Received: 8 August 2019 Revised: 15 April 2020
DOI: 10.1002/ird.2474
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Analysis of seepage loss from concrete lined irrigation
canals in Punjab, Pakistan†
Zulqarnain Shah
National University of Sciences and
Technology - NUST Institute of Civil
engineering, Islamabad, Pakistan
Correspondence
Mr. Zulqarnain Shah. National University
of Sciences and Technology - NUST
Institute of Civil engineering, sector H 12.
Islamabad 44000, Pakistan.
Email: zulqarnain@nice.nust.edu.pk
Irrig. and Drain.. 2020;1–14.
Accepted: 16 April 2020
| Hamza Gabriel | Sajjad Haider | Turab Jafri
ABSTRACT/RÉSUMÉ (ABSTRACT for English and RÉSUMÉ for French)
A significant amount of water is lost in canals due to seepage. This could be
saved to irrigate barren land. This article presents the measured seepage data
by the inflow-outflow method on seven so-called concrete-lined distributary
canals in Punjab, Pakistan. A special feature of the inflow-outflow method is
the relatively long lengths of the canal reaches (9 to 5 km), which is the longest
one could find in the literature so far. The seepage in canals is also calculated
using five empirical formulae. The results show that the Swamee and the
Punmia formulae performed admirably with mean percent errors of −20%
and + 19% respectively. Moritz formula stood at +53% while Kostiakov scored
+158%. The research also proposed a slight modification in the Swamee for-
mula whereby, instead of the canal width, the surface water width was used in
the calculation of the dimensionless variable F. This led to a beneficial effect of
bringing down the percent mean error from −42% to −20%.
KEYWORDS
empirical formulae for seepage estimation, inflow-outflow method, lined distributary canals,
seepage estimation, seepage loss
RĖSUMĖ
Une quantité importante d'eau est perdue dans les canaux en raison de l'infil-
tration. Cela pourrait être économisé pour irriguer les terres stériles. Cet article
présente les données d'infiltration mesurées par la méthode entrées/sorties sur
sept canaux de distribution dits en béton au Punjab, au Pakistan. Une par-
ticularité de la méthode entrées/sorties est la longueur relativement longue des
tronçons du canal (9 à 5 km), qui est la plus longue que l'on puisse trouver
jusqu'à présent dans la littérature. L'infiltration dans les canaux est également
calculée à l'aide de cinq formules empiriques. Les résultats montrent que les
formules de Swamee et de Punmia se sont admirablement comportées avec
des pourcentages d'erreur moyens de −20% et + 19% respectivement. La
formule de Moritz s'établit à + 53% tandis que Kostiakov marque +158%. La
recherche a également proposé une légère modification de la formule de
Swamee selon laquelle, au lieu de la largeur du canal, la largeur de l'eau de
surface a été utilisée dans le calcul de la variable sans dimension F. Cela a
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ird © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 SHAH ET AL.
conduit à un effet bénéfique de la réduction du pourcentage d'erreur moyenne
de - 42% à −20%.
MOTS CLÉS
perte par infiltration, canaux de distribution bordés, estimation de l'infiltration, méthode
entrées/sorties, formules empiriques pour l'estimation des infiltrations
1 | INTRODUCTION
Pakistan is an agriculture-based country with a vast net-
work of irrigation canals, inter-basin transfer canals, bar-
rages, and two large dams. Agriculture is the backbone of
the economy. Being mostly, an arid and semi-arid land,
the need for irrigating the crops through man-made
structures has been largely felt. The British colonialists in
the 19th and early 20th century invested heavily in setting
up the irrigation network, chiefly, in the upper and lower
Indus river basin encompassing the present-day, Pakistan
provinces of Punjab and Sindh. Each year, on average,
about 130 BCM (109 m3) of river water is diverted into
the irrigation canals at its head from the barrages
(Latif, 2007). A large part of this water is lost during its
travel through the canal system, mainly, due to seepage
which also given rise to the twin menace of salinity and
waterlogging (Soothar et al., 2015). Seepage losses in
Pakistan have been estimated to be about 45.5 and 66%,
for the lined and unlined watercourses respectively
(Arshad et al., 2009; William Young et al., 2019).
Due to a rise in the groundwater table and saliniza-
tion more than one-third of the world's irrigated land has
been affected. In India, alone, 5.5 Mha (million hectares)
of land is waterlogged which is affected by salinization
problems (Singh, 2019). Waterlogging and salinity
affected 4.5 Mha of irrigated land and reduced agricul-
tural production by 25% in Pakistan. What is more
alarming, is the fact that, across the Indus Basin, approxi-
mately, one-third of seepage from canals goes into
recharging the saline aquifers, in other words, perma-
nently lost unless huge money is spent to reclaim it. Last
but not the least canal seepage is objectionable, as even
in areas having sweet water aquifer pumping adds an
extra cost (William Young et al., 2019).
The negative effects from canal seepage have been
variously described as: freshwater depletion, contamina-
tion of groundwater, causing waterlogging and salinity,
rise in groundwater table leading to waste of useful land,
reduction in irrigation efficiency and increase in opera-
tional cost (Swamee et al., 2000; Cakmak et al., 2004).
Canal seepage primarily depends upon the soil per-
meability, water depth in the canal, length of wetted
perimeter, channel geometry, location of groundwater
table, velocity of the flowing water, shear stress (force of
moving water on bed), slope between surface of water in
canal and beneath groundwater surface of an aquifer,
constrains on groundwater flow e.g. drains, rivers and
streams (International Commission on Irrigation and
Drainage (ICID), 1968; Swamee et al., 2000; Alam &
Bhutta, 2004; Martin & Gates, 2014). Less significant are
viscosity of canal water, canal water salinity, sediment
load and distribution of size, canal age and plants
(Swamee et al., 2000; Alam & Bhutta, 2004).
Permeability is governed by the physical properties of
soil. The soil classification (based on grain size) influ-
ences the pore size and the percentage of pore space and
the following forces that act upon the water molecules
namely adhesion, cohesion and gravity (Kraatz, 1977;
Eisenhauer & Hoffman, 2008). The larger the voids
between soil particles, the greater the amount of water
will be lost to gravity (Eisenhauer & Hoffman, 2008). A
mixture of clay and gravel act as an impervious layer
while Coarser textured soils (e.g. sand) will have higher
infiltration and permeability rates (Kraatz, 1977). How-
ever, soil types of canals are never completely uniform
and will change with distance so will permeability rates
(Leigh, 2014).
The depth of water in a canal can be regarded as a
measure of energy placed on the canal's wetted perimeter
(Eisenhauer & Hoffman, 2008). Pressure and gravity are
the driving forces that move water. If these forces are
greater than the adhesion and cohesion forces in the soil
profile, then the water will move to the lowest energy
level. Therefore, as the water depth increases in the
canal, seepage losses and infiltration rates will increase
(ICID, 1968).
Seepage losses increase as the difference between the
water level in the canal and groundwater table increases
and losses reach the upper limit when difference is
5 times or greater than the surface width of the canal.
The losses from channel sides are greater than that from
the bed for a shallow groundwater table while in the case
of deep groundwater table, those from the bed predomi-
nate over that from the sides (Kraatz, 1977).
The cost incurred on the lining is economically justi-
fied if it is equal to about 5% of the value of the conveyed
water (Kraatz, 1977). The canal lining should only be
SHAH ET AL.
introduced in areas where conveyance efficiency is low.
The soils, commonly found, in the plains of Punjab, are
sandy loam and clay loam, having conveyance efficiency
of 67.3 and 95.8% respectively, thus, making lining a
costly venture for the country (Sepaskhah &
Salemi, 2004).
Seepage can be reduced up to 30 to 40% with lining
but seepage cannot be controlled completely (Wachyan &
Rushton, 1987; Swamee et al., 2000; Sepaskhah &
Salemi, 2004). The presence of cracks in the lining greatly
reduces its effectiveness (Plusquellec, 2019). Seepage can
be reduced by reducing the wetted perimeter and increas-
ing flow velocity (Soothar et al., 2015). Optimization
models based on a genetic algorithm reduces water trans-
portation losses in canals. This is carried out by providing
a reasonable arrangement of canal water allocation times
and discharges (Yao et al., 2019).
For all types of soil, in situ compaction with a vibra-
tory roller reduced seepage. The reduction in seepage was
significant from 86 to 90% when both the sides and bot-
tom of canals were compacted (Burt et al., 2009).
The complicating factors in the canal seepage mea-
surement are the non-uniform soil properties, water qual-
ity, sedimentation, fluctuation of the groundwater table,
the water level in a canal and periodic filling and drying
up of canal (Akkuzu, 2011).
Seepage is measured in the field, through the Inflow-
Outflow, Ponding, Point measurement, and Permeameter
measurement method. Also, Double ring infiltration test,
ADCP (Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler) and Electrical
resistivity tests are also carried out for seepage estimation
(Zhang et al., 2016).
The Inflow-Outflow is advantageous as it can be car-
ried out during the normal canal operation. However,
this method requires the prior establishment of a steady
flow condition which is not easy for long reaches. Addi-
tionally, it also requires a long test reaches for accurate
measurement which means smaller areas of high and low
seepage can be missed. A further pitfall is that seepage
quantity is very small compared to the magnitude of
inflow and outflow, hence, a small error in flow measure-
ment translates into a large error in seepage
(Warnick, 1951; Alam & Bhutta, 2004).
2 | PREVIOUS R ESEARCH I N
CANAL SEEPAGE ESTIMATION
Bakry & Awad (1997) developed four equations to esti-
mate the seepage in earthen canals using the Inflow-
Outflow method. The equations are only valid for earthen
canals having discharge ranging from 2 m3s−1 to
20 m3s−1.
3
Skoperboe et al. (1999) measured flow losses in sev-
eral irrigation canals in southern Pakistan, using the
Inflow–Outflow and Ponding method in the pre and post
lining phases. They concluded that the ponding test is
suitable when the conveyance losses are very small. Fur-
ther, the Inflow-Outflow method gives more accurate
results than the Ponding method, provided the discharge
can be accurately measured.
Alam & Bhutta (2004) concluded that the ponding
test produced more accurate results than the inflow–
outflow method test but it was unfeasible during normal
canal operation.
Salemi & Sepaskhah (2006) reported that the empiri-
cal formulae under-estimated the seepage losses com-
pared to the Inflow-Outflow method. The results
suggested that Ingham and Moritz's equations were the
most suitable for the measurement of seepage losses in
different types of soils.
Akkuzu et al. (2007) estimated the seepage losses in
canals using the Inflow –outflow method and observed
that the seepage rate depended on the canal shape.
Arshad et al. (2009) measured the conveyance losses
in canals through the Inflow-Outflow method. According
to them, the conveyance losses for the lined and unlined
watercourses stood at 45.5 and 66% of the inflow, respec-
tively. The water courses were poorly maintained with a
lot of silt.
Akkuzu (2011) used the Moritz and Davis-Wilson
equations for estimating the seepage rate in concrete-
lined canals and compared the results with the Inflow-
Outflow method. The two equations underestimated the
seepage rate hence these were not appropriate for esti-
mating the seepage rate for canals lined with concrete in
which suitable repair and maintenance could not be
performed.
Pognant et al. (2013) used the Electromagnetic Induc-
tion (EM) based system to verify the occurrence of seep-
age in canals. Results indicated that EM was successful in
detecting the seepage losses.
Sultan et al. (2014) compared the seepage losses,
before and after the introduction of lining in tertiary
canals in Pakistan. His results showed that the lining of
tertiary canals helped increase the conveyance efficiency
by 22.5%.
Zhang et al. (2016) used different techniques to esti-
mate the seepage losses, i.e., measurement in the field,
empirical formulae and numerical simulations. The seep-
age losses calculated by the field methods and empirical
formulae tallied to a large extent. However, the results of
the Kostiakov formula differed, significantly, from the
field methods.
Luo et al. (2016) estimated time-dependent canal
seepage using stage-seepage relationship. The results
4 SHAH ET AL.
showed that the estimated average seepage rates were
consistent with the results from ADCP (Acoustic Doppler
Current Profiler) tests.
Andrade et al. (2017) used tracer as a tool to
investigate canal seepage. It helps identify the maximum
seepage zones and probable seepage path, qualitatively
and quantitatively, without effecting the canal operation.
Tracer technique is a definite, reliable and
economical tool.
This article presents the measured seepage data by
the inflow-outflow method on seven so-called concrete-
lined distributary canals in Punjab, Pakistan. A
novelty of the research is the long lengths of the canal
reaches (9 to 5 km) for the inflow-outflow method
which is the longest one could find in the literature so
far. The seepage in canals is also calculated using five
empirical formulas, i.e. Swamee, Moritz, Davis-Wilson,
Punmia, and Kostiakov.
The utility of the present research is of immense
importance at the planning and design stage. If the plan-
ners know beforehand the formulae, most effective in
estimating seepage from the canal(s) in a certain
geopgraphical region, then this is a great help in design-
ing efficient irrigation system.
2.1 | Hierarchy of canals in the irrigation
system of Punjab, Pakistan
The schematic diagram of the hierarchy of canals is given
in Figure 1.
F I G U R E 1 Hierarchy of
canals in the Punjab irrigation
network
SHAH ET AL.
3 | MATERIAL A ND METHOD
3.1 | Study area
The study area comprised of distributary canals in two
different geographical areas of the Punjab province,
Pakistan. The latter is the most populous province of
Pakistan with a population of 110 million according to
the 2017 census. The first area included six distributaries
situated in the command of the Lower Chenab Canal
(LCC), Faisalabad zone in central Punjab. The name of
the distributaries are, Nasrana 1, Nasrana 2, Lagar1,
Lagar2, Khikhi, and Sehti Wala. The second group com-
prised of one minor, known as, Arain minor-I, situated in
the command of the river Sutlej in the Bahawalnagar cir-
cle of the Bahawalpur zone in southeastern Punjab. All
distributaries have a trapezoidal cross-section and were
concrete-lined during 2014–2015. The study area is
shown in Figures 2 to 4.
Usual crops harvested in the Faisalabad irrigation
zone are cotton, rice, sugarcane, wheat, variety of fruit
and vegetables. Major crops of Bahawalnagar are sugar-
cane, cotton, wheat, rice, tobacco, mustard seed, variety
of fruits and vegetables.
3.2 | Methods
The Punjab Irrigation research Institute used the inflow-
outflow method for seepage measurement. The flow rate
FIGURE 2 Study area
5
was measured using the Price current meter
(Buchanan & Somers, 2016). The flow rate was measured
at the inflow and all outflow sections by the velocity-area
method. The canal width was measured using cable
while depth was measured by wading rod. Length of
reach was measured using a measuring chain.
The inflow into the test canal reach selected for the
seepage measurement was kept constant, at least,
24 hours before the start of the experiment. Then, the
start and end of the reach were marked. A reference
point was established to measure the depth at the start
and end of the reach. The cross-section of the canal was
divided into 8 to 10 subsections. The flow depth and
width in each subsection was measured by wading rod
and cable. The mean depth was taken as an average of
the depths of two consecutive subsections.
The calibration of the current meter was performed
before using it for velocity measurement. One point
method (V0.6d) for velocity measurement was used for
depth less than 0.6 m and two-point method (vertical
average of velocity at V0.2d and V0.8d) was used for depths
between 0.6 and 2 m.
3.3 | Measurement of wetted perimeter
The depth and width of the canal were measured at 4 dif-
ferent locations of a reach from which an average depth
and width were calculated. The wetted perimeter was
measured using average depth and width.
6 SHAH ET AL.

FIGURE 3 Faisalabad irrigation zone

3.4 | Soil classification

Standard penetration tests were conducted at 7 different

locations to obtain undisturbed samples at a depth of 1.5
to 2 m below the canal bank. The following tests were
performed: Sieve analysis, Hydrometer analysis, Liquid
limit and plastic limit. The soil was then classified
according to the Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM D2487–11). The results show the soil type of area
can be categorized as a silt loam. The silt loam is a soil
having 50% or more silt (0.005 to 0.075 mm) content and
12 to 27% clay (0.001 to 0.005 mm), or 50 to 80% silt and
less than 12% clay.

3.5 | Seepage estimation using an

empirical formulae

In the Inflow-outflow seepage measurement method, the

FIGURE 4 Bahawalpur irrigation zone seepage in the reach is obtained by a water budget
 SHAH ET AL.

TABLE I Distributary and minor channels details included in inflow-outflow seepage measurement campaign

Average Mean
depth velocity
Location Test Q1 start Q2 end Average Bed width of flow at start
Total of test reach of of Qnet wetted at start of Water surface at start of reach Mean
Name of length reach length reach reach (m3/ Qoff-takes perimeter reach b width at start of reach Vmean bed
distributary (m) (RD, m) (m) (m3/s) (m3/s) s) (m3/s) Pwetted (m) (m) of reach B (m) (m) (m/s) slope
Lagar 1 18971 0 + 336 7010 1.11 0.849 0.26 0.248 4.38 1.60 3.66 1.000 0.522 21 × 10–5
7 + 346
Lagar 2 18971 8 + 919 9098 0.51 0.209 0.304 0.290 2.94 1.55 2.90 0.716 0.371 21 × 10−5
18 + 017
Khikhi 40133 29 + 876 7105 1.19 0.145 1.04 1.03 2.91 2.26 3.91 0.774 0.613 41 × 10−5
36 + 981
Nasrana 1 54649 39 + 372 5048 1.27 0.979 0.287 0.278 3.77 1.42 3.41 0.951 0.690 26 × 10−5
44 + 420
Nasrana 2 54649 47 + 610 5303 0.51 0.266 0.248 0.239 2.57 0.97 2.67 0.796 0.459 26 × 10−5
52 + 913
Sehti Wala 7346 0 + 108 6059 0.44 0.173 0.266 0.256 2.49 0.84 2.36 0.753 0.442 29 × 10−5
minor 6 + 167
Arain 67500 6 + 678 8717 1.13 0.369 0.759 0.741 3.41 1.45 3.35 0.930 0.630 28 × 10−5
Minor-1 15 + 395
7
8 SHAH ET AL.

equation in which all the inputs are known except seep- F: function of canal geometry (dimensionless) (Swamee
age (Alam & Bhutta, 2004). et al., 2000)

S = Q1 −Q2 −Q f − F −U −E ð1Þ h 0:77 + 0:462m i1:31 ++0:6m

0:6m
1 + 0:6m
F= ðπð4 −πÞÞ1:3 + ð2mÞ1:3 1:3 + 0:6m
+ ðb=yÞ1:3 + 0:6m
Each term has units (m3/s) where:
S: canal seepage b: width of canal y: depth of flow m: side slope (1 in this
Q1: inflow at upstream end of reach study)
Q2: Outflow at downstream end of reach
Qf: Flow diverted into off-taking canals For normal cast in place concrete lining, we used a
F: losses in off-taking canals (0 in this study)
permeability value as: k = 1×10−7 m s−1 (Zhang
E: evaporation losses, less rainfall
et al., 2016) while for cracked concrete lining, k = 1×10−6
U: water losses through unmeasured orifices (Ignored in
m s−1 has been used (Swamee et al., 2000).
this study)

Evaporation losses were estimated as 0.5% of the Kostiakov formula (Zhang et al., 2016)
inflow discharge (Mistry et al., 2016).
a 1−b
Q= × Qnetflow ð5Þ
100
3.6 | Empirical formulae
where:
Seepage was estimated for the seven selected canals using Q: seepage quantity (m3 s−1)
5 different empirical formulae which are Moritz equation, Qnetflow: net flow through the canal (m3 s−1) a: permeabil-
Swamee equation, Punmia equation, Kostiakov formula ity coefficient of the soil in canal bed (coefficient of pro-
and Davis-Wilson equation for concrete-lined canals. portionality between flow rate of fluid and hydraulic
head, it is function of void ratio and degree of saturation
Moritz equation (Kraatz, 1977) (Cai et al., 2014))
b: permeability index of the soil in canal bed (defines the
rffiffiffiffi
Q grain size of soil (Hartley, 1992))
S = 0:2 × C × ð2Þ
V The Kostiakov formula is used for seepage estima-
tion both for lined and unlined canals (Zhang
where: et al., 2016). As the soil of the study area is silt loam
S: seepage losses (cusecs per mile length of canal) or light clay loam at a depth of 1.5 to 2 m from the
Q: discharge (m3/s) banks, the values of permeability coefficient a and per-
V: velocity (m/s) C: constant value depending on soil meability index b used in Equ. 5, are 2.65 and 0.45
types(m./s) respectively.
C: equal to 0.1 for concrete lined canal (Akkuzu, 2011) The selection of a and b is very important for seepage
estimation as soil conditions are subject to variation and
Punmia formula (Punmia, 2009) the choice of a representative set of values over the
domain of interest goes a long way in getting good esti-
K = 0:349 × Q0:68 ð3Þ mates of seepage.
Davis and Wilson equation (Akkuzu, 2011)
where:
K: seepage losses (m3/s per million square meters) Pw × L 1
S = 0:45 × C × × H 3w ð6Þ
Q: discharge (m3/s) (at start of the reach) 4 × 10 + 3650 × √V
6

Swamee equation (Uchdadiya & Patel, 2014) where:

S: seepage losses (m3 per length of canal per day) L:
qs = KyF ð4Þ length of canal (m)
Pw: wetted perimeter (m)
where: Hw: water depth in the canal (m)
qs: seepage discharge per unit length of canal (m2/s) V: velocity of flow in the canal (m s−1)
K: hydraulic conductivity of the porous medium (m/s) y: C: constant value depending upon lining (for concrete-
depth of water in the canal (m) lined canals, C is equal to 1 (Akkuzu, 2011))
SHAH ET AL. 9

4 | R E S UL T S A ND D I S CUS S I O N

computed/
measured
Table II and Figure 5 shows the comparison of measured

+1.58
1.96
1.20
4.48
5.00
1.91
1.64

1.84
2.58
1.51
and estimated seepage using empirical formulae both in

qr
tabular and graphical form. Figure 6 shows a pictorial
view of the canals included in the present study.

×10−6 m3/m2s
Kostiakov
5 | DISCUSSION

0.411
0.514
1.312
0.701
0.903
0.848

0.767
5.1 | Measured seepage

computed/
measured
Figure 7 shows the seepage loss rate for the 7 selected
canals. The loss rate varies from 1.4 × 10−7 m3/m2s s to

+0.53
1.83
1.08
1.89
2.96
1.00
0.89

1.09
1.53
0.75
5.1 × 10−7 m3/m2s with an average of 3.5 × 10−7 m3/

qr
m2s. The variation in seepage loss emanates from the

×10−6 m3/m2s
condition of the canal lining with cracks or spaces
between blocks promoting seepage.

Moritz
It can be seen that 4 of the 7 canals are exceeding the

0.384
0.461
0.553
0.415
0.476
0.462

0.454
suggested value by a good margin. It is an indirect obser-
vation about the less than optimal state of maintenance

computed/
of the canals. The photos of the canals show grass grow-

measured
ing at various locations in the lining which is an indica-

+0.19
tion of seepage through the root zone of the vegetation.
1.78
0.52
1.34
2.93
0.47
0.39

0.91
1.19
0.92
qr

The physical conditions of the canals as depicted in the

photos seem to confirm the findings e.g. Nasrana 1 shows
Comparison of measured seepage and estimated seepage using empirical formulae

×10−6 m3/m2s

no grass overgrowth and it is the best among the lot

while Sethi wala is the one most leaky showing an abun-
Punmia

dance of overgrowth (Figures 6 and 7). Further, the losses

0.374
0.222
0.393
0.410
0.222
0.200

0.379
in poorly maintained canals can increase dramatically
high, i.e. 45.5% of the inflow discharge (Arshad
computed/

et al., 2009).
measured

The issue of seepage from a well-maintained

−0.42
concrete-lined canal has been debated in the literature.
0.68
0.40
0.72
1.11
0.38
0.33

0.41
0.58
0.28
qr

Kraatz (1977) stated that a well-maintained concrete-

lined canal should have a seepage loss less than
3 × 10−7 m3/m2s while another more stringent figure is
×10−6 m3/m2s

1 × 10−8 m3/m2s (Land et al., 2002). It seems that the

Swamme

suggested upper limit of 3 × 10−7 m3/m2s is a more realis-

0.144
0.170
0.210
0.156
0.180
0.172

0.171

tic value in terms of conditions of maintenance prevailing

in developing countries.
The test reaches for all the canals favor no special
location. They are located in the upstream reaches
×10−6 m3/m2s

(Lagar1 and Arain-Minor 1); near tail (Khikhi and

Measured

Nasrana2); second half (Lagar 2); Sethiwala minor is

almost as long as the entire length of the distributary
0.210
0.427
0.293
0.140
0.472
0.517

0.416

canal. In Pakistan, tail end of the small canals convey-

ing water to the farmland is often complaining of
water shortage, thus, it is a good practice to select
Arain Minor-1
distributary
TABLE II

Mean error

canal test reaches in different parts of a canal to

Sehti Wala
Nasrana 1
Nasrana 2

St. dev. qr

Name of

(qr −1Þ
minor

Mean qr
Lagar 1
Lagar 2

remove bias.
Khikhi

The depth to the groundwater table in the neigh-

borhood of the distributaries is, roughly, about 20 m
10 SHAH ET AL.

TABLE III Results of seepage computation with a modified calculation procedure for F in the Swamee equation

qr qr
Name of Measured Swamee standard computed/ Swamee modified computed/
distributary ×10−6 m3/m2 s ×10−6 m3/m2 s measured ×10−6 m3/m2 s measured
Lagar 1 0.210 0.144 0.68 0.200 0.95
Lagar 2 0.427 0.170 0.40 0.224 0.52
Khikhi 0.293 0.210 0.72 0.275 0.94
Nasrana 1 0.140 0.156 1.11 0.218 1.56
Nasrana 2 0.472 0.180 0.38 0.260 0.55
Sehti Wala minor 0.517 0.172 0.33 0.246 0.48
Arain Minor-1 0.416 0.171 0.41 0.237 0.57
Mean qr 0.58 0.80
St. dev. qr 0.28 0.39
Mean error −0.42 −0.20
(qr −1Þ

F I G U R E 5 Comparison of
measured seepage and estimated
seepage using empirical formulae

while the maximum surface water width of the canals
is 3.91 m. This means that the groundwater table lies
at a depth greater than 5 times the width of the
canals, thus, the canals are operating under conditions
of maximum seepage rate (Kraatz, 1977). Further, it
was reported that in Punjab, when the depth to the
groundwater table below the canal bed exceeds 3 ft,
the seepage rate is no longer influenced by the
groundwater table (Dhillon, 1968).
This method is more sensitive to the errors in
discharge measurement than other methods as in the
case of short canal reaches, the uncertainty in flow
measurement may be of the same order as the volume
lost to seepage (Alam & Bhutta, 2004). Therefore, in
order to overcome such errors, long reach lengths
are recommended. A strong point of the present
field experimental study has been the long canal
reaches with the shortest reach of about 5 km and the
longest of 9 km (Table I). This is more than two times the
reach length of 2245 m used by (Akkuzu, 2011).
5.2 | Seepage rate calculated using various
empirical formulae
For comparison with the equation, the measured dis-
charge was normalized with the length of the test reach
and wetted parameter, giving seepage in units of m3/s.m2
or simply, m/s.
5.3 | Swamee equation
The Swamee equation was derived as a design guideline
for efficient minimum loss canal (Swamee et al., 2000).
However, it has also been used to calculate seepage. The
SHAH ET AL.
FIGURE 6 Pictorial view of distributaries under study
FIGURE 7 A comparison of the measured seepage loss, Δqs
for the 7 distributary canals with line signifying the upper limit of
seepage loss rate for a well-maintained canal (Kraatz, 1977)
seepage is calculated as a product of geometric variable
F, depth of flow and the permeability of the concrete lin-
ing. The variable F has a closed-form solution proposed
by Swamee et al. (2000). Its value does not vary much
(Equation 4). The key variable, surely, is k, the perme-
ability of the concrete. The literature provides two values
for k, with that of 1 × 10−7 m/s for in-situ placed concrete
11
is most relevant as it corresponds to the mode of con-
struction for the canals in question (Zhang et al., 2016).
In Figure 8, the results show that the Swamee eq under-
estimates for all the canals except for Nasrana1. How-
ever, for Lagar1 and Khikhi, the error does not surpass
50%. It may be recalled that these three canals showed
smaller measured seepage losses and fulfilled the crite-
rion for a well-maintained canal lining. At the same time,
the other four canals (Lagar2, Nasrana2, Sethiwala, and
Arain) showed increased losses. It is reasonable to
assume that, the main uncertain parameter is k, the per-
meability of the concrete, increased by the presence of
cracks. In a cracked state, the k for concrete can increase
manifold, by as much as an order of magnitude,
i.e. 1 × 10−6 m/s (Swamee et al., 2000). Figure 8 shows
that with k = 1 × 10−6 m/s, the pendulum swings the
other way, and the Swamee eq, over predicts the seepage.
This shows that the selection of a representative value for
concrete lining permeability can provide reasonably
accurate results for the seepage through the Swamee
empirical formula.
In a majority of the canals, the Swamee equation has
underestimated the seepage (Table II). Barring Nasrana1
distributary, which has a very small measured seepage
loss at 0.14 × 10−6 m3/s.m2, Swamee equation has under-
estimated the seepage in all the other canals. The mean
12
FIGURE 8 Seepage calculations for cracked and uncracked
values of concrete lining
error stands at −0.42 with a standard deviation of 0.28
which is the least among all other empirical formulae.
To improve the results of the Swamee equation, with
a large majority showing underestimation, a change was
proposed in the calculation of the parameter F in Equa-
tion 4 and in the ratio b/y, for canal bed width b, the
water surface top width was used. This led to about 38%
increase in the mean value of parameter F. Further, the
mean error reduced to −0.20 which amounts to about
52% reduction in mean error.
5.4 | Punmia equation
Surprisingly, the performance of the Punmia equation is
found to be very good with a mean error of +0.19. How-
ever, the scatter in the results is relatively large at 0.92
which compares unfavorably with 0.28 of Swamee and
0.75 of the Moritz formula. The formula relates seepage
quantity q to discharge carried by the canal in power-law
form as q = cQd. The coefficient c and d reflect the quality
of the database of measured seepage rates. The equation
does not try to mimic any physical process for seepage.
The reason for its success is that it is closer to the local
conditions being developed for very similar Indo-Pak
conditions. The regional seepage loss estimation built
into it makes it a good predictor.
5.5 | Moritz equation
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
This formula relates the seepage to Q=V ; dimension-
ally, it is the same as the Swamee formula which relates
seepage to the depth of flow in the canal. Further, the
SHAH ET AL.
coefficient C value equal to 0.1 was used for the concrete-
lined canals following (Akkuzu, 2011).
The results of the seepage rate loss for the Moritz
equation show that if the Nasran1 canal is considered an
anomaly with an overestimation factor of about 3, the
maximum overestimation has been less than 2 for the
rest. Overall, the mean error is +0.53 with a standard
deviation of 0.75 (Table II).
5.6 | Kostiakov formula
The Kostakov formula (Equation 5) expresses the seepage
in terms of a power-law form, as follows:
q = cQd ð7Þ
where c and d depend on permeability coefficient and
permeability index, respectively and Q denotes the net
volume flow rate for the canal reach. The parameters
c and d are expressed in terms of the soil texture only
and are selected from a table given in (Zhang
et al., 2016). As there are only a few characterizations
for the soil texture, the parameters are described in a
rather, generalized way. This formula does not use any
measure for the permeability of concrete and instead,
uses the soil properties considering a steady seepage
state. No doubt, the foregoing limitations, partly
explain the rather large mean error of +1.58. Zhang
et al. (2016) used the Kostiakov formula on a lined
canal and obtained over-estimated results as large as
10–2.5 times the measured seepage.
The Kostiakov formula has a similar power-law form
as the Punmia equation (Equation 3). However, the
Punmia equation is a function of flow volume rate Q only
where the Kostiakov formula depends on the soil perme-
ability, in addition, to flow volume rate Q. The Kostiakov
formula relatively poor performance may also be due to
the non-attainment of the steady-state seepage conditions
in the field due to long test reaches.
5.7 | Davis-Wilson equation
Davis-Wilson equation results provide insignificantly
small seepage volumes (~10−6) compared to the measured
results and were, thus, not shown. The probable reason
for its poor performance may be related to the fact that
seepage varies as the depth of water raised to the power
1/3 whereas, in Moritz and Swamee, the exponent is
1. Another reason maybe, its unsuitability to the local
conditions. Other researchers have reported similar
SHAH ET AL.
problems with the Davis-Wilson formula (Salemi &
Sepaskhah, 2006; Akkuzu, 2011; Mohsen &
Mohammed, 2016; Momenzadeh, 2017).
6 | C ON C L US I ON S
In this research, the age-old problem of seepage loss
from the free surface distributary canals was explored.
The so-called distributary canals are typical man-made
water courses which serve to convey water from the
main canal to the farms in the agrarian heartland of
Pakistan, the Punjab province. Seepage measurement
data was obtained from the Punjab Irrigation Research
Institute, who carried out the tests using the inflow-
outflow method. The distributaries were in all 7 in
number; 6 of which were from the central Punjab divi-
sion of Faisalabad and 1 from the south-eastern division
of Bahawalpur.
The seepage is measured in the field by the inflow-
outflow method. This method is more sensitive to the
errors in discharge measurement than other methods as
in the case of short canal reaches, the uncertainty in flow
measurement may be of the same order as the volume
lost to seepage (Alam & Bhutta, 2004) rendering the
results unreliable. Therefore, to overcome such errors,
long reach lengths are recommended. A strong point of
the present field experimental study has been the long
canal reaches with the shortest reach of about 5 km and
the longest of 9 km (Table I). To the best of our knowl-
edge, the occurrence of such long reach lengths have not
been reported in the scientific literature.
The field seepage data was used to carry out a com-
parative study of seepage estimation using five empirical
seepage formulae, i.e. Davis-Wilson, Kostiakov, Moritz,
Punmia and Swamee.
The results showed that the Swamee and the
Punmia formulae performed admirably with mean per-
cent errors of −20% and + 19% respectively. Moritz for-
mula stood at +53% while Kostiakov scored +158%.
The Davis-Wilson formula, overwhelmingly under-
estimated the seepage. A proposed a slight modification
was proposed in the Swamee formula whereby, instead
of the canal width, the surface water width was used in
the calculation of the dimensionless variable F. This
has the beneficial effect of bringing down the percent
mean error from −42% to −20%.
The measured seepage data failed to show any trend
for which, surely, more field tests are required. Visual
evidence from the field suggested that canal with intact
and fewer cracks in lining leaked less while the one with
more vegetative growth sprouting out of lining, leaked
more. The reasons for the divergence in the measured
13
and empirical formulae results are chiefly, uncertainty in
the discharge measurement, presence of cracks in con-
crete lining and uncertainty in the values of parameters
appearing in the empirical formulae. The long reach
lengths also had to contend with more diversions which
probably, increased the uncertainty as at such places,
gauge rating curves were used to estimate the outflow.
The field experiment was carried out under uniform sur-
face flow conditions as 24 hours prior to seepage mea-
surement, the canal discharge was kept constant.
However, steady-state seepage conditions require a much
longer time period to establish which was not possible in
field canals delivering water to farmlands. This may have
led to greater error in seepage estimates by the kostiakov
formula.
The real contribution of the research is in helping the
engineer accurately estimate seepage from canal using
empirical formulas. This will help the engineers engaged
in planning, design and operation of canal system to
make informed choice about what are the best formulas
to use in Punjab, Pakistan.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We extend our thanks to Engr. Ghulam Zakir Hassan
Sial, Ghulam Shabir and Adnan Hasan of the Punjab Irri-
gation Research Institute, Lahore for sharing seepage
data for research purposes with the School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, NUST, Islamabad.
RE FER EN CES
Akkuzu, E. (2011) Usefulness of empirical equations in assessing
canal losses through seepage in concrete-lined canal. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 138(5), 455–460.
Akkuzu, E., Ünal, H.B. and Karataş, B.S. (2007) Determination of
water conveyance loss in the Menemen open canal irrigation
network. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 31(1),
11–22.
Alam, M. and Bhutta, M. (2004) Comparative evaluation of canal
seepage investigation techniques. Agricultural Water Manage-
ment, 66(1), 65–76.
Andrade, R., Bhowmick, S. and Pund, A. (2017) Tracer an effective
tool in detecting canal seepage: Case studies from northern
India. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 3(1), 25–31.
Arshad, M., Ahmad, N., Usman, M. and Shabbir, A. (2009) Com-
parison of water losses between unlined and lined watercourse
in Indus Basin of Pakistan. Pak. J. Agri. Sci, 46(4), 2076–0906.
Bakry, M.F. and Awad, A.A.E.-M. (1997) Practical estimation of
seepage losses along earthen canals in Egypt. Water Resources
Management, 11(3), 197–206.
Buchanan, T.J. and Somers, W.P. (2016) Techniques of Water-
Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey.
USA: US Geological Survey, city.
Burt, C.M., Orvis, S. and Alexander, N. (2009) Canal seepage reduc-
tion by soil compaction. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, 136(7), 479–485.
14
Cai, G., Zhou, A. and Sheng, D. (2014) Permeability function for
unsaturated soils with different initial densities. Canadian Geo-
technical Journal, 51(12), 1456–1467.
Cakmak, B., Betribey, M., Yildirim, Y.E. and Kodal, S. (2004)
Benchmarking performance of irrigation schemes: A case study
from Turkey. Irrigation and Drainage, 53(2), 155–163.
Dhillon, G.S. (1968) Estimation of seepage losses from unlined
channels. Indian Journal of Power and River Valley
Development..
Eisenhauer, D. and Hoffman, G. (2008) Irrigation principles and
management. 13–50. In: Biological Sytems Engineering Depart-
ment. Lincoln, Nebraska, USA: University of Nebraska.
Hartley, D. (1992) Interpretation of Kostiakov infiltration parame-
ters for borders. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
118(1), 156–165.
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID).
(1968) Controlling seepage losses from irrigation canals: world-
wide survey, Vol. 1967. New Delhi, India..
Kraatz, D.B. (1977) Irrigation canal lining: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Italy: Rome.
Land and Water Resources Research Development Corporation
(LWRRDC). 2002. Guidelines to good practice for the construc-
tion and refurbishment of earthen irrigation channel banks.
city, country.
Latif, M. (2007) Spatial productivity along a canal irrigation system
in Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage, 56(5), 509–521.
Leigh EW. 2014. Evaluation of method for predicting seepage loss
rates for the hard lined irrigation canals of lower rio grande val-
ley of texas. city, USA
Luo, Y., Bai, K., Traore, S., Gu, H., Sun, Y., Xiong, Y. and Fipps, G.
(2016) Determining seasonal canal seepage using stage–seepage
relationship. Irrigation and Drainage, 65(3), 334–340.
Martin, C.A. and Gates, T.K. (2014) Uncertainty of canal seepage
losses estimated using flowing water balance with acoustic
Doppler devices. Journal of Hydrology, 517, 746–761.
Mistry KV, Khasiya DRB, Patel DJN. 2016. Economic Analysis of
Canal Lining.
Mohsen, M. and Mohammed, O. (2016) Compared between the
measured seepage losses and estimation and evaluated convey-
ance efficiency for part of the hilla main canal and three dis-
tributory canals (HC 4R, HC 5R and HC 6R) of hilla-kifil
irrigation project. Civil and Environmental Research, 8(2).
Momenzadeh SB. 2017. The evaluation of water leakage in the irri-
gation channels of Kazeroon Plain using the input method of
discharge and experimental formulas. city, country.
Plusquellec, H. (2019) Overestimation of benefits of canal irrigation
projects: Decline of performance over time caused by deteriora-
tion of concrete canal linning. Irrigation and Drainage., 68(3),
383–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2341.
Pognant, D., Canone, D., Previati, M. and Ferraris, S. (2013) Using
EM equipment to verify the presence of seepage losses in irriga-
tion canals. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 19, 836–845.
SHAH ET AL.
Punmia. (2009) Irrigation and water power engineering, 16th edition.
India: Laxmi Publications. city.
Salemi, H. and Sepaskhah, A. (2006) Estimation of canal seepage
loss in Rudasht region of Isfahan. JWSS-Isfahan University of
Technology, 10(1), 29–43.
Sepaskhah, A. and Salemi, H. (2004) An empirical model for predic-
tion of conveyance efficiency for small earth canals. Iranian
Journal of Sciences and Technology, 28, 623–628.
Singh, A. (2019) An overview of drainage and salinization problems
of irrigated lands. Irrigation and Drainage..
Skoperboe GU, Aslam M, Mahmoal K, Mahmmd S, Khan AW.
1999. Inflow-Outflow channel losses and canal linning cost
effectiveness in the Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia irrigation and
drainage project. city, country.
Soothar, R., Mirjat, M., Mangrio, M., Chandio, A. and Leghari, N.
(2015) Estimating seepage seepage losses in different size of
earthen watercourses at farm level. Pakistan Journal of Agricul-
ture, Agricultural Engineering and Veterinary Sciences, 31(1),
81–92.
Sultan, T., Latif, A., Shakir, A., Kheder, K. and Rashid, M. (2014)
Comparison of water conveyance losses in unlined and lined
watercourses in developing countries. University of Engineering
and Technology Taxila. Technical Journal, 19(2), 23.
Swamee, P.K., Mishra, G.C. and Chahar, B.R. (2000) Design of min-
imum seepage loss canal sections. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, 126(1), 28–32.
Uchdadiya, K. and Patel, J. (2014) Seepage losses through unlined
and lined canals. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Math. And Mech, 2(2),
88–91.
Wachyan, E. and Rushton, K. (1987) Water losses from irrigation
canals. Journal of Hydrology, 92(3–4), 275–288.
Warnick. (1951) Methods of measuring seepage loss in irrigation
canals. Publisher, City, Country..
Yao, W., Ma, X. and Chen, Y. (2019) Optimization of canal water in
an irrigation network based on a genetic algorithm: A case
study of the North China Plain Canal system. Irrigation and
Drainage..
Young W, Garthwaite III MG, Leb C, Lytton L. 2019. World Bank
report: Pakistan getting more from water. city, country.
Zhang, Q., Chai, J., Xu, Z. and Qin, Y. (2016) Investigation of irriga-
tion canal seepage losses through use of four different methods
in Hetao Irrigation District, China. Journal of Hydrologic Engi-
neering, 22(3), 05016035.
How to cite this article: Shah Z, Gabriel H,
Haider S, Jafri T. Analysis of seepage loss from
concrete lined irrigation canals in Punjab,
Pakistan. Irrig. and Drain. 2020;1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ird.2474