AGENCV Po0 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR AID USE ONLY

WASIl41NGTON. 0. C. 20523
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INPUT SHEET

,. DUBJECT ATE
PRIMARO AP2-0000-0000
CLASS1 . - AgriCulture

FICATION a. SECONE)ARY
Drainage and irrigation

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Farm irrigation system evaluation: a guide for management

3. AUTHOR(S)
Merri, i . J. L.; Keller, Jack

4. DOCUMENT DATE . NUMBER OF PAGES 6. NUMBEN OCC

127.
D
IC 276p. 631. 7.M568b

7. REFERENCE ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Utah state

S. SU PPL EMEN TAR Y N OT ES (Sponsoring Organization, Publisherrs, Av61l81b111fy)

(Updates "Irrigfation" System Evaluation and Improvement," 182p. : PN-AAA-439)

9. ',JSTRACT

10. CONTROL NUMBER 11. PRICE OF DOCUMENT

12. DESCRIPTORS 13. PROJECT NUMBER

Evaluation Sprinkler irrigation 931011600
Irrigation Trickle irrigation 14. CONTRACT NUMBER
Management Irrigation equipment AID/csd-2459 211(d)
Manuals 1S. TYPE OF DOCUMENT

AIo 5901 (4"741

Farm Irrigation
System Evaluation:
A Guide for Management

(Third Edition)

'.< ..
.-. .. .. . . "

By: John L, Merriam Utah State University

Jack K(eller Logan, Utah
1978
 FARM IRRIGATION SYSTEM EVALUATION:

A GUIDE FOR MANAGEMENT

John L. Merriam

Department of Agricultural Engi.neering

California Polytechnic State University

Jack Keller

Department of Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering

Utah State University

1978

The United States Agency for International Develop­

ment provided financial support for this edition

under contract AID/csd-2459 with the Department of

Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering at Utah

State University at Logan, Utah. All opinions,

conclusions, and recommendations stated herein are

those of the authors and are not necessarily those

of the funding agency or of the United States

Government.

Printed in the United States of America

1978

 PREFACE

Widespread interest in Irrigation System Evaluation and Improve­

ment, by J. L.
erriam as a guide to better irrigation practice has

been encouraging. It has been used by irrigators, land managers,

technicians, and studeats who have had varied experience in irrigation.

Some found the explanations exressively detailed, but others expressed

the wish to see more idvanced information published. This new text,

which incorporates much of the earlier material

is been written
to

promote wider use of the evaluation techniques ai. the suggestions

for

better practices in irrigation management.

Professor John L. Merriam -f the Agricultural Ergineering Depart­

ment at California Polytechnic State University
has been largely

responsible for teorganizing and expanding the surface irrigation

concepts by including basin and basin-check irrigation, simplified

techniques for use with furrow and border methods, and more explanation

of standard procedure and management practices.

Dr. Jack Keller, who is Professor of Irrigation Engineering at

Utah State University, has had the major responsibility for the

sprinkle and trickle irrigation sections. The information about

sprinkle irrigation has been expanded by including descriptions and

discussions of the many variations of sprinkle systems which include

sprinkler-lateral, perforated pipe, orchard sprinkler, traveling

sprinkler, center pivot, and gun sprinkler systems.

The book has been

further enhanced by additional new infotmation abcut trickle (drip)

systems.

Together the authors have almost 75 years of combined design,

field and teaching experience in irrigation engineering. During their

many years of practical field irrigation engineering experiences,

they

have had direct field involvement with all of the evaluation techniques

and management practices discussed.

To avoid confusion with certain similar but more general terms,

three important terms used frequently in the earlier text have been

renamed. Irrigation System Efficiency is now called Potential Appli­

cation Efficiency of the Low Quarter; Actual Application Efficiency

is now called Application Efficiency of the Low Quarter;

and Distri­
bution Efficiency has been hanged to Distribution Uniformity.

ii

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE

Pg
ABSTRACT.

xiv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION
.
1

Need for System Evaluation

1

Basic Concepts and Terms

2

Soil moisture
3

Irrigation techniques
. 7

Uniformity and effiLiency of irrigation

8

Intentional Under irrigation

13

High Frequency Irrigation

15

Uniformity, Efficiency, and Economics

17

TI. SPRINKLER-LATERAL IRRIGATION

19

Simple Evaluation . ..
22

Equipment needed
22

Field measurements
22

Analysis and recommendations .

25

Summary of simple evaluation .

27

Full Evaluation
27

Equipment needed
28

FiId procedure
30

Utilization of field data

35

Distribution Uniformity
35

Coefficient of Uniformity
.39

Applying DU and UC 40

Potential Application Efficiency

41

Application Efficiency
. .43
Analysis and recommendations . .44

Summary of full evaluation

47

Supplemental evaluation
. .48
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter Page

III. PERFORATED PIPE SPRINKLE IRRIGATION

51

Evaluation . .52

Equipment needed 53

Field procedure 55

Utilization of field data 57

Aralysis and recQ-mendations . .61

IV. ORCHARD SPRINKLER IRRIGATION 65

Evaluation 66

Equipment needed 67

Field procedure 69

Utilization of field data 71

Average application rate 72

Distribution Characteristic . 73

Storage Efficiency . .74

Analysis and recommendations . 76

Summary .. 79

V. CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLE IRRIGATION 81

Evaluation 82

Equipment needed 83

Field procedure . . . . . . 86

Utilization of field data . .. 88

Distribution Uniformity . . . . . 88

Potential Application fficiency . . 90

Application Efficiency . . . . . 92

Application rates . . . . . . 92

Analysis and recommendations . . . . 93

Summary . . . . . . . . 94

VI. TRAVELING SPRINKLER IRRIGATION . 97

Evaluation . . . .99

Equipment needed . . . . . . 102

Field procedure . . . . .. . 102

Utilization of field data . . . . 104

Distribution Uniformity . . . . . 105

Potential Application Efficiency. . . 107

Application Efficiency . . . . . 107

Application Rate . . . . . . 108

Analysis and recommendations . . . . 108

Summary .1. . . . . 110

iv

 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter
Page

VII. GUN AND BOOM SPRINKLER IRRIGATION 111

Evaluation . ..
.. . 113

Equipment needed
. ... . 113

Field procedure ..... . 116

Utilization of field data

. . . . 119

Distribution Uniformity
. . .. . 119

Potential Application Efficiency . . 121

Application Efficiency ....

122

Analysis and recommendations . . . . 122

Summary . . ..
. . . 123
VIII. TRICKLE IRRIGATION . . ..
125

General Operation
. ... . 125

Evaluation . . ... 130

Equipment needed . ... . 130

Field procedure
. . ... 131

Utilization of field data ... 136

Emission Uniformity . . ... 137

Potential Application Efficiency . 138

Application Efficiency . . .
. . 139

Analysis and recommendations . .. 141

Summary . . ..
.. . . 143

IX. FURROW IRRIGATION ... . 145

Simple Evaluation
. . .. 147

Evaluation . . . . .
. . 147

Equipment needed . .
. . . . 147

Field procedure . . . . .
. 148

Utilization of field data . .

. . 150

Analysis and recommendations . . . . 150

Summary of simple evaluation . . . . 153

Full Evaluation
153

Evaluation .
153

Equipment needed .
. . . . . 155

Field procedure
. . . . . . 155

Utilization of field data

. . . . 162

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Chapter
Page

Distribution Uniformity
168

Potential Application Efficiency

. 169
Application Efficiency 170

Further evaluation ..
171

Depth infiltrated and adjusted intake

curves ...
175

Additional studies . .180

Summary of full evaluation . . .185

X. BORDER-STRIP IRRIGATION
189

Simple Evaluation
190

Equipment needed
191

Field procedure
191

Utilization of field data

192

Analysis and recommendations

. 194

Summary of simple evaluation . .. 194

Full Evaluation
195

Evaluation
. 195

Equipment needed
.. 196

Field procedure
197

Utilization of field data

.. 200

Analysis .
v. 202

Distribution Uniformity
204

Potential Application Efficiency . 206

Application Efficiency
. 207

Summary of full evaluatiun 208

Additional analysis . ...

208

Summary of additional analysis 216

XI. BASIN IRRIGATION

217

Evaluation
. . . ... . 218

Equipment needed .
. . . . . 218

Field procedure . . .
.. . 219

Utilization of field data

. . .. 221

Summary comments . . . . .
. 223

XII. POND IRRIGATION . . . . . 225

Evaluation, equipment needed and field

procedure .. ....
226

Utilization of field data and summary

. . 226

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . 227

GLOSSARY . . . .... .229

APPENDICES . . . . .. . . . 235

Appendix A.
Stabilizing Rates of Onf]ow to
Furrow or Borders . . . . 237
Appendix B.
Flow Measuring Devices • • • 238

Appendix C.
Drawing Intake Curves for Furrows
From Field Data . . . . . 244

Appendix D.
Field Procedure for Using Cylinder
Infiltrometers .. .. . 246

Appendix E.
Border Strip Advance and Recession
Curves . . . .. . 247

Appendix F.
Soil Probe . . . . . . 252

Appendix G.
Furrow Advance Ratio and Efficiency . 253
BLANK DATA FORMS
. . . . . . . . 255

vii

 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I-1. Soil Moisture and Appearance Relationship Chart 5

1-2. Major physical requirements and potential

application efficiencies of the low quarter
for the basic irrigation techniques .9

II-1. DU, UC and PELQ of four standard sprinkler

spacings for areas between sprinklers 5 and
6 and sprinklers 4 and 5 . .. 42

IX-l. Raw depth of infiltration along furrow with

3.0-foot furrow spacing for 9.2-gpm stream
(MAD - 3.8 inches, T. = 1000 minutes; Tad v
= 750 minutes; T = 1750 minutes, and
extrapolated L =a 16 75 feet) . . . 177

IX-2. Adjusted depth of infiltration along furrow

with 3.0 foot furrow spacing for 9.2-gpm
stream (MAD = 3.8 inches), T. = 850 minutes,
Ta -= 750 minutes, Ta - 1606 minutes, and
exirapolated L - 1630 feet) . . . 177

IX-3. Total rate of unadjusted infiltration after 300

minutes of application with the 17.5-gpm
furrow stream . . . . . . . 181

X-1. Depth infiltrated based on opportunity times,

T from Figure X-4 and depths infiltrated, D,
tken from the "typical" and "average" lines
in Figure X-3 . . ... 203

X-2. Graphical determination of DUa, PELA, AELA, %

runoff, and % deep percolation . . . . 205

viii

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I-1. Stylized description of a water-soil-plant

syrtem . . . . . .. 10
II-1. Hand move sprinkler lateral pipeline in
operation . . . . . .20

11-2. Side roll sprinkler lateral pipline in

operation . . . . . . 20

11-3. Solid set sprinkler lateral pipelines connected

to buried mainline . . . . . . 21

11-4. Measuring pressure at sprinkler nozzle with

gauge connected to pitot tube . . . . 21

11-5. Measuring sprinkler discharge using a hose to

direct the water into a container of known
volume . . . . . . . . 23

11-6. Loss of pressure due to friction along a lateral

having only one size of pipe . . . . 31

11-7. Variations in DU for various pressures, move

distances, and nozzle sizes in steady state,
5 oph winds blowing at a 450 angle to the
sprinkler layout . . . . . 31

11-8. Layout of catch containers for testing the

uniformity of distribution along a sprinkler
lateral line . . . . .32

11-9. Combined catch pattern iph between sprinklers

5 and 6 for a 50-foot lateral spacing . . 36

II-10. Combined pattern (iph) between sprinklers 5

and 6 for a 60-foot lateral spacing . . 38

II-11. Combined catch pattern (inches in 2 hours)

between sprinklers 5 and 6 for a 60-foot
lateral spacing offset 30 feet for a second
irrigation . . .. . . . 39

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Page

III-1. Perforated pipe lateral in operation

52

111-2.
Top view of typical perforated pipe having

7-hole
pattern sequence every 30 inches
. 56
111-3.
Average profile of water distribution from
5 test runs for a typical perforated pipe at
22
psi in 0 tc 3.3 mph winds . . .. 60

IV-l. Orchard sprinkler operating from a hose line

. 66
IV-2.
Layout for test of orchard sprinkler system
in

an orchard having a square pattern of trees . 71

IV-3. Profile of water application Plong the sprinkler

radius for a 24-hour set . . . . . 75

V-1.
Outer end of center pivot lateral in operation
81
V-2. Profile of container catch from center pivot

sprinkler evaluation test .

. .. 89

V-3. Runoff near the moving end of a center

pivot lateral . • •
91

VI-l. Hose fed traveling gun type sprinkler in

operation ..
. . . . 97
VI-2.
Typical layout for traveling sprinklers showing

location of catch container line for evaluating

the distribution uniformity

. . . . 98
VI-3. Profile of overlapped container catch data
from

traveling sprinkler evaluation . .

.. 106
VII-1.
Part circle rocker arm drive gun sprinkler

in operation . . . . . . 112
VII-2. Boom sprinkler in operation
. . . . 112
VII-3. Typical gun sprinkler layout, showing location

of catch container rows for distribution

uniformity evaluations
. .. 117

VII-4.
Profiles of overlapped catch data for gun

sprinkler evaluation . .
. . . 120

x
 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

VIII-l. Trickle irrigation lateral hose in a young

orchard 126

VIII-2. Typical layout for trickle irrigation system . 126

VIII.-3. Typical bank of sand filters followed by

screen filters for a trickle irrigation system 127

VIII-4. Typical wetting pattern under trickle

irrigation showing approximately 50 percent
of the cross sectioned root area wetted . 129

VIII-5. Field measurement of emitter discharge 135

IX-1. Furrow irrigation with syphon tubes in

operation 146

IX-2. Furrow irrigation with gated pipe in operation 146

IX-3. Stakes set along furrow in preparation for

water advance evaluation .. 159

IX-4. Small Parshall flume being used to measure

furrow flow rate 159

IX-5. Effect of furrow condition, stream size, and

soil moisture on advance rate . .160

IX-6. Furrow intake curves for the field test data

given in Form IX-2 . .. .. . 164

IX-7. Furrow advan.-e curves for field test data

given in Fo m IX-l . . . . . 167

IX-8. Relation of infiltrated depth along furrow

with 17.5-gpm stream . ... . 169

IX-9. Distribution of depth infiltrated (stored plus

deep percolation) and runoff for a 1320 foot
furrow with a 17.5 gpm stream . . .. 174

IX-lO Extrapolated furrow advance and recession

curves for 9.2-gpm stream in 1320-foot furrow . . 176

IX-ll. Distribution of infiltration plus runoff for

9.2-gpm stream 3.0-foot furrow spacing, and

1320 feet long . . . . . . . 176

xi

 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure
Page

IX-12. Wetting patterns under furrows in various

textured dry soils

184

IX-13.
Typical furrow channel cross sections . 184

X-l. Graded border-strip irrigation in operation

190

X-2. Plot of advance and recession curves used in

simple evaluation of border-strip irrigation,

using a 1.20 cfs stream on a mowed alfalfa

strip 21 feet wide with a sandy loam soil

193

X-3. Cumulative cylinder infiltration curves for

the data in Table X-1 from a slightly moist
silt loam soil with a crop of alfalfa . 201

X-4. Soil surface profile plus advance recession,

and irrigation curves for border-strip

irrigation evaluation data presented on

Forms X-1 and -2, using a stream of 1.2 cfs 203

X-5. Adjusted depth infiltrated along the tested

border-strip . . . . .
. 205

X-6. Advance-recession curves for streams of 1.0,

1.8, and 2.6 cfs in 60-foot wide border-strips

with a dry and bare silty clay soil having a

slope of 0.12% . . . . . . . 211

X-7. Anticipated evaluation curves for the tested

border-strip with an assumed stream of 1.8 cfs
and SMD= M4D = 2.9 inches . . . . 212

X-8. Anticipated evaluation curves for the tested

border-strip with stream of 1.2 cfs and an

assumed SMD =MAD = 5.4 inches . .. .

214

X-9. Anticipated evaluation curves for the border­

strip assuming a length of 1400 feet, stream
of 2.0 cfs and SMD = MAD = 5.4 inches . . 216
XI-1. Typical basin irrigation leaching operation . 217

xii

 LIST OF FORMS

Form
Page

II-1. Sprinkler-Lateral Irrigation Evaluation . • 29

III-1. Perforated Pipe Sprinkle Irrigation Evaluation 54

IV-1. Orchard Sprinkler Irrigation Evaluation . • 68

V-1. Center Pivot Sprinkle Irrigation Evaluation

. 84

VI-1. Traveling Sprinkler Irrigation Evaluation • 100

VII-1. GuLu Sprinkler or Boom Irrigation Evaluation . 114

VIII-i.
Trickle Irrigation Evaluation . . . . 132

IX-l.
Furrow Irrigation Water Advance Evaluation • 156

IX-2. Furrow Infiltration Evaluation

. .. . 157

X-1. Border-Strip Irrigation Infiltration Evaluation 198

X-2. Border-Strip Irrigation Water Advance and

Recession Evaluation . .. 199

xiii

 ABSTRACT

This manual describes and explains detailed procedures

for field

evaluation of the performance of several types of

sprinkle, surface,

and trickle (drip) irrigation systems and of management

practices.

Most chapters include lists of equipment needed for

performing these

evalua'ions, give step-by-step instructions for gathering

data in the

field, show sample forms for recording and organizing

these field data,

and present sample studies that demonstrate the entire

process.
The

book includes analyses and recommendations for

a
few actual case studies.

The introduction states and explains the general

concepts of

uniformity, efficiency, and management that are used

in evaluating

each system and improving their use. Individual

chapters describe

procedures for both full and simple evaluations of

performance of the

various systems of irrigation.

Key Words: Irrigation, Efficiency, Uniformity, Sprinkle, Center

Pivot,

Traveler, Trickle, Drip, Basin-check, Border-strip,

Furrow,

Soil, Moisture, Evaluation.

xiv

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Need for System Evaluation

Irrigation systems may or may not be well designed and properly

used. The techniques for system evaluation described in this book are

designed for evaluating actual operation and management and for deter­
mining the potential for more economical and efficient operation.

This type of study is necessary to provide direction to management in

deciding whether to continue existing practices or to improve them.

Improved management of water on the farm may conserve water,

labor, and joil and'may also increase yields of crops. A system

evaluation should measure and show the effectiveness of existing

irrigation practice. Careful study of the system evaluation will

indicate whether improvements can be made and will provide management

with a reasoned basis for selecting possible modifications that may be

both practical and economical.

Most modifications suggested here for improvement of irrigation

systems require only simple changes in management practices. Evalu­

ations frequently indicate the need for estimates of soil moisture

deficiency and for better maintenance practices for syst':ms. These

often save both water and labor. Sometimes it is worthwiile to invest

the capital necessary to mechanize or even automate an irrigation

system.

Operation of sprinkle irrigation systems may be improved greatly

by such simple changes as altering operating pressures, nozzle sizes,

heights of risers, and durations of water application; operating at

different pressures at alternate irrigations; using alternate set

sequencing; obtaining larger sized lateral pipes; and by tipping

risers along the edge of the field.

For furrow and border strip irrigation systems, any of the

following simple changes may greatly improve performance: use of

larger, smaller, or cut-back streams; irrigation at a different soil

moisture deficiency; using different spacing or shape of furrows;

revising strip width or length; using supplemental pipe lines and

portable gated pipe; and using return-flow systems to recover runoff

water. Capital investment for such projects as grading land to

provide a smoother surface or more uniform slope and soil conditions,

constructing reservoirs, increasing capacity for water delivery, and

automation or semi-automation often proves profitable where it Improves

efficiency of water and labor.

 Basin irrigation systems may be improved greatly by

a dike conforming to changes in the surface texture relocating

of the soil;

grading land more carefully to achieve, as nearly

as possible, a

level surface and uniform intake; or changing the

basin area so that

it more nearly matches the volume of water from the

available stream.

Trickle irrigation systems may require a different

duration of

application, a different frequency of irrigation,

additionaJl

infiltration, or a higher
density of emitters.

Possibilities for saving water and labor usually are

best when the

water supply is flexible in frequency, rate, and duration.

in frequency means that the water is available on Flexibility

or near the day when

it is needed to match the moisture demands of the

crop. Flexibility

in rate means that the rate of sup'ly can be changed

to match different

sizes of fields, to cutback sizes of streams, to accommodate

varied

rates of infiltration, and to smooth out the irrigators

Flexibility in duration means that the water can be workload.

turned off as

soon as the soil moisture deficiency has been supplied

and require­
ments for leaching have been satisfied.
These types
of flexibility

are necessary for achieving efficient use of water.

A principal cause of low efficiency is overirrigation.

either furrow or border strip irrigation is used, When

a major part of any

excess water is runoff, which may be recovered by

using a return-flow

system.
Most excess water used in basin, basin-check,
sprinkle, and

trickle systems, infiltrates and adds to the groundwater

supply.
Such

water may be recovered from wells, but it may cause

a drainage problem

if subsurface flow is restricted at a shallow depth.

Basic Concepts and Terms

Certain concepts are implicit in the design and operation

irrigation system.
Likewise, certain terms and their of every

definitions are

basic in describing these systems and in evaluating

their operation.

Some of the most frequently used terms are listed

and briefly explained

here; others are included in the Glossary and are

explained in detail.

Evaluation is the analysis of any irrigation system based

measurements taken in the field under the conditions on

and practices

normally used.
It also includes on-site studies
of possible modifi­
cations such as changing sprinkler pressures, having
larger or smaller

streams in furrows, and changing duration of application.

Measurements

needed for an analysis include:

soil moisture deficiency
prior to

irrigation, rate of inflow, uniformity of application

and infiltration,

duration of application, rate of advance, soil conditions,

rates of

infiltration, and adequacy of irrigation.

Soil moisture

Soil moisture deficit (hereafter called SMD) is expressed

numerically as a depth (in inches) indicating the dryness of the

root zone at the time of measurement. This depth is identical to

the depth of water to be replaced by irrigation under normal manage-

zone

ment.
For this reason, the idea of moisture deficit in the root
is preferable to the commonly used concept of depth of water currently

in the soil. Knowledge is needed of how dry the soil should be

before irrigation and is related to the soil moisture tension at that

SMD and to how well the crop will grow under that stress. Some plants

but

produce better when they are kept moist by frequent irrigations,

pests under such a

.they may be more subject to diseases and insect

when the soil is

regime. Other plants may produce more efficiently

allowed to become quite dry.
Infrequent irrigating also reduces

costs of labor and generally increases efficiency.

Management allowed deficit (hereafter called M4D) is the desired

SD at the time of irrigation. MAD is an expression of the degree of

dryness that the manager believes the plants in a given area can

to

tolerate and still produce the desired yield.

The MAD is related
SMD and resulting crop stress.
It may be expressed as the percent

of the total available soil moisture in the root zone or the

corresponding depth of water that can be extracted from the root

between

zone between irrigations to produce the best economic balance

crop returns and costs of irrigation.

Evaluation of furrow and border-strip irrigation systems should

and

be made at about MAD, since infiltration rate, water movement,

duration of the irrigation are greatly affected by soil moisture.deficit.

variations

Because the MAD appreciably affects all these factors, small

the operation

in the MAD become a useful management tool for improving

of certain surface irrigation systems, especially the border-strip

system.

much or

Efficient operation of an irrigation system depends as

the quality of the

more on the capability of the irrigator as on

system.
Any system may be properly used or misused. To determine

system or

whxt is the best use requires a thorough evaluation of the

procedures.

appreciable experience combined with shortcut evaluation

obtain the

The two following questions must always be considered to

maximum efficiency from any given system:

1.
Is the soil dry enough to start irrigating?

2.
Is the soil wet enough to stop irrigating?

the same

The irrigator must carefully estimate the SMD; if it is

to start irrigating. The

as MAD or greater, the soil is dry enough

observation of the soil.

simplest method for evaluating SMD is field

3

 This requires comparing sofl samples taken from several

depths in the

root zone (preferably to the ful" rooting depth)

with Table I-1.
This

chart indicates approximate relationship between

field capacity and

wilting point.
For more accu;rate information, the
checked by drying samples of it. The descriptions soil must be

at the top of each

textural column correspond to the condition of zero

deficiency, i.e.,
field capacity. Those descriptionssoil-moisture

at the bottom of

a column describe a soil having the maximum deficiency,

i.e., wilting

point. The soil-moisture deficiency at this condition

is numerfcally

equal to the available moisture range of the soil.

Intermediate

soil-moisture deficiency descriptions occur opposite

corresponding

numerical values of inches of water per foot of depth

at which the soil

is deficient. This chart describes a specific group

of soils and

though it has been found to have general application,

it may not apply

to many other groups.

Where this is the case, new
descriptions will

need to be prepared corresponding to particular soil-moisture

deficiency, feel, and appearance relationships.

Other methods for estimating SMD include the use

of tensiometers

when MAD values are low (high moisture situation)

and resistance

blocks or similar equipment when MAD values are high

content). Weighing and drying soil samples is precise(low moisture

but
cumbersome and neutron soil moisture probes are expensive.
slow and

Water budgets based on the depth of evaporation from

other methods for estimating the water consumed by a pan and

the plants

(potential evapotranspiration) are also satisfactory

for estimating

SMD. The SAD estimated from water budgets should

be checked occasion­
ally by field observations of the lower part of the
root zone to see

that SAO is not accumulating.

Such checks show
deficient irrigation

but unfortunately do not reveal overirrigation.

The second question, namely, when is soil wet enough

irrigating, is equally important because all water to stop

applied to the

root zone after the SMD and leaching requirements

have been satisfied

is completely wasted.
A probe, typically a 5/16-inch
or 3/8-inch

steel rod about 4 feet long having a somewhat bulbous

(not pointed)

tip and a tee handle, Can be used in most soils

to quickly check the

depth of penetration of irrigation at numerous points

throughout the

field.
Such a probe easily penetrates to a moderate
depth (about 3

feet) through the nearly saturated soil being irrigated,

encounters considerable resistance when it meets but it

plow pans or drier

soil below the wetted soil.

The proper depth of
probe penetration is

appreciably less than the desired final depth of

water penetration

because water continues to percolate deeper after

the irrigation

stops.
This requires that the depth to which the
probe penetrates

during irrigation be calibrated later with depth

penetrated after

an adequate irrigation.

 1/

"

Table I-1. Soil Moisture and Appearance Relationship Chart-

SOIL TEXTURE CLASSIFICATION

Moisture
Moisture

deficit Coarse Light

Hedium Fine deficit

in./ft. (loamy sand) (sandy loam) (loam) (clay Loam) in./ft.

(field capacity) (field capacity) (field capacity)

(field capacity)

0.0 Leaves wet outline on Appears very dark, leaves Appears very dark; leaves Appears very dark; leaves 0.0

hand when squeezed. wet outline on hand; a wet outline on hand; slight moisture on hand

makes a short ribbon, will ribbon out about one when squeezed; will rib­
0.2
inch bon out about two inches 0.2

Appears moist; makes a

weak ball. Quite dark color; makes Dark color; forms a

0.4 a hard ball. plastic ball; slicks Dark color; will slick 0.4

Appears slightly moist, when rubbed. and ribbon easily.

Sticks together slightly.

0.6 Fairly dark color, makes Quite dark, forms a hard Quite dark, will make a 0.6

Very dry, loose; flows a good ball. ball. thick ribbon; may slick

through fingers. when rubbed.

0.8 (wilting point) Slightly dark color, 0.8

makes a weak ball. Fairly dark, forms a good Fairly dark, makes a good

ball. ball.

1.0 Lightly colored by mois- 1.0

ture will not ball.

1.2 Slightly dark, forms a Will ball, small clods 1.2

Very slight color due to weak ball. will flatten out rather

moisture. (wilting point) than crumble.

1.4
1.4

Lightly colored; small

clods crumble fairly Slightly dark, clods

1.6 easily. crumble. 1.6

1.8 Slight color due to mois- 1.8

ture, small clods are

hard. (wilting point) Some darkness due to un­

2.0
available moisture clods 2.0

are hard, cracked.

(wilting point)

1 1

Taken from "Field Method of Approximating Soil Moisture for Irrigation," 1960, John L. Merriam. Transactions of the ASAE

3(1):31-32.

 Alternately, to anticipate when the soil will be wet enough

to

stop, divide the SMD by the minimum rate of application at

the soil

surface.
This will give the duration of irrigation needed
to

replace the WD.

Several devices for sensing soil moisture can indicate when to

start and stop irrigatin3, but none are less expensive and easier to

understand and use than the auger and simple probe described above.

Some electrical or mechanical sensing devices may be connected

the irrigation system on and off automatically. However, their
to turn

operation must be correlated with soil moisture values at the

point which, in turn, must be related to values representative sensing

of the

entire field under control.

The rate or volume of application by sprinkle and trickle

irrigation systems is usually known.

When application is reasonably

uniform, depth of application can be controlled easily by

duration of the irrigation.
However, under all methods of controlling

irrigation

field conditions must be checked to assure that the desired depth

of

application has boen reached and that no excess water is being

applied.

Information about soils and crops !s fundamental to all planning

for irrigation.
The optimum MAD depends on the specific soil,
crop,

depth of root zone, climate, and system of irrigation. The MAD

should

be established because it affects the depth, duration, and frequency

of irrigation.

The available moisture, rate of infiltration, adaptability

method, and choice of crop are all related to soil texture; but of

depth

of root zone, rate of intake, lateral wetting, perched water tables,

and adaptability to land grading are mostly affected by soil profile

and structure. The uniformity of soil in

a field is important
because

it affects the uniformity of infiltration and therefore the choice

method of irrigation.
Field surveys must thoroughly investigate of

soil

uniformity. For all methods of irrigation in fields having more

one type of soil, the frequency and depth of irrigation should than

be

governed by the soil that permits the lowest MAD.

Sprinkle or trickle irrigation is best for fields that have

varied soils and topography because depth of application of the

water is independent of surface variations.

For the areas where

the rate of intake is slowest, the rate of application should

less than the basic rate of infiltration to prevent runoff.
be

Reasonable uniformity of soil surface is important to assure

efficiency for furrow, border strip, or basin irrigation. It

must be

fully appreciated that the basic objective of land grading

is to

improve irrigation, not merely to produce a plane surface.

The

possibility of improving uniformity of the soil within each field

should not be overlooked during land grading. In bas:7, and basin­

check irrigation, uniformity of the intake rate is even more important

than in furrow and border strip irrigations. However, unifoUrmity of

intake often can be improved by making boundaries of the basin

conform to boundaries of areas having uniform soil texture. Low

ridges can be farmed over or temporarily removed as needed, and the

shapes or sizes of basins may be varied as required.

Irrigation techniques

There are seven basic techniques or methods of irrigation, most

of which have several variations. Each technique and variation has

characteristics that are adaptable for different locations and crops.

The basic component and operation for each of the seven techniques

are:

1. Basin: A level area of any size or shape bounded by borders

or ridges retains all the applied water until it infiltrates. Any

loss of water results from either deep percolation or surface evapo­

ration.

2. Basin-check: A fairly level area of any size or shape

bounded by borders and with no depressions which cannot be readily

drained. The borders (or ridges) retain all the applied water for a

sufficient time to obtain a relatively uniform depth of infiltration

over the area and then the remaining water is drained off the surface

and used to irrigate an adjacent border-check. Water is lost chiefly

by deep percolation and evaporation.

3. Border-strip: A sloping area, usually rectangular, is

bounded by borders or ridges that guide a moving sheet of water as

it flows down the bordered strip. There should be little or no slope

at right angles to the direction of flow. The onflow of water is

usually cut off when the advancing sheet has flowed six- to nine­
tenths of the distance down the strip. Water is lost chiefly by deep

percolation and runoff.

4. Furrow or corrugation: A small sloping channel is scraped

out of or pressed into the soil surface. For high uniformity of

wetting, the irrigation stream should reach the end of the channel in

about one-fourth of the time allotted for the irrigation; but the

stream is not shut off until the root zone soil at the lower end of

the furrow is adequately irrigated. Water in the soil moves both

laterally and downward from the channel. Water is lost chiefly by

deep percolation and runoff.

 5. Sprinkler:
Any of numerous devices for spraying
the soil surface. Water discharged from a sprinkler water over

should infiltrate the soil where it falls, but it into the air

should not saturate

the soil surface. For high uniformity of wetting,

the spray patterns

from adjacent sprinklers must be properly overlapped.

Evaporation,

wind drift, and deep percolation are chief causes

of loss of water.

6. Trickle (or drip) emitter. A device used

drip) irrigation for discharging water at some very in trickle (or

low
than 3 gallons per hour) through small holes in tubing rate
(less

the soil surface.

Water moves through the soil both placed near

downward away from the point of application to form sideways and

soil. Typically, only a portion of the soil mass a "bulb" of wet

is kept quite moist

by very frequent or continuous application. Water

loss is mainly by

deep percolation.

7. Water table: In certain areas the water table

can be

adequately controlled and periodically raised to subirrigate

crop's root zone.
Precise control of the water table the

requires

certain iatural conditions: pervious soil, level

soil surface,

naturally high water table, and low salinity of water.

Table 1-2 summarizes and compares the major physical

istics that affect the adaptability of each of the character­
irrigation techniques.
seven basic

It also evaluates the probable

Potential

Application Efficiency of Low Quarter of a well

designed
used systim, employing each technique where appropriate. and properly

can be mechanized or even automated in order to Most systems

reduce labor.
This

table leaves no allowance for such items as salinity

and control of

microclimate and takes no account of costs or

personal preferences

of the irrigator.

Uniformity and efficienc, of irrigation

Figure I-1 is a
stylived description of a water-soil-plant

system. The infiltrated itater, evaporation from

surfaces, wind drift, and 7unoff water must equal plant and free water

the total depth of

applied (rain or irrigati-.) water. Furthermore,

the sum of transient

and stored water, deep percilation, transpiration,

and evaporation

from the soil surface must Equal the depth of infiltrated

Transient water in the soil root zone may be transpired water.

crop before it is lost to deep percolation. However, by a growing

some
percolation is usually necessary to maintain a satisfactory deep

balance since evaporation'and transpiration (the only salt

remove water from the root zone) leave the dissolved other ways to

salts
root zone. Transpiration and evaporation are interrelated in the

and depend

on atmospheric, plant, and soil-moisture conditions.

Table 1-2. Major physical requirements and potential application efficiencies of the

low quarter for the basic irrigation techniques.

Physical requirements at site

Irrigation Soil Infiltration Ground Water Labor

method uniformity rate slope supply intensity PELQ

Uniform Level, or Large High at Percent

within graded to inter- infrequent

Basin each basin Any level mittent intervals 60-85

Fairly

Uniform smooth Large High at

Basin within each All but with no inter- infrequent

Check basin extremes depressions mittent intervals 60-80= /

Uniform Large High at

Border within All but Mild and inter- infrequent /

strip each strip extremes smooth mittent intervals 70-85

Uniform Medium

along to large High at

Furrow or each All but Mild or inter- infrequent

corrugation furrow very rapid "contour" mittent intervals 70-75

Soils may Any Small High to 65-85

be All but 2/ farmable continu- very Jw depending
Sprinkle intermixed very slow- slope ous daily- on var.

Trickle Soils may Any Small

(drip or be farmable continu- Very low

subsurface) inLermixed Any slope ous daily 75-90

Water Uniform Level, or Large

Table withivleach graded to relative

Control field- "

level to area Very low 50-80

!/Values of 90% can be attained under ideal conditions if runoff water is reused.

/ Except for center pivot and traveling sprinklers, which are best suited
to use on

soils that have medium and high infiltration rates.

/ Labor inputs range from high intensity for hand move, moderate
for mechanical move,

to low for automatic sprinkle irrigation systems.

A/Surface soils with medium capillarity must be underlain with very pervious subsoils.

 Troansplrotio 9
P
Roin or Drift

Irrigotion
Water Applied \ P /

0L)C~ )Direct or
Indirect

6
~9 JC4)I Evaporation

) . .Runoff

-'k nfilrated b
0 Tronsient 6
Or, nd Stored Water

0 6 b
. - -. 6.

Deep Pprcolotion

Figure I-1.
Stylized description of a
water-soil-plant system.

Terms used to designate or rate the efficiency

irrigation wa&er is applied by a given with which

system have been widely

defined.
To avoid confusion, the three
primary terms that are used

in field evaluation procedureq (Distribution

Efficiency of Low Quarter, and Potential Uniformity, Application

Application Efficiency of

Low Quarter) are defined below.

These
terms differ from those used

in the first edition of this work and in

some other publications;

they should help avoid confusion with other

terms and their defini­
tions.
The numerators and denominators
of the definitions are

expressed in equivalent depths of free

water (volumes per unit area)

for surface and most sprinkle irrigated

fields. However, water

volume may be a more appropriate measure

for trickle and sprinkle

systems, which give only partial coverage.

High efficiency in operation of an irrigation

necessarily economical, but a manager must systet is not

evaluate efficiency of any

10

system in order to rationally decide whether he should merely modify

his operation or adopt a different system. Efficiencies computed

from ordinary field data are seldom more accurate than to the nearest

5 percent. Therefore, variations of less than 5 percent in computed

efficiency values are not significant except where identical data are

being used for comparisons of alternative operational procedures.

Distribution Uniformity (hereafter called DU) indicates the

uniformity of infiltration throughout the field.

DU average depth infiltrated in the lowest one quarter of the area X 100

average depth of water infiltrated

The average low quarter depth of water infiltrated is the lowest

value

one-quarter of the measured or estimated values where each

For sprinkle and trickle irrigation, the

represents an equal area.

caught

depth infiltrated is presumed equal to the depth applied or

on the soil surface if there is no runoff.

The DU is a useful indicator of the magnitude of distribution

percola­
problems. A low DU value indicates that losses due to deep
is likely to be too high)

tion are excessive (and that the water table

the concept

if adequate irrigation is applied to al?, areas.

Althcugh
are generally

of a low DU is relative, values less than 67 percent

depth of

considered as unacceptable. For example, if the desired

average

infiltrated water is 4 inches and the DU is 67 percent, the

6 inches and the deep percolation loss

depth infiltrated must be

deep percolation is limited by reducing

will be 2 inches. However, if

is Low, any area that receives the

the applied depth and the DU value

low quarter depth of irrigation will be seriously under irrigated.

AELQ)

Application Efficiency of Low Quarter (hereafter called

system is being used.

achieved in the field indicates how well a

- average low quarter depth of water stored in the root zone

average depth of water applied

infiltrated

When the average low quarter depth of irrigation water

zone, AELQ

exceeds the SMD, which is the storage capacity of the root

can be expressed as follows:

SMD
AELQ = average depth of water applied X .00

11

 The average low quarter depth of water infiltrated and stored in

the root zone is the average of the lowest one-fourth of the measured

or estimated values where each value represents an equal area of the

field. Thus about one-eighth of the irrigated area receives less than

the average of the low quarter. "Irrigated area" means the area

receiving water; for most systems this is the entire field.

However,

where a limited area is being wetted, the term refers only to that

part of the area receiving water.

Implicit in AELQ is a measure of uniformity, but it does not

indicate adequacy of the irrigation. It merely shovis that, for any

value greater than zero, all the area is receiving water. Low values

for AELQ indicate problems in management and/or use of the system.

Additional factors, which will be presented lc.ter,

must be considered

when any field is intentionally under irrigated.

Potential Application Efficiency of Low Quarter (hereafter

called PELQ) indicates a measure of system performance attainable

under reasonably good management when the desired irrigation is

being applied.

PELQ = average low quarter depth infiltrated when equal to MAD X100

average depth of water applied when MAD just" ­

satisfied
The PELQ is the precise value of AELQ when the low quarter depth of

water infiltrated is just sufficient to satisfy the SMD when SMD = MAD

in all parts of the field. Low PELQ usually is associated with

inefficient system design, but may be intentional for economic reasons.

The difference between PELQ and AELQ is a measure of management

problems, whereas low values for AELQ merely indicate the possible

existence of such problems.

Modifications of systems or methods can be compared meaningfully

only by comparing values of PELQ. Such comparisons must be made when

applying similar MAD depths. Economic comparisons should include

costs of both irrigation and crop production as well as expected

returns.

DU , AELA, and PELA may be used in place of DU, AELQ, and PELQ

respectively, to denote the use of absolute minimum depth instead of

the average low quarter infiltrated. For convenience in the evalua­

tion of surface irrigation syscems, the depth of infiltration at the

downstream end of the furrow (or borders) is often used in place of

the average low quarter depth. This depth would be the absolute

minimum depth infiltrated if the soil infiltracion and furrow (or

border) characteristics were uniform throughout tha field. The absolute

minimum should not be used for method comparisons,

12

 Intentional Underirrigation

Irrigation systems are usually managed so a3 to fill the SMD

throughout the root zone at each irrigation; however, this should not

always be the objective. Sometimes the interval between irrigations

is extended to reduce the rate of water use below peak vclumes by

using a high MAD. This practice is used to aid other agricultural

practices, to reduce requirements for system capacity, and/or to

obtain maximum crop yields per unit of water or per unit of capital

cost and is called stress irrigation. Another variation is to replace

less than the SMD leaving the bottom portion of the root zone some­
what drier and is called limited irrigation. This type of intentional

underirrigation may be imposed rather uniformly throughout the field,

or only in areas receiving minimum infiltration, or selectively.

Intentional underirrigation also enables better utilization of

rainfall than full irrigation.

Limited irrigation is any of a group of procedures which result

in underirrigation to conserve water but do not reduce yields. If

the root zone is full of moisture at the beginning of the period of

peak water use, limited underirrigation by not fully replacing SMD

on the whole area can improve efficiency of water use without reducing

crop yields. However, yields can be maintained only if the period of

peak use is relatively short and is followed by either a period of

less use or by harvest. Moisture stored deep in the root zone from

early or off-season irrigation and rainwater are consumed during

periods of underirrigation. This plus the irrigation water are

available for crop production. This practice reduces losses from deep

percolation if DU is high but allows a cumulative SMD to develop in the

bottom portion of the root zone. The depletion of deep moisture

augments the limited irrigation supply. Frequent checks of the SMD

are essential ior obtaining the maximum benefit from this practice and

to avoid the danger of running out of deep moisture reserves and

stressing a crop at a critical period, such as corn at tasseling.

The area of land irrigated should not exceed what can be irrigated

economically with the limited supply of irrigation water plus the

available reserve of deep soil moisture.

Another means for maximizing efficiency of water use and reducing

required system capacity without reducing yields is to irrigate only

part of the area at any one time. This method is effective in orchard

or vineyard irrigation by furrows, emitters, or orchard sprinklers

because trees and vines have extensive root systems. The full soil

profile throughout the area should be wet annually from rain or early

season irrigation. During the period of deficient water supply,

irrigation should be restricted to applying the SMD to a reduced

area near each plant. This substantially reduces loss of water by

surface evaporation and thereby increases the percentage of irrigation

13

 water transpired by the crop.

A high MAD in
the area wetted stresses

the crop slowly as it draws moisture from the

unirrigated areas and

the lower root zone.

Location of the area watered
is relatively

unimportant because root systems in a mature

orchard of vineyard

are extensive.
This technique of limited irrigation
utilizes the

available supply of water very efficiently.

Certain cultural practices such as harvesting

and propping trees

suggest modification in planning and managing

irrigation; this may

result in using limited irrigation. For example,

depth of the pre­
harvest irrigation can be reduced by spreading
the limited amount of

available water wider and shallower. This

permits the large mass of

roots near the surface to function normally

and thus reduces crop

stress and improves crop quality.

Sometimes
area is reduced since furrows cannot
be plowed close to

trees because of low branches or props.

Often
sprinklers have to be

placed only in the tree row so as

to reduce
foliar interception.

A common practice in young orchards under basin,

furrcw, sprinkle,

or trickle irrigation is to irrigate only the

area immediately

adjacent to the trees until their root

systems
become extensive.

Even in mature orchards, much of the surface

area
is left dry to

improve trafficability.
In fact, ability to
do this is
a prime

advantage of trickle and furrow irrigation,

which is
never intended

to wet the total soil area of an orchard. Planned

reduction of the

area to be wetted is compensated by more frequent

irrigation in

inverse proportion to the wetted area.

For
example, if only half an

area is to be wetted, it is wetted at

twice
the normal frequency;

this is a prime example of limited irrigation.

However, greatcaution

should be exercised if one plans

to design a
system to irrigate less

than one-third of the volume of potential root

soil.

An excellent variation of limited irrigation

is the
use of

alternate side irrigation. In this practice

all or part of the area

on one side of the plant is wetted at a time,

i.e.,
the full SMD is

replaced on half the field.

At the next irrigation
the SMD is

replaced on the other side of the plant.

At
each irrigation only

half the usual application is applied but at

half the usual frequency.

Stress irrigation applies to any of a number

of p:actices which

result in underirrigation to conserve water

at
the expense of some

reduction in potential yields.

Irrigation procedures
that are
likely

to stress a crop can be combined with atternate

side irrigation to

reduce the maximum stress.

Maximizing crop production from a limited amount

of water is

important either when the water supply is inadequate

or when the

14

value of water is measured by crop production per unit of water. In

such areas, operating at a high MAD extends the interval between

irrigations. This practice of stress irrigation may reduce yields

per unit area but may produce more total crop per unit of water on

an enlarged area and thereby produce a greater net return.

Except for some of the special variations mentioned below,

intentional underirrigation puts a premium on having high values of

DU and AELQ to reduce losses of water and results in a higher percentage

of the irrigation water being transpired by the crop.

Reducing system capacities is discussed above, and/or accepting

a lower DU enabler the reduction of -apital investment. When a

system that achieves only low DU is used, the SMD may not be fully

replaced in portions of the field even when the water supply is

adequate. In such areas, management Amply plans to accept a reduced

yield from the dry portions of the field. Such systems require care­
ful management, logical design, checks of SMD, and periodic evaluations

of the success of the operation.

The above design logic anticipates moderate to low values of DU

and AELQ as a trade-off for reducing costs of system development. Wide

spacing of sprinklers and operation at low pressures may reduce costs,

but they may also cause deficiencies of soil moisture to cumulate in

the drier spots. The dry spots may produce less crop, but profits may

be increased because the reduced cost of capital more than offset

the crop losses. To eliminate the dry spotsabnormally large

quantities of water must be applied which may be uneconomical or

cause drainage problems.

For furrows and border strips, reduced land grading or use of

longer-than-normal lengths of run are possible means for decreasing

costs for capital and labor. However, these practices should be used

only where resultant reductions in cost substantially exceed the

losses resulting from reduced production at the underirrigated end

of the furrow or strip. Furthermore, salt accumulated in dry areas

which are not leached by occasional rainfall may become a hazard.

Before using any of these forms of stress irrigation, a manager

should determine that the resulting savings in capital, labor, water,

and management will more than offset the value of the estimated

decrease in crop yield per unit area.

High Frequency Irrigation

Both movable and permanent solid set (or full coverage)

sprinklers, center pivot and trickle (or drip) systems are normally

15

 managed to apply light frequent irrigations. High frequency

irrigation is used to ahieve any or all of three major

objectives:

(1) to maintain a continuous low-stress high level of

soil moisture

to produce high yields or better quality of crops;

(2)
to avoid the

runoff that often accompanies high rates of application

(see section

on center pivot sprinklers, Ch&pter V); and (3) to

control tempera­
ture, humidity, and/or wind erosion.
Under some conditions,
frequency irrigation may be conducive to diseases or high

excessive

vegetative growth.

Under high frequency irrigation, depth of each

application
usually less than 1 inch. Unless an area is being intentionally is

under­
irrigated; the SD would also be less than 1 inch.

It is practically

-impossible to estimate the SMD precisely enough for

it to be useful

in determining whether soil is dry enough to require

irrigation when

the MAD is so low.

Estimates of the rate of a crop's use of water give

a reasonable

basis for scheduling high frequency irrigation. A crop's

use of

water can be estimated from weather data, taken from

measurements from

evaporation pans, or can be based on experience. Except

where under­
irrigation is intended, ideal system management would
exactly replace

the water consumed in the areas

that receive the minimum
application.

It is impractical to attempt to estimate exactly the

volume of

water actually consumed between irrigations. Since

overirrigation

is difficult to measure, it is good management to underirrigate

slightly when using systems other than trickle irrigation.

The SMD

can be checked periodically to spot areas where deficits

of soil

moisture have cumulated. For such areas, scheduling

of irrigation

can be corrected accordingly.

This practice of underirrigation

should not be risked if only a small portion of the

root mass is

irrigated as
in trickle irrigation.

High frequency irrigation is particularly well suited

in conjunction with Zimited irrigation where the deep for use

soil moisture

is being gradually depleted over a whole area, as sometimes

under center pivot and other automatic sprinkle irrigation happens

systems.

Light frequent watering of the top soil plus the gradual

withdrawal

of moisture from the subsoil can produce optimum crop

yield when the

irrigation system capacity is limited.

However, where
subsoil

moisture is inadequate, light frequent irrigation, causing

heavy

moisture losses from evaporation, may be inefficient

limited supply of water and also increase salinity. use of a

less frequent deeper irrigations may produce better Therefore,

crops.

While using supplemental irrigation in areas that receive

rainfall, it is good practice to apply shallow irrigation high

frequently

16

while maintaining an SMD between 1 and 2 inches in the lower part

of the root zone. Thus, the soil always has some storage capacity

for rain but also has plenty of water for the crop.

Uniformity, Efficiency, and Economics

The efficiency of any operation, including irrigation, is a

measure of how well its performance compares with some ideal level

of performance. The following evaluation procedures usually imply

that full irrigation with high DU and AELQ is the desired ideal.

The concept of full irrigations in the areas receiving the average

low quarter depth of application is useful for standardizing evalu­

ation procedures in the field. However, this concept may provide a

poor basis for evaluating and managing a system to optimize profit

or any other value such as production per unit of land, production

from a given quantity of water, or production per unit of energy

input.

Intentional underirrigation of areas that are receiving the

average low quarter depth of application may provide the optimum

profitability. Rather than replenishing the water in almost all of

the area, as is implied by PELQ, it may be more economical to leave

a substantial area underwatered. This would be especially true for

deep-rooted crops, low value crops, and for crops growing in humid

regions.

A detailed study is needed to optimize profit which would be

beyond the scope of the following evaluation procedures described

here.
In addition to evaluation of system performance in the

field, which indicates both the location and magnitude of water

losses, such a study would require thorough knowledge of system

costs, plus the relation between water and crop production in the

area studied.

17

 CHAPTER II

SPRINKLER-LATERAL IRRIGATION

under­
There are similarities between the procedures and logic
sprinkle irrigation systems.

lying the evaluation of all types of

for evalu­
Chapters II through VII describe and discuss techniques
ating the six most commonly used types of sprinkle irrigation

associated

systems.
They also evaluate certain management practices
into periodic

with each of them. The irrigation systems can be divided

position while

move systems in which the sprinklers remain at a fixed

sprinklers move

irrigating, and continuous move systems, in which the

The periodic

in either a circular or
a straight path while irrigating.
sprinkler

move systems include sprinkler-lateral, overlapped hose-fed

The

grid, perforated pipe, orchard sprinklers, and gun sprinklers.

traveling

dominant continuous move systems

are center pivot and
sprinklers.

used for

In Chapter II both the simple and the full techniques

described.
Both techniques

evaluating sprinkZer-lateral systems are

systems

are useful for evaluating all the over-canopy or open field

lateral pipe set

that irrigate by rotating sprinklers spaced along a

distribution.

at fixed positions with overlapping patterns of water

in a circular

Sprinklers on all of these systems distribute water

arranged and

pattern and depend on

overlap from several sprinklers
wetting over

spaced in a grid pattern to produce relatively uniform

the entire area to be irrigated. Such systems are used over a major

portion of sprinkle-irrigated acreage.

were the

Among the first sprinkle systems to be used extensively

with rotating sprinklers

sprinkler-lateral type;
they were equipped
labor,

spaced along portable "hand move" lateral pipe.

To reduce
the lateral pipelines may be moved mechanically after each set.

so that

These systems can be laid out with enough pipe and sprinklers
valves

an entire field or
orchard can be irrigated merely by switching
on and off.
Since no pipe needs to be moved, labor is minimum.

described

Sprinkler-lateral systems, which can be evaluated by methods

hand move, side roll, end tow; side move

in this chapter, include:

block move), portable full coverage (or

with multiple trail lines (or

set. (See Figures 11-1, 11-2, and

solid set), and permanent solid

11-3.)

supply

Overlapped hose-fed sprinkler grid systems employ hoses

to
at pressures as low as

individual small sprinklers which are operated

uniform

5 to 10 psi. These systems can also produce relatively

pattern

wetting providing the sprinklers are moved in a systematic grid

19

Figure II-I. Hand move sprinkler lateral pipeline in op-ration.

Figure 11-2. Side roll sprinkler later,l pipeline in operation.

20

 On r" 4._:-

- *,f7

Figure 11-3. Solid set sprinkler lateral pipelines connected to

buried mainline.

7-. .
*

Figure II-4. Measuring pressure at sprinkler nozzle with gauge

connected to pitot tube.

21

with sufficient overlap. However, these systems are not in common

use except in home gardens and turf irrigation although they do hold

promise for rather broad use on small farms in developing countries

where capital and power resources are limiting and labor is

relatively abundant. Only slight common sense modifications of the

sprinkler-lateral evaluation techniques are required to evaluate

these systems. Therefore, a special chapter is not presented for

the evaluation of overlapped hose-fed sprinkler grid systema.

Most sprinkle systems are designed to meet the peak demands for

moisture imposed by evapotranspiration during the irrigation season.

The manager should know his system's capabilities so he can adapt its

operation to changing conditions imposed by the crop and weather. A

simple evaluation, performed quickly with simple equipment, can reveal

obvious management problems with minimum effort, but it does not provide

information needed for designing changes in the system. By contrast,

a full evaluation not only identifies problems but also indicates

alternatives that can be used in corrective design.

Simple Evaluation

The procedure for simple evaluation is designed to identify

fairly basic problems or errors in design, operation, and management

of any sprinkler-lateral system.

Equipment needed

The only equipment the evaluator needs is:

1. A pressure gauge (0-100 psi) with pitot attachment. (See

Figure 11-4.)

2. A stopwatch or watch with an easily visible second hand.

3. A large container of known volume clearly marked (1 gallon

or larger for large sprinklers).

4. A 4-foot length of flexible hose having diameter appreciably

larger than the outside diameter of nozzles. (See Figure

11-5.)

5. A soil probe or soil auger.

Field measurements

'The following few simple measurements and observations can be

taken in the field:

22

Figure 11-5. Measuring sprinkler discharge using a hose to direct

the water into a container of known volume.

Operating pressures. Operating pressures should be within the

median range specified by the manufacturer for each size of nozzle

and should not vary greatly throughout the system. When measuring

sprinkler pressures (Figure 11-4),

the pitot tube must be centered

in the jet, and the jet must impinge directly into its tip. The tip

may be rocked slowly. Note the highest pressure reading shown while

the pitot tube is being held about 1/8 inch from the sprinkler nozzle.

Median pressures produce jets that have a variety of sizes of water

drops and assure smooth sprinkler operation. Large drops travel

further than small drops; small drops fall close to

the sprinkler.

Having varied sizes of water drops helps to produce uniform coverage

when spray patterns from several sprinklers overlap.

To aid in spotting excessive variations of pressure within a

system, a few sprinklers should be observed while operating at the

widest available range of pressure!1--high, medium, and low. Excess­

ively high pressure produces fogging or irregular turning; the

fogging contains a disproportionately large number of small drops,

which fall close to the sprinkler. Too lov pressures cause improper

jet breakup, which produces a "doughnut" type of spray pattern; under

such operation very little water falls close to the sprinkler.

23

Proper operating pressure can be determined only by using more

elaborate techniques of evaluation.

Flow rates. Rates of flow are determined by recording the time

required to collect a given volume of water from a sprinkler. (See

Figure 11-5.) For example, if a sprinkler fills a 2-gallon container

in 45 seconds, flow rate is computed thus:

Sprinkler flow rate = 2.0 X 60

45 = 2.7 gpm

A typical design limit allows a 10% difference of flow between the

first and last sprinklers on a lateral line. This corresponds to a

pressure differential of approximately 20%, which usually does not

alter sprinkler patterns enough to produce unacceptable lack of

uniformity; however it may not be the most economical design.

Checking the measured races of flow against catalog specifications

for equipment indicates actual operation pressures that should confirm

the field estimates of what correct pressure should be.

Nozzles often

become eroded by silt or sand carried in the irrigating water causing

their orifices to enlarge. This, in turn, causes flows to be greater

than catalog ratings specify. The amount of nozzle enlargement can be

easily checked with a feeler gauge such as

a drill bit having The

diameter specified for the nozzle.

Uniformity. Uniformity of the sprinkler pattern may be checked

by probing the soil at numerous spots within the area between two

sprinklers. This should be done on

the side of the lateral that was

irrigated during the previous set.

Areas having minimum infiltration

are readily identified by such probing, especially late in the season

when deficits of soil moisture have cumulated. Probing cannot be used

to check uniformity where full or excess irrigations have always been

applied however; in such areas the probe indicates adequate moisture

by deep penetration everywhere.

Properly overlapping sprinkler-wetted areas show uniform appli­

cation.
The amount of overlap required to achieve a given uniformity

of wetting depends on nozzle size, water pressure, operating character­

istics of the sprinkler, and wind conditions. Optimum uniformity is

a function of economics that usually results in a compromise between

the medium uniformity achieved by wider spacing of the sprinklers (and

the consequently raduced operating costs) and reduced returns from

crops.

To obtain medium uniformity, the spacing of sprinklers along the

lateral should be closer than the wetted radius of the sprinkler. The

24

spacing between laterals is usually such that in areas where wind

speeds are low, one line of sprinklers throws water about two-thirds

of the distance to the next line.

Where wind speeds typically exceed

5 mph the lines should be closer together.

Runoff. Runoff from higher to lo er areas

in a field not only

reduces the uniformity of

irrigation but also may cause waterlogging

and crop loss in low areas. The first sign that runoff may be
in areas where the application rate exceeds

problem is surface ponding

areas are most likely to be near the

the infiltration rate.

These
sprinklers or midway between them on the side of
the lateral which

received water from the previous set.

Runoff usually increases late

in the season after numerous irrigations have somewhat sealed the soil

surface.

Increasing pressures
(to the high range recommended by the

manufacturer), decreasing the nozzle size

(which may necessitate

decreasing the distance Ietween lateral moves), and shortening the

duration of application will help reduce or prevent surface ponding

and runoff. Increasing pressures and/or decreasing nozzle sizes

reduces the size of water drops.

Even though application rate may

have been increased by increasing pressure, smaller drops are less

detrimental to the soil surface, thus maintaining a higher infiltra­

tion rate.

Analysis and recommendations

All sprinklers should be erect, i.e.,

their risers should be

perpendicular to the ground surface.

All no::zles should permit free

flow of water and sprinklers should be turning uniformly. Maintenance

and correct operation are

essential for efficient use. Where

irrigation water carries trash, adequate screening devices should be

installed at the system's inlet and at

the inlet of each lateral.

Alternate scttin is the practice ot suttiiLg any lateral midway

between previously used sets for every other cycle of hand or

mechanically move systems.

Usually it greatly improves uniformity

of water distribution, but obviously it cannot be used by permanent

or solid set systems.

Tipping the risers is helpful at borders of fields where there

is no overlap. For the typical situation where the lateral pipeline

lies from a third to a half move distance from the boundary, some

water is thrown outside the field. For crops not subject

to damage

by impact from the sprinkler jet, all risers should be tipped toward

the boundary so the jets barely reach the edg, of the field. This

produces fairly uniform coverage along the boundary, especially

where the lateral line is only one-third of the distance of a full move

25

inside; it also eliminates much of the objectionable over-throw.

Tipping the end sprinkler by bending the riser gives similar favor­
able results at ends of lateral lines. For uniform coverage, end

sprinklers should be set closer than normal to the boundary.

Using

a half-circle sprinkler with two-thirds of the standard discharge

and operating at the edge of the field is also practical.

Adjustment of irrigation duration to the most efficient duration

can be calculated from the rate of sprinkler application, the SMD, and

an estimate of the Potential Application Efficiency of Low Quarter

(PELQ). The first step is to find the average rate of water

application, R, in inches per hour, iph, which is computed by:

sprinkler discharge (gpm)

96.3 X individual spacing

R = sprinkler (feet X feet)

in which the number 96.3 is a conversion factor for these specific

units of measurement. Using an estimate of PELQ, which is usually

between 70 and 80%, the assumed minimum rate, Rn , at which water is

infiltrated in the area ran be computed by:

R=RPELQ

n 100

and the duration of irrigation, T, in hours is computed by:

T.
SMD

- R
n

For example, assume that PELQ is 80%, SAID is 4.0 inches, the flow rate

of the sprinkler is 4.4 gpm, the sprinkler spacing on the lateral is

30 feet, and the lateral move distance is 50 feet. The average appli­
cation rate then is:

R = 9 6 .3X 4 .4 ,= 0.28 iph

30 X 50

and

Rn = 0.28 X 80/100 = 0.23 iph

Then the required duration of irrigation is:

26

T.- 4.0 = 17.5 hours

2 0.23

If the system is operated for 17.5 hours, the Application

Efficiency of Low Quarter (AELQ) would equal the assumed PELQ of 80%.

If the system is operated for 23 hours with one set per day, the last

5.5 hours of watering would be wasted and AELQ would be reduced to

about 60%. The excess 5.5 hours of operation at 0.28 iph would

result in a loss of 1.54 inches. This loss would be mostly to deep

percolation which, in turn, could contribute to high water table

problems.

If the evaluator does not know the SMD and therefore cannot

calculate the required time of application as shown above, he can

use a probe to indicate when the soil is wet enough to stop irrigat­
ing. He can use the probe to follow the wetting frond and when water

has penetrated deep enough for a full irrigation, he can turn it off.

Gaining sufficient experience to ,ie a probe effectively is important,

because proper use of the probe helps answer the question, "Is it wet

enough to stop irrigating?"

Summary of simple evaluation

An experienced observer can obtain much useful information for

evaluating operation of a sprinkler system by judicious use of some

simple equipment and by computing certain values from information thus

obtained. He can determine whether operating pressures need be

adjusted upward or downward; he can also analyze flow rate and

sprinkler overlap in different parts of the system and can determine

whether he should adjust them.

Analysis of the system's performance

can reveal whether management of the water supply and the use of labor

have been efficient; if management has not been efficient, simple

analysis can show where it could be improved.

Full Evaluation

The general procedures for full evaluation of sprinkler-lateral

systems can also be used for overlapped hose-fed sprinkle grid systems

with only minor modifications. (The test data from a single hose-fed

sprinkler must first be overlapped to simulate a sprinkler-lateral

test.) Full evaluation requires the following information:

1. Duration of normal irrigations.

2. MAD and SMD.

3. Spacing of sprinklers along lateral lines.

27

 4. Spacing of lateral lines along the main lines.

5. Measured depths of water caught in catch containers at a

test location.

6. Duration of the test.

7. Water pressures at the sprinkler nozzles at the test

location and along laterals throughout the system.

8. Rate of flow from the tested sprinklers.

9. Additional data specified on Form II-1.

It is useful to know what wetting patterns the operation produces

at different pressures and also operating pressures at the pump and

along the main line and laterals. General study of data obtained in

the field enables determination of DU, PELQJ and AELQ. Further study

enables determination of the uniformity and economics of the spacings

and/or alternate sets, the economics of sizes of pipes used for mainXs

and laterals, the desirability of using other operating pressures and

other durations of application, and the effect of wind.

Equipment needed

,The equipment the evaluator needs is:

1. A pressure gauge (0-100 psi) with pitot attachment. (see

Figure 11-4.)

2. A stopwatch or watch with an easily visible second hand.

3. A large container of known volume clearly marked (1 gallon

or larger for large sprinklers).

4. A 4-foot length of flexible hose having diameter appreciably

larger than the outside diameter of nozzles. (See Figure

11-5.)

5. From 50 to 100 (or more depending on sprinkler size) catch

containers such as 1-quart oil cans or plastic freezer

cartons.

6. A measuring stick (or ruler) to measure depth, or a 500-ml

graduated cylinder to measure volume of water caught in

containers.

28

 Form II-I. SPRINKLER-LATERAL IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location Field C-22 , Observer JLM , Date 9-30-75

2. Crop Tomatoes , Root zone depth 4.0 ft, MAD 50 %, MAD 4.4 in

3. Soil: texture clay loan, available moisture 2.2 in/ft, SMD 4.4 in

4. Sprinkler: make Rain Bird , model 29B , nozzles 5/32 by in

5. Sprinkler spac'ig 30 by 50 ft, Irrigation duration 23.5 hrs

6. Rated sprinkler discharge 4.4 gpm at 40 psI giving 0.28 in/hr

7. Lateral: diameter 2 in, slope 1 %, Riser height 18 in

8. Actual sprinkler pressure and discharge rates:

Sprinkler location number on test lateral

1 4 5 6 10 15 end

Initial pressure (psi) 45 40 40 40 39 40

Final pressure (psi) 45 40 39 40

Catch volume (gal) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Catch time (min or sec) 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22

Discharge (gpm) 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6

9. Wind: direction relative to

Part 10: initial __, during , final

Speed (mph): initial 2 2+

, during 5 +

5_, final ­

10. Container grid test data in units of ml , Volume/depth 200 ml/in

Container grid spacing 10 by 10 ft

Test: start 2:55 pm, stop 4:30 pm, duration 1 hr 35 min 1.58 hr

32 68 77 90 0 73 66 9 ml

.10 .21 7T 7T -- Z3 E-TpT

35 66 84 100 100 52 3
.11 .21 .16 .31 .31 .77 - ­

32 50 60 104 99 48 12
.10 .16 .11 .32 .31 .15 .04

31 74 88 104 586 56 11

.10 .23 .27 .32 .27 .17 .03

27 64 80 96 112 62 9

.08 .20 .25 .30 .35 .19 .03

20 49 59 107 87 36 13

.06 .16 .19 .T

7
.33 D.-n UR

11. Evaporation container: initial 2.15 final 2.10 loss 0.05 in

12. Sprinkler pressures: max 45 psi; min 39 psi, ave 40 psi

13. Comments Test duration was too short. Depths caught measured in

1000 ml graduated cylinder. Wind velocities are less than normal.

29

 7. A soil probe or auger.

8. A 50- to 100-foot tape for measuring distances in laying

out catch container grid.

9. A shcvel for smoothing spots to set containers and for

checking soil, root, and water penetration profiles.

10. Form II-1 for recording data.

11. Manufacturers' sprinkler performance charts showing the

relationship between discharge, pressure, and wetted

diameter plus recommended operating pressure ranges.

12. A set of drill bits ranging in size from 3/64- to 1/4-inch

in diameter in increments of 1/64-inch makes a handy set

of feeler gauges to check nozzle wear.

Field
procedure

The information obtained from the following field procedure should

be entered in a data sheet similar to Form II-1.

1. Choose a location along a lateral for the test. It may be

either a single location at which the pressure is typical (or average)

for the entire system, or two locations near the ends of a lateral

to permit study of effects of differences in pressure. Loss of

pressure due to friction in a lateral that has only one size of pipe

is such that about half of the pressure loss occurs in the first 20

percent of the length and over 80 percent of the pressure loss occurs

in the first half of the lateral's length. (See Figure 11-6.) On a

flat field the most representative pressure is at about 40 percent of

the distance from the inlet to the terminal end.

When pressure varies greatly within the system, selection of

sampling locations should represent the full range of operating

pressures encountered. Pressure variation, spacing of sprinklers,

and size of nozzles all affect DU. (See Figure 11-7.)

2. Set out at least 24 catch containers (See pattern in Figure

11-8.) on a grid having a spacing not to exceed 10- by 10-foot for

testing along a single lateral line. The catch containers' pattern

should be laid out to cover two adjacent areas between three sprinklers

since sprinklers may not apply water at precisly uniform rates.

Each catch container is assumed to give the representative depth of

catch over the square having the same dimensions as the can spacing

in which it is centered. (See dotted grid lines in Figure 11-8.)

30

 /00

8Average pressure-head line

60

40

20

0 l il I
0 20 40 60 80 /00
Length of lateral % of total -

Figure 11-6. Loss of pressure due to friction along a lateral having

only one size of pipe.

90

9/64-inch, 30 ft x 50 ft
80­
" 30ft x 60 ft
,-nc.

IQ­

70­
• 51132-inch, 30Offt x 60 fft

• 60­

50 I I I I
30 40 50 60 70 80

Pressure - psi -

Figure 11-7. Variations in DU for various pressures, move distances,

and nozzle sizes in steady state, 5 mph winds blowing
at a 450 angle to the sprinkler layout.

31

 f,.eterol line
/

I / - IiS..--Outer edge of

Srinler / wetted area

I I-
. -- - - ,
/
I
I 'o , _ -,

/ /

o 9' 0 0 0 0 0 / /o\ 0 0
$ -- -< 0 0 o--Catch contoiner
o / 0 0 0

I I - -- I - -4 - /

o\ o' o o 0 o ,o I/o\ 0 0

o QI % 0 0 o.0--- 6 0 0 0
-- -I---
/
"

/\/

I\/
I
j
-\-- -- /
\
/
\ /

\ /

118

aot
Fiur x / th
fcthcotiesfotn
unfrmt

for testing the uniformity

Figure "r1-8.
Layout of catch cont~ainers
of distribution along a sprinkler lateral line.

32

 adjacent

Fir solid set or

block move systems where several
should be

laterals operate simultaneou3ly, the catch containers

Caution should

placed in the area between two adjacent laterals.

for any water that could enter the test

be exercised co
allcw
tests cannot be used

container area from adjacent blocks.

These
to study ether lateral spacings.

foot of its correct

Each container should be located within a

an upright position with its top

grid position and set carefully in

vegetation that would

parallel to the ground; any surrounding

removed.
When it is windy, it

interfere with a container should be

short stakes with rubber

may be necessary to fasten containers to (which

of water or a

stone
bands, and weight them with a known depth or

shown after the catch);

is later subtracted from the
total depth
accurate means for

they may be set in shallow holes. The most

,.an be achieved volumetrically by using a

measuring the catch

be converted
to depths

graduated cylinder.
These ieasurements can
For 1-quart oil cans,

if the area of the conLainer opening is known.

catch containers

200 ml corresponds to
1.00 inch depth.
Other suitable
freezer containers with sides

may ba square or cylindrical plastic

similar container.

tapered slightly for nesting or any

and the ratio of

Determine and record the container grid spacing

of the lateral

volume to depth of catch. Also indicate the position

the sprinklers on the

ana record the location and position numbers of

lateral. (See Form I-1, part 10.)

Determine the soil texture profile and fAD;

then estimate

3.
zone and check the

the available soil moisture capacity in the

root
that was not

SAID in the catch area on the side of

the lateral
should be recorded

irrigated during the previous set.

These values
in parts 2 and 3.

and

4. Check and record the make and model of

the sprinkler
the diameter of the nozzles.

and frequency

5.
Obtain the normal sprinkler spacing, duration,
The standard way

of irrigation from the operator and record them.

- by __-foot; this

of expressing the sprinkler grid spacing is

spacing on the lateral and the spacing

indicates the sprinkler

between laterals in that order.

pressure,

6.
Read and record the rated sprinkler discharge,
rate from the system design

the computed average design application

data and manufacturer's sprinkler catalogs.

pipe and

7. Check and record the size and slope of

the lateral
the height and erectness of the risers.

33

 8. Before starting the test, stop the rotation of the sprinklers

at the test site to prevent water from entering the containers. A

short piece of wire or stick wedged behind the swinging arm facilitates

this.

Turn on the water to fill the lateral lines. When the test

lateral is full, turn the pressure up slowly to observe the trajectory,

breakup of drops, and effect of wind at different pressures. Then

set the pressure at the value desired for the

test.

Measure and record the pressure at the sprinklers to be tested

at several places along the line and at both ends to observe the

differences in pressure. Pressures should be checked at both the

beginning and end of the test period and recorded in part 8.

When

measuring sprinkler pressures (Figure 11-4), the pitot tube must be

centered in the jet, which must impinge diyectly onto its tip.
The

tip may be rocked slightly. Record the highest pressure reading

shown while the pitot tube is being held about 1/8 inch from the

sprinkler nozzle.

Also in part 8,record how long it takes each sprinkler in this

test area to fill the large container of known volume. Do this by

slipping the short length of hose over

the sprinkler nozzle and

collecting the flow in the container (Figure 11-5). To improve

accuracy, measure
the nozzle output several times and compute the

average. (If the sprinkler has two nozzles, each can be measured

separately with one hose.)

Often the measured sprinkler discharge

rate is greater than what the manufacturer specified at the given

pressure. This occurs because sprinkler nozzles often erode during

use and become enlarged, or because the hose fits

too tightly and

creates a syphoning action.

You can check nozzle erosion with a

feeler gauge such as a drill bit that has the diameter specified

for the nozzle.

9. Note the wind speed and direction and record the wind

direction in part 9 by drawing an arrow relative to

the direction of

water flow in the lateral.

10. Empty all catch containers before starting the test;

start

the test by releasing all sprinklers surrounding the test site so

they are free to rotate and note the starting time in part 10.

11. Set outside the catchment area a container holding the

anticipated amount of catch to approximately check the volume of water

lost by evaporation. (See Form II-1 part 10.)

12. While the test is in progress, check sprinkler pressures at

20 to 40 systematically selected locations on other laterals (for

34

exampleat the two ends and quarter points along each lateral) and

in

record the maximum, minimum, and average pressures encountered

part 12.

13. Terminate the

test by either stopping the sprinklers

not

surrounding the test site in a position such that the jets do

fall into the containers, or by deflecting the jets to
the ground.

water.

Note the time, check and record the pressure, and turn off the
to be equal to the

It is most desirable for duration of the test

duration of an irrigation to get the full effect of win! and evapo­
of

ration. Ideally minii.um duration tests should apply an average

about 0.5 inches of water in the containers.

Measure the depth of water

in all the containers and observe

whether they are still upright; note any abnormally low or high

catches. As shown in part 10, caught depths or volumes are recorded

above the line at the proper grid point, which is located ;relative

to the sprinkler and direction of flow in the pipe line.

For long

runs, where maximum depths exceed 2.0 inches, a measuring stick

provides suitable accuracy up to + 0.1 inch.

Utilization of field data

Convert the depths or

volumes of water caught in the containers

to rates and record them (iph) below the line on the data sheet part

10. Assuming that the test is representative and that the next set

would give identical results, the right-hand side of the catch

pattern may, as if it were a subsequent set, be overlapped (or super­

imposed) on the left-hand side to simulate different lateral spacings.

For lateral spacings that are whole units of the container spacings,

the summation of the catches of

the two sets represents a complete

irrigation (Figure 11-9 illustrates overlapping). For very close

lateral spacingswater may overlap from as

many as four lateral

positions. The above concept of overlapping is not suggested where

winds are likely to change appreciably between subsequent lateral

sets. It is most valid for 24-hour sets.

Distribution Uniformity

In order to determine whether sprinklers are operating at accept­

able efficiency, the DU should be evaluated.
(See Chapter I, page 11.)

The DU is based on the average rate or depth recorded for the lowest

one-fourth of the catch locations; henceabout 1/8 of the area may

actually have received slightly less water. If an individual low

value was due to a poor field measurement, perhaps no area actually

received less.
if the average low quarter depth infiltrated just

matches the SMD, the percent of the infiltrated water going too deep

would be approximately equal to 100 - DU.

35

 Lateral set Lateral Set

A U
50 feet .1
S6 0 i 6
S6 0.10 0.21 0.24 0.28 6
0.23 0.21 0.03 .
0.23 0.3 / 0.24 0.24 0.2e
(0.03) (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
- - - 0.// 0.21 0.26 0.i/
0.3/ 0.16

LIP

0.0/ 0
0.3/ 0.27 0.22 0.26 0.3/
Q. (0.05) (o.o/) (0.04) (0.00) (0.05)
0.10 0.16 0.22 0.32
0.3/ 0.45 0.04
0.3/ 0.25 0.20 0.2z 0.32
(0.05) (0.0/) (0.06) (0.04) (0.06))s5
( ) Deviation from averoge

Figure 11-9.
Combined catch pattern iph between sprinklers
5 and 6

for a 50-foot lateral spacing.

Figure 11-9 shows the data gathered between sprinklers

5 and 6

from Form II-1 overlapped to simulate a 50-foot lateral

spacing.

The sprinklers were spaced 30 feet apart on

the lateral;
thus the

sprinkler spacing is referred to

as a 30- by 50-foot
spacing. The

right side catch is added to

the left side catch;
the totals at each

point represent a complete 1.0-hour irrigation for

a 30- by 50-foot

spacing. For the simulated 50-foot lateral spacing

Ithe total catch

at all 15 grid points is 3.97 which gives:

Average catch rate =- .9 = 0.26 iph

15

The average of the lowest one-quarter of the catch

rates
(use 4 out

of 15) is:

Average low quarter rate = 0.20 + 0.22 + 0.22 + 0.23iph

36

and

DU = 0.22 X 100 = 84%

0.26

Repeating the above procedure for a 40-foot lateral spacing gives:

12 = 0.33 iph

Average catch rate = 3.97

Average low quarter catch rate = 0.27 iph

0.33
X 100 = 82%
DU = 0.27

for the

In the 50-foot lateral spacing, DU was slightly better than

rate is

40-foot spacing.
However, the accuracy of the application
the accuracy of the DU value is no

to the nearest 0.01 iph; thus

better than + 3%.

Alternate sets.
It is usually desirable to use alternate sets

in which the lateral line is always placed midway between the

in

positions used during the preceding irrigation. This results

is the
same

a DU for the complete cycle of two irrigations which

as if all moves were one-half the normal distance. Figure II-10

shows the combined catch overlapped to simulate a 60-foot move.

The total catch in the 18 cans was

3.97 as before, giving:

iph
18 = 0.22
Average catch rate = 3.97

Average low quarter rate

= 0.12 + 0.13 + 0.14 + 0.15 = 0.14 iph

DU = 0.14 X 100 = 64%

0.22

Figure II-11 shows the right half

(3 columns) of Figure II-10 super-

imposed on the left to simulate two irrigations with 60-foot moves

offset halfway, i.e., 30 ft. Since both sides of

the new pattern

are identical, only 30 feet of the pattern needs to be computed from

the already combined values for the 30- by 60-foot spacing shown in

37

 Loteral set Laterol set

A 8

60 feet

S6 0.10 0.21 0.24 0.26

0.23 0.21 0.03 _

0.23 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.24 0.28

... ... 0./1 0.21 0.26 0.31

0.31 0.16 0.0/

0.31 0.16 0.12 0.2/ 0.26 0.31

0.
0.3/1 - -
0.15 0
0.04
0.10 0.16 0.22
... 0.32

0.31 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.22 0"32

S 5 tot 5

Figure II-10. Combined pattern (iph) between sprinklers 5 and 6

for a 60-foot lateral spacing.

Figure II-10. The data in Figure II-11 represent the catch from two

1-hour sets. Again, the total catch in the 9 cans for two irrigations

is 3.97, giving:

Average catch rate = 3 = 0.44 in/2 hrs

9

Average low quarter rate 0.37 + 0.42 = 0.40 in/2 hrs

2

DU = 4 X .700 = 91%
0.44

Note that the simple management program of alternate sets using

a 60-foot lateral spacing improved the DU from a low of 64% for a

38

 I Irrigation 2 Irrigation

Lateral set Lateral set

A B

60feet/2

S6 S
0.23 0.2 1 0.13
0.21 0.24 0.28
0.44 0. 45 0.41

0.31 0.16 0.12

0.2/ 0.26 0.31 lb

0.52 0.42 0.43

0.31 0.15 0.14

0.16 0.22 0.32
0. 47 0.37 0.46 I
S5 ts5 '

Figure II-i. Combined catch pattern (inches in 2 hours) between

sprinklers 5 and 6 for a 60-foot lateral spacing

offset 30 feet for a second irrigation.

single irrigation to 91% for the sum of two irrigations. The alter­
nate set procedure does not prevent an inadequate irrigation depth

between the laterals. This inadequate depth may excessively stress

the crop during the intervals between the two full irrigations.

However, moderate underirrigation in the mid-area is not detrimental

if adequate moisture is applied in the upper portion of the root

zone and if irrigations are frequent.

Coefficient of Uniformity

A common way to evaluate sprinkler uniformity is the UC, a

statistical representation of the catch pattern. When expressed as

a percentage, it is calculated by:

39

uc= (i - average deviation from the average catch ) X 100

average catch

From Figdre 11-9 for the 50-foot lateral spacing and a 1.0-hour

irrigation, the summation of the deviations from the average catch

rate of 0.26 iph is 0.51. For the 15 grid points, the average

deviation is 0.51 divided by 15 and it follows that:

UC = (1.0 - 0.51 15 ) X 100 = 87%

0.26

Applying DU and UC

The DU is computed by using the average rate or depth of catch

in the low quarter of the pattern. UC computed from the same data

would be considerably higher, since it is more nearly related to the

average depth in the low half of the pattern. The average statistical

relationship in percentages between UC and DU is shown in the follow­

ing list:

UC DU
UC PU

98 97
80 69

96 94 76 62

92 87
72 55

88 81
68 49

84 76
64 43

To achieve high values of uniformity, close sprinkler spacings

are usually required. In general, the closer the sprinkler spacings,

the more expencive the system costs.

For high value crops, especially

those having shallow roots, the most economizal systems usually

operate at high uniformities, i.e., DU greater than 80% (or UC

greater than 87%). For typical field crops having medium root depths

in medium textured soils, the most economical uniformity normally

ranges between a DU of 70 and 80% (a UC between 81 and 87%).

For

deep rooted orchard and forage crops growing where the quantity of

supplemental rainfall is substantial, the most economic uniformity is

often relatively low--in the range of DU between 55 and 75%

(a UC

between 72 and 83%).

40

Potential Application Efficiency

The PELQ should be determined in order to evaluate how effect­

ively the system can utilize the water supply and what the total
losses may be. Then the total amount of water required to irrigate
the field fully can be estimated. Rates rather th'u depths should
be used for computing PEFL' of sprinkler systems to _.roid confusion
with AELQ.

The PET7Q is always a little lower than the PU of a sprinkle

irrigation system because the average water applied (which is the

denominator for PELQ) is larger than the average water caught (which

is the denominator for 'U). (The numerator for both PELQ and DU is
the average low quarter depth of catch, see Chapter 1, pages 11 and

12.) The difference between the average water applied and the water

caught or received is an approximation of losses due to evaporation

and drift plus loss of water due to some of the area's being

ungauged ard some evaporation from the gauge cans. The PELQ indicates

how well the :ested sprinklers are able to operate if they are run
the correct length of time to satisfy the SM? or M4P. It is there­
fore a measure of the best management can do and should be thought
of as the potential of the system within the limit that the test
represents the whole field.

The average rate of water application, ! , in iph is computed from

the sprinkler discharge in gpm and the sprinkler and lateral line
spacings in feet. (See page 25.) From Form II-I part 8, the

average discharge of the sprinklers tested was 4.6 gpm, but the

catalog rating on the sprinkler at the operating pressure of 40 psi

is 4.4 gpm. Therefore, the average application rate for the 30­
by 50-foot spacing that was being used was:

96.3 X 4.6 = 0.30 ,

30 X 50

For the area between sprinklers 5 and 6 and a 30- by 50-foot

spacing, where the average catch in the low quarter of

the cans

was 0.22 iph:

PELQ =0.22 X 100 = 73%

Table II-1 summarizes computations for DU, UC, and PELQ for

four typical lateral spacings, for the area between sprinklers 5

and 6 and the area between sprinklers 4 and 5, computed as above

from the data in Form II-1 parts 8 and 10.

41
 Table II-1.
DU, VC and PELQ of four standard
sprinkler spacings for

areas between sprinklers 5 and 6 and sprinklers

4 and 5.

Sprinkler spacing (feet)

Test area
criteria 30 X 40 30 X 50 30 X 60 30 X 60
alt.
Area between sprinklers 5 and 6
DU 81 84 64 91
UC 87 87 75 93
PELQ 73 73 56 81

Area between sprinklers 4 and 5

DU
79 76
50 82

UC
86 88
70 91

PELQ
70 67 44
72

Comparison of percentage values in Table II-1

illustrates the

problem of choosing a typical or minimum s re.

Some other sites in

the field undoubtedly were poorer and

some were
better than the

tested site; therefore, computed efficiencies

are not universally

applicable, but they are useful for evaluating

the system.

Pressure variations throughout the system cause

the overall

efficiency of the system to be lower than the

efficiency in the test

area.
An estimate of the efficiency reduction,
yR?, can be computed

from the maximum, minimum, and average system

pressures by:

ER = 0.2 X maximwn pressure-minimwn pressure

average system pressure

The ratio of the average low quarter sprinkler

discharges to the

average sprinkler discharge in the system is approximately

1.0-ER.
Therefore, the system PELQ can be approximated equal to

by:

System PELQ = (1.0 -

ER) X Test PELQ

42

 the test PELQ of 73%:

Using the data on Form II-1 part 12

and

45-39=.0
ER = 0.2 X ­ = 0.03

40

and

System PELQ = (1.0 - 0.03) X 73% = 71"

is relativeiy small and

For this evaluation, the pressure variation

efficiency.

only had a minor affect on

the overall
Application Efficiency

system can be deter-

Effectiveness of
use of a given sprinkler
is stored in the soil and

mined from how much of the applied water

uniformly it is applied. When­
available for consumptive
use and how
the SMD in the least watered

ever the irrigation exactly satisfies

is applied, much of it may

areasAELQ = ?E..
But if
excess water
would result in an AELQ

percolate too deeply and be

lost; this
(The DU and PELQ values are not

considerably less
than the PELQ.

affected by the depth of water applied.)

not rates,

The units for calculating AELQ are in

terms of depths, equals

exceed the SID, which

because the maximum deptn stored cannot I, pp. 11 and 12.)

(See Chapter
the depth of water that can be stored.
the normal irrigation

For the
test used in the example above,
hours.
With the 30- by 50-foot spacing the

continued for 23.5

and the total average depth

average application rate was 0.30 iph

applied, D, was:

D = 0.30 X 23.5 = 7.0 in

i.e.,
the application rate

The minimum rate caught was 0.22 iph,

the minimum depth

times PELQ, 0.30 iph X 73%/100. Therefore,

infiltrated, Dn was:

= 0.22 X 23.5 = 5.2 in

2.2 inches of available

It was determined that the soil holds about

of the root
zone was 4.0 feet

moisture per foot of soil depth; depth

43

 at that time, and a 50% MAD, which would not excessively

stress the

crop, was considered acceptable. (See Form II-1, parts 2 and 3.)

At the time of irrigation, SMD was checked and found

to be at the

desired deficiency of 2.2 inches X 4.0 feet X 50%

= 4.4
inches. The

sprinklers as tested were applying 5.2 inches in 23.5

hours, which

was more than enough since the amount stored cannot be

greater than

the existing SAID. This gave:

LQ 7.0

= .x X 10 =6%

which was considerably less than the PELQ of 73%;

it
could have been

improved by shortening the application time so

that PELQ
would equal

AELQ. However, if the roots continue to go deeper, MAD

may increase

to 5.2 inches and AELQ would then equal PELQ.

For the
true picture

of water use efficiency as applied to the field, a further

reduction

from 2 to 5% should be allowed for line losses due to

filling and

draining the laterals

and losses due to leakage from
pipe couplers

and sprinklers. For this

test the system ALEQ would
be about 60%.

The same reduction should also be applied to

the PELQ.

Analysis and recommendations

Several observations and recommendations can be based

on the

information recorded on the Sprinkler-Lateral Irrigation

Evaluation

Data Sheet, Form ll-1, the computations summarized in

Table II-1,

and the value of AELQ.

The pressures along the lateral line are very uniform

because

the ground, which slopes down at

1 1/2% for 420 feet,
drops 6 feet;

this slope compeinsates for much of the loss of pressure

due to

friction.
Therefore, the efficiency reduction-due to
pressure

variation was also small, i.e., only 3%.

The typical sprinkler location on the lateral can be

assumed to

be between sprinklers 4, 5, and 6 because the pressure

is very

uniform. These sprinklers were not tested at other pressures

although

such tests might have shown a pressure change would

be desirable.

(see Figure 11-7.) Since the

test was brief and since longer tests

usually produce'higher DU and PELQ values, except when

a sprinkler

is defective, the higher vlues for the area between

sprinklers 5

and 6 (Table II-1) were used.

Water losses.
Water lost from causes other than deep
percolation

is indicated by the differences between the average rates

applied and

rates caught. The lost water includes drift and other

losses in the

44

 areas, and evaporation and other

air, water falling on ungauged

losses from the droplets as

losses from the containers. Evaporation

to humidity, air and water

they pass through the air are related

of drops.
Such losses typically

temperature, wind speed, and size to

less at night. Drift is related

range between 2 and 15%
and are
zero and 5%.

normally range between

wind velocity and drop size and
seldom coincides with the line

The fact that the wetted perimeter

results in an average can catch

midway between grid points typically

that is about 2% low.

containers can exceed 0.4 inches

Evaporation from the open catch the edge

percentage of the catch along
per day. It
can be a greater is deeper

the sprinklers where the catch

of the pattern than from near
The volume of
more on the outside.
and the containers are
also wet water loss from a

by the
this evaporation loss can be approximated earlier.
Clouds,

test area as described

container set adjacent to the
all

color and material, and time of day

wind, humidity, container from the con­
evaporation losses
have major effects on the direct
tainers.

the depths of

WThen
using the volumetric procedure to determine
evaluation,
some water clings to

catch, as was done for the sample

The fact that some of
the

the
can walls and remains unmeasured.

catch more or
less than their share

containers may be tipped and thus

measurements.

also adds to
the inaccuracy of
to measure precisely both the

Since it is impractical to try

the amount of water unaccounted

water applied and the water caught,

the 30- by 50-foot area between

for is only an approximation.

For
rate caught was 0.26 iph and the

sprinklers 5 and 6, the average

Therefore the
rate unaccounted

average rate applied was 0.30 iph.

X 100 =
13%. Accuracy of these

for was 0.04 iph or (0.04/0.30)

the evaporation container for the

measurements, as well as
that from =
0.03 iph, was such

1.58 hours
short test, i.e.,
0.05 inch in
accounts for almost the entire

that the evaporation from the container

part 11.)

computed loss.
(See Form II-1,
in operation of the system

Improvements.
Several improvements
may not be practical or economical.

may be considered even

though some
being used achieves acceptably

The move distance of 50 feet now

is more than 80%.
(The corresponding

uniform distribution, since DU

is also considered reasonable.)

value of UC, which is more

than 87%,
reduced to less than

1. The duration of irrigation can be

23.5 hours.

45

 2. The rate of application can be reduced to obtain the

desired duration and depth relation by either reducing pressure or

using smaller nozzles. These changes affect DU and PELQ and would

require further testing.

Pressures can be reduced by throttling, which may save water

unless DU becomes much lower; but throttling usually does not reduce

cost of power. However, changing the speed of the pump or

the

diameter of the impeller may save both water and power.

Use of smaller nozzles may require a change in pressure. For

example: a 9/64-inch nozzle at 45 psi delivers 3.7 gpm and applies

an average of 0.24 iph on a 30- by 50-foot spacing. With a PELQ of

77%, the system applies a minimum of 4.4 inches ini

23.5 hours.

However, a test would be needed

to check the PELQ.

3. The AELQ could be improved by lengthening the interval

between irrigations so that the SMD at which irrigation is applied is

5.2 inches.
MAD would then be 60% instead of 50% as previously

chosen.
For many crops this would be the most practical answer; it

would save both water and labor and would not result in a detrimental

stress.

4. A 60-foot lateral move with alternate sets would be

appreciably more efficient than the 30- by 50-foot spacing now used

(ie., from Table II-1, PELQ

= 81% rather than 73%). The 60-foot

move would also reduce labor by nearly 20%. Alternate set irrigation

usually improves DU and PELQ, but unless the number of hours of

operation islorrespondingly reduced or MAD is increased, AELQ would

not improve.-

Adjusting the duration of irrigation. The optimum duration of

irrigation, Ti, will just replace the SMD of 4.4 inches.

Since the

average low quarter application rate for the 50-foot lateral spacing

is 0.22 iph; Ti would be 4.4/0.22 = 20 hours. The change to a 20­

hour operation from 23.5 hours may be accomplished easily by turning

-/ By using the 60-foot move the average application rate would

be reduced to 0.25 iph, and by alternate sets the AELQ would be

increased to 81% giving a full irrigation of 4.4 inches in 22 hours,

i.e., 0.25 X 22 X 81%/100 = 4.4 in. Although the original MAD could

be increased to 5.2 inches only 4.8 inches could be applied in a

maximum 2.35-hour set. Therefore, the irrigation interval could

be increased only slightly to further reduce labor.

Water would be

saved by having the higher PELQ and irrigating to just replace the

SMD.

46

 flow is

the system off; however, it may be impractical if a constant

On some

being delivered from a ditch and no reservoir is available.

may be installed.

installations, an automatic time-activated cutoff

day operation is used it may be practical

Where less than 24 hours per

a windy period or high losses

to schedule the shut-off time to avoid

from evaporation during midday.

Summary of full evaluation

by the

The test area was

typical of the whole area irrigated
the line.
Further­
lateral because pressures were very uniform along
was typical for the

more, the lateral on which the

test was conducted
9/64-inch nozzles

whole system.
Tests at lower pressures or with
the second improvement described

would be desirable for evaluating

above.

measurements of

Since duration of the test was

only 1.58 hours,
obtaiat acceptable

depth were calculated from volumetric data to

accuracy.

values for

Two adjacent test areas gave significantly different

DU., UC, and PELQ.

area and

The DU and PELQ were reasonably high cn the tested

indicated that the system could provide efficient irrigation.

low as could

Water losses under the test condition were about as

be expected.

23.5-hour

For the desired MAD of 4.4 inches,

the designed
This may be

duration was too

long and resulted in a low AELQ.
corrected by:

1. Operating only 20 hours.

or

2.
Reducing nozzle size and rechecking DU and PELQ
pressure, which probably would result

operating at a lower
in a low DU and PELQ and certainly should be re-evaluated.

be

3. Increasing the MAD to 5.2 inches (60%), which should

acceptable for the mature tomato crop.

both

4. Using 60-foot alternate set moves, which would save

labor and water, should be the first choice if practical.

Field variations and inaccuracies in measurement, particularly

of SMD, do not result in high accuracy. However, the field

47

evaluation and analytical technique presented above are useful for

revealing problems of system design and management.

Supplemental evaluation

In addition to checking the AELQ and ways for improving it, an

economic study of the operation may also be valuable. Where pressure

is created by pumping, the loss of pressure in the pipe lines and/or

the cost of producing higher pressure to increase capacity may be

uneconomical. A general rule of thumb that assures good uniformity

but not necessarily good economics, requires that the loss of

pressure due to friction and elevation in the lateral be less than

20% of the average design pressures. This results in about 10% range

in sprinkler discharge rates and an average sprinkler discharge rate

about 2 to 4% greater than the low quarter of the sprinkler discharge

rates. For laterals having only one pipe size, the lateral inlet

pressure should be the designed pressure plus three-fourths of the

pressure difference due to friction loss (see Figure 11-6) less

one-half of the elevation difference for downhill or plus one-half

for uphill laterals.

The following example illustrates the economics of considering a

larger diameter lateral pipe. Data recorded in Form II-1 show the

inlet pressure was 45 psi, and all other tested pressures were very

close to the desired 40 psi for the 2-inch lateral line tested. A

study comparing the pressure losses in a 3-inch pipe shows that the

inlet pressure would be 39 psi, and the pressure along the line and
at the end vould average 40 psi because the downward slope more than
compensates "or friction losses. The economic value of the 45 - 39 = 6
psi savings in terms of reduced power costs should be compared with
the increased annual cost for ownership of the larger pipe. Also
the more uniform pressure would save a little water. The same
principle can be applied to pressure loss along the main line.

The problem of achieving uniform watering along the boundaries

of fields can often be solved by tipping sprinklers outward. Since

a sprinkler system depends on overlap to apply an adequate depth of

water between lines, the depth usually applied along the edge of

fields, where there is no overlap, is inadequate. In established

cropsthe sprinkler range may be reduced and water concentrated along

the edge of the field by tipping the risers to shorten the distance

of throw. On the end of the lateral, the last sprinkler can be set

back about one-fourth of its throw diameter from the downstream

boundary, and the riser can be bent downstream. Along the edges of

the field parallel to the laterals, the whole line must be tipped

(or rolled) outward. This should be done only for fields where

established crops are growing because the increased jet impact caused

by the tipping could damage young seedlings.

48

 throughout the pipeline

Since differences in pressure exist

be provided at each lateral inlet,

network, adjustable valves should

set to the desired value.
Where

and the inlet pressure should be of

in a lateral are too large because

maximum variations of pressure may be installed in the risers

topography, flow or
pressure regulators of flow for all sprinklers.

rate
to establish a relatively uniform
usually occur close to the

Maximum average rates of application may be elsewhere.

The

depth
sprinklers, but the maximum combined the move distance, should not

not vary with

maximum rate, which does
Sometiies, where runoff is a problem,

exceed the rate of soil intake.

increasing the operating pressure.

infiltration can be improved by

jet and thus reduces the instantaneous

This spreads and breaks up the be

The average application rate will

application rate and drop size. If

promote better infiltration.

slightly increased but it will

is impractical or unworkable, nozzle

increasing the operating pressure more

irrigations must be briefer and

sizes must be reduced; otherwise,
frequent.

49

 CHAPTER III

PERFORATED PIPE SPRINKLE IRRIGATION

Perforated pipe sprinkle irrigation almost became obsolete for

agricultural irrigation but it continued to be widelv used for home

lawn systems. Because of the recent concerns about a-ilability and

cost of energy, interest in perforated pipe, overlapped hose-fed

sprinkler grid, (see Chapter II), and orchard systems (see Chapter

IV) has revived. They afford a means of very-low-pressure (5 to 20

psi) sprinkle irrigation. Often gravity pressure (produced by the

difference in elevation between the water supply and irrigated area)

is sufficient to operate the system without pumps. Furthermore,

inexpensive low-pressure pipe (such as unreinforced concrete and

thin-wall plastic or asbestos cement) can be used to distribute the

water.,

Perforated pipe systems spray water from 1/16-inch diameter or

smaller holes drilled at uniform distances along the top and sides of

a lateral pipe. The holes are sized and spaced so as to apply water

reasonably uniformly between adjacent lines of perforated pipeline.

The water issues from the holes and produces a rain-like application

over a rectangular strip (see Figure III-1). Each hole emits a jet of

water, which in rising and falling breaks up into small drops that

are spread over the irrigated area by air turbulence. The spread,

which ranges from 25 to 50 feet, increases as pressure increases.

Such systems can operate effectively at pressures between 5 and 30

psi; they can be used only on soils having high capacities for

infiltration such as loamy sands and coarser textured soils.

Full evaluation of perforated pipe systems requires elaborate

catch containers which completely cover the soil surface across the

wetted strip several feet along the perforated pipe line. (Representa­
tive samples cannot be obtained by using small containers.) Such

catch containers must be of special construction and are too

cumbersome for practical field use (although they can be inexpensively

constructed of wood and plastic sheet).

Fortunately, simple evaluation techniques only slightly more

complicated than those described for the overlapped sprinkler grid

systems can identify fairly basic problems or errors in design,

operation, and management of perforated pipe systems. This chapter

on evaluating performance of perforated pipe systems assumes some

understanding of Chapter II for "Sprinkler-Lateral Irrigation."

51
Figure III-i. Perforated pipe lateral in operation.

Evaluation

For the evaluation of a perforated

pipe system, the following

infoimation is required at the inlet,

middle, and end of a typical

perforated pipeline:

1. Duration of normal irrigations.

2. Pressure at
the pipeline perforations
throughout the system.

3. Rate of unit length discharge.

4.
Uniformity and width of the wetted
strip of jet trajectory.

5. Hole size and extent of clogging.

6.
MAD and 574D.

7. Uniformity of SMD between adjacent

line settings.

52

 sets and between hole

8.
Spacing between perforated pipeline

pattern sequences along the pipeline.

9. Additional data required on Form III-1.

enab.es estima­
General study of the data obtained in the field
and adequacy of duiation

tion of uniformity, irrigation efficiency,

of the uniformity

of irrigation.
Further study enables determination the

and/or alternate sets,

and economics of the pipeline spacings the

perforated laterals,
economics of pipe sizes used for mains and durations

and other
desirability of using other operating pressures
adequacy of screening.

of application, the effect of wind, and

Equipment needed

The equipment the evaluator needs is:

attachment. (See

1.
A pressure gauge (0-30 psi) with pitot
Figure 11-4.)

2. A bucket or 1-gallon Jug.

second hand.

3. A stopwatch or watch with an easily visible

a 16-ounce liquid measuring

4.
A 500-ml graduated cylinder or
cup (with 1-ounce marks).

spacing and width of the

5.
A tape measure to check the hole
wetted patterns-

6.
A soil probe or soil auger.

tin or aluminum and/or

7. A 2-foot square sheet of

lightweight
flexible hose
(see

a 2- to 4-foot length of
small diameter
handy items when

Figure 11-5) are optional but may be

measuring discharge.

for the bucket when

8.
A shovel for digging a depression
profiles, root,

measuring discharge, or checking soil

and water penetration.

charts that show

9. Manufacturer's perforated pipe performance

pressure, and width of

the relations between discharge,

wetted strip.

drill bits to use as

10.
A set of 1/32-, 3/64- and 1/16-inch
feeler gauges­

53

 Form III-1. PERFORATED PIPE SPRINKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location FZorida Observer JK Date Oct 29, 75

2. Crop Citrus , Root zone depth 6 ft, MAD 75 %, MAD 4.0
in

3. Soil: Texture sandy , available moisture 1.0 in/ft, SMD 3.5in

4. Perforated pipe:
make AMES , type C , hole diameter 3/64- in

5. Perforated lateral pipe spacing 40 ft, Irrigation duration 54 hrs

6. Rated pipeline discharge 40 gpm/100 ft at 10 psi giving 0.96in/hr

7. Pipe: diameter 3 .Oin,

material Alwninwn, length 300 ft, slope 0 %

8. Holes per pattern sequence 7 , Pattern sequence interval 2.5 ft

9. Wind: direction arrow relative

to pipe flow direction - _ Initial Final

speed (mph) Initial 0-2 Final 2-5

10. Actual pipeline performance:

Discharge estimates from 4 holes per pattern sequence and

measured in OZ (3785 ml = 1.0 gal, 128 oz = 1.0 gal)

Position along perforated pipeline

Inlet Middle End

11. Pressure (psi)

13 10 10 diff 3
12. Wetted width: total (ft) 41 39 40 ave 40

upwind (ft) 20 17 19

downwind (ft) 21 22 21

13. Jet trajectory: length (ft) 13 12 12

uniformity good good good

alignment good pipet.ped o

Holes clogged or eroded new pipe, holes are clean and sharp

14. Catch: volume (oz) 136 122

118

volume (gal) 1.06 0.95 0.92

time (seconds) 100 100 100

Ave. discharge: gpm/hole 0.16 0.14 0.14

gpm/ft 0.45 0.40 0.40

ave 0.42

15. Discharge pressures: max 14 psi, min 9 psi, ave 10 psi

16. Comments: No runoff after full irrigation. Checks with augr

revealed a 2- to 3-foot wide dry srip midway between pipeline

positions. There was much tree interference. The tree row spacing
is 20 feet.

54

 11. A rain suit or swimming suit (depending on temperature and

personal preference) is recommended since it is difficult

to keep clothing dry during the evaluation.

12. Form III-1 for recording data.

Field procedure

The information obtained from the following field procedure

should be entered on a data sheet similar to Form III-1.

1. Choose a location at the middle of an average lateral for

the test and fill in parts 1, 2, and 3 of Form III-1 concerning the

crop and soil moisture characteristics of the field.

2. Determine and record the make and type of perforated pipe

and the diameter of the holes in part 4. If the hole diameter is not

given by the manufacturer, use the drill bits as feeler gauges to

determine it.

3. Obtain the normal perforated lateral pipe spacing and

duration of irrigation from the operator and record them in part 5.

4. Obtain the rated lateral discharge and pressure from the

system design data and manufacturer's performance charts and compute

the average design application rate and record them in part 6. To

compute the average design application rate, R, in iph, use the

discharge per 1-foot unit length of pipe, line spacing, and the

following formula:

= iph
line length
R = 96.3 X unit (feet)
(gpm/ft)
spacingdischarge

5. Check and record (in part 7) the size, material, length,

and slope of the perforated pipeline.

6. In perforated pipe irrigation laterals, the holes are

drilled in a standard pattern, and the pattern sequence is repeated

at precise intervals along the length of the pipeline. (Figure 111-2

shows a typical hole layout using seven holes per pattern sequence.)

Check and record (in part 8) the number of holes per pattern sequence

and the spacing between pattern sequences along the pipeline.

7. Note the speed and direction of wind. Record the wind

direction as shown in part 9 by drawing an arrow relative to the

direction of water flow in the lateral. If an anemometer is not

available, estimate the wind speed as 0-2 mph if almost calm, 2-5

mph if slightly breezy, 5-10 mph if breezy, and above 10 mph if windy.

55

 Repeat pattern every 30 inches

45 in 55in+ ? 5~inA
7

3/64-inch ho/es drilled

perpendicular to
pipe wo/I
40 0
" Angle of widest
00 separated ho/es

Sec. A -A \

Figure 111-2.
Top view of typical
perforated pipe having 7-hole

pattern sequence every 30 inches.

8. Turn on the water to fill the lateral

lateral is full,
turn the pressure line. When the test

up slowly
to observe the trajectory,

breakup of drops and the effect of

wind at different pressures. Then

set
the pressure at the desired operating
value.
Operating character­
istics of the perforated pipelines
should be checked at
the inlet,

midpoint, and end of the line.

9.
Use the pressure gauge with pitot
the pressure along the line and record tube attachment to
check

in part 11.
When meastiri-ng

the pressure (Figure 11-4),

the pitot
tube must be centered in the

jet issuing from the pipe, which must

impinge directly into its tip.

The tip may be rocked slightly.

Record
the highest pressure reading

shown while the pitot tube is being

held directly against the pipe.

10. Measure and record in part 12

the width of the wetted

strip and note the distances wetted

upwind and downwind from the

pipeline.

11. Estimate and record in part 13

the height of jet trajectory

and compare the uniformity and precision

of alignment of
the jets

between adjacent pattern sequences.

Also note and comment on the

degree of holt clogging and whether

the holes seem to be eroded.

(Hole erosion can also be checked with

the feeler gauges after the

water system has been turned off.)

56

 12. Average discharge can be estimated by catching and averaging

the discharge from several individual holes or by simultaneously

from

catching water from a group of holes.

(Typically, the discharge
a single hole ranges between 0.1 and 0.3 gpm.) The evaluator will

need to devise his own :aethods for doing this; however, some useful

suggestions are:

i.
Turn the pipeline upside down to discharge directly into

a bucket.

ii. Convey the discharge from several holes to the bucket by

using a metal sheet.

iii. Using a flexible hose to convey the water from a single

hole into a collection container. (See Figure 11-5.)

iv. Rotate the pipe to direct individual jets directly into

gallon jug.

of holes

The volume of water discharged from a single hole or group

be recorded in part 14;

and the time required to collect it should

rate per hole in

these data can be combined to compute the discharge

gpm. To compute the unit length discharge in gpm per foot:

gqpm per hole X holes per pattern sequence

Unit Length discharge = distance between pattern sequences (feet)

12. Check jet discharge pressures at

20 to 40 systematically

the two ends

selected locations throughout the system (for examplejat

and quarter points along each lateral) and record the maximum,

minimum, and average pressures in part 15.

13. Near the end of a full irrigation, check for surface runoff

the

and ponding. Also, use the probe, auger, or shovel to check

uniformity of wetting Ecross the entire space between adjacent

special

lateral settings from .he previous lateral position. Give

any

attention to the area nidway between line settings.

Record
important comments in part 16.

Utilization of field data

there

Values for DU, PELQ, and AELQ cannot be computed because

However, some

is
no grid of catch data to analyze mathematically.
on evaluation

valuable observations and recommendations can be based

of the field data from Form III-1.

57

 Operating pressures.
The observed operating
pressure which was

between 10 and 13 psi was well within

the limits recommended in the

manufacturer's equipment catalog.

While
carrying out step 8 in the

field procedure, the ideal operating pressure

appeared to be between

9 and 15 psi.
Lower pressures produced
insufficient jet breakup and

pressures above 20 psi seemed to produce

very small drops;
this

resulted in excessive wind drift.

The pressure difference of 3 psi between

the inlet and end of the

perforated pipeline and 5 psi through

the system bordered on the high

side, but it could be considered satisfactory,

assuming measurements

were not precise. (See Form III-1, parts

11 and 15.)
The efficiency

reduction, ER, caused by the variations

in pressure throughout the

systems
(see Form Ill-1, part 15 and Chapter
II, page 41), was:

ER= 0.2 X 14-9 (or 10%)

10 .0

Wetted width.
The width of the wetted
areas was uniformly

between 39 and 41 feet along the entire

line.
There was only a

slight shift in the pattern towards the

downwind side of the pipeline.

The fact that the width of the wetted

strip was so nearly uniform

throughout the pipe length indicated that

the pipe had been laid

accurately, with the holes in all sections

in a nearly upright

position. However, one

length of pipe
at the middle was slightly

tipped;
this resulted in that section
having the narrowest wetting

pattern, only 39 feet.

(See Form III-1,
part 12.)

Jet characteristics.
The height of the
jets' trajectory was

very uniform along the length of the pipe;

it was approximately 1/3

of the width of coverage, which is typical

for perforated pipe.
The

alignment and uniformity of the jets between

adjacent pattern

sequences were good.

Since the pipe was new the jets were clean

(not diffused) as they

left the pipe.

This showed that the holes
had been drilled with a

sharp bit and were essentially free of

burrs and/or irregular edges.

Several holes were checked for size using

the 3/64-inch drill bit

as a feeler gauge and all were of the

proper size as would be expected

in new equipment.

Thorough inspection revealed only a few

clogged holes.
Clogging

is
a major problem in using perforated
pipe irrigation and much care

is necessary in order to minimize the

problem.
All water taken from

surface soarces must be thoroughly screened.

Even when the water

supply is clean, the pipe can be clogged

by debris picked up while

58

the pipe is being moved. Therefore, pipe movers must be cautioned

to permit no soil or plant particles to enter the pipe. They should

also be advised to let a small stream of uater run through the pipes

as they are being connected to flush out debris.

Flow rates. Flow rate was checked along the line by turning

individual pipe lengths upside down at the test locations and

simultaneously directing the jets of water issuing from four holes

into a bucket. To simplify this operationshallow depressions were

dug into the ground to accommodate the bucket. Several sets of four

holes were checked at the inlet, middle, and end of the pipeline;

however, only the average volume of water caught at each test

location is entered in part 14. The test time was 100 seconds. A

sample calculation of average discharge at the inlet end is:

Volume - 136 oz
128 oz/gal = 1.06 gal

and

Average discharge per hole - 1.06 gal X 60100sec/min = 0.16 gpm

4 holes X sec

Lherefore,

Unit length discharge = 0.16 gpm X 7 holes/pattern = 0.45 gpm/ft

2.5 ft between patterns

The difference in unit length discharge between the inlet and end

of the line was 0.05 gpm/ft, i.e., 0.45-0.40 = 0.05. (See Form III-1

part 14.) This is slightly more than 10 percent of the 0.42 gpm per

foot average unit length discharge. This difference in discharge is

consistent with the pressure difference discussed above. Discharge

varies as the square roots of the pressures; thus, variation in

discharge is approximately half as great as the variation in pressure.

The average unit length discharge of 0.42 gpm per foot is very

close to the manufacturer's catalog value, i.e., 40 gpm per 100 feet

at 10 psi. This is further evidence that the pipeline was manufactured

according to specifications and functioning properly.

Inspection of the pressures and discharges at the inlet, middle,

and end of the pipe reveals that most of the loss of pressure occurs

near the inlet. This is in accordance with the pressure loss diagram

for a lateral having only one size of pipe (Figure 11-6).

59

 Uniformity. Uniformity of the sprinkler

pattern and the resulting

soil moisture distribution was estimated

approximately by augering

(probing did not work in the sandy soils).

The soil moisture was

estimated at numerous
spots within
the area irrigated a day earlier

and bordered by adjacent line settings.

Midway between the line

settings was a 3- to 4-foot dry strip.

This was to be expected

because of the 40-foot settings between

laterals and the fact that

minimum width of the wetted pattern

was only 39
feet.

Except for this dry strip, the moisture

penetration in the rest

of the irrigated area was quite uniform.

Figure 111-3 shows an

actual average profile of water distribution

that is typical of the

performance expected from a properly

functioning perforated pipeline.

The wetting is remarkably uniform over

most of the strip when winds

are less than 5 mph. The patterns

usually drop off very sharply

near
the outer edges; therefore, only
a 3- to 5-foot overlap is

recommended.

Two general criteria for perforated

pipeline operation are!

i. Perforated pipelines should be laid

out at right angles to

prevailing winds where winds exceed 5 mph.

q) 0~--- 0

0.5
0

-2 0

4~~

0\
24 16 8 8 16 24
Distance from pipe _ feet _
Figure 111-3.
Average profile of water
distribution from 5 test runs for

a typical perforated pipe at 22 psi

in 0 to 3.3 mph

winds.

60

 ii.
The spread or wetted width increases as pressure increases;

practical minimum and maximum widths

are approximately 25

feet at 5 psi and 50 feet at 20 psi.

Runoff. The minimum practical application rate that can be

achieved with perforated pipe is approximately 0.75 inch per hour;

however, even to achieve this application rate, very small (1/32-inch)

holes and a relatively wide pattern sequence must be used.

Clogging

by debris or mineral deposits is a serious problem when very small

holes are used.

Typical application rates for perforated pipe are approximately

1.0 iph. This is a major limitation to the use of perforated pipe

because the infiltration ctupacity of most soils is considerably

lower; therefore, use of perforated pipe irrigation is confined to

sandy and porous soils. Runoff from higher to lower areas in a

field not only reduces the uniformity of irrigation but also may

cause waterlogging and crop loss in low areas.

The first sign that

runoff may be a problem is surface ponding in areas where the appli­

cation rate exceeds the infiltration rate.

For the sample evaluation the soils had sufficient intake

capacity and runoff was not observed to be a problem even after a

full irrigation.

Analysis and recommendations

Several observations and recommendations for improviag the system

operation can be based on

the information recorded on Form III-1 and

the preceding comments.

AZternate setting is the practice of setting any lateral midway

between previously used sets for every other cycle of irrigation.

This would be desirable for use in the evaluated orchard. The system

now used leaves a narrow dry strip between the parallel wetted areas;

alternate wettings could compensLte for this and satisfy the SMD in

the presently unwetted strips.

The value of alternate settings can be readily visualized from

Figure 111-3, which shows

a tendency to have some excess application

along the pipeline; thus, the deficit due to

the lack of pattern

overlap would be greatly reduced. The dry strip is not very detri­
mental if moisture is periodically replenished because the
tree roots

are extensive and can absorb water from wherever it is available.

The trees, which were spaced in 20-foot rows, created considerable

pattern interference. Alternative setting would somewhat compensate

for this interference by providing water directly on both sides of

each tree row.

61

 Decreased spacing between the pipeline

settings could eliminate

the dry strip between settings; however,

since the spacing between lateral sets this would not be practical

must be a multiple of the tree

row spacing of 20 feet.

Pressure could be increased to 15 psi

Either increasing the pressure or decreasingto eliminate the dry strip.

would be essential for the irrigation the pipeline spacing

of small crops; however, for

the trees and the system under study,

alternate settings would be

more practical.

Adjusting the duration of irrigation.

calculated from the unit lengzh discharge Optimum duration can be

of the pipeline, the SMD,

and an estimate of the PELQ.

The first
rate of water application, R, which step is to find the average

for the unit length discharge of

0.42 gpm per foot and an assumed wetted

width of 40 feet
(less a

4-foot allowance for overlap) equals

36 feet.

R = 96.3 X 0.42
36 1.12 iph

Using an estimate of PELQ, which is

usually between 70 and 80% for

properly overlapped patterns, the assumed

minimum application rate,

R,
at which water is infiltrated in
the wetted area can be computed

by:

R = R PELQ
n a 100

which for this example using 70% because

of the relatively large

pressure variations throughout the

system is:

R n = 1.12 X 70/100 = 0.78 iph

Then the required duration of irrigation,

T., to replace the SMD

(3.5 inches) in the wetted area is:

T1 = 3.5 in 4.5 hrs

i = 0.78 iph =

The proper duration of irrigation would

efficiency.
When the system is operated be 4.5 hours for maximum

for 5.5 hours as scheduled,

the last 1.0 hours of watering is wasted

and unnecessarily reduces

efficiency by almost 20%.

62

 The MAD of 75%, which is equivalent to 4.0 inches for the sanuy

soil, allows little leeway for increase. Irrigation could be with­

held until the SMD = MAD =
4.0 inches, and then a 5.1-hour application

would maximize efficiency. An alternate procedure would be to

irrigate at the existing SME (3.5 in) and shorten the application

time to 4.5 hours.

Summary

The system evaluated was a typical perforated pipe system. This

individual system performed well, but a 2-foot wide dry strip lay

midway between perforated pipeline settings, and tree branches

interfered with some water jets. There were no other problems.

Very

few holes were clogged, the wetting pattern was uniform, and there

was no sign of surface runoff.

Alternate settings were recommended as a simple and inexpensive

solution to compensate for the dry strips and the pattern interference

caused by tree branches.

Irrigation was applied somewhat sooner than the MAD required,

i.e., the SI4D was 3.5 inches but the MAD was 4.0 inches. Since the

MAD of 4.0 inches tends to overly stress the crop, irrigating a little

sooner than necessary may be advantageous.

Discharge along the pipeline ranged from 0.45 to 0.40 gpm per

foot; this is a little more than the normally recommended 30% maximum

variation but is not serious.

The duration of irrigation (5.5 hours) was too long and should be

reduced to 4.5 hours for optimum efficiency when the SMD is 3.5 inches.

This simple management correction would improve the irrigation

efficiency by 20%.

63

 CHAPTER IV

ORCHARD SPRINKLER IRRIGATION

This chapter describes and discusses procedures for evaluating

under-tree sprinklers having nonoverlapping (or slightly overlapping)
patterns of application.

The uniformity of the watering pattern produced by over-tree

sprinklers, useful for frost protection and climate control as well

as for irrigation, can be evaluated only at the top of the tree canopy
level. Interference of the catch pattern by the trees makes soil
surface measurements meaningless. However, ground level distribution
is of most importanco to irrigation. Observat ions give an indication
of how much soil is dry, and probing can indicate uniformity of
application. Under-tree systems requiring overlap from adjacent
sprinklers to obtain uniformity ca.n b. evalunate by the standard
tet: ique for open field eva1luati on des, ribed in (hapter 11.

The wc.u. . c: i s a sma l s.pinner

: :'.. or inpact sprinkler
dja:ent trees; there is
designed to cover the interspace be iu

little or no overlap between sprinklers. Orchard sprinklers are

designed to be operated at preseures between 10 and 30 psi, and
They are
typically the diameter &i coverage IS btween 15 and 30 feet.
located under the tree canopies to provide app ro::imateIv uniform
volumes of water for each individual tree. Vater sh ild be applied
fairly even to areas to be wetted even though some soil around each
tree may receive little or no irrigation. (See Figure iV-1.1, The
individual sprinklers can be supplied by hoses and peri'udircaIl'
moved to cover several positions or there can be a sprinkler provided
for each position.

The following questions relatie to use of orchard sprinklcrs

should be considered before selecting equipment.

1. Is an under-tree sprinkler system the most practical irriga­

tion system for the orchard?

2. Does wetting the soil around the tree trunk induce diseases,

and would a shield give the trunk sufficient protection?

3. Will the irrigation spray damage the fruit?

4. Do low branches and props seriously interfere with the

pattern's uniformity?

65

Figure IV-l. Orchard sprinkler operating from a hose line.

5. Would salinity of the irrigation water damage leaves which

are wetted?

6. Is the water supply sometimes inadequate making it

desirable to use sprinklers that can be adjusted to wet a

smaller area when necessary?

7. Is a crop going to be raised between tree rows while trees

are small? If so, what is the expected crop height.

Evaluation

The irrigation objectives must be known before the operation of

the system can be evaluated intelligently. Uniformity of application

and the efficiency of storing water for plant use are the
two most

important points to be considered. For evaluating orchard sprinkler

systems, uniformity and efficiency must be qualified, for often it is

not practical to
try to have complete coverage. Fortunately, mature

trees have such extensive root systems that they can extract soil

moisture wherever it is available. Therefore, any available stored

water may be absorbed by the roots.

66

 The data needed for evaluating an existing under-tree nonover­

lapping system are:

1. Depth (or volume) of water caught in a radial row (or rows)

of catch containers.

2. Duration of test.

3. Duration and frequency of normal irrigations.

4. Flow rate from tested sprinkler.

5. Pressures throughout the system.

6. 2-MD and 3M2

7. Sprinkler locations relative to trees.

8. Spacing and arrangement of trees.

9. Interference of sprinkler jets by branches.

10. Sequence of operation.

i. Percent of ground area wetted.

12. Additional data indicated on Form IV-l.

Equipment needed

The equipment needed is essentially the same as for the full

evaluation of sprinkler-lateral systems:

1. A pressure gauge (0-50 psi) with pitot attachment is useful

but not essential. (See Figure 11-4.)

2. A stopwatch or watch with an easily visible second hand.

3. A large (at least 1-gallon) container with volume clearly

marked.

4. A bucket, funnel, 4-foot length of hose, and a tin sheet

or

other means for deflecting the sprinkler jets and any

leakage into the container.

5. Approximately twenty catch containers s~ich as 1-quart oil

cans or plastic freezer cartons.

67
 Form IV-l. ORCHARD SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location California , Observer JLM , Date 6/17/73

2. Crop apples , Root zone depth 5.0 ft, MAD 50 7, MAD 4.0 in
3. Soil: texture sandy loam, available moisture 1.6in/ft, SMD4.0in
4. Tree: pattern square , spacing 2 4-by
24- ft
5. Sprinkler: make BR , model B-21 , nozzles #1 by in
spacing 24 by 24 ft, location to trees center
6. Irrigation: duration 24 hrs, frequency 21 days
7. Rated sprinkler discharge l.lgpm at 20 psi and diameter 26.6 ft
8. Sprinkler jet: height 3.3ft, interference negligible

9.
Actual sprinkler pressure and discharge (see back for location):

Sprinkler locations: test 2 3

4

Pressure (psi) 19 21 18 19

Catch volume (gal) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Catch time (sec) 54 52

55 54

Discharge (gpm) 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1

Wetted diameter (ft) 26 27 26 26

Comments:Sprinkler performance good with smooth rotation

10. Container row test data in units of

inch , Volume/depth -- ml/in
Test: start 7:20 pm, stop 8:00an, duration 12hr 4
0min= 12.67 hr

Catch in.): 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.8

2.8 2.1 0.5

Rate (iph): 0.22 a 19

a 20 a f2 a 22 a 16 a 04

0.4 ­
=
0.3

0.2 - _ __ _----._
Avraae 0.17
W 0. ­
00
1 3 5 7
9 ii 13 15 17

Radial distance from sprinkler - feet

11. Discharge pressures: max 21
psi, min 18 psi, ave 19 psi

12. Comments: The apple tree branchesdid not obstruct the sprinkler
jets and the sprinklers rotated smoothly and uniformly. The

system is the portable hose-pull type.

68
 6. A measuring stick (or ruler) to measure depth or 500-ml

graduated cylinder to measure volume of water caught in

containers.

7. A soil probe or auger.

8. A tape for measuring distances in laying out the radial rows

of catch containers.

9. A shovel for smoothing areas where containers are to be set

and for checking profiles of soil, root, and water
penetration.

10. Manufacturer's sprinkler performance charts.

11. Form IV-l for recording data.

Field procedure

Information obtained from the following field procedure should be

recorded on a data sheet similar to Form IV-l.

1. Choose radial row locations where water will be caught from

only one sprinkler. It is best to test several sprinklers at several

locations to check for system variations and improperly adjusted

sprinklers. To save time it is practical to test the sprinklers

simultaneously with different adjustments and pressures.

2. Fill in Dorts 1 and 2 of Form IV-l concerning the crop,

field, root depth and .4.

in the area of
the

3. Check and record in part 3 the 0A',"D

pattern that will receive full irrigation. This area should represent

half or more of the sprinkler pattern and should not be affected by

overlap or tree drip. Also determine and record the soil texture,

and estimate the available soil moisture capacity in the root zone.

4. Note the layout pattern of trees and the spacing between

trees in part 4.

5. Check and record in part 5 the sprinkler make and model,

size of nozzles, the normal sprinkler spacing, and the location of

the sprinklers relative to the trees.

6. Obtain the normal duration and frequency of irrigation from

the operator and record them in part 6.

7. Obtain and record in part 7 the rated sprinkler discharge

and pressure from the design data and manufacturer's catalog.

69

 8. Observe sprinkler operation at pressures higher and lower

than normal; then set

the pressure back to "normal" for the evaluation

test.
Note and record the height of jet trajectory, tree and wind

interference, and characteristics of sprinkler rotation in parts

8

and 12.

9. Measure and record in part 9 the sprinkler pressure, wetted

diameter, and total discharge including any leakage from the

test

sprinkler and from two or

three other sprinklers spaced throughout

the system. (See Figures 11-4 and 11-5.)

Where the jet is too
diffuse

or small to use a pitot tube, the pressure gauge may need to be

connected into the sprinkler riser.

Overall uniformity of the system

can be evaluated better by determination of flow rate than by pressure

checks; however, a knowledge of pressures is useful.

10. Set out a radial row of catch containers along a radius of

the sprinkler's wetted citcle (as in Figure IV-2).

If unusual

conditions such as strong wind or a steep slope exist, four rows

of

containers should be used; however, if wind is negligible, as it

often

is in orchards, one row is adequate.

Remove any potential interference

of catchment caused by weeds, branches, props,

or other objects.

Be sure that all containers are empty.

Space the first container
1.0

foLt from the sprinkler, and align the rest 2.0 feet apart to cover

the full range of the jet.

Note and record in part 10 the starting time of each test and

continue the test until at

least 1.0 inch is caught in some containers

and note the time the test is stopped. If practical, continue

each

test for a full-length irrigation to obtain data that are

representa­
tive of normal irrigation practice. Be careful that
containers
do not

overflow.

Measure the depth or volume of water caught in each container.

Record each measurement

in the space above the corresponding radial

distance of the container from the sprinkler in part 10.

11. Check the sprinkler pressure at 20 to 40 systematically

selected locations throughout the system (for example at

the two
ends

and at midpoints of each manifold) and record the maximum, minimum,

and average pressures in part 11.

12. Note in part 12

the type of system operation and such

operating conditions as speed of wind, impact

on trees and resulting

drip, overlap on adjacent sprinkler patterns if any, and uniformity

of sprinkler rotation.

Check the general uniformity and the depth of wetting with the

soil probe immediately following a normal irrigation. After one

or

70

 \ / Tree

Con t ai'ner s -1

"-O e "opSprinkler

Effec/ive- *I
radius

sprinkler system in an orchard

Figure IV-2. Layout for

test of orchard
having a square pattern of trees.

whether the irrigation was

two days check the depth again to determine

adequate.

Utilization of field data

be reduced to
a form that

Information recorded in the field should

It is usually assumed that the

can be conveniently studied and used.

infiltrated.
The depths or

water caught is equivalent

to the water
to rates in inches per

volumes of water caught should be converted

as shown on Form IV-l,

hour, i.ph; the rate profile should be plotted
F of the sprinkler in

part 10; and the effective radius, i'C , noted.

the radius at which the

the reported test was

13.3 feet, which is
rate profile plot crosses the zero line.

71

Average application rate

From the T? of 13.3 feet, the radius at which the approximate

average application rate occurs for each concentric quarter of the area

can be computed by multiplying R by: 0.40 for the inner quarter, 0.60

for the second quarter, 0.78 fore the third quarter, and 0.93 for the

outer quarter.

For example, the radius at which the average rate occurs in the

outer quarter is at 93% of the effective radius, i.e., 0.93 X 13.3 =

12.3 feet. The plot on Form IV-I shows the application rate to be

0.08 iph at the radial distance of 12.3 feet from the sprinkler. An

approximation of the average rate caught over the total wetted area

is the sum of the rates at the quarter points divided by four.

Computation of the average rate can be set up in the following

tabular form.

Quarter Radius where average Average rate

of area rate occurs from graph*

Inner 0.40 x 13.3 = 5.3 feet 0.20 iph

Second 0.60 x 13.3 = 8.0 feet 0.22 iph

Third 0.78 x 13.3 = 10.4 feet 0.18 iph

Outer 0.93 x 13.3 = 12.3 feet 0.08 iph

Total 0.68 iph

0.68
Average application rate over wetted area = 0 = 0.17 iph
4

*See Form IV-l, part 10.

An alternate method for computing the averaCe rate of appli­

cation over the wetted area from the rates at each catch location

is as follows:

uompute the swi; of the products of all the catch rates times the

respective radial distances to the container locations in feet, which

for the sample evaluation is 7.59 from Form IV-l, part 10; then:

Ar2 X container spacing (feet) X suzm of products

Average rate S(feet) XR

XR(et (fe-t)

L e

Which for the sample data is:

S2X 2X 7.59

Average rate 13.3 133 -

= 0.17 iph

72

Distribution Characteristic

Since only part of the surface area may be wetted the uniformity
of irrigation should be evaluated by the Diatribut'on Characteristic,
DC instead of D. Since only part of the area is left dry, the
remaining smaller wetted area should be irrigated proportionally more
often to supply the total water needed to balance evapotranspiration.
For example, if only half of the area is wetted, the frequency cf
irrigation must be doubled. (See "Intentional Underirrigation" in
Chapter 1.)

For a single nonoverlapping sprinkler, PC is the percent of the

total wetted area that has received and infiltrated more than the

average depth.

• .'a
ha: .has ' ".yi"
, 1.24­ thin; a
...... n luo,.'.,:
AN:.

,-
=
X 700

The 2: can be determined (see Form 1V-1, part 10) by first drawing

a line (see dotted line part 10) representing the average rate of 0.17

iph across the rate profile line and noting the radius of 10.8 feet

where the two lines cross. Then, calculating the ratio of this radius
to the total radius and multiplying the square of the ratio by 100
gives:

Radius tat'. ..

and

DC = (Radius Ratio) X 100

= (0.81)2 X 100 = 66%

The D'C Wan to the uniformity of that portion of the central

wetted area that P'-y contribute to deep percolation losses even under
good management. High 9Z values indicate that the adequately
irrigated area may be relatively large while the potential losses
from deep percolation are low. The DC can approach 100%; Lis would
indicate an extremely uniform application provided there was very
little overlap or tree interference. A WO greater han 50% is
considered satisfactory, and the computed value of 66% for the example
problem indicates a very good pattern.

73
Storage Efficiency

The most important objective of the field evaluation is to

determine how effectively the water is being applied. Since orchard

irrigatio,: almost always leaves some areas and depths underirrigated

but still results in a very satisfactory irrigation program, the

term Storage Efficiency, SE, is used instead of AELQ.

In the area wetted the SE should be determined so that the

effectiveness of the irrigation can be evaluated. Neither PELQ nor

AELQ can be used to evaluate orchard systems, which wet only part of

the area, since the average low quarter depth could be near zero.

SE = average depth stored under circuZar wetted area X 100

average depth applied to circuZar wetted area

In computing the average depth stored in the circular wetted area

under each sprinkler, it is assumed that all the water that fills
on

each spot within the wetted area up to the SPiD is stored. Water in

excess of the S1ID is lost by deep percolation. The following

pcocedure will aid in calculating the average depth stored.

First determine what depth would be applied at each catch point

by multiplying the ra e values calculated in part 10 by the duration

of a normal irrigation, which for this example was 24 hours. Then

plot the depths of application at various radial distances from the

sprinkler as shLown in Figure IV-3 and draw a line across

the depth

profile representing the S-1. For this illustration the SVD was 4.0

inches and was assumed to be uniform (although it seldom is). All

moisture above the .57.19

line would be stored in the soil. Overlap

and/or distortions caused by the trees are not consilered.

The average depth of moisture stored under the circular area

represented by the area above the S'.D line may be estimated by dividing

the wetted area into subareas. The average depths applied to and

stored in the various portions of the area can be mulciplied by the

percent of the area receiving that depth, and the sum of these products

will equal the average depth stored. The entire area inside the radius

at :Le intersection between the SAID line and the depth profile will

store the SID. If the profile is fairly uniform, one average value is

adequate for the area beyond the SMD line intersection. However, if

profiles are curved, computations of depth from two areas will give

slightly more precise results. For Figure IV-3, one outer section

would be adequate but two were used for demonstration. The steps

used to calculate the average depth and the numerical values based

on Figure IV-3 are:

1. Find the radius at the'interscction of SMD with the depth

profile (10.8 feet) and one other radius (12.0 feet); this divides

the underwatered profile into two convenient subareas.

74

I- "-...---/.2 inches

, 1 3 -1-..3.2
~~
inches
4 stud--4.0 inches ...- ......... ....

• I

0 / 3 5 7 9 // /3 15 17 19 21

Rodio/ dis/once from sprinkler- feel -

Figure IV-3. Profile of water application along the sprinkler

radius for a 24-hour set.

2. Determine the ratio between these radii and the

effective

radius of 13.3 feet, (10.8/13.3

=

0.81, 12.0/13.3 =
0.90).

3. Square the radius ratios to find the 5orresponding portion

of the area included inside each radius, [(0.81) = 0.66, (0.90) =
0.811.

4. Determine the portion of the total area included in each of

the three subareas defined by the two intermediate radii. For this
example, theyare: 0.66, 0.81 - 0.66 = 0.15, and 100 - 0.81 = 0.19.

5. Estimate the average depth in each subarea fro-

the depth

profile (these can± be taken at the middle of each subarea with

adequate accuracy). From Figure IV-3, these are the 5,ID of 4.0

inches, 3.2 inches, and .2 inches.

6. Multiply each subarea portion by the corresponding average

depth. The sum of the products equals the average depth of water

stored in the root zone under the circular wetted area.

75

 0.66 X 4.0 = 2.6 inches

0.15 x 3.2 = 0.5 inch

0.19 X 1.2 = 0.2 inch

Average depth = 3.3 inches stored under wetted circular area.

The average depth of water applied to the circular wetted area

is computed by using the sprinkler discharge rate of 1.1 gpm (see

Form IV-l, part 9, test column) and the wetted radius Re, 13.3 feet,

to obtain:

96.3 X sprinkler disuhazrge (qpm)

_

Application Rate = __)X

Tr Re e

Re(feet) X Re(feet)
-30.7X 1.1 =0.19 iph
13.3 X 13.3

and for a 24-hour set

Average depth applied to wetted circular area = 0.19 X 24 = 4.6 inches

The SE can be computed (assuming negligible overlap and drip,

which could cause some water to go too deep) by:

SE = X 100 = 72%
4.6

Arkalysis and recommendations

Several observations and recommendations can be based on the

information recorded on Form IV-l and the preceding computations.

Uniformity on the tested area was good as indicated by the DC of

66%. If this percent had been much higher, it would have indicated

that a greater depth had been infiltrated near the perimeter; this

would result in a little water going too deep because of overlap

unless the effective radius of 13.3 feet was reduced. If this were

the condition, the wetted diameter should be reduced from 26.6 feet

to nearly 24 feet, which is the tree spacing. (See shaded areas in

Figure IV-2.)

The pressures, discharges, and wetted diameters of the sprinkler

tested and other sprinklers checked were all reasonably close. (see

sample Form IV-l, parts 9 and 11.) The efficiency reduction, ER, caused

76

by the variations in pressure throughout the system in accordance with

the formula presented in Chapter II page 41 was only:

ER = 0J X A 1 19 1 O.L'J (oP 50)

This indicates that the general system uniformity was very good.

Water Zosscs from causes other than deep percolation, such as loss
from evaporation, are equal to the difference between the average
application rate (0.19 iph) and the average catch rate (0.17 iph).
This is equal to [(0.19 - 0.17)/0.19] X 100 = 101 of the water
applied--a percentage that is too high for evaporation only. However,
it is a reasonable figure because it includes any errors in measure­
ment. These losses canno, be controlled by management practices.

Losecs 0:k.! ':>:,:7: can be identified by the differences

between the average depths infiltrated (0.17 iph X 24 hrs = 4.1
inches), and average depth storcd,(3.3 inches). Taus, 0.8 inch or 18%
of the applied water goes too deep; this is a largc amount for a
partial area irrigation program. Observing the depth profile and the
4.0 inches line on Figure W'-3 shows that deep percolation is
appreciable in the central portion of the pattern even though it is
a nearly uniform pattern. A depth of 5.0 inches infiltrates near
the sprinkler while only 4.0 inches can be stored. This excess depth
occurred because the 24-hour set time is too long.

Improvem ents. A major improvement would be reduction of losses

due to deep percolation. This could be accomplished by:

1. Reducing the duration of irrigation to less than 24 hours.

2. Lengthening the interval between irrigations by I or 2

days and increasing the .'...? to near 5 inches.

3. Reducing the pressure or nozzle size to reduce the flow rate

so the 24-hour duration could be continued.

The result of any of these changes would need to be re-evaluated

to see whether it was better than the results achieved under the
present system. The pattern could become worse or improve, as will
be shown.

Alternate side irrigatic~n is generally a good management practice.

It is especially good when only a portion of the total area is wetted

because it provides additional safety by reducing the average crop

stress between irrigations.

77

 Adjusting the duration of irrigation. The optimum duration of

irrrigation T., to replace the SAID, can be found by trial. Figure

IV-3 shows that 5.0 inches represents the approximate maximum

infiltrated depth for a 24-hour set and that SMD is only 4.0 in. T.

7
can be estimated from:

T. 4.0 X 24 = 19 hrs

' 5.0

Storage efficiency, (72%) is a fairly low value particularly in

view of the DC value of 66%. SE is low because the 24-hour irrigations

being used are too long and cause excess deep percolation. instead

of using the original 24-hour set duration, 19 hours can be used and

a new value of SE can be determined. This will require plotting a

new profile of depth infiltrated similar to Figure IV-3 and proceeding

with the evaluation outlined earlier to obtain:

SE -. 2 X 100 = 89%
3.6

The analysis indicated the unmeasured losses remained at about 10%, but

the losses to deep percolation wer.t reduced to approximately 1%.

Average depth stored in the wetted circular area was reduced from

the initial 3.3 inches to 3.2 inches because less of the area received

the full SMD of 4.0 inches. This will require reducing the irrigation

interval to 3.2/3.3 = 97% of the initial interval, which is not very

significant. However, the application time will be considerably

reduced to 19/24 = 79% of the original. A 19-hour irrigation may be

inconvenient, but it would be most efficient.

Average depth applied. The ratio of wetted area to actual tree­

covered area must be determined before the average depth (or volume)

of water to be applied to a field and the proper frequency of

irrigation, based on anticipated evapotranspiration rates, can be

computed. The circular wetted area provided by each sprinkler for

each tree is:

Wetted area = irr

2 = 3.14 X 13.3 2 = 556 sq. feet

and the total area serviced by each sprinkler on a 24- by 24-foot

spacing is 576 sq. feet.

Evapotranspiration and water applied are computed by assuming

the entire soil area of the field is functioning. Therefore, for

the 24-hour set where the average depth stored in the actual circular

78

wetted area is 3.3 inches, the a~erage depth of water stored over the
whole orchard is:

. 556 - - ,

"" " 576

- XAO0.0" == 0-''

This value is to be used to compute the amount of water to be

replaced and the irrigation interval.

Summary

Analysis of the field measurements recorded on Form IV-1 provided

information about the sprinkler system and its operation. The PC of
66% indicated the pattern was uniform and that the dropoff in
application rate at the outer perimeter was fairly rapid. A little
higher value and steeper dropoff would be even better, since the
overlap was small at the operating radius of 1j.3 feet for the 24-foot
tree and sprinkler spacing.

The current irrigation management program of 24-hour sets

produced an ZK of 722. This is quite low for orchard sprinklers, since
28% of the applied water would not be available for the trees. Of
this, approximately 10, was lost to evaporation and/or possible
inaccuracies in measurements. Leakage from Lhe sprinkler was not
measured and is not included in the 1OZ:. The ro ,aining 182 went
too deep. This loss to deep percolation was caused by running the
sprinkler 24 hours, which was too long. The analysis showed that
19-hour sets would iincrease the Z" to 89.

For the 3.7Z of 4.0 inches, an average of about 3.3 inches was
stored under the circular wetted area by the 24-hour set, hut only
3.2 inches would be stored during a 19-hour set. Changing to a 19-hour
set would theoretically require slightly more frequent (3) irrigation
but would require only 79% as much water per irrigation.

For the presently used sprinkler pattern, which wets only part

of the soil, the average depth of 3.2 inches stored over the whole
orchard area should be used for computations of irrigation frequency

based on the evapotranspiration rate. Fr determining the E/ID at

which to irrigate from field END checks, the .57D should be matched to (f
the MWD in the central, uniformly irrigated area. Since at the time
of this field study, S/D = IAD = 4.0 inches, it was the correct day
for irrigating.

79

 CRAPTER V

CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLE IRRIGATION

The center pivot system sprinkles water from a continuously moving

lateral pipeline. The lateral is fixed at

one end and rotates to

irrigate a large circular area.

The fixed end of the lateral is called

the "pivot point" and it is connected to the water supply. The lateral

consists of a series of spans ranging in length from 90

to 250 ft; it

moves while irrigating and is carried above the crop by "drive units,"

which consist of an "A-frame" supported

on wheels which are driven by

motors. Devices are installed at each drive unit

to keep the lateral

in a line between the pivot and end drive unit;

the end drive unit is

set to control the speed of rotation. The most common total length

of center pivot lateral is a quarter mile (1320 ft) to irrigate the

circular portion (126 ac

plus 2 to 10 ac more depending on the range

of the end sprinklers) of

a quarter section (160 ac). (See Figure V-1.)

The moving lateral pipeline is fitted with impact, spinner, or

circular

spray nozzle sprinklers to spread the water uniformly over

the
field. The area irrigated by each sprinkler (with a uniform sprinkler

Figure V-1.
Outer end of center pivot lateral in operation.

81

spacing) along the lateral grows progressively larger toward the

moving end. Therefore, the sprinklers must be designed to have

progressively greater discharges and/or closer spacings toward the

moving end to achieve uniform application. Typically, the applicati

rate near the moving end is in the vicinity of 1.0 inches per hour.

This exceeds the intake rate of many soils except for the first few

minutes at the beginning of each irrigation. To minimize surface

ponding and/or runoff, the laterals are usually rotated every 10 to

hours depending on the soil's infiltration characteristics, the syst

capacity, and MAD.

Under such high frequency irrigation, SMD checks are useful mai

for evaluating deep moistuie conditions. This is especially true wh

a field is intentionally underirrigated ti utilize deep stored moist

Evaluation

Field evaluation of center pivot systems involves checking the

DU along the lateral; the relative uniformity problems due to

topography, infiltration and/or runoff along the outer end; crop

condition; and the SMD in the lower half of the crop root zone.

Center pivot systems are propelled by using some of the water o

by such independent power sources as electricity, oil hydraulics, or

compressed air. Where water is used, it must be included as part of

the total applied water; this somewhat lowers computed values of

water use efficiency. When the water discharging from the pistons

or turbines is distributed as an integral part of the irrigation

pattern, its effectiveness should be included in DU; otherwise it

should be iguored in the DU computations but should be included in

computing PELQ.

There are similarities between the procedures and logic under­

lying the evaluation of all types of sprinkle systems. Effective ds4

of procedures enumerated in this chapter will depend on a good under­

standing of thE procedures described in Chapter II, "Sprinkler-Later,

Irrigation."

The following information is required for evaluating center piv

irrigation systems­

1. Rate of flow from the total system.

2. Rate of flow required to propel the system if water driven,

3. Depth of water caught in a radial row of catch containers.

4. Travel speed of end drive unit.

82

 5. Lateral length to end drive unit and radius of the portion of

the field irrigated by the center pivot.

6. Width of the wetted strip at end drive unit.

7. Operating pressure and diameter of largest sprinkler nozzles

at the end of the lateral.

8. Approximate differences in elevation between the pivot and

the high and/or low points in the field and along the lateral

at the test position radius (taken :o within plus or minus 5

feet).

9. Additional data indicated on Form V-1.

Accurate measurement of the flow rate into the system is needed

for determining the PELQ of the system; however, if no accurate flow

metering device is at the inlet, the PELQ can only be estimated.

Under high frequency irrigation. it is difficult to evaluate the AELQ

since the typical irrigation depth of 0.3 to 1.0 inch may be less

than the probable error in the SMD estimate.

Equipment needed

The equipment ieeded is essentially the same as for the full

evaluation of sprinkler-lateral systems:

1, A pressure gauge (0-100 psi) with pitot attachment. (see

Figure 11-4.)

2. A stopwatch or watch with an easily visible second hand.

3. From 60 to 100 (Jepending on the lateral length) catch

containers such at; 1-quart oil cans or plastic freezer

cartons.

4. A 250-ml graduated cylinder to measure volume of water

caught in the containers.

5. A tape for measuring distances in laying out the container

row and estimating the machine's speed.

6. A soil probe or auger.

7. A hand level and ir.vel rod to check differences in elevation.

83

 Form V-I. CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLE IRRIGATIO" EVALUATION

1. Location Field F202 , Observer JK , Date & Time 8-18-71 p.m.

2. Equipment: make HG 100, length 1375 ft, pipe diameter 6 5/8 in

3. Drive: type water speed setting -- %, water distributed' yes

4. Irrigated area =43,560=75

4. Irrigated
area - 3.14 (wetted radius
1450 ft) 152 are

acres
/t+ 25 f

5. N wind + 5t
*Mark position of lateral,direction
idry eroded + 20 ft of travel, elevation differences,
wweeel

wt or dry spots
and wind direction.
tracks
- f Wind r'mph, Temperature 90 OF
Pressure: at pivot 86 psi
at nozzle end 60 psi
ft Diameter of largest nozzle 1/2 in
Comments~r:
ok SrinPs i
oro dY ti?

OK but end part circZe sprirkl'rs out of1a j zust7't

6. Crop: condition corn, good except ?zort'_cdac, root depth 4 ft
7. Soil: texture sandu loam , tilth Poor , avail. moisturel. 0 in/ft
8. SMD: near pivot 0.5 in, at 3/4 point 0.5 in, at end .3.0 in

9. Surface runoff conditions at 3/4 point 7i' ht, and at end mo3--ratC
'3. Speed of outer drive unit 45 ft per 70 min = 4.5 ft/min
11. Time per revolution = (outer drive unit radius 350 31.4 hr
9.55 (speed 4.5 ft/min)
12. Outer end: water pattern width 165 ft, watering time 39 min
13. Discharge from end drive motor 5.0 gal per 0.37 min = 73.5 gpm

14. System flow meter 115000 gallons per 70 min = 1150 gpm

15. Average weighted cstches:

System (sum all weighted catches 257,708 ) 126 ml = 0. 5 0in

(sum all used position numbers 204T )

Low 1/4 .sum low 1/4 weighted catches 57,974 ) 112 ml = 0.4 5in
(sum low 1/4 position numbers 518 )
16. Minimum daily (average daily weighted low 1/4) catch:

( 24 hrs operation/day) X (low 1/4 catch 0.45 in) 0.34 in/day

( 31.4 hrs/revolution)

84

 Form V-i. CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION (Cont.)

17. Container catch data in units of ml , Volume/depth 250 ml/in

Span length 90 ft, Container spacing 22.5 ft

Evaporation: initial 150 ml 150 ml
final -147 ml -145 ra1
loss 3 ml 5 ml, ave 4 ml = O.O1 6 in

Span Container Span Container

no. Position Weighted No. Position Weighted
Nfumber Catch Number Catch
1 1 Start numberina at 10 37 118 4366
1 2 pivot end of inner 10 38 127 4816
1 3 span. Do not wait 10 39 115 4485
1 4 for completion of 10 40 147 5880
2 5 irrigation at first 11 41 127 5207
2 6 few contaners. 11 42 122 5124
2 7 11 43 118 5074
2 8 17 44 144 6336
3 9 141 1269 12 45 112 5040
3 10 160 1600 12 46 124 5704
3 11 122 1342 12 47 126 5922
3 12 130 1560 12 48 151 7097
4 13 143 1859 13 49 120 5880
4 14 150 2100 13 50 122 6100
4 15 134 2010 13 51 115 5865
4 16 123 1968 13 52 143 7436
5 17 144 2446 14 53 124 6572
5 18 138 2484 14 54 114 7776
5 19 135 1565 14 55 115 6325
5 20 207 4140 14 56 160 8960
6 21 122 2562 15 57 120 6840
6 22 114 2508 15 58 110 6380
6 23 115 2645 15 59 109 6431
6 24 138 3312 15 60 117 7020
7 25 109 2725 16 61 95 58
7 26 113 2938 16 62 194 12028
7 27 114 3078 16 63 148 9324
7 28 126 3584 End 64 82 5248
8 29 116 3364 65 12 omit
30 107 3210 66
8 31 122 3782 67
8 32 140 4480 68
9 33 117 3861 69
9 34 105 3570 70
9 35 111 3885 71
9 36 125 4428 72

Sum all: used position numbers 2044 , weighted catches 257,708

Sum low 1/4: position numbers 518 weighted catches 57,974

85

 8. A shovel for smoothing areas to set catch containers and for

checking profiles of soil, root, and water penetration.

9. Form V-i for recording data.

10. Manufacturer's nozzling specifications giving discharge and

pressure and the instructions for setting machine's speed.

11. For water-driven machines which do not incorporate the drive

water into the sprinkler patterns, a 2- to 5-gallon bucket

and possibly a short section of flexible hose to facilitate

measuring the drive water discharge.

Field procedure

Fill in Lhe dcta blanks of Form V-i while conducting the field

procedure. In a field having a low-growing crop or no crop, test

the system when the lateral is in a position where differences in

elevation are least. In tall-growing crops, such as corn, test the

system where the lateral crosses the access road to the pivot point.

1. Set out the catch containers along a radial path beginning

at the pivot with a convenient spacing no wider than 30 feet; a 15- or

20-.foot spacing is preferable. The radial path does not need to be a

straight line. A most con,:enient spacing can be obtained by dividing

the span length by a whole number such as 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. For example,

if the span length is 90 feet, use a 30-foot or 22.5-foot spacing. This

simplifies the catchment layout since measurements can be made from each

wheel track and the spacing related to the span, i.e., 4th span + 50

feet. Obviously, containers should not be placed in wheel tracks or

where they would pick up waste exhaust water from water-driven systems

(where the exhaust is not distributed). Where exhaust water is

incorporated into the wetting pattern, lay out containers so they will

catch representative samples of the drive water.

As an example, a typical layout between wheel tracks for 90-foot

spans and any type of drive can be accomplished by:

a. Placing the first container position 5 feet downstream from

the pivot.

b. Setting container positions 2, 3, and 4 at 22.5-foot intervals.

The fourth container position is now 17.5 feet from the wheel

track of the first span.

c. Repeat the above procedure to the end of the actual wetted

circle placing a catch container at each container position

along the way.

86

However, to save time it is most convenient to leave out the first few

containers adjacent to the pivot since the watering cycle is so long

in this area. Typically, the containers under the first one or

two

spans are omitted with little adverse effect on the evaluation. A

number should be assigned to each container position with a sequential

numbering system beginning with 1 at the container position nearest the

pivot point. Even the locations not having containers under the first

spans should be numbered.

2. Fill in the blanks in parts 1 through 9, dealing with

climatic conditions, machine and test specifications, topography,

general system, soil moisture, and crop performance. Determine the

irrigated area, part 4, in acres by first estimating the wetted radius

of the irrigated circle.

3. Determine the length of time requi;ed for the system to make

a revolution by dividing the circumference of the outer wheel track

by the speed of the ei.' drive unit.

(See parts 10 and 11 in which the

conversion constant is 60/(2 x 3.14) = 9.55.)

a. Stake out a known length along the outer wheel track and

determine the time required for a point on the drive unit to travel

between the stakes.

The speed of travel will be the distance divided

by the number of minutes. An alternate method is to determine the

distance traveled in a given time.

b. Since most machines have uniform span lengths except for

perhaps the first span, the radius bettdeen the pivot and the outer

wheel track can normally be determined by multiplying the span length

by the number of spans.

4. Estimate the width of the wetted pattern (perpendicular to

the lateral) and the duration of time water is received by the con­
tainers near the end drive unit.
(See part 12.) The watering time is

approximately equal to the pattern width divided by the speed of the

end drive unit.

5. On water-driven systems, number each drive unit (span)

beginning with the one next to the pivot.

Time how long it takes to

fill a container of known volume with the discharge from the water

motor in the outer drive unit and record in part 13. The exact method

for doing this depends on the water motor construction, and it may

require using a short length of hose.

6. If the system is equipped with a flow meter, measure and

record the rate of flow into the system in part 14 of Form V-l.
Most

standard flow meters indicate only the total volume of water that has

passed. To determine the flow rate read the meter at the beginning

87

 and end of a 10-minute period and calculate the rate per minute. To

convert from c-bic feet per second (or azre-inches per hour) to gpm,

multiply by 450.

7. At the time the leading edge of the wetted patterns reaches

the test area, set aside 2 containers with the anticipated catch to

check the volume of evaporation losses. Measure and record in part 17

the depth of water in all the containers as soon as possible and

observe whether they are still upright; note abnormally low or high

catches. The best accuracy can be achieved by using a graduated

cylinder to obtain volumetric measurements. These can be converted to

depths if .the area of the container opening is known. For 1-quart

pil cans, 200 ml corresponds to a depth of 1.0 inches. Measure the

catch of one of the evaporation check containers about midway during

the catch reading period and the other one at the end.

Utilization of field data

The volumes caught in the containers must be weighted, since the

catch points represent progressively larger areas as the distance from

the pivot increases. To weight the catches according to their

distance from the pivot, each catch value must be multiplied by a

factor related to the distance from the pivot. This weighting opera­
tion is simplified by using the container layout procedure described

earlier and Form V-l, part 17.

Xhe average weighted system catch is f3und by dividing the sum

of the weighted catches by the sum of the catch position numbers

where containers were placed. Space for this computation is provided

on Form V-1, parts 15 and 17.

For the average minimum weighted catch, an unknown number of

containers that represents the low 1/4 of the irrigated area must be

used. The low 1/4 is selected by picking progressively larger

(unweighted) catches and keeping a )--rning total of the associated

position numbers until the subtotal approximates 1/4 of the sum of all

the catch position numbers. The average weighted low 1/4 of the catch

is then found by dividing the sum of the low 1/4 of the weighted

catches by the sum of the associated catch position numbers. Space

for this computation is also provided in parts 15 and 17.

Distribution Uniformity

In order to determine whether the system is operating at acceptable

efficiency, the losses to deep percolation and DU should be evaluated

by:

DU .averageweighted Zow puarter catch A 100

average weighted eyetem catch

88

 which for the example problem (Form V-1, part 15) is:

D_=.12 ml

DU = 126 ml X 100 = 89%

This is a reasonable value and is independent of the speed of

revolution.
It is useful to plot the volume of catch against distance

from the pivot (Figure V-2).

Such a plot is useful for spotting

problem areas and locating improperly nozzled or malfunctioning

sprinklers.
Usually there is excess water near each water-driven drive

unit where the water is distributed as part of the pattern.

If the system is operating on an undulating or sloping field and

is not equipped with pressure or flow regulators, DU will vary with

the lateral postiion. The DU will remain nearly constanit if the

differences in elevation (in feet) multiplied by 0.43 (to convert

to an equivalent psi) do not exceed 20% of the pressure at the end

sprinkler.
Thus, for the example test the line position would have

minimal affect on the DU since the pressure at the end sprinkler was

60 psi and the maximum elevation differences were only 25 feet,

equivalent to 11 psi which is only 18% of 60 psi.

220

200
0.75
180

160­

140 -
Averoge cotch
0.5

/20-
IJV
/00

80

0.25
60
40
0 /0 20 30 40 50 60 70
Container catch position nwmber

Figure V-2. Profile of container catch from center pivot

sprinkler evaluation test.

89

 Potent:Lal Application Efficiency

The PELQ can be determined if the pivot point is

equipped with an

accurate flow measuring device. (See Chapter I, page 12.)

For the

average low quarter rate caught use the average weighted

low one­
quarter of the catches expressed as a depth per revolution.
The average

rate in inches applied per revolution is c ±ioulated

from the hours per

revolution, system flow in gpm, and the wetted area

in acres by:

Average rate applied = time per revolution .'hrs) X system flow rate (gpm)

450 X (acres) irrigated

From the data computed on Form V-1 in parts 11, 14,

and 4, the

computations are:

Aev errtge ppli d = 31 .4 X 1150

Average rate app152 = 0.53 inches/revolution

and with the average weighted low quarter catch of

0.45 inches/revolu­
tion from part 15:

2ELQ = 4X 100 = 85%

0.53

The small difference between DU of 89%

and PELQ of
85% indicates that

evaporation losses are qvite small and within the

limits of accuracy

of measurement.

The system flow rate and PELQ can be estirated without

a flow

meter at
the inlet. This is done by first estimating
the gross

application by adding the average depth caught and

the estimated

evaporation, which for the data recorded in Form

V-1, parts 15 and 17,

is 0.50 + .02 = 0.52 inch per revolution.

The flow
in gpm, which was

distributed through the sprinkler, can be estimated

by:

Distributedflow =

450 X area (acres) X gross application (in/rev.)
time per revolution (hrs)

which for the recorded data is:

Distributed flow =
450 X 152 X 0.52 =

31.4 1133 gpm

-

90

If water from thi drive motor was not distributed, it must be added

to the distributed flow to obtain the total system flow.

The PELQ

is then computed as before by using the computel system flow. For

the recorded data the drive water was included in the distributed flow

and need not be computed. However, if it had not been included in

the distributed flow it should be estimated by:

Drive flow = sum oJ drive unit numbers X gpm flow from end water motor
number of drive units

for the 15 drive motors and a flow rate of 13.5 gpm from the end water

drive motor:

DrieDriveflow=
flow 15
13.5
120 X = 108 gpm

Runoff. The above computation of PEL is meaningful only if there

is little or no runoff. Runoff and/or ponding may occur near the

moving end of the system (Figure V-3). Increasing the system's speed

will reduce the depth per application and often prevent runoff.

However, on some clay type soils, decreasing the systems'speed and allow­
ing the surface to become drier betueen irrigations will improve the

F R n t m. enr

91

lateral.

Figure V-3.
Runoff near the moving end of a center pivot

91

 soil infiltration characteristics and reduce runoff even though

the

depth per application is increased.

Therefore, both increasing
and

decreasing the speed should be considered. Other methods

for reducing

runoff include:

1. Using an implement called a pitter, which scrapes indenta­

tions in the furrows followed by small dikes every 2 or
3
feet.

2. Reducing the total depth of water applied per week by turning

the system off for a period after each revolution. (Automatic

stop

devices are available for many systems.)

This allows the surface
soil

to become drier between irrigations and thus have a higher

infiltration

capacity.
Careful planning is required in order to avoid
extensive

under;rrigation which ..

ay reduce crop yields. (See Chapter I,

"Intentional Underirrigation.")

3. Decreasing sprinkler nozzle diameters

to decrease the system

capacity and application rate.

All the nozzles must be changed
to

maintain uniformity.

4. Increasing system pressure and reducing nozzle sizes through­

out the qystem to maintain the same system flow rate.
This
decreases

the average drop size and thereby drop impact which reduces
the surface

sealing that restricts infiltration.

5. Using special nozzles with pins to break up the jets and

reduce drop sizes.

Application Efficiency

Since the depth of water applied per revolution is usually

less

than the normal inaccuracy of measuring the SMD

it is impractical
to

try to compute AELQ.

Checks of the SM!D in several places, especially near the

outer

end of the circle, are useiul for spotting underirrigated

areas;

isolated areas may be underirrigated because of a low DU

or a low

PELQ due to runoff. Underirrigation due

to runoff is most
likely to

occur at high spots in the outer fifth of the wetted circle

where the

application rates are highest.

Application rates

The maximum application rate near the moving end is normally

quite

high. It can be estimated in inches per hour, iph, from

the average

depth caught per revolution and the time water is being

applied at

the outer end by:

92

 Maximum application rate = 75 X average depth cauqht (inches)

watering tim3 (minutes)

in which 75 is a conversion factor to give iph assuming an

elliptical

water application profile.

The maximum application rate for
the

example problem using the data from Form V-l, parts 12 and
15, is

approximately:

Maxinwm application rate = 75 39Mpn1.0

X 0.50

iph

Since the number of minutes the soil is receiving water each

irrigation cycle increases toward the pivot end, the application

rate

decreases toward the center of the circle.

Analysis and recommendations

Several observations and some recommendations can be made from

the additional data on Form V-1 and the computations of DU

and PELQ.

Operational checks.
Pressure at the large end sprinkler nozzle

was too low for good jet breakup (1/2-inch at 60 psi). This
produced

large droplets, which tended to seal the soil surface and decrease

the infiltration capacity.

For good breakup from regular
nozzles the

largest nozzles for given pressures should be: for 55 psi,

up to 1/4­
inch; for 65 psi, up to 3/8-inch; for 75 psi, up to 1/2-inch;
and for

85 psi, up to 3/4-inch. When breakup pins or orifice type

nozzles

are used, pressures can be reduced by 20%.

The time per revolution, estimated to be 31.4 hours (part

11),

should be checked against the actual time required. Often

the

operator can give a good estimate of the actual time.

Uniformity
of

the turn speed, which is essential to efficient watering, can

be

evaluated by comparing the computed with the actual time per

revolution.

Speed checks where the lateral is traveling up and down steep

slopes

may also be useful.

Runoff. Runoff was observed near the outer end of the system

where the application rate reached 1.0 iph.

This reduces the
PELQ

of 86% by an unknown amount. Further evidence that runoff

occurred

was noted in the outer wheel tracks; runoff traveled down

furrows and

collected in the wheel tracks, cutting the tracks 2 feet deep

in some

areas of the field. Thus, washing coupled with the digging

action of

the wheels can result in such deep erosion that the drive units
scrape

the ground and stop the system. Other evidences of runoff

were the

dry corn crop on a hill along the north edge of the field
and the

93

 deep moisture deficit indicated

by the
outer edge of the irrigated circle.
SM of 3.0 inches all around the

(See Form V-l, parts 5 through

9.)

Of the methods for decreasing runoff

nozzles sizes and/or increasing debcribed earlier, reducing

pressures would probably produce

best results; however, accelerating the

one revolution every 24 hours and the machine speed to approximately

then stopping the system for about

8 hours after each revolution would

method.
The time interval between also be a simple but effective

revolutions should always be at

least 2 hours more or less than

24, 48, ot 72 so that the lateral
progressively change positions will
relative to the normal daily wind
cycles.

Overirrigation.
High frequency
zero, and it is difficult to measure irrigation keeps the SnZi near
overirrigation. However, for the

operation evaluated, the estimated

peak daily water required for corn

in that area was only about 0.25

inch per day.
Since the operator

was running the system almost continuously

0.34 inch (part 16), he was obviously and applying a minimum daily

the irrigation for 8 hours after overirrigating.

If he shut off

every 24 hours, as suggested above

roducing runoff, the minimum daily for

application would be (24/32) X

0.34 - 0.25 inch.

Improvements. The operational changes
would improve the efficiency of described above not only

ir'-fation but would also reduce

operating problems that
cause erosion the

..

n the whel tracks. Under the

current management the lateral

often &ets out of line in the eroded

areas and the safety controls shut

the system down.
The operator
then pull the system into line must

and fill in the eroded tracks.

The plot of container catch

sprinkler in the vicinity of catchdata, Figure V-2, shows that a

position number 20 either is

stuck or has too large a nozzle.

Also
near the outer (moving) end indicates the ragged wetting pattern

that the part-circle sprinklers

on the end are either improperly

designed or are set with the wrong

arc. The sprinklers in these two

areas should be checked and replaced

or adjusted as needed.

When a system creates no runoff

and its capacity is not

sufficient to meet the crop's water

operation usually improves yields.
requirements, slowing the

By slowing the system, the

operation can apply deeper but

less frequent irrigations.
This

reduces direct losses from evaporation

and allows the crop to use
the

litited water supply more efficiently.

Both the DU of 89% and calculated

PELQ of 85Z of the center pivot

system are very good.

The main
problems in operating this system
are

94

associated with runoff and overirrigation. Suggestions for reducing

runoff included: reducing the system flow and increasing inlet

pressures; changing the speed of rotation; and periodically turning

the system off to reduce the total volume of water applied. The over­
irrigation could be eliminated by shutting off the system for 8 hours

rfter every 24 hours of operation.

95

 CHAPTER VI
TRAVELING SPRINKLER IRRIGATION

capacity sprinkler

The traveling sprinkler (or traveler) is a high

on a 4-wheel self­
fed with water by a flexible hose; it is mounted
line while watering.

powered chassis and travels along a straight

for agriculture has a

The most common type of traveler used in

the USA
on a moving vehicle

giant gun-type 500-gpm sprinkler that is mounted

of more than 400 feet.
The vehicle is equipped

and wets a diameter

reels in the cable.

with a water piston or turbine-powered wiuch that

a high-pressure

The cable guides the unit along a path as

it tows
is connected to

the water supply pressure

flexible lay-flat hose which

4 inches in diameter and is 660 feet
system. The typical hose is
travel 1320 feet unattended. (See

long; this allows the unit to

can be drained, flattened, and

Figure VI-l.) After use, the hose

wound in a compact reei.

pumping plant

Some traveling sprinklers have a self-contained

directly from an open ditch

mounted on the vehicle which pumps water

the hose.

while moving. The supply ditches replace

in operation.

Figure VI-l.
Hose fed traveling gun type sprinkler

97

 Some travelers are equipped with boom (instead of gun) sprinklers.

Boom sprinklers have long rotating arms

(60 to 120 feet) from
which

water is discharged through nozzles as described in Chapter

VII.

As the traveler moves along its path, the sprinkler wets a strip

of land
some 400 feet wide rather than the circular area wetted
by a

stationary sprinkler. After the unit reaches the end of a

travel path,

it is moved and set up to water an adjacent strip of land.

The
over­
lap of adjacent strips depends on the distance between travel
paths

and the diameter wetted by the sprinkler. Frequently a part-circle

sprinkler is used;
the dry part of the pattern is positioned over the

towpath so the unit travels on dry ground. (See Figure VI-2.)

Figure VI-2 shows

a typical traveling sprinkler layout for

an

80 acre field. The entire field is

irrigated for 8 towpaths
each 1320

feet long and spaced 330 feet apart.

Extent of planted area ~7*

rowpo ms

rPumping 11

Buried mo/n unit Hos

Connections Ca1 Container

to mo/n

I I/

Figure VI-2.
Typical layout for traveling sprinklers showing location

of catch container line for evaluating the distribution

uniformity.

98

 mainly to
check the uniformity

The following procedures are designed

the travel paths.
However, the

and efficiency of irrigation across

size of the sprinklers tend to

nature of
the operation and the large
field boundaries.
It is

reduce the quality of irrigation around

high quality irrigation at the ends

particulariv difficult to obtain

systems are used on the

of the towpaths unless special control

is
an appreciable area--as much

sprinkler, and on small fields this

as 200 feet on each end.

by a water piston,
the expelled

If the traveling unit is powered

the DU but should be

water should not be included in evaluating

PELQ.

included in computing the AELQ and

performance of traveling

Many procedures used in evaluating

those used for evaluating the

sprinklers are closely related to

sprinkle systems.
General

sprinkler-lateral and center pivot

already presented for the

knowledge of these evaluation techniques

is assumed (Chapters II and V).

sprinkier-lateral and cer-ter

pivot systeris

Evaluation

for evaluating traveling

The following information is required

sprinkler irrigation systems:

1.
Frequency of normal irrigations.

2. M4D and S1-.

system's flow rate.
3.
Nozzle diameter and type for estimating

4. Picssure at
the nozzle.

containers.

5.
Depth of water caught in catch
test location and

6
Travel speed when the unit is at the
extreme ends of
the towpaths.

7.
Spacing between towpaths.

(if applicable).

8.
Rate of discharge from water piston
VI-l.

9. Additional data indicated on Form

from the nozzle is necessary

An accurate estimate of
the flow rate way to

and AELQ of the system.

A good
for calculating the PELQ
performance chart provided

estimate this flow is to use the sprinkler

chart gives the rate of

by the manufacturer. A typical performance

99
 Form V I-1.
TRAVELING SPRINK!ER IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. location FieZd 200 , Observer

JK , Date 7/5/74
2. Crop Corn , Root zone depth 4.0
ft, MAD 35
2.1 in
%, MAD
3. Soil: texture fine sandy loom , available moisture

1.5 in/ft
4. SMD: near tow path 2.1
in, at 1/4-point 2.2
in, at mid-point 3 .7in

5. Sprinkler/Traveler makes and models

Nelson
201 / Heinzman 6645
6. Nozzle: size 1.5 in, type r
n, pressure 100
psi, discharge 5O gpm

7. Hose: length 660 ft, diameter 4 in, type

lay-flat

inlet pressure
137 psi, outlet
pressure 110 psi

8. Drive: type turbine , discharge (if piston)

--al/ -- min - -min

9. Towpath: spacing 330 ft, length
1320 ft, slope
+ 0 %

10. Evaporation loss: ( 200 ml catch - 1.0 in)

cup #1 initial - final volume = 500 - 470 - 30 ml
cup #2 initial - final volume = 500 - 482 18 ml
average evaporation loss
= 24 ml ­ 0.1 in

11. Traveler speed check at:

beginning 9.5 ft/

10 min = 0.95 ft/min
at test site 10.0 ft/ 10 rain 1.0 ft/min
terminal end 10.2 ft/ 10 min 1.02 ft/min

12. Total: discharge 500

gpm, pressure loss 37
psi

13. Average application rate:

96.3 X (sprinkler discharge

500 gpm) X 360 .46n/hr

(towpath spacing 330

ft) 2 X (wet sector 345 0)
14. Average depth applied:

96.3 X (sprinklerplus piston discharge

gpm) in
60 (path spacing 330 ft) X (travel 1.0 ft/min)

15. Average overlapped catches:

System
(sum all catch totals 74.87 in)
(number of totals
2.27in

33) - _._7in

Low 1/4
(sum of low 1/4 catch totals 12.91
in)
(number of low 1/4 totals 8) - 1.61 in
16. Comments (wind drift, runoff etc.):
no evidence of serious wind
drift or runff: crop was stunted midway betweenpaths

100

 Form VI-I
TRAVELING SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EVALUATION (Cont.)

17. Container test data in units of

mt , Volume/depth 200 ml/in

Wind: speed 5-10 mph

Left Right

direction ;
Towpath and

150
travel

Note part circle operation direction

'and the dry wedge size in

degrees degreesContainer Y.
1 1,2,3,4-
catch row

Container Catch Volume

Right plus Left

Path Left side of path Right side of path Side Catch Totals

Spacing

Catch No. Catch Catch No. Catch

ml inches

feet

1 560 33
560 2.80

330

2 540 32
540 2.70

320

3 510 31
510 2.55

310

4 490 30
490 2.45

300

290 -- ~ .5 505 29 505

2.53

6 475 28
475 2.38

280

7 480 5 27
480 2.40

270
260
., 460 26 460 2.30
9
430 1n 25 430 2.430

250
10 410 5 24
410 2.05

240

11 370
23
370 1.85

230 u
12
325 r 22 325 1.63
220
13 305
21 305 1.53

210

290 14 345
r
20 345 1.73

200
15 335 19 335 1.68

190 0

b 16 310 u 18 310 1.55

180
17
305 17 305 1.53
170 -

18 290 o 16 35
325 1.62

160
19
250 15 75
325 1.62

150
20 230 14 120 350 1.75

140

21
215 13
215 430 2.15

130
22
165 12 365 530 2.65

120 o
23 95 11 410 505 2.52

110
o
24
65 10 515 580 2.90

100
25 25
9 540 565 2.82

90
26
-- 8 525 525
2.62

80
500 500
2.50

70 ____7
6 490 490 2.45

60

5 470
470 2.35

50

4 490 490 2.45

40
_ 4_
3 540 50
2. 0T

30

' 2 605 605 3.U2

20

1 625 625 3.:!2

10
Sum of all catch totals 74.,7

Sum of low 1/4 catch totals 1p_ 7

 sprinkler discharge and diameter of coverage for various

nozzle

sizes at different pressures.

Equipment needed

The equipment the evaluator needs is:

1. A pressure gauge (0-150 psi) with pitot tube attachment

(Figure 11-4).

2. A stopwatch or watch with an easily visible second

hand.

3. Approximately 60 catch containers such as 1-quart

oil cans

or plastic freezer cartons.

4. A 500-ml graduated cylinder to measure volume

of water

caught in the containers.

5. A 50- or 100-foot tape for measuring distances

in laying out

the linres of containers and estimating machine's speed.

6. A soil probe or auger.

7. Manufacturer's sprinkler performance chart giving

the

relationship between discharge, pressure, and wetted

diameter

plus recommended operating pressure range.

Also speed

specifications and setting instructions for the traveling

vehicle.

8. A shovel for smoothing areas to set catch containers

and

for checking profiles of soil, root, and water penetration.

9. A hand level to check differences in elevation.

10. Form IV-l for recording data.

11. For travelers powered by a water piston, a 2- to 5-gallon

bucket and possibly a short length of flexible hose

to

facilitate measuring the piston discharge.

Field procedure

Fill in the data blanks of Form VI-l as the field procedure

progresses.
Choose a test location about midway along
the towpath

where the traveler operates. The location should be

far enough

shead of the sprinkler so no water reaches the test

area before the

catch containers are set up.

It should be far enough
from the

outer end of the path so that the back (or trailing)

edge of the

102

 it before the sprinkler

sprinkler pattern passes completely over

location for the test area

reaches the end of the towpath. A good

is usually provided. In

is along the main line where an access road

road is the only practical

tall growing crops such as

corn, an access
location for the test.

apart across the

1. Set out a row of catch containers 10 feet

that are adjacent to the

towpath (see Figure VI-2);

the containers
of
the towpath about 5 feet

towpath should be set on both sides

containers should be at

from the center of the path.

The outer
good practice to provide at

the edges of the wetted strip.

It is row to

of the container
least two extra containers on both ends
or speed.

allow for changes in wind direction

crop and soil (parts 2

2.
Fill in the data b-lanks about the
and 3 of Form VI-1).

10 feet from

3. Check the SUD at the following locations:

to the next towpath; and

the towpath; one-fou.rth of

the distance
the one
to be used next.

midway between the towpath in use and

Enter these SMD data in part 4.

the sprinkler,

4.
Note the make and model of
the traveler,
bore),
and nozzle diameter.

type of nozzle (orifice ring or

taper after the

the nozzle size

(It is also good practice to measure erosion so

check for nozzle

system is turned off.
This is done to Enter this

if necessary.)
the estimated flow rate can be adjusted
information in parts 5 and 6.

also the inlet and

5.
Check the hose length and diameter,
Record in part 7.

outlet pressures of the hose if feasible.

drive used in the

6.
Check and record in part 8 the type of
powered travelers
to estimate

traveler.
In evaluating water-piston from the

discharge
the drive flow, determine how long it takes the
piston to fill the bucket
(or jug) of known volume.

towpaths and the

7.
Measure and record the spacing between
9.

towpath length and general slope in part

catch to check

8. Set out two containers with the anticipated

first container should be set

the volume of evaporation losses.

The
the catch row and the

out when the wetted pattern first reaches

reaches the
row. Record

second container when the sprinkler vehicle

to record these date.

these catches in part 10 which is set up

(ft/mn) as
it

9. Determine the travel speed of the unit

speed should also be checked

passes over
the row of containers.
This

103

 at the extreme ends (beginning and terminal cn Figure

VI-2) of the

towpath and recorded in part 11.

To do this, stake
out a known length,

say 10 feet, and determine the time required for a

point on the

vehicle to travel between the stakes.

An alternate
method is to

determine the distance traveled in a given time, say

10 minutes.

10.
Check and record in part 6 the pressure at the
sprinkler

nozzle when it is about directly over

the catch row
and estimate the

sprinkler discharge from the marnufacturer's performance

chart.
(See

Figure 11-4.)

11. Estimate and record in part 12

the total discharge
from

the traveler by adding the sprinkler nozzle and piston

discharges.

Also estimate and record the total pressure loss through

the hose

and sprinkler.

12.
Note in part 17 the general test conditions including:

wind speed and direction, angle degrees of the dry

wedge of part­
circle sprinkler operation, wet or dry spots, and
runoff problems.

13. Measure and record in part 17

the depth of water
in all the

containers as soon as possible and observe whether

they are still

upright; note any abnormally low or high catches.

Then measure and

record in part 10 the catch in the

two evaporation
check containers

after the last container in the

row has been recorded.

14. Note any special comments such as

runoff, test
problems,

and crop water stresses in part 16.

15.
Do the computational work required in parts 17, and
13 through

15 of Form VI-l.

Part 17 of Form VI-l is designed to simplify the procedure

of

overlapping the catches to simulate a complete irrigation

between

adjacent towpaths.
To use the form, number the containers
from the

towpath outward beginning with 1, 2, 3, etc.,

to the
right and to the

left looking opposite to the direction of travel.

Enter the container

numbers and catch volumes as follows:

for the left
side data start

numbering with container 1 opposite the actual towpath

spacing (which

for the example field evaluation is 330 feet) and

number downward; and

for the right side data start the numbering with container
1 opposite

the towpath spacing of 10 feet and number upward.

Utilization of field data

Data used in computations in the following pages were

recorded in

evaluation of a traveling sprinkler system in a corn

field (Form

VI-l).

104

 and that the next run would

Assuming the test is representative

side of
the container catch

give identical results, the left-hand

to) the right-hand side. (See

volumes may be overlapped on

(added
to simplify this operation.

Figure VI-2.)
Form VI-I is designed
an estimate of the profile of

The overlapped data totals provide

adjacent towpaths.
For

the depth of irrigation water between

(see Chapter I, pp. 11 and 12)

computations of DU, PELQ, and AELQ

this depth profile represents the

that follow, it is assumed that

In other words, the assumption

distribution throughout the field.

the strip between towpaths is

is that the depth profile across

This is obviously subject to

the same along the entire strip.

at
the path ends, changes

question because of discontinuities

pressure due to elevation, and

in travel speeds, variations in

changes in wind speed and direction.

Distribution Uniformity

the system is operating at an

In order to determine whether

the DU should be evaluated.

acceptable and economical efficiency, data

average and low one-quarter catch

For the sample
test using the
from part 15 of Form VI-I is:

DU = 16X 100 71%

2.27

system with widely spaced

This is
a fair value for a traveler
of the speed of travel.

towpaths and is generally independent

catch along the distance

It is useful to plot the depth of

as
a means for spotting problem

between towpaths (see Figure VI-3)

represent the depth of catch

areas.
Note that the plotted poinLs
interval between adjacent towpaths.

at the midpoint of each 10-foot

towpaths are too far apart, which

Figure VI-3 shows that either the

midway between towpaths, or that

results in
a shallow wetted depth
too narrow. The effect of

the angle of the part circle is set

can be measured by using a

narrowing the spacing between towpaths

repeating the above procedure

blank copy cf Form V-l, part 17 and

new spacing. Widening this angle

with the same catch data and the

depth of water applied near
the

of the dry wedge would reduce the

of water applied midway between

paths and would increase the depth

of widening the angle requires

towpaths; but
to measure the effect
another catch test run.

the unit moves faster

The check of travel speed shows

that
run.
(See sample Form VI-l,

toward the terminal end of the towpath

caused by the interaction of

part 11.)
This change in speed is
105

700
3.5

rowpoths

erAverage catch
400
2.0

Average of low 1/4 catch

200

0 50 /00 150 200 250 300 330

Container position to the right of path -feet-
Figure VI-3.
Profile of overlapped container
catch data from

traveling sprinkler evaluation.

the buildup of cable on the winch reel

and the increased drag

exerted by the hose as the unit moves from

the beginning to the

terminal end of the towpath. Fortunately,

these two factors some­
what offset each other, and in the operation
reported here the unit

was traveling only 2% faster at the terminal

end than in the test

area and 5% slower at the beginning end.

(See Figure VI-2.) These

changes of speed would lower the DU over

the entire strip by about

three eighths of the total percent speed

change, i.e., 3/8 X (2 + 5)

or less than 2%.

Since the nozzle pressure is normally near

in elevation are usually not great enough 100 psi, differences

to affect DU appreciably.

Only differences in elevation along the

towpaths
because valves can adjust hose inlet pressures. are of concern

a difference of 40
to 50 feet in elevation However, even with

along the towpath, the

DU decreases by only about 4%.

Changes in wind speed and/or direction can

greatly affect DU,

aspecially if the wind direction changes

appreciably during the

106

 VI-2

operation in adjac nt towpaths (blows from the left in Figure

day). However, if the system

one day and from the right the next

in

is managed to operate approximately 24 hours in each towpath, as

minimized. The traveler is in

the example test, wind problems are

about the
same relative position along adjacent towpaths it a given

to be

time of day, when wind speed and direction are most likely
similar.

Potential Application Efficiency

PELQ should be determined in order to evaluate how effectively

the system can utilize the water supply and what the water losses

the

may be, then the total amount of water required to irrigate

from the ratio of the

field can be estimated. RELQ is calculated

average low-quarter depth caught in the containers to the average

depth applied (rather than rates as

used in other sprinkler system

evaluations).

The average depth applied, D, (in inches) is calcuiated from a

constant
times the total traveler discharge (the sprinkler discharge

plus the piston discharge, if the traveler is driven by water

piston) divided by the towpath spacing and the sprinkler's travel

speed.

piston discharae (,grm)

96.3 X sprinkler plus(feet)
D spacing X travel (feet/min)
60 path

in

From the sample data given in parts 9, 10, and 11,

and computed
2.43 inches. The

Part 14
on Form VI-l the average depth applied is
PELQ with a low one-quarter depth of 1.61 inches is:

= 1.6X 100 = 66%

PELQPEQ-2.43

This is a reasonable value for the central portion of a traveler

PELQ

irrigated field with such wide towpath spacings; however, the

around the boundaries will be much lower.

Application Efficiency

Effectiveness of the use

of the traveler system can be estimated

by how much of the applied water is stored in the soil and available

for consumptive use and by comparing the AELQ and the PELQ.

The fine sandy loam soils in the area tested hold about 1.5

inches per foot available moisture. Depth of the root zone of'the

107

 corn was 4.0 feet at that time, and a 35% MAD was
considered ideal.

This gives an MD of 2.1 inches. The field checks

(Form VI-l,

part 4) showed that SMD near the towpath and at

the 1/4 point were

2.1 inches and 2.2 inches, respectively, while in

the middle of the

strip it was 3.7 inches.

The minimum depth of 1.6 inches was applied in

the middle of

the strip where the SMD vas 3.7 inches (Figures

VI-2 and 3). Thus,

the system did not apply a full irrigation; no water

was lost to

deep percolation in the low-quarter application

area; and AELQ =

PELQ = 66%.

Apparently much of the area had been receiving adequate

irrigation because the SMD and MAD over much of

the
than or equal to the depth of application. However, strip were less

underirrigation

had created a cumulative deficit in the middle

areas between tow­
paths. This deficit was beginning to affect the
corn growth as

evidenced by stunted plants midway between paths.

Application Rate

The gun sprinklers normally used on travelers produce

flat pattern of distribution.
That is, if the a rather

traveler vehicle were

standing still, the application depth or application

rate over most

of the wetted area would be fairly uniform. An

estimate of the

average application rate, R, in inches per hour

can be obtained from

a conversion constant times the flow (in gpm) trom

the sprinkler

divided by the wetted area.

The wetted area depends
on the angle

of the wet sector (for part-circle sprinklers).

R = 96.3 X sprinkler discharge (.pm) X 360

towpath spacing (feet)2 X wet sector (degrees)

For the sample evaluation (Form VI-l, parts 6 and

9),
the sprinkler

discharges 500 gpm and the towpath spacing is 330

feet with the

part-circle sprinklers set for a 150

dry sector
i.e. 3450 wet.

The estimated average application rate computed

in part 13 of

Form VI-I is R = 0.46 in/hr. This is a

fairly high
application

rate for the fine sandy loam soils which could cause
infiltration and

runoff problems in steeper areas or where the soil

is in poor

condition (tilth).

Analysis and recommendations

Many of the observations and some recommendations

that can be

made from the additional data on Form VI-l, plus the DU and
PELQ

108

computations have already been referred to here and in other chapters

about sprinkle evaluation.

is

Operational checks. The pressure of 100 psi at

the nozzle
The total recorded losses of 37 psi

ideal for good breakup of drops.

psi in the 4-inch by 660-foot

(10 psi in the drive turbine and 27

6, 7, ard

flexible hose) are reasonable. (See Form VI-l, parts

12.)

Runoff. Infiltration did not appear to be a problem.

The fine

at 0.46 iph

sandy loam soils could receive the light application

dry.

with no runoff, and the

towpath remained relatively

Underirrigation. After reviewing the full value of the operation,

reasonable.

it was concluded that the amount of underirrigation was

summer rain which may offset the

The area receives considerable

of
the strips; furthermore, the

cumulative SMD along the center

restricted supply of water made it

large
area of the field and the
depth of application very much

impractical to increase the average

rates would

Only improvements in DU and possibly slightly higher flow

be practical.

be to

Improvements. The only major improvement necessary would

the towpath

increase the DU.

However, it is not reasonable to narrow
spacing during the growing season. If this spacing were reduced,

between

the numbers of towpaths and consequently the number of days

irrigations would need to be increased.

be

Several practical possibilities for improving the DU might

tried in the following order:

1. Increase the angle of the dry area up to between 900 and

1200.

range

2.
Try a taper bore nozzle, which would have a greater
for the same discharge and pressure.

3. Increase the nozzle size to the next larger sized ring

nozzle.

are

Edge effects. The outside towpaths of the present system

The field was laid out

placed 150 feet inside the field boundaries.

similarly to what appears in Figure VI-2.
There were 8 towpaths

across the 2610-foot width of the field--2640 feet less a 30-foot

road right-of-way.
Data on Form VI-l, part 17, indicate this

the

layout should give a reasonable application (1.7 inches) on

downwind side but a very light (0.4 inch) watering along the upwind

side.

109

 The traveler started at one edge of the field

and stopped at

the opposite edge.

This resulted in considerable
overthrow but

watered the ends of the field (Figure VI-2)

fairly well.
The

full length of the 660-foot hose was needed

because it had to be

dragged through the 1320-foot length of the

towpaths.

The PELQ of 66% computed earlier was for the

central portion of

the field; however, because of poor uniformity

along the boundaries

where there is insufficient overlap, plus

water that is thrown

outside of the planted area

(see Figure VI-2),
the overall field

efficiency is considerably lower.

For the 80-acre
field evaluated,

the overall field PELQ was only estimated to

be 52%. Much of this

reduction in efficiency is due to poor uniformity

along the edge of

the field where the traveler is started and

the edge where it stops.

(See Figure IV-2.) To minimize the decrease in PELQ along the ends

of the towpaths the traveler would need to

be started about 150 feet

outside the edge of the field and allowed to

travel 100 feet past

the opposite edge of the field; these distances

are unequal because

of the wind. If
the field were square (160-acre)
with towpaths

twice
as long (2640 feet), the relative end
effects would bc half
as

great and the overall field PELQ would have

been approximately 57%.

Summary

The DU of 71% and the PELQ of 66%

found in
the evaluation are

typical for performance of supplemental irrigation

systems used on

corn.
The main problems in
this system are
associated with a poor

DU, in which the dryest part of

the pattern
occurred in the mid­
portions of the strips between towpaths. Changing
angle of the

dry area of the sprinkler or the

type or size
of the sprinkler

nozzle may improve the DU.

Special control systems which essentially eliminate

the reduction

in PELQ caused by the poor uniformity along

towpath ends are
in the

pilot operation stage.

These control systems
change the angle of

the part circle sprinkler and the speed of travel

upon leaving and

approaching the towpath ends.

For the 80-acre
field evaluated, such

a control system could increase the overall

field PELQ by about

10% or up to approximately 62%.

110

 CHAPTER VII

GUN AND BOOM SPRINKLER IRRIGATION

Gun (or giant) sprinklers have 5/8-inch or targer range nozzles

attached to long (12

or more inches) discharge tubes. Most gun

sprinklers are rotated by means of a "rocker arm drive" and many can

be set to irrigate a part circle.

(See Figure VII-I.)

Boom sprinklers have a rotating 100- to 250-foot iong boom

supported in the middle by a tower mounted on

a trailer. The tower

serves as the pivot for the boom which is rotated once every 1 to 5

minutes by the reaction of jets of water discharged from nozzles. The

nozzles
are spaced and sized to apply a fairly uniform and gentle

application of water to a circular area over 300 feet in diameter.

(See Figure VII-2.)

Gun or boom sprinkler systems can be used in many similar situ­

ations and eacb has its comparative advantages and disadvantages.

However, gun sprinklers are considerably less expensive and simpler

to operate; consequently there are more gun than boom sprinklers in

use. For convenience the word gun will also imply boom through the

rest of this chapter, since both sprinklers can be evaluated by the

same general technique.

Gun and boom sprinklers usually discharge more than 100 gpm and

are operated individually rather than as sprinkler-laterals as

discussed in Chapter II. (See Figures VII-I and -2.)

Gun sprinklers

can be evaluated by the techniques described in Chapter II because

they are a type of overlapped sprinkler-lateral system, but there

are major difficulties in using these techniques because of the

following:

1. Typical spacings range between 200 and 400 feet; thus, for

a square grid catch container layout several hundred containers may

be required.

2. Since the sprinklers normally run as individual units, the

field test data need to be overlapped in two directions; first to

represent the spacing between sprinklers on a lateral supply line and

again to represent the spacing between lateral supply lines.

With a

large number of catch container data this overlapping process is both

tedious and time consuming.

3. Often gun and boom sprinklers are used to irrigate tall

growing crops, which complicate the catch container setup. The

containers must either be mounted above the crop or a considerable

il1

Figure VII-1. Part circle rocker arm drive gun sprinkler

in operation.

Figure VII-2. Boom sprinkler in operation.

112

 of them.
(Since the

amount of crop must be cleared from around each

it
is difficult to

wetted area around each sprinkler is quite large,

areas along the sides
or ends of the

find sufficiently large clear

the cropped area.)

fields to test the sprinklers oucside of

technique has been specifi­

Because of the above considerations, a
gun and boom sprinkler systems.

cally developed for field evaluation of

that could be obtained

This technique sacrifices some of the accuracy

but it is less complex.

a grid of several hundred catch containers,

from

gun sprinkler systems

are

Many detailed procedures in evaluating

sprinklers. General

similar to
those used for evaluating traveling
for evaluating the

knowledge of the techniques already described

sprinklers is assumed.

sprinkler-lateral and
traveling

Evaluation

The following information is required:

1.
Duration of normal irrigations.

2. WAD and SAID.

system's flow rate.

3.
Nozzle(s) diameter and type for estimating

lines.

4. Spacing of sprinklers along portable supply

lines.

5. Spacing of supply lines along the main

a boom sprinkler).

6. Pressure at
the nozzle (or tower of

7.
Depth of water caught in catch containers.

8. Duration of test.

9. Add.tional data specified on Form VII-i.

nozzle is necessary

An accurate estimate of
the flow rate from the
the system.
A good way to

for calculating the PELQ and AELQ of

sprinkler performance

estimate the flow is

to use the manufacturer's
sprinkler discharge and

chart.
A typical performance chart tells the
at different pressures.

the diameter of coverage for various nozzles

Equipment needed

The equipment the evaluator needs is:

113

 Form VII-I.
GUN SPRINKLER O.
BOOM IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location
Florida
, Observer JK , Date 6/17/70
2. Crop Corn , Root zone depth 4 ft, MAD
-- %, MAD -- in
3. Soil: texture mediwn
, tilth good , avail, moisture 2.0in/ft
4. SMD
near lateral
3 in, at 1/4 point

4 in at mid-point 2 in

SMD M : near lateral

2
in, at
1/4 point
2 in at mid-point
2 in

5. Sprinkler: make Rain Bird

, model 204E

nozzle (taper or ring)

1.3
taper
-inch

6. Sprinkler spacing
260
-ft by
330 -ft, Irrig. duration
4 hs

7. Design sprinkler discharge

500 gpm at
105 psi giving 0.561n/hr

8.
Actual sprinklar pressure
and estimated average discharge:

initial 105 psi, final L5psi,

ave l05psi estimated 500 gpm
9. Test layout.

Catch
Wind: speed
2 - 6 mph
Row

a i

JJdirection

-_4bZ

CQ
Note wet or dry
areas and sketch

the wetting pattern

over the circle.

Left " Right

10. Evaporation:
initial 100ml, final
97 ml, loss 3
ml
= .0151n

11. Average catch rates for

2.1
hr test ( 200 ml/hr = 1.0 in/hr):
System (sum all catch totals 15,574
ml)
(number of totals 66) X (2 .1 hrs) 112m1/hr 056in/hr

=

Low 1/4 = (sum of low 1/4 catch totals 2349

ml)
(number of low 1/4 totals 17
) X (2.1 hrs) - 66 ml/hr

0 .3 3 in/hr
12. Estimated average rate applied
over area:

96.3 X
estimatedsprinklerdischarge

sprinkler spacing ( 260

ft) 500gpm)

X ( 330 ft) =
0.56 in/hr

13. Comments (wind drift, runoff, etc.)

no bad wind drift or runoff

but some signs of onding were evident--s8prinkle
t did rot

break up too well!

 Form VII-l GUN OR BOOM SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EVALUATION (Cont.)

14. Container row test data in units of

ml , Volume/depth 200 ml/in

Container spacing: in rows

10 ft, between rows 130 ft

9:30 am, Stop 11:36 am, Duration 2 hr 6min = 2.10 hr

Start

- Container Numbers and Catch Volumes -- light/Left 41+ M 2

Lat- Left side of lateral Right side of lateral ide Totals plus

eral M1 M 2 M1 M2 I+M 2 pl

spac Catch
Catch 1

(ft) No. Catch Catch Catch No. Catch Catch Catch atch Catch totals

360

350

340
__
3 0 - 1 124 152 230 276 230 506
320 r
2 135 153 228 288 228 516
310 140 157 273
297 273 570
300 4 149 156 317
309 317 626

290 5 153 160 252

313 252 565

280 . 6 154 165 188

319 188 507

270 7 143 173 191 316 191 507

8 133 180 197

313 197 510

260 .
250 U 9 12 192 201 304 201 505

7
910 197 207 24
294 207 501'
240
230 11 81 198 237 = 23 0 279 237 514
12 64 193 265 22 10 257 275 532
220
210 w 13 52 201 272 21 33 253 305
558­
200 c 14 45 202 279 20 0 64 247 343 590
190 15 36 177 270 19 8 0 92 221 362 583
180 -- 16 23 144 251 0 18 11 9 105 187 356 543
170 17 11 96 191 2'7 25 17 112 149 303
452
160 18 5 50. 128 0 16 43 25 123 423 251 374
150O 19 0 1? 97 E 15 90 20 132 127 229 356
140 20 9 53 1 14 125 69 145 203 198 401
130 0 21 5 14 0 13 129 116 15z 25 167 41E
120 - 22 0 0 12 128 136 144 264 144 408
110 $4 23 11 127 152 135 279 135 414

100 0 24 _ 10 127 164 116 291_ 11a 4Q.7

90 ' 9 125 169 101 294 101 395

80
8 119 167 99 286 99 385
70_,_ _ 7 115 167 100 282 100 382

60
6 112 168 137 280 137 417

50 5 115 161 167 277 167 444

40 4 115 156 153 271 153 424

30
t23 117 157 138 274 138 412

20
2 120 153 137 273 137 410

10 -- 1 120 152 169 272 169 441

Sum of all catch totals 16,574

Sum of low 1/4 catch totals 2A349

115
 1.
A pressure gauge (0-150 rsi) with pitot
tube attachment

(Figure 11-4).

2. A stopwatch or watch with an easily visible

second hand.

J.
From 100 to 200 catch containers (depending
on the diameter

of coverage) such as 1-quart oil cans or

plastic freezer

cartons.

4.
A 500-ml graduated cylinder to measure
volume of water

caught iii individual containers.

5. A 50-
or 100-foot tape for measuring distances
in laying out

the lines of containers.

6. A soil probe or auger.

7. Manufacturer's sprinkler performance chart

that shows the

rclation between nozzle diameters, discharge,

pressure, and

wetted diameter plus recommended range

of operating pressures.

8.
A shovel for smoothing areas to set
catch containers and for

checking profiles of soil, root, and water

penetration.

9. Form VII-l for recording data.

Field procedure

Fill in the data blanks (Form VII-l)

progresses.
A good location for the test as the field procedure

area is a sprinkler position

adjacent to the mainline, where an access

road is usually provided.

For tall growing crops such as corn, an

access road is the most

practical location for setting out catch

containers. However, since

three rows of containers are required, some

rows will need to be

located directly in the crop.

1.
Set out three rows of catch containers
across the lateral

supply line path.

(See Figure VII-3.)

One row should be located

directly through the sprinkler test position;

(the centerline row) the

other two rows should cross the lateral

supply line path at points

midway between the sprinkler test location

and the sprinkler locations

at either side of it (the M and M rows).

1 2

Set the catch containers 10 feet apart

in the rows.
Containers

adjacent to the lateral supply line should

be set 5 feet from it on

both sides. The outer containers should

be at the edges of the

anticipated wetted circle.

This can be
estimated from a sprinkler

116

 / ..... X .... ..... "

Pumping Akin____
unit "

i l latera
un sprinkler

FiueGI3 yi un sprinkler laot shwn oa iono

catch container rows for distribution uniformity

evaluations.

that is in operation or that has been in operation recently.

It is

good practice to provide at least two extra containers on both ends of

the container rows to allow for changes in wind direction and speed.

2.
Fill in the data blanks about the crop and soil (parts 2

and 3 of Form VII-l).

3. Check SMD along the centerline row and one other row of catch

containers at the following locations:

10 feet from the lateral

supply line; one-fourth of the distance to the next lateral; and

midway between the lateral in use and the one to be used next.
Enter

these SID data in part 4.

117

 4. Note the byrinkler make, model, size, and type of nozzle(s)

(orifice ring or tapec bore for gun sprinklers). It is a good

practice to check the nozzle for erosion or irregularities. Enter

this information in part 5. (For boom sprinklers enter the nozzling

designation in the blank after nozzle.)

5. Obtain the sprinkler spacing and duration of irrigation.

Record these in part 6. Also obtain the design operating pressure and

sprinkler discharge from the operator and compute the design appli­
cation rate. Record this information in part 7.

6. Have the operator set up and turn on one sprinkler at the

test location. While he is bringing the sprinkler up to the standard

operating pressu:e, hold the drive mechanism (of gun sprinklers) out

of the stream and direct the jet so that no water enters the catch

containers. When the sprinkler reaches the normal operating pressure,

release it and note the starting time in part 14.

7. Check and record (part 8) the initial and final pressure at

the sprinkler nozzle (or tower of a boom sprinkler) and estimate the

sprinkler discharge rate from the manufacturer's performance chart.

8. Check the wind direction and estimate wind speed occasionally

during the tcst. Record as

shown in part 9 of sample Form VII-l.

Also note any irregularities in the wetting pattern.

9. Set outside the wetted area a container holding the antici­

pated amount of catch to check the volume of water lost by evaporation.

(See part 10.)

10. Terminate the test by stopping the sprinkler from rotating

when it is in a position where the jet (from gun sprinkler) does not

fall into the containers.

Note the time, check and record the pressure,

and turn off the water. It is most desirable for the duration of the

test to be equal to the duration of irrigation to get the full effects

of wind and evaporation. Minimum duration tests should apply at least

an average of 0.5 inch of water in the containers.

Measure the depth of water in all of the containers and observe

whether they are still upright; note any abnormally low or high catches.

Part 14 is designed to simplify the procedure of overlapping the catches

to simulate a complete irrigation between two adjacent sprinklers along

a lateral line and between two lateral lines.

To use this form, number

the containers from a lateral line outward beginning with 1, 2, 3, etc.,

to the right and to the left of the lateral supply line. (See Figure

VII-3 and the Figure in part 9 of Form VII-l.) Enter the container

numbers and catch volumes in part 14 as follows. 7or the left side data

start numbering with container 1 opposite the actual lateral spacing

118

 downward.

(which for the example field evaluation is 330 feet) and number
For the right side data start the numbering with container 1 opposite

are three

the lateral spacing of 10 feet and number upward.

There
the data from the

left-side and three right-side data columns to record

three rows of catch containers.

Utilization of field data

Assuming the test is representative and that all adjacent

the right-hand side

sprinkler settings would give identical results,

on the left-hand side and the

of the catch pattern may be overlapped

(See Figure VII-3.)

two mid-can (M and M 2 ) rows overlapped.

of the depth

The overlapped data are an estimate of the profiles

at two different

of irrigation water between two lateral pipe paths

on adjacent laterals

locations. One is
directly between two sprinklers
(See Figure

and the other is halfway co the next two sprinklers.

I, pp.

VII-4.) For computations of DU, PELQ, and AELQ (see Chapter

represent

11 and 12) to follow, it is assumed that

these profiles
field.
This assumption is obviously

the distribution throughout the

at field boundaries,

subject to question because of discontinuities

speed, and the

pressure variations, changes of wind direction and

catch over a

fact that each data point must represent the uniform

rather large area.

Distribution Uniformity

In order to determine whether a system is operating at

acceptable

and economic efficiency, the Distribution Uniformity in the central

portion of the field should be evaluated. Using the system and low

one-quarter average catch rates from the sample test

(see Form VII-I,

part 11):

DU =0 33 X 100 = 59%

0.56

This is a low but typical value for many supplemental irrigation

systems with widely spaced gun sprinklers. It is useful to plot the

depth of catch against the distance between supply laterals (Figure

VII-4).
Such a plot helps to spot problem areas. This plot shows

that the mid-sprinkler catch ('M 1 +

12 ) row received more
water on the

average than the centerline (%) row. It also indicates that the

on the lateral probably was too close and

spacing between sprinklers

the spacing between laterals was too wide. Typically the shallowest

catch depths are in the areas where diagonal lines drawn between four

119

40C

2.0

I \\
I \
I\
--­
0--:..A4 _\# M, tJ -15
A of M/+ Ms CO
Overall overage catch \
i- . . . .. .. . ... .. .. . .. ..

Average of low 1/4 catch

Lateral positions

I I I
050 I00 /50 200 250 300

Con/ainer position to the right of pcth -feet-

Figure VII-4. Profiles of overlapped catch data for

gun sprinkler

evaluation.

sprinklers cross.
For the sample system
the catch in this area fell

in the low one-fourth range, as indicated

by the dip (below the

low quarter catch line) in the M + M

1
2 profile,but other areas along

sprinkler center line row were even dryer.

The sample catch data could be used

to evaluate a wider spacing

between lateral supply lines.

Unfortunately
a new set of data would

need to be collected
to represent a wider
spacing between sprinklers

on the lateral.
This is because the
mid-rows of containers must pass

through the mid-poiats between sprinklers

on the lateral line.
(See

Figure 11-3.)

Alternate sets.
It is often desirable
to
use alternate sets in

which the sprinklers are

always placed
midway between the positions used

at
the preceeding irrigation.
This
does not solve the problem of how

120

to water the ends of the field uniformly, in fact alternate setting

may aggravate it; however, alternate setting results in a considerably
higher DU for tl complete cycle of two irrigations. This is the same
the
as if all sprinkler positions along the lateral were one-half
the system e.vluated would be 13C feet apart.
normal distance, which for

To simulate the effect of alternate gun or boom sprinkler settings,

can be
the MI + M 2 and the q_ total columns in part 14 of Form VII-I
Mlel this was done for the
added to make a single total columnn.
was 3108 ml. The
sample test, the sum of the 8 lowest catch totals
equaled the previous value of 15,574
sum of all the catch totals still
the DU
ml. This simple management program of alternate sets improved
irrigation
in the interior of the field from a low of 59% for a single
to:

DLU (alterna-c set) "> X 1000

The alternate set procedure does not

compensate for an inadequate
the

irrigation depth that would excessively stress the crop during

moderate under­
interval between the two full irrigations. However,
is
irrigation in the mid-area is not detrimental if adequate moisture
are
applied in the upper portion of the root zone and if irrigations
frequent.

Potential Applicat ion Efficiency

The Imust be determined in order to evaluate how efficiently

may
the system can utilize the water supply and what
the total losses
irrigate the field can

be,
then the total amount of water required to
be estimated. The sample data recorded on Form VII-l show that the

average rate applied over tile central portion of the field (part 12)

was 0.56 iph, so:

PELQ - ,, 1000 =

This value of PELQ is

the same as DU because the estimated average

application rate applied over

the area, based on a 260- by 300-foot

sprinkler spacing and a 500 gpm discharge, was the same as the average

catch rate. Since some water loss by wind drift and evaporation are

inevitable (see Form VII-l, part 10), it would be impossible to achieve

DU
a catch rate equal to the applicatlon rate. The fact that P','LQ and
is caused by having
are equal results from unavoidable inaccuracy that
to estimate discharges and by having only a minimum number of catch
containers.

1.21

 Application Efficiency

Effectiveness of the use

of the system can be estimated
by

measuring how much of

the applied water is supplied to
the soil and

is available for consumptive use.

The farmer applied weekly

irrigations to the field which was

studied in the sample
evaluation

(whenever it did not rain), and he had never

thought about
the concept

of MAD for scheduling purposes. In checking the field,

it
was found

the SMD ranged between 2 and 4 inches. (See Form VII-l, part 4.)

With 4.hour irrigations, the minimum depth applied was

4 x 0.33 =
1.32
inches. Hence, no water was
lost to deep percolation;
in fact, areas
that received the minimum depth were considerably underirrigated
and
AELQ = PELQ = 59%.

Analysi3 and recommendations

Observations and some recommendations that

can be made
from the

additional data on Form VII-1 and the computations of DU

and PELQ

have already been reported here and in other sprinkler

evaluation

sections.

Operational checks. The pressure of 105 ps4 at

the nozzle
is

ideal for good breakup of drops.

The taper bore nozzle
was smooth

and produced a very clean stream of water.

Runoff. Some surface ponding began at the end of

a 4-hour

irrigation.
This is quite typical for the high application
rates

associated with large gun sprinklers. Although there

was no runoff,

the ponding indicated that the length of set

was about
maximum for

the soil infiltration conditions.

Underirrigation. This gun sprinkler system was designed

to

provide supplemental irrigation at

an application rate
of approximately

1.5 inches every week when there was no rain.

Although
under­
irrigation was considerable, there was a 90% probability
of sufficient

rain before the SMD became large enough over an area sufficient
to

create substantial crop loss. Furthermore, thc system

was being

operated for only 16 hours a day for 5 days a week;

if
it did not

rain, almost twice as much water could be applied by full-time

operation of the system.

Improvements. Use of alternate sets would greatly improve

DU

and consequently PELQ. Because of considerable over-throw

along the

top and bottom ends of the field, the alternate sets would
not create

any more problem of end unifor-mity than already existed.

Using

alternate sets could raise the PELQ to 82% and would make
the SMD

more uniform throughout the field by filling in the low

spots of the

application.
The uniformity along the boundaries of the
field could

122

be greatly improved by using half-circle sprinkler setting at the

ends of the laterals in conjunction with alternate sets. This would

require 6 settings along each lateral position for every other

irrigation; but since the application rate would be double, the

irrigation could be cut in half (to 2 hours) when the sprinkler was

set to irrigate half-circles on the lateral ends. (See Figure VII-3.)

The application uniformity was poor along the sides of the field.

The only way to improve the situation would be to use the half-circle

sprinkler natterns on laterals laid along each side and full circle

sprinklers along 3 laterals positions through the center of the field.

(See Figure VII-3.)

Other possible improvements night be tried in the following order:

1. Change the taper bore nozzle to an orifice type nozzle.

This would give better jet break up and would produce more fallout near

the sprinkler where the deficits are now greatest.

2. The spacing between sprinkler settings on the supply lateral

line could be increased to 330 feet to give four instead of five

sprinkler wets in 1320 feet. (See Figure VII-l.)

Edge effects. The PELO of 59% computed earlier was for the

central portion of the field. However, there is no overlap from

adjacent sprinklers around the boundaries of the field. Furthermore,

the'water which falls outside of the boundaries is lost. (See Figure

VII-3.) These two boundary or edge effects reduce the overall PELQ.

For the 40-acre fiela evaluated, the overall PELQ was only estimated

to be 52%. By using alternate sets as described on page 115 the edge

losses would only occur along the boundaries parallel to the lateral

paths and the overall alternate set PELQ would be approximately 78%.

Summary

The DU and PELQ of 59% computed in the evaluation show typical

performances of supplemental irrigation systems using widely spaced

gun sprinklers on corn. The main problems of the system are associated

with a poor DU in which the driest part of the wetting pattern is

near the sprinkler. Using alternate sets improved the DU and PELQ

to 82%, a very high value. However, the uniformity of wetting along

the field boundaries would still be low. Using an orifice type nozzle

and/or increasing the spacing between sprinklers along the supply

lateral may increase the DU without using alternate sets and should

be evaluated.

123

 CHAPTER VIII

TRICKLE IRRIGATION

Trickle irrigation, sometimes called "drip" irrigation, is a

system for supplying filtered water and somc:times fertilizer,

directly onto or into the soil.

General operation

In trickle irrigation water is dissipated from a pipe distribu­

tion network under low pressure in a predetermined pattern. The

outlet device that emits water to

the soil is called an "emitter."

Figure VIII-l shows a typical lateral hose for supplying water to a

row of trickle irrigation emitters; it is lying on the soil surface

along a row of young trees. Emitters dissipate the pressure in the

pipe distribt'tion networks by means of a narrow nozzle or long flow

path and thereby decrease the water pressure to allow discharge of

only a few gallons per hour. After leaving the emitter at arn
emission

point, water flows through the soil profile by capillarity a!id

gravity; therefore, the area that can be watered from each enitter

source point is limited by the constraints of the water's horizontal

flow.
Trickle systems can be operated daily, or less frequfntly, if

desired.

For wide-spaced permanent crops such as

trees and vinas,

emitters are individually manufactured units that are attached by a

barb to a flexible supply line called the "emitter lateral,"

"lateral hose," or "lateral." Some emitters have more than one

outlet to supply water through small diameter "spaghetti" tubing to

two or more emission points. This is done to obtain a larger wetted

area with a min-mum increase in cost. For less permanent row crops

such as tomatoes, sugar cane, and strawberries, the lateral with

emitter outlets is manufactured as a disposable unit having either

perforations spaced every 9 to 36 inches, as

in bi-wall tubing, or

having porous walls from which water oozes.

For both types of trickle

systems, the laterals are connected to supply lines called the

"manifolds." Figure VIII-2 shows the layout of

a typical
trickle

irrigation system.

Trickle irrigation is a most convenient means of supplying each

plant, such as a tree or vine, with a low-tension supply of soil

moisture that iin sufficient to meet demands imposed by evapo­

transpiration.
A trickle irrigation system offers unique agronomical,

agrotechnical, And economical advantages for efficient use

of water

125

 A. - - . . . R .,.

Figure VIII-I. Trickle irrigation lateral hose in a young orchard.

Manifold La/era/s

W/,pump, Control valve

Ifertilizer Injector,
and main filters

BlockI Block T

Figure VIII-2.
Typical layout for trickle irrigation system.

126

and labor. The main disadvantages inherent in trickle irrigation

systems are their comparatively high cost, their proneness to clogging,

their tendency to build up local salinity, and where improperly

designed, their too partial and spotty distribution of soil moisture.

Cloggng. Clogging of emitters is the most difficult problem

encountered in using trickle irrigation systems. The most common

cause cf clogging is presence of mineral and organic particles in the

water supply. Filtration of the water and preventing contaminants

from entering or forming within the system is the best defense against

clogging for it is difficult to detect and expensive to clean or

replace a clogged emitter. Figure VIII-3 shows a typical trickle

irrigation filtration system of three sand filters followed by a

bank oi four screen filters.

Another common cause of clogging is the precipitation of calcium

or the products of iron bacteria due to the presence of dissolved

calcium and/or iron salts in the water supply. Periodic chemical

treatment of the water supply is a good defense against slow clogging

or plugging due to precipitates.

Figure VIII-3. Typical bank of sand filters followed by screen

filters for a trickle irrigation system.

127

 Clogging sometimes causes poor distribution along the laterals;

this may damage a crop severely if emitters are clogged for a long

time before they are discovered and cleaned or repaired. Normally

the main bank of filtration and chemical injection equipment is

located at the pumping plant. In addition, it is useful to include

screens near the inlet of each hose as an additional safety factor.

These screens stop any debris that entered the line during the

cleaning of the main filters or during the repair of breaks in the

mainline.

Fertilizer injection. Under trickle irrigation, the water does

not leach the fertilizer spread or broadcast over the soil surface

into the root zone; therefore, it is necessary to add much of the

required fertilizer, especially nitrogen, directly to the irrigation

water. Ordinarily, phosphorus fertilizers cannot be added to the water

because they precipitate out in the top few inches of soil and are

difficult to incorporate into the root zone except by mechanical

means.

Application of potassium through the irrigation water causes no

particular problems. Potassium oxide, the most common form, is very

soluble and moves freely into the soil; the potassium molecules

become exchanged on the soil complex and are not readily leached

away.

Most nitrogen fertilizers are quite soluble, but applying

nitrogen through the irrigation water requires some precautions.

Ammonia fertilizers change the pH of the water and may cause

precipitation of soluble calcium in the water. This precipitation

coats the inside of pipes and plugs emitters. The safest nitrogen

fertilizers to apply through a trickle system are ammonium sulfate,

ammonium nitrate, or urea. These do not change the pH of the water

and do not cause precipitation. All nitrogen fertilizers, however,

are subject to being leached frou. the soil root zone; consequently,

care must be taken to prevent them from being lost by overirrigation.

Irrigation depth and interval. Since trickle irrigation wets

only part of the soil volume as orchard sprinkler systems do, the

method for determin.ng both the desirable depth or volume of appli­

cation per cycle of trickle irrigation and the irrigation interval

is unique.

The MAD at which irrigation should be started depends on the

soil, the crop, and the water-yield-economic factor. Since this

relationship cannot be expressed quantitatively, the MAD in most

soils may be assume' as 30% for droug' t-sctnsitive crops and as much

as 60% for nonsencitive crops.

128

 The percentage of wetted area (P)as compared to the entire

cropped area depends on discharge at each emission point, emission

point spacing, and the type of soil being irrigated. (See Figure

VIII-4.) The area wetted by each emission point is usually quite

small at the soil surface; and P is determined from an estimate of

the average area wetted at a depth of about 12 inches under the

emitters divided by the cropped area served by the emitters.

No single right or proper minimum value for P has yet been

established. However, one can conclude that systems having high P

values provide more stored water (a valuable protection in case of

system failure) should be easier to schedule and bring more of the

soil sysLem into action for storage and supply of nutrients. For the

7p I4

Wetted soil Dry soil

Figure VIII-4.
Typical wetting pattern under trickle irrigation

showing approximately 50 percent of the cross

sectioned root area wetted.

129

current state of knowledge, a reasonable design objective for arid

regions is to wet at least one-third (P = 33%) and up to one-half

of a cropped area.
In regions that receive considerable supplemental

On

rainfall, values in the neighborhood of P = 20% are acceptable.

the other hand,P should be held below 50 or 60% in widely spaced

crops because one advantage of trickle irrigation is that it keeps

the strips between rows of trees or vines relatively dry for

cultural practices which also reduces water losses due to evaporation.

Also capital costs increase with a larger coverage so economics favor

the smaller percentage.

Evaluation

Use of much of the information that follows depends upon an

understanding of the utilization of the field data and analysis that

was presented or, orchard sprinklers in Chapter IV. The data needed

for evaluating a trickle irrigation system are available by determin­

ing:

1. Duration, frequency, and sequence of operation of normal

irrigation cycle.

2. The SM4D and MAD in the wetted volume.

3. Rate of discharge at the emission points and the pressure

near several emitters spaced throughout the system.

4. Changes in rate of discharge from emitters after cleaning

or other repair.

5. The percent of soil volume wetted.

6. Spacing and size of trees or

other plants being irrigated.

7. Location of emission points relative to trees, vines, or

other plants and uniformity of spacing of emission points.

8. Losses of pressure at the filters.

9. General topography.

10. Additional data indicated on Form VIII-l.

Equipment needed

The equipment needed for collecting the necessary field data is:

1. Pressure gauge (0-50 psi range) with "T" adapters for

temporary installation at either end of the lateral hoses.

130

 2. A stopwatch or watch with an easily visible second hand.

3. Graduated cylinder with 250 ml capacity.

4. Measuring tape 10 to 20 feet long.

5.
Funnel with 3- to 6-inch diameter.

6. Shovel and soil auge or probe.

7. Manufacturer's emitter performance charts showing the

relationships between discharge and pressure plus recommended

operating pressures and filter requirements.

8. Sheet metal or plastic trough 3 feet long for measuring the

discharge from several outlets in a perforated hose

simultaneously or the discharge from a 3-foot length of

porous tubing. (A piece of 1- or 2-inch PVC pipe cut in

half lengthwise makes a good trough.)

9. Copies of Form VIII-l

for recording data.

Field procedure

The following field procedure is suitable for evaluating both

systems with individually manufactured emitters and systems that use

perforated or porous lateral hose.

Fill in the data blanks of

From VIII-l while conducting field procedure.

1. Fill in parts 1, 2, and 3 of Form VIII-l concerning the

general soil and crop characteristics throughout the field.

2. Determine from the operator the duration and frequency of

irrigation and his concept of the MAD to complete part 4.

3. Check and note in part 5 the pressures at the inlet and

outlet of the filter and, if practical, inspect the screens for

breaks and any other possibility for contaminants to bypass the

screens.

4. Fill in parts 6, 7, and 8 which deal with the emitter and

lateral hose characteristics. (When testing perforated or porous

tubing the discharge may be rated by the manufacture: in flow per

unit length.)

5. Locate four emitter laterals along an operating manifold

(see Figure VIII-2); one should be near the inlet and two near
the

131

 Form VIII-l. TRICKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location Ranch 14 , Observer JK , Date 8-1-1971

2. Crop: type Citrus , age 7 years, spacing 2 2 -by 22 -feet

root depth 4 ft, percent area covered or shaded
70 %

3. Soil: texture silt loam , available moisture 2.0 in/ft

4. Irrig: duration 6 hrs, frequency 1 days, MAD 10%, .8 in

5. Filter pressure: inlet 60 psi, outlet 55 psi, loss

5 psi

6. Emitter: make SP , .ype flushinq point spacing 5 ft

7. Rated discharge per emission point 3.0 gph at 30 psi
Emission points per plant 4 , giving 72 gallon per plant per day
0 "5 8 22
8. Hose: diameter in, material PVC , length 150 ft, spacing ft

9. System layout, general topography, and test locations:

0 +15'

A_
A B
_
_
C TBD
1
ZCDck - oera
ing
E __ F (7 __,_,_Peit mnifM ld iteris

4- - - -pc' co.trol vav'.e

TT O(I-, l",l

--- --- ------- aelgva 'on

I shown alo nd
r ~~ ~ ~ wLw0
Fie _ vr'' !t

10. System discharge gpm No. of manifolds 32

and blocks 4
11. Average test manifold emission point discharges at
45 psi

Manifold of all averages 1.94 -(sum

gph)
2.62 gph
(number of averages 16 -)
Lowr 1/4 (sum of low 1/4 averages 9.07 gph) -2.21
_h

(numiber of low 1/4 averages 4

a

12. Adjusted average emission point discharges at

45 psi

System = (DCF 1.013 X (manifold average 2.62 gph) =

Low 1/4 (DCF1.013 X (manifold low 1/4 2.27 gph) =

13. Comments: Trees looked as if they Lrp not rep * _ e* ;42h

water! Urea was being injected. Filter system seemed okay.

132

 Form VIII-I. TRICKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION (Cont.)

14. Discharge test volume collected in 1,0

min (1.0 gph - 63 ml/min)

Outlet
--- Lateral Location on the Manifold

Location inlet end 1/3 down 2/3 down far end

on Lateral
,_

ml gph ml gph ml gph ml gph

inlet A 132 2.10 160 2.54 192 3.04

195 3.10

end B 160 2.54 188 2.99 140 2.23

205 3.26

Ave 2.32 2.77 2.64 3.18

1/3 A 160 2.54 295 3.10 175 2.78 169 2.69

down B 168 2.66

158 2.50 170 2.70 180 2.86

Ave 2.60 2.80 2.74

2.78

2/3 A 187 2.97 146 2.31 125 1.99 144 2.29

down B 175 2.78

155
2.46 155 2.46 175 2.78

Ave 2.88 2.38 2.23 2.54

far A 170 2.70 190 3.02 210 3.34 151 2.39

end B 125 1.99 135 2.15 266 2.62 130 2.07

Ave 2.34 2.58

2.98 2.18

15. Lateral inlet 47.5 psi 45.0 psi 45.5 psi 45.0 psi

closed end 46.0 psi 43.5 psi 45.0 psi 44.0 psi

16. Wetted area 150 ft2 125 ft2 140 ft2 145 ft2

per plant 31 % 26 % 29
% 30 %

17. Estimated average SMD in wetted soil volume

-- in
18. Minimum lateral inlet pressures, MLIP, on all operating manifolds:

Manifold: Test
A B C D E F G Ave.

Pressure-psi: 45 49 47 43 42 50 48 45
46.1

19. Discharge correction factor, DCF, for the system is:

DCF - 2.5 X (average MLIP

46.1 psi) 1.015

(average MLIP 46.1 psJ) + 1.5 X (test MLIP 45

psi)

or if the emitter discharge exponentx = 0.5 is known

DCF - (average MLIP 46.1 psi) 1 x= 0.5 -

(test MLIP 45 psi) - 1.012

"133

 "third" points, and the fourth near the

outer end.
Sketch the system

layout and note

in part 9 the general topography, manifold in

operation, and manifold where the discharge

test will be conducted.

6. Record the system discharge rate (if the system is

provided with a water meter) and the numbers of manifolds and blocks

(or stations). The number of blocks is the total number of mani­

folds divided by the number of manifolds in operation at any
one

time.

7. For laterals having individual emitters, measure the

discharge at two adjacent
emission points (denoted as A and B in

part 14) at each of four different tree or plant locations on

each of the four selected test laterals. (See Figure VIII-5.)

Collect the flow for a number of full minutes (1, 2, 3, etc.) to

obtain a volume between 100 and 250 ml for each emission point

tested.
Convert each reading to ml per minute before entering the

data in part 14 on Form VIIi-I. To convert ml per minute to gallons

per hour (gph), divide by 63.

These steps will produce eight pressure readings and 32 discharge

volumes at
16 different plant locations for individual emission points

used in wide-spaced crops with

two or more emission points per plant.

For perforated hose or porous tubing, use the 3-foot trough arnd
collect a discharge reading at
each of the 16 locations described

above. Since these are already averages from 2 or more outlets,

only one reading is needed at each location.

For relatively wide-spaced crops such as grapes where one single

outlet emitter may serve one or

more plants, collect a discharge

reading at each of the

16 locations described above. Since the

plants are only served by a single emission point, only one reading

should be made at each location.

8. Measure and record in part 15

the water pressures at the

inlet and downstream ends of each lateral tested in part

14 under

normal operation. On the inlet end,

this requires disconnecting

the lateral hose, installing the pressure gauge, and reconnecting

the hose before reading the pressure. On the downstream end, the

pressure can be read after connecting the pressure gauge the simplest

way possible.

9. Check the percentage of the soil that is wetted at one of

the tree locations on each test lateral and record in part 16.
It
is

best to select a tree at a different relative location on each lateral.

Use the probe, soil auger, or shovel--whichever seems to work best-­

for estimating the real extent of the wetted
zone about 6 to 12

inches below the surface around each tree.

Determine the percentage

134

Figure VlII-5. ield ,eas ar.Qmca tt , v:..ttCr i sc ha rge.

wetted by dividing the wetted area by the total surface area between
four trees.

10. If an interval of several days between irrigations is being

used, check the 19 in the wetted volume near a few representative
trees in the next block to be irrigated and record it in part 17.
This is difficult and requ ires averaSin samples taken from several
positions around each trec.

1L. Determine the minimum lateral inlet pressure, MLIP along each
of the operating mani fo ds and record in part IS. For level or
uphill manifolds the MI.P will. be at: the far end of the ma nifold.
For downhill manifolds it is often about two-thirds down the
manifold. The mauifolds on undulAt ingterrain it is usually on a
knoll or Ihigh point.

135

 12. Determine the discharge correction factor, DCF, to adjust

the average emission point discharges for the tested manifold.

This adjustment is needed if the tested manifold happened to be

operating with a higher or lower MLIP than the system average MLIP.

If the emitter discharge exponent, x, is known use the second

formula presented in part 19.

13. Determine the average and adjusted average emission point

discharges according to the equations in parts 11 and 12 of Form

VIII-l.

Utilization of field data

In trickle irrigation all the system flow is delivered to

individual trees, vines, shrubs, or other plants.

Essentially

there is no opportunity for loss of water except at the tree or plant

locations. Therefore, uniformity of emission is of primary concern,

assuming Ohe con is uniform. Locations of individual emission

points, cr the tree locations when several emitters are closely

spaced, can be thought of in much the same manner as the container

positions in tests of sprinkler performance.

There are four single emission point emitters per tree in the

citrus grove where this test was conducted to obtain the data given

in Form VIII-I. Therefore, the discharges from the two (A and B)

emitters at each tree can be averaged. The minimum rate of discharge

(or low 1/4) is then the adjusted average discharge of the lowest

four of these (average) discharges per tree of 2.30 gph for the

sample evaluation. The adjusted average rate of discharge per tree

for the entire system was 2.65 gph. (See Form VIII-l, part 12.)

Average application depth. The average depth applied per

irrigation to the wetted area, D

, is useful for estimating MAD.

The D in inches is computed from the average gph at each emission

point, the number, N, of emission points per trec, the number of

hourl of operation per irrigation, and the area wetted per tree in

feet-:

D =1.6055XNXqphXhours
2
aw feet

which for the sample evaluation (Form VIII-l, parts 2, 4, 7, 12, and

14) is:

= 1.605 X 4 X 2.65 X 6 =
D= 140 = 0.73 inch

136

 The overall average depth applied, D , in inches can

be found by

substituting the tree spacing for the wetted area in

the formula

immediately preceding. Therefore:

D = 1.605 X 4 X 2.65 X 6
,a 22 X 22
= 0.21 inch

Volume per day per tree.

The average number of gallons
per day

per tree or plant is computed from the average gph at

each emission

point, the number N of emission points per tree, the

number of hours

of oper ation per irrigation, and the irrigation interval

in days:

Average daily gallons per tree

= N X qph X hours

days

which for the sample evaluation (Form VIII-l, parts 4,

7, and 12) is:

Average daily gallons per tree =4

X 2.65 X 6 3.6 gaons/day

Emission Uniformity

In order to determine whether the system is operating

at

acceptable efficiency, evaluate the uniformity of emission

by

calculating EU by this formula:

EU = minimum rate of discharge per plant

average rate of discharge per plant K 100

in which the average of the lowest quarter (Form VIII-l,

part 12) is

used as the minimum for each of the four emitters per

plant:

EU = 4 X 2.30

4 X 2.65 K 100 =

General criteria for EU values for systems which have

been in

operation for one or more seasons are:

greater than
90%,

excellent; between 80% and 90%, good;

70 to 80%, fair;
and less

than 70%, poor.

137

 Potential Application Efficiency

The concept of PELQ used in other evaluation procedures must be

modified when evaluating trickle irrigation systems, which wet only

part of the area 1ecause the minimum depth would be zero. Since

trickle irrigation wets only a small portion of the soil volume, the

SMD must be replaced frequently. It is always difficult to estimate

SMD because parts of the wetted portion of the root zone often remains

near field capacity even when the interval between irrigation is

several days.

For the sample evaluation where irrigations are applied every

day, it is practically impossible to estimate SMD. For this

reason, SMD must be estimated from weather data or information

derived from evaporation devices. Such estimates are subject to

error and since there is no practical way to check for slight

underirrigation, some margin for safety should be allowed.

As a

general rule, about 10% more water than the estimated SMD or evapo­
transpiration should be applied to the least watered areas.
Thus

the PELQ under full trickle irrigation can be estimated by:

PELQ = 0.9 X EU

which for the sample test data shown in Form VIII-I is

PELQ = 0.9 X 87% = 78%

In a trickle irrigation system, there are no field boundary

effects or pressure variations along the manifold tested which are

not taken into account in the field estimate of EU. Therefore, the

estimated PELQ is an overall value for the manifold in sub-unit

tested except for possible minor water losses due to leaks, draining

of lines, and flushing (unless leaks are excessive).

Some trickle irrigation systems are fitted with pressure

compensating emitters or have pressure (or flow) regulation at the

inlet to each lateral. However, most systems are only provided with

a means for pressure control or regulation at the inlets to the

manifolds as was the case with the system evaluated. If the manifold

inlet pressures are not properly set, the overall system PELQ will

be lower than the PELQ of the tested Panifold. An estimate of this

efficiency reduction factor, ERF, can be computed from the minimum

lateral inlet pressure, MLIP, along each manifold by:

138

 _ average MLIP + 1.5 X minimum MLIP

ERF = 2.5 X average MLI-P

The ratio between the average emission point discharges in the manifold

with the minimum pressure and the system is approximately equal to

ERF. Therefore, the system PELQ can be approximated by:

System PELQ = ERF X'Tes! PELQ

Using the data in Form VITT, part 18, and the test PELQ of 78%,

ERF = 46.1 + (1.5 X 42) = 0.95

2.5 X 46.1

and

System PELQ = 0.95 X 78% = 74%

A more precise method for estimating the ZRF can be made if the

emitter discharge exponent, x, is known by

ERF = (minimum MILP )x

average MILP

For the tested system with orifice type emitters, which have an x of

0.5, this alternative calculation of ERF gives:

mERP( 42 ) 0.5 =
46.1 46.1

In this case the two methods for computing ERF give essentially equal

results; however, for larger pressure variations or X values higher

or lower than 0.5, the differences could be significant.

Application Efficiency

Like PELQ, the concept of AELQ must also be modified for

trickle irrigation. Effectiveness of a trickle system can be

estimated by how much of the applied water is stored in the root zone

and is available for consumptive use by the plants. Since there are

139

 essentially i._ opportunities for losses due to evaporation and drift,

for inadequate irrigation in which the least watered areas are

underirrigated:

System AELQ = ERF X Test EU

However, if excess water is applied in the least watered areas:

System AELQ SD74D in wetted area

average depth applied to wetted area
X 100

for an ideal irrigation in which the 6MD plus 10% extra water is

applied to the least watered areas, AELQ = PELQ.

For the evaluation shown on Form VIII-l where daily irrigations

were being applied, it was impossible to estimate SMD in the wetted

areas around each tree. Furthermore, the average depth applied to

the total area, D , was only 0.21 inch per day which is hardly

sufficient to meei the expected consumptive use requirements for

mature citrus trees at the study location. Therefore, it is highly

probable that the trees were being underirrigated, in which case for

the test EU of 87%:

System AELQ = 0.95 X 87 = 83%

Overall minimum depth applied. The overall average depth applied

to the total area, D , multiplied by System PELQ (or AELQ) is useful

for managing the irrigation schedule because water requirements are

expressed in similar units. (Multiply by the System PELQ except when

there is underirrigation and AELQ is greater than PELQ.) For the

sample evaluation the overall minimum depth applied to the total

area, Dn, is:

Dn = Da X System PELQ (or AELQ)/100

which for the sample evaluation which is underirrigated and has

System PELQ and AELQ values of 74% and 83%, respectively,is:

D n = 0.21 X 83/100 = 0.17 inch

140

Analysis and recommendations

Several observations and some recommendations can be based on

the additional data on Form VIII-l and the computations of EU, PELQ,

and AELQ.

The pressure differences throughout the operating manifold studied

were very small.

(See Form VIII-1, part 15.) Pressure variations

of 20% for orifice-type emitters and 10% for the long tube type

result in flow differences of about 10%. Obviously it is important

that each control valve be adjusted accurately to insure uniform

pressures throughout the orchard. However, this was not the case as

noted by the minimum lateral inlet pressure variations butween

manifolds as indicated in part 18 of Form VIII-I.

Uniformity of application throughout the operating marifold,

expressed by the EU of 87%, was good.

Since the pressures were

very nearly constant, it appears that most of the lack of uniformity

of application resiited from variations in operation of the individual

emitters. This can be verified by studying the table on Form VIII-l,

part 14. The discharges of emitters A and B at the same location,

which would have almost identical pressures, often differed

considerably.

Differences in elevation throughout the system were not extreme

so
the other manifolds should have produced similar uniformities.

(See Form VIII-l, part 9.)

The percentage of wetted area ranged between 26% and 31%

(Form

VIII-1, part 12);

this was less than the recommended minimum discussed

in the introduction for arid areas.

For the fertilizer application program, urea was being injected

into the irrigation water. Other fertilizers were being applied

directly to the soil surface and incorporated by cultivation in

the fall prior to

the winter rainy season. This fertilizer program

should prove satisfactory and cause no problem with the irrigation

equipment.

Emitters. The emitters used in the recorded test were the

automatic flushing type. The variations in discharge reported above

probably were due to differences in manufacturing tolerance. These

emitters, operating at pressures near 45 psi, averaged a discharge of

2.62 gph (Form VIII-l, parts 6, 11 and 15), which is considerably less

than the rated 3.0 gph at 30 psi and indicates that the orifices may

have been closing slowly or clogging after about one season's

operation.

141

 Variable clogging can cause large differences

flushing emitters even though manufacturing in flow from non­
close.
Some emitters can be flushed tolerances may be very

manually. Systems having

manually flushed emitters should be

checked monthly to determine the

amount of change in flow before and

after flushing.

Some multiple outlet emitters have

dissipating channel for each outlet a separate pressure

and thus the discharges at each

emission point are independent.

Other
multiple outlet emitters have

a single pressure dissipating channel

discharging into the several

outlets.
With such emitters, the discharges
are usually erratic due to small elevation through each outlet tube

differences and blockage

in the spaghetti tubes.

Filters.
The filter system near the
performing reasonably well.
Apparently, pumping plant seemed to be

clogged at the time of the check since it was

not seriously

the loss of pressdre across

it was only 5 psi (Form VIII-l, part

5).
Small safety screen filters

were installed at the inlet to each

lateral hose.
This precaution

is recommended.
Several of these screens
were checked at random and

all were reasonably clean; however,

several
a considerable amount of coarse ma.erail screens had intercepted

that would have clogged some

emitters if it had passed through the

laterals. The operator said he

routinely cleans each safety screen

after very 1000 hours of

operation.

Improvements.
A major improvement
percent of wetted raea.
This could would be to
increase the

be achieved by increasing the

interval between irrigations to 2 days

or by adding one or two

emitters at each tree and decreasing

the operating pressure

accordingly.

Changing to a 12-hour irrigation on

continuing the present 6 hours per alternate days instead of

day could improve the percent

of wetted area because longer applicationb

wet more soil volume.
No

problems of infiltration were apparent,

and the average depth applied

to the wet area, D

of 0.73 inch,
could easily be doubled without

exceeding the SMD aW an MAD of 30%.

For example, for the 4-foot root

depth and 2 inches per foot of available

inches of moisture would be available. moisture, a total of 8

The depletion of 2 X 0.73

-

1.46 inch gives an MAD of less than

20% in the wetted area.

The manifold inlet valves should

minimum lateral inlet pressure on each be adjusted to give the same

manifold.
This would increase

the Syatem PELQ and AELQ to the PELQ

and AELQ of the tested manifold

which is a 5% improvement.

It appears that emission from the

gradually decreasing and that the systemlateral hoses had been

was designed to yield greater

142

flow than was observed. Thus, addiag emitters could restore the

system's capacity to the original 12 gph per tree at an average

operating pressure of 30 psi and increase the percentage wetted

area to almost 40%.

The only way to improve EU would be to replace the emitters;

this would be very expensive and is not now warranted.

The overall minimum depth applied to the total area, Dn, (only

0.17 inch per daily cycle) seems to be marginal for a mature orchard

during the peak period of water demand. Although emitters were

rated at 3.0 gph when operated at 30 psi, the test results in the field

indicated that average rate of flow was only 2.62 gph at 45 psi; to

meet the peak demands for water, the flow rate per tree would have

to be restored to the original design of 12 gph (four emitters at 3

gph) by cleaning cr otherwise repairing the emitters, by increasing

the operating pressure, or by adding another emitter to the system

at each tree.

Summary

The EU of 87% and estimated PELQ of 78% of the tested manifold

are good. The main system problems are associated with a marginal

amount of soil wetted (only about 30%), poor manifold control valve

adjustment, and low rates of flow in the system. The operator was

advised to try scheduling the irrigation to apply water for 12-hour

periods on alternate days instead of continuing the current 6 hours

per day cycling. He was also urged to (a) adjust the manifold

control valves to obtain equal minimum lateral inlet pressures on

all manifolds; and (b) to clean or repair the emitters or to add an

extra emitter at each tree to restore flow rates to the designed

volume and to increase the percent of wetted area.

143

 CHAPTER IX
FURROW IRRIGATION

is discharged into and

runs

Furrow irrigation refers to water th't

which are
down small sloping channels (called furrou _ or corrugations
into the soil. Water can be delivered to each furrow

cut or
pressed
directly from gated pipe

through syphon tubes from open ditches or

into the soil

(see Figure IX-I and IX-?

). The water infiltrates
wetted perimeter of the

laterally as well as vertically from the in

furrows. Infiltration rate and lateral spread at any point

characteristics as well
a furrow a':e dependent upon soil infiltration
(opportunity time) and is a
as the tirie surface water is at that point
relatively slow process.
of furrow irriga-
Soml. important considerations and limitations
tiott are:

and tree crops and

1. Furrow irrigation is applicable to

row
in heds.

ca.n be adapted to close-spaced crops placed

very high intake rate

2. It is adaptable to all
but very slow or
used on sand', high infiltration
soils. However, it can be efficienclv
furrows
and relatively large but non­
rate soils by employing short
unless automated.

erosive furrow streams requiring more labor

enough vo reach
3. Stream sizes s;hould be nonerosive but large
of the time required to

the lower end of the furrows in a fraction

(Advance Ratio

fill the root

zone to assure uniform infiltration
between 1:4 and 1:1).

spots which would

4. Grading should be done

to eliminate low
Slopes generally are small,
.1 to .37 where well graded,
trap water.
should be used on

and should not exceed 2 to 3%.

Contour planting pre-

slopes are usually

steeper topography.
Furrows with uniform
ferred to achieve high distribution uniformities.

broad)
can be

5.
Furrow spacing and shape ("vee." parabolic, They

duration of irrigation.
varied to permit large variations in
the
adequately irrigates

must be such that the lateral spread of

water
the plants' root zone.

uniform.

6.
The soil along any furrow should be

145

 n-f

Figure IX-i. Furrow irrigation with syphon

tubes in operation.

Figure IX-2.
Furrow irrigation
with ga ted pipe in operation.

146

 Simple Evaluation

Simple techniques often provide information useful for identify-

the necessary data

ing and correcting problems of operation.

Most of
or by making simple

can be obtained by questioning the irrigator

observations and measurements.

Evaluation

basic criteria

For both simple and full evaluations, the following

of good irrigation should be considered:

Withholding

1. Is
the soil dry enough to start irrigating?
stresses the
crop. Irrigating too soon

water too long detrimentally

water to
a high water table, and

increases labor, often adds

excess
encourages pests and diseases.

In other words,

2. Is The soil wet enough to stop irrigating?

been infiltrated?
Has

has an adequate but not excessive depth of water

the moisture spread
far enough laterally?

furrow?

3. Has water been distributed uniformly along the

reaches the lower

Excellent uniformity usually is achieved

if the stream
to one-third of

end of
a furrow, without erosion, in about one-quarter
the time of irrigation. One-half the irrigation time is often economi­
cal.

or
run­
4. Is there much runoff? A little water either ponded
furrow is essential for practical

ning off at the lower end of a

flow system.

operation. Runoff water can

be saved by using a return

water

5. Is
the water supply and system capable of delivering
water and labor? Supplies

for efficient and convenient use of

both
Furrow streams

should be large and flexible in both rate and duration.

in such a manner

should be
large enough to advance quickly, controlled
be cut off
as soon as

that they can be reduced in size for cutback, and

for the

the SAID is satisfied.

Furrow streams should be convenient
enough to keep him

irrigator to handle, and

the supply should be large
busy for economy of labor.

Equipment needed

The equipment needed for

the simple evaluation is:

1. A soil auger.

2. A soil probe.

147

 Field procedure

The following illustration uses the simple part of

the data

obtained for the full evaluation of an irrigated corn

field.
(Data

from a full evaluation are presented in Form IX-l following

this

section of Simple Furrow Evaluation.)

Soil moisture deficiency, SMD, should always be the

"Is it dry enough to irrigate?"
is the critical question.first concern.

Too often

the answer is based on guesswork or rigid schedules

that usually

result in applying water too soon.

For this sample
study, in 660-foot

long corn furrows spaced at 36 inches, SiD was checked

and irrigation

was needed because it was about 3.6 inches.

This information was obtained by using the Soil Moisture

Appearance Relationship Chart (see Table I-1).
The and

soil auger 'as

used in the sandy loam soil to obtain soil samples in

1-foot irzre­
ments to a depth of 4 feet.
The top foot was quite
dry, and (stimated

SMD was high (1.6 inches per foot out of 1.8 inches
per foot total

available moisture). The second, third, and fourth

foot samples

appeared to have SMD values of 1.2, 0.6, and 0.2 inches

per foot,

respectively.
This gave a total S7D of about 3.6 inches
for the root

zone.

The corn roots at that time had extended to approximately

feet and for the sandy loam soil, cool climate, and 3.5

an expanding root

zone, an MAD of 60% was acceptable. This gives an MAD

per foot X 3.5 feet X 60% = 3.8 of 1.8 inches

inches. The irrigator was applying

water at about the proper time since the SMD of 3.6

inches nearly

equaled the MAD of 3.8 inches.

Adequacy of irrigation is fairly accurately determined

in the

field during irrigation by using the probe as described

in Appendix F.

It can also be estimated analytically. Checking the

adequacy of

irrigation answers
the second important question, "is
it wet enough to

stop irrigating?"

At the upper and lower ends of several furrows, the

to determine the depth of the wetting front.
The probe probe was used

penetrated

easily where the soil was nearly saturated, but resistance

to pene-­
tration increased noticeably at the wetting front.

When the field work for this evaluation was completed

2 hours, the probe penetrated only 1.5 feet at the upper in about

ends of the

furrows and a little less than 1.0 foot at the lower

ends.
Also,

pushing the probe into the soil at an angle indicated

that the lateral

spread was not yet adequate.

148

 should be made frequently to

To use the probe properly, checks have

to stop irrigating.
For this field, water should
determine when wetting

end of the furrow showed the

run until probing at
the lower day, excess

2.5 feet. The following

front had penetrated to about the small deficiency

down to
satisfy
topsoil moisture would have drained is
sufficient

feet..
After penetration
at depths between 2.5 and 3.5 probing

water'npplied is lost; therefore,

for a full irrigation, all The irrigator

when tn stop irrigating.

is recommended
to determine but he should

of
the 10 hour working time,
made no check near
the end
easily done.

have and it could have been

from the
full evaluation indicate

Knowledge and figures gained deeply enough

would not
have penetrated
that after 10 hours the probe would require

since computations show it

to show adequate irrigation, not have been fully

the ground probably would

more than 14 hours.
Also, should be

vertical and
lateral wetting
wet between rows.
Both the
For implementing the learning

checked at
the end of irrigation.
ridge to ridge

a 2 foot deep trench dug across

the furrow from
process, patterns.

the vertical and lateral wetting

is sometimes helpful to
show
use of water.

i•,rjf
'-, '
is important for efficient is

soils, uniformity of
infiltration
When furrow irrigating uniform end of
the

getting the water to the far

usually assured by quickly between the

A? , is expressed
as
a ratio
furrows. The Advance Ratio, end of the furrow

Time of Akdvance, needed to reach the lower

the desired

Irrigation, Ti.,
needed for
and the Time or
Duriion of is about

at
any point. If
this ratio
depth of water to be infiltrated the irri­
be obtained.
During this test
1:4, excellent uniformity may leaving 9

stream advanced the full 660 feet in about

1 hour,
gation than necessary

run. The AP of
1:9 is lower
more hours for the water to
information from the full

reasonable uniformity.
For example, using
for the corresponding

of 1:5. 1:4, 1:3, and 1:2,

evaluation with A. values 0.91, and 0.87

for

be:
0.94, 0.93,
Distribution Uniformities would This shows

(see Full Furrow Evaluation).

the test
conditions and M,11 than 10% of the

smaller than 1:3,

less
that for reasonable AR values
water goes
too deep.

appeared

the beginning of irrigation

Runoff stearn 2 hours after planned

the inflow streams. The irrigator

to be about half the size of reached the

eight hours longer.

Streams
to run his irrigation about runoff would

in
less than 1 hour; therefore,
ends of almost all furrows with

Since the intake rate decreases

continue for more than 9 hours.
until the onflow

time, the runoff streams continually increase

increasing in nine hours.

would be quite excessive

stream is shut off.

Runoff
by dividing the system capacity
Furrow stream size can be estimated simultaneously.
In this field,
irrigated
by the number of
furrows being set

discharged 960 gpm, and he usually

the irrigator had
a well that

149

 50 to 55 siphon tubes; consequently,

each furrow stream flowed about 18

gpm. Since streams reached the ends

of the furrows more quickly than

was desirable, they should have been

smaller.
From the full evaluation,

a stream of approximately 7 gpm would

advance the full 660 foot furrow

length in about 3 hours, which would

be ideal; thus, 130
to 140 siphon

tubes should be set to accommodate the

well discharge of 960 gpm.

Utilization of field data

The observations and quick analysis

reported above do not provide

enough information to indicate the best

modifications, but they provide

a good start.
The average depth, D,
of water to be applied to the

field can be calculated by:

D =96..3 X furrow stream (om) X duration

furrow spacing (feet) X furrow of irrigation(hrs)
Zength (feet)

in this field

D 96.3 X 18qom X 10 hrs

3.0 feet X 660 feet

8.? inches

The depth applied was 8.7 inches during

the 10-hour irrigation, but

the SAID, was only 3.6 inches. Very

little water, if any, went too deep

so
there must have been an excess of
runoff. This is consistent with

the observation that runoff was about

half of the inflow at
the end of

2 hours.
More than enough water had
been applied, but probably not

enough infiltrated.

Analysis and rcommendations

The simple analysis showed the following:

1.
The field was dry enough to be
irrigated, since the SMD was

3.6 inches and the MAD was 3.8 inches.

2. Uniformity was
far better than needed,
since the furrow

streams reached the ends of the furrows

very quickly and the AR was

very low (1:9).

3.
Runoff was excessive because furrow
streams were too large

and reached the lower ends

too quickly.

4. The water supply flow rate was not

flexible,
could have been made by starting more but adjustments

furrows with smaller streams.

Furthermore, additional furrows could

have been started with water

150

 the inflow streams are reduced

saved by cutback irrigation, in which How­
to warrant cutting back.
when the runoff has become large enough labor.

not convenient for

ever, this was not done because it was
the following practices are
To improve efficiency of the system,
recommended:

frequency and to
1. Check 8MD to determine or confirm correct
lower part of the
root zone.

avoid cumulative deficiencies in the correct, a

irrigation was nearly

Even though the frequiency of this
cumulative SMD might
occur.

during irrigation by

2.
Check depth and spread of infiltration
using a probe to avoid over or
underirrigation.

about 3 hours to reach

3. Use a smaller stream that would need
running more furrows at one
the end of the furrow. This would permit Either of
the same stream size.
time, or use a longer furrow with
and still provide excellent uniform­
these adjustments would
save
labor
1:3 or faster.
ity as long as
the .45 is held to about
smaller stream would have to

To assure adequate infiltration, the

grow larger. Correct duration

be run for a longer time as

the plants
If the longer duration is not

could be checked easily with the probe.

other changes could he made to
practical because of increased
lIbor.
could easily be made wider, IAD
shorten it. For example, the furrow
of irrigation, or an automatic

could be reduced to
shorten the duration
of .'A7, wouLd require more
pump shutoff could be installed. Reduction

irrigation during the season

frequent irrigations, possibly

one more
which would require a little more labor.

following: install a

4.
Reduce runoff losses by doing the
furrow stream about
two hours

runoff recycling system or cut back the

use a smaller initial furrow
after the flow reaches the lower end. and
stream and/or use
longer furrows.

water
into a reservoir at

A runoff return flo4 system that puts

a very practical and economical

the upper end of

the field is sometimes
pumping the water back into the

way to save both water and labor. Just

requires starting more
furrows,

supply ditch is not good practice. It

shutoff
time and requires more

each of which would have a different

labor if good efficiency is to be achieved.
have been convenient in

The cutback stream procedure would not

farmer's ditch checks were solid

the operation described above.

The
for erosion control. These

earth embankments that had plastic

covers
easily to reduce head in order

solid embankments could not be lowered

Converting to adjustable

to change all the siphon flows simultaneously.

checks would simplify cutback irrigation.

151

 Another way to make cutback streams is to use

two smaller siphons

to start the initial streams and later remove

one siphon to reduce flow.

Also, one can raise the lower end of each single

large siphon. However,

when a supply ditch receives a constant inflow,

any method of cutting

back the streams flowing into the furrows leaves

more water in the

ditch.
This water must be used to start streams
in more furrows which

increases labor because it requires different shutoff

times for

successive sets of furrows.

To reduce the waste from runoff, the most practical

alternative to

building a new distribution system would be to

use
longer furrows or

streams small enough that they would reach the ends

of furrows in one­

third or even one-half the irrigation time. These

streams would have

little runoff even though the application time would

be appreciably

longer.
A little more water would penetrate too
deeply at the upper end

of furrows which would result in a lower DUa but

would give more

efficient
use of labor and water. A full evaluation
study would make

it possible to anticipate effects of various possible

changes.

5. Have the irrigator conduct the simple evaluations

because

some checks need to be made immediately after irrigation.

6. Conduct a full evaluation to provide

battery of questions the answers to which would answers
to the following

give a detailed basis

for making economic studies for improvement.

How much water Is wasted to deep percolation and

to runoff?

What is the DUa ?

What is the AELA?

What is the PELA?

(The Low Absolute

"LA" values are more convenient
for study, but

the Low Quarter

"LQ" values must be used when comparing

methods or determining the correct depth of water

to apply.)

What would be the cost of building a reservoir

and installing a

pumping system that would pump the well steadily

at a lower

rate? How much would this save?

How long should furrows be?

What is the best size of furrow stream?

Would a change in shape and/or spacing of furrows

be useful?

152

 Would a runoff return

flow system be desirable?

Summary of simple evaluation

the operation described

The 3.) and the irrigation frequency in

of the frequency should
above were about right, but the correctness
the SMD. The DU was too hgh, so
be periodically verified by checking
Runoff was so large that it
smaller furrow streams should be used.
it could best he reduced by
wasted more than half of the water applied:
or by using Lhe! same sized
using smaller streams in more furrows
the well was at a usable rate, but
stream in longer furrows. Flow from
a larger flow would reduce labor costs.

Full EValuation

needed for
identifying

Detailed evaluations provide information

changes to correct
them, for

existing problems, for making many possible

and methods, and for furnish­
making economic comparisons of procedures
operatig under similar conditions.
ing background for design of systems

Evaluation

of determining the following

The techniques of
evaluation consists
the SD is -.bout equal to the
information at a typical location when
i'4D:

ranging from too large to

1.
Rate at which the various streams
too small advance down the furrows.

by erosion or

2. Maximum desirable stream size as

limited
furrow capacity.

3. Shape of existing furrows.

4. Intake rate
in the furrows.

firm, louse, and/or

5. Furrow conditions such as new, used,

irregular.

6. The SMD.
allow adequate wetting of
7.
Maximum furrow spacing that will
time of irrigation.

the soil between the furrows within the

spread of the
irrigation

8. Adequacy of the depth and lateral

w.ater.

Additional desirable data are:

153

 9'. The wetted width and depth of the furrows.

10. Furrow gradient.

ii. The water recession after the stream is shut off.

12. Rate of runoff from each furrow.

13. Rate of inflow and runoff for cutback streams.

14. Rate of advance beyond the normal furrow length into another

field.

15. Soil texture and profile.

16. Maximum capacity of the water supply system.

17. Tests of furrows of various shapes such as

"vee,"
parabolic,

and broad.

18. Cylinder infiltrometer test adjacent to the furrows.

After the field daa have been obtained and plotted,

analysis will

permit determination of the DUa, PELA, and AELA.

(The
Low Quarter,

LQ, are more valuable but are more involved

to use.)
A more detailed

study
would point out improvements that might be made,
some
of which

might not be economical.

Such a study could include the
following

options:

I. Changing stream size and rate of advance.

2. Changing the furrow length.

3. Changing the furrow spacing.

4. Changing the furrow shape.

5. Changing SMD at which irrigation is started.

6. Using alternate side irrigation.

7. Using continuous furrows with supplemental inflow.

8. Installing a reservoir that would provide for flexible

delivery.

9. Adjusting factors so
that duration of irrigation
would match

duratLon of water delivery for convenience of labor where

a

reservoir is not practical.

154

 system which will

I0. Installing a runoff return flowz
or some
save runoff and 'abor.

more
flexible deliveries

11. Revising the delivery system to give

to save water and labor.

Using sprinkle irrigation in conjunction with furrows.

12.

Equipment needed

needed for the evaluation:

The following equipment is
along the furrows.
1. A surveying tape to locate stations
a hatchet to drive them.
2. Laths or stakes to mark stations and

visible second hand.

3. A stop watch or watch with easily
Parshal1 flumes with
4. Flow measuring devices such as small
spiles, iphons, V-weirs,
1- or 2-inch throat, orifice plates,
calibrated containers. The devices used should be provided
the head and be capable of
with an instrument for measurin,,
to determine the rate of
measuring flow accurately wher used
furrow intake (see App ndix b).

5. A shovel.

6. A soil a,"c" and soil probe.

data.

7. Forms TX-i
and IX-2 for recording

work would include:

Additional equipment for more detailed

gradient.
8. Sur'reying equipment to determine firrow

9. Cylinder infiltrometer equipment.

10. Soil moisture sampling equipment.

Field procedure
is typical of conditions over

Choose a location
in the field that A steady
the whole irrigated area. Soil should be uniform throughout.
from which streams (preferably of
source of water should be available A for

turned into the furrows. (See Appendix

a constant size)
can

stream control.)

detailed description of methods for

155

 Form IX-I. FURROW IRRIGATION WATER ADVANCE

i. Location
Santa Maria
, EVALUATION
Observer
JLM , Date
2. 10 Auqust 1976

Crop corn
, Age mature Root depth 3.5
ft, Row:
spacing
36 in, length
3. Soil: texture sandy Zoam 650
ft
, available moisture 1.8 in/ft,
4. Irrigation: duration
10 SMD
3.6 in

hrs, frequency
14
5. days, MAD
60 %, MAD
A: SmaZZ #1 3.8 in

B: Medium #3 C: Large #5
Stream: 4.0 gpm D:

9.2 gpm
77.5 gp

Time - min. Station

Watch Timd rnin. Slt/ton Time -mrnn.
1ff. Cumu. feel Watch 0/f Sltton Time
Cana feet Watch 0/ft Cumu mirnn. Station
(eel Watch Diff. Cumu. feet

0 0+00 8:24 0 0+
7

7 1+0 37 7 +0+;+.
39 3+O (0 2

'+,),
10:22 120 4+00 9:0/ . 0 6
*_ 5+00 ) 03 -- 5+00

6 Co
rs17
e t Fu - , 7 a w

6. Comments: Furrows were firm, reused,

clean, shape, with 0. 2% slope
 EVALUATION

Form IX-2.
FURROW INFILTRATION
, Observer
ILM , Date Aug 1976
1. Location
Santa Maria

2. Furrow: Identity t = 2.?, shape condition

, good
age CUSC6 , soil co?.:") t , moisture dry _, slope 0._2 %

o b l c :::EEI g

Flow Rate Station B - Flow Rate intake

rime Station A
ummin. ,Pm gp /KOft

Wtch ,L - g-I ._I5/

6 .4 1.4
1.

I.0

1 .4
91,I

I_ _ ." __... ____. _

_47

2.Furr ow: Id.tit

34 74~, __ shp _ 01 t goo

9:03 34, 7 1.5 10 8.0--- ";/1 2. "

Flow Rate 2Stcon 8 -Flow Rate
Itae
ime Station A

102 1 1/01. 1,/' ] 5 1.

. -,
gpm ,
.

Watch f.min, Cum. ain

.f
8: 29 0 15<,.1 0
±00 ±0.3
34 5 4 i ! . r:("I]:32.6-
'1 r I 7 3.7
40 1 1 4 /'IC_ _ 'I 17. 1 / 7.
1 . 1.85

9
":I? l ,l 3.1
90 14 34 151. C.5
" 8. 1146 2"1. 3
1726 4
20 51
l /Ic
2 I; 1 .9 1.3

27 ------T _ _
1I14.9
2.6
1.3

47 4
7 78

780
1 1 1 "51.
10 24 11 1 15 16 I 18.0 ,/176 .

Accuracy range
I 0.4 I 0O.3 ±0.3

3. Comments: Stations A atg 0+00 and Bat 2+0o

157

 1. Select three or more

test furrows. They may he alternate

furrows to facilitate patrolling the streams without walking on

wet

soil. If the furrows are new with loose soil over a plow pan or
other

conditions in which water moves rapidly sideways, adjacent furrows

should be run
to prevent abnormal lateral flow.

2. Set stakes along one of the furrows, usually at 100-foot

stations, but set a minimum of six

(see Figure IX-3). Tht' zero

station may be set a short distance from the inlet end of

the furrow

to give flows a chance to stabilize before being measured. Elevations

may be surveyed or
gradient may be determined otherwise, but this
is

not essential for any specific evaluation.

3. Prepare flow measuring devices at station zero on all

test

furrows.
(See Figure IX-4 and Appendix B for details of such devices.)

4. Set flow measuring devices for testing furrow intake rate in

at least one furrow, but it is desirable to check intake at more

than

one location or furrow. They should be s-c

in furrows carrying
moder­
ate streams;
furrows having small or erosive streams should be
avoided.

The location is generally chosen at the inlet end of the furrow

to

provide longer duration of the test. Tor soils having rapid to moderate
intake rates, the devices may be set
100 feet apart for inflow-outflow

measurements.
For soils having slower intakes, 200-foot inLervals
may

be used, or several furrows may be combined. Flow measuring devices

may also be set at the lower enc-: of the furrows to measure runoff.

5. Fill in parts 1 throuh 4 of Form TX-i concerning the crop,

soil and irrigation. After determining the S.P (see Table I-i), note
how closely it agrees with thce desired M.

6. Set at least three, but preferably four, constant flow streams

with different flow rates to bracket the possible range in stream
sizes.
If flow rates vary during the test, the change should be noted.
One
stream should be large enough to cause a little erosion unl.ess
limited
by furrow capacity, and one should be so small as to barelv reach
Lhe

lower end. The larger of these should have a flow rate of about 10/s
gpm, where s is the furrow slope in percent, but judgment will have
to
be used. For best results, two more intermediate stream sizes
should
be run. Where practical, a set of used and a set of new furrows should
be tested. In cultivated orchards, furrows near the trees and in the
middle space between the rows should both be tested since cultural
compaction has appreciable effect. Also furrow use, soil structure.

and moisture content importantly affect stream size, intake rate,

and

advance rate (see Figure IX-5). Furrows of other shapes may also be

observed to broaden the irrigator's choice for possible revision.

158

Figure IX-3. Stakes set along furrow in preparation for water

advance evaluation.

Figure IX-4. Small Parshall flume being used to menscir. furrow flow
rate.

159
 Now and dry

"6 7

2
34

0 I
O
0ioo 0. /0 ­

each'
all Used and mist

I
o-

0 / 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Distance ­ feet x /00

Figure Tx-s.
Effect of furrow condition, stream size, and soil

moisture on advance rate.

7. Identify each tested fur7-ow and record the size of stream

flowing past station

zerc in each furrow on the
advance form, Form IX-I

in part 5.

8. Record the
time each stream reaches each station
in the

table provided on Form IX-i.

These should be plotted
in the field

when they are recorded and observed for correctness.

(Deviations from

a smooth curve are important in diagnosis and should

not be smoothed

out.)

9.
Fill in parts 2 on Form IX-2 identifying and
describing the

infiltration test furrows. (Note that zero time is not

the same as

used for the Advance Curve.)

10. Record the intake rate

flow data in the columns
a through f

in the tables on
Form IX-2 as follows:

a.
Make the first entry when stream reaches midway

between Stations A and B.

Make second entry about

a minute after the

stream passes Station B. Make

subsequent entries at increasingly longer intervals

160

 to obtain at least eight entrien kimore entries are

even better).

b. Determine the differerce or incremental time between

successive watch (or clock) times entries.

c. Enter tie summat ion ', sucoess iye t ime increments.

d. Give the head on l'arshall flume, orifice, or weir.

Indicate device and units used. If a container is
used, show si:ze and time to fill.

e. Give convcrsion units if needed and corresponding

flow rate in gpm pass ing stations A and B.

f. Determine the flow rate differcr'e between station A

and B and adjust to 100 foet if A and B are not 100
feet apart to give rate of intake in qpm/ 100 feet.

Preferably the test should he run f"or the duiration of the irriga­
tion but may be briefer. For soils hlav4n:, slow int:nke rates, tests
may be shortened to 3 hours it not less than t_ e t imes it would Lake a
moderate stream to reach th.o low,- end of the Furrows.

11. Obseive the furrow for erosion or overtoppiuy.. Estimate the

maximum usable stream size. In new furrows, loose soil often muddies
the water at first, but this is not considered to le erosion. Also,
some erosion often occurs at the turnout, but the stream becomes stable
after a short time.

12. Observe runoff at the end of each furrow. ln4dcr circumstances

requiring a detailed evaluation, the rate uf runoff should he measured
several times; otherwise it may be estimated as a percent of the inflow
stream and noted as such. Cutback streams are almost always desirable
and practical in a properly designed system. One of the larger
streams should be cut back aftet appreciable runoff is noted, and
the runoff should be observed or measured. Wlere excessively long
furrows can be tested, such as occur where suip; Iomuntal lines are used,
a long advance curve can be plotted withutt rsorting to eytrapolation.
There is no runoff only cont inuous advance far past the end of a normal
furrow length. This is a desirable condition for evaluations.

13. If water is present in the furrow for an appreciable time

after the stream is turned off, it should he noted and a recession
curve plotted, as it represents extra time water may be infiltering.
It is negligible in most furrows since the intake rate is usually very
slow at the end of irrigation.

161

 14. Depth of water penetration and lateral spread should be

checked during irrigation by using a probe or soil tube to follow the

wetting front. Evidence of piow pans is readily observed when using

the probe. Depth and width of penetration should be checked by using

an auger or soil tube at several places along the furrow a day after

irrigation is completed. Mora detailed information can be obtained b-,

cutting a trench across the furrow for visual observations of the

wetting pattern. This should be done at several locations in the

furrow with the small stream to observe the wetting pattern for various

durations of irrigation. This will show if the furrow spacing is too

wide to adequately wet the area.

Utilization of field data

The field information is best presented by plotting. The advance

curves, which show the time water arrives at each station, are usually

plotted on rectangular coordinates and is best done in the field while

taking the data. The characteristics (slope, shape, moisture

condition, stream size, new or reused) of each furrow should also be

noted on the graph. It is practical to extrapolate advance curves

beyond actual field length by plotting the data on full logarithmic

paper on which they will have only a slight curvature. This is often

done on the same sheet as the intake curves or by finding the equation

of the advance curve. The recession curve which relates the time and

station location when water ceases to be on the surface may be plotted,

but it is usually assumed to be on a horizontal straight line unless

field data indicate a significant deviation.

The intake rate curves, which show the intake in gpm/100 feet at

any given time, are usually plotted on 3-cycle logarithmic paper. The

line of points for each test furrow should be plotted separately and

the plus or minus accuracy range noted since the points themselves

sometimes appear erratic. It is best to plot the data as soon as they

are taken so if errors occur they may be noticed immediately and new

readings taken. If
the test results are similar, one line representing

the typical condition may be added, but it should be used with the

knowledge that it may be plus or minus the actual value.

The depth

applied should be computed and compared with a cumulative depth

infiltrated plot and "adjusted" curves plotted if the two do not

closely agree.

The full evaluation procedure is illustrated by records of a test

in a corn field 1300 feet long but cut in half by a supplemental

supply ditch (see Forms IX-l and LX--2). The soil was a compact sandy

loam and was estimated to have 1.8 inches/foot available moisture. The

furrows were spaced at 36 inches, were clean, had a gradient of 0.2

percent, and had been used before.

Alternate furrows were customarily

irrigated at every other irrigation. Water was run in the furrows for

10 hours for convenience of labor. One siphon tube was used per furrow,

162

and the flow was definitely nonerosive. Since a cutb, k flow was not

convenient, appreciable runoff water was wasted in a uitch just above

the supplemental supply ditch. For the evaluation, siphon tubes were

set
in three furrows usLng three different flow rates.

The SD!P to a depth of 4 feet was found in each foot by using

of 3.6

Table I-i
to be 1.6, 1.2, 0.6, and 0.2 inches. giving a total
inches. Thq root zone at the time
was 3.5 feet and would expand as

the crop grew.

Irtakc rate
a were found by setting 1-inch Parshall flumes at

station 0+00 and station 2+00 in the

furrows having the largest and

the medium size streams. Flow rates into all three furrows were also

measured by timing the flow from the siphon tube into a 1-gallon jug.

Good correlation with the Parshall flume was obtained for the medium

the

stream, but because the largest stream filled the jug too
quickly,
correlation in that furrow was poor.

As sho,,n by the data on Form IX-2, 200-foot sections of furrows

were used making two

entries in column h. The first represents total
water intake, and the latter shows the
intake in the desired units

(gpm/100 feet).

The depth measurements in the Parshall flumes were made in a poor

fashion with a ruler marked in

1/16 of an inch. These divisions were

too large, and as shown on Form IX-2 for the 9.2-gpm furrow in column h,

the resulting intake values could potentially vary by + 0.4 gpm/200

feet or + 0.2 gpm/100 feet. Finer divisions such as 0.01 inch or 0.001

for

foot should be used. Because of

the crudeness of the measurements
this test, an average rate was presumed correct. If adequate accuracy

is obtainable, the direct readings must be used rather than averages

since they probably represent true flow variations. The accuracy of

ranges given on
the bottom lines of column h are important because in

plotting each point, it must be appreciated that the + values is a

limit on the range anywhere within which the

true value may occur. To

clarify, such a range should be considered at each point when plotting,

and the I-ne should be drawn within the range

as is the case for both

intake curves (straight lines)

on Figure IX-6. To increase accuracy

of measurements, a point gauge should be used to measure from a datum

to the water surface and to the bottom of the flume to obtain a zero

reading. Such a point gauge may be improvised by fastening a wire to

the end of a measuring scale.

Intake rate :urves were developed by using the data in columns c

and h on Form IX-2 and plotted on Figure IX-6. The cumulative intake

was plotted following the procedure described in Appendix C as

follows:

163

 °
/0 _-- ItCW /5002000 mnuf s /0.

--- I _6.0

3.0 0 =75pm
3.0

" 00
, /.o ,

q< 0.6
03 .. .....
O 9.2 qpn . 0.
0.

4 t

0.I ­

.03 . ... . .. 7
.06

/0 30 60 /0T060 0

710/

Cumula/ive Time - mnutes

Figure IX-6. Furrow intake curves for the field test data given in

Form IX-2.

1. Measure the vertical distance, V, between the two ends of

the 17.5-gnm stream intake rate curve which in Figure IX-3

is v = 1.31 inches.

2. Measure the horizontal distance, h, between the two ends (the

width of the graph) which is h =

4.68 inches.

3. Mark the time at which the intako rate curve crosses the

cumulative intake curve, T', which for a furrow spacing of

S = 3.0 feet is: T' = 60 (1-v/h)S

= (-1.31/4.68)3.0 = 129 minutes

164

 4. Measure the horizontal distance between T' = 129 minutes and

T = 1.0 minutes which is 3.25 inches.

5. Measure 3.25 inches vertically down from where the 17.5-gpm

stream intake curve crosses the line T = 1.0 minute (at 3.8
gpm/ino f)et) and mark it (at 0.029 inches). Note that there
are two vertical scales on Figure IX-6, intake rate (gpm/100
feet) and cumulative intake (inches).

6. A line drawn through the two points plotted in steps 3 and

5 represents the accumulated intake after any time, T, for
the 3.0-foot furrow spacing.

The two curves drawn for the two stream sizes are not averaged for
this evaluation. Thev seem to have a relationship that may correctly

be representing the slightly higher intake rate that a larger stream

should have for this furrow shape. The cumulative intake curves were

extrapolated past 2000 minutes on the 3-cycle logarithmic paper by

setting nack one log cycle. (See the upper right-hand corner of Figure
IX-6.)

When desired, the mathematical representation of the curves may be

found by the following procedure. The equation for the plotted intake
curve, which is usually a straight line on logarithmic paper for short
durations, is of the form:

IgpM/JO0 .4

where QW700 p. is the intake rate in gpm/100 feet of furrow, ''is

the time of inf'iltration in minutes, K is the intercept when Time 7 is
1.0 minute. and n is the geometric slope of the line (vertical
distance/horizontal distance). This slope is negative, so a has a
minus sign. For long duration tests the equation is:

_I = }T n +3

where c is the final intake rate after a long time.

Converting from gpm/100 feet to inches/hour for a specific furrow

spacing, S, may be closely approximated (4, too low) by dividing the
above equation by S in feet:

I=pm/100 feet

in/hr(S) S feet

165

 Integrating the short duration rate equation produces the equation

for cumulative depth of infiltration in inches for a furrow spacing, S

in feet:

( n +1 )
D (S) = KIT

where

= I

K.

60 (n+l)S

K' is also the intercept of the cumulative curve on a logarithmic plot

at T equals 1.0 minute.

For the long duration rate the equation for the cumulative depth

of infiltration is:

O = K'T(n+1) t.CT

The n, K, and K' values for the above equations may be obtained

from inspection of the plottings shown on Figure IX-6 as follows:

1. The slope, n of the 17.5-gpm stream intake rate curve is:

n = -v/h

which for V = 1.31 inches and h = 4.68 inches as determined

earlier is:

n = - 1.31/4.68 - 0.28

2. The intercept of the 17.5-gpm stream intake rate curve with

T = 1.0 minutes is K = 3.8.

3. The intercept of the cumulative intake curve with T = 1.0

minutes when S = 3.0 feet is:

K' = 3.8 0.029

60 (-0.28 + 2) 3.0

which is the same as the value found graphically.

Using these values in the above formulas gives:

166

 = 0 28
Igpm/100 ft
3.8T

and

0.
ft) 0.029 T 72

As shown later, these curves almost always need to be "adjusted"

to make them conform to the measured onflow depth.

1
c: vos from data on Form IX-l were plotted on Figure IX-7.
Aizwa..
Two of the curves were extrapolated to the full 1300 feet which may be
approximated by any of three wavs. A French curve may be used for lines
without much curvature such as the 17.5-gipm stream or for short extra­
polations such as for the 4.0-gpm stream. Also curves may be plotted
on log-log paer and extrapolated us ,g a French curve. This was done
for the 9. 2-gpm stream and transferred to the rectangular coordinates.

6oZ)60 ---- _ __
______4 I I

1 5c0 T ,71 ..
QJ

4X _

i ,0 92"

.0 GOw 17
0 I
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 II 12 13 14
Distance (S/a/ion) - feel x /00

Figure IX-7. Furrow advance curves for field test data given in Form

IX-I.

167

 The third procedure involves finding the equation of the

curve and

using the equation to extrapolate. This is the most accurate one for

very long extrapolations. An equation, ' = a(eC -1) where

tx is the number of minutes to roach the distance x in feet, has been

found to fit many advance curves.

The constants a and c may be com­
puted by obtaining the slope of (dt/dx) of the
curve at two points

with due care for scale distortion, putting the slope values into the

differential equation of the form AZ/d = ac + ct

for the two locations,

x
and solving the two equations simultaneously. The equation usually has

to be slightly adjusted to match the original

curve since the slope

measurements seldom can be made precisely enough to determine the

correct u and c values the first time.

An evaluation by a short analysis using "unadjusted" curves and

absolute minimum values instead of the more

correct but more involved

Low Quarter (LQ) values will show:

1. How uniformly the water is distributed, DUa.

2. The potential of the existing system if used to its best

advantage, PJYA. (This illustration shows the

need to use an "adjusted"

curve for intake to obtain correct values.)

3. How well the irrigator is using his system, AELA, i.e.,

whether the stream size and length of

furrow are about correct, and

whether the
right amount of water is being applied.

Distribution Un-i formi tv

The 97)Lshould be studied for several conditions, but for illustra­

tion only the 17.5-gpm stream and 3.0-foot furrow spacing are used

here since this was what Lhe irrigator was using. The ratio of the

minimum depth infiltrated to

the average depth infiltrated describes

the uniformity of water

intake without regard to the adequacy of

irrigation. By utilizing the

furrow intake and advance curves (Figures
1X-6 and -7) and the time of application, 7 , of 10 hours (600 minutes),
the following conditions were found: At the upper end the opportunity
time, TOM -, = -, 'i,",',, therefore, the depth infiltrated at the
upper end, ., ) from Figure 1X-6 was 2.9 inches. At the lower end of
the furrow, he opportunity time, " (Mu, would be T the time
to advance 650 feet to the lower emij',a'1 J, of 52 minu es, so:

Z' = Q" ) - 7adv = 6)00 - [fC& 55O minutes

Therefore, from Figure IX-6 the depth of infiltration at the lower end

of the furrow, D( ), was 2.7 inches. These values are shown in

168

 row z To 600min To = Totu) _ Todv= 550 rin

1" t t650
1 -­ feet - - ,4

// / / 7 V / r
I / /. /.
I' ,• / / ./ '

D(u) 2.9/n,/ Depth Infiltrated

/
/', o ) 2.7 in

I
/

., , // ' I
/ / " ,/ 1

Figure IX-8. Relation of infiltrated depth along furrow with 17.5-gpm

stream.

Figure IX-8. Numbers are rounded off since only reasonable accuracy
can be expected. A uniform change ia depth infiltrated is assumed for
simplicity. This assumption is valid only for small advance ratis, "'.,,

of about 1:3 or less. For much slower advances, the depth infiltrated
is no longer approximated by a straight line as will be dlemonustrated
later for the M gpm furrow stream. Using the above ' and .
values, the 7 . is:
"P' lY:.Z & , '2' Z,.'7 O,''aC,U&.o

U - -.1),,,
,,rth
,,,.K N!# t abooq. d,,. X 1019

d <,.-
("'

Da (W inch'" ... M ,oU.. ..

Potential Application Efficiencv

The PEW, is found when the "ab.olute" minimum depth of water

infiltrated just satisfies the ... Since the irrigator was applying
only about 2.7 inches when 3.6i inches were needed at that time, this
efficiency must be found for the 3.6 inch condition.

From Figure irrigation, Y., to

IX-6, the "unadjusted" time of
apply 3.6 inches is 800 minutes and T" must be the same. At the *,
upper end, tihe water will have been on r by thre length of time
n!/'lge
it took the stream to reach the lower end, T , of about 52 minites,
therefore, TON) 800 + , =-80 1iula, T.he approximate average

169

depth of water applied, D, by a furrow stream of 17.5 gpm flowing for

850 minutes (14.2 hours) to the 650 foot furrow with a 3.0--foot spacing

is found by:

D = 96.3 1. ,gpm X 14.2 hrs = 12.3 inches

3.0 fect X 650 fec(t

and

AR = 50 :00 = 1 : 16
a

D = 12.3 inches and is correct within the accuracy of the onflow

measurement. However, the 2.7 and 3.6 inch minimum depths infiltrated

and stored(used to compute PT'LA and A.5A) were computed using the furrow

intake curve which is independent of the onflow measurement. Figure

IX-6 was developed from the "unadjusted" original set of data. The two

depth values, onflow and infiltrated, are seldom consistent. They may

be made consistent by using the technique described later under "Depth

infiltratea and Adjusted intake curves."

The . 5-gppm furrow stream was much greater than the intake
capacity of the short furrow and causeu a great deal of runoff, result­
ing in a very 1ow PA. of:

3. 0
PELA - 190 - 09 ("u'
"azcdf ted")

App iica t ion t'f

f!icl.
jency

lht A ,iA describes how much of the water applied is retained in

the soil and is avai lable for consumptive use at the point of "absolute"
minimum appl Iication. As this field was irrigated, the maximam depth
infiltrated, ,(,., was 2.9 inchues but it did not satisfy the SOD, i.e.,
all the area was uderirriga ted, however, there was heavy runoff. The
minimum depth infiltrated at the lower end of the furrow, D(Z ) , (all
retained in the soil) was 2.7 inchies. The average depth applied in
T= 10.0 hn r: was:

D = 3.0.I.:,,fac
X (550 !,',
,.7 inchs

and

170

AR = 50:550 = 1:71

and

A _ 2.L7 X 100 = 31'. (Unadjusted)

8.7

The fol'owing concusiOns can be drawn from the above short analysis
computations and are useful for making recommendations for improvements:

1. DU a of 95, shows that very little additional water infiltrates

at the upper end relative to the lower end. T'his indivates that a
slower rate of advance with a smaller stream would still do a satis­
factory job. The water advanced down the furrow in about 1:11 the time
1:12. An AN, between 1: and..
it was at the lower end. i.e.,AN '
may be considered very satisfactory, and between 1:3 and 1:2 is often
acceptable if a cutback is made or a return flow system is us.,.

2. TE.. and .... were both very low using "unadjusted" intake
values. Since no water was lost to deep percolation, there must have
been a great deal of runoff. For the system as used, runoff was 67%;
and if the longer time required for a full irrigation of 3.6 inches
was used, runoff would have been even greater.

From these conclusions the following recommendations can be made:

1. Use a smaller stream to reach the lower end of the furrow in

which
about 1/4 or more of A-"; i.e., 13.3 hours/4 = 3.3 or more hours,
gpm.
interpolated on Figure IX-7 would be done by a stream of about 6.0

Run water longer tO satisfy

2. . +".
a . .'. .,7 + W, or
approximately 17 hours. To further reduce runoff, cut back the
stream or use a return flow system.
3. Increase, the furrow leh, if practical, by eliminat ing the
suppemecntal supply t'h rintr it my be inferrtd tlat much longer

furrow could be used wi th the 17.5-gpm stream. Furt herrort. ; n even

larger stream could be. used if di.sired and still not be ,rosiv as the

0.2Z slope since :2 ,-j1 Qm 'r'" whichn woo 1(d perml' t an

even

longer furrow.

Further evaluation

By studyin g the curves further ;Inc 'djusting' thIre intake curves

to find more precise values, some specific recommendat ions (ran be made
relative to this system and its use. These recommendations can then be

171

considered by management for their convenience, practicability and

economics. The following illustrates what may be done.

Soil moisture deficiency at which to irrigate, MAD, must be

chosen. For this soil, climate, and crop with an expanding root zone,

MAD may reasonably be 60%. At the time of checkin'g, the root zone was

estimated to be 3.5 feet deep. MAD at 60% is then: 3.5 feet X (1.8

inches/foot) X 60% = 3.8 inches. Since estimated SMD was 3.6 inches,

the time to irrigate was the test day or the day after. Subsequent

irrigations when the root zone had expanded to 5 feet would then be
applied when the MAD was about 5.0 feet X (1.8 inches/foot) X 60% =
5.4 inches. The operating procedures for these two (3.6 and 5.4 inches)

and an earlier light application of about 2.5 inchesresulting in a

range for MAD from 2.5 inches to 5.4 inchesjrequires flexibility in

frequency, rate, and duration and will result in different efficiencies,

desirable furrow lengths, and application durations. The system cannot

easily be operated at the highest efficiency for all conditions, so

compromislcg is inevitable.

Time of irrigation, or duration of irrigation, T., for the 3.8

MAD is about 860 minutes (see Figure TX-6).

1

inches

aav, can u.c estimated bv using one fourth

Time of advance, Tad, of T.
as a "desirable" relationship which would result in a very high DUa.

This gives a Ta of 860/4 = 215 minutes. (Using an ARa as low as

one-half of Ti Jb3O minutes) may be economical for no cuitback, but will

give a lower PELA if a cutback stream or reuse system is used.)

Furrow Zength to match this "desiiqble" T , using the 17.5-gpm

stream is found
on Figure IX-7 to be 1,320 fee, which is insignifi­
cantly longer than the 1300 foot field. (For a smaller stream, such

as 9.2 gpm, the "desirable" length would be about 900 feet. For a

furrow length 6f 650 feet, a "desirable" stream would be about 6.0 gpm.)

Time of application, Ta , would be T. + Tad,

= 860 4- 215 = 1075
minutes (18 hours) giving:

Ta = T 1075 minutes; therefore D (u

Cu)) 4.5 inches

Ti = T = 860 minutes; therefore D(Z ) = 3.8 inches = MAD

Using these values the DUa becomes:

3.8
DUa = (3.8 + 4.5)/2 X 100 = 91%

172

and

AR = 215:860 = 1:4
a

Note that shortening the length from the "desirable" 1,300 feet

to

(AR = 1:4) to 650 feet (AR = 1:16) only increased DU a from 91

95%a.a

PotentiaZ ArvZication?r'"ie , PE,A, when the minimum depth

D, on an
infiltrated equals ?4IP, and when the average depth applied,
is:
area 3.0 feet wide and 1.300 feet long with no cutback stream

96.3 X 17.5 m 18.0et

hrs .i
3.0 feet X 1300

then,

PELA = 3.8 X 100 = 50% (unc justed)

7.6

For ideal conditions of operation, AELA equals PELA.

Water losses are runoff and deep percolation. The amount of

runoff equals the average depth applied minus the avera'ge depth

infiltrated. The deep percolation loss is

the infiltraued depth minus

the stored depth. These values are

drawn to scale on Figure IX-9.

and

(For inscructions to construct Figure IX-9, see

the section Depth
Infiltration and "Adjusted Intake Curves" which follows.) The areas

in

in each category are in proportion to

the volumes of water involved
order that problems can be visually identified, efficiencies computed,

and an
"adjusted" cumulative intake curve drawn if refinement is

desired.

From the depths shown in Figure IX-9 and their sum, which is 3.8

+ 1.9 -!0.4
= 6.1 inches applied (assumed infiltrated on the extrapolated

furrow length),
the various losses and other terms can be computed as:

Runoff = 1.9 100 = 31'

-
Deep Percolation = 0 4 K 100 = 7%
6.1

173

 Distonce - feet

0 500 I000 1320 1500 2000 2225

2 Stored 3.8 in , Runoff - 1.9 in .

_ -- _ _ •__ #- -1

5 Deep Percoltion- 0.4 in

Figure IX-9. Distribution of depth infiltrated (stored plus deep

percolation) and runoff for a 1320 foot furrow with

a 17.5 gpm stream.

PELA = AELA X 100 = 61% (unadjusted)

6.1

3.8

DU - X10-=911

a 4.,

The measured onflow depth of 7.6 inches and PELA of 50% computed

earlier are different from the above values. This is usually true

because of inconsistencies between the two techniques and the general

assumption that the section of the furrow and the flow rates used for

the infiltration test truly represent the whole furrow. Further error

is introduced by using the approximatic., of dividing the intake rate

in gpm/100 ft by the furrow spacing in feet to get the rate in

inches/hour, when the precise value is actually obatined by using

the intake rate in 96.3 feet- of furrow rather than 100 feet of furrow.

The runoff loss can be reduced by cutting back the stream or by

using a smaller stream, which would give a larger A,' . Runoff can be

eliminated by using a return flow system, which makes the runoff avail­
able for further use. If a return flow system is used, the PELA

approaches the DUa resulting in a very high efficiency. (For compari­

sons with other methods of irrigation,PELQ which is even higher than

PEfLA should be used.)

Additional illustrations of water losses and efficiencies in

dimensionless form using Advance Rat-o, (ARa), are included in Appendix

G.

174

Depth i.nfiltrated and adjusted intake curves

Because the 17.5-gpm stream was

so much larger than is reasonable

for the length of furrow used, having an AR of 1:11, the 9.2-gpm stream

will be used to illustrate the "adjusted" intake curve development and

other management practices.

ALJ~sto [?2t t .':a7cs need to be developed to give more precision

by reconciling the actual onflow depth with the calculated infiltrated
depth. The frequent discrepancy occurting when the raw intake date is
used, as previously illustrated, is caused by: (a) taking the differ­
ence (outflow minus inflow) of two numbers which are difficult to
measure accurately, and (b) using a short sample length which may not

be representative of the whole furrow.

The onflow depth measurement

is generally the more accurate; therefore, adjustments are normally

made to the values of the "raw" intake
curve.

To develop "raw" and "adjusted" intake curves, the furrow advance

data must either be: (a) collected during the field test on furrows
considerably longer than the normal length, or (b) extrapolated as
previously discussed in connection with the advance curves presented
in Figure IX-7. For this discussion an enlarged and lengthened plot of

the 9.2-gpm stream advance curve was redrawn as Figure IX-1O. The "raw"
=

curve was terminated at 1750 minutes since this is when ." 1000
minutes which satisfies the.,.A = 3.8 inches at a = distance of 1320

feet, i.e., . " = .

or 1750 - 750 1000 minutes. The
recession curves are usually horizontal straight lines oased on the

assumption that the stream essentially recedes as soon as the onflow is

terminated.

The "raw" depth of infiltration is tabulated in Table TX-] using

data from the "raw" cumulative intake curve (Figure IX-6) and the

extrapolated advance curve (Figure IX-lO). The table gives the depth

infiltrated at several distances along the furrow corresponding to the

T at those locations for the %'AD = 3.8 inches at 1320 feet.

The "raw" depths infiltrated at the corresponding distances along

te furrow are plotted in Figure IX-I to show the distribution of

infiltration plus runoff. For convenience, the "absolute" minimum is

usually used for the depth stored (providing it is equal to or less

than the SMD), which in this case is the A',4D of 3.8 inches.

The equivalent depth on a furrow with 3.0-foot spacing and 1320

feet long -epresented by each portion above the "raw"

curve in Figure

IX-I can then be determined. This may be done by counting grid

squares on the graph paper used (or by planimetering the area or by

visually estimating the positions of lines which represent the average

depth of each area). From a square count the equivalent depths are:

175

 "- - I.
I ­

1500
Recession Curves Raw usted- i

500 ...... _ e_ _ , ___

/000

0 0dv
l j___ ___

0 2 4 6 8 /0 12 14 16 17
Distance (S/ation).fee/ x /00

Figure IX-lO. Extrapolated furrow advance and recessiun curves for

9.2-gpm stream in 1320-foot furrow.

Distance (S/a/ion) _feet x100

0 2 4 C C /0 /2 /4 /6 17
-- i , i]i 1 l/
- -- -- - - -~- 4 WI /

I 2 Water Stored - - R

-­ 3.8 inches MAD

Deep Percolation
Rw l II - ii -

6-- =-Adjusted Depth

Figure IX-Il. Distribution of infiltration plus runoff for 9.2-gpm

stream 3.0-foot furrow spacing, and 1320 feet long.

176

Table IX-l.
Raw depth of infiltration along furrow with 3.0-foot

furrow spacing for 9.2-gpm stream (MAD = 3.8 inches,

T. =
1000 minutes; Tadv = 750 minutes; Ta = 1750 minutes,

and extrapolated L = 1675 feet).

Distance feet

0 400 800 1100 1320 1.500 1675

Tad v
0 40 185 430 750 1190 1750

T
1750 1710 1565 1320 1000 560 0

D(raw)
5.7 5.6 5.2 4.6 3.8 2.5 0

Table IX-2.
Adjusted depth of infiltration along furrow with 3.0 foot

furrow spacing for 9.2--gpm stream (MAD = 3.8 inches), T.

=

850 minutes, Ta = 750 minutes, Ta

= 1600 minutes, and

extraploated La v16 30 feet). a

Distance feet

0 400 800 1100 1320 1500 1630

Tad v
0 40 185 430 750 1190 1600

T
1600 15460 1315 1170 850 410 0

D (dj) 6.0 5.9 5.3 4.8 3.8 2.2 0

177

 Stored
201 squares = 3.8 inches
Runoff 33 squares 0.6 inches

Deep Percolation
72 squares 1.4 inches

Total
306 squares = 5.8 inches

The 201 squares in the stored area corresponds to 3.8

inches on an area

3.0 feet wide and 1320 feet long and establishes a ratio.
The 33

squares then corresponds to

0.6 inches of runoff, 72
squares to 1.4

inches of deep percolation. and 306 squares corresponds

to the total

application of 5.8 inches on the 1320-foot length.

The calculated average onflow depth based on a 9.2

gpm stream

flowing for 1750 minutes (29.2 hours) is:

D = 96.3 9.2 qpm X 29.2 hours inches

3.0 feet X 1320 feet

which is considerably greater than the estimated 5.8

inches from the

infiltration analysis.
The adjusting procedure must
reconcile the

discrepancy between the 5.8

inches of infiltration while
utilizing the

6.5 inches measured onflow as the

more probable correct
value.
To do

this, a new "adjusted" cumulative intake

zurve for the
9.2-gpm stream

must be drawn on
Figure IX-6. This "adjusted" curve
should pass through

6.5 inches of cumulative intake at

the same time that
the "raw" curve

passes through 5,8 inches of cumulative intake and have

the
same slope

as the "raw" curve.

On Figure IX-6, the "raw" 9.2-gpm
curve passes

through 5.8 inches at approximately 1800 minites.

For
this illustration

the "adjusted" 9.2--gpm curve j1st happens to coincide

with the 17.5-gpm
stream "raw" curve.

The "adjusted" depth of infiltration is tabulated in

Table IX-2

using Figure IX-6 and IX-10. It is also plotted on

Figure IX-11 and

the corresponding equivalent depths on a furrow with

3.0"foot spacing

and 1320 feet long represented by a square count in each

portion

above the "adjusted depth curve are:

Stored
201 squares = 3.8 inches = 63%

Runoff
29 squares = 0.6 inches
= 9%

Deep Percolation 87 squares

= 1.6 inches = 28%

Total
317 squares = 6.0 inches = 100%
The calcualted average onflow depth based on the 9.2
gpm stream

flowing for 1600 minutes (26.8 hours) is:

178

D = 96.3 9. 2 gpm X 26. 8 hours = 6.0 inches

3.0 feet X 1320 fcet

which is now identical to the "adjusted" estimated application based

on the infiltration analysis.

Evaluation. Tile 9iUa and PELA for this very slow advance can be
computed from the "adjusted" estimates of the stored (3.8 inches),
runoff (0.6 inch), deep percolation (1.6 inches), and total (6.0
inches) depths of water applied as:

AR a = 750:S50 1:1.7

DU a + 1..1
X 10 0 = 70%
3.8 3.

and

PELA z 3.X_
3. 8 T 100 = 637,
3.8 + 1.6 + 0.6

to obtain comparable values with other methods and to allow for

economically under irrigating a small area, the absolute minimum must

be replaced by the average depth in the low quarter. This is emphasized

by the following calculations. From the adjusted depth curve in

Figure tX-Il, the average depth in the low quarter (by visual estima­
tion) is approximately 4.7 inches. The runoff remains the same 0.6
inch or 10%, but the ueep percolation is raduced to only 0.7 inch or
12%, and evaluation terms for this slow AIY 6 are improved to:

AR = 750:1200 = 1:1.6
a

DU= X 100 = 87%

5.4

and

_4.
7

PELQ =54X 100 =78%

For small AR values, 1:4, the difference between absolute and Low

Quarter values are not as great. This illustration emphasizes the

necessity of using only LQ minimums when comparing various evaluations.

179

Additional studies

Some additional studies using the "unadjusted" infiltration data

for ease of illustration rather than the "adjusted," are presented

below to demonstrate procedures and possibilities for further mani­

pulation of the test data.

Size of cutback furrow stream and whether only one or several

cutbacks are made, depend on the economics of labor and costs of

water. The secondary effects of the results of runoff, such as crop

damage, breeding of mosquitoes, high water table, etc., will also enter

into the management decision on how many cutbacks should be made or

whether a return flow system should be installed.

The size of the infiltrated stream at any moment may be found by

summing the flow in gpm infiltration in each section at that parti­

cular moment. The rate of runoff is then equal to the rate of

inflow minus the summation of the average rates of infiltration. The

length of the furrow sections chosen for the following procedure must

be short enough so that rates at each end do not vary greatly and their

average is representative wiLhin the section. Sections other than 100

feet in length must be "weighted" since the infiltration rate is

expressed in units of gpm/l00 feet.

Table IX-3 is set up to estimate the proper size of the cutback

stream for the 17.5-gpm farrow stream after 5 hours (300 minutes) of

operation. This is about 1.5 hours after water reaches the end and is

running off. Sections 200 feet long are used except for the 100-foot

end section. The T( and unadjusted -I "100 faO are taken from the
plotted curves on Figures IX-6 and -i. "

The total intake along the 1300 - foot furrow presented in Table

IX-3 show that the stream should be cut back from 17.5 gpm to approxi­
mately 10.6 gpm after about 5 hours. At this time tile runoff would

be 17.5 - 10.6 = 7.0 gpm. By a similar procesb for when the irrigation

is completed after 18 hours (using cutback ;treatus and the whole

furrow as one section since intake rLte is very uniform after this

long time), the total intake was estimated as 7.2 gpm giving about 3.4

gpm of runoff. This indicates that the first cutback was made a little

too late to have a constant rate of runoff for the most effective use

of a return flow system.

The average depth applied with the single cutback would be:

= 96.3 (17.3 gpm X 5.0 hrs + 10.6 gpm X 13.0 hps)

3 fcet X 1300 feet

Therefore, the efficiency would be improved to:

180

Table IX-3. Total rate of unadjusted infiltration after 300 minutes

of application with the 17.5-gpm furrow stream.

Between Station Averages

Station Tadv To 1pm/100 ft I/jQz)0 ft I m/200 ft

0+00 0 300 0.75

0.75 1.5

2+00 12 288 0.76

0.77 1.5

4+00 26 274 0.78

0.79 1.6

6+00 49 251 0.80

0.81 1.6

8+00 77 223 0.62

0.84 1.6

10+00 120 180 0.87

0.91 1.8

12+00 170 130 0.95

1.00 1.0/100

13+00 210 90 1.05

Totals 10.6 gpm

PELA =.
5.4
X 100 = 71%

For the above analyses, adjusted intakes would give different and more

precise values but would complicate the illustration.

For comparative purposes (to the 17.5-gpm stream), the 9.2-gpm

medium sized furrow stream using "raw" data can be studied. This

unadjusted 9.2-gpm stream had a 15% slower intake rate than the 17.5­
gpm stream as shown on Figure IX-6. (This may well be an unnecessary

refinement since intake rates often vary much more between furrows

because of cultural operations that cause differing compaction of the

soil.) When:

D = 3.8 inches L = 1320 feet

181

Therefore,

T. = To = 1000 minutes T = 750 minutes

71 O~z) =adv

T =T T. + T =1000 + 750 = 1750 minutes

a (u) = 7 adv

D W = 5.6 inches AR = 750:1000 = 1:1.3

Using a linear interpretation(which is not precise for this slow an

advance to estimate the average depth of infiltration):

3.8

DU = X 100 = 81%

a (3.8 + 5.6)/2

This is a 10% reduction from the 91% given by the larger stream and

shows the effect of the slower advance.

The slowing of the Advance Time from 25% to 75% of T. is less

important than reducing waste from running water after the SMD has been

satisfied and 100% of the onflow is wasted. Creation and continuance

of both of these wastes, deep percolation "nd runoff, are the respon­
sibility of the irrigator and are not the fault of the method.

If the 9.2-gpm stream which has a slow AR = 1:1.3 we re run with­

out any cutback for 1750 minutes (29.2 hours),the evaluation terms are:

D = 96.3 9.2 X 29.2 hrs =pm

= 6.5 inches

3 feet X 1320 feet

PELA = 18 X 100 = 58% ("unadijusted")

6.5

This is considerably better than the PELA = 50% computed for the 17.5­
gpm stream with no cutback and Afia = 1:4.

A single cutback would increase the PELA of the 9.2-gpm stream to

about 70% even though the furrow is 470 longer than the "desirable"
length of 850 feet which would give AR = 1:4 (see Figure LX-10).
Small AR values (1:4) result in high uniformities but much runoff and
low PELQ values unless cutback streams or return flow systems are
used; whereas,large AR (1:1) are the more efficient when these practices
are not used.

182

 A 24-hour appZication could be obtained for convenience of opera­

tion by choosing a scream size of about 12.0 gpm that would take 440
minutes to advance the 1320 feet. This, plus the 1000-minute 7J'., would
give the desirable duration of 1440 minutes (24 hours) and an :AP of 1:23.
This combination with no cutback would give acceptable distribution
(DUj = 87") but inefficient irrigation r'FEFA = 514). However, a 24-hour
application is most convenient for labor and continuous water deliveries.
With a cutback after 10 hours, this alternative would have a reasonable
PELA of about 67% (PELQ = 74%) and would require very little additional
labor. Another alternative is to use a return flow system which could
increase the PEL4 to about 87% (P -l = 95%) and require minimum labor
and only a medium capacity return flow capacity.

The 17.5-gpm stream would give a PEL, of 91% (PELQ = 96%) and
utilize the same labor but would require a larger irrigation and return
flow system and should be cut off after 17 hours instead of 24 hours.
Management must decide whether the 4% increase in P11LA is economical

or not.

Cc :tzmoz~s 7"aros save water and labor. An alternate method would

be to replace the supplemental supply ditch (in the middle of the field)
with gated pipe. In this practice, smaller streams are started more or
less simultaneously at the upper end and at the intermediate line or
lines. Runoff from the upper portion mingles with the streams at the
intermediate locations and thereby the upper runoff is utilized. Since
the upper line may supply all the flow needed after cutting back or

completely tirning off the water at the intermLdiate line, total runoff

is reduced with a minimum of labor. Vith the portable gated pipe,

lengths of run in long fields may be varied as the !'.D of crop changes.

Furrow spaci 2q an sr'"-e are important management tools. Spacing

is often related to crop row spacing, but usually a limited variation
is reasonable. For example, the effect of a change from a 2.5-foot to
a 3.0-foot furrow spacing for a MAD of 3.0 inches can be seen on
Figure IX-6. This increases the '. from 480 minutes to 600 minu:es
which also permits increasing the ildesirable length" for the same AP? and
DU.

If it is not practical to change spacing, the furrow could be

widened by about 6 inches. This would enable use of a larger stream

with little change in T..

The maximum spacing for a specific furrow shape is related to:

1. The soil texture as it affects lateral capillary movement.

2. The S14D as it affects how long water flows in the furrow.

The general wetting patterns related to texture in dry soils are

shown in Figure IX-12.

183

 coarse medium fine

Figure IX-12. Wetting patteias under furrows in various textured dry

soils.

at about

A dry fine-textured soil conducts water laterally and downward

downward speed

the same rate and permits a wide furrow spacing. The

deeper

of the moving water decreases as

the wetting front penetrates
In coarse textured soil, the lateral

oister soil.

and encounters m
flow moves

capillary flow does not move very far, while the downward
easily through the coarse soil by gravity.

In the "vee"
Generalized furrow shapes are
shown in Figure IX-13.
decreases down­
furrow, wetted width and depth decrease as streamflow
rate along the furrow.

slope. This will moderately decrease the intake

causes a small.

In parabolic and broad furrowsa decrease in

flow
decrease in water depth but. causes very little change in

corresponding
the furrow length.

wetted width so intake rate is auite uniform along

without erosion

Parabolic and broad furrows

can handle larger flows
they can

easily be made different: widths,

than the "vee" shape. Also,

therefore, they are more desirable shapes.

16in 40in
/0 in

parabo/ic brood
vee

Figure IX-13.
Typical furrow channel cross sections.

184

 Sp inklers may well be used in coibination with furrows to take

advantage of the best features of each system. Light applications are

seldom practical with furrows since short furrows requiring much labor

are needed to obtain reasonable efficiency. Sprinklers can easily and

efficiently apply the light applications needed for seed germination,

especially where crop root zones are shallow. HowevLr, a light pre­
irrigation and heavier first irrigation for seed germination cau often

be combined to apply moderate depths at both applications to improve

furrow irrigation efficiency.

Summary of f-ll_ evaltiuation

The field evaluation and analysis described above along with

pertinent concluding comments is summarized below. (Low absolute
values rather than LQ are used.)

Present system. The evaluated system under the present management

had the following conditions:

L = 0,50 . et S,.D = 3.6 inches T = 70 hours

q = 17.5 ?m' = 3.8 inches

t.LD Tad v = 52 minures

D (Z) = 2.7 inches (underirrigated) ARa = 1:11 (uneconomically small)

The evaluation produced the following results:

DUa
= 95%

PELA(3 6 inches) 2.9% ("unadjusted")

AELA. 9 . 7 inches) = 31% (with no cutback)

Since this combination caused no erosion, a larger stream and a

longer furrow could be used. There was no cutback, so runoff was

excessive. The AR was uneconomically small, labor was excessive, and

efficiencies were very low.

Practical alternatives. Some practical alternative design and

management possibilities are summarized as follows:

1. Longer furrows:

L = 1300 feet q = 17.5 gpm SMD = MAD = 3.8 inches

T. = 860 minutes Tdv = 215 minutes ("desirable advance")

185

T = 1,075 minutes = 18 hours AR = 1:4

DUa =91% or DU = 94%

PELA ( 3 . 8 inch) - 50% with no cutback ("unadjusted")

PELA = 71% (with single cutback)

PELA = 80% or greater (with double cutback)

PELA = 91% (for return fluw system of large capacity and no cutback)

2. Longer furrow with smaller stream (based on unadjusted "raw" data)

L = 1320 feet q = 9.2 gpm SMD = MAD = 3.8 inches

T. = 1000 minutes Tad v 750 minutes (slow advance rate)

Ta = 1750 minutes = 29.2 hours ARa = 1:1.3

DUa
a 81% (with no cutback)

PELA = 58% (with no cutback)

PELA = 70% (with single cutback)

PELA = 81% (for small capacity return flow system and no cutback)

3. Longer furrow with smaller stream (based on "adjusted" data):

L = 1320 feet q = 9.2 gpm SMD = MAD = 3.8 inches

T. = 850 minutes T - 750 minutes

I adv -

Ta - 1600 minutes = 26.7 hours ARa = 1:1.1 or AR = -:1.6

DU = 70% or DU = 87% (with no cutback)

a
PELA = 63% or PELQ = 78% (with no cutback)

4. Longer furrow with medium stream to obtain 24-hour duration:

L = 1320 feet q = 12.0 gpm SMD = AD = 3.8 inches

T
Ti = 1000 minutes adv = 440 minutes (moderate advance rates)

186

T 1000 + 440 rrm'nt 's = 24 hours AR = 440/1000 = 1:2.3

aa

DU = 57 or DU = 90r
a
PELA = 54 no

PELA = 67, -zitback)

PELA = 37 or = P5 ( medium capacity retrn flow system)

Additional alternatives which might be considered and studied further

would include:

5. Using a gated pipe to permit continuous furrows and to allcw

length of runs to be varied as MID varies.

6. Using sprinklers for light applications in the early season and

for seed germination.

7. Making first irrigation excessive to supplement a moderate pre­

irrigation application.

Conclusions. A final decision by mana'ement

on what irrigation

practices should be used for this field would depend on the following:

1. Value of water in terms of its cost or in terms of its

productiveness when the water supply is limited

2. Cost and skill of labor

3. Capital investment

4. Secondary.problems caused by runoff water and deep percolation.

Based on conservation irrigation alone with a high PELA value,

the present system of 650-foot furrows, 17.5-gpm streams, and a return

flow system putting the runoff back into a reservoir with or without a

cutback, would give a PELQ of about 95%

even for a 2.5-inch appli­
cation. Using the 9.2-gpm stream, PELQ would be 93% or greater. At

other times during the season when different MAD values are desired,

other stream sizes and advance ratios would be desirable.

Actual irrigation practices measured by AELA or AELQ are

invariably lower than PELA or PELQ since not all furrows react exactly

the
same because of variations in soils and cultural practices. In

addition, the value of the SMD detennined by any practical method on

a field basis is only approximate; the accuracy of measuring furrow

streams can seldom be high even though the total depth applied is

187

 often adequately measured, and the convenience of labor is

frequently

a dominant criterion.

The ability to turn off the water when the SMD i

satisfied
is

most important for good efficiency since all water subsequently

run

is 100% wasted. However, with furrows the intake rate at

the end of

irrigation will have greatly decreased. Therefore, from

a 25% over­
run of time less than 5% waste of this excess water may go
to deep

percolation losses and build up of a high water table but

the other

20% will be runoff.

When the furrow length is such that T

is at the "desirable"

condition of about 1/4 T., (AR =

1:4), DU Wi be about 95%.
Reducing

T 2 has only a moderate effect on improving DU; therefore,

a

merate increase in Tadv is not very detrimental.

The duration of irrigation, T., c,:

be altered within reasonable

limits
to match hours of water delivery or labor convenience
by

modifying one or all of the following: stream size and furrow

length,

which will affect Tadv' and MAD, furrow spacing, and shape which will

affect T..

11
Flexibility in frequency, rate, and duration of supply flow
are

essential to obtain high efficiency irrigation and to reduce

labor

requirements. The stream size available in the field should

be large

enough to keep the irrigator busy and to start initial streams

in all

furrows simultaneously. The compromises between capital

costs and

savings of labor and water must be studied. Evaluation of

the irri­
gation system provides the basis for such studies which frequently

indicate that a reservoir would be an economical canital

investment.

Furthermore, a return flow system can be an efficient means

for saving

water and, more importantly, a labor saver.

With good design,
semi­
automation (automated control of the flexibility in rate
and duration

of the water supply but manually controlled field application

of a

larger stream) becomes very practical and economical.

188

 CHAPTER X

BORDER-STRIP IRRIGATION

In border-strip irrigation, a sheet of water flows

on a sloping

soil surface between low ridges. The ridges may be from 20 feet to

over
100 feet apart depending upon the topography, inflow capacity,

method of application, farm machinery requirements, and uniformity of

application desired.
In general, the slope across each border-strip

(between the ridges) should be nearly level and the slope down the

border-strip may be anywhere from nearly level to preferably less than

1%, but may be much steeper for sod covers. The depth of infiltration

at any point along a border-strip is dependent upon soil infiltration

characteristics as well as
the time surface water is at that point

(opportunity time).

Border-strips are of two types and are distinguished by the kinds

and amounts of land preparation required for each.

This, in turn, is

related to econorics of land preparation and whcther the soil profile

can tolerate cuts and fills.

Graded border-strip irrigation requires preparing the ground so

that its lengthwise slope is uniform, and the crosswise profile will

be level or nearly so to assure uniform water coverage. Figure X-1

shows a field with well-graded border-strips in the process of being

irrigated. The photograph was taken shortly after the water had been

diverted from the middle to the right hand strip.

To obtain uniform

infiltration, this type of irrigation must be used with full consider­

ation of varied rates of soil intake. (The basic objective of land

grading is to obtain uniform irrigation, not merely to produce a

uniform grade.)

Guided border-strips are usually constructed down the steepest

grade; this permilts them to be nearly level across or become so with

a little grading. Variations in grade and soil, along such stripsare

tolerated in order to reduce the amount of grading. Often the strips

are quite narrow to assure that water spreads over the entire width.

The border-strip method of irrigation can be highly effective,

but it requires more skill in irrigation management than any other

method because several factors must be coordinated or compromised

simultaneously; therefore, a study of the procedures is essential to

proper operation. Certain complexities must be understood and they

are as follows:

1.
Strips should have a specific length for a given irrigation.

2. Short strips may be impractical for use.

189

 Figure X-l. Graded border-strip irrigation in

operation.

3.
Water usually is turned off
before it reaches the lower end

of a strip after running

long enough
to provide adequate irrigation

at the upper end.

4.
The upper end of a strip may
be underirrigated in comparison

with the middle section or lower

end of the strip, whereas in furrow

irrigation the upper end is always

overirrigated.

Use of border-strip irrigation may

be subjected to either a brief simple

evaluation or to a comprehensive
study and analysis.

Simple Evaluation

The object of any evaluation is

to determine how effectively the

land, water, soil, and labor are

being used within the framework
other management considerations.
of

Simply determining whether some

problem exists in a given field

and how serious the problem is requires

little work and equipment.

Any
obvious problems become apparent
studying the simple data gathered from

in the eight steps listed under

procedure.
But to guide management Field

in understanding the techniques

of this system and to provide information

needed to improve
a given

operation, a full study, analysis,

and evaluation are needed.

190

 all systems of
irrigation

The two basic questions applicable to

irrigation, namely, "Is it

must be asked in analysis of border-strip

"Is
it wet enough to stop?"

dry enough to start irrigating?" and

to the first question, but

Checking the SMD gives the best answer

that has occurred since the last

measurement of the evapotranspiratior

answer.
Probing to check depth

preceding irrigat.ion gives a reasonable

can adequatel" -nswer the

of infiltration at the end of irrigation

a border-strip irri6
ion, water

second question. Additionally, in the

0.9 of
the length of the strip by
usually should reach about 0.6 to
had adequate infiltration and then

time the upper end of the strip has

this final point, which inter­
be turned off. In fact, satisfying
and length of strip, is unique

relates stream size, SMD, intake rate,

the most difficult problen encountered.

tc the border-strip method and is

Equipment needed

evaluation is:

The equipment needed for the simple

1. A soil auger.

2. A soil probe.

3. An ordinary watch.

stations along the

4.
A 100-foot measuring tape for locating
borders.

a hatchet to drive them.

5. Lath or stakes to make stations, and

Field procedure

measurements of cumulative

A simple evaluation does not require

is the sequence of operations

intake or of streamflow.
The following
for gathering data:

being

locations along the border

i.
Estimate the SMD at several
'investigated.

(usually 100

,2. Drive stakes at uniform distances or stations

feet apart) along the length of the strip.

the strip.
The ground

3. Observe how well water spreads across

or
low spots, and no long­
surface should not have excessively high
end of the strip.

time ponding should occur

at the lower
the water reaches each

4.
Observe and record the time when
in plotting the advance curve.

station.
These times will be used later

191

 5. Reco.cd tLe time and location of the water front when

the

inflow is turred of-j.

6. Record the time when the water disappears from the suriace

at each station.
These times will be used later ii.plotting
the

recession curv..

7. Observe the rate of runoff. (Duration of runoff is deter­

mined from recrods made in steps 4 and 5.)

8. As water recedes along the strip, use the probe to

check

whether infiltration is uniform and adequate.

An additional
simple

check can be made on adequacy of the irrigation by first

calculating

the depth of appllcacion from the known rate of flow,

duration of

irrigation, and length and width of strip.

Then subtract
the depth

of runoff which is calculated from the rate and duration

of runoff.

Utilization of field data

Following is
an analy-tis of an irrigation of an alfalfa
field

which had just been mowed where the MAD was 50%, a
condition widely

accepted as
good for growth In varied soils and climates.
Th- border­
strips were 24-feet wide and 1400 feet long with a
supplemental

supply line laid halfway down the strip. This analysis

is based on

data taken in the successive steps previously described.

1.
A check of the SMD showed that the topsoil was
quite moist;

this indicated that the SMD was still substantially

less than the

MAD. A 50 %MAIL is equivalent to 4.5 inches

in the 6 foot-deep

root zone of the sandy loam soil which holds 1.5 inches
per foot

available moisture.
The check of SMD through the full
depth of the

root zone indicated that moisture was adequate through

the full depth

and that the SMD was only 2.9 inches. This irtigation
could have been

delayed a week, but applications were being scheduled

to fit timing of

harvest operations. To accomplish this, the manager

was applying

lighter irrigations more frequently than is needed to

maintain a 50%

MAD.

2. Observing flow of the water showed no ponds or dry spots,

so the land had been graded well.

3. Curves of water advance and recession at the several

stations were plotted. (Figure X-2 shows a plot of these

field data.)

4.
The time when water was shut off (88 minutes' duration)
and

location of the water front at

that time (Station 6
+ 10) were entered

in the plot.

192

 5 0 4- 5
992 7 t
I 99pipe ine at end
ins 12
1O2dv~r Ceof half strip

istance (Stotion) - feet X /00

simple

and recession curves used in

Figure X-2.
Plot of advance
using a 1.20

evaluation of border-strip irrigation,

alfalfa strip 21 feet wide with

cfs stream on a mowed

a sandy loam soil.

recession curves
(which con­
5. Compar.son of the advance tnd the

shown in Appendix E shows that

verge) in Figure X-2 with those cutoff was very

front at
the time of
stream was too small.
The water 7+00), and

half of
the strip (station
close to the end of the upper
into the lower half; therefore,the

there was considerable runoff does not

length of strip.
Figure X-2
cutoff was too late for this
only the T 0
.

indicate the adequacy of irrigation,

flow and continued for about

6.
The runoff stream was medium and

interval between the advance

66 minutes, as shown by the time at
the lower end

Water should be
recession curves at Station 7+00.
SMDbut 66

needed to replace the

of the strip for as
long as was
to replace an S°MD of only 2.9 inches.

minutes seems to be too long

the lower end of the strip was

7. Adequacy of penetration at

or auger
as it should have been.

not checked with either the probe

it
can only be surmised that the

Consequently, for this evaluation

An auger check in a previously

depth infiltrated was adequate.

that
it had received enough water.

irrigated adjacent strip showed

193

 8. The opportunity time, T0

for water to
point along the border-strip is equal infiltrate at any

to the time interval between

the advance and recession curves.

The
nearly 2:1 variation in the T
values shown along the advance curve o

in Figure X-2 indicate rather

poor application uniformity.

It is helpful but not essential to

border strip received the full flow of know the rate of flow.
This

the well, reported to be 1.2 cfs,

for 88 minutes. The borders were spaced

at 24 feet but only 23 feet

were wet; since the strip was 700 feet

long, the area irrigated

(wetted) was 0.37 acre.

The depth of
water applied to the strip can

be computed by:

1.2 cfs X 88 hrs

D =0.37 0ac
= 4.8 inches

From this, the application efficiency

can be found by:

AELA = minimwn depth stored X

average depth appZied 2.9 X 100 = 60%
4.8

Analysis and recommendations

The analysis summarized above suggests

the three following

recommendations:

1. Delay irrigation a few days until soil

becomes drier.
If

the harvest of green-chop alfalfa requires

an early irrigation, a

lighter application might suffice.

This
probably would require a

shorter strip for good efficiency (see

Appendix E).

2.
Use a larger stream, which would
flow more rapidly; then the

advance and recession curves would plot

nearly parallel and infiltra­
tion would be more nearly uniform.

3.
To reduce runoff, shut off the stream
comes so near the end of the strip but before the water front

not too soon as this would

cause underirrigation of the lower end

of the strip.

Summary of simple evaluation

The simple evaluation of the border-strip

system provided the

following information:

1.
The field was irrigated sooner than
was justified by a

check of the SYID.

194

 2.
The field had been graded satisfactorily.

uniform.

3. The T and consequently depth infiltrated was not

4. The stream was cut off too late.

checked by auger or

5.
The adequacy of this irrigation was not
similarly indicated

probe, but a check of

an adjacent strip irrigated
that this irrigation probably was adequate.

6. The AELA of about 60% was low.

uniform application

Using a larger stream to effect more nearly

runoff
would improve

and shortening duration of flow to reduce

probably would be necessary

efficiency. A smaller MAD or

a longer strip
to accommodate the desirable changes.

Full Evaluation

systcms are evalu­

Both graded and guided border-strip irrigation
ated in the same way.

Evaluation

to choose a

To perform a full evaluation, the first step is

at the time irrigation

typical location in the field to be irrigated

is due. Information to be gathered includes:

turned

1. Rate of flow and duration of various sized streams

into several border-strips.

2. Rate of advance of the streams down the strips.

at each station.

3. Time when the water recedes from the surface

with time.

4. Cumulative intake depth of water into the soil

5.
Width of the wetted portion of each strip.

6. The MM.
or two after
7.
Adequacy of the irrigation as measured a day
the application.

more

Certain additional information desirable for use in

detailed study includes such items as:

of the strips.

8. Ground profile and cross

slope

195

 9.
Soil profile and texture.

10.
Rate and duration of runoff
at the lower end of each strip.

11.
Stage of growth of the crop
being irrigated and its effect

on retardance of the streamflow.

After the field data have been recorded

and plotted, study will

show:

1. Distribution Uniformity DU (absolute

a
minimum) or DV.

2. Potential Application Efficiency,

PELA
( absolute minimum) or

PELQ.I
3. Application Efficiency, AELA (absolute
minimum) or AELQ.

4. Correct duration of irrigation, T.

5. Correct stream size.

A more detailed study would show

how variations in size of stream,

length of field, MAD, and time of

cutoff or distance of water advance

can be varied to affect the potential

and actual application efficiencies.

Equipment needed

The equipment needed for the full

evaluation of border-strip

irrigation is:

1.
A 100-foot measuring tape for
locating stations.

2.
Lath or stakes to mark stations
and a hatchet to drive them.

3.
An ordinary watch (preferably
with a second hand).

4.
Devices for measuring flow, such
as Parshall flumes, large

siphons, weir,
flow meters, horizontal
be improvised; and time or head measuringpipe Jets, or others that may

devices as needed (see

Appendix B ).

5. A shovel.

6. A soil auger.

7. A soil probe.

8.
A cylinder infiltrometer set (usually
five cylinders),

buckets, and measuring gauge.

196

 data.

9.
Forms X-1 and X-2 for recording
and useful, but not

Additional equipment that is convenient

detailed studies, would be:

absolutely essential in these more

10. A s-jrveying level and rcd.

11. Equipment for measuring SAID.

Field procedure

for gathering the field

Following is the sequence of activities

of border-strip irrigation:

data needed for a full evaluation

slope, and crop are

1. Choose a location at which the soil,

This location should have a steady

representative for the whole fiLeld.

source of water.

be adjacent to each other but

2.
Select three strips that may
they permit work without walking

alternate strips are preferred because

on wet soil.

to
a strip (usually at 100-

3.
Set six or more stakes adjacent
of each wetted strip and spacings

foot intervals).
Measure the width
3 of Form X-2.

between ridges and record in part

at the inlet of each strip.

4.
Set a flow measuring device
lower end of the strip to measure

Another one may also be set at the

runoff if desiied.

2 and 3 of Form X-1 (see

5. Estimate the SMD and fill in parts

the desired MAD.
If the SMD differs

Table I-1).
Compare the SMD with
will be noticeably affected

appreciably from the MAD, the evaluation

are affected by the amount of

because rates of
intake and advance
moisture in the soil.

in a carefully

6.
Set four or more cylinder infiltrometers
an infiltration tesc 'see Appendix

chosen "typical" location, conduct

D),and enter the data in Form X-1.

size in one border strip;

7. Set a constant rate stream of usual

in the other two strips.
Record

also set a larger and a smaller stream

and check rates for consistency

the flow rates of these three streams

flow was started and shut off

during the test.

Record the time when
water is shut off when the

and any variations in Form X-2.

(Usually
length of the strip for fine

stream has advanced about 0.7 of the

coarse textured soils.)

textured and 0.9 of the length for

197

 Form X-l.
BORDER-STRIP IRRIGATION INFILTRATION
EVALUATION

1. Location G. Ranch, Santa Maria, Observer

JLM , Date 16 Aug 1976

2. Crop alfalfa
, Root zone depth
6
ft, MAD 50 %, MAD 4.5 in
3. Soil: texture sandy loam, available
moisture 1.5 in/ft, SMD2.9in
4. Crop history:
alfalfa green chop,
equipment traffic in middle

5. Remarks:
soil not dry enough to
warrant irrigation. Cylinder

6. #4 refilled.
Cylinder Iinder2

Time Infilt ration

Time Infiltration
minutes inhes minutes inches
watch diff cumu depth diff cumu watch diff cumu depth diff cumu
10:5 5
59 d103
wac.60
1 n
4 .80 d .20
.0
.6)
0 1
58 d
1:0 R c
1 4.____
2 __ .0
_____
.40 50 7
12.4
0
101
4 6 .8 15 .3 18 9 -- 20 1.0
- 12 1
05__ 3.00 .3_.50 27__22 30 -.- _0
178
- 2 6_ .3080 49 52 s4
1.70
26L. 254
5 - 9-4
-5-

1.10 31 94.1
-8-- 18
12 @ . . 5
.4.0 4'1 ' '18
r,_f.. 7R. - 7.3
9

2.45
.35
T8 R6 .253 .80
149 45
-8 1.--
5 2:08 1 74 .
183 .3s '6
'
- -- -

Cylinder 3Cyli nder 4

Time Infiltration Ti me Inf iItration
minutes inches minutes inches
watch diff cumu depth diff cumu watch diff cumu depth dif f cumu,
10:59 "0 2.20 --- 0 11:03
11: 0
o.5 - -1- 0 ,9­
- _.0,-& - 30 .__
,J __ 405 2 . 25
1 o7 Z 8 .70 .50 18 101 .. 0 .

18 19
.0. .70
2"/ 22 ___5n

~2 2 s 2 --- .8 .4
.- 4 . .
4 2 5 .25 21 38L -
7-1 .95
12:14 - .45,, ... 50 4D .5.5
0. - . '20
3.5~ 40..2.15 2Q 3R .Bo

- _.. 1 ,3 65 D 0o
... . 40

JL98

 EVALUATION

Form X-2. BORDER STRIP IRRIGATION WATER ADVANCE AND RECESSION

G. Ranch, Santa Maria , Observer JLM , Date 16 August 1976

i- Location
- just mowed , Border condition weil graded
2. Crop and Condition alfalfa
21 ft, wetted width 23 ft, slope 0. 5%
3. Border: spacing 24 ft, strip width

88 miyl frequency variable , water spread eveni across border

4. Irrigation: duration
C: Profile Data D:
5. A: Advance B: -Recession
Rod Readingrs
Stream 1.20 cfs
min. Station Time _ ma. .totion Time - r;n. Station
Time - min. Station rime ­
Watch Diff. Cumu.i feet Watch Diff. Cumu. feet
Watch Diff. Cumu. feet I Wach iff Cumu. feet

18 1 + 00 Pod
260 5 + 00
- 88 0 3.70 0+ 00
1:98 1i
3L 96 0 + 00 -- . 51r I
11:12 13 01f2:,,7

3 C3 59 1 1 1 ,4
-D635

-- 14 711- -
-- 5. -_
41 - 50 4 is:!i

19, 4 -5
12:18 76
87 33 16 -- 4

3 7.0
1D173
13:06 135
41-. 170 6

45-- 1747 7.,50 + 00!

011 161 8 + 50

4; 171 8 + 50
 8.
Record the time when each stream
reaches each station in

Form X-2.
(If the foving stream front
is irregular, use an average

front.)

9.
Record the time when the water disappears
at each station in

Form X-2. This may be difficult because

of puddles and small channels

or sod in pastures.
The purpose of this
record is to determine when

there is no longer an opportunity for

water to infiltrate at that

station.
Consistency in choosing the
disappearance condition of all

stations is important.

The recession curve drawn from these

data is the key control in

the evaluation procedure.

The lag time,
T1 , between turning off the

stream and disappearance of surface water

at the upper end (station

0 + 00) of the strip will be appreciable.

10.
Measure or observe and describe
the rate of runoff at differ­
ent times. The beginning and end of
runoff can be readily observed

from the advance and recession curves.

11.
Check the adequacy of the application
a day or two after

irrigation by using a soil auger or

tube.
During irrigation, the

penetration of the water can be determined

to a depth of approximately

three feet by using a probe. Water will

continue to move deeper for

several days.

Additional information useful for either

a more detailed study or

for designing ocher systems may consist

of:

12. Detailed analysis of the soil profile.

13. Elevations at stations to determine the

gradient of the strips.

Utilization of field data

Graphic presentation of daa taken in

the field facilitates

analysis. It is desirable to plot the

data in the field as soon as they

are recorded so
that possible inconsistencies
may be noted and

immediately corrected.

Cumulative intake curves.

The cumulative
infiltrometer is plotted on 3-cycle log-log intake curve for each

paper.
The curves in

Figure X-3 are plotted from the data

on Form X-1.
These curves usually

appear as straight lines but may curve

slightly and often "dogleg" as

in Figure X-3.

Some curves steepen after only a few

minutes either because of

sudden release of air (usually in very

sandy soil) trapped by water

200

 /0

6.

S3.

./ l
I
3 6 /0 30 60 /00 30o 600 AOO0
/
Time - minutes

in

Figure X-3.
Cumulative cylinder infiltration curves
for the data
with a crop

Table X-1 from a slightly moist silt

loam soil
of alfalfa.

was not driven

covering the soil surface or because the infiltrometer

have openings into which water quickly

deeply enough. Soils that

that for a few miautes are steep and then

disappears often yield curves

effect but this affect usually is

flatten.
Plow pans have a similar
not be averaged before plotting

delayed. (Data from the 7vlinders should

the line and thus mask

because doing so would modify the correct slope of

various soil conditions and the range of rates of

intake.)

are not

The initial reading and the half-minute readings usually

checking unusual

plotted on the log-log paper, but

they are valuable in
been plotted and

conditions.
After all curves in a test operation have
"typical," line

the deviations have been considered and allowed for,

a
be checked later

can be drawn for use in evaluation. Its position should

for

and adjusted as may be necessary to show the correct duration

irrigation (see Figure X-3).

for each

Advance and recession curves.

Advance and recession curves
separate sheet for each

test strip are plotted on coordinate paper, a

201

 strip.
Each plot should be identified with the corresponding Forms

X-1 and X-2 for the strip identification, width, stream, size (in

cfs), SMD, soil texture, crop, description of retardance, degree

of

slope, and other pertinent information. The advance and recession

curves

in Figure X-4 shows the plot of the data recorded on Form X-2.
These

data, like those for the cumulative intake curves, should be plotted
as

soon as they have been recorded. Watch time may be plotted, but
it is

easier to plot cumulative time.

Analysis

The following analysis of data recorded on Form X-1 was used to

determine the DUa, PELA, and AELA of a border strip test operation
and

to determine how to improve use of the system.

Only one strip was

irrigated in this test operation because all the water came from
a well

where volume of the streamflow was small and rate of flow was invariable.

The border-strip irrigated in this test was the upper half of a

1400-foot-long field that had a supplementary pipeline at 700 feet

below

its upper end.

Water that flowed beyond this midpoint would normally
be

considered runoff unless the supplementary line and the upper line
were

used simultaneously to irrigate the entire 1400-foot strip.

In typical fields, the border-strip terminates at the end of the

field, and the advance and recession curves may be extrapolated

to their

intersection to portray the runoff graphically.

This extrapolation
could

be simulated for a strip by cutting off the flow prematurely. Fortun­

ately fir this test, actual curves could be plotted beyond station
7+00.

Cwnulative intake curves plotted (Figure X-3) from data recorded on

Fcrm X-1 show infiltration from four cylinders.

One curve is a
straight

line. two others "dogleg" appreciably, and the fourth doglegs only

slightly. Anticipating the effect of rapid initial intake but using

the

slope of the consistent portion of the lines, a straight dashed

line,

presumed to be typical for all, was added and labeled.

Later the
"adjusted"

line, using the procedure described below, was drawn and was used
for the

evaluation process because it shows an average intake rate for the

whole

field and therefore is more representative than the data from any
one of

the four cylinders. Averag:7ng the data from all four cylinders
to plot

onJ one line would produce a misleading curve because it would not

JndLcate the range of conditions that actually exist.

Adjusted cumulative intake is developed as shown in Figure X-4.

At each station on the total strip (actual and extrapolated portions),

the opportmity time (time that water was on

the ground), T , was
0 noted

by measuring :he time interval b,tween the advance and recession

curves.

The coeresponding depth infiltrated, P. was taken from the "typical"

Pumulptt .e intake curve in Figure X-3

and tabulated in Table X-1
for

202

 4Surfoce ....Sro

/0 - ai8 * s m
.,- ~~ ,. r,f.. 9a pipeline of end

q)50 " F of hlf strip

26 AdIcf water frned off
918 ri z 88 rin
0 I 2 J 5 6 7 8 9
Distance (Station)- feet x /00
Figure X-4.
Soil surface profile plus advance recession, and irrigation

curves for border-strip irrigation evaluation data

presented on Forms X-1 and -2, using a stream of 1.2 cfs.

from

Table X-1. Depth infiltrated based on opportunity times, T

Figure X-4 and depths infiltrated, D, taken from the

"typical" and "average" lines in Figure X-3.

Station - feet X 100

Item __________________________________

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

96 11.8 126 123 112 99 84 66

38 10
T0 - min.

Typical Intake Curve Data

3.4 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.4 1.7 .7

Depth - in. 3.0
3.5 3.5
3.4 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.1
12/2

Av. Depth 3.2

Av. Depth
on 850 feet = 25.0 in/8.5 = 3.0 inches

Adjusted Intake Curve Data

4.5 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.1 2.4 .9

Depth - in. 3.9

4.2 4.6 4.7
4.5 4.2 3.9 3.4 2.8 1.8/2

Av. Depth
=
Adj. Depth on 850 feet = 33.2 in/8.5 3.9 inches

203

 &he same stations. The average depth for each 100

feet, D/0 feet,

was determined and entered as shown in Table X-1.

Since the end section

of the border-strip was only 50 feet long instead

of the usual 100-foot

unit length, its average was determined proportionally

to its length

(50:100). Thus, the average depth infiltrated for

the entire strip

(extrapolated) was found to be approximately 3.0 inches

as indicated.

To check correctness of the location at which the

"typical" curve

was drawn, the actual average depth of water applied

was computed by using

the relationship 1.0 cfs X 1.0 hr

= 1.0 acre-inch.
The border spacing

is 24 feet and the strip width is 21 feet, but the

effective wetted

width is presumed to be about 23 feet, which for the

wetted strip length

of 850 feet is 0.45 acre; so

the depth applied for
the application time

of 88 minutes is:

D = 1.20 cfs X8 = 3.9 inches

0.45 ac 60 hrs

The "adjustei" line (Figure X-3) was drawn parallel

to the "typical"
line through this depth of 3.9 inches at
96 minutes,
the time at which

the "typical" line has average depth of 3.0 inches.

As a check, and since the values would be used later,

the adjusted

depths at
:ach station, the average depths between
stations, and the

average depth for the whole length (extrapolated)

were computed again

using the "adjusted" curve (Table X-l),

and found
to be 3.9 inches.

This adequately checks the 3.9 inches computed depth

o' inflow and

indicates that the "adjusted"

curve on Figure X-3
is reasonably correct.

The "adjusted" depths of infiltration along the strip

are plotted

on Figure X-5.
This curve is easy to understand
and graphically shows

how much water was stored in the root zone, how much
penetrated too

deeply, and how much was runoff.

The relative area
under the curve can

be used to compute DUa, PELAand AELA,

as shown in
Table X-2.

Distribution Uniformity

The DU is the percent of the minimum depth (absolute

or low quarter

respectively) infiltrated to the average depth infiltrated

on the actual

strip length.
It describes how uniformly the water
was distributed along

the strip for the condition tested.

A high percentage
would indicate

that the advance and recession curves are "parallel"

but would not tell

whether the irrigation was adequate. For this percentage,

which noncerns

only the infiltrated water, runoff is not pertinent;

therefore, only the

actual length of the field is used.

The average
infiltration for the

700 feet was found as before from the computations

as tabulated in

Table X-1 or graphically from Figure X-5.

From Table
X-lthe average

depth infiltrated along the first 700 feet of the

border-strip is:

204

 Av.depth applied on 70Oft 4.7in

Av. depth applied on 850ft 3.9/n

./ deep penetroation
/ , octuo/ SmD z2-9 in _ --­ - --/ ".Z ",
stored inn rootzon

Vision Ce (Sttin,-eex/0

0nde
4 5 6 7 8
9
Distance (Station)- feet x /00

fro
X-5.Figur
FigureAreaore Adjustd

zone
depth infiltrated Sqae border-strip.
along the tested

AELA, % runoff, and

Table X-2. Graphical determination of DU3a.

PEL7
% deep percolation.

Area from Figure X-5 Squares

Under whole curve 33.2

Runoff 3.7

Deep percolation 9.2

Stored in ront zone

20.3

Between LA =
3.1 inches and Station 7 21.7

Evaluation of Parameters

= 74%

DU = [21.7/(33.2 - 3.7)] X 100

PAdA = (21.7/33.2) X 100

= 66%

AELA = (20.3/33.2) X 100

= 61%

% runoff = (3.7/33.2) X 100 =

11%

% deep percolation = (9.2/33.2) X 100 =

28%

205

 Av. D = 7.00-=42ice

29.5 = 4.2 inches

Minimum depth can be defined as the

absolute, LA minimum (3.1

inches)j occurring at station 7+00, or

as the low quarter, LQ minimums

which is the average depth of the lowest

one-quarter (3.6 inches) for

the last 175 feet in this test; these

are shown graphically on Figure

X-5. From these minimum values:

3. 1
DU - X 100 =74%
4.2

and

DU = X 100 86%
4.2

Potential Application Efficiency

The PELA or PELQ is the percent ratio

of the minimum depth, absolute

or low quarter respectively, infiltrated

when it just equals the MAD or

the SMD, to
the average depth applied.
It describes how well the system

can operate under the tested condition.

minimum was 3.1 inches and the LQ minimum Figure X-5 shows that the LA

was 3.6 inches.

From Table

X-l, the average depth of the total

water applied on the 7 00-foot long

field, including the portion that was

runoff, was:

33. 2

D = = 4.7 inches

So if MAD equaled the minimums:

PELA = X 100 66%

4.7

and

PELQ = 3.x 100 = 77%

4.7

It is convenient for study of an evaluation

however, any comparison with another to
use the LA minimum;

irrigation
use the LQ minimum. Frequency of irrigation system to be valid, must

should be computed by using

206

the LQ minimum since it

is not good practice to try to completely

satisfy the SMD of the LA minimum spot.

Application Efficiency

The AELA or AELQ is the percent ratio of the minimum depth, absolute

depth

or low qvarter respectively, stored in the root

zone to the average
appliei. This tells how well the system is actually being used.

At the time of this irrigation, the soil was quite moist because

the owner irrigated immediately after cutting alfalfa fo- green-chop

feed. Irrigation was done without any knowledge of

the SMD of his field.

The SMD was estimated by using the soil moisture and appearance

an auger;

relationship chart (Table I-1).

Soil samples were taken with
foot increment of the sandy loam soil to
a depth

they represented each

The SMD's for successive 1-foot depths were estimated to be

of 5.0 feet.
inch, respectively, for a total of
2.9

1.0, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, and 0.1

can be

inches. This SMD is all of

the available storage so
2.9 inches
on Figure X-5. The time needed to

used as the depth stored and plotted

infiltrate 2.9 inches is 60 minutes.

To visually present the adequacy of an irrigation, the irrigation

as

curve is plotted on the

same grid as the advance-recession curves
shown on the lower part of Figure X-4 (also the depth of the SMD,

assuming it
equals the stored depth, may be plotted on Figure X-5 ).

the

The irrigation curve showing the ideal condition, is plotted above

advance curve
(Figure X-4) by a distance equal to the time, Ti, needed

to infiltrate 2.9 inches, which for this evaluation is

60 minutes.

Whenever the irrigation curve is

below the recession curve, irrigation

is too long and that portion of the strip is overirrigated. Whenever

the irrigation curve is above the recession curve, that portion of the

strip is underirrigated. On the corresponding depth infiltrated

curves

(Figure X-5). the excess or deficiency is shown in depth rather than in

time. This is illustrated below.

Since the LA and LQ minimum depths infiltrated (3.1 and 3.6 inches)

were both more than the SMD of 2.9 inches, the AELA and AELQ are equal and

may be computed as:

2.9

AELA = AELQ = -9 = 62%

The actual application efficiency is lower than it would have been

if the operator had waited a couple of days until the SAID had become

about 3.6 inches. Then the AELA and PELQ

would have equaled the PELA

of 66% and PELQ of 77%, respectively. This analysis illustrctes the

management controllable effect of changing MAD to save both water and

labor.

207

 The correct time (duration) of irrigation, Ti., to

meet the 2.9-inch

SMD is observed from the "adjusted" curve

(Figure
X-3) to be 60 minutes.

This must be considered only as an approximate time

because many variables

exist.
For the 66 minutes that water actually infiltrated
at the lower

end of the strip, the corresponding LA minimum, MAD

would be 3.1 inches,

or, allowing the last 75 feet to be slightly underirrigated

(LQ

minimum), MAD would be 3.6 inches and PELQ would be

77%.

This test did not show the best stream size because
the entire flow

of the well was used and no larger stream could be

applied. Since the

recession and advance curves converge, it is obvious

that the stream was

too small and that a larger stream would have advanced

more rapidly

(see Appendix E).

This would tend to make the advance
and recession

curves nearly parallel. Likewise, it would have

achieved a more nearly

uniform irrigation, would have permitted earlier cutoff,

and would
have

reduced the overirrigation on the upper portion

of the botzaer-strip.

For the field irrigated in this study, i larger stream

could be

obtained by using a reservoir; or

the strip could
be narrowed when the

field is replanted to increase the rate of

flow per
foot of width.

Adequacy of irrigation was checked on an adjacent

strip
chat had

been similarly irrigated on the previous day.

The
soil there was at or

above field capacity to a depth of 5.0 feet.

This
confirmed the over­
irrigation indicated by the evaluation.

Summary of full evaluation

The information recorded and plotted above provides

the following

determinations:

Irrigation was applied too soon to match the capability

of
the

system as it was being operated; DU of 86% can be

improved by using a

larger stream, which would advance more rapidly;

PELQ of 77% could be

improved by using a larger stream and larger MAD; AELQ

could be made

equal to PELQ at
77% simply by delaying irrigation two
days so that the

SMD would equal the MAD; and increasing the size of the
stream would

improve all conditions.

It must be remembered that none of these values are exact,

but all

are very significant for they indicate what should be

done to improve

the operation. Additional analysis may develop other

useful practices

and may show their effects so economic comparisons can

be made.

Additional analysis

Additional study and information provide the basis for

detailed recommendations.
From this additional information, more

alterna­
tives may be developed and economic comparisons may be
made.

208

 The shape but not the starting time of the recession curve is

relatively unchangeable; therefore, it becomes the key item in manage­

ment. The four fundamental conditions of border-strip irrigation that

management can control and adjust to improve irrigation are:

1. Stream size, which affects rate of advance and duration.

2. The SMD at which the crop is irrigated (which should eaual. the
MAD), as it affects duration and frequency.

3. The position of the water front down the strip at the time of

cutoff.

4. The length of the strip, which sometimes can be varied by

using portable pipe or combining fields.

Other factors (e.g., having unifc~tm soil and land grading) also

may be important. They are more difficult to change but may be con­
sidered Jn planning irrigation of new fields.

Observation of the advance, recession, and irrigation curves plotted

on Figure X-4 identified several problems: too small a stream, over­

irrigation of the entire length of the border-strip, and an unnecessarily

low MAD. An additional noticeable condition is the abnormal hump,

rather than the typical S-curve, at the beginning of the recession

curve and the change in slope of the advance curve at about station 1+00.

Since the minor variat.ons in shape of these curves are informative

diagnostic tools, plotting must be done accurately.

Advance and recession curves indicate abnormal changes from uniform

normal conditions in retardance, slope, or rates of intake (see Appendix

E). The steep initial 200-foot portion of the recession curve (Figure

X-4) indicates slow runoff; this steepness was not caused by increased

retardance because the crop was uniform, but it could have been caused

by a flatter grade or a reduced rate of intake. The flatter initial

100-foot portion of the advance curve indicates rapid advance; it was

not caused by reduced retarlance but could have been caused by a steeper

grade or reduced rate of intake. The only factor common to both advance

and recession was reduced intake and this would normally be assigned as

the cause.

More careful observation shows that the reduced recession was

effective on about 200 feet and increased advance affected only about

100 feet. This requires further explanation. Though this is not usually

done, a ground profile had been made for this evaluation and was plotted

near the top of Figure X-4, using rod readings because they are easier

than elevations. This ground profile showed that the cause was due to

two changes in grade: steep for about 100 feet then flatter. These

209

contrasting grades adequately explain the shape of both curves. Rate

of intake probably was uniform. The recession curve probably would have

started flatter and would have indicated the tru problem if an advance

and a recession reading had been made at station 0+50.

If the upper part of the strip were brought back to grade, probably

the relative steepness of the hump in the upper 100-foot portion of the

recession curve would be reduced by increasing the lag time, TV,to give

the normal S-shaped curve. Also, the advance curve would become uni­
formly smooth. Such curves could be estimated (assuming the grades

were corrected), efficiencies could be computed, and an economic study

of regrading could be made. The major effect of these changes would be

on T and probably would have little economic value. However, this

analysis illustrates the diagnostic capabilities of studying the curves.

Stream size. The efficiency of the irrigation can be improved

significantly by increasing the stream size per unit of border width.

The convergence of the advance and recession curves in Figure X-4

indicates that the stream was too small. The fundamental control con­
dition in adjusting size of a stream is that the general shape and

slope of the recession curve does not change appreciably except with

rather extreme alterations in irrigation practice. Each time the last

water will disappear at about the same rate of intake and velocity of

flow unless changes in SMD and/or duration are large; both of these

affect rate of intake. Slope -of the ground remains constant, but retard­
ance may vary. As stream size changes, T may vary, especially on flat

gradients and on soils having slow rate oi intake.

The general shape of the recession curve is fixed, as shown in

Figure X-6, which describes performance of three streams of different

sizes used in another test. A larger stream should have been run in that

test because the advance curve of even the 2.6 cfs stream was converging

with the recession curve. The recession curve for the largest stream

plotted here shows the typical S-shaped pattern. A dike at the lower

end of the strip ponds the water. The dotted lines show the extrapolated

curves that might have been plotted if there had been no dike and runoff

had occurred. The recession curve for the medium sized stream and

distance shows the S-shape but it is flatter (faster recession) at the

lower end resulting f'om less flow from the shorter and shallower body

of water ponded upstrcam. The smallest stream with the pronounced

drop at the lower end illustrates the extreme results of using a grossly

inadequate stream resulting in water disappearing from the lower end

before disappearing in the midportion.

For the evaluation presented in Figure X-4 during which only one

stream size could be run, the question is, "How much larger should it

have been ideally?" The evaluation procedure can provide an approxi­

mate answer.

210

 250

/0f

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 12 /3
Distance (tation)_-feetx /0

Figure X-5. Advance-recession curves for streams of 1.0, 1.8, and 2.6

cfs in 60-fcot wide border-strips with a dry and bare

silty clay soil having a slope of 0.12%.

Proper strean size is correlated with several conditions required

for an efficient irrigation. First, the beginning of recession equals

duration of irrigation; i.e., at the upper end of the strip this is:

0(U) i a. 1

Second, at almost all poinLs the irrigation curve will be below the

recession curve using the low quarter definition of minimum and at all

points for the absolute minimum. Third, at the time when flow is cut

off, the stream has adequatcly advanced down the strip so that the ponded

water on the upper part is sufficient to flow to the end and irrigate

the lower part of the strip. In practice, it is rare that all three

of these conditions can be satisfied simultaneously.

Ideal conditions for MAD of 2.9 inches are shown in Figure X-7,

which uses the absolute minimum for convenience of study. The recession

211

 , '-

" once(/f - f x /

Figure X-7. Anticipated evaluation curves for the tested border-strip

with an assumed stream of 1.8 cfs and SID = MAD = 2.9

inche .

curve starts at Piwhich is 60 minutes and is plotted in the shape

determined by the field evaluation, a control condition that is relatively

constant for each field and each crop condition as discussed earlier.

At station 7+00,a point. is located for the advance curve O minutes below~

the recession curve to insure adequate irrigation there. An advance

curve is then plotted in a shape similar to the tested shape, but

flatter--to represent a larger stream. Lag time, 2', is estimated to

be about 10 to 12 minutes since the stream will be {arger than the 1.2

cfs which had a 2' of 8 minutes. Cut off time, T , is then 60 - 12,
or 48 minutes. T~e estimated distance water has glowed down the field
by this time is about 500 feet. This may be nearly correct because it
is 300 feet from the extrapolated end, and the actual 1.2 cfs stream
flowed 260 feet after cut off.

212

 were used

The To from Figure X-7 and estimated depth at each station

to compute the average depth on the entire extrapolated curve (including

was

the runoff) following the procedure illustrated in Table X-l.

This
feet)

27.9/8.00 = 3.5 inches.

From the width of the wetted strip (23
(80C feet),
the field's area was computed as

and thc extrapolated length

0.42 acre giving a stream flow rate of:

3.5 inches X 0.42 acre

48/60 hour ­

If trial of
the 1.8 cfs stream showed that duration of 48 minutes

would

was too brief, the stream could

run a few minutes longer, which
of the strip.
Alternatively, a

slightly overirrigate the upper end

ke increased. Also, a medium

larger stream could be tried or MAD could

have

sized stream could be run for a longer time, although this would
lower efficiency. Admittedly, the rumbers developed here may not be

considered precise, but they clearly indicate what

can be done.

On the 23-foot wide wetted strip, desired rate of flow of

1.8 cfs

(1.2

would be about 0.08 cfs per foot of width. For the stream available
cfs), the wetted strips should be about 15 feet wide.
This might be

impractical to farm, but it could have a PELA of about 72%

(2.9/4.0
100) and a PELQ of about 85% for a MAD of about 3.5 inches. An

engineering cost comparison involving a reservoir

to provide larger

delivery capacity (capable of irrigating several strips si.nultaneously

or wider strips with the desired 0.08 cfs per foot of strip width), and

a saving of water and labor, would likely show such changes to be

economical.

To obtain high efficiencies, it is essential that flexibility in

frequency, rate, and duration of water delivery be made to match

constantly varying field conditions, such as crops, MAD, rate of intake,

retardance, and weather.

Management Allowed Deficiency. The MAD at which irrigation should

be applied varies with depth of root zone of annual crops but is fairly

constant for perennials.

The MAD can be varied within limits to suit

the labor, convenience, crop growth, and irrigation efficiency. For

the field evaluated, the SMD was about 2.9 inches to accommodate

cutting the alfalfa crop. For a 6-foot root zone on this sandy loam

soil having about 1.5 inches of available moisture per foot, the percent

MAD was:

2.9 inches

MAD = 6.0 feet X 1.5 inches/foot X 00=32%

213

 This is a very low value and for this soil, crop, and cool climate,
MAD
of 60 percent would be reasonable; therefore, SMD of about 60% could

be used if practical for labor and harvest conditions. This would

occur when the SMD is 5.4 inches.

TIis condition is shown in Figure X-8 where SMD = 5.4 inches, T. =

150 minutes, and Q = 1.2 cfs (existing stream size). The original

"

advance curve and recession curve shape plotted from field data (Figure

X-4) are unmodified. With the large increases in SMD from 2.9 to
5.4

inches, the soil's initial rate of intake would actually be faster;

thus,

the anticipated advance rate would be slower (steeper), and the lag
time

would be greater. Compensating for this, the curve for the anticipated

recession would also be a little slower (steeper) because the final

rate of intake would decrease due to the much longer time of application,

and runoff would be prolonged.

The original curves gave reasonable,

An I

200

1150
Stored in r t zone

/0

I. I\ r 7 wae off6

Distance (Sto ion)_ -ee x /00

Figure X-8. Anticipated evaluation curves for the tested border-strip

with stream of 1.2 cfs and an assumed SAID =MAD = 5.4
inches.

214

though not accurate, valnes for studying possible modifications of

this extreme magnitude, i.e., nearly doubling SMD.

The anticipated and irrigation curves presented in Figure X-8 show

adequate depth infiltrated at the beginning, too much along most of

the strip, and a little underirrigation near the lower end. Runoff was

excessive since the watEr Vs cut

off about 20 minutes after it had

reached the end. However, since this strip is only the upper half of

a 1400-foot field, very high efficiency could be achieved by using

continuous border-strips accomplished by opening the valve at

station

7+00 when flow reached this point, and closing the valve at station 0+00

about 20 minutes later.

Runoff then would be entirely utilized, and

water backed up at the middle would be compensa.ting for the under­

irrigation that had existed previously. Runoff would then occur only

at the lower end of the second strip. A dike there, ponding water, and

making an earlier cut off, would bring these two strips to a high AELQ

at the increased M4D. Furthermore, the less frequent irrigations would

reduce labor requirements.

For the single upper strip, high efficiency is impossible under

these conditions because the strip is

too short for the large MAD.

Other possibilities for improvement would be:

1. To run two strips with half-size streams, which would reduce

runoff but which would overirrigate the upper end of the strips. This

is probably the most practical procedure.

2. To use a runoff return flow system to

put the runoff water

into storage for later reuse.

3. Cutting back the size of the stream when it has advanced about

half way down the border strip.

Strip length. The length of the border strip can be varied when

a supplemental line is installed or portable pipe is used.

Changing the

MAD requires different lengths of strips, which is a very important

consideration. Annual crops with an expanding root zone require deeper

irrigation and correspondingly longer strips. At the beginning of the

season a strip might be started in three sections; later it could be

reduced to two or even one section, or sprinklers could be used for the

early applications.

For the evaluated strip, if 114D were 5.4 inches and the desired

stream flow of about 2.0 cfs were available, the anticipated curves

shown on Figure X-9 would be indicative of results. The recession

curve would be stretched in the middle and raised because of

the lower

rate of intake caused by the larger MAD; the larger stream would advance

more rapidly resulting in a PELA of about 78% fir a 1400-foot border­

strip.

215

 400 - ­

2
, eepF . 4 I- '
I I\\0
\ Ig-tiof r- - i.e- -rf­

20 riI- \df'roln \ .5\ 41

/00 \ 1\10or
[\ \ 0
\1\'
rtun
3 j--i0 1
it,,,g AV' -
"
wde in

0 2 4 6 8 /0 12 14 16 18 20
iSft'Once (S;loion).feet x /00

Figure X-9.
Anticipated evaluation curves for the border-strip assuming

a length of 1400 feet, stream of 2.0 cfs and S!ID

= MAD =
5.4 inches.

This theoretical study or projection based on the extension of the

evaluation data indicates what may be tried later in the field.

A dike

to pond water at the lower end of

a strip would be a further improve­
inent.

It would have been very desirable to have run several stream sizes

at the time the operation was being evaluated which would have provided

a better estimate of different trial advances.

Summary of additional analysis

The additional analysis just presented shows several important facts.

Much can be learned about the grade of

the strip and variations in

intake rate by observing the simultaneous changes in shape of the advance

and recessi n curves (see Appendix E). The shape of the recession curve

remains similar for any particular strip, and minor changes in manage­
ment can have a predictable effect on the curves.
Only one stream size

and resulting advance curve

ideally match the fixed recession curve and

MAD. A change in AMD for a given stream size requires a change in strip

length. [rterrelated adjustment in stream size, MAL, time and distance

at cutoff, and sometimes length of strip are practical means to improve

efficiency and
save labor. To make these desired adjustments, water

deliveries must be flexible in frequency, rate, and duration.

216

 CHAPTER XI
BASIN IRRIGATION

Basin irrigation is a system in which low (likes are built up

around the area to be watered. Basins may be as small as a few square
feet around a single tree or as large as 10 or more acres; but a
large basin must have perfectly level uniformly textuIred soil, and
it must be fed by a stream of water large enough to cover it fairly
quickly. The shape and size of each basin should be selected to match
the soil types, the field boundaries, and the avail able stream size.
Dikes to enclose basins can be fa-med over and can be buiit up and
broken down easily to enable cultural practiceS so uou-rect uaugular
basins matching soil boundaries arc feasible.

Basin irrigation is an easy way to irrcigati , crops thtat can be

partially submerged for a while, and it is adaptable for pre-irrigation
or leaching (Figure IX-l); but it is not generally re!commended for use
during germination or for a soil that is prone to crusting. Beds or
furrows can be constructed within the basins to raise crops above the
ponded water.

Figure XI-1. Typical basin irrigation leaching operation.

217

 Evaluation

Evaluation of basin irrigation is mostly by observation,

but a

few measurements are needed.

To estimate Application
Efficiency. AELQ,

the irrigator must know the uniformity, rate of inflow,

duration of flow,

and the area of the basin. It is impractical to try

to determine very

exact values of AELQ because small variations in

soil infiltration

rate in various parts of the basin and low spots cause

appreciable

differences in the depth infiltrated.

Aerial photos,
soil surveys,

reaction to tillage, variations in crop appearance,

and salinity all

provide information that will help in dividing a field

into basins

where infiltration is likely

to be relatively uniform.

For evaluating a basin irrigation, the following

items need to be

prepared, measured, or observed:

1. A sketch of the field layout drawn to scale.

2. The SMD and MAD.

3. The rate and duration of inflow.

4.
The way the water spreads, noting the rate of
filling the

basin and the smoothness of the basin.

5. The infiltration rate

or time required to replace
the SMD.

6. Variations in infiltration rate within the basin.

7.
The adequacy (depth) of penetration by using
a probe or

auger in various areas.

Equipment needed

The following equipment is needed for the evaluation

of basin

irrigation:

1. A soil auger.

2. A soil probe.

3. A watch with a second hand..

4. A flow measuring device.

5.
A 100-foot surveying tape and a compass for measuring
basin

area.

6. A hand level.

218

 7. A staff gauge.

8. Paper and clip board for recording data.

9. Lath or stakes for setting out grids in large basins.

Field procedure

Select one (or two) basins that appear to be typical for the

field and irrigation being evaluated.

1. Draw a map of the basin (or basins) being studied.

2. Check the SMD in several locations and observe differences in

the crop growth, soil texture, and soil profile. Compare the maximum

SMD to MAD to determine if it is dry enough to irrigate.

3. Determine the rate of inflow and record the times of starting

and shutting off the streamflow.

4. Observe the advance of the water front across the basin. On

the map of the basin, sketch the position of the water front at six or

eight time intervals. An uneven advancing front line indicates loca­

tion of high and low areas. Having a grid of stakes in the field would

increase accuracy of this sketching, but problems can be identified

accurately without stakes unless the basin is very large.

5. Sketch the position of the receding water front at several

different times as the water level drops after streamflow has been

shut off. Note any major high spots or ponds and low spots. The

receding water front at successive times can be drawn with a different

color or different style of lines on the sketch map used to show the

water advance. (The maps of advance and recession can be drawn as

overlays on sheets of tracing paper laid over the basin map drawn in

Step 1.) Only approximate accuracy is needed to indicate noticeably

high or low areas in the basin. The difference between the arrival

time and the recession time at any point is the opportunity Lime, f

6. Determine the rate of infiltration in the basins. This can

be done with reasonable accuracy from either: (a) field infiltration

depth measurements or (b) cylinder infiltrometer test data which can

be analyzed and "adjusted" to give predictive results.

a. A staff gauge is set near the inlet of the basin. (It is very

desirable to use a basin small enough to be filled, not just covered,

in a short period of time--about one-tenth of T0 .) The falling water

level stages and times should be re-orded similar to a cylinder infiltro­

219

 meter test with zero being the maximum gauge height (see Appendix E

and Form X-1). The depth must be adjusted to equal the actual measured

inflow depth by the process described for border-strips in Chapter X.

The magnitude of the adjustment will be related to the speed of filling

the basin (since an appreciable depth may infiltrate during filling),

the uniformity of the soil infiltration within the basin, the uniformity

and levelness of the bottom of the basin, and whether the wind may have

pushed water up at one side thereby affecting the gauge readings.

b. Cylinder infiltrometer tests may be run independently to

provide approximate predictive information. For more accurate analysis,

cylinder infiltrometer test data may be used in conjunction with the

advance and recession curves and the onflow depth.

With this additional

information, an "adjusted" intake curve can be developed by the process

described for border-strips in Chapter X.

7. Observe variations in infiltration rates within the basins.

Nonuniformity of infiltration may indicate the need for relocating the

dike around
a basin to obtain a more uniform intake. This may be done

by any of the following:

a.
Water will flow toward areas with high infiltration rates;

however, this flow may be so slow that it is difficult to see. Walk

around within the basin after it is filled

to stir up a little suspended

soil to help make the flow visible.

b. After the basin has filled, quickly construct (plow in) small

dikes that barely reach to the water surface to divide the basin into

as many small subbasins as is practical. Observation of the drop in

water surface, usually measured from datum stakes, indicates the

relative infiltration rates in adjacent subbasins. Allowance must be

made for the probable differences in relative rates of intake because

water did not arrive in all the subbasins at the same instant.

Comparing the absolute infiltration rates in the subbasins would not

necessarily be meaningful because they might be only the average for

areas having high and low rates.

c. Construct subbasins as described above but leave gaps in

the dikes.
Water will flow through these gaps from subbasins that have

slow infiltration rates to those that have faster rates.

This is the

most sensitive method for observing dissimilar infiltration rates.

Again, allow for water arriving at different areas at different times.

d. Construct several subbasins prior to the start of the test

and quickly (in about one-tenth of To ) fill each of them with an equal

depth of water calculated by (cfs x time)/acres. Note the length of

time it takes for the water to disappear from the ground surface of each

subbasin. Staff gauges may also be set and the rate at which water

infiltrates may be measured and plotted as described in 6 above.

220

 8. Using a soil probe just after the water has disappeared from

the ground surface shows the depth and uniformity of penetration. Water

will continue to percolate as the upper part of the soil profile drains

down to field capacity. A ch-eck then,or soon afterwards will indicate

whether water has already percolated too deeply or is still percolating.

Soil probes do not work well in fine textured soil nor to depths greater

than about 3.5 feet. Checking with a soil auger a few days after the

irrigation would give more precise information about its adequacy, but

it would not indicate overirrigation.

Utilization of field data

The objective of any evaluation is to determine how effective

present management practices are and

to learn where management could be

improved.

Compariiw SMD with iJAD will tell whether an irrigation was too

early, too late, or correctly timed. The SMD will show what depth of

water needs to be replaced by irrigation, and it is a key number in

computing any efficiency term because it corresponds to the maximum

depth of water that can be stored in the root zone at that location.

Depth of water applied, D, is computed by multiplying the inflow

rate to the basin by the duration of the application and then dividing

by the basin area, thus:

Depth applied (in:ches) "n

= 'o (cs)X dzIration (hrs)

area (acres)

or

Depth applied (inches) 96.3 X infZw (apm)X duration (hrs)

area (square feet)

For example, assume a 1.4 cfs stream is turned into a 0.75 acre basin for

96 minutes. Thus the depth applied is:

1.4 X 96/60

0.75 =
3.0 inches

Distribution Uniformity, DU, is important and can be estimated

fairly well. The two determining factors are T and infiltration rate.
0

If the entire basin can be covered in about one-fourth of the time

needed to irrigate it fu.ly (Advance Ratio, AR=1/4), the adverse effect

of the unequal To values on DU will be minimum. If the basin were level

221

 and the entire surface became free of water

at about the same moment,

DU would be very high for medium and fine

textured soils since an

average of only about 5% of the water would

penetrate too deeply

because less than 10% more water would

infiltrate where it entered the

basin than at
the far side. (For coarse textured soils this entry loss

could be considerably higher.)

This would
be true only if the infiltra­
tion rate were uniform throughout the basin.

The uniformity of

infiltration within the basin should be

checked by one of the methods

listed under Step 7 of the Field procedure.

Nearly all of the water ponded in low areas

may be considered as

going too deep. This statement is based

on the assumptions that: (1) the

minimum depth infiltrated, which should

just satisfy the SMD, occurs

at the first areas

in the basin that become
exposed as the water

receded, and (2) the infiltration rate

is uniform over the whole basin.

This volume of water that percolates too

deeply can be estimated from

the average depth of any ponds within the

basin and their areas.
This

volume will be in addition to the approximate

5 percent entry loss that

went too deep because of the advance time.

To illustrate this,
assume that the water
disappeared in half of

the basin at about the

same moment and
that the remaining water was

ponded to an average depth of 0.4 inch.

This would correspond to a8.

average depth of 0.2 inch over the entire

area.
If 4.0 inches had been

applied, the loss to deep percolation from

the remaining ponded area

would be 5 percent.

The DU can be approximated from the recorded

information by the

formula:

DU = average low quarter depth infiltrated

average depth infiltrated
1

For basins, since they have no runoff, this

may be rewritten:

DU = avg. depth applied - av.7. depth ponded

when 1/8 area exposed

avg. depth applied

K 100

The DU or DUa can be determined more precisely

tion obtained in
Field procedure step 6 using the informa­
and the subsequent development

of the depth infiltrated curve

as needed
to develop the "adjusted"

infiltration curve.
However, to determine
DU, the "adjusted" curve is

not essential since the unadjusted intake

will Jive similar values.

222

 Potential Application Efficiency, PELQ, will be equal to DU if the

proper depth has been applied, and reasonably close even though over­
or underirrigation occurred.

Actual Application Efficiency, AELA, may be determined by dividing

the SAID by the depth of water applied, D. The AELQ can be closely

approximated by noting the difference between DU and DUa and reducing

D accordingly.

Summary comments

Basin irrigation can be highly efficient only when:

1. The basin is carefully graded and level.

2. The intake rates of the soils in each basin are uniform.

3. The correct depth of water is applied in less than one-half

of the required irrigation time.

The practical problems associated with the first two items usually have

appreciable effect on PELQ. If the SMD, flow rate, or duration of

application are not correctly or precisely determined, the resulting

AELQ value will have the same magnitude of error. For example, if

water is applied for 22 minutes when 20 minutes would have been

adequate, the AELQ would be decreased by 10 percent. Therefore, basins

seldom have very high AELQ values even though PELQ may be quite high.

223

 CHAPTER XII

POND IRRIGATION

Ponding is a method of irrigation in which an area is flooded,

the water is ponded for an adequate length of time to infiltrate the

desired minimum depth, and then the excess is drained off. It has

similarities with basin, border-strip, and rice paddy irrigation. The

land does not need to be leveled but it should be graded so tiat

surface water will drain. The infiltration rate of the soil needs to

be uniform within each pond area, and each area needs to be surrounded

with a dike that will contain the ponded water which will vary in depth

over the area. Also similar to basins, each pond should be covered

.i.n about one-fourth of the time of irrigation, but this may be compen­
sated for by the recession curve like with border-strip irrigation.

This pond method can have a high PELQ and AELQ if the excess

water is turned into another pond or utilized and there are no low,

undrained areas. Since flow rates do not need to be steady, like

most methods, excess flows of water can be conveniently added to the

supply stream. The method is controlled by the duration of ponding,

or opportunity time, T0 , and excess time represents less excess depth

since the extra time is at the end of irrigation when infiltration

rates are slowest. The speed of draining each pond is easily controlled.

Drainage is done from the lowest side and if this is opposite the

filliag side, the advance and recession can often be controlled to

improve uniformity.

In operation, a large stream is turned into the pond area,

preferably along the higher side to cover it quickly. The stream should

either be run long enough at a fast rate to pond more than enough water

for the irrigation, or be run at a slow rate to maintain surface

coverage at a shallow depth for the required duration.

The ponded depth of water may vary appreciably over the area from

one or two-tenths of a foot to over a foot if dikes are made high

enough~without appreciably affecting uniformity. The pond areas can

also be put on the "contour-like" basins without removing the cross

slope, or have down slopes like the border-strips.

Pond irrigation is well adapted for leaching salts from the soil

and pre-irrigation on fine textured soils where large applications take

several days to infiltrate. Like basin or border-strip irrigation, it

is suitable for orchard or field crops that are not harmed by flooding

during irrigation. It can be adapted for use with "dead-level"

furrows to facilitate light, frequent applications giving very high

efficiencies, ahd easily automated since it is time responsive and can

accommodate variable stream sies.

225

Evaluation, equipment needed and field procedure

The evaluation process, equipment needed, and field procedurelare

similar for pond and basin irrigation including finding the SMD and MAD

(see Chapter XI).

Advance and recession. Briefly, a plan of the tested pond area

should be sketched to scale and lines drawn showing the location of the

advancing water front at several times; and similarly, the location of

the receding water front should also be indicated. From these the

opportunity time, T , can be obtained at each of 8 to 12 or more points

representing equal areas. These can be arranged in sequence and

plotted as an opportunity time versus portion of the pond area (instead

of distance) curve similar to the border-strip advance-recession curves

presented in Chapter X but with instantaneous advance.

Intake rate and depth. A cylinder infiltrometer test can be run

and the cumulative intake curve plotted and "adjusted." The actual

average infiltrated depth is determined by measuring the onflow rate

and duration to obtain the average depth applied to the ponded area.

The outflow rate at a number of times must also be determined so the

runoff volume and corresponding average depth can be calculated. The

difference between onflow and outflow depths is the infiltrated depth.

This depth can then be used to "adjust" the cylinder infiltrometer

curve as described in Chapter X for border-strip irrigation.

Utilization of field data and summary

Utilizing the "adjusted" cumulative intake and the opportunity

time curves, a cumulative depth infiltrated versus portion of the

ponded area curve can be developed as was done for the border-strip

method (see Figure X-5). From this curve and the SMD and MAD

values, the uniformity and efficiency terms can be estimated and an

analysis of the pond irrigai:ion system made.

226

 REFERENCES

Christiansen, J. E., "Irrigation by Sprinkling," Bulletin 670, Agri­

cultural Experiment Station, University of California, Berkeley,

California, October 1942.

Criddle, Wayne D., Sterling Davis, Claude H. Pair, and Dell G. Shockley,

"Methods for Evaluating Irrigation Systems," Agricultural Hand­

book No. 82, SCS, USDA, Washington, D. C., 1956.

Keller, J., "Design Use and Management of Solid Set Sys,:ems,"

National

Irrigation Symposium, Page AA-I-lO, November 10-13, 1970.

Keller, J.,
and D. Karmeli, "Trickle Irrigation Design Parameters,"

Transactions of ASAE, Vol. 17, No. 4. pp. 678-684, 1974.

Merriam, J. L.,
Irrigation System Evaluation and Improvement, Blake

Printery, San Luis Obispo, California, 1968.

Merriam, J. L.,
"A Management Control roncept for Determining the

Economical Depth and Frequency of Irrigation," Transactions of

the ASAE, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1966, pp. 492-498.

Robinson, A. R., "Parshall Measuring Flumes of Small Sizes,"

Technical Bulletin 61, Experiment Station, Colorado State

University, Fort Collins, Colorado, August 1960.

Scott, Verne H.,

and Clyde E. Houston, "Measuring Irrigation Water,"

University of California Agricultural Experiment Station

Circular, No. 473, January 1959.

SCS National Engineering Handbook, "Planning Farm Irrigation Systems,"

Chapter 3, Section 15, USDA, Washington, D. C., July 1967.

Smerdon, E. T.,
and Glass, L. I., "Surface Irrigation Water Distri­
bution Efficiency Related to Soil Infiltration," Transactions

of the ASAE, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1965.

Pair, Claude (Ed.) Sprinkler Irrigation Association, Sprinkler

Irrigation, 4th Edition, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1975

Willardson, L. S.,
and A. A. Bishop, "Analysis of Surface Irrigation

Application Efficiency," Journal of thu Irrigation and

Drainage Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. IR2, June 1967.

227

 GLOSSARY

the actual

AELA
Application Efficiency Absolute Low indicates
system and is

efficiency being achieved with a given

depth of

expressed as a percent relating the minimum

depth of

water stored in the root zone

to the average
water applied.

the actual

AELQ
Application Efficiency of Low Quarter indicates
and is

efficiency being achieved with a given system

low quarter

expressed as a percent relating the average

in the root zone to

the average

depth of water stored

depth of water applied.

for a
ARa or Advance Ratio is the ratio of the time required
to the lower end of its furrow (Tad) to
stream to flow (Plv

AR the length of
time the water is visible there
well

the furrow sys.tem is

(For design, or where
end of the

operated, water should be visible at

the lower
desired irrigation

furrow just long enough

to provide the
(Ti).
MAD rather than

Adequate irrigation is irrigation where the

planned

the SMD is placed in the entire area

to the depth
is usually associated with irrigation

for irrigation.
It
root zone
is

practice in which only part of the potential

watered.

traveled

Advance curve
is a plot that shows tiie distance
flowing down a

by the forward front of

an onflow stream
since the

furrow or border against the elapsed time

beginning of the irrigation onflow.

of placing the

Alternate sets (or settings)

is the practice
the sets

sprinkler line at each irrigation midway between

irrigation.
It is used mainly for

used in the previous

as a means of improving DU.

portable sprinkler irrigation

one

Alternate side irrigation is the practice of wetting

side of a crop and then, after about half the normal

the other

interval between irrigations, applying water to

the
-'rop at

side; this provides full coverage for

(This

approximately the normal frequency of waterings.

for row

practice is sometimes called "alternate furrows"

vineyards.)

crops or "alternate middles" for orchards or

229

 Available moisture is the moisture that can be held in the

root zone between field capacity and wilting point. (Field

capacity is the moisture remaining in a soil following

wetting and natural drainage until free drainage has

practically ceased.
Wilting point is the moisture content

of the root zone soil after plants can no longer extract

moisture at a sufficient rate for survival.)

Cutback stream is the stream size to which the initial

stream that starts flowing down a furrow or border strip

is reduced to hold runoff to the minimum.

D Average depth of water applied to the whole field area in

sprinkle systems or infiltered in surface irrigation

systems.

Da Overall average depth of water applied based on the whole

field area in trickle or orchard sprinkler systems.

D Average depth of wat.,r applied to the wetted area in

trickle or orchard sprinkle systems.

Dn Minimum depth of water applied in sprinkle and trickle

systems or infiltered in surface irrigation systems

and is equal to D multiplied by PELQ.

DS Average depth of water infiltrated based on a furrow

spacing, S.

DU Distribution Uniformity indicates the uniformity of

infiltration (or application in the case of sprinkle

or trickle irrigation) throughout the field and is

expressed as a percent relating the average depth

infiltrated in the lowest one quartet of the area to

the average depth of water infiltrated.

DVa Distribution Uniformity Absolute indicates the

uniformity of infiltration throughout the field and is

expressed as a percent relating the minimum depth

infiltrated to the average depth of water infiltrated.

Deep percolation is the infiltrated water that is in

excess of the SMD at any point in a field.

ER Efficiency Reduction is the reduction in PELQ and/or

AELQ due to pressure variations throughout a sprinkle

system and is approximately 20% of the pressure difference

in the system divided by the average sprinkler pressure.

230

ERF Efficiency Reduction Factor is the reduction in AELQ or

PELQ throughout a trickle irrigation system caused by

pressure variations throughout the system.

EU Emission Uniformity indicates the uniformity of emission

from the trickle irrigation emitters throughout a field

(or subunit of a field) and is expressed as a percent

relating the minimum rate of discharge to the average

rate of discharge per plant.

Full irrigation is an irrigation that fully replaces the

SMD in the entire area irrigated.

I Infiltration rate expressed as gpm/100 ft in furrow

irrigation or in/hr in all methods of surface irrigation.

Initial stream is the stream that starts flowing down a

furrow or border strip. (Usually it is fairly large,

but it should not be large enough to cause erosion.

Often it may be smaller than the largest nonerosive

stream.)

Irrigation curve is plotted by uniform time intervals

above the advance curve. (The interval for plotting is

the time, Ti ,
needed for water to infiltrate the depth

corresponding tc the SMD.

LR Leaching requirement is the depth of infiltrated water

required to dissolve and transport enough salts through

the soil profile to maintain a salt balance favorable to

economic plant growth.

Limited irrigation is any of a group of procedures which

result in under irrigation to conserve water but do not

reduce yields.

MAD Management Allowed Deficit is the desired soil moisture

deficit at the time of irrigation and may be expressed

as the percent of the total available soil moisture in

the root zone or the corresponding depth of water that

can be extracted from the root zone between irrigations

to produce the best economic balance between crop

returns and cost of irrigation.

Moisture stored in root sone refers to the water applied

which is not in excess of SMD and is stored in the

root zone.

231

 PELA Potential Application Efficiency Absolute Low is the

measure of how well a system can perform under reasonably

good management when the desired irrigation is being

applied. It is expressed as a percent relating the

minimum depth infiltrated when equal to MAD to the

average depth of water applied.

PELQ Potential Application Efficiency Low Quarter is the

measure of how well a system can perform under reason­

ably good management when the desired irr±gation is being

applied and is expressed as a percent relating the average

low quarter depth infiltrated when equal to MAD to the

average depth of water applied.

Q Flow rate from a sprinkler, or the stream flow into,

along, or out of a furrow basin or border.

R Sprinkler application rate expressed as the in/hr or

iph

is a function of sprinkler flow rate divided by the area

served by the sprinkler.

Rn Minimum sprinkier application rate is the sprinkler

application rate multiplied by

the PELQ.

Recession curve is a plot that shows the position where

water has just disappeared from the surface of a furrow

or border against the length of time from the beginning

of the irrigation onflow.

Return flow system is a system that recycles runoff

water by either pumping it back to the supply or using

it sequentially on a lower field.

(Often a reservoir

is required to enable flexible operation and to save

labor.)

Runoff is the water that leaves an area or

field as

surface flow.

S Spacing between furrows.

SE
Storage Efficiency indicates the actual efficiency being

achieved with a given system which only wets part of the

area (such as orchard sprinklers and trickle). It is

expressed as a percent relating the average depth stored

in the root zone in the wetted area to the average depth

applied to the wetted area.

232

 SMD
Soil Moisture Deficit is expressed numerically as a
depth

(in inches) indicating the dryness of

the root zone
at

the time of measurement.

Stress irrig,.tion is a managemeat practice in which

the
depth or
fr-,quency of irrigation, or both, is insufficient

to result in maximum production but does increase economic

returns or yic)ls per unit of water applied.

T Time (duration) of app 7lcation is the duration of time

water flows onto or is otherwise applied to an area.

Tadv Time of advance is the duration of time required for

water to flow from the upper to the lower end of a

field.

Ti Time (duraticn) of irriz ation is the duration of time

water should be sprinkled or trickled onto or cover
the surface in order to replace the §iL.D at a given point.

Ti
Lag time is the duration of time required [or water to

disappear from the upper end of

a field after it has

been turned off and is equal to " minus ! .

T0Opportunity time is the duration of time

soil surface has opportunity to iinfiltratewater
at a ongiven
the
point. (At the upper end of a furrow or border, T
would be expressed as o and at the lower end, )
UC Uniformity Coef'Xu>:: (Christiansen's coefficient of
uniformity) is
a statistical representation of the

uniformity of sprinkle or
trickle irrigation. It
is

expressed as
a percent which relates the average catch

minus the average deviation from the average catch

to

the average catch.

Under irrigation is when a single or series of irrigations

leave an appreciable area of
a field with a substantial

SMD.

233

APPENDICES

235

 APPENDIX A

STABILIZING RATES OF ONFLOW TO FURROW OR BORDERS

For quick approximate checks for efficiency of irrigation by

streams from a fluctuating primary source, some fluctuation in rates

of

of onflow poses no problem. For precise evaluations, stable rates

onflow are essential and special field procedures are necessary for

stabilizing the flow.

One means for stabilizing flow is to

use a bypass controlled by

a rectangular or trapezoidal weir on the primary ditch in conjunction

or

with such furrow or border turnouts as gates, siphon, short tubes,

in Appendix B, the flow over the weir varies

orifices. As discussed 5
,

as the 1.5 power of the upstream flow depth over the weir crest, H1.
and the flow through the turnout varies as the square root of the
0 5 .

difference in water depth on either side of the turnout, F

or 1 .
Therefore, a 10% change in H due to flow variation in the primary

ditch will change the flow over

the weir by 15%, but only change the

flow through the siphons (to the test furrows) by 5%. The longer

the weir and the greater the proportion of flow over it, and/or the

greater the H on the siphons as compared to the 14 on the weirs, the

smaller will be the fluctuations on the turnout.

In order to obtain even greater accuracy or where the primary

ditch is apt to have extreme fluctuations a secondary ditch and weir

can be set up as shown in Figure A-1.

Rimary
ditch "Furrows

Secondar ditch

Figure A-1. Flow stabilizing setup using double weirs and siphons for

very accurate flow controls.

237

 APPENDIX B

FLOW MEASURING DEVICES

Measurements of flow are essential for good

irrigation and for

all evaluations.
The degree of accuracy of
such measurements varies

according to conditions.
Many measuring instruments
are available

commercially, and many improvements

can be made
based upon principles

of hydraulics.
Devices commonly used for evaluation
and their opera­
tion are described here and others are mentioned.
Accuracy of all

procedures but the volumetric is seldom closer

than 25%.
Many texts

and pamphlets publish detailed tables and discussions.

Figure B-l

graph powers and roots of numbers, and flow

rates of Parshall flumes,

and siphons.

Volumetric Measurement

Flow from sprinklers is diverted by

a short
length of hose into

a container having known volume--usually 1

gallon--and the time

required to fill it is measured, preferably

by stop watch.
The con­
tainer must be large enough so that duration
of flow into it can be

measured accurately.

For measuring flow in furrows, a container

can be set into a hole

and stream flow directed into it by a short

tube or length of hose.

A similar process can be used at

the upper
end of furrows using gated

pipe or siphons. When the container is large

enough, this is the

most accurate procedure.

Orifice

The principle of measuring head on an orifice

or short tubes and

relating this to the corresponding velocity

of flow, Q, through the

area of an opening has many applications. It

is expressed by the

formula:

0
5

Q = AV = C A 8 H

when C is a shape and entrance condition constant,

A is area in square

feet, H is head in feet, and Q is cubic feet

per second, cfs. Values

of C are published for many conditions. The

minimum value for a

sharp-edged orifice is 0.61;

0.64 is more nearly
an average. Head

is measured from the water surface to the center

of the orifice, and

for accurate flow readings this distance should

be at least
as great

as the orifice diameter.

For submerged orifices,
H is the difference

in level between water surfaces.

238

 Siphon or Parsholl Flume Flow Rote - gpm

2 3 4 5 7 /0 15 20 30 50 70 /00 200 300

,I 1- . .1.7 e/.i/ 7 . . . -r - - - .-- ci

.7

. 7 - ...
.. ....
..

.03 ---­
.02

.0/
.0/ .05 .07 0/ .5 02 03 05 0.7 LO
Numbers

Figure B-1. Flow rates of Parshall flumes and siphons and powers of numbers
 F gure B-2 .hows a typi calxorifice
test. board installed for a furrow
Standard condit ions 't -be en
tr;nce to orifices or short
require that th, be clear of tubes
debris that would distart flow
least one diameter for at
li ;I)I si.des, and that the flow apponching
slow and unifor,,. The ede of the or ifice must it be
be sharp " e
unrounded) and the f ] '(1nont-h.
)rif [(e plates may be sulbmLrged
holes so that sp"ace arould t in
or if ice is adequate on all sides.

'.,
5, ­

"i ,ure (-i'.

nfW ,
,C i w test wii-h only one

P i r-s I II f I ii~
The arsh"I I I I i i 1 hoer;p
'i I converging
ctal
carefl lv built, ti ;p,',j
channel
f , ( i nsis.
oi' Sma lI I ightweight portable

l'arshal I are,
11:; w,!I '1dAt t d t 0

hitn
i iques of f low measnrement
evaIunationl (F irlire -I for
, ir 5'$). 1Ilrsl.i
f'I nies reqiiire very
1 itt le d rep rt h OUii ,1 1in1!
thl"
, Iv dI not o Iole
l IS ! t sediment
When i I I11,. 1 F.
fI
t, ,pI1 , 'd in '1 ftin I r w t( 1.Wi islI-0 inflow
miius o tI" low, it d w4
!t' .1:-, I S is pra t iCl I to reluce
pOnd ill) , p Itrea 1m l 11
,I 111,! i,'t !hte ort ;o d iee
p Is to be "d''ro lled out"
bY dowlnst'l
em f-ot ,'I v,t 1 . On;hoIt ,
flovw th 'otlji its turoar.
Stma II c ; il op.r n; :1I le
m1i , 1 -ofthe fluIll c ll be buried in

ie so i I tpreven It ,,•irla
-I tI
. I I l1s
P nSne S T11
hori lui; . i) Sot exactly
l bY . , IIi:; I,%,I 11t
. rge r f Iunies can 5o used to

m1loolstil 't,
l 0ow' to hOlirt ' Ir' i D,;

240
 the throat length from

Depth of flow is measured at one-third and then

the upstream edge.

Depths must be measured accurately
or appropriate graph in

converted to flow rates by using tables

measure down to the water surface

Figure B-1.
Using a point gauge to
gives greatest accuracy.

Weirs

made of sheet metal, which is

A weir is a notched barrier, usually

that water falls freely over it.

placed across an open channel so

The three most common ones are

Notches for weirs have many shanes.

L" , ant! the trapezoidal

the 900 V-notch \/ . t' rect'n 'ul.ar
The V-notch provides accurate
L.J , which has 1:4 side slopes. to
be used in furrows on moderate
measurements of low flows and can Use

are useful in larger channels.

steep gradients.
The other two
loss in head.

of any weir requires appreciable

distances from the sides and

For use under standard conditions,

should be two to
three times

bottom of
the weir notch to the channel
Edges of the weir must be sharp,

the depth of flow over the weir.

face must be smooth and

like those for orifices, and the upstream

be slow and uniform, and water

vertical; flow approaching it must

downstream side.

must not back up above the

lip on the
water above the weir

Head, H, on weirs is the height of the

be measured at a location at least

crest in feet.
This height should
from the
crest. Depth of flow

three times the depth of overflow away

Q, in cfs for the three most

should be greater than 1/2 inch.

Flow,
the following formulas:

common weirs may be computed

from

2
'5

Q =
.5 X H
V-notch

1 5
3.33 X (L - 0.2I)H
Rectangular
Q =
5

= 3.37 X L X
H1 .

Trapezoidal
9
in feet.
(See Fig. B-1 for powers

where L is the length of the crest

of weirs, published values

of numbers.)
For more precise calibration
respectively, must be

for C to replace the 2.5, 3.33,

or 3.37,
consulted.

Pipe jets

the end of
a horizontal

A jet or stream of water flowing from

device.
For horizontal

pipe can be used as

a simple flow measuring
L in inches from the

pipes flowing full, the horizontal distance

dropped 12 inches can be used
to

end of the pipe to where the jet has

241

 estimate the flow, Q, in gallons

per minute (gpm) by the formula:

Q = AL

where A is the area of the pipe

in square inches. To compute flow
sloping or only partially full in

pipe, one must consult published

tables.

For low vertical jets (where height,

40% of the pipe diameter, 0.4d), H, of the jet is less than

practical estimates of flow can

obtained from the weir type formula:
be

5
Q = 8.8 X d 2 X H3.5

in which the value of Q is cubic

feet per second (cfs) and measure­
ments of d and H are in feet.

For vertical jets where H is greater

estimates of flow can be obtained than 1.4d, practical

from the orifice type formula:

Q = 5.6 X d 2 x
For values of H greater than 0.4d
discharge estimated by either equation but less than 1.4d, the

will be a little higher than

actual flows.

Velocitymeasurements

In using velocity methods for estimating

first be subdivided into representative flow, a channel must

(square feet) of each section must cross sections.

The area

be multiplied by the velocity

(feet per second) of the stream

in that portion of the channel.
these incremental flow values must Then

be totaled for the entire cross

section of the channel to obtain

an estimate of the total flow.

Methods for direct velocity measurement

meters which have cups or propellers are numerous.
Current

placed in a moving stream can be that rotate when the device is

used to accurately measure the

water velocity in a channel. Eight-tenths

a surface float approximates the (0.8) of the velocity of

average velocity along the path

the float. A vertically held stick of

the bottom of the channel and is whose lower end nearly touches

moved by the current will indicate

the average velocity along its

line of travel.
Dyes such as

fluorzscein, which is visible at

concentrations of only a few parts

per mission, ppm, can also be used

to estimate velocity.

Methods for indirect velocity

measurement consist of converting

velocity energy to pressure head

in feet, which can be used to compute

velocity, V, in feet per second

(fps) by the formula:

242

V = 8 HO 5

where H is the length of rise in feet.

for estimating

An L-shaped tube can be used as a crude pitot gauge

stream is

H. When the L-shape tube pointing directly into the H,

rises in the vertical section to a height,

inserted into it, water

tube facilitates

above the stream surface.

A clear plastic vertical
Refinements of the Pitot tube apparatus are

reading this H value.

the pressure

available commercially for measuring pipe flows and

head of sprinkler jets.

height

A flat board having a width about equal to the expected

also be used to estimate flow.

of rise, H, in the Pitot gauge can

is forced up the

When the board is placed across the stream, water the water

front face by the velocity of the current. The distance

can be used only for

rises above the stream surface is H. This method

fps which have

streams having velocities from about 1.6 to 5.0

corresponding H values from 0.04 to about 0.4 feet.

Miscellaneous

can be used

Constricted channels, either artificial or natural,

hydraulics to estimate flows

in conjunction with principles of

either by forcing critical depth or nonuniform flow.

in various

Meters for measuring flow are available commercially

types and in many sizes.

Summary

are:

The portable devices commonly used for measuring flow

Pitot pressure

For sprinklers: Calibrated container and stop watch,

gauge and orifice area.

For furrows:
Small Parshall flume, orifice plate, calibrated

container, short tube, and V-notch weir.

trapezoidal

For border strips:

Parshall flume, weir (rectangular or
notched), horizontal or vertical jet and commercial meter.

243

 APPENDIX C

DRAWING INTAKE CURVES FOR FURROWS

FROM FIELD DATA

Use the following procedure to

draw intake rate and cumulative
curves for furrows at any spacing intake

as
shown in Figure C-i.

/0- OW o AMot~ell /0.

.0 ..
0

.00 175 .0

a60.6
"

.
0i 9.2 Opm

60 /03 0 J 0
_.O
j I_-

q)./0 J

Cumuloive Time. minutes

Figure C-1.
Plot of typical
furrow intake rate and cumulative
intake

curves.

1.
On a sheet of .3X 3 cycle
logarithmic paper write a title

and show the location, date,

type of soil, steepness of slope,

moisture condition, and furrow

shape and condition for the irrigation

244

 scale time from 1 to

being plotted.
Label the bottom (horizontal)
scale for
two sets of intake

1000 minutes. Calibrate the vertical

uni' , gpm/100 feet and depth from 0.1
to 100 or
from 0.01 to 10

inches as needed.

intake rate in gpm/100 feet

2.
From data from furrow tests, plot
through the points plotted for

against time, and draw a straight line

of all tests across
the full

each test.
Then draw a line typical
for individual furrow tests

width of the graph paper.

If the plots
to represent the range.

vary greatly, draw two typical curves

typical gpm/100 feet intake

3. Determine the slope, v/h, of the

horizontal, h, and vertical, v,

rate curve. To do
chis measure the
linear scale.

lengths of the line using any convenient

S (feet), compute a time, T'

4.
For the desired furrow spacing,
(minutes) using the equation:

T' = 60 (1 - - ) S
intake rate curve drawn in

and mark it
on the typical gpm/100 feet
feet intake rate curve and

Step 2.
This T' point is where the gpm/lO0
the cumulative intake curve intersect.

this point to the line

5.
Measure the horizontal distance from
scale or by marks on a

T =
1.0 minute (left border) by any linear
piece of paper.

intake rate curve crosses

6.
Next, from where the gpm/100 feet
the distance found in Step 5

the line T =
1.0 minute, measure down
and mark it.

4 and the point on the

7.
Through the T' point plotted in Step
line that represents the

left border plotted in Step 6, draw a

for the desired furrow spacing,

cumulative intake after any time, T,

S.

Step 4 and draw lines

8.
For other furrow spacings, repeat
to the line drawn in

through the corresponding T' points parallel

Step 7.

of the test,

The resulting cumulative curves are representative

more than a reasonable

but they should not be construed as

being
conditions because intake rate varies with antecedent

guide for other

condition of the furrow (new,

soil moisture content, size of stream,

or previously used), and soil structure.

245

 APPENDIX D

FIELD PROCEDURE FOR USING CYLINDER INFILTROMETERS

The cylinders should be 10 or more inches

in diameter, 12
to 15

incheL long, and should be made of

14
or 12 gauge steel. A reference

datum should be marked on

the rim or side
of each cylinder. Cylinders

should be driven about 6 inches straight

into the ground without

wobbling so
that there will be no open
cracks around the edge.
A

heavy steel plate to cover the upper end

(for protection of the edges)

and a heavy (10 to 15

lbs.) hammer are
used.
The person doing the

driving should stand on the plate to

provide added weight; this

facilitates the cylinder's going into

the ground.
Some protective

material such as vegetation or

a piece
of paper or cloth should be

placed in the bottom of the cylinder to

prevent soil from eroding

when water is poured in.

If this protective
material has appreciable

volume, it must be removed immediately

after the cylinder is filled and

before the first reading of infiltration

is taken.

To begin a test, quickly pour 4 to 5

inches of water into the

cylinder and immediately start

timing
the infiltration.
As soon as

possible, the first measurement of infiltration

should be made from

the datum line down to

the water surface.
On most
soils, the second

reading should be taken after 1 minute,

but when cylinders are
in

soils that have cracks or very high rates

of intake, the second

reading should be taken after only 30

se 'onds- the third reading should

be taken 1 minute later. Subsequent readings, to a total of eight

more measurements for
the test, should or

be taken at increasingly longer

intervals.
If a cylinder needs refilling,
"before" and "after"

readings should be taken quickly but recorded

as
though made at the

same time.
Other cylinders can be filled
in sequence as convenient.

Water surface readings should be made

only to
the nearest 0.05

inch since the plotting procedure averages

out
t~e values and the

variation between cylinders is

appreciable.

These readings must be

made from the datum to the water surface

using a rule, a point gauge,

or a hook gauge, although the latter

does not measure the last inch

or more of depth.

When tabulating the depth, an estimated

value should be entered

opposite the starting time

to account
for the often appreciable

depth (0.1 to 0.4

inch) that water infiltrates
during the first

increment of
time before the water level
stabilizes and can be

measured.

246

 APPENDIX E

BORDER STRIP ADVANCE AND RECESSION CURVES

strip ac
ance curve

Figure E-l shows a normal (ideal) border

various devijLions from

along with a group of advance curves with

(An advance curve
is a plot of the distance of water

normal.
of
time the water has been

advance down the border versus the length

in
each sketch (dashed line)

running.)
The normal curve is depicted
for comparative purposes and the associated problem with the deviation

is briefly noted beloo each curve.

curve along with

Figure E-2 shows

a normal border strip recession
from normal.
(A

a group of recession curves

with various deviations
water has just

recession curve
is a
plot of the position where
of
the water front as it

disappeared from the surface, i.e.,

location
of
time from the beginning

recedes down th- border, versus the length

problem

of irrigation.) As before, the normal

curve and associated
is presented wit.h
each sketch.

curve and recession

Figure E-3 shows

a normal combined advance
curve (dashed line), cutoff time

cur-e with the associated irrigation

Figure E-3 also shows a set
of

and runoff portion (dotted tip).

from the normal

combined curves
representing various deviations
problem is also

curve.
The physical conditions and associated
presented for each of the
curves.

and recession are

For the normal combined curves, the advance

to

nearly parallel. The irrigation curve

is always plotted parallel
above the advince curve).

the advance curve

(a uniform time interval
of irrigation, T., needed for water

The proper interval is the time

to
the S,!.
The time of cutoff

to
infiltrate the depth corresponding
The proper time of cutoff is

equals T i minus a small lag time, TZ.

the border strip

when the advance has reached about three-fourths

end is adequately

length;
but it must be such that
the lower
irrigated and there is very little runoff.

curve is also

For the other combined curves, the irrigation

of
irrigation is such

parallel to the advance curve; but the time

along all or part

that there is
too little or too much irrigation
of the border strip.

247

 if

NORMAL Distance
- A gradually steepening
a) Faster intake in upper half

b) Slower intake in upper half

sickle-shaped curve
of strip

of strip

c) Cutoff too soon

Flatter slope in upper half

e)
Steeper slope in upper half

of strip
of strip

Low pocket in central

g) Faster intake or flatter

portion h) Slower intake or steeper

slope in central portion

slope in central portion

Figure E-1.
Various border strip
advance curves
showing deviations
from normal.

 IzI

Distnce­
NORMAL - A slightly S-shaped a) Faster intake in upper half
b) Slower intake in upper half

curve
of strip
of strip

c) Dike at lower end ponding d) Steeper slope in upper half

e) Flatter sInpe in upper half

of strip
of strip

water

g) Faster intake or steeper

h) Slower intake or flatter

f) Low pocket in central

slope in central portion slope in central portion

portion

deviations from normal.

Figure E-2.
Various border strip recession curves showing
 Advance fCutoff

Distance
NORMAL - Advance and recession nearly a) Strip too long, over irrigates
parallel, adequate irrigation, whole strip
minimal runoff

b) Strip too short, large

c) Strip too long, under irrigates d) Strip too short, under

amount of runoff, over

the lower portion, no runoff irrigates whole strip

irrigates lower portion

Figure E-3.
Various border strip combined advance and recession curves with associaced

irrigation curves, cutoff timec and runoff portions.

 Distance
e) Stream too large, over f) Stream
too small, over g) Cutoff too soon, under

irrigates lower portion irrigates upper portion

irrigates whole strip

Ue

h) Stream too large, under i) Steeper slope in upper

j) Slower intake in upper

irrigates upper and lower

portion, adequate irriga- portinn, adequate irriga­
portions
tion, excessive runoff tion, excessive runoff

and recession curves with

Figure E-3 (Continued).

Various border strip combined advance
associated irrigation_
cutoff times and runoff portions.

curves,
 APPENDIX F

SOIL PROBE

The soil probe used in the field to determine the depth of

penetration of irrigation water is a

very useful tool in studying

irrigation practices. Essentially the probe consists of a bulbous­

tipped steel rod 3/8- to 5/16-inch in diameter by 4 feet long, with a

handle on the end opposite the bulb; this handle gives the probe a "T"

shape. The bulbous tip is necessary to make the diameter of the hole

in the soil larger than that of the rod

so that side friction is

negligible; this leaves only the tip to

cause resistance to entry.

To facilitate measuring, the rod

can be marked in 1.foot increments or

any other convenient unit.

The irrigator can determine the depth of water penetration during

or shortly after irrigation by simply pushing the probe into the wetted

soil. The probe easily penetrates the wetted profile but encounters

resistance to penetration when it reaches dry soil.

The irrigator

measures the penetrated depth by reading the marks on the probe.

By
repeating this procedure systematically, the irrigator will have a very

good idea of water penetration in the whole irrigated field and can then

exercise good control of irrigations. He can also measure lateral

movement of the water by using the probe.

This is useful in studying

furrow irrigation, where it may be advantageous to measure the lateral

spread of water from furrows.

The probe is not sensitive if the soil is already quite wet

(as

often occurs at appreciable depth) because there is very little

difference in resistance.
The probe does not work well in fine textured

or dense subsoils.
It works very well during irrigat ion when the

water has penetrated 2 to 3 feet and is still in fairly dry soil.

When using the probe to determine when to stop irrigating, it is

important to note that the wetting front will continue to move down­
ward for several days after irrigation. Therefore, irrigation should

be stopped before the wetting front has penetrated the full depth of

dry soil in the plant root zone.

252

 APPENDIX G

FURROW ADVANCE RATIO AND EFFICIENCY

In furrow irrigation the Advance Ratio, ARa , is the ratio of the

time it takes a furrow stream to

reach the lower end of the field,

Tadv, to the duration of time water 's at the lower end, To0j). (For

basin irrigation it is
the ratio of the time it takes water o cover
a basin to the duration water is on the last
area covered.) Thus,

the advance ratio can be expressed as:

ARa = T dT(Z)

Ideally the water should be at

the lower end just long enough to

provide the desired irrigation, T.. For system design and/or good

management:

AR a = Tadv/T i

The Distribution Uniformity, DV, and the Potential Application

Efficiency, PAELQ, are greatly dependent

on the AR . Figure G-I

shows the interrelationships between AR and the relative dispersion

of equal amounts of applied water for tde range in which good

irrigation can be expected. An i' slower than 1:1 can seldom be
justified.
From Table G-1 it can e seen that without a return flow

system or cutback streams, maximum PEIQ is obtained between AR

values of 1:2 and 1:1 with a return flow or cutback system, the

fastest practical l"Aais the most efficient; however, an ARa faster

than 1:2 would be satisfactory.

253

 Recession

7-

Distance along furrow

/ Runoff/
Stored water

A1:2 -SMD
CxR! End of furrow
Deep percolation
Figure G-l. Theoretical advance and recession curves
plotted above

the resulting water dispersion curves

for different

furrow advance ratios.

Table G-1.
Theoretical water dispersion,
distribution, and uniformity

percentage for various furrow advance

ratios with and

without return flow.

Advance Ratio Advance Ratio

Without return flow With return flow
Item 1:4 1:2 1:1 1:4 1:2 1:1
Applied water
100% 100% 100% -- -- --
Portion infiltrated 68 80 93 100% 100% 100%
Portion stored 61 68 70 91 85 75
Deep percolation loss 7 12 23 9 15 25
Runoff loss 32 20 7 0 0 0
Distribution Uniformity, DU 91 85 75 91 85 75
Potential Efficiency, PELQ 61 68 70 91 85 75

254

BLANK DATA FORMS

255

 Form II-1. SPRINKLER-LATERAL IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location _, Observer , Date

2. Crop , Root zone depth ft, MAD %, MAD in
3. Soil: texture __ , available moisture in/ft, SMD in
4. Sprinkler: make , model , nozzles _ ay in
5. Spri'nkler spacing_ by ft, Irrigation duration hrs

6. Rated sprinkler discharge gpm at psi giving in/hr

7. Lateral: diameter in, slope %, Riser height in

8. Actual sprinkler pressure and discharge rates:

Sprinkler location number on test lateral

end

Initial pressure (psi)

Final pressure (psi)

Catch volume (gal)

Catch time (min or sec)

Discharge (gpm)

9. Wind: direction relative to

Part 10: initial , during__, final

Speed (mph): initial , during___, final

10. Container grid test data in units of _ , Volume/depth ml/in

Container grid spacing ._ by ft
Test: start , stop , duration hr min = hr

11. Evaporation container: initial final loss in

12. Sprinkler pressures: max psi; min psi, ave psi

13. Comments

257

 Form III-1. PERFORATED PIPE SPRINKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location
Otserver
Date

2. Crop ,Root zone depth

ft, MAD %, MAD in

3. Soil: Texture , available moisture in/ft, SMD

in

4. Perforated pipe: make _

type _ , hole diameter
_,
in
5. Perforated lateral pipe spacing
ft, Irrigation duration hrs

6. Rated pipeline discharge

gpm/ ft at psi giving in/hr

7. Pipe: diameter in, material _ , length ft, slope %

8. Holes per pattern sequence _ , Pattern sequence interval ft

9. Wind: direction arrow relative

to pipe flow direction Initial

Final

speed (mph)
Initial Final

10. Actual pipeline performance:

Discharge estimates from

holes per pattern sequen:e and

measured in - (3785 ml = 1.0 gal, 128 oz

= 1.0 gal)

Position along perforated pipeline

Inlet Middle End

11. Pressure (psi) diff

12. Wetted width: total (ft)

ave
upwind (ft)

downwind (ft)

13. Jet trajectory: length (ft)

uniformity

alignment

Holes clogged or eroded

14. Catch: volume (oz)

volume (gal)

time (seconds)

Ave. discharge: gpm/hole

gpm/ft
ave

15. Discharge pressures: max psi, min psi, ave _si

16. Comments:

258

 Form IV-1. ORCHARD SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location , Observer , Date

2. Crop , Root zone depth ft, MAD %, MAD in

3. Soil: texture , available moisture in/ft, SMD in
4. Tree: pattern , spacing b- ft
5. Sprinkler: make , model _ , nozzles by in
spacing by ft, location to trees
6. Irrigation: duration hrs, frequency days

7. Rated sprinkler discharge gpm at psi and diameter ft

8. Sprinkler jet: height ft, interference

9. Actual sprinkler pressure and discharge (see back for location):

Sprinkler locations:

Pressure (psi)

Catch volume (gal)

Catch time (sec)

Discharge (gpm)

Wetted diameter (ft)

Comments:

10. Container row test data in units of ,Volume/depth ml/in

Test: start _, stop , duration hr min= hr
Catch ( ):
Rate (iph): .

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 "

0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Radial distance from sprinkler - feet
11. Discharge pressures: max psi, min psi, ave psi

12. Comments:

259

 Form V-1.
CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location
, Observer , Date & Time
2. Equipment: make , length
ft, pipe diameter in

3. Drive: type _ speed setting %. water distributed?

4. Irrigated area 3.14 (wetted radius
43,560 ft) 2
a

acres

5. N wind
*Mark position of lateral direction

of travel, elevation differences,

wet or dry spots and wind direction.

Wind mph, Temperature OF

Pressure: at pivot psi

at nozzle end psi

Diameter of largest nozzle in
Comments:

6. Crop: condition
, root depth ft

7. Soil: texture
, tilth , avail, moisture in/ft
8. SMD: near pivot in, at 3/4 point
in, at End in

9. Surface runoff conditions at 3/4 point , and at end

10. Speed of outer drive unit

ft per min = ft/min
11. Time per revolution =
(outer drive unit radius ft) hr

9.55 (speed ft/mn)

12. Outer end: water pattern width ft, watering time min

13. Discharge from end drive motor

gal per min =gpm

14. System flow meter gallons per min = gpm

15. Average weighted catches:

System (sum all weighted catches )ml

= in
(sum all used position numbers ) i

Low 1/4 (sum low 1/4 weighted catches )- ml =

(sum low 1/4 position numbers in

)
16. Minimum daily (average daily weighted low 1/4) catch:

hrs operation/day) X (low 1/4 catch

in) in/day
( hrs/revolution)

260

 Form V-i. CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION (Cont.)

17. Container catch data ir units of

Volume/depth
_ _, ml/in
Span length ft, Container spacing ft
Evaporation: initial m ml

final ml ml

loss ml
ml, ave ml = in

Span Container Span

Container

no. Position Weighted No. Position

Weighted

Number XCatch Catch

Number Catch

1
37

2
38

3
39

4
40

5
41

6
42

7
43

8
44

9
45

10
46

11
47

12
48

13
49

14
50

15
51

16
52

17
53

18
54

19
55

20
56

21
57

22
58

23
59

24
60

25
61

26
62

27
63

28
64

29
65

30
66

31
67

32
68

33
69

34
70

35
71

36
72

Sum all: used position numbers , weighted catches

Sum low 1/4: position numbers
, weighted catches

- 261
 Form VI-i. TRAVELING SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location , Observer , Date

2. Crop , Root zone depth ft, MAD_ %, MAD in

3. Soil: texture , available moisture in/ft

4. SMD: near tow path in, at 1/4-point in, at mid-point in

5. Sprinkler/Traveler makes and models /

6. Nozzle: size in, type _ , pressure psi, discharge gpm

7. Hose: length ft, diameter in, type

inlet pressure psi, outlet pressure psi

8. Drive: type _ , discharge (if piston) gal/ min = min

J. Towpath: spacing ft, length ft, slope +
%

10. Evaporation loss: ( ml catch = 1.0 in)

cup #1 initial - final volume = _ _ml

cup #2 initial - final volume =- ml

average evaporation loss = ml
= in

11. Traveler speed check at:

beginning ft/ min = ft/min

at test site ft/ min = ft/min

terminal end ft/ min = ft/min

12. ToLal: discharge gpm, pressure loss psi

13. Average application rate:

96.3 X (sprinkler discharge gpm) X 360 in/hr

(towpath spacing 2
ft) X (wet sector 0)

14. Average depth applied:

96.3 (sprinkler plus piston discharge gpm) in

6- (path spacing ft) X (travel ft/min)

15. Average overlapped catches:

System = (sum all catch totals in) in

(number of totals )

Low 1/4 = (sum of low 1/4 catch totals in) in

(number of low 1/4 totals ) = in

16. Comments (wind drift, runoff etc.):

262

 Form V I-1 TRAVELING SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EVALUATION (Cont.)

17. Container test data in units of , Volume/depth ml/in

Wind: speed mph Left Right
direction Towpath and
Note part circle operation travel

and the dry wedge size in

direction

d eContainer

degrees < catch row

Container Catch Volume Right plus Left

Patch Left side of path 1
Right side of path Side Catch Totals
Spacing
feet Catch No. Catch Catch No. Catch ml inches

330

320
0
310

300

290 ;

280 I:3

270 0
260

250

240

230
220 Z_
210

200

190 _
180 0i
170 4-4
170

160 _:

150
0
140 '
0
­
130
0
_ .a
120 C
110 0
100

90 a)

80 a= S
70

60 "4

50

40 ____

30
3

20 M__ 2

Sum of all catch totals

Sum of low 1/4 catch totals

 Form VII-l.
GUN SPRINKLER OR BOOM IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location
, Observer
, Date
2. Crop
, Root zone depth ft, MAD %, MAD in

3. Soil: texture , tilth , avail, moisture in/ft

4. SMD q : near lateral in, at 1/4 point

in at mid-point in

SMD M : near lateral

in, at 1/4 point in at mid-point in

5. Sprinkler: make
, model ,

nozzle (taper or ring)

-inch

6. Sprinkler spacing
-ft by -ft, Irrig. duration hrs

7. Design sprinkler discharge

gpm at psi giving in/hr

8.
Actual sprinkler pressure and estimated average discharge:

initial psi, final

psi, ave psi estimated gpm

9. Test layout:

Catch Wind: speed

mnh

Row

........
F~1.......................direction

I
Q--4

Note wet or dry

2. ...............
.......
areas and sketch

Gthe wetting pattern

Left -Right over the circle.

10. Evaporation: initial

ml, final ml, loss ml
in

11. Average catch rates for

. hr test ( ml/hr = 1.0 in/hr):

System (sum all catch totals ml)

(number of totals
) X ( _____ - /hr
hrs)

Low 1/4 - (sum of low 1/4 catch totals ml)

(number of low 1/4 totals ml/hr
) X
( hrs)

= in/hr
12. Estimated average rate applied
over area:

96.3 X (estimated sprinkler discharge

gpm) in/hr

sprinkler spacing ( ft) X ( ft)

13. Comments
(wind drift, runoff, etc.)

 Form VII-I GUN OR BOOM SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EVALUATION (Cont.)

14. Container row test data in units of

_-, Volume/depth ml/in

Container spacing: in rows

ft, betweena rows ft

Start ,Stop ,Duration hr min

. hr

Container Numbers and Catch Volumes

I-" ight+Left M+ M

Lat- Left side of lateral Right side of lateral Side Totals

eral M1 M2 . Ml M2 m1+M2 1 lus

spac. Catch 1

(ft) No. Catch Catch Catch

Catch
No. Catch Catch Catch Catch Catch Totals

360

350

340_ C
330

320 ,

310 :
300 r
290
280
270
260
250 0
240

230

220 ___

210
200 ­ E
190 ___
_
180 f- C
170 4

160 r4

o
140 0.
130 0
120
4J _'

110 (
100 * __ __ __

80
r.

50 1
40 2

50

20
3
10 __1

Sum of all catch totals

Sum of low 1/4 catch totals

265

 Form VIII-l. TRICKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION

1. Location , Observer , Date

2. Crop: type , age years, spacing -by -feet

root depth ft, percent area covered or shaded %
3. Soil: texture , available moisture in/ft
4. Irrig: duration hrs, fre-quency days, MAD %, in
5. Filter pressure: inlet psi, outlet psi, loss psi

6. Emitter: make , type , point spacing ft

7. Rated discharge per emission point gph at psi
Emission points per plant _ , giving ___gallon per plant per day
8. Hose: diameter in, material _ , length ft, spacing ft
9. System
layout, general topography, and test locations:

10. System discharge gpm, No. of manifolds and blocks

11. Average test manifold emission point discharges at psi

Manifold (sum of all averages P gph

(number of averages )=__ph

Low 1/4 = (sum of low 1/4 averages gph) = gph

(number of low 1/4 averages )

12. Adjusted average emission point discharges at psi

System = (D__F ) X (manifold average gph) = _ph

Low 1/4 = (DCF ) X (manifold low 1/4 gph = gph

13. Comments:

266

 Form VIII-l. TRICKLE IRRIGATION EVALUATION (Cont.)

14. Discharge test volume collected in

min (1.0 gph = 63 ml/min)

Outlet Lateral Location on the Manifold

Location inlet end 1/3 down

2/3 down far end

on Lateral

ml gph ml gph ml gph ml gph

inlet A

end
B

Ave

1/3 A

down
B

Ave

2/3 A

down
B

Ave

far A

end
B

Ave

15. Lateral inlet psi psi psi psi

closed end psi psi psi psi

16. Wetted area ft 2 ft 2

ft 2 ft 2
per plant % % % %

17. Estimated average SMD in wetted soil volume

in

18. Minimum lateral inlet pressures, MLIP, on all operating manifolds:

Manifold: Test A
B C D E F G Ave.

Pressure-psi:

19. Discharge correction factor, DCF, for the system is:

DCF = 2.5 X (average MLIP

psi)

(average MLIP psi) + 1.5 X (test MLIP psi)

or if the emitter discharge exponent x =

_ is known

(average MLIP psi) X=

(test MLIP psi)

267

 Form IX-I. FURROW IRRIGATION WATER ADVANCE EVALUATION

1. Location , Observer , Date

2. Crop , Age , Root depth ft, Row: spacing in, length ft
3. Soil: texture , available moisture in/ft, SMD in
4. Irrigation: duration hrs, frequency days, MAD %, MAD in

5. A: B:
C: D:

Stream: gpm gpm gpm

gpm

rime - rin. Station Time - rin. Station Time - mn. Station Time - min. Station
Watch Dif. Cumu. fe Watch Diff Cum. fet Watch Dif Cumu. feet Watch Diff Cumu.' fet

0 6

6. Conmments: __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 Form IX-2. FURROW INFILTRATION EVALUATION

1. Location
, Observer , Date
2. Furrow: Identity , shape , condition

age _ , soil , moisture , slope %

Time Station A _ Fla, Rate Station 8_. Fow Rate Intake

Wotch Diff rin.c min I gpm

age ~-_ soi IW mostr _, m slop %

Accuracy rangeI

1 I
_ _I

__ I_ _ _ _ _
I _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _
-1 I
I _ _ _ _ _ _

6I

3. Cuomnt:

2. Fuownt:
__den _ ___ __y__, ___hape__ __,__cond
___
Idn .L __ _ _ _ sh p __ _ _ _ _ _ co d t o __
___on
_ _ _

age, sil, misure ,s269

 rorm X-1. BORDER-STRIP IRRIGATION INFILTRATION EVALUATION

1. Location
, Observer , Date

Root zone depth ft, MAD %, MAD in

2. Crop ,

texture , available moisture in/ft, SMD in

3. Soil:
4. Crop history:

5. Remarks:

6.

Cylinder Cylinder
Time Infi t rat ion Tifme InfilItration
minutes in ches minutes inches
watchl diff curnu depth diff cumu watch diff -1cumu depth diff cumu

Cylinder Cyli nder

Time Infiltration Time Inf iltration
minutes inches minutes inches
watch diff cumu depth diff cumu watchl diff cumu depth, diff cumu
 Form X-2. BORDER STRIP IRRIGATION WATER ADVANCE AND RECESSION EVALUATION

1. Location
, Observer , Date

2. Crop and Condition

, Border condition

3. Border: spacing
ft, strip width ft, wetted width ft, slope

4. Irrigation: duration,
frequency
, water spread
5. A: _ B:
C:
D:

Stream

Time - min. Station rime - min. Station Time - rmn. Stotion rime - rin. Staion
Watch I Cffumu feet Watchj 0/ff Cumu. feet Watch Vif Cumu. feet Watch 0iff Cumu. ft