COMPARISON OF THE CONVENTIONAL PIPE WATER COURSE AND

PROPOSED SYSTEM OF A SELECTED SCHEME IN DISTRICT BUNER

KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA

A mini project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement

for the award of degree of M.Sc. in Agricultural Engineering

Submitted by:
Aizaz Ahmad
Registration No: 12PWAGR0672

Supervised by:
Dr. Muhammad Ajmal
(Associate Professor)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PESHAWAR

FEBRUARY 2023
 COMPARISON OF THE CONVENTIONAL PIPE WATER COURSE AND
PROPOSED SYSTEM OF A SELECTED SCHEME IN DISTRICT BUNER
KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA

Submitted by:
Aizaz Ahmad
Registration No: 12PWAGR0672

Thesis Supervisor Signature: ___________________________

Dr. Muhammad Ajmal (Associate Professor)

Chairman Signature: ____________________________

Meritorious Prof. Dr. Taj Ali Khan

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY PESHAWAR

FEBRUARY 2023
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I offer my thanks to Almighty ALLAH, the sole creator of the universe, the source of
wisdom. I would also love to pay tribute to Hazrat Muhammad (Peace and Blessing Be
Upon Him) who enlightened the essence of faith in ALLAH and taught us to be merciful
and kind among ourselves.

I am also thankful to my parents for their love, unending support and guidance during the
lifelong learning. Whenever and whatever I am today, is because of their love, prayers, and
countless sacrifices.

I am also grateful to my project supervisor Dr. Muhammad Ajmal, Associate Professor in

the Department of Agricultural Engineering, UET Peshawar, for his inspiring guidance,
precious suggestions, and constant supervision.

i
 DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to the Holiest man (Prophet Muhammad, Peace and Blessing Be
Upon Him) ever born. Also, it is dedicated to my Dear Parents, Family, and Teachers,
without their prayers and support this dream could have never come true.

ii
 ABSTRACT

Agricultural lands in many areas have been irrigated using tube wells / dug wells (ground
water) operated through a power source (motor/engine). The water from these sources is
carried out using a conduit pipe as a medium to irrigate different fields. Mostly, the farmers
are operating this irrigation system with a very low rate of success. Failure of these
conventional irrigation systems is mainly due to four factors. These are a) faulty design b)
wrong selection of equipment c) improper installation of pipelines d) poorly operating the
system and no proper maintenance. Hence, designing a proper irrigation system acquired
through knowledge about soil properties, crop water requirements, pipe hydraulics, pipes
and their installation, operation and maintenance, and troubleshooting of irrigation
equipment with socio-economics factors playing its due role. In this report, an effort has
been made to present all the essential for proper design, installation, and management of
tube wells/dug wells irrigation systems to achieve more income based on the farmers’
available resources. For this purpose, analysis and evaluation of different selected schemes
of the conventional pipe water course design by the On Farm Water Management (OFWM)
and a proposed approach in district Buner, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. Different
parameters considered in this study were the reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0), crop
water requirements (CWR), irrigation depth (Id), irrigation interval (Ii) and available area
to be irrigated for implementing a proposed approach. It was noted that upon implementing
the proposed approach, - the overall cost can be reduced by 30-35% compared to the
conventional OFWM approach. Similarly, the proposed approach can also reduce
operational and maintenance costs by 10-20% as compared to the conventional OFWM
designed irrigation system. Additionally, an effort was exercised to use locally available
materials which could make the system more farmer-friendly, and cost-effective.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................... i

DEDICATION ..................................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii

CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Aim of the Study ......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................ 3

LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................... 3

2.1 General Review ........................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Government Policies ................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Conventional Tube well Irrigation System using Power Source ................................ 4
2.4 Basic Soil Properties Influencing Irrigation ................................................................ 4
2.5 Water Holding Capacity of Soil .................................................................................. 5
2.6 Total Available Water (TAW) .................................................................................... 6
2.7 Management Allowed Deficit (MAD) ........................................................................ 7
2.8 Evapotranspiration (ET) .............................................................................................. 7
2.9 Reference Evapotranspiration (ET0)............................................................................ 8
2.10 Crop Water Requirement (CWR) .............................................................................. 8
2.11 Crop coefficient (Kc) ................................................................................................. 8
2.12 Irrigation Depth (Id) ................................................................................................. 10
2.13 Irrigation Interval (Ii): .............................................................................................. 10
2.14 Discharge ................................................................................................................. 10
2.15 Design of Proposed Irrigation System..................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 3 ...................................................................................................................... 11

MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 11

iv
 3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Climate Data .............................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Evaluation Procedures ........................................................................................... 13
3.4.1 Discharge Calculation ......................................................................................... 13
3.4.2 Pipe Diameter calculation ................................................................................... 13
3.4.3 Power Calculation ............................................................................................... 14
3.4.4 Total Dynamic Head (H) .................................................................................... 14
3.4.5 Frictional Head Loss (HL) ................................................................................... 14
3.4.6 Minor Losses (Hf) ............................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 4 ...................................................................................................................... 16

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................................... 16

4.1 Measured Data ........................................................................................................... 16

4.2 T/W W/C Hameed Ullah ........................................................................................... 16
4.2.1 T/W W/C Hameed Ullah (Conventional Pipe water course Design) ..................... 16
4.2.2 Evaluation of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah (Proposed System) .................................. 17
4.2.3 Proposed System 1 (T/W W/C Hameed Ullah)...................................................... 17
4.2.4 Proposed System 2 (T/W W/C Hameed Ullah)...................................................... 17
4.2.5 Evaluation of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah. ................................................................ 18
4.2.6 Irrigation intervals. ................................................................................................. 19
4.2.7 Operational and maintenance cost comparison of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah ....... 20
4.3 T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel ........................................................................................... 20
4.3.1 T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel (Conventional Design by OFWM) ................................ 21
4.3.4 Proposed System 2 (T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel)...................................................... 22
4.3.5 Irrigation intervals. ................................................................................................. 24
4.3.6 Operational and maintenance cost comparison of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel. ........ 24
CHAPTER 5 ...................................................................................................................... 25

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 25

5.1 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 25

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 37

v
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Soil Composition ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3.1 Agro Ecological Zones of Pakistan .................................................................. 12
Figure 4.1 Command Area of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah ................................................... 16
Figure 4.2 Riser Point with G.I Pipe Material .................................................................. 17
Figure 4.3 Riser Point with UPVC Pipe Material ............................................................. 18
Figure 4.4 Irrigation Layout of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah ................................................ 19
Figure 4.5 Command Area of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel .................................................. 21
Figure 4.6 Irrigation Layout of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel with unequal Zoning .............. 22
Figure 4.7 Irrigation Layout of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel with equal Zoning .................. 23

vi
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Area Irrigated by Different Sources ..................................................................... 3
Table 2.2 Range in AWHC of Soils of Different textures. .................................................. 5
Table 2.3 Approximate root depth of the major field crops ................................................. 6
Table 2.4 Kc values for different crops at different stages ................................................... 8
Table 3.1 Agro Ecological Zones of Pakistan .................................................................... 11
Table 3.2 Reference Crop Evapotranspiration (ETo) ........................................................ 12
Table 3.3 Values of C in Hazen-William equation for different materials ....................... 15
Table 4.1 Evaluation of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah ............................................................. 18
Table 4.2 Irrigation Interval of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah .................................................. 19
Table 4.3 Operational and maintenance cost comparision of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah ... 20
Table 4.4 Evaluation of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel ............................................................. 23
Table 4.5 Irrigation Interval of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel .................................................. 24
Table 4.6 Operational and maintenance cost comparison of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel .... 24

vii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Agricultural production mainly depends upon irrigation systems. Due to the increase in
population rate, most of the world’s countries are expanding their irrigated areas to meet the
food and fiber requirements. Pakistan is also an agricultural country. Its economy depends upon
agriculture and 20% of gross domestic product is contributed by agriculture (Khan et al., 2010).
Pakistan possesses a land area of 79.6 million hectares. Out of this area, only 28.5% is cultivated
mainly due to a shortage of irrigation water (Land Utilization Statistics,.1999). Three fourth of
the cultivated area is irrigated while one-fourth is rain fed. The rain-fed areas possess frequent
patches of cultivable land, which could be brought under irrigation through the utilization of
water resources. In rain-fed areas most rainfall occurs in monsoon period. The rain-fed area is
irrigated by different sources (ponds, streams, wells etc.). The water resources are available in
the form of natural streams, farm ponds, mini dams, small dams, check dams tube wells and dug
wells. The water is to be lifted for which the best utilization of available water and land resources
can be made by adopting a lift irrigation system. Lift irrigation systems mostly lifts water from
the source at a lower elevation, using pipes to convey it to the fields at higher elevations. Fields
may be at a lower elevation from water source or at the same elevation, but the topographic
conditions of the area do not make the irrigation task easy. Lift Irrigation consists of prime mover
coupled with a pumping unit, pipes and pipes layout system as per topography conditions, and
distribution boxes at the inlet of fields. Lift irrigation also helps in the conversion of rain-fed
lands into irrigated lands, the removal of drought conditions, and poverty reduction by increasing
agricultural production and farm incomes and the most effective use of available land and water
resources. Lift irrigation systems are technically feasible wherever some source of water is
available at lower elevations and there are adjacent lands at a higher elevation. There are many
areas in Pakistan that depend upon rainfall and yields are much lower despite having water
resources usually lying at lower places. To utilize the available resources, lift irrigation can be
adopted to increase the yields in these areas. In this report, the study area is in District Buner
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where source of irrigation is mostly Tube wells. Hence, tube wells
irrigation system will be used as a conventional term for better understanding and comparison
with the proposed system.

1
1.2 Problem Statement
Water is one of the rarest and most precious sources in the world. Pakistan is an agricultural
country and most of the agricultural practices depend on irrigation water. Over 90% of country
is agriculture oriented which is a major source of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is majorly
dependent on the irrigation system (Akbar et al., 2016). The available water resources are
insufficient to support irrigated agriculture due to the increasing population and food
requirements. For agricultural extension in the country, the limited water resources become a
major constraint. The main cause of such decrease is beyond the control of humans; therefore,
water research is required to study such variables to ensure its efficiency in-terms of precise
application of water by guiding the farmer community about their crop requirements. i.e., when
to irrigate and how much is to be irrigated.

1.3 Aim of the Study

Comparison of conventional tube wells irrigation system (conventional pipe water course
design) with the proposed system for cost analysis and evaluating the operational cost of both
the systems to guide farmer community and to efficiently utilize the available resources.

1.4 Objectives
The main objectives of the study are:

1. To design an irrigation system as per the crop water requirements.

2. To compare the operational and overall cost of a conventional tube well irrigation system
with the proposed system.

2
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General Review
In Pakistan, according to agriculture statistics of Pakistan (2010-11), a total of 18.67 million
hectares of area has been irrigated by different sources all over the country Table 2.1. According
to these statistics area irrigated by canals (registered / unregistered) is 6.40 million hectares. It
should be noted that 65.7% of agricultural land is irrigated through other sources mainly by lift
irrigation which needs proper design and management and even this percentage is increased up
to 68.8% covering 13.31 million hectares of the area as per agriculture statistics of Pakistan (area
irrigated by different sources). The details of the area irrigated by different sources are given in
Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Area Irrigated by Different Sources (in million hectares)

(Agriculture statistics of Pakistan)
S# Year Province Canal Tube Wells Others Total
wells Area
1 Punjab 3.35 10.54 0.57 0.18 14.42
2 Sindh 1.73 0.36 -- -- 2.09
3 2010-11 KP 0.75 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.92
4 Baluchistan 0.57 0.56 0.08 0.03 1.24
Total 6.40 12.27 18.67
1 Punjab 3.31 11.62 0.40 0.14 15.47
2 Sindh 1.29 0.36 -- -- 1.65
3 2019-20 KP 0.70 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.94
4 Baluchistan 0.73 0.45 0.06 -- 1.28
Total 6.03 13.31 19.34

From Table 2.1 it is noted that the canal command area is decreased by 6% due to infrastructure,
building developments, and salinity problems and the farmer community is shifting towards new
land developments (newly culturable command areas) by shifting to a secondary source of
irrigation through tube wells and wells by using a power source. The increase in newly culturable
command area is 8.4% within a span of 10 years which also has shifted the Government interest
to develop new projects from which newly culturable command areas can be managed and to
increase crop production due to the increase rate of population growth.

3
2.2 Government Policies
Different Projects has been initiated throughout Pakistan especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to
develop new agriculture lands and to manage irrigation of Barani Lands by developing water
source for them by subsidizing local farmer community so that farmer community should be
self-sufficient i.e. “Culturable Waste Land Development and Solarization of existing Tube
Wells” in which new land are development by providing machinery to farmers community
through 80-20 % subsidy (80% Government share and 20% farmer share) and by solarizing their
tube wells to get rid of Operational cost for Irrigation throughout Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Also,
another Project “National Program for improvement of water courses in Pakistan – Phase II” in
which water courses are lined to overcome conveyance losses by using Precast concrete
parabolic segment (PCPS) lining or Pipe Water Course (PWC) lining with 75-25% subsidy (75%
Government share and 25% farmer shares) mainly by lifting Ground Water whose irrigation
source is mainly Dug wells, Tube wells and Wells having power source of Diesel Engine or
Electricity / Solar Systems.

2.3 Conventional Tube well Irrigation System using Power Source

Irrigation is an important means of increasing agricultural production. Conventional irrigation
using power sources is the only way of providing water to agricultural lands where agricultural
land is at a higher elevation than the water source. Farmers in these areas have been trying to
operate the irrigation system on their own but the success rate is very low. There are mainly four
factors that contribute to the failure of farmers. These are a) faulty design b) wrong selection of
equipment c) improper installation of pipelines d) poor operation and maintenance of equipment.
To propose an irrigation system requires the services of a professional engineer. It needs proper
design to insure water saving. To design a system one should have to ensure the input data i.e.
irrigation depth (Id, irrigation interval (Ii), crop water requirements (CWR), Total available water
(TAW), Management allowed deficit (MAD), Available water holding capacity (AWHC) and
effective rooting depth of specific crop. All these input data depend upon soil structure and
texture as the soil is a storehouse for water and plants nutrients and the medium through which
water and nutrients move. So before proposing a system the designer should have through
knowledge of soil-water-plant relationships.

2.4 Basic Soil Properties Influencing Irrigation

The soil is made up of solid particles and pore space between these particles. The size and shape
of pores in the soil are dependent upon the type of soil particles and their arrangements. The pore

4
space is filled with water and air in different proportions depending upon the moisture present
in the soil as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Soil composition (Plaster, 2013)

The major soil properties which affect the design and management of irrigation systems are
their texture, structure, porosity, density, infiltration, and water-holding capacity.

2.5 Water Holding Capacity of Soil

The amount of water that a soil can hold is called its water holding capacity. All the water held
in the soil is not available to plants. The capacity of soil to retain water between field capacity
and the permanent wilting point is called its available water holding capacity (AWHC) (Keller
and Bliesner, 1990). It is usually expressed in the depth of water held in the unit depth of soil.
Various soils show different water holding capacities of available soil moisture. The soil texture
is the most important factor in determining the available water holding capacities. Table 2.2
gives the average values of available water holding capacities (AWHC) of different soils as:

Table 2.2 Range in AWHC of soils of Different textures (Keller and Bliesner, 1990)

Water-holding capacity
S# Soil Texture Range mm/m Average mm/m
1 Very coarse texture- very coarse sands 33 to 62 42
2 Coarse texture-coarse sand, fine sands and loamy 62 to 104 83
sands
3 Moderately coarse texture-sandy loams 104 to 145 125
4 Medium texture-very fine sandy loams and silty 125 to 192 167
loams
5 Moderately fine texture-clay loams, silty clay 145 to 208 183
loams and sandy clay loams
6 Fine texture-sandy clay, silty clay and clay 133 to 208 192
7 Peats and mucks 167 to 250 208

5
2.6 Total Available Water (TAW)
Total available water for plant use is the difference between Moisture content at field capacity
and permanent wilting point (Keller and Bliesner, 1990).

TAW = AWHC × EFFECTIVE ROOTING DEPTH 2.1

where,
TAW = Total available water (mm/m)
AWHC = Water holding capacity of the soil (mm/m)
Effective rooting depth depends upon plants which may be shallow rooted, medium or deep-
rooted crops. Different crops and their rooting depth are shown in Table 2.3
Table 2.3 approximate root depth of the major field crops (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987)

S# Crop Root Depth (meters)

1. Alfalfa 1.2-1.8
2. Almonds 0.6-1.2
3. Apple 0.8-1.2
4. Apricot 0.6-1.4
5. Artichoke 0.6-0.9
6. Asparagus 1.2-1.8
7. Avocado 0.6-0.9
8. Banana 0.3-0.6
9. Barley 0.9-1.1
10. Bean (Dry) 0.6-1.2
11. Bean (Green) 0.5-0.9
12. Bean (Lima) 0.6-1.2
13. Beet (Sugar) 0.6-1.2
14. Beet (Table) 0.4-0.6
15. Berries 0.6-1.2
16. Broccoli 0.6
17. Brussels sprout 0.6
18. Cabbage 0.6
19. Cantaloupe 0.6-1.2
20. Carrot 0.4-0.6
21. Cauliflower 0.6
22. Celery 0.6
23. Chard 0.6-0.9
24. Cherry 0.8-1.2
25. Citrus 0.9-1.5
26. Coffee 0.9-1.5
27. Corn (Grain & Silage) 0.6-1.2
28. Corn (Sweet) 0.4-0.6
29. Cotton 0.6-1.8
30. Cucumber 0.4-0.6
31. Egg Plant 0.8
32. Fig 0.9
33. Flax 0.6-0.9
34. Grapes 0.5-1.2
35. Lettuce 0.2-0.5
36. Lucerne 1.2-1.8
37. Oats 0.6-1.1

6
 38. Olives 0.9-1.5
39. Onion 0.3-0.6
40. Parsnip 0.6-0.9
41. Passion Fruit 0.3-0.5
42. Pastures 0.3-0.8
43. Pea 0.4-0.8
44. Peach 0.6-1.2
45. Peanuts 0.4-0.8
46. Pear 0.6-1.2
47. Pepper 0.6-0.9
48. Plum 0.8-1.2
49. Potato (Irish) 0.6-0.9
50. Potato (Sweet) 0.6-0.9
51. Pumpkin 0.9-1.2
52. Radish 0.3
53. Safflower 0.9-1.5
54. Sorghum (Grain & Sweet) 0.6-0.9
55. Sorghum (Silage) 0.9-1.2
56. Soybean 0.6-0.9
57. Spinach 0.4-0.6
58. Squash 0.6-0.9
59. Strawberry 0.3-0.5
60. Sugarcane 0.5-1.1
61. Sudan Grass 0.9-1.2
62. Tobacco 0.6-1.2
63. Tomato 0.6-1.2
64. Turnip (White) 0.5-0.8
65. Walnuts 1.7-2.4
66. Watermelon 0.6-0.9
67. Wheat 0.8-1.1

2.7 Management Allowed Deficit (MAD)

Management allowed deficit (MAD) refers to the allowed depletion of soil moisture before the
next irrigation. A general rule is that moisture levels should not fall below 50% of available soil
moisture within the root zone (Keller and Bliesner, 1990).

2.8 Evapotranspiration (ET)

The evapotranspiration (ET) of a crop is the total amount of water required for transpiration and
evaporation processes. The evapotranspiration rate is usually expressed in mm/day. It is usually
determined from climatic parameters for given crop and soil conditions. Temperature, wind,
solar radiation and humidity are the primary climatic variables, which influence
evapotranspiration.

7
2.9 Reference Evapotranspiration (ET0)
Reference Evapotranspiration (ET0) is the maximum rate at which water, if available to the
plants, can be removed from the soil and plant surfaces. Grass and alfalfa are the crops usually
taken as reference crops.

2.10 Crop Water Requirement (CWR)

Crop water requirement for a particular crop is the evapotranspiration of the crop and is
calculated by (Belay et al., 2019).

CWR = 𝐸𝑇0 × Kc 2.2

where,
Kc = Crop coefficient depend upon plant growth stage
ET0 = reference crop evapotranspiration (mm/day)
CWR = Crop water requirement

2.11 Crop coefficient (Kc)

The crop coefficient depends upon the plants’ growth stage. It has generally four stages i.e. initial
stage, developmental stage, mid-season stage, late season stage, and harvesting
stage.(Hargreaves and Patwardhan., 1985). Kc for different crops with their different growth
stages are shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Kc values for different crops at different stages (Hargreaves and Patwardhan., 1985)

S# Crop Initial Development Middle Late Harvest

1 Amaranathus 0.7 0.9 1 1 0.95
2 Ashgourd 0.6 0.9 1 0.8
3 Banana 0.4-0.5 0.7-0.85 1.0-1.1 0.9-1.0 0.7-0.8
4 Barley 0.3 0.9 1.15 1 0.25
5 Beans 0.3-0.4 0.65-0.75 0.95-1.05 0.9-0.95 0.85-0.95
6 Berry 0.3 0.75 1.05 1.05 0.5
7 Brinjal 0.6 0.9 1.05 1.05 0.9
8 Cabbage 0.4-0.5 0.7-0.8 0.95-1.1 0.9-1.0 0.8-0.95
9 Carnation 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7
10 Carrot 0.7 0.9 1.05 0.95 0.95
11 Castor 0.35 0.8 1.15 1.1 0.55
12 Cauliflower 0.7 0.9 1.05 0.95 0.95
13 Celery 0.7 0.9 1.05 1 1
14 Chillies 0.3 0.5 0.75 1 1
15 Chrysanthiumum 0.3 0.55 0.7 0.85 0.8
16 Citrus 0.4 0.6 0.75 0.65 0.65
17 Cocoa 0.8 1 1.05 1.05 1.05
18 Coffee 0.9 0.9 0.95 0.95 0.95

8
19 Cotton 0.4-0.5 0.7-0.8 1.05-1.25 0.8-0.9 0.65-0.7
20 Cucumber 0.6 0.9 1 1 0.9
21 Date 0.95 0.95 1 1 1
22 Garlic 0.7 0.9 1 1 0.7
23 Gerbera 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
24 Grapes 0.35-0.55 0.6-0.8 0.7-0.9 0.6-0.8 0.55-0.7
25 Greengram 0.4 0.9 1.05 1 0.6
26 Groundnut 0.4-0.5 0.7-0.8 0.95-1.1 0.75-0.85 0.55-0.6
27 Jasmine 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7
28 Jute 0.35 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.95
29 Lady Fingure 0.7 0.8 1 1 0.9
30 Lawn Grasses 0.8 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
31 Lentil 0.4 0.9 1.1 1 0.3
32 Maize, Sweet 0.3-0.5 0.7-0.9 1.05-1.2 1.0-1.15 0.95-1.1
33 Maize, Grain 0.3-0.5 0.7-0.85 1.05-1.2 0.8-0.95 0.55-0.6
34 Mango 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.85 0.5
35 MerGold 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8
36 Minor Millets 0.3 0.7 1 1 0.3
37 Mulberry 0.4 0.7 1 1 0.9
38 Oilpalm 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9
39 Onion 0.4-0.6 0.7-0.8 0.95-1.1 0.85-0.9 0.75-0.85
40 Other pulses 0.4 0.9 1.15 1 0.35
41 Pastures 0.4 0.6 0.9 1 1.2
42 Pea 0.4-0.5 0.7-0.85 1.05-1.2 1.0-1.15 0.95-1.1
43 Pepper 0.3-0.4 0.6-0.75 0.95-1.1 0.85-1.0 0.8-0.9
44 Pineapple 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4
45 Pomegranate 0.5 0.7 0.75 0.75 0.75
46 Potato 0.4-0.5 0.7-0.8 1.05-1.2 0.85-0.95 0.7-0.75
47 Pudina 0.6 0.8 1.15 1.15 1.1
48 Rapeseed 0.35 0.7 1 1.15 0.35
49 Rice 1.1-1.15 1.1-1.15 1.1-1.3 0.95-1.05 0.95-1.05
50 Rose 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
51 Saflower 0.3-0.4 0.7-0.8 1.05-1.2 0.65-0.7 0.2-0.25
52 Sesamum 0.35 1 1.1 1 0.25
53 Sisal 0.35 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.5
54 Sorghum 0.3-0.4 0.7-0.75 1.0-1.15 0.75-0.8 0.5-0.55
55 Soyabean 0.3-0.4 0.7-0.8 1.0-1.15 0.7-0.8 0.4-0.5
56 Squash 0.6 0.9 0.95 0.95 0.75
57 Strawberry 0.4 0.8 0.85 0.8 0.75
58 Sugarcane 0.4-0.5 0.7-1.0 1.0-1.3 0.75-0.8 0.5-0.6
59 Sunflower 0.3-0.4 0.7-0.8 1.05-1.2 0.7-0.8 0.35-0.45
60 Sweetcorn 0.3 0.7 1.15 1.1 1.05
61 Sweet Melon 0.5 0.75 1.05 1.05 0.75
62 Sweet Potato 0.5 0.9 1.15 1 0.65
63 Tapioca 0.3 0.75 1.1 1.1 0.5
64 Tobacco 0.3-0.4 0.7-0.8 1.0-1.2 0.9-1.0 0.75-0.85
65 Tomato 0.4-0.5 0.7-0.8 1.05-1.25 0.8-0.95 0.6-0.65
66 Watermelon 0.4-0.5 0.7-0.8 0.95-1.05 0.8-0.9 0.65-0.75
67 Wheat 0.3-0.4 0.7-0.8 1.05-1.2 0.65-0.75 0.2-0.25

9
2.12 Irrigation Depth (Id)
The maximum net depth of irrigation (Id) to be applied at each irrigation is equal to maximum
allowable depletion of available water from the root zone. (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). It is
calculated as

TAW ×MAD
I𝑑 = 2.3
100

where
TAW is the total available water
MAD is management allowed deficit in %

2.13 Irrigation Interval (Ii):

The irrigation interval refers to time period between successive irrigation during peak water
requirements. (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). It is given by as

I𝑑
I𝑖 = 2.4
Peak CWR

Where Peak CWR is the maximum evaporation rate at maturity of crop.

2.14 Discharge
The quantity of water passing through the given section of pipe in unit time is called discharge
and can be calculated using equation 2.5.

A× V
Q= 2.5
1000

where
Q = Discharge (lps)
A = cross-sectional area of pipe (mm2)
V = velocity of water (m/sec)

2.15 Design of Proposed Irrigation System

The main objective of designing a proposed system is to supply water to a farm to meet the peak
crop water requirements with maximum efficiency and minimum cost. The design system
involves deciding on the selection of certain parameters like system capacity, irrigation depth,
irrigation interval, daily operational hours of the pumping unit, and sizes of pipes etc. Once basic
data has been collected from farm resource data farm manager can easily analyze data about
farm irrigation requirements i.e. when to irrigate and how much to irrigate and by adopting basic
design parameters how can he minimize his operation cost.

10
 CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Methodology
The first activity in the design process should be the collection of basic farm resource data. The
information includes location, topographic map, farm and field boundaries, source of water,
power source, crops, and soils.

3.2 Study Area

This study has been conducted in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan in District Buner
with On Farm Water Management Department Buner by selecting 2 sites in Tehsil Gagra under
the project of National Program for improvement of Water Courses (Phase-II). The main theme
of study is to calculate the irrigation depth and irrigation interval based on ET0 and available
moisture of soil and based upon these calculations to design the discharge and select minimum
pipe diameter with minimum operational cost.

3.3 Climate Data

Pakistan Agriculture Research Council (PARC) has divided the country into ten agro-ecological
zones for which monthly ET0 has been calculated. The agro-ecological zones of Pakistan are
elaborated in Table 3.1 and are shown in Figure 3.1.

Table 3.1 Agro-ecological zones of Pakistan (Hussain and Bangash, 2017)

S# Zone No Zone Name Areas included

1. I Indus Delta Thatta, Badin, Hyderabad
2. II Southern irrigated Plain Dadu, Rahim Yar Khan, Shikarpur, Thatta
3. IIIa and IIIb Sandy Desert Muzaffargarh, Mianwali, Sargodha
4. IVa and IVb Northern Irrigated Plain Multan, Sahiwal, Lahore, Kasur, Faisalabad
5. V Barani Lands Attock, Abbottabad, Rawalpindi, Sialkot
6. VI Wet Mountains Hazara, Mansehra

Dir, Swat Malakand Agency, Chitral, Gilgit

7. VII Northern Dry Mountains
Baltistan, Bajaur

8. VIII Western Dry Mountains Bannu, Kohat, Sibi, Quetta, Karachi

9. IX Dry Western Plateau Mekran, Kharan, Chaghi, Lasbella
10. X Sulaiman Piedmont DG Khan, Kacchi

11
 Figure 3.1 Agro-ecological zones of Pakistan (PARC 2019)

From Table 3.1 District Buner climate data lies in Zone VII which is northern dry mountains for
which reference crop evapotranspiration has been shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 reference crop evapotranspiration (Keller and Bliesner, 1990)

Agro- Month (mm/Day)

ecological
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Zone
I 3.55 4.50 6.61 8.60 11.52 10.90 9.10 8.10 8.00 6.61 4.50 3.71
II 3.16 4.25 6.32 8.47 11.00 11.07 9.23 8.13 7.60 6.16 4.13 3.19
III a 3.06 4.21 6.19 8.50 10.81 11.20 9.29 8.29 7.60 6.00 4.10 3.10
III b 1.81 2.71 4.00 6.40 8.61 9.20 7.61 6.52 5.80 4.52 2.70 1.90
IV a 1.74 2.64 4.03 6.10 7.68 8.57 7.06 6.32 5.70 4.29 2.63 1.84
IV b 1.68 2.29 3.19 4.50 7.29 8.40 7.39 6.29 5.00 3.90 2.60 1.81
V 1.77 2.75 3.84 5.87 7.84 8.50 6.71 5.84 5.20 4.06 2.77 1.84
VI 1.84 3.11 4.00 6.50 8.90 10.10 7.10 5.71 5.30 4.29 3.20 2.10
VII 0.77 1.14 2.03 3.13 4.16 5.07 5.06 4.71 3.80 2.45 1.40 0.84
VIII 1.61 2.25 3.45 4.73 6.29 7.33 7.19 6.55 5.47 4.06 2.60 1.74
IX 2.45 3.18 4.39 5.83 7.23 7.80 7.52 6.90 5.80 4.58 3.33 2.55
X 1.68 2.39 3.71 5.20 6.81 6.90 6.29 6.00 5.10 3.81 2.30 1.61

12
In Areas of this zone, (Zone VII) especially Buner district most of the areas are barani areas
having no canal system and most of the irrigation is done by ground water using Tube well and
Peter engines by lifting them through a pump source or turbine. The main crops in District Buner
are Maize and Wheat which upon using ET0 and CWR irrigation depth and irrigation interval
can be find. The net reference crop evapotranspiration is given in Table 3.2. Using Table 3.2
values as a reference ET0 for Buner (Zone VII) and crop factor Kc, crop water requirement can
be calculated.

3.4 Evaluation Procedures

3.4.1 Discharge Calculation
Using Eq. 2.1 for calculating Total Available Water (TAW), Eq. 2.2 for Crop Water
Requirement, Eq. 2.3 for Irrigation Depth and Eq. 2.4 for calculating Irrigation interval for a
specified field for whom discharge is to be calculated and then using discharge to find the Pipe
diameter. Using Irrigation depends on Peak ET0, Irrigation efficiency and duration of pumping
(Keller and Bliesner, 1990). The discharge can be calculated as:

2.78 ×A × I𝑑
Q= 3.1
I𝑖 ×H X 𝐸𝑎

where,
Q = Discharge in lps
A = area in hectares
Id = Irrigation depth in mm
Ii = irrigation interval in days
H = pumping hours
Ea = application efficiency (60-70%)
3.4.2 Pipe Diameter calculation
Pipe diameter can be calculated from the following equation. (Keller and Bliesner, 1990)

𝑄
𝐷 = 63.25 √( ) 3.2
3.14 ×𝑉

where,
D = Pipe diameter in mm

Q = Discharge in lps

V = Velocity in m/sec
13
The velocity range within the pipe is 1-1.5 m /sec (Keller and Bliesner, 1990).

3.4.3 Power Calculation

Sufficient power should be delivered for pumping with maximum operational efficiency.
Diesel engine and electric motors are the most common types of power units (Keller and
Bliesner, 1990). Power requirements can be calculated from following equation.

Q ×Ht
BHP = 3.3
76 ×𝐸𝑝

where,

Q = discharge in lps
Ht = total dynamic head in meters
BHP = Break horsepower
Ep = efficiency of the pumping unit

The overall efficiency of the pumping unit consists of a combination of efficiencies of prime
mover, transmission and pump efficiency. The overall efficiency of diesel engine operated
pumping may be taken as 20% while it may be taken as 55% in the case of electric motor.

3.4.4 Total Dynamic Head (H)

Total dynamic Head (H) is the total vertical head energy in terms of unit length which a pumping
unit should be capable to deliver the specific discharge to a desired location. It is mainly divided
into three sub-parts as shown in Eq. 3.4.

H = Z + HL + hf 3.4

H = total dynamic head in meters

Z = elevation difference between pumping unit and field point (meters)
HL = Frictional head loss in meters
hf = minor losses (0.15 of HL)

3.4.5 Frictional Head Loss (HL)

The loss of head due to resistance to flow through pipes is frictional head loss. Numbers of
equations are developed for calculating frictional head loss. Hazen William equation is most
commonly used (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). According to Hazen William’s equation

14
 𝑄1.852
𝐻𝐿 = 𝐾 × × 𝐿 × 𝐷−4.78 3.5
𝐶

where,

K = 1.21 × 1010
Q = Discharge in lps
L = Length of Pipe (meters)
D = inside diameter of Pipe (mm)
HL = Frictional head loss (meter)
C = coefficient of friction of pipe material, constant

Typical values of C for different material in Hazen-William are given in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 values of C in Hazen-William equation for different material (Keller and Bliesner,
1990)

S# Material C - value
1 Plastic 150
2 Epoxy-coated steel 145
3 Cement asbestos 140
4 Galvanized Steel 135
5 Aluminum (with couplers every 30 ft) 130
6 Steel (New) 130
7 Steel (15 years old) or concrete 100

3.4.6 Minor Losses (Hf)

Minor losses in the pipelines are caused by abrupt changes in velocities or direction of flow,
the presence of bends, valves and fittings in pipes. (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). Usually, it is
taken as 0.15 of frictional head loss.

15
 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Measured Data
Measurements were carried out according to the procedures as discussed in Chapter 3, i.e. two
sites were selected in District Buner Tehsil Gagra for analysis and evaluation of Field data. The
details of which are thoroughly discussed as under.

4.2 T/W W/C Hameed Ullah

T/W W/C Hameed Ullah is located in village Barkaly Tehsil Gagra district Buner having
coordinates 34.44o N 72.47 o E having cultivable command area of 0.77 hectares. Command area
with water source (Tube well) is shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Command area of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah

4.2.1 T/W W/C Hameed Ullah (Conventional Pipe water course Design)
The T/W W/C Hameed Ullah is designed by the OFWM officials based on measured discharge
i.e., 13 lps into 5 unequal zones with a conventional diameter of pipe 110_mm (4 inches). The
design is based on a conventional system without taking into account of soil type,
evapotranspiration (ET0), crop water requirements (CWR), total available water (TAW),
management allowed deficit (MAD), irrigation depth (Id), irrigation interval (Ii) and
corresponding time of irrigation to irrigate the field. This ultimately need a higher diameter of
design pipe i.e. high density Poly Ethylene Pipe (HDPE 110mm) with 5 irrigation points. The
overall estimate of which is 418504 PKR (as per fiscal year 2022). It should also be noted that
unequal zoning of conventional design also accounts for irregular discharge in each zone
resulting in deep percolation losses and higher horsepower (hp) requirements i.e., 20 hp diesel
engine.

16
4.2.2 Evaluation of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah (Proposed System)
The T/W W/C Hameed Ullah was analyzed using the procedure as discussed in Chapter 3 upon
which two design systems were found technically sound and economically feasible.

4.2.3 Proposed System 1 (T/W W/C Hameed Ullah)

The T/W W/C Hameed Ullah were evaluated based on Soil Type, Evapotranspiration (ET0),
Crop Water Requirements (CWR), Total available water (TAW), Management allowed Deficit
(MAD), Irrigation Depth (Id), Irrigation interval (Ii) and corresponding time of irrigation to
irrigate the field which accounts ultimately for lower Diameter of Design Pipe i.e. High Density
Poly Ethylene Pipe (HDPE 90mm) with 5 no’s of irrigation points (riser points G.I Pipe Material)
with equal zoning which accounts for lower Discharge requirements in each zone with lower HP
requirements i.e. 12.5 HP. The overall estimate of which is 292152 PKR (as per fiscal year
2022). It should also be noted that Riser point with G.I Pipe Material is also expensive and is
not farmer friendly while operating which can be replaced by UPVC Pipe material with UPVC
Handle Value. Riser Point with G.I Pipe is shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Riser Point with G.I Pipe Material

4.2.4 Proposed System 2 (T/W W/C Hameed Ullah)

The design of a proposed system 2 is very similar to that of proposed system 1 but the only
difference is that in the proposed system 2 uses UPVC riser point with a handle valve and is
recommended for reducing the cost. The overall estimate using the Proposed System 2 is 270955

17
PKR (as per fiscal year 2022). It should be noted that the proposed system 2 has no technical
change. Only the riser points with UPVC pipe material and UPVC Handle value will be used as
shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Riser Point with UPVC Pipe Material

4.2.5 Evaluation of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah.

Upon evaluating the conventional system and proposed system, the proposed system was found
to be feasible and economical and also farmer friendly for irrigation of system. A detailed
comparison is shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Evaluation of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah

Conventional Proposed Proposed

S# Design Parameters
(OFWM Design) System 1 System 2
1 ETo (mm/day) N/A 4.71 4.71
2 Soil Type N/A Silt Loam Silt Loam
3 Kc N/A 1.05 1.05
4 CWR N/A 4.95 4.95
5 Crop Type Maize / Wheat Maize / Wheat Maize / Wheat
6 Effective rooting depth (m) N/A 1.20 1.20
7 Irrigation depth (mm) N/A 100.2 100.2
8 Irrigation interval (days) N/A 20.26 20.26
9 Pumping hours 1.75 2.50 2.50
10 Design discharge (lps) 10.87 6.51 6.51
11 Measured discharge (lps) 13 6.51 6.51
12 Velocity (m/sec) 1.50 1.50 1.50
13 Outside diameter of pipe (mm) 110 90 90
14 Total Head (TDH in meter) 25 25 25
15 Combine efficiency (%) 0.2 0.2 0.2
16 HP requirement as per design 20 12.50 12.50
17 Cost estimate 4,18,504 2,92,152 2,70,955

18
By implementing the proposed system 1, the estimated cost can be reduced by 30%, while
implementing the proposed system 2, the estimated cost is reduced by 35%. The layout for
operating irrigation points / Riser points with equal zoning is shown in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4 Irrigation Layout of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah

4.2.6 Irrigation intervals.

In order to implement the proposed design, farmer-friendly irrigation interval for complete year
is shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Irrigation Intervals of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah

S# Months Operational time Irrigation Interval No of irrigation

Per Riser (Hr) Days per month
1 January 0.5 123 1
2 February 0.5 73.2 N/A
3 March 0.5 66 1
4 April 0.5 128 N/A
5 May Fallow Period
6 June 0.5 40 1
7 July 0.5 24 1
8 August 0.5 20 2
9 September 0.5 27 1
10 October 0.5 68 1
11 November 0.5 178 N/A
12 December 0.5 149 N/A

19
4.2.7 Operational and maintenance cost comparison of T/W W/C Hameed
Ullah
The operational cost comparison is carried out for the complete year. The total operating hours
for a conventional design system is 14 hours while that of the proposed system is 20 hours.
Operation cost can be determined from the following equation.

C = P × Ce × T 4.1
where,
C = Operating cost (Rs)
P = Power consumption (KW)
Ce = cost of electric power (fuel / KWH for diesel & Rs / KWh for electric motor)
T = Operating time (Hr,s)

Maintenance and lubricating oils cost is generally taken as 40% of the operational cost.

Operational and maintenance cost comparison is shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Operational and maintenance cost comparison of T/W W/C Hameed Ullah

S# Operational Cost Parameters Conventional Proposed

(OFWM Design) System 1 & 2
1 Operating time (Hrs.) 14 20
2 Power consumption HP 20.0 12.50
3 Power consumption KW 14.92 9.325
4 Total units in KWh 208.88 186.5
5 Average fuel consumption/KWh for engine 0.4 0.4
6 Total fuel consumption in liters 83.55 74.6
7 Fuel price per liter in PKR 280 280
8 Total fuel price 23,394 20,888
9 Maintenance Cost 9357 8,355
10 Total Cost 32,752 29,243

Hence, by implementing the proposed system operational and maintenance cost can further be
reduced by 10%.

4.3 T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel

T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel is located in the village amnawar tehsil Gagra district Buner having
coordinates 34.52 o N 72.5 o E having cultivable command area of 2.48 hectares. Command
area with water source (Tube well) is shown in Figure 4.5.

20
 Figure 4.5 Command Area of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel

4.3.1 T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel (Conventional Design by OFWM)

T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel is designed by On Farm Water Management Officials based on
measured discharge i.e. 9 LPS. The design is based on a conventional system without
considering of soil type, evapotranspiration (ET0), crop water requirements (CWR), total
available water (TAW), management allowed deficit (MAD), irrigation depth (Id), irrigation
interval (Ii) and corresponding time of irrigation to irrigate. This ultimately need a higher
diameter of design pipe i.e. high density Poly Ethylene Pipe (HDPE 110mm) with 12 irrigation
points (riser points G.I Pipe Material). The overall estimate of this system is 14,52,208 PKR
with un-equal zoning due to which most of the zone receives more discharge and deep
percolation losses occur. The layout for the irrigation system with un-equal zoning is shown in
Figure 4.6.

4.3.2 Evaluation of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel (Proposed System)

T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel was analyzed using the procedure as discussed in Chapter 3 upon which
two proposed systems were found technically sound and economically feasible.

4.3.3 Proposed System 1 (T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel)

T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel was evaluated based soil type, evapotranspiration (ET0), crop water
requirements (CWR), total available water (TAW), management allowed deficit (MAD),
irrigation depth (Id), irrigation interval (Ii) and the corresponding time of irrigation to irrigate
the field which accounts ultimately for lower diameter of design pipe i.e. high density Poly
Ethylene Pipe (HDPE 90mm) with 14 irrigation points on equal zoning. The overall estimate of

21
this system is 10, 49,199 PKR (as per fiscal year 2022), also, each zone will receive the same
amount of water with equal operational time.

Figure 4.6 Irrigation Layout of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel with unequal zoning

4.3.4 Proposed System 2 (T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel)

The design of the proposed system 2 is the same as proposed system 1 but the only difference is
that in the proposed system 2 uses UPVC riser point with a handle valve and is recommended

22
for comparatively low cost. The overall estimate for using the proposed system 2 is 967484 PKR
(as per fiscal year 2022). It should be noted that the proposed system 2 have no technical change.
Only the riser point with UPVC pipe material and UPVC Handle value will be used. Evaluation
of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Evaluation of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel

S# Design Parameters Conventional Proposed Proposed

(OFWM Design) System 1 System 2
1 ETo (mm/day) N/A 4.71 4.71
2 Soil Type N/A Silt Loam Silt Loam
3 Kc N/A 1.05 1.05
4 CWR N/A 4.95 4.95
5 Crop Type Maize / Wheat Maize / Wheat Maize / Wheat
6 Effective rooting depth (m) N/A 1.20 1.20
7 Irrigation depth (mm) N/A 100.2 100.2
8 Irrigation interval (days) N/A 20.26 20.26
9 Pumping hours 10.20 7.00 7.00
10 Design discharge (lps) 9.70 7.49 7.49
11 Measured discharge (lps) 9.00 7.49 7.49
12 Velocity (m/sec) 1.50 1.50 1.50
13 Outside diameter of pipe (mm) 110 90 90
14 Total Head (TDH in meter) 50 54 54
15 Combine deficiency (%) 0.55 0.55 0.55
16 HP requirement as per design 12.5 10.00 10.00
17 Cost estimate 14, 52, 208 10.49,199 9.67.484

Figure 4.7 Irrigation Layout of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel with equal zoning

23
Hence, by implementing the proposed system 1 the estimated cost reduces by 27% while for the
proposed system 2 it can be reduced to 33% of the said estimated cost. It should be noted that in
the proposed system 1 and proposed system 2 single irrigation point / riser point will be operated
at a time with 7.49 LPS discharge for each zone. The irrigation layout for the operation of system
design with 14 irrigation point is shown in Figure 4.7.

4.3.5 Irrigation Intervals

In order to implement the proposed design, farmer-friendly irrigation interval for the complete
year is shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Irrigation Intervals of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel

Operational time Irrigation Interval No of irrigation

S# Months
Per Riser (Hr) Days per month
1 January 0.5 123 1
2 February 0.5 73.2 N/A
3 March 0.5 66 1
4 April 0.5 128 N/A
5 May Fallow Period
6 June 0.5 40 1
7 July 0.5 24 1
8 August 0.5 20 2
9 September 0.5 27 1
10 October 0.5 68 1
11 November 0.5 178 N/A
12 December 0.5 149 N/A

4.3.6 Operational and maintenance cost comparison of T/W W/C Abdul

Wakeel.
Operational and maintenance cost comparison is shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Operational and maintenance cost comparison of T/W W/C Abdul Wakeel

Conventional
S# Operational Cost Parameters Proposed System 1 & 2
(OFWM Design)
1 Operating time (Hrs.) 10.2 7.00
2 Power consumption (hp) 12.50 10.00
3 Power consumption (KW) 9.325 7.46
4 Total units in KWh 96 53
5 Average cost (PKR/KWh for motor) 16.6 16.6
8 Operational Cost 1594 880
9 Maintenance Cost 638 352
10 Total Cost 22,32 1232
By implementing the proposed system, operational and maintenance cost can be reduced by
44%.

24
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions and Recommendations

The following are main concluding points of the study;

• The conventional OFWM design make the design expensive by 30 – 35%.

• Need soil study and implementation of Evapotranspiration (ET0) and crop water
requirement (CWR) to have an idea about when to irrigate and how much to irrigate and
how much area can be irrigated from a specific measured discharge.
• Need proper area calculation of specific site using GPS to have an idea that, weather the
measured area can be irrigated from the said measured discharge or not.
• Need replacement of the Irrigation Point / Riser point from G.I material to UPVC Pipe
material with handle value will help the system farmer friendly. Also, the farmer
community is complaining that the riser points with G.I pipe material is often stolen by
thieves.
• Needs farmer guidance to grow cash crop as per weather conditions.

Although by implementing the above recommendations can make the system economical and
farmer-friendly, yet there are still some short comings in this report which needs improvements
in order to make the management practices more fruitful. Some of them are summarized as

• This study taken ET0 values are taken from agro-ecological zones of Pakistan by the
FAO and implemented which may need proper adjustment and calculation as ET0 value
may differ from district to district and tehsil to tehsil all over Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
province.
• In the present work no care is taken about ground water study and recharge. However,
the farmers’ community is discharging their tube wells / dug wells not only for their area
and crops but also for the adjacent area of another farmer is continuously from 10-12
hours per day in dry seasons. So, it may need proper study about ground water recharge
that whether the said area is receiving proper recharge or not. There must be a policy
from the Government to have a check and balance of discharge and recharge.
• Need implementation of Border-Basin and Furrow Design system in order to increase
irrigation efficiency and to save water.

25
References

Khan, S.B., Ahmad, F., Sadaf, F., Kashif, R.H. 2010. (Crops Area and Production of Pakistan
(By Districts), Food and Cash Crops (1981-82 to 2008-09), Government of Pakistan
Statistics Division Federal Bureau of Statistics (Economic Wing), Islamabad, Pakistan.
Land Utilization Statistics of Pakistan, 1999. Provincial Agriculture Departments of Pakistan.
Akbar, G., Ahmad, M.M., Ghafoor, A., Khan, M., Islam, Z., 2016. Irrigation efficiencies
potential under surface irrigated farms in Pakistan. Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences 35, 15-24
Agriculture Statistics of Pakistan. Area irrigated by different sources (2010-11 to 2019-20),
Provincial Agriculture Departments of Pakistan.
Plaster, E., 2013. Soil Science and Management (6th Ed.). Cengage Learning, USA.
Belay, Z., Nega, H., Bantero, B., Demie, A., Mossie, B., Mekonnen, D., Negash, N., Aynekulu,
S., Alemayehu, M., Abebe, M., Fentahun, G., 2019. On-Farm Water Management
Training Manual, 1-158.
Walker, W., Skogerboe, G., 1987. Surface Irrigation: Theory and Practice. Prentice–Hall. Inc.
Englewood cliffs. New Jersey, USA.
Hargreaves, G.H., Patwardhan, M.M., 1985 A crop water evaluation manual for India. The
International Irrigation Center, Utah State University, USA, 85-86.
Hussain, A., Bangash, R., 2017. Impact of Climate Change on Crops’ Productivity across
Selected Agro-ecological Zones in Pakistan. PDR 56, 163-187.
Keller, J., Bliesner, R.D., 1990. Sprinkle and Trickle Irrigation. Springer US, Boston, MA. 1-
1457-1425-8

26