Archives

Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Biosciences (IJPAB)
Year : 2020, Volume : 8, Issue : 5
First page : (31) Last page : (39)
Article doi: : http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.8379

Analyses of Canal Flows in NSP (Nagarjuna Sagar Project) Right Canal Using Flow Pro 2.1 Software

D. Sai Gangadhara Rao^1* , H. V. Hema Kumar², B. Sarojini Devi³, L. Edukondalu⁴ and V. Srinivasa Rao^5
1PhD scholar, ANGRAU,
²Professor & Head, Dept. of Soil and Water Engineering, Dr NTR CAE, Bapatla
³Professor& Head, Dept. of Ag. Engg. Ag. College, Mahanandi
⁴Associate Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Processing and Food Engineering, CFST, Pulivendula
⁵Professor & University Head, Dept. of Statistics & Computer Applications, Ag. College, Bapatla
*Corresponding Author E-mail: dsgrao1@gmail.com
Received: 5.09.2020 | Revised: 13.10.2020 | Accepted: 21.10.2020 

 ABSTRACT

Nagarjuna Sagar Right (Jowhar) Canal Command area spared 37 mandals in Guntur and 23 mandals in Prakasham districts.Hydraulic particulars of main and branch canal was collected from Water resources department, Lingamguntla circle and Ongole circle. The area irrigated under Nagarjuna Sagar Right Canal (Jawahar canal) is 4.75 lakh ha covering Guntur district with 2.84 lakh ha and Prakasam district with 1.91 lakh ha. The computed values at head, middle and tail section s of the main canal were 3.05 m/s, 0.85 m/s and 0.719 m/s and as per the design 3.048 m/s, 0.85 m/s and 0.814 m/s respectively. The variation in values is also not more than 11%. The computed values at head, middle and tail sections of the Addanki branch canal was 0.807 m/s, 0.782 m/s and 0.73 m/s and as per design 0.889 m/s, 0.87 m/s and 0.805 m/s respectively. The maximum variation is even not more than 10%. Darsi branch canal were 0.832 m/s, 0.802 m/s and 0.155 m/s and as per the design 0.82 m/s, 0.753 m/s and 0.135 m/s respectively. The maximum variation is even not more than 14%. Hence, the simulated discharges of flowpro2.1 software compared with designed discharges and velocities and there is no much variation in canal flow.

Keywords: NSPRCC, Hydraulic particulars, Flowpro, Water surface profile and Critical depth.

Full Text : PDF; Journal doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.18782

Cite this article: Rao, D.S.G., Hema Kumar, H.V., Sarojini Devi, B., Edukondalu, L., & Rao, V.S. (2020). Analyses of Canal Flows in NSP (Nagarjuna Sagar Project) Right Canal Using Flow Pro 2.1 Software, Ind. J. Pure App. Biosci. 8(5), 31-39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.8379

INTRODUCTION

Nagarjuna Sagar Project is built across river Krishna at Nandikonda village of Nalgonda District. The main objective of this Nagarjuna Sagar project is to bring the 9 lakhs hectare of land in to cultivation. The right canal was designed 11,000 cusecs carrying capacity. Rapid growth in industrialization and urbanization in the country resulted as decrease in the availability of water for domestic and irrigation purpose and it creates the high demand in those sectors.
Guntur and Prakasam Districts of 4.75 lakhs ha area is irrigating by Nagarjuna Sagar Jawahar Canal (Anonymous, 1999). The Canal is divided into 9 branch canals spread across Guntur and Prakasam districts. The Right main canal having Guntur, Zulakallu, Bellarnkonda, Peddanandipadu, Addanki, Eddanapudi, Darsi, Pamidipadu and Ongole branch canals. The scope for resilience and adaptation of large surface irrigation systems is vital to the development of management strategies designed to mitigate the impact of river basin closure on food production and the livelihoods of farmers.
Study area
Nagarjuna Sagar Project Right Canal (Jawahar) Command

Line Diagram of Nagarjuna Sagar Right Main Canal

Milage	NAGARJUNA SAGAR RIGHT MAIN CANAL	Name of the Branch Canal/ Major	Length	Designed discharge in C/S	Block No
M-F-Ft			M-F-Ft
0-0-000		Right Canal Head Regulator		11,000
4-6-000		Pasuvemula Major	1-0-207	5.24	1
7-0-000		Tallapalli Major – I	0-4-365	4.48	2
8-4-000		Tallapalli Major – II	0-4-300	10.13	2
12-1-558		Mallavaram Major	7-7-572	126.18	3
13-6-000		Khambampadu Major	1-6-290	18.53	3
15-7-000		Paluvai Major	5-0-110	64.09	3
20-7-076		Buggavagu O T Regulator		11000
21-7-00		Rentachintala Major	9-5-655	42.64	4
24-0-110		Daida Major	12-6-360	266.40	4
24-6-440		Charlagudipadu Major	3-4-150	24.16	4
27-3-550		Miryala Major	2-5-495	17.20	5
30-2-220		Ramapuram Major	18-3-018	253.80	5
33-4-000		Pedakodamagundla Major	2-4-402	22.30	5
34-2-655		Cross regulator cum surplus escape		10100
38-0-330		Kesanupalli Major	6-6-613	68.80	6
40-4-280		Zulakallu Branch Canal	1-3-299	564.29	6
42-0-560		Janapadu Major	4-4-000	34.40	6
46-3-000		Guttikonda Major	2-4-535	15.20	7
47-3-550		Kotanemalipuri Major	7-2-330	31.40	7
49-5-570		Bellamkonda Branch Canal	11-3-027	645	8&9
52-5-165		Guntur Branch Canal	32-1-000	2920	10
52-7-400		O.T. of 1 AR Kothapalli Major(shifted from GBC)		8.64	10
57-0-475		Addanki Brach Canal	37-3-272	2469	11
57-2-250		Cross regulator		3947.00
58-6-543		Inumella D.P		1.07 / 0.25	11A
59-5-300		Inumella Major	8-0-080	23.20	11A
64-2-330		Ipur D.P		1.80	12
66-0-610		Angaluru Major	8-0-440	52.02	12
69-6-049		Perumallapalli Major	20-5-372	192.60	13
74-0-470		Perurupadu Major	3-1-110	28.97	13
78-3-196		Dondapadu Major	6-2-220	48.97	14
81-5-474		Cheekateegalapalem Major	14-1-550	140.14	14
83-2-402		Palakuru Major	0-6-250	5.57	14
85-3-150		Cross regulator cum escape		3346

Description of Flow pro 2.1
Flow Pro 2.1 Visually design waterways and channels with an intuitive interface. Effortlessly design open-channel waterways, culverts, irrigation channels, sluiceways, and flumes with Flow Pro. Looking for easy to use software to help you plot water surface profiles, or calculates critical depth and slope. Flow Pro saves you time and money by letting you compare more than one hydraulic design alternatives and exports the results to Word or Excel. Visualize depth, flow, and velocity with its built-in graphing software.
The software having File, Channel type, Units, Tools and Help are appeared in the main menu bar. DUFLOW is a microcomputer software package for simulating one-dimensional unsteady flow in open-channel systems by Clemmens et al. (1993). In Channel type there is option to select the sections like trapezoidal, circular, U shaped, elongated circular and channel type and name. In units icon select the either SI or English. According to Charles et al. (2018) requires calculated, remote manual adjustments to all the canal check structure gate positions in addition to two flow rate changes made at the head of the canal, followed by are turn to automated upstream control. In Tools icon critical depth and slope, depth, flow rate, slope and Roughness, Orifices, underflow gates, water surface profile and weirs.
Nagarjuna Sagar Right Canal Command area flows were analyzed using the Flow Pro 2.1 version software at three different sections like head section, middle and tail end of the main canal. The input data needed for the software as given in the Table 1  and computed water surface profiles as shown in Figure 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1: Data input of Nagarjuna Sagar Right canal Command area main canal needed for Flow pro 2.1

S No	Particulars	Head section	Middle	Tail end
1	Start Station, m	0	92211+00.000	199616+00.000
2	End station, m	3532+00.000	92593+00.000	202796+00.000
3	Flow rate, m3/s	311.49	111.77	79.65
4	Width, m	18.593	26.213	18.8976
5	Manning’s	0.018	0.0255	0.0255
6	Bottom slope	0.00034072	0.00008333	0.00008333
7	Control depth, m	9.296	3.871	3.871
8	Side slope	0.25:1	2:1	2:1

The computed parameters like profile type, flow type, critical depth, critical area, velocity, wetted perimeter and hydraulic radius as shown in the Table 2 and Figure 4.

Table 2: Flowpro2.1 computed values at three levels

S No	Particulars	Head section	Middle	Tail end
1	Profile type	Mild, M-1	Mild, M-2	Mild, M-2
2	Flow type	Subcritical	Subcritical	Subcritical
3	Critical depth, m	3.017	1.190	1.168
4	Critical slope	0.00295	0.00634	0.00646
5	Critical area, m2	58.37	34.045	24.799
6	Depth (normal), m	9.296	3.871	3.871
7	Velocity, m/s	3.05	0.85	0.719
8	Area, m2	194.44	131.44	103.12
9	Wetted perimeter, m	37.757	43.525	36.209
10	Hydraulic radius, m	5.150	3.020	2.848

The computed values at head, middle and tail section s of the main canal were 3.05 m/s, 0.85 m/s and 0.719 m/s and as per the design 3.048 m/s, 0.85 m/s and 0.814 m/s respectively. The variation in values is also not more than 11%. Similarly, Addanki branch canal of NSRJC input data were tabulated in the following Table 3.

Table 3: Data input for Addanki branch canal of NSRJC

S No	Particulars	Head section	Middle	Tail end
1	Start Station, m	30700+00.000	43721+00.000	199616+00.000
2	End station, m	38025+00.000	50006+00.000	202796+00.000
3	Flow rate, m3/s	51.578	41.680	79.65
4	Width, m	22.555	18.288	18.8976
5	Manning’s	0.025	0.025	0.025
6	Bottom slope	0.0005152	0.0005152	0.0005152
7	Control depth, m	2.438	2.438	2.286
8	Side slope	1.5:1	1.5:1	1.5:1

The computed values at head, middle and tail sections of the Addanki branch canal was shown in following Table 4and Figure 5 as 0.807 m/s, 0.782 m/s and 0.73 m/s and as per the design 0.889 m/s, 0.87 m/s and 0.805 m/s respectively. The maximum variation is even not more than 10%.

Table 4: Computed values at three levels of Addanki branch canal of NSRJC

S No	Particulars	Head section	Middle	Tail end
1	Profile type	Mild, M-1	Mild, M-2	Mild, M-1
2	Flow type	Subcritical	Subcritical	Subcritical
3	Critical depth, m	0.796	0.791	0.731
4	Critical slope	0.00691	0.00698	0.00718
5	Critical area, m2	18.915	15.412	12.393
6	Depth (normal), m	2.438	2.438	2.286
7	Velocity, m/s	0.807	0.782	0.73
8	Area, m2	63.905	53.297	44.072
9	Wetted perimeter, m	31.345	27.049	24.092
10	Hydraulic radius, m	2.039	1.97	1.829

Similarly, Darsi branch canal of NSRJC input data were tabulated in the following Table 5.

Table 5:  Data input for Darsi branch canal of NSRJC

S No	Particulars	Head section	Middle	Tail end
1	Start Station, m	30700+00.000	43721+00.000	199616+00.000
2	End station, m	38025+00.000	50006+00.000	202796+00.000
3	Flow rate, m3/s	51.578	41.680	79.65
4	Width, m	22.555	18.288	18.8976
5	Manning’s	0.025	0.025	0.025
6	Bottom slope	0.0005152	0.0005152	0.0005152
7	Control depth, m	2.438	2.438	2.286
8	Side slope	1.5:1	1.5:1	1.5:1

The computed values at head, middle and tail sections of the Darsi branch canal were shown in following Table 6 and Figure 6.

Table 6:  Flow pro2.1 computed values at three levels of Darsi branch canal of NSRJC

S No	Particulars	Head section	Middle	Tail end
1	Profile type	Mild, M-1	Mild, M-2	Mild, M-1
2	Flow type	Subcritical	Subcritical	Subcritical
3	Critical depth, m	1.149	1.022	0.054
4	Critical slope	0.00516	0.00513	0.01349
5	Critical area, m2	39.396	33.224	0.619
6	Depth (normal), m	3.871	3.871	1.829
7	Velocity, m/s	0.832	0.802	0.155
8	Area, m2	153.84	127.149	2.908
9	Wetted perimeter, m	49.312	45.726	12.383
10	Hydraulic radius, m	3.12	2.781	0.235

From the above data Darsi branch canal were 0.832 m/s, 0.802 m/s and 0.155 m/s and as per the design 0.82m/s, 0.753 m/s and 0.135 m/s respectively. The maximum variation is even not more than 14%.
Hence, the simulated discharges of flow pro2.1 software compared with designed discharges and velocities and there is no much variation in flow. The maximum variation is occurred only 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

The computed values at head, middle and tail section s of the main canal were 3.05 m/s, 0.85 m/s and 0.719 m/s and as per the design 3.048 m/s, 0.85 m/s and 0.814 m/s respectively. Similarly, Addanki and Darsi branch canals were also computed using Flowpro2.1 software.  Hence, flow pro2.1 software simulated discharges compared with designed discharges and velocities and there is no much variation in flow.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledged the Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur for financial and technical support for successful completion research.

REFERENCES

Anonymous. (1999). Study of waterlogging in five canal commands. Nagarjuna sagar right bank canal command area (Andhra Pradesh). (6), 1-93.
Anonymous. (2016). Performance Overview & Management Improvement Organization Central Water Commission Government of India. Report on Summary Report on Water use Efficiency Studies for 35 Irrigation Projects. 45-48.
Charles, M., Burt. K. E, Feist, P. E., & Piao, Xi. (2018). Accelerated Irrigation Canal Flow Change Routing. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 144(6), 1-9.
Clemmens, A. J., Holly, F. M., & Schuurmans, W. (1993). Description and evaluation of program: duflow. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 119(4), 724-734.
Donald, M. S., Ibrahim, N. M., John, D. B., Sarva, P., Chinaporn, M., Amanda, M., James, N. E., Raghavan, S., & Lakshmi, V. (2019). Web-based decision support system tools: The Soil and Water Assessment Tool Online visualization and analyses (SWATO nline) and NASA earth observation data downloading and reformatting tool (NASA access). Environmental Modelling and Software. 104-499.
Irene, P., Alessandro, P., Raffaele, G., & Alexis, T. (2018). A system dynamics model for supporting decision-makers in irrigation water management. Journal of Environmental Management. 223, 815-824.
Marta, L., Pierre-Olivier, M., Adriano, B., Vittorio, D., & Federico & Attilio, T. (2018). A Multi-disciplinary Modelling Approach for Discharge Reconstruction in Irrigation Canals: The Canale Emiliano Romagnolo (Northern Italy) Case Study. Journal of Water. 10, 1-27.
Max, B., Eduardo, H., & Karin, B. (2007). Decision support system for sustainable irrigation in Latin America. Changes in Water Resources Systems: Methodologies to Maintain Water Security and Ensure Integrated Management (Proceedings of Symposium HS3006 at IUGG2007, Perugia, July 2007. IAHS Publ. 315, 18-24.
Rao, B. K., & Rajput, T. B. S. (2009). Decision support system for efficient water management in canal command areas. Current Science. 97(1), 90-98.
Zhenchun, H., Sichun, C., Zehua, L., Zhongbo, Y., Quanxi, S., Fei, Y., & Fangxin, S. (2015). Quantitative assessment of the impacts of irrigation on surface water fluxes in the Tarim River, China. Hydrology Research. 996-1007.