5.

Surface irrigation design

5.1 Objective and scope of design

5.2 The basic design process
5.3 Computation of advance and intake opportunity time
5.4 Furrow irrigation flow rates, cutoff times, and field layouts
5.5 Border irrigation design
5.6 Basin irrigation design
5.7 Summary

5.1 Objective and scope of design

The surface irrigation system should replenish the root zone reservoir efficiently and
uniformly so that crop stress is avoided, and resources like energy, water, nutrient,
and labour are conserved. The irrigation system might also be used to cool the
atmosphere around sensitive fruit and vegetable crops, or to heat the atmosphere to
prevent their damage by frost. An irrigation system must always be capable of
leaching salts accumulating in the root zone. It may also be used to soften the soil for
better cultivation or even to fertilize the field and spread insecticides.

The design procedures outlined in the following sections are based on a target
application, Zreq, which equals the soil moisture extracted by the crop. It is in the final
analysis a trial and error procedure by which a selection of lengths, slopes, field
inflow rates and cutoff times can be made that will maximize application efficiency.
Considerations such as erosion and water supply limitations will act as constraints on
the design procedures. Many fields will require a subdivision to utilize optimally the
total flow available. This remains a judgement that the designer is left to make after
weighing all other factors that he feels are relevant to the successful operation of the
system. Maximum application efficiencies, the implicit goal of design, will occur when
the least watered areas of the field are just refilled. Deep percolation will be
minimized by minimizing differences in intake opportunity time, and then terminating
the inflow on time. Surface runoff is controlled or reused.

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

(58)

where Zreq is the required infiltrated volume per unit length and per unit width (and is
equal to the soil moisture deficit) and rreq is the design intake opportunity time. For
most surface irrigated conditions, rreq should be as close as possible to the difference
between the recession time at each point and the associated advance time.

An engineer may have an opportunity to design a surface irrigation system as part of

a new irrigation project where surface methods have been selected or when the
performance of an existing irrigation system requires improvement by redesign. In a
new irrigation project, it is to be hoped that the surface irrigation system design is
initiated after a great deal of irrigation engineering has already occurred. The
selection of system configurations for the project is in fact an integral part of the
project planning process. If a new or modified surface system is planned on lands
already irrigated, the decision has presumably been based, at least partially, on the
results of an evaluation at the existing site. In this case, the design is more easily
accomplished because of the higher level of experience and data available.

In either case, the data required fall into six general categories (Walker and
Skogerboe, 1987):

i. the nature of irrigation water supply in terms of the annual allotment, method of
delivery and charge, discharge and duration, frequency of use and the quality of the
water;

ii. the topography of the land with particular emphasis on major slopes, undulations,
locations of water delivery and surface drainage outlets;

iii. the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, especially the infiltration
characteristics, moisture-holding capacities, salinity and internal drainage;

iv. the cropping pattern, its water requirements, and special considerations given to
assure that the irrigation system is workable within the harvesting and cultivation
schedule, germination period and the critical growth periods;

v. the marketing conditions in the area as well as the availability and skill of labour,
maintenance and replacement services, funding for construction and operation, and
energy, fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, etc.; and

vi. the cultural practices employed in the farming region especially where they may
prohibit a specific element of the design or operation of the system.

5.2 The basic design process

5.2.1 Preliminary design

5.2.2 Detailed design

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

5.2.1 Preliminary design

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

Water may be supplied on a continuous or a rotational basis in which the flow rate
and duration may be relatively fixed. In those cases, the flexibility in scheduling
irrigation is limited to what each farmer or group of farmers can mutually agree upon
within their command areas. At the preliminary design stage, the limits of the water
supply in satisfying an optimal irrigation schedule should be evaluated.
The next step in the design process involves collecting and analysing local
climatological, soil and cropping patterns to estimate the crop water demands. From
this analysis the amount of water the system should supply through the season can
be estimated. A tentative schedule can be produced by comparing the net crop
demands with the capability of the water delivery system to supply water according to
a variable schedule. On-demand systems should have more flexibility than
continuous or rotational water schedules which are often difficult to match to the crop
demand. Whichever criterion (crop demand or water availability) governs the
operating policy at the farm level, the information provided at this stage will define the
limitations of the timing and depth of irrigations during the growing season.

The type of surface irrigation system selected for the farm should be carefully
planned. Furrow systems are favoured in conditions of relatively high bi-directional
slope, row crops, and small farm flows and applications. Border and basin systems
are favoured in the flatter lands, large field discharges and larger depths of
application during most irrigations. A great deal of management can be applied where
flexibility in frequency and depth are possible.

5.2.2 Detailed design

The detailed design process involves determining the slope of the field, the furrow,
border or basin discharge and duration, the location and sizing of headland
structures and miscellaneous facilities; and the provision of surface drainage facilities
either to collect tailwater for reuse or for disposal.

Land levelling can easily be the most expensive on-farm improvement made in
preparation for irrigation. It is a prerequisite for the best performance of the surface
system. Generally, the best land levelling strategy is to do as little as possible, i.e. to
grade the field to a slope which involves minimum earth movement. Exceptions occur
where other considerations dictate a change in the type of system, say, basin
irrigation, and yield sufficient benefits to off-set the added cost of land levelling.

If the field has a general slope in two directions, land levelling for a furrow irrigation
system is usually based on a best-fit plane through the field elevations. This
minimizes earth movement over the entire field and unless the slopes in the direction
normal to the expected water flow are very large, terracing and benching would not
be necessary.

A border must have a zero slope normal to the field water flow which will require
terracing in all cases of cross slope. Thus, the border slope is usually the best-fit
subplane or strip. Basins, of course, are generally 'dead' level, i.e. no slope in either
direction. Thus, terracing is required in both directions. To the extent the basin is
rectangular, its largest dimension should run along the field's smallest natural slope in
order to minimize land levelling costs.

The detailed design process starts with and ends with land levelling computations. At
the start, the field topography is evaluated to determine the general land slopes in the
direction of expected water flow. This need not be the extensive evaluation that is
needed to actually move the earth. In fact, the analysis outlined earlier under the
subject of evaluation is sufficient. Using this information along with target application
depths derived from an analysis of crop water requirements, the detailed design
process moves to the selection of flow rates and their duration that maximize
application efficiency, tempered however by a continual review of the practical
matters involved in farming the field later. Field length becomes a design variable at
this stage and again there is a philosophy the designer must consider. In mechanized
farming and possibly in animal power as well, long rectangular fields are preferable to
short square ones in most cases except paddy rice. This notion is based on the time
required for implement turning and realignment. In a long field, this time can be
substantially less and therefore a more efficient use of cultivation and harvesting
implements is achieved.

The next step in detailed design is to reconcile the flows and times with the total flow
and its duration allocated to the field from the water supply. On small fields, the total
supply may provide a satisfactory coverage when used to irrigate the whole field
simultaneously. However, the general situation is that fields must be broken into 'sets'
and irrigated part by part, i.e. basin by basin, border by border, etc. These
subdivisions or 'sets' must match the field and its water supply. Thus, with the
subdivisions established, the final land levelling is undertaken.

Once the field dimensions and flow parameters have been formulated, the surface
irrigation system must be described structurally. To apply the water, pipes or ditches
with associated control elements must be sized for the field. If tailwater is permitted,
means for removing these flows must be provided. Also, the designer should give
attention to the operation of the system. Automation will be a key element of some
systems. The treatment of these topics is not detailed since there are other technical
manuals and literature already available for this purpose.

The design methodology used in the guide relies on the kinematic-wave analysis for
furrow and border advance and a fully hydrodynamic model for basin advance. These
are transparent to the user of the guide, however, and further explanation for those
interested can be found in Walker and Skogerboe (1987). Simple algebraic equations
are used for depletion and recession. This guide has reduced the role of these
hydraulic techniques to the advance phase to allow the User to participate more in
the design process. The interested reader can refer to several references in the
bibliography for other graphical techniques which extend beyond those given here,
but as one does so, it becomes more important to understand the nature of the
hydraulic assumptions.

5.3 Computation of advance and intake opportunity time

5.3.1 Common design computations

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

5.3.1 Common design computations

Two of the design computations are the same for all surface irrigation systems.
These are the estimate of required intake opportunity time and the time required for
the water to complete the advance phase. A step-by-step procedure for these
computations will be given here and simply referenced as such in later paragraphs.

i. Computation of intake opportunity time

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

Z = k r a + fo r (15)

where Z is the accumulated intake in volume per unit length, m3/m (per furrow or per
unit width are implied), r is the intake opportunity time in min, a is the constant
exponent, k is the constant coefficient m3/mina/m of length, and fo is the basic intake
rate, m3/min/m of length. In order to express intake as a depth of application, Z must
be divided by the unit width. For furrows, the unit width is the furrow spacing, w, while
for borders and basins it is 1.0. Values of k, a, fo and w along with the volume per unit
length required to refill the root zone, Zreq, are design input data.

The design procedure requires that the intake opportunity time associated with Zreq
be known. This time, represented by rreq, requires a nonlinear solution to Eq. 15. The
simplest way to this solution is to plot Eq. 15 with the parameters being used in the
design, such as the drawings in Figures 21 or 27. Another convenient method for
those with programmable calculators or microcomputers is the Newton-Raphson
procedure which is three simple steps as follows:

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

2. Compute a revised estimate of rreq, T2:

(59)

3. Compare the values of the initial and revised estimates of rreq (T1 and T2) by taking
their absolute difference. If they are equal to each other or within an acceptable
tolerance of about .5 minutes, the value of rreq is determined as the result. If they are
not sufficiently equal in value, replace T1 by T2 and repeat steps 2 and 3.

ii. Computation of advance time

The time required for water to cover the field, the advance time, necessitates
evaluation or at least approximation of the advance trajectory. The first step is to
describe the flow cross-sectional area. For furrows and borders this is Eq. 48 in
which the cross-sectional flow area, Ao in m2, and the inlet discharge per furrow or
per unit width, Qo, in m3/min. The parameters p1 and p2 are empirical shape
coefficients as noted previously. For border systems p1 equals 1.0 and p2 is 1.67. For
most furrow irrigated conditions, p2 will have a value ranging from 1.3 to 1.5.
Fortunately, the furrow hydraulics are not too sensitive to variations in p2 and a value
of 1.35 will usually be adequate. The value of p1 varies according to the size and
shape of the furrow, usually in the range of .3 to .7. Figure 51 shows three typical
furrow shapes and their corresponding p1 and p2 values.
Figure 51. Typical furrow shapes and their hydraulic sectional parameters

In a level slope condition, such as a basin, it is assumed that the friction slope is
equal to the inlet depth, yo in m, divided by the distance covered by water, x in m.
This leads to the following expression for Ao:

(60)

Note Ao increases continually during the advance phase and must therefore be
calculated at each time step of each advance distance as well as each flow and
resistance. For sloping field conditions, Ao is assumed to be constant unless the flow,
slope or resistance changes.

The input data required for advance phase calculations are p1, p2 field length (L), So,
n and Qo. This information can be used to solve for the time of advance, tL, using
either of two procedures: (1) the volume balance numerical approach; or (2) the
graphical approach based on the advanced hydraulic models.

iii. Volume balance advance

For the volume balance numerical approach, Eq. 46 is used to describe the advance
trajectory at two points: the end of the field and the half-way point. Equation 48 for
the end of advance was written earlier as Eq. 50 and the half-way advance was
written as Eq. 49.

Equation 50 contains two unknowns, tL and r, which are related by Eq. 32. In order to
solve them, a two-point advance trajectory is defined in the following procedure:

1. The power advance exponent r typically has a value of 0.1-0.9. The first step is to
make an initial estimate of its value and label this value r1, usually setting r1 = 0.4 to
0.6 are good initial estimates. Then, a revised estimate of r is computed and
compared below.

2. Calculate the subsurface shape factor, sz, from Eq. 47.

3. Calculate the time of advance, tL, using the following Newton-Raphson procedure:

a. Assume an initial estimate of tL as T1

T1 = 5 Ao L / Qo (61)

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

(62)

c. Compare the initial (T1) and revised (T2) estimates of tL. If they are within about 0.5
minutes or less, the analysis proceeds to step 4. If they are not equal, let T1 = T2 and
repeat steps b through c. It should be noted that if the inflow is insufficient to
complete the advance phase in about 24 hours, the value of Qo is too small or the
value of L is too large and the design process should be restarted with revised
values. This can be used to evaluate the feasibility of a flow value and to find the
inflow.

4. Compute the time of advance to the field mid-point, t.5L, using the same procedure
as outlined in step 3. The half-length, .5L is substituted for L and t.5L for tL in Eq. 62.
For level fields, the half-length and the flow area must be substituted. Equation 48 is
used with L and .5L to find the appropriate values of Ao.

5. Compute a revised estimate of r as follows:

(63)

6. Compare the initial estimate, r1, with the revised estimate, r2. The differences
between the two should be less than 0.0001. If they are equal, the procedure for
finding tL is concluded. If not, let r1 = r2 and repeat steps 2-6.

As an example of this series of calculations, suppose the advance time is wanted for
a field with the following data:

Infiltration parameters a = 0.568

k = 0.00324 m3/mina/m
fo = 0.000174 m3/min/m
inflow Qo = 0.15 m3/min
slope So = 0.001
length L = 200 m
roughness n = 0.04
hydraulic section p1 = 0.55
p2 = 1.35
1. set r1 = 0.6

2.

3a.

Note: If the field slope is zero, Eq. 60 would be used here for Ao and would use L in
place of x.

3b. =
146 - (+75.67) = 70.33 minutes
3c. Error = ABS (T2 - T1) = 75 - 70.33 = 4.67 minutes. Therefore, let T1 = 70.33 and
repeat steps (3b and 3c).

3b. The second iteration yields T2 = 70.33 - (+4.2) = 66.13 minutes. Step 3c error is
now 4.2 minutes so T1 = 66.13 and steps 3b and 3c are repeated. At the end of
another iteration the error is less than one minute and the value of tL is found to be
66.07 minutes.

4. The time of advance to the field's half-way point is found by following the same
steps as outlined above by substituting 0.5 * L = 100 metres for the length and t.5L for
the advance time to this distance. The result after two more iterations is 21.9
minutes.

Note: If the field's slope is zero, the computation of t.5L must begin at Step 3a using
L/2 for x.

5.

6. The error in the parameter r (.6 - .6285) is greater than the acceptable tolerance
so Steps 2 through 6 are repeated. The final advance time is 65 minutes.

As one easily finds, the numerical approach is justified only when one has at least a
hand-held programmable calculator or microcomputer.

vi. Graphical advance

The graphical approach involving Figures 52a - 52f for furrows and borders and
Figures 53a - 53f for basins has been derived from computations using the
kinematic-wave and hydrodynamic simulation models summarized by Walker and
Skogerboe (1987). These models are available from a number of sources, some
commercially, and are not included herein.

Figure 52a. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having
an infiltration exponent a = 0.2

Figure 52b. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having
an infiltration exponent a = 0.3

Figure 52c. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having
an infiltration exponent a = 0.4

Figure 52d. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having
an infiltration exponent a = 0.5

Figure 52e. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having
an infiltration exponent a = 0.6

Figure 52f. Dimensionless advance trajectories for borders and furrows having
an infiltration exponent a = 0.7
Figure 53a. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration
exponent a = 0.2

Figure 53b. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an

infiltration exponent a = 0.3

Figure 53c. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration

exponent a = 0.4

Figure 53d. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an

infiltration exponent a = 0.5

Figure 53e. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration

exponent a = 0.6

Figure 53f. Dimensionless advance trajectories for basins having an infiltration

exponent a = 0.7

The graphical procedure is as follows:

1. Define the infiltration parameters k, a, and fo the field length L; the field slope So;
the inlet discharge Qo; surface roughness coefficient n; and the hydraulic section
parameters p1 and p2

2. Compute the inlet flow area, Ao using Eq. 48 for furrows and borders and Eq. 60
for basins:

3. Compute the dimensionless parameter K*:

(64)

4. Compute the dimensionless parameter L*:

(65)

5. Enter the appropriate figures for values of the infiltration exponent, a, which
bracket the design value, interpolate for the value of K*, and read the two values of

6. Compute the time of advance:

(66)

7. Average the two values to get tL for the value of a used in the design.
As an example of using the graphical approach, suppose, as in the example of the
numerical volume balance approach, the input data are as follows:

1.
Infiltration parameters a = 0.568
k = 0.00324 m3/mina/m
fo = 0.000174 m3/min/m
inflow Qo = 0.15 m3/min
slope So = 0.001
length L = 200 m
roughness n = 0.04
hydraulic section p1 = 0.55
p2 = 1.35

2.
Note: If the field slope is zero, Eq. 60 would be used here for Ao and would use L in
place of x.

3.

4.

5. From Figure 52d, interpolating about 75 percent [log(2.3/1) / log(3/1) = .76] of the

distance between curves K* = 1 and K* = 3 yields = 0.54. From Figure 52e, the

same process yields a = 0.50 for an average of 0.52. The advance time is then
estimated as:

Note the value using the volume balance numerical method yielded 65 minutes.
Usually with careful interpolation the values of tL found from the two methods will vary
less than 5 - 10 percent.

v. Summary

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

5.4 Furrow irrigation flow rates, cutoff times, and field layouts

5.4.1 Furrow design procedure for systems without cutback or reuse

5.4.2 Design procedure for furrow cutback systems
5.4.3 Design of furrow systems with tailwater reuse
5.4.4 Furrow irrigation design examples

There are three primary furrow designs:

i. furrow systems without cutback or tailwater reuse facilities;

ii. the cutback system; and
iii. the tailwater recirculation system.

These systems should be flexible to irrigate fields adequately in which the surface
roughness and intake rates vary widely from irrigation to irrigation. The philosophy of
design suggested in this guide is to evaluate flow rates and cutoff times for the first
irrigation following planting or cultivation when roughness and intake are maximum
and for the third or fourth irrigation when these conditions have been reduced by
previous irrigations.

5.4.1 Furrow design procedure for systems without cutback or

reuse

i. Input Data:

Description Parameter
First irrigation infiltration a, k, and fo
Later irrigation infiltration as, ks and fos
Field length, width, slope, roughness L, Wf, Sm and n
Required application depth Zreq
Furrow spacing and shape w, p1, and p2
Soil erosive velocity Vmax
Water supply rate and duration QT and TT
Number of furrows Nf = Wf/W

ii. The maximum flow velocity in furrows is suggested as about 8-10 m/min in erosive
silt soils to about 13 - 15 m/min in the more stable clay and sandy soils. A maximum
value of furrow inlet flow, Qmax m3/min, that will fall within the maximum, Vmax, is:

(67)

The value of Qo should be adjusted so that the number of sets is an integer number,
i.e. NfQo should be an integer, but should not exceed Qmax.
iii. Compute the advance time, tL.

iv. Compute the required intake opportunity time, rreq.

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

tco = rreq + tL (68)

vi. Compute application efficiency, Ea:

(69)

The application efficiency should be maximized subject to the limitation on erosive

velocity, the availability and total discharge of the water supply, and other farming
practices. The inflow should be reduced and the procedure repeated until a maximum
Ea is determined.

5.4.2 Design procedure for furrow cutback systems

Any procedure which attempts to maximize application efficiencies will determine the
minimal waste trade-off point between tailwater and deep percolation. Small values of
inflow reduce tailwater losses but increase deep percolation losses. Large furrow
flows advance over the field rapidly thereby providing the potential for greater
application uniformity and less deep percolation, but also greater tailwater losses as
the water flows from the field for a longer time.

One method of minimizing tailwater is to reduce the furrow inflow when the advance
phase is completed. Most cutback systems are designed to operate in two concurrent
sets, one advance phase set and one wetting or ponding; set. The advance phase
and the wetting phase are both equal in duration to the required intake opportunity
time. One of the most common cutback systems is that proposed by Garton (1966)
and is illustrated in Figure 54. The head ditch is divided into a series of level bays
with spires or other means of diverting water into the furrows. As is shown, the
differences in bay elevations correspond to the head on the outlets needed to provide
the desired advance phase flow and the wetting flow simultaneously.

The design procedure for the system illustrated in Figure 54 follows a sequence not
entirely unlike that of the non-cutback systems but with several points of additional
concern. In addition to information describing the furrow geometry, infiltration
characteristics, field slope and length, and the required application, it is also
necessary to know the relationship between head ditch water level and the furrow
inflow:

(70)

where c1 and c2 are empirical coefficients, h is the head over the outlets, in m, and A
is the outlet area in cm2.

Figure 54. Schematic drawing of the furrow cutback system proposed by

Garton (1966)
Elevation drawing showing the system of cutback furrow irrigation. In A, bay l is
delivering the initial furrow flow. In B, the check dam has been removed from bay l,
bay 2 is delivering the initial flow, and bay l is delivering the cutback furrow flow. In C,
the check dam has been removed from bay 2, bay 3 is delivering the initial furrow
flow, and bay 2 is delivering the cutback furrow flow, and bay l is shut off.

The first calculation can be the required intake opportunity time using the first of the
common design computations. The design should provide an advance phase flow
sufficient to allow tL = rreq. Since this requirement is most likely to be a constraint
under high intake conditions, the design advance flow for the first irrigation following
a cultivation or planting should be the upper limit. This flow, of course, must be less
than the maximum non-erosive flow. Thus, the second computation would be to
compute the maximum flow from Equation 69.

An intermediate design computation can be made at this point. The advance time
can be calculated using the maximum furrow inflow, Qmax. If tL is less than rreq, a
feasible cutback design is possible and the following procedures can be
implemented. If the advance associated with the maximum flow is too long, then
either the required application should be increased (at the risk of crop stress) or the
field length shortened. It is usually better to reduce the field length and repeat these
calculations.

When the design is shown to be within this constraint on flow, the next computation is
to find the furrow advance discharge which just accomplishes an advance in treq
minutes. If the advance time for a range of inflows has been determined as
suggested earlier, identifying this flow is accomplished by interpolation within the
data. If this information has not been developed, it is necessary to do so at this point.
The easiest method is to change Qo iteratively until the associated advance time
equals the required intake opportunity time.

The cutback flow following the advance phase must be sufficient to keep the furrow
stream running along the entire length. Thus, some tailwater will be inevitable but
should be minimized. Knowing that infiltration rates will decrease during the wetting
period to values approaching the basic intake rate suggests a guideline for sizing the
cutback flow:

Qcb = b fo tL (71)

where b is a factor requiring some judgement to apply. It should probably be in the

range of 1.1 to 1.5.

The application efficiency of the cutback system can be thus described as:

(72)

Once the advance and recession phase flows have been determined, the next step is
to organize the field system into subsets. The first irrigating set must accommodate
the entire field supply. The number of furrows in this set is therefore:

N1 = QT/Qo (73)

For the second set,

N2 = (QT - N1Qcb)/Qo (74)

and similarly,

Ni = (QT - Ni-1Qcb)/Qo (75)

The field must be divided into an integer number of subsets which may require some
adjustment of QT, Qo, or Qcb. And, it should be noted that irrigation of the last two sets
cannot be accomplished under a cutback regime without reducing the field inflow, QT,
or allowing water to spill from the head ditch during the cutback phase on the last set.

To relieve the designer of a cumbersome trial and error procedure-trying to find the
number of sets and the furrows per set that will work with various water supply rates,
a suggested procedure is to fix the number of sets and compute the necessary field
supply discharge.

This is a four step procedure:

i. Compute the cutback ratio for each of the field's infiltration conditions:
CBR = Qcb/Qo (76)

Select the largest value, and discard the other.

ii. Let k be the number of sets and compute the following product stream:
for k = 2 A2 = - CBR (77)

for k > 2 (78)

Then the number of furrows in the first set is:

N1 = Nf/(k + A) (79)

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

for k = 2 N2 = Nf - N1

or,

for k > 2 N2 = (1 - CBR)N1 (80)

and,

set first value of B = - CBR

(81)

Nj = N1 (1 + B) (82)

iv. Steps ii and iii ensure that the field subdivides into an integer number of sets, but
the field supply must vary according to the number of sets:

QT = N1Qo (83)

Thus for a single specified Qo, the designer can subdivide the field into several sets
and choose the configuration that best suits the farm operation as a whole.

Before moving to the final design computation, the design of the head ditch, mention
is made of using the cutback system under variable field conditions. Irrigations
immediately after planting or cultivation will be generally higher than those
encountered after the first irrigation. It will not be possible to alter the number of
furrows irrigating per bay of the head ditch, so the inflow to the entire system must be
adjusted. The design procedure outlined above is repeated for the appropriate value
of Zreq and infiltration. Then, the system discharge is determined by Eq. 83.

For the system illustrated in Figure 54, the design of the head ditch involves the
calculation of the relative bay elevations. From Eq. 71, the head over the outlets
during the advance phase, ha, is:

(84)

and during the wetting period phase, hw, is:

 (85)

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

5.4.3 Design of furrow systems with tailwater reuse

The application efficiency of furrow irrigation systems can be greatly improved when
tailwater can be captured and reused. The design of such a system is somewhat
more complex than the procedure for traditional furrow and cutback systems because
of the need to utilize two sources of water simultaneously.

The major complexity of reuse systems is the strategy for recirculating the tailwater
One alternative is to pump the tailwater into the primary supply and then increase the
number of operating furrows to utilize the additional flow. Or, tailwater can be used to
irrigate separate sections of the field or even other fields. In any case the tailwater
reservoir and pumping system need to be carefully controlled and coordinated with
the primary water supply.

To illustrate the design strategy for reuse systems, a design procedure for a common
configuration outlined by Walker and Skogerboe (1987) is presented. The reuse
system shown schematically in Figure 55 is intended to capture tailwater from one
set and combine it with the supply to a second set. A similar operating scenario
prevails for each subsequent pair until the last set is irrigated when some of the
tailwater must be either stored until the next irrigation, dumped into a wasteway, used
elsewhere or used to finish the irrigation after the primary inflows have been shut-off.

Figure 55. Illustration of a typical reuse configuration

The total volume of tailwater recycled will be held to a constant volume equal to the
runoff from the first set. The difference in tailwater volumes between the first and
subsequent sets may be wasted. The recycled flow can thus be held constant to
simplify the pump-back system and its operation.

The reuse system design procedure is as follows:

i. Input data are the same as for the cutback system.

ii. Compute the required intake opportunity time, rreq, as outlined previously.

iii. Compute or interpolate the inlet discharge required to complete the advance
phase in approximately 30 percent of rreq, correcting if necessary for non-erosive
stream velocities. See the suggestion at the end of section 5.4.1.

iv. Compute the tailwater volume as follows:

1 The time of cutoff is:
tco = rreq + tL (86)

2. The infiltrated depths at field inlet and outlets are:

Zin = ktcoa + fotco (87)

3. A conservative estimate of the field runoff per furrow is:

(88)

where from Eq. 74 Nf = QT/Qo.

v. Compute pump-back discharge, Qpb:

Qpb = Vtw / tco (89)

vi. Compute number of furrows in second or subsequent sets:

(90)

vii. The field should be in evenly divided sets which may require repetition of the
procedure with a modified furrow discharge.

5.4.4 Furrow irrigation design examples

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

During the evaluations noted, the infiltration functions characteristic of the field were
divided into two relationships to describe the first irrigation following cultivations and
then the subsequent irrigations. These relationships are:

Z = 0.00346 t .388 + 0.000057 t (first irrigations)

and

Z = 0.0038 t .327 + 0.000037 t (later irrigations)

The evaluation used a Manning coefficient of n = 0.04 for all analyses.

The crops expected were studied along with the local climate and it appeared that
the best target depth of application, or Zreq, would be 8 cm. With 0.5 m furrow
spacings, Zreq would be 0.04 m3/m/furrow.

Water is in short supply so the project planners would like an estimate of the potential
application efficiency with and without cutback and reuse.

Initial Design Calculations. With the design algorithm in mind but considered only as
a guide, let the design process begin with the limitations on the design parameters.
The first of these can be the maximum allowable flow in the furrow, Qmax. The soils
are relatively stable so assume the maximum flow velocity could be as high as 13
m/min. Equation 67 in a previous section provides the means of evaluating the
corresponding maximum flow rate:

(67)

= 1.768 m3/min (the total field inflow could be put in each furrow in this case)

The field is 100 m wide so that using a 0.5 m furrow spacing results in 100/.5= 200
furrows. The water supply of 30 l/s or 1.8 m 3/min would service 1.8/.104 = 17.31
furrows per set or the field would be divided into 200/17.31 = 11.56 sets (obviously
impractical since the sets must be comprised of an integer number of furrows and the
field needs to be subdivided into an integer number of sets). A practical upper limit on
the number of sets is perhaps 10 consisting of 20 furrows each and having a
maximum flow of 0.09 m3/min. Beyond this 'upper limit' some of the following options
also evenly divide the field:

Furrow Flow
Number of Sets Furrows Per Set
m3/min
10 20 .09
8 25 .072
5 45 .045
4 50 .036
2 100 .018
1 200 .009

The second limitation on the design procedure is whether or not the flow will
complete the advance phase in a reasonable time, say 24 hours. Particularly
important in this regard is what minimum flow will complete the advance phase within
this limit. If the maximum flow is too small to complete the advance, the furrow length
must be reduced.

The second common design computation described in Section 5.3.1 provides the
means of determining the time of advance tL as a function of furrow inflow, Qo. The
maximum inflow can be used to calculate the minimum advance time, but since the
minimum flow conditions are not known, the maximum advance time must be
established by examining each flow. The computation of tL for each Qo can be
accomplished with either method outlined and if undertaken yields the results given
in the following table which are also plotted in Figure 56.

Furrow Discharge Advance Time

Sets
m3/min First Irrigation minutes Later Irrigations minutes
10 .09 58.2 *
8 .072 72.6 *
5 .045 130.8 101.4
4 .036 184.2 132.6
2 .018 847.8 379.2
1 .009 * 2390.4

Figure 56. Example relationships between inflow rate and advance time
i. Design and layout for traditional furrow irrigation

There are now five configurations feasible for the initial field condition and six for the
later conditions. The design question at this stage is which one leads to the optimal
design. The answer is determined by computing the application efficiency for each
alternative. First, the required intake opportunity time for each condition is
determined using the procedure outlined in Section 5.3.1. For the first field rreq = 214
minutes. Similarly for the later applications, rreq = 371 minutes.

The application efficiency for each of the possible field configurations can now be
computed. The results, shown in the table below, indicate that one good design is to
divide the field into 4 individual subunits or sets of 50 furrows and utilize an inflow of
0.018 m3/min per furrow during the first irrigations. The resulting application efficiency
would be nearly 56 percent. Figure 57 imposes this layout on the field. Then during
later irrigations two sets would be irrigated simultaneously so that each furrow would
receive .018 m3/min. The application efficiency of later irrigations would be about 59
percent.

Qo Zreq Ea, in Percent

Sets
m /min m3/m First Irrigations Later Irrigations
3

10 .09 .04 32.6 **

8 .072 "" 38.6 **
5 .045 "" 51.5 37.7
4 .036 "" 55.7 44.2
2 .018 "" 41.9 59.3
1 .009 "" ** 32.2

Figure 57. Final traditional furrow design layout

The frequency and duration of each irrigation needs to be checked and then the
headland facilities selected and designed. During the first irrigation, the field will
require just more than 35 hours to complete the irrigation (the sum of rreq + tL times
the number of sets). The later watering will require 25 hours. If evapotranspiration
rates were as high as .8 cm/day, the irrigation interval of 10 days waters the field well
within these limits (Zreq divided by the crop use rate approximates the irrigation
interval). Since the water supply is presumably controlled by an irrigation department,
the design can be substantially hindered if the delivered flows are not as planned.

It may be useful to examine briefly the performance of this design. If the actual
irrigations evolve as these design computations indicate, the farmer's irrigation
pattern will waste about 44 percent of his water during first irrigations and about 40
percent during later irrigations. By today's standards, these losses are large and it
may be cost-effective to add cutback or reuse to the system to reduce these losses.

Field operations. The question that arises at this point in the design is how to
implement and operate the system on the field. How will the irrigator know what flow
rates are actually running into the furrows, what the actual soil moisture depletion is,
or when to terminate the flow into one set of furrows and shift the field supply to
another set?

There are several types of furrow irrigation systems but probably the most common
are those that either use open watercourses at the head of the field and divert into
furrows using spires or siphon tubes, or those that utilize aluminium or plastic gated
pipe. The task of sizing these headland facilities will be noted in a later section. The
problem at this point in the design is the means of accurate flow measurement and
management.

If the design is to be carried forward to an actual operation, the inlet must be

equipped with a flow measuring device like those noted in Section 3. Then the
irrigator with some simple instructions from the designer can 'share' this flow among
the appropriate number of furrows and achieve a reasonably good approximation of
the optimal discharge. In some cases, the outlets to each furrow can be individually
calibrated and regulated. For instance, the size of the siphon tubes or spires might be
selected by the designer. The irrigator can then adjust the flow by regulating the
heads and/or the openings.

In short, this phase of irrigation engineering is highly dependent on the experience

and practicality of the engineer. There is no single 'best' way to do things. What
works well in one locale, may not in another. The computational procedures and
methods of field evaluation provide the best values of the parameters. The good
design can only give the irrigator the opportunity to operate the system at or near
optimal conditions.

ii. Design of a cutback system

There is another point which is hidden by the hydraulics of surface irrigation (which
have been largely omitted from this guide). The movement of the water over the soil
surface is very sensitive to the relative magnitude of the furrow discharge and the
cumulative infiltration rates. Irrigation practices which modify the field inflow, such as
cutback, may actually reduce the performance of the system. In more practical terms,
if the advance rate is slowed to accommodate a cutback regime, the gains in
efficiency derived from reduced tailwater may be more than offset by increases in
deep percolation losses. The user of this guide might repeat the following cutback
design example using data and field conditions for a lighter soil to illustrate this
problem. As described earlier, the inherent limitation of the cutback design is that the
advance phase and the wetting phase must have the same duration.

Initial design calculations. The initial design computations for the cutback system are
fundamentally the same as outlined above. The rreq for the first irrigation is 214
minutes and for the subsequent irrigations it is 371 minutes. If the two set system is
envisioned (one set in the advance phase and one in the wetting), the advance time
and cutoff times for the first irrigation are respectively, tL = rreq = 214 minutes and tco =
tL + rreq = 428 minutes. For the subsequent irrigations, tL = 371 minutes and tco = 742
minutes.

The next computation is the maximum flow, Qmax. Since the field and furrow
geometries have not changed, the value of Qmax = 1.768 m3/min. Then it is necessary
to compute the relationship between the inflow and the advance time. Rather than
specifying a range of discharges and computing the associated advance times as
above, the cutback design looks for a unique flow which yields the tL already
determined as 214 or 371 minutes. This may appear simpler to some and more
difficult to others. It is in fact the same effort with a slightly different aspect. The
details of the computations are already given in the calculations of the previous
example. Reading from Figure 56 for the two conditions, one finds that the necessary
furrow flow, Qo, during the first irrigation would be about .0330 m 3/min and .0184
m3/min for later irrigations.

It is worthwhile emphasizing that the time of advance, tL, associated with a furrow
inflow, Qo, must be less than the required intake opportunity time, rreq, in order for the
cutback scheme to operate properly. When the maximum flow, Qmax, results in an
advance time greater than the value required for the system to work, the field length
would have to be reduced or Zreq must be increased.

Field layout. Once the advance phase inflows are established, the field design or
layout commences with an estimate of the cutback flow. The one important constraint
on the cutback flow is that it should not be less than the intake along the furrow and
cause dewatering at the downstream end. Equation 71 was given to assist the
designer in avoiding this problem, but it is only a guideline. Thus, for the first irrigation
the cutback flow must be at least:

Qcb = 1.1 * .000057 * 200 = 0.0125 m3/min

In other words, the flow can only be cutback from .0125 m 3/min to .033 m3/min, or to
38% of the advance phase flow. In subsequent irrigations,

Qcb = 1.1 * .000037 * 200 = 0.0081 m3/min

which is a cutback of 43 percent of the advance flow.

There are several unique features of cutback systems that need to be considered at
the design stage. Of particular concern is the fact that the number of furrows per set
must vary over the field if the water supply rate, QT, is to be held constant during the
irrigation. The number of furrows per set can only be the same if the field supply is
varied for each change in sets across the field. This is usually difficult if the water
supply is being supplied by an irrigation project. However, for furrow systems to
utilize cutback, the field supply must be regulated from irrigation to irrigation. To
illustrate this, let us develop a field layout for the irrigations. Utilizing Eqs. 77-83, the
following table can be developed for a variable field supply rate. The Qcb/Qo ratio is
taken as .43 reflecting the constraint imposed by the later irrigations. This ratio must
be the same for all irrigations.

Number of Furrow Per Set QT QT

No of Sets in Field Set Number 1st irr Later Irr
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m3/min m3/min

4 67 38 50 45 2.21 1.27
5 54 30 41 36 39 1.78 0.99
6 46 26 35 31 32 30 1.51 0.84
7 40 22 30 27 28 27 26 1.32 0.73
8 35 19 26 23 25 24 24 24 1.15 0.64
9 31 17 23 21 22 21 22 21 22 1.02 0.57

One can see that if the water supply capacity is limited to 1.8 m 3/min, the field must
be divided into at least five sets to accommodate the first irrigation condition. The
upper limit on the number of sets can be evaluated by examining the duration and
frequency of the irrigations. The time of cutoff for each set during the first irrigation
was determined previously as 7.1 hours (428 minutes). For the later irrigations, tco =
12.4 hours (742 minutes). For a 5 set system, the total duration of the later irrigations
is, 6 * 6.2 = 37.2 hrs or 1.6 days, assuming the irrigator will operate 24 hours per day.
(Note that because two sets are irrigating simultaneously under cutback with the
exception of the first and last sets, the duration of the irrigation on the field is the
number of sets plus 1 times the advance or required intake opportunity time.) Thus, if
the 48 hour availability constraint imposed in the problem outline is maintained, a
cutback system for this field is only feasible in the 5 or 6 set configuration without
changing the depth of water to be added during each irrigation. For the purpose of
this example, let us suppose the water supply agency will deliver water to a 5 set
system needed for the cutback regime.

Field implementation. For this example, the field outlets are to be spires with
adjustable square slide gates having the following head-discharge characteristics:

Spile Size Full-Open Area

Discharge Coefficient
(mm) (cm2)
19 3.61 0.00114
25 6.25 0.00136
38 14.44 0.00145
50 25.00 0.00169

Note that Qo = c A h .5 where h is the head above the spire invert in cm, and Qo is in
units of m3/min.

The change in elevation across the 100 m headland of the field is 0.008 * 100 = 80
cm which is sufficient for the system shown in Figure 54. To make the system work,
the bays need to be constructed on a level slope. The transition between bays is
accomplished with a drop equal to the difference in the head between the advance
phase flows and the cutback flows. They are then operated irrigation to irrigation by
controlling the gate openings. For example, if the 25 mm spires are selected, the
advance phase head at the full opening is:
h = (.0330 / 6.25 / .00136)2 = 15.07 cm

and for the cutback phase:

h = (.0330 * .43 / 6.25 / .00136)2 = 2.79 cm

Thus, the elevation drop between the bays should be 15.07 - 2.79 = 12.28 cm. This
will necessitate elevating the head ditch approximately 30 cm above the low end of
the field and providing a drop to the furrows.

When irrigating the field later, the head on the gates will necessarily remain the
same, but the openings must be reduced. For the advance phase,

A = .0184 / 15.07.5 / .00136 = 3.49 cm2 = 55.8% opening

and similarly for the later irrigations:

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

The operation is relatively simple so long as the total field inflow rate can be
regulated to compensate for the lower infiltration during later irrigations. Figure 58
illustrates the alignment of the head ditch for this cutback example design.

Figure 58. Cutback example field and head ditch layout

The performance of this design is calculated as follows. For the first irrigation (Eq.
72):

and for the later irrigations:

Cutback, therefore, substantially improves the efficiency on this field over traditional
methods.

iii. Design of furrow reuse systems

Another furrow irrigation option is to capture runoff in a small reservoir at the end of
the field and either pump it back to the upper end to be used along with the primary
supply or diverted to another field. The system envisioned for this reuse example will
use the same head ditch configuration as the traditional or cutback system options
already developed. The irrigator will introduce the canal water to the first set and
collect the surface runoff from it. Then with initiation of the second set and
subsequent sets, the water in the tailwater reservoir will be pumped to the head of
the field and mixed with the canal supply. The field layout will be similar to the
schematic system depicted in Figure 55.

Initial calculations. Initial calculations begin again with the required intake opportunity.
These results were determined in the previous example:

rreq = 214 min during first irrigations

rreq = 371 min during later irrigations

The maximum allowable furrow flows are also the same, 1.768 m 3/min. A rule-of-
thumb states that the advance time for reuse systems should be about 30 percent of
the required intake opportunity time. From Figure 56, the first irrigation flow should be
.082 m3/min which will yield an advance time of .3 * .214 min = 64 min. Similarly, for
subsequent irrigations, an advance time of 112 min based on a flow of 0.042 m3/min
is selected. When the maximum non-erosive flow fails to meet the 30 percent rule, it
is usually taken as the furrow flow and the rule is ignored.

The application efficiency and field layout under the reuse regime are computed as
before. It is first necessary to compute the deep percolation ratio and the tailwater
runoff ratio for the possible range of flows. The usual procedure is to compute the
deep percolation ratio and then find the tailwater ratio as 100 - Ea - DPR in
percentages. As an example, the first irrigation analysis can be demonstrated. From
the volume balance advance calculations or, if one prefers, the graphical approach,
the time of advance to the furrow mid-point can be found as 25.9 min. From this
information the values of p and r in Eq. 32 are 8.45 and .7595, respectively. Then
using the power advance trajectory (Eq. 32) and the infiltration function, the
distribution of applied depths can be described as in the following table.

Distance From Field Inlet Computed Opportunity Time 1 Computed Application 2

(m) (min) (m3/m)
0 278.5 0.0466
20 275.4 0.0463
40 270.8 0.0458
60 265.3 0.0453
100 252.6 0.0440
120 245.6 0.0433
140 238.2 0.0425
160 230.4 0.0417
180 222.4 0.0408
200 214.0 0.0400
1
top = tco - tx, tx = (x/p) 1/r

2
application = depth * furrow spacing/m of width

Using the trapezoidal integration of the applied water, the amount infiltrated over the
field length is

= 8.733 m3/furrow

The required application is:

.08 m x .50 m * 200 m = 8 m3/furrow

The total inflow to each furrow is:

.082 m3/min * 278.5 min = 22.84 m3/furrow

The deep percolation and runoff ratios are thus:

TWR = 0 % (on the assumption that all is recycled)

And, the application efficiency for the first set is:

Ea = 100 - 3.2 - 0 = 96.8%

The runoff fraction is:

The volume of tailwater per furrow is:

0.612 * 22.84 = 14 m3/furrow

It is obvious, or should be, that recycling 61 percent of the water applied to a field is
going to be relatively costly. Consequently, a wider range of furrow flows needs to be
examined along with their performance characteristics. For the later irrigations of this
example, the figures are as follows: DPR = 3.3 percent and Ea = 96.7 percent.
The field configuration. The reuse system will collect the tailwater from the first set in
the runoff reservoir and pump it back in the supply to the remaining sets. The pump-
back system will operate continuously and will have some excess capacity in the
reservoir even though the total runoff from subsequent sets will be greater.

The field layout can be found by trial and error or calculated. If the layout is
calculated, one approach is to fix a furrow flow and determine the external supply
that is needed. Using the design relations in Section 5.3 one can derive the following
equation for the layout.

(91)

in which QT is the flow rate of the external water supply needed for the system in
m3/min, Nf is the total number of furrows on the field, Qo is the design furrow inflow in
m3/min, Ns is the number of sets in the field, and TWR is the runoff ratio associated
with an inflow of Qo m3/min. During the first irrigation, a Qo of 0.082 m3/min satisfied
the probable requirements.

Choosing six sets as the basic field subdivision, the number of furrows in the first set
is:

N1 = QT/Qo = 1.8/.082 = 22

For the first irrigation, the volume of the runoff reservoir must be:

Vro = 14 m3/furrow * 22 furrows = 308 m3

Recalling that for a first irrigation condition, the time of cutoff is 278.5 minutes, the
capacity of the pump-back system is therefore:

Qcb = 308 m3/278.5 min = 1.11 m3/min

The number of furrows per set for the subsequent sets is:

(92)

There are 200 furrows in the field. Five sets would contain 36 furrows; one set, the
first, contains 22. This is 202 furrows so it is necessary to reduce one of the sets by
two furrows.

Now the system must be configured for the later irrigating conditions. If the individual
furrow inflows are set at .042 m3/min, two sets can be irrigated simultaneously to
have effectively a 3 set system, and, the number of furrows in the first is:

N1 = 1.8 / .042 = 43

The volume of the runoff reservoir needs to be 493 m 3 and the capacity of the pump-
back system must be 1.02 m3/min. It will therefore not be necessary to regulate the
pump-back system during the first irrigation to a value different than that for later
irrigation. The runoff reservoir capacity, however, is governed by the later irrigation.
The number of furrows in subsequent sets is 79. This layout adds up to 201 furrows
so the number in the last set can be decreased to 78.