is for larger capacity canals, and its decision is on the judgment
and experience of the designer. Besides this, some Indian Design Standards also recommend
the following minimum bend radii for lined and unlined canals, as summarised in Table 4 & 5.
Table 3: Minimum Radius of Curvature for Lined Canals

Channel Capacity (m3/s) Minimum radius of curvature (m)

Less than 0.3 50
3 to 0.3 100
10 to 3 150
40 to 10 200
70 to 40 300
140 to 70 450
200 to 140 600
280 to 200 750
280 and above 900

Table 4: Minimum Radius of Curvature for Unlined Canals

Channel Capacity (m3/s) Minimum radius of curvature (m)
Less than 0.3 90
3 to 0.3 150
15 to 3 300
30 to 15 600
80 to 30 1000
80 and above 1500

6.5 CONVEYANCE LOSSES

The losses in irrigation channels are mainly of the following types:

▪ Absorption losses
▪ Percolation (or seepage) losses
▪ Evaporation losses
▪ Transportation losses
Out of these percolation / seepage losses gives some significant values, whereas
accumulative values of other three losses are not significant in the size of channels we are
dealing with in this project.
RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 6
 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

6.5.1 Percolation / Seepage Losses

Percolation losses from the canal mainly depend upon the following factors:
i. Permeability of Soil: The greater is the permeability of the soil in the bed and banks of
the channel, the greater are the losses.
ii. Depth of Water: The greater is the depth of water in the canal, the greater are the
losses.
iii. Velocity of Water: The losses decrease with an increase in the velocity of flow in the
channel.
iv. Amount of Silt: The losses decrease with an increase in the amount of silt carried by
the canal water.
v. Temperature of Water: The losses increase with an increase in temperature of water
because its viscosity decreases and the permeability of soil is also increased.
vi. Age of the Channel: The losses are large in newly constructed channels and they
reduce as silt gets deposited with the passage of time and relatively impervious silt
layer is formed on the bed. This is also called natural sealing of pores of soil.
vii. Level of the Ground Water Table: The losses depend on the position of the water table
with respect to the canal bed. The losses are more when the water table is deep.

a) Seepage losses in earthen (unlined) channels

▪ The empirical formula to calculate seepage loss in earthen channels is as under:

K = 5 (Q) 0.0625
Where,
K = Seepage loss per million square feet of wetted area
Q = Discharge in cusecs in any reach prism geometry

▪ Haigh's Formula: Another empirical formula to calculate seepage loss:

Qa = 0.0133 L (Q)0.5625
Where,
Qa = Seepage loss in cusec
L = Length of reach in 1000 feet
Q = Discharge in cusecs in any reach prism geometry
▪ It is a common / standard practice to use the conveyance loss of 8 cusecs per million
square feet of wetted perimeter, for an unlined channel. Hence, the same value shall be
adopted for this project.

b) Seepage losses in lined channels

▪ Haigh's Formula: An empirical formula to calculate seepage loss:
K = 1.25 (Q)0.056
Where,
K = Seepage loss per million square feet of wetted area
Q = Discharge in cusecs in any reach prism geometry
▪ It is a common / standard practice to use the conveyance loss of 2 cusecs per million
square feet of wetted perimeter, for an unlined channel. Hence, the same value shall be
adopted for this project.

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 7

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

6.5.2 Design of Lined Section

The main Pat Feeder canal and its extension canal are proposed to be remodelled as cast in-
situ PCC lined channel. The hydraulic parameters for lined section shall be worked out using
Manning’s formula, empirically derived by end of the C19th, which relates discharge to area
of flow, the slope of the energy line, the shape of the channel and the roughness of the
boundaries of the channel. Manning’s formula is:
1 2⁄ 1⁄
𝑉= 𝑅 3𝑆 2
𝑛
Where:
V = mean velocity of flow, (m/s)
R = hydraulic mean radius, (m)
S = channel slope
n = coefficient of roughness

Manning’s roughness coefficient “n” is an important parameter and should be realistic. If “n”
value is lower than realistic both for side slopes and bed, the canal could experience change
in flow depth and velocity due to increase / decrease in the actual roughness of prism
boundaries. Consequently, outlet discharges are effected and sometime freeboard
encroachment. Table-6 below, gives standard range of Manning’s “n” for various types of
lining material:

Table 5: Manning’s Roughness Coefficient “n” for Various Materials (Ref: V.T. Chow)
Type of Channel and Description Minimum Normal Maximum
Trowel Finished Concrete 0.011 0.013 0.015
Float Finished Concrete 0.013 0.015 0.016
Excavated Earthen - Straight and uniform -
0.018 0.022 0.025
Clean but weathered condition
Excavated Earthen - Straight and uniform -
0.022 0.027 0.033
With short grass and few weeds
Brickwork lined with cement mortar 0.012 0.015 0.018
Dry rubble or riprap (Stone pitching on sides) 0.020 0.030 0.035

Pat Feeder Canals: In Pakistan, recently constructed large capacity lined canal projects,
as shown in Table 6-A, the adopted Manning’s “n” value was 0.018, a conservative value
which worked satisfactorily for the intended hydraulic behaviour on these canals.

Table 6A: Manning’s Roughness Coefficient “n” for Large Lined Canals in Pakistan
Name of concrete-lined Canal Value of ’n’
CRBC Stage-III 0.018
Remodelling of Thai Canal 0.018
CRBC (lift-cum-gravity) 0.018
Greater Thai Canal 0.018
Kachhi Canal 0.018

Since, the capacities of Pat Feeder Canals are of the same order, therefore, the Consultants
have proposed manning’s “n” of 0.018 for their design.
Distribution Canals: These canals shall be designed as earthen channels and Manning’s
“n” value of 0.022 is recommended for their design.

6.5.3 Design of Earthen / Unlined Section

The hydraulic parameters for an earthen / unlined section shall be worked out using Lacey's
Regime Theory, developed by Gerald Lacey, who retired as Chief Engineer of United
Province, PWD Irrigation Branch. He gave this in 1929 and subsequently modified in 1939.
He made a systematic study of the observed data and derived some empirical relations.
RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 8
 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

He introduced a silt factor “f” and assumed it was related to mean diameter of the bed material.
The set of equations he obtained can be readily used to calculate the velocity, area of cross-
section, slope, bed width and depth of channel for a particular discharge and “silt grade”.
V = (Q.f2/140)1/6
P = 4.75 Q1/2
R = 0.47 (Q / f)1/3
S = f5/3 / (3340 Q1/6)
Where
V = average velocity, (m/s)
Q = dominant discharge, (m3/s)
f = silt factor = 1.76 (dm)1/2
dm = weighted mean diameter of the bed material
P = wetted perimeter, (m)
R = hydraulic mean radius, (m)
S = channel slope

6.5.4 Lacey's Silt Factor (f)

Table 7: Average Values of Silt Factors

Generally, for Punjab canals, Lacey’s f = 0.9 to 1.0 has been used, whereas, in Sindh canals,
this value is generally less than 0.9.

6.5.5 Side Slopes

The major limitations to the steepness of hard lined channel side slopes are slippage of the
lining and soil stability. Slippage may be caused by insufficient friction between the lining and
the sub-grade in combination with effects of external hydrostatic pressure. The following
values for concrete lined side slopes are according to the approved Lining Criteria by Punjab
Irrigation Department.

Flow Depth, D (ft) Side slope (1V:ZH)

Up to 2.0 1.0
2.0 to 5.0 1.5
5.0 to 20.0 2.0

The Consultants have recommended the concrete lined side slopes of 1V : 2 H for the main
Pat Feeder Canal from construction and maintenance point of view.
RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 9
 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

The canals in alluvial soils are generally analyzed / designed assuming a 1V:0.5H side slope,
irrespective of whatever side slope is constructed or available at site. It is assumed that after
the due course of a run, the canal section would ultimately acquire a 1V:0.5H slope. This
happens because silt gets deposited on the berms.

As per the recommendation of the Central Water Power Commission (C.W.P.C.) India, the
side slopes for various soils should be as given in Table -8.

Table 8: CWPC India Recommended Side Slope for Earthen Canals

The Consultants have recommended that for earthen channels, side slopes for water carrying
section shall be constructed as 1V : 1 H, for stability and ease of construction, but should be
analyzed for slope of 1V:0.5H.

6.5.6 Bed Width to Depth (B/D) Ratio

Lined Canals: Canals provided with a hard surface lining are usually designed with finished-
bed width to water-depth ration of 1 to 2. Small channels normally have a ratio of 1, while this
ratio for large canals may exceed 2. Some large canals in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent
have ratio up to 10.

Unlined Canals:
- Lindley derived the following equation to establish a relation of bed width and flow depth:
B = 3.80 d1.61
Where
B= Bed width (ft)
D= Flow depth (ft)

- Kutter has related the ratio of bed width / water depth to discharge for unlined canals as
given in Table below:

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 10

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Max. ratio of Bed Width/ Water Depth 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 6.0 9.0
Discharge (cusecs) 10 25 100 200 500 1000

6.5.7 Permissible Flow Velocity in Lined Canals

(a) Minimum Flow Velocity

For channels carrying silt, the minimum velocity may be taken as the non-silting velocity. This
velocity is not easy to determine, and it is recommended that it should be approximated to
Kennedy’s Critical Velocity.

(b) Maximum Flow Velocity

The maximum velocity acceptable in a lined canal is limited by considerations of deterioration
of lining material over the time. For channel carrying silts, to avoid the possibility of uplifting,
USBR recommends, that for un-reinforced lined concrete canals, flow velocity should not
exceed 2.5 m/s (8.0 ft/s).
For lined canals with abrupt changes of direction, changes of section or flow division
structures, such high flow velocities can result in excessive splash and super-elevation. To
cater for super-elevation, etc., it is recommended that the average flow velocities be limited to
about 0.91 m/s (3.0 ft/sec).
However, Consultants recommend the design velocity shall be kept between 1.5 and 3.5 ft/sec
in lined channels.

6.5.8 Permissible Flow Velocity in Unlined Canals

(a) Minimum Permissible Velocity

RG Kennedy, working in India, gave the concept of critical velocity (Vc) as non-silting and non-
scouring velocity in alluvial channels. His proposed critical velocity is a function of depth of
water in the channel (d) and the type of silt being transported, as given below:
Vc = 0.84 md 0.64 [FPS]
0.64
Vc = 0.546 md [SI]
Where
m = Factor depending on the nature of silt being transported
Nature of Silt m
Fine Silt such as in the Indus in Sindh 0.70
Light Sandy Silt 1.00
Rather Coarse Silt 1.30

Where the water source is a river, then the minimum velocity should preferably be taken for
rather coarse silt. Where clear water is diverted, then the minimum velocity may safely be
taken for the silt.

(b) Maximum Permissible Velocity

The maximum permissible velocity for different types of soils for straight channels of small
slope after aging are given in Table below:

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 11

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Clear Water Water transporting

Manning’s Colloidal Silts
Type of Soil
’n’
m/s ft/s m/s ft/s
Fine Sand, colloidal 0.020 0.46 1.50 0.76 2.50
Sandy loam, Non colloidal 0.020 0.53 1.75 0.76 2.50
Silt Loam, Non colloidal 0.020 0.61 2.00 0.91 3.00
Alluvial Silt, Non colloidal 0.020 0.61 2.00 1.07 3.50
Ordinary Firm Loam 0.020 0.76 2.50 1.07 3.50
Stiff Clay, Very colloidal 0.025 1.14 3.75 1.52 5.00
Alluvial Silt, colloidal 0.025 1.14 3.75 1.52 5.00
Shales and Hardpans 0.025 1.83 6.00 1.83 6.00
Fine Gravel 0.020 1.83 2.50 1.52 5.00
Graded Loam to Cobbles, Non colloidal 0.030 1.14 3.75 1.52 5.00
Graded Loam to Cobbles, colloidal 0.030 1.22 4.00 1.68 5.50
Coarse Gravel, Non colloidal 0.025 0.37 1.22 4.00 1.83
Cobbles And Shingles 0.035 1.52 5.00 1.68 5.50
Source: Open Channel Hydraulics V.T. Chow

A velocity of 2.50 ft/sec is usually sufficient to prevent the growth of vegetation which
significantly affects the conveyance of the channel.

6.5.9 Change of Distributary Canal Section

In the design distributary canal, most important consideration in selection of reaches would be
that variation in the sections of two adjoining reaches should not be excessive. Near the head,
the reaches would be longer and towards tail of the channel, where discharge is small, these
reaches must be short.
As a rough rule, the reaches would be so set that the section of the channel would not change
by more than 10 % in width as well as depth from one reach to the next.

6.5.10 Freeboard

As defined by FAO in “Irrigation Water Management introduction to Irrigation” freeboard of the

canal is the height of the bank above the highest water level anticipated. It is required to guard
against over topping by waves or unexpected rises in the water levels.

(a) Lined Canals

The normal free-board for hard surface linings ranges from 6 inches to 3 feet for small to large
canals respectively. The height of canal bank above the top of the lining usually ranges from
1 to 2 ft depending on the size of the canal and local conditions.

(b) Unlined Canals

For canals designed on Lacey’s Regime Theory, the freeboard is often calculated using
following relationship.
Fb = 0.2 + 0.235 Qd1/3 (m)
Where, Qd = Design discharge (m3/s)
Implicit in this formula is an overload condition (where Qs > Qd) which allows for a peak supply
flow 25% greater than the design discharge flow.

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 12

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

For unlined (non-Lacey) canals, the USBR use the formula as below:
Fb = (Cd)1/2 (m)
Where,
d = Flow Depth (m)
C= Co-efficient varying from 0.45 to 0.75 for canals where the discharge varies from 0.6
to 85 m3/sec respectively. For in between discharges, intermediate values may be adopted.

6.5.11 Berm Width

The berms (not silted berms) of a canal are the strips of land left between the upper edge of
the canal cut slope and toe of the embankment. They are also categorised as a horizontal
strip of land or bench, built in an embankment to break the continuity of long slope, to improve
stability.

(a) Lined Canals

In lined canals, berm may be provided in cut sections for ease of access to the lining for
maintenance purposes. For small lined canals, berms widths of about 0.3 m (1.0 ft) is
recommended.
For larger canals, berms are generally 10 to 15 ft wide, provided when the canal is in deep
cut, with ramps from the inspection road to the berm at intervals.

(b) Unlined Canals

There is no hard and fast rule for determining the width of the berm. Many factors, both design
as well as practical, are taken into consideration to estimate berm width. If excavation of the
canal is planned by draglines, the width of the berm should be enough to permit movement of
machines on it during excavation. Recommended berm widths are as follows:
▪ 3 D when NSL is above FSL;
▪ 2.5 D when NSL is below FSL but above bed level.
▪ 1.5 D when NSL is below bed level.
where D is the depth of flow in the canal.

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 13

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

6.5.12 Hydraulic Gradient Line (HGL)

After establishing the cross section of canal embankment, the geometry of the section shall
be checked by plotting hydraulic gradient line (assumed line of saturation in the embankment
body to which porous soils offer less resistance to percolation) on the cross-section starting
from FSL or HFL at canal & river side respectively and is extended up to the exit face on the
relevant opposite side.
It is customary that HGL must not only fall within the embankment but should have a minimum
cover of 0.6m below file NSL. To adjust this, new embankments will be resized whereas for
existing embankments a back berm (or pushta) will provided to keep the hydraulic gradient
within the cross-section.
Table 8: HGL Slopes for Various Soil Types
Type of Soil HGL slope ( V : H )
Good earth (Clay) 1:4
Average Soil (Sandy loam) 1:5
Bad Soil (Clayey loam) 1:6
Fine Silt 1:6
Fine Sand 1:8
Coarse Sand 1 : 10

6.5.13 Flood Embankment

Since Pat feeder main and extension canals are running parallel and near to the Murre-Bugti
hills which cause major flooding on the right side of Pat feeder canals. The Consultants have
therefore proposed to convert the hill side facing embankments as "Flood Embankment". The
intension behind is to save the Pat feeder canals form the direct attack of torrential flows and
diverting these flows towards the cross-drainage structure provided in the Pat feeder canals
Therefore, right bank of Pat feeder canals shall be designed as flood embankment after
detailed hydrological studies and determining maximum flood inundation levels on the right
side. The freeboard for crest of flood embankment form maximum inundation level shall
minimum be 2.0 m (6.5 ft) and its minimum width is no less than 4.5 m (15 ft) to cover the
hydraulic gradient line of (1V:6H) within the embankment body with exposure from the canal
side slope.
The typical shape and arrangement of flood embankments are shown in Figure 5.

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 14

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Figure 2: Typical cross-sections for RD 0+000 to 103+886

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 15

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Figure 3: Typical cross-sections for RD 71+556 to 155+300

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 16

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Figure 4 Typical Sections for 155+300 to 208+035

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 17

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Figure 5 : Typical Section for Right Side bank as Flood Protection Embankment

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 18

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

6.5.14 Widths for Service Road & Non-Service Road Banks

In Pat Feeder Canal remodelling/rehabilitation project, the service road shall be provided in
both distributaries preferably on the command area side canal banks. But in special cases
owing to topography and site conditions, service road has to be clubbed with flood
embankment. The general guidelines laid down in MIP 2017 for recommended widths of canal
banks is given in Table - 5:
Table 9: Recommended Width of Canal Banks
Full Supply Service Road Top Width (ft)
Discharge (cusec) (ft) Service Road Side Non-Service Road Side
5 – 500 10 15 5 - 12
501 – 1000 12 20 12
1000 – 2500 20 25 15
2500 – 5000 20 30 20
5000 and above 25 35 35
Earthen Dowel: A earthen dowel, or protrusion of 1.5 ft top width on the canal side edge of
the service road shall be provided for the service roads in the newly design prism or
rehabilitated portion (if any) of all channels.
Figure - 2, 3 & 4 can be referred to see the arrangements of above components.

6.6 CANAL LINING

6.6.1 Lining Thickness and Concrete Strength

Thickness: For Main Pat Feeder Canal, PCC lining shall be un-reinforced with thickness of
100 mm (4 inch) over 75 mm (1.5 inch) thick lean cement plaster (C/S: 1:6) both in the bed,
side slope and horizontal lip. Thicknesses of canal lining are also given in USBR manual as
shown in the Fig-6. However, manual of Irrigation Punjab recommends minimum 4 inches
thickness for discharge above 5 m3/sec as shown in Fig-7 and minimum discharge in main
canal tail reach is 17.66 m3/sec so 4 inches thickness of PCC lining has been selected for
throughout length of main Pat Feeder canal.
Strength: The concrete for lining shall have minimum cylinder compressive strength of the
3,000 psi at 28-days. This concrete strength is generally related to 1:2:4 ratio concrete in
government market rate system.

6.6.2 Joints

Channel Joint Type Spacing & Specifications

100 ft c/c Filled with elastomeric sealant and bitumen-
Expansion Joint
saw dust filler joint filler with underneath transverse PCC
Transverse
profile pad (size 6" x 3")
Main Pat Feeder
Construction Joint 10 ft c/c Filled with elastomeric sealant with underneath
Canal
Transverse transverse PCC profile pad (size 6" x 3")
Control Joint Middle bed width - A longitudinal profile and control joint
Longitudinal to be provided if the width of bed is more than 10 ft

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 19

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Figure 6 : USBR Guidelines for Lining Thickness

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 20

 FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DETAILED DESIGN
OF REHABILITATION/ REMODELING OF PAT
FEEDER CANAL SYSTEM
Design Criteria & Methodology

Figure 7: Manual of Irrigation Practice Punjab

RHC-PFC-01-00 Rev 00 Page 21