This NebFact discusses the Nebraska Surge Irrigation Trials

Cahoon, Joel E.

Eisenhauer, Dean E.

Wertz, Kelly

Yonts, C. Dean

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Extension 1994 NF94-177 Nebraska Surge Irrigation Trials C. Dean Yonts University of Nebraska--Lincoln, cyonts1@unl.edu Joel E. Cahoon University of Nebraska-Lincoln, joelc@montana.edu Dean E. Eisenhauer University of Nebraska--Lincoln, deisenhauer1@unl.edu Kelly Wertz Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist  Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Curriculum and Instruction Commons Yonts, C. Dean; Cahoon, Joel E.; Eisenhauer, Dean E.; and Wertz, Kelly, "NF94-177 Nebraska Surge Irrigation Trials" (1994). Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. 887. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/887 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Nebraska Cooperative Extension NF94-177Nebraska Surge Irrigation Trials by C. Dean Yonts, Extension Irrigation Engineer Joel E. Cahoon, Extension Water Management Engineer Dean E. Eisenhauer, Professor, Biological Systems Engineering Kelly Wertz, Extension Educator, MSEA Water Quality Project  Surge irrigation is a relatively new addition to many furrow irrigation systems. A programmable surge valve is incorporated into the system to intermittently apply water to gates that are open on either side of the valve. The result, in many cases, is improved irrigation performance because of a soil sealing effect caused by the intermittent wetting. Other potential benefits include reduced runoff and enhanced labor management. Field trials and irrigator experience in Nebraska indicate that none of these benefits are guaranteed at a particular site, and that surge irrigation results vary with soil, topographic, and management characteristics.  The University of Nebraska evaluated surge irrigation in a series of trials from 1983 to 1989. The tests compared continuous flow irrigation to surge irrigation on a variety of soils and field conditions in Nebraska. In all, 26 field scale tests were conducted, and the results are summarized in Table I. Surge irrigation was never less effective than continuous flow irrigation, when compared in terms of advance time reductions. The average reduction in the time required to advance water to the downstream end of the field using surge irrigation compared to continuous flow was approximately 17 percent with a range of 0 to 52 percent. In almost half the trials (12 of 26) no difference between surge and continuous flow advance time was detected. Most of the Table I. Surge irrigation test results.YearRow IdentitySoft/Hard Soil Type IrrigationNumberAdvanceTime Reduction(%)1989 soft Hastings silt loam 1st 01983 soft Hastings silt loam 1st 01988 soft Hastings silt loam 1st 231989 soft Hastings silt loam 2nd 01986 soft Hord silt loam 1st 521986 hard Hord silt loam 1st 01985 soft Hord silt loam 1st 01985 soft Hord silt loam 2nd 01987 hard Keith silt loam 1st 201986 soft Keith silt loam 1st 29tests were conducted during the first irrigation, where the average advance time reduction was approximately 18 percent. Four tests were conducted during the second irrigation and two of those resulted in a significant decrease in advance time using surge irrigation. Only one in four tests on hard (wheel traffic) furrows resulted in a reduced advance time.  Soil texture and structure play an important role in the ability of surge to reduce the time required to advance water through a field. Soils having acceptable advance times with conventional irrigation practices may not exhibit a decrease in advance time due to surge irrigation. However, soils with high intake rates may show substantial advance time reductions due to surge irrigation. With any soil, a reduction in advance time with surge flow is more likely to occur when infiltration rates are highest. This often occurs with coarse textured soils and during the first irrigation of the season. As with conventional irrigation practices, any difference in soil preparation, soil compaction and soil moisture content during field operations or during irrigation can affect the results of using surge irrigation.  The field trials summarized in Table I do not necessarily indicate the ultimate success of surge irrigation. If an irrigator is strictly interested in runoff management, reductions in advance time will not indicate the success of the system. Likewise, labor management was not considered in the trials summarized in Table I. It is also important to not confuse a percent change in advance time with a percent change in total pumping, application efficiency, or other indicators of irrigation system performance. For example: if the advance time changes because surge flow is used, but the irrigator allows water to flow for the same cumulative time from each gate at the same rate (same number of gates flowing at any given time) then the amount of water pumped will remain the same.  The Nebraska trials also led to recommendations for the amount and duration of advance and cutback cycles. Each cycle is an on-off sequence for one side of the valve. Advance cycles are those that begin as long as dry portions remain in the furrow. Cutback cycles are those that occur after the entire furrow length has been wetted at least once. Advance cycles become progressively longer while cutback cycles are of constant duration. The cycle durations and number of advance cycles used should be based on the soil and field characteristics. Long fields and fields with high intake soils will require more advance cycles, possibly five to six, while shorter fields with low intake soils will need fewer cycles, three to 1987 soft Keith silt loam 1st 361986 hard Keith silt loam 1st 01987 soft Hord silt loam 1st 01987 hard Hord silt loam 1st 01989 soft Holdrege si. lo. and Butler si. cl. lo. 1st 211989 soft Holdrege si. lo. and Butler si. cl. lo. 2nd 191988 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 1st 01988 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 1st 401989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 1st 251989 soft Tripp very fine  sandy loam 1st 501989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 1st 351988 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 2nd 201989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 2nd* 01989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 2nd* 381989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 3rd 141989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 3rd 0* Re-ditchedfour. A rule of thumb for the number of advance cycles is to advance water during each cycle a distance that is equal to that fraction of the number of advance cycles used. For example, with four advance cycles water should advance one-fourth of the field distance during each cycle.  The Nebraska, trials provided enough information to develop a relationship between the time required to advance water to the first advance location and the time required for subsequent cycles. The time required to move the water the desired distance for the first cycle (1/4 the field length if using four advance cycles, for example) is the first cycle on-time. For the second and subsequent on-times, multiply the factors given in Table II by the first cycle on-time. Following the final advance cycle, set the valve for cutback cycles. During cutback, the valve cycles the water at a shorter frequency until irrigation is complete. A cutback cycle time of 65 percent of the last on-time is recommended.  All commercially available surge valves are pre-programmed with some slight variation of the values in Table II. Thus, it is unlikely that individual irrigators will have to make the following calculations. The following example may be helpful to those who are unfamiliar with the expanding cycle time concept. The values in Table II could be used if the pre-programmed values are not performing satisfactorily. The example shows how to calculate surge cycle times for a 1,000 foot field with four advance cycles. Assume the water advances 250 feet in an average of 20 minutes. Using Table II, the remaining cycle times may be calculated:  If water does not reach the end of the field by the last advance cycle, adjustments may be necessary. Options include changing the number of advance cycles or changing the number of gates opened on each side of the valve. Cycle times and the number of cycles can be adjusted for each set of conditions.  Cycle Type and NumberOn-Time Factor x First Cycle On-TimeOn-Time for  Each Cycle Advance Cycle 1 1.0 x 20 = 20 minutes per sideAdvance Cycle 2 1.9 x 20 = 38 minutes per sideAdvance Cycle 3 2.6 x 20 = 52 minutes per sideAdvance Cycle 4 3.1 x 20 = 62 minutes per sideEach Cutback Cycle 2.0 x 20 = 40 minutes per sideTable II. Surge irrigation on-time factors.Fraction of FieldCycle No.4 advance surges5 advance surges6 advance surgesOn-Time Factor1 1/4 1/5 1/6 1.02 1/2 2/5 1/3 1.93 3/4 3/5 1/2 2.6File NF177 under IRRIGATION ENGINEERING B-3, Irrigation Operations and Management Issued January 1994  Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Elbert C. Dickey, Director of Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.  University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension educational programs abide with the non-discrimination policies of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture. 4 1 4/5 2/3 3.15 — 1 5/6 3.46 — — 1 3.8Cutback on-time factor is always 65 percent of the final advance cycle on-time factor.

NF94-177 Nebraska Surge Irrigation Trials

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Historical Materials from University of 
Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Extension 
1994 
NF94-177 Nebraska Surge Irrigation Trials 
C. Dean Yonts 
University of Nebraska--Lincoln, cyonts1@unl.edu 
Joel E. Cahoon 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, joelc@montana.edu 
Dean E. Eisenhauer 
University of Nebraska--Lincoln, deisenhauer1@unl.edu 
Kelly Wertz 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist 
 Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Curriculum and Instruction Commons 
Yonts, C. Dean; Cahoon, Joel E.; Eisenhauer, Dean E.; and Wertz, Kelly, "NF94-177 Nebraska Surge 
Irrigation Trials" (1994). Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. 887. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/887 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - 
Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension by an 
authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
Nebraska Cooperative Extension NF94-177
Nebraska Surge Irrigation Trials 
by C. Dean Yonts, Extension Irrigation Engineer 
Joel E. Cahoon, Extension Water Management Engineer 
Dean E. Eisenhauer, Professor, Biological Systems Engineering 
Kelly Wertz, Extension Educator, MSEA Water Quality Project  
Surge irrigation is a relatively new addition to many furrow irrigation systems. A programmable surge 
valve is incorporated into the system to intermittently apply water to gates that are open on either side of 
the valve. The result, in many cases, is improved irrigation performance because of a soil sealing effect 
caused by the intermittent wetting. Other potential benefits include reduced runoff and enhanced labor 
management. Field trials and irrigator experience in Nebraska indicate that none of these benefits are 
guaranteed at a particular site, and that surge irrigation results vary with soil, topographic, and 
management characteristics. 
 
The University of Nebraska evaluated 
surge irrigation in a series of trials from 
1983 to 1989. The tests compared 
continuous flow irrigation to surge 
irrigation on a variety of soils and field 
conditions in Nebraska. In all, 26 field 
scale tests were conducted, and the 
results are summarized in Table I. Surge 
irrigation was never less effective than 
continuous flow irrigation, when 
compared in terms of advance time 
reductions. The average reduction in the 
time required to advance water to the 
downstream end of the field using surge 
irrigation compared to continuous flow 
was approximately 17 percent with a 
range of 0 to 52 percent. In almost half 
the trials (12 of 26) no difference 
between surge and continuous flow 
advance time was detected. Most of the 
Table I. Surge irrigation test results.
Year
Row Identity
Soft/Hard Soil Type 
Irrigation
Number
Advance
Time 
Reduction
(%)
1989 soft Hastings silt loam 1st 0
1983 soft Hastings silt loam 1st 0
1988 soft Hastings silt loam 1st 23
1989 soft Hastings silt loam 2nd 0
1986 soft Hord silt loam 1st 52
1986 hard Hord silt loam 1st 0
1985 soft Hord silt loam 1st 0
1985 soft Hord silt loam 2nd 0
1987 hard Keith silt loam 1st 20
1986 soft Keith silt loam 1st 29
tests were conducted during the first 
irrigation, where the average advance 
time reduction was approximately 18 
percent. Four tests were conducted during 
the second irrigation and two of those 
resulted in a significant decrease in 
advance time using surge irrigation. Only 
one in four tests on hard (wheel traffic) 
furrows resulted in a reduced advance 
time.  
Soil texture and structure play an 
important role in the ability of surge to 
reduce the time required to advance water 
through a field. Soils having acceptable 
advance times with conventional 
irrigation practices may not exhibit a 
decrease in advance time due to surge 
irrigation. However, soils with high 
intake rates may show substantial 
advance time reductions due to surge 
irrigation. With any soil, a reduction in 
advance time with surge flow is more 
likely to occur when infiltration rates are 
highest. This often occurs with coarse 
textured soils and during the first 
irrigation of the season. As with 
conventional irrigation practices, any 
difference in soil preparation, soil 
compaction and soil moisture content 
during field operations or during 
irrigation can affect the results of using 
surge irrigation.  
The field trials summarized in Table I do 
not necessarily indicate the ultimate success of surge irrigation. If an irrigator is strictly interested in 
runoff management, reductions in advance time will not indicate the success of the system. Likewise, 
labor management was not considered in the trials summarized in Table I. It is also important to not 
confuse a percent change in advance time with a percent change in total pumping, application efficiency, 
or other indicators of irrigation system performance. For example: if the advance time changes because 
surge flow is used, but the irrigator allows water to flow for the same cumulative time from each gate at 
the same rate (same number of gates flowing at any given time) then the amount of water pumped will 
remain the same.  
The Nebraska trials also led to recommendations for the amount and duration of advance and cutback 
cycles. Each cycle is an on-off sequence for one side of the valve. Advance cycles are those that begin 
as long as dry portions remain in the furrow. Cutback cycles are those that occur after the entire furrow 
length has been wetted at least once. Advance cycles become progressively longer while cutback cycles 
are of constant duration. The cycle durations and number of advance cycles used should be based on the 
soil and field characteristics. Long fields and fields with high intake soils will require more advance 
cycles, possibly five to six, while shorter fields with low intake soils will need fewer cycles, three to 
1987 soft Keith silt loam 1st 36
1986 hard Keith silt loam 1st 0
1987 soft Hord silt loam 1st 0
1987 hard Hord silt loam 1st 0
1989 soft Holdrege si. lo. and Butler si. cl. lo. 1st 21
1989 soft Holdrege si. lo. and Butler si. cl. lo. 2nd 19
1988 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 1st 0
1988 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 1st 40
1989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 1st 25
1989 soft Tripp very fine  sandy loam 1st 50
1989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 1st 35
1988 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 2nd 20
1989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 2nd* 0
1989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 2nd* 38
1989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 3rd 14
1989 soft Tripp very fine sandy loam 3rd 0
* Re-ditched
four. A rule of thumb for the number of advance cycles is to advance water during each cycle a distance 
that is equal to that fraction of the number of advance cycles used. For example, with four advance 
cycles water should advance one-fourth of the field distance during each cycle.  
The Nebraska, trials provided enough information to develop a relationship between the time required to 
advance water to the first advance location and the time required for subsequent cycles. The time 
required to move the water the desired distance for the first cycle (1/4 the field length if using four 
advance cycles, for example) is the first cycle on-time. For the second and subsequent on-times, 
multiply the factors given in Table II by the first cycle on-time. Following the final advance cycle, set 
the valve for cutback cycles. During cutback, the valve cycles the water at a shorter frequency until 
irrigation is complete. A cutback cycle time of 65 percent of the last on-time is recommended.  
All commercially available surge valves are pre-programmed with some slight variation of the values in 
Table II. Thus, it is unlikely that individual irrigators will have to make the following calculations. The 
following example may be helpful to those who are unfamiliar with the expanding cycle time concept. 
The values in Table II could be used if the pre-programmed values are not performing satisfactorily. The 
example shows how to calculate surge cycle times for a 1,000 foot field with four advance cycles. 
Assume the water advances 250 feet in an average of 20 minutes. Using Table II, the remaining cycle 
times may be calculated:  
If water does not reach the end of the field by the last advance cycle, adjustments may be necessary. 
Options include changing the number of advance cycles or changing the number of gates opened on 
each side of the valve. Cycle times and the number of cycles can be adjusted for each set of conditions.  
Cycle Type 
and Number
On-Time Factor x 
First Cycle On-Time
On-Time for  
Each Cycle 
Advance Cycle 1 1.0 x 20 = 20 minutes per side
Advance Cycle 2 1.9 x 20 = 38 minutes per side
Advance Cycle 3 2.6 x 20 = 52 minutes per side
Advance Cycle 4 3.1 x 20 = 62 minutes per side
Each Cutback Cycle 2.0 x 20 = 40 minutes per side
Table II. Surge irrigation on-time factors.
Fraction of 
Field
Cycle 
No.
4 advance 
surges
5 advance 
surges
6 advance 
surges
On-Time 
Factor
1 1/4 1/5 1/6 1.0
2 1/2 2/5 1/3 1.9
3 3/4 3/5 1/2 2.6
File NF177 under IRRIGATION ENGINEERING 
B-3, Irrigation Operations and Management 
Issued January 1994  
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation 
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Elbert C. Dickey, Director of Cooperative Extension, 
University of Nebraska, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.  
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension educational programs abide with the non-discrimination 
policies of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture. 
4 1 4/5 2/3 3.1
5 — 1 5/6 3.4
6 — — 1 3.8
Cutback on-time factor is always 65 percent of the final advance cycle on-time factor.


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1883&amp;context=extensionhist

NF94-177 Nebraska Surge Irrigation Trials

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries