FAO 45 1989 Guideline For Design and Evaluation of Surface Irrigation System

Table of Contents
Guidelines for designing and evaluating

surface irrigation systems
Table of Contents
FAO IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE PAPER 45

by W.R. Walker
Professor and Head
Department of Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering
Utah State University
Logan, Utah, USA
(Consultant to FAO)
FAO
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Rome, 1989
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
M-56
ISBN 92-5-102879-6
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the
prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the
purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
© FAO 1989
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/T0231E00.htm (1 of 6) [2/17/2003 12:33:53 PM]

Table of Contents
This electronic document has been scanned using optical character recognition (OCR) software and
careful manual recorrection. Even if the quality of digitalisation is high, the FAO declines all
responsibility for any discrepancies that may exist between the present document and its original printed
version.
Table of Contents
Preface
Acknowledgements
1. The practice of irrigation
1.1 The perspective and objectives of irrigation

1.2 Irrigation methods and their selection
1.2.1 Compatibility
1.2.2 Economics
1.2.3 Topographical characteristics
1.2.4 Soils
1.2.5 Water supply
1.2.6 Crops
1.2.7 Social influences
1.2.8 External influences
1.2.9 Summary
1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of surface irrigation
1.3.1 Advantages
1.3.2 Disadvantages
2. Surface irrigation systems
2.1 Introduction to surface irrigation
2.1.1 Definition
2.1.2 Scope of the guide
2.1.3 Evolution of the practice
2.2 Surface irrigation methods
2.2.1 Basin irrigation

2.2.2 Border irrigation
2.2.3 Furrow irrigation

Table of Contents
2.2.4 Uncontrolled flooding
2.3 Requirements for optimal performance
2.3.1 Inlet discharge control

2.3.2 Wastewater recovery and reuse
2.4 Surface irrigation structures
2.4.1 Diversion structures

2.4.2 Conveyance, distribution and management structures
2.4.3 Field distribution systems
3. Field measurements
3.1 Field topography and configuration

3.2 Determining water requirements
3.2.1 Evapotranspiration and drainage requirements

3.2.2 Soil moisture principles
3.2.3 Soil moisture measurements
3.2.4 An example problem on soil moisture
3.3 Infiltration
3.3.1 Infiltration functions

3.3.2 Typical infiltration relationships
3.3.3 Measuring infiltration
3.3.4 An example infiltrometer test
3.4 Flow measurement
3.4.1 Cutthroat flumes

3.4.2 Example of cutthroat flume calibration
3.4.3 Rectangular thin-plate weirs
3.4.4 Example of rectangular sharp crested weir analysis
3.4.5 V-notch weirs
3.5 Field evaluation
3.5.1 Advance phase

3.5.2 Ponding phase or wetting
3.5.3 Depletion phase
3.5.4 Recession phase
4. Evaluation of field data

Table of Contents
4.1 Objectives of evaluation
4.1.1 Field data
4.2 Performance measures
4.2.1 Application uniformity

4.2.2 Application efficiency
4.2.3 Water requirement efficiency
4.2.4 Deep percolation ratio
4.2.5 Tailwater ratio
4.2.6 Integration measures of performance
4.3 Intermediate analysis of field data
4.3.1 Inflow-outflow
4.3.2 Advance and recession
4.3.3 Flow geometry
4.3.4 Field infiltration
4.4 System evaluation
4.4.1 Furrow irrigation evaluation procedure

4.4.2 Border irrigation evaluation
4.4.3 Basin irrigation evaluation
4.5 General alternatives for improvement

4.6 An example furrow irrigation evaluation
4.6.1 Field infiltration characteristics

4.6.2 Evaluation of system performance
4.6.3 Measures to improve performance
5. Surface irrigation design
5.1 Objective and scope of design

5.2 The basic design process
5.2.1 Preliminary design

5.2.2 Detailed design
5.3 Computation of advance and intake opportunity time
5.3.1 Common design computations
5.4 Furrow irrigation flow rates, cutoff times, and field layouts
5.4.1 Furrow design procedure for systems without cutback or reuse

Table of Contents
5.4.2 Design procedure for furrow cutback systems

5.4.3 Design of furrow systems with tailwater reuse
5.4.4 Furrow irrigation design examples
5.5 Border irrigation design
5.5.1 Design of open-end border systems

5.5.2 Design of blocked-end borders
5.5.3 An open-end border design example
5.5.4 A blocked-end border design example
5.6 Basin irrigation design
5.6.1 An example of basin design
5.7 Summary
6. Land levelling
6.1 The importance of land preparations

6.2 Small-scale land levelling
6.3 Traditional engineering approach
6.3.1 Initial considerations

6.3.2 Engineering phase
6.3.3 Adjusting for the cut/fill ratio
6.3.4 Some practical problems
6.3.5 An example problem
6.4 Laser land levelling
7. Future developments
7.1 Background
7.2 Surge flow
7.2.1 Effects of surging on infiltration

7.2.2 Effects of surging on surface flow hydraulics
7.2.3 Surge flow systems
7.3 Cablegation
7.4 Adaptive control systems
7.5 Water supply management
References
Appendix I - Fortran 77 surface irrigation design program

Table of Contents
FAO irrigation and drainage papers

Preface
Preface
This guide is intended to serve the needs of the irrigation technician for the evaluation of surface
irrigation systems. The scope is focussed at the farm level. A limited series of graphical and tabular aids
is given to relieve the user of some burden of computation. Unfortunately, the number of variables
associated with surface irrigation prevents this from being completely practical. There are also two
matters of philosophical nature that have led to the approach presented herein. First, the irrigation
technician and engineer must understand the fundamental interactions characterizing surface flow in
order to evaluate, improve, design and manage effectively. This suggests a mathematical presentation
which briefly and concisely portrays these interrelationships. This guide omits nearly all theoretical
development and presents the most basic mathematical description. Nevertheless, the complexity of the
problem still requires an extensive mathematical analysis, even at this basic level. The expertise required
of the technician is that of at least a secondary education and the engineer whose training needs to be at
approximately the BSc level. The second philosophical aspect is the belief that irrigation engineering
practices are moving steadily toward a computerized methodology. The interactions referred to above
require large enough computational commitments that they are only feasibly evaluated with hand-held
programmable calculators or microcomputers. As a result, the procedures outlined herein have been
presented so they can be applied directly via computer. A diskette copy of this program source and
executable codes for IBM PC and compatible microcomputers is available from FAO.
Some of the material used to develop this paper is included in more theoretical texts of the writer's.
Occasionally, direct quotes and figures have been extracted without citation in order to minimize the
diversions encountered by the reader. When the work of others has been used, more careful attention to
the detail of the citation has been given. Surface irrigation is a complex subject which many have
investigated and written about. The purpose of this guide was not to review the technical literature
exhaustively and many valuable works are not cited, but it is hoped that the essence of surface irrigation
evaluation and design practice has been captured.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e01.htm [2/17/2003 12:33:59 PM]

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This work has been Undertaken under the supervision of Dr. Abdullah Arar, Senior Regional Officer,
Land and Water Development Division, FAO. His continual support and careful attention to the details
involved in producing a document such as this are very much appreciated. Numerous other staff of the
FAO have also contributed to this work through their reviews, editorial oversight, and publication.
In the last decade or so, the methodology of surface irrigation engineering has moved from the empirical
to the quantitative. This has been accomplished by the concerted efforts of numerous researchers and
practitioners, some of whom are acknowledged in the REFERENCES. However, many others have made
substantial contributions. Of these, perhaps the graduate students at the universities where surface
irrigation technology has been extended have been the most unheralded. To those who have worked with
the author, special thanks.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e02.htm [2/17/2003 12:34:03 PM]


1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of surface irrigation

A reliable and suitable irrigation water supply can result in vast improvements in agricultural production
and assure the economic vitality of the region. Many civilizations have been dependent on irrigated
agriculture to provide the basis of their society and enhance the security of their people. Some have
estimated that as little as 15-20 percent of the worldwide total cultivated area is irrigated. Judging from
irrigated and non-irrigated yields in some areas, this relatively small fraction of agriculture may be
contributing as much as 3040 percent of gross agricultural output.
Effective agronomic practices are essential components of irrigated systems. Management of the soil
fertility, cropping selection and rotation, and pest control may make as much incremental difference in
yield as the irrigation water itself. Irrigation implies drainage, soil reclamation, and erosion control.
When any of these factors are ignored through either a lack of understanding or planning, agricultural
productivity will decline. History is absolutely certain on this point.
Irrigated agriculture faces a number of difficult problems in the future. One of the major concerns is the
generally poor efficiency with which water resources have been used for irrigation. A relatively safe
estimate is that 40 percent or more of the water diverted for irrigation is wasted at the farm level through
either deep percolation or surface runoff. These losses may not be lost when one views water use in the
regional context, since return flows become part of the usable resource elsewhere. However, these losses
often represent foregone opportunities for water because they delay the arrival of water at downstream
diversions and because they almost universally produce poorer quality water. One of the more evident
problems in the future is the growth of alternative demands for water such as urban and industrial needs.
These uses place a higher value on water resources and therefore tend to focus attention on wasteful
practices. Irrigation science in the future will undoubtedly face the problem of maximizing efficiency.
Irrigation in arid areas of the world provides two essential agricultural requirements: (1) a moisture
supply for plant growth which also transports essential nutrients; and (2) a flow of water to leach or
dilute salts in the soil. Irrigation also benefits croplands through cooling the soil and the atmosphere to
create a more favourable environment for plant growth.
The method, frequency and duration of irrigations have significant effects on crop yield and farm
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e03.htm (1 of 7) [2/17/2003 12:34:09 PM]

productivity. For example, annual crops may not germinate when the surface is inundated causing a crust
to form over the seed bed. After emergence, inadequate soil moisture can often reduce yields, particularly
if the stress occurs during critical periods. Even though the most important objective of irrigation is to
maintain the soil moisture reservoir, how this is accomplished is an important consideration. The
technology of irrigation is more complex than many appreciate. It is important that the scope of irrigation
science not be limited to diversion and conveyance systems, nor solely to the irrigated field, nor only to
the drainage pathways. Irrigation is a system extending across many technical and non-technical
disciplines. It only works efficiently and continually when all the components are integrated smoothly.
1.2.1 Compatibility
1.2.2 Economics
1.2.4 Soils
1.2.5 Water supply
1.2.6 Crops
1.2.9 Summary
There are three broad classes of irrigation systems: (1) pressurized distribution; (2) gravity flow
distribution; and (3) drainage flow distribution. The pressurized systems include sprinkler, trickle, and
the array of similar systems in which water is conveyed to and distributed over the farmland through
pressurized pipe networks. There are many individual system configurations identified by unique
features (centre-pivot sprinkler systems). Gravity flow systems convey and distribute water at the field
level by a free surface, overland flow regime. These surface irrigation methods are also subdivided
according to configuration and operational characteristics. Irrigation by control of the drainage system,
subirrigation, is not common but is interesting conceptually. Relatively large volumes of applied
irrigation water percolate through the root zone and become a drainage or groundwater flow. By
controlling the flow at critical points, it is possible to raise the level of the groundwater to within reach of
the crop roots. These individual irrigation systems have a variety of advantages and particular
applications which are beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that one should be familiar with
each in order to satisfy best the needs of irrigation projects likely to be of interest during their
formulation.
Irrigation systems are often designed to maximize efficiencies and minimize labour and capital
requirements. The most effective management practices are dependent on the type of irrigation system
and its design. For example, management can be influenced by the use of automation, the control of or
the capture and reuse of runoff, field soil and topographical variations and the existence and location of
flow measurement and water control structures. Questions that are common to all irrigation systems are
when to irrigate, how much to apply, and can the efficiency be improved. A large number of

considerations must be taken into account in the selection of an irrigation system. These will vary from
location to location, crop to crop, year to year, and farmer to farmer. In general these considerations will
include the compatibility of the system with other farm operations, economic feasibility, topographic and
soil properties, crop characteristics, and social constraints (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987).
1.2.1 Compatibility
The irrigation system for a field or a farm must function alongside other farm operations such as land
preparation, cultivation, and harvesting. The use of the large mechanized equipment requires longer and
wider fields. The irrigation systems must not interfere with these operations and may need to be portable
or function primarily outside the crop boundaries (i.e. surface irrigation systems). Smaller equipment or
animal-powered cultivating equipment is more suitable for small fields and more permanent irrigation
facilities.
1.2.2 Economics
The type of irrigation system selected is an important economic decision. Some types of pressurized
systems have high capital and operating costs but may utilize minimal labour and conserve water. Their
use tends toward high value cropping patterns. Other systems are relatively less expensive to construct
and operate but have high labour requirements. Some systems are limited by the type of soil or the
topography found on a field. The costs of maintenance and expected life of the rehabilitation along with
an array of annual costs like energy, water, depreciation, land preparation, maintenance, labour and taxes
should be included in the selection of an irrigation system.

Topography is a major factor affecting irrigation, particularly surface irrigation. Of general concern are
the location and elevation of the water supply relative to the field boundaries, the area and configuration
of the fields, and access by roads, utility lines (gas, electricity, water, etc.), and migrating herds whether
wild or domestic. Field slope and its uniformity are two of the most important topographical factors.
Surface systems, for instance, require uniform grades in the 0-5 percent range.
1.2.4 Soils
The soil's moisture-holding capacity, intake rate and depth are the principal criteria affecting the type of
system selected. Sandy soils typically have high intake rates and low soil moisture storage capacities and
may require an entirely different irrigation strategy than the deep clay soil with low infiltration rates but
high moisture-storage capacities. Sandy soil requires more frequent, smaller applications of water
whereas clay soils can be irrigated less frequently and to a larger depth. Other important soil properties
influence the type of irrigation system to use. The physical, biological and chemical interactions of soil
and water influence the hydraulic characteristics and filth. The mix of silt in a soil influences crusting
and erodibility and should be considered in each design. The soil influences crusting and erodibility and
should be considered in each design. The distribution of soils may vary widely over a field and may be
an important limitation on some methods of applying irrigation water.

1.2.5 Water supply

The quality and quantity of the source of water can have a significant impact on the irrigation practices.
Crop water demands are continuous during the growing season. The soil moisture reservoir transforms
this continuous demand into a periodic one which the irrigation system can service. A water supply with
a relatively small discharge is best utilized in an irrigation system which incorporates frequent
applications. The depths applied per irrigation would tend to be smaller under these systems than under
systems having a large discharge which is available less frequently. The quality of water affects decisions
similarly. Salinity is generally the most significant problem but other elements like boron or selenium
can be important. A poor quality water supply must be utilized more frequently and in larger amounts
than one of good quality.
1.2.6 Crops
The yields of many crops may be as much affected by how water is applied as the quantity delivered.
Irrigation systems create different environmental conditions such as humidity, temperature, and soil
aeration. They affect the plant differently by wetting different parts of the plant thereby introducing
various undesirable consequences like leaf burn, fruit spotting and deformation, crown rot, etc. Rice, on
the other hand, thrives under ponded conditions. Some crops have high economic value and allow the
application of more capital-intensive practices. Deep-rooted crops are more amenable to low-frequency,
high-application rate systems than shallow-rooted crops.

Beyond the confines of the individual field, irrigation is a community enterprise. Individuals, groups of
individuals, and often the state must join together to construct, operate and maintain the irrigation system
as a whole. Within a typical irrigation system there are three levels of community organization. There is
the individual or small informal group of individuals participating in the system at the field and tertiary
level of conveyance and distribution. There are the farmer collectives which form in structures as simple
as informal organizations or as complex as irrigation districts. These assume, in addition to operation and
maintenance, responsibility for allocation and conflict resolution. And then there is the state organization
responsible for the water distribution and use at the project level.
Irrigation system designers should be aware that perhaps the most important goal of the irrigation
community at all levels is the assurance of equity among its members. Thus the operation, if not always
the structure, of the irrigation system will tend to mirror the community view of sharing and allocation.
Irrigation often means a technological intervention in the agricultural system even if irrigation has been
practiced locally for generations. New technologies mean new operation and maintenance practices. If
the community is not sufficiently adaptable to change, some irrigation systems will not succeed.

Conditions outside the sphere of agriculture affect and even dictate the type of system selected. For
example, national policies regarding foreign exchange, strengthening specific sectors of the local
economy, or sufficiency in particular industries may lead to specific irrigation systems being utilized.

Key components in the manufacture or importation of system elements may not be available or cannot be
efficiently serviced. Since many irrigation projects are financed by outside donors and lenders, specific
system configurations may be precluded because of international policies and attitudes.
1.2.9 Summary
The preceding discussion of factors affecting the choice of irrigation systems at the farm level is not
meant to be exhaustive. The designer, evaluator, or manager of irrigation systems should be aware of the
broader setting in which irrigated agriculture functions. Ignorance has led to many more failures or
inadequacies than has poor judgement or poor training.
As the remainder of this guide deals with specific surface irrigation issues, one needs to be reminded that
much of the engineering practice is art rather than science. Experience is often a more valuable resource
than computational skill, but both are needed. It is a poor engineering practice that leaves perfectly
feasible alternatives just beyond one's perspective.
1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of surface

irrigation
1.3.1 Advantages
1.3.2 Disadvantages
The term 'surface irrigation' refers to a broad class of irrigation methods in which water is distributed
over the field by overland flow. A flow is introduced at one edge of the field and covers the field
gradually. The rate of coverage (advance) is dependent almost entirely on the differences between the
discharge onto the field and the accumulating infiltration into the soil. Secondary factors include field
slope, surface roughness, and the geometry or shape of the flow cross-section.
The practice of surface irrigation is thousands of years old. It collectively represents perhaps as much as
95 percent of common irrigation activity today. The first water supplies were developed from stream or
river flows onto the adjacent flood plain through simple check-dams and a canal to distribute water to
various locations where farmers could then allocate a portion of the flow to their fields. The low-lying
soils served by these diversions were typically high in clay and silt content and tended to be most fertile.
The land slope was normally small because of the structure of the flood plain itself.
With the advent of modern equipment for moving earth and pumping water, surface irrigation systems
were extended to upland areas and lands quite separate from the flood plain of local rivers and streams.
These lands tend to have more variable soils and topographies, are usually better drained, and may be
naturally less fertile. Thus, these lands usually require greater attention to design and operation.

1.3.1 Advantages
Surface irrigation offers a number of important advantages at both the farm and project level. Because it
is so widely utilized, local irrigators generally have at least minimal understanding of how to operate and
maintain the system. In addition, surface systems are often more acceptable to agriculturalists who
appreciate the effects of water shortage on crop yields since it appears easier to apply the depths required
to refill the root zone.
The second advantage of surface irrigation is that these systems can be developed at the farm level with
minimal capital investment. The control and regulation structures are simple, durable and easily
constructed with inexpensive and readily-available materials like wood, concrete, brick and mortar, etc.
Further, the essential structural elements are located at the edges of the fields which facilitates operation
and maintenance activities. The major capital expense of the surface system is generally associated with
land grading, but if the topography is not too undulating, these costs are not great. Recent developments
in surface irrigation technology have largely overcome the irrigation efficiency advantage of sprinkler
and trickle systems. An array of automating devices roughly equates labour requirements. The major
trade-off between surface and pressurized methods lies in the relative costs of land levelling for effective
gravity distribution and energy for pressurization. Energy requirements for surface irrigation systems
come from gravity. This is a significant advantage in today's economy.
Another advantage of surface systems is that they are less affected by climatic and water quality
characteristics. Even moderate winds can seriously reduce the effectiveness of sprinkler systems.
Sediments and other debris reduce the effectiveness of trickle systems but may actually aid the
performance of the surface systems. Salinity is less of a problem under surface irrigation than either of
these pressurized systems.
There are other advantages specific to individual regions that might be mentioned. Surface systems are
better able to utilize water supplies that are available less frequently, more uncertain, and more variable
in rate and duration. The gravity flow system is a highly flexible, relatively easily-managed method of
irrigation.
1.3.2 Disadvantages
There is one disadvantage of surface irrigation that confronts every designer and irrigator. The soil which
must be used to convey the water over the field has properties that are highly varied both spatially and
temporally. They become almost undefinable except immediately preceding the watering or during it.
This creates an engineering problem in which at least two of the primary design variables, discharge and
time of application, must be estimated not only at the field layout stage but also judged by the irrigator
prior to the initiation of every surface irrigation event. Thus while it is possible for the new generation of
surface irrigation methods to be attractive alternatives to sprinkler and trickle systems, their associated
design and management practices are much more difficult to define and implement.
Although they need not be, surface irrigation systems are typically less efficient in applying water than
either sprinkler or trickle systems. Many are situated on lower lands with heavier soils and, therefore,
tend to be more affected by waterlogging and soil salinity if adequate drainage is not provided. The need
to use the field surface as a conveyance and distribution facility requires that fields be well graded if
possible. Land levelling costs can be high so the surface irrigation practice tends to be limited to land

already having small, even slopes.

Surface systems tend to be labour-intensive. This labour need not be overly skilled. But to achieve high
efficiencies the irrigation practices imposed by the irrigator must be carefully implemented. The progress
of the water over the field must be monitored in larger fields and good judgement is required to terminate
the inflow at the appropriate time. A consequence of poor judgement or design is poor efficiency.
One sometimes important disadvantage of surface irrigation methods is the difficulty in applying light,
frequent irrigations early and late in the growing season of several crops. For example, in heavy
calcareous soils where crust formation after the first irrigation and prior to the germination of crops, a
light irrigation to soften the crust would improve yields substantially. Under surface irrigation systems
this may be unfeasible or impractical as either the supply to the field is not readily available or the
minimum depths applied would be too great.



2.1.1 Definition
Surface irrigation has evolved into an extensive array of configurations which can be broadly classified as:
(1) basin irrigation; (2) border irrigation; (3) furrow irrigation; and (4) uncontrolled flooding. As noted
previously, there are two features that distinguish a surface irrigation system: (a) the flow has a free
surface responding to the gravitational gradient; and (b) the on-field means of conveyance and distribution
is the field surface itself.
A surface irrigation event is composed of four phases as illustrated graphically in Figure 1. When water is
applied to the field, it 'advances' across the surface until the water extends over the entire area. It may or
may not directly wet the entire surface, but all of the flow paths have been completed. Then the irrigation
water either runs off the field or begins to pond on its surface. The interval between the end of the advance
and when the inflow is cut off is called the wetting or ponding phase. The volume of water on the surface
begins to decline after the water is no longer being applied. It either drains from the surface (runoff) or
infiltrates into the soil. For the purposes of describing the hydraulics of the surface flows, the drainage
period is segregated into the depletion phase (vertical recession) and the recession phase (horizontal
recession). Depletion is the interval between cut off and the appearance of the first bare soil under the
water. Recession begins at that point and continues until the surface is drained.
Figure 1. Time-space trajectory of water during a surface irrigation showing its advance, wetting,
depletion and recession phases.

The time and space references shown in Figure 1 are relatively standard. Time is cumulative since the
beginning of the irrigation, distance is referenced to the point water enters the field. The advance and
recession curves are therefore trajectories of the leading and receding edges of the surface flows and the
period defined between the two curves at any distance is the time water is on the surface and therefore also
the time water is infiltrating into the soil.
It is useful to note here that in observing surface irrigation one may not always observe a ponding,
depletion or recession phase. In basins, for example, the post-cut off period may only involve a depletion
phase as the water infiltrates vertically over the entire field. Likewise, in the irrigation of paddy rice, an
irrigation very often adds to the ponded water in the basin so there is neither advance nor recession - only
wetting or ponding phase and part of the depletion phase. In furrow systems, the volume of water in the
furrow is very often a small part of the total supply for the field and it drains rapidly. For practical
purposes, there may not be a depletion phase and recession can be ignored. Thus, surface irrigation may
appear in several configurations and operate under several regimes.

2.1.2 Scope of the guide

The surface irrigation system is one component of a much larger network of facilities diverting and
delivering water to farmlands. Figure 2 illustrates the 'irrigation system' and some of its features. It may be
divided into the following four component systems: (1) water supply; (2) water conveyance or delivery;
(3) water use; and (4) drainage. For the complete system to work well, each must work conjunctively
toward the common goal of promoting maximum on-farm production. Historically, the elements of an
irrigation system have not functioned well as a system and the result has too often been very low project
irrigation efficiencies.
The focus of surface irrigation engineering is at the water use level, the individual irrigated field. For
design and evaluation purposes, these guidelines will note elements of the conveyance and distribution
system, especially those near the field such as flow measurement and control, but will leave detailed
treatment to other technical sources.
Figure 2. Typical irrigation system components (redrafted from USDA-SCS, 1967)
2.1.3 Evolution of the practice

Although surface irrigation is thousands of years old, the most significant advances have been made
within the last decade. In the developed and industrialized countries, land holdings have become as much
as 10-20 times as large, and the number of farm families has dropped sharply. Very large mechanized
farming equipment has replaced animal-powered planting, cultivating and harvesting operations. The
precision of preparing the field for planting has improved by an order of magnitude with the advent of the
laser-controlled land grading equipment. Similarly, the irrigation works themselves are better constructed
because of the application of high technology equipment.
The changes in the lesser-developed and developing countries are less dramatic. In the lesser-developed
countries, trends toward land consolidation, mechanization, and more elaborate system design and
operation are much less apparent. Most of these farmers own and operate farms of 1-10 hectares, irrigate
with 20-40 litres per second and rely on either small mechanized equipment or animal-powered farming
implements.
Probably the most interesting evolution in surface irrigation so far as this guide is concerned is the
development and application of microcomputers and programmable calculators to the design and
operation of surface irrigation systems. In the late 1970s, a high-speed microcomputer technology began
to emerge that could solve the basic equations describing the overland flow of water quickly and
inexpensively. At about the same time, researchers like Strelkoff and Katapodes (1977) made major
contributions with efficient and accurate numerical solutions to these equations. Today in the graduate and
undergraduate study of surface irrigation engineering, microcomputer and programmable calculator
utilization is, or should be, common practice.
Microcomputers and programmable calculators provide several features for today's irrigation engineers
and technicians. They allow a much more comprehensive treatment of the vital hydraulic processes
occurring both on the surface and beneath it. One can find optimal designs and management practices for a
multitude of conditions because designs historically requiring days of effort are now made in seconds. The
effectiveness of existing practices or proposed ones can be predicted, even to the extent that control
systems operating, sensing and adjusting on a real-time basis are possible.


The classification of surface methods is perhaps somewhat arbitrary in technical literature. This has been
compounded by the fact that a single method is often referred to with different names. In this guide,
surface methods are classified by the slope, the size and shape of the field, the end conditions, and how
water flows into and over the field.
Each surface system has unique advantages and disadvantages depending on such factors as were listed
earlier like: (1) initial cost; (2) size and shape of fields; (3) soil characteristics; (4) nature and availability
of the water supply; (5) climate; (6) cropping patterns; (7) social preferences and structures; (8) historical
experiences; and (9) influences external to the surface irrigation system.

Basin irrigation is the most common form of surface irrigation, particularly in regions with layouts of
small fields. If a field is level in all directions, is encompassed by a dyke to prevent runoff, and provides
an undirected flow of water onto the field, it is herein called a basin. A basin is typically square in shape
but exists in all sorts of irregular and rectangular configurations. It may be furrowed or corrugated, have
raised beds for the benefit of certain crops, but as long as the inflow is undirected and uncontrolled into
these field modifications, it remains a basin. Two typical examples are shown in Figure 3, which illustrate
the most common basin irrigation concept: water is added to the basin through a gap in the perimeter dyke
or adjacent ditch.
Figure 3. Typical irrigated basins (from Walker and Skogerboe, 1987)
a. large basin in the USA
b. paddy basin in Asia
There are few crops and soils not amenable to basin irrigation, but it is generally favoured by moderate to
slow intake soils, deep-rooted and closely spaced crops. Crops which are sensitive to flooding and soils
which form a hard crust following an irrigation can be basin irrigated by adding furrowing or using raised
bed planting. Reclamation of salt-affected soils is easily accomplished with basin irrigation and provision
for drainage of surface runoff is unnecessary. Of course it is always possible to encounter a heavy rainfall
or mistake the cut-off time thereby having too much water in the basin. Consequently, some means of
emergency surface drainage is good design practice. Basins can be served with less command area and
field watercourses than can border and furrow systems because their level nature allows water applications
from anywhere along the basin perimeter. Automation is easily applied.

Basin irrigation has a number of limitations, two of which, already mentioned, are associated with soil
crusting and crops that cannot accommodate inundation. Precision land levelling is very important to
achieving high uniformities and efficiencies. Many basins are so small that precision equipment cannot
work effectively. The perimeter dykes need to be well maintained to eliminate breaching and waste, and
must be higher for basins than other surface irrigation methods. To reach maximum levels of efficiency,
the flow per unit width must be as high as possible without causing erosion of the soil. When an irrigation
project has been designed for either small basins or furrows and borders, the capacity of control and outlet
structures may not be large enough to improve basins.

Border irrigation can be viewed as an extension of basin irrigation to sloping, long rectangular or
contoured field shapes, with free draining conditions at the lower end. Figure 4 illustrates a typical border
configuration in which a field is divided into sloping borders. Water is applied to individual borders from
small hand-dug checks from the field head ditch. When the water is shut off, it recedes from the upper end
to the lower end. Sloping borders are suitable for nearly any crop except those that require prolonged
ponding. Soils can be efficiently irrigated which have moderately low to moderately high intake rates but,
as with basins, should not form dense crusts unless provisions are made to furrow or construct raised
borders for the crops. The stream size per unit width must be large, particularly following a major tillage
operation, although not so large for basins owing to the effects of slope. The precision of the field
topography is also critical, but the extended lengths permit better levelling through the use of farm
machinery.
Figure 4. Typical border irrigated field

Furrow irrigation avoids flooding the entire field surface by channelling the flow along the primary
direction of the field using 'furrows,' 'creases,' or 'corrugations'. Water infiltrates through the wetted
perimeter and spreads vertically and horizontally to refill the soil reservoir. Furrows are often employed in
basins and borders to reduce the effects of topographical variation and crusting. The distinctive feature of
furrow irrigation is that the flow into each furrow is independently set and controlled as opposed to
furrowed borders and basins where the flow is set and controlled on a border by border or basin by basin
basis.
Furrows provide better on-farm water management flexibility under many surface irrigation conditions.
The discharge per unit width of the field is substantially reduced and topographical variations can be more
severe. A smaller wetted area reduces evaporation losses. Furrows provide the irrigator more opportunity
to manage irrigations toward higher efficiencies as field conditions change for each irrigation throughout a
season. This is not to say, however, that furrow irrigation enjoys higher application efficiencies than
borders and basins.
There are several disadvantages with furrow irrigation. These may include: (1) an accumulation of salinity
between furrows; (2) an increased level of tailwater losses; (3) the difficulty of moving farm equipment
across the furrows; (4) the added expense and time to make extra tillage practice (furrow construction); (5)
an increase in the erosive potential of the flow; (6) a higher commitment of labour to operate efficiently;
and (7) generally furrow systems are more difficult to automate, particularly with regard to regulating an

equal discharge in each furrow. Figure 5 shows two typical furrow irrigated conditions.
Figure 5. Furrow irrigation configurations (after USDA-SCS, 1967)
(a) graded furrow irrigation system
(b) contour furrows

There are many cases where croplands are irrigated without regard to efficiency or uniformity. These are
generally situations where the value of the crop is very small or the field is used for grazing or recreation
purposes. Small land holdings are generally not subject to the array of surface irrigation practices of the
large commercial farming systems. Also in this category are the surface irrigation systems like
check-basins which irrigate individual trees in an orchard, for example. While these systems represent
significant percentages in some areas, they will not be discussed in detail in this paper. The evaluation
methods can be applied if desired, but the design techniques are not generally applicable nor need they be
since the irrigation practices tend to be minimally managed.


There is substantial field evidence that surface irrigation systems can apply water to croplands uniformly
and efficiently, but it is the general observation that most such systems operate well below their potential.
A very large number of causes of poor surface irrigation performance have been outlined in the technical
literature. They range from inadequate design and management at the farm level to inadequate operation
of the upstream water supply facilities. However, in looking for a root cause, one most often retreats to the
fact that infiltration changes a great deal from irrigation to irrigation, from soil to soil, and is neither
predictable nor effectively manageable. The infiltration rates are an unknown variable in irrigation
practice.
In those cases where high levels of uniformity and efficiency are being achieved, irrigators utilize one or
more of the following practices: (1) precise and careful field preparation; (2) irrigation scheduling; (3)
regulation of inflow discharges; and (4) tailwater runoff restrictions, reduction, or reuse. Land preparation
is largely a land grading problem which will be discussed in Section 5. Irrigation scheduling is a theme
covered separately by several publications such as the FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24 (Rev) by
Doorenbos and Pruitt (FAO, 1977). The attention here then is focused on inflow regulation and tailwater
control.

Surface irrigation systems have two principal sources of inefficiency, deep percolation and surface runoff
or tailwater The remedies are competitive. To minimize deep percolation the advance phase should be
completed as quickly as possible so that the intake opportunity time over the field will be uniform and
then cut the inflow off when enough water has been added to refill the root zone. This can be
accomplished with a high, but non-erosive, discharge onto the field. However, this practice increases the
tailwater problem because the flow at the downstream end must be maintained until a sufficient depth has
infiltrated. The higher inflow reaches the end of the field sooner but it increases both the duration and the
magnitude of the runoff.
There are three options available to solve this problem, at least partially: (1) dyke the downstream end to
prevent runoff as in basin irrigation; (2) reduce the inflow discharge to a rate more closely approximating
the cumulative infiltration along the field following the advance phase, a practice termed 'cutback'; or (3)
select a discharge which minimizes the sum of deep percolation and tailwater losses, i.e., optimize the
field inflow regime. Examples of these alternative practices are discussed and illustrated in Section 5. In
this configuration, the head ditch is divided into a series of level bays which are differentiated by a small
change in elevation. Water levels are regulated in two bays simultaneously so that the lower bay has
sufficient head to produce an advance phase flow in the furrows while in the upper bay the head is only
sufficient to produce the cutback flow. Thus, the system operates by moving the check-dam from bay to
bay along the upper end of the field.
Two very recent additions to the efforts to control surface irrigation systems more effectively are the

'Surge Flow' system (Figure 6) developed at Utah State University, USA and the 'Cablegation' system
developed at the US Department of Agriculture's Snake River Water Conservation Research Center in
Kimberly, Idaho, USA. These systems will be dealt with in more detail in a later section.
Figure 6. One of the innovations in surface irrigation, the Surge Flow system


The tailwater deep percolation trade-off can also be solved by collecting and recycling the runoff to
improve surface irrigation performance. Reuse systems have not been widely employed historically
because water and energy have been inexpensive. Even today it is often more economical to regulate the
inflow rather than to collect and pump the runoff back to the head of the field or to another field, tailwater
reuse systems are more cost-effective when the water can be added to the flow serving lower fields and
thereby saving the cost of pumping.


Surface irrigation systems are supported by a number of on- and off-farm structures which control and
manage the flow and its energy. In order to facilitate efficient surface irrigation, these structures should be
easily and cheaply constructed as well as easy to manage and maintain. Each should be standardized for
mass production and fabrication in the field by farmers and technicians.
It is not the intent of this guide to be comprehensive with regard to the selection and design of these
structures since other sources are available, but it is worthwhile to note some of these structures by way of
presenting a larger view of surface irrigation.
The structural elements of a surface system perform several important functions which include: (1) turning
the flow to a field on and off; (2) conveying and distributing the flow among fields; (3) water
measurement, sediment and debris removal, water level stabilization; and (4) distribution of water onto the
field.

Most surface irrigation systems derive their water supplies from canal systems operated by public or
semi-public irrigation departments, districts, or companies. Some irrigation water is supplied in piped
delivery systems and some directly pumped from groundwater. Diversion structures perform several tasks
including (1) on-off water control which allows the supply agency to allocate its supply and protects the
fields below the diversion from untimely flooding; (2) regulation and stabilization of the discharge to the
requirements of field channels and watercourse distribution systems; (3) measurement of flow at the
turnout in order to establish and protect water entitlements; and (4) protection of downstream structures by
controlling sediments and debris as well as dissipating excess kinetic energy in the flow. A typical turnout
structure is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Typical turnout from a canal or lateral (from walker end Skogerboe, 1987)


Conveying water to the field requires similar structures to those found in major canal networks. The
conveyance itself can be an earthen ditch or lateral, a buried pipe, or a lined ditch. Lined sections can be
elevated as shown in Figure 8, or constructed at surface level. Pipe materials are usually plastic, steel,
concrete, clay, or asbestos cement, or they may be as simple as a wooden or bamboo construction. Lining
materials include slip-form cast-in-place, or prefabricated concrete (Figure 9), shotcrete or gunite, asphalt,
surface and buried plastic or rubber membranes, and compacted earth.
Figure 8. Elevated concrete channel in Iran
Figure 9. Slip-form concrete lining in the USA

The management of water in the field channels involves flow measurement, sediment and debris removal,
divisions, checks, drop-energy dissipators, and water level regulators. Some of the more common flow
control structures for open channels are shown in Figure 10. Associated with these are various flow
measuring devices like weirs, flumes, and orifices. The designs of these structures have been standardized
since they are small in size and capacity. Designs for flow measurement and drop-energy dissipator
structures need more attention and construction must be more precise since their hydraulic responses are
quite sensitive to their dimensions.
Figure 10. On-farm water management structures (from Skogerboe et al., 1971)
a. a simple drop structure

b. a typical check-divider


After the water reaches the field ready to be irrigated, it is distributed onto the field by a variety of means,
both simple and elaborately constructed. Most fields have a head ditch or pipeline running along the upper
side of the field from which the flow is distributed onto the field.
In a field irrigated from a head ditch, the spreading of water over the field depends somewhat on the
method of surface irrigation. For borders and basins, open or piped cutlets as illustrated in Figure 11 are
generally used. Furrow systems use outlets which can be directed to each furrow.
Figure 11. Head ditch outlets for borders and basins (after Kraatz and Mahajan, FAO, 1975)

Figure 12 shows a system in which siphon tubes are used as a means of serving each furrow. Field
distribution and spreading can also be through portable pipelines running along the surfaces or permanent
pipelines running underground. Basins and borders usually receive water through buried pipes serving one
or more gated risers within each basin or border. A typical riser outlet, known as an alfalfa valve, is shown
in Figure 13. The most common piped method of furrow irrigation uses plastic or aluminium gated pipe
like that shown in Figure 14. The gated pipe may be connected to the main water supply via a piped
distribution network with a riser assembly like the one shown in Figure 13, directly to a canal turnout, or
through an open channel to a piped transition.
Figure 12. Siphons for furrow irrigation
Figure 13. An alfalfa valve riser

Figure 14. Gated pipe for furrows

3.3 Infiltration
The evaluation of surface irrigation at the field level is an important aspect of both management and
design. Field measurements are necessary to characterize the irrigation system in terms of its most
important parameters, to identify problems in its function, and to develop alternative means for improving
the system.
System characterization necessitates a series of basic field measurements before, during, and after the
irrigation. The objectives of the evaluation will dictate whether the field measurements are comprehensive
or are simplified for special purposes. In some cases, there are alternative methodologies and equipment
for accomplishing the same ends. The selection provided herein is based on a limited selection found to be
most useful during numerous field evaluations and, in some measure, the practicality in the international
sense.
Five classes of field measurements are presented: (1) field topography and configuration; (2) water
requirements; (3) infiltration; (4) flow measurement; and (5) irrigation phases.

All field evaluations should include a relatively simple assessment of the field topography and layout.
These measurements are well enough known that only their brief mention is required. There is first of all
the field's primary elevations. This information requires that a surveying instrument be used to measure
elevations of the principal field boundaries (including dykes if present), the elevation of the water supply
inlet (an invert and likely maximum water surface elevation), and the elevations of the surface and
subsurface drainage system if possible. These measurements need not be comprehensive nor as formalized
as one would expect for a land levelling project.
The field topography and geometry should be measured. This requires placing a simple reference grid on
the field, usually by staking, and then surveying the elevations of the field surface at the grid points to
establish slope and slope variations. Usually one to three lines of stakes placed 20-30 metres apart or such
that 5-10 points are measured along the expected flow line will be sufficient. For example, a border or
basin would require at most three stake lines, a furrow system as little as one, depending on the uniformity
of the topography. The survey should establish the distance of each grid point from the field inlet as well

as the field dimensions (length of the field in the primary direction of water movement as well as field
width). There are important items of information that should be available from the survey: (1) the field
slope and its uniformity in the direction of flow and normal to it; (2) the slope and area of the field; and (3)
a reference system in the field establishing distance and elevation changes.
It is also worthwhile at this stage of the evaluation to record the location and extent of major soil types
(this may require sampling and some laboratory analyses). The cropping pattern should be determined
and, if a crop is on the field at the time of the evaluation, any obvious differences in growth and vigour
should be noted. Similarly, the cultivation practices should be recorded.

The irrigation system may not be designed to supply the total amount of moisture required for crop
growth. In some cases, precipitation or upward flow from a water table may contribute substantially
towards fulfilling crop water requirements. It is also unrealistic to expect that irrigation can be practiced
without losses due to deep percolation, or tailwater runoff. The fraction of the water that is used should be
maximized, but this fraction cannot be 100 percent without other serious problems developing such as a
salt build-up in the crop root zone.
The dependency on irrigation in an area requires some analyses of the water balance. Water balance may
have three perspectives. The first is the balance of agricultural demands within a watershed as depicted in
Figure 15. The outcome of such an analysis establishes the safe yield of water from various sources and
thereby indicates the area of a project, the priorities among projects, and the configuration of the large
systemic components of the project. An evaluation at the field level presumes that this information is
available, and it should be generally understood in as much as the limits of on-farm irrigation may be
dictated by the magnitude and distribution of the total water supply.
Figure 15. The perspective of water balance at the river basin level (from Walker, 1978)

The second water balance perspective, illustrated in Figure 16, is the water balance within the farm or
command area. An individual field is generally irrigated in concert with others in the command or farm
through sharing the water delivered through a canal turnout or a well. Fields also typically share drainage
channels. Water balance at the farm or command area level is established on a field's access to water, its
priority, timing and duration. Again, a field evaluation presumes that these factors have been formulated
and can be determined. Figure 17 illustrates the perspective of water balance at the field level.
Figure 16. A perspective of the on-farm water balance

Figure 17. The perspective of water balance at the field level

The water balance within the confines of a field is a useful concept for characterizing, evaluating or
monitoring any surface irrigation system. In using this aspect of water balance, an important consideration
is the time frame in which the computations are made, i.e. whether the balance will use annual data,
seasonal data, or data describing a single irrigation event. If a mean annual water balance is computed,
then it becomes reasonable that the change in root zone soil moisture storage could be assumed as zero. In
some irrigated areas, precipitation events are so light that the net rainfall can be reasonably assumed to
equal the measured precipitation. Under other circumstances, various other terms can be neglected. In fact,
the time base and field conditions are often selected to eliminate as many of the parameters as possible in
order to study the behaviour of single parameters.
One of the more important is crop evapotranspiration. The upward movement of groundwater to the root
zone can usually be ignored if the water table is at least a metre below the root zone. Then if the soil
moisture is measured before and after a period when there is no precipitation or irrigation, the depletion
from the root zone is a viable estimate of crop water use.

There are two particularly important components in the field water balance which impact design and
evaluation. The first is the irrigation requirement of the crop, or its evapotranspiration and leaching needs.
This is a design parameter and will be briefly described here, but a detailed treatment is left to the FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24, Crop Water Requirements, by Doorenbos and Pruitt (FAO, 1977). The
second important component deals with field evaluation and concerns the nature of moisture content
changes in the soil profile.

Evapotranspiration, ET, is dependent upon climatic conditions, crop variety and stage of growth, soil
moisture depletion, and various physical and chemical properties of the soil. A two step procedure is
generally followed in estimating ET: (1) the seasonal distribution of reference crop "potential
evapotranspiration", Etp, which can be computed with standard formulae; and (2) the Etp is adjusted for
crop variety and stage of growth. Other factors like moisture stress can be ignored for the purposes of
design computations.
There are perhaps twenty commonly used methods for calculating evapotranspiration, ranging in
complexity from the Blaney-Criddle Method using primarily mean monthly temperature to more complete
equations such as the Penman Method requiring radiation, temperature, wind velocity, humidity and other
factors comprising the net energy balance at the crop canopy.
The actual crop water demand depends on its stage of development and variety. Generally it is estimated
by multiplying Etp by a crop growth stage coefficient, kCO. Values of kCO have been published by Jensen
(1973), Kincaid and Heermann (1974) and Doorenbos and Pruitt (FAO, 1977) for a wide range of crops
grown worldwide.
Some irrigation water should be applied in excess of the storage capacity of the soil to leach salts from the
rooting region, although this does not have to be achieved during each irrigation event. It can usually be
applied on an annual basis. As a matter of practicality, the normally occurring deep percolation under most
surface irrigation systems exceeds the leaching fraction necessary for salt balance, particularly for the first
and second irrigations each season when deep percolation losses are typically greatest. In addition,
precipitation helps leach salts throughout the year. Nevertheless some irrigated areas maintain a salt
balance in the root zone with excess leaching during only years of plentiful water supplies, which may
occur as infrequently as every three to eight years.

Important soil characteristics in irrigated agriculture include: (1) the water-holding or storage capacity of
the soil; (2) the permeability of the soil to the flow of water and air; (3) the physical features of the soil
like the organic matter content, depth, texture and structure; and (4) the soil's chemical properties such as
the concentration of soluble salts, nutrients and trace elements.
The total available water, TAW, for plant use in the root zone is commonly defined as the range of soil
moisture held at a negative apparent pressure of 0.1 to 0.33 bar (a soil moisture level called 'field
capacity') and 15 bars (called the 'permanent wilting point'). The TAW will vary from 25 cm/m for silty
loams to as low as 6 cm/m for sandy soils. Some typical values of TAW, field capacity, permanent
wetting point and miscellaneous features have been given in various texts. A typical summary is shown in

Figure 18.
Figure 18. Relationships between soil types and total available soil moisture holding capacity, field
capacity and wilting point (from Walker and Skogerboe, 1987)
Other important soil parameters include its porosity, φ , its volumetric moisture content, θ ; its saturation,
S; its dry weight moisture fraction, W; its bulk density, γ b; and its specific weight, γ s. The relationships
among these parameters are as follows.
The porosity, φ , of the soil is the ratio of the total volume of void or pore space, Vp, to the total soil
volume V:
φ = Vp/V (1)
The volumetric water content, θ , is the ratio of water volume in the soil, VW, to the total volume, V:
θ = Vb/V (2)
The saturation, S, is the portion of the pore space filled with water:
S = VW/Vp (3)
These terms are further related as follows:

θ = S * φ (4)
When a sample of field soil is collected and oven-dried, the soil moisture is reported as a dry weight
fraction, W:
(5)

To convert a dry weight soil moisture fraction into volumetric moisture content, the dry weight fraction is
multiplied by the bulk density, γ b; and divided by specific weight of water, γ w which can be assumed to
have a value of unity. Thus:
θ = γ b W/γ w (6)
The γ b is defined as the specific weight of the soil particles, γ s, multiplied by the particle volume or
one-minus the porosity:
γ b = γ b * (1 - φ ) (7)
The volumetric moisture contents at field capacity, θ fc, and permanent wilting point, θ wp, then are
defined as follows:
θ fc = γ b Wfc/γ w (8)
θ wp = γ b Wwp/γ w (9)
where Wfc and Wwp are the dry weight moisture fractions at each point.
The total available water, TAW is the difference between field capacity and wilting point moisture
contents multiplied by the depth of the root zone, RD (refer to Table 1):
TAW = (θ fc - θ wp) RD (10)
Table 1 AVERAGE ROOTING DEPTHS FOR COMMONLY GROWN CROPS 1

Crop Root Depth (metres)
Alfalfa 1.5
Almonds 1.8
Apricots 1.8
Artichokes 1.4
Asparagus 1.5
Bananas 0.9
Beans 0.9
Beets 0.8
Broccoli 0.5
Cabbage 0.5
Cantaloupes 1.5
Carrots 0.9
Cauliflower 0.6
Celery 0.4
Cherries 2.0
Citrus 1.4

Corn (maize) 1.3

Cotton 1.2
Cucumber 1.1
Eggplant 0.9
Figs 1.5
Grains and flax 1.2
Grapes 1.5
Groundnuts. 0.7
Ladino clover 0.6
Lettuce 0.3
Melons 1.3
Milo (Sorghum) 1.2
Mustard 1.1
Olives 1.5
Onions 0.3
Palm Trees 0.9
Peaches 1.6
Pears 1.6
Peas 0.8
Peppers 0.9
Pineapple 0.5
Potatoes 0.9
Prunes 1.5
Pumpkins 1.8
Radishes 0.5
Safflower 1.5
Soybeans 1.0
Spinach 0.6
Squash (summer) 0.9
Strawberries 0.5
Sudan grass 1.8
Tomatoes 1.5
Turnips 0.9
Walnuts 2.0
Watermelon 1.2

Summarized from Marr (1967) and Doorenbos and Pruitt (FAO, 1977)
The Soil Moisture Deficit, SMD, is a measure of soil moisture between field capacity and existing
moisture content, θ i, multiplied by the root depth:
SMD = (θ fc - θ i) * RD (11)
A similar term expressing the moisture that is allotted for depletion between irrigations is the
'Management Allowed Deficit', MAD. This is the value of SMD where irrigation should be scheduled and
represents the depth of water the irrigation system should apply. Later this will be referred to as Zreq
indicating the 'required depth' of infiltration.

The soil moisture status requires periodic measurements in the field, from which one can project when the
next irrigation should occur and what depth of water should be applied. Conversely, such data can indicate
how much has been applied and its uniformity over the field. As noted in the previous subsections, bulk
density, field capacity and the permanent wilting point are also needed.
There are numerous techniques for evaluating soil moisture. Perhaps the most useful are gravimetric
sampling, the neutron probe and the touch-and-feel method.
i. Gravimetric sampling
Gravimetric sampling involves collecting a soil sample from each 15-30 cm of the soil profile to a depth at
least that of the root penetration. Typical samplers are shown in Figure 19. The soil sample of
approximately 100-200 grammes is placed in an air tight container of known weight (tare) and then
weighed. The sample is then placed in an oven heated to 105° C for 24 hours with the container cover
removed. After drying, the soil and container are again weighed and the weight of water determined as the
before and after readings. The dry weight fraction of each sample can be calculated using Eq. 5. Knowing
the bulk density, one can determine moisture contents from Eq. 6 and the soil moisture depletion from Eq.
11.
Figure 19. Small equipment used for collecting soil samples from the field
a. sampling auger
b. sampling tube
ii. The neutron Probe
The neutron probe and scaler for making soil moisture measurements are illustrated in Figure 20. The
neutron probe is inserted at various depths into an access tube and the count rate is read from the scaler.
The manufacturers of neutron probe equipment furnish a calibration relating the count rate to volumetric
soil moisture content. Field experience suggests that these calibrations are not always accurate under a
broad range of conditions so it is advisable for the investigator to develop an individual calibration for
each field or soil type. Most calibration curves are linear, best fit lines of gravimetric data and scaler
readings but may in some cases be slightly curvilinear (van Baval et al., 1963).
Figure 20. A neutron probe and scaler for soil moisture measurements (after Walker and

Skogerboe, 1987)
The volume of soil actually monitored in readings by the neutron probe depends on the moisture content
of the soil, increasing as the soil moisture decreases. The accuracy of soil moisture determinations near the
ground surface is affected by a loss of neutrons into the atmosphere thereby influencing measurements
prior to an irrigation more than afterwards. As a consequence, soil moisture measurements with a neutron
probe are usually unreliable within 10-30 cm of the ground surface.
iii. Touch-and-feel
As a means of developing a rough estimate of soil moisture, the Touch-and-feel method can be used. A
handful of soil is squeezed into a ball. Then the appearance of the squeezed soil can be compared
subjectively to the descriptions listed in Table 2 to arrive at the estimated depletion level. Merriam (1960)
has developed a similar table which gives the moisture deficiency in depth of water per unit depth of soil.
Over the years various investigators have compared actual gravimetric sample results to the
Touch-and-Feel estimates, finding a great deal of error depending on the experience of the sampler.
Table 2 GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING SOIL MOISTURE BY FEEL
Feel or Appearance of Soil
Percent Depletion Loamy sands to fine Fine sandy loams to silt
Silt loams to clay loam
sandy loams loams
no free water on ball* but
0 (field capacity) same same
wet outline on hand
makes ball but breaks makes tight ball, ribbons
0-25 easily and does not feel easily, slightly sticky and easily ribbons slick feeling
slick slick
balls with pressure but pliable ball, not sticky or pliable ball, ribbons easily
25-50
easily breaks slick, ribbons and feels damp slightly slick
balls under pressure but is
50-75 will not ball, feels dry slightly balls still pliable
powdery and easily breaks
dry, loose, flows through
75-100 powdery, dry, crumbles hard, baked, cracked, crust
fingers
* A "Ball" is formed by squeezing a soil sample firmly in one's hand
A "Ribbon" is formed by squeezing soil between one's thumb and forefinger.
iv. Bulk density
Measurements of bulk density are commonly made by carefully collecting a soil sample of known volume
and then drying the sample in an oven to determine the dry weight fraction. Then the dry weight of the
soil, Wb is divided by the known sample volume, V, to determine bulk density, γ b:
γ b = Wb V (12)
Most methods developed for determining bulk density use a metal cylinder sampler that is driven into the
soil at a desired depth in the profile. Bulk density varies considerably with depth and over an irrigated
field. Thus, it is generally necessary to repeat the measurements in different places to develop reliable

estimates.
v. Field capacity
The most common method of determining field capacity in the laboratory uses a pressure plate to apply a
suction of -1/3 atmosphere to a saturated soil sample. When water is no longer leaving the soil sample, the
soil moisture in the sample is determined gravimetrically and equated to field capacity.
A field technique for finding field capacity involves irrigating a test plot until the soil profile is saturated
to a depth of about one metre. Then the plot is covered to prevent evaporation. The soil moisture is
measured each 24 hours until the changes are very small, at which point the soil moisture content is the
estimate of field capacity.
vi. Permanent wilting point
Generally, at the permanent wilting point the soil moisture coefficient is defined as the moisture content
corresponding to a pressure of -15 atmospheres from a pressure plate test. Although actual wilting points
can be somewhere between -10 and -20 atm, the soil moisture content varies little in this range. Thus, the
-15 atm moisture content provides a reasonable estimate of the wilting point.

A cylindrical soil sample 10 cm in diameter and 10 cm long has been carefully taken so that negligible
compaction has occurred. It was weighed before oven drying (1284 grammes) and after (1151 g). What
soil parameters can be identified?
1. Bulk Density:
γ b = Wb / V (12)
= 1151 g / [(3.14 * (10 cm)2/4) * 10 cm] = 1.466 g/cm3
2. Dry Weight Moisture Fraction:
(5)
= (1284 g / 1151 g) / 1151 g = 0.116

3. Volumetric Moisture Content:
= (1.466 g / 1..0 g/cm3) * 0.116 = 0.170 (6)
4. Water Content Expressed as a Depth:

Depth of Water = θ * Depth of Soil
= 0.17 cm of water per cm of soil.
Now suppose the soil sample is carefully rewetted to the saturation point, utilizing 314 9 of water to do so.
What other soil properties are identified?

5. Porosity:
φ = Vp / V (1)
= = 0.40
6. Initial Soil Saturation:

S = θ / φ = 0.170 / 0.40 = 0.425 (4)
7. Specific Weight of the Soil Particles:
γ S = γ b / (1 - φ ) = 1.466 / 0.60 = 2.44 g/cm3 (7)
Finally, suppose the sample is allowed to drain under conditions where it does not dry due to evaporation
until the water in the sample is under a negative pressure of -1/3 atm so that one can assume it is at field
capacity. The water draining from the sample was collected and weighed 160 g. What other evaluations
are now possible?
8. Field Capacity Volumetric Moisture Content:
θ fc = γ b Wfc / γ w (8)
9. Soil Moisture Depletion at the Time of Sampling:

SMD = (θ fc - θ i)* RD = (0.196 - 0.170) RD = 0.026 RD (11)
If the root depth is 100 cm,

SMD = 2.6 cm
3.3 Infiltration

Infiltration is the most important process in surface irrigation. It essentially controls the amount of water
entering the soil reservoir, as well as the advance and recession of the overland flow.
Typical curves of infiltration rate, I, and cumulative infiltration, Z, are shown in Figure 21. Irrigation of
initially dry soil exhibits an infiltration rate with a high initial value which decreases with time until it
becomes fairly steady, which is termed the 'basic infiltration rate'. Infiltration is a complex process that
depends upon physical and hydraulic properties of the soil moisture content, previous wetting history,

structural changes in the layers and air entrapment.

Figure 21. Typical infiltration rate and cumulative infiltration function
In surface irrigation, infiltration changes dramatically throughout the irrigation season. The water
movements alter the surface structure and geometry which in turn affect infiltration rates. The term 'intake'
is often used interchangeably with 'infiltration', particularly where the geometry of the field influences the
infiltration process.

Both the procedures for interpreting field data and those covering surface irrigation design require that
infiltration be described mathematically. There are a number of mathematical equations to choose from,
probably none as versatile as the two so-called Kostiakov-Lewis relationships.
The simplest approximation of cumulative infiltration is written:
Z = k ra (13)
in which,
Z = cumulative infiltration in units of volume per unit length per unit width;

r = intake opportunity time; and

k and a = empirical constants.
Equation 13 is simple, easy to define, and widely used. Its major disadvantage is its inadequacy in
describing infiltration over long time periods. The infiltration rate based on Eq. 13 is:
I = a k ra-1 (14)
Since a is always less than unity, I approaches zero at infinite time. This is a condition not typically
encountered in the field. Some soils do, however, have extremely small infiltration rates after a period of
time and Eqs. 13 and 14 can be used effectively.
A more general infiltration function is the extended form of Eq. 13:
Z = k ra + fo r (15)
in which fo is the long term steady, or 'basic' infiltration rate in units of volume per unit length per unit
time and width. Equation 15 easily reduces to Eq. 13 if the soil intake rate at long times approaches a zero
value or if the irrigation event is short compared to the time required for the infiltration to reach a steady
rate. Equation 15 gives a better long term approximation on many soils. One case in particular where
Equation 15 has been shown superior to Eq. 13 is when estimates of field runoff are being made.
The infiltration rate using Eq. 15 is:
I = a k ra-1 + fo (16)

The Soil Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture developed a series of 'intake families'
to assist field technicians and engineers. The curves were based on field measurements made over a period
of years at numerous locations. They are given in the SCS National Engineering Handbook, Chapters 4
and 5 dealing with border and furrow irrigation. To be consistent with the analysis contained in this guide,
a number of modifications were made to the SCS intake family concept. First, the curves were redefined
in the format of Eq. 15 by defining a basic intake rate, fo, for each family, and then recomputing the values
of a and k. Figure 22 shows the intake curves which result (Gharbi, 1984). Table 3 gives the k, a, and fo
coefficients for each intake curve along with the typical soil type. The units employed are m3/m of length
per 'characteristic' width of the field. For borders and basins, the 'characteristic' width is l metre. For
furrows it is the wetted perimeter of the furrow cross-sections. Thus, to use the functions for furrow
irrigation, it is necessary to estimate the wetted perimeter for the inlet discharge, divide this value by the
furrow to furrow spacing, and then adjust the k and fo values by multiplying each by the resulting
perimeter to spacing ratio. The k and fo values should not be reduced below 50 percent as would be the
case for widely spaced furrows.
Figure 22. Kostiakov-Lewis intake relationships based on the US Dept. of Agriculture's intake series
Table 3 KOSTIAKOV-LEWIS INTAKE PARAMETERS (after Gharbi, 1984)
curve no. k m/mina a fo m/min ave. 6 hr intake rate soil type
.05 .00426 .258 .000022 2 clay

.10 .00383 .317 .000035 4

.15 .00360 .357 .000046 5
.20 .00346 .388 .000057 6 clay loam
.25 .00337 .415 .000068 7
.30 .00330 .437 .000078 8
.35 .00326 .457 .000088 9
.40 .00323 .474 .000098 10
.45 .00321 .490 .000107 12 silty loam
.50 .00320 .504 .000117 13
.60 .00320 .529 .000136 15
.70 .00321 .550 .000155 17
.80 .00324 .568 .000174 20
.90 .00328 .584 .000193 22 sandy loam
1.00 .00332 .598 .000212 25
1.50 .00361 .642 .000280 35 sandy
2.00 .00393 .672 .000339 45
The segregation of the intake families by soil type is qualitative, but it serves the field technician or
irrigation engineer during preliminary design or evaluation work. The relationships given in Figure 22 and
Table 3 are not intended as substitutes for field measurements when they can be made. These
measurements are among the most important tasks that should be undertaken as part of surface irrigation
work.

Infiltration is one of the most difficult parameters to define accurately. The importance of infiltration
combined with the difficulties in obtaining reliable data suggests that the field technician should expect to
spend considerable time evaluating infiltration. The irrigation engineer should ensure that infiltration has
been adequately defined.
Four commonly employed techniques for measuring infiltration are noted here. These are (1) cylinder
infiltrometers; (2) ponding; (3) blocked recirculating infiltrometers; and (4) a deduction of infiltration
from evaluation of the advance phase and the tailwater hydrograph.
i. Cylinder infiltrometers
Haise et al. (1956) presents one of the most complete instructions on the use of cylinder infiltrometers. A
metal cylinder (Figure 23) with a diameter of 30 cm or more and a height of about 40 cm is driven into the
soil, using a driving plate set on top of the infiltrometer and a heavy hammer.
Figure 23. A schematic of a ring infiltrometer and driving plate (after Haise et al., 1956)

The procedure for installing the cylinder infiltrometers is to begin by examining and selecting possible
sites carefully for signs of unusual surface disturbance, animal burrows, stones that might damage the
cylinder, etc. Areas that may have been affected by unusual animal or machinery traffic should be

avoided. The individual cylinders used for a single test should be set within a 0.2 ha area so that they can
conveniently be run simultaneously. Then the cylinder is set in place and pressed firmly into the soil, after
which the driving plate is placed over the cylinder and tampered with the driving hammer until the
cylinder is driven to a depth of about 15 cm. The cylinder should be driven so that the driving plate is
maintained in a level plane which will require that it be checked frequently to keep it properly oriented.
It is generally suggested that a buffer ring around the infiltrometer be installed so that water infiltrating
from the infiltrometer will percolate vertically and thereby preserve the integrity of the measurement.
There have been, however, a large number of comparisons between buffered and non-buffered readings
and generally one concludes that the spatial variability in the field is so much larger than the effect of
buffering that it is not worthwhile to add the substantial effort of installing and operating the buffer. In
addition, most comparisons cannot detect the effect of the buffer. Given the accuracy of the method in
depicting representative infiltration, any error caused by omitting the buffer is insignificant. Thus, the
buffered cylinder infiltrometer testing is not recommended in this guide.
After the infiltrometer has been installed, the test is conducted in the following manner. The volume of the
cylinder above the soil is carefully measured (diameter, depth, etc.). A gauge of almost any type is fixed to
the inner wall so that the water level changes that occur can be measured. A pre-measured volume, about
80-90 percent of the infiltrometer capacity of water similar to the irrigation water, is added quickly to the
infiltrometer. When the water surface is quieted, an initial reading should be taken. The infiltration that
occurs during the period between the start of the test and this first measurement is the difference between
the computed initial level and the first actual reading:
(17)
Additional measurements should be recorded at periodic intervals, 5 to 10 minutes at the start of the tests,
expanding to 30 to 60 minute intervals after 3 or 4 readings, but the observation frequencies should be
adjusted to infiltration rates (see Figure 24 for a convenient recording form). Measurements should be
continued until the intake rates are constant over a 1 to 2 hour period.
Figure 24. Data recording form for ring infiltrometer tests (after Haise et al., 1956)
When the water level has dropped about one-half of the depth of the cylinder, water should be added to
return the surface to its approximate initial elevation. The depth should be maintained in the cylinder
between 6 and 10 cm throughout the test. When water is added, it is necessary to record the level before
and after filling. The interval between these two readings should be as short as possible to avoid errors due
to infiltration during the refilling period.
Where the infiltration rate indicated by a single cylinder is unusually high, there is a possibility that either
the cylinder has been improperly installed or it has been installed over a crack or root tube in the soil.
These possibilities should be checked at the conclusion of a test.
Analysis of the data is usually made by plotting the data on logarithmic paper (cumulative depth, Z, on the
vertical axis, cumulative time, t, on the horizontal axis). If the test is run long enough to establish a steady
infiltration rate, as it should be approximately, this plot will not be linear. To evaluate the infiltration
function, select readings near the later part of the test and take the slope as the basic intake rate, fo. Then
use the slope of the first few data points on the logarithmic paper to define the slope, a. The intercept of

the horizontal axis at 1.0 is the k value. This procedure assumes that at short times the contribution to
cumulative infiltration from the steady state, fo term in Eq. 15 is negligible. These assumptions are better
for the heavy soils than for the light soils.
ii. Ponding methods
Ponds can be created using bunds or dykes around an area on the ground surface and operated in the same
manner and by using the same procedures discussed above for cylinders.
The ponding; method can be used in small basins and other larger ground surface areas to evaluate the
infiltration rates of a larger fraction of the field. The disadvantage of this technique is that edge effects can
be significant.
This problem can be overcome by giving special care to the sealing of the pond perimeter with compacted
clay or installing a plastic barrier. The operational and data gathering procedures, including the forms for
recording data, are the same as for cylinder infiltrometers.
The application of the ponding; technique to furrows requires a slightly different infiltrometer
configuration. The total infiltration in a furrow consists of water moving laterally through the furrow sides
as well as vertically downward. Bondurant (1957) developed a 'blocked' furrow infiltrometer which
recognizes this special feature of furrows.
Two sharp edged plates are driven into both ends of a furrow section to isolate a short length. The furrow
geometry is then determined (as will be discussed later in this section) so the depth of water can be
determined at time zero. Again, a known volume of water is added to the test section and readings begin.
Since the furrow cross-sectional area declines with depth, it is best to maintain a fixed water level and
record the water necessary to do so as shown in Figure 25. For the data analyses, the reservoir readings
need to be adjusted for the difference in surface area between the furrow section and the reservoir, i.e. the
reservoir readings of cumulative infiltration need to be multiplied by the ratio of the furrow surface area to
the reservoir cross-sectional area. The remainder of the data analysis is the same.
Figure 25. Blocked furrow infiltrometer (after Walker and Skogerboe, 1987)
The issue of using buffer furrows must be considered. Where buffering is not considered important in
cylinder or pond infiltration measurements, it can be important in furrow cases. Judgement must be
exercised on this point. For silt and clay soils, the basic intake rate will generally be reached before the
wetting fronts of adjacent furrows meet in the soil between furrows and the buffering is probably not
necessary. In sandy soils, this may not be the case so the basic intake rate may be influenced by the soil
moisture distribution after the wetting fronts meet. Thus, the buffering would be necessary to determine
accurate readings.
iii. Recycling infiltrometers
Another innovation for evaluating infiltration, primarily in furrows is the recycling infiltrometer. The
advantage of this technique is that both the geometric and hydraulic conditions encountered during
irrigation are simulated during the test. This provides a better approximation of actual field situations than
the static methods described above.
The dynamic changes in soil-water interface must be realistically simulated. The movement of suspended
particles develops a different surface condition than under the static water surface. The static case tends to

form a more impermeable soil layer than would occur under usual conditions of overland flow.
The recycling infiltrometer for furrows is shown in Figure 26. A sump is installed at each end of a furrow
section 5 to 6 metres in length. The sumps should be carefully buried in the ground so that the sump
inverts correspond with the furrow bed elevation. Water is pumped from the water supply reservoir via a
hose into the furrow inflow sump. It then advances across the furrow test section and is collected in the
tailwater sump. Another pump then moves the water back into the water supply reservoir. The discharge in
the system can be regulated by various valves to maintain a constant water level in the tailwater sump.
Figure 26. Recycling furrow infiltrometer (after Malano, 1982)
a. recycling furrow test section
b. supply reservoir
c. tailwater sump and pumpback system

d. recording pressure sensor on supply reservoir
As with the blocked furrow technique, the furrow cross-section must be measured so that the relationship
of the surface area to that of the reservoir is known. Thus, the cumulative infiltration function is developed
in the same way it is for cylinder and pond measurements, i.e. the cumulative infiltration is the reservoir
readings corrected by the ratio of surface areas in the furrow and the reservoir.
The time required to complete the advance phase can be minimized by increasing the furrow inflow
discharge rate for a few minutes. The decline in the reservoir volume is a direct reading of the cumulative
infiltration into the furrow.

Table 4 gives one set of cylinder infiltrometer data taken from a field study. A plot of cumulative depth
versus cumulative time is given in Figure 27.
Figure 27. Plot of cumulative time and infiltration for the example problem

From the last four readings, a linear slope of the plot is calculated as follows:
time Z ∆Z t fo fo
(min) (mm) mm/min m/min
960 50
6 180 0.033 0.000033
1140 56
5 180 0.028 0.000028

1320 61
4 160 0.025 0.000025
480 65
Table 4 EXAMPLE CYLINDER INFILTROMETER DATA

Time Readings Gauge Readings
Clock Cumulative Gauge Cumulative
hrs min mm mm
0800 0 187 0
0801 1 183 4
0802 2 182 5
0804 4 181 6
0806 6 180 7
0810 10 179 8
0820 20 177 10
0830 30 176 11
0900 60 173 14
1000 120 169 18
1100 180 166 21
1200 240 163 24
1400 360 158 29
1600 480 153 34
1800 600 149 38
2400 960 137 50
0300 1140 131 56
0600 1320 126 61
0840 1480 122 65
One can see that the linear slope is changing with time even after more than 24 hours and thus the
contribution to Z from the nonlinear portion is still evident. Nevertheless, these are the data available and
fo can be selected as 0.000025 m/min or .000025 m3/min per unit width per unit length. This value can be
expected to be slightly higher than in reality due to the problem noted above, but the error is not large.
Now the non-linear term in Eq. 15 can be determined by examining the first points of the data. Since fo is
now estimated, an adjustment can be made as follows:
time Z Z-fo r
min mm mm

0 0 0
1 4 3.975
2 5 4.95
4 6 5.90
6 7 6.85
10 8 7.75
20 10 9.50
A regression can be run through the Z-fo r versus t data to arrive at a and k values. k is read directly from
the table as 3.975 mm/mma or 0.003975 m3/mina/unit width/unit length. The value of a is found by fitting
the end points:
log(9.50) = a log (20)
log(3.975) = a log (1)
and by simultaneous solution:
Thus,
Z = 0.003975 r .291 + 0.000025 r

3.4.5 V-notch weirs
There are many useful flow measuring devices available for measuring water as part of surface irrigation
evaluation and continued monitoring during the operation phases of the system. For on-farm monitoring
and evaluation flumes and weirs are usually the most helpful. Flumes include the Parshall flume, the
H-flume, the cutthroat flume, the V-notch flume and the trapezoidal flume. Weirs might include
rectangular, triangular and Cipolletti sharp-crested weirs and various broad-crested weirs. It would be
beyond the space available in this guide to describe each of these in sufficient detail to be useful to those
working in the field. Most have ratings for a specific size and geometry which are supplied by
manufacturers. The reader is referred to several references in the bibliography at the end of this guide for
such information. However, three of the devices noted above are very easily fabricated in the field, have
general ratings and are highly portable. These are: (1) the cutthroat flume; (2) the rectangular
sharp-crested weir; and (3) the triangular, or V-notch sharp-crested weir. A fourth device is a recently

developed broad-crested weir which enjoys simplicity of construction and portability, but which requires a
computer generated rating unless a standard size is selected. The reader is recommended to Bos et al.
(1985) for a full explanation of this flow measuring structure.

The cutthroat flume shown in Figure 28 was developed by Skogerboe et al. (1967), with subsequent
extensions in the ratings by Bennett (1972) and others. Because the cutthroat flume has the same
geometric shape for all sizes, the ratings of all flumes can be interpolated within a degree of accuracy
suitable for field use.
Figure 28. The cutthroat flume
The cutthroat flume with its level floor and simple inlet and exit is easy to construct and install in almost
any field situation (see Figure 29 for the the flume's dimensions). Fabrication errors are not serious as the
ratings are easily adjusted.
Figure 29. Layout and geometry of the cutthroat flume
The basic discharge equation for cutthroat flumes is:
(18)
where,
Q = the discharge in cubic feet per second (1 cfs =.0283 cubic metres/sec);
hu = the upstream gauge reading in feet (1 foot = 0.3048 metres);
Cf = the 'free flow' coefficient; and
bf = the 'free flow' exponent.
The value of bf can be read directly from Figure 30. The value of the free flow coefficient Cf, is a function
of the flume's length and throat width:
Cf = KfW1.025 (19)
where,
W = the throat width in feet; and
Kf = the flume 'length' coefficient (Figure 30).
Figure 30. The cutthroat flume rating curves (after Walker and Skogerboe, 1987)
For accurate discharge measurements, the recommended ratio of flow depth to flume length (hu/L) should
be less than or equal to 0.33. As the hu/L ratio increases inaccuracies increase because of higher approach
velocities and more turbulent water surface profiles at the flume gauge.
The cutthroat flume was designed to be a critical depth flume in which the flow is sufficiently restricted to
cause a supercritical flow velocity to occur near the throat section. As with most flow measuring devices
occasions arise when the downstream depth 'submerges' the throat so that the velocity remains in the
subcritical regime. The point where this occurs is the 'transition' submergence, St, or the ratio of upstream

to downstream depths (hu/hd). The St values for the cutthroat flume are also plotted in Figure 30. Under
submerged conditions, Eq. 18 is modified to:
(20)
where,
S = the 'submergence', (hu/hd);
Cs = the 'submerged flow' coefficient; and
ns = the 'submerged flow' exponent.
These parameters are also dependent on the flume length and/or width and, therefore, can be obtained for
any flume dimension by reading the value from Figure 30. The submerged flow coefficient, Ks, is also
plotted in Figure 30. This allows computation of the submerged
Cs = KsW1.025 (21)
If the cutthroat flume is found to be operating in the submerged regime by computing a submergence
greater than St, it should be reinstalled in the channel. This involves raising the flume until a free flow
regime exists. It may be necessary to reduce the throat width in this process. However, if it must operate in
the submerged flow regime, Eq. 20 yields accurate readings. When the submergence approaches 90
percent, it is difficult to make sufficiently accurate gauge readings in the field.

A basin evaluation is to be conducted with an estimated flow of .25 m3/sec. A cutthroat flume is needed in
the watercourse upstream of the basin to record the inflow. With this flow in the watercourse, there is only
13.5 cm of channel freeboard available with which the flume can operate. At this flow, the downstream
depth below the flume would remain at 31.5 cm. The watercourse's constructed depth is 45 cm. How
would the flume be selected and installed?
The first step in the solution of this problem is to observe the potential submergence condition. If a flume
were installed, the maximum upstream depth at the gauge would be limited to the constructed depth of the
channel (45 cm). In other words, the flume could only back water up in front of it to a depth of 13.5 cm in
order to generate the head necessary to pass the flow. This would assume the flume floor was installed at
the same level as the channel bottom. The submergence in the flume would then be 70 percent, found by
dividing the downstream depth given as 31.5 cm by the maximum upstream depth 45 cm. A quick look at
Figure 30 shows that only cutthroat flumes with lengths greater than about 4.4 feet (1.34 metres) would
work, but these would be heavy and cumbersome for this field study so an examination of the alternatives
is necessary. Note, any smaller flume will have to be raised above the channel bottom.
Suppose for convenience, a 1-metre long flume is desired. From Figure 30, the following parameters
would be selected: St = 66.2 %, nf = 1.785 and Kf = 4.27. Assume the floor will be elevated above the
channel by d cm such that:

or
d =5.29 cm, say 6 cm
In other words, the eventual submergence in the flume will be 66 % and it will operate in the free flow
range. From Eq. 18, Cf can be found as:
Then from Eq. 19,

W = (Cf/Kf)1.0/1.025 = (5.689/4.27)0.9756 = 1.323 feet = 40.33 cm, say 41 cm
Now running through the calculations again shows that using a 1-metre long flume with a throat of 41 cm
and elevated 6 cm up off the bottom will pass 0.25 m3/sec at a total upstream depth of 44.6 cm and with a
submergence of 66 percent or just in the free flow range.

Weir structures are commonly used in irrigation systems near turnouts from the water delivery network to
measure flows. A disadvantage of using weirs for flow measurements is that to ensure a free flow
operation, the water upstream must be 'backed up' or its level increased substantially. This so-called 'head'
is greater for weirs than for flumes. In addition, sediment and debris are often trapped by the weir.
However, weir structures tend to provide more accurate discharge ratings than most other devices.
There are some excellent references on weirs, such as USBR (1967), Bos (1976) and Ackers et al. (1978).
Today's free flow ratings for rectangular sharp crested weirs are based on extensive laboratory studies by
Kindsvater and Carter (1957). A definition sketch of a standard rectangular weir is shown in Figure 31.
The free flow discharge equation is:
Q = 2.9524 CeBehe1.5 (22)
where,
Q = the flow in m3/sec;
Ce = an 'effective free flow' discharge coefficient;
be = the 'effective width' of the constriction in m; and
he = the 'effective head' in m.
Figure 31. Definition sketch of the rectangular sharp crested weir (after Bos, 1976)


The coefficient, Ce, is plotted in Figure 32 as a function of b/B and hu/p, which are shown schematically
in Figure 31. The units are again in metres.
Figure 32. Definition of the Ce coefficient for rectangular thin-plate weirs (Kindsvater and Carter,
1957)

The effective constriction width, be, is:

be = b + Kb (23)
where Kb is plotted against the constriction ration b/B, in Figure 33. The effective head, he, is given
simply:
he = hu + 0.0001 (24)
Figure 33. Constriction width correction, Kb, for rectangular thin-plate weirs (Kindsvater and
Carter, 1957)

In the example of Subsection 3.4.3, would it be feasible to use a rectangular weir, and if so what would its
dimensions be? Assume the watercourse is 1.5 m wide.
According to Figure 31, the weir crest must be at least 5 cm above the downstream water level. This

means the head upstream, hu, can be as much as 45 - (31.5) = 8.5 cm. The value of b/B could be as great
as 1.0 in which case Figure 33 shows Kb to be -0.0009, or from Eq. 23, be = 1.4991 m. If hu was 8.5 cm,
he from Eq. 24 would equal .0851 m, hu/p would be .085/(31.5 + 5.0) = .0023, and from Figure 32, Ce
would be 0.62. From Eq. 22:
Q = 2.9524(.62)(1.499)(.0851)1.5 = 0.068 m3/sec
Thus, the weir cannot pass the necessary flow at the allowable depth. In fact, one can turn the procedure
around and discover that the weir must have an hu of more than 20 cm to pass the necessary flow.
3.4.5 V-notch weirs

Perhaps with other things being equal, the most accurate measuring device is the V-notch weir (Figure
34). Shen (1960) presented the generalized discharge equation for V-notch weirs as (the units are the same
as for Eq. 22)
Q = 2.3691 Ce tan(θ /2) hu2.5 (25)
where,
θ = the central angle of the notch in degrees.
The parameter Kh can be obtained from Figure 35 and Ce from Figure 36. Both Kh and Ce depend on the
notch angle so long as hu/p < .4 and p/B < .2.
Figure 34. The V-notch weir (from Bos, 1976)


Figure 35. Head correction factor, Kh, for V-notch weirs (Shen, 1960)

Figure 36. Discharge correction factor, Ce for V-notch weirs (Shen, 1960)

3.5.1 Advance phase

The phases of a surface irrigation event were listed previously: (1) advance; (2) wetting or ponding; (3)
depletion; and (4) recession. The field measurements needed to evaluate each of these phases are as
follows.
3.5.1 Advance phase

Data from an evaluation of the advance phase are generally the most important in terms of the information
they develop. In preparation for these tests, points in the field should be located with a grid of markers or
stakes as outlined in Subsection 3.1. In fact, the grid put in place to establish this field topography can be
used for the advance and recession phase analyses. It is often helpful to add a couple of stakes near the
field inlet of borders and basins which have a marking that will allow observation of the water depths.
Measurement of the cross-sectional geometry of furrows and corrugations is important in furrow
evaluations. For each furrow, the cross-sectional geometry should be measured at two to three stations
before and after the irrigation. A profilometer for determining the cross-sections of furrows is shown in
Figure 37. Individual scales on the rods of the profilometer provide data to plot furrow depth as a function
of the lateral distance. These data can then be numerically integrated to develop geometric relationships
such as area verses depth, wetted perimeter versus depth and top-width verses depth.
Figure 37. Furrow profilometer for evaluating cross-sectional shapes
During the evaluations the depth and extent of the water surface should be measured periodically at
selected points. These data can be combined with flow areas to compute the surface storage.
There are two important measurements necessary during the advance phase: (1) the discharge hydrograph
onto the field or into the test furrows; and (2) the elapse time from introduction of the water until the
advancing front reaches each of the stations along the direction of flow. It is important to maintain the
inflows during tests at constant levels. Variations significantly affect the movement of the advance front.
Forms for recording the readings are given in Figure 38 for furrows and Figure 39 for borders and basins.
For furrow irrigation, the tests are conducted on individual furrows and the advance readings are simply
distance from the furrow inlet as a function of time. For borders and basins, the technique for measuring
the rate of advance is to plot contours of the advancing front at periodic intervals. If the field is bare or the
crop height is small, the advancing front can be photographed to assist with contouring the advance. The
field stakes should be marked in such a manner that allows easy identification for purposes of sketching
and identifying locations. A typical example of advancing contours in a square-shaped basin will be
shown in the next section.


The 'wetting phase' is usually more applicable for furrow and border irrigation where tailwater runoff can
occur between the end of the advance phase and the cutoff. Ponding is the more common term for basin
irrigation. The measurements needed during this phase are either the runoff hydrograph, if one occurs, or
the ponding; if the end is dyked. The flow rate from borders is substantially higher than from a single
furrow and, thus, the hydrograph should be measured with a flume or weir. During an evaluation, the
water should run off the field for a sufficient length of time to develop a relatively steady runoff
hydrograph, even if this means over-irrigating. The runoff hydrograph is needed to determine the basic
intake rate of the soil.

The depletion phase begins at the time of cutoff, extends through the time that the ponded water surface
elevation declines and ends when any portion of the ground surface is bare of water. The only
measurement that needs to be recorded is the time the first areas are drained.

For surface irrigated fields the recession phase ends when the surface water disappears at each measuring
station and is recorded on forms such as shown in Figures 38 or 39. The time difference at each measuring
station between the clock time or cumulative time for advance and recession is the intake opportunity
time.
Figure 38. Data recording form for furrow irrigation evaluations (from Ley, 1980)
Figure 39. Format for recording basin irrigation evaluation data (from Walker and Skogerboe,
1987)
Recession is difficult to observe because there is not a discernable receding edge. Further, the flow may
recede from both ends of the field simultaneously. Nevertheless, as the water drains from the field, the
time of recession at the field stations is helpful information.
For the purposes of furrow irrigation, two very simple procedures are proposed. First, recession in furrows
with a slope of 0.25 percent or more is relatively linear. To describe recession, it is suggested that the flow
be observed mid-way along the furrow and at the end. When the flows have reduced to a nearly drained
state, approximately 90-95 percent, record the time as the recession time at the two points. Then
approximate the recession trajectory by plotting a curve through the following three points: (1) time of
cutoff at the field inlet thus neglecting depletion; (2) time of recession at the mid-way point; and (3) time
of recession at the lower end of the furrow. Secondly, if the furrow slope is less than .25 percent, assume
the recession is negligible and simply record depletion time at the end of the furrow.
Recession in borders is generally a much longer period of time than in furrows, but it may be quite well
approximated by the three point method noted above for furrows, the only difference being to use the
depletion time as the upstream point instead of the cutoff time. In basins, the post-cutoff period is usually
limited to a depletion phase which will occur at the same time over the basin depending on the variations,
and undulation in the surface topography.


http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e00.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e00.jpg [2/17/2003 12:36:50 PM]






http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0a.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0a.jpg [2/17/2003 12:37:29 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0b.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0b.jpg [2/17/2003 12:37:36 PM]



The principal objective of evaluating surface irrigation systems is to identify management practices and
system configurations that can be feasibly and effectively implemented to improve the irrigation
efficiency. An evaluation may show that higher efficiencies are possible by reducing the duration of the
inflow to an interval required to apply the depth that would refill the root zone soil moisture deficit. The
evaluation may also show opportunities for improving performance through changes in the field size and
topography. Evaluations are useful in a number of analyses and operations, particularly those that are
essential to improve management and control. Evaluation data can be collected periodically from the
system to refine management practices and identify the changes in the field that occur over the irrigation
season or from year to year. The surface irrigation system is a complex and dynamic hydrologic system
and, thus, the evaluation processes are important to optimize the use of water resources in this system. A
summary of the data arising from a field evaluation is enumerated below.
There are several publications describing the equipment and procedures for evaluating surface irrigation
systems, but not all give a very correct methodology for interpreting the data once collected. The data
analysis depends somewhat on the data collected and the information to be derived. This section will deal
with two aspects of an evaluation. The first is the definition of the typical field infiltration relationship
using the evaluation data describing the surface flow. The mathematical basis of the infiltration analysis
will be the extended form of the Kostiakov-Lewis formula (Eq. 15). The second is the evaluation of the
efficiency of the irrigation event studied. Although many performance measures have been suggested,
only four will be noted herein: (1) application efficiency; (2) storage efficiency; (3) deep percolation ratio;
and (4) runoff ratio. These will be defined here before detailing the analyses of infiltration and
performance.

4.1.1 Field data

The field measurements outlined in the previous section provide the following elements in a field
evaluation:
i. the inflow hydrograph (per furrow or per border or basin);
ii. the advance and recession of the water over the field surface;
iii. the runoff hydrograph (if the field is not dyked);
iv. the soil moisture depletion prior to the irrigation;
v. the volume of water on the soil surface at various times;
vi. infiltration and water holding capacities of the soil; and
vii. the geometry of the cross-sectional flow area.
Not all these data will be needed as part of the field evaluation. In some cases, such as infiltration, one set
of data can be derived from others to reduce the time and expense of the field measurements.

Among the factors used to judge the performance of an irrigation system or its management, the most
common are efficiency and uniformity. These parameters have been subdivided and defined in a multitude
of ways as well as named in various manners. There is not a single parameter which is sufficient for
defining irrigation performance. Conceptually, the adequacy of an irrigation depends on how much water
is stored within the crop root zone, losses percolating below the root zone, losses occurring as surface
runoff or tailwater the uniformity of the applied water, and the remaining deficit or under-irrigation within
the soil profile following an irrigation. Ultimately, the measure of performance is whether or not the
system promoted production and profitability on the farm. In order to index these factors in the surface
irrigated environment the following assumptions can be made, the consequences of which are that
performance is based on how the surface flow will be managed:
i. the crop root system extracts moisture from the soil uniformly with respect to depth and
location;
ii. the infiltration function for the soil is a unique relationship between infiltrated depth and
the time water is in contact with the soil (intake opportunity time); and
iii. the objective of irrigating is to refill all of the root zone.


When a field with a uniform slope, soil and crop density receives steady flow at its upper end, a water
front will advance at a monotonically decreasing rate until it reaches the end of the field. If it is not dyked,
runoff will occur for a time before recession starts following shutoff of inflow. Figure 40 shows the
distribution of applied water along the field length stemming from the assumptions listed above. The
differences in intake opportunity time produce applied depths that are non-uniformly distributed with a
characteristic shape skewed toward the inlet end of the field.
Application uniformity concerns the distribution of water over the actual field. A number of technical
sources suggest the Christiansen coefficient as a measure of uniformity. Others argue in favour of an index
more in line with the skewed distribution shown below. For example, Merriam and Keller (1978) propose
that distribution uniformity be defined as the average infiltrated depth in the low quarter of the field,
divided by the average infiltrated depth over the whole field. This term can be represented by the symbol,
DU. The same authors also suggest an 'absolute distribution uniformity', DUa which is the minimum depth
divided by the average depth. Thus, the evaluator can choose one that fits his or her perceptions but it
should be clear as to which one is being used.
Figure 40. Distribution of applied water along a surface irrigated field showing also the depth
required to refill the root zone (after Walker and Skogerboe, 1987)


The definition of application efficiency, Ea, has been fairly well standardized as:
(26)
Losses from the field occur as deep percolation (depths greater than Zreq) and as field tailwater or runoff.
To compute Ea it is necessary to identify at least one of these losses as well as the amount of water stored
in the root zone. This implies that the difference between the total amount of root zone storage capacity
available at the time of irrigation and the actual water stored due to irrigation be separated, i.e. the amount
of under-irrigation in the soil profile must be determined as well as the losses.

The water requirement efficiency, Er, which is also commonly referred to as the storage efficiency is
defined as:
(27)
The requirement efficiency is an indicator of how well the irrigation meets its objective of refilling the
root zone. The value of Er is important when either the irrigations tend to leave major portions of the field
under-irrigated or where under-irrigation is purposely practiced to use precipitation as it occurs. This
parameter is the most directly related to the crop yield since it will reflect the degree of soil moisture
stress. Usually, under-irrigation in high probability rainfall areas is a good practice to conserve water but
the degree of under-irrigation is a difficult question to answer at the farm level.

The loss of water through drainage beyond the root zone is reflected in the deep percolation ratio, DPR,
defined as:
(28)
High deep percolation losses aggravate waterlogging and salinity problems, and leach valuable crop
nutrients from the root zone. Depending on the chemical nature of the groundwater basin, deep percolation
can cause a major water quality problem of a regional nature. These losses can return to receiving streams
heavily laden with salts and other toxic elements and thereby degrade the quality of water to be used by
others.


Losses from the irrigation system via runoff from the end of the field are indicated in the tailwater ratio,
TWR:
(29)
Runoff losses pose additional threats to irrigation systems and regional water resources. Erosion of the top
soil on a field is generally the major problem associated with runoff. The sediments can then obstruct
conveyance and control structures downstream, including dams and regulation structures.

With the five measures of performance defined above, a broad range of assessments is possible and
specific remedies identified. Application efficiency is the most important in terms of design and
management since it reflects the overall beneficial use of irrigation water. In later sections, a design and
management strategy will be proposed in which the value of application efficiency is maximized subject
to the value of requirement efficiency being maintained at 95-100 percent. This approach thereby
eliminates Er from an active role in surface irrigation design or management and simultaneously
maximizes application uniformity. If the analysis tends to maximize Ea, distribution uniformity is not
qualitatively important and may be used primarily for illustrative purposes. Of course, some may prefer
performance discussed in terms of uniformity or be primarily involved in systems where underirrigation is
an objective or a problem. For these cases, uniformity is still available. The assumption of maximization
of application efficiency in effect states that losses due to deep percolation or runoff are equally weighted.
4.3.3 Flow geometry
Individual measurement of these seven processes listed above (inflow, advance, recession, outflow, soil
moisture deficit, surface volume, and infiltration) is time consuming and therefore expensive. A number of
procedures have been developed for estimating one or more of the seven from an analysis of the others.
These are called the intermediate evaluations. Of the seven parameters listed above, only the inflow
hydrograph and soil moisture deficit must be known in all cases. The evaluation of the remaining data can
be divided into the following intermediate evaluations.

The flow through the field inlet onto the surface of the field can be measured to yield a hydrograph which,
when integrated, determines the total volume of applied water. The inflows should be maintained at a
steady rate. Tailwater runoff where not restricted with a dyke (outflow hydrograph) can be obtained in a
similar manner. An example inflow-outflow hydrograph for a single furrow in northeastern Colorado,
USA, is shown in Figure 41.
Figure 41. Inflow-outflow hydrographs from a furrow irrigation evaluation in Colorado, USA (from
Salazar, 1977)
There are two useful parameters obtained from a comparison of inflow and outflow hydrographs. First, the
integrated differences between the two hydrographs are an accurate measurement of the total volume of
water infiltrating into the soil:
Vz = Vin - Vtw
in which Vz, Vin, and Vtw are the total volume of infiltration, inflow and runoff, respectively. The second
parameter defined by the inflow-outflow hydrograph is the steady state or 'basic' infiltration rate. In Figure

41 the difference between the two hydrographs near the end of the irrigation is approximately .046
m3/min. If the basic intake rate, fo, in Eq. 15 can be defined at that point, it would be determined as
follows:
fo = (Qin - Qout)/L (31)
= 0.046 m3/min/625 m = 0.000074 m3/min/m furrow
where Qin and Qout are the flow rates in m3/min onto and off the field near the steady state condition and
L is the length in m. It should be noted that to assess fo accurately, the outflow hydrograph should be
steady. In Figure 41, the outflow hydrograph shows a continual rise - which indicates that the first term in
the right hand side of Eq. 15 is still a significant part of the total infiltration, and fo will be over-estimated.
In these cases, it is essential to extend the irrigation test until inflow-outflow data near the time of cutoff
are approximately constant.

The intake opportunity time is the interval during which water will infiltrate at a specified location. It
begins when the water flow first reaches the point (advance) and ends when the water eventually drains
from the point (recession). Because infiltration is assumed to be uniform over the field, the variation in
intake opportunity time is also an indication of application uniformity.
The time required for the water to advance to the end of the field length or to cover the field completely is
an important consideration in managing surface irrigation systems. As will be seen in Section 5, the
advance time dictates in large measure when the inflow must be terminated and it provides the time when
field tailwater begins flowing from the field or when the field begins to pond. The advance trajectory does
not have a concise mathematical description, but can be reasonably well approximated with the simple
power function:
(32)
where x is the advance distance in m from the field inlet that is achieved in tx minutes of inflow, and p and
r are fitting parameters. Elliott and Walker (1982) made several comparisons of Eq. 32 with more
elaborate relationships and methods of fitting and concluded that the best results are achieved by a
two-point fitting of the equation. The time of advance to a point near one-half the field length, t.5L, and
the advance to the end, tL, can be simultaneously solved to define the empirical parameters, p and r:
(33)
(34)
and
(35)

An example use of these equations is shown in Figure 42 with the axes reversed to be consistent with the
normal values of a time space trajectory.
Figure 42. Advance Data (Salazar, 1977)
For borders and basins, the undulations in the ground surface may have a major affect upon both advance
and recession. The advancing front may be very uneven so rather than attempt to plot an average length of
travel of the advancing front against time, the watered and dewatered area of the basin are plotted against
time. To illustrate this type of analysis of advance-recession data, the basin field study reported by Kundu
and Skogerboe (1980) can be examined. A basin 36.6 m wide and 36.6 m long was constructed
immediately following land levelling. The soil was a silty clay loam. The basin was staked with a 6 x 6 m
grid and irrigated with an inflow of 0.83 m3/min. Advance and recession contours drawn at different times
during the tests are shown in Figures 43 and 44.
Figure 43. Advance contours for a basin evaluation (Kundu and Skogerboe, 1980)

Figure 44. Recession contours from basin evaluation (Kundu and Skogerboe (1980)

The data from the advance contours were plotted on a logarithmic scale in Figure 45 and were described
by the following function:
(36)
in which Ax is the area wetted (m2) in tx minutes.
Figure 45. Basin advance data. (Kundu and Skogerboe, 1980)

The recession data could also be plotted as a function of cumulative time but the results would not be
usable since the recession occurs over the field in a somewhat varied way. In order to determine the intake
opportunity time, it is necessary to record the advance and recession data at each point in the grid. Table 5
summarizes the data in terms of the spatial grid.
Table 5 THE DISTRIBUTION OF INTAKE OPPORTUNITY TIME IN THE KUNDU-SKOGERBOE
BASIN TEST, TN MINUTES
Grid Column
Grid Row
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 382 408 311 304 328 397
2 386 345 237 277 236 333
3 278 292 221 245 282 302
4 300 320 335 308 335 295
5 375 350 350 360 345 360
6 405 375 405 385 355 355
4.3.3 Flow geometry

It is necessary to segregate the volume of water on the soil surface from the volume which has infiltrated
into the soil during the advance phase in order to evaluate the field infiltration parameters. To do this it is
necessary to describe mathematically the shape of the flow cross-section and the flow area. Probably the
most useful flow equation is the Manning formula:
(37)
where Q is the discharge in m3/sec, A is the cross-sectional area of the flow in m2, R is the hydraulic
radius in m, So is the slope of the hydraulic grade lines which is assumed to equal the field slope, if one
exists, and n is a resistance coefficient.
The simplest case of Eq. 37 is the sloping border in which a width of one metre is taken as representative
of the flow and the relation reduces to:
(38)

in which y is the depth of flow in m, and Q is the flow per unit width.
For basins the problem becomes slightly more complex because the field slope is zero. Under these
conditions, it is often assumed that the slope of the hydraulic gradeline can be approximated by the depth
at the field inlet, yo, divided by the distance over which the water surface has advanced. Equation 37 with
this modification becomes:
(39)
where x is the advance distance at time tx, in m. Thus, the area of flow in a basin is time dependent during
the advance phase and is continually changing. In sloping furrows and borders it is assumed constant with
time.
The geometry of flow under furrow irrigation is difficult to describe. The furrow shape is continually
changing because of erosion and deposition of soil as the water moves it along, but its typical shape ranges
from triangular to nearly trapezoidal. In most cases, simple power functions can be used to relate the
cross-sectional area and wetted perimeter with depth. Figure 46 shows a furrow cross-section developed
from the profilometer described in Section 3. The simplest way to analyse these data is to first plot the
cross-section as shown, then divide the depth into 10-15 equal increments and graphically or numerically
integrate area and wetted perimeter. Table 6 summarizes the writer's analysis.
Figure 46. Typical furrow cross-section
Table 6 EXAMPLE FURROW CROSS-SECTION ANALYSIS
Furrow Depth, y Area, A Perimeter, WP
cm cm2 cm
0 0 0
1 2.90 6.137
2 10.65 10.531
3 22.00 14.393
4 36.55 18.086
5 54.10 21.632
6 74.45 25.018
7 97.45 28.319
8 122.95 31.454
9 149.35 34.581
10 179.70 37.798
Assuming a power relation between depth and both area and perimeter, a twopoint fit of the data in Table
6 will determine the parameters:
(40)

at y = 5 cm A = 54.1 cm2 = 5.41 x 10-3 m2

at y = 10 cm A = 179.70 cm2 = 1.797 x 10-2 m2
therefore,
a1 = .01797 / 101.732 = 3.331 x 10-4
(41)
at y = 5 cm WP = 21.632 cm = .2163 m
at y = 10 cm WP = 37.798 cm = .378 m
therefore,
b1 = .378 / 10.805 = .05922
Equations 40 and 41 can be combined for the following expression for the hydraulic section in Eq. 37:
(42)
where,
p2 = 1.667 - .667 * b2 / a2 = 1.3568
and,
(44)
Then Eq. 37 is written:

(45)
The units of depth, area and perimeter can be measured in cm for Eqs. 40 and 41 and converted to metres
Eq. 45. Note that in Eq. 44, p2 reduces to 1.667 and p1 is equal to 1.0 when applied to border flow
conditions

The most crucial and often the most difficult parameter to evaluate under the surface irrigation condition is
infiltration. In general, a relatively large number of field measurements of infiltration is required to
represent the average field condition. Methods which use a static water condition (such as ring
infiltrometers) often fail to indicate the typically dynamic field condition. As a result there is a useful

approach to obtain field representative infiltration functions based on the response of the field to an actual
watering. This method determines the infiltration formula directly from the inflow-outflow and advance
data, along with an assumption concerning the volume of water on the surface during the advance phase.
There are of course works like that of Merriam and Keller (1978) which propose other methods of
estimating the parameters in an infiltration equation. These methods have the same objectives as the
technique discussed below which is to define a relationship between soil-water contact time and
infiltration that accurately reflects the mass balance of water in the field confines. For instance, Merriam
and Keller (1978) propose an approach using inflow and outflow data to adjust a relationship derived from
ring infiltrometer tests.
One should understand the fundamental processes that interact during the course of an irrigation event and
apply methodologies that do not violate the nature of these processes. Figure 47 shows two infiltration
curves plotted on loglog paper. They are typical of functions found from field data which can be simulated
by a relationship such as Eq. 15 and have historically been approximated by relations like Eq. 13. If the
evaluation is based on Eq. 13, it is only possible to describe accurately the field mass balance at the end of
the advance phase. Potentially large errors will occur in estimating runoff as well as the final subsurface
moisture distribution, depending on the relative 'linearity' of the infiltration process indicated on log-log
paper. The larger the deviations of infiltration data from a linear relation after a logarithmic
transformation, the more error that is inherent in using the wrong relationship for infiltration. The
procedure discussed below is not free of the error, but it is not so burdened by a problem of structure.
Figure 47. Logarithmic plot of two infiltration functions differing only in the value of the exponent

Elliott and Walker (1982) and many colleagues before and after observed that a large number of point
measurements of infiltration rates using blocked furrow and cylinder infiltrometers failed to provide a
satisfactory projection of actual furrow advance or an accurate prediction of tailwater volume. These
investigators concluded that perhaps a better and more effective evaluation would be to measure advance
rates, hydraulic cross-sections and tailwater volumes and, from these data, deduce an average infiltration
relationship.
The method suggested for defining infiltration from a field evaluation of the irrigation system is based on
a two-point approximation to the mass balance of water on the field during the advance phase. The
solution assumes the mathematical form of both the infiltration function (Eq. 15), and the advance

trajectory (Eq. 32).

Utilizing these two assumptions, the volume balance equation can be written for any time
(46)
where Ao is cross-section area of flow at the inlet, m2, Qo is inlet discharge in m3/min/furrow or unit
width, t is elapsed time since the irrigation started in min. Sz is the subsurface shape factor defined as:
(47)
The inlet cross-sectional flow area, Ao, can be computed using the uniform flow equation given in Ea. 45
rearranged as follows:
(48)
Values of the Manning roughness coefficient, n, range from about 0.02 for previously irrigated and
smooth soil, to about 0.04 for freshly tilled soil, to about 0.15 for conditions where dense growth obstructs
the water movement.
The 'two-point' method of evaluating the parameters in Eq. 15 begins by defining fo from the
inflow-outflow hydrograph or by other means which will be noted in a following paragraph. Then Eq. 46
is written for two advance points using advance rate measurements to define the parameters in Eqs. 43 and
44. The two common points are the mid-distance of the field and the end of the field. Thus, for the
mid-distance:
(49)
and for the end of the field:
(50)
where t.5L is advance time to one-half the field length in min, tL is advance time to the end of the field in
min, and L is field length in m.
The unknowns in Eq. 49 and 50 are the parameters k and a. Solving these two equations simultaneously
yields:
(51)
where,

(52)
and,
(53)
then Sz is found directly from Eq. 47 and the parameter k is found by:
(54)
Several approaches can be used for determining a value for fo in the infiltration equation. One method
utilizes the data from blocked furrow or cylinder infiltrometer tests made the day before irrigation. After
an infiltrometer test has been run for several hours (the time being dependent on soil type), the essentially
constant rate of infiltration can be taken to be fo. If a runoff hydrograph is not measured, such as for a
basin evaluation, it is suggested that Table 3 be used to define fo based on soil type.

Field studies are necessary to define quantitatively the irrigation system performance in relation to not
only the physical features of the system but also its design and management. Field analyses of the single
irrigation may not clearly establish these relationships and, therefore, should be repeated at times when the
soil, crop or operational characteristics have changed sufficiently to reveal the other facets of the irrigation
system.
Three typical results of surface irrigation are illustrated in Figure 48. When the inflow is cut off too soon
after the advance phase, the application at some point in the field may be inadequate to refill the root zone
(curve a). Or the application may just satisfy the needs in the least watered areas (curve b). But most often,
the applied depths exceed the target depth, Zreq at all locations (curve c). Large differences in economic,
physical, social and operational conditions occur in surface irrigated systems. Consequently it is
impractical to judge any of the three cases as good or bad since situations like the need for conservation or
rainfall expectations make each regime one to utilize when the time calls for it. The suggested evaluation
of performance is the numerical definition of the efficiency parameters described earlier tempered by a
case by case professional judgement.
Figure 48. Three typical irrigation application patterns under surface irrigation (after Walker and
Skogerboe, 1987)

The Typical Under-Irrigation Case

The Typical Complete-Irrigation Case
The Typical Over-Irrigation Case

A furrow evaluation would normally consist of activities before, during and after the irrigation. The
pre-irrigation work is largely reconnaissance, equipment installation and soil moisture determination.
During the irrigation, measurements of inflow, advance, runoff or ponding; and recession are made.
Following the irrigation, furrow cross-sections can be determined as well as follow-up soil moisture
sampling if desired. There are no formal rules for the evaluation since different personnel prefer their own
order and technique. Merriam and Keller (1978) list some step by step procedures and give a convenient
list of equipment and supplies that are needed.
Following the field evaluation, the next step is to determine the infiltration function and then, in
conjunction with the recorded intake opportunity, the distribution of water applied to the root zone. The
length should be subdivided into 10 or more increments and the cumulative intake computed for each
increment by:
Zi = k [tr - (tx)i]a + fo [tr - ( tx)i] (55)
in which tx is the recession time in minutes if it is determined. If not, the time of cutoff, tco, is used in Eq.
55 in place of tx.
The results from Eq. 55 should then be plotted as in Figure 49 along with a line representing the
application needed to refill the root zone deficit, Zreq which is the soil moisture deficit measured in the
field. The plot can then be integrated graphically or numerically to define the components of application
efficiency, deep percolation ratio, runoff ratio and requirement efficiency (or uniformity if desired).

The analysis of border irrigation data follows the same procedures as for furrow irrigated systems.
Advance, if irregular, should be contoured and analysed as previously indicated. Simplification can be
made in using flow rate per unit width instead of total border flow if the advancing front is relatively
uniform. The flow cross-section is rectangular. This analysis assumes a free-draining outflow condition.
For ponded conditions arising from a dyked downstream boundary, the analysis follows the basin
procedure.
In the evaluation of furrow systems, the infiltration during recession can often be considered negligible.
For border systems, the infiltration during the recession period is significant and must be considered. Once
the depletion and recession times (td and tr) have been determined, the distribution of water applied to the
soil can be plotted and the performance measures evaluated as for furrow evaluation.


The estimates of basin application efficiencies are somewhat simplified by a small field slope and the
prevention of runoff. Water first entering the basin would advance to the end dyke and then pond on the
surface. As the water surface rises, it will approach a horizontal orientation. Thus, it can be seen that
during the depletion and recession phases the surface water has little or no movement, and the subsurface
profile is determined by adding the surface depths to the profile which developed during the advance
phase. The application efficiency, deep percolation ratios and requirement efficiency can be found from
the equations given earlier. The tailwater ratio is zero for basin irrigation.

The field evaluation should identify at least some modifications that will improve efficiency and
uniformity. The easily identified problems such as applying too much or too little water, the poor
distribution of infiltrated water over the field, excessive tailwater runoff or significant deep percolation
losses should be evident. In planning to improve irrigation performance, it must be recognized that all of
the parameters are interdependent. Therefore, when considering changes in inflow, time of cutoff, or field
length, one must understand that the time of advance, infiltration, tailwater runoff and deep percolation
will be affected simultaneously.
The flow rate used on an irrigated field will significantly affect the time of advance, the volume of runoff
and the erosion hazard. Utilizing high flow rates will maximize the potential for tailwater losses (except
for basin irrigation) and erosion, but minimize the time of advance and thereby the variation in
opportunity time along the field length. In order to reduce the tailwater runoff from border or furrow
systems, a high discharge rate can be used during the advance phase and then 'cut back' (reduced) for the
wetting phase. Tailwater can be collected and reused as well.
For whatever discharge is being used, the ideal time of cutoff, tco, occurs when the infiltrated depth in the
least watered portion of the field is equal to the irrigation requirement. Discharge and time of cutoff are
the two operational hydraulic parameters, with tco being the easiest for the irrigator to modify. Again, the
interdependence between inflow and cutoff time must be known in order to maximize the performance of
a surface irrigation system.
Surface irrigation is critically dependent on the field topography. Undulations interrupt the flow of water
and concentrate water in depressions. The high points tend to become saline. It is not a simple matter to
apply the appropriate irrigation requirement, in fact, much greater depths are generally applied. Precision
land levelling is an important aspect of improving the operation of surface irrigation systems, particularly
for basins. Likewise, furrow preparation needs to yield channels of uniform depth and spacing. In short,
land preparation should be considered an integral part of surface irrigation and not treated as an
independent operation.


An evaluation was conducted on an existing furrow system during the first irrigation of the season. The
field characteristics were found to be as follows. The soil was a sandy loam which gravimetric soil
samples indicated had a soil moisture depletion averaging 9.5 cm prior to the irrigation. The field had a
uniform slope of 0.0075 with 200 metre furrows spaced at 75 cm intervals across the field. The water
supply to the field was a large tube-well capable of supplying water on demand.
Additional field measurements made during each evaluation were: (1) the furrow inflow hydrograph; (2)
runoff hydrographs; (3) furrow shape shown in Figure 46 previously, and (4) the advance and recession
trajectories. The furrow inflow was a steady value of 0.12 m3/min during both irrigations. The remaining
data are tabulated on Tables 7 and 8. The inflow to the tests was stopped at 390 minutes.
Table 7 MEASURED ADVANCE AND RECESSION TRAJECTORIES
Advance Distance Advance Time Recession Time
(m) (min) (min)
0 0.0 390
47 6.0 396
112 18.0 402
151 30.0 405
200 54.8 408
Table 8 RUNOFF HYDROGRAPHS FOR INDIVIDUAL FURROWS

Time Since Irrigation Started Runoff
(min) (Litres/sec)
54 0
57 .079
63 .264
72 .390
84 .494
102 .593
132 .694
192 .804
252 .867
312 .909
372 .939
390 .949
399 .777

402 .538
408 .0581
411 0

Analyses of the infiltration function as defined by the behaviour of water movement in the furrow involves
a five step procedure. For this evaluation, these steps are as follows:
i. Furrow inlet flow area, Ao, is computed from the Manning relation, Eq. 48, with the
following data:
Qo = 0.12 m3/min (measured);
n = 0.04 (assumed);
p1 =.444 and p2 = 1.357 from subsection 4.3.3; and
So = the slope of 0.0075 (measured).
Thus,
ii. The advance trajectory can be represented by a power function (Eq. 32). Using a two-point
method based on the measured advance data:
x = 200 m at tx = 54.8 min
x = 112 m at tx = 18.0 min
r = log(200/112)/log(54.8/18) = 0.5208
Evaluation of the parameter p is not necessary.
iii. The basic intake rate, fo, is defined by Eq. 31 using:
Qin = m3/sec (measured); and
Qout = the steady state runoff, .00095 m3/sec (estimated from Table 8)
L = the field length, 200 m (measured).
Thus,
fo = (.002 - .00095) * 60/200 = 0.000315 m3/min/m
iv. The values of k and a in the infiltration function, Eq. 15 are determined as follows. First,
Eqs. 52 and 53 are defined:

and then from Eq. 51:
The subsurface shape factor sz, is described by Eq. 47:
Then, from Eq. 54:

k = 0.013367 / (.7622 * 54.8.532) = 0.00208 m3/mina/m
v. The final field evaluated infiltration function for the first irrigation is:
Z = 0.00213 r0.532 + 0.000315 r

Using the derived infiltration function and the measured opportunity time (a recession time minus advance
time at each point), the water applied to the soil reservoir was calculated and plotted in Figure 49. Also
plotted is the application required to replace the root zone deficit (requirement is the depth times the
furrow spacing, i.e. .095 m * .75 m = 0.0713 m3/m). It can be ascertained graphically that both irrigations
applied too much water, far more than enough to refill the root zone. Obviously in both cases the water
requirement efficiency is 100 percent.
Figure 49. Distributions of applied wafer curing the two test irrigations

The application efficiency for the test can be computed from the relationship:

(56)
= 100 * (.0713 * 200) / (.002 * 60 *390) = 30.5%

The performance of the system during the evaluation was poor, about 70 percent of all water applied was
wasted from the field as runoff or deep percolation. In order to identify improvements, these losses must
be separated, either by integrating the applied distribution and computing the deep percolation ratio or by
integrating the runoff hydrograph and computing the tailwater ratio. For this example, the latter is chosen
to reflect more confidence in measured runoff than calculated infiltration. Figure 50 shows the runoff
hydrograph. Using a trapezoidal integration, the runoff per furrow during the irrigation was 16.7 m3. The
tailwater ratios were therefore:
TWR = 100 * 16.7 / (.002 * 60 * 390) = 35.7%
Figure 50. Runoff hydrographs during the two evaluations
To complete the performance picture, the deep percolation ratio for the first evaluation is:

DPR = 100 - Ea - TWR = 33.8% (57)

Losses during the irrigation were almost evenly split between tailwater and deep percolation. The most
obvious way to improve the performance of this system would be to cut the inflow off when the
application at the lower end of the field was approaching the required depth. If the required intake
opportunity time at the end of the field is calculated and added to the advance time, the cutoff time
represented by their sum is approximately 180 minutes. If this would have happened, the total water
applied to the field would have been reduced from 46.8 m3/furrow to 21.6 m3/furrow. The soil moisture
deficit would still have been completely replenished (Ea = 100 percent), but the application efficiency
would have been increased to about 66 percent. The DPR and TWR values would have been reduced to
11 percent and 20 percent respectively. Further improvements could be made by utilizing a cutback flow
after the advance was completed or by adjusting the inflow rate (reducing it in this case would improve
performance).

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0c.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0c.jpg [2/17/2003 12:38:27 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0d.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0d.jpg [2/17/2003 12:38:30 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e47.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e47.gif [2/17/2003 12:38:36 PM]


http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4b.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4b.gif [2/17/2003 12:38:45 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4c.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4c.gif [2/17/2003 12:38:48 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0e.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0e.jpg [2/17/2003 12:39:00 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0f.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0f.jpg [2/17/2003 12:39:03 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0g.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0g.jpg [2/17/2003 12:39:11 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0h.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0h.jpg [2/17/2003 12:39:15 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0i.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0i.jpg [2/17/2003 12:39:19 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4e.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4e.gif [2/17/2003 12:39:20 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4f.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4f.gif [2/17/2003 12:39:25 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0j.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0j.jpg [2/17/2003 12:39:30 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4o.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4o.gif [2/17/2003 12:39:35 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4p.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4p.gif [2/17/2003 12:39:41 PM]


5.3 Computation of advance and intake opportunity time
5.4 Furrow irrigation flow rates, cutoff times, and field layouts
5.7 Summary

The surface irrigation system should replenish the root zone reservoir efficiently and uniformly so that
crop stress is avoided, and resources like energy, water, nutrient, and labour are conserved. The irrigation
system might also be used to cool the atmosphere around sensitive fruit and vegetable crops, or to heat the
atmosphere to prevent their damage by frost. An irrigation system must always be capable of leaching
salts accumulating in the root zone. It may also be used to soften the soil for better cultivation or even to
fertilize the field and spread insecticides.
The design procedures outlined in the following sections are based on a target application, Zreq, which
equals the soil moisture extracted by the crop. It is in the final analysis a trial and error procedure by
which a selection of lengths, slopes, field inflow rates and cutoff times can be made that will maximize
application efficiency. Considerations such as erosion and water supply limitations will act as constraints
on the design procedures. Many fields will require a subdivision to utilize optimally the total flow
available. This remains a judgement that the designer is left to make after weighing all other factors that
he feels are relevant to the successful operation of the system. Maximum application efficiencies, the
implicit goal of design, will occur when the least watered areas of the field are just refilled. Deep
percolation will be minimized by minimizing differences in intake opportunity time, and then terminating
the inflow on time. Surface runoff is controlled or reused.
The design intake opportunity time is defined in the following way:
(58)
where Zreq is the required infiltrated volume per unit length and per unit width (and is equal to the soil
moisture deficit) and rreq is the design intake opportunity time. For most surface irrigated conditions, rreq
should be as close as possible to the difference between the recession time at each point and the associated
advance time.

An engineer may have an opportunity to design a surface irrigation system as part of a new irrigation
project where surface methods have been selected or when the performance of an existing irrigation
system requires improvement by redesign. In a new irrigation project, it is to be hoped that the surface
irrigation system design is initiated after a great deal of irrigation engineering has already occurred. The
selection of system configurations for the project is in fact an integral part of the project planning process.
If a new or modified surface system is planned on lands already irrigated, the decision has presumably
been based, at least partially, on the results of an evaluation at the existing site. In this case, the design is
more easily accomplished because of the higher level of experience and data available.
In either case, the data required fall into six general categories (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987):
i. the nature of irrigation water supply in terms of the annual allotment, method of delivery
and charge, discharge and duration, frequency of use and the quality of the water;
ii. the topography of the land with particular emphasis on major slopes, undulations, locations
of water delivery and surface drainage outlets;
iii. the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, especially the infiltration
characteristics, moisture-holding capacities, salinity and internal drainage;
iv. the cropping pattern, its water requirements, and special considerations given to assure
that the irrigation system is workable within the harvesting and cultivation schedule,
germination period and the critical growth periods;
v. the marketing conditions in the area as well as the availability and skill of labour,
maintenance and replacement services, funding for construction and operation, and energy,
fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, etc.; and
vi. the cultural practices employed in the farming region especially where they may prohibit a
specific element of the design or operation of the system.

The surface irrigation design process is a procedure matching the most desirable frequency and depth of
irrigation and the capacity and availability of the water supply. This process can be divided into a
preliminary design stage and a detailed design stage.

The operation of the system should offer enough flexibility to supply water to the crop in variable amounts
and schedules that allow the irrigator some scope to manage soil moisture for maximum yields as well as
water, labour and energy conservation.

Water may be supplied on a continuous or a rotational basis in which the flow rate and duration may be
relatively fixed. In those cases, the flexibility in scheduling irrigation is limited to what each farmer or
group of farmers can mutually agree upon within their command areas. At the preliminary design stage,
the limits of the water supply in satisfying an optimal irrigation schedule should be evaluated.
The next step in the design process involves collecting and analysing local climatological, soil and
cropping patterns to estimate the crop water demands. From this analysis the amount of water the system
should supply through the season can be estimated. A tentative schedule can be produced by comparing
the net crop demands with the capability of the water delivery system to supply water according to a
variable schedule. On-demand systems should have more flexibility than continuous or rotational water
schedules which are often difficult to match to the crop demand. Whichever criterion (crop demand or
water availability) governs the operating policy at the farm level, the information provided at this stage
will define the limitations of the timing and depth of irrigations during the growing season.
The type of surface irrigation system selected for the farm should be carefully planned. Furrow systems
are favoured in conditions of relatively high bi-directional slope, row crops, and small farm flows and
applications. Border and basin systems are favoured in the flatter lands, large field discharges and larger
depths of application during most irrigations. A great deal of management can be applied where flexibility
in frequency and depth are possible.

The detailed design process involves determining the slope of the field, the furrow, border or basin
discharge and duration, the location and sizing of headland structures and miscellaneous facilities; and the
provision of surface drainage facilities either to collect tailwater for reuse or for disposal.
Land levelling can easily be the most expensive on-farm improvement made in preparation for irrigation.
It is a prerequisite for the best performance of the surface system. Generally, the best land levelling
strategy is to do as little as possible, i.e. to grade the field to a slope which involves minimum earth
movement. Exceptions occur where other considerations dictate a change in the type of system, say, basin
irrigation, and yield sufficient benefits to off-set the added cost of land levelling.
If the field has a general slope in two directions, land levelling for a furrow irrigation system is usually
based on a best-fit plane through the field elevations. This minimizes earth movement over the entire field
and unless the slopes in the direction normal to the expected water flow are very large, terracing and
benching would not be necessary.
A border must have a zero slope normal to the field water flow which will require terracing in all cases of
cross slope. Thus, the border slope is usually the best-fit subplane or strip. Basins, of course, are generally
'dead' level, i.e. no slope in either direction. Thus, terracing is required in both directions. To the extent the
basin is rectangular, its largest dimension should run along the field's smallest natural slope in order to
minimize land levelling costs.
The detailed design process starts with and ends with land levelling computations. At the start, the field
topography is evaluated to determine the general land slopes in the direction of expected water flow. This
need not be the extensive evaluation that is needed to actually move the earth. In fact, the analysis outlined
earlier under the subject of evaluation is sufficient. Using this information along with target application
depths derived from an analysis of crop water requirements, the detailed design process moves to the

selection of flow rates and their duration that maximize application efficiency, tempered however by a
continual review of the practical matters involved in farming the field later. Field length becomes a design
variable at this stage and again there is a philosophy the designer must consider. In mechanized farming
and possibly in animal power as well, long rectangular fields are preferable to short square ones in most
cases except paddy rice. This notion is based on the time required for implement turning and realignment.
In a long field, this time can be substantially less and therefore a more efficient use of cultivation and
harvesting implements is achieved.
The next step in detailed design is to reconcile the flows and times with the total flow and its duration
allocated to the field from the water supply. On small fields, the total supply may provide a satisfactory
coverage when used to irrigate the whole field simultaneously. However, the general situation is that fields
must be broken into 'sets' and irrigated part by part, i.e. basin by basin, border by border, etc. These
subdivisions or 'sets' must match the field and its water supply. Thus, with the subdivisions established,
the final land levelling is undertaken.
Once the field dimensions and flow parameters have been formulated, the surface irrigation system must
be described structurally. To apply the water, pipes or ditches with associated control elements must be
sized for the field. If tailwater is permitted, means for removing these flows must be provided. Also, the
designer should give attention to the operation of the system. Automation will be a key element of some
systems. The treatment of these topics is not detailed since there are other technical manuals and literature
already available for this purpose.
The design methodology used in the guide relies on the kinematic-wave analysis for furrow and border
advance and a fully hydrodynamic model for basin advance. These are transparent to the user of the guide,
however, and further explanation for those interested can be found in Walker and Skogerboe (1987).
Simple algebraic equations are used for depletion and recession. This guide has reduced the role of these
hydraulic techniques to the advance phase to allow the User to participate more in the design process. The
interested reader can refer to several references in the bibliography for other graphical techniques which
extend beyond those given here, but as one does so, it becomes more important to understand the nature of
the hydraulic assumptions.
5.3 Computation of advance and intake opportunity

time
The difference between an evaluation and a design is that data collected during an evaluation include
inflows and outflows, flow geometry, length and slope of the field, soil moisture depletion and advance
and recession rates. The infiltration characteristics of the field surface can then be deduced and the
application efficiency and uniformity determined. Design procedures input infiltration functions
(including their changes during the season), flow geometry, field slope and length, and determine the rates
of advance and recession as well as the field performance levels for various combinations of inflow and
cutoff times.


Two of the design computations are the same for all surface irrigation systems. These are the estimate of
required intake opportunity time and the time required for the water to complete the advance phase. A
step-by-step procedure for these computations will be given here and simply referenced as such in later
paragraphs.
i. Computation of intake opportunity time
The basic mathematical model of infiltration utilized in the guide is the following:
Z = k r a + fo r (15)
where Z is the accumulated intake in volume per unit length, m3/m (per furrow or per unit width are
implied), r is the intake opportunity time in min, a is the constant exponent, k is the constant coefficient
m3/mina/m of length, and fo is the basic intake rate, m3/min/m of length. In order to express intake as a
depth of application, Z must be divided by the unit width. For furrows, the unit width is the furrow
spacing, w, while for borders and basins it is 1.0. Values of k, a, fo and w along with the volume per unit
length required to refill the root zone, Zreq, are design input data.
The design procedure requires that the intake opportunity time associated with Zreq be known. This time,
represented by rreq, requires a nonlinear solution to Eq. 15. The simplest way to this solution is to plot Eq.
15 with the parameters being used in the design, such as the drawings in Figures 21 or 27. Another
convenient method for those with programmable calculators or microcomputers is the Newton-Raphson
procedure which is three simple steps as follows:
1. Make an initial estimate of rreq and label it T1;
2. Compute a revised estimate of rreq, T2:
(59)
3. Compare the values of the initial and revised estimates of rreq (T1 and T2) by taking their
absolute difference. If they are equal to each other or within an acceptable tolerance of about
.5 minutes, the value of rreq is determined as the result. If they are not sufficiently equal in
value, replace T1 by T2 and repeat steps 2 and 3.
ii. Computation of advance time

The time required for water to cover the field, the advance time, necessitates evaluation or at least
approximation of the advance trajectory. The first step is to describe the flow cross-sectional area. For
furrows and borders this is Eq. 48 in which the cross-sectional flow area, Ao in m2, and the inlet discharge
per furrow or per unit width, Qo, in m3/min. The parameters p1 and p2 are empirical shape coefficients as
noted previously. For border systems p1 equals 1.0 and p2 is 1.67. For most furrow irrigated conditions, p2
will have a value ranging from 1.3 to 1.5. Fortunately, the furrow hydraulics are not too sensitive to

variations in p2 and a value of 1.35 will usually be adequate. The value of p1 varies according to the size
and shape of the furrow, usually in the range of .3 to .7. Figure 51 shows three typical furrow shapes and
their corresponding p1 and p2 values.
Figure 51. Typical furrow shapes and their hydraulic sectional parameters
In a level slope condition, such as a basin, it is assumed that the friction slope is equal to the inlet depth, yo
in m, divided by the distance covered by water, x in m. This leads to the following expression for Ao:
(60)
Note Ao increases continually during the advance phase and must therefore be calculated at each time step
of each advance distance as well as each flow and resistance. For sloping field conditions, Ao is assumed
to be constant unless the flow, slope or resistance changes.
The input data required for advance phase calculations are p1, p2 field length (L), So, n and Qo. This
information can be used to solve for the time of advance, tL, using either of two procedures: (1) the
volume balance numerical approach; or (2) the graphical approach based on the advanced hydraulic
models.
iii. Volume balance advance
For the volume balance numerical approach, Eq. 46 is used to describe the advance trajectory at two
points: the end of the field and the half-way point. Equation 48 for the end of advance was written earlier
as Eq. 50 and the half-way advance was written as Eq. 49.
Equation 50 contains two unknowns, tL and r, which are related by Eq. 32. In order to solve them, a
two-point advance trajectory is defined in the following procedure:
1. The power advance exponent r typically has a value of 0.1-0.9. The first step is to make an
initial estimate of its value and label this value r1, usually setting r1 = 0.4 to 0.6 are good
initial estimates. Then, a revised estimate of r is computed and compared below.
2. Calculate the subsurface shape factor, sz, from Eq. 47.
3. Calculate the time of advance, tL, using the following Newton-Raphson procedure:
a. Assume an initial estimate of tL as T1
T1 = 5 Ao L / Qo (61)
b. Compute a revised estimate of tL (T2) as
(62)

c. Compare the initial (T1) and revised (T2) estimates of tL. If they are within
about 0.5 minutes or less, the analysis proceeds to step 4. If they are not equal,
let T1 = T2 and repeat steps b through c. It should be noted that if the inflow is
insufficient to complete the advance phase in about 24 hours, the value of Qo is
too small or the value of L is too large and the design process should be restarted
with revised values. This can be used to evaluate the feasibility of a flow value
and to find the inflow.
4. Compute the time of advance to the field mid-point, t.5L, using the same procedure as
outlined in step 3. The half-length, .5L is substituted for L and t.5L for tL in Eq. 62. For level
fields, the half-length and the flow area must be substituted. Equation 48 is used with L and
.5L to find the appropriate values of Ao.
5. Compute a revised estimate of r as follows:
(63)
6. Compare the initial estimate, r1, with the revised estimate, r2. The differences between the
two should be less than 0.0001. If they are equal, the procedure for finding tL is concluded. If
not, let r1 = r2 and repeat steps 2-6.
As an example of this series of calculations, suppose the advance time is wanted for a field with the
following data:
Infiltration parameters a = 0.568
k = 0.00324 m3/mina/m
fo = 0.000174 m3/min/m
inflow Qo = 0.15 m3/min
slope So = 0.001
length L = 200 m
roughness n = 0.04
hydraulic section p1 = 0.55
p2 = 1.35
1. set r1 = 0.6
2.
3a.

Note: If the field slope is zero, Eq. 60 would be used here for Ao and would use
L in place of x.
3b.
= 146 - (+75.67) = 70.33 minutes

3c. Error = ABS (T2 - T1) = 75 - 70.33 = 4.67 minutes. Therefore, let T1 = 70.33 and repeat
steps (3b and 3c).
3b. The second iteration yields T2 = 70.33 - (+4.2) = 66.13 minutes. Step 3c error is now 4.2
minutes so T1 = 66.13 and steps 3b and 3c are repeated. At the end of another iteration the
error is less than one minute and the value of tL is found to be 66.07 minutes.
4. The time of advance to the field's half-way point is found by following the same steps as
outlined above by substituting 0.5 * L = 100 metres for the length and t.5L for the advance
time to this distance. The result after two more iterations is 21.9 minutes.
Note: If the field's slope is zero, the computation of t.5L must begin at Step 3a
using L/2 for x.
5.
6. The error in the parameter r (.6 - .6285) is greater than the acceptable tolerance so Steps 2
through 6 are repeated. The final advance time is 65 minutes.
As one easily finds, the numerical approach is justified only when one has at least a hand-held
programmable calculator or microcomputer.
vi. Graphical advance
The graphical approach involving Figures 52a - 52f for furrows and borders and Figures 53a - 53f for
basins has been derived from computations using the kinematic-wave and hydrodynamic simulation
models summarized by Walker and Skogerboe (1987). These models are available from a number of
sources, some commercially, and are not included herein.
Figure 52a. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.2
Figure 52b. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.3

Figure 52c. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.4
Figure 52d. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.5
Figure 52e. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.6
Figure 52f. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.7
Figure 53a. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a = 0.2
Figure 53b. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a = 0.3
Figure 53c. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a = 0.4
Figure 53d. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a = 0.5
Figure 53e. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a = 0.6
Figure 53f. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a = 0.7
The graphical procedure is as follows:
1. Define the infiltration parameters k, a, and fo the field length L; the field slope So; the inlet
discharge Qo; surface roughness coefficient n; and the hydraulic section parameters p1 and p2
2. Compute the inlet flow area, Ao using Eq. 48 for furrows and borders and Eq. 60 for
basins:
3. Compute the dimensionless parameter K*:
(64)
4. Compute the dimensionless parameter L*:
(65)
5. Enter the appropriate figures for values of the infiltration exponent, a, which bracket the
design value, interpolate for the value of K*, and read the two values of :
6. Compute the time of advance:

(66)
7. Average the two values to get tL for the value of a used in the design.
As an example of using the graphical approach, suppose, as in the example of the numerical volume
balance approach, the input data are as follows:
1.
Infiltration parameters a = 0.568
k = 0.00324 m3/mina/m
fo = 0.000174 m3/min/m
inflow Qo = 0.15 m3/min
slope So = 0.001
length L = 200 m
roughness n = 0.04
hydraulic section p1 = 0.55
p2 = 1.35
2.
Note: If the field slope is zero, Eq. 60 would be used here for Ao and would use
L in place of x.
3.
4.
5. From Figure 52d, interpolating about 75 percent [log(2.3/1) / log(3/1) = .76] of the distance
between curves K* = 1 and K* = 3 yields = 0.54. From Figure 52e, the same process
yields a = 0.50 for an average of 0.52. The advance time is then estimated as:
Note the value using the volume balance numerical method yielded 65 minutes. Usually with careful
interpolation the values of tL found from the two methods will vary less than 5 - 10 percent.

v. Summary
The calculation of advance time is possibly the most important design step. At the beginning of the design
process, this procedure is used to test whether or not the maximum flow will complete the advance phase
within a prescribed time. Then it is used to find the minimum inlet discharge, and in the case of cutback or
reuse systems to find the desired flow for the system operation. It is suggested that after the maximum
inflow is determined and the associated tL checked, the flow be incrementally decreased and additional
values of tL determined so that a relationship between flow and advance time can be established. At the
end of this procedure, the minimum flow will also have been identified as that which fails to complete the
advance phase in a set time, 24 hours for example. Finally, the tL computation is used repeatedly in the
search for the flow which maximizes the application efficiency.
5.4 Furrow irrigation flow rates, cutoff times, and

field layouts

There are three primary furrow designs:

i. furrow systems without cutback or tailwater reuse facilities;
ii. the cutback system; and
iii. the tailwater recirculation system.
These systems should be flexible to irrigate fields adequately in which the surface roughness and intake
rates vary widely from irrigation to irrigation. The philosophy of design suggested in this guide is to
evaluate flow rates and cutoff times for the first irrigation following planting or cultivation when
roughness and intake are maximum and for the third or fourth irrigation when these conditions have been
reduced by previous irrigations.

i. Input Data:
Description Parameter
First irrigation infiltration a, k, and fo
Later irrigation infiltration as, ks and fos
Field length, width, slope, roughness L, Wf, Sm and n
Required application depth Zreq
Furrow spacing and shape w, p1, and p2

Soil erosive velocity Vmax

Water supply rate and duration QT and TT
Number of furrows Nf = Wf/W
ii. The maximum flow velocity in furrows is suggested as about 8-10 m/min in erosive silt soils to about
13 - 15 m/min in the more stable clay and sandy soils. A maximum value of furrow inlet flow, Qmax
m3/min, that will fall within the maximum, Vmax, is:
(67)
The value of Qo should be adjusted so that the number of sets is an integer number, i.e. NfQo
should be an integer, but should not exceed Qmax.
iii. Compute the advance time, tL.
iv. Compute the required intake opportunity time, rreq.
v. Compute time of cutoff, tco, in min by neglecting depletion and recession:

tco = rreq + tL (68)
vi. Compute application efficiency, Ea:
(69)
The application efficiency should be maximized subject to the limitation on erosive velocity, the
availability and total discharge of the water supply, and other farming practices. The inflow should be
reduced and the procedure repeated until a maximum Ea is determined.

Any procedure which attempts to maximize application efficiencies will determine the minimal waste
trade-off point between tailwater and deep percolation. Small values of inflow reduce tailwater losses but
increase deep percolation losses. Large furrow flows advance over the field rapidly thereby providing the
potential for greater application uniformity and less deep percolation, but also greater tailwater losses as
the water flows from the field for a longer time.
One method of minimizing tailwater is to reduce the furrow inflow when the advance phase is completed.
Most cutback systems are designed to operate in two concurrent sets, one advance phase set and one
wetting or ponding; set. The advance phase and the wetting phase are both equal in duration to the
required intake opportunity time. One of the most common cutback systems is that proposed by Garton
(1966) and is illustrated in Figure 54. The head ditch is divided into a series of level bays with spires or
other means of diverting water into the furrows. As is shown, the differences in bay elevations correspond
to the head on the outlets needed to provide the desired advance phase flow and the wetting flow

simultaneously.
The design procedure for the system illustrated in Figure 54 follows a sequence not entirely unlike that of
the non-cutback systems but with several points of additional concern. In addition to information
describing the furrow geometry, infiltration characteristics, field slope and length, and the required
application, it is also necessary to know the relationship between head ditch water level and the furrow
inflow:
(70)
where c1 and c2 are empirical coefficients, h is the head over the outlets, in m, and A is the outlet area in
cm2.
Figure 54. Schematic drawing of the furrow cutback system proposed by Garton (1966)
Elevation drawing showing the system of cutback furrow irrigation. In A, bay l is delivering
the initial furrow flow. In B, the check dam has been removed from bay l, bay 2 is delivering
the initial flow, and bay l is delivering the cutback furrow flow. In C, the check dam has been
removed from bay 2, bay 3 is delivering the initial furrow flow, and bay 2 is delivering the
cutback furrow flow, and bay l is shut off.

The first calculation can be the required intake opportunity time using the first of the common design
computations. The design should provide an advance phase flow sufficient to allow tL = rreq. Since this
requirement is most likely to be a constraint under high intake conditions, the design advance flow for the
first irrigation following a cultivation or planting should be the upper limit. This flow, of course, must be
less than the maximum non-erosive flow. Thus, the second computation would be to compute the
maximum flow from Equation 69.
An intermediate design computation can be made at this point. The advance time can be calculated using
the maximum furrow inflow, Qmax. If tL is less than rreq, a feasible cutback design is possible and the
following procedures can be implemented. If the advance associated with the maximum flow is too long,
then either the required application should be increased (at the risk of crop stress) or the field length
shortened. It is usually better to reduce the field length and repeat these calculations.
When the design is shown to be within this constraint on flow, the next computation is to find the furrow
advance discharge which just accomplishes an advance in treq minutes. If the advance time for a range of
inflows has been determined as suggested earlier, identifying this flow is accomplished by interpolation
within the data. If this information has not been developed, it is necessary to do so at this point. The
easiest method is to change Qo iteratively until the associated advance time equals the required intake
opportunity time.
The cutback flow following the advance phase must be sufficient to keep the furrow stream running along
the entire length. Thus, some tailwater will be inevitable but should be minimized. Knowing that
infiltration rates will decrease during the wetting period to values approaching the basic intake rate
suggests a guideline for sizing the cutback flow:
Qcb = b fo tL (71)
where b is a factor requiring some judgement to apply. It should probably be in the range of 1.1 to 1.5.
The application efficiency of the cutback system can be thus described as:
(72)
Once the advance and recession phase flows have been determined, the next step is to organize the field
system into subsets. The first irrigating set must accommodate the entire field supply. The number of
furrows in this set is therefore:
N1 = QT/Qo (73)
For the second set,

N2 = (QT - N1Qcb)/Qo (74)
and similarly,
Ni = (QT - Ni-1Qcb)/Qo (75)
The field must be divided into an integer number of subsets which may require some adjustment of QT,
Qo, or Qcb. And, it should be noted that irrigation of the last two sets cannot be accomplished under a

cutback regime without reducing the field inflow, QT, or allowing water to spill from the head ditch
during the cutback phase on the last set.
To relieve the designer of a cumbersome trial and error procedure-trying to find the number of sets and the
furrows per set that will work with various water supply rates, a suggested procedure is to fix the number
of sets and compute the necessary field supply discharge.
This is a four step procedure:
i. Compute the cutback ratio for each of the field's infiltration conditions:
CBR = Qcb/Qo (76)
Select the largest value, and discard the other.

ii. Let k be the number of sets and compute the following product stream:
for k = 2 A2 = - CBR (77)
for k > 2 (78)
Then the number of furrows in the first set is:

N1 = Nf/(k + A) (79)
iii. Calculate the number of furrows in each remaining set as:

for k = 2 N2 = Nf - N1
or,
for k > 2 N2 = (1 - CBR)N1 (80)
and,
set first value of B = - CBR
(81)
Nj = N1 (1 + B) (82)
iv. Steps ii and iii ensure that the field subdivides into an integer number of sets, but the field
supply must vary according to the number of sets:
QT = N1Qo (83)
Thus for a single specified Qo, the designer can subdivide the field into several sets and
choose the configuration that best suits the farm operation as a whole.
Before moving to the final design computation, the design of the head ditch, mention is made of using the
cutback system under variable field conditions. Irrigations immediately after planting or cultivation will be
generally higher than those encountered after the first irrigation. It will not be possible to alter the number

of furrows irrigating per bay of the head ditch, so the inflow to the entire system must be adjusted. The
design procedure outlined above is repeated for the appropriate value of Zreq and infiltration. Then, the
system discharge is determined by Eq. 83.
For the system illustrated in Figure 54, the design of the head ditch involves the calculation of the relative
bay elevations. From Eq. 71, the head over the outlets during the advance phase, ha, is:
(84)
and during the wetting period phase, hw, is:

(85)
Thus, the elevational difference between bays is ha - hw. Each bay should be designed as a level channel
section of length equal to the number of furrows per set times the furrow spacing. To accommodate the
drop between bays, it is helpful if the field has a moderate cross-slope.

The application efficiency of furrow irrigation systems can be greatly improved when tailwater can be
captured and reused. The design of such a system is somewhat more complex than the procedure for
traditional furrow and cutback systems because of the need to utilize two sources of water simultaneously.
The major complexity of reuse systems is the strategy for recirculating the tailwater One alternative is to
pump the tailwater into the primary supply and then increase the number of operating furrows to utilize
the additional flow. Or, tailwater can be used to irrigate separate sections of the field or even other fields.
In any case the tailwater reservoir and pumping system need to be carefully controlled and coordinated
with the primary water supply.
To illustrate the design strategy for reuse systems, a design procedure for a common configuration
outlined by Walker and Skogerboe (1987) is presented. The reuse system shown schematically in Figure
55 is intended to capture tailwater from one set and combine it with the supply to a second set. A similar
operating scenario prevails for each subsequent pair until the last set is irrigated when some of the
tailwater must be either stored until the next irrigation, dumped into a wasteway, used elsewhere or used
to finish the irrigation after the primary inflows have been shut-off.
Figure 55. Illustration of a typical reuse configuration

The total volume of tailwater recycled will be held to a constant volume equal to the runoff from the first
set. The difference in tailwater volumes between the first and subsequent sets may be wasted. The
recycled flow can thus be held constant to simplify the pump-back system and its operation.
The reuse system design procedure is as follows:
i. Input data are the same as for the cutback system.
ii. Compute the required intake opportunity time, rreq, as outlined previously.

iii. Compute or interpolate the inlet discharge required to complete the advance phase in
approximately 30 percent of rreq, correcting if necessary for non-erosive stream velocities.
See the suggestion at the end of section 5.4.1.
iv. Compute the tailwater volume as follows:
1 The time of cutoff is:
tco = rreq + tL (86)
2. The infiltrated depths at field inlet and outlets are:

Zin = ktcoa + fotco (87)
3. A conservative estimate of the field runoff per furrow is:
(88)
where from Eq. 74 Nf = QT/Qo.
v. Compute pump-back discharge, Qpb:

Qpb = Vtw / tco (89)
vi. Compute number of furrows in second or subsequent sets:
(90)
vii. The field should be in evenly divided sets which may require repetition of the procedure
with a modified furrow discharge.

The Problem. Furrow irrigation designs are often needed either for new irrigation schemes or on existing
projects where improvements are needed. Land consolidation has been carried out in a number of
irrigation projects where implementation has included land reform policies and has resulted in field units
amenable to furrow irrigation. Consider one such case where the new farm units have been organized
around a 2 hectare block 200 m by 100 m. Flows of 30 litres per second are allocated to each block for 48
hours every 10 days. Initial field surveys showed that the fields needing first attention were comprised of a
loam soil, sloped 0.8 percent over the 100 m direction and 0.1 percent over the 200 m direction. The
furrows were placed on 0.5 m intervals across the 100 m direction (and running in the 200 m direction).
The furrows were assumed to have a hydraulic section where p1 = 0.57 and p2 = 1.367.
During the evaluations noted, the infiltration functions characteristic of the field were divided into two
relationships to describe the first irrigation following cultivations and then the subsequent irrigations.
These relationships are:
Z = 0.00346 t .388 + 0.000057 t (first irrigations)

and
Z = 0.0038 t .327 + 0.000037 t (later irrigations)
The evaluation used a Manning coefficient of n = 0.04 for all analyses.
The crops expected were studied along with the local climate and it appeared that the best target depth of
application, or Zreq, would be 8 cm. With 0.5 m furrow spacings, Zreq would be 0.04 m3/m/furrow.
Water is in short supply so the project planners would like an estimate of the potential application
efficiency with and without cutback and reuse.
Initial Design Calculations. With the design algorithm in mind but considered only as a guide, let the
design process begin with the limitations on the design parameters. The first of these can be the maximum
allowable flow in the furrow, Qmax. The soils are relatively stable so assume the maximum flow velocity
could be as high as 13 m/min. Equation 67 in a previous section provides the means of evaluating the
corresponding maximum flow rate:
(67)
= 1.768 m3/min (the total field inflow could be put in each furrow in this case)
The field is 100 m wide so that using a 0.5 m furrow spacing results in 100/.5= 200 furrows. The water
supply of 30 l/s or 1.8 m3/min would service 1.8/.104 = 17.31 furrows per set or the field would be
divided into 200/17.31 = 11.56 sets (obviously impractical since the sets must be comprised of an integer
number of furrows and the field needs to be subdivided into an integer number of sets). A practical upper
limit on the number of sets is perhaps 10 consisting of 20 furrows each and having a maximum flow of
0.09 m3/min. Beyond this 'upper limit' some of the following options also evenly divide the field:
Furrow Flow
Number of Sets Furrows Per Set
m3/min
10 20 .09
8 25 .072
5 45 .045
4 50 .036
2 100 .018
1 200 .009
The second limitation on the design procedure is whether or not the flow will complete the advance phase
in a reasonable time, say 24 hours. Particularly important in this regard is what minimum flow will
complete the advance phase within this limit. If the maximum flow is too small to complete the advance,

the furrow length must be reduced.

The second common design computation described in Section 5.3.1 provides the means of determining the
time of advance tL as a function of furrow inflow, Qo. The maximum inflow can be used to calculate the
minimum advance time, but since the minimum flow conditions are not known, the maximum advance
time must be established by examining each flow. The computation of tL for each Qo can be accomplished
with either method outlined and if undertaken yields the results given in the following table which are also
plotted in Figure 56.
Furrow Discharge Advance Time
Sets
m3/min First Irrigation minutes Later Irrigations minutes
10 .09 58.2 *
8 .072 72.6 *
5 .045 130.8 101.4
4 .036 184.2 132.6
2 .018 847.8 379.2
1 .009 * 2390.4
Figure 56. Example relationships between inflow rate and advance time

i. Design and layout for traditional furrow irrigation

There are now five configurations feasible for the initial field condition and six for the later conditions.
The design question at this stage is which one leads to the optimal design. The answer is determined by
computing the application efficiency for each alternative. First, the required intake opportunity time for
each condition is determined using the procedure outlined in Section 5.3.1. For the first field rreq = 214
minutes. Similarly for the later applications, rreq = 371 minutes.
The application efficiency for each of the possible field configurations can now be computed. The results,
shown in the table below, indicate that one good design is to divide the field into 4 individual subunits or
sets of 50 furrows and utilize an inflow of 0.018 m3/min per furrow during the first irrigations. The
resulting application efficiency would be nearly 56 percent. Figure 57 imposes this layout on the field.
Then during later irrigations two sets would be irrigated simultaneously so that each furrow would receive
.018 m3/min. The application efficiency of later irrigations would be about 59 percent.
Qo Zreq Ea, in Percent
Sets
m3/min m3/m First Irrigations Later Irrigations
10 .09 .04 32.6 **
8 .072 "" 38.6 **
5 .045 "" 51.5 37.7
4 .036 "" 55.7 44.2

2 .018 "" 41.9 59.3

1 .009 "" ** 32.2
Figure 57. Final traditional furrow design layout
The frequency and duration of each irrigation needs to be checked and then the headland facilities selected
and designed. During the first irrigation, the field will require just more than 35 hours to complete the
irrigation (the sum of rreq + tL times the number of sets). The later watering will require 25 hours. If
evapotranspiration rates were as high as .8 cm/day, the irrigation interval of 10 days waters the field well
within these limits (Zreq divided by the crop use rate approximates the irrigation interval). Since the water
supply is presumably controlled by an irrigation department, the design can be substantially hindered if the
delivered flows are not as planned.
It may be useful to examine briefly the performance of this design. If the actual irrigations evolve as these
design computations indicate, the farmer's irrigation pattern will waste about 44 percent of his water
during first irrigations and about 40 percent during later irrigations. By today's standards, these losses are

large and it may be cost-effective to add cutback or reuse to the system to reduce these losses.
Field operations. The question that arises at this point in the design is how to implement and operate the
system on the field. How will the irrigator know what flow rates are actually running into the furrows,
what the actual soil moisture depletion is, or when to terminate the flow into one set of furrows and shift
the field supply to another set?
There are several types of furrow irrigation systems but probably the most common are those that either
use open watercourses at the head of the field and divert into furrows using spires or siphon tubes, or those
that utilize aluminium or plastic gated pipe. The task of sizing these headland facilities will be noted in a
later section. The problem at this point in the design is the means of accurate flow measurement and
management.
If the design is to be carried forward to an actual operation, the inlet must be equipped with a flow
measuring device like those noted in Section 3. Then the irrigator with some simple instructions from the
designer can 'share' this flow among the appropriate number of furrows and achieve a reasonably good
approximation of the optimal discharge. In some cases, the outlets to each furrow can be individually
calibrated and regulated. For instance, the size of the siphon tubes or spires might be selected by the
designer. The irrigator can then adjust the flow by regulating the heads and/or the openings.
In short, this phase of irrigation engineering is highly dependent on the experience and practicality of the
engineer. There is no single 'best' way to do things. What works well in one locale, may not in another.
The computational procedures and methods of field evaluation provide the best values of the parameters.
The good design can only give the irrigator the opportunity to operate the system at or near optimal
conditions.
ii. Design of a cutback system
There is another point which is hidden by the hydraulics of surface irrigation (which have been largely
omitted from this guide). The movement of the water over the soil surface is very sensitive to the relative
magnitude of the furrow discharge and the cumulative infiltration rates. Irrigation practices which modify
the field inflow, such as cutback, may actually reduce the performance of the system. In more practical
terms, if the advance rate is slowed to accommodate a cutback regime, the gains in efficiency derived
from reduced tailwater may be more than offset by increases in deep percolation losses. The user of this
guide might repeat the following cutback design example using data and field conditions for a lighter soil
to illustrate this problem. As described earlier, the inherent limitation of the cutback design is that the
advance phase and the wetting phase must have the same duration.
Initial design calculations. The initial design computations for the cutback system are fundamentally the
same as outlined above. The rreq for the first irrigation is 214 minutes and for the subsequent irrigations it
is 371 minutes. If the two set system is envisioned (one set in the advance phase and one in the wetting),
the advance time and cutoff times for the first irrigation are respectively, tL = rreq = 214 minutes and tco =
tL + rreq = 428 minutes. For the subsequent irrigations, tL = 371 minutes and tco = 742 minutes.
The next computation is the maximum flow, Qmax. Since the field and furrow geometries have not
changed, the value of Qmax = 1.768 m3/min. Then it is necessary to compute the relationship between the
inflow and the advance time. Rather than specifying a range of discharges and computing the associated
advance times as above, the cutback design looks for a unique flow which yields the tL already

determined as 214 or 371 minutes. This may appear simpler to some and more difficult to others. It is in
fact the same effort with a slightly different aspect. The details of the computations are already given in
the calculations of the previous example. Reading from Figure 56 for the two conditions, one finds that the
necessary furrow flow, Qo, during the first irrigation would be about .0330 m3/min and .0184 m3/min for
later irrigations.
It is worthwhile emphasizing that the time of advance, tL, associated with a furrow inflow, Qo, must be
less than the required intake opportunity time, rreq, in order for the cutback scheme to operate properly.
When the maximum flow, Qmax, results in an advance time greater than the value required for the system
to work, the field length would have to be reduced or Zreq must be increased.
Field layout. Once the advance phase inflows are established, the field design or layout commences with
an estimate of the cutback flow. The one important constraint on the cutback flow is that it should not be
less than the intake along the furrow and cause dewatering at the downstream end. Equation 71 was given
to assist the designer in avoiding this problem, but it is only a guideline. Thus, for the first irrigation the
cutback flow must be at least:
Qcb = 1.1 * .000057 * 200 = 0.0125 m3/min
In other words, the flow can only be cutback from .0125 m3/min to .033 m3/min, or to 38% of the advance
phase flow. In subsequent irrigations,
Qcb = 1.1 * .000037 * 200 = 0.0081 m3/min
which is a cutback of 43 percent of the advance flow.

There are several unique features of cutback systems that need to be considered at the design stage. Of
particular concern is the fact that the number of furrows per set must vary over the field if the water supply
rate, QT, is to be held constant during the irrigation. The number of furrows per set can only be the same if
the field supply is varied for each change in sets across the field. This is usually difficult if the water
supply is being supplied by an irrigation project. However, for furrow systems to utilize cutback, the field
supply must be regulated from irrigation to irrigation. To illustrate this, let us develop a field layout for the
irrigations. Utilizing Eqs. 77-83, the following table can be developed for a variable field supply rate. The
Qcb/Qo ratio is taken as .43 reflecting the constraint imposed by the later irrigations. This ratio must be the
same for all irrigations.
Number of Furrow Per Set QT QT
No of Sets in Field Set Number 1st irr Later Irr
3 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m /min m /min
4 67 38 50 45 2.21 1.27
5 54 30 41 36 39 1.78 0.99
6 46 26 35 31 32 30 1.51 0.84
7 40 22 30 27 28 27 26 1.32 0.73
8 35 19 26 23 25 24 24 24 1.15 0.64
9 31 17 23 21 22 21 22 21 22 1.02 0.57

One can see that if the water supply capacity is limited to 1.8 m3/min, the field must be divided into at
least five sets to accommodate the first irrigation condition. The upper limit on the number of sets can be
evaluated by examining the duration and frequency of the irrigations. The time of cutoff for each set
during the first irrigation was determined previously as 7.1 hours (428 minutes). For the later irrigations,
tco = 12.4 hours (742 minutes). For a 5 set system, the total duration of the later irrigations is, 6 * 6.2 =
37.2 hrs or 1.6 days, assuming the irrigator will operate 24 hours per day. (Note that because two sets are
irrigating simultaneously under cutback with the exception of the first and last sets, the duration of the
irrigation on the field is the number of sets plus 1 times the advance or required intake opportunity time.)
Thus, if the 48 hour availability constraint imposed in the problem outline is maintained, a cutback system
for this field is only feasible in the 5 or 6 set configuration without changing the depth of water to be
added during each irrigation. For the purpose of this example, let us suppose the water supply agency will
deliver water to a 5 set system needed for the cutback regime.
Field implementation. For this example, the field outlets are to be spires with adjustable square slide gates
having the following head-discharge characteristics:
Spile Size Full-Open Area
Discharge Coefficient
(mm) (cm2)
19 3.61 0.00114
25 6.25 0.00136
38 14.44 0.00145
50 25.00 0.00169
Note that Qo = c A h .5 where h is the head above the spire invert in cm, and Qo is in units of m3/min.
The change in elevation across the 100 m headland of the field is 0.008 * 100 = 80 cm which is sufficient
for the system shown in Figure 54. To make the system work, the bays need to be constructed on a level
slope. The transition between bays is accomplished with a drop equal to the difference in the head between
the advance phase flows and the cutback flows. They are then operated irrigation to irrigation by
controlling the gate openings. For example, if the 25 mm spires are selected, the advance phase head at the
full opening is:
h = (.0330 / 6.25 / .00136)2 = 15.07 cm
and for the cutback phase:
h = (.0330 * .43 / 6.25 / .00136)2 = 2.79 cm
Thus, the elevation drop between the bays should be 15.07 - 2.79 = 12.28 cm. This will necessitate
elevating the head ditch approximately 30 cm above the low end of the field and providing a drop to the
furrows.
When irrigating the field later, the head on the gates will necessarily remain the same, but the openings
must be reduced. For the advance phase,
A = .0184 / 15.07.5 / .00136 = 3.49 cm2 = 55.8% opening
and similarly for the later irrigations:

A = .0184 * .43 / 2.79.5 / .00136 = 3.48 cm2 = 55.7% opening

The operation is relatively simple so long as the total field inflow rate can be regulated to compensate for
the lower infiltration during later irrigations. Figure 58 illustrates the alignment of the head ditch for this
cutback example design.
Figure 58. Cutback example field and head ditch layout
The performance of this design is calculated as follows. For the first irrigation (Eq. 72):
and for the later irrigations:
Cutback, therefore, substantially improves the efficiency on this field over traditional methods.
iii. Design of furrow reuse systems
Another furrow irrigation option is to capture runoff in a small reservoir at the end of the field and either
pump it back to the upper end to be used along with the primary supply or diverted to another field. The
system envisioned for this reuse example will use the same head ditch configuration as the traditional or
cutback system options already developed. The irrigator will introduce the canal water to the first set and
collect the surface runoff from it. Then with initiation of the second set and subsequent sets, the water in
the tailwater reservoir will be pumped to the head of the field and mixed with the canal supply. The field

layout will be similar to the schematic system depicted in Figure 55.

Initial calculations. Initial calculations begin again with the required intake opportunity. These results
were determined in the previous example:
rreq = 214 min during first irrigations
rreq = 371 min during later irrigations
The maximum allowable furrow flows are also the same, 1.768 m3/min. A rule-of-thumb states that the
advance time for reuse systems should be about 30 percent of the required intake opportunity time. From
Figure 56, the first irrigation flow should be .082 m3/min which will yield an advance time of .3 * .214
min = 64 min. Similarly, for subsequent irrigations, an advance time of 112 min based on a flow of 0.042
m3/min is selected. When the maximum non-erosive flow fails to meet the 30 percent rule, it is usually
taken as the furrow flow and the rule is ignored.
The application efficiency and field layout under the reuse regime are computed as before. It is first
necessary to compute the deep percolation ratio and the tailwater runoff ratio for the possible range of
flows. The usual procedure is to compute the deep percolation ratio and then find the tailwater ratio as 100
- Ea - DPR in percentages. As an example, the first irrigation analysis can be demonstrated. From the
volume balance advance calculations or, if one prefers, the graphical approach, the time of advance to the
furrow mid-point can be found as 25.9 min. From this information the values of p and r in Eq. 32 are 8.45
and .7595, respectively. Then using the power advance trajectory (Eq. 32) and the infiltration function, the
distribution of applied depths can be described as in the following table.
Distance From Field Inlet Computed Opportunity Time 1 Computed Application 2
(m) (min) (m3/m)
0 278.5 0.0466
20 275.4 0.0463
40 270.8 0.0458
60 265.3 0.0453
100 252.6 0.0440
120 245.6 0.0433
140 238.2 0.0425
160 230.4 0.0417
180 222.4 0.0408
200 214.0 0.0400
1 top = tco - tx, tx = (x/p) 1/r
2 application = depth * furrow spacing/m of width
Using the trapezoidal integration of the applied water, the amount infiltrated over the field length is

= 8.733 m3/furrow
The required application is:
.08 m x .50 m * 200 m = 8 m3/furrow
The total inflow to each furrow is:
.082 m3/min * 278.5 min = 22.84 m3/furrow
The deep percolation and runoff ratios are thus:
TWR = 0 % (on the assumption that all is recycled)

And, the application efficiency for the first set is:
Ea = 100 - 3.2 - 0 = 96.8%
The runoff fraction is:
The volume of tailwater per furrow is:

0.612 * 22.84 = 14 m3/furrow
It is obvious, or should be, that recycling 61 percent of the water applied to a field is going to be relatively
costly. Consequently, a wider range of furrow flows needs to be examined along with their performance
characteristics. For the later irrigations of this example, the figures are as follows: DPR = 3.3 percent and
Ea = 96.7 percent.
The field configuration. The reuse system will collect the tailwater from the first set in the runoff reservoir
and pump it back in the supply to the remaining sets. The pump-back system will operate continuously
and will have some excess capacity in the reservoir even though the total runoff from subsequent sets will
be greater.
The field layout can be found by trial and error or calculated. If the layout is calculated, one approach is to
fix a furrow flow and determine the external supply that is needed. Using the design relations in Section
5.3 one can derive the following equation for the layout.
(91)
in which QT is the flow rate of the external water supply needed for the system in m3/min, Nf is the total
number of furrows on the field, Qo is the design furrow inflow in m3/min, Ns is the number of sets in the

field, and TWR is the runoff ratio associated with an inflow of Qo m3/min. During the first irrigation, a
Qo of 0.082 m3/min satisfied the probable requirements.
Choosing six sets as the basic field subdivision, the number of furrows in the first set is:
N1 = QT/Qo = 1.8/.082 = 22
For the first irrigation, the volume of the runoff reservoir must be:
Vro = 14 m3/furrow * 22 furrows = 308 m3
Recalling that for a first irrigation condition, the time of cutoff is 278.5 minutes, the capacity of the
pump-back system is therefore:
Qcb = 308 m3/278.5 min = 1.11 m3/min
The number of furrows per set for the subsequent sets is:
(92)
There are 200 furrows in the field. Five sets would contain 36 furrows; one set, the first, contains 22. This
is 202 furrows so it is necessary to reduce one of the sets by two furrows.
Now the system must be configured for the later irrigating conditions. If the individual furrow inflows are
set at .042 m3/min, two sets can be irrigated simultaneously to have effectively a 3 set system, and, the
number of furrows in the first is:
N1 = 1.8 / .042 = 43
The volume of the runoff reservoir needs to be 493 m3 and the capacity of the pump-back system must be
1.02 m3/min. It will therefore not be necessary to regulate the pump-back system during the first irrigation
to a value different than that for later irrigation. The runoff reservoir capacity, however, is governed by the
later irrigation. The number of furrows in subsequent sets is 79. This layout adds up to 201 furrows so the
number in the last set can be decreased to 78.

With two exceptions, the design of borders involves the same procedure as that for furrow systems. The
first difference is that while the depletion and recession phases are generally neglected in furrow design,
both phases must be included for borders. The second difference is that the downstream end of a border
may be dyked to prevent runoff. One simplification of border analyses is that the geometry of the flow is

simpler because it can be treated as wide, plane flow. The values of p1 and p2 are always 1.0 and 1.67,
respectively.

The first four design steps for open-ended borders are the same as those outlined under subsection 5.4.1
for traditional furrow systems: (1) assemble input data; (2) compute maximum flows per unit width; (3)
compute advance time; and (4) compute the required intake opportunity time. Hart et al. (1980) also
suggest computing a minimum flow, Qmin, based on a value that ensures adequate field spreading. This
relationship is:
Qmin = 0.000357 L So.5 / n (93)
where Qmin is the minimum suggested unit discharge in m3/min/m and L, So, and n are variables already
defined. There will be substantially more water on the surface of borders than for furrows. Consequently,
it is good practice to check periodically the depth of flow at the field inlet to ensure that depths do not
exceed the dyke heights. For this:
(94)
where yo is the inlet flow depth in m.
The border designs given here assume the advance phase is completed before the inflow is terminated.
Many irrigators, in fact nearly all where the downstream end is dyked, actually cut off the inflow before
the end of the advance phase. In these cases, the volume of water on the surface will continue to advance
along the border until it reaches the lower end where it will run off or pond in front of the dyke. Unless the
border system is extremely well designed and operated, the downstream pond often creates a substantial
threat to the crop in the submerged areas and although dyked at their lower ends, most farmers provide a
surface drain for excess water. Consequently, the border efficiency and uniformity are approximately the
same as borders in which excess surface water simply drains off the field after the advance phase is
complete. The following procedure is therefore suggested for border systems where the excess surface
water is drained from the field either by a completely open-ended border or by a regulated outlet from a
blocked-end border.
After completing the first four design steps, as with furrows, open-ended border design resumes as
follows:
v. Compute the recession time, tr, for the condition where the downstream end of the border
receives the smallest application:
tr = rreq + tL (95)
vi. Calculate the depletion time, td, in min, as follows:

1. Assign an initial time to the depletion time, say T1 = tr;
2. Compute the average infiltration rate along the border by averaging the rates
as both ends at time T1:

(96)
3. Compute the 'relative' water surface slope:
(97)
4. Compute a revised estimate of the depletion time, T2:
(98)
5. Compare T2 with T1 to determine if they are within about one minute, then
the depletion time td is determined. If the analysis has not converged then let T1
= T2 and repeat steps 2 through 5.
The computation of depletion time given above is based on the algebraic analysis reported by
Strelkoff (1977).
vii. Compare the depletion time with the required intake opportunity time. Because recession
is an important process in border irrigation, it is possible for the applied depth at the end of
the field to be greater than at the inlet. If td > rreq, the irrigation at the field inlet is adequate
and the application efficiency, Ea can be calculated with Eq. 69 using the following estimate
of time of cutoff:
tco = td - yo L / (2 Qo) (99)
If td < rreq, the irrigation is not complete and the cutoff time must be increased so the intake
at the inlet is equal to the required depth. The computation proceeds as follows:
tco = rreq - yo L / (2 Qo)(100)
and then Ea is computed with Eq. 69.
Since the application efficiency will vary with Qo several designs should be developed using
different values of inflow to identify the design discharge that maximizes Ea.
viii. Finally, the border width, Wo in m is computed and the number of borders, Nb, is found
as:
Wo = QT/Qo (101)
and,
Nb = Wt/Wo (102)
where Wt is the width of the field. Adjust Wo until Nb is an even number. If this width is

unsatisfactory for other reasons, modify the unit width inflow or plan to adjust the system
discharge, QT.

The computations needed to evaluate and design blocked-end borders where the flow is cut off before or
shortly after the advance phase is complete are substantially more detailed than the procedures outlined
above for furrow and open-end border irrigation systems. In fact, the volume balance methods given
previously are relatively weak for this particular case of surface irrigation. Generally, the computations for
blocked-end borders are best performed with zero-inertia or full hydrodynamic simulation models which
are beyond the scope of this paper.
A number of studies have been made to develop relationships among the most important variables
involving border irrigation using a dimensionless approach and the higher level simulation models. The
interested reader might want to refer to Strelkoff and Katapodes (1977), Strelkoff and Shatanawi (1984),
Shatanawi and Strelkoff (1984), and Yitayew and Fangmeier (1984) for some of these reports.
The design procedure outlined below is an extension of the approaches already given and consistent with
the level of treatment given herein. The procedure given here is intended to be conservative and will yield
designs capable of performing at somewhat lower application efficiencies than is perhaps possible using
the more comprehensive methods.
The suggested design steps are as follows:
i. Determine the input data as for furrow and border systems already discussed.
ii. Compute the maximum inflows per unit width using Eq. 67 with p1 = 1.0 and p2 = 1.67.
The minimum inflows per unit width can also be computed using Eq. 93.
iii. Compute the require intake opportunity time, rreq.
iv. Compute the advance time for a range of inflow rates between Qmax and Qmin, develop a
graph of inflow, Qo verses the advance time, tL, and extrapolate the flow that produces an
advance time equal to rreq. Define the time of cut off, tco, equal to rreq. Extrapolate also the r
and p values in Eq. 32 found as part of the advance calculations.
v. Calculate the depletion time, td, in min, as follows:
td = tco + yo L / (2 Qo) = rreq + yo L / (2 Qo) (103)
vi. Assume that at td, the water on the surface of the field will have drained from the upper
reaches of the border to a wedge-shaped pond at the downstream end of the border and in
front of the dyke.
vii. At the end of the drainage period, a pond should extend a distance l metre upstream of the
dyked end of the border. The value of l is computed from a simple volume balance at the time
of recession:

(104)
where,
Zo = k tda + fo td (105)
and:
ZL = k (td - tL)a + fo (td - tL) (106)
If the value of l is zero or negative, a downstream pond will not form since the infiltration
rate is high enough to absorb what would have been the surface storage at the end of the
recession phase. In this case the design can be derived from the open-ended border design
procedure. If the value of l is greater than the field length, L, then the pond extends over the
entire border and the design can be handled according to the basin design procedure outlined
in a following section.
The depth of water at the end of the border, yL, will be:
yL = l So (107)
viii. The application efficiency, Ea, can be computed using Eq. 56. However, the depth of
infiltration at the end of the field and at the distance L-l metres from the inlet should be
checked as Eq. 56 assumes that all areas of the field receive at least Zreq. The depths of
infiltrated water at the three critical points on the field, the head, the downstream end, and the
location l can be determined as follows for the time when the pond is just formed at the lower
end of the border:
Z1 = k (td - tL-1)a + fo (td - tL-1) (108)
where,
tL-1 = [(L-l) / p]1/a (109)
It should be noted again by way of reminder that one of the fundamental assumptions of the
design process is that the root zone requirement, Zreq, will be met over the entire length of
the field. If, therefore, in computing Ea, one finds ZL-1 or ZL less than Zreq, then either the
time of cutoff should be extended or the value of Zreq used should be reduced. Likewise, if
the depths applied at l and L significantly exceed Zreq, then the inflow should be terminated
before the flow reaches the end of the border. If the inflow is cut off before the advance phase
is completed, the analysis above will have to be replaced by the judgement and experience of
the designer, or the more advanced models will have to be utilized.

The problem. In subsection 5.4.4, an example of furrow design was given in which the soil was quite
heavy (low infiltration rates). To generate a basis for what might be an interesting comparison of borders
and furrow systems, suppose the original question for that field is extended to whether or not borders

might be as good. Let us assume that the infiltration characteristics are the same except adjusted for an
increased wetted perimeter.
The approximate wetted perimeter for the furrows is found by returning to the flow area, perimeter, and
depth relationships. At a flow of 0.09 m3/min, the flow area found in the furrow example was (Eq. 48):
From Eq. 40 from which the furrow shape was extracted:

y = (154 cm2 / 3.331)1/1.732 = 9.15 cm
From Eq. 41:
WP = 5.922 * 9.5.805 = 35.18 cm.
Since the furrows were spaced at .5 m intervals, one could approximate the infiltration of a border by
adjusting the k and fo values by a factor of 1.4 based on the ratio of border to furrow wetted perimeter
(50/35.18). If the furrows were operated in the 100 m direction where the slope is .8 percent, the
multiplication factor would be about 2.0. For this exercise, the 1.4 factor will be utilized. Thus,
First Irrigation Conditions:
Z = 0.00484 t .388 + 0.00008 t
Later Irrigation Conditions:
Z = 0.0053 t .327 + 0.000052 t
The units of Z are again m3/m of length/unit width. One would not expect the border infiltration equation
to more than double furrow infiltration with furrows spaced less than 1 m apart. Again Mannings n can be
0.04 for initial irrigations and .1 for later irrigations due to crop cover. Zreq is 8 cm.
Basic calculations. Assuming also that the soil is relatively stable, Eq. 67 is used to calculate the
maximum inflow per unit width for the first irrigation along the 200 m length where erosion is most likely:
And similarly for irrigations along the 100 m (SO = 0.008) direction:
The minimum flow suggested by Eq. 93 using later field roughness where spreading may be a problem is
for the 200 m lengths:
Qmin = 0.000357 * 200 * .001.5 / .10 = 0.0226 m3/min/m
or in the 100 m direction:

Qmin = .000357 * 100 * .008.5 / .10 = 0.032 m3/min/m
The required intake opportunity times found according to the procedure suggested by Eq. 59 are:
First Irrigations rreq = 388.5 min
Later Irrigations rreq = 678.9 min
The next basic calculation, as with furrows, must be to formulate the relationship between advance time
and inflow discharge. Starting with a flow near the maximum and working downward using the processes
already outlined, advance curves for both infiltration conditions and flow directions can be found. The
results for this example are shown in Figure 59.
Figure 59. Discharge-advance relationship for the border example problem
The last of the basic calculations concerns the depletion and recession times for various values of flow.
One illustration should demonstrate this procedure adequately. For an inflow of 0.06 m3/min/m, the
advance time along the 200 m length under later conditions is about 145 min. From Eq. 48:
The time of recession at the lower end of the field, tr, is determined as:
tr = rreq + tL = 679 + 145 = 824 min
The time of depletion must be iteratively determined from Eqs. 96 - 98:

a. td = tr = 824 min
b.
c.
d.
e. Since T1 is not close to T2, steps b - d must be repeated with T1 set equal to 677 min:
b.
c.

d.
e. Again another estimate of td seems to be required by the difference found between the
iterations. If steps b - d are repeated, the new value of T2 is 680 min and the procedure has
converged.
The time of cutoff, tco, is found from Eq. 99:
tco = td - Ao L / (2 Qo) = 680 - .0355 * 200 / .12 = 631 min.
Finally the application efficiencies of the alternative flows and flow directions are found using Eq. 56. An
example for the 0.072 m3/min/m flow along the 200 m direction during the later irrigations is:
This series of computations is repeated for the full range of discharges, field lengths and infiltration
conditions. The following table gives a detailed summary of selected options for the first and subsequent
irrigation conditions running in both the 200 m and 100 m directions.
First Irrigations L = 200 m
Border Advance Cutoff Recession Field Application
Unit Flow
Sets Width Time Time Time On-Time Efficiency
m m3/min hrs hrs hrs hrs Percent
2 50 0.036 6.36 11.34 12.83 22.67 65.3
3 33 0.0545 3.11 8.10 9.59 24.29 60.4
4 25 0.072 2.14 7.12 8.61 28.49 52.0
5 20 0.09 1.64 6.63 8.12 33.16 44.7
Later Irrigations L = 200 m

Unit Flow
1 100 0.018 15.55 23.66 26.86 23.66 62.6
2 50 0.036 5.03 13.12 16.34 26.24 56.5
3 33 0.0545 3.15 11.25 14.47 33.76 43.4
First Irrigations L = 100 m

Unit Flow
Percent

m m3/min hrs hrs hrs hrs

2 100 0.018 5.27 11.21 11.74 22.42 66.1
3 67 0.0269 2.35 8.30 8.83 24.89 59.8
4 50 0.036 1.44 7.39 7.92 29.55 50.1
5 40 0.045 1.03 6.98 7.51 34.91 42.4
Later Irrigations L = 100 m

Unit Flow
1 200 0.009 12.89 23.07 24.20 23.07 64.2
2 100 0.018 3.45 13.61 14.76 27.23 54.4
Field layout and configuration. The field water supply, QT, established in the furrow example was 1.8
m3/min which would have a duration of 48 hours. Usually, border irrigation would require a higher
discharge than furrow systems, but as a first attempt at the problem, consider the field supply fixed.
The options for field layout are to align the borders in either the 200 m or the 100 m directions. The
alternative configurations outlined by the data in the preceding tables indicate that there is probably not a
strong advantage in irrigating in either direction and the decision can be based on other practical factors.
For instance, dividing the field into two, 50 m wide borders running along the 200 m length may be
preferable if farming operations are mechanized. During later irrigations, both borders would be irrigated
simultaneously with the water supply. The potential application efficiency of this border design would be
63-65 percent which is better than furrow systems without cutback or reuse but not as good as the cutback
or reuse options.

The problem. Section 5.5.4 illustrated the open-end border design procedure. The option of dyking these
borders should be considered as an option for improving application efficiency. From results already
available, the required intake opportunity times, rreq, needed to apply a depth of 8 cm (Zreq) were about
389 minutes and 679 minutes for initial and subsequent field conditions, respectively. Assuming the
borders will run in the 200 m direction on the 0.1 percent slope as above, Figure 59 indicates the inflows
that will complete the advance in the respective rreq times are 0.036 m3/min/m for initial irrigations and
0.0215 m3/min/m for later ones.
The values of r and p need to be generated or extrapolated for these flow rates unless they are already
generated as part of the development of Figure 59 or, in this example case, from the previous example
problem. For the 0.036 m3/min/m inflow, the values of r and p were determined from the previous
example as r =.5635 and p = 6.949. For the 0.0215 m3/min/m inflow, r and p were calculated using the
methods outlined in section 5.3.1 rather than extrapolated with the result that r =.6032 and p = 3.916.
All other inputs to this problem like infiltration coefficients and roughness are assumed to be the same as

in section 5.5.3.
To this point, the blocked-end border design procedure outlined in section 5.5.2 is completed through step
iv. The remainder of the steps are as follows:
v. Calculate the depletion time, td, in min, as follows:
tco = rreq = 389 min
(94)
td = tco + yo L / (2 Qo) = 389 + .0134 * 200 / (2 * .036) = 426 min (103)
vi. Assume that at 426 min the water on the surface of the field has drained into the
wedge-shaped pond at the downstream end of the border.
vii. At 426 min, a pond should extend a distance of l metre upstream of the dyked end of the
border. The value of l is:
Zo = k tda + fo td = .00484 * 426.388 + .00008 * 426 = 0.0848 m3/m/m (105)
ZL = k (td - tL)a + fo (td - tL) = .00484 * (426 - 389).388 + .00008 * (426 - 389)
= 0.0226 m3/m/m (106)
(104)
Since the value of l is between zero and L a downstream pond will form and infiltrate in
place to fill the root zone. The depth of water at the end of the border, yL, will be:
yL = l So = 80.8 * .001 = 0.0808 m (105)
viii. The application efficiency, Ea, can be computed using Eq. 56. However before making
this computation, it is instructive to compute the depths of infiltration along the border. The
application at the inlet was found above to be 0.0848 m or about 8.5 cm. At the end of the
border, the application is ZL from above plus yL, or .1034 m. The depth of infiltration at the
distance L-1 metres from the inlet is:
tL-1 = [(L - 1) / p]1/r = (119.2 / 6.949)1/.5635 = 155 min
Z1 = k (td - tL-1)a + fo (td tL-1) (107)

= .00484 * (426 - 155).388 + .00008 * (426 - 155) = 0.064 m
As one immediately determines, the middle of the field is under-irrigated. If fact, if Ea is

calculated from Eq. 56,
(56)
one sees that the results are distorted. The assumption that the entire field receives the
required depth, Zreq, is implicit in Eq. 56. It cannot be used unless this condition is met. And
since the objective of the design is to completely refill the root zone, either the time of cutoff
needs to be extended or the design value of Zreq should be reduced to approximate the depth
infiltrated in the least watered areas to ensure this constraint. The simplest option is to adjust
Zreq to say 0.06 m and utilize the values of inflow and cutoff time developed above. If this is
decided upon, the application efficiency according to Eq. 56 is 85.7% which is a substantial
improvement over the open-end design. The other option is to extend the cutoff time so the
ponded wedge extends further up the basin. This involves several repetitions of the design
procedure given above in a trial and error search for the cutoff time that works. Given the
precarious nature of the volume balance procedure for the blocked-end border case in the first
place, this later option is not recommended. If a better design is sought, the more advanced
simulation models will have to be used.
Now other field configurations must be tested and compared. The eventual selection will be
the one with the best performance over both infiltration conditions. These calculations will be
left to the interested reader. One note should be made at this point however. The computer
program given at the end of this paper does not include an option or blocked-end borders.
Basin irrigation design is somewhat simpler than either furrow or border design. Tailwater is prevented
from exiting the field and the slopes are usually very small or zero. Recession and depletion are
accomplished at nearly the same time and nearly uniform over the entire basin. However, because slopes
are small or zero, the driving force on the flow is solely the hydraulic slope of the water surface, and the
uniformity of the field surface topography is critically important.
An effort will not be made to develop a design procedure for irregularly shaped basins or where the
advancing front is very irregular. Rather, the water movement over the basin is assumed to occur in a
single direction like that in furrows and borders. Three further assumptions will be made specifically for
basin irrigation. First, the friction slope during the advance phase of the flow can be approximated by:
Sf = yo / x (110)
in which yo is the depth of flow at the basin inlet in m, x is the distance from inlet to the advancing front in
m, and Sf is the friction slope. Utilizing the result of Eq. 112 in the Manning equation yields:

or,
(112)
The second assumption is that immediately upon cessation of inflow, the water surface assumes a
horizontal orientation and infiltrates vertically. In other words, the infiltrated depth at the inlet to the basin
is equal to the infiltration during advance, plus the average depth of water on the soil surface at the time
the water completes the advance phase, plus the average depth added to the basin following completion of
advance. At the downstream end of the basin the application is assumed to equal the average depth on the
surface at the time advance is completed plus the average depth added from this time until the time of
cutoff.
The third assumption is that the depth to be applied at the downstream end of the basin is equal to Zreq.
Under these three basic assumptions, the time of cutoff for basin irrigation systems is (assume yo is
evaluated with x equal to L):
(113)
The time of cutoff must be greater than or equal to the advance time.
Basin design is much simpler than that for furrows or borders. Because there is no tailwater problem, the
maximum unit inflow also maximizes application efficiency.
Thus, the design procedure does not need to search among various flow rates for a value that meets a
design criterion like finding the deep percolation-field tailwater trade-off point. Basin dimensions
therefore become more a matter of practicality to the farmer than one of hydraulic necessity.
As a guide to basin design, the following steps are outlined:
i. Input data common to both furrows and borders must first be collected. Field slope will not
be necessary because basins are usually 'dead level'.
ii. The required intake opportunity time, rreq, can be found as demonstrated in the previous
examples.
iii. The maximum unit flow should be calculated along with the associated depth near the
basin inlet. The maximum depth can be approximated by Eq. 112:
(114)
and then perhaps increased 10-20 percent to allow some room for post-advance basin filling.

If the computed value of ymax is greater than the height of the basic perimeter dykes, then
Qmax needs to be reduced accordingly. The maximum unit flow, Qmax, is difficult to assess.
During the initial part of the advance phase, flow velocities will be greater than later in the
advance. As a general guideline, it is suggested that Qmax be based on the flow velocity in
the basin when the advance phase is one-ninth completed. The basin equivalent to Eq. 67 is:
(115)
Usually the design of basins will involve flows much smaller than indicated in Eq. 115.
iv. Select several field layouts that would appear to yield a well organized field system and
for each determine the length and width of the basins. Then compute the unit flow, Qo for
each configuration as:
Qo = QT / Wb (116)
where Wb is the basin width in m. As noted above, the maximum efficiency will generally
occur when Qo is near Qmax so the configurations selected at this phase of the design should
yield inflows accordingly.
v. Compute the advance times, tL, for each field layout as discussed in subsection 5.3.1, the
cutoff time, tco, from Eq. 113 (if tco < tL, set tco = tL), and the application efficiency using
Eq. 56. The layout that achieves the highest efficiency while maintaining a convenient
configuration for the irrigator/farmer should be selected.

The problem. A comparison of basin irrigation with the furrow and border systems in previous subsections
should provide an interesting view of the three systems collectively. To remind the reader, an irrigation
project is in the planning stages in which a basic field block of 2 hectares has been chosen for field design.
A preliminary survey has revealed that the fields are configured in 100 m widths and 200 m lengths. The
typical slopes are .8% in the 100 m dimension and .1% in the other. Soils appear to be relatively
non-erosive and have been tested to yield the following infiltration functions:
First Irrigations Z = 0.00484 r .388 + 0.00008 r
Later Irrigations Z = 0.0053 r .327 + 0.000052 r
Z has units of m3/m of length/m of width, and r has units of minutes. Anticipated application depths per
irrigation based on an evaluation of cropping patterns and crop water requirements are 8 cm.
The water supply to the field is set by the project at 1.8 m3/min, available for 36 hours every 10 days.
Quality of water supply is good and hopefully these deliveries will be made as expected so far as rate,
duration, and frequency are concerned.
For the purposes of design, the Manning roughness coefficient for first irrigations will be taken as 0.04
and for the later irrigations as 0.10. This is to reflect a bare soil condition for first irrigations and a cropped

surface for later irrigations.

Basic calculations. The intake opportunity times for the two field conditions are the same as found earlier
for borders, namely:
rreq = 389 min for initial irrigations
and,
rreq = 679 min for later irrigations
Maximum flows permissible assuming a 30 cm perimeter dyke around the basins and flows running in the
100 m direction are found from Eq. 115:
Utilizing Figures 53a-f, the advance time as a function of unit flow can be determined as indicated below.
The Qo verses tL data are plotted in Figure 60.
Figure 60. Discharge-advance relationships for the basin example

QO
First Irrigations
0.40 0.0649 1.00 0.020 0.022 17.8
0.20 0.0471 1.22 0.040 0.050 29.4
0.10 0.0342 1.48 0.080 0.120 57.3

0.05 0.0248 1.81 0.160 0.300 93.0

0.03 0.0196 2.09 0.267 0.750 183.8
Later Irrigations
0.40 0.099 0.62 0.013 * *
0.20 0.072 0.78 0.026 0.030 41.5
0.10 0.052 0.98 0.052 0.061 61.0
0.05 0.038 1.20 0.104 0.155 113.3
0.03 0.030 1.41 0.173 0.430 248.1
Field layout. Basins installed on sloping fields should have their longest dimension running normal to the
largest field slope in order to minimize land levelling costs. Thus, for this example where the basins have
been selected with a 100 m length, they would have their direction of flow parallel to the 200 m direction.
The width is a choice left to the designer. Some of the options, their dimensions and performance are
summarized below. Figure 61 shows a 10 basin configuration.
Field
Basin Application
No. of Unit Flow Advance Time Cutoff Time Irrig.
Width Efficiency
Basins Time
m m3/min min min hrs %
First Irrigations
4 50 0.036 140 316 21.1 70.3
6 33 0.054 90 201 20.1 73.7
8 25 0.072 68 147 19.6 75.6
10 20 0.09 55 116 19.3 76.6
12 17 0.108 45 94 18.8 78.8
20 10 0.18 31 56 18.7 79.4
Later Irrigations
4 50 0.036 175 327 21.8 68.0
6 33 0.054 105 197 19.7 75.2
8 25 0.072 80 143 19.1 77.7
10 20 0.09 68 114 19.0 78.0
12 17 0.108 60 95 19.0 78.0
20 10 0.18 43 58 19.3 76.6
Figure 61. Example basin configuration

One of the advantages of basins that immediately becomes apparent is that field division is much more
flexible. Application efficiencies can be very high and nearly all options are workable in terms of the
water supply.
5.7 Summary
It is not possible to illustrate effectively the judgement or 'art' required to evaluate and design surface
irrigation systems. The previous examples demonstrate the procedures described in this guide and, to a
limited extent, alert the reader to factors he or she will need to determine on a case by case basis. There
are major influences on the design process one might expect which lie far outside a mathematical
treatment. For example, the size and shape of individual land holdings and their future change in response
to customs for inheritance, governmental interventions such as land consolidation and resettlement, farmer
preference and attitudes, harvesting and cultivating equipment limitations, etc. In short, there is not a
universal algorithm for design and evaluation that eliminates the need for good judgement. On the other
hand, good judgement is no substitute for the mathematical aids presented herein. One might demonstrate
this by comparing the performance of a system properly designed with one where selection of inflow and
cutoff time is made arbitrarily.

To be skilled in design is to completely understand the relationships among the selectable and manageable
variables governing surface irrigation, particularly the effects of infiltration and stream size on advance.
The mathematical treatment, if followed, helps illustrate some of the more important individual processes
occurring in the field.
Because the irrigator has the latitude of changing flow rates and cutoff times, the field system may not
respond as designed. The problem is unlike sprinkler and trickle irrigation where having selected and
installed the system's piping, the hydraulics of the system's operation are defined. Consequently, surface
irrigation design cannot provide a guaranteed level of performance but must rely on the farmer to operate
and manage it efficiently. It is apparent therefore, that the role of extension and technical assistance to
farmers is critical for surface irrigated regimes.
As a final thought in this section, something should be stated regarding costs associated with surface
irrigation. It would be most desirable to present a comprehensive review, but such is impractical because
surface irrigation systems themselves are so widely varied. Table 9 lists a number of irrigation
technologies and a figure representing the costs. The units here are $/ha but should be used only to
indicate the relative magnitude of various system costs under agricultural conditions typical of the western
United States. Other systems enter the picture as one moves from country to country.
Table 9 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS FOR SELECTED ON-FARM IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Description of System or Improvement Annual Costs, $/ha
Concrete ditch linings 40
Gated-pipe 35
Cutback systems 100
Reuse systems with gated-pipe 150
Solid-set sprinklers 500-700 1
Hand - moved sprinklers 300-450
Wheel-line or side-roll sprinklers 200-300
Centre-pivot sprinklers 150-200
Trickle irrigation 500-1000
1The pressurized systems are often supplied by groundwater wells on-farm. The range of
costs is for surface supplies (small values) and for groundwater (larger values).

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4s.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4s.gif [2/17/2003 12:41:00 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4v.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4v.gif [2/17/2003 12:41:02 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4w.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4w.gif [2/17/2003 12:41:07 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4y.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4y.gif [2/17/2003 12:41:10 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4z.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e4z.gif [2/17/2003 12:41:13 PM]


6. Land levelling
6. Land levelling

Levelling, smoothing and shaping the field surface is as important to the surface system as the design of
laterals, manifolds, risers and outlets is for sprinkler or trickle irrigation systems. It is a process for
ensuring that the depths and discharge variations over the field are relatively uniform and, as a result, that
water distributions in the root zone are also uniform. These field operations are required nearly every
cropping season, particularly where substantial cultivation following harvest disrupts the field surface. The
preparation of the field surface for conveyance and distribution of irrigation water is as important to
efficient surface irrigation as any other single management practice the farmer employs.
There are perhaps two land levelling philosophies: (1) to provide a slope which fits a water supply; and (2)
to level the field to its best condition with minimal earth movement and then vary the water supply for the
field condition. The second philosophy is generally the most feasible. Because land levelling is expensive
and large earth movements may leave significant areas of the field without fertile topsoil, this second
philosophy is also generally the most economic approach.
Land levelling always improves the efficiency of water, labour and energy resources utilization. The
levelling operation, however, can be the most intensively disruptive cultural practice applied to the field
and several factors should be considered before implementing a land levelling project. Major
topographical changes will nearly always reduce crop production in the cut areas until fertility can be
replaced. Similarly, equipment traffic can so compact or pulverize the soil that water penetration is a
major problem for some time. The farmer has many activities which contribute to his productivity and
therefore require his skill and labour. The irrigation system should be designed with him (or her) in mind.
A field levelled to high standards is generally more easily irrigated than one where undulations require
special attention.
New equipment is continually being introduced which provides the capability for more precise land
levelling operations. One of the most significant advances has been the adaptation of laser control in land
levelling equipment. The equipment has made level basin irrigation particularly attractive since the final
field grade can be very precise. Comparisons with less precise techniques have clearly shown that
laser-levelled fields achieve better irrigation and production performance. Nevertheless, for most irrigated
agriculture, laser-controlled precision is unfeasible because of the high cost of such equipment unless a

6. Land levelling
large number of farmers form a cooperative or a government programme is started with subsidized land
levelling as one component in an effort to improve farm production.

Most small-scale farming operations rely on animal power or small mechanized equipment which an
individual can own and operate. As the irrigator waters his fields season after season he is able to observe
the locations of high and low spots on the field. Then as he prepares the fields between plantings, he tries
to move soil from the high spots to the low ones. Over a period of several years individual fields are
smoothed enough to be watered fairly well. Figures 62 and 63 show two examples of these operations. In
Figure 62, a farmer is preparing land for paddy and using the ponded water level on the field to direct him
to the high and low spots. Since this is a normal land preparation practice, it does not represent an extra
task for the irrigator. Figure 63 shows a similar operation using mechanized equipment for typical annual
crops and again one sees that the field preparation also readies the seed bed for planting. Beyond these
technologies one may observe various levels of mechanization and an array of implements. The one
feature common to most small-scale land levelling is the trial and error nature of the practices and the
long-term incorporation of land levelling with seed bed preparation. Another feature is that no technical or
engineering inputs are needed.
Figure 62. A typical land smoothing operation using animal power
Figure 63. Levelling and smoothing a field as part of tractor-based farming operations


Initially, the field should be studied and an overall irrigation strategy identified. Once accomplished, the
land levelling programme derived from traditional engineering practice can be initiated. The first step is to
establish the plane of the field. This involves placing a reference grid on the field, surveying the existing
topography of the field by establishing the elevations of the grid points, and calculating the new field
topography by adjusting the grid elevations to correspond to the desirable plane. This is the engineering
phase of the land levelling procedure. Once the surface design has been determined, a land levelling
operation begins. This is typically a private contractor utilizing his equipment to move the earth into the
new position on the field, and the adequacy of the land levelling is dependent on the skill of the equipment
operator.

6. Land levelling

Surveying and mapping the field involves setting a uniform grid system on the field and establishing the
field topography. This need not be a complicated procedure. One corner of the field can be chosen as a
starting point and the first stake can be located one-half grid spacing from either boundary. Then a row of
stakes can be measured and set using a transit or level and tape. The instrument is set up over the first
stake and sighted along a line parallel to the boundary. Usually this is accomplished by going to the
opposite edge and locating a stake one-half grid spacing from the edge. Then, using the instrument for
alignment, the first row of stakes is measured into place. With the instrument located over the same stake
and aligned along the first row, the next step is to turn the alignment 90° by either measuring a right
triangle or by using the instrument angle indicators if available. The new alignment is used to locate
another stake row along the other field axis. Each of the remaining stakes can be placed visually by
sighting against the two stakes at the field edges. The grid spacing can be set at convenient lengths so long
as it is square and consistent (this is not technically required but it simplifies the calculations). In the US,
the typical grid spacing is 100 feet by 100 feet (30.5 m by 30.5 m). However this would be too large in
many countries with small fields. It is suggested that the surveyor use a multiple of 10 m as a spacing and
select one that divides the field into at least 5 percent subareas.
The field stakes provide the basis of the field survey. The level or transit can be located in a central area
and rod readings taken from each stake position. It is generally advisable to locate a benchmark near the
field from which to reference the readings as elevations. In addition, readings taken from the location of
water supply structures are also useful for designing the head ditches, watercourses and drainage channels.
It is assumed that the basic principles of land surveying are known and practiced during this phase of the
land levelling operation.
An initial decision as to the method of surface irrigation will dictate field slope. Basins are designed to be
level in both field directions. Borders are similar in having zero cross-slope, but may have advance slopes
of up to 2 or 3 percent, depending on crop and soil conditions. Furrow irrigation systems work well with
advance slopes up to 1 to 3 percent and cross-slopes of 0.5 to 1.5 percent. If the average natural slopes are
greater than these ranges, terraces or benches should be planned.
There are several ways to compute the new field slope including some that are inspection methods
requiring some experienced judgment. A formal method, called the 'plane method,' will be used here.
The plane method is a simple least squares or linear regression fit of field elevations to a two-dimensional
plane. Subsequent adjustments are made in the elevation of the plane centroid to compensate for variable
cut/fill ratios. If the field has a basic X-Y orientation, the plane equation is written as:
E(X, Y) = AX + BY + C (117)
in which:
E = elevation of the X, Y coordinate;
A, B = regression coefficients; and
C = elevation of the origin or reference point for the calculations of field topography using
Eq. 117.
The first step in evaluating the constants, A, B and C, is to determine the weighted average elevations of
each grid point in the field. The purpose of the weighing is to adjust for any boundary stakes that represent
larger or smaller areas than given by the standard grid dimension. The weighing factor is defined as the

6. Land levelling
ratio of actual area represented by a grid point to the standard area. The grid point area is assumed to be
the proportional area surrounding the stake or other identification of the grid point elevation. The
weighing factor is:
(118)
where:
θ ij = weighing factor of the grid point identified as the ith stake row and the jth stake
column;
Aij = area represented by the (i, j) grid point; and
As = area represented by the standard grid dimension.
The next step is to determine the average elevation of each row and column. For the ith row, Ei, is:
(119)
in which:
N' = number of stake columns; and
Eij = elevation of the (i, j) coordinate found from field measurements E(X, Y).
A similar expression can be written for finding the average elevation of the jth stake column, Ej:
(120)
where N" is the number of stake rows.

The next step is to locate the centroid of the field with respect to the grid system. For convenience, an
origin can be located one grid spacing in each direction from the first stake position, i.e. the initial stake
position on the field. The distance from the origin to the centroid in the X dimension is found by:
(121)
where:
X = x distance from origin to centroid;
Xj = x distance from origin to the jth stake column position; and

6. Land levelling
(122)
Similarly,
(123)
in which:
Y = y distance from the origin to centroid;
Yi = y distance from origin to the ith stake row position; and
(124)
The fourth step is to compute a least squares line through the average row elevations in both field
directions. The slope of the best fit line through the average X-direction elevation (Ej) is A and is found
by:
(125)
For the best fit slope in the Y-direction, the slope, B, is.
(126)
Finally, the average field elevation, EF, can be found by summing either Ei or Ej and dividing by the
appropriate number of grid rows. This elevation corresponds to the elevation of the field centroid (X, Y).
Thus, Eq. 117 can be solved for C as follows:
C = EF - A X - B X (127)
An adjusted elevation for each stake can be computed with Equation 110 and compared to the measured
values. The differences are the necessary cuts or fills. Before these computations are undertaken, however,
the slopes in both field directions must be checked to see if they are within satisfactory limits. For
example, if the intended system is a border irrigation system, the cross-slope should be zero (A = 0) and
the cuts and fills would need to be based on this condition. A second note concerns the fact that cuts and
fills do not balance because of variations in soil density. This adjustment will be covered in a following

6. Land levelling
section.

In most cases, the best fit plane and the subsequent adjusted elevation will result in different total volumes
of cuts or fills. A simple and rapid calculation of these respective volumes can be made as follows.
(128)
and,
(129)
in which:
Vc = volume of cuts, m3;
Vf = volume of fills, m3;
A = grid area m or n, m3;
Cm = depth of cut at grid point m, in metres, and
Fn = depth of fill at grid point n, in metres.
The cut/fill ratio r is:

r = Vc / Vf (130)
and should be in the range of 1.1 to 1.5 depending on the soil type and its condition.
The necessity of having cut/fill ratios greater than one for land levelling operations stems from the fact
that in disturbing the soil, the density is changed (the fill soil is more dense because its structure has been
destroyed). Selecting a cut/fill ratio remains a matter of judgement. If the value arrived at by least squares
is not in the range of 1.1 to 1.5, the elevation of the field centroid, C, is raised or lowered until the value of
r is appropriate. This adjustment is determined by:
(131)
where r' is the cut/fill ratio required in the design.

Equations 130 and 131 assume that none of the 'cut' grid points become 'fill' points or vice-versa.
Consequently, in some cases it will be necessary to iterate a few times to get the proper cut/fill ratio.
Equation 128 is usually less formal than required for contracting purposes. Some more complete
estimators include the prismoidal formula, the 'average end area method,' and the 'four corners method.'
The 'four corners method' is simplest to use and is suggested by the USDA (1970). The formula for all
complete grid spacings is:

6. Land levelling
(132)
in which:
Ai = area of the grid square i, m2;
Nc = number of cuts at the four corners of the grid square; and
Cj and Fm = cut and fill depths in m, but they are taken as absolute values so they both have
the same sign, positive.
At the field edges and corners, if complete grid spacings are not present, the cut volume must be computed
separately. The procedure is to assume the elevations of the field boundaries are the same as the nearest
stake and would thereby have the same cut or fill dimensions. Equation 132 is then utilized with
appropriate Ai value corresponding to the actual edge area.

The engineering design derived from the procedures above results in a field design which should provide
the irrigator with a system that will satisfy his irrigation practices and yield efficient and uniform
waterings if managed properly. Between the design and the operable system is the land levelling operation
itself. Generally, a contractor must be retained to move the earth, after which the field topography is
checked and if necessary the contractor refines his job with additional work. The skill and efficiency of the
equipment operator is critical to how well the field levelling is finally accomplished. A good operator may
be able to provide a field grade within plus or minus 10 cm; a poor operator perhaps double this value.
The first of the practical problems is the arrangements between the irrigator and the contractor. The work
should be checked and fall within the 10 cm limits before it is accepted and reimbursed.
Land levelling is likely to be not only the most disruptive operation applied to the field but also the most
costly. One method of reducing cut volumes, and therefore the cost, is to subdivide the field into terraces
or benches. Usually, earthwork is minimized when the terrace runs parallel to the direction of highest field
slope but to be sure, the cut volumes should be checked with the alternative field layouts.
Operators develop field movement patterns based on their own judgement and experience. A cut-haul-fill
pattern of travel that maximizes the efficiency of the land levelling operation tends to be one in which the
routes are of nearly equal length. Such a strategy prevents the over-use of travel lanes and minimizes the
haul and return distances. Where manually controlled equipment is used, many operators establish a bench
mark grid over the field by cutting and filling strips on both sides of a stake to the desired grade. Then the
median areas can be levelled to grade to better precision. Good operators make cut and fill passes which
are relatively uniform and their equipment is seen to operate at fairly uniform speeds, particularly during
loading passes.
Earth may be used to raise the elevation of roadways, or prepare a raised pad for headland facilities. In the
computation setting field cuts and fills, the volume of the earth needed for these miscellaneous
requirements should be deducted in the cut/fill ratio calculation.

6. Land levelling
The topography of surface irrigated fields, even after levelling, is not a static feature of the land. Year to
year variations in tillage operations disturb the surface layers as well as shift their lateral position. The
loose soils may settle differently depending upon equipment travel or depths of irrigation water applied.
Consequently, a major land levelling operation will correct the macro-topographical problems but annual
levelling or planing is needed to maintain the field surface by correcting micro-topographical variations.

Booher (FAO, 1974) devotes a chapter in his manual on surface irrigation to land levelling. Included is an
example problem around which useful suggestions are made regarding the methods and equipment for
levelling the field into a workable surface irrigated field. The problem that is developed utilizes a different
approach to that suggested herein so it will be partially repeated for purposes of both illustration and
comparison.
The first six columns and the first eight rows of Booher's example field have been extracted and are shown
in Figures 64 and 65. The locations of the field boundaries have been changed relative to the grid system
to illustrate the importance of weighing grid point elevations based on the areas they represent. In the
following example the standard grid spacing is 20 m by 20 m and begins one-half spacing from the upper
left corner of the field (represented by the grid point [i, A] in Figure 65). The standard grid area is 400 m2,
but one will note that grid points adjacent to the right field boundary represent 500 m2. One point, the
lower right grid represents an area of 375 m2.
Figure 64. Example problem field layout

6. Land levelling
Figure 65. Initial field elevations in metres

6. Land levelling
The first step in the calculation of the revised field plane is to determine the grid point weighing factors
using Eq. 118. Using the standard area per point as 400 m2, the weighing coefficients, θ ij, are shown in
Figure 66. The row and column weights are the sum of the grid point weights and are shown to the left and
at the bottom of Figure 66.
Figure 66. Grid point weighing coefficients

6. Land levelling
Using the column and row weights, Eqs. 119 and 120 are used to calculate the average elevation of the
respective rows and columns. These data are included along the left and bottom of Figure 65.
The field centroid is calculated with Eqs. 121 to 124 using the distances from the origin and the row and
column weights. For the X coordinate of the centroid, this calculation is:
and for the Y coordinate:
Note that the origin is 10 m to the right and 10 m above the stake at grid position [i, A].
The next step is to run a linear regression through the average row and column elevations using Equations
125 and 126. These procedures are fairly standard on hand-held calculators and microcomputers so the

6. Land levelling
calculations will not be shown here. The slope of the field from right to left is 0.000373 (A) and that from
top to bottom is -0.002247 (B). It can also be mentioned that standard regression techniques will also yield
an intercept value representing the elevation with which the best fit line through the average elevations
will intercept the X and Y axis running through the origin. These intercepts can be ignored.
The final calculations involving the revised field plane involve the calculation of the C value in Eq. 117 as
outlined in the paragraph preceding Eq. 127. The average elevation at the centroid of the field is
determined by summing the average row or column elevations. This value is also shown in Figure 65 as
1.557 m. From Eq. 127, then:
C = 1.577 - 0.000373 * 72 - (-.002746 * 87.743) = 1.7911 m
The resulting equation of the field plane defined by the procedure so far is:
E(X, Y) = .000373 * X - .002746 * Y + 1.7911
If this relationship is used to recompute the elevations at each grid point, the cuts and fills are identified as
the positive (fills) or negative (cuts) differences between the computed elevations and the original
topography. Figure 67 shows these results as the upper number near the grid points.
Figure 67. First determination of cuts and fills for the example problem

6. Land levelling
In order for the earthwork to balance in the field after levelling, the volume of cuts should exceed the fills
by 10 to 30 percent. For the 6th row shown below, Eqs. 128 and 129 are evaluated as follows:
| +.11 +.03 -.01 -.01 -.02 0 |
vi | * * * * * *|

6. Land levelling
Volume of Cuts for Row vi = (-.01) * 400 + (-.01) * 400 + (-.02) * 400 = -16 m3
or since the sign is irrelevant, the cut volume along row 6 is 16 m3, and for the fills:
Volume of Fills for Row vi = 400 * (.11 + .03 + .000) = 56 m3
Determining the cuts and fills of each row and then summing yields a total cut volume of 627 m3 and a
total fill volume of 1007 m3. Dividing the cut volume by the fill volume gives a cut/fill ratio of about 0.62,
which of course is not satisfactory.
Assuming the cut/fill ratio should be about 1.3, Equation 131 can be used to recompute the elevation of
the field centroid, C. The change in centroid elevation is determined by summing the area of each cut
station times the depth of cut. There are 17 cut points in which the grid area is 400 m2, 2 involving the 500
m2 left boundary points, and 4 cuts along the 300 m grid points along the lower field boundary. Thus the
area summation in the denominator of Equation 124 is 9000 m2. The remainder of Equation 124 is then:
This calculation assumes that none of the previous fill locations become cut locations. To test this
assumption, 0.033 m is subtracted from each cut and fill depth in Figure 67 and the results are shown in
Figure 68. It is noted that 2 fill locations have become cut points.
Figure 68. Second determination of cuts and fills for the problem

6. Land levelling
Recomputing the volume of cuts from Eq. 128 and the fills from Eq. 129 yields the following cut/fill ratio
(Eq. 130):

6. Land levelling
This value is slightly more than the 1.3 assumed in adjusting the C value in Eq. 117 and reflects the
problem of grid points changing from cuts to fills (or vice versa in other cases). If the error had been
greater, another iteration would be suggested. Not in this case, however, and the final field plane is as
shown in Figure 68 with the subscript cuts and fills.
If the field is intended for borders and basins, the procedure is the same except that the A and/or B slopes
in Eq. 117 would be zero. Similarly, if the field is to be terraced, the procedure is applied separately to the
grid points in each terrace area.
The last engineering step is the formal computation of the volume of cuts for contractual purposes. This is
illustrated for the evaluation of Eq. 132 for the area between rows v and vi. The final cut/fill depths for
rows vii and viii are shown below.
v |* * * * * * |
| +.28 +.18 +.05 +.01 0 +.05 |
| |
| |
vi | * * * * * * |
| +.08 -.01 -.04 -.04 -.05 -.04 |
It is assumed that the depth of fill at the left boundary is .28 m at row v and .08 m at row vi. Similarly, the
fill and cut at the right boundary are .05 m at row v and -.04 at row vi respectively. Equation 132 is
evaluated as follows:
Grid Points Computations Total
| *
+.28 +.28
= 0 m3
| *
+.08 +.08
* *
+.28 +.18
= .02 m3
* *
+.08 -.01
* *
+.018 +.05
= .89 m3
* *

6. Land levelling
-.01 -.04
* *
+.05 +.01
= 4.57 m3
* *
-.04 -.04
* *
+.01 +.0
= 8.10 m3
* *
-.04 -.05
* *
0 +.05
= 5.79 m3
* *
-.05 -.04
* |
+.05 +.05
= 4.44 m3
* |
-.04 -.04
Total 23.81 m3
Repeating these calculations for each grid area yields a total cut volume of 946.02 m3 which is very close
to the 959 m3 estimated with Eq. 128.
It is perhaps worthwhile mentioning at this point that microcomputer programmes have been written to
perform land levelling computations as illustrated above. Some of these are commercially available, some
can be acquired by tracking down the programmer.

The advent of the laser-controlled land levelling equipment has marked one of the most significant
advances in surface irrigation technology. One such system is shown in Figure 69. It has four essential
elements: (1) the laser emitter; (2) the laser sensor; (3) the electronic and hydraulic control system; and (4)
the tractor and grading implement.

6. Land levelling
Figure 69. Two views of land levelling equipment using laser control systems

6. Land levelling
The laser emission device, like that pictured in Figure 70, involves a battery operated laser beam generator
which rotates at relatively high speed on an axis normal to the field plane. This rotating beam thereby
effectively creates a plane of laser light above the field which can be used as the levelling reference rather
than the elevation survey at discrete grid points in conventional land levelling techniques. Various beam
generators are equipped with self-adjustment mechanisms that allow the plane of the beam to be aligned in
any longitudinal or latitudinal slope desired. This reference plane of laser light is an extremely
advantageous factor in the levelling operation because it is not affected by the earth movement, does not
require a field survey to establish the high and low spots, and does not require the operator to judge the
magnitude of cuts and fills. The distance between the laser beam and the earth surface is defined such that
deviations from this distance become the cuts and fills. With laser systems, there is little or no need for the
exhaustive engineering calculations of the conventional approach. The cost of levelling is usually
contracted on the basis of money per equipment hour. The laser emitter is generally located on a tripod or
other tower-like structure on or near the field and at an elevation such that the laser beam rotates above
any obstructions on the field as well as the levelling equipment itself. The beam is targeted and received
by a light sensor mounted on a mast attached to the land grading implement. The sensor is actually a series
of detectors situated vertically so that as the grading implement moves up or down, the light is detected
above or below the centre detector. This information is transmitted to the control system which actuates

6. Land levelling
the hydraulic system to raise or lower the implement until the light again strikes the centre detector. It is in
this manner that the sensor on the mast is continually aligned with the plane on the laser beam and thereby
references the moving equipment with the beam. It is important to note that the sensitivity of the laser
sensor system is at least 10 to 50 times more precise than the visual judgement and manual hydraulic
control of an operator on the tractor. Consequently, the land levelling operation is correspondingly more
accurate. The skill of the operator is substantially less critical to the levelling which allows farmers and
other personnel access to the land grading equipment.
Figure 70. Close up view of laser beam emmitter
The electronic and hydraulic control systems generally have two operating modes. In the first, or
observation mode, the mast itself moves up or down according to the undulations in the field as the
operator drives the equipment over the field in a grid-like fashion. The monitor in the tractor yields
elevation data from which the operator can determine average field elevations and slopes. In other words,
the system operates as a self-contained surveying system. In this mode, the blade of the grading implement
is fixed in place and only the sensor mast moves. In the second mode, or planing mode, the mast position
is fixed relative to the implement blade which is then raised or lowered in response to the land topography.
The beam plane is located the appropriate distance above the field centroid and at the desired slopes. By
adjusting the height of the mast sensor relative to this plane and the centroid, the cutting and filling is
accomplished simply by driving the tractor over the field. However, in many cases, the depth of cuts will
exceed the depth which can be cut with the power of the tractor and the operator must override the
automatic controls in order to keep the equipment operating.
The fourth element of the levelling system is the tractor - grading implement combination. This equipment
is generally standard agricultural tractors and land graders in which the hydraulic and control systems
have been modified to operate under the supervision of the electronic controller supplied with the laser
emitter and sensor devices. The tractor needs to be carefully selected so that it is not under-powered and
its hydraulic system is strong enough to work with the laser-imposed frequency of movements and
adjustments. The grading implement can be as simple as a land plane which scrapes the earth and moves
only as much as can be pushed in front of the blade or a complex piece of equipment which loads and
carries earth. The former is used primarily for small levelling jobs, smoothing and repeat grading. The
latter is usually better for initial levelling where cuts are larger and in the preparation of level basins where
the cuts are also larger than in bordered or furrowed fields.
As a final note on levelling in general and laser levelling is particular, it is probable that the importance of
accurate field grading has been under estimated. The precision improves irrigation uniformity and
efficiency and as a result the productivity of water and land. On large fields, the improved productivity has
been shown to pay economic dividends that easily exceed the cost of the levelling. However, the
equipment is expensive and quite beyond all but the largest of farmers. In the developing countries,
laser-guided equipment is being demonstrated and tested. There remains the solution as to how such
equipment can be made useful for the small farmer.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0k.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0k.jpg [2/17/2003 12:42:20 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0l.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0l.jpg [2/17/2003 12:42:36 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0m.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0m.jpg [2/17/2003 12:42:53 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0n.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0n.jpg [2/17/2003 12:43:13 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0o.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0o.jpg [2/17/2003 12:43:31 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0p.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0p.jpg [2/17/2003 12:43:43 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0q.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0q.jpg [2/17/2003 12:44:03 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0r.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0r.jpg [2/17/2003 12:44:15 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0s.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0s.jpg [2/17/2003 12:44:35 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0t.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0t.jpg [2/17/2003 12:44:49 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0u.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0u.jpg [2/17/2003 12:45:03 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0v.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0v.jpg [2/17/2003 12:45:12 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0w.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0w.jpg [2/17/2003 12:45:22 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0x.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0x.jpg [2/17/2003 12:45:42 PM]

7.1 Background
7.2 Surge flow
7.3 Cablegation
7.1 Background
Surface irrigation is the historical choice of irrigators worldwide and will undoubtedly remain so. Surface
practices have for the most part changed very little in centuries. Two questions arise in this connection.
First, is there a need to do things differently, and second, is there a means to do so?
The stimuli to discover and implement improved surface irrigation practices are numerous and varied.
Perhaps the most important are population growth, urbanization and industrialization because existing
water resources have largely been committed for these uses. Water shortages are often addressed as
arbitrary restrictions in supply but it would be wiser to introduce practices to conserve water. Since
agriculture usually imposes the largest water demand, improved irrigation efficiency should become the
centrepiece of conservation strategies. Energy resources and labour availability are declining in most
countries. Reduced energy supplies may tend to restrict the use of sprinkler and trickle systems. A lack of
labour will prompt the adaptation and use of automation as part of the operation of irrigation systems. The
immediate and long-term futures of most irrigated regions also appear to depend heavily on improved
irrigation practices.
The probability that major technical or operational innovations for existing surface irrigation systems will
be made is low. Over the thousands of years during which surface irrigation has been practiced, the
alternatives for diverting the water onto the field have been clearly identified. There are, however, four
areas where significant innovations have or will be made; these are: (1) precision land levelling in order
for water movements to be more uniform and manageable; (2) automation for headland facilities; (3)
supervisory and adaptive or feedback control systems; and (4) water supply control and management.
In precision land levelling, the most important innovation has been the laser guidance and control system
applied to mechanized land levelling equipment. Precision has increased by at least a factor of 10 and
results are impressive in terms of efficiency and production. This topic was discussed in Section 6 and
need not be mentioned here except to conclude that the technology's expansion into the developing
countries will make a significant improvement in surface irrigation.
Automation of surface irrigation headland facilities is difficult. Each irrigation behaves differently which

limits the standardization necessary for effective automation. Thus, a great deal of research and
development notwithstanding, surface irrigation automation has not been widely successful. However, a
series of new concepts has emerged in the last decade that offers a better opportunity. Some of the
important US references on automation include Haise et al. (1980), Dedrick and Erie (1978), and
Humpherys (1969, 1971, and 1983). Perhaps one of the more interesting is the 'surge flow' concept
developed at Utah State University. For many years automation has attempted to manage discharge
directly. These efforts have not been very successful, but the surge flow concept manages discharge
indirectly by regulating on an off time and by so doing has made the management problem tractable. A
similar innovation involving indirect flow regulation is 'cablegation' described by Kemper et al. (1985).
Both surge flow and cablegation will be described below to illustrate the idea of new approaches to
automation. They are by no means the only automating measures now available, but are illustrated here to
show the reader two alternatives for improving water control by controlling time rather than discharge.
Control systems and water supply management are opportunities to deal with the uncertainty associated
with variable infiltration and will be considered separately below.
7.2 Surge flow

In 1979, Stringham and Keller (1979) reported a new approach for automating surface irrigation systems
in which problems with slow advance and excessive surface runoff occur. The approach was called 'surge
flow' to describe the hydraulic regime of the flow over the field. In 1986, a US patent was granted to
Professors Keller and Stringham of Utah State University for the concept. A trademark registration was
issued for the term 'Surge Flow' although by the time of writing this bulletin, the term has become
widespread as a surface irrigation water management concept. Consequently, the use of 'surge flow' in this
guide will not attempt to distinguish the proper use.
Under the surge flow regime, an irrigation is accomplished through a series of individual pulses of water
onto the field such that, instead of the typically found advance-wetting-depletion-recession trajectory
shown in Figure 1 in normal surface irrigation conditions, it looks like that in Figure 71. Thus instead of
providing a continuous flow onto the field for say six hours, a surge flow regime would apply six 1 hour
'surges'. Each surge is characterized by a cycle time and a cycle ratio. The cycle time is comprised of an
on-time and an off-time related by the cycle ratio which is the ratio of on-time to the cycle time. The cycle
time can range from as little as one minute to as much as several hours. Cycle ratios typically range from
0.25 to 0.75. By regulating these two parameters, a wide range of surge flow regimes can be produced
which can significantly improve irrigation efficiency and uniformity.
Figure 71. Typical surge flow advance-recession trajectory


It is perhaps worth noting that surge flow, while appearing quite simple, is nevertheless an advanced
irrigation technology.- The design and evaluation require a level of hydraulics beyond this guide and the
equipment needed to implement surge flow fully is often feasible only in large farming operations. This is
not to imply that surge flow cannot or should not be considered in developing countries, only that special
adaptations will be necessary.

Since its introduction in 1979, surge flow has been tested on nearly every type of surface irrigation system
and over the full range of soil types. Results vary depending on the selection of cycle time, cycle ratio and
discharge. But in nearly every case, the intermittent application significantly reduces infiltration rates
and/or substantially reduces the time necessary for the infiltration rates to approach the final or 'basic' rate.
To effect infiltration rates, the flow must completely drain from the field between surges. If the period
between surges is too short, the individual surges overlap or coalesce and the infiltration effects are
generally not created.
Research shows that the surging effect on infiltration is primarily due to the consolidation of the thin layer
of fine material deposited in the bottom of the furrow or on the border or basin surface by the destruction
of soil aggregate and erosion caused by the water flow. As the water drains from the field between surges,
the negative pressure that develops in the soil consolidates the surface layer, collapsing the larger pores,
attracting small particles into the lattice between larger particles, and orienting clay and silt into a layered
structure. As a result the permeability of the field surface is reduced and thereafter infiltration rates are
lowered. The reductions in surface permeability seem to be more pronounced in sandy loam soils than in
clay loam soils. The rate of aggregate wetting and erosion affect the thickness and extent of the surface
layer.
Evidence of the consolidation of the fine layer between surges can usually be observed in the field 5-15
minutes after the water has completely drained from the field. Tension cracks form between the layers of
fine material and those less disturbed by the flow. When water is again introduced into the field, sediments
are deposited in these cracks as they begin to swell shut, thereby further compacting the surface layer.
The effect of having reduced the infiltration rates over at least a portion of the field is that advance rates
are increased. Generally, less water is required to complete the advance phase by surge flow than with
continuous flow. Surging is often the only way to complete the advance phase in high intake conditions
like those following planting or cultivation. As a result, intake opportunity times over the field are more
uniform. However, since results will vary among soils, type of surface irrigation, and the surge flow
configuration, tests should be conducted in areas where experience is lacking in order to establish the
feasibility and format for using surge flow.

The hydraulic regime of a surge flow system is composed of two parts: (1) the distinct surge phase; and
(2) the coalesced surge phase. The distinct surge phase is noted above. Each pulse of water advances and
recedes over a portion or all of the field as shown in Figure 71. This phase is used during the advance

phase for the entire field, i.e. during the time needed to wet the entire surface of the field. Surges during
the distinct phase must be of sufficient duration and discharge to fill cracks and depression storage along
the pathway so that there is enough volume and energy to continue advancing at an adequate rate over the
succeeding field section, but short enough to limit cumulative intake and maximize or minimize the
infiltration reduction.
In the coalesced phase, the individual surges run together, overlap and result in a nearly steady flow in the
downstream sections of the field. In this situation, the flow rate below the point of convergence is about
one-half of the instantaneous rate at the field inlet. If the cycle ratios are reduced, the flow in the
continuous flow reaches will be correspondingly reduced. It is therefore possible to adjust the cycle ratios
until practically no surface runoff occurs. The reader thus immediately sees the coalesced phase as being
exactly equivalent to the cutback phase described in previous sections for furrow irrigation. Indeed, the
original research of Stringham and Keller (1979) was directed toward the development of an alternative
cutback method. The advantages of surge flow during the advance phase came as a welcome surprise.
Thus, by combining the distinct and coalesced phases of surge flow into one system, the solution of the
long-standing surface irrigation dilemma is available, a high flow for the advance phase and a low flow for
the wetting phase.

There are basically two field systems commercially available for surge flow, both limited at present to
furrow irrigation. The first is shown in Figure 72 and will be described here as the 'dual line' system.
Water is supplied to the field generally through a buried pipeline which connects to surface gated pipe
through a riser and valve. The valve, shown schematically in Figure 73, is automated to switch the flow
between two sets. Surging is accomplished by alternating the flow between the two sets. When these two
are finished, the entire flow is directed to another riser and valve by the irrigator. The dual line system is
in widespread use in the USA where irrigators already have a gated pipe furrow irrigation system in place.
They only need to purchase the automated valve to implement fully a surge flow regime. The costs for
these systems where the distribution and gated pipe already exist can be as low as US$50 per hectare.
Figure 72. Schematic diagram of a dual line surge flow furrow irrigation system (redrawn from
Humpherys, 1987)

Figure 73. Configuration of one automated surge flow valve for the dual line system (redrawn from
Humpherys, 1987)
The second field configuration is the single line system shown in Figure 74. A single gated pipe is
connected to the water supply and individual outlets along with pipe are controlled by small hydraulic,
pneumatic, or electric valves which are organized in banks and sets as shown and controlled by a single
controller.
Figure 74. Schematic of the single line surge flow system (redrawn from Humpherys, 1987)

The single line system is economic for new systems where all of the field facilities need to be provided. It
also tends to be more economic where only the gated pipe is available and the decision of the irrigator is
whether or not to put in a buried supply line and then use the bi-directional valve or to put automated gates
on the gated pipe and use the single line concept. In many cases, the single line system will be more
flexible than a dual line system in terms of irrigating an entire field.
Adaptation for border and basin systems can be made by automating existing control structures and
perhaps by a new control structure like that of Ismail and Westesen (1984). Single or dual line surge flow
systems can also be utilized where open channel systems are present (Testezlaf et al. 1985).
7.3 Cablegation
The cablegation system illustrated graphically in Figure 75 was developed by the Soil and Water
Management Research Unit of the US Department of Agriculture's laboratory at Kimberly, Idaho (Kemper
et al. 1985). The system involves a pipe with fixed or adjustable outlets which is placed on a precise
gradient. An adjustable plug is placed inside the pipe and connected by a cable to a winch-type unit at the
pipe inlet. The winch unit includes a speed control feature.
Figure 75. Schematic diagram of a cablegation furrow irrigation system
Hydraulically, a cablegation system operates in the free surface flow regime upstream of the travelling
plug except immediately adjacent to it. In the region near the plug, the flow is slowed and expands to fill
the pipe. Thus, in the uniform open channel flow region of the pipe, the water surface is below the outlets
which are therefore shut off from the field. Near the plug, the water level rises above the outlets to supply
the field. The unique feature of the cablegation system is the high outlet flows nearer the plug. This feature
gives the advance phase discharge needed to facilitate field coverage. As the plug moves downstream, the
outlet flow is cutback to allow soaking time without causing excessive surface runoff.
Cablegation and surge flow are two examples of an alternative approach to managing surface irrigation.
After years of trying to regulate discharges unsuccessfully, these two methods accomplish this end by
managing time and equipment speed.

The most limiting problem associated with design and management of all types of surface irrigation
systems is the fact that the infiltration characteristics are unpredictable. They change after each irrigation,
from season to season, and following each cultivation. They change over a period of years as the content
of organic matter changes, as salinity in both the water and soil changes, and as irrigation methods are
altered. It should be clear that if infiltration rates were predictable, the time of advance and irrigation
efficiency would be quite predictable and this would allow much better management and automation.
The premise of the adaptive control system is that infiltration and therefore advance time, cutoff time, and
application efficiency can be forecast during the early stages of the irrigation and that actions can be taken
shortly thereafter if the outcome of present settings is not going to be adequate. Using a volume balance
hydraulic concept similar to that discussed in Section 4.3.4, Burt et al. (1982) outlined a procedure in
which infiltration coefficients could be deduced from rate of advance during the first watering set and then
used to refine the set size, flow and times during subsequent sets to improve efficiency substantially.

Reddell and Latimer (1986) took the next step and coupled the volume balance inference of infiltration to
real time conditions with a microcomputer located near the field in which sensor readings are processed to
determine when the advance phase will be completed and how the system should be set for the cutback
flow. Work soon to be reported by Busman (1987) and others now working on the computer software and
field verification will indicate the application of advance hydraulic models to the same problem except the
infiltration will be deduced from advance sensor readings near the field inlet. This will allow settings to be
changed to improve the performance of irrigation on the current set as well as those subsequent.

It is clear from evaluating hydraulic principles that if the discharge onto a field varies from the design or
values given by the manager, the performance will be significantly affected. If the discharge is reduced, it
is likely that uniformity will suffer and deep percolation losses will increase. If the flow is unexpectedly
increased, runoff losses will increase or ponding; on the field surface will be excessive. When the water
supply is uncertain, irrigators are reluctant to invest heavily in costly agricultural inputs like high-yielding
seed varieties, fertilizers and cultivation practices. When water deliveries to the farm are not timely, crop
yields tend to decline due to crop stress or overwatering.
The irrigator usually has very little actual control of the problems noted above unless his water supply is
from a well, he is near the headworks of an irrigation project, or he is very influential in the operation and
maintenance of the irrigation facilities upstream of his farm. Thus, an overriding concern in developing
efficient and effective surface irrigation systems is the operation of the irrigation project itself. The
management of the collection, storage and conveyance systems in a project is a critical factor in the
performance and production of the surface irrigation system at the farm level. To ignore this linkage is to
invite low production, waterlogging and salinity, pollution of both surface and subsurface water resources,
poverty of the agricultural sector, and numerous other well-known irrigation problems. Yet, this linkage
has rarely if ever been established effectively, and as one would expect, the problems are easy to identify.
Irrigation project management for improved on-farm irrigation and efficiency is beyond the scope of this
guide, but it brings into focus the future direction of water management. The technical principles of
irrigation are fairly well developed, understood, and modelled. Most research and development efforts are
aimed at refining and expanding engineering, soil and plant science, and economic knowledge of
individual processes and interactions that are already well defined. The weakness therefore in irrigation
science and application lies primarily in the management of the irrigation system as a whole and not the
design and operation of the irrigation system's individual components (fields, farms, canals and
watercourses, reservoirs, dams and headworks, etc.). The hydraulics of surface irrigation, for example,
continue to receive research attention even though the fundamental relationships have been established
long since. It is important that this research continue in-order that the application of the research be made
more accurate and universal.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0y.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0y.jpg [2/17/2003 12:46:02 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0z.jpg
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0z.jpg [2/17/2003 12:46:05 PM]


References
References
Ackers, P., W.R. White, J.A. Perkins and A.J. Harrison. 1978. Weirs and Flumes for Flow Measurement.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
Bennett, R.S. 1972. Cutthroat flume discharge relations. MS Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado. Unpublished document.
Bondurant, J.A. 1957. Developing a furrow infiltrometer. Agric. Engineering pp. 602604.
Bos, M.G., Repogle, J.A. and Clemmens, A.J. 1985. Flow Measuring Flumes for Open Channel Systems.
Wiley, New York. 321p.
Bos, M.G. 1976. Discharge measurement structures. Publication 20, International Institute for Land
Reclamation and Improvement (ILRI), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Burt, C.M., Robb, G.A. and Hanon, A. 1982. Rapid evaluation of furrow irrigation efficiencies. Paper
82-2537 presented at the Winter Meeting of ASAE, Chicago, Illinois.
Busman, J.D. 1987. Optimizing control of surface irrigation using concurrent evaluation of infiltration.
PhD Dissertation, Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Unpublished document. 209p.
Dedrick, A.R. and Erie, L.J. 1978. Automation of on-farm irrigation turnouts utilizing jack-gates. Trans.
ASAE 21(1) 92-96.
Elliott, R.L. and Walker, W.R. 1982. Field evaluation of furrow infiltration and advance functions.
Trans. ASAE, 25(2):396-400.
FAO. 1974. Surface irrigation, by L.J. Booher. FAO Agricultural Development Paper No. 95. Rome.
160p.
FAO. 1975. Small hydraulic structures, Vol. 1 and 2, by D.B. Kraatz and V.I.K. Mahajan. Irrigation and
Drainage Papers 26/1 and 26/2, Rome. 407p and 293p, respectively.
FAO. 1977. Crop water requirements (Revised Edition), by J. Doorenbos and W.O. Pruitt. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 24, Rome. 144p.
Garton, J.E. 1966. Designing an automatic cut-back furrow irrigation system. Oklahoma Agricultural
Experiment Station, Bulletin B-651, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Gharbi, A. 1984. Effect of flow fluctuations on free-draining and sloping furrow and border irrigation
systems. MS Thesis, Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Unpublished document. 123p.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0a.htm (1 of 4) [2/17/2003 12:46:10 PM]

References
Haise, H.R., Donnan, W.W., Phelan, J.T., Lawhon, L.F., and Shockley, D.G. 1956. The use of cylinder
infiltrometers to determine the intake characteristics of irrigated soils. Publ. ARS 41-7, Agricultural
Research Service and Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington DC.
Haise, H.R., Kruse, E.G., Payne, M.L,. and Duke, H.R. 1980. Automation of surface irrigation: 15 years
of USDA research and development at Fort Collins, Colorado. USDA Production Research Report No.
179. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Hart, W.E., Collins, H.J., Woodward, G., and Humpherys, A.J. 1980. Design and operation of gravity on
surface systems, Chapter 13, In: Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems. ASAE Monograph
Number 3, St. Joseph, Michigan. 829p.
Humpherys, A.S. 1969. Mechanical structures for farm irrigation. J. Irrig. and Drainage Div., ASCE,
95(IR4):463-479.
Humpherys, A.S. 1971. Automatic furrow irrigation systems. Trans. ASAE 14(3):446-470.
Humpherys, A.S. . Automated Air-Powered irrigation Butterfly Valves. Trans. ASAE 26(4):1135-1139.
Humpherys, A.S. 1987. Surge flow surface irrigation: Section 3, Equipment. Final report of Western
Regional Project W-163, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
106p.
Ismail, S.M. and Westesen, G.L. 1984. Surge flow border irrigation using an automatic gate. Paper
84-2069 presented at the Winter Meeting of ASAE, Chicago, Illinois.
Jensen, M.E. (ed.) 1973. Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation Water Requirements. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York. 215p.
Kemper, W.D., Kincaid, D.C., Worstell, R.V., Heinemann, W.H., and Trout, T.J. 1985. Cablegation
system for irrigation: description, design, installation, and performance. USDA-ARS Pub. 21, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Kincaid, D.C. and Heermann, D.F. 1974. Scheduling irrigations using a programmable calculator.
USDA, Agricultural Research Service, ARS-NC-12. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Kindsvater, C. E. and R.W. Carter. 1957. Discharge characteristics of rectangular thin-plate weirs. J.
Hydraulics Div. ASCE, 83(HY6), Paper 1453.
Kundu, S.S. and Skogerboe, G.V. 1980. Field evaluation methods for measuring basin irrigation
performance. Technical Report No. 59, Water Management Research Project, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ley, T.W. 1980. Sensitivity of furrow irrigation performance to field and operation variables. MS Thesis,
Department of Agricultural and Chemical Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado. Unpublished document. 174p.
Malano, H.M. 1982. Comparison of the infiltration processes under continuous and surge flow. MS
Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Unpublished document.
Marr, J.C. 1967. Grading land for surface irrigation. Circular 408, California Agricultural Experiment

References
Station, University of California, Davis, California.

Merriam, J.L. 1960. Field method of approximating soil moisture for irrigation. Trans. ASAE 3(1):31-32.
Merriam, J.L. and Keller, J. 1978. Farm irrigation system evaluation: A guide for management.
Department of Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Reddell, D.L. and Latimer, E.A. 1986. Advance rate feedback irrigation system (ARFIS). Paper 86-2578
presented at the Winter Meeting of ASAE, Chicago, Illinois.
Salazar, L.J. 1977. Spatial distribution of applied water in surface irrigation. MS Thesis, Department of
Agricultural Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Unpublished document.
154p.
Shatanawi, M.R. and Strelkoff, T. 1984. Management contours for border irrigation. J. Irrig. and
Drainage Div., ASCE, 110(4):393-399.
Shen, J. 1960. Discharge characteristics of triangular thin-plate weirs. Water Supply Paper 1617B US
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Skogerboe, G.V., Hyatt, M.L., Anderson, R.K., and Eggleston, K.O. 1967. Design and calibration of
submerged open channel flow measurement structures: Part 3, Cutthroat flumes. Report WG31-4, Utah
Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Skogerboe, G.V., Somoray, V.T., and Walker, W.R. 1971. Check-drop-energy dissipator structures in
irrigation systems. Water Management Technical Report No. 9, Water Management Research Project,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Strelkoff, T. 1977. Algebraic computation of flow in border irrigation. J. Irrig. and Drainage Div., ASCE,
IR3(103):357-377.
Strelkoff, T. and Katapodes, N.D. 1977. Border irrigation hydraulics with zero-inertia. J. Irrig. and
Drainage Div., ASCE, 103(IR3):325-342.
Strelkoff, T. and Shatanawi, M.R. 1984. Normalized graphs of border irrigation performance. J. Irrig.
and Drainage Div., ASCE, 110(4):359-374.
Stringham, G.E. and Keller, J. 1979. Surge flow for automatic irrigation. Proc. ASCE Irrigation and
Drainage Specialty Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Testezlaf, R., Garton, J.E., Cudrak, A.J., and Elliott, R.L. 1985. An open ditch surge flow furrow
irrigation system. Paper 85-2069 Presented at the Winter Meeting of ASAE, East Lansing, Michigan.
US Bureau of Reclamation. 1967. Water Measurement Manual. Second Edition - Revised Reprint, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC. 327p.
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1967. National Engineering Handbook,
Section 15, Chapter 3, Planning farm irrigation systems. US Government Printing Office, Washington
DC.
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1970. National Engineering Handbook,
Section 15, Chapter 12, Land leveling. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

References
van Bavel, C.H.M., P.R. Nixon, and V.L. Hauser. 1963. Soil moisture measurement with the neutron
method. Publ. ARS41-70. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington
DC., June.
Walker, W.R. 1978. Identification and initial evaluation of irrigation return flow models. Report
EPA-600/2-78-144, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, Oklahoma.
Walker, W.R. and Skogerboe, G.V. 1987. Surface Irrigation: Theory and Practice. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 386p.
Yitayew, M. and Fangmeier, D.D. 1984. Dimensionless runoff curves for irrigation borders. J. Irrig. and
Drainage Div., ASCE, 110(2):179-191.


http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e5i.gif
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e5i.gif [2/17/2003 12:46:17 PM]

Appendix I - Fortran 77 surface irrigation design program
Appendix I - Fortran 77 surface irrigation

design program
A diskette copy of this program source and executable codes for IBM PC and compatible
microcomputers is available from the FAO. The program requires at least 256k bytes of ram memory. It
can be utilized from either a fixed or floppy disk drive and is written to utilize only 80 x 25 text mode
screen features.
FAO does not warrant or guarantee this software for specific purpose. The user assumes full
responsibility for its application. The diskettes supplied by the FAO will not be protected and may be
duplicated and distributed as desired.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0b.htm [2/17/2003 12:46:20 PM]


1. Irrigation practice and water management, 1971 (Ar** E** F** S**) Rev. 1. Irrigation practice and
water management, 1984 (E*)
2. Irrigation canal lining (New edition (1977) available in E, F and S in the FAO Land and Water
Development Series)
3. Design criteria for basin irrigation systems, 1971 (E**)
4. Village irrigation programmes - a new approach in water economy, 1971 (E** F**)
5. Automated irrigation, 1971 (E** F** S**)
6. Drainage of heavy soils, 1971 (E** F* S**)
7. Salinity seminar, Baghdad, 1971 (E** F*)
8. Water and the environment, 1971 (E** F** S**)
9. Drainage materials, 1972 (E** F** S**)
10. Integrated farm water management, 1971 (E** F** S**)
11. Planning methodology seminar, Bucharest, 1972 (E** F**)
12. Farm water management seminar, Manila, 1972 (E**)
13. Water-use seminar, Damascus. 1972 (E** F**)
14. Trickle irrigation, 1973 (E** F** S**)
15. Drainage machinery, 1973 (E** F**)
16. Drainage of salty soils, 1973 (C** E** F** S**)
17. Man's influence on the hydrological cycle, 1973 (E** F** S**)
18. Groundwater seminar, Granada, 1973 (E** F* S*)
19. Mathematical models in hydrology, 1978 (E*)
20. Water laws in Moslem countries, Vol. 1, 1973 (E** F*)
20. Water laws in Moslem countries, Vol. 2,1978 (E* F*)
21. Groundwater models, 1973 (E*)
22. Water for agriculture, 1973 (E** F** S**)
23. Simulation methods in water development, 1974 (E* F** S**)
24. Crop water requirements (Revised), 1977 (C** E* F* S*)
25. Effective rainfall, 1974 (C** E** F** S**)
26. Small hydraulic structures (Vols. 1 and 2), 1975 (E* F* S*)
27. Agro-meteorological field stations, 1976 (E* F** S**)
28. Drainage testing, 1976 (E* F* S*)
29. Rev. 1. Water quality for agriculture, 198 (C** E* F* S*)
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0c.htm (1 of 2) [2/17/2003 12:46:22 PM]

30. Self-help wells, 1977 (E*)

31. Groundwater pollution, 1979 (C** E* S*)
32. Deterministic models in hydrology, 1979 (E*)
33. Yield response to water, 1979 (C** E* F* S*)
34. Corrosion and encrustation in water wells, 1980 (E*)
35. Mechanized sprinkler irrigation, 1982 (C* E* F* S*)
36. Localized irrigation, 1980 (Ar** C* E* F* S*)
37. Arid zone hydrology, 1980 (C* E*)
38. Drainage design factors, 1980 (Ar* C* E* F* S*)
39. Lysimeters, 1982 (C* E* F* S*)
40. Organization, operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes, 1982 (C*** E* F* S***)
41. Environmental management for vector control in rice fields, 1984 (E* F* S*)
42. Consultation on irrigation in Africa, 1986 (E* F*)
43. Water lifting devices, 1986 (E*)
44. Design and optimization of irrigation distribution networks, 1988 (E* F***)
45. Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems, 1989 (E*)
Availability: November 1989

Ar - Arabic
C - Chinese
E - English
F - French
S - Spanish
* Available
** Out of print
*** In preparation
The FAO Technical Papers can be purchased locally through FAO sales agents or directly from
Distribution and Sales Section, FAO, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e0c.htm (2 of 2) [2/17/2003 12:46:22 PM]

FAO 45 1989 Guideline For Design and Evaluation of Surface Irrigation System

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

FAO 45 1989 Guideline For Design and Evaluation of Surface Irrigation System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

Guidelines for designing and evaluating

FAO IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE PAPER 45

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/T0231E00.htm (1 of 6) [2/17/2003 12:33:53 PM]

1. The practice of irrigation

1.1 The perspective and objectives of irrigation

1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of surface irrigation

2. Surface irrigation systems

2.1 Introduction to surface irrigation

2.2 Surface irrigation methods

2.2.1 Basin irrigation

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/T0231E00.htm (2 of 6) [2/17/2003 12:33:53 PM]

2.2.4 Uncontrolled flooding

2.3 Requirements for optimal performance

2.3.1 Inlet discharge control

2.4 Surface irrigation structures

2.4.1 Diversion structures

3.1 Field topography and configuration

3.2.1 Evapotranspiration and drainage requirements

3.3.1 Infiltration functions

3.4 Flow measurement

3.4.1 Cutthroat flumes

3.5 Field evaluation

3.5.1 Advance phase

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/T0231E00.htm (3 of 6) [2/17/2003 12:33:53 PM]

4.1 Objectives of evaluation

4.1.1 Field data

4.2 Performance measures

4.2.1 Application uniformity

4.3 Intermediate analysis of field data

4.4 System evaluation

4.4.1 Furrow irrigation evaluation procedure

4.5 General alternatives for improvement

4.6.1 Field infiltration characteristics

5.1 Objective and scope of design

5.2.1 Preliminary design

5.3 Computation of advance and intake opportunity time

5.3.1 Common design computations

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/T0231E00.htm (4 of 6) [2/17/2003 12:33:53 PM]

5.4.2 Design procedure for furrow cutback systems

5.5 Border irrigation design

5.5.1 Design of open-end border systems

5.6 Basin irrigation design

5.6.1 An example of basin design

6.1 The importance of land preparations

6.3.1 Initial considerations

6.4 Laser land levelling

7.2.1 Effects of surging on infiltration

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/T0231E00.htm (5 of 6) [2/17/2003 12:33:53 PM]

FAO irrigation and drainage papers

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/T0231E00.htm (6 of 6) [2/17/2003 12:33:53 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e01.htm [2/17/2003 12:33:59 PM]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e02.htm [2/17/2003 12:34:03 PM]

1. The practice of irrigation

1.1 The perspective and objectives of irrigation

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e03.htm (1 of 7) [2/17/2003 12:34:09 PM]

1.2 Irrigation methods and their selection

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e03.htm (2 of 7) [2/17/2003 12:34:09 PM]

1.2.3 Topographical characteristics

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0231E/t0231e03.htm (3 of 7) [2/17/2003 12:34:09 PM]

1.2.5 Water supply

1.2.7 Social influences

1.2.8 External influences