Estimation of Soil Moisture in Unsaturated Zone and Irrigation Sceduling

ESTIMATION OF SOIL MOISTURE IN UNSATURATED
ZONE AND IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
A dissertation report submitted

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(Hydraulics and Water Resources Engineering)
by
Sunil Gurrapu
Register No.: 0322667
Under the Guidance of

Dr. K. Varija
Department of Applied Mechanics & Hydraulics

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA,
(A DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
SURATHKAL, P.O. SRINIVASNAGAR - 575 025

MANGALORE, INDIA
JULY - 2005
Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA
(A DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
SURATHKAL, P.O. SRINIVASNAGAR - 575 025

MANGALORE, INDIA
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation report titled “ESTIMATION OF SOIL MOISTURE IN
UNSATURATED ZONE AND IRRIGATION SCHEDULING” is being submitted by Mr.
SUNIL GURRAPU, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY (Hydraulics and Water Resources Engineering) of N.I.T.K,
Surathkal. This is a bonafide record of the work carried out by him under my guidance and
supervision. Further certified that this work has not been submitted for the award of any other
degree or diploma.
(Dr. K. Varija)
Research Supervisor
Senior Lecturer
Date
(Dr. A. Vittal Hegde)

Professor & Head
(Round seal of the Department)
This dissertation is accepted/Not accepted
External Examiner Internal Examiner Chairman

Board of Examiners
Date:
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The satisfaction and euphoria, which accompanies the successful completion of any task,
could be incomplete without the expression of gratitude to the people who made it possible with
encouraging guidance. I acknowledge with reverence all those who guided and encouraged me
during this work.
I am deeply indebted to my guide Dr. K. Varija, Sr. Lecturer, Department of Applied

Mechanics and Hydraulics for providing me opportunity to work under her guidance. Her
unflinching support, suggestions and directions have helped in smooth progress of the project
work. She has been a constant source of inspiration in all possible ways for successful completion
of my project work.
I acknowledge my sincere gratitude to Dr. A. Vittal Hegde, Professor and Head,

Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics, who has provided me all the facilities of the
department to complete this dissertation work successfully.
It’s also my privilege to thank Dr. Lakshman Nandagiri, Assistant Professor,

Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics, for his sincere guidance towards the
completion of the project.
I also acknowledge the invaluable help rendered by Mr. Balakrishna and all other non-
teaching staff of the Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics, NITK.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support extended throughout
my project work. It would have been impossible for me to accomplish this study without their
support.
SUNIL GURRAPU
ii
ABSTRACT
The vadose zone is an intrinsic part of the hydrological cycle, essentially controlling
interrelationships between precipitation, infiltration, surface runoff, evapo-transpiration and
groundwater recharge. The vadose zone regulates the transfer of water from the land surface to
groundwater and vice versa. Vadose zone is a great reservoir of water, where the water is
stored in form of soil moisture. This soil moisture is very much essential for proper growth of
crops or plants.
Estimation of soil moisture content available in the unsaturated zone is very much
essential for efficient use of the available water for irrigation supply. As the water resources
available for mankind are very much limited, utilization of this resource should be properly
managed. The study of water flow in unsaturated zone helps us in scheduling the irrigation
water application to agricultural fields.
In the present study, efforts have been put to estimate the soil moisture content or soil
water in the unsaturated zone until the maximum root depth. The crops that were considered in
the present study are groundnut and dry beans. Soil moisture content was estimated
successfully using well established agro-hydrological model SWAP developed by Wageningen
university, the Netherlands. Soil moisture content was also estimated using water budget
technique. The obtained results from SWAP model and from water budget technique are
compared with the actual soil moisture content. From this comparison it was observed that
SWAP model can simulate soil moisture effectively with some limitations. These estimated
values of soil moisture from SWAP model were in turn used to perform irrigation scheduling.
Irrigation water requirement of the crop were simulated using a program written in ‘C’ based
on water balance. The results from this program are compared with the actual applied
irrigation water.
Keywords: Unsaturated zone, soil moisture content, SWAP model, Irrigation scheduling,
water balance.
iii
CONTENTS
Certificate i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Contents iv
List of figures vi
List of tables vii
List of Notations ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 UNSATURATED ZONE 1
1.3 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING 2
1.3 NEED FOR IRRIGATION SCHEDULING 3
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY 3
1.5 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 GENERAL 5
2.2 SWAP MODEL 5
2.2.1 Advantages of SWAP model 7
2.2.2 Disadvantages of SWAP model 7
2.3 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING STRATEGIES 8
2.3.1 Full Irrigation 8
2.3.2 Deficit Irrigation 8
2.4 METHODS TO KNOW WHEN TO IRRIGATE 9
2.4.1 Plant indicators 9
2.4.2 Soil indicators 10
2.4.3 Water budget technique 11
2.5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
iv
CHAPTER 3 STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 GENERAL 16
3.2 DETAILS OF EXPERIMENTAL SITE 16
3.3 INPUT DATA INFORMATION 17
3.4 METHODOLOGY 18
3.4.1 Determination of Actual evapotranspiration (ETa) 18
3.4.1.1 Determination of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) 18
3.4.1.2 Determination of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) 19
3.4.1.3 Determination of actual evapotranspiration (ETa) 22
3.4.2 Determination of drainage or water flux 23
3.4.2.1 Campbell model 23
3.4.1.2 Van-Genuchten model 24
3.4.1.3 Drainage calculation 25
3.4.3 Soil moisture estimation 25
3.4.3.1 SWAP model 25
3.4.3.2 Water Budget Technique 29
3.4.4 Irrigation Scheduling 32
3.4.4.1 Determination of irrigation water requirement (IWR) 33
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 GENERAL 34
4.2 SOIL MOISTURE ESTIMATION 34
4.2.1 Dry beans 34
4.2.2 Groundnut 41
4.2.2.1 Modified input data 50
4.3 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING 51
4.31 Example for validation 51
4.3.2 Dry beans crop 52
4.3.3 Groundnut crop 53
v
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 GENERAL 55
5.2 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 55

5.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY 56
5.4 SCOPE FOR THE FUTURE WORK 57
REFERENCES 58
BIBLIOGRAPHY 60
APPENDIX A 62
APPENDIX B 70
APPENDIX C 79
APPENDIX D 81
BIO-DATA 87
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Description of the figure
No. No.
2.1 A Schematized overview of the modeled system in SWAP model 6
2.2 Crop production curve 9
3.1 Typical variation of rainfall in the study area for the year 1998 17
3.2 Plot showing the values of crop coeffecient (Kc) for grounnut crop (2nd 21
June1998 - 12th September1998) for all the growth stages
3.3 Plot showing the values of crop coeffecient (Kc) for Dry Beans crop (1st 21
November1998 - 28th February1999) for all the growth stages
3.4 Spatial and temporal discretization used to solve Richard’s equation 28
3.5 Control volume giving details of input and output components of water 30
budget
4.1 Plot of soil moisture content measured and simulated using SWAP model for 35
st th
Dry Beans crop (1 November1998 - 28 February1999) at a depth of 20 cm
Dry Beans crop (1st November1998 - 28th February1999) at a depth of 35 cm
4.3 Plot of soil moisture content measured and simulated using SWAP model and 37
water budget technique for Dry Beans crop (1st Nov1998 - 28th Feb1999) at a
depth of 50 cm
4.4 Variation of soil moisture content simulated using SWAP model at all depths 38
for the entire crop period of Dry Beans crop (1st Nov 1998 - 28th Feb1999)
4.5 Plot of soil water observed and simulated using SWAP model for Dry Beans 39
crop (1st Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999) at a depth of 20 cm
st th
crop (1 Nov 1998 - 28 Feb 1999) at a depth of 35 cm
crop (1st Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999) at a depth of 50 cm
4.8 Variation of soil water simulated using SWAP model at all depths for the 40
entire crop period of Dry Beans crop (1st Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999)
vii
Groundnut crop (2nd June1998 - 12th September1998) at a depth of 20 cm
4.10 Plot of Actual evapotranspiration measured and simulated using SWAP 43
model for Groundnut crop (2nd June1998 - 12th September1998)
4.11 Plot of observed and simulated deep percolation from SWAP model occurring 44
nd th
at a depth of 50 cm for Groundnut crop (2 June 1998 - 12 September 1998)
4.12 Plot showing the rainfall data and simulated drainage values from SWAP 45
model occurring at a depth of 50 cm for Groundnut crop (2nd June 1998 - 12th
September 1998)
4.13 Plot of soil moisture values measured and simulated using SWAP model for 46
4.14 Plot of soil moisture values measured and simulated using SWAP model and 47
water budget technique for Groundnut crop (2nd June 1998 - 12th September
1998) at a depth of 50 cm
4.15 Variation of soil moisture content simulated using SWAP model at all depths 47
for the entire crop period of Groundnut crop (2nd June 1998 - 12th September
1998)
4.16 Plot of soil water measured and simulated using SWAP model for Groundnut 48
crop (2nd June1998 - 12th September1998) at a depth of 20 cm
nd th
crop (2 June1998 - 12 September1998) at a depth of 50 cm
4.19 Variation of soil water simulated using SWAP model at all depths for the 50
entire crop period of Ground nut crop (2nd June 1998 – 12th September 1998)
4.20 Plot of showing observed and simulated soil moisture from SWAP model for 51
Groundnut crop (1st June 1998 – 12th September 1998) at a depth of 50 cm
4.21 Plot showing the actual and simulated irrigation water requirement (IWR) by 53
st th
the dry beans crop (1 Nov 1998 – 28 Feb 1999) for the entire crop period
4.22 Plot showing the actual and simulated irrigation water requirement (IWR) by 54
the groundnut crop (1st June 1998 – 12th September 1999) for the entire period
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Description of Table
No. No.
2.1 List of some plant based indicators to know when to irrigate 10
2.2 List of some soil-based indicators to know when to irrigate 10
3.1 Crop coeffecients (Kc) and mean maximum plant heights for non-stressed 20
crops
3.2 Ranges of maximum effective rooting depth and soil water depletion factor 23
(p) for no stress for common crops
4.1 Values of excess rainfall simulated from SWAP model and calculated using 43
SCS curve number technique
4.2 Details of input data for example 52
4.3 Results obtained after running the ‘C’ program for example 52
A-1 Simulated values of soil moisture, pressure head, water flux etc. from SWAP 62
model for Groundnut crop at all observed depths (1st June – 12th September
1998)
B-1 Simulated values of soil moisture, pressure head, water flux etc. from SWAP 70
model for Dry beans crop at all observed depths (1st November 1998 – 28th
February 1999)
D-1 Details of Irrigation scheduling (Output from ‘C’ Program) for Groundnut 81
crop (1st June – 12th August 1998)
D-2 Details of Irrigation Scheduling (Output from ‘C’ Program) for Dry Beans 84
crop (1st November 1998 – 28th February 1999)
ix
LIST OF NOTATIONS
Notation Description
ETo Reference Evapotranspiration [mm/day]
ETc Crop evapotranspiration [mm/day]
ETa Actual evapotranspiration [mm/day]
Rn Net radiation at the crop surface [MJ/m2/day]
G Soil heat flux density [MJ/m2/day]
T Mean daily air temperature at 2 m height [oC]
u2 Wind speed at 2 m height [m/sec]
es Saturation vapour pressure [kPa]
ea Actual vapour pressure
∆ Slope of the saturation vapour pressure temperature relationship [kPa/oC]
γ Psychometric constant [kPa/oC]
Kun Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity [mm/day]
Ksat Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity [mm/day]
Sw Effective saturation
n, m Van-Genuchten model empirical shape factors
ρ Van-Genuchten model shape parameter
Kc Crop coeffecient
θ Soil moisture content [cm3/cm3]
θi-1 Soil moisture content on previous day [cm3/cm3]
θFC Soil moisture content at field capacity [cm3/cm3]
θPWP Soil moisture content at permenant wilting point [cm3/cm3]
θs Saturated moisture content [cm3/cm3]
θr Residual moisture content [cm3/cm3]
SWa Total available soil water [mm]
St Actual available soil water [mm]
SWt-1 Soil water on previous day [mm]
SWt Soil water on the present day [mm]
x
DRZ Depth of root zone [mm]
h Soil matric potential or soil water pressure head [cm]
he Air entry matric potential [cm]
β Campbell pore size distribution parameter
q Soil water flux density [cm/day]
K(h) Hydraulic conductivity [cm/day1]
z vertical coordinate [cm]
t Time [days]
Sa Soil water extraction rate by plant roots [cm3/cm3/day]
C Water capacity ( ∂θ / ∂h ) [cm-1]
p Depletion factor
pTable Depletion factor from table given in FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper No. 56
P Precipitation [mm]
Pe Effective rainfall [mm]
SR Surface runoff [mm]
DP Deep percolation [mm]
I Irrigation [mm]
IWR Irrigation water requirement [mm]
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Knowledge of water and solute movement in the variably saturated soil near the earth
surface is essential to understand man's impact on the environment. Top soils show the largest
concentration of biological activity on earth. Water movement in the upper soil determines the
rate of plant transpiration, soil evaporation, runoff and recharge to the groundwater. In this way
unsaturated soil water flow is a key factor in the hydrological cycle and energy cycle. Due to the
high solubility of water, soil water transports large amounts of solutes, ranging from nutrients to
all kind of contaminations. Therefore an accurate description of unsaturated soil water movement
is essential to derive proper management conditions for vegetation growth and environmental
protection in agricultural and natural systems.
1.2 UNSATURATED (VADOSE) ZONE
Subsurface formations containing water may be divided vertically into several horizontal
zones according to how large a portion of the pore space is occupied by water. Essentially, we
have a zone of saturation in which all the pores are completely filled with water, and an
overlaying zone of aeration in which the pores contain both gases (mainly air and water vapour)
and water. The latter zone is called the unsaturated zone or vadose zone. The vadose zone is an
intrinsic part of the hydrologic cycle, essentially controlling interrelationships between
precipitation, infiltration, surface runoff, evapo-transpiration and groundwater recharge. The
vadose zone serves many functions that are relevant at the regional scale. They can be
summarized as follows:
• To separate precipitation and applied irrigation water into infiltration, runoff, evapo-
transpiration, interflow and groundwater recharge;
• To store and transfer water in the root zone between the atmosphere above and the
deeper vadose zone or groundwater below, including interflow;
Estimation Of Soil Moisture In Unsaturated Zone And Irrigation Scheduling, NITK 2005
• To store and transfer water in the ‘deep vadose zone’, that is, between the root zone
above and groundwater below;
• To store, transfer, filter, adsorb, retard and attenuate solutes and contaminants before
these reach the ground water.
Sometimes the term soil water is used for the water in vadose zone. For analytical studies
on soil moisture regime, critical review and accurate assessment of the different controlling
factors is necessary. The controlling factors of soil moisture may be classified under two main
groups’ viz. climatic factors and soil factors. Climatic factors include precipitation data
containing rainfall intensity, storm duration, inter-storm period, temperature of soil surface,
relative humidity, radiation, evaporation, and evapo-transpiration. The soil factors include soil
matric potential and water content relationship, hydraulic conductivity and water content
relationship of the soil, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and effective medium porosity. Besides
these factors, the information about depth to water table is also required.
1.3 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
Irrigation scheduling is the process of determining when to irrigate and how much water
to apply per irrigation. Proper scheduling is essential for the efficient use of water, energy, and
other production inputs, such as fertilizer. It allows irrigations to be coordinated with other
farming activities including cultivation and chemical applications. Among the benefits of proper
irrigation scheduling are: improved crop yield and/or quality, water and energy conservation, and
lower production costs.
Dry land irrigation and agriculture depend on the management of two basic natural
resources, soil and water. Soil is the supporting structure of plant life and water is essential to
sustain plant life. The wise use of these resources requires a basic understanding of soil and water
as well as the crop. The available water capacity and characteristics of soils are critical to water
management planning for irrigation and dry land crops. Soil water holding characteristics are
important for irrigation system selection, irrigation scheduling, crop selection, and ground water
quality. Soil water content in the crop's active root zone and available water capacity are the key
indicators for applying the right amount of irrigation at the right time. Some of the water in soil is
retained and some moves through the soil. It moves readily downward after an irrigation or rain
Estimation Of Soil Moisture In Unsaturated Zone And Irrigation Scheduling, NITK 2005 2
and eventually reaches the ground water. It is taken up by plant roots, moves through the plant to
the leaves, and transpires to the atmosphere. Water also moves toward the soil surface where it
evaporates directly into the atmosphere. Textural, structural, and organic matter characteristics
determine how water is held in soils.
1.4 NEED FOR IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
Irrigation scheduling is one of the managerial activities that aim at effective and efficient
utilization of water. The growing competition for water between agricultural and non-agricultural
sectors has increased the concern for the sustainability of the irrigated agricultural systems. The
need for increasing agricultural production demands on increase in the irrigated area regardless of
the water resources availability for irrigation. This necessitates an efficient and effective
utilization of water through various water conserving methods.
Irrigation scheduling is one of the means of conserving water, which helps in decision
making in allocation of quantity and timing of water supply commensurate with crop needs. It is
the key activity that has the potential to improve the performance of the crop productivity, equity
and stability. With increasing adoption of high yielding varieties, which are responsive to
irrigation, interest in irrigation scheduling of crops is growing steadily.
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
• To validate the SWAP – Agro hydrological model

• To estimate the moisture content and hence the soil water available in unsaturated
zone up to maximum root depth of the crop
• To determine irrigation water requirement of two row crops Groundnut and Dry beans
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
This thesis has been organized in five different chapters.
o Chapter one gives introduction to the present study. It tells us the importance of the
unsaturated zone, processes taking place in this zone etc. It also briefly explains why there
is a need to study about the processes taking place in unsaturated zone. Objectives of the
present study are also prescribed in this chapter.
o Chapter two gives the details of literature that has been reviewed for the present study. All
the important literatures that are reviewed to clearly understand the field of study and to
finalize the objectives of the present study are cited in this chapter.
o Chapter three gives the details of the present study area. It clearly specifies all the details
of the study area like latitude, longitude, altitude etc. This chapter also describes the
methodology that has been followed for the present study.
o Results and discussions for the present study are given in chapter four.
o Chapter five gives the conclusions made from the present study and scope for the future
work.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
The water management is being given the top priority in the present era, which would
have been all incomplete without a detailed study of soil water. Several attempts have been done
from the past to contribute towards the estimation of the soil water by the best methods. Some of
these have been reviewed here. SWAP model which has been used in the project is one of the
most sophisticated agro-hydrological models. This model has been used in various parts of the
world and its applications are published in various journals. Those are reviewed and they are
quoted below. And also the literature on various other models that supports irrigation scheduling
has been quoted here. Brief descriptions of SWAP model is also given as follows.
2.2 SWAP MODEL
SWAP is a computer model that simulates vertical transport of water, solutes and heat in
variably saturated top soils and cultivated soils during whole growing seasons. The program is
designed for integrated modeling of Soil Atmosphere Plant System. Transport processes at field
scale level and during whole growing seasons are considered. System boundaries at the top are
defined by the soil surface with or without a crop and the atmospheric conditions. The lateral
boundary simulates the interaction with surface water systems. The bottom boundary is located in
the unsaturated zone or in the upper part of the groundwater and describes the interaction with
regional groundwater.
The program has been developed by Alterra and Wageningen University. The model
offers a wide range of possibilities to address both research and practical questions in the field of
agriculture, water management and environmental protection. SWAP was developed by the
University of Wageningen and the Winand Staring Centre in Wageningen, the Netherlands. The
first version of SWAP, called SWATR, was developed more than 20 years ago (Feddes, Kowalik,
and Zaradny 1978).
The core of the SWAP model exists of implementations of mathematical descriptions of
soil water flow, solute transport, soil temperatures, with special emphasis on soil heterogeneity.
A schematized overview of the modeled system is given in Fig. 2.1.
Atmosphere Precipitation
Integrated modeling of Soil
Transpiration
Water Atmosphere Plant
Soil evaporation
Surface runoff Surface waters
Plant
Drainage/subsurface
infiltration
Unsaturated Zone
- Transport of Drainage/subsurface
Soil water infiltration
Soil heat
Soil solute
Saturated zone - Influenced by
Water repellency
Swelling and shrinking
Hysteresis
Deep Ground water
Fig. 2.1 A Schematized overview of the modeled system in SWAP model
The theory of the processes simulated by the model is extensively described by Van Dam
et al. (1997) and Van Dam (2000). This model has been applied world wide for obtaining various
objectives some of which are,
o Field scale water and salinity management

o Irrigation scheduling
o Transient drainage conditions
o Plant growth affected by water and salinity
o Pesticide leaching to ground water and surface water
o Regional drainage from top soils towards different surface water systems
o Optimization of surface water management
o Effects of soil heterogeneity
In the present study latest version of SWAP i.e. version 3.0.3 has been used. The main
differences between the latest version SWAP 3.0.3 and the previous versions are:
o Source code was restructured (input, output, timing, error handling)

o Snow and frost options were implemented
o Macro Pore flow was extended
o Extended options for interaction with water quality models
o Extended options for bottom boundary conditions
o Interception according to Gash has been added
o Runon is facilitated for sloping areas
2.2.1 Advantages of SWAP model
o SWAP model can simulate soil moisture values, pressure head, water flux, solute
flux simultaneously.
o SWAP model solves Richard’s equation numerically for simulating soil water
flux.
o Output files obtained after running the model gives explains us clearly about how
each and every component of the water balance vary with respect to time.
o SWAP model can simultaneously be used for obtaining the irrigation scheduling,
given the necessary conditions.
o It has been applied in many parts of the world and almost all its application has
been successful.
o This model runs in different modules some of which are optional. So, estimation
of that particular parameter which is not required can be eliminated.
2.2.2 Disadvantages of SWAP model
o This is highly parameterized model, which makes it bit complicated.
o This model is not user friendly. Giving input to this model is very troublesome, as
the input has to be given in different files in different formats.
o There is no graphical interface for this software which makes it difficult for the
interpretation of results. But these results can be edited as ASCI files and graphs
can be plotted using MS Excel spread sheets.
o This model has been developed in the Netherlands, where the groundwater levels
are very shallow. Hence, there is a chance of underestimation of some of the
quantities such as runoff, soil moisture etc. where the groundwater level is very
deep.
2.3 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING STRATEGIES
Irrigation schedules are designed to either fully or partially provide the irrigation
requirement. These strategies are discussed as follows
2.3.1 Full irrigation
Full irrigation involves providing the entire irrigation requirement and results in
maximum production. Fig 2.2 clearly explains this point. Exceeding full irrigation reduces crop
yields by reducing soil aeration and restricting gas exchange between the soil and atmosphere.
Full irrigation is economically justified when water is readily available and irrigation costs are
low. It is accomplished by irrigating to minimize the occurrence of plant stress.
2.3.2 Deficit irrigation
Partially supplying the irrigation requirement, a practice that has been called deficit
irrigation, reduces yield as smaller amounts of water, energy, and other production inputs are
used to irrigate the crop. Deficit irrigation is economically justified when reducing water
applications below full irrigation causes production costs to decrease faster than revenues
decline. Application levels can be reduced below full irrigation until the slope of the production
function (fig. 2.2) is such that the decrease in revenue due to an incremental reduction in water
application equals the accompanying decline in production costs.
Fig 2.2 Crop production curve
Deficit irrigation is also used when the water supply or the irrigation system limit water
availability. In these situations the level of irrigation, the amount of land to be irrigated, and the
crop mix that maximize the benefits of irrigation must be determined. Deficit irrigation is
accomplished by allowing planned plant stress during one or more periods of the growing season.
Adequate water is supplied during critical growth stages to maximize water use efficiency.
2.4 METHODS TO KNOW WHEN TO IRRIGATE
Several different methods are used to determine when to irrigate. They may be classed as:
o Plant indicators
o Soil indicators
o Water budget technique
Plant and soil indicators involve monitoring the plant and soil, respectively, to determine
when to irrigate.
2.4.1 Plant indicators
Monitoring plants is the most direct method of determining when to irrigate, since the
primary objective of irrigation is to supply plants with the water they need when it is needed.
Normally it is necessary to relate plant parameters to soil water content to determine the amount
of irrigation. Required instruments and/or procedures for several plant indicators are listed in
table 2.1.
Table 2.1 List of some plant based indicators to know when to irrigate
Observed or measured parameter Required instruments or procedures
Appearance Eye
Leaf temperature Non-contacting thermometers
Leaf water potential Pressure chamber or thermocouple
psychrometer
Stomatal resistance Diffusion porometer
2.4.2 Soil indicators
Soil-based irrigation scheduling involves determining the current water content of the
soil, comparing it to predetermined minimum water content and irrigating to maintain soil water
contents above the minimum level. The minimum water content is often varied according to
growth stage, especially for deficit irrigation schedules. Soil indicators of when to irrigate also
provide data for estimating the amount of water to apply per irrigation.
The soil water contents are determined either by direct measurements or inference from
measurements of other soil parameters such as soil water potential or electrical conductivity.
Several common methods of estimating soil water contents are listed in table 2.2 which also gives
us details of various soil indicators.
Table 2.2 List of some soil-based indicators to know when to irrigate

Observed or measured parameter Required instruments or procedures
Appearance and feel Hand probe
Gravimetric sampling Sample cans, soil agar, scale and oven
Electrical resistance Porous blocks
Soil matric potential Tensiometers
Soil matric potential Porous (ceramic) blocks
Neutron scattering Neutron probes and access tubes
2.4.3 Water budget technique
The water budget technique of determining when to irrigate is similar to soil indicators
method. This is simply based on the water balance technique. The method was found to be better
and reliable from the studies done. This method is clearly explained in the following chapter 3.
2.5 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
T. Hess (1994): A real time irrigation scheduling computer package for use on farms is
described. The package comprises four models: a reference crop evapo-transpiration model, an
actual evapo-transpiration model, a soil water balance model and an irrigation forecast model.
The models used have been shown to produce reliable estimates of the soil water balance.
However, the predictions are sensitive to the accuracy of the input data measured on the farm.
This paper summarizes the experience of applying such a program to supplementary irrigation in
the United Kingdom.
W. Trimmer et al. (1994): In this paper, the author described how the knowledge of crop water
use is important for irrigation scheduling. With basic knowledge of soil type and crop water use
information, an irrigator can easily learn to schedule more scientifically and to anticipate
irrigation demands. Computer programs for irrigation scheduling have been developed to help
provide timely and precise scheduling techniques. Irrigation consulting and scheduling services
are available in many areas to perform the technical tasks required to schedule irrigations in order
to save both water and energy.
Amor Valeriano M. Ines et al. (2001): The performance of the decision support system for
agro-technology transfer (DSSAT) and the soil water atmosphere plant (SWAP) was studied
under an acid sulphate soil. The comparison of these models was done as a prerequisite to the
selection of an appropriate model, which is capable of simulating water management scenarios,
water balance and crop growth, to be coupled with an adaptive optimization algorithm that can be
used to explore water management options. The dates of the development stages could be
properly simulated in DSSAT. The model correctly simulated these dates while SWAP
performed well in its prediction. Along the growth process, DSSAT predicted that there was no
water stress while SWAP simulated water and oxygen stress. The soil water balance calculation
in SWAP is more physically based than in DSSAT. SWAP solves the Richards’ equation in the
transport of soil water. SWAP simulates the runoff by considering a maximum sill height and a
resistance factor, while DSSAT uses the modified United States Department of Agriculture-Soil
Conservation Service (USDASCS) method. The big advantage of DSSAT over SWAP is its crop-
nitrogen interaction. SWAP however, can simulate the movement and degradation of this element
by assuming it as solute.
Asad Sarwar et al. (2001): Here an attempt to study the long term effects of irrigation water
conservation on crop production and environment in semi arid areas. The agro hydrological
model SWAP is used to investigate possible water reductions for wheat and cotton crops under
shallow water table conditions prevailing in the fourth drainage project in Punjab, Pakistan. The
simulations were performed for both drained and un-drained conditions considering three
different irrigation water qualities. The overall objective was to save good quality irrigation
water. The results indicate that when good-quality canal water is available, a reduced application
to wheat (195mm) and cotton (260mm) will keep the soil healthier under both drained and un-
drained conditions. However, they say that this is only applicable to the areas where proper
subsurface drainage systems are present.
Coen J. Ritsema1 et al. (2001): In this paper authors made an attempt to investigate water flow
and solute transport processes in a water repellent sandy soil, and to introduce and apply new
modeling approaches. Automated TDR measurements revealed that preferential pathways
develop rapidly during severe rain storms, causing infiltrating water to be preferentially
transported to the deeper subsoil. Simulations with a 2-D, numerical finite element flow and
transport model indicate that preferential flow paths will only form during infiltration into dry
water repellent soils, i.e. in the range below the so-called critical soil water content. The process
of preferential flow and transport has been incorporated in the well-known SWAP model also,
and applied to field data of tracer transport through a water repellent sandy soil in the
Netherlands. Results indicate early arrival times of bromide in the subsoil in case preferential
flow is taken into account.
Geoff Kite et al. (2001): In this paper author discusses the integrated basin modeling. Two
models which are integrated are SLURP and SWAP models. SLURP (Semi-Distributed Land
Use-Based Runoff Processes) is a conceptual model that, although normally used in semi-
distributed form, is capable of being used as a fully distributed hydrological model (Kite 1997).
SWAP (Soil-Water-Atmosphere-Plant) is a one-dimensional physically based model for water,
heat and solute transport in the saturated and unsaturated zones. The SLURP and SWAP models
have been applied at three different scales: basin, irrigation system and field. The main objectives
of applying the models are to understand processes and to evaluate current productivity and
alternative scenarios. The use of these models enabled a more complete investigation of the true
performance of irrigation schemes under various water management and water availability
options. The results of the models could be used to test and apply new methods to increase the
productivity of water through better management of irrigation and water-basin system.
S. Lorentz et al. (2001): In this paper various methods of determining hydraulic characteristics
of soil were discussed. An understanding of hydrological processes is essential for assessing
water resources as well as the changes to the resources caused by changes in the land use or
climate. Moreover, hydrological simulation models which represent hydrological processes can
only be used to predict the consequences of land use and climate change successfully, if they are
built on a sound understanding of the processes. Various methods of finding out the key
components of hydrological cycle are described in this paper. Key components for example can
be mentioned such as like hydraulic conductivity (saturated & unsaturated), matric potential,
infiltration etc. Various methods like Van-Genuchten model, Campbell model etc. are discussed
in this paper for finding unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Overall, this paper gives us clear
picture of various methods for finding out the hydraulic characteristics of soil.
Peter Droogers et al. (2002): A comparative study of hydrological modeling and remote sensing
was done to check the irrigation performance. Remote sensing and a hydrological model were
applied to an irrigation project in western turkey to estimate the water balance to support water
use productivity analyses. Actual evapo-transpiration for an irrigated area in western turkey was
calculated using the surface energy balance algorithm for land (SEBAL) remote sensing and
algorithm for two land set images. The hydrological model soil-water-atmosphere-plant (SWAP)
was setup to simulate the water balance for the same area, assuming a certain distribution in soil
properties, planting dates and irrigation practices. A comparison between evapo-transpiration
determined from SEBAL and from SWAP was made and differences were minimized by
adapting the distribution in planting date and irrigation practice. The innovative methodology
diminishes the need of field data and combines the strong points of remotely sensed techniques
and hydrological models.
J. G. Kroes et al. (2003): This is a manual on latest version of SWAP model i.e. SWAP 3.0.3.
This manual describes the theoretical background and modeling concepts that were used for soil
water flow, solute transport, heat flow, evapo-transpiration, crop growth, multi-level drainage and
interaction between field water balance and surface water management. The core of the SWAP
model exists of implementations of mathematical descriptions of soil water flow, solute transport
and soil temperatures, with special emphasis on soil heterogeneity. The annexes contain
information on values for input parameters, such as soil hydraulic functions, critical pressure
head values of the root water extraction term and salt tolerance data. Furthermore the annexes
contain printed versions of input and output files that belong to an example which is distributed
with the model.
W. G. M. Bastiaanssen et al. (2003): This paper discusses how far we have progressed in
inserting man’s irrigation and drainage wisdom into soil water flow models and bringing it back
out. They discuss about the necessity of computer models to understand the processes taking
place in unsaturated zone for better irrigation scheduling. Unfortunately, computer models for
prediction and better understanding of unsaturated soil water flow processes have low operational
focus, especially in many irrigation countries where they are most needed. Advanced models
have the potential to contribute to the solution of relatively complex problems, provided that field
data are available to calibrate and run them. Calibration techniques, especially with the help of
GIS and remote sensing, have progressed rapidly, but the required level of expertise tends to
make the application of sophisticated tools highly dependent on modeling experts. The likelihood
of adoption by a broader user community will increase as models become more user- and data-
friendly and heterogeneity-aware. Finally they say that it’s the time to formulate and market the
unsaturated-zone model as a necessary ingredient to the solution of crop water production
problems and the time to equip users around the globe.
M. T. Van Genuchten et al. (2004): This paper discusses the integrated modeling of vadose-
zone flow and transport processes. A large number of conceptual models are now available to
make detailed simulations of transient variably-saturated water flow, heat movement and solute
transport in the subsurface. In this paper they have highlighted four examples illustrating such
advances: (1) coupling physical and chemical processes, (2) simulating colloid and colloid-
facilitated transport, (3) integrated modeling of surface and subsurface flow processes, and (4)
modeling of preferential flow in the subsurface. The examples show that improved understanding
of underlying processes, continued advances in numerical methods, and the introduction of
increasingly powerful computers now permit us to make comprehensive simulations of the most
important coupled, nonlinear physical, chemical and biological processes operative in the
unsaturated zone.
CHAPTER 3
STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 GENERAL
Two row crops namely Ground nut and dry beans were studied during 1998 -1999 at
Indian Institute of Science campus Bangalore, Karnataka state, India. It lies between Latitude
12°58’ N, Longitude 77°35’ E, with an altitude of 930m above M.S.L. The soil in this area is
sandy loam and the climate is sub humid.
3.2 DETAILS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SITE
The data for the present study was taken from the experiments already carried out in
1998. The experiments were conducted in a plot prepared particularly for the experiments in IISc,
Bangalore campus. This plot is of size 26.6m x 4.8m. Any subsurface lateral flow from the
experimental plot is arrested by constructing a concrete wall on all sides of the plot. Therefore, all
the soil water in the unsaturated zone flows vertically downwards. There might have been lateral
flow within the plot which can be neglected as the field plot is very small. The irrigation water
was supplied from an over head tank which is at a height of 10m. The irrigation was done by
surface spreading roughly on judgment basis of experience. There was no separate arrangement
like tensiometers to know the exact amount of irrigation water to be provided. The crop height
was measured in the field.
The brief details of the experiments are quoted here. Groundnut (monsoon crop) was
grown in an area of 7.03m x 4.3m and dry beans (non-monsoon crop) were grown in an area of
3.39m x 4.3m. The normal annual rainfall of the district calculated for the period 1901-70 is 817
mm (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 1992). The soil present in the area is sandy loam
and the climate of the area is sub-humid.
Crop period of ground nut is from 1st June 1998 to 12th September 1998 where as the crop
period of dry beans is from 1st November 1998 to 3rd March 1999. These two crops were
continuously monitored during their crop periods and the necessary readings were taken. Field
capacity of Sandy loam soil is 0.27cm3/cm3 and permanent wilting point is 0.11cm3/cm3 and bulk
density is about 1.54g/cc. The plot was initially cleaned, ploughed and manured to required
depths. Before sowing, the soil was watered. The plot was leveled to zero slopes. Manual
weeding was done and insecticides were applied as per requirements at various stages of the crop.
Soil evaporation was obtained from Class A pan installed near the experimental site. Soil
moisture measurements were taken up to 1.35m depth at intervals of 15cm starting from 20cm
depth from the Ground level. The measurements were made using a neutron probe at an interval
of 3 to 4 days.
3.3 INPUT DATA INFORMATION
The measured Daily rainfall figures were obtained from the meteorological station,
Gandhi Krishi Vigyan Kendra (GKVK), University of Agricultural sciences, Bangalore situated
at a distance of 15Km from the site. Typical rainfall variation in the region is shown in fig 3.1.
The data required for the estimation of potential evapo-transpiration (PET) was obtained from the
records of the meteorological station of University of Agricultural sciences, GKVK campus
(Latitude 12°58’ N, Longitude 77°35’ E, altitude of 930m above M.S.L.).
Rainfall variation
400
350
300
Rainfall (mm)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Month
Fig 3.1 Typical variation of rainfall in the study area for the year 1998
3.4 METHODOLOGY
In the present study, the main objective is to estimate soil moisture present in unsaturated
zone until crop root depth. These soil moisture values were used to perform irrigation scheduling.
For this purposes SWAP model has been used to estimate soil moisture. Knowing the observed
soil moisture content in the field on the first day of sowing, soil moisture content on all the other
days of crop period were simulated using the water budget technique. All these calculations are
done in a Microsoft Excel spread sheet considering all the inputs, outputs and storages in the
control volume. ‘C’ Program has been written for irrigation scheduling based on water balance
technique. Using this ‘C’ program the amount of water to be applied per irrigation is obtained.
As discussed above, the data for the present study was collected from an experimental
plot near GKVK, Bangalore. All the required meteorological data was collected from the GKVK
meteorological station, Bangalore. The available observed field data from the experimental site
are soil moisture contents at various depths. These soil moisture values are calculated knowing
the neutron count obtained from neutron probe. These soil moisture values are compared with the
soil moisture values estimated using the SWAP model.
3.4.1 Determination of Actual Evapotranspiration (ETa)
3.4.1.1 Determination of reference evapotranspiration (ETo)
Using the collected meteorological data from GKVK meteorological station reference
evapotranspiration has been calculated using Penman-Montieth equation recommended by FAO.
Equation 3.1 describes the Penman-Montieth equation.
(
0.408∆ Rn − G + γ
T
900
+
)
273
u 2 e s − ea ( )
ETo =
∆ + γ 1 + 0.34u 2 ( ) ……(3.1)
Where,
ETo – Reference evapotranspiration [mm/day]
Rn – Net radiation at the crop surface [MJ/m2/day]
G – Soil heat flux density [MJ/m2/day]
T – Mean daily air temperature at 2 m height [ºC]
u2 – Wind speed at 2 m height [m/sec]
es – Saturation vapour pressure [kPa]
ea – Actual vapour pressure [kPa]
(es-ea) – Saturation vapour pressure deficit [kPa]
∆ - Slope of the saturation vapour pressure temperature relationship [kPa/ºC]
γ - Psychometric constant [kPa/ºC]
The (average) daily net radiation expressed in Mega Joules per square meter per day
(MJ/m2/day) is required. These data are not commonly available but can be derived from the
(average) daily actual duration of bright sunshine [hours/day] measured with a (Campbell-
Stokes) sunshine recorder. The procedure of calculating net radiation from the available net
radiation data has been clearly explained in FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. 56.
3.4.1.2 Determination of crop evapotranspiration
Crops unavoidably use large quantities of water. More than 98% of the water absorbed by
the roots of irrigated crops is transpired as water vapor during the course of the season. This
process is necessary for photosynthesis. Therefore, any measures to reduce water loss through the
leaves (i.e. to reduce transpiration) will also reduce photosynthesis and overall crop yields. Since
irrigated agriculture uses such a large amount of fresh water, it is essential that water be used
wisely and efficiently. However, irrigation management can only be effective if the amount of
water used by the crop is known. A simple and accurate way to measure crop water usage or crop
evapotranspiration (ETc) is by indirectly using reference evapotranspiration (ETo) from local
weather stations, and a reliable crop coefficient (Kc).
ETo is calculated using Penman-Montieth equation as discussed earlier. Kc values vary for
each and every crop and it also varies with growth stage of the particular crop. Standard Kc
values for all growth stages for different kinds of crops are suggested by FAO. Some of these
values are listed in Table 3.1. Crop evapotranspiration can be calculated using equation 3.2
ETc = ETo * Kc ……………………… (3.2)
Table 3.1 Crop coeffecients (Kc) and mean maximum plant heights for non-stressed crops
(Source: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper no. 56)
Maximum Crop
Crop type Kc ini Kc mid Kc end
height (h) [m]
Beans, green 0.5 1.05 0.90 0.4
Beans, dry and pulses 0.4 1.15 0.35 0.4
Groundnut (Peanut) 0.4 1.15 0.6 0.4
Peas - Fresh 0.5 1.15 1.10 0.5
- Dry/Seed 0.5 1.15 0.30 0.5
Soyabeans 0.4 1.15 0.5 0.5 – 1.0
The crop stages used to select a KC value are:

o Initial stage – planting until 10% ground cover.
o Crop development stage – 10% to effective groundcover (around 70-80%).
o Mid-season stage – 70-80% groundcover to the start of maturity.
o Late season stage – the start of maturity until harvest.
Steps in constructing a crop coefficient curve
Using the crop coeffecient values listed in Table 3.1 crop coeffecient curve has to be
constructed as the Kc values for every crop changes with growth stage. The crop coefecient curve
for the crops under present study are constructed and can be seen in figures 3.2 and 3.3. steps for
constructing the crop coeffecient curve are described below.
o Divide the growing period into the four crop stages as mentioned above, determine their
length and identify the corresponding KC values from Table 3.1.
o Adjust KC values for frequent irrigation or rainfall events, humidity and wind speed.
o Construct the curve by connecting straight lines through each of the growth stages as
shown in figures 3.2 and 3.3
Crop Coeffecient (Kc) values (Groundnut crop)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Kc
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
25-May-98 14-Jun-98 4-Jul-98 24-Jul-98 13-Aug-98 2-Sep-98 22-Sep-98
Date
Fig. 3.2 Plot showing the values of crop coeffecient (Kc) for grounnut crop (2nd June1998 - 12th
September1998) for all the growth stages.
Crop coeffecient (Kc) values (Dry Beans)
1.4
1.2
0.8
Kc
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
12-Oct-98 1-Nov-98 21-Nov-98 11-Dec-98 31-Dec-98 20-Jan-99 9-Feb-99 1-Mar-99 21-Mar-99
Date
Fig. 3.3 Plot showing the values of crop coeffecient (Kc) for Dry Beans crop (1st November1998 -
28th February1999) for all the growth stages.
3.4.1.3 Determination of actual evapotranspiration
ETa = ETc When St > (1-p) SWa …………… (3.3)
St
ETa = ET When St <= (1-p) SWa ………….. (3.4)
(1 − p )S a c
Where,
ETa – Actual evapotranspiration [mm/day]
ETc – Crop evapotranspiration [mm/day]
p – Depletion factor (eqn 3.6)
SWa – Total available soil water in the root zone [mm] (eqn 3.5)
St – Actual available soil water [mm]
SW a = (θ FC − θ PWP )D rz ……………… (3.5)
Where,
θFC – Soil moisture at field capacity
θPWP – Soil moisture at permanent wilting point
Drz – Depth of root zone [mm]
Determination of depletion factor (p)
Depletion factor is the average fraction of total available soil water that can be depleted
from the root zone before moisture stress (reduction in ET) occurs. This is represented by p. This
is function of the evaporation power of the atmosphere. Ranges of soil water depletion fraction
for no stress for all crops are given in the FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56, Crop
Evapotranspiration (guidelines for computing crop water requirements). These values for
groundnut, dry beans and some other crops are listed in Table 3.1. These values are given for ETc
value of 5mm/day. At low artes of ETc, the p values listed in Table 3.1 are higher than at high
rates of ETc. For hot dry weather conditions, where ETc is high, p is 10-25% less than the values
presented in Table 3.1, and the soil still relatively wet when the stress starts to occur. When the
crop evapotranspiration is low, p will be up to 20% more than the listed values. A numerical
approximation for adjusting p for ETc rate is given as follows
p = pTable 3.1 + 0.04 (5 - ETc) …………… (3.6)
Where, the adjusted p is limited to 0.1 ≤ p ≤ 0.8 and ETc is in mm/day.
Table 3.2 Ranges of maximum effective rooting depth and soil water depletion factor for no
stress (p) for common crops (Source: FAO Irrigation and drainage paper No. 56)
Maximum Root Depletion Factor (for

Crop
Depth (m) ETc = 5 mm/day) p
Beans, green 0.5 – 0.7 0.45
Beans, dry and pulses 0.6 – 0.9 0.45
Groundnut (Peanut) 0.5 – 1.0 0.50
Peas - Fresh 0.6 – 1.0 0.35
- Dry/Seed 0.6 – 1.0 0.40
Soyabeans 0.6 – 1.3 0.50
3.4.2 Determination of drainage (or) water flux
3.4.2.1 Campbell model
Campbell model is widely used all over the world to find out the soil matric potential
knowing the soil moisture content and air entry matric potential (he). he, β are the Campbell
model parameters. A person named Clap-Hernberger has determined these model parameters for
various types of soil. Standard values for these model parameters (S. Lorentz et al., 2001) are also
prescribed to be used as a guide all over the world. For sandy loam soils these parameters are
found to be he=21.8 cm, β=4.9.
−β
θ 
h = he  
θ s 
…………… (3.7)
Where,
h – Soil matric potential [cm]
he – Air entry matric potential [cm]
θ - Actual soil moisture content
θs – Saturated moisture content
β - Campbell pore size distribution parameter
3.4.2.2 Van-Genuchten Model
Van-Genuchten model is well established model for finding out the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity of any type of soil. In the present study this model has been used to find out the
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Shape parameter ρ and empirical shape factors m and n are
very important for the solution of this equation. These are also known as the Van Genuchten
model parameters. Standard values of the parameters ρ (S. Lorentz et al., 2001) for all types of
soils are predefined whereas the values of parameter m are calculated knowing the value of n (S.
Lorentz et al., 2001) which is again predefined value for all types of soils. The formula used for
calculating m is given in equation 3.10. In the present study the type of soil is sandy loam for
which the value of ρ is 0.5. The value of n is 1.4.14 from which the value of m is found out to be
0.2928. Saturated hydraulic conductivity Ksat, is found out to be 105 mm/day; effective saturation
has been calculated using equation 3.9 at all depths and on all days of crop period.
(
K un = K sat (S w )ρ 1 − 1 − S w1 / m

) 
m 2
……… (3.8)
Where,
Kun – Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity [mm/day]
Ksat – Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity [mm/day]
Sw – Effective saturation
n, m – Empirical shape factors
ρ - Shape parameter
θ − θr
Sw =
θs − θr ………… (3.9)
Where,
θ - Moisture content
θs – Saturated moisture content
θr – Residual moisture content
m =1− 1
n …………. (3.10)
The Van Genuchten function has been used in numerous studies, forms the basis of
several national and international data-bases (e.g. Carsel and Parrish, 1988; Yates et al., 1992;
Leij et al, 1996; Wösten et al., 2001), and is implemented in SWAP.
3.4.2.3 Drainage calculation
Using the matric potential values obtained from Campbell model and unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity obtained from Van-Genuchten model drainage or water flux is calculated
at a depth of 50 cm for both the crops. Darcy’s flux equation has been used for calculation of
drainage flux which is given in equation 3.11.
∂H
q = − K (θ )
∂z …………… (3.11)
Where, GL
q – Water flux [cm/day] Z1 = 35 cm

50 cm
K(θ) – Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity [cm/day] h1
Z2 = 65 cm
θ - Moisture content q
h – Matric potential [cm]
z – Depth from the ground surface [cm] h2
∂ h – (h1 – h2)
∂ z – (z1 – z2)
3.4.3 Estimation of soil moisture
Soil moisture content for the present study has been estimated in two different ways.
Firstly it is estimated using SWAP model and later it is also estimated using water budget
Technique.
3.4.3.1 SWAP model
Soil water flow
The well known Richard’s equation is applied integrally for the unsaturated-saturated
zone, with possible presence of transient and perched groundwater levels. Due to its physical
basis the Richard’s equation allows the use of soil hydraulic functions from databases and
simulation of all kinds of scenario analysis. Hysteresis of the retention function can be taken into
account. Root water extraction at various depths in the root zone in calculated from potential
transpiration, root length density and possible reductions due to wet, dry or saline conditions.
Spatial differences of the soil water potential induce soil water movement. Darcy's
equation is commonly used to quantify these soil water fluxes. For one-dimensional vertical flow,
Darcy's equation can be written as:
∂ (h + z )
q = − K (h ) ………………. (3.12)
∂z
Where q is soil water flux density (positive upward) [cm/d1], K is hydraulic conductivity [cm/d1],
h is soil water pressure head [cm] and z is the vertical coordinate [cm], taken positively upward.
Water balance considerations of an infinitely small soil volume result in the continuity
equation for soil water:
∂θ ∂q
= − − S a (h )
∂t ∂z ………… (3.13)
Where θ is volumetric water content [cm3/cm3], t is time [days] and Sa is soil water extraction
rate by plant roots [cm3/cm3/d1]
Combination of equations (3.6) and (3.7) provides the general water flow equation in
variably saturated soils, known as the Richards' equation:
  ∂h 
∂  K (h ) + 1
∂θ ∂h  ∂z 
= C (h ) =  − S a (h ) …………. (3.14)
∂t ∂t ∂z
Where, C is the water capacity (∂θ ∂h ) [cm ]
-1
Richards' equation has a clear physical basis at a scale where the soil can be considered to
be a continuum of soil, air and water. SWAP solves equation (3.14) numerically, subject to
specified initial and boundary conditions and with known relations betweenθ, h and K.
Numerical solution of soil water flow equation
In SWAP a numerical scheme has been chosen which solves the one-dimensional
Richards' equation with an accurate mass balance and which converges rapidly. This scheme in
combination with the top boundary procedure has been shown to handle rapid soil water
movement during infiltration in dry soils accurately. At the same time the scheme is fast,
calculating periods of 40-70 years in a few minutes (Van Dam and Feddes, 2000).
Numerical discretization in the soil profile
A common method to solve Richards' equation has been the implicit, backward, finite
difference scheme with explicit linearization as described by Haverkamp et al. (1977) and
Belmans et al. (1983). Three adaptations to this scheme were made to arrive at the numerical
scheme currently applied in SWAP.
The first adaptation concerns the handling of the differential water capacity C. The old
scheme was limited to the unsaturated zone only. The new numerical scheme enables us to solve
the flow equation in the unsaturated and saturated zone simultaneously. In order to do so, in the
numerical discretization of Richards' equation, the C-term only occurs as numerator (Eqn. 3.14).
The second adaptation concerns the numerical evaluation of the C-term. Because of the
high non-linearity of C, averaging of C during a time step results in serious mass balance errors
when simulating highly transient conditions. A simple but effective adaptation was suggested by
Milly (1985) and further analyzed by Celia et al. (1990).
The third adaptation concerns the averaging of K between the nodes. Haverkamp and
Vauclin (1979), Belmans et al. (1983) and Hornung and Messing (1983) proposed to use the
geometric mean. In their simulations the geometric mean increased the accuracy of calculated
fluxes and caused the fluxes to be less sensitive to changes in nodal distance. However, when
simulating infiltration in dry soils or high evaporation from wet soils, the geometric mean
severely underestimates the water fluxes. Van Dam and Feddes (2000) show that, although
arithmetic averages at larger nodal distances overestimate the soil water fluxes in case of
infiltration and evaporation events, at nodal distances in the order of 1 cm arithmetic averages are
more close to the theoretically correct solution than geometric averages. Also they show that the
remaining inaccuracy between calculated and theoretically correct fluxes is relatively small
compared to effects of soil spatial variability and hysteresis. Therefore SWAP applies arithmetic
averages of K.
Figure 3.4 Spatial and temporal discretization used to solve Richard’s equation
The implicit, backward, finite difference scheme of eqn. (3.14) with explicit linearization,
including the three adaptations, yields the following discretization of Richards' equation:
Ci
j +1, p −1
(
hi
j +1, p
− hi
j +1, p −1
) (θ
+ i
j +1, p −1
− θi
j
) =
∆t
j
 j  hij−+11, p − hij +1, p  j  hij +1, p − hij++11, p  j  j j
 K i − 12   + K i − 1 − K i + 1   − K i + 1  − ∆t S i
j
∆z i   ∆ z u  2 2
 ∆ z l  2

………... (3.15)
Where ∆tj = tj+1-tj, ∆zu = zi-1-zi, ∆zl = zi - zi+1 and ∆zi is compartment thickness. Figure 3.4
shows the symbols in the space-time domain. K and S are evaluated at the old time level j
(explicit linearization), which can be shown to give a good approximation at the time steps used.
This numerical scheme applies both to the saturated and unsaturated zone. Starting in the
saturated zone, the groundwater table is simply found at h = 0. Also perched water tables may
occur above dense layers in the soil profile. Calculations show that in order to simulate
infiltration and evaporation accurately, near the soil surface the nodal distance should be in the
order of centimeters. For this reason the nodal distance in SWAP is made variable. Application of
eqn. (3.15) to each node, subject to the prevailing boundary conditions, results in a tri-diagonal
system of equations which can be solved efficiently (Press et al., 1989).
Top boundary condition
Appropriate criteria for the procedure with respect to the top boundary condition are
important for accurate simulation of rapidly changing soil water fluxes near the soil surface. This
is for instance the case with infiltration/runoff events during intensive rain showers or when the
soil occasionally gets flooded in areas with shallow groundwater tables.
Other boundary condition
The following other boundary conditions are taken into account:
− Lateral boundary conditions

− Bottom boundary conditions
− Initial conditions
Initial conditions are implemented with 2 options:
− Input of pressure heads for each compartment;

− Input of a groundwater level.
The nodal pressure heads will be calculated assuming hydrostatic equilibrium with the
groundwater level, both in the saturated and unsaturated zone.
3.4.3.2 Water budget technique
The term water budget refers to the detailed account of all water inputs and all water
outputs causing storage changes within a given control volume. The general water balance
equation is given as follows:
Input – output = change in storage …………….. (3.16)
Where inputs are like precipitation (P), irrigation applied (I), capillary rise if any, surface
inflow, subsurface inflow, groundwater inflow etc. Output components are evapotranspiration,
surface outflow, subsurface outflow, groundwater outflow, deep percolation etc. Storage
components are interception, soil moisture, depression storage etc.
Fig 3.5 Control volume giving details of input and output components of water budget
Control volume boundaries have to be defined before starting any type of study. Only
those components that cut across the control volume boundaries need to be accounted for any
type of study. For the present study the control volume is taken up to maximum crop root depth.
It is shown pictorially in fig 3.5.
Assumptions made for the present study
o Amount of soil water in excess of soil water at field capacity is considered to be lost as
deep percolation and surface runoff.
o There is no other input to the field like surface inflow from adjacent field as it is the
controlled experiment. The only inputs considered for the present study are precipitation
and the irrigation applied if any.
o As the field is well ploughed and leveled before planting a crop, the storage of water in
depressions is not considered for the study.
o As the field plot is very small the storage of water as interception will be very less and is
negligible.
Procedure
All the components shown in fig 3.5 are considered for the water budget equation. The
experiments for the present study were conducted in a plot prepared especially for conducting
experiments in IISc Bangalore campus. As concrete walls are constructed on all sides of the plot
the lateral flow in the control volume is restricted or arrested. As the groundwater water table is
about 200 m below the groundwater table, there is no chance of capillary rise into the control
volume. And there is no any surface flow from the adjacent fields. Coming to the storage
components, only soil moisture is considered. Other components like interception, depression
storage are neglected. As the field plot is very small interception storage would be very less
which can be neglected. And the plot is leveled; there is no chance of depression storage.
Soil water amount available in the crop root zone is found out knowing the soil water
available on the previous day. Known variables of water budget equation and the soil water
available on previous day are provided as input and the actual soil water available in the crop root
zone was obtained. General form of the equation for the present study is as shown in eqn. 3.17.
SWt-1+P+I-ETc-DP-SR = SWt ……………………. (3.17)
Where,
SWt-1 – Soil water on the previous day [mm]
P – Precipitation [mm]
I – Irrigation applied if any [mm]
ETc – Crop evapotranspiration [mm]
DP – Deep percolation [mm]
SR – Surface runoff [mm]
SWt – Soil water on that day [mm]
The moisture content at field capacity is 0.223 or 22.3% for the present study area. From
which it can be said that soil water at field capacity 115mm at a depth of 500 mm. And the soil
moisture content at saturation is 0.4 or 40% from which the soil water is 200mm at a depth of 500
mm. Soil water more than the soil water at field capacity is considered as the sum of deep
percolation and surface runoff. Soil water crossing soil water at saturation is lost as surface runoff
(SR). Soil water above soil water at field capacity and below soil water at saturation is lost as
deep percolation (DP).
This way soil water values are obtained on all days of the entire crop period for the two
row crops. The depth at which the soil water values are calculated is 500 mm (maximum root
depth). And thus obtained soil water values are divided with the crop root zone depth which gives
us the soil moisture value at that depth. These values are compared with the actual soil moisture
values observed in the field and the soil moisture values simulated from SWAP model and thus
obtained graphs are discussed in the next chapter Results and Discussions. All these calculations
were done in a Microsoft excel spread sheet.
3.4.4 Irrigation scheduling
Irrigation scheduling is a decision-making process to determine when and how much

water to apply to a growing crop to meet specific management objectives i.e. mainly to maximize
net returns. The maximisation of net returns requires a high level of irrigation efficiency. This
requires the accurate measurement of the volume of water applied or the depth of application.It is
also important to achieve a uniform water distribution across the cultivated land to maximise the
benefits of irrigation scheduling. Accurate water application prevents over or under-irrigation.
Over-irrigation wastes water, energy and labour, leaches nutrients below the root zone and leads
to waterlogging which reduces crop yields. Under-irrigation stresses the plant, resulting in yield
reductions and decreased returns. To benefit from irrigation scheduling you must have an
efficient irrigation system.The factors that contribute to develop a workable and efficient
irrigation schedule are soil properties, soil water relationships, type of crop and its sensitivity to
drought stress, stage of crop development, availability of water supply and climatic factors such
as rainfall and temperature.
Here, for the present study ‘C’ prgram has been witten to know irrigation water
requirement for the crop. The program has been given at the end of the thesis in Appendix-C.
water balance technique has been made use of for determining the amount of irrigation water
required.
3.4.4.1 Determination of irrigation water requirement
If the simulated soil moisture on particular day is more than the soil moisture at field
capacity, then there is no need of irrigation on that particular day. And if the simulated soil
moisture is less than the soil moisture at field capacity, then there is a need for irrigation water to
be applied on the particular day. The amount of water to be applied as irrigation water is
calculated on the basis of water balance. It is calculated from equation 3.18.
Drz ( f c − θ )
IWR = …………. (3.18)
Ei
Where,
IWR – Irrigation water required on that day [mm]
Drz – Depth of root zone [mm]
fc – Soil moisture content at field capacity
θ - Actual soil moisture on that day
Ei – Efficiency of irrigation [%]
If we don’t have the daily simulated soil moisture content, it can be calculated easily
using equation 3.19, knowing the soil moisture content on the previous day, rainfall, irrigation if
any on that day etc. This equation is again based on water balance. The equation is given as
follows
 ET − Pe 
θ i = θ i −1 − 100  
 D rz  ……… (3.19)
Where,
θi – Soil moisture content on any day
θi-1 – Soil moisture content on the previous day
Pe – Effective rainfall [mm]
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 GENERAL
Two crops namely Groundnut and Dry beans were studied. Ground nut is a monsoon
crop, where as Dry beans is non-monsoon crop. The crop period of groundnut is 102 days i.e.
from 1st June 1998 to 12th September 1998. Crop period of dry beans is 120 days i.e. from 1st
November 1998 to 28th February 1999.
4.2 SOIL MOISTURE ESTIMATION
To use the estimated values of soil moisture obtained from SWAP model; this model
should be validated first. Available data of dry beans crop is used for the validation of the model.
The simulated soil moisture values obtained from SWAP model are compared with actual values.
4.2.1 Dry Beans
Crop period of dry beans is 120 days from 1st November 1998 to 28 February 1999. This
is non-monsoon crop. The whole crop period is divided into 4 different growth stages namely
initial stage, development stage, middle stage and final stage. The rainfall for the entire period
varied between 0.4 mm and 24.6 mm and rainfall has occurred only during the months of
November and December. As it is non-monsoon crop irrigation is required for the entire crop
period whenever there is no event of rainfall. The requirement for irrigation was very high during
the months of January and February ’99. Irrigation requirement varied from 1.37 to 44.25 mm.
Crop height of dry beans crop varied between 0 and 53 cm during its growth period. And
the root depth ranged from 0.05 m to 0.5 m. Reference evapo-transpiration (ETo) values were
calculated using Penman-Montieth equation. All the required meteorological data required for
calculation of ETo are collected from the GKVK meteorological station.
All the available input data was given as input to the model i.e. the crop details,
meteorological data etc. Bottom boundary conditions were also prescribed. The available matric
potential values near the bottom layer were given as the bottom boundary conditions. And the
matric potential values available near the top layer were given as initial conditions. Coefficients
to be used in Van-Genuchten model were also provided as input. The whole layer was descritised
into 5 different layers each of depth either 10 cm or 20 cm.
Now the model is allowed to run and the output files are obtained. Different files with
output data are obtained with each file describing about different parameters. The main output
file with an extension (*.vap) contains the details of soil moisture, pressure head, and water flux
on required dates and at various depths prescribed earlier before running the model. The soil
moisture values obtained from the model are compared with that of the field observed soil
moisture values by plotting graphs between the date and soil moisture. The correlation between
the two values is quite good as the correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination are
0.907 and 0.878 respectively. The root mean square error is 0.06 which is quite good. Graphs for
all the depths were drawn and they can be discussed as follows.
Simulated
0.3 Observed
0.25
Soil moisture content
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Date
Fig. 4.1: Plot of soil moisture content measured and simulated using SWAP model for Dry
Beans crop (1st Nov1998 - 28th Feb1999) at a depth of 20 cm
The above fig.4.1 describes the comparison between observed and simulated soil moisture
values for dry beans crop at a depth 20 cm. Though large number of simulated values is matching
with the observed values, there are some values which don’t match properly. To mention some
are the simulated values on 21st, 24th, 28th, and 31st December ’98, 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, 16th, 18th, and
24th February 1999. On all these days the simulated values are over estimated as compared to the
observed values. Probable reason for over estimation of soil moisture may be either because of
heavy rainfall events or during over irrigation applications. As this period is the dry period there
is no chance of heavy rainfall events. So, over application of irrigation was done that is the
reason why the model is not able estimate the correct values of soil moisture values. Irrigation of
10.23 mm was applied on 19th which might be over application which in turn affected the
estimation of soil moisture on 21st December. Same way on all the days whenever there is over
estimation of soil moisture, there would have been over application of irrigation the previous day.
From the fig. 4.2, it is very clear that all the simulated values are matching with the
observed values of soil moisture. From this it is under stood that the irrigation applications or the
rainfall events did not affect the estimation of soil moisture values at 35 cm depth.
0.3 Simulated
Measured
0.25
0.2
Soil Moisture
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Date
Fig. 4.2: Plot of soil moisture content measured and simulated using SWAP model for Dry
Beans crop (1st Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999) at a depth of 35 cm
Soil moisture content values obtained from SWAP model and from water budget
technique are compared with the actual observed soil moisture content values in fig. 4.3. The
correlation coefficient between the actual observed and SWAP simulated soil moisture content is
0.7808. There is negative correlation between the actual and the simulated soil moisture content
from water budget technique which is -0.3237. This shows that the correlation between the actual
observed and the simulated soil moisture from SWAP model is good.
Simulated soil moisture values from SWAP model on 25th, 26th January 1999 & 1st
February 1999 are over estimated. The irrigation water applied on 21st & 23rd January might have
caused the increase in the estimation of soil moisture on 25th & 26th January. In the same way,
irrigation applied on 30th January might have affected estimation on 1st February.
Simulated soil moisture from water budget technique is underestimated at some points.
This has happened because of the assumptions made earlier. The soil water in excess amount of
soil water at field capacity is considered as the drainage and surface runoff, i.e. it was assumed
that the soil moisture above field capacity and below saturation is considered to be lost as deep
percolation or drainage. And the soil water in excess of saturation soil water is assumed to be lost
as surface runoff. But in reality it may not be true because the deep percolation depends on the
permeability or hydraulic conductivity of the soil. According to this assumption more water is
lost as deep percolation than the actual which caused underestimation of soil moisture.
Observed
0.30 Water budget technique
SWAP model
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Date
Fig. 4.3: Plot of soil moisture content measured and simulated using SWAP model and water budget
technique for Dry Beans crop (1st Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999) at a depth of 50 cm
Beans (Soil moisture) 20 cm
0.3 35 cm
50 cm
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Date
Fig. 4.4: Variation of soil moisture content simulated using SWAP model at all depths for the entire
crop period of Dry Beans crop (1st Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999)
Figure 4.4 shows clearly how the soil moisture content is varying for the entire crop
period of dry beans. It clearly shows the variation between the soil moisture contents at depths of
20 cm, 35 cm and 50 cm. From the plot it can be said that the moisture content at 50 cm depth is
more than the moisture content at the depth of 20 cm during the period when there was high
application of irrigation water. The pattern of soil moisture in the initial days of crop period at all
depths is same. But the soil moisture at the end of the crop period at 50 cm depth quite high
because the irrigation water applied during that period might have got accumulated, which
resulted in higher soil moisture content during that period.
Soil water profiles in the unsaturated zone up to root depth were also shown in figures 4.5
to 4.7. Soil water has been calculated from the observed soil moisture values. The soil water
values were also calculated using simulated soil moisture values. Thus obtained soil water values
are compared with observed values of soil water by plotting graphs. They are discussed in brief
as follows.
The graph shown in figure 4.5 is the plot for soil water values at a depth of 20 cm below
ground surface. The variation between the observed and the simulated soil water is same as the
variation that was observed for the soil moisture values in fig 4.1. Figure 4.6 shows the soil water
profile at a depth of 35 cm below ground surface. And figure 4.7 shows the soil water profile at a
depth of 50 cm. The soil water follows the same path at all the three depths which can be clearly
seen in figure 4.8.
Simulated
60 Measured
50
Soil water (mm)
40
30
20
10
0
Date
Fig. 4.5: Plot of soil water observed and simulated using SWAP model for Dry Beans crop (1st
Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999) at a depth of 20 cm
Simulated
100 Measured
90
80
70
Soil water (mm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Date
Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999) at a depth of 35 cm
Simulated
140 Measured
120
100
Soil water (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
Date
November1998 - 28th February1999) at a depth of 50 cm
20 cm
140
35 cm
50 cm
120
100
Soil water (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
Date
Fig. 4.8: Variation of soil water simulated using SWAP model at all depths for the entire crop
period of Dry Beans crop (1st Nov 1998 - 28th Feb 1999)
4.2.2 Groundnut
Crop period of groundnut is 102 days from 1st June 1998 to 12th September 1998. The
total crop period was divided into four different stages depending on the growth of the crop.
Initial stage was 29 days from 2nd June to 30th June. Second stage known as development stage
was of 31 days from 1st July to 31st July. Third stage is known as middle stage which is of about
31 days starting from 1st August to 31st August. And the final stage is about 12 days starting from
1st September to 12th September. This is a monsoon crop as monsoon in the study area start from
mid of July. The rainfall ranged from 3.4 mm to 70.8 mm during the month of August. Rainfall
events occurred even during the months of June and July ranging in between 0.4 and 41 mm.
whenever there is water deficit to the plants and there is no event of rainfall water is applied to
plants through surface irrigation from an over head tank. From the available data it can be said
that irrigation to groundnut was provided only during the months of June and July. Application of
irrigation water to groundnut crop was stopped on 17th July 1998 as the rains of high intensity
started there after and hence there was no need of irrigation water thereafter. Crop height of
ground nut crop varied between 0 and 53 cm during its growth period. And the root depth ranged
from 0.05 m to 0.5 m.
All the available input data was entered into the model. The soil was descritised into 5
different layers each of either 10 cm or 20 cm thick. Bottom boundary conditions and initial
conditions were prescribed. Flux taking place at the bottom layer is given as the bottom boundary
condition. Pressure head values at 20 cm depth are given as initial conditions.
Now the model is allowed to run and the output files are obtained. The main output file
with an extension (*.vap) containing details of soil moisture, pressure head, and water flux on
required dates and at various depths prescribed earlier before running the model is considered and
the simulated soil moisture are taken. And these values are now compared with the observed soil
moisture values by plotting graphs between the date and soil moisture. The correlation coefficient
between observed and the simulated soil moistures at all the three depths varied from 0.747 at 50
cm depth to 0.907 at 20 cm depth. Graphs were plotted for observed and simulated soil moisture
content at depths 20 cm, 35 cm and 50 cm. These graphs are discussed in brief in the following
paragraphs.
Simulated
0.4
Measured
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
25-May- 4-Jun-98 14-Jun- 24-Jun- 4-Jul-98 14-Jul- 24-Jul- 3-Aug- 13-Aug- 23-Aug- 2-Sep- 12-Sep-
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
Fig. 4.9: Plot of soil moisture content measured and simulated using SWAP model for Groundnut
From the fig. 4.9 it can be clearly said that the value of soil moisture estimated on July 7th
1998 was over estimated. There are three probable reasons for over estimation of soil moisture.
One may be the under estimation of interception values, the second one may the under estimation
of surface run-off, and the third one is under estimation of evapo-transpiration. The model SWAP
used for our present simulation uses Von Hoyingen - Hune and Bradan equation for estimation of
interception over agricultural crops. Here, in case of ground nut crop, leaf area index is very less
and maximum crop height is 53 cm. hence percentage of rainfall contributing for interception
will be very less which is of negligible amount. So, it may not have much effect on the over
estimation of soil moisture.
Next probable reason for the over estimation of soil moisture may be the under estimation
of evapotranspiration. From the graph shown in fig 4.10 below, it is clear that on 7th July, on
which the soil moisture is overestimated, the value of evapo-transpiration is almost matching
with the actual evapotranspiration and is not under estimated. Either the value is bit over
estimated. So, this cannot be the reason for the over estimation of soil moisture content.
Simulated
35 Measured
30
25
ETact (mm)
20
15
10
0
25-May-98 14-Jun-98 4-Jul-98 24-Jul-98 13-Aug-98 2-Sep-98 22-Sep-98
Date
Fig. 4.10: Plot of Actual evapotranspiration measured and simulated using SWAP model for
Groundnut crop (2nd June1998 - 12th September1998)
So, over estimation of soil moisture may be only due to under estimation of surface
runoff. From the Table 4.1 we can clearly state that the model is under estimating the surface
runoff amount. This is explained in detail as follows.
Table 4.1: Values of excess rainfall simulated from SWAP model and calculated using SCS
curve number technique.
Date Rainfall Estimated Excess Rainfall (mm/day)
August ‘98 (mm) From SWAP model SCS Curve number technique
16 70.8 0.02 0
17 3.2 0 0
18 1.6 0 0
19 66.6 0.05 28.69
20 0 0 0
21 28.8 0 3.86
22 24 0 1.97
23 4 0 0
24 21.8 0 1.28
25 0 0 0
26 19.2 0 0.63
Surface runoff component in SWAP model is simulated only when the groundwater level
rises above the soil surface or when the infiltration capacity of the soil is not sufficient to
infiltrate all water (J. G. Kroes and J. C. van Dam, 2003). In our case ground water table is very
deep i.e. about 200 m from surface. So, there is no chance of ground water level rising above the
soil surface to cause surface runoff. And the infiltration rate in the present study area is 10 mm/hr
i.e. 240 mm/day. But the rainfall data which were given as input are of very less amount i.e.
ranging between 0.4 mm/day to 70.8 mm/day, by which we can say that the model is considering
all the rainfall input as the water to be infiltrated.
This can be clearly understood from the fig 4.11. From the figure it can be said that the
drainage values are overestimated after the heavy rainfalls started in the study area. During the
initial period of the crop the simulated drainage values are matching with the actual calculated
values. But as the heavy rainfalls started in the mid of August, there is large variation in the
simulated and actual drainage. This overestimation of drainage during this period has caused the
underestimation of surface runoff.
1
25-May 14-Jun 4-Jul 24-Jul 13-Aug 2-Sep 22-Sep
0
-1
-2
Drainage (cm/day)
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8 Calculated
Date SWAP Simulated
Fig. 4.11: Plot of observed and simulated deep percolation from SWAP model occurring at a
depth of 50 cm for Groundnut crop (2nd June1998 - 12th September1998)
From figure 4.12, it can be clearly said that drainage is overestimated during the periods
of heavy rainfall.
Rainfall
75 1.00E+00
Water Flux (cm/day)
70
0.00E+00
65
60
-1.00E+00
55
50 -2.00E+00
Drainage (cm/day)
Rainfall (mm)
45
-3.00E+00
40
35
-4.00E+00
30
25 -5.00E+00
20
-6.00E+00
15
10
-7.00E+00
5
0 -8.00E+00
6/1/1998 6/15/1998 6/29/1998 7/13/1998 7/27/1998 8/10/1998 8/24/1998 9/7/1998
Date
Fig. 4.12: Plot showing the rainfall data and simulated drainage from SWAP model occurring at
a depth of 50 cm for Groundnut crop (2nd June1998 - 12th September1998)
The model might have considered the maximum amount of rainfall that had taken place
on 4th July 1998 as the water to be infiltrated, which is getting accumulated in the soil. This water
and the water accumulated due to the consequent events of rainfall on 6th and 7th July 1998 might
have caused the over estimation of soil moisture on 7th July. From the fig. 4.9 it is clear that soil
moisture was over estimated on various days to mention some are 16th, 18th, 20th July 1998 and
all the values of soil moisture in the month of august were over estimated. The reason here is
again the same as discussed above. The only reason for over estimation of soil moisture is the
rainfall events occurring on previous or on that day. If we refer to the peaks occurring in fig. 4.9,
it can be clearly seen that there is heavy rainfall event occurring on the previous or the same day.
On all days of heavy rainfall, the drainage is being overestimated which is affecting the
estimation of surface runoff and hence the soil moisture content.
The correlation coefficient of the observed and simulated soil moisture at 35 cm depth is
0.858. Fig. 4.13 shows the graph plotted between observed and simulated soil moisture at 35 cm
depth and from that, it can be clearly said the soil moisture values till 14th July are almost
matching, whereas from 16th July the values are over estimated. The variation between simulated
and observed soil moisture at this depth is less compared to the variation that was there at 20 cm
depth. For example, soil moisture content on 7th July at 20 cm depth was over estimated, whereas
at 35 cm depth this value is almost matching with the observed value. It might be because the
rainfall occurring on 7th July will not immediately reach 35 cm depth on the same day, otherwise
which would have increased the estimated value.
Simulated
0.4
Measured
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
Fig. 4.13: Plot of soil moisture content measured and simulated using SWAP model for
In fig. 4.14, soil moisture obtained from SWAP model and that obtained from water
budget technique are compared with the actual observed values. The correlation coefficient for
the observed and simulated values of soil moisture from SWAP model is 0.747. Almost all the
values of simulated soil moisture are matching with the actual observed soil moisture values.
There is a wide variation between the simulated soil moisture from SWAP model and water
budget technique. The simulated values from the SWAP model are matching with the observed
values. The variation between the observed and simulated values from SWAP is less compared to
the variation that was observed in the previous graphs. But still the simulated values from SWAP
model are being overestimated during the last period of the crop when there were heavy rainfalls.
0.3500
0.3000
0.2500
0.2000
0.1500
Observed
0.1000 Water budget technique

SWAP model
0.0500
0.0000
25-May- 4-Jun- 14-Jun- 24-Jun- 4-Jul-98 14-Jul- 24-Jul- 3-Aug- 13-Aug- 23-Aug- 2-Sep- 12-Sep-
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
Fig. 4.14: Plot of soil moisture content measured and simulated using SWAP model and water
budget technique for Groundnut crop (2nd June1998 - 12th September1998) at a depth of 50 cm
20 cm
35 cm
0.4
50 cm
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
Fig. 4.15: Variation of soil moisture content simulated using SWAP model at all depths for the
entire crop period of Groundnut crop (2nd June 1998 - 12th September 1998).
Figure 4.15 shows how the soil moisture content varies with time till the end of the crop
period. This shows the variation at all depths till the maximum root depth. From this it can be
said that the variation of soil moisture content at all depths is almost the same. The soil moisture
content at 50 cm is higher than the soil moisture content at the other depths during the last period
of the crop.
Soil water profiles at all the depths up to root depth were also shown in figures 4.16 to
4.18. They are compared and discussed as follows. Graph shown in fig. 4.9 is the graph plotted
between observed and simulated soil water at a depth of 20 cm below ground surface. The soil
moisture values simulated from SWAP model are multiplied with the depth which gives the soil
water present at that depth. The correlation for the observed and simulated values of soil water is
quite good as the correlation coefficient is 0.9074. Soil water values at 35 cm and 50 cm depths
are obtained by multiplying the soil moisture value at that depth with the difference between the
previous and the present depths and thus obtained value is added to the soil water at the previous
depth. The graphs shown in fig. 4.16 and 4.18 are graphs plotted for observed and simulated
values of soil water at a depth of 35 and 50 cm respectively. The correlation between observed
and simulated soil water at all depths is good. Correlation coefficient at 35 cm is 0.859.
Correlation coefficient at 50 cm depth is 0.747.
80 Simulated
Measured
70
60
Soil water (mm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
Fig. 4.16: Plot of soil water measured and simulated using SWAP model for Groundnut crop (2nd
June1998 - 12th September1998) at a depth of 20 cm
Simulated
140
Measured
120
100
Soil water (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
Simulated
180
Measured
160
140
Soil water (mm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
20 cm
180
35 cm
160
50 cm
140
Soil water (mm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
Fig. 4.19: Variation of soil water content simulated using SWAP model at all depths for the
entire crop period of Ground nut crop (2nd June 1998 – 12th September 1998)
Figure 4.19 shows the profile of soil water at various depths up to root depth. This clearly
shows that the variation of soil water at all depths till the end of the crop period is same.
4.2.2.1 Modification to the input data
As discussed earlier simulated values of soil moisture by the SWAP model are under
estimated. This happened because the drainage values are over estimated and the surface runoff is
underestimated. So, the surface runoff values are calculated using SCS curve number technique.
Assuming that this is the actual runoff that would have occurred in the study area, these values
are deducted from the actual rainfall amount. Thus obtained results are given as rainfall input to
the model. Then the model is allowed to run and the obtained simulated soil moisture content is
compared with the actual observed soil moisture content. This comparison is shown in fig 4.20.
In fig 4.20 it can be clearly seen that the simulated soil moisture values are matching with the
actual observed soil moisture values. From this it is clearly understood that soil moisture content
can be estimated effectively in the areas where there is no heavy rainfall. During the periods of
heavy rainfall the surface runoff has to be calculated using some other technique and it has to be
deducted from the rainfall to get correct simulated soil moisture content.
Simulated
0.3 Observed
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Date
Fig. 4.20 Plot of soil moisture content observed and simulated using SWAP model for Groundnut
crop (1st June 1998 – 12th September 1998) at a depth of 50 cm
4.3 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
‘C’ program has been written based on water balance technique to calculate the amount of
water to be applied for the crops as irrigation. This program is presented in Appendix C This
program has been validated with an example from textbook (Ref. Principles of farm irrigation
system design, Larry G. James). The details and solution of the example considered for the
validation of the program are given as follows.
4.3.1 Example
Depth of the root zone (DRZ) – 24 in

Moisture content at field capacity – 26%
Efficiency of irrigation – 80%
The details of soil moisture content on all days were also given along with the above
mentioned data. These data are listed in the Table 4.2. The data given is from 1st July to 8th July.
How much of irrigation water to be applied is to be determined. If the soil moisture content is
below the soil moisture content at field capacity, then the irrigation must be applied.
Table 4.2 Details of input data for example
Date θa (%)
1 21.63
2 20.51
3 19.43
4 18.22
5 16.97
6 15.59
7 15.05
8 13.80
This data is given to the ‘C’ program as input and the model is run. The results obtained
from the program are exactly matching with the manually calculated values. The results obtained
from the program along with the manually calculated values are shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Results obtained after running the ‘C’ program for example
Month Day Drz thc th Ei IWR (mm)
(-) (-) (mm) (%) (%) (%) "C" Program Calculated
7 1 24 26 21.63 80 1.311 1.311

7 2 24 26 20.51 80 1.647 1.647
7 3 24 26 19.43 80 1.971 1.971
7 4 24 26 18.22 80 2.334 2.334
7 5 24 26 16.97 80 2.709 2.709
7 6 24 26 15.59 80 3.123 3.123
7 7 24 26 15.05 80 3.285 3.285
7 8 24 26 13.8 80 3.66 3.66
4.3.2 Dry Beans
Irrigation requirement for the Dry beans (non-monsoon crop) is found out using ‘C’
program. Required input for the program is mainly soil moisture data on all the days. As the soil
moisture obtained from water budget technique are not matching with the actual soil moisture
values when compared to SWAP model simulated soil moisture values. These values of soil
moisture have been given as input to the program to know irrigation water requirement (IWR).
After running the program, the obtained values of irrigation water are compared with the
actual applied irrigation water values. This comparison is done graphically and it can be seen in
fig 4.21. This graph is discussed in the following paragraph. The results obtained from the
program are presented in Appendix D in Table D-2.
50 "C" Program
45 Calculated
40
Irrigation water required (mm)
35
30
25
20
15
10
-5
30-Oct -98 19-Nov-98 9-Dec-98 29-Dec-98 18-Jan-99 7-Feb-99 27-Feb-99 19-M ar-99
Date
Fig. 4.21 Plot showing the actual and simulated irrigation water requirement (IWR) by the dry
beans crop (1st Nov 1998 – 28th Feb 1999) for the entire crop period
From the fig. 4.21, it can be said that the irrigation water requirement of the crop during
the crop period is not matching with the actual applied irrigation values. The actual applied
irrigation is applied only eye judgment and experience. No separate arrangement like tensiometer
was provided in the field to know exactly how much water is required by the crop. This is main
reason why these values are not matching with the simulated values. But, the pattern in which the
irrigation was applied to the field is almost same as the patter of irrigation water requirement
(IWR) of the crop. As this is a non-monsoon crop, the requirement of irrigation water will be
high.
4.3.3 Groundnut
‘C’ program was run for groundnut (Monsoon crop) also for the entire crop period. Soil
moisture values obtained SWAP model are given as input to the program and it was run.
The results obtained after running the program are compared with the actual applied
irrigation values. This comparison was done graphically and is shown in fig. 4.22. The results
obtained from the program are presented in Appendix D in Table D-1.
14 "C" Program simulated

Actual applied
Irrigation water requirement (IWR) (mm)
12
10
-2
5/25/1998 6/14/ 1998 7/4/1998 7/ 24/ 1998 8/ 13/1998 9/ 2/ 1998 9/ 22/1998
Date
Fig. 4.22 Plot showing the actual and simulated irrigation water requirement (IWR) by the
groundnut crop (1st June 1998 – 12th September 1999) for the entire crop period.
From fig 4.22, it can be clearly said that the irrigation water requirement (IWR) for the
crop simulated from the program is following the same pattern as that of the actual applied
irrigation values. There was no need of irrigation water after mid of July as the heavy rainfall
events occurred here after. And the simulated values also show that there is no requirement of
irrigation water after mid of July.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 GENERAL
In the present study an attempt has been made to estimate the soil moisture content in the
unsaturated zone to a depth of 500mm, which is the maximum root depth of the two row crops
that are taken for the present study. SWAP model has been used for the present study to estimate
the soil moisture content. Soil moisture content was also simulated using water budget technique.
The simulated values obtained from SWAP model and water budget technique are compared with
the actual observed soil moisture content and they are discussed in chapter 4. ‘C’ program has
been written to know the irrigation water requirement of the crop using water balance technique.
And the obtained results obtained are compared with the actual applied values of irrigation.
Overall conclusions from the present study are discussed as below.
5.2 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
o SWAP model was run for two row crops for finding the soil moisture content, the results
show that simulated values are matching with the actual observed soil moisture values.
o Estimation of soil moisture is very efficient during the dry season as the simulated and
observed soil moisture contents are matching when simulated for dry beans crop period.
o Estimated soil moisture content obtained by the model for monsoon crop (Groundnut)
also matched with actual soil moisture content until the heavy rainfall started.
o The surface runoff component is being underestimated by the SWAP model during the
monsoon period, which is directly affecting the estimation of soil moisture content during
that period.
o The simulated drainage amount by SWAP model has been over estimated during the
periods of heavy rainfall which might have caused the underestimation of surface runoff.
o Surface runoff estimated by SWAP model is compared with the surface runoff estimated
using SCS curve number technique, which showed a wide variation.
o After making necessary corrections, i.e. deducting the runoff estimated using SCS curve
number technique from the precipitation values, the simulated soil moisture values were
found to match with the observed values.
o The correlation coefficient between observed and simulated soil moisture content for
groundnut crop has improved from 0.7468 to 0.8334 after making necessary corrections
to the input.
o The soil moisture content estimated using water budget technique is also compared with
the actual and soil moisture from SWAP model. The results show that the soil moisture
from SWAP model is more nearer to the actual values.
o The soil moisture estimated from water budget technique is underestimated at the end of
both the crops because of the assumptions made earlier.
o Soil moisture estimated from SWAP model is more effective when compared to the soil
moisture estimated from the water budget technique. Hence, values from SWAP model
have been used for knowing the irrigation water requirement (IWR) of the crop.
o The simulated irrigation water requirement (IWR) for the crop is not exactly matching
with the actual applied irrigation, as actual irrigation water was applied only on eye
judgment and experience and there were no such arrangements like tensiometers. But, the
pattern of the irrigation water requirement is almost same as the actual applied irrigation.
5.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY
O Though the SWAP model is run for both the monsoon and non-monsoon seasons. It is
giving good results for the non-monsoon season whereas for monsoon season there are
some limitations.
O For simplification, many assumptions have been made to simulate soil moisture content
using water budget technique.
O Irrigation water requirement of the crops are calculated based on water balance
approach. Actual applied irrigation in the field is done only on eye judgment and there is
no separate arrangement like tensiometer for knowing the irrigation water requirement.
5.4 SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK
o SWAP model has been used for the study area situated in Bangalore which is a semi-
humid region. So, this model can be studied for humid regions of Dakshina Kannada.
o SWAP model has been developed to estimate the soil water and nutrient flow in
unsaturated zone; in addition, it also simulates soil moisture content and perform
irrigation scheduling. Irrigation scheduling module of the model has not been considered
for the present work since it requires large number of parameters. So, attempts can be
made to perform irrigation scheduling from SWAP model itself.
o Experiments can be performed exclusively for all the data required by the model as an
input. But in the present study, values of some parameters are taken from literature.
o Development of model which can simulate soil moisture content and irrigation
requirement of the crop efficiently for both the dry season and monsoon season.
REFERENCES
Amor Valeriano M. Ines, Peter Droogers, Ian W. Makin and Ashim Das Gupta – “Crop growth
and soil water balance modeling to explore water management options” International
water management institute (IWMI), 2001, 1-18.
Asad Sarwar and R. A. Feddes – “Re-evaluation of drainage design criteria for the fourth
drainage project of Pakistan using SWAP model”
Asad Sarwar and W. G. M. Bastiaanssen – “Long term effects of irrigation water conservation on
crop production and environment in semiarid areas”, Journal of irrigation and drainage
engineering, ASCE, Nov-Dec 2001, 331-338.
Coen J. Ritsema, Jos C. van Dam, John L. Nieber, Louis W. Dekker, K. Oostindie, and Tammo
S. Steenhuis – “Preferential flow in water repellent sandy soils: Principles and modeling
approaches” Proceedings 2nd international symposium (3-5 January 2001, Honolulu), 129
- 132.
I. Forkutsa, B. Tischbein and Y. Shirokova – “The comparative advantage of SWAP and ISAREG
models for improving irrigation management in Khorezm, Aral Sea basin”
J.G. Kroes and J.C. van Dam – “Reference manual version 3.0.3”, Alterra-Rapport 773, 2003,
19-90.
M.T. van Genuchten and Jirka Šimunek – “Integrated modeling of vadose zone flow and
transport processes”, Unsaturated-zone Modeling Progress, Challenges and Applications
Series: Wageningen UR Frontis Series, Vol. 6, 2004, 37-69.
Peter Droogers and Wim Bastiaanssen – “Irrigation performance using hydrological and remote
sensing modeling”, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, Jan-Feb 2002,
11-18.
Richard G. Allen, Luis S. Pereira, Dirk Raes, Martin Smith – “Crop Evapotranspiration
(Guidelines for computing crop water requirement)”, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 56.
Suman. K – “Testing of soil water balance simulation model”, M. Tech dissertation report,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, 2004.
S. Lorentz, P. Goba and J. Pretorius – “Hydrological process research: Experiments and

measurements of soil hydraulic characteristics”, WRC Report no.:K5/744, 2001.
T. Hess – “A microcomputer scheduling program for supplementary irrigation”
V. Novak and J. Majercak – “Inter comparison of soil water content courses calculated by SWAP
and global simulation models during the vegetation period of maize”
W.G.M. Bastiaanssen, R.G. Allen, P. Droogers, G. D’Urso and P. Steduto – “Inserting man’s
irrigation and drainage wisdom into soil water flow models and bringing it back out: how
far have we progressed?” Unsaturated-zone Modeling Progress, Challenges and
Applications Series: Wageningen UR Frontis Series, Vol. 6, 2004, 263-299.
Wim M Cornells, Kaatje Segers, Marc Van Meirvenne and Roger Hartmann – “Calibration and
validation of SWAP for improved soil water management on a sugar cane field in Cuba”,
Symposium Abstracts Unsaturated Zone Modeling: Progress, Challenges and
Applications from 3 Oct 2004 through 5 Oct 2004
W. Trimmer and H. Hansen – “Irrigation scheduling” PNW 288, Reprinted October 1994.
www.alterra.nl/models/swap or www.swap.alterra.nl
www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/wcrop.htm
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arif A. Anwar and Tonny T. de Vries – “Irrigation Scheduling II: Heuristics approach” Journal
of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Jan – Feb 2004, 17 – 25.
Bhawan Singh, Jean Boivin, Glenn Kirkpatrick and Barry Hum – “Automatic irrigation
scheduling system (AISSUM): Principles and Applications” Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, 43 – 56.
D. F. Holland, M. Yitayew and A. W. Warrick – “Measurement of subsurface unsaturated

hydraulic conductivity” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Jan – Feb 2000,
21 – 27.
Jianting Zhu and Binayak P. Mohanty – “Spatial Averaging of van Genuchten Hydraulic
Parameters for Steady-State Flow in Heterogeneous Soils” Vadose Zone Journal, 2002.
Joseph Pollacco – “Construction and optimizing a parsimonious groundwater recharge model

using neutron probe data”
K. Rousseau – “Irrigation scheduling model for field crops”, M. Tech dissertation report,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, 2002.
Meteorological observations at GKVK, Bangalore, January 1997 to December 1998.
Mobin-Ud-Din Ahmad, Ilyas Masih and Hugh Turrel – “Role of unsaturated zone modeling for
water balance and water productivity analysis”, Examples from Rechna Doab, Pakistan.
Robert W. Hill and Richard G. Allen – “Simple irrigation scheduling calendars” Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage, March – April 1996, 107 – 111.
Sangdan Kim, M.Levent Kavvas and Jaeyoung Yoon – “Upscaling of vertical unsaturated flow
model under infiltration condition” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, March – April
2005, 151 – 159.
Te-Fu Chiu and Charles D. Shackelford – “Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of compacted
Sand-Koalin mixtures” Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, Feb
1998, 160 – 170.
Yoon-young Chang and M. Yavuz Corapcioglu – “Effect of roots on water flow in unsaturated
soils” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, May – June 1997, 202 – 209.
APPENDIX - A
Table A-1 Simulated values of soil moisture, pressure head, water flux etc. from SWAP model
for Groundnut crop at all observed depths (1st June – 12th September 1998)
* Project: Bangalore
* File content: soil profile data
* File name: Output.vap
* Model version: swap_3_0_3
* Generated at: 7-Jun-05
* date day dcum depth water head Wflux
* nr nr cm (-) cm cm/d
1-Jun-98 152 1 -20 0.197 -860.928 6.99E-02
1-Jun-98 152 1 -35 0.212 -585.189 1.60E-02
1-Jun-98 152 1 -50 0.22 -489.658 -1.85E-03
2-Jun-98 153 2 -20 0.194 -951.533 5.34E-02
2-Jun-98 153 2 -35 0.211 -601.9 1.74E-02
2-Jun-98 153 2 -50 0.218 -503.77 -7.68E-04
3-Jun-98 154 3 -20 0.193 -979.282 3.21E-02
3-Jun-98 154 3 -35 0.21 -619.949 1.69E-02
3-Jun-98 154 3 -50 0.217 -516.941 2.86E-04
4-Jun-98 155 4 -20 0.193 -975.412 1.50E-02
4-Jun-98 155 4 -35 0.209 -636.169 1.55E-02
4-Jun-98 155 4 -50 0.216 -529.252 1.14E-03
5-Jun-98 156 5 -20 0.19 -1048.417 5.50E-02
5-Jun-98 156 5 -35 0.208 -652.823 1.65E-02
5-Jun-98 156 5 -50 0.215 -540.752 1.99E-03
6-Jun-98 157 6 -20 0.188 -1148.424 5.07E-02
6-Jun-98 157 6 -35 0.206 -673.467 1.75E-02
6-Jun-98 157 6 -50 0.215 -551.738 2.94E-03
7-Jun-98 158 7 -20 0.194 -947.505 -2.13E-01
7-Jun-98 158 7 -35 0.206 -689.212 1.20E-02
7-Jun-98 158 7 -50 0.214 -562.253 3.58E-03
8-Jun-98 159 8 -20 0.203 -731.128 -2.06E-02
8-Jun-98 159 8 -35 0.206 -679.946 5.90E-03
8-Jun-98 159 8 -50 0.213 -571.315 3.20E-03
9-Jun-98 160 9 -20 0.203 -727.447 1.13E-02
9-Jun-98 160 9 -35 0.207 -670.384 5.30E-03
9-Jun-98 160 9 -50 0.213 -578.56 2.77E-03
10-Jun-98 161 10 -20 0.203 -737.385 8.44E-03
10-Jun-98 161 10 -35 0.207 -665.262 5.29E-03
10-Jun-98 161 10 -50 0.212 -584.433 2.56E-03
11-Jun-98 162 11 -20 0.202 -757.147 1.93E-02
11-Jun-98 162 11 -35 0.207 -663.645 5.74E-03
11-Jun-98 162 11 -50 0.212 -589.339 2.55E-03
12-Jun-98 163 12 -20 0.197 -868.748 6.91E-02
12-Jun-98 163 12 -35 0.207 -669.434 8.76E-03
Contd…..
13-Jun-98 164 13 -20 0.194 -933.027 3.55E-02

13-Jun-98 164 13 -35 0.206 -681.454 1.00E-02
13-Jun-98 164 13 -50 0.211 -598.089 3.29E-03
14-Jun-98 165 14 -20 0.19 -1051.771 5.37E-02
14-Jun-98 165 14 -35 0.205 -698.083 1.23E-02
14-Jun-98 165 14 -50 0.211 -602.685 3.96E-03
15-Jun-98 166 15 -20 0.19 -1078.584 2.24E-02
15-Jun-98 166 15 -35 0.204 -715.207 1.23E-02
15-Jun-98 166 15 -50 0.211 -607.587 4.62E-03
16-Jun-98 167 16 -20 0.189 -1112.389 2.63E-02
16-Jun-98 167 16 -35 0.203 -730.89 1.26E-02
16-Jun-98 167 16 -50 0.21 -612.663 5.21E-03
17-Jun-98 168 17 -20 0.186 -1207.513 4.37E-02
17-Jun-98 168 17 -35 0.202 -748.096 1.39E-02
17-Jun-98 168 17 -50 0.21 -617.886 5.81E-03
18-Jun-98 169 18 -20 0.186 -1198.768 6.13E-03
18-Jun-98 169 18 -35 0.202 -764.16 1.32E-02
18-Jun-98 169 18 -50 0.209 -623.21 6.34E-03
19-Jun-98 170 19 -20 0.185 -1228.602 3.55E-02
19-Jun-98 170 19 -35 0.201 -777.28 1.34E-02
19-Jun-98 170 19 -50 0.209 -628.502 6.78E-03
20-Jun-98 171 20 -20 0.183 -1322.993 3.80E-02
20-Jun-98 171 20 -35 0.2 -792.646 1.43E-02
20-Jun-98 171 20 -50 0.209 -633.755 7.24E-03
21-Jun-98 172 21 -20 0.181 -1419.037 3.65E-02
21-Jun-98 172 21 -35 0.199 -810.327 1.53E-02
21-Jun-98 172 21 -50 0.208 -639.073 7.79E-03
22-Jun-98 173 22 -20 0.179 -1510.854 3.39E-02
22-Jun-98 173 22 -35 0.199 -829.477 1.59E-02
22-Jun-98 173 22 -50 0.208 -644.514 8.33E-03
23-Jun-98 174 23 -20 0.178 -1599.805 3.21E-02
23-Jun-98 174 23 -35 0.198 -849.376 1.66E-02
23-Jun-98 174 23 -50 0.208 -650.072 8.88E-03
24-Jun-98 175 24 -20 0.178 -1606.131 1.60E-02
24-Jun-98 175 24 -35 0.197 -867.219 1.61E-02
24-Jun-98 175 24 -50 0.207 -655.679 9.33E-03
25-Jun-98 176 25 -20 0.177 -1666.655 2.71E-02
25-Jun-98 176 25 -35 0.196 -883.651 1.64E-02
25-Jun-98 176 25 -50 0.207 -661.219 9.75E-03
26-Jun-98 177 26 -20 0.176 -1676.177 1.08E-02
26-Jun-98 177 26 -35 0.196 -898.841 1.60E-02
26-Jun-98 177 26 -50 0.207 -666.638 1.01E-02
27-Jun-98 178 27 -20 0.175 -1735.306 2.38E-02
27-Jun-98 178 27 -35 0.195 -912.859 1.62E-02
27-Jun-98 178 27 -50 0.207 -671.907 1.04E-02
Contd….
28-Jun-98 179 28 -20 0.175 -1762.219 1.18E-02

28-Jun-98 179 28 -35 0.195 -926.632 1.61E-02
28-Jun-98 179 28 -50 0.206 -677.017 1.08E-02
29-Jun-98 180 29 -20 0.174 -1856.647 2.29E-02
29-Jun-98 180 29 -35 0.194 -940.979 1.67E-02
29-Jun-98 180 29 -50 0.206 -681.98 1.11E-02
30-Jun-98 181 30 -20 0.172 -1982.419 2.39E-02
30-Jun-98 181 30 -35 0.194 -957.81 1.74E-02
30-Jun-98 181 30 -50 0.206 -686.878 1.14E-02
1-Jul-98 182 31 -20 0.171 -2030.363 1.44E-02
1-Jul-98 182 31 -35 0.193 -974.733 1.74E-02
1-Jul-98 182 31 -50 0.205 -691.752 1.18E-02
2-Jul-98 183 32 -20 0.171 -2081.541 1.23E-02
2-Jul-98 183 32 -35 0.192 -990.566 1.74E-02
2-Jul-98 183 32 -50 0.205 -696.556 1.21E-02
3-Jul-98 184 33 -20 0.169 -2210.833 1.94E-02
3-Jul-98 184 33 -35 0.192 -1007.457 1.80E-02
3-Jul-98 184 33 -50 0.205 -701.294 1.24E-02
4-Jul-98 185 34 -20 0.21 -608.34 -9.00E-01
4-Jul-98 185 34 -35 0.192 -989.19 -2.55E-03
4-Jul-98 185 34 -50 0.205 -705.624 1.20E-02
5-Jul-98 186 35 -20 0.228 -409.756 -8.10E-02
5-Jul-98 186 35 -35 0.199 -814.231 -2.95E-02
5-Jul-98 186 35 -50 0.205 -704.62 7.89E-03
6-Jul-98 187 36 -20 0.226 -427.208 -3.77E-02
6-Jul-98 187 36 -35 0.205 -703.504 -2.29E-02
6-Jul-98 187 36 -50 0.205 -697.311 4.44E-03
7-Jul-98 188 37 -20 0.223 -455.149 -2.45E-02
7-Jul-98 188 37 -35 0.208 -646.985 -1.74E-02
7-Jul-98 188 37 -50 0.206 -686.569 2.10E-03
8-Jul-98 189 38 -20 0.218 -505.672 5.11E-03
8-Jul-98 189 38 -35 0.21 -620.378 -1.16E-02
8-Jul-98 189 38 -50 0.206 -674.723 7.78E-04
9-Jul-98 190 39 -20 0.213 -572.78 2.20E-02
9-Jul-98 190 39 -35 0.21 -613.776 -6.02E-03
9-Jul-98 190 39 -50 0.207 -663.554 4.26E-04
10-Jul-98 191 40 -20 0.209 -638.555 1.56E-02
10-Jul-98 191 40 -35 0.21 -618.714 -2.07E-03
10-Jul-98 191 40 -50 0.208 -654.114 5.90E-04
11-Jul-98 192 41 -20 0.204 -720.418 2.94E-02
11-Jul-98 192 41 -35 0.209 -630.43 1.72E-03
11-Jul-98 192 41 -50 0.208 -646.749 1.18E-03
12-Jul-98 193 42 -20 0.2 -794.639 3.47E-03
12-Jul-98 193 42 -35 0.208 -646.728 4.31E-03
12-Jul-98 193 42 -50 0.208 -641.479 1.90E-03
Contd…..
13-Jul-98 194 43 -20 0.196 -884.162 1.73E-02

13-Jul-98 194 43 -35 0.207 -665.273 6.98E-03
13-Jul-98 194 43 -50 0.209 -638.09 2.75E-03
14-Jul-98 195 44 -20 0.192 -990.171 2.40E-02
14-Jul-98 195 44 -35 0.206 -686.893 9.52E-03
14-Jul-98 195 44 -50 0.209 -636.466 3.61E-03
15-Jul-98 196 45 -20 0.278 -160.191 -1.76E+00
15-Jul-98 196 45 -35 0.212 -582.884 -1.69E-01
15-Jul-98 196 45 -50 0.209 -634.475 -1.12E-03
16-Jul-98 197 46 -20 0.282 -149.807 -1.70E-01
16-Jul-98 197 46 -35 0.246 -285.356 -1.79E-01
16-Jul-98 197 46 -50 0.212 -587.491 -5.42E-02
17-Jul-98 198 47 -20 0.272 -178.382 -9.05E-02
17-Jul-98 198 47 -35 0.25 -260.629 -1.22E-01
17-Jul-98 198 47 -50 0.218 -513.318 -6.56E-02
18-Jul-98 199 48 -20 0.309 -97.363 -1.11E+00
18-Jul-98 199 48 -35 0.26 -218.183 -3.02E-01
18-Jul-98 199 48 -50 0.223 -455.205 -8.79E-02
19-Jul-98 200 49 -20 0.314 -90.092 -3.97E-01
19-Jul-98 200 49 -35 0.281 -151.963 -3.54E-01
19-Jul-98 200 49 -50 0.234 -359.318 -1.83E-01
20-Jul-98 201 50 -20 0.299 -114.164 -9.74E-02
20-Jul-98 201 50 -35 0.282 -151.598 -2.23E-01
20-Jul-98 201 50 -50 0.244 -293.635 -1.74E-01
21-Jul-98 202 51 -20 0.291 -128.935 -1.24E-01
21-Jul-98 202 51 -35 0.277 -162.537 -1.60E-01
21-Jul-98 202 51 -50 0.248 -270.588 -1.54E-01
22-Jul-98 203 52 -20 0.283 -148.936 -4.07E-02
22-Jul-98 203 52 -35 0.273 -173.819 -1.18E-01
22-Jul-98 203 52 -50 0.25 -265.112 -1.40E-01
23-Jul-98 204 53 -20 0.273 -175.813 -6.47E-04
23-Jul-98 204 53 -35 0.268 -190.207 -8.10E-02
23-Jul-98 204 53 -50 0.249 -268.818 -1.21E-01
24-Jul-98 205 54 -20 0.261 -213.65 3.19E-02
24-Jul-98 205 54 -35 0.262 -211.409 -4.74E-02
24-Jul-98 205 54 -50 0.247 -278.315 -1.00E-01
25-Jul-98 206 55 -20 0.25 -265.226 5.64E-02
25-Jul-98 206 55 -35 0.256 -237.508 -2.17E-02
25-Jul-98 206 55 -50 0.245 -291.717 -8.11E-02
26-Jul-98 207 56 -20 0.238 -328.225 6.48E-02
26-Jul-98 207 56 -35 0.249 -267.411 -3.51E-03
26-Jul-98 207 56 -50 0.242 -307.77 -6.31E-02
27-Jul-98 208 57 -20 0.232 -377.2 3.30E-02
27-Jul-98 208 57 -35 0.243 -297.471 3.42E-03
27-Jul-98 208 57 -50 0.239 -325.232 -4.89E-02
Contd……
28-Jul-98 209 58 -20 0.224 -440.194 4.55E-02

28-Jul-98 209 58 -35 0.239 -327.084 1.03E-02
28-Jul-98 209 58 -50 0.236 -343.022 -3.93E-02
29-Jul-98 210 59 -20 0.222 -466.283 -1.30E-02
29-Jul-98 210 59 -35 0.235 -354.76 9.75E-03
29-Jul-98 210 59 -50 0.234 -360.783 -3.13E-02
30-Jul-98 211 60 -20 0.24 -318.319 -3.65E-01
30-Jul-98 211 60 -35 0.233 -364.215 -1.60E-02
30-Jul-98 211 60 -50 0.232 -377.188 -2.82E-02
31-Jul-98 212 61 -20 0.247 -278.103 -7.28E-02
31-Jul-98 212 61 -35 0.236 -347.247 -3.12E-02
31-Jul-98 212 61 -50 0.23 -388.92 -3.07E-02
1-Aug-98 213 62 -20 0.24 -319.076 -1.23E-02
1-Aug-98 213 62 -35 0.236 -347.709 -2.01E-02
1-Aug-98 213 62 -50 0.229 -396.954 -3.03E-02
2-Aug-98 214 63 -20 0.229 -396.717 1.75E-02
2-Aug-98 214 63 -35 0.233 -368.906 -5.73E-03
2-Aug-98 214 63 -50 0.228 -405.148 -2.59E-02
3-Aug-98 215 64 -20 0.223 -449.127 5.23E-04
3-Aug-98 215 64 -35 0.229 -394.565 1.72E-04
3-Aug-98 215 64 -50 0.227 -415.01 -2.14E-02
4-Aug-98 216 65 -20 0.178 -1567.562 4.23E-02
4-Aug-98 216 65 -35 0.213 -578.221 5.26E-02
4-Aug-98 216 65 -50 0.225 -433.859 -1.83E-03
5-Aug-98 217 66 -20 0.271 -181.915 -1.70E+00
5-Aug-98 217 66 -35 0.215 -547.656 -1.05E-01
5-Aug-98 217 66 -50 0.223 -456.109 -4.92E-03
6-Aug-98 218 67 -20 0.319 -82.789 -1.01E+00
6-Aug-98 218 67 -35 0.261 -213.888 -3.68E-01
6-Aug-98 218 67 -50 0.224 -440.955 -7.62E-02
7-Aug-98 219 68 -20 0.321 -80.363 -4.64E-01
7-Aug-98 219 68 -35 0.287 -138.436 -4.09E-01
7-Aug-98 219 68 -50 0.236 -341.575 -2.03E-01
8-Aug-98 220 69 -20 0.332 -66.945 -7.28E-01
8-Aug-98 220 69 -35 0.298 -116.694 -4.68E-01
8-Aug-98 220 69 -50 0.25 -263.665 -2.59E-01
9-Aug-98 221 70 -20 0.321 -79.485 -2.62E-01
9-Aug-98 221 70 -35 0.302 -109.693 -3.76E-01
9-Aug-98 221 70 -50 0.261 -215.895 -3.05E-01
10-Aug-98 222 71 -20 0.329 -70.514 -6.26E-01
10-Aug-98 222 71 -35 0.302 -108.042 -3.92E-01
10-Aug-98 222 71 -50 0.265 -201.219 -3.16E-01
11-Aug-98 223 72 -20 0.318 -84.721 -2.06E-01
11-Aug-98 223 72 -35 0.302 -109.689 -3.21E-01
11-Aug-98 223 72 -50 0.267 -192.833 -3.30E-01
Contd…..
12-Aug-98 224 73 -20 0.325 -74.613 -5.65E-01

12-Aug-98 224 73 -35 0.301 -110.244 -3.51E-01
12-Aug-98 224 73 -50 0.267 -194.4 -3.17E-01
13-Aug-98 225 74 -20 0.315 -87.967 -1.97E-01
13-Aug-98 225 74 -35 0.3 -113.282 -2.98E-01
13-Aug-98 225 74 -50 0.267 -193.423 -3.17E-01
14-Aug-98 226 75 -20 0.3 -111.626 -9.12E-02
14-Aug-98 226 75 -35 0.29 -132.364 -1.88E-01
14-Aug-98 226 75 -50 0.264 -202.815 -2.53E-01
15-Aug-98 227 76 -20 0.288 -136.492 -5.08E-02
15-Aug-98 227 76 -35 0.28 -155.154 -1.27E-01
15-Aug-98 227 76 -50 0.26 -219.066 -1.95E-01
16-Aug-98 228 77 -20 0.407 -4.214 -6.88E+00
16-Aug-98 228 77 -35 0.401 -9.456 -7.47E+00
16-Aug-98 228 77 -50 0.33 -69.414 -4.97E+00
17-Aug-98 229 78 -20 0.36 -39.951 -5.49E-01
17-Aug-98 229 78 -35 0.347 -51.159 -8.76E-01
17-Aug-98 229 78 -50 0.304 -105.427 -1.21E+00
18-Aug-98 230 79 -20 0.337 -60.674 -2.85E-01
18-Aug-98 230 79 -35 0.325 -75.188 -4.79E-01
18-Aug-98 230 79 -50 0.288 -135.468 -6.66E-01
19-Aug-98 231 80 -20 0.407 -3.998 -5.96E+00
19-Aug-98 231 80 -35 0.4 -10.302 -6.39E+00
19-Aug-98 231 80 -50 0.35 -48.621 -6.67E+00
20-Aug-98 232 81 -20 0.355 -43.929 -4.07E-01
20-Aug-98 232 81 -35 0.344 -54.22 -7.83E-01
20-Aug-98 232 81 -50 0.303 -107.279 -1.15E+00
21-Aug-98 233 82 -20 0.391 -16.896 -2.44E+00
21-Aug-98 233 82 -35 0.365 -35.654 -1.99E+00
21-Aug-98 233 82 -50 0.303 -107.255 -1.51E+00
22-Aug-98 234 83 -20 0.391 -16.201 -2.25E+00
22-Aug-98 234 83 -35 0.373 -29.206 -2.23E+00
22-Aug-98 234 83 -50 0.317 -85.989 -2.18E+00
23-Aug-98 235 84 -20 0.357 -42.11 -5.73E-01
23-Aug-98 235 84 -35 0.343 -54.753 -8.51E-01
23-Aug-98 235 84 -50 0.301 -111.137 -1.13E+00
24-Aug-98 236 85 -20 0.379 -25.061 -1.70E+00
24-Aug-98 236 85 -35 0.352 -46.732 -1.31E+00
24-Aug-98 236 85 -50 0.296 -119.364 -1.08E+00
25-Aug-98 237 86 -20 0.346 -52.149 -3.35E-01
25-Aug-98 237 86 -35 0.333 -65.187 -6.19E-01
25-Aug-98 237 86 -50 0.294 -124.257 -8.45E-01
26-Aug-98 238 87 -20 0.368 -33.622 -1.42E+00
26-Aug-98 238 87 -35 0.339 -58.95 -1.02E+00
26-Aug-98 238 87 -50 0.289 -135.28 -8.31E-01
Contd…..
27-Aug-98 239 88 -20 0.343 -54.604 -3.43E-01

27-Aug-98 239 88 -35 0.329 -69.559 -6.01E-01
27-Aug-98 239 88 -50 0.289 -133.718 -7.51E-01
28-Aug-98 240 89 -20 0.325 -75.276 -1.88E-01
28-Aug-98 240 89 -35 0.313 -91.713 -3.49E-01
28-Aug-98 240 89 -50 0.28 -155.671 -4.82E-01
29-Aug-98 241 90 -20 0.308 -98.208 -1.18E-01
29-Aug-98 241 90 -35 0.298 -116.575 -2.31E-01
29-Aug-98 241 90 -50 0.271 -180.378 -3.33E-01
30-Aug-98 242 91 -20 0.295 -122.147 -7.83E-02
30-Aug-98 242 91 -35 0.286 -142.12 -1.59E-01
30-Aug-98 242 91 -50 0.264 -205.148 -2.37E-01
31-Aug-98 243 92 -20 0.283 -148.671 -4.88E-02
31-Aug-98 243 92 -35 0.275 -169.941 -1.04E-01
31-Aug-98 243 92 -50 0.257 -230.383 -1.64E-01
1-Sep-98 244 93 -20 0.286 -141.665 -3.20E-01
1-Sep-98 244 93 -35 0.269 -186.675 -1.17E-01
1-Sep-98 244 93 -50 0.252 -252.829 -1.29E-01
2-Sep-98 245 94 -20 0.292 -126.838 -2.04E-01
2-Sep-98 245 94 -35 0.273 -174.376 -1.54E-01
2-Sep-98 245 94 -50 0.25 -261.399 -1.38E-01
3-Sep-98 246 95 -20 0.28 -155.786 -8.74E-02
3-Sep-98 246 95 -35 0.265 -199.765 -1.08E-01
3-Sep-98 246 95 -50 0.247 -280.676 -1.09E-01
4-Sep-98 247 96 -20 0.276 -166.793 -1.05E-01
4-Sep-98 247 96 -35 0.263 -209.606 -9.23E-02
4-Sep-98 247 96 -50 0.245 -291.635 -9.70E-02
5-Sep-98 248 97 -20 0.271 -182.09 -6.78E-02
5-Sep-98 248 97 -35 0.259 -224.818 -7.78E-02
5-Sep-98 248 97 -50 0.242 -305.152 -8.39E-02
6-Sep-98 249 98 -20 0.258 -226.975 -3.85E-02
6-Sep-98 249 98 -35 0.248 -270.872 -5.23E-02
6-Sep-98 249 98 -50 0.237 -335.87 -5.98E-02
7-Sep-98 250 99 -20 0.248 -272.965 -1.11E-01
7-Sep-98 250 99 -35 0.237 -338.917 -3.42E-02
7-Sep-98 250 99 -50 0.231 -380.839 -3.44E-02
8-Sep-98 251 100 -20 0.26 -220.609 -3.54E-01
8-Sep-98 251 100 -35 0.236 -343.95 -6.24E-02
8-Sep-98 251 100 -50 0.228 -405.017 -3.08E-02
9-Sep-98 252 101 -20 0.259 -225.025 -1.18E-01
9-Sep-98 252 101 -35 0.235 -348.623 -6.79E-02
9-Sep-98 252 101 -50 0.225 -438.551 -2.95E-02
10-Sep-98 253 102 -20 0.247 -276.379 -6.34E-02
10-Sep-98 253 102 -35 0.23 -392.796 -4.74E-02
10-Sep-98 253 102 -50 0.22 -482.871 -2.15E-02
Contd….
11-Sep-98 254 103 -20 0.232 -377.505 -3.14E-02

11-Sep-98 254 103 -35 0.218 -505.859 -2.45E-02
11-Sep-98 254 103 -50 0.214 -559.329 -7.51E-03
12-Sep-98 255 104 -20 0.224 -441.935 -2.00E-02
12-Sep-98 255 104 -35 0.214 -563.528 -1.56E-02
12-Sep-98 255 104 -50 0.211 -599.725 -2.84E-03
APPENDIX – B
Table B-1 Simulated values of soil moisture, pressure head, water flux etc. from SWAP model
for Dry beans crop at all observed depths (1st November 1998 – 28th February 1999)
* Project: Bangalore
* File content: soil profile data
* File name: Output.vap
* Model version: swap_3_0_3
* Generated at: 7-Jun-05
* date day dcum depth water head Wflux
* nr nr cm (-) cm cm/d
1-Nov-98 305 1 -20 0.217 -5.21E+02 5.37E-02
1-Nov-98 305 1 -35 0.236 -3.48E+02 5.61E-02
1-Nov-98 305 1 -50 0.257 -2.30E+02 7.42E-02
2-Nov-98 306 2 -20 0.215 -544.983 7.72E-02
2-Nov-98 306 2 -35 0.237 -335.919 5.78E-02
2-Nov-98 306 2 -50 0.257 -231.72 5.45E-02
3-Nov-98 307 3 -20 0.216 -529.307 2.72E-02
3-Nov-98 307 3 -35 0.238 -332.152 5.34E-02
3-Nov-98 307 3 -50 0.256 -236.19 4.40E-02
4-Nov-98 308 4 -20 0.217 -517.348 4.84E-02
4-Nov-98 308 4 -35 0.238 -330.883 4.96E-02
4-Nov-98 308 4 -50 0.255 -241.477 3.72E-02
5-Nov-98 309 5 -20 0.217 -526.207 6.41E-02
5-Nov-98 309 5 -35 0.238 -333.032 4.82E-02
5-Nov-98 309 5 -50 0.253 -247.049 3.30E-02
6-Nov-98 310 6 -20 0.214 -559.908 8.95E-02
6-Nov-98 310 6 -35 0.237 -339.208 4.95E-02
6-Nov-98 310 6 -50 0.252 -252.891 3.07E-02
7-Nov-98 311 7 -20 0.244 -293.138 -7.95E-01
7-Nov-98 311 7 -35 0.238 -332.957 6.09E-03
7-Nov-98 311 7 -50 0.251 -258.6 2.54E-02
8-Nov-98 312 8 -20 0.261 -216.703 -7.39E-02
8-Nov-98 312 8 -35 0.246 -282.416 -3.26E-02
8-Nov-98 312 8 -50 0.251 -259.514 8.28E-03
9-Nov-98 313 9 -20 0.26 -219.491 -3.73E-02
9-Nov-98 313 9 -35 0.251 -256.443 -3.00E-02
9-Nov-98 313 9 -50 0.251 -256.318 -2.92E-03
10-Nov-98 314 10 -20 0.256 -234.634 2.29E-02
10-Nov-98 314 10 -35 0.253 -247.247 -2.08E-02
10-Nov-98 314 10 -50 0.252 -252.136 -7.72E-03
11-Nov-98 315 11 -20 0.25 -261.412 6.28E-02
11-Nov-98 315 11 -35 0.253 -248.854 -7.30E-03
11-Nov-98 315 11 -50 0.253 -248.944 -7.11E-03
12-Nov-98 316 12 -20 0.243 -301.726 1.00E-01
12-Nov-98 316 12 -35 0.251 -257.693 7.79E-03
Contd…..
13-Nov-98 317 13 -20 0.234 -360.436 1.33E-01

13-Nov-98 317 13 -35 0.248 -272.293 2.33E-02
13-Nov-98 317 13 -50 0.253 -248.488 3.02E-03
14-Nov-98 318 14 -20 0.225 -433.778 1.39E-01
14-Nov-98 318 14 -35 0.245 -291.182 3.56E-02
14-Nov-98 318 14 -50 0.252 -251.411 9.58E-03
15-Nov-98 319 15 -20 0.217 -521.2 1.45E-01
15-Nov-98 319 15 -35 0.241 -312.939 4.60E-02
15-Nov-98 319 15 -50 0.251 -256.115 1.58E-02
16-Nov-98 320 16 -20 0.209 -628.886 1.49E-01
16-Nov-98 320 16 -35 0.237 -337.274 5.39E-02
16-Nov-98 320 16 -50 0.25 -262.344 2.12E-02
17-Nov-98 321 17 -20 0.203 -732.944 1.26E-01
17-Nov-98 321 17 -35 0.233 -363.013 5.88E-02
17-Nov-98 321 17 -50 0.249 -269.864 2.57E-02
18-Nov-98 322 18 -20 0.199 -816.31 1.08E-01
18-Nov-98 322 18 -35 0.23 -387.316 5.94E-02
18-Nov-98 322 18 -50 0.247 -278.302 2.84E-02
19-Nov-98 323 19 -20 0.196 -885.962 9.81E-02
19-Nov-98 323 19 -35 0.228 -409.528 5.94E-02
19-Nov-98 323 19 -50 0.245 -287.295 3.02E-02
20-Nov-98 324 20 -20 0.194 -946.164 8.90E-02
20-Nov-98 324 20 -35 0.225 -429.894 5.78E-02
20-Nov-98 324 20 -50 0.244 -296.619 3.08E-02
21-Nov-98 325 21 -20 0.195 -908.145 3.70E-02
21-Nov-98 325 21 -35 0.224 -444.402 5.12E-02
21-Nov-98 325 21 -50 0.242 -305.944 3.00E-02
22-Nov-98 326 22 -20 0.196 -894.345 5.89E-02
22-Nov-98 326 22 -35 0.223 -453.967 4.75E-02
22-Nov-98 326 22 -50 0.241 -314.878 2.87E-02
23-Nov-98 327 23 -20 0.198 -842.246 5.57E-03
23-Nov-98 327 23 -35 0.222 -460.971 4.22E-02
23-Nov-98 327 23 -50 0.239 -323.391 2.70E-02
24-Nov-98 328 24 -20 0.2 -794.274 2.76E-02
24-Nov-98 328 24 -35 0.222 -463.689 3.79E-02
24-Nov-98 328 24 -50 0.238 -331.313 2.51E-02
25-Nov-98 329 25 -20 0.202 -756.979 1.11E-02
25-Nov-98 329 25 -35 0.222 -465.479 3.42E-02
25-Nov-98 329 25 -50 0.237 -338.649 2.32E-02
26-Nov-98 330 26 -20 0.203 -739.84 3.26E-02
26-Nov-98 330 26 -35 0.222 -466.784 3.20E-02
26-Nov-98 330 26 -50 0.236 -345.457 2.15E-02
27-Nov-98 331 27 -20 0.201 -782.082 7.31E-02
27-Nov-98 331 27 -35 0.221 -471.524 3.29E-02
27-Nov-98 331 27 -50 0.235 -351.97 2.03E-02
Contd….
28-Nov-98 332 28 -20 0.201 -774.61 1.86E-02

28-Nov-98 332 28 -35 0.221 -478.107 3.09E-02
28-Nov-98 332 28 -50 0.234 -358.468 1.95E-02
29-Nov-98 333 29 -20 0.201 -776.835 4.23E-02
29-Nov-98 333 29 -35 0.22 -483.582 2.98E-02
29-Nov-98 333 29 -50 0.233 -364.855 1.86E-02
30-Nov-98 334 30 -20 0.202 -764.221 1.53E-02
30-Nov-98 334 30 -35 0.22 -488.915 2.79E-02
30-Nov-98 334 30 -50 0.232 -371.135 1.77E-02
1-Dec-98 335 31 -20 0.203 -729.769 2.01E-03
1-Dec-98 335 31 -35 0.219 -491.908 2.51E-02
1-Dec-98 335 31 -50 0.232 -377.194 1.67E-02
2-Dec-98 336 32 -20 0.204 -719.389 2.55E-02
2-Dec-98 336 32 -35 0.219 -493.736 2.38E-02
2-Dec-98 336 32 -50 0.231 -382.927 1.57E-02
3-Dec-98 337 33 -20 0.202 -758.709 5.82E-02
3-Dec-98 337 33 -35 0.219 -498.389 2.49E-02
3-Dec-98 337 33 -50 0.23 -388.481 1.51E-02
4-Dec-98 338 34 -20 0.197 -870.615 8.16E-02
4-Dec-98 338 34 -35 0.218 -510.118 2.87E-02
4-Dec-98 338 34 -50 0.23 -394.262 1.52E-02
5-Dec-98 339 35 -20 0.193 -985.569 7.18E-02
5-Dec-98 339 35 -35 0.216 -528.098 3.16E-02
5-Dec-98 339 35 -50 0.229 -400.68 1.58E-02
6-Dec-98 340 36 -20 0.189 -1082.166 6.42E-02
6-Dec-98 340 36 -35 0.215 -548.651 3.31E-02
6-Dec-98 340 36 -50 0.228 -407.828 1.65E-02
7-Dec-98 341 37 -20 0.187 -1167.599 5.89E-02
7-Dec-98 341 37 -35 0.213 -569.868 3.39E-02
7-Dec-98 341 37 -50 0.227 -415.619 1.71E-02
8-Dec-98 342 38 -20 0.185 -1244.18 5.45E-02
8-Dec-98 342 38 -35 0.212 -590.898 3.41E-02
8-Dec-98 342 38 -50 0.226 -423.927 1.75E-02
9-Dec-98 343 39 -20 0.184 -1289.068 4.40E-02
9-Dec-98 343 39 -35 0.21 -610.46 3.34E-02
9-Dec-98 343 39 -50 0.225 -432.607 1.78E-02
10-Dec-98 344 40 -20 0.185 -1244.639 1.86E-02
10-Dec-98 344 40 -35 0.209 -625.133 3.06E-02
10-Dec-98 344 40 -50 0.224 -441.406 1.76E-02
11-Dec-98 345 41 -20 0.188 -1148.936 -1.71E-02
11-Dec-98 345 41 -35 0.209 -633.243 2.69E-02
11-Dec-98 345 41 -50 0.223 -449.988 1.70E-02
12-Dec-98 346 42 -20 0.191 -1047.628 1.53E-03
12-Dec-98 346 42 -35 0.209 -634.164 2.37E-02
12-Dec-98 346 42 -50 0.223 -458.012 1.60E-02
Contd….
13-Dec-98 347 43 -20 0.192 -1004.875 2.45E-03

13-Dec-98 347 43 -35 0.209 -633.985 2.18E-02
13-Dec-98 347 43 -50 0.222 -465.437 1.50E-02
14-Dec-98 348 44 -20 0.192 -989.047 1.27E-02
14-Dec-98 348 44 -35 0.209 -634.225 2.08E-02
14-Dec-98 348 44 -50 0.221 -472.362 1.41E-02
15-Dec-98 349 45 -20 0.194 -943.432 -2.55E-02
15-Dec-98 349 45 -35 0.209 -634.578 1.88E-02
15-Dec-98 349 45 -50 0.221 -478.901 1.33E-02
16-Dec-98 350 46 -20 0.196 -903.188 5.50E-03
16-Dec-98 350 46 -35 0.209 -632.471 1.73E-02
16-Dec-98 350 46 -50 0.22 -484.982 1.24E-02
17-Dec-98 351 47 -20 0.197 -855.955 -4.06E-02
17-Dec-98 351 47 -35 0.209 -630.648 1.54E-02
17-Dec-98 351 47 -50 0.22 -490.659 1.15E-02
18-Dec-98 352 48 -20 0.199 -814.476 1.14E-03
18-Dec-98 352 48 -35 0.209 -625.989 1.38E-02
18-Dec-98 352 48 -50 0.219 -495.837 1.06E-02
19-Dec-98 353 49 -20 0.218 -512.015 -4.23E-01
19-Dec-98 353 49 -35 0.21 -611.655 -1.79E-04
19-Dec-98 353 49 -50 0.219 -500.442 9.17E-03
20-Dec-98 354 50 -20 0.228 -407.738 -4.62E-02
20-Dec-98 354 50 -35 0.214 -557.775 -1.30E-02
20-Dec-98 354 50 -50 0.219 -502.284 5.37E-03
21-Dec-98 355 51 -20 0.226 -427.532 -3.39E-03
21-Dec-98 355 51 -35 0.217 -521.695 -1.01E-02
21-Dec-98 355 51 -50 0.219 -501.243 2.40E-03
22-Dec-98 356 52 -20 0.226 -423.678 -7.12E-02
22-Dec-98 356 52 -35 0.219 -501.588 -1.01E-02
22-Dec-98 356 52 -50 0.219 -498.815 4.71E-04
23-Dec-98 357 53 -20 0.226 -422.084 -1.19E-02
23-Dec-98 357 53 -35 0.22 -484.894 -1.03E-02
23-Dec-98 357 53 -50 0.219 -495.533 -1.21E-03
24-Dec-98 358 54 -20 0.225 -437.988 -1.54E-02
24-Dec-98 358 54 -35 0.221 -476.468 -8.08E-03
24-Dec-98 358 54 -50 0.219 -491.944 -2.15E-03
25-Dec-98 359 55 -20 0.222 -466.13 1.36E-02
25-Dec-98 359 55 -35 0.221 -474.399 -4.83E-03
25-Dec-98 359 55 -50 0.22 -488.639 -2.43E-03
26-Dec-98 360 56 -20 0.217 -517.951 3.73E-02
26-Dec-98 360 56 -35 0.221 -479.724 6.32E-05
26-Dec-98 360 56 -50 0.22 -486.161 -1.96E-03
27-Dec-98 361 57 -20 0.22 -482.94 -1.83E-01
27-Dec-98 361 57 -35 0.22 -486.346 -2.71E-03
27-Dec-98 361 57 -50 0.22 -484.721 -1.33E-03
Contd….
28-Dec-98 362 58 -20 0.226 -429.583 -2.65E-02

28-Dec-98 362 58 -35 0.221 -477.014 -8.35E-03
28-Dec-98 362 58 -50 0.22 -483.26 -2.15E-03
29-Dec-98 363 59 -20 0.225 -435.027 -2.75E-02
29-Dec-98 363 59 -35 0.221 -469.737 -7.56E-03
29-Dec-98 363 59 -50 0.22 -481.2 -2.80E-03
30-Dec-98 364 60 -20 0.223 -456.821 6.92E-03
30-Dec-98 364 60 -35 0.222 -466.969 -5.00E-03
30-Dec-98 364 60 -50 0.221 -478.971 -3.00E-03
31-Dec-98 365 61 -20 0.218 -506.026 3.06E-02
31-Dec-98 365 61 -35 0.221 -471.504 -2.08E-04
31-Dec-98 365 61 -50 0.221 -477.186 -2.47E-03
1-Jan-99 1 62 -20 0.212 -580.918 5.45E-02
1-Jan-99 1 62 -35 0.22 -483.34 5.36E-03
1-Jan-99 1 62 -50 0.221 -476.415 -1.26E-03
2-Jan-99 2 63 -20 0.212 -579.849 -7.22E-02
2-Jan-99 2 63 -35 0.219 -496.759 5.08E-03
2-Jan-99 2 63 -50 0.221 -476.893 2.30E-05
3-Jan-99 3 64 -20 0.215 -542.739 -1.21E-02
3-Jan-99 3 64 -35 0.219 -500.611 2.68E-03
3-Jan-99 3 64 -50 0.221 -477.862 4.15E-04
4-Jan-99 4 65 -20 0.215 -541.58 -3.41E-02
4-Jan-99 4 65 -35 0.218 -503.461 2.51E-03
4-Jan-99 4 65 -50 0.221 -478.873 6.92E-04
5-Jan-99 5 66 -20 0.214 -554.953 3.78E-03
5-Jan-99 5 66 -35 0.218 -505.846 3.39E-03
5-Jan-99 5 66 -50 0.221 -479.873 9.08E-04
6-Jan-99 6 67 -20 0.21 -610.125 2.69E-02
6-Jan-99 6 67 -35 0.218 -512.835 6.72E-03
6-Jan-99 6 67 -50 0.22 -481.097 1.48E-03
7-Jan-99 7 68 -20 0.303 -107.143 -2.01E+00
7-Jan-99 7 68 -35 0.23 -388.839 -2.90E-01
7-Jan-99 7 68 -50 0.221 -479.9 -1.09E-02
8-Jan-99 8 69 -20 0.301 -110.454 -1.89E-01
8-Jan-99 8 69 -35 0.269 -186.83 -2.66E-01
8-Jan-99 8 69 -50 0.227 -415.121 -1.15E-01
9-Jan-99 9 70 -20 0.323 -77.49 -9.14E-01
9-Jan-99 9 70 -35 0.282 -150.976 -3.99E-01
9-Jan-99 9 70 -50 0.238 -333.711 -1.56E-01
10-Jan-99 10 71 -20 0.314 -90.234 -1.74E-01
10-Jan-99 10 71 -35 0.292 -126.982 -3.17E-01
10-Jan-99 10 71 -50 0.251 -256.299 -2.00E-01
11-Jan-99 11 72 -20 0.3 -112.29 -6.71E-02
11-Jan-99 11 72 -35 0.288 -135.778 -1.93E-01
11-Jan-99 11 72 -50 0.26 -218.829 -1.53E-01
Contd….
12-Jan-99 12 73 -20 0.303 -107.328 -3.30E-01

12-Jan-99 12 73 -35 0.287 -139.22 -1.79E-01
12-Jan-99 12 73 -50 0.265 -201.541 -1.27E-01
13-Jan-99 13 74 -20 0.298 -116.618 -7.21E-02
13-Jan-99 13 74 -35 0.288 -136.775 -1.50E-01
13-Jan-99 13 74 -50 0.269 -187.375 -1.17E-01
14-Jan-99 14 75 -20 0.287 -139.681 1.19E-02
14-Jan-99 14 75 -35 0.284 -145.463 -8.74E-02
14-Jan-99 14 75 -50 0.272 -178.191 -8.87E-02
15-Jan-99 15 76 -20 0.276 -165.492 4.86E-02
15-Jan-99 15 76 -35 0.279 -157.855 -4.23E-02
15-Jan-99 15 76 -50 0.273 -174.124 -5.85E-02
16-Jan-99 16 77 -20 0.27 -183.974 2.57E-02
16-Jan-99 16 77 -35 0.275 -169.298 -1.88E-02
16-Jan-99 16 77 -50 0.274 -172.975 -3.53E-02
17-Jan-99 17 78 -20 0.263 -207.441 5.97E-02
17-Jan-99 17 78 -35 0.271 -179.768 2.16E-03
17-Jan-99 17 78 -50 0.274 -173.219 -1.81E-02
18-Jan-99 18 79 -20 0.255 -239.328 8.38E-02
18-Jan-99 18 79 -35 0.268 -191.623 2.23E-02
18-Jan-99 18 79 -50 0.273 -174.702 -3.47E-03
19-Jan-99 19 80 -20 0.247 -276.608 9.95E-02
19-Jan-99 19 80 -35 0.264 -204.835 3.90E-02
19-Jan-99 19 80 -50 0.272 -177.449 8.83E-03
20-Jan-99 20 81 -20 0.24 -319.422 1.07E-01
20-Jan-99 20 81 -35 0.26 -219.038 5.14E-02
20-Jan-99 20 81 -50 0.271 -181.36 1.86E-02
21-Jan-99 21 82 -20 0.232 -374.11 1.22E-01
21-Jan-99 21 82 -35 0.256 -234.761 6.37E-02
21-Jan-99 21 82 -50 0.269 -186.347 2.68E-02
22-Jan-99 22 83 -20 0.224 -440.01 1.27E-01
22-Jan-99 22 83 -35 0.252 -252.289 7.25E-02
22-Jan-99 22 83 -50 0.267 -192.406 3.33E-02
23-Jan-99 23 84 -20 0.217 -523.476 1.38E-01
23-Jan-99 23 84 -35 0.248 -272.103 8.17E-02
23-Jan-99 23 84 -50 0.265 -199.517 3.90E-02
24-Jan-99 24 85 -20 0.209 -624.391 1.39E-01
24-Jan-99 24 85 -35 0.244 -294.394 8.75E-02
24-Jan-99 24 85 -50 0.263 -207.696 4.33E-02
25-Jan-99 25 86 -20 0.208 -641.309 4.86E-02
25-Jan-99 25 86 -35 0.241 -312.756 7.93E-02
25-Jan-99 25 86 -50 0.261 -216.522 4.41E-02
26-Jan-99 26 87 -20 0.211 -599.964 -4.26E-02
26-Jan-99 26 87 -35 0.239 -323.724 6.79E-02
26-Jan-99 26 87 -50 0.258 -225.164 4.24E-02
Contd….
27-Jan-99 27 88 -20 0.213 -568.258 2.49E-02

27-Jan-99 27 88 -35 0.238 -328.187 6.00E-02
27-Jan-99 27 88 -50 0.257 -233.06 3.88E-02
28-Jan-99 28 89 -20 0.214 -559.832 -1.46E-02
28-Jan-99 28 89 -35 0.238 -334.364 5.49E-02
28-Jan-99 28 89 -50 0.255 -240.461 3.60E-02
29-Jan-99 29 90 -20 0.214 -562.346 2.83E-02
29-Jan-99 29 90 -35 0.237 -340.349 5.17E-02
29-Jan-99 29 90 -50 0.253 -247.516 3.35E-02
30-Jan-99 30 91 -20 0.231 -381.616 -4.35E-01
30-Jan-99 30 91 -35 0.237 -339.307 2.55E-02
30-Jan-99 30 91 -50 0.252 -254.169 2.94E-02
31-Jan-99 31 92 -20 0.24 -317.629 -3.43E-02
31-Jan-99 31 92 -35 0.24 -317.328 1.01E-02
31-Jan-99 31 92 -50 0.251 -258.31 2.07E-02
1-Feb-99 32 93 -20 0.243 -303.087 -1.18E-01
1-Feb-99 32 93 -35 0.242 -305.259 4.93E-03
1-Feb-99 32 93 -50 0.25 -260.656 1.49E-02
2-Feb-99 33 94 -20 0.242 -304.66 -1.02E-02
2-Feb-99 33 94 -35 0.244 -296.904 4.48E-03
2-Feb-99 33 94 -50 0.25 -261.958 1.07E-02
3-Feb-99 34 95 -20 0.249 -266.224 -2.61E-01
3-Feb-99 34 95 -35 0.245 -290.99 -7.90E-03
3-Feb-99 34 95 -50 0.25 -262.843 7.54E-03
4-Feb-99 35 96 -20 0.254 -242.042 -6.82E-02
4-Feb-99 35 96 -35 0.248 -275.331 -1.93E-02
4-Feb-99 35 96 -50 0.25 -262.216 1.38E-03
5-Feb-99 36 97 -20 0.25 -264.556 4.13E-03
5-Feb-99 36 97 -35 0.248 -270.839 -9.47E-03
5-Feb-99 36 97 -50 0.25 -260.749 -8.09E-04
6-Feb-99 37 98 -20 0.242 -303.411 3.88E-02
6-Feb-99 37 98 -35 0.247 -277.693 4.14E-03
6-Feb-99 37 98 -50 0.251 -260.259 1.38E-03
7-Feb-99 38 99 -20 0.235 -355.379 6.17E-02
7-Feb-99 38 99 -35 0.244 -291.885 1.70E-02
7-Feb-99 38 99 -50 0.25 -261.577 5.94E-03
8-Feb-99 39 100 -20 0.225 -430.386 8.50E-02
8-Feb-99 39 100 -35 0.241 -312.741 2.97E-02
8-Feb-99 39 100 -50 0.25 -264.933 1.18E-02
9-Feb-99 40 101 -20 0.216 -532.676 1.01E-01
9-Feb-99 40 101 -35 0.237 -338.711 4.08E-02
9-Feb-99 40 101 -50 0.249 -270.289 1.78E-02
10-Feb-99 41 102 -20 0.207 -670.516 1.12E-01
10-Feb-99 41 102 -35 0.233 -369.83 5.05E-02
10-Feb-99 41 102 -50 0.247 -277.516 2.36E-02
Contd….
11-Feb-99 42 103 -20 0.204 -713.95 2.19E-02

11-Feb-99 42 103 -35 0.229 -398.724 4.86E-02
11-Feb-99 42 103 -50 0.246 -286.177 2.73E-02
12-Feb-99 43 104 -20 0.202 -764.911 3.69E-02
12-Feb-99 43 104 -35 0.226 -424.833 4.82E-02
12-Feb-99 43 104 -50 0.244 -295.575 2.95E-02
13-Feb-99 44 105 -20 0.202 -754.866 -6.12E-02
13-Feb-99 44 105 -35 0.224 -447.944 4.34E-02
13-Feb-99 44 105 -50 0.242 -305.441 3.05E-02
14-Feb-99 45 106 -20 0.204 -718.954 4.36E-03
14-Feb-99 45 106 -35 0.222 -462.446 3.89E-02
14-Feb-99 45 106 -50 0.241 -315.141 2.99E-02
15-Feb-99 46 107 -20 0.208 -646.163 -1.32E-01
15-Feb-99 46 107 -35 0.221 -472.684 3.18E-02
15-Feb-99 46 107 -50 0.239 -324.506 2.86E-02
16-Feb-99 47 108 -20 0.211 -598.341 -1.07E-02
16-Feb-99 47 108 -35 0.221 -476.525 2.74E-02
16-Feb-99 47 108 -50 0.238 -333.143 2.66E-02
17-Feb-99 48 109 -20 0.216 -536.709 -1.55E-01
17-Feb-99 48 109 -35 0.22 -480.658 2.12E-02
17-Feb-99 48 109 -50 0.237 -341.265 2.48E-02
18-Feb-99 49 110 -20 0.218 -505.041 -1.81E-02
18-Feb-99 49 110 -35 0.221 -479.588 1.72E-02
18-Feb-99 49 110 -50 0.235 -348.62 2.26E-02
19-Feb-99 50 111 -20 0.214 -554.801 1.33E-02
19-Feb-99 50 111 -35 0.22 -484.521 1.97E-02
19-Feb-99 50 111 -50 0.235 -355.566 2.13E-02
20-Feb-99 51 112 -20 0.213 -577.62 -4.97E-02
20-Feb-99 51 112 -35 0.219 -498.39 2.00E-02
20-Feb-99 51 112 -50 0.234 -362.796 2.11E-02
21-Feb-99 52 113 -20 0.211 -594.53 -1.59E-03
21-Feb-99 52 113 -35 0.218 -512.203 2.00E-02
21-Feb-99 52 113 -50 0.233 -370.352 2.09E-02
22-Feb-99 53 114 -20 0.234 -362.604 -5.48E-01
22-Feb-99 53 114 -35 0.218 -510.38 -3.98E-03
22-Feb-99 53 114 -50 0.232 -377.808 1.90E-02
23-Feb-99 54 115 -20 0.241 -311.198 -6.14E-02
23-Feb-99 54 115 -35 0.222 -462.753 -2.09E-02
23-Feb-99 54 115 -50 0.231 -382.12 1.28E-02
24-Feb-99 55 116 -20 0.234 -356.017 -3.16E-03
24-Feb-99 55 116 -35 0.224 -447.15 -9.86E-03
24-Feb-99 55 116 -50 0.231 -384.17 1.00E-02
25-Feb-99 56 117 -20 0.233 -367.962 -1.22E-01
25-Feb-99 56 117 -35 0.223 -453.828 -6.73E-03
25-Feb-99 56 117 -50 0.23 -386.539 9.91E-03
Contd….
26-Feb-99 57 118 -20 0.231 -381.574 -2.12E-02

26-Feb-99 57 118 -35 0.222 -459.417 -5.44E-03
26-Feb-99 57 118 -50 0.23 -389.446 9.78E-03
27-Feb-99 58 119 -20 0.229 -399.176 -7.92E-02
27-Feb-99 58 119 -35 0.221 -472.733 -2.56E-03
27-Feb-99 58 119 -50 0.23 -393.135 1.05E-02
28-Feb-99 59 120 -20 0.23 -391.714 -8.63E-02
28-Feb-99 59 120 -35 0.22 -486.155 -4.26E-03
28-Feb-99 59 120 -50 0.229 -397.624 1.12E-02
APPENDIX - C
‘C’ Program for performing irrigation scheduling for any type of crop giving the required
input data is given as follows. Using this program we can find out when the irrigation water is to
be provided through out the crop period. And we can also find how much amount of irrigation
water should be provided.
Input data required for the present program are date, month, soil moisture details at
maximum root depth, actual soil moisture content, and the actual applied irrigation details. Main
input data required as an input to the model to get irrigation water requirement are day, month
and soil moisture on that particular day. Input data should be provided in a text format from
where the model reads the data. The program is as follows
#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
#include<math.h>
float thc, Ei, IWR, SMact, SMswap, actIrri;

int M, D, Drz, Irrigation;
FILE *fp, *fr, *fout, *fin;
void main()
{
clrscr();
fin=fopen("c:/TC/Sunil/cool/Yes.txt","r");
fp=fopen("c:/TC/Sunil/cool/GIn.txt","r");
fr=fopen("c:/TC/Sunil/cool/output.txt","w");
fr=fopen("c:/TC/Sunil/cool/Result.xls","w");
printf("Enter the depth of root zone in mm:");

scanf("%d",&Drz);
printf("Enter the value of thc in %:");
scanf("%f",&thc);
printf("Enter the effeciency of irrigation in %:");
scanf("%f",&Ei);
fprintf(fr,"Day Month Drz thc SMswap SMact* Ei Irrigation
IWR Actual Irrigation\n");
fprintf(fr,"(-) (-) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (-) (mm) (mm)\n\n");
while((fscanf(fp,"%d",&D))!=EOF)
{
fscanf(fp,"%d",&M);
fscanf(fp,"%f",&SMswap);
fscanf(fp,"%f",&SMact);
fscanf(fp,"%f",&actIrri);
//**Calculation of Irrigation water Requirement**//
if (SMswap<thc)
{
Irrigation=1;
fprintf(fout,"Irrigation water is not required");
IWR=(Drz*(thc-SMswap))/Ei;
}
else
{
Irrigation=2;
fprintf(fout,"Irrigation is not required");
IWR=0;
}
fprintf(fr,"%d %d %d %0.2f %0.3f %f %0.3f %d %0.3f

%0.2f\n",D,M,Drz,thc,SMswap,SMact,Ei,Irrigation,IWR,actIrri);
}
fprintf(fr,"\n\nDrz Depth of root zone\nthc Soil moisture at field
capacity in %\nSMswap Soil moisture on that day simulated from SWAP
model\nSMact Actual or observed soil moisture\nEi Effeciency of
irrigation\nIWR Irrigation water required\nactIrri Actual Irrigation
Applied\n\n* If SMact is 99 then it means that the soil moisture was not
observed on that particular day\nIrrigation=1 Irrigation water is
required\nIrrigation=2 Irrigation is not required\n");
fclose(fp);
getch();
}
APPENDIX - D
Table D-1 Details of Irrigation scheduling (Output from ‘C’ Program) for Groundnut crop (2nd
June – 12th September 1998)
Day Mont Drz thc SMswap SMact* Ei Irrigatio IWR Actual

h n Irrigation
(-) (-) (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (-) (mm) (mm)
1 6 500 22.3 22 99 85 1 1.765 0

2 6 500 22.3 21.8 21.87 85 1 2.941 0
3 6 500 22.3 21.7 99 85 1 3.529 6.2
4 6 500 22.3 21.6 21.44 85 1 4.118 8.1
5 6 500 22.3 21.5 99 85 1 4.706 0
6 6 500 22.3 21.4 99 85 1 5.294 0
7 6 500 22.3 21.3 99 85 1 5.882 0
8 6 500 22.3 21.3 20.1 85 1 5.882 4.1
9 6 500 22.3 21.2 99 85 1 6.471 3.4
10 6 500 22.3 21.2 99 85 1 6.471 6.9
11 6 500 22.3 21.1 21.09 85 1 7.059 5
12 6 500 22.3 21.1 99 85 1 7.059 0
13 6 500 22.3 21 99 85 1 7.647 4.2
14 6 500 22.3 21 21.16 85 1 7.647 0
15 6 500 22.3 20.9 99 85 1 8.235 5.9
16 6 500 22.3 20.9 99 85 1 8.235 4.2
17 6 500 22.3 20.8 99 85 1 8.824 0
18 6 500 22.3 20.8 20.98 85 1 8.824 5.1
19 6 500 22.3 20.7 99 85 1 9.412 0
20 6 500 22.3 20.7 99 85 1 9.412 0
21 6 500 22.3 20.7 99 85 1 9.412 0
22 6 500 22.3 20.6 21.23 85 1 10 0
23 6 500 22.3 20.6 99 85 1 10 0
24 6 500 22.3 20.6 99 85 1 10 4.1
25 6 500 22.3 20.5 21.59 85 1 10.588 0
26 6 500 22.3 20.5 99 85 1 10.588 6.8
27 6 500 22.3 20.5 99 85 1 10.588 0
28 6 500 22.3 20.5 99 85 1 10.588 0
29 6 500 22.3 20.4 20.7 85 1 11.176 0
30 6 500 22.3 20.4 99 85 1 11.176 0
1 7 500 22.3 20.4 99 85 1 11.176 0
2 7 500 22.3 20.4 20.91 85 1 11.176 3.7
3 7 500 22.3 20.3 99 85 1 11.765 0
4 7 500 22.3 20.3 99 85 1 11.765 0
5 7 500 22.3 20.3 99 85 1 11.765 0
6 7 500 22.3 20.4 99 85 1 11.176 0
7 7 500 22.3 20.4 20.95 85 1 11.176 0
8 7 500 22.3 20.5 99 85 1 10.588 0
Contd…..
11 7 500 22.3 20.6 99 85 1 10 0

12 7 500 22.3 20.7 99 85 1 9.412 5.5
13 7 500 22.3 20.7 99 85 1 9.412 0
14 7 500 22.3 20.7 21.09 85 1 9.412 0
15 7 500 22.3 20.7 99 85 1 9.412 0
16 7 500 22.3 20.9 21.05 85 1 8.235 0
17 7 500 22.3 21.3 99 85 1 5.882 2.7
18 7 500 22.3 21.7 20.81 85 1 3.529 0
19 7 500 22.3 22.4 99 85 2 0 0
20 7 500 22.3 23.3 22.3 85 2 0 0
21 7 500 22.3 23.8 99 85 2 0 0
22 7 500 22.3 24 99 85 2 0 0
23 7 500 22.3 24.1 99 85 2 0 0
24 7 500 22.3 24.1 99 85 2 0 0
25 7 500 22.3 23.9 99 85 2 0 0
26 7 500 22.3 23.7 99 85 2 0 0
27 7 500 22.3 23.5 99 85 2 0 0
28 7 500 22.3 23.3 99 85 2 0 0
29 7 500 22.3 23.1 99 85 2 0 0
30 7 500 22.3 22.9 99 85 2 0 0
31 7 500 22.3 22.7 99 85 2 0 0
1 8 500 22.3 22.6 99 85 2 0 0
2 8 500 22.3 22.6 99 85 2 0 0
3 8 500 22.3 22.4 22.22 85 2 0 0
4 8 500 22.3 22.3 99 85 2 0 0
5 8 500 22.3 22.1 24 85 1 1.176 0
6 8 500 22.3 22.2 23.82 85 1 0.588 0
7 8 500 22.3 23.3 99 85 2 0 0
8 8 500 22.3 24.6 99 85 2 0 0
9 8 500 22.3 25.7 99 85 2 0 0
10 8 500 22.3 26.2 23.71 85 2 0 0
11 8 500 22.3 26.6 99 85 2 0 0
12 8 500 22.3 26.6 99 85 2 0 0
13 8 500 22.3 26.6 99 85 2 0 0
14 8 500 22.3 26.4 23.57 85 2 0 0
15 8 500 22.3 26 99 85 2 0 0
16 8 500 22.3 32.9 99 85 2 0 0
17 8 500 22.3 30.4 23.57 85 2 0 0
18 8 500 22.3 28.8 99 85 2 0 0
19 8 500 22.3 35 99 85 2 0 0
20 8 500 22.3 30.3 23.57 85 2 0 0
21 8 500 22.3 30.3 99 85 2 0 0
22 8 500 22.3 31.7 99 85 2 0 0
23 8 500 22.3 30.1 99 85 2 0 0
24 8 500 22.3 29.6 99 85 2 0 0
25 8 500 22.3 29.4 99 85 2 0 0
26 8 500 22.3 28.9 99 85 2 0 0
Contd…..
27 8 500 22.3 28.9 99 85 2 0 0

28 8 500 22.3 28 99 85 2 0 0
29 8 500 22.3 27.1 99 85 2 0 0
30 8 500 22.3 26.4 99 85 2 0 0
31 8 500 22.3 25.7 23.75 85 2 0 0
1 9 500 22.3 25.2 99 85 2 0 0
2 9 500 22.3 25 99 85 2 0 0
3 9 500 22.3 24.7 99 85 2 0 0
4 9 500 22.3 24.5 99 85 2 0 0
5 9 500 22.3 24.2 99 85 2 0 0
6 9 500 22.3 23.7 99 85 2 0 0
7 9 500 22.3 23.1 99 85 2 0 0
8 9 500 22.3 22.8 99 85 2 0 0
9 9 500 22.3 22.5 99 85 2 0 0
10 9 500 22.3 22.3 99 85 2 0 0
11 9 500 22.3 21.5 99 85 1 4.706 0
12 9 500 22.3 21.3 99 85 1 5.882 0
Drz Depth of root zone

thc Soil moisture at field capacity in %
SMswap Soil moisture on that day simulated from SWAP model
SMact Actual or observed soil moisture
Ei Effeciency of irrigation
IWR Irrigation water required
actIrri Actual Irrigation Applied
* If SMact is 99 then it means that the soil moisture was not observed on that particular day
Irrigation=1 Irrigation water is required
Irrigation=2 Irrigation is not required
Table D-2 Details of Irrigation Scheduling (Output from ‘C’ Program) for Dry Beans crop (1st
November 1998 – 28th February 1999)
1 11 500 22.3 25.7 99 85 2 0 0

2 11 500 22.3 25.7 99 85 2 0 0
3 11 500 22.3 25.6 25.17 85 2 0 0
4 11 500 22.3 25.5 99 85 2 0 0
5 11 500 22.3 25.3 99 85 2 0 0
6 11 500 22.3 25.2 99 85 2 0 0
7 11 500 22.3 25.1 99 85 2 0 0
8 11 500 22.3 25.1 99 85 2 0 0
9 11 500 22.3 25.1 99 85 2 0 0
10 11 500 22.3 25.2 99 85 2 0 0
11 11 500 22.3 25.3 99 85 2 0 0
12 11 500 22.3 25.3 99 85 2 0 0
13 11 500 22.3 25.3 99 85 2 0 0
14 11 500 22.3 25.2 99 85 2 0 0
15 11 500 22.3 25.1 99 85 2 0 0
16 11 500 22.3 25 99 85 2 0 0
17 11 500 22.3 24.9 99 85 2 0 0
18 11 500 22.3 24.7 99 85 2 0 0
19 11 500 22.3 24.5 24.39 85 2 0 0
20 11 500 22.3 24.4 99 85 2 0 0
21 11 500 22.3 24.2 99 85 2 0 3.58
22 11 500 22.3 24 99 85 2 0 0
23 11 500 22.3 23.9 24.53 85 2 0 9.26
24 11 500 22.3 23.8 99 85 2 0 0
25 11 500 22.3 23.6 99 85 2 0 5.69
26 11 500 22.3 23.5 99 85 2 0 0
27 11 500 22.3 23.3 23.68 85 2 0 0
28 11 500 22.3 23.2 99 85 2 0 7
29 11 500 22.3 23.1 99 85 2 0 0
30 11 500 22.3 23 23.32 85 2 0 6.86
1 12 500 22.3 22.9 99 85 2 0 5.28
2 12 500 22.3 22.7 99 85 2 0 0
3 12 500 22.3 22.6 22.97 85 2 0 0
4 12 500 22.3 22.5 99 85 2 0 0
5 12 500 22.3 22.4 99 85 2 0 0
6 12 500 22.3 22.3 99 85 2 0 0
7 12 500 22.3 22.2 99 85 1 0.588 0
8 12 500 22.3 22.1 99 85 1 1.176 0
9 12 500 22.3 22 99 85 1 1.765 0
10 12 500 22.3 21.9 99 85 1 2.353 0
11 12 500 22.3 21.9 99 85 1 2.353 0
12 12 500 22.3 21.8 99 85 1 2.941 0
13 12 500 22.3 21.7 99 85 1 3.529 0
14 12 500 22.3 21.7 22.08 85 1 3.529 0
15 12 500 22.3 21.6 99 85 1 4.118 6.86
16 12 500 22.3 21.5 99 85 1 4.706 0
Contd……
17 12 500 22.3 21.5 22.58 85 1 4.706 7.21

18 12 500 22.3 21.4 99 85 1 5.294 0
19 12 500 22.3 21.4 99 85 1 5.294 10.23
20 12 500 22.3 21.3 99 85 1 5.882 0
21 12 500 22.3 21.2 21.98 85 1 6.471 0
22 12 500 22.3 21.2 99 85 1 6.471 7.54
23 12 500 22.3 21.1 99 85 1 7.059 0
24 12 500 22.3 21.1 22.37 85 1 7.059 3.43
25 12 500 22.3 21 99 85 1 7.647 0
26 12 500 22.3 20.9 99 85 1 8.235 0
27 12 500 22.3 20.9 99 85 1 8.235 13.72
28 12 500 22.3 20.8 21.55 85 1 8.824 0
29 12 500 22.3 20.7 99 85 1 9.412 3.43
30 12 500 22.3 20.7 99 85 1 9.412 0
31 12 500 22.3 20.6 21.27 85 1 10 39.12
1 1 500 22.3 20.5 99 85 1 10.588 0
2 1 500 22.3 20.5 99 85 1 10.588 12.35
3 1 500 22.3 20.4 99 85 1 11.176 0
4 1 500 22.3 20.4 99 85 1 11.176 5
5 1 500 22.3 20.3 99 85 1 11.765 0
6 1 500 22.3 20.2 99 85 1 12.353 0
7 1 500 22.3 20.2 99 85 1 12.353 43.58
8 1 500 22.3 20.1 99 85 1 12.941 0
9 1 500 22.3 20 99 85 1 13.529 17.84
10 1 500 22.3 20 99 85 1 13.529 0
11 1 500 22.3 19.9 99 85 1 14.118 26.59
12 1 500 22.3 19.9 99 85 1 14.118 9.6
13 1 500 22.3 19.8 99 85 1 14.706 0
14 1 500 22.3 19.8 99 85 1 14.706 0
15 1 500 22.3 19.7 99 85 1 15.294 0
16 1 500 22.3 19.6 99 85 1 15.882 26.42
17 1 500 22.3 19.6 99 85 1 15.882 0
18 1 500 22.3 19.5 99 85 1 16.471 27
19 1 500 22.3 19.5 99 85 1 16.471 0
20 1 500 22.3 19.4 99 85 1 17.059 0
21 1 500 22.3 19.4 99 85 1 17.059 44.25
22 1 500 22.3 19.3 99 85 1 17.647 0
23 1 500 22.3 19.3 99 85 1 17.647 30
24 1 500 22.3 19.2 99 85 1 18.235 0
25 1 500 22.3 19.2 23.39 85 1 18.235 6.86
26 1 500 22.3 19.1 23.78 85 1 18.824 8.9
27 1 500 22.3 19.1 99 85 1 18.824 0
28 1 500 22.3 19.1 99 85 1 18.824 6.17
29 1 500 22.3 19 99 85 1 19.412 0
30 1 500 22.3 19 99 85 1 19.412 16.42
31 1 500 22.3 18.9 99 85 1 20 0
Contd….
1 2 500 22.3 18.9 22.93 85 1 20 6.86

2 2 500 22.3 18.8 99 85 1 20.588 0
3 2 500 22.3 18.8 99 85 1 20.588 10.98
4 2 500 22.3 18.7 24.71 85 1 21.176 1.37
5 2 500 22.3 18.7 99 85 1 21.176 0
6 2 500 22.3 18.6 25.66 85 1 21.765 0
7 2 500 22.3 18.6 99 85 1 21.765 0
8 2 500 22.3 18.5 25.52 85 1 22.353 0
9 2 500 22.3 18.5 99 85 1 22.353 0
10 2 500 22.3 18.4 99 85 1 22.941 0
11 2 500 22.3 18.4 24.67 85 1 22.941 8.23
12 2 500 22.3 18.3 99 85 1 23.529 0
13 2 500 22.3 18.3 99 85 1 23.529 10.98
14 2 500 22.3 18.2 99 85 1 24.118 0
15 2 500 22.3 18.2 99 85 1 24.118 9.6
16 2 500 22.3 18.1 23.93 85 1 24.706 0
17 2 500 22.3 18.1 99 85 1 24.706 9.6
18 2 500 22.3 18 23.47 85 1 25.294 0
19 2 500 22.3 18 99 85 1 25.294 0
20 2 500 22.3 17.9 99 85 1 25.882 8.23
21 2 500 22.3 17.9 99 85 1 25.882 0
22 2 500 22.3 17.8 99 85 1 26.471 17.84
23 2 500 22.3 17.8 99 85 1 26.471 0
24 2 500 22.3 17.7 23 85 1 27.059 0
25 2 500 22.3 17.7 99 85 1 27.059 9.6
26 2 500 22.3 17.6 99 85 1 27.647 0
27 2 500 22.3 17.6 99 85 1 27.647 6.86
28 2 500 22.3 17.5 99 85 1 28.235 4.85
Drz Depth of root zone

thc Soil moisture at field capacity in %
SMs Soil moisture on that day simulated from SWAP model
wap
SMa Actual or observed soil moisture
ct
Ei Effeciency of irrigation
IWR Irrigation water required
actIrri Actual Irrigation Applied
* If SMact is 99 then it means that the soil moisture was not observed on that particular day
Irrigation=1 Irrigation water is required
Irrigation=2 Irrigation is not required
BIO-DATA
Name: Sunil Gurrapu
Register number: 0322667
Date of Birth: 24th September 1980
Father’s Name: Mr. G. Sudarsanam
Permanent address: S/o Mr. G. Sudarsanam

Dy. Executive engineer
Panchayat Raj, Razole – 533 242
Andhra Pradesh
E-mail: sunil_gurappu@yahoo.com
Phone: 08862 - 222843
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:
Degree: B.E. (Civil)
Duration: 4 years (1998 – 2002)
College: Maulana Azad college of Technology, (REC – Bhopal)
University: Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Viswavidyalaya, Bhopal.

Estimation of Soil Moisture in Unsaturated Zone and Irrigation Sceduling

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Estimation of Soil Moisture in Unsaturated Zone and Irrigation Sceduling

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ESTIMATION OF SOIL MOISTURE IN UNSATURATED

ZONE AND IRRIGATION SCHEDULING

A dissertation report submitted

Under the Guidance of

Department of Applied Mechanics & Hydraulics

SURATHKAL, P.O. SRINIVASNAGAR - 575 025

SURATHKAL, P.O. SRINIVASNAGAR - 575 025

(Dr. A. Vittal Hegde)

This dissertation is accepted/Not accepted

External Examiner Internal Examiner Chairman

I am deeply indebted to my guide Dr. K. Varija, Sr. Lecturer, Department of Applied

I acknowledge my sincere gratitude to Dr. A. Vittal Hegde, Professor and Head,

It’s also my privilege to thank Dr. Lakshman Nandagiri, Assistant Professor,

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.2 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 55

1.2 UNSATURATED (VADOSE) ZONE

1.3 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING

1.4 NEED FOR IRRIGATION SCHEDULING

1.5 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• To validate the SWAP – Agro hydrological model

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

This thesis has been organized in five different chapters.

2.2 SWAP MODEL

Deep Ground water

Fig. 2.1 A Schematized overview of the modeled system in SWAP model

o Field scale water and salinity management

o Source code was restructured (input, output, timing, error handling)

2.2.1 Advantages of SWAP model

2.2.2 Disadvantages of SWAP model

o This is highly parameterized model, which makes it bit complicated.

2.3 IRRIGATION SCHEDULING STRATEGIES

2.3.1 Full irrigation

2.3.2 Deficit irrigation

2.4 METHODS TO KNOW WHEN TO IRRIGATE

2.4.1 Plant indicators

2.4.2 Soil indicators

Table 2.2 List of some soil-based indicators to know when to irrigate

2.5 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

3.2 DETAILS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SITE

3.3 INPUT DATA INFORMATION

3.4.1 Determination of Actual Evapotranspiration (ETa)

3.4.1.1 Determination of reference evapotranspiration (ETo)

3.4.1.2 Determination of crop evapotranspiration

ETc = ETo * Kc ……………………… (3.2)

The crop stages used to select a KC value are:

Steps in constructing a crop coefficient curve

Crop coeffecient (Kc) values (Dry Beans)

ETa = ETc When St > (1-p) SWa …………… (3.3)

Determination of depletion factor (p)

Where, the adjusted p is limited to 0.1 ≤ p ≤ 0.8 and ETc is in mm/day.

Maximum Root Depletion Factor (for

3.4.2 Determination of drainage (or) water flux

3.4.2.1 Campbell model

3.4.2.3 Drainage calculation

q – Water flux [cm/day] Z1 = 35 cm

3.4.3 Estimation of soil moisture

3.4.3.1 SWAP model

Soil water flow

Numerical solution of soil water flow equation

Numerical discretization in the soil profile

Top boundary condition

Other boundary condition