J. agric. Engng Res. (1996) 64, 109–118
Design and Management Optimization of Trickle Irrigation Systems using Nonlinear Programming
J .
C .
C . Saad ; *
J . A . Frizzone †
* Departamento de Engenharia Rural , FCAUNESP , Caixa Postal 237 , 18603970 Botucatu , SP , Brazil † Departamento de Engenharia Rural , ESALQUSP , Caixa Postal 9 , 13418900 Piracicaba , SP , Brazil
(Recei ed 3 March 1995; accepted in re ised form 8 January 1996)
A nonlinear model is presented which optimizes the layout, as well as the design and management of trickle irrigation systems, to achieve maximum net beneﬁt. The model consists of an objective function that maximizes proﬁt at the farm level, subject to appropriate geometric and hydraulic constraints . It can be applied to rectangular shaped ﬁelds , with uniform or zero slope. The software used is the GamsMinos package. The basic inputs are the crop waterproduction function, the cost function and cost of system components, and design variables. The main outputs are the annual net beneﬁt and pipe diameters and lengths. To illustrate the capability of the model, a sensitivity analysis of the annual net beneﬁt for a
citrus ﬁeld is evaluated with respect to irrigated area, ground slope, microsprinkler discharge and shape of the ﬁeld. The sensitivity analysis suggests that the greatest beneﬁt is obtained with the smallest micro sprinkler discharge, the greatest area, a square ﬁeld and zero ground slope. The costs of the investment and energy are the components of the objective function that had the greatest effect in the 120
situations evaluated.
÷ 1996 Academic Press Limited
Notation

pump eﬁciency 

A 
total area, m ^{2} 

B _{a} 
annual beneﬁt , US$ _{/} ha yr 

B _{n} 
annual net beneﬁt or proﬁt from the 

irrigated 
crop , US$ _{/} ha yr 

C _{1} 
constant in Eqn (10) 

C _{2} 
constant in Eqn (10) 

C _{3} 
constant in Eqn (11) 

C _{4} 
constant in Eqn (11) 

C _{5} 
constant in Eqn (12) 

C _{6} 
constant in Eqn (12) 

C _{7} 
constant in Eqn (13) 
C _{8}
C _{9}
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
_{c}_{p}
C _{c}_{s}
C _{e}
C _{e}_{e}
C _{i}_{e}
_{1}_{5}
_{1}_{4}
_{1}_{3}
_{1}_{2}
_{1}_{1}
_{1}_{0}
C _{k}_{w}
C _{p}
C _{p}_{e}
C _{p}_{s}
C _{p}_{v}_{m}
C _{p}_{v}_{n}
C _{p}_{v}_{s}
C _{v}
constant in Eqn (13) constant in Eqn (14)
constant in Eqn (15)
constant in Eqn (15)
constant in Eqn (16)
constant in Eqn (16)
constant in Eqn (18)
constant in Eqn (18)
cost of control panel , US$
cost of control station , US$ emitter cost , US$
annual cost of electric energy , US$ _{/} yr
annual cost with with investment and energy , US$ _{/} ha yr cost of the kWh , US$ annual production cost (without irrigation) , US$ _{/} ha yr
cost of polyethylene pipe , US$ _{/} m
cost of pumping station , US$ cost of p.v.c. pipe used in main line, US$/m cost of p.v.c. pipe used in manifold line, US$/m cost of p.v.c. pipe used in submain diameter , US$ _{/} m cost of valves and registers , US$
D inside diameter of the pipe, m
D
D
_{l}_{d}
_{l}_{u}
d _{m}
D _{m}_{d}
D _{m}_{u}
_{n}_{d}
_{n}_{u}
D
D
D _{s}
d _{x}
d _{y}
downhill lateral line diameter, m
uphill lateral line diameter, m maximum net depth of water to be applied per irrigation downhill main line diameter, m uphill main line diameter, m
downhill manifold line diameter, m
uphill manifold line diameter, m submain line diameter, m ground slope in x direction, m/m ground slope in y direction, m/m
00218634 _{/} 96 _{/} 060109 10 $18.00 _{/} 0
109
÷ 1996 Silsoe Research Institute
110
J .
C .
C .
S A A D ;
E _{a}
E _{l}
E _{m}_{v}
E _{n}_{t}
E _{t}
ET _{a}
ET _{p}
ET _{s}
E _{u}
F _{c}_{r}
H _{c}_{s}
H _{f}
H _{l}_{d}
H _{l}_{u}
h _{m}
H _{m}_{d}
h _{m}_{i}_{n}
H _{m}_{u}
H _{n}_{d}
H _{n}_{u}
H _{s}
H _{t}
h _{v}
I _{f}
I _{f}_{x}
I _{s}
I _{t}
K _{y}
water application efﬁciency
number of emission points in the lateral line manufacturing variation in emitter expressed as a coefﬁcient of variation
number of emitters per emission point
total number of emitters actual seasonal evapotranspiration, m average daily evapotranspiration during peakuse period, m/d maximum evapotranspiration per season, m
emission uniformity
capital recovery factor
head losses in the control station, m
head loss due to pipe friction, m
downhill lateral head losses, m
uphill lateral head losses, m
average emitter pressure, in m downhill main line head losses, m minimum pressure in the subunit, m uphill main line head losses, m downhill manifold head losses, m uphill manifold head losses, m
submain line head losses, m
total head losses plus total difference in elevation, m
allowable pressure head variation in the subunit, m irrigation frequency, d maximum irrigation frequency, d number of irrigation days during the season number of irrigation hours per set of subunits working simultaneously , during an irrigation interval
yield response factor
L length of pipe, m
L _{l}
L _{m}
L _{n}
L _{s}
L _{t}_{l}
L _{t}_{m}
L _{t}_{n}
L _{t}_{s}
L _{x}
L _{y}
M _{a}_{d}
N _{s}
N _{s}_{u}
N _{s}_{u}_{s}
O _{m}
lateral line length, m
main line length, m
manifold line length, m
submain line length, m
total lateral line length, m total main line length, m
total manifold length, m
total submain length, m
length of ﬁeld in x direction, m
length of the ﬁeld in y direction, m management allowed deﬁcit, % number of submain lines total number of subunits number of subunits working simultaneously
number of outlets in the main line
J .
A . F R I Z Z O N E
O _{n}
O _{s}
number of outlets in the manifold line
number of outlets in the submain line
P price of product in US$/kg
percentage area wetted
Q ﬂow rate in the pipe, m ^{3} _{/}_{s}
P _{w}
Q _{a}_{v}
Q _{e}
Q _{l}
Q _{m}
q _{m}_{i}_{n}
Q _{n}
Q
Q
S _{e}
_{s}
_{t}
S _{l}
T _{a}_{v}
V _{m}_{d}
V _{m}_{u}
V _{s}
V _{t}
W _{a}
available
average emitter discharge, m ^{3} _{/}_{s}
lateral line discharge, l/h main line discharge, l/h minimum emission rate in the subunit, l/h
manifold line discharge, l/h
submain line discharge, l/h
total discharge at pump outlet, l/h distance between emission points in a lateral line or distance between plants in a row, m distance between laterals or between rows of plants, m number of hours available for irrigation per day average ﬂow velocity in the downhill main line, m/s average ﬂow velocity in the uphill main line, m/s average ﬂow velocity in the submain line, m/s volume of water applied per plant during the season, m ^{3}
available waterholding capacity of the soil, m/m
discharge, m ^{3} _{/}_{s}
Y actual yield , kg _{/} ha yr
Y _{m}
maximum annual yield , kg _{/} ha yr relative yield
Y _{r}
Z plant root depth, m
1. Introduction
Trickle irrigation is a convenient and efﬁcient method of supplying water directly to the root zone of row crops or to individual plants, such as trees and vines. A trickle irrigation system offers special ag ronomical, agrotechnical and economic advantages for the efﬁcient use of water and labour (Keller and Bliesner ^{1} ). For a given site there are many possible variations in the layout, design and management of trickle systems. Improvements in equipment technol ogy and the rapid increase in energy, equipment and manpower costs has demanded that designers and farmers consider the fundamental economic aspects. Hence, the optimization of layout, design and opera tion has become an important factor affecting far mers’ proﬁt.
O P T I M I Z A T I O N
O F
T R I C K L E I R R I G A T I O N S Y S T E M S
111
Initially (Pleban and Amir; ^{2} Oron and Karmeli; ^{3} Benami and Ofen; ^{4} Oron and Karmeli; ^{5} Karmeli and Oron; ^{6} Oron and Walker ^{7} ), the optimization objec tive was to minimize the total cost. This consisted of two opposing factors: the cost of the investment and the operational cost. The investment included the cost of all network components, while the operational cost included mainly labour and energy . Generally , larger pipe diameters for a given length and discharge, increase capital costs but , at the same time , decrease the energy requirements . On the other hand , smaller pipe diameters decrease capital costs but increase the energy requirements. Linear programming was utilized to optimize the pipe network, when the layout and operation of permanent irrigation systems were deﬁned (Pleban and Amir; ^{2} Oron and Karmeli; ^{3} Benami and Ofen ^{4} ). Another optimization method, referred to as geo metric programming associated with the ‘‘branch and bound technique’’ , was used when the layout , design and management of the solidset pressurized irrigation system were not deﬁned (Oron and Karmeli; ^{5} Karmeli and Oron; ^{6} Oron and Walker ^{7} ). Allen and Brockway ^{8} pointed out that the best criterion for irrigation system optimization was the maximization of the net economic beneﬁt, and not the minimization of the total cost . Holzapfel et al . ^{9} developed a nonlinear optimization model for the design and management of drip irrigation systems which maximized proﬁt from the irrigated crop . Their
model is applicable to ﬂat areas and will be the main reference for the development of the present work. The purposes of this paper are (1) to develop a nonlinear model that provides the optimization of layout, design and management of trickle irrigation systems in both ﬂat and sloping areas, to maximize crop proﬁt; and (2) to illustrate the capability of the model by means of a sensitivity analysis of the annual net beneﬁt for a citrus ﬁeld located in Limeira , Sao Paulo , Brazil , by varying area , microsprinkler dis charge, ground slope and shape of the ﬁeld.
2. Model development
The trickle irrigation system optimization model consists of an objective function that maximizes proﬁt at the farm level, subject to appropriate constraints. The basic assumptions in the model are as follows (see also , Fig . 1 and Fig . 2 ) : (1) the area must be rectangular; (2) the slope must be uniform in both directions; (3) the pump and control stations are placed at the middle of one edge of the ﬁeld (in the x direction); (4) the lateral lines are polyethylene and the others are polyvinyl chloride (p . v . c . ) ; (5) there must be at least one subunit working in each submain line during the effective period of irrigation; (6) the total number of subunits must be equal to or a multiple of the number of subunits working simul taneously; (7) the ratio of the total number of subunits
x
Fig. 1. Basic conﬁguration adopted by the trickle irrigation system optimization model (with main line)
112
J .
C .
C .
S A A D ;
x
Fig. 2. Basic conﬁguration adopted by the trickle irrigation system optimization model (without main line)
working simultaneously to the number of submain lines must be an integer; (8) the ratio of the total number of subunits to the number of submain lines must be an even number and (9) the length and the width of the irrigated area must be multiples of the distance between emission points in the lateral line and of the distance between lateral lines. A trickle irrigation system is usually composed of subunits, that in this paper consist of emitters (or microsprinklers) , pipes (laterals and manifold) , and accessories such as valves. Each subunit is connected directly to a submain or to a main line. On sloping ﬁelds the lateral, manifold and main pipelines will be laid uphill and downhill. The exception is the sub main. Because the control and pump stations are placed at the middle of one edge of the ﬁeld in the x
J .
A . F R I Z Z O N E
direction, submains will all be either uphill or down hill. There are two basic conﬁgurations: one with main line ( Fig . 1 ) and another without it ( Fig . 2 ) . The others possible conﬁgurations are obtained by simple multiplication of the above subunits.
2.1. Objecti e function
The objective function to be maximized is the annual net beneﬁt and is given by the beneﬁt minus the costs of the investment, energy and production. Thus
(1)
where B _{n} annual net beneﬁt or proﬁt from the irrigated crop in US$ _{/} ha yr ; B _{a} annual beneﬁt in US$ _{/} ha yr ; C _{i}_{e} annual cost of the investment and energy in US$ _{/} ha yr ; C _{p} annual production cost without irrigation, in US$ha yr. The beneﬁt is
(2)
B _{n} B _{a} C _{i}_{e} C _{p}
B _{a} PY _{m} Y _{r}
where
(3)
Y r ^{Y} Y m
and P price of product in US$ _{/} kg ; Y _{m} maximum annual yield in kg _{/} ha yr ; Y _{r} relative yield and Y actual yield in kg/ha yr. The beneﬁt depends on the yield and the model used to quantify the relationship between yield and water, when any other required resource is at the optimum level, is (Doorenbos and Kassam ^{1}^{0} )
Then
1
Y r
_{Y} m K _{y} _{} 1 ^{E}^{T} ^{a} _{}
Y
ET _{s}
Y
m 1 K _{y} _{} K _{y}
_{Y}
ET _{a}
ET _{s}
_{}
(4)
(5)
where K _{y} yield response factor ; ET _{a} actual seas onal evapotranspiration in m; ET _{s} maximum evapo transpiration per season, m. The volume of water applied per plant (or tree) per season (V _{t} ), in m ^{3} , is given by
Thus
t _{} ET _{a} S _{e} S _{1} _{} 3600E _{n}_{t} Q _{e} I _{s} I _{t}
_{V}
E
a
I f
_{E}_{T} a _{} 3600E _{a} E _{n}_{t} Q _{e} I _{t} I _{s}
I f S e S 1
^{}
B _{a} PY _{m} _{} 1 K _{y} _{} K _{y}
3600E _{a} E _{n}_{t} Q _{e} I _{t} I _{s} I _{f} S _{e} S _{1} ET _{s}
_{}_{}
(6)
^{(}^{7}^{)}
(8)
O P T I M I Z A T I O N
O F
T R I C K L E I R R I G A T I O N S Y S T E M S
113
where S _{e} distance between emission points in a lateral or distance between plants (or trees) in a row, in m ; S _{1} distance between laterals or between rows of plants (or trees) , in m ; E _{a} water application ef ﬁciency ; E _{n}_{t} number of emitters per emission point ; Q _{e} average emitter discharge in m ^{3} _{/} s ; I _{t} number of irrigation hours per set of subunits working simultaneously, during an irrigation interval; I _{s} number of irrigation days during the season and I _{f} number of days in the irrigation interval (irriga tion frequency). The cost of the investment and energy, C _{i}_{e} , (US$/ha)
C ie [(C _{e} E _{t} ) (C _{p}_{e} L _{t}_{l} ) (C _{p}_{v}_{n} L _{t}_{n} ) (C _{p}_{v}_{s} L _{t}_{s} ) (C _{p}_{v}_{m} L _{t}_{m} ) C _{v} C _{c}_{p} C _{c}_{s} C _{p}_{s} ]F _{c}_{r} C _{e}_{e} 10 000
A
(9)
where C _{e} emitter cost , in US$ ; E _{t} total number of emitters ; C _{p}_{e} cost (US$/m) of polyethylene pipe expressed as a function of the diameter (m); L _{t}_{l} total length of lateral in m; C _{p}_{v}_{n} cost (US$/m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a function of the manifold diameter (m) ; C _{p}_{v}_{s} cost (US$/m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a function of the submain diameter (m); C _{p}_{v}_{m} cost (US$/m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a function of the main diameter (m) ; L _{t}_{n} total length of manifold in m ; L _{t}_{s} total length of submain in m; L _{t}_{m} total length of main line in m; C _{v} cost (US$) of valves; C _{c}_{p} cost (US$) of control panel; C _{c}_{s} cost (US$) of control station ; C _{p}_{s} cost (US$) of the pump station; F _{c}_{r} capital recovery factor ; C _{e}_{e} annual cost (US$/yr) of electric energy and A total area, m ^{2} . The pipe cost expressed as function of line diameter are expressed by regression equations as follows
C _{p}_{e} C _{1} (D _{l}_{u} D _{l}_{d} ) C _{2}
(10)
(11)
C _{p}_{v}_{s} C _{5} (D _{s} ) ^{C} ^{6}
C _{p}_{v}_{m} C _{7} [(D _{m}_{u} ) ^{C} ^{8} (D _{m}_{d} ) ^{C} ^{8} ]
(12)
(13)
C _{p}_{v}_{n} C _{3} [(D _{n}_{u} ) ^{C} ^{4} (D _{n}_{d} ) ^{C} ^{4} ]
where D _{l}_{u} is the uphill lateral line diameter , in m ; D _{l}_{d} is the downhill lateral line diameter , in m ; D _{n}_{u} is the uphill manifold line diameter , in m ; D _{n}_{d} is the downhill manifold line diameter , in m ; D _{s} submain line diameter , in m ; D _{m}_{u} is the uphill main line diameter , in m ; D _{m}_{d} is the downhill main line dia meter , in m ; C _{1} , C _{2} , C _{3} , C _{4} , C _{5} , C _{6} , C _{7} and C _{8} are constants. The cost (US$) of valves expressed as a function of the total number of subunits is given by
(14)
C _{v} C _{9} N _{s}_{u}
where N _{s}_{u} total number of subunits in the ﬁeld; C _{9} constant. The cost (US$) of the control panel expressed as a function of the total number of subunits is given by
C _{p}_{c} C _{1}_{0} (N _{s}_{u} ) ^{C} ^{1}^{1} (15)
where
The cost (US$) of the control station expressed as a function of the actual discharge is given by
C _{c}_{s} C _{1}_{2} (C _{1}_{3} Q _{t} ) (16)
where C _{1}_{2} and C _{1}_{3} are constants and Q _{t} is the total discharge (m ^{3} _{/}_{s}_{)} at the pump outlet, given by
Q _{t} 2Q _{e} E _{n}_{t} E _{l} O _{n} N _{s}_{u}_{s} (17)
where E _{l} number of emission points in a lateral;
O _{n} number of outlets in the manifold and N _{s}_{u}_{s} is the number of subunits working simultaneously . The fac tor 2 is used because there are lateral lines on both sides of the manifold line. The same factor appears in a number of other equations , such as Eqns (18) , (20) , (47) and (48). The cost (US$) of the pump station expressed as a function of the required power is given by
C _{1}_{0} and C _{1}_{1} are constants.
_{C}
ps _{} _{C} 14 2000Q _{e} E _{n}_{t} E _{l} O _{n} N _{s}_{u}_{s} (h _{m} H _{t} )
75
_{} C ^{1}^{5}
(18)
where h _{m} is the average emitter pressure , in m ; is
the pump ef ﬁciency ; C _{1}_{4} and C _{1}_{5} are constants and H _{t}
is the total head losses plus the total difference in
elevation, in m, given by
H _{t} [(H _{l}_{u} H _{n}_{u} H _{s} H _{m}_{u} H _{c}_{s} )1 05]
[(L _{l} d _{y} ) (L _{n} d _{x} ) (L _{s} d _{y} ) (L _{m} d _{x} )]
(19)
where H _{l}_{u} uphill lateral head losses (m); H _{n}_{u} uphill manifold head losses (m); H _{s} submain head losses (m) ; H _{m}_{u} head losses in the uphill main line (m);
H _{c}_{s} head losses in the control station , m ; L _{l} lateral line length , in m ; d _{y} ground slope in y direction (m _{/} m) ; L _{n} manifold line length , in m ; d _{x} ground slope in x direction (m _{/} m) ; L _{s} submain line length,
m and L _{m} main line length in m. The factor 1 05 is
adopted to compensate head losses produced by valves , registers , emitter connections and others . The annual cost (US$/yr) of electric energy ex pressed as a function of the consumption is given by
_{C} ee _{} _{C} kw 2Q _{e} E _{n}_{t} E _{l} O _{n} N _{s}_{u}_{s} 9 80665I _{t} I _{s} N _{s}_{u} (h _{m} H _{t} )
^{} ^{N} sus ^{I} f
(20)
where C _{k}_{w} is cost of kWh, in US$.
114
J .
C .
C .
S A A D ;
The amount of each item in a trickle irrigation system can be obtained using the following equations.
_{E} t _{} AE nt S e S l
(21)
L tl ^{A} S l 
^{A} 



2E _{l} S _{l} 

L tm 
^{A} 
^{A} 

2E _{l} S _{e} 
4E _{l} S _{e} O _{n} 
_{L} ts _{} 0 5A _{} 0 5L _{x} E _{l} S _{e}
O n S l
S l O n
L _{t}_{m} L _{x} (2O _{n} S _{l} )
E l ^{L} ^{l}
S e
O n ^{L} ^{n}
S l
0 5
0 5
N s
L ts
L _{y} (E _{l} S _{e} )
_{O} s _{} N su
2N _{s}
O m ^{N} ^{s}
2
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
^{(}^{2}^{8}^{)}
(29)
(30)
where L _{x} is the length of the ﬁeld in the x direction , in m ; L _{y} is the length of the ﬁeld in the y direction, in m; N _{s} is the number of submain lines; O _{s} is the number of outlets in the submain line and O _{m} is the number of outlets in the main line.
2.2. Constraints
The constraints in the present analysis are the hydraulic conditions, the irrigation criteria, the geo metric limitations and the operational characteristics.
2.2.1. Hydraulic constraints In sloping ﬁelds, the model solves the design of the trickle irrigation system assuming that the uphill and the downhill pipes have the same length, but different diameters . Thus
_{l}_{u} (L _{l} d _{y} ) H _{l}_{d} (L _{l} d _{y} ) H 
(31) 

H _{n}_{u} (L _{n} 
d _{x} ) H _{n}_{d} (L _{n} d _{x} ) 
(32) 
H _{m}_{u} (L _{m} d _{x} ) H _{m}_{d} (L _{m} d _{x} ) (33)
in which H _{l}_{d} downhill lateral head losses (m); H _{n}_{d} downhill manifold head losses (m) and H _{m}_{d} head losses in the downhill main line (m).
J .
A . F R I Z Z O N E
The Darcy–Weisbach equation is used to determine the pipe head losses. For use with smooth plastic pipes
and hoses less than 0 125 m in diameter, this equation
is given by (Keller and Bliesner ^{1} )
_{f} 7 89 10 ^{} ^{4} L ^{Q}
D
1 75
4 75
H
^{(}^{3}^{4}^{)}
in which H _{f} head loss due to pipe friction (m); L length of pipe (m); Q ﬂow rate in the pipe (m ^{3} _{/}_{s}_{)} and D inside diameter of the pipe (m). For larger plastic pipe, where the diameter is greater than 0 125 m, the Darcy–Weisbach equation is given by (Keller and Bliesner ^{1} )
_{f} 9 58 10 ^{} ^{4} L ^{Q}
D
1 83
4 83
H
^{(}^{3}^{5}^{)}
The laterals and manifold lines are designed as a
function of the emission uniformity. For design pur
poses, the allowable pressure head variation in a
subunit that will give a reasonable emission uniformity
(E _{u} ) can be computed by (Keller and Bliesner ^{1} )
(36)
where h _{v} allowable presure head variation in the subunit (m) ; h _{m}_{i}_{n} pressure head that will give the
minimum emission rate in the subunit (m).
h _{v} 2 5(h _{m} h _{m}_{i}_{n} )
To estimate the emission uniformity for a proposed design, Karmeli and Keller ^{1}^{1} used
E _{u} 100 _{} 1 1 27
^{E} mv
4E
nt ^{q} min
Q
e
(37)
in which E _{u} emission uniformity (expressed as a decimal) ; E _{m}_{v} manufacturing variation in emitter expressed as a coefﬁcient of variation and q _{m}_{i}_{n} minimum emission rate in the subunit (m ^{3} _{/}_{s}_{)}_{.} The h _{v} value must be divided among the lateral and
manifold lines. Keller and Bliesner ^{1} recommended , as
a general design guideline, that the allowable subunit
head variations should be allocated equally between the lateral and manifold head variations. Karmeli and Peri ^{1}^{2} found the most economic division is approxi mately 55% in the lateral and 45 percent in the manifold. This paper uses limits of 40% and 60% to subdivide h _{v} to ﬁnd the division that maximizes proﬁt. Thus
H _{l}_{u} (L _{l} d _{y} ) 0 4h _{v} 
(38) 

H _{l}_{u} (L _{l} d _{y} ) 0 6h _{v} 
(39) 

H _{n}_{u} (L _{n} 
d _{x} ) 
0 4h _{v} 
(40) 
H _{n}_{u} (L _{n} 
d _{x} ) 0 6h _{v} 
(41) 

h _{v} H _{l}_{u} H _{n}_{u} (L _{l} d _{y} ) (L _{n} d _{x} ) 
(42) 
O P T I M I Z A T I O N
O F
T R I C K L E I R R I G A T I O N S Y S T E M S
115
The diameters of the main pipelines and submains are selected so that the ﬂow velocities are maintained between the limits of 0 2 and 2 m/s.
2.2.2. Management constraints The irrigation frequency (I _{f} ) must be less than the maximum value (I _{f}_{x} )
(43)
I _{f} I _{f}_{x}
where
I fx ET ^{d} ^{m} _{p}
(44)
in 
which I _{f}_{x} is the maximum irrigation frequency , d ; d _{m} 
is 
the maximum net depth of water to be applied per 
irrigation, m and ET _{p} average daily evapotranspira tion during peakuse period, m/d. For trickle irriga tion d _{m} (in m) is given by
_{d} m _{} M ad P w
(45)
100 _{1}_{0}_{0}
where M _{a}_{d} management allowed deﬁcit , % ; P _{w} percentage area wetted (the average horizontal area
wetted in the top 15 to 30 cm of the crop root zone as
a percentage of the total crop area); W _{a} available
waterholding capacity of the soil, m/m and Z plant root depth, m. The available time to irrigate the total ﬁeld area is a restriction
W _{a} Z
^{N} su ^{I} t
^{N} sus ^{I} f
T _{a}_{v}
(46)
in which T _{a}_{v} number of hours available for irrigation
per day. The water discharge is restricted by the water available to the ﬁeld
^{2}^{Q} e ^{E} nt ^{E} l ^{O} n ^{N} sus
E a
Q _{a}_{v}
(47)
in which Q _{a}_{v} available water in m ^{3} _{/}_{s}_{.}
The
irrigated
area
under
the
trickle
irrigation
system must cover the total area (A) of the ﬁeld
2.3. Model inputs
N su
^{A}
2E _{l} O _{n} S _{e} S _{l}
(48)
The model requires basic inputs such as: (1) topog raphic data : total area , ﬁeld length and ground slope along the x and y directions; distance between plants in a row and distance between plant rows; (2) cost
data : the price of the product , production cost , capital recovery factor, energy cost, cost function and cost of the system components; and (3) design variables:
number of plants (trees) per hectare, number of emitters per emission point, number of irrigated days during the cycle, maximum evapotranspiration per season at the design of percentage of conﬁdence , peak evapotranspiration rate, recommended emitter pres sure, efﬁciency of the motor and the pump and emitter coefﬁcient of manufacturing variation.
2.4. Model output
The output data are: (1) net beneﬁt, total cost of the trickle irrigation system and the cost of each com ponent; and (2) length and diameter of all pipelines in the hydraulic network, number of subunits and num ber of subunits working simultaneously , emission uniformity, irrigation frequency, number of irrigation hours per set, average ﬂow velocity in the submain and main line.
2.5. Variables utilized in the sensiti ity analysis
To illustrate the capability of the model, the net beneﬁt for a citrus ﬁeld , located in Limeira , Sao Paulo , Brazil , was evaluated for the following vari ables : total area (8 29 and 23 04 ha) ; microsprinkler discharge (35, 56 and 87 l/h); ground slope (the same value in x and y directions of 0, 1, 3 and 5%); shape of the ﬁeld (ﬁeld length in x direction/ﬁeld length in y direction : ratios of 0 25 , 0 44 , 1 , 2 25 and 4) . The combination of these variables resulted in 120 possible conﬁgurations. Each model conﬁguration has 67 lines and 59 rows, with 59 decision variables and 216 nonzero values. The input data are shown in Table 1.
2.6. Software
The optimization model was run on a AT486 microcomputer using the GamsSMinos package (Brooks et al. ^{1}^{3} ). This software uses the simplex method, the quasiNewton method, the reduced gra dient method and the projected Lagrange method to solve linear, nonlinear and mixed optimization prob lems. A conﬁguration is composed by a value of area, micro sprinkler discharge, ground slope and shape of the ﬁeld. Each model conﬁguration was solved in about 1 min.
Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr
116
J .
C .
C .
S A A D ;
Table 1 Input data used in the example
Input data 
Value 

Annual production cost , US$ _{/} ha yr 

(C 
p ) 
1356 

Available discharge, m ^{3} _{/} s (Q _{a}_{v} ) Available waterholding capacity of 
0 2 

the soil, m _{/} m (W _{a} ) Average (or design) pressure, in m (h _{m} ) Average daily evapotranspiration during peakuse period, in m _{/} d 
0 1 

15 

_{p} ) (ET 
4 7 0 135 87 9 03 0 009 0 91 41 1 51 380 45 1 78 190 23 1 78 403 43 683 90 0 52 1812 12 

Capital recovery factor (F _{c}_{r} ) 

Coefﬁcient of Eqn (10) (C _{1} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (10) (C _{2} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (11) (C _{3} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (11) (C _{4} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (12) (C _{5} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (12) (C _{6} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (13) (C _{7} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (13) (C _{8} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (14) (C _{9} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (15) (C _{1}_{0} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (15) (C _{1}_{1} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (16) (C _{1}_{2} ) 
Coefﬁcient of Eqn (16) (C _{1}_{3} ) 0 1
Coefﬁcient of Eqn (18) (C _{1}_{4} ) Coefﬁcient of Eqn (18) (C _{1}_{5} ) Cost in the _{k}_{W}_{h}_{,} in US$ (C _{k}_{w} ) Distance between emission points in
a lateral or distance between trees
834 22 0 47 0 050 64 

4 

8 

0 ; 1 ; 3 or 5 0 ; 1 ; 3 or 5 

15 

0 
25 ; 0 44 ; 1 ; 
in the row, in m (S _{e} )
Distance between laterals or between rows of tree, in m (S _{l} ) Ground slope in x direction, % (d _{x} ) Ground slope in y direction, % (d _{y} )
Head losses in the control station , in
m (H _{c}_{s} ) Length of ﬁeld in x direction _{/} length
of ﬁeld in y direction
2 25 or 4
Management allowed deﬁcit, % (M _{a}_{d} ) Manufacturing variation in micro sprinkler expressed as a coefﬁcient 
50 

of 
variation (E _{m}_{v} ) 
0 05 
Maximum evapotranspiration per _{s}_{e}_{a}_{s}_{o}_{n}_{,} in m (ET _{s} ) Maximum irrigation frequency , day 
0 487 
(I _{f}_{x} ) Maximum
Microsprinkler cost (C _{e} ) Microsprinkler discharge, l _{/} h (Q _{e} ) Number of hours available for irriga
yield , kg _{/} ha yr (Y _{m} )
5 32 82 742 4 2 11 35 ; 56 or 87
tion per day (T _{a}_{v} ) Number of irrigation days during the season (I _{s} ) Number of microsprinklers per emission point (E _{n}_{t} ) Percentage area wetted (P _{w} ) Plant root depth, m (Z) Price of citrus in US$ _{/} kg (P) Pump efﬁciency ( ) Total area, in m ^{2} (A) Water application efﬁciency (E _{a} ) Yield reduction ratio (K _{y} )
21
120
1
50
1
0 055 88 0 65 82 944 or 230 400 0 90
1
J .
A . F R I Z Z O N E
3. Results and discussion
In all conﬁgurations, the results did not violate the basic assumptions of the optimization model . For example: the conﬁguration with the greatest net bene ﬁt has four subunits, one subunit working simul taneously, one submain line, and area of 480 m 480 m. These values are consistents with assumptions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The model describes the pipe diameters as con tinuous variables, although pipes can only be pur chased in discrete diameters. The diameters found by the model can be interpreted as the equivalent dia meter for a pipe section consisting of two successive commercial pipe segments.
2950
2940
2930
2920
2910
2900
2890
2880
0·0
0·5
2·0
Length in x direction / length in y direction
1·0
1·5
2·5
3·0
3·5
4·0
Fig. 3. Annual net beneﬁt (US$ _{/} ha yr) as a function of the ratio of length in x direction _{/} length in y direction, for microsprinkler discharge of 35 l _{/} h and ground slope in both
directions of zero . Irrigated area : , 8 _{} 2 9 ha ; , 2 3 _{} 0 4 ha
Length in x direction / length in y direction
Fig. 4. Annual cost of irrigation system (US$ _{/} ha yr) as a function of the ratio of length in x direction _{/} length in y direction, for the microsprinkler discharge of 35 l _{/} h and ground slope in both directions of zero . Irrigated area : , 8 2 9 ha ; , 2 3 0 4 ha
O P T I M I Z A T I O N
O F
T R I C K L E I R R I G A T I O N S Y S T E M S
117
The ﬁnal result for any conﬁguration is obtained using an iterative process. The ﬁrst iteration results in noninteger values that are not desirables in some variables (for example, the total number of subunits). With these values and with the basic assumptions, it is possible to establish alternatives with integer values for the variables where this is necessary. The alterna tive that gives the greatest net beneﬁt will be accepted as the ﬁnal result for that conﬁguration. The production cost , in all cases , was US$1316/ha yr and the beneﬁt was US$4624/ha yr
(except in three cases). This value of beneﬁt is equivalent to a relative yield of unity, that is, the real production is equal to the maximum production . So , the variation of the net beneﬁt in the 120 conﬁgura tions is a function of the variation of the cost of the investment and energy. This can be observed by comparing Fig . 3 and Fig . 4 . The costs of the investment and energy are the most sensitive com ponents of the net beneﬁt. The greatest net beneﬁt (US$2946/ha yr) was ob tained with the smallest microsprinkler discharge
Table 2 Variables for the conﬁgurations with the greatest net beneﬁt and smallest net beneﬁt
Variables
Greatest
Smallest
Variables
Greatest
Smallest
Total area (A) m ^{2} Length of ﬁeld in x direction (L _{x} _{)}_{,} 230 400 
82 944 
m 480 
192 
Length of ﬁeld in y direction (L _{y} _{)}_{,} 

m 480 
432 
Microsprinkler discharge (Q _{e} _{)}_{,} l _{/} h 35 
87 
Slope in x direction (d _{x} _{)}_{,} % 0 0 9 37 
5 
Slope in y direction (d _{y} _{)}_{,} % 
5 
Allowable pressure head variation in the subunit (h _{v} ) _{,} m 
9 34 
Annual beneﬁt (B _{a} ) , US$ _{/} ha yr 4624 
4624 
Annual cost of electric energy 

(C _{e}_{e} ) , US$ _{/} yr 1120 
619 
Annual cost with investment and energy (C _{i}_{e} ) , US$ _{/} ha yr 322 2946 — 1 7 — 
536 
Annual net beneﬁt (B _{n} ) , US$ _{/} ha yr Average ﬂow velocity in the down hill main line (V _{m}_{d} _{)}_{,} m _{/} s 
2732 
— 

Average ﬂow velocity in the sub main line (V _{s} ), m _{/} s 
1 7 
Average ﬂow velocity in the uphill main line (V _{m}_{u} _{)}_{,} m _{/} s Cost of control panel (C _{c}_{p} ) _{,} US$ 1406 
— 2490 
Cost of control station (C _{c}_{s} ) _{,} US$ 8112 
5570 
Cost of pump station (C _{p}_{s} ) _{,} US$ 3095 
2876 
Cost of values (C _{v} ) _{,} US$ 1614 Downhill lateral head losses (H _{l}_{d} _{)}_{,} 
4641 
m 5 13 
5 64 
Downhill lateral line diameter 

(D _{l}_{d} ) , m 0 017 
0 012 
Downhill main line diameter 

(D _{m}_{d} ), m — 
— 
Downhill main line head losses 

(H _{m}_{d} ), m — 
— 
Downhill manifold head losses 

(H _{n}_{d} ) , m 4 24 
10 
Downhill manifold line diameter 

(D _{n}_{d} ) , m Emission uniformity (E _{u} ) 0 094 13 28 
0 042 8 82 
Irrigation frequency (I _{f} ) _{,} d Irrigation time per set of subunits working simultaneously (I _{t} _{)}_{,} h 0 80 3 2 
0 81 5 3 
Lateral line discharge (Q _{l} _{)}_{,} l _{/} h Lateral line length (L _{l} ) _{,} m Main line discharge (Q _{m} _{)}_{,} l _{/} h Main line length (L _{m} _{)}_{,} m Manifold line discharge (Q _{n} _{)}_{,} l _{/} h Manifold line length (L _{n} ) _{,} m Minimum pressure in the subunit (h _{m}_{i}_{n} ), m Number of emission points in the lateral line (E _{l} ) Number of outlets in the main line (O _{m} ) Number of outlets in the manifold line (O _{n} ) Number of outlets in the submain line (O _{s} ) Number of submain lines (N _{s} ) Number of subunits working simul taneously (N _{s}_{u}_{s} ) Submain line diameter (D _{s} ) _{,} m Submain line discharge (Q _{s} _{)}_{,} l _{/} h Submain line head losses (H _{s} ) _{,} m Submain line length (L _{s} ) _{,} m Total discharge in pump outlet (Q _{t} ), l _{/} h Total head losses (H _{t} _{)}_{,} m Total lateral line length (L _{t}_{l} ) _{,} m Total main line length (L _{t}_{m} ) _{,} m Total manifold line length (L _{t}_{n} _{)}_{,} m Total number of microsprinklers (E _{t} ) Total number of subunits (N _{s}_{u} ) Total submain line length (L _{t}_{s} ) _{,} m
Uphill lateral head losses (H _{l}_{u} ) _{,} m Uphill lateral line diameter (D _{l}_{u} _{)}_{,} m Uphill main line diameter (D _{m}_{u} _{)}_{,} m — Uphill main line head losses
—
1050
63
118
—
—
000
236
11 25
30
—
30
2
1
63
63
28
1
0 114
000
4 54
360
000
30 35
320
944
7200
4
360
5 13 0 017
783
34
—
—
18 792
92
11 27
9
—
12
6
1
2
0 089 37 584 4 73
396
37 584
50
9792
—
1104
2592
12
396
2 24
0 014
—
(H _{m}_{u} ), m 
— 
— 
Uphill manifold head losses (H _{n}_{u} ) , m 
4 24 
0 8 
Uphill manifold line diameter (D _{n}_{u} ) , m 
0 094 
0 071 
118
J .
C .
C .
S A A D ;
J .
012345
Ground slope in both directions (%)
Fig. 5. Annual net beneﬁt (US$ _{/} ha yr) as a function of the ground slope in both directions(%), for microsprinkler discharge of 35 l _{/} h and L _{x}_{/} L _{y} 1. , 8 29 ha; , 23 04 ha
(35 l/h), the greatest area (23 04 ha), ﬁeld length in x direction/ﬁeld length in y direction ratio of 1 and zero ground slope. The smallest net beneﬁt (US$2732/ha yr) was given by the greatest slope ground (5%), microsprinkler discharge of 87 l/h, smallest area (8 29 ha), and ratio between ﬁeld length in x direction and ﬁeld length in y direction of 0 44 (Table 2).
3.1. Sensiti ity analysis of the net beneﬁt
The net beneﬁt per unit area decreased as the ground slope increased (Fig. 5 ) and as the micro sprinkler discharge increased (Fig. 6 ). The most proﬁtable shape of the 8 29 ha ﬁeld was a square area. For the 23 04 ha area, the ratio ﬁeld length in x
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Microsprinkler discharge, l _{/} h
Fig. 6. Annual net beneﬁt (US$ _{/} ha yr) as a function of the microsprinkler discharge (l _{/} h), for a ground slope of zero in both directions and L _{x}_{/} L _{y} 1. , 8 29 ha; , 23 04 ha
A . F R I Z Z O N E
direction/ﬁeld length in y direction between 0 44 and 1 resulted in the best values.
4. Conclusions
All 120 conﬁgurations evaluated gave results that did not violate the basic assumptions of the trickle irrigation system optimization model, developed for application in ﬂat and sloping ﬁelds. The sensitivity analysis involving the effect of area, ground slope, microsprinkler discharge and the shape of the ﬁeld showed that the greatest net beneﬁt is obtained with the smallest microsprinkler discharge, the greatest area, a square ﬁeld and zero ground slope. The cost of the investment and energy are the components that change most in the 120 situations evaluated. The net beneﬁt per unit area decreases as the ground slope increases and as the microsprinkler discharge in creases. This optimization model can help engineers to design trickle irrigation systems.
References
^{1} Keller J; Bliesner R D Sprinkle and trickle irrigation. New York : AVI Book , 1990
^{2} Pleban S ; Amir I An interactive computerized aid for the design of branching irrigating networks _{.} Transactions
of the ASAE 1981 , 24 (2) : 358 – 361
^{3} Oron G ; Karmeli D Solid set irrigation system design using linear programming. Water Resources Bulletin
1981 , 17 (4) : 565 – 570
^{4} Benami A ; Ofen A Irrigation engineering . Haifa : IESP ,
1984
^{5} Oron G ; Karemli D Procedure for the economical evaluation of water networks parameters _{.} Water
Resources Bulletin 1979 _{,} 15 (4) : 1050 – 1060
^{6} Karmeli D ; Oron G Analysis of closed conduit irrigation system and its subdivision<
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.