Evaluation of Direct Methods and Computer Models in Estimating the Infiltration Parameters of the Kostiakov-Lewis Equation in Sugarcane Fields

آب و خاک

Article 1, Volume 33, Issue 3 - Serial Number 65, July 2019, Pages 379-389   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v0i0.74330

Authors

Reza Mazarei^{* 1}; AbdAli Naseri²; amir soltani mohammadi¹

¹Shahid Chamran of Ahvaz

²Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz

Abstract

Introduction: Surface irrigation systems are the oldest and common irrigation method. Surface irrigation is of low cost and energy requirements compared to sprinkler and drip irrigation systems. In general, a main large number of fields' data is needed to show the farm average condition. Infiltration parameters are one of the most important parameters in surface irrigation systems and it has led to increase the irrigation systems efficiency, especially since the characteristics of infiltration vary with time and place. The modified kostiakov-lewis equation is one of the most useful infiltration equations in surface irrigation. In the current study, the infiltration parameters of the modified kostiakov-lewis equation were determined with two sets of usual methods including direct methods such as two-point Elliot and Walker and Input-Output, computer models such as SIPAR_ID and IPARM. Finally, the results were compared with the results of field experiments.
Materials and Methods: The current field was irrigated three times from 14 September to 31 October 2016 at the R 5-22 farm located in Salman Farsi Agro-Industry sugarcane fields with age of Raton 2. To collect the required data, the fields experiments were conducted on nine furrows of 250 m in length, 1.83m in space and 0.04% in slope, which all furrows were irrigated under three events and three inflow (1, 1.5 and 2 l/s), and fields’ data were obtained from experimental measurements during summer and autumn2016 at sugarcane fields of Salman Farsi Agro-Industry %. In the current study, the inflow rate and runoff were measured by W.S.C type 1 and 2 and all furrows divided into 10 stations. The advane time and infiltrated depth were measured at each stations. In this study 18 furrows were considered, nine furrows were used for testing and the other furrows had buffer roles.  The furrows were irrigated by closed-end method. In this study, three indicators of infiltrated volume in the root zone, advance time and runoff volume were used to evaluate the accuracy of estimation of infiltration parameters. Surface irrigation model: WinSRFR 4.1.3 was used to simulate irrigation phases and infiltration value in each method. In this study, zero inertia model was used for simulation.
Results and Discussion: Results of this study showed that using the direct methods to estimate the infiltration parameters in WinSRFR 4.1.3 software improves the simulation process significantly. The results of the Two- Point and Input-Output method were showed a little difference with the results of the WinSRFR 4.1.3 software in simulation of the closed-end furrow irrigation process with sugarcane cultivated in furrows. The direct methods for infiltration parameters in furrow irrigation showed more accuracy than computer models in advance time , runoff and infiltrated water volumes. According to the results of this study, the Two-Point method in estimation of advance time with mean of RMSE, MAE and RE of 10.52, 14.91 and 10.1%, infiltrated water volume with mean of RMSE, MAE and RE of  9.6, 7.36 and  7.8 and runoff volume with mean of RMSE, MAE and RE of  8.8%, 8.7% and 1.2%, had a very acceptable performance.  Also, the RMSE and RE values of other direct method (input-output method) were 11.4% and 6.8% for infiltrated water volume, respectively, and 1.6 and 0.3% for runoff volume, respectively, shows that this method has high accuracy in estimating these two performance indicators although this method with an average of 25.11% and 27.2%  was not able to accurately simulate advance time. On the other hand, the results of computer models showed that the IPARM model with the average mean absolute error and relative error was 23.33, 15.5% of the advance time, 20.02 and 26.7% of the infiltrated volume and 11.81% and 1.8% estimated runoff volume, which was better than the SIPAR_ID model. Although computer models had acceptable performance in estimating infiltration parameters, direct methods performed better due to the use of more input data and data from all stages of irrigation. In general results of this study were showed that, if the direct methods for infiltration equations used Instead of the computers models in the designing, simulation and evaluation of the furrow irrigation systems, increased the accuracy of results to significantly and will improve and increase irrigation performance indicators.

Keywords

Infiltration Parameter; Two-Point method; Inflow-outflow method; SIPAR_ID; IPARM

References

1- Bautista E., Clemmens A.J., and Strelkoff T.S. 2009. Modern analysis of surface irrigation systems with WinSRFR. Agricultural Water Management 96(7): 1146–1154.

2- Ebrahimian H., Liaghat A., GhanbarianAlavijeh B., and Abbasi F. 2010. Evaluation of various quick methods for estimating furrow and border infiltration parameters. Irrigation Science 28: 479-488.

3- Ebrahimian H. 2014. Soil Infiltration Characteristics in Alternate and Conventional Furrow Irrigation using Different Estimation Methods. Korean Society of Civil Engineers 18(6): 1904-1911.

4- Elliot R.L., and Walker W.R. 1982. Field evaluation of furrow infiltration and advance functions. Trans of the ASAE, 25(2): 396-400.

5- Gillies M.H., and Smith R.J. 2005. Infiltration parameters from surface irrigation advance and run-off data. Irrigation Science 24(1): 25-35.

6- Hanson B.R., Prichard T.L., and Schulbach H. 1993. Estimating furrow infiltration. Agricultural Water Management 24(4): 281–298.

7- Kamali P., Ebrahimian H., and Verdinejad V.R. 2015. Evaluation and comparison of multilevel optimization method and IPARM model to estimate infiltration parameters in furrow irrigation. Journal of Water and Irrigation Management 5(1): 43-54. (In Persian)

8- Kamali P., and Ebrahimian H. 2017. Comparison and evaluation of different methods for inverse estimation of the infiltration equation parameters in vegetated furrows. Journal of Soil and Water Research 48(1): 39-48.

9- Moravejalahkami B., Mostafazadeh-Fard B., Heidarpour M., and Abbasi F.2009. Furrow infiltration and roughness prediction for different furrow inflow hydrographs using a zero-inertia model with a multilevel calibration approach. Biosystems Engineering 103(3): 374–381.

10- Moravejalahkami B., Mostafazadeh-Fard B., Heidarpour M., and Abbasi F. 2012. Comparison of Multilevel Calibration and Volume Balance Method for Estimating Furrow Infiltration. Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 138(8): 781-777.

11- Rezaverdinejad V., Ahmadi H., Hemmati M., and Ebrahimian H. 2016. Evaluation and Comparison of Different Approaches of Infiltration Parameters Estimation under Different Furrow Irrigation Systems and Inflow Regimes. JWSS. 20(76): 161-176.

12- Rodriguez J.A., and Martos J.C. 2010. SIPAR_ID: freeware for surface irrigation parameter identification. Environment Model Software 25: 1487–1488.

13- Sayari S., Rahimpour M., and Zounemat-Kermani M. 2017. Numerical modeling based on a finite element method for simulation of flow in furrow irrigation. Paddy and Water Environment 15(4): 879-887.

14- Walker W.R. 2005. Multilevel calibration of furrow infiltration and roughness. Journal of Irrigation Drainage Engineering 131(2): 129–136.

15- Walker W.R., and Skogerboe G.V. 1987. the theory and practice of surface irrigation. Logan, Utah, Chapter 8, Vol. Balance field design, 81-87.