Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
esci
www.esciencecentral.org/ebooks
ciencecent
ci
ntra
nt
ral.l.l.or
org/
g/eb
g/
ebooks
eb
HANDBOOK OF
WATER ENGINEERING
PROBLEMS
Cutoff Time
Mohammad Valipour
001
Notice:
Statements and opinions expressed in the book are these of the individual contributors and
not necessarily those of the publisher. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of
information contained in the published chapters. The publisher assumes no responsibility
for any damage or injury to persons or property arising out of the use of any materials,
instructions, methods or ideas contained in the book.
Cover OMICS Group Design team
First published April, 2014
A free online edition of this book is available at www.esciencecentral.org/ebooks
Additional hard copies can be obtained from orders @ www.esciencecentral.org/ebooks
Preface
In the near future, energy is converted as a luxury item and water is considered as the most
vital item in the world due to reduction of water resources in most areas. In this condition,
role of water science researchers is more important than ever. If a water engineering student
is not educated well, he/she will not solves problems of water sciences in the future. Many
engineer students learn all necessary lessons in university, but they cannot to answer to the
problems or to pass the exams because of forgetfulness or lack of enough exercise. This book
contains one hundred essential problems related to water engineering with a small volume (20
problems about irrigation, 20 problems about drainage, 20 problems about water quality, 20
problems about hydrology, and 20 problems about hydraulics). Undoubtedly, many problems
can be added to the book but the author tried to mention only more important problems and
to prevent increasing volume of the book due to help to feature of portability of the book.
To promotion of student skill, both SI and English systems have been used in the problems.
All of the problems were solved completely. This book is useful for not only exercising and
passing the university exams but also for use in actual projects as a handbook. The handbook
of water engineering problems is usable for agricultural, civil, and environmental students,
teachers, experts, researchers, engineers, designers, and all enthusiastic readers in surface
and pressurized irrigation, drainage engineering, agricultural water management, water
resources, hydrology, hydrogeology, hydroclimatology, hydrometeorology, and hydraulics
!"#$%&'()")"*+,%,-"'-.'%-+$/'.0'-1"'2..3'45$'-.'%.#6"'-1"'7).2#"8%',%'"491'477).7),4-"'2..3'
about water engineering; however, the author recommends studying the references to better
understanding of the problems and presented solutions. It is an honor for the author to receive
any review and suggestion for improvement of book quality.
Mohammad Valipour
About Author
Contents
Problems
References
Page
06
57
Handbook of Water
Engineering Problems
Mohammad Valipour*
Department of Water Engineering, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Kermanshah, Iran
*Corresponding author: Mohammad Valipour, Department of
Water Engineering, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Kermanshah, Iran; Email: vali-pour@hotmail.com
Problems
1. In a trickle irrigation system, maximum allowable depletion is 35 percent, moisture area is 46 percent, root depth
is 1.8 meters, soil water holding capacity is 95 millimeters (in root depth), water requirement is 5 millimeters,
canopy is 75 percent, electrical conductivity of saturated paste extract is 8 decisiemens per meter, and electrical
conductivity of irrigation water is 0.3 decisiemens per meter. Determine maximum net irrigation depth, maximum
daily transpiration, maximum irrigation interval, and leaching requirement.
MAD = 35 %
Pw = 46 %
Z = 1.8 m
Ud = 5mm
Pd = 75%
95 mm
ECw = 0.3 dS / m
ECe =8dS/m
wa !
1.8 m
MAD Pw
35 46
95
Maximum net irrigation depth !
"
" Z " wa !
"
"1.8 "
! 15.295 mm
100 100
100 100
1.8
P
75
Maximum daily transpiration ! Maximum net irrigation depth " d ! 15.295 "
! 11.5 mm / day
100
100
Ud
5
!
! 10.461 hr # 10 hr
Td 11.471
EC w
0.3
Leaching requirement !
!
! 0.008
5 " ECe $ EC w 5 " 8 $ 0.3
Maximumirrigationinterval !
2. According to the table (related to the corn), if irrigation efficiency is 40 percent and performance ratio is 70 percent,
determine optimum irrigated area.
T1 = 25 days
Growth stage
Plant establishment
Chlorophyll
Flowering
Product formation
Time (day)
25
30
30
38
ETm (mm/day)
3.6
6.4
9.5
7.2
130000
240000
260000
370000
ky
0.4
0.4
1.5
0.5
T2 = 30 days
T3 = 30 days
V2 = 240000m3
Ky2 = 0.4
Ky3 = 1.5
Ya
! 70%
Ym
ETa1 !
T4 = 38 days
ETm4=7.2mm/day
V3 = 260000m3
Ky4 = 0.5
V4 = 370000m3
Ky1 = 0.4
E = 40%
% ET &
Ya
! 1 $ k y " '1 $ a (
Ym
) ETw *
V1 " E
130000 " 40 "1000 2.08 "106
"1000 !
!
100 " A1 " T1
100 " A1 " 25
A1
ETa 2 !
V2 " E
240000 " 40 "1000 3.2 "106
"1000 !
!
100 " A2 " T2
100 " A2 " 30
A2
% 5 "105 &
1 $ 0.7 ! 0.4 " '1 $
( + A2 ! 200 ha
A2 *
)
ETa 3 !
V3 " E
260000 " 40 "1000 3.467 "106
"1000 !
!
100 " A3 " T3
100 " A3 " 30
A3
006
V4 " E
370000 " 40 " 1000 3.895 " 106
" 1000 !
!
100 " A4 " T4
100 " A4 " 38
A3
q ! 0.286 "10$3
m3
s.m
Q = 0.00283 m3/s
Dy = 100mm
Tco !
Tt = 4 hr
in " L
dz
i!
q
dt
i!
Runoff = 0
w = 6m
i = 10 mm/hr
dz
dt
10
! 3 " Tco $0.5
60
d 2Z
0.05 dz
0.05
!$
! $1.5 " T $1.5 ! $
" 3 " Tl $0.5 + Tl ! 600 min
2
dt
60 dt
60
Z = 6 x 6000.5 = 146.969mm
in = i x TCO= 10 x 5.4 = 54mm
60 " 324 !
54 "10$3 " L
+ L ! 102.96 m
0.286 "10$3
4. In a border irrigation system, equation of infiltration rate into the soil is I=20t-0.5, net irrigation requirement is
5 centimeters, and advance time is 48 minutes. Determine amount of infiltrated water in beginning of border.
in = 5cm
Tt = 48min
i = I dt = 20t-0.5 dt = 40t0.5 + C
tn = 4 x tt = 4 x 48 = 192 min
% 192 &
50 ! 40 " '
(
) 60 " 24 *
0.5
, C + C ! 35.394 mm
dI
0.05
! $10 " to $1.5 ! $
" 20 " to $0.5 + to ! 600 min
dt
60
% 600 &
i ! 40 " t 0.5 , 35.394 ! 40 " '
(
) 60 " 24 *
0.5
, 35.394 ! 61.214 mm
x = 8tx0.7
40 = 8tx10.7
80 = 8tx20.7
120 = 8tx30.7
5. In a furrow irrigation system, length of furrow is 200 meters, advance time is 240 minutes, advance equation is
x = ptxr that p and r are 8 and 0.7, respectively. Distances of selected stations from beginning of furrow are 40, 80,
120, 160, and 200 meters. Integrated infiltration equation is Z = 5t0.56 (t as minute and Z as millimeter). Determine time
of infiltration opportunity and depth water into the soil in each station. In addition, if width of furrow is 0.8 meters,
input discharge into the furrow is 1.5 liters per second, and root depth is 90 millimeters, determine deep percolation
and runoff.
007
Z1 = 5 x 230.0340.56 = 105.093 mm
Z2 = 5 x 213.1730.56 = 100.707 mm
Z3 = 5 x 192.1230.56 = 95.011 mm
Z4 = 5 x 167.7870.56 = 88.071 mm
in " w ""L
tco
Q!
1.5 !
6. In a basin irrigation system, length of basin is 200 meters, advance time is 80 minutes, and infiltration equation
is Z = 0.00210.331+0.00015. Non-erosive velocity in the soil is 13 meters per minute, considered depth to store in
the end of basin is 10 centimeters, and Mannings coefficient is 0.04. Determine cutoff time, infiltrated water depth in
beginning of the basin, and deep percolation.
10 = 0.0021 x 0.331 + 0.00015 x = 1103.744 min
tco = + tt = 1103.744 + 80 = 1183.744 min
Z ! 0.0021" - 60 "1183.744 .
1.827
Qmax
0.23
/
% n2 L & 0
! 1Vmax " '
( 2
) 7200 * 42
31
0.331
0.23
/
% 0.042 " 200 & 0
! 113 " '
( 2
) 7200 * 42
31
! 1.608 m3 / min
5y
5x
7. In a sprinkle irrigation system, length of lateral is 390 meters, discharge of sprinkler is 21 liters per minute,
height of riser is 1.5 meters, downhill slop is 0.015, kd = 3.8, Se = 13 m, and C =130. Determine allowed pressure loss,
proper diameter (among 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) as inch, input pressure, end pressure, and value and position of minimum
pressure. Furthermore, investigate pressure variations in the lateral.
Hfa = 0.2 x Ha
qa ! kd H a
x
/
0
0.015 ! 7.89 "107 " 110.5 $ " 0.352 D $4.75
13
3
4
dy
If: D ! 2 in ! 50.8 mm + x # 390 m
dx
9.033 !
1
1
H end ! H L $ H f , EL ! 34.967 $ 7.802 , " 0.015 " 390 ! 30.09 m
2
2
1.75
x
/
0
7
0.015 ! 7.89 "10 " 110.5 $ " 0.352 " 76.2$4.75 + x ! 376.721 m
13
3
4
J " F " L 0.015 " 0.36 " 376.721
!
! 0.02 m
Hf !
100
100
1
H min ! 34.967 $ 7.802 , " - 0.015 " 376.721. ! 29.99 m + H min 6 H end 6 H L + OK
2
Hf !
008
8. In a farm soil, infiltration rate equation is i = 0.095t0.36, which t is time as minute and i is infiltration rate as
centimeter per minute. Determine time to reach the final infiltration rate and amount of infiltrated water in the soil.
di
! $0.0342t $1.36
dt
0.05
$0.0342t $1.36 ! $
0.095t $0.36 . + t ! 432 min
60
t
I ! 7i dt !
0
432
7 0.095t
$0.36
dt ! 7.215 cm
9. A trial configuration of a hand- move sprinkler system has a lateral running down slope form a mainline along
a constant grade of 0.005m/m. the design operating pressure of the nozzle is 310 kpa. The trial length of the lateral
results in a distance of 400m between the first and the last sprinkler. Determine maximum allowable head loss to
friction as m/m.
Ha !
310 "103
P
! 3
! 31.61 m
8 g 10 " 9.81
Since the elevation decreases along the lateral, the increase in elevation is ve
He = - s x l = - .005 x 400 = 2 m
Setting the allowable pressure difference between the critical sprinklers equal to 20%
Hc !
10. For the following data, calculate the total available water and soil-moisture deficit.
Soil depth (cm)
Gb
Wfc
Wwp
0-15
1.25
0.24
0.13
0.16
15-30
1.30
0.28
0.14
0.18
30-60
1.35
0.31
0.15
0.23
60-90
1.40
0.33
0.15
0.26
90-120
1.40
0.31
0.14
0.28
Wfc = Gb.Wfc
Wwp = Gb.Wwp
W = Gb.W
Ds = (wfc-w)d (mm)
150
0.3
0.1625
20.625
0.2
15.0
150
0.364
0.182
27.300
0.234
19.5
300
0.4185
0.2025
64.800
0.3105
32.4
300
0.462
0.21
75.600
0.364
29.4
300
0.434
0.196
71.400
0.392
12.6
Total
259.725
108.9
11. The culturable command area for a distributary channel is 15000 hectares. The intensity of irrigation is 35%
for wheat and 20% for rice. The kor period for wheat and rice are 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. The kor watering depths
for wheat and rice are 135 and 190 mm, respectively. Estimate the distributary discharge.
Since the water demands for wheat and rice are at different times, these are not cumulative. Therefore, the distributary
channel should be designed for higher of the two values, i.e., 3.14 cms.
12. A soil core was drawn with a core sampler having an inside dimension of 5 cm diameter and 15 cm length
from a field two days after irrigation when the soil water was near field capacity. The weight of the core sampler
with fresh soil sample was 1.95 kg and the weight of the same on oven drying was 1.84 kg. The empty core sampler
weighted 1.4 kg. Calculate the (a) bulk density of soil, (b) water holding capacity of soil in per cent on volume basis
and (c) depth of water held per meter depth of soil.
Weight of the oven dry soil core = 1.84 1.4 = 0.44 kg
0.55 $ 0.44
0.11
Soil water content !
"100 !
"100 ! 25%
0.44
0.44
(a) Volume of the soil core = r2h = x 2.52 x 15 = 294.64 cm3
Bulk density ! Bd !
0.44 "1000
g
! 1.51 3
294.64
cm
009
(b) Water holding capacity of the soil = Soil water content on weight basis x Bulk density = 25x 1051 = 37.75%
(c) Water holding capacity of the soil per meter depth of soil = 37.75 cm
13. Find out the water content of a soil on weight and volume basis just before irrigation from the following data.
The thermo-gravimetric method is followed for determination of the water content.
(i) Weight of the empty aluminium box (W1) = 35.23 g
(ii) Weight of the aluminum box + fresh soil sample (W2) = 95.33 g
(iii) Weight of oven dry soil + box (W3) = 85.12 g
(iv) Density of water (w) =1 g/cm3
(v) Bulk density of the soil =1.54 g/cm3
Weight of the fresh soil sample = W2 W1 = 95.33 35.23 = 60.1g
Weight of water in the soil sample = W2 W3 = 95.33 85.12 = 10.21g
Weight of the oven dry soil = 85.12 35.23 = 49.89g
Soil water content !
Soil water content = Soil water content on weight basis x bulk density
Soil water content = Pw x Bd = 2047 x 1.54 = 31.52%
14. The daily maximum and minimum air temperature are respectively 24.5 and 15C. Determine the saturation
vapour pressure for that day.
/ 17.27 " 24.5 0
! 3.075 kPa
e9 -Tmax . ! 0.6108exp 1
3 24.5 , 237.3 42
/ 17.27 "15 0
e9 -Tmin . ! 0.6108exp 1
2 ! 1.705 kPa
315 , 237.3 4
es !
(30.75 , 1.705)
! 2.39 kPa
2
Note that for temperature 19.75C (which is Tmean), e (T) = 2.30 kPa
The mean saturation vapour pressure is 2.39 kPa.
15. Given: Assume crop coefficient (Kc) = 1.0 for this period. Pan coefficient (Kp) = 0.75. Daily Evaporation from
a class A evaporation pan, in/d
Year
Day
10
0.64
0.32
0.24
0.30
0.15
0.22
0.28
0.35
0.23
0.27
0.25
0.41
0.26
0.17
0.31
0.42
0.18
0.42
0.66
0.28
0.35
0.30
0.17
0.25
0.52
0.15
0.32
0.23
0.22
0.27
0.31
0.10
0.39
0.16
0.16
0.45
0.31
0.42
0.60
0.26
0.20
0.14
0.29
0.30
0.42
0.45
0.33
0.43
0.39
0.54
0.49
0.36
0.36
0.60
0.39
0.30
0.38
0.22
0.55
0.39
0.38
0.35
0.33
0.23
0.22
0.49
0.36
0.36
0.68
0.43
0.27
0.36
0.11
0.36
0.21
0.30
0.41
0.21
0.23
0.42
0.61
0.45
0.23
0.35
0.22
0.45
0.26
0.26
0.23
0.43
10
0.55
0.47
0.40
0.43
0.06
0.52
0.45
0.35
0.30
0.30
10
0.48
0.24
0.18
0.23
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.26
0.17
0.20
0.19
0.31
0.20
0.13
0.23
0.32
0.14
0.32
0.49
0.21
0.26
0.23
0.13
0.19
0.39
0.11
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.23
0.08
0.29
0.12
0.21
0.34
0.23
0.32
0.45
0.20
0.15
0.11
0.22
0.23
0.31
0.34
0.25
0.32
0.29
0.41
0010
0.37
0.27
0.27
0.45
0.29
0.23
0.29
0.17
0.41
0.29
0.29
0.26
0.25
0.17
0.17
0.37
0.27
0.27
0.51
0.32
0.20
0.27
0.08
0.27
0.16
0.23
0.31
0.16
0.17
0.32
0.46
0.34
0.17
0.26
0.17
0.34
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.23
10
0.41
0.35
0.30
0.32
0.05
0.39
0.34
0.26
0.23
0.23
An.max
0.48
0.35
0.29
0.45
0.39
0.39
0.34
0.32
0.51
0.41
Pb
16. Given:
10
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.39
0.39
0.41
0.45
0.48
0.51
18.2
27.3
36.4
45.5
54.5
63.6
72.7
81.8
90.9
IF = 0.5
Fn= 4 in
s0 = 0.001 ft/ft
n = 0.15
E = 65%
Find: Qu and Ta
L= 650 ft
Tn = 328 min
TL = 8 to 20 min
Assume TL = 14 min
LFn
ft 3
650 " 4
!
! 0.018
+ TL ! 12 min
s
7.2 -Tn $ TL . E 7.2 - 328 $ 14 . 65
Qu !
Assume TL = 12 min
Qu !
LFn
ft 3
650 " 4
!
! 0.018
+ OK
s
7.2 -Tn $ TL . E 7.2 - 328 $ 12 . 65
Fn = 3 in
s0 = 0.001 ft/ft
n = 0.15
E = 75%
Q u ! 0.049
Tn = 106 min
TL = 11 min
ft 3
s
Ta = Tn TL = 106 11 = 95 min
75
! 838 ft
3
Le ! -1 $ 0.75 . " 0.7 " 0.75 " 838 ! 110 ft
E!
3
! 85%
3.54
L = 275 m
Q = 0.6 l/s
S = 0.004 m/m
W = 0.75 m
n=0.04
g = 1.904 x 10-4
gx
1.904 "10$4 " 275
!
! 1.38
0.6 0.004
Q S
Tt !
x
275
exp : !
exp -1.38 . ! 144 min
f
7.61
% Qn &
P ! 0.265 '
(
) S*
0.425
0 0.72
/ W
0 b / 0.75
1 75 0.4 $ 7 2
1 in $ c 2
!
Tn ! 1 P
1
2 ! 999 min
2
1 0.9246 2
1 a 2
3
4
3
4
60QTco
! 200 mm
0.75 " 275
0.425
, 0.227 ! 0.4 m
OMICS Group eBooks
:!
0011
T0$ L ! Tco $
0.0929
% 0.305: &
fL '
(
) L *
0.0929
T0$ L ! 1143 $
iavg
ed ! 100
in
75
! 100
! 37.5%
ig
200
19. The gross command area of an irrigation project is 1.5 lakh hectares, where 7500 hectare is uncultivable.
The area of kharif crop is 60000 hectares and that of Rabi crop is 40000 hectares. The duty of Kharif is 3000 ha/m3/s
and the duty of Rabi is 4000 ha/m3/s. Find (a) the design discharges of channel assuming 10% transmission loss. (b)
Intensity of irrigation for Kharif and Rabi.
Cultivable command area = 150000 7500 = 142500 ha
Discharge for Kharif crop,
Area of Kharif crop = 60000 ha
ha
Duty of Kharif crop ! 3000 3
m
60000
Required discharge of channel !
! 20 m3 / s
3000
Considering 10% loss
10
! 22 m3 / s
100
ha
m3 / s
40000
! 10 m3
4000
110
! 11 m3 / s
100
So, the design discharge of the channel should be 22 m3 /s, as it is maximum
60000
Intensity of irrigation for Kharif !
! 42.11%
142500
40000
Intensity of irrigation for Rabi !
! 28.07%
142500
20. Determine the head discharge of a canal from the following data. The value of time factor may be assumed as
0.75.
Design discharge ! 10 "
crop
Area in hectare
Duty in hectares/cumec
Rice
120
4000
1500
Wheat
120
3500
2000
Sugarcane
310
3000
1200
3500
! 1.75 m3 / s - Rabi .
2000
3000
(c) For sugarcane !
! 2.5 m3 / s - perennial .
1200
As, the base period of sugarcane is 310 days, it will require water both in Kharif and Rabi seasons.
(b) For wheat !
Now, actual discharge required in Kharif season = 2.667 + 2.5 = 5.167 m3/s
Actual discharge required in Rabi season = 1.75 + 2.5 = 4.25 m3/s.
0012
So, the maximum discharge in Kharif season (i.e. 5.167 m3 / s) should be taken into consideration as it will be able to
serve both the seasons.
Time factor ! 0.75 !
Actual discharge
5.167
!
Design discharge Design discharge
Design discharge !
5.167
! 6.889 m3 / s
0.75
m = 30%
Mt = 148 gr
Ms
Vs
M
2.65 ! s
Vs
Vs = 0.795Vs
Ms = 120 gr
8s !
Vt = Vs + Vw
Mw = 0.3
Ms = 0.3 x 2.65
Vt = 80 cm3
;m !
Mw
Ms
8b !
Ms
Vt
0.795Vs
M
< 2=
kg
gr
!1 3 ! w !
+ Vw ! 0.795Vs 2
3
m
cm
Vw
Vw
<v
8b !
Ms
Vs , Vw
8b !
2.65Vs
! 1.476 gr / cm3
Vs , 0.795Vs
>!
M w 28
!
! 0.189
M t 148
8 w ! 1000
Va = 0
n!
Va , Vw
0 , 0.795Vs
!
! 0.443
Vs , Va , Vw Vs , 0 , 0.795Vs
< n OK
22. In a drainage system, assume: K = 0.305 meters per day, d = 6.1 meters, depth to dmin = 2.7 meters, water table at
ground, surface at t = 0, specific yield = 7 percent, and existing drains, are 91 meters apart. Determine: Time required
for the water table to drop 1.5 meters, below the ground surface.
y
y
D? ! d ? , 0 ! 5.75 m
Y = 2.7 1.5 = 1.2 m
D = 4.4 m
D ! d , 0 ! 7.45 m
Y0 = 2.7 m
2
2
y 1.2
KD?t
!
! 0.444 +
! 0.096
y0 2.7
SL2
t!
The water table will drop 1.5 meters below the ground surface in about 32 days.
23. Piezometers are placed side by side in a field at depths of (a) 20, (b) 40, and (c) 60 feet below the ground surface.
The pressure heads are 21 feet, 43 feet, and 68 feet respectively. (a) What are the hydraulic gradients? (b) Which way is
the water flowing? (c) If the hydraulic conductivity from a-b is 2 inches per hour what is the conductivity b-c? (d) What
is the vertical conductivity a-c?
(a)
h1 = 21 ft
ia $b !
- h1 , Z1 . $ - h2 , Z 2 . ! - 21 , 80 . $ - 43 , 60 . ! 0.1
ib $c !
h2 = 43 ft
Z 2 $ Z1
h3 = 68 ft
60 $ 80
- h2 , Z 2 . $ - h3 , Z3 . ! - 43 , 60 . $ - 68 , 40 . ! 0.25
ib $c !
Z3 $ Z 2
40 $ 60
- 21 , 80 . $ - 40 , 68. ! 0.175
40 $ 80
(b) To up
(c) Ka-b = 2 in / hr
Kb-c = 0.8 in / hr
20 , 20
! 1.14 in / hr
20
20
i
,
2 0.8
i
24. Use the Bureau of Reclamation graphs to compute the spacing required for the water table to drop from the soil
surface to a depth of 1 foot in a 2-day period. The following information is available: The hydraulic conductivity is 1.8
inches per hour. Tile drains are to be placed 3.5 feet below the soil surface. The impermeable layer is 6.5 feet below the
soil surface. What is the average flow out of a 200-acre field for the 2-day period?
(d) K a $c !
@L
L
@K
Ka-bia-b = kb-cib-c
013
t = 2 days
K = 3.6 ft / day
S = 14%
D ! de ,
3.5
D ! 3,
! 4.75 ft
2
L2 !
y0
2
Y = 2.5 ft
d = d0
y 2.5
KDt
!
! 0.715 + 2 ! 0.048
y0 3.5
SL
r = 0.7 ft
d
3
!
! 2.968 ft
8d
8d
8" 3
8" 3
1,
ln 3
1,
ln 3
AS A r
A " 71.34 A " 0.7
3.5
D ! 2.968 ,
! 4.72 ft
2
de !
0.5
! 71.11 ft
q!C
2A ky0 D % A &
' (
86400 L ) L *
m = 0.5 m
26. The E.C. of irrigation water is 1.3 mmhos /cm. Assume a consumptive use of 3.5 in/day, a crop tolerance of 6
mmhos /cm; a soil hydraulic conductivity of 0.3 in/hour. The drains are to be placed at 8 feet and have a radius of 0.30
foot. The water table is not to be closer than 4.5 feet from the soil surface. The impermeable layer is 10 feet from the
soil surface. (a) Determine drain spacing. (b) What will be the flow in cfs out of a 400-acre field? (c) If the outlet is on a
grade of 0.001 what size of pipe is required? (d) If the water table rises to within 2 feet of the soil surface following an
irrigation, how long will it take for it to drop to 4 feet below the soil surface (for the drain spacing calculated in a, using
the Bureau of Reclamation charts)?
ECiw
1.3
"100 !
"100 ! 21.67%
(a) LR !
ECdw
6
LR !
Ddw
Ddw
"100 + 21.67 !
"100 + Ddw ! V ! 0.097 in / day
DET , Ddw
3.5 , Ddw
K ! 0.3
in
! 7.2in / day
hr
d = de S = 109.43 ft
de !
ET = 3.5 in / day
4kH
4 " 7.2 " 3.5
- 2d e , H . !
- 2de , 3.5.
V
0.097
4
de !
! 3.587 ft + S ! 105.4 ft
8" 4
8" 4
1,
ln 3
A "109.43 A " 0.3
S2 !
4
! 3.57 + S ! 105.3 ft
8" 4
8" 4
1,
ln
A "105.4 A 3 " 0.3
LR !
Ddw
"100
Diw
014
(e) Q ! AV ! A "
S = 0.001
5
3
1.486 A
A
- 0.001. A ! 2.937 2 !
0.016 23
P
P3
Q!
8
r3 !
1
2
2.937 A r 2
5
3
- 2A r . 3
! 5.81r 3
1.63
Q
!
! 0.28 + r ! 0.62 ft + d ! 1.24 ft
5.81 5.81
(f) y ! 4 ! 0.67
y0 6
K ! 0.3
KDt
! 0.055
SL2
in
ft
! 0.6
+ S ! 0.043
hr
day
D ! 3.57 ,
6
! 6.57 ft
2
D ! de ,
t!
y0
2
L = 105.3ft
de = 3.57ft
27. Given a soil with an impermeable layer 3 mete below the drain level (d = 3 m), K1 = 0.5 m/day (hydraulic
conductivity of layer below the drain). V=0.005 m/day, H=0.60m, r = 0.10 m (r = drain radius), determine drain spacing.
r = 0.1 m
K1 ! 0.5
H = 0.6 m
m
! Ka
day
S2 !
4
%8
&
K a H 2 , ' Kb de H (
V
)V
*
S2 !
4
8
&
"1" 3 " 0.6 ( ! 3024 + S ! 54.99 m
- 0.5 " 0.36 . , '%
0.005
) 0.005
*
de !
S2 !
K2 ! 1
m
! Kb
day
d = de
d
3
!
! 2.33 m
8d
8d
8" 3
8" 3
1,
ln 3
1,
ln 3
AS A r
A " 54.99 A " 0.1
4
8
&
"1" 2.33 " 0.6 ( ! 2380 + S ! 48.79 m
- 0.5 " 0.36 . , %'
0.005
0.005
)
*
3
! 2.27 m
8" 3
8" 3
1,
ln 3
A " 48.79 A " 0.1
4
8
&
S2 !
"1" 2.27 " 0.6 ( ! 2325 + S ! 48.21 m
- 0.5 " 0.36 . , %'
0.005
0.005
)
*
de !
28. Seepage from a canal is causing a drainage problem on adjacent land. The canal is 2.5 meters deep and rests on
an impermeable layer. The water level in the canal is 2.4 meters above the bottom. The soil has a hydraulic conductivity
of 20 mm/hr. (a) What will be the flow into an interceptor drain located 25, 50, and 100 meters from the canal?
dy
dx
q ! KiA ! K
dy
" y "1 + qdx ! Kdyy
dx
K 2
h
2
y2
2
x = L y = h1
h2
y 2 h1
]0 + qL ! K 1
2
2
h1=2.4 m
% 20 &
'
(
1000 *
L ! 25 m + q ! )
" 2.42 ! 6 "10$7 m3 / s
50
% 20 &
'
(
1000 *
L ! 50 m + q ! )
" 2.42 ! 3 "10$7 m3 / s
100
i!
015
% 20 &
'
(
1000 *
L ! 100 m + q ! )
" 2.42 ! 1.6 "10$7 m3 / s
200
/
- Qn .
T !1
0.5
13 K u S 1.67
x SL
0
2
24
0.375
/
- 0.05 " 0.016 .
!1
1 - 0.367 .- 0.020 .1.67 - 0.010 .0.5
31
0.5 2.67
Qn ! K u S 1.67
! - 0.367 .- 0.020 .
x SL T
1.67
- 0.010 . - 2.5.
0.5
2.67
0
2
2
42
0.375
! 2.7 m
! 0.00063
m3
s
Q!
Qn 0.00063
!
! 0.039 m3 / s
n
0.16
Sx1 = 0.25
Sx3 = 0.02
n = 0.016
Sx2 = 0.04
BC = 0.6 m
Sx !
S x1S x 2
0.25 " 0.04
!
! 0.0345
- S x1 , S x 2 . 0.25 , 0.04
Step 2: Find the hypothetical spread, T, assuming all flow contained entirely in the V-shaped gutter.
/
- Qn .
T? ! 1
0.5
13 K u S 1.67
x SL
0
2
24
0.375
/
- 0.05 " 0.016 .
!1
1 - 0.376 .- 0.0345 .1.67 - 0.01.0.5
13
0
2
2
24
0.375
! 1.94 m
Step 3: To determine if T is within Sx1 and Sx2, compute the depth at point B in the V- shaped gutter knowing BC and
Step 1: Calculate Sx assuming all flow is contained entirely in the V-shaped gutter section defined by Sx1 and Sx2.
016
d B 0.024
!
! 0.096 m
S x1 0.25
Ts !
d c 0.043
!
! 2.15 m
S x 3 0.02
S x1S x 2
- S x1 , S x 2 .
Step 6: Compute the gutter spread using the composite cross slope, Sx.
/
- Qn .
T !1
0.5
13 K u S 1.67
x SL
0
2
24
0.375
/
- 0.05 " 0.016 .
!1
1 - 0.376 .- 0.0221.1.67 - 0.01.0.5
31
0
2
2
42
0.375
! 2.57 m
This (2.57 m) is lower than the assumed value of 2.75 m. Therefore, assume TBD = 2.50 m and repeat Step 5 and Step 6.
Step 7: 0.6 m at Sx2 (0.04) and 1.95 m at Sx3 (0.02):
S x1S x 2
0.25 " 0.0248
!
! 0.0226
S
,
S
0.25
, 0.0248
- x1 x 2 .
/
- Qn .
T !1
0.5
13 K u S 1.67
x SL
0
2
24
0.375
/
- 0.05 " 0.016 .
!1
1 - 0.376 .- 0.0226 .1.67 - 0.01.0.5
13
0
2
2
24
0.375
! 2.53 m
017
(2) Qi for a depressed 3 m (9.84 ft) curb opening inlet with a continuously depressed curb section.
a = 25 mm (1 in)
W = 0.6 m (2 ft)
Step 1: Determine the length of curb opening required for total interception of gutter flow.
% 1 &
LT ! K u Q 0.42 S L0.3 '
(
) nS x *
0.6
! 0.817 - 0.05 .
0.42
- 0.01.
0.3
1
%
&
'
(
0.016
0.02
"
)
*
0.6
! 7.29 m
%
L &
E ! 1 $ '1 $ (
) LT *
! 1 $ -1 $ 0.41.
1.8
! 0.61
Eo !
Qw 0.032
!
! 0.64
Q
0.05
Sw ! S x ,
a
25
! 0.02 ,
! 0.062
W
1000 " 0.6
S w 0.062
!
! 3.1
Sx
0.02
W
! 0.24
T
T!
W
0.6
!
! 2.5 m
% W & 0.24
' (
)T *
25
%
&
Se ! S x , S w' Eo ! S x , - a / W . Eo ! 0.02 , '
( 0.64 ! 0.047
) 1000 " 0.6 *
% 1 &
LT ! K u Q 0.42 S L0.3 '
(
) nSe *
0.6
! 0.817 - 0.05 .
0.42
- 0.01.
0.3
1
%
&
'
(
) 0.016 " 0.047 *
0.6
! 4.37 m
%
L &
E ! 1 $ '1 $ (
) LT *
! 1 $ -1 $ 0.69 .
1.8
! 0.88
018
2.4
L
!
! 0.55
LT 4.37
1.8
%
L &
E ! 1 $ '1 $ (
) LT *
! 1 $ -1 $ 0.55 .
1.8
! 0.76
Eo !
Qw 0.0117
!
! 0.97
Q 0.0120
S w 0.062
!
! 3.1
0.02
Sx
1
W
!
! 0.62
T %
&
'
(
'
(
'
(
'
(
1
'
$ 1( - 3.1. , 1
0.375
' /%
(
0
&
' 1'
(
2
(
1
' 1'
(
( - 3.1. , 12
' 1' % 1
(
&
2
$1 (
2
'' 1)' )' 0.97 *( *(
((
4
)3
*
T!
W
0.6
!
! 0.97 m
% W & 0.62
' (
)T *
W
1
!
T %
&
'
(
'
(
'
(
'
(
'
(% S &
1
'
( ' w ( ,1
$
1
0.375
' /%
( ) Sx *
0
&
' 1'
(
2
(
%
&
S
1
' 1'
(
2
( w ,1
' ( 2
' 1' % 1
(
(
& ) Sx *
' 1' '
(
$
1
2
(
((
' ' E
(
42
) 31) ) o * *
*
019
Rs !
1
1
!
! 0.13
1.8
1.8
K uV
0.0828
0.68
..
1,
1,
2.3
S x L2.3
- 0.02 .- 0.6 .
m3
- approximately 100% of thetotal initial flow .
s
25
! 0.075 m 6 h ! 0.13 m
1000
Find Qi.
020
d avg
/ Qi 0
!1
2
31 - Cw P . 42
0.67
/ 0.15 0
!1
2
31 -1.66 " 2.4 . 42
0.67
! 0.11 m
d ! d avg ,
T!
S xW
0.6
! 0.11 , 0.03 "
! 0.119 m
2
2
d 0.119
!
! 3.97 m
0.03
Sx
m3
Q ! 0.15
s
2
DF Q EF
G
H
FI - Co hL . FJ h
d!
, !
2
- 2g .
DF
EF
0.15
G
H
FI - 0.67 " 0.1"1.2 . FJ 0.1
,
! 0.24 m
2
- 2 " 9.81.
T!
d 0.24
!
! 8.0 m
Sx 0.03
Interception by the curb-opening only will be in a transition stage between weir and orifice flow with a depth at the curb
of about 0.24 m (0.8 ft). Depth at the curb and spread on the pavement would be almost twice as great if the grate should
become completely clogged.
35. Given: A shallow basin with the following characteristics:
Average surface area = 1.21 ha (3 acres)
Bottom area = 0.81 ha (2 acres)
Watershed area = 40.5 ha (100 acres) C Post-development runoff coefficient = 0.3
Average infiltration rate for soils = 2.5 mm per hr (0.1 in per hr)
Mean annual evaporation is 89 cm (35 in or 2.92 ft).Find: For average annual conditions determine
if the facility will function as a retention facility with a Permanent pool.
Step 1: The computed average annual runoff as:
Runoff = CQDA = 0.3 x 1.27 x 40.5 x 10000 = 154305 m3
Step 2: The average annual evaporation is estimated to be:
Evaporation = Evaporation depth x Watershed area = 0.89 x 1.21 = 10769 m3
From rainfall records, the average annual rainfall is about 127 cm (50 in or 4.17 ft)
021
Step 1- Determine the gradient m between drains. Using the DDR method, we assume that the water table at the
midpoint between drains is at the surface. Therefore, m is equal to the drain depth of 4 feet.
Step 2 - Since this site has good surface drainage, the design drainage rate is 1.1 centimeters
inch per day = .018 inch per hour.
Step 3 - Determine the equivalent hydraulic conductivity (Ke). Since flow occurs over the entire profile, the hydraulic
conductivity is:
Step 4 - Determine the first estimate of the drain spacing needed for drainage using equation 10-5. As with the previous
examples, de is needed. For the first calculation of Sd assume de is equal to d, which is 3 feet:
1
/ 4 K m - 2d , m . 0 2 / 4 "1.71" 4 - 2 " 3 , 4 . 0 2
Sd ! 1 e
2 !1
2 ! 123.3 ft
q
0.018
3
4
3
4
Step 5 - Now determine de using Hooghoudts equation and the value of Sd = 123.3
Ke !
022
de !
1,
&
d %8& %d
' ( ln ' $ 3.4 (
S d ) A * ) re
*
!
1,
0
3 /8 % 3 &
ln '
( $ 3.4 2
123.3 13 A ) 0.017 *
4
! 2.74 ft
de !
d
&
d %8& %d
1 , ' ( ln ' $ 3.4 (
Sd ) A * ) re
*
!
1,
0
3 /8 % 3 &
ln '
( $ 3.4 2
120.0 31 A ) 0.017 *
4
! 2.41 ft
Using this method, the design spacing for sub irrigation is 72.9 feet. This compares favorably with the design spacing of
80 feet actually determined for this problem using DRAINMOD. For comparison, the estimated spacing as determined by
each shortcut method is shown in the table.
Method
Estimated spacing
65
59
49
73
Drainmod
80
J%&9-'6('0+KA6%9'=9)('0+&
Initial Cost
Drainage tubing
5##%()6#78%#'%9:%#7%."**)8;(+,%<$;'(#.%<#<+%=#(>%-$(+*%?#7'(;$$+,@
$ 1.00/ft
Deep well
8-in gravel packed, 300 ft deep, 80-ft vertical lift, 700gpm (@ $50/ft)
15,000
25-hp vertical hollow shaft electric motor with single stage deep well turbine (230V, 3-phase
<"=+*%')<<$AB%C9D1%*<&B%EDF%<)&<%+G-.#+7.A@
7,000
50-hp vertical hollow shaft electric motor with 3-stage deep well turbine (230V, 3-phase
<"=+*%')<<$AB%C9D1%*<&B%2HF<)&<%+G-.#+7.A@
12,750
8-hp air cooled engine dive, type A single stage centrifugal pump rated at 700 gpm @ 40-ft
TDH
3,500
40-hp air cooled engine dive, type A single stage centrifugal pump rated at 700 gpm @ 125-ft 8,500
TDH
Control structure
Used average value for aluminum or galvanized steel: 6-ft raiser, 36-in weir, 24-in outlet, 30- 1,650
ft outlet pipe (installed)
Center pivot
Low pressure (30 psi) 1,200 ft long w/ 6-5/8in dia. Galvanized pipe @ $30/ft
Component
Repair maintenance
J%&9-'6('0+KA6%9'=9)('0+K*)&'&
36,000
Cost
Water supply
023
Drainage tubing
2%/yr
None assumed
1%/yr
Center pivot
1%/yr
Land grading*
6.4%/yr
Fuel
Sub irrigation well
21.0 brake hp required (assumed 75% turbine eff, 90% motor eff @ $.07/kw-hr)
1.47%/yr
Surface source
6.2brake hp required (@ 20 ft TDH, 80% pump eff, 75% engine eff, 11 hp-hr/gal
8;'"$#7+%I%J0301K8;$B%"#$%L%-$(+*%I%0DF%"G%G)+$@
.71/hr
44.6brake hp required (assumes 80% turbine eff, 90% motor eff @ $.07/kw-hr)
3.12/hr
Surface source
37.6 brake hp required (@ 112 ft TDH, 70% pump eff, 75% engine eff, 15.5 hp-hr/gal
diesel @ $1.10/gal)
2.67/hr
Self-propulsion
6 towers w/1hp motor each, half of motors operating at any given time requiring 3 hp,
85%eff @ $0.07/kw - hr
.25/hr
Labor
Sub irrigation
Based on 0.5hr/d from May 1 to July 31 to check water level in observation wells, adjust 2.30/ac
riser level, etc., @ $5.00/hr, 100 acres
Center pivot
2.30/ac
* Based on estimates by farmers of $8 per acre per year where the initial cost was $125 per acre.
The individual components necessary to make up a complete system vary, depending on the particular option being
considered. An example calculation is described for each component. Total annual costs are normally divided into two
categories: fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs include depreciation, interest, property taxes, and insurance. Insurance
would be recommended on components subject to damage or theft. Most components of a subsurface drainage or sub
irrigation system are underground. Therefore, it is probably unnecessary to protect these components with insurance; so,
insurance was not considered in this example.
Also, property tax values vary from county to county, are generally small compared to the other component costs, and
were neglected. However, when the tax rate is known for a given location, it could be considered in the economic evaluation.
Depreciation and interest costs can be determined together by using an amortizing factor for the specific situation. The
amortization factor considers the expected life of the component and the interest rate. Once these are known, the factor can
be determined from amortization tables. In this example, the interest rate was assumed to be 12 percent and a design life of
either 15, 20, or 30 years was used, depending on the particular component. Amortization factors were 0.14682 for 15 years;
0.13388 for 20 years; and 0.12414 for 30 years. Most economic textbooks contain a table of amortization factors for a wide
range of interest rates and design lives. Your local banker or financial planner/accountant could also provide these values.
The amortized cost that must be recovered annually is then determined as:
Annual amortized cost = (initial cost) (amortization factor)
Variable costs include any costs that vary according to how much the equipment is used. These costs include repair and
maintenance, fuel, and labor. It is customary to estimate repair and maintenance costs as either a fixed percentage of the
initial investment for such components as tubing, pumps and motors; a fixed rate or percentage per hour of use for each
component, such as an internal combustion engine; and as a fixed rate per year, for a land graded surface drainage system.
Fuel and labor costs should be estimated based on the anticipated usage. The criteria used to determine the variable costs in
the example are summarized in the figures.
Drainage tubing costs are determined by first determining the length of tubing required for a given spacing. For a
spacing of 60 feet:
length
area
43560
ft $435.60
!
!
! 726 !
initial invest
acre
spacing
60
ac
ac
Tubing cost can be amortized over 30 years. Thus, the annual amortized costs would be:
$435.60
" 0.12414 ! $54.08 / ac
ac
The operating costs (repair and maintenance) for drain tubing are estimated as 2 percent of the annual amortized costs.
Thus, for the 60-foot spacing:
Operating costs = 0.02x $54.08 = $1.08 / ac
3 structures "
$1650
! $4950 initial investment
structure
The surface elevations in the example field vary by 2.5 feet. To provide adequate water table control in this field, assume
three control structures are needed.
024
$662.71
! $6.63 / ac
100 acres
Operating costs (repair and maintenance) for the control structures can also be estimated as 2 percent of the annual
amortized costs.
$6.63
operating costs ! 0.02 "
! 0.13 / ac
ac
The operating costs for the control structure are so small that they are neglected throughout the remainder of this
example. This situation normally occurs on large, flat fields. When fields are small, however, repair and maintenance costs
for the control structures should be considered.
The expected life of a deep well is about 30 years, and the life of the pump and electric power unit is about 20 years.
Well = $15,000 0.12414 = $1,862.10
Annual amortized cost: Pump and power unit = $7,000 0.13388 = $937.16
Total annual water supply = $2,799.26
This is the cost for the entire 100 acres. The acre cost is:
$2799.26
! $27.99 / ac
100acres
Normally, no operating costs are associated with the water source. Repair, maintenance, and fuel costs are considered
for the pump and power unit. Using the pump/power unit for the sub irrigation system, the repair and maintenance costs
would be estimated as 1 percent of the initial cost. Thus:
Repair and maintenance = $7,000 0.01 = $70 /year
Since this is the cost for the entire 100 acres, the acre cost is:
70
! $0.70 / ac
100
Fuel costs vary depending on the amount of water that must be applied, the friction loss in the system, and the operating
pressure of the system. For the example area, average irrigation volumes range from 6 to 8 acre-inches per year. This
example uses 7 inches per year. Sub irrigation may only be about 75 percent efficient because of the water loss by seepage to
nonirrigated areas. Thus, the total amount of water that must be pumped to provide 7 acre inches of usable water is:
7
! 9.33 ac $ in / year
0.75
To pump 9.33 acre-inches of usable water on 100 acres with a 700-gpm capacity pump requires 603.4 hours per year.
The power required to pump the water can be determined by:
hp !
Assume that the sub irrigation water must be lifted 80 feet in the well and is discharged into an open ditch with 0
discharge pressure. For a pump efficiency of 75 percent and an electric motor efficiency of 90 percent, the power required
for sub irrigation is:
hp !
700 " 80
! 21.0 hp
3960 " 0.75 " 0.90
Two levels of land grading were considered in this example. The first level assumes that only the potholes are eliminated
using the farmers land plane at an estimated cost of $75 per acre. This would be equivalent to providing poor to fair
surface drainage. For the second case, a laser control land leveler is used at an estimated cost of $125 per acre. This would
be equivalent to providing fair to good surface drainage. Land grading costs are normally amortized over 20 years, thus:
Annual amortized cost = $75/ac .13388 = $10.04/ac
Operating costs for surface drainage generally include routine maintenance of the outlet ditches (moving and clean out),
construction of hoe drains, and periodic smoothing of the field as it becomes uneven because of tillage. For an extensive 025
surface drainage system (good surface drainage), maintenance costs average about $8 per acre per year. These maintenance
costs are closely correlated to the intensity of the surface drainage provided. As the cost of establishing the surface drainage
increases, the cost of maintaining the same level of surface drainage also increases. For the purpose of comparing alternatives,
it is reasonable to assume that maintenance costs for a surface drainage system costing $125 per acre are about $8 per acre
per year, and adjusts this value linearly as the initial cost of the system varies from $125 per acre. Therefore, the operating
costs for the fair surface drainage system (initial costs of $75/ac) are assumed to be $4.80 per acre per year. Total system
costs include fixed costs plus variable costs. Taking the sub irrigation system with fair surface drainage, a drain spacing of
60 feet, and the deep well water supply as an example, the total annual system costs would be:
Fixed costs: Tubing @ 60 ft $54.08
Landing grading (fair) 10.04
Control structure 6.63
Water supply (well) 27.99
Total annual fixed costs $98.74
Variable costs: Repair and maintenance
Tubing $1.08
Land grading 4.80
Control structure neglected water supply .70
Fuel (electric motor & pump) $8.85
Labor $2.30
Total variable costs $17.73
Total annual system cost (fixed costs + variable costs): $116.47
Thus, the annual amortized cost for this one system design with a drain spacing of 60 feet is $116.47.
To compare the profit potential of several drain spacings, water table control settings, or management strategies, a
DRAINMOD simulation must be ran for each case to be considered, and then compute the cost. The optimum system
design would then be determined by selecting the alternatives that provide the optimum profit. An example of this process
is shown in the figure. This table compares profit with sub irrigation for several drain spacings, levels of surface drainage,
and water supplies. In this example, maximum profit for sub irrigation occurs at a spacing of 50 feet for both fair and good
surface drainage. The cost of the improved surface drainage cannot be recovered on this example site when good subsurface
drainage is provided. As the level of subsurface drainage decreases, surface drainage becomes more important. However,
proper modeling of irregular land surfaces would require simulations on the higher land elevations and low ponding areas
to properly reflect surface storage, depth to water table, and yield variations within the field. This was not done because it
was not found to be critical to the drain spacing. The additional costs of the well water supply, as compared to a surface
supply, are also reflected in this example.
Level of surface
drainage
Drain
spacing(ft)
Yield (Predicted)
bu/ac
Gross income
System cost
Production cost
Total cost
Net return
($/ac)
($/ac)
($/ac)
($/ac)
($/ac)
Good
33
168.5
505.58
161.60
224.73
386.33
50
162.9
488.78
127.49
224.73
352.22
119.25
136.56
60
158.6
475.65
116.47
224.73
341.20
134.45
75
152.1
456.23
105.44
224.73
330.17
126.06
100
138.3
414.75
94.39
224.73
319.12
95.63
150
108.3
324.98
83.37
224.73
308.10
16.88
200
90.5
271.43
77.83
224.73
302.58
-31.15
300
79.5
238.35
66.24
224.73
290.97
-52.62
33
168.7
506.10
171.50
224.73
396.23
109.87
50
163.3
489.83
137.39
224.73
362.12
127.71
60
159.3
477.75
126.37
224.73
351.10
126.65
75
154.5
463.58
115.34
224.73
340.07
123.51
100
140.9
422.63
104.29
224.73
329.02
93.61
150
118.3
354.90
93.27
224.73
318.00
36.90
200
102.6
307.65
87.75
224.73
312.48
-4.83
300
91.5
274.58
76.92
224.73
301.65
-27.07
147.02
Surface water
supply
Fair
33
168.5
133.80
224.73
358.58
50
162.9
99.72
224.73
324.45
164.33
60
158.6
88.70
224.73
313.43
162.22
75
152.1
77.67
224.73
302.40
153.83
Fair
026
100
138.3
66.62
224.73
291.35
123.40
150
108.3
55.60
224.73
280.33
44.65
200
90.5
50.08
224.73
274.81
-3.38
300
79.5
39.25
224.73
263.98
-25.63
Area, ha
(ac)
Unimproved grass
8.95
(22.1)
0.25
Grass
8.60
(21.2)
0.22
Total
17.55
43.3
L5+0,,"M0%,=9'%+(4"M
Area, ha
(ac)
L5+0,,"M0%,=9'%+(4"M
Paved
2.20
5.4
0.90
Lawn
0.66
1.6
0.15
Unimproved grass
7.52
18.6
0.25
Grass
7.17
17.7
0.22
Total
17.55
43.3
027
$BMDVMBUF UIF #0%5 if the temperature of the sample and seeded dilution water are 209c (saturation is 9.07
NH-
UIFJOJUJBM%PTBSFTBUVSBUJPO
BOEUIFTBNQMFEJMVUJPOJTXJUITFFEFEEJMVUJPOXBUFSFOBM%0PGUIF
TFFEFEEJMVUJPOXBUFSJTNH-
BOEUIFOBM%0PGUIFTBNQMFBOETFFEFEEJMVUJPOXBUFSJTNH-3FDBMMUIBUUIF
WPMVNFPGB#0%CPUUMFJTN-
D!
30KmL
Vs
Therefore
Vs = 10 mL and X = 300 mL 10 mL = 290 mL
/
% 290KmL & 0
BOD5 ! 1- 9.07Kmg / L $ 2Kmg / L . $ - 9.07Kmg / L $ 8Kmg / L . '
( 2 30 ! 181Kmg / L
) 300KmL * 4
3
- 0.25 d .- 3d . 0 + L ! 280Kmg / L
148Kmg / L ! LK/1 $ e
13
24
$
1
$- 0.25 d .- 5 d .
/
0
y5 ! - 280Kmg / L . 11 $ e
2 ! 200Kmg / L
3
4
F#0%WFSTVTUJNFEBUBGPSUIFSTUWFEBZTPGB#0%UFTUBSFPCUBJOFEBTGPMMPXT
Time, t (days)
BOD, y (mg/L)
10
16
20
Calculate k1 and L.
From the graph, the intercept is b = 0.545 and the slope is m = 021. Thus
% 0.021 &
$1
k1 ! 6 '
( ! 0.23Kd
) 0.545 *
L!
1
6 - 0.021.- 0.545 .
! 27Kmg / L
44. A laboratory runs a solids test. The weight of the crucible = 48.6212 g. A 100-mL sample is placed in the crucible
and the water is evaporated. The weight of the crucible and dry solids = 48.6432 g. The crucible is placed in a 6009c
furnace for 24 hr and cooled in desiccators. The weight of the cooled crucible and residue, or unburned solids, = 48.6300
g. Find the total, volatile, and fixed solids.
TS !
FS !
100KmL
100KmL
VS = 220 88 = 132 mg / L
$BMDVMBUFUIF#0%PGBXBUFSTBNQMF
HJWFOUIFGPMMPXJOHEBUB
Temperature of sample = 209c (dissolved oxygen saturation at 209c is 9.2 mg/L,
Initial dissolved oxygen is saturation,
Dilution is 1:30, with seeded dilution water,
Final dissolved oxygen of seeded dilution water is 8 mg/L,
Final dissolved oxygen bottle with sample and seeded dilution water is 2 mg/L,
7PMVNFPG#0%CPUUMFJTN-
BOD5 !
And
46. A water treatment plant is designed for 30 million gallons per day (mgd). The flocculator dimensions are length
= 100 ft, width = 50 ft, depth = 16 ft. Revolving paddles attached to four horizontal shafts rotate at 1.7 rpm. Each shaft
supports four paddles that are 6 in. wide and 48 in. long. Paddles are centered 6 ft from the shaft. Assume CD = 1.9 028
and the mean velocity of water is 35% of the paddle velocity. Find the velocity differential between the paddles and the
XBUFS"U0P'
UIFEFOTJUZPGXBUFSJTMCT2/ft3 and the viscosity is 2.73lb-s /f2. Calculate the value of G and the
time of flocculation (hydraulic retention time).z
The rotational velocity is
2A m
vt !
60
2
- A .- 6 .-1.7 .
vt !
60
! 1.07K ft / s
The velocity differential between paddles and fluid is assumed to be 65% of vt, so that
v = 0.65
P!
%
243
G! '
' -100 .- 50 .-16 . 2.73 "10$5
)
! 243K ft $ lb / s
&
ft / s
( ! 10.5K
(
ft
*
so that the Gt value is 1.8 104. This is within the accepted range.
47. A community normally levies a sewer charge of 20 cents/in3'PSEJTDIBSHFTJOXIJDIUIF#0%NH-BOE
TVTQFOEFETPMJET 44
NH-
BOBEEJUJPOBMLH#0%BOEMLH44BSFMFWJFE"DIJDLFOQSPDFTTJOHQMBOU
uses 2000 m3XBUFSQFSEBZBOEEJTDIBSHFTXBTUFXBUFSXJUI#0%NH-BOE44NH-8IBUJTUIFQMBOUT
daily wastewater disposal bill?
The excess BOD and SS are, respectively,
(480 - 250) mg/L 2000 in.3 1000 L/m3 10-6 kg/mg = 460 kg excess BOD
(1530 - 300) mg/L 2000 m3 1000 L/m3 10-6 kg/mg = 2460 kg excess SS.
The daily bill is thus
(2000 m3) ($0.20/m3) + (460 kgBOD) ($0.50/kgBOD) + (2460 kgSS) ($1.00/kgSS) = $3090.00.
48. A chemical waste at an initial SS concentration of l000 mg/L and flow rate of 200 m3/h is to be settled in a tank,
H = 1.2 m deep, W = 10 m wide, and L = 31.4 m long. The results of a laboratory test are shown in the figure. Calculate
the fraction of solids removed the overflow rate, and the velocity of the critical particle.
t!
V AH - 314 .-1.2 .
!
!
! 1.88Kh
Q
Q
200
In the figure the 85% removal line approximately intersects the retention time of 1.88 h. Thus, 85% of the solids are
029
removed. In addition to this, however, even better removal is indicated at the top of the water column. At the top 20cm,
assume the SS concentration is 40mg/L, equal to [(l000 - 4) 100]/1000 = 96% removal, or 11% better than the entire
column. The second shows [(l000 - 60) l00]/ 1000 = 94% removal and so on. The total amount removed, ignoring the
bottommost section, is
n $1
% h&
R ! P , @ ' ( - Pi $ P . ! 85 , -1/ 6 .-11 , 9 , 5 , 4 . ! 90.9%
i $1 ) H *
F#0%5 of the liquid from the primary clarifier is 120 mg/L at a flow rate of 0.05mgd. The dimensions of the
aeration tank are 20 10 20 ft3 and the MLSS = 2000 mg/L. Calculate the F/M ratio:
% 3.8KL & % 1Klb & % 1K g & % 50Klb &
lbKBOD % 120Kmg &
!'
('
('
(!'
(
( - 0.05Kmgd . '
day
L
)
*
) gal * ) 454K g * ) 1000Kmg * ) day *
% 2000Kmg & % 3.8KL & % 7.48K gal & % 1Klb & % 1K g &
lbKMLSS ! - 20 "10 " 20 .K ft 3 '
('
('
('
( ! 229Klb
('
3
L
)
* ) gal * ) ft
* ) 454K g * ) 1000Kmg *
F
50
lbKBOD / day
!
! 0.22
M 229
lbKMLSS
50. An activated sludge system operates at a flow rate (0) of 4000m3EBZ
XJUIBOJODPNJOH#0% 40) of 300 mg/L.
"QJMPUQMBOUTIPXFEUIFLJOFUJDDPOTUBOUTUPCF:LH44LH#0%
,TNH-
EBZ8FOFFEUPEFTJHO
B USFBUNFOU TZTUFN UIBU XJMM QSPEVDF BO FVFOU #0% PG NH- SFNPWBM
%FUFSNJOF B
UIF WPMVNF PG UIF
aeration tank, (b) the MLSS, and (c) the sludge age. How much sludge will be wasted daily?
The MLSS concentration is usually limited by the ability to keep an aeration tank mixed and to transfer sufficient oxygen
to the microorganisms. Assume in this case that X = 4000 mg/L the hydraulic retention is then obtained by:
t!
! 0.129Kday ! 3.1Kh
Lc !
- 4000Kmg / L .- 0.129Kday .
! 3.8Kdays
- 0.5KkgKSS / kgKBOD .- 300 $ 30 . mg / L
1
kg KsludgeKwasted / day
!
Lc kg KsludgeKinKaerationKtan k
X r QW !
.-
3
3
6
XV - 4000 .- 516 . 10 KL / m 1/10 Kkg / mg
!
! 543Kkg / day
3.8
Lc
51. A binary separator, a magnet, is to separate a product, ferrous materials, from a feed stream of shredded refuse.
The feed rate to the magnet is 1000 kg/h, and contains 50 kg of ferrous materials. The product stream weighs 40 kg,
of which 35 kg are ferrous materials. What is the percent recovery of ferrous materials, their purity, and the overall
efficiency?
x0 = 50 kg
y0 = 1000-50= 950 kg
x1 = 35 kg
y1 = 40-35 = 5 kg
x2 = 50-35 = 15 kg
y1 = 950-5 = 945 kg
% 35 &
R- x1 . ! ' (100 ! 70%
) 50 *
% 35 &
P- x1 . ! '
(100 ! 88%
) 35 , 5 *
Then
030
! 0.977
BOD !
"TFSJFTPGTFFEEJMVUJPOTXFSFQSFQBSFEJON-#0%CPUUMFTVTJOHTFFENBUFSJBM TFUUMFESBXXBTUFXBUFS
BOEVOTFFEFEEJMVUJPOXBUFSFBWFSBHF#0%GPSUIFTFFENBUFSJBMXBTNH-0OFNJMMJMJUFSPGUIFTFFENBUFSJBM
was also added to each bottle of a series of sample dilutions. Given the data for two samples in the following table,
DBMDVMBUFUIFTFFEDPSSFDUJPOGBDUPS 4$
BOE#0%PGUIFTBNQMF
Bottle #
mL Sample
mL Seed/bottle
Do initial
.?KN"=+)2
Depletion, mg/L
12
50
8.0
4.6
3.4
13
75
7.7
3.9
2.8
204Kmg / L
! 0.68Kmg / LKBOD / mLKseed
300Kmg / L
3.4 $ 0.68
" 300 ! 16.3Kmg / L
50KmL
3.8 $ 0.68
BOD,Kmg / L,KBottle #13 !
" 300 ! 12.5Kmg / L
MNKmL
Step 4: Calculate reported BOD:
BOD,Kmg / L,KBottle #12 !
56. Calculate the oxygen deficit in a stream after pollution. Use the following equation and parameters for a stream
to calculate the oxygen deficit D in the stream after pollution.
D!
K1 LA
0.280 " 22
/e $ K1t $ e $ K2t 40 , DAe $ K2t !
/e $0.280"2.13 $ e $0.550"2.13 40 , 2e $0.550"2.13 ! 6.16Kmg / L
K 2 $ K1 3
0.550 $ 0.280 3
031
%
BOD5 &
% 135 &
$ log '1 $
( $ log '1 $
(
BOD
21 *
)
) 400 * ! 0.361/ day
!
K1 !
t
5
58. Given the following data, determine the mass balance of the biological process and the appropriate waste rate to
maintain current operating conditions.
Process
O+P5%+(
E,P5%+(
Waste
Flow
1.1 MGD
BOD
220 mg/L
TSS
240 mg/L
Flow
1.5 MGD
BOD
18 mg/L
TSS
22 mg/L
Flow
24,000 gpd
TSS
8710 mg/L
MassKBalance !
59. A dual medium filter is composed of 0.3 m anthracite (mean size of 2.0 mm) placed over a 0.6-m layer of sand
(mean size 0.7 mm) with a filtration rate of 9.78 m/h. Assume the grain sphericity is = 0.75 and a porosity for both
is 0.42. Although normally taken from the appropriate table at 15C, we provide the head loss data of the filter at 1.131
106 m2 sec.
Step 1: Determine head loss through anthracite layer using the Kozeny equation.
h k > -1 $ O . % A &
!
' ( u
L
gpO 3 ) V *
2
h ! 5"
032
Pave !
@P
1331Kcm
! 8.87Kcm
15
61. A small water shed consists of 2 km2 of forest area (c = 0.1), 1.2 km2 of cultivated area (c = 0.2) and 1 km2
under grass cover (c = 0.35). A water course falls by 20 m in a length of 2 km. The IDF relation for the area may be
taken as
i = 80T0.2/ (t+12)0.5
Estimate the peak rate of runoff for a 25 yr frequency.
Time of concentration (in hr)
0.77
tc ! 0.06628KL
$0.385
! 0.06628 " 2
0.77
% 20 &
'
(
) 2 "1000 *
$0.385
! 40Kmin
80 " 250.2
- 40 , 12 .
0.5
! 21.1Kcm / hr
Qpeak = 2.78 C ic A, rational formula, CA = CiAi= 2.78 21.1 (0.1 2 + 0.2 1.2 + 0.35 1) = 46.4 cumec
62. The annual rainfall at a place for a period of 21 years is given below. Draw the rainfall frequency curve and
determine :
(a) The rainfall of 5-year and 20-year recurrence, interval
(b) The rainfall which occurs 50% of the times
ic !
033
Rainfall (cm)
Year
Rainfall (cm)
1950
50
1961
56
1951
60
1962
52
1952
40
1963
42
1953
27
1964
38
1954
30
1965
27
1955
38
1966
40
1956
70
1967
100
1957
60
1968
90
1958
35
1969
44
1959
55
1970
33
1960
40
Arrange the yearly rainfall in the descending order of magnitude as given below. If a particular rainfall occurs in more
than one year, m = no. of times exceeded + no. of times equaled.
Draw the graph of P vs. F on a semi-log paper which gives the rainfall frequency curve. From the frequency-curve,
the required values can be obtained as
1
100
"100 !
! 20%K forKwhichKP ! 64Kcm
T
5
1
T ! 20 $ year ,KF ! " 100 ! 5%K forKwhichKP ! 97.5Kcm
20
- a .KT ! 5 $ yr ,KF !
(b) For F = 50%, P = 42.2 cm which is the median value, and the mean value
x!
@ x ! 1026 ! 48.8Kcm
n
21
1
100
"100 !
! 8K yr
F
12.4
034
Time (min)
O+=2(-)('0+"9)6)9'(3"@9.K$-D
5.0
3.9
5.0
3.4
5.0
3.1
5.0
2.7
5.0
2.5
7.5
2.3
7.5
2.0
10
7.5
1.8
12
7.5
1.54
14
7.5
1.43
16
2.5
1.36
18
2.5
1.31
20
2.5
1.28
22
2.5
1.25
24
2.5
1.23
26
2.5
1.22
28
2.5
1.20
30
2.5
1.20
The precipitation and infiltration rates versus time are plotted as shown in the figure. In the Hortons equation, the
Hortons constant
k!
f0 $ fc
Fc
% 1Kcm
&
" 2Kmin ( ! 0.275Kcm
Fc ! 8.25 '
) 60Kmin
*
- 4.5 $ 1.2 .Kcm / hr ! 12Khr $1
k!
0.275Kcm
The Hortons equation is
f = fc + (f0 fc) ekt = 1.2 + (4.5 1.2) e12t
is the equation for the infiltration capacity curve (f-curve) for the basin, where f is in cm/hr and t in hr.
3.3
12"-1/6 .
! 1.7Kcm / hr ,Kwhich is very near compared to the observed value of 1.8 cm/hr.
1
! 2.29Kcm
30
Excess rain Pnet = P Fp= 68.75 26.5 = 42.25 sq. units= 1.41 cm
1
! 0.88Kcm
30
The total infiltration loss Fp can also be determined by intergrating the Hortons equation for the duration of the
storm.
t
30
60
Fp ! 7 f Kdt !
3.3 &
3.3 %
1&
3.3 %
1 &
Kdt ! 1.2t ,
'1 $ ( ! 0.6 ,
'1 $
( ! 0.88Kcm
12 t (
12 ) e6 *
12 ) 408 *
*
7 ')1.2 , e
f ! 1.2 ,
035
Fp
t
0.88Kcm
! 1.76Kcm / hr
0.5K
t!
logK- f 0 $ f c .
k KlogKe
logK- f $ f c .
k KlogKe
Which is in the form of a straight line y = mx + c in which y = t, x = log (f fc), m = -1/k log e.
Hence, from a plot of t vs. (f fc) on a semi-log paper (t to linear scale), the constants in the Hortons equation can be
determined.
From the given data, fc = 1.2 cm/hr and the values of (f fc) for different time intervals from the beginning are: 2.7, 2.2,
1.9, 1.5, 1.3, 1.1, 0.8, 0.6, 0.46, 0.32, 0.22, 0.16, 0.12, 0.05, 0.04, 0.02, 0.0 cm/hr, respectively; (note: 3.9 1.2 = 2.7 cm/ hr
and like that for other readings).
These values are plotted against time on a semi-log paper as shown in the figure.
k!
1
! 12Khr $1
0.1933 " 0.434
64. A 24-hour storm occurred over a catchment of 1.8 km2 area and the total rainfall observed was 10 cm. An
infiltration capacity curve prepared had the initial infiltration capacity of 1 cm/hr and attained a constant value of 0.3
cm/hr after 15 hours of rainfall with a Hortons constant k = 5 hr1. An IMD pan installed in the catchment indicated
BEFDSFBTFPGDNJOUIFXBUFSMFWFM BFSBMMPXJOHGPSSBJOGBMM
EVSJOHIPVSTPGJUTPQFSBUJPO0UIFSMPTTFTXFSF
found to be negligible. Determine the runoff from the catchment. Assume a pan coefficient of 0.7.
036
24
24
0.7 24
]0
Fp ! 7 /3 f c , - f 0 $ f c . e $ kt 04Kdt ! 7 /30.3 , -1.0 $ 0.3. e $5t 04Kdt ! 0.3t ,
$5e5t
0.7 0 /
0.7 0
0.7 %
1 &
/
! 10.3 " 24 $ 5"24 2 $ 10 $ 0 2 ! 7.2 ,
'1 $ 120 ( ! 7.34Kcm
5
5
5
e
e
e
3
4 3
4
)
*
Runoff = P Fp E = 10 7.34 (0.60 0.7) = 2.24 cm
Volume of runoff from the catchment = (2.24/100) (1.8 106) = 40320 m3
65. The 3-hr unit hydrograph ordinates for a basin are given below. There was a storm, which commenced on July
15 at 16.00 hr and continued up to 22.00 hr, which was followed by another storm on July 16 at 4.00 hr which lasted
up to 7.00 hr. It was noted from the mass curves of self-recording rain gauge that the amount of rainfall on July 15
was 5.75 cm from 16.00 to 19.00 hr and 3.75 cm from 19.00 to 22.00 hr, and on July 16, 4.45 cm from 4.00 to 7.00 hr.
Assuming an average loss of 0.25 cm/hr and 0.15 cm/hr for the two storms, respectively, and a constant base flow of
10 cumec, determine the stream flow hydrograph and state the time of occurrence of peak flood.
Time (hr):
12
15
18
21
24
27
UGO
(cumec)
1.5
4.5
8.6
12.0
9.4
4.6
2.3
0.8
Since the duration of the UG is 3 hr, the 6-hr storm (16.00 to 22.00 hr) can be considered as 2-unit storm producing a
net gain of 5.75 0.25 3 = 5 cm in the first 3-hr period and a net gain of 3.75 0.25 3 = 3 cm in the next 3-hr period.
The unit hydrograph ordinates are multiplied by the net rain of each period lagged by 3 hr. Similarly, another unit storm
lagged by 12 hr (4.00 to 7.00 hr next day) produces a net gain of 4.45 0.15 3 = 4 cm which is multiplied by the UGO
and written in col (5) (lagged by 12 hr from the beginning), the table. The rainfall excesses due to the three storms are
added up to get the total direct surface discharge ordinates. T;o this, the base flow ordinates (BFO = 10 cumec, constant)
are added to get the total discharge ordinates (stream flow).
The flood hydrograph due to the 3 unit storms on the basin is obtained by plotting col (8) vs. col. (1).
66. A 20-cm well penetrates 30 m below static water level (GWT). After a long period of pumping at a rate of 1800
lpm, the draw downs in the observation wells at 12 m and 36 m from the pumped well are 1.2 m and 0.5 m, respectively.
Determine: (i) the transmissibility of the aquifer.
(ii) The drawdown in the pumped well assuming R = 300 m.
Q!
A K - h22 $ h12 .
2.303log10 r2 / r1
037
2
2
1.800 A K 29.5 $ 28.8
!
60
2.303log10 36 /12
- ii .KQ !
2.72T - H $ hw .
log10 R / rw
$4
1.800 2.72 78.6 "10 S w
!
60
log10 300 / 0.10
Q
1.800
!
! 0.0062Km3 / sec$ m
S w 60 " 4.88
67. The highest annual floods for a river for 60 years were statistically analysed. The sixth largest flood was 30,000
cumec (30 tcm).
Determine:
(i) The period in which the flood of 30 tcm may reoccur once
(ii) The percentage chance that this flood may occur in any one year
(iii) The percentage chance that this flood may not occur in the next 20 years
(iv) The percentage chance that this flood may occur once or more in the next 20 years
(v) The percentage chance that a 50-yr flood may occur (a) once in 50 years, (b) one or more times in 50 years
n , 1 60 , 1
!
! 10K yr
m
6
1
1
"100 ! 10%
- ii .KPercentageKchance,Ki.e.,KP ! "100 !
10.1
T
- i .KWeibull;KT !
20
1 &
%
! '1 $
( ! 12.4%
) 10.1 *
1
1
"100 ! "100 ! 2%
50
T
50
1 &
( ! 0.3631
) 50 *
PEx ! 1 $ P- N ,0. ! 1 $ 0.3631 ! 64%
Time (hr)
12
24
36
48
60
72
84
96
108
120
M7N"=%?.)&+.@
42
45
88
272
342
288
240
198
162
133
110
Time (hr)
132
144
156
168
180
192
204
216
228
240
M7N"=%?.)&+.@
90
79
68
61
56
54
51
48
45
42
68. The inflow hydrograph readings for a stream reach are given below for which the Muskingum coefficients of K
= 36 hr and x = 0.15 apply. Route the flood through the reach and determine the outflow hydrograph. Also determine
UIFSFEVDUJPOJOQFBLBOEUIFUJNFPGQFBLPGPVUPX0VUPXBUUIFCFHJOOJOHPGUIFPPENBZCFUBLFOBTUIFTBNF
as inflow.
038
1
1.5 " 0.15 $ 0.5 "
Kx $ 0.5t
2 ! 0.02
C0 ! $
!$
1
K $ Kx , 0.5t
1.5 $ 12 " 0.15 , 0.5 "
2
1
1.5 " 0.15 , 0.5 "
Kx , 0.5t
2 ! 0.31
C1 !
!
K $ Kx , 0.5t 1.5 $ 12 " 0.15 , 0.5 " 1
2
1
15 $ 1.5 " 0.15 $ 0.5 "
K $ Kx $ 0.5t
2 ! 0.67
C2 !
!
K $ Kx , 0.5t 1.5 $ 12 " 0.15 , 0.5 " 1
2
Check: C0 + C1 + C2 = 0.02 + 0.31 + 0.67 = 1
O2 = 0.02 I2 + 0.31 I1 + 0.67 O1
In the table, I1, I2 are known from the inflow hydrograph, and O1 is taken as I1 at the beginning of the flood since the
flow is almost steady.
Time (hr)
O+P0:"O"@95.%9D
0.02 I2 (cumec)
0.31 I2 (cumec)
0.67O2 (cumec)
42
Q5(P0:"Q2 (cumec)
42*
12
45
0.90
13.0
28.2
42.1
24
88
1.76
14.0
28.3
44.0
36
272
5.44
27.3
29.5
62.2
48
342
6.84
84.3
41.7
132.8
60
288
5.76
106.0
89.0
200.7
72
240
4.80
89.2
139.0
233.0
84
198
3.96
74.4
156.0
234.0
96
162
3.24
61.4
157.0
221.6
108
133
2.66
50.2
148.2
201.0
120
110
2.20
41.2
134.5
178.9
132
90
1.80
34.1
119.8
166.7
144
79
1.58
27.9
104.0
133.5
156
68
1.36
24.4
89.5
115.3
163
61
1.22
21.1
77.4
99.7
180
56
1.12
18.9
66.8
86.8
192
54
1.08
17.4
58.2
76.7
204
51
1.02
16.7
51.4
69.1
216
48
1.00
15.8
46.3
63.1
228
45
0.90
14.8
42.3
58.0
240
42
0.84
13.9
38.9
53.6
The reduction in peak is 108 cumec and the lag time is 36 hr, i.e., the peak outflow is after 84 hr (= 3.5 days) after the
commencement of the flood through the reach.
039
69. The following data are obtained from the records of the mean monthly flows of a river for 10 years. The head
available at the site of the power plant is 60 m and the plant efficiency is 80%.
R%)+".0+($23"P0:"-)+?%"@95.%9D
100-149
150-199
200-249
16
250-299
21
300-349
24
350-399
21
400-449
20
450-499
500-549
(a) Plot
(i) The flow duration curve (ii) The power duration curve
(b) Determine the mean monthly flow that can be expected and the average power that can develop.
(c) Indicate the effect of storage on the flow duration curve obtained.
(d) What would be the trend of the curve if the mean weekly flow data are used instead of monthly flows?
The mean monthly flow ranges are arranged in the ascending order as shown in the table. The number of times that
each mean monthly flow range (class interval, C.I.) has been equaled or exceeded (m) is worked out as cumulative number
of occurrences starting from the bottom of the column of number of occurrences, since the C.I. of the monthly flows, is
arranged in the ascending order of magnitude. It should be noted that the flow values are arranged in the ascending order
of magnitude in the flow duration analysis, since the minimum continuous flow that can be expected almost throughout
the year (i.e., for a major percent of time) is required particularly in drought duration and power duration studies, while
in flood flow analysis the CI may be arranged in the descending order of magnitude and m is worked out from the top
as cumulative number of occurrences since the high flows are of interest. The percent of time that each CI is equaled or
exceeded is worked out as the percent of the total number of occurrences (m) of the particular CI out of the 120 = (10 yr
12 = n) mean monthly
Flow values, i.e., = (m/n) 100. The monthly power developed in megawatts,
P!
gQH
% 9.81" 60
&
"P 0 ! '
" 0.80 ( Q
1000
) 1000
*
Where Q is the lower value of the CI Thus, for each value of Q, P can be calculated.
(i) The flow duration curve is obtained by plotting Q vs. percent of time, (Q = lower value of the CI).
(ii) The power duration curve is obtained by plotting P vs. percent of time.
(b) The mean monthly flow that can be expected is the flow that is available for 50% of the time i.e., 357.5 cumec from
the flow duration curve drawn. The average power that can be developed i.e., from the flow available for 50% of the time, is
167 MW, from the power duration curve drawn.
(c) The effect of storage is to raise the flow duration curve on the dry weather portion. And lower it on the high flow
portion and thus tends to equalize the flow at different times of the year, as indicated in the figure.
(d) If the mean weekly flow data are used instead of the monthly flow data, the flow duration curve lies below the curve
obtained from monthly flows for about 75% of the time towards the drier part of the year and above it for the rest of the
year as indicated in the figure.
In fact the flow duration curve obtained from daily flow data gives the details more accurately (particularly near the
ends) than the curves obtained from weekly or monthly flow data but the latter provide smooth curves because of their
averaged out values. What duration is to be used depends upon the purpose for which the flow duration curve is intended.
040
70. Annual rainfall and runoff data for the Damodar River at Rhondia (east India) for 17 years (1934-1950) are
given below. Determine the linear regression line between rainfall and runoff, the correlation coefficient and the
standard error of estimate.
Year
Rainfall (mm)
Runoff (mm)
1934
1088
274
1935
1113
320
1936
1512
543
1937
1343
437
1938
1103
352
1939
1490
617
1940
1100
328
1941
1433
582
1942
1475
763
1943
1380
558
1944
1178
492
1945
1223
478
1946
1440
783
1947
1165
551
1948
1271
565
1949
1443
720
1950
1340
730
The regression line computations are made in the table and is given by
R = 0.86 P 581
Where P = rainfall (mm) and R = runoff (mm)
The correlation coefficient r = 0.835, which indicates a close linear relation and the straight line plot is shown in the
figure, the relation is very close.
S y,x ! Q y 1 $ r 2
Qy !
@- y $ y.
n $1
@ - 5y .
n $1
40.10 "104
17 $ 1
041
(i) It will be assumed that the catchment is divided into sub-areas such that all surface runoff from each of these areas
will arrive during a 1-hr period at the gauging point. The areas are measured by plan metering each of the hourly areas as:
>05-
Area(km2)
40
100
150
180
160
155
140
80
35
(ii) The time-area graph (in full lines) and the distribution graph of runoff (in dotted lines) are drawn as shown in the
figure. The dotted lines depict the non-uniform areal distribution of rain.
Plot col (1) vs. col (5) to get the IUH, and col (1) vs. col (6) to get the 3-hr UGO, as shown in the figure.
042
C' !
1
K, t
2
1
K$ t
2
C2 !
1
K, t
2
1
1
!
! 0.1177
1
8 , "1 8.5
2
1
8 $ "1
2 ! 7.5 ! 0.882,KCheck :KC ' , C ! 1
!
2
1
8 , "1 5
2
1 $ cmKrainKonK1Kkm 2 KinK1Khr !
106 "10$2
! 2.78Km3 / s
3600
The 3-hr UGO is obtained by averaging the pair of IUH ordinates at 3-hr intervals and writing at the end of the intervals.
72. The recession ordinates of the flood hydrograph (FHO) for the Lakhwar dam site across river Yamuna are given
below. Determine the value of K.
Time(hr)
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
S>Q@95.%9D
1070
680
390
240
150
90
45
30
20
Qt ! Q0 e k ,KwhenKK !
t
% Q0 &
ln ' (
) Qt *
Q vs. t is plotted on the semi-log paper. K is the slope of the recession-flood hydrograph plot.
K!
31 $ 59
5t
5t
!
!
! $12.15,KsayK12Khr
5 ln Q 2.303log 1000 1.303 "1
100
73. The isochronal map of Lakhwar damsite catchment, the figure has areas between successive 3 hr isochrones as
32, 67, 90, 116, 135, 237, 586 and 687 km2. Taking k = 12 hr, derive the IUH of the basin by Clarks approach and hence
a 3-hr UG.
043
A = Ar = 1950 km2
tc = t N = 3 8 = 24 hr, K = 12 hr
No. of isochrones = N 1 = 8 1 = 7#
ComputationKintervalKt ! 5tc KbetweenKsuccessiveKisochrones ! 3Khr !
24 tc
!
8 N
Q2 = CI + C2Q1
3
!
! 0.2222
t
3
k,
12 ,
2
2
t
3
k$
12 $
2
2 ! 0.7778
!
C2 !
t
3
k,
12 ,
2
2
C' !
I ! 2.78
Ar
A
! 2.78 " r
t
3
Q2 = IUHO
A - 0.020 . " 2
2
Rs
!
!
! 0.203
1000 " 9.81
Rw Rw
- ii .KDensityKof Ksnow,KGs !
DepthKof KmeltKwaterK- d w .
DepthKof KsnowK- d s .
Ws
Vs
044
5
"1000 " 5 ! 4000 -15 $ 5 .
9.81
Solving, Wc = 468.2 gm = 0.4682 9.81 = 4.6 N
4.6
QualityKof Ksnow !
! 0.92
5
Wc " 80 ,
75. The average snow line is at 1400 m elevation and a temperature index station located at 1800 m elevation
indicated a mean daily temperature of 8C on a certain day. Assuming a temperature decrease of 1C per 200 m increase
in elevation and a degree-day factor of 3 mm/degree-day, compute the snowmelt runoff for the day. An area elevation
curve for the snowpack is shown in the figure.
/
1800 $ 1400 E0
D
1 109CKatKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK,KKG89C ,
H2 1
200
I
J2K! (0 , 10) ! 59C
1
2
2
13 freezing Kelevn.KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKatKsnowKlineKelevn.KK 24
Snowmelt runoff for the day= 0.003 5 C (680 106) = 10.2 106 m3= 10.2 km2-m
76. Equilibrium overland flow occurs over a rectangular area 100 m long due to a uniform net rainfall of 50 mm/hr.
At what distance from the upper edge of the area the flow changes from laminar to turbulent if the temperature is 20C
and the critical Reynolds number is 800.
Re !
vd
800 !
q
+ q ! 8 "10$4 Kcumec / m
1"10$6
q ! inet l
8 "10$4 !
50
"l
1000 " TU" TU
(b) What is the maixmum uniform demand that can be met and what is the storage capacity required to meet this
demand?
Month
135
23
27
21
15
40
120
185
112
87
63
42
Demand (mm3)
60
55
80
102
100
121
38
30
25
59
85
75
77. The runoff data for a river during a lean year along with the probable demands are given below. Can
demands be met with the available river flow? If so, how?
(a) Evaporation losses and the prior water rights of the downstream user are not given and hence not considered. The
computation is made in the table. Since the cumulative surplus is more than the cumulative deficit the demands can be met
with the available river flows, by constructing a reservoir with minimum storage capacity of 352 Mm3, which is also the 045
maximum departure of the mass curves (from the beginning of the severe dry period) of inflow and demand.
Month
O+P0:"@..3)
Cumulative
'+P0:"@..3)
Demand
(mm3)
Cumulative
demand (mm3)
Jan.
135
870
60
830
Surplus
Cumulative J%=9'("@..3)
(mm3) surplus (mm3)
75
Cumulative
demand (mm3)
75
Remarks
Reservoir full by
end of Jan
Feb.
23
23
55
55
32
March
27
50
80
135
53
April
21
71
102
237
81
May
15
86
100
337
85
June
40
126
121
458
81
July
120
246
38
496
82
Aug.
185
431
30
526
155
Sep.
112
543
25
551
87
Oct.
87
630
59
610
28
Nov.
63
693
85
695
22
Dec.
42
735
75
770
33
Total
870
332
Max draft =
storage
352
427
55
387
In the bar graph, the monthly inflow and demand are shown by full line and dashed line, respectively. The area of
maximum deficit (i.e., demand over surplus) is the storage capacity required and is equal to 332 Mm3.
The shaded area represents the surplus over the uniform demand (during the months of January, and July to October),
which is the storage capacity required to meet the uniform demand, and is equal to (135) + (120 + 185 + 112 + 87) 72.5
5 = 276.5 Mm3
m3
%K&
% 0.376 &
1.67
0.5
2.67
Qs ! ' ( S x1.67 S L0.5Ts2.67 ! '
! Qs assumed
( 0.02 0.01 1.9 ! 0.019
s
)n*
) 0.016 *
(b) The cumulative inflow in the lean year is 870 Mm3. The maximum uniform demand that can be met is 870/12=72.5
Mm3 per month. In the bar graph, the line of uniform demand is drawn at 72.5 M.m3/month.
78. A 200 mm-well is pumped at the rate 1150 lpm. The drawdown data on an observation well 12.3 away from the 046
pumped well are given below. Determine the transmissibility and storage coefficients of the aquifer. What will be the
drawdown at the end of 180 days (a) in the observation well, (b) in the pumped well? Use the modified This method;
under what conditions is this method valid?
Time(min)
12
Drawdown
2.42
2.46
2.52
2.58
2.61
2.63
Time(min)
15
20
40
60
90
120
Drawdown
2.67
2.71
2.79
2.85
2.91
2.94
The time-drawdown plot is shown in the figure, from which s = 0.28 m per log-cycle of t, and t0 (for s = 0) is 37 1010
min.
1.150
2.3 "
2.3Q
60 ! 0.0125Km 2 / s
!
T!
4A5s 4A - 0.28 .
S!
$10
2.25Tt0 2.25 - 0.0125 . 37 "10 " 60
!
! 4.12 "10$11
2
2
r
-12.3.
% 1.150 &
2.3 '
(
) 60 * log 2.25 - 0.0125 .180 " 86400 ! 5.06Km
sw !
2
4A - 0.0125 .
- 0.100 . 4.12 "10$11
The Jacobs method is valid for
u 6 0.01
r 2S
6 0.01
4Tt
79. A vertical lock gate is 4 m wide and separates 20C water levels of 2 m and 3 m, respectively. Find the moment
about the bottom required to keep the gate stationary.
On the side of the gate where the water measures 3 m, F1 acts and has an hCG of 1.5 m; on the opposite side, F2 acts with
an hCG of 1m.
047
(a) The bottom force is simply equal to bottom pressure times bottom area:
Pbottom = Pair + water g|z| = 8000 Pa + (9790 N / m3) (0.25 + 0.12m) = 11622 Pa - gage
FCC = pCCACC = (10448 Pa) ( /4) [(0.36 m)2 (0.16 m)2 ] = 853 N
81. Determine (a) the total hydrostatic force on curved surface AB in the figure and (b) its line of action. Neglect
atmospheric pressure and assume unit width into the paper.
FH = hCG
For the cubic-shaped surface AB, the weight of water above is computed by integration:
The line of action (water centroid) of the vertical force also has to be found by integration:
1
7 xdA ! 7
x!
7 dA 7 -1 $ x . dx
x 1 $ x3 dx
3
! 10 ! 0.4Km
3
4
3
%3&
FV ! R b 7 1 $ x 3 dx ! R b ! ' ( - 9790 .-1.0 . ! 7343KN
4
)4*
0
048
The vertical force of 7343 N thus acts at 0.4 m to the right of point A, or 0.6 m to the left of B, as shown in the sketch
above. The resultant hydrostatic force then is
Ftotal = [(4895)2 + (7343)2]1/2 = 8825 N acting at 56.31 down and to the right.
This result is shown in the sketch at above right. The line of action of F strikes the vertical above point A at 0.933 m above
A, or 0.067 m below the water surface.
82. In the figure all pipes are 8-cm-diameter cast iron. Determine the flow rate from reservoir (1) if valve C is (a)
closed; and (b) open, with Kvalve = 0.5.
For water at 20C, take = 998 kg/m3 and = 0.001 kg/m.s. For cast iron, 0.26 mm, hence /d = 0.26/80 0.00325
for all three pipes. Note p1 = p2, V1 = V2 0. These are long pipes, but we might wish to account for minor losses anyway:
Sharp entrance at A: K1 0.5; line junction from A to B: K2 0.9
Branch junction from A to C: K3 1.3; two submerged exits: KB = KC 1.0
If valve C is closed, we have a straight series path through A and B, with the same flow rate Q, velocity V, and friction
factor f in each. The energy equation yields
z1 z2 = hfA + hmA + hfB + hmB
25Km !
V 2 / 100
50
O&
0
%
f
, 0.5 , 0.9 , f
, 1.0 2 ,KwhereK f ! fcn ' Re, (
1
d*
2 - 9.81. 3 0.08
0.08
4
)
Guess f ffully rough 0.027, then V 3.04 m/s, Re 998(3.04) (0.08) / (0.001) 243000,
/ d = 0.00325, then f 0.0273 (converged). Then the velocity through A and B is V = 3.03 m/s, and Q = ( /4)
(0.08)2(3.03) 0.0152 m3/s.
If valve C is open, we have parallel flow through B and C, with QA = QB + QC and, with d constant, VA = VB + VC. The
total head loss is the same for paths A-B and A-C:
z1 z2 = hfA + hmA-B + hfB + hmB = hfA + hmA-C + hfC + hmC
25 !
!
VA2 / 100
VB2 /
50
0
0
,
0.5
,
0.9
,
f
A
2 2 - 9.81. 1 f B 0.08 , 1.0 2
2 - 9.81. 13 0.08
4
3
4
VC2 /
VA2 / 100
70
0
0
, 0.5 , 1.32 ,
, 1.0 2
fA
fC
1
2 - 9.81. 3 0.08
4 2 - 9.81. 13 0.08
4
Plus the additional relation VA = VB + VC. Guess f ffully rough 0.027 for all three pipes and begin. The initial numbers
work out to
2g (25) = 490.5 = VA2 (1250A + 1.4) + VB2 (625 B + 1) = VA2 (1250 A + 1.8) + VC2 (875 C + 1)
If f 0.027, solve (laboriously) VA 3.48 m/s, VB 1.91 m/s, VC 1.57 m/s
Repeat once for convergence: VA 3.46 m/s, VB 1.90 m/s, VC 1.56 m/s. The flow rate from reservoir (1) is QA = (/4)
(0.08)2 (3.46) 0.0174 m3/s. (14% more)
83. Two water tanks, each with base area of 1 ft2, are connected by a 0.5-indiameter long-radius nozzle as in the
figure. If h = 1 ft as shown for t = 0, estimate the time for h (t) to drop to 0.25 ft.
049
For water at 20C, take =1.94 slug/ft3 and = 2.09E - 5 slug/ft.s. For a long-radius nozzle with 0, guess Cd 0.98 and
Kloss 0.9. The elevation difference h must balance the head losses in the nozzle and submerged exit:
5z ! @ hloss !
Vt 2
Vt 2
K!
- 0.9nozzle , 1.0exit . ! h,KsolveKVt ! 5.82 h
@
2g
2 - 32.3.
2
%1&
1
1 dh
dh
% A &' 2 (
!$
henceKQ ! Vt ' ( ' ( V 0.00794 h ! $ Atan k
4
12
2
2 dt
dt
) *' (
) *
The boldface factor 1/2 accounts for the fact that, as the left tank falls by dh, the right tank rises by the same amount,
hence dh/dt changes twice as fast as for one tank alone. We can separate and integrate and find the time for h to drop from
1 ft to 0.25 ft:
1.0
0.25
dh
! 0.0159
h
t final !
t final
dt
1 $ 0.25
0.0159
. V 63Ks
84. A centrifugal pump with backward-curved blades has the following measured performance when tested with
water at 20C:
Q, gal/min:
400
800
1200
1600
2000
>4",(T
123
115
108
101
93
81
2400
62
P, hp:
30
36
40
44
47
48
46
(a) Estimate the best efficiency point and the maximum efficiency. (b) Estimate the most efficient flow rate, and the
resulting head and brake horsepower, if the diameter is doubled and the rotation speed increased by 50%.
(a) Convert the data above into efficiency. For example, at Q = 400 gal/min,
400
K ft
- 62.4Klbf / ft . %') 448.8
&
/ s ( -115K ft .
*
! 0.32 ! 32%
36
550
ft
.
lbf
/
s
"
K
.
3
P!
R QH
P
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
U4"C
32%
55%
70%
80%
85%
82%
CQ* !
Q1
Q2
Q2
!
!
3
3
3
n1 D1
n2 D2
-1.5n1 .- 2 D1 .
gH1
gH
gH 2
! 2 22 !
2 2
n1 D1 n2 D2 -1.5Kn1 .2 - 2 D1 .2
H 2 ! 9 H1 ! 9 - 81K ft . ! 729K ft
(b) We dont know the values of CQ* or CH* or CP*, but we can set them equal for conditions 1 (the data above) and 2
(the performance when n and D are changed):
050
CP* !
P1
P
P2
! 32 5 !
3 5
8 n1 D1 8 n2 D2 8 -1.5n1 .3 - 2 D1 .5
For water at 20C, take = 1.94 slug/ft3 and = 2.09E5 slug/ft.s. For cast iron, 0.00085 ft. The 35-inch pump has the
BEP values Q* 18 kgal/min, H* 190 ft. In series, each pump takes H/2, so a BEP series operation would match
2
H sys
/
0
1
2
1
2
18000
1
2
1 449 2
1 Ad2 2
1
2
2
LV
% 5280 & 3 4 4
! 2 H * ! 2 -190 . ! 5z , f
! 100 , f '
(
D 2g
) d * 2 - 32.2 .
O 0.00085
213800 f
48Q
KwhereK f KdependsKonKRe !
Kand K !
5
d
d
d
Ad>
This converges to f 0.0169, Re 2.84E6, V 18.3 ft/s, d 1.67 ft
380 ! 100 ,
% 18000 &
62.4 '
( -190 .
) 449 *
Power ! 2 P ! 2
! 1.09 E 6 W 550 V 2000Kbhp
0.87
*
We can save money on the smaller (20-inch) pipe, but putting the pumps in series requires twice as much power as one
pump alone.
86. The net head of a little aquarium pump is given by the manufacturer as a function of volume flow rate as listed:
Q, m3/s:
1E - 6
2E - 6
3E - 6
4E - 6
5E - 6
>4"..">2O:
1.10
1.00
.0.80
0.60
0.35
0.0
What is the maximum achievable flow rate if you use this pump to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper
reservoir as shown in the figure?
NOTE: The tubing is smooth, with an inner diameter of 5 mm and a total length of 29.8 m. The water is at room
temperature and pressure, and minor losses are neglected.
051
One can plot the two relations, as at right, or use EES with a look-up table to get the final result for flow rate and head:
Hp = 1.00 m
Q = 1.0E6 m3 /s
The EES print-out gives the results Red = 255, H = 0.999 m, Q = 1.004E6 m3/s.
87. Uniform water flow in a wide brick channel of slope 0.02 moves over a 10-cm bump as in the figure. A slight
depression in the water surface results. If the minimum depth over the bump is 50 cm, compute (a) the velocity over
the bump; and (b) the flow rate per meter of width.
For brickwork, take n 0.015. Since the water level decreases over the bump, the upstream flow is subcritical. For a wide
channel, Rh = y/2, and
y23 $ E2 y22 ,
q2
!0
2g
q ! V1 y1
V12
, y1 $ 5h
2g
5h ! 0.1Km
y2 ! 0.5Km
E2 !
5
1
% y &3
Meanwhile,K forKuniformK flow,Kq !
y1 ' 1 ( sin 0.029 ! 0.785 y13
0.015 ) 2 *
Solve these two simultaneously for y1 = 0.608 m, V1 = 0.563 m/s Ans. (a), and q = 0.342 m3/ s.m
%
V2 &
V 2 y2
y23 $ ' y1 , 1 ( y22 , 1 1 ! 0 ! y23 $ 1.00204 y22 , 0.00204
2g *
2g
)
88. Water approaches the wide sluice gate in the figure, at V1 = 0.2 m/s and y1 = 1 m. Accounting for upstream
kinetic energy, estimate, at outlet section 2, (a) depth; (b) velocity; and (c) Froude number.
052
- b .KV2 !
V1 y1 -1.0 .- 0.2 .
!
! 4.33Km / s
0.0462
y2
- c .KFr2 !
V2
4.33
!
! 6.43
gy2
9.81- 0.0462 .
89. Consider the flow under the sluice gate of the figure. If y1 = 10 ft and all losses are neglected except the dissipation
in the jump, calculate y2 and y3 and the percentage of dissipation, and sketch the flow to scale with the EGL included.
The channel is horizontal and wide.
- 2 . ! 10.062K ft ! E ! y , V22
V12
! 10 ,
2
2
2g
2 - 32.2 .
2g
2
E1 ! y1 ,
V1 y1 ! V2 y2 ! 20
V2 V 24.4K ft / s
y2 V 0.820K ft
Fr2 !
Jump :K
24.4
32.2 - 0.820 .
V 4.75
y3 1 /
!
1 , 8 Fr2 $ 104 V 6.23
y2 2 3
y3 V 5.11K ft
E2 ! 10.062K ft ;Kh f !
Dissipation !
- y3 $ y2 .
4 y2 y3
4.71
V 47%
10.06
Consider the gradual change from the profile beginning at point a in the figure on a mild slope So1 to a mild but steeper
slope So2 downstream. Sketch and label the gradually-varied solution curve(s) y(x) expected.
There are two possible profiles, depending upon whether or not the initial M-2 profile slips below the new normal depth
yn2. These are shown on the next page:
053
90. February 1998 saw the failure of the earthen dam impounding California Jims Pond in southern Rhode Island.
The resulting flood raised temporary havoc in the nearby village of Peace Dale. The pond is 17 acres in area and 15 ft
deep and was full from heavy rains. The breach in the dam was 22 ft wide and 15 ft deep. Estimate the time required to
drain the pond to a depth of 2 ft.
d
dt
- 7 dX . , Q
pond
out
!0
1 3
dy
! $Qout ! $0.581- b $ 0.1 y . g 2 y 2
dt
b ! 22K ft
Apond
C!
V 9.8 E $ 5K ft
740520
2K ft
15K ft
tdrain $to $ 2K ft V
dy
y
3
2
1
2
sec $1
! $C 7 dt +
0
2
2
$
! Ct
2
5
1.414 $ 0.516
! 9160Ks ! 2.55Kh
9.8 E $ 5
If we used a spreadsheet and kept the term 0.1y, we would predict a time-to-drainto-2 ft or about 2.61 hours. The
theory is too crude to distinguish between these estimates.
91. The figure shows a tank full of water. Find:
(i) Total pressure on the bottom of tank.
(ii) Weight of water in the tank.
(iii) Hydrostatic paradox between the results of (i) and (ii) Width of tank is 2 m.
054
ht ! 3 , 0.6 ! 3.6Km
WidthKof Ktan k ! 2Km
LengthKof Ktan k KatKbottom ! 4Km
A ! 4 " 2 ! 8Km 2
(i )KTotalKpressureKF,KonKtheKbottomKis
F ! 8 gA h ! 1000 " 9.81" 8 " 3.6 ! 282528K N
- ii .KWeightKof KwaterKinKtan k ! 8 g " VolumeKof Ktan k ! 1000 " 9.81" Y3 " 0.4 " 2 , 4 " 0.6 " 2Z
! 1000 " 9.81Y 2.4 , 4.8Z ! 70632K N
- iii .KFromKtheKresultsKof K- i .Kand K- ii . ,KitKisKobserved KthatKtheKtotalKweightKof KwaterKinKtheKtankKisKmuch
lessKthanKtheKtotalK pressureKatKtheKbottomKof KtheKtank .KThisKisKknownKasKHydrostaticKparadox .K
92. A Sutro weir has a rectangular base of 30-cm width and 6-cm height. The depth of water in the channel is 12 cm
assuming the coefficient of discharge of the weir as 0.62; determine the discharge through the weir. What would be the
depth of flow in the channel when the discharge is doubled? (Assume the crest of the base weir to coincide with the bed
of the channel).
a ! 0.06Km
W ! 0.30 / 2 ! 0.15Km
H ! 0.12Km
K ! 2Cd 2 g ! 2 " 0.62 " 2 " [\]^ ! 5.4925
1
/ - 27.27 .2 0 3
D Lq ! 1.34 1
2 ! 14.76KmKbelowKHFL
13 0.556 24
Ds ! 2 DLq ! 2 "14.76 ! 29.52KmKbelowKHFL
94. While measuring the discharge in a river with unsteady flow, the depth y was found to increase at a rate of 0.06
m/hour. The surface width of the river is 30 m and discharge at this section is 35 m3/ sec. Estimate the discharge at
section 1 km upstream.
055
<Q <A
,
!0
<x <t
<A ! Tdy
<Q
<Y
,T
!0
<x
<t
Q2 $ Q1
<Y
! $T
<x
<t
<Y
0.6
0.06 2
! 30 "
!
Km / sec
T
<t
60 " 60 120
T <y
0.06
Q1 ! Q2 ,
.<x ! 35 ,
-1"1000 .
<t
120
<x ! 1Kkm ! 1000Km
Q2 ! 35Km3 / s
Q1 ! 35.5Km3 / s
95. A standard Parshall flume has a throat width of WT = 4 ft. Determine the free flow discharge corresponding to
h0 = 2.4 ft.
L ! 4K ft
h
2.4
! 0.6
Y0 ! 0 !
4
WT
X0 !
L 4
! !1
WT 4
Q0 !
- 0.6 .
Y01.5504
!
! 0.3459
0.0766
0.0766
1.3096 X 0
1.3096 -1.
1.5504
96. A reinforced concrete rectangular box culvert has the following properties:
D=1m
b=1m
L = 40 m
n = 0.012
S = 0.002
The inlet is square-edged on three edges and has a headwall parallel to the embankment, and the outlet is submerged
with TW=1.3 m. Determine the headwater depth, HW, when the culvert is flowing full at Q = 3 m3/s.
ke = 0.5. Also, for a box culvert, A = bD = (1) (1) = 1 m2 and R = bD / (2b+2D) = (1) (1) / [2(1) + 2(1)] = 0.25 m under
full-flow conditions.
2
2
/
0
2 - 9.81.- 0.012 . - 40 . 2
- 3.
HW ! 1.3 $ - 0.002 .- 40 . , 11 , 0.5 ,
! 2.24Km
4
1
2 2 - 9.81.-1.2
2
-1. - 0.25. 3
13
24
97. In the five-pipe horizontal network of the figure, assume that all pipes have a friction factor f = 0.025. For the
given inlet and exit flow rate of 2 ft3/s of water at 20C, determine the flow rate and direction in all pipes. If pA = 120 lbf/
in2 gage, determine the pressures at points B, C, and D.
056
For water at 20C, take =1.94 slug/ft3 and = 2.09E5 slug / ft.s. Each pipe has a head loss which is known except for
the square of the flow rate:
8 - 0.025 .- 3000 . QAC
8 fLQ 2
2
| !
,KwhereK_ AC V 60.42
! K AC QAC
5
2
5 AC
A gd
% 6&
2
A - 32.2 . ' (
) 12 *
! 19.12,KK BC ! 13.26,KK CD ! 19.12,KK BD ! 19.33
2
PipeK AC :Kh f !
Similarly,KK AB
There are two triangular closed loops, and the total head loss must be zero for each. Using the flow directions assumed
on the figure above, we have
Loop A-B-C: 19.12Q2AB +13.26Q2 BC 60.42Q2 AC = 0
Loop B-C-D: 13.26Q2BC +19.12Q2CD 19.33Q2BD = 0
And there are three independent junctions which have zero net flow rates:
Junction A: QAB + QAC = 2.0; B: QAB = QBC +QBD; C: QAC +QBC = QCD
These are five algebraic equations to be solved for the five flow rates. The answers are:
QAB = 1.19, QAC = 0.81, QBC = 0.99, QCD = 1.80, QBD = 0.20 ft3/s
The pressures follow by starting at a (120 psi) and subtracting off the friction losses:
2
pB ! p A $ 8 gK AB QAB
! 120 "144 $ 62.4 -19.12 .-1.19 .
15590K psf
! 108Klbf / in 2
144
Similarly,K pC V 103K psiKand K pD V 76K psi
pB !
0OBTVNNFSEBZ
OFUTPMBSFOFSHZSFDFJWFEBUBMBLFSFBDIFT.+QFSTRVBSFNFUFSQFSEBZ*GPGUIF
energy is used to vaporize water, how large could the depth of evaporation be?
1 MJm-2 day-1 = 0.408 mm/day
0.8 x 15 x 0.408 = 4.9 mm/day
The evaporation rate could be 4.9 mm/day.
99. Determine the atmospheric pressure and the psychometric constant at an elevation of 1800 m.
Z = 1800 m
/ 293 $ 0.0065 "1800 0
P ! 101.3 1
2
293
3
4
5.26
! 81.8 kPa
/ 17.27 "15 0
! 1.705 kPa
e9 - Tmin . ! 0.6108exp 1
315 , 237.3 24
Note that for temperature 19.759c (which is Tmean), e(T)=2.30 kPa
The mean saturation vapor pressure is 2.39 kPa.
References
1. Ali H (2010) Fundamentals of Irrigation and On-farm Water Management: Volume 1, Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-6335-2.
2. Ali H (2010) Fundamentals of Irrigation and On-farm Water Management: Volume 2, Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-7637-6
3. Alizadeh A (2002) Irrigation System Design. 4th Edition (Revised). Imam Reza University Press.
5. Asawa GL (1999) Elementary Irrigation Engineering. New Age International. ISBN 8122412025, 9788122412024.
6. O;7#>;6#6% PQB% R;$#<")*% PB% O+>6;>;7#% !PS% ?H10H@% T"&<;*#'"7% "G% 5)("*+8*+''#U+% !(;(#.% ;7,% 5*(#-.#;$% VA7;&#.% W+)*;$% W+(="*X% G"*% (>+% Y"*+.;'(#78% "G%
P"7(>$A%M7N"=%"G%V+Z%S+'+*U"#*3%[")*7;$%"G%Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%!.#+7.+'%;7,%\+.>7"$"8A%0C]%0:093
7. Basak N (1999) Irrigation Engineering. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 0074635387, 9780074635384.
8. Basak N (2003) Environmental Engineering. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 0070494630, 9780070494633.
9. Behboudian MH, Singh Z (2010) Water Relations and Irrigation Scheduling in Grapevine, in Horticultural Reviews, Volume 27 (ed J. Janick), John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., Oxford, UK.
4. FAO56, (2000) FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56, Crop Evapotranspiration (guidelines for computing crop water requirements).
057
10. Bos MG, Kselik RAL, Allen RG, Molden D (2009) Water Requirements for Irrigation and the Environment. Springer ISBN 978-1-4020-8948-0.
11. Calzadilla A, Rehdanz K, Tol RSJ (2011) Water scarcity and the impact of improved irrigation management: a computable general equilibrium analysis.
Agricultural Economics 42: 305-323.
12. Camp CR, Lamm FL (2013) Encyclopedia of Environmental Management, Irrigation Systems: Sub-Surface Drip Design, Taylor & Francis.
13. Davis AP (2007) Irrigation Engineering. Read Books. ISBN 1408626241, 9781408626245.
14. Hillel D, Vlek P (2005) The Sustainability of Irrigation. Advances in Agronomy. Donald Sparks.
15. Howell, TA, Meron M (2007) Microirrigation for Crop Production Design, Operation, and Management. Developments in Agricultural Engineering. Elsevier.
16. Israelsen OW (1932) Irrigation principles and practices. John Wiley & Sons. University of Minnesota.
17. Khan, S (2009) Irrigation Management in a Catchment Context, in Handbook of Catchment Management (eds R. C. Ferrier and A. Jenkins), Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford, UK.
18. Majumdar DK, (2004) Irrigation Water Management: Principles and Practice. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 8120317297, 9788120317291.
19. Mazumder SK, (1997) Irrigation Engineering. Galgotia Publication. ISBN 8175155353, 9788175155350.
20. Morillo-Velarde R, Ober ES (2007) Water Use and Irrigation, in Sugar Beet (ed A. P. Draycott), Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK.
21. Murthy CS (2002) Water Resources Engineering: Principles and Practice. New Age International. ISBN 812241382X, 9788122413823.
22. Newell FH (2008) Principles of Irrigation Engineering. Biblio Bazaar. ISBN 0559776764, 9780559776762.
23. Punmia, (1992) Irrigation and Water Power Engineering. Firewall Media. ISBN 8170080843, 9788170080848.
24. Rao KL (1979) Indias Water Wealth. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 8125007040, 9788125007043.
25. Sahasrabudhe SR (1962) Irrigation Engineering. Katson Publishing House. the University of Wisconsin Madison.
26. Sauer T, P. Havlk, UA Schneider, E. Schmid, G. Kindermann (2010) Agriculture and resource availability in a changing world: The role of irrigation, Water
Resources Research.
27. SCS (1991) National Engineering Handbook, United States Department of Agriculture, Section 15, Irrigation.
28. Sharma RK, Sharma TK (2007) Irrigation Engineering. S. Chand, ISBN 8121921287, 9788121921282.
29. Tessema B. (2007) Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. Adama University, SOE & IT, School of Engineering and Information Technology Department of
Civil Engineering and Architectures Surveying Engineering Stream.
30. R;$#<")*%PB%O;7#>;6#6%PQB%O+>6;>;7#%!PS%?H10C@%T"&<;*#'"7%"G%(>+%5SP5B%5SMP5B%;7,%(>+%;)("*+8*+''#U+%;*(#-.#;$%7+)*;$%7+(="*X%&",+$'%#7%G"*+.;'(#78%
(>+%&"7(>$A%#7N"=%"G%V+Z%,;&%*+'+*U"#*3%[")*7;$%"G%^A,*"$"8A%9E_]%9CC:9903
31. R;$#<")*%P%?H10C@%M7.*+;'#78%#**#8;(#"7%+G-.#+7.A%6A%&;7;8+&+7(%'(*;(+8#+']%.)(6;.X%;7,%')*8+%#**#8;(#"73%;*<7%`")*7;$%"G%;8*#.)$()*;$%;7,%6#"$"8#.;$%'.#+7.+%
8: 35-43.
32. Valipour M (2013) Necessity of Irrigated and Rainfed Agriculture in the World. Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering 9: 1-3.
33. Valipour M (2013) Evolution of Irrigation-Equipped Areas as Share of Cultivated Areas. Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering. 2: 114-115.
34. Valipour M (2013) Use of surface water supply index to assessing of water resources management in Colorado and Oregon, US. Advances in Agriculture,
Sciences and Engineering Research 3: 631-640.
35. Valipour M (2013) Estimation of Surface Water Supply Index Using Snow Water Equivalent. Advances in Agriculture, Sciences and Engineering Research
3: 587-602.
36. R;$#<")*B%P3%?H10C@%!.*)(#7A%"G%M7N"=%("%(>+%V*;#7'%5<<$#.;6$+%G"*%M&<*"U+&+7(%"G%!"#$%Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%T"7,#(#"7'3%M7]%\>+%0'(%M7(+*7;(#"7;$%T"7G+*+7.+%"7%
Environmental Crises and its Solutions, Kish Island, Iran.
37. Valipour, M. (2013) Comparison of Different Drainage Systems Usable for Solution of Environmental Crises in Soil. In: The 1st International Conference on
Environmental Crises and its Solutions, Kish Island, Iran.
38. Valipour, M., Mousavi, S.M., Valipour, R., Rezaei, E., 2013. A New Approach for Environmental Crises and its Solutions by Computer Modeling. In: The 1st
International Conference on Environmental Crises and its Solutions, Kish Island, Iran. http://vali-pour.webs.com/28.pdf
39. R;$#<")*%PB%O;7#>;6#6B%PQB%O+>6;>;7#B%!PS%?H10H@%P"7(>$A%M7N"=%Y"*+.;'(#78%a'#78%5)("*+8*+''#U+%5*(#-.#;$%W+)*;$%W+(="*X3%[")*7;$%"G%5<<$#+,%!.#+7.+'%
12: 2139-2147.
40. Valipour M, Banihabib ME, Behbahani SMR (2012) Parameters Estimate of Autoregressive Moving Average and Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average
P",+$'%;7,%T"&<;*+%\>+#*%56#$#(A%G"*%M7N"=%Y"*+.;'(#783%[")*7;$%"G%P;(>+&;(#.'%;7,%!(;(#'(#.'%2]%CC1:CC23%
41. R;$#<")*%P%?H10H@%T*#(#.;$%5*+;'%"G%M*;7%G"*%58*#.)$()*+%b;(+*%P;7;8+&+7(%5.."*,#78%("%(>+%577);$%S;#7G;$$3%Q)*"<+;7%[")*7;$%"G%!.#+7(#-.%S+'+;*.>%29]%
600-608.
42. R;$#<")*%PB%P"7(;Z;*%55B%?H10H@%c<(#&#Z+%"G%;$$%QGG+.(#U+%M7-$(*;(#"7%d;*;&+(+*'%#7%Y)**"=%M**#8;(#"7%a'#78%R#');$%O;'#.%;7,%e+7+(#.%5$8"*#(>&%d*"8*;&̏%
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 6: 132-137.
43. R;$#<")*%PB%P"7(;Z;*%55%?H10H@%!+7'#(#U+%57;$A'#'%"G%c<(#&#Z+,%M7-$(*;(#"7%d;*;&+(+*'%#7%!bVT%&",+$3%5,U;7.+'%#7%Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%O#"$"8A%_]%HDE9:HD203
44. Valipour M (2012) Comparison of Surface Irrigation Simulation Models: Full Hydrodynamic, Zero Inertia, Kinematic Wave. Journal of Agricultural Science
4: 68-74.
45. Valipour M (2012) Sprinkle and Trickle Irrigation System Design Using Tapered Pipes for Pressure Loss Adjusting. Journal of Agricultural Science 4: 125133.
47. R;$#<")*%PB%P"7(;Z;*%55%?H10H@%57%QU;$);(#"7%"G%!bVT%;7,%b#7!SYS%P",+$'%("%c<(#&#Z+%"G%M7-$(*;(#"7%d;*;&+(+*'%#7%Y)**"=%M**#8;(#"73%5&+*#.;7%[")*7;$%
"G%!.#+7(#-.%S+'+;*.>3%_4B%0H2:09H3
48. R;$#<")*% P% ?H10H@% W)&6+*% "G% S+f)#*+,% c6'+*U;(#"7% V;(;% G"*% S;#7G;$$% Y"*+.;'(#78% 5.."*,#78% ("% (>+% T$#&;(+% T"7,#(#"7'3% 5&+*#.;7% [")*7;$% "G% !.#+7(#-.%
Research 74: 79-86.
49. Valipour M, Mousavi SM, Valipour R, Rezaei E (2012) Air, Water, and Soil Pollution Study in Industrial Units Using Environmental Flow Diagram. Journal of
O;'#.%;7,%5<<$#+,%!.#+7(#-.%S+'+;*.>%H]%0HC_D:0HCEH3
50. R;$#<")*%P%?H10H@%!.*)(#7A%"G%d*+'')*+%g"''B%Y*#.(#"7%!$"<+B%M7N"=%R+$".#(AB%R+$".#(A%^+;,B%;7,%S+A7"$,'%W)&6+*%#7%T+7(+*%d#U"(3%M7(+*7;(#"7;$%[")*7;$%"G%
5,U;7.+,%!.#+7(#-.%;7,%\+.>7#.;$%S+'+;*.>%H]%%E1C:E003
51. Valipour M (2012) Ability of Box-Jenkins Models to Estimate of Reference Potential Evapotranspiration (A Case Study: Mehrabad Synoptic Station, Tehran,
46. Valipour, M., 2012. Hydro-Module Determination For Vanaei Village In Eslam Abad Gharb, Iran. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 7:
968-976.
058
Iran). IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS). 1 (5), 1-11.
52. Valipour M (2012) Effect of Drainage Parameters Change on Amount of Drain Discharge in Subsurface Drainage Systems. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and
Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS) 1: 10-18.
53. Valipour M (2012) A Comparison between Horizontal and Vertical Drainage Systems (Include Pipe Drainage, Open Ditch Drainage, and Pumped Wells) in
Anisotropic Soils. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) 4: 7-12.
54. Valipour M, Mousavi SM, Valipour R, Rezaei E, (2012) SHCP: Soil Heat Calculator Program. IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) 2: 44-50.
55. R;$#<")*%P%?H10H@%V+(+*#78%<"''#6$+%"<(#&;$%U;$)+'%"G%*+f)#*+,%N"=B%7"ZZ$+%,#;&+(+*B%;7,%=+((+,%;*+;%G"*%$#7+;*%(*;U+$#78%$;(+*;$'3%\>+%M7(+*7;(#"7;$%
Journal of Engineering and Science (IJES) 1: 37-43.
56. Valipour M (2013) Need to Update of Irrigation and Water Resources Information According to the Progresses of Agricultural Knowledge. Agrotechnology.
S10:e001.
57. Valipour M, Mousavi SM, Valipour R, Rezaei E (2013) Deal with Environmental Challenges in Civil and Energy Engineering Projects Using a New Technology.
Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering. S4.
58. Valipour M (2014) Drainage, Waterlogging, Salinity, Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2014.905676
59. Valipour M (2014) Future of the area equipped for irrigation. Arch Agron Soil Sci. DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2014.905675
60. Valipour M (2014) Importance of solar radiation, temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed for calculation of reference evapotranspiration. Arch. Agron.
Soil Sci. Accepted.
61. Valipour M (2014) Aagricultural water management of the previous half of century in Americans, J. Agr. Res. Accepted.
62. Valipour M (2014) Analysis of potential evapotranspiration using limited weather data, Int. J. Hydrol. Sci. Technol. Accepted.
63. Valipour M (2014) Future of agricultural water management in Africa, Int. J. Hydrol. Sci. Technol. Accepted.
64. Valipour M (2014) Future of agricultural water management in Americas, J. Agr. Res. Accepted.
65. Verhoef A and Egea G Soil water and its management, in Soil Conditions and Plant Growth (eds P. J. Gregory and S. Nortcliff), Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
Oxford.
66. Walker WR, Prestwich C, Spofford T (2006) Development of the revised USDANRCS intake families for surface irrigation. Agricultural Water Management
85: 157-164.
67. Walker WR (1997) Design of diversion weirs: Design of Diversion Weirs: Small Scale Irrigation in Hot Climates. By Rozgar Baban, Wiley, 1995, 228 pp. ISBN
0 471 95211 7. Agricultural Water Management. 32: 212-213.
68. Walker WR (1986) The determinants of canal water distribution in India: A micro analysis. K. Palanisami. Agricole Publishing Academy, New Delhi, India.
Agricultural Water Management 12: 165-166.
69. Walker WR (1984) Irrigation engineering - Sprinkler, trickle, surface irrigation principles, design and agricultural practices: A. Benami and A. Ofen. IESP,
Haifa, in cooperation with the International Irrigation Information Center (IIIC), Bet Dagan, Israel, 1983. 257 pp. ISBN 965-222-029-9. Agricultural Water
Management. 9: 263-264.
70. Walker WR (1986) Drip irrigation manual: Samuel Dasberg and Eshel Bresler. Publication 9, International Irrigation Information Center, Volcani Center, Bet
Dagan, Israel, 1985, 95 pp., ISBN 965-298-001-3. Agricultural Water Management 12: 164-165.
71. Walker WR (2007) Encyclopedia of Water Science. Irrigation, Surface. Taylor & Francis.
72. Walker WR (2011) Encyclopedia of Water Science, Second Edition. Irrigation, Surface. Taylor & Francis.
73. 5$6+*('%SSB%Q^%!(+=;*(B%[!%S"8+*'%?04E0@%e*")7,%=;(+*%*+.+''#"7%#7%&",#-+,%<*"-$+'%"G%Y$"*#,;%Y$;(="",%'"#$'3%!"#$%;7,%T*"<%!.#+7.+%!".3%Yg%<*".++,%
31: 216-217.
74. Allmaras RR, AL Black, RW Rickman (1973) Tillage, soil environment and root growth. Proc., Natl. Conserv. Tillage Conf., Des Moines, IA, 62-86.
75. 57;(%5B%^S%V)X+B%5\%T"*+A3%!(+;,A%)<=;*,%N"=%G*"&%=;(+*%(;6$+'3%^A,*"$3%d;<3%W"3%E3%Tc%!(;(+%a7#U3B%Y"*(%T"$$#7'B%Tc3
76. Ashford NJ, Mumayiz S, Wright PH (2011) Airport Drainage and Pavement Design, in Airport Engineering: Planning, Design, and Development of 21st
Century Airports, Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA.
77. O;7#>;6#6B%PQB%R;$#<")*%PB%O+>6;>;7#%!PSB%?H10H@%T"&<;*#'"7%"G%5)("*+8*+''#U+%!(;(#.%;7,%5*(#-.#;$%VA7;&#.%W+)*;$%W+(="*X%G"*%(>+%Y"*+.;'(#78%"G%
P"7(>$A%M7N"=%"G%V+Z%S+'+*U"#*3%[")*7;$%"G%Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%!.#+7.+'%;7,%\+.>7"$"8A%0C]%0:093
78. Baver LD, WH Gardner, WR Gardner (1972) Soil Physics, 4 ed., John Wiley & Sons, NY.
79. Blaney HF, WD Criddle (1947) A method of estimating water requirements in irrigated areas from climatological data. USDA Soil Conserv. Serv. report (rev.).
80. Bloodworth ME, CA Burleson, WR Cowley (1958) Root distribution of some irrigated crops using undisturbed soil cores. Agron. J 50: 317-320.
81. Boast CW, Don Kirkham (1971) Auger whole seepage theory. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35: 365-373.
82. Bos MG (1996) The Inter-Relationship between Irrigation, Drainage and the Environment in the Aral Sea Basin. Springer. ISBN 978-0-7923-4258-8.
83. O")=+*%^%?04_C@%\>+"*+(#.;$%+GG+.(%"G%)7+f);$%=;(+*%$+U+$'%"7%(>+%#7-$(*;(#"7%*;(+%,+(+*+,%=#(>%6)GG+*+,%.A$#7,*#.;$%#7-$(*"&+(+*'3%[3%^A,*"$3%0]%H4:C93
84. Bouwer H (1964) Measuring horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity of soil with the double tube method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28: 19-23.
85. O")=+*%^%?04__@%S;<#,%-+$,%&+;')*+&+7(%"G%;#*:+7(*A%U;$)+%;7,%>A,*;)$#.%."7,).(#U#(A%"G%'"#$%;'%'#87#-.;7(%<;*;&+(+*'%#7%N"=%'A'(+&%;7;$A'#'3%b;(+*%
Resource. Res. 2: 729-738.
86. O")=+*%^%?04_4@%M7-$(*;(#"7%"G%=;(+*%#7("%7"7)7#G"*&%'"#$3%[3%M**#8;(#"7%;7,%V*;#7;8+%V#U#'#"7B%5&+*3%!".3%58*#.3%Q783%4D]%9D0:9_H3
87. Bouwer, H. 1974. Developing drainage design criteria. In Drainage for Agriculture, ch. 5, J. van Schilfgaarde, ed., Amer. Soc. of Agron., Madison, WI.
89. Bouwer, H., and R. D. Jackson. 1974. Determining soil properties. In Drainage for Agriculture, J. van Schilfgaarde (ed.), Amer. Soc. of Agron., Madison,
WI, 611-672.
90. O*;X+7'#+X%Vg%?04EE@%Q'(#&;(#78%(>+%+GG+.(#U+%.;<#$$;*A%<*+'')*+%#7%(>+%e*++7:5&<(%#7-$(*;(#"7%+f);(#"73%b;(+*%S+'")*.+3%S+'3%0C]%_21:_2H3
91. Chang AC, Brawer SD (2014) Salinity and Drainage in San Joaquin Valley, California. Springer. ISBN 978-94-007-6850-5.
92. Chauhan HS (2005) Subsurface Drainage. Water Encyclopedia. 5: 94-100.
93. Chescheir GM (2011) Encyclopedia of Water Science, Drainage Modeling, Taylor & Francis.
94. City of Dallas Engineering Department, 1993. Drainage Design Manual.
88. O")=+*B%^3B%;7,%[3%U;7%!.>#$G8;;*,+3%04_C3%!#&<$#-+,%&+(>",%"G%<*+,#.(#78%(>+%G;$$%"G%=;(+*%(;6$+%#7%,*;#7+,%$;7,3%5&+*3%!".3%58*#.3%Q783%_]%H22:H40B%H4D3
059
135. Agricultural Research Service. (1994) Personal communication regarding the dry weight fraction value for hay between G. F. Fries, Glenn Rice, and
[+77#G+*%b#7,>"$ZB%a!Qd5%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%P;*.>%HH3
136. Baes CF, RD. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, R.W. Shor (1984) Review and Analysis of Parameters and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released
Radionuclides through Agriculture. ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. September.
137. Baes CF, RD Sharp, AL Sjoreen, RW Shor (1984) A Review and Analysis of Parameters for Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides
through Agriculture. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DEAC05-840R21400.
138. O;7#>;6#6B%P3Q3B%R;$#<")*B%P3B%O+>6;>;7#B%!3P3S3B%H10H3%T"&<;*#'"7%"G%5)("*+8*+''#U+%!(;(#.%;7,%5*(#-.#;$%VA7;&#.%W+)*;$%W+(="*X%G"*%(>+%Y"*+.;'(#78%"G%
P"7(>$A%M7N"=%"G%V+Z%S+'+*U"#*3%[")*7;$%"G%Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%!.#+7.+'%;7,%\+.>7"$"8A3%0C]%0:093
139. Belcher GD, CC Travis (1989) Modeling Support for the RURA and Municipal Waste Combustion Projects: Final Report on Sensitivity and Uncertainty
134. Wohl E (2000) Mountain Drainage Basins, in Mountain Rivers, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C.
060
57;$A'#'%G"*%(>+%\+**+'(*#;$%Y"",%T>;#7%P",+$3%M7(+*;8+7.A%58*++&+7(%W"3%02H9:51H1:50B%cG-.+%"G%S#'X%57;$A'#'B%^+;$(>%;7,%!;G+(A%S+'+;*.>%V#U#'#"7B%
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. October.
140. Bidleman TF (1988) Atmospheric Processes. Environ. Sci. and Tech 22: 361-367.
141. Black, G.R. and K.H. Hartge. 1996. Particle Density. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd edn. Arnold Klute, Ed.
American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, WI., p. 381.
142. Boone FW, Ng YC, Palms JM (1981) Terrestrial pathways of radionuclide particulates. Health Phys 41: 735-747.
143. Briggs GG, RH Bromilow, AA Evans (1982) Relationships between lipophilicity and root uptake and translocation of non-ionized chemicals by barley.
Pesticide Science 13: 495-504.
144. %T;$#G"*7#;% Q7U#*"7&+7(;$% d*"(+.(#"7% 58+7.A% ?TQd5@3% 044C3% d;*;&+(+*% R;$)+'% ;7,% S;78+'% G"*% T5g\ch3% V*;G(3% cG-.+% "G% !.#+7(#-.% 5GG;#*'3% T;$#G"*7#;%
Department of Toxics Substances Control. Sacramento, CA. July.
145. Carsel RF, Parrish, RL Jones, JL Hansen, RL Lamb (1988) Characterizing the Uncertainty of Pesticide Leaching in Agricultural Soils. J Contaminant
Hydrology 2: 111-124.
146. Chamberlain AC (1970) Interception and retention of radioactive aerosols by vegetation. Atmos Environ 4: 57-78.
147. Chang RR, D Hayward, L Goldman, M Harnly, J Flattery, RD Stephens (1989) Foraging Farm Animals as Biomonitors for Dioxin Contamination.
Chemosphere 19: 481-486.
148. Cook PM, DW Duehl, MK Walker, RE Peterson (1991) Bioaccumulation and Toxicity of TCDD and Related Compounds in Aquatic Ecosystems. In Gallo,
M. A., R. J. Scheuplein, and K. A. Van Der Heijden (eds). Banbury Report 35: Biological Basis for Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related Compounds.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. 0-87969-235-9/91.
149. Droppo JG Jr, DL Strenge, JW Buck, BL Hoopes, RD Brockhaus, MB Walter, G Whelan (1989) Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System
?PQd5!@% 5<<$#.;(#"7% e)#,;7.+]% R"$)&+% H:% e)#,+$#7+'% G"*% QU;$);(#78% PQd5!% M7<)(% d;*;&+(+*'3% d;.#-.% W"*(>=+'(% g;6"*;("*A3% S#.>$;7,B% b;'>#78("73%
December.
150. Ellgehausen H, Guth JA, Esser HO (1980) Factors determining the bioaccumulation potential of pesticides in the individual compartments of aquatic food
chains. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 4: 134-157.
151. Geraghty JJ, DW Miller, F Van der Leeden, FL Troise (1973) Water Atlas of the United States. Water Information Center, Port Washington, New York.
152. Hillel D (1980) Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. New York.
153. Hoffman FO, CF Baes, (1979) A Statistical Analysis of Selected Parameters for Predicting Food Chain Transport and Internal Dose of Radionuclides.
ORNL/NOREG/TM-882.
154. %^"GG&;7B%Y3%c3B%i3%P3%\>#+''+7B%P3%g3%Y*;7XB%;7,%O3%e3%O$;A$".X3%044H3%j);7(#-.;(#"7%"G%(>+%M7(+*.+<(#"7%;7,%M7#(#;$%S+(+7(#"7%"G%S;,#";.(#U+%T"7(;7('%
Deposited on Pasture Grass by Simulated Rain. Atmospheric Environment 26: 3313-3321.
155. Hwang ST, Falco JW (1986) Estimation of multimedia exposures related to hazardous waste facilities, In: Pollutants in a Multimedia Environment. Yoram
Cohen, Ed. Plenum Publishing Corp. New York.
156. Ikeda GJ, Sapienza PP, Couvillion JL, Farber TM, van Loon EJ (1980) Comparative distribution, excretion and metabolism of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in
rats, dogs and miniature pigs. Food Cosmet Toxicol 18: 637-642.
157. Junge CE (1977) Fate of Pollutants in Air and Water Environments, Part I. Suffet IH, Ed. Wiley. New York. pp. 7-26.
158. %g++%PTB%!i%T>#;7B%S5%e*#G-7%?04E4@%!"$)6#$#(A%"G%d"$A.>$"*#7;(+,%O#<>+7A$'%;7,%T;<;.#("*%Y$)#,%#7%b;(+*3%b;(+*%S+'%0C]%0H94k0HD23
159. Lyman WJ, WF Reehl, DH Rosenblatt (1982) Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds.
McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York.
160. McKone TE, PB Ryan (1989) Human Exposures to Chemicals through Food Chains: An Uncertainty Analysis. Livermore, California: Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Report. UCRL-99290.
161. McLachlan MS, H Thoma, M Reissinger, O Hutzinger (1990) PCDD/F in an Agricultural Food Chain, Part 1: PCDD/F Mass Balance of a Lactating Cow.
Chemosphere, vol. 20(79) pp. 10131020.
162. Miller CW, Hoffman FO (1983) An examination of the environmental half-time for radionuclides deposited on vegetation. Health Phys 45: 731-744.
163. Miller RW, DT Gardiner (1998) In: Soils in Our Environment. J. U. Miller, Ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ. pp. 80123.
164. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1987) Predicting Feed Intake of Food-Producing Animals. National Research Council, Committee on Animal
Nutrition, Washington, D.C.
165. NC DEHNR. (1997) Final NC DEHNR Protocol for Performing Indirect Exposure Risk Assessments for Hazardous Waste Combustion Units. January.
166. %W8%lTB%T!%T"$'>+*B%!Q%\>"&'"7%?042H@%\*;7'G+*%T"+G-.#+7('%G"*%5''+''#78%(>+%V"'+%G*"&%S;,#"7).$#,+'%#7%P+;(%;7,%Q88'3%a3!3%W).$+;*%S+8)$;("*A%
Commission. Final Report. NUREG/CR-2976.
167. %c8;(;%PB%Y)`#';=;%iB%c8#7"%lB%P;7"%Q%?0429@%d;*(#(#"7%."+G-.#+7('%;'%;%&+;')*+%"G%6#"."7.+7(*;(#"7%<"(+7(#;$%"G%.*),+%"#$%."&<")7,'%#7%-'>%;7,%'>+$$-'>3%
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 33: 561-567.
168. Pennington JAT (1989) Food Values of Portions Commonly Used. 15th edn. Harper and Row. New York.
169. Petreas MX, LR Goldman, DG Hayward, R Chang, J Flattery (1991) Biotransfer and Bioaccumulation of PCDD/PCDFs from Soils: Controlled Exposure
Studies of Chickens. Chemosphere 23: 17311741.
170. Research Triangle Institute (RTI) (1992) Preliminary Soil Action Level for Superfund Sites. Draft Interim Report.
171. Prepared for USEPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Remedial Operations Guidance Branch. Arlington, Virginia. EPA Contract 68-W1-0021. Work
Assignment No. B-03, Work Assignment Manager Loren Henning. December.
173. Shor RW, CF Baes, RD, Sharp (1982) Agricultural Production in the United States by County: A Compilation of Information from the 1974 Census of
Agriculture for Use in Terrestrial Food-Chain Transport and Assessment Models. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Publication. ORNL-5786.
174. Spellman Frank R, Nancy E, Whiting, Environmental Engineers Mathematics Handbook, Crc Press.
175. Stephens RD, MX Petreas, DG Hayward (1992) Biotransfer and Bioaccumulation of Dioxins and Dibenzofurans from Soil. Hazardous Materials Laboratory,
California Department of Health Services. Berkeley, California.
176. Stephens RD, Petreas MX, Hayward DG (1995) Biotransfer and bioaccumulation of dioxins and furans from soil: chickens as a model for foraging animals.
Sci Total Environ 175: 253-273.
177. Travis CC, Arms AD (1988) Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk, and vegetation. Environ Sci Technol 22: 271-274.
172. Riederer M (1990) Estimating Partitioning and Transport of Organic Chemicals in the Foliage/Atmosphere System: Discussion of a Fugacity-Based Model.
Environmental Science and Technology 24: 829837.
061
178. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1987) Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987. (107th edn), Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
1994. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 1993 Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, Washington, D.C. Fr Nt 13 (94).
179. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1994) Personal Communication Between G. F. Fries, and Glenn Rice and Jennifer Windholtz, U.S. Environmental
d*"(+.(#"7%58+7.AB%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%58*#.)$()*;$%S+'+;*.>%!+*U#.+3%P;*.>%HH3
180. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1994) Personal Communication Regarding Soil Ingestion Rate for Dairy Cattle. Between G. F. Fries, Agricultural
S+'+;*.>%!+*U#.+B%;7,%e$+77%S#.+%;7,%[+77#G+*%b#7,>"$(ZB%a!Qd5B%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%P;*.>%HH3
181. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1994) Vegetables 1993 Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. Washington,
D.C. Vg 12 (94).
182. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1997) Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture Handbook Number 703. January.
183. %a!Qd5% ?042H@% d+'(#.#,+'% 5''+''&+7(% e)#,+$#7+'% !)6,#U#'#"7% c3% S+'#,)+% T>+&#'(*A3% cG-.+% "G% d+'(#.#,+'% ;7,% \"m#.% !)6'(;7.+'B% b;'>#78("7B% V3T3%
EPA/540/9-82-023.
184. USEPA. 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Groundwater. Part I (Revised
1985). Environmental Research Laboratory. Athens, Georgia. EPA/600/6-85/002a. September.
185. %a!Qd5%?0422@%!)<+*G)7,%Qm<"')*+%5''+''&+7(%P;7);$3%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%b;'(+3%b;'>#78("7B%V3T3%5<*#$3
186. USEPA (1990) Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria
;7,%5''+''&+7(%cG-.+3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%Qd5%_11:41:11C3%[;7);*A3
187. USEPA (1990) Exposure Factors Handbook. March.
188. USEPA (1993) Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review
V*;G(3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%b;'>#78("7B%V3T3%W"U+&6+*3
189. %a!Qd5%?0449@%Q'(#&;(#78%Qm<"')*+%("%V#"m#7:g#X+%T"&<")7,'3%V*;G(%S+<"*(3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%b;'>#78("7B%V3T3%Qd5K_11K_:22K11D63
190. %a!Qd5%?044H@%\+.>7#.;$%!)<<"*(%V".)&+7(%G"*%g;7,%5<<$#.;(#"7%"G%!+=;8+%!$),8+3%R"$)&+'%M%;7,%MM3%cG-.+%"G%b;(+*3%b;'>#78("7B%V3T3%Qd5%2HHKS:4C:
001a.
191. USEPA (1993) Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Working Group
S+."&&+7,;(#"7'3%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%b;'(+3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%b;'>#78("7B%V3T3%!+<(+&6+*%H93
192. USEPA (1993) Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. External Review
V*;G(3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%b;'>#78("7B%V3T3%W"U+&6+*3
193. %a!Qd5% ?044C@% V+*#U;(#"7% "G% d*"<"'+,% ^)&;7% ^+;$(>% ;7,% b#$,$#G+% O#";..)&)$;(#"7% Y;.("*'% G"*% (>+% e*+;(% g;X+'% M7#(#;(#U+3% cG-.+% "G% S+'+;*.>% ;7,%
Development, U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory. Duluth, Minnesota. March.
194. a!Qd5%?044C@%S+U#+=%V*;G(%5,,+7,)&%("%(>+%P+(>","$"8A%G"*%5''+''#78%^+;$(>%S#'X'%5''".#;(+,%=#(>%M7,#*+.(%Qm<"')*+%("%T"&6)'("*%Q&#''#"7'3%cG-.+%
"G%^+;$(>%;7,%Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%5''+''&+7(3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%Qd5:_11:5d:4C:11C3%W"U+&6+*%013
195. USEPA 57 Federal Register 20802 (1993) Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. April 16. USEPA 1994. Draft Guidance for
Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft Exposure Assessment Guidance for
STS5%^;Z;*,")'%b;'(+%T"&6)'(#"7%Y;.#$#(#+'3%cG-.+%"G%Q&+*8+7.A%;7,%S+&+,#;$%S+'<"7'+3%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%b;'(+3%5<*#$%0D3
196. USEPA (1994) Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analysis at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C, Draft
Exposure Assessment Guidance for RCRA Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. April 15.
197. %a!Qd5%?0449@%V*;G(%Qm<"')*+%5''+''&+7(%e)#,;7.+%G"*%STS5%^;Z;*,")'%b;'(+%T"&6)'(#"7%Y;.#$#(#+'3%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%b;'(+%;7,%Q&+*8+7.A%S+'<"7'+3%
EPA-530-R-94-021. April.
198. USEPA (1994) Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds. Volume II: Properties, Sources, Occurrence, and Background Exposures. External Review
V*;G(3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%b;'>#78("7B%V3T3%Qd5K_11K_:22K11DT63%[)7+3
199. a!Qd5% ?0449@% Q'(#&;(#78% Qm<"')*+% ("% V#"m#7:g#X+% T"&<")7,'3% R"$)&+% MMM]% !#(+:!<+.#-.% 5''+''&+7(% d*".+,)*+'3% Qm(+*7;$% S+U#+=% V*;G(3% cG-.+% "G%
Research and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/6-88/005Cc. June.
200. %a!Qd5%?0449@%e)#,;7.+%G"*%d+*G"*N%!.*++7#78%g+U+$%S#'X%57;$A'#'%;(%T"&6)'(#"7%Y;.#$#(#+'%O)*7#78%^;Z;*,")'%b;'(+'3%cG-.+%"G%Q&+*8+7.A%;7,%
S+&+,#;$%S+'<"7'+3%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%b;'(+3%V+.+&6+*%093
201. USEPA (1994) Revised Draft Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion Facilities Burning Hazardous Wastes. Attachment C,
V*;G(%Qm<"')*+%5''+''&+7(%e)#,;7.+%G"*%STS5%^;Z;*,")'%b;'(+%T"&6)'(#"7%Y;.#$#(#+'3%cG-.+%"G%Q&+*8+7.A%;7,%S+&+,#;$%S+'<"7'+3%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%
Waste. December 14.
202. %a!Qd5% ?0449@% S+U#'+,% V*;G(% e)#,;7.+% G"*% d+*G"*N% !.*++7#78% g+U+$% S#'X% 57;$A'+'% ;(% T"&6)'(#"7% Y;.#$#(#+'% O)*7#78% ^;Z;*,")'% b;'(+'3% cG-.+% "G%
Q&+*8+7.A%;7,%S+&+,#;$%S+'<"7'+3%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%b;'(+3%V+.+&6+*%093
203. %a!Qd5%?044D@%Y)*(>+*%M'')+'%G"*%P",+$#78%(>+%M7,#*+.(%Qm<"')*+%M&<;.('%G*"&%T"&6)'("*%Q&#''#"7'3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%b;'>#78("7B%
D.C. January 20.
204. %a!Qd5%?044D@%S+U#+=%V*;G(%V+U+$"<&+7(%"G%^)&;7%^+;$(>:O;'+,%;7,%Q."$"8#.;$$A:O;'+,%Qm#(%T*#(+*#;%G"*%(>+%^;Z;*,")'%b;'(+%M,+7(#-.;(#"7%d*"`+.(3%
R"$)&+'%M%;7,%MM3%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%b;'(+3%P;*.>%C3
205. USEPA (1995) Waste Technologies Industries Screening Human Health Risk Assessment (SHHRA): Evaluation of Potential Risk from Exposure to
Routine Operating Emissions. Volume V. External Review Draft. USEPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.
206. %a!Qd5%?044D@%e*+;(%g;X+'%b;(+*%j);$#(A%M7#(#;(#U+3%\+.>7#.;$%!)<<"*(%V".)&+7(%G"*%(>+%d*".+,)*+%("%V+(+*+%O#";..)&)$;(#"7%Y;.("*'3%cG-.+%"G%b;(+*3%
EPA-820-B-95-005. March.
207. %a!Qd5%?044E@%Qm<"')*+%Y;.("*'%^;7,6""X3%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%Qd5K_11Kd:4DK11HY3%5)8)'(3
209. %a!Qd5%?044E@%P+*.)*A%!(),A%S+<"*(%("%T"78*+''3%R"$)&+%MMM]%Y;(+%;7,%\*;7'<"*(%"G%P+*.)*A%#7%(>+%Q7U#*"7&+7(3%cG-.+%"G%5#*%j);$#(A%;7,%d$;77#78%;7,%
!(;7,;*,'%;7,%cG-.+%"G%S+'+;*.>%;7,%V+U+$"<&+7(3%Qd5%9DHKS:4E:%11D3%V+.+&6+*3
210. %a!Qd5% ?044E@% P+*.)*A% !(),A% S+<"*(% ("% T"78*+''3?% R"$)&+% MMM3% V*;G(3% cG-.+% "G% 5#*% j);$#(A% ;7,% d$;77#78% ;7,% !(;7,;*,'% ;7,% cG-.+% "G% S+'+;*.>% ;7,%
Development. December.
211. USEPA (1998) Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Pathways of Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Update to EPA/600/641K11C3% cG-.+% "G% S+'+;*.>% ;7,% V+U+$"<&+7(B% W;(#"7;$% T+7(+*% G"*% Q7U#*"7&+7(;$% 5''+''&+7(B% a!Qd53% Qd5K_11KS:42K0CE3% V+.+&6+*3% Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%
T*#(+*#;%;7,%5''+''&+7(%cG-.+3%cSV3%T#7.#77;(#B%c>#"3
212. Hofelt CS, Honeycutt M, McCoy JT, Haws LC (2001) Development of a metabolism factor for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for use in multipathway risk
assessments of hazardous waste combustion facilities. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 33: 60-65.
208. USEPA (1997) Exposure Factors Handbook. Food Ingestion Factors. Volume II. SAB Review Draft. EPA/600/P-95/002F. August.
062
213. %a!Qd5%?H11D@%^)&;7%^+;$(>%S#'X%5''+''&+7(%d*"("."$%G"*%^;Z;*,")'%b;'(+%T"&6)'(#"7%Y;.#$#(#+'B%Qd5DC1:S:1D:11_B%Y#7;$B%cG-.+%"G%!"$#,%b;'(+%;7,%
Emergency Response, September.
214. Undergraduate Handbook for Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, 2012-2013.
215. USEPA (1971) Control Techniques for Gases and Particulates.
216. USEPA-81/10 (1981) Control of particulate emissions, Course 413, USEPA Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI), USEPA450-2-80-066.
217. USEPA-84/02 (1984) Wet scrubber plan review, Course SI: 412C, USEPA Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI), EPA450-2-82-020.
218. USEPA-84/03, Web scrubber plan review, Course SI: 412C, USEPA Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI), EPA450-2-82-020, March, 1984.
219. USEPA-84/09 (1984) Control of gaseous and particulate emission, Course SI: 412D. USEPA Air Pollution Training Institute (APTI), USEPA450-2-84-007.
220. Vanoni VA (1975) Sedimentation Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, pp. 460-463.
221. Venugopala Rao P (2002) Textbook of Environmental Engineering, Phi Learning Pvt. Ltd.
222. Vesilind P Aarne, Susan M Morgan, Lauren G. Heine (2010) Introduction to Environmental Engineering, Cengage Learning.
223. Weast RC (1979) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. (60th edn), CRC Press, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio.
224. Weast RC (1981) Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 62nd Edition. Cleveland, Ohio. CRC Press.
225. Weiner, Ruth E, Matthews, Robin A, Environmental Engineering, Fourth Edition, Butterworth-Heineman. ISBN: 0-7506-7294-8
226. Wipf HK, E Homberger, N Neuner, UB Ranalder, W Vetter (1982) TCDD Levels in Soil and Plant Samples from the Seveso Area. In: Chlorinated Dioxins
and Related Compounds: Impact on the Environment. Eds. Hutzinger, O. et al. Pergamon, New York.
227. Wischmeire WH, DD Smith (1978) Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses(A Guide to Conservation Planning. Agricultural Handbook No. 537. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
228. American Society of Civil Engineers (1996) Hydrology Handbook. ISBN 0784470146, 9780784470145.
229. Anderson Malcolm G, Tim P Burt (1985) Hydrological Forecasting. Wiley John + Son. the University of Michigan. ISBN 047190614X, 9780471906148.
230. O;7#>;6#6% PQB% R;$#<")*% PB% O+>6;>;7#% !PS% ?H10H@% T"&<;*#'"7% "G% 5)("*+8*+''#U+% !(;(#.% ;7,% 5*(#-.#;$% VA7;&#.% W+)*;$% W+(="*X% G"*% (>+% Y"*+.;'(#78% "G%
P"7(>$A%M7N"=%"G%V+Z%S+'+*U"#*3%[")*7;$%"G%Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%!.#+7.+'%;7,%\+.>7"$"8A%0C]%0:093
231. %O+,#+7(% d>#$#<% OB% b;A7+% T>;*$+'% ^)6+*% ?H11H@% ^A,*"$"8A% ;7,% N"",<$;#7% ;7;$A'#'3% d*+7(#.+% ^;$$3% (>+% a7#U+*'#(A% "G% T;$#G"*7#;3% M!OW% 10C1CHHHH4B%
9780130322227.
232. Beven Keith J (2004) Rainfall - Runoff Modelling: The Primer. Wiley. ISBN 0470866713, 9780470866719.
233. Bras, Rafael L (1990) Hydrology: an introduction to hydrologic science. Addison-Wesley. The University of California. ISBN 0201059223, 9780201059229.
234. Chow Ven Te (1964) Handbook of applied hydrology: a compendium of water-resources technology, Volume 1. McGraw-Hill. The University of Michigan.
235. Chow Ven Te, David R Maidment, Larry W Mays (1988) Applied Hydrology. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 007070242X, 9780070702424.
236. Dingman SL (1994) Physical hydrology. Macmillan Pub. Co. the University of California. ISBN 002329745X, 9780023297458.
237. Eagleson Peter S (1970) Dynamic hydrology. McGraw-Hill. The University of California.
238. Gray Donald M (1973) Handbook on the principles of hydrology: with special emphasis directed to Canadian conditions in the discussions, applications,
and presentation of data, Volume 1. Water Information Center, inc. the University of Michigan. ISBN 0912394072, 9780912394077.
239. Grigg Neil S (1996) Water Resources Management: Principles, Regulations, and Cases. McGraw Hill Professional. ISBN 007024782X, 9780070247826.
240. Grigg Neil S (1985) Water resources planning. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Limited. the University of Michigan. ISBN 0070247714, 9780070247710.
241. Goodman, Alvin S, David C. Major (1984) Principles of water resources planning. Prentice-Hall. the University of California.
242. Gupta, Ram S (2001) Hydrology and hydraulic systems. Waveland Press, Incorporated. the University of Michigan. ISBN 1577660307, 9781577660309.
243. Haan, Charles Thomas, Howard P Johnson, Donald L Brakensiek (1982) Hydrologic modeling of small watersheds. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers. The University of Michigan. ISBN 0916150445, 9780916150440.
244. Han D (2010) Concise Hydrology. Bookboon.
245. Kuo Chin Y (1993) Engineering hydrology: proceedings of the symposium. American Society of Civil Engineers. The University of Michigan. ISBN
087262921X, 9780872629219.
246. Linsley, Ray K Max Adam Kohler, Joseph LH Paulhus (1982) Hydrology for engineers. McGraw-Hill. the University of Michigan. ISBN 0070379564,
9780070379565.
247. Loucks Daniel P, Jery R Stedinger, Douglas A Haith (1981) Water resource systems planning and analysis. Prentice-Hall. the University of California. ISBN
0139459235, 9780139459238.
248. Mays Larry W (1996) Water Resources Handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing. ISBN 0070411506, 9780070411500.
249. Mays Larry W, Yeou-Koung Tung (2002) Hydrosystems Engineering and Management. Water Resources Publication. ISBN 1887201327, 9781887201322.
250. Mays Larry W (2010) Water Resources Engineering. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0470460644, 9780470460641.
251. McCuen Richard H (1998) Hydrologic analysis and design. Prentice Hall PTR. The University of Michigan. ISBN 0131349589, 9780131349582.
252. Maidment David R (1993) Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, the University of Michigan, ISBN 0070397325, 9780070397323.
253. Nemec, Jaromr (1972) Engineering hydrology. McGraw-Hill. The University of Wisconsin Madison.
255. Raghunath HM (2006) Hydrology, Principles Analysis Design. New Age International (P) Ltd. ISBN (13): 978-81-224-2332-7.
256. Rao K Nageswara (2006) Water resources management: realities and challenges. New Century Publications. ISBN 8177081063, 9788177081060.
257. Raudkivi AJ (1979) Hydrology: an advanced introduction to hydrological processes and modeling. Pergamon Press. the University of California.
258. Serrano Sergio E (1997) Hydrology for engineers, geologists, and environmental professionals: an integrated treatment of surface, subsurface, and
contaminant hydrology. HydroScience. ISBN 0965564398, 9780965564397.
259. Singh VP (1995) Environmental Hydrology. Springer. ISBN 079233549X, 9780792335498.
260. Singh Vijay P (1992) Elementary hydrology. Prentice Hall PTR. the University of California. ISBN 0132493845, 9780132493840.
254. Ponce Victor Miguel (1994) Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices. Prentice Hall PTR. ISBN 0133154661, 9780133154665.
063
261. Stephenson David (2010) Water Resources Management. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9058095738, 9789058095732.
262. Viessman Warren, Gary L Lewis, John W Knapp (1989) Introduction to hydrology. Harper & Row. the University of California. ISBN 006046822X,
9780060468224.
263. Wanielista Martin P (1990) Hydrology and water quantity control, Volume 1. Wiley. the University of Michigan. ISBN 0471624047, 9780471624042.
264. Ward (1967) Principles Of Hydrology 4e. McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt Limited. ISBN 1259002241, 9781259002243.
265. Akan A Osman (2011) Open Channel Hydraulics. Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 0080479804.
266. Bachmetev Boris Aleksandrovic (1932) Hydraulics of Open Channels. McGraw-Hill book Company, Incorporated. the University of Michigan.
267. %O;7#>;6#6% PQB% R;$#<")*% PB% O+>6;>;7#% !PS% ?H10H@% T"&<;*#'"7% "G% 5)("*+8*+''#U+% !(;(#.% ;7,% 5*(#-.#;$% VA7;&#.% W+)*;$% W+(="*X% G"*% (>+% Y"*+.;'(#78% "G%
P"7(>$A%M7N"=%"G%V+Z%S+'+*U"#*3%[")*7;$%"G%Q7U#*"7&+7(;$%!.#+7.+'%;7,%\+.>7"$"8A%0C]%0:093%
268. Bansal RK (2010) A Textbook of Fluid Mechanics. Firewall Media. ISBN 8131802949.
269. Chanson Hubert (2004) Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow. Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 0080472974.
270. Chow Ven Te (1959) Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill. the University of Michigan.
271. Das (2008) Fluid Mechanics And Turbomachines. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 8120335236.
272. Das (2008) Open Channel Flow. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 8120335228.
273. Elynn PJ (2009) Flow of Water in Open Channels. BiblioBazaar. ISBN 1110454856.
274. Frnch Richard H (1985) Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill. the University of Michigan. ISBN 0070221340.
275. %^+7,+*'"7%Y*;7.#'%P;*(#7%?04__@%c<+7%.>;77+$%N"=3%P;.&#$$;73%(>+%a7#U+*'#(A%"G%P#.>#8;73
276. Higgins George (1927) Water channels. C. Lockwood.
277. Lal Jagdish (1963) Hydraulics. Metropolitan Book Company. the University of Virginia.
278. Lamb Sir Horace (1916) Hydrodynamics. University Press. the University of Michigan.
279. Lencastre Armando (1987) Handbook of hydraulic engineering. E. Horwood. the University of Michigan. ISBN 0470208287.
280. Mohanty AK (1994) Fluid Mechanics. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 8120308948.
281. Rajput RK (2008) A Textbook Of Fluid Mechanics. S. Chand. ISBN 8121916674.
282. Singh VP, Willi H Hager (1996) Environmental Hydraulics. Springer. ISBN 0792339835.
283. Srivastava Rajesh (2008) Flow Through Open Channels. Oxford University Press. the University of California. ISBN 0195690389.
284. Sturm (1959) Open Channel Hydraulics 2e. McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt Limited. ISBN 125900225X.
285. Subramanya K (2005) 1000 Solved Problems in Fluid Mechanics: (includes Hydraulic Machines). Tata McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 0070583862.
286. Subramanya K (2009) Flow In Open Channels, 3E. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 0070086958.
287. White Frank M (1998) Fluid Mechanics. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill.
288. White Frank M (2003) Fluid Mechanics: Solutions Manual. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 0072402202.
064
Sponsor Advertisement
TIF Publications
TIF Publications cater to the needs of readers of all ages and educational
backgrounds, and provide concise up-to-date information on every aspect of
thalassaemia - from prevention to clinical management. TIFs publications have
been translated into numerous languages in order to cover the needs of the
medical, scientific, patients and parents communities and the general community.
List of Publications - ORDER YOUR BOOKS!
N E W ! Ju
J u s t R e le
ase
d!
N E W ! JJu
u s t R e le
ased
Free of charge
All our publications are
available as PDF files on
our website, completely
free of charge.