Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10
J. agric. Engng Res. (1996) 64, 109–118 Design and Management Optimization of Trickle Irrigation Systems

J. agric. Engng Res. (1996) 64, 109–118

J. agric. Engng Res. (1996) 64, 109–118 Design and Management Optimization of Trickle Irrigation Systems using

Design and Management Optimization of Trickle Irrigation Systems using Non-linear Programming

J .

C .

C . Saad ; *

J . A . Frizzone †

* Departamento de Engenharia Rural , FCA-UNESP , Caixa Postal 237 , 18603-970 Botucatu , SP , Brazil † Departamento de Engenharia Rural , ESALQ-USP , Caixa Postal 9 , 13418-900 Piracicaba , SP , Brazil

(Recei ed 3 March 1995; accepted in re ised form 8 January 1996)

A non-linear model is presented which optimizes the lay-out, 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 Gams-Minos package. The basic inputs are the crop- water-production 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, micro-sprinkler 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

cp

C cs

C e

C ee

C ie

15

14

13

12

11

10

C kw

C p

C pe

C ps

C pvm

C pvn

C pvs

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

ld

lu

d m

D md

D mu

nd

nu

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

0021-8634 / 96 / 060109 10 $18.00 / 0

109

÷ 1996 Silsoe Research Institute

110 J . C . C . S A A D ; E a E

110

J .

C .

C .

S A A D ;

E a

E l

E mv

E nt

E t

ET a

ET p

ET s

E u

F cr

H cs

H f

H ld

H lu

h m

H md

h min

H mu

H nd

H nu

H s

H t

h v

I f

I fx

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 peak-use 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 tl

L tm

L tn

L ts

L x

L y

M ad

N s

N su

N sus

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 av

Q e

Q l

Q m

q min

Q n

Q

Q

S e

s

t

S l

T av

V md

V mu

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 water-holding 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 lay-out, 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 lay-out, 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

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 lay-out 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 lay-out , design and management of the solid-set 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 non-linear 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 non-linear model that provides the optimization of lay-out, 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 , micro-sprinkler 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

Micro-sprinkler Lateral Manifold Valves Subunit y Submain Main Pump and control station
Micro-sprinkler
Lateral
Manifold
Valves
Subunit
y
Submain
Main
Pump and control station

x

Fig. 1. Basic configuration adopted by the trickle irrigation system optimization model (with main line)

112 J . C . C . S A A D ; Valves Subunit Micro-sprinkler

112

J .

C .

C .

S A A D ;

Valves Subunit Micro-sprinkler Lateral Manifold Submain y Pump and control station
Valves
Subunit
Micro-sprinkler
Lateral
Manifold
Submain
y
Pump and control station

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 micro-sprinklers) , 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 ie 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 ie 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 10 )

Then

1

Y r

Y m K y 1 ET 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 nt Q e I s I t

V

E

a

I f

ET a 3600E a E nt Q e I t I s

I f S e S 1

B a PY m 1 K y K y

3600E a E nt 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

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 nt 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 ie , (US$/ha)

C ie [(C e E t ) (C pe L tl ) (C pvn L tn ) (C pvs L ts ) (C pvm L tm ) C v C cp C cs C ps ]F cr C ee 10 000

A

(9)

where C e emitter cost , in US$ ; E t total number of emitters ; C pe cost (US$/m) of polyethylene pipe expressed as a function of the diameter (m); L tl total length of lateral in m; C pvn cost (US$/m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a function of the manifold diameter (m) ; C pvs cost (US$/m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a function of the submain diameter (m); C pvm cost (US$/m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a function of the main diameter (m) ; L tn total length of manifold in m ; L ts total length of submain in m; L tm total length of main line in m; C v cost (US$) of valves; C cp cost (US$) of control panel; C cs cost (US$) of control station ; C ps cost (US$) of the pump station; F cr capital recovery factor ; C ee 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 pe C 1 (D lu D ld ) C 2

(10)

(11)

C pvs C 5 (D s ) C 6

C pvm C 7 [(D mu ) C 8 (D md ) C 8 ]

(12)

(13)

C pvn C 3 [(D nu ) C 4 (D nd ) C 4 ]

where D lu is the uphill lateral line diameter , in m ; D ld is the downhill lateral line diameter , in m ; D nu is the uphill manifold line diameter , in m ; D nd is the downhill manifold line diameter , in m ; D s submain line diameter , in m ; D mu is the uphill main line diameter , in m ; D md 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 su

where N su 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 pc C 10 (N su ) C 11 (15)

where

The cost (US$) of the control station expressed as a function of the actual discharge is given by

C cs C 12 (C 13 Q t ) (16)

where C 12 and C 13 are constants and Q t is the total discharge (m 3 /s) at the pump outlet, given by

Q t 2Q e E nt E l O n N sus (17)

where E l number of emission points in a lateral;

O n number of outlets in the manifold and N sus 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 10 and C 11 are constants.

C

ps C 14 2000Q e E nt E l O n N sus (h m H t )

75

C 15

(18)

where h m is the average emitter pressure , in m ; is

the pump ef ficiency ; C 14 and C 15 are constants and H t

is the total head losses plus the total difference in

elevation, in m, given by

H t [(H lu H nu H s H mu H cs )1 05]

[(L l d y ) (L n d x ) (L s d y ) (L m d x )]

(19)

where H lu uphill lateral head losses (m); H nu uphill manifold head losses (m); H s submain head losses (m) ; H mu head losses in the uphill main line (m);

H cs 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 nt E l O n N sus 9 80665I t I s N su (h m H t )

N sus I f

(20)

where C kw is cost of kWh, in US$.

114 J . C . C . S A A D ; The amount of

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 tm 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)

(28)

(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

lu (L l d y ) H ld (L l d y )

H

(31)

H nu (L n

d x ) H nd (L n d x )

(32)

H mu (L m d x ) H md (L m d x ) (33)

in which H ld downhill lateral head losses (m); H nd downhill manifold head losses (m) and H md 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

(34)

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

(35)

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 min pressure head that will give the

minimum emission rate in the subunit (m).

h v 2 5(h m h min )

To estimate the emission uniformity for a proposed design, Karmeli and Keller 11 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 mv manufacturing variation in emitter expressed as a coefficient of variation and q min 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 12 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 lu (L l d y ) 0 4h v

(38)

H lu (L l d y ) 0 6h v

(39)

H nu (L n

d x )

0 4h v

(40)

H nu (L n

d x ) 0 6h v

(41)

h v H lu H nu (L l d y ) (L n d x )

(42)

O P T I M I Z A T I O N O F T

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 fx )

(43)

I f I fx

where

I fx ET d m p

(44)

in

which I fx 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 peak-use period, m/d. For trickle irriga- tion d m (in m) is given by

d m M ad P w

(45)

100 100

where M ad 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

water-holding 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 av

(46)

in which T av number of hours available for irrigation

per day. The water discharge is restricted by the water available to the field

2Q e E nt E l O n N sus

E a

Q av

(47)

in which Q av 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) ; micro-sprinkler 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 non-zero values. The input data are shown in Table 1.

2.6. Software

The optimization model was run on a AT-486 microcomputer using the GamsS-Minos package (Brooks et al. 13 ). This software uses the simplex method, the quasi-Newton method, the reduced gra- dient method and the projected Lagrange method to solve linear, non-linear 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

Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr 116 J . C . C . S A A D

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 av ) Available water-holding capacity of

0 2

the soil, m / m (W a ) Average (or design) pressure, in m (h m ) Average daily evapotranspiration during peak-use 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 cr )

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 10 ) Coefficient of Eqn (15) (C 11 ) Coefficient of Eqn (16) (C 12 )

Coefficient of Eqn (16) (C 13 ) 0 1

Coefficient of Eqn (18) (C 14 ) Coefficient of Eqn (18) (C 15 ) Cost in the kWh, in US$ (C kw ) 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 cs ) Length of field in x direction / length

of field in y direction

2 25 or 4

Management allowed deficit, % (M ad ) Manufacturing variation in micro- sprinkler expressed as a coefficient

50

of

variation (E mv )

0 05

Maximum evapotranspiration per season, in m (ET s ) Maximum irrigation frequency , day

0 487

(I fx ) Maximum

Micro-sprinkler cost (C e ) Micro-sprinkler 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 av ) Number of irrigation days during the season (I s ) Number of micro-sprinklers per emission point (E nt ) 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 )

( ) Total area , in m 2 ( A ) Water application efficiency ( E
( ) Total area , in m 2 ( A ) Water application efficiency ( E
( ) Total area , in m 2 ( A ) Water application efficiency ( E
( ) Total area , in m 2 ( A ) Water application efficiency ( E
( ) Total area , in m 2 ( A ) Water application efficiency ( E
( ) Total area , in m 2 ( A ) Water application efficiency ( E

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

pipe segments . 2950 2940 2930 2920 2910 2900 2890 2880 0·0 0·5 2·0 Length in

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 micro-sprinkler discharge of 35 l / h and ground slope in both

directions of zero . Irrigated area : , 8 2 9 ha ; , 2 3 0 4 ha

390 380 370 360 350 340 330 320 310 300 0 0·5 1 1·5 2
390
380
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
300
0
0·5
1
1·5
2
2·5
3
3·5
4
Annual cost of irrigation system, US$/ha yr

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 micro-sprinkler 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

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 non-integer 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 micro-sprinkler 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

Micro-sprinkler 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

ee ) , US$ / yr

1120

619

Annual cost with investment and energy (C ie ) , 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 md ), 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 mu ), m / s

Cost of control panel (C cp ) , US$ 1406

2490

Cost of control station (C cs ) , US$ 8112

5570

Cost of pump station (C ps ) , US$ 3095

2876

Cost of values (C v ) , US$ 1614 Downhill lateral head losses (H ld ),

4641

m

5 13

5 64

Downhill lateral line diameter

(D

ld ) , m

0 017

0 012

Downhill main line diameter

(D

md ), m

Downhill main line head losses

(H

md ), m

Downhill manifold head losses

(H

nd ) , m

4 24

10

Downhill manifold line diameter

(D

nd ) , 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 min ), 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 sus ) 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 tl ) , m Total main line length (L tm ) , m Total manifold line length (L tn ), m Total number of micro-sprinklers (E t ) Total number of subunits (N su ) Total submain line length (L ts ) , m

Uphill lateral head losses (H lu ) , m Uphill lateral line diameter (D lu ), m Uphill main line diameter (D mu ), 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 mu ), m

Uphill manifold head losses (H nu ) , m

4 24

0 8

Uphill manifold line diameter (D nu ) , m

0 094

0 071

118 J . C . C . S A A D ; J . 2960

118

J .

C .

C .

S A A D ;

J .

2960 2940 2920 2900 2880 2860 2840 2820 Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr
2960
2940
2920
2900
2880
2860
2840
2820
Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr

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 micro-sprinkler 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%), micro-sprinkler 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

2960 2940 2920 2900 2880 2860 2840 2820 Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr
2960
2940
2920
2900
2880
2860
2840
2820
Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Micro-sprinkler discharge, l / h

Fig. 6. Annual net benefit (US$ / ha yr) as a function of the micro-sprinkler 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, micro-sprinkler discharge and the shape of the field showed that the greatest net benefit is obtained with the smallest micro-sprinkler 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 micro-sprinkler 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<