University of Kirkuk

College of Engineering
Civil Department
third stage (A)

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF

BORDER IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Supervised by: Shno Muhammed

Prepared by: Mahmood younis Muhammed (A)
ABSTRACT.
Application efficiency (Ea) is the primary criterion for border irrigation
design and management. The objective of this study is to analyse the
behaviour of the application efficiency function of border irrigation with
respect to border length (L) and unit inlet flow rate (qo), given a target
minimum application depth. The results show that the application efficiency
function is unimodal with respect to L and qo. Optimality conditions are
derived for both the Ea(L) and Ea(qo) functions, based on which simple rules
that reduce the design and management procedure into a series of one-
dimensional optimization problems with respect to qo are developed. The
proposed procedure has a variable bounding step in which the feasible
ranges of L and qo are determined. This is then followed by a step wherein
alternative approximate optimum values of Ea(qo) are calculated for each
of the feasible values of L. Finally, the optimal Ea(qo) is selected from the
available alternatives based on sensitivity analysis and other locally
pertinent practical criteria. In addition, the advantages and limitations of
advance-phase and post-advance-phase inflow cut-off options and their
effects on system design and management are discussed. The distance-
based (advance-phase) inflow cut-off option offers two main advantages
over post-advance-phase cut-off: operational convenience, and a lower
degree of sensitivity of design and management prescriptions to
inaccuracies in inflow measurements and to non-uniformities in the
distribution of inlet flow over the width of the border. However, the results
of the study also show that, depending on the parameter set, there exist
limiting conditions that preclude the applicability of the distance-based
cutoff criterion in border irrigation management. Even when the distance-
based inflow cutoff criterion is feasible, the corresponding design and
management scenario can be sub-optimal, in which case a near-optimum
operation scenario can be realized only with post-advance-phase inflow cut-
off
Border irrigation
border irrigation is widely used to irrigate close growing crops that are
susceptible to stem and/or crown injuries when exposed to prolonged
inundation. Properly designed and managed border strips can apply
irrigation water at high levels of efficiency and uniformity and with minimal
adverse effects to the environment. The objective of border irrigation
design is to maximize a measure of merit (performance criterion) while
minimizing some undesirable consequences. The performance criterion
could be economic or physical. In either case, mathematical models are
used as design and management tools to relate the selected performance
criterion with the decision variables. Widely used and relatively well tested
surface irrigation mathematical models, such as SRFR (Strelkoff et al.,
1998),
can accurately simulate processes in irrigation borders by using either the
zero-inertia or the kinematic-wave models, depending on the border bed
slope. While SRFR is well suited to solving problems that involve system
evaluation, its lack of optimal search capability limits its utility as a design
and management tool. Simplified solutions that relate border irrigation
performance indices with dimensionless variables were developed based
on the zero-inertia model (Yitayew and Fangmeier, 1984; Strelkoff and
Shatanawi, 1985; El Hakim et al., 1988). Site and irrigation specific charts
and equations that relate performance indices with pertinent independent
variables were proposed by Reddy (1980), Shatanawi and Strelkoff (1984),
and Holzapfel et al. (1986). Yitayew and Fangmeier (1985) used
dimensionless curves (Yitayew and Fangmeier, 1984) to develop a
procedure for the design of the reuse system of border strip irrigation. The
dimensionless solutions of Strelkoff and Shatanawi (1985) form the basis
for a border irrigation system design and management program, called
BORDER, developed by Strelkoff et al. (1996). For infiltration events that
can adequately be modeled using the single-term Kostiakov and the NRCS
equations, BORDER can be a useful design and management tool. However,
in cases where more general infiltration functions are most appropriate, in
order to accurately describe the infiltration process, BORDER cannot be
used as a design and management aid. Optimal design approaches that use
economic cost/benefit criteria as the objective function were proposed for
 Nonetheless, these procedures, generally, emphasize the development of
a feasible-yet-satisfactory, instead of optimal, design. This article presents
analyses of the application efficiency function of border irrigation systems.
The type of border considered here is a graded and free-draining border
without cross-slope and with no furrows. Soil and surface roughness are
assumed homogeneous throughout the border, and inlet flow rate is
considered to be uniformly distributed over the border width. The analyses
show that the application efficiency (Ea) of a border irrigation system is
unimodal with respect to length and unit inlet flow rate. Based on these
results, optimality conditions are derived for the Ea(L) and Ea(qo) functions.
The advantages and limitations of advancephase and post-advance-phase
inflow cutoff options and their effects on design and management are
discussed. Finally, the article proposes a simple design and management
procedure for graded, free-draining border irrigation systems.

DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT CRITERIA AND VARIABLES

Considering the type of border described above, the performance of a
border irrigation event can be evaluated using three different indices:
efficiency (application efficiency, Ea [%]), adequacy (water requirement
efficiency, Er [%]), and uniformity (distribution uniformity, Du *−+). Ea, Er,
and Du can be expressed as (Zerihun et al., 1997):

Where L = border strip length (m), Lov = length of the border reach over
which the infiltrated amount equals or exceeds Zr (m), Cd = unit conversion
factor (10−3 m3/L), qo = unit inlet flow rate (L/min/m), tco = cutoff time
(min), Z = infiltrated amount (m3/m), Zr = net irrigation requirement
(m3/m), Zmin = minimum infiltrated amount (m3/m), and Zav = average
infiltrated amount (m3/m). Economic and environmental rationales suggest
that application efficiency is the primary performance criterion in the
design of surface irrigation systems (e.g., Zerihun et al., 2001). With Ea as
the performance criterion, the border irrigation design problem can be
posed as:

Where DUmin = minimum acceptable level of distribution uniformity (−),

and Ci represents a set of constraints that can be categorized as variable
bounds, conservation-like, and management related. A complete list of
these constraints is given by Zerihun et al. (1999). Note that the first
constraint imposes a restriction on the minimum cumulative infiltration and
target Er. The constraints can be implicitly embedded within the hydraulic
simulation model or explicitly enforced by the optimization algorithm,
depending on whether a physically based model or explicit empirical
functions are used to evaluate the terms in the constraint functions. In this
study, a simulation model is used to evaluate the terms in the constraint
functions; hence, most of the constraints need not be enforced explicitly.
For reasons of simplicity, the only constraint that is explicitly considered in
the current analysis is the requirement on Zmin. Note that the above
formulation considers unit inlet flow rate (qo), border length (L), and cutoff
time (tco) as design variables. While distance-based cutoff criterion is
widely used in border irrigation management, cutoff distance can always be
expressed in terms of an equivalent cutoff time. Thus, a time-based inflow
cutoff criterion is the more general of the two and is used here.
The determination of border width is an important element of the physical
design of irrigation borders. However, the study presented here is based on
a one-dimensional flow analysis; hence, border width is selected as a
function of available flow rate at the field supply channel, field width, width
of available machinery, topography, top soil depth, and preferred aspect
ratio. To the extent that width is determined on the basis of considerations
that are not explicitly related to performance, it is not considered as a
design variable here. For practical design and management purposes, the
solution of equation 4 can be reduced to the solution of a series of one-
dimensional problems (Zerihun et al., 2001), simplifying the problem
significantly. In subsequent sections, the Ea(L) and Ea(qo) functions are
analyzed separately to establish the existence/absence of convexity and
unimodality. Based on the results of the analyses, simple equations that can
be used to calculate approximate optimal length and unit inlet flow rate are
developed.

APPLICATION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF BORDER

LENGTH
Given the net irrigation requirement (Zr), target water requirement
efficiency (Ert), and unit inlet flow rate (qo), the application efficiency,
Ea(L), can be given as:

where CL = Ert Zr/qo. At a stationary point, where dEa(L)/dL = 0, the

following holds:

where yL ′ = d2 tco(L)/dL2 (Zerihun et al., 2001). Since CL, L, and tco(L)

are all positive quantities over the entire range of L, the Ea(L) function is
concave at a stationary point, and the stationary point represents a
maximum for:

Given a parameter set and qo combination and a requirement that Zmin =

Zr, intuitive reasoning and experience with simulation results show that
tco(L) is an increasing convex function of length. A power function of the
following form can be used to relate tco and L (figs. 1a through 1e):

where 1 (min/m2), 2 (−), and 3 (min) are empirical curve-fitting

parameters. Note that if 2 > 1, then equation 8 holds and Ea(L) is concave at
a stationary point. In order to determine the domain of 2, simulation
experiments were performed using SRFR (Strelkoff et al., 1998). The
combinations of unit inlet flow rate and the parameter set (i.e., bed slope,
surface roughness, and infiltration) used were selected such that a broad
range of irrigation conditions was taken into account (table 1). Equation 9
was then fitted to the tco(L) data obtained using simulation experiments,
and the regression results are summarized in table 2 and figure 1. Figure 1a
represents an irrigation scenario that occurs in a border strip with a low
bed slope and on a high intake rate soil with a very high surface roughness.
Figure 1f, on the other hand, represents an irrigation scenario at the
opposite end of the spectrum, where infiltration rate and surface
roughness are very low and bed slope is steep. Figures 1b through 1e
represent irrigation scenarios that could be described as physically realistic.
Note that most physically realistic irrigation scenarios fall between the two
extreme bounds represented by data sets 1 and 6 (table 1, figs. 1a and 1f).
equation 7 is less than zero at a stationary point. Hence, a stationary point
on Ea(L) represents a maximum point. The absence of a local minimum
automatically precludes the existence of multiple local maxima. Therefore,
the stationary point on the Ea(L) function is a global maximum, and the
Ea(L) function is unimodal.
MAXIMUM APPLICATION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF
BORDER LENGTH
Combining the first-order optimality condition (eq. 6) and the power-law
expression for tco(L) (eq. 9) yields an expression for the approximate
optimal length (Lopt ′)
 The parameters of equation 9 (1, 2, and 3) can be estimated using the
three-point method (Zerihun et al., 2001):

and L3 < L2 < L1. Given a parameter set and unit inlet flow rate (qo), the
following procedure can be used to determine the parameters of equation
10: (1) determine L1 as the length of a block that is irrigated as a unit
(discussion on how to determine L1 is presented in the design section of
this article); (2) select the minimum acceptable length (L3) based on
operational and economic considerations; (3) determine rL using equation
12; (4) determine L2; (5) determine tco(L1), tco(L2), simulation model, such
using equation 11.

APPLICATION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF UNIT INLET

FLOW RATE
Given a parameter set, the net irrigation requirement (Zr), target water
requirement efficiency (Ert), and border length (L), the application
efficiency, Ea(qo), can be expressed as:
 where yq ′ = d2 tco(qo)/dqo 2 (Zerihun et al., 2001). Since Cq, qo, and
tco(qo) are all positive quantities over the entire range of qo, the Ea(qo)
function is concave at a stationary point, and the stationary point
represents a maximum for:

Given a parameter set and L combination and a requirement that Zmin =

Zr, intuitive reasoning and experience with the results of surface irrigation
simulations suggest that tco(qo) is a decreasing convex function of flow
rate (fig. 2). A power function of the following form can be used to relate
tco with unit inlet flow rate (qo):
 where 1 (min2+1/L 2), 2 (−), and 3 (min) are empirical curve-fitting
parameters. Using equation 17 and the first-order optimality condition (eq.
14), it can be shown that at a stationary point:

Comparing equations 18 and 16 shows that a stationary point on the

Ea(qo) function represents a maximum for 2 < −1. In order to determine the
domain of 2, simulation experiments were performed using five data sets
that cover a wide range of irrigation conditions using SRFR (Strelkoff et al.,
1998). The combinations of border length and the parameter set (i.e., bed
slope, surface roughness, and infiltration) used were selected such that a
broad range of irrigation conditions was taken into account (table 1).
Equation 17 was then fitted to the tco(qo) data obtained using simulation
experiments, and the regression results are summarized in table 2 and
figure 2. Figure 2a represents an irrigation scenario that occurs in a border
strip with a low bed slope and on a high intake rate soil with a very high
surface roughness. Figure 2f, on the other hand, represents an irrigation
scenario at the opposite end of the spectrum, where infiltration rate and
surface roughness are very low and bed slope is steep. Figures 2b through
2e represent irrigation scenarios that can be described as realistic. Note
that most physically realistic irrigation scenarios fall between the two
extreme bounds represented by data sets 1 and 6 (table 1, figs. 2a and 2f).
Moreover, figures 2a, 2c, and 2e represent irrigation management
scenarios where inflow cutoff occurred during the advance phase, and
figures 2b, 2d, and 2f represent conditions in which inflow is cutoff in the
post-advance phase. The results summarized in figure 2 show that in all the
irrigation scenarios considered, regardless of the inflow cutoff option used,
cutoff time remains a monotonic decreasing power function of unit inlet
automatically precludes the existence of multiple local maxima. Therefore,
the stationary point on the Ea(qo) function is a global maximum, and the
Ea(qo) function is unimodal.

MAXIMUM APPLICATION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF

UNIT INLET FLOW RATE
Combining the first-order optimality condition (eq. 14) and the power-
law expression for tco(qo) (eq. 17) yields an expression for an approximate
optimal unit inlet flow rate (qopt ′):

The parameters of equation 17 (1, 2, and 3) can be estimated using the

three-point method:
 and qo3 < qo2 < qo1. Given a parameter set and border length, the
following procedure can be used to determine 1, 2, and 3: (1) qo1 can be
taken as the maximum non-erosive unit inlet flow rate; (2) determine the
minimum unit inlet flow rate (qo3) as the minimum unit inlet flow rate that
can reach the downstream end of the border or the minimum unit inlet
flow rate required for adequate spread, whichever is greater; (3) determine
rq using equation 21; (4) determine qo2 using equation 21; (5) determine
t(qo1), t(qo2), and tco(qo3) using a simulation model, such that Zmin = Zr in
each case; and (6) determine 1, 2, and 3 using equation 2

EVALUATION OF OPTIMUM LENGTH AND FLOW RATE

EQUATIONS
Six test problems (table 3) were used in the evaluation of the approximate
optimality conditions (eqs. 10 and 19). The surface irrigation simulation
model, SRFR (Strelkoff et al., 1998), was used in the analysis. Data sets 7
through 9 (table 3) were used to test the optimality condition derived for L,
(eq. 10) and data sets 10 through 12 (table 3) were used to test the
optimality conditions derived for qo (eq. 19). The approximate optimum
solutions, [Lopt ′, Ea(Lopt ′)+ and *qopt′, Ea(qopt′)+, were calculated using
the procedures outlined above (fig. 3, table 4). The actual optimum
solutions, [Lopt, Ea(Lopt)] and [qopt, Ea(qopt)], were determined based
onrepeated runs of SRFR (fig. 3). Note that all the approximate optimum
solutions, Ea(Lopt′) and Ea(qopt′), are within three percentage points of the
actual optimum Ea values (fig. 3, table 4). Given the imprecision involved in
the determination of the system parameters and numerical errors, the
results are satisfactory for practical design purposes. Note that figures 3a,
3b, 3d, and 3e represent irrigation management scenarios in which inflow
cutoff occurred during the advance phase, and figures 3c and 3f represent
conditions where the inflow is cutoff in the post-advance phase.

INFLOW CUTOFF OPTIONS: ADVANTAGES, LIMITATIONS,

AND EFFECTS ON DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT
In irrigation borders, inflow cutoff can occur in the course of the advance
phase or at the end of the wetting phase. Advance-phase cutoff offers
some practical advantages over post-advance cutoff. Wattenburger and
Clyma (1989a, 1989b) and Clemmens (1998) observed that level basin
designs that use distance-based inflow cutoff criterion (i.e., advance-phase
inflow cutoff) are less sensitive to wide variations in decision variables and
system parameters. Clemmens (1998) stated that design decisions based on
distance-based cutoff criterion are more transferable to irrigators and allow
basin designs to be adapted to local practices. Experience with simulation
experiments shows that similar observations can be made with regard to
the sensitivity of the Ea(qo) function of border irrigation systems when
inflow cutoff occurs during the advance phase (e.g., fig. 4a). Advance-phase
cutoff has the effect of dampening the influence that changes in qo can
have on the runoff fraction (Rf) over a large interval of qo (fig. 4a). As a
result, Ea becomes nearly insensitive to changes in qo over a relatively wide
range (a 300% increase in qo resulted only in a 4.5% change in Ea, fig. 4a).
As can be seen from figures 3a through 3c, the inflow cutoff option used
does not have a significant effect on the sensitivity of Ea to changes in L. In
general, the Ea(L) function is distinctly unimodal and attains its peak value
where Rf approximately equals Df, regardless of the cutoff option used
(figs. 3a through 3c, 4c, and 4d). On the other hand, Ea(qo) may not
necessarily attain its maximum value within physically realistic ranges of qo,
if inflow cutoff is to occur in the course of the advance phase (figs. 3e, 4a,
and 4b). Even in the cases where inflow cutoff occurs during the advance
phase, the preceding theoretical observation on the
 Unimodality of Ea(qo) is valid. The fact that tco(qo) is a decreasing
convex function (fig. 2, table 2), irrespective of the cutoff option used,
confirms the general validity of the optimality condition derived above (eq.
19). However, the very low sensitivity of Ea(qo) over a wide range of qo,
when inflow cutoff occurs during the advance phase, means that a distinct
maximum could not be attained within realistic ranges of qo. In which case,
the optimality condition developed above is still applicable, but the
optimum qo, calculated as such, may not be the theoretical optimum. It
could, instead, be a value close to the maximum feasible unit inlet flow rate
(fig. 3e). The very low sensitivity of Ea(qo) over a wide range of qo, when
inflow cutoff occurs during the advance phase, is a desirable property
because errors in flow measurements or non-uniform distribution of inlet
flow rate across the border can have minimal impact on the reliability of
design and management prescriptions. In general, whenever it is feasible,
and when near-optimum management scenarios are achievable, border
design and management can preferably be based on distance-based cutoff
criterion (i.e., advance-phase inflow cutoff option). However, advance-
phase inflow cutoff is feasible only if the combination of system parameters
and variables is such that the crop root zone reservoir can be replenished
to the extent desired (say Zmin = Zr), even when inflow cutoff occurs prior
to, or at, the completion of advance.

INFLOW CUTOFF OPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Given a unit inlet flow rate and a parameter set (infiltration parameters,
the Manning roughness coefficient, Zr, and bed slope), there exists a
minimum threshold border length (Lt) below which a border strip becomes
too short to be operated under the distance-based inflow cutoff criterion
and still meet the requirement that Zmin = Zr. In other words,
 For L < Lt, the duration of the advance phase becomes too short for the
surface storage volume to be sufficiently large to replenish the root zone in
full (figs. 5a and 5b). For any given unit inlet flow rate and a parameter set
mix, the corresponding Lt can be defined as the border length that yields an
infiltration profile in which Zmin = Zr for R = 100%, where R = (inflow) cutoff
distance expressed as a percentage of the border length (figs. 5a and 5b).
Note that Lt is a dynamic quantity that changes in the course of an
irrigation season with changes in irrigation parameters. A similar
observation can be made with respect to border unit inlet flow rate (qo).
Given a combination of a field parameter set and border length, the
corresponding threshold unit inlet flow rate value (qot) can be defined as
the minimum qo below which the requirement Zmin = Zr cannot be met if
the border strip is to be operated under the distance-based inflow cutoff
criterion (fig. 5c). Although Zr can be reduced to overcome this problem,
reducing Zr has its own problems. Lowering Zr means opting for a lighter
irrigation, which in turn leads to more frequent irrigation. This may not
always be compatible with the high dose, low frequency nature of surface-
irrigated systems. In addition, it is important to recognize that even though
Zr can be adjusted to achieve a feasible irrigation scenario with advance-
phase cutoff, such a scenario may correspond to a sub-optimal solution
that is inferior to the solution that can be obtained if postadvance-phase
cutoff is used.
There exist irrigation scenarios that have two threshold unit inlet flow
rates, qot1 and qot2, where the interval qot1 < qo < qot2 represents the
range of qo in which distance-based cutoff is feasible (fig. 5d). However,
outside this range (i.e., in the ranges qo < qot1 and qot2 < qo), only the
post-advance inflow cutoff option is feasible. In the range qo < qot1, the
surface storage volume at the end of the advance phase is not sufficiently
large to replenish the root zone in full; hence, inflow cutoff needs to occur
after completion of the advance phase. On the other hand, as qo increases,
the duration of the advance phase [ta(qo, L)] progressively shortens, and
eventually as qo approaches qot2, ta(qo, L) becomes shorter than the
duration of the recession phase. This causes the location of Zmin to shift
from the downstream end to the inlet end of the border, at which point qo
passes a threshold with respect to its effect on the cutoff time. The tco
needed to meet the requirement Zmin = Zr at the upstream end of the
border becomes virtually insensitive to further increases in qo (fig. 6a, eq.
A.1 in the Appendix). In contrast to tco(qo), which remains nearly constant
with further increases in qo, advance time to the downstream end, ta(qo,
L), continues to decline at a relatively higher rate (fig. 6a). Eventually, as qo
exceeds qot2, ta(qo, L) falls below tco(qo) and continues to do so with
further increases in qo, making distance-based cutoff criterion inapplicable
in the range qot2 < qo.
The insensitivity of the tco(qo) function, in the range where Zmin occurs at
the inlet end of the border, can be explained

using an equation that relates cutoff time (tco) with the required intake
opportunity time, req(Zr), and the duration of the depletion phase (tdep):
 As can be seen from figure 6a, tdep is virtually insensitive to changes in
qo in the range where Zmin occurs at the inlet end of the border. In
addition, for a given Zr and infiltration parameter set, req(Zr) is a constant.
Thus, equation 22 shows that if the requirement Zmin = Zr is to be met,
then tco(qo) also needs to be nearly constant. Note that tco can also be
insensitive to changes in L when border lengths are very short (figs. 1c and
1d). Here as well, it is the combined effect of a constant req(Zr) and a
nearly insensitive tdep(L) (fig. 6b) that renders tco nearly insensitive to
changes in L for short borders. In addition, it can be seen from figures 5a
and 5b that if L is increased beyond Lt the cutoff ratio decreases steadily.
However, if L becomes excessively high, then the consequent progressive
steepening of the advance curve and the final infiltration profile near the
downstream end of the border make the cutoff distance very sensitive to
changes in L. As a result, the inflow cutoff distance begins to grow at a
faster rate than L; hence, R begins to back up (fig. 5b). Depending on the
range of L considered in the analysis, R may back up to 100% (fig. 5b). This
suggests that a second threshold border length may exist. In general, the
question of a second threshold border length is pertinent only when
extremely long borders are considered (fig. 5b). Such border lengths are
physically unrealistic, and hence the issue of a second threshold border
length is of no practical design and management significance.

INFLOW CUTOFF OPTIONS AND DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

IMPLICATIONS
Based on the preceding discussion, the following inferences are drawn:
(1) regardless of the cutoff option used the Ea(L) and Ea(qo) functions are
unimodal; however, when inflow cutoff occurs during the advance phase,
Ea could be nearly insensitive to changes in qo, and as a result, the
maximum Ea may not be attained within physically realistic ranges of qo;
(2) there exist limiting conditions, which are dependent on the field
parameter set, and (3) even when distance-based inflow cutoff criterion is
feasible, the corresponding design and management scenario could be sub-
optimal, in which case, a near-optimal operation scenario can be realized
only with post-advance-phase cutoff.
Figure 6. Relative sensitivity of cutoff time (tco), advance time to the downstream end
(ta), and depletion time (tdep) as a function of: (a) unit inlet flow rate (data set 10),
and (b) border length (data set 2).

EXAMPLE DESIGN PROBLEM

It is required to determine the combination of border length and flow rate
that yields maximum application efficiency given specific field conditions.
The field parameter set used in this example is: So = 0.0008, n = 0.1 m1/6, k
= 15 mm/ha, a = 0.3, fo = 5 mm/h, and Zr = 75 mm, where k, a, and fo are
the coefficients and exponent of the modified Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration
function. The procedure used to determine the optimal L−qo combination
is described below: 1. Establish the feasible range of L and qo. 1a.
Considering an alfalfa crop, the maximum flow rate (qmax) calculated using
equation 23 is 2226 L/ min/m. This is an extremely high value to be
considered realistic; hence, a lower value of 500 L/min/m is used as qmax.
Note that qmax corresponds to qo1 in equations 20 and 21 (table 5). 1b.
The field length (Lf) is 400 m, and the minimum acceptable border length
(Lmin) is taken as 100 m. 1c. The minimum unit inlet flow rate (qmin)
calculated using equation 24 for L = Lf, is 40 L/min/m. Using SRFR (Strelkoff
et al., 1998), it can be shown that when qo = qmin = 40 L/min/m, the
irrigation stream can advance to a distance well beyond Lf. Hence, Lf <
Lmax, and the maximum possible border length (L1) is 400 m. 1d. The
feasible set for L that contains a whole-number divisor of L1 that is greater
than or equal to Lmin is: Lfs = {400, 200, 100}. 1e. Determine qmin for each
element of Lfs using equation 24. For L = 400 m, qmin = 40 L/min/m; for L =
200 m, qmin = 20 L/min/m; and for L =100 m, qmin = 10 L/min/m. Note that
the qmin values here correspond to qo3 in equations 20 and 21 (table 5)?
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
Application efficiency is the primary criterion in border irrigation system
design and management. The application efficiency function of border
irrigation systems is unimodal with respect to length and unit inlet flow
rate. Optimality conditions are derived for the Ea(L) and Ea(qo) functions.
Differences between the solutions obtained using the approximate
optimality conditions derived here and the actual optimal solutions are less
than three percentage points. Given the imprecision involved in the
determination of the system parameters and numerical errors, the results
are satisfactory for practical purposes. The advantages and limitations of
advance-phase and post-advance-phase inflow cutoff options and their
effects on design and management are discussed. Based on the optimality
conditions derived here, simple design and management rules are
developed.

APPENDIX: RELATIVE SENSITIVITY EQUATION

The equation used to calculate relative sensitivity in figures 6 and 7 (e.g.,
Zerihun et al., 1996) is:

where RSm is the relative sensitivity at the mth perturbation of x, x is the

independent variable, xo is the reference value of the independent
variable, f is a function whose sensitivity is being analyzed, fo = f(xo), and:
NOMENCLATURE
a = exponent of the modified Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration function
CL = constant expressed as Ert Zr/qo
Cq = constant expressed as Ert Zr L
Ea = application efficiency
Er = water requirement efficiency
Ert = target water requirement efficiency
DU = distribution uniformity
DUmin = minimum acceptable level of distribution uniformity (−)
fo = coefficient of the linear term of the modified Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration function
k = coefficient of the power term in the modified Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration function
L = border length Lf = field length Lmax = maximum advance distance
corresponding to maximum non-erosive flow rate
Lopt = optimal border length Lopt ′ = approximate optimal border length
n = Manning roughness coefficient qo = inlet flow rate qo1 = upper bound of the
feasible set for qo
qo2 = flow rate value calculated as the product rq qo1
qo3 = lower bound of the feasible set of qo
qmax = maximum non-erosive flow rate qopt = optimal border inlet flow rate
qopt ′ = approximate optimal border length
rq = constant calculated as (qo3/qo1)1/2
So = border bed slope
St. = subject to ta = advance time tco = cutoff time W = border width
Zmin = minimum infiltrated amount
Zr = required amount of application
req = required intake opportunity time
REFERENCES
Clemmens, A. J. 1998. Level basin design based on cutoff criteria.
Irrig. and Drain. Systems 12(2): 85-113.
El-Hakim, O., W. Clyma, and E. V. Richardson. 1988. Performance
functions of border irrigation systems. J. Irrig. and Drain. Eng.,
ASCE 114(1):118-129.
Hart, W. E., H. G. Collins, G. Woodard, and A. J. Humphereys.
1980. Chapter 13: Design and operation of surface irrigation
systems. In Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems.
ASAE Monograph No. 3. M. E. Jensen, ed. St. Joseph, Mich.:
ASAE.
Holzapfel, E. A., M. A. Marino, and J. Chevez-Morales. 1986.
Surface irrigation optimization models. J. Irrig. and Drain.
Eng., ASCE 104(3): 275-281.
Holzapfel, E. A., and M. A. Marino. 1987. Surface-irrigation
nonlinear optimization models. J. Irrig. and Drain. Eng., ASCE
113(3): 379-391.
Reddy, J. M. 1980. Irrigation system improvement by simulation
and optimization. PhD diss. Fort Collins, Colo.: Colorado State
University.
Reddy, J. M., and W. Clyma. 1981. Optimal design of border
irrigation systems. J. Irrig. and Drain. Div., ASCE 107(3):
289-306.
Shatanawi, M. R., and T. Strelkoff. 1984. Management contours for
border irrigation. J. Irrig. and Drain. Eng., ASCE 110(4):
393-399.
Strelkoff, T., and M. R. Shatanawi. 1985. Normalized graphs of
border irrigation performance. J. Irrig. and Drain. Eng., ASCE