Galene Irrigation System Project

Preliminary Design of Gelana Irrigation Project
June 2009
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Irrigation is essential to overcome water deficiencies and ensure stable
agricultural production throughout the year. It is vital in areas where the
amount and timing of rainfall are not adequate to meet the moisture
requirement crops. This is the fact why management of water resource
became very important. Through country has enough source of water for
irrigation and arable lands, only insignificant amount has been utilized.
Major cereal food production in the country is based on rain-fed agricultural
by small-holder farmer. This situation has exposed to rural population to
repeated cycle of famine as the result of annual crop failure due to drought.
To increase the role of irrigated agriculture in the country, the water sector
development program for the period from 2002-2016 gives irrigation a
prominent place by proposing about 274,000 hectares of lands to developed
in the 15-years period of under large, medium and small scale irrigation. One
of the projects in this program is Gelana irrigation project.
1.2 Location of project area

The project area is located in an Abaya-Chamo sub-basin 0f the rift valley
lakes basin found in the southern part of the country with in Oromiya and
SNNPR regional states. The Gelana irrigation project area is located between
50 25'-6O18'N and 37050'-380 20' E at about 450 km south of Addis Ababa
both in SNNPRS (Amaro special District) and Oromia reginal state (Galana
District) to south of lake Abaya
1.3 River
The available flow is the Gelana River which flow of Yirga Chefe (upper valley)
and enter a narrow gorge though which it descends down the stream edge of
the African Rift Valley. Finally, the River traverses through a seasonally
Arba Minch University Department of final
year project
Water Resources &Irrigation Eng’g 1
June 2009
flooded zone known as the Bore swamp and eventually flow to Abaya Lake.
The annual flow in the Gelana River in the valley varies considerable with a
mean flow of 5.6 m3/s(180M m3) with dry season discharge reaching as low as
300 l/s.
1.4 Topography
The Gelana irrigation project is in the middle valley of Gelana River, with
elevation 1300m M.S.L. The proposed irrigation area covers about 11,834
hectares of which 0nly some 6200 hectares area will be irrigated. The balance
area is left out due to unstable soil, uneven topography and dense bush area
along Gelana and Jelo River. The slope analysis is important to classified the
capability of land, land use planning and conservation need. The result of
slope analysis in the major party of the project is a gentle slope.
1.5 Climate of the area

There are six observation stations for recording climate data near the project
area.Those metrological stations are located Amarokello, Arba Minch,
Burji,Fisseha Gent,Ager Mariam andYirga Chefe.There fore ,Arba Minch
station is used as an alternative station located in the same climatic condition
to the project area. This station is adapted for estimation of both the open
water evaporation (EO) and Reference ETO for the project area.
1.6 Objective of the project

The main objectives of the project are:
 To increase the income of beneficiaries that gradually changes their
living standards.
 To utilize exiting resource in better way and reduce wastages material
and human dependency in rainfall
 To improve the socio economic life community by increasing per capital
income.
1.7 Socio and Economic study
1.7.1 General
Farming with traditional cultural practices forms the livelihood of the
community. Around the project area rain fed agriculture is the existing means
of survival for the farmers, which is supported by live stock production.
year project
June 2009
Because of the poor performance of agricultural production system its

consequent results, the farmers are exposed to food shortage and forced to
live below the subsistence level. Irrigation development is the option to
improve the living standard of the area. This ensures food self-sufficiency and
reduces poverty.
1.7.2 Labor supply and Demand

During construction in the project area there is no shortage of labor. For
excavation and other unskilled construction works labor can be easily found
around the site. Farmers can be immediately available labor directly to
involve in the labor contribution and large quantities of material in which
accessibility, uniform and availability for engineering materials constriction.
1.7.3 Project Benefits

The implementation of the project will have social and economic importance
in improving the livelihood of the population .It also increases the
productivity and production, brings changes in social development, improves
income of the beneficiaries and improves socio cultural facilities
1.8 Geology
1.8.1 General
Generally the geological observation around Gelana irrigation project is
covered by volcanic rocks principally basalt dipping to wards east. The rock is
found highly weathered and distributed to a depth 5m in the center valley
and to greater depth on the right and left abutment. Afoul zone was identified
near main flow River.
1.8.2 Soil
The soil of the project area is the result of weathering and decomposition of
volcanic rocks particularly from the basalt. Soil has been recognized in the
vicinity of the project which is alluvial loam silt soil.
Generally the project area has good potential for agricultural have the
following physical.
 Land form; The land form of Gelana Commanded undulating slope
5-8%

year project
June 2009
 Altitude; Altitude of Commons area is from 1300m above sea level

from top dawn of command.
 Slope shape; the command area has almost irregular shape.
 Ground water; the command area has deep ground water.
 Permeability: The command area soils have moderately slow
permeability
 Flooding: There is no flooding problem in entire command area.
 Accumulation water: There is no problem of pounding water in enter of
command area.
 Erosion condition: It is undulating micro topography of slope (5%-8%)
acceleration of erosion at the project is slightly and surrounding is
middle.
 Effective soil depth: The command area has very effective depth of soil
of greater than 150 cm.
 Color: The command area has reddish brown surface color when
moisture.
 Structure: The surfaces oil structure of the command area is medium.
 Consistency: The consistency of soil of command area is slightly hard
when dry, friable when moist and plastic when wet.
 Pores: Pores are common with medium site
 Parent material: The parent material of the area is igneous rock basalt)
1.9 Water quality

The qualities of available water more desirable than soil characteristics in
determine the suitability of lands for irrigation. So quality of Gelana River is
good for irrigation and salinity problem of the water is expected free. This may
concluded that the area selected for irrigation project.
The various types of impurity which the water unfits for irrigation area
classified us;
 Sedimentation concentration in water.
 Total concentration of soluble salt in water.
 Proportion of sodium ions to other cation.
 Concentration of potentially toxic element present in the water.
 Bacteria contamination

year project
June 2009
CHAPTER TWO
2 HYDROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSES

2.1 General
Hydrology, which treats all faces of the earth water, is subject of great
importance for people and there environment. Practical applications of
hydrology are found in such tasks as the design and operation of hydraulic
structures. The role of hydrology is to help analyzing the problems involved in
these tasks and to provide guidance for the planning and management of
water resources.
Different attributes of hydraulic structures are directly dependant on the
peak flood magnitude adopted in the design process and the stream flow
records available at the project site. Hence, stream flow (precipitation) records
are the major data required in planning and operation of hydraulic
structures.
2.2 Checking Available Data

In the design of a project it is vital to collect or to obtain relevant data. For
realistic and accurate design, it is essential that the collected data should be
continuous, consistent, reliable and adequate.
Gauged mean monthly rainfall station &monthly volume of stream data are
available in the Gelana irrigation project. These data are not used to
determine the maximum flood. The maximum probable rain fall is obtained
from rainfall intensity duration frequency analysis &depth storm, so it is
sufficient for analysis. As a result it is necessary to go for the determination of
runoff using complicated relationship between precipitation and runoff.

year project
June 2009
2.2.1 - Adequacy
It refers primarily to length of records, but scarcity of data collecting stations
is often a problem. If the sample is too small, the probabilities derived can
not be expected to be reliable. Generally a minimum of 30 years of data is
considered as essential. Smaller lengths of records are also used when it is
unavoidable. However, frequency analysis should not be adopted if the length
of records is less than 10 years. Therefore, 23-years record of mean rain fall
available for Gelana irrigation project that is enough to determine the
maximum flood.
2.2.2 - Continuity
The continuity of a record may be broken with missing data due to many
reasons such as damage or fault in recording gauges during a period.
Fortunately the given 23-year rain fall record of Gelana irrigation project was
not found with missing data.
2.2.3 Design Discharge Determination

A flood used for the design of a structure on consideration of its safety,
economy, life expectancy and probable damage consideration for important
structure at strategic locates, virtually non-risk can be taken for its failure.
The flood selected for design of such structure should be probably be the
highest For any structure hydrological analysis at least ten year daily peak
discharge should available .The available rainfall should also be recent
collected, but for Gelana irrigation project the available data mean monthly
rainfall& monthly flow, which is not recommended to generate peak flood.
Table 2.1 Mean monthly rainfall value over the study in mm.
Station Durat Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep
ion
Amaro killo 1983- 23.5 32 73.5 203.3 165.4 57.6 48.7 66.4 96.
2005
Arba 1987- 34.1 39.2 50.2 167.9 150.9 65.1 43.0 46.3 70.2
Minch 2005

year project
June 2009
Burji 1956- 30.5 31.2 87.6 180.8 157.5 44.7 39.6 38.1 76.4
2005
f.genet 1983- 33.9 46.8 83.5 196 231.4 97.9 80.2 97.2 141.5
2005
H.mariam 1975- 15.5 26.3 79.3 194.4 225.2 68.8 42.1 37.2 66.2
2005
Y.chefe 1970- 26.2 41.2 10.5 259.1 266.9 115.8 91.5 109.8 186.3
2005
Continues from above table

duration Oct Nov Dec Annual
Amorokello 1983-2005 149.7 73.8 24.2 1014.1
Aba Minch 1987-2005 120.7 62.2 41.3 891.6
Burji 1956-2005 245.0 77.2 27.5 1036.2
f.genet 1983-2005 195.4 76.1 33.3 1313.3
Hagere mariam 1975-2005 128.1 72.8 14.7 970.6
Yirga chefe 1970-2005 236.4 86.5 26.6 1551.8
2.2.4 Rainfall intensity –duration frequency (IDF) analysis

IDF relation ships are use full to determine the depth of storm rainfall of
different return periods & duration. According to regional IDF curve
the total storm rainfall starting from 1-hour duration to 72-hours is shown in
table 2.2 for various return periods occurances.the24-hour total storm rain
fall depth is recommended for the irrigation engineer to generate the design
parameters of discharge at field level.
Table2.2 the rainfall depth for different duration &return period to be used for
Gelana
Intensity(mm/hr)for T return Total rainfall depth(mm) for T return period
Period
Hr T=2 T=5 T=1 T=2 T=5 T=10 T=2 T=5 T=1 T=2 T=5 T=10
s 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0

year project
June 2009
1 32.2 41.9 48.1 53.3 58.2 41.9 32.2 41.9 48.1 53.3 58.2 41.1
3 12 16.6 19.2 21.3 23.5 16.6 37.7 49.7 57.5 63.9 70.4 49.7
6 6.8 8.9 10.3 11.5 12.7 8.9 40.6 53.5 62.1 68.7 75.9 53.5
12 3.6 4.7 5.5 6.1 6.7 4.7 43.3 56.9 66.1 72.8 80.6 56.9
24 1.9 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.5 2.5 46.0 60.1 69.9 76.5 84.7 60.9
48 1.O 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.3 48.8 63.3 73.6 80.1 88.7 63.3
72 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.9 50.4 65.2 75.8 82.2 91.0 65.2
The 50 years return period &24-hour duration is selected for maximum
probable storm depth from table 2.2
The IDF curve generate from Gelana storm rainfall
Design storm=84.7mm
Table 2.3 data for determination design flood

Maximum probable depth P mm 84.7
of storm
Area of catchment A Km2 250
Length of main water L m 80000
course from watershed
divide to proposed
diversion or storage site
Elevation of watershed H1 m 1700
divide opposite to the head
of the main water course
Elevation of stream bed at H2 m 1293.5
proposed or storage
site(top0 map)
Slope of main water course S m/m 0.005
; S=(H1-H2)/L
2.2.5 Estimate of peak flood

1. Rational Method
2. Empirical formula Method
3. Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Technique (Snyder’s method)
4. Flood Frequency Analysis Method
5. USSCS (United States Soil Conservation Service)

year project
June 2009
1. Rational Method
The rational formula is found to be suitable for peak flow prediction in small
catchments up to 50km^2 in area. It finds considerable application in urban
drainage designs and in designs of small Culverts and Bridges. The basic
equation of rational method is given by
Qp=1/360*A*C*I
Where Qp is peak discharge (m3/s)
C -runoff coefficient
Itc, I-The mean intensity of precipitation (mm/Hr) for a duration
equal to tc .
P- Precipitation
A- Drainage area in hectare (ha)
The use of this method to compute Qp requires parameters; Tc, (Itc, p) and
Limitation:
a. Calculation of weighted run off coefficient is by far difficult
as the catchments covered by different land features with
varying area coverage (which is not known for Gelane
project catchments)
b. This method is applicable for small areas up to 50km 2.
c. Estimation of Itc, p requires some other regional constants
based on catchments behavior.
Because of the above limitations (250km 2greaterthan50km2), rational method

is not convenient for the determination of peak flood for Gelana irrigation
project.
2. Empirical formula Method

The empirical used for estimation of flood peak are essentially regional
formula based on statistical correlation of the observed peak and observed
catchments parameters.
Generally, this method is given as a function of catchments area.
QP=f (A)

year project
June 2009
For example Admassu developed an empirical formula through regression

analysis of 42 catchments in Ethiopia with area ranging from 200-9980km^2.
QP=Q (1+kt*Cv) ---------------------------general formula
Q=.87*A^.7---------------------------------Dr.Admassu’s relation
Where A-Catchments area (km2)
Kt-frequency factor
 6 T
Kt = [.57721  ln(ln[ ])]
x T 1
T=return period
Cv=the average Coefficient of variation (=.38 for most cases)
The formula is safely adopted for most Ethiopia basins under the given area
range, however; the basin area under our consideration is not in the domain
and hence we can’t use this method to estimate the peak discharge.
To developed unit hydrographs for catchments, detailed information about
the rain fall is needed. Then the resulting flood hydrograph are obtained.
However, this formula not applicable for our case, because we have the area
& the length catchments
2. Synthetic Unit Hydrographe Technique (SNYDER’S METHOD)
such information would-be available only at few locations and in majority of
catchments the data would normally be scanty .In order to construct unit
hydrograph for such areas, empirical equations of regional validity that relate
the salient hydrograph characteristics to the basin catchments are
available .Unit hydrographs derived from such relation ships are known as
Synthetic Unit Hydrographs.
Snyder’s Method
Snyder (1938) developed a set of empirical equation for synthetic unit
hydrographs in USA. This equation used with some modifications in many
other countries and so called Snyder’s Synthetic Unit Hydrograph.
The first of the Snyder’s equation relates the basin lag tp, defined as the
interval from the mid point of the unit rain fall excess to the peak of unit
hydrograph, to the basin characteristics as ,
Tp=Ct (L*Lca) hr

year project
June 2009
L – Basin length measured along the watercourse from the basin divide to the
gauging station in km.
Lca – distance along the watercourse from the gauging station to appoint
opposite the watershed centered in km.
Ct – regional constant, representing watershed slope &storage.
Better correlation of basin lag tp with catchments parameter, (L*Lca)/ s is
obtained by et al .as
L  Lca n
Tp=Ctl [ ]
s
Where Ctl and n are basin constants & s is basin slope

Snyder as gives standards duration tr hrs of effective rainfall
tp
hrs
Tr= .5
5
The peak discharge Q[m3/s] of a hydrograph of standard duration tr hrs is

given by Snyder as
2.78 * Cp * A
QP= tp where A-Catchments area km2
Cp – a regional constant
If anon standard rain fall duration tr is adopted, instead of the standard
value tr derive a unit hydrograph, the value of the basin lag’s affected .The
tR  tr
modified basin lag is given by: tp’=tp+ 4 where tp – basin lag in hrs
21 tr
for an effective of Tr hr. = tp 
21 4
The peak discharge for a non standard effective rainfall of duration Tr in m 3/s
is
2.78Cp * A
QP= tp

year project
June 2009
When Tr=tr, QP=Qps

Snyder as gives the time base (tb) of unit hydrograph
tp
Tb=3+ days  (72  3tp )
8
Finally, to assist in the sketching of unit hydrographs at 50 percentage &75%
of the peak have been found US catchment’s by the US army corps of
engineers. These widths are given by:
5.18 W 50
W50= q 1.08 & W 75  1.75
Where W5 – width of unit hydrograph in hr at 50% peak discharge

W75-width of unit hydrograph in hr at 75% peak discharge
Q=QP/A, peak discharge per unit catchments area in m3/s/km
Since the coefficients Ct and Cp vary from region to region , in practical
application .It is advisable that the value of these coefficients are determined
from known unit hydrograph of a meteorologically homogeneous catchments
and other used in the basin under study.For our case Snyder’s method is not
applicable because, it works for derivation of unit hydrograph for cachement,
where rain fall & run off data not available.
4. Flood Frequency Analysis Method
When the stream flow peaks are arranged in the descending order of
magnitude, they constitute statically array whose distribution can be
expected in terms of frequency of occurrence. The probability ‘p’ of each event
being equal to or exceeded (plotting position) formula.
m
P=
N 1
Where m=order number of the events and N=Total number of events in the
data. The recurrence interval (T) return interval, is calculated as
1
T= p
In our case there is measured flow data it is possible to determine the

probability of occurrence of daily maximum rainfall (rain fall frequency
analysis).The general equation for flood frequency analysis is:

year project
June 2009
XT=Xav+k*sd-------------------------------------- (Chow 1951)

Where XT=Value of variant(X)of random hydrologic series with return period
(T)
Xav=Mean value of variant
sd=standard deviation of variant
k=frequency factor which depends up on the return period (t) and
assumed frequency distribution.
This also not applicable, because our given data are area, length& slope of the
catchments’.
Table 2.4 Guidelines For selecting Design floods [source R.Baban,page30]
№ Structure Return
period
1 Spillway for projects with storage of more than 1000

60*10m3/sec (a)
2 2 Barrage and minor dams with storage less than 100(a)

60*106 m3/sec
3 Spill way of small reservoirs dams in the country sides ,not 10-20(b)
endangering urban resident

year project
June 2009
4 As above (3) but located so as endanger other structure Or 50-100(b)

urban residences incase of failure
5 Diversion weir 50-100(a)
6 Small bridges on main highways 50-100(b)
a- Subrimanya 1989
b- Nemec 1972
5. USSCS (United States Soil Conservation Service)

This method also known as hydrologic soil cover complex number method
was developed by united state: under department agricultural soil
conservation for determine peak rate of run off from water shades. a run off
curve number(CN)is developed through field studies by measuring run off
from different soil at various lacotion.the antecedence moisture condition
&physical characteristics of the water shade are correlated to give hydrologic
soil groups. Finally this method hydrograph synthesis to be represent in a
simple geometric form as a triangle
The design flood, which is expected ton, occur during period of the diversion
scheme, is therefore determined by USSCS method to this end the storm that
is estimated by IDF is adopted.
Table 2.5 calculation for determination design flood
Step designation/formula Symbol unit value

1 Area of catchment A Km2 250
2 Length of main water L m 80000
course from watershed
divide to proposed
diversion or storage site
3 Elevation of watershed H1 m 1700
divide opposite to the
head of the main water
course
4 Elevation of stream bed H2 m 1293.5
at proposed or storage

year project
June 2009
site (topo map)
5 Slope of main water S m/m .005

course ; S=(H1-H2)/L
6 Time of concentration Tc hr 16.65
1 L
Tc= ( )^.77
3000 S
7 Rain fall excess duration D hr 1
D=Tc/6 ; ifTc<3hrs
D=1hr.if Tc>3hrs
8 Time to peak Tp hr 14.99
Tp=.5D+.6Tc
9 Time base of hydrograph Tb hr 40.02
Tb=2.67Tp
10 Lag time TL=.6Tc TL hr 9.99
11 Peak rate of discharge M3/s.mm 3.502
created by 1mm run off qp
excess of whole of the
catchments
qp=(.21A)/Tp
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
duration Daily Rainfall rain Areal areal incremental Descending
point Ratio fall to rain Order
rainfall as daily Rain fall
for rainfall Fall
return ratio
peroid
of 50
years
Hr mm % mm % mm mm Number
0-1 84.7 45.7 38.7 55 21.8 21.8 (1) 21.28

year project
June 2009
1-2 58.6 49.63 66 32.76 11.48 (2)11.48

2-3 67.1 56.83 71 40.35 7.59 (3)7.59
3-4 71.4 60.48 74 44.76 4,41 (4)5.07
4-5 76.4 64.71 77 49.83 5.07 (6)4.41
5-6 78.6 66.57 78 51.92 2.09 (7)2.07
12 Fill 0-Dhr, D-2Dhr, …5D-6Dhr

13 Determine the magnitude of the daily rain fall with the given recurrence
interval by applying statistical method
13Determine the magnitude of the daily rainfall with the given recurrence
interval by applying statistical method.
14 Read from Annex ----fig---,the rain fall profile
(%) occurring in D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 6Dhrs and put in 14.
15 Multiply col.13 and col.14 to find the rainfall profile (mm) enter in 15.
16 Read from table ----area to point rainfall ratio for different duration in
particular catchments.
17 Multiply col.15 and col.16
18 Calculate incremental rainfall by deducting the current Arial rainfall from
the preceding Arial rainfall as written in 18.
19 Assign order to the rainfall depths in descending order 1-6
20 21 22 23 24 25
Rear Rearranged Cumulative Time of incremental hydrograph
rang incremental rainfall
ed rain fall
orde
r
Time of beginning(hr) Time to Time
peak(hr) to
end(h
r)
6 2.09 2.09 0 14.99 40.02
4 5.07 7.16 1 15.99 41.02
1 21.28 28.44 2 16.99 42.02
2 11.48 39.92 3 17.99 43.02
3 7.59 47.51 4 18.99 44.02
5 4.41 51.92 5 19.99 45.02

year project
June 2009
20 From 19 mention the rearranged order as6,4,3,1,2,5 (arbitrary but

considering ascending and descending feature of hydrograph ordinate
where peak value is middle of the hydrograph).
21 Fill in the corresponding incremental rain fall value to the rearranged
order of 20 from 17.
22 Fill in the cumulative rainfall value of 21 by adding with the rainfall value
in preceding duration.
23 Fill in the time of beginning of the hydrograph 0,D,2D…,5Dhr
24 Fill in the time peak as Tp,D+Tp,2D+Tp,…,5D+Tp or add Tp in every
value of 23 and mention in24.
25 Fill in the time of end as Tb,D+Tb,2D+Tb,…5D+Tb
26 27 28 29 30
Land Area ratio “CN” Weighted”CN” “CN”
use (%) Hydrological soil AMC CN
cover Group “C”
1.Row 52 88 45.76 II 84.0
crop
-poor
2.bush 23 73 16.79
land
-Fair
Grass 25 86 21.5 III 93
land
-Poor
26 Identify all type of land cover such as
cropped area, woodland, fallow land,
pastures, meadow, etc...From
catchments map or areal photo.
27 Find ratios of each type of land use
cover to the total catchments area is
and enter 27.

year project
June 2009
28 As certain hydrological soil groups each

types of land use cover as below.
Group A: low run off potential
Group B: moderate run off potential
Group C: moderate high run off
Group D: high run off potential
Find the corresponding curve
number(CN) From table 2.6 Annexe- B
29 Multiply column.27 and col.28 and
inter in col. 29
30 Add col. 29 the CN is corresponding to
antecedent moisture condition III (AMC-
III). Find CN
for AMC-III from table 2.7 Annex-B
No Description/Formula Symbol Unit Example

31 Find the maximum potential deference b/n S M CN=93
rainfall(P) and direct run off (Q), which is given S=19.12
by the following formula.
25400
 254
S= CN
CN= value of corresponding to AMC -III

32 Substituting the value of “S” in the following formula, giving the relation
b/n direct run off (Q) and rainfall (P).
( P  0.2 S ) 2
Q=
( P  0.8S )
33
Substituting the value of 22 23

P1 as mentioned in col.
20,in the above formula P(mm) Q(mm)
and fined find the 2.09 0.1729
corresponding value of 7.16 0.4956
28.44 14.1128

year project
June 2009
Q(33)enter ;Enter the 39.92 23.5960

value of Q in col. 35. 47.51 30.3869
51.92 34.4148
34 35 36 37 38 39
Duratio Value of Increme Peak Time of Time Time Composit
n Q ntal run runoff beginni to to end e
off for ng peak Col. hydrogra
increme Col.(23) Col. (25) ph
nt (24)
Hr mm mm M3/s Hr Hr Hr
1-0 0.1729 0.1729 0.6055 0 14.99 40.02
1-2 0.4956 0.3227 1.1300 1 15.99 41.02
2-3 14.1128 13.6172 47.6874 2 16.99 42.02
3-4 23.5960 9.4832 33.2102 3 17.99 43.02
4-5 30.3869 6.7909 23.7811 4 18.99 44.02
7
5-6 34.4148 4.0459 14.1687 5 19.99 45.02
34 Enter the same time as in col.12, 0-D,D-2D,2D-3D,…,5D-6D.

35 There are the value of Qas found out in col.33 corresponding to the
value of P
36 F incremental runoff by reducing the value of col;35 by preceding value.
37 Multiply col. 36 and peak rate of run off corresponding to 1mm run off
excess as found incol.11
38 Plot triangular hydrograph with time of beginning, peak time and time
to end as mentioned in 23,24,25 and peak run off as mentioned in
col.37
39 Plot composite hydrograph by adding all the triangular hydrographs
.The resultant hydrograph will be composite hydrograph of desired
return period. The coordinate of the peak of hydrograph will give the
peak run off with desired return period.
Table 2.6 determination of triangular hydrograph
HOU
R Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 QT
0 0
year project
June 2009
1 0.04 0 0
2 0.08 0.0754 0 0.0754
3.183
3 0.12 0.1508 3 0 3.3341
6.364
4 0.16 0.2262 4 2.2182 0 8.8088
9.545
5 0.2 0.3016 5 4.4335 1.5865 0 15.8671
12.72
6 0.24 0.377 7 6.6488 3.173 0.9438 23.8692
15.90
7 0.28 0.4524 8 8.8641 4.7595 1.8891 31.8728
19.08 11.079
8 0.32 0.5278 9 4 6.346 2.8344 39.8764
13.294
9 0.36 0.6032 22.27 7 7.9325 3.7797 47.88
25.45
10 0.4 0.6786 1 15.51 9.519 4.725 55.8836
28.63 17.725
11 0.44 0.754 2 3 11.1055 5.6703 63.8872
31.81 19.940
12 0.48 0.8294 3 6 12.692 6.6156 71.8908
34.99 22.155
13 0.52 0.9048 4 9 14.2785 7.5609 79.8944
38.17 24.371
14 0.56 0.9802 5 2 15.865 8.5062 87.898
14.9 0.6052 1.0548 41.32 26.564 17.43563 9.44204 95.8215
9 4 5 5 3 5 7 6
41.35 26.586
15 0.605 1.0556 7 5 17.4515 9.4515 95.9016
15.9 0.5810 1.1302 44.50 28.779 19.02213 10.3873 103.825
9 4 5 6 6 5 5 2
44.53 28.801 103.900
16 0.5808 1.126 8 8 19.038 10.3968 2
16.9 0.5568 1.0814 47.68 30.994 20.60863 11.3326 111.704
9 4 5 7 9 5 5 6
47.66 31.017 111.726
17 0.5566 1.081 2 1 20.6245 11.3421 3
17.9 0.5326 1.0364 45.77 33.210 22.19513 12.2779 114.495
9 4 5 5 2 5 5 2
18 0.5324 1.036 45.75 33.194 22.211 12.2874 114.484

year project
June 2009
6 8
18.9 0.5084 0.9914 31.880 23.78163 13.2232 113.746
9 4 5 43.87 3 5 5 9
43.85 113.708
19 0.5082 0.991 1 31.867 23.767 13.2327 9
19.9 0.4842 0.9464 41.96 30.553 14.1685 110.459
9 4 5 5 3 22.8265 5 8
41.94
20 0.484 0.946 6 30.54 22.817 14.161 110.41
40.04 105.616
21 0.4598 0.901 1 29.213 21.867 13.595 8
38.13 100.823
22 0.4356 0.856 6 27.886 20.917 13.029 6
23 0.4114 0.811 36.23 26.559 19.967 12.463 96.0304
34.32
24 0.3872 0.766 5 25.232 19.017 11.897 91.2372
25 0.363 0.721 32.42 23.905 18.067 11.331 86.444
30.51
26 0.3388 0.676 5 22.578 17.117 10.765 81.6508
27 0.3146 0.631 28.61 21.251 16.167 10.199 76.8576
26.70
28 0.2904 0.586 4 19.924 15.217 9.633 72.0644
24.79
29 0.2662 0.541 9 18.597 14.267 9.067 67.2712
22.89
30 0.242 0.496 4 17.27 13.317 8.501 62.478
20.98
31 0.2178 0.451 9 15.943 12.367 7.935 57.6848
19.08
32 0.1936 0.406 4 14.616 11.417 7.369 52.8916
17.17
33 0.1694 0.361 8 13.289 10.467 6.803 48.0984
15.27
34 0.1452 0.316 3 11.962 9.517 6.237 43.3052
13.36
35 0.121 0.271 8 10.635 8.567 5.671 38.512
11.46
36 0.0968 0.226 3 9.308 7.617 5.105 33.7188
9.557
37 0.0726 0.181 6 7.981 6.667 4.539 28.9256
38 0.0484 0.136 7.652 6.654 5.717 3.973 24.1324

year project
June 2009
4
5.747
39 0.0242 0.091 2 5.327 4.767 3.407 19.3392
40.0 3.803 3.9734 14.4501
2 0 0.0451 9 6 3.798 2.82968 4
41.0 1.898 2.6464 9.65683
2 0 7 6 2.848 2.26368 6
42.0 1.3194
2 0 6 1.898 1.69768 4.91514
43.0
2 0 0.948 1.13168 2.07968
44.0
2 0 0.56568 0.56568
45.0
2 0 0
Fig 2.1: Composite triangular Hydrograph
From composite triangular hydrograph the maximum peak flood is

114.95 m3/s.
Design Flood with a return period of 50 years is Qd=115m3/s

year project
June 2009
CHAPTER THREE
3. WATER DEMAND AND WATER DELIVER
3.1 General
Every crop requires a certain quantity of water after a certain field interval
throughout its period growth .If the natural rain is sufficient and timely soas
satisfy both those requirement no irrigation water is required for raising that
crop. But countries like Ethiopia the natural rainfall is erratic if it does so
meeting the timely requirement is a must. Crop water requirement is defined
as the total amount of water required at fixed head to mature a crop, of
course, it is includes the amount required to meet loss though evaporation
losses through transpiration, plant metabolism needs application and
quantity of water required for operational land preparation, leaching etc.
3.2 Crop Water Requirement

Crop water requirement is the total quantity of water needed by it’s from the
time it is shown the time it is harvested. The crop required water through out
the growing period. The water requirement of crop may be contributed from
different source such as irrigation, effective rain fall, soil moisture storage
and ground water contribution
CRW=IR+ER+S+GW
Where CWR=crop water requirement
IR=irrigation requirement
ER=effective rain fall
S=soil moisture in root zone

year project
June 2009
GW=ground water contribution

Irrigation requirement of crop (IR); it is defined as the part of water
requirement
of crops that should be fulfilled by irrigation.
IR =CWR-(ER+S+GW)
effective rain fall defend as the rain fall that stored in root zone & can be
utilized by crop. But all the rain fall that falls is not use full or effective
different methods to determine effective rain fall from monthly total rain fall
data. Fixed percentage effective rain fall is taken as a fixed percentage.
The monthly rain fall
ER=% of total rain fall
1. Dependable Rain fall
Crop water need can be fully or partly meet by rain fall. Rain fall for each
Period will vary from year to year &therefore. rather than using mean rain fall
data (saying rough one year drier &next wet. a dependable level of rain fall
should be selected (saying the depth of rain fall that can be expected in four
out five years or 80% probability of exceedence).also the degree of shortage
below the dependable level during the dry year should given, science loss in
crop yield during the dry year, May significantly, affect to the project
economic visibility.
Ranking Method
Rain fall data ware arranged in descending order for each month without
change them in to annual value rainfall figure ware arranged in descending
order for each month &80% probability of exceedence obtain.
Table 3.1 Mean rainfall over the study area.
Ran Jan Feb Mar App May Jun July Aug P=(m/(N+1))
k *100
(m)

year project
June 2009
1 34.7 46.8 105.5 259.1 266.9 115.8 91.5 109.8 14.28

2 33.9 41.2 87.6 203.3 225.2 97.8 80.2 97.2 28.57
3 30.5 39.2 83.5 196.0 231.4 68.8 48.7 66.4 42.86
4 26.2 32.o 79.3 194.4 165.4 65.1 43.0 46.3 57.11
5 23.5 31.2 73.5 180.8 157.5 57.6 42.1 38.1 83.33
6 15.5 26.3 50.2 167.6 150.9 44.7 39.6 37.2 85.71
Extension the above table

Rank Sep Oct Nov Dec P=(m/(N+1))*100
1 186.3 236.4 86.5 41.3 14.28
2 141.5 245.0 77.2 33.3 28.57
3 96.0 195.4 76.1 27.5 42.86
4 76.4 149.7 73.8 26.6 57.11
5 70.2 128.1 72.8 24.2 83.33
6 66.2 120.7 62.2 14.7 85.71
80% dependable rain fall is obtained from table 3.1 by interpolating.
Jan Feb Mar App May Jun Jul Aug

23.84 31.30 74.23 182.26 158.5 58.55 42.2 39.14
Sep Oct Nov Dec
70.98 130.80 72.92 24.50
The above table dependable rainfall used to determine crop water

requirement. Dependable effective rainfall give minimum value compared the
other method, So it is desirable for design purpose.
Where m=ranking
N=number of sample
P=probability exceedence
2. Method of USDA Soil Conservation Service

year project
June 2009
The effective rain fall is collected accurately to the formula developed by the
USDA soil conservation service.
TOTAL RAINFALL
Effective rain fall =
125 * (125  0.2 * TOTALRAINF ALL)
Ground Water Contribution (GWC):

The actual contributed from the ground water table is dependable on the
depth of ground water table below the root zone & capillary character tic of
soil .for clay soil the rate of movement is slow &distance p ward movement is
high while for light texture soil the rate is high &distance of movement is
slow.
Soil moisture (S)-this the moisture retained in the root zone between
cropping season.
Net irrigation requirement (NIR)-after the exact evapotranspiration of crop
has been determined. The NIR should be determine .this is the net amount of
water applied to the crop by irrigation exclusive of ER, S & GW
NIR=CWR-ER-S-GW
Gross irrigation requirement (GIR) more amount of water than the NIR is
applied during irrigation to compensate for un avoidable losses.
NIR
GIR= where Ea is application efficiency
Ea
3.3 Selection of Crop

Crop is selected basis of the following guideline
1. Climatic requirement
2. Marketability (demand)
3. Popularity (stable food for local people) requirement
4. Yield response and water utilization

year project
June 2009
6. Soil requirement
7. Method of irrigation
Based of the guideline and suitability for Gelana irrigation project the
following crops are selected from feasibility study of the area. Those are
Industrial-cotton Cereal crops-maize and beans Vegetables-paper and onion
Fruit- Banana Crop selected are found to be suitable with the overall
condition of the project. The crops along with proposed colander are shown
below. As stated can the area has got two rain seasons and the dry seasons
occur from September to March.
Table 3.2 proposed calendar crop

NO crop Base Land Sowing Harvesting
period preparation date date
1 Cotton 195 May-1 Jun-30 Jan-1
2 Maize-1 80 Feb-1 March-1 Jan-4
3 Maize-2 125 Aug-1 Sep-1 Jun-20
4 H/bean-1 100 Feb-1 March-1 Jun-9
5 H/bean-2 75 Aug-1 Sep-1 Jan-15
6 paper 210 Aug-1 Sep-15 App-13
7 banana 365 Feb-1 March-1 March-1
8 onion 210 Aug-1 Sep-15 App-13
Area coverage
Area distribution of each crop is shown below, the criteria for land
distribution is yield for the crop, price on the market and allocation
Table3.3 area covered by selected crop, for season one & two.
Season -1
Planting date from September
Intensity 75%

year project
June 2009
Cultivable Area =6200ha*0.75=4650ha
Crops Areain Planting date Area in (ha)

percentage
Maize-2 30 Sep-1 1860
H/been 20 Sep-1 1240
Paper 10 Sep-15 620
Onion 10 Sep-15 620
Season -2
Planting date from March
Intensity 100%`
Cultivable Area =6200ha*1=6200ha
Crops Area in Planting date Area in (ha)
percentage
Cotton 25 Jun-30 1550
Maize-1 40 March-1 2480
h/been 30 March-1 1860
Banana 5 March-1 310
3.4 Cropping Pattern

It is the sequence of crop grown over the area in cropping season. There are
two cropping season in the project area, the crop pattern must be planned, in
order to irrigated during the critical demand of water. Crop pattern depend on
the following factors

year project
June 2009
 Type of the soil: Detail survey should be carried out to determine the
suitability of the soil.
 Climatic condition: The climatic condition of the area should be suitable
for the proposed crop.
 Value of crop: The selected crop which have high market value
 Socio-economic aspect: When deciding the crop pattern, the socio-
economic aspect and requirement of the region must be considered.
3.5 Determination of Crop water requirement

The amount of water required compensate the evapotranspiration loss from
the filed is defined as crop water requirement. Using to the difficulty of
obtaining accurate filed measurement predication method for crop water
requirement are used .the most important data needed to be known.
1. The effect of climatic in crop water requirement.
2. The effect of crop x-ices in crop water requirement
3. This is generally given by crop coefficient (KC) which presents the
relationship between references ETO of evapotranspiration ETC or
ETC=KC*ETO
4. The effect of local condition & agricultural practice s on crop water
requirements.
This includes the local effect of variations in climate over time, distance &
altitude. Size of fields, soil water availability irrigation water quality etc.
3.5.1Reference evapotranspiration (ETO)

The reference evapotranspiration is defined as the rate of evapotranspiration
from an extensive surface of 8 to15cm tall, green grass cover of uniform
height actively growing, completely shading the ground and not short of
water. It can be measured or computed by

year project
June 2009
1. Direct method
2. Indirect(empirical) method
1. Direct method
-by soil moisture sampling
-by filed experiment
2. Indirect method
 Blenny criddle method.
 Radiation method
 Pan evaporation.
 Modification pen man method.
 Penman Monteith method.
Determination of ETO
1 Blaned-criddle method
This method in suggested where only the temperature data available and
given
ETO=c (p (0.467+8)
Where ETO=reference crop evapotranspiration in mm/day from the month
considered.
T= mean daily temperature in degree centigrade over month
P= mean daily percentage of total annual day hour obtain from table for a
given Month & latitude
C= adjustment factor which depends on minimum relative humidity
sunshine hours& daytime wind estimate
2. Thorn Waite method

This also available for temperature data
ETO=1.6*b*(10*Tm/I) a

year project
June 2009
Where ETO=potential evapotranspiration cm/month

Tm =mean monthly temp in cº
I=actual heat index obtain from monthly heat index I the year
12 12
I=(Tm/5) 1.514
and I= 1 =  (Tm/5) 1.514
1 1
Constant a & b obtained as

A = (67.58*18 8 ) I 3 -(7.71*10 6 ) I 2 + (0.01791) I+ (0.492)
max imumnumber & sunshinehour sin themonth
B=
12 * 30
2. Hargreaves class A Pan evaporation Method

CU is related to pan evaporation (EP) by constant Kc consumptive use
coefficient
ET=Kc*EP
Where EY =CU =consumptive use
EP = pan evaporation
EP = 0.4592*Ct*Cw*Ch*Cs*Ca
Where Ct= coefficient of temperature
=0.393+0.0279bTc+0.0001189Tc 2
Tc =mean temperature in c 0
Cw=coefficient of wind velocity
=0.078=0.0034V-0.0000038V 2
Where V =mean wind velocity at 5m above the ground km/day
Ch=coefficient of relative humidity
4
=1.25-0.0087H-0.75*10H 2 -0.85*10 8 H 2
H=mean percentage relative humidly at noon

year project
June 2009
Ca =coefficient elevation
=0.97+0.0098E
E =elevation 100m
Cs =coefficient for percentage a possible sun shine
=0.542+0.0085-0.78*10 4 S 2 +0.62*10 6 S 3
S=mean sun shine percentage
Where
ETO =reference evapotranspiration in mm /day
C= constant to convert units from kg /m 2 /s to mm/day
RN= net radiation at the earth’s surface in kg /m 2
= (1-r) Rs-Rnl
Where r=lobed=0.23(gross)
Rs= (0.25+5n/N) Ra
Ra =extraterrestrial radiation
Rs=short wave radiation
RnL=long wave radiation
 ( 273  Tmc 0 ) 4  ( 273  Tmx) 4
 (0.3v  0.139 ed
= (0.1  0.9n / N ) 2
n actualhourssunshine
= possiblehourssunshine
N
3. Modified Penman Method

For area measured data’s on temperature humidity sunshine duration or
radiation are available ,the pen man adopted the method use mean daily
climate data ,since day& night time whatever condition considerably affect
level ET an adjustment for this is included. The Modified Pen man equation.
ETO= (W*RN+ (1-W)*+f (U)*(ea-ed)

year project
June 2009
Where W*RN=radiation term

(1-W)*f (U) (ea-ed) =aerodynamics term
ETO=referee crop evapotranspiration, mm/day
W=temperature relative weight factor
Rn=net radiation in equivalent evaporation, mm/day
f (U) =wind related function.
(Ea-ed)=difference between the saturation vapor pressure at mean air
temperature, the mean actual vapor pressure of the air, m bar
C = adjustment factor to compensate for the effect of day & night weather
condition
4. Pen man-Monteithe method (direct estimate of ETO)

Penman equation has been adopted to estimate evapotranspiration in
mm/day as follows.
900
0.408 *  * ( Rn  G )   * ( ) * U 2 * (es  ea)
ETo = Tm  237.3
   * (1  0.34 * U 2 )
Where; ETo = reference evapo transpiration, mm/day

Rn = net radiation at the crop surface, Ms/m 2 /day
G = soil heat flux density, MJ/m 2 /day
Tm = mean daily air temperature at 2m height, °c
U2 = wind speed at 2m height, m/s
Es = saturation vapor pressure, kpa
Ea = actual vapor pressure, kpa
Δ = slope vapor pressure curve, kpa/ °c
γ = psychometric constant, kpa/°c
Steps used to calculate Penman-Montith method
year project
June 2009
2 0.143
U 2 = U z *( ) , U Z = wind speed in km/day
z
z = elevation from sea level, m
2. Atmospheric pressure
293  0.0065 * Z 5.26
P = 101.3*( ) , kpa
293
z = elevation above sea level, m
3. Mean temperature
T max  T min
Tm = , °c
2
17.27 * Tmax
4. emax = 0.6108*exp ( ) , kpa
Tmax  237.3
17.27 * Tmin
5. emin = 0.6108*exp ( ) , kpa
Tmin  237.3
emax  e min
6. es = , kpa
2
4098 * es
7. Δ = , kpa/° c
(Tm  237.3) 2
RHm * es
8. ea = , RHm = relative humidity in %
100
9. γ = 0.665*10 3 *p
10. Ra = extra terrestrial radiation in mm/day, from table
11. N = maximum possible sunshine, hr
n
12. Rs = (a + b* ) * Ra, a = 0.25 & b = 0.5
N
13. Rns = (1-α)*Rs, mm/day, α = 0.23i
14. Net log wave radiation
n
Rnl = δ*Ta 4 *(0.34-0.14* ea )*(0.1+0.9* )
N
δ = Stefan Boltzmann constant

year project
June 2009
= 2.01*10 9 mm/day
Rns  Rnl
15. Rn = , MJ/m 2 /day
0.408
16. Sun shine heat exchange from the surface to the soil
17. G month i = 0.07*(Tm monthi+1 -Tm monthi-1), MJ/m2/day
+
From the above five method s for determination of ETO because of Blane-
Criddle & Thornthwaite method use temperature data mix so that other
climatic condition all ignored Hard grave’s and modified pen man method are
over estimated .
The pan –man Monteithe method is done using the comparative soft ware
crop watt window 4.3 as follows for variable climate data.
Country: Ethiopia Station: Gelana
Altitude: 1300 meter(s) above M.S.L.
Latitude: 6.08 Deg. (North) Longitude: 37.90 Deg. (E)
Table 3.4 ETO to determine using pen man monteithe method
Arba Minch station is taken to calculate ETO, because the same climatic
Condition with the command area.
Month Max Min Humidity Wind Sun ETO
tem(c) tem(c) speed shine mm/day
m/s hrs
Jan 31.4 14.29 51.8 95.0 9.09 4.51
Feb 32.57 15.22 47.9 103.5 8.83 4.96
March 33.6 16.16 52.47 121.0 8.10 5.19
Apr 30.61 16.47 63.51 129.6 7.33 4.77
May 28.73 16.15 69.02 155.5 7.85 4.58
Jun 28.02 16.23 64.19 164.2 6.41 4.30
July 27.50 16.83 63.26 155.5 4.77 3.97
Aug 28.41 16.26 59.87 155.5 5.45 4.35
Sep 26.65 16.11 60.06 138.2 6.86 4.67
Oct 29.56 15.66 65.84 103.5 7.60 4.38
Nov 30.15 14.04 60.20 95.0 9.13 4.41

year project
June 2009
Dec 30.83 13.89 53.71 95.0 9.14 4.34
Sample calculation by manually

Month - Jan a = 0.25
Latitude = 6.08 0N b = 0.5
Elevation (z) =1300m   0.23 for most crop
Tmax = 31.440 c Ta = Tmean + 273 = 294°k
Tmin = 14.290 c RHm = 51.80%
Tmean=22 .870c U2 = 1.1 m/s
N = 9.09 hrs
1. Wind speed, U2 = 1.1 m/s
2. Atmospheric pressure = 101.3 * {(293 - 0.0065 * z)/293} ^5.26, kpa
= 101.3 * {(293 - 0.0065 * 1475)/293} ^5.26
= 85.04kpa
Tmax  Tmin
3. Mean temperature, Tm = =22.87°c
2
17.27 * Tmax
4. emax = 0.6108*exp ( ) = 4.61 kpa
Tmax  237.3
17.27 * Tmin
5. emin = 0.6108*exp ( ) = 1.63kpa
Tmin  237.3
emax  e min
6. es = = 3.12 kpa
2
7.  = 4098*es = 0.189 kpa/°c
(Tm+237.3)2
8. ea = RHm*es = 1.616 Kpa
9.  = 0.665*103*P = 0.0.056 Kpa/oC
10. Ra = 113.46 mm/day……………………………from table3.7 annex- B
11 N = 11.76 hr…………………………………... from table3.6 annex-B

year project
June 2009
n
12 Rs = (a + b )*Ra = 8.76 mm/day
N
13 Rns = (1 -  )*Rs = 6.74 mm/day
n
14 Rnl = ðTa *(0.34-0.14*ea1/2)*(0.1+ 0.9 ) = 1.98 mm/day
N
15 Rn = Rns – Rnl = 11.67 MJ/m2/day 0.408
16. G = 0.07*(Tmin (i+1) - Tmin(i-1)) MJ/m2/day
December max =33.83 oc Tmin=13.89 oc &Tmean = 22.36 oc
February Tmax =32.57 oc Tmin=15.22 0c & Tmean = 23.89 oc
G Jan = 0.07*(Tmean (Feb.) –Tmean (dec)) = 0.107 MJ/m2/day
 * 900
0.408 *  * ( Rn  G )  * (e s  e a ) * U 2
17. ETO = Tm  237.3 =4.56 mm/daY
   * (1  0.34 * U 2 )
3.6 Crop Coefficient (kc)

Crop coefficient is used to relate the potential evapotranspiration (ETO) to the
Consumptive evapotranspiration of the crop ETC
ET crop =KC*ETO
The selection of KC depends on the following information &crop date of
growing.Climate data –these are wind speed and humidity length and total
growing season, includes
Initial stage –germination to18% ground cover
Development stage –from 10% to 80% ground cover
Mid stage -80% ground cover to repairing
Last stage –from start, repairing to harvesting
Procedure steps needed to arrive at KC value for different growing stage are
as follows
1. Establish planting or growing date from locale information or from
principal climate zone.
year project
June 2009
2. Determine total growing season and length of crop development stage from
local information or literatures.
3. Initial stage predication irrigation and rainfall frequency for predetermined
4. ETO obtained KC value from graph &ETO verses assumed irrigation
interval and plot KC value may be selected from table known humidity and
wind value FAO,33)& (FAO,24)
5. Mid season stage for given climate (humidity and wind) select KC value
(from table FAO,24)
6. Late season stage for time of full maturity or harvesting with a few day,
select KC value from table (FAO, 24) & plot value at end growing season
&full maturity. Assume straight line between KC values at mid -season
period at the end of growing
7. Development stage: Assume straight line between KC values at end of
initial to start of the mid season.
Table 3.5 growing stage & KC value proposed crop.

Growing stage &KC value & proposed Base
KC period
crop area Planting initial dev mid late initial dev mid late
date
Maize- 40% 1-mar 20 20 30 10 0.5 0.8 1.01 1.01 80
1
Maize- 30% 1-sep 20 35 40 30 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.9 125
2
Cotton 25% 30-Jun 30 50 60 55 0.45 0.75 1.2 0.9 195
Onion 10% 15-sep 20 35 110 45 0.5 0.65 1.05 0.75 210
Pepper 10% 15-sep 30 40 110 30 0.35 0.7 1.05 0.90 210

year project
June 2009
banan 5% 1-arch 115 85 110 55 1 1.05 1.2 1.1 365

a
Bean-1 30% 1-arch 20 30 35 15 0.35 0.7 1.15 0.92 100
Bean 2 20% 1-sep 15 25 25 10 0.35 0.75 1.05 0.90 75
Source (FAO. 24) (FAO irrigation and drainage paper 24 and FAO irrigation
and drainage paper 33) from appendix crop wat, the total amount of water
that to divert to crops at field level. Gelana irrigation project has two seasons,
the maximum field water supply one of the seasons is selected for design,
because the maximum field water Supply satisfied both of the seasons.
Field water supply= 0.41l/s/ha *6200 ha=2542l/s
3.7 Irrigation Efficiency.

The amount of irrigation water supplied to the land is not fully utilized for the
growing of crops .this due to various losses now the ratio of the amount of
water available (output) is as irrigation efficiency .it expressed in percentage
to accurate the losses of water increased during convergence and application
to the field an efficiency factor should be include d when c/c voting the
project irrigation requirement project efficiency sub divided on to the following
stages.
1. Conveyance efficiency (EC) - the ratio between the amount supplied water
to the land, amount of water supplied from reservoir.
waterdeliverdtofar min let
EC= waterdivertedfromsource * 100
2. Field canal efficiency (Eb) the ratio water receives at the field inlet and
received at the inlet of block.
waterrecivedatfieldblock
Eb= waterdiverttofar min let * 100

year project
June 2009
3. Field application efficiency (Ea) –the ratio between water directly available
to the field inlet.
waterstore dinrootzon eduringirrigation
Ea= * 100
waterrecivedatinlettofieldblock
Project efficiency (KP) the ratio between water made directly to the crop that
release at the head work.
EP=Ea*Eb*Ec
Conveyance (EC), field (Eb) and application (Ea) efficiency criteria
Source ( siyrce FAO, 1978) ICID/ILRI
1. Conveyance efficiency (Ec)
 Continuous supply with no substantial change flow.
Rotational supply in project, 3000-7000 hectare & rotational area
EC=0.9
 70-300hectarwith efficient management
EC=0.8
 Rotational supply in large sachems (>10,000hactar) & small
schemes (<1000hactar) with respective problem, Communication &
less effective management.
 Based on predetermine schedule
EC=0.7
 Based of advanced request
EC=0.65
2. field canal efficiency(Eb)
Blocks larger than 20 hectare
Eb=0.8 for unlined.
Eb=0.9 for lined or pipe
Block up to 20 hectare
Eb=0.7for unlined.

year project
June 2009
Eb=0.8 for lined or pipe

3. Filed application efficiency (Ea)
0.55 light soil
0.7 medium soils
0.6for heavy soil
For Gelana irrigation project, has been selected
Eb=0.8 for unlined &
Ea= 0.7 Medium soil.
EC=0.7
Project efficiency (EP) =0.80*0.7*.07=0.392
3.8 Irrigation Scheduling

Irrigation scheduling is the schedule in which water is applied to the field.
The schedule of irrigation can be field Irrigation scheduling and Field
irrigation supply scheduling.
3.8.1Field Irrigation Schedule

It is practiced at the field. The two, parameter of irrigation scheduling. a)Root
depth (D)Rooting depth is that depths of soil in which plant root penetrate &
extract moisture& nutrient for its growth rooting depth increasing with
increasing in the age of the plant crop water requirement are largely govern
by the root zone depth.
The depth irrigation (d) is given by
Dnet = As*D (FC-Pwp) *P
Where Dnet=net depth (m)
AS=apparent specific gravity of soil
D=effective root zone depth (m)
FC=water content of soil at FC

year project
June 2009
Pwp= water content of soil at Pwp

P=depletion factor
Due to the application losses such as deep percolation and run off losses, the
total depth of water to be applied will be greater than the net depth of water.
The gross depth of application (dgross)
AS * D ( FC  PWP) * P d net
d gross  *
Ea Ea
Where Ea=field application efficiency and other are as defined above.
a) Depletion factor (P)
Depletion factor is the fraction of available soil water that can be depleted with
Out Causing, soil water deficiency.
Yield response factor (KY)
The response of yield, to water supply in quantity through the yield response
Factor this related yield decrease (1-ya/ym) to relative evapotranspiration
deficit (1-ETa/ETm).
Where ETa=actual evapotranspiration
ETm=maximum evapotranspiration
Ya=actual yield
Ym= maximum yield
Ya ETa
(1- )  KY (1  )
Ym ETm
b) Irrigation interval (I)

It is the gap in day between two successive irrigation applications.
AS * D ( FC  PWP ) * P
I day 
ETCROPPEAK

year project
June 2009
Where ET Crop peak =the peak rate crop evaportrapiration, mm/day and
other are defined above.
3.8.2 Field irrigation supply scheduling

This is the schedule of water supply to individual field. It is the schedule of
the total volume of water to be applied to the soil during irrigation is
expressed that
10 * AS * D( FC  PWP) * P * A
q *t 
Ea
Where q=application rate l/sec

t=application time
Ea= application efficiency
P=depletion factor
AS=application specific gravity
A=area of field
D=effective root zone depth (m)
Qt= indicate the total volume of water applied to field during irrigation at the
head of the field. But the total volume water diverted at head work will
absolute be greater than this value since there is loss of water during
Conveyance and Distribution channel.

The volume of water to be diverted is given by
10 * AS * D( FC  PWP) * P * A
Q *T 
Ep
Where Q=flow rate at head work/sec

year project
June 2009
Ep=project efficiency
3.8.3 Method of water Delivery and Delivery Scheduling

The objective of water delivery and distribution system is to deliver water
adequately, efficiency and reliably to the required farm level. The system must
deliver the required water that comes sustain the field crop with irrigation
interval (T).
CHAPTER FOUR
3. DESIGN OF IRRIGATION APPILICATION SYSTEM
4.1 General
When the rain fall of area is not enough to satisfied crop water demand,
additional water has to be applied from available water source based on their
quality for irrigation proposes to get the expected crop.
Three main types of water application
1) Sprinkler irrigation
2) Trickle irrigation
3) Canal (surface water) irrigation
year project
June 2009
The implementations depend up on the economy, type of crop to be grown,

type of soil, climatical condition and topography of area to be irrigated. For
Galena irrigation project we proposed canal (surface) irrigation. Due to the
following reason.
 Low capital investment
 Cultivation easer in medium loam soil
 Successfully used in irrigation like crops cotton, maize, & vegetable
etc.
4.2 Surface Water Application

Surface irrigation refers to broad class of irrigation in which the soil surfaces
convey and distributed water over the irrigated field at the same time
infiltration in to under laying profile. As the crop to be irrigated, the soil and
topography of our project area necessary the use of furrow irrigation, we
managed to design this system alone for crops.
4.2.1 Furrow Irrigation

Furrow irrigation refers to water that is into as runs down sloping channels
which are cut or pressed into the soil. Design could be accepted if water
application efficiency is greater than 60%-70%, with less than 10% deep
percolation and 20% run of loss, while storage efficiency is greater than 85 to
95%.Most crops could be irrigated by furrow and is best suited to medium to
moderate fine texture soil will relative high holding capacity and conductivity.
4.2.2 Design of Furrow Irrigation System

To be best efficient irrigation by furrow method is obtained by selecting
proper combination.
- furrow spacing
- furrow length
- furrow slope
- suitable size of irrigation stream
- Duration of water.
1. Furrow Spacing
Spacing depend on up on type of crop grown and type of machine used for
planting and cultivation. Crop like maize and potato are placed 60 to 90cm
apart and vegetable (carrot, anion, lettuce) crops are selected 30 to 40cm.

year project
June 2009
while fruit crops are required wide spaced, generally more than one furrow
between crop rows.
Table 4.1 Spacing between crop row and plant.(FAO,24)
Crop Spacing between row and plant
Peppers 80*30cm
Onion 60*40cm
Maize 75*40cm
Bean 100*50cm
Banana 200*200cm
Cotton 85*50cm
2. Furrow Length – the optimum length furrow is usually the longest furrow
so that can be safe& efficient irrigate. the length furrow which can be efficient
irrigated As short as 45m on soil which take up water rapidly or as much as
300 m longer On soils with low infiltration rate .the length of furrow limited
by size & shape of the field
Table 4.2 Furrow length suggested maximum lengths of cultivated furrow (m)
for different slope are depth of water applied (A.M. Michael, 1978)
Furrow Average depth of water applied(mm)

slope 75 150 225 300 50 100 150 250 50 75 100
% Clay Loam Sand
0.05 300 400 400 400 120 270 400 400 60 90 150
0.1 340 400 470 500 180 340 440 470 90 120 190
0.2 370 470 530 620 120 370 470 530 120 190 250
0.3 400 500 620 800 280 400 500 600 150 220 280
0.5 400 500 580 750 280 370 470 530 120 190 250
year project
June 2009
1 280 400 500 600 280 300 370 470 90 150 220
1.5 280 340 430 500 220 280 340 400 80 120 190
2 220 270 340 400 180 280 300 340 60 90 150
3. Furrow Slope – the slope on grade of furrow is important because it

control the speed at which water flow Dow furrow. A minimum furrow grade
0.05% is needed to ensure quick surface drainge.the following slope are
suitable for different type of soil
Recommended slope
Sand loam to sandy soil 0.25%-0.6%
Medium loam soil 0.0.2%-0.4 %( for Gelana project)
Clay to clay loam soil 0.05%-0.2%
Source (A.M.Michael, 1978) slope recommended for border apply to
furrowalso.
4. Furrow Stream – the size of furrow stream the one factor which can be
valid after furrow irrigation system has been instead. The size of furrow
stream usual varied from 0.5 to 0.25l/season. We use the general guide line
for slop which has been developed by Furrow in flow is given by infiltration
rate which for depend on soil texture.
4.3 Table furrow infiltration and inflow rate.
Soil texture Infiltration Furrow

rate(mm\hr) inflow(l/s/1000m)
length
Clay 1-5 0.03-0.15
Clay loam 5-10 0.15-0.3
Silt loam 10-20 0.3-0.5
Sand loam 20-30 0.5-0.8
Sand 30-100 0.8-2.2
United state soil conservation service (1983)

Application Depth
The depth of water applied per irrigation .it can be calculated from cropwat.
Opportunity time
The difference between the time at which water front reaches a particular
point along the furrow and the time the tail water recedes from the same
point.
Advance time (TA) the time at which the advanced water reaches a
particular point.

year project
June 2009
Furrow stream (q) the size of furrow stream is one of the factors which can
be varied after the furrow irrigation system has bean installed. The size of the
stream varied from 0.2l/s to0.3l/s the maximum non erosive flow rate in
furrow is given by the following formula
qm=0.6/s=0.6/2=0.3l/s
Where qm= maximum non erosive flow rate (l/s)

S=slope of furrow expressed in percent
For Gelana irrigation project recommended parameter for alluvial loam soil.
Intake family=0.6
Slope =0.2%-0.4% (we use for calculation 0.4%)
Table 4.5 Values of constant and advance coefficient for different intake
families
Soil type Intake a b c F g

family
Very heavy o.5 0.5334 0.018 7.0 7.16 1.088*10-4
clay
heavy clay 0.1 0.6198 0.661 7 7.25 1.251*10-4
Moderate 0.15 0.7110 0.683 7 7.34 1.414*10-4
heavy clay
Very heavy 0.2 0.7772 0.699 7 7.43 1.578*10-4
clay loam
Heavy clay 0.26 0.8534 0.711 7 7.52 1.741*10-4
loam
Moderate 0.3 0.9246 0.720 7 7.61 1.904*10-4
heavy
clay/light
clay loam
light clay 0.35 0.9957 0.729 7 7.7 2.067*10-4
loam
Very light 0.4 1.0810 0.736 7 7.79 2.230*10-4
clay loam
Very fine 0.45 1.1300 0.742 7 7.88 2.393*10-4
silty
fine silty 0.5 1.1960 0.748 7 7.79 2.556*10-4
Moderate 0.6 1.3210 0.757 7 8.15 2.883*10-4
fine/coarser
silt loam
coarser silt 0.7 1.4430 0.766 7 8.33 3.209*10-4
year project
June 2009
loam
Very 0.8 1.5600 0.773 7 8.50 3.535*10-4
coarser silt
loam
Fine sand 0.9 1.6740 0.779 7 8.68 3.862*10-4
loam
coarse sand 1 1.7860 0.785 7 8.86 4.188*10-4
loam
Fine sand 1.5 2.2840 0.799 7 9.78 5.819*10-4
coarse sand 2.0 2.7530 0.808 7 10.56 7.451*10-4
For design we use furdev computer programme see the results each crops in
annex- A
Table4.6 Summarized furrow design by furdev soft ware
Tt Tn Ti min Tav Fav Fg RO DP Ea%

min min min mm mm mm mm
Onion 934 86 1020 103 30 39 8 3 70
Maize 3631 373 4064 432 60 84 19 7 70
Pepper 869 148 1017 234 40 41 2 11 70
Bean 1663 366 2029 578 61 63 2 17 70
cotton 2157 367 2524 547 69 74 5 17 70
Where Tt= advance time

Tn= net opportunity time
Ti= design inflow time
Tav= average opportunity time
Fav= average intake design
Fg= groos application
RO= surface run off
DP=deep percolation
CHAPTER FIVE

year project
June 2009
5. ALIGNMENT & DESIGN OF CANAL & CANAL STRUCTURE
5.1 General
A well designed distribution system consisting of a net work canal is required
to take away water from the canal head works such as
weir,barrage,reserviour or storage dam to the field .based on the water
requirement of the crop on the area to be irrigated the entire system of the
main canal, secondary canal, tertiary canal &field distribution should be
design properly for a certain realistic value of peak discharge that must
pass through them to provided sufficient irrigation to the commands
5.2 Canal Alignment

In relatively plan areas it should attempt to align the main canals along
ridgeline between adjacent valleys. Branch canal &distribution
 May also be aligned along the ridge lines of secondary valleys .this
configuration reduced the need for costly cross drainage works &facilitate
the construction of drainage canal along the lowest lying areas ,how ever
this would increase the number of drops in the main canal, thereby
reducing the gravity command able area .It is therefore, preferable that
the main canal would follow the highest possible counter with minimum
slope where as secondary& tertiary canals are suggested to be either along
or across the contours to mach the topography,sothat finally the field
canals are aligned across & the furrow along the counter canals should be
as straight as possible because Sharpe curve lead to scour on the out side
&siltation on the inner side of the canal, thereby requiring constant
alternation .
In hill area it should be design so as to balance cut &fill earth work as far as
possible for economy reason .but canals in high fill area more difficult to
construct ion &would in genera high loss of water by seepage for this reason
when ever possible the whose canal section is preferable if it is in cutting.
5.3 Hydraulic Design of Canal

A canal is said to be designed when it’s longitudinal and cross sections are
worked out to suit requirements. Thus various canal dimensions for example
bed width, depth said slop, longitudinal slop are to be fixed in design of
year project
June 2009
irrigation canal. Irrigation canal are designed to take maximum required

discharge safely which is called full supply discharge. Since there is Adam 30
Km before diversion head work, it is considered that sufficient water is
available. So the canal is designed for continuous supply system. soil of
Galina is alluvial, this type of soilis formed by transport of different soil
particle. Based on arbitrary particle size Kennedy propose critical velocity
ratio (m).
Table 5.1
Where m=v/v.
m critical velocity ratio
v flow rate
v. critical velocity
5.3.1 Design Discharge

Design discharge in the maximum flow that the canal carry at all season to
fulfill the water demand of cops. The net scheme Irrigation requirement has
been found to be 0.41 l/sec/ha.The FSL of MC1that is found at the right
bank of Gelana river is 8.205 m3/s where as 1.78 m3/s of MC2 at the left
bank.
Available data
 FWS max=0.41 l/sec/ha
 Total command area=6200ha
 Conveyance efficiency=0.7
 Field canal efficiency=0.8
 Future expansion=10%
 Working hour=12hr
Qd= (Fws*area*time factor*future exp)/(project efficiency)
=0.41l/sec/ha*6200ha*1.1/ (0.7*0.8)
Qd=9.98 m3/s

year project
June 2009
5.3.2 Permissible Velocity
It is the maximum mean velocity that will not cause erosion of the canals
body. There commended permissible velocity for living material and soil type
is tabulated blow
Table 5.2 permissible velocity
Type of soil Maximum permissible velocity
Ordinary soil 0.6-0.9
Very light loose to averaged sandy 0.3-0.9

soil sandy loam black cotton soil
Murum,hard soil 0.9-1.8
Gravel or rock (disintegrated) 1.5
Teble 5.3 maximum permissible velocity
Type of lining Maximum permissible

velocity(m/s)
Boulder lining 1.5
Brick tile lining 1.8
Cement concrete 2.7
5.3.3 Roughness Coefficient (n)

Roughness coefficient is depending up on the roughness of the canal
boundary. For the soil of Gelana project that is alluvial estimated roughness

year project
June 2009
coefficient is 0.0225 if the canal types in fair and for the lining material
different value of n is tabulated
Table 5.4 manning coefficient
Material Coefficient(n)
Wood 0.013-0.165
Steel 0.0125-0.018
Concrete 0.013-0.018
Masonry 0.02-0.036
Earth 0.0225-0.035
5.3.4 Canal Side Slope

The side slop of the canal should be as steep as possible being un stable
either wet or dry. For smaller canal in the system side slop 1V:1H has been
adopted. The recommended slop for main & secondary canal is 1V: 1.5H or
1V: 2H
5.3.5 Free board

It is the margin between full supply level (FSL) of canal and bank level. The
recommended free board by Lacey’s is
FB=0.2+0.15Q1/3
5.3.6 Design of Main Canal

The cross section of the main canal varies as the distance of the canal
increases as the design of main canal held by considering the amount of
water diverted through the off taking canals up stream of each division of the
main canal. For ever topography and rocky area around diversion head work
of Gelana irrigation project lined cement plastered masonry type rectangular
canal is provided.
Design of lined canal

Available data
Q=8.205m3/s

year project
June 2009
N=0.014
S=1/800
A= BD+MD2 Fig 5.1 Rectangular Canal
Efficient section
A =2D2
P=4D
R=D/2
Using manning equation

Q=A/n*2D2*(D/2)2/3S1/2
D= (Q*n/1.26*S1/2)3/8
= (8.205*0.014/1.26*(1/800)1/2))3/8
=1.43m
A=2D2 2*1.432 =4.1m2
P=4D =4*1.43 =5.72m
R= A/P = 4.1/5.72 = 0.715m
V=1/n*R2/3*S1/2
=1/0.014*(0.715)2/3*(1/800)1/2
= 2m/s OK
B =A/D = 4.1/1.43 =2.87m
Design of unlined canal
Using Kennedy theory
V0 =0.55 *MD0.64
Q=8.205 D=1.43

year project
June 2009
n =0.0225
Z =1.5
m =1.2 B=2.87
Design calculation
B/D =1.76*Q0.35
B/D =1.76*(8.205)0.35
A =BD+ZD2
A = (3.7+1.5) D2 =5.2D2
P = B+2D SQUAR ROOT (Z2+1)
= (3.7+3.6) D
P = 7.3D
R = A/P =0.71D
From continuity equation

Q = AV
8.205 =5.2D2*0.55*1.2D0.64
D=[8.205/3.416]1/2.64 =1.39
R=0.71D =0.71*1.39 =0.987
V0 = 0.55*1.2*1.390.64 =0.815m/s
V = C*ROOT (RS)
C = 1/n +23 +0.00155/S
1+ (23+0.00155/S) n/root(R)
Assume 0.00155/S =0 for the 1st trial
C= )*
V =0.82=0.815
V=Vo…..ok
MC1
Chinage(m) Discharge D B FB S V
0+0-8+00 8.205 1.43 2.87 0.5 1.25*10-3 2
6+00-8+00 8.205 1.6 3.2 0.5 6.67*10-4 1.6
8+00-
3+600 8.205 1.39 5.14 0.5 3.9*10-4 0.81
4+600-
5+600 7.49 1.63 4.84 0.5 3.5*10-4 0.8
5+600-
8+00 6.065 1.28 4.22 0.47 3.7*10-4 0.77

year project
June 2009
8+00-
10+400 4.64 1.18 3.54 0.45 4.6*10-4 0.73
10+400-
12+600 2.86 0.103 2.62 0.41 3.9*10-4 0.67
12+600-
16+600 1.43 0.83 1.66 0.37 3.6*10-4 0.61
MC2
Discharg
Chainage e D B FB S V
0+1400 1.78 0.63 1.24 0.5 5.0*10-3 2.2
1+00 1.78 0.91 1.82 0.4 4.3*10-4 0.63
Secondary canals of Mc1
Mc1Sc1 0.713 0.67 1.04 0.25 4.8*10-4 0.52

Mc1Sc2 1.43 0.83 1.66 0.37 4.4*10-4 0.59
Mc2Sc3 1.43 0.83 1.66 0.37 4.4*10-4 0.59
Mc2Sc2 0.878 0.72 1.21 0.25 2.9*10-4 0.63
Mc2Sc2 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.2 5.25*10-4 0.59
Mc2Sc3 0.814 0.70 1.15 0.25 4.6*10-4 0.52
5.3.7 Tertiary Canals

Tertiary canal are also designed as main and secondary canals using
Kennedy theory. Since the canals are designed along the contour a minimum
of drop structure required. They are off taking using canal outlet from
secondary canals and distribute to the field canals in the same manner.
5.4 Canal Structures
5.4.1 Expansion Transition.

A canal transition is a gradual change in the cross section of a canal flow
from one uniform state to another. After the end of rectangular canal
expansion transition is provided to join trapezoidal unlined canal. There are
three types of design method Hindus design method is recommended for
deferent depth of flow.

year project
June 2009
Where
Bt=width of trapezoidal
Br=width of rectangular
Br Bt Fig 5.3
Designs
Available data
FSL at exit=1295.0
Bt=5.14m
Dt=1.39m
Br=2.87m
Dr=1.6m
Q=8.205m3/s
Splay in expansion 3:1
Z=1.5:1
C. Design Procedure
a) velocity at exit area of flow
A= (Bn+ZDn) Dn
= 95.14+1.5*1.39)1.39
=10.04
V =Q/A =8.205/10.04 =0.82m3/s
Velocity head hv
Hv =V2/2g =0.822/2*9.81 =0.034
TEL4.4 =FSL+hv
=1295+0.034 =1295.034m.
Beginning of expanding transition
A=(Bf+Df) =1.87*1.6 =4.59m2
V =Q/A =8.205/4 .59 =1.78m/s
Hv =V2/2*g =1.78/2*9.81 =0.163m.
Loss of head in expansion transition
=0.3(V32 - V42)/2g=0.3(1.782 - 0.822)/2*9.81
=0.038
TEL3-3=TEL4-4+hL
1295.034+0.038=1295.078

year project
June 2009
Water surface and bed level

WS3-3=TE3-3 - V^2/2g
1295.072-1.78^2/2*9.81
=1294.91
BL3-3=1294.91-1.6
=1293.31
WS4-4=1295.034-0.82^2/2*9.81
=1295
BL4-4=1295-1.39= 1293.6
Water surface profile

Expanding transition
L=3(Bn-Bf)/2
=3(5.14-2.87)/2
=3.405
2x=3.405
X=1.703
2y=FSL-WSL3-3
=1295-1293.31
=1.69
Y =0.845
C=Y/X^2
=0.845/1.703^2
0.29
Y=0.29X^2
Table 5.5 cross section of transition
X 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.703

Y 0 0.018 0.073 0.16 0.29 0.45 0.65 0.841
5.4.2. Drop
Drop structure is constructed on a canal to lower down the water level and
the bed level of the canal to minimize the potential. It is therefore designed to
dissipate the energy, but it has to be resist the scoring effect. For discharge
less than 8m^3/s vertical drop is best and economical.
Sample calculation
Available data
Q=7.49m^3/s
B=4.84m

year project
June 2009
Hl=1m
D1=D2=1.36m
Design
q= Q/B
=7.49/4.84
=1.55m^2/s
V=q/D
=1.55/1.36
=1.14m/s
Yc= (q2/g)1/3
= (1.552/9.81)1/3
=0.65
ha=v2/2g
=1.142/2*9.81
=0.07
E=D + ha-p
=1.36 + 0.07 -0.2
=1.23m
The dimension of the cistern
It is determined as
X= Yc/2
= 0.63/2
= 0.32
Lc= 3*(H*E)1/2
= 3*(1*1.23)1/2
=3.3
W= 18.46Q1/2/(q + 9.91)
=18.46*7.491/2/ (1.55 + 9.91)
=4.4m
Where X =depth of cistern

Lc = length
H = drop heigh
W = width
E=1.23
Yc
D1

year project
June 2009
Z=1 D2=1.36
X=0.32
Lc=3.3
Fig Drop structure
Table 5.6 drop components tabulated blow
Q m3/s D (m) B (m) P (m) H (m) X (m) Lc (m) W (m)

8.205 1.39 5.14 0.2 1 0.32 3.3 4.4
7.49 1.36 4.84 0.2 1 0.3 3.3 4.4
6.063 1.28 4.22 0.2 1 0.3 3 4
4.64 1.18 3.54 0.2 1 0.28 3 3.54
2.86 1.03 2.62 0.2 1 0.25 2.8 2.8
1.43 0.83 1.66 0.2 1 0.21 2 2
5.4.3 Culvert
Conveyance culvert is a structure built in conveyance system at the
intersection of irrigation or drainage canal and road. The fundamental
objective of the hydraulic design of culvert is to determine the most
economical diameter at which the design discharge flow safely the following
limitation is recommended.
 Maximum velocity = 1.5m/s
 A farm road =6m
year project
June 2009
 A minimum diameter of pipe =0.6m

Available data
Q=0.814m3/s
L=6m
H=0.15m
Assume D=O.9m
Q=C*A
C= (1.1+ )-0.5
C=0.857
A=
=0.636
Q=0.885*0.36(2*9.81*0.15)1/2
=0.966 m3/s > 0.814 m3/s ok
V =Q/A
=0.966/0.636
=1.48 m/s ok
5.4.4 Division Box

Division structures or box regulate the flow from one canal to other, or to
several other canals they usually consist of box with vertical wall in which
Controllable opening may provided.
Design
Available data
Q=1.783/s
Q1=0.09m3/s
Q2=0.878 m3/s
Q3=0.814m3/s
Abroad crust formula is used to divide proportionally
Q=C*L*H3/2
= where Q=discharge over rectangular sill
C=coefficient discharge=1.77
L=effective length
H=over flow depth=0.4m
Assume sill hieght0.2m&dead height 0.2m
year project
June 2009
L=3.94m
L1=0.2m
L2=1.84m
L4=1.96m
5.4.5 Canal Outlet

Canal outlet is structure built on the bank of distributaries canal through
which Water is supplied to water course. Semi modular outlet is selected for
this project.b/c it is simple and discharging free pipe outlet is preferred. In
practice, the pipe outlet is generally set at the level lower than 0.3D and
therefore it acts as a Sub-proportional outlet because the head over the out
let is increased. Pipe outlet is provided on tertiary and field canal where as
division box gated rectangular outlet on the secondary canal. in canal outlet
of chapter seven.
Design
Available data
Q=0.358 m3/s
D=0.38m
C=0.62 (discharge free)
h<=0.3*D
<=0.3*0.83 =0.24
Take
h=0.21m
Q= C*A*(2gh)1/2
0.358=0.62*A*(2*9.81*0.21)1/2
A=0.284m2
A= d2/4
d =(4*0.284/ )1/2
=0.6m
Take d =0.6
0.358= 0.62*x*0.62/4*(2*9.81*h)1/2
h= 0.21m ok
 Therefore provide 0.6m diameter pipe at a working head of 0.21m .

year project
June 2009
CHAPTER SIX
6. DRAINAGE
6.1 General
The processes where by surplus water is removed from the land. It includes
both internal drainage is the term applied to systems for dealing with excess
water that describe all of soil and the collection and dispersal of surface
runoff. By its nature, irrigation creates periodically saturation condition of
upper layers of soil formation over a long period where intensive irrigation is
practiced; even deep soil layers tend to become saturated and consequently
underground water table rises in absence of adequate drainage facilities. The
year project
June 2009
knowledge of drainage engineering is very essential to solve this problem.

Waterlogged land is of little use; however, it can be utilized after providing
proper drainage arrangement. Usually in undulating country, the surface
slopes are sufficient to carry off this surplus water into the ditches and
stream without any engineering construction. Low lying flat areas are usually
invariably near or below the flood level of the river. In order to prevent the
area from flooding the river must be trained; it is usually done by
constructing of embankments. Like this, we must construct drainage canal in
order to prevent the irrigation canal from silting.
6.2 Selections of Drainage Systems

Drainage may be artificial or natural. Drains are termed artificial when they
are constructed after proper consideration of existing conditions and function
to be served. Artificial drains are generally constructed to dispose off surplus
water quickly, before it gets absorbed deep into the soil. Drainage can be
classified into two main systems.
Those are:
1 -Surface drainage system
2 -Subsurface drainage system
6.2.1 Surface Drainage Systems

Surface drainage problem occur in nearly flat area, uneven land surface with
depression or ridges preventing natural runoff and in areas without outlet.
Soils with low infiltration rates are susceptible to surface drainage problem.
Surface drainage is intended for safe removal of excess water from the land
surface through land shaping and canal construction. Function of the system
may be considered as:
-Collection systems
-conveying systems
-Outlet system
6.2.2 Subsurface Drainage System

Subsurface drainages are required for soils with poor internal drainage and a
high water table. This type of drain does not hinder movement in the field but
they have high initial investment cost. Water from the individual field is
collected and is then removed through a system to the outlet. Generally,
surface drainage is required for-
1. The removal of storm rainfall where the subsurface drainage is not
year project
June 2009
economically feasible
2. The collection and disposal of surface irrigation runoff
3. The collection and disposal of drainage in deltaic area
6.3 Design of Surface Drainage Canals

Mean annual rainfall (MAR)
MAR is the average of the total yearly rainfall of long year record For this
project the mean annual rainfall of GELANA is taken and is found to be
906.8mm
Table 6.1 Max side slope for drainage canal
Soil type
Sandy, Soft clay 3:1
Sandy clay, Silt loam 2:1
Fine clay, Clay loam 0.5:1
6.3.1 Drainage coefficient (DC)

The drainage coefficient is the amount of water that must be removed from
soil surface in order to have sustainable agriculture. It depends, on depth of
irrigations, method of irrigation, leaching requirement and soil
characteristics. There are different methods for estimating drainage
coefficient. Those are:
#1 10 %MAR method
Where: MAR= mean annual rainfall
For GELANA irrigable area, MAR =906.3 mm
DC = 1 %906.3mm
DC = 9.063mm
#2 Hudson (1983)’s method
In this method the following two conditions are considered
If MAR <1000 mm, DC = 10 mm/day
If MAR >1000 mm, DC = MAR/100 mm/day
Since MAR =906.3 mm, DC=9.063 mm/day
#3 Muzumdor methods
In this method, the following table is provided for estimation of drainage
coefficient from MAR.
Table 6.2 Estimating of drainage coefficient

year project
June 2009
MAR(mm) DC(mm)
1 <750 5.0 - 7.5
2 750 -1000 7.5 - 9.0
3 1000 -1250 9.0 - 12.0

4
1250 -1500 12.0 - 25.0
For GELANA Project case D.C = 906.3/100=9.063mm/day
The capacity of the drainage canal is determined based on the area coverage
of tertiary and field distributes canals.
From different types of drainage canals, the trapezoidal drainage canal is
selected. The reason is that trapezoidal canal is more economical than the
other canals.
Design of field drain

Available data
 Drainage area Adr =32ha
 Roughness coefficient n=0.04
 Drainage coefficient DC =10mm/day
 Drainage Discharge Qdr =Dc*Adr
=10mm/day*32ha
=0.037m3/sec
 Slope of field drain is determined from top map.
S= 1/500 =0.002
 Side slope m=2
 Manning roughness coefficient now from manning equation.
Q =1/n*AR2/3*s1/2
For trapezoidal canal:
First by assuming D =0.4
The area of drain section is given by
B=2*D*tan (26.565/2)
=0.472*D
A =B*D+mD2
=2.472*D2
P =B+2*D*
=4.944*D

year project
June 2009
R=
R=
=0.499*D
V = *R2/3*S1/2
=0.7046*D2/3
Q =A*V =2.472*D2*0.7046*D2/3
=1.74*D8/3
By try and error
D =0.24 m
B =0.113m
Free board (FB)

The top of canal banks has to be maintained higher than the level to allow
for waves and possible fluctuation in supply. The vertical distance between
the top of drainage canal banks and the full supply level of drainage canal,
known as free board. For our case take free board 0f 0.2m.
Design of tertiary canal

Data available
Drainage area Adr =96ha
Drainage coefficient =10mm/day
Bed slope =1/800 =0.00125 from top map
Roughness n=0.04
Drainage discharge Qdr =A*Dc
=10mm/day*96ha
=0.111m3/sec
B =2*D*tan (26.565/2)
=0.472D
A =BD+mD2
=2.472*D2
P =B +2*D*
P =0.472+2*D*
P=4.708*D
R =A/P R =
=0.525*D

year project
June 2009
V = *R2/3*S1/2
=0.556*D2/3
Q =A*V =2.472*D2* 0.556*D2/3
=1.37644*D8/3
By tray and error D=0.4from this
B =0.188m
Design of secondary drainage canal

Available data.
 Drainage area Adr =230ha
 Drainage coefficient Dc =10mm/day
 Bed slope S=O.OO1015
 Roughness coefficient n=0.04
 Drainage Discharge Qdr=Dc*Adr
=230ha*10mm/day
=0.2662m3/sec
The area of drain section is given by
A = BD +mD2
B =2*D*tan (26.565/2)
=0.472*D
A =0.472*D*D+2*D2
=2.472D2
P=B +2*D*
P=0.472+2*D*
P=4.708*D
R=A/p =
R=0.499*D
V= *R2/3*S1/2
V =0.5D2/3
Q =A*V =1.236*D8/3
By tray & error
D =0.565m
B =0.267m

year project
June 2009
Design of main canal

Data available
Drainage area =442ha.
Drainage coefficient =10mm/day.
Bed slope =1/1000
Design discharge Qdr =10mm/day*442ha
Qdr =0.512m3/sec
The calculation
B =2*D*tan*(26.565/2)
=0.472*D
A =BD +mD2
=2.47*D2
P =B +2*D
=4.708*D
R =A/p
=0.5D
V= *R2/3*S1/2
V =0.5145D2/3
Q =A*V =1.272*D8/3
By tray & error

B =0.337m
D =0.715m

year project
June 2009
CHAPTER SEVEN
7. HEAD WORK DESIGN
7.1General
Diversion head work are those works which are constructed at the head of a
canal to divert the river to wards the main canal, so as to ensure a regulate
continuous supply water free from silt.wier is an obstruction or a barrier
constructed across a river. The obstruction is of smaller in comparison with
the dam. It raises the water level and supply water to off take canal.
7.1.1Location of weir
When selecting location of weir the following consider
1. From the counter map of state farm, the location where the required
Head to irrigate the farm is develop
2. The selecting site should be economical
a) Having short main canal
b) River bank should stable
c) Should be in straight reach
d) Good foundation available at the site
e) Site easily accessible by road
7.1.2 Selection of Weir Type

The weir may be broadly divided in to three:
1. Vertical drop weir this type of weir was used in most case, particularly
suitable for consolidated gravel foundation.
2. Rock fill weir is suitable for fine sandy foundation. Such weir requires
huge quantity of stone and is economical only when the stone is easily
available.

year project
June 2009
3. Concrete glacis or sloping weir.

This type of weir is used on permeable foundation and is generally
provided with low crest. In deciding the type of the weir, the following
conditions should be considered.
 Economy of construction
 Foundation condition
 Size of the project
 Head across the weir and practically during implementation taking all the
above factors & the case for construction & suitability of foundation
masonry weir of vertical drop is selected for this particular irrigation
project.
7.2 Weir Design

Available Data:
m3
Q peak =115 (refer data from hydrology, Chapter
s
River bed level=1293.5m (data from top map)
Assumed data:
Afflux, =1.0m (Dr.kR. Aroara)
Retrogression=0.5m (Source: Dr .kR Aroara)
Silt factor, dm=0.232
G=2.24
7.3Hydraulic Design of Weir

Determination of the crest level
a) Average level of highest field = 1293m
b) Head loss across the field = 0.1 m
c) Head loss at the turn out = 0.15 m
d) Head loss at the head regulator = 0.32 m (Dr .KR..Arora)
e) Water depth required = 1.39m(data from canal design part)
f) Slope of the canal * distance of the highest point from the weir
= 0.0014* 200+0.000198*3400=0.96 m
Therefore, the crest level of the weir=1293+0.1+0.15+0.32+1.43+0.96
=1296.OO
Weir height = Crest Level of the Weir – River Bed Level
=1296.0-1293.5=2.5m
7.3.1Water Way
It should be adequate to pass the design flood safely

year project
June 2009
L=4.75*Q0.5
L= 4.75*(115)0.5=50.93m say 51 m
Loosen factor for boulder reach between 0.45-1m (Dr .KR.Arora) take =0.5
0.50=le/51
Le=26 m
Discharge intensity (q) = Q/Le=115 m3/s/26=4.42m3/s/m
2 3
 Q 
He=  where He=Head over the crest
 Cle 
Q=Design flood discharge
Le=26m
C=coefficient of discharge=1.70
2 3
 115 
He= 
1.7 * 26 
=1.89 m
U/S TEL=1296.0+1.89
=1298.84m
Regimes scour depth(R)
13
 q2 
R=1.35   where q=Q/L=115/26=4.43 m3 s m
 f 
and f=1
Where, mr is average particle size of riverbed at weir site in our case, the
available material at weir site is formed of gravel course.
mr=0.323 (from table)
f=1.76 0.323
=1
13
 q2 
R=1.35  
 f 
13
 4.42 2 
=1.35  
 =3.63
 1 
Regime velocity (Va) =q/R

Va=4.42/3.3.63=1.22 m/s
Velocity head (ha) =Va 2 /2g=1.22 2 /2*9.81=0.10m
U/S HFL =U/S TEL – ha
=1298.84 – 0.10
=1298.74 m
Down stream (D/S) HFL =U/S HFL – Afflux
=1298.74– 1.0
=1297.74 m

year project
June 2009
D/S HFL before construction=D/S HFL – Retrogression

=1297.74– 0.5
=1297.24 m
7.3 Design of Weir Wall

The weir wall is proposed to be trapezoidal cross-section with u/s face vertical
and d/s face with slope 1:2.
Depth of water over crest =u/s HFL-crest level
d =129.74.5-1296.95=1.79m
'
7.3.1 The top width of weir wall (B )
H
1) B ' = =1.12m where, B ' = Top width of weir wall
G 1
Generally 1.5 to 1.8m (source Garge)
2) = s+1=0+1=1
3) =3d/2G=1.13m
Adapt 1.5m
G=Specific gravity of floor material (2.24)
Pond level=FSL+ working head (modular)
Modular head is equal to sum of head loss in regulatory &head required to
pass the fully supply discharge into canal. It usually range from 1.0-1.5 m
(Dr K.Arora)
FSL=RL highest point from the weir +head loss canal +field loss
=1293+.0.15+0.1+1.57=1294.72 m
Pond level=FSL+ working head (modular)
=1294.72+1.5=1296.73 m
Seepage head=pounding level- river bed level
=1296.73-1293.5=3.23 m
7.3.2 Bottom width of weir (B)

The bottom width should be sufficient so that the maximum compressive
stress with in allowable limit &tension does not develop.
H d
a) B= where H=Crest weir height
G 1
d=depth water above crest
2.5  1.79
B= =3.9 m
2.24  1
b) No flow condition
Hs= H+s=2.5+0=2.5 m

year project
June 2009
Mo=9.81*2.5^3/6=70.1K-m-------------(a)
Mr=w/12*(((G+1.5)H+H*S)B2+a(GH-H-S)B-0.5*a2+(H+2*S))---(b)
=0.82(13.09B2+6.51B+3.93
Equate M0=Mr
85. 48+3.93 =13.09 B2+6.51B by trial & error
B=2.4 m
c) High flood condition with weir just submerged
Over turning moment Mo=whH2/2
0.5d2/3
q=2/3 cd (2g)
Where cd=0.58 (Dr K ARORA)
q=4.42m3/s/m
d= (4.42/ (2/3*0.58*4.43)2/3=1.90
Mo=9.81*1.90*2.52/2=114.16 KN-m
Using moment outer middle the point
Mr=Wh (G-1) (B2+Ab)/12
=9.81*2.5*1.24(B2+1.5B)
Equate Mo=Mr
By trial &error B=4.9 m say B=5m
Take the largest of all B=5 m
7.3.3 Depth of Sheet Piles

RL of bottom U/S pile=U/S HFL-1.5R
=1298.74-1.5*3.62=1293.3 m
Depth of U/S pile below bed level=river bed-RL U/S pile
d1 =1293.5-1293.30=0.19
Take d1=2 m
RL of bottom d/s pile=D/S HFL after regeration-2R
=1297.24-2*3.62=1290 m
d2=1293.5-1290=3.5 m
7.3.4 Impervious Floor

Seepage head=pounding level- river bed level
=1296.73-1293.5=3.23 m
By Bligh s theory, the total creep length (L) is given by:
'
L=CHs where, C=Bligh ' s

Creep coefficient taken as (5-9) for
grave foundation
Let us take C=9
L=9*3.23
=29

year project
June 2009
Length of downstream impervious floor, l 2

Hs
L 2 =2.21*C
10
3.23
=2.21*9
10
11m
Length of upstream impervious floor, L 1
L 1 =L- (L 2 +B+2d 1 +2d 2 )
=29-(11 +5+2*2+2*3.5)
=2m
7.3.5 Protection Work

D/S protection work The total length of d/s floor and d/s protection work is
given by
=L 2 +L 3
H sq
=18C
10q s
3.23 * 4.42
=18*9 =22.4 m
10 * 75
Length down stream protection=L1+L2-L3
=22.4-11=11.4m
Minimum length d/s concrete block=1.5d2=1.5*3.5=5.25 say 5m
Provided 1m*1m*1m concrete block cover 0.5m thick in filter
Minimum length d/s lunch apron=2.5d2=2.5*3.5=8.75 m
Thickness lunch apron= t= * =2.1 m
7.3.6 Up stream Protection Work

Minimum length u/s concrete block=1d1=1*2=2m
Provided 1m*1m*1m concrete block cover 0.6m thick gravel
Minimum length u/s lunch apron=2d1=2*2=4 m
Thickness lunch apron=t= * =1.6m

Thickness of the impervious floor by Bligh’s theory.
 Seepage head (Hs)=3.23m
year project
June 2009
 Creep length (L)=29 m

 Specific gravity=2.24
Residual head at point A the toe of weir wall
HS
H=HS- (2 * 2  2  5) =2 m
L
The thickness of D/S floor at this point is then obtained by;
H 2.0
t= 1.33 ( ) =1.33*( )  2.15m Provided a thickness of 2.15m
G 1 G 1
for a length 5m
Thickness of D/s Floor after 5m from the function of the weir wall.
HS
H=HS- (2 * 2  2  5  5) =1.44m
L
H 1.44
t=1.33 ( ) =1.33*( )  1.6m
G 1 G 1
7.3.7 Check by Khosla, s Theory

a) Downstream pile:
  18 / 3.5
b=18, d2=3.5 , , =5.71   3.42
100  2
E  cos  1  
   
=38.31%
100   1
D  cos  1  
   
=26.22%
Thickness correction for  E
   D 
 E   E  * 1.6
 d2 
=5.52%(-ve)
Correction for mutual interference
D d  D
Correction=-19* * 
b'  b 
0.4  0.4  1.9 
=-19* * 
18  18 
=-0.36%(-ve)
Corrected  E  38.31  35.23  0.36
=32.72%
Percentage pressure at A

year project
June 2009
 C1   ECorrected
=  ECorrected  * lengthofd / sfloor
b
 70.54  32.72 *11
=32.72+
18
=55.83%
Residual head, h=0.5583*3.23
=1.80m
h 1.80
Thickness of the floor =   1.46 2.2m………….Ok
G  1 1.24
Percentage pressure at B
 38.31  32.72  * 6
=32.72+
18
Residual head, h=0.3458*3.23
=1.12m
1.12
Thickness of the floor =  1.0 1.6m…………….Ok
1.24
Hence the floor is safe by Khosla ' s theory
Checking of the thickness of the floor by Kohsla’s theory

Exit gradient
 Total length of the impervious floor, b=18m
 Depth of down stream pile, d2=3.5m
 = 18  5.14 ,   1  1    3.40
2

3 .5 2
H S *1 1
GE= =0.15 < - ………..ok
d2 *  *  9
Up lift pressure
b) Up stream pile
18
b=18m, d1=2.m,    9 ,   5.02
2
E1 E
C1
d1=2m d2=3.5
m
D1
FIG 7.1
D
year project
June 2009
100  2
E  COS 1   ,  C1  100  E
   
=70.54%
=29.45%
100   1
D  cos 1    D1  100   D
   
=20.44% = 79.56%
Thickness correction for  c1
  d   C1 
 c1   1  * t =4.51%,t=1m,d1=2

 d 1 
D d  D
Correction=19* * 
b'  b 
2.5  1  2.5 
=19* * 
18  18 
=0.07 %( +ve)
Corrected c1  70.54  4.51  0.07
=75.12%
7.4 Energy Dissipation

During the flood season, when high flood occurs over the weir crest water
falls from the maximum reservoir level of u/s to the d/s tail water and the
difference b/n the u/s and d/s energy grade line becomes very high. There
fore, the energy must be dissipated before it reaches the natural river source:
other wise it causes damage to d/s of the apron. The energy tends to
dissipate through a hydraulic jump d/s of the weir .To control the location of
the jump stilling basin is designed.
U/S TEL
U/S HFL He=1.89 D/S HFL

year project
June 2009
D3
2.5m
D2
D1
Fig 7.2 Energy dissipation
To determine the water depth of well know Bernoulli’s equation is used

consider
0-0&1-1
H+He=D1+V2/2*g+HL neglect the HL
2.5+1.89=D1+
4.89= D1+4.422/2*9.81*D12
4.89D12=D13+0.996 by trial &error D1=0.47 m
D2= (-1+ ) where f= =4.39
D2 = (-1+ ) =2.68
Critical depth dc is expressed by using formula
Dc = /g = /9.81 = 1.25
The head loss dissipated energy As result of jump p =HL =
=( ) = 0.44
The length of jump, Lj= 5(D2-D1) = (2.68-0.47) = 11.05m

D3 =d/s HFL –bed level
= 1297.4-1293.5 =3.9m.
As D3>D2 the jump occurs on weir face, and there is no need of design
stilling basin.

year project
June 2009
7.5 Stability Analysis of Weir

The design section has to be safe against sliding, over turning & tension
requirement .stability analysis of the proposed weir is carried out by
considering the various external. Forces acting on it. The external force
including.
 Uplift pressure is considered for the weir wall.
 Water wedge weight is considered for weir crest only
 Self weight
 Unit weight of water and masonry is taken to be 9.81 and 24 KN/m 3
respectively.
 Moment is taken about the toe per meter width the effect of this force
acting on design structure varies from place to place, foundation condition
of the site height of the design structure.
Ha=0.1 PH3
H1=1.79 PH1
W (H1+Ha)
4.2
PH2
1.75
2.5 W1 W2 2
1
W (H2 +Ha) 1.5 3.5 O
4.2
PU
Fig 7.31 Forces act on weir
Table 7.1 Forces act on weir
No Item Forces Lever Moments at

year project
June 2009
(KN) arm(m) O(KN-m)

Vertical horizontal Overturning restoring
1 W1=1.5*24*2.5 90 4.5 405
2 W2=0.5*3.5*1.75*24 73.5 2.33 170.3
3 PU=0.5*5*4.2*9.81 -102.73 3.33 342.43
4 PH1=9.81*1.89*2.5 43.83 1.25 54.78
5 PH2=0.5*2.52*9.81 30.65 0.83 25.4
6 PH3=1.69*1.5*9.81 24.86 3.35 83.5
TOTAL 85.63 74.65 422.4 658
H  74.65
V  85.63 M R  658  MO  422.4
Safety factors
MR 658
Overturning stability, S o    1.56  1.5 Safe
MO 422.4
Sliding safety factor, S s 

V 
85.631
 1.51  1 Safe
X 74.65
Check for tension,

M 
235.6
 2.75 And for no tension e  B / 6
V 85.63
B 5
e X   32.75  0.25
2 2
B
e=0.25   0.83 No tension, ok!
2
7.6 Design of Under Sluice

This structure has crest at level to develop a deep channel pocket, which will
help to bring flow dry weather discharge to wards this pocket, there by
ensuring easy division of water in to the canal through the head regulator.
This opening will also help in scouring and removing the deposited silt from
the under sluice pocket.
Designed with the discharge of;
1) Twice the discharge of the off taking canal capacity Q=2*8.2=16.4m*3/sec
2) 20% of the max. Flood, Q=0.2*115=23m*3/sec
Therefore, Qsluice will be max. of the above. Qsluice=23m*3/sec
Providing one under sluice with 2m width (divide wall is provided between the
proper weir and the under sluice).

year project
June 2009
Q 23
q   12m 3 / sec
L 2
Scoured depth for the sluice section (R)
1
 q2 3
R  1.35
 f  ,
 for f=1
 
1
 12 2  3

R  1.35   7.07 m

 1 
RL of bottom of scour depth on u/s side=U/S HFL-1.5R=1298.74-1.5*7.07
=1288.14m.

Therefore, the depth of the u/s pile, 1 1293.5-1288.14=5.36m.
d
RL of bottom of scour pile on d/s side= D/S HFL-2R=1297.24-
2*7.07=1283.10m.
Therefore, the depth of the d/s pile, d 2 =1293.5-1283.10=10.4m.
7.6.1 Impervious floor

Hs
Min. length of d/s impervious floor, L2  3.87
10
Where H=Hs=3.23mC=9 (for boulder foundation Dr.K.A.Arora, 2002)
3.15
L2  3.87 * 9 =19.79m  20m.Min. Length of u/s impervious floor,
10
L1  L   L2  B  2d1  2d 2   29   20  7.5  2 * 5.4  2 *10.4  56.6m
Therefore, take nominal value of 2m for u/s length.
7.6.2 Protection work

Total length of d/s impervious floor and protection work
H   q   3.23   12 
L2  L3  27C  s  *    27 * 9 *   *    55.24
 10   75   10   75 
Length of the d/s protection work, L3   L2  L3   L2  55.24  20  35.24m.

this length is both inverted filter and launching apron.
L 35..24
Length of the u/s protection work, L4  3   18m.
2 2
3
Note; using broad crested weir formula, Q  C LH 2
S d
Where H=weir height + He=3.23+1.89=4.49m.

L=2m and Cd=1.7

year project
June 2009
3
Qs  1.7 * 2 *  4.49 2  31.27m 3 / sec Discharge through the under sluice.
3
And Qw  C LH 2  1.7 * 24 * 4.49 2 / 3  111m 3 / sec Discharge through the proper weir
d
with length, L=24m.

Therefore, the total discharges,
Qs  Qw  Qs  111  31.27  142.31m 3 / sec  Q  115m 3 / sec ok
7.7 Design of head regulator

It is provided at the head of the off taking canal and has the following
objectives;
1. To regulate the supply of water in to the canal
2. To completely shutout the high flood from entering to the canal.
3. To control the entry of silt to the canal.
The regulation is provided by the gate which is fixed in such a way that,
the discharge or desired capacity of water can easily flow in to the intake
canal. The intake canal is placed so as the top level should be less than or
equal to the crest level of the proper weir. Crest levels
1) Under sluice=the crest level of under sluice is equal to the river bed
level=1293.5m.
2) Head regulator=is kept 1.2 to 1.5m higher than the crest level of the under
sluice (say 1.5m) =1293.5+1.5=1295m.
Bed level of canal=crest level of head regulator-canal flow depth=1295-
1.43=1293.57m.
Take bed level canal=1293.8m
Sill canal=bed level canal- river bed level=0.3m
7.8 Design of Silt Excluder

It is a structure constructed regulate silt from water entering the canal
Available data
Available supply discharge of canal=8.2m3/s
Crest level of under sluice=1293.5 m
Crest level of head regulator=1295 m
Bay width under sluice =2m
Design discharge=20% of the canal discharge
Q=0.2*8.2m3/s=1.64m3/s
A minimum velocity of 2m/s is usually adapted through the tunnel in order
to keep the sediment free from deposit
V=2m/s
year project
June 2009
Area cross section (A)=1.64/2=0.82 m2

Assuming thickness of roof slab=0.2 m
Height of tunnel (h) = crest level head regulater-thicnes slab-crest under
sluice
=1295-0.2-1293.5=1.3m
Total clear width=A/h
=0.82/1.3=0.63m
For clear span o.5m
Numbers of tunnel=0.63/0.5=1.26 say 1 tunnel
Assume the thickness divide wall 0.2m
Over width=0.4*2+0.2=1 m
Only 0ne bay of under sluice will be used for silt excluder
7.9 Design of Canal Out Let

The head regulate crest level is fixed 1295m&canal bed level is 12993.8m
Right side canal capacity canal is 8.2m3/s
7.9.1 Out Let Size

Q=CLH3/2 where c=1.7
L =out let length
H=water depth in canal=1.43m (from canal pc1)
L=
L= =2.82
There fore out let size 2.9m*1.5m (length & height)
For left out let similar procedure follow
Discharge left side canal=1.78m3/s
L= =2.14 where depth canal=0.62 m

There fore outlet size=2.2m) 0.62m (length & height)
7.10 Gate
Gate have extra dimension than out let. The gate are provided an angle iron
from at wall side& at the bed
Size gate
year project
June 2009
Off take canal right side main canal

Opening 2.9m*1.5m
Sheet metal 3.0m*1.8m (length. height)
Thickness sheet metal=4mm
Off take canal left side main canal
Opening 2.2m*0.62m
Sheet metal 2.3*1.1.8m (length. height)
Thickness sheet metal=4mm
7.11 Design of Retaining Wall (Guide wall)

To avoid out flanking of the river due to the control structure across the river
a masonry guide wall is provided. Considerations;
 Analysis per meter span and moment heel
 The depth of the soil up to the top level of the wall
 The wall on the side of the soil inclined
 Soil homogenous
 Earth pressure at rest was considered
7.11.1 Upstream Retaining Wall

Data available
 River bed level=1293.5m
 U/S HFL=1298.7 m
  m  22.4 KN / m 3 ,  w  10 KN / m 3 ,  soil  19.62 KN / m 3
 Angle of repose     30 0
 Top width=0.5m (source soil mechanics Arora)
 Free board(FB)=0.5m(assumed)
 Anchored depth below river bed =0.6m (source soil mechanics Arora)
 Therefore, height of wing wall
H= (U/S HFL- river bed level) +FB+anchored depth
H=+ (1298.5-1293.5) +0.5 +0.6= 5.61
Take =5.6m m
The bottom width is=70%*H=5.6*0.7=3.9m
B=3.9m

year project
June 2009
Kp= =1/3
0.5
0.5 W3
W1
5m
W3
PH PS 5.6m
W4
3.4
O
3.9
PU 5.6m
Fig 7.4 u/s wing wall
Table 7.2 Forces and moments acting on u/s retaining wall
No Item Forces Lever Moments at

(KN) arm(m) O(KN-m)

year project
June 2009
Vertical horizontal Overturning restoring

1 W1=0.5*5*22.42 56.05 o.25 14.01
2 W2=0.5*3.4*5*22.42 190.4 1.63 310.98
3 W3=0.5*3.4*19.62*5 166.7 2.76 461.2
4 W4=3.4*0.6*22.4 44.88 1.95 87.51
5 Pa=0.5*19.62*5.62*1/3 -102.54 1.86 191.41
6 Ph=0.5*4.52*9.81 99.32 1.5 148.98
7 Pu=0.5*5.62*9.81 -153.82 1.3 199.94
∑V= 304.16 ∑H=3.22 M R  1022.67

∑Mo=391.78
Safety factors
Overturning stability, S o 
 MR  1022.67  2.6  1.5, OK !
 Mo 391.78
Sliding stability, S S 
V 
304.16
 94.45  1OK !
H 3.22
Check for tension.
x
M 
1022.67  391.78
 12.07m; e 
B
x 
3.9
 12.07  0.12
V 304.16 2 2
B/6=3.9/6=0.65m
B
Sincé e=0.12m  0.65m no tensión.
6
As the result the structure is safe
7.11.2 Downstream retaining wall

D/S HFL=1297.24
Free board (FB) =0.5(assumed)
Top width=0.5 m (source soil mechanics Arora)
Therefore, H=+ (1297.24-1293.5) +0.5+0.6=4.63 say=4.6 m
Provided bottom width, B=4.6m
Bottom width=0.7*4.6=3.2m
B=3.2m

year project
June 2009
0.5m
0.5m
W1
PS W3
PH
W2
O W4
2.7
3.2m
4.6m
PU
Fig 7.5 d/s retaining
Table 7.3 Forces and moments acting on d/s retaining wall
Item Forces Lever Moments

No (KN) arm(m) at O(KN-m)
Vertical Horizontal Overturning restoring
1 W1=0.5*4*22.4 44.8 O.25 11.2

2 W2=0.5*2.7*4*22.4 121.5 1.4 170.1
3 W3=0.5*2.7*4*19.62 105.95 1.8 190.71

4 W4=0,6*3.2*22.4 43.00 1.6 68.81
5 Ps==0.5*19.62*4.62*1/3 -69.19 1.53 106.09
6 Ph=o.5*3.528*9.81 60.08 1.33 81.66

7 Pu=0.5*4.62*9.81 -103.78 1.06 110.81
V  211 .47 ∑H= 9.11 M O  216.90

year project
June 2009
M R  522.48
Safety factors
Overturning stability, S O 
 MR  522.46  2.4  1.5, OK !
 M 0 216.90
Sliding stability, S S 
V 
211.47
 23.24  1, OK !
H 9.11
Check for tension,
x
M 
522.48  216.90
 1.44m, e 
B
x 
3 .2
 1.44  0.05m
V 211 .47 2 2
B/6=3.2/6=0.53
Since e=0.0.5<0.53m, there is no tension.
CHAPTER EIGHT
8. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The main of economical Analysis is to check weather a given project is
economical or not. A given project said to be economically feasible implies
that the total benefit of the project exceeds the total cost of the project (i.e.
benefit cost ratio of the project should be greater than one)
Table 8.1rate of cost
NO Work unit Quantity Unit cost Total cost

Description
1 Access Km 2 4500 9000
road
2 Camping - 1 80,000 80,000
3 Head Work -
8.2 Weir Apron And under Sluice portion
Site clearing M2 800 4 3200

year project
June 2009
Foundation M2 13014 20 27828

Excavation
Masonry work M2 124.2 350 43470
Concrete M2 126 4350 44100
work
Plastering M2 64 350 22400
Gravel and M2 75.6 55 4151
filter
8.3 Head Regulator
NO Work Unit Quantity Total cost

Description
Concert m - 700 700
piec(4=0.8m)
Cote(0.4*0.4) pcs - 5000 5000
8.4 Retaining wall

Description
1 Masonry M2 487.5 350 170625
Work
2 Excavation M2 377.5 20 7552
8.5 Main Canal

Description
1 Excavation M2 133.328 20 2666560
2 Back fill M2 47,364 20 947280
3 Drop 2-1- M2 129 350 45550
2-5-7
8.6 Secondary

year project
June 2009

Description
1 Excavation M2 52,188 20 1043760
2 Back fill M2 6990.4 20 139.808
3 Drop 2- M2 89 350 31.150
1_2-11
8.7 Tertiary canal

Description
1 Territory M2 - - -
8.8 Culvert

Description
1 Concrete M2 1.2 300 360
2 Masonry M2 0.9 350 315
3 pipe PCS 0.2 1500 3000
8.9 Drainage Convey

Description
1 Excavation M2 - - -
Estimation of Project benefit the Purpose of Irrigation Project is to increase
the crop production in this case all the Agricultural out puts are sold for the
assumed life time of the project which is 20 yrs.
The following table shows the estimated benefit of the project
Table 8.10 Estimation 0f Project benefit
No Types Area Yield Price Labor Labor T0tal Profit Total

of crop (ha) qu/ (Birr/ per/ cost/ cost/ birr/ per/
ha ha) ha ha ha ha ha
1 Maize- 21 36 14400 210 2100 2900 11,500 24,500
i
year project
June 2009
2 Hani 14 16 13120 150 1500 2250 10870 152182

been-
ii
3 Pepper 7 12 60000 240 2400 6200 53800 376600
4 Onion 7 152 76000 160 1600 3800 72200 505,400

5 Cotton 25 20 20000 250 2500 3700 16,300 407,500
6 Maize-i 40 36 14,400 210 2100 2900 11500 460,000
7 Hani 30 16 13,120 150 1500 250 10,870 326100
been-i
8 Banana 5 100 100,000 180 1800 2500 97,500 480,500
Analysis of the Economy

Assuming useful time of the project to be 20 yrs interest rate; the annual
worth or total cost will be
Assuming annual operation and maintatiance cost to be 10% of annul cost

O&M COST=0.1*621.998=621998
Using the Modified Benefit Cost Ratio Method

B/C= (Bn-Mn)/Cn
Where _Bn=net capital sowings to user
_Mn=user O&M cost
_Cn=capital cost of replacing the present facility with future facility
= =4.6>1.0
Hence, the project economically feasible.

year project
June 2009
CHAPTER NINE
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1 General
During the construction of different projects, including irrigation system,
those are intended to produce some developments, may cause irreversible
environmental changes over a wide geographic area and thus have a potential

year project
June 2009
for significant impacts. The area of influence of the project extends from the
upper limits of the catchments to far down stream. Therefore the project such
as Gelana irrigation structure system, are designed to enhance economic
development and bring a better standard of life to people due consideration
should be given to their adverse environmental and social effects. This can be
done through environmental impact assessment (EIA) which is a management
tool for officials and manager who take decision about important development
project. The EIA not only predicts potential problems but also identifies
measures to minimize the problems and out lines ways to improve the project
suitability for its proposed environment.
The aim of environmental impact assessments is;
To understand the likely environmental consequences of redevelopments.
To understand the amplification of proposed interventions.
To identify measures by which the impacts can be mitigated.
To present the results in such away that they can provide answers needed
by stakeholders.
Generally EIA can be described in short as an instrument used to identify,
predict and assess the environmental consequences of a proposed major
development project. Moreover EIA is used to plan appropriate measures to
reduce adverse effects.
Environmental impacts of any project can be classified in to two groups.
1. Negative impacts
2. Positive impacts
Negative impacts
1. Impacts on Physical Environment
2. Impacts on Biological Environment
3. Impacts on Socio-Economic Environment
9.2 IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
9.2.1 Impacts on Hydrology

The irrigation structures have little impact on the total available water
butsome detrimental effect on the distribution of water in terms of space and
time. This has a significant effect on aquatic resource, recession agriculture
wild life movements and other human activities downstream of the scheme.
All these and other effects are brought about through the reduction and flood
modification i.e. alteration to the liver regime.
9.2.2. Impact on Water Quality

Irrigation projects usually yield high sediments during construction and low
year project
June 2009
sediment rating during operation phases. Like inclination of trees and other
vegetation may lead to increase in nitrate and phosphate imputes that would
initiate eutrophication (depletion of oxygen).
9.2.3. Impact on Water logging

The Water logging risk is common problem of the area due to the perched
water table, because of the heavy soils.
9.2.4 Impact on Deforestation

Trees and bosh are cleared from the project area, to provide safe irrigation
system the clearances must be carried out over the whole area, including
large trees if they interfere the irrigation lay out & area crop spraying. The
types of bush’s & vegetable are dense woody bush with tall trees changes the
whole environmental system & disturb the wild life habitat.
9.2.5. Reduction of Down Stream

Below the dam site the flow regimes such as flood frequency, Velocity and
volume reduce gradually. This charges the original river morphology and
sediment transport of the down stream river basin.
9.2.6. Increase Risks of Erosion

During the clearance of trees and vegetation, heavy weight of balloters
capacity which consequences light surface flow &soil erosion. At the heavy
rain fall the flood flow easily facilitate soil erosion since there are no enough
trees to mitigate and reduce the flow. During the practice of the land leveling
the soil is disaggregated and is comes structurally weak. Earth work activities
for roads, civil works, construction camps, etc. will remove and district the
natural vegetation and top soil particularly on the steeper slopes increasing
the potential for erosion. Roads are important contributor to soil erosion,
primarily because they concentrate and distribute runoff as channel flow
rather than a uniform over land or subsurface flow.
9.2.7. Impacts on Minerals and Construction Materials

No any mineral occurs have been identified from the impact areas. The likely
impact would be on construction materials mainly bed rocks for masonry,
aggregate materials etc and quarries for various purposes.

year project
June 2009
9.2.8. Impact of Air Quality

Air pollution is common during construction phase. Dust pollution caused by
frequent movement of the construction vehicles and machineries coupled
with wind effects suspended particles are the cause for many diseases. In
addition to dust exhaust fumes or emissions released by diesel operating
equipment cause air pollution.
9.3 Impacts on Biological Environment
9.3.1. Flora and Fauna

Plant will certainly cause loss of natural vegetation and fauna available in
those sites due to construction irrigation system.
In most of the impact areas a fairly dense wood land or wooden grassland will
be affected permanently. Animals moved to the adjacent areas could become
more vulnerable to poaching by the local people or immigrant people during
the construction period.
9.4. Impacts on Socio-Economic Environment
9.4.1. Loss of Land and Other Fixed Properties

Since the method is surface or over head irrigation the great area is lost by
aligning canal &furrows. The main impact for the surrounding local
community will be losses of grazing land, bush land and wood land areas that
comprise bushes and grasses which used to build houses. More over, the
communication net work and social infrastructure will be affecting.
9.4.2. Increased Risk Disease

During construction period there will be job opportunities attracting labor
force from out side the area. This new influx will change the existing
population. The main effects will be increased exposure of workers and their
families to locally endemic diseases and sexually transmitted diseases. Open
water ways and ponds inevitable involve risk of an invasion of material
mosquitoes and other bore health hazards. In the project area saints which
are the principal cause for a disease is called bilharzias, is mainly in habited
in outlet works of dam and to main canal hade works.

year project
June 2009
9.5 Remedial Measures

The proposed remedial measures and the impacts are shown below in the
following table.
Table 9.1 Negative Environmental Impacts and Remedial Measures.
Impact Remedial Measures

1 Soil erosion - For any road construction side drains
longitudes drains, culverts and appropriate angle of
wet and fill should be incorporated to combat soil
erosion.
- Erodible surface should be cut only during
dry weather and replanted a soon as possible.
Water quality - Design ways and means to minimize erosion
2 and sediments, chemical pollution from
construction activities, pollution from human and
domestic waste from the camps and offices from
entering in to the river canals.
- Conducting periodic water quality monitoring
and dry out the canals to kill snails and
mosquitoes.
3 Air quality - Dust collectors or water spray systems is

require to prevent high dust emissions from batch
plant operations.
- Diesel engines of construction equipment
should be subjected to regular checking and
cleaning of the inspectors to minimize emissions.
4 deforestation - Remove vegetation as possible during the
development.

year project
June 2009
5 Loss of fixed - Provision of financial compensation for hours

properties and land and land loss to made way for the project.
- Allocation of financial compensation on the
basses of lost income from the land and the time
and labor necessary to bring new land into use.
6 Water logging - Buried pipe drains installed at low depth to
reduce the water table depth.
7 Health and sanitary - Employment of preventive and curative

issues measures to reduce transmission of communicable
diseased between the work force and the local
population.
- Health education campaign about sexually
transmitted diseases and their preventive
measures.
- Snail screens are incorporated in the design
of outlet works to avoid bilharzias.
- The design canals should flow relatively high
speed
9.6 POTENTIAL POSITIVE IMPACTS

Effects on human beings & manmade features. Effects of the development on
the surrounding area & landscape. Effects of the development on buildings,
the arch textural & historic heritage, & archaeological features. Increased
production when irrigation projects are implemented people can produce
crops with good yield in season other than rainy season & erratic rainfall
distributions i.e. crop production in dry season. More rounds of crops with

year project
June 2009
availability of irrigation two or three round of crops can be manipulated on

the same soil with proper rotation & fertilizer.Rise in social status with
increased food production more money with be available with farmers & this
raises their standard of living. Rise in social standards with increased food
production &assured supplies of food & water more money is available with
farmers & this raises their living standards. Since the project has a reservoir
at dam site in addition to water
collection if helps as a food control.

year project
June 2009
CHAPTER TEN
10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
Based on the study and the result obtained the designed the following
conclusions and recommendations are made.
10.1 Conclusion
Contribution of ground water level is not taken in to account in CWR
Calculation.
The soil topography of the area is quite good for irrigation
To estimate of design flood there is no fittest data.
Determination of design flood taken from Gelana IDF depth storm,
followed by USSCS &finally by triangular hydrograph
The project area is alluvial loam soil in nature, good drainage facilities
for the lands are made.
Area allocation of each type of crop is based on dependability of crop on
different parameters like marketability, popularity and climatic
condition of command area.
Penman - Monteith method is used to calculate crop water demand of
the crops, which is accomplished by computer software program
Determination of effective rainfall using dependable rainfall
In n the project area there is no gauging station, therefore the six
nearest metrological stations are available, but Arba Minch climatic
Characteristics taken determination ETO
Surface irrigation design system is design by furdev compute software
Design of drainage canal done by maximum depth storm consider as
mean annual rainfall due to lack fittest data
10.2 Recommendations
The project cannot be handled the farmers only; it should be supported
by the government agency.
To prevent canal from being silt up cleaning irrigation canal timely is
important
The data collected for student project work, some data is missing the
concerned body of the university should be check the basic data input
before deliver to student
Education and training should be given to the farmers for adopting
practice of conservative use of water on scientific manner.
Formation of water users association can enhance peaceful usage of
irrigation water and resolution of conflicts.

year project
June 2009
Finally proper management, maintenance and use of the project should

be given due consideration for the scheme to operate efficiently through
out the design period practices.
REFERANCE
1. Arora, K.R, Irrigation, water power &water resource engineering
stander published distribution, NoAia sake Delhi (2000)
2. FAO, Guide line for predication of crop water requirement,
irrigation &drainage paper 24,FAO,ROME
3. Hydrology for engineering RAY,K LINSLE 1982
4. K.C, PATRA, Hydrology &water resource engineering, NORSA,
published
5. Garg, SK, Irrigation & hydraulics structure 12 th edition, New
Delhi 1995
6. Baba R.Design of diversion weir, small scale irrigation in hot
climate,weily & soon 1995
7. DR Punumia irrigation water power &water resource engineering
8. Michael A.M irrigation theory & practice,viks publishing limited
Delhi 1983
9. Environmental impact assessment (2000) B.Perty
10. Irrigation structure& surface irrigation hand out
11.

year project
June 2009
ANNEXES-A

year project
June 2009
SEASON TWO
4/29/2009 CropWat 4 Windows Ver 4.3
******************************************************************************
Climate and ETo (grass) Data
******************************************************************************
Data Source: C:\CROPWATW\CLIMATE\LG.PEM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country : ETHIOPIA Station : Gelana
Altitude: 1300 meter(s) above M.S.L.
Latitude: 6.08 Deg. (North) Longitude: 37.58 Deg. (East)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month MaxTemp MiniTemp Humidity Wind Spd. SunShine Solar Rad. ETo
(deg.C) (deg.C) (%) (Km/d) (Hours) (MJ/m2/d) (mm/d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31.4 14.3 51.8 95.0 9.1 21.5 4.51
February 32.6 15.2 47.9 103.7 8.8 22.2 4.96
March 32.6 16.2 52.5 121.0 8.1 22.0 5.19
April 30.6 16.5 63.5 129.6 7.3 20.7 4.77
May 28.7 16.1 69.0 155.5 7.8 20.7 4.58
June 28.0 16.2 64.2 164.2 6.4 18.2 4.30
July 27.5 15.8 63.3 155.5 4.8 16.0 3.97
August 28.4 16.3 59.9 155.5 5.4 17.4 4.35
September 29.6 16.1 60.1 138.2 6.9 20.0 4.67
October 29.6 15.7 65.8 103.7 7.6 20.6 4.38
November 30.1 14.0 60.2 103.7 9.1 21.7 4.48
December 30.8 13.9 53.7 95.0 9.1 21.1 4.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average 30.0 15.5 59.3 126.7 7.5 20.2 4.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
year project
June 2009
Pen-Mon equation was used in ETo calculations with the following values
for Angstrom's Coefficients:
a = 0.25 b = 0.
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\ALL.TXT

******************************************************************************
ETo and Rainfall Data
******************************************************************************
Data Source: C:\CROPWATW\CLIMATE\RC.CRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Month ETo Total Rainfall Effective Rain
(mm/d) (mm/month) (mm/month)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 4.51 23.8 4.3
February 4.96 31.3 8.8
March 5.19 74.2 35.4
April 4.77 182.3 121.8
May 4.58 158.5 102.8
June 4.30 58.5 25.1
July 3.97 42.2 15.3
August 4.35 39.1 13.5
September 4.67 71.0 32.8
October 4.38 130.8 80.6
November 4.48 72.9 34.3
December 4.34 24.5 4.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (mm/Year) 1656.40 909.1 479.4

year project
June 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.B. Effective rainfall calculated using the following formulas:

Effective R. = 0.6 * Total R. - 10 ... (Total R. < 70 mm/month),
Effective R. = 0.8 * Total R. - 24 ... (Total R. > 70 mm/month).
******************************************************************
SAESON TWO

******************************************************************************
Crop Water Requirements Report
******************************************************************************
- Crop # : [All crops]

- Block # : [All blocks]
- Calculation time step = 10 Day(s)
- Irrigation Efficiency = 70%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date ETo Planted Crop CWR Total Effect. Irr. FWS
Area Kc (ETm) Rain Rain Req.

year project
June 2009
(mm/per) (%) (mm/per) (l/s/ha)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1 46.36 30.00 0.25 11.36 3.35 0.00 11.36 0.19
11/1 47.31 5.00 0.06 2.79 0.77 0.00 2.79 0.05
21/1 48.11 5.00 0.06 2.79 0.96 0.00 2.79 0.05
31/1 48.72 5.00 0.06 2.78 1.15 0.00 2.78 0.05
10/2 49.14 5.00 0.06 2.76 1.31 0.00 2.76 0.05
20/2 49.35 12.00 0.09 4.29 3.55 0.19 4.09 0.07
2/3 49.37 75.00 0.37 18.27 23.34 3.17 15.10 0.25
12/3 49.21 75.00 0.37 18.30 24.59 9.85 8.44 0.14
22/3 48.88 75.0 0.49 23.96 25.43 18.31 5.64 0.09
1/4 48.42 75.00 0.67 32.63 25.91 25.09 7.55 0.12
11/4 47.85 75.00 0.79 37.70 26.06 26.06 11.64 0.19
21/4 47.20 75.00 0.81 38.47 25.92 25.92 12.55 0.21
1/5 46.51 75.00 0.81 37.90 25.54 25.54 12.36 0.20
11/5 45.81 71.00 0.76 34.93 23.66 22.91 12.02 0.20
21/5 45.12 35.00 0.38 17.35 11.33 8.46 8.89 0.15
31/5 44.47 32.00 0.31 13.84 10.04 5.09 8.75 0.14
10/6 43.88 5.00 0.05 2.19 1.51 0.44 1.76 0.03
20/6 43.38 5.00 0.05 2.18 1.46 0.25 1.93 0.03
30/6 42.97 30.00 0.16 7.04 8.42 0.84 6.20 0.10
10/7 42.68 30.00 0.17 7.04 8.12 0.00 7.04 0.12
20/7 42.49 30.00 0.17 7.06 7.86 0.00 7.06 0.12
30/7 42.42 30.00 0.19 7.98 7.64 0.00 7.98 0.13
9/8 42.46 30.00 0.23 9.63 7.46 0.00 9.63 0.16
19/8 42.60 30.00 0.27 11.31 7.31 0.38 10.93 0.18
29/8 42.83 30.00 0.30 13.02 7.19 1.44 11.58 0.19
8/9 43.13 30.00 0.34 14.78 7.09 2.82 11.96 0.20
18/9 43.49 30.00 0.36 15.66 7.01 4.82 10.84 0.18
28/9 43.87 30.00 0.36 15.79 6.92 6.55 9.24 0.15
8/10 44.25 30.00 0.36 15.93 6.82 6.82 9.11 0.15
18/10 44.62 30.00 0.36 16.06 6.69 6.69 9.38 0.16
28/10 44.94 30.00 0.36 16.18 6.51 6.23 9.95 0.16
7/11 45.19 30.00 0.36 16.27 6.28 4.26 12.01 0.20
17/11 45.36 30.00 0.35 15.76 5.99 1.97 13.79 0.23
27/11 45.43 30.00 0.32 14.76 5.62 0.53 14.22 0.24
7/12 45.40 30.00 0.30 13.71 5.18 0.00 13.71 0.23
17/12 45.26 30.00 0.28 12.64 4.67 0.00 12.64 0.21
27/12 22.55 30.00 0.26 5.91 2.12 0.00 5.91 0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1661.07 541.03 360.77 214.63 326.40 [0.15]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

year project
June 2009
* ETo data is distributed using polynomial curve fitting.

* Rainfall data is distributed using polynomial curve fitting.
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\ALL.TXT

******************************************************************************
Irrigation Scheduling Report
******************************************************************************
* Crop Data:
------------
- Crop # 1 : COTTON
- Block # :1
- Planting date: 30/6
* Soil Data:
------------
- Soil description : Medium
- Initial soil moisture depletion: 40%
* Irrigation Scheduling Criteria:

---------------------------------
- Application Timing:
Irrigate each 14days.
- Applications Depths:
Refill to 100% of readily available soil moisture.
- Start of Scheduling: 30/6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date TAM RAM Total Efct. ETc ETc/ETm SMD Interv . Net Lost User
Rain Rain Irr. Irr. Adj.
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (mm) (Days) (mm) (mm) (mm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30/6 140.0 91.0 14.2 14.2 1.9 100.0% 43.8 0 43.8 0.0
5/7 146.1 95.0 13.9 7.7 1.9 100.0% 1.9
10/7 152.3 99.0 13.7 9.6 1.9 100.0% 1.9
14/7 157.2 102.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 100.0% 9.6 14 9.6 0.0
15/7 158.4 102.9 13.4 0.0 1.9 100.0% 1.9
20/7 164.5 106.9 13.2 9.6 1.9 100.0% 1.9

year project
June 2009
25/7 170.6 110.9 13.0 9.6 1.9 100.0% 1.9

28/7 174.3 113.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 100.0% 7.6 14 7.6 0.0
30/7 176.8 114.9 12.8 1.9 2.0 100.0% 2.0
4/8 182.9 118.9 12.7 10.5 2.3 100.0% 2.3
9/8 189.0 122.8 12.5 12.1 2.6 100.0% 2.6
11/8 191.5 124.4 0.0 0.0 2.7 100.0% 8.0 14 8.0 0.0
14/8 195.1 126.8 12.4 5.7 2.9 100.0% 2.9
19/8 201.3 130.8 12.2 12.2 3.3 100.0% 6.3
24/8 207.4 134.8 12.1 12.1 3.6 100.0% 11.4
25/8 208.6 135.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 100.0% 15.1 14 15.1 0.0
29/8 213.5 138.8 12.0 11.3 3.9 100.0% 3.9
3/9 219.6 142.8 11.9 11.9 4.2 100.0% 12.5
8/9 225.8 146.7 11.9 11.9 4.6 100.0% 22.9 14 22.9 0.0
13/9 231.9 150.7 11.8 11.8 4.9 100.0% 12.1
18/9 238.0 154.7 11.7 11.7 5.2 100.0% 26.0
22/9 238.0 154.7 0.0 0.0 5.2 100.0% 46.8 14 46.8 0.0
23/9 238.0 154.7 11.6 0.0 5.2 100.0% 5.2
28/9 238.0 154.7 11.6 11.6 5.2 100.0% 19.8
3/10 238.0 154.7 11.5 11.5 5.3 100.0% 34.6
6/10 238.0 154.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 100.0% 50.4 14 50.4 0.0
8/10 238.0 154.7 11.4 5.3 5.3 100.0% 5.3
13/10 238.0 154.7 11.3 11.3 5.3 100.0% 20.5
18/10 238.0 154.7 11.2 11.2 5.3 100.0% 35.9
20/10 238.0 154.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 100.0% 46.6 14 46.6 0.0
23/10 238.0 154.7 11.1 10.7 5.4 100.0% 5.4
28/10 238.0 154.7 10.9 10.9 5.4 100.0% 21.3
2/11 238.0 154.7 10.8 10.8 5.4 100.0% 37.4
3/11 238.0 154.7 0.0 0.0 5.4 100.0% 42.8 14 42.8 0.0
7/11 238.0 154.7 10.6 10.6 5.4 100.0% 11.0
12/11 238.0 154.7 10.4 10.4 5.4 100.0% 27.8
17/11 238.0 154.7 10.1 10.1 5.4 100.0% 44.8 14 44.8 0.0
22/11 238.0 154.7 9.8 9.8 5.2 100.0% 16.5
27/11 238.0 154.7 9.5 9.5 5.0 100.0% 32.4
1/12 238.0 154.7 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 52.0 14 52.0 0.0
2/12 238.0 154.7 9.2 0.0 4.8 100.0% 4.8
7/12 238.0 154.7 8.8 8.8 4.6 100.0% 19.3
12/12 238.0 154.7 8.4 8.4 4.4 100.0% 33.2
15/12 238.0 154.7 0.0 0.0 4.2 100.0% 46.0 14 46.0 0.0
17/12 238.0 154.7 8.0 4.2 4.2 100.0% 4.2
22/12 238.0 154.7 7.6 7.6 3.9 100.0% 16.8
27/12 238.0 154.7 7.1 7.1 3.7 100.0% 28.8
29/12 238.0 154.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 100.0%
36.2 14 36.2 0.0

year project
June 2009
1/1 238.0 154.7 5.1 5.1 3.6 100.0% 5.7

6/1 238.0 154.7 6.1 6.1 3.4 100.0% 17.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 427.5 344.8 791.8 100.0% 472.6 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Yield Reduction:
------------------
- Estimated yield reduction in growth stage # 1 = 0.0%
--------
- Estimated total yield reduction = 0.0%
* These estimates may be used as guidelines and not as actual figures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Legend:
---------
TAM = Total Available Moisture = (FC% - WP%)* Root Depth [mm].
RAM = Readily Available Moisture = TAM * P [mm].
SMD = Soil Moisture Deficit [mm].
* Notes:
--------
Monthly ETo is distributed using polynomial curve fitting.
Monthly Rainfall is distributed using polynomial curve fitting.
To generate rainfall events, each 5 days of distributed rainfall are
accumulated as one storm.
Only NET irrigation requirements are given here. No any kind of losses
was taken into account in the calculations.
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\SCCC.TXT

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************

year project
June 2009
* Crop Data:
------------
- Crop # 2 : MAIZE -1
- Block # :1
* Soil Data:
------------

---------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date TAM RAM Total Efct. ETc ETc/ETm SMD Interv. Net Lost User
Rain Rain Irr Irr. Adj.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/3 140.0 84.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 100.0% 58.5 0 58.5 0.0
2/3 142.5 85.5 15.3 0.0 2.5 100.0% 2.5
7/3 154.7 92.8 15.8 12.3 2.5 100.0% 2.5
12/3 166.9 100.2 16.2 12.3 2.5 100.0% 2.5
15/3 174.3 104.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 100.0% 9.9 14 9.9 0.0
17/3 179.2 107.5 16.6 2.5 2.5 100.0% 2.5
22/3 191.5 114.9 16.8 12.4 2.7 100.0% 2.7
27/3 203.7 122. 17.1 14.9 3.4 100.0% 3.4
29/3 208.6 125.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 100.0% 10.5 14 10.5 0.0
1/4 215.9 129.6 17.2 7.7 4.0 100.0% 4.0
6/4 228.2 136.9 17.3 17.3 4.7 100.0% 8.8
11/4 238.0 142.8 17.4 17.4 5.1 100.0% 16.4
12/4 238.0 142.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 100.0% 21.4 14 21.4 0.0
16/4 238.0 142.8 17.4 15.1 5.0 100.0% 5.0
21/4 238.0 142.8 17.3 17.3 5.0 100.0% 12.7
26/4 238.0 142.8 17.2 17.2 5.0 100.0% 20.3 14 20.3 0.0
1/5 238.0 142.8 17.1 17.1 4.9 100.0% 7.5
6/5 238.0 142.8 16.9 16.9 4.9 100.0% 15.1

year project
June 2009
10/5 238.0 142.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 34.5 14 34.5 0.0
11/5 238.0 142.8 16.8 0.0 4.8 100.0% 4.8
16/5 238.0 142.8 16.5 16.5 4.6 100.0% 11.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 269.0 197.2 321.8 100.0% 155.1 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Yield Reduction:
------------------
--------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Legend:
---------
* Notes:
--------
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\SMM.TXT

******************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************

year project
June 2009
* Crop Data:
------------
- Crop # 3 : BEAN-1
- Block # :1
* Soil Data:
------------

---------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/3 70.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0% 30.0 0 30.0 0.0
2/3 70.6 31.8 15.3 0.0 2.0 100.0% 2.0
7/3 73.4 33.0 15.8 9.9 2.0 100.0% 2.0
12/3 76.2 34.3 16.2 9.9 2.0 100.0% 2.0
15/3 77.8 35.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0% 7.9 14 7.9 0.0
17/3 79.0 35.5 16.6 2.0 2.0 100.0% 2.0
22/3 81.8 36.8 16.8 10.0 2.2 100.0% 2.2
27/3 84.6 38.1 17.1 12.2 2.8 100.0% 2.8
29/3 85.7 38.6 0.0 0.0 3.0 100.0% 8.8 14 8.8 0.0
1/4 87.4 39.3 17.2 6.5 3.4 100.0% 3.4
6/4 90.2 40.6 17.3 17.3 4.0 100.0% 4.9
11/4 93.0 41.8 17.4 17.4 4.6 100.0% 9.2
12/4 93.5 42.1 0.0 0.0 4.7 100.0% 13.9 14 13.9 0.0
16/4 95.8 43.1 17.4 14.7 5.1 100.0% 5.1

year project
June 2009
21/4 98.0 44.1 17.3 17.3 5.5 100.0% 14.8

26/4 98.0 44.1 17.2 17.2 5.4 100.0% 24.8 14 24.8 0.0
1/5 98.0 44.1 17.1 17.1 5.4 100.0% 9.9
6/5 98.0 44.1 16.9 16.9 5.3 100.0% 19.8
10/5 98.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 100.0% 41.1 14 41.1 0.0
11/5 98.0 44.1 16.8 0.0 5.3 100.0% 5.3
16/5 98.0 44.1 16.5 16.5 5.3 100.0% 15.2
21/5 98.0 44.1 16.3 16.3 5.2 100.0% 25.1
24/5 98.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.2 100.0% 40.7 14 40.7 0.0
26/5 98.0 44.1 16.1 5.1 5.0 100.0% 5.0
31/5 98.0 44.1 15.8 15.8 4.6 100.0% 13.2
5/6 98.0 44.1 15.5 15.5 4.2 100.0% 19.6
7/6 98.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 100.0% 27.8 14 27.8 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 332.7 237.7 408.5 100.0% 194.9 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Yield Reduction:
------------------
--------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Legend:
---------
* Notes:
--------

year project
June 2009
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\SBBB.TXT
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
* Crop Data:
------------
- Crop # 4 : BANANA
- Block # :1
* Soil Data:
------------

---------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/3 70.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 92.3% 32.6 0 32.6 0.0
2/3 70.3 24.6 15.3 0.0 4.9 100.0% 4.9
7/3 71.7 25.1 15.8 15.8 4.9 100.0% 13.8
12/3 73.1 25.6 16.2 16.2 4.9 98.7% 22.0
15/3 73.9 25.9 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.2% 36.0 14 36.0 0.0
17/3 74.5 26.1 16.6 4.9 4.9 100.0% 4.9
22/3 75.9 26.6 16.8 16.8 4.9 100.0% 12.6
27/3 77.3 27.0 17.1 17.1 4.9 99.9% 20.0
29/3 77.8 27.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 100.0% 29.8 14 29.8 0.0
1/4 78.7 27.5 17.2 9.7 4.9 100.0% 4.9

year project
June 2009
6/4 80.1 28.0 17.3 17.3 4.8 100.0% 11.8

11/4 81.5 28.5 17.4 17.4 4.8 100.0% 18.5
12/4 81.8 28.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 23.3 14 23.3 0.0
16/4 82.9 29.0 17.4 14.4 4.8 100.0% 4.8
21/4 84.3 29.5 17.3 17.3 4.8 100.0% 11.3
26/4 85.7 30.0 17.2 17.2 4.7 100.0% 17.7 14 17.7 0.0
1/5 87.1 30.5 17.1 17.1 4.7 100.0% 6.4
6/5 88.5 31.0 16.9 16.9 4.6 100.0% 12.7
10/5 89.6 31.4 0.0 0.0 4.6 100.0% 31.3 14 31.3 0.0
11/5 89.9 31.5 16.8 0.0 4.6 100.0% 4.6
16/5 91.3 31.9 16.5 16.5 4.6 100.0% 11.0
21/5 92.7 32.4 16.3 16.3 4.5 100.0% 17.5
24/5 93.5 32.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 100.0% 31.1 14 31.1 0.0
26/5 94.1 32.9 16.1 4.5 4.5 100.0% 4.5
31/5 95.5 33.4 15.8 15.8 4.5 100.0% 11.2
5/6 96.9 33.9 15.5 15.5 4.4 100.0% 17.9
7/6 97.4 34.1 0.0 0.0 4.4 100.0% 26.8 14 26.8 0.0
10/6 98.3 34.4 15.2 8.8 4.4 100.0% 4.4
15/6 99.7 34.9 15.0 15.0 4.4 100.0% 11.4
20/6 101.1 35.4 14.7 14.7 4.4 100.0% 18.6
21/6 101.4 35.5 0.0 0.0 4.4 100.0% 22.9 14 22.9 0.0
25/6 102.5 35.9 14.4 13.0 4.4 100.0% 4.4
30/6 103.9 36.4 14.2 14.2 4.4 100.0% 12.1
5/7 105.3 36.8 13.9 13.9 4.4 100.0% 20.2 14 20.2 0.0
10/7 106.7 37.3 13.7 13.7 4.5 100.0% 8.5
15/7 108.1 37.8 13.4 13.4 4.5 100.0% 17.5
19/7 109.2 38.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 100.0% 35.5 14 35.5 0.0
20/7 109.5 38.3 13.2 0.0 4.5 100.0% 4.5
25/7 110.9 38.8 13.0 13.0 4.6 100.0% 14.3
30/7 112.3 39.3 12.8 12.8 4.6 100.0% 24.4
2/8 113.1 39.6 0.0 0.0 4.6 100.0% 38.3 14 38.3 0.0
4/8 113.7 39.8 12.7 4.7 4.7 100.0% 4.7
9/8 115.1 40.3 12.5 12.5 4.7 100.0% 15.6
14/8 116.5 40.8 12.4 12.4 4.8 100.0% 27.0
16/8 117.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 36.5 14 36.5 0.0
19/8 117.9 41.3 12.2 9.6 4.8 100.0% 4.8
24/8 119.3 41.7 12.1 12.1 4.9 100.0% 17.0
29/8 120.7 42.2 12.0 12.0 4.9 100.0% 29.6
30/8 121.0 42.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 100.0% 34.5 14 34.5 0.0
3/9 122.1 42.7 11.9 11.9 5.0 100.0% 8.0
8/9 123.5 43.2 11.9 11.9 5.1 100.0% 21.4
13/9 124.9 43.7 11.8 11.8 5.1 100.0% 35.2 14 35.2 0.0
18/9 126.0 44.1 11.7 11.7 5.2 100.0% 14.2

year project
June 2009
23/9 126.0 44.1 11.6 11.6 5.2 100.0% 28.6

27/9 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.2 99.9% 49.5 14 49.5 0.0
28/9 126.0 44.1 11.6 0.0 5.2 100.0% 5.2
3/10 126.0 44.1 11.5 11.5 5.3 100.0% 20.0
8/10 126.0 44.1 11.4 11.4 5.3 100.0% 35.0
11/10 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.2 99.4% 50.8 14 50.8 0.0
13/10 126.0 44.1 11.3 5.3 5.3 100.0% 5.3
18/10 126.0 44.1 11.2 11.2 5.3 100.0% 20.7
23/10 126.0 44.1 11.1 11.1 5.4 100.0% 36.4
25/10 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.4 100.0% 47.1 14 47.1 0.0
28/10 126.0 44.1 10.9 10.7 5.4 100.0% 5.4
2/11 126.0 44.1 10.8 10.8 5.4 100.0% 21.5
7/11 126.0 44.1 10.6 10.6 5.4 100.0% 38.0
8/11 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.4 100.0% 43.4 14 43.4 0.0
12/11 126.0 44.1 10.4 10.4 5.4 100.0% 11.3
17/11 126.0 44.1 10.1 10.1 5.4 100.0% 28.4
22/11 126.0 44.1 9.8 9.8 5.4 99.9% 45.7 14 45.7 0.0
27/11 126.0 44.1 9.5 9.5 5.5 100.0% 17.7
2/12 126.0 44.1 9.2 9.2 5.5 100.0% 35.8
6/12 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 4.9 96.8% 56.9 14 56.9 0.0
7/12 126.0 44.1 8.8 0.0 5.5 100.0% 5.5
12/12 126.0 44.1 8.4 8.4 5.4 100.0% 24.3
17/12 126.0 44.1 8.0 8.0 5.4 100.0% 43.5
20/12 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 94.0% 58.8 14 58.8 0.0
22/12 126.0 44.1 7.6 5.4 5.4 100.0% 5.4
27/12 126.0 44.1 7.1 7.1 5.4 100.0% 25.5
1/1 126.0 44.1 5.1 5.1 5.5 100.0% 47.6
3/1 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 4.9 92.5% 57.8 14 57.8 0.0
6/1 126.0 44.1 6.1 6.1 5.6 100.0% 10.5
11/1 126.0 44.1 7.1 7.1 5.6 100.0% 31.2
16/1 126.0 44.1 8.2 8.2 5.5 98.8% 50.6
17/1 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 92.1% 55.7 14 55.7 0.0
21/1 126.0 44.1 9.2 9.2 5.6 100.0% 13.2
26/1 126.0 44.1 10.1 10.1 5.6 100.0% 31.0
31/1 126.0 44.1 11.0 11.0 5.6 99.8% 47.6 14 47.6 0.0
5/2 126.0 44.1 11.9 11.9 5.6 100.0% 16.0
10/2 126.0 44.1 12.7 12.7 5.5 100.0% 31.0
14/2 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 99.9% 52.9 14 52.9 0.0
15/2 126.0 44.1 13.5 0.0 5.5 100.0% 5.5
20/2 126.0 44.1 14.2 14.2 5.5 100.0% 18.9
25/2 126.0 44.1 14.8 14.8 5.5 100.0% 31.5
28/2 126.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 5.4 100.0% 47.8 14 47.8 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

year project
June 2009
Total 932.2 792.6 1830.599.7%1065.9 0.0 0.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Yield Reduction:
------------------
--------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Legend:
---------
* Notes:
--------
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\SBABA.TXT
SEASON ONE

******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
* Crop Data:
------------
- Crop # 1 : MAIZE- 2
- Block # :1

year project
June 2009

* Soil Data:
------------

---------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/9 140.0 84.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0% 57.7 0 57.7 0.0
3/9 143.6 86.1 11.9 1.7 1.7 100.0% 1.7
8/9 152.5 91.5 11.9 8.6 1.7 100.0% 1.7
13/9 161.4 96.8 11.8 8.6 1.7 100.0% 1.7
15/9 164.9 99.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 100.0% 5.2 14 5.2 0.0
18/9 170.3 102.2 11.7 3.5 1.7 100.0% 1.7
23/9 179.2 107.5 11.6 9.0 2.0 100.0% 2.0
28/9 188.1 112.9 11.6 11.2 2.5 100.0% 2.5
29/9 189.9 113.9 0.0 0.0 2.6 100.0% 5.2 14 5.2 0.0
3/10 197.0 118.2 11.5 8.6 3.1 100.0% 3.1
8/10 205.9 123.6 11.4 11.4 3.6 100.0% 8.5
13/10 214.8 128.9 11.3 11.3 4.1 100.0% 16.6 14 16.6 0.0
18/10 223.7 134.2 11.2 11.2 4.6 100.0% 10.9
23/10 232.7 139.6 11.1 11.1 5.2 100.0% 24.5
27/10 238.0 142.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 100.0% 45.8 14 45.8 0.0
28/10 238.0 142.8 10.9 0.0 5.4 100.0% 5.4
2/11 238.0 142.8 10.8 10.8 5.4 100.0% 21.5
7/11 238.0 142.8 10.6 10.6 5.4 100.0% 38.0
10/11 238.0 142.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 100.0% 54.2 14 54.2 0.0
12/11 238.0 142.8 10.4 5.4 5.4 100.0% 5.4
17/11 238.0 142.8 10.1 10.1 5.4 100.0% 22.5
22/11 238.0 142.8 9.8 9.8 5.4 100.0% 39.8

year project
June 2009
24/11 238.0 142.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 100.0% 50.7 14 50.7 0.0
27/11 238.0 142.8 9.5 9.5 5.5 100.0% 6.8
2/12 238.0 142.8 9.2 9.2 5.5 100.0% 24.9
7/12 238.0 142.8 8.8 8.8 5.3 100.0% 43.0
8/12 238.0 142.8 0.0 0.0 5.3 100.0% 48.3 14 48.3 0.0
12/12 238.0 142.8 8.4 8.4 5.1 100.0% 12.2
17/12 238.0 142.8 8.0 8.0 4.9 100.0% 28.9
22/12 238.0 142.8 7.6 7.6 4.6 100.0% 44.9 14 44.9 0.0
27/12 238.0 142.8 7.1 7.1 4.4 100.0% 15.3
1/1 238.0 142.8 5.1 5.1 4.2 100.0% 31.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 253.3 206.6 519.1 100.0% 328.7 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Yield Reduction:
------------------
--------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Legend:
---------
* Notes:
--------
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\SMM.TXT

******************************************************************************

year project
June 2009
******************************************************************************
* Crop Data:
------------
- Crop # 2 : BEAN-2
- Block # :1
* Soil Data:
------------

---------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date TAM RAM Total Efc ETc ETc/ETm SMD Interv. Net Lost User
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/9 70.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 100.0% 30.1 0 30.1 0.0
3/9 71.4 32.1 11.9 2.1 2.1 100.0% 2.1
8/9 74.9 33.7 11.9 10.7 2.1 100.0% 2.1
13/9 78.4 35.3 11.8 10.8 2.2 100.0% 2.2
15/9 79.8 35.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 100.0% 6.5 14 6.5 0.0
18/9 81.9 36.9 11.7 4.6 2.5 100.0% 2.5
23/9 85.4 38.4 11.6 11.6 2.9 100.0% 4.5
28/9 88.9 40.0 11.6 11.6 3.4 100.0% 9.1
29/9 89.6 40.3 0.0 0.0 3.5 100.0% 12.7 14 12.7 0.0
3/10 92.4 41.6 11.5 11.2 3.9 100.0% 3.9
8/10 95.9 43.2 11.4 11.4 4.4 100.0% 13.7
13/10 98.0 44.1 11.3 11.3 4.6 100.0% 25.5 14 25.5 0.0
18/10 98.0 44.1 11.2 11.2 4.7 100.0% 12.1
23/10 98.0 44.1 11.1 11.1 4.7 100.0% 24.4
27/10 98.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 4.7 100.0% 43.2 14 43.2 0.0
28/10 98.0 44.1 10.9 0.0 4.7 100.0% 4.7
2/11 98.0 44.1 10.8 10.8 4.7 100.0% 17.5

year project
June 2009
7/11 98.0 44.1 10.6 10.6 4.5 100.0% 30.2

10/11 98.0 44.1 0.0 0.0 4.3 100.0% 43.4 14 43.4 0.0
12/11 98.0 44.1 10.4 4.3 4.2 100.0% 4.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 169.7 133.3 279.0 100.0% 161.3 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Yield Reduction:
------------------
- Estimated yield reduction in growth stage # 4 = 0.0% --------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Legend:
---------
* Notes:
--------
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\SBB.TXT

******************************************************************************

year project
June 2009
******************************************************************************
* Crop Data:
------------
- Crop # 3 : PEPER
- Block # :1
* Soil Data:
------------

---------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15/9 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 80.0% 29.2 0 29.2 0.0
18/9 73.0 18.3 11.7 3.0 1.5 100.0% 1.5
22/9 77.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 100.0% 7.6 7 7.6 0.0
23/9 78.0 19.5 11.6 0.0 1.5 100.0% 1.5
28/9 83.0 20.8 11.6 7.6 1.5 100.0% 1.5
29/9 84.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 100.0% 3.1 7 3.1 0.0
3/10 88.0 22.0 11.5 4.6 1.5 100.0% 1.5
6/10 91.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 100.0% 6.2 7 6.2 0.0
8/10 93.0 23.3 11.4 1.5 1.5 100.0% 1.5
13/10 98.0 24.5 11.3 7.7 1.5 100.0% 1.5 7 1.5 0.0
18/10 103.0 25.7 11.2 6.7 1.9 100.0% 1.9
20/10 105.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 100.0% 5.8 7 5.8 0.0
23/10 108.0 27.0 11.1 4.3 2.3 100.0% 2.3
27/10 112.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 100.0% 12.1 7 12.1 0.0
28/10 113.0 28.3 10.9 0.0 2.7 100.0% 2.7
2/11 118.0 29.5 10.8 10.8 3.1 100.0% 6.4
3/11 119.0 29.8 0.0 0.0 3.1 100.0% 9.6 7 9.6 0.0
7/11 123.0 30.8 10.6 9.9 3.5 100.0% 3.5

year project
June 2009
10/11 126.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 100.0% 14.4 7 14.4 0.0
12/11 128.0 32.0 10.4 3.8 3.9 100.0% 3.9
17/11 133.0 33.3 10.1 10.1 4.3 100.0% 14.4 7 14.4 0.0
22/11 138.0 34.5 9.8 9.8 4.7 100.0% 12.8
24/11 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 22.3 7 22.3 0.0
27/11 140.0 35.0 9.5 9.5 4.8 100.0% 4.8
1/12 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 23.9 7 23.9 0.0
2/12 140.0 35.0 9.2 0.0 4.8 100.0% 4.8
7/12 140.0 35.0 8.8 8.8 4.8 100.0% 19.8
8/12 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 24.6 7 24.6 0.0
12/12 140.0 35.0 8.4 8.4 4.8 100.0% 10.6
15/12 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 24.9 7 24.9 0.0
17/12 140.0 35.0 8.0 4.8 4.8 100.0% 4.8
22/12 140.0 35.0 7.6 7.6 4.8 100.0% 21.0 7 21.0 0.0
27/12 140.0 35.0 7.1 7.1 4.7 100.0% 16.7
29/12 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 100.0% 26.1 7 26.1 0.0
1/1 140.0 35.0 5.1 5.1 4.8 100.0% 9.2
5/1 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 100.0% 28.6 7 28.6 0.0
6/1 140.0 35.0 6.1 0.0 4.9 100.0% 4.9
11/1 140.0 35.0 7.1 7.1 4.9 100.0% 22.3
12/1 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 100.0% 27.2 7 27.2 0.0
16/1 140.0 35.0 8.2 8.2 5.0 100.0% 11.7
19/1 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 100.0% 26.6 7 26.6 0.0
21/1 140.0 35.0 9.2 5.0 5.0 100.0% 5.0
26/1 140.0 35.0 10.1 10.1 5.1 100.0% 20.1 7 20.1 0.0
31/1 140.0 35.0 11.0 11.0 5.1 100.0% 14.3
2/2 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 100.0% 24.5 7 24.5 0.0
5/2 140.0 35.0 11.9 10.2 5.1 100.0% 5.1
9/2 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 100.0% 25.6 7 25.6 0.0
10/2 140.0 35.0 12.7 0.0 5.1 100.0% 5.1
15/2 140.0 35.0 13.5 13.5 5.2 100.0% 17.5
16/2 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 100.0% 22.6 7 22.6 0.0
20/2 140.0 35.0 14.2 14.2 5.2 100.0% 6.5
23/2 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 100.0% 22.1 7 22.1 0.0
25/2 140.0 35.0 14.8 5.2 5.2 100.0% 5.2
2/3 140.0 35.0 15.3 15.3 5.2 100.0% 15.8 7 15.8 0.0
7/3 140.0 35.0 15.8 15.8 5.2 100.0% 10.1
9/3 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 100.0% 20.5 7 20.5 0.0
12/3 140.0 35.0 16.2 10.4 5.2 100.0% 5.2
16/3 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 100.0% 25.7 7 25.7 0.0
17/3 140.0 35.0 16.6 0.0 5.1 100.0% 5.1
22/3 140.0 35.0 16.8 16.8 4.9 100.0% 13.1
23/3 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 100.0% 18.0 7 18.0 0.0

year project
June 2009
27/3 140.0 35.0 17.1 14.5 4.8 100.0% 4.8

30/3 140.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 100.0% 19.0 7 19.0 0.0
1/4 140.0 35.0 17.2 4.7 4.6 100.0% 4.6
6/4 140.0 35.0 17.3 17.3 4.5 100.0% 10.1 7 10.1 0.0
11/4 140.0 35.0 17.4 17.4 4.4 100.0% 4.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 486.2 327.9 862.1 100.0% 553.2 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Yield Reduction:
------------------
--------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Legend:
---------
* Notes:
--------
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\SPP.TXT
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
* Crop Data:
------------
- Crop # 4 : ONION

year project
June 2009
- Block # :1
* Soil Data:
------------

---------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15/9 42.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 80.0% 18.5 0 18.5 0.0
18/9 43.5 10.9 11.7 4.3 2.2 100.0% 2.2
22/9 45.6 11.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 100.0% 10.8 7 10.8 0.0
23/9 46.1 11.5 11.6 0.0 2.2 100.0% 2.2
28/9 48.6 12.2 11.6 10.9 2.2 100.0% 2.2
29/9 49.1 12.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 100.0% 4.4 7 4.4 0.0
3/10 51.2 12.8 11.5 6.6 2.2 100.0% 2.2
6/10 52.7 13.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 100.0% 9.0 7 9.0 0.0
8/10 53.7 13.4 11.4 2.4 2.5 100.0% 2.5
13/10 56.3 14.1 11.3 11.3 2.8 100.0% 4.6 7 4.6 0.0
18/10 58.8 14.7 11.2 11.2 3.2 100.0% 4.1
20/10 59.8 15.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 100.0% 10.7 7 10.7 0.0
23/10 61.3 15.3 11.1 6.9 3.6 100.0% 3.6
27/10 63.4 15.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 100.0% 18.6 7 18.6 0.0
28/10 63.9 16.0 10.9 0.0 3.9 100.0% 3.9
2/11 66.4 16.6 10.8 10.8 4.3 100.0% 13.9
3/11 66.9 16.7 0.0 0.0 4.4 100.0% 18.3 7 18.3 0.0
7/11 69.0 17.2 10.6 10.6 4.7 100.0% 7.6
10/11 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.7 100.0% 21.9 7 21.9 0.0
12/11 70.0 17.5 10.4 4.7 4.7 100.0% 4.7
17/11 70.0 17.5 10.1 10.1 4.8 99.4% 18.3 7 18.3 0.0
22/11 70.0 17.5 9.8 9.8 4.8 100.0% 14.0
24/11 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.7 98.8% 23.4 7 23.4 0.0

year project
June 2009
27/11 70.0 17.5 9.5 9.5 4.8 100.0% 4.8

1/12 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 99.2% 23.7 7 23.7 0.0
2/12 70.0 17.5 9.2 0.0 4.8 100.0% 4.8
7/12 70.0 17.5 8.8 8.8 4.8 99.4% 19.7
8/12 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 95.9% 24.2 7 24.2 0.0
12/12 70.0 17.5 8.4 8.4 4.8 100.0% 10.6
15/12 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 98.3% 24.7 7 24.7 0.0
17/12 70.0 17.5 8.0 4.8 4.8 100.0% 4.8
22/12 70.0 17.5 7.6 7.6 4.8 99.4% 20.8 7 20.8 0.0
27/12 70.0 17.5 7.1 7.1 4.7 100.0% 16.7
29/12 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.4 96.3% 25.8 7 25.8 0.0
1/1 70.0 17.5 5.1 5.1 4.8 100.0% 9.2
5/1 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 96.4% 27.9 7 27.9 0.0
6/1 70.0 17.5 6.1 0.0 4.9 100.0% 4.9
11/1 70.0 17.5 7.1 7.1 4.9 99.2% 22.1
12/1 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 91.3% 26.6 7 26.6 0.0
16/1 70.0 17.5 8.2 8.2 5.0 100.0% 11.7
19/1 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 97.4% 26.3 7 26.3 0.0
21/1 70.0 17.5 9.2 5.0 5.0 100.0% 5.0
26/1 70.0 17.5 10.1 10.1 5.1 99.0% 19.8 7 19.8 0.0
31/1 70.0 17.5 11.0 11.0 5.1 100.0% 14.3
2/2 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.9 98.1% 24.4 7 24.4 0.0
5/2 70.0 17.5 11.9 10.2 5.1 100.0% 5.1
9/2 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 98.6% 25.4 7 25.4 0.0
10/2 70.0 17.5 12.7 0.0 5.1 100.0% 5.1
15/2 70.0 17.5 13.5 13.5 5.2 98.8% 17.1
16/2 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 5.2 100.0% 22.3 7 22.3 0.0
20/2 70.0 17.5 14.2 14.2 5.2 100.0% 6.5
23/2 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 5.2 100.0% 22.1 7 22.1 0.0
25/2 70.0 17.5 14.8 5.2 5.2 100.0% 5.2
2/3 70.0 17.5 15.3 15.3 5.1 98.8% 15.2 7 15.2 0.0
7/3 70.0 17.5 15.8 15.8 4.9 100.0% 9.0
9/3 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 100.0% 18.6 7 18.6 0.0
12/3 70.0 17.5 16.2 9.5 4.7 100.0% 4.7
16/3 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 99.5% 23.1 7 23.1 0.0
17/3 70.0 17.5 16.6 0.0 4.5 100.0% 4.5
22/3 70.0 17.5 16.8 16.8 4.4 99.8% 9.8
23/3 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 100.0% 14.2 7 14.2 0.0
27/3 70.0 17.5 17.1 12.8 4.2 100.0% 4.2
30/3 70.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 4.1 100.0% 16.5 7 16.5 0.0
1/4 70.0 17.5 17.2 4.0 4.0 100.0% 4.0
6/4 70.0 17.5 17.3 17.3 3.8 100.0% 6.2 7 6.2 0.0
11/4 70.0 17.5 17.4 14.9 3.6 100.0% 3.6

year project
June 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 486.2 342.0 898.6 99.4 566.1 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Yield Reduction:
------------------
--------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Legend:
---------
* Notes:
--------
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\SOO.TXT

******************************************************************************
Crop Water Requirements Report
******************************************************************************
- Crop # : [All crops]
- Block # : [All blocks]
- Calculation time step = 10 Day(s)
- Irrigation Efficiency = 70%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date ETo Planted Crop CWR Total Effect. Irr. FWS

year project
June 2009
Area Kc (ETm) Rain Rain Req.

(mm/period) (%) ---------- (mm/period) ---------- (l/s/ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1 46.36 29.00 0.29 13.50 3.11 0.00 13.50 0.22
11/1 47.31 20.00 0.21 9.94 3.06 0.00 9.94 0.16
21/1 48.11 20.00 0.21 10.10 3.86 0.00 10.10 0.17
31/1 48.72 20.00 0.21 10.23 4.59 0.00 10.23 0.17
10/2 49.14 20.00 0.21 10.32 5.24 0.00 10.32 0.17
20/2 49.35 20.00 0.21 10.34 5.78 0.29 10.05 0.17
2/3 49.37 20.00 0.20 10.09 6.22 0.85 9.24 0.15
12/3 49.21 20.00 0.20 9.64 6.56 2.63 7.01 0.12
22/3 48.88 20.00 0.18 9.01 6.78 4.88 4.12 0.07
1/4 48.42 20.00 0.17 8.36 6.91 6.69 1.67 0.03
11/4 47.85 20.00 0.17 1.59 1.39 1.39 0.20 0.02
21/4 47.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1/5 46.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11/5 45.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21/5 45.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31/5 44.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/6 43.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20/6 43.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30/6 42.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10/7 42.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20/7 42.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30/7 42.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9/8 42.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19/8 42.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
29/8 42.83 50.00 0.22 6.60 8.37 1.80 4.81 0.11
8/9 43.13 56.00 0.25 10.65 13.23 5.39 5.25 0.09
18/9 43.49 70.00 0.36 15.54 16.35 11.24 4.29 0.07
28/9 43.87 70.00 0.47 20.56 16.14 15.29 5.27 0.09
8/10 44.25 70.00 0.58 25.77 15.91 15.91 9.87 0.16
18/10 44.62 70.00 0.68 30.33 15.60 15.60 14.73 0.24
28/10 44.94 70.00 0.73 32.86 15.20 14.54 18.32 0.30
7/11 45.19 66.00 0.70 31.73 13.84 9.49 22.24 0.37
17/11 45.36 50.00 0.57 25.69 9.98 3.29 22.40 0.37
27/11 45.43 50.00 0.57 25.86 9.37 0.89 24.97 0.41
7/12 45.40 50.00 0.55 24.86 8.63 0.00 24.86 0.41
17/12 45.26 50.00 0.52 23.42 7.78 0.00 23.42 0.39
27/12 22.55 50.00 0.49 11.16 3.54 0.00 11.16 0.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1661.07 388.16 207.43 110.17 277.98 [0.21]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

year project
June 2009
* ETo data is distributed using polynomial curve fitting.

* Rainfall data is distributed using polynomial curve fitting.
******************************************************************************
C:\CROPWATW\REPORTS\AL.TXT
Surface irrigation design
HEARY BEAN
INPUT DATA
Intake family 0.6 a b c f g
Intake coefficients: 1.32 0.76 7 8.15 2.88E-04
-
Manning's coefficient n 0.04
Furrow spacing W 1 m
Furrow slope S 0.004 m/m
Net irrigation depth Fn 44 mm
Area to irrigate A 1240 ha
-
ASSUMPTIONS FOR DESIGN
Total application efficiency Ea 70 %
Design inflow time Ti 900 min
* Length of the furrow * L 270 m
-
PROCEDURE
*Check of design inflow time* dT (min) New L = 86.8 m
WARNING
Surface Runoff ok
Deep Percolation ok
-
RESULTS
Design inflow time Ti 33.8 hrs Advance time Tt 1663 min
Farm width B 45925.9 m Net opportunity time Tn 366 min
Inflow per area A (Main d'eau) Qu 14433.9 l/s Design inflow time Ti 2029 min
Average opportunity
Total number of furrows n_f 45926 time Tav 578 min
Required inflow per furrow q 0.31 l/s Average intake depth Fav 61 mm
Gross application
Advance coefficient ß 3.92 depth Fg 63 mm
Adjusted furrow perimetre P 0.36 m Surface runoff RO 2 mm
Furrow advance ratio AR 185 % Deep percolation DP 17 mm

year project
June 2009
Infiltration efficiency Ei 72 %
=

year project
June 2009
PEPPER
INPUT DATA
-
Furrow spacing W 0.8 m
-
-
PROCEDURE
dT
*Check of design inflow time* (min) New L = 70.0 m
WARNING
Surface Runoff ok
Deep Percolation ok
-
RESULTS
Average opportunity
Gross application
=

year project
June 2009
ONION
INPUT DATA
-
-
-
PROCEDURE
WARNING
Surface Runoff ok
Deep Percolation ok
-
RESULTS
Inflow per area A (Main
d'eau) Qu 13374.9 l/s Design inflow time Ti 1020 min
Average opportunity
Gross application

year project
June 2009
MAIZE
INPUT DATA
-
-
-
PROCEDURE
WARNING
Surface Runoff ok
Deep Percolation ok
-
RESULTS
Inflow per area A (Main
d'eau) Qu 32711.8 l/s Design inflow time Ti 4064 min
Average opportunity
Gross application
COTTON
INPUT DATA

year project
June 2009
-
-
ASSUMPTIONS FOR
DESIGN
-
PROCEDURE
WARNING
Surface Runoff ok
Deep Percolation ok
-
RESULTS
Average opportunity
Gross application

year project
June 2009

year project
June 2009
ANNEXES-B
Engineering hydrology subrimanya 1998

year project

Galene Irrigation System Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Galene Irrigation System Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary Design of Gelana Irrigation Project

1.2 Location of project area

1.5 Climate of the area

1.6 Objective of the project

1.7 Socio and Economic study

Because of the poor performance of agricultural production system its

1.7.2 Labor supply and Demand

1.7.3 Project Benefits

Arba Minch University Department of final

 Altitude; Altitude of Commons area is from 1300m above sea level

1.9 Water quality

Arba Minch University Department of final

2 HYDROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSES

2.2 Checking Available Data

Arba Minch University Department of final

2.2.3 Design Discharge Determination

Arba Minch University Department of final

Continues from above table

2.2.4 Rainfall intensity –duration frequency (IDF) analysis

Arba Minch University Department of final

Table 2.3 data for determination design flood

2.2.5 Estimate of peak flood

Arba Minch University Department of final

Because of the above limitations (250km 2greaterthan50km2), rational method

2. Empirical formula Method

Arba Minch University Department of final

For example Admassu developed an empirical formula through regression

Arba Minch University Department of final

Where Ctl and n are basin constants & s is basin slope

The peak discharge Q[m3/s] of a hydrograph of standard duration tr hrs is

Arba Minch University Department of final

When Tr=tr, QP=Qps

Where W5 – width of unit hydrograph in hr at 50% peak discharge

In our case there is measured flow data it is possible to determine the

Arba Minch University Department of final

XT=Xav+k*sd-------------------------------------- (Chow 1951)

Table 2.4 Guidelines For selecting Design floods [source R.Baban,page30]

1 Spillway for projects with storage of more than 1000

2 2 Barrage and minor dams with storage less than 100(a)

Arba Minch University Department of final

4 As above (3) but located so as endanger other structure Or 50-100(b)

5 Diversion weir 50-100(a)

6 Small bridges on main highways 50-100(b)

5. USSCS (United States Soil Conservation Service)

Step designation/formula Symbol unit value

Arba Minch University Department of final

site (topo map)

5 Slope of main water S m/m .005

Arba Minch University Department of final

1-2 58.6 49.63 66 32.76 11.48 (2)11.48

12 Fill 0-Dhr, D-2Dhr, …5D-6Dhr

Arba Minch University Department of final

20 From 19 mention the rearranged order as6,4,3,1,2,5 (arbitrary but

Arba Minch University Department of final

28 As certain hydrological soil groups each

No Description/Formula Symbol Unit Example

CN= value of corresponding to AMC -III

Substituting the value of 22 23

Arba Minch University Department of final

Q(33)enter ;Enter the 39.92 23.5960

34 Enter the same time as in col.12, 0-D,D-2D,2D-3D,…,5D-6D.

Table 2.6 determination of triangular hydrograph