Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Evaluation and optimization of surge and alternate furrow irrigation

performance in maize fields using the WinSRFR software
Akbar Mehri a, Amir Soltani Mohammadi a, *, Hamed Ebrahimian b, Saeid Boroomandnasab a
a
Irrigation and Drainage Department, Faculty of Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
b
Department of Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor- Dr. B.E. Clothier Low efficiency of irrigation is a major problem with surface irrigation methods, mainly due to poor management
and improper design. The objective of this study was to evaluate and improve the performance of different surge
Keywords: and alternate furrow irrigation methods. A field experiment was conducted during the grain maize growing
Furrow irrigation season in the Jayedar Plain of Poldokhtar City (southwest of Iran) in the years 2020 and 2021. Five different
Performance evaluation
furrow irrigation methods including conventional furrow irrigation (CFI), surge irrigation with on/off cycle
Application efficiency
ratios of 1 and 0.5 (SFI1–1 and SFI1–2, respectively), fixed alternate irrigation (FFI) and variable alternate
Infiltration
WinSRFR software irrigation (AFI) were investigated. A total of 15 irrigation evaluations were performed at the initial, middle, and
end of the growing season by measuring inflow rate, cutoff time, outflow rate, infiltration and advance time. The
length and spacing of experimental furrows were 120 and 0.75 m, respectively, and the inflow rate of furrows
and the flow cutoff times at the initial (3rd irrigation), middle (6th irrigation), and end (9th irrigation) of the
season were 0.28 L/s and 240 min, 0.42 L/s and 360 min, 0.35 L/s and 300 min, respectively. The WinSRFR 3.1
software was calibrated and applied using field data based on the zero-inertia model. The results of the furrow
irrigation sensitivity analysis with WinSRFR 3.1 software demonstrated that furrow irrigation in the studied area
was most sensitive to the inflow rate, cutoff time and infiltration parameters, respectively. There were high
correlations between the measured and simulated values of runoff, infiltration and advance time (coefficient of
determination of 1.0, 0.94, and 0.97, respectively). The relative error values in estimating runoff, infiltration and
advance time were 5.60 %, 5.09 %, and 2.14 %, respectively. Mean performance indices of different furrow
irrigation methods under field experiments showed that the highest values of Application Efficiency (78.7 %),
Potential Application Efficiency of the minimum (69.5 %), and Potential Application Efficiency of low-quarter
(74.1 %) were observed under the AFI method. By optimizing the inflow rate and flow cutoff time, applica­
tion efficiencies of 66.6–80.7 % were obtained for different irrigation methods. The results of this study show
that AFI is a more suitable method for maize irrigation in the study area.

1. Introduction
Surface irrigation is the oldest and the most common irrigation
method. Pressurized irrigation systems usually have high irrigation ef­
ficiency, but due to rising energy and equipment costs, many researchers
carry out significant research to increase efficiency of surface irrigation
systems and propose this method as a proper alternative to pressurized
irrigation methods. Proper design and management of surface irrigation
will improve irrigation performance indices, and increase water pro­
ductivity and reduce agrochemical pollution (Ebrahimian and Playán,
2014; Lalehzari et al., 2015; Mazarei et al., 2020). In Iran, 37.8 % of the
total studies of irrigation systems are related to furrow irrigation and its
application efficiency and uniformity are reported as 49 % and 76 %,
respectively (Abbasi and Sohrab, 2011).
One of the ways to improve the performance of furrow irrigation is to
complement field experiments with simulation models. The major
benefits of mathematical simulation models for surface irrigation
include high speed, low cost, investigation of various combinations of
design parameters without the need for extensive and high-cost field
experiments, and a rapid review of new surface irrigation schemes in a
wide range (Bassett, 1972; Smith et al., 2018; Abbasi et al., 2003).
Ebrahimian and Liaghat (2011) investigated the performance of three

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.soltani@scu.ac.ir, a_soltani60@yahoo.com (A.S. Mohammadi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108052
Received 6 September 2022; Received in revised form 11 November 2022; Accepted 14 November 2022
Available online 24 November 2022
0378-3774/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Mehri et al.
mathematical models, hydrodynamics, zero-inertia, and kinematic wave
for furrow and border irrigation methods. Based on the results, a
non-significant difference was found between hydrodynamic and
zero-inertia models in estimating advance and recession times, infiltra­
tion, and runoff for both furrow and border irrigation methods. Gillies
and Smith (2015) developed the SISCO software to evaluate and
improve surface irrigation performance. They reported the suitability of
the software to evaluate furrow and border irrigation performance in
Australia.
Sayari et al. (2017) evaluated the furrow irrigation system with
different inflow rates using the WinSRFR software (Bautista et al.,
2009). They found that the kinematic wave model was less accurate than
the zero-inertia model. The lowest error in estimating advance time was
1.2 % (constant inflow rate) and the highest error was 11.2 % (incre­
mental inflow rate). The highest water application efficiency and the
lowest amount of runoff (72 % and 28 %, respectively) corresponded to
the cut-back inflow regime. Mazarei et al. (2020) applied the WinSRFR
software to optimize furrow irrigation performance in sugarcane farms
(southwestern Iran) under different inflow rates and geometric param­
eters. They suggested a flow rate of 3 L/s and a cut-off time of 379.5 min
to achieve the highest irrigation performance in their conditions. Ismail
et al. (2021) evaluated and optimized the performance of furrow irri­
gation systems in Egypt using the WinSRFR software. They concluded
that increasing the furrow length reduced irrigation performance, and
the optimal combination of inflow rate and cut-off time resulted in
increased Application Efficiency and reduced deep percolation losses.
Yadeta et al. (2022) assessed the furrow irrigation performance using
the WinSRFR software in Ethiopia. The results indicated that changing
decision variables (inflow rate and cut-off time) significantly improved
performance indices, such as application efficiency and deep percola­
tion, but the uniformity of distribution remained unchanged. The per­
formance calculated by the software was better than the performance
determined in the irrigation evaluation. Wu et al. (2017) investigated
the accuracy of the SIRMOD model in the simulation of alternate furrow
irrigation (AFI) and conventional furrow irrigation (CFI) and stated that
the simulations were done with very good accuracy in both cases.
Ahmadabadi et al. (2020) investigated various scenarios using the SIR­
MOD model to improve furrow irrigation application efficiency in sugar
beet fields located in the Moghan plain of Ardabil province, Iran. The
results demonstrated that using different scenarios could significantly
reduce water losses in the field. Ebrahimian et al. (2020) used various
methods to estimate infiltration parameters of furrow irrigation. The
results demonstrated that the Elliott and Walker method was the most
accurate among the various two-point methods. The multi-level cali­
bration method was the most accurate method for estimating the infil­
tration coefficients compared to other computer-based models. Their
sensitivity analysis demonstrated that changes of errors in estimating
infiltration parameters were a function of soil texture, furrow length,
inflow, and field slope. Chen et al. (2012) reported that proper flow rate
could improve application efficiency of furrow irrigation system in
North China Plain by 27 %. Anwar et al. (2016), Akbar et al. (2016) and
Nie et al. (2019) also demonstrated that a proper combination of inflow
and cutoff time increased application efficiency to the 75–90 % range.
By the hydraulic analysis of surface irrigation, WinSRFR software is
able to determine the optimal performance and select a solution that is
more compatible with implementation constraints (Bautista et al.,
2009). To evaluate the performance of the surface irrigation simulation
models and obtain reliable results, the field parameters of the model
need to be measured with an acceptable level of accuracy. The simula­
tion accuracy of the model depends on the input factors, especially the
inflow rate, the infiltration equation coefficients, and the Manning’s
roughness coefficient (Ebrahimian and Liaghat, 2011).
For the proper design of a surface irrigation systems, many variables
need to be considered. Operations irrigation variables are limited to cut-
off time and inflow rate. In this situation, iso-performance curves are
considered a suitable tool to improve the performance of the system
2
Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
(Bautista et al., 2019).
Due to the need to improve furrow irrigation performance in the
Jayder Plain of southwest of Iran, this study was conducted during the
grain maize growing season using five different furrow irrigation
methods (including one conventional, two alternate and two surge
methods) with the following goals:
1) Perform a sensitivity analysis of furrow irrigation for key input
parameters with WinSRFR software.
2) Parameterize the WinSRFR software to improve different furrow
irrigation methods (conventional, surge and alternate).
3) Compare the performance of different furrow irrigation methods.
4) Determine the optimized inflow rate and cutoff time parameters
based on the performance indicators of the irrigation system.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Research area
Field experiments were conducted in the Jayder plain of Poldakhtar
city, located in the southwest of Lorestan province (Iran) at a longitude
of 47◦ 41’ E, a latitude of 33◦ and 6′ N, and an altitude of 686 m above
sea level. The study area has a hot and dry climate, with dry summers
and mild winters. The average precipitation is 414 mm, according to
statistics for 55 years (1966–67–2020–21) from the Poldakhtar meteo­
rological station near the project site. Fig. (1) shows the geographical
location of the study area on the Iran map.
2.2. Field data
Soil texture was obtained using the hydrometer method, and the
textural class was determined using the USDA method. The soil bulk
density was measured using the cylinder method. Soil moisture at field
capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) was determined in the
pressure heads of 33 and 1500 kPa, respectively, using a pressure plate
apparatus and a pressure membrane, respectively. The results of the soil
physicochemical analyses are presented in Table (1).
Furrows at 0.75 m spacing and a length of 120 m were made after
plowing, disc, fertilizing, and re-disc operations. The experimental field
was then prepared under grain maize cultivation (Single Cross 704) with
an furrow irrigation system. The crop was sown in the third week of
March 2021 and harvested in mid-July 2021. The longitudinal and cross
slopes of the field were determined at 0.0085 and 0.0022 m/m,
respectively, by a using survey equipment. Five furrow irrigation
methods including conventional furrow irrigation (CFI), surge furrow
irrigation with on/off cycle ratios of 1 and 0.5 (SFI1-1 and SFI1–2,
respectively), and fixed and variable alternate furrow irrigation (FFI and
AFI, respectively) were investigated. In total, 20 furrows were estab­
lished (Fig. 2). The lateral furrows of each treatment acted as buffer
furrows (to eliminate lateral flow error of measuring from the lateral
furrows), and the required parameters were measured in the middle
furrow. A schematic map of the experimental furrows is displayed in
Fig. (2). Due to changes in soil infiltration characteristics during the
growing season, a total of three evaluations were carried out at the
beginning (third irrigation), middle (sixth irrigation), and end (ninth
irrigation) of the season. In each irrigation evaluation, inflow rate and
cutoff time, runoff, infiltration and advance time were recorded. The
maximum non-erosive inflow rate (0.7 L/s) of the experimental furrows
was determined using the Bohr (1976) equation. In all irrigation
methods, inflow rates and cutoff times were 0.28 L/s and 240 min,
0.42 L/s and 360 min, and 0.35 L/s and 300 min in the third, sixth, and
ninth irrigations, respectively. The inflow and outflow rates of the fur­
rows were measured using WSC flumes. Advance time was measured
and recorded at nailed points at 10 m spacing along the experimental
furrows. The geometric dimensions of the experimental furrows are
presented in Table (2).
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

Table 1
Soil physical and chemical characteristics of the experimental field.
Soil depth Percentage of soil particles Texture soil ρb (Mg m− 3) FC PWP ECe pH
(cm) (m3 m− 3) (m3 m− 3) dS m− 1
clay silt sand

0–30 38 41 21 Clay loam 1.27 0.37 0.19 1.01 7.89

30–60 39 40 21 Clay loam 1.26 0.36 0.18 0.99 7.83

ρb = dry bulk density; FC= Field Capacity; PWP = Permanent Wilting Point; ECe = Electrical Conductivity of saturated soil extract

Fig. 2. Schematic figure of the experimental design.

2.3. Crop water requirements where ETc is crop evapotranspiration (mm/day), KC is the crop coeffi­
cient and KP denotes the pan coefficient, and EPan indicates the evapo­
The crop water requirements during the growth period were calcu­ ration rate from Class A pan in mm/day. The pan evaporation data were
lated by Eq. (1) (Allen et al., 1998): obtained from the Poldakhtar synoptic meteorological station near the
ETc = KC × KP × EPan (1) study area. It should be noted that no effective precipitation occurred
during the plant growth period. The KP was considered 0.7 on average.

3
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052

Table 2 2.6. WinSRFR software

Geometry dimensions of the experimental furrows in different irrigation
methods. WinSRFR software is based on the numerical solution of the Saint-
Irrigation method CFI SFI1-1 SFI1-2 FFI AFI Venant equations. This software assumes inflow characteristics as a
Bottom width (m) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.11
variable relative to the space from the beginning of the farm or relative
Middle width (m) 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.27 to the time from the beginning of irrigation; it performs calculations
Top width (m) 0.4 0.41 0.41 0.4 0.43 with zero-inertia and kinematic wave models with the numerical solu­
Maximum depth (m) 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 tion method (Strelkoff et al., 1998). The implementation of WinSRFR
software has four parts: event analysis, performance analysis, physical
design, and simulation. In event analysis, the model evaluates field data
The growth period of the crop was 141 days, and the initial, develop­
and then uses the Miriam-Keller, field infiltration data, and Elliott and
mental, mid and final stages lasted 27, 27, 51, and 36 days, respectively.
Walker two-point methods to estimate the infiltration parameters. The
The KC values in four stages were on average 0.55, 0.94, 1.15, and 0.6,
performance analysis part consists of testing various applied scenarios of
respectively. It should be noted that it is quite easy for the local farmers
the system. These tests suggest different combinations of inflow rate and
to use the pan evaporation for the estimation of reference evapotrans­
cutoff time for a system with specific dimensions, slopes, and soil
piration (ETo) due to the metrological data scarcity.
characteristics to evaluate the performance of the irrigation system. The
various performance parameters analyzed by the model such as the
2.4. Infiltration equation
uniformity of distribution, water application efficiency, deep percola­
tion and runoff, minimum infiltrated depth and total applied water
The Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration equation is largely used in the
depth. In the design part, the physical dimensions of the field (length
design and evaluation of surface irrigation systems (Hanson et al.,
and width) are determined using field data to achieve acceptable per­
1993):
formance. In the simulation part, the model simulates the data given in
Z=kta+fot (2) the event analysis, physical design, and performance to run the simu­
lation scenarios alternatively (Strelkoff et al., 1996; Bautista et al.,
where Z is the cumulative infiltration depth (mm), fo denotes the 2012). In the present study, the zero-inertia model was used in the
basic infiltration (mm/ hr), t represents time (hr), k (mm/hra) and a (-) WinSRFR3.1 software. The main inputs of the software include the
are the empirical parameters of the equation. In different irrigation length and slope of the field, the geometric characteristics of the furrow
methods, the inflow-outflow method was used to determine the basic cross-section, the inflow rate, and infiltration and Manning’s roughness
infiltration rate (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987). The two-point method coefficients.
was also used to determine the coefficients a and k (Walker and Sko­
gerboe, 1987). In surge irrigation, two types of infiltration equations are 2.6.1. Calibration of the WinSRFR software
considered, one for the dry- state (the first surge irrigation of the fur­ To calibrate the software, the required data such as furrow geometry,
rows) and the other for the wet- state of the furrows (the second, third or Manning’s roughness coefficient, inflow and outflow hydrograph and
more irrigation). The coefficients of the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration advance time were input data to the software. To evaluate the WinSRFR
equation of surge irrigation were calculated based on the Walker- software, the simulated values of runoff, infiltration, and advance time
Humpherys method (Walker and Humpherys, 1983) for furrows in the were compared with the measured values. The volume of infiltrated
wet state (3, 6 and 9 irrigations events). water was calculated using the volumes of inflow and outflow from the
Given that irrigation is applied continuously after the end of the field (runoff). The calibration of the software under the field conditions
advance phase in surge irrigation, the storage, depletion and recession was done using different evaluation criteria including relative error
times are determined based on the continuous flow parameters, and the (RE), root mean square error (RMSE) and the coefficient of determina­
flow cutoff time is also calculated after completing the storage period tion (R2)
(Walker and Skogerboe, 1987).
XP = λXm (4)
2.5. Manning’s roughness coefficient
|XP − Xm |
RE = × 100 (5)
Manning’s equation was used to estimate the roughness coefficient Xm
assuming uniform flow and reaching the depth of flow to the normal √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√N
depth. The assumption of uniform flow is proposed for relatively high √∑
√ (Xmi − XPi )2
slopes, and this method will not be effective on slopes less than 0.001 √i=1
RMSE = (6)
(Elliott and Walker, 1982; Kamali et al., 2018). N
√̅̅̅
A2/3 S ∑
(3)
n
n= (Xm − Xp )2
Q P2/3 2
R = 1− i=1
∑n (7)
where n is Manning’s roughness coefficient, A is the area of cross section (Xm − X m )2
(m2), P is the wetted perimeter (m), S is the longitudinal slope of the
i=1

water surface (m/m), and Q is the inflow rate (m3/S).
The flow cross-sectional area and wetted perimeter of the experi­
mental furrows were measured using a cross-sectional measuring device
(Walker and Skogerboe, 1987) at three points (the beginning, middle
and end) of the furrows. Then, the Manning’s equation was used to es­
timate the mean value of n when infiltration rate reached steady state
condition.
where XP is the simulated value, Xm is the measured value, X‾m is the
average measured value N is the number of measurements, and λ is the
slope of the fitting line equation. If λ is less than 1, the software
underestimated, and if λ is greater than 1, the software overestimated.
The λ value close to 1 and an RE value close to zero indicate a good
estimate by the software.
2.6.2. Sensitivity analysis of furrow irrigation with WinSRFR software
The sensitivity of the furrow irrigation to WinSRFR software input
parameters, including cutoff time, the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration

4
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052

equation coefficients, Manning’s roughness coefficient, slope, and Table 3

inflow rate, was analyzed in this study. The effects of the above­ Coefficients of the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration equation and Manning’s rough­
mentioned input parameters were investigated on the output parameters ness coefficient.
including water application efficiency, runoff, deep percolation, distri­ Irrigation Irrigation k (mm.hr- a (-) fo (mm. n
bution uniformity, irrigation adequacy, and advance time. The sensi­ event method a
) hr− 1)
tivity of a specific input parameter was analyzed based on changing the 3 CFI 2.648 0.385 6.5 0.04
value of that parameter (while keeping other input parameters constant) SFI1–1 2.848 0.332 6.87 0.039
and investigating the change in the output parameters. In the sensitivity SFI1–2 2.88 0.311 6.68 0.038
FFI 3.019 0.254 7.03 0.037
analysis of each input parameter, the value of that parameter change
AFI 4.171 0.248 7.28 0.036
was considered equal to ± 50 % and ± 25 %, followed by running the 6 CFI 10.42 0.333 3.66 0.026
model. The model outputs in the initial state without changing the SFI1–1 10.682 0.297 4.08 0.025
values of each parameter were assumed to be the base output. The SFI1–2 10.772 0.293 3.91 0.024
sensitivity of each input parameter was expressed using the equation FFI 9.751 0.296 7.27 0.023
AFI 11.925 0.231 7.39 0.021
proposed by Liu et al. (2007): 9 CFI 8.791 0.402 3.33 0.032
( ) SFI1–1 10.456 0.364 3.73 0.031
△O △I − 1
SC = ×( ) (8) SFI1–2 10.421 0.374 3.48 0.03
O I FFI 5.792 0.487 7.39 0.028
AFI 6.842 0.454 7.69 0.026
where SC is the sensitivity coefficient of a specific input parameter on a
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient
specific output parameter, △O is a given output parameter change
before and after the change, O is the arithmetic mean of the output
parameter, △I is the difference of the input parameter before and after irrigation methods during the season, and the maximum and minimum
the change, and I‾ is the arithmetic mean of the input parameter. SC values also had large difference. The range of the parameters a, k and f0
values of 0, 0–0.3, 0.3–1.5, and > 1.5 indicate insensitivity, low sensi­ are 0.231–0.487, 2.648–11.925 mm hr− a and 3.33–7.69 mm hr− 1,
tivity, medium sensitivity, and high sensitivity, respectively. respectively, showing that k had greater changes than the other
parameters.
2.6.3. Irrigation performance indicators As reported by Fu et al. (2019), the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration
The performance evaluation of different furrow irrigation methods equation can accurately determine the cumulative infiltration under
was done using the different performance indicators, including Appli­ different conditions, however, it is difficult to calculate its coefficients
cation Efficiency (AE), Runoff (RO), deep percolation (DP), minimum due to changes in boundary conditions (Dialameh et al., 2017). In the
uniformity distribution (DUmin), low-quarter distribution uniformity current research, changes in the inflow discharge influenced the co­
(DUlq ), Minimum irrigation adequacy (ADmin), low-quarter irrigation efficients of the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration equation and the infiltra­
adequacy (ADlq), minimum potential application efficiency (PAEmin), tion rate increased by increasing inflow discharge. The effect of inflow
and low-quarter minimum potential application efficiency (PAElq) rate on infiltration was also reported be several researchers (Rodríguez,
(Bautista et al., 2009). 2003, 2020).
The iso-performance curves of the WinSRFR software were used to
optimize inflow rate (q) and cutoff time (TCO ) (Bautista and Schlegel, 3.2. Manning’s roughness coefficient
2019). The iso-performance curves created by the software operation
analysis are water application efficiency (AE), minimum distribution An increase in inflow rate increases the water advance speed in the
uniformity (DUmin), runoff (RO), applied depth (Dapp), and deep perco­ furrow and reduces the water advance time and Manning’s roughness
lation (DP). In general, a combination of q and TCO is optimal when it coefficient (n). mean values of Manning’s roughness coefficient were
maximizes the application efficiency and distribution uniformity. In this 0.038, 0.024, and 0.029 in the third, sixth, and ninth irrigation events,
situation, an option is to assume the maximization conditions of the total respectively. For each irrigation event, the lowest value of Manning’s
application efficiency and distribution uniformity as the “optimal” roughness coefficient belongs to the alternate and surge irrigation
design on the Dreq = Dmin line. Another option is to consider a minimum methods.
value for distribution uniformity, and this assumption will extract a Increasing the inflow rate from 0.28 (the third irrigation) to 0.35 (the
combination of q and TCO that will maximize the application efficiency. ninth irrigation) and 0.42 L/s (the sixth irrigation) reduced Manning’s
In this research, the iso-performance curves of application efficiency and roughness coefficient (n) by 20 % and 33.4 %, respectively. The higher
distribution uniformity were investigated by considering the DUmin of the discharge, the higher the flow depth, and the lower the value of
field trials and the minimum infiltration depth as the required depth Manning n. Similar results were reported by Xu et al. (2019). According
(Dmin = Dreq). to the studies of Mailapali et al. (2008) and Kamali et al. (2018), the
Manning’s roughness coefficient in bare and vegetated furrows has an
3. Results and discussion inverse relationship with inflow discharge. On the other side, the
Manning equation (Eq. 3) demonstrates that there is an inverse rela­
3.1. Parameters of the infiltration equation tionship between the inflow rate and the Manning’s roughness coeffi­
cient, which is consistent with the results of the present study. However,
Table 3 presents the values of the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration the effect of successive irrigation on the smoothness of the furrow soil
equation coefficients and the Manning’s roughness coefficient for all surface is another reason of decreasing the value of the Manning n
irrigation methods at different times of the growing season. In the third, during the growing season. The number of successive irrigations typi­
sixth and ninth irrigations, the basic infiltration value in Surge and cally reduces the value of the Manning n.
alternate methods is higher than the conventional method. Also, by
increasing the value of the parameter k, the value of the parameter a
3.3. Parameterization of the model for irrigation events
decreased. In different irrigation methods, the same trend was observed
for the values of the parameter a in all experiments during the growing
The observed and estimated values of runoff, infiltration, and
season, and the maximum and minimum values did not differ substan­
advance time are presented in Table 4. The software simulated runoff,
tially. The trend of changes in the parameter k was different in all
infiltration, and advance time with a high correlation (R2 of 1, 0.9445,

5
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052

Table 4
Measured and simulated values of runoff, infiltration and advance time for different furrow irrigation methods.
Irrigation Irrigation Measured runoff Simulated runoff Measured Simulated Measured advance Simulated advance
method event (m3 ) (m3 ) infiltration (m3 ) infiltration (m3 ) time (min) time (min)

CFI 3 1.30 1.37 2.74 2.58 53 55.2

6 5.37 5.67 3.68 3.62 43 43.9
9 3.36 3.55 3.01 2.72 49 49
SFI1–1 3 1.17 1.18 2.88 2.75 52 52
6 5.20 5.26 3.84 3.62 41.5 41.9
9 3 3.03 3.37 3.28 47 46.5
SFI1–2 3 1.24 1.27 2.81 2.67 53 52.5
6 5.29 5.42 3.75 3.58 42 42.4
9 3.09 3.17 3.28 3.13 48 48
FFI 3 1.14 1.19 2.92 2.84 55 56.1
6 3.62 3.78 5.42 5.35 45 47.7
9 1.90 1.98 4.47 4.35 51 52
AFI 3 0.93 0.93 3.15 3.24 57 59.8
6 3.39 3.38 5.63 5.52 47 47.9
9 1.63 1.63 4.74 4.62 52 55.6

and 0.9708, respectively) (Fig. 3). The RE values were 5.60 %, 5.09 %,
and 2.14 % in estimating runoff, infiltration, and advance time,
respectively (Table 5). Previous studies (Bautista et al., 2012; Gillies
et al., 2010; Anwar et al., 2016) indicated that the WinSRFR software
could predict the advance time and runoff of furrow irrigation systems
with acceptable accuracy, which is consistent with the results of this
research. In our particular experiments, the software overestimates the
runoff (λ = 1.056) and the advance time (λ = 1.0214), but it un­
derestimates infiltration (λ = 0.9491). The value of λ close to 1 and RE
close to zero indicate a good performance of the software. The highest
accuracy in estimating runoff belong to the AFI, SFI1–1, SFI1–2, FFI, and
CFI methods, respectively (Table 5). The highest accuracies in infiltra­
tion estimation are related to the AFI, FFI, SFI1–2, SFI1–1 and CFI
methods, respectively (Table 5). Therefore, the best and poorest esti­
mates of runoff and infiltration are related to the AFI and CFI methods,
respectively. The highest model accuracy in estimating advance time
was obtained for SFI1–1, SFI1–2, CFI, FFI, and AFI methods irrigation,
respectively (Table 5). Hence, SFI1–1 and AFI methods represent the

Fig. 3. Comparison between measured and estimated values of runoff (a), infiltration (b) and advance time (c) for the different furrow methods.

6
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052

Table 5
Parameterization of WinSRFR software for irrigation events in different irrigation methods.
Irrigation method λ RE ( %)

runoff infiltration advance time runoff infiltration advance time

CFI 1.056 0.949 1.022 5.60 5.10 2.20

SFI1–1 1.011 0.956 0.999 1.10 4.40 0.10
SFI1–2 1.025 0.954 0.9986 2.50 4.60 0.14
FFI 1.044 0.980 1.0305 4.40 2.00 3.05
AFI 0.998 0.986 1.0477 0.20 1.40 4.77

best and weakest model estimates for the advance time. The mean value
Table 7
of RMSE in estimating advance time was 4.6, 4.6, 4.7, 6.3, and 5.8 min
Sensitivity coefficient of some input parameters of the WinSRFR software.
for the CFI, SFI1–1, SFI1–2, FFI, and AFI methods, respectively (Table 6).
Accordingly, the software simulated the advance times of the surge Input Output parameter Average of
parameter sensitivity
irrigation methods with higher accuracy than those of the alternate AE RO DP TL ADmin DUlq
coefficient
methods. Chen et al. (2012), Sayari et al. (2017) and Xu et al. (2019) also
Tco 0.61 0.31 0.78 0 0.95 0.01 0.44
reported that the WinSRFR software had good accuracy and small error
a 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.32 0.06 0 0.08
in simulating advance times. K 0.091 0.17 0.23 0.61 0.1 0.03 0.2
f0 0.32 0.51 0.67 0.22 0.67 0.02 0.39
s 0.001 0.005 0.004 0.15 0.003 0 0.03
3.4. Sensitivity analysis of furrow irrigation with WinSRFR software
n 0 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.01 0 0.04
q 0.98 0.92 0.09 1.18 0.21 0.09 0.56
The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Table (7). The
AE = application efficiency; RO = runoff; DP = deep percolation; TL = advance
highest sensitivity effects on the application efficiency (AE) belong to
time; ADmin = minimum irrigation adequacy; DUlq = low-quarter distribution
inflow rate (0.98) and the cutoff time (0.61). The lowest effect on AE was
Uniformity; TCO = cutoff time; a and k = coefficients of the Kostiakov-Lewis
obtained for the furrow slope with a sensitivity coefficient of 0.001. The infiltration equation; f0 = basic infiltration rate; s = the longitudinal slope of
Manning’s roughness coefficient had no effect on AE. The results showed the water surface; n = Manning’s roughness coefficient; q= inflow rate
that among the parameters of the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration equation,
the highest sensitivity is related to the final infiltration rate. The highest
effect of the final infiltration rate is on the deep percolation and mini­
The values of AE, RO, DP, PAEmin and PAElq were 64.9 %, 33.7 %,
mum irrigation adequacy with a sensitivity coefficient of 0.67. Based on
1.4 %, 61.8 %, and 63.6 % for SFI1–1 and 64.2 %, 34.2 %, 1.6 %, 61.1 %,
the sensitivity analysis of the Manning’s roughness coefficient, this co­
and 62.7 % for SFI1–2, respectively. After the AFI method, SFI1–1 and
efficient has a negligible effect on the other output parameters, except
SFI1–2 had better performance. The values of ADmin were 97.8 %, 94.6 %
for the advance time. The results of the sensitivity analysis in this study
and 94.9 % in the CFI, SFI1-1, and SFI1–2 methods, respectively, indi­
are consistent with previous similar studies- (Zerihun et al., 1996;
cating that deficit irrigation did not occur in these irrigation methods
Ebrahimian et al., 2020).
because of the high consumed water (more than the requirement level).
In the FFI and AFI methods, however, the mean values of ADmin were
3.5. Furrow irrigation performance indicators 92.3 % and 86.6 %, respectively, suggesting the occurrence of deficit
irrigation in the alternate methods. Under water shortage conditions,
Table 8 presents the furrow irrigation performance indicators. The deficit irrigation increases both the area under cultivation and water
average performance indices of the five furrow irrigation methods were productivity, leading to water savings. The highest (98.6 %) and the
compared between three irrigation events. The results revealed that the least (92.7 %) ADlq values were observed in the CFI and AFI methods.
minimum and maximum values of AE, PAEmin , and PAElq were ob­ Some studies (Smith et al., 2005; Lalehzari et al., 2015; Kifle et al.,
tained in CFI (62.0 %, 60.3 %, and 61.9 %, respectively) and AFI (78.7 2017; Salahou et al., 2018; Nie et al., 2019) reported that increasing the
%, 69.5 %, and 74.1 %, respectively), respectively. The average values of flow cutoff time increased irrigation losses, particularly runoff, and
runoff and deep percolation losses were 35.7 % and 2.3 % in CFI, reduced AE by exceeding the required irrigation depth. In this study, AE
respectively. These values were 19.5 % and 1.8 % in AFI, respectively. showed a descending trend in the third, ninth, and sixth assessment
The lowest and highest values of DUlq belonged to AFI (92.5 %) and CFI times in the different irrigation methods due to increasing the inflow
(96.9 %), respectively. In the AFI method, the high AE and the low rate and cutoff times. Rising trends were also observed in distribution
difference between DUlq and PAElq are due to the proper management uniformity and irrigation adequacy.
and the appropriate use of the irrigation system. The high difference The present study revealed that AFI and CFI were the best and worst
(35.0 %) of these two parameters in CFI indicates poor irrigation man­ furrow irrigation methods, respectively. The low values of the perfor­
agement and caused large water losses in the field. In addition to AE and mance indices, particularly AE, in the CFI method were caused by the
DU, irrigation adequacy is also important in the design and assessment difference between the values of DUlq and PAElq , suggesting poor
of irrigation systems. irrigation management. Thus, proper measures such as proper deter­
mination of irrigation depth and, inflow rate, cutoff time, furrow length
Table 6 time based on the field specifications as well as training farmers and
The values of RMSE in estimating advance time (min) for different irrigation irrigators are among the strategies for improving the AE level. Conse­
events and furrow methods. quently, performance evaluation of irrigation systems, awareness of the
Irrigation event Irrigation method status quo, and providing applicable solutions in the field will help
CFI SFI1-1 SFI1-2 FFI AFI
provide more uniform and effective use of water in the field.

3 6 5.8 6 6.3 6.6

6 3.4 3.3 3.5 7.2 5.1 3.6. Analysis of furrow irrigation performance
9 4.3 4.7 4.5 5.3 5.6
Average 4.6 4.6 4.7 6.3 5.8
To increase AE and DU and reduce DP and runoff losses, furrow

7
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052

Table 8
Performance evaluation indicators of the furrow irrigation system (percent).
Irrigation event Irrigation method AE RO DP DUmin DUlq ADmin ADlq PAEmin PAElq

3 CFI 73.5 23.8 2.7 93.5 96.5 96.6 99.7 71.2 73.7
SFI1–1 75.7 21.5 2.8 91.9 95.5 95.5 99.4 72.5 75.3
SFI1–2 75.5 21.9 2.6 92.3 95.6 95.6 99.6 71.7 74.3
FFI 77.1 21.2 1.7 91.0 94.9 91.4 95.3 72.7 75.5
AFI 85.1 12.5 2.4 83.2 91.2 83.6 91.6 73.0 79.4
6 CFI 55.4 42.8 1.7 94.6 96.7 97.3 99.4 52.8 54.1
SFI1–1 56.8 42.1 1.1 94.3 96.4 93.5 95.7 53.8 55.2
SFI1–2 55.9 42.6 1.5 94.3 96.5 94.1 96.2 53.2 54.3
FFI 63.7 35.5 0.7 93.3 95.9 93.3 95.7 60.2 61.7
AFI 71.0 27.4 1.6 88.3 92.8 88.5 93.0 64.1 67.2
9 CFI 57.1 40.3 2.5 95.4 97.4 99.6 96.8 56.9 58.0
SFI1–1 62.1 37.6 0.3 94.6 96.2 94.8 96.1 59.0 60.3
SFI1–2 61.0 38.2 0.7 94.6 96.8 95.0 96.3 58.4 59.6
FFI 75.0 23.7 1.3 91.6 95.5 92.2 96.1 69.8 72.6
AFI 80.0 18.6 1.3 87.9 93.5 87.8 93.4 71.5 75.8
Average CFI 62.0 35.7 2.3 94.5 96.9 97.8 98.6 60.3 61.9
SFI1–1 64.9 33.7 1.4 93.6 96.1 94.6 97.1 61.8 63.6
SFI1–2 64.2 34.2 1.6 93.7 96.3 94.9 97.4 61.1 62.7
FFI 71.9 26.8 1.2 92.0 95.4 92.3 95.7 67.6 69.9
AFI 78.7 19.5 1.8 86.5 92.5 86.6 92.7 69.5 74.1

AE = application efficiency; RO = runoff; DP = deep percolation; DUmin = minimum distribution uniformity; DUlq = low-quarter distribution uniformity;
ADmin = minimum irrigation adequacy; ADlq = low-quarter irrigation adequacy; PAEmin = potential application efficiency of the minimum; PAElq = potential appli­
cation efficiency of the low quarter

irrigation performance indicators (AE and DU) under the experimental
field conditions were compared with the values optimized with the iso-
performance curves of the WinSRFR software (Table 9). AE values under
the field conditions were between 62.0 % (CFI) and 78.7 % (AFI).
Assuming the minimum uniformity of distribution in the current con­
ditions (field experiments) is maintained between 86.5 % (AFI) and 94.5
% (CFI) and by combining the contour map of application efficiency and
distribution uniformity, the optimal application efficiency of different
irrigation treatments was varied between 66.6 % (CFI) and 80.7 % (AFI).
AE could not be increased more than this value (80.7 %) regarding the
field properties such as furrow geometry and soil characteristics. The
greatest improvement in application efficiency was observed in CFI,
SFI1–1 and SFI1–2 by 8.2 %, 8.1 % and 8 % respectively.
In the current research, the iso-performance curves of the irrigation
system were employed as a new and effective management tool to
improve the irrigation system performance. In studies on optimizing
inflow rate and cutoff time (Khatri et al., 2007; Morris et al., 2015;
Anwar et al., 2016; Akbar et al., 2016; Nie et al., 2019), it was concluded
that the management of inflow rate and cutoff time could improve
furrow irrigation performance, which is in agreement with our results.
4. Conclusion
The present study examined and analyzed sensitivity of furrow irri­
gation to WinSRFR software input parameters and performance of
different furrow irrigation methods. We also evaluated the parametri­
zation of the WinSRFR software to improve the performance of different
furrow irrigation systems in the southwest Iran. Sensitivity analysis

Table 9
Comparison of furrow irrigation performance evaluation indicators (AE and DUmin ) under the field experiments and optimization with WinSRFR.
Irrigation event Irrigation method Field experiments Optimized increase in AE
( %)
q Tco AE DUmin (%) q Tco AE DUmin (%)
(L/s) (min) (%) (L/s) (min) (%)

3 CFI 0.28 240 73.5 93.5 0.28 243 73.5 93.5 –

SFI1–1 0.28 240 75.7 91.9 0.28 255 75.8 91.9 0.1
SFI1–2 0.28 240 75.5 92.3 0.29 252 75.6 92.3 0.2
FFI 0.28 240 77.1 91.0 0.29 264 77.3 91.0 0.3
AFI 0.28 240 85.1 83.2 0.29 279 85.1 83.2 –
6 CFI 0.42 360 55.4 94.6 0.40 370 62.1 94.6 12.1
SFI1–1 0.42 360 56.8 94.3 0.41 383 64.0 94.3 12.7
SFI1–2 0.42 360 55.9 94.3 0.41 389 62.7 94.3 12.2
FFI 0.42 360 63.7 93.3 0.40 394 69.8 93.3 9.6
AFI 0.42 360 71.0 88.3 0.39 405 71.8 88.3 1.1
9 CFI 0.35 300 57.1 95.4 0.35 300 64.2 95.4 12.4
SFI1–1 0.35 300 62.1 94.6 0.34 322 69.3 94.6 11.6
SFI1–2 0.35 300 61.0 94.6 0.34 320 68.1 94.6 11.6
FFI 0.35 300 75.0 91.6 0.34 327 78.3 91.6 4.4
AFI 0.35 300 80.0 87.9 0.33 345 85.2 87.9 6.5
Average CFI 0.35 300 62.0 94.5 0.34 304 66.6 94.5 8.2
SFI1–1 0.35 300 64.9 93.6 0.34 320 69.7 93.6 8.1
SFI1–2 0.35 300 64.2 93.7 0.35 320 68.8 93.7 8
FFI 0.35 300 71.9 92.0 0.34 328 75.1 92.0 4.8
AFI 0.35 300 78.7 86.5 0.34 343 80.7 86.5 2.5

q= inflow rate; Tco= Cutoff time; AE= Irrigation efficiency, DUmin = minimum uniformity distribution

8
A. Mehri et al.
revealed that furrow irrigation was the most sensitive to inflow rate,
cutoff time, and the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration equation parameters.
To achieve reliable results, therefore, these parameters should be
measured with acceptable accuracy. The highest effect of Manning’s
roughness coefficient was obtained on the flow advance time.
By conducting the field experiments and software parameterization,
software could simulate runoff, infiltration, and advance time with good
accuracy at relative errors of 5.60 %, 5.09 %, and 2.14 %, respectively.
In estimating runoff and infiltration, the best and poorest performance
of the software were observed for the AFI and CFI methods, respectively.
The software estimated the advance time with the highest and lowest
accuracies in the SFI1–1 and AFI methods, respectively.
The performance of different surge and alternate furrow irrigation
methods is evaluated using the WinSRFR software. According to the
results, the best and poorest performance corresponded to the variable
alternate irrigation and conventional furrow irrigation methods,
respectively, hence AFI is recommended in the studied area. After the
AFI method, the SFI1–1 and SFI1–2 methods had better performance
than the CFI and FFI methods.
Changing the inflow rate from 0.35 to 0.34 L/s and the cutoff time
from 300 to 304 min increased the application efficiency from 62.0 % to
66.6 % in CFI. Also, changing the inflow rate from 0.35 to 0.34 L/s and
the cutoff time from 300 to 320 min in SFI1–1 increased the application
efficiency from 64.9 % to 69.7 %. Thus, furrow irrigation performance
was improved by managing the cutoff time and the inflow rate.
In this study, WinSRFR software was well established and parame­
terized which led to sufficient agreement between the field observations
and the model outputs for furrow irrigation. This software improved the
performance of the different furrow irrigation methods (conventional,
surge and alternate) in the study area.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Research Council of Shahid Chamran Uni­
versity of Ahvaz for financial support (GN: SCU.WI1400.273).
References
Abbasi, F., Sohrab, F., 2011. Evaluating irrigation efficiency and iso-efficiency maps in
iran. icid 21st international congress on irrigation and drainage, 15-23 October
2011. Tehran, Iran. Persian.
Abbasi, F., Shooshtari, M.M., Feyen, J., 2003. Evaluation of various surface irrigation
numerical simulation models. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 129 (3), 208–213.
Ahmadabadi, Y.H., Liaghat, A., Sohrabi, T., Rasoulzadeh, A., Ebrahimian, H., 2020.
Improving performance of furrow irrigation systems using simulation modelling in
the Moghan plain of Iran. Irrig. Drain. 2020, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ird.2534.
Akbar, G., Ahmad, M.M., Ghafoor, A., Khan, M., Islam, Z., 2016. Irrigation efficiencies
potential under surface irrigation farms in Pakistan. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 35 (2), 15–23.
Allen, R.G., Preira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration guidelines
for computing crop water requirement. FAO Irrig. Drain. Pap. (No. 56) (Rome, Italy).
Anwar, A.A., Ahmad, W., Bhatti, M.T., Haq, Z.U., 2016. The potential of precision surface
irrigation in the Indus. Basin Irrig. Syst. J. Irrig. Sci. 34 (5), 379–396.
Bassett, D.L., 1972. A mathematic model of water advance in furrow irrigation. Trans.
ASCE 15 (5), 992–995.
Bautista, E., Schlegel, J.L., 2019. WinSRFR 5.1 User Manual. Arid Land Agricultural
Research Center, Maricopa, AZ.
Bautista, E., Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., 2009. Modern analysis of surface irrigation
systems with WinSRFR. J. Agric. Water Manag 96 (7), 1146–1154.
Bautista, E., Schlegel, J.L., Strelkoff, T.S., 2012. WinSRFR 4. 1 Use Man. Arid Land Agric.
Res. Cent.
9
Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
Chen, B., Ouyang, Z., Zhang, S.H., 2012. Evaluation of hydraulic process and
performance of border irrigation with different regular bottom configurations.
J. Resour. Ecol. 3 (2), 151–160.
Dialameh, B., Parsinejad, M., Ebrahimian, H., Mokhtari, A., 2017. Field comparison of
infiltration in conventional and alternate furrow irrigation under various initial and
boundary conditions. Irrig. Drain. 67, 156–165.
Ebrahimian, H., Liaghat, A., 2011. Field. Eval. Var. Math. Models Furrow Bord. Irrig.
Syst. J. Soil Water Res 6 (2), 91–101.
Ebrahimian, H., Playán, E., 2014. Optimum management of furrow fertigation to
maximize water and fertilizer efficiency and uniformity. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 16
(3), 591–607.
Ebrahimian, H., Ghaffari, P., Ghameshlou, Arezoo N, Hassan Tabatabaei, Alizadeh Dizaj,
A, H., 2020. Extensive comparison of various infiltration estimation methods for
furrow irrigation under different field conditions.Journal. Agric. Water Manag. 230
(2020), 105960.
Elliott, R.L., Walker, W.R., 1982. Field evaluation of furrow infiltration and advance
functions. Trans. ASAE 25 (2), 396–400.
Fu, Q., Hou, R., Li, T., Li, Y., Liu, D., Li, M., 2019. A new infiltration model for simulating
soil water movement in canal irrigation under laboratory conditions. Agric. Water
Manag. 213, 433–444.
Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., 2015. SISCO: surface irrigation calibration and optimization.
J. Irrig. Sci. 33 (5), 339–355.
Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., Williamson, B., Shanahan, M., 2010. Improving performance of
bay irrigation through higher flow rates irrigation. : Aust. Conf. Syd., Aust.
Hanson, B.R., Prichard, T.L., Schulbach, H., 1993. Estimating. Furrow infiltration. J.
Agric. Water Manag 24 (4), 281–298.
Ismail, S.M., Thabet, A., Abdel El-Al, A., Omara, A.I., 2021. Mproving irrigation
performance of raised bed wheat using the WinSRFR model under Egyptian
condition. Misr J. Ag. Eng. 38 (4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.21608/
mjae.2021.87350.1035.
Kamali, P., Ebrahimian, H., Parsinejad, M., 2018. Estimation of manning roughness
coefficient for vegetated furrows. Irrig. Sci. 36, 339–348.
Khatri, K.L., Smith, R.J., 2007. Toward a simple real-time control system for efficient
management of furrow irrigation. Irrig. Drain. 56 (4), 463–475.
Kifle, M., Gebremicael, T.G., Girmay, A., Gebremedihin, T., 2017. Effect of surge flow
and alternate irrigation on the irrigation efficiency and water productivity of onion
in the semi-arid areas of North Ethiopia. J. Agric. Water Manag 187, 69–76.
Lalehzari, R., Ansari Samani, F., Boroomand-nasab, S., 2015. Analysis of evaluation
indicators for furrow irrigation using opportunity time. Irrig. Drain. 64, 85–92.
Liu, H.F., Genard, M., Guichard, S., Bertin, N., 2007. Model-assisted analysis of tomato
fruit growth in relation to carbon and water fluxes. J. Exp. Bot. 58 (13), 3567–3580.
Mailapalli, D.R., Raghuwanshi, N., Singh, R., Schmitz, G., Lennartz, F., 2008. Spatial and
temporal variation of Manning’s roughness coefficient in furrow irrigation. J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 134, 185–192.
Mazarei, R., Mohammadi, A.S., Naseri, A.A., Ebrahimian, H., Izadpanah, Z., 2020.
Optimization of furrow irrigation performance of sugarcane fields based on inflow
and geometric parameters using WinSRFR in Southwest of Iran. Agric. Water Manag.
228, 105899.
Morris, M.R., Hussain, A., Gillies, M.H., Halloran, N.J., 2015. Inflow rate and border
irrigation performance. J. Agric. Water Manag 155, 76–86.
Nie, W.B., Li, Y.B., Zhang, F., Ma, X.Y., 2019. Optimal discharge for closed-end border
irrigation under soil infiltration variability. J. Agric. Water Manag 221, 58–65.
Playán, E., Rodríguez, J.A., Garcia-Navarro, P., 2004. Simulation model for level
furrows. I: analysis of field experiments. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 130 (2), 106–112.
Rodríguez, J.A., 2003. Estimation of advance and infiltration equations in furrow
irrigation for untested discharges. Agric. Water Manag. 60, 227–239.
Salahou, M.K., Jiao, X., Lu, H., 2018. Border irrigation performance with distance-based
cut-off. J. Agric. Water Manag 201, 27–37.
Sayari, S., Rahimpour, M., Zounemat-Kermani, M., 2017. Numerical modelling based on
a finite element method for simulation of flow in furrow irrigation. J. Paddy Water
Environ. 15 (4), 879–887.
Smith, R., Uddin, M., Gillies, M., 2018. Estimating irrigation duration for high
performance furrow irrigation on cracking clay soils. Agric. Water Manag 206,
78–85.
Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., Minkovich, J., 2005. Irrigation application efficiency and deep
drainage potential under surface irrigated cotton. J. Agric. Water Manag 71 (2),
117–130.
Strelkoff, T.S., Clemmens, A.J., Schmidt, B.V., Slosky, E.J., 1996. BORDER—a design and
management aid for sloping border irrigation systems. WCL Report 21. US Dept Agr.
Res. Serv. U. S.
Strelkoff, T.S., Clemmens, A.J., Schmidt, B.V., 1998. SRFR, Version3.31. A model for
simulating surface irrigation in borders, basins and furrows. US Dept Agr. Res. Serv.,
U. S.
Walker, W.R., Humpherys, A.S., 1983. Kinematic-wave furrow irrigation model. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 109 (4), 377–392.
Walker, W.R., Skogerboe, G.V., 1987. Surface Irrigation. Theory and Practice’. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
Wu, D., Xue, J., Bo, X., Meng, W., Wu, Y., Du, T., 2017. Simulation of irrigation
uniformity and optimization of irrigation technical parameters based on the
SIRMOD. Model Altern. Furrow Irrig. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 66 (4), 478–491.
A. Mehri et al.
Xu, J., Cai, H., Saddique, Q., Wang, X., Li, L., Ma, C., Lu, Y., 2019. Evaluation and
optimization of border irrigation in different irrigation seasons based on temporal
variation of infiltration and roughness. J. Agric. Water Manag. 214, 64–77.
Yadeta, B., Ayana, M., Yitayew, M., Hordofa, T., 2022. Performance evaluation of furrow
irrigation water management practice under Wonji Shoa Sugar Estate condition, in
10
Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
Central Ethiopia. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 69 (2022), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-
022-00071-x.
Zerihun, D., Feyen, J., Reddy, J.M., 1996. Sensitivity analysis of furrow irrigation
performance parameters. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 122 (1), 49–57. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1996)122:1(49).