Efficiency Performance Criteri a
For Irrigation System s
p
by
Hugh J . Hanse n
Marvin N . Sheare r
later -Resou-rces - Research - Institut e
Oregon State Universit y
Corvallis, Orego n
-WRR1-90
November 1983 '
EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE CRITERI A
FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM S
by
Hugh J . Hansen and Marvin N . Sheare r
Agricultural Engineering Department, Oregon State Universit y
Final Technical Completion Repor t
for Project No . B-070-OR E
Matching Grant Agreement No . 14-34-0001-915 7
to
Bureau of Reclamatio n
United States Department of the Interio r
Washington, D .C . 2024 0
Project Sponsored by :
Water Resources Research Institut e
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 9733 1
The research upon which this report is based was financed in part by the U .S . Department of the Interior, Washington, D .C . (Project No . B-070-ORE), as authorize d
by the Water Research and Development Act of 1978, P .L . 95-456 .
Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies o f
the U .S . Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercia l
products constitute their endorsement or recommendation for use by the Unite d
States Government .
WRRI-90
,Aovember 1983
ABSTRAC T
An attempt was made to determine the efficiency performance level of existin g
irrigation pumping plant systems in Oregon by performing tests of selected system s
under field operating conditions . A total of 545 tests were made, yielding usabl e
test data on 529 units located in 18 of 36 counties .
The overall plant efficiency of 529 usable tests ranged from 14 to 79 percent .
Twenty-eight percent of the centrifugal and 34 percent of the turbine pumpin g
plant systems had efficiencies of 65 percent or greater . Twenty percent of th e
centrifugal and 23 percent of the turbine units were operating under 50 percen t
efficiency . A 65 percent overall plant efficiency is generally considere d
achievable . Units under 50 percent efficiency generally warrant consideratio n
for repair or replacement .
The two primary causes of low overall plant efficiencies were (a) improperl y
designed or sized fittings around pumps where only 38 percent were rated satisfactory, and (b) mismatches of pump and sprinkler systems . Very often, lateral s
had been added, deleted or changed without making pump adjustments .
Pump efficiencies ranged from 24 percent to 87 percent with 68 percent operating above 60 percent efficiency . Comparing individual pump performance with th e
specific manufacturer's pump curve revealed that 55 percent of the pumps wer e
operating within 4 percent of their respective curves -- a very acceptable performance range .
Information and data from this project have been disseminated through work shops, seminars, technical paper presentations, technical publications and mas s
media . The findings have also been used by various agencies and electric powe r
suppliers as guidelines for formulating irrigation energy conservation and management programs .
i
FOREWOR D
The Water Resources Research Institute, located on the Oregon Stat e
University campus, serves the State of Oregon . The Institute fosters ,
encourages and facilitates water resources research and education involvin g
all aspects of the quality and quantity of water available for beneficial use .
The Institute administers and coordinates statewide and regional programs o f
multidisciplinary research in water and related land resources . The Institut e
provides a necessary communications and coordination link between the agencie s
of local, state and federal government, as well as the private sector, and th e
broad research community at universities in the state on matters of water related research . The Institute also coordinates the inter-disciplinary progra m
of graduate education in water resources at Oregon State University .
It is Institute policy to make available the results of significant water related research conducted in Oregon's universities and colleges . The Institut e
neither endorses nor rejects the findings of the authors of such research . I t
does recommend careful consideration of the accumulated facts by those concerne d
with the solution of water-related problems .
it
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S
Sincere appreciation is extended to the following parties and individuals fo r
their cooperation, ' s.upport and assistance in making this project successful :
•
The Oregon State University Extension agents in the 18 participatin g
counties for selecting representative installations and making necessary appointments and arrangements with irrigator owners and operators .
. • The irrigator owners and operators . for allowing us to use their unit s
as. test models and condoning the disruptions and inconveniences -encoun tered in making . the tests .
•
Robert R . .Stafford, Eugene, Oregon for conducting the field tests an d
collecting field data .
•
George Ikonomou, Graduate Student, Chemical Engineering Department ,
Oregon State University for analyzing field . data and performing re quired calculations, verifications, and tabulations .
•
E . Stuart Baker, Computer Programmer/analyst, Agricultural Engineering Department, Oregon State University, for assistance in developin g
required computer program and running data through computer .
•
Professors Richard Cuenca and Marshall English, Agricultural Engineering Department, Oregon State University for their-counsel and guidanc e
regarding project objectives, procedures and implementation .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page.
Introduction , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , ,
1
Related Research
3.
Research Objectives
5
Research Procedures
7
Relevance of Research
9. .
Field Test Procedure
11
Valid Test Runs
13
Pumping Plant Efficiencies
15
Pumping Plant Efficiency Distribution
17 '
Energy Losses in Fittings
19 '
Pump Efficiencies 21
Matching Pump With Performance Curves
23
Justifiable Reasons for Low Pump Efficiency 25
Effect of Pump Repair on Efficiency
27
Relationship of Efficiency to Energy Use
29
Educational Activities and Applications of Research Results 31 '
Publications and Technical Reports Resulting From Research , 33
Conclusions
35
References
37.
Appendices
39
1.
Calibration of Velocitygage 41
2.
Pumping Plant Efficiency Test Field Data Form 43
3.
Irrigation Pumping System Field Test Data 45
4.
Pumping Plant Efficiency by County
55
5.
Rating of Centrifugal Pump Discharge Fitting Assemblies
57
6.
TDH as Percentage Below Pump Performance Curve
59
7.
Pump Performance Curve Adjustment #187
61
8.
Pump Performance Curve Adjustment #80-70
63 '
9.
Testing Irrigation Pumping Systems for Energy Reductions, 65
10.
Reducing Irrigation Costs Through Energy Savings
67
11.
Walk-Through Irrigation System Inspection Analysis
69
12.
Electric Pump Motor Temperature Control
79
13.
Electric Demand Charges - How to Keep Them Low
81
v
LIST OF FIGURE S
Figure #
Title
Pag e
1
Number and type of pumps tested in each county 14
2
Ratings of pump discharge fittings
19
3
Pipe diameter transition configurations
20
4
Example of potential energy savings through fitting retrofi t
under extreme, conditions
'5
20
Relationship between overall pumping plant efficiency an d
energy required to operate system 29
LIST OF TABLE S
Table
Title
Pag e
1
County Locations of Tests by Pump Type
13
2
Pumping Plant Efficiency Test Results
17
3
Pumping Plant Efficiency by Horsepower (Centrifugal)
17
4
Pumping Plant Efficiency by Horsepower (Turbine)
17
5
Pump Efficiency Test Results
21
6
TDH During Test as Percent Below Pump Performance Curve 23
7
Effect of Repairing Inefficient Pump
27
INTRODUCTIO N
The increasing costs of electric energy and growing concern for efficient us e
of that energy have led to a growing demand for more precise field information o n
the efficiency . of energy used for irrigation (12, 17, 19) . Such information i s
necessary to help irrigators make economic decisions forced by rising energy costs .
The continued economic viability of•a pumped irrigated agriculture is, at leas t
partially, dependent upon the farmer's ability to use energy most efficiently ,
which implies having efficient pumping plants (1,1 0, 16) .
The following categories are cited as the most common reasons for inefficiencies in irrigation pumping plant systems :
• Improper pump selectio n
• Poor selection of power plan t
• Improper well construction--cascading water and sand pumpin g
• Improperly or poorly installed pumping plant s
• Improper pump adjustmen t
• Improper operating procedure s
• Inadequate pump maintenanc e
• Inadequate well testing--unknown pumping level s
• Changes in pumping head--altered system
RELATED RESEARC H
The impact of the 1973 oil embargo and resultant concerns over energy su p
plies, coupled with substantial energy price increases and emphasis on conservation practices, generated many research projects and reports relative to energ y
usage and energy forecasts for irrigation . Numerous studies (1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 ,
14, 19, 20, 21, 22) of energy use and projected needs for irrigation were mad e
without the benefit of actual field data upon which to base efficiency performanc e
of irrigation pumping plants . As indicated in the examples cited, field studie s
were conducted on only a limited basis . Computer models and ether studies use d
basic hydraulic equations and performance curves developed under ideal laboratory conditions or judgmental assumptions to predict energy requirements for irrigation .
Reports from several western states indicate that irrigation pumping plan t
efficiencies can and do vary considerably, depending on the above-listed controllable factors . A University of Arizona performance study (8) of 50 grower-owne d
pumping systems revealed that half the pumps needed adjustment,- repair or change s
to operate within acceptable efficiencies . Pumping plant tests conducted in tw o
counties in New Mexico (11) during 1976 showed the following pumping efficienc y
ranges : Estancia, 75% to 44 .7% ; Clovis - , 70 .9% to 33 .3% . Tests conducted in East ern Colorado (5) indicate that pumping plant efficiencies vary from less than 10 %
to approximately 75%, with the average in the 50 to 60% range . Power company pumping system test programs in California (15) showed that 1679 systems tested in on e
year had an average overall pumping plant efficiency of 56 .9% with peak efficiency
for systems in good working order at 65% to 70% . An Idaho report (2) indicate s
that over 70% of 70 systems tested in southern Idaho in 1978 were operating at efficiencies of less than 60% . Nebraska reports in a seven-year summary (7) tha t
91% of 376 systems tested were operating below University of Nebraska's establishe d
performance standard with 9% using over twice the amount of energy consumed b y
those operating at standard efficiency .
3
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE S
No studies to ascertain basic field operating efficiency data had been mad e
in Oregon and those from the Northwest were very limited . Usually, the assumptions used nominal or optimum operational efficiencies which may not truly reflec t
the real on-site situation for many units . Availability of data as projected fo r
this program would enhance the preciseness of the above-mentioned studies .
Oregon had 1,969,000 acreas under irrigation with over half utilizing pumping systems, based on 1978 data . An estimated total of 1,004,473,000 kilowat t
hours of electric energy were consumed by irrigation pumping during 1978 (18) . A t
an average cost of 2 cents per kwh, this represents over $20,000,000 for irrigatio n
pumping energy . If a realistic overall energy-use efficiency improvement of onl y
2 .5% could be accomplished, it would represent a savings of $500,000 to irrigator s
in Oregon, based on 1978 rates .
The efficiency status of irrigation pumping plant systems . in Oregon had no t
been established . Many systems had been operated for severa l, growing seasons wit h
little, if any, maintenance . It was reasonable to assume that these pumping plan t
efficiencies had dropped significantly, similar to the experiences reported i n
other western states .
The objective of this project was to appraise the existing situation by field testing selected representative systems to establish an efficiency performance bas e
for systems that had been operated for a number of years . The pumping plant oiler • ating efficiencies determined under field conditions and as managed by farm opera tors would be compared to pump manufacturers' published efficiency and performanc e
curves . Where field efficiencies did not match manufacturers' performance curves ,
or the pumping plant was . not performing at an acceptable efficiency level, a de termination would be madeefficiency .
to identify which segment of'the system was causing lo w
RESEARCH PROCEDURE S
1) Develop techniques and procedures for conducting field tests whereby irrigatio n
system energy use performance efficiencies could be determined on basis of relationship of total pumping head, water discharge and input pumping power consumption .
2) Develop a functional data form suitable for field test data recording and evaluating .
3) Use current inventory of irrigation systems in state for purpose of selectin g
test sites .
4) Conduct irrigation system tests on a sampling basis in key areas of state t o
determine existing efficiencies .
5) Establish an acceptable and realistic performance standard for irrigation pumping plant systems in Oregon .
6) Identify cause or reason for lower than acceptable efficiencies where found .
7) Project possible savings in energy and dollars with acceptable efficiency levels of irrigation systems in Oregon .
8) Develop correctional programs as dictated from tests and data collected .
7
RELEVANCE OF RESEARC H
The establishment of an Efficiency Data Base and Performance Criteria fo r
Irrigation Systems would provide a benchmark for use in projecting cost-benefi t
ratios resulting from system upgrading or retrofitting and predicting energ y
savings that can be realized from such programs . Extension Action Programs woul d
be launched following establishment of the data base if-the results verify tha t
opportunities do e_xistt for meaningful improvement of pumping plant efrficiencies .
This data would also be useful to Rural Electrification Administration borrowers in complying with REA
'
Bulletin 145-1
(9), "Development, Approval, and Use o f
Irrigation Studies" which states that REA Form 346 - Data for Irrigation Study is prerequisite to a Power Requirements Study for those distribution . borrower s
with projected irrigation load of 15 percent or more of projected kwh sales-o r
for those power supply borrowers with projected irrigation load of 7 .5 percen t
or greater . Those REA borrowers with less than the above-stated irrigatio n
loads can use the data for complying with REA Bulletin 120-1 which covers thei r
particular systems .
9
FIELD TEST PROCEDUR E
Measurements were .made at pumping sites with sprinkler systems operating t o
determine pumping plant efficiency . Measurements were made of pumping rates wit h
a Piro-Swivel Manometer Velocitygage .manufactured by C .'W . Cox, Inc ., El Monte, CA .
The velocitygage was calibrated (Appendix 1) prior to use in 1979 and 1980 at th e
Oregon State University Civil Engineering Hydraulics Laboratory .
Data recorded at each pumping site (Appendix 2) included nameplate informatio n
from the pump, motor and meter, set-up description and obvious faults in the installation . Each test involved on-site measurements of electrical energy input ,
pumping head (lift, pipe friction loss and pressure head) and water discharge rate .
The efficiency was then calculated with the following formula which yields th e
"wire to water" or overall pumping plant efficiency figure for the individua l
system :
Eff H2O HP Outpu t
Elec HP Input x 10
0
When preliminary field calculations indicated that watt-hour . metering migh t
be in error, .voltage and amperage readings were taken, if possible . Power facto r
was estimated from motor tables which indicated power factor for various moto r
loads .
Measured flow rates were compared to discharge from sprinklers as a roug h
check for major leaks in . the pipe systems and for pump performance match . Farmers were asked the percent of time the system operated under test conditions .
Head loss in the suction and pump discharge'assemblies was calculated .
A
photograph was taken of each pumping installation and a field "eye-ball" evaluation was made of the quality of fitting selection and assembly design .
All field calculations were checked in the office and efficiency values determined and verified . Pump performance was . checked against published performanc e
curves supplied by pump manufacturers to determine whether repair Was needed .
Each cooperating operator was provided with a completed copy of the " .Pumpin g
Plant
Efficiency Test" report made on his or her unit .
All farmer contacts and test pump site selections were made by-county Extension agents . Farmers were present at most test operations .
VALID TEST RUN S
A total of 545 tests were completed in 18 or Orego n ' s 36 counties during th e
1979
and 1980 irrigating seasons . Sixteen of these tests were not included i n
the efficiency evaluation data because either the Total Dynamic Head (TDH) o r
Flow Rate (Q) could not be adequately determined . Some of the 529 valid test s
were made on the same pumping installation for different local conditions, or be cause more than one pump was on the same meter .
"Irrigation Pumping System Field Test Data," (Appendix 3) presents a tabulation of major field data collected and calculated results made for each indivi dual pumping plant system test .
Locations of the total usable tests, with a breakdown by type of pump - horizontal centrifugal and turbine -- are shown by counties in Table 1 and on th e
Oregon county map, Figure 1 .
Table 1 :
County Locations of Tests by Pump Type
County
Tota l
Tests
Horizonta l
Centrifuga l
Turbine
Invali d
Baker
23
19
3
1
Benton
11
11
0
0
9
8
0
1
Coos
15
12
2
1
Curry
26
24
1
1
Deschutes
24
18
3
3
Douglas
25
25
0-
0
Hood River
22
21
0
1
Jackson
37
35
1
1
Jefferson
125
123
1
1
Josephine
3
3
0
0
Klamath
29
13
15
1
Lane
64
62
1
1
Linn
18
18
0
0
Marion
30
12
17
1
Morrow
35
21
12
2
Umatilla
15
7
8
0
Union
34
15
18
1
545
447
, 82
16
Clackamas
Totals
13
c
0
U
U
rc$
a)
c
•r
14
PUMPING PLANT FFFICr'E-NCI C
The "wire to water" or overall efficiency pf the pumping plant is a product ;
of the efficiency of the power unit and the efficiency of the pump, including th e
associated fittings from the water source to the discharge from the pump into th e
irrigation distribution system . The overall pumping plant efficiency is expresse d
as a percentage ratio of the output water horsepower to the input energy horse power . This relationship is expressed in the following formula :
Overall plant efficiency _ GPM-x TDH
= 10 0
Input HP x 396 0
GPM = gallons per minute pumpe d
TDH = total dynamic hea d
Input HP = horsepower energy delivered t o
drive moto r
The efficiencies for electric motors range from 80 percent for motors unde r
5 horsepower to about 92 percent for motors of 60 horsepower and larger . Th e
efficiencies of individual pumps vary according to design and manufacturer, usuall y
in the range of 75 to 85 percent . Therefore, the maximum theoretical efficienc y
for a good pumping plant seldom exceeds 70 percent .
A 65 percent overall plant efficiency is generally considered achievable an d
units with less than a 50 percent efficiency warrant investigation to determin e
if modifications or repairs should be made .
15
PUMPING PLANT EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIO N
Data from the 529 usable tests conducted showed that overall pumping plan t
efficiencies range from 14 percent to 79 percent . The distribution of efficiencie s
is shown in Table 2 . A total of 112 systems or 21 percent of the systems teste d
were operating -at less than 50 percent efficiency .
Table 2 :
Efficiency %
Pumping Plant Efficiency Test-Result s
No . of Systems
Percent of Tests
Accumulated %
Less 25%
4
0 .8
0 .8
25 - 30
7
1 .3
2. 1
31 - 35
7
1 .3
3. 4
36 - 40
23
4 .3
7.7
'41 - 45
30
5 .7
13 . 4
46 - 50
56
10 .6
24 . 0
51 - 55
90
17 .0
41 . 0
56 - 60
98
18 .5
59 . 5
61 - 65
93 '
17 .6
77 . 1
66 - 70
75
14 .2
91 . 3
Over 70
46
8 .7
100 .0
An analysis, was made of pumping plant efficiencies for various motor size cat egories . These are shown for centrifugal pumps in Table 3 and for turbine pump s
in Table 4 . Generally, the larger horsepower units tend to operate . at higher o f
ficiencies than the lower horsepower units . A county breakdown of pumping plan t
efficiencies by motor size is shown in Appendix 4 .
Table 3 : Pumping Plant Efficiency by Horsepower (Centrifugal )
HP
Number of Tests at Indicated Efficiency Range s
< 40%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70% & Abov e
< 10
10-25
30-60
Over 60
9
8
6
2
10
30
23 •
3
18
64
58 .
14
3
82
54
11
0
17
22
13
Table 4 : Pumping Plant Efficiency by Horsepower (Turbine )
HP
10-25
30-60
Over 60
Number of Tests at Indicated Efficiency Range s
<40%
40-49%
50-59%
60-69%
70% & Abov e
4
1
5
4
2
3
4
4
18
4
2
20
17
1
3
7
ENERGY LOSSES IN FITTING S
The study included an evalutation of pump discharge fittings . Significant potential TDH savings were found to exist in the fittings around horizontal centrifugal pumps where velocities are high . They were rated in 374 of the tests a s
shown in Figure 2 and Appendix 5 . Sixty-three percent rated fair to poor . The potential energy saving was highly variable because of the many configurations o f
fittings used . Selection of efficient fittings was not too important when energ y
costs were low, but is economically significant with present energy costs .
Goo d
.33- .61
22
Fai r
.57- .88
55
1 .1-1 .5
8
Poor
or
Figure 2 : Ratings of pump discharge fittings
The concern over discharge fitting configurations led to an associated investigation of different designs by Laliberte et al ("Energy Losses in Fitting s
Around Pumps") . They studied three configurations -- abrupt expansion, conica l
expansion, and two-stage expansion shown in Figure 3 .
19
abrupt
two-stag e
concentric
Figure 3 : Pipe diameter transition configuration s
v~2 )
Under similar conditions the concentric expansion has a K value (for H f =
of 35 to 65% less than the abrupt expansion . The two-stage expansion ha s
g
a K value of 75 to 84% less than the abrupt expansion . Tables were develope d
giving dimensions and K values for various sizes and transition diameters .
In the example actually observed in a pumping plant test and shown in Figur e
4, the friction head could have been reduced 19 .6 feet with the illustrated fitting changes . This would have resulted in a reduction of about 10 percent in th e
TDH . This situation is extreme but existed on about 8% of the pump installation s
tested .
344 gpm
1 .2 f t
Good fitting selectio n
Poor fitting selection
Figure 4 : Example of potential energy savings through fitting retrofit unde r
extreme conditions .
20
PUMP EFFICIENCIE S
The efficiency of each pump tested was determined by the follows ,g formula :
Pump Efficiency = Pumping Plant Efficiency x 10 0
Motor Efficiency
Data from the 529 usable tests conducted showed that pump efficiencies range d
from 24 percent to 87 percent . The distribution of efficiencies is shown i n
Table 5 .
Table 5 : Pump Efficiency Test Result s
Efficiency %
No . of Pumps
Less 40%
17
3 .2
3. 2
40 - 45
20
3 .8
7. 0
46 - 50
24
4 .5
11 . 5
51 - 55
39
7 .4
18 . 9
56 - 60
68
12 .9
31 . 8
61 - 65
84
15 .9
47 . 7
66 - 70
78
14 .7
62 . 4
71 - 75
87
16 .4
78 . 8
76 - 80
67
12 .7
91 . 5
81 - 85
30
5 .7
97 . 2
Over 85
15
2 .8
100 .0
Percent of Tests
21
Accumulated %
MATCHING PUMP WITH PERFORMANCE CURVE S
An effort was made to determine whether the pump was operating on the manufacturer's published performance curve for the pump being tested . This check provided an indication of whether or not the pump was in need of repair .
Curves could not be found for 56 of the pumps . This was due to lack of pum p
indentification nameplates or because pumps were so old that curves were no longe r
available . No growers had in their possession pump performance curves for thei r
pump .
Of the 473 complete pump tests having curves available, an evaluation wa s
made of test performance of the pump as compared to the published performance .
Percent TDH difference was calculated by the following formula :
TDH Difference =
Actual TDH
x 10 0
Theoretical TDH at test Q valu e
Table 6 shows the distribution of pumps operating at various points belo w
the pump performance curve . Deviations over 4 percent indicate possible pump wear .
Table 6 :
Percent TDH Diff .
(Below Pump Curve)
TDH During Test as Percent Below Published Pump Performanc e
Curve at Flow Rate Measured During Test--All Pump s
No . Pumps
Percent of Pumps
Accumulated %
0-4
258
54 .6
54 . 6
5-9
82
17 .3
71 . 9
10 - 14
49
10 .4
82 . 3
15 - 19
24
5 .1
87 . 4
20 - 24
23
4 .9
92 . 3
25 - 29
19
4 .0
96 . 3
30 - 34
3
0 .6
96 . 9
35 - 39
4
0 .8
97 . 7
11
2 .3
100 .0
40 + Over
A county breakdown showing distribution of pumps operating at various point s
below the pump performance curve is shown in Appendix 6 .
23
JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR LOW PUMP EFFICIENC Y
Two justifiable reasons why some pumps in good condition operated at ver y
low efficiency were identified . Eight percent were poor selections for the as signed load and operated . .fa r . off peak performance . Others were not operating a t
their peak efficiency because laterals had been shut off at the time the test s
were made . In these cases test results given to growers indicated poor efficiency .
However, no corrective action was recommended because, at other periods of th e
growing season, the total pump capacity would be required . The decision of whethe r
to buy two different-sized pumps to match the varying load requirements instead o f
one was an economic decision at the time of purchase . So doing would have helpe d
solve this problem, .
An evaluation was made of deficiencies in the pumps or pump installations .
Several . of the pumps possessed more than one deficiency . These were tabulate d
as follows :
Deficiency
Percent of test s
No deficiency
43 '
Suction piping & fittings problems
24
Discharge piping & fitting problem
15
Pumps requiring shop repair
14
Poor pump selection for the ! 'job
''
8
Too much section head
3
Lack of pipe supports
5
25
EFFECT OF PUMP REPAIR ON EFFICIENC Y
A question was raised regarding what repair of the pump might do to th e
energy requirements of the pump . Two tests were selected because of their degre e
of loading as well as their apparent inefficiency . One was well to the right o f
peak efficiency point, the other ., well to the left of peak efficiency point .
These curves are shown in Appendixes 7 and 8 with the test conditions and repaire d
conditions shown .
A system curve was developed by changing average pressures at the sprinkle r
discharge and calculating accumulated friction changes-to determine new TDH . Mos t
flow velocities in irrigation tubing are less than 5 ft/second . Increased flow
between the pump and sprinklers, therefore, has only slight effect on pipe friction for short mainlines . Elevation head would remain constant . Conditions ar e
then changed as shown in Table 7 .
Table 7 :
Test
A
B
Effect of Repairing Inefficient Pum p
Tes t
Condition
Repaire d
Condition
% Change s
Total Dynamic Head
160 ft
194 ft
+ 21
Pump Discharge Rate
700 gpm
808 gpm
+ 15
Electrical Horsepower
59 hp
59 h p
Pumping Plant Efficiency
48%
67%
+ 40
Pump Efficiency (Maximum = 80%)
53%
76%
+ 43
Total Dynamic Head
86 ft
110 ft
+ 28
Pump Discharge Rate
220 gpm
250 gpm
+ 14
Item
Electrical Horsepower
Pumping Plant Efficiency
Pump Efficiency (Maximum = 82%)
10 .2 hp
11 .6 hp
+ 1-4
47%
59%
+ 26
. 55%
69%
+ 25
. If the irrigation system attached to pump A is operated on the same schedul e
before and after pump repair, the energy consumption will be about the same eve n
though. the pump discharge rate will increase 15 percent and pump efficiency wil l
increase . 43% . No energy savings will result . A change in irrigation scheduling ,
27
however, could save energy if the farmer was pumping adequate water before repai r
was made . But, the farmer may have had insufficient water prior to repair . Th e
increased flow rate after repair may only satisfy this shortage . Energy saving s
through improved irrigation scheduling then
would be only slight if existent a t
all . Pump A is actually operating too far to the right of its peak efficienc y
point .
Repairing pump B will result in an increase in flow of 14 percent,"a TD H
increase of 28 percent, a 26 percent increase in pumping plant efficiency, an d
a 14 percent increase. in electrical horsepower . The farmer would gain consider ably in performance with• a repaired pump . However, unless management or scheduling changes were made in irrigation system operation, the energy consumption woul d
also increase 14 percent .
It is apparent from this evaluation that, although pump efficiencies ar e
improved, energy requirements would be increased substantially because more wate r .
is pumped against a higher head . Actual energy savings will not occur unles s
changes are made in the irrigation program . In both cases, however, there wil l
be substantial savings in the kilowatt hours required per unit of water pumped .
28
RELATIONSHIP OF EFFICIENCY TO ENERGY US E
As stated in the preceding chapter, improved pumping plant efficiencies wil l
reduce total energy required per unit of water pumped . Therefore, if good irrigation scheduling and water management practices are followed, an equal amount o f
water can be applied in less time with the efficient system than could be applie d
with the less efficient system . However, the relationship between overall pumpin g
plant efficiency and energy consumption is not linear . An overall plant efficienc y
of 70 to 75 percent represents the maximum theoretical efficency which can be expected from an electrically-powered system . It requires approximately 1 .5 kilowat t
hours per acre-foot of water per foot of lift when the overall efficiency is 7 0
percent . This increases to 2 kilowatt hours at 52-53 percent efficiency . Economic analyses indicate that when overall plant efficiencies are in the 50 to 5 5
percent range or lower, repairs or modifications are usually warranted . The chart ,
Figure 5, may be used to determine relationship between overall plant efficienc y
and kilowatt hours required per acre-foot of water per foot of lift .
80
70
30
20
1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0 2 .2 2 .4 2 .6 2 .8 3 .0 3 .2 3 .4 3 .6 3 .8 4 .0 4.2 4 .4 4 .6 4 .8
5 .0 5.2 5 . 4
KILOWATT HOURS PER ACRE FOOT PER FOOT LIF T
Figure 5 : Relationship between overall pumping plant efficiency and energy require d
to operate system .
29
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND APPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH RESULT S
Subject matter information and research results stemming from this projec t
have been shared with the following groups in the form of workshops, seminars ,
technical paper presentations, technical journal publications, and Extension educational programs .
a) One or more follow-up workshops with irrigators and irrigation equipmen t
dealers were held in each of the 18 counties in which pumping system test s
were conducted . A total of 24 workshops, arranged by local county agents ,
drew an attendance in excess of 900 irrigators and dealers .
b) Seminars on the project have been presented to key personnel at Bonnevill e
Power Administration, Northwest Electric Light and Power Association ,
Northwest Irrigation Utilities Association, Northwest Public Power Association, Portland General Electric Company, Pacific Power & Light Company ,
Washington Water Power Company, Oregon Department of Agriculture and R . M .
Wade Manufacturing Co .
c) Technical papers on the project or specific segments of project finding s
have been presented before the following professional groups totalling ove r
600 attendees :
• Irrigation Association Regional Conference - September 198 0
• ASAE National Agricultural Energy Symposium - October 198 0
• Oregon Water Resources Congress - December 198 0
. R . M . Wade & Company Dealer Meeting - September 198 1
• Irrigation Association Technical Conference - February 198 2
• Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineering - July 198 2
• American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Pacific Northwest Region
September 198 2
• Oregon State University Ag Conference Days-March 198 3
d) The following technical papers treating various aspects of the projec t
have been published :
• Irrigation Pumping System Efficiency Criteria,
Marvin N . Sheare r
and Hugh Hansen, ASAE National Agricultural Energy Symposiu m
Proceedings, 1980
. Testing Irrigation Pumping Systems for Energy Reductions,
Hugh J .
Hansen, Agricultural Engineering, Vol . 63, No . 3, March 198 2
(Appendix 9) .
31
-
• Energy Losses in Fittings Around Pumps, G . E . Laliberte, M . N . Shearer ,
M . J . English, and H . J . Hansen, 1982 Annual Technical Conferenc e
Proceedings, The Irrigation Associatio n
• Design'of an Energy . Efficient Pipe Size Expansion, Garland E . Laliberte ,
Marvin N . Shearer, and . Marshall J . English, Journal of Irrigatio n
and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, Vol . 109, No . 1, March 1983 .
ae) The following consumer leaflets have been developed for use in Extensio n
educational programs as a result of the project finding s
• Reducing Irrigation Costs Through Energy Savings (Appendi'x-10 )
• Walk-Through Irrigation System Inspection Analysis (Appendix 11 )
• Electric Pump Motor Temperature Control (Appendix 12 )
• Electric Demand Charges -- How to keep them Low (Appendix 13 )
In addition, an Extension slide set has been developed to illustrate an d
discuss the "Walk-Through Irrigation System Inspection Analysis" and this has bee n
used extensively with irrigation groups in workshops and meetings .
A consumer-oriented article entitled "Opportunities for Energy Savings i n
Irrigation," authored by Marvin N . Shearer,appeared in the March 1981 issue o f
OregonFarmer-Stockman .
Data and information from . the project were used by the National Food & Energ y
Council as background information for the Irrigation . Section and Irrigation Check list of their 1983 publication entitled "Farm Energy Analysis Program . "
Oregon, in 1980s' had approximately 1,028,000 sprinkler-irrigated acres wit h
a total connected electrical load estimated at 720 million horsepower and consu m ing 1,088 million kilowatt hours annually . Irrigators purchase'electric energ y
from 35 different electric power suppliers located throughout Oregon,, most o f
whom purchase wholesale power from BPA for their residential and farm customers .
The experiences and findings of this project are now being utilized by electri c
power suppliers directly and through the Bonneville Power Administration's pilo t
Irrigation Energy Conservation Program which is a part of the Pacific Northwes t
Electric Energy Conservation Act .
BPA and electric power suppliers project that a statewide irrigation energ y
management program, using pumping system . improvement and scheduling programs ,
could produce a 10 percent reduction in energy consumed on a per-acre basis - an annual savings of over 100 million kilowatt hours with a $4 million retai l
value at present electrical rates .
32
PUBLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS RESULTING FROM PROJEC T
1.
"Pumping Plant Efficiencies," Marvin N . Shearer, Irrigational Regional Conference Proceedings, September 1980 .
2.
"Opportunities for Energy Savings in Irrigation," Marvin N . Shearer, Orego n
Farmer-Stockman, March 1981 .
3.
"Irrigation Pumping System Efficiency Criteria," Marvin N . Shearer and Hug h
J . Hansen, Agricultural Energy Proceedings, Vol . 2, Page 580, America n
Society of Agricultural Engineers, April, 1981 .
4.
"Energy Losses in Fittings Around Pumps," Garland E . Laliberte, Hugh J .
Hansen, Marshall J . English, and Marvin N . Shearer, 1982 Annual Technica l
Conference Proceedings, pages 283-293, The Irrigation Association, February 1982 .
5.
"Testing Irrigation Pumping Systems for Energy Reductions," Hugh J, Hansen ,
Agricultural Engineering, pages 16-17, Vol . 63, No . 3, March, 1982 .
6.
"An Energy-Efficient Two-Stage Pipe Expansion," G . E . Laliberte, Canadia n
Society of Agricultural Engineering, Paper 82-410, July 1982 .
7.
"Simplified Energy Analysis for On-Farm Irrigation Systems," Marvin N .
Shearer and Hugh J . Hansen, American Society of Agricultural Engineers ,
Pacific Northwest Region, Paper No . 82-205, September, 1982 .
8.
"Payback Potential for Energy Conservation Alternatives in Irrigated Agriculture," Marvin N . Shearer, Oregon State University Ag Conference Days Proceed ings, March 1983 .
9.
"Design of Energy-Efficient Pipe-Size Expansion," Garland E . Laliberte ,
Marvin N . Shearer, and Marshall J . English, Journal of Irrigation and Drain age Engineering, ASCE, pages 13-28, Vol . 109, No . 1, March 1983 .
33
CONCLUSION S
Research results revealed that several opportunities do exist for irrigator s
to reduce energy-requirements for irrigation systems . Overall pumping plant efficiency is a ratio of the amount of work done by a pumping plant to the amount o f
energy put into the system .
The selection and compatibility of individual components o f . the system can an d
do affect operating efficiency . Efficiencies of electric motors remain relativel y
constant during their life span . Pumps, however, can deteriorate over a period o f
time due to wear from cavitation and abrasive materials in the water and from deposition of material within-the pump impeller--all factors which reduce their efficiencies . Improperly selected or sized fittings: around above-ground centrifuga l
pumps waste considerable energy in overcoming friction . . It was not uncommon t o
find from ten to fifteen percent of the total : energy required to overcome syste m
friction losses occurring in pump intake and discharge fittings .
It was found more meaningful to relate pump performance to the specific pum p
performance curve supplied by the manufacturer rather than to make a judgement .
. based only on : pump
of f
ici,gncy ._-Comparisons of manufacturers' published pump per -
formance curves show that peak pump efficiencies vary as much as twenty percen t
for different models and brands operating under the same total head and discharg e
capacity .conditions . Pumps should operate within four percent or less of the .manufacturer's curve .
Both low-pressure impact sprinklers and spray nozzles offer opportunity fo r
reducing energy requirements . The percent energy savings is closely related t o
the amount of total head produced by the pump . It is necessary to remove bowls o r
trim pump impellers to realize this energy savings .
It was concluded that improving pumping plant efficiencies will not necessarily reduce energy demand or total energy used unless proper follow-up action s
are taken . When systems with . pumps operating considerably below the published
pump performance curves are modified to bring them back on the curve, it usuall y
results in increased pressure, increased discharge, increased pump efficiency an d
also increased power requirement . The major benefits are actually found in mor e
uniform distribution of water and improved irrigation efficiencies . If the irrigator was currently experiencing under-irrigation during peak water-use periods, th e
increased water application would probably result in a major benefit in the for m
of'resultant increased crop yields . On-the other hand, if adequate water wa s
35
being applied prior to the modification, a benefit would result only if the system ' s operating time was adjusted by modifying the irrigation schedule . Failure to so do would result in over-irrigating and increased energy consumption .
Irrigation scheduling, based on crop water needs, can reduce energy consumption when such scheduling results in pumping less water or operating the syste m
for shorter periods of time . The opportunities for saving energy under those conditions is dependent upon the opportunities for making adjustments in curren t
scheduling programs . More precise scheduling is particularly important in th e
spring and fall when sprinkler systems have excess capacity and irrigators ten d
to apply more water than the plants require .
Irrigation energy management and conservation programs, to prove successful ,
must offer irrigators numerical test results to which they can relate . They
need economic or cost-effective figures necessary to determine if they can actually afford to improve the efficiency of their pumping plant system -- will th e
repair or replacement be cost-effective? They also need greater sophisticatio n
and more extensive acceptance of scientific irrigation scheduling to capitaliz e
on efficiency improvements in their irrigation practices .
36
REFERENCE S
1 . Barnes, K . K . et al . 1973 . Energy in Agriculture . A Task Force of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology .
2 . Busch, J . R ., C . C . Warnick, R . C . Stroh, R . D . Wells and T . S . Longley . 1978 :
Energy Conserving Irrigation Practices and Alternative Energy Sources fo r
Irrigation Systems . Fourth Quarterly Progress Report, July - September ,
1978 . Idaho Office of Energy and University of Idaho .
3 . Chen, K ., R . R . Wensink and J . W . Wolfe . 1976 . A Model to Predict Total Energy Requirements and Economic Costs of Irrigation Systems . American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St . Joseph, Michigan . Paper No . 76-2527 .
4 . Chen, K ., J . W . Wolfe, R . B . Wensink and'M . A . Kizer . 1976 . Minimum Energy
Designs for Selected Irrigation Systems . American Society of Agricultura l
Engineers, St . Joseph, Michigan . Paper No . 76-2037 .
5 . Colorado Power Council . Undated . Energy Conservation Through Improvemen t
of Irrigation Pumping Plant Efficiencies . Colorado Power Council, Denver ,
Colorado .
6 . Dvoskin, Dan, K . Nicol and E . Heady . 1975 . Energy Use for Irrigation i n
the Seventeen Western States . Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, Iowa State University .
7 . Fischbach, P . . E ., J . J . Sulek and D . Axthelm . 1968 . Your Pumping Plant Ma y
Be Using Too Much Fuel . Extension Services, University of Nebraska ,
College of Agriculture . EC 68-775 .
8 . Halderman, A . D . 1976 . A Guide to Efficient Irrigation Water Pumping ,
University of Arizona . . WRAES Fact Sheet 17 .
9 . Hamil, D . A . 1977 . Development, Approval, and Use of Irrigation Studies .
REA Bulletin 145-1 .
10 . Hamilton, J . R . 1977 . Energy and the Growth o-f Irrigated-Agriculture i n
Southern Idaho . Agricultural Economics Department,- University of Idaho .
.
Agricultural Economics Research Paper No . AER 210 .
11 . Hohn, Charles M . 1976 . Irrigation Pump .Tests, Estancia amid Clovis Counties ,
New. Mexico . Extension Service, New Mexico State University .
12 . King, L . D ., R . B . Wensink, J . W . Wolfe and M . N . Shearer . 1977, 1978 an d
1979 . Energy and Water Consumption•of Pacific Northwest Irrigation Systems ,
BNW.L-RAP-19/UC-11, September, 1977 plus Supplements RLO/2227/T25-2 ,
August, 1978 and BNWL-RAP 33, January, 1979 . Battelle Pacific Northwes t
Laboratories .
13 . Kizer, M . A ., R . B . Wensink and J . W . Wolfe . 1976 . A Comparison of Minimu m
Energy Designs to Minimum Economic Designs for Farm Irrigation Supply Lines .
Proceedings of 1976 Conference on Energy and Agriculture, St . Louis ,
Missouri . Technical Paper No . 4262, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University .
1 :4 . Kizer, M . A . 1976 . A Computer Model to Simulate Farm Irrigation Syste m
Energy Requirements . Unpublished MS thesis, Oregon State University .
37
15 . Knutson, G . D ., R . G . Curley, E . B . Roberts, R . M . Hagan and V . Cervinka .
1977 . Pumping Energy Requirements for Irrigation in California . California Agricultural Experiment Station, Division of Agricultural Sciences .
Special publication 3215 .
16 . Longenbaugh, R . A . 1977 . The Impact of Irrigation Pumping Plant Efficiencie s
Upon Energy Consumption and Pumping Costs . Western Irrigation Forum ,
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Denver, Colorado .
February 9, 1977 . Colorado State University Paper No . CEP76-77RAL50 .
17 . Obermiller, F . W . 1978 . Evaluating the Social Benefits and Social Costs o f
Irrigation Development . Paper presented to Water Policy Advisory Committee, State of Oregon Legislative Committee on Trade and Economic Development .
18 . Shearer, M . N . 1978 . County Irrigation Survey for Oregon . Unpublishe d
Data . Extension Service, Oregon State University .
19 . Sloggett, Gordon . 1977 . Energy and U .S . Agriculture : Irrigation Pumping ,
1974 . Economic Research Service, U .S . Department of Agriculture . Agricultural Economic Report No . 376 .
20 . Sloggett, Gordon . 1977 . Energy Used for Pumping Irrigation Water in the
United States, 1974 . Solar Irrigation Workshop and Demonstration, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 7-8, 1977 .
21 . Twersky, Marvin and P . E . Fischbach . 1978 . Consideration of Different Irrigation Systems for the Solar Photovoltaic Energy Program . Departmen t
of Agricultural Engineering, University of Nebraska - Lincoln . Contrac t
No . 30189 .
22 . Wensink, R . B ., J . W . Wolfe and M . A . Kizer . 1976 . Simulating Farm Irrigation System Energy Requirements . Water Resources Research Institute .
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon . WRRI-44, August, 1976 .
38
APPENDICE S
39
Appendix 1
Calibration of Velocitygage
:77
- I' :
-
. .
=2
- -
7 .7 I.
-
- =r
7
. -
.---7 [7_17.
,777 :
-: -
..
7
. -----
-.--F
-_t -- -
:
: .■
.
.1
1- --
_ .
,
1 -
-
, -:
-7
.
I..
7
-
-
i
.
.
-
7:44
-.A.
-
?-
17I
.
tr
4-
41
.
.
.
.
_ :_-
7_1 : . :
--- -
.1 . - i 1 .1 --- .
'■
- 7-
i
11_4.7
-.
.
-
-
-- ---
-
-
: ,
.
-
: .-- : . :
.
: :
.
:7"
,
: :
.
.
1 .
-
7 .
.
.
.
_
Appendix 2
Pumping Plant Efficiency Tes t
Number
Date
Telephone
Name
Time
Zip
Address
Pump Location (identification) _
Power Data
Pump Data
(1) Amps
(1-2) Volts
(2-3) Volts
Manufacturer
Type
Serial No .
(2) Amps_
Model
No . of Bowls_
(3) Amps,
(1-3) Volts
Average
Average
Inlet size
Outlet size
Impeller Trim
_
Model
Column Dia .
-
Shaft Dia .
FlowRate,
inche s
I .D . of Pipeline
ft .
Column Length
nm _
Pyrometer reading
Motor Data :
=
Mfg .
Rated Horsepower RPM
V.
_ ft .
psi
Pressure
Rated Amp
[ ] 1800
Description of suction and discharge set-ups :
[ ] 3600
( 1 480
( ] singl e
Volts [ ] 240
Phase [ ] 30
Meter Dat a
Make _
Serial N
Ident . f
Multiplier
Kh
Demand_
Utility Co .
%
% of time system used under test condition s
Disk Rev .
Time
Sec .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calculations
Electric Hp . (watt hr . meter )
Pumping Hea d
Pressure
Disk Rev . x Kh xM x 4 .826
Time in Sec .
ft .
psi
Distance, water level to
pressure gauge
ft .
Suction column) friction ft .
x
_ ft .
Suction head (vacuum gauge) .
x 4 .826 =
Elec . Hp
Pumping Plant Efficienc y
ft .
T .D .H .
x
Eff
=
Hp
W
'
Elec . H p
%
FlowRate
Pump Efficiency
inches
Pipeline I .D . =
Pyrometer =
mm =
ft ./sec . vel .
Eff
(I0) 2 x V
.40 8
a'
-
gp m
Water Horsepower
_ Flow ratex T .D .H .
3960
Pumping Plant Eff .
Motor Eff .
Pump Curve Data Compariso n
x
.408
=
x
3960
Head at test gpm ft .
Head from curve at test gpm
ft .
Difference
ft .
Remarks :
=
Hp
Electric Hp . (V x A), 30
= Amps x Volts x 1 .73 x P .F .
746
x
x .00232 x
=
Elec . Hp
Tested by ,
Dept . Agr . Engr., OSU, Corvallis . OR .
43
_
Appendix 3
IRRIGATION PUMPING SYSTEM FIELD TEST DATA
_ -u
'
-
>-s
a)
u_
-a
s-4-)
3
0
a)
so
(ci
u
-I.-,
-- (%.
>-
a)
o
7`9-005 LANE
79-006 LANE
79-007 LANE
79-008 LANE
79-009 LANE
79-010 LANE
4-= 6HLANE
79-012 LANE
79-013 LANE
79-01 1+ LANE
79-015 LANE
„4.19-016 LANE
"79-017 LANE
79-01.8 LANE
79-019 LANE
79-020 LANE
79-021 LINN
79-022 LANE
79-023 LANE
79-024 LANE
79-025 LANE
79-026 LANE
-r 79-027 LANE
79-028 LANE
9-029 LANE
_,. 79-030 LANE
79-031 LANE
79-032 LANE
79-033 LANE
79-031+ LANE
a) •r C
0
>
1
o_
E
s_ .,-4-) _a
s-
0
a s- o
a)
3
1-
1-
cu
so
- a)
4-5
a)
LA_
L
a_
a)
s-a.)
s4-
,
44-3
a
ce
a.
a
cr_
E
(
4-)
a)
a_
4-)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
)(
X
X
X
X
X
030 .0 CORN
024 .9
030 .0 BEPKELEY032 .8
040 .0 CORN
037 .4
040 .0 CORN
030 .2
030 .0 CORN
033 .6
030 .0 CORN
027 .9
040 .0 CORN
641 :6
030 .0 CORN
031 .5
030 .0 CORN
032 .0
020 .0 CORN
018 .7
030 .0 BERKELEY035 .0
017 .4
020 .0 A-C
025 .0 CORN
025 .1
025 .0 BERKELEY028 .8
030 .0 CORN
027 .9
040 .0 BERKELEY043 .6
025 .0 CORN
016 .9
030 .0 CORN
025 .9
030 .0 - CORN - 931 . 9
040 .0 BERKELEY043 .5
020 .0 BERKELEY020 .3
020 .0 BERKELEY020 .7
025 .0 CORN
027 .5
025 .0 CORN
025 .9
' 020 .9t3ERK E-L t-Y020 . 6 020 .0 BERKELEY019 .1
025 .0 PAC
022 .7
040 .0 CORN
032 .6
040 .0 CORN
031 .6
040 .0 CORN
035 .2
-a 45 _
,
>
an-
s- as
.cu
t.
C.)
7
4-
a
o
cne
4)
3
o
E
E
u.
a.
CL.
o
a
(/-)
4->
o
1.1.1
c_)
E
L.)
Cl.
_ -
E
3
o
0
a
OsLao
,sluo
a) _c x o
CO U
v)
I
X
0.1
a.
4-
o
o
s- s-
O) 4- CL
I
012 .0
013 .0
010 .0
003 .0
012 .0
007 .0
017 .0
008 .0
005 .0
006 . 0
004 .0
014 .0
015 .0
011 .0
013 .0
009 . 0
012 . 0
011 .0
011 .0
012 .0
010 .0
010 .0
008 .0
013 .0
916 .0
015 .0
017 .0
020 .0
019 .0
018 .0
162
163
1 65
157
123
162
144
152
139
131
145
146
0309 .0 051
0564 .0 071
0656 .0 073
0451 .0 060
0581 .0 054
0463 .0 067
9751 .9967
0536 .0 069
0575 .0 063
0388 .0 069
0568 .0 059
0301 .0 064
0382 .0 071
171 0376 .0 060
200 0379 .0 069
215 0511 .0 064
195 0345 .0 069
200 0250 .0 049
161 0329 .0 042
229 0104 .0 0 1 1+
151 0341 .0 064
151 0349 .0 06 1+
1 1+9 0460 .0 063
164 0400 .0 069
19 6 - 9335 ;9 - 0 7 1t
165 0310 .0 068
186 0257 .0 053
170 0469 .0 062
1.85 0319 .0 058
180 0533 .0 069
.
05 9
006 X
016 X
081
082
008 X -069
000 X
062
025
X
076
01 5
075
015r -071
009
X
071
008
X
079
005
X
067 X00 0
074 X000
x
081
00 0
068
008
X
078
000
X
072
016
X
078
000
X
008
X
056
047
023
X
016 025
X
071+
000
X
073
000
X
071
012 X
078
002 X
085
000i078
000
X
061
003
X
070
011
X
065
004 X
078
005 X
79-035 LANE
79-036 LANE
79-037 LANE
79-038 LANE
79-039ALANE
79-039B
79-040 LANE
79-041 LANE
79-042 LANE
79-043 LANE
79-0-44 -CANE 79-045 LANE
79-046 LANE
79-047 LANE
79-048 LANE
79-049LANE
79-05 '0 LANE
79-051 LANE
79-052 LANE
79-053 LANE
79-054 LANE
79-055 BENTON
79-056 BENTON
l
79-05 7 BENTON
79-058 BENTON
79-059 LANE
79-060 BENTON
79-061 LANE
79 '-062- LANE '
79-063 LANE
79-064 LANE
79-065 LANE
79-066 LANE
79-067 LANE
79-068 LANE
79-069 LANE
79-070 LANE
79-071 LANE
79-072 LANE
79-073 CURRY
79-074 CURRY
79-075 CURRY
79-076 CURRY
79-077 CURRY
79-078 CURRY
79-079 CURRY
79-080 CURRY
79-081 CURRY
79-082 CURRY
79-083 CURRY
79-084 CURRY
79-085 CURRY
x
x
x
x
X
--X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
79-086
CURRY
X
79-087
79-088
79-089
79-090
79-091
CURRY
CURRY
CURRY
CURRY
CURRY
X
X
X
X
X
025 .0
020 .0
000 .0
020 .0
015 .0
020 .0
020 .0
025 .0
030 .0
040 .0
040 .0
025 .0
025 .0
040 .0
025 .0
025 .0
030 .0
025 .0
020 .0
030 .0
040 .0
050 .0
_
050 .0
050 .0
075 .0
050 .0
075 .0
020 .0
015 .0
015 .0
030 .0
020 .0
020 .0
020 .0
020 .0
075 .0
025 .0
015 .0
020 .0
015 .0
040 .0
025 .0
020 .0
020 .0
007 .5
010 .0
020 .0
005 .0
015 .0
010 .0
020 .0
020 .0
020 .0
060 .0
010 .0
007 .5
040 .0
007 .5
GOULD
020 .2
BERKELEY014 .9
A-C
020 .6
CORN
018 .8
000 .0
A-C
CORN
038 .3
8ERKELEY025 .9
BERKELEY025 .5
BERKELEY029 .1
BERKELEY023 .4
033 .4
BERKELEY023 .2
BERKELEY026 .7
ADV
035 .3
BERKELEY028 .6
CARV
017 .0
000 .0
CARV
026 .0
CORN
A-C
020 .7
CARV
020 .6
040 .4
CORN
047 . 3
CORN
041 .3
CORN
024 .2
CORN
074 .9
CORN
045 .7
CORN
069 .5
CORN
019 .9
015 .6
CORN
CORN
025 .5
CORN
030 .1
CORN
022 .4
CORN
018 .8
CORN
021 .2
015 .4
CORN
CORN
067 .4
CORN
013 .5
015 .6
CORN
BERKELEY017 .0
MYERS
013 .5
BERKELEY036 .3
AURORA
049 .0
PACIFIC 017 .6
026 .3
BY JC
CORN
008 .3
CORN
009 .7
GOULD
022 .3
PEER
005 .8
BERKELEY017 .2
PEER
012 .3
BERKELEY020 .9
BERKELEY000 .0
BERKELEY021 .5
8ERKELEY061 .0
BEPKELEY011 .1
BERKELEY006 .6
8ERKELEY036 .3
BERKELEY007 .9
-b 46
015 .0
009 .0
008 .0
008 .0
000
008 .0
015 .0
015 .0
015 .0
020 .0
016 .0
016 .0
017 .0
008 .0
011 .0
014 .0
016 .0
009 .0
016 .0
016 .0
013 .0
016 .0
015 .0
007 .0
014 .0
017 .0
015 .0
005 .0
011 .0
016 .0
015 .0
007 .0
006 .0
010 .0
010 .0
007 .0
007 .0
005 .0
022 .0
014 .0
010 .0
005 .0
004 .0
000
022 .0
007 .0
006 .0
007 .0
007 .0
007 .0
005 .0
000
006 .0
015 .0
012 .0
006 .0
006 .0
006 .0
154
173
170
126
000
154
184
188
219
216
189
182
188
174
166
169
167
189
116
192
216
202
188
178
203
254
189
154
168
150
177
136
147
142
165
226
201
167
126
130
116
174
169
123
114
243
156
126
130
162
150
000
121
309
112
120
209
113
0133 .0
0218 .0
0304 .0
0410,0
0000
0606 .0
0355 .0
0325 .0
0279 .0
0429 .0
0300 .0
0259 .0
0326 .0
0341 .0
0475 .0
0227 .0
0423 .0
0355 .0
018E .0
0186 .0
0220 .0
0550 .0
0485 .0
0331 .0
0949 .0
0327 .0
0833 .0
0317 .0
0240 .0
0280 .0
0428 .0
0390 .0
0284 .0
0413 .0
0182 .0
0631 .0
0199 .0
0252 .0
0162 .0
0240 .0
0487 .0
0416 .0
0200 .0
0179 .0
0140 .0
0058 .5
0356 .0
0068 .0
0365 .0
0164 .0
0344 .0
0000
0342 .0
0602 .0
0261 .0
0109 .0
0396 .0
0146 .0
026
064
063
069
000
061
064
061
056
064
044
056
058
042
070
056
053
065
044
044
063
059
056
062
065
043
057
062
065
042
064
060
056
070
049
053
056
068
030
058
039
037
048
021
048
037
063
037
069
055
062
000
049
077
067
050
058
053
030
074
072
079
000
068
073
069
064
072
049
064
066
047
079
064
060
074
050
050
071
066
063
071
071
048
075
071
075
048
072
069
064
080
057
058
064
079
034
067
044
042
055
024
057
043
072
045
079
064
071
000
056
086
078
060
065
063
X000
000
X000
00 7
00 0
X00 0
010
004
006
007
X00 0
009
005
X00 0
004
X000
X00 0
003
X000
X000
X000
006
008
X000
X00 0
011
018
005
00 4
005
00 9
01 1
00 5
00 0
00 6
00 7
000
00 3
028
007
10 5
X000
X000
X00 0
021
004
X000
X000
000
X000
006
000
029
000
005
000
011
006
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_00
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~~X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
79-092
79-093
79-094
79-095
79-096
79-097
79-098
79-099
79-100
79-101
79-102
79-103
79-104
79-105
79-106
79-107
79-108
79-109
79-110
79-111
79-112
79-113
__71-1 4
79-115
79-116
79-117
79-118
79-119
CURRY
CURRY
CURRY
CURRY__
CURRY
CURRY
CURRY
LANE
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
KLAMATH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
040 .0
005 .0
007 .5
030 .0
025 .0
025 .0
025 .0
015 .0
040 .0
030 .0
050 .0
020 .0
030 .0
050 .0
030 .0
030 .0
XX 100 .0
X
050 .0
X
020 .0
X
025 .0
X
050 .0
X
040 .0
X
075 .0
X 100 .0
X
075 .0
X
025 .0
X 100 .0
X 100 .0
000 .0
X
150 .0
X
100 .0
X
100 .0
X
100 .0
XX 150 .0
X
075 .0
X
075 .0
X
150 .0
X
025 .0
X
030 .0
XXX
060 .0
X
025 .0
X
015 .0
X X 025 .0
X
015 .0
X
025 .0
X
020 .0
X
025 .0
X
025 .0
X
030 .0
X
025 .0
X
025 .0
X X 050 .0
X
030 .0
79-121 KLAMATH
79-122 KLAMATH
79-123 KLAMATH
79-124 KLAMATH
79-125 KLAMATH
19-126 KLAMATH
79-127 KLAMATH
79-128 KLAMATH
79-129 JEFFERSON
79-130 JEFFERSON
79-131 JEFFERSON
'
V9-132- JEFFERSON
79-133 JEFFERSON
T9-134 JEFFERSON
79-135 JEFFERSON
79-136 JEFFERSON
.-. 79-137 JEFFERSON
'79-13'8 JEFFERSON
79-139 JEFFERSON
79-140 JEFFERSON
79-141 JEFFERSON
79-142 JEFFERSON
79-143 JEFFERSON
`-- 79 = 144 - JEFFERSON
79-145 JEFFERSON X
79-146 JEFFERSON X
79-147 JEFFERSON X
79-148 JEFFERSON X
79-149 JEFFERSON X
030 .0
040 .0
020 .0
040 .0
015 .0
BERKELEY019 .6
9ERKELEY006 .1
BERKELEY013 .9
BERKELEY038 .7
BERKELEY033 .6
BERKELEY028 .0
BERKELEY029 .0
CORN
015 .7
BERKELEY027 .0
BERKELEY035 .6
CORN
046 .6
BERKELEY022 .9
BERKELEY036 .0
BERKELEY042 .6
BERKELEY031 .8
CORN
027 .5
JACUZZI 098 .9
L-B
043 .8
CORN
019 .6
BERKELEY020 .9
042 .2
CORN
CORN
028 .9
PEER
049 .9
LB
134 .0
JACUZZI 036 .1
F-B
036 .2
LB
105 .3
CORN
102 .8
000 .0
185 .0
PEAB
PEER
116 .6
PEER
107 .7
088 .2
PEER
PEER
153 .0
081 .0
PEER
JOHN
073 .8
BJ
151 .0
BERKELEY030 .2
SUB
037 .9
074 .4
9ERKELEY029 .0
016 .8
CORN
023 .5
017 .1
CORN
BERKELEY028 .4
8ERKELEY026 .5
6ERKELEY024 .8
BERKELEY023 .6
BERKELEY033 .8
BERKELEY030 .7
BERKELEYO31 .8
BERKELEY060 .3
9ERKELEY026 .8
BERKELEY039 .2
CORN
027 .0
076 .7
PACI
BERKELEY032 .4
9ERKELEY014 .3
47
019 .0
007 .0
003 .0
006 .0
005 .0
008 .0
008 .0
003 .0
001 .0
003 .0
002 .0
003 .0
001 .0
003 .0
004 .0
004 .0.
000
000
003 .0
004 .0
005 .0
006 .0
000
000
000
003 .0
000
005 .0
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
004 .0
000
000
003 .0
008 .0
008 .0
001 .0
006 .0
006 .0
012 .0
012 .0
003 .0
005 .0
001 .0
003 .0
003 .0
001 .0
002 .0
003 .0
003 .0
005 .0
140
112
121
114
129
091
118
163
206
168
206
166
187
176
177
151
211
213
179
200
208
176
105
143
148
124
168
146
000
133
128
120
0554 .0
0088 .6
0096 .0
0548 .0
0531 .0
0460 .0
0555 .0
0203 .0
0442 .0
0428 .0
0489 .0
0424 .0
0456 .0
0471 .0
0471 .0
0412 .0
1195 .0
0547 .0
0326<0
0216 .0
0498 .0
0293 .0
1897 .0
2243 .0
1230 .0
0333 .0
0874 .0
1408 .0
0000
3232 .0
2107 .0
2447 .0
159 0848 .0
179 1081 .0
112 1768 .0
099 2600 .0
194 1840 .0
171 0453 .0
251 0375 .0
304 0516 .0
172 0399 .0
107 0339 .0
147 0390 .0
100 0370 .0
133 0510 .0
184 0322 .0
111 0493 .0
107 0486 .0
117 0662 .0
144 0521 .0
147 0521 .0
158 0886 .0
174 0327 .0
167 0564 .0
194 0220 .0
174 0339 .0
202-0238 .0
132 0263 .0
050
041
021
041
051
038
057
053
000
051
055
048
060
049
066
057
064
067
075
052
062
045
000
060
000
000
035
038
000
059
058
069
039
030
062
066
060
065
063
053
060
055
057
055
060
057
055
055
059
062
061
059
054
061
039
066
037
061
056
050
024
046
057
043
064
061
000
057
062
089
068
055
074
064
070
075
086
059
070
051
000
066
000
000
038
041
X000
X000
X000
. 028
024
048
016
012
010
012
006
011
013
X000
000
008
X00 0
X00 0
002
000
003
010
X00 0
X00 0
X00 0
X000
X00 0
029
000
00 0
064
063
075
043
033
068
072
065
073
071
000
069
065
066
065
069
066
064
064
068
071
070
066
062
070
043
076
043
073
X00 0
X00 0
X00 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X00 0
X00 0
X000 X
X00 0
X00 0
006
X
X00 0
X000
X
010
X
022
X
000
021
019
000
038
040
X
X
X
X _.
X
X
015
X
013
012
01 5
010
X
011
X
X
004
000
000
000
X
X
X
X
X
79-150 JEFFERSON
79-151 JEFFERSON
79-152 JEFFERSON
79-153 JEFFERSON
79-154 JEFFERSON
79-155 JEFFERSON
79-156 JEFFERSON
_ 79-157 JEFFERSON
79-158 JEFFERSON
79-159 JEFFERSON
79-160 JEFFERSON
79-161 JEFFERSON
79-162 JEFFERSON
79-163 JEFFERSON
79-164 JEFFERSON
79-165 JEFFERSON
79-166 JEFFERSON
79-167 JEFFERSON
79-168 JEFFERSON
79-169 JEFFERSON
79-170 JEFFERSON
79-171 JEFFERSON
79-172 JEFFERSON
79-173 JEFFERSON
79-174 JEFFERSON
79-175 JEFFERSON
79-176 JEFFERSON
79-177 JEFFERSON
79-178 JEFFERSON
79-179 JEFFERSON
79-180 JEFFERSON
79-181 JEFFERSON
79-182 JEFFERSON
--_ 79-183 JEFFERSON
79-184 JEFFERSON
79-185 JEFFERSON
79-186 JEFFERSON
79-187 JEFFERSON
79-188 JEFFERSON
79-189 JEFFERSON
' 9-190 - JEFFE08ON
79-191 JEFFERSON
79-192 JEFFERSON
79-193 JEFFERSON
9-194 JEFFERSON
79-195 JEFFERSON
79-196 JEFFERSON
79-197 JEFFERSON
79-198 JEFFERSON
79-199 JEFFERSON
79-200 JEFFERSON
79-201 JEFFERSON
79-202 - JEFFERSON
79-203 JEFFERSON
79-204 JEFFERSON
79-205 JEFFERSON
79-206 JEFFERSON
79-207 JEFFERSON
X
020 .0 CORN
021 .8
X
030 .0 BERKELEY038 .4
X X 030 .0 BEB
035 .0
X
015 .0 BERKELEY016 .8
X
015 .0 8ERKELEY016 .4
X
040 .0 CORN
037 .7
X
030 .0 BERKELEY034 .1
X
025 .0 BERKELEY027 .0
X
025 .0 BERKELEY027 .0
X
025 .0
024 .6
-X 030 .0 8ERKELEYO3T .0
X
025 .0 BERKELEY030 .0
X
025 .0 BERKELEY028 .0
X
020 .0 CORN
020 .2
X
040 .0 BERKELEY041 .4
X
040 .0 BERKELEY041 .4
X
025 .0 BERKELEY028 .0
X
025 .0 BERKELEY028 .9
X
030 .0 BERKELEY033 .7
X
015 .0
015 .0 CORN
015 .0 CORN
014 .3
X
025 .0 CORN
029 .6
X
X
025 .0 CORN
028 .7
X X 050 .0 CORN
049 .3
X X 065 .0 CORN
063 .6
X
025 .0 CORN
027 .4
X
040 .0 CORN
036 .5
X
030 .0 BERKELEY038 .9
X
030 .0 9ERKELEY041 .0
X X 060 .0 BERKELEY079 .0
X
023 .9
020 .0 PACI
X
025 .0 PACI
028 .9
X X 045 .0 PACI
042 .9
X
015 .0 BERKELEY000 .0
X
015 .0 BERKELEY014 .4
X
025 .0 CORN
024 .0
X X 100 .0 CORN
084 .4
X X 100 .0 CORN
087 .3
X X 075 .0 CORN
065 .2
X X 075 .0 CORN
065 .0
X X 050 .0 CORN
038 .2
X
025 .0 CORN
024 .6
X
025 .0 CORN
024 .2
X
025 .0 CORN
021 .6
X
025 .0 CORN
020 .7
X
037 .3
040 .0 CORN
X
025 .0 CORN
027 .6
X
01.5 .0 CORN
019 .5
X
040 .0 CORN
046 .1
X
030 .0 CORN
033 .0
X
040 .0 BERKELEY046 .3
X
030 .0 BERKELEY084 .7
X
040 .0 PAC
049 .5
X
030 .0 BERKELEY035 .7
X X 060 .0 9ERKELEY070 .3
X X 060 .0 BERKELEY062 .9
X
025 .0 BERKELEY024 .5
X
020 .0 CORN
022 .5
-d 48
007 .0
006 .0
003 .0
003 .0
003 .0
005 .0
008 .0
007 .0
007 .0
002 .0
_007 .0
002 .0
002 .0
006 .0
001 .0
003 .0
007 .0
004 .0
003 .0
004 .0
004 .0
009 .0
009 .0
005 .0
006 .0
001 .0
001 .0
002 .0
003 .0
003 .0
003 .0
005 .0
005 .0
000
003 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
007 .0
005 .0
005 .0
005 .0
004 .0
004 .0
006 .0
000 .0
009 .0
000 .0
003 .0
008 .0
000
000
007 .0
004 .0
148 0441 .0
179 0530 .0
160 0569 .0
165 0249 .0
165 0249 .0
171 0627 .0
154 0501 .0
157 0454 .0
150 0454 .0
143 0368 .0
162 0434 .0
157 0450 .0
127 0441 .0
143 0314 .0
170 0745 .0
170 0745 .0
176 0448 .0
191 0312 .0
180 0473 .0
177 0186 .0
170 0180 .0
167 0466 .0
162 0466 .0
192 0633 .0
181 1015 .0
163 0460 .0
186 0492 .0
153 0592 .0
158 0603 .0
169 1098 .0
102 0545 .0
112 0598 .0
135 0647 .0
000 0000
161 0223 .0
151 0398 .0
175 1068 .0
175 1068 .0
181 0720 .0
176 0720 .0
181 0434 .0
158 0408 .0
201 0317 .0
187 0303 .0
183 0303 .0
186 0576 .0
138 0550 .0
083 0454 .0
128 0949 .0
109 0686 .0
168 0636 .0
165 0417 .0
202 0530 .0
181-0468 .0
204 0833 .0
225 0584 .0
157 0236 .0
143 0421 .0
076
062
066
062
063
072
057
067
067
054
049
059
051
058
077
077
071
052
064
055
054
066
067
062
073
069
063
059
059
059
059
065
051
000
063
063
056
054
050
049
052
066
067
066
068
073
069
049
067
057
058
050
055
060
061
053
038
068
087
003
070
00 8
074
00 7
070
00 3
072
003
081
004
064
012
076
016
072
012
061 X000
055
024
066
011
058
028
067
010
087
006
087__006
080
000
058
005
072
014
063
006
063
007
075
001
076
004
070
00 1
081 X00 0
078
004
071
005
066
014
066
011
065 X00 0
067 X000
074 X000
057
00 0
000
000
075 X00 0
072
013
061
008
059
008
055
00 6
00 9
054
058
00 7
075
00 8
077
000
075
000
077
002
082
000
078
000
056
021
075 X00 0
064
004
081
019
056
020
062 X000
067
010
007
067
059 002
043
022
078
000
X
_
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
79-208 JEFFERSON
79-209 JEFFERSON
79-210 JEFFERSON
79-211 JEFFERSON
79-212 JEFFERSON
79-213 JEFFERSON
79-214 JEFFERSON
79-215 JEFFERSON
79-216 JEFFERSON
79-217 JEFFERSON
79-218 JEFFERSON
79-219 JEFFERSON
79-220 JEFFERSON
79-221 JEFFERSON
79-222 JEFFERSON
79-223 JEFFERSON
79-224 JEFFERSON
79-225 JEFFERSON
79-226 JEFFERSON
79-227 JEFFERSON
79-228 JEFFERSON
79-229 JEFFERSON
79-230 JEFFERSON
79-231 JEFFERSON
79-232 JEFFERSON
79-233 JEFFERSON
79-234 JEFFERSON
79-235 JEFFERSON
T9-236 JEFFERSON
79-237 JEFFERSON
79-238 JEFFERSON
79-239 JEFFERSON
79-240 JEFFERSON
79-241 JEFFERSON
79-242 JEFFERSON
79-243 JEFFERSON
79-244 JEFFERSON
79-245 JEFFERSON
79-246 JEFFERSON
79-247 JEFFERSON
79-248 JEFFERSON
79-249 JEFFERSON
79-250 JEFFERSON
79-251 JEFFERSON
79-252 JEFFERSON
79-253 JEFFERSON
80-001 UNION
80-001AUNION
80-002 UNION
80-003 UNION
80-004 UNION
80-005 UNION
- 80-006 UNION
80-007 UNION
80-008 UNION
80-009 UNION
80-010 UNION
80-011 UNION
4 -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
025 .0
030 .0
015 .0
045 .0
015 .0
050 .0
020 .0
040 .0
030 .0
020 .0
025 .0
025 .0
020 .0
020 .0
070 .0
020 .0
050 .0
050 .0
025 .0
030 .0
100 .0
100 .0
050 .0
020 .0
015 .0
030 .0
030 .0
035 .0
010 .0
015 .0
025 .0
015 .0
020 .0
025 .0
025 .0
040 .0
020 .0
015 .0
060 .0
030 .0
030 .0
025 .0
040 .0
020 .0
020 .0
030 .0
125 .0
125 .0
t50 .0
075 .0
075 .0
125 .0
125 .0
125 .0
200 .0
000 .0
150 .0
150 .0
CORN
025 .0
CORN
033 .7
CORN
017 .7
CORN
048 . 6
BERKELEY016 .2
GOULD
046 .2
CORN
018 .8
CORN
041 .4
8ERKELEY023 .3
CORN
018 .6
024 .1
CORN
019 .2
CORN
BERKELEY018 .8
CORN
017 .2
068 .9
BERKELEY022 .2
JACUZZI 052 .4
.JACUZZI 055 .9
CORN
025 .6
CORN
026 .4
CORN
111 .7
105 .3
CORN
CORN
041 .4
CORN
020 .0
9ERKELEY016 .3
CORN
030 .9
CORN
039 .9
CORN
027 .2
CORN
012 .6
CORN
018 .0
4ERKELEY029 .2
CORN
019 .4
CORN
021 .1
CORN
027 .4
BERKELEY026 .7
JACUZZI 041 .6
CORN
018 .8
CORN
019 .3
BERKELEY069 .0
f3EPKELEY035 .2
8ERKELEY036 .3
CORN
026 .6
CORN
038 .4
CORN
020 .4
CORN
020 .1
BERKELEY040 .0
CORN
104 .0
CORN
104 .0
BERKELEY116 . 0
JACUZZI 068 .0
JACUZZI 071 .0
RERKELEY141 .7
BERKELEY141 .0
8ERKELEY141 .0
L-B
256 .0
000 .0
FLOWAY
158 .0
FLOWAY
162 .0
49
-8 -
005 .0
005 .0
004 .0
_006 .0
004 .0
005 .0
002 .0
004 .0
004 .0
004 .0
004 .0
005 .0
008 .0
008 .0
005 .0
004 .0
004 .0
005 .0
005 .0
006 .0
007 .0
004 .0
004 .0
004 .0
01.8 .0
006 .0
004 .0
002 .0
003 .0
002 .0
006 .0
002 .0
002 .0
004 .0
004 .0
005 .0
008 .0
003 .0
-4 .0
-4 .0
-4 .0
002 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
007 .5
007 .5
008 .5
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
169
155
117
161
143
187
160
170
228
166
189
192
179
174
155
131
148
139
174
163
270
247
207
143
125
135
140
131
048
099
163
120
141
132
138
151
142
137
162
107
107
152
132
125
129
152
220
229
231
320
248
230
258
257
339
000
173
168
0390 .0 067 076
008
X
0592 .0 069 078
004
X
0368 .0 062 071
016
X
0775 .0_065_ 073_ 00 0
0304 .0 068 079
000
X
0653 .0 067 076 X000 X
0293 .0 063 072
013 X
0671 .0 070 079
005 X
018E .0 046 053
000
X
0205 .0 046 053
011
X
0216 .0 043 049 009
X
0213 .0 054 062
006
X
0195 .0 047 054
000
X
0195 .0 050 057
003
X
1220 .0 069 076 X00 0
0448 .0 067077
019__
x
0956 .0 068 076 X000
X
1129 .0 071 079 X00 0
0423 .0 073 083
003
X
0331 .0 052 059
000
X
0875 .0 054 059
009
X
0888 .0 052 057
01 7
0454 .0 057 064 00 2
0351 .0 063 072
007 X
0330 .0 064 074
006
X
0586 .0 065 073
007
X
0720 .0 069 078
014
X
0433 .0 053 060 X00 0
0259 .0 048 056 063
X
0429 .0 060 069
012
X
0357 .0 050 057
018 X
0350 .0 055 063
010
X
034° .0 059 067
003 X
0530 .0 064 072
007
X
0433 .0 056 064
013
X
0447 .0 041 046 X000
X
0322 .0 061 070
007
X
0288 .0 052 061
016 X
1019 .0 060 066
00 0
0664 .0 051 057
027
X
0664 .0 049 055
027
X
0328 .0 047 054
025
X
0595 .0 052 058
00 0
0327 .0 051 059 022
X
0346 .0 056 064
012
X
0550 .0 053 060
021
X
1189 .0 064 075
005 X
1232 .0 068 074
00 0
1097 .0 055 060
002
x
0621 .0 075 082
00 0
0546 .0 048 053
00 0
0832 .0 034 037
00 0
00 0
1221 .0 057 062
1285 .0 059 064
00 0
2015 .0 067 073
00 0
0000
000 000
00 0
1808 .0 050 054
00 0
2022 .0 053 058
000
80-012 UNION
X
100 .0 CORN
111 .0
80-013 UNION
X
150 .0 BERKELEY161 .0
80-014 UNION
X 150 .0 BERKELEY159 .0
80-015 UNION
X 150 .0 BERKELEY158 .0
80-016 UNION
X
150 .0 BERKELEY130 .0
80-017 UNION
X
150 .0 BERKELEY141 .0
80-018 UNION
X
040.0 CORN
038 .0
80-019 UNION
X
075 .0 CORN
065 .0
80-020 UNION
X
000 .0 CORN
113 .0
80-021 UNION
X 100 .0L-B
121 .0
80-022 UNION
X 150 .0 BERKELEY159 .0
80-023 UNIO N
X 150 .0 BERKELEY159 .0
80-024 UNIO N
X 150 .0 3ERKELEY142 .0
80-025 UNIO N
X 150 .0 BERKELEY164 .0
80-026 UNIO N
X
150 .0 CORN
164 .0
80-027 UNIO N
X
150 .0 CORN
144 .0
80-028 UNION r
t X
100 .0 CORN
' 087 .0
80-028AUNIO N
X
100 .0 CORN
097 .0
80-029 UNIO N
X
025 .0 G + D
034 .0
80-030 UNIO N
X
025 .0 G + 0
033 .0
80-031 UNION
X 125 .0 AURORA 137 .0
80-032 UNION
X
150 .0 AURORA 150 .0
~ 80-033 UMATILLA X
030 .0 CORN~~~ 034 .0
80-034 UMATILLA X
050 .0 CORN
044 .0
80-035 UMATILLA X
050 .0 JACUZZI 055 .0
80-035AUMATILLA X
050 .0 JACUZZI 044 .0
80-036 UMATILLA
X 040 .0 L-B
048 .0
80-037 UMATILLA
X 100 .0 8 JAC
089 .0
--80-038 UMATILLA '-' X 060 .0 - 8 JAC-- 057 .0
80-039 UMATILLA
X 160 .0 B JAC
138 .0
80-040 UMATILLA
X 100 .0 JACUZZI 092 .0
80-041 UMATILLA
X
100 .0 BER.KELEY121 .0
80-042 UMATILLA
X
150 .0
173 .0
80-043 UMATILLA
X
075 .0 FLOWAY 071 .0
60= 044 - 0MATILLA X
075 .0 CORN --- 072 .0
80-045 UMATILLA X
050 .0 JACUZZI 060 .0
80-045AUMATILLA
X
050 .0 JACUZZI 060 .0
80-046 DESCHUTES X
060 .0 JACUZZI 070 .0
80-047 DESCHUTES X
015 .0 BERKELEYO12 .5
80-048 DESCHUTES X
050 .0 GOULD
049 .0
80-049 DESCHUTES X
020 .0 BERKELEY02Q .0
80-050 DESCHUTES X
025 .0 GOULD
022 .0
80-051 DESCHUTES X
025 .0 GOULD
025 .0
80-052 DESCHUTES X
030 .0 BERKELEY035 .0
80-053 DESCHUTES X
015 .0 CORN
017 .0
80-_054 DESCHUTES X
025 .0 CORN
029 .0
d0-055 DESCHUTES X _025.0 CORN
125 .0
80-056 DESCHUTES X X, 000 .0
046 .0
80-057 DESCHUTES X
015 .0 CORN
015 .0
80-058 DESCHUTES X
025 .0 CORN
031 .0
80-059 DESCHUTES X X 000 .0
046 .0
80-060 DESCHUTES X 150 .0 AURORA 000 .0
d0-06t DESCHUTES X
050 .0 8ERKELEY062 .0
80-062 DESCHUTES X
050 .0 CORN
047 .0
80-863 DESCHUTES X
015 .0 GOULD
013 .0
80-064
000 .0
000 .0
80-065 "
000 .0
000 .0
80-066 DESCHUTES X 100 .0
108 .0
-f 50
011 .5
000
000
000
009 .0
010 .0
012 .0
014 .0
038 .0
000
000
000
000
000
009 .0
008 .0
006 .0
006 .0
007 .0
008 .0
000
000
008 .0
004 .0
007 .0
007 .0
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
004 .0
000 .0
002 .0
005 .0
003 .0
005 .0
004 .6 '
011 .0
011 .0
004 .0
003 .0
004 .0
004 .0
002 .0
000 .0
003 .5
000 .0
000
007 .0
002 .0
000 .0
000
000
000
257 1136 .0 066 072 013
275 1269 .0 055 060 01 4
287 0920 .0 042 046
00 0
268 1392 .0 060 065
000
228 1437 .0 067 070 00 3
222 1793 .0 072 078 00 4
139 0540 .0 049 055
026
111 0987 .0 042 046 045
176 1943 .0 076 083 003
208 1694 .0 074 080 000
263 1396 .0 058 063 00 0
239 1424 .0 054 059
00 0
269 0790 .0 038 041
00 0
357 0964 .0 053 058 00 0
351 1440 .0 078 085 00 3
395 1062 .0 074 080 001
164 0748 .0 036 040
057
269 0733 .0 051 056 03 1
196 0372 .0 054 061 00 0
104 0550 .0 043 048
00 0
191 1846 .0 065 071 00 2
240 1661 .0 067 073
00 6
169 0414 .0 052 058 016
187 0653 .0 070 078 005
121 0939 .0 052 058 03 1
167 0545 .0 052 058
014
135 0533 .0 040 044 06 9
238 1034 .0 070 077
000
150 0815 .0 054 060 00 0
251 1395 .0 064 070 00 0
181 0937 .0 048 053 00 0
242 1379 .0 070 076 00 1
248 2000 .0 073 079
00 0
152 1026 .0 056 062 00 0
194 1065 .0 073 081 _004
171 0779 .0 063 070 008
143 1054 .0 063 070 00 7
172 0861 .0 053 059 000
164 0200 .0 066 078 007
170 0755 .0 065 072 010
l ; -1331 .0 - d69 079 005
141 0356 .0 059 067 017
128 0456 .0 064 074 01 9
198 0438 .0 063 071 008
143 0288 .0 060 069 014
164 0416 .0 059 067 023
148 0477 .0 071 081
008
179 0573 .0 056 062 00 0
118 0282 .0 058 067 013
140 0622 .0 071 080 003
130 0933 .0 067 074 00 0
000 0000
000 000 00 0
160 0823 .0 054 060 02 7
106 0676 .0 039 043 046
158 0165 .0 053'062 023
000 0000
000 000
00 0
000 0000
000 000
00 0
319 0744 .0 055 061 00 0
X
_
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
80-067
80-068
80-069
80-070
80-071
80-072
80-073
80-074
80-075
80-076
80-077
80-078
80-079
80-080
80-081
80-082
80-083
80-084
80-085
80-086
80-087
80-088
80-089
80-090
80-091
80-092
80-093
80-094
80-095
80-096
80-097
80-098
80-099
80-100
80-101
80-102
80-103
80-104
80-105
80-106
80.
-107
80-108
80-109
80-110
80-111
80-112
A 80-113
80-114
80-115
80-116
80-117
80-118
0-119 '
_ 80-120
80-121
_ 80-122
80-123
80-124
DESCHUTES
DESCHUTES
DESCHUTES
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R_
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
HOOD R
CLACKAMAS
CLACKAMAS
CLACKAMAS
CLACKAMAS
CLACKAMAS
CLACKAMAS
CLACKAMAS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X'
x
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
018 .0
PEER
137 .0
PEER
145 .0
CORN
010 .0
BERKELEY015 .0
BERKELEY019 .0
PACIFIC 049 .0
CORN
004 .0
CORN
005 .7
PAC
014 .0
000 .0
000 .0
004 .0 150
000
147
000
115
004 .0 084
001 .0 124
011 .0 225
005 .0 208
008 .0 102
000 .0 107
003 .0 115
0305 .0
1932 .0
1406 .0
0222 .0
0227 .0
0208 .0
0523 .0
0073 .0
0117 .0
0244 .0
065
053
028
047
049
062
056
050
055
051
075
058
030
055
057
071
062
063
067
059
000
0000
000
000
056
053
059
052
046
052
030
055
064
068
000
065
015
000
004 .8 012 .0 094 0113 .0
005 .1 015 .0 106 0102 .0
004 .9 017 .0 080 0143 .0
CORN
006 .5 024 .0 110 0122 .0
005 .0 BERKE_LEY_006 . 5 009 .0 099 0120 .0
025 .0 PAC
~T 027 .0 000 .0 252_0222 .0
007 .5
006 .3 000 .0 049 0152 .0
010 .0 BERKELEY011 .3 001 .0 085 0291 .0
020 .0 BERKELEY025 .6 016 .0 155 0418 .0
005 .0 PAC
010 .5 000
111 0183 .0
005 .0 PAC
006 .8 000 .0 099 0121 .0
005 .0 PAC '
005 .8 001 .0 085 0118 .0 '
000 .0
012 .4 001 .0 094 7236 .0
007 .5 PAC
006 .2 018 .0 129 0097 .0
050 .0 PAC
063 .2 007 .0 211 0663 .0
050 .0 PAC
063 .2 007 .0 206 0664 .0
050 .0 PAC
064 .3 008 .0 207 0664 .0
050 .0 PAC
061 .0 008 .0 205 0 664 .0
000 .0
000 .0 006 .0 211 2794 .0
030 .0 PAC
038 .1 005 .0 215 0288 .0
000 .0
000 .0 008 .0 232 1188 .0
000 .0
000 .0 000
000 0000
020 .0 PAC
032 .2 013 .0 230 0223 .0
015 .0 - BERKELEY012 .5 000
121 0130 .0
040 .0 CORN
039 .3 005 .0 278 0381 .0
030 .0 CORN
022 .6 004 .0 196 0261 .0
010 .0 F-B
009 .6 007 .0 170 0123 .0
015 .0 BERKELEY016 .1 008 .0 139 0273 .0
015 .0 CORN
007 .1 009 .0 142 0128 .0
015 .0
012 .3 012 .0 163 0196 .0
025 .0 BERKELEY025 .4 008 .0 151 0373 .0
075 .0 L-8
073 .8 000
230 0633 .0
050 .0 L-B
042 .0 000
323 0243 .0
100 .0 L-B
118 .6 000
254 1212 .0
000 .0 PIONEER 028 .5 000
131 0373 .0
025 .0 8ERKELEY031 .7 000
318 0196 .0
015 .0 JACUZZI 012 .6 000
229 0111 .0
000 .0
000 .0 000
000 0000
020 .0 BERKELEY021 .6 012 .0 191 0313 .0
015 .0 NATION
022 .0 000
130 0224 .0
025 .0 WESTERN 026 .0 000
158 0308 .0
030 .0 8ERKELEY033 .4 000
212 0472 .0
025 .0 BERKELEY031 .9 000
199 0347 .0
020 .0 JACUZZI 016 .5 000
194 0294 .0
050 .0
057 .4 000
213 0628 .0
020 .0 WESTERN 023 .6 000
254 0235 .0
040 .0 GOULD
032 .3 011 .5 332 0252 .0
005
005
005
005
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
.
X
X X
X
X X
X
CLACKAMAS X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
X
MARION
MARION
MARION
MARION
MARION
MARION
MARION
MARION
MARION
020 .0 CORN
250 .0
250 .0
010 .0
015 .0
020 .0
050 .0
003 .0
005 .0
015 .0
.0
.0
.0
.0
PAC
CORN
CORN
049
045
044
045
051
056
055
054
056
055
041
059
000
040
032
068
057
055
059
064
065
056
050
047
065
043
050
051
000
070
033
047
075
055
087
059
064
065
009
X
00 0
00 0
02 6
010
004
000
000
007
X
X
X
X
X
000
00 0
072
000
062
021
055
032
059
000
037
000
065
008
073
000
058
000
054
00 0
054
00 0
052
00 0
062
000
062
000
061
000
060
000
062
000
059
00 0
046
000
064
00 0
000
00 0
045
00 0
037 X00 0
076
000
065
000
065
000
068
000
077
023
076
000
064
021
055
00 0
053
00 0
071
00 7
00 0
049
056
00 0
059
00 0
000
00 0
080
000
038
00 0
053
00 0
084
00 0
062
01 3
101
00 0
066
00 0
073
00 0
073
004
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
80-125
80-126
80-127
80-128
80-129
80-130
80-131
80-132
80-133
80-134
80-135
80-136
80-137
80-138
80-139
80-140
80-141
80-142
80-143
80-144
80-145
80-146
_0_
80-1 47
80-148
80-149
80-150
80-151
80-152
80-153
80-154
80-155
80-156
80-157
80-158
80-159
80-160
80-161
80-162
80-163
80-164
50-165
80-166
80-167
MARION
MARION
MARION
MARION
MARION
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JOSEPHINE
JOSEPHINE
JOSEPHINE
JACKSON
JACKSON
_000
JACKSO N
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
80-168 DOUGLAS
80-169 DOUGLAS
80-170 DOUGLAS
50-171 DOUGLAS
-
80-172
80-173
80-174
80-175
80-176
50 =177
80-178
80-179
80-180
80-181
80-182
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS
BAKER
BAKER
X
015 .0
040 .0
X
007 .5
XX 015 .0
XX 025 .0
X
025 .0
X
025 .0
X
000 .0
X
100 .0
X
040 .0
X
040 .0
X
040,0
X X 000 .0
X
025 .0
X
030 .0
X
020 .0
X
010 .0
X
015 .0
X
007 .5
X
001 .5
X
007 .5
X
025 .0
X
030 .0
X
030 .0
X
025 .0
X
015 .0
X
030 .0
X
010 .0
X
007 .5
000 .0
050 .0
005 .0
015 .0
015 .0
015 .0
015 .0
015 .0
015 .0
020 .0
040 .0
030 .0
025 .0
015 .0
007 .5
003 .0
X
010 .0
010 .0
005
010
015
007
010
005
030
030
025
050
060
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
WESTERN 019 .0 000
F=M
010 .7 009 .0
CORN
007 .0 005 .0
JACUZZI 012 .4
000
0_00 _
BERKELEY032 . 3 000
CORN
000 .0 006 .0
BERKELEY032 .9 008 .0
CORN
086 .6 004 .0
CORN
086 .5 003 .0
BERKELEY054 .5 007 .0
BERKELEY055 .3 006 .0
BERKELEY049 .6 008 .0
102 .0 002 .0
CORN
081 .8 003 .0
BERKELEY037 .8 006 .0
CORN
020 .6 000 .0
CORN
013 .3 006 .0
B-J
014 .2 013 .0
UNIV
010 .5 004 .0
SEAR
002 .7 003 .0
BERKELEY007 .5 004 .0
MYERS
024 .4 002 .0
CORN
028 .4 013 .0
CORN
034 .9 005 .0
BERKELEY024 .2 000 .0
019 .6 006 .0
BERKELEY013 .7 014 .0
8EPKELEY012 .4 015 .0
010 .6 005 .0
000 .0 000
BERKELEY043 .9 020 .0
GOULD
005 .4 010 .0
PEER
016 .6 014 .0
9ERKELEY012 .2 005 .0
GOULD
006 .9 012 .0
F-M
015 .9 015 .0
BERKELEY014 .6 015 .0
F-M
015 .3 005 .0
CORN
018 .2 004,0
039 .7 008 .0
GOULD
BERKELEY027 .8 014 .0
F-M
021 .9 004 .0
F-M
018 .7 015 .0
BERKELEY009 .1 014 .0
WUMAN
003 .0 008 .0
JACUZZI 011 .8 004 .0
JACUZZI 012 .1 006 .0
BERKELEY006 .7 014 .0
STA-RIT 010 .0 006 .0
CORN
012 .0 010 .0
GOULD
007 .1 005 .0
PACIF
010 .2 006 .0
MYERS
005 .8 022 .0
CORN
022 .8 009 .0
BERKELEY012 .0 010 .0
JACUZZI 046 .0 017 .0
BERKELEY057 .6 010 .0
CORN
050 .6 001 .0
-h 52
201 0235 .0 063 072
00 0
250 0243 .0 070 082
000
0 93 0110 .0 040 048
000
2 38 0100
.0 _00
051 059
00 0
_ 0
245 0225 .0 043 048
00 0
118 0588 .0 065 073
00 7
163 0577 .0 072 081
000
249 1041 .0 073 084
002
250 1041 .0 073 084
002
182 0700 .0 059 066
013
172 0678 .0 053 059
021
195 0605 .0 060 072
02 0
260 0760 .0 049 055
00 0
232 0826 .0 059 065
002
163 0482 .0 052 058
000
161 0276 .0 054 062
004
144 0235 .0 064 074
001
034 0745 .0 045 052
000
124 0123 .0 036 042
000
077 0070 .0 050 063
000
125 0126 .0 053 064
003
191 0344 .0 068 078 _000
184 0433 .0 071 080 001
149 0569 .0 06 .1 069
010
165 0376 .0 065 074
000
152 0254 .0 050 057
000
095 0543 .0 043 055
050
117 0216 .0 052 061
011
151 0145 .0 052 061
000
000 0000
000 000
00 0
168 0612 .0 059 066
000
171 0071 .0 057 070
000
177 0250 .0 067 077
000
173 0111 .0 040 047
00 2
020
171 0198 .0 061 075
214 0226 .0 076 088
000
146 0370 .0 094 109
008
146 0214 .0 052 060
000
154 0322 .0 069 079
004
177 0467 .0 053 060
006
240 0229 .0 050 056
000
208 0141 .0 034 039
000
206 0200 .0 056 064
000
144 0074 .0 030 036
025
148 0020 .0 025 031
000
150 0157 .0 050 059
000
151 0198 .0 062 072
000
144 0104 .0 058 070
003
176 0118 .0 053 062
000
148 0220 .0 068 079
01 2
127 0127 .0 056 067
000
157 0179 .0 069 081
000
137 0097 .0 058 071
000
182-0309 .0 062 071
012
149 0339 .0 107 126
000
178 0302 .0 046 052
000
210 0855 .0 078 087
006
221 0645 .0 071 079
005
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
80-183
60-184
80-185
80-186
80-187
80-188
80-189
80-190
80-192
80-193
80-194
80-195
80-196
80-197
80-198
80-199
80-200
80-201
80-202
80-203
80-204
80-205
RAKER
X
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER_
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
BAKER
MORROW
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
XXX
60-207
80-208
80-209
60-210
80-211
"-60-212
60-213
80-214
80-215
60-216
80-217
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
80-219
80-220
80-221
80-222
80-223
80-224
80-225
80-226
80-227
80-228
80-229
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
X
X
X X
80-231
80-232
80-233
80-234
80-235
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
X
X
80-237
80-238
80-239
80-240
80-241
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
BENTON
BENTON
X
X
X
X
X
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
MORROW
~60-218 MORROW
MORROW
8(1-2'30 MORROW
--80-2 3 6 -HOPROH -
X
X
X
X
X
025 .0 CORN
018 .3
000 .0
000 .0
025 .0 BERKELEY021 .2
075 . 0 BERKELEY057 .0
050 .0 CORN
058 .5
075 .0'F-M
085 .0
040 .0
047 .5
150 .0 L . 8 .
125 .0
050 .0 C-104C- 043 .7
030 .0 CORN
030 .1
007 .5 BERKELEY008 .5
010 .0 CORN
010 .0
017 .5 BERKELEY017 .0
100 .0 8ERKELEY011 .7
007 .5 BERKELEY005 .0
015 .0 BERKELEY016 .0
010 .0 CORN
011 .1
015 .0 BERKELEY012 .3
025 .0 CORN
023 .4
030 .0 CORN
028 .8
020 .0 PACIF
023 .4
000 .0
023 .4
200 .0 WORTH
212 .6
265 .0
287 .7
040 .0 JACUZZI 042 .2
025 .0 CORN
023 .6
200 .0 PEER
194 .6
025 .0 PEER
024 .4
039 .3
000 .0
007 .5 CORN
009 .5
100 .0 AURORA
096 .3
100 .0 U-S
103 .4
070 .0
077 .6
040 .0 STA-RIT 046 .5
030 .0 STA-RIT 031.1
424 .0
400 .0 B-J
075 .0 PAC
088 .4
475 .0
523 .0
500 .0 PEER
545 .4
075 .0
096 .5
575 .0
644 .6
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
075 .0 CORN
077 .5
020 .0 MEURET
025 .5
000 .0
176 .5
002 .0
000
003 .0
000 .0
007 .0
000
000
000
004 .0
013 .0
006 .0
004 .0
003 .0
003 .0
003 .0
010 .0
012 .0
002 .0
004 .0
007 .0
009 .0
000
000
000
055 .0
060 .0
000
249 .0
185 .0
004 .0
000
000
000
072 .0
050 .0
030 .0
015 .0
100 .0
030 .0
012 .0
012 .0
000
000
000
000
006 .5
005 .0
009 .0
006 .0
008 .0
010 .0 G-D
060 .0
007 .5
007 .5
007 .5
050 .0
030 .0
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
014 .0
000
000
007 .9 008 .0
BERKELEY049
BERKELEY038
WORTH
019
L-B
099
PEER
033
PEER
071
BERKELEY007
JACUZZI 007
008
BERKELEY056
BERKELEY038
.8
.9
.4
.2
.6
.0
.8
.7
.0
.1
.9
-1 -
53
183
000
183
152
159
108
061
415
226
171
112
136
126
123
053
107
122
170
113
188
112
217
396
462
102
083
344
047
139
121
419
411
538
258
282
519
092
568
564
104
601
000
000
185
027
222
124
170
170
184
322
300
268
113
116
094
252
194
0217 .0
0000
0323 .0
0905 .0
0699 .0
2210 .0
1695 .0
0697 .0
0426 .0
0492 .0
014E .0
0145 .0
0246 .0
0195 .0
0000
0311 .0
0200 .0
0129 .0
0380 .0
0420 .0
0365 .0
0179 .0
1359 .0
1744 .0
1453 .0
0586 .0
1491 .0
1491 .0
0891 .0
0179 .0
0618 .0
0675 .0
0335 .0
0335 .0
0335 .0
1938 .0
2139 .0
2139 .0
2505 .0
2814 .0
2808 .0
0000
0000
1114 .0
1952 .0
1952 .0
0103 .0
0748 .0
0619 .0
0165 .0
0608 .0
0331 .0
0402 .0
0175 .0
0141 .0
0127 .0
0594 .0
0518 .0
055 063
000 000
070 080
061 068
048 053
071 078
055 061
058 062
056 062
071 080
049 058
056 067
046 053
052 060
000 000
052 060
056 066
048 056
046 052
069 078
044 050
042 048
064 069
071'076
088 098
052 059
063 068
073 083
079 089
057 068
068 075
068 074
059 065
047 052
077 086
060 065
056 062
059 063
065 070
077 085
066 081
000 000
000 000
067 074
053 060
062 067
041 049
064 071
068 076
039 045
050 055
074 083
038 042
064 076
054 065
038 045
067 074
065 073
005
X
00 0
000
X
01 7
026
X
00 0
00 0
00 0
000
X
003___ X
00 3
003 X
00 0
000
X _ __
000
X
027
X
013
X
003 X
036
X
008
X
000
X
00 0
00 0
00 0
X
000
023 X
00 0
000
X
00 0
002
X
00 0
00 0
000
X
00 0
00 0
00 0
000
`
00 0
00 0
000
X
00 0
OO G
000
X
008
X
00 0
00 0
X
000
02 7
00 0
02 0
00 0
00 0
oo a
000
005
000
000
000
X
X
X
X
X
__
80-242
80-243
80-244
80-245
80-246
80-247
80-248
80-249
80-250
80-251
80-252
80-253
80-254
80-255
80-256
80-257
80-258
80-259
80-260
80-261
80-262
80-263
b0-264
80-265
80-266
80-267
80-268
80-269
0
80-270
80-271
80-272
80-273
80-274
80-275
80-276
80-277
80-278
80-279
80-280
80-281
80-282
80-283
60-284
60-285
80-286
80-287
BENTON
BENTON
BENTON
BENTON
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN __
L INN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
LINN
MARION
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON _
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
JACKSON
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
COOS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_80-288 COOS
r
80-289 COOS
50-290 COOS
80-291 COOS
80-292
X X
X
X
060 .0
100 .0
040 .0
015.0
015 .0
007 .5
060 .0
050 .0
075 .0
060 .0
075 .0
075 .0
050 .0
050 .0
025 .0
020 .0
060 .0
050 .0
030 .0
030 .0
060 .0
025 .0
015 .0
040 .0
040 .0
025 .0
030 .0
040 .0
040 .0
030 .0
040 .0
050 .0
060 .0
060 .0
120 .0
090 .0
015 .0
010 .0
015 .0
010 .0
015 .0
020 .0
007 .5
020 .0
015 .0
020 .0
02 0 .0
040 .0
001 .0
015 .0
000 .0
CORN
052 .3
CORN
162 .0
BERKELEY043 .4
016 .3
PACI
A-C
011 .8
WEINMAN 006 .7
CORN
067 .7
043 .4
CORN
JACUZZI 079 .0
CORN
069 .5
JACUZZI 090 .0
JACUZZI 091 .3
CORN
040 .5
8ERKELEY046 .0
023 .0
CORN
GOULD
019 .0
BERKELEY049 .8
F-M
064 .0
CORN
029 .7
CORN
031 .6
053 .5
020 .1
CORN
8ERKELEY007 .4
BERKELEY045 .5
BERKELEY049 .2
BERKELEY030 .7
BERKELEY037 .7
BERKELEY051 .4
BERKELEY054 .0
BERKELEY027 .0
BERKELEY040 .9
BERKELEY047 .9
BERKELEY073 .9
BERKELEY070 .8
BERKELEY145 .0
BERKELEY086 .7
BERKELEY017 .5
JACUZZI 011 .8
BERKELEY016 .5
BERKELEY012 .4
BERKELFY017 .8
BERKELEY021 .8
BERKELEY008 .0
BERKELEY023 .6
MOORE
019 .9
JACUZZI 025 .0
JACUZZI 024
.3
JACUZZI 051 .1
001 .5
BERKELEY018 .1
000 .0
-3 54
015 .0
012 .0
019 .0
020 .0
015 .0
003 .0
007 .0
006 .0
004 .0
010 .0
011 .0
169 .0
009 .0
014 .0
008 .0
013 .0
015 .0
016 .0
012 .0
012 .0
005 .0
012 .0
015 .0
002 .0
003 .0
000 .0
002 .0
004 .0
000 .0
003 .0
004 .0
000 .0
005 .0
007 .0
007 .0
000 .0
008 .0
006 .0
007 .0
011 .0
000
000
005 .0
016 .0
010 .0
000 .0
000 .0
000 .0
001 .0
013 .0
000
217 0594 .0
296 0164 .0
187 0536 .0
125 0294 .0
132 0131 .0
118 0148 .0
279 0683 .0
187 0619 .0
310 0759 .0
295 0654 .0
182 1443 .0
182 1443 .0
208 0364 .0
314 0362 .0
169 0388 .0
135 0341 .0
137 0702 .0
193 0727 .0
169 0414 .0
171 0424 .0
171 0424 .0
133 0323 .0
135 0120 .0
240 0465 .0
203 0678 .0
168 0475 .0
164 0664 .0
203 0632 .0
169 0642 .0
215 0374 .0
231 0412 .0
281 0429 .0
207 0692 .0
232 0536 .0
220 1514 .0
271 0718 .0
106 0310 .0
103 0210 .0
131 0296 .0
117 0267 .0
123 0351 .0
131 0450 .0
105 0170 .0
081 0509 .0
124 0382 .0
081 0755 .0
078 0722 .0
083 1390 .0
015 0109 .0
123 0384 .0
000-0000
062
062
058
057
037
066
071
067
075
070
074
073
047
062
072
061
049
055
060
060
034
046
055
062
071
066
073
063
051
075
059
064
049
044
058
057
047
046
059
064
061
068
060
044
060
062
058
057
027
066
000
089
067
064
066
043
080
078
074
082
077
081
080
053
069
082
070
054
061
067
075
038
053
066
069
078
074
082
070
057
085
066
071
054
049
063
063
054
054
068
075
070
078
071
050
069
070
066
063
036
076
000
00 4
014
X
015
X
00 0
00 6
000
X
002
X
006
X
000
X
005
X
000
X
000
X
005 X
001
X
004
X
000
X
038
X
000
X
003
X
002
X
00 0
000
x
039
X
009
x
007
x
007
x
000
x
012
X
026
X
002
X
015
X
000
X
028
X
020
X
01 9
00 3
022
X
000
X
003
X
000
X
04 5
00 0
003
040
000
000
000
00 0
000
002
000
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Appendix 4
Pumping Plant Efficiency by Countie s
Average Pumping Plant Efficiency (Percent) by Motor Siz e
County
Centrifugal
< 10hp
Bake r
Turbine
10-25
> 25
49 .0% 53 .4 %
63 .3 %
Bento n
57 . 0
61 . 3
Clackama s
40 . 0
52 . 4
10-25
> 25
61 .3 %
< 10
10-25
43 .5
56 . 2
Curry
41 .7
53 . 2
53 . 0
63 . 2
54 . 8
ump s
> 25
46 .0 %
57 . 0
64 . 5
Coo s
Deschute s
10
2 or Mor e
21 .0
45 . 3
Dougla s
47 .3
59 . 8
68 . 0
Hood Rive r
49 .2
54 . 3
56 . 0
Jackso n
52 .5
60 . 9
60 . 1
59 . 5
59 . 0
63 . 0
57 . 7
57 .5
44 . 0
Jefferso n
Josephin e
43 .0
57 . 5
45 . 0
Klamat h
58 . 3
55 . 6
Lan e
59 . 5
56 . 7
34 . 0
Lin n
66 .0
59 . 8
63 . 6
Mario n
40 .0
59 . 3
65 . 0
53 .6
59 . 2
Morro w
53 .3
54 . 8
66 . 7
39 .0
62 . 7
--
60 . 7
--
59 . 4
48 .5
60 .2
55 .5
59 .8
Umatill a
1
Union
Average
48 .6
47 .0
63 . 7
56 . 1
44 .5
55
58 .1
46 .5
52 . 3
'
Appendix 5
Rating of Centrifugal Pump Discharge Fitting Assemblie s
County
Number of Installations Rated
Excellent
Goo d
Fair
Poo r
Baker
1
5
10
0
Benton
0
3
5
0
Clackamas
0
0
6
0
Coos
0
0
6
5
Curry
3
1
14
6
Deschutes
4
2
9
0
Douglas
2
3
14
4
Hood River
0
1
14
Jackson
2
2
24
Jefferson
13
29
61
2
2
2
Josephine
0
0
3
0
Klamath
5
7
2
0
Lane
20
18
9
1
Linn
1
4
9
3
Marion
0
2
6
4
Morrow
1
7
4
0
Umatilla
0
1
4
0
Union
3
0
5
0
85/22%
205/55%
29/8%
Total
55/15%
57
Appendix 6
I
TDH During Test (As Percent Below Publishe d
Pump Performance Curve at the Flow Rat e
Measured During Test) All Pumps, by Countie s
Number of Test s
Vali d
Tests
No Curve
< 5%
< 10%
< 15%
Baker
22
0
15
2
1
1
3
Benton
11
2
4
2
2
1
0
8
0
8
0
0
0
0
Coos
14
0
11
0
0
1
2
Curry
25
9
5
3
1
3
4
Deschutes
21
0
8
5
2
4
2
Douglas
25
0
19
2
2
2
0
Hood River
21
0
14
3
1
1
2
Jackson
36
0
19
5
4
4
4
Jefferson
124
16
39
28
18
17
6
Josephine
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
Klamath
28
16
4
4
3
1
0
Lane
63
11
__25
14
7
5
1
Linn
18
0
15
2
0
0
1
Marion
29
1
24
1
1
2
0
Morrow
33
0
29
1
0
2
1
Umatilla
15
0
9
2
1
1
2
Union
33
0
26
1
2
0
4
529
55
277
75
45
45
32
County
Clackamas
Totals,
59
< 25%
> 25 %
Appendix 7
Pump Performance Curve Adjustment # 187
Appendatx 8
Pump Performance Curve Adjustneni480-70
Appendix 0
agricultural
engi neeri n
MARCH 1982 ■ Vol . 63, No . 3
contents
Published Monthly by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
(ISSN 0002-1458 )
Testing Irrigation Pumping System s
for Energy Reduction
Oregon State University's Hugh Hansen explore s
the complex issues involved in assuring more efficient pumpin g
16
Testing
Irrigation Pumping System s
for Energy Reduction s
Hugh J . Hansen, P E
ASAE Fellow and Past Presiden t
Agricultural Engineering Dept .
Oregon State Universit y
IRRIGATION
pumping loa d
growth has been at an all-time high
in recent years . In many western
states, irrigation loads now compris e
by far the largest electrical load fo r
production agriculture and one of
the largest specialized loads fo r
many electric power supplie r
systems . Because it is seasonal, th e
irrigation load often represents a
large part of a system's peak demand, up to 30% in some cases, bu t
accounts for only a small percentage
of the system's total kilowatt-hou r
sales .
While irrigators are concerned
over the cost of energy to pump irrigation water, electric power sup pliers are concerned over the
skyrocketing cost of adding new
generating and transmission capacity . To help alleviate both concerns,
16
irrigation pumping system test programs have been initiated by electric
power suppliers, by research institu tions, and by private consulting o r
service firms . These test program s
seek to reduce horsepower requirements and save energy by iden tifying and retrofitting inefficient installations .
discharge are affected .
Determining exactly how muc h
energy can be saved by improving
pumping plant efficiency is not simple . If it is assumed that the existin g
pumping plant installation wa s
originally designed to supply the requirements of the crop during a set
period, and if the tests reveal tha t
The complex Interactions Involved in lowering water consumption an d
energy requirements while striving for more effective Irrigation pat terns are being examined by ASAE Committee SW-243, Irrigation Sup ply and Conveyance Committee . An ultimate goal is a standard on the
design, installation, and performance of irrigation pumping plants .
That committee Is chaired by Gerald L . Westesen, PE of the Montan a
State University Agricultural Engineering Dept .
The irrigation pumping test pro gram identifies pumping plant efficiency-the ratio of the amount o f
work done by a pumping plant to the
amount of energy purchased by th e
irrigator to accomplish the work .
When the efficiency of an irrigatio n
pumping system is improved ,
horsepower requirement, syste m
operating pressure and water
65
the pumping plant is operatin g
below its performance curve, then
improving the pumping plant
performance or efficiency may in crease energy consumption slightly
rather than reduce it . Correctin g
faults or deficiencies causing lo w
performance efficiency will allow th e
irrigator to obtain more useful wor k
from the energy he is utilizing durin g
agricultural engineering ■ March ■ 1982
the set period of time because th e
retrofitted installation will onc e
again apply water at the pressure
and in the amount that was originally designed into the system . Howeve r
to actually reduce energy usage, the
irrigator must be aware of the increased discharge rate which result s
from improved efficiency and reduce
the hours of pumping accordingly .
Care must also be exercised whe n
using pumping plant efficienc y
ratings as criteria for determining
potential energy savings o r
horsepower load reductions . Efficiencies of electric motors remain
relatively constant during thei r
lifespan . Pump performance, on the
other hand, can change over a period
of usage due to wear from abrasive
material being pumped, cavitation ,
or deposition of material within th e
pump impeller . Many pumps tha t
have been tested are found to be
operating considerably below th e
published performance curve for the
specific pump .
In one test conducted by OSU the
pump was supplying 222 gp m
against a total dynamic head of 85 ft .
It required 8 .5 hp and had a "wireto-water" efficiency of 56%, wel l
below its published performanc e
curve . Repairing it to operate on its
published curve resulted in a
performance of 250 gpm against a
head of 110 ft with a 10 hp require ment and an efficiency of 69% . This
resulted in a 13% increase in wate r
discharge, a 29% increase in tota l
dynamic head and a 13% increase i n
efficiency . But since the horsepower
requirement was increased 18%, it
would result in an energy savings
only if accompanied by a reductio n
of pump operating time and the loa d
demand on power supplier's syste m
would be increased . Here the major
benefits for the irrigator were more
uniform distribution of water, highe r
irrigation efficiencies and possible
increased yields as the crop once
again received its required amoun t
of water .
In the OSU pumping plant test
project, at least half of the horizonta l
centrifugal pumps tested coul d
benefit by upgrading plumbing fittings on both sides of the pump . It
was not uncommon to find 10 to
15% of the total power input bein g
utilized to overcome friction in improperly selected or applied intake
and discharge fittings . Replacing
Volume 63 ■ Number 3
test programs create an awareness of energy sav ing-potential .-For optimum effectiveness, test programs must be accompanied b y
educational programs which help irrigators determine economic feasibility o f
retrofitting system and manage the scheduling of water applied to crop s
IRRIGATION PUMPING SYSTEM
these with proper fittings results in
more water delivery with highe r
pressures at the sprinklers but with
little change in horsepower input .
Again, the major benefit is increase d
yields if the crop has not been receiving enough water or less energy used
if an adjustment is made in the
system's operating time .
To realize the full benefit from any
pumping plant test programs, these
two steps must be taken :
■ A strong educational progra m
must be conducted to help irrigator s
decide whether it is economically
feasible to improve the efficiency o f
their particular pumping plant .
■ Irrigators must be helped to
understand and determine how
much water a crop requires at an y
given stage of maturity and how t o
manage their irrigation equipment
to supply that amount .
Concentrated attention must be
66
given to developing irrigatio n
scheduling or management pro grams which will provide the irrigator a simple procedure to delive r
the optimum water needs for th e
crop, based on actual crop water requirements at the time of application
rather than commonly used rules-of thumb which tend to over-irrigate
part of the growing season and
under-irrigate part of the season .
The electric power supplier is interested in decreasing both total
kilowatt capacity to serve the irriga tion load and total energy utilized to
pump the needed water . Therefore i t
behooves the electric power supplie r
industry to work closely with irrigators, irrigation equipmen t
manufacturers and researchers to
foster development of equipment
retrofit programs and irrigation
scheduling techniques which wil l
help accomplish these goals .
■
17
Appendix 1 0
IRRIGATION NOTES(
i
i
Reducing
Irrigation Cost s
Through Energ y
Saving s
by
Hugh J . Hanse n
Extension Agricultural Enginee r
Oregon State Universit y
But how much can be saved on m y
system ?
Cos t
pe r
kwh
'74
'8 3
Rising energy costs during the last fe w
years have increased the Importance of mini mizing energy consumption for Irrigation . I f
you are going to minimize energy costs, yo u
must :
• pump less water, o r
• Improve pumping plant efficiency, o r
• reduce total pumping head .
Several programs have been developed to
encourage and assist you In reducing you r
energy use for irrigation . Some of these pro grams emphasize an analysis or evaluatio n
of existing systems . If these energy-us e
evaluations are to be effective in contributin g
to the reduction of energy used for pumpin g
water In Irrigation systems, they must b e
simple, economical to conduct, Indicate spe cific actions required for predictable energ y
savings, and acceptable to you.
What kind of specific actions are w e
talking about ?
There are several specific energy-saving
practices you should consider.
• using low-pressure nozzle s
• using efficient fittings in areas of high
flow velocities-particularly around centrifugal pumps
• using larger mainline pipes
• Installing energy-efficient motors
• maintaining acceptable pumping plan t
efficiencie s
• using scientific Irrigation scheduling .
How much energy can be saved?
Conservative estimates by Pacific Northwest experts indicate an average savings o f
25% from these actions is very attainable.
The practices that may apply to you r
situation, the extent of the savings that yo u
can make, and the time required to repay th e
Implementing costs can only be determined
after making an energy analysis or study o f
your situation . Many actions that we are look ing at will pay off in less than a year, som e
may take two or three years, some may b e
economically practical only when purchasin g
a new system but not on a retrofit basis .
Are low-pressure nozzles practical on
center pivot systems ?
This Is now an accepted practice . Bot h
spray nozzles and low-pressure impact sprink lers may be used . When systems operate on
coarse-textured soils, both spray and impac t
heads can usually be placed directly on th e
center pivot lateral . When systems operate
on fine-textured soils, matching applicatio n
rates to soli intake rates may become a
problem . It Is then desirable to place spray
nozzles on a boom which Is attached to th e
center pivot lateral. Costs can vary considerably according to the type of treatment required .
The percent energy savings is closel y
related to the amount of the total head produced by the pump providing pressure at th e
sprinklers . Pressures at the end of cente r
pivots can be dropped by halt or more In man y
cases . This can result in energy savings o f
over 40 percent when the total dynamic head
is 150 feet but only 20 percent If the tota l
dynamic head is 300 feet.
It is necessary to remove bo w Is or tri m
pump Impellers to realize this energy savings.
Trimming impellers is relatively easy on horizontal centrifugal pumps used either as boosters on turbines or as main sources of pressure .
It can be quite costly, however, to adjust tur bines to new total dynamic head conditions
because of costs involved in pulling pumps . A
good cost-benefit analysis should be mad e
before taking this action .
67
What Is Involved In changing to lowpressure sprinklers on set-type
systems ?
Standard nozzles may be replaced wit h
equivalent-discharge low-pressure nozzles o n
impact sprinklers used In hand-move and sideroll systems, and In some Instances, solid-se t
systems without changing the hydraulics o f
the system . Average pressure reduction wil l
be about 15 psi resulting in about 10% savings of energy. The sprinkler distribution pattern diameter will be reduced about 10 t o
15%, requiring a reduction In sprinkler
spacing . This can easily be achieved withou t
changing the system hardware by using a
"lateral offset" program shown in Figure 1 .
The uniformity of water distribution will usually be Improved with the offset program an d
low-pressure impact sprinklers if offsets were
not previously used, as shown in Figure 2 .
To achieve these energy savings, you mus t
replace nozzles and also adjust pump performance, which in most cases will requir e
only an Impeller trim .
How great are energy losses i n
fittings ?
Replacing high energy-loss fittings in pipe lines having high flow velocities will reduc e
energy requirements 5 to 10% . High velocities are most often found at the pump discharge where velocities range from 18 to 3 0
feet per second .
Figure :. Lateral offset program . By using a short swin g
line at every other valve for the even-numbered irrigations ,
effective lateral spacings on the mainline will be reduced
by one-hall over a two-irrigation period.
Total application
two irrigation s
no offset
Total application, two irrigation s
using offset
•
ft.
Figure 2. Use of lateral offset on alternate irrigations improves uniformity of total water application .
Improper fittings are visually recognize d
because they result in abrupt changes in direction or velocity of flow . If flow velocitie s
are low, abrupt changes In direction can b e
made with little energy loss. Figure 3 show s
typical inefficient pump discharge fittings observed In the field and well-designed fitting s
which should be substituted.
-
Friction Los s
H i = l ft
A-poor
How much energy will "energyelf /clone' motors save ?
The energy-efficient motor is a relativel y
new design which offers both increased efficiency and, usually, a higher power factor two elements which contribute to a reductio n
In total energy consumption . Energy saving s
with these motors will range from 3 to 4% %
on 3600-rpm motors and 4 to 8% on 1800-rp m
motors up to 100 horsepower, and 2 to 3'/: %
on both 3600 rpm and 1800 rpm motors ove r
100 horsepower . You should consider energy efficient motors If you are purchasing a ne w
or replacement motor . In most cases, the en ergy will not be sufficient to justify replacement of an existing motor unless It need s
major repair.
Where can f get additional help on
reducing irrigation energy costs ?
B-goo d
Figure 3- Effect of Inefficient and efficient fittings o n
friction losses, and In turn, energy losses.
Energy loss calculations for Figure 3 wer e
made for a 4-inch pump discharge and flow
rate of 800 gpm . The energy savings realize d
in changing from (A) to (B) Is 9012 kwhrs pe r
year based on 2500 hour/year operation . A t
$0 .03 per kwhr, this amounts to $270 .38 pe r
year In energy savings . Just replacing th e
"T" with an "L" would have reduced the los s
by one-third .
How about friction losses In pipelines ?
Most pipeline diameters, as well as fittings ,
were formerly selected with minimal consideration to the cost of energy required to over come friction because energy was so inexpensive . That is not true today, and large r
diameter pipelines are being used. Many existing mainlines have excessively high friction losses . Under some situations it may pa y
to replace them ; In other situations it may pa y
to run another line parallel to them ; while i n
other situations, nothing should be done . I f
the pipeline diameter is increased 50% It wil l
carry about three times the flow with the sam e
friction loss . If doubled In size, it will carry
about six times the flow with the same friction loss .
however, depends on the quality of your exist ing program .Many growers have reported sav ings of one to three irrigations a season, whic h
not only saves energy, but also labor, an d
reduces the amount of water pumped . Other
growers have found they were actually under Irrigating during certain periods of the year .
If you have had a pump test showing poor
efficiency and had your pump repaired, scien tific scheduling can be a real asset In manag ing the additional water you will be pumping .
New techniques have been developed which
take much o 4 the time and labor out of the soi l
moisture data-gathering process-making scientific Irrigation scheduling very adaptabl e
to both family and corporate farm operations .
What will a pumping plant efficiency
test show?
Numerous pumps In the Northwest hav e
been in operation for many years and hav e
become worn . A pump test can tell you how
efficiently your pumping plant Is operating . I f
the test Indicates the pump is in need o f
repair and you make the repairs, your pum p
will then deliver more water per unit of energ y
used . For many systems, the end result is a n
energy savings . However, quite often, if th e
Irrigation scheduling program is not modified ,
you could end up using more energy an d
pumping more water per season . Scientifi c
irrigation scheduling is, therefore, particularl y
helpful in reducing the total amount of energ y
used while still maintaining adequate soi l
moisture conditions for plant growth .
How much energy can I sav e
through scientific irrigatio n
scheduling ?
On the average, energy savings of 5 to
15% can be attained through scientific irriga tion scheduling . How much you may save,
68
See your local electric utility for more in formation and assistance on reducing energ y
costs through practices that will minimize
the energy needed to do your Irrigating .
This consumer education material has been
produced as a part of the Agricultural Conser vation Pilot program in cooperation with Bon neville Power Administration (BPA) and the
Northwest Irrigation Utilitie s
Appendix 1 1
IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY PROGRA M
WALK-THROUGH IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSPECTION ANALYSI S
The "Walk-Through" analysis provides a means with which to make a n
organized inspection, both hydraulics and hardware, of an entire irrigatio n
system . Such inspection will provide a procedure to identify component s
needing maintenance, repair, replacement or other attention in order t o
provide the most satisfactory, safe and efficient performance from th e
system . Notes, data, and sketches will be useful for follow-up discus sions, analyses, planning, retrofitting, etc .
Name
Telephone
Dat e
Address
Zip code
Pump Location or Identificatio n
Power Supplier
SUCTION SYSTEM
Inspect system from water supply to pump intake . Generally, suctio n
line should provide smooth water flow at 2-3 foot per second (fps) velocit y
with minimum of fittings causing obstructions, water turbulence, head losses .
Need s
OK
Attentio n
From surface and shallow well water supplies :
1 . Trash screening device, if used, clean and properly place d
*2 . Intake screen, clean, good condition, properly place d
*3
Foot or check valve operates smoothl y
Type foot valve is basket
, full flow
, non-slam
*4 . Suction line does not collapse when pumpin g
*5
Suction pipe size/pump capacity properly matched t o
maintain flow velocity at 5 ft . per sec . or less ,
(preferably 2-3 fps )
*6 Maximum distance from water surface to pump impelle r
eye does not exceed 10 feet (required net positive suctio n
head - NPSH - must not exceed NPSH available - se e
pump performance curve )
Extension Service, Oregon State Universit y
69
-2 -
*7.
Suction pipe inlet is submerged adequately (3 foo t
minimum) to prevent entrance of air and eddying o f
wate r
*8.
Suction line is free of air leak s
9.
No unnecessary or improperly-sized plumbing fitting s
in suction line to increase friction losse s
Elbows, ells, bends of flanged or mitered typ e
Couplings flanged or smooth interior bor e
Eccentric adapter 28 0 (not over 45 0 )
Eccentric adapter installed with slope on bottom sid e
Straight pipe flow at least 4 diameters in lengt h
leading to pump inlet to reduce water swirl, cavitatio n
Horizontal suction line sloped upward toward pump a t
least ;" per foo t
10.
I-Iigh point of suction line at pump entrance to eliminat e
air entrapmen t
11.
Vacuum gage installed on suction lin e
12.
No part of suction piping has diameter smaller tha n
pump suction inle t
NOTE : On shallow wells with above-ground pump mounting, conside r
pulling suction line to make starred (*) checks .
From deep wells :
1.
Well casings properly located and perforated to allo w
water intake without cascading or introducting air int o
impeller s
2.
Bowls set deep enough below water drawdown leve l
3.
Bowl settings properly adjuste d
Sketch or Comments :
70
-3 PUMP AND FITTING S
Inspect pump assembly with its associated inlet and discharg e
fittings . Consider motor as a separate entity .
Above-ground centrifugal pumps :
1.
OK
Sturdy pump bas e
Pump firmly attached to bas e
2.
Intake pipe firmly supported within three feet of pum p
3.
Discharge pipe firmly supported within three feet of pum p
4.
Impeller rotation in proper directio n
Impeller rotates freely in casin g
5.
Pump operates with no excess vibration or nois e
Bearings in good conditio n
Shaft properly aligned with moto r
Impeller firmly attached to shaf t
Noise indicating cavitation within pum p
6.
Stuffing, seals, shaft packing are adjusted for prope r
water drip lubricatio n
7.
Wear ring in good condition with no deposition ,
cavitation or abnormal configuratio n
8.
Discharge flow rate at 5 fps or les s
9.
Functioning pressure gage at pump discharg e
10.
Discharge increaser as near as possible to pum p
Discharge increaser has 1 2 0 taper (maximum 28° )
11.
Straight pipe run out of pump discharge to minimiz e
turbulence (for future pump test use )
12.
No unnecessary or improperly-sized plumbing fitting s
in discharge line to increase friction losse s
Size, location of tee s
Size, location of elbows, ells, bend s
Size, location of valve s
Size, location of couplings, union s
Size, location, taper of enlarger s
71
Need s
Attentio n
-4 OK
13.
Flow meter with low impedance (no high water flo w
restriction )
14.
No fittings in discharge line with smaller workin g
diameters than discharge line diamete r
15.
Air discharge at high point in system to releas e
trapped ai r
16.
Globe isolation valve on primer pum p
17.
Pump nameplate data :
Manufacture r
Serial No .
Model
Impeller Tri m
Outlet diamete r
Inlet diameter
Sketch or comments :
72
Need s
Attentio n
-5 -
Deep well turbines :
1.
Sturdy pump bas e
Pump firmly attached to bas e
2.
Discharge pipe firmly supporte d
3.
Pump operates with no excess vibration or nois e
4.
Using turbine-type oil for pump lubricatio n
Oilers working properl y
5.
Working airline in well to measure drawdow n
6.
Discharge flow rate at 5 fps or les s
7.
Functioning pressure gage in discharge lin e
8.
Concentric discharge fitting, if appropriat e
9.
Straight pipe run out of pump discharge to minimiz e
turbulence (for future pump test use )
10.
No unnecessary or improperly-sized plumbing fitting s
in discharge line to increase friction losse s
Size, location of tee s
Size, location of elbows, ells, bend s
Size, location of valve s
Size, location of couplings, union s
Size, location, taper of enlarger s
11.
Flow meter with low flow restriction
12.
No fittings in discharge line with smaller workin g
diameters than discharge line diamete r
13.
Air discharge at high point in system to releas e
trapped ai r
14 . Pump nameplate data :
Manufacture-r
Model
Serial No .
Column Diameter
Shaft Diamete r
Sketch or Comments :
73
-6 -
ELECTRIC MOTO R
Inspect motor for mechanical and electrical soundness :
1.
Sturdy base mountin g
2.
Proper shaft alignment with pump
3.
Proper belt alignment between motor and pum p
4.
Motor bearings in good condition, properly lubricate d
5.
Motor frame free of debris, vegetation, straw, caked-o n
dirt and oil, rodent or insect nest s
6.
Motor ventilation vents open, unobstructed and screene d
7.
Cover over motor, shade and water protectio n
8.
Unobstructed ventilation around motor -- if in motor house ,
ample-sized openings on opposite walls for ventilatio n
9.
Good drainage away from motor bas e
10.
Wiring to motor in good, safe conditio n
11.
Safety shields attached and functionin g
12.
Access plates and cover dome in place and secur e
13.
Motor free of evidence of excess heat due to electrica l
overloadin g
14.
Motor runs quietly, free of excess vibration or nois e
15.
Motor nameplate data :
Manufacture r
HP
Voltage
Model No .
Serial No .
Sketch or Comments :
74
RP M
-7 ELECTRIC SERVIC E
Inspect electric service for safety and serviceabilit y
1.
Overhead lines free of tree branches, other physica l
obstruction s
2.
Conductors properly secured to prevent flexing, shortin g
hazard s
3.
Conductors free of frayed, cracked or worn insulatio n
4.
Service panel properly grounded independently o f
pumping plan t
5.
Service head grommets in place, in good conditio n
6.
All conduit or shielded cable in good conditio n
7.
Service cabinet properly and securely installe d
Cabinet has functioning inter-locking door latches ,
padloc k
Door has adequate door seals and/or drip trap s
Cabinet is free of open holes, missing knockout s
3 . Electrical connections within cabinet are secure ,
free of signs of arcing or resistance heatin g
9.
Service cabinet interior is free of moisture, corrosion ,
insects, rodents, snake s
10.
Lightning arrestors are properly installed on mete r
and motor side of buss and breake r
11.
Overload protection is properly sized to handle moto r
Circuit breakers are operabl e
12.
Shade over service cabinet to cool thermal breaker s
Sketch or Comments :
75
-8 MAINLINE SYSTEM
Inspect entire mainline from pump to terminal end
1.
Pipe conditio n
Bent of flattened pipin g
Split seam s
Bullet holes or other puncture s
Leaky joints, connections, valve s
Worn gaskets, sand or dirt behind gasket s
Tight end plug s
2.
If buried, mainline is properly protected and covere d
Evidence of sink holes indicating unsupported pipin g
3
Line is designed for minimum hydraulic turbulence o r
frictio n
4.
Pipe size is adequate to handle water discharge at flo w
rate of 5 fps or les s
5.
No unnecessary or improperly-sized plumbing fittings in lin e
to increase friction losse s
Elbows, ells, bend s
Tee s
Valve s
Reducers, enlarger s
Couplings, union s
Flow meter s
6.
Air release valves and vacuum relief installed a s
needed on high points of lin e
7.
Provision made to drain and flush lin e
8.
Line is equipped with non-slam check valve if neede d
9.
Unwarranted throttling of water flo w
Sketch or Comments :
76
OK
Need s
Attentio n
-9 STATIONARY AND MOVING LATERAL S
1
System layout is compatible with topography, and if not ,
appropriate pressure control devices are utilize d
2 Lateral spacing on mainline satisfactor y
3 Adequate water flow and pressur e
4 System is free of significant leaks from breaks ,
joints, couplers, drain valves, riser s
5.
System free of excessive corrosion or wea r
6.
Chains, bearings, drive gears of all wheel-mov e
systems in good operating conditio n
Electric drive motors properly covered and protecte d
7.
Pipe conditio n
Bent or flattened pipin g
Split seam s
Bullet holes or other puncture s
Leaky joints, connections, valve s
Worn gaskets, sand or dirt behind gasket s
Sketch or Comments :
77
-10 RISERS AND SPRINKLERS
Walk the entire sprinkler line to inspect as follows :
1.
Mainline, valves andgaskets .in good conditio n
2.
Risers are all in place, no broken unit s
3.
Self-leveler .risers operating freely, properl y
4.
Sprinkler heads operating properly, no plugged nozzle s
5.
Sprinkler nozzles properly sized, not worn (check orific e
by using shank of high speed drill bit as a gauge) 6.
Sprinkler heads rotate smoothly and freely at one t o
two revolutions per minut e
7.
Sprinkler head base gaskets in good conditio n
8.
Sprinkler coverag e
OK
Need s
Attention
_
Uniform spacing of sprinkler head s
Uniform application pattern from each sprinkle r
9.
10.
Pressure at sprinkler is appropriat e
Sprinklers of type to match operating pressur e
Sketch of Comments :
WATER APPLICATION
OK
1.
Deep percolation causing water wastag e
2.
Runoff, ponding problem s
3.
Lateral orientation minimizes effect of wind drif t
4.
Field and crop data :
Crop
Acres
Sketch of System layout :
78
Need s
Attentio n
Appendix 1 2
I
=IRRIGATION NOTES= ELECTRIC
PUMP
MOTOR
TEMPERATURE
CONTRO L
by
Hugh J . Hanse n
Extension Agricultural Enginee r
Oregon State Universit y
Manufacturer horsepower ratings and lif e
expectancy projections of electric motors ar e
well-established and are based on the following standardized operating conditions :
actually up to twenty years of six-month-lon g
irrigation seasons . Electric motors can an d
will carry an overload .
However, under th e
operating conditions that exist for most agricultural applications, overloading an electric motor may greatly shorten its expecte d
service life .
• ambient or surrounding Air_ temperatur e
not exceeding 104'F (40'C )
• operating altitudes no higher tha n
3,300 feet above sea level (decrease d
air density reduces motor cooling )
• built-in ventilation openings kept ope n
• nameplate (rated) voltage supplied a t
motor terminals .
OVERLOAD S
When the above conditions are met, a continuous-duty electric motor is designed t o
produce its rated horsepower output withou t
damage to its insulation . Expected motor lif e
is five to ten years of continuous operation- -
A-C . MOTO R
FRAME
HP,
RPM .
OESIGN
One too
ulo4
; 10 FY p
l@
AMa .
TYPE
IDENTIFICATION NO .
INS, CLASS '
VOLTS
C00E
AMPS .
I PHASE
CYC.
S .F .
0
I OUTY
"Overload" includes all conditions whic h
tend to create a temperature buildup withi n
the motor . Although the electric motor i s
very efficient In converting electrical energ y
to mechanical energy (about 88% or higher fo r
irrigation motors above 25 horsepower), considerable energy is converted to heat . Th e
manufacturer incorporates necessary coolin g
devices within the motor to remove this heat .
This is done by circulating air through and/o r
around the motor . If this ventilation is in sufficient or obstructed, excess heat wil l
build up within the motor .
When horsepower output greater than th e
nameplate rating is demanded of the motor, i t
will produce the extra power, but at a cos t
of internal temperature buildup . The approximate internal temperature rises due to exces s
loading of general-purpose induction motor s
with Class A insulations Are as follows :
% Rated Load
C' RISE
100%
105
110
115
120
130
140
15 0
CA
Motor nameplates provide important and usefu l
information to help in properly matching moto r
to load situation :
Frame andType--NEMA designations for frame
Insulation Class orClass--type of insulation
used on winding s
Tdentification--manufacturer's aerial numbe r
HP--horsepower rating of motor
RPM--full load speed in revolutions per minut e
YoZta--rated voltage of operation
drag--rated current (amperage) at full loa d
cycles orHertz--design frequency of moto r
SF or ServiceFactor--amount of load or over load motor can carry on continuous basis a t
rated voltage, frequency, temperature an d
altitude
Luty orTime--time rating of motor, i .e ., continuous or specific limited time perio d
Ambient--maximum surrounding or ambient ai r
temperature for motor operation
1vi.se orTemperatureRiee--extent (usually i n
0 C) internal motor temperature can excee d
maximum ambient temperature at rated load .
Temperature Ris e
72°F
81
90
99
108
126
153
18 0
40°C )
45
50
55
60
70
5
100 )
Low voltage delivered at the motor termi nals causes the motor to draw additional cur rent in order to produce and maintain outpu t
power . This increased current flow cause s
temp rature buildup in the windings--from 1 °
e for each percentage actual voltag e
to 2'F
For example, a 230 is below rated voltage .
volt rated motor operating n a line voltag e
of 220 builds up an extra 5' to 8F internal temperature .
Irrigation motors are usually installed i n
open fields and exposed to direct radiatio n
of the sun which can eaily innrease interna l
motor temperature by 10' to 20'F . A simpl e
shade above the motor which allows free ai r
circulation around motor and through moto r
ventilation openings is recommended . Paintin g
the motor a reflective white or light colo r
also reduces radiation heat from the sun .
79
SERVICE FACTOR S
Most electric pump motors list a "servic e
factor" on the nameplate . A service factor o f
1 .10 indicates that motor is designed to operate continuously under normal conditions at a n
output load of 110% of its rating without dam age to itself . However, for irrigation installations, the service factor basically provide s
a margin of safety to allow for unforeseen o r
It can safeuncontrollable field conditions .
ly be used as an overloading factor only unde r
conditions where the supply voltage can b e
maintained at the rated hameplate voltage o f
. the motor, at elevations below 3,300 feet, e n d
at ambient temperatures never exceeding 104"F .
In most irrigation applications, there is n o
means of adjusting supply voltage for variations due to varying loads on the line . Pump s
may operate at ambient temperatures well abov e
104°F and at elevations above 3,300 feet .
Therefore, use the service factor only as a
"Factor of Safety" to allow for uncontrollabl e
Variations in operating conditions .
HEAT TOLERANCE OF MOTOR S
Excess heat within the electric motor i s
the greatest cause of decreased motor life be cause of damage to insulation on the moto r
coil windings .
Insulation materials deterior ate due to oxidation which occurs at any temp erature .
However, the rate of oxidation in creases very rapidly with increased temperatures .
Various types of insulation material s
are used in coil windings of electric motors .
The limiting observable temperatures for th e
classes of insulations most likely found i n
motors used for irrigation applications are :
Class A
194 0 F
90 0
Class B
230°F
(110°C ;
Class F
266°F
(130°C )
Rotors are designed with a built-in allow able increase in temperature above the ambien t
This de or surrounding air during operation .
sign rating is indicated on the namepl te a s
"temperature rise," usually listed in aC .
Cl ss A motors are normally designed with a
a
40"C
temperature rise . This means that under normal operating conditions, the operatin g
temperature of the motor under r ted full loa d
a or 72" F
will increase by no more than 40"C
above the ambient temperature . Therefore, th e
maximum observable internal temperature of a
pump motor operating at full load in a fiel d
at or below 3,300 feet elevation wher summe r
temperature does not exceed 04 F 4O eC )
should not exceed 176 F (104" + 72" = 176°F) .
This is well below the l miting observabl e
i
and a ten to twen temperature of 194°F (90"C)
ty year expected motor life sh uld result .
o
temperaHowever, for every 18 F (10"C)
ture rise above the "safe limiting temperature," the expected motor life is reduced by
one half . Therefore, every hour of operatio n
at temperatures exceeding the rated temperature will use up motor life as follows : a t
18"F excess, one hour of operation uses tw o
hours of motor life ; at 36"F excess, one hou r
uses four hours of motor life ; and at 54° F
excess, one hour uses eight hours of oto r
r
if
life . The Class A motor rat d at 194"F,
e
operated continuously at 230"F,
could be expected to last five years instead of twenty .
Here is a typical installation of an unshaded Class A pump motor operating in a fiel d
under the following conditions :
• afternoon air temperature is 115° F
• direct radiation from sun on motor
9
80
• pump installation designed to operat e
motor at 110% of rated load
• supply voltage at the motor 93% o f
motor rating .
Under these conditions , th e operating temp erature of the motor will be :
Ambient temperature
115° F
15
Direct radiation from sun
90
Temperature rise (110% rated load)
Temperature rise (93% rated voltage) 1 0
Actual motor temperature
TTS° F
19 4
Safe observable temperature
Degrees (F) above safe limit
The expected life of this motor will be re duced four hours for every hour it is operate d
under these conditions .
SIZING ELECTRIC MOTOR S
Very often the actual horsepower require d
for an irrigation pump does not coincide wit h
a standard size electric motor . It then be comes necessary to choose between the two motor sizes nearest the power requirement of th e
pump . The lower horsepower choice produces a
motor that will be overloaded ; the other, a mo tor not loaded to capacity . Normally, there i s
little difference in cost of operating two dif ferent size motors doing the same amount o f
work if both motors are operating within a
range of 85 to 115 percent of rated load .
When demand is determined by actual motor out put as measured on a demand meter, there i s
no difference in the demand charge . There
will be a difference, however, when demand is ,
based on nameplate horsepower rating . Al though the motor with the higher horsepowe r
rating costs more, the difference in cost between a motor carrying a 10-to-15 percen t
overload and the next larger size can usuall y
be justified as very economical insurance whe n
prorated on a cost-per-acre basis over a 20 year period .
,
OVERLOAD PROTECTIVE DEVICE S
Thermal protective devices embedded in the
•, •
motor windings are available as an fntegra l
part of the motor or may be added to existin g
motors . These heat-sensing devices detec t
the actual internal temperature of the motor .
When connected to the starting contactor the y
cause the contactor to "drop out" or open when ever the maximum safe temperature within th e
motor is exceeded . Although these protectiv e
devices will assure maximum motor life by stop ping the motor under high temperature conditions, it may not be desirable to use them fo r
motors known to operate under overloaded conditions unless it is acceptable to shut th e
pump down until air temperature drops in th e
evening . By having selected an undersize d
motor, a portion of the motor life may have t o
be sacrificed in order to supply water to
crops during peak requirements .
SUMMAR Y
Four major conditions affect the servic e
life of an electric pump motor : (1) suppl y
voltage ; (2) ambient temperature ; (3) over loading ; and (4) ventilation . An irrigato r
has little control over items 1 and 2 . How ever,
selecting the proper motor, control ling the applied load, protecting the moto r
from hot sun, keeping the motor clean, and pro viding good ventilation assures maximum moto r
life .
Adapted from "Electric Pump Motors," Extensio n
Service, University of Idaho .
r
. Appendix 1 3
a. -
I
)IRRIGATION
NOTE S
ELECTRICAL DEMAND CHARGES - How to Keep Them Lo w
by
Hugh J . Hanse n
Extension Agricultural Enginee r
Oregon State Universit y
Electric power rates are structured to compensate the electric power supplie r
for energy (kilowatt hours) consumed and for the electric power supplier's investment ,
upkeep and replacement cost of power lines, transformers, power generating stations ,
and other equipment needed to supply electric energy to the customer's premises . Fo r
year-round and relatively uniform customer loads, such as residential, the two charg e
factors are lumped together in the energy (kilowatt hour) rate structure . For intermittent or seasonal loads, such as .irrigation, some electric power suppliers impos e
two charges -- the regular kilowatt hour charge and a demand charge .
The demand charge is usually structured as either a specific "charge per connected horsepower" or a . stated " charge per kilowatt demand ." When the demand charge i s
based on connected horsepower, the nameplate rating of the motor is often used to deter mine the monthly or seasonal demand charge . When the demand charge is based on kilo watt demand, a special watthour meter is used which measures kilowatt hours on one dia l
and records maximum kilowatt demand on another dial .
The kilowatt demand for each billing cycle, as recorded by the demand meter, is the highest average use or power deman d
for any 15 or 30 consecutive minute period during the billing cycle . The time-perio d
used varies with different power suppliers .
Kilowatt demand is measured with a watthour meter having tw o
registers--the upper to measure energy or kilowatt hours, an d
the lower to measure demand or kilowatts . The kilowatt register is returned to zero each time the meter is read .
Some power suppliers bill for the demand charge each month (billing cycle }
others make an annual billing which is based on the average of the two high monthl y
demand recordings . The meter reader resets the demand meter to zero each time th e
meter is read for billing purposes .
81
Since the demand charge for each billing cycle is based on the highest averag e
kilowatt demand recorded during any 15 or 30-minute period, it behooves the irrigatio n
operator to prudently manage his system in a manner to consistently keep his demand a s
low as possible . With most irrigation systems, the greatest kilowatt demand is usuall y
established when starting the system and/or filling the lines . A quick look at a typica l
pump curve shows why this is true .
He d
Excess horsepowe r
required as discharg e
rate of pump exceed s
normal operating rat e
Is
Normal operating /
point of syste m
ho ne
ti
Discharge rate
' exceeding norma l
operating rate - -
a
Gallons per Minut e
Typical pump performance and horsepower curves . Horsepowe r
increases as discharge increases . When discharge rate durin g
filling of lines is allowed to exceed normal operating discharge rate, the pump operates somewhere to the right of th e
'X' on the Head-Discharge curve, requiring additional horse power and establishing a correspondingly higher demand .
In order to keep the kilowatt demand (which is directly proportional to moto r
horsepower used) as low as possible when starting the system, pumps should be primed an d
started with the control valve closed, except when being used as boosters . The lowes t
horsepower demand of a pump is at "shut off ." Never let a pump run for over a minute o r
two with the control valv e - in the "off" position as it may damage the pump . The best wa y
to be sure of knowing what the pump is doing is having a pressure gauge installed in th e
discharge line on the pump side of the control valve and near enough to the valve tha t
it can be seen when adjusting the valve . As soon as the pump is up to normal operatin g
pressure as indicated on the gauge, start opening the valve slowly to about one-quarte r
turn . Do not let the pressure exceed normal system operating pressure . If a rattle i s
heard in the pump, the valve should be closed down slightly until the noise disappears .
Pipeline systems should always be filled at less than 2 feet per second velocity, or ap proximately one-third of design pumping capacity . This low velocity allows the air t o
dissipate, minimizing the chances for excessive hydraulic shock or water hammer . Whe n
the system is full of water, the control valve should be fully opened .
Those turbines that have their highest horsepower demand at "shut off," as show n
on their respective pump curves, should be started with the control valve partially open ,
allowing approximately one-third of design capacity to be pumped at start up . Centrifu gal pumps which are used as boosters with a turbine should not be started until the tur bine has completely filled the lines . If the turbine cannot fill the system without th e
help of the booster, start the booster with a partially-opened control valve so that i t
pumps about one-third of its capacity at start up .
When filling laterals, fill them slowly, but as soon as they are full, open th e
valve completely . This will also help to seal drain valves and couplings .
With centrifugal pumps, this start-up procedure helps prevent the pump fro m
cavitating . It also reduces the potentially damaging water hammer or hydraulic shoc k
waves that can occur if the lines are filled too rapidly .
Following this procedure whenever possible insures that the kilowatt demand re quired for filling lines does not exceed the normal operating demand requirement fo r
the system . The result will be the minimum demand possible for the system and, in turn ,
a reduced monthly or annual demand charge .
82