ABEN 3412 - Lab 3 - Macaraeg - CzarinaMae - BSBAE 3-1

2nd Semester, AY 2021-2022
Central Luzon State University

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering
Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija
Name: Czarina Mae B. Macaraeg Class Schedule:

Course/Year: BSABE 3-1 Date Submitted:
ABEN 3412 – IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING

Laboratory Exercise No. 3
CONSUMPTIVE USE
I. INTRODUCTION
Evapotranspiration is an estimate of the loss of water from both plants and the soil. The
main drivers of evapotranspiration are sunlight, wind, humidity and temperature.
Reference evapotranspiration is commonlyused as a standard estimate of
evapotranspiration. For practical purposes, ETo provide an estimated representation of the
water requirements of good productive pasture on an irrigated farm.
Over the last few years, there has been increasing interest in ETo and other irrigation
scheduling tools due to partly to the rising cost of water and the need to improve water
productivity. The increasing interest also result of on-farm and irrigation supply system
upgrades. ETo information enables irrigators to better match irrigations with the
requirements of actively growing plants, then higher yields and quality-based production.
In addition, it also provides an objective estimate that can help for the estimation of
overall evapotranspiration that can be useful for matching irrigation system with crop
growing requirements. There are some methods used for calculating the reference
evapotranspiration.
II. OBJECTIVES
At the end of the laboratory exercise, the students will be able to:
1. determine potential evapotranspiration using some selected equations;
2. derive consumptive use crop coefficient using some selected crops; and,
3. predict actual evapotranspiration using estimated potential evapotranspiration.
III. MATERIALS
• Calculator, graphing paper; computer
IV. METHODOLOGY:
A. Determination of Potential Evapotranspiration
1. With the given climatic data (see attached data from CLSU) estimate the daily
potential evapotranspiration (ETp) in CLSU for a given period using the following
equations (see PAES 602:2016):
a) Modified Penman-Monteith
b) Radiation
c) Blaney-Criddle
2. Using the t-test (group or paired comparison), determine whether there are significant
differences on the estimated daily ETp of the different equations. The group
comparisons will involve the following:
a) Pair No. 1: Modified Penman-Monteith vs. Radiation
b) Pair No. 2: Modified Penman-Monteith vs. Blaney-Criddle
c) Pair No. 3: Radiation vs. Blaney-Criddle
3. Interpret the results of your comparisons.
B. Derivation of Consumptive Use Crop Coefficient

1. Given the experimental crop coefficients of some crops in Table 1, derive the crop
coefficient equations for the following crops: small grains, beans, peas, potatoes, and
corn.
2. You may use the following mathematical model:
kc = adx
where: kc – crop coefficient
a – intercept
d – days of growing season
x – slope of the line relating kc to d
3. The following are the estimated days of the growing season and effective cover for
the above-mentioned crops:
Table 1. Experimental crop coefficients of different crops

Planting to Effective Cover (%)
Small
Days Beans Peas Potatoes Corn
Grains
10 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20
20 0.18 0.23 0.24 0.13 0.23
30 0.25 0.30 0.31 0.20 0.29
40 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.30 0.38
50 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.41 0.49
60 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.53 0.61
70 0.82 0.76 0.75 0.65 0.72
80 0.94 0.88 0.87 0.76 0.82
90 1.02 0.98 0.97 0.85 0.91
100 1.04 1.07 1.05 0.91 0.95
Days after Effective Cover
110 1.04 1.02 0.98 0.90 0.99

120 0.94 0.96 1.02 0.85 0.99
130 0.74 0.85 0.99 0.75 0.93
140 0.49 0.73 0.76 0.60 0.82
150 0.19 0.59 0.20 0.38 0.68
160 0.10 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.54
170 0.10 0.31 0.10 0.10 0.40
180 0.10 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.28
190 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20
200 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.17
Table 2. Estimated growing season and effective cover of different crops

Crop Growing Season Full Effective Cover
(days) (days after planting)
Small grains 120 60
Beans 130 60
Peas 110 50
Potatoes 120 60
Corn 120 55
4. Plot the kc curve of each group using the derived equation and using the raw data with
kc as the ordinate and days of the growing season as the abscissa.
C. Predicting Actual Evapotranspiration

1. Using the estimated ETp in Part A (use the resulting data from Penman-Monteith
Method), estimate the actual daily evapotranspiration (ETa) of each crop in Part B.
2. Derive the ETa equation for each crop using the suggested mathematical model in
Part B.
3. Plot the estimated and predicted daily ETa values of each crop.
ETa = kc x ETp
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
AUGUST, TEMPERATURE ,℃ RELATIVE WIND SUNSHINE

2019 HUMIDITY
DATE MIN MAX % WD WS MIN.
1 23.6 29.6 93 40 1 0
2 24 29.4 94 180 1 61
3 23.5 29.6 93 180 2 0
4 24.5 32 92 90 2 61
5 24.7 31 90 90 1 258
6 24.4 31.4 93 90 1 78
7 24.6 30.3 93 160 2 0
8 23.8 30.4 94 180 3 84
9 25 29.5 93 180 2 44
10 25 30.6 95 180 2 02
11 25 32.5 92 250 1 179
12 25 32.3 91 270 1 133
13 24.9 31 95 180 1 27
14 23 32 90 270 1 95
15 24.8 32 92 180 1 151
16 25 33 90 180 2 328
17 24.2 33 90 180 1 584
18 24.1 33.6 86 270 1 479
19 24.5 33 85 180 1 334
20 24.2 33 82 140 1 247
21 23.7 33.2 92 180 1 393
22 23.9 32.3 82 270 1 228
23 23.5 30.8 91 270 1 08
24 23.5 30 95 180 1 0
25 22.7 32.2 87 180 2 398
26 23.6 33 87 270 2 408
27 23.5 29 96 180 1 0
28 23.5 30.5 97 90 2 110
29 23.4 29.7 91 270 1 46
30 23.5 31.7 88 270 1 59
31 23 29.7 92 270 2 7
TOTAL 745.6 971.9 43 4802
MEAN 24.1 31.4 86 180 1 155
PENMAN-MONTEITH EQUATION
𝟗𝟎𝟎
𝟎. 𝟎𝟒𝟎𝟖 ∆ (𝑹𝒏 − 𝑮) + 𝜸 𝑻 + 𝟐𝟕𝟑 𝒖𝟐 (𝒆𝒔 − 𝒆𝒂 )
𝑬𝑻𝑶 =
∆ + 𝜸(𝟏 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑𝟒 𝒖𝟐 )
Latitude = 15.72 degrees
Longtitude = 120.90 degrees
z =76m
Psychometric constant, 𝜸, = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟔𝟕𝒌𝑷𝒂 ℃−𝟏
Day 𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 + 𝑻𝒎𝒊𝒏 Slope of Saturation Mean Saturation Actual Vapor Pressure,
𝑻𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 = Vapor Curve, ∆ 𝑹𝑯𝒎𝒊𝒏
𝟐 Vapor Pressure, 𝒆𝒂 = 𝒆
𝒆𝒔 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒔
℃ −𝟏 𝒌𝑷𝒂 𝒌𝑷𝒂
𝒌𝑷𝒂 ℃
1 26.6 0.205 3.5303 3.283179
2 26.7 0.206 3.5418 3.329292
3 26.55 0.2045 3.5215 3.274995
4 28.25 0.223 3.915 3.6018
5 27.85 0.2185 3.8026 3.42234
6 27.9 0.219 3.8265 3.558645
7 27.45 0.2144 3.7052 3.445836
8 27.1 0.2102 3.6451 3.426394
9 27.25 0.212 3.6455 3.390315
10 27.8 0.218 3.7797 3.590715
11 28.75 0.2285 4.0295 3.70714
12 28.65 0.2275 4.0023 3.642093
13 27.95 0.2195 3.8212 3.63014
14 27.5 0.215 3.782 3.4038
15 28.4 0.2248 3.9444 3.628848
16 29 0.231 4.099 3.6891
17 28.6 0.2285 4.0252 3.62268
18 28.85 0.2295 4.1022 3.527892
19 28.75 0.2285 4.0525 3.444625
20 28.6 0.2285 4.0252 3.300664
21 28.45 0.2254 4.0092 3.688464
22 28.1 0.2212 3.9015 3.19923
23 27.15 0.2108 3.6691 3.338881
24 26.75 0.2065 3.5695 3.391025
25 27.45 0.2144 3.4243 2.979141
26 28.3 0.2236 3.9718 3.455466
27 26.25 0.2015 3.451 3.31296
28 27 0.209 3.631 3.52207
29 26.55 0.2045 3.52495 3.2077045
30 27.6 0.216 3.7856 3.331328
31 26.35 0.2025 3.49 3.210
𝟗𝟎𝟎
𝟎. 𝟎𝟒𝟎𝟖 ∆ (𝑹𝒏 − 𝑮) + 𝜸 𝑻 + 𝟐𝟕𝟑 𝒖𝟐 (𝒆𝒔 − 𝒆𝒂 )
𝑬𝑻𝑶 =
∆ + 𝜸(𝟏 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑𝟒 𝒖𝟐 )
Latitude = 15.72 degrees Mean Daylight Hours, N =𝟏𝟐. 𝟓 𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔

Longtitude = 120.90 degrees Extraterrestrial Radiation, 𝑹𝒂 =𝟑𝟖. 𝟎𝟖𝟔 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏
z =76m
Day Vapor Deficit, Relative Solar Radiation , 𝑹𝒔 Stefan-Boltzman

𝒏
(𝒆𝒔 − 𝒆𝒂 ) Sunshine 𝑹𝒔 = (𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 + 𝟎. 𝟓𝟎 ) 𝑹𝒂 Law, 𝝈𝑻𝑲𝟒
𝑵
Duration, 𝒏/𝑵 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏
kPa 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 Min Max
1 0.247121 0 9.5215 38.03 41.194
2 0.212508 0.0813333 11.07033067 38.23 41.086
3 0.246505 0 9.5215 37.98 41.194
4 0.3132 0.0813333 11.07033067 38.49 42.52
5 0.38026 0.344 16.072292 38.594 41.96
6 0.267855 0.104 11.501972 38.438 42.184
7 0.259364 0 9.5215 38.542 41.578
8 0.218706 0.112 11.654316 38.14 41.634
9 0.255185 0.0586667 10.63868933 38.75 41.14
10 0.188985 0.0026667 9.572281333 38.75 41.744
11 0.32236 0.2386667 14.06642933 38.75 42.8
12 0.360207 0.1773333 12.89845867 38.75 42.688
13 0.19106 0.036 10.207048 38.698 41.96
14 0.3782 0.1266667 11.93361333 37.72 42.52
15 0.315552 0.2013333 13.35549067 38.646 42.52
16 0.4099 0.4373333 17.84963867 38.75 43.08
17 0.40252 0.7786667 24.34964933 38.334 43.08
18 0.574308 0.6386667 21.68362933 38.282 43.416
19 0.607875 0.4453333 18.00198267 38.49 43.08
20 0.724536 0.3293333 15.79299467 38.334 43.08
21 0.320736 0.524 19.500032 38.08 43.192
22 0.70227 0.304 15.310572 38.18 42.632
23 0.330219 0.0106667 9.724625333 37.98 41.852
24 0.178475 0 9.5215 37.98 41.41
25 0.445159 0.5306667 19.62698533 37.57 42.632
26 0.516334 0.544 19.880892 38.03 43.08
27 0.13804 0 9.5215 37.98 40.87
28 0.10893 0.1466667 12.31447333 37.98 41.69
29 0.3172455 0.0613333 10.68947067 37.928 41.248
30 0.454272 0.0786667 11.01954933 37.98 42.352
31 0.2792 0.0093333 9.699234667 37.72 41.69
𝟗𝟎𝟎
𝟎. 𝟎𝟒𝟎𝟖 ∆ (𝑹𝒏 − 𝑮) + 𝜸 𝑻 + 𝟐𝟕𝟑 𝒖𝟐 (𝒆𝒔 − 𝒆𝒂 )
𝑬𝑻𝑶 =
∆ + 𝜸(𝟏 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑𝟒 𝒖𝟐 )
−𝟏
Latitude = 15.72 degrees Clear-sky Radiation, 𝑹𝒔𝒐 = 𝟐𝟖. 𝟔𝟐𝟐𝟑𝟗𝟏 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚
z =76m
Day Net Solar Radiation, Relative Short Radiation, Net Longwave Net Radiation, 𝑹𝒏
𝑹𝒏𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟕𝑹𝒔 𝑹𝒔 / 𝑹𝒔𝒐 Radiation, 𝑹𝒏𝒍
𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏

1 7.3316 0.332659 0.338843702 6.992711298
2 8.5242 0.386772 0.577213614 7.946940999
3 7.3316 0.332659 0.339870843 6.991684157
4 8.5242 0.386772 0.518080303 8.006074311
5 12.376 0.561529 1.331381478 11.04428336
6 8.8565 0.401852 0.588966287 8.267552153
7 7.3316 0.332659 0.318033589 7.013521411
8 8.9738 0.407175 0.643981601 8.329841719
9 8.1918 0.371691 0.498501894 7.693288892
10 7.3707 0.334433 0.305156414 7.065500213
11 10.831 0.491448 0.900366586 9.930784001
12 9.9318 0.450642 0.766101547 9.165711626
13 7.8594 0.356611 0.388288337 7.471138623
14 9.1889 0.416933 0.697783876 8.491098391
15 10.284 0.46661 0.832771381 9.450956432
16 13.744 0.623625 1.430978555 12.31324322
17 18.749 0.85072 2.390081953 16.35914803
18 16.696 0.757576 2.117144208 14.57925038
19 13.862 0.628948 1.631737618 12.22978903
20 12.161 0.551771 1.376835462 10.78377043
21 15.015 0.681286 1.646665674 13.36835897
22 11.789 0.534916 1.347131984 10.44200846
23 7.488 0.339756 0.365161945 7.122799562
24 7.3316 0.332659 0.323298334 7.008256666
25 15.113 0.685721 2.270786567 12.84199214
26 15.308 0.694592 1.900908147 13.40737869
27 7.3316 0.332659 0.33275964 6.99879536
28 9.4821 0.430239 0.710387851 8.771756616
29 8.2309 0.373465 0.544802313 7.6860901
30 8.4851 0.384998 0.575940868 7.909112119
31 0.338869 0.338869 0.380371075 7.088039618
𝟗𝟎𝟎
𝟎. 𝟎𝟒𝟎𝟖 ∆ (𝑹𝒏 − 𝑮) + 𝜸 𝑻 + 𝟐𝟕𝟑 𝒖𝟐 (𝒆𝒔 − 𝒆𝒂 )
𝑬𝑻𝑶 =
∆ + 𝜸(𝟏 + 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑𝟒 𝒖𝟐 )

z =76m
Day PENMAN-MONTEITH EQUATION

(mm/day)
1 2.152819088
2 2.402736365
3 2.152911232
4 2.544429109
5 3.441001969
6 2.566228841
7 2.194816962
8 2.448967779
9 2.366088459
10 2.130335696
11 3.111240781
12 2.908367781
13 2.287141505
14 2.692863261
15 2.956189019
16 3.854311008
17 5.044639816
18 4.63502601
19 3.963909285
20 3.613825888
21 4.104178276
22 3.48262806
23 2.258790328
24 2.114091518
25 3.982266088
26 4.253360793
27 2.070861518
28 2.462293476
29 2.396217046
30 2.577476133
31 2.215755553
RADIATION METHOD
𝑬𝑻𝑶 = 𝑾 × 𝑹𝑺
Latitude = 15.72 degrees W =0.76902

Longtitude = 120.90 degrees 𝑻𝒅𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 = 𝟐𝟕. 𝟕𝟓
z =76m
𝑻𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟐𝟒. 𝟏
𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟑𝟏. 𝟒
Day Solar Radiation , 𝑹𝒔 Radiation Method
𝒏
𝑹𝒔 = (𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 + 𝟎. 𝟓𝟎 ) 𝑹𝒂
𝑵
𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 mm/day

1 9.5215 7.322224
2 11.07033067 8.513306
3 9.5215 7.322224
4 11.07033067 8.513306
5 16.072292 12.35991
6 11.501972 8.845247
7 9.5215 7.322224
8 11.654316 8.962402
9 10.63868933 8.181365
10 9.572281333 7.361276
11 14.06642933 10.81737
12 12.89845867 9.919173
13 10.207048 7.849424
14 11.93361333 9.177187
15 13.35549067 10.27064
16 17.84963867 13.72673
17 24.34964933 18.72537
18 21.68362933 16.67514
19 18.00198267 13.84388
20 15.79299467 12.14513
21 19.500032 14.99591
22 15.310572 11.77414
23 9.724625333 7.478431
24 9.5215 7.322224
25 19.62698533 15.09354
26 19.880892 15.2888
27 9.5215 7.322224
28 12.31447333 9.470076
29 10.68947067 8.220417
30 11.01954933 8.474254
31 9.699234667 7.458905
BLANEY-CRIDDLE METHOD
𝑬𝑻𝑶 = 𝒑(𝟎. 𝟒𝟔𝑻𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 + 𝟖)

z =76m
𝑻𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 𝟐𝟒. 𝟏
𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟑𝟏. 𝟒
𝑻𝒅𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒚 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 = 𝟐𝟕. 𝟕𝟓
P = 0.28144
Day 𝑻𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏 Blaney-Criddle Method
℃ mm/day
1 26.6 5.69521984
2 26.7 5.70816608
3 26.55 5.68874672
4 28.25 5.9088328
5 27.85 5.85704784
6 27.9 5.86352096
7 27.45 5.80526288
8 27.1 5.75995104
9 27.25 5.7793704
10 27.8 5.85057472
11 28.75 5.973564
12 28.65 5.96061776
13 27.95 5.86999408
14 27.5 5.811736
15 28.4 5.92825216
16 29 6.0059296
17 28.6 5.95414464
18 28.85 5.98651024
19 28.75 5.973564
20 28.6 5.95414464
21 28.45 5.93472528
22 28.1 5.88941344
23 27.15 5.76642416
24 26.75 5.7146392
25 27.45 5.80526288
26 28.3 5.91530592
27 26.25 5.649908
28 27 5.7470048
29 26.55 5.68874672
30 27.6 5.82468224
31 26.35 5.66285424
T TEST
PENMAN MONTEITH METHOD vs. RADIATION METHOD

PENMAN MONTEITH RADIATION
TOTAL 91.38577 320.75245
MEAN 2.94793 10.34685
𝑺𝑺 21.556 315.411
t ̅̅̅̅𝟏 − ̅̅̅̅
|𝑿 𝑿𝟐 |
𝒕=
𝑺𝑺𝟏 + 𝑺𝑺𝟐 𝟏 𝟏
√(
𝒏𝟏 + 𝒏𝟐 − 𝟐 𝒏𝟏 𝒏𝟐 )
) ( +
|𝟐. 𝟗𝟒𝟖 − 𝟏𝟎. 𝟑𝟒𝟕|
𝒕=
√(𝟐𝟏. 𝟓𝟓𝟔 + 𝟑𝟏𝟓. 𝟒𝟏𝟏) ( 𝟏 + 𝟏 )
𝟑𝟏 + 𝟑𝟏 − 𝟐 𝟑𝟏 𝟑𝟏
𝒕 = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟐𝟗𝟏𝟖𝟑𝟎𝟑𝟗
HYPOTHESIS
𝑯𝟎 : 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝑻𝒑 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒔
𝑯𝟎 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟏 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟐
𝑯𝟏 : 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝑻𝒑 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒔

𝑯𝟎 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟏 ≠ ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟐
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
𝜶 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓
𝒅𝒇 = 𝟑𝟏 + 𝟑𝟏 − 𝟐 = 𝟔𝟎
t = 1.671 from t-table
CONCLUSION
Since the computed value of 12.292 is GREATER than the t-tabular value of 1.671 at 0.05
level of significance with 60 degrees of freedom, then the null hypothesis is rejected, there is
a no sufficient evident that the two methods are not significantly different to one another.
PENMAN MONTEITH METHOD vs. BLANEY-CRIDDLE

METHOD
PENMAN MONTEITH BLANEY-CRIDDLE
TOTAL 91.38577 180.93412
MEAN 2.94793 5.83658
𝑺𝑺 21.556 0.351308463
t
̅̅̅̅𝟏 − ̅̅̅̅
|𝑿 𝑿𝟐 |
𝒕=
𝑺𝑺𝟏 + 𝑺𝑺𝟐 𝟏 𝟏
√(
𝒏𝟏 + 𝒏𝟐 − 𝟐 𝒏𝟏 𝒏𝟐 )
) ( +
|𝟐. 𝟗𝟒𝟖 − 𝟓. 𝟖𝟑𝟔|

𝒕=
√(𝟐𝟏. 𝟓𝟓𝟔 + 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓𝟏) ( 𝟏 + 𝟏 )
𝟑𝟏 + 𝟑𝟏 − 𝟐 𝟑𝟏 𝟑𝟏
𝒕 = 𝟔. 𝟒𝟓𝟖𝟎𝟔𝟔𝟏𝟎𝟗
HYPOTHESIS
𝑯𝟎 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟏 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟐

𝑯𝟎 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟏 ≠ ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟐
𝜶 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓
𝒅𝒇 = 𝟑𝟏 + 𝟑𝟏 − 𝟐 = 𝟔𝟎
CONCLUSION
RADIATION METHOD vs. BLANEY-CRIDDLE METHOD

RADIATION BLANEY-CRIDDLE
TOTAL 320.75245 180.93412
MEAN 10.34685 5.83658
𝑺𝑺 315.411 0.351308463
t
̅̅̅̅𝟏 − ̅̅̅̅
|𝑿 𝑿𝟐 |
𝒕=
𝑺𝑺𝟏 + 𝑺𝑺𝟐 𝟏 𝟏
√(
𝒏 𝟏 + 𝒏 𝟐 − 𝟐 ) (𝒏 𝟏 + 𝒏 𝟐 )
|𝟏𝟎. 𝟑𝟒𝟕 − 𝟓. 𝟖𝟑𝟔|

𝒕=
√(𝟑𝟏𝟓. 𝟒𝟏𝟏 + 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓𝟏) ( 𝟏 + 𝟏 )
𝟑𝟏 + 𝟑𝟏 − 𝟐 𝟑𝟏 𝟑𝟏
𝒕 = 𝟕. 𝟕𝟒𝟎𝟒𝟎𝟐𝟎𝟒𝟓
HYPOTHESIS
𝑯𝟎 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟏 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟐

𝑯𝟎 = ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟏 ≠ ̅̅̅̅
𝑿𝟐
𝜶 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓
𝒅𝒇 = 𝟑𝟏 + 𝟑𝟏 − 𝟐 = 𝟔𝟎
CONCLUSION
B. DERIVATION OF CONSUMPTIVE USE OF CROP COEFFICIENT
Table 1. Crop Coefficient for SMALL GRAINS at Days of Growing Season
Small Grains
d (days) Experimental kc Derived kc
6 0.16 0.259426791
12 0.18 0.318774188
18 0.25 0.359599237
24 0.37 0.391698106
30 0.51 0.418556257
36 0.67 0.441862439
42 0.82 0.462577136
48 0.94 0.481304359
54 1.02 0.498451262
60 1.04 0.514306677
70 1.04 0.53841759
80 0.94 0.560215179
90 0.74 0.580173351
100 0.49 0.598628292
110 0.19 0.615828024
120 0.1 0.631961303
Derived Crop Coefficient for

Small Grains
0.7
0.6
CROP COEFFICIENT, KC
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
DAYS OF GROWING SEASON
Figure 1. Derived Crop Coefficient for SMALL GRAINS

Crop Coefficient for Small Grains Using

Raw Data
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 2. Derived Crop Coefficient for SMALL GRAINS Using Raw Data
The preceding paired figures 1 and figure 2 illustrated the comparison of experimental
and derived crop coefficient for small grains. As presented, the crop coefficient of small grain
experimental continuously rises until the maturity period of crop. On the other hand, coefficient
using raw data drops in the middle on maturity period.
Table 2. Crop Coefficient for Beans at Days of Growing Season

6 0.2 0.255355
12 0.23 0.334492
18 0.3 0.391712
24 0.39 0.438154
30 0.51 0.477936
36 0.63 0.513108
42 0.76 0.544857
48 0.88 0.573942
54 0.98 0.600884
60 1.07 0.626054
70 1.02 0.664791
80 0.96 0.700279
90 0.85 0.733151
100 0.73 0.763861

110 0.59 0.792749
120 0.45 0.820074
130 0.31 0.846042
Derived Crop Coefficient for Beans

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 3. Derived Crop Coefficient for Beans
Crop Coefficient for Beans

Using Raw Data
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 4. Crop Coefficient for Beans Using Raw Data

Table 2 shows the Crop Coefficient for Beans at Days of Growing Season. The tabulated
data was presented on graph in figure 3 and figure 4. The results shows almost the same with the
crop coefficient for small grains which continuously rises until the crop maturity in experimental
method while using the raw data, the coefficient increases until the 60th day of growing season
then suddenly decreases as it approaches the end of the season.
Table 3. Crop Coefficient for Peas at Days of Growing Season

5 0.2 0.316745
10 0.24 0.372898
15 0.31 0.410254
20 0.4 0.439007
25 0.51 0.46269
30 0.63 0.482985
35 0.75 0.500838
40 0.87 0.516835
45 0.97 0.53137
50 1.05 0.544717
60 0.98 0.568611
70 1.02 0.589629
80 0.99 0.608462
90 0.76 0.625573
100 0.2 0.641286
110 0.1 0.655841
Derived Crop Coefficient for Peas

0.7
0.6
CROP COEFFICIENT, KC 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 5. Derived Crop Coefficient for Peas
Crop Coefficient for Peas

Using Raw Data
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 6. Crop Coefficient for Peas Using Raw Data
The Crop Coefficient for peas during Days of Growing Season is shown in Table 3.
Figures 5 and 6 depicted the tabular data in graph form. The results are nearly identical to the
crop coefficient for small grains and beans, which climbs steadily until crop maturity in the
experimental technique. However, when utilizing raw data, the coefficient rises until around 50th
day of the growing season, then drops abruptly as the season progresses.
Table 4. Crop Coefficient for Potatoes at Days of Growing Season


6 0.1 0.150015
12 0.13 0.214882
18 0.2 0.265151
24 0.3 0.307799
30 0.41 0.345549
36 0.53 0.379805
42 0.65 0.411405
48 0.76 0.440895
54 0.85 0.468656
60 0.91 0.494968
70 0.9 0.536149
80 0.85 0.574581
90 0.75 0.61076
100 0.6 0.64505
110 0.38 0.677724
120 0.1 0.708997
Derived Crop Coefficient for

Potatoes
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 7. Derived Crop Coefficient for Potatoes

Crop Coefficient for Potatoes

Using Raw Data
1
CROP COEFFICIENT, KC 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 8. Crop Coefficient for Potatoes Using Raw Data
Table 4 shows the Crop Coefficient for peas during the Days of Growing Season. The
tabular data was graphed in Figures 7 and 8. The results are substantially equal to the crop
coefficient for small grains and beans, which in the experimental technique grows steadily until
crop maturity. When using raw data, however, the coefficient increases until roughly the 50th
day of the growth season, then gradually decreases as the season advances.
Table 5. Crop Coefficient for Corns at Days of Growing Season

5.5 0.2 0.230434
11 0.23 0.315152
16.5 0.29 0.378494
22 0.38 0.431015
27.5 0.49 0.476723
33 0.61 0.517644
38.5 0.72 0.554971
44 0.82 0.589475
49.5 0.91 0.621685
55 0.95 0.651986
60 0.99 0.678121
70 0.99 0.727021
80 0.93 0.77222
90 0.82 0.814416
100 0.68 0.854112
110 0.54 0.891685
120 0.4 0.927428
Derived Crop Coefficient for Corn

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 9. Derived Crop Coefficient for Corn
Crop Coefficient for Corn

Using Raw Data
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 10. Crop Coefficient for Corn Using Raw Data
As seen in the graph and table, the value of derived for corn crop samples is steadily
increasing as the growing season draws to a close. The supplied corn sample, on the other hand,
is rather imbalanced across the entire growing season. It can be seen that the value of the crop
coefficient has been growing in recent days. However, after the crop reaches its final day of
growth in the middle of its growing season, the value of the crop coefficient begins to decline.
C. Predicting Actual Evaporation

Table 1. Predicted Daily Evapotranspiration (ETa) based on Estimated ETp and Derived kc
Predicted Daily Evapotranspiration, ETa = kc
x ETp (mm/day)
Days
Small Beans Peas Potatoes Corn
Grains
1 3.356403834 4.149534538 3.617136364 3.16416879 4.295768556

2 1.152079078 1.424319648 1.241575011 1.086094774 1.474514189
3 1.032291359 1.276225645 1.112481929 0.97316779 1.321201196
4 1.220018802 1.508313781 1.314792436 1.150143311 1.561468366
5 1.649913172 2.039793788 1.778081907 1.555415862 2.111678294
6 1.230471474 1.521236458 1.326057094 1.159997315 1.574846452
7 1.052384581 1.30106697 1.134136035 0.99211019 1.346917956
8 1.174246406 1.451725197 1.265464344 1.106992488 1.50288554
9 1.134506911 1.402595112 1.222637801 1.069529037 1.452024058
10 1.0214667 1.262843078 1.100816388 0.962963103 1.307347014
11 1.491797212 1.84431444 1.607683166 1.406355854 1.909310045
12 1.394522396 1.724053222 1.502851837 1.314652366 1.784810695
13 1.096652931 1.355796096 1.181843244 1.03384311 1.403575794
14 1.291190939 1.596304158 1.391493375 1.217239127 1.652559618
15 1.417452022 1.752401205 1.527562686 1.336268719 1.814157691
16 1.848089178 2.284799521 1.991652643 1.742241514 2.365318291
17 2.418835488 2.990415307 2.606735731 2.280298838 3.095800728
18 2.222431296 2.747600073 2.395074447 2.09514352 2.844428427
19 1.900640046 2.349768355 2.048285774 1.791782578 2.432576695
20 1.732779866 2.142242191 1.867385862 1.633536441 2.217737088
21 1.9678971 2.432918501 2.120767498 1.855187544 2.518657141
22 1.66987231 2.064469346 1.799591514 1.574231859 2.137223445
23 1.083058931 1.338989783 1.167193233 1.021027694 1.386177209
24 1.013677839 1.253213682 1.092422472 0.955620343 1.297378267
25 1.909441881 2.360650096 2.057771354 1.800080296 2.443841921
26 2.039428067 2.521352502 2.197855142 1.922621639 2.61020765
27 0.992949648 1.227587342 1.070084072 0.936079341 1.270848828

28 1.180635895 1.459624546 1.272350181 1.113016024 1.51106327
29 1.148953154 1.420455056 1.238206259 1.083147884 1.470513406
30 1.235864396 1.527903748 1.33186895 1.165081362 1.581748704
31 1.062424348 1.313479171 1.144955712 1.001574938 1.359767576
Estimated Evapotranspiration (ETp) vs.

Predicted Daily Evapotranspiration (ETa)
SMALL GRAINS
8
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, MM/DAY
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DAYS
ETp ETa
Figure 11. Comparison of Daily Evapotranspiration for Small Grains

Predicted Daily Evapotranspiration
(ETa)
BEANS
8
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DAYS
ETp ETa
Figure 12. Comparison of Daily Evapotranspiration for Beans

PEAS
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DAYS
ETp ETa
Figure 13. Comparison of Daily Evapotranspiration for Peas

POTATOES
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DAYS
ETp ETa
Figure 14. Comparison of Daily Evapotranspiration for Potatoes


CORN
8
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DAYS
ETp ETa
Figure 15. Comparison of Daily Evapotranspiration for Corn
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Therefore, there are several methods of calculating potential evapotranspiration such as Modified
– Penman Method, Radiation and Blaney-Criddle Method. I also have learned how to calculate
the consumptive use crop coefficient from a variety of crops and how to predict actual
evapotranspiration using estimated potential evapotranspiration.
VII. REFERENCES
PHILIPPINE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING STANDARD. PAES 602:2016.
Determination of Irrigation Water Requirements
Somera, C. ABEN 3412 - Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. REFERENCE
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION and Sample t-test Computation Derivation of Consumptive
Use Crop Coefficient Predicting Actual Evapotranspiration

ABEN 3412 - Lab 3 - Macaraeg - CzarinaMae - BSBAE 3-1

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

ABEN 3412 - Lab 3 - Macaraeg - CzarinaMae - BSBAE 3-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd Semester, AY 2021-2022

Central Luzon State University

Name: Czarina Mae B. Macaraeg Class Schedule:

ABEN 3412 – IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING

B. Derivation of Consumptive Use Crop Coefficient

Table 1. Experimental crop coefficients of different crops

110 1.04 1.02 0.98 0.90 0.99

Table 2. Estimated growing season and effective cover of different crops

C. Predicting Actual Evapotranspiration

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

AUGUST, TEMPERATURE ,℃ RELATIVE WIND SUNSHINE

DATE MIN MAX % WD WS MIN.

Latitude = 15.72 degrees Mean Daylight Hours, N =𝟏𝟐. 𝟓 𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔

Day Vapor Deficit, Relative Solar Radiation , 𝑹𝒔 Stefan-Boltzman

𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏

Latitude = 15.72 degrees

Day PENMAN-MONTEITH EQUATION

Latitude = 15.72 degrees W =0.76902

𝑴𝑱 𝒎−𝟐 𝒅𝒂𝒚−𝟏 mm/day

Latitude = 15.72 degrees

PENMAN MONTEITH METHOD vs. RADIATION METHOD

𝑯𝟏 : 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝑻𝒑 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒔

PENMAN MONTEITH METHOD vs. BLANEY-CRIDDLE

|𝟐. 𝟗𝟒𝟖 − 𝟓. 𝟖𝟑𝟔|

𝑯𝟏 : 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝑻𝒑 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒔

RADIATION METHOD vs. BLANEY-CRIDDLE METHOD

|𝟏𝟎. 𝟑𝟒𝟕 − 𝟓. 𝟖𝟑𝟔|

𝑯𝟏 : 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑬𝑻𝒑 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒔

B. DERIVATION OF CONSUMPTIVE USE OF CROP COEFFICIENT

Table 1. Crop Coefficient for SMALL GRAINS at Days of Growing Season

Derived Crop Coefficient for

Figure 1. Derived Crop Coefficient for SMALL GRAINS

Crop Coefficient for Small Grains Using

Table 2. Crop Coefficient for Beans at Days of Growing Season

d (days) Experimental kc Derived kc

100 0.73 0.763861

Derived Crop Coefficient for Beans

Figure 3. Derived Crop Coefficient for Beans

Crop Coefficient for Beans

Figure 4. Crop Coefficient for Beans Using Raw Data

Table 3. Crop Coefficient for Peas at Days of Growing Season

d (days) Experimental kc Derived kc

Derived Crop Coefficient for Peas

Figure 5. Derived Crop Coefficient for Peas

Crop Coefficient for Peas

Figure 6. Crop Coefficient for Peas Using Raw Data

Table 4. Crop Coefficient for Potatoes at Days of Growing Season

d (days) Experimental kc Derived kc

Derived Crop Coefficient for

Figure 7. Derived Crop Coefficient for Potatoes

Crop Coefficient for Potatoes

CROP COEFFICIENT, KC 0.8

Figure 8. Crop Coefficient for Potatoes Using Raw Data

Table 5. Crop Coefficient for Corns at Days of Growing Season

d (days) Experimental kc Derived kc

Derived Crop Coefficient for Corn

Figure 9. Derived Crop Coefficient for Corn

Crop Coefficient for Corn

Figure 10. Crop Coefficient for Corn Using Raw Data

C. Predicting Actual Evaporation

1 3.356403834 4.149534538 3.617136364 3.16416879 4.295768556

27 0.992949648 1.227587342 1.070084072 0.936079341 1.270848828