In D 44041645

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/43265028
Design and operation of sprinkler systems
Article · January 2007

DOI: 10.13031/2013.23699 · Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
10 11,187
3 authors, including:
D.L. Martin
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
30 PUBLICATIONS 313 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by D.L. Martin on 22 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

CHAPTER 16
DESIGN AND OPERATION

OF SPRINKLER
SYSTEMS
Derrel L. Martin (University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, Nebraska)
Dennis C. Kincaid (USDA-ARS,
Kimberly, Idaho)
William M. Lyle (Texas A&M University,
Lubbock, Texas)
Abstract. The design and operation of sprinkler irrigation systems are presented
and discussed in this chapter. Information is provided concerning the components of
irrigation systems and the characteristics of the system that affect water application
efficiency and uniformity. The interactions of system characteristics with soil and crop
properties are evaluated relative to design and operation of irrigation systems to
minimize runoff, deep percolation, and excessive evaporation losses.
Keywords. Application efficiency, Center pivot, Lateral move, Runoff, Side roll,
Solid set, Sprinkler irrigation, Towline, Uniformity.
16.1 INTRODUCTION
Sprinkler systems have revolutionized the development of irrigated agriculture. Ef-
ficient water application with sprinkler irrigation involves the design and operation of
pumps, pipes, and sprinkler devices to match soil, crop, and resource conditions. Thus,
sprinkler systems can be designed and operated for efficient irrigation for a wide array
of conditions. Sprinkler irrigation also facilitated the expansion of irrigated agriculture
onto lands classified as unsuitable for surface irrigation. Initially the labor required to
transport the system across the field impeded the adoption of sprinkler irrigation.
Through automation the labor required for sprinkler irrigation has been reduced sig-
nificantly. Reduced labor requirements enabled producers to irrigate more frequently
with smaller water applications which diminished unintentional leaching and increased
the potential to store precipitation in the crop root zone while satisfying crop require-
ments.
Morgan (1993) indicated that sprinkling devices were used as early as 1873. By
1898 seventeen patents had been issued for sprinkler devices. Since that early begin-
558 Chapter 16 Design and Operation of Sprinkler Systems
ning many developments have occurred. The patent for impact sprinklers as we know
them today was issued in 1934. Aluminum pipe with rubber gaskets were first pro-
duced in the late 1940s while an early version of the side roll machine was first pro-
duced in the 1950s. Self-propelled center pivot and lateral move systems were in-
vented in the late 1940s. Producers quickly recognized that controlling an irrigation
system was essential for proper performance. One of the first controllers for sprinkler
irrigation was installed in 1924.
These early developments laid the foundation for the growth of sprinkler irrigation.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s development began in earnest and continued with
large increases in the 1960s and 1970s when automated systems were commercialized.
The amount of land irrigated with sprinkler systems continues to increase. Most of the
development today is devoted to automated and semi-automated sprinkler systems.
According to the Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (USDA-NASS, 2003), sprinkler
irrigation was used on approximately 51% of the land irrigated in the United States
(Table 16.1). Currently, center pivots are used on approximately 79% of the land that
is irrigated by sprinkler. Slightly more low-pressure center pivots are used than me-
dium-pressure pivots. Relatively few high-pressure pivots were used in 2002.
Table 16.1. Distribution of sprinkler irrigated land in the United States in 2002
(source: USDA-NASS, 2003).
Land Area (hectares) by Pressure Range Total Area
% of Sprinkler-
System < 207 kPa 210 to 414 kPa > 414 kPa hectares Irrigated Land
Center pivot 3,925,883 3,909,860 784,943 8,620,685 79.0
Lateral move 60,553 78,784 139,337 1.3
Solid set 112,551 364,353 476,904 4.4
Side roll -- -- 739,231 6.8
Traveler or big gun -- -- 256,351 2.4
Hand move -- -- 673,498 6.2
Total sprinkler-irrigated land 10,906,006
Total land irrigated with all types of systems 21,288,338
16.2 COMPONENTS OF SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

Sprinkler irrigation systems generally consist of a pump used to lift and pressurize
water, a main line piping system to convey water from the pump to the lateral pipe-
lines used to transport water across the irrigated field, and sprinkler devices to apply
the water within the field (Figure 16.1). In some cases the main line is subdivided into
submains to convey water to portions of the field. Multiple laterals may be used if the
field is large or if the field needs to be irrigated frequently. Sprinkler devices are in-
stalled at intervals along the lateral. Often a pipe called a riser is used to adjust the
height of the sprinkler device to the desired height to avoid crop interference with the
jet of water discharged from the sprinkler. For some applications with center pivots or
lateral move systems, the sprinkler device is suspended below the lateral using drop
tubes to minimize evaporation and drift of sprinkler droplets.
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems 559
Figure 16.1. Components and general layout of sprinkler irrigation systems.
The proper spacing of sprinklers along the lateral is crucial to providing enough
overlap of water from adjacent sprinklers to achieve uniform irrigation. Sprinkler lat-
erals can be permanently installed as with solid set systems, or the laterals can be
moved across the field. Laterals can be periodically moved from one location (often
called a “set”) to the next location as with hand move systems or the laterals can move
continuously across the field as with center pivot and lateral move systems. When the
sprinkler lateral is periodically moved across the field the distance between subsequent
sets of the lateral must be narrow enough to provide for adequate overlap.
Many kinds of sprinkler devices are available; some are shown in Figure 16.2. All
sprinkler devices use a nozzle to control the discharge from the sprinkler. The diame-
ter and shape of the nozzle orifice and the water pressure at the nozzle control the rate
of flow. The nozzle converts pressure within the piping system to velocity upon dis-
charge from the sprinkler. The velocity propels droplets through the air to provide a
wetted pattern about the sprinkler. The design of the nozzle and the sprinkler device
determines the diameter of coverage and the distribution of water within the wetted
region.
As with any irrigation system, the sprinkler system must be laid out to conform to
the boundaries of the field. The dimensions of the field physically or economically
often dictate the type of sprinkler system to be used. Ultimately the components of the
sprinkler system must be matched to irrigate efficiently and economically. Inappropri-
ate specification of any component will negatively affect the entire system.
Figure 16.2. Examples of sprinkler devices used on irrigation systems.
16.3 DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS

Sprinkler irrigation systems should be designed to satisfy crop water requirements
while applying water at a rate that minimizes runoff and excess leaching. To accom-
plish these objectives, the pressure distribution in the main line and sprinkler lateral
must be appropriate as discussed in Chapter 15. Efforts are underway to design sys-
tems that apply variable depths of water within a field for site-specific management.
However, emphasis is currently on systems to apply water uniformly throughout the
field. General concepts that apply to design and operation of sprinkler systems are
developed in this section. Details for specific systems are presented later.
16.3.1 Application Efficiency
The application efficiency is the fraction of the applied water that remains in the
crop root zone following irrigation. Water that infiltrates and remains in the root zone
is the net irrigation. The application efficiency is then the ratio of the net irrigation
depth (dn) to the gross depth of water applied (dg).
The possible losses of water in sprinkler irrigation are illustrated in Figure 16.3.
Some water may evaporate before it reaches the crop canopy or the soil surface. A
portion of the water is intercepted by the canopy while the remainder falls through the
canopy to the soil surface. Water that is intercepted by the canopy can be retained on
the canopy, may run down the stem of the plant to the soil surface, or may drip from
the plant. Steiner et al. (1983) showed that for a mature corn crop up to 50% of the
Figure 16.3. Diagram of water losses for sprinkler irrigation.
water applied with a center pivot flowed along the leaves and stems to the ground.
Water that is intercepted and/or retained on the canopy can evaporate during and after
irrigation. Water that reaches the soil surface can evaporate, infiltrate, run off, or be
stored in depressions along the soil surface.
When infiltration exceeds the available storage in the crop root zone, the excess ap-
plication will slowly drain through the soil profile inducing deep percolation. Water
stored on the soil surface has been called surface storage, depression storage, or reten-
tion storage. This water is available to infiltrate after the rate of application of water
decreases below the infiltration rate of the soil. Water that runs off the point of appli-
cation can infiltrate at a downstream location and may be used. If the runoff leaves the
field, the water is lost to that field. If the runoff accumulates in low-lying areas deep
percolation may occur.
The type of system, its design and operation, and the soil and climatological condi-
tions at the time of irrigation all affect the application efficiency. Design of sprinkler
systems is based upon average application efficiencies. Typical efficiencies are sum-
marized in Table 16.2.
16.3.2 System Discharge
The discharge required for the irrigation system is one of the first considerations in
the design process. The discharge must be sufficient to meet crop water requirements
for the climatological conditions of the region. We are using the net system capacity as
the indicator of the supply required to meet crop needs. The net system capacity (Cn) is
the rate water must be continually supplied to satisfy plant water requirements.
Heermann et al. (1974) used a daily soil water balance to simulate the effect of net
system capacities on the soil water content. For a given capacity, they determined the
maximum soil water depletion reached during a year. They simulated the soil water
balance for a 59-year period to develop data for a probability distribution of the net
Table 16.2. Characteristics of sprinkler irrigation systems (adapted from Keller et al., 1980).
Installation Annual Cost of Labor per Irrigation, Application Coefficient
Type of Cost ($ Maintenance (hour ha-1) Efficiency of
-1
System hour ) (% of purchase) Preseason In Season (%) Uniformity
Hand move 300 2 0.25` 1.73 65-75 70-85
Towline 500 3 0.25 1.00 70-80 70-85

Side roll 2 0.25 0.86
675 70-80 70-85
Side move 4 0.49 0.62
Solid set 2000 2 0.25 0.15 70-85 75-85
Center pivot
standard 800 5 0.05 80-92 85-95
0.12
with corner 925 6 0.06
Lateral move
ditch fed -- 0.12 0.10
85-92 85-95
hose fed 1250 6 0.15 0.15
pipe fed -- 0.12 0.07
Travelers 900 6 0.25 0.62 60-70 70-80
system capacity requirement. Results from von Bernuth et al. (1984) were used to de-
velop design guidelines for center pivots in Nebraska (Figure 16.4). Howell et al.
(1989), and Lundstrom and Stegman (1988) used similar procedures for other areas in
the Great Plains.
The inflow rate required for the system is the amount of water that must be sup-
plied to avoid water stress. The system flow rate is given by
⎛ C T ⎞⎛ A ⎞ ⎛ d g Ai ⎞
QS = 0.116⎜⎜ n i ⎟⎟⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟ = 0.116⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟ 16.1
⎝ Ea ⎠⎝ To ⎠ ⎝ To ⎠
where Qs = inflow to the sprinkler irrigation system (i.e. gross system capacity), L s-1
Cn = net system capacity, mm day-1
Ti = irrigation interval, days
Ea = application efficiency, decimal fraction.
Ai = area irrigated, ha, and
To = time of operation per irrigation, days
dg = gross depth of irrigation water applied, mm
The irrigation interval is the time from the start of the irrigation until the beginning
of the subsequent irrigation. The irrigation interval is often a nominal value represent-
ing normal practices during the peak water requirement period of the irrigation season.
The time of operation is the amount of time that water is applied during the irrigation
interval. There are times when the irrigation system may be shut down for mainte-
nance, repositioning sprinkler laterals, farming operations, or convenience. This time
can be referred to as the downtime. The downtime is the difference between the irriga-
tion interval and the time of operation. The selection of the irrigation interval and
downtime must be coordinated with the operator and should not be arbitrarily selected
by the designer.
1.0
NET SYSTEM CAPACITY, L/s/ha

0.9
WESTERN NEBRASKA
0.8
0.7
0.6
EASTERN NEBRASKA
0.5
25 50 75 100 125 150
ALLOWABLE SOIL WATER DEPLETION, mm
Figure 16.4. Net system capacity requirement for center pivots in Nebraska
(adapted from von Bernuth et al., 1984).
The total system capacity cannot exceed the available water supply. If the capacity
requirements are too high, the amount of area irrigated may have to be reduced, or
deficit irrigation will be necessary.
16.3.3 Sprinkler Discharge
The discharge required for a sprinkler can be determined by the density of sprin-
klers and the number of laterals within the field. For solid set and moved-lateral sys-
tems the density is determined by the spacing between the sprinklers along a lateral
and the distance between sets along the main line (Figure 16.2). The representative
area for a single sprinkler is the product of the sprinkler spacing along the lateral (SL)
and the distance between laterals or the set width (Sm). The number of sprinklers on a
lateral (N) is determined by the length of the field (FL), the number of laterals used
along the field length (NL) and the sprinkler spacing (i.e., N = FL/NL SL). The number
of sets per lateral (n) is determined by the width of the field (FW), the number of later-
als along the width of the field (Ns) and the width of an individual set (n = FW /Ns Sm).
The number of sprinklers per lateral and the number of sets per lateral must be inte-
gers.
The irrigation interval depends on the number of sets per lateral (n), the operational
time per set for a lateral (Ts), the time required to move the sprinkler later between sets
(Tm), and downtime between successive irrigations:
Ti = n (Ts + Tm) + Td (16.2)
The combination of the operational time and the time required to move from one
set to the next is often referred to as the set time. The set time must be selected in con-
sultation with the owner/operator to match labor availability. The minimum downtime
is the time required to reposition laterals from the last set in the field to the beginning
set for the next irrigation. Additional time may also be required for maintenance and
farming operations.
The discharge from an individual sprinkler for such systems depends on (1) the
depth of water that must be applied per irrigation, (2) the representative area for one
sprinkler, and (3) the time that water is applied for an individual set, as
1 ⎛ CnTi ⎞⎛ S L Sm ⎞ d g S L Sm
qs = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟= (16.3)
3600 ⎜⎝ Ea ⎟⎠⎜⎝ Ts ⎟⎠ 3600Ts
where qs = discharge from a sprinkler, L s-1

SL = spacing between sprinklers, m
Sm = distance between laterals, m
Ts = operational time per set for a single lateral, hours
Part-circle sprinklers can be placed at the end of the lateral to provide uniform irri-
gation without applying water beyond the field boundaries. The discharge for an end
sprinkler should be a fraction of the discharge of sprinklers along the lateral as based
on the proportion of a full circle that is watered with the end sprinkler.
Some solid set systems are designed so that the area between adjacent sprinklers
forms an equilateral triangle. For this arrangement the distance between sprinklers is
equal to the spacing along the lateral (SL) and the distance between laterals is Sm =
0.866 × SL. Relationships are developed in later sections for the discharge from indi-
vidual sprinklers on other types of systems.
The pressure available to the sprinkler device and the effective diameter of the noz-
zle determine the discharge from a sprinkler. For circular nozzles the relationship is
given by
qs = 0.00111 Cd Dn2 P (16.4)
-1
where qS = discharge per nozzle, L s
Cd = discharge coefficient
Dn = inside diameter of the nozzle, mm
P = pressure at the base of the sprinkler device, kPa.
The discharge coefficient, which incorporates characteristics of the sprinkler head
and nozzle, is unique for sprinkler devices and nozzles. Heermann and Stahl (2006)
developed equations to estimate the discharge coefficient for selected sprinkler de-
vices:
Cd = d0 + d1 Dn2 + d2P (16.5)
where d0, d1 and d2 are empirical parameters. Typical parameter values are listed in
Table 16.3 for selected sprinkler devices. The discharge from the range nozzle and the
spreader nozzle should be added for sprinklers equipped with two nozzles. For some
nozzles the orifice is not circular and the effective diameter of the nozzle should be
used in Equations 16.4 and 16.5.
16.3.4 Diameter of Coverage
The diameter of coverage, also called the wetted diameter, (Wd), is the size of the
circular pattern that is wetted by an individual sprinkler. The diameter of coverage has
a large influence on sprinkler and lateral spacing and thus the cost of a system. The
diameter of coverage depends on the velocity of the sprinkler jet, the angle of the noz-
zle axis above the horizon and the size of droplets that form when the sprinkler jet
breaks up. Up to a point, as pressure increases, the diameter of coverage increases and
more uniform application may result. The pressure should be increased as the nozzle
sizes increase to ensure that the spray breaks up adequately.
Sprinkler manufacturers provide performance data that includes the discharge and
diameter of coverage as a function of operating pressure and nozzle sizes as illustrated
in Table 16.4. The diameter of coverage provided by the manufacturer generally speci-
fies the height of the nozzle above the ground when the device was tested. Test results
are usually for no-wind conditions and include the recommended operating pressure
range for the listed configurations.
Table 16.3. Coefficients for the discharge coefficient (adapted from Heermann and Stahl, 2006).
Minimum
Model Pressure
Company Number (kPa) d0 d1 d2
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F32AS 245 0.954 5.061 × 10-3 1.859 × 10-5
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F32S 245 0.954 5.061 × 10-3 1.859 × 10-5
-3
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F33A 245 0.976 -1.617 × 10 -2.567 × 10-6
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F33AS 245 0.976 -1.617 × 10-3 -2.567 × 10-6
-3
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F33S 245 0.976 -1.617 × 10 -2.567 × 10-6
-4
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F33DN 196 1.011 -2.267 × 10 -3.441 × 10-4
-3
-5
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F43AP 245 0.945 -3.363 × 10 -2.928 × 10-6
-3
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F43P 245 0.975 -1.390 × 10 -8.234 × 10-6
-3
-3
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F80A 392 0.991 -1.002 × 10 3.213 × 10-5
-3
Nelson Irrigation Corp. R30 147 1.035 -2.845 × 10 -1.359 × 10-4
Nelson Irrigation Corp. R3000 196 0.294 0 0
Nelson Irrigation Corp. R30D4 294 0.969 0 0
Nelson Irrigation Corp. R30D6 294 0.957 0 0
Nelson Irrigation Corp. SPR1 98 0.986 -2.692 × 10-3 -9.696 × 10-5
Rain Bird Corp. 20 196 0.966 -7.768 × 10-3 7.394 × 10-5
-2
Rain Bird Corp. L20 245 1.059 -2.341 × 10 -4.154 × 10-6
-2
Rain Bird Corp. L2020 245 1.084 -1.585 × 10 -6.466 × 10-6
Rain Bird Corp. 30 245 0.995 -3.149 × 10-3 -5.449 × 10-6
-3
Rain Bird Corp. L30 245 1.009 -9.980 × 10 -8.572 × 10-6
-3
Rain Bird Corp. L3030 245 1.081 -4.962 × 10 -6.456 × 10-5
-3
Rain Bird Corp. 35 294 0.952 2.904 × 10 -4.927 × 10-6
-3
Rain Bird Corp. 40 245 1.000 -2.656 × 10 4.358 × 10-5
-3
Rain Bird Corp. 65 392 0.984 -3.061 × 10 7.541 × 10-5
-3
Rain Bird Corp. 70 392 1.002 -3.780 × 10 6.085 × 10-5
-3
Rain Bird Corp. 85 245 0.960 -1.278 × 10 3.300 × 10-5
-3
Rain Bird Corp. 8X 98 0.922 -9.870 × 10 1.005 × 10-4
-4
Senninger Irrigation Inc. S4006 245 0.963 -6.183 × 10 1.269 × 10-5
-3
Senninger Irrigation Inc. S5006 245 0.990 -2.502 × 10 -7.896 × 10-6
-4
Senninger Irrigation Inc. SSPR 59 0.983 -6.662 × 10 -8.100 × 10-5
Valmont Industries, Inc. SPR06 59 0.865 0 0
Valmont Industries, Inc. SPR10 98 0.816 0 0
Table 16.4. Performance data for an example sprinkler.

Nozzle Sizes (mm)
4.37 × 2.38 4.76 × 2.38 4.76 × 3.18 5.16 × 3.18 5.56 × 3.18 5.95 × 3.18
Nozzle Diam. Diam. Diam. Diam. Diam. Diam.
Pressure Flow cover Flow cover Flow cover Flow cover Flow cover Flow cover
(kPa) (L s-1) (m) (L s-1) (m) (L s-1) (m) (L s-1) m (L s-1) (m) (L s-1) (m)
173 0.35 26.8 0.40 27.4 0.47 27.4 0.52 27.7 0.58 28.4 0.64 28.7
207 0.38 28.0 0.44 29.0 0.51 29.0 0.58 29.9 0.64 30.5 0.71 30.8
242 0.41 29.0 0.47 29.9 0.56 29.9 0.63 30.8 0.70 31.4 0.76 32.0
276 0.44 29.6 0.51 30.5 0.60 30.5 0.67 31.4 0.75 32.3 0.82 32.6
311 0.47 30.2 0.54 31.1 0.63 31.1 0.71 32.0 0.80 32.9 0.87 33.5
345 0.50 30.5 0.57 31.7 0.67 31.7 0.75 32.6 0.84 33.5 0.92 34.1
380 0.52 30.8 0.60 32.3 0.70 32.3 0.79 33.2 0.88 34.1 0.96 34.8
Several types of nozzles are available for sprinklers. Conventional straight bore
(with round orifices) brass or plastic nozzles produce the maximum pattern radius and
good patterns at medium to high pressures. Noncircular orifice nozzles (with diffuse
jets) produce good patterns at reduced pressures but the wetted radius is usually
smaller than for straight bore nozzles. Kincaid (1982) developed an equation to predict
the diameter of coverage based on the nozzle pressure and discharge from the sprin-
kler. Heermann and Stahl (2006) used the diameter of the nozzle and the sprinkler
pressure to predict the wetted radius for a range of sprinklers:
( ) ( )
Wr = r0 + r1 Dn2 P + r2 Dn2 P
2
(16.6)
where Wr= radius of coverage, m

Dn = nozzle diameter, mm
P = nozzle pressure kPa,
r0, r1, r2 = empirical constants.
Values for the empirical parameters are listed in Table 16.5 for selected devices.
16.3.5 Time of Operation
The time of operation per set (Ts) should be selected to satisfy crop water require-
ments throughout the irrigation interval while avoiding deep percolation. The opera-
tional time must also be acceptable to the operator. The appropriate set time depends
on the rate of water application.
The average application rate is the average rate that water is applied to the crop/soil
surface. The application rate depends on the discharge and the representative area for
an individual sprinkler. The average application rate for solid set and periodically
moved systems is given by
3600 qS
Ra = (16.7)
S L Sm
where Ra = the average application rate, mm hour-1.

The rate of application is important since runoff may occur when the application
rate exceeds the infiltration rate. The recommended maximum and minimum applica-
tion rate for typical sprinkler layouts for periodically moved and solid set systems are
listed in Table 16.6. These values represent average conditions and should be adjusted
when local information is available or where runoff is prevalent.
Table 16.5. Coefficients for the wetted radius for selected sprinklers
(adapted from Heermann and Stahl, 2006).
Model Coefficients
Company Number r0 r1 r2
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F32AS 7.66 1.0188 × 10-3 -5.9017 × 10-8
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F32S 11.16 4.4340 × 10-4 -8.8466 × 10-9
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F33A 9.95 6.7152 × 10-4 -2.0504 × 10-8
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F33AS 9.95 6.7152 × 10-4 -2.0504 × 10-8
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F33S 10.74 6.5956 × 10-4 -1.7156 × 10-8
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F33DN 9.67 4.2715 × 10-4 -1.1985 × 10-8
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F43AP 9.36 3.9817 × 10-4 -6.0400 × 10-9
Nelson Irrigation Corp. F43P 12.34 4.5998 × 10-4 -7.2575 × 10-9
Nelson Irrigation Corp. R30 9.15 0 0
Nelson Irrigation Corp. R3000 6.40 0 0
Nelson Irrigation Corp. R30D4 8.54 0 0
Nelson Irrigation Corp. R30D6 7.62 0 0
Nelson Irrigation Corp. SPR1 3.73 7.7219 × 10-4 -4.2217 × 10-8
Rain Bird Corp. 20 10.54 5.2870 × 10-4 -3.3920 × 10-8
Rain Bird Corp. L20 8.30 9.5893 × 10-4 -8.8110 × 10-8
Rain Bird Corp. L2020 9.48 4.0092 × 10-4 -2.6504 × 10-8
Rain Bird Corp. 30 10.75 6.4496 × 10-4 -1.6816 × 10-8
Rain Bird Corp. L30 10.23 1.8772 × 10-4 -4.2494 × 10-9
Rain Bird Corp. L3030 10.27 1.6917 ×10-4 -3.1560 × 10-9
Rain Bird Corp. 35 10.64 6.9710 × 10-4 -1.9120 × 10-8
Rain Bird Corp. 40 12.00 5.1893 × 10-4 -9.1826 × 10-9
Rain Bird Corp. 65 13.09 3.6063 × 10-4 -3.0844 × 10-9
Rain Bird Corp. 70 16.52 2.7829 × 10-4 -1.2432 × 10-9
Rain Bird Corp. 85 16.69 1.9212 × 10-4 -6.1428 × 10-10
Rain Bird Corp. 8X 6.47 3.4306 × 10-4 -6.4353 × 10-9
Senninger Irrigation Inc. S4006 11.02 5.0444 × 10-4 -1.3677 × 10-8
Senninger Irrigation Inc. S5006 11.49 3.8105 × 10-4 -3.3509 × 10-9
Senninger Irrigation Inc. SSPR 3.83 4.1793 × 10-4 -1.3894 × 10-8
Valmont Industries, Inc. SPR06 3.52 5.2760 × 10-7 0
Valmont Industries, Inc. SPR10 2.97 7.6539 × 10-4 -2.9334 × 10-8
Table 16.6. Maximum application rate and depth of infiltration based on soil type
and management criteria (partially from Keller and Bleisner, 1990).
Maximum Application Rate Available Maximum Depth of Infiltration
(mm h-1) Water- (mm) for a root zone
Holding 1 m deep with allowable
Soil Slope (%)
Capacity depletions of:
Soil Texture 0-5 5-8 8-12 >12 (mm m-1) 35% 50% 65%
Coarse sand 50 40 30 20 50-70 21 30 39
Fine sand 40 32 24 16 75-85 28 40 52
Loamy fine sand 35 28 21 14 85-100 32 45 59
Sandy loam 25 20 15 10 110-125 42 60 78
Fine sandy loam 20 16 12 8 130-150 49 70 91
Very fine sandy loam 15 12 9 6 145-165 53 75 98
Loam 13 10 8 5 150-170 56 80 104
Silt loam 13 10 8 5 160-200 63 90 117
Sandy clay loam 10 8 6 4 140-170 53 75 98
Clay loam 8 6 5 3 150-180 56 80 104
Silty clay loam 8 6 5 3 140-180 56 80 104
Clay 5 4 3 2 130-180 53 75 98
The depth of water applied per irrigation (i.e., the volume of water per unit area of
land) for solid set and moved-lateral systems can be computed from
3600 qS TS
d g = RaTS = (16.8)
S L Sm
The depth of water applied and the corresponding application rate for other types of
sprinkler systems will be presented in later sections.
The net depth of application (dn = Ea dg) should not exceed the soil water depletion
at the time of irrigation; yet, the net depth must be large enough to satisfy the crop
water use during the irrigation interval. To satisfy these constraints the time of opera-
tion per set must be consistent with the irrigation interval and the net system capacity.
If the depth required for the net capacity exceeds the depletion at the time of irrigation
more laterals are generally required along the field width. For design purposes the
depletion is computed as
AD = MAD RD TAW (16.9)
where AD = allowable depletion, mm
MAD = management allowed depletion, decimal fraction
RD = root depth during peak water use period, m
TAW = total available water per unit depth of soil, mm of water per m of soil.
Representative values for the parameters in Equation 16.9 are available in Chapter
3 and Table 16.6. The net depth of water must then fit within the following range:
3600 qS TS Ea
CnTi ≤ d n = ≤ AD = MAD RD TAW (16.10)
S L Sm
where dn is net application depth (mm). This equation can be revised to give the
maximum and minimum limits for the operational time per set:
n Tm + Td MAD RD TAW S L Sm
≤ TS ≤ (16.11)
86400 qS Ea 3600 qS Ea
−n
Cn S L Sm
The results show that the ability of the soil to hold the net application provides the
maximum set time while the time required to satisfy the net capacity provides the
minimum set time (Figure 16.5). For conditions between the limits the system can be
shut off for more than the one day of downtime as used in the figure. These results
illustrate that the amount of downtime increases as the sprinkler discharge increases. If
there are no feasible combinations the number of laterals along the field width should
be increased. While the equation for the time of operation is complex, it summarizes
the considerations required for a given area and soil. The equation is easily analyzed
with a spreadsheet program. Solution often involves a trial and error procedure.
16.3.6 Drop Size Distribution
The size of sprinkler droplets profoundly affects the performance of sprinkler irri-
gation systems. The analyses by Edling (1985), Kohl et al. (1987), Kincaid and Long-
ley (1989), and Thompson et al. (1993) show that small droplets evaporate faster than
large droplets (Figure 16.6). Individual droplets are often assumed to be spherically
shaped. Therefore the surface area is given by (πd2) while the mass of the droplet is
given by (πρd3/6) where d is the diameter of the droplet and ρ is the density of water.
20
Sprinkler Spacing 12.2 m
Lateral Spacing 18.3 m
Applic. Efficiency 0.75
Root Depth 1.2 m
MAD 0.50
16 Sets / Lateral 20
Time to Move Lateral 1h
TIME OF OPERATION PER SET, hours
Downtime / set 24 h
TOTAL
AVAILABLE
12 WATER, mm/m
200
8 160
6 7 8 120
4 NET SYSTEM
CAPACITY,
mm/day
0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
SPRINKLER DISCHARGE, L/s
Figure 16.5. Relationship of acceptable time of operation to sprinkler discharge
when net capacity water requirements form the minimum operational time
and the soil water holding capacity constrains the maximum operational time.
25
Impact Sprinklers
38˚C Air Temperature
20
20% Relative Humidity
EVAPORATION LOSS, %
20˚C Water Temperature
15
10
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
DROPLET DIAMETER, mm
Figure 16.6. Illustration of the effect of droplet size on relative evaporation rates.
Accordingly, the ratio of the surface area to the mass of the droplet varies inversely
with the diameter of the droplet. Hence, a higher portion of the water in a small drop-
let is exposed to the atmosphere which results in larger relative evaporation rates. De-
vices that produce large drops should reduce evaporation loss and would seem to in-
crease the application efficiency.
Research has also shown that small drops are very prone to drift in windy condi-
tions. The drag force caused by the difference in velocity between the droplet and the
air is proportional to the projected area of the droplet. The momentum is proportional
to the mass of the droplet. Therefore, drag forces are more significant for small drops
than large drops. The large influence of drag forces causes small drops to decelerate
rapidly in still air. Since momentum is more significant for large drops, they are less
affected by drag and decelerate more slowly than small drops. These processes result
in a variation of droplet sizes with distance from the sprinkler device. In still air, small
drops fall closer to the sprinkler while large drops travel further. In windy conditions
the additional drag force from the wind transports droplets downwind. This process is
called drift. Drift can reduce irrigation efficiency when the water is deposited outside
of the field. Uniformity can be reduced if drift results in significant distortion of the
application pattern for a prolonged period.
The momentum of large drops resists drift in windy conditions; however, it nega-
tively affects the soil surface. Levine (1952) and others have shown that the impact
energy contained in water droplets leads to breakdown of soil aggregates and the for-
mation of a seal on the soil surface which reduces infiltration and can lead to runoff.
Levine (1952) showed that sandy soils were less affected by droplet impact than finer
textured soils. The kinetic energy of a drop can be expressed as πρd3v/12 where v is
the velocity of the droplet.
Stillmunkes and James (1982) summarized literature showing that sealing is related
to the amount of kinetic energy per unit area at impact and the accumulation of the
energy over time. The kinetic energy per unit area increases with droplet diameter, but
reaches a plateau where the kinetic energy per unit area is nearly constant as the drop
size increases. Similar results were presented by Kohl et al. (1985). The kinetic energy
per unit area is proportional to the diameter of the droplet while the drag coefficient as
presented by Seginer (1965) is inversely proportional to the diameter of the droplet.
These interactions are such that there is relatively little difference in the velocity of
droplets as the size of the drop exceeds 2 or 3 mm (Figure 16.7). Stillmunkes and
James (1982) concluded that the kinetic energy per unit area is insensitive to the drop
size if the drops are larger than 3 mm and the kinetic energy per unit area is dependent
on the application rate and the length of time that water is applied. The equation from
Stillmunkes and James (1982) for the kinetic energy per unit area is given by
Ke ρdv 2 ρRTv 2
= = (16.12)
a 2 2
where Ke/a = kinetic energy per unit area
ρ = density of water
d = depth of water applied
v = droplet velocity.
R = average application rate
T = exposure time
10
20
9 8
6
5
8
4
7 3
VELOCITY, m/s
6 2
5
1
4
3 0.5
2 FALL HEIGHT, m
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DROP DIAMETER, mm
Figure 16.7. Effect of drop size and height of fall on the velocity of droplets
(adapted from Stillmunkes and James, 1982).
Data from several sources were used by von Bernuth and Gilley (1985) to estimate
the relative infiltration rate for bare soils compared to soils protected with mulch or
crop cover (Ir):
0.683 1.271 − 0.353 0.237
I r = 1 − 0.0354 d50 v Sa Si (16.13)
where Ir = rate of infiltration for bare soil relative to protected soil, decimal fraction
d50 = volume median drop size, mm
v = velocity of the volume mean size droplet, m s-1
Sa = sand content of the soil, %
Si = silt content of the soil, %.
The effect of the drop size and velocity on infiltration is illustrated in Figure 16.8.
While the evaporation and drift of small drops are significant, the relative volume of
water in a particular size range of drops must be considered. For example, the mass of
water in a 5-mm diameter drop is 1000 times the volume in a 0.5-mm droplet. The
drop size distribution must be considered to determine if losses could be significant.
1.0
2
RELATIVE INFILTRATION RATE

4
6
0.8 8
Droplet Velocity, m/s
0.6
0.4
0.2
SANDY LOAM
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DROP SIZE, mm
1.0
2
RELATIVE INFILTRATION RATE
0.8 4
6
0.6
8
0.4
Droplet Velocity, m/s
0.2
SILT LOAM
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DROP SIZE, mm
Figure 16.8. Effect of droplet impact energy on infiltration rates.
1.0
STATIONARY PAD
0.8 - Smooth Plate
RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF DROP SIZE

STATIONARY PAD
- Medium Grooved Plate
0.6
STATIONARY PAD
- Coarse Grooved Plate
0.4
IMPACT SPRINKLER
- Straight Bore Nozzle
- 4 mm Diameter
0.2 - 400 kPa
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
DROP SIZE, mm
Figure 16.9. Examples of drop size distributions for a stationary pad sprinkler device
with three styles of plates and an impact sprinkler with a straight bore nozzle.
This has led to methods to determine the distribution of drop sizes from sprinkler
devices operated at varying pressures and heights. Various methods have been used to
measure the size of water droplets (see Solomon and Bezdek, 1980; Eigel and Moore,
1983; Kohl and DeBoer, 1984; and Dadiao and Wallender, 1985 for descriptions of
the various techniques). Examples of drop size distributions are illustrated in Figure
16.9. Bezdek and Solomon (1983) analyzed various mathematical functions to de-
scribe drop size distributions. They concluded that the upper-limit lognormal distribu-
tion was adequate for many experimental data sets. The disadvantage of this distribu-
tion is that the solution is difficult to derive from experimental data.
Until recently, the limitation on considering drop size distributions in design has
been the scarcity of experimental data for commonly used sprinklers. Kincaid et al.
(1996) developed methods to estimate the distribution of drop sizes for fourteen sprin-
kler devices. They analyzed four models of impact sprinklers that were equipped with
straight bore, flow control, or square nozzles. They also examined ten spray head de-
vices equipped with jets that impinged onto fixed or moving plates. An exponential
model was used for the drop size distribution. Li et al. (1994) had indicated that the
exponential model was comparable in accuracy to the upper-limit lognormal model
but much easier to use. The exponential distribution model is given by
⎧ ⎡ η ⎫
⎪ ⎛ d ⎞ ⎤⎪
Pv = 100⎨1 − exp ⎢− 0.693⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎥⎬
⎟ (16.14)
⎪⎩ ⎢ ⎝ d 50 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎣ ⎭
where Pv = percent of the total drops that are smaller than d
d = drop diameter, mm
d50 = volume mean drop diameter, mm

η = dimensionless exponent.
Data were developed for the values of d50 and η for each nozzle and sprinkler com-
bination for a range of operating pressures and nozzle sizes. The exponential model
accurately represents the drop size distribution for drops larger than 3 mm and overes-
timated percentage volumes for smaller drop sizes.
Kincaid et al. (1996) developed a procedure to estimate the parameters required for
the exponential model. The procedure used the effective diameter of the nozzle and
the nozzle pressure. They showed that the ratio of the nozzle diameter to the pressure
head at the nozzle could be used to describe the volume mean drop diameter and the
empirical parameter η. The relationships that they developed are given by
d50 = ad + bd Ω and η = an + bn Ω (16.15)
where Ω = ratio of the nozzle diameter to the pressure at the base of the sprinkler device
ad, bd, an, bn = regression coefficients.
Results were grouped into seven categories as describe in Table 16.7. These results
provide a more general method to estimate the effects of the design and operation of
irrigation systems on the drop sized generated.
Kincaid (1996) presented data on the kinetic energy of spray droplets. Relation-
ships were developed to predict the kinetic energy per unit mass based on the ratio of
the nozzle diameter to the pressure head:
⎛ N e2 ⎞
Ek = e0 + e1⎜ de ⎟ + U 1.5 (16.16)
⎜H 3 ⎟
⎝ n ⎠
where Ek = kinetic energy, kJ kg-1
Nd = diameter of the nozzle, mm
Hn = nozzle pressure head, m
U = wind speed, m s-1
e0,e1,e2,e3 = regression constants.
Values for the regression constants are summarized in Table 16.8. Kincaid (1996) also
correlated the kinetic energy to the mean volumetric drop size and the percentage of
the drops that exceed a diameter of 3 mm:
Ek = 2.79 + 7.2 d50 and Ek = 10.41 + 0.249 P3 (16.17)
where P3 = the percentage of the drops that are smaller than 3 mm.
Table 16.7. Coefficients for estimating drop size distribution parameters.
Type of Sprinkler Device ad bd an bn
Impact sprinkler,
small round nozzles (3-6 mm) 0.31 11900 2.04 -1500
Impact sprinkler,
large round nozzles (9-15 mm) 1.30 2400 1.82 300
Wobbler 0.78 1870 2.08 -630
Rotator, 4 groove 1.07 3230 1.70 -830
Rotator, 6 groove 0.81 1480 2.07 -1300
Concave, 30 groove plate 0.82 620 2.68 -750
Flat smooth plate 0.66 680 2.74 -920
Table 16.8. Coefficients for estimating energy from sprinkler devices.

Sprinkler Device e0 e1 e2 e3
Impact, large round nozzles 14.1 45.1 0.5 1.0
Impact, small round nozzles 6.9 132 0.5 1.0
Rotators, 4 groove plates 12.1 50.7 0.5 1.0
Rotators, 6 groove plates 8.9 38.0 0.5 1.0
Spinners, 6 groove plate 6.9 36.9 0.5 1.0
Low drift nozzle (LDN) 10.4 0.57 2 0.5
Medium groove stationary plate 6.2 0.45 2 0.5
Smooth groove stationary plate 5.4 0.40 2 0.5
The wind speed has a major impact on the kinetic energy, increasing the energy per
unit mass fivefold for wind speeds of 10 m s-1 compared to still air. Moldenhauer and
Kemper (1969) showed that the infiltration rate decreased by one order of magnitude
when the cumulative drop energy per unit area exceeded 500 J m-2. Spray devices that
produce small drops with 5 J kg-1 could apply 100 mm of water before reduction oc-
curs. For devices that produce larger drops with impact energies of 20 J kg-1 the
threshold would be reached with 25 mm of water. These results allow designers to
evaluate the potential runoff problems for various sprinkler devices. The concepts pre-
sented to this point can be applied to the design of sprinkler systems.
16.3.7 Sprinkler Placement
Sprinklers must be properly placed and aligned. Occasionally sprinklers are not
placed high enough to provide an unobstructed path for the sprinkler jet. The canopy
that interferes with the water jet reduces the diameter of coverage and leads to poor
water distribution. For row crops, sprinklers should be at least 0.5 m above the tallest
mature crop that will be irrigated. For orchard crops the sprinkler should be placed to
provide the wetted soil zone without causing degradation of fruit quality by wetting
leaves and fruits. If the sprinkler is to be used for frost control, the sprinklers must be
high enough to provide coverage of the crop canopy. On center pivots and lateral
move systems the sprinkler devices may be placed below the lateral. The sprinklers
should be placed so that the water stream does not impact on structural components of
the machine. If the sprinkler devices are placed below the top of the crop canopy, they
should be placed close enough along the pipeline to provide plants with equal access
to water. This often requires that devices be positioned above alternate furrows.
The vertical alignment of the sprinkler riser is also important. Nderitu and Hills
(1993) showed that the diameter of coverage is reduced if the sprinkler riser is tilted
from vertical. They showed that the precipitation profiles were nearly the same when
the sprinkler riser was within 10° of vertical. However, the application uniformity
decreased when the riser was tilted by 20°. Sprinklers that are firmly supported pro-
duced higher uniformities than unsupported risers.
16.4 APPLICATION UNIFORMITY

16.4.1 Single-Leg Distribution
The uniformity of application from a sprinkler system depends on the distribution
of water from individual devices. The distribution is measured with catch containers
placed around a sprinkler as shown in Figure 16.10. The sprinkler is operated long
enough to measure the depth of water applied at distances from the sprinkler. Meas-
urement containers should be large enough and deep enough to provide an accurate
measurement (Kohl, 1972). Fisher and Wallender (1988) showed that the measure-
ment accuracy was directly related to the diameter of the catch container. If the con-
tainers are used in an open field, evaporation should be estimated. Various methods
are available including using oil in the containers to suppress evaporation (see Heer-
mann and Kohl, 1980). If the irrigation system will operate in calm and windy condi-
tions, it is best to measure the distribution under both wind conditions.
SPRINKLER LOCATION
COLLECTOR LOCATION
AREA WETTED
BY A SINGLE
SPRINKLER
DIAMETER OF
COVERAGE
DEPTH OF WATER APPLIED
ELLIPTICAL PATTERN
TRIANGULAR PATTERN
WETTED
RADIAL DISTANCE FROM SPRINKLER
RADIUS
Figure 16.10. Arrangement to measure the single-leg water distribution of a sprinkler.

Elliptical and triangular distribution patterns for the single-leg distribution are shown.
The water application pattern about a single sprinkler is the single-leg distribution.
The most commonly used equations are for a triangular and an elliptical distribution
(Figure 16.10). Equations for the distributions are given by
3q S To
d (r ) = (Wr − r ) for a triangular pattern and
πWr3
(16.18)
3q S To
d (r ) = Wr2 − r 2 for an elliptical pattern
2πWr3
where d(r) = the depth of water applied at a radial distance r from the sprinkler,
Wr = the radius of coverage or wetted radius of the sprinkler
To = the duration of the sprinkler operation.
16.4.2 Overlapping (Stationary Laterals)
Several sprinklers should apply water to a location in the field to achieve an accept-
able uniformity of application. The total depth of application can be estimated by
overlapping the depth determined from the single-leg distribution for individual sprin-
klers. An illustration of the procedure is shown in Figure 16.11. This example is based
on an impact sprinkler with 4.76 × 3.18 mm nozzles operated at 350 kPa as listed in
Table 16.4. An elliptical distribution and an irrigation set time of 10 hours were as-
sumed for the example. These conditions produce the single-leg distribution given by
d (r ) = 3 16 2 − r 2 . A distribution of catch containers is assumed to compute the uni-
formity. In this case the containers are placed on a 3 m × 3 m grid. The first container
is located half the grid spacing from the sprinkler. To compute the depth of water ap-
plied at each container the radial distance from a sprinkler to the container (r) is com-
2 2
puted by r = x + y where x is the horizontal distances from the lateral and y is the
vertical distance to the sprinkler. The first four values for each container in Figure
16.11 are arranged by sprinkler starting with the upper-left sprinkler and continuing to
the lower-right sprinkler. The top and bottom rows of containers receive water from
upstream and downstream sprinklers that are not shown in the figure. The fifth and
sixth rows of the data shown in the figure represent the contribution for those sprin-
klers. The total depth of water applied is shown as the last value in the column for
each container. For this example the maximum depth applied was 145 mm while the
minimum was 89 mm. The coefficient of uniformity was computed to be 87 using
procedures described in Chapter 4.
Overlapping provides a means to evaluate sprinkler spacing in the design of
moved-lateral or solid set systems. Distribution data are available from the manufac-
turer or testing organizations for many sprinkler devices. Actual data from a single-leg
test conducted for normal wind conditions provide more representative information for
assessing the uniformity. The effect of overlapping applications can also be computed
for moving systems. The procedure is somewhat more involved and is discussed in a
later section for those systems.
DISTANCE FROM LEFT LATERAL, m
0 1.5 4.5 7.5 10.5 13.5 16.5 18
48 43 37 27 0
1.5 46
DISTANCE FROM TOP SPRINKLER, m

0 27 37 43 46 48
37 35 30 20 0 0
0 0 20 30 35 37
27 24 15 0 0 0
0 0 0 15 24 27
112 132 145 145 132 112
4.5 46 45 41 35 24 0
0 24 35 41 45 46
43 41 37 30 15 0
0 15 30 37 41 43
89 125 143 143 125 89
7.5 43 41 37 30 15 0
0 15 30 37 41 43
46 45 41 35 24 0
0 24 35 41 45 46
89 125 143 143 125 89
10.5 37 35 30 20 0 0
0 0 20 30 35 37
48 46 43 37 27 0
0 27 37 43 46 48
27 24 15 0 0 0
12 0 0 24 27
0 15
112 132 145 145 132 112
SPRINKLER
LATERAL CU = 87
CATCH CONTAINER
Figure 16.11. Distribution of water from overlapping the single-leg distribution for each
sprinkler at each container location.
16.4.3 Wind Effects

Wind has a pronounced effect on the distribution of water from sprinklers. The
work by Christiansen (1942), Vories and von Bernuth (1986), and Seginer et al.
(1991a) and others showed how the application pattern of a single sprinkler is dis-
torted in the wind. The general effects of wind are illustrated in Figure 16.12. The pat-
tern is transported downwind as would be expected; however, the diameter of cover-
age perpendicular to the wind is reduced. The narrowing of the pattern perpendicular
to the wind has an impact on the layout of sprinkler laterals. As illustrated the narrow-
ing of the diameter of coverage can lead to poor uniformity if laterals are not placed
closer together when the wind is parallel to the lateral. To compensate for the smaller
diameter, sprinklers must be located closer together in the perpendicular direction. It is
more economical to space sprinklers closer together along the lateral rather than space
laterals closer together. Thus, the general recommendation is to orient laterals perpen-
dicular to the prevailing wind and to space sprinklers closer together along the lateral
than the spacing between the laterals. General guidelines have been developed for the
maximum spacing to maintain acceptable uniformities (Table 16.9).
Models have been developed to predict the distribution of water about a sprinkler
(Vories et al., 1987). The models treat water droplets as ballistic objects and the equa-
tions of motion which include the effects of gravity and the drag on the drops are
SPRINKLER
WIND DIRECTION
Wd
PATTERN
WITHOUT WIND
PATTERN
WITH WIND
LATERAL
WIND DIRECTION
LATERAL PERPENDICULAR LATERAL PARALLEL

TO WIND TO WIND
Figure 16.12. Effect of wind on sprinkler distribution and resulting water application
uniformity. Note that orienting laterals perpendicular to the prevailing wind
direction is generally the most economical arrangement.
Table 16.9. Maximum sprinkler and lateral spacing as a percentage of the effective wetted
diameter for sprinklers operating at the average pressure along the lateral.
Wind Condition Sprinkler Spacing Lateral Spacing
No wind 45 65%
8 km h-1 40 60%
8-16 km h-1 35 50%
> 16 km h-1 30 30%
solved. The increased drag resulting from high wind speeds causes droplets to move
down wind. Seginer et al. (1991b) showed that the distribution could be simulated if
the drag coefficient was adequately described. The formulation they used for the drag
coefficient was sensitive to the type of sprinkler used. The adjustment to the drag coef-
ficient requires outdoor measurements for acceptable accuracy. The coefficient of uni-
formity was quite sensitive to the adjustment made to the drag coefficient.
Han et al. (1994) developed a mathematical model of the effects of wind on the
single-leg distribution. They used an ellipse to describe the effect of wind on the hori-
zontal shape of the distribution pattern and shape patterns across four principal sec-
tions of the pattern to predict the depth of application. They also conducted tests of
numerous combinations of sprinkler devices, nozzle types, operating pressures and

wind speeds. While their model is more empirical than the work by Seginer et al.
(1991b) it does provide a means to predict the three dimensional distribution of water
about a sprinkler in windy conditions.
16.5 SOLID SET SYSTEMS
One method to minimize labor and automate sprinkler irrigation is to permanently,
or for a single season, install laterals at intervals across the field. This type of system
is called a solid set system (Figure 16.13). Solid set systems are adaptable to a wide
range of soils, crops, topography and field shapes. Being relatively expensive, they are
commonly used for high-value crops (orchards, turf, and seedling establishment) to
save labor and for environmental control. Solid set systems can be temporary or per-
manent. Temporary systems use aboveground aluminum or plastic laterals placed in
the field at the beginning of the season, left in place for at least one irrigation and re-
moved prior to harvest. Permanent systems use buried plastic, asbestos cement, or
coated steel pipe for main and laterals with risers or riser outlets aboveground.
Controllers allow complete flexibility in operation of solid set systems. Sophisti-
cated solid state controllers are available to control normally open diaphragm valves
on sprinkler laterals. Two types of controls are commonly used. For one method, low-
voltage (24 VAC) electrical solenoids are used as pilot valves to control water pres-
sure to a diaphragm. The second method uses a hydraulic system with small tubing to
supply air or water pressure directly to the diaphragm to close the valve. Solid set sys-
tems are frequently designed with a control valve at the inlet to the lateral. The valves
are normally closed and are opened by supplying an electrical excitation for the length
of time that water is to be applied. This allows each lateral to operate independently. A
controller is used to determine how long each lateral is operated. When multiple later-
als are operated simultaneously, the combination is called a circuit or a zone. Solid set
systems provide excellent control of the amount of water applied. Some characteristics
of solid set systems are summarized in Table 16.1.
The disadvantages of to solid set systems include:
The high cost to install and maintain—More laterals are required than for a peri-
odically moved system, which increases costs substantially. The electronic
valves and the controller also increase the costs. Costs increase substantially
when the main line, submains and laterals are buried. All of the working parts
also require maintenance for proper operation.
The inflexibility due to installation of the system at specific locations in the
field—If production practices change, such as changes in implement width or
row spacing, it is very difficult to modify the layout of the solid set system to fa-
cilitate the new management practices.
Its inconvenience to farm around—The systems are difficult to farm around
unless perennial crops are planted and remain in the same location for prolonged
periods.
The advantages of the solid set system are that:
The systems apply water uniformly across the field.
The systems provide push-button control.
Properly designed solid set systems can satisfy auxiliary needs such as frost con-
trol.
Figure 16.13. Diagram of solid set sprinkler irrigation system.
16.5.1 Sprinkler Selection, Performance, and Spacing

In general, solid set systems are designed to use low-flow, medium-pressure sprin-
klers. However, large sprinklers may be used if they are manually moved or individu-
ally valved. Sprinkler spacings will vary from 9 m by 9 m, to 73 m by 73 m. Nozzle
sizes can be as small as 1.59 mm to as large as 36 mm, pressures range from 172 to
620 kPa. The sprinkler spacing depends upon the sprinkler and nozzle combination,
operating pressure, desired coefficient of uniformity (CU), wind speed, and use of the
system. For certain high-value crops, it may be desirable to design for a high CU. A
crop of lesser value may not justify the cost of a design with a high CU. Since it is not
possible to design for all wind conditions, the system should be designed for average
conditions. A system designed for frost and freeze protection may not require as high a
CU as a system for soil moisture control. A system that is used to supplement rainfall
may not need as high a CU as one in which crop production totally depends upon irri-
gation.
16.5.2 Designing for Constant Sprinkler Discharge

The general design procedure for solid set systems where sprinkler nozzle and pipe
sizes are uniform has been described. As indicated there is variation of flow along the
lateral. The following procedure can be used to design individual sprinkler laterals, or
groups of laterals and associated main line or submain sections where there is less
variation once the sprinkler spacing and discharges have been specified. The flow
within any section of pipe can be determined. The procedure is iterative for selection
of pipe sizes and input pressure. The procedure can be used to design complete sys-
tems or subsections of large systems and includes the following steps:
1. Assuming the desired sprinkler spacing has been selected, the first step is to lay
out a system of laterals and main line on a topographic map of the field, or
measure the elevation of each proposed sprinkler location, as well as the loca-
tion and elevation of the system inlet. The elevation of each sprinkler outlet po-
sition is determined.
2. Calculate the flow in each pipe section as the total of all sprinkler downstream
of that section. Flows need to be recalculated whenever the sprinkler flow or the
number of operating sprinklers changes.
3. Pipe sizes are selected for main line and lateral sections. Initially, a large, uni-
form pipe size can be selected for main line and laterals, and then pipe sizes can
be reduced in certain areas as the design is optimized.
4. Establish an assumed pressure head at an initial point in the system, the inlet be-
ing a convenient point. The initial pressure may be set low or equal to the mini-
mum adequate sprinkler pressure.
5. Calculate pressures at all points by working upstream or downstream one pipe
section at a time or by using the pressure distribution relationship previously
presented.
6. Evaluate the pressure distribution. If some sprinkler pressures are inadequate,
increase the input pressure and go back to Step 5 until the minimum sprinkler
pressures are obtained. If all sprinkler pressures are within desired limits, the de-
sign may be acceptable, but some pipes may be oversized. If the range of pres-
sures exceeds the desired limit, some pipes may be undersized, or elevation dif-
ferences may be too large.
7. Reduce pipe sizes in selected areas, usually near the ends of laterals, or low ele-
vation areas, and go back to Step 5. Repeat as necessary until pipe sizes and
pressure distribution are optimized.
When the pressure distribution has been calculated, the required nozzle size for
each sprinkler can be calculated using the specified flow and calculated pressure. If
the range of pressures is sufficiently narrow, one nozzle size can be used. Alterna-
tively, pressure regulated sprinklers or flow-control nozzles can be used.
If only a fraction of the laterals are to be operated at one time, the main line design
should be checked with each set operating to ensure adequate pressure for all sets. The
main line size(s) can usually be minimized by spreading the operating laterals as uni-
formly as possible over the whole main line. However, it may be desirable for cultural
reasons to concentrate the operating laterals, in which case the set farthest from the
inlet will usually dictate the main line design.
The variability of topography within each group of sets must be considered. If ele-
vation differences are great in the direction perpendicular to the lateral, pressure regu-
lated sprinklers or flow-control nozzles are desirable. Also, if different numbers of

laterals may be operated at different times, inlet pressure may change.
The sprinkler flow, input pressure, pipe roughness, or any of the pipe sizes can be
changed recomputed when using a spreadsheet. If the spacings are changed, the layout
and thus the elevations would need to be changed accordingly. The laterals can be
shortened by setting downstream pipe diameters to zero.
In the case of uphill flows, large unavoidable pressure differences may be encoun-
tered. Pressure regulating valves can be located at lateral inlets or other points to re-
duce and limit the pressure to a specific value. Such controlled-pressure points can be
used as the starting point for pressure calculations. Alternatively, individual pressure
regulators can be used on sprinklers to limit the nozzle pressure and the inlet pressure
can be increased to maintain the minimum pressure throughout the system. The fol-
lowing examples will illustrate the design procedure.
Example 1. A 160-m × 180-m field is to be irrigated as shown in Figure 16.14. A

spacing of 17 m along the main line and 15 m along the laterals is selected. The sprin-
kler flow is 0.8 L s-1. The inlet is at the pump, located one main line section upstream
of the first lateral. The pump elevation is 10 m. Figure 16.15 shows the calculations
using a spreadsheet program. Numbers in bold type indicate the required input data.
Part A gives the pipe roughness (Hazen-Williams C), sprinkler flow, spacings, pump
(inlet) pressure and elevation, total flow and computed average and percent variation
in sprinkler pressure.
WATER SOURCE AND PUMP
MAINLINE
LATERAL VALVE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
v v v v v v v v v v
1
SECTION
3 9
8
5
6
7
7
8 6
9 5
10 4
ELEVATION 3
SPRINKLER
CONTOUR, m
FIELD BOUNDARY
Figure 16.14. Plan view of field irrigated with a solid set sprinkler system.
Figure 16.15. Design of mainline and laterals for a solid set system with 10 laterals, where:
Pm is the pressure head at the main line outlet or lateral inlet, Pmin is the minimum pres-
sure and DP is the pressure difference on a lateral, Ns is the number of sprinklers on a
lateral (ON:OFF = 0,1), Ql is the total lateral flow, Qtot is the total flow in the mailine sec-
tion, and EL is the elevation of the inlet of a main line section (m).
Part B gives the number of sprinklers or pipe sections on each lateral, elevations
and diameters of the main line section upstream of each lateral, and computed main
line pressures, minimum lateral pressures, pressure difference on each lateral, flow in
each main line section and lateral, and main line velocities. Laterals are designated as
being on or off by entering 1 or 0 in the ON:OFF column (Figure 16.15). Individual
laterals can be turned off to simulate smaller sets or movable lateral systems.
Parts C to F give the elevations, pipe diameters, sprinkler pressure heads, and com-
puted nozzle sizes in grid form corresponding to the grid layout of Figure 16.15. The
sprinklers are located at the downstream end of each lateral section.
Following the above procedure, the elevations and pipe sizes were input (Parts C
and D). The flows in the main and laterals are computed by summing the sprinkler
flows downstream of each section. The assumed input pump pressure of 50 m be-
comes the inlet pressure for the first mainline.
All 10 laterals are to be operated simultaneously, so the flow in the first section is
80 L s-1. The diameter is 200 mm, and friction loss is 0.6 m. The outlet pressure for the
first section is 50 – 0.6 + 10 – 9.9 = 49.5 m, which becomes the inlet pressure for the
second main line section and also the inlet pressure for the first lateral. Pressures were
calculated down the first lateral one section at a time, and the minimum was found to
be 39.9 m (in section 8 since the laterals are running down slope). Successive main
and lateral sections were calculated to the end of the last lateral. The overall minimum
pressure head was 39.6 m in lateral 2.
Pipe size selection and readjustment is the main iterative process in this procedure.
In this example pipe sizes were adjusted so the pressure difference within the laterals
is less than 20% of the minimum pressure. The pipe size on the first section of the first
2 laterals was reduced to decrease the lateral pressures and thus reduce the overall
pressure variation to less than 20%. The computed nozzle sizes are thus nearly uni-
form, and one nozzle size can be selected. If variable nozzle sizes are needed to main-
tain uniform flows, the designer can select the available nozzle size closest to the
computed size.
Example 2. This example uses the same field and lateral layout in Example 1, op-
erated by running two adjacent laterals per set. Results are given in Figure 16.16 for
laterals 9 and 10, the laterals farthest from the pump. The total flow at the pump de-
creases to 16 L s-1. The main line sizes are reduced accordingly. The lateral pipe sizes
are the same as in Example 1. The average pressure, Pav, and variation Pvar, are for the
operating laterals only.
16.5.3 Operation and Maintenance Guidelines

The operating mode for a solid set sprinkler system depends upon the design and
use of the system, available labor, water supply, and available capital. The system can
be designed using the lateral or area (zone) design method. With lateral design indi-
vidual laterals are controlled by valves and each lateral may be operated as desired.
Normally, more than one lateral is operated simultaneously, but the operating laterals
usually are widely separated in the field. The lateral design method minimizes the
main or supply line pipe size, but it increases the number of valves required and also
Figure 16.16. Design of mainline and laterals for a solid set system with 2 laterals o
perating, where Pm is the pressure head at the main line outlet or lateral inlet, Pmin is the
minimum pressure and DP is the pressure difference on a lateral, Ns is the number of
sprinklers on a lateral (ON:OFF = 0,1), Ql is the total lateral flow, Qtot is the total flow in
the mailine section, and EL is the elevation of the inlet of a main line section (m).
the time to open and close valves when a manual valve system is used. With the area
(or zone) design method, a contiguous portion of the field is irrigated at one time.
Usually a submain is installed to supply water to that portion of the field.
For frost and freeze protection, the entire system may be operated at one time. De-
pending upon the crop being protected, the application rate will be 2 to 5 mm per hour.
In the eastern U.S., most orchard systems are designed to apply water over the crop. In
the western U.S., both undertree and overtree systems are used; however, with saline
water only undertree systems can be used successfully.
If the system is being used strictly for irrigation, only a portion of the system is
normally operated at one time. Where several hours are required for irrigation, control
may be manual or automatic. For an irrigation system on a shallow-rooted crop grown
on a coarse-textured soil, or in a container nursery operation where daily or frequent
irrigation is required, it is best to automatically control the sequencing of the system.
Where labor is very limited, automatic control may be desirable regardless of irriga-
tion frequency, however this will increase the initial investment. Conversely, limited
capital may require a totally manual system. A limited water supply, such as a well or
stream, may mean that only a portion of the system can be operated at once.
16.6 PERIODICALLY MOVED LATERALS
Sprinkler systems in this category have laterals that are moved between irrigation
settings. They remain stationary while irrigating. The lateral is drained prior to moving
to the next set. Set-move laterals are used extensively because of their relatively low
cost and adaptability to a wide range of crops, soils, topographies and field sizes.
Equipment cost is largely dependent on the number of sets irrigated by each lateral.
They are well suited to soils with high water holding capacity, deep-rooted crops, low-
growing crops, supplemental irrigation, and deficit irrigation management. They can
be classified as hand move or mechanical-move systems. Mechanical-move systems
are similar to hand move except that pipe types and sizes are often dictated by me-
chanical rather than hydraulic considerations.
The system consists of laterals, a pipeline with outlets for distributing irrigation wa-
ter to sprinkler devices that are periodically moved across the field. The lateral is made
of pipe sections that are from 50 to 150 mm in diameter and 6 to 18 m long (Figure
16.1). A coupler is installed on one end of the pipe section. The other end of the pipe
section is inserted into the upstream coupler and fastened with either a hook that
latches into the coupler or a ring assembly. New types of couplers are currently being
developed that use different mechanisms to connect the sections of pipe. Gaskets are
installed in the coupler to prevent leaks when the system is pressurized. Small pipes,
called risers, convey water from the lateral to the sprinkler. Water is supplied to the
laterals by main lines, or submains which branch from the main line.
The most common system has a single center main line with one or more laterals
which irrigate on both sides of the main line. If there are multiple laterals, they are
spaced equally, so by the time any lateral reaches the starting position of the lateral
ahead of it, the entire field has been irrigated once. The spacing of the sprinklers on
the laterals and between subsequent sets of each lateral is such that the water distribu-
tion patterns from the sprinklers give almost complete overlap. Large systems often
require more complex designs with multiple main lines, although simple systems are
possible on rectangular fields up to at least 64 ha.
Valve-tees are usually placed in the main line at the desired interval for spacing be-
tween lateral settings. The valve-tees are controlled by manipulating a valve-opening
elbow that makes the connection between the main line and laterals. Common valve
spacings are 12.2, 15.2, 18.3, and 24.4 m. Since common pipe lengths are 6.1, 9.1,
12.2, and 15.2 m, the desired valve spacing is obtained by using various combinations
of lengths. For many systems buried main lines are preferred. The pipe should be
placed safely below plow depth and should also be below frost depth, unless provi-
sions are made for draining the pipeline.
The advantages of periodically moved systems are that:
investment costs are minimal;
the systems offer a great deal of flexibility;
the systems are easy to understand and operate; and
the sprinklers and nozzles are generally the same size, which maximizes inter-
changeability.
The disadvantages of periodically moved systems are:
the high labor requirements;
the relatively large applications of water each irrigation;
the reduced uniformity when a uniform size of nozzle is used on long laterals or
rough terrain; and
the time required for laterals to drain before moving.
The water application and other characteristics of the hand move, towline and side
roll systems are very similar. Characteristics of the system are presented in Table 16.1.
16.6.1 Hydraulics
The hydraulic design of moved laterals has been described in Chapter 15 and pre-
viously in this chapter. With these systems the sprinkler and nozzle sizes are generally
constant and the pipe diameter for the lateral is uniform. Thus, the procedures devel-
oped in earlier sections apply. The general procedure is to layout the field boundaries,
water supply and pump location. The main line is frequently laid down the center of
the field to minimize pressure losses in long laterals. The spacing between sprinklers
and laterals is selected to fit the field. With an initial layout the discharge for the
sprinkler and lateral are determined.
The minimum average pressure is determined for the selected size of lateral pipe.
From these data the nozzle sizes can be determined. The diameter of coverage of the
sprinkler must be large enough to provide adequate overlap. If all components are
adequate the inlet pressure for each lateral position should be determined. The main
line should be selected to provide the highest feasible uniformity. The cost of design
alternatives should be determined. For the final design, product specifications and an
operational plan should be developed and discussed with the client. Special considera-
tions for each type of periodically moved system are discussed below.
16.6.2 Hand Move Laterals
The earliest periodically moved systems involved laterals that were moved by car-
rying sections of pipe across the field. Between moves the lateral operates for a period
time (the set time) and applies water to a portion of the field (a set) (Figure 16.17).
This is called a hand moved system. An extensive amount of labor is required to move
laterals from one set to the next set, which discourages frequent movement resulting in
large applications of water per irrigation.
Figure 16.17. Picture and operational sketch of a hand move irrigation system.
Common pipe diameters range from 51 to 152 mm, and pipe lengths are 6.1, 9.2, and
12.2 m. The most popular aluminum lateral length is 9.1 or 12.2 m. Shorter lengths
mean more walking during the move. Longer lengths are more difficult to transport
and do not provide proper spacing for the common sprinkler sizes.
Hand move systems are the lowest equipment cost alternative for moved-lateral
systems, but are labor intensive. Lack of available labor is the main reason farmers are
tending toward center pivot or other automated systems. Most hand move sprinkler
systems now use aluminum laterals, although plastic is available. Most lateral pipe
couplers contain a chevron-type rubber gasket which seals under pressure, and are
designed to latch automatically when the pipes are pushed together. Many couplers
contain an optional adjustment for easier unlatching. Hook and latch type couplers can
be fixed so they will unlatch automatically when the irrigator pushes and twists the
pipe. Ball and socket couplers automatically latch when the pipe is under pressure, and
release when the pressure is off. Drop-lock couplers have hooks that engage as the
pipe is lowered to the ground. The automatic unlatch saves some walking, but could
increase the hazard of an accidental unlatching. In contrast to the main line gaskets,
the lateral gaskets are designed to release their tight contact with the pipe when the
pressure on the water is reduced. This permits the water to drain from the pipe when
the pressure has been turned off so the pipe can be moved easily to the next setting.
Each coupler is threaded to receive a sprinkler riser pipe, usually 25 mm in diame-
ter. If both the coupler and the riser are aluminum, it is customary to connect them
with a zinc alloy fitting or Teflon tape to avoid thread seizure. The riser should extend
at least to the top of the crop canopy, but the uniformity of water distribution is im-
proved if it is extended another 0.5 m.
The uniformity of water distribution can usually be improved by using an offset
pipe with a 90° elbow every second irrigation. The length of the offset should be half
of the spacing between lateral settings. Using the offset pipe permits the lateral to be
placed midway between the positions used during the previous irrigation. Thus, con-
sidering two irrigations added together, a 12.2-m by 18.3-m spacing, for example, is
effectively reduced to 12.2 m by 9.2 m.
A good procedure for the irrigator to follow when moving the lateral from one set-
ting to the next is to start by moving the valve opening elbow and the section of pipe
connected to it. As soon as these pieces are in place at the new location, the valve is
slightly opened so a very small stream of water runs out the end of the first pipe sec-
tion. As each subsequent section of pipe is put into place, the small stream of water
runs through it, flushing out any soil or debris that may have been picked up during
the move. The last section of pipe with its end plug in place can be connected before
the stream of water reaches the end and builds up pressure. Then the irrigator walks
back along the lateral, correcting any plugged sprinklers, leaky gaskets, or tilted risers.
After returning to the main line, the valve is opened further until the desired pressure
is obtained. A quick check with a pitot gauge on the first sprinkler confirms the valve
adjustment. To save time on each lateral move, there is a tendency to completely open
the valve and fill the line as quickly as possible. This causes water hammer at the far
end of the line, so a surge plug at that end may be needed. The sprinklers commonly
used on hand move systems may have either one or two nozzles. Typically, individual
sprinkler capacities range from about 0.06 to 0.63 L s-1. Operating pressures range
from 240 to 415 kPa.
Certain crops, such as orchards, require specially designed sprinklers. When the
sprinklers are used over the tops of the trees, conventional models can be used. How-
ever, when they are used under trees, sprinklers with low water trajectory must be
used. Lowering the trajectory reduces the uniformity, unless the spacing is reduced.
Hedge-rowed trees present a difficult problem, especially if it is desirable to irrigate
through the skirts of the rows.
16.6.3 Towline Systems
Towline or skid-tow systems were developed to reduce labor required to reposition
laterals. The most efficient layout for towlines is to divide the field in half so the lat-
eral can be pulled in a zigzag fashion across the field (Figure 16.18). Towline sprin-
kler laterals have relatively rigid couplers fitted with skids or wheels so the line can be
moved by pulling it from the end. The skids consist of a flat metal plate held on the
Figure 16.18. Picture and operational sketch of a towline or skidtow system.
underside of the pipe by one or more clamps. In one type, the skid is placed under the
coupler and clamped at both ends. This makes the skid take the major part of the end
thrust at the coupler when the pipe is towed. If relatively long sections of pipe are
used, a second skid may be needed under the center of each section to reduce abrasion
from soil contact. Stabilizers, outriggers, or wheel-mounts were used to keep the lat-
eral from tipping. Two or three outriggers along the line are needed to keep the pipe
oriented with the skids on the bottom and the sprinklers upright.
For wheel-type units, a pair of wheels mounted on a simple U-frame is clamped to
each section of pipe. The wheels are oriented so the entire length of lateral pipe can be
pulled endwise. The pipe itself stands only 0.3 to 0.5 m above the ground. The flexi-
bility of the pipe and the articulation of the couplers permit the lateral to curve slightly
while being moved to a new position. In one type, however, the lateral stays straight.
The wheels are fixed so they shift to a 45° angle from the lateral when pulled in one
direction, and then shift back to a 45° position the other way when pulled from the
other end of the lateral. Thus, by pulling alternately from both ends, the entire length
of lateral is shifted the desired distance to the next set position.A coupler and hitch are
attached to each end of the lateral so that it can be towed in either direction. An end
cap is used to plug the downstream end of the pipeline. Drain plugs are installed along
the lateral to empty water from the pipeline before moving. Often a flexible hose is
used to connect the lateral to the main line. If more than one lateral is used in a field,
provisions need to be made to split the main line while moving the lateral. A telescop-
ing coupler can be used for this purpose. When the lateral reaches the edge of the
field, the lateral must be disassembled and transported to the starting location. If the
surrounding property is amenable, the lateral can be towed to the starting position.
The traditional way of moving a towline lateral is to snake it past the main line in
an S-shaped curve to a new position on the other side (Figure 16.18). For the next set-
ting, the lateral is pulled in the other direction past the main line in an opposite S-
shaped curve. With this procedure, each move needs to advance the lateral only half
the distance between adjacent sets.
Towline systems are the least expensive of the mechanically moved systems. How-
ever, they are not used extensively because the moving process is tedious, requires
careful operation, and damages many crops. Towline systems have been used success-
fully in some forage crops and in row crops. The moves are made easier if the main
line is buried.
16.6.4 Side Roll Systems
The side roll, or wheel-move, system is a third type of periodically moved lateral.
With this system, wheels are mounted on the sprinkler lateral to carry the pipeline
above the crop (Figure 16.19). A cart provides power to rotate the wheels. The cart
and the water feed to the side roll can be positioned anywhere along the lateral. Fre-
quently the pipeline is used as the axle for the torque; however, a separate drive shaft
can be used to rotate the pipe. Multiple laterals are often used in a field. A special ap-
paratus with a swivel and weight is used to keep sprinklers vertical when the pipeline
rotation is not precise. The mainline may be above or below ground. Flexible hoses
are often used to connect the side roll lateral to the mainline.
Rigid couplers permit the entire lateral to be rolled forward by applying torque at
the center while the pipe remains in a nearly straight line. Aluminum pipe having a
100 or 125 mm diameter is commonly used. To have sufficient strength, the aluminum
pipe wall thickness should be at least 1.8 mm. A motorized drive unit, usually near the
center of the lateral, provides torque to move the lateral and holds the pipe in place
during operation. Normally, the drive unit contains a gasoline engine and a transmis-
sion with a reverse gear. Electric motors or hydraulic motors are also used. Typical
lateral length is 400 m, but longer lengths are made with two drive units spaced about
½ the lateral length apart, and connected by a drive shaft. Since the greatest torque is
applied to the pipe near the drive unit, 125-mm pipe is sometimes used near the center
of the lateral for greater strength. The pipe is flexible enough so that these systems can
be used on rolling topography with mild slopes.
The most popular sprinkler spacing (and pipe length) is 12.2 m. The wheels are
usually placed in the center of each length of pipe, with sprinklers located halfway
between the wheels. Thus, a standard 400-m lateral contains 32 pipe lengths and 36
wheels because four wheels are required for the drive unit. Sometimes an extra wheel
is provided for the last pipe section at each end.
Figure 16.19. Picture and operational sketch of a side roll irrigation system.
The rigid couplers can be quickly disconnected to shorten the lateral in the case of
odd shaped fields. Often the sprinklers are provided with self-levelers so they will
right themselves if the lateral is not stopped where the riser would be exactly upright,
i.e. on variable topography, and to aid in aligning the laterals with main line valves.
Labor requirement is approximately five minutes per lateral per move. Some side roll
drive units can be controlled from the end of the lateral, eliminating the need to walk
to the center drive unit. At least one manufacturer has developed an automated side
roll system that can be programmed to drain and move itself and irrigate up to five
sets. Water is supplied through a flexible hose.
The wheel diameter must be large enough so the pipe will pass over the crop with-
out damaging it, and the crop will not prevent the lateral from being rolled to the next
position. Common wheel diameters commonly are 1.17, 1.47, 1.63, and 1.93 m.
A spring-loaded drain valve also is located about midway between the wheels, near
the pipe coupler and near the sprinkler. This valve opens automatically when the pres-
sure is off, so the pipe will drain quickly and permit moving the lateral forward to the
next set without much time loss. (Attempting to roll the pipeline when it is full of wa-
ter will damage the equipment).
The most popular side roll spacing along the main line is 18.3 m. Two popular op-
erating schemes are used. In one, the lateral is connected to every outlet valve along
the main line, and when the lateral reaches its destination and completes its last set, it
is rolled back to the starting point. In the other, the lateral is connected to every even-
numbered outlet valve on the main line while the lateral is moved across the field, and
then connected to the odd- numbered valves while the lateral is moved back to the
starting position. For the latter case the lateral interval between irrigations is longer at
the two ends of the field than in the center.
As with hand move laterals, there is a tendency to completely open the hydrant
valve and fill the line as quickly as possible, causing a water hammer at the far end of
the line. Therefore, a surge plug at the closed end is recommended. The use of offsets,
especially for the 12.2 m by 18.3 m spacing, is also recommended. Side roll laterals
are highly susceptible to wind damage when they are empty, and should be staked
down during the off season. Special braces, which allow the lateral to roll in one direc-
tion only, help protect the laterals during the irrigation season.
A lateral with 32 sprinklers is commonly designed with 100-mm diameter pipe,
even when the water is introduced into it from one end and the friction loss is 55 to 60
kPa. However, if the water is admitted to it at the center of the lateral, the friction loss
is reduced to about 1/5 as much. A 125-mm pipe would have only about 1/3 the fric-
tion loss of the 100-mm pipe when the water is admitted from one end. The best
method will depend on the future price and availability of energy. End-feed laterals
are usually preferred because a drive-through roadway can be maintained along the
main line for easy accessibility to the valves.
16.6.5 Side Move with Trail Lines
Side move laterals with trail lines are supported on wheel-mounted A-frames. The
pipe does not serve as the axle of the wheels and can be higher above the ground. Each
A-frame carriage is driven from a drive shaft that extends the length of the pipeline.
The drive shaft can be turned from the center of the line or from one end. One version
uses a continuous-move (center pivot) type lateral operating in stationary set-move
mode. The wheels are powered by electric or hydraulic motors supplied from an on-
board generator or hydraulic pump.
The small diameter trail lines can each carry several sprinklers. Usually, short
sprinkler risers are used as they are easier to keep upright than tall risers. Outriggers at
the last sprinkler on each trail line are used to keep the risers upright; however, these
may damage some crops.
This system is sometimes called a “movable solid set.” It greatly reduces the num-
ber of moves necessary to cover the field, thus saving labor. Sprinkler spacings and
nozzle sizes that give low application rates at an acceptable uniformity can be used.
With the low rates, 24-h set times may be practical for some soils and crops, thus per-
mitting a normal daytime work schedule for the irrigator. When a trail line system
reaches the end of the field, the trail lines are uncoupled, and the lateral is moved to
the opposite ends of the trail lines, which are then recoupled to irrigate on the way
back across the field. The wheels on most side move systems can be turned 90°, per-
mitting the lateral to be pulled endwise to another field.
16.7 CENTER PIVOTS

In 1948 Frank Zybach invented the self-propelled irrigation system. His invention
used towers with wheels to carry a pipeline around a pivot point in the field. Even
though his invention has undergone numerous changes, the basic concept is still used.
A span of pipe is supported by a tower and a truss system (Figure 16.20). Today most
systems are propelled by electrically or hydraulically powered motors mounted on
each tower. A system of switches on each tower energizes the motor when the tower
needs to move. The depth of water application is generally controlled by selecting the
speed of the last or end tower. For many electric systems a one-minute timer is used to
control the velocity. If the timer is set to 100%, the motor on the end tower is ener-
gized the entire minute causing the end tower to move at a constant velocity equal to
the maximum speed of the system. If the timer is set to 50% the motor is only ener-
gized for 30 seconds; thus, the end tower is stationary for 30 seconds and then moves
for 30 seconds at the maximum speed for the end tower. Some hydraulic and electric
systems provide continuous movement of the end tower at variable speeds to apply the
desired depth of application.
The interior towers are controlled by switches or valves mounted on the tower. One
switch or valve is set to energize the motor if the downstream tower has moved far
enough to exceed a start angle. The switch or valve energizes the motor and causes the
tower to move at a constant velocity. The tower moves until the angle between adja-
cent spans exceeds a stop angle. For continuously moving systems the interior towers
move continuously at varying speeds to maintain alignment. The interior towers may
be designed to move at a faster velocity than the end tower allowing them to catch up
with the end tower to maintain alignment.
Controllers are presently available to change the speed and/or direction of rotation
of the pivot lateral as the system circles the field. This is useful if different crops are
planted under a pivot or if obstructions are located in the field. Small center pivots are
also made that can be moved within a field, or from field to field. This allows for
semi-automated irrigation of irregularly shaped fields and small tracts of land.
Center pivots can be equipped with an end gun to increase the portion of a field that
is irrigated (Figure 16.20). The end gun is a large sprinkler similar to that used on a
traveler that is mounted on the end of the pivot lateral. The gun throws water a long
distance thereby increasing the amount of land irrigated for a given length of lateral. A
valve is attached to the end gun so that the end gun only operates in the corners of the
field. When the pivot lateral reaches a preset angle of rotation, the valve opens and
water is supplied to the end gun. In some cases a booster pump is attached to the valve
to increase the pressure for the end gun.
A corner system can be used to irrigate an even larger portion of a square field. A
special span is attached to the end of a typical system (Figure 16.21). The corner span
revolves about the end of the pivot lateral. The corner span is tucked behind the main
lateral when the boundary of the field is close to the end of the pivot lateral. The
sprinklers on the corner span begin to irrigate when the pivot rotates to an angle where
the sprinkler package on the primary lateral does not reach to the field boundary.
Sprinklers on the corner span are attached to a series of valves. As the pivot lateral
rotates toward the corner of the field, the corner lateral extends and opens valves as
the corner lateral is extended. An end gun can be attached to the corner lateral to throw
Figure 16.20. Components and field layout for typical center pivot irrigation systems.
water further into the corner. Many corner systems use an underground cable and an
antenna on the corner tower to follow a desired path. The cable can be positioned to
irrigate irregular shapes and to move around permanent obstructions.
Center pivots have many advantages including:
Automated operation—Center pivots can be operated with minimal labor often
making several revolutions without stopping. They can also be controlled re-
motely from farm vehicles or computers.
Ability to apply small irrigation depths—Since the systems are automated, they
can apply small irrigations to match crop needs without leaching nutrients.
Very high uniformity—Since the lateral moves slowly and because there is a
great deal of overlap of water application from successive sprinklers on the lat-
eral, center pivots apply water very uniformly.
Chemigation—Pivots can be managed to quickly and uniformly irrigate a field
with small amounts of water, which provides the opportunity to apply fertilizer,
herbicides, and insecticides.
PRIMARY
PRIMARY LATERAL
LATERAL
CORNER
CORNER SPAN
SPAN
CORNER
CORNER
TOWER
TOWER
FIELD BOUNDARY
+ UN
M G
STE ND
E
SY D
SIC AN
M
BA R
S A
IU ER
D N
RA OR
C
RADIUS OF BASIC SYSTEM
Figure 16.21. Picture and operational sketch for a center pivot

equipped with a corner watering system.
Little annual setup is required—Once the system is constructed, the pivot can be
operated anytime that water is needed. This is advantageous for germination of
crops or for preparing seedbeds.
Some disadvantages of center pivot systems are its:
Cost—Depending on the reference, the cost of a center pivot system is moder-
ately high. The cost per unit of land for a typical center pivot is approximately
20 to 30% of that for solid set and microirrigation systems. However, the cost
exceeds that for systems requiring more labor such as hand move or towline sys-
tems. The cost per unit area decreases as the length of the lateral increases; how-
ever, several factors limit the maximum length of the lateral.
High application rates—The rate of water application at the outer end of the lat-
eral is quite high, which can cause runoff.
Circular pattern—Center pivots irrigate about 80% of a square field. Lost pro-
duction in the corners may be a consideration when land is expensive or high-
value crops are produced.
The self-propelled irrigation system as named by inventor Frank Zybach in 1948
has transformed irrigation. Many lands are now efficiently irrigated that were once
labeled as unsuitable for irrigated agriculture. Center pivot systems as developed by
the irrigation industry have reduced labor requirements, improved water application
efficiency and contributed to the economic viability of many regions. Nevertheless
there have been failures with center pivots. Problems have arisen due to poor design
and improper management. In some locations excessive development has led to the
overdraft of water resources causing declines in ground water supplies. Without
proper management leaching of agricultural chemicals can occur especially under
shallow rooted crops grown on sandy soils. Other chapters discuss the planning and
operation of irrigation systems to fit within environmental, economical and resource
constraints. The focus in this section is on the design of center pivot systems to effi-
ciently and uniformly apply irrigation water.
16.7.1 Sprinkler Discharge
The discharge from each sprinkler on a center pivot must be determined to apply
water uniformly. The area midway between the adjacent upstream and downstream
sprinklers defines the representative area for a sprinkler on a pivot (Figure 16.22).
FIELD
BOUNDARY
RS
R
SL
SPRINKLER SPACING SL SL
RADIAL DISTANCE PIVOT LATERAL

TO SPRINKLER (R)
SL
R – SL / 2 R + SL / 2
Figure 16.22. Diagram of representative area for determining

the discharge for sprinklers on a center pivot lateral.
This area is area is given by

AR = 2π R SL (16.19)
where AR = representative area for the sprinkler at distance R from the pivot point
SL = local spacing between sprinklers on the pivot lateral, m.
It is common for the spacing between sprinklers to vary in intervals along the pivot
lateral. Often the spacing near the center of the pivot is double the spacing near the
outer end of the pivot. The average discharge per unit area for the pivot is the ratio of
the flow into the pivot system divided by the circular area irrigated by the primary
system (i.e. where the end gun or corner system is not operating). Combining these
relationships provides the discharge required for the sprinkler located at radial distance
R from the pivot point:
2QS RS L
qR = (16.20)
Rs2
where qR is the discharge required for a sprinkler located a distance R from the pivot
point and QS is the total discharge into the center pivot system. The expression can be
revised to include the gross system capacity as
qR = 2 × 10-4π Cg R SL (16.21)
To design the sprinkler package the nozzle sizes for each sprinkler must be deter-
mined. This requires information on the distribution of pressure along the lateral. For
level land the relationship developed by Chu and Moe (1972) can be used for the dis-
tribution:
⎡ ⎧ 3 5 ⎫⎤
15 ⎪ R 2 ⎛ R ⎞ 1 ⎛ R ⎞ ⎪⎥
PR = PS + PL ⎢1 − ⎨ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎬ (16.22)
⎢ 8 ⎪ Rs 3 ⎝ Rs ⎠ 5 ⎝ R s ⎠ ⎪⎥
⎣ ⎩ ⎭⎦
where PR = the pressure in the lateral at point R
PS = pressure at the distal end of the pivot lateral
PL = pressure loss from the inlet into to the distal end of the pivot lateral.
Keller and Bleisner (1990) and Scaloppi and Allen (1993) presented methods to
compute the pressure distribution along pivot laterals. Their results produce the same
pressure distribution along the lateral as that from Chu and Moe (1972). The relative
distribution of pressure loss along the lateral is shown in Figure 16.23.
The difference between the methods by Chu and Moe (1972) and Scaloppi and Al-
len (1993) is in the procedures used to compute the friction loss from the inlet to the
distal end of the lateral (i.e., PL). Chu and Moe used the Hazen-Williams equation.
Scaloppi and Allen used the Darcy-Weisbach equation. Scaloppi and Allen considered
the variation in the velocity head in the lateral as well while Chu and Moe considered
it to be negligible. In Chapter 15 the Darcy-Weisbach method was recommended for
hydraulic calculations. We concur with that recommendation for applications using
computer spreadsheets and/or programs to compute friction loss. Applying the Darcy-
Weisbach method for sprinkler laterals results in changing friction factors along the
pipeline. This is difficult to represent in this chapter. Thus, the hydraulics for center
pivot pipelines is illustrated using the Hazen-Williams equation for this chapter.
1.0
FRACTION OF PRESSURE LOSS ALONG LATERAL

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
FRACTION OF DISTANCE ALONG LATERAL

Figure 16.23. Distribution of pressure loss along a center pivot lateral.
The pressure loss along pivot laterals is traditionally computed by the industry us-
ing the Hazen-Williams equation (see Chapter 15). Typical C values for center pivot
materials are provided in Table 16.10. Since the discharge from sprinklers varies along
the lateral for a center pivot the F value for pivot laterals is different than for other
sprinkler laterals. Results from Chu and Moe (1972) show that the F value for pivots
without end guns is 0.54. Pair et al. (1983) show that the F value is 0.56 when the end
gun is operating. These values have been compared with a procedure that computes
the pressure loss between each sprinkler along the pivot lateral as used by Kincaid and
Heermann (1970). Comparisons show that the method by Chu and Moe (1972) is suf-
ficiently accurate.
Based on these procedures the pressure distribution along pivot laterals can be
computed using Table 16.10. These results provide the friction loss along laterals that
only have one diameter of pipe. Figure 16.23 shows that over half of the total loss
along the lateral occurs within the first third of the lateral and that 80% of the pressure
loss in the lateral occurs in the first half of the pipeline. Experience has shown that
operating pressures and therefore operating costs can be reduced by using larger di-
ameter pipe for the first portion of the lateral.
Computing the friction loss for laterals that contain two diameters of pipe can be
computed for R ≥ Rc as
⎡ ⎧⎪ R 2 ⎛ R ⎞3 1 ⎛ R ⎞5 ⎫⎪ ⎤
PR = PS + PLs ⎢1 − 1.875 ⎨ − + ⎬⎥ (16.23)
⎢ Rs 3 ⎜⎝ Rs ⎟⎠ 5 ⎜⎝ Rs ⎟⎠
⎣ ⎩⎪ ⎭⎪ ⎥⎦
and for R ≤ Rc: ⎡ ⎧⎪ Rc 2 ⎛ Rc ⎞3 1 ⎛ Rc ⎞5 ⎫⎪ ⎤
PC = PR + PLs ⎢1 − 1.875 ⎨ − + ⎬⎥
⎢ Rs 3 ⎜⎝ Rs ⎟⎠ 5 ⎜⎝ Rs ⎟⎠
⎣ ⎩⎪ ⎭⎪ ⎥⎦
⎡ ⎧⎪ R ⎛ Rc3 R 3 ⎞ 1 ⎛ Rc5 R5 ⎞ ⎫⎪ ⎤
PR = PC + PLL ⎢ 1.875 C − R − 2 ⎥
⎨ ⎜ 3− 3⎟ + ⎜ 5 − 5 ⎟⎬
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ 5 ⎝ Rs Rs ⎟⎠ ⎪
⎜ ⎥
⎣ ⎪⎩ RS RS 3 ⎝ Rs Rs ⎠
⎭ ⎦
Table 16.10. Friction loss (m/100 m) in galvanized steel pipe for center pivot and lateral
move systems. Results assume a C value of 140 for the Hazen-Williams equation and
a single pipe size. To compute losses for a pivot multiply values times the lateral length
and the appropriate F factor.
System Outside Diameter of Pipe (mm)
Discharge
(L s-1) 102 114 127 141 152 168 178 203 219 254
5 0.57
10 2.06 1.12
15 4.36 2.38 1.39
20 7.42 4.06 2.37 1.38
25 11.2 6.13 3.58 2.09 1.42
30 15.7 8.60 5.02 2.92 1.99 1.21
35 20.9 11.4 6.68 3.89 2.65 1.61 1.22
40 26.8 14.6 8.56 4.98 3.40 2.06 1.56
45 33.3 18.2 10.6 6.19 4.22 2.56 1.94 1.00
50 22.1 12.9 7.53 5.13 3.12 2.36 1.21
60 31.0 18.1 10.6 7.20 4.37 3.31 1.70 1.16
70 24.1 14.0 9.57 5.81 4.41 2.26 1.55
80 30.9 18.0 12.3 7.44 5.64 2.89 1.98
90 22.4 15.3 9.25 7.02 3.59 2.47 1.18
100 27.2 18.5 11.3 8.53 4.37 3.00 1.43
120 38.1 26.0 15.8 12.0 6.12 4.20 2.01
140 34.6 21.0 15.9 8.14 5.59 2.68
160 26.9 20.4 10.4 7.16 3.43
180 33.4 25.3 13.0 8.91 4.26
200 30.8 15.8 10.8 5.18
220 36.7 18.8 12.9 6.18
240 22.1 15.2 7.26
260 25.6 17.6 8.42
F factor for pivots: Without end gun: 0.54 With end gun: 0.56
Adjustment for pipes with C value 100 110 120 130 140 150
different roughness Multiplier 1.86 1.56 1.33 1.15 1.00 0.88
where RC = location along the lateral where the pipe diameter changes
PLS = pressure loss from the inlet to the distal end for the small diameter pipe
PLL = pressure loss from the inlet to the distal end for the large diameter pipe.
An example of the use of this procedure is included in the example shown in Figure
16.24. The example illustrates that the investment in larger pipe for the first 40% of
the lateral would reduce the inlet pressure by approximately 20% while using larger
pipe along the entire lateral would only reduce the pressure by 29%. A cost analysis is
required to determine which alternative is optimal.
The above computations for pressure distribution along the lateral neglected the ef-
fects of elevation changes. If there is a uniform slope along the lateral the pressure can
be adjusted appropriately and the proper nozzle sizes can be selected to provide the
desired discharge. However, the performance of the pivot across a sloping field varies
once a specific set of nozzles is installed. Often design along a flat slope is a reason-
able compromise for sloping fields. For many fields irrigated with pivots the terrain is
450
400 168 mm DIAMETER PIPE
MIXED PIPE SIZES
PRESSURE IN LATERAL, kPa

350
300
250
200
203 mm DIAMETER PIPE
150
100
80 L/s FLOW RATE

50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
RADIAL DISTANCE FROM PIVOT, m

Figure 16.24. Distribution of pressure along center pivot laterals with external diameters of
168 and 203 mm, and for a mixed lateral with 200 m of 203-mm and 300 m of 168-mm pipe.
neither uniform nor flat. Since the design of sprinkler packages is usually accom-
plished with computer programs that start at the end of the lateral and determine pres-
sure loss and nozzles sizes for each outlet along the lateral, the elevation at each loca-
tion can be used in the calculation. Pressure regulators are commonly used if the ele-
vation differences in the field lead to pressure variations that would reduce the uni-
formity of application below an acceptable level.
The procedures from Chu and Moe (1972) are useful in understanding the hydrau-
lics of sprinkler laterals and for simple analysis of pivots. However, center pivot sys-
tems are typically designed using computer programs that start at the distal end of the
pivot and sequentially compute the pressure available at each upstream sprinkler outlet
(Heermann and Stahl, 2006). In these programs the friction loss in the portion of the
lateral between outlets is computed using either the Darcy-Weisbach or Hazen-
Williams equations for a pipe without outlets. The pressure losses through fittings
used to connect the sprinkler to the lateral are also computed. This has become more
important as the operating pressure for sprinkler devices continues to decrease to save
energy and as the sprinkler device is installed further from the pivot later using drops.
Using the sprinkler discharge equation for the required sprinkler discharge gives the
required flow at each outlet. With this information and the available pressure at the
base of the sprinkler device, the most appropriate nozzle size can be determined. Since
a finite number of nozzle sizes are available, it is not possible to exactly match the
required discharge. Many designers maintain the cumulative error between the actual
total flow in the system and the required flow. At each outlet the nozzle is selected that
closely matches the required discharge for the outlet and that minimizes the cumula-
tive flow error. These types of programs provide very detailed specification of system
characteristics and allow for consideration of the terrain of the land.
16.7.2 Uniformity of Application

As with other types of sprinkler systems the uniformity of application beneath cen-
ter pivots can be computed by considering the overlapped depth of application from
individual sprinklers. This analysis provides guidance for the most appropriate spacing
of sprinklers devices along the lateral. The procedure is more complex for pivots since
individual sprinklers are not stationary but travel in circular paths about the field. Bit-
tinger and Longenbaugh (1962) developed the framework for analyzing the distribu-
tion of water from moving sprinkler systems. They considered the case of sprinklers
moving in a straight line and in a radial pattern. They showed that sprinklers that
travel on an arc produce a skewed application pattern that is somewhat difficult to
analyze. However, the effect of the skewed pattern is negligible when the distance
from the pivot point to the sprinkler is more than five times the wetted radius of the
sprinkler. For center pivots the inaccuracy of uniformity calculation incurred from
assuming linear travel of sprinklers will be small, thus only the solutions for linear
travel are presented here.
The framework for the analysis by Bittinger and Longenbaugh, which considered
triangular and elliptical water application patterns for an individual sprinkler, is illus-
trated in Figure 16.25. The precipitation rates for the triangular and elliptical applica-
tion rates are given by
Ppt
P= (Wr − s ) for triangular patterns with 0 ≤ s ≤ Wr
Wr
Ppe
and P= Wr2 − s 2 for elliptical patterns with 0 ≤ s ≤ Wr (16.24)
Wr
where P = precipitation rate at distance s from the sprinkler, mm h-1
Pp = peak precipitation rate at the sprinkler location, mm h-1
Wr = wetted radius of the sprinkler, m
s = distance from the observation point to the sprinkler, m
t, e = subscripts denoting triangular and elliptical patterns.
The peak application rate for the triangular and elliptical patterns can be computed
from the discharge of the sprinkler located at radial distance R and the wetted radius of
that sprinkler:
3q R 3q R
Ppt = for triangular patterns and Ppe = for elliptical patterns (16.25)
πWr2 2πWr2
The solutions for the depth of water applied at a point from an individual sprinkler
as the pivot lateral moves over the point were developed by Bittinger and Lon-
genbaugh (1962). Heermann and Hein (1968) used this procedure to compute the
depth of water along a radial line from the pivot point to the end of the center pivot.
The depth applied at a point is the summation of water applied by all sprinklers that
apply water to the point and is given by
1 N Wri Ppti ⎡⎢ 2
⎛ 2
2 ⎜ 1 + 1 − ui
⎞⎤
⎟⎥
for triangular patterns: d = ∑ 1 − u i − u ln
i ⎜ ⎟⎥
ω i =1 Ri ⎢ ⎜ ui ⎟
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎥⎦
TRIANGULAR
APPLICATION RATE
ELLIPTICAL
AVERAGE
Wr
DISTANCE FROM SPRINKLER (s)
OBSERVATION
PATH OF POINT
SPRINKLER
(R)
ER
NKL
SPRI
O
ET
ANC
DIST Wr
IAL s
RAD x
u Wr
PIVOT SPRINKLER
LATERAL
PIVOT
POINT
AREA WETTED
BY A SPECIFIC
SPRINKLER
Figure 16.25. Illustration of parameters used to compute uniformity of

water application for center pivot systems.
and for elliptical patterns: d =

π N Wri Ppei 1 − ui
∑
( 2
) (16.26)
2ω i =1 Ri
where d = depth of water applied at a point

u = ratio of the distance from the sprinkler to the point relative to the wetted
radius of the sprinkler,
ω = angular velocity of the pivot lateral,

Ri = radial distance from the pivot point to sprinkler i,
N = number of sprinklers that apply water to the point of interest.
The angular velocity can be determined from the system capacity and the average
depth of water applied (da):
2πCg
ω= (16.27)
da
In using these equations a series of points along a radial line is selected that repre-
sents the density of observations desired for computing the uniformity. At each point
Equation 16.26 is used to compute the aggregate depth of application. Heermann and
Hein (1968) used this technique to compute the coefficient of uniformity for pivots as
given by
⎡ ⎛ ∑ d j X j ⎞⎟ ⎤⎥
⎢ ⎜
j
⎢ ∑⎜ X j d j − ⎟⎥
⎢ j ⎜
⎜
∑ X j ⎟⎥
⎟⎥
⎢ j
UC p = 100 ⎢1 − ⎝ ⎠
⎥ (16.28)
⎢ ∑ j j
d X ⎥
⎢ j ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where UCp = the uniformity coefficient for center pivots
Xj = distance from the pivot point to the point that the depth is computed
dj = depth of water applied at point j.
Field results and simulation models have shown that the uniformity of application
is very high for well-designed and operated center pivots. It is common to find uni-
formities greater than 90 for center pivots. This is higher than most other types of
sprinkler systems or alternate irrigation methods.
The previous analysis assumed that the angular velocity was constant. Of course
center pivot lateral do not rotate at a constant angular velocity. Some pivots are de-
signed so that the towers move at a constant velocity for a period of time and then the
tower is stationary until a signal is received for the tower to move again. Other pivots
are designed to move continuously but not at a constant velocity. If a pivot tower is
stationary at one point the area watered during that time receives a larger application
than areas irrigated when the lateral is moving. If sprinkler devices are used that have
a small wetted radius, the start-stop motion of the later can lead to nonuniformity, as
illustrated by Hanson and Wallender (1985). With this program they were able to
simulate the performance of the sprinkler package for any terrain and for the adjust-
ments of the pivot system that control the start-stop nature of the pivot. This procedure
allows for efficient evaluation of many design alternatives.
The development presented is based on triangular or elliptical application patterns
for a single sprinkler. Devices that have been introduced recently have a different ap-
plication pattern that those analyzed by Bittenger and Longenbaugh (1962). The pro-
cedure presented here should be combined with the single-leg distribution for the
packages that are of concern to assess the performance of sprinkler packages.
At this point the nozzle size for each sprinkler along the lateral can be computed for
alternative sprinkler packages. The operating pressure at the pivot point can be esti-
mated for the field terrain and each sprinkler package. Ultimately, the uniformity of
application can be computed (Heermann and Stahl, 2006). However, two additional
features, runoff and evaporation losses, have a bearing on the suitability of a design.
16.7.3 Runoff Avoidance
For center pivots to operate efficiently the applied water must be available for crop
use. If the water runs off sloping lands or evaporates while in the air, the design effi-
ciency will not be achieved. Keller and Bleisner (1990) provide a simple diagram of
the suitability of center pivots based on the soil texture (Figure 16.26). While this
helps with the general suitability, it is not adequate for design of the center pivot.
The water application rate beneath the outer spans of a center pivot is very high.
The application rate may exceed the ability of the soil to infiltrate water. Some of the
water applied at rates exceeding the infiltration rate can be stored temporarily on the
soil surface. This is called surface or retention storage. Once the local surface storage
is filled, the excess application begins to flow across the field. Some infiltration occurs
as the water flows across the field. Ultimately, the runoff water either accumulates in
low areas in the field leaves the field. In either case the distribution of water that infil-
trates is different than the distribution of water applied and some water is lost as runoff
or deep percolation. Thus, both uniformity and efficiency are reduced when runoff
becomes significant.
Kincaid et al. (1969) investigated the potential for runoff from center pivot irriga-
tion systems. They developed a procedure to adjust the infiltration rate measured with
systems that pond water on the soil surface for conditions that occur under center piv-
ots. Dillion et al. (1972) were the first to develop design procedures that considered
the infiltration characteristics of the soil. A combination of these procedures was used
by Gilley (1984) to develop guidelines for the selection of sprinkler packages based on
E
NC
D
ITE
MA
LIM
10
OR
90
RF
L
NA
20
PE
80
RGI
MA
T
30
IVO
70
LA
RP
40
TC
60
EN
TE
PE
CLAY
D
50
O
RC
EN
GO
RC
50 SILTY
PE
DC
EN
CLAY
60
40
TS
SANDY
TE
CLAY SILTY
ILT
CLAY LOAM CLAY 70

IPA
30 LOAM
T
EN
80
TIC
SANDY CLAY LOAM

LL
20
CE
AN
LOAM
EX
90
LO SANDY LOAM SILT LOAM
10 AM
Y
SA SILT
ND
SAND
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
PERCENT SAND
Figure 16.26. Anticipated performance of center pivot systems based on soil texture
(adapted from Keller and Bleisner, 1990).
70
INFILTRATION RATE
60 PEAK APPLICATION RATE
50
RATES, mm / hour
APPLICATION
40 SURFACE RATE
STORAGE POTENTIAL
RUNOFF
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
TIME, hours
Figure 16.27. Illustration of the runoff potential when the application rate of the pivot
exceeds the infiltration rate of the soil.
the potential for runoff. With this method an elliptical pattern is assumed for the sprin-
kler package. The combined distribution of water from the overlap of individual sprin-
klers provides an elliptical application rate perpendicular to the lateral (Figure 16.27).
This application rate is given by
Pp
P (t ) = 2 t t p − t2 (16.29)
tp
where P(t) = rate of water application as a function of the time (t) that water has been
applied
Pp = peak application rate for the elliptical pattern of the sprinkler package
tp = time after initial wetting that the peak application rate is reached.
With this distribution for the sprinkler package the peak application rate can be
computed as
⎛ Q ⎞ R
Pp = 4 ⎜ S ⎟
⎜ π R 2 ⎟ Wr
⎝ S ⎠ (16.30)
This demonstrates that the peak application rate for the sprinkler package depends
entirely on the design of the system. Once a flow rate is established for the irrigation
system and the sprinkler package is installed on the pivot, the peak application rates
for points along the system are established. The quantity within the parentheses in
Equation 16.30 is the gross system capacity.
The peak application rate increases linearly with the system capacity and the dis-
tance from the pivot point and inversely with the wetted radius of the sprinkler pack-
age. The time required to reach the peak application rate (tp) can be computed from:
100
INFILTRATION RATE
75
RATES, mm/hr
50
APPLICATION
25
DEPTH
20 mm 30 mm 40 mm 60 mm
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
TIME, hr
Figure 16.28. Illustration of the effect of the application depth on potential runoff.
Wr d g
tp = (16.31)
⎛ Q ⎞
2π R ⎜ s
⎟
⎜ π R2 ⎟
⎝ S ⎠
Thus, the time to reach the peak application rate is linearly related to the wetted ra-
dius of the sprinkler package and the gross depth of water applied, and inversely re-
lated to the distance from the pivot point and the system capacity. The total time that
water is applied to a point is twice the time required to reach the peak application rate
for the elliptical pattern which is symmetrical about the peak rate. Thus, the time that
water is applied to a point is affected by design variables (i.e., Wr, R, QS, and RS) and
by management (dg). The example in Figure 16.28 shows how the potential for runoff
increases for increasing water application depths.
Gilley (1984) used the infiltration rates provided by the intake family of curves
provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to estimate the maximum
depth of water that could be applied before runoff began. The surface storage volumes
from Dillion et al. (1972) were used to incorporate the effects of slope on the runoff
process (Table 16.11). Results from Gilley are presented in Figure 16.29 for the four
soils that he analyzed. These results provide a means to begin assessment of the suit-
Table 16.11. Allowable surface storage as a
function of slope (adapted from Dillion et al., 1972).
Slope Range, % Allowable Surface Storage, mm
0-1 12.7
1-3 7.6
3-5 2.5
>5 0.0
50 50
0.3 INTAKE FAMILY
MAXIMUM APPLICATION DEPTH, mm

0.1 INTAKE FAMILY

40 40
30 30
12.5
20 20
12.5
7.5
10 7.5 10
2.5
0 SURFACE STORAGE, mm
2.5 SURFACE STORAGE, mm
0
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
PEAK APPLICATION RATE, mm/hr PEAK APPLICATION RATE, mm/hr
50 50
1.0 INTAKE FAMILY

0.5 INTAKE FAMILY

40 40
30 30
12.5
12.5
20 20
7.5
7.5
2.5
10 10
2.5 0
0 SURFACE STORAGE, mm
SURFACE STORAGE, mm
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100 150 200 250
PEAK APPLICATION RATE, mm/hr
PEAK APPLICATION RATE, mms/hr
Figure 16.29. Maximum depth of application to avoid runoff as a function of the peak ap-
plication rate for the sprinkler package installed on a center pivot for four NRCS intake
families and surface storage values shown in Table 16.11.
ability of sprinkler packages on fields with various soils and slopes. The method by
Gilley was extended to consider an entire field by Wilmes et al. (1994). Von Bernuth
and Gilley (1985) and Martin (1991) adapted the method from Hachum and Alfaro
(1980) to use the Green-Ampt model instead of the family method to simulate infiltra-
tion. These developments allow for the consideration of surface sealing and initial soil
water distribution on the performance of sprinkler packages.
The variables given above for the description of the performance of center pivot
sprinkler packages shows that five system variables are involved. Considering these
variables shows that runoff increases as the system capacity, depth of application, and
the length of the lateral increase. The runoff is inversely related to the wetted radius of
the sprinkler package. Problems can occur if the length of the pivot lateral is excessive,
especially for soils with low infiltration rates and steep slopes. Unfortunately, some op-
erators attempt to rectify runoff problems by reducing the system capacity. This in-
creases the potential for water stress during dry periods and encourages management that
applies excess water during time of the year when water demands are low in an effort to
guard against periods of inadequate supply. The methods such as those by Heermann et
al. (1974), von Bernuth et al. (1984), and Howell et al. (1989) should be employed to
determine the system capacity required for a specific location and soil. These methods
included the utilization of stored soil water to carry crops through periods of high evapo-
rative demand. Users should not arbitrarily reduce capacity to avoid runoff problems.
The sprinkler package and the depth of application are the most feasible adjust-
ments once a system is in place. The depth of application per irrigation can be easily
adjusted by operators to manage applications to reduce runoff. This can be an iterative
procedure based on field observation of runoff problems. The second most feasible
method to solve runoff problems is to replace the sprinkler package (perhaps only on
the outer portions of the pivot) to sprinkler devices that provide a larger wetted radius
for the same pressure as the previous package. Boom systems are available to spread
water over a wider distance to also mitigate problems.
There have also been a series of special tillage systems developed to increase the
surface storage to reduce runoff. One implement that has been used creates implanted
reservoirs. The machine used to create the implanted reservoirs uses a subsoiler fol-
lowed by a paddlewheel assembly that creates the reservoirs. Research by Oliveria et
al. (1987), Kranz and Eisenhauer (1990), Cuelho et al. (1996), and others has helped to
quantify the benefits of systems that develop implanted reservoirs. The implanted res-
ervoirs provide 5 to 10 L of storage per reservoir. For the reservoir density and row
spacing used by Cuelho et al. (1996) the storage volume is equivalent to the water use
for two days during the middle of the season if water is applied to every furrow and all
furrows are specially tilled. The ability to sustain the reservoirs throughout the grow-
ing season varies greatly depending on the cohesiveness of the soil, the slope in the
field and rainfall patterns. Others have used basins within the furrows to store water.
The basins are generally from 1 to 3 m long. Generally basins can store more water
than implanted reservoirs but they are not well suited to sloping soils. In the end, the
designer must weight the potential savings of using low-pressure sprinkler devices that
have smaller wetted radii than devices requiring more pressure against the costs of
special tillage to store water that may run off. In some locations there is an additional
benefit of special tillage in reduction of runoff and erosion from rainfall.
16.7.4 Devices to Irrigate the Corners
Many center pivots are equipped with special sprinklers attached to the end of the
lateral to increase the amount of land irrigated in the corners of the field. The end gun
is operated when the lateral reaches an angle where the end gun throw will stay within
the boundaries of the property (Figure 16.30). The central angle (β) during which the
pivot operates was presented by von Bernuth (1983):
⎛R ⎞
β = cos −1 ⎜ S ⎟
(16.32)
⎜R ⎟
⎝ E⎠
where RE is the total radial length irrigated when the end gun operates. The area irri-
gated in each corner (AE) is given by
( ⎡π
) ⎤
AE = RE2 − RS2 ⎢ − cos −1 (β )⎥
⎣4 ⎦
(16.33)
These relationships show that there is a trade-off between the radial length of the
area irrigated with the end gun and the central angle that is irrigated. When the cover-
age of the end gun is short, the central angle is larger but the area gained per unit rota-
tion of the lateral is small. The area irrigated in one corner relative to the area irrigated
with the primary system is shown in Figure 16.31. These results show that the area in
FIELD BOUNDARY AREA IRRIGATED
WITH ENDGUN
END GUN
RADIUS
RE
β RADIUS OF AREA
IRRIGATED WITH
ENDGUN ON
Rs
RADIUS OF AREA
PIVOT IRRIGATED WITH
POINT ENDGUN OFF
Figure 16.30. Illustrations of the parameters used to describe the
amount of land irrigated in pivot corners.
0.6 6
End Gun Discharge / System Discharge
r ge
Area in One Corner as % of System Area

ha 5
isc
0.5
D
0.4 4
0.3 3
Area
0.2 2
0.1 1
0.0 0
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
End Gun Radius / System Radius

Figure 16.31. Discharge required for an end gun as a percentage of the flow for the
main system and the area in one corner of the field relative to the area in the main field.
the corners is maximized when the length of the end gun coverage (RE –RS) is ap-
proximately 18% of the system radius (RS).
The discharge for an end gun depends on the length of the coverage by the end gun:
q E = QS
(R 2
E − RS2 ) (16.34)
RS2
where qE is the discharge required for the end gun.
The discharge for the end gun is approximately 35% of the discharge required for
the primary system if the optimal area is irrigated (Figure 16.31). While the results in
Figure 16.31 show that the area is maximized at a ratio of 18% of the system length, it
is difficult to find end guns that provide the wetted radius required at the needed dis-
charge. The area in the corner does not change appreciably for radii larger than 12% of
the system length; therefore, the radius of the end gun can be less than the optimal
with little loss in area.
Solomon and Kodoam (1978) provided data on the pattern for end sprinklers. They
show that the depth of application from typical end guns decreases near the edge of the
pattern wetted by the end gun. Because the application tapers off at the end, it may be
necessary to apply some water beyond the edge of the field to ensure that crops
planted there receive an adequate water supply. In windy climates this is especially
important. Application of water beyond the boundary of the planted cropland reduces
the application efficiency of the end gun below that for the primary system and affects
the central angle if the overthrow cannot be applied to the adjacent land.
Many center pivots used today utilize a low-pressure sprinkler package for the pri-
mary system. Although end guns have been developed that require less pressure than
earlier, end guns often require more pressure for adequate operation than is available
at the end of the lateral for many sprinkler packages. A booster pump is generally
needed on these systems to provide for adequate operation. The booster pump is usu-
ally located near the end of the lateral, often at the last tower. As special supply line is
provided from the lateral to the booster pump and ultimately to the end gun. The
power required for the end gun is computed from the discharge for the end gun and the
difference in pressure between that for the sprinkler lateral at the distal end and that
required for the end gun. Any pressure losses in the supply system to the end gun must
also be considered.
As the above information illustrates the discharge through the end gun represents a
substantial portion of the flow for the primary system. This results in more pressure
loss along the lateral while the end gun operates, which can cause the discharge from
the sprinkles on the lateral to decline. Ultimately, two systems curves need to be con-
structed to determine how the center pivot interacts with the pump used to supply irri-
gation water. A pump should be selected that provides for efficient operation for both
conditions. It would be most desirable for the difference in the discharge for the pri-
mary system when the end gun operates and when it is off to be small.
To irrigate a larger portion of the area in the corners of a field a corner span can be
attached to the end of the primary lateral. When the lateral has rotated to the proper
angle, the corner span begins to move into the corner of the field. As the corner span
rotates into the corner, a series of sprinklers turns on. More sprinklers operate as the
corner span rotates further into the corner. The hydraulics of the corner system is very
complex requiring computer modeling to predict the performance of corner machines.
16.8 LATERAL MOVE SYSTEMS

The components of center pivot systems have been used to develop a system that
travels in a straight line. These systems are called linear or lateral move machines. The
towers, pipe material and the truss systems are very similar to center pivots. The dif-
ference is that instead of pivoting about a permanent base where water is supplied, the
water supply to the lateral is available across the field. Water application amounts and
the frequency of irrigation for lateral move systems are similar to that for center piv-
ots. Thus, guidelines and limitations for design and operation of pivots generally apply
for lateral move systems.
Water can be supplied to the lateral move by one of three methods. A supply canal
can run parallel to the direction of travel of the lateral move (Figure 16.32). A pump
mounted on the supply tower lifts water from the canal and pressurizes the water for
the system. Although a portable dam can be attached to the suction system to block
flows on sloping fields; the canal system is limited to fields that are relatively flat in
the direction of travel. A second choice is to drag a hose across the field similar to that
for a traveler (see Section 16.10). Water is supplied from the main pump to a riser
along the travel path of the supply tower. A hose is attached to the riser and to the inlet
on the supply tower. As the machine moves it pulls the hose across the field. Many
Figure 16.32. Examples of lateral move systems

that are supplied by a ditch and a hard-hose system.
times the valve is placed in the middle of the field and the supply hose is long enough
to irrigate the entire field without stopping. If the field is too long, several risers may
be needed. Some lateral moves were designed to automatically connect to valves con-
nected to an underground main line. This type of system is equipped with carts that
lead and trail the lateral. The carts automatically connect to valves installed on risers
from the buried main line. Water is supplied by one or both carts. This system is ex-
pensive and complex; thus, few of these systems have been produced.
The lateral move requires a guidance system to control the direction of travel.
Three types of systems have been used. One uses an aboveground cable that runs
across the field parallel to the direction of travel. An assembly on the cart follows the
cable and keeps the lateral move on course. A second option uses a signal from a low-
voltage buried cable with an antenna guidance system on the control tower. The third
option uses a trench cut across the field to provide the direction. A guide follows the
trench to steer the lateral move system across the field.
The guidance and alignment system on lateral move machines is interfaced to
maintain proper alignment and to ensure that the system follows the intended path.
The speed of the last tower is controlled by the irrigator to apply the desired depth of
water. The alignment of individual towers for lateral move systems works similar to
that for center pivots. However, this does not ensure that the lateral move progresses
parallel to the guidance cable. The guidance assembly is designed to reduce the speed
of the interior towers if the lateral move begins to travel away from the guidance ca-
ble. If the lateral move system is progressing on an angle toward the guidance cable,
the velocities of the interior towers are increased causing the lateral move to change
the direction of travel.
Lateral move systems have characteristics similar to pivots. They also have the fol-
lowing advantages:
a larger portion of a square field is irrigated than for pivots;
a rectangular field can be irrigated; and
the rate of water application is less than for pivots, leading to fewer problems
with runoff.
The disadvantages of lateral move systems are that:
the cost per unit area irrigated is substantially higher than for pivots;
more labor is required to move the system to the starting point or to reverse the
system so it can irrigate in the opposite direction;
the hose used to supply the system can be difficult to move and attach; and
aboveground guidance and supply systems interfere with farm operations.
Utilization of lateral move systems lags significantly behind the use of center piv-
ots. The higher investment costs and increase labor required to arrange the water sup-
ply and to reposition the lateral move system deter wider use. However, the systems
do offer substantial promise. Low energy precise application (LEPA) systems and
other types of sprinkler packages that are capable of applying water below crop cano-
pies are well suited to lateral move systems. Such systems essentially become moving
microirrigation systems. If the development of site-specific irrigation develops, lateral
move systems are logical choices for supplying irrigation water, crop nutrients, and
other agricultural chemicals. Thus, there are good reasons to assume that the use of
lateral move irrigation systems will grow.
16.8.1 Layout
Since the cost per unit length of the lateral move usually exceeds the linear cost of
the water supply system, investment costs are minimized by laying out the system so
that the lateral pipeline is parallel to the shortest side of a rectangular field. This orien-
tation results in longer travel distances that produce longer irrigation intervals. The
length of the field, water supply capacity, and the depth of application determine the
irrigation interval. If the lateral move is repositioned to a starting location after each
irrigation the downtime required to move the lateral and water supply system must be
included in the irrigation interval. In some cases irrigators simply reverse the direction
of travel at one edge of the field and irrigate in the opposite direction for the subse-
quent irrigation. There is some downtime to reposition the water supply system for
this mode of operation but it is not as long as required to return the lateral move to the
starting position. With this type of operation the depth of water applied and the irriga-
tion interval at the ends of the field is essentially twice that at the center of the field.
Care must be taken to avoid deep percolation and/or water stress at the edges of the
field when operating in such a manner.
Lateral move systems are not capable of negotiating steep lands or severely rolling
terrain. The maximum recommended slope along the lateral can be as high as 6%, but
should generally be less than 2%. The type of water supply system and the direction of
operation determine the maximum slope in the direction of travel. For canal-fed sys-
tems the maximum slope is about 0.5%, while it is 1% for canal-fed systems with a
movable dam in the canal and 3% for hose-supplied systems.
The pressure loss in the lateral can be minimized by placing the water supply sys-
tem in the center of the field. However, this may present obstacles to farming opera-
tions that are less severe if the water source is placed along the boundary of the field.
The consequences of each alternative should be discussed with the producer.
As with all sprinkler systems the main line must be designed after the lateral move
system is designed. The head-discharge curve for matching pumps to the sprinkler
system can be developed by treating the lateral move as a single large sprinkler or the
pressure distribution function can be used directly. The head-discharge relationship
depends on the losses in the conveyance system, supply carts, and canal suction sys-
tem. The losses in various components for typical systems are shown in Figure 16.33.
Information should be obtained for specific models for final design.
16.8.2 Water Application
Lateral move systems have characteristics similar to center pivots and periodically
moved laterals. The discharge from sprinklers should be constant similar to moved
laterals. The discharge is given by
Q S
qS = S L
FW
(16.35)
where the field width (Fw) is parallel to the lateral.
The pressure distribution along the lateral is similar to that for moved laterals, yet
the pipe materials are the same as for center pivots. The friction per unit length along
the lateral can be computed from Table 16.10; however, the F value for lateral move
systems should be determined as for moved laterals.
50
64 76 89 102 114 127
45
NOMINAL
40 DIAMETER
OF HOSE,
35
H EA D LOSS, m
30
HARD HOSE 152
25
20
15
10
5 LOSS IN SUPPLY CART
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
INFLOW, L/s
50
64 76 89 102 114
45
40
35 127
HEAD LOSS, m
30
25
NOMINAL
20 DIAMETER
OF HOSE, mm
15
10
SOFT HOSE
5 @ 1000 kPa
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
INFLOW, L/s
Figure 16.33. Head loss in hard and soft hoses used on lateral move and
traveler irrigation systems. Head loss in the supply cart for travelers is also shown.
The pressure and required discharge for a sprinkler are used to select the sprinkler
package and the nozzle sizes. The lateral move is different than moved laterals in that
the size of nozzle may vary along the lateral as the pressure changes. If pressure regu-
lators are used along the entire machine, the nozzle sizes would be constant.
The application rate is uniform along the lateral of a lateral move system because
the representative area is the same for all sprinkler The application rate can be com-
puted using the elliptical or triangular patterns as previously presented. The peak ap-
plication rate for a lateral move system is given by
4QS
Pp = (16.36)
πWr FW
and the time to the peak application rate is
tp = Wr/v (16.37)
where v is the average linear velocity of the lateral move and Wr is the radius of cover-
age for the sprinkler package.
For equal net system capacities and application efficiencies, the peak application
rate for a lateral move is equal to the application rate at a point 65% of the way along
the lateral of a pivot. The depth of water applied per irrigation is given by
QS
dg = (16.38)
vFW
Runoff is less of a problem with lateral move systems than for center pivots be-
cause field slopes are less than sometimes found for center pivots and the peak water
application rate is less than for pivots. The runoff relationships for center pivots in
Figure 16.29 can be utilized to determine if runoff is a potential problem.
Lateral move systems provide the opportunity of very high uniformity of applica-
tion. Part-circle sprinklers can be used to improve the uniformity at field boundaries.
The effect of sprinkler spacing on the uniformity can be estimated using the overlap-
ping procedures developed for center pivots.
Automated sprinkler systems are increasingly replacing surface irrigation systems.
When systems are replaced irrigation management must change. A frequent problem
is that irrigators attempt to apply the same depth of water per irrigation with auto-
mated sprinkler systems as was applied with surface systems. This negates the poten-
tial of the automated system and is generally unsuccessful. Runoff and traction prob-
lems generally occur with such management. Applying smaller depths per irrigation
capitalizes on the potential of automated sprinkler systems to provide high application
efficiencies. The maximum depth of water applied with lateral move systems should
be less than 50 mm with 25 mm per application being typical.
16.8.3 Water Supply System
Design considerations vary depending on the type of water supply used for the lat-
eral move. For systems that drag a supply hose, considerations involve the friction loss
in the hose and other elements of the water supply system and the force required to
drag the hose across the field.
The pipe roughness for the Hazen-Williams equation (i.e., the C value) is approxi-
mately 150 for the hard or soft hoses used to supply water. The inside diameter of soft
hoses varies with the pressure inside the pipe and additional information is required
for operating pressure other than shown in Figure 16.33. There are limits on the short-
est bending radius for each hose. Short bends cause the soft hose to kink, which tem-
porarily blocks the flow, but there is no long-term damage to the hose. The hard hose
can be damaged if it is bent too severely.
The force required to drag the hose limits the maximum diameter and length of
hose and may require a special design of the tower that pulls the hose. Hose lengths of
200 m are common as that length matches well with the property dimensions common
in the U.S. Hoses longer than 200 m are not common and should only be specified if
in consultation with manufacturers. The normal towers used to pull the hose are not
usually capable of pulling 200 m of 203-mm diameter hose. Even for smaller diameter
hose, the supply tower can be equipped with four wheels that are supplied power
rather than the normal two. This improves traction for wet or slippery surfaces.
Systems that are supplied from a ditch require that the channel capacity, system ca-
pacity, water supply source, and the onboard pump and power unit be matched. Once
the topography is known the ditch can be designed using procedures described in ear-
lier chapters on conveyance systems. The minimum depth of the ditch is usually about
1 m. The minimum bottom width is about 0.3 to 0.6 m. Erosion, weed control, and
trash in the ditch are issues that must be considered in the design and operation. If the
soils at the site are highly permeable, the canal may need to be lined with flexible
membranes or concrete. Either type of lining significantly increases the cost of the
system. The sideslope of the canal should not be so steep that erosion occurs or that
humans and wildlife cannot climb from the canal should they enter the waterway. Out-
flow structures may be required in locations where storm water enters the canal. Spe-
cial features are needed for canal supply systems to ensure that the ditch does not
overtop if the lateral move stops. Controls are also needed to stop the lateral move if
the water supply is interrupted.
Systems that automatically connect to valves attached to buried main lines require
special considerations in design. When the water flow changes between the supply
carts some water hammer may develop in the supply system. The amount of pressure
surge depends on the flow and the time required for valves to open and close. Pressure
surges problems are most prevalent on long lateral moves that require a large inflow.
Pipeline protection is essential for these systems. The supply system for these lateral
moves is very complex and is usually designed by the manufacturer.
16.9 LOW ENERGY PRECISION APPLICATION
(LEPA) SYSTEMS
LEPA irrigation systems are either center pivots or lateral move systems that are
modified with extended length drop tubes and application devices designed to apply
small frequent irrigations at or near ground level to individual furrows (Lyle and Bor-
dovsky, 1981). The primary purpose of LEPA systems is to minimize evaporation
from spray droplets, foliage, and soil surfaces. The LEPA concept involves soil sur-
face management to increase surface storage (Lyle and Bordovsky, 1983). Selected
tillage methods and/or crop residue management are used to increase retention of both
rainfall and irrigation.
Nozzle pressure requirements for LEPA are low since wide dispersal of water is not
necessary. Much of the pressure head at the nozzle (located near ground level) is ob-
tained by the elevation head differential between the lateral and the nozzle. This re-
sults in reduced lateral design pressures as compared to overhead sprinkler packages
and reduced energy requirements.
LEPA systems discharge water beneath the plant canopy and therefore offer an op-
portunity to irrigate with poor-quality water that might cause leaf burn when applied
through sprinkler systems. LEPA systems are also advantageous for crops susceptible
to fungal diseases that may thrive with frequent wetting of the foliage.
16.9.1 General Considerations
There are numerous considerations in the design, installation and management of
LEPA systems that are not required for sprinkler systems (Lyle, 1994). Since water is
applied as a narrow band or stream it is important that the LEPA drop tubes and dis-
charge devices be positioned so that each plant within a field has equal opportunity for
irrigation water delivery. This is best accomplished if water is applied in the furrow
between crop rows. It is, therefore, recommended that plant row position for both lat-
eral move systems and center pivots be established using the system’s tower tire tracks
as a guide for row crop establishment. This guideline results in circular rows for center
pivots and linear rows for lateral move systems.
It is highly desirable that the system span length be an even multiple of the row
spacing and also of equipment width to facilitate consistency in row establishment and
applicator placement along each span. For alternate furrow application, the drop tubes
and applicators should be positioned in the “soft” furrows or those not compacted by
tractor or equipment wheel traffic so that infiltration is maintained. This requires that
equipment gage wheel location in relation to tractor wheels be such that every other
furrow remains free of traffic.
LEPA systems are designed to be essentially independent of soil intake rates.
LEPA systems are best suited to soils that maintain structural integrity throughout the
season to retain surface storage formed by enhancing tillage practices.
Topography (slope) is the primary limiting factor in choosing LEPA irrigation. Al-
though system speed can be adjusted to accommodate slopes of up to 2% without irri-
gation surface redistribution, slopes should be limited to 1% for circular rows in cli-
mates with high-intensity rainfall to minimize rainfall runoff and potential soil ero-
sion. In all instances, normal practices to prevent erosion from rainfall runoff, such as
terracing and/or grassed waterways, should be used in conjunction with LEPA.
16.9.2 Surface Storage and Water Application Devices
The establishment of improved soil surface storage and its maintenance throughout
the irrigation season is a function of both tillage methods and type of applicator cho-
sen for irrigation. The combination should maintain seasonal surface water storage
capable of holding the entire water volume of each irrigation pass without surface wa-
ter redistribution. Recommended surface modification practices include basin tillage,
reservoir tillage, interfurrow chiseling or subsoiling, or any combination of these prac-
tices with thick standing stubble or residue. These practices may also beneficially in-
crease the infiltration rate.
To insure surface containment of applied irrigation, LEPA systems should be oper-
ated at a sufficiently high speed so that the application volume is less than or equal to
the surface storage. For some situations and locations this might require daily irriga-
tion.
The surface storage should be minimally diminished during LEPA irrigation. In
addition, the design and installation of the nozzle and regulator system should deliver
maximum uniformity for all operating conditions within the field and throughout the
irrigation season. Ideally, LEPA applicators should have a narrow profile to minimize
crop contact and drag. It is desirable for applicators to also possess spray capability in
addition to single furrow discharge, although this is not the primary mode of opera-
tion. Examples of spray application needs include temporary use for seed germination,
herbicide application, and when close-seeded crops are included in cropping rotations.
Currently there are two basic LEPA applicator designs that minimize erosion to
furrow dikes or other enhanced soil storage conditions (Figure 16.2). One consists of a
nozzle and shroud assembly which causes water to be discharged as a continuous sheet
or bubble. The other design uses removable drag socks, designed to minimize furrow
dike erosion as water is delivered directly to the soil surface.
Nozzle selection and hydraulic design are similar to that of other pressurized irriga-
tion systems but careful consideration of elevation head gain and friction losses in
each drop tube between the lateral and the nozzle is required to accurately determine
the pressure available to the applicator.
16.9.3 Drop Tube Design
The drop tube should be sufficiently long to position the application device when
irrigating from 10 to 45 cm above the soil surface depending on type of applicator and
topography. The diameters of all materials making up the drop tube should be suffi-
cient to supply necessary operating pressure to an applicator or pressure regulator with
an overhead lateral pressure at the end of the system of no greater than 70 kPa. A pres-
sure of 21 kPa above the regulator rating is normally necessary at the regulator inlet
for correct operation of LEPA systems. Drop tube diameters normally range from 15
to 20 mm.
Drop tubes are attached to the overhead pipeline outlets by means of furrow arms
(extended length gooseneck connectors) which are normally 30 to 50 cm in length.
Although pivots and lateral move systems may be ordered with outlets spacings the
same as the desired furrow spacing, they are often not in satisfactory alignment. The
furrow arm is therefore rotated to center the drop over the furrow. When determining
friction loss between the pipeline and nozzle, entrance and friction losses in the furrow
arm and associated fittings as well as the various components of the drop tube must be
calculated using appropriate head loss equations.
Several material options are available for drop tube construction and configuration.
The major (largest) portion of the drop tube, normally the upper portion, must be suf-
ficiently rigid to prevent significant movement in high winds during preplant irrigation
and prior to full canopy establishment. Rigidity should also be sufficient to insure that
the LEPA applicator remains within the crop canopy after full canopy development.
The entire drop tube should exhibit sufficient flexibility to allow travel over terraces or
soil mounds, or encounters with other objects without breakage. The upper rigid sec-
tion of drop tubes may consist of galvanized steel, UV-protected PVC, or extruded
polyethylene. Galvanized steel may also be used for a lower section (approximately 70
cm in length) located above the applicator for weight and rigidity to help maintain
applicator position within the canopy. Slip weights of galvanized metal, concrete, or
poly material may also be slipped over light and/or flexible materials to make up the
lower section of drop tubes. A short section (0.5 to 0.67 m) of flexible reinforced or
non-reinforced vinyl-covered PVC hose or tubing should be used to couple the more
rigid upper and lower section to provide necessary flexibility to the drop. It also allows
adjustment of applicator height above the soil surface by modifying the hose length
after filling the system with water.
16.9.4 Evaluation and Performance
The coefficient of uniformity is used for evaluating overhead irrigation systems but
it is not applicable to the individual furrow application of LEPA systems. Instead,
LEPA nozzle package design and performance should be evaluated by nozzle dis-
charge uniformity. The nozzle discharge uniformity describes the uniformity of LEPA
nozzle discharge rate converted to equivalent application depth along the length of the
system. The nozzle discharge uniformity is calculated for pivots with the Heermann-
Hein equation and with the Christiansen’s equation for lateral move systems. How-
ever, the depth of applied water in the equation is replaced with equivalent application
depth, which equals the individual nozzle discharge (measured by timed volumetric
catchment) divided by coverage area per nozzle.
LEPA nozzle package design should result in nozzle discharge uniformities of 96
or greater. A measured drop in uniformity, to 94, due to elevation and/or flow rate
changes in the field is the lowest value recommended. Modification of design parame-
ters (operating pressure, pipe size, pressure regulator use, etc.) should be considered if
uniformity drops below 94 over significant portions of an irrigated field.
16.10 TRAVELERS
Another method to automate and save labor is the traveler irrigation system. Trav-
eler systems consist of a large sprinkler, commonly referred to as a “gun,” mounted on
a moving cart (Figure 16.34). Water is supplied to the cart by a hose. With early de-
signs the cart was connected to a cable and winch system which was attached to an
anchor. The winch, which was powered by water pressure, retracted the cable pulling
the cart across the field. Many current designs use the water supply hose to pull the
cart across the field (Figure 16.34). A large spool is anchored at one end of a travel
lane. The spool rotates winding up the hose and pulling the cart toward the spool.
Whether connected by cable or hose, the spool assembly is designed to provide a
nearly constant travel velocity. This requires that the spool rotate faster when small
amounts of cable or hose have been retracted.
The traveler system is operated as shown in Figure 16.34. The cart is positioned at
one edge of the field and is pulled to the center. The system then shutdowns and the
cart is moved to the opposite side of the field. Once a strip is irrigated, the system is
moved to the next lane. Occasionally, the system can be pulled across the entire field
to avoid reconnecting the hose at the middle of the field. The gun on the cart dis-
charges a large volume of water and produces a large wetted radius. Therefore, the
travel lanes are often spaced up to 100 m apart.
The disadvantages of traveler systems include:
High pressure requirements—Travelers require higher pressures than other
sprinkler systems. The pressure at the cart can exceed 700 kPa. Pressure loss in
the hose and water supply components add to the pressure requirement. There-
fore, traveler irrigation systems have high operating costs.
Labor required to move the cart—Traveler systems should be considered semi-
automated since the cart, hose, and spool must be manually moved.
Loss of land in the travel lanes—The carts generally have a low clearance, so if
tall crops are grown, the lane must be planted to a low-growing crop.
Nonuniform application at the edges and center of the field—The gun is oper-
ated to irrigate part of a circular pattern (Figure 16.34). The exact angle depends
on the lane spacing, the overlap of adjacent passes of the traveler, and the design
of the gun. However, it is common to require more than 180° rotation, as shown
in Figure 16.34. If the traveler cannot apply water beyond the boundaries of the
property, there are sections along the edges of the field that may receive less wa-
ter than the bulk of the field. A series of dry diamond-shaped regions may also
occur near the center of the field. If too much overlap occurs at the center there
can be areas of excess irrigation.
HOSE REEL
AND CART
SUPPLY
HOSE
TRAVELING
GUN
AREA WETTED IN
ZONE WETTED WHEN STATIONARY ONE PASS
TRAVELING GUN
SUPPLY HOSE HOSE REEL/CART
TRAVEL LANE
FIELD MAINLINE
BOUNDARY
WELL & PUMP
Figure 16.34. Picture and operational sketch of traveler or big-gun irrigation system.
Poor uniformity in windy conditions—Since the traveler throws water a long

distance, wind can distort the application pattern. To maintain uniformity in lo-
cations with high winds the travel lanes must be closer together, which increases
labor requirements and leads to longer times between irrigations.
Large droplets—Traveler systems often produce large droplets with a high ve-
locity producing a large amount of energy when reaching the soil/crop surface.
The impact energy can exacerbate runoff and soil compaction. Therefore, travel-
ers are best suited to cropping and farming systems that provide plant or residue
material to absorb the energy in the droplets before reaching the soil surface.
There are several advantages for traveler systems, including their:
Flexibility—Since the lanes can vary in length, traveler systems can be used to
irrigate nearly any shape of field. The systems can be moved from field to field
to irrigate several tracts of land. This is especially attractive in semi-humid areas
where the system may not be necessary for one field for the entire season or
where cropping rotations require that irrigation be shifted from one field to an-
other.
Wide range of irrigation depths—Since the sprinkler moves automatically, the
depth of water applied per irrigation can be set to the desired amount. If a small
irrigation is needed the system can be set to move quickly across the field. Con-
versely, for deep-rooted crops the cart can move slowly.
Factory assembly—The system is assembled during manufacturing, thus the sys-
tem can be quickly installed. This allows traveler systems to be operational with
a minimum amount of preparation.
Traveler irrigation systems are mostly used in semi-arid and semi-humid climates
where the needs for irrigation are not as large and consistent as for arid lands. The
systems are more popular in locations where the size and shape of fields are not ame-
nable to center pivot or lateral move systems, or where multiple fields can be irrigated
from the same water source. The high pressure requirements for travelers cause oper-
ating costs to be high. The major considerations for travelers are the hydraulic design
of the water supply system and the arrangement of travel lanes to match field bounda-
ries while achieving acceptable uniformities of application.
Users should be very careful around traveler systems. Travelers operate at high
pressures and large amounts of tension develop in the hose or cable system used to
move the traveler. Both of these conditions contribute to the danger. Special care
should be taken to avoid applying water onto electrical power lines. Kay (1983) rec-
ommends travel lanes be located at least 30 m from electrical power lines.
16.10.1 Field Layout
As with any irrigation system, the initial design step is to lay out the field bounda-
ries and arrange the system on the landscape. Topographical information is needed to
ensure that the desired uniformity is achieved. Small elevation changes in the field are
of less concern with travelers because of the high operating pressure. Slopes only
slightly affect the ability of the traveler to maintain the uniform speed of travel re-
quired for acceptable uniformities. Therefore, the topography within a field is not of
major concern to the operation of the traveler. The pressure required to reach the high-
est elevation in the field should be the primary interest.
The arrangement of travel lanes is the principal consideration in laying out the sys-
tem. The maximum length of the supply hose is generally 200 m. If the field is wider
than 200 m the traveler will generally have to be pulled toward the center of the field
requiring that the main line be positioned through the center of the field. The distance
between lanes should be the same across the field. Also, the lanes must be placed close
enough together to provide the overlap needed for acceptable uniformity. The spacing
of the travel lanes depends on the wind speed and the diameter of coverage of the
sprinkler. Recommended maximum spacings are given in Table 16.12. Iteration may
be needed to find a travel lane spacing that provides uniform irrigation while fitting
within the field dimensions. It is generally recommended that the travel lanes be ori-
ented perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction. The first travel lane may be
Table 16.12. Maximum spacing of lanes for traveler systems

(adapted from Addink et al., 1980 and Kay, 1983).
Wind Speed, m s-1
Diameter of 0 0 to 2.5 2.5 to 5 >5
Coverage, m (80% of Wd) (70% of Wd) (60% of Wd) (50% of Wd)
50 40 35 30 25
60 48 42 36 30
70 56 49 42 35
80 64 56 48 40
90 72 63 54 45
100 80 70 60 50
120 96 84 72 60
140 112 98 84 70
160 128 112 96 80
180 144 126 108 90
located a half of the spacing from the boundary of the field if the water from the sprin-
kler can be applied beyond the edge of the field. Otherwise the first travel lane should
be a full spacing from the field boundary. The sprinkler can be positioned at the edge
of the field if the water can be applied beyond the edges of the field that are perpen-
dicular to the travel lanes. Otherwise the sprinkler cart should be positioned to avoid
throwing water beyond the property boundaries. If multiple travelers are used in one
field it is desirable to supply water to the center of the field and to place a traveler on
each half of the field. This minimizes the difference in pressure available to each
sprinkler.
16.10.2 Hydraulic Design
The discharge from the sprinkler on the travelers should be equal to the flow re-
quired for the field divided by the number of travelers used in the field. The guns used
on travelers can be equipped with either tapered or ring nozzles. Tapered nozzles gen-
erally produce larger diameters of coverage but do not provide as much breakup of the
sprinkler jet.
The depth of water applied per irrigation can be determined from
qS
dg = (16.39)
vWT
where WT is the width of the travel lane (i.e. the distance between travel lanes) and v is
the linear velocity of the sprinkler cart.
The discharge from the sprinkler and the spacing between travel lanes determines
the pressure required for the sprinkler. The pressure must be high enough to provide
the discharge and diameter of coverage required.
The total pressure loss in the systems consists of losses in the main line, fittings,
supply hose, and the sprinkler and hose carts. The pressure loss in the supply hose can
be determined from Figure 16.33. The diameter of the soft hose increases as the pres-
sure of the system increases. Thus, if the pressure is different than shown in Figure
16.33 the head loss will vary accordingly. There is additional loss within the sprinkler
and reel carts. Losses increase when the hose is wrapped around the reel rather than
when fully extended. Oakes and Rochester (1980), Rochester et al. (1990), and Roch-
ester and Hackwell (1991) provided methods to compute the friction loss for varying
sizes of travelers. The head loss in the components of the traveler was computed from
hl = kV 2/2g (16.40)
where hl = the loss
k = the loss coefficient
V2/2g = the velocity head.
The loss coefficients in the sprinkler cart and hose-reel cart were found to be 1.76
and 3.91, respectively. The coefficient for the loss due to coiling on the reel was repre-
sented by a bend coefficient which was found to be 0.09 m-1. The bend coefficient is
multiplied by the length of hose coiled on the reel. The loss coefficients vary with the
size of the system and the design of the equipment; therefore, they should be used as
an initial estimate.
Portable pipe or underground pipelines with risers and valves can be used for the
main line used to supply water to the traveler. The friction loss in the main line is
similar to that for any other type of sprinkler system. Special care is required to protect
pipelines against pressure surges with traveler systems. Travelers require high operat-
ing pressures so pumps used to supply the water are usually designed for high pres-
sures. When more than one traveler is supplied by the same main line or if the supply
hose should kink or some other form of obstruction occurs, the pressure in the convey-
ance system can increase rapidly. The pipeline should be protected to avoid damage
under such conditions. In many cases it is best to select pumps where the shutoff head
is less than the pressure rating of the supply system. Water hammer can also be a prob-
lem since the pressure builds quickly when water reaches the sprinkler. The elasticity
of the hose helps to minimize some of the pressure surge problem but water hammer
should be evaluated in designing the supply system.
16.10.3 Uniformity
The uniformity of application with traveler systems depends on a constant velocity
of travel, constant sprinkler discharge and proper spacing to provide adequate overlap.
Travelers are now specially designed to vary the speed of the reel used to retract the
sprinkler cart so that variations in travel speed along the travel lane are not severe.
Long supply hoses exert considerable resistance when fully extended as compared to
when only a portion of the hose must be moved. The increased resistance can cause
variations in the speed of travel. Thus, designers should check with manufacturers for
the maximum length of hose for local conditions. The pressure at the inlet to the
sprinkler varies with the distance of travel of the sprinkler cart, thus calculations
should be made for varying amounts of retracted hose.
The uniformity can be estimated using the overlapping procedure for a constantly
moving sprinkler. The single-leg distribution of the guns used on travelers will not
usually fit the elliptical or triangular functions that were presented, thus the procedure
must be modified for the appropriate distribution (Rochester et al., 1989). The over-
lapping process can be used to assist in selecting lane spacings. The single-leg distri-
bution for average wind conditions should be used if available. However, the overall
field uniformity and application uniformity are difficult to estimate due to the variabil-
ity along field boundaries and at the center of the field.
The operator must check to ensure that the sprinkler device is operating at the ap-
propriate pressure. Low pressure leads to an inadequate breakup of droplets which
produces a doughnut-shaped water application pattern. Excessive pressure causes the
sprinkler jet to break into to small drops that do not travel as far as intended and that
are subject to evaporation and drift.
16.11 AUXILIARY USES OF SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Sprinkler irrigation systems can perform several auxiliary uses in addition to sup-
plying crop water requirements. Permanently installed systems can be operated
quickly to meet these additional demands. If the system must be positioned in the field
and periodically moved the ability to perform auxiliary uses is diminished.
The application of effluent and agricultural chemicals are two common uses. Since
the sprinkler system is designed for high uniformity and operates during the rapid
growth period of crops, sprinkler systems provide excellent capabilities for these ap-
plications. However, these applications are regulated in most states to ensure protec-
tions of soil and water resources. In addition, special hydraulic designs are required to
guard against the backflow of chemicals into the water source. Details of the use of
sprinkler systems for chemigation are discussed in more detail in Chapter 19.
Due to the high heat of fusion for ice, sprinkler systems can be used for frost and
freeze protection in some applications. Generally water must be applied frequently to
the crops during periods of frost or freeze danger. This may require a higher flow rate
for the field than needed for crop water requirements. The requirement also eliminates
those systems that cannot irrigate the entire field in a very short time. Very careful
management is required to ensure that the objectives are accomplished for frost or
freeze protection. Successful practices vary considerably depending on the water
source, wind speeds, and other local conditions. Local guidelines should be followed
for success. Care must also be taken to avoid damage to the irrigation system when
applying water during cold periods. Ice may form on structural members of the irriga-
tion system and the added weight may cause components to fail.
In some locations wind erosion, before plants are large enough to shield the soil
surface, is a major concern. Irrigation during such periods may increase the cohesion
between soil particles, which increases aggregate stability and reduces erosion. Care
must be taken, however, because the impact from water droplets can dislodge soil par-
ticles and contribute to increased wind erosion when the soil dries. Irrigation with
small applications is usually adequate to stabilize the soil surface for a period of time.
The efficiency of water use for erosion control is low. The small application does not
wet the soil to a very large depth which leads to evaporation of water from the soil
surface with little storage of water in the soil profile. In many ways irrigating to con-
trol wind erosion is a last-ditch effort, as it is better controlled through residue man-
agement and other production practices.
16.12 SAFETY
Producers, service technicians, and other individuals that work around sprinkler ir-
rigation equipment must be very careful. Sprinkler irrigation equipment is often con-
nected to high-voltage electrical supplies, has numerous moving parts, requires high
water pressures, and operates in a wet and slippery environment. The systems are oc-
casionally used to apply chemicals that could be toxic. While many standards and op-
erational guidelines have been developed for the proper design, manufacturing, instal-
lation, and operation of this equipment, not all systems adhere to the intended prac-
tices. Anyone designing or operating these systems must be aware of the appropriate
laws, codes, and engineering standards that apply to the equipment and the intended
use. The standards from ASABE are continually updated and should be consulted rou-
tinely for proper practices. Local ordinances and other regulations should be deter-
mined before the system is designed.
16.13 SUMMARY
This chapter describes the fundamentals of sprinkler irrigation, performance of
sprinkler systems including uniformity and efficiency of application, types and charac-
teristics of sprinkler systems currently used, and design and management procedures
for specific types of sprinkler systems. Information is provided to enhance design and
management of sprinkler systems which are the most rapidly growing form of irriga-
tion today.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
AD allowable depletion
AE area irrigated in a corner of a center pivot
Ai area irrigated
AR representative area for a sprinkler on a center pivot
Cd discharge coefficient
Cn net system capacity
d depth of water applied or effective diameter of water droplet
d50 volume mean drop diameter
dg gross depth of irrigation water applied
Dn inside diameter of a nozzle
Ea application efficiency
Ek kinetic energy
FL length of the field
FW width of the field
Hn nozzle pressure head
Ir rate of infiltration for bare soil relative to protected soil
Ke/a kinetic energy per unit area
MAD management allowed depletion
n number of sets per lateral
N number of sprinklers on a lateral
Nd diameter of the nozzle
NL number of laterals along the field length
NS number of laterals along the width of the field
P pressure in a sprinkler lateral or at a sprinkler nozzle
P(i) rate of water application as a function of time
P3 percentage of drops smaller than 3 mm
PL pressure loss from the inlet into to the distal end of the pivot lateral
PLL pressure loss from the inlet to the distal end for the large diameter pipe
PLS pressure loss from the inlet to the distal end for the small diameter pipe
Pp peak precipitation rate at the sprinkler location
PR pressure in the center pivot lateral at a point R from the pivot point
PS pressure at the distal end of the pivot lateral
Pv percent of the total drops that are smaller than a specified size
qE discharge required for an end gun
qs discharge from a sprinkler
Qs flow into the sprinkler system (equal to the gross system capacity)
R average application rate or radial distance from pivot point
Ra average application rate
RC location along the lateral where the pipe diameter changes
RD root depth during peak water use period
RE total radial length irrigated when the end gun operates
s distance from the observation point to the sprinkler
Sa sand content of the soil
Si silt content of the soil
SL sprinkler spacing along the lateral
Sm distance between laterals along the main line (equal to the set width)
T exposure time
TAW total available water per unit depth of soil
Td downtime between successive irrigations
Ti irrigation interval
Tm time required to move the sprinkler later between sets
To time of operation per irrigation
tp time after initial wetting that the peak application rate is reached.
Ts operational time per set for a lateral
u distance from a sprinkler to a point relative to the wetted radius of the sprinkler
U wind speed
UCp the uniformity coefficient for center pivots
v droplet velocity or linear velocity for a traveler system
Wr radius of coverage or wetted radius of the sprinkler
WT distance between lanes for a traveler system
β angle of operation for center pivots and end guns
ρ density of water
ω angular velocity of a pivot lateral
Ω ratio of the nozzle diameter to the pressure at the base of the sprinkler
REFERENCES
Addink, J. W., J. Keller, C. H. Pair, R. E. Sneed, and J. W. Wolfe. 1980. Design and
operation of sprinkler systems. In Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation
Systems, 621-660. M. E. Jensen, ed. St. Joseph, Mich. ASAE.
Bezdek, J. C., and K. Solomon. 1983. Upper limit lognormal distribution for drop size
data. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 109(1): 72-88.
Bittinger, M. W., and R. A. Longenbaugh. 1962. Theoretical distribution of water
from a moving irrigation sprinkler. Trans. ASAE 5(1): 26-30.
Christiansen, J. E. 1942. Irrigation by sprinkling. Univ. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 670.
Chu, S. T., and D. L. Moe. 1972. Hydraulics of a center pivot system. Trans. ASAE
15(5): 894-896.
Cuelho, R. D., D. L. Martin, and F. H. Chaudry. 1996. Effect of LEPA irrigation on
storage in implanted reservoirs. Trans. ASAE 39(4): 1287-1298.
Dadiao, C., and W. W. Wallender. 1985. Drop size distribution and water application
with low-pressure sprinklers. Trans. ASAE 28(2): 511-514, 516.
Dillon, Jr., R. C., E. A. Hiler, and G. Vittetoe. 1972. Center pivot sprinkler design
based on intake characteristics. Trans. ASAE 15(5): 996-1001.
Edling, R. J. 1985. Kinetic energy, evaporation and wind drift of droplets from low
pressure irrigation nozzles. Trans. ASAE 28(5): 1543-1550.
Eigel, J. D., and I. D. Moore. 1983. A simplified technique for measuring raindrop
size and distribution. Trans. ASAE 26(4): 1079-1084.
Fisher, G. R., and W. W. Wallender. 1988. Collector size and test duration effects on
sprinkler water distribution measurement. Trans. ASAE 31(2): 538-541.
Gilley, J. R. 1984. Suitability of reduced pressure center pivots. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
110(1): 22-34.
Hachum, A. Y., and J. F. Alfara. 1980. Rain infiltration into layered soils: Prediction.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 106(4): 311-319.
Han, S., R. G. Evans, and M. W. Kroeger. 1994. Sprinkler distribution patterns in
windy conditions. Trans. ASAE 37(5): 1481-1489.
Hanson, B. R., and W. W. Wallender. 1986. Bidirectional uniformity of water applied
by continuous-move sprinkler machines. Trans. ASAE 29(4): 1047-1053.
Heermann, D. F., and P. R. Hein. 1968. Performance characteristics of self-propelled
center pivot sprinkler irrigation system. Trans. ASAE 11(1): 11-15.
Heermann, D. F., and R. A. Kohl. 1980. Fluid dynamics of sprinkler systems. In
Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems, 583-618. M. E. Jensen, ed. St.
Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Heermann, D. F., H. H. Shull, and R. H. Mickelson. 1974. Center pivot design
capacities in eastern Colorado. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 110(2): 1127-141.
Heermann, D. F., and K. M. Stahl. 2006. CPED: Center Pivot Evaluation and Design.
Available at: www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8118.
Howell, T. A., K. S. Copeland, A. D. Schneider, and D. A. Dusek. 1989. Sprinkler
irrigation management for corn-southern Great Plains. Trans. ASAE 31(2): 147-
160.
Kay, M. 1983. Sprinkler Irrigation Equipment and Practice. London, UK: Batsford
Academic and Educational Ltd.
Keller, J., and R. D. Bliesner. 1990. Sprinkle and Trickle Irrigation. New York, N.Y.:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Keller, J., F. Corey, W. R. Walker, and M. E. Vavra. 1980. Evaluation of irrigation
systems. In Irrigation: Challenges of the 80’s. Proc. Second Nat’l Irrigation Symp.,
95-105. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Kincaid, D. C. 1982. Sprinkler pattern radius. Trans. ASAE 25(6): 1668-1672.
Kincaid, D. C. 1996. Spraydrop kinetic energy from irrigation sprinklers. Trans. ASAE
39(3): 847-853.
Kincaid, D. C., and D. H. Heermann. 1970. Pressure distribution on a center pivot
sprinkler irrigation system. Trans. ASAE 13(5): 556-558.
Kincaid, D. C., D. F. Heermann, and E. G. Kruse. 1969. Application rates and runoff
in center pivot sprinkler irrigation. Trans. ASAE 12(6): 790-794.
Kincaid, D. C., and T. S. Longley. 1989. A water droplet evaporation and temperature
model. Trans. ASAE 32(2): 457-463.
Kincaid, D. C., K. H. Solomon, and J. C. Oliphant. 1996. Drop size distributions for
irrigation sprinklers. Trans. ASAE 39(3): 839-845.
Kohl, R. A. 1972. Sprinkler precipitation gage errors. Trans. ASAE 15(2): 264-265,
271.
Kohl, R. A., and D. W. DeBoer. 1984. Drop size distributions for a low pressure spray
type agricultural sprinkler. Trans. ASAE 27(6): 1836-1840.
Kohl, K. D., R. A. Kohl, and D. W. DeBoer. 1987. Measurement of low pressure
sprinkler evaporation loss. Trans. ASAE 30(4): 1071-1074.
Kohl, R. A., R. D. von Bernuth, and G. Heubner. 1985. Drop size distribution
measurement problems using a laser unit. Trans. ASAE 28(1): 190-192.
Kranz, W. L., and D. E. Eisenhauer. 1990. Sprinkler irrigation runoff and erosion
control using inter-row tillage techniques. Applied Eng. Agric. 6(6): 739-744.
Levine, G. 1952. Effects of irrigation droplet size on infiltration and aggregate
breakdown. Agric. Eng. 33(9): 559-560.
Li, J., H. Kawano, and K. Yu. 1994. Droplet size distributions from different shaped
sprinkler nozzles. Trans. ASAE 37(6): 1871-1878.
Lundstrom, D. R., and E. C. Stegman. 1988. Irrigation scheduling by the checkbook
method. Extension Circular No. AE-792. Fargo, N.D.: North Dakota State
Extension Service.
Lyle, W. M. 1994. LEPA defined: More control with less consumption. Irrig. J. 44(6):
8,11.
Lyle, W. M., and J. P. Bordovsky. 1981. Low energy precision application (LEPA)
irrigation system. Trans. ASAE 24(5): 1241-1245.
Lyle, W. M., and J. P. Bordovsky. 1983. LEPA irrigation system evaluation. Trans.
ASAE 26(3): 776-781.
Martin, D. L. 1991. Effect of frequency on center pivot irrigation. In Proc. Nat’l Conf.
Irrigation and Drainage, 38-44. ASCE.
Moldenhauer, W. C., and W. D. Kemper. 1969. Interdependence of water drop energy
and clod size on infiltration and clod stability. Soil Sci. Soc. America Proc. 33: 297-
301.
Morgan, R. M. 1993. Water and the Land: A History of American Irrigation.
Washington, D.C.: The Irrigation Association.
Nderitu, S. M., and D. J. Hills. 1993. Sprinkler uniformity as affected by riser
characteristics. Applied Eng. Agric. 9(6): 515-521.
Oakes, P. L., and E. W. Rochester. 1980. Energy utilization of hose towed traveler
irrigators. Trans. ASAE 23(5): 1131-1138.
Oliveira, C. A. S., R. J. Hanks, and U. Shani. 1987. Infiltration and runoff as affected
by pitting, mulching and sprinkler irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 8: 49-64.
Pair, C. H., W. H. Hing, K. R. Frost, R. E. Sneed, and T. J. Schiltz. 1983. Irrigation.
5th ed. Washington, D.C.: The Irrigation Association.
Rochester, E. W., C. A. Flood, Jr., and S. G. Hackwell. 1990. Pressure losses from
hose coiling on hard-hose travelers. Trans. ASAE 33(3): 834-838.
Rochester, E. W., S. G. Hackwell, and K. H. Yoo. 1989. Pressure vs. flow control in
traveler irrigation evaluation. Trans. ASAE 32(6): 2029-2034.
Rochester, E. W., and S. G. Hackwell. 1991. Power and energy requirements of small
hard-hose travelers. Applied Eng. Agric. 7(5): 551-556.
Scaloppi, E. J., and R. G. Allen. 1993. Hydraulics of center pivot laterals. J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 119(3): 554-567.
Seginer, I. 1965. Tangential velocity of sprinkler drops. Trans. ASAE 8(1): 90-93.
Seginer, I., D. Kantz, and D. Nir. 1991a. The distortion by wind of the distribution
patterns of single sprinklers. Agric. Water Mgmt. 19: 341-359.
Seginer, I., D. Nir, and R. D. von Bernuth. 1991b. Simulation of wind-distorted
sprinkler patterns. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 117(2): 285-306.
Solomon, K., and J. C. Bezdek. 1980. Characterizing sprinkler distribution patterns
with a clustering algorithm. Trans. ASAE 23(4): 899-906.
Solomon, K., and M. Kodoma. 1978. Center pivot end sprinkler pattern analysis and
selection. Trans. ASAE 21(5): 706-712.
Steiner, J. L., E. T. Kanemasu, and R. N. Clark. 1983. Spray losses and partitioning of
water under a center pivot sprinkler system. Trans. ASAE 26(4): 1128-1134.
Stillmunkes, R. T., and L. G. James. 1982. Impact energy of water droplets from
irrigation sprinklers. Trans. ASAE 25(1): 130-133.
Thompson, A. L., J. R. Gilley, and J. M. Norman. 1993. A sprinkler water droplet
evaporation and plant canopy model: I. Model development. Trans. ASAE 36(3):
735-741.
USDA-NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service).
2003. Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey and the 2002 Census of Agriculture.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board,
USDA.
von Bernuth, R. D. 1983. Nozzling considerations for center pivots with end guns.
Trans. ASAE 26(2): 419-422.
von Bernuth, R. D., and J. R. Gilley. 1985. Evaluation of center pivot application
packages considering droplet induced infiltration reduction. Trans. ASAE 28(6):
1940-1946.
von Bernuth, R. D., D. L. Martin, J. R. Gilley, and D. G. Watts. 1984. Irrigation
system capacities for corn production in Nebraska. Trans. ASAE 27(2): 419-424, 428.
Vories, E. D., and R. D. von Bernuth. 1986. Single nozzle sprinkler performance in
wind. Trans. ASAE 28(6): 1940-1946.
Wilmes, G. J., D. L. Martin, and R. J. Supalla. 1993. Decision support system for
design of center pivots. Trans. ASAE 37(1): 165-175.
View publication stats

In D 44041645

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

In D 44041645

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Design and operation of sprinkler systems

Article · January 2007

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

DESIGN AND OPERATION

16.2 COMPONENTS OF SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

Figure 16.1. Components and general layout of sprinkler irrigation systems.

Figure 16.2. Examples of sprinkler devices used on irrigation systems.

16.3 DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS

Figure 16.3. Diagram of water losses for sprinkler irrigation.

Towline 500 3 0.25 1.00 70-80 70-85

NET SYSTEM CAPACITY, L/s/ha

where qs = discharge from a sprinkler, L s-1

Table 16.4. Performance data for an example sprinkler.

where Wr= radius of coverage, m

where Ra = the average application rate, mm hour-1.

RELATIVE INFILTRATION RATE

RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF DROP SIZE

d50 = volume mean drop diameter, mm

Table 16.8. Coefficients for estimating energy from sprinkler devices.

16.4 APPLICATION UNIFORMITY

Figure 16.10. Arrangement to measure the single-leg water distribution of a sprinkler.

DISTANCE FROM TOP SPRINKLER, m

16.4.3 Wind Effects

LATERAL PERPENDICULAR LATERAL PARALLEL

numerous combinations of sprinkler devices, nozzle types, operating pressures and

Figure 16.13. Diagram of solid set sprinkler irrigation system.

16.5.1 Sprinkler Selection, Performance, and Spacing

16.5.2 Designing for Constant Sprinkler Discharge

lated sprinklers or flow-control nozzles are desirable. Also, if different numbers of

Example 1. A 160-m × 180-m field is to be irrigated as shown in Figure 16.14. A

16.5.3 Operation and Maintenance Guidelines

Figure 16.18. Picture and operational sketch of a towline or skidtow system.

16.7 CENTER PIVOTS

RADIUS OF BASIC SYSTEM

Figure 16.21. Picture and operational sketch for a center pivot

RADIAL DISTANCE PIVOT LATERAL

Figure 16.22. Diagram of representative area for determining

This area is area is given by

FRACTION OF PRESSURE LOSS ALONG LATERAL

FRACTION OF DISTANCE ALONG LATERAL

400 168 mm DIAMETER PIPE

MIXED PIPE SIZES

PRESSURE IN LATERAL, kPa

80 L/s FLOW RATE

RADIAL DISTANCE FROM PIVOT, m

16.7.2 Uniformity of Application

Figure 16.25. Illustration of parameters used to compute uniformity of

and for elliptical patterns: d =

where d = depth of water applied at a point

ω = angular velocity of the pivot lateral,

CLAY LOAM CLAY 70

SANDY CLAY LOAM

60 PEAK APPLICATION RATE

0.3 INTAKE FAMILY

MAXIMUM APPLICATION DEPTH, mm

MAXIMUM APPLICATION DEPTH, mm

MAXIMUM APPLICATION DEPTH, mm

MAXIMUM APPLICATION DEPTH, mm

Area in One Corner as % of System Area

End Gun Radius / System Radius

16.8 LATERAL MOVE SYSTEMS

Figure 16.32. Examples of lateral move systems

Poor uniformity in windy conditions—Since the traveler throws water a long