68

Mapping System and Services for

Pressurized irrigation systems –
MASSPRES
 Mapping System and
FAO
IRRIGATION
AND DRAINAGE
PAPER

Services for Pressurized 68

irrigation systems –
MASSPRES

by
Nicola Lamaddalena
CIHEAM - IAM Bari

and
Maher Salman, Eva Pek, Waqas Ahmad, Fethi Lebdi and Robina Wahaj
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2024
Required citation:
Lamaddalena, N., Salman, M., Pek, E., Ahmad, W., Lebdi, F. & Wahaj, R. 2024. Mapping System and Services for Pressurized
irrigation systems – MASSPRES. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No. 68. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd0784en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The
mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these
have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of
FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-138783-2
© FAO, 2024

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO
licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that
the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization,
products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same
or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with
the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative
edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in
Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the
World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in
accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or
images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the
copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with
the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be
purchased through [email protected]. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-
us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: [email protected].

Cover photographs: ©FAO/Eva Pek, ©FAO/Maher Salman

 iii

Table of Contents

Acronyms xvii

Symbols xviii

Units xix

Foreword xx

Acknowledgements xxi

Glossary xxii

Summary xxiii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 The challenges facing medium and large-scale irrigation 1

1.2 A methodology for improving performance 1

1.3 Apply these principles to pressurized irrigation systems 2

2. Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems 5

2.1 A step-by-step framework 5

2.1.1 Mapping - Phase 1. Initial diagnosis 5

2.1.2 Mapping - Phase 2. Service-oriented management and system operation 6

2.2 Design criteria and impacts on irrigation systems performance 7

2.2.1 Environmental parameters 8

2.2.2 Decision parameters 8

2.3 Operation, maintenance, and management 9

2.4 Operational objectives 9

2.5 Functions of pressurized systems structures 10

2.5.1 The storage function 10

2.5.2 The conveyance function 10

2.5.3 The diversion function 11

2.5.4 The distribution function 11

2.5.5 The delivery function 11

iv

2.5.6 The control function 11

2.5.7 The safety function 11

2.5.8 The measurement function 11

2.5.9 The information transmission function 12

2.5.10 The information management function 12

2.6 Types of delivery schedules 12

2.6.1 Rotation schedule 12

2.6.2 Centralized schedule 13

2.6.3 Arranged schedule 13

2.6.4 Demand based schedule 13

2.7 Components of a pressurized irrigation system 14

2.7.1 Storage unit 14

2.7.2 Pumping unit 14

2.7.3 Conveyance and distribution network 15

2.7.4 Delivery and application devices 15

2.7.5 Measurement devices 15

3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 17

3.1 Diagnosis and evaluation objectives 18

3.2 Appraising design and methodology 19

3.2.1 Irrigation system scale 19

3.2.2 Framing the appraisal 19

3.2.3 The time horizon for assessment 19

3.2.4 Target group and stakeholders 19

3.3 Data requirement 19

3.4 Appraising structure and scope 20

3.5 Appraising the water balance 21

3.5.1 Water demand 22

3.5.2 Water supply 23

3.5.3 Water balance – external indicators 23

3.6 Appraising management: institutional mechanisms 23

3.6.1 Management 24
 v

3.6.2 Water user associations 25

3.6.3 Water delivery service: a management perspective 26

3.6.4 Management – internal indicators 26

3.7 Appraising water delivery service: physical infrastructure 27

3.7.1 Sequential appraisal of system components 28

3.7.2 Irrigation schedule 28

3.7.3 Water delivery service – farmers’ perspective 29

3.7.4 Water delivery service – internal indicators 29

3.8 Synthesis of results 31

4. Appraising hydraulic performance 33

4.1 Introduction 33

4.2 Developing and using Combine optimization and 33

performance analysis model software

4.3 Setting the system boundaries 35

4.4 Hydraulic performance indicators 35

5. Appraising system capacity 37

5.1 Indexed Characteristics Curve model 37

5.2 AKLA model 40

5.3 Input data 42

5.4 Appraisal examples 45

5.4.1 A pressurized irrigation system in Lecce (Italy) 46

5.4.2 A pressurized irrigation system in Foggia (Italy) 47

5.4.3 Conclusions 49

6. Appraising system equity 51

6.1 Pressure equity 51

6.2 Input data 53

6.3 Case study: Foggia, Italy 53

7. Appraising system sensitivity 55

7.1 Sensitivity indicator 56

vi

7.2 Input data 57

7.3 Case study: Foggia, Italy 57

8. Appraising perturbation risks 59

8.1 Introduction 59

8.2 Relative pressure exceedance indicator 62

8.3 Input data 62

8.4 Computing perturbation 62

8.5 Case study: Foggia, Italy 64

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 67

9.1 Case study: Sector 25, Foggia, Italy 67

9.1.1 Using the Indexed Characteristics Curve model 67

9.1.2 Using the AKLA model 68

9.1.3 Assessing reliability 69

9.1.4 Improving performance 69

9.1.5 Assessing sensitivity 72

9.1.6 Assessing Perturbation 73

9.1.7 Management options 73

9.1.8 Infrastructure changes 74

9.1.9 In conclusion 75

9.2 Case study: Egypt 75

9.3 Case study: Tunisia 79

9.4 Case study: Italy 81

9.5 Case study: Spain 87

10. References 93

11. Annexes 97

A.1. Unsteady flow theory 97

A.1.1. The numerical solution for ordinary differential equations 98

A.1.2. The boundary conditions 100

A.2. Combine optimization and performance analysis mode 105

v4.0 User’s Manual
 vii

A.2.1. About the software 105

A.2.2. Preparation of the input file 108

A.2.3. Discharge computation 114

A.2.4. Pipe size computation 119

A.2.5.Analysis 126

A.3. RAP v1 User’s Manual 151

A.3.1. About the software 151

A.3.2. About the methodology 156

A.3.3. The structure of the manual 158

A.3.4. Setting the scene 158

A.3.5. Appraisal 162

A.3.6. Update information about the Rapid Appraisal Procedure software 239

A.4. Description template for pressurized irrigation systems 240

A.4.1. Bazin roughness parameter (Γ) for different types of pipes 241

Boxes

Box 3.1. Development of RAP software 17

Box 3.2. Piloting the concept of RAP for pressurized systems in Egypt 30

Box 4.1. The development of COPAM software 34

Box 5.1. The ICC model 37

Box 5.2. Computing the percentage of unsatisfied hydrants 40

Box 5.3. Input data for system capacity appraisal 43

Box 6.1. Computing pressure equity 51

Box 7.1. Early development of a sensitivity indicator 55

Box 8.1. The perturbation module for unsteady flow 59

Box A 3.1. The command area selection 163

Box A 3.2. Discharge measurement 171

Box A 3.3. Deficit irrigation strategy 173

viii

Box A 3.4. Water delivery service indicators 195

Box A 3.5. Assessment of multiple water user associations 196

Box A 3.6. Irrigation management transfer 202

Figures

Figure 2.1. Design outline of a pressurized irrigation system 7

Figure 3.1. Scoring of actual and stated water delivery service 18

Figure 3.2. RAP flowchart for pressurized irrigation systems 20

Figure 3.3. Flowchart of calculation mechanism 21

Figure 3.4. Calculating an irrigation scheme water balance 22

Figure 3.5. Monthly net crop water demand in an irrigated

command area 22

Figure 3.6. Monthly gross external water supply to an irrigation

command area 23

Figure 3.7. Appraising irrigation scheme management 24

Figure 3.8. Scoring of actual and stated water delivery service 25

Figure 3.9. Scoring of actual and stated water delivery service 26

Figure 3.10. Appraising water delivery service 27

Figure 3.11. Scoring the performance of deliveries 29

Figure 4.1 Flow chart of the COPAM v4.0 modeling approach 34

Figure 4.2. Homepage of COPAM v4.0 software package 35

Figure 5.1. Layout of the input data for the ICC analysis 39

Figure 5.2. Layout of input data for analyzing hydrants. options 41

Figure 5.3. Layout of input data for analyzing hydrants. elevation-discharge 42

Figure 5.4. Layout of input data for analyzing hydrants. set point 42

Figure 5.5. Example of the basic input data needed to run COPAM v4.0
(network layout) 45

Figure 5.6. Example of the basic input data to run COPAM v4.0 (list of pipes) 45

Figure 5.7. Layout of the Lecce network 46

 ix

Figure 5.8. Indexed Characteristic Curves 46

Figure 5.9. Layout of the District 4 network 47

Figure 5.10. a) Indexed Characteristic Curves, b) PUH curves 48

Figure 6.1. Layout of the network 54

Figure 6.2. RPD at hydrants 54

Figure 7.1. Layout of the District 1a network in Foggia, Italy 57

Figure 7.2. Re for discharge (a) 300 ls−1 (b) 400 ls−1 58

Figure 7.3. Hydrant sensitivity (from Q=300 ls-1 to Q=400 ls-1) 58

Figure 8.1. First screen for the perturbation module 63

Figure 8.2. Example of RPE Profile Res-node 16 64

Figure 8.3. Layout of the network (Sector 25) 65

Figure 8.4 RPE for 100 configurations. Tc= 0 sec 66

Figure 8.5. RPE for 100 configurations. Tc= 6 sec 66

Figure 9.1. ICC for sector 25 68

Figure 9.2. PUH curves for sector 25 68

Figure 9.3. RPD for sector 25 69

Figure 9.4. Re for sector 25 69

Figure 9.5. RPD for sector 25 (for variable Hmin at hydrants) 70

Figure 9.6. Reliability for sector 25 (for variable Hmin at hydrants) 70

Figure 9.7. Typical demand hydrograph recorded at the upstream end

of the Sector 25 71

Figure 9.8. RPD for the Sector 25 (upstream discharge of 30 ls-1) 71

Figure 9.9. Hydrants’ reliability for the Sector 25 (upstream discharge of 30 ls-1) 72

Figure 9.10. Hydrants’ sensitivity for an upstream discharge from 50 ls-1 to 60 ls-1 72

Figure 9.11. Hydrants’ sensitivity for an upstream discharge from 50 ls-1to 70 ls-1 73

Figure 9.12. Example of an electronic card hydrant 74

Figure 9.13. Layout of Al-Mazraah (Beheira) irrigation scheme 75

Figure 9.14. Indexed characteristic curve of Al-Mazraah network (actual network) 76

Figure 9.15. RPD of Al-Mazraah network (actual network) 77

Figure 9.16. Reliability of Al-Mazraah network (actual network) 77

x

Figure 9.17. Indexed characteristic curve of Al-Mazraah network

(optimized network) 78

Figure 9.18. RPD of Al-Mazraah network (optimized network) 78

Figure 9.19. Reliability of Al-Mazraah network (optimized network) 79

Figure 9.20. Diagram of the subsystem Bir Aouini, Mehrine East,

and Mehrine West 79

Figure 9.21. Indexed characteristic curve for the subsystem Bir Aouini,
Mehrine East, and Mehrine West 80

Figure 9.22. RPD of the subsystem Bir Aouini, Mehrine East, and Mehrine West 80

Figure 9.23. Reliability of the subsystem Bir Aouini, Mehrine East,

and Mehrine West 81

Figure 9.24. The “Sinistra Ofanto” irrigation scheme 82

Figure 9.25. Layout of the District 4 network 82

Figure 9.26. Layout of District 4 sectorial networks 83

Figure 9.27. Typical hydrograph at the head of District 4 84

Figure 9.28. 90 percent RPD for current (design) and future demand 85

Figure 9.29. Reliability a) current demand and b) future demand 86

Figure 9.30. 90 percent RPD for future demand (new optimized network) 87

Figure 9.31. Distribution network of the Sector VII 87

Figure 9.32. Indexed characteristic curve for sector VI 88

Figure 9.33. RPD of sector VII, based on peak discharge (Q=1 150 ls-1) 88

Figure 9.34. Reliability of sector VII (Q=1150 ls-1) 89

Figure 9.35. RPD of sector VII, using increased upstream discharges

(Q=1 300 ls-1 and 1 500 ls-1) 89

Figure 9.36. Reliability of sector VII, using increased upstream discharges

(Q=1 300 ls-1 and 1 500 ls-1) 90

Figure 9.37. Hydrant’s sensitivity of sector VII

(Q=1 150 ls-1 to 1 300 ls-1 and 1 500 ls-1) 91

Figure A 1.1. Characteristic curves on the space–time plane 98

Figure A 2.1. Copam v4.0 folder 106

Figure A 2.2. Software presentation window 105

Figure A 2.3. Conditions 107

 xi

Figure A 2.4. Home page 107

Figure A 2.5. File sub-menu 108

Figure A 2.6. Edit sub-menu 109

Figure A 2.7. List of pipes option 109

Figure A 2.8. New network definition window 110

Figure A 2.9. New network definition example 111

Figure A 2.10. Save and export 112

Figure A 2.11. Import file window 113

Figure A 2.12. Edit Network 113

Figure A 2.13. Random generation 114

Figure A 2.14. Elaboration in progress 115

Figure A 2.15. Long-time warning 115

Figure A 2.16. Random elaboration complete 116

Figure A 2.17. Clément model selection 116

Figure A 2.18. Clément model parameter window 117

Figure A 2.19. Result of Clément 118

Figure A 2.20. File explorer window 118

Figure A 2.21. Optimization model options 119

Figure A 2.22. Optimization model options 120

Figure A 2.23. Output file definition 120

Figure A 2.24. Optimization Mix tab 121

Figure A 2.25. Data tab Clément parameters 122

Figure A 2.26. Optimization Data tab 123

Figure A 2.27. Elaboration in progress screen 123

Figure A 2.28. Optimization file explorer window 124

Figure A 2.29. File visualization icon 124

Figure A 2.30. File explorer window 125

Figure A 2.31. File content window 125

Figure A 2.32. Configurations model selection 126

Figure A 2.33. Configuration model window 126

xii

Figure A 2.34. Configuration parameter of analysis 127

Figure A 2.35. Indexed characteristic curve graph 128

Figure A 2.36. Graph tools 128

Figure A 2.37. Annotation selection 129

Figure A 2.38. Annotations placed 129

Figure A 2.39. Hydrants model selection 130

Figure A 2.40. Parameter of analysis 130

Figure A 2.41. Option Tab control (Several - Random generation) 131

Figure A 2.42. Option Tab control (Several - Read from file) 132

Figure A 2.43. File explorer window 132

Figure A 2.44. Option Tab control (Minimum head at hydrants) 133

Figure A 2.45. Option Tab to access “Equity” and “Flow Velocity” 134

Figure A 2.46. Set point Tab control 134

Figure A 2.47. Elevation-Discharge Tab control 135

Figure A 2.48. Elaboration in progress screen 136

Figure A 2.49. File explorer windows 136

Figure A 2.50. Graph menu 137

Figure A 2.51. File explorer window 137

Figure A 2.52. Hydrant deficit and envelope curve graph 138

Figure A 2.53. Hydrants reliability 138

Figure A 2.54. PUH Curves (One Elevation) 139

Figure A 2.55. PUH Curves (All elevations) 139

Figure A 2.56. Equity 140

Figure A 2.57. Flow Velocity 140

Figure A 2.58. Sensitivity model 141

Figure A 2.59. Parameter of analysis 141

Figure A 2.60. Option Tab control (Several - Random generation) 142

Figure A 2.61. Option Tab control (minimum head at hydrants) 142

Figure A 2.63. File explorer window 144

Figure A 2.64. Graph menu bar 144

 xiii

Figure A 2.65. Sensitivity graph 145

Figure A 2.66. Home screen of the perturbation model 145

Figure A 2.67. Example of the network table with a reservoir

at the upstream-end 146

Figure A 2.68. The case of a below-ground reservoir 147

Figure A 2.69. The case of an above-ground reservoir 147

Figure A 2.70. Example of the network table with a pumping station

at the upstream-end 147

Figure A 2.71. Example of the pipe characteristics table 148

Figure A 2.72. Example of valves characteristics and generating

new configurations 149

Figure A 2.73. Example of valves characteristics and uploading

configurations from an existing file 149

Figure A 2.74. Example of RPE profile 1 150

Figure A 2.75. Example of RPE profile 4 150

Figure A 3.1. Required update of Java version 151

Figure A 3.2. Splash screen 152

Figure A 3.3. Landing page 152

Figure A 3.4. Assessment sub-folder and stored file with .asmt extension 153

Figure A 3.5. Log subfolder to store log file 153

Figure A 3.6. Main view of the software 154

Figure A 3.7. Window of assessment page 154

Figure A 3.8. Info box for user guidance 155

Figure A 3.9. View of input validation rules 155

Figure A 3.10. PDF export of the assessment file 156

Figure A 3.11. Flowchart of calculation mechanism 158

Figure A 3.12 Area equipped for irrigation as percentage of land area 159

Figure A 3.13 WaPOR - FAO portal. Annual reference evapotranspiration 160

Figure A 3.14. AQUASTAT dataset 160

Figure A 3.15. Global Soil Organic Carbon Map, GLOSIS – GSOCmap 161

Figure A 3.16. Hand-in-Hand GIS platform snapshot 162

xiv

Figure A 3.17. Main view of project information window 162

Figure A 3.18. Flowchart of indicator calculation in water balance chapter 166

Figure A 3.19. Main view of crop coefficient table 170

Figure A 3.20. Main view of the External indicators window 175

Figure A 3.21. View of disaggregated results of the External indicators 181

Figure A 3.22. Flowchart of the Management chapter 182

Figure A 3.23. Main view of the general project conditions section 187

Figure A 3.24. Main view of the water supply section 188

Figure A 3.25. Main view of the budgetary background section 189

Figure A 3.26. Main view of the employees section 190

Figure A 3.27. Main view of the human resource management

indicators section 191

Figure A 3.28. Main view of the project operation section 192

Figure A 3.29. Main view of water delivery service section in the project block 194

Figure A 3.30. Main view of the general WUA conditions section 195

Figure A 3.31. Main view of the budget section in the WUA block 197

Figure A 3.32. Main view of the employees section in WUA block 199

Figure A 3.33. Main view of the WUA performance indicators 200

Figure A 3.34. Main view of the irrigation management transfer section 201

Figure A 3.35. Main view of the management indicators 203

Figure A 3.36. Exported chart from the management indicators 205

Figure A 3.37. Flowchart of the water service appraisal 206

Figure A 3.38. Main view of general project conditions section

in the pump station block 214

Figure A 3.39. Main view of irrigation schedule section in pump station block 218

Figure A 3.40. Main view of pump station characteristics section

in pump station block 219

Figure A 3.41. Main view of pump station performance section

in pump station block 223

Figure A 3.42. Main view of pump station operation section

in pump station block 224
 xv

Figure A 3.43. Main view of pump station maintenance section

in pump station block 225

Figure A 3.44. Main view of water delivery service section

in pump station block 226

Figure A 3.45. Main view of pipes and deliveries characteristics section

in the pipes and deliveries block 226

Figure A 3.46. Main view of pipes and deliveries performance section

in the pipes and deliveries block 232

Figure A 3.47. Main view of pipes and deliveries operation section

in the pipes and deliveries block 233

Figure A 3.48. Main view of pipes and deliveries maintenance section

in the pipes and deliveries block 234

Figure A 3.49. Main view of water delivery service section in the pipes
and deliveries block 235

Figure A 3.50. Exported chart from the water service chapter 239
xvi

Tables

Table 5.1. ICC capacity assessment 47

Table 5.2. PUH capacity assessments 48

Table 6.1. Equity assessment criteria 53

Table 7.1. Classification for sensitivity 56

Table A 3.1. Data input support of water balance chapter 166

Table A 3.2. Calculated parameters of external indicators 176

Table A 3.3. Data input support of management chapter 182

Table A 3.4. Calculated parameters of the management indicators 203

Table A 3.5. Data input support of water service chapter 207

Table A 3.6. Calculated parameters of water service indicators 236

 xvii

Acronyms

COPAM Combine optimization and performance analysis model

EH pressure equity
EQ discharge equity
GMIA Global Map of Irrigated area
HDPE high density polyethylene
ICC Indexed Characteristics Curve
IMT irrigation management transfer
ITRC irrigation training and research center
MASSPRES Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems
MASSCOTE Mapping System and Services for Canal Operation Techniques
NPSH Net positive suction head
O&M operation and maintenance
PE polyethylene
PIM participatory irrigation management
PUH percentage of unsatisfied hydrants
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RAP Rapid Appraisal Procedure
Re hydrant reliability
RPD relative pressure deficit
RPE relative pressure exceedance
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
WAPOR Water Productivity through Open-access of Remotely sensed data
WDS water delivery service
WUA water user associations
xviii

Symbols

a celerity
C number of configuration
d nominal discharge
dH1 change in water level
D pipe diameter
DHj,r relative pressure deficit
ε accepted tolerance
ECw average electrical conductivity
ET net crop water demand
ETo reference crop evapotranspiration
f Darcy–Weisbach friction factor
Hmin minimum required head for the appropriate operation of the on-farm
systems
H j,r pressure head of hydrant
g gravitational acceleration
K number of hydrants
Kc crop growth coefficients
Kr number of hydrants simultaneously operating
j hydrant
lmin minimum length
p elementary probability
Pq cumulative probability
P pressure
P0 "operating point" of the network
Q discharge
Q0 upstream discharge
Qup several discharges
Qtir discharge corresponding to K hydrants drawn at random
q fractional change of discharge
r generated configuration
R total number of hydrants
S sensitivity
Shyd hydrant sensitivity
t time
V mean flow velocity
Z0 piezometric elevation
z pipe elevation
 xix

Units

bar Bar
dS/m Decisiemens per metre
GB Gigabyte
GHz Gigahertz
ha Hectare
l 1 s-
Litre/second
m metre
m a.s.l metres above mean sea level
MB megabyte
Mm 3
million cubic metre
m 3
cubic metre
ms −2
metre per square second
ms −1
metre per s second
Nm −2
Newton per Square Metre
Pa Pascal
s second
xx

Foreword

Water scarcity and intense competition for limited water resources are now driving
private and public irrigation organizations to modernize their irrigation systems.
During the 1960s and 1970s, pressurized irrigation systems were a focus of attention as
they offered the potential for efficient water use, reduced disputes among farmers, and
reduced the environmental problems that could arise from misuse of irrigation water.
Thus, one option is to switch to pressurized systems.

Much of the work done in the past focused on designing and optimizing systems and
FAO made substantial contributions to this effort producing several publications. In
1988, "Design and optimization of irrigation distributions networks" was published,
followed by “Performance Analysis of On-Demand Pressurized Irrigation Systems"
and a supporting computer software package (COPAM) in 2000, which enabled
complex pipe networks to be optimized and system performance to be evaluated. In
2007, FAO developed Mapping System and Services for Canal Operation Techniques
(MASSCOTE), a methodology for irrigation scheme performance and planning for
modernization, which focused on large canal irrigation systems.

This publication builds on this work and adapts the MASSCOTE rationale to
pressurized irrigation systems, known as MASSPRES: “Mapping System and Services
for Pressurized irrigation systems.” This represents a significant output from the joint-
collaborative program between FAO and CIHEAM-Bari.

Large pressurized irrigation systems serving many farmers is a complex area of

planning and design. But the benefits in terms of simplifying system management and
enabling farmers to irrigate on-demand to meet their crops water needs, rather than
working to some rigid supply-oriented rotation, are immense. Every effort has been
made in this publication to overcome the complexity with simple explanations and the
use of practical examples, case studies, and user-friendly computer software, which
together can facilitate understanding and application.

This publication will be of particular interest to irrigation planners and designers, and
professionals involved in irrigation modernization and to those in universities and
colleges who are involved in in-service training and preparing future generations of
irrigation engineers and system managers.

Lifeng Li
Director – Land and Water Division (NSL)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
 xxi

Acknowledgements

The present document has been collaboratively authored by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) and the CIHEAM Bari Institute, under the overarching
supervision of team leaders Maher Salman, Senior Land and Water Officer of the
Land and Water Division (NSL) at FAO, and Nicola Lamaddalena, principal author,
CIHEAM Bari Institute.

For the CIHEAM Bari team, thanks are to be extended to Luigi Capodieci, Michele
Toriello, Giovanni Reo ed Erminio Efisio Riezzo for their contribution to the
realization of the software COPAM v. 4.0. Special mention is due to Abdelouaid Fouial
and Bilal Derardja for their valuable contribution to the definition of the Sensitivity
and on the Relative Pressure Exceedance indicators, respectively.

For the FAO team at the Land and Water Division (NSL), contributors encompass Éva
Pék, Land and Water Officer, Waqas Ahmad, Irrigation engineer, Fethi Lebdi, Water
management specialist, and Robina Wahaj, Senior Land and Water Officer.

Special acknowledgment is reserved to Maurizio Raeli, Director of CIHEAM Bari, and

to Lifeng Li, Director of the Land and Water Division at FAO.

The editing of the present publication has been undertaken by Melvyin Kay.

The peer review of RAP software has been conducted by Andrè Daccache, UC Davis,
United States of America; Juan Antonio Rodriguez Diaz, University of Cordoba;
Miguel Angel Moreno Hidalgo, University of Castilla La Mancha, the Kingdom of
Spain; and Ibrahim Desouky, National Water Research Center, the Arab Republic of
Egypt.

The peer review of modeling has been conducted by Juan Antonio Rodriguez Diaz,
University of Cordoba; Umberto Fratino, Polytechnic of Bari, Italy; Francesco
Gentile, University of Bari, Italy; Miguel Angel Moreno Hidalgo, University of
Castilla La Mancha, the Kingdom of Spain; and Andrè Daccache, UC Davis, United
States of America.
xxii

Glossary

Configuration

A configuration is a group of hydrants operating at the same time across the irrigation
system. The discharge required to satisfy all these hydrants at the same time is referred
to as the discharge configuration.

Equity describes the spatial variability across an irrigation system and is a measure of
the quality of service to farmers. In particular:

• Discharge equity (DE) measures the variation between actual discharge and
nominal discharge among hydrants operating within a given configuration, or
the variation taking account of all the generated hydrant configurations, or the
variation among a pre-selected percentage of deficit occurrences.
• Pressure equity (EH) measures the variation in pressure among hydrants operating
within a configuration, or the variation taking account of all the generated
hydrant configurations, or the variation among a pre-selected percentage of deficit
occurrences. The first case is relevant if pressure regulators are not installed at
hydrants. The second and third are relevant when flow regulators are installed.

Hydrant is a hydraulic device specially designed to deliver water from a pressurized

distribution system to an individual farmer or group of farmers. Hydrants should be
equipped with a flow regulator to deliver the nominal discharge even when the pressure
head changes. Ideally, a hydrant should also include a volumetric flow meter and a gate
valve to open/close the discharge.

Reliability measures the probability that the pressure head at a hydrant at a given time
is in a satisfactory state. It is a measure of the temporal variability of a system.

Sensitivity measures changes in hydrant reliability when changes occur in pressure and
discharge at the head of a system.

Steady flow (steady-state flow) occurs when the flow remains the same over time at
a given point in a system. Most pipelines are designed for steady-state flow. Unsteady
flow (also called transient flow) refers to flows that vary over time at a given point in
a system.

System capacity normally describes the volume of water that a system is capable of
carrying in a given time. In the context of this paper, capacity refers to an integration
of several concepts and indicators that show what the system is capable of, rather than
just a “single indicator.”
 xxiii

Summary

In 2007, FAO produced Irrigation and Drainage Paper 63: Modernizing irrigation
management – the MASSCOTE approach (Renault, Facon and Wahaj, 2007). This is a
methodology specifically designed to assist technical experts, irrigation professionals,
and managers, engaged in the difficult task of modernizing medium and large-scale
canal irrigation systems.

MASCOTTE was developed to tackle the problems and deficiencies experienced in

managing complex canal distribution systems. Although globally, most large-scale
schemes use canals, there is a significant and growing interest, particularly in water-
scarce regions, in medium and large-scale pressurized pipe systems. These received
much attention in the 1960s and 1970s when many systems were installed, mainly in
countries in the water-scarce Mediterranean basin and other regions. They offered
many advantages over canal systems such as on-demand irrigation, which gave farmers
greater flexibility in managing water on-farms, reduced water wastage and disputes
among farmers, and less environmental impact from misuse of irrigation water. Today,
many of these early systems are in need of modernization as cropping patterns and
technologies changed and socioeconomic conditions improved. Water scarcity is
increasing, and governments, faced with ever-increasing demands for water and food
production, are also looking to switch technologies from canals to pressurized systems
to reap the advantages that such systems offer.

Pressurized systems bring simplicity to irrigating farmers, but they are inherently
complex both in terms of their design and operation in meeting the changing water
demands associated with on-demand irrigation. To support both improving the
performance of existing systems and the design of future systems, pressurized irrigation
needs the equivalent of MASSCOTE methodology to provide a step-by-step process
to diagnose deficiencies and establish plans for modernization.

This publication builds on the holistic approach of MASSCOTE to provide a

framework for assessing and improving the overall performance of medium and
large-scale pressurized irrigation schemes. Known as Mapping System and Services
for Pressurized irrigation systems (MASSPRES), it introduces the MASSPRES
approach and the step-by-step diagnosis of system performance. An important first
step is the Rapid Appraisal Procedure (RAP), which is central to mapping the system
performance. The complexities of managing demand under unsteady flow conditions
are described together with innovative methods for assessing acceptable pressures and
discharges at farm hydrants under a wide range of operating configurations rather than
relying on the earlier methods of statistical analysis. Various indicators are developed
to assess capacity, reliability, equity of distribution, sensitivity to change, and the risks
of perturbation and incorporated into user-friendly software. Practical examples and
case studies in Egypt, Italy, Spain, and Tunisia demonstrate the effectiveness of this
approach and offer evidence-based solutions to improving performance.
1. Introduction 1

1. Introduction

1.1 THE CHALLENGES FACING MEDIUM

AND LARGE-SCALE IRRIGATION
This is a timely publication as the world is facing increasing water scarcity, and
governments are demanding more efficient systems of water use, particularly in
agriculture, which not only accounts for 70 percent of all freshwater withdrawals
globally but has an unenviable reputation for poor water use efficiency. The average
overall efficiency of irrigation systems, based on crop water use (evapotranspiration)
divided by water withdrawals into the system, is estimated to be 55 percent, with
figures ranging from 40-65 percent (Hoogeveen et al., 2015)1.

Over the past century, medium and large-scale irrigation schemes have made a major
contribution to increasing global food production, reducing hunger and poverty, and
securing the rural livelihoods of many millions of smallholder farmers. However, there
have been significant discrepancies between design assumptions based mainly on bio-
physical criteria, such as agronomy, hydraulics, and engineering, and the operational
reality that falls short in terms of water use efficiency, productivity, and socioeconomic
and institutional aspirations (Plusquellec, 2019)

Much investment has gone into improving infrastructure, building, rehabilitating, and
modernizing schemes during the latter part of the 20th century, but with limited success.
As well as the structural transformation of schemes, extensive changes in irrigation
management are also taking place to support performance improvements. Participatory
irrigation management (PIM) was introduced at different levels to improve the
management and water delivery service to farmers. Irrigation management transfer
(IMT) was also initiated in some countries. This involves transferring tertiary level water
management from government control to groups of farmers or water user associations
(WUA) to instil a sense of water stewardship among farmers and for system managers to
focus on providing irrigation services for which farmer groups are expected to pay. This
is a complex and site-specific issue, and so far, interventions have had mixed success.

Much of this criticism is aimed at large-scale canal systems, and although the above
interventions were designed to achieve specific targets, they lacked the integrity of an
absolute and coordinated modernization approach, which could transform a system
into a well-engineered, well-managed, and efficiently operated scheme.

1.2 A METHODOLOGY FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE

In 2007, FAO produced Irrigation and Drainage Paper 63: Modernizing irrigation
management – the MASSCOTE approach (Renault, Facon and Wahaj, 2007).

1
The terms ‘water use efficiency’ and ‘irrigation efficiency’ have been, and continue to be,
a subject of much misunderstanding and debate with many different definitions emerging
as a result. In this paper, both terms are used in the general sense of making the best use of
available water for producing crops and, from a farmer’s point of view, ensuring that water
they abstract for irrigation is consumed by the crop and is not wasted unnecessarily.
2 Mapping system and services for pressurized irrigation - MASSPRES

This is a methodology specifically designed to assist technical experts, irrigation

professionals, and managers, engaged in the difficult task of modernizing medium
and large-scale irrigation canal systems to use identified targets to establish
effectiveness in terms of financial resources, water use efficiency, productivity,
and the environment. Although mainly based on FAO’s work in Asia, where
many large-scale irrigation schemes exist and are underperforming for a variety of
reasons, this approach is generic and is thus applicable to large surface irrigation
schemes elsewhere. Its application has also been extended to countries in the Near
East and North Africa region.

MASSCOTE seeks to stimulate a critical sense among engineers to diagnose

and evaluate obstacles, constraints, and opportunities and develop a consistent
modernization strategy. The methodology takes a step-by-step approach to convert
complexity into simple and straightforward elements that can be tackled. These are
explored in a recursive process leading progressively to a new approach to irrigation
system management and improvements in canal operation and water delivery service.

1.3 APPLY THESE PRINCIPLES TO

PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
MASSCOTE is an important asset for improving medium and large-scale canal
systems, and, with some modifications, it can also be applied to medium and large-
scale pressurized irrigation systems, which received much attention in the 1960s and
1970s. These systems offered greater flexibility in adopting on-demand irrigation, gave
farmers greater flexibility in managing water on farms, reduced water wastage and
disputes among farmers, and resulted in less environmental impact from misuse of
irrigation water. Such systems were the focus of FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
44: Design and optimization of irrigation distribution networks (Labye, 1988) and FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper 59: Performance analysis of on-demand pressurized
irrigation systems (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000). These publications provided
the foundations for designing and analyzing the performance of medium and large-
scale (and complex) pressurized on-demand irrigation systems. Although pressurized
systems have much to offer, many earlier schemes need modernization as cropping
patterns change, technologies improve, energy prices increase and socioeconomic
conditions change. Pressurized systems need the equivalent of MASSCOTE to provide
a step-by-step diagnosis of system performance as a means of determining what needs
to be done to improve system performance.

This publication now brings together this earlier work, mostly focused on the design
and hydraulic analysis, with the more holistic approach of MASSCOTE to provide a
framework for assessing and improving the overall performance of medium and large-
scale pressurized irrigation schemes. Like MASSCOTE, MASSPRES is based on a
step-by-step diagnosis of system performance as a means of determining what needs
to be done to improve system performance.

In summary

Chapter 1 Briefly introduces the challenges facing medium and large-scale irrigation
systems along with methodologies to improve the performance of pressurized
irrigation systems.
1. Introduction 3

Chapter 2 Introduces the MASSPRES approach and the step-by-step diagnosis of

system performance. It describes the tools for identifying efficient and workable
management strategies for operating pressurized irrigation systems to provide better
service delivery. MASSPRES analysis comprises two phases. Phase 1 is an initial
diagnostic phase to establish status and system operation, and phase 2 focuses on the
development of a plan for modernization.

Chapter 3 describes the Rapid Appraisal Procedure (RAP), which is central to mapping
the system performance in phase 1. This is an approach developed by FAO and the
Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) at the California Polytechnic State
University to enable irrigation scheme managers and farmer groups to work together
during this initial phase. FAO recommends RAP because it focuses on key information
that can be gathered quickly, it is systematic, and comprehensive and includes physical,
management, and institutional aspects of system operation.

Chapter 4 describes how to appraise the hydraulic performance of pressurized

systems. It introduces the challenges of managing pressures and discharges in complex
pipe networks under steady and unsteady flows, and when all hydrants are unable to
operate on-demand at the same time. The chapter introduces COPAM v4.0 software,
which is used to appraise system performance based on how systems perform in
practice rather than the earlier design approach, which relied on statistical analysis. The
software is developed around a set of innovative indicators that enable designers and
managers to assess the acceptability of pressure and discharges at farm hydrants under
a wide range of operating configurations. The chapter also introduces the concept of
system capacity, which is developed in chapter 5.

Chapter 5 develops the capacity concept and seeks answers to the question: does the
pipe system have sufficient capacity to achieve the desired pressure and discharge
requirements at each hydrant in the network? The indicators provide the information
on which to answer this question. Models within the COPAM v4.0 software are
described that enable the indicators to be calculated, and information is provided on
how to interpret the results. Case studies show how the indicators are used in practice.

Chapter 6 focuses on the concept of equity and the development of two indicators:
pressure equity, which indicates how capable the system is at maintaining acceptable
pressures at the farm hydrants, and discharge equity, which performs the same function
for discharges at the farm hydrants. As the publication is restricted to systems that use
flow regulators, only pressure equity is described. A case study is used to demonstrate
the practical use of this indicator.

Chapter 7 focuses on the concept of sensitivity. Although the pressure at hydrants

is key to good performance on the farm, there are many changes that occur in a
network, such as farmers opening and closing hydrants that cause upstream system
pressure and discharge to fluctuate. Just how such fluctuations affect the pressure
at the hydrants is described as sensitivity. A case study is used to demonstrate the
practical use of this indicator.

Chapter 8 describes the phenomenon of perturbation and the development of an

indicator to measure it. Perturbations are sudden pressure changes in the system,
also called ‘water hammer,’ which can seriously damage and, in severe cases, burst
pipes. A perturbation indicator, called Relative Pressure Exceedance (RPE), provides
information on the pressure head that may occur in the system when hydrants are
4 Mapping system and services for pressurized irrigation - MASSPRES

suddenly closed or when pumps start and stop. Two different boundary conditions are
considered, supply from a reservoir and from a pumping station, as this has influence
over the pressure changes that may be experienced in a system.

Chapters 9 and 10 offer case studies where modernization has taken place. The authors
use MASSPRES to show how this approach can identify problem areas and offer
evidenced-based solutions to improve performance.
2. MASSPRES 5

2. Mapping System and Services

for Pressurized irrigation systems

MASSPRES is based on a step-by-step diagnosis of system performance. It is a

set of tools to identify efficient and workable management strategies for operating
pressurized irrigation systems to provide better service delivery. The analysis is in two
main phases:

1. An initial diagnosis phase to establish the current status and system operation.
This provides ground-truth evidence about how the system functions, how it is
managed and organized, and the quality of service it delivers to farmers.
2. The next step involves developing a modernization plan based on the diagnosis,
which focuses on operating the system. Both users and operators play important
roles in operating the system, its management, and service delivery, and so
MASSPRES uses a participative approach to developing the plan.

2.1 A STEP-BY-STEP FRAMEWORK

MASSPRES uses a step-by-step process to:

• map the salient features of the system;

• identify and delineate the institutionally and spatially manageable building blocks
of system operations and management; and
• identify the best strategies for the operation and service delivery of each
building block.

2.1.1 Mapping - Phase 1. Initial diagnosis

Steps 1-5 are about collecting baseline information.

1. Mapping the system performance through RAP

A rapid appraisal of the system is performed using the RAP tool (see chapter 3).
The appraiser adopts a systematic approach to assess the scheme water balance,
status of the irrigation and associated infrastructure, cost of operation and
maintenance, management and operational strategies, and water delivery service.
This assessment identifies and scores system indicators that can be targeted in
the modernization plan. These indicators are benchmarks that can also measure
progress during any intervention. As MASSPRES encourages users’ participation,
this enables all stakeholders to engage in prioritizing plans.
2. Mapping the system capacity
System capacity is mapped to get an insight into the system’s ability to serve
demand. More specifically, this mapping assesses the dimensions of system
components against the requirement of conveyance and distribution of water at
a given level of discharge and pressure at the farm hydrant. The overall analysis
of the hydraulic performance of the pressurized distribution system is described
in chapter 4, while the in-depth description of analyzing the system capacity is
described in chapter 5.
3. Mapping system equity
Equity is mapped to evaluate how uniformly the system pressure and discharge
6 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

are distributed among the hydrants. For this purpose, two equity parameters i.e.,
pressure equity (EH) and discharge equity (EQ) are elaborated in chapter 6.
4. Mapping system sensitivity
The sensitivity of the hydraulic network is mapped to evaluate the change in
hydrants’ discharge due to changes in discharge and/or pressure at the head of the
system. Sensitivity mapping is described in chapter 7.
5. Mapping system perturbation
In this step, the magnitude and frequency of perturbation in the distribution
network are mapped. Perturbation is usually caused by sudden changes in
the system, such as the closure of gate valves, changes in the configuration of
operating hydrants, or stopping/starting pumps. The causes of perturbation and
remedial measures are discussed in chapter 8.

2.1.2 Mapping - Phase 2. Service-oriented management and

system operation
Steps 6 to 11 are about mapping a vision for service-oriented management (SOM) and
modernization.

6. Mapping services
This involves assessing all the different services provided to different users and their
related costs. This is needed to analyse modernization options and to establish a
preliminary vision for the scheme. Options include different service categories, the
level of flexibility, and the allocation and scheduling of water deliveries.
7. Mapping management
Large schemes are often divided into sub-units for operation and maintenance
(O&M) purposes, including defined levels of service, which may differ from one
sub-unit to another. Within each sub-unit, a workable compromise is required
among a mix of criteria, including the physical and hydraulic system, the
institutional and managerial resources in each sub-unit, and the costs involved.
8. Mapping system operation and its improvement
This is about assessing the resources, opportunity, and demand for improved
system operation. This is largely determined by the anticipated level of service
to farmers, but the analysis will need to include the constraints imposed by the
operating characteristics of the pipe system, including the extent of perturbations
and the sensitivity of structures to changes in supply and demand.
9. Options for improving system performance and management
This is about specifying how existing water resources and inputs will be allocated
in a more cost-effective and responsive way, changing the operational strategy,
and investing in improved techniques and infrastructure. Modernizing a system
should make full use of advanced concepts in irrigation and hydraulic engineering,
agronomic science, economics, and social science to identify the simplest
components and a workable solution.
Extensive farmer participation will form an important part of selecting the most
appropriate option to pursue. There is a wide variety of design concepts, structures,
methods of control, and schedules, and it is essential that farmers at the downstream
end of the system are fully satisfied with the proposed quality of service.
10-11.Integration of service-oriented management options, and developing a
modernization plan
2. MASSPRES 7

Based on the mapping in steps 1-9, it should be possible to develop a vision for
irrigation and a plan for implementation. The performance will only improve if
designers and operators have a common and well-defined vision of operation
procedures and maintenance requirements, if performance standards are precisely
defined at each management level, and if there is an appropriate incentive structure.
Monitoring and evaluation will also be part of the process of modernization to
ensure that objectives are achieved and maintained.

2.2 DESIGN CRITERIA AND IMPACTS ON

IRRIGATION SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE
Pressurized irrigation systems are designed to improve system performance and enhance
farm profits (Kurtulmus et al., 2018). The first objective is achieved by improving irrigation
reliability and reducing the system’s conveyance losses, while the net profit is increased
by controlling unnecessary irrigation water fees and increasing crop productivity.
The optimum designed capacity of a pressurized irrigation system depends on several
parameters, which can be classified into the following two groups, environmental
parameters and decision parameters (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000) (Figure 2.1).

FIGURE 2.1
Design outline of a pressurized irrigation system

Environmental parameters Decision parameters

Climate, Cropping pattern,
Soil type, Satisfaction level,
Interdependency
Water resource, Irrigation method,
Farms location, Land holding,
Socioeconomics Farm size
Water balance

Decision Support Tool (DST)

CropWat/AquaCrop

1. Peak Irrigation requirement

2. Irrigation frequency

Demand Hydraulic design

management
Discharge, pressure,
options
pump, hydrants, pipe size
Y E S

N O

Operations
Operators, users, WUAs

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

2.2.1 Environmental parameters

Designers have little control over environmental parameters that are largely responsible
8 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

for the irrigation system’s overall water demand. These include:

• climate conditions
• physical properties of soil
• water resources infrastructure
• location of water resource
• socioeconomic condition

Climate data are used to calculate crop evapotranspiration, which is the primary
environmental demand. This combines with crop characteristics, such as growth stage
coefficients; and soil characteristics such as infiltration rate, field capacity, wilting
point, and management allowable depletion to establish the amount and frequency of
irrigation using decision support a tool such as FAO’s CropWat (Smith, 1992), or crop-
water productivity models, such as FAO’s AquaCrop (Steduto et al, 2012).

Data on water resources and infrastructure, such as storage reservoir(s), is required to

compare water demand with water availability during periods of peak demand. The
location of the water resource is also important as this determines the design of the
conveyance system.

Account must also be taken of the socioeconomic circumstances of the farmers as they
determine the size, location, and layout of individual land-holdings and the method of
irrigation used on the farm.

2.2.2 Decision parameters

Designers have more control over:

• cropping pattern
• demand satisfaction
• irrigation application method and land holding
• density and location of hydrants
• design discharge of hydrants
• operation and maintenance (calibration, validation)

Cropping patterns are mostly driven by climatic conditions, particularly temperature,

and by market demand for agricultural products. The system must be capable of
meeting the peak crop water demand based on the cropping pattern, and the
climatic conditions as these determine the capacity of the conveyance network. For
this purpose, a thorough investigation of the water balance should be undertaken to
cover multiple decades. The system should be capable of meeting the peak demand
for at least 80 percent of the time (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000). The water
balance should be corrected for the overall efficiency of the irrigation system,
taking into account the reservoir storage, the conveyance through different modes
or structures, and the on-farm water application efficiency. In locations where there
are water shortages, alternative management solutions should be recommended,
such as partial cultivation of the command area, border strip/furrow irrigation, or
deficit irrigation in order to achieve the optimum yield. Designers must also have
access to the cadastral maps or satellite imagery of the project area at an appropriate
2. MASSPRES 9

scale. It is advisable that the spatial information of agricultural land and residential
plots be integrated with the ownership and demographic data of the area to identify
the exact area (ha), number, location, and type of the landholdings of an individual
farmer. This will facilitate locating the most appropriate position and capacity
of hydrants for efficient operation. The maps should always be kept updated by
describing the layout of the irrigation and drainage networks. Additional features
such as the location of pumping stations, regulation, protection, and control
equipment, surface reservoir(s), and access routes should be clearly marked on the
maps or identified on satellite images.

2.3 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND MANAGEMENT

Although operation, maintenance, and management are usually grouped together,
they are fundamentally different in terms of required skills, budgetary allocations, and
institutional responsibilities.

Operation is related to the day-to-day adjustment of pressure and discharge of

the irrigation system to ensure service delivery according to the farmers’ (users’)
requirements. The fundamental skill required for this activity is to identify the issues
and constraints expressed by farmers who require water service delivery, reading
the pressure and flow gages, opening and closing flow control components, and
operating the pumping units.

Maintenance deals with diagnosing and rectifying malfunctions to ensure that the
system continues to perform to its designed capacity. This requires moderate to high
skill levels. Preventive maintenance is carried out on a seasonal or periodic basis, and
curative maintenance covers urgent circumstances and failures.

The system management deals with long-term strategic modifications and changes
to operating procedures to achieve the objectives in the areas of system automation,
efficiency enhancement, safety practices, and environmental sustainability. Operating
the system often provides the data and information to execute the maintenance and
management inputs.

2.4 OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES

The essential purpose of an irrigation system is to efficiently provide irrigation water
to farmers at the point and time of their desire to get optimum crop yields. Besides this
broad objective, the following are the specific modes of irrigation system operation
(Renault, Facon and Wahaj, 2007).

• The pre-scheduled operation plans under generalized field and environmental

conditions are subject to change to accommodate changes that occurred due to
updated crop water requirements, changes in water availability at the source,
and modification to the system hydraulic parameters. This is called predictive
operation; it also involves seasonal tasks such as filling the pressurized irrigation
network at the start of the season.
• Smooth operation requires minimizing perturbation (changes in operating
pressure or discharge) caused by sudden changes in water requirements, such as
in the event of a heatwave or rainfall. Perturbation can be minimized by adjusting
the settings of control devices either manually or electromechanically to ensure
10 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

system safety and to stabilize operations. This operation mode can be termed as
the reactive operation.
• The irrigation system must go under a rigorous monitoring and evaluation process
at predefined intervals. Monitoring and evaluation are intended to help system
managers and operators in decision-making and to ensure proper service delivery
to farmers. Monitoring and evaluation involve comparing actual vs intended
physical status of the irrigation infrastructure and its various components (pumps,
control devices, discharge regulators, pressure gages, etc.), comparing actual vs
design system variables, such as discharge and pressure at the critical points, and
the quality of service delivery (reliability) to farmers.

2.5 FUNCTIONS OF PRESSURIZED SYSTEMS STRUCTURES

Irrigation system operation is defined as executing a set of specific procedures and
rules to perform a function. The network of pressurized irrigation infrastructure
is a set of interconnected hydraulic structures or components to ensure several
functions. The structures or components of a network and their specified functions
are as following:

2.5.1 The storage function

The purpose of the storage function in a watershed is to collect and store runoff from
rivers and streams by excess rainfall to deliver it more conveniently and at a critical time
according to the user’s requirement. Depending on its size, operating rules, and storage
location, the lag time between reaching a specific storage level and its distribution
through the network may have different time steps varying from a few hours to years.
A surface reservoir behind an embankment is always required to ensure the storage
function. It is important to distinguish between the surface storage reservoir upstream
of the service area and the inline or intermediary storage reservoirs. The coordinated
releases of water from these reservoirs according to the crop water requirement of the
service area, system lag time, and carrying capacity of the pressurized irrigation system
ensures the proper use of the storage function.

Moreover, a comprehensive storage function should also account for the potential
contribution of groundwater aquifers. Groundwater storage can significantly reduce
the lag time and conveyance losses when incorporated correctly in a storage function.
However, it is also important to ensure that the groundwater withdrawal is sustainable.
The sustainability of groundwater aquifers can be increased by incorporating
conjunctive surface and groundwater management to ensure aquifer recharge.

2.5.2 The conveyance function

The conveyance function in a modern pressurized irrigation system comprises
surface or buried conduits of concrete, steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylene
(PE), or high density polyethylene (HDPE) with a protective coating to withstand
environmental degradation. In relatively larger irrigation systems, this function
comprises a combination of pipe conduits and open channels to optimize cost and
conveyance efficiency. The pipe system used for the conveyance function can either be
fully pressurized and capable of conveying water against the topographic gradient or
open to the atmosphere in which the water is conveyed under gravity.
2. MASSPRES 11

2.5.3 The diversion function

The diversion function is a procedure to divert water towards the conveyance system,
which carries it to the service area. Water is diverted to the conveyance system in several
ways, the most common being a diversion weir or cross regulator constructed across
rivers, streams, and main canals. This structure can be gated or ungated, and it raises
the water level in the upstream vicinity of the main stream to the desired level, which is
enough to feed the low pressure off taking pipes. Diversion through pressurized pipes
can also be accomplished by installing submerged outlets under the live storage level of
storage dams or with high capacity pumping into the pressurized conveyance system.
Each arrangement depends on the topographic condition of the area and the distance
from the service area to water sources.

2.5.4 The distribution function

Distribution is a function to divert water and distribute it among the key points of the
service area (hydrants). In most cases, a network of surface or buried pressurized pipes
is used to perform this function. These pipes are classified as main lines, sub mains,
branches, and distributors based on their diameter, nominal pressure, and length and
make up the on-farm distribution network. Water is distributed across the network
according to a design criterion.

2.5.5 The delivery function

In a modern pressurized and fully demand-based irrigation system, water is delivered to
the users according to the crop water requirement on their cultivated land. In this case,
the water source is usually not constrained. However, for a restricted water source, a
rationing delivery function is recommended to ensure equitable water availability for
all users on the network. This type of distribution is accomplished by a rotational
plan. A properly conceived distribution function is intended to enhance the equity and
reliability of water availability at the service points in terms of flow and pressure.

2.5.6 The control function

For the proper operation of a conveyance and distribution network, an appropriate
control function must be in place. For pressurized irrigation systems, the control function
regulates and maintains a live operating pressure, ensuring that all outlets or hydrants
operate normally. Pressure valves and flow regulators are used for the control function.

2.5.7 The safety function

The safety function safeguards the physical integrity of the pipe network. A
pressurized irrigation system branches from source to sinks. Therefore, the carrying
capacity, or discharge, and the operating pressure vary gradually along this system.
Excessive pressure in the pipe system can also build due to unsteady flow conditions
caused by hydrants’ sudden opening and closing. A safety function with the help of
pressure release or overflow valves can dispose of excessive pressure and/or discharge
to safeguard the physical infrastructure.

2.5.8 The measurement function

The irrigation system management involves regular decision-making to maintain
the system in running condition and assess the water delivery charges. Therefore,
such information must be obtained at the system level, which can help organize an
12 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

appropriate response at a proper time. For this purpose, monitoring discharge and
pressure through a measurement function using suitable devices, such as inline flow
meters, venturi meters, and ultrasonic pipe flow meters at key junctions and points in
the network is important for the system managers and operators.

2.5.9 The information transmission function

The purpose of a proper information transmission function is to ensure that the data
collected in the field are available in real or near real-time in the decision-making
centres so that quick and accurate decisions are made to respond to the system
dynamics. Nowadays, the information transmission function is performed by wireless
equipment coupled with the sensory instrument installed on the irrigation network
and is widely termed as Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
SCADA can play a crucial role in the water management of large-scale pressurized
irrigation systems; it can monitor soil moisture in near-real time and allow irrigation
start/stop messages to be sent to the control system.

2.5.10 The information management function

The information management function is not an integral part of the physical irrigation
network. It is a sequence of corresponding data processes such as compiling, analyzing,
extracting information and archiving. It also supports the organization’s plans for
improvements, expansions, and modernization.

2.6 TYPES OF DELIVERY SCHEDULES

In any irrigation scheme, irrigation water is delivered to each branch of the distribution
system (open or pressurized) from its parent branch and ultimately to the farmer’s
turnout or hydrant under different arrangements called delivery schedules. The
selection of a specific delivery schedule for an irrigation scheme depends upon
several factors, i.e., the type of irrigation system, availability of water at the source,
the capacity of the conveyance and distribution system, cropping pattern, and peak
demand. Different types of water delivery schedules are defined by specific delivery
characteristics, i.e., frequency of delivery, delivery rate, delivery duration, and delivery
timeliness. There are four main types of irrigation delivery schedules widely reported
in the literature (Clemmens, 1987) and described below.

2.6.1 Rotation schedule

Rotation is a rigid delivery schedule that provides no flexibility in irrigation delivery
frequency, rate, and duration. In this arrangement, a delivery schedule is made in the
central project office. A fixed flow rate is sanctioned for each branch of the distribution
network with a fixed frequency of rotation, typically a week or ten days. The duration
of a fixed flow rate is then computed proportionally to the size of the landholding of
each farmer so that all the farmers have an equal volume of water per unit of irrigated
land during one rotation. There are also some variants of the rotation schedule in which
the frequency or duration is varied a few times during a growing season to compensate
for varying evapotranspiration needs.

In a rotation schedule, every farmer knows the exact time and duration for which (s)he
would receive irrigation water and is aware of under irrigation. Therefore, the rotation
delivery schedule is widely suited for cereal and deep-rooted crops. Farmers in semi-
arid regions, where groundwater abstraction is economically feasible, enjoy some level
2. MASSPRES 13

of flexibility in the frequency and duration of irrigation by utilizing groundwater

conjunctively. In some cases, there is also an informal exchange of irrigation turns
among farmers with mutual agreement. Another modification to the rotation schedule
in small community-based irrigation schemes is the sharing of irrigated land, whose
size is determined by water availability at the source. In exceptional cases, a rotation
delivery schedule can be used with a pressurized irrigation system during the period of
peak water requirement. In this case, the delivery is directed to a fixed proportion of
irrigators for the first half of the rotation cycle, while the remaining irrigators receive
water in the second half of the rotation cycle.

2.6.2 Centralized schedule

Centralized scheduling is a “top-down” approach with the possible assumption
of unsteady flow conditions and knowledge of cropping patterns and crop water
requirements. The centralized command executes the schedule to determine water
deliveries at all service points within an irrigation scheme. This schedule is not
responsive to the farmers’ demand because its foundation assumes that it is impractical
to get feedback from many farmers or groups of farmers. The centralized command has
an in-depth understanding and knowledge of water demand in the service area. That is
why centralized scheduling is not a flexible schedule in a real sense, and its flexibility
only works in the top-down direction. It does not account for the variation in demand
at the farmers’ end. In a few circumstances, the centralized scheduling can be justified,
i.e., when water is scarce and the objective is to distribute the scarce resource among as
many irrigators as possible, or delivery sans fee, i.e., when there is no institution to fix
the market value of water.

2.6.3 Arranged schedule

The most convenient schedule for delivering irrigation water to farms equipped with
on-farm irrigation technologies is the arranged schedule. Irrigation water demands
are calculated and requested automatically or semi-automatically using electronic
devices with or without human guidance for a particular day, flow rate, and duration.
The information is then forwarded to the irrigation project authority. Occasionally,
limitations may be applied on maximum flows during peak water demand periods,
which can be managed accordingly at the farm level by adjusting the duration of
irrigation. This type of delivery schedule requires close coordination between the user
and project authority, and demands can be made in advance to provide enough time for
sanctioning the delivery. The flow rate and duration of irrigation are prearranged when
the requests are made at short notice. However, the farmer may have the option to
request a desired flow rate and/or duration if the request is put forward well in advance.
The farmer has the freedom to self-operate the field hydrant at the prearranged time.
During peak demand, water can be allocated to the users on a volumetric basis to respect
the right of access to water of the larger group of users. In the arranged schedule, water
is charged based on per unit volume consumed. That is why the field turnouts must be
metered individually or at the WUA level to avoid conflicts. The arranged schedule is
well suited for modern irrigation schemes, including pressurized irrigation systems. It
has been successfully adopted in California, Mexico, Columbia, and North Africa in
irrigation districts with various field sizes ranging from 5 to 50 hectares.

2.6.4 Demand based schedule

In a limited rate demand schedule, there is no need to make a request because water is
always available on demand. Such a delivery schedule can also be called “on-demand”.
14 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

For on-demand systems, the hydrant discharge must be fixed with appropriate flow
regulators. On a small scale, water delivery from a privately owned tube well is an
option. On a larger scale, the limited rate demand delivery schedule requires a very
flexible distribution system capable of responding automatically to the start and stop
of the turnout (hydrant) flow. Good examples are the Canal de Provence in France and
the Capitanata Consortium in Italy.

2.7 COMPONENTS OF A PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Pressurized irrigation systems are often demand-driven, and were developed to
increase the flexibility and reliability of irrigation at the service point. The selection
of appropriate components is an integral part of the pressurized irrigation system
design, which aims to meet the crop water requirement of the service area. These major
components of the irrigation system are the following:

2.7.1 Storage unit

When the water source for a pressurized irrigation system originates from a stream
or canal that operates on a rotation delivery schedule, water from the source is
diverted to a nearby or on-farm storage unit. The stored water is then distributed
through the pressurized distribution system according to the design criteria. Large-
volume storage tanks are ideal for storing enough water to meet the peak water
demand, but there is a need to consider the opportunity cost of the land occupied
with the storage. An optimal size can be determined based on the cost of increased
depth or reduced service flexibility. If natural topographic depressions are available
near the project site, converting them into a sump can be more economical. The
site of the proposed storage unit should be appropriately secured to ensure the
safety of the farmers and grazing livestock. Lining the storage unit with HDPE
geomembrane or plastic mulching should be provided to avoid seepage. The
construction of appropriate inlet and outlet structures is also essential to prevent
damage to the banks during filling and pumping.

2.7.2 Pumping unit

The pumping unit is the most important component in pressurized irrigation
systems. Pumps lift the water from the storage or source and inject it under
the required pressure into the distribution system. The pump selection with an
appropriate capacity is a critical design parameter. Before the pump selection, the
maximum design discharge and required pressure at the highest point in the scheme
must be known. With this information, several pump characteristic curves are then
assessed to select one which can satisfy the required conditions with the highest
possible efficiency. Following this, the Net Positive Suction Head versus Discharge
(NPSH-Q) curve should be evaluated to ensure that the available NPSH is greater
than the required NPSH. The pump should also be capable of operating at different
impeller speeds to match the required discharge. This is particularly helpful when
the irrigation system runs at partial capacity during the early crop growth stages.
Several options are available on the market to power the pump, such as electric-
powered pumps, pumps driven by diesel engines, and solar-powered pumps. The
selection depends on the available power source and cost. Solar-powered pumps have
minimal operating cost, but the duration of the operation is primarily governed by
the irradiance and sunshine hours.
2. MASSPRES 15

2.7.3 Conveyance and distribution network

Conveyance and distribution networks consisting of pipelines have several advantages.
They are considered the most efficient means of distribution in terms of water-saving
and their ability to transmit pressure facilitates the execution of flexible irrigation
deliveries. When the conveyance and distribution network is buried, it does not
interfere with the movement of farm machinery, the right of way is always clear, and
the natural drainage channels are not intercepted, thus reducing the cost of additional
cross drainage works. With the piped network, the irrigators have the flexibility to
turn the flow on or off. This action generates a remote response conveyed through the
pressurized network to start low-pressure flow under gravity from a source of water or
turn on a pump to supply the need in terms of flow rate, duration, or frequency. Since
it is difficult or costly to intervene with the alignment and size of the pipes once they
are installed, the designer needs to take great care in choosing a durable pipe material
and pipe size to optimize cost of current and future pumping requirements.

2.7.4 Delivery and application devices

To maximize the use of irrigation water at the field level, delivery devices are installed at
the field hydrants to control water flow according to the desired criteria. These devices
are gate valves, flow regulators, pressure regulators, hydroelectric flow controllers,
and metered hydrants. Depending on the mode of irrigation application, delivery
devices are coupled with the water application systems or devices to provide water to
individual plants, i.e., via drip emitters, bubblers, pulsators, porous pipes, sprayers, and
sprinklers. The delivery and application devices play an essential role in delivering the
required amount of water to the desired location in a farmer’s field.

2.7.5 Measurement devices

The measurement devices in a pressurized irrigation system can monitor the system
pressure and discharge at various network points. The most common measurement
devices used in a pressurized pipe network are the inline flow meter, venturi meter,
electromagnetic flow meter and ultrasonic pipe bands. These devices can be of recording
type or can be read directly on a user-friendly gauge. For pressure measurement,
Bourdon gauges are commonly used. They should be installed in an easily accessible
location for convenient reading and maintenance on all hydrants and other critical
points of the network.
3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 17

3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure

Analyzing the performance of an irrigation system identifies constraints and problem

areas. Although there are many ways of assessing performance, FAO recommends
using the Rapid Appraisal Procedure (RAP), developed by FAO and the ITRC at
the California Polytechnic State University to enable irrigation scheme managers and
farmer groups to work together during this initial phase. RAP is recommended because
it is quick, systematic, and comprehensive and includes physical, management, and
institutional aspects of system operation.

RAP, initially designed for mapping large-scale canal system performance (MASSCOTE
approach), has been revamped for use with pressurized irrigation systems of different
sizes. The methodology offers a systematic set of procedures for diagnosing bottlenecks
in system performance and service delivery levels. It provides irrigation managers with
a clear picture of problem areas and enables them to prioritize the steps needed for
improvement. It also provides initial indicators to use as benchmarks to compare
improvements in performance once modernization plans are implemented.

The following is an overview of RAP and highlights the issues that are particularly
relevant to pressurized irrigation systems. The full RAP manual will be needed to
undertake an appraisal, and this is available in the ANNEX of the document2. A
desktop application and spreadsheet version are available to download to enable
appraisers to collect and collate data digitally in a user-friendly manner that guides the
user through the various steps. However, users who do not have access to a computer,
particularly during fieldwork, can use downloadable forms to fill in manually.

BOX 3.1
Development of RAP software
RAP desktop application is developed to provide a well-structured and user-friendly
interface that helps users to quickly produce the assessment. The application
development started with the review of the RAP functions and the creation of a
software architecture that reflects the three elements of RAP. The major benefits
of the computerized version are the enhanced analysis, the immediate reporting
function, the visualization and the possibility to share the analysis quickly. The
software is designed to increase the user experience, as it integrates straightforward
guidance for the assessment steps, definitions and result interpretation.

Source: https://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/rap/en/

2
The software is hosted by the website of FAO Land and Water Division, https://www.fao.
org/land-water/databases-and-software/rap/en/
18 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

3.1 DIAGNOSIS AND EVALUATION OBJECTIVES

Diagnosing actual system performance is a fundamental step to determine the pathways
for improvement. RAP for pressurized irrigation systems provides user-friendly tools
to critically assess three interrelated elements: water balance (water resources – supply
and demand), system management (organizations and institutions), and water delivery
service (physical water distribution system).

FIGURE 3.1
Scoring of actual and stated water delivery service

Source: https://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/rap/en

The appraisal includes:

• stocktaking of manageable assets: water resources, institutional resources, and

irrigation infrastructure;
• evaluating system capacity and performance using indicators to identify the
underlying causes of under-performance;
• detecting changes since the original system design and installation;
• looking forward to the desired physical condition and performance when the
system is modernized.

The time needed to conduct the appraisal depends on the size and complexity of
the system, as well as data availability, collaborative stakeholders, and timing of the
assessment. For example, an appraisal in the off-season will require more time to fully
understand how the scheme operates than when observing the scheme in full operating
mode. A typical appraisal, from preparation to completion, can take up to 1 to 2
months for a small or medium-scale scheme with varying topographical conditions. A
typical timeline includes data and information collection (2-3 weeks), field visits (2-3
weeks), and write-up (2 weeks).

It is important to manage and limit the time spent on RAP, but if this highlights the
need for more in-depth analysis in specific areas, then time must be allocated for this.
3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 19

3.2 APPRAISING DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Structured surveys are used to gather both qualitative information and quantitative
data. From this, the two main outputs are a structured set of databases and
performance indicators.

3.2.1 Irrigation system scale

Initially, RAP was designed for evaluating large-scale surface irrigation schemes.
However, interest in small- and medium-scale system performance is growing, so RAP
has been revamped to be sufficiently scale-neutral and is now applicable to appraise
small-, medium-, and large-scale systems.

3.2.2 Framing the appraisal

RAP only applies at the distribution system level, from water intake to the farm
hydrant. It does not include an appraisal of on-farm irrigation systems. However, it is
important to have a broad understanding of how water is used on-farm, though full
appraisal would be a separate task. If several irrigation systems are supplied from the
same water source, separate RAPs will be needed for each scheme.

3.2.3 The time horizon for assessment

The RAP should provide information on a recent agricultural season. This is meant
to be a snapshot rather than a trend analysis. A typical season is preferable, one that
avoids extreme events, such as drought and abnormally poor performance, which may
be beyond the immediate control of the scheme managers.

3.2.4 Target group and stakeholders

RAP must be conducted by experienced agricultural water management professionals
to avoid misinterpretation and errors in data and results that may lead to inappropriate
decision-making.

Although RAP is designed with experienced professionals in mind, it also addresses

several questions aimed at stakeholders. Water delivery service to farmers is an essential
element of the appraisal process and should involve as many farmers as possible. This
‘360-degree’ evaluation can clarify any discords that often occur between system
managers and farmers.

3.3 DATA REQUIREMENT

The RAP methodology is data-intense. It requires substantial ground-truth information
to acquire accurate assessments. The data collection methodology is based on surveys,
interviews, field observations, and document analysis. However, global datasets are
helpful to obtain an overall view of the command area. It is recommended to start the
assessment with a “virtual tour” to generate bulk information in advance. Information
such as topography, climate, vegetation, soil, and characteristics of the agriculture
sector can be obtained and analysed in support of the field observations. If field
measurements or observations are not available at the time of appraisal, open-access
sources can be used to construct bulk information. The RAP Manual includes several
open-access platforms that can be used in such situations. These global platforms
integrate and synthesize the validated data and allow unlimited data retrieval. Such
20 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

datasets should also be used to properly frame the baseline assessment and understand
the prevailing trends in the irrigation scheme. It is, however, important to note that
the original scope and scale of RAP requires micro-analysis. Therefore, local data and
information have absolute priority throughout the appraisal.

3.4 APPRAISING STRUCTURE AND SCOPE

The structure and scope of RAP for pressurized irrigation systems are described in
a flow chart (Figure 3.2). This is based on the understanding that irrigation systems
operate under a set of physical, institutional, and resource constraints. The process
identifies and assesses these constraints and develops plans that can transform
traditional management into service-oriented irrigation management.

FIGURE 3.2
Scoring of actual and stated water delivery service

Service-oriented irrigation management

Water delivery service

Control of flow
Flexibility
Reliability
Adequacy
Equity

Management performance
Internal indicators related to
institutional efficiency of project
management and Water User Internal indicators related
Association to physical infrastructure
of water delivery
External indicators related to
water resource sufficiency and
water requirement

Physical constraints

Institutional and management Engineering

• Institutional efficiency • System design (pump station
• Human resources and inlet, distribution
• Financial resources pipeline, hydrants, control
• Legal background equipment, monitoring
• Responsibility share devices, drains)
• Task distribution and performance • Capacity
check • Conditions of system
components
Hydrological and agronomic • Performance of system
• Cropping pattern components
• Crop characteristic • Maintenance of system
• Water availability components
• Water quality • Operation policies
• Water demand • Irrigation scheduling and
• Farm management practices allocation management

Source: Authors’own elaboration.

3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 21

Three inter-related elements present different perspectives on water management, and

as such, they are central features of RAP:

• Water balance (hydrology and agronomy) appraises water resources, supply, and
agronomic demand
• Management (organizations and institutions) appraises current structures and
mechanisms to identify constraints
• Water delivery service (engineering and infrastructure) appraises the physical
water distribution system, its characteristics, performance, operating policy,
condition, and maintenance.

Each element has dedicated sets of external and internal performance indicators (see
section 3.5.3 and 3.6.4 for the definitions of external and internal indicators) to direct
professionals and decision-makers in translating the defined bottlenecks and gaps
into improvement, rehabilitation, or modernization strategies. The overall goal is to
transform traditional management into service-oriented management.

The following is a guide to the appraisal of the three elements, which are developed in
more detail in the RAP Manual and spreadsheet. Although each element is evaluated
separately, they follow the same analytical process (Figure 3.3). When they are brought
together, they provide a comprehensive assessment of the system as a whole.

FIGURE 3.3
Flowchart of calculation mechanism

Instructions on required Data input, validation, Results obtained as

data, information, calculation performance indicators
stakeholder mapping

Source: FAO. 2022a. RAP v1 User’s Manual [online]. https://data.apps.fao.org/static/downloads/RAP/RAP%20v1%20

Manual.pdf.

3.5 APPRAISING THE WATER BALANCE

The water balance requires sets of hydrological and agronomic data to determine the
balance between water resources and the water requirement of the crops. It accounts
for all inflows and outflows within defined boundaries and includes information
about different water efficiencies (e.g., conveyance efficiency and application
efficiency), and provides a good assessment of existing constraints and opportunities
for improvement. It sets the stage for determining the level of water delivery service
to be achieved and for designing appropriate allocation strategies. The RAP includes a
water balance at the system/project level and assesses external indicators and potential
for water conservation.

The water balance is described in a flow chart (Figure 3.4) and is a guide through the
main factors that determine the balance. Water demand indicates the total net irrigation
demand required at the system level, and water supply incorporates the total available
water resources for irrigation.
22 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 3.4
Calculating an irrigation scheme water balance

Management Crop Internal water External water

Climatic data
practices characteristic resources resources

Re-circulated
water

Water quality Cropping Special Conveyance Conveyance

data pattern requirement efficiency (i) efficiency (e)

Deliverd water

Water Water
demand
>/=/< supply

Source: Authors’own elaboration.

3.5.1 Water demand

Irrigation water demand is derived from disaggregated crop information and calculating
net crop water requirements based on crop growth coefficients (Kc) and monthly
reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo). Crop water requirement at the field level is
determined by multiplying the net crop water requirement by the cropped area. This is
adjusted to take account of special measures, such as the need for salinity control, crop
pre-wetting, and regulated deficit irrigation practices.

Establishing gross irrigation requirements requires taking account of effective rainfall

and on-farm water losses (irrigation efficiency), which is usually expressed as a
function of the irrigation method (surface, sprinkler, localized), though much depends
on the management abilities of the farmer.

Figure 3.5 illustrates typical monthly time steps in net crop water demand in an
irrigated command area. Care is needed to avoid confusion between monthly data,
average, and total water use data.

FIGURE 3.5
Monthly net crop water demand (ET) in an irrigated command area (mm3)

120.000
107.125
100.000 96.250
87.150
80.000
66.330
59.400
60.000

40.000 34.960
19.800 25.350
20.000 11.250 14.850 13.920
6.750
0.000
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Source: Authors’ own elaboration with RAP v1 software.

3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 23

3.5.2 Water supply

Water supply, both surface and groundwater, can be sourced directly from the irrigated
command area and outside the area. Water resources can be re-circulated, so re-used
water accounts an additional water supply. Gross water supply is adjusted by the
conveyance efficiency to calculate the net water supply delivered to farms. The ‘losses’
in the conveyance system may have strategic importance if there is insufficient water
supply to meet demand. Figure 3.6 illustrates the typical variability of external water
supply to a command area on a monthly basis.

FIGURE 3.6
Monthly gross external water supply to an irrigation command area (mm3)

140.000 130.000
120.000 112.00 114.000
102.000 101.000
100.000 88.000
83.000
80.000 74.000
64.000
60.000 53.000
46.000 45.000
40.000

20.000

0.000
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Source: Author’s own elaboration with RAP v1 software.

3.5.3 Water balance – external indicators

The main performance indicators measure the balance between available water supply
and water demand in the command area (command area irrigation efficiency), and
between delivered water supply and water demand in the command area (field irrigation
efficiency). The greater the deviation from 100 percent, the larger the imbalance.

All the water balance related indicators are termed as external indicators as in most
cases the sources of water is located outside of the scheme boundary. The indicators
can vary monthly, and plus and minus signs express over-supply and water scarcity.
The final indicators are obtained as averaged annual results and monthly sub-results.

The rest of the external indicators are mostly related to the design capacity of the
system and economic productivity. External indicators are expressed in quantitative
terms. However, the results must be interpreted in context and require experienced
professional judgment throughout the process.

3.6 APPRAISING MANAGEMENT:

INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS
Institutional mechanisms are essential to make and enforce the rules that enable
irrigation managers to provide irrigation services to farmers. Assessing the performance
of management is particularly challenging as organizations and institutions are
shaped by national policies, regulations, social and cultural backgrounds. Appraising
performance requires gathering information about the overall institutional mechanisms
24 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

and touches on several aspects, such as general conditions in the command area,
budgetary issues, employee performance, operation performance, WUA performance,
and the extent of IMT (Figure 3.7). Data are gathered through open-ended responses
and scoring exercises. Although a step-by-step guide is part of the scoring plan to avoid
arbitrary assessment, the appraisal requires expert judgment and continual dialogue
with farmers and other stakeholders.

Management appraisal occurs at two levels: overall system management, which

concerns the establishment, operation and maintenance, and development of a public
irrigation scheme, and WUA management concerning the responsibilities allocated to
farmers’ organizations. Whatever the level, the appraisal must target those officially
responsible for irrigation management, whether this is the state, farmer organizations,
or individual farmers. In the case of a co-managed irrigation scheme, the appraisal
requires the involvement of multiple levels.

FIGURE 3.7
Appraising irrigation scheme management

Water supply Ownership Field General conditions

management circumstances

Allocated budget >/=/< Required budget Budgetary issue

Human Human resource Employee

management policy stock performance

Operation Responsibility Operation policy Operation

mechanisms shares performance

Human resources Budget/resource Allocated Framework

generation responsibilities of WUA WUA performance

Degree of IMT IMT performance

and gaps

Source: FAO. 2022a. RAP v1 User’s Manual [online]. https://data.apps.fao.org/static/downloads/RAP/RAP%20v1%20Manual.pdf.

3.6.1 Management
Although RAP covers a one-year period, appraising management requires information
of a longer time period, one reason being that investments are often uneven and
spread over several financial years. A one-year view of finance may well give a false
impression. Finance is central to appraising management and includes a comparison of
the actual budget with the set budget for the year.

Management appraisal also includes human resources. Human resources are the
backbone of efficient management; thus, stocktaking and metrics to assess performance
are a significant part of the appraisal process.

The appraisal must also take account of operation policies that determine the efficiency
of delivering and implementing management rules.
3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 25

FIGURE 3.8
Scoring of actual and stated water delivery service

Indicators of operation policies

Effective use Effective

of computers instruction on
for billing pump operation

Effective use Effective instruction

of computers on butterfly and
for operation distribution devices

Effective Effective
instruction on flow rates at instruction on
offtakes flow metering

Source: Authors’ own elaboration with RAP v1 software.

Note that high staff turnover might occur due to temporary labor requirements of
specific works and may distort the management picture in a given year.

3.6.2 Water user associations

Extending appraisal to WUA is required on schemes where farmer organizations have
taken over responsibility for managing parts of the irrigation system. This is happening
as public authorities wish to reduce the financial burden of operating irrigation systems,
but equally, farmers are able to adopt more agile management mechanisms that work
to their advantage. However, legal background, liabilities, and responsibilities are
mostly determined by national policies that can significantly differ from one country
to another. For large-scale schemes, there may be several WUA operating within a
command area that requires a separate appraisal.

The appraisal includes a review of basic institutional functions to clarify responsibilities.

Budgetary issues are investigated, including the sources of finance. Most WUA are
likely to be self-financing from water fees collected from farmers. Similar metrics to
those applied to system management can also be applied to WUA staff.

The revamped RAP introduces a new set of data related to IMT. Farmers not only
contribute financially to system management, but they may also contribute in-kind.
This, too, must be appraised so that farmer contributions to O&M can be fully valued.
26 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

3.6.3 Water delivery service: a management perspective

Service-oriented irrigation management performance is measured using five indicators:
control of flow, flexibility, reliability, adequacy, and equity of water supply (Figure 3.9).

Indicators are designed to be scored based on the stakeholders’ perception on the

5-point Likert scale.3 Each score is described with guiding definitions to reduce
subjectivity. The almost identical set of indicators is applied at three levels: system level,
system-level operated by paid employees, and final distribution level. The indicators
are scored by management (stated water delivery service) and also by farmers
(actual water delivery service) to allow for comparison between the perceptions of
management and farmers. What is important for management may be less significant
for farmers. Opinions being diametrically opposed can be moved towards universally
agreed on system management.

FIGURE 3.9
Scoring of actual and stated water delivery service

Stated water delivery service from pump station to pipe system

Control of flow Flexibility

Adequacy Reliability

Equity

Actual Water Delivery Service Stated Water Delivery Service

Source: Authors’ own elaboration with RAP v1 software.

3.6.4 Management – internal indicators

All the appraisal indicators related to the management and water service of the irrigation
scheme are termed as internal indicators. The management appraisal brings together
clusters, six sets of internal indicators related to budget, employees, operation, WUA,
IMT, and water delivery service. Together, they capture the prevailing institutional
mechanisms in the irrigation system for multiple years.

These qualitative metrics are particularly useful in assessing the feasibility of further
investments for modernization. For example, schemes already struggling with poor
financing might be reluctant to manage assets with high operating costs. Also,
investments implemented in a fragile institutional environment might fail to capitalize

3
Responders specify their level of agreement to a statement typically in five points: (1)
Strongly disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Neither agree nor disagree; (4) Agree; (5) Strongly agree.
3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 27

on the potential revenues. Therefore, the indicators related to budget and employees
unfold essential information about the appropriate investment program such as fund
uptake, time horizon, and resource endowment.

Clusters related to the operation, WUA, and water delivery service are appraised
through composite indicators. Qualitative scoring plans are provided to each dimension
per cluster to minimize the subjectivity of the appraisal.

Finally, IMT appraisal consists of comparing official and actual responsibilities

amongst WUA and farmers. As in the case in many qualitative assessments, value-
added roles can be significantly improved from the information gathered. While
drawing conclusions, it is strongly recommended to support the appraisal with a
thorough explanation in narrative form.

3.7 APPRAISING WATER DELIVERY SERVICE:

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The water delivery service covers the engineering aspects, including the infrastructural
constraints. The appraisal includes all the physical system components from the water
source and intake to the drainage system (Figure 3.10).

FIGURE 3.10
Appraising water delivery service

Drain Background and condition

Irrigation schedule
Hydrant

Characteristics
Branch pipe

Performance
Main pipe
Operation

Pump station,
auxiliaries Maintenance

Water source
and intake Water Delivery Service

Source: FAO. 2022a. RAP v1 User’s Manual [online]. https://data.apps.fao.org/static/downloads/RAP/RAP%20v1%20

Manual.pdf.

Evaluating pressurized irrigation systems can be more complex than open-canal

systems in the sense that delivering an adequate supply depends on both pressure and
flow parameters. Evaluating both is only possible from a theoretical perspective, and
so any deviation from required flow and pressure is only a proxy for required changes.
28 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The most significant performance indicators of irrigation conveyance systems are

directly related to discharge. This is easily tracked in open canal systems but less so
in closed pipe systems. Establishing cause and effect between system components is
also not easy. For example, even small equipment malfunctions along the system can
prevent efficient water delivery. RAP takes account of this and measures management
performance through sets of potential physical constraints to reach service-oriented
irrigation management.

Physical appraisal involves all the standard components of a pressurized irrigation

system. It includes engineering design, operation, and timely maintenance as
prerequisites of acceptable delivery service. However, not all components have the
same impact on performance. For example, a sluice gate in poor condition may still
be able to supply the design discharge. But the seemingly negligible dislocation of
a flow measuring device might severely distort the discharge values. Thus, defining
performance indicators that simply refer to the function of individual components,
although important, is not nearly enough. RAP, therefore, must take account of both
the performance of individual components and provide metrics that appraise their
performance as part of the irrigation system.

3.7.1 Sequential appraisal of system components

The appraisal captures the system components from water intake to the drains and
recognizes that components are connected in sequence. Thus, appraising a standard
pressurized system must include both the component parts and the interaction with
components downstream to ensure high performance.

The components to appraise include the water source and intake, pump station and
auxiliary works, main pipeline, branch pipes, hydrants (at point of delivery), and drains
(Figure 3.11). Open-ended responses aim to generate a rich pool of information about
the engineering characteristics. But this type of questioning may not provide enough
explanation and will require careful interpretation by experienced professionals with
good local knowledge.

The appraisal emphasizes the basic design criteria for designing pressurized systems:
capacity corresponding to the peak water demand and the required capacity of the
pump station and the hydrants. The status of performance, operation, and maintenance
of each component is measured separately through scoring systems complemented with
guided definitions. If other significant appraisal criteria occur due to any particular
aspect of the system, it must be indicated in the final assessment.

3.7.2 Irrigation schedule

The quality of the water delivery service depends on the irrigation schedule. Many of the
indicators of flexibility, reliability, equity, and adequacy can be directly improved by a
well-established irrigation schedule. However, multi-cropping systems further complicate
the already difficult task of creating agreed schedules. Experiences among many public
irrigation schemes suggest that the official irrigation schedule suggested by the state does
not always match with the actual schedule on the ground. The appraisal must enable the
two to be compared and appropriate action taken to bring them into alignment.
3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 29

3.7.3 Water delivery service – farmers’ perspective

Service-oriented irrigation management performance from a farmer perspective is
measured using five indicators: control of flow, flexibility, reliability, adequacy, and
equity of water supply. The aim is to align the results received from scheme managers
with those of farmers and to use any difference to resolve possible conflicts.

FIGURE 3.11
Scoring the performance of deliveries

Flow and pressure

measurement Density of hydrants

Flow regulator Capacity of hydrants

Joints and rubbers Valve performance

Source: Authors’ own elaboration with RAP v1 software.

This appraisal can also identify the more vulnerable farmers who are not satisfied with
the service. In pressurized systems, the most vulnerable are not necessarily those at the
tail-end of the system as in canal irrigation. Care is needed to identify the hotspots in
the system during the appraisal.

3.7.4 Water delivery service – internal indicators

The good condition and performance of system components are prerequisites for
any hydraulic assessment. Systems evaluated only from a hydraulic and hydrological
performance will not provide a complete picture. Even if the initial design allows
sufficient pressure for reliable and equal distribution, the poor physical condition can
hamper actual water delivery. The water service appraisal brings together five sets of
internal indicators related to characteristics, performance, operation, maintenance, and
water delivery service. It must be re-iterated that these dimensions may not all correlate
with each other. Therefore, the clusters provide individual assessments about each
dimension. Targeted interventions can be prioritized during the planning phase. For
example, if the overall goal of modernization is to expand the useful life of the system,
poorly maintained assets must be prioritized even if they still perform well.
30 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

BOX 3.2
Piloting the concept of rapid appraisal procedure
for pressurized systems in Egypt
Revisiting the RAP methodology was prompted by the FAO assignment to assess
a series of irrigation improvement programmes in Egypt between 2017 and 2020.
This involved the reconstruction of the traditional water distribution systems and
the introduction of improved irrigation systems. The RAP initially designed for
open-canal systems had significant potential to carry out systematic performance
benchmarking. Therefore, FAO piloted several options to extend the applicability of
RAP to different system configurations, including pressure distribution systems. The
Egypt case study paved the way for the revamped RAP.

The On-farm Irrigation Development Project in the Old Lands (OFIDO) was
implemented on 31 916 feddan in Kafr el-Sheikh, Beheira, Minya, Beni-Sueif, Assuit,
Sohag, Qena, and Luxor. The project replaced the traditional distribution systems
with multiple water-lifting points and earthen canals with low-pressure networks.
The RAP was used to assess the pressurized systems’ performance and compare
it with the traditional systems. Representative irrigation systems were sampled
to conduct the assessment and draw lessons from the improvement programmes.
However, RAP provides an option for a case-by-case evaluation.

Therefore, each sampled irrigation system was individually assessed, and the results
of the case studies were synthesized. The data covering two agriculture seasons were
collected through in-field measurements to calculate the water balance. The crop
characteristics, management practices, climatic data, crop evapotranspiration, and flow
were monitored in the sampled systems. The pressurized irrigation systems showed
a remarkable performance in terms of field irrigation efficiency. The investigated
pressurized networks reached 98 percent field irrigation efficiency, while severe water
scarcity and oversupply were observed in traditional systems (Salman et al., 2020a).

The RAP management chapter was only completed after the assessment and
management turnover. The established WUA were surveyed, and key characteristics
defined. The assessment showed that management turnover was initiated at a late
stage of the project execution, and management roles were handed over without
sufficient capacity-building and organizational arrangements.

The RAP results proved that the operation modes of WUA are arbitrary and
not entirely consistent with the national legislation. As a result, the management
tasks regarding the operation, maintenance, distribution, and organization are not
explicitly assigned to the stakeholders. The fragile institutional environment is one of
the significant drawbacks to exploiting the full potential of the pressurized irrigation
systems. The water delivery service was assessed sequentially, scrutinizing the
consecutive water distribution levels one by one.

The traditional water distribution setting involves the pumps (water withdrawal
from branch canals), mesqa distribution canal (conveyance and distribution from the
pumping station to lower level canals), and marwa distribution canal (conveyance and
distribution from the mesqa canal to the field). The low-pressure irrigation systems
followed the initial design levels but converted the respective distribution levels to
a pumping station, mesqa pipeline, and marwa pipeline. The final distributaries are
hydrants, supplying water directly to the field. The RAP is used only for physical and
not for hydraulic assessment.
3. The Rapid Appraisal Procedure 31

However, the water service chapter gives essential information on the condition and
performance, without which the interpretation of hydraulic underperformance would
be difficult. The assessment required data collection for the system, field observations,
and several interviews with stakeholders. The assessment highlighted considerable
performance heterogeneity amongst systems, which was influenced by the quality
of the construction, the distribution arrangements, the organization of O&M works,
and the capacity of the WUA.

The pressurized irrigation systems performed well in terms of creating equity

amongst users and being reliable. However, the rotational irrigation schedule set
back the potential increase in service flexibility. Furthermore, the system design did
not involve flow control devices. The RAP identified the particular flaws in each
investigated system, based on which corrective measures could be suggested. Also,
common observations were defined, which referred to structural challenges in the
project design and implementation.

The Egypt case study was the first attempt to pilot and validate the RAP for
pressurized systems. The methodology has proven to be robust but data-intense.
Despite the demanded efforts, the RAP implementation is recommended in data-
scarce environments thanks to its ability to initiate systematic data collection. The
results coming from the RAP were translated into technical recommendations to
guide the future irrigation investment programmes in Egypt.

Source: Salman, M., Pek, E., Giusti, S., Lebdi, F., Almerei, A., Shrestha, N., El-Desouky, I. et al. 2020a

3.8 SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

The RAP is built on the concept that all management elements (hydrological,
organizational, and water service) must function properly to achieve consistently
high performance. One without the other cannot provide a sufficient irrigation
service. Moreover, the underperformance of one element can substantially undermine
the performance of the others. Once the assessment is performed, the results of the
elements must be collated and the bottlenecks defined. This can support the design of
future rehabilitation and modernization programmes to address malfunctions.
4. Appraising hydraulic performance 33

4. Appraising hydraulic
performance

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Branched pressurized irrigation systems offer a high degree of control over water
supply to farmers and the potential for on-demand water delivery. This means that
farmers can irrigate as and when they need to rather than to a fixed schedule, and they
are able to stop and start water flow as and when needed. Many of these options are
not readily available to farmers who are supplied from open canal systems.

Irrigation system capacity is normally designed for the maximum discharge assuming
steady-state flow and is based on calculated maximum crop water requirements
and the number of farms being irrigated at the same time. On-demand irrigation,
however, is more complex as farmers can individually choose when they irrigate and
how much water they will take. The worst case would occur when all the farmers
on a system decide to irrigate at the same time and require the maximum flow at
the design pressure. But designing a system to meet this extreme requirement is
usually uneconomic, and so farmers and designers must reach a compromise between
performance and cost and decide on a reasonable schedule that meets all the discharge
and pressure requirements at the farm hydrant most of the time. In the past, Clément
(1966) used a statistical approach, based on an agreed probability of occurrence,
to determine the number of farmers that would be able to irrigate properly at the
same time. In turn, this determines the design discharge and pressures for the pipe
network. If more farmers then start irrigating, the system would fail to provide the
right discharges and pressures for everyone.

This approach provides a ‘maximum’ discharge to enable engineers to design the

system, but it does not take account of how it functions in practice. It takes no
account of the many different configurations of farmers irrigating at the same time
and the different discharge requirements needed to meet these demands.

4.2 DEVELOPING AND USING COMBINE OPTIMIZATION

AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS MODEL SOFTWARE
In 2000, as computers were being increasingly used for routine design work,
an improved approach to design pressurized irrigation systems was developed
(Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000) based on how the system might perform in
practice rather than based on statistical analysis. This approach i) generated different
discharge configurations flowing into each section of the network, ii) determined
pipe-sizes taking into account such discharges, and iii) enabled the development
of indicators to assess system performance, including reliability and relative
pressure deficit. The computer software COPAM (Combine Optimization and
Performance Analysis Model) was developed to undertake the calculations (Box 41).
Although initially a design tool, this approach now enables managers to appraise the
performance of existing systems by measuring the extent of system ‘failure’ under
different operating configurations and the impact this has on service delivery.
34 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

BOX 4.1
The development of Combine optimization
and performance analysis model software
A software to support appraisal was based on a revamp of the version in the RAP (Burt
and Facon, 2002) (Chapter 3). To appraise the performance of pressurized irrigation
systems, an updated version of the software named “Combined Optimization and
Performance Analysis Model - COPAM” (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000) was
developed in the framework of this publication. The latest version, COPAM v4.0,
now incorporates additional functions to analyse sensitivity (Lamaddalena and
Fouial, 2019) and perturbation (Derardja, Lamaddalena and Fratino, 2019) and is used
extensively in this paper to diagnose faults in the system.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on COPAM v4.0.

COPAM v4.0 now accommodates new performance indicators developed in line with
the MASSPRES approach. These include indicators for capacity, sensitivity, equity,
and perturbation. These new indicators are described in detail in chapters 5, 6, and 7.
A users’ guide for COPAM v4.0 is provided in Annex 2.

Figure 4.1 illustrates the flow of actions in the COPAM v4.0 software supporting the
MASSPRES approach.

FIGURE 4.1
Flow chart of the Combine optimization and performance analysis model v4.0 modeling
approach

DISCHARGE
COMPUTATION

PROBABILISTIC RANDOM
APPROACH GENERATION

PIPE SIZE
OPTIMIZATION

NEW DESIGN REHABILITATION

PERFORMANCE
ANALYSIS

INDEX HYDRANTS' HYDRANTS' PERTURBATION

CHARACTERISTICS ANALYSIS SENSITIVITY(Shyd (RPE)
CURVE

RELATIVE PRESSURE DEFICIT (RPD)

PERCENTAGE OF UNSATISFIED HYDRANTS
(PUH) HYDRANTS RELAIBILITY (Re)
EQUITY (EH)

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

4. Appraising hydraulic performance 35

Figure 4.2 illustrates the ‘homepage’ of COPAM v4.0 software package. In this
publication, only modules related to performance analysis are described and illustrated.
See FAO-I&D Paper n. 59 for full details of other modules.

Modules are already available to calculate discharges and pipe sizes and can be used for
new designs and supporting appraisals of existing schemes.

FIGURE 4.2
Homepage of Combine optimization and performance analysis model v4.0 software
package

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

4.3 SETTING THE SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

Boundary conditions require that: I) all hydrants are equipped with flow regulators
with a nominal discharge established according to the downstream cropping pattern,
the irrigated area, the type of soil, and all the uncertainties related to the weather
conditions and the farmers’ behavior; II) the system is branched, and III) one single
upstream water source is available. Both on-demand and rotational delivery schedules
can be assessed according to the actual operational mode of the system.

4.4 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

COPAM v4.0 includes a Random Generation Model to generate different discharge
configurations and modules to compute relative pressure deficit and reliability
indicators (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000), equity, hydrant sensitivity, and
perturbation indicators:

Relative pressure deficit concerns the pressure at the farm hydrant and the deficit
(DHj,r), at each hydrant, j, in each configuration, r. It describes the deviation between
the actual pressure head at the hydrant and the minimum pressure head requested by
the farmer according to the requirements of his farm irrigation equipment.

Reliability describes the probability of maintaining pressure at the farm hydrant, i

over time t.
36 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Equity assesses the quality of service distribution among farmers. This indicator is
related to the relative pressure deficit and assesses variability across the irrigation system.

Hydrant sensitivity, Shyd, is related to the reliability indicator. It defines the rate of
change in reliability as the upstream pressure/discharge changes.

Perturbation assesses pressure changes in the pipe system under unsteady flow
conditions due to changes in discharge when opening and closing farm hydrants,
shutting down pumps, and pipes burst.
5. Appraising system capacity 37

5. Appraising system capacity

A pressurized irrigation distribution system must deliver water through a complex,

branched pipe network from source to farm hydrants and meet the pressure and
discharge requirements for every design configuration. Failure to meet the pressure
and/or discharge requirements at farm hydrants will impact irrigation performance on
farms. Just how much impact will depend on the extent of the changes and time over
which they occur.

Therefore, the question is: does the pipe system have sufficient capacity to achieve the
desired hydraulic requirements at each hydrant in a specified configuration?

COPAM v4.0 software enables irrigation managers to answer this question by

assessing the theoretical system performance of a system based on the design criteria
and comparing this with what happens in practice to identify any deficiencies. For this,
COPAM uses two models. The first, the Indexed Characteristics Curve (ICC) model,
provides information on the overall performance of the irrigation system. The second,
the AKLA model, provides more precise information about the performance at the
hydrants, the percentage of unsatisfied hydrants, their position, and the magnitude of
their pressure deficit.

A brief description of the ICC and AKLA models follows. More detailed descriptions
are available in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 59 (Chapter 5).

5.1 INDEXED CHARACTERISTICS CURVE MODEL

The ICC model simulates system operation for comparison with results observed in
practice. It is based on steady-state flow conditions in the network and assumes that all
hydrants incorporate a flow regulator, so the hydrant delivers the nominal discharge even
when the pressure changes. There are many operating conditions to consider as farmers
decide to irrigate on-demand. The model takes account of changes in ground level across
the system, which has important implications for pressure measurements, and can assess
the discharges and pressures in the system for various configurations (groups of hydrants
operating at the same time) and generates a set of characteristic curves that define an
envelope or range of operating conditions for the network (Box 5.1).

BOX 5.1
The Indexed characteristics curves model
When hydrants incorporate a flow regulator, it can be assumed they deliver the
nominal discharge, d [l s-1], even when the pressure head changes. A “configuration”
(r) is defined as a group of operating hydrants corresponding to a fixed value of the
discharge, Q [l s-1], at the head of a network.

A configuration is considered satisfied when all operating hydrants in a configuration,

respect the following relationship:

(Hj)r ≥ Hmin (5.1)

38 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Where (Hj)r [m] represents the pressure head at the hydrant j within the configuration
r, and Hmin [m] represents the minimum required pressure head for the appropriate
operation of the on-farm system.

Satisfying the condition depends on the layout of the network, the plano-altimetric
conditions, the location, and the number of hydrants operating simultaneously.

For any value of discharge Q at the head of the network, different values of the
piezometric elevation, Zr [m a.s.l.], satisfy the relationship.

For all possible configurations r, the pairs (Qr , Zr) refer to discharges ranging between
0 and Qmax are calculated, and a cloud of points is obtained (see Figure). These points
are contained within an envelope. The upper part corresponds to 100 percent satisfied
configurations, and the lower part corresponds to no configuration is satisfied.

Representative points of the hydraulic performance of a network

Zmax

Upper envelope
Z (m.a.s.l)

Po
Zo
Pu

Lower envelope

Upstream discharge (I/sec) Qo Qr Qmax

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Sagardoy, J. 2000. Performance Analysis of On-demand Pressurized Irrigation Systems. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 59. Rome, Italy. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ah860e/ah860e00.htm).

Other curves can be drawn within this envelope, called Indexed Characteristic Curves
(ICC), each representing a certain percentage of satisfied configurations.

To calculate the ICCs a preselected number of configurations are investigated, along

with a discrete number of discharges to be checked, corresponding to a number, K, of
hydrants open at the same time:

K = Qr /d (5.2)

Assuming all the hydrants have the same nominal discharge, d

In the case of different hydrant discharges, the number of hydrants simultaneously

opened will vary as a function of the classes of hydrants drawn. In this case, a random
drawing will be performed to satisfy the relationship:

|Qtir - Qi| < e

Where Qtir [l s-1] is the discharge corresponding to K hydrants drawn at random and
e is the accepted tolerance, assumed equal to the value of the lowest hydrant discharge.

Experience shows that the number configurations (C) to be investigated for each
discharge should be close to the total number of hydrants (R) for large irrigation systems
(> 600 hydrants). It is recommended to increase C when small systems are analysed.

Once C is established, a random number generator having uniform probability

distribution can generate K hydrants ranging between 1 and R for each configuration.
5. Appraising system capacity 39

Steady-state flow conditions are assumed. A piezometric elevation at the head of

the network is required for each discharge configuration to satisfy the pressure head
relationship.

Once the C configurations are investigated, a series of piezometric elevations (Zr) at the
upstream end of the network can be associated with each discharge Qr, so that each one
represents the piezometric elevation able to satisfy a given percentage of C configurations.

The ICCs can be drawn in the plane (Q, Z), the discharge values chosen and the
corresponding vectors, the points having the same percentage of configurations
satisfied can be joined up.

ICCs with gentle or steep gradients can be obtained depending on the geometry and
the topography of the network.

Let Z0 [m a.s.l.] be the design piezometric elevation at the head of the network and
Q0 [l s-1] be the upstream design discharge. Then define P0 (Q0, Z0) as the “operating
point” of the network (usually, these are the design conditions). The network’s
performance is then linked to the percentage of satisfied configurations corresponding
to the operating point.

The ICCs provide information on the overall performance and capacity of the system.

Note that the ICCs assume that a configuration is said to be unsatisfied if the head
Hj of one hydrant is lower than the minimum required head Hmin. Therefore, if the
operating point (Q0, Z0) falls on an ICC corresponding to a low percentage of satisfied
configurations, this model cannot give a precise assessment of the actual performance
and capacity of the network.

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Sagardoy, J. 2000. Performance Analysis of On-demand Pressurized Irrigation Systems. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 59. Rome, Italy. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ah860e/ah860e00.htm).

Figure 5.1 illustrates the input data required for the ICC analysis.4

FIGURE 5.1
Layout of the input data for the ICC analysis

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

4
All models presented in this publication have been validated and tested in the field
(Lamaddalena, 1997) and also reported in the OFIDO Technical Assessment Report (Salman
et al., 2020b)
40 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The hydrostatic condition, i.e., the upstream piezometric elevation, must be measured
when all hydrants are closed, possibly at the end of the irrigation season.

Pressure heads at pre-selected hydrants must be measured for different operating

configurations and compared with the simulated results for the same configurations. If
field measurements and simulations differ, then changing the pipe roughness coefficient
is one option to ensure the pressure head at the pre-selected hydrant is different, then
adjusting the roughness coefficient can bring them into line.

5.2 AKLA MODEL

The AKLA model offers a more in-depth performance assessment of individual
farm hydrants. The Random Number Generator module is used to select the
number of hydrants operating at any one time (configuration), and this assumes a
uniform distribution of discharge. Rather than analyzing the whole configurations
of hydrants, it is used to determine the pressure head at each hydrant under different
operating conditions.

Comparing the model results with the minimum pressure specified at the farm hydrant
enables the model to calculate the PUH and the relative pressure deficit (RPD).

BOX 5.2
Computing the percentage of unsatisfied hydrants
The AKLA model is based on simultaneous operation of a pre-defined number
of hydrants (configurations). The hydrants are generated using a random number
generator having a uniform distribution function.5 A hydrant (j) is considered satisfied
within each generated configuration (r), when the following relationship is verified:

H j,r ≥ Hmin (5.3)

Where H j,r [m] is the pressure head of hydrant, j, within configuration r, and Hmin [m]
the minimum required head for the appropriate operation of the on-farm systems.

With the same criteria and hypotheses of the ICC model, if the discharge Qr [l s-1] is
fixed at the head of the network, the number of hydrants simultaneously operating
(Kr) can be generated:

Kr = Qr /d (5.4)

Starting from the upstream piezometric elevation (Z0) and the upstream discharge
(Q0), the head losses are computed together with the pressure head available at
each hydrant in each selected configuration. This identifies those hydrants having a
pressure head lower than the minimum (Hmin).

5
In addition, COPAM v4.0 has an internal procedure to enable access to an external file for
hydrants’ configuration. This procedure is relevant when rotational delivery schedules need
to be analysed
5. Appraising system capacity 41

These are defined as “unsatisfied hydrants.” The PUH out of the total number of
open hydrants in a configuration is plotted in a plane (Q, Z). Selecting a large number
of configurations for the upstream discharge (Q0), the analysis provides a variable
number of unsatisfied hydrants and hence a range of PUH for that given discharge.

Repeating this procedure for several discharges (Qup), can produce a cloud of points.
An upper and a lower curve will envelope all these points. The upper envelope
would represent the maximum PUH, the lower envelope would represent the
minimum PUH. Intermediate envelopes can be easily identified ranging between
10 percent and 90 percent.

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Sagardoy, J. 2000. Performance Analysis of On-demand Pressurized Irrigation Systems. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 59. Rome, Italy. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ah860e/ah860e00.htm).

The results of the AKLA model complement those of the ICC model and offer a
more detailed assessment of irrigation system capacity. A graphical interface allows all
information from the AKLA model to be presented diagrammatically: the PUH curves
(one elevation), PUH curves (all elevations).

Figure 5.2, Figure 5.3, and Figure 5.4 illustrate the layout of input data required for the
AKLA model.

FIGURE 5.2
Layout of input data for analyzing hydrants: options

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

42 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 5.3
Layout of input data for analyzing hydrants: elevation-discharge

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 5.4
Layout of input data for analyzing hydrants: set point

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Several possible discharges with several possible upstream piezometric elevations can
be selected and tested to determine the PUH under varying discharge and piezometric
elevation criteria.

5.3 INPUT DATA

Input data includes topographic data from maps of the irrigated area, pipes materials,
nominal pressure (see Annex 4), hydraulic characteristics of the pumping station, the
water delivery schedule, and peak discharge. The latter is often not directly available
as few systems install flow meters at the head of the system to record the hydrograph,
which can also provide valuable insights into farmer behavior.
5. Appraising system capacity 43

If the delivery schedule is by rotation, the peak discharge can be estimated by adding
the discharge of hydrants operating at the same time within their turn. If the delivery
schedule is on-demand, estimation is difficult, and so more reliance is placed on the
design report to provide these data rather than from operating experience.

Data collection is part of the RAP phase and is prepared as input files for computation.
The models assume that networks are branching, and each node (both hydrants and/or
linking sections) is identified by a number (Box 5.3).

BOX 5.3
Input data for system capacity appraisal

Examples of node numbering

0 0 0
NO YES YES
1
1 2 1
2

2 3 5 3
4 4 4
3 5

0 0 0
NO YES YES

1 1 1
2
2

3 3
2 3 4 4

0 0
NO YES
1 1
6 2
2 3
4 5

3 4 6
5

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Sagardoy, J. 2000. Performance Analysis of On-demand Pressurized Irrigation Systems. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 59. Rome, Italy. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ah860e/ah860e00.htm).

The upstream node (source) must have number “0”.

The other nodes are numbered consecutively, from upstream to downstream. Any
node may be jumped.

The number of the section is equal to the number of the nodes downstream.

All terminal nodes of branches must have a hydrant.

44 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

If hydrants have two or more outlets, an additional column is required in the input
file indicating the number of outlets for each hydrant. An internal procedure will
randomly allocate the number of outlets operating simultaneously for each hydrant
for each simulation.

No more than two sections may be derived by an upstream node. If so, an imaginary
section with minimum length (i.e.: lmin = 1 m) must be created, and an additional node
must be considered. This node must have a sequential number.

No hydrants may be located in a node with three sections joined. If so, an additional
node with a sequential number must be added.

Other data requirements include:

Area irrigated by each hydrant (in ha); if no hydrant occurs in the node, Area=0 is
allocated

Hydrant nominal discharge (ls-1).

Section length (m).

Land elevation of the downstream node (m a.s.l.)

Nominal pipe diameter (mm). This information is needed when the program is used
to analyse the network. In the design stage, ND=0 must be considered.

A list of commercial pipe diameters (mm), in increasing order.

The thickness (mm) of the pipe walls.

The roughness (Bazin coefficient) identifies the type of pipe; See FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 59 (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000) and/or Annex A4.1).

The unit cost of pipes in increasing order.

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Sagardoy, J. 2000. Performance Analysis of On-demand Pressurized Irrigation Systems. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 59. Rome, Italy. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ah860e/ah860e00.htm).
5. Appraising system capacity 45

Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 illustrate the templates used to input basic data for assessing
system capacity.

FIGURE 5.5
Example of the basic input data needed to run COPAM v4.0 (network layout

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 5.6
Example of the basic input data to run COPAM v4.0 (list of pipes)

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

5.4 APPRAISAL EXAMPLES

Two examples illustrate how irrigation system capacity can be reported using the
ICC and AKLA models. In the first example, the ICC model provides enough
information for a satisfactory assessment to be made. In the second example, ICC
alone was insufficient, and the AKLA model provides more detailed information on
hydrant performance.
46 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

5.4.1 A pressurized irrigation system in Lecce (Italy)

This system is located in the province of Lecce (Italy) and serves an irrigable area of
582 ha equipped with 174 hydrants with nominal discharges of 5, 10, and 20 ls-1 (Figure
5.7). The area slopes downwards from the pump station with land elevations ranging
from 24 m a.s.l. to 15 m a.s.l. The pump station designed maximum discharge is 325 ls-1
with an upstream piezometric elevation Z0 = 66.7 m a.s.l. The minimum pressure head
at each hydrant (Hmin) is 20 m and is designed to operate low-pressure sprinklers and
trickle irrigation systems on the farm.

FIGURE 5.7
Layout of the Lecce network

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Piccinni, A. F. 1993. Indexed characteristic curves of an irrigationnetwork for the lifting plant design.
Riv di Ing Agr, 3:129-135.

Using the ICC model, 500 different random configurations were assessed with discharges
ranging from 100 ls-1 to 600 ls-1. The resulting ICC are shown in Figure 5.8 and demonstrate
that the observed performance is good as more than 90 percent of configurations are
fully satisfied. The red lines defines the design parameters and the system is capable to
accomodate increased irrigation demand due to possible changes in cropping pattern.

FIGURE 5.8
Indexed Characteristic Curves

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

5. Appraising system capacity 47

Based on the author’s experience, ICC capacity is good if it is more than 80 percent
(Table 5.1). For this system, the appraisal indicates that system capacity is good, and no
additional investigation is required.

TABLE 5.1
ICC capacity assessment
ICC Capacity assessment
> 80 percent Good
< 80 percent Additional investigation is required

5.4.2 A pressurized irrigation system in Foggia (Italy)

This system, called “District 4”, is located in the province of Foggia (Italy). It covers
3 250 ha and is equipped with 660 hydrants with a discharge requirement of 10 ls-1
(Figure 5.9), all equipped with flow regulators. It is served by a daily storage reservoir
of 28 000 m3 with an upstream piezometric elevation of Z0 = 139 m a.s.l. The minimum
design pressure at the hydrants is 2 bar (20m head). Because of the topography, the
system is pressurized without a pumping station. The maximum recorded discharge
at the upstream station is 1 200 ls-1. The area slopes downwards with land elevations
ranging from 50 m a.s.l. to around 102 m a.s.l.

FIGURE 5.9
Layout of the District 4 network

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Piccinni, A. F. 1993. Indexed characteristic curves of an irrigation network for the lifting plant
design. Riv di Ing Agr, 3:129-135.
48 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The ICC model generated 500 different random discharge configurations with
discharges at the upstream reservoir ranging from 100 ls-1 to 1 500 ls-1. The resulting
ICCs are shown in Figure 5.10a. They demonstrate that the observed performance
is poor, and less than 10 percent of configurations are fully satisfied during the peak
period when the upstream piezometric elevation is 139 m a.s.l.and the maximum
discharge is 1 200 ls-1.

The poor results from the ICC model indicate that additional investigation at the
hydrants is needed using the AKLA model. The model results, based on the PUH,
indicate that, for the upstream discharge of 1 200 l s-1 and upstream piezometric
elevation of 139 m a.s.l., only 10 percent of the hydrants are not fully satisfied for 90
percent of the generated configurations (Figure 5.10b).

FIGURE 5.10
A) indexed characteristic Curves B) PUH curves Layout of the District 4 network

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

5. Appraising system capacity 49

Based on the author’s experience, PUH is good if less than 10 percent (Table 5.2).

TABLE 5.2
PUH capacity assessments
PUH Capacity assessment
<10 percent Good
10 percent-30 percent Fair
>30 percent Not adequate

Based on this result, this appraisal indicates that system capacity is good despite the
preliminary concerns raised by the ICC result.

5.4.3 Conclusions
The two examples illustrate the usefulness of both the ICC and PUH indicators for
appraising irrigation system capacity. In particular, the following rules apply:

• The ICC model should be used as a first choice. If the operating point on the ICC
curve is greater than 80 percent, the system can be appraised as good.
• If the operating point is less than 80 percent, use the AKLA model to investigate
further and calculate the PUH to better understand the operating pressure
problems during system operation. If the PUH is less than 10 percent, then the
irrigation system capacity can be assessed as “Good”.
6. Appraising system equity 51

6. Appraising system equity

Equity assesses the quality of service distribution among farmers. This indicator is
based on the RPD, which assesses variability across the irrigation system in terms of
volume, discharge, and pressure at hydrants. In particular:
• Pressure equity (EH) measures the spatial uniformity of pressure at all hydrants
operating during the time T, i.e., corresponding to a configuration of N hydrants
operating simultaneously. This can be defined for the whole system or sub-system
by taking into account all generated hydrant configurations, or it can be for a pre-
selected percentage of deficit occurrence (EH percent). This indicator is useful
when the flow regulators are installed on the hydrants.
• Discharge equity (EQ) measures the spatial uniformity of discharges delivered to
all hydrants operating during the time T, i.e., corresponding to a configuration
of N hydrants. It measures the variation of actual hydrant discharges from the
nominal hydrant discharge. It can be defined for the whole system or sub-system
by taking into account all generated hydrants configurations, or it can be for
a pre-selected percentage of deficit occurrence (EQ percent). This indicator is
relevant when flow regulators are not installed on the hydrants
This publication deals only with systems using flow regulators at hydrants and so only
considers pressure equity. If discharge regulators are not used, then both pressure and
discharge equity would need to be taken into account in appraising the system.

6.1 PRESSURE EQUITY

Pressure equity is defined in terms of pressure head at farm hydrants, which are
assumed fitted with flow regulators that fix the discharge (Qn) at the nominal value.
EH indicator assesses the ability of the system to maintain acceptable pressures at the
farm hydrants. Box 6.1 Illustrates how this is calculated based on RPD at each hydrant.
The results can be presented digitally and also graphically for a predefined percentage
of occurrence. Based on the authors’ experience, 90 percent RPD represents a good
EH level (Table 6.1).

BOX 6.1
Computing pressure equity
The average EH of an irrigation system is

∑ ∑
G N
1 1 HJ
EH = −− −− −−−− (6.1)
C N Hmin
r =1
If Hj > Hmin , it is assumed that Hj = Hmin.

The values of EH range between 0 (poor EH) and 1 (good EH). More precisely, this
can also be defined in terms of probability of EH (i.e. EH percent).
52 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Defining the relative pressure deficit, (∆Hj,r), at each hydrant (j) in each configuration
(r), as:

Hj,r − Hmin
∆Hj,r = −−−−−−−− (6.2)
Hmin

Hj,r = Pressure head at the hydrant j in the configuration r

Hmin = minimum pressure head at the hydrants

From this equation, if ∆Hj,r ≥ 0 the pressure head at the hydrant is enough for an appropriate
on-farm irrigation (Hj,r ≥ Hmin). If ∆Hj,r < 0 the pressure head at the hydrant is not enough.

Within each configuration, the AKLA model computes the RPD at each hydrant
based on the available piezometric elevation at the head of the network, Z0 [m a.s.l.],
and the discharge Qo, for a number of selected configurations C. Using Eq.5.4, the
number of hydrants corresponding to the discharge Qo is calculated. Later, the Kr
hydrants simultaneously operating are randomly drawn. This procedure is repeated
several times for the pre-selected number of configurations6.

For each configuration, the pressure head at each hydrant is computed. The relative
pressure deficit, ∆Hj,r (Eq. 6.2), may be represented in a plane (hydrants numbering,
∆H). In this way the hydrants with insufficient pressure head can be identified. Also
the upper (0 percent), the lower (100 percent) and the ICCS (from 10 percent to 90
percent) may be represented in the same plane.

This procedure assesses the importance of failure and identifies possible solutions to
hydrants with a pressure deficit.

COPAM v4.0 also computes the EHpercent but this is limited to systems equipped with
flow regulators.

Pressure equity for a pre-defined percentage of pressure deficit occurrence is:

1 Hj, percent
(6.3)
EH, percent = −− ∑Rj=1 −−−−−−−−
R Hmin
Where:
Hj, percent = Pressure head at the hydrant j in the pre-selected probability envelop
(ranging from 0 percent to 100 percent). It is suggested to consider Hj,90 percent
envelope.

To be noted that when Hj > Hmin than Hj = Hmin is assumed.

R = total number of hydrants in the network

Values of EH percent around 1 indicates a balanced pressure distribution among

the operating hydrants and values close to and below to 0.5 indicates an unbalanced
pressure distribution with consequences for operational problems (Table 6.1). Such
ranges are arbitrarily assumed, based on the experience of the authors.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on COPAM v4.0.

6
Note that when generating different configurations the withdrawn hydrants are not eliminated
from one generation to the next. This is in line with the theory of random generation numbers.
6. Appraising system equity 53

TABLE 6.1
Equity assessment criteria
EH90% Equity assessment
0.8 – 1 Good
0.5 < 0.8 Fair
< 0.5 Not adequate

6.2 INPUT DATA

The input data required for appraising EH includes the applied water delivery
schedule and peak discharge. A discharge measuring device at the head of the network
is desirable to provide information on the peak discharge and an understanding of
farmers’ behavior.

6.3 CASE STUDY: FOGGIA, ITALY

The following case study illustrates how the EH indicator is computed.

The irrigation system is located in the province of Foggia (Italy). It is called “Sector
25”, it covers 60 ha and is equipped with 19 hydrants, each with a fixed discharge
of 10 l s-1 (Figure 6.1). All hydrants are equipped with flow regulators to guarantee
constant hydrant discharges even when the pressure fluctuates. The upstream
piezometric elevation is 128 m a.s.l. The minimum design pressure head at the
hydrants is 2 bars, based on the low-pressure requirement of the on-farm irrigation
systems. The maximum recorded discharge at the head of the system is 50 l s-1. The
area is almost flat, with land elevations ranging from 101 m a.s.l. to 95 m a.s.l. The
AKLA model was used to compute the RPD using 100 different random hydrant
operating configurations (Figure 6.2).

Assuming that 90 percent is an acceptable level of RPD, hydrants 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
18, 19, 20, 22, 23 experience failure, whereas at hydrants 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 failure can be
reduced. Using the 90 percent envelope, the irrigation system EH is:

EH90 percent = 0.95

This system is assessed as good. The equity can increase or decrease if different
percentage envelopes are considered.
54 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 6.1
Layout of the network

0
L = 150 m
1

L = 462 m
2
L = 162 m
3
L = 118 m
4
L = 13 m L = 80 m
L = 63 m 5
L = 63 m 24 L = 112 m
L = 50 m 8 L = 250 m 6
L = 83 m 9 L=1m
10 7
L = 30 m 21
11 L = 123 m
12
13 22
14 L = 30 m L = 413 m
15 L = 63 m L = 315 m
16 L = 35 m 23
L = 40 m
17

L = 413 m

Hydrant
18
Node 20 19 L = 173 m
L = 43 m

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Sagardoy, J. 2000. Performance Analysis of On-demand Pressurized Irrigation Systems. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 59. Rome, Italy. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ah860e/ah860e00.htm).

FIGURE 6.2
RPD at hydrants

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

7. Appraising system sensitivity 55

7. Appraising system sensitivity

Providing adequate pressure at hydrants depends on many factors like the upstream discharge and pressure,
which tend to fluctuate as the demand for water changes in the system. Thus assessing the sensitivity of pressure
at hydrants under varying upstream conditions is a key issue (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000). Much of the
early work on sensitivity focused on open channel systems (Box 7.1). However, the concept is applied here
to pressurized systems by replacing upstream water level changes with changes in pressure and its impact on
discharge at the farm hydrant. Hydraulically, the pressure at the hydrant determines the level of service provided
to the farmer (Ramos et al., 2009), and any change in pressure can affect it. Thus, hydrant sensitivity is defined as
an indicator relating to the variation in pressure head at the hydrant, which is sensitive to changes in pressure at
the head of the system.

BOX 7.1
Early development of a sensitivity indicator

Much of the early work on sensitivity focused on open channel distributions

systems rather than pressurized pipe systems. Renault (2000) and Kouchakzadeh and
Montazar (2005) defined the hydraulic sensitivity indicator of an irrigation structure
(Sstructure) as the ratio of relative (or absolute) variations of output hydraulic
parameters (Voutput) to the input (Vinput). This is not a static hydraulic parameter
of a structure as it varies with time.

Vout
Sstructure = −−− (7.1)
Vinp

For open channel systems, different levels of sensitivity are used: structures, nodes,
reaches, and subsystems. For instance, the sensitivity (S) of an off-take is defined as
the fractional change of discharge (q) caused by the rate of change in water level (dH1)
in the parent canal. This expression refers to actual depth (H1). (Kouchakzadeh and
Montazar, 2005; Renault and Hemakumara, 1997).

dq
S = −−−
q ∕ dH
−−−1
H1
(7.2)

Horst (1998) introduced the system response theory and presented a general approach
defining the relative change of the offtake discharge (q) to the relative change of
parent canal discharge (Q):

dq
S = −−−
q ∕ dQ
−−−1
Q
(7.3)

Source: Kouchakzadeh, S. & Montazar, A. 2005. Hydraulic sensitivity indicators for canal operation assessment.
Irrigation and Drainage, 54(4): 443–454 and Renault, D. & Hemakumara, H.M. 1997. Mobilization of resources,
sensitivity and vulnerability in canal operation: diagnosis and preliminary analysis. Marrakech, Morocco, Modern
techniques for manual operation of irrigation canals. Proceedings of the Fourth International ITIS [Information
Techniques for Irrigation Systems] Network Meeting.
56 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Based on this early work, the authors have proposed two performance indicators to
address sensitivity: RPD and reliability. RPD is described in Chapters 4 and 5. This
section focuses on reliability and its relationship with sensitivity as an additional
indicator of adequacy and long-term service to farmers.

7.1 SENSITIVITY INDICATOR

Lamaddalena and Fouial (2019) quantified hydrant sensitivity as the changes in
hydrant reliability (Re) due to the changes in the upstream discharge and/or pressure.
This provides important additional information to irrigation managers on the status of
each hydrant for different operating conditions.

In this context, Re is defined at the hydrant level as the probability of a hydrant

remaining in a satisfactory state:

Re = Prob [Hj, t ≥ Hmin ] (7.4)

In other words, for a large number of analysed configurations:

Ns,j
Rej = −−− (7.5)
No,j

Where Ns,j is the number of times the pressure at hydrant j is satisfied, and No,j is the
total number of times where hydrant j is open.
Hydrant sensitivity, Shyd, is assessed according to the degree of change in reliabilities
under different upstream conditions, and for a hydrant (j), it is defined as:

Shyd,j = Rej,t (Qupt) - Rej,t-1 (Qupt-1) (7.6)

and/or
Shyd,j = Rej,t (Zupt) - Rej,t-1 (Zupt-1) (7.7)

Where Qupt and Qupt-1 are upstream discharges recorded at time t and t-1, respectively;
Zupt and Zupt-1 are upstream piezometric elevations recorded at time t and t-1,
respectively; and Rej,t and Rej,t-1 are the reliabilities of the hydrant j at time t and t-1,
respectively.

COPAM v4.0 can be used to compute Re for various changes in upstream pressure, and
sensitivity is the difference between the computed reliabilities.

A classification for sensitivity in Table 7.1 is based on the author’s experience

of appraising systems and establish the spatial distribution of the most sensitive
hydrants in a network.

TABLE 7.1
Classification for sensitivity

Indicator Good Fair Bad

Sensitivity (Shyd) Shyd ≤ 0.2 0.2 < Shyd ≤ 0.5 Shyd > 0.5
7. Appraising system sensitivity 57

7.2 INPUT DATA

The AKLA model is used to first calculate the RPD and, in turn, can calculate Re and
hydrant sensitivity. The network is assumed to be a branching type, and the hydrants
are assumed to be equipped with flow regulators. Thus, the input data is the same as
for previous calculations.

Graphical presentations are available for both reliability and sensitivity and can help in
visualizing problem areas.

7.3 CASE STUDY: FOGGIA, ITALY

The following case study illustrates how hydrant sensitivity is computed to appraise the
performance of irrigation “District 1a” located in the Sinistra Ofanto irrigation scheme,
Foggia, Southern Italy (Figure 7.1). The system covers an irrigated area of 564 ha and is
designed for on-demand operation with a peak design discharge of 300 ls-1. All hydrants
have a nominal discharge of 10 ls-1 and are equipped with appropriate flow regulators. A
pumping station with variable speed devices is installed at the head of the system and is
regulated to guarantee a constant upstream pressure head of 65 m. The land elevation at
the pumping station is 206 m a.s.l. The minimum design pressure head at all hydrants is
20 m, and almost all the farms are equipped for drip irrigation. The hydrant sensitivity
is computed for two discharges: Q0,1 = 300 ls-1 being the design discharge, and Q0,2
= 400 ls-1 being the maximum recorded discharge during the peak irrigation period. One
thousand random configurations were generated to appraise the system.

FIGURE 7.1
Layout of the District 1a network in Foggia, Italy

Source: Lamaddalena, N. & Khila, S. 2011. Efficiency-driven pumping station regulation in on-demand irrigation systems. Irrig
Sci, 31: 395-410, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-011-0314-0.

The results for the reliability indicator for the two discharges are illustrated in Figure 7.2.
For the design discharge of 300 ls-1, 95 percent of the hydrants are above 0.8, and most
are 1.0. At the higher discharge of 400 ls-1, reliability values between 0.8 to 1 decrease
from 95 percent to 75 percent, and, for some hydrants, reliability is less than 0.5.

Hydrant sensitivity is illustrated in Figure 7.3 and shows that the first 90 hydrants close
to the pumping station are highly sensitive to increasing the discharge from 300 ls-1 to 400
ls-1. However, all the values are less than 0.5, so sensitivity is defined as fair (Table 7.1).
58 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 7.2
Re for discharge (a) 300 ls−1 (b) 400 ls−1

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 7.3
Hydrant sensitivity (from Q=300 ls-1 to Q=400 ls-1)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

Note that if the reliability value of a hydrant is zero for the initial discharge, it will
remain zero for a higher discharge, and the sensitivity indicator will be zero. But
this does not mean that the hydrant performance is good. Sensitivity must always be
combined with reliability analysis to avoid errors when interpreting results.
8. Appraising perturbation risks 59

8. Appraising perturbation risks

8.1 INTRODUCTION
Perturbations are unintended changes that take place in discharges and pressures in
pipelines. They occur when there are sudden changes in discharge, such as opening/
closing farm hydrants (sudden changes in configuration), pumps starting/stopping, or
pipes becoming blocked or bursting. Sudden changes are undesirable in pipe networks
as they often lead to significant increases in pressure that can result in burst pipes. Such
changes in pressure are often referred to as ‘water hammer’; in this publication, they
are referred to as ‘perturbations’.

On-demand irrigation inevitably creates unsteady flow condition in pipe networks,

and controlling transients is now an essential part of designing and ensuring the
safe operation of pipe systems (Abuiziah et al., 2013). However, little is known
about their behavior, and most modeling tools were developed for relatively simple
pipeline systems. One approach that addresses complex system uses the method of
characteristics (Wichowski, 2006). In 2018 researchers developed a Relative Pressure
Variation (RPV) indicator as a means of identifying appropriate gate-valve closing
times to avoid potential pipe damage (Lamaddalena et al., 2018).

In 2019 (Derardja, Lamaddalena, and Fratino, 2019), two new indicators were
established: i) the hydrant risk indicator, which describes the degree of risk of
each hydrant creating pressure waves that travel through the pipe system, and ii)
the Relative Pressure Exceedance indicator (RPE), that measures the variation in
pressure in a pipeline relative to the nominal operating pressure for the pipe. RPE
provides a warning to system managers of the potential risk of a pipe bursting due
to excess pressure rise.

This section illustrates the use of RPE indicator for two upstream boundary conditions:
flow directly from a reservoir into the network and from a pumping station. A user-
friendly tool was developed to simulate unsteady flow in a pressurized irrigation
system (Derardja, Lamaddalena, and Fratino, 2019) and integrated into the COPAM
v4.0 software package.

BOX 8.1
The perturbation module for unsteady flow
Possible mechanisms that may significantly affect pressure waveforms include
unsteady friction, cavitation, a number of fluid–structure interactions, and viscoelastic
behavior of the pipe-wall material, leakages, and blockages. These are usually not
included in standard water hammer software packages and are often hidden in
practical systems (Bergant et al., 2008).

The usual assumptions (Wylie, Streeter and Suo, 1993) have been considered to
develop the software code:

The flow in the pipeline is considered to be one-dimensional with the mean velocity
and pressure values in each section.
60 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The unsteady friction losses are approximated to be equal to the losses for the steady-
state condition.

No water column separation phenomenon occurs.

Constant wave speed is considered.

The pipe wall and the liquid behave linearly elastically.

The Euler and the conservation of mass equations are:

dV 1 ∂P dz f
−− + -- −− + g −− + −− V|V| =0 (8.1)
dt ρ dt ds 2D

∂V 1 dP
a2 −− + -- −− =0 (8.2)
∂s ρ dt

where, g is the gravitational acceleration (ms−2), D (m) is the pipe diameter, V (ms−1)
is the mean flow velocity, P (Nm−2) is the pressure, z is the pipe elevation (m), f is the
Darcy–Weisbach friction factor and a (ms−1) is the celerity. t (s) and s (m) represent
the independent variables.

The variable V and its module |V| preserve the shear stress force direction on the pipe
wall according to the flow direction.

The characteristic method makes it possible to replace the two partial differential Equation
(8.1) and Equation (8.2) with a set of ordinary differential equations. All related theory
along with equations related to the boundary conditions are reported in Annex A1.

Boundary conditions
The external conditions of flow velocity and/or pressure head are described by the
boundary conditions at each end of the pipes. The strength of the characteristics
method is the adequacy of analyzing each boundary and each pipe section separately
along the unsteady flow time occurrence. The most common and relevant boundary
conditions were considered:

I) Upstream reservoir with constant pressure head H0; II) Hydrant gate valve closure
arrangement; III) Upstream constant speed pump; V) Internal boundary conditions
(i.e.: two-pipe junction and three-pipe junction)

Calculation process
At the beginning of the computation process, a steady-state simulation was executed
for each configuration to establish the initial conditions. Starting from the upstream
boundary condition (i.e.: reservoir water level or pumping station pressure head), by
computing the head losses with the Darcy–Weisbach equation, the pressure head (H)
and the flow velocity (V) are defined in each section of the system.

Starting with the initial H and V conditions (calculated for the steady-state flow),
calculations of the new values HPn and VPn are carried out for each grid point with an
increment of ∆T (see Figure A.1 in the Annex 1). Therefore, new values of H and V are
obtained, which replace the previous ones. The process continues up to a preselected
simulation time. The software selects the maximum and the minimum pressure
occurring at each section through the simulation time (selection through time).
8. Appraising perturbation risks 61

A second selection through the pipe sections for Hmax and Hmin is performed
(selection through space). The analysis results are tabulated as the maximum and
minimum pressure head occurred for each pipe, which will be the basis of the
calculation of the indicators.

As above mentioned, in this publication Tmax has been chosen to be equal to 30s.
Such value can guarantee that the non-steady flow pressure variation is no more
significant. The calculation process is summarized in the software flow chart.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on COPAM v4.0 User’s Manual.

COPAM v4.0 software flowchart

Start

Input Parameters

Generating Random Configuration

Steady-State Simulation

Configuration changing
(by closing and opening hydrants)

Transient Flow Simulation

No
i = Total number of configurations

Data Collection

Results Analysis

Graphical Output

Source: Derardja, B., Lamaddalena, N. & Fratino, U. 2019. Perturbation Indicators for On-Demand Pressurized
Irrigation Systems. Water, 11(3): 558. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030558.
62 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

8.2 RELATIVE PRESSURE EXCEEDANCE INDICATOR

This indicator numerically represents the pressure variation and the risk assessment
with respect to the nominal pipe pressure. This can help both the designers and
managers to analyse irrigation systems operating any type of water delivery schedule,
including on-demand, and identify the weak points in the system:

Hmax − NP
RPE = 100 × −−−−−−−−−− (8.3)
NP

Where:
RPE is the relative pressure exceedance (percentage)

Hmax (bar) is the maximum pressure, resulting from unsteady flow, recorded at each
section, and NP (bar) is the nominal pipe pressure.

A safety coefficient (k) is introduced in the software to allow for wear and tear of pipes.
Thus:

Hmax − k * NP
RPE = 100 × −−−−−−−−−− (8.4)
k* NP

As many configurations are analysed, the RPE is presented as 10 percent equiprobability

(indexed) curves. Each curve represents the probability of occurrence of a specified
risk. This approach is similar to that used in previously described steady-state models.
Positive values of RPE indicate a dangerous condition for the pipe.

8.3 INPUT DATA

The Perturbation module is an integral component of the COPAM v4.0 software
package. The main input file data is the same as in previous sessions. This includes
the network layout, a list of pipes used and their hydraulic characteristics, hydrant
discharges, and the number of configurations analysed. Two possible boundary
conditions are used at the head of the system: an open reservoir and a pumping station.

8.4 COMPUTING PERTURBATION

Figure 8.1 illustrates the software homepage for the Perturbations module within
COPAM v4.0.
8. Appraising perturbation risks 63

FIGURE 8.1
First screen for the perturbation module

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Four groups of inputs options are available

Network data input

• the initial and final node of each section
• the hydrants discharge (l/s) (at the downstream node)
• sections length (m)
• land elevation of the downstream node (m a.s.l.)

Pipe data input

• nominal pipe diameter (mm)
• fluid bulk modulus (Pa), Young’s modulus for pipe material (Pa), pipe roughness (mm)
• nominal pipe pressure (bar)
• different pipes sections are numbered consecutively
• terminal nodes of the branches must have a hydrant
• a maximum of two sections may be derived from each node
• the network is assumed to be of branched type
• each node is identified by a number

Configuration data input

Random configurations can be automatically generated or uploaded as a file with
previously generated configurations according to the type of delivery schedule
applied in the area.

Information is required about the impact of valve closing time and the fraction of the
valve opening. See Annex A1.
64 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Relative pressure exceedance profiles output

The relative pressure exceedance provides information for each network profile
selected from a drop-down list. The initial and final nodes of each profile are shown in
green on the selected profile (Figure 8.2).

FIGURE 8.2
Example of RPE Profile Res-node 16

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

8.5 CASE STUDY: FOGGIA, ITALY

The following case study illustrates how perturbations can be assessed in an irrigation
system using the RPE, and also the impact of hydrant valve closure times on the
magnitude of perturbations for Sector 25, in the “Sinistra Ofanto” irrigation scheme,
located in Foggia in Italy.

The system consists of 19 hydrants with a nominal discharge of 10 ls-1 and an upstream
piezometric elevation of 128 m a.s.l. (Figure 8.3). The nominal pressure for the pipework
is 10 bar. There are four possible operating modes for this sector: open, closed, opening,
and closing. The network was designed to have five hydrants open at the same time.
Together these produce a large number of possible configurations. To simplify the
analysis and for clarity, a smaller number of configurations was selected. Nonetheless,
the software supports large-scale networks and all desired hydrant configurations.

Assuming five hydrants are open simultaneously, perturbations were generated by

closing two hydrants and substituting them with opening two new ones. The variation
in discharges flowing into the network due to variations in demand is presented
through different hydrant configurations.
8. Appraising perturbation risks 65

FIGURE 8.3
Layout of the network (Sector 25)

L = 462 m
2
L = 162 m

L = 118 m

4
L = 13 m L = 80 m
L = 63 m 5
L = 63 m 24 L = 112 m
L = 50 m 8 L = 250 m 6
L = 83 m 9 L=1m
10 7 21
L = 30 m 11 L = 123 m
12
13 22
14 L = 30 m L = 413 m
15 L = 63 m
16 L = 315 m 23
L = 35 m
L = 40 m
17

L = 413 m

Hydrant
18
Node 19
20 L = 173 m
L = 43 m

Source: Lamaddalena, N., Khadra, R. & Tlili, Y. 2012. Reliability based pipe size computation of on-demand irrigation systems.
Water Resources Management, 26: 307-328.

Initially, the hydrant closing time Tc = 0 (instantaneous closure) provides the most
extreme case from a pressure perspective. Figure 8.4 illustrates the pressure profile for
the pipeline between the reservoir and hydrant Node 24 (Res-Node24). Following
closure, the maximum and minimum pressure waves were recorded along the pipe (at
1 410 m) is presented as 10 percent equiprobability curves.

RPE provides a clear picture of the pipe sections at risk. Pipes are considered safe when
the RPE values are negative, which means that the maximum pressure does not exceed
the nominal pressure. RPE = 0 means that the transient pressure is equal to the nominal
pressure. When the value rises above zero, the pipe is then at risk.
66 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The RPE is negative from the reservoir down to Node 6 (987 m), so this section of the
pipeline is not at risk. However, beyond Node 6, RPE becomes positive, it increases
downstream, and the pipeline is at risk from this point onwards down the Node 24.
The greatest RPE value is at Node 24, where there is the greatest risk of failure.

FIGURE 8.4
RPE for 100 configurations. Tc= 0 sec

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

Pressures are much lower when the hydrant is gradually closed, Tc = 6 sec (Figure 8.5),
the RPE is always negative, and there is no risk from perturbation along the pipeline
from the reservoir down to Node 24. This is evidence to show that farmers must learn
to open and close their hydrants slowly to avoid excessive pressure rises and pipe bursts.

FIGURE 8.5
RPE for 100 configurations. Tc= 6 sec

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 67

9. Using Mapping system and

services for pressurized irrigation:
Case studies

Case studies illustrate the steps toward developing a plan for modernizing systems.
Although irrigation systems have many unique features, they do have a lot in common
and are based on the same basic principles in terms of their design and management.

The first step is to undertake a RAP to collect data and to understand how a system is
managed in a qualitative sense and how farmers behave and respond to management
(Chapter 3). The next steps involve a technical appraisal of the system to establish the
various indicators that describe the performance. These identify weaknesses in the
system and form the basis of rehabilitation and/or modernization.

Five case studies demonstrate how MASSPRES is used to appraise a range of irrigation
systems and provide a sound basis to guide modernization. The systems are located in
the Mediterranean countries of Egypt, Italy, Spain, and Tunisia and represent different
approaches to design and management. They include:

• Sector 25, of the “Sinistra Ofanto” irrigation system, Foggia, Italy

• an irrigation system in the Nile delta in Egypt
• the Manouba irrigation system in northeast Tunisia
• District 4, of the “Sinistra Ofanto” irrigation scheme, Foggia, Italy
• Sector VII of the MD Bembézar Irrigation District, Spain.

Details about the case study areas are reported in the description below.

9.1 CASE STUDY: SECTOR 25, FOGGIA, ITALY

This case study presents a detailed account of how MASSPRES was applied to a small
irrigation system, called Sector 25, part of the District 4 of the “Sinistra Ofanto”
irrigation scheme in Foggia, Southern Italy. It brings together all the steps described in
this publication to appraise this system, how deficiencies are identified, and the technical
and management options recommended for improving hydraulic system performance.

Sector 25 is equipped with 19 hydrants, all with flow regulators with a nominal
discharge of 10 ls-1. The system is branched type with one water source. The upstream
recorded piezometric elevation is 128 m a.s.l.

The appraisal begins with assessing the overall performance of the system, starting
with the ICC model, then using the more in-depth AKLA model to assess hydrant
performance in more detail.

9.1.1 Using the indexed characteristics curves model

The ICC model simulates the overall performance of the system by simulating pressures
and discharges at farm hydrants for various operating configurations and generating a
set of curves that define an envelope or range of operating conditions for the network.
68 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Figure 9.1 illustrates the results. The red lines indicate the coordinate of the peak design
discharge (50 ls-1) and the upstream available piezometric elevation (128 m a.s.l.), which
indicate that less than 30 percent of configurations are fully satisfied, and so additional
investigation is needed.

FIGURE 9.1
ICC for sector 25

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9.1.2 Using the AKLA model

The AKLA model offers a more in-depth performance assessment of individual farm
hydrants based on the PUH. The analysis was carried out for the upstream piezometric
elevation of 128 m a.s.l, and for different upstream discharges ranging between 20 ls-1
and 60 ls-1. Figure 9.2 illustrates the PUH results, and this indicates that for 90 percent
of the configurations tested (upstream envelop curve) and for the peak discharge of 50
ls-1 , PUH, was only 40 percent, as indicated on the Y-axes. This means that the system
is not operating adequately (see Table 5.2).

FIGURE 9.2
PUH curves for sector 25

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 69

9.1.3 Assessing reliability

Reliability assesses the probability of a hydrant remaining in a satisfactory state
based on the RPD for the peak discharge of 50 ls-1. Figure 9.3 illustrates the results
and indicates that if 90 percent of the generated configurations are considered,
hydrants 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 will fail, being the pressure head at such hydrants
lower than the minimum required. Pressures at hydrants are lower when 100 percent
of the generated configurations are considered (lower envelope). Reliability at such
hydrants is poor (Figure 9.4).

FIGURE 9.3
RPD for sector 25

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.4
Re for sector 25

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9.1.4 Improving performance

Several options are available to improve the performance of this system.
70 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

9.1.4.1 Changing nozzle sizes for sprinklers

Changing nozzle sizes for sprinklers on the affected farm hydrants 18, 19, 20, 22,
and 23 is one option. These hydrants failed but assessing just how serious requires
further investigation. The RPD for 90 percent of configurations (-0.2 m) corresponds
to a pressure deficit of 4 m. This means that farm hydrants 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 will
be operating at 16 m instead of 20 m pressure. However, there are several irrigation
nozzles available on the market that operate satisfactorily at 16 m pressure and produce
good levels of distribution uniformity. Thus, changing nozzles on the affected farms
and operating at lower pressure offers a possible solution. Re-evaluating the system and
accepting the lower pressure shows that the RPD for 90 percent of the configurations
significantly improves performance (Figure 9.5). The reliability at the hydrants is now
greater than 80 percent (Figure 9.6).

Based on this change in technology on farms 19, 20, 22, and 23, this scheme is now
assessed as having good capacity.

FIGURE 9.5
RPD for sector 25 (for variable Hmin at hydrants)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.6
Reliability for sector 25 (for variable Hmin at hydrants)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 71

9.1.4.2 Reducing the discharge at the head of the system

Another option is to change the overall operating discharge for the system. A typical
system demand hydrograph (Figure 9.7) indicates that discharges are much lower
outside the periods of peak demand each day. Rather than assessing the system based
50 ls-1, lowering the maximum allowable discharge may prove beneficial.

If an upstream discharge of 30 ls-1 is considered for the analysis, the performance

improves to very good in terms of RPD (Figure 9.8) and reliability (Figure 9.9).
Also, advising farmers using hydrants 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 to avoid irrigating
during peak times during the day or restricting them to irrigating at night would
lower the peak demand on the hydrograph and have a beneficial effect in meeting
all the irrigation demands.

FIGURE 9.7
Typical demand hydrograph recorded at the upstream end of the Sector 25

80
Discharge (l s-1)

60

40

20

0
24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Time (hours)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.8
RPD for the Sector 25 (upstream discharge of 30 ls-1)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

72 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 9.9
Hydrants’ reliability for the Sector 25 (upstream discharge of 30 ls-1)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9.1.4.3 Introducing electronic hydrant cards to limit irrigation times

Another solution is to equip hydrants with electronic card readers that limit the times
that farmers can irrigate (Lamaddalena, 1995; Nardella, 2004). The hydrants can be
programmed to prevent farmers from irrigating during peak hours of the day. This
would be penalizing some farmers, but they could be offered incentives to do this, such
as additional irrigation water or lower water fees.

9.1.5 Assessing sensitivity

Hydrant sensitivity is an indicator of change in hydrant reliability due to the changes
in the upstream discharge and/or pressure. Figure 9.10 illustrates the sensitivity of
hydrants as the upstream discharge increases from 50 ls-1 to 60 ls-1 (i.e., six hydrants are
open rather than 5). The sensitivity of hydrants 1 to 5 is good, but beyond that point,
sensitivity increases for most hydrants. Figure 9.11 illustrates the significant change
in sensitivity when the discharge increases to 70 ls-1 and seven hydrants are open, and
almost half the hydrants are classed as highly sensitive (above the red line).

FIGURE 9.10
Hydrants’ sensitivity for an upstream discharge from 50 ls-1 to 60 ls-1

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 73

FIGURE 9.11
Hydrants’ sensitivity for an upstream discharge from 50 ls-1to 70 ls-1

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

Note that no significant increases in sensitivity were recorded for hydrants 18, 19, 20,
22, and 23 when five (50 ls-1), six (60 ls-1), and seven (70 ls-1) hydrants are open. This
is because the reliability for those hydrants is almost equal to zero for the discharge
of 50 ls-1 and remains close to zero for higher discharges (60 ls-1 and 70 ls-1). But this
does not mean these hydrants are in good condition. However, it does confirm that
the overall analysis must be done to assess performance rather than relying on only
one model/indicator.

9.1.6 Assessing Perturbation

This is assessed using the RPE indicator, which measures the pressure variation and
assesses the risk when the pressure in a pipeline rises about the nominal pressure of the
pipe. This case study illustrates RPE profiles (Figure 8.2) along the main pipeline to a
downstream hydrant for the most severe case of instantaneously closing hydrants (Tc
= 0). The smaller diameter pipes with the lowest discharges close to the hydrant are often
ignored by designers and managers. Yet, they are the most vulnerable to perturbations
and should not be overlooked. The least RPE values were close to the reservoir.

The closing time, Tc should be as long as possible to avoid the risk from perturbations.
Manufacturing companies should be aware of this problem and encouraged to design
valves that cannot be closed rapidly to prevent problems. Severe perturbations can
cause valves and hydrants to burst and can damage people and not just the equipment.
Farmers have been known to lose fingers when closing hydrants too quickly.

9.1.7 Management options

Following the technology assessment, the next step is to assess the management options
available to improve performance. These are summarized as:

• Accept the lower operating pressure at hydrants that are not functioning well.
Subsidies can encourage farmers to accept these changes and compensate them
for the change in service.
• Try to encourage disadvantaged farmers to avoid irrigating during peak irrigation
times and to help them change to night-time irrigation. Again subsidies and other
incentives such as reduced water tariffs can encourage the change.
74 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

• Imposing limited rotations and installing electronically controlled hydrants

using water cards (Figure 9.12) can also reduce the peak discharges and benefit
disadvantaged farmers. This is not just a technology issue but also a management
issue. Changing technologies require studies and careful management to initiate
successful change.

FIGURE 9.12
Example of an electronic card hydrant

Source: Lamaddalena, N. 2005. Modeling and new technologies: tools to be combined for improving irrigation systems
management”. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on “Cybernetics Technologies Systems and Applications
(CITSA 2005)” jointly with the “11th International Conference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis (ISAS 2005)”.
Orlando, Florida, July 14 – 17, 2005.

9.1.8 Infrastructure changes

Possible options from an infrastructure perspective include:

• Changing (i.e., increasing) pipe diameters. A modernization model, which forms

part of COPAM v4.0, applies Labye’s iterative discontinuous method to compute
an optimal solution for pipe diameters (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000). It first
takes the actual pipe diameters in the network and then finds the optimal solution
by increasing pipe diameters according to the new constraints on the system.
• Changing (i.e., increasing) system pumping capacity. In this case, the hydrant
9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 75

pressure deficit can be assessed as the pressure at the head of the network increases
and the pressure deficit at the hydrant decreases. However, this does increase
energy cost and may put the cost of water beyond the reach of some farmers.

9.1.9 In conclusion
Management solutions are usually less expensive than infrastructure solutions
but require more skill to implement. If this course of action is followed, capacity
development programs are likely to be needed for farmers and managers.

Finally, an important feature for any network and evaluation is a flow measuring device
at the upstream end of the system. Unfortunately, despite its simplicity, many networks
either do not have one, or they do not record the upstream hydrograph, which can
provide such vital evidence for evaluation.

9.2 CASE STUDY: EGYPT

This case study appraises the performance of irrigation systems in the Governorates of
Behira and Kafr El Sheik in Egypt following a program of modernization. The analysis
was undertaken by FAO in 2017-2018 as part of the Audit of the Farm-level Irrigation
Modernization Project (FIMP) funded by the World Bank.

The Al-Mazraah system is located in the El-Beheira governorate in the Nile Delta.
The network was modernized by converting two levels of open canals (mesqas and
marwas, which are quarternary canals on farms fed from the mesqas) to pressurized
pipes supplied from a pumping station (Figure 9.13).

FIGURE 9.13
Layout of Al-Mazraah (Beheira) irrigation scheme

Source: Salman, M., Pek, E., Giusti, S., Lebdi, F., Almerei, A., Shrestha, N., El-Desouky, I. et al. 2020a. On-farm Irrigation
Development Project in the Old Lands (OFIDO): Technical assessment – Final report. Rome, Italy, FAO. 158 pp. https://doi.
org/10.4060/cb0484en.
76 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The network serves 299 farm hydrants on a rotational-based delivery schedule.

Hydrants of the Al-Mazraah network are not fitted with flow regulators, so the
discharge to the farm fluctuates as the pressure changes, and this has created equity
problems among farmers.

According to information collected during field interviews, two hydrants are operated
simultaneously along the marwas with one pump operating at the head of the mesqa, and
3-4 hydrants simultaneously, with two pumps operating. The number and the location
of hydrants to be opened depend on the requests managers receive from farmers.

The hydraulic analysis was carried out according to the rotational delivery rules applied
by the local managers. All data related to pumps, mesqas, and marwas (diameter of
each section, type of pipes, length, and topography) were collected from managers,
contractors, and field surveys.

A random generator produced 1 000 random configurations based on four hydrants

operating at the same time along the marwas, assuming flow regulators of 20 ls-1 are
installed. According to the hydraulic characteristics of the installed pumps, the upstream
piezometric elevation was 13 m, and the discharge into the system is 80 ls-1. The flow at
each hydrant was set at 20 ls-1 with a minimum required pressure of 5 m at the hydrant.

Figure 9.14 illustrates ICCs for the existing system and shows that the upstream
piezometric elevation (i.e., pressure of the pumping station) is far higher than is needed.
The RPD (Figure 9.15) and reliability (Figure 9.16) show that the network is oversized
for both operating strategies, i.e., two and four hydrants operating at the same time
(i.e., 40 ls-1 and 80 ls-1, respectively). Installing pumps with smaller pressure, along with
flow regulators, can overcome this problem, and in turn, it can reduce energy costs.

Appraising hydrant performance also indicates that, rarely, some are failing. This is
due to the location and configuration of hydrants. Since managers operate a rotational-
based delivery schedule, they can adjust the configurations of hydrants to overcome
these failures. Also, a pressure drop below the minimum required at the hydrant level
is not a problem, as farmers use surface irrigation methods, which can be successfully
managed even with very low pressures.

FIGURE 9.14
Indexed characteristic curve of Al-Mazraah network (actual network)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 77

FIGURE 9.15
RPD of Al-Mazraah network (actual network)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.16
Reliability of Al-Mazraah network (actual network)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

A recommended option for future projects is to include flow regulators to control

discharge at farm hydrants.

The Al-Mazraah network was also optimized using COPAM v4.0, assuming the same
management and operating rules and the same pumping station. Optimizing reduces
pipe sizes and hence the capital cost of the network with savings up to 40 percent when
compared to the cost of the existing network. Figure 9.17, Figure 9.18, and Figure 9.19
illustrate the various indicators for the optimized network.
78 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 9.17
Indexed characteristic curve of Al-Mazraah network (optimized network)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.18
RPD of Al-Mazraah network (optimized network)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 79

FIGURE 9.19
Reliability of Al-Mazraah network (optimized network)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9.3 CASE STUDY: TUNISIA

The Manouba irrigation scheme is located in the northeastern part of Tunisia. A
project for modernizing this scheme was initiated in 2008 and completed in 2015, with
the main objective to improve the irrigation efficiency with respect to the old existing
open canal system.

The Manouba scheme comprises two distinct hydraulic subsystems, this appraisal
focuses on the Bir Aouini, Mehrine East, and Mehrine West network, supplied from
the Mehrine Reservoir with a piezometric elevation of 107 m a.s.l. (Figure 9.20).

FIGURE 9.20
Diagram of the subsystem Bir Aouini, Mehrine East, and Mehrine West

Reservoir

MEHRINE
WEST

BIR MEHRINE
AOUINI EAST

Source: Authors’own elaboration

80 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Figure 9.21 illustrates the ICCs based on generating 1 000 random configurations,
an upstream piezometric elevation of 107 m a.s.l., an upstream discharge of 959 ls-1
and a minimum pressure head at the hydrants of 25 m (the original design pressure).
This indicates that 55 percent of the configurations are not satisfied. However, when
analysing the hydrants in more detail, most have adequate pressure with positive RPD
(Figure 9.22) and high reliability (Figure 9.23).

FIGURE 9.21
Indexed characteristic curve for the subsystem Bir Aouini, Mehrine East, and Mehrine West

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.22
RPD of the subsystem Bir Aouini, Mehrine East, and Mehrine West

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 81

FIGURE 9.23
Reliability of the subsystem Bir Aouini, Mehrine East, and Mehrine West

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

The analysis suggests the system provides a good service to farmers. Hydraulically, the
system is stable, and this is demonstrated by the close range of the RPD curves (Figure
9.22). However, the ICCs indicate a high sensitivity to discharge at the head of the
network. If, for example, the discharge increases from the design discharge of 959 ls-1
to, say 1 000 ls-1, none of the hydrant configurations are satisfied in terms of pressure.

This sensitivity has led to a rigid management system, and many farmers have responded
by removing the flow regulators to try and maintain the flow they need to meet crop
water requirements on their farm. However, removing the hydrant regulators would
cause the system pressure to fall, which impacts the quality of service and produces
poor sprinkler or drip distribution uniformity on farms.

9.4 CASE STUDY: ITALY

This case study covers the whole of District 4, in the Sinistra Ofanto irrigation
scheme, in Foggia. It is managed by the Capitanata Reclamation Board (C.B.C., 1984;
Altieri, 1995) (Figure 9.24) (case study in section 9.1 dealt only with Section 25 within
District 4). The Sinistra Ofanto scheme covers an area of 22 500 ha and is subdivided
into seven Districts, each being subdivided into sectors, ranging from 50 ha to 300
ha. Irrigation districts 4, 5, and 8 are each served independently by daily storage and
compensation reservoirs. Districts 6 and 7 are served from a separate reservoir, as are
districts 9 and 10. All the reservoirs are filled from the Capacciotti dam.
82 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 9.24
The “Sinistra Ofanto” irrigation scheme

Source: Lamaddalena, N. 1997. Integrated simulation modeling for design and performance analysis of on-demand pressurized
irrigation systems. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.

District 4 comprises 3 250 ha of irrigated land and receives water from a storage
reservoir of the capacity of 28 000 m3 with a maximum water level of 143 m a.s.l. and
minimum water level 139 m a.s.l. Figure 9.25 illustrates the layout of the pipe network.
A 1 200 mm diameter steel pipe at the head of the network includes a venturi flow
meter to record discharges into the network of 32 sectors (Figure 9.26).

FIGURE 9.25
Layout of the District 4 network

Source: Lamaddalena, N., Khadra, R. & Fouial, A. 2015. Use of localized loops for the rehabilitation of on-demand pressurized
irrigation distribution systems. Irrig Sci, 33:453-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-015-0481-5.
9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 83

FIGURE 9.26
Layout of District 4 sectorial networks

Source: Lamaddalena, N. 1997. Integrated simulation modeling for design and performance analysis of on-demand pressurized
irrigation systems. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
84 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A control unit at the head of each sector comprises a gate valve, flow-meter, and a
pressure regulator. Farm hydrants are designed for 10 ls-1.

The irrigation network was designed to operate on-demand with a design discharge
based on the probabilistic approach proposed by Clément (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy,
2000). This assumed an elementary probability if p = 0.157 and the cumulative
probability, representing the operation quality of Pq = 95 percent. The coefficient of
utilization of the network was r = 0.667 (Malossi and Santovito, 1975). Pipe diameters
were calculated using a linear programming formulation. The minimum pressure at the
hydrants was 2.0 bar. The optimization procedure was applied only to 10 percent of
the network; an empirical approach was used for the rest (Malossi and Santovito, 1975).

The hydrograph at the head of the network has been recorded for several years of
operation; a typical hydrograph is illustrated in Figure 9.27.

FIGURE 9.27
Typical hydrograph at the head of District 4

1500

1200
Discharge (l/s)

900

600

300

0
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Time (hours)

Source: Elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

The cropping pattern has changed since the scheme was designed. Major changes
include olive trees (20 percent of the irrigated area), vineyards (63 percent), orchards
(10 percent), plus tomatoes and asparagus. The maximum discharge recorded at the
head of the network is 1 200 ls-1.

The hydraulic analysis was carried out using COPAM v4.0 by generating 1 000 random
configurations based on the design demand (1 200 ls-1) and future demand allowing
from climate change (1 500 ls-1). Figure 9.28 illustrates the RPD analysis, and Figure
9.29 the reliability analysis. Together they highlight the magnitude of failing hydrants.
9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 85

FIGURE 9.28
90 percent RPD for current (a) and future demand (b)

Source: Elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

86 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 9.29
Reliability a) current demand and b) future demand

Source: Elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

In response to the projected worsening performance, managers must determine how

best to adapt to the changes using engineering and/or management solutions. The
capacity of the network can be increased by increasing the pipe sizes as the system is
gravity fed from the reservoir. This is a high-cost solution but is necessary to improve
the performance. Figure 9.30 illustrates the effect of the new optimized pipe system on
the 90 percent relative pressure deficit, which would always be very good (above zero).
9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 87

FIGURE 9.30
90 percent RPD for future demand (new optimized network)

Source: Elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9.5 CASE STUDY: SPAIN

This case study appraises Sector VII of the MD Bembézar Irrigation District (right
Bembézar riverbank) in Spain (Figure 9.31). This scheme covers an area of 935 ha,
including 162 hydrants. The network was designed to supply 1.2 ls-1ha-1 for on-demand
operation at a minimum operational pressure head at the hydrant of 35 m. All hydrants
are equipped with flow regulators. Drip irrigation is the most common irrigation
method, and the main crops are citrus, cotton, maize, and fruit trees.

FIGURE 9.31
Distribution network of the Sector VII

Source: Díaz, J. A. R., Urrestarazu, L. P., Poyato, E. C., & Montesinos, P. 2012. Modernizing Water Distribution Networks:
Lessons from the Bembézar MD Irrigation District, Spain. Outlook on Agriculture, 41(4): 229-236. https://doi.org/10.5367/
oa.2012.0105.
88 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The network appraisal was conducted using COPAM v4.0. Figure 9.32 illustrates
the ICC based on generating 500 random configurations, an upstream piezometric
elevation of 150 m a.s.l., and an upstream discharge of 1,150 ls-1.

The operating point of the sector is on the 85 percent characteristic curve, i.e., which
indicates that only 15 percent of the generated configurations are not satisfied. This
good performance is confirmed by a more detailed hydrant analysis. Figure 9.33
illustrates the low probability of occurrence of negative RPD and Figure 9.34, the high
level of reliability based on the peak discharge.

FIGURE 9.32
Indexed characteristic curve for sector VI

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.33
RPD of sector VII, based on peak discharge (Q=1 150 ls-1)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 89

FIGURE 9.34
RPD of sector VII, based on peak discharge (Q=1 150 ls-1)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

The ICC analysis indicates that, in general, hydrants are not sensitive to discharges
flowing into the network. However, an analysis based on the possible increases in
discharge to 1 300 and 1 500 ls-1 illustrates that RPD (Figure 9.35) and reliability
(Figure 9.36) indicate the probability of some hydrants failing. Such hydrants have high
sensitivity to the discharges flowing into the network, especially when the upstream
discharge exceeds 1 300 ls-1 (Figure 9.37).

FIGURE 9.35
RPD of sector VII, using increased upstream discharges (Q=1 300 ls-1 and 1 500 ls-1)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

90 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 9.35 (CONTINUED)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.36
Reliability of sector VII, using increased upstream discharges (Q=1 300 ls-1 and 1 500 ls-1)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

9. Using MASSPRES: Case studies 91

FIGURE 9.36 (CONTINUED)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE 9.37
Hydrant’s sensitivity of sector VII (Q=1 150 ls-1 to 1 300 ls-1 and 1 500 ls-1)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

92 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE 9.37 (CONTINUED)

Source: elaborated with COPAM v4.0.

10. References 93

10. References

Abuiziah, I., Oulhaj, A., Sebari, K., Ouazar, D. & Saber, A.A. 2013. Simulating
Flow Transients in Conveying Pipeline Systems by Rigid Column and Full Elastic
Methods: Pump Combined with Air Chamber. International Journal of Mechanical
and Mechatronics Engineering, 7(12): 2391–2397.
Altieri, S. 1995. Sinistra Ofanto irrigation scheme: management and maintenance
problems. Bonifica. L.S. Pereira, No. 1-2: 40–47.
Bergant, A., Tijsseling, A.S., Vítkovský, J.P., Covas, D.I.C., Simpson, A.R. &
Lambert, M.F. 2008. Parameters affecting water-hammer wave attenuation, shape
and timing—Part 1: Mathematical tools. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 46(3):
373–381. https://doi.org/10.3826/jhr.2008.2848
Burt, C. & Facon, T. 2002. Rapid Appraisal Process (RAP) and Benchmarking
Explanation and Tools. Rome, Italy, FAO.
C.B.C., - Consorzio di Bonifica per la. 1984. Cinquant’anni di bonifica nel Tavoliere.
Bastogi edition. Foggia.
Chaudhary, M.H. 1970. Applied Hydraulic Transients. First edition. Reinhold : D Van
Nostrand Co Inc.
Chaudhary, M.H. 2014. Applied Hydraulic Transients. Third edition. New York,
Springer-Verlag.
Clemmens, A.J. 1987. Delivery system schedules and required capacities. In: Planning,
operation, rehabilitation and automation of irrigation water delivery systems, pp.
18–34. ASCE, New-York. (also available at https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/
search.do?recordID=US8850522).
Derardja, B., Lamaddalena, N. & Fratino, U. 2019. Perturbation Indicators
for On-Demand Pressurized Irrigation Systems. Water, 11(3): 558. https://doi.
org/10.3390/w11030558
Díaz, J. A. R., Urrestarazu, L. P., Poyato, E. C., & Montesinos, P. 2012. Modernizing
Water Distribution Networks: Lessons from the Bembézar MD Irrigation District,
Spain. Outlook on Agriculture, 41(4): 229-236. https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2012.0105
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2021a. Global Map
of Irrigated Area (GMIA) [online]. http://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/geospatial-
information/global-maps-irrigated-areas/latest-version/
FAO. 2021b. WAPOR- Remote sensing for water productivity [online]. http://www.
fao.org/in-action/remote-sensing-for-water-productivity/en/
FAO. 2021c. AQUASTAT - FAO’s Global Information System on Water and
Agriculture [online]. http://www.fao.org/aquastat/statistics/query/index.
html;jsessionid=8F91EF0E411552F0E351E433543EEBD5
FAO. 2021d. Global Soil Organic carbon Map [online]. http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/
data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/global-soil-organic-carbon-map-gsocmap/en/
FAO. 2021e. Hand-in-Hand Geospatial Platform [online]. http://www.fao.org/hih-
geospatial-platform/en/
94 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FAO. 2022a. RAP v1 User’s Manual [online]. https://data.apps.fao.org/static/

downloads/RAP/RAP%20v1%20Manual.pdf
FAO. 2022b. Global Soil Organic Carbon Map – GSOCmap v.1.6. Technical report.
Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9015en
Hoogeveen, J., Faurès, J.M., Peiser, L., Burke, J. & Giesen, N. 2015. GlobWat–a
global water balance model to assess water use in irrigated agriculture. Hydrology
and Earth System Sciences, 19(9): 3829–3844.
Kouchakzadeh, S. & Montazar, A. 2005. Hydraulic sensitivity indicators for canal
operation assessment. Irrigation and Drainage, 54(4): 443–454.
Kurtulmus, E., Buyukcangaz, H., Kuscu, H. & Demir, A.O. 2018. The Hydraulic
and Economic Performance Analysis of On-Demand Pressurized Irrigation
Systems: A Case Study in Turkey. Journal of Agricultural Sciences-Tarim Bilimleri
Dergisi, 24(1): 42–49.
Labye, Y. 1988. Design and optimization of irrigation distribution networks. No. 44.
Rome, Italy, Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Lamaddalena, N. 1995. Un modello di simulazione per l’analisi del funzionamento
delle reti irrigue collettive. Riv di Ing Agr, 4: 221–229.
Lamaddalena, N. 1997. Integrated simulation modeling for design and performance
analysis of on-demand pressurized irrigation systems. PhD Thesis. Technical
University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Lamaddalena, N. 2005. Modeling and new technologies: tools to be combined for
improving irrigation systems management”. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on “Cybernetics Technologies Systems and Applications (CITSA 2005)”
jointly with the “11th International Conference on Information Systems Analysis
and Synthesis (ISAS 2005)”. Orlando, Florida, July 14 – 17, 2005
Lamaddalena, N. & Fouial, A. 2019. Sensitivity Indicator for Pressurized Irrigation
Distribution Systems. Water Resources Management: An International Journal,
Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European
Water Resources Association (EWRA), 33(6): 1985–1998.
Lamaddalena, N., Khadra, R. & Fouial, A. 2015. Use of localized loops for the
rehabilitation of on-demand pressurized irrigation distribution systems. Irrig Sci,
33:453-468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-015-0481-5
Lamaddalena, N., Khadra, R. & Tlili, Y. 2012. Reliability based pipe size computation
of on-demand irrigation systems. Water Resources Management, 26: 307-328.
Lamaddalena, N. & Khila, S. 2011. Efficiency-driven pumping station regulation
in on-demand irrigation systems. Irrig Sci, 31: 395-410, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00271-011-0314-0
Lamaddalena, N. & Piccinni, A. F. 1993. Indexed characteristic curves of an irrigation
network for the lifting plant design. Riv di Ing Agr, 3:129-135.
Lamaddalena, N. & Sagardoy, J. 2000. Performance Analysis of On-demand
Pressurized Irrigation Systems. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 59. Rome,
Italy. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ah860e/ah860e00.htm).
10. References 95

Larock, B.E., Jeppson, W.W. & Watters, G.Z. 1999. Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems.
Boca Raton, Fla, CRC Press.
Malossi, D. & Santovito, L. 1975. Progetto esecutivo dell’adduttore e della rete irrigua
a servizio della zona bassa del comprensorio in Sinistra Ofanto - Relazione generale.
Marchi, E. & Rubatta, A. 1981. Meccanica dei fluidi; Principi ed applicazioni. Torino,
Ed. UTET.
Nardella, L. 2004. I sistemi elettronici nella gestione irrigua. Ammodernamento
einnovazione tecnologicanelle reti irrigue e delle opere di bonifica, p. Foggia, Italy.
Plusquellec, H. 2019. A Fresh Look at the Debate on the Causes of Poor Performance
of Certain Irrigation Schemes: The Complexity of Hydraulic Behaviour of Canal
Systems. Irrigation and Drainage, 68(6): 389–398.
Renault, D., Facon, T. & Wahaj, R. 2007a. Modernizing irrigation management - the
MASSCOTE approach, FAO Irrigan and Drainage paper 63 [online]. [Cited 22
September 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/a1114e/a1114e00.htm
Renault, D., Facon, T. & Wahaj, R. 2007b. Modernizing Irrigation Management:
The MASSCOTE Approach--Mapping System and Services for Canal Operation
Techniques (No. 63). Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, Italy
Renault, D. & Hemakumara, H.M. 1997. Mobilization of resources, sensitivity and
vulnerability in canal operation: diagnosis and preliminary analysis. Marrakech,
Morocco, Modern techniques for manual operation of irrigation canals. Proceedings
of the Fourth International ITIS [Information Techniques for Irrigation Systems]
Network Meeting.
Salman, M., Pek, E., Giusti, S., Lebdi, F., Almerei, A., Shrestha, N., El-Desouky, I.
et al. 2020a. On-farm Irrigation Development Project in the Old Lands (OFIDO):
Technical assessment – Final report. Rome, Italy, FAO. 158 pp. https://doi.
org/10.4060/cb0484en
Salman, M., Pek, E., Giusti, S., Lebdi, F., Almerei, A., Shrestha, N., El-Desouky,
I. et al. 2020b. On-farm Irrigation Development Project in the Old Lands –
Technical assessment – Final report [online]. http://www.fao.org/documents/card/
fr/c/cb0484en/
Smith, M. 1992. CROPWAT: a computer program for irrigation planning and management
[electronic resource]. Ver. 5.7 edition. FAO irrigation and drainage paper 46. Rome,
Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1 p.
Steduto et al, P., ed. 2012. Crop yield response to water. FAO irrigation and drainage
paper 66. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 500 pp.
Wichowski, R. 2006. Hydraulic Transients Analysis in Pipe Networks by the Method
of Characteristics (MOC). In: undefined [online]. [Cited 23 September 2020]. /
paper/Hydraulic-Transients-Analysis-in-Pipe-Networks-by-Wichowski/217f4135
a13b2d2d068332ea1f9de49b4f29d922
Wylie, E.B., Streeter, V.L. & Suo, L. 1993. Fluid transients in systems. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
11. Annexes 97

11. Annexes

A.1 UNSTEADY FLOW THEORY7

The Euler and the conservation of mass equations are:

dV 1 ∂P dz f
−− + -- −− + g −− + −− V|V| = 0 (A1.1)

dt ρ dt ds 2D

∂V 1 dP
a2 −− + -- −− = 0 (A1.2)
∂s ρ dt

Where, g is the gravitational acceleration (ms−2), D (m) is the pipe diameter, V (ms−1)
is the mean velocity, P (Nm−2) is the pressure, z is the pipe elevation (m), f is the
Darcy–Weisbach friction factor and a is the celerity (ms−1). t (s) and s (m) represent the
independent variables.

The variable V and its module |V| preserve the shear stress force direction on the pipe
wall according to the flow direction.

The characteristic method makes it possible to replace the two partial differential
equation (A1.1) and equation (A1.2) with a set of ordinary differential equations. The
resulting equations will be expressed in terms of the piezometric head H (m). These
equations are deeply described in any hydraulic textbook discussing the water hammer
phenomenon (Chaudhary, 1970).

The slope of the characteristic curves on the space–time planes is a function of V (s, t).
This is introduced in the numerical solution procedure as explained hereafter.

dV g dH g dz f ds
C+ : −− + -- −− − -- V −− + −− V|V| = 0 only when −− = V + a (A1.3)
dt a dt a ds 2D dt

dV g dH g dz f ds
C+ : −− − -- −− + -- V −− + −− V|V| = 0 only when −− = V − a (A1.4)
dt a dt a ds 2D dt

The equations
ds ds
−− = V + a and −− = V
dt dt

are the characteristics of the equation (A1.3) and equation (4), respectively. The integration of
ds 1
−− = V + a gives −−−− = ×s + costant
dt V+a

7
Part of the theory illustrated in the Annex 1 was taken from Derardja et al., 2019 and from
Lamaddalena et al., 2018. The published theory was integrated and updated according to
needs and objectives of the present publication.
98 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

that is represented by the curve C+. Similarly, for

ds 1
−− = V − a t =— −−−− = ×s + costant
dt a —V

is determined and represented by the curve C−, shown in Figure A.1.1.

FIGURE A.1.1
Characteristic curves on the space–time plane

t (s)

Pn

C+ C-
Δt 1 1
a+V a+V
Le Ri
L C R
Δt
Δs

S (m)
Source: Derardja, B., Lamaddalena, N. & Fratino, U. 2019a. Perturbation Indicators for On-Demand Pressurized Irrigation
Systems. Water, 11(3): 558. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030558.

A.1.1 The numerical solution for ordinary differential equations

The characteristic curves can be approximated to straight lines over each single ∆t
interval. In fact: (I) ∆t may be made as small as one wishes, and (II) usually a >>
ds
V, causing —
dt

causing dsdt to be nearly constant (Larock et al., 1997). We seek to find the values of
V and H at point Pn. They are calculated based on V and H at the points C, Le and Ri
of the previous time following the characteristic curves C+ and C–. The velocity and
the head at Pn become the known values for the subsequent time calculation, shown
in Figure A.1.1.

The characteristic curves passing through Pn intersect the earlier time (t is constant) at
the points L and R. Consequently, the finite difference approximations to equations
(A1.3) and (A1.4) become

VP − VL g HP − HL g dz f
C+ : −−−−−− + −− −−−−−− − −− VL −− + −− VL|VL| = 0 (A1.5)
∆t a ∆t a ds 2D

VP − VR g HP − HR g dz f
C— : −−−−−− − −− −−−−−− + −− VR −− + −− VR|VR| = 0 (A1.6)
∆t a ∆t a ds 2D
11. Annexes 99

The last two equations include six unknown terms: VP, HP, VL, HL, VR and HR. In the
earlier time, values of P and V are known only at the points C, Le and Ri. Using linear
interpolation, as shown in Figure 1, VL, HL, VR and HR are to be expressed as a function
of VC, HC, VLe, HLe, VRi and HRi. In detail, along the C+ characteristic, we assume:

∆X VL − VC HL − HC
−− = −−−−−−− = −−−−−−−− (A1.7)
∆s VLe− VC HLe − HC

solving the above equations for VL and HL, the following equations are obtained:

∆t
VL = VC + a −− (VLe − VC) (A1.8)
∆s

∆t
HL = HC + a −− (HLe − HC) (A1.9)
∆s

An analogous approach can be applied along the C− characteristic. This leads to solving
equation (A1.5) and equation (A1.6) simultaneously for VPn and HPn, as follows:

1 g g f∆t
VPn = −− [(VL − VR) + −− (HL − HR) −− ∆t (VL − VR)sinø − −− (VL|VL| + VR|VR|)] (A1.10)
2 a a 2D

1 a a f∆t
HPn = −− [ +(VL − VR) + (HL + HR) + ∆t (VL + VR)sinø − −− −− (VL|VL| + VR|VR|)] (A1.11)
2 g g 2D

Usually, the slope term

dz
−− sin sinø
ds

is small and may be neglected (Chaudhary, 2014).

The complexity of irrigation systems is the non-uniformity of pipe materials and pipe
sizes, which requires a pipe discretization where each elementary section has constant
geometrical and physical properties. Each elementary section is divided into an integer
number of elements NSi, with length ∆si, whose value is calculated, to have the same ∆t
in all the system (Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000).

Several configurations of hydrants simultaneously operating are generated and a

steady-state simulation is executed for each of them. The obtained results (H and V)
constitute the initial conditions for running the transient simulation. Assuming that
valves are instantaneously closed, the computer software simulate the unsteady flow process
until the simulation time reaches a predefined observation time (Tmax). Tmax is generally
assumed large enough to reach again the new steady-state flow conditions.

The boundary conditions described hereafter are assumed for the application of the
differential equations. The variables V and H are indexed with Pi corresponding to the
points, one on each side of the boundary section, which is nearly superposed (Figure
A.1.2). For all the other parameters, only the number of pipes is used as an index to
prevent any complication in naming. In both cases of upstream and downstream end
boundaries of the systems, only one point exists following C− and C+, respectively.
100 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.1.2 The boundary conditions

The boundary conditions at each end of the pipes describe the external conditions of
velocity and/or pressure head.

The most common and relevant boundary conditions were considered, as described below.

A.1.2.1 Reservoir
If a reservoir with constant pressure head H0 is located upstream of the network, then:

HP = HO (A1.12)

A.1.2.2 Valve closure arrangement

In the present publication, valves represent the hydrants of an irrigation system. The
pressure downstream the valves is considered fixed at the atmospheric pressure.

Local head losses at the level of hydrants are caused by the local flow disturbance.
Those losses can be relevant and, therefore, they should be considered for an accurate
analysis. They are commonly expressed by the equation

V2
∆H = KL −− (A1.13)
2g

KL is the loss coefficient, V is the flow velocity and g is the gravitational acceleration.

To compute the magnitudes of the caused losses, experimental data needs to be

introduced. In most cases, the user may have different values KL corresponding to
valve position, along with opening/closing time provided by the manufacturer. So, the
perturbation analysis can be achieved quite accurately. Based on the introduced values,
the software simulates the continuous values of KL by a linear interpolation to cover
the full range 0 percent to 100 percent opening/closing.

The flow velocity and the head variation follow the equations:

ɡ ẜ1∆t ɡ
VP1 = VL1 + −− HL1 — −− VL1|VL1| + −− ɑ1VL sinø1 (A1.14)
ɑ1 ds ɑ1

VP1 = C1 − C2HP1 (A1.15)

V2P1
HP1 = H0 + KL −− (A1.16)
2g

HP1 and VP1 are respectively the head and the velocity at the upstream side of the valve
(infinitely close to the valve). Following C+, V and H from the earlier time (t-∆t) are
indexed with Li (where L refers to left or upstream and i to the pipe).
11. Annexes 101

Integrating and simplifying the previous equations, VP1 can be expressed as following:

C3 4C4KL
VP1 = −−−− −1 + 1− −−−− (A1.17)
2KL C23

2ɡ
C4 = −−−− (A1.18)
C4

C1
C4 = 2ɡ(H0⁻ −− ) (A1.19)
C2

As mentioned above, KL values for different valve positions are accessible from the
manufacturer. Hereafter an example of loss coefficients for a gate valve.

Opening (percent) KL
25 24
50 5.6
75 1.15
100 0.19

Lamaddalena et al. (2018) have referred a detailed analysis with different gate-valves’
closing time (from Tc = 0 to Tc = 6 s). The sudden closure clearly shown the impact of
such variable on the phenomenon.

A.1.2.3 Upstream constant speed pump

Respect to the case having a reservoir as an upstream boundary condition with a
constant head, a second variable (flow velocity) will be introduced in the case having
an upstream pumping station.

The pump at the upstream end of the system is represented by a quadratic equation
(pressure head vs discharge):

hp = ApQ2 + Bpq + Cp (A1.20)

Knowing that

Q = VP1 A (A1.21)

And

hp = Hp1 Hpump sump (A1.22)

The substitution in the quadratic equation leads to

Hp1 = AP VP12 + BPVP1 + CP (A1.23)

102 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Simultaneously with the characteristic equation following C-,

ɡ ɡ ƒ1∆t
VP1 = V2 ⁻ −− (ApVp12 + BpVp1 + Cp) + −− H2 + −− V2|V2| = 0 (A1.24)
ɑ ɑ 2D

VP1 will be a function of known factors. By rearranging the different variables, the
following equations are obtained:

C3 4C4
VP1 = −−−− −1+ 1− −−−−
2 C23 (A1.25)

and

Vp3 − C1
HP1 = −−−−−− (A1.26)
C2

While

ɡ ƒ∆t
C1 = V2 − −− H2 − −− V2|V2| = 0 (A1.27)
ɑ 2D

ɡ
C2 = −− (A1.28)
ɑ

Bρ − 1/C2
C3 = −−−−−− (A1.29)
Ap

Cρ + C1/C2
C4 = −−−−−−−− (A1.30)
Ap

A.1.2.4 Internal boundary conditions

Junctions with two and three pipes are considered:

Two-pipe junction:

A two-pipe junction is shown in Figure A.1.2.

11. Annexes 103

FIGURE A.1.2
Boundary conditions at a typical series of (a) two, and (b) three pipes junction

C+ C-
Pipe 1 Pipe 2
a

L1 P1 P2 R2

Qdem

C+ C- Pipe 2
b
Pipe 1 C -

R2
L1

R3
Pipe 3
Qdem

Source: Derardja, B., Lamaddalena, N. & Fratino, U. 2019a. Perturbation Indicators for On-Demand Pressurized Irrigation
Systems. Water, 11(3): 558. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030558.

In the case of no external demand, the values of the four unknowns can be found by
solving the set of equations below:
Following the C+ equation (equation (A1.5)):
g f1∆t g
VP₁ = ( VL₁ + −− HL₁ − −−−− VL₁|VL₁|) − ( −−) HP₁ (A1.31)
a1 2D1 a1

Following the C− equation (equation (A1.6)):

( )
g f2∆t g
VP2 = VR2 − −− HR2 − −−−− VR2|VR2| ( −− ) HP2 (A1.32)
a2 2D2 a1

The conservation of mass equation:

VP1 A1 = VP2 A2 (A1.33)

The energy equation at the points P1 and P2, neglecting the difference in velocity heads
and any local losses:

HP1 = VP2 (A1.34)

the head value H at the junction can be calculated as follows, solving the above system
of equations:
C3 A1− C1 A2
HP1 = HP2 = −−−−−−−−−−−− (A1.35)
C2 A2− C4 A1
104 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

where C1, C2, C3 and C4 are the functions of the known values obtained from the
earlier time. Through a back-substitution, also the flow velocities can be computed.

A similar system of equations can be used in the case of a series of two pipes with an
external constant demand Qdem (m3 s−1) (delivered by one hydrant), modifying equation
(A1.33), as follows:

VP1 A1 = VP2 A2 + Qdem (A1.36)

C3 A1− C1 A2 Qdem
HP1 = HP2 = −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− (A1.37)
C2 A2− C4 A1

A.1.2.5 Three-pipe junction

A three-pipe junction is shown in Figure A1.2b.

The following equations are used to find the six unknowns, in the case of a pipe
junction with one inflow and two outflows:

Pipe 1, C+∶VP1 = C1 − C2 HP1 (A1.38)

Pipe 2, C−∶VP2 = C3 − C4 HP2 (A1.39)

Pipe 3, C−∶VP3 = C5 − C6 HP3 (A1.40)

Conservation of mass:

VP3 A1 = VP2 A2 + VP3 A3 (A1.41)

The energy balance, neglecting local head losses between 1 and 2:

HP1 = HP2 (A1.42)

The energy balance, neglecting local head losses between 1 and 3:

HP1 = HP3 (A1.43)

Solving the previous set of equations leads to:

C1 A1− C3 A2 − C5 A3
HP1 = HP2 = HP3 = −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− (A1.44)
C2 A1+ C4 A2 + C6 A3

Equation (A1.41) has to be modified in the previous set of equations, in the case of a
three-pipe junction with an outlet:

VP1 A1 = VP2 A2 + VP1 A1 + VP2 A2 + Qdem (A1.45)

11. Annexes 105

while equation (A1.44) becomes:

C1 A1− C3 A2− C5 A3 Qdem

HP1 = HP2 = HP2 = −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− (A1.46)
C2 A1+ C4 A2 + C6 A3

A.2 COPAM V4.0 USER’S MANUAL

A.2.1 About the software

COPAM v4.0 is an integrated software package that includes several modules for the
optimization and hydraulic analysis of large-scale pressurized irrigation distribution
systems. COPAM v4.0 is an evolution of the original computer software program
called COPAM (Combined Optimization and Performance Analysis Model) developed
by Lamaddalena (1997) and published in Lamaddalena and Sagardoy (2000). This
manual explains the functionality of COPAM v4.0 and its modules to address real
world hydraulic problems in a pressurized irrigation system.

The following sections present system requirement, installation instructions, preparation

of input data files and some general information on the use of COPAM v4.0.

A.2.1.1 About the technology

The software consists in a cross-platform desktop app, developed using the classical web
technologies and languages. The source code of the program is “compiled” using the
bytecode paradigm, in order to protect it and to make it more efficient. The application
is packaged for distribution with Electron, a chromium-based open source framework
capable of build native exe files for Windows (x64 and x86), Linux and MacOS.

A.2.1.2 System Requirement

Systems that meet or exceed the following specifications are recommended:

Processor (CPU): Intel Core i5 (sixth generation or newer) or equivalent

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Professional (64 bit)

Memory: 8 GB RAM

Storage: 512 GB internal Solid State Drive (SSD) or 1 TB internal HDD

Monitor/Display: 24" LCD monitor

A.2.1.3 Installation and Start-up of COPAM v4.0

Download the latest version of the software according to your operating system from
the website or install it from the enclosed CD . Then extract all the content from the
zip folder in any location on your PC.
106 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Explore the COPAM v4.0 environment folder and select the COPAM.exe icon (Figure A.2.1).

FIGURE A.2.1
Copam v4.0 folder

Source: Authors’own elaboration.

After launching the program, a pop-up window (Figure A.2.2) will provide information
about the current software version.

FIGURE A.2.2
Software presentation window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

The condition of use follows (Figure A.2.3). The user must read and “Accept” these to
gain access to the software.
11. Annexes 107

FIGURE A.2.3
Conditions

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Once the user has accepted the conditions, Figure A.2.4 (Home page) will appear.

FIGURE A.2.4
Home page

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Three programs are available in the COPAM v4.0 package:

• Discharges computation;
• Pipe size computation; and
• Analysis.
108 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Two programs are available for “Discharges computation”:

• Clément; and
• Random.

One program is available for “Pipe size computation”:

• optimization.

Four programs are available for “Analysis”:

• configurations;
• hydrants;
• sensitivity; and
• perturbation.

The data input file is the same for all the programs and is explained below.

A.2.2 Preparation of the input file

The program's menu bar contains three options, starting with “File.” This will show
the sub-menu (Figure A.2.5).

FIGURE A.2.5
File sub-menu

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Options available in the File menu:

• New;
• Open;
• Save;
• Save as; and
• Exit;
11. Annexes 109

To define a new network, there are two basic actions to complete:

1. List of pipes definitions
2. Network layout definitions

A.2.1.1 List of pipes definitions

To define the list of pipes, select the option “list of pipes” in the sub-menu edit
(Figure A.2.6).

FIGURE A.2.6
Edit sub-menu

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

“List of pipes” window will automatically appear (Figure A.2.7).

FIGURE A.2.7
List of pipes option

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

110 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

To fill the list, provide the pipe diameters (mm), the wall thickness of each pipe (mm),
the roughness (Γ, Bazin coefficient), and the unit cost of the pipes. The pipes must be
inserted in ascending order (arranged from smallest to largest diameter). If the nominal
diameter of pipes corresponds to the internal diameter, the pipe thickness is considered
equal to zero. The Bazin roughness coefficient identifies the type of pipes.

Remember to save the list once it is complete.

A.2.2.2 Network layout definition

Next, define the network layout.

Select the option “New” from the file sub-menu (Figure A.2.8).

FIGURE A.2.8
New network definition window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

An alternative way (shortcut) is to open a new network is to select the icon on the
home page menu.

The “New Network” screen menu allows the user to define each section of the network.
It is strongly recommended to prepare and clearly define the input data before using
the program.
The program assumes that the network is a branch type. A number defines each node
(hydrants and/or section connections). The node numbering is essential as follows:
• The upstream node (water source) must have numbered as 0.
• The other nodes are numbered consecutively, from upstream to downstream.
• The number of any section must be the same as the number of its downstream node.
• All terminal nodes of the branches must have a hydrant.
• No more than two sections may be derived from an upstream node. If so, a section
with negligible length (i.e.maximum of 1 m) must be created, and an additional
node must be considered. This node must have a sequential number.
11. Annexes 111

• No hydrants may be located in a node with three joined sections. If so, an

additional node with a sequential number must be added.
• If hydrants with two or more outlets exist in the network, one number for each
outlet needs to be allocated by creating an imaginary section with negligible
length.

When the numbering is completed, the following information must be entered in the
“Edit/Network layout”:
• Area irrigated by each hydrant (in hectares); if the node is not a hydrant, the area
must be considered as 0.
• Hydrant discharge (l/s).
• Section length (m).
• Land elevation of each node (m a.s.l.).
• Nominal pipe diameter of the section (mm). This information is needed for the
analysis of the network. In the design stage, the pipe diameter of each section is
considered as 0.
• Minimum head required at the hydrant (Hmin (m)).
• Number of outlets. This information is needed when the user wants to define the
number of hydrant outlets, the default number is 1 (no multiple outlets) and the
maximum is 4. The user can select the number of outlets thanks to a drop-down
menu and select from 1 to 4.

An example of the “New Network” screen menu is shown in Figure A.2.9.

FIGURE A.2.9
New network definition example

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

112 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A new section can be added using the button “Add section” at the right of each
section; a descriptive name of the network can be added in the text box “Name”.

To insert section data, select a section line (or through the icon ), Data includes
Section number, Initial node, Final node, Area, Hydrant discharge, Section length, Land
elevation, Diameter, Hmin hydrants.

A section may be deleted by clicking on the icon On completing the network layout
description, make sure to press “Save.”

“Copy to clipboard” enables a text version of the network to be copied and pasted into
any document.

Next, save the project and export a file containing all the network information.

To export the information click on "File/Save As" or the icon on the main menu.
The file explorer window will appear (Figure A.2.10).

Select the local directory to save the file and assign a new file name; the extension .inp
is automatically assigned to the file.

FIGURE A.2.10
Save and export

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

COPAM v4.0 allows the user to import an input file (.inp) previously generated;
the import procedure can be initiated by clicking on "File/Open" or by clicking the
icon on the main page. The local file explore window will appear on the screen
(Figure A.2.11) to find the proper file and import it in COPAM v4.0.
11. Annexes 113

FIGURE A.2.11
Import file window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Following the import, the network can be edited by opening the edit network
window (Figure A.2.12), and clicking on "Edit/Network layout…" or the icon
on the main page.

FIGURE A.2.12
Edit Network

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

114 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.2.3. Discharge computation

Discharge computation is performed using two models: random model, Clément model.

A.2.3.1 Random model

The Random model may be used to :
• analyse existing irrigation systems;
• design new irrigation systems.

To analyse an existing system, the model uses the demand hydrograph at the upstream
end of the network. It allows the selection of the upstream discharge corresponding to
various hydrant configurations.

Insert the upstream discharge in“Upstream discharge” (Figure A.2.13).

A number of random hydrants simultaneously operating (hydrant configuration) is

generated automatically.

This procedure is repeated according to pre-defined configurations and used to analyse

the system performance, as detailed later in the analysis section.

Next, define the number of configurations (or flow regimes) to generate is in the
“Number of flow regimes to generate.” This number must be a multiple of 10.

FIGURE A.2.13
Random generation

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 115

Press “Run” to operate the program. Figure A.2.14 will appear automatically on the screen.

FIGURE A.2.14
Elaboration in progress

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Running the program can take several minutes to complete depending on the
complexity of the network (See Figure A.2.15).

FIGURE A.2.15
Long-time warning

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

When the program is complete, the file explorer window will appear (Figure A.2.16).

Select the local directory where to save the file and assign a new file name (The default
file name is the same as the name of the input file, and the default directory is the same
where the input file is stored).
116 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.16
Random elaboration complete

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

A.2.3.2 Clément Model

The “Clément” program allows the computation of discharges flowing into the
network using either the first or the second Clément models.

Click “Clément” (Figure A.2.17) to open “Clément parameters” (Figure A.2.18).

FIGURE A.2.17
Clément model selection

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 117

FIGURE A.2.18
Clément model parameter window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

When “First formula” is selected, enter the following parameters in the “Clément
parameters” menu (Figure A.2.18).
• specific continuous discharge (l s-1 ha-1);
• minimum number of terminal open hydrants;
• percentage of uncultivated land;
• Clément use coefficient (r); and
• Clément operation quality, U(Pq).

When “Second formula” is selected, enter the following parameters in the “Clément
parameters” menu.
• specific continuous discharge (l s-1 ha-1);
• minimum number of terminal open hydrants;
• percentage of uncultivated land;
• Clément use coefficient (r); and
• probability of saturation (PA percentage).

Press “Run” to run the program.

When completed, the results are automatically displayed in the pop-up window
“Result of first/second Clément” (Figure A.2.19).
118 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.19
Result of Clément

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Click on “Export” to export the data to the file explorer window (Figure A.2.20).

FIGURE A.2.20
File explorer window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Select the local directory where to save the file and assign a new file name (The default
file name is the same as the name of the input file, and the default directory is the same
where the input file is stored).

Save the file. The extension .cle is automatically assigned.

11. Annexes 119

A.2.4 Pipe size computation

The optimization model can compute the optimum pipe sizes.

A.2.4.1 Optimization model

The optimization program is part of the COPAM v4.0 package. After completing the
input file, as described in the previous section, click on “Optimization” and Figure
A.2.21 will appear.

FIGURE A.2.21
Optimization model options

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Three flow regimes options are available within the “Options”:

• Single flow regimes:
The program computes discharges using the first or second Clément models.
There is only one single flow regime.
• Several – random generation:
The program automatically generates several random flow regimes; the number
of regimes to generate for each “Upstream discharge” can be defined in the
designated text box “Number of regimes to generate for each discharge”.
• Several – read from file:
The program reads the flow regimes previously generated and stored in a file. This
option allows network optimization (and/or analysis) also in the case of rotation
delivery schedule. The flow regimes are computed according to the planned
irrigation schedule and stored in a file that will be read by the program.

Select “Read regimes from file” and “Choose file” to upload previously generated flow
regimes (Figure A.2.22) using the extension “.ran”.
120 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.22
Optimization model options

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

When “Several – random generation” or “Several – read from file” are selected, either
the final solution or the analytical solution for each flow regime on the output file can
be printed using the appropriate radio button (Figure A.2.23).

FIGURE A.2.23
Output file definition

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 121

Two additional design options are available in the program: new design and
rehabilitation. In the first case, the program computes the optimal pipe size diameters
starting from an initial solution obtained by using the smallest diameters respecting the
maximum flow velocities constraints. For rehabilitation, the initial solution is given by
the actual diameters of each section of the network.

The program, within the “Mix” tab control (Figure A.2.24), gives the possibility to
select one diameter for each section or consider the mix with two diameters for each
section. From a practical point of view, one diameter should be selected to avoid
possible mistakes during the construction phase.

FIGURE A.2.24
Optimization Mix tab

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

In the “Data” tab control (Figure A.2.25), all the parameters related to the first or
second Clément formula are introduced. Clément parameters are disabled when
“Several – random generation” or “Several – read from file” is selected.
122 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.25
Data tab Clément parameters

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

In the Optimization “Data Tab” the target value of the “Upstream piezometric
elevation” is defined (Figure A.2.26).

The “Minimum head at hydrants” is also defined. The program allows network
computations where the minimum pressure head (Hmin) required for on-farm
irrigation is constant or variable.

For constant minimum head, select the “Constant” button and enter the Hmin in the
box. The constant value of Hmin is automatically assigned to each hydrant regardless
of the values of Hmin defined in the “Hmin Hydrants” column of the input file.

For variable minimum head, select the “Variable” button. The minimum head values
at each hydrant will be automatically read from the “Hmin Hydrants” column in the
data input file.
11. Annexes 123

FIGURE A.2.26
Optimization Data tab

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

When all inputs parameters are entered, click the “Run” button to run the program.

During the model operation, a loading screen will appear (Figure A.2.27).

FIGURE A.2.27
Elaboration in progress screen

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Operating the program generates a file with “.opt” extension and the file explorer
window is automatically shown (Figure A.2.28). Select the local directory to save the
file and assign a new file name (The default file name is the same as the name of the
input file and the default directory is the same where the input file is stored).
124 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.28
Optimization file explorer window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

The graphical interface of COPAM v4.0 allows easy printing of the outputs from the
model. From the Home page, select the glasses icon to visualize the files generated
(Figure A.2.29).

FIGURE A.2.29
File visualization icon

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 125

Select a file to open (Figure A.2.30)

FIGURE A.2.30
File explorer window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

A dedicated window will automatically appear to view the file content (Figure A.2.31)

FIGURE A.2.31
File content window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

126 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.2.5 Analysis
The analysis software provides the following types of analysis:

A.2.5.1 Configuration (Index characteristic curve)

The indexed characteristic curves model provides information on the global performance
of an on-demand irrigation system.

Select “Configurations” (Figure A.2.32), and the window “Parameter of analysis” will
appear (Figure A.2.33).

FIGURE A.2.32
Configurations model selection

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE A.2.33
Configuration model window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 127

Within the “Parameter of analysis” window (Figure A.2.34), only one type of flow
regime is available under the “Flow regimes”:
• Several –Random Generations: automatically generates the random flow regimes.

Enter the number of regimes to be generated for each discharge “Number of regimes to
generate for each discharge” (Figure A.2.34).

FIGURE A.2.34
Configuration parameter of analysis

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Enter the piezometric elevation at the upstream end of the network and the design
upstream discharge in the “set point data” frame.

Enter the list of discharges to be tested in “Upstream discharge to test.”

The program allows network computations where the minimum pressure head (Hmin)
required for on-farm irrigation is constant or variable.

For the constant case, select “Constant” and enter the value Hmin. This constant
value is automatically assigned to each hydrant regardless of the values in the “Hmin
Hydrants” column in the input file.

For the variable case, select “Variable”. The values of the minimum head at each
hydrant are automatically read from the “Hmin Hydrants” column in the input file.

During the model operation, a loading screen will appear.

When the procedure is complete, the results automatically show in a pop-up window
as a “Graph” (Figure A.2.35).
128 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.35
Indexed characteristic curve graph

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

The structure of this window is the same for every graph generated using the COPAM
model. The components include the following
1. Tools button: Select this to see the drop-down menu with two options (Figure
A.2.36):

FIGURE A.2.36
Graph tools

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 129

a. Place annotation
Use Place annotation to select a label, and place it on the graph image in the
desired position (Figure A.2.37 – Figure A.2.38). The labels placed can also be
moved and deleted.

FIGURE A.2.37
Annotation selection

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE A.2.38
Annotations placed

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

b. Graph ratio
Use the Graph ratio to change the size and shape of the graph area. This will
affect the size of the image exported. A suggested option is to use a 4:3 ratio.
2. Use the checkboxes to define which curves or points are to be shown in the graph.
3. Use “Export as PNG” to export the graph image in PNG format and save it in a
local folder .through the file explorer window.
4. Use “Export as .ICA” to export the text file containing the plotted results and save
it in a local folder through the file explorer window.
5. Use interpolation selection to select which type of interpolation to use (Linear or Spline.
6. Use Appearance selection to decide whether to enable the automatic assignment of
colours to the plotted elements or black and white. When the colors are assigned,
the legend will automatically appear.
7. Use the Legend position to modify the position of the legend.
130 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

8. Use the Tick font size to modify the size of the axis numbers.
9. Use “X-axes parameters” and “Y-axes parameters” to customize the chart axes.
10. Use “Titles”, to change name, size and color of the axes and graph name.
11. Use “Set” to confirm all modifications.

A.2.5.2 Hydrants (AKLA)

This program calculates the percentage of unsatisfied hydrants and the relative pressure
as part of the COPAM v4.0 package.

Select “Hydrants” (Figure A.2.39) and “Parameter of analysis” will appear (Figure A.2.40).

FIGURE A.2.39
Hydrants model selection

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE A.2.40
Parameter of analysis

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 131

Two flow regimes are available within “Options” (Figure A.2.41):

• Several –Random Generations: automatically generates the random flow
regimes
• Several – Read from file: reads the flow regimes from an external file.

For the option “Several – random generation” define the number of regimes to generate
for each discharge in “Number of regimes to generate for each discharge” (Figure A.2.41).

FIGURE A.2.41
Option Tab control (Several - Random generation)

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

For the option “Several - read from file” the file containing flow regimes previously
generated can be upload. Use “Choose file” into the frame “Read regimes from file”
(Figure A.2.42).
132 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.42
Option Tab control (Several - Read from file)

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Select “choose file,” and the file explorer window (Figure A.2.43) will automatically
appear. Navigate through the local directories and select the regimes file previously
generated with the extension “.ran.”

Use “read from file.” Note that the number of flow regimes to be generated is not
required because the flow regimes are already stored in the file.

FIGURE A.2.43
File explorer window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 133

Use “Options” to display “Minimum head at hydrants” (Figure A.2.44).

FIGURE A.2.44
Option Tab control (Minimum head at hydrants)

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

The program allows network computations where the minimum pressure head (Hmin)
required for on-farm irrigation is constant or variable.

Use “Option” to access two other frames, “Equity” and “Flow Velocity” (Figure A.2.45).
134 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.45
Option Tab to access “Equity” and “Flow Velocity”

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Use “Calculate equity” to enable the equity calculation to function.

Use “Flow Velocity” to enable the flow velocity calculation in each network section.

Enter the “Upstream piezometric elevation” (m a.s.l.) available at the upstream end of
the network and the “Upstream discharge” (l/s) using the “set point” (Figure A.2.46).

FIGURE A.2.46
Set point Tab control

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 135

Enter the list of discharges flowing at the upstream end of the network and the list of
upstream piezometric elevations to be tested in “Elevation-Discharge” (Figure A.2.47).

FIGURE A.2.47
Elevation-Discharge Tab control

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

These values allow the percentage of unsatisfied hydrants to be determined when the
upstream discharges and piezometric elevations vary.

It is important to include the setpoint data among these values. The relative pressure
deficits are only computed for the setpoint values.

To determine the relative pressure deficits for the set point data, only the set point
values need to be defined in “Elevation-discharge.”

Select “run” to run the program when all the inputs are in place. A loading screen will
appear (Figure A.2.48).
136 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.48
Elaboration in progress screen

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

On completing the program run, five files with the following extensions are
automatically generated:
• “Input_file_name.puh” (Percentage of unsatisfied hydrants results);
• “Input_file_name.hyd” (Hydrants deficit results);
• “Input_file_name.rel” (Hydrants reliability results);
• “Input_file_name.equ” (Network equity results) (Generated if the “Calculate
equity” checkbox is selected);
• “Input_file_name.fvl” (Network Flow Velocity results) (Generated if the “Flow
Velocity” checkbox is selected).

Five (one for each file generated) file explorer windows are automatically shown
(Figure A.2.49). Use the windows to select the local directory to save files.

FIGURE A.2.49
File explorer windows

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 137

The graphical interface of COPAM v4.0 allows easy printing of the information
obtained by the Hydrants model.

Select the “Graph” menu bar (Figure A.2.50) to select sub-menu items regarding the results:
• Hydrants deficit and envelope curves;
• Hydrants reliability;
• PUH curves (one elevation);
• PUH curves (all elevations); and
• Equity.
• Flow Velocity.

FIGURE A.2.50
Graph menu

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE A.2.51
File explorer window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

138 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.2.5.2.1 Hydrants deficit and envelope curves

Select "Hydrant deficit and envelope curve" from the “Graph” menu bar and the .hyd
file to display results (Figure A.2.52).

FIGURE A.2.52
Hydrant deficit and envelope curve graph

Source: Authors’own elaboration through COPAM v4.0

A.2.5.2.2 Hydrants reliability

Select "Hydrant reliability" from the “Graph” menu bar and the .rel file to display the
results (Figure A.2.53).

FIGURE A.2.53
Hydrants reliability

Source: Authors’own elaboration through COPAM v4.0

11. Annexes 139

A.2.5.2.3 PUH Curves (One Elevation)

Select "PUH Curves (One Elevation)" from the “Graph” menu bar and the .puh file
to display the results (Figure A.2.54).

FIGURE A.2.54
PUH Curves (One Elevation)

Source: Authors’ own elaboration through COPAM v4.0

A.2.5.2.4 PUH Curves (All elevations)

Select "PUH Curves (All elevations)" from the “Graph” menu bar and the .puh file to
display the results (Figure A.2.55).

FIGURE A.2.55
PUH Curves (All elevations)

Source: Authors’ own elaboration through COPAM v4.0

140 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Equity
Select "Equity" from the “Graph” menu bar and then the .equ file to display the results
(Figure A.2.56).

FIGURE A.2.56
Equity

Source: Authors’ own elaboration through COPAM v4.0

A.2.5.2.5 Flow Velocity

Select "Flow Velocity" from the “Graph” menu bar and the .fvl file to display the
results (Figure A.2.57).

FIGURE A.2.57
Flow Velocity

Source: Authors’ own elaboration through COPAM v4.0

11. Annexes 141

A.2.5.3 Sensitivity
A program to compute hydrants’ sensitivity is integrated into the COPAM v4.0 package.

Select “Sensitivity” (Figure A.2.58) and the window “Parameter of analysis” will
appear (Figure A.2.59).

FIGURE A.2.58
Sensitivity model

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE A.2.59
Parameter of analysis

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Select “Options” (Figure A.2.60), only one type of flow regime is available:
• Several –Random Generations: automatically generates the random flow regimes.

Use “Number of regimes to generate for each discharge” to define the number of
regimes to generate for each discharge (Figure A.2.60).
142 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.2.60
Option Tab control (Several - Random generation)

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Use “Minimum head at hydrants” (Figure A.2.61) to define the constant or variable
minimum pressure head (Hmin) required for on-farm irrigation.

FIGURE A.2.61
Option Tab control (minimum head at hydrants)

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Use “Set point” (Figure A.2.62) to set up the reference Set point and the comparison
Set point.

The comparison upstream piezometric elevation must be lower than the reference
upstream piezometric elevation, whereas the comparison upstream discharge must be
greater than the reference upstream discharge.
11. Annexes 143

FIGURE A.2.62
Option Set point control

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Select “run” to run the program, and a loading screen will appear. The program will
generate one file with a “.sen” extension.
144 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

File explorer automatically open (Figure A.2.63) so the file can be saved. The default
file name is the same as the name of the input file and the default directory is the same
where the input file is stored.

FIGURE A.2.63
File explorer window

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

The graphical interface of COPAM v4.0 allows easy printing of the results.

Use the “Graph” menu bar (Figure A.2.64) and select the Sensitivity sub-menu item,
then select the .sen file to open the graph window (Figure A.2.65).

FIGURE A.2.64
Graph menu bar

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 145

FIGURE A.2.65
Sensitivity graph

Source: Authors’ own elaboration through COPAM v4.0

A.2.5.4. Perturbation
The model for analyzing the perturbation in pressurized irrigation systems is an
integral part of COPAM v4.0. Select “Perturbation” on the home page to launch the
perturbation model (Figure A.2.66).

FIGURE A.2.66
Home screen of the perturbation model

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

The three input sections are on the left side of the screen. They can be directly uploaded
as an input file from COPAM (Figure A.2.67 select the file, and upload) or edited if a
new network is to be analysed for unsteady flow conditions.
146 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The network input

The input data for the network includes:
• the initial and final nodes of each section
• the hydrants discharge (l/s) (at the downstream node)
• sections length (m)
• land elevation of the downstream node (m a.s.l.)
• nominal diameter of the pipe (mm)
• terminal nodes of the branches must have a hydrant
• a maximum of two sections may be derived from each node
• the network is assumed to be of branched type
• each node is positioned by a number. Nodes numbering is important for the
correct execution of the model.

FIGURE A.2.67
Example of the network table with a reservoir at the upstream-end

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Additional input data are required about the water source. Two options are available:

a. An upstream reservoir (Figure A.2.67) with

• the water elevation (m a.s.l) corresponds to the elevation of the minimum water
level (see Figure A.2.68 and A.2.69);
• the ground elevation (m a.s.l) corresponds to the elevation of the first node (see
Figure A.2.68 and A.2.69).
11. Annexes 147

FIGURE A.2.68
The case of a below-ground reservoir

Maximum water level

Minimum water level

Ground elevation
(the first node)
Towards
the distrib
ution syst
em

Source: Marchi, E. & Rubatta, A. 1981. Meccanica dei fluidi; Principi ed applicazioni. Torino, Ed. UTET.

FIGURE A.2.69
The case of an above-ground reservoir

Maximum water level

Minimum water level

Ground elevation
(the first node)

Towards th
e distribut
ion system

Source: Marchi, E. & Rubatta, A. 1981. Meccanica dei fluidi; Principi ed applicazioni. Torino, Ed. UTET.

b. An upstream pumping station (Figure A.2.70), with

• the number of pumps
• the operation mode (in parallel or in series)
• the pump sump (elevation of the suction pipe, m a.s.l)
• different factors for the characteristic curve equations.

FIGURE A.2.70
Example of the network table with a pumping station at the upstream-end

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

148 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The pipe characteristics

Additional data are required for steady-state flow calculations and unsteady flow
conditions:
• fluid bulk modulus (Pa)
• young modulus of the pipe material (Pa)
• equivalent homogeneous pipe roughness (mm)
• nominal pressure of the pipes (bar).

The equivalent homogeneous roughness of the pipe (instead of the Bazin coefficient) is
needed for the unsteady flow calculation. Coefficients are reported in Annex 4. These
data appear on the screen in yellow (Figure A.2.71) until it is introduced correctly.

FIGURE A.2.71
Example of the pipe characteristics table

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Different scenarios and valves characteristics

The different scenarios are presented by the generated configurations representing
the transition from one steady-state to another steady-state regime. This approach
simulates the possible operating conditions describing the farmers’ behavior.

New configurations can be automatically generated or uploaded from a file (Figure

A.2.72 and A.2.73).
11. Annexes 149

FIGURE A.2.72
Example of valves characteristics and generating new configurations

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE A.2.73
Example of valves characteristics and uploading configurations from an existing file

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

Information is required about valve closure characteristics (see Chapter 8 section on

boundary conditions).

Codes identifying the hydrants operating mode are assigned to each node (0 when there
is no hydrant at the node, 1 when the hydrant is closed, 2 when the hydrant is opened, 3
when the hydrant is going to be closed, and 4 when the hydrant is going to be opened).
150 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

RPE profiles (the output section)

The Relative Pressure Exceedance is presented following the different network profiles.
A drop-down list on the top left side shows the different profiles. The initial and final
node of each profile are shown in green in the graphs.

Option for exporting graphs as images is available with different formats (Bitmap,
JPEG, PNG, GIF and TIFF) (see Figure A.2.74 and A.2.75).

FIGURE A.2.74
Example of RPE profile 1

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

FIGURE A.2.75
Example of RPE profile 4

Source: Screenshot of COPAM v4.0.

11. Annexes 151

A.3. RAP V1 USER’S MANUAL

A.3.1 About the software

The RAP for pressurized irrigation systems is built on the original work of FAO
and the ITRC of California Polytechnic State University (Burt, 2001). RAP and
Benchmarking – Explanation and Tools was published in 2001 and revised in 2002
as part of the FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 63, Modernizing Irrigation
Management, - the MASSCOTE approach, Mapping System and Services for Canal
Operation Techniques. The RAP tool was designed in excel spreadsheets, furthermore,
explanation manual was appended to the documentation. The original RAP was framed
to medium-, large-scale, open-canal systems. RAP for pressurized irrigation system is
the revamped version of RAP with adjusted content and computerized user tool.

A.3.1.1 About the technology

The software consists of a Windows compatible desktop app. The application is the
computerized form of the RAP methodology to support users with user-friendly and
easy-to-implement interface. The RAP is programmed and packaged as open-source
software capable of build native exe file for Windows (x32 and x64).

A.3.1.2 System requirements

Operating system: Minimum Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit), Recommended Windows 10
(32 or 64-bit)
• Processor: Minimum 1GHz, Recommended 2GHz or more
• RAM: Minimum 1GB, Recommended 4GB or more
• Hard drive: Minimum 100 MB
• Display: Minimum 1280 x 960 resolution
• Java version: Java SE Runtime Environment 8 (update 131 and above)

A.3.1.3 Installation and Start-up of RAP

Download the exe file from FAO website, create a folder for the RAP software version
1 where you want to store the application and move the file to the folder. Make sure
that the folder does not have write-protection. To run the application, JAVA SE
Runtime Environment 8 needs to be installed on the computer. At the very first time
of launching the application, the application will trigger a pop-up window showing the
required JAVA version and navigating the user to the page, where it can be downloaded.

FIGURE A.3.1
Required update of Java version

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 User’s Manual

152 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

After the installation of JAVA updated version, select the icon to run the application
from rap.exe file. While, the application loads, a splash screen will appear.

FIGURE A.3.2
Splash screen

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 User’s Manual

After launching the application, the landing page appears, which contains a summary
about the main features of the application. Additionally, there are two buttons on the
bottom, either to start a new, or load an existing assessment. These functions are also
available from the “File” menu in the top menu bar.

FIGURE A.3.3
Landing page

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

The load file option allows the import of existing assessments. Save and store the
assessment as binary file with extension .asmt in the automatically created data/asmt
subfolder. Files can be loaded only if they are saved in the “asmt” sub-folders. Opening
.asmt files from other locations is not possible.
11. Annexes 153

FIGURE A.3.4
Assessment sub-folder and stored file with .asmt extension

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

The application automatically logs detailed information about its operation while
running. The location of the log file is “log/RapidAppraisalProcedure.log”. This
information may become relevant if some malfunction happens when using the
application. The user need not be concerned about the log file.

FIGURE A.3.5
Log subfolder to store log file

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

154 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.3.1.4. Main features of the software

A.3.1.4.1. User interface
To edit an assessment the application opens the main view. It consists of 7 tabs: “Project
information”, “Water Balance”, “External indicators”, “Management”, “Management
indicators”, “Water service”, “Water service indicators”. The ribbon buttons on the top
side can be used to navigate through the chapters of the RAP. These buttons are disabled
by default and would be enabled when the validation rules of relevant input data are met.

FIGURE A.3.6
Main view of the software

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

The project information and the input tabs contain standard user interface elements,
like text fields, dropdown lists, checkboxes, radio buttons etc. The indicator tabs list
the calculated indicator values based on the input data. Closely related indicators are
grouped, and certain groups are also visualized to facilitate interpretation of the outcome.

FIGURE A.3.7
Window of assessment page

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

11. Annexes 155

While navigating through the different elements of the user interface, guiding
information appears in the info box on the right side of the window. Depending on the
currently selected element, it may include important information, definition, tips, or
any specific information related to that element.

FIGURE A.3.8
Info box for user guidance

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

A.3.1.4.2. Input validation

There are different rules that the input data provided by the user needs to fulfill. The
validation rules cover cases like when a field is required, or sum of percentage values
must be 100 and so on. If a field is failing to match its defined rules, a symbol (red
dot with cross) is appearing at its bottom-left corner.

FIGURE A.3.9
View of input validation rules

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

156 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

In addition, for text field inputs, it is prevented to enter an invalid or unnatural value.
For example, fields containing number of people or percentage accept only integer
values. When there are validation errors on a given tab, it may cause other tabs to
be inaccessible. To be specific, when new assessment is started, only the project
information tab is available. Fulfilling it without error enables the three input tabs, and
after each input tab is properly filled, the corresponding indicator tab gets accessible.

A.3.1.4.3. Exporting assessment

In the “Export” menu, there are two options to export assessment data into
standard digital formats:
• the “Export to PDF” option creates a PDF file with all the input and indicator
values, but without the visualization artefacts (charts);
• the “Export charts to images” creates a compressed (*.zip) file containing all the charts.

FIGURE A.3.10
PDF export of the assessment file

Source: Authors’s own elaboration based on RAP v1 software

By default, exported files are created in the “exported” folder inside the working
directory of the application, however the user can choose any other location.

A.3.2. About the methodology

RAP for pressurized irrigation system is a diagnostic tool for performance assessment
related to water resource, institutional management and irrigation service (hardware and
software). It aims at identifying the physical bottlenecks hampering the efficient water
delivery. The ultimate goal of RAP is to obtain solid baseline assessment of the performance,
against which the results of improvement/rehabilitation/modernization can be measured.

A.3.2.1. Application boundaries

The following parameters describe the application boundaries of RAP for pressurized
irrigation system.
11. Annexes 157

1. Irrigation system type: pressurized irrigation system with pipe network from water
intakes to final distributaries (hydrants) and drains.
2. Appraisal frame: system-level, not including on-farm irrigation systems.
3. Irrigation system size: small-, medium and large-scale system.
4. Methodology: rapid appraisal to acquire preliminary understanding.
5. Time-horizon: retrospective, covering one-year round operation.
6. Indicative time required: from 1 to 1.5 months (depending on the conditions and
complexity of the system, the actual required time can exceed the indicated time frame).
7. Required expertise: solid knowledge related to agricultural engineering, irrigation
engineering, water resource management, civil engineering or any related field.
8. Involved stakeholder: 360-degree involvement from end-users, site engineers,
experts to management.

A.3.2.2. General workflow

Three chapters constitute the RAP:
• water balance: appraisal of water resource allocation through water balancing
approach between water supply and water demand;
• management (institutional and organizational): assessment of the institutional and
organizational mechanism;
• water service: stocktaking of physical water distribution system through the
assessment of general characteristics, performance, operation policy, condition
and maintenance of physical system components.

The chapters are appraised separately, but some of the questions are overlapping and
some of them are transferred from one chapter to another. However, it does not cover
more than 10 percent of the questions in overall, thus giving the possibility to conduct
both comprehensive and individual analyses of the chapters.

The working mechanism has three major steps:

• The required data and information indicated in the manual must be collected,
structured and pre-processed in the right format, unit and scale. Depending on
the subject, required information can involve interviews, questionnaires, focus-
group discussion, etc. Therefore, the application of RAP requires sufficient time
for preparation.
• Data input and result generation is the next step of the exercise. The datasets
must be correctly inserted, while the automated functions execute the calculation.
The calculated data sheets and obtained results are immediately displayed, can be
saved and exported.
• RAP results must be framed into the right context. In order to obtain sound
baseline study, the results must be interpreted in proper manner, while both
respecting the original definitions and considering the local context.
158 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.3.11
Flowchart of calculation mechanism

Instructions on required Data input, validation, Results obtained as

data, information, calculation performance indicators
stakeholder mapping

Source: FAO. 2022a. RAP v1 User’s Manual [online]. https://data.apps.fao.org/static/downloads/RAP/RAP%20v1%20

Manual.pdf.

Related to each chapter:

• users receive basic instructions to the preparation;
• users receive sets of supporting document and applications;
• users receive information and clarification related the definitions of applied
methodologies.

A.3.3. The structure of the manual

The manual is structured as the following:
• Setting the scene: the section provides ‘virtual journey’ upon arrival to the irrigation
scheme together with the recommendations on available tools for preparation.
• RAP chapters: the section is split into the three RAP chapters: water balance,
management and water service. Each chapter contains the following sections:
• Instructions: the section incorporates information related to the
required data, preparatory works, involved stakeholders, data units and
supporting documents to data acquisition.
• Input workspace: the section includes clarifications and definitions of the
calculation parameter, applied methodologies, data insertion, workflow,
possible errors.
• Definitions: the section includes the definitions of obtained results

The Manual also includes tips to support the assessment. Such tips are developed by
case studies and field implementation and included in text boxes.

A.3.4. Setting the scene

Modern technologies facilitate the acquisition of preliminary information that can
support the field work. Global datasets have great potential to obtain data that are not
instantly available. A ‘virtual journey’ in the field is strongly recommended in advance to
set the scene for the appraisal. Nevertheless, RAP requires micro-data obtained through
field observation, so the datasets from global repositories must be validated in the field.

A.3.4.1. Geographical location

Online maps with high resolution are available, based on which the boundaries and
key locations of the irrigation schemes can be identified. Open-access and easy-to-
use satellite images are readily available to understand the key geographical features.
It is particularly important in a sense that overview about the catchment can provide
many clarifications on the water allocation issues, e.g. water resource endowment,
topographical constraints.
11. Annexes 159

A.3.4.1.1. Example
Google Earth is one of the most frequently used application suitable to a variety
of devices. The application allows to insert paths, polygons, markers and layers.
Furthermore, it has function on measuring distances, and calculating elevation.

Global Map of Irrigated Area (GMIA) by FAO is a regularly updated map displaying
the area equipped for irrigation in the percentage of the total area on a raster (FAO,
2021a) . The GMIA involves add-in maps featuring the area equipped for irrigation
and actually used for irrigation and the percentages of the area equipped for irrigation
from groundwater, surface water or non-conventional sources of water. The maps are
compiled from the combination of sub-national irrigation statistics with geospatial
information on the position and extent of irrigation schemes. The digital information
helps pre-assess the degree of equipped area, as well as the major water sources and
actual use of irrigation systems.

FIGURE A.3.12
Area equipped for irrigation as percentage of land area

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2021a. Global Map of Irrigated Area (GMIA)
[online]. http://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/geospatialinformation/global-maps-irrigated-areas/latest-version/.

A.3.4.2. Climate, vegetation and agricultural water use

Monitoring of surrounding environment can be done through highly-versatile GIS-
based tools. Remote-sensing tools are often available right at sub-national level to
provide readily available information regarding to climatic, hydrological, land use
and agricultural parameters.

A.3.4.2.1. Example
FAO’s portal to monitor Water Productivity through Open-access of Remotely sensed
data (WAPOR) opens new opportunities in data acquisitions through the application of
global datasets (FAO, 2021b). It assists countries in monitoring water productivity while
providing a set of information related to climate (precipitation, evapotranspiration),
vegetation (land cover), biomass production and water productivity. The maps are
available in 250, 100 and 30 m spatial resolution, and can be exported in raster files.
160 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.3.13
WaPOR - FAO portal: Annual reference evapotranspiration

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2021a. Global Map of Irrigated Area (GMIA)
[online]. http://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/geospatialinformation/global-maps-irrigated-areas/latest-version/.

AQUASTAT is the most comprehensive global repository of water related data. The
datasets are compiled by experts and frequently updated. AQUASTAT includes data at
national-level, which can be utilized to contextualize the irrigation sector and irrigation
performance (FAO, 2021c).

FIGURE A.3.14
AQUASTAT dataset

Source: FAO. 2021c. AQUASTAT - FAO’s Global Information System on Water and Agriculture [online]. http://www.fao.org/
aquastat/statistics/query/index.html;jsessionid=8F91EF0E411552F0E351E433543EEBD5.
11. Annexes 161

A.3.4.3. Soil data

Irrigation water demand largely depends on land resources. Therefore, information
related land and soil is highly desirable to reach accurate estimates related to deep
percolation, effective precipitation, root zone depth etc. Although soil analysis requires
field work, global statistics are available to obtain information on main characteristics.

A.3.4.3.1. Example
FAO provides diverse sets of soil maps including Global Soil Organic Carbon Map,
FAO/UNESCO Soil Map of the World, Harmonized world soil database, Regional and
National Soil Maps and Databases that contains open-access data for users (FAO, 2022b).

FIGURE A.3.15
Global Soil Organic Carbon Map, GLOSIS – GSOCmap

Source: FAO. 2022b. Global Soil Organic Carbon Map – GSOCmap v.1.6. Technical report. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/
cb9015en.

A.3.4.4. Global repositories to characterize

agriculture and water management
Integrated global repositories are extremely valuable tools to collect further information
in order to characterize the national or sub-national agriculture, water resources and
irrigation sectors. National cropping pattern, cropping and harvesting calendar, food
prices, registered lands, cadastral parcels, irrigated area ratio, water resource, aridity
etc. can be accessed from national and international sources to acquire a rapid overview
and retrieve relevant information

A.3.4.4.1. Example
FAO Hand-in-Hand Geospatial Platform is designed to host the global datasets and
statistics generated by FAO in different fields of sciences (FAO, 2021e). The online
platform provides open access to all datasets fostered by FAO, such as “Crops”,
“Land”, “Water” and “Climate” tabs can directly support the RAP implementation.
162 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.3.16
Hand-in-Hand GIS platform snapshot

Source: FAO. 2021e. Hand-in-Hand Geospatial Platform [online]. http://www.fao.org/hihgeospatial-platform/en/.

A.3.4.5. Synthesis
Together this initial data collection exercise has multiple function: data acquisition,
data validation, data replacement. If in-situ measurements or observations are not
available at the time of the appraisal, open-access sources can be used to construct
bulk information. Such datasets should be also used to properly frame the baseline
assessment and understand the prevailing trends in the irrigation scheme. However, the
original scope and scale of RAP is to obtain micro-analysis. Therefore, local data and
information have absolute priority throughout the appraisal.

A.3.5. Appraisal
A.3.5.1. Project information
The project information tab involves the basic information about the irrigation system.
It is set to determine the overall boundaries of the irrigation scheme and the basic
agricultural information. The tab has two main section:
1. Project details: the overall information about the irrigation scheme include the
area, irrigation type, agricultural year and efficiencies of the infrastructure.
2. Cropping information: the cropping pattern is defined per crop type, production
area per crop type and irrigation method per crop.

FIGURE A.3.17
Main view of project information window

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software.

11. Annexes 163

The project information determines the basic features, therefore the data inserted into
the following chapter must correspond to this. The boundaries of the command area
must be defined carefully. A command area can be determined based on different
approaches, and the assessment must remain consistent with command areas.

BOX A.3.1
The command area selection
The boundaries of irrigation schemes are often not straightforward. An irrigation
scheme can be defined by hydrological, agricultural or administrative boundaries.
It is important to be clear with the boundaries in advance. The RAP allows
the identification of boundaries via water intakes belonging to the scheme or
administration. However, the chapters must be filled accordingly. If the boundaries
are based on the hydrological boundaries, the command area might include more
management entities or shared management entity. If the boundaries are based on the
administrative boundaries, multiple agricultural area can be aggregated and assessed.
In case of large area, it is recommended to divide the area to sub-systems and conduct
the assessment per sub-system. This will allow for a more accurate assessment and the
comparison of performance across sub-systems.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on RAP v1 User’s Manual.

A.3.5.1.1. Data input and calculation scheme

The input data should be filled step-by-step starting from project information. Any
missing value can hamper the correct calculation. The stepwise guide below provides
information on the stepwise data requirement.

Project details:
Project name: user defines the name of the project, preferably the name of the irrigation
scheme

First Month: the first month of irrigation system use or cropping within the year. E.g.
if the cropping starts in March, the first month of the water year will be March.
• It usually refers to the beginning of the year-round agricultural season;
• user defines the water/agricultural year when the appraisal is conducted;
• water/agricultural year does not necessarily start with January;
• one year can include a double season.

Total project area (ha):

• the total area of the irrigation scheme, including the non-cropped areas, such as
inspection roads, yards, infrastructure, etc.;
• arable lands without irrigation facilities must also be calculated in the total project area.

The command area (ha): the area with irrigation facilities.

• Command area is the net cropped and irrigation area available in a year;
• in case of double cropping (multiple seasons in one calendar year), the area
cropped should be calculated only once (e.g., if the arable land is 100 ha but
cropped twice per year, the command area will be 100 ha).
164 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Conveyance efficiency for external water (percentage):

• external water is the water conveyed to the project area from outside of its
hydrological boundaries;
• it is the ratio of delivered external water over external supplied water in percentage;
• the ratio expresses the water loss during transportation. E.g. leaking pipe, water
loss at the joints or offtakes etc.;
• conveyance efficiency concerns the infrastructure from water intake until offtakes
(deliveries) on the farm.

Conveyance efficiency for internal project water (percentage):

• internal project water is the water pumped from wells located with in the
hydrological boundaries of the project;
• it is the ratio of delivered internal water over internal supplied water in percentage;
• the ratio expresses the water loss during transportation. E.g. leaking pipe, water
loss at the joints or offtakes etc.;
• conveyance efficiency concerns the infrastructure from water intake until offtakes
(deliveries) on the farm

Seepage for paddy rice (percentage):

• ratio of water applied over water infiltration from the paddies into the soil;
• the ratio expresses the average loss of water from paddies due to seepage.;
• the seepage information should be filled only if the cropping pattern includes paddy
rice, seepage from paddies could be estimated using the drainage type lysimeter.

Surface losses from paddy rice to drains (percentage):

• ratio of water lost as runoff or evaporation from the paddies;
• the ratio expresses the average water loss by runoff and/or evaporation;
• the surface loss should be filled only if the cropping pattern includes paddy rice.

Field irrigation efficiency by irrigation method (percentage):

• ratio of water that can be used by the crop over water delivered to the field, in
other words the efficiency of the different on-farm irrigation techniques;
• the ratio expresses the water amount utilized by the crop, including the water loss
of deep percolation, runoff, evaporation and other water losses on the field;
• the ratio must be estimated per irrigation technique. Usually, surface irrigation has the
lowest efficiency, while localized techniques such as drip has higher field irrigation
efficiency;
• the estimates have substantial impact on the crop water requirement. 1) The water loss
calculated from the efficiency is considered additional water requirement. Therefore,
the less efficient the method, the more extra water requirement. 2) The leaching
requirement is calculated as per irrigation method. The leaching requirement of high-
frequency irrigation methods differs from the low-frequency methods. Therefore, the
accurate estimate of the irrigation efficiency is of utmost importance;
• existing irrigation techniques must be estimated and the field must be filled.
11. Annexes 165

Average delivered flow (m3/s):

• the average discharge conveyed through the conveyance system (pipes) during a
usual irrigation event;
• averaged delivered flow can differ from the design discharge defined by the
designer.

Design flow in the pipe system (m3/s):

• the design or maximum discharged defined during the design and implementation
phase of irrigation system and that the pumping station can supply.

Average electrical conductivity (ECw) of the irrigation water (dS/m):

• average value of electrical conductivity of irrigation water during typical
irrigation event;
• the value must be determined in due time of irrigation. If historical data is
available, the most typical value must be selected during the most frequent
irrigation/cropping period;
• the calculation assumes good to excellent quality of water. It is not likely that
ECw of irrigation water is higher than the threshold of crop tolerance. This must
be taken into consideration while defining ECw.

Cropping information:
Cropping information:
• the cropping pattern of the area over the year;
• Each crop type and variety must be filled individually. For example, if more crop
varieties are produced over the year, each of them must be indicated separately;
• the irrigation method must be indicated to each crop, except paddy rice.
• if the same crop is produced in double-cropping in the same year, the crop must
be added per season.

A.3.5.2. Water balance

The water balance chapter aims at matching the bulk water supply and bulk water
demand at system level:

3. Water supply: the surface- and groundwater resources are categorized under
“external” and “internal” water resources, depending whether the water enters
the command area from outside or it is sourced directly within the command area.
Water reuse is considered as additional internal water supply (recirculated). The
water supply is corrected with conveyance efficiencies.
4. Water demand: water demand is calculated in sequence. ET-based crop water
requirement is scaled at command area level, and effective precipitation is
subtracted from the net water requirement of command area. In case of deficit
irrigation, the crop water requirement can be altered based on the deficit
irrigation strategy. Additional water demand is calculated by considering the
salinity control and special irrigation practices. The total net irrigation water
requirement is corrected by the field irrigation efficiency, depending on the type
of on-farm irrigation system.
166 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The main external indicators of the water balance chapter include the obtained ratio
of water supply and water demand. Depending on both cases of oversupply and water
scarcity, the ratio shows the magnitude of the imbalance between water sources and
required water demand.

FIGURE A.3.18
Flowchart of indicator calculation in water balance chapter

INPUT DATA

Surface water Monthly Reference Cultivated

Groundwater Field Coefficients Effective
entering/comman Evapotranspiration areas Water quality Precipitation
/command area Kc per crop Precipitation
d area ETo [mm] per crop [Ha] (ECw) [mm]
[MCM/month] [%]
[MCM/month]

Estimated Crop Water Management Leaching Effective

Conveyance Requirements strategy − deficit requirement Precipitation
Efficiency [%] ETcrop = Kc x ETo irrigation [%] [MCM] [mm]

Delivery of
ET for each irrigated Special Salinity Total Monthly
Reused water external surface Field irrigation
+ field, in growing + Practices + control – Eff. Precipitation
+

[MCM] irrigation water to efficiency (%)

seasons [MCM] [MCM] [MCM] [MCM]
users [MCM]

Total Net
Total Net
Total
Total Irrigation
Irrigation Water
Irrigation Water
Irrigation Water
Water Delivered
Delivered to
to Users
Requirements [MCM]
Requirements [MCM]
Users [MCM]
[MCM]

EXTERNAL INDICATORS

Source: FAO. 2022a. RAP v1 User’s Manual [online]. https://data.apps.fao.org/static/downloads/RAP/RAP%20v1%20Manual.pdf.

A.3.5.2.1. Preparation of the input file

The Water balance chapter builds on one-year-round data related to agriculture,
agricultural water, conveyance system and climate. It is recommended to request the
available information prior to the field visit. The chapter requires secondary data
collection, literature review, historical data and field observation.

TABLE A.3.1
Data input support of Water balance chapter
Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

Agriculture

cropping pattern ha year historical data

-
of the area
cultivated area size ha monthly historical data
-
per crop
crop coefficient (Kc) - monthly • FAO Irrigation and Drainage literature review,
Paper No. 56: Crop historical data, field
Evapotranspiration observation
• FAO Irrigation and drainage
paper 66: Crop yield response
to water

salt tolerance threshold dS/m year • FAO Irrigation and Drainage literature review,
(ECe) Paper 29: Water quality for historical data
agriculture
11. Annexes 167

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

special water mm monthly • FAO Irrigation and drainage literature review,
requirement paper 66: Crop yield response historical data,
of the crop to water field observation

crop yield tons season - historical data,

field observation
crop value local currency season - secondary data,
historical data,
field observation

regulated deficit percentage monthly - historical data,

irrigation strategy field observation
irrigation water million m³ monthly - historical data,
pumped into the field observation
command area

other irrigation water million m³ monthly - historical data,

entering the command field observation
area

direct farmer usage million m³ monthly - historical data,

of surface water inside field observation
the command area
(recirculated water)

project authority million m³ million m³ - historical data,

usage of surface water field observation
inside command area
-(recirculated water)

groundwater pumped million m³ monthly - historical data,

by farmers inside field observation
the command area

groundwater pumped million m³ monthly - historical data,

by project authorities field observation
inside the command
area
groundwater pumped million m³ monthly - historical data,
from the aquifer field observation
remaining outside
the command area
groundwater pumped million m³ monthly - historical data,
outside the command field observation
area brought into

salinity of the dS/m monthly - historical data,

irrigation water field observation
salinity of the dS/m monthly - historical data,
drainage field observation
annual depth to the m year - historical data,
shallow water table field observation
change in shallow m year - historical data,
water table field observation
Chemical Oxygen mgm/L year - historical data,
Demand (COD) field observation
of the irrigation water

Chemical Oxygen mgm/L year - historical data,

Demand (COD) field observation
of the drain water

Biological load (BOD) mgm/L year - historical data,

of the irrigation water field observation
Biological load (BOD) mgm/L year - historical data,
of the drain water field observation
168 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

Climate

reference mm monthly • FAO Irrigation and Drainage literature review,

evapotranspiration Paper No. 56: Crop secondary data,
(ETo) of the command Evapotranspiration historical data,
area • FAO AquaCrop: field observation
http://www.fao.org/
land-water/databases-and-
software/aquacrop/en/
• FAO ETo Calculator:
http://www.fao.org/
land-water/databases-and-
software/eto-calculator/en/
• FAO CLIMWAT:
http://www.fao.org/
land-water/databases-and-
software/climwat-for-cropwat
• FAO CropWat:
http://www.fao.org/
land-water/databases-and-
software/cropwat/en/
• FAO WaPOR:
http://www.fao.org/
land-water/databases-and-
software/wapor/en/
precipitation mm monthly • FAO CLIMWAT: http:// literature review,
www.fao.org/land-water/ secondary data,
databases-and-software/ historical data,
climwat-for-cropwat field observation
• FAO WaPOR: http://www.fao.
org/land-water/databases-
and-software/wapor/en/

rate of effective monthly • FAO Irrigation and Drainage literature review,

precipitation Paper No. 25: Effective historical data,
(eff.precip) rainfall in irrigated field observation
agriculture
deep percolation mm monthly • FAO Irrigation and Drainage literature review,
of precipitation Paper No. 45: Guidelines for historical data,
designing and evaluating field observation
surface irrigation systems
• FAO: Irrigation Water
Management: Irrigation
Water Needs. Training
manual no. 3

Conveyance system

estimated conveyance percentage year • FAO Irrigation Water field observation

efficiency for external Management Training
water manual: Irrigation Scheduling

estimated conveyance percentage year • FAO Irrigation Water field observation

efficiency for internal Management Training
percentag e year manual: Irrigation Scheduling
FAO Irrigation
Water Management
Training manual: field
observation project
well water
estimated seepage percentage year • FAO Irrigation Water field observation
for paddy rice Management Training
manual: Irrigation Scheduling

estimated surface losses percentage year • FAO Irrigation Water literature review,
from paddy rice Management Training historical data,
to drains manual: Irrigation Scheduling field observation

estimated field percentage year • FAO Irrigation Water literature review,

irrigation efficiency Management Training historical data,
for other crops (surface, manual: Irrigation Scheduling field observation
sprinkler, localized)
11. Annexes 169

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

average delivered flow m³/s year Design, plans, master Field observation,
in the pipe system plans, technical interview
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

design flow in the pipe m³/s m³/s Design, plans, master Field observation,
system plans, technical interview
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

external water deep percentage year FAO Irrigation Water Historical data,
percolating during Management Training manual: field observation
conveyance Irrigation Scheduling

delivered water deep percentage year FAO Irrigation Water Historical data,
percolating on-farm Management Training manual: field observation
Irrigation Scheduling

A.3.5.2.2 Involved stakeholders

The section is data-intense, therefore, it requires preparation prior to the field visit. The
majority of the questions can be filled by historical data collected from the scheme.
However, if historical data is not available, expert benchmarking within field visit is
required to estimate the values.

• The following stakeholders are recommended to be involved:

• project office and scheme management;
• national authority storing relevant data;
• site engineers;
• WUA, irrigation association, farmers’ organization etc.

A.3.5.2.3 Requested time

The preparatory works require more-or-less 2 weeks, depending on the scheme size,
data availability and complexity of the scheme. If data cannot be obtained within the
indicated timeframe, expert benchmarking methods and observation can complement
the missing data.

A.3.5.2.3 Data input and calculation scheme

Crop Coefficient and crop threshold:

• crop coefficient must be filled only in cropped months, the remaining cells must
be left empty;
• crop coefficient (Kc) is the ratio of the actual crop evapotranspiration to reference
crop evapotranspiration, integrating the characteristics of crops, which distinguish
them from grass (canopy, ground cover, etc.);
• Kc must be defined according to the cropping pattern, development stages and
crop calendar of the water year;
• Kc must be adjusted to local conditions and crop characteristics (growing length,
climate, water availability etc.);
• threshold of crop salt tolerance to soil salinity (ECe) is the average soil salinity
tolerated by the crop and measured as soil saturation extract.
170 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

FIGURE A.3.19
Main view of crop coefficient table

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software.

Monthly reference evapotranspiration values (mm):

• the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is the term of suppressed evaporation
and transpiration of crops in one value considering reference conditions. The
reference surface is hypothetical grass reference crop with an assumed crop height
of 0.12 m, fixed surface resistance of 70 s/m and an albedo of 0.23;
• ETo is calculated from climatic parameters: temperature, humidity, radiation and
wind speed. The calculation can be based on different methodologies such as
Penman-Monteith, Hargreaves, etc.;
• ETo must be calculated based on local climatic data, referring to the period of the
appraisal;
• in case of data scarcity, long-term trends can be used to replace the appraisal year data.

Surface water entering the command area boundaries for irrigation (million m3):
• the total monthly volume of surface water entering the scheme;
• this refers only to the irrigation water imported into the scheme;
• only the water coming from outside of the irrigation scheme must appear in this
table. Such categorization indicates the dependency on external/internal irrigation
water source;
• the table is split into varieties of water sourced from outside of the scheme:
Irrigation water pumped into the command area from the main surface water
source, Other irrigation water entering the command area from an external source.

Local internal surface irrigation water sources (million m3):

• the total monthly volume of local internal surface irrigation water.
• only the water coming from inside of the irrigation scheme must appear in this table. Such
categorization indicates the dependency on external/internal irrigation water source.
• the table requires only the volumes related to irrigation water. If the water is
stored internally, but not utilized for irrigation water, it should not be considered.
11. Annexes 171

For example, reservoir in the command area without conveying water from it
should not be calculated as water source.
• the table is split into varieties of local internal surface irrigation water: direct
farmer usage of surface water inside the command area, Project authority usage
of surface water inside command area

Groundwater data (million m3):

• the total monthly volume of groundwater for irrigation;
• the table is split into varieties of groundwater: groundwater pumped by farmers
inside the command area, groundwater pumped by the Project Authorities inside
the command area, Groundwater pumped from the aquifer remaining outside the
command area, Groundwater pumped outside the command area brought into
the command area.
• if groundwater abstraction is informal, the amount of withdrawn water should
not be indicated here, as it would distort the perception about the sufficiency of
irrigation water;
• the table requires the volumes related only to irrigation water.

BOX A.3.2
Discharge measurement
Many irrigation schemes do not apply discharge monitoring. Consequently, discharge
history is not available at the time of the appraisal. However, the flow in pressurized
irrigation systems is more predictable than in open-canal systems. It is recommended
conducting discharge measurement campaign, whereas flow measurement devices are
installed both in the pump station and on selected hydrants. Discharge measurement
must be conducted both at water intake (pump station) and distribution level
(hydrant). Discharge measurement in the pump station must be conducted in a
typical irrigation day, when the water level of the water sources is around the average.
Consultation with the pump operators helps understand the frequency and duration
of irrigation events, thus the estimation of the water supply. Evidence shows if more
hydrant operates at the same time and the irrigation schedule is not adjusted to
the system configuration, the discharge received is unequal amongst the hydrants.
Therefore, it is important to profile the irrigation practices (number of simultaneously
operating hydrants, position of hydrants, time of irrigation etc.) and conduct random
measurements simultaneously.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

Precipitation (mm):
• the precipitation refers to the overall precipitation in the command area, referring
to the period of the appraisal;
• if precipitation data is not available, the data can be replaced with average long-
term trends;
• precipitation value must be filled in each month within and out of the crop calendar;
• effective precipitation (percentage) is the rate of precipitation that actually reaches the root
zone. This is the available amount of precipitation for the plant, expressed in percentage;
172 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

• it is not recommended to calculate effective precipitation if the daily rainfall is less

than 5 mm. Below 5 mm, the estimated effective precipitation should be 0;
• if it is assumed that the amount of precipitation in the month before cropping is
sufficient to maintain the soil moisture, the effective precipitation of last month
can be manually added to the first month of the cropping. However, it requires
proper calculation to equal the ratio of the next month;
• deep percolation of precipitation (mm) is the amount of precipitation that deep
percolates from the root zone into deeper layers. This part of the precipitation is
not effective, because it is no longer available to the plant.;
• deep percolation cannot exceed the precipitation minus the effective precipitation
together with runoff (calculated from field irrigation efficiency);
• your estimate of external water that deep percolates during conveyance is the
water loss from conveyance structure. For example, the deep percolation from
unlined canals can lead to significant water loss. The estimate cannot exceed
the total amount of water loss calculated from estimated conveyance efficiency
for external water (Project information). For example, if your estimation of
conveyance efficiency for external water is 80 percentage, this value cannot exceed
the indicated 20percentage water loss (100 – estimated conveyance efficiency for
external water);
• your estimate of delivered water that deep percolates on-farm is the water
loss on the farm due to irrigation inefficiency. The estimate cannot exceed the
proportional estimated field irrigation efficiency to cropped area size and the
indicated and the proportional seepage for paddy rice to the cropped area size.

Special Agronomic Requirements (mm):

• the special agronomic requirement refers to any additional irrigation water need
beyond the crop water requirement. Such special requirement can be the pre-
wetting of soil to prepare seedbeds, pre-irrigation of paddies, etc.;
• special agronomic requirement must be inserted only in the corresponding
months, when the additional water need appears.

Crop Yields and Values:

• typical yield is the average yield productivity of crop in tons/ha;
• farmgate selling price refers to the average trigger price received by farmers for 1
ton of harvested crop.

Drainage and Salinity information:

• the table includes variety of water quality-related information, whereas average
salinity of the irrigation water is already defined in the project information section;
• the average salinity of the drainage outflow from command area (dS/m) requires
time-series of salinity measurement. It is recommended to conduct measurement
during or right after irrigation event;
• the average annual depth to the shallow water table (m) requires information about
the level of groundwater table or subsurface water. This information has utmost
importance to understand the possible cause of salinity, therefore, it should be
monitored throughout the year in terms of both frequency and duration;
• the change in the shallow water table depth over the last 5 years, (-) decrease, (+)
increase (m) is the deviation from the average depth to both positive and negative
11. Annexes 173

depth. If the shallow groundwater table frequently reaches the root zone, it can
cause salinity, therefore, it should be monitored throughout the year in terms of
both frequency and duration;
• the amount of oxygen equivalents consumed in the chemical oxidation of organic
matter. It is an indicator of organic matter of the water. The chemical oxygen demand
of the irrigation water requires water quality measurement. In particular, if the
irrigation scheme applies reused water, the information must be carefully evaluated;
• the amount of oxygen equivalents consumed in the chemical oxidation of organic
matter. It is an indicator of organic matter of the water. The chemical oxygen demand
of the drainage water requires water quality measurement. In particular, if the
irrigation scheme applies reused water, the information must be carefully evaluated;
• the amount of oxygen consumed by microorganism to decompose organic matter.
The biological oxygen demand of the irrigation water requires water quality
measurement. In particular, if the irrigation scheme applies reused water, the
information must be carefully evaluated;
• the amount of oxygen consumed by microorganism to decompose organic matter.
The biological oxygen demand of the drainage water requires water quality
measurement. In particular, if the irrigation scheme applies reused water, the
information must be carefully evaluated.

Deficit irrigation strategy (percentage):

• deficit (or regulated deficit) irrigation is a method to optimize crop water
productivity by applying irrigation water during certain growth stages. Deficit
irrigation means that the crop is exposed to a certain level of water stress either
during a particular period or throughout the whole growing season;
• some of the irrigation scheme hit by water scarcity applied regulated deficit
irrigation, whereas crops are exposed to certain level of water stress temporally or
throughout the season, which do not entail any/significant yield loss;
• in case of deficit irrigation, only a certain level of crop water requirement is
satisfied. The percentage, frequency and duration of regulated deficit irrigation is
defined by the management;
• the table requires the rate of satisfied water requirement in percentage. Only those
months must be filled, through which the management applies deficit irrigation.

BOX A.3.3
Deficit irrigation strategy
Deficit irrigation strategy must always be considered as a management strategy. To
create such an irrigation plan, the management must know the crop water requirement
and understand the yield response to water stress. The regulated deficit must be
driven by the demand side and not by the supply side. If management does not know
the crop water requirement, thus the water deficit occurs by insufficient knowledge
and poor irrigation practices, it cannot be considered a deficit irrigation strategy.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

The following stepwise calculation schemes explain how interim and final results are
obtained. The charts include the considered equations in workflow.
174 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Crop water requirement calculation

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on RAP v1 User’s manual.

Water need for salinity control

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on RAP v1 User’s manual.

Groundwater storage and recharge

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on RAP v1 User’s manual.

11. Annexes 175

Water supply

Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on RAP v1 User’s manual.

A.3.5.3. Water balance and external indicators

The results of Water Balance chapter are summarized in the External indicators. The
External indicators express the hydrological performance. If the minimum obligatory
information are filled in the input page, the External Indicators button is activated and
results are displayed.

FIGURE A.3.20
Main view of the External indicators window

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

The External Indicator page includes the summary of calculated parameters, the external
indicators and environmental indicators. The calculated parameters are the sub-results
and summary of input values. The external indicators are the performance indicators,
based on which the appraisal can be interpreted. The environmental indicators are the
transferred values from the input sheets, which should be interpreted based on the national
requirements, local particularities and the vulnerability to changes in water quality.
176 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

TABLE A.3.2
Calculated parameters of External indicators
Indicator Units Definition

Calculated parameters

estimated conveyance percentage • Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
efficiency for external • ratio of delivered external water over external supplied water
water in percentage;
• the ratio expresses the water loss during transportation, e.g. Leaking
pipe or leakage at joints are considered water loss;
• conveyance efficiency is applied to the infrastructure from water
intake until offtakes (deliveries) on the farm.

weighted field percentage Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
irrigation efficiency • average field irrigation efficiency of fields irrigated by surface,
from stated efficiencies sprinkler and localized on-farm irrigation system, weighted by
the irrigated land size.

physical area of ha Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
irrigated cropland • command area is the net cropped and irrigation area available
in the command area in a year, regardless the number of crops produced in sequence;
• in case of double cropping (multiple seasons in one calendar year),
the command area should not be calculated twice.

irrigated crop area ha Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
in the command area, • cropped area size including double cropping;
including multiple
cropping • in case of land is used in multiple seasons, the accumulated land size
is displayed, e.g. if 200 ha land is cropped two times per year, the
irrigated crop area is 400 ha in the year.

cropping intensity percentage The ratio of irrigated crop area and physical area of irrigation
in the command area cropland. It shows the utilization rate of the area, the higher the
including double intensity the more utilized the area. Cropping intensity can be
cropping increased by double-cropping or intercropping:

• if 100 percent of available command area is cropped and/or double-

cropped, the value is to be =>100 percent;
• if less than 100 percent of available command area is cropped and
double-cropped areas still do not make up the 100 percent of the
available command area, the value is to be =<100 percent.

surface irrigation million m3 The indicator expresses the gross precipitation received by the
water from outside command area equipped with irrigation facilities, calculated
the command area as the following:
A*B
A: Total precipitation
B: Command area with irrigation facilities

effective precipitation million m3

The indicator expresses the effective part of precipitation in the
to irrigated fields cropped area. This indicator is different from the gross precipitation in
the irrigated fields, because it measures only the effective precipitation
in the cropped area. Cropped area does not necessarily correspond
to the command area, as farmers can decide to set aside a portion of
land. The indicator considers only the potential fraction of precipitation
utilized by the crops in the water year, calculated as the following:
A*B
A: Maximum field area of crops
B: Effective precipitation

net aquifer withdrawal million m3

The indicator expresses the difference between pumped groundwater
due to irrigation used for irrigation and recharge from water conveyance losses.
in the command area The aquifer recharge from conveyance loss is expected to be low, as
pipes have normally very low water loss. However, if earth reservoir
or water tank exist in the irrigation scheme, it can result substantial
recharge. The indicator is calculated only if the groundwater recharge
is sufficient to supply water for irrigation, calculated as the following:
A–B
IF(A>B) > A-B; otherwise=0
A: Estimate of pumped groundwater used for ET or special practices
B. Recharge from losses through water conveyance outside the
boundaries
11. Annexes 177

Required data Unit Time-step

total external water million m3 The indicator expresses the total amount of water from outside of the
supply for the project irrigation scheme, and the gross precipitation in the area, calculated
as the following:
A+B+C
A: Surface irrigation water from outside the command area
B: Gross precipitation in the irrigated fields in the command area
C: Net Aquifer withdrawal due to the irrigation in the command area

total external irrigation million m3

The indicator expresses the total amount of irrigation water from
supply for the project outside of the irrigation scheme. Unlike the total external water supply,
this indicator does not include the precipitation, so it indicated the
sufficiency of water supply without rain, calculated as the following:
A+B
A: Surface irrigation water from outside the command area
B: Net Aquifer withdrawal due to the irrigation in the command area

internal surface water million m3 The indicator expresses the total recirculated water by farmers
recirculation by farmer and project authorities, calculated as the following:
or project in command A+B
area
A: Direct farmer usage of surface water inside the command
area/recirculated
B: Project Authority usage of surface water inside command
area/recirculated

internal surface water million m3 The indicator expresses the total recirculated water by farmers
recirculation by farmer and project authorities, calculated as the following:
or project in command A+B
area
A: Direct farmer usage of surface water inside the command
area/recirculated
B: Project Authority usage of surface water inside command
area/recirculated

gross groundwater million m3 Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”.
pumped by farmers It is equal to the groundwater pumped by farmers inside the
within command area command area.

groundwater pumped million m3 Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”.
by project authorities It is equal to the groundwater pumped by the project authorities
and applied to the inside the command area.
command area

total groundwater million m3 The indicator expresses the total groundwater pumped by farmers
pumped and dedicated and project authorities, calculated as the following:
to the command area A+B
A: Gross groundwater pumped by farmers within command area
B: Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to
the command area

groundwater pumped million m3 he indicator expresses the difference of total groundwater pumped
by project authorities by project authorities and net aquifer contribution, calculated
and applied to the as the following:
command area, minus A–B
net groundwater
withdrawal A: Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied
to the command area
B: Net aquifer withdrawal due to irrigation in the command area

estimated total gross percentage Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
internal surface water • this estimated ratio of delivered internal water over internal
and groundwater supplied water in percentage;
• the ratio expresses the water loss during transportation.
E.g. leaking pipe or offtakes are considered as water loss;
• conveyance efficiency concerns the infrastructure from water
intake until offtakes (deliveries) on the farm.
178 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Required data Unit Time-step

gross total annual million m3 The indicator expresses the total amount of external and internal
volume of project water supplied – but not yet delivered – by the project authority
authority irrigation to the users including surface water, groundwater and recirculated
supply water, calculated as the following:
A+B+C
A: Groundwater pumped by project authorities and applied to
the command area, minus net groundwater withdrawal
B: Surface irrigation water from outside the command area
C: Project Authority usage of surface water inside command area

delivery of external million m3

The indicator expresses the delivered external water amount to users
surface irrigation water through correcting total supplied external water by conveyance
to users - using stated efficiency, calculated as the following:
conveyance efficiency A*B
A: Surface irrigation water from outside the command area
B: Conveyance efficiency for external water

all other irrigation million m3

he indicator expresses all other delivered irrigation water to
water to users users including internal water and groundwater (recirculated and
groundwater) corrected by conveyance efficiency for internal water,
calculated as the following:
A+B+(C*D)+(E*F)+(G*D)
A: Gross groundwater pumped by farmers within command area
B: Direct farmer usage of surface water inside the command area
C: Project Authority usage of surface water inside command area
D: Conveyance efficiency for internal recirculation
E: Groundwater pumped from outside the command area
F: Conveyance efficiency for external water
G: Groundwater pumped inside the command area

total irrigation water million m3 The indicator expresses total delivered irrigation water including
deliveries to users, external and internal water sources excluding conveyance losses,
reduced for conveyance calculated as the following:
efficiencies A+B
A: Delivery of external surface irrigation water to users corrected
by conveyance efficiency
B: All other irrigation water to users

total irrigation water million m3 The indicator expresses total irrigation water supply external and
(internal plus external) internal water sources, calculated as the following:
as intermediate value A+B
A: Estimated total gross internal surface water and groundwater
B: Total external irrigation supply for the project

overall conveyance percentage The indicator expresses the aggregated conveyance efficiency of both
efficiency of project external and internal water at system level
authority delivered
water

average delivered flow m3/s Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
in the pipe system
• the average discharge conveyed through the conveyance system
during an average irrigation event;
• averaged delivered flow can differ from the design discharge
defined by the designer.

design flow in the pipe m3/s Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
system
• the design discharged defined during the design and
implementation phase of irrigation system.

ETc of irrigated fields million m3 The indicator expresses the total ETc-based irrigation requirement
in the command area of the cropped command area, not considering effective precipitation.

ETc of irrigation water million m3 The indicator expresses the total ETc-based irrigation requirement of
in the command area the cropped command area reduced by the effective precipitation.

irrigation water needed million m3 The indicator expresses the total irrigation water need for leaching
for salinity control requirement to control salinity based on salinity of irrigation water
and threshold of crop salt tolerance in the cropped command area.
11. Annexes 179

Required data Unit Time-step

irrigation water needed million m3 The indicator expresses the total irrigation water need for special
for special practices practices in the cropped command area.
total net irrigation million m3 The indicator expresses the total irrigation water need reduced by
water requirements the effective precipitation, calculated as the following:
A+B+C
A: ET of irrigation water in the command area
B: Irrigation water needed for salinity control
C: Irrigation water needed for special practices

External Indicators

peak net irrigation m /s

3
The indicator expresses the required aggregated discharge in peak
requirement for field, water requirement in the cropped command area.
including any special
requirements

design discharge of l/s The indicator expresses the required discharge in peak water
irrigation water flows requirement per hectare.
per hectare

relative water supply none Ratio of total external water supply of the project over total net
for the irrigated part irrigation water requirement. The net irrigation water requirement
of the command area includes ET-based water requirement, water requirement for special
(RWS) practices and water requirement for salinity control, reduced by
effective precipitation
annual command area percentage Rate of total net irrigation water requirement (including ET-based
irrigation efficiency water requirement, water requirement for special practices and water
(ACAIE) requirement for salinity control, reduced by effective precipitation)
over surface irrigation water from outside the command area and net
aquifer withdrawal:

• the indicator matches the effective water supply from outside the
command area and the net irrigation requirement. However, this
indicator is not reduced by the conveyance losses. Therefore, it can
be considered a baseline value for optimal conveyance conditions;
• the larger the deviation from 100 percent the larger the imbalance.
Values close to 100 percent indicates the better performance.

field irrigation percentage Rate of total net irrigation water requirement (including ET-based
efficiency (FIE) water requirement, water requirement for special practices and water
requirement for salinity control, reduced by effective precipitation)
and total delivered water (external and internal surface and
groundwater resources corrected by conveyance efficiency):

• the indicator expresses the sufficiency of delivered water amount to

meet net irrigation water requirement that is reduced by effective
precipitation;
• the indicator is dynamic. If water oversupply occurs, the total
net irrigation water requirement is measured over the total
delivered water. If water scarcity occurs, the total delivered water
is measured over total net irrigation water requirement. Negative
sign (-) indicates water scarcity, while positive value indicates water
oversupply or overall balance (100percentage);
• the larger the deviation from 100 percent the larger the imbalance.
Values close to 100 percent indicates the better performance.

relative actual flow None The ratio of average delivered flow in the pipe system over the
(RAF) required discharge for in case of peak net irrigation requirement
for field:

• the ratio shows the balance between maximum required discharge

and average supplied discharge in case of continuous flow;
• the ratio matches the requirement with the actual supply, thus
pinpointing the sufficiency of average discharge to meet required
discharge;
• this ratio is a benchmarking value to be compared with Relative
System Capacity (RAF). It shows the difference between actual and
design flow. The larger the difference, the larger the decline in
performance.
180 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Required data Unit Time-step

relative system capacity None • The ratio design flow in the pipe system over the required discharge
(RSC) for in case of peak net irrigation requirement for field:
• the ratio shows the balance between maximum required discharge
and design discharge in case of continuous flow;
• the ratio matches the requirement with the design capacity, thus
pinpointing the potential capacity gaps of the default system design.

peak gross irrigation m3/s The indicator expresses the required aggregated discharge including
requirement, including the expected conveyance losses.
all inefficiencies

total annual value USD • The indicator expresses the total generated revenue of agricultural
of agricultural production in the command area in the given year.
production (TAVAP)

unit annual value USD/ ha • The indicator expresses the average revenue generation per hectare
of agricultural in the given year.
production (UAVAP)

Environmental indicators

average salinity dS/m Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
of the irrigation supply
• average value of electrical conductivity of irrigation water during
typical irrigation event;
• the value must be determined in due time of irrigation. If historical
data is available, the most typical value must be selected during the
most frequent irrigation/cropping period;
• the calculation assumes good to excellent quality of water. It is not
likely that ECw of irrigation water is higher than the threshold of crop
tolerance. This must be taken into consideration while defining ECw;
• the indicator must be assessed in the context of the crop salt
tolerance, the water supply amount, the climate and soil type.

average salinity mgm/ liter Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
of the drainage water
• the Biological Oxygen Demand of the irrigation water requires
water quality measurement. In particular, if the irrigation scheme
applies reused water, the information has utmost importance;
• the BOD value must be assessed in the context of the national
regulations on water quality.

average BOD mgm/ liter Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
of the drainage water
(biological) • the Biological Oxygen Demand of the drainage water requires water
quality measurement. In particular, if the irrigation scheme applies
reused water, the information has utmost importance;
• the BOD value must be assessed in the context of the national
regulations on water quality.

average COD mgm/ liter Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
of the irrigation supply
(chemical) • the Chemical Oxygen Demand of the irrigation water requires water
quality measurement. In particular, if the irrigation scheme applies
reused water, the information has utmost importance;
• the COD value must be assessed in the context of the national
regulations on water quality.

average COD mgm/ liter Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
of the drainage water
(chemical) • the Chemical Oxygen Demand of the drainage water requires water
quality measurement. In particular, if the irrigation scheme applies
reused water, the information has utmost importance;
• the COD value must be assessed in the context of the national
regulations on water quality.

average depth m Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
to the shallow water
table • the Average annual depth to the shallow water table (m) requires
information about the level of groundwater table or subsurface
water. This information has utmost importance to understand
the possible cause of salinity, therefore, it should be monitored
throughout the year in terms of both frequency and duration.
11. Annexes 181

Required data Unit Time-step

change in shallow m Transferred value from “Data input and calculation scheme”:
water table depth over
last 5 years • the Change in the shallow water table depth over the last 5 years, (-)
decrease, (+) increase (m) is the deviation from the average depth to
both positive and negative depth. If the shallow groundwater table
frequently reaches the rootzone, it can cause salinity, therefore,
it should be monitored throughout the year in terms of both
frequency and duration.

Analysis of aggregated annual indicators would be misleading as off-season water

supply compensates the water deficit in critical vegetation period. To better understand
and appraise the indicators, the results are displayed in monthly breakdown.

FIGURE A.3.21
View of disaggregated results of the External indicators

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

A.3.5.4 Management
The management chapter aims at introducing the institutional setting of the irrigation
scheme layered into two interdependent management levels:

1. Project management: the sub-chapter refers to the authority level of public

investment in irrigation system construction, implementation, development and
operation and maintenance. Usually, project management is assigned to state
authorities that are responsible for overall management of the “project”, whereas
project indicates the establishment, operation and maintenance, and development
of public irrigation scheme.
2. WUA: the sub-chapter refers to the co-management of the irrigation system,
whereas farmers or farmers’ representatives are involved into management.
The WUA is considered as autonomous authority but working closely with or
complementing the project authority.
182 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

The chapter structure differs from the Water Balance chapter, as it provides a “catchall”
list of different management perspectives. The list of input data serves as systematic
stocktaking of relevant information describing and characterizing the efficiency of
institutional management.

FIGURE A.3.22
Flowchart of the Management chapter

Water supply Ownership Field

management circumstances General conditions

Allocated budget >/=/< Required budget Budgetary issue

Human Human resource Employee

management policy stock performance

Operation Responsibility Operation policy Operation

mechanisms shares performance

Human resources Budget/resource Allocated Framework

generation responsibilities of WUA WUA performance

Degree of IMT IMT performance

and gaps

Source: FAO. 2022a. RAP v1 User’s Manual [online]. https://data.apps.fao.org/static/downloads/RAP/RAP%20v1%20Manual.pdf.

A.3.5.4.1 Preparation of the input file

The management chapter builds on the characteristics and information related
institutional managements including general institutional settings, budgetary issues,
employment, operation performance, WUA performance and degree of irrigation
management transfer. It is recommended to share the data requirement and survey with
relevant institutions in advance. This can facilitate the data collection before arriving
to the management office. The chapter requires secondary data collection, screening
official records, interviews and expert observation.

TABLE A.3.3
Data input support of Management chapter
Data source/ Supporting
Required data Unit Time-step Methodology
institute

General Project Conditions/Management

average net farm size ha annual project office secondary data, field
average observation, interview
number of water users - annual project office secondary data, field
average observation, interview
typical field size ha annual project office secondary data, field
average observation, interview
number of offtakes - - project office secondary data, field
(hydrants) that are observation, interview
physically operated by
paid employees
11. Annexes 183

Data source/ Supporting

Required data Unit Time-step Methodology
institute
land consolidation percentage - project office secondary data, field
exists on percentage of observation, interview
the project area

share of drinking water percentage - project office secondary data, field

in pumped water observation, interview
supplies in the project
area

ownership of land percentage - project office secondary data, field

observation, interview
field irrigation percentage - - field observation
description

Water supply/Management

water source - - project office secondary data, field

observation, interview
live Storage Capacity of million m3 annual project office secondary data, field
reservoir observation, interview

times per year when - annual project office secondary data, field
majority of system is observation, interview
shut down without
water

typical total annual days annual project office secondary data, field
duration of pressurized average observation, interview
system shutdown

volume of gross million m3 annual project office secondary data, field

irrigation water observation, interview
officially allocated to
the project

maximum flow rate m3/s - project office secondary data, field

officially allocated to observation, interview
the project

Budgetary background/Management

land ownership - - project office secondary data, interview

annual actual budget local 5 years project office secondary data, interview
currency/ average
year

budget sources percentage 5 years project office secondary data, interview

average
annual required budget local 5 years project office secondary data, interview
currency/ average
year

Employees/Management

number of employees - annual project office secondary data, interview

average
average years a typical - annual project office secondary data, interview
professional employee average
works for the project
operation staff number - annual project office secondary data, interview
in the field average
salaries local 5 years project office secondary data, interview
currency/ average
year

visitor’s estimate of the percentage - - field observation

adequacy of the actual
dollars and in-kind
services that is available
(from all sources) to
sustain adequate O&M
with the present mode
of operation
184 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Data source/ Supporting

Required data Unit Time-step Methodology
institute

Human resource management indicators

frequency and score - - field observation

adequacy of training of
operators and middle
managers
availability of written score - - field observation
performance rules

power of employees to score - - field observation

make decisions

ability of the project to score - - field observation

dismiss employees with
cause

rewards for exemplary score - - field observation

service

Project operation

umbrella water user score - - field observation, interview

association

annual operation - - project office secondary data, field

Policies observation, interview

daily operation policies - - project office secondary data, field

observation, interview

how are flow changes - - project office secondary data, field

in the pipe system observation, interview
computed and
adjusted?

what daily or weekly - - project office secondary data, field

instructions for field observation, interview
persons does the office
give?
Computers (either score - - field observation
central or on-site) used
for operation

computers used for score - - field observation

billing and record
management

Water delivery service

stated water delivery score - project office interview

service that pump
station provides to the
pipe system (public
authority perspective)

stated water delivery score - project office interview

service provided for
sub-pipelines operated
by a paid employee
(public authority
perspective)
stated water delivery score - project office interview
service received by
individual units - fields
and farms (public
authority perspective)

General WUA conditions

project area for percentage - WUA, project office secondary data, interview
which WUA meet the
following descriptions

WUA area ha - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

11. Annexes 185

Data source/ Supporting

Required data Unit Time-step Methodology
institute
WUA age years - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

functions of a typical - - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

WUA
are there written rules - - WUA, project office field observation, interview
in the WUA regarding
proper behavior
of farmers and
employees?
number of fines levied - - WUA, project office field observation, interview
by a typical active WUA
in the past year

governing board of - - WUA, project office field observation, interview

WUA

General WUA conditions

annual actual budget local 5 years WUA, project office secondary data, interview
currency/ average
year
budget sources percentage - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

annual required budget local 5 years WUA, project office secondary data, interview
currency/ average
year

water charges - - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

fee collection efficiency percentage - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

what group collects the - - WUA, project office secondary data, interview
water charges?
basis of water charge - - WUA, project office secondary data, interview
and amount of the
charge

type of volumetric - - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

water charge
(volumetric slabs based
tariff)

special charge for - - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

private well usage
annual value of in-kind local 5 years WUA, project office secondary data, interview
services or contributions currency/ average
by water users year

frequency of in-kind - - WUA, project office secondary data, interview

services
farmers participation in percentage - WUA, project office secondary data, interview,
in-kind services field observation

Employees

number of employees - annual WUA, project office secondary data, interview,

average field observation

average years a typical years annual WUA, project office secondary data, interview,
professional employee average field observation
works for the project
(anticipated)
how many of the - annual WUA, project office secondary data, interview,
operation staff actually average field observation
work in the field?

salaries local 5 years WUA, project office secondary data, interview

currency/ average
year
186 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Data source/ Supporting

Required data Unit Time-step Methodology
institute

WUA performance indicators

actual ability of score - WUA interview

the strong water
user associations to
influence real-time
water deliveries
ability of the WUA to score - WUA interview
rely on effective outside
help for enforcement
of its rules
legal basis for the WUA score - WUA interview

financial strength of score - WUA interview

WUA

Level of Irrigation Management Transfer

responsibility share of - - WUA, farmers interview, field observation

O&M activities

A.3.5.4.2 Involved stakeholders

The chapter can be completed by preliminary investigation and field visit. The majority
of the questions rely on secondary data, interview and field visit. The following
stakeholders are recommended to be involved:

• project office and scheme management;

• responsible public authority;
• WUA, irrigation associations, farmers’ organization etc.

A.3.5.4.3 Requested time

The work can be conducted directly, involving project office, WUA or other relevant
authorities. The task should be implemented within not more than one week.

A.3.5.4.4 Data input and calculation scheme

Recommendations: the input data should be used as structured stocktaking of different
parameters about management performance. Therefore, it is recommended to analyse
the indicators together with the input data during write-up.
11. Annexes 187

General project conditions:

FIGURE A.3.23
Main view of the general project conditions section

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Average net farm size (ha): the net farm size refers to the size of cropped land per land
user or any specific characterization of farm under the same management unit (i.e.
farmer, household, farmers’ collective, etc.)

Number of water users: total number of water users in the scheme, limited to
agricultural water users.

Typical field size (ha): this is not equal to average net farm size. Typical size means the
median size of the fields. The size that represents the scheme the best.

Number of offtakes that are physically operated by paid employees – by employees of

the government or umbrella organizations: offtake refers to the distribution equipment
operated under the authority of employees of government/umbrella organizations. For
example, if authorities are responsible to divert water from main pipe to branches i.e.
through butterfly valves, only these offtakes should be calculated. If authorities are
responsible to operate final offtakes, such as hydrants, those should be calculated.

Number of offtakes that are physically operated by paid employees – by employees of

the WUA: offtake refers to the distribution equipment operated under the authority of
employees of WUA. For example, if WUA is responsible to divert water from main pipe
to branches i.e. through butterfly valves, only these offtakes should be calculated. If WUA
is responsible to operate final offtakes, such as hydrants, those should be calculated.

Land consolidation existing on certain percentage of the project area: the ratio of land
size over total land area that has undergone any kind of consolidation to rationalize
agricultural production.
188 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Pumped water supplies for drinking water (percentage): ratio of drinking water over
total pumped water. This type of drinking water supply is more common in multiple
water use systems.

Ownership of the land (percentage): share of farmers’ land ownership.

Field irrigation description (percentage): share of on-farm irrigation systems.

Water supply:

FIGURE A.3.24
Main view of the water supply section

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Water source: water source, from where irrigation water is supplied.

Live storage capacity of reservoir (million m3): if water is sourced from reservoir, live
storage (dynamic) capacity of the reservoir.

Times/year the majority of system is shut down without water:

• off-irrigation period including the unintentional system closure (e.g. failure);

• this can indicate the performance flaws; a higher number of occasions might refer
to serious performance issues.

Typical total annual duration of pressurized system shutdown (days):

• the typical duration of off period in days;

• this must be assessed in the context of the crop water requirement. If the annual
duration exceeds the tolerance of crops’ water stress, the indicator might be
important to be flagged.
11. Annexes 189

Volume of gross irrigation water officially allocated to the project per year (million m3):

• total water supply allocated by the project authority annually;

• this indicator refers back to the calculation of water supply.

Maximum flow rate officially allocated to the project (m3/s): maximum/peak discharge
of water supply throughout the year.

Budgetary background:

FIGURE A.3.25
Main view of the budgetary background section

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Ownership: the ownership of typical system component shared amongst country, state,
project or farmers.

Annual actual budget:

• 5-years average cost of budget lines;

• if budget accounting has different cost categorization, it is recommended to seek
for the most corresponding budget line.

Budget source:

• 5-years average cost of budget lines.

• budget source refers to the total budget of the irrigation scheme that can consist
of different sources.

Annual required budget:

• 5-years average cost of budget lines;

• the required budget differs from the actual budget. This indicate the desirable
amount of budget to cover all necessary costs.
190 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Employees:

FIGURE A.3.26
Main view of the employees section

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Number of employees: total number of employees distinguished by experience and

contract type.

Average years a typical professional employee works for the project: the turnover in the
staff indicating the average duration of employees working in the project.

Operation staff actually working in the field:

• this refers to the staff physically working on the field regardless she/he is
professional or non-professional;
• this includes all types of employees.

Salaries: average annual salaries of the staff by experience and position.

Relative salary of the pump operators, as compared to a typical day laborer: the result is
calculated the ratio of the average salary of pump operators and day laborer.

Index of relative salary of an operator compared to a day laborer: the indicator assesses
the adequacy of salary ratio of pump operators and day laborer. The index calculation
applies the following scoring plan:

• 0 (<1) – very poor

• 1 (1-1.5) – poor
• 2 (1.5-2) – medium
• 3 (2-2.5) – good
• 4 (>2.5) – very good
11. Annexes 191

Human resource management indicators:

FIGURE A.3.27
Main view of the human resource management indicators section

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Frequency and adequacy of training of operators and middle managers:

• this should include employees at all levels of the distribution system, not only
those who work in the office;
• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;
• scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Availability of written performance rules

• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;

• scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;

• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Power of employees to make decisions

• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;

• the scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Ability of the project to dismiss employees with cause

• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;

• scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
192 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Rewards for exemplary service

• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;
• scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Project operation:

FIGURE A.3.28
Main view of the project operation section

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Umbrella water user association – a. individual WUA belonging to larger WUA: the
question refers to the fact if WUA belong to any higher-level WUA that coordinates,
oversees, etc. its operation.

Umbrella water user association – b. individual WUA belonging to larger WUA: the
question should be answered only if the answer to the previous question (a) is “yes”.

Annual operation policies – annual estimate of total deliveries:

• the question requires information if there is any estimation about the required
water amount to be delivered in given year;
• estimate of total deliveries might assume that the water supply is based on water
requirement.

Annual operation policies – fixed advance official schedule:

• if there is any official schedule established, the question should be answered with
“yes”. In later question, user should estimate the actual compliance with this
rule, whereas 4 is the excellent execution of planned schedule and 0 is the non-
compliance with the schedule;
11. Annexes 193

• if there is no official schedule, it is important to understand the principles of water

distribution.
Annual operation policies – crops to plant: if there is any rule on cropping pattern, the
question should be answered with “yes”. In later question, user should estimate the
actual compliance with this rule, whereas 4 is the excellent execution of crop selection
and 0 is the non-compliance with the crop selection.

Annual operation policies – limited acreage that can be planted to various crops: if there
is any rule on production limit, the question should be answered with “yes”. In later
question, user should estimate the actual compliance with this rule, whereas 4 is the
excellent execution of limit and 0 is the non-compliance with the limit.

Daily operation policies – recalculation of main supply discharge (days):

• the frequency of recalculation of provided discharge;
• a frequent recalculation might assume a flexible and adjustable water distribution.

Flow changes in the pipe system computed and adjusted:

• the actual basis of rule to change flow (sums of farmer orders, observation of
general conditions, standard pre-determined schedule with slight modifications,
standard pre-determined schedule with no modifications);
• it is possible that more types of rules are applied at the same time.

Daily or weekly instructions for field persons:

• the question refers to four dimensions including pump operation, butterfly valves
and other distribution devices, flow metering and flow rates at all offtakes;
• if given dimension applies to the irrigation system, the question should be
answered with “yes. If the answer is “yes”, successive questions should be
further answered;
• the first successive question is the application of the computers to carry-out the
task. The question should be answered with “yes” or “no”;
• the second successive question is based on the estimation of the user. User should
estimate the actual compliance with this rule, whereas 4 is the excellent execution
of the task and 0 is the non-compliance with the established rules.

Computers used for operation:

• scoring based on guidance listed under the indicator;
• the scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Computers used for billing and record management

• scoring based on guidance listed under the indicator;
• the scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.
194 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Water delivery service

FIGURE A.3.29
Main view of water delivery service section in the project block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Stated water delivery service that pump station provides to the pipe system:
• the composite indicator consists of five sub-indicators: flexibility, reliability,
equity, adequacy and control of flow;
• scoring is based on guidance listed under the sub-indicator;
• the sub-indicators should be evaluated considering only the system from pump
station to main pipe system, not including the branch-pipes;
• the scoring should be based on the answers of the management/public authorities.
“Stated” water delivery service refers to the perception of the management. In
order words, how the authorities evaluate the performance of the water delivery
along the defined sub-indicators.

Stated water delivery service provided for sub-pipelines operated by a paid

employee:
• the composite indicator consists of six sub-indicators: number of fields by
sub-pipelines (branches), measurement of volumes delivered at this point,
flexibility, reliability, equity, and adequacy;
• scoring is based on guidance listed under the sub-indicator;
• the sub-indicators should be evaluated considering only the system at sub-
pipelines if it is operated by paid employees;
• the scoring should be based on the answers of the management/public
authorities. “Stated” water delivery service refers to the perception of the
management. In order words, how the authorities evaluate the performance
of the water delivery along the defined sub-indicators.
11. Annexes 195

Stated water delivery service received by individual units - fields and farms:
• the composite indicator consists of five sub-indicators: measurement of
volumes delivered at this point, flexibility, reliability, equity, and adequacy;
• scoring is based on guidance listed under the sub-indicator;
• the sub-indicators should be evaluated considering only the received service
by individuals/farms or farmers;
• the scoring should be based on the answers of the management/public
authorities. “Stated” water delivery service refers to the perception of the
management. In order words, how the authorities evaluate the performance
of the water delivery along the defined sub-indicators.

BOX A.3.4
Water delivery service indicators
The water delivery service (WDS) indicators are the backbone of the RAP. They
are constructed to steer the management towards more service-oriented mindset.
The WDS indicators match the evaluation by management with the evaluation of
farmers. However, the WDS indicators represent the perception of the stakeholders.
For example, farmers perceiving the water distribution equal does not necessarily
mean that they receive equal discharge from engineering point of view, or vice-versa.
The aim of the WDS is to understand the discord between the management and
farmers. Therefore, it is always recommended surveying the management and farmers
independently from each other. Otherwise, the two groups might influence each other.
Source:

General water user association conditions:

FIGURE A.3.30
Main view of the general WUA conditions section

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

196 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

BOX A.3.5
Assessment of multiple water user association
If users decide to define the boundaries of the assessed area as per the hydrological
boundaries, it might incorporate more WUA at the same time. If more WUA
operate in the irrigation scheme, the user can decide to analyse the WUA separately
or apply average values.

If WUA are analysed separately, the Internal Indicators must be interpreted per
WUA. In this case, the user can decide to create multiple assessment files. The Water
Balance and Water Service chapters are filled identically, and the Management chapter
is filled as per individual WUA. Even if the user analyses a multi-stakeholder irrigation
scheme, the Water Balance and Water Service part should be interpreted as a whole.

Evidence shows that relatively close and/or neighboring WUA have different
management mechanisms and performance. Therefore, if average values and analysis are
applied to the total area, the Internal Indicators must be interpreted with the assumptions
that performance of WUA can significantly differ from one place to another.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

WUA description per project area:

• the ratio of descriptive characteristics over total land size should be estimated;
• in particular in large irrigation schemes, the power of WUA might differ, or
more WUA can operate. It should be evaluated based on field observation, how
effectively WUA/s can operate;
• the entire area must be taken into consideration, thus the total value must reach
100 percent.

WUA area (ha): land size, of which WUA has authority.

WUA age (years): the current age of the WUA from its establishment.

Functions of the typical WUA:

• each function should be evaluated and answered by “yes” or “no”;
• after the identification of the functions, the effectiveness and efficiency of the
WUA in the specific role must be assessed to understand the bottlenecks.

Written rules in the WUA regarding proper behavior of farmers/employees:

• the question should be answered by “yes” or “no”;
• if there is no written rule, it must be assessed whether the lack of rule leads to
discord/anomalies or the system is operated smoothly.

Number of fines levied by a typical active WUA in the past year:

• the actual number of fines issued by the WUA, following non-compliance of any
of the rules;
• if there is no fine issued, it must be assessed whether it is the result of the full
compliance with rules or the lack of capability to enforce compliance.
11. Annexes 197

Governing Board of WUA: the question refers to the modality how governing board is
set-up, either based on election, appointment or by government.

Budget:

FIGURE A.3.31
Main view of the budget section in the WUA block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Annual actual budget:

• 5-years average cost of budget lines;
• if budget accounting has different cost categorization, it is recommended to seek
for most corresponding budget line.

Budget source
• 5-years average cost of budget lines;
• budget source refers to the total budget of the irrigation scheme that can consist
of different sources.

Annual required budget

• 5-years average cost of budget lines
• the required budget differs from the actual budget. This indicate the desirable
amount of budget to cover all necessary costs

Water charges: the question refers to the modality how water charges are collected.

Group collection the water charges: the authorized entity who physically collects the
fee from the members.

Basis of the water charge and the amount of the charge: the question refers to the
defined modality of calculating water fee. Depending on the applied basis, the
average water fee should be indicated. If more bases are applied at the same time, each
one should be indicated.
198 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Fee collection efficiency:

• the actual ratio (percentage) of collected water fee over the expected amount of
water fee, if every member paid the defined amount of fee. The ratio is an important
indicator of the farmers’ satisfaction with the water service and/or ability to pay. If
the collection efficiency is low, the reason must be identified and explained;
• estimated total annual water charges refers to the total amount of actually collected
water fee in local currency;
• based on the fee collection efficiency and the actually collected fee, the planned
budget is calculated automatically. This indicated how the amount of budget that
was expected if all members paid the defined fee.

Special charge for private well usage: if there is any private well, owned and operated
by individuals, the question should be answered related to the water charge, basis of
charge (unit) and the collection efficiency.

Percentage of the total project (including WUA) Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
collected as in-kind services, and/or water fees from water users:
• the ratio of cost spent exclusively on O&M activities (regular maintenance
works, condition-based maintenance and repair works, rehabilitation, operation
including energy cost for pumping.) from the total collected in-kind service and
water fee from farmers;
• in order to obtain results, relevant parts of WUA-related tables must be filled.

Calculated Indicator of O&M sources: The index calculation applies the following
scoring plan:
• 0 (<40%) – very poor
• 1 (40-60%) – poor
• 2 (60-75%) – medium
• 3 (75-90%) – good
• 4 (>90%)– very good

Annual value of in-kind services or contributions by water users:

• in-kind services refer to any non-financial, but commonly agreed contribution to
operate and maintain the system. For example, farmers can provide their labor
work in constructions instead of paying contribution to contract personals;
• the question should be answered based on documentations and field observations,
and estimation should be given on the monetary value of such in-kind service;
• the accuracy of estimation should be accurate as it will be calculated to the overall
financial contribution of farmers to manage the irrigation system;
• frequency of the in-kind services should be also estimated;
• the rate of farmers who provide in-kind services should be estimated.

Rate of the total budget spent on modernization of the irrigation system over O&M
costs (project and WUA):
• this refers to the rate of budget spend on system improvement compared to the
O&M costs spend by both project authority and WUA;
• in order to obtain results, relevant parts of WUA-related tables must be filled.
11. Annexes 199

Calculated indicator of the modernization budget: The index calculation applies the
following scoring plan:
• 0 (<5%) – very poor
• 1 (5-10%) – poor
• 2 (10-15%) – medium
• 3 (15-20%) – good
• 4 (>20%) – very good

Visitor’s estimate of the adequacy of the actual dollars and in-kind services that is
available (from all sources) to sustain O&M with the present mode of operation
(percentage):
• estimation of the adequacy of actual fund based on field observation and interview;
• this should be estimated based on the judgment of expert while taking into
account the conditions, management, system performance.

Calculated Indicator of O&M adequacy: The index calculation applies the following
scoring plan:
• 0 (<40%) – very poor
• 1 (40-60%) – poor
• 2 (60-75%) – medium
• 3 (75-90%) – good
• 4 (>90%)– very good

Type of volumetric water charge: the question should be filled only if the basis of water
charge is volumetric.

Employees:

FIGURE A.3.32
Main view of the employees section in WUA block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

200 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Number of employees: total number of employees distinguished by experience and

contract type.
Average years a typical professional employee works for the project: the turnover in the
staff indicating the average duration of employees working in the project.
Operation staff actually working in the field: this refers to the staff physically working
on the field regardless she/he is professional or non-professional.
Salaries: average annual salaries of the staff by experience and position.

WUA performance indicators:

FIGURE A.3.33
Main view of the WUA performance indicators

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Ability of the strong WUA to influence real-time water deliveries

• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;
• the scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition;
• if the ability is low, the causes must be identified and interpreted whether it comes
from institutional weakness or the lack of enabling environment.
Ability of the WUA to rely on effective outside help for enforcement of its rules
• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;
• the scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition;
• if the ability is low, the causes must be identified and interpreted whether it is the
result of the lack of mechanism or the low capacity of the organization.
11. Annexes 201

Legal basis for the WUA

• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;
• the scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition;
• legal basis must be interpreted always in the context of the national regulation.
Financial strength of WUA
• scoring is based on guidance listed under the indicator;
• the scoring should be based on interviews and field observation;
• if conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition;
• if the financial strength is low, it must be assessed whether it is the result of low
management performance or the ability of WUA to elevate resources.

Level of irrigation management transfer:

FIGURE A.3.34
Main view of the irrigation management transfer section

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

This section investigates the theoretical and actual degree of irrigation management
transfer. Irrigation management transfer is the process allocating the management
responsibilities to farmers or WUA. The management responsibilities are distinguished
into operation, regular maintenance, condition-based maintenance, major repair works
and re-investment functions at each management level of the water delivery service
(pump station, pipe system, offtake, drain):

• WUA by registration refers to the official responsibility held by the WUA that
should be carried out;
• WUA actual refers to the functions that are carried out by the WUA in reality.
202 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

This can be different than the official if the WUA has mutual agreement with
farmers to allocate functions directly to them. Or, the WUA should be responsible
and but are not able to carry out the task, thus passing it voluntarily to farmers;
• farmers actual refers to the functions voluntarily or forcefully transferred to
farmers;
• the WUA actual and Farmers actual cannot have the same answers. For example,
if the answer of a function is “yes” under the WUA actual, the answer should be
“no” under Farmers actual.

BOX A.3.6
Irrigation management transfer
The definition of participatory irrigation management (PIM) and irrigation
management transfer (IMT) are often used interchangeably. Although, they represent
different stages of management transfer. PIM is the type of management when farmers
take over management responsibilities, but certain supervision or contribution from
the state is maintained. IMT is the full turnover, when state hands over all management
responsibility to farmers. Like in most of the cases, the IMT in the software can be
used interchangeably with PIM.

WUA responsibilities are usually defined by national law. Therefore, the official
responsibility must be understood from the constitution document of the WUA,
together with national legislation. The difference between official and actual
responsibilities can be easily understood from farmers, who are the direct “service
receivers”. In optimal cases, the official and actual responsibilities should not differ.
However, most of the WUA are not able to properly carry out their tasks due to
different issues, and they informally shift management tasks to farmers.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

A.3.5.5. Management indicators

The management indicators are calculated to provide an appraisal of institutional
and organizational performance. Not all input data/information are directly
analysed as performance indicator. While preparing the analysis and narrative of the
chapter, it is important to understand that both the input data/information and the
Indicators are necessary to compile a comprehensive report. While the input data/
information helps users to properly frame the assessment, they provide underlying
information about the results.

The management indicator page has five clusters that systematically analyse the
performance. These clusters are budget related indicators, employees, operation, WUA
indicators, level of irrigation management transfer.
11. Annexes 203

FIGURE A.3.35
Main view of the management indicators

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

TABLE A.3.4
Calculated parameters of the management indicators
Indicator Unit Definition

Budget related indicators

budget balance Local • The budget balance compares the actual budget with the required
currency budget separately at project and WUA level.
• The annual cost recovery is the difference between actual and required
budget. If the required budget is higher than the actual, it indicates
budget deficit in negative value. This should be interpreted as the
missing amount that should be allocated to cover all necessary costs. If
there is surplus, it means that the available budget is higher than the
required, thus assuming budget reserve and high liquidity.
• The analysis is conducted separately to project and WUA.

cost structure Local • The cost structure compares the expenditures on improvement/
currency modernization with the expenditures on O&M at project and WUA level.
• “Improvement” includes the cost line related to improvement and
modernization. This considers only those activities that adds to the
current function/value of the irrigation scheme.
• O&M includes the cost lines related to all operation and maintenance
activities that are directly related to the day-to-day scheme
management.
• Ratio of improvement and O&M is transferred value from the “rate of
the total budget spent on modernization of the irrigation system over
O&M costs (project and WUA)”. This refers to the rate of budget spend
on system improvement compared to the O&M costs spend by both
project authority and WUA.
• The budget deficit/surplus for improvement compares the actual costs of
improvement to the required costs of improvement at project and WUA
level. If the actual expenses of improvement are less than the required,
it indicates deficit in negative value. If the actual cost of improvement is
higher than the required cost, it indicates over-spending.
204 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Indicator Unit Definition

budget indicators - • Ratio (percentage) of users’ contribution to overall budget is the rate
of water charge actually collected from users by WUA over the sum of
actual annual budget of project and WUA. Too low ratio would indicate
that water fee is negligible compared to the overall budget of the
irrigation scheme. Ratio close to 100 percent would indicate that the
scheme is financed mostly from the water fees.
• Annual fee collection efficiency is transferred value. The actual ratio
(percentage) of collected water fee over the expected amount of water
fee, if every member paid the defined amount of fee.
• Ratio (percentage) of in-kind services and collected water fee from users
indicates the value of in-kind services over the total collected water fee.
• Total O&M cost (local currency) per project area is the sum of all direct
and indirect costs related to O&M and paid by the project (total salaries,
regular maintenance works, condition-based maintenance and repair
works, rehabilitation, operation, including energy cost for pumping,
administration and other costs and other operation) per project area
• Total O&M cost (local currency) per project area is the sum of all direct
and indirect costs related to O&M and paid by the WUA (total salaries,
regular maintenance works, condition-based maintenance and repair
works, rehabilitation, operation, including energy cost for pumping,
administration and other costs and other operation) per project area
• Improvement cost (local currency) per project area is the cost related to
improvement and modernization, paid by the project per project area
• Improvement cost (local currency) per project area is the cost related to
improvement and modernization, paid by the WUA per project area

Employees

staff - • Number of employees financed by the project is transferred values from

the aggregated number of paid employees by the project regardless
their positions.
• Number of employees financed by the WUA is transferred values from
the aggregated number of paid employees by the WUA regardless their
positions.
• Number of project employees per project area is the number of
employees per hectare paid by the project.
• Number of project employees per project area is the number of
employees per hectare paid by the WUA.
• Number of professional project staff is the aggregated number
of professional employees paid by the project, not including the
permanent non-professionals and temporary non-professionals.
• Number of professional project staff is the aggregated number of
professional employees paid by the WUA, not including the permanent
non-professionals and temporary non-professionals.

indicators of human - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should be
resource management given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the performance of human resource management per
dimensions

salaries - • Share of salaries in total costs of project indicates the rate of salaries
over the total project budget.
• Share of salaries in total costs of project indicates the rate of salaries
over the total WUA budget.
• Ratio of non-professional to professional salaries of the project indicates
the difference between salary levels between non-professional and
professional paid by the project.
• Ratio of non-professional to professional salaries of the project indicates
the difference between salary levels between non-professional and
professional paid by the WUA.

Operation

operation policies - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should be
given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the compliance of operation policies per dimensions.
11. Annexes 205

Indicator Unit Definition

WUA indicators

Water user associations - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should be
performance given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the WUA performance per dimensions.

Level of Irrigation Management Transfer

WUA official - • The scores are transferred values indicating how many of the
responsibility management activities per system components are official assigned to
the WUA.
• Four management activities are assigned to each system components.
The value shows the fraction of the officially assigned tasks from the
four. E.g. 2/4 indicates that two activities are assigned from the four.

WUA actual - • The scores are transferred values indicating how many of the
responsibility management activities per system components are actually taken by the
WUA.
• Four management activities are assigned to each system components.
The value shows the fraction of the actually taken tasks from the four.
E.g. 2/4 indicates that two activities are taken from the four.

actual responsibilities - • The scores are transferred values indicating how many of the
of individual farmers management activities per system components are actually taken by the
farmers.
• Four management activities are assigned to each system components.
The value shows the fraction of the actually taken tasks from the four.
E.g. 2/4 indicates that two activities are taken from the four.

Appropriate visualization helps understand the relationships amongst different

indicators, where some of the indicators can outperform and underperform. The visual
objects can be exported in pdf file.

FIGURE A.3.36
Exported chart from the management indicators

Degree of Irrigation Management Transfer in O&M

Re-investment Operation

Major repair works Regular

maintenance

Condition-based
maintenance

WUA official responsibilities WUA actual responsibilities Farmers actual responsibilities

Source: Elaboration through RAP v1 software

206 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.3.5.6 Water Service

The water service chapter aims at appraising the physical infrastructure from water
intake to the drains. The questionnaire provides sequential analysis of the levels of the
infrastructure at system level – not including the on-farm irrigation technique: intake,
pump station, main pipe, branch pipes, deliveries (hydrants) and drains. The appraisal
is phased into two sub-chapters, complementing each other:

1. Pump station: the sub-chapter refers to those parts of the irrigation system, which
are usually managed by higher-level institutions, and not directly by farmers.
Usually, WUA or governmental authority is responsible to operate the overall
water withdrawal at pump station level and drains, while farmers are usually
responsible to operate the water distribution at farm level. Although this setting
is not practiced equally everywhere in this way, the format of the chapter does not
hamper the appraisal at different management setting.
2. Pipes and deliveries: the sub-chapter refers to those parts of the irrigation system,
which are usually managed by farmers, such as pipe network and deliveries
(hydrant).

The chapter structure is similar to the management chapter, it provides a “catchall”

list of the infrastructure characteristics, irrigation schedule, performance, operation,
maintenance and water delivery service at each infrastructure level. The list of input
data functions as systematic stocktaking of relevant information describing and
characterizing the performance of the physical infrastructure. Furthermore, composite
indicators are crafted to provide systematic evaluation of performance.

FIGURE A.3.37
Flowchart of the water service appraisal

Drain Background and condition

Irrigation schedule
Hydrant

Characteristics
Branch pipe

Performance
Main pipe
Operation

Pump station,
auxiliaries Maintenance

Water source
and intake Water Delivery Service

Source: FAO. 2022a. RAP v1 User’s Manual [online]. https://data.apps.fao.org/static/downloads/RAP/RAP%20v1%20

Manual.pdf.
11. Annexes 207

TABLE A.3.5
Data input support of Water service chapter
Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

General project condition

type of water source - - - Field observation, interview

type of water - - - field observation, interview

number of systems - - cadastral maps cadastral maps

relies on the same
water source

position of the system - - cadastral maps field observation

compared to other
systems using the same
source

average number of - annual - field observation, interview

days when the water/
piezometric level does
not reach the minimum
required

type of system - - design, plans, master field observation

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

pipeline type - - design, plans, master field observation

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

range of altitude of m - design, plans, master field observation

the area plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

soil textural class of the - - - field observation, interview,

system sampling

gypsum concentration percentage - - field observation, interview,

of soil sampling

sulphate concentration percentage - - field observation, interview,

of soil sampling

average groundwater m annual - field observation, interview

depth during the year
from the pipe level

number of days when day/year annual - field observation, interview

shallow groundwater
reaching the pipe
occurs during the year

possible waterlogging - - - field observation, interview

and/or salination

required continuous l/s - - field observation, interview

flowrate based on peak
water requirement of
command area

average working hours hour seasonal - field observation, interview

of the system per day

required flowrate l/s seasonal design, plans, master field observation, interview
according to elasticity plans, technical
based on peak water drawings, manufacturer
requirement of recommendations
command area (l/s)
208 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

number of water users - seasonal design, plans, master field observation, interview
within the irrigated plans, technical
area drawings, field surveying

total length of pipeline m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

total length of main m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

line plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
total lengths of other m - design, plans, master field observation, interview
feeder/sub-branches plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

number of sub-systems - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

in the pipe system plans, technical drawings

average size of sub- ha - design, plans, master field observation, interview

systems plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

position of sub-systems - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

average number of - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

farmers per sub-system plans, technical drawings

branching type of the - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

system plans, technical drawings

number of gate valves - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

number of drains - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

number of - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

distributaries plans, technical drawings

average land size ha - design, plans, master field observation, interview

served by distributaries plans, technical drawings

technique of on-farm - - - field observation, interview

irrigation

layout of the system - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

Irrigation schedule

what percentage of percentage seasonal WUA, project Office interview, field observation
the time is the flow
officially scheduled at
intake level

what percentage of the percentage seasonal WUA, farmers interview, field observation
time is the flow actually
scheduled at intake
level

what percentage of percentage seasonal WUA, project office interview, field observation
the time is the flow
officially scheduled at
distributaries (hydrant)
level

what percentage of percentage seasonal WUA, farmers interview, field observation

the time is the flow
actually scheduled at
distributaries (hydrant)
level
11. Annexes 209

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

Intake and pump station characteristics

altitude of the station m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

distance of station from m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

water source - vertical plans, technical drawings

distance of station m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

from water source - plans, technical drawings
horizontal

intake classification - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

number of pumps in - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

the pump stations plans, technical drawings

number of - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pumps operating plans, technical drawings
simultaneously (max no
of pumps)
number of pumps - - design, plans, master field observation, interview
operating sequential plans, technical drawings

number of stand-by - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pumps plans, technical drawings

type of simultaneously - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

operating pumps plans, technical drawings

type of pumps - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

operating sequential plans, technical drawings

type of stand-by pumps - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

energy supply - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

total head m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

maximum design l/s - design, plans, master field observation, interview

capacity of the pump plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
type of pressure control - - design, plans, master field observation, interview
device plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
type of pressure - - design, plans, master field observation, interview
measurement device plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
average pressure during m - design, plans, master field observation, interview
operating hours plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
pressure in peak period m - design, plans, master field observation, interview
plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
magnitude of the m - design, plans, master field observation, interview
variation in pressure plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
210 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

average delivered m3/h seasonal design, plans, master historical data, field
discharge on daily base plans, technical observation
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
magnitude of the m3 rotation design, plans, master historical data, field
variation in discharge plans, technical observation
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
average energy kWh seasonal design, plans, master historical data, field
consumption per hour plans, technical observation
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
peak energy kWh rotation design, plans, master historical data, field
consumption per hour plans, technical observation
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
the overall design percentage - design, plans, master field observation, interview
efficiency of the pumps plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
estimated actual percentage - design, plans, master field observation, interview
efficiency of the pumps plans, technical drawings

ability to variate - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

the head pressure plans, technical drawings
according to the water
demand
type of drain - - design, plans, master field observation, interview
plans, technical drawings

removal of excess water - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

fromfield drains plans, technical drawings

area served by field ha - design, plans, master field observation, interview

drains plans, technical drawings

area served by main ha - design, plans, master field observation, interview

collector drains plans, technical drawings

Pump station performance

intake performance - - - field observation, interview

pump performance - - - field observation, interview

drain performance - - - field observation, interview

Pump station operation

operation policy - - - field observation, interview

operation personnel - - - field observation, interview

Pump station maintenance

condition of pump - - - field observation, interview

station

maintenance - - - field observation, interview

infrastructure

Water delivery service

actual water delivery - - - field observation, interview

service that pump
station provides to the
pipe system (water user
perspective)

actual water delivery - - - field observa iew

service provided to sub-
pipelines operated by a
paid employee (water
user perspective)
11. Annexes 211

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

actual water delivery - - - field observation, interview
service received by
individual units - fields
and farms (water user
perspective)

Pipes and deliveries characteristics

diameter of main pipe/s m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

nominal pressure of bar - design, plans, master field observation, interview

main pipe/s plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

working pressure of bar - design, plans, master field observation, interview

main pipe/s plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

average discharge in l/s seasonal design, plans, master field observation, interview
main pipe/s plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

material of main pipe/s - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

diameter of of sub- m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pipelines/branches plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

nominal pressure of bar - design, plans, master field observation, interview

sub-pipelines/branches plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

working pressure of bar - design, plans, master field observation, interview

sub-pipelines/branches plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

average discharge in l/s seasonal design, plans, master field observation, interview
sub-pipelines/branches plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

material of sub- - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pipelines/branches plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

average depth of main m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pipeline - if buried plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

average depth of m - design, plans, master field observation, interview

branch pipeline - if plans, technical
buried drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

corrosion protection - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

flexibility of the pipe - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations
212 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

bedding of the pipe - - design, plans, master field observation, interview
plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

internal lining - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

number of nodes in the - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pipelines/non-hydrant plans, technical
type drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

type of joints - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

number of nodes in the - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pipelines/hydrant type plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

type of joints - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

number of control - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

equipment throughout plans, technical drawings
the system

total number of shut- - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

off valves throughout plans, technical drawings
the system

total number of shut- - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

off valves between plans, technical drawings
main and branch pipes

total number of check - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

valves throughout the plans, technical drawings
system

total number of - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pressure regulating plans, technical drawings
device in the main pipe

total number of - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

metering devices plans, technical drawings
throughout the system

total number of - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

auxiliary devices plans, technical drawings
throughout the system

total number of filters - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

throughout the system plans, technical drawings

total number of - - design, plans, master field observation, intervie

hydrants in the system plans, technical drawings

typical area size served ha - design, plans, master field observation, interview
by one hydran plans, technical drawings

typical number of farms - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

served by one hydrant plans, technical drawings

typical number of - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

hydrants serving one plans, technical drawings
farm

typical number of - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

hydrants operating plans, technical drawings
simultaneously
11. Annexes 213

Required data Unit Time-step Supporting documents Methodology

nominal diameter of mm - design, plans, master field observation, interview
hydrants plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

nominal design bar - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pressure in the hydrant plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

range of working bar - design, plans, master field observation, interview

pressure in the hydrant plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

range of pressure bar - design, plans, master field observation, interview

regulator in the plans, technical
hydrant drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

maximum discharge l/s - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

average working l/s - design, plans, master field observation, interview

discharge plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

range of flow regulator bar - design, plans, master field observation, interview
in the hydrant plans, technical
drawings, manufacturer
recommendations

required hydrant - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

elasticity as per design plans, technical drawings

hydrant type - - design, plans, master field observation, interview

plans, technical drawings

Pipes and deliveries performance

pipe performance - - - field observation, interview

hydrant performance - - - field observation, interview

Pipes and deliveries operation

operation policy - - - field observation, interview

operation personnel - - - field observation, interview

Pipes and deliveries maintenance

condition of pipes and - - - field observation, interview

hydrants

maintenance - - - field observation, interview

infrastructure

A.3.5.6.2. Involved stakeholders

The chapter can be completed based on a field visit. The majority of the questions
rely on expert observation, existing technical documentations and drawings, and
manufacturer specifications. The following stakeholders are recommended to be
involved:

• site engineer;
• constructer/manufacturer;
• WUA, irrigation associations, farmers’ organization etc.
214 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.3.5.6.3. Requested time

The task should be implemented within not more than 2 week, balancing between field
and desktop work.

A.3.5.6.4. Data input and calculation scheme

General project conditions:

FIGURE A.3.38
Main view of general project conditions section in the pump station block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Type of water source: the origin or the place of water, from where the water is pumped.

Type of water: source of water whether it is freshwater, recirculated or both freshwater

and recirculated water.

Number of systems relying on the same water sources:

• the number of independent irrigation schemes sourcing water from the same origin;
• for example, if multiple irrigation schemes are supplied by the same branch canal/
reservoir.
Position of the system compared to other systems using the same sources:
• the upstream, middle or downstream position of the system compared to other
systems sourcing water from the same origin;
• the position might be absolute or relative term;
• if the position is assessed in absolute term, it should be expressed based on the
geometric mean;
• if the position is assessed in relative term, the vulnerability of the system to other
systems’ management should be expressed.
11. Annexes 215

Average number of days when the water/piezometric level does not reach the minimum
required:
• the average number of days during the periods, when the water/piezometric level
is lower than the required, hampering the pump operation;
• the periods can last shorter or longer than a day, therefore, the average number of
days should be estimated;
• only those periods must be taken into account when the low water/piezometric
level effectively disables the pumping.

Type of system: type of the system, whether the pressurized conveyance is gravity-fed
or pumped.
Pipeline type: type of the pipeline, whether it is buried, surface or suspended.
Range of altitude of the area:
• range of the altitude in the irrigation scheme;
• the range should be calculated per the difference between lowest and highest points.

Soil textural class of the system: soil class, whether it is sand, loam, silt or clay.
Gypsum concentration of soil:
• concentration of gypsum in the soil surrounding the buried pipes;
• the concentration must be assessed in the light of its effect on the buried pipes and
the potential ability to cause corrosion.

Sulphate concentration of soil:

• concentration of sulphate in the soil surrounding the buried pipes;
• the concentration must be assessed in the light of its effect on the buried pipes and
the probability of the sulphate attack inducing corrosion.

Average groundwater depth during the year, measured from the pipe level:
• the average distanced between the buried pipe and the groundwater table;
• the groundwater depth must be assessed in the light of its potential effect on the
buried pipe (corrosion, flushing out, etc.)

Number of days when shallow groundwater reaching the pipe occurs during the year:
the total number of days in a year, when the groundwater level reaches the buried pipe.
Possible waterlogging and/or salinization: the probability of waterlogging or salinization
due to the malfunctioning irrigation system or management.
Required continuous flowrate based on peak water requirement of command area:
• continuous flowrate refers to the situation, when water supply is based on
continuous flow (24/7), therefore, farmers have access to this flowrate over the year;
• the calculation is based on the assumption that the system capacity is designed as
per the peak requirement;
• the required continuous flowrate is calculated from the maximum monthly crop
water requirement of the irrigation scheme, assuming that the irrigation is always on;
• the calculation is based on peak water demand, coming from the most water
consuming month;
• the calculated value provides baseline information for the on-demand system design.
216 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Average working hours of the system per day:

• the average number of hours per irrigation day when the irrigation is on;
• this refers to the number of hours in irrigation days, and not in off-season.

Required flowrate according to elasticity based on peak water requirement of the

command area:
• the calculation is the ratio of required continuous flowrate in peak period and the
average working hours of the system;
• the value expresses the required system capacity considering the prevailing the
irrigation practices (average working hours in irrigation days);
• the value can be compared to the actual design capacity to assess the adequacy, any
negative deviation from the required flowrate assumes insufficient water supply
in peak periods.

Number of water users within the irrigated area: number of farmers in the area.
Total length of the pipeline:
• the total length of all pipelines (main, branches) in the distribution system;
• this does not include the laterals of the on-farm irrigation systems;
• total length of the pipelines allows the assessment of the design, whether it is
sufficiently optimized.

Total length of the main line:

• the total length of the main distribution line;
• total length of the main pipe allows the assessment of the design, whether it is
sufficiently optimized.

Total length of other feeder/sub-branches:

• the total length of all feeder/sub-branches;
• this does not include the laterals of the on-farm irrigation systems;
• total length of the branches allows the assessment of the design, whether it is
sufficiently optimized;
• the length of the branches allows the assessment of the network, whether it
provides sufficient coverage for all farms.

Number of sub-systems in the pipe system:

• the total number of the sub-systems, which are separated by nodes;
• the number of sub-system allows the assessment of the management;
• the management and performance of the sub-systems might vary, therefore, a
narrative on the individual performance can complement the assessment.

Average size of sub-systems:

• total area irrigated by an adjacent system separated from the other by nodes;
• the area size can vary amongst the sub-systems, therefore it is desirable to collect
information on the largest and smallest systems and prepare a comparative analysis.
11. Annexes 217

Position of sub-systems:
• number of sub-systems positioned in upstream, middle or downstream areas.
• the calculation can be based on geometric distribution or the exposure of sub-
systems to the activity of upstream sub-systems;
• the question refers to the symmetry of the layout, and the potential inferiority of
downstream systems.

Average number of farms per sub-system: number of farms supplied by one sub-system
separated from other farms by nodes.
Branching type of the system: the design of the branch lines, whether they are branched
(each outlet is supplied by one line) or looped (each outlet is supplied by multiple lines).

Operating pressure range at hydrant level:

• the minimum required pressure to operate the hydrant;
• pressure in hydrants can significantly vary throughout the system, therefore the
operating pressure should be compared to the measured pressure to assess the
pressure adequacy;
• in many larger systems, hydrants operate simultaneously, therefore, it is important
to assess the pressure during simultaneous operation.

Basis of carrying capacity of the system:

• the basis of the system design, whether it is designed per crop water requirement
(actual peak water demand at system level), allocation from national water
budget (pre-defined water requirement of each crop as ceiling of water supply)
or allocation by rotational schedule (supply-driven distribution based on
periodically distributed supply);
• it is important to assess the adequacy of the design, and understand whether the
design of the system allows adequate water service or it is a constraining factor.

Number of gate valves: number of valves responsible for water distribution and control
in the system.

Number of drains:
• number of drains connected to the farms;
• the drain capacity and density must be assessed against the irrigation practices,
on-farm irrigation technique, soil type, amount of supplied water and the land
management practices;
• insufficient drain, particularly in heavy soil might drive to salinity, therefore, the
drain assessment must be contextualized in potential scenarios of mismanagement.

Number of distributaries:
• number of final offtakes supplying water directly to the farms (most frequently
hydrants);
• this does not include the on-farm irrigation systems.;
• the number of offtakes depends on many factors, for example the capacity of
offtake in the context of the land size, the land structure and tenure, the original
distribution layout etc.; therefore, the number of offtakes must be assessed in the
context of the supplied land and required water supply.
218 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Average land size served by distributaries:

• the average size supplied by one offtake;
• the size of the land must be assessed in the context of the capacity of the offtake,
and the irrigation schedule to understand if the design of distributaries is adequate.

Technique of on-farm irrigation:

• type of on-farm irrigation system, whether it is a surface, drip or sprinkler
irrigation system;
• the on-farm irrigation system might give information on the design principles of
the distribution system;
• the on-farm irrigation system is not discussed and evaluated further in the RAP.

Layout of the system:

• location of the final distributaries as per compared to the water sources;
• calculated number of final distributaries close or far from the water sources.

Irrigation schedule:

FIGURE A.3.39
Main view of irrigation schedule section in pump station block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

What percentage of the time is the flow officially scheduled at intake level (rotational
operation):
• the official schedule of the pump station to withdraw water from the water source
to the system;
• the official schedule refers to the schedule agreed by the authorities and/or
managers on the water allocation quota and the type of schedule;
• the official schedule can include one type of allocation policy or a mixed type.

What percentage of the time is the flow actually scheduled at intake level:
• the actual schedule of the pump station to withdraw water from the water source
to the system;
11. Annexes 219

• the actual schedule refers to the schedule followed in the reality;

• the actual schedule does not necessary reflect on the official schedule;
• the actual schedule can include one type of allocation policy or a mixed type.

Deviation from official schedule:

• the difference between the official and actual schedule at pump station level;
• this refers to the degree of compliance with the official schedule;
• the higher the deviation the lower the compliance with the official schedule.

What percentage of the time is the flow officially scheduled at distributaries level:
• the official schedule of the distributaries to supply water to the farms;
• the official schedule refers to the schedule agreed by the authorities and/or
managers on the water allocation quota and the type of schedule;
• the official schedule can include one type of allocation policy or a mixed type.

What percentage of the time is the flow actually scheduled at distributaries level:
• the actual schedule of the distributaries to supply water to the farms;
• the actual schedule refers to the schedule followed in the reality;
• the actual schedule does not necessary reflect on the official schedule;
• the actual schedule can include one type of allocation policy or a mixed type.

Deviation from official schedule:

• the difference between the official and actual schedule at distributaries level;
• this refers to the degree of compliance with the official schedule;
• the higher the deviation the lower the compliance with the official schedule.

Intake and pump station characteristics:

FIGURE A.3.40
Main view of pump station characteristics section in pump station block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

220 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Altitude of the station: the altitude of the pump station.

Distance of station from water sources - vertically:
• the lifting height of water from source to the pump station;
• this gives a partial information on the total head, however, further information is
required to calculate the total head.

Distance of station from water sources – horizontally: the horizontal move of water from
source to the pump station.
Intake classification 1.: type of intake whether it is submerged or exposed.
Intake classification 2.: type of intake whether it is wet or dry intake.
Intake classification 3.: type of intake whether it is river, reservoir or canal intake.
Number of pumps in the pump station (applies where applicable):
• number of the pump in the station, including the back-up pumps;
• beyond the number, it is important to categorize the pumps as per the number of
different types and capacities.

Number of pumps operating simultaneously: number of pumps operating at the same time
in irrigation period.
Number of pumps operating sequential:
• number of pumps operated one after each other in rotation;
• this is most commonly applied in pump stations with continuous supply.

Number of stand-by pumps: number of pumps provided as back-up equipment in

case of failure.
Type of simultaneously operating pumps:
• type of pumps operating at the same time whether they are electric, diesel or pumps
operated by alternative energy;
• simultaneous pumps are of the same type.

Type of pumps operating sequential:

• type of pumps operated one after each other in rotation, whether they are electric,
diesel or pumps operated by alternative energy;
• pumps in rotation can be different.

Energy supply:
• the share of energy sources;
• one system can be supplied by different energy sources;
• the ratio must be set up according to the annual consumption.

Total head:
• the required pressure to move fluids through a system;
• total head depends on the system configuration and layout;
• the total head must be justified by any kind of pump selection study.
11. Annexes 221

Maximum design capacity of the pump:

• the maximum discharge supplied, when the system is fully operational and all
pumps are on;
• the design capacity must be compared to the peak water requirement to understand
the adequacy of supply.

Type of pressure control device:

• description of the type of pressure control device if it exists;
• it might be important to assess the suitability of the pressure control.

Type of pressure measurement device:

• description of the type of pressure measurement device if it exists;
• it might be important to assess the suitability of the pressure measurement device;
• existence of pressure measurement device refers to the availability of historical datasets;
• Average pressure during operating hours:
• the measured average pressure in a typical irrigation day;
• this does not refer to the peak demand, but rather to a normal operation mode;
• if more pumps are operated simultaneously, the average pressure must be taken
into account.

Pressure in peak period:

• the maximum pressure registered during irrigation season;
• this baseline information gives an idea on the sufficiency of the design capacity of
the system.

Magnitude of the variation in pressure:

• the average change in pressure during operation in a typical irrigation day;
• a large deviation from the design pressure might indicate some problem in the
system (clogging, broken parts, etc.), therefore, the varying pressure must be
assessed in the context of the design pressure and/or irrigation practices.

Average delivered discharge on daily base:

• the average water supply per day in a typical irrigation day (maximum irrigation
duration);
• the average daily discharge must be assessed in the context of the water demand and
the system capacity;
• if the average discharge is significantly different than the design discharge, the
reasons behind must be investigated. Such reason can be the oversized design,
declined performance, etc.

Magnitude of the variation in discharge:

• the average change in the discharge during operation. In a typical irrigation day;
• a large deviation from the design discharge might indicate some problem in the
system (clogging, broken parts, etc.), therefore, the varying discharge must be
assessed in the context of the design discharge and/or irrigation practices.
222 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Average energy consumption per hour:

• average energy use for irrigation as per the typical irrigation practices;
• the average energy consumption might give information on the cost-efficiency
of the system, while analyzing the ratio of energy consumption per delivered
discharge;

Peak energy consumption per hour: the maximum energy consumption occurring during
the season.

The overall design efficiency of the pumps:

• the overall design efficiency is the theoretical ratio of the water to the power;
• the average design efficiency of the pumps as per the manufacturer recommendation;
• the design efficiency is a baseline indicator to be compared to the actual efficiency.

The estimated actual efficiency of the pumps:

• the actual efficiency of the pumps;
• this can be significantly lower than the design efficiency, depending on the configuration,
layout, condition, etc.;
• actual efficiency is an indicator of the performance of the system; a too high
consumption might refer to structural (poor pump selection, design failure etc.) or
operation (poor maintenance, inadequate irrigation practices, etc.) issues.

Ability to variate the head pressure according to the water demand: degree of the equipment
of the pump station whether the head pressure can be modified or not.

Type of drain: type of drain whether it is surface drainage, tubewell drainage or

subsurface drainage.

Removal of excess water from field drains: type of excess water removal whether it is
gravity-fed or pumped.

Area served by field drains:

• the typical size of the area served by one field drain;
• it might be important to assess whether the drain is well-sized and suitable for
serving the area.

Area served by main collector drain:

• the size of the area connected to the main drain collector;
• it might be important to assess the capacity and the suitability of the main collector.
11. Annexes 223

Pump station performance:

FIGURE A.3.41
Main view of pump station performance section in pump station block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Intake performance
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main items/functions of the
system part;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting the
system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators is not part of the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Pump performance
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main items/functions of the
system part;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting the
system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators is not part of the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have
the freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition

Drain performance
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main items/functions of the
system part;
224 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting the
system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators is not part of the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Pump station operation:

FIGURE A.3.42
Main view of pump station operation section in pump station block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Operation policy
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main management functions;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important management features
impacting the system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators does not exist in the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Operation personnel
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main management functions;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important management features
impacting the system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators does not exist in the system, the scoring should be 0;
11. Annexes 225

• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;

• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Pump station maintenance:

FIGURE A.3.43
Main view of pump station maintenance section in pump station block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Condition of pump station

• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the status of condition/
maintenance of the system part;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting the
system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators does not exist in the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Maintenance infrastructure
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the status of condition/
maintenance of the system part;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting the
system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators does not exist in the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.
226 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Water delivery service:

FIGURE A.3.44
Main view of water delivery service section in pump station block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Actual water delivery service that pump station provides to the pipe system (water user
perspective):
• The composite indicator consists of five sub-indicators: flexibility, reliability,
equity, adequacy and control of flow;
• Scoring is based on guidance listed under the sub-indicator;
• The sub-indicators should be evaluated considering only the system from pump
station to main pipe system, not including the branch-pipes;
• The scoring should be based on the answers of the users. “Actual” water delivery
service refers to the perception of the farmers directly. In order words, how the farmers
evaluate the performance of the water delivery along the defined sub-indicators.

Pipes and deliveries characteristics:

FIGURE A.3.45
Main view of pipes and deliveries characteristics section in the pipes and deliveries block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

11. Annexes 227

Total length of main pipeline/s: the length of the main distribution pipe.

Diameter of main pipe/s: inner diameter of the main distribution pipe.

Nominal pressure of main pipe/s: the design pressure of the pipe, indicating the
mechanical strength.

Working pressure of main pipe/s:

• internal maximum allowable pressure in a given point of the pipe;
• it might be important to assess the working pressure in the context of the pump
station size and the required pressure of the distributaries;
• if the distributaries are connected to the pressurized on-farm techniques, the need for
booster pump or high-pressure pump must be assessed.

Average discharge in main pipe/s:

• the average delivered discharge in the main pipe in a typical irrigation day;
• this must be assessed in the light of the water requirement;
• if the delivered discharge in the main pipe is sufficient, but water scarcity occurs in
any part of the system, the water allocation policy must be revised and causes must
be identified.

Material of main pipe/s:

• type of the pipe material (MSP, DIP, GRP, PVC, HDPE, RCC, RCCP, PSC, BWSC);
• the material of the main pipe depends on external (soil type, soil texture, depth of
buried pipe, exposure to external pressure, etc.) and internal (required pressure/
discharge, maintenance facilities etc.) factors, therefore, the selected material must
be assessed in the context of the system conditions.

Total length of sub-pipelines/branches:

• the total length of all feeder/sub-branches, but not including the on-farm
irrigation systems;
• it is important to assess the layout of the system, the differences in branch sizing
and the supplied area per branches.
Nominal pressure in the sub-pipelines/branches: the design pressure of the pipe,
indicating the mechanical strength.

Working pressure in the sub-pipe/branches:

• internal maximum allowable pressure in a given point of the pipe;
• it might be important to assess the working pressure in the context of the pump
station size, main pipe and the required pressure of the distributaries;
• if the distributaries are connected to the pressurized on-farm techniques, the need
for booster pump or high-pressure pump must be assessed.

Average discharge in sub-pipe/branches:

• the average delivered discharge in an average size branch pipe in a typical irrigation day;
• this must be assessed in the light of the water requirement;
• if the delivered discharge in the main pipe is sufficient, but water scarcity occurs
in any part of the system, the water allocation policy must be revised and causes
must be identified.
228 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Material of sub-pipelines/branches:
• type of the pipe material (MSP, DIP, GRP, PVC, HDPE, RCC, RCCP, PSC,
BWSC);
• the material of the main pipe depends on external (soil type, soil texture, depth of
buried pipe, exposure to external pressure, etc.) and internal (required pressure/
discharge, maintenance facilities etc.) factors, therefore, the selected material must
be assessed in the context of the system conditions.

Average depth of main pipeline:

• average depth of buried pipe measured from the surface;
• the trench of the pipeline must be assessed in the context of the groundwater depth,
soil depth, soil type and exposure to external pressures (e.g. heavy machines);
• the trench must be assessed whether it allows regular inspection of troubleshooting.

Average depth of branch pipeline:

• average depth of buried pipe measured from the surface;
• the trench of the pipeline must be assessed in the context of the groundwater depth,
soil depth, soil type and exposure to external pressures (e.g. heavy machines);
• the trench must be assessed whether it allows regular inspection of troubleshooting.

Corrosion protection:
• type of corrosion protection whether it is cement coating, metal coating, painting,
tape coating, other or no protection;
• it is important to take note of the corrosion protection and assess its efficiency.

Flexibility of the pipe:

• assessment of the flexibility of the structure whether it is flexible, semi-flexible,
rigid or based on semi-rigid theory;
• the flexibility must be assessed in the context of the exposure to deterioration (e.g.
soil texture, weight, etc.)

Bedding of the pipe:

• type of bedding whether it is concrete, sand or granular fill, fine granular fill or
no specific bedding;
• the bedding must be assessed in the context of the depth of trench, the pipe type
and exposure to deterioration (e.g. soil texture, weight, etc.)

Internal lining:
• type of lining whether it is corrosion resistant, cement lining, concrete lining,
other or no lining;
• the lining must be assessed in the context of exposure to external factors.
• Number of nodes in the pipelines/non-hydrant type:
• nodes indicate the structures separating the sub-systems in the system;
• this refers only to the nodes for control and distribution, but not for final delivery.

Type of joints:
• type of joints whether they are socket and spigot, flanged, mechanical, flexible or
expansion;
11. Annexes 229

• the type must be investigated whether it is suitable for the conditions and pressure;
• the quality of the joints must be evaluated to understand the persistence of these
critical system parts.

Number of control equipment throughout the system:

• control equipment include the following type of equipment: shut-off valve, check
valve, metering devices and auxiliary devices;
• the number of control equipment is the total number of the abovementioned
valves and devices.

Total number of shut-off valves throughout the system:

• number of the shut-off valves of different types throughout the system;
• the efficiency and suitability of these equipment must be assessed in the context
of the system as a whole.

Total number of shut-off valves between main and branch pipes:

• number of the shut-off valves of different types between main and branch pipes;
• the efficiency and suitability of these equipment must be assessed in the context
of the system as a whole.

Total number of check valves throughout the system:

• number of the check valves of different types throughout the system;
• the efficiency and suitability of these equipment must be assessed in the context
of the system as a whole.

Total number of pressure regulating device throughout the system:

• number of pressure regulating equipment (valve, device, etc.) throughout the
system;
• the efficiency and suitability of these equipment must be assessed in the context
of the system as a whole.

Total number of metering devices throughout the system:

• number of metering devices (pressure or flow) throughout the system;
• the efficiency and suitability of these equipment must be assessed in the context
of the system as a whole.

Total number of auxiliary devices throughout the system:

• number of auxiliary devices (air valves, safety valves) in the system;
• the efficiency and suitability of these equipment must be assessed in the context
of the system as a whole.

Total number of filters (gravel, hydro-cyclone, screen, disk, automatic self-cleaning)

throughout the system:
• number of filters of different types throughout the system;
• the efficiency and suitability of these equipment must be assessed in the context
of the system as a whole.
230 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Total number of hydrants in the system:

• the total number of hydrants as final offtake to farms;
• the hydrant density and layout must be estimated to understand the water
allocation policy.

Typical area size served by one hydrant:

• the typical farm size per hydrant;
• the capacity of the hydrant must be estimated in the light of the area size;
• one hydrant might serve more than one farm, or more hydrant might serve one farm.

Typical number of farms served by one hydrant:

• the typical number of farms per hydrant, if one hydrant supplies one or more farms;
• this question refers to the land structure and is typically valid in smallholder systems.

Typical number of hydrants serving one farm:

• the typical number of hydrants per farm, if more hydrants supply one farm;
• this question refers to the land structure and is typically valid in systems with
medium or larger size lands.

Typical number of hydrants operating simultaneously:

• the number of hydrants working simultaneously in irrigation periods;
• this refers to the hydrants operating exactly at the same time;
• if more hydrants operate at the same time, the irrigation schedule must be
investigated.

Nominal diameter of hydrants: inner diameter of the hydrant.

Nominal design pressure in the hydrant: the working pressure of the hydrant.

Range of working pressure in the hydrant: difference between minimum required and
maximum pressure in the hydrant to operate.

Range of pressure regulator in the hydrant:

• if the hydrant is equipped with pressure regulator, the range of pressure set in the
hydrant;
• if the hydrant is not equipped with regulator, the reasons must be identified.

Maximum discharge:
• the maximum outlet discharge of the hydrant;
• this must be measured when the hydrant operates individually (not simultaneously
with other hydrants);
Average working discharge:
• the average discharge of the hydrant in irrigation period;
• the average discharge must be measured in typical irrigation day;
• the average discharge must be assessed in the context of water requirement and
the maximum discharge.
11. Annexes 231

Range of flow regulator in the hydrant: the required pressure to operate the flow
regulator, if the hydrant is equipped with regulator;

Peak water demand at hydrant level:

• maximum evapotranspiration-based water requirement per hectare, calculated
from the most water demanding month;
• this does not include the other water requirements (leaching, special practices,
system losses, etc.);
• this refers to crop water requirement calculated from the evapotranspiration.

Required hydrant elasticity as per design:

• elasticity indicates the “degree of freedom” to select irrigation practices;
• the elasticity means that the hydrant capacity is adjusted to the irrigation practices;
• elasticity is an important term, because calculating the capacity merely from the
crop water requirement would require continuous flow; however, it is unlikely
that farmers have the opportunity to irrigate continuously over the season;
• the degree of freedom must be estimated according to different criteria (e.g.
duration and frequency of irrigation, number of farmers in the system, irrigation
schedule, type of on-farm equipment, etc.);
• the capacity of the hydrant must be assessed not only according to the crop water
requirement but in the context of the hydrant elasticity.

Required hydrant capacity:

• the calculated hydrant capacity according to the evapotranspiration-based crop
water requirement, hydrant elasticity and the typical land size served by the hydrant;
• this does not include the leaching requirement, special water requirements and
other water needs (e.g. water losses);
• the calculated hydrant capacity must be compared to the design capacity of the
hydrants.

Hydrant type: type of hydrant whether it is in-ground or surface.

Hydrant design: type of hydrant whether it is dry-barrel, wet-barrel, warm-climate,

flush or flushing.
232 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Pipes and deliveries performance:

FIGURE A.3.46
Main view of pipes and deliveries performance section in the pipes and deliveries block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Pipe performance
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main items/functions of
the system part;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting
the system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators is not part of the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users
have the freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding
definition.

Hydrant performance
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main items/functions of
the system part;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting
the system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators is not part of the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users
have the freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding
definition.
11. Annexes 233

Pipes and deliveries operation

FIGURE A.3.47
Main view of pipes and deliveries operation section in the pipes and deliveries bloc

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Operation policy
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main management
functions;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important management
features impacting the system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators does not exist in the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users have the
freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding definition.

Operation personnel
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the main management
functions;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important management
features impacting the system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators does not exist in the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users
have the freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding
definition.
234 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Pipes and deliveries maintenance

FIGURE A.3.48
Main view of pipes and deliveries maintenance section in the pipes and deliveries block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Condition of pipes and hydrants

• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the status of condition/
maintenance of the system part;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting
the system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators does not exist in the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users
have the freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding
definition.

Maintenance infrastructure
• the indicator consists of sub-indicators that describe the status of condition/
maintenance of the system part;
• the set of sub-indicators help underlining the most important features impacting
the system performance;
• scoring based on guidance listed under each sub-indicator;
• if any of the sub-indicators does not exist in the system, the scoring should be 0;
• the scoring (0-4) should be based on field observation and interview;
• if observed conditions are different than the ones listed in the guidance, users
have the freedom to match the observed conditions to the most relevant guiding
definition.
11. Annexes 235

Water delivery service

FIGURE A.3.49
Main view of water delivery service section in the pipes and deliveries block

Source: Screenshot of RAP v1 software

Actual water delivery service provided to sub-pipelines operated by a paid employee

(water user perspective):
• the composite indicator consists of six sub-indicators: number of fields by sub-
pipelines (branches), measurement of volumes delivered at this point, flexibility,
reliability, equity, and adequacy;
• scoring is based on guidance listed under the sub-indicator;
• the sub-indicators should be evaluated considering only the system at sub-
pipelines if it is operated by paid employees;
• the scoring should be based on the answers of the end-users. “Actual” water
delivery service refers to the perception of the end-users (farmers). In order
words, how the farmers evaluate the performance of the water delivery along the
defined sub-indicators.

Actual water delivery service received by individual units - fields and farms (water user
perspective):
• the composite indicator consists of five sub-indicators: measurement of volumes
delivered at this point, flexibility, reliability, equity, and adequacy;
• scoring is based on guidance listed under the sub-indicator;
• the sub-indicators should be evaluated considering only the received service by
individuals/farms or farmers;
• the scoring should be based on the answers of the end-users. “Actual” water
delivery service refers to the perception of the end-users (farmers). In order
words, how the farmers evaluate the performance of the water delivery along the
defined sub-indicators.
236 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.3.5.7. Water service indicators

The water service chapter results in internal indicators 2. that are constructed to
interpret the physical water service performance. The definitions are explained
according to the structure of internal indicators.

However, not all input data/information are directly analysed in the Internal
Indicators. While preparing the analysis and narrative of the chapter, it is important
to understand that both the input data/information and the Internal Indicators are
necessary to compile a meaningful report. While the input data/information helps
users to properly frame the assessment, they provide underlying information about
the achieved indicators. While it is recommended to use the input data/information to
set the scene and introduce the management, the Internal Indicators are the outputs,
meaning the results of the performance assessment.

TABLE A.3.6
Calculated parameters of Water service indicators
Indicator Units Definition

System capacity and delivery

design capacity related unit • The indicator expresses the ratio of pump capacity and the peak crop
to peak crop water water requirement.
requirement
• If the ratio is less than 100 percent, the pump capacity does not supply
sufficient water to meet the peak water requirement.
• If the ratio is more than 100 percent, the pump capacity exceeds the
peak water requirement.
• The numerator refers to the total pump station capacity, and the
nominator refers to the peak water requirement, calculated from the
month with highest water demand.
criticality of pump - • he qualitative assessment of the Design capacity related to peak crop
capacity water requirement:
o 0 (<80%) – very poor
o 1 (80-85%) – poor
o 2 (85-90%) – medium
o 3 (90-95%) – good
o 4 (>95%) – excellent
deviation from percentage • The difference between official and actual irrigation schedule at pump
irrigation schedule at station level.
pump station
(time based • The indicator shows the compliance with the official irrigation schedule,
percentage) the higher the deviation the higher the non-compliance.
• The indicator calculates the deviation from the official schedule,
therefore it takes account only of types indicated in the official
schedule.
deviation from percentage • The difference between official and actual irrigation schedule at
irrigation schedule at hydrant level.
deliveries • The indicator shows the compliance with the official irrigation schedule,
the higher the deviation the higher the non-compliance.
• The indicator calculates the deviation from the official schedule,
therefore it takes account only of types indicated in the official
schedule.
criticality of irrigation - • The indicator shows the compliance with the irrigation schedule. It is
schedule at pump based on the calculated deviation of actual irrigation schedule from
station the official irrigation schedule at pump station level. The higher the
deviation the lower the compliance.
• The qualitative assessment of the Irrigation schedule at pump station:
o 0 (>80%) – very critical
o 1 (60-80%) – critical
o 2 (40-60%) – medium
o 3 (20-40%) – good
o 4 (<20%) – excellent
11. Annexes 237

Indicator Units Definition

criticality of irrigation - • The indicator shows the compliance with the irrigation schedule. It is
schedule at deliveries based on the calculated deviation of actual irrigation schedule from
the official irrigation schedule at final deliveries level. The higher the
deviation the lower the compliance.
• The qualitative assessment of the Irrigation schedule at final deliveries:
o 0 (>80%) – very critical
o 1 (60-80%) – critical
o 2 (40-60%) – medium
o 3 (20-40%) – good
o 4 (<20%) – excellent
criticality of actual - • The qualitative assessment of the criticality of actual pump delivery
pump delivery capacity capacity, calculated from the input data ‘estimated actual efficiency
of the pumps’:
o 0 (<80%) – very critical
o 1 (80-85%) – critical
o 2 (85-90%) – medium
o 3 (90-95%) – good
o 4 (>95%) – excellent
criticality of hydrant - • The indicator is calculated as the ratio of maximum hydrant discharge
capacity and required hydrant capacity.
• The required hydrant capacity is calculated from the peak water
demand at hydrant level, the typical area size served by a hydrant
and the indicated required hydrant elasticity:
o 0 (<80%) – very critical
o 1 (80-85%) – critical
o 2 (85-90%) – medium
o 3 (90-95%) – good
o 4 (>95%) – excellent

Performance

intake performance - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the intake performance per dimensions.

pump performance - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the pump performance per dimensions.
drain performance - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the drain performance per dimensions.

pipe performance - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the pipe performance per dimensions.

hydrant performance - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the hydrant performance per dimensions.

composite indicators of - • The summary of composite indicator displays the overall performance
system performance of the system parts.
• It gives information on the comparative performance of the system parts.

Operation

pump station operation - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
policy be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the effectiveness of pump station operation policy
per dimensions.
238 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

Indicator Units Definition

pump station personnel - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/chart
to compare the effectiveness of pump station personnel per dimensions.
pipes and deliveries - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
operation policy be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the effectiveness of pipes and deliveries operation
policy per dimensions.
pipe and deliveries - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
personnel be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the effectiveness of pipe and deliveries personnel
per dimensions.
composite indicators - • The summary of composite indicator displays the overall effectiveness
of system operation of operation policies.
• It gives information on the comparative performance of the
operation policies.

Maintenance

condition of pump - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
station be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the condition of pump station per dimensions.
maintenance - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
infrastructure be given, based on guidance.
of pump station • Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the maintenance infrastructure of pump station per
dimensions.
condition of pipes - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
and hydrants be given, based on guidance.
• Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
chart to compare the condition of pipes and hydrants per dimensions.
maintenance - • The indicators are transferred values, whereas adequate score should
infrastructure be given, based on guidance.
of pipelines and • Together, the indicators can be visualized in one composite indicator/
deliveries chart to compare the maintenance infrastructure of pipelines and
deliveries per dimensions.
composite indicators - • The summary of composite indicator displays the overall effectiveness
of system maintenance of operation policies
• It gives information on the comparative performance of the system
maintenance.

Water delivery service

composite indicator - • The comparison between the indicators of the water delivery service
of water delivery from pump station to pipe system.
service that pump • The indicator compares the stated and actual water service, meaning
station provides the perspective of management and perspective of end-users.
to the pipe system
• It shows the discord between the perceptions of farmers and the
management. Therefore, whenever the difference between the
indicators is high, the issue must be flagged and described.
Composite indicator - • The comparison between the indicators of water delivery service for
of water delivery sub-pipelines.
service provided for • The indicator compares the stated and actual water service, meaning
sub-pipelines operated the perspective of management and perspective of end-users.
by a paid employee
• It shows the discord between the perceptions of farmers and the
management. Therefore, whenever the difference between the
indicators is high, the issue must be flagged and described.
Composite indicator - • The comparison between the indicators of water delivery service
of water delivery received by individual units.
service received by • The indicator compares the stated and actual water service, meaning
individual units the perspective of management and perspective of end-users.
• It shows the discord between the perceptions of farmers and the
management. Therefore, whenever the difference between the
indicators is high, the issue must be flagged and described.
11. Annexes 239

Similar to the management chapter, the indicators are visualized in charts. The visual
objects can be exported in pdf file.

FIGURE A.3.50
Exported chart from the water service chapter

Composite indicator of system maintenance

Maintenance
infrastucture of Condition of pump
pipelines and station
deliveries

Condition of pipes Maintenance

and hydrants infrastucture of
pump station

Source: Elaboration through RAP v1 software

A.3.6. Update information about the RAP software

The manual is designed to the RAP software v1 launched in May 2021. Any change
will be documented in the revision history file appended to the RAP software on the
dedicated webpage.
240 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

A.4. DESCRIPTION TEMPLATE FOR PRESSURIZED

IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Country: Location:

Analysis date:

Project name:

Project description:

Construction year:
• New project Year:
• Rehabilitation Year:
• Modernization Year:

Delivery schedule: • On-Demand • Rotation

Total project area (Command

Hectare
Area):

Total irrigated area (Served Area): Hectare

On-farm irrigation methods: • Drip percent

Percentage from Total • Sprinkler percent
Irrigated Area • Surface percent

Water source: • Surface • Groundwater

Note:

Maximum upstream piezometric elevation: m

Maximum upstream discharge: Liter/second

The number of served hydrants:

Minimum head at hydrants: • Constant • Variable

Note:

Hydraulic analysis: • For the entire system (Indexed characteristic curve)

Note: • At the hydrant Level (AKLA)

Considered Indicators • Relative pressure deficit

• Reliability

Percentage of failed hydrants (from total): percent

Note:

The magnitude of failure: • Acceptable

• Fair
• Bad
• Severe
11. Annexes 241

Failure description: • Concentrated

in one location
• Spread out through the
network
• Old system

Possible proposed solutions:

• Increase pipe sizes only in the sections of the network that cause significant pressure
losses upstream of the critical zones;
• Install additional in-line lifting units, e.g. booster pumps;
• Impose restrictions on the freedom of farmers. This may be possible by installing special
devices capable of stopping irrigation during peak demand hours;
• Adjust management guidelines;
• Increase the upstream pressure head (in case of pumping station);
• Improve on-farm practices;
• Enhance the design of the on-farm system to reduce head loss;
• Recommend irrigation out of peak hours for users in critical zones;
• Recommend low-pressure on-farm irrigation methods.

Γ) for different types of pipes

A.4.1. Bazin roughness parameter (Γ

TYPE OF PIPE EQUIVALENT Γ

HOMOGENOUS ( m0.5 )
ROUGHNESS
Ε ( mm )
1- Technically smooth tubes (glass, brass, drawn copper, resin) 0 - 0.02 --

2- Steel pipes

A ) Time degradable coverings

- New pipes, varnished by centrifugation 0.05 --

- Bitumened by immersion 0.1 - 0.015 ≤ 0.06

- In current duty with light rust 0.2 - 0.4 0.10

- With asphalt or tar applied by hands 0.5 - 0.6 0.16

- With diffused tubercolisation 1-3 0.23

B ) Non degradable coverings

- Cement applied by centrifugation 0.05 - 0.15 ≤ 0.06

3- Welded sheet-pipes

- In good conditions 0.2 - 0.3 0.10

- In current duty with crusting 0.4 - 1.0 0.16

4- Nailed sheet-pipes

- 1 line of longitudinal nails 0.3 - 0.4 0.10

- 2 lines of longitudinal nails 0.6 - 0.7 0.16

- Idem with crusting Up to 3.0 0.30

242 Mapping System and Services for Pressurized irrigation systems - MASSPRES

TYPE OF PIPE EQUIVALENT Γ

HOMOGENOUS ( m0.5 )
ROUGHNESS
Ε ( mm )
- 4-6 lines of longitudinal nails 2.0 0.23

- 6 lines of longitudinal nails + 4 transversal 3.0 0.30

- Idem with crusting Up to 5.0 0.36

5- Cast iron pipes

- With centrifuged-cemented covering 0.1 ≤ 0.06

- New, covered internally with bitumen 0.15 0.06

- New, not covered 0.2 - 0.4 0.10

- With light crusting 0.4 - 1.0 0.16

- In current duty, partially rusted 1.0 - 2.0 0.23

- strongly encrusted 3.0 - 5.0 0.36

6- Cement-pipes

- Asbestos cement 0.1 ≤ 0.06

- New reinforced concrete, plaster perfectly smooth 0.1 - 0.15 0.06

- Reinforced concrete with smooth plaster, in work for many years 2.0 0.23

- Tunnels with cement plaster, depending on the degree of finish 2.0 - 5.0 0.23 - 0.36
 68

Mapping System and

Services for Pressurized
irrigation systems –
MASSPRES
In 2007, FAO produced Irrigation and Drainage Paper 63:
Modernizing irrigation management – the MASSCOTE
approach. This is a methodology specifically designed to assist
technical experts, irrigation professionals, and managers,
engaged in the difficult task of modernizing medium and
large-scale canal irrigation systems.

Pressurized systems bring simplicity to irrigating farmers, but

they are inherently complex both in terms of their design and
operation in meeting the changing water demands associated
with on-demand irrigation. To support both improving the
performance of existing systems and the design of future
systems, pressurized irrigation needs the equivalent of
MASSCOTE methodology to provide a step-by-step process to
diagnose deficiencies and establish plans for modernization.

This publication builds on the holistic approach of MASSCOTE

to provide a framework for assessing and improving the overall
performance of medium and large-scale pressurized irrigation
schemes. Known as Mapping System and Services for
Pressurized irrigation systems (MASSPRES), it introduces the
MASSPRES approach and the step-by-step diagnosis of system
performance. An important first step is the Rapid Appraisal
Procedure (RAP), which is central to mapping the system
performance. The complexities of managing demand under
unsteady flow conditions are described together with
innovative methods for assessing acceptable pressures and
discharges at farm hydrants under a wide range of operating
configurations rather than relying on the earlier methods of
statistical analysis. Various indicators are developed to assess
capacity, reliability, equity of distribution, sensitivity to change,
and the risks of perturbation and incorporated into
user-friendly software. Practical examples and case studies in
Egypt, Italy, Spain, and Tunisia demonstrate the effectiveness of
this approach and offer evidence-based solutions to improving
performance.

ISBN 978-92-5-138783-2

9 789251 387832
CD0784EN/1/05.24