You are on page 1of 17

An ASABE Meeting Presentation

Paper Number: 096487

Suction of Soil Particles under Vacuum Conditions in


Subsurface Drip Irrigation: Comparative Test of Emitters

Prof. Rubens Duarte Coelho (University of Sao Paulo / USP - INCT rdcoelho@esalq.usp.br)
Eng. Jorge Luis Copquer dos Santos (Graduated Student – ESALQ / USP)
Eng. Christian J. Mendoza Castiblanco (Graduated Student – ESALQ / USP)
Prof. Marconi Batista Teixeira (University of Goias State - Ipameri)

Written for presentation at the


2009 ASABE Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASABE
Grand Sierra Resort and Casino
Reno, Nevada
June 21 – June 24, 2009

Abstract. Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) presents an inherent risk of suctioning soil particles from
the surrounding porous media due to vacuum occurrence inside lateral lines underground that can
result emitter clogging. This work aims to evaluate the vacuum occurrence effect on 25 drip models
under SDI conditions. The treatments consisted in the application of four vacuum levels -10, -15,-20
and -40 kPa in two soil textures: sandy and clay. The obtained values of flow rate were used to
calculate average flow rate (qm), discharge variation coefficient (CV) and uniformity distribution
coefficient (UD). Random block was the statistical delineation adopted, “F” tests was used to the
variance analysis and Tuckey test with 5% probability to averages comparisons and regression
analysis. Subsurface drip emitter’s performance was influenced by the soil texture. The highest
vacuum level -40 kPa present the major emitters obstructions with reduction in the flow rate for both
soil textures. Some emitters presented variable results according to soil texture and constructive
design.

Keywords. Clogging, emitters, drip irrigation.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the
official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not
constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed. Technical presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by
ASABE editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is
from an ASABE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2009. Title of Presentation. ASABE Paper No. 09----. St. Joseph,
Mich.: ASABE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please contact ASABE at
rutter@asabe.org or 269-429-0300 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).
Introduction
Sugar cane irrigation for biofuels production in Brazil is a huge potential market for SDI
application in the next 20 years (6 million ha / forecasted expansion area). However, subsurface
drip irrigation is increasing slowly in the brazilian irrigated agriculture, due to limitations that the
method presents in some recent field experiences: clogging problems, emitters with trifularin
protection (Geoflow / rootguard) are unavailable at the local market and lack of scientific
researches indicating its technical and economical viability (DALRI & CRUZ, 2002).

Drip irrigation it is extensively used on soil surface. The evolution of the hydraulic
characteristics of emitters resulted in the use of drip irrigation underground, with the perspective
of obtaining some advantages compared to the traditional form (superficial drip): larger lifetime
and higher water efficiency use (GOMES & SOUSA, 2002).

Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) system is characterized by the application of water in


form of drops, directly inside the soil, allowing the application of water in small quantities, next to
the roots of the plants, not moisturizing the inter-row area and soil surface. The consumption of
water is reduced compared to other irrigation systems. When it is well managed, it allows a
higher efficiency of water application, in consequence of a better control of the applied depth,
minor lost by evaporation and practically none lost due to percolation and run-off (RESENDE,
2003).

Subsurface drip irrigation compared to superficial conventional system presents


additional advantages, as applying water and nutritious directly in the root area, reducing
evaporation losses, avoiding mechanical damages during the cultivation operations and rodents
attack, providing larger growth of the root system, reducing moisture at soil surface and
minimizing the incidence of diseases (CAMP, 1998; SILVA et al., 1999).
According to Phene & Ruskin (1995), subsurface irrigation system increases the
application efficiency once the volume of water stored is larger than superficial systems.
Subsurface drip irrigation systems have been compared to other overhead irrigations for
different crops and in all cases the production is same or superior (CAMP, 1998).

Subsurface drip irrigation is subject to most of the problems of the traditional superficial
system, adding the obstruction of emitters from suctioning of soil particles and penetration of
root systems from crops and weeds, causing increment of localized head loss in the lateral lines

2
(roots inside lines), harming lateral line flow rate downstream to the intrusion point (Ruskin
1992; FARIA, 2002).

Vacuum events in the irrigation parcels are related to the closure of the hydraulic valves
in steep slopes topographic conditions, when water inside lateral lines is drained toward of lower
areas, generating a negative pressure inside the hydraulic net that promotes suction of soil
particles under saturated conditions in lateral lines at higher elevations (WEATHERHEAD,
2002). Emptying of drip lines can result high values of negative pressures collapsing the
secondary lines (PVC), being indispensable the use of anti-suction valves of double effect at
parcels located in steep slopes inside the irrigation area, in order to prevent vacuum occurrence
in the hydraulic system.

The objective of this work is to evaluate the effect of vacuum occurrence on the hydraulic
performance of 25 commercial emitters, operating under subsurface drip conditions, for two soil
texture (clay and sandy) and four vacuum levels.

Material and Methods

The experiment was carried out at a test bench with 11.0 m long and 4.0 m wide and
1,30 m height, installed under indoor conditions at the Irrigation Laboratory, of the Agricultural
Engineering Department, College of Agriculture "Luiz de Queiroz " ESALQ, University of São
Paulo, Piracicaba-SP, Brazil. (Figure1).

Figure 1 - Illustrative picture of the bench trial, where the experiment was developed

3
The application system allowed the recirculation of the applied water in accordance with
the following sequence: reservoir → pump → drippers → gutter → reservoir.
The treatments consisted of applying suction levels -10, -15, -20 and -40 kPa in two soil
textures, sandy and clay loam texture in 25 dripper models. The characteristics of the soils
used are described in Table 1. The soils used in the experiment were sieved with mesh
openings of 2 mm, after pre-drying and griding.

Table 1 - Physical characteristics of soils used in the experiment

Soil % clay % silt % sand

Clay 49,34 18,96 31,70


Sandy 20,08 7,99 71,93

Each emitter model was represented by 10 drippers (replications) that were evaluated at
each test carried out. A total number of 260 emitters were monitored during this trial.

Because of emitters tested are commercial products, data and analysis presented here
were coded to avoid any commercial speculation of the results, once there is no standard test
procedure available to this trial condition. The numbers used in the encoding of the models
emitters (1,2,3, .., 26) has no connection with the trade names of products and or the sequence
of emitters in Table 2. Decodification of emitters for academic purposes can be requested to the
correspondent author.

Table 2 - Drips characteristics used in testes

Nominal Flow Pressure


Model Flow
L h-1 kpa
Azud 1,4 150 normal
Carbodrip 2,0 150 Self-compensating
Carborundum CD/AC 2,3 150 Self-compensating
Drip In 2,5 150 Self-compensating
Dripnet 1,6 150 Self-compensating
Hydro Drip 2,0 150 normal
Hydro PC 2,0 150 Self-compensating
Hydro PC 2,2 150 Self-compensating

4
Hydro PC 2,2 150 Self-compensating
Hydro PCND 2,35 150 Self-compensating
Hydrogol 3,0 150 normal
Irridrip Plus 2,5 150 Self-compensating
Irriloc 1,1 150 normal
Naan Paz 2,0 150 Normal
Naan PC 2,1 150 Self-compensating
Naan PC 3,8 150 Self-compensating
Naan Tif 1,6 150 Normal
Petrodrip 1,5 150 normal
Ram 2,3 150 Self-compensating
Ram 2,3 150 Self-compensating
Super Typhoon 2,0 150 normal
Tiran 2,1 150 normal
Twin Plus 1,8 150 Self-compensating
Uniran 1,6 150 Self-compensating
Vip Line 3,6 150 Self-compensating

Emitters were surrounded by soil particles in this experiment using an artificial procedure:
lines were not buried in the soil; lines were hanged in the air inside the test bench and emitters
outlet were involved by small amounts of soil surrounded by porous synthetic textile (Bedin),
like a “air layering” design.

Emitters used in the test were running previously a complex sequential test procedure for
developing drip irrigation standard procedures in Brazil (previous results are not showed in this
article). The previously sequential procedure is described as following:
a) Application of CaCO3 and MgCO3 solution (ISL: 1,439 - 100% maximum solubility with
pH equal to 8.84) for 12 hours with the rest of the product inside driplines for 36 h,
totaling 360 h of application. The water used in this test was prepared by addition of
CaCO3 and MgCO3,in order to obtained a Ca: Mg rate of 1,7:1 (prevailing conditions in
the major sources of underground water available for irrigation in the Northeast Brazil).
b) After this test, drippers were exposed to a 12 h application of nitric acid (pH in the range
of 2,0 to 3,0) with the rest of the product inside the line for 12 h to verify the flow rate
recovery

5
c) Performed the cleaning procedure described above, a new treatment, using 75% of the
solubility of CaSO4 was imposed.
d) After this test, driplines rested for 58 days and from this point, it started the
implementation of CO2 . This was applied for 8 hours continuously without a break of the
solutions on the lines of drip and was reading the manual flow gives final application.
The limit of the gas was injected to maintain the pH between 5,0-6,5 being monitored to
the same 30 minutes each (pH meter).
e) Treatment using water with high organic load (green algae). The procedure for
application of this water was as follows: 12 h on + 36 h off. The system worked for 15
weeks totalizing 528 hours, whereas at the end of the last application was the recovery
of the flow of the chemical treatment used drips with sodium hypochlorite (150 ppm free
chlorine) in 4 applications of 15 minutes with rest of the chlorine solution in the interior of
the line for an hour and subsequent implementation of clean water for 24 hours to wash
the inside of the same at a pressure of 150 kPa.
f) After the previous test the applications of nitric acid at pH 2.0 for 48 continuous hours,
followed by a cleaning of drips with the end of each line open side to facilitate the
removal of fouling.

The main reason for not using new emitters in this test was the impossibility of ready
access to all 26 emitter models to run this trial (some models are not sold in the Brazilian
irrigation market) and because after running the preliminary procedures described above, it was
noticed that almost all emitters were in good conditions (CV < 5 %).

The experiment consisted in the application of 4 vacuum levels -10, -15, -20 and -40
kPa for two soil textures (sandy and clay) for the selected 26 emitters. Before each vacuum
application, the irrigation system was activated for a period of 30 minutes, enough to cause
saturation of the soil volumes; after that, each dripline was connected to a electric vacuum
pump for 5 minutes for each vacuum level described above. After three days of the vacuum
application, the flow rate of each emitter was measured by weighing the volume collected during
5 minutes on a certified scale (±0.01g).

6
Figure 2 - Driplines hanging inside the test bench and emitters involved by small amounts
of soil surrounded by porous synthetic textile (Bedin).

The pump system used in the trials was composed of a small centrifugal pump. Drip
lines were joined at a manifold using PVC connections and the water flow an each line was
controlled by individual registers. The operation of the experiment was carried out manually,
following strictly the ON / OFF hours of water application scheduled. At the entrance of each
manifold section it was installed an analogical pressure gauge (0 - 700 kPa), allowing at each
flow rate measurement, pressure to be controlled.

The procedure for measuring individual emitter’s flow rate was the pressurization of the
system at 150 kPa, positioning of containers (1 liter) under respective drippers with a lag of 5
seconds, sequential removal of the containers after 5 minutes, weighing of containers and
tabulation of data.

The gravimetric method was used for determining the water volume collected from each
emitter tested. Flow rate values were expressed in L h-1. It was used a certified precision scale
(OHAUS) with accuracy of 0.01 g. Flow rate readings of drip lines were conducted with potable
water.
After data tabulation it was calculated flow rate, coefficient of variation and distribution
uniformity using equations 1, 2 and 3.

7
P s q25%
q 60 (1) CVq  100 (2) UD  100 (3)
1000t q q

P – weight of collected water, g;


T – collecting time, min;
q – emitter’s flow rate, l h-1;
CVq – flow rate variation coefficient, %;

s – standard deviation of emitter discharge, l h-1;


UD – uniformity distribution coefficient, %
q25% – average flow rate of ¼ of the smallest values; l h-1;
q – average flow rate of emitter, l h-1.

The empirical distribution was used to calculate the percentage of emitters for different
ranges of flow rate reduction. It was adopted the random block experimental delineation, test
"F" for the analysis of variance and Tuckey test (5%), for average comparison and regression
analysis.

Results and Discussion

The 25 emitters models were separated in four groups according to the flow rate range
that operate according to the Table 3.

Table 3 – Classification of the emitters models according to the flow rate.

Group 1: Flow rate from 1,0 at 1,6 Emitters: 23 - 19 - 21 - 1 - 25 - 26


Group 2: Flow rate from 1,8 at 2,05 Emitters: 15 - 2 - 8 - 12 - 13 - 18 - 14
Group 3: Flow rate from 2,1 at 2,35 Emitters: 3 - 9 - 10 - 22 - 6 - 7 - 11
Group 4: Flow rate from 2,5 at 4,0 Emitters: 17 - 20 - 5 - 16 - 4

Table 4 shows the average flow rate values of emitters, submitted to different vacuum
levels and soil textures; Tukey test (5%) interpretation it also presented.

8
-1
Table 4a - Average flow rate of emitters (L h ) subject to various vacuum levels and soil textures (Sandy / Clay): Emitters groups 1 and 2.

Emitters: Group 1
Vaccum
1 19 21 23 25 26
Test (kPa)
Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay
bA bcA aA aA bA aA aA aA aA aA aA aA
1 0* 0.89 0.88 1.70 1.70 1.45 1.49 1.21 1.13 1.62 1.52 1.52 1.50
B A A B A B bA A A A A A
2 0** 1.09ª 1.27ª 1.62ª 1.39ª 1.86ª 1.60ª 0.78 0.92ª 1.68ª 1.58ª 1.42ª 1.49ª
cA cA bA A A B A A A aA A A
3 10 0.75 0.74 1.37 1.54ª 1.91ª 1.42ª 1.25ª 1.16ª 1.56ª 1.37 1.39ª 1.42ª
cA bcA cA bA bA B A A A bA A A
4 15 0.80b 0.84 1.04 1.23 1.61 1.36ª 1.04ª 1.02ª 1.49ª 1.20 1.50ª 1.39ª
bA bA bB A bA B A A A bB A A
5 20 0.89 0.97 1.09 1.38ª 1.61 1.40ª 1.12ª 1.04ª 1.65ª 1.14 1.36ª 1.29ª
bcA dB bA aA bA bB bA bB aA aA aA A
6 40 0.78 0.60 1.20 1.33 1.60 0.91 0.74 0.46 1.44 1.62 1.31 1.35ª

Emitters: Group 2

Vaccum 2 8 12 13 14 15 18
Test
(kPa) Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay
abA B cA cA cA bB bA cB A bB bA A A B
1 0* 1.79 1.63ª 1.88 1.84 1.42 2.08 2.08 1.63 2.13ª 1.92 1.68 1.76ª 2.11ª 1.84ª
aA B cB bA bA bA A A A A A B A bB
2 0** 2.00 1.58ª 1.85 2.08 1.95 1.99 2.35ª 2.24ª 2.28ª 2.38ª 2.11ª 1.55ª 1.85ª 1.12
abA bB bA bcB bA bcA A cB A cB A B A bB
3 -10 1.80 1.37 2.54 1.94 1.87 1.84 2.35ª 1.68 2.09ª 1.67 2.07ª 1.60ª 1.88ª 1.04
A bB A B cA A cB bA cB bA A bA bB
4 -15 1.84ª 1.37 3.10ª 2.84ª 1.92bA 1.71 2.32ª 1.74 2.03 1.62 1.65 1.67ª 1.58 1.27
A B cB bA A bB A bB bA bA cB A bA bB
5 -20 1.91ª 1.48ª 1.85 2.10 2.27ª 1.98 2.27ª 1.98 1.84 1.90 1.32 1.59ª 1.79 1.15
bA bB dA cA bB aA bA aA cB aA cB aA bA cB
6 -40 1.70 1.37 1.62 1.69 1.79 2.88 2.18 2.12 1.43 2.15 1.23 1.57 1.67 0.98

0* No vacuum (0 kPa) and flow rate measured without soil surrounding emitters (before starting the trial);
0** No vacuum (0 kPa) and flow rate measured with soil surrounding emitter (just after installation of the trial).
1* Average with the same lowercase letter for each column indicates no significant difference by Tukey test (5%).
2* Average with the same capital letter between columns (Sandy / Clay) for each model for each test number, are not
significantly different (5%) by Tukey test.

2
-1
Table 4b – Average flow rate of emitters (L h ) subject to various vacuum levels and soil textures (Sandy / Clay): Emitters groups 3 and 4.

Emitters: Group 3
Test Vaccum (kPa) 3 6 7 9 10 11 22
Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay
A A B A bA A bA A bA A A abA A A
1 0* 2.14ª 2.12ª 2.37ª 2.61ª 2.09 2.16ª 1.62 1.77c 2.03 2.08ª 1.65ª 1.74 2.18ª 2.26ª
A A A cB bA A B A A A A A bA B
2 0** 2.15ª 2.16ª 2.25ª 2.00 2.11 2.05ª 2.06ª 2.40ª 2.21ª 2.28ª 1.74ª 1.83ª 1.80 2.23ª
bB A abB bA A bB A bB A B A bA A abB
3 -10 1.90 2.04ª 2.10 2.31 2.61ª 1.32 2.24ª 1.98 2.37ª 2.09ª 1.47ª 1.56 1.99ª 2.13
A bB cA cA A B cB A cA bA bB A B A
4 -15 2.19ª 1.92 1.75 1.88 2.69ª 2.01ª 1.40 2.26ª 1.99 1.90 1.29 1.97ª 2.06ª 2.36ª
bA cB bB bA bA cA bB bA cA bA abA cA bB abA
5 -20 1.88 1.66 1.94 2.27 2.22 1.94 1.78 2.01 1.77 1.82 1.38 1.32 1.73 2.13
cA cA bcB cA cB cA cB bA cA cA bB bcA cB bA
6 -40 1.64 1.59 1.83 2.07 0.92 1.94 1.39 1.92 1.85 1.73 1.16 1.46 1.55 2.05

Emitters: Group 4
Test Vaccum (kPa) 4 5 16 17 20
Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay Sandy Clay
cA dB bA abA A A A A A bA
1 0* 2.57 1.84 2.32 2.30 2.49ª 2.41ª 2.52ª 2.55ª 2.25ª 2.23
bA A A abB cA cA A bA A A
2 0** 3.88 3.92ª 2.58ª 2.41 1.54 1.71 2.46ª 2.29 2.22ª 2.27ª
bB A A A bA abA B A B
3 -10 3.83 4.01ª 2.63ª 2.61ª 1.98 2.05 2.55ª 2.79ª 2.35ª 2.58ªA
A bB cB cA cB abA bB abA A A
4 -15 4.01ª 3.86 1.70 1.99 1.66 2.17 2.07 2.51 2.43ª 2.44ª
bA cB bcB bA bA A A bA A A
5 -20 3.70 3.53 1.90 2.26 2.07 2.28ª 2.51ª 2.44 2.33ª 2.47ª
bB aA bB aA bA bA bB bA aA A
6 -40 3.73 4.04 2.11 2.53 2.10 1.91 2.21 2.48 2.32 2.36ª
0* No vacuum (0 kPa) and flow rate measured without soil surrounding emitters (before starting the trial);
0** No vacuum (0 kPa) and flow rate measured with soil surrounding emitter (just after installation of the trial).
1* Average with the same lowercase letter for each column indicates no significant difference by Tukey test (5%).
2* Average with the same capital letter between columns (Sandy / Clay) for each model for each test number, are not
significantly different by Tukey test (5%).

3
It is possible to notice in Tables 4a and 4b that emitters 3, 7, 8 and 10 were the ones that
presented the greatest reductions in flow rate for vacuum tension of - 40 kPa for both soil.
Emitters 20 and 26 does not presented any flow rate disturbance for the application of different
vacuum levels for the two soil textures studied. Emitter 25 also presented a good uniformity of
flow, differing statistically only for the clay soil at vacuum levels of -15 and -20 kPa. For emitters
2, 18 and 21, non-compensating drippers, soil texture influenced on the flow rate of emitters,
confirming the initial hypothesis that different soil particles sizes can disturb flow rate in different
magnitude.

The highest increase in the original flow rate (for both soil textures) was observed for the
model 8 after the application of -15 kPa vacuum level.

Figures 3 to 6 show the flow rate average values (L h-1), quantified by measuring
individual flow for different emitter models analyzed in this test. ot being presented, while the
data concerning the background of drips to facilitate interpreting the behavior of the flow.

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5
qm (l h-1 )

qm l h-1 )

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluations evaluations
23 19 21 1 25 26 23 19 21 1 25 26

Sandy Clay
Figure 3 – Flow rate average values (L h-1) for Group 1 emitters.
3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0
qm (l h-1 )

qm (l h-1 )

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluations evaluations
15 2 8 12 13 18 14 15 2 8 12 13 18 14

Sandy Clay
Figure 4 - Flow rate average values (L h-1) for Group 2 emitters.

2
3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0
qm (l h-1 )

qm (l h-1 )
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluations evaluations
3 9 10 22 6 7 11 3 9 10 22 6 7 11

Sandy Clay
-1
Figure 5 - Flow rate average values (L h ) for Group 3 emitters.

4.5 4.5
4.0 4.0
3.5 3.5
3.0 3.0

qm (l h-1 )
qm (lh-1 )

2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluations evaluations
17 20 5 16 4 17 20 5 16 4

Sandy Clay
-1
Figure 6 - Flow rate average values (L h ) for Group 4 emitters.

Figures 7 through 10 show the values of the coefficient of variation (flow rate) for
emitters evaluated in each group flow.

120 120

100 100

80 80
CV (%)
CV (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluations evaluations
23 19 21 1 25 26 23 19 21 1 25 26

Sandy Clay

Figure 7 – Flow rate coefficient of variation for Group 1 emitters.

3
100 100

80 80

60 60
CV (%)

CV (%)
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluations evaluations
15 2 8 12 13 18 14 15 2 8 12 13 18 14

Sandy Clay

Figure 8 - Flow rate coefficient of variation for Group 2 emitters.


100 100

80 80

60 60
CV (%)

CV (%)
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluations evaluations
15 2 8 12 13 18 14 15 2 8 12 13 18 14

Sandy Clay

Figure 9 - Flow rate coefficient of variation for Group 3 emitters.

100 100

80 80

60 60
CV (%)

CV (%)

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
evaluations evaluations
17 20 5 16 4 17 20 5 16 4

Sandy Clay

Figure 10 - Flow rate coefficient of variation for Group 4 emitters.

Figures 11 to 14 present values of uniformity distribution coefficient (UD) for all model drips
evaluated according to emitters flow rate Groups.

4
120.0 120.0

100.0 100.0

80.0 80.0
UD (%)

UD (%)
60.0 60.0

40.0 40.0

20.0 20.0

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
avaliações avaliações

23 19 21 1 25 26 23 19 21 1 25 26

Sandy Clay

Figure 11 - Uniformity distribution coefficient for Group 1 emitters.

120.0 120.0

100.0 100.0

80.0 80.0

UD (%)
UD (%)

60.0 60.0

40.0 40.0

20.0 20.0

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
avaliações avaliações

15 2 8 12 13 18 14 15 2 8 12 13 18 14

Sandy Clay

Figure 12 - Uniformity distribution coefficient for Group 2 emitters.

120.0 120.0

100.0 100.0

80.0 80.0
UD (%)

UD (%)

60.0 60.0

40.0 40.0

20.0 20.0

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
avaliações avaliações

3 9 10 22 6 7 11 3 9 10 22 6 7 11

Sandy Clay

Figure 13 - Uniformity distribution coefficient for Group 3 emitters.

5
120.0 120.0

100.0 100.0

80.0 80.0

UD (%)
UD (%)

60.0 60.0

40.0 40.0

20.0 20.0

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
avaliações avaliações

17 20 5 16 4 17 20 5 16 4

Sandy Clay

Figure 14 - Uniformity distribution coefficient for Group 4 emitters.

It is notice a good performance for almost all emitters (flow rate coefficient of variation
CV < 5 %), at the beginning of the experiment, before starting the imposition of vacuum
treatments.

Higher values of CV were found with the application of the tension of -40kPa for both
soils. Group 3 of emitters was the most sensitive.

In Figure 8 it is presented the CV graphs for Group 2 emitters. It was observed that
emitter’s performance for different soils was differentiated: soil texture influences flow rate
disturbance under vacuum .

Self-compensating models 8 and 15 (Group 2) were influenced by sandy soil. Emitter 8


presented a flow rate increase in response to the application of vacuum levels -10 and -15 kPa
for the clay soil, possibly due to the positioning of soil particles on the settlement border of the
flexible membrane (pressure compensating mechanism). For higher levels of vacuum (-20 to -
40 kPa) it was observed a flow rate reduction.

Emitter model 12 (Group 2) presented a flow rate increase for sandy soil in proportion to
the vacuum level applied. For the clay soil, flow rate disturbance occurred only for vacuum level
of -40 kPa.

Figure 9 shows the graphs of CV for Group 3. In general, for the sandy soil, increasing
the vacuum level resulted in higher CV values for emitter models in this group.

The largest increase in flow rate, for both soils, was observed for model 8 after the
application of the weak vacuum of -15 kPa.

For emitter models 5, 16, 17 and 20, the effect of the vacuum levels of -10, -15, -20 and -
40 kPa was of small magnitude for the clay soil. For the sandy soil, model 16 presented the
greatest reduction in flow when subjected to vacuum levels of -10 and -15 kPa, with a reduction
in the vacuum of 20 and 33% respectively.

6
Resende & Coelho (2003) studying the effect of 5 vacuum levels in the flow rated of
underground emitters (SDI), detected higher levels of flow reduction for lower levels of flow (-13
and -20kPa). It seems that at higher levels of suction (-53 and-80kPa), soil moisture
immediately adjacent to the water outlet decreased rapidly, forming a rigid porous seal,
preventing the suction of the soil paste more distant from the hole, which reduces the total
amount of soil particles suctioned.

Emitter model 4 presented a flow rate increase with the application of vacuum. The
highest percentage of emitters clogged, was achieved by the emitter 7, with gradual increase of
the clogging from the tension of -15 kPa to -40 kPa (Table 4b). Figure 15 shows the percentage
of the total range drips by reducing flow, using the tensions of 0 and 40 kPa (sandy texture).

0 kPa 40 kPa

100 100
Total de gotejadores (%)

Total de gotejadores (%)


80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Redução de vazão (%) Redução de vazão (%)

Figure 15 – Percent distribution of drippers (n = 15) by flow rate range reduction for emitter
7 (sandy soil) to vacuum levels of 0 and - 40 kPa.

Conclusions

The obtained results in this trial led to the following conclusions:


a. The performance of drip emitters (SDI) under vacuum conditions depends on soil
texture;
b. For the majority of emitters analyzed, vacuum level of -40 kPa caused higher levels of
flow rate disturbance for both soils.
c. The higher increases in the flow rate (for both soils) was observed after the application
of vacuum level of -10 kPa, for emitter 9 and vacuum level – 15 kPa for emitter model 8.

d. The proposal methodology could be refined to become an ASABE standard procedure,


in order to help SDI farmers to run lower risks in the field.

7
Acknowledgment

These writers are grateful to the following Brazilian Institutions for their financial support:
Federal Department of Science and Technology (MCT), National Scientific and Technological
Development Council (CNPq), Sao Paulo State Scientific Foundation (FAPESP) and National
Institute of Science and Technology in Irrigation Engineering (INCTEI / ESALQ - USP).

References

CAMP, C.R. Subsurface drip irrigation: a review. Transactions of the ASAE, v. 41, n. 5, p.1353-
1367, 1998.

DALRI, A. B.; CRUZ, R. L. Efeito da freqüência de irrigação subsuperficial por gotejamento no


desenvovimento da cana-de-açúcar (Saccharum spp.). Irriga, Botucatu, v. 7, n. 1, 2002.
FARIA, L. F. Variação de vazão de gotejadores enterrados na irrigação de citros e café.2002,
87 p. Tese (Doutorado em Agronomia). Piracicaba: ESALQ/USP, 2002.
GOMES, E. P.; SOUSA, A. P. Produtividade da alface (lactuca sativa L.) em função dos valores
de lâminas de água aplicados por gotejamento superficial e subsuperficial. Irriga, Botucatu, v. 7,
n. 1, 2002.
PHENE, C.J.; RUSKIN, R. Potential of surface drip irrigation for management of nitrate in
wasterwater. In: INTERNATIONAL MICROIRRIGATION CONGRESS, 5, 1995, Orlando,
Proceeding… St Joseph: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1995.p.155-167.

RUSKIN, R. Reclaimed water and subsurface irrigation. St. Joseph: ASAE, 1992. 12p. (ASAE.
Paper, 922578).

SILVA, W.L.C.; GIORDANO, L.B.; MAROUELLI, W.A.; FONTES, R.R.; GORNAT, B. Response
of six processing tomatoes cultivars to subsurface drip fertirrigation. Acta Horticulturae, n. 487,
p. 569-573, 1999.

RESENDE, R. S Intrusão radicular e efeito de vácuo em gotejamento enterrado na irrigação de


cana-de-açúcar. 2003, 124 p. Tese (Doutorado em Agronomia). Piracicaba: ESALQ/USP, 2003.

WEATHERHEARD, K. PC drip tube and vacuums.


http://www.microirrigationforum.com/new/archives/pvvac.html (17 out 2007)