cmutsvangwa irrigation systems design: dept. of civil and water eng.

, nust, 20/04/2007 14:48:11

Chapter 6

Border irrigation
The field is divided into a number of strips and the strips are separated by low
embankments or levees (borders). Water is diverted from the field channel into a strip and
the discharge into the field is controlled by gates. When the desired volume of water has
been delivered to the strip, the inflow is turned off (cut-off). The water not infiltrated is
temporarily stored on the ground surface and moves down the strip to complete the
irrigation. The water flows slowly towards lower end, wetting the soil as it advances. Any
excess water is removed by collector drains and the flow rate must be such that the
desired volume of water applied to the strip should be equal or slightly less that the amount
required.

The surface between two embankments should be essentially be level. This helps in
covering the entire width of land strip. The average slope ranges from 0.002 to 0.004
(<5%) with a discharge of 0.015 to 0.3m2.s depending on soil type. The schematic
illustration of a border strip is shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b).

This type of irrigation is suitable to a soil which is sufficiently pervious. It is suitable for all
crops, most soil and best for moderate low to moderately high intake rate. It is rarely used
on course sand soil and soils of extremely low intake rate.

Advantages

• Field application efficiency is good

• Labour requirements low
• Width of strip can be designed to accommodate farm machinery

Disadvantages of border irrigation

• smooth topography or deep soils are required for adequate levelling
• levelling costs may be high
• growing crops may be damaged
• extra tillage is required for crusting soils
• a light irrigation less than 25mm is difficult to apply

Types of borders
Main types of borders include level and graded borders.

Level Borders

• water application is accomplished by ponding

• no slopes in the direction of flow
• closed at the ends to retain water
• irrigation stream large enough to cover entire strip
• stream turned off when desired volume has been applied

Chapter 6 Level Borders

cmutsvangwa irrigation systems design: dept. of civil and water eng., nust, 20/04/2007 14:48:11

Collector drain
1.5 to 15m
Field channel

90 to 400m

Low embankments

Fig. 1(a): The schematic illustration of a border strip

Fig. 1(b): The schematic illustration of a border strip

Adaptability of level borders

• no crop restrictions
• soils with moderate to low intake rate, an approximate intake family of < 2. This
implies that they are suitable to soils with low intake rates
• smooth gentle and uniform gentles slopes

Advantages of low level borders

• different crops in sequence can be grown without no changes in design
• high application efficiency
• less loss due to runoff and deep percolation

Chapter 6 Level Borders

cmutsvangwa irrigation systems design: dept. of civil and water eng., nust, 20/04/2007 14:48:11

• maximum use of rainfall

• leaching operations made easier
• less labour intensive and less skilled labour required
• ideally suitable to mechanisation

Limitations
• accurate levelling

Design equations for level borders

The net infiltration time, Tn or the opportunity to=time required for an intake of selected
depth is given by:

1
⎡⎛ Fn − C ⎞⎤ b
Tn = ⎢⎜ ⎟⎥ , min
⎣⎝ a ⎠⎦

Where: Fn = in = net application desired (net application depth, mm)

Tt
= fraction advance ratio and is a function of the distribution pattern efficiency and
Tn
the values are given in Table 1 or can be determined from graphs (Fig. 2: USDA-
SCS, 1974).

Where: Tt =advance time

Tn =net infiltration time or opportunity time

Table 1: Ratio of Tt and Tn for various distribution efficiency values

Distribution Ratio (Tt/Tn)

pattern efficiency
95 0.16
90 0.28
85 0.40
80 0.58
75 0.80
70 1.08
65 1.45
60 1.90
55 2.45
50 3.20

The basin length, L is given as:

6 × 10 4 (Qu )Tt
L= , m
a(Tt )
b

+ C + 1798(n ) 8 (Qu ) 16 Tt 16
3 9 3

1+ b

Chapter 6 Level Borders

cmutsvangwa irrigation systems design: dept. of civil and water eng., nust, 20/04/2007 14:48:11

Qu =unit flow, Qu =Q/width of border, m2/s

Time to cut-off, Tco is the time required to put the gross depth of irrigation (ig or Fg)

in L
Tco =
600Qu ea ed

Where: ea is the application efficiency and ed is the distribution pattern efficiency as a

percentage.
When the application efficiency, ea= 100%, all water turned in the basin is infiltrated, and
the above equation becomes:

in L
Tco =
600Qu ed

H ridge = 1.25 × d max

3 9 3
d max = 2250n 8 Qu 16 Tco 16 , mm

If Tt>Tco, then Tco = Tt in the above equation.

Fig. 2: Chart for the estimating efficiency of a level border

Chapter 6 Level Borders

cmutsvangwa irrigation systems design: dept. of civil and water eng., nust, 20/04/2007 14:48:11

Graded Borders

• The border has a slope in the direction of irrigation and the ends are not usually
closed (blocked).
• The stream of water is applied in time equal to, or slightly less than that needed by
the soil to absorb that net amount required.
• When the desired volume of water has been delivered on to the strip, the stream is
turned off. The water temporarily stored on the ground surface then moves on down
the strip and completes the irrigation.

Adaptability
• Suitable for close growing crops
• Most soils (intake family 0r 0.5 to 3)
• Not suitable for coarse sand soils of low intake
• Slope <0.005

Advantages
• Field application good
• Labour requirement low
• Use of machinery
• Means of removal excess surface water

Limitations
• Elimination of cross slope
• Smooth topography
• Skilled irrigators

Design equations

High gradient borders S>0.004m/m

(Qu )0.2 n1.2

Trl = , min
120S 1.6

Where: Trl =recession lag time, min

Qu =unit flow, m2/m
n =Manning’s roughness coefficient
S =surface slope, m/m

The recession lag time is the time between cut-off of water at the head of the field and the
disappearance of water at the head of the field. The recession lag time for high gradient
border (steeper slopes) may be ignored because flow reaches normal depth quickly. The
manning roughness coefficient varies with crops, stage of crop growth and degree of
roughness of the soil surface. Normally a high values is used for maximum flow and a low
value for minimum floe rate.

Low graded borders S<0.004

Chapter 6 Level Borders

cmutsvangwa irrigation systems design: dept. of civil and water eng., nust, 20/04/2007 14:48:11

(Qu )0.2 n1.2

Trl = , min
0.0094n(Qu )
0.175 1.6
⎡ ⎤
120 ⎢ S + ⎥
⎢⎣ (Tn )0.88 S 0.5 ⎥⎦
Where; Tn =net infiltration time, min

For low gradient borders, the depth of flow at the head of border is less than the normal
depth, i.e. hydraulic slope required in Manning’s equation is no longer equal to the surface
slope as in the case of uniform flow at normal depth.

And Tco = Tn − Trl

0.00167in L
Qu = , m2/sec
(Tn − Trl )ed
Where: in =net depth of irrigation, mm
L =length of border, m
ed =distribution pattern efficiency, %.

The distribution pattern efficiency accounts for water loss due to deep percolation. It is the
ratio of the desired net depth of application to the gross of application depth (Distribution
pattern efficiency (ratio of the volume in crop root zone to the volume delivered to
application surface). Greater efficiencies can be expected on gentle slopes than on steep
slopes and in soil that have a moderate to moderately high intake rate, than on soils that
have either a low or extremely high intake rate. Some of the roughness coefficients, n
used in border irrigation are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Roughness coefficients, n

Type of surface n
Smooth, bare soil surfaces non cultivated, oil mulch-treated citrus 0.04
Small grain, drill rows parallel to border strip 0.1
Alfalfa, mint, broadcast small grain and similar crops 0.15
Dense sod crops, small grain with drill rows across the border 0.25

Design limitations
Design inflow rate, depth of flow, border slope and length should not exceed established
limitations to avoid erosion and other hydraulic constraints, and the final design should be
checked.

The depth at the head of the high gradient border at normal depth at uniform flow is
computed as ( d hhg ):

d hhg = 1000(Qu ) (n )0.6 S −0.3 ,

0.6
mm for a S>0.004

and for a low gradient border is given as:

Chapter 6 Level Borders

cmutsvangwa irrigation systems design: dept. of civil and water eng., nust, 20/04/2007 14:48:11

d hlg = 2454(Trl ) (Qu )0.5625 n 0.375

0.1875
mm for S<0.004

The depth of flow at the head of the border strip must not exceed the border ridge height,
less an allowance for freeboard ( ≅ 0.25d hhg ).

For non-sod forming crops (alfalfa and small grains), the unit maximum flow rate is given
as:

(
Qu max = 1.765 × 10 −4 S o−0.75 ) ,m2/s ()

and for well established dense sod crops, pasture and grass, the unit maximum flow rate is
given as:

(
Qu max = 3.53 × 10 −4 S o−0.75 ) m2/s
Maximum slope:

The unit minimum flow is given as:

Qu min = 5.95 × 10 −6 LS o0.5 n −1 m2/s

2
⎛ n in ⎞
S o max = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 0.0117ed (Tn − Trl ) ⎠

The maximum length is limited by the maximum unit flow rate (Qu) and erosions
( Lmax ≤ 400m ).

For low intake soils and low slopes:

Qu max ed (Tn − Trl )

Lmax =
0.00167in

Design of borders with no runoff

Higher irrigation efficiencies are achieved and surface runoff is eliminated by:
• By blocking the end and reducing inflow rate
• Extending border length and impounding the runoff on the length extensions.

Border extensions
The border extension length, Le is computed from:

in
Le = ,m
1000 S o

Where: Le =length extension and is equivalent to the length adequately irrigated

by the volume of run-off from an open ended border.

Chapter 6 Level Borders

cmutsvangwa irrigation systems design: dept. of civil and water eng., nust, 20/04/2007 14:48:11

in =desired net application depth

⎛1− e ⎞
or Le = ⎜ ⎟ri rn L ,m
⎝ 100 ⎠

Where: Le =allowable length extensions with end blocks

e =distribution pattern efficiency, %
ri, rn =factors that express the effect of intake and roughness on runoff
(Table 1)
L =normal design length, m

Table 1: Intake and roughness factors for estimating potential runoff

Intake family Intake factor, Manning Roughness factor,

(dimensionless) coefficient (dimensionless)
(ri) (n) (rn)

0.3 0.90 0.10 0.80

0.5 0.80 0.15 0.75
1.0 0.70 0.20 0.70
1.5 0.65 0.25 0.65
2.0 0.60
3.0 0.50
4.0 0.40

Inflow reduction
The length of the field is fixed and extensions not possible. The runoff is eliminated by use
of end blocks and reducing the incoming flow.

Qu
Q ue =
⎡ e ⎤
i + rn rn ⎢1 − d ⎥
⎣ 100 ⎦

Where: Que =inflow rate per unit width end block, m2/s (reduced inflow rate)
Qu =design inflow rate, m2/s

Application of the above equations assumes that reduction of the inflow stream size to Que
will not result in a significant change in recession time, Trl.

1. Cuenca R., (1989), Irrigation Systems Design: An Engineering approach. Prentice Hall.
USA.
2. Jensen M.E., (1980), Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems, American
Society of Irrigation Engineers, USA

Chapter 6 Level Borders