) (

Journal of Water and Soil

Vol. 25, No. 1, Mar-Apr 2011, p. 125-139

25 1 1390125-139 .

CANALMAN

-*1
89/1/23:
89/8/30:

) (CANALMAN
. 5 ) (1385
. 5
0/271 0/881 0/669 0/238 .
.

. 15
11/23 ) 0/92 ( 8/31 ) 0/68 (

.
.
: CANALMAN

.


.

.

1 -2

(Email: almontaz@ut.ac.ir
)* - :

.


.

.


.

126

25 1 - 1390

) .(4


. 1990

HEC- MIKE-11 MODIS
ICSS CANALMAN SIC CANVAR RAS
SOBEK ) .(6

.
) (15
.

. ) (7
SIC

.
.
) (12 SIC .

.

SIC .
ICSS-POM
).(1
) (2

SOBEK
.

. ) (11
MIKE-11
. ) (5
CANALMAN
.
.

. ) (9

.

. ) (3

.
.
) (14 CANALMAN
.

.


.



.


)
( .

.
93 .

.
50

. 157
43 13
) 13 (
.
. 21
) ( 49

. 15
.
10218 .

 ...

127

1 .

) (G0 ) (Gw.

) :(3
) Q s = C ds (h u E l + Z l ) 2g( h u Z l h d
)(3

) (10 .
) (

.

) :(2

Z1 ) (m
) Z1 ( hd
) (m Cds
:

)Q f = C df (hu E l ) 2 g (hu E l 0.61G 0 ) (1

hu ) E1 (m G0
Cdf :

)(2

A 0 2f

C df = 1f
hu E
l

A0

1f 2f
) (m

2s

)(4

A0
= 1s
h E +Z
l
l
d

C ds

1s 2s .

) .(10 5/70
.


) .(4

-1

128

25 1 - 1390

-2
-3

-4

.
.



.
-
.

3) 1385 16
(
) 17 30 (
.
) (ME
) (MAE ) (RMSE
) (EF ) (CRM

).(8


.

.

0/0149 .

.

.
14
17) 1385 30 (
.

5 1385
.
4/2

)
( .

.
.


.



.
:
49 8 8 ) (1
49 2 ) 13 ( 12
6 ) .(2
) 8(
.
15 .

) (MPA
) (MPF ) (MPD
) (MPE ) .(13
.

...

129

)(5

1 T 1 R
if : QD p QR PA = D
P

QR

A
T i =1 R i =1
p

=
if
:
Q
Q
P
1
R
D
A

= MPA

)(6

1 T 1 R
if : QR p Q D PF = R

QD
F
T i =1 R i =1
if : QD p Q R PF = 1

= MPF

)(7

1 R
CVT PA
R i =1

= MPD

)(8

1 T
CV R PA
T i =1

= MPE

.

) (1 .
) (0/998
) (0/18
) (0/072 )
(0/003 ) (0/242


.


.
.

-1


0/245
0/999
0/006
0/067
0/190

0/242
0/998
0/003
0/072
0/180

0/079
0/999
0/0001
0/066
0/140

0/069
0/999
0/0001
0/055
0/130

RMSE
EF
CRM
MAE
ME

130

25 1 - 1390

) (5



.


.
.

.

4 ) 15
( 5 )
23 ( .
108.75

108.69

108.57

)(

108.63

108.51

108.75

108.69

108.63

108.57

108.51

108.45
108.45

)(
108.70

108.67

108.61

108.58

108.70

108.65

108.60

)(

108.64

108.55
108.55

)(

- 5 4
) (

 ...

131

-

)
(
.

) (0/9<MPA<1
) (0/8<MPA<0/89 .
11 ) (>0/25
) (0/0<MPE<0/10
) (0/11<MPE<0/25 .
.

.
W1-48 13

) .( 6
6
48/26 .
76/54 .
) (7
.

0/88
.
0/7
) (
.
) (MPA =0/61
.

.


.


.

) (2
) (13 5

) (0/85<MPF<1
) (0/7<MPF<0/84
) (MPF<0/7 .
12 13

5
1385 .

.
) (2 5
/
.
-2

MPE

MPD

MPA

MPF

0/047
0/264
0/228
0/112
0/184
0/396
0/288
0/283
0/391
0/361
0/210
0/110
0/238

0/073
0/593
0/310
0/115
0/165
0/388
0/268
0/264
0/398
0/352
0/206
0/114
0/271

0/978
0/806
0/868
0/950
0/927
0/820
0/877
0/826
0/818
0/844
0/911
0/944
0/881

0/338
0/748
R2
0/650
R3
0/882
R4
0/840
R5
0/650
R6
0/658
R7
0/760
R8
0/669
R9
0/694
R11
0/570
R12
0/563
R13
0/669

R1

.

.

132

25 1 - 1390

.
240

210

150
120
90
60

) (

180

30
0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

-6 W1-48

1
1

0.4
0.2

0.6

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.8

0.8

0.4
0.2

0.6

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

-7 5

0.8

0.8

 ...

49

.



.

12
.


) ( .


.


.
) (1 ) (7
) (12 .
) (8
7 1 12 .

8 18
) 8( .
24 7 1 12
50 14 32 .
1 R1 ) L3
660 3004 (
W1-2 W1-1 ) W1-3
1685 4410 5700 (
.
.

) W1-2 W1-1 (W1-3 ) R1 (L3
15
) (9 .

133

R1
W1-1 .
W1-3
.
10 14
.
15
L3 W1-2 3 6
.
3110 R24
1157 W1-24
W1-25 1175 W1- W1-26
W1-28 27 W1-29 2260 2240 1410
3105 .

) (10
. R24 2/7



.

) (W1-29
20 ) (
.
) (3
1 7 .

10

)
0/03 ( .
.
)8
(
.
.

15 11/23 ) 0/92 (

134

25 1 - 1390

.
15 8/2
.
15


.
10

) 49(
12 2
) 13 (
12 ) (
.

1
7
12

-8 7 1 12

20
L3

R1

W1-2

W1-1

15

5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
15

14

13

12

11

10

)(

-9
) 1 (

)(

10

W1-3

 ...

135

20

W1-25

W1-24

0
W1-26

-5
W1-27

-10

W1-28

)(

R24

10

15

-15

W1-29

-20
15

14

13

12

11

10

)(

-10 7
) 1 (
-3

)(

MPE

MPD

MPA

MPF

MPE

MPD

MPA

MPF

0/093
0/011
0/028

0/006
0/004
0/006

0/935
0/996
0/981

0/601
0/702
0/692

0/091
0/006
0/030

0/005
0/002
0/005

0/939
0/997
0/985

0/603
0/771
0/721

1/75


.

1 7
) (
15 ) (11 ) (12 .

2
1 .
W1-3 1 W1-28 7

.
)W1-3 1 W1-28 (7
11/5 18/3
.

R1
R7

15 8/31 ) 0/68 (


.

1 7 ) (4 .
) (4

.


) .(7

0/947 0/748
0/013 0/115 .

136

25 1 - 1390

W1-2

L3

15

W1-3

5
0
-5
-10
-15

)(

10

-20

W1-1

R1

20

-25
15

14

13

12

11

10

)(

-11
) 2 (
20

W1-25

W1-24

W1-26

-5

W1-28

-10
-15

W1-27

-20

W1-29

)(

R24

10

15

-25
15

14

13

12

11

10

)(

-12 7
) 2 (
-4


MPE
0/089
0/234
0/115

MPD
0/006
0/026
0/013

MPA
0/950
0/917
0/947

MPF
0/632
0/806
0/748

R1
R7

) (13
.

1 ) 104310(
36063) 14 ( .
5
) 52911( 26170) 14
( .

0/92 0/68 .

 ...

137

120000

80000

60000
40000
20000

) (

100000

0
15

14

13

12

11

10

-13

.
:




.
0/88

.
0/7
) (
.
) (0/61


.

.



.




.
1511/23
) 0/92 (


.
0/68 .

)
(KUI86023 .

1390 - 1 25

138

ICSS-POM .1377. .. . -1
.13-21 . . .
.1385 .. . .. -2
. .
3- Aminul Haque M., Lee T.S., and Bockari-Gevao S.M. 2006. Water distribution and water use
assessment in rice cropping systems. J. Sci. Technol., 28(4): 841-851.
4- Burt C.M, and Styles S. 1998. Modern Water Control and Management Practices in Irrigation: Impact on
Performance. Proceedings of the Fifth International ITIS Network Meeting on Modernization of
Irrigation System Operations, India: 62-79.
5- Ghumman A.R., Khan Z., and Turral H. 2009. Study of feasibility of night-closure of irrigation canals
for water saving. Agriculture Water Management 96: 457-464.
6- Goussard J. 2000. Canal Operation Simulation Models. International Commission on Irrigation and
Drainage Publisher (ICID Pub.), New Delhi.
7- Habib Z., Shahid B., and Butta M. 1992. The utility of a simulation model far Pakistan canal systems.
Cemagref-IIMI international workshop on the application of the mathematical modeling for
improvement of irrigation canal operation, October 26-30, Montpellier, France, pp. 131-150.
8- Jabro J.D., Toth J.D., and Fox R.H. 1998. Evaluation and comparison of five simulation models for
estimating water drainage fluxes under corn. J. Envir. Qual. 27:13761381.
9- Kumar P., Mishra A., Raghuwanshi N.S., and Singh R. 2001. Application of unsteady flow hydrolicmodel to a larg and complex irrigation system. Agricultural Water Management 54: 49-66.
10- Merkly G.P. 1997. Canalman Ahydraulic simulation model for unsteady flow in branching canal
network users manual. Utha State University.
11- Mishra A., Anand A., Sing R., and Ranghuwanshi N.S. 2001. Hydraulic modeling of Kangsabati main
canal for performance assessment. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE 127(1):27-34.
12- Mojarro B., Kosuth P., Argueta J. 1992. Use of the SIC simulation model to improve the management of
an irrigation canal. Cemagref-IIMI international workshop on the application of the mathematical
modeling for improvement of irrigation canal operation, October 26-30, Montpellier, France, 173-188.
13- Molden D.J., and Gates T.K. 1990. Performance measures evaluation of irrigation water delivery system.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE. Vol.116. No. 6.
14- Najim M.M.M., Haque M.A., Lee T.S., and Mohammed T.A. 2004. Water Allocation modeling for in
Besut rice irrigation scheme in Malaysia. Agricultural Engineering Volume 8.
15- Schuurmans W., and Brouwer P. 1992. Identification of control system for a canal with night storage.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE Vol. 124, pp. 238-247.

Journal of Water and Soil

139
...
Vol. 25, No. 1, Mar-Apr 2011, p. 125-139

( )
125-139 . 1390 1 25

Performance Assessment of West Main Canal of Dez in the Different Water

Operational Scenarios Using CANALMAN Model

A.A. Montazar1*- N. Pashazadeh2

Received:12-4-2010
Accepted:21-11-2010

Abstract
The main objective of this paper is to apply the CANALMAN model in the performance assessing of
different water operational scenarios in the west main canal of Dez irrigation network. The proposed model was
calibrated and validated based on the real data of March and April 2006. The real water operational condition
during five months (May to September 2006) was simulated. For this period, the mean value of delivery
efficiency, adequacy, equity, and reliability performance indicators was estimated 0.669, 0.881, 0.271, and
0.238, respectively. Hence, the delivery adequacy and equity had a moderate status and efficiency and reliability
of delivery had a weak status. The results indicated that the night-time closure scenarios may be improved the
water distribution status in the canal. During of a 15 days simulation, water saving for night closure scenario 1
and 2 was estimated 11.23% (0.92 MCM) and 8.31% (0.68 MCM), respectively, of water delivered to the canal
which can be controlled and saved throughout the reaches of the canal. The findings demonstrated the the west
main canal of Dez has good potential to make savings, which can be realized at system level through reduced
demand on supplemental from the dam.
Keywords: Performance assessment, Operation, Water delivery, Dez irrigation network, CANALMAN

1,2- Associate Professor and MSc Student, Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Campus of Abouraihan,
University of Tehran
(*-Corresponding Author Email: almontaz@ut.ac.ir)