Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 2, No.
5, June 2011
Practical Design Of Improved Irrigation Projects
in Egypt Under Specific Constraints
Hany G. Radwan, Ashraf S. Zaghloul, Kamal A. Ibrahim
Abstract— The main objectives of this paper are discussing
two different design criteria for IIP project to achieve a
constant water head inside the stand tank. Also we discussed
the main two parameters that control choosing the suitable
design criteria which are the unit stream size, and the total
pipeline length. We concluded that for short pipeline lengths
less than 600 m, there is no limitation in choosing the suitable
design criteria but, for long pipeline lengths more than 600 m
and for a specific unit stream size, the farmer has a choice
either designing for fixed rotation and minimum cost or
designing for free operation with little increase in the total
cost. In IIIMP this problem disappears and the design achieves
free operations between farmers with acceptable cost for small
number of marwas and small numbers of 2 to 6 outlets/marwa,
otherwise we will return to the farmer’s choice to detect the
suitable design criteria. The existing design technique used in
the design of improved irrigation system deals with the
hydraulic gradient line and ignoring the minor losses of
sudden contraction due to change in diameter sizes. In this
paper we discussed also the effect of taking the total energy
line and minor losses into consideration on the required water
head in the feeder tank. Using hypothetical case studies, we
concluded that for both IIP and IIIMP we should increase the
water head from the existing design technique by 3% to take
the effect of neglecting total energy line, and minor losses, also
this percentage decreases as the pipeline lengths increases
Keywords: Improved Irrigation System, IIP, IIIMP
I. INTRODUCTION
Surface water resources are limited to Egypt’s share of the
Nile River, together with minor amounts of rainfall and flash
floods. Irrigation for agriculture consumes 85% of the available
water supplies. The available fresh water per capita in Egypt
dropped from 1893 cubic meters per person in 1959 to 900-950
cubic meters (chronic water scarcity) in 2000 and tends to
decline further to the values of 670 cubic meter (chronic water
scarcity) by 2017 and 536 (absolute water scarcity) by 2025.
The main reason behind this rapid fall is the fixed water
resources and the raising pressure from population growth [1].
The increasing discrepancy between water demand and water
supply in the (near) future requires an ongoing and dynamic
scenario for MWRI (Ministry of water resources and irrigation)
to face the challenges in the future. Beside new challenges
which can affect on the shortage in the future, climate change,
and the change in the Egyptian Nile water share [2, 3, and 4].
Looking to the future, various policies for increasing the usable
supply of water or improving the efficiency of its use have
been identified; one of them is improved management of the
irrigation system. The irrigation system can be divided with
respect to size, operation and control into two categories; the
main canal system or main system, which consists of all canals
larger than the Mesqa, and the farm distribution system (FDS)
103
which consists of Mesqas and smaller order ditches called
marwas [5].
There are two strategies proposed to achieve optimal use of
all the available water resources; first is Irrigation
Improvement Project (IIP). The main objective of the IIP in
the old lands is to improve the efficiency of the water use at
mesqa (small channels) and farm levels by replacing the
existing earth mesqa with pipeline one. It also encourages user
participation in the operation, maintenance and management of
the irrigation system [6]. IIP (Irrigation Improvement Project)
resulted into many benefits such as land saving [7], increase in
crop yield, increase conveyance efficiency, for more details see
[8, 9, and 10]. The second strategy for optimal water use is
Integrated Irrigation Improvement and Management IIIMP.
(IIIMP) is expected to improve 500,000 feddans as a first
stage, with the national plan to improve 3.4 million feddans till
the year 2017. The improved management (IIIMP) is expected
to achieve increased efficiency and more sustainable use of
land and water, by replacing earth marwa with pipeline one and
thus have a positive impact on water distribution, quantity,
quality, equity, timeliness, and hence, poverty alleviation [11,
9].
In this study, the effect of using total energy line in the
design of improved farm distribution system (FDS) instead of
using hydraulic gradient line (as used in the existing design
program) has been conducted. Also, the effect of neglecting
minor losses through the design of the distribution system has
been analyzed to detect the percentage of error in the design in
case of using the existing design program. Also we discussed
some of the design concepts used in the design of IIP project.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The design of the improved farm irrigation system consists
of detecting the suitable pipe diameter for each marwa and
mesqa pipelines reaches as shown in Fig. (1), then calculating
the required water level inside the stand tank (system feed)
which connected with a suitable pump. The existing design
program which used in the design of the improved irrigation
system either for IIP or IIIMP projects is adopted the design
steps in the next section. These design steps are programmed
using a new Matlab program as a first step for future work
[12]. As the progress of the modifications for the new Matlab
program, we discovered that the existing design technique is
based on using hydraulic gradient line instead of using total
energy line in all its steps which can affect on the total required
water level inside the stand tank. Also, the existing program
neglects the minor losses for pipeline connections. So, we will
discuss the effect of the previous two points on the water level
inside the tank to detect the percentage of error in the existing
program.
 Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 2, No. 5, June 2011

B. Calculation of the suitable pipe diameters.

The selection of pipe diameter depending on a maximum
velocity should not be exceeding 1.5 m/sec. Table 1 shows a
recommended list of pipe diameters to choose the required
diameter according to the known pipe discharge.

Fig. 1. Main components of the improved irrigation in on-farm

system.

III. STEPS FOR EXISTING DESIGN PROGRAM

The existing program first begins by collecting the friction

coefficients for minor losses required at each connection. The
typical connection of Marwa outlet (riser) is as shown in Fig.
(2), which consists of the following and the corresponding
friction coefficient (K) [13-16]. Fig. 2. Typical components of hydrant.
• Tee, 90o, line to branch, sharp edge. (KT=1.80 )
TABLE 1
• Bend, 90o, short radius. (K90o=0.75) SUITABLE PIPE DIAMETERS FOR VMAX. = 1.5 M/S
• Butterfly valve (IIIMP) (KV (Fully opened )= 0.30) or Gate Q (l/s) Pipe diameter (mm)
Valve (IIP) (KV (Fully opened) =0.20). 20 200
• Bend, 45o, short radius. (Kb=0.30) 60 250
90 315
• Exit, (Ke=1.0)
120 355
So, total friction losses coefficient (KTotal )= 4.15. The friction 150 400
coefficient for the connection between marwa and mesqa 180 450
pipeline is considered Tee, 90o (K=1.8), and the friction
coefficient at the connection between mesqa and the tank is
entrance losses (K=0.5), and these are the whole friction losses C. Calculation of head for stand tank.
considered in the existing design program. But, the following
The required water level for the stand tank is calculated
minor losses are not considered due to sudden contraction
depending on the critical operating case. The critical operating
(diameter change):-
case is that the (one, two, or three) outlets which are opened are
• Sudden contraction due to changing the diameter form located at the edge of the last marwa (IIIMP). This water level
riser diameter to marwa diameter. should overcome all the friction losses through the critical path.
• Sudden contraction due to changing the diameter form Head losses are divided into two parts first, losses at outlets
marwa diameter to mesqa diameter. and second, losses through reaches. Losses at outlets are
• Sudden contraction due to changing the diameter along divided into two types, first, the original head losses (O.H=h1)
marwa or mesqa pipelines. at outlet which is calculated from orifice equation as follows
[17]:-
The following are the design procedures for the existing
8QOutlet 2
design program which are programmed in the new Matlab h1 = 2
= O .H (1)
program. (π D Riser
2
Cd ) g
A. Detection of Mesqa Capacity.
Where h1 is original head losses at the outlet, QOutlet is
The mesqa design capacity allows for 100% rice cropping outlet discharge (m3/sec.) with a common value of 30 lit/sec.,
in the area served, operation hours per day changed from 16 hr. Driser is inner diameter of the riser (m) ,and Cd is discharge
to 20 hour to meet peak requirements. Peak daily consumptive coefficient (Cd =0.6). We have a comment on using the orifice
use for rice is taken as 13.3 mm. This is increased by 1 mm/day equation because it gives a very small head losses which make
to allow for percolation losses and then by 10% to allow for the network under risk if there is any missing or wrong
surface runoff, giving a peak water requirement of 15.7 calculated head losses, and this point was modified in [12] by
mm/day (taking the field application efficiency into defining a new parameter called “outlet pressure”. But, now let
consideration).Mesqa conveyance efficiency which depends on us use the orifice equation to focus only on the effect of two
mesqa type equals 1.0 for pipeline design. points we discussed before. Second losses are Head losses due
to the riser (hv) and it can be calculated from the following
equation as follows:-
104
 Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 2, No. 5, June 2011

K Total = ( K e + K b + K 90O + KValve + K T + K Re ducer ) (5)

K V2
hv = h2 = Total ( 2)
2g where KReducer depends on the ratio between the marwa and
riser diameter which will make the calculations more complex.
Where hv is velocity head losses due to riser, Driser is inner
diameter of the riser, KTotal is the total head losses coefficient Total exact required head at the outlet can be calculated
calculated at the hydrant. Total required head at the outlet can from the following equation by applying Bernoulli equation
be calculated from the following equation by applying between two points (a) and point (1) in Fig. 2, for further
Bernoulli equation between two sections, section (1) at the information see [18]
outlet exit and section (2) at the connection between the riser
and the land [17] and by solving for calculating the hydraulic P1  Q
2
 3.59 Q1  1.852 Lt  
gradient, we will get the following relation, see Fig. 2:- = ( H + L) − y +  O.P + 1 2 ( K Total ) +   ( 4.87 )  (6)
γ  2 gAr  CH  Dr  

(HGL) Point 1 = L.L + H + h1 + hv (3)
where:
where : H : Height of the riser above land level,
H : Height of the riser above land level, L : The buried part of the riser under the ground level,
L.L : Ground level at hydrant, y : Additional length (if exist).
The friction losses through Marwa or Mesqa’s pipelines (hf ) Lt : Total friction lengths.
can be calculated using Hazen-William equation :-
Lt = x1 + x 2 + H + L + 2 y (7)
1.852
 3.59   Q Re ach1.852
L Re ach   3.59 Q Re ach 
1.852
 L Re ach 
hf =    =   4.87  KTotal : Total friction Coefficient from Equation (5),
 CH   D Re ach 4.87   CH   D Re ach  (4) CH : Hazen-William coefficient (150 for P.V.C),
O.P : Outlet pressure head,
where hf is friction losses in the pipe (m), CH is coefficient Ar : Cross section area of riser.
and equals 150 for P.V.C pipe, QReach is discharge flow in the
pipe reach (m3/sec.), LReach is length of the pipe reach (m), The existing program in Equation (3) neglects any additional
DReach is inner diameter of the pipe reach (m). By using the length (y), and let us uses the outlet pressure now to be
hydraulic gradient line as a reference for the calculations for calculated from the orifice equation (h1) from Equation (1).
water level inside the tank, the relationship between the The friction term in Equation (6) is neglected in the existing
hydraulic gradient for any two successive outlets will be as program, and its effect can be taken into consideration by
shown in Fig. 3 until reaching to the stand tank assuming increase the total friction loess by an additional factor
H=0.3 m in the Figure.. (Kadd=0.15) see [12]. So the final shape of Equation (6) will be
as follows:-
2
P1 Q1
= ( H + L) + h1 + 2
( K Total ) (8)
γ 2 gAr
Where KTotal now will be calculated from the following:

K Total = ( K e + K b + K 90O + KValve + K T + K Re ducer + K add . ) (9)

So, the hydraulic gradient and total energy line at point (1) will
be as follows:-
2
Q1
(HGL) Point 1 = L.L + H + h1 + 2
(KTotal)
2gAr
2
Fig. 3. Scketch of the hydraulic gradient line between two successive Q1
outlets in the existing design program. (TEL) Point 1 = L.L + H + h1 + 2
(KTotal +1)
2gAr
(TEL) Point 2 = (TEL) Point 1 + hl 1→2 (10)
IV. PROGRAMMING OF THE EXISTING DESIGN
2
TECHNIQUE. V2
(TEL) Point 3 = (TEL) Point 2 + KReducer
2g
In the new program here, we should note that the total
friction coefficient should be added by additional term called where KReducer is the sudden contraction due to changes from
reducer (KReducer) So, the final friction losses coefficients diameter D3 to diameter D2. Fig. 4 illustrates the relationship
should be: between any outlet and its surrounding outlets. So, here in the
exact technique we deal with the energy line until reach to the
tank then we can add the entrance losses to get the water level
105
 Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 2, No. 5, June 2011
inside the tank but the existing technique deals with the
hydraulic gradient only and neglecting the velocity head and
minor losses (sudden contraction). Due to dealing with the total
energy line, the relation between any two successive outlets in
terms of total energy line is illustrated in Fig. 5 which should
be compared with Fig. 3 to see the difference.
Fig. 4. Hydraulic and total energy line around a random hydrant.
Fig. 5. Sckech of the hydraulic gradient and total energy between two
successive outlets in the new program.
V. HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE (IIIMP PROJECT).
We will use a hypothetical example to illustrate the effect
of designing using T.E.L instead of H.G.L. The characteristics
of the hypothetical example are as follows:
• Total served are is 65 feddan. (corresponding to 60 l/s
mesqa capacity)
• Mesqa with two marwas and four outlet/marwa,
• Design outlet discharge 30 l/sec.
• Critical case that the last two outlets on the last marwa are
working on the same time.
• The land has a constant land level (+3.7),
• All riser diameters are 200 mm,
• All riser height above the land is 0.3m,
106
• All pipe diameters for marwa reaches is 250 mm, and for
mesqa reaches is 315 mm.
• Lengths for the reaches of the last marwa equal 50m,
• Lengths for nearest marwa to the tank beginning from the
last reach far from the marwa beginning are as follows 25,
36, 35, and 40 m.
• Length of Mesqa reaches beginning from the reach near to
the tank are 134, and 144 m.
The results show that the water level inside the tank using
the existing and the new program are as follows 5.991 m,
6.055 m, respectively. But in terms of the water head inside
the tank above the ground level (h) it will be as follows:
h (using existing program)=5.991-3.7= 2.291 m
h (using existing program)=6.055-3.7=2.355 m
the difference in water head is 6.4 cm with a percentage 2.79
% , this ratio may be small but remember two things first, the
hypothetical example uses same diameters for all marwas
and mesqas (no change in diameter along marwa or mesqa
pipeline) which can increase this difference. Second, the
values calculated from orifice Equation (1) are very small
values about 15 cm, so if we here missing 6.5 cm and for
large network we can miss more than 15 cm then the water
will not getting out from the outlet. That means if we need to
use the existing design technique we should increase the
water head (h) by about 3% to take the effect of dealing with
H.G.L and neglecting the minor losses.
VI. EFFECT OF USING T.E.L IN (IIP) PROJECT.
Here in IIP project let us choose the suitable pipe diameter
using the existing design technique according to the existing
constraints, then we will use the chosen diameters to
recalculate the required water head if we use T.E.L (new
program) instead of H.G.L (existing program) just to make
changes along the pipeline path not using it constant as in the
previous example.
A. Detecting pipe diameters for IIP
In IIP project the mesqa only is replaced by pipelines and
marwas are earthen section. There are two constraints on
choosing the diameters for the mesqa reaches which are:
• Max. velocity =1.5 m/s
• Water head (h) not exceeds 4 m.
According to maximum velocity’s constraint we should use
the suitable diameters from Table (1) so no problem. But, to
achieve the water head (h) constraint at the same time, the
diameters should be increased as required so that the head in
the stand (h) (height of design water level above ground level)
does not exceed 4 m.
B. Hypothetical Examples (IIP project).
Let us deal with improved mesqa in IIP project with
variable number of outlets (marwa’s numbers) ranges from 4 to
10 outlets. The unit stream size of 30 l/s which is the common
outlet discharge is similar to the discharge of the farmers’
traditional pump sets, and the number of working outlets
simultaneously is detected according to the mesqa capacity and
the outlet discharge. Here we will discuss two alternatives for
30 l/s outlet discharge as follows:-
 Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 2, No. 5, June 2011

• Alternative (1)
The last outlet and the third one and the fifth one and so on
from the mesqa’s end are the only working outlets according to
the ratio between mesqa capacity and outlet discharge (to
detect number of working outlets). That means one outlet is on
and the next is off as shown in Fig. 6

• Alternative (2)
Fig. 6. Improved mesqa (IIP) with different served area and
The working outlets are working in the order from the corresponding outlet numbers for alternative (1) (30 l/s)
mesqa’s end without any off outlet in between as previous, as
shown in Fig. 7. Due to the constraint of the maximum head in the stand
In addition of that we will discuss a case of using unit (height of design water level above ground level) should not
stream size of 20 l/s as shown in Fig. 8, using the previous exceed 4 m beside maximum velocity constraint (1.5 m/s), we
operating case (The working outlets are working in the order tried to change some diameters than the standard ones
from the mesqa’s end as in alternative 2). The previous three mentioned in Table 1 and the changed diameters are in black
cases are applied for constant land level (3.0 m), constant riser boxes in Figs. 6, 7, and 8. According to the previous results we
height (0.5 m), riser diameter (200 mm), and for different can conclude the following:-
served area (variable number of outlets) and the results are • For outlet discharge 30 l/s and alternative 1, the operating
shown in Table 2 and Fig. 9. case was that the last outlet and the third one from the last
and the fifth one from the last and so on according to the
TABLE 2 mesqa capacity. This concept means the outlets in between
THE WATER HEAD IN THE TANK (H) FOR THE PREVIOUS enforced to be in rotation with the working ones, but on
THREE CASES FROM THE EXISTING DESIGN PROGRAM
the other hand the results give a smaller head with little
Area No. Qoutlet = 30 l/s Qoutlt = 20 change in diameters than in Table 1. The change in pipe
(feddan) outlets (L/s)
Alter. (1) Alter.(2) diameter starts from seven outlets (600 m) and increases as
40 4 2.58 2.68 2.45 the number of outlets increase.
44 5 3.15 3.25 3.02
48 6 3.71 3.81 3.58
• For outlet discharge 30 l/s and alternative 2, the operating
56 7 3.87 3.75 3.62 case was that the last outlets beginning form the mesqa’s
64 8 3.88 3.84 3.73 end are working in the order according to the mesqa
80 9 3.79 3.88 3.87 capacity. This concept gives a flexible opening between
96 10 3.97 3.85 3.90 farmers, but on the other hand it gives high head which
reflected in making more changes in diameters than in
Table 1 to achieve head constraint which is reflected on
the cost. The more changes in pipe diameters starts from
seven outlets (600 m) and increases as the number of
outlets increase.
For outlet discharge 20 l/s and alternative 2, it seems as the
previous case except changing the outlet discharge to 20
l/s. This case gives a very little change in the diameters
than Table (1) compared with the same case with 30 l/s
which means less cost. Also that achieve a flexible
opening between farmers, this type is common in IIP
project although the outlet discharge 20 l/s is small with
respect to the discharge of the farmers’ traditional pump
sets.
• For IIMP project the critical design criteria are that the last
two outlets on the last marwa are working with the design
outlet discharge 30 l/s but that is under condition that the
total pipelines lengths not exceeds 600 m. According to
the length of marwa’s reaches is of order 40 -50 m so we
are away of changing the diameters than in Table 1 under
condition of using a maximum number of outlets/marwa
equals 6.

C. Effect on the design by using T.E.L in IIP

Here we will discuss the effect of using T.E.L in the design
instead of using H.G.L and without ignoring the minor losses
(sudden contraction) in the previous hypothetical examples in
107
 Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 2, No. 5, June 2011

Fig. 6 using unit steam size 30 l/sec.(alternative 1). The results 44 400 3.15 3.22 7.53 2.40
using the new program (using T.E.L, minor losses) in addition
48 500 3.71 3.79 7.53 2.03
to the results from the existing program are shown in Table (3)
and Fig. 10 which illustrates that if we need to take the effect 56 600 3.87 3.93 5.56 1.44
on the head at the tank using total energy line instead of 64
hydraulic gradient and taking the effect of the neglected minor 700 3.88 3.95 6.91 1.78
losses, we should increase the results from the existing 80 800 3.79 3.86 6.73 1.77
program by about 3%. This ratio decreases as the total
96 900 3.97 4.02 5.53 1.39
pipelines length increases due to the rapidly growth of the of
the friction losses along the pipeline.

Fig. 8. Improved mesqa (IIP) with different served area and

Fig. 7. Improved mesqa (IIP) with different served area and
corresponding outlet numbers for alternative (2) (20 l/s).
corresponding outlet numbers for alternative (2) (30 l/s).

TABLE 3
THE HEAD AT THE TANK FOR UNIT STREAM SIZE 30 L/S,
ALTERNATIVE (1) FOR THE EXISTING PROGRAM AND THE NEW
PROGRAM
Pipe Exist. New
Area Increase %
lengths Prog. prog.
(fed) (cm) increase
(m) (m) (m)
40 300 2.58 2.66 7.53 2.92

108

Outlet 30 l/s (Alter.1)
4.0
The head in the stand (m)
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
300
Fig. 9. The relationship between the total pipeline lengths and the
3.0
% Increase in head in the tank
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
300
Fig. 10.
consideration on the water head at the tank
VII. CONCLUSION
The main conclusions in this paper can be grouped and
summarized in the following:-
• For IIP project there are two design criterias to avoid
increasing the water head at tank than 4 m first, the
critical design path is based on that the last outlet and the
third from the last and the fifth from the last and so on are
working on the same time which enforce a certain rotaion
between the outltes. Second criteria is that the number of
working outlets are located on the edge of the mesqa
successively which means free operations between
farmers. The suitable design criteria is based on two
variables first, design outelt discharge (30 or 20 l/sec.) for
unit stream size equals 20 l/sec. the two criterias are valid
with little increase in the cost (little change in chosen
diameters than in Table 1). But, for 30 l/sec. outlet
discharge and using the first criteria is cheaper than using
second criteria due to the small changes made to the
system but that has a disadvantage of enforcing a certain
irrigation rotation between farmers. Second variable is the
total pipeline length, for pipeline length less than 600 m
the two criterias indepandant of the outlet discahrge get a
good result with a minimum changes in pipe diameters
than the standard in Table 1 but for long pipeline length
we should decide according to the design outlet dicharge,
Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 2, No. 5, June 2011
and then choose between free farmer operation (with
Outlet 30 l/s (Alter.2) Outlet 20 l/s (Alter.2) increase in cost) and enforced certain operation (with little
increase in cost) and the decision return to the farmer.
• For IIIMP we always design using design unit stream size
of 30 l/sec. and using the second criteria which gives a free
operation between farmers. This advantage comes from
that the maximum number of outlets/marwa ranges
between two to maximum six and the length of marwa
reaches ranges between 30 to 50 m so the total pipeline
lengths is less than 600 m except for large number of
marwas. So, in IIIMP the probability of increase the water
head in the tank than 4 m is small.
400 500 600 700 800 900 • The existing design program was dealing with the
Pipeline length (m)
hydraulic gradient line and ignoring the minor losses due
to sudden contraction. By using the new program we
conclude that taking total energy line and minor loss into
required head in the stand. consideration will increase the water head in the tank by
3%. So, this point should be taken into consideration in
case of using the existing design program.
REFERENCES
[1] Nino Malashkhia (2003) “Social and Environmental Constraints to the
Irrigation Water Conservation Measures in Egypt”, Master thesis.
[2] Crystal Davis, World Resources Institute (2009) “Sea Level Rise
Threatens Nile Delta Ecosystems and Livelihoods”
[3] M. El-Raey (2009) “Impact of Climate Change on Egypt”, Chapter 1:
Water Resources. GAIA Case Study.
[4] UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. IRIN
(Integrated Regional Information Networks) (2008) “EGYPT: Scientists
uncertain about climate change impact on Nile”
[5] Chemonics Egypt Ahmad Gaber and Associates (2007) “Research on
400 500 600 700 800 900 Water Resources Sector in Egypt”, Final Report.
Pipeline lengths (m) [6] United Nations New York (2003) Sectoral Water Allocation Policies in
Selected ESCWA Member Countries “ An evaluation of the economic,
The impact of taking T.E.L and minor losses into social and drought-related impact .
[7] Martin Hvidt Odense University, Denmar (1995) “Current efforts to
improve irrigation performance In Egypt”, The third Nordic conference
on Middle Eastern Studies: Ethnic encounter and culture Change
Joensuu, Finland
[8] M. Allam, F. El-Gamal, and M. Hesham (2004) “Irrigation Systems
Performance in Egypt”, Irrigation Systems Performance. Options
méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52
[9] M.N. Allam Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Faculty
of Engineering, Cairo University (2009) “ Participatory Irrigation Water
Management in Egypt: Review and Analysis”, Options
méditerranéennes Series B, n° 48, 2009.
[10] World Bank (2007) Implementation Completion and Results Report:
Irrigation Improvement Project “, Report.
[11] Sabour Consultant, “Terms of Reference for the Tendering of
Consulting Services for the Integrated Irrigation Improvement and
Management Project (IIIMP) and Instruction to Tenderers”.
[12] Hany G. Radwan, Ashraf Zaghloul, Kamal Ibrahim (2010), “Modified
Technique of Irrigation Model:Design and Sensitivity Analysis”,
International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Control (ICMSC
2010), pages (82-86).
[13] http://www.engr.mun.ca/muzychka/Chapter3.pdf
[14] Lewis A. Rossman (2000),” EPANET 2 Users Manual” EPA, U.SA.
[15] Sulzer Pumps Ltd, Winterthur, Switzerland (2010) ” Centrifugal Pump
Handbook”, Third edition, Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of
Elsevier.
[16] Kamal Ibrahim (2008) class notes on “Design of improved on-farm
irrigation systems”, Cairo university ,Faculty of Engineering, Irrigation
and Hydraulic department, Egypt.
[17] Khurmi," A text book of Hydraulic Mechanics", S.Chain& Company
LTD, Second edition,1994.
109
 Canadian Journal on Environmental, Construction and Civil Engineering Vol. 2, No. 5, June 2011

[18] Hany G. Radwan, Ashraf Zaghloul, Kamal Ibrahim (2010), “Modified

Technique for Design The Improved Irrigation on-Farm System”,
International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Control (ICMSC
2010), pages (174-179).

BIOGRAPHIES
Hany G. Radwan is a teaching assistant in Irrigation and
Hydraulic Department - Faculty of Engineering - Cairo
university- Egypt. He received his MSc from Cairo
University in 2007 in groundwater hydrology. He prepares
his PhD thesis in Cairo University under the theme of
developing a rotational scheduling for the integrated
improved irrigation system in old lands in Egypt. He
participated in many dewatering projects using
groundwater models in Egypt. His research interests are groundwater, well
hydraulics, watershed, irrigation systems, and finite element modeling. He
published two papers in the American Society conference 2009, and two papers
in IEEE conference 2010.

Ashraf Saad Zaghloul received his MSc in Irrigation and

Hydraulics Engineering from the faculty of Engineering,
Cairo University, 1988. He got his Ph.D in Water
resources development from WRDTC, IIT Roorkee
(former University of Roorkee), India, 1994. He is acting
as Associate professor of design of hydraulic structures at
the Irrigation and Hydraulics Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University. He is also registered as a
consultant engineer in the field of design of Water supply and Sewage systems
at the Egyptian Syndicate of Engineers. His research activities include design
of hydraulic structures, Operation and automation of Irrigation systems,
rehabilitation of existing hydraulic structures, and others. He got several
international awards in his fields of applied research. He is a member in
several societies.

Dr. Kamal A. Ibrahim received his M. Sc. in Water

Resources from Cairo University and his Ph.D. in Water
Pollution Control from University of Windsor at Canada.
He is currently working as professor of Irrigation
&Drainage Structures at Faculty of Engineering of Cairo
University. He has 30 years of experience in water
resource planning. He has worked in a number of projects
using his knowledge of hydraulics and modern
techniques of mathematical modeling for practical
applications. His experience includes investigations
and final designs for flood prevention measures, pump stations, pipelines, and
rehabilitation of villages, drains and canal control structures. He has numerous
scientific papers to his credit.

110