Fipps, G.

Leigh, E.

Texas A&amp;M Repository

TR-330 2008              Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: I-19/I-18, I-7A and I-22 Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2       By:  Eric Leigh, Extension Associate, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Guy Fipps, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, Biological and Agricultural Engineering   Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report October 2008        Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: I-19/I-18, I-7A, and I-22 Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2      Report Prepared by: Eric Leigh and Guy Fipps, P.E.1June 1, 2007      IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER                                                 Texas Cooperative Extension – Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Texas A&M University System  1 Extension Associate, and Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, respectively, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, 2117 Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2117       Table of Contents  Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... ..1  Pipeline Test Procedures................................................................................................................................... ..5  Appendix A: Test Water Level Measurements ................................................................................................. ..6  Appendix B: Other Reported Seepage Rates and Water Loss Test Results ...................................................... ..9  Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................... 13  List of Figures  Figure 1.  Photo of leaking pipeline control structure ....................................................................................... ..2  Figure 2.  District map showing the locations the tested pipeline segments ..................................................... ..3  Figure 3.  Detailed map of Test SJ16 ................................................................................................................ ..4  Figure 4.  Detailed map of Test SJ17 ................................................................................................................ ..4  Figure 5.  Detailed map of Test SJ18 ................................................................................................................ ..4  Figure 6.  Photo of a standpipe with visible leaks............................................................................................. ..5   Figure 7.  Photo of turnout valve with visible leaks.......................................................................................... ..5  Figure 8.  Photo: Askar Karimov  measuring the water surface inside a standpipe with a sounding meter...... ..5  List of Tables  Table 1.  Water Loss Test Results..................................................................................................................... ..1  Table 2.  Water Loss Test Results with 10% Estimated Error Range ............................................................... ..2  Table 3.  Test SJ16 - Field Measurements ........................................................................................................ ..6  Table 4.  Test SJ16 - Test structures and attribute information......................................................................... ..6  Table 5.  Test SJ17 - Field Measurements ........................................................................................................ ..7  Table 6.  Test SJ17 - Test structures and attribute information......................................................................... ..7  Table 7.  Test SJ18 - Field Measurements ........................................................................................................ ..8  Table 8.  Test SJ18 - Test structures and attribute information......................................................................... ..8  Table 9.  Results of pipeline seepage loss tests in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin .................................... ..9  Table 10. Results of total loss test in unlined canals in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin ............................ ..9  Table 11. Results of total loss tests in lined canals in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin............................... ..10  Table 12. Results of canal seepage loss tests in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin........................................ ..11  Table 13. Canal seepage rates reported in published studies ............................................................................ ..12   Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: I-19/I-18, I-7A, and I-22 Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2    Summary  This report summarizes three water loss tests conducted on parts of pipeline units I-19/I-18, I-7A (see figure 2), and I-22 for Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2 (HCID2) that took place on February 15, 2007.  The pipelines were tested using the ponding method, measuring the total water loss rates (see next section).  The test results are summarized in Table 1.   Table 1. Pipeline Water Loss Test Results for HCID2 conducted February 15, 2007. Water Loss Rates* Test ID Pipeline Unit Length (miles) Avg. ∆  in Total Depth (ft/hour) Total Volume Loss (ft3)  gal/mi/day ac-ft/mi/yr SJ16 I-19/I-18 3.6 11.6 1157 57,900 64.9 SJ17 I-7A 1.5   6.8   466 55,800 62.5 SJ18 I-22 2.7   5.0   605 40,500 45.4 * Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year.   Test SJ16 included a 1 mile segment of pipeline Unit I-19 and 2.59 miles of pipeline Unit I-18; running north from Nolana Loop, then east from Col. Rowe Blvd, and ending near US Hwy 281 (see figure 3). • Unit I-19: 1 mile of 48 inch FJRC (Flexible-Joint Reinforced Concrete) pipeline; • Unit I-18: 0.25miles of 48 inch FJRC pipe, and 2.34 miles of 48 inch MJC (Mortar-Joint Concrete) pipeline.   Test SJ17 tested 1.5 miles of the mortar-joint pipeline Unit I-7A, consisting of 1 mile of 36 inch pipe, and 0.5 miles of 30 inch pipe. Test the section began east of Cesar Chavez Rd and ending just east of Tower Rd, north of El Dora Rd. (see figure 4).      Test SJ18 tested 2.68 miles of Unit I-22, beginning from the North Alamo Main canal, running east towards Tower Rd, just north of Gas Line Rd. (see figure 5). • Mortar-Joint: 1.25 miles of 48 inch pipe, and 0.75 miles of 42 inch pipe; • Flexible-Joint:  0.18 miles of 42 inch pipe, and 0.5 miles of 30 inch pipe.            2  Table 2 shows the water loss rates with a + 10% estimated error range due to error in measurements and surface water level stability.  Table 2. Water Loss Results with 10% Estimated Error Range Water Loss Rates* gal/mile/day ac-ft/mile/year Test ID Pipeline Units Low High Low High SJ16 I-19/I-18 52080 63653 58.4 71.3 SJ17 I-7A 50193 61347 56.2 68.7 J18 I-22 36490 44599 40.9 50.0 * Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year.   Figure 1 shows a leaking pipeline control structure and standpipe with lateral gates that were shut-off during the test.                           Figure 1. Leaking pipeline control structure          3Figure 2. Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2 pipeline test locations.    4  Figure 3. Detailed map of Test SJ16   Figure 4. Detailed map of Test SJ17   Figure 5. Detailed map of Test SJ18    5  Pipeline Testing Procedures  The pipelines were tested using the ponding method.  These tests accounted for all the leaks occurring from gates, valves, and pipeline joints that are either undetectable or are difficult to measure (figures 6 and 7), classified as total loss tests; thus, measuring the total water loss rate.               These tests were performed under the district’s normal operating water levels, with all downstream check-gates and turnout valves closed. Once the pipeline was filled, the head gates were shut and water surface elevations were measured at selected standpipe stations with measuring tapes and a water sounding meter and referenced to the inside top rim of the standpipe (Figure 8). Each test lasted between 1.0 to 1.5 hours, recording water level measurements at 10 minute intervals (8-10 measurements per test).  Figure 8. Askar Karimov, Extension Associate, is shown taking the measurement from the top inside rim of a standpipe. Figure 6. Leaking from standpipe  Figure 7. Leaking from turnout valve                         6Appendix A: Water Level Measurements & Pipeline Information  HCID2 provided our team with basic pipeline size and attribute information on the pipeline units test.  Table 3, 5, and 7 contains the test measurements and times.  Tables 4, 6, and 8 contain the type of structures and diameter sizes used for test calculations.  Test SJ16                 Table 3. Test SJ16: Unit I-19/I-18 Test Measurements 2/15/2007 Standpipe #1 Standpipe #2 Time WL-Reading (ft) Reading (ft) 11:50   6.6   3.6 12:00 11.4   8.9 12:10 15.2 12.3 12:20 17.4 13.8 12:30 17.8 14.7 12:40 18.5 15.1 12:50 18.2 15.2 13:00 18.5 15.3         Table 4. Test SJ16: Unit I-19/I-18 – Test Structures and Attributes Structure Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Standpipe Standpipe #1Diameter (in): 15 15 21 15 15 48 48 Area (ft2): 1.23 1.23 2.41 1.23 1.23 12.57 12.57 Vol Loss (ft3): 14.2 14.24 27.91 14.24 14.24 145.80 145.80 US GALs: 106.5 106.5 208.75 106.51 106.51 1090.63 1090.63         Table 4 cont.  Test SJ16: Unit I-19/I-18 – Test Structures and Attributes Structure Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe #2 Air Vent Air Vent Diameter (in) 48 30 36 42 72 21 21 Area (ft2): 12.57 4.91 7.07 9.62 28.27 2.41 2.41 Vol Loss (ft3) 145.80 56.95 82.01 111.63 328.04 27.91 27.91 US GALs: 1090.63 426.03 613.48 835.01 2453.91 208.75 208.75    7  Test SJ17         Table 5. Test SJ17: Unit I- Test Measurements 2/15/2007 Standpipe #1 Standpipe #2 Time Reading (ft) Reading (ft) 13:40    6.5   6.2 13:50 10.7 13.1 14:00 11.5 13.6 14:10 11.7 13.7 14:20 11.8 13.9 14:30 12.0 13.9 14:40 12.2 14.0 14:50 11.9 14.1 15:00 12.0 14.1 15:10 12.0 14.2 Table 6. Test SJ17: Unit I-7A – Test Structures and Attributes Structure: Standpipe #1 Air Vent Air Vent Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe #2 Standpipe Diameter: 48 15 12 48 48 48 42 36 Area (ft2): 12.57 1.23 0.79 12.57 12.57 12.57 9.62 7.07 Vol Loss (ft3): 84.90 8.29 5.31 84.90 84.90 84.90 65.00 47.76 US GALs: 635.11 62.02 39.69 635.11 635.11 635.11 486.25 357.25    8Table 7. Test SJ18: Unit I- Test Measurements 2/15/2007 Standpipe #1 Standpipe #2 Time Reading (ft) Reading (ft) 13:50 4.0   6.6 14:00 5.6    8.8 14:10 6.7   9.9 14:20 7.5 10.6 14:30 8.0 11.1 14:40 8.3 11.6 14:50 8.6 11.8 15:00 8.9 12.0 15:10 9.1 12.2   Table 8. Test SJ18: Unit I-22 – Test Structures and Attribute Structure:    Standpipe #1 Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe # 2 Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Diameter: 60 60 60 48 60 42 48 21 21 18 21 Area (ft2): 19.63 19.63 19.63 12.57 19.63 9.62 12.57 2.41 2.41 1.77 2.41 Vol Loss (ft3): 97.15 97.15 97.15 62.18 97.15 47.60 62.18 11.90 11.90 8.74 11.90 US GALs: 726.75 726.75 726.75 465.12 726.75 356.11 465.12 89.03 89.03 65.41 89.03   Test SJ18    9Appendix B: Other Reported Seepage Rates and Water Loss Test Results  Texas Cooperative Extension has conducted over 70 total loss tests and seepage loss tests in canals and pipelines the Lower Rio Grande River Basin since 1998.  Most of these results are summarized in Tables 9 – 12.   Table 13 gives seepage rates versus lining type as reported in the scientific literature.   Table 9. Results of pipeline seepage loss test conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension in the lower Rio Grande River Basin Water Loss Rates** Test  ID Year Type* Pipeline Test Diameter (in) (Wt. Avg.) gal/mi/day ac-ft/mi/yr UN4 04 FJRC 70 26,402 30.0 UN5 04 FJRC 70 40,940 46.0 UN6 04 FJRC 70   1,119   1.3 UN8 05 FJRC 70   1,839   2.1 UN9 06 FJRC 70   1,407   1.6 * Type: FJRC (Flexible Joint Reinforced Concrete Pipeline) ** Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year.    Table 10.  Results of total loss tests in unlined canals (leaking gates and valves may have contributed to measured loss rates) conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin. Water Loss Rate**          Canal Width (ft) Canal Depth (ft) Test ID Year               Class* gal/ft2/day ac-ft/mi/yr BV3 99 55 8 M 0.15 53.4 ED5 02 105 7 M 2.39 1213.2 MA1 99 50 10 M 1.98 227.1 MA2 99 20 5 S 4.32 371.4 SB1 00 29 7 S 1.27 215.5 SJ2 00 23 6 M 2.74 293.2 SJ3 00 30 5 S 0.95 132.6 * Classification of canal: M = main, S = secondary ** Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year.      10Table 11. Results of total loss tests in lined canals (leaking gates and valves may have contributed to measured loss rates) conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin. Loss Rate** Test ID Year Canal Width (ft) Canal Depth (ft) Class* gal/ft2/day   ac-ft/mi/yr Lined16HC1 03 14 5 M 1.89 192.4 BV1 99 10 5 M 7.97 510.5 BV2 99 9 4 M 8.53 451.5 DL1 00 20 6 M 0.16 18.8 DL2 00 7 4 S 4.12 236.2 DO1 03 5 3 S 1.68 65.2 DO2 03 6 4 S 2.18 121.5 DO3 03 6 3 S 2.71 107.2 ED1 00 6 4 S 34.32 1519.6 ED2 00 6 4 S 21.5 858.2 ED3 00 3 2 T 10.22 308.2 ED4 00 4 3 S 18.72 567.7 ED6 99 9 4 M 8.53 451.5 HA2 00 10 4 M 2.26 135.2 HA3 98 15 2 S 0.64 45.5 ME1 98 38 7 M 1.26 281.9 ME2 98  4 M 1.88 163.5 SJ1 99 12 5 M 2.58 126.8 SJ6 03 12 3 M 1.88 1.63 SJ7 03 19 4 M 1.98 227.1 UN3 02 12 6 M 2.02 154.3 * Classification of canal: M = main, S = secondary, T = tertiary ** Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year.    11                                      Table 12.  Results of seepage loss tests conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin. Loss Rate** Test ID Year Canal Width (ft) Canal Depth (ft) Class* gal/ft2/day ac-ft/mi/yr Lined16HC2 03   M   LF1 03 12 5 M 1.77 152.9 LF2 03 10 6 M 4.61 369.1 MA4 03 12 5 S 8.85 529.7 SJ4 00 15 4 M 1.17 111.2 SJ5 02 14 5 M 1.38 145.5 UN1 01 12 6 M 2.32 217.7 UN2 01 8 3 M 2.09 121.2 UnlinedBR1 03 60 11 M 3.14 794.6 MA3 03 19 5 S 13.9 1690.1 RV1 03 38 4 M 0.15 23.0 SB4 02 16 4 S 0.64 68.3 SB5 02 18 3 S 1.67 188.3 SB6 02 20 5 S 1.44 189.0 SB7 02 16 4 S 0.42 47.4 SB8 02 20 5 S 0.83 104.0 * Classification of canal: M = main, S = secondary ** Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year.          12 Table 13. Canal seepage rate reported in published studies. Lining/soil type Seepage rate (gal/ft2/day) Unlined1 2.21-26.4 Portland cement2 0.52 Compacted earth2 0.52 Brick masonry lined3 2.23 Earthen unlined3 11.34 Concrete4 0.74 - 4.0 Plactic4 0.08-3.74 Concrete4 0.06-3.22 Gunite4 0.06-0.94 Compacted earth4 0.07-0.6 Clay4 0.37-2.99 Loam4 4.49-7.48 Sand4 4.0-19.45 1 DeMaggio (1990). Technical Memorandum: San Luis unit drainage program project files.  US Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento.  2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1963).  Lining for Irrigation Canals.    3 Nayak, et al. (1996). The influence of canal seepage on groundwater in Lugert Lake irrigation area. Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute.  4 Nofziger (1979). Profit potential of lining watercourses in coastal commands of Orissa.  Environment and Ecology 14(2):343-345.   Acknowledgements  This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2005-45048-03208.  For program information, see http://riogrande.tamu.edu.  The following persons contributed to this study:  Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department 2117 Texas A&M University College Station, 77843-2117   Guy Fipps, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer  Eric Leigh, Extension Associate   Texas A&M Research and Extension Center 2401 US Highway 83 Weslaco, 78596-8398    Askar Karimov, Extension Associate  Azim Nazarov, Extension Associate (former)  Web Address: http://idea.tamu.edu  Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2  Helpful planning and assistance in the pipeline tests was provided by the District office personnel and canal riders.                 13                IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER A center of the Texas Water Resources Institute Texas Cooperative Extension - Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Texas A&M University System http://itc.tamu.edu 14

Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: I-19/I-18, I-7A, and I-22 Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2

Texas A&M University

TR-330 
2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: 
I-19/I-18, I-7A and I-22 
Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
 
Eric Leigh, Extension Associate, Biological and Agricultural Engineering 
Guy Fipps, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, Biological and Agricultural Engineering 
 
 
Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report 
October 2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: 
I-19/I-18, I-7A, and I-22 
Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2 
 
 
 
 
 
Report Prepared by: 
Eric Leigh and Guy Fipps, P.E.1
June 1, 2007  
 
 
 
 
IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER
                                                
 
Texas Cooperative Extension – Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 
Texas A&M University System 
 
1 Extension Associate, and Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer, respectively, Biological and 
Agricultural Engineering, 2117 Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2117 
 
  
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... ..1 
 
Pipeline Test Procedures................................................................................................................................... ..5 
 
Appendix A: Test Water Level Measurements ................................................................................................. ..6 
 
Appendix B: Other Reported Seepage Rates and Water Loss Test Results ...................................................... ..9 
 
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................... 13 
 
List of Figures 
 
Figure 1.  Photo of leaking pipeline control structure ....................................................................................... ..2 
 
Figure 2.  District map showing the locations the tested pipeline segments ..................................................... ..3 
 
Figure 3.  Detailed map of Test SJ16 ................................................................................................................ ..4 
 
Figure 4.  Detailed map of Test SJ17 ................................................................................................................ ..4 
 
Figure 5.  Detailed map of Test SJ18 ................................................................................................................ ..4 
 
Figure 6.  Photo of a standpipe with visible leaks............................................................................................. ..5  
 
Figure 7.  Photo of turnout valve with visible leaks.......................................................................................... ..5 
 
Figure 8.  Photo: Askar Karimov  measuring the water surface inside a standpipe with a sounding meter...... ..5 
 
List of Tables 
 
Table 1.  Water Loss Test Results..................................................................................................................... ..1 
 
Table 2.  Water Loss Test Results with 10% Estimated Error Range ............................................................... ..2 
 
Table 3.  Test SJ16 - Field Measurements ........................................................................................................ ..6 
 
Table 4.  Test SJ16 - Test structures and attribute information......................................................................... ..6 
 
Table 5.  Test SJ17 - Field Measurements ........................................................................................................ ..7 
 
Table 6.  Test SJ17 - Test structures and attribute information......................................................................... ..7 
 
Table 7.  Test SJ18 - Field Measurements ........................................................................................................ ..8 
 
Table 8.  Test SJ18 - Test structures and attribute information......................................................................... ..8 
 
Table 9.  Results of pipeline seepage loss tests in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin .................................... ..9 
 
Table 10. Results of total loss test in unlined canals in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin ............................ ..9 
 
Table 11. Results of total loss tests in lined canals in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin............................... ..10 
 
Table 12. Results of canal seepage loss tests in the Lower Rio Grande River Basin........................................ ..11 
 
Table 13. Canal seepage rates reported in published studies ............................................................................ ..12 
 
 
Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: I-19/I-18, I-7A, and I-22 
Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2 
 
 
 
Summary 
 
This report summarizes three water loss tests conducted on parts of pipeline units I-19/I-18, I-7A (see 
figure 2), and I-22 for Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2 (HCID2) that took place on February 
15, 2007.  The pipelines were tested using the ponding method, measuring the total water loss rates 
(see next section).  The test results are summarized in Table 1. 
 
 
Table 1. Pipeline Water Loss Test Results for HCID2 conducted February 15, 2007. 
Water Loss Rates* Test 
ID 
Pipeline 
Unit 
Length 
(miles) 
Avg. ∆  in Total 
Depth (ft/hour) 
Total Volume 
Loss (ft3)  gal/mi/day ac-ft/mi/yr 
SJ16 I-19/I-18 3.6 11.6 1157 57,900 64.9 
SJ17 I-7A 1.5   6.8   466 55,800 62.5 
SJ18 I-22 2.7   5.0   605 40,500 45.4 
* Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year. 
 
 
Test SJ16 included a 1 mile segment of pipeline Unit I-19 and 2.59 miles of pipeline Unit I-18; 
running north from Nolana Loop, then east from Col. Rowe Blvd, and ending near US Hwy 281 (see 
figure 3). 
• Unit I-19: 1 mile of 48 inch FJRC (Flexible-Joint Reinforced Concrete) pipeline; 
• Unit I-18: 0.25miles of 48 inch FJRC pipe, and 2.34 miles of 48 inch MJC (Mortar-Joint 
Concrete) pipeline. 
 
 
Test SJ17 tested 1.5 miles of the mortar-joint pipeline Unit I-7A, consisting of 1 mile of 36 inch pipe, 
and 0.5 miles of 30 inch pipe. Test the section began east of Cesar Chavez Rd and ending just east of 
Tower Rd, north of El Dora Rd. (see figure 4).    
 
 
Test SJ18 tested 2.68 miles of Unit I-22, beginning from the North Alamo Main canal, running east 
towards Tower Rd, just north of Gas Line Rd. (see figure 5). 
• Mortar-Joint: 1.25 miles of 48 inch pipe, and 0.75 miles of 42 inch pipe; 
• Flexible-Joint:  0.18 miles of 42 inch pipe, and 0.5 miles of 30 inch pipe. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
2
 
 
Table 2 shows the water loss rates with a + 10% estimated error range due to error in measurements 
and surface water level stability. 
 
Table 2. Water Loss Results with 10% Estimated Error Range 
Water Loss Rates* 
gal/mile/day ac-ft/mile/year Test ID Pipeline Units 
Low High Low High 
SJ16 I-19/I-18 52080 63653 58.4 71.3 
SJ17 I-7A 50193 61347 56.2 68.7 
J18 I-22 36490 44599 40.9 50.0 
* Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year. 
 
 
Figure 1 shows a leaking pipeline control structure and standpipe with lateral gates that were shut-off 
during the test. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Figure 1. Leaking pipeline control structure 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 3
Figure 2. Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2 pipeline test locations. 
  
 
4
 
 
Figure 3. Detailed map of Test SJ16 
 
 
Figure 4. Detailed map of Test SJ17 
 
 
Figure 5. Detailed map of Test SJ18 
  
 
5
 
 
Pipeline Testing Procedures 
 
The pipelines were tested using the ponding method.  These tests accounted for all the leaks occurring 
from gates, valves, and pipeline joints that are either undetectable or are difficult to measure (figures 6 
and 7), classified as total loss tests; thus, measuring the total water loss rate. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
These tests were performed under the district’s normal operating water levels, with all downstream 
check-gates and turnout valves closed. Once the pipeline was filled, the head gates were shut and 
water surface elevations were measured at selected standpipe stations with measuring tapes and a 
water sounding meter and referenced to the inside top rim of the standpipe (Figure 8). Each test lasted 
between 1.0 to 1.5 hours, recording water level measurements at 10 minute intervals (8-10 
measurements per test).  
Figure 8. Askar Karimov, Extension Associate, is shown taking the measurement from the 
top inside rim of a standpipe. 
Figure 6. Leaking from standpipe 
 
Figure 7. Leaking from turnout valve 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
6
Appendix A: Water Level Measurements & Pipeline Information 
 
HCID2 provided our team with basic pipeline size and attribute information on the pipeline units test.  Table 3, 5, and 7 contains the test 
measurements and times.  Tables 4, 6, and 8 contain the type of structures and diameter sizes used for test calculations. 
 
Test SJ16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. Test SJ16: Unit I-19/I-18 Test Measurements 
2/15/2007 Standpipe #1 Standpipe #2 
Time WL-Reading (ft) Reading (ft) 
11:50   6.6   3.6 
12:00 11.4   8.9 
12:10 15.2 12.3 
12:20 17.4 13.8 
12:30 17.8 14.7 
12:40 18.5 15.1 
12:50 18.2 15.2 
13:00 18.5 15.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4. Test SJ16: Unit I-19/I-18 – Test Structures and Attributes 
Structure Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Standpipe Standpipe #1
Diameter (in): 15 15 21 15 15 48 48 
Area (ft2): 1.23 1.23 2.41 1.23 1.23 12.57 12.57 
Vol Loss (ft3): 14.2 14.24 27.91 14.24 14.24 145.80 145.80 
US GALs: 106.5 106.5 208.75 106.51 106.51 1090.63 1090.63 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 cont.  Test SJ16: Unit I-19/I-18 – Test Structures and Attributes 
Structure Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe #2 Air Vent Air Vent 
Diameter (in) 48 30 36 42 72 21 21 
Area (ft2): 12.57 4.91 7.07 9.62 28.27 2.41 2.41 
Vol Loss (ft3) 145.80 56.95 82.01 111.63 328.04 27.91 27.91 
US GALs: 1090.63 426.03 613.48 835.01 2453.91 208.75 208.75 
  
 
7
 
 
Test SJ17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5. Test SJ17: Unit I- Test Measurements 
2/15/2007 Standpipe #1 Standpipe #2 
Time Reading (ft) Reading (ft) 
13:40    6.5   6.2 
13:50 10.7 13.1 
14:00 11.5 13.6 
14:10 11.7 13.7 
14:20 11.8 13.9 
14:30 12.0 13.9 
14:40 12.2 14.0 
14:50 11.9 14.1 
15:00 12.0 14.1 
15:10 12.0 14.2 
Table 6. Test SJ17: Unit I-7A – Test Structures and Attributes 
Structure: Standpipe #1 Air Vent Air Vent Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe #2 Standpipe 
Diameter: 48 15 12 48 48 48 42 36 
Area (ft2): 12.57 1.23 0.79 12.57 12.57 12.57 9.62 7.07 
Vol Loss (ft3): 84.90 8.29 5.31 84.90 84.90 84.90 65.00 47.76 
US GALs: 635.11 62.02 39.69 635.11 635.11 635.11 486.25 357.25 
  
 
8
Table 7. Test SJ18: Unit I- Test Measurements 
2/15/2007 Standpipe #1 Standpipe #2 
Time Reading (ft) Reading (ft) 
13:50 4.0   6.6 
14:00 5.6    8.8 
14:10 6.7   9.9 
14:20 7.5 10.6 
14:30 8.0 11.1 
14:40 8.3 11.6 
14:50 8.6 11.8 
15:00 8.9 12.0 
15:10 9.1 12.2 
  Table 8. Test SJ18: Unit I-22 – Test Structures and Attribute 
Structure:    Standpipe #1 Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe Standpipe # 2 Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent Air Vent 
Diameter: 60 60 60 48 60 42 48 21 21 18 21 
Area (ft2): 19.63 19.63 19.63 12.57 19.63 9.62 12.57 2.41 2.41 1.77 2.41 
Vol Loss (ft3): 97.15 97.15 97.15 62.18 97.15 47.60 62.18 11.90 11.90 8.74 11.90 
US GALs: 726.75 726.75 726.75 465.12 726.75 356.11 465.12 89.03 89.03 65.41 89.03 
 
 
Test SJ18 
  
 
9
Appendix B: Other Reported Seepage Rates and Water Loss Test Results 
 
Texas Cooperative Extension has conducted over 70 total loss tests and seepage loss tests in canals and 
pipelines the Lower Rio Grande River Basin since 1998.  Most of these results are summarized in 
Tables 9 – 12.   Table 13 gives seepage rates versus lining type as reported in the scientific literature.  
 
Table 9. Results of pipeline seepage loss test conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension 
in the lower Rio Grande River Basin 
Water Loss Rates** Test  
ID Year Type* 
Pipeline Test 
Diameter (in) 
(Wt. Avg.) gal/mi/day ac-ft/mi/yr 
UN4 04 FJRC 70 26,402 30.0 
UN5 04 FJRC 70 40,940 46.0 
UN6 04 FJRC 70   1,119   1.3 
UN8 05 FJRC 70   1,839   2.1 
UN9 06 FJRC 70   1,407   1.6 
* Type: FJRC (Flexible Joint Reinforced Concrete Pipeline) 
** Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year. 
 
  
Table 10.  Results of total loss tests in unlined canals (leaking gates and valves may have 
contributed to measured loss rates) conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension in the 
Lower Rio Grande River Basin. 
Water Loss Rate** 
 
 
       Canal 
Width (ft) 
Canal 
Depth (ft) Test ID Year  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Class* 
gal/ft2/day ac-ft/mi/yr 
BV3 99 55 8 M 0.15 53.4 
ED5 02 105 7 M 2.39 1213.2 
MA1 99 50 10 M 1.98 227.1 
MA2 99 20 5 S 4.32 371.4 
SB1 00 29 7 S 1.27 215.5 
SJ2 00 23 6 M 2.74 293.2 
SJ3 00 30 5 S 0.95 132.6 
* Classification of canal: M = main, S = secondary 
** Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year. 
 
 
  
 
10
Table 11. Results of total loss tests in lined canals (leaking gates and valves may have 
contributed to measured loss rates) conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension in the 
Lower Rio Grande River Basin. 
Loss Rate** Test ID Year Canal Width (ft) 
Canal 
Depth (ft) Class* gal/ft2/day   ac-ft/mi/yr 
Lined
16HC1 03 14 5 M 1.89 192.4 
BV1 99 10 5 M 7.97 510.5 
BV2 99 9 4 M 8.53 451.5 
DL1 00 20 6 M 0.16 18.8 
DL2 00 7 4 S 4.12 236.2 
DO1 03 5 3 S 1.68 65.2 
DO2 03 6 4 S 2.18 121.5 
DO3 03 6 3 S 2.71 107.2 
ED1 00 6 4 S 34.32 1519.6 
ED2 00 6 4 S 21.5 858.2 
ED3 00 3 2 T 10.22 308.2 
ED4 00 4 3 S 18.72 567.7 
ED6 99 9 4 M 8.53 451.5 
HA2 00 10 4 M 2.26 135.2 
HA3 98 15 2 S 0.64 45.5 
ME1 98 38 7 M 1.26 281.9 
ME2 98  4 M 1.88 163.5 
SJ1 99 12 5 M 2.58 126.8 
SJ6 03 12 3 M 1.88 1.63 
SJ7 03 19 4 M 1.98 227.1 
UN3 02 12 6 M 2.02 154.3 
* Classification of canal: M = main, S = secondary, T = tertiary 
** Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year. 
  
 
11
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12.  Results of seepage loss tests conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension in the 
Lower Rio Grande River Basin. 
Loss Rate** 
Test ID Year Canal Width (ft) 
Canal 
Depth (ft) Class* gal/ft2/day ac-ft/mi/yr 
Lined
16HC2 03   M   
LF1 03 12 5 M 1.77 152.9 
LF2 03 10 6 M 4.61 369.1 
MA4 03 12 5 S 8.85 529.7 
SJ4 00 15 4 M 1.17 111.2 
SJ5 02 14 5 M 1.38 145.5 
UN1 01 12 6 M 2.32 217.7 
UN2 01 8 3 M 2.09 121.2 
Unlined
BR1 03 60 11 M 3.14 794.6 
MA3 03 19 5 S 13.9 1690.1 
RV1 03 38 4 M 0.15 23.0 
SB4 02 16 4 S 0.64 68.3 
SB5 02 18 3 S 1.67 188.3 
SB6 02 20 5 S 1.44 189.0 
SB7 02 16 4 S 0.42 47.4 
SB8 02 20 5 S 0.83 104.0 
* Classification of canal: M = main, S = secondary 
** Water loss rates given are based on an in-service use of 24 hours/day and 365 days/year. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
12
 
Table 13. Canal seepage rate reported in published studies. 
Lining/soil type Seepage rate (gal/ft2/day) 
Unlined1 2.21-26.4 
Portland cement2 0.52 
Compacted earth2 0.52 
Brick masonry lined3 2.23 
Earthen unlined3 11.34 
Concrete4 0.74 - 4.0 
Plactic4 0.08-3.74 
Concrete4 0.06-3.22 
Gunite4 0.06-0.94 
Compacted earth4 0.07-0.6 
Clay4 0.37-2.99 
Loam4 4.49-7.48 
Sand4 4.0-19.45 
1 DeMaggio (1990). Technical Memorandum: San Luis unit drainage program 
project files.  US Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento.  
2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1963).  Lining for Irrigation Canals.    
3 Nayak, et al. (1996). The influence of canal seepage on groundwater in Lugert 
Lake irrigation area. Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute.  
4 Nofziger (1979). Profit potential of lining watercourses in coastal commands 
of Orissa.  Environment and Ecology 14(2):343-345. 
  
Acknowledgements 
 
This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 2005-45048-03208.  For 
program information, see http://riogrande.tamu.edu. 
 
The following persons contributed to this study: 
 
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department 
2117 Texas A&M University 
College Station, 77843-2117 
 
 Guy Fipps, Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer 
 Eric Leigh, Extension Associate 
  
Texas A&M Research and Extension Center 
2401 US Highway 83 
Weslaco, 78596-8398 
  
 Askar Karimov, Extension Associate 
 Azim Nazarov, Extension Associate (former) 
 
Web Address: http://idea.tamu.edu
 
 
Hidalgo County Irrigation District No.2 
 
Helpful planning and assistance in the pipeline tests was provided by the District office personnel and 
canal riders.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER 
A center of the Texas Water Resources Institute 
Texas Cooperative Extension - Texas Agricultural Experiment Station 
Texas A&M University System 
http://itc.tamu.edu
 14


English

https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/1969.1/86121/1/TR-330%20Water%20Loss%20Test%20Results%20for%20Pipeline%20Units%20-%20Hidalgo%20Co%20ID%20No.%202.pdf

Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: I-19/I-18, I-7A, and I-22 Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas A&M Repository

Texas A&M University

Water Loss Test Results for the Pipeline Units: I-19/I-18, I-7A, and I-22 Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Texas A&amp;M Repository

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M Repository