Chapter 3-Surface Irrigation Design

Jigjiga University, Jigjiga Institute of Technology, School of Graduate Studies
Chapter Three
3. Surface irrigation design

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

a
Z req krreq  f o rreq (1)
where Zreq is the required infiltrated volume per unit length and per unit width (and is equal to
the soil moisture deficit) and rreq is the design intake opportunity time. For most surface
irrigated conditions, rreq should be as close as possible to the difference between the recession
time at each point and the associated advance time.
An engineer may have an opportunity to design a surface irrigation system as part of a new
irrigation project where surface methods have been selected or when the performance of an
existing irrigation system requires improvement by redesign. In a new irrigation project, it is
to be hoped that the surface irrigation system design is initiated after a great deal of irrigation
engineering has already occurred. The selection of system configurations for the project is in
fact an integral part of the project planning process. If a new or modified surface system is
planned on lands already irrigated, the decision has presumably been based, at least partially,
on the results of an evaluation at the existing site. In this case, the design is more easily
accomplished because of the higher level of experience and data available.
1
Surface Irrigation System Design (IDEN 6091) Lecture Note
In either case, the data required fall into six general categories (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987):
i. the nature of irrigation water supply in terms of the annual allotment, method of delivery and
charge, discharge and duration, frequency of use and the quality of the water;
ii. the topography of the land with particular emphasis on major slopes, undulations, locations
of water delivery and surface drainage outlets;
iii. the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, especially the infiltration
characteristics, moisture-holding capacities, salinity and internal drainage;
iv. the cropping pattern, its water requirements, and special considerations given to assure that
the irrigation system is workable within the harvesting and cultivation schedule, germination
period and the critical growth periods;
v. the marketing conditions in the area as well as the availability and skill of labour,
maintenance and replacement services, funding for construction and operation, and energy,
fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, etc.; and
vi. the cultural practices employed in the farming region especially where they may prohibit a
specific element of the design or operation of the system.
3.2. The basic design process
The surface irrigation design process is a procedure of matching the most desirable frequency
and depth of irrigation and the capacity and availability of the water supply. This process can
be divided into a preliminary design stage and a detailed design stage.
3.2.1. Preliminary design
The operation of the system should offer enough flexibility to supply water to the crop in
variable amounts and schedules that allow the irrigator some scope to manage soil moisture
for maximum yields as well as water, labour and energy conservation.
Water may be supplied on a continuous or a rotational basis in which the flow rate and
duration may be relatively fixed. In those cases, the flexibility in scheduling irrigation is
limited to what each farmer or group of farmers can mutually agree upon within their
command areas. At the preliminary design stage, the limits of the water supply in satisfying an
optimal irrigation schedule should be evaluated.
The next step in the design process involves collecting and analysing local climatological, soil
and cropping patterns to estimate the crop water demands. From this analysis the amount of
water the system should supply through the season can be estimated. A tentative schedule can
be produced by comparing the net crop demands with the capability of the water delivery
system to supply water according to a variable schedule. On-demand systems should have
more flexibility than continuous or rotational water schedules which are often difficult to
match to the crop demand. Whichever criterion (crop demand or water availability) governs
2
the operating policy at the farm level; the information provided at this stage will define the
limitations of the timing and depth of irrigations during the growing season.
The type of surface irrigation system selected for the farm should be carefully planned.
Furrow systems are favoured in conditions of relatively high bi-directional slope, row crops,
and small farm flows and applications. Border and basin systems are favoured in the flatter
lands, large field discharges and larger depths of application during most irrigations. A great
deal of management can be applied where flexibility in frequency and depth are possible.
3.2.2. Detailed design
The detailed design process involves determining the slope of the field, the furrow, border or
basin discharge and duration, the location and sizing of headland structures and miscellaneous
facilities; and the provision of surface drainage facilities either to collect tailwater for reuse or
for disposal.
Land levelling can easily be the most expensive on-farm improvement made in preparation for
irrigation. It is a prerequisite for the best performance of the surface system. Generally, the
best land levelling strategy is to do as little as possible, i.e. to grade the field to a slope which
involves minimum earth movement. Exceptions occur where other considerations dictate a
change in the type of system, say, basin irrigation, and yield sufficient benefits to off-set the
added cost of land levelling.
If the field has a general slope in two directions, land levelling for a furrow irrigation system
is usually based on a best-fit plane through the field elevations. This minimizes earth
movement over the entire field and unless the slopes in the direction normal to the expected
water flow are very large, terracing and benching would not be necessary.
A border must have a zero-slope normal to the field water flow which will require terracing in
all cases of cross slope. Thus, the border slope is usually the best-fit subplane or strip. Basins,
of course, are generally 'dead' level, i.e. no slope in either direction. Thus, terracing is required
in both directions. To the extent, the basin is rectangular, its largest dimension should run
along the field's smallest natural slope in order to minimize land levelling costs.
The detailed design process starts with and ends with land levelling computations. At the start,
the field topography is evaluated to determine the general land slopes in the direction of
expected water flow. This need not be the extensive evaluation that is needed to actually move
the earth. In fact, the analysis outlined earlier under the subject of evaluation is sufficient.
Using this information along with target application depths derived from an analysis of crop
water requirements, the detailed design process moves to the selection of flow rates and their
duration that maximize application efficiency, tempered however by a continual review of the
practical matters involved in farming the field later. Field length becomes a design variable at
this stage and again there is a philosophy the designer must consider. In mechanized farming
and possibly in animal power as well, long rectangular fields are preferable to short square
ones in most cases except paddy rice. This notion is based on the time required for implement
3
turning and realignment. In a long field, this time can be substantially less and therefore a
more efficient use of cultivation and harvesting implements is achieved.
The next step in detailed design is to reconcile the flows and times with the total flow and its
duration allocated to the field from the water supply. On small fields, the total supply may
provide a satisfactory coverage when used to irrigate the whole field simultaneously.
However, the general situation is that fields must be broken into 'sets' and irrigated part by
part, i.e. basin by basin, border by border, etc. These subdivisions or 'sets' must match the field
and its water supply. Thus, with the subdivisions established, the final land levelling is
undertaken.
Once the field dimensions and flow parameters have been formulated, the surface irrigation
system must be described structurally. To apply the water, pipes or ditches with associated
control elements must be sized for the field. If tailwater is permitted, means for removing
these flows must be provided. Also, the designer should give attention to the operation of the
system. Automation will be a key element of some systems. The treatment of these topics is
not detailed since there are other technical manuals and literature already available for this
purpose.
The design methodology used in here relies on the kinematic-wave analysis for furrow and
border advance and a fully hydrodynamic model for basin advance. Further explanation for
those interested can be found in Walker and Skogerboe (1987). Simple algebraic equations are
used for depletion and recession.
3.3. Computation of advance and intake opportunity time
The difference between an evaluation and a design is that data collected during an evaluation
include inflows and outflows, flow geometry, length and slope of the field, soil moisture
depletion and advance and recession rates. The infiltration characteristics of the field surface
can then be deduced and the application efficiency and uniformity determined. Design
procedures input infiltration functions (including their changes during the season), flow
geometry, field slope and length, and determine the rates of advance and recession as well as
the field performance levels for various combinations of inflow and cutoff times.
3.3.1. Common design computations
Two of the design computations are the same for all surface irrigation systems. These are the
estimate of required intake opportunity time and the time required for the water to complete
the advance phase. A step-by-step procedure for these computations will be given here and
simply referenced as such in later paragraphs.
i. Computation of intake opportunity time
The basic mathematical model of infiltration utilized in here is the following:
4
a
Z req  krreq  f o rreq
where Zreq is the accumulated intake in volume per unit length, m 3/m (per furrow or per unit
width are implied), rreq is the intake opportunity time in min, a is the constant exponent, k is
the constant coefficient m3/mina/m of length, and fo is the basic intake rate, m 3/min/m of
length. In order to express intake as a depth of application, Zreq must be divided by the unit
width. For furrows, the unit width is the furrow spacing, w, while for borders and basins it is
1.0. Values of k, a, fo and w along with the volume per unit length required to refill the root
zone, Zreq, are design input data.
The design procedure requires that the intake opportunity time associated with Zreq be known.
This time, represented by rreq, requires a nonlinear solution to Eq. 1. The simplest way to this
solution is to plot Eq. 1 with the parameters being used in the design, such as the drawings in
Figures______. Another convenient method for those with programmable calculators or
microcomputers is the Newton-Raphson procedure which is three simple steps as follows:
1. Make an initial estimate of rreq and label it T1;
2. Compute a revised estimate of rreq, T2:
Z req  kT1a  f oT1

T2 T1 
ak (2)
1 a
T1  f o
3. Compare the values of the initial and revised estimates of rreq (T1 and T2) by taking their
absolute difference. If they are equal to each other or within an acceptable tolerance of about 5
minutes, the value of rreq is determined as the result. If they are not sufficiently equal in value,
replace T1 by T2 and repeat steps 2 and 3.
ii. Computation of advance time
The time required for water to cover the field, the advance time, necessitates evaluation or at
least approximation of the advance trajectory. The first step is to describe the flow cross-
sectional area. For furrows and borders this is expressed in the following equation in which
the cross-sectional flow area, Ao in m2, and the inlet discharge per furrow or per unit width, Qo,
in m3/min. The parameters p1 and p2 are empirical shape coefficients. For border systems p1
equals 1.0 and p2 is 1.67. For most furrow irrigated conditions, p2 will have a value ranging
from 1.3 to 1.5. Fortunately, the furrow hydraulics is not too sensitive to variations in p2 and a
value of 1.35 will usually be adequate. The value of p1 varies according to the size and shape
of the furrow, usually in the range of 0.3 to 0.7. Figure 1 shows three typical furrow shapes
and their corresponding p1 and p2 values.
1
P2
 Qo n 
Ao  0.5


 60 P1 S o 
5
In a level slope condition, such as a basin, it is assumed that the friction slope is equal to the
inlet depth, yo in m, divided by the distance covered by water, x in m. This leads to the
following expression for Ao:
3 1.35
 (Qo n) 2 x 
Ao  
 3600  (3)
Note Ao increases continually during the advance phase and must therefore be calculated at
each time step of each advance distance as well as each flow and resistance. For sloping field
conditions, Ao is assumed to be constant unless the flow, slope or resistance changes.
6
Figure 1. Typical furrow shapes and their hydraulic sectional parameters
The input data required for advance phase calculations are p1, p2, field length (L), So, n and Qo.
This information can be used to solve for the time of advance, tL, using either of two
procedures: (1) the volume balance numerical approach; or (2) the graphical approach based
on the advanced hydraulic models.
1. Volume balance method
For the volume balance, numerical approach, the following equation is used to describe the
advance trajectory at two points: end of field and half-way point.
f otx
Qot  y Ao x   z kt a x 
1 r
where x is the advance distance in m from the field inlet at time, t, σy is surface storage shape
factor which ranges between 0.70 and 0.80, σz is the subsurface shape factor defined as:
a  r 1  a   1
z 
1  r 1  a 
r is empirical fitting parameter defined as:
log 2
r
log t L t 0.5 L 
where, t0.5L is the time of advance to a point near one-half the field length and, tL is the time of
advance to the end of the field.
The above volume balance equation can be written for the end of advance as:
f otL
Qot L  y Ao L   z kt a L 
1 r
and for the one-half advance as follows:
 y Ao L  z kt0a.5 L L f otL
Qot0.5 L   
2 2 2(1  r )
The above equations contain two unknowns, tL and r, which are related by the following
power advance trajectory equation:
x  pt xr
7
In order to solve for tL and r, a two-point advance trajectory is defined in the following
procedure:
1. The power advance exponent r typically has a value of 0.1-0.9. The first step is to make an
initial estimate of its value and label this value r1, usually setting r1 = 0.4 to 0.6 are good initial
estimates. Then, a revised estimate of r is computed and compared below.
2. Calculate the subsurface shape factor, σz, from the following equation:
a  r 1  a   1
z 
1  r 1  a 
3. Calculate the time of advance, tL, using the following Newton-Raphson procedure:
a. Assume an initial estimate of tL as T1

T1 5 Ao L Qo (4)
b. Compute a revised estimate of tL (T2) as
f o LT1
QoT1  0.77 Ao L   z kT1a L 
1  r1
T2 T1  (5)
 akL f L
Qo  z 1 a  o
T1 1  r1
c. Compare the initial (T1) and revised (T2) estimates of tL. If they are within about 0.5 minutes
or less, the analysis proceeds to step 4. If they are not equal, let T1 = T2 and repeat steps b
through c. It should be noted that if the inflow is insufficient to complete the advance phase in
about 24 hours, the value of Qo is too small or the value of L is too large and the design
process should be restarted with revised values. This can be used to evaluate the feasibility of
a flow value and to find the inflow.
4. Compute the time of advance to the field mid-point, t0.5L, using the same procedure as
outlined in step 3. The half-length, 0.5L is substituted for L and t0.5L for tL in the above
equation (step b). For level fields, the half-length and the flow area must be substituted. The
above equation for Ao is used with x replaced by L and 0.5L to find the appropriate values of
Ao.
5. Compute a revised estimate of r as follows:
log 2
r2 
log t L 

t
 0.5 L  (6)
8
6. Compare the initial estimate, r1, with the revised estimate, r2. The differences between the
two should be less than 0.0001. If they are equal, the procedure for finding tL is concluded. If
not, let r1 = r2 and repeat steps 2-6.
As an example of this series of calculations, suppose the advance time is wanted for a field
with the following data:
Infiltration parameters a = 0.568
k = 0.00324 m3/mina/
m
fo = 0.000174 m3/min/
m
inflow Qo = 0.15 m3/min
slope So = 0.001
length L = 200 m
roughness n = 0.04
hydraulic section p1 = 0.55
p2 = 1.35
1. Set r1 = 0.6
0.568  0.61  0.568  1

Sz  0.7283
2. 1.5681.6
1 1.35
 0.15 * 0.04 
Ao  0.5  0.0219m 2
3a.  60 * 0 .001 * 0 . 55 
Note: If the field slope is zero, Eq. 3 would be used here for Ao and would use L in place of x.
5 * 0.0219 * 200
T1  146 min utes
3b. 0.15
9
0.000174 * 200 *146

0.15 *146  0.77 * 0.0219 * 200  0.7283 * 0.00324 *146 0.568 * 200 
T2 146  1.6
0.7283 * 0.568 * 0.00324 * 200 0.000174 * 200
0.15  
1461 0.568 1.6
146    75.67  70.33 min utes
3c. Error = ABS (T2 – T1) = 75 - 70.33 = 4.67 minutes. Therefore, let T1 = 70.33 and repeat
steps (3b and 3c).
3b. The second iteration yields T2 = 70.33 - (+4.2) = 66.13 minutes.
3c error is now 4.2 minutes so T1 = 66.13 and steps 3b and 3c are repeated. At the end of
another iteration the error is less than one minute and the value of tL is found to be
66.07 minutes.
4. The time of advance to the field's half-way point is found by following the same steps as
outlined above by substituting 0.5*L = 100 meters for the length and t0.5L for the advance
time to this distance. The result after two more iterations is 21.9 minutes.
Note: If the field's slope is zero, the computation of t0.5L must begin at Step 3a using L/2 for x.
log 2
r2  0.6285
5. log 66.07 21.9 
6. The error in the parameter r (0.6 – 0.6285) is greater than the acceptable tolerance so Steps
2 through 6 are repeated. The final advance time is 65 minutes.
As one easily finds, the numerical approach is justified only when one has at least a hand-held
programmable calculator or microcomputer.
2. Graphical method
The graphical approach involving Figures 2a - 2f for furrows and borders and Figures 3a - 3f
for basins has been derived from computations using the kinematic-wave and hydrodynamic
simulation models summarized by Walker and Skogerboe (1987). These models are available
from a number of sources, some commercially, and are not included herein.
10
Figure 2a. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.2
11
Figure 2b. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.3
12
Figure 2c. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.4
13
Figure 2d. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.5
14
Figure 2e. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.6
15
Figure 2f. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.7
16
Figure 3a. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a =
0.2
17
Figure 3b. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a =
0.3
18
Figure 3c. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a =
0.4
19
Figure 3d. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a =
0.5
20
Figure 3e. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a =
0.6
21
Figure 3f. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration exponent a =
0.7
The graphical procedure is as follows:
1. Define the infiltration parameters k, a, and fo the field length L; the field slope So; the inlet
discharge Qo; surface roughness coefficient n; and the hydraulic section parameters p1 and
p2
22
2. Compute the inlet flow area, Ao using Eq. 3 for furrows and borders and Eq. --for basins:
3. Compute the dimensionless parameter K*:
k
K*  1 a
A  (7)
f o  o 
 fo 
4. Compute the dimensionless parameter L*:
Lf o
L*  (8)
Qo
5. Enter the appropriate figures for values of the infiltration exponent, a, which bracket the
design value, interpolate for the value of K*, and read the two values of :
6. Compute the time of advance:
t *A Ao
tL  (9)
fo
7. Average the two values to get tL for the value of a used in the design.
As an example of using the graphical approach, suppose, as in the example of the numerical
volume balance approach, the input data are as follows:
1.
Infiltration parameters a = 0.568
k = 0.00324 m3/mina/
m
fo = 0.000174 m3/min/
m
inflow Qo = 0.15 m3/min
slope So = 0.001
length L = 200 m
roughness n = 0.04
hydraulic section p1 = 0.55 23

p2 = 1.35
 0.15 * 0.04  2
Ao  0.5  0.0219m
2.  60 * 0 .001 * 0 .55 
Note: If the field slope is zero, Eq. 3 would be used here for Ao and would use L in place of x.
0.00324
K*  1 0.568
2.31
 0.0219 
0.000177 *  
3.  0.000174 
200 * 0.000174
L*  0.232
4. 0.15
5. From Figure 2d, interpolating about 75 percent [log(2.3/1)/log(3/1) = 0.76] of the distance
between curves K* = 1 and K* = 3 yields = 0.54. From Figure 2e, the same process
yields a = 0.50 for an average of 0.52. The advance time is then estimated as:
0.52 * 0.0219
tL  65.4 min utes
0.000174
Note the value using the volume balance numerical method yielded 65 minutes. Usually with
careful interpolation the values of tL found from the two methods will vary less than 5 - 10
percent.
v. Summary
The calculation of advance time is possibly the most important design step. At the beginning
of the design process, this procedure is used to test whether or not the maximum flow will
complete the advance phase within a prescribed time. Then it is used to find the minimum
inlet discharge, and in the case of cutback or reuse systems to find the desired flow for the
system operation. It is suggested that after the maximum inflow is determined and the
associated tL checked, the flow be incrementally decreased and additional values of tL
determined so that a relationship between flow and advance time can be established. At the
end of this procedure, the minimum flow will also have been identified as that which fails to
complete the advance phase in a set time, 24 hours for example. Finally, the tL computation is
used repeatedly in the search for the flow which maximizes the application efficiency.
iii. Computation of cutoff time
When flow of water at the inlet to the field is shut off, the water on the
surface will drain or recede from the field. If the downstream end of the
field is blocked, this “recession” is primarily a function of infiltration and
need not be computed directly. On the other hand, when the downstream
end of the field is not blocked, it is necessary to determine how much
24
additional intake opportunity time is involved during the recession phase

and then adjust the cutoff time accordingly.
A key assumption in estimating the time of cutoff is that the system design
will refill the root zone at the downstream end of the field. This assumption
can be written as:
t r rreq  t L
in which tr is the total time from when water is first introduced to the field
to the time when it has completely receded following the cutoff of the
inflow, in minutes. The cutoff time is found by:
Ao L
t co t d 
2Qo
where tco is the time of cutoff in minutes since the inflow was first added to
the field (duration of inflow), td is the “depletion” time in minutes, Ao is the
flow cross-sectional area, L is the field length, and Qo is the inflow
discharge just prior to cutoff in m 3/min. The depletion time, td, is found
iteratively as follows (assume the initial value of td, (td)0 equals tr):
0.095n 0.47565 S y0.20735 L0.6829

(t d ) i 1 t r 
I 0.52435 S o0.237825
Where:
ak a  1
I
2
 
td i   td  i  t L 
a 1
 fo
0.6
1   Q  IL  n 
Sy   o
L  60 S o 
and n is the Manning roughness coefficient and So is the field slope. When the difference
between (td)i and (td)i+1 are within a tolerance value, the depletion time is computed.
3.4. Furrow irrigation flow rates, cutoff times, and field layouts
There are three primary furrow designs:
i. furrow systems without cutback or tailwater reuse facilities;

ii. the cutback system; and
iii. the tailwater recirculation system.
25
These systems should be flexible to irrigate fields adequately in which the surface roughness
and intake rates vary widely from irrigation to irrigation. The philosophy of design suggested
here is to evaluate flow rates and cutoff times for the first irrigation following planting or
cultivation when roughness and intake are maximum and for the third or fourth irrigation
when these conditions have been reduced by previous irrigations.
3.4.1. Furrow design procedure for systems without cutback or reuse
i. Input Data:
Description Parameter
First irrigation infiltration a, k, and fo
Later irrigation infiltration as, ks and fos
Field length, width, slope, roughness L, Wf, Sm and

n
Required application depth Zreq
Furrow spacing and shape w, p1, and p2
Soil erosive velocity Vmax
Water supply rate and duration QT and TT
Number of furrows Nf = Wf/w
ii. The maximum flow velocity in furrows is suggested as about 8-10 m/min in erosive silt
soils to about 13 - 15 m/min in the more stable clay and sandy soils. A maximum value of
furrow inlet flow, Qmax m3/min, that will fall within the maximum, Vmax, is:
1  P2  1
 P2 n 
Qmax  Vmax  (10)
 60 P1 S o0.5 
The value of Qo should be adjusted so that the number of sets is an integer number, i.e. NfQo/
QT should be an integer, but should not exceed Qmax.
iii. Compute the advance time, tL.
iv. Compute the required intake opportunity time, rreq.
26
v. Compute time of cutoff, tco, in min by neglecting depletion and recession:
t co rreq  t L (11)
vi. Compute application efficiency, Ea:
Z req L
Ea 
Qo t co (12)
The application efficiency should be maximized subject to the limitation on erosive velocity,
the availability and total discharge of the water supply, and other farming practices. The
inflow should be reduced and the procedure repeated until a maximum Ea is determined.
3.4.2. Design procedure for furrow cutback systems
Any procedure which attempts to maximize application efficiencies will determine the
minimal waste trade-off point between tailwater and deep percolation. Small values of inflow
reduce tailwater losses but increase deep percolation losses. Large furrow flows advance over
the field rapidly thereby providing the potential for greater application uniformity and less
deep percolation, but also greater tailwater losses as the water flows from the field for a longer
time.
One method of minimizing tailwater is to reduce the furrow inflow when the advance phase is
completed. Most cutback systems are designed to operate in two concurrent sets, one advance
phase set and one wetting or ponding set. The advance phase and the wetting phase are both
equal in duration to the required intake opportunity time. One of the most common cutback
systems is that proposed by Garton (1966) and is illustrated in Figure 4. The head ditch is
divided into a series of level bays with spires or other means of diverting water into the
furrows. As is shown, the differences in bay elevations correspond to the head on the outlets
needed to provide the desired advance phase flow and the wetting flow simultaneously.
The design procedure for the system illustrated in Figure 4 follows a sequence not entirely
unlike that of the non-cutback systems but with several points of additional concern. In
addition to information describing the furrow geometry, infiltration characteristics, field slope
and length, and the required application, it is also necessary to know the relationship between
head ditch water level and the furrow inflow:
Qo c1 Ah c2
(13)
where c1 and c2 are empirical coefficients, h is the head over the outlets, in m, and A is the
outlet area in cm2.
27
Figure 4. Schematic drawing of the furrow cutback system proposed by Garton (1966)
Elevation drawing showing the system of cutback furrow irrigation. In A, bay l is delivering
the initial furrow flow. In B, the check dam has been removed from bay l, bay 2 is delivering
the initial flow, and bay l is delivering the cutback furrow flow. In C, the check dam has been
removed from bay 2, bay 3 is delivering the initial furrow flow, and bay 2 is delivering the
cutback furrow flow, and bay l is shut off.
The first calculation can be the required intake opportunity time using the first of the common
design computations. The design should provide an advance phase flow sufficient to allow tL =
rreq. Since this requirement is most likely to be a constraint under high intake conditions, the
design advance flow for the first irrigation following a cultivation or planting should be the
upper limit. This flow, of course, must be less than the maximum non-erosive flow. Thus, the
second computation would be to compute the maximum flow from Equation 12.
An intermediate design computation can be made at this point. The advance time can be
calculated using the maximum furrow inflow, Qmax. If tL is less than rreq, a feasible cutback
design is possible and the following procedures can be implemented. If the advance associated
with the maximum flow is too long, then either the required application should be increased
(at the risk of crop stress) or the field length shortened. It is usually better to reduce the field
length and repeat these calculations.
28
When the design is shown to be within this constraint on flow, the next computation is to find
the furrow advance discharge which just accomplishes an advance in treq minutes. If the
advance time for a range of inflows has been determined as suggested earlier, identifying this
flow is accomplished by interpolation within the data. If this information has not been
developed, it is necessary to do so at this point. The easiest method is to change Qo iteratively
until the associated advance time equals the required intake opportunity time.
The cutback flow following the advance phase must be sufficient to keep the furrow stream
running along the entire length. Thus, some tailwater will be inevitable but should be
minimized. Knowing that infiltration rates will decrease during the wetting period to values
approaching the basic intake rate suggests a guideline for sizing the cutback flow:
Qcb bf o t L (14)
where b is a factor requiring some judgment to apply. It should probably be in the range of 1.1
to 1.5.
The application efficiency of the cutback system can be thus described as:
Z req L Z req L
Ea  
Qo t L  Qcb rreq rreq  Qo  Qcb 
(15)
Once the advance and recession phase flows have been determined, the next step is to
organize the field system into subsets. The first irrigating set must accommodate the entire
field supply. The number of furrows in this set is therefore:
N 1 QT Qo (16)
For the second set,
N 2  QT  N1Qcb  Qo (17)
and similarly,
N i  QT  N i Qcb  Qo (18)
The field must be divided into an integer number of subsets which may require some
adjustment of QT, Qo, or Qcb. And, it should be noted that irrigation of the last two sets cannot
be accomplished under a cutback regime without reducing the field inflow, QT, or allowing
water to spill from the head ditch during the cutback phase on the last set.
To relieve the designer of a cumbersome trial and error procedure-trying to find the number of
sets and the furrows per set that will work with various water supply rates, a suggested
procedure is to fix the number of sets and compute the necessary field supply discharge.
29
This is a four-step procedure:
i. Compute the cutback ratio for each of the field's infiltration conditions:
CBR Qcb Qo (19)
Select the largest value, and discard the other.
ii. Let k be the number of sets and compute the following product stream:
for k 2, A2  CBR (20)
k
for k  2, Ak   CBR j  Aj  1  (21)
j 3
Then the number of furrows in the first set is:
N1  N f  k  A (22)
iii. Calculate the number of furrows in each remaining set as:
for k 2, N 2  N f  N1
or,
for k  2, N 2 1  CBR  N 1 (23)
and,
set first value of B  CBR

k
B   CBR 1  B  (24)
j 3
N f  N 1 1  B  (25)
iv. Steps ii and iii ensure that the field subdivides into an integer number of sets, but the field
supply must vary according to the number of sets:
QT  N 1Qo (26)
Thus, for a single specified Qo, the designer can subdivide the field into several sets and
choose the configuration that best suits the farm operation as a whole.
30
Before moving to the final design computation, the design of the head ditch, mention is made
of using the cutback system under variable field conditions. Irrigations immediately after
planting or cultivation will be generally higher than those encountered after the first irrigation.
It will not be possible to alter the number of furrows irrigating per bay of the head ditch, so the
inflow to the entire system must be adjusted. The design procedure outlined above is repeated
for the appropriate value of Zreq and infiltration. Then, the system discharge is determined by
Eq. 26.
For the system illustrated in Figure 4, the design of the head ditch involves the calculation of
the relative bay elevations. From Eq. 14, the head over the outlets during the advance phase,
ha, is:
1 c2
ha  Qo c1  (27)
and during the wetting period phase, hw, is:
1 c2
hw  Qcb c1  (28)
Thus, the elevational difference between bays is ha–hw. Each bay should be designed as a level
channel section of length equal to the number of furrows per set times the furrow spacing. To
accommodate the drop between bays, it is helpful if the field has a moderate cross-slope.
3.4.3. Design of furrow systems with tailwater reuse
The application efficiency of furrow irrigation systems can be greatly improved when
tailwater can be captured and reused. The design of such a system is somewhat more complex
than the procedure for traditional furrow and cutback systems because of the need to utilize
two sources of water simultaneously.
The major complexity of reuse systems is the strategy for re-circulating the tailwater. One
alternative is to pump the tailwater into the primary supply and then increase the number of
operating furrows to utilize the additional flow. Or, tailwater can be used to irrigate separate
sections of the field or even other fields. In any case the tailwater reservoir and pumping
system need to be carefully controlled and coordinated with the primary water supply.
To illustrate the design strategy for reuse systems, a design procedure for a common
configuration outlined by Walker and Skogerboe (1987) is presented. The reuse system shown
schematically in Figure 5 is intended to capture tailwater from one set and combine it with the
supply to a second set. A similar operating scenario prevails for each subsequent pair until the
last set is irrigated when some of the tailwater must be either stored until the next irrigation,
dumped into a wasteway, used elsewhere or used to finish the irrigation after the primary
inflows have been shut-off.
31
Figure 5. Illustration of a typical reuse configuration
The total volume of tailwater recycled will be held to a constant volume equal to the runoff
from the first set. The difference in tailwater volumes between the first and subsequent sets
may be wasted. The recycled flow can thus be held constant to simplify the pump-back system
and its operation.
The reuse system design procedure is as follows:
i. Input data are the same as for the cutback system.
ii. Compute the required intake opportunity time, rreq, as outlined previously.
32
iii. Compute or interpolate the inlet discharge required to complete the advance phase in
approximately 30 percent of rreq, correcting if necessary for non-erosive stream velocities. See
the suggestion at the end of section 3.4.1.
iv. Compute the tailwater volume as follows:
1 The time of cutoff is:

t co rreq  t L (29)
2. The infiltrated depths at field inlet and outlets are:
Z in kt coa  f o t co (30)

Z out  Z req
3. A conservative estimate of the field runoff per furrow is:
0.77 Ao L  Z in  Z out  L
Vtw  N f Qo t co  
2 2 (31)
where N f QT Qo
v. Compute pump-back discharge, Qpb:
Q pb Vtw t co (32)
vi. Compute number of furrows in second or subsequent sets:
QT  Q pb
Ni  (33)
Qo
vii. The field should be in evenly divided sets which may require repetition of the procedure
with a modified furrow discharge.
3.4.4. Furrow irrigation design examples
Problem: Furrow irrigation designs are often needed either for new irrigation schemes or on
existing projects where improvements are needed. Land consolidation has been carried out in
a number of irrigation projects where implementation has included land reform policies and
has resulted in field units amenable to furrow irrigation. Consider one such case where the
new farm units have been organized around a 2 hectare block 200 m by 100 m. Flow of 30
liters per second are allocated to each block for 48 hours every 10 days. Initial field surveys
showed that the fields needing first attention were comprised of a loam soil, sloped 0.8 percent
over the 100m direction and 0.1 percent over the 200 m direction. The furrows were placed on
33
0.5 m intervals across the 100m direction (and running in the 200 m direction). The furrows
were assumed to have a hydraulic section where p1 = 0.57 and p2 = 1.367.
During the evaluations noted, the infiltration functions characteristic of the field was divided
into two relationships to describe the first irrigation following cultivations and then the
subsequent irrigations. These relationships are:
Z = 0.00346 t 0.388 + 0.000057 t (first irrigations)
and
Z = 0.0038 t 0.327 + 0.000037 t (later irrigations)
The evaluation used a Manning coefficient of n = 0.04 for all analyses.
The crops expected were studied along with the local climate and it appeared that the best
target depth of application, or Zreq, would be 8 cm. With 0.5 m furrow spacing, Zreq would be
0.04 m3/m/furrow.
Water is in short supply so the project planners would like an estimate of the potential
application efficiency with and without cutback and reuse.
Initial Design Calculations: With the design algorithm in mind but considered only as a
guide, let the design process begin with the limitations on the design parameters. The first of
these can be the maximum allowable flow in the furrow, Qmax. The soils are relatively stable so
assume the maximum flow velocity could be as high as 13 m/min. Equation 10 in a previous
section provides the means of evaluating the corresponding maximum flow rate:
1   2  1
 1 n 
Qmax  Vmax 
0.5  (10)
 60 1S o 
1  1.367  1
 0.04 
 131.367 * 0.5 
 0.57 * 0. 001 * 60 
= 1.768 m3/min (the total field inflow could be put in each furrow in this case)
The field is 100 m wide so that using a 0.5 m furrow spacing results in 100/0.5= 200 furrows.
The water supply of 30 l/s or 1.8 m 3/min would service 1.8/0.104 = 17.31 furrows per set or
the field would be divided into 200/17.31 = 11.56 sets (obviously impractical since the sets
must be comprised of an integer number of furrows and the field needs to be subdivided into
an integer number of sets). A practical upper limit on the number of sets is perhaps 10
consisting of 20 furrows each and having a maximum flow of 0.09 m 3/min. Beyond this 'upper
limit' some of the following options also evenly divide the field:
34
Furrow
Furrows Per
Number of Sets Flow
Set
m3/min
10 20 0.09
8 25 0.072
5 40 0.045
4 50 0.036
2 100 0.018
1 200 0.009
The second limitation on the design procedure is whether or not the flow will complete the
advance phase in a reasonable time, say 24 hours. Particularly important in this regard is what
minimum flow will complete the advance phase within this limit. If the maximum flow is too
small to complete the advance, the furrow length must be reduced.
The second common design computation described in Section 4.3.1 provides the means of
determining the time of advance tL as a function of furrow inflow, Qo. The maximum inflow
can be used to calculate the minimum advance time, but since the minimum flow conditions
are not known, the maximum advance time must be established by examining each flow. The
computation of tL for each Qo can be accomplished with either method outlined and if
undertaken yields the results given in the following table which are also plotted in Figure 6.
Advance Time
Furrow
Sets Discharge
m3/min First Irrigation minutes Later Irrigations
minutes
10 0.09 58.2 *
8 0.072 72.6 *
5 0.045 130.8 101.4
35
4 0.036 184.2 132.6
2 0.018 847.8 379.2
1 0.009 * 2390.4
Figure 6. Example relationships between inflow rate and advance time
36
i. Design and layout for traditional furrow irrigation
There are now five configurations feasible for the initial field condition and six for the later
conditions. The design question at this stage is which one leads to the optimal design. The
answer is determined by computing the application efficiency for each alternative. First, the
required intake opportunity time for each condition is determined using the procedure outlined
in Section 4.3.1. For the first field rreq = 214 minutes. Similarly, for the later applications, rreq =
371 minutes.
The application efficiency for each of the possible field configurations can now be computed.
The results, shown in the table below, indicate that one good design is to divide the field into 4
individual subunits or sets of 50 furrows and utilize an inflow of 0.036 m 3/min per furrow
during the first irrigations. The resulting application efficiency would be nearly 56 percent.
Figure 7 imposes this layout on the field. Then during later irrigations two sets would be
irrigated simultaneously so that each furrow would receive 0.018 m 3/min. The application
efficiency of later irrigations would be about 59 percent.
Ea, in Percent
Qo Zreq
Sets m3/mi m3/
n m First Irrigations Later
Irrigations
10 0.09 0.04 32.6 **
8 0.072 "" 38.6 **
5 0.045 "" 51.5 37.7
4 0.036 "" 55.7 44.2
2 0.018 "" 41.9 59.3
1 0.009 "" ** 32.2
37
Figure 7 Final traditional furrow design layout
The frequency and duration of each irrigation needs to be checked and then the headland
facilities selected and designed. During the first irrigation, the field will require just more than
35 hours to complete the irrigation (the sum of rreq + tL times the number of sets). The later
watering will require 25 hours. If evapotranspiration rates were as high as 0.8 cm/day, the
irrigation interval of 10 days waters the field well within these limits (Zreq divided by the crop
use rate approximates the irrigation interval). Since the water supply is presumably controlled
by an irrigation department, the design can be substantially hindered if the delivered flows are
not as planned.
It may be useful to examine briefly the performance of this design. If the actual irrigations
evolve as these design computations indicate, the farmer's irrigation pattern will waste about
44 percent of his water during first irrigations and about 40 percent during later irrigations. By
today's standards, these losses are large and it may be cost-effective to add cutback or reuse to
the system to reduce these losses.
Field operations: The question that arises at this point in the design is how to implement and
operate the system on the field. How will the irrigator know what flow rates are actually
38
running into the furrows, what the actual soil moisture depletion is, or when to terminate the
flow into one set of furrows and shift the field supply to another set?
There are several types of furrow irrigation systems but probably the most common are those
that either use open watercourses at the head of the field and divert into furrows using spiles or
siphon tubes, or those that utilize aluminum or plastic gated pipe. The task of sizing these
headland facilities will be noted in a later section. The problem at this point in the design is the
means of accurate flow measurement and management.
If the design is to be carried forward to an actual operation, the inlet must be equipped with a
flow measuring device. Then the irrigator with some simple instructions from the designer can
'share' this flow among the appropriate number of furrows and achieve a reasonably good
approximation of the optimal discharge. In some cases, the outlets to each furrow can be
individually calibrated and regulated. For instance, the size of the siphon tubes or spiles might
be selected by the designer. The irrigator can then adjust the flow by regulating the heads and/
or the openings.
In short, this phase of irrigation engineering is highly dependent on the experience and
practicality of the engineer. There is no single 'best' way to do things. What works well in one
locale, may not in another. The computational procedures and methods of field evaluation
provide the best values of the parameters. The good design can only give the irrigator the
opportunity to operate the system at or near optimal conditions.
ii. Design of a cutback system
There is another point which is hidden by the hydraulics of surface irrigation. The movement
of the water over the soil surface is very sensitive to the relative magnitude of the furrow
discharge and the cumulative infiltration rates. Irrigation practices which modify the field
inflow, such as cutback, may actually reduce the performance of the system. In more practical
terms, if the advance rate is slowed to accommodate a cutback regime, the gains in efficiency
derived from reduced tailwater may be more than offset by increases in deep percolation
losses. As described earlier, the inherent limitation of the cutback design is that the advance
phase and the wetting phase must have the same duration.
Initial design calculations: The initial design computations for the cutback system are
fundamentally the same as outlined above. The rreq for the first irrigation is 214 minutes and
for the subsequent irrigations it is 371 minutes. If the two-set system is envisioned (one set in
the advance phase and one in the wetting), the advance time and cutoff times for the first
irrigation are respectively, tL = rreq = 214 minutes and tco = tL + rreq = 428 minutes. For the
subsequent irrigations, tL = 371 minutes and tco = 742 minutes.
The next computation is the maximum flow, Qmax. Since the field and furrow geometries have
not changed, the value of Qmax = 1.768 m3/min. Then it is necessary to compute the
relationship between the inflow and the advance time. Rather than specifying a range of
discharges and computing the associated advance times as above, the cutback design looks for
a unique flow which yields the tL already determined as 214 or 371 minutes. This may appear
39
simpler to some and more difficult to others. It is in fact the same effort with a slightly
different aspect. The details of the computations are already given in the calculations of the
previous example. Reading from Figure 56 for the two conditions, one finds that the necessary
furrow flow, Qo, during the first irrigation would be about 0.0330 m 3/min and 0.0184 m3/min
for later irrigations.
It is worthwhile emphasizing that the time of advance, tL, associated with a furrow inflow, Qo,
must be less than the required intake opportunity time, rreq, in order for the cutback scheme to
operate properly. When the maximum flow, Qmax, results in an advance time greater than the
value required for the system to work, the field length would have to be reduced or Zreq must
be increased.
Field layout: Once the advance phase inflows are established, the field design or layout
commences with an estimate of the cutback flow. The one important constraint on the cutback
flow is that it should not be less than the intake along the furrow and cause dewatering at the
downstream end. Equation 71 was given to assist the designer in avoiding this problem, but it
is only a guideline. Thus, for the first irrigation the cutback flow must be at least:
Qcb = 1.1 * 0.000057 * 200 = 0.0125 m3/min
In other words, the flow can only be cutback from 0.033 m 3/min to, 0.0125 m3/min or to 38%
of the advance phase flow. In subsequent irrigation,
Qcb = 1.1 * 0.000037 * 200 = 0.0081 m3/min
which is a cutback of 43 percent of the advance flow.
There are several unique features of cutback systems that need to be considered at the design
stage. Of particular concern is the fact that the number of furrows per set must vary over the
field if the water supply rate, QT, is to be held constant during the irrigation. The number of
furrows per set can only be the same if the field supply is varied for each change in sets across
the field. This is usually difficult if the water supply is being supplied by an irrigation project.
However, for furrow systems to utilize cutback, the field supply must be regulated from
irrigation to irrigation. To illustrate this, let us develop a field layout for the irrigations.
Utilizing Eqs. 20-26, the following table can be developed for a variable field supply rate. The
Qcb/Qo ratio is taken as .43 reflecting the constraint imposed by the later irrigations. This ratio
must be the same for all irrigations.
40
Number of Furrow Per Set

QT
QT
No of Sets in Later
Set Number 1st irrig.
Field Irrig.
m3/min
m3/min
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4 67 38 50 45 2.21 1.27
5 54 30 41 36 39 1.78 0.99
6 46 26 35 31 32 30 1.51 0.84
7 40 22 30 27 28 27 26 1.32 0.73
8 35 19 26 23 25 24 24 24 1.15 0.64
9 31 17 23 21 22 21 22 21 22 1.02 0.57
One can see that if the water supply capacity is limited to 1.8 m 3/min, the field must be
divided into at least five sets to accommodate the first irrigation condition. The upper limit on
the number of sets can be evaluated by examining the duration and frequency of the
irrigations. The time of cutoff for each set during the first irrigation was determined previously
as 7.1 hours (428 minutes). For the later irrigations, tco = 12.4 hours (742 minutes). For a 5 set
system, the total duration of the later irrigations is, 6 * 6.2 = 37.2 hrs or 1.6 days, assuming the
irrigator will operate 24 hours per day. (Note that because two sets are irrigating
simultaneously under cutback with the exception of the first and last sets, the duration of the
irrigation on the field is the number of sets plus 1 times the advance or required intake
opportunity time.) Thus, if the 48 hour availability constraint imposed in the problem outline
is maintained, a cutback system for this field is only feasible in the 5 or 6 set configuration
without changing the depth of water to be added during each irrigation. For the purpose of this
example, let us suppose the water supply agency will deliver water to a 5 set system needed
for the cutback regime.
Field implementation: For this example, the field outlets are to be spires with adjustable
square slide gates having the following head-discharge characteristics:
Spile Size Full-Open Discharge

Area Coefficient
(mm) (cm2)
41
19 3.61 0.00114
25 6.25 0.00136
38 14.44 0.00145
50 25.00 0.00169
Note that Qo = c A h 0.5 where h is the head above the spire invert in cm, and Qo is in units of
m3/min.
The change in elevation across the 100 m headland of the field is 0.008 * 100 = 80 cm which
is sufficient for the system shown in Figure 4. To make the system work, the bays need to be
constructed on a level slope. The transition between bays is accomplished with a drop equal to
the difference in the head between the advance phase flows and the cutback flows. They are
then operated irrigation to irrigation by controlling the gate openings. For example, if the 25
mm spires are selected, the advance phase head at the full opening is:
h ={ (0.0330 / (6.25 * 0.00136)}2 = 15.07 cm
and for the cutback phase:
h ={(0.0330 * 0.43) / (6.25 * 0.00136)}2 = 2.79 cm
Thus, the elevation drop between the bays should be 15.07 - 2.79 = 12.28 cm. This will
necessitate elevating the head ditch approximately 30 cm above the low end of the field and
providing a drop to the furrows.
When irrigating the field later, the head on the gates will necessarily remain the same, but the
openings must be reduced. For the advance phase,
A = 0.0184 / (15.07.5 * 0.00136) = 3.49 cm2 = 55.8% opening
and similarly, for the later irrigations:
A = (0.0184 * .43) /( 2.79.5 *0.00136) = 3.48 cm2 = 55.7% opening
The operation is relatively simple so long as the total field inflow rate can be regulated to
compensate for the lower infiltration during later irrigations. Figure 58 illustrates the
alignment of the head ditch for this cutback example design.
42
Figure 8. Cutback example field and head ditch layout
The performance of this design is calculated as follows. For the first irrigation (Eq. 15):
0.04 * 200
Ea  * 100 79%
214 *  0.0330  0.142
and for the later irrigations:
0.04 * 200
Ea  * 100 82%
371 *  0.0184  0.0079
Cutback, therefore, substantially improves the efficiency on this field over traditional
methods.
iii. Design of furrow reuse systems
Another furrow irrigation option is to capture runoff in a small reservoir at the end of the field
and either pump it back to the upper end to be used along with the primary supply or diverted
to another field. The system envisioned for this reuse example will use the same head ditch
configuration as the traditional or cutback system options already developed. The irrigator will
introduce the canal water to the first set and collect the surface runoff from it. Then with
initiation of the second set and subsequent sets, the water in the tailwater reservoir will be
pumped to the head of the field and mixed with the canal supply. The field layout will be
similar to the schematic system depicted in Figure 5.
Initial calculations: Initial calculations begin again with the required intake opportunity.
These results were determined in the previous example:
43
rreq = 214 min during first irrigations
rreq = 371 min during later irrigations
The maximum allowable furrow flows are also the same, 1.768 m 3/min. A rule-of-thumb
states that the advance time for reuse systems should be about 30 percent of the required
intake opportunity time. From Figure 6, the first irrigation flow should be 0.082 m 3/min which
will yield an advance time of 0.3 * 214 min = 64 min. Similarly, for subsequent irrigations, an
advance time of 112 min based on a flow of 0.042 m 3/min is selected. When the maximum
non-erosive flow fails to meet the 30 percent rule, it is usually taken as the furrow flow and
the rule is ignored.
The application efficiency and field layout under the reuse regime are computed as before. It
is first necessary to compute the deep percolation ratio and the tailwater runoff ratio for the
possible range of flows. The usual procedure is to compute the deep percolation ratio and then
find the tailwater ratio as 100 - Ea - DPR in percentages. As an example, the first irrigation
analysis can be demonstrated. From the volume balance, advance calculations or, if one
prefers, the graphical approach, the time of advance to the furrow mid-point can be found as
25.9 min. From this information, the values of p and r in Eq. 32 are 8.45 and 0.7595,
respectively. Then using the power advance trajectory (Eq. 32) and the infiltration function,
the distribution of applied depths can be described as in the following table.
Distance from Field Inlet Computed Opportunity Time Computed Application

1 2
(m) (min) (m3/m)
0 278.5 0.0466
20 275.4 0.0463
40 270.8 0.0458
60 265.3 0.0453
100 252.6 0.0440
120 245.6 0.0433
140 238.2 0.0425
44
160 230.4 0.0417
180 222.4 0.0408
200 214.0 0.0400

1
top = tco - tx, tx = (x/p) 1/r
2
application = depth * furrow spacing/m of width
Using the trapezoidal integration of the applied water, the amount infiltrated over the field
length is
= 8.733 m3/furrow
The required application is:
0.08 m x 0.50 m * 200 m = 8 m3/furrow
The total inflow to each furrow is:
0.082 m3/min * 278.5 min = 22.84 m3/furrow
The deep percolation and runoff ratios are thus:
TWR = 0 % (on the assumption that all is recycled)
And, the application efficiency for the first set is:
Ea = 100 - 3.2 - 0 = 96.8%
The runoff fraction is:
The volume of tailwater per furrow is:
0.612 * 22.84 = 14 m3/furrow
45
It is obvious, or should be, that recycling 61 percent of the water applied to a field is going to
be relatively costly. Consequently, a wider range of furrow flows needs to be examined along
with their performance characteristics. For the later irrigations of this example, the figures are
as follows: DPR = 3.3 percent and Ea = 96.7 percent.
The field configuration: The reuse system will collect the tailwater from the first set in the
runoff reservoir and pump it back in the supply to the remaining sets. The pump-back system
will operate continuously and will have some excess capacity in the reservoir even though the
total runoff from subsequent sets will be greater.
The field layout can be found by trial and error or calculated. If the layout is calculated, one
approach is to fix a furrow flow and determine the external supply that is needed. Using the
design relations in Section 5.3 one can derive the following equation for the layout.
(34)
in which QT is the flow rate of the external water supply needed for the system in m 3/min, Nf is
the total number of furrows on the field, Qo is the design furrow inflow in m 3/min, Ns is the
number of sets in the field, and TWR is the runoff ratio associated with an inflow of Qo
m3/min. During the first irrigation, a Qo of 0.082 m3/min satisfied the probable requirements.
Choosing six sets as the basic field subdivision, the number of furrows in the first set is:
N1 = QT/Qo = 1.8/.082 = 22
For the first irrigation, the volume of the runoff reservoir must be:
Vro = 14 m3/furrow * 22 furrows = 308 m3
Recalling that for a first irrigation condition, the time of cutoff is 278.5 minutes, the capacity
of the pump-back system is therefore:
Qcb = 308 m3/278.5 min = 1.11 m3/min
The number of furrows per set for the subsequent sets is:
(35)
There are 200 furrows in the field. Five sets would contain 36 furrows; one set, the first,
contains 22. This is 202 furrows so it is necessary to reduce one of the sets by two furrows.
46
Now the system must be configured for the later irrigating conditions. If the individual furrow
inflows are set at .042 m3/min, two sets can be irrigated simultaneously to have effectively a 3
set system, and, the number of furrows in the first is:
N1 = 1.8 / 0.042 = 43
The volume of the runoff reservoir needs to be 493 m 3 and the capacity of the pump-back
system must be 1.02 m3/min. It will therefore not be necessary to regulate the pump-back
system during the first irrigation to a value different than that for later irrigation. The runoff
reservoir capacity, however, is governed by the later irrigation. The number of furrows in
subsequent sets is 79. This layout adds up to 201 furrows so the number in the last set can be
decreased to 78.
3.5. Border irrigation design
With two exceptions, the design of borders involves the same procedure as that for furrow
systems. The first difference is that while the depletion and recession phases are generally
neglected in furrow design, both phases must be included for borders. The second difference is
that the downstream end of a border may be dyked to prevent runoff. One simplification of
border analyses is that the geometry of the flow is simpler because it can be treated as wide,
plane flow. The values of p1 and p2 are always 1.0 and 1.67, respectively.
3.5.1. Design of open-end border systems
The first four design steps for open-ended borders are the same as those outlined under
subsection 4.4.1 for traditional furrow systems: (1) assemble input data; (2) compute
maximum flows per unit width; (3) compute advance time; and (4) compute the required
intake opportunity time. Hart et al. (1980) also suggest computing a minimum flow, Qmin,
based on a value that ensures adequate field spreading. This relationship is:
LS o0.5
Qmin 0.000357 (36)
n
where Qmin is the minimum suggested unit discharge in m 3/min/m and L, So, and n are variables
already defined. There will be substantially more water on the surface of borders than for
furrows. Consequently, it is good practice to check periodically the depth of flow at the field
inlet to ensure that depths do not exceed the dyke heights. For this:
0.6
 Qo n 
y o  0.5
 (37)
 60S o 
where yo is the inlet flow depth in m.
47
The border designs given here assume the advance phase is completed before the inflow is
terminated. Many irrigators, in fact nearly all where the downstream end is dyked, actually cut
off the inflow before the end of the advance phase. In these cases, the volume of water on the
surface will continue to advance along the border until it reaches the lower end where it will
run off or pond in front of the dyke. Unless the border system is extremely well designed and
operated, the downstream pond often creates a substantial threat to the crop in the submerged
areas and although dyked at their lower ends, most farmers provide a surface drain for excess
water. Consequently, the border efficiency and uniformity are approximately the same as
borders in which excess surface water simply drains off the field after the advance phase is
complete. The following procedure is therefore suggested for border systems where the excess
surface water is drained from the field either by a completely open-ended border or by a
regulated outlet from a blocked-end border.
After completing the first four design steps, as with furrows, open-ended border design
resumes as follows:
v. Compute the recession time, tr, for the condition where the downstream end of the border
receives the smallest application:
t r rreq  t L (38)
vi. Calculate the depletion time, td, in min, as follows:
1. Assign an initial time to the depletion time, say T1 = tr;
2. Compute the average infiltration rate along the border by averaging the rates as both ends at
time T1:
ak a  1
I 
2

T1  T1  t L 
a 1
 fo  (39)
3. Compute the 'relative' water surface slope:
0.6
1   Q  IL  n 
S y   o 0.5  (40)
L  60S o 
4. Compute a revised estimate of the depletion time, T2:
0.095n 0.47565 s 0y.20735 L0.6829

T2 t r 
I 0.52435 s o0.237825 (41)
5. Compare T2 with T1 to determine if they are within about one minute, then the depletion
time td is determined. If the analysis has not converged then let T1 = T2 and repeat steps 2
through 5.
48
The computation of depletion time given above is based on the algebraic analysis reported by
Strelkoff (1977).
vii. Compare the depletion time with the required intake opportunity time. Because recession
is an important process in border irrigation, it is possible for the applied depth at the end of the
field to be greater than at the inlet. If td > rreq, the irrigation at the field inlet is adequate and the
application efficiency, Ea can be calculated with Eq. 12 using the following estimate of time of
cutoff:
yo L
t co t d  (42)
2Qo
If td < rreq, the irrigation is not complete and the cutoff time must be increased so the intake at
the inlet is equal to the required depth. The computation proceeds as follows:
yo L
t co rreq  (43)
2Qo
and then Ea is computed with Eq. 12.
Since the application efficiency will vary with Qo several designs should be developed using
different values of inflow to identify the design discharge that maximizes Ea.
viii. Finally, the border width, Wo in m is computed and the number of borders, Nb, is found as:
Q
Wo  T (44)
Qo
and,
W
Nb  t (45)
Wo
where Wt is the width of the field. Adjust Wo until Nb is an even number. If this width is
unsatisfactory for other reasons, modify the unit width inflow or plan to adjust the system
discharge, QT.
3.5.2. Design of blocked-end borders
The computations needed to evaluate and design blocked-end borders where the flow is cut off
before or shortly after the advance phase is complete are substantially more detailed than the
procedures outlined above for furrow and open-end border irrigation systems. In fact, the
volume balance methods given previously are relatively weak for this particular case of
surface irrigation. Generally, the computations for blocked-end borders are best performed
49
with zero-inertia or full hydrodynamic simulation models which are beyond the scope of this
paper.
A number of studies have been made to develop relationships among the most important
variables involving border irrigation using a dimensionless approach and the higher level
simulation models. The interested reader might want to refer to Strelkoff and Katapodes
(1977), Strelkoff and Shatanawi (1984), Shatanawi and Strelkoff (1984), and Yitayew and
Fangmeier (1984) for some of these reports.
The design procedure outlined below is an extension of the approaches already given and
consistent with the level of treatment given herein. The procedure given here is intended to be
conservative and will yield designs capable of performing at somewhat lower application
efficiencies than is perhaps possible using the more comprehensive methods.
The suggested design steps are as follows:
i. Determine the input data as for furrow and border systems already discussed.
ii. Compute the maximum inflows per unit width using Eq. 67 with p1 = 1.0 and p2 = 1.67. The
minimum inflows per unit width can also be computed using Eq. 93.
iii. Compute the require intake opportunity time, rreq.
iv. Compute the advance time for a range of inflow rates between Qmax and Qmin, develop a
graph of inflow, Qo verses the advance time, tL, and extrapolate the flow that produces an
advance time equal to rreq. Define the time of cut off, tco, equal to rreq. Extrapolate also the r
and p values in Eq. 32 found as part of the advance calculations.
v. Calculate the depletion time, td, in min, as follows:
yo L y L
t d t co  rreq  o (46)
2Qo 2Qo
vi. Assume that at td, the water on the surface of the field will have drained from the upper
reaches of the border to a wedge-shaped pond at the downstream end of the border and in front
of the dyke.
vii. At the end of the drainage period, a pond should extend a distance l metre upstream of the
dyked end of the border. The value of l is computed from a simple volume balance at the time
of recession:
0.5
 Q t  0.5 *  Z o  Z L  
l  o co  (47)
 S o 
where,
50
Z o kt da  f o t d (48)
and:
a
Z L k  t d  t L   f o  t d  t L  (49)
If the value of l is zero or negative, a downstream pond will not form since the infiltration rate
is high enough to absorb what would have been the surface storage at the end of the recession
phase. In this case the design can be derived from the open-ended border design procedure. If
the value of l is greater than the field length, L, then the pond extends over the entire border
and the design can be handled according to the basin design procedure outlined in a following
section.
The depth of water at the end of the border, yL, will be:
y L lS o (50)
viii. The application efficiency, Ea, can be computed using Eq. 56. However, the depth of
infiltration at the end of the field and at the distance L-l metres from the inlet should be
checked as Eq. 56 assumes that all areas of the field receive at least Zreq. The depths of
infiltrated water at the three critical points on the field, the head, the downstream end, and the
location l can be determined as follows for the time when the pond is just formed at the lower
end of the border:
a
Z L k  t d  t L  1   f o  t d  t L  1  (51)
where,
1a
 L  l 
t L 1  (52)
 P 
It should be noted again by way of reminder that one of the fundamental assumptions of the
design process is that the root zone requirement, Zreq, will be met over the entire length of the
field. If, therefore, in computing Ea, one finds ZL-1 or ZL less than Zreq, then either the time of
cutoff should be extended or the value of Zreq used should be reduced. Likewise, if the depths
applied at l and L significantly exceed Zreq, then the inflow should be terminated before the
flow reaches the end of the border. If the inflow is cut off before the advance phase is
completed, the analysis above will have to be replaced by the judgment and experience of the
designer, or the more advanced models will have to be utilized.
3.5.3. An open-end border design example
Problem: In subsection 3.4.4, an example of furrow design was given in which the soil was
quite heavy (low infiltration rates). To generate a basis for what might be an interesting
51
comparison of borders and furrow systems, suppose the original question for that field is
extended to whether or not borders might be as good. Let us assume that the infiltration
characteristics are the same except adjusted for an increased wetted perimeter.
The approximate wetted perimeter for the furrows is found by returning to the flow area,
perimeter, and depth relationships. At a flow of 0.09 m3/min, the flow area found in the furrow
example was (Eq. 48):
From Eq. 40 from which the furrow shape was extracted:
y = (154 cm2 / 3.331)1/1.732 = 9.15 cm
From Eq. 41:
WP = 5.922 * 9.15.805 = 35.18 cm.
Since the furrows were spaced at 0.5 m intervals, one could approximate the infiltration of a
border by adjusting the k and fo values by a factor of 1.4 based on the ratio of border to furrow
wetted perimeter (50/35.18). If the furrows were operated in the 100 m direction where the
slope is 0.8 percent, the multiplication factor would be about 2.0. For this exercise, the 1.4
factor will be utilized. Thus,
First Irrigation Conditions:

Z = 0.00484 t 0.388 + 0.00008 t
Later Irrigation Conditions :
Z = 0.0053 t 0.327 + 0.000052 t
The units of Z are again m3/m of length/unit width. One would not expect the border
infiltration equation to more than double furrow infiltration with furrows spaced less than 1 m
apart. Again Manning’s n can be 0.04 for initial irrigations and 0.1 for later irrigations due to
crop cover. Zreq is 8 cm.
Basic calculations: Assuming also that the soil is relatively stable, Eq. 67 is used to calculate
the maximum inflow per unit width for the first irrigation along the 200 m length where
erosion is most likely:
52
And similarly for irrigations along the 100 m (So = 0.008) direction:
The minimum flow suggested by Eq. 93 using later field roughness where spreading may be a
problem is for the 200 m lengths:
Qmin = 0.000357 * 200 * 0.001.5 / .10 = 0.0226 m3/min/m
or in the 100 m direction:
Qmin = 0.000357 * 100 * 0.008.5 / 0.10 = 0.032 m3/min/m
The required intake opportunity times found according to the procedure suggested by Eq. 59
are:
First Irrigations rreq = 388.5 min
Later Irrigations rreq = 678.9 min
The next basic calculation, as with furrows, must be to formulate the relationship between
advance time and inflow discharge. Starting with a flow near the maximum and working
downward using the processes already outlined, advance curves for both infiltration conditions
and flow directions can be found. The results for this example are shown in Figure 59.
53
Figure 9 Discharge-advance relationship for the border example problem
The last of the basic calculations concerns the depletion and recession times for various values
of flow. One illustration should demonstrate this procedure adequately. For an inflow of 0.06
m3/min/m, the advance time along the 200 m length under later conditions is about 145 min.
From Eq. 48:
The time of recession at the lower end of the field, tr, is determined as:
tr = rreq + tL = 679 + 145 = 824 min
The time of depletion must be iteratively determined from Eqs. 96 - 98:
a. td = tr = 824 min
b.
c.
d.
e. Since T1 is not close to T2, steps b - d must be repeated with T1 set equal to 677 min:
b.
c.
d.
e. Again another estimate of td seems to be required by the difference found between the
iterations. If steps b - d are repeated, the new value of T2 is 680 min and the procedure has
converged.
54
The time of cutoff, tco, is found from Eq. 99:
tco = td – Ao L / (2 Qo) = 680 - .0355 * 200 / .12 = 631 min.
Finally, the application efficiencies of the alternative flows and flow directions are found
using Eq. 56. An example for the 0.072 m 3/min/m flow along the 200m direction during the
later irrigations is:
This series of computations is repeated for the full range of discharges, field lengths and
infiltration conditions. The following table gives a detailed summary of selected options for
the first and subsequent irrigation conditions running in both the 200 m and 100 m directions.
First Irrigations L = 200 m
Field
Border Unit Advance Cutoff Recession
On-
Width Flow Time Time Time
Time Application
Sets
Efficiency Percent
m m3/ hrs hrs hrs hrs
min
2 50 0.036 6.36 11.34 12.83 22.67 65.3
3 33 0.0545 3.11 8.10 9.59 24.29 60.4
4 25 0.072 2.14 7.12 8.61 28.49 52.0
5 20 0.09 1.64 6.63 8.12 33.16 44.7
Later Irrigations L = 200 m
Field
On-
Time Application
Sets
Efficiency Percent
min
55
1 100 0.018 15.55 23.66 26.86 23.66 62.6
2 50 0.036 5.03 13.12 16.34 26.24 56.5
3 33 0.0545 3.15 11.25 14.47 33.76 43.4
First Irrigations L = 100 m
Field
On-
Time Application
Sets
Efficiency Percent
min
2 100 0.018 5.27 11.21 11.74 22.42 66.1
3 67 0.0269 2.35 8.30 8.83 24.89 59.8
4 50 0.036 1.44 7.39 7.92 29.55 50.1
5 40 0.045 1.03 6.98 7.51 34.91 42.4
Later Irrigations L = 100 m
Field
On-
Time Application
Sets
Efficiency Percent
min
1 200 0.009 12.89 23.07 24.20 23.07 64.2
2 100 0.018 3.45 13.61 14.76 27.23 54.4
Field layout and configuration: The field water supply, QT, established in the furrow example
was 1.8 m3/min which would have a duration of 48 hours. Usually, border irrigation would
56
require a higher discharge than furrow systems, but as a first attempt at the problem, consider
the field supply fixed.
The options for field layout are to align the borders in either the 200 m or the 100 m
directions. The alternative configurations outlined by the data in the preceding tables indicate
that there is probably not a strong advantage in irrigating in either direction and the decision
can be based on other practical factors. For instance, dividing the field into two, 50 m wide
borders running along the 200 m length may be preferable if farming operations are
mechanized. During later irrigations, both borders would be irrigated simultaneously with the
water supply. The potential application efficiency of this border design would be 63-65
percent which is better than furrow systems without cutback or reuse but not as good as the
cutback or reuse options.
3.5.4. A blocked-end border design example
The problem: Section 4.5.4 illustrated the open-end border design procedure. The option of
dyking these borders should be considered as an option for improving application efficiency.
From results already available, the required intake opportunity times, rreq, needed to apply a
depth of 8 cm (Zreq) were about 389 minutes and 679 minutes for initial and subsequent field
conditions, respectively. Assuming the borders will run in the 200 m direction on the 0.1
percent slope as above, Figure 59 indicates the inflows that will complete the advance in the
respective rreq times are 0.036 m3/min/m for initial irrigations and 0.0215 m3/min/m for later
ones.
The values of r and p need to be generated or extrapolated for these flow rates unless they are
already generated as part of the development of Figure 9 or, in this example case, from the
previous example problem. For the 0.036 m 3/min/m inflow, the values of r and p were
determined from the previous example as r =0.5635 and p = 6.949. For the 0.0215 m 3/min/m
inflow, r and p were calculated using the methods outlined in section 5.3.1 rather than
extrapolated with the result that r =0.6032 and p = 3.916.
All other inputs to this problem like infiltration coefficients and roughness are assumed to be
the same as in section 4.5.3.
To this point, the blocked-end border design procedure outlined in section 4.5.2 is completed
through step iv. The remainder of the steps are as follows:
v. Calculate the depletion time, td, in min, as follows:

tco = rreq = 389 min
(37)
td = tco + yo L / (2 Qo) = 389 + .0134 * 200 / (2 * .036) = 426 min (45)
57
vi. Assume that at 426 min the water on the surface of the field has drained into the wedge-
shaped pond at the downstream end of the border.
vii. At 426 min, a pond should extend a distance of l metre upstream of the dyked end of the
border. The value of l is:
Zo = k tda + fo td = .00484 * 426.388 + .00008 * 426 = 0.0848 m3/m/m (105)
ZL = k (td - tL)a + fo (td - tL) = .00484 * (426 - 389) .388 + .00008 * (426 - 389) = 0.0226 m 3/m/m
(106)
(47)
Since the value of l is between zero and L a downstream pond will form and infiltrate in place
to fill the root zone. The depth of water at the end of the border, yL, will be:
yL = l So = 80.8 * .001 = 0.0808 m (48)
viii. The application efficiency, Ea, can be computed using Eq. 56. However before making
this computation, it is instructive to compute the depths of infiltration along the border. The
application at the inlet was found above to be 0.0848 m or about 8.5 cm. At the end of the
border, the application is ZL from above plus yL, or .1034 m. The depth of infiltration at the
distance L-1 metres from the inlet is:
tL-1 = [(L - 1) / p]1/r = (119.2 / 6.949)1/0.5635 = 155 min
Z1 = k (td - tL-1)a + fo (td tL-1) (50)
= 0.00484 * (426 - 155).388 + 0.00008 * (426 - 155) = 0.064 m
As one immediately determines, the middle of the field is under-irrigated. If fact, if Ea is

calculated from Eq. 56,
(56)
one sees that the results are distorted. The assumption that the entire field receives the required
depth, Zreq, is implicit in Eq. 56. It cannot be used unless this condition is met. And since the
objective of the design is to completely refill the root zone, either the time of cutoff needs to
be extended or the design value of Zreq should be reduced to approximate the depth infiltrated
58
in the least watered areas to ensure this constraint. The simplest option is to adjust Zreq to say
0.06 m and utilize the values of inflow and cutoff time developed above. If this is decided
upon, the application efficiency according to Eq. 56 is 85.7% which is a substantial
improvement over the open-end design. The other option is to extend the cutoff time so the
ponded wedge extends further up the basin. This involves several repetitions of the design
procedure given above in a trial and error search for the cutoff time that works. Given the
precarious nature of the volume balance procedure for the blocked-end border case in the first
place, this later option is not recommended. If a better design is sought, the more advanced
simulation models will have to be used.
Now other field configurations must be tested and compared. The eventual selection will be
the one with the best performance over both infiltration conditions. These calculations will be
left to the interested reader. One note should be made at this point however. The computer
program given at the end of this paper does not include an option or blocked-end borders.
3.6. Basin irrigation design
Basin irrigation design is somewhat simpler than either furrow or border design. Tailwater is
prevented from exiting the field and the slopes are usually very small or zero. Recession and
depletion are accomplished at nearly the same time and nearly uniform over the entire basin.
However, because slopes are small or zero, the driving force on the flow is solely the
hydraulic slope of the water surface, and the uniformity of the field surface topography is
critically important.
An effort will not be made to develop a design procedure for irregularly shaped basins or
where the advancing front is very irregular. Rather, the water movement over the basin is
assumed to occur in a single direction like that in furrows and borders. Three further
assumptions will be made specifically for basin irrigation. First, the friction slope during the
advance phase of the flow can be approximated by:
yo
Sf  (53)
x
in which yo is the depth of flow at the basin inlet in m, x is the distance from inlet to the
advancing front in m, and Sf is the friction slope. Utilizing the result of Eq. 55 in the Manning
equation yields:
60 y o2.167
Qo 
nx 0.5
or,
59
0.23
 Q2n2 x 
y o  o 
 (55)
 3600 
The second assumption is that immediately upon cessation of inflow, the water surface
assumes a horizontal orientation and infiltrates vertically. In other words, the infiltrated depth
at the inlet to the basin is equal to the infiltration during advance, plus the average depth of
water on the soil surface at the time the water completes the advance phase, plus the average
depth added to the basin following completion of advance. At the downstream end of the basin
the application is assumed to equal the average depth on the surface at the time advance is
completed plus the average depth added from this time until the time of cutoff.
The third assumption is that the depth to be applied at the downstream end of the basin is
equal to Zreq. Under these three basic assumptions, the time of cutoff for basin irrigation
systems is (assume yo is evaluated with x equal to L):
Z req L  0.77 y o L
t co   tL (56)
Qo
The time of cutoff must be greater than or equal to the advance time.
Basin design is much simpler than that for furrows or borders. Because there is no tailwater
problem, the maximum unit inflow also maximizes application efficiency.
Thus, the design procedure does not need to search among various flow rates for a value that
meets a design criterion like finding the deep percolation-field tailwater trade-off point. Basin
dimensions therefore become more a matter of practicality to the farmer than one of hydraulic
necessity.
As a guide to basin design, the following steps are outlined:
i. Input data common to both furrows and borders must first be collected. Field slope will not
be necessary because basins are usually 'dead level'.
ii. The required intake opportunity time, rreq, can be found as demonstrated in the previous
examples.
iii. The maximum unit flow should be calculated along with the associated depth near the
basin inlet. The maximum depth can be approximated by Eq. 55:
0.23
 Q n 2 L 
y max  max 

 3600  (57)
and then perhaps increased 10-20 percent to allow some room for post-advance basin filling. If
the computed value of ymax is greater than the height of the basic perimeter dykes, then Qmax
60
needs to be reduced accordingly. The maximum unit flow, Qmax, is difficult to assess. During
the initial part of the advance phase, flow velocities will be greater than later in the advance.
As a general guideline, it is suggested that Qmax be based on the flow velocity in the basin
when the advance phase is one-ninth completed. The basin equivalent to Eq. 67 is:
6 7
 13 7 nL0.5 
Qmax  Vmax 
180
  (58)
Usually the design of basins will involve flows much smaller than indicated in Eq. 58.
iv. Select several field layouts that would appear to yield a well-organized field system and for
each determine the length and width of the basins. Then compute the unit flow, Qo for each
configuration as:
Qo QT (59)
Wb
where Wb is the basin width in m. As noted above, the maximum efficiency will generally
occur when Qo is near Qmax so the configurations selected at this phase of the design should
yield inflows accordingly.
v. Compute the advance times, tL, for each field layout as discussed in subsection 4.3.1, the
cutoff time, tco, from Eq. 56 (if tco < tL, set tco = tL), and the application efficiency using Eq. 56.
The layout that achieves the highest efficiency while maintaining a convenient configuration
for the irrigator/farmer should be selected.
3.6.1. An example of basin design
Problem A comparison of basin irrigation with the furrow and border systems in previous
subsections should provide an interesting view of the three systems collectively. To remind
the reader, an irrigation project is in the planning stages in which a basic field block of 2
hectares has been chosen for field design. A preliminary survey has revealed that the fields are
configured in 100 m widths and 200 m lengths. The typical slopes are .8% in the 100 m
dimension and .1% in the other. Soils appear to be relatively non-erosive and have been tested
to yield the following infiltration functions:
First Irrigations Z = 0.00484 r 0.388 + 0.00008 r
Later Irrigations Z = 0.0053 r 0.327 + 0.000052 r
Z has units of m3/m of length/m of width, and r has units of minutes. Anticipated application
depths per irrigation based on an evaluation of cropping patterns and crop water requirements
are 8 cm.
61
The water supply to the field is set by the project at 1.8 m 3/min, available for 36 hours every
10 days. Quality of water supply is good and hopefully these deliveries will be made as
expected so far as rate, duration, and frequency are concerned.
For the purposes of design, the Manning roughness coefficient for first irrigations will be
taken as 0.04 and for the later irrigations as 0.10. This is to reflect a bare soil condition for
first irrigations and a cropped surface for later irrigations.
Basic calculations: The intake opportunity times for the two field conditions are the same as
found earlier for borders, namely:
rreq = 389 min for initial irrigations
and,
rreq = 679 min for later irrigations
Maximum flows permissible assuming a 30cm perimeter dyke around the basins and flows
running in the 100 m direction are found from Eq. 58:
Utilizing Figures 3a-f, the advance time as a function of unit flow can be determined as
indicated below. The Qo verses tL data are plotted in Figure 60.
62
Figure 10. Discharge-advance relationships for the basin example
QO
First Irrigations
0.40 0.0649 1.00 0.020 0.0 17.8
63
22
0.20 0.0471 1.22 0.040 0.0 29.4

50
0.10 0.0342 1.48 0.080 0.1 57.3

20
0.05 0.0248 1.81 0.160 0.3 93.0

00
0.03 0.0196 2.09 0.267 0.7 183.8

50
Later Irrigations
0.40 0.099 0.62 0.013 * *
0.20 0.072 0.78 0.026 0.0 41.5

30
0.10 0.052 0.98 0.052 0.0 61.0

61
0.05 0.038 1.20 0.104 0.1 113.3

55
0.03 0.030 1.41 0.173 0.4 248.1

30
Field layout: Basins installed on sloping fields should have their longest dimension running
normal to the largest field slope in order to minimize land levelling costs. Thus, for this
example where the basins have been selected with a 100m length, they would have their
direction of flow parallel to the 200 m direction. The width is a choice left to the designer.
Some of the options, their dimensions and performance are summarized below. Figure 11
shows a 10 basin configuration.
No. of Basin Unit Advance Cutoff Field Irrig. Application

Basins Width Flow Time Time Time Efficiency
64
m m3/min min min hrs %
First Irrigations
4 50 0.036 140 316 21.1 70.3
6 33 0.054 90 201 20.1 73.7
8 25 0.072 68 147 19.6 75.6
10 20 0.09 55 116 19.3 76.6
12 17 0.108 45 94 18.8 78.8
20 10 0.18 31 56 18.7 79.4
Later Irrigations
4 50 0.036 175 327 21.8 68.0
6 33 0.054 105 197 19.7 75.2
8 25 0.072 80 143 19.1 77.7
10 20 0.09 68 114 19.0 78.0
12 17 0.108 60 95 19.0 78.0
20 10 0.18 43 58 19.3 76.6
65
Figure 11 Example basin configuration
One of the advantages of basins that immediately becomes apparent is that field division is
much more flexible. Application efficiencies can be very high and nearly all options are
workable in terms of the water supply.
3.7. Summary
It is not possible to illustrate effectively the judgement or 'art' required to evaluate and design
surface irrigation systems. The previous examples demonstrate the procedures described in
this guide and, to a limited extent, alert the reader to factors he or she will need to determine
on a case by case basis. There are major influences on the design process one might expect
which lie far outside a mathematical treatment. For example, the size and shape of individual
land holdings and their future change in response to customs for inheritance, governmental
interventions such as land consolidation and resettlement, farmer preference and attitudes,
harvesting and cultivating equipment limitations, etc. In short, there is not a universal
algorithm for design and evaluation that eliminates the need for good judgement. On the other
hand, good judgement is no substitute for the mathematical aids presented herein. One might
demonstrate this by comparing the performance of a system properly designed with one where
selection of inflow and cutoff time is made arbitrarily.
66
To be skilled in design is to completely understand the relationships among the selectable and
manageable variables governing surface irrigation, particularly the effects of infiltration and
stream size on advance. The mathematical treatment, if followed, helps illustrate some of the
more important individual processes occurring in the field.
Because the irrigator has the latitude of changing flow rates and cutoff times, the field system
may not respond as designed. The problem is unlike sprinkler and trickle irrigation where
having selected and installed the system's piping, the hydraulics of the system's operation are
defined. Consequently, surface irrigation design cannot provide a guaranteed level of
performance but must rely on the farmer to operate and manage it efficiently. It is apparent
therefore, that the role of extension and technical assistance to farmers is critical for surface
irrigated regimes.
As a final thought in this section, something should be stated regarding costs associated with
surface irrigation. It would be most desirable to present a comprehensive review, but such is
impractical because surface irrigation systems themselves are so widely varied. Table 9 lists a
number of irrigation technologies and a figure representing the costs. The units here are $/ha
but should be used only to indicate the relative magnitude of various system costs under
agricultural conditions typical of the western United States. Other systems enter the picture as
one moves from country to country.
Table 9 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS FOR SELECTED ON-FARM IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Description of System or Improvement Annual Costs,

$/ha
Concrete ditch linings 40
Gated-pipe 35
Cutback systems 100
Reuse systems with gated-pipe 150
Solid-set sprinklers 500-700 1
Hand - moved sprinklers 300-450
Wheel-line or side-roll sprinklers 200-300
Centre-pivot sprinklers 150-200
67
Trickle irrigation 500-1000

1
The pressurized systems are often supplied by groundwater wells on-farm. The range of
costs is for surface supplies (small values) and for groundwater (larger values).
68

Chapter 3-Surface Irrigation Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3-Surface Irrigation Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3-Surface Irrigation Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jigjiga University, Jigjiga Institute of Technology, School of Graduate Studies

3. Surface irrigation design

The design intake opportunity time is defined in the following way:

3.2. The basic design process

3.2.1. Preliminary design

3.2.2. Detailed design

3.3. Computation of advance and intake opportunity time

3.3.1. Common design computations

i. Computation of intake opportunity time

The basic mathematical model of infiltration utilized in here is the following:

1. Make an initial estimate of rreq and label it T1;

2. Compute a revised estimate of rreq, T2:

Z req  kT1a  f oT1

ii. Computation of advance time

Figure 1. Typical furrow shapes and their hydraulic sectional parameters

1. Volume balance method

and for the one-half advance as follows:

a. Assume an initial estimate of tL as T1

b. Compute a revised estimate of tL (T2) as

5. Compute a revised estimate of r as follows:

Infiltration parameters a = 0.568

inflow Qo = 0.15 m3/min

hydraulic section p1 = 0.55

0.568  0.61  0.568  1

0.000174 * 200 *146

3b. The second iteration yields T2 = 70.33 - (+4.2) = 66.13 minutes.

The graphical procedure is as follows:

3. Compute the dimensionless parameter K*:

4. Compute the dimensionless parameter L*:

6. Compute the time of advance:

inflow Qo = 0.15 m3/min

hydraulic section p1 = 0.55 23

iii. Computation of cutoff time

additional intake opportunity time is involved during the recession phase

0.095n 0.47565 S y0.20735 L0.6829

There are three primary furrow designs:

i. furrow systems without cutback or tailwater reuse facilities;

3.4.1. Furrow design procedure for systems without cutback or reuse

First irrigation infiltration a, k, and fo

Later irrigation infiltration as, ks and fos

Field length, width, slope, roughness L, Wf, Sm and

Required application depth Zreq

Furrow spacing and shape w, p1, and p2

Soil erosive velocity Vmax

Water supply rate and duration QT and TT

Number of furrows Nf = Wf/w

iii. Compute the advance time, tL.

iv. Compute the required intake opportunity time, rreq.

v. Compute time of cutoff, tco, in min by neglecting depletion and recession:

vi. Compute application efficiency, Ea:

3.4.2. Design procedure for furrow cutback systems

Qcb bf o t L (14)

For the second set,

This is a four-step procedure:

Select the largest value, and discard the other.

for k 2, A2  CBR (20)

Then the number of furrows in the first set is:

iii. Calculate the number of furrows in each remaining set as: