Sprinkler irrigation system design model and application
by Usaid Izzat Suliman ElHanbali
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
in Agricultural Engineering
Montana State University
© Copyright by Usaid Izzat Suliman ElHanbali (1977)
Abstract:
Two computer programs were developed to design sprinkler irrigation hand-move systems. They take
soil, plant, and climatic data as input and then design the different components of the sprinkler system.
The first program, PROGRAM-1, determines the sprinkler head specifications required which are flow
and wetted diameter. The second program, PROGRAM-2, designs the lateral and the main line, finds
the power requirements, and does an economic analysis. Several sprinkler and lateral spacing
combinations can be tested and the one selected is that which gives the most economical solution. The
criterion for that selection will be the total annual cost per acre. The two programs are applicable to the
areas where sprinkler irrigation is introduced for the first time. The programs are applicable to a
hand-move sprinkler system with single size pipe laterals that run parallel to the contour lines and a
main line perpendicular to the laterals which runs either up hill or level. STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY
In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e
requir em en ts f o r an advanced degree a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
I agree t h a t the L i b ra r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r inspec
tion.
I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permi ssi on f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of
t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be gra n te d by my major pro­
f e s s o r , o r , in h i s a bs e nc e, by t h e D i r e c t o r o f L i b r a r i e s .
I t is
understood t h a t any copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r
f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n pe rm is si on.
Signature
Date
A/Uuj
[)
Lh
J d A i_____
.
7 / _________
SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN MODEL
AND APPLICATION
by
USAID IZZAT ELHANBALI
A t h e s i s submitted in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
o f the requirem en ts f o r th e degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering
Approved:
Chairman
Graduate Committee
Head, Majof Department
,- 1V - "
Graduate Bean
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
May, 1977
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The a u t h o r would l i k e to e xpre ss his s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n to
Dr. T. L. Hanson f o r his counsel and guidance thr oug hout the s tu dy ,,
to Dr. C. M. Milne and Dr. R. L. B ru st ke rn f o r t a k i n g th e time to
be on th e examining committee and reviewing the t h e s i s .
The a u t h o r would l i k e a l s o to thank the Agric ult ura l.
Engineering Department and i t s head Dr. W. E. Larsen f o r th e su pport
and encouragement throug hou t t h e st udy .
Thanks to t h e computer f o r h e r a id in s o lv in g th e problem.
F i n a l l y my s i n c e r e s t g r a t i t u d e to my w i f e , Hana, to my s on, Fauwaz,
f o r . t h e i r p a t i e n c e and i n s p i r a t i o n d uri ng t h i s s t u d y , and to my
s i s t e r , Fadwa, to whom I owe e v e r y t h i n g .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P age
LIST OF T A B L E S .................................................
vi.
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................
vii
viii
CHAPTER
. I.
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................
I
2.
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE................................... . . .
5
3.
GENERAL PROCEDURE..........................
IO
4.
PROGRAM-1
13
...........................................
INPUT INFORMATION......................................................................
13
CALCULATING PROCEDURE
14
.............................................................
OUTPUT ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.
PROGRAM-2
16
. .......................................
17
INPUT INFORMATION......................................................................
17
CALCULATING PROCEDURE
19
........................................................ :
OUTPUT...............................................
6.
7.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................
38
.
40
RESULTS OF PROGRAM-I ..................................................................
40
RESULTS OF PROGRAM-2 . ................................................................
42
DISCUSSION................................................
58
APPLICATION........................................................
58
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .................................. .
60
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . .
.........................................................
61
V
P ag e
LITERATURE C I T E D ......................................................... ..........................■ . .
63
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................
67
A.
PROGRAM-1 FLOW CH AR T...................... .... . . . ......................
68
B.
PROGRAM-1 VARIABLE GLOSSARY.......................
70
C.
PROGRAM-1 LISTING.............................................................
72
D.
PROGRAM-1 OUTPUT
75
E.
PROGRAM-2 FLOW CH ART...........................
78
F.
PROGRAM-2 VARIABLE GLOSSARY ......................................................
81
PROGRAM-2 LISTING ................................................
89
' G.
H.
...........................................................................
. . . . . .
PROGRAM-2 OUTPUT.............................................................
103
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Adjustment o f Soil In t a k e Rate f o r
E f f e c t o f Land S l o p e .............................................................................14
2.
S e l e c t i o n of S p r i n k l e r Wetted Diameter
With Respect t o Average Wind S p e e d ................................... ....
15
3.
S e l e c t e d Spacing Combinations
42
4.
Design o f L a te ra l ( F i r s t R u n ) ................................................ ,
5.
Design of Main Line ( F i r s t R u n ) ................................................ 45
6.
Power Requirements ( F i r s t Run) ....................................................
46
7.
Economic Anal ysi s ( F i r s t Run)
47
8.
Design o f Main Line (Second R u n ) ........................................................ 50
9.
Power Requirements (Second Run)
......................................................
....................................................
44
................................................
51
10.
Economic A na ly sis (Second R u n ) ................................................ ....
52
11.
Design o f Main Line (Third R u n ) ................................................ 54
12.
Power Requirements (Third Run) ....................................................
13.
Economic Analysis (Th ird R u n ) .................................................... 56
55
vi i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
L a t e r a l C o n fi g u ra ti o n s . . . .....................................................
26
2.
S p r i n k l e r I r r i g a t i o n System Layout (Fai l
Ranch Quadrangle-Montana) . .................................................
41
E f f e c t o f S p r i n k l e r and L a t e r a l Spacings on
t h e Total Annual Cost per Acre ( F i r s t Run) ..................
48
E f f e c t o f S p r i n k l e r and L a t e r a l Spacings on
th e Total Annual Cost p e r Acre (Second Run)
53
3.
4.
5.
. . . .
E f f e c t o f S p r i n k l e r and L a t e r a l Spacings on the
Total Cost p e r Acre (Third Run) ........................................
57
Optimum S o l u t i o n A n a l y s i s , Considering Main
Lin e, Pumping, and Combined Annual Costs
(30 x 50 f t s p a c i n g ) .........................................................
59
7.
Flow Chart of PROGRAM-1
.............................................................
69
8.
Flow Chart o f PROGRAM-2......................................................... .
79
9.
Flow Chart o f SUBROUTINE CLIMATE............................................
80
6.
viii
ABSTRACT
Two computer programs were developed to design s p r i n k l e r
i r r i g a t i o n hand-move syste ms . . They t a k e s o i l , p l a n t , and c l i m a t i c
t
d a ta as in p u t and then de sign the d i f f e r e n t components, o f the
s p r i n k l e r system. The f i r s t program, PROGRAM-1, determines the
s p r i n k l e r head s p e c i f i c a t i o n s r e q u i r e d which a r e flow and wetted
d ia m e te r . The second program, PROGRAM-2, de signs th e l a t e r a l and
th e main l i n e , f i n d s th e power r e q u i r e m e n t s , and does an economic
a n a l y s i s . Several s p r i n k l e r and l a t e r a l spacing combinations can
be t e s t e d and t h e one s e l e c t e d i s t h a t which gives the most economical
s o l u t i o n . The c r i t e r i o n f o r t h a t s e l e c t i o n w i l l be th e t o t a l annual
cost per acre.
The two programs a r e a p p l i c a b l e to th e areas where s p r i n k l e r
i r r i g a t i o n i s i n t r o d u c e d f o r t h e f i r s t ti m e . The programs ,are
a p p l i c a b l e t o a hand-move s p r i n k l e r system with s i n g l e s i z e pipe
l a t e r a l s t h a t run p a r a l l e l to the c onto ur l i n e s and a main l i n e
p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e l a t e r a l s which runs e i t h e r up h i l l o r l e v e l .
C h ap ter I
INTRODUCTION
“And with w a t e r we have made a l l which i s l i v i n g . "
. .
The Holy Koran
I r r i g a t i o n has been p r a c t i c e d by man f o r thousands o f y e a r s ,
and w a t e r had a c r u c i a l r o l e in h i s t o r y , not merely as an a d ju n c t
of c i v i l i z a t i o n , but as a s ti m u lu s t o t h e development o f c i v i l i z a ­
tion i t s e l f .
in
arid
I t was no a c c i d e n t t h a t t h e e a r l i e s t c i v i l i z a t i o n s a ro s e
and s e m i r a r i d r e g i o n s , almost s im u lt a n e o u s ly in s ev e ra l p a r t s
o f t h e wo rld.
The p r a c t i c e o f i r r i g a t i o n was an e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t
o f th o s e c i v i l i z a t i o n s .
The opi n io n s among a r c h e o l o g i s t s d i f f e r on t h e qu e st i o n
wh ether fl o o d i r r i g a t i o n was f i r s t developed in Mesopotamia or in
th e Nile Val ley .
The weight o f ev ide nc e seems to fa vour Mesopotamia,
where f lo o d i r r i g a t i o n was p r a c t i c e d by about 6000 B.C.
In the Nile
Valley around 4000 B . C . , c i t i e s became surrounded by f l o o d i r r i g a t e d
f i e l d s which were c o n t r o l l e d by g a t e s .
B as in -t ype i r r i g a t i o n began
a l i t t l e e a r l i e r than 3000 B . C . , bu t by then i r r i g a t i o n was p r a c t i c e d
in o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e world ( Nace, 1975).
Ancient i r r i g a t i o n works
can be found i n Eg ypt, I r a n , Turkey, China, I n d i a , I r a q , Spain,
England, and t h e Jordan Valley.
In th e west ern he misphere, the
i n h a b i t a n t s o f Peru, Mexico, and t h e s outh w est ern United S t a t e s
p r a c t i c e d i r r i g a t i o n thousands o f y e a r s ago ( P a i r , 1975).
2
I t was in e a r l y 1900's t h a t p r e s s u r e w a te r systems o f the
c i t i e s were used to s p r i n k l e lawns.
A f t e r World War I I 5 quick
conn ectin g l i g h t w e i g h t s t e e l and aluminum p i p e , t o g e t h e r with the
im p a c t- ty p e s p r i n k l e r , made s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n f e a s i b l e on almost
a l l crops in both a r i d and humid a r e a s o f the world ( P a i r , 1975).
S p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n pro vid es th e e s s e n t i a l s o i l mois tur e
c o n t r o l needed f o r optimum crop y i e l d s .
But, un le s s s p r i n k l e r
i r r i g a t i o n i s accompanied with good s o i l management, p ro p e r f e r t i l i ­
z a t i o n , i n s e c t and p l a n t d i s e a s e c o n t r o l , improved seed s t r a i n s , and
mechanized farming o p e r a t i o n s , t h e s e optimum crop y i e l d s cannot be
achieved.
Moreover, s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n , with i t s f l e x i b i l i t y and
e f f i c i e n t c o n t r o l o f w a te r a p p l i c a t i o n , permits a wide range of
s o i l t o be i r r i g a t e d and has caused changes in land
use c l a s s i ­
f i c a t i o n t h a t allows a much g r e a t e r acreage t o be c l a s s i f i e d as
irrigable.
Many improvements have been made in s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n
equipment.and today more i n f o r m a t io n i s a v a i l a b l e on p r o p e r opera­
t i o n , s p r i n k l e r s p a c i n g s , p r e s s u r e s , noz zle s i z e s , w e a th e r c o n d i t i o n s
and system desi gn.
The u l t i m a t e goal o f a s p r i n k l e r - i r r i g a t i o n system design
i s t o o b t a i n a system w it h optimum noz zl e c a p a c i t y , s p r i n k l e r head
s p a c i n g , l a t e r a l s p a c i n g , l a t e r a l s i z e , main pipe s i z e , and power
req u ir e m e n ts such t h a t t h e i r r i g a t i o n system, in a d d i t i o n t o meeting
3
th e crop and s o i l r e q u i r e m e n t s , i s the most economical one.
I t is
e v i d e n t t h a t t h e r e i s a need f o r a computer program to a i d in f i n d i n g
t h a t most economical system.
By using a computer, d i f f e r e n t system
parameters can be analyzed r a p i d l y and t h e optimum s o l u t i o n can be
established.
E l e c t r o n i c computers w it h high s p ee ds , l a r g e memory c a p a c i t i e s
and s o p h i s t i c a t e d mon itor systems have been used e x t e n s i v e l y in
e n g in e e r in g d e si gn .
This s tu dy makes use o f the computer in the
f i e l d o f i r r i g a t i o n d e si gn .
One o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e com­
p u t e r t h a t makes i t unique among t e c h n i c a l achievements i s t h a t i t
has fo r ce d men to t h i n k about what they a re doing with c l a r i t y and
precision.
Though th e
computer program developed in t h i s s tu d y i s in
general form, i t i s o r i e n t e d t o be used in the design o f s p r i n k l e r
systems f o r th e newly i r r i g a t e d a r e a s in th e Jordan V a ll ey , Jordan.
The hand-move s p r i n k l e r systems have been recommended f o r th os e
a r e a s in a previous f e a s i b i l i t y study ( Nedeco, 1974).
Based on the
annual c o s t a n a l y s i s the stu dy showed t h a t s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n is
more economical than s u r f a c e i r r i g a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e l a b o r c o s t
has r i s e n s h a r p l y in r e c e n t y e a r s .
However, the developed com­
p u t e r program t a k e s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s to
deter mine crop consumptive use and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n s of
4
s p r i n k l e r s w ith r e s p e c t . t o lo c al wind c o n d i t i o n s a r e . n o t a v a i l a b l e
for these areas.
I t i s hoped t h a t usin g a computer in s p r i n k l e r desi gn and
o p e r a t i o n w i l l make t h e design o f s p r i n k l e r system components more
e f f i c i e n t and th e o p e r a t i o n more p r e c i s e , r e s u l t i n g in a more
p r o f i t a b l e i r r i g a t i o n system.
C h ap ter 2
REVIEW OF SELECTED .LITERATURE
■ A review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e have been
no p u b li s h e d s t u d i e s which have th e same o b j e c t i v e s as t h i s st udy .
However, s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have been s i m i l a r in t h a t they involve
computer modeling to desi gn s o l i d s e t s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n syste ms ,
to de ter mi ne t h e a g r i c u l t u r e crop w a te r requirem en ts o r t o determine
i r r i g a t i o n s c h e d u li n g .
An e a r l y st udy made by Bruhn (1938) proposed a method f o r
d e si g n i n g s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n systems based on c o s t a n a l y s i s which
in c lu de d t h e i n i t i a l c o s t b u t excluded w a te r c o s t .
Schaenzer (1938)
used 50 f e e t as l a t e r a l s paci ng in a s i m i l a r s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n
s tu dy .
The t o t a l equipment, c o s t s o f s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n were
s t u d i e d ag ain in t h e l a t e f o r t i e s by P e i k e r t (1947) and Lewis (1949K
They found an average c o s t o f $75 per a c r e f o r l i g h t - w e i g h t p o r t a b l e
pipe and a s e m i - p o r t a b l e system.
u s u a l l y s u p p l i e d by d e a l e r s .
The de sign of t h e s e systems was
In t h e f i f t i e s , Jacobson (1952) found
th e av erage i n i t i a l c o s t o f s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n was about $4.00 per
acre-in.
Howland (1957) developed methods of s e l e c t i n g economical
i r r i g a t i o n pipe by e v a l u a t i n g energy l o s s in the pipe and the c o s t
of i n s t a l l a t i o n .
The c o s t o f w a t e r as a f u n c t i o n o f syste m- de si gn
v a r i a b l e s was not in c lu de d in t h e i r s t u d i e s .
6
The use o f u n i f o r m i t y o f w a t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n as c r i t e r i o n f o r
e v a l u a t i n g e f f i c i e n c y o f w a te r a p p l i c a t i o n was s t u d i e d by McCulloch
(1949).
His stud y i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o r a good d e s i g n , t h e type of
s p r i n k l e r n o z z l e , i t s o p e r a t i n g p r e s s u r e , and m a i n - l i n e and l a t e r a l
s p a c i n g s , should be so s e l e c t e d as t o l i m i t v a r i a t i o n in mo is tu re
d i s t r i b u t i o n to 20 p e r c e n t o r l e s s ( u n i f o r m i t y 80 p e r c e n t o r more).
The ASAE recommendations (1954) s ug ges te d t h a t a s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n
system should be designed t o a ch ie ve a good u n i f o r m i t y o f w a te r
a p p l i c a t i o n by s e l e c t i n g pro pe r s p a c i n g , e t c .
I t a l s o recommended
t h a t t h e d e s i r a b l e o p e r a t i n g p r e s s u r e s , spacing o f s p r i n k l e r s and
nozzle s i z e should be obt a in e d from t h e s p r i n k l e r m a n u fa ct u r er .
Various ways o f d e s c r i b i n g u n i f o r m i t y were d e r iv e d .
The s t a t i s t i c a l
pa rameters o f c o l l e c t e d s p r i n k l e r re a d in g s such as mean v a l u e , mean
d e v i a t i o n s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n a r e t h e ones commonly used.
The
most common and f r e q u e n t l y used e q u a t i o n s were th os e d e r i v e d by
C h r i s t i a n s e n (194 1) , Wilcox (195 5) , Hart and Reynolds (1965).
The
use o f computers in t h e s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n s t u d i e s s t a r t e d in the
e a r l y 6 0 ' s.
Hart (1963) used a d i g i t a l computer to a nal yz e the
sprinkler d istrib u tio n pattern.
The program a cc e pts o b s e r v a t i o n s
.
from a s i n g l e s p r i n k l e r and o v e rl a p s them to g e n e r a t e a r e c t a n g u l a r
p a t t e r n f o r th e s pac in g d e s i r e d .
The ge ner at e d p a t t e r n s a r e then
s t a t i s t i c a l l y analyzed f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by two
procedures usin g u n i f o r m i t y c o e f f i c i e n t p r i n c i p l e .
I
7
Work on de te rm in in g economical s p r i n k l e r s pacings and l a t e r a l
sp ac in gs a r e s c a r c e in r e f e r e n c e l i t e r a t u r e .
Several s t u d i e s looked
a t v a r i o u s components o f a s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n system.
c o s t a n a l y s i s was s t u d i e d by Shull (1966).
i n i t i a l equipment and l a b o r c o s t .
Labor
Korven (1965) s t u d i e d
K e l l e r (1965) i n v e s t i g a t e d the
most economical p i p e - s i z e combination which gives th e minimum t o t a l
fixed operation co st.
ASAE recommendation (ASAE. S262[ T], S p r i n k l e r
I r r i g a t i o n Technical Sheet) su gg est ed a procedure f o r doing ah
economic a n a l y s i s o f s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n systems.
The o b j e c t i v e s
o f p a s t s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n s t u d i e s were e i t h e r to develop methods
t o d e s c r i b e u n i f o r m i t y o r t o a nal yz e equipment c o s t , both o f which
a r e used s e p a r a t e l y as c r i t e r i o n in e v a l u a t i n g and s e l e c t i n g
s p r i n k l e r systems.
But in a stu dy by T. Liang and Wu, I - p a i (1970),
a computer program was developed to a i d in th e de sign o f s o l i d s e t
s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n systems.
In t h a t s tu dy the c r i t e r i o n f o r a
system de sign i s t h e c o s t o f t h e e n t i r e i r r i g a t i o n system ( i n c l u d i n g
equipment as well as w a te r but e x cl udin g th e p u m p ) s u b j e c t t o crop,
s o i l , and o t h e r r e s t r a i n t s on the system.
Also in t h a t s tu dy i t
i s n e c e s s a r y t o t e s t th e s p r i n k l e r under f i e l d and wind c o n d it io n s
and t h e r e s u l t i n g p r e c i p i t a t i o n d a t a w i l l be used in th e program
to e v a l u a t e th e e n t i r e s p r i n k l e r system.
The s i z e of l a t e r a l and
main Tine was determined by using t h e " s l i d e r u l e " from the "Rain
Bird Company," and by r e s t r a i n i n g t h e p r e s s u r e l o s s to l e s s than
8
10 p e r c e n t o f th e o p e r a t i n g p r e s s u r e .
The s e l e c t i o n o f an i r r i g a t i o n
system c r i t e r i o n i s th e o v e r a l l c o s t , in d o l l a r s pe r a c r e - i n c h , f o r
d e l i v e r i n g u s ef u l w a t e r t o t h e r o o t zone.
I t is understood t h a t some i r r i g a t i o n companies have d e v e l ­
oped t h e i r own programs to a i d them in th e de sign o f s p r i n k l e r
systems.
public.
These programs a r e not p u b li s h e d nor a v a i l a b l e t o the
On th e o t h e r hand, s e v e r a l s t u d i e s have been made t o d e t e r ­
mine the ev ap o tr an s p i r a t i o n and t h e consumptive use o f c r o p s , bu t
t h e s e s t u d i e s were p r i m a r i l y to sc h e d u le i r r i g a t i o n and not f o r
de ter mi nin g t h e peak consumptive use as a b a s i s f o r t h e design
of i r r i g a t i o n systems.
A computer program f o r th e e x t e n s i v e compu- .
t a t i o n s t h a t a r e r e q u i r e d t o e v a l u a t e th e v a r io u s e s t i m a t i n g methods
of e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n was pre pa red by R. D. Burman ( J e n s e n , 1973).
In a s t u d y by Nimer and Bubenzer (197 2) , a computer model was
developed t o deter mine t h e i r r i g a t i o n p o t e n t i a l o f s e l e c t e d land
areas.
A d a t a bank c o n t a i n i n g c r o p , s o i l , and pro bab le well y i e l d
d a t a was developed f o r t h e s t a t e o f Wisconsin.
This d a t a plus i n f o r ­
mation f u r n i s h e d by th e p r o s p e c t i v e i r r i g a t o r i s used t o e v a l u a t e
the p o te n tia l i r r i g a t i o n of the s e le c ted area.
USDA has developed a computer program f o r i r r i g a t i o n
s c h e d u l i n g ( J e n s e n , 1972).
The computer program r e q u i r e s l i m i t e d
i n p u t d a t a and uses s im p le , b a s i c e q u a t i o n s so t h a t each can be
r e p l a c e d as more a c c u r a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e developed.
The U. S.
9
Bureau o f Reclamation has modified th e program to p ro v id e general
i r r i g a t i o n f o r e c a s t s f o r th e major crops in an a r e a .
Chapter 3
GENERAL PROCEDURE
In t h e desi gn o f s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n sy st e m s , th e s e l e c t i o n
o f a s p r i n k l e r and l a t e r a l s pac in g combination i s one o f the most
d i f f i c u l t p a r t s o f th e d e si g n .
Usually th e s e l e c t i o n o f th e spacing
combination i s based on judgment a n d / o r lo c al e x p e r i e n c e .
Thus,
t h i s s e l e c t i o n does no t ta k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n th e e f f e c t o f spacing
combination on the o v e r a l l c o s t o f t h e s p r i n k l e r system and on the
t o t a l annual c o s t p e r a c r e f o r t h a t system.
Moreover, f o r a newly
i r r i g a t e d a r e a w i t h o u t background or e x p er ie n c e in s p r i n k l e r i r r i ­
g a t i o n , th e s e l e c t i o n o f a s p e c i f i c spacing combination w i l l be only
a m a t t e r of judgment which may not give th e most e f f i c i e n t design
and t h e l e a s t c o s t system.
The two computer programs developed in t h i s s t u d y , PROGRAM-1
and PROGRAM-2 a r e t o design a hand-move s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n system
with l a t e r a l s running p a r a l l e l t o t h e c o n to u r l i n e s and th e main
l i n e running p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e l a t e r a l s , u p h i l l o r l e v e l .
D i f f e r e n t sp ac in gs o f s p r i n k l e r s on th e l a t e r a l and o f t h e l a t e r a l s
on t h e main l i n e are t e s t e d and th e optimum s o l u t i o n can be then
established.
PROGRAM-I i s t o determine t h e s p r i n k l e r head s p e c i f i c a t i o n s
in o r d e r t o s e l e c t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s p r i n k l e r heads.
In t h e procedure
d e s c r i b e d a f t e r w a r d s , th e ad ju st me nt o f the s o i l i n t a k e r a t e and the
11
c a l c u l a t i o n o f the w e tted dia m e te r a r e based on th e m a t e r i a l in
" S p r i n k l e r I r r i g a t i o n Handbook" by Fry and Gray (1971).
PROGRAM-I
has one s u b r o u t i n e , SOIL SUBROUTINE, in which s o i l in fo r m a t io n is
read and i t w i l l a l s o be used in PROGRAM-2.
This s u b r o u t i n e w il l
be us ef ul t o read the s o i l d a ta i f t h e r e i s more than one type o f
s o i l , o r i f coding o f t h e d i f f e r e n t ty p e s o f s o i l i s d e s i r e d .
An
i l l u s t r a t i v e flow c h a r t f o r PROGRAM-I i s p r e s e n te d in Appendix A
Figure 7, a v a r i a b l e g l o s s a r y in Appendix B, a l i s t i n g o f th e pro­
gram in Appendix C, and an example o u t p u t o f t h e program in
Appendix D.
PROGRAM-2 i s to c a l c u l a t e crop peak d a i l y
use, irrigation
i n t e r v a l , l a t e r a l o p e r a t i n g h o u rs , number o f l a t e r a l s e t s per day
and number o f l a t e r a l s .
l i n e and t h e v a l v e s .
a nal yz ed .
I t is also
to s i z e the l a t e r a l s , the main
Then power require me nts and economics are
Si z in g o f l a t e r a l s and main l i n e , c a l c u l a t i n g th e power
requi reme nts and doing the economic a n a l y s i s a re pro c e ss ed as des­
c r i b e d in " S p r i n k l e r I r r i g a t i o n " by C. H. P a i r (1975).
has f i v e s u b r o u t i n e s :
PROGRAMS
SOIL SUBROUTINE t o i n p u t s o i l d a t a , PLANT
SUBROUTINE t o i n p u t p l a n t d a t a , CLIMATE SUBROUTINE t o i n p u t c l i ­
ma tic d a t a and to c a l c u l a t e t h e crop peak d a i l y consumptive use as
d e s c r i b e d in Jen s e n-H ai s e method (1963, 1966), SPRINKLER SUBROUTINE
t o i n p u t t h e . s e l e c t e d s p r i n k l e r head s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , and INPUT
SUBROUTINE to w r i t e t h e i n p u t d a t a needed to run t h i s program.
By
12
us in g s u b r o u t i n e s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o reduce t h e t o t a l program s i z e
and t h e amount o f branc hin g which must be done in th e program.
It
is u s u a l l y s i m p l e r f o r a programmer t o handle s u b r o u t i n e s which are
s e p a r a t e d p h y s i c a l l y , r a t h e r than a tt e m p ti n g to i n t e g r a t e them in
th e .p ro gr a m by branching.
I l l u s t r a t i v e flow c h a r t s f o r PROGRAM-2
and SUBROUTINE CLIMATE a r e p r e s e n te d in Appendix E, Figure 8 , and
Figure 9 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
A v a r i a b l e g l o s s a r y i s provided in Appendix
F, a l i s t i n g of t h e program in Appendix G, and an example ou tp ut
o f th e program in Appendix H.
The language used in t h e s e two programs i s FORTRAN IV, and
th e computer machine i s Xerox Sigma 7.
The computer time needed
to run PROGRAM-I i s I minu te , and PROGRAM-2 i s 2 mi nute s.
•
C h ap ter 4
PROGRAM-1
PROGRAM-I i s a computer program t o determine s p r i n k l e r head
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t a k i n g i n t o account th e i n t a k e r a t e o f the s o i l and
t h e av erage speed o f p r e v a i l i n g winds.
.
INPUT INFORMATION
Since th e a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e o f a s p r i n k l e r should be equal or
s l i g h t l y l e s s than t h e . i n t a k e r a t e o f s o i l , to in s u r e no r u n o f f , t h e
i n t a k e r a t e o f th e s o i l should be determined.
This i n t a k e r a t e
should then be a d j u s t e d f o r s lo p e e f f e c t ( P a i r , 1975).
Also in
s e l e c t i n g the s o i l i n t a k e r a t e va lu es f o r s p r i n k l e r system d e s ig n ,
i t i s e s s e n t i a l not to use i n i t i a l r a t e s , but t o s e l e c t a r a t e which
w i l l p r e v a i l d uri ng t h e t o t a l i r r i g a t i o n ( P a i r , 1975).
The s o i l
i n p u t i n f o r m a t i o n , in a d d i t i o n t o th e i n t a k e r a t e in inches per hour, .
w i l l in c l u d e :
t y p e , t e x t u r e , depth in f e e t , and holdi ng c a p a c i t y
o f t h a t s o i l in inches per f o o t .
This in fo r m a t io n w i l l be read in
SUBROUTINE. SOIL, and w i l l be used l a t e r in PROGRAM-2.
The o t h e r i n p u t in fo r m a t io n needed to run t h i s program is
t h e average speed of p r e v a i l i n g winds in MPH during th e growing
seaso n.
Based on t h i s in f or m at io n and on I r r i g a t i o n Guides or
lo c al e x p e r i e n c e , d i f f e r e n t s pacings between s p r i n k l e r s on the
14
l a t e r a l s (SL) in f e e t , and s pac ing s o f l a t e r a l s on main l i n e (SM)
in f e e t , a r e read i n t o th e program.
I f f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r the
d i s t r i b u t i o n p a ttern of s p rin k le rs are a v a il a b le , taking into
.
c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e wind v e l o c i t y , wind, d i r e c t i o n , and r i s e r s h e i g h t ,
t h e sp ac in g s s e l e c t e d should be based on t h i s i n fo r m a t io n .
CALCULATING PROCEDURE
Once a l l o f t h e above i n fo r m a t io n i s read i n t o th e program,
t h e computer i s ready to s t a r t c a l c u l a t i n g the s p r i n k l e r head flow
in GPM and t h e w e tted dia m e te r in f e e t f o r th e d i f f e r e n t sp ac in g s .
F i r s t i t w i l l a d j u s t the s o i l i n t a k e r a t e f o r s lo p e e f f e c t as shown
in Table I .
Table I
Adjustment o f Soil In t a k e Rate f o r
E f f e c t o f Land Slope
Slope
In ta ke Rate. Reduction
Or 5% grade
0%
6 - 8% grade
■ 20%
9-12% grade
■ 40%
13-20% grade
60%
over 20%
75%
15
Next i t w i l l read t h e average speed o f p r e v a i l i n g winds (AWS) in
MPH and t h e d i f f e r e n t sp aci ngs o f s p r i n k l e r s on l a t e r a l s (SL) in
f e e t and t h e d i f f e r e n t sp ac in gs o f l a t e r a l s on the main l i n e (SM)
in f e e t .
Then i t w i l l c a l c u l a t e t h e flow o f each s p r i n k l e r f o r each
combination o f (SL) and (SM), as f o ll o w s :
Q = (IRA*SL*SM)/96.3
(L I)
where
Q = Flow o f s p r i n k l e r i n GPM
IRA = Adjusted i n t a k e r a t e o f th e s o i l in in c h e s / h o u r
SL = Spacing o f s p r i n k l e r s on t h e l a t e r a l in f e e t
SM = Spacing o f l a t e r a l s on t h e main l i n e in f e e t
Next i t w i l l c a l c u l a t e th e w e tted d ia m e te r o f t h e s p r i n k l e r
f o r each combination of (SL) and (SM) as shown in Table 2.
Table 2
S e l e c t i o n o f S p r i n k l e r Wetted Diameter With
Respect t o Average Wind Speed
Average Wind Speed
Up t o
7 MPH
Spacing .
SL = 40% of w e tt ed d i a .
SM = 65% of w e tted d i a .
Up to 10 MPH
SL = 40% o f w e tted d i a .
SM -= 60% o f we tted d i a .
Above 10 MPH
SL = 30% o f w e tted d i a .
SM = 50% o f w e tted d i a .
16
OUTPUT
PROGRAM-I w i l l giv e t h e d e s i r e d flow o f the s p r i n k l e r in
GPM and t h e w e tt ed d ia m e te r of s p r i n k l e r in f e e t , f o r each combina­
t i o n o f (SL) and (SM) s paci ngs.
This o u t p u t w i l l be used t o s e l e c t
t h e a v a i l a b l e commercial s p r i n k l e r h e a d s .
The s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the
s e l e c t e d s p r i n k l e r heads w i l l be then read i n t o PROGRAM-2.
C h ap ter 5
PROGRAM-2
PROGRAM-2 i s a computer program t o de sign l a t e r a l s , main
T i n e s , s i z e v a l v e s , f i n d power require me nts and do ah economic
analysis.
I t c o n s i s t s o f MAIN PROGRAM-2 and f i v e s u b r o u t i n e s ,
namely SUBROUTINE SOIL, SUBROUTINE PLANT, SUBROUTINE CLIMATE,
SUBROUTINE SPRINKLER and SUBROUTINE INPUT.
Before running t h i s program i t i s assumed t h a t t h e e n g in e e r
has determined t h e
la y o u t o f th e s p r i n k l e r system.
Thus t h e r e w i l l
be a good e s t i m a t e o f t h e le ngth o f both th e l a t e r a l and th e main
l i n e , and t h e d i f f e r e n c e in e l e v a t i o n between th e pump and th e end
lateral.
This program is w r i t t e n f o r systems with t h e l a t e r a l s
running p a r a l l e l to t h e c o n to u r l i n e s and the main l i n e p e r p e n d i c u l a r
t o t h e l a t e r a l s e i t h e r up h i l l or l e v e l .
INPUT INFORMATION
PROGRAM-2 t a k e s s o i l , p l a n t and c l i m a t i c d a ta as i n p u t .
It
a l s o t a k e s as i n p u t the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f the s e l e c t e d s p r i n k l e r
he a d s , as determined by PROGRAM-1 o u t p u t .
The s o i l d a ta i n c l u d e s t y p e , t e x t u r e , holding, c a p a c i t y in
inches pe r f o o t , depth in f e e t , i n t a k e r a t e in inches per hour and
sl o p e as a p e r c e n ta g e .
SUBROUTINE SOIL.
\
This in fo r m a t io n w i l l be read i n t o the
The p l a n t d a t a i n c lu d e s name o f crop and i t s r o o t
18
zone depth in f e e t .
SUBROUTINE PLANT.
This i n f o r m a t io n w i l l be read i n t o the
The c l i m a t i c d a t a i n c lu d e s maximum and minimum
d a i l y te m p e ra t u re s in 0 F, d a i l y s o l a r r a d i a t i o n in cal cm-2 or
l a n g l e y s , and e f f e c t i v e d a i l y p r e c i p i t a t i o n in i n c h e s .
Since t h i s
d a ta w i l l be used in c a l c u l a t i n g t h e peak d a i l y consumptive u s e,
which occurs about J u l y 15 t o J u l y 25 in th e n o r t h e r n hemisphere
( J e n s e n , 1972), the d a t a read in t h i s program w i l l be th e average
d a ily data of July.
This i n fo r m a t io n w i l l be read i n t o the
SUBROUTINE CLIMATE.
The o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s read i n t o t h i s
s u b r o u t i n e i s t h e average e l e v a t i o n o f i r r i g a t e d a re a (E) in f e e t ,
crop f a c t o r (KC) and J en s e n- H ai s e c o n s t a n t C2.
The s p r i n k l e r
SUBROUTINE SPRINKLER.
head s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be rea d i n t o the
The s e l e c t i o n o f t h e s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s w il l
be a c c o r d i n g . t o th e o u t p u t o f PROGRAM-1.
These s p e c i f i c a t i o n s
in c l u d e t y p e , flow in GPM, w e tted d ia m e te r in f e e t , p r e s s u r e in
ps i and nozzl e d ia m e te r in in c h es .
Also th e d i f f e r e n t sp ac in gs of
s p r i n k l e r s on th e l a t e r a l s (SL) in f e e t , and th o s e o f l a t e r a l s on
t h e main l i n e (SM) in f e e t and th e c o s t o f s p r i n k l e r heads in
d o l l a r s , w i l l be read i n t o th e same s u b r o u t i n e .
The o t h e r i n f o r m a t io n needed t o fiin t h i s program w i l l be
read i n t o t h e MAIN PROGRAM-2 and w i l l i n c l u d e :
Leaching re qui re m e nts in inches
E f f i c i e n c y o f s p r i n k l e r system in decimal form
19
Area to be i r r i g a t e d in sq ua re f e e t
Length o f l a t e r a l in f e e t
Length o f main l i n e in f e e t
Hazen-Williams c o e f f i c i e n t (C)
Exponent (M) in Hazen-Williams eq u at i o n f o r head l o s s in pipes
E l e v a ti o n a t t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f the. pump in f e e t
S uc tio n head on t h e pump in f e e t (assuming c e n t r i f u g a l pump)
Pump e f f i c i e n c y in decimal form
Net seaso nal i r r i g a t i o n require me nts in inches
Cost p e r kwh in d o l l a r s
Demand c o s t in d o l l a r s
E f f i c i e n c y o f th e motor in decimal form
Note t h a t t h e c o s t o f t h e d i f f e r e n t dia m e te r s o f aluminum and s t e e l
pipes and t h e c o s t o f main l i n e r i s e r s used in the main program
should be changed t o meet lo c al c u r r e n t p r i c e s .
CALCULATING PROCEDURE
PROGRAM-2 c o n s i s t s of MAIN PROGRAM-2 arid of f i v e s u b r o u t i n e s .
The c a l c u l a t i n g proce dure o f t h e MAIN PROGRAM-2 and t h e s u b r o u ti n e s
a r e as f o ll o w s .
20
MAIN PROGRAM-2
A f t e r re a d in g t h e i n p u t i n f o r m a t i o n , th e c a l c u l a t i n g pro­
cedure w i l l be:
1.
and INPUT.
2.
C a l li n g t h e SUBROUTINES:
SOIL, PLANT, CLIMATE, SPRINKLER,
(
C a l c u l a t e t h e peak d a i l y use o f crop:
Peak Daily Use = Average Peak + Leaching Requirements ( 1 .5 )
where t h e av erage peak o f th e crop d a i l y consumptive use has been
c a l c u l a t e d in SUBROUTINE CLIMATE.
3.
irrigation.
depth.
C a l c u l a t e n e t and gros s m o is tu r e to be r e p l a c e d each
This i s based on r o o t zone depth o f crop and on s o i l
I f s o i l depth i s l e s s than r o o t zone d e p t h , t h e r o o t zone
depth i s l i m i t e d t o th e val ue o f s o i l de pth .
The a v a i l a b l e mois tur e
c o n t e n t o f t h e s o i l i s equal t o :
AMC = (Holding C a p a c i t y / f t ) * Root Zone Depth
(2 .5 )
The a ll o w a b l e p e rc e n ta g e o f s o i l m o is tu re d e p l e t i o n b e f o r e i r r i g a t i n g
is a f u n c t i o n o f c r o p , i t s r o o t zone d e p t h , s o i l type and t e x t u r e ,
i r r i g a t i o n p o l i c y and economics.
However, in t h i s program, the
c r i t e r i o n f o r d e te r m in in g t h i s p e rc e n ta g e and c a l c u l a t i n g th e ne t
m o is tu r e t o be r e p l a c e d each i r r i g a t i o n i s a r b i t r a r y and based on .
t h e f o ll o w i n g a s s u m p ti o n s :
High va lu e shallow ro o te d crops(R Z^3ft) m a in ta in 67% a v a i l a b l e
m o is tu re
21
For lower val ue de ep e r ro o te d crops (RZi S f t ) m ai nta in 50% a v a i l a b l e
m o is tu re
For low va lu e deep ro o te d crops (RZ>5ft) maintain. 33% a v a i l a b l e
m o is tu re
These assumptions can be a l t e r e d depending on th e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f
lo c a l d a ta and on t h e e n g i n e e r ' s e x p e r i e n c e , i . e . , i n a s tu d y on
when t o i r r i g a t e a l f a l f a (Hanson, 1972), l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e in y i e l d
or t h e amount o f w a te r used per u n i t o f hay produced was found when
i r r i g a t i o n s were made w i t h i n t h e ra nge of 20 t o 75 p e r c e n t o f the
a v a i l a b l e s o i l m o i s t u r e remaining.
The gross m o i s t u r e t o be r e p l a c e d each i r r i g a t i o n i s
equal t o :
pmd
4.
=
Net Moisture Replaced
E f f i c i e n c y o f S p r i n k l e r System
^
' * '
Calculate i r r i g a t i o n i n t e r v a l , ir r i g a t i o n period, la te ra l
o p e r a t i n g h o u rs , number o f s e t s pe r l a t e r a l per day, and number of
laterals:
I r r i g a t i o n Interval - ^
l a
i l / ^
-
The i r r i g a t i o n i n t e r v a l should be u s u a l l y an i n t e g e r number.
This program allows 0.10 day as a maximum b e fo re t r u n c a t i n g th e value
of t h e i r r i g a t i o n i n t e r v a l c a l c u l a t e d by eq uat io n ( 4 . 5 ) .
22
L a t e r a l O perating Hours = = ™ |y ! o i |t u £ e ^ £ l a c e d
(5 5)
where t h e a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e i s c a l c u l a t e d in th e SUBROUTINE SPRINKLER
Since t h e s p r i n k l e r system designed by t h i s program i s a hand-move
s e m i - p o r t a b l e system, one hour i s allowed to move th e l a t e r a l .
So
f o r l a t e r a l o p e r a t i n g hours l e s s or equal 7, t h r e e s e t s p e r l a t e r a l
p e r day a r e p o s s i b l e .
I f l a t e r a l o p e r a t i n g hours i s g r e a t e r than
7 and l e s s than o r equal t o 11, two s e t s a r e p o s s i b l e ; oth e rw is e
only one s e t i s p o s s i b l e .
Number o f l a t e r a l s =
■ ______ Area t o be I r r i g a t e d (sq. f t ) _______
.
, , r\
No. o f s e t s / d a y * SM ( f t ) * I r r i g a t i o n I n t e r v a l (days) * ' t5' 5 '
le n g t h of l a t e r a l ( f t )
I r r i g a t i o n Period =
l e n g t h on th e Main Line I r r i g a t e d by One La te ra l
SM * No. o f S e t s / l a t e r a l / d a y
(7 .5 )
where t h e Length on th e Main Line I r r i g a t e d by One L a te ra l
Area to be I r r i g a t e d (s q. f t )
L a t e r a l Length ( f t ) * No. of L a t e r a l s
(8 .5 )
and SM = Spacing o f l a t e r a l s on t h e main l i n e in f e e t
5.
Design o f L a t e r a l :
s i z e pipe l a t e r a l .
t h i s program i s l i m i t e d t o a s i n g l e
In o r d e r to o b t a i n t h e high w a te r a p p l i c a t i o n
e f f i c i e n c i e s p o s s i b l e w ith s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n , i t i s e s s e n t i a l to
keep t h e v a r i a t i o n in p r e s s u r e a t a p r a c t i c a l minimum.
For good
23
d e s i g n , th e v a r i a t i o n should be held t o t 10 p e r c e n t o f average
l a t e r a l de sign p r e s s u r e (ASAE minimum performance f o r s p r i n k l e r
s y st e m s ).
On le v e l ground, t h e c a s e assumed h e r e , t h i s would mean
holdin g th e p r e s s u r e drop due t o f r i c t i o n to 20 p e r c e n t between th e
f i r s t and t h e d i s t a l s p r i n k l e r .
For p r a c t i c a l p u rp o s e s , a llo w abl e
f r i c t i o n l o s s can be computed by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e r e q u i r e d average
p r e s s u r e (de termined by t h e s p r i n k l e r s e l e c t e d ) by 23.4 p e r c e n t
( P a i r , 1975).
To s i m p l i f y th e computations o f t h e l o s s e s in t h e l a t e r a l s ,
they a r e assumed mainly as t h e f r i c t i o n l o s s e s in t h e pipe .
C h r i s t i a n s e n ' s procedure (1942) f o r c a l c u l a t i n g l o s s e s in pipes with
m u l t i p l e o u t l e t s i s used he re:
K L Q'"
H
f = F ( ri2m+n
( 9 .5 )
in which
= head l o s s in f e e t
k
= a f r i c t i o n f a c t o r based on th e f r i c t i o n formula used (h e re i t
i s Hazen-Williarris E q . )
L = t h e l e n g t h o f pipe l i n e in f e e t
Q = th e t o t a l flow i n t o t h e l a t e r a l i n c u . f t . / s e c
D = t h e d ia m e te r o f pipe in f t
F
= i s a f a c t o r f o r m u l t i p l e o u t l e t s e f f e c t on f r i c t i o n l o s s e s
24
The exponent m, v e l o c i t y exponent, and n, a pipe dia m e te r exponent,
1i
a re based on th e formula used.
The dia me te r o f pipe computed by eq u at i o n ( 9 . 5 ) i s to be
rounded to th e n e a r e s t commercial dia m e te r .
This program allows
only 0. 10 inc hes as a maximum i n c r e a s e in t h e pipe dia me te r before
i t i s rounded t o t h e next dia m e te r .
6.
Design o f Main Pipe Line:
t h e r e a r e a number o f varying
c o n d i t i o n s which may govern t h e desi gn o f main l i n e s ( P a i r , 1975).
The s e l e c t i o n o f th e economical pipe s i z e s i s an e n g i n e e r i n g con­
s i d e r a t i o n o f as much importance as t h e s o l u t i o n o f th e h y d r a u li c
problems invol ve d ( K e l l e r , 1965).
t r i a l - a n d - e r r o r method i s used.
However, in t h i s program the
By running t h e program s e v e r a l times,
th e most economical s o l u t i o n f o r t h e whole s p r i n k l e r system can be
established.
In t h e f i r s t run o f t h i s program, th e lo s s o f I f t head per
100 f t o f t h e pipe l e n g t h i s used as a " r u l e o f thumb" to determine ..
t h e di a m e te r s o f t h e s e v e r a l p a r t s o f t h e main l i n e .
In th e
s ub seq ue nt r u n s , t h e s e dia m e te rs may be in c r e a s e d or de cr ea se d to
o b t a i n t h e most economical s o l u t i o n f o r th e whole s p r i n k l e r system.
The c r i t e r i o n f o r t h a t i s t h e t o t a l annual c o s t per a c r e .
However,
i t i s a l s o n e c e s s a r y to examine t h e v e l o c i t y o f flow b e f o r e
i n c r e a s i n g or d e c r e a s i n g t h e dia m e te rs o f t h e main l i n e segments.
25
and t o keep t h e s e v a lu es w i t h i n t h e a ll o w a b l e l i m i t s f o r each pipe
m aterial.
Hazen-Williams e q u a ti o n f o r head lo s s in pip es i s used to
c a l c u l a t e th e pipe d ia m e te r :
D , (1<L43,8.L Qi -85,) 1/4.87
C'
(1o .5,
H1
in which
D
= pipe d ia m e te r in inches
L
= l e n g t h o f pipe in f e e t
Q
= flow o f th e pip e in g a l l o n p e r minute
C
= Hazen-Williams c o e f f i c i e n t
H-]
= head l o s s in f e e t
PROGRAM-2 can handle th e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f l a t e r a l s on the
main l i n e shown in Fig. I , i . e . , from two l a t e r a l s on t h e main l i n e
up to twelve l a t e r a l s .
can be e a s i l y mo dif ied .
For more than twelv e l a t e r a l s , t h e program
Also PROGRAM-2 i s a p p l i c a b l e t o b u r i e d main
l i n e s which run u p h i l l or on l e v e l ground.
For downhill main l i n e s ,
s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n must be given t o t h e e l e v a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e
i f t h e av erage s lo p e g r a d i e n t exceeds t h e f r i c t i o n - h e a d g r a d i e n t .
7.
C a l c u l a t e Power Requi rements:
th e t o t a l dynamic head on
t h e pump may be determined by t h e f o l l o w i n g e q u a ti o n :
26
<
PUMP
r - i ______
MAIN
LMl
LMl
2
PUMP
LINE
MAIN
I Ml
I,
r
LATERALS
LML
3 . LATERALS
——
PUMP
Ur —
MAIN
LMl
PUMP
LINE
,
,
LMl
LINE
.
MAIN
LMl
I
5
r LMl
LINE
_
LML
'
4 . LATERALS
5 . LATERALS
PUMP
PUMP
6 . LATERALS
F i g u r e I.
MAIN
/.LATERALS
L a t e r a ls C o n f i g u r a t i o n s
r
27
PUMP
PUMP
8 - LATERALS
9.LATERALS
s i*
-J
MP
MA IN
L Mt
PUMP
IrIN E
MAIN
LMl1 LML LML LML
L
1 0 . LATERALS
PUMP
!!.LATERALS
LINE
12.LATERALS
(Continue) F ig u re I. Laterals Con figurations
28
H = 2.31 P + AE + EH1 + E H ^ + Hg
(1 1.5)
in which
H
=t o t a l dynamic head on t h e pump in f e e t
>
P
=l a t e r a l i n l e t p r e s s u r e in psi
AE
=d i f f e r e n c e in e l e v a t i o n between t h e pump and
EH-j-
=sum o f main l i n e f r i c t i o n l o s s e s in f e e t
EHlm
=sum o f minor l o s s e s i n f e e t
HS
=s u c t i o n head on t h e pump in f e e t (assuming c e n t r i f u g a l pump)
end l a t e r a l in f e e t
In t h i s program, th e minor l o s s e s a re accounted f o r by i n c r e a s i n g the
valu e o f t h e s u c t i o n head by a r e a s o n a b le amount.
Water horsepower can be c a l c u l a t e d by:
WHP
= -QtL
3960
(12.5)
where WHP = w a t e r horsepower
Q
= t o t a l flow in g a l l o n p e r minute
H
= t o t a l dynamic head on t h e pump in f e e t
The brake horsepower can be c a l c u l a t e d by:
BHP
WHP
Pump E f f i c i e n c y
(13.5)
The r e q u i r e d e l e c t r i c a l horsepower can be determined by:
EHP
B H P ________
E f f i c i e n c y o f Motor '.
(14.5)
29
8.
Si z in g o f D i f f e r e n t Valves:
f o r s i z i n g t h e flow co ntro l
and check v a l v e s , t h e i r dia m e te rs should equal t h e d ia m e te r of
t h e main l i n e ne xt to t h e pump.
For s i z i n g t h e a i r r e l e a s e and
vacuum r e l i e f v a l v e , t h e ASAE recommendations a r e :
Pipe Dia .
Valve Size
2"
6"
7-10"
12"
4"
The SCS recommendations a r e :
Pipe Dia .
Valve Size
4" o r l e s s
y
5-8"
.
'
i"
2"
10 - 12 "
For s i z i n g t h e p r e s s u r e r e l i e f v a l v e s , see the ASAE recommendations
f o r d i f f e r e n t pipe m a t e r i a l s o r any o t h e r t e n t a t i v e recommendations'.
9.
Economic A n a ly s is :
PROGRAM-2 w i l l do an economic
a n a l y s i s f o r t h e whole s p r i n k l e r system as foll ows ( p r i c e s and .
e s t i m a t e s obt a in e d from Western Montana i r r i g a t i o n equipment d e a l e r )
A.
Equipment and I n s t a l l a t i o n Costs which i n c l u d e s :
1.
w a te r supply c o s t
2.
conveyance c o s t
3.
pump and power u n i t c o s t
30 .
4.
d i s t r i b u t i o n system c o s t :
s p r i n k l e r heads,
l a t e r a l s , main l i n e and r i s e r c o s t s .
The c o s t s
o f o t h e r components o f th e main pipe l i n e such
as v a l v e s , c o u p l e r s , and p l u g s , el bow s, e t c . ,
i s assumed as 2 p e r c e n t o f th e pip e c o s t .
5.
in s ta lla t io n cost:
assumed as 10 c e n t s / i n c h / f e e t
l e n g th o f the s t e e l main pipe l i n e .
The i n s t a l l a ­
t i o n c o s t o f t h e pump and power u n i t i s inc luded
in th e purchase p r i c e .
B.
Annual Fixed Costs:
t o compute t h e annual f ix e d
c o s t s , th e average l i f e o f th e s p r i n k l e r system has
been assumed to be f i f t e e n y e a r s .
A compound i n t e r e s t
r a t e o f 9 p e r c e n t has a l s o been assumed, and the
a m o r t i z a t i o n f a c t o r (AF) f o r t h a t has been o b ta in e d.
This f a c t o r giv e s t h e annual charge f o r owning the
f a c i l i t y on t h e b a s i s o f r e t u r n s per y e a r i f the
c a p i t a l had been i n v e s t e d a t a d e s i r e d (9 p e r c e n t)
r a t e of i n t e r e s t ( P a i r , 1975).
C. . Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs i n c l u d e s :
the
costs incurred fo r water, f u e l , l u b r i c a t i o n , e le c ­
t r i c i t y , l a b o r , t a x e s , in s u r a n c e , and r e p a i r s to th e
equipment.
For c a l c u l a t i n g th e power c o s t , the
31
o p e r a t i n g hours d u ri n g t h e season should be known
and may be c a l c u l a t e d as f o ll o w s :
SHOURS
(SNIR/[12*EFF]) * AREA
" ( Q /4 4 8 .8 ) * 60 * 60
(15.5)
where
SHOURS = o p e r a t i n g hours durin g th e season
SNIR
EFF
AREA
Q
= n e t m o is tu r e r e p l a c e d d urin g t h e s ea s o n -i n c h e s
e f f i c i e n c y o f s p r i n k l e r system in decimal form
= a r e a to be i r r i g a t e d - squ are f e e t
t o t a l flow - g a l l o n p e r minute
In case o f e l e c t r i c a l power, t h e r e w i l l be c o s t p e r H.P. demand or
a "demand charge" in a d d i t i o n t o t h e c o s t pe r kwh.
So t h e annual
power c o s t w i l l be:
APC = CKWH * SHOURS * EHP * 0.746 + CDEMAND * EHP
(16.5)
where
APC
CKWH
= annual power c o s t - d o l l a r s
= c o s t pe r kwh - d o l l a r s
SHOURS = o p e r a t i n g hours during t h e season ( c a l c u l a t e d in eg. 15.5)
CDEMAND = c o s t p e r H.P. demand "demand charge" - dollar/EHP.
EHP
= e l e c t r i c a l horsepower
Note t h a t t h e val ue o f EHP should be a d j u s t e d to the a v a i l a b l e motor
s i zes.
32
Annual Maintenance Cost:
f o r hand-move s p r i n k l e r s y s te m s , i t i s
assumed as 2 p e r c e n t o f th e i n i t i a l c o s t o f th e equipment ( P a i r ,
1975).
Annual Labor Cost:
f o r hand-move s p r i n k l e r s y s t e m s , th e l a b o r is
from 0.7 t o 1.0 h r s / a c r e / i r r i g a t i on ( P a i r , 1975).
In t h i s program
t h e l a b o r c o s t i s assumed t o be $2 . 00 /h o u r .
Taxes and In s u r a n c e :
i t i s assumed as 2 p e r c e n t o f th e i n i t i a l
c o s t o f t h e equipment ( P a i r , 1975).
D.
Total Annual Costs:
equal th e sum of th e Annual
Fixed Costs and the Annual Operation and Maintenance
Costs.
The Total Annual Cost pe r Acre i s equal to
t h e Total Annual Costs d i v id e d by t h e a re a t o be
irr ig a te d .in acres.
E.
Annual Farming Cost pe r Acre:
i n c lu d e s t h e c o s t o f
f e r t i l i z e r s , h a r v e s t i n g and r e l a t e d expenses.
F.
Net Annual Income p e r Acre:
.
equals t h e t o t a l annual
income p e r a c r e minus th e annual farming c o s t per.
acre.
G.
Annual P r o f i t or Loss p e r Acre:
equals' th e Net
Annual Income pe r Acre minus the Annual Cost per
Acre.
Negative si gn means l o s s .
33
H.
Years Needed t o Pay f o r th e System:
e q u al s th e
c o s t o f t h e system p e r a c r e div id e d by t h e annual
p r o f i t pe r a c r e , i f any.
I.
Annual Main Line Cost and Annual Pumping Cost:
t h e annual main l i n e c o s t i s equal t o t h e main
l i n e c o s t m u l t i p l i e d by th e a m o r t i z a t i o n f a c t o r
(AF).
The pumping annual c o s t i s equal t o the
pump and power u n i t annual c o s t and t h e annual
power c o s t .
A f t e r completing t h e economic a n a l y s i s f o r t h e s p r i n k l e r
syst em , t h e c r i t e r i o n o f comparing t h e d i f f e r e n t systems w i l l be
based on t h e Annual P r o f i t per Acre.
th e more economical t h e system.
The hig h e r t h i s valu e i s ,
However, a s e n s i t i v e a n a l y s i s
o f t h e program o u t p u t i s a l s o e s s e n t i a l t o g e t a b e t t e r idea o f the
economics o f each system.
S ub ro ut in e s
SUBROUTINE SOIL:
t i o n i s re a d.
in t h i s s u b r o u t i n e , the s o i l i n p u t informa
I t i n c lu d e s t y p e , t e x t u r e , depth in f e e t , i n t a k e
r a t e in inches pe r h o u r, t h e aver age s l o p e as p e r c e n t a g e , and the
h o ld in g c a p a c i t y of t h e s o i l in inches p e r f o o t .
SUBROUTINE PLANT:
mation i s re a d.
in f e e t .
in t h i s subro u tin e, the p la n t input in fe r
I t i n c lu d e s name o f crop and i t s r o o t zone depth
34
SUBROUTINE CLIMATE:
t h i s s u b r o u t i n e w i l l c a l c u l a t e the crop
peak d a i l y consumptive use and th e av erage peak, t o be used as b a s i s
f o r d e s ig n i n g th e s p r i n k l e r system.
The Jen s e n- H ai s e procedure f o r
e s t i m a t i n g crop consumptive use i s s e l e c t e d because in t h i s p ro c e du re,
u n l i k e most o f t h e o t h e r a v a i l a b l e p r o c e d u r e s , t h e crop c o e f f i c i e n t
need no t be a d j u s t e d when t r a n s f e r r i n g them from one l o c a t i o n to
another.
This o b v i a t e s t h e need f o r personal knowledge o f the lo c al
a r e a on t h e p a r t o f t h e u s e r (and th u s e l i m i n a t e s a p o s s i b l e so urc e
of b ia s in e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n d e t e r m i n a t i o n ) .
I t should be noted
here t h a t t h e crop consumptive use i s d e fi n e d in t h i s program, f o r .
t h e sake o f c omp uta tio ns, as th e amount o f e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n in
inches minus t h e e f f e c t i v e p r e c i p i t a t i o n in inc hes .
The i n p u t d a t a re a d i n t o t h i s s u b r o u t i n e i n c l u d e s :
1 - Long term averages f o r warmest month ( J u l y in t h e n ort he rn
hemis phere ):
a - Mean maximum d a i l y t e m p e ra t u re in 0F (TX)
b - Mean minimum d a i l y te m p e ra t u re i n 0 F (TN)
O
2 - Mean d a i l y s o l a r r a d i a t i o n in cal cm™ o r la n g l e y s (RS)
3 - E f f e c t i v e mean p r e c i p i t a t i o n in inch es (PR)
4 - Average e l e v a t i o n o f th e land in f e e t (E)
5 - Jen s e n- H ai s e crop f a c t o r (KC)
6 - Jen s e n- H ai s e C ons ta nt (C2)
35
Jhe c a l c u l a t i n g procedure o f t h i s s u b r o u t i n e i s as f o ll o w s :
I - Basic J en s e n- H ai s e Equation:
ETP = Cl (T - TO) RSS
(17.5)
where
ETP = p o t e n t i a l e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i on - inches
CT = te m p e r a t u r e c o e f f i c i e n t - ( 0 F)""*
T
= mean d a i l y te m p e ra t u re - 0 F
TO = te m p e ra t u re i n t e r c e p t - 0 F
RSS = t o t a l s h o r t wave s o l a r r a d i a t i o n - inches o f e v a p o r a ti o n
equivalent
CT can be c a l c u l a t e d by t h e fo ll o w i n g e q u a t i o n :
CT = 1.0/(C1 + C2 CM)
(18.5)
where
Cl
= 68 - 3 .6 E /1000 f o r rough crops
Cl
= 81 - 4 E / 1000
and C2
= 13
CH
and
f o r gr a s s
f o r rough crops and gra s s
= 37.5 / (PSX - PSN)
PSX= s a t u r a t e d vapor p r e s s u r e a t TX (PSX in mm Hg)
PSN = s a t u r a t e d vapor p r e s s u r e a t TN (PSN in mm Hg)
PSX and PSN may be o b ta in e d from t a b l e o f s a t u r a t e d vapor p r e s s u r e
o f w a te r versu s t e m p e r a t u r e , o r computed using th e fo ll o w i n g
equation:
36
r f m
- 5-162 In <273 + I ) ]
(19.5)
PS = 4.58 e
where T i s TX o r IN in 0 C.
TO may be c a l c u l a t e d as fo ll o w s :
TO = 27.5 - 0.33 (PSX - PSN) -
(20,5)
t h i s w i l l give TO in 0 F.
2 - Crop Daily Consumptive Use i s computed as f o ll ow s :
ET = KC * ETP
(21.5)
where
ET
= crop e v a p o r t r a n s p i r a t i o n - inches
KC = i s a dim e ns io nl es s crop c o e f f i c i e n t obta in e d from Jens en -Ha is e
crop curves o f KC versu s s t a g e o f crop growth
ETP = p o t e n t i a l e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i on - inches
Then th e crop consumptive u s e , as d e fi n e d e a r l i e r , i s equal to :
CU = ET - PP
(22.5)
where
CU = crop consumptive use - inches
ET = crop e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n - inches
PP = e f f e c t i v e mean p r e c i p i t a t i o n - inches
However, i t was found t h a t t h e value o f th e crop consumptive
use c a l c u l a t e d by e q u a ti o n (2 1.5) i s h i g h e r than most pu blis he d
d a t a (Fry and Gray, 1973; P a i r , 1975; FAO, 1975).
This may be due
37
to th e f a c t t h a t th e pe ri o d o f t h e c l i m a t i c d a t a used i s not long
enough t o g iv e a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e mean v a lu e .
So an average value f o r
crop consumptive use i s computed by d i v i d i n g t h e va lu e o f crop
consumptive u s e , c a l c u l a t e d by e q u a ti o n ( 2 2 . 5 ) , by 7 (a ve rage i r r i ­
gation in t e r v a l ) .
The p r i n c i p l e o f crop s t r e s s c r i t e r i o n may be
used a l s o t o o b t a i n a re a s o n a b le va lu e o f t h e crop consumptive
use.
The Food and A g r i c u l t u r e O rg a n iz a ti o n o f th e United Nations
(1975) su gge st ed t h a t t h e d e t a i l e d d e si gn o f t h e i r r i g a t i o n system
be based on 5-10 days peak supply.
SUBROUTINE SPRINKLER:
in t h i s s u b r o u t i n e t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s
o f t h e s e l e c t e d s p r i n k l e r h e a d s , based on PROGRAM-1 o u t p u t , a re
re a d.
They i n c lu d e t y p e , flow in GPM, w e tt ed d ia m e te r in f e e t ,
p r e s s u r e in p s i , and th e noz zle d ia m e te r o f s p r i n k l e r in in c h e s .
The d i f f e r e n t s pacings (SE) and (SM) in f e e t and th e c o s t o f
s p r i n k l e r heads in d o l l a r s , w i l l a l s o be read in t h i s s u b r o u t i n e .
Once t h e above in f o r m a t io n is read i n t o th e s u b r o u t i n e , i t w i l l
proceed t o c a l c u l a t e th e a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e o f each s p r i n k l e r as
f o l I ows:
AR = (96.3 Q) / (SE * SM)
where
AR = a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e o f s p r i n k l e r - inches / hour.
Q = flow o f s p r i n k l e r - g a l l o n p e r minutes
SE = s paci ng o f s p r i n k l e r s on th e l a t e r a l - f e e t
(23.5)
38
SM = s pac in g o f l a t e r a l s on the main l i n e - f e e t
SUBROUTINE INPUT INFORMATION:
t h i s subroutine w ill w rite
the i n p u t i n fo r m a t io n read in t h e MAIN PROGRAM-2 and t h e o t h e r fo ur
subroutines.
OUTPUT
PROGRAM-2 o u t p u t giv es t h e fo l l o w i n g :
1.
Crop consumptive u s e , crop average consumptive u s e,
crop peak d a i l y u s e , a v a i l a b l e m o is tu r e c o n t e n t , ne t m o is tu re
r e p l a c e d each i r r i g a t i o n , gros s m o is tu r e r e p l a c e d each i r r i g a t i o n ,
and i r r i g a t i o n i n t e r v a l .
2.
Design o f l a t e r a l showing t h e r e q u i r e d pipe d ia m e te r ,
o p e r a t i n g h o u r s , number o f l a t e r a l s e t s pe r day, number o f l a t e r a l s ,
number o f s p r i n k l e r s , head l o s s , v e l o c i t y o f flow , i r r i g a t i o n p e r i o d ,
and s p r i n k l e r a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e .
3.
Design o f main l i n e showing t h e d i a m e t e r s , head l o s s ,
and v e l o c i t y o f flow in t h e main l i n e segments.
The de si gn a l s o
shows th e t o t a l energy head a t t h e end of each main l i n e segment.
4.
Size of t h e d i f f e r e n t v a l v e s .
5.
Power req u ir e m e n ts showing t h e head on t h e pump, t o t a l
flow , w a te r horsepower, brake horsepower, and r e q u i r e d e l e c t r i c a l
horsepower.
39
6.
Economic a n a l y s i s showing i n i t i a l c o s t o f th e d i f f e r e n t
components o f t h e system, annual c o s t , n e t annual income per a c r e ,
annual p r o f i t o r l o s s p e r a c r e , number o f y e a r s needed t o pay f o r
th e system, annual main l i n e c o s t , and annual pumping c o s t .
C hapter 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PROGRAM-1 and PROGRAM-2 were t e s t e d f o r an example a r e a .
The a re a l i e s in t h e N%, Sec. 3, R30E T-N Fail Ranch QuadrangleMontana.
Fig. 2 shows th e l a y o u t o f t h e s p r i n k l e r system s e le c te d,
for th is area.
Ten d i f f e r e n t combinations o f s p r i n k l e r s pacings on
t h e l a t e r a l s (SE) and th o s e o f t h e l a t e r a l s on th e main l i n e (SM)
were used in running t h e two computer programs t o f i n d t h e optimum
de sign f o r t h i s a r e a .
A 60 f o o t s pac in g was th e maximum spacing
allowed f o r e i t h e r t h e s p r i n k l e r s or t h e l a t e r a l s , based on the
lo c al p r a c t i c e in Montana.
The t e n s pac ing combinations a r e shown
in Table 3, page 42.
The i n p u t i n fo r m a t io n used t o run th e two programs and the
r e s u l t s o f running them w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y .
RESULTS OF PROGRAM-1
The i n p u t i n fo r m a t io n used t o run t h i s program, in a d d i t i o n .
to the sp ac in gs p r e s e n t e d in Table 3, and the r e s u l t s o f t h e program
a r e shown in Appendix D.
The program determines the s p r i n k l e r head
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s r e q u i r e d f o r each s pac in g combination.
I t calculates
th e s p r i n k l e r head flow in GPM and t h e w e tted d ia m e te r in f e e t .
r e s u l t s o f t h i s program were used t o s e l e c t t h e s p r i n k l e r head
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , which then were used as an i n p u t in PROGRAM-2.
The
M u s sel s hel l
1 3 3 0 ' __________ J . _________ 1 3 3 0 '
river
Figure 2.
S p r in k l e r I r r i g a t i o n Sys tem Layout
( F a il Ranch Q u a d r a n g l e - M o n t a n a )
42
Table 3
S e l e c t e d Spacing Combinations
No.
Spacing o f S p r i n k l e r s
on t h e L a te ra l
(ft)
Spacing o f L a t e r a l s
on t h e Main Line
(ft)
I
30
30
2
30
40
3
30
50
4
30
60
5
40
40
40
50
7
40
,60
8
50
50
9
50
60
60
60
6
10
.
.
.
RESULTS OF PROGRAM-2
The i n p u t in fo r m a t io n used t o run t h i s program, as well as
t h e r e s u l t s o f running t h i s program s e v e r a l ti m e s , a r e shown in
Appendix H and in Tables 4 , 5, 6 , 7, 8 , 9 , 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Running t h i s program s e v e r a l times i s in te n d e d t o e s t a b l i s h the
43
most economical s o l u t i o n f o r t h e whole s p r i n k l e ^ system.
By
^ ;
changing the dia m e te r s o f th e main l i n e segments and su bs e q u e n tl y
t h e power r e q u i r e m e n t s , new c o s t f o r t h e s p r i n k l e r system i s o b ta in e d.
The c r i t e r i o n f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e most economical s o l u t i o n w i l l be
then t h e t o t a l annual c o s t p e r a c r e .
However, as mentioned b e f o r e ,
i t is n e c e s s a r y to examine th e v e l o c i t y o f flow in each segment of
t h e main pipe l i n e b e f o r e changing t h e dia m e te rs
of
th os e segments.
In t h i s example r u n , th e lower l i m i t o f th e v e l o c i t y o f flow in th e
'/
main l i n e ( s t e e l p ip e ) was kept to about 2.5 fps t o avoid sedi^
m en ta tio n in t h e p i p e , and t h e upper l i m i t to about 9 fps t o avoid
damage t o t h e pipe by w a te r hammer o r s u rg e .
A d i s c u s s i o n o f each
.
o f t h e runs f o ll o w s .
F i r s t Run
In t h e f i r s t run o f PROGRAM-2, t h e in p u t i n fo r m a t io n i s the
same as p r e s e n t e d in Appendix H.
The l o s s o f I f o o t head p e r 100
f e e t o f t h e main l i n e le n g t h i s used as a " r u l e o f thumb" t o determine
th e di a m e te r s
of
th e main l i n e segments.
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s run
a r e p r e s e n t e d in Tables 4, 5, 6 , and 7 which show the d e si gn of the
l a t e r a l , t h e de si gn o f t h e main l i n e , th e. pow er r e q u i r e m e n t s , and
t h e economic a n a l y s i s of t h e whole syst em , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Figure 3
shows th e e f f e c t o f s p r i n k l e r and l a t e r a l sp aci ngs on th e t o t a l
annual c o s t per a c r e i n t h a t case.
Table 4
Design o f L a t e r a l
( F i r s t Run)
Pipe
Di a . .
(in.)
Head Loss
(ft)
Velo city
o f Flow
(fps)
4
24.32
6.35
44
5
29.73
5.38
7
44
5
24.32
6.77
3
6
44
5
35.14
7.87
3
.9
33
5
27.03
5.33
5.28
3
7
33
5
40.54
6.58
60
5.44
3
6
33
5
32.43 .
7.66
50
50
5.19
3
7
27
5
40.54
6.84
50
60
5.14
3
6
27
5
35.14
8.29
60
60
5.27
3
6
22
. 5
32.43
7.91
SL
(ft)
SM
(ft)
Operating
Hours
No. o f Sets
Per Day
No. o f
Laterals
No. of
Sprinklers
.30
30
5.13
3
12
44
30
40
5.16
3
9
30
50
5.13
3
30
60
5.29
40
. 40
5.21
"40
50
.40
.
Table 5
D e s i g n o f Main L i n e ( F i r s t Run)
Diameter o f Main Line Segments
(inches)
D3
D5
D6
D2
D4
Dl
SL
(ft)
SM
(ft)
30
30
14
14
12
10
10
30
40
14
12
12
10
30
50
14
. 12
10
30. .
60
14
12
40
40
14
40
50
40
VeL of. Flow in t h e Main Line Segments
( f PS )
Vl
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
8
6.22
5.18
5.64
6.09
4.06
6
-
6.17
6.54
. 4.67
4.03
3.73
-
6
-
-
■ 6.04
5.87
5.07
4.70
-
-
10
-
-
-
6.03
5.47
3.94
-
-
-
12
12
10
6
6.12
6.47
4.62
4.00
14 .
12
10
6
-
-
5.87
5.71
4.93
4.57
60
14
12
10
-
-
-
5.86
5.32
3.83
-
-
-
50
50
14
12
10
6
-
-
6.11
5.94
5.13
4.75
-
-
50
60
14
12
10
-
-
-
6.35
5.76
4.15
-
_-
60
60
14
12
10
_
_
—
6.05
5.49 . 3.95
. _
3.70
3.17
-
—
Table 6
Power R e q u i r e m e n ts
Water
Horsepower
(HP)
Brake
Horsepower
(HP)
Required "
Horsepower
(HP)
2983.20
226.40
279.50
294.21
318.14
. 2962.28
237.97
293.79
309.25
50
309.48
2898.28
226.50
279.63
294.35
30
60
346.85
. 2890.80
253.20
312.59
329.05
40
40
305.74
2934.36
226.55
279.70
294.42
40
50
375.56
2818.20
267.27
329.97
347.33
40
60
332.55
2811.60
236.11
291.50
306.84
50
50
380.06
2929.50 .
281.16
347.11
365.37
50.
60
352.42
3045.60
271,04
334.62
60
.60
335.78
2904.00
. 264.24
304.00
SL
(ft)
SM
(ft)
Head on
t h e Pump
(ft)
30
30
300.43
30
40
30
Total
Flow
. (gpm)
( F i r s t Run)
•
352.23
320.00
.
Table 7
Economic Analysis ( F i r s t Run)*
( a l l f i g u r e s a r e in thousand d o l l a r s )
I n i t i a l Cost
SI
(ft)
SM ■
(ft)
Pump
Main Line
Cost
. Per Acre
Annual Cost
Cost
Combined
Per Acre
Cost
Annual
Profit
Per Acre
No. o f
Years
30
30
15.37
27.51
0.284
14.10
0.103
0.024
12.07
30
40
16.16
27.60
0.288
14.70
0.106
0.021
14.03
30
50
15.38
25.46
0.256
14.04
0,100
0.027
9.40
30
60
17.19
27.56
0.263
15.60
0.106
0.021
12.39
40
40
15.38
27.60
0.287
14.22
0.105
0.022
12.76
40
50
18.15
25.46
0.281
16.21
0.112
. 0.015
18.79
40
60
16.03
27.56
0.268
14.97
0.104
0.023
11.87
. 50
50
19.09
.25.46
0.271
16.47
0.112
0.015
17.51
50
60
18.40
27,56
0.275
16.06
0.109
0.018
15.32
60
60
16.72
27.56
0.265
15.23
0.105
0.022
11.77
*Net annual incdme/acre = $127.00
48
feet
feet
feet
feet
sprinkler
sprinkler
sprinkler
sprinkler
spacing;
spacing;
spacing;
spacing;
TOTAL
ANNUAL COST
PER
ACRE, IN DOLLARS
O— — -----□
30
40
50
60
LATERAL
F i g u r e 3.
SPACING,
Effect of S p r i n k l e r a n d
on
the
Total
IN FEET
Lateral
A n n u a l Co st p e r
( F i r s t Run)
Spacings
Acre
49
S e c o n d Run
In th e second run o f th e program, th e i n p u t d a ta i s the same
as p r e s e n te d in Appendix H; in a d d i t i o n t h e diame ters o f th e main
l i n e segments a r e read i n t o t h e program.
These diame ters have been
i n c r e a s e d by 2 inch es over th o s e dia me ter s c a l c u l a t e d in th e f i r s t
run.
The s t e p s o f c a l c u l a t i n g t h e dia m e te rs o f the main l i n e
segments have been omi tte d from t h e program.
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s
run i s p r e s e n te d in Tables 8 , 9, and 10 which show th e de sign o f
the main l i n e , t h e power r e q u i r e m e n t s , and the economic a n a l y s i s
o f t h e whole system, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Figure 4 shows t h e e f f e c t of
s p r i n k l e r and l a t e r a l sp aci ngs on t h e t o t a l annual cost, per a cr e
in t h a t case.
Third Run
In t h e t h i r d run o f t h e program, t h e i n p u t d a t a . i s the same
as p r e s e n t e d in Appendix H; in a d d i t i o n t h e dia me ter s o f th e main
l i n e segments a r e read i n t o th e program.
These dia m e te rs have been
de cr ea se d by 2 inc hes from t h o s e dia m e te r s c a l c u l a t e d i n t h e f i r s t
run .
The s t e p s o f c a l c u l a t i n g t h e dia m e te rs of th e main l i n e s e g ­
ments have been om itt ed from th e program.
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s
run a re p r e s e n t e d in Tables 11, 12, and 13 which show t h e design
o f t h e main l i n e , t h e power r e q u i r e m e n t s , and t h e economic a n a l y s i s
o f t h e whole system, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Figure 5 shows t h e . e f f e c t
Table 8
D e s i g n o f Mai n L i n e ( S e c o n d Run)
SL
(ft)
SM
(ft)
Diameter o f Main Line Segments
(inches)
•
Vel. o f Flow in the Mai n Line Segments
(f ps)
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Vl
V2
V3
V4
, V5
V6
3.17
30
30
16
16
14
12
12
6
4.76
3.97
4.15
4.23
2.82
30
40
16
14
14
12
6
-
4.73
4.80
3.43
2.80
3.73
30
50
16
14
12
8
-
-
4.63
4.31
3.52
2.64
-
-
30
60
16
14
12
-
-
-
4.61
4.02
2.73
-
-
40
40
16
14
14
12
6
-
4.68
4.76
3.40
2.77
3.70
40 '
50
16
14
12
8
-
-
4.50
4.20
3.43
2.57
-
40
60
16
14
12
-
-
-
4.49
3.91
2.66
50
50
16
14
12
8
-
-
4.67
4.36
.50
60
16
14
12
-
-
-
4.86
60
60
16
14
12
—
4.63
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
3.56
2.67
-
-
4.23
2 .8 8
-
-
-
4.04
2.75
Table 9
Power R e q u i r e m e n ts
SL
(ft)
SM
(ft)
Head on
t h e Pump
(ft)
Total
Flow ■
(gpm)
30
30
282.09
2983.20
30
40
301.81
30
50
30
( S e c o n d Run)
Water
Horsepower
(HP)
Brake
Horsepower
(HP)
Required
Horsepower
(HP)
. 212.50
262.35
276.16
2962.08
225.75
278.70
293.37
279.18
2898.28
204.33
252.26
265.54
60
328.12
2890.80
239.53
295.71
311.28
40
40
289.69
2934.36
214.66
265.01
278.96
40
50
346.79
2818.20
246.80
304.69
320.73
40.
60
314.76
2811.60
223.48
275.90
290.42
50
50
349.16
2929.50
258.30
318.88
335.67
50
60
331.79
3045.60
255.18
315.04
331.62
60
60
316.89
2904.00
232.39
286.90
302.00
T a b l e 10
Economic Anal ysi s (Second Run)*
( a l l f i g u r e s a re in thousand d o l l a r s )
I n i t i a l Cost
Annual Cost
Cost
Combined
Per Acre
Cost
Annual
Profit
Per Acre
No. of
Years
0.103
0-. 024
12.33
14.54
0.106
0.021
14.32
0.268
13.49
0.977
0.029
9.14
0.279
15.47
0.106
0.021
13.04
.0.298
14.07
0.104
0.023 .
13.09
29.65
0.293
1-5.73
0.110
0.017
17.55
15.17
31.85
0.283
14.88 •
0.104
0.023
12.61
50
17.54
29.65
0.283
16.00
0.109
0.018
16.00
50
60
17.33
31.85
0.290
15.85
0.109
0.018
15.70
60
60
15.80
31.85
0.280
15.10
0.104
0.023
12.38
SL
(ft)
■SM
(ft)
Pump
Main Line
Cost
Per Acre
30
30
14.43
31.20
0.296
13.90
30
40
15.33
30.96
0.300
30
50
13.87
29.65
30
60
16.26
31.85
40
40
14.58
30.96
40
50
16.76
40 '
60
50
*Net annual income/aere = $127.00
.
53
30 feet
a— — □
spacing
spacing
spacing
spacing
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
PER
ACRE,
IN DOLLARS
50 feet
sprinkler
sprinkler
sprinkler
sprinkler
LATERAL
F i g u r e 4.
Effe ct of
SPACING, IN FEET
Sprinkler and
on t h e T ot a l
Lateral
A nnual Cost
( S e c o n d Run)
Spacings
p e r Acr e
T a b l e 11
D e s i g n o f Mai n L i n e ( T h i r d Run)
SL
(ft)
SM
(ft)
.
Diameter o f Main Line Segments
(inches)
VeL o f Flow in t h e Main Line Segments
(fps)
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Vl
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
5.64
30
30
12
12
10
10
8
6
8.46
7.05
8.12
6.09
6.35
30
40
12
12
10
8
5
-
8.40
' 6.54
6.72
6.30
5.38
30
50
12
10
8
5
-
-
8.22
8.46
7.93
6.77
-
-
30
60
12
10
8
- .
-
-
8.20
7.87
6.15
-
-
-
40
40
12
12 ■ io
8
5
-
8.32
6.47
6.66
6.24
40
. 50
.12
10
8
5
-
- * 8.00
8.22
7.71
6.58
40
60
12
10
8
-
-
-
7.98
7.66
5.98
50
50
12
10
8
5
-
-
8.31
8.55
8.01
50
60
12
10
8
-
-
-
8.64
8.29
6.42
60
.60
12
10
8
_
—
-
8.24
7.91
6.18
5.33
-
.
—
-
-
6.84
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
T a b l e 12
Power R e q u i r e m e n ts
( T h i r d Run)
SI.
(ft)
SM
(ft)
Head on
t h e Pump
(ft)
Total
Flow
(gpm)
Water
Horsepower
(HP)
Brake
Horsepower
(HP)
Required
Horsepower
(HP)
30
30.
345.72
2983.20
260.44
321.54
338.46
30
40
359.81
2962.08
269.13
332.26
349.75
30
50
383.33
2898.28
280.56
346.37
364.60
30 .
60
397.77
2890.80
290.37
358.48
377.35
40
40
346.69
2934.36
256.90
317.16
333.85
40
50
445.69
2818.20
317.18
391.20
412.19
40
60
380.92
2811.60
270.46
333.90
351.47
50 .
50
. 455.39
2929.50
336.89 .
415.91
437.80
50
60
408.50 .
3045.60 '
314.17
387.87
408.28
60
60
387.13
2904.00
283.89
350.49
368.93
T a b l e 13
Economic A n a l y s i s
( T h i r d Run)*
( a l l f i g u r e s a r e in thousand d o l l a r s )
I n i t i a l Cost
Annual Cost .
Cost
Combined
Cost
Per Acre
Annual
Profit
Per Acre
No. of.
Years
0.109
0.018
15.20
15.81
0.111
0.016
18.07
0.255
16.16
0.109
0.018
14.46
23.48
0.256
16.88
0.111
. 0.016
16.32
24.56
0.282
15.29
0.109
0.018
15.87
21.54
21.67
0.279
18.18
0.121
0.006
45.45.
60
18.36 .
23.48
0.261
15.83
0.109
0.018
14.83
50
22.88
21.67
0.271
18.76
0.121
0.006
. 48.25
. 60
21.33
23.48
0.271
17.56
0.116
0.011
23.78
19.28
23.48
0.258
16.53
0.110
■ 0.017
15.32
SI.
(ft)
SM '
(ft)
Pump
Main Line
Cost
Per Acre
30
30 .
17.68
24.07
.0.279
15.28
30
40
18.27
24.56
0.284
30
50
19.05
21.67
60
19.72
40
40
17.44
40
50
40
50
30
-50.
.60
-
60 .
.
*Net annual income = $127.00
.
..
57
sprinkler
spacing
sprinkler
sprinkler
spacing
spacing
60 feet
sprinkler
spacing
TOTAL ANNUAL
COST PER
ACRE, IN
DOLLARS
□-----
3 0 feet
4 0 feet
50 feet
LATERAL
F i g u r e 5.
SPACING, IN FEET
Effe ct of S p r i n k l e r a n d
on t h e Total
Lateral
A n n u a l Cost p e r
( T h ir d Run)
Spacings
Acre
58
o f s p r i n k l e r and l a t e r a l s pacings on t h e t o t a l annual c o s t per a c r e
in t h a t c a s e .
DISCUSSION
I t i s e v i d e n t from running t h e program t h r e e times t h a t the
second run giv e s th e optimum s o l u t i o n .
The c r i t e r i o n f o r t h a t i s
th e o v e r a l l t o t a l annual c o s t p e r a c r e .
Tables 7, 10, and 13
which show t h e economic a n a l y s i s s u p p o r t t h i s c o n c lu s io n along with
Figures 3, 4, and 5 . which show t h e e f f e c t o f s p r i n k l e r and l a t e r a l
sp ac in gs on t h e t o t a l annual c o s t p e r a c r e f o r th e t h r e e ru ns .
The
s p r i n k l e r and l a t e r a l spacing combination 30 x 50 f e e t i s found to
be t h e one which give s t h e lowest annual c o s t pe r a c r e in the t h r e e
runs .
The second run giv e s th e low est annual c o s t per a c r e f o r t h i s
s pa ci ng (30 x 50 f t ) ; t h i s can be e x p la i n e d by Figure 6 which shows
t h e main l i n e annual c o s t , t h e pumping annual c o s t , and t h e combined
annual c o s t f o r each o f t h e t h r e e ru n s .
The second run has the
lowest combined annual c o s t which s u b s e q u e n tl y giv es t h e lowest
t o t a l annual c o s t p e r a c r e f o r t h e s paci ng 30 x 50 f e e t .
APPLICATION
With r e s p e c t to t h e a re a o f a p p l i c a t i o n , th e two programs
developed in t h i s study a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o the .new ly s p r i n k l e r
i r r i g a t e d a r e a s , where no s p e c i f i c s pac ing combination i s recommended
DOLLARS
C o m b i n e d Cos ts
ANNUAL
COST, IN
THOUSAND
P u m p i n g Costs
M a i n l i n e Costs
NUMBER OF PROGRAM - 2 RUNS
F i g u r e 6.
O p t i m u m Solution Analysis, C o n s i d e ri n g M a i n Line,
P u m p i n g , a n d C o m b i n e d Annual Costs ( 3 0 x 5 0 ft. s p a c i n g )
60
They a r e a l s o a p p l i c a b l e t o s p r i n k l e r hand-move s yst em s, with s i n g l e
s i z e pipe l a t e r a l s t h a t run p a r a l l e l t o th e c ontou r l i n e s and a
main l i n e which runs e i t h e r up h i l l o r le v e l and i s p e r p e n d i c u l a r to
th e l a t e r a l s .
The l i m i t a t i o n s on t h o s e two programs a r e t h a t they
can handle one area o f land and a maximum o f twelve l a t e r a l s .
Another
di s a d v a n ta g e o f t h e s e two programs i s t h a t PROGRAM-2 has t o be run
s e v e r a l times in o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h e optimum s o l u t i o n .
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Besides r e l a x i n g some of t h e a ssu m pt io ns, o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s
for fu rth e r research e x is t.
One example would be t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n
■
of more than one land a r e a and more than one l a t e r a l s i z e and
length.
Another example would be t o modify th e program t o give
th e optimum s o l u t i o n d i r e c t l y w i t h o u t running i t s e v e r a l tim es .
Also th e program could be modified t o draw the main l i n e p r o f i l e .
Many o t h e r c l e v e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s e x i s t due t o th e complexity and the
numerous v a r i a b l e s involved in t h e de si gn of s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n
systems.
C h ap ter 7
SUMMARY
The two programs developed in t h i s s t u d y , PROGRAM-I and
PROGRAM-2, a r e to de sig n t h e d i f f e r e n t components o f t h e s p r i n k l e r
i r r i g a t i o n hand-move systems f o r newly i r r i g a t e d a r e a s .
The la yout
f o r t h e s e i r r i g a t i o n systems i s such t h a t th e l a t e r a l s run p a r a l l e l
t o t h e c o n to u r l i n e s , and th e main l i n e runs p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o the
l a t e r a l s e i t h e r up h i l l o r l e v e l .
PROGRAM,-! c a l c u l a t e s the r e q u i r e d
flow from each s p r i n k l e r a f t e r a d j u s t i n g th e s o i l i n ta k e r a t e f o r
land s l o p e e f f e c t .
I t a l s o c a l c u l a t e s th e r e q u i r e d w e tt ed dia me ter
t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e e f f e c t o f th e av erage wind speed.
PROGRAM-2 t a k e s s o i l , p l a n t , and c l i m a t i c d a ta as i n p u t .
I t also
ta kes as i n p u t t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f th e s e l e c t e d s p r i n k l e r heads,
as determined by PROGRAM-! o u t p u t , and then determines and de signs
t h e fo l l o w i n g :
1.
Crop peak d a i l y consumptive use
2.
Ir rig a tio n interval
3.
L a te ra l o p e r a t i n g hours
4.
Number o f l a t e r a l s e t s per day
5.
Number o f l a t e r a l s
6.
Si z e o f l a t e r a l
7.
Size o f main l i n e
62
8.
Si z e o f val ves
.9.
Power require me nts
10.
Economic a n a l y s i s
Several s p r i n k l e r and l a t e r a l s paci ng combinations can be t e s t e d in
t h e s e two programs.
The c r i t e r i o n f o r s e l e c t i n g a s p e c i f i c spacing
combination i s t h e t o t a l annual c o s t p e r a c r e .
PROGRAM-2 h a s . t o be
run s e v e r a l times in o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h e optimum s o l u t i o n .
LITERATURE CITED
LITERATURE CITED
ASAE Recommendations. 1954. Minimum requirem en ts f o r t h e d e s i g n ,
i n s t a l l a t i o n and performance o f s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n equipment.
A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers Yearbook.
Bruhn, D. H. 1938. Water t r a n s m i s s i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r i r r i ­
g a t i o n . A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering 1 9:(6 ) 264-265.
^
C h r i s t i a n s e n , J . E. 1941. The u n i f o r m i t y o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f wa ter
by s p r i n k l e r system. A g r i c u l t u r a l -Engineering 2 2 :( 3 ) 89-92.
_____ 1942. I r r i g a t i o n by s p r i n k l i n g . Agr. Exp. Sta.. B u l l e t i n
670. U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B er k e le y , C a l i f o r n i a .
Food and A g r i c u l t u r e O r g a n iz a ti o n o f th e United N a ti o n s , Rome.
Crop w a te r r e q u i r e m e n t s , i r r i g a t i o n and d ra in a g e pa per 24.
1975.
Fry, A. W. and Gray, A. S. 1971. S p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n handbook,
t e n t h e d t . Rain Bird S p r i n k l e r Mfg. Corp.
Hanson, C. H., ed. 1972. A l f a l f a s c i e n c e and te ch nolo gy. Published
by t h e ASA, Number 15 in t h e S e r i e s o f Agronomy, pp. 474.
H a r t , W. E. 1963. S p r i n k l e r d i s t r i b u t i o n a n a l y s i s with a d i g i t a l
computer. T r a n s a c t i o n s o f ASAE, 6 : ( 3 ) 206-208.
________, and Reynolds, W. E. 1965. A n a l y t i c a l d e si gn o f s p r i n k l e r
systems. T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e ASAE, 8 : ( I ) 83-85,8 9.
Howland, W. E. 1957. S e l e c t i n g i r r i g a t i o n pipe f o r economy.
A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering 3 3 :( 7 ) 530-534.
Jac obson, W. L. 1952. S p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n r e s e a r c h in Canada
A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering 3 3 : ( 8 ) 497-498,500.
J e n s e n , M. E. 1965. Empirical methods o f e s t i m a t i n g o r p r e d i c t i n g
e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n using r a d i a t i o n . Proc. Conf. on
E v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n , ASAE, Chicago, pp. 57-61,64.
_______ . 1972. Programing i r r i g a t i o n f o r g r e a t e r e f f i c i e n c y , in :
Optimizing t h e s o i l ph y s ic a l environment toward g r e a t e r crop
yields.
0. H i l l e l , ed. Academic P r e s s , New York, pp. 133-161.
65
_______ j ed. 1973. Consumptive use o f w a te r and i r r i g a t i o n w at er
re q u ir e m e n ts . A r e p o r t prepa red by t h e Technical Committee on
I r r i g a t i o n Water Requirements o f th e I r r i g . and Drain. Div. o f
th e ASCE.
_ _ _ _ _ _ and R a i s e , H. R. 1963.. E st im at ing ev ap otr an s pi r a t i o n from
s o l a r r a d i a t i o n . J . I r r i g . and Drain. Div. ASCE, 89:15-41.
K e l l e r , J . 1965. S e l e c t i o n o f economical pipe s i z e f o r s p r i n k l e r
i r r i g a t i o n systems. T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e ASAE, 8 : ( 2 ) 186-190,193.
Korven, H. C. 1965. Time and motion s tu d y o f u n d e r t r e e o v e r t r e e
s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n systems. T r a n s a c ti o n s o f th e ASAE,
8 :( 4 ) 502-504,507.
Lewis, M. R. 1949. S p r i n k l e r o r o t h e r methods o f i r r i g a t i o n .
A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering 3 0 : ( 2 ) 86,87.
Liang, T . , and Wu, I - p a i .
sprinkler irrig atio n .
1970. System approach t o desi gn of
T r a n s a c t i o n s o f ASAE, 1 3 :( 5 ) 618-621.
McCulloch, A. W. 1949. Design procedure f o r p o r t a b l e s p r i n k l e r ,
i r r i g a t i o n . A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering 3 0 : ( I ) 23-28.
Nace, R. L. 1975. The h y d r o lo g i c a l c y c l e : h i s t o r i c a l e v o l u t i o n of
t h e co nc e pt . Water I n t e r n a t i o n a l , J u l y 1975.
Nedeco and Dar Al-Handasah. 1973. Jordan Valley P r o j e c t , Zarqa
18 km e x t e n s i o n , s p r i n k l e r a l t e r n a t i v e . Jordan Valley Commission,
Jordan.
Nimer, 6. L. and Bubenzer, 6. D.
p o t e n t i a l - - a computer model.
1972. Determining i r r i g a t i o n
ASAE Paper No. 72-726.
P a i r , C. H ., ed. 1975. S p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n , 4th e d t . S p r i n k l e r
I r r i g a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , Washington, D.C.
P e i k e r t , F. W. 1947. Li gh t- w ei g h t p r o t a b l e pipe f o r i r r i g a t i o n .
A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering 28 :(1 2) 567-568.
P r i c e , F. E. 1938. S p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n in the humid s e c t i o n of
Oregon., A g r i c u l t u r a l Engin eerin g 1 9:(4 ) 161-162.
66
S c h a e n z e r , J . P. 1938. I r r i g a t i o n systems and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n .
A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering 1 9 : ( I ) 21-22.
S h u l l , H. 1966. E f f e c t o f equipment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and manualmoving methods on l a b o r r e q u i r e d t o move s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n
l a t e r a l s . T r a n s a c t i o n s o f ASAE, 9 : ( 2 ) 272-275.
Wilcox, J . C., and McDougald, J . M. 1955. Water d i s t r i b u t i o n
p a t t e r n s from r o t a r y s p r i n k l e r s . Canada Jou rnal o f A g r i c u l t u r e
S o c i e t y , 35.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
PROGRAM-I FLOW CHART
69
START
READ IN DATA
CALL SUBROUTINE
SOIL
ADJUST SOIL INTAKE RATE
CALCULATE
SPRINKLER FLOW
CALCULATE
SPRINKLER
WETTED DIAMETER
CONTINUE
OUTPUT FLOW AND
.
\ WETTED DIA.
/
Finure 7
Flow Chart of PROGRAM-I
APPENDIX B
PROGRAM-I VARIABLE GLOSSARY
71
PROGRAM-1 VARIABLE GLOSSARY
AWS = average speed o f p r e v a i l i n g winds (MPH)
D = s o i l depth ( f t )
HC = s o i l h o ld in g c a p a c i t y ( i n / f t )
IR = s o i l i n t a k e r a t e ( i n / h r )
IRA = a d j u s t e d s o i l in t a k e r a t e ( i n / h r ) .
S = s lo p e o f land ( p e r c e n t )
SL = s pac in g o f s p r i n k l e r s on t h e l a t e r a l ( f t )
SM = s pac in g o f l a t e r a l s on th e main ( f t )
S T l5ST2 = s o i l type.
STX1.STX2 = s o i l t e x t u r e
Q = flow o f s p r i n k l e r (gpm)
WD = w e tt ed d ia m e te r o f s p r i n k l e r ( f t )
WDL = w e tted d i a m e t e r of . s p r i n k l e r in l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n ( f t )
WDM = w e tt ed d ia m e te r o f s p r i n k l e r in main d i r e c t i o n ( f t )
APPENDIX C
PROGRAM-I LISTING
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
P R O G R A M TO D E S I G N S P R I N K L E R I R R I G A T I O N S Y S T E M S
M A I N P R O G R A M - I TO F I N D S P R I N K L E R H E A D S P E C I F I C A T I O N
INPUT DATA CARDS INS T R U C T I O N S
MAIN PROGRAM DATA :
1ST C A R D 5 A V E R A G E WI ND S P E E D
SOIL SUBROUTINE DATA :
1- 10 .
2 N D C A R D TO IlTH C A R D ! S P A C I N G OF S P R I N K L E R S ON THE L A T E R A L S
S P A C I N G OF L A T E R A L S O N THE M A I N LI NE
11- 20 .
1-10
12TH c a r d : SOIL TYPE
1-8, SOIL T E X T U R E
9-16 .
1 3 T H C A R D ! SOIL H O L D I N G C A P A C I T Y
1-5, S O I L D E P T H 6-10,
S O I L I N T A K E RA TE
I 1-15, SOIL SLO PE
16-20 .
C O M M O N S T l t S T Z f S T X l . S T X 2 , H C , D , I R , S 1 A W S , S L C 1 0 ) , S M C l 0)
D I M E N S I O N Q C 1 0 ) , W O L C 1 0 ) , W D M C 1 0 ) , W D C 10)
R E A L I R 1 I R A f HC
WRITEC108.10)
F O R M A T C 4rI 1 Z T X 1 ' S P R I N K L E R I R R I G A T I O N D E S I G N P R O G R A * ' , / / 2 1 X ' P R Q G R AM
1-1 TO F I N D S P R I N K L E R H E A D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S ' , / / , I X , ' I N P U T I N F O R M A T I O N
l'/18C '-')>
s 2 0 > *a s
OO 30 1 = 1 , 1 0
30
4 0 FORmU c 2 F ) 0 ) S L C D 1 SMCD
P S M
F O R M A ^ C i x l ' A V E R A G E W I N D S P E E D = ' , F 5 . 2 , 2 X , ' M P H ')
C A L L SO IL
W R I T E C 1 08 ,6 0 ) 5 1 1 , S T 2 ,STX I , S T X Z 1H C 1D 1 I R 1S
FORMAT C / / , I X 1 'SOIL DATA : ',/,I X 1 ' T Y P E : ' , 2 X , 2 A 4 , 1 5 X , ' T E X T U R E : ' , 2 X , 2
1 A 4 , / , I X , ' I N T A K E R A T E = ' F 4 . 2 , 2 X , ' I N / H O U R ' , 5 X , ' H O L D I N G CAP A C I T Y = ' , F5.
'- ,- F-4-.-2 , 2--X ,- -'-F-T-'-, 1 0 X , '- S- L-O-0E
DEPTH
I Z t Z X . ' I N / F O O T ' , / , I X , ----I
= ' 1F
, F 5 ..22,,22XX.1'';
% '')
)
A D J U S T IR FO R SL O P E EEFFEI
FFECT
I F C S . G T . 2 0 ) I R A = O . 2 5 * I R J GO TO 70
I F f S . G E . 13) I R A = O . 4 0 * IR J GO TO 70
IFCS.GE.9)
I R A = O . 6 0 * I R I GO TO
IIFCS,
F C S . G E .6) I R A = O . 80*IR : GO TO 7I 0O
IFCS.LE.5) IRA=IR
W R I T E C 1 0 8 , 8 0 ) IRA
80 F O R M A T C//, IX, ' A D J U S T E D I N T A K E RATE^ , F S . 3 . 4 X , ' I N / H O U R ' )
C A L C U L A T E S P R I N K L E R H E A D F L O W IN GPM
DO 100 I = I 1 IO
Q C I ) = C I R A * S L C I ) * S MCI ))/96. 3
CALCULATE SPRINKLER HEAD WETTED DIAMETER
I F C A W S . G T . 10) W D L C D = S L C D /0 .30 : WDMf D = S M C D Z O . 50 I GU TG 90
I
I F f A w S . G E . 7 ) w ) L ( : ) = S L ( I ) / C . 4 J ; WDm( I ) = S ^ ( I ) / U . 6 G : GO rn
I F ( A V S . G F . C ) W D L ( I ) = S L ( I ) Z O . AG J - OM( I ) = S - ( I ) / C. F 5
90 I F ( U T L C I ) . G T . WDMd ) ) W D ( I ) = ^ n L ( I ) ; r,c T^ 1 0 0
UD( I ) =UCV( I )
IOC COM IMIE
WRITE(108,110)
1 10 FOPVATC' I ' , I X , ' PPOGRRS OUTPUT : ./, IX, I o
3 x, 'S P pi NK LE K ,-.FA
ID S P E C I F I C A T I O N S ' )
WRT T F ( I OBl Ixf1O)
1 2 0 FORM AT( / / , 3 X , ' S P A C I N G ' , 4 X, ' FLOW , 4 X , ' W E T T E D D H * / , 3 X , ' S L X S m ' ,6 X
l . ' G ' , 9 X f ' W D ' . / , 3 X , ' ( F T X F T ) ' , A X , ( C F " ) ' , ' ( F T) »/ »3 X , 7 ( ' - ' ) , 4 X , 4 (
l'-'),A X ,10( '- ') )
DO 1 3 C 1 = 1 , 1 0
H O WRTTEdO0 , 1 4 0 ) S L ( I ) , S * ( I ) , U ( I ) , W O ( I )
1 4 0 FOFMAT ( Z , 3 X , I , 2 X , 1 , 3 X , F 5 . 2 , 4 X , Ft >. 4 )
END
SUBROUTINE TO INPUT SOI L DATA
SUBROUTINE SOIL
COMMON S T 1 , S T 2 , S T X 1 , S T X 2 , H C , 0 , I R , S
REAL I P , HG
R E AU( 1 0 5 , 7 ) S T l , S T2, STX1, STX2
7 F0RVAT(2A4,5X,2A4)
RE A0 ( 1 0 5 , 8 ) HO, 0 , I R , S
8 F 0 P M, AT ( 4 F 5 . 2 )
return
END
•V J
APPENDIX D
PROGRAM-I OUTPUT
S P R I N K L E R I R R I G A T I O N O E S I G N PC1O G R A v
PROGRAP-I
H
FIND SPRINKLER HEAD SPECIFICATIONS
INPUT INFORMATION
AVERAGE WIND SPEED= 9.30
SO IL D A T A :
TYPE I SI L T C l IY
IN T A K E P A T t = I . 30
DEPTH
= .60
IN/HOUP
FT
A D J U S T E D IN T A K E P AT l = .600
PPH
TEXTURE: m CCIUm
H O L D I N G C A P A C I T Y = 3.10
S L OP E
= X.00
IN/HOUR
I N Z pGO T
I
PRGGRiP
OUTPUT
:
SPRI NKLER HEAD S P ECI F I CAT I ONS
WETTED OIA
WD
(FT)
I
I
I
FLOw
C
(GPP)
I
SPACING
SL X SP
( F T XF T )
40
7.48
7 c . 0000
30
50
9.35
o 3. 3333
30
60
11.21
1 0 0 . OOGO
40
40
9.97
1 0 0 . COOO
40
50
12.46
100.0000
40
60
14.95
100.0000
50
50
15.58
125.0000
50
60
I d . 69
1 2 5 . GOOO
60
60
22.43
15 O.COOO
r >
3C
•
30
N X
30
75.0000
APPENDIX E
PROGRAM-2 FLOW CHART
79
START
READ IN DATA
SUBROUTINE
SOU_____
CALL SUBROUTINES
CALCULATE
PEAK DAILY USE
CALCULATE NET AND GROSS
MOISTURE REPLACED
SUBROUTINE
CLIMATE
SUBROUTINE
SPRINKLER
SUBROUTINE
INPUT
CALCULATE
IRRIGATION INTERVAL
CALCULATE LATERAL
OPERATING HOURS
CALCULATE NUMBER OF LATERAL SETS
PER DAY AND NUMBER OF LATERALS
DESIGN LATERAL
DESIGN MAIN LINE
CALCULATE POWER
REQUIREMENTS
SIZE VALVES
DO ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
WRITE OUTPUT
CONTINUE
Flqure 8
Flow Chart of PROGRAM-2
80
START
READ IN DATA
READ IN CLIMATIC
DATA
CALCULATE MEAN
DAILY TEMP.
CALCULATE POTENTIAL
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
CALCULATE CROP
EVAPOTRANSPIRATI ON
CONTINUE
CALCULATE
CONSUMPTIVE USE
FIND MAXIMUM
CONSUMPTIVE USE
CONTINUE
FIND AVGPEAK
CONSUMPTIVE USE
RETURN
Figure 9
Flow Chart of SUBROUTINE CLIMATE
APPENDIX F
PROGRAM- 2 VARIABLE GLOSSARY
82
PROGRAM-2 VARIABLE GLOSSARY
I) Main Program
WL
= le a c h in g requireme nts ( i n )
EFF
.= e f f i c i e n c y o f s p r i n k l e r system
AREA
= a r e a t o be i r r i g a t e d (s q. f t )
LL
= le n g t h o f l a t e r a l
LM
= l e n g t h o f main l i n e ( f t )
C
= Hazen-Williams c o n s t a n t
M
= exponent in Hazen-Williams eq u at i o n f o r head l o s s in pipes
ELEVO
= e l e v a t i o n a t th e c e n t e r l i n e o f t h e pump ( f t )
HS
= s u c t i o n head on th e pump ( f t )
PEFF
= e f f i c i e n c y o f pump
SNIR.
CKWH
(ft)
= n e t seaso nal i r r i g a t i o n re qu ire me nts ( i n )
= c o s t p e r kwh
CDEMAND = c o s t per H.P. demand
EEFF
PDU
= e f f i c i e n c y o f motor
= crop peak d a i l y use ( i n / d a y )
AVGPEAK = average d a i l y peak o f crop consumptive use as c a l c u l a t e d
in s u b r o u t i n e CLIMATE ( i n / d a y )
D
= depth o f s o i l ( f t )
RZ
= crop r o o t zone depth ( f t )
NMR
= n e t m o is tu r e r e p la c e d each i r r i g a t i o n (i n )
83
AMC
= a v a i l a b l e m o is tu re c o n t e n t ( i n )
PER
= p e r c e n t o f a v a i l a b l e m o is tu r e c o n t e n t to be r e p l a c e d each
irrigation
GMR
= gros s m o is tu r e re p la c e d each i r r i g a t i o n ( i n )
IRRINTjIRRI = i r r i g a t i o n i n t e r v a l (days)
LOH
= l a t e r a l o p e r a t i n g hours
AR
= sp rin k ler application rate (in /h r)
LSET
= number o f l a t e r a l s e t s pe r day
NOL5NL
= number o f l a t e r a l s
HL
= al lo w ab l e head l o s s in t h e l a t e r a l ( f t )
NS
= number o f s p r i n k l e r s pe r l a t e r a l
SL
= spacing o f s p r i n k l e r s on t h e l a t e r a l ( f t )
SUMNS
= summation term
FAC
= factor
F
= f a c t o r t o acco unt f o r m u l t i p l e o u t l e t s in C h r i s t i a n s e n ' s
procedure f o r d e s ig n i n g pip e s with m u l t i p l e o u t l e t s
DIA5DL
'= d ia m e te r
of l a t e r a l (in)
V
= velocity
o f flow in th e l a t e r a l
HLA
= a c t u a l head l o s s in th e l a t e r a l ( f t )
IDMl5 .
. . I DM6 =
H l5 . . .
H6
segments
=
dia me ter s o f main l i n e
(fps)
segments ( i n)
t o t a l energy head e l e v a t i o n a t t h e main l i n e
84
HLAl, . . . HLA6 = a c t u a l head l o s s in th e main l i n e segments ( f t )
LMl, . . . LM6
= l e n g th o f main l i n e segments ( f t )
V ls . . .
= v e l o c i t y o f flow in main l i n e segments (f ps)
V6
PO
= pressure
a t th e i n l e t o f t h e l a t e r a l ( p s i )
HO
= head a t th e i n l e t o f t h e l a t e r a l ( f t )
Q l , . . . Q6 = flow in t h e main l i n e segments (gpm)
LML
= le n g t h i r r i g a t e d by one l a t e r a l ( f t )
HLL
= head l o s s in t h e main l i n e segments o f l e n g t h equal
LML ( f t )
HE
= d i f f e r e n c e in e l e v a t i o n in t h e main l i n e ( f t )
RIRRP
= i r r i g a t i o n pe ri o d (days)
SM
= s paci ng o f l a t e r a l s on t h e main l i n e ( f t )
HT
= t o t a l energy head a t t h e
HTP
= t o t a l head on th e pump ( f t )
WHP
= w at er horsepower
BHP
= brake horsepower
DFCV
= dia m e te r o f flow, c o n tr o l val ve ( i n )
DCHV
= d ia m e te r o f check va lv e ( i n )
DARV
= dia m e te r o f a i r r e l e a s e and vacuum valve ( i n )
CPUMP
pump ( f t )
= c o s t of pump and power u n i t
CIDMl, . . . CI DM6 = c o s t of pipe dia m e te rs of main l i n e segments
ID
= p r i c e d pipe dia me ter s o f main l i n e segments ( i n )
85
IDR
= d ia m e te r o f main l i n e r i s e r s ( i n )
!RISER
= c o s t o f main l i n e r i s e r s
CIDR
= cost
CML.
IDL
o f pipe d ia m e te r o f r i s e r .
= t o t a l c o s t o f main l i n e i n c l u d i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n
= cost
of la te ra ls
CLATERAL= t o t a l c o s t o f l a t e r a l s
TCSPR
CSPR
= t o t a l , c o s t of s p r i n k l e r head
= cost
o f s p r i n k l e r head
TCOST
= t o t a l c o s t o f t h e s p r i n k l e r system
CPACRE
= c o s t per a c r e
.
AFC
= annual f i x e d c o s t s f o r th e
AMLC
= annual f i x e d c o s t s f o r the main l i n e
SHOURS
= o p e r a t i n g hours during t h e season
APC
= annual power c o s t s
APMC
= annual pumping c o s t s
ALC
= annual l u b r i c a t i o n
AMNC
= annual maintenance c o s t s
NIRR
system
costs
= number o f i r r i g a t i o n s duri ng th e season
ALBC
= annual l a b o r c o s t s
ATIC
= annual t a x e s and in s u r a n c e
AOMC
= annual o p e r a t i o n and maintenance c o s t s
TAC
costs .
= t o t a l annual c o s t s f o r t h e system
86
ACPA
= t o t a l annual c o s t s p e r a cr e
AFARC
= annual farming c o s t s p e r a cr e
AIM
= annual income p e r acr e
NAIN
= n e t annual income p e r acr e
APR
= annual p r o f i t o r lo s s p e r a cr e
YEARS
= number o f y e a r s needed to pay f o r t h e system
2) SUBROUTINE SOIL
ST1,ST2 = s o i l type
STX1.STX2 = s o i l t e x t u r e
HC
= s o i l h o ld in g c a p a c i t y ( i n / f t )
D
= s o i l depth ( f t )
IR
= soil intake r a te ( in / h r )
S
= s lo p e o f land ( p e r c e n t )
3) SUBROUTINE PLANT
N
= name o f crop
R2
= crop r o o t zone depth ( f t )
4) SUBROUTINE CLIMATE
E
= average e l e v a t i o n of land ( f t )
KC
= J en se n-H ais e crop f a c t o r
C2
= Je ns e n-H ai se c o n s t a n t
DAY
= day number in t h e month o f J u l y
87
TX -
= mean maximum d a i l y te m p e ra t u re ( 0F)
TN
= mean minimum d a i l y te m pe ratu re ( 0 F)
RS
= mean d a i l y s o l a r r a d i a t i o n ( l a n g le y s o r cal cm™
PR
= e f f e c t i v e mean d a i l y p r e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n )
T
=" mean d a i l y te m p e ra t u re ( 0F)
TXC
= mean maximum d a i l y te m p e ra t u re ( 0C)
TNC
. = mean minimum d a i l y te m p e ra t u re ( 0C)
PSX
= s a t u r a t e d vapor p r e s s u r e a t TX (mm Hg)
PSN
= s a t u r a t e d vapor p r e s s u r e a t TN (mm Hg)
CH
= a humidity index
Cl
= c o n s t a n t depends on kind o f crop
CT
= te m p e r a t u r e c o e f f i c i e n t ( 0 F)"*
TO
= te m p e ra t u re i n t e r c e p t (?F)
RSS
= d a ily s o l a r radian (in)
ETP
= p o t e n t i a l e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n (i n c h e s / d a y )
ET
= crop e v a p o t r a n s p i r a t i o n (i n c h e s / d a y )
CU
= crop d a i l y consumptive use (i n c h e s / d a y )
PEAK
= peak d a i l y consumptive use (i n c h e s / d a y )
AVGPEAK = average peak d a i l y consumptive use ( i n c h e s / d a y )
5) SUBROUTINE SPRINKLER
TY1,TY2,TY3 = type o f s p r i n k l e r
Q.
= flo w o f s p r i n k l e r (gpm)
88
WD
. = w e tted d i a m e t e r o f s p r i n k l e r ( f t )
PRE
= operating pressure of sp rin k le r (psi)
ND
= noz zl e d i a m e t e r o f s p r i n k l e r (i n c h e s)
AR
= a p plication ra te of s p rin k le r (ih /h r)
SL5SM5CSPR = as d e fi n e d e a r l i e r
APPENDIX G
PROGRAM-2 LISTING
C
^
ke^ ir e ^
C
TO
DO
E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
C
8 INPUT DATA CARDS INSTRUCTIONS
C MAIN PROGRAM DATA I
C
C
C
C
C
E X P O N E N T CM) NEXT 5 COLUMNS, ELEVATION AT THE PUMP 10 COLUMNS,
u
.
EC
E
F eo ! / i$
C
M
O
T
O
R E F F . 41-50 .
C
C
C SUBROUTINES DATA
C SOIL SUBROUTINE DATA I
EC
5TH C A R O 'I I nO 1It 1 0 1 0 ! Ng ' c AR AC IT r ” I - S ^ SO R i OEPI H o - 1 0 ,
SOIL I N T A K E R A T E
1 1 - 1 5 , SOI L SLOPE
16-20 .
C
C
C PLANT SUBROUTINE DATA :
1 - 8 , CROP ROOT ZONE DEPTH
9-13
6T H C A R D : CROP N A M E
E
C CLIMATE SUBROUTINE DATA I
C
TT H C A R D : AVERAGE ELEVATION
C
t
EC
P R E C I P I T A T I O N THE N E X T 4 COLUMNS.
C
C SUBROUTINE SPRINKLER DATA :
EC
C
E
C
SPRINKLER
73-32 .
1-10,
CROP FACTOR ( KC)
11-20,
VO
O
1 , HEC1 0 ) , HLLC1 0 ) , HL1 C1 0 ) , HT( 1 0 ) , HTP , MRR, NAI . N, HC
DATA^ID/6#8*»10»12»14»16*lb»20/CaST/2.34»3.10»3.8<»»4.71»5.49f6.35*7
1.81,8.66/
8 m NM 5 H i ; ^ > c 8 ! ? ^ l i . O O , 3 O . L 0 . « O. C O , 7 0 . 0 O /
g H S % : % U : a ^ 5 . C . 7 , . l . 0 6 . . . 4 7 ,
OO
DATA PER/.33,.50,.67/
R E A D IN D A T A
R E A D (105,10) WL,EFF
10 F O R M A T ( 2 F 5 .3)
,
^
n ur
R E A O ( 1 0 5 , 2 0 ) A R E A , L L , L M , C , M , E L E V O fHS
20 R E A D ( 1 0 5 ! 3 0 ) " p f F F ^ S N I R , C K W H . C O E M A N D , E E F F
30 F O R M A T ( 5 F 1 0 . 4 )
C
C CALL SUBROUTINES
C A L L SOIL
CALL PLANT
CALL CLIMATE
CALL SPRINKLER
C A L L I N PU T
I',/,
2 X , ' SUCTI ON HfAD D N THE PUK? = ' , I , 4 X , ' F T ' )
OO
OO
OOO
33
WRITE(109,33)
P E F F ,C K W H , C D E vAND ,E E F F ,SN IR
F O R M A T C / , 2 X » 'P UWP E F F I C I E N C Y
= " , F 5 . 2 , / , 2X , 'COST PER KWH
I
= ' , F o . 3 . 2 X , 2 X , ' D E M A N D COST
- , ,F3.2,2
IX,'S/HP
2 X , ' E F F . OF E L E C T R I C A L M O T O R = ' , F 5 . 2,/, 2 X , 'NET SE A S ON A
IL I R R I G A T I O N R E Q U I R E M E N T S = ' , F 6 . 2 * 2 X , ' I N C H E S ' )
C A L C U L A T E PE AK D A I L Y USE FO R C R O P
PDU=AVGPEAKfWL
C A L C U L A T E NET A N D G R O S S M O I S T U R E TC FE R E P L A C E D
I F ( O . L E . R Z ) RZ=D
AMC=HC*RZ
I F ( R Z . L E . 3 ) N M R = A M C * P E R C 1 ) I GO TO 140
I F ( R Z . L E . b ) N M R = A M C * P E R C 2 ) I GO TO 140
I F C R Z . G T . 5 ) N M R = A M C * P E R (3)
140 G M R = N M R Z E F F
.CULATE I R R I G A T I O N I N T E R V A L
I r r i n t = N m r /p Du
X = I R R I N T f 0.10
Ir r i =IDINT(X)
WRITE(108,34)
t F O R M A T C 'I'
OOO
I ONSHMPTTVF
E
HSF
, 18( ' -
S T A R T A L O O P FO R C A L C U L A T I N G THE C O M P O N E N T S OF THE D I F F E R E N T S Y S T E M S
DO 350 1 = 1 , 1 0
C A L C U L A T E L A T E R A L O P E R A T I N G H O U R S , N U B M E R OF SE TS PER L A T E R A L Pb* DAY,
N U M B E R OF L A T E R A L S , I R R I G A T I O N P E R I O D
LOH(I)=GMRZAR(I)
I F ( L O H C I ) . L E . 7) L S E T ( I ) = 3 : GO TO 150
I F C L O H C I ) . L E . 11) L S E T C I ) = 2 : GO TC 150
150 N O L ( B = ARE A / ( L S E T ( I ) * S M ( I ) * I R R I f L l )
Y = N O L ( I ) + 0.90
NL(I)=IDINT(Y)
D E S I G N OF L A T E R A L
HL CI ) = ( ( 2 3 . 4 / 1 0 0 ) * P R E ( I ) )*2.31
NS CI ) = ( ( L L - S L C I ) / 2 ) / S L ( I ) ) + 1
SUMNSCI )=(NS(I)ffM)/2
DO 160 J=l, N S ( I ) - I
FAC(J)=J***
SUMNS(I)=SUMNS(I)+FAC(J)
160 C O N T I N U E
D I A ( I ) = ( C 1 0 , 4 3 * F ( I ) * L L * ( ^ g ( i ) * N S ( I ) ) * * « ) ) / ( H L ( I ) * ( C * * X ) ) ) * * (1/4.87
1 Z = D I A ( I ) ^ O . 90
DL(I)=IDINT(Z)
tq
C D E S I ^ f,J ^I5 ^ o li(2( I ) = I D M 3 ( I ) = IDM4 (I) = IDMS (I) = I D ^ o ( I ) = O
Vl(I)=V2(I)=V3(I)=V3(I)=V4(I)=V5(I)=Vo(I)=0
P0(I)=PRE(I)+(0.75*HLA(I))/2.31
LML(I) = A R E A / ( L L * N L ( D )
HLL(I)=(1/100)*LML(I)
HE ( I ) = ( S / 1 0 0 ) * LM
R I R R P d ) = L M L ( I ) / ( SM (I ) * L S E K I ))
C
IF(NL(I)Ie q Is
N L ( I ) . E Q . 5 . O R . N L ( I ) . E U . 7 . O R . N L ( I ) . E Q . 9. O R . N L ( I ) . E
I Q . 11) GO TO 180
LMl ( I ) = L M - ( L M L ( I ) * ( ( N L ( I ) / 2 ) - I ))
GO TO 190
170 LMl ( I ) = L M - ( L M L ( I ) / 2 )
GO TO 190
180 LMl ( I ) = L M - ( L M L ( I )* (( N L ( I ) - I )/2) )
190 I D M l d ) = ( ( 1 0 ? 4 3 * L M i ( I )* ( U i d )**M ) )/(HL K T ) * ( C * * M )) )**( 1 / 4 . 8 7 )
1 HLA 1 ( I ) = ( 1 0 . 4 3 * L M 1 ( I ) * ( w l ( T ) * * M ) ) / ( ( [ * * % ) * ( I O M I C I ) * * 4 . 8 7 ) )
V 1 ( I ) = ( Q 1 ( I ) * 4 * 1 4 4 ) / ( 4 4 8 . 3 * 3 . 1 4 1 6 * ( I D V1 ( I ) * * 2 ) )
I F ( N L ( I ) • E Q . 2 ) GO TO 260
I F ( N L d ) . E Q . 3) GO TO 20 0
Q 2 ( I ) = Q d ) * N S ( I )* ( N L ( I ) - Z )
GO TO 210
20 0 Q2( I ) = 0 ( I ) * N S ( D * ( N L ( I ) - I )
21 0 L M Z ( I ) = L M L ( I )
IDM2(I)=((10.43*LM2(I)*(02(I)**M))/(HLL(I)*(C**Y)))**(l/4.97)
I F C I D M 2 C D . E Q . f .OR. I D M Z ( I ) . 6 3 . 9 . OR . IC M2 ( I ) . EQ . 1 1 . OR . ID MZ ( I ) . E U . I 3.
1 0 R . I D M Z ( I ) . E Q . 1 5 . O R . I O M Z ( I ) . E ^ . 1 7 . O R . IC MZC I ) . E Q . 19) I D mZ ( I ) = IOMZCI
1)+1
HLA2(I)=(10.434LM2(I)*(QZ(I)**M))/((C**M)*(I0MZ(T)**4.67))
V2(I)=(Q2(I)*4*144)/(448.d*3.1416*(I0M2(I)**2))
I F C N L ( I ) . G T . 4) GO TO 220
HT(I)=ELEV0+HE(I)+H0(I)+HLA1(I)+HLA2(I)+HS
Hl(I)=HT(I)-HLAl(I)
HZ(I)=Hl(I)-HLAZ(I)
GO TO 290
22 0 Q 3 ( I ) = Q ( I ) * N S ( I ) * ( N L ( I ) - 4 )
LMS(I)=LML(I)
I D M 3 ( I ) = ( ( 1 0 . 4 3 * L M 3 ( I ) * ( 0 3 ( I ) * * M ) ) / ( H L L ( I ) * ( C 4 * M )))**( 1 / 4 . 8 7 )
I F ( I DM3(I).EQ.7.0R.I0M3(I).EQ .9.0R.10M3(I).EQ.11.0R.IDM3(1).EQ.13.
1 0 R . I D M 3 ( I ) . E Q . 1 5 . 0 R . I 0 M 3 ( I ) . E Q . 1 7 . 0 R . I D M 3 ( I ) . E 0 . 1 9 ) IDM3CI ) = I0 M3 (I
I)+I
HLA3(I)=(10.43*LM3(I)*(Q3(I)**M))/((C**M)*(I0M3(I)**4.97))
V3(I)=(Q3(I)*4*144)/(448.8*3.1416*(IDM3(I)«*2))
I F ( N L ( I ) . G T .6) GO TO 2 3 0
HT(I)=ELEV0+HE(I)+H0(I)+HLA1(I)+HLA2(I)+HLA3(I)+HS
Hl(I)=HT(I)-HLAl(I)
HZ(I)=Hl(I)-HLAZ(I)
H3(l5=H2(I)-HLA3(I)
GO TO 290
23 0 Q 4 ( I ) = 0 ( I ) * N S ( T ) * ( N L ( I ) - b )
LM4(I)=LML(I)
I O M 4 ( I ) = ( ( 1 0 . 4 3 * L M 4 ( I ) * ( Q 4 ( I ) * * M ) ) / ( H l L ( T ) * ( C * * M ) ) ) * * ( 1/4.87)
I F ( I 0 M 4 ( I ) . E Q . 7 . 0 R . I 0 M 4 ( I ) . E Q . 9 . 0 R . I D M 4 ( I ) . E G . 1 1 . 0 R . I D M 4 ( I ) . E Q . 13.
l O R . I D M 4 ( I ) . E Q . 1 5 . 0 R . I D M 4 ( I ) . E U . 1 7 . 0 R . I D M4 ( I ) . t Q . H ) I D «4( I ) = I D M 4 ( I
1)+1
HLA4(I)=(10.43*LM4(I)*(Q4(I)**M))/((C**M)*(IDM4(I)**4.87))
V 4 ( I ) = ( Q 4 ( I ) * 4 * 1 4 4 ) / ( 4 4 8 . 8 4 3 . 1 4 1 6 * C I O M 4 ( 1 )4 »2 ))
I F ( N L C I ) . G T . 8) GO TO 240
HT(I)=ELEV0+HE(I)+HC(I)+HLA1(I)+HLA2(I)+HLA3(I)+HLA4(I)+HS
Hl(I)=HT(I)-HLAl(I)
HZ(I)=Hl(I)-HLAZ(I)
H 3 ( I ) = H 2 ( I ) - H L A 3 ( I)
H4(I)=H3(I)-HLA4(I)
GO TO 29 0
24 0 Q 5 ( I ) = Q ( I ) 4 N S ( T ) 4 ( N L ( I ) - W )
LMS(I)=LML(I)
IDM5(I)=((10.43*LM5(I)*(Q5(I)44M))/(HLL(I)4(C44M)))4*(1/4.H7)
I F ( I D M 5 ( I ) . E Q . 7 . n R . I D M 5 ( I ) . E Q . 8 . U R . I D w 5 ( I ) . t C . 1 1 . 0 (-,. l C v 3 ( I ) . c ^ . l 3 .
1 0 R . I 0 M 5 ( I ) . E 0 . 1 5 . 0 R . T D M S C I ) . E Q . 1 7 . 0 P . I C M S ( I ). E O . 19) I O M S ( I ) = I )M 5(I
I)+I
HLA5(I)=(10.43*LM5(I)4(Q5(I)4*v))/((C44M)*(iOM5(I)*44.87))
V5(I)=(L5(T)*4*144)/(44a.d*3.l416*(10M5(T)**2))
I F C N L ( I ) . G T . 1 G ) GC T ri 250
H T ( I ) = F L [ V 0 + H E ( I ) + H C d ) + h L A l ( l ) + H L A 2 d ) 4 H L A 3 ( I ) + HLA4CI ) + HL^ 5 ( I ) + HS
Hl(I)=HT(I)-HLAl(I)
H2(I)=H1(I)-HL52(T)
H3(I)=H2(I)-HLA3(T. )
H4(I)=H3(I)-HLA4(1)
H5v( I )=-H4( i ) ~ H L A 5 ( l )
GO TO 290
25 C & 6 ( I ) = Q ( I ) * N S ( I ) * ( N L ( I ) - 1 0 )
L M6( I ) = L M L ( I )
I DM6( I ) = ( ( 1 0 . 4 ) * L H ( 5 ( I ) * ( Q 6 ( I ) * * # 0 ) / ( H L L ( I ) * ( C * * N ) ) ) * * ( 1 / 4 . 7)
I F C I O F 6 ( 1 ) . L Q . 7 . O k . I D M 6 ( I ) . L G . 9 . 0 R . I O M 6 ( I ) . E U . 1 1 . O3 . I O Vo ( ) Ew. 13
l ( ; R . l n * t > ( I ) . E 0 . 1 5 . G R . I 0 v t , ( l ) . E Q . 1 7 . 0 R . I D 3 c ( I ) . E Q . 19) I O ^ c ( I ) = I u 6 ( 1
1)+1
HLA6(I)=(10.43*LM6(I)*(w6(I)**M))/((C**M)*(10M6(I)**4.87))
V 6 ( I ) = ( Q 6 ( I ) * 4 * 1 4 4 ) / ( 4 4 6 . 3 * 3 . 1 4 1 6 * ( I 0 M 6 ( I ) * * 2 ))
I F ( N L ( I ) . G T . 1 2 > GG TO 270
H T ( I ) = F L F V O + H E ( I ) + H O ( I ) + H L A 1 ( I ) + H L A 2 ( I )+ HL A 3 ( I ) + H L A 4 ( I ) ♦ H L » 5 ( I ) + HL
I A b ( I ) + HS
HI(I)=HT(I)-HlAI(I)
H2(1)=H1(I)-HLA2(I)
H 3 ( I ) = H 2 ( 1 ) - H L A 3 ( 1)
H4(I ) = H3 (I ) - H L A 4 ( I )
H5(I)=H4(I)-HLA5(I)
Hb(I)=HS(I)-HLAb(I)
GO TO 290
260 O Z ( I ) = Q d ) * N S (I )* ( N L ( I ) - I )
L%2(I)=L*L(I)/2
ID*2(I)=((10.43*LM2(T)*(Q2(I)**M))/((rlLLd)/2)*(C**H)))**(l/4.67)
TF(lDM2(I).EQ.7.0R.IDK2(I).L).9.0k.IDM2(I).EQ.11.0R.T0M2(l).Ew.l3.
I OR . IO M 2( I ) . E C • I 5 • O 9 . IOM 2( I ) . E v . 1 7 . OR • IT)>T2( I ) »E Q • 19 ) IO « 2( I ) = ID « 2( I
1 ) +I
O O O O
HLA2CI ) = C l r . 4 3 * L H 2 ( I ) * ( a 2 ( T ) * * ^ ) ) / ( ( C * * v ) * ( I 0 M 2 ( I ) * * 4 . 8 7 ) )
V 2 ( I ) = ( w 2 ( I ) * 4 * 1 4 4 ) / ( 4 4 6 . a * 3 . 1 4 I b * ( I 0 ‘l."'(T ) * * 2 ) )
H T ( I ) = F L C V G + H L ( I ) + HO( I )+r-wAl ( I ) + HLA2 ( I )*HS
H l ( I ) = H T ( I ) - ' - 1L A1 ( 1 )
H2(I)=H](I)-HLAZ(I)
GO TP 2 9 0
2 7 0 WR I TE( I C a , Zo I )
2 SO FOR^i AKX, 'NUMBER G- L f T d A L S I S GREATER Tn AH 12 5 THIS PROGRAM CAN
INOT TREAT KC0 E THAN
LATERALS : YUU SHOULC v ODIFY THI S PROGRAM' )
GQ i n 3 5 C
CALCULATING POWER REQuT RE * Cd $
CALCULATE F I RS T WATER -iO R S d fI d •
2 9 0 H t R ( I ) = H T ( I ) - E L l VG
W H P ( T ) = ( U 1 ( I ) * H T P C l ))Z3v60
CALCULATE NEXT BRAK HORSEPOWER
BH P C I j = W H P C D / P E F F
C
C
C
C
C
S I Z I N G OF D I F F E R E N T V A L V E S
S I Z I N G OF F L O W C O N T R O L V A L V E
OFCVCI)=IOMlCI)
S I Z I N G OF C H E C K VALVE
0CHVCI)=IDM1CI)
S I Z I N G OF AI R R E L E A S E AND V A C U U M V A L V E S
I F C I D M 1 C I ) . L E . 4 ) D A R V C D = O . 5 : GO TO 295
I F C I D M l C n . E Q . 5 ) O A R V C D = I J GO TO 295
GO TO 295
GO TU 1 9 5
.6)
DARVCI)=3
C
C E C O N O M I C A N A L Y S I S OF THE S P R I N K L E R I R R I G A T I O N S Y S T E M
B
C
B
C
295 C P U M P C I ) = B H P C I ) * 5 5
C
C C O S T OF D I S T R I B U T I O N S Y S T E M
C C O S T OF M A I N L I N E I N C L U D I N G I N S T A L L A T I O N
IFCIDM ICi ) l E Q . IOCK)) C l O M l C D =COSTCK)
I F C I D M 2 C D . E Q . I D C K ) ) C ID M 2 C I )= C O S T C K )
C
I F C I D M 5 C I ) . E Q . I D C K ) ) C IQMbC I )= C O S T C K )
IFCI0M6CI).EQ.IDCK)) C IDM6CD =COSTCK)
300 C O N T I N U E
IDRCn =C L C D
IF C I DR C I ) . E U . I R IS ER CK)) C I D R C I ) = C 0 S IR C K )
310 C O N T I N U E
E EisC ELLH N EauSpF l f l i N G ! ^ i i g f f I 5
.
Z
C
^
m
r
n
r
n
A M L C C I ) = C M L C D * 0 . 1241
m
r
n
m
i
m
s
M
m
on
C O S T OF L A T E R A L S E X C L U D I N G S P R I N K L E R S
DO 320 K=I ,4
I F C O L ( I ) . E Q . I D L C K )) C D L ( I ) = C I U L C K )
320 C O N T I N U E
C L A T E R A L ( I ) = ( ( L L * C D L ( I ) ) * N L (I))
on
C O S T OF S P R I N K L E R S
TCSPR(I)=CSPR(I)*NS(I)*NL(I)
. „
T O T A L C O S T OF S Y S T E M AND C O S T PER A C R E IN D O L L A R S
TCOST(I) =CPUMPCI)+CML(I)+CLATERAL(I)+TCSPR(I)
C P A C R E ( I ) = T C n S T C I ) / C ARE A/4 35 60)
C
ANNUAL FIXED COST
A S S U M I N G THE A V E R A G E LIFE OF S Y S T E M 15 Y E AR S AND 9? I N T E R E S T
C A M O R T I Z A T I O N F A C T O R IN TH IS C A S E IS ( 0 . 1 2 4 1 )
A F C ( I ) = T C O S T C D t O . 1241
c
EC
C
C
A N N U A L O P E R A T I O N AND M A I N T E N A N C E C O S T ^ T r C W C T r „
C A L C U L A T I N G S E A S O N A L O P E R A T I N G H O U R S O- THE S Y S T E M
S H O U R S C I )= ( ( S N I R / C l 2 t E F F ) ) * A R E A ) / ( C u K T ) / 4 4 d . d ) t 6 0 * b C )
A N N U A L P O W E R CO ST
ASSUME ELECTRICAL POWER
EHP(I)=BHP(I)ZEEFF
A P C C D = C K W H t S H O U R SC D t E H P C I ) t 0 . 7 4 o + C C 0 E M A N D t E H P C I))
NO TE TH AT E H P ( I ) S H O U L D BE A D J U S T E D F O R TnE A V A I L A B L E E L E C T R I C A L M O T O R
HORSEPOWER
APMG(I)=CPUMPCDtO.1241+APCCD
LUBRICATION ANNUAL COST
FOR E L E C T R I C A L P O W E R M O T O R CO ST IS S O . 6 7 / 1 0 0 H O U R S
ALC(I)=(0.67/100)tSHOURSCI)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C A N N U A L ^ M A I N T E N A N C E C O S T FOR H A N D - M O V E S P R I N K L E R S Y E T W M IS A S S U m ED 2%
C OF THE E Q U I P M E N T I N I T I A L COST
AMNC(I) = (2/lOO)t((CPUMP(I)/l.lO)*(CML(I)-((IOMl(I)tLMl(D)*(IDM.2( I
l ) t L M 2 ( I ) ) t ( I 0 M 3 ( I ) * L M 3 ( I ) )+ C I D M 4 C I ) t L M4 ( T ) ) + ( IDM5 C I ) * L M 5 ( I ) ) + ( I D M 6
l(DtLM6(D))t0.10)+CLATERAL(D+TCSPR(D)
C
C ASSUME^LABOR FOREHAND-MOVE SPRINKLER S Y S T E v O .85H R S / ACRE/ IR R I G ATI C N ,
C AND L A B O R C O S T $ 2 . 00 / H R
NIRR=SNIRZNMR
A L B C (I) = 2 . O O t 0 . 8 5 t( ARE A / 4 3 5 6 0 Jt NIRP
C
C A N N U A L ^ T A X E S A N D ^ I N S U K A N C E CO ST IS A S S U M E D AS ?? OF TnF E U U I P M E M
C
I N I T AT I C U ) = C 2/1 OO )t ( ( C R U M P ( I ) / I . I OJKCML CD - C C I DMl Cl ) * L U C I ) ) > CI D flZC I
D t L M Z C T ))♦( I D M 3 C I ) t L M 3C I) ) K T D M 4( I )tLM4( D ) K IDM5C I )tL v5 C )+ C!D-6
l C n * L M 6 ( T ) ) ) > 0 . 1 0 ) + CLATERALCI) +TCSPR(I))
T O T A L A N N U A L O P E R A T I O N AND M A I N T E N A N C E COST
A O H C U T = APCC I) + ALCC I) + AM NCC I)* A L O C ( I ) * A T I C ( I )
C
T O T A L A N N U A L CO ST FOR THE S Y S T E M E Q U A L A N N U A L F I X E D CO ST PL US TOTAL
a O P E R A T I O N AND M A I N T E N A N C E C O S T
c
TAC(I)=AFC(I)*AOMC(I)
T O T A L A N N U A L C O S T PER ACRE
A C P A ( I ) = T A C ( I )/ ( A R E A / 4 3 5 6 0 )
A N N U A L F A R M I N G C O S T PE R ACRE
AND H A R V E S T I N G !ASS UME 6 TONS OF A L F A L F A
P R O D U C T I O N PER ACRE PE R Y E A R
AFARC=5+(1B*6)
A N N U A L IN C O M E , A S S U M E $ 4 0 . OC PER TUN OF A L F A L F A
A I N = 4 0 . 00 *6
A N N U A L NET IN C O M E PER A C R E PER YEAR
NAT N = A T N - A F A R C
A N N U A L P R O F I T OR LOSS
, ( M I N U S SI GN M E A N S L O S S )
APR(I)=NAIN-ACPA(I)
C A L C U L A T E HO W M A N Y Y E A R S ARE N E E D E D TO PAY FO R THE S Y S T E M , IF THERE
IS A P R O c IT
! F ( A P R p ) . L I . 0. OO ) / Y E A R S U ) = 0 . OO ; GO TO 330
a IT I N C L U D E S F E R T I L I S E R S
c
c
C
C
C
C
C
3 3 0 W R I T E C I 0 8 ^ 4 0 )R S L ( I ) t S M ( I ) , L O H ( I ) , L S E T ( I ) , NLC I ) , N S ( I ) fDLC I ) , HLC I ) , V
4 0 1 F 0 P M A T ( ' I 'T),flR(! ^ X , ' D E S I G N OF L A T E R A L ' , / , 2X , I fc( ' - ' ) , / , / , 2X, 'SP
5o
1 , 7 x 1 ' I n I ' J t x ! ' I N . ' I OX*, ' I N . ' I 9 x ! ' I N . ' l a x ! ' I N . ' I / , ^ X f I f M x , I ) , 3 U X
1 , 1 ))
RX,'
3X,
,
n x
,
d a
,
n
c. , 3 A ,
n j
,
x v a
,
n-t
,
x
v
a
,
11
j
1 4 X , ' F T ' ft i X , ' F T ' , d X , ' F T ' , 1 0 X , ' F T ' , l C X , ' F T ' , 1 0 X , ' F T ' , / ,
1 W R I T E ( ! 0 8 ? 8 5 ) tiV l ( l ) , V 2 ( I ) , V 3 U ) , V 4 ( I ) , V 5 U ) , V 6 ( x )
, 13X,'H6',/,
1X,F9.2,2(?X
LO
OO
1(5X,F5.2),3(7X,F5.2))
,0
1Z X 1 1 6 V - . , , / , , ,
Z X 1 - D I 6 U= FL
i ° ^ p ^ ? ^ ! i c ‘ ^ i - ; ? f x 5 Fx : ^ i i x 6 ; i ; ^ c »s E t E5 5 h o i i L S ^
ioo
f o r m a k / t / l E x ^ p o u e r 5R e o u i r ^ S e n H ' ! / « 2 x I i 8 ( ' - ' ) ^ / , 2 x , ' H E A D on t h e
1 P U M P = ' , 2 X , F 8 . 2 , 2 X , ' F T ' , 5 X , 'T OT AL F L O W
=',2X,F8.2,2X,'GPP',/,2
I X 1 ' W A T E R H O R S E P O W E R = ' , 2 X , F 8 . 2 , 2 X , ' H P ' , 5 X , ' 3 R A K E H O R S E P 0 W E R = ' , 2 X ,F 8
1 . 2 , 2 X , ' H P ' , / , 2 X , ' R E Q U I R E D E L E C T R I C A L M O T O R H O R S E P O W E R = ' , 2 X ,F 8 . 2 , ? X
W R I T E ( 1 0 8 , 1 1 0 ) C P U M P C l )t C M L C I ) , C L A T ER C L ( I ) , T CS P R ( I ) , T C O S T ( I ) fCP A CR E
I i o iF O D M A T C ' I '
, 2X, ' E C O N O M I C A N A L Y S I S ' , / , 2 X , I 7
,
2X, ' I N
H T I A L C O S T S ' , / , 2 X , 'PUMP AND POWER U N I T CO ST = * ' ,F I O . 2 , 7 X , ' * A I NL I NE
I COST
= $ ' , F 1 0 . 2,/, 2X, ' L A T E R A L S COST
= $ ' , F l O . ? , 7 X , ' SPR I
="$ ' ,-F .1 .0 . .2 ., .7 .X ., '
I N K L E R S C O S T = S ' , F l 0. 2,/, 2 X , ' T O T A L COST OF S Y S T E M
! C O S T PE R ACRE =t ',F 1 0 . 2)
120
UD
UD
INO • OF Y E A R S N E E D E D TO PAY FOR THE S Y S T E M = ' , 2 X , F 5 . 2)
WRITECl 08,121) A M L C ( I ) fAPMC(I)
121 F 0 R M A T ( / ,f // ,f 2 XA .S ' AH N NI U A L M A I N LINE C O S T = S ' ,F I O . 2 , / , 2 X , ' A NN UA L P U M P I N G
I COST =*',F10.2)
GO TO 350
340 W R I TE(108,130)
130 F O R M A T C / I X , ' L A T E R A L D I A M E T E R IS G R E A T E R THAN 5 I N C H E S . IT IS NOT
! P R A C T I C A L FOR THE H A N D -* 0 V [ S Y S T E M S ' )
350 C O N T I N U E
END
S U B R O U T I N E TO I N PU T SO IL D A T A
S U B R O U T I N E SOIL
COMMON STl,ST2,STXl,STX2,H0,0,IK,S,AWS,hL,EFf,E,KC,C2,RZ,N(2),AVGP
IEAK
R E A L I R fHC
R E A O (105.7) ST1,ST2,STX1,STX2
7 F0RMAT(2A4,5X,2A4)
R E A D ( 1 0 5 , d ) HC,0, I D ,S
8 F0RMAT(4F5.2)
RETURN
END
S U B R O U T I N E TO INPUT P L A N T D A T A
SUPRCUTiNE. PLA' T
CCv PGN ST I , ST2 f SI Xl , S T X2 , UC t G . IR . S , AWS » WL , PFP , P , *<C ,C 2 , P Z , \ C2 ) , AVGP
IEAK
REAO( 1 0 5 * 6 ) ( N d ) , 1 = 1 , 2 ) , RZ
6 FQF X-AT ( 2 AWtF 5 . 2 )
RETURN
FND
C SUBROUTINE TC INPUT CLI MATI C DATA AND CALoULAT E PEAK CONSUMPTIVE USE
SUP R CU T I NE C L I v ATE
COMMON ST I , S T 2 , S T X l , S T X 2 , H C , 0 , I R , S t AWS, * L , E F F , E , KC , C 2 , R Z , V 2 ) , 4 VCP
I E A K , C ( I O ) 1W D ( I O ) , S L ( 1 0 ) , S t C1 0 ) , P ? E < 1 C ) , NO( I O) , A R ( I O ) , A R E 4 , L L , u * , C ,
I w, ELEVO1HS, P E F F t S N I R , CK WH1COF MAND, FE F P f T Y K 1 0 ) , T T2 ( 1 0 ) , TT 3 ( 1 0 ) , CSP
1R(1C),PLAK,UAY(31),TX(31),TN(31),PS(31),RP(31)
DI MENSI ON T ( 3 1 ) , T x C ( 3 1 ) , T j C ( j l ) , P S X ( 3 l ) , ‘) S N ( 3 l ) , C h ( 3 1 ) , C T ( 3 i ) , T : K 3
1 1 ) , RSS( 3 1 ) , L T P d D K T ( C l ) , CU( 3 1 )
RE AC( 1 0 5 * 2 ) E , KC» C2
2 F O R MA T ( 3 F 1 0 . 2 )
DD 15 1 = 1 , 3 1
RE AOU O5 , 3 ) D A Y ( I ) t T X d ) , TNC D f R S ( I ) , PP ( I )
3 F O R M A T ( 4 F , F 4 . 30
T(I)=(TX(i)+TN(I))/2
TXC(I)=(TX(I)-32)*5Z0
TNC(T)=CTN(I)-324*5/9
PSy(I)=4.58*EXP(((25.04*TXC(I))/(TXC(l)*273))1(5.162*ALCG((TXC(I ) / 2 7 3 ) * i ) ) )
PSN( I ) = 4 . 5 9 * F X P ( ( ( 2 5 . C 4 * T N C ( I ) ) / ( T N C ( I ) * 2 7 ) ) ) 1 ( 5 . 1 6 2 * AL QG( ( T N C ( I ) / 2 7 3 ) + ! ) ) )
CH(I) = 3 7 . 5 / ( o S X ( I ) - P S K ( I ) )
Cl = 6 P - T . 6 * E / 1 0 C C
CT(I) = l.n /(C l+ C 2 * C h (D )
T0 ( I ) = 2 / . 5 - 0 . 3 3 * ( PS X( I ) - P SNC I ) ) - E / H CO
R S S ( 1 ) = R S ( I ) * C . J. 0C673
ETP(I)=CT( I ) * ( T ( r ) - T O ( I ) ) * R S S ( T )
FTCI ) = K C * r T P ( I )
I t CONTINUE
PEAK = C
DO 25 1 = 1 , 3 1
CU(I)=FT(I)-PP(I)
I FCCUC l ) . G T . PEAK) PEAK = C U C I ) K A X I = T
2b CONTINUE
SUM= C
Cu 35 I = * AX1 - 3 , MAXI+3
35 SUM=SUM+CuCI A
AVCPFAK=SUM/ T
RETURN
PNC
C SUBRi1UT I N l I " INPUT S P RI NKLE0 *' t AU SP FG K IC AT D ,S
SUBRCUTi M SP RI NKwE-K
1R E A L N M R , I R R I N T , L O H ( 1 0 ) , N O L ( 1 0 ) , ND
C I N P U T S P R I N K L E R H E A D S P E C I F I C A T I O N S AND S P A C I N k S
DO 45 1 = 1 , 1 0
RE AD ( 1 0 5 , 1 6 ) TY K I ), T Y 2 (I), T Y3( I), U C D f t i D ( I ) , PRE (I), N D ( I ) , SL ( I ) , SM
45 C O N T I N U E
RETURN
C S U B R O U T I N E TO WR I T E THE IN P U T I N F O R M A T I O N
S U B R O U T I N E INPUT
C O M M O N S T l , S T 2 , S T X l , S T X 2 , H C , 0 , I R , S , A W S , W L , E F F , E , K C , C 2 , R Z , N ( 2 ) , AVGP
I E A K tQ C l O ) , W O ( 1 0 ) , S L ( 1 0 ) , S M ( 1 0 ) , P R E ( 1 0 ) , N D ( 1 0 ) , A R ( 1 0 ) , A R E A , L L , L M , C ,
1 M , E L E V O , H S , P E F F , S N I R s C K W H , C D E M A N D , E E F F , T Y 1 ( 1 0 ) , T Y 2 ( 1 0 ) , T Y 3 ( 1 0 ) , CSP
1R(10),PEAK,DAY(31),TX(31),TN(31),RS(31),PP(31)
R E A L ND, I R , HC
F O R M A T ( 0 8 '1 '? 2 7 X , ' P R O G R A M - 2',/, 5X, 'TO D E S I G N L A T E R A L , MA IN LINE
I, TO F I N D P O W E R R E Q U I R E M E N T S ' , / , 1 9 X , 'AND TC DO E C C N O m IC A N A L Y S I S ' /
1 , / , 2 4 X , 'I NP UT I N F O R M A T I O N ' , / , 2 4 X , 1 S ( ' - ' ) )
TYP E: ' , 2 X , 2 A 4 , 1 5 X ,
I N / H O U R ' , 5 X , 'HQLDI
= ' , F 4 . 2 » ? X , 'r T',
i m / r u u i | / f <ilOXi 'SLOPE
'
= ' , F 5 . 2 , 2 X , 'I')
31 F O R M AT ( / ? / ^ X 2X ^'P L ANT*!) Af A l^/ , 2X , I 0 ( ' - ' ) , / , 2X, 'NAME OF c r o p :',X,
1 2 A 4 ,8 X , 'ROOT ZONE D E P T H = ' , F 5 . 2 , 2 X , ' F T ' )
I E L E V A T I O N = ' , F 1 0 . 2 , 2 X, ' F T ' , 4 X , ' CROP F A c f OR = ' , F 6 . 2 , / ,
ISE C 0 N S T A N T ( C 2 ) = ',fr6. 2)
WRITE(108,42)
fX,;CLIMATI^OyA_FOR,JULY,(^^
DO 61 1= 1,31
W R I T E C 1 0 8 , 5 1 ) D A Y ( I ) , TX ( I ) , T V ( I ) tR S ( I ) , P P (I )
51 F O R M A T ('O', 2 X , I , 5 X , F 5 . 2 , d X , r - 5 . 2 , 9 > , F 6 . 2 , 1 0 X , F 5 . 2 )
61 C O N T I N U E
2X, ' J ENSE\ - h f l I
DA
FFFCTI
?(
/ ,/, 6X, 'TYPE
' C O S T ' , / , IbX,
t ',/, 2X , 1 2 ( '
,3X ,4( '-') ,3X
W R I T E C i o k 71) T Y 1 ( I ) , T Y 2 ( I ) , T Y 3 ( I ) , Q d ) , W D ( I ) , P R E C I: N D ( I ) , S L ( I ) , S
1F 0 R ^ l ^ ( / ^ / ^ 2 X , 3 A 4 , 3 X , F 5 . 2 , 4 X , I , 5 X , I t 3 X , F 4 . 2 , A X , I , 5 ; I , 3 X . F 5 . 2 )
[ v
C uOC nNT T11I ID NKl U E
D
RETURN
END
APPENDIX H
PROGRAM-2 OUTPUT
TO OCSI v k IOTFgAjr t i U I g
PROG^e* - I
^ k F g e TO g V . ^ M v E F
INPUT
-E-CNTS
INFORMATION
SOI L DATA
TYPE:
SILTCLAY
INTAKE K l T f = . 6 0
DEPTH
=3.10
plant
I N/ HOUR
^T
TEXTUPxfc I
MfcDIUK
HOLDING CAPACI TY=
SLOPE
-
1.30
3.00
I N/ FOCT
data
NAME OF CROP:
ALFALFA
ROOT ZONE Dfc P TH= 5 . 0 0
FT
CLIMATIC DATA
CkHP FACTOR=
J E N S f c N- H Al S t a CCNSTANT( C 2 ) =
I.CO
13.00
CLI MATI C DATA FOR JULY (MEAN VALUES) :
DAY
MAX . TEMP.
F
MIN.
TEMP.
F
Sf1LAR RADI ATI ON
LANGLFYS
EFFCTI VE PRE C IP
INCHES
91.00
5 3.00
2 4 9 . CO
. CO
2
66.00
41 . OC
3 / 0 . CO
. OC
3
67.00
.00
4
75.00
O O
O O
S
0
<VJ rvj
>*■
587.00
775.00
.00
i>
35.00
50.00
742.03
.00
6
83.00
52.00
414.00
.00
7
3 3 . OC
63.00
7 6 9 . CO
.00
8
95.00
709.00
. CC
9
95.00
465.03
. OO
O
O
I
66.00
SC. CO
o 7 3 . OO
.00
11
o I .00
55.00
465.00
.00
12
8 9 . CO
49 . 0 0
2 2 8 . OO
. CO
13
8 3.00
6 4 . OC
25 C . OO
.00
14
73.00
5 7.00
504.00
. 10
15
73.00
SC. CO
643.00
.OC
16
77.00
5 4 . CO
354.9)
.CO
I7
77.00
5 1.00
664.00
.00
5 7 . CC
8 3.00
.UC
18
O
O
'•o
9 6 . CU
CC
10
O
in
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
46. OO
4 y . OO
49.00
SO. CO
6 1.00
60.C
89.00
93.00
95.00
59. 00
57. OO
57. OO
9 4 .0 0
8 4. 00
6 6.00
65.00
59. OC
603.00
7 2 0 . OO
677.00
567.00
7 2 2 . CO
O I6 .C O
522.00
465.00
.56
.07
.37
.12
.CO
.CO
• U
U
.03
.UC
.OC
O
O
90.00
93.00
326.00
1 7 0 . CO
494.00
550.00
589.00
•
31
76.00
63.00
9 1.00
'tb.00
O
O
30
75 .00
60. CO
7 1.00
O
O
19
Ocn
SPRI NKLERS CAIA
TYPE
Q
GPM
WU
FT
PRE
PSI
ND
INCri
SL
FT
PB 2 0 A - 7 3
5 .b 5
I8
45
.17
33
30
6.*2
RB 2 9 B- TN T
7.43
92
55
.19
3u
40
7.72
PB 3 0V
9.4 I
104
45
.22
30
50
b • 54
10.95
116
65
.22
30
60
9.09
9.83
HO
50
.22
40
40
11 . a d
RB 7 OE V
12.20
137
75
.22
4O
50
23.63
PB 7 OEW
14.20
139
oO
.25
40
60
2 3 . 6C
RB 14 0 7 0 W
15.50
136
75
.25
5C
50
1 2 . 25
RB 7 JEW
13.30
147
65
.2d
53
o')
23.63
RB 7 0 f W
22.00
143
60
. U
60
6C
2 3.60
RB 30CW-TNT
RB 4PPk
COST
t
SR
FT
MAIN P R D G R A y DATA
L t A C H I N G RtOUIRfcMENTS
= .CU I N C H E S
E F F . UF S P R I N K L E R SYSTE'*= .ob
A R E A TO 4fc I R R I G A T E D
=97 JbtiOO SQ.FT
L E N G T H U tr L A T E R A L
= 1330
FT
L E N G T H OF M A I N L I N E
=ACfcO
FT
H A Z E N - W l L L l A V S CDfcr.C O
E X P O N E N T (M)
= 1.35
E L E V A T I O N AT THE PJM»
=ZtiCC
cT
S U C T I O N H E A D CN THE P U ^ P = ZO
FT
PU*P E F F I C I E N C Y
=
.81
CO ST PER K W H
=
.025
S
DEMAND COST
= 0.33
l/HP
E F F . OF E L E C T R I C A L M O T O R =
.95
NET S E A S O N A L I R R I G A T I O N R E Q U I R E M E N T S = 2 2 .1 4
INCHES
o
OO
PROGRAM
.383
C O N S U M P T I V E USE
flVF R A G F O C N S i M P T I V E USE
.260
.268
P E A K D A I L Y USE
AVAILABLE m G I S T U 7C C O N T E N T = 4.030
2.015
NET M O I S T U R E R E P L A C E D
GROSS MOISTURE REPLACED
3.1 00
7
IRRIGATION INTERVAL
2 OUTPUT
INCHES/DAY
INCHES/OAY
INCHES/DAY
INCHES
IN C H E S
IN C H E S
DAYS
o
VO
DESIGN
OF
LATERAL
SP AC I NG S
= 30 SO
= S . I 31
OPERATING HOURS
N U M B E R OF S E T S / O AY =3
=7
N U M B E R OF L A T E R A L S
N U M B E R Cf SP R I N K L E R S = 44
=5
diameter
H E A D LOSS
= 24.32
V E L O C I T Y OF F L O W
= o . 77
IRRIGATION PERIOD
- 6. 97
S P R I N K L E R APP L . R ATE=
.60
FI
HR
INCHES
ET
F 33
JA YS
INCHEs/HUU7
o
D E S I G N OF M A I N P I P E L I N E
DM5
IN.
DM6
IN.
DMl
IN.
14
DM2
IN.
12
DM 3
IN.
10
DM4
IN.
6
HLAl
FT
9.13
HLA2
FT
11.76
HL A3
FT
1 1 .1 0
HLA4
FT
1 7 .5 0
HL A5
FT
.00
HE A6
FI
.00
Hl
FT
2900.35
H2
FT
2888.60
H3
FT
2877.49
H4
FT
2659.99
H5
FT
Ho
FT
Vl
FBS
6.04
V2
FBS
5. 87
V3
FB S
5.07
V4
FB S
4. 70
0
.00
V5
FBS
. 00
0
.0 0
V6
FBS
.00
F—»
—*
FF—4
S I Z I N G OF V A L V E S
D I A OF F L O W C O N T R O L V A L V E =
D I A OF AIR R E L E A S E V A L V E =
14.00
4.00
INCHES
IN CH ES
DIA OF C H EC K VA L V E =
POWER REQUIREMENTS
T O T A L FLOW
3 0 9 . AS FT
H E A D ON THE P U M P =
3 RA KE H O R S E P O W E R =
2
2
6
.
5
0
HP
w a t e r HORSEPOWER=
294.35
HP
REQUIRED ELECTRICAL MOTOR HORSEPOWER =
2 b 9 3.2 S
279.63
1 4 .0 0
GPM
H0
INCHES
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
INITIAL C O S T :
PU MP A^D P O W E R U N I T C O S T = T
LATERALS CHSt
=$
T O T A L CO ST OF S Y S T E M
=$
15370.76
I 36 R 5.7 O
3/151.76
M A I N L I N E C O S T =t
SPRINKLERS COST=S
C O S T PER ACRE =$
ANNUAL COST:
ANNUAL FIXED COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
7092.54
22304.89
A N N U A L 0 AND * C O S T = S
16212 .35
TOTAL A N N U A L C O S T PFR A C R E = ; 9 9 * 6 0
ANNUAL P R O F I T / A CRE-S 27.20
9.40
=$
=%
NET A N N U A L T N C G M E / A C R E
=$
12 7. 00
NO. OF Y E A R S N E E D E D TG PAY FOR THE S Y S T E M
ANNUAL MAIN LINE ClST=T
ANNUAL PUMPING COST
=$
25455.93
2b30.32
255.71
3159.09
10876.97
IX)
N3T78
E /39
cop .2
E lH a n b a li, U said I . ff.
S p r in k le r i r r ig a t io n
system d e sig n model and
a p p lic a t io n
ISSUED TO
* DATE
n f T i %'
m
m
m
O ^ n s s iJ B lU J tT ;
r
IN T fiR L IB B '
'2 liH&bk Oi i__________
F