Design of A Recirculating Hydroponics System For A Tomato Greenhouse (A Case Study of HM Clause Farm in Nanyuki, Kenya)

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
FEB 540: ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT

2014/2015 ACADEMIC YEAR
PROJECT TITLE:
DESIGN OF A RECIRCULATING HYDROPONICS SYSTEM FOR A

TOMATO GREENHOUSE
(A CASE STUDY OF HM CLAUSE FARM IN NANYUKI, KENYA)
CANDIDATE NAME: KAHEHU CHRISTINE WAIRIMU

CANDIDATE REG.No.: F21/1700/2010
SUPERVISOR’S NAME: MR. J.O AGULLO
A Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the

Degree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental and Biosystems
Engineering, of the University Of Nairobi
MAY, 2015
Declaration
I declare that this engineering project design is my work and has not been submitted for a degree
program in any other university.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
KAHEHU CHRISTINE WAIRIMU
This engineering project design has been submitted for examination with my approval as
University supervisor.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
MR. J.O.AGULLO
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 i

Dedication
This design project is dedicated to my mum Mrs. Teresia Naserian Naimodu, My sister Catherine
Njeri Kahehu, and My brother Timothy Mwangi for always believing in me and for their tireless
encouragement, support and prayers. I also dedicate this project to my Uncle, Kennedy
Konchella who once told me that the “sky is the limit” and to my late father James Mwathi
Kahehu from whom I got the inspiration to take on a career in Engineering.
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 ii

Acknowledgement
I am immensely grateful to the Almighty God for his guidance throughout the project design and
also having kept me this far in the pursuit of my career.
I would especially like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor at University of Nairobi,

Environmental and Bio-systems Engineering Department, Mr. J.O Agullo for his support,
guidance, encouragement, positive criticism that contributed to the preparation of this report. I
thank him for his patience in providing assistance despite his busy schedule.
I would also like to thank all my lecturers and technicians from who have patiently taught me the
Engineering Discipline.
I am very grateful to Engineer Rono of Irrico International Ltd for providing all the information
that was helpful for the design process. I am also thankful to all the staff of Irrico International
for their support and concern during the design process. I am grateful to HM Clause Co. for
allowing me to have their farm as a case study and for their support throughout the design
project.
In conclusion, I extend my sincere thanks to my family, colleagues and friends for their constant
encouragement, prayers and best wishes.
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 iii

Abstract
Green house soils are prone to acidity, salinity and root borne diseases. This is due to the reuse of
the soils season in season out which results in lack or limited availability of nutrients for the
crops. This reduces the yield of the crop. With the increasing adoption of the greenhouses in
Kenya due to the controlled environment achieved in the greenhouses, soil problems are a major
setback. One way of alleviating these problems is to adopt hydroponics which isolates the crop
from the soil. Hydroponics is a technology for growing plants in nutrient solutions (water and
fertilizers) with or without the use of artificial medium (e.g. sand, gravel, vermiculite, rockwool,
peat, coir, sawdust). The site of this engineering project was Nanyuki which has black cotton
soils thus poor drainage on irrigating resulting to loss of the plant due to root rot. These soils also
crack when dry exposing the plant roots thus loosing the crop thus hydroponics would provide
the ultimate solution. This project sought to increase the crop yield and also offer environmental
management strategy by recirculating nutrient solution in the hydroponics system.
The objective of this project was to design a recirculating hydroponics system for a 3 hectare
green house intended to grow tomatoes at HM Clause farm located in Nanyuki, Kenya. The
specific objectives were to identify pertinent parameters required in the design of a recirculating
hydroponics system, sizing the system components using the pertinent parameters and finally to
carry out a cost benefit analysis of the design.
The methodology involved a feasibility study, data acquisition and sizing system parameters.
Feasibility study involved the consideration of the yield of hydroponics as compared to open
field, the amount of fertilizer that is recycled and also by analyzing the demand of tomatoes.
Some of the data that was considered was the geology of the area which was determined from
existing documents of the Kenya Soils survey, climatic data which was obtained from ClimWat
and crop data which was obtained from CropWat. Observations were made at the site in order to
determine the layout of the hydroponic troughs. In sizing the system parameters various
equations such as volume, discharge, crop water requirement and Hazen William’s equations
were used. Softwares such as the Google earth, hydro calc, were also used in the design project.
The pertinent parameters were identified which included the crop data i.e. tomato planting
spacing which is 20cm x 20cm and the crop water requirement which was 5mm/day. The total
flow required for each section of the blocks of the farm was determined as 25.344m3/hr for the 3
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 iv

bay sections and 8.448m3/hr for the 1 bay sections using the total drip line length. This flow was
used in Hydro calc to determine the size of the multi-mains i.e. a main line for each section and
the sub-mains, select the pump for a total head of 45.84m, size valves to control the flow to each
section and also in the selection of gravel filters, media filters and U.V. cylinders. The irrigation
tank was sized depending on the discharge per section and also the irrigation schedule. The
irrigation schedule was obtained as 12.12min/day/section. The irrigation tanks were obtained as
steel tanks of 150m3 sized to 2.5 days of irrigation. The fertigation system was sized to
fertigation requirement of 5L/m3. The drainage system was sized depending on the flow drained
per trough which was 211.2lph. The capacity of the drainage tank was obtained as 10,000L. The
booster pump that was placed in the drainage tank was selected to a head of 34.08m and a
discharge of 5m3/hr. The treated water tank was sized to 15 days thus tank capacity was found to
be 150m3. Design drawing of the irrigation, hydroponics and drainage collection and
recirculation were produced. The cost of materials of the hydroponics system was found to be
Ksh.13, 195,838.26.
The hydroponics system will enable the production of consistent high yield of tomatoes. This
will in turn result in high returns to the farmer in that the farmer will be able to cater for the cost
of the installation of the system within a year of tomato production and sales. The effect will be
the reduction of the cost of tomatoes to consumers. In general the livelihood of Kenyans would
improve since with increased tomato production and even other vegetables there is increased
food security.
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 v

Table of Contents
Declaration ....................................................................................................................................... i
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the problem and problem analysis .............................................................. 5
1.3 Justification ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Site analysis and inventory............................................................................................... 7
1.5 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 12
1.6 Statement of Scope ......................................................................................................... 12
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 13
2.1 Brief History of Hydroponics ......................................................................................... 13
2.2 Hydroponics Technology ............................................................................................... 13
2.3 Benefits of Hydroponics Systems .................................................................................. 14
2.4 Types of Hydroponics Systems ...................................................................................... 16
2.4.1 Closed Hydroponic Systems ................................................................................... 16
2.4.2 Open Hydroponic Systems .......................................................................................... 17
2.5 Open versus closed hydroponics systems ...................................................................... 17
2.6 Fertigation ...................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.1 Fertigation Approaches ........................................................................................... 19
2.6.2 Fertigation Systems ...................................................................................................... 19
2.7 Treatment of Irrigation Water ........................................................................................ 22
2.7.1 Pre-treatment or Filtration............................................................................................ 22
2.7.2 Treatment of Irrigation water to remove pathogens .................................................... 24
2.8 Recirculating Hydroponics system................................................................................. 27
2.9 Design of Irrigation and Drainage lines ......................................................................... 30
2.10 Irrigation Hydrants ..................................................................................................... 31
2.11 Pump Selection ........................................................................................................... 32
2.12 Softwares used in the product design of this project .................................................. 33
2.12.1 CROPWAT 8.0 .......................................................................................................... 33
2.12.2 CLIMWAT 2.0 .......................................................................................................... 34
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 vi
2.12.3 HydroCalc .................................................................................................................. 34
3.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 36
3.1 Evapo-transpiration (ETO).............................................................................................. 36
3.2 Crop water requirement .................................................................................................. 37
3.3 Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR) .................................................................................. 38
3.4 Gross Irrigation Requirement (GIWR) .......................................................................... 39
3.5 Irrigation Scheduling ...................................................................................................... 39
3.6 Calculation of head losses n the pipes by Hazen Williams equations ........................... 41
3.7 Crop electrical conductivity and Ph requirements for fertigation unit ........................... 42
3.8 Pump Design .................................................................................................................. 43
3.9 Drip Irrigated Hydroponics Design .................................................................................... 45
4.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 47
4.1 Feasibility Study............................................................................................................. 47
4.2 Data Acquisition ............................................................................................................. 47
4.3 Assessment of Existing Greenhouse .............................................................................. 48
4.4 Sizing of System Components ....................................................................................... 48
4.4.1 Selection of drip lines and hydroponic troughs ...................................................... 48
4.4.2 Determination of hydroponic Layout...................................................................... 48
4.4.3 Sizing the irrigation lines ........................................................................................ 48
4.4.4 Sizing the valves or hydrants ....................................................................................... 49
4.4.5 Selecting Irrigation Pump, filters and U.V cylinders ................................................... 50
4.4.6 Sizing and selection of the fertigation system ............................................................. 50
4.4.7 Sizing the tank for Irrigation ........................................................................................ 51
4.4.8 Sizing the Drainage system .......................................................................................... 51
4.4.9 Sizing the Drainage tank .............................................................................................. 52
4.5.0 Sizing the recirculation System ................................................................................... 52
4.5.1 Sizing the treated water tank ........................................................................................ 53
4.5.2 Sizing the valves for drainage water ............................................................................ 53
4.5.3 Cost benefit Analysis ................................................................................................... 53
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 55
5.1 Design Criteria .................................................................................................................... 55
5.2 Identification of pertinent parameters ................................................................................. 56
5.2.1 Selecting the drip lines from manufacturer’s catalogue .............................................. 58
5.2.2. Flow required per fertigation zone/section ................................................................. 59
5.2.3 Time clock Irrigation scheduling ................................................................................. 60
5.2.4 Fertigation Requirements ............................................................................................. 61
5.3 Design of main lines, sub-mains and valves ....................................................................... 62
5.3.1 Sizing of the sub-mains ................................................................................................ 62
5.3.2 Sizing of the main line ................................................................................................. 64
5.3.3 Sizing of the irrigation hydrants or valves ................................................................... 65
5.4 Selecting the Irrigation Pump ............................................................................................. 66
5.5 Selecting the irrigation water U.V. cylinders and Filters.................................................... 66
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 vii
5.6 Sizing the fertigation system ............................................................................................... 67
5.7 Tank sizing for Irrigation .................................................................................................... 68
5.8 Sizing of the drainage system ............................................................................................. 68
5.8.1 Sizing of the outlet of the troughs to the drainage pipe ............................................... 68
5.8.2 Sizing the drainage pipe for the blocks vertical and across where the drain water is
directed to a drain tank .......................................................................................................... 69
5.8.3 Sizing the Drainage tank .............................................................................................. 71
5.9 Design of the recirculation System ..................................................................................... 71
5.9.1BoosterDrainage Pump selection .................................................................................. 72
5.9.2 Selecting media filter for drain water .......................................................................... 73
5.9.3 Selecting of U.V. Cylinders for drain water ................................................................ 73
5.9.4. Sizing the treated water tank ....................................................................................... 73
5.9.5 Selecting of injection valves ........................................................................................ 73
5.10 Cost benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................ 74
5.11 Design Drawing ................................................................................................................ 76
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 78
7.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 78
7.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 79
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 81
8.0 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 85
9.1 Appendix A .................................................................................................................... 85
9.2 Appendix B .................................................................................................................... 91
9.3 Appendix C .................................................................................................................. 103
9.4 Appendix D .................................................................................................................. 106
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Hydroponic Production in various countries ................................................................... 2
Table 2: Climate data for Nanyuki.................................................................................................. 8
Table 3: Coordinates of the points of the farm along the outside boundary of the farm as shown
on the google earth image in site analysis .................................................................................... 57
Table 4: Rainfall data from ClimWat, (2015) ............................................................................... 58
Table 5: Nutrient required at each stage growth of a tomato plant. Source: Pelemix’s experience,
Fertigation on wikipedia ............................................................................................................... 62
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of Nanyuki Kenya Source: Google images ...................................................... 7
Figure 2: Location of Nanyuki Kenya ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 3: Existing Greenhouse structure taken during a visit to the Nanyuki Farm, (2015) .......... 9
Figure 4: Aerial location of the 3ha farm. Source: Google Earth ................................................. 10
Figure 5: Layout of HM Clause farm, (2015) ............................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Fertigation Injectors. Source: Pressurized irrigation techniques, FAO 2015 ................ 21
Figure 7: Fertigation Systems. Source: Google images on fertigation systems ........................... 22
Figure 8: Media filters e.g. gravel filters. Source: Google images. .............................................. 24
Figure 9: A chlorine injection system. Source: Van der Gulik. T, 2003. .................................... 25
Figure 10: A pilot scale UV disinfection system. Source: Van der Gulik. T, 2003. ................... 26
Figure 11: Ultraviolet treatment unit. Source: Van der Gulik. T, 2003. ....................................... 27
Figure 12: Typical layout of a (hydroponics) substrate soilless growing system. Source: Pardossi,
(2011). Fertigation and Substrate Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Pg.45 ...................... 28
Figure 13: Fertigation Scheme option 1 Source: Pardossi, (2011). Fertigation and Substrate
Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Pg.47 ............................................................................ 29
Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Pg.50 ............................................................................ 29
Figure 15: Hydroponics troughs layout with 2 drip lines per trough. Source: Irrico International
Ltd Images .................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 16: Automatically operated hydrant. Source: Google images. .......................................... 31
Figure 17: Manually operated hydrant. Source: Google images. ................................................. 32
Figure 18: Valve Source: Google images ..................................................................................... 32
Figure 19: Conceptual framework of irrigation scheduling in soilless culture. Source: Pardossi,
(2011). Fertigation and Substrate Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Pg.28 ...................... 40
Figure 20: Total Pump head for an Irrigation system. Source Google images ............................. 45
Figure 21: Generation of Concept Design .................................................................................... 54
Figure 22: Crop water requirement from CropWat, (2015) .......................................................... 57
Figure 23: Summary of the bill of quantities attached in the Appendix D ................................... 75
Figure 24: Irrigation layout ........................................................................................................... 76
Figure 25: A.1 Sub-mains layout .................................................................................................. 85
Figure 26: A.2 Hydroponics Layout ............................................................................................. 86
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 x

Figure 27: A.3 Fertigation Layout ................................................................................................ 87
Figure 28: A.4 Drainage Collection .............................................................................................. 88
Figure 29: A.5 Hydrant fittings ..................................................................................................... 89
Figure 30: A.6 Reservoir fittings .................................................................................................. 90
Figure 31: B.1 Drip line selection ................................................................................................. 91
Figure 32: B.2 pressure head along the sub-main for 3 bay section that was used in the design of
the sub-main .................................................................................................................................. 92
Figure 33: B.3 pressure head used in design of sub-main for 1 bay section................................. 93
Figure 34: B.4 pressure head used in the mainline design ............................................................ 94
Figure 35: B.5 pressure head used in the design of trough drainage pipe .................................... 95
Figure 36: B.6 pressure head used in the design Block drainage 1 .............................................. 96
Figure 37: B.7 pressure head used in the design of Block drainage 2 .......................................... 96
Figure 38: B.8 pressure head used in the design of main drainage pipe 1 .................................... 97
Figure 39: B.9 pressure head used in the design of main drainage pipe 2 .................................... 97
Figure 40: B.10 pressure head used in the design of the main drainage pipe 3 ............................ 98
Figure 41: B.11 pressure head used in the design of the main drainage pipe 4 ............................ 98
Figure 42: B.12 pressure head used in the design of the pipe that directs drainage water to treated
water tank ...................................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 43: B.13 Kc for tomatoes................................................................................................. 100
Figure 44: B.14 Etc requirement ................................................................................................. 100
Figure 45: B.15 Climatic data ..................................................................................................... 101
Figure 46: B.16 Irrigation Pump specifications .......................................................................... 101
Figure 47: B.17 Drainage pump specifications........................................................................... 102
Figure 48: C.1 FERTIJET, Source: Google Images on fertigation............................................. 103
Figure 49: C.2 GALCON CONTROLLER, Source: Google images on Galcon controller ....... 103
Figure 50: C.3 Greenhouse structure on site ............................................................................... 104
Figure 51: C.4 Inside of Greenhouse structure on site................................................................ 104
Figure 52: C.5 Rain water harvesting reservoir .......................................................................... 105
Figure 53: D.1 BOQ for Drip irrigation ...................................................................................... 106
Figure 54: D.2 BOQ for Fertigation and Controllers .................................................................. 107
Figure 55: D.3 BOQ for hydroponic troughs .............................................................................. 108
Figure 56: D.4 BOQ for Recirculation and UV Treatment ........................................................ 109
Figure 57: D.5 BOQ for UV treatment ....................................................................................... 110
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 xi

Figure 58: D.6 BOQ for Drainage collection.............................................................................. 111
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 xii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Recent global trends in hydroponics indicate that commercial hydroponics industry has grown
four to five times in the last decade. The area under hydroponics is currently approximated to be
between 20,000 and 25,000 ha with a farm gate value ranging between 6 and 8 billion USD. The
rapid growth is as a result of the quality of the product more than the fact that the product is
hydroponically grown. The Dutch are the world leaders in commercial hydroponics as
hydroponics accounts for 50% of the value of all fruit and vegetables produced in the country
(Carruthers, 2002). The hydroponic production area is about 10,000 ha. The industry was
necessitated by widespread soil depletion, a build- up of soil disease, salinization, high water
tables and favorable economic returns. Globally, the crops that are grown hydroponically are the
most important commercial crops and they are limited in number. They include tomatoes,
cucumbers, lettuce, capsicum and cut flowers. Hydroponics has in time embraced Integrated Pest
Management and is moving away from run-to-waste systems with their potential for
environmental problems.
Food safety is pertinent to Industries and governments all over the world and the harmonization
of agricultural production systems with the environment, thus production of food in enclosed
hydroponic production systems seems to offer many advantages. These systems offer hygienic
production of food. These systems also recycle more than 95% of the water used, thus the
hydroponics and greenhouse industry is renowned for low water use compared to other
agricultural and horticultural sectors. The adaption of recycling systems is however limited with
most farmers still using run-to- waste systems that have minimal disease problems. The yield in
closed and open systems has been proven to be the same for both and therefore the challenge is
to save on resources. The Netherlands hydroponics industry is miles ahead and therefore it is the
perfect model to strategically analyze the different hydroponics systems obtaining the pros and
cons from their experiences. The Netherlands has the most developed hydroponic and
greenhouse industry in the world thus best reference point.
UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 1

Hydroponic production in various countries such as the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Japan, Israel,
UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia is shown in the Table 1.
Table 1: Hydroponic Production in various countries

Country Date Area Main Systems Major crops
(Ha)
The 1987 3,500 Rockwool and Tomato, Cucumber, Capsicum, Eggplant,
Netherlands(Ho other media Cut flowers, Beans, Lettuce
lland) based systems
2001 10,000 Rockwool Tomato, Cucumber, Capsicum, Eggplant,
strawberry, lettuce, chrysanthemum,
freesia, camation
Spain 1996 1,000 Perlite, sand, Lettuce, cucumber, capsicum,
2001 4,000 Rockwool Tomatoes
Canada 1987 100 Rockwool, Tomato, cucumber, lettuce
2001 1,574 Sawdust, NFT, Tomato, cucumber, capsicum

Rockwool,
perlite
France 1996 1,000 Rockwool Cucumber, capsicum, tomato, eggplant,
cut flowers
Japan 1984 293 Water, rockwool Honewort, tomato, leaf onion, lettuce,
and NFT musk melon, cucumber
Israel 1996 650 Scoria, perlite,
sand, Aeroponics
Belgium 1996 600 Rockwool
Germany 1996 650 Rockwool
New Zealand 1996 200 NTF, Pumice, Cut flowers, strawberry,
2001 660 Sawdust Tomato, capsicum, cucumber, lettuce,

melon chilies, Asian vegetables
Australia 1996 500 NFT, rockwool, Tomatoes, lettuce, cucumbers, cut
sawdust, sand, flowers, herbs, strawberry
scoria, perlite
United 1988 392 Rockwool Tomato, cucumber, capsicum
Kingdom

South Africa 1984 75 Various media, Tomato, cucumber, lettuce,
1996 420 Sawdust & bark Flowers
Italy 1990 60 Roses, tomato, gerbera,
1999 400 Strawberry
USA 1984 228 Perlite, gravel, Tomato, cucumber, lettuce
1999 400 Sand, NTF
Finland 1996 370
Korea 1987 274 NFT, rockwool Tomato, cucumber, lettuce
1996 Perlite, NFT,

DFT, rockwool,
Aeroponics
Mexico 1996 15
1999 120
China 1987 5 Gravel bed Tomato, cucumber, lettuce, melon,

capsicum, pak choi, chive, flowers
Greece 1996 33 Rockwool, Tomato, cucumber, capsicum,
perlite,
1999 60 NFT Lettuce
Brazil 1999 60 NFT Lettuce, arugula, water cress
Taiwan 1996 36
Singapore 1996 30 Aeroponics,

NFT
Total Production
Late 1980's - 5,000 to 6,000 ha
2001 - 20,000 to 25,000 ha
Source: Steven Carruthers, (2002). Hydroponics as an agricultural production system –Issue 63

Hydroponic farming utilizes 80% less water than conventional soil farming thus is a solution to
food production in the midst of changing climatic conditions in Africa. Drought and famine that
has resulted in food insecurity is heavily felt in the continent especially with the growing
population. In Kenya reduced farming acreage, soil problems and changing climatic conditions
have seen hydroponics as the trend in farming. The technology is fast gaining ground especially
in central Kenya. It’s a major boost to the Agricultural sector and is helping fight hunger and
poverty in the area. In central Kenya, where a majority of farmers own less than an acre of land,
the hydroponic system is renewing the hopes of many people who want to embark on farming
but are prohibited by the size of their land (Ngamau, 2013). Ngamau applauds the system as
cheap, efficient and highly productive and also claims that the final yields compensate the
challenges encountered in running the system.
Peter Chege one of the pioneers of hydroponic farming in Kenya has managed to train numerous
farmers in Kenya and Uganda on the intricacies of hydroponics on his farm thus the venture has
improved his financial status. The USAID has taken the front line under Feed the Future program
to support the hydroponics technology in Kenya. Under the program technology transfer is a
method used around the world to enlighten small scale farmers on effective technologies that can
be used on their farms such as hydroponics and thus transforming them from subsistence to
commercial enterprises. These efforts are seen when the USAID funded Rose Chelang’at
hydroponic farm in Kericho County a sum of USD 113. A hydroponics system is required to
have a recirculating system that encompasses the treatment unit in order to achieve the efficiency
and benefits therein. Some hydroponics systems are implemented in Kenya without the
recirculating aspects and this in turn results in waste of water and nutrients. The exceptions i.e.
the systems that have recirculating systems include the Lake Flower company in Kihoto estate
Naivasha and its neighbouring flower companies among others. The recirculating system is
costly and most farms in Kenya may not have it but it is essential.
HM clause farm in Nanyuki practices greenhouse farming for tomatoes on a commercial scale. It
utilizes greenhouse tunnels and heaped soils inside the greenhouse as the growing area. Nanyuki
soils which are also the greenhouse soils are black soils and thus water logged conditions occur

resulting in loss of the crops. There is also risk of the soils becoming unfavourable i.e. acidic due
to the large scale use of fertilizers and agro chemicals and would require that the soils be
changed at intervals. Such soils are also prone to root diseases. This project seeks to design a
recirculating hydroponics system for a greenhouse intended to grow tomatoes on a commercial
scale at HM Clause farm in Nanyuki in order to maximize on the scarce resource, water and also
manage the fertigation issues there in. It will also highlight the advantages of greenhouse
hydroponics over the conventional greenhouse that is adopted in Kenya.
1.2 Statement of the problem and problem analysis
Green house soils are prone to acidity, salinity and root borne diseases. This is due to the reuse of
the soils season in season out. Salinity and acidity result from accumulation of salts and
agrochemicals that are used in the irrigation water. Highly acidic soils prevent seed germination
and for alkaline soils seed germination may be slow or non-existent thus result in spindly plants.
Soil acidity also determines the availability of nutrients for the vegetables mostly grown in
greenhouses. In alkaline soils, phosphorous, iron and zinc are limited. In acidic soils calcium and
magnesium are less available. The lack or limited availability of these nutrients results in tomato
diseases reducing the yield. High salt levels burn the crop also reducing the yield. Nanyuki has
black cotton soils thus water logged conditions thus poor drainage on irrigating resulting to loss
of the plant due to root rot. These soils also crack when dry exposing the plant roots thus loosing
the crop.
Hydroponics offers hygienic conditions, monitoring of the pH of the nutrient and the medium
thus reduced probability of diseases, salinity and acidity. Tomatoes are highly sensitive crops
and thus would do well in hydroponics. Soilless mixes contain no diseases and are light enough
to allow air movement and balanced water distribution thus water logging conditions are non-
existent. Of importance a recirculating hydroponics system is appropriate in order to conserve
water and nutrients .Open hydroponic systems are prone to loss of water and nutrients with
environmental pollution i.e. pollution of ground water when waste nutrient solution is drained.
These systems resemble conventional open field agriculture in excessive water and nutrient
consumption.

In a recirculating irrigation system, drain water is treated to destroy pathogens and disease
causing organisms then recycled back to the irrigation laterals. The system prevents leaching of
drain water from greenhouses into the ground which pollutes ground water. The amount of water
and nutrients lost is greater on a commercial scale thus recycling is more viable.
1.3 Justification
The yield of tomatoes in hydroponics is 100 times more than the yield of tomatoes in open field
farming. Mbaka, et.al, 2013 also stated that in the past decade, tomato has gained importance as
an income generating crop in high potential and peri-urban areas. He also stated that the crop
was ranked first in a prioritization of vegetable crop value chains in Kenya from Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute report of 2011. In 2011, area under production was 19,000ha,
from which 600,000Million tones valued at Ksh14.2billion were produced as given in the report
of Horticultural Crops Development Authority. Production was mainly under open field
conditions until the adoption of modified high tunnels popularly known as ‘green houses’ in the
last five years. Greenhouses provide more farming area given that arable farm sizes have been
decreasing over the years due to increasing population. The use of greenhouses is also likely to
attract trained youths to practice farming since it’s perceived to be fashionable technology. The
labour requirements are reduced in greenhouses thus civil servants can retire to farming even in
old age.
The sustainability, however, of the wide spread greenhouse tomato farming in Kenya is
threatened by soil problems and excessive loss of water and fertilizers that leach into ground
water in conventional greenhouse hence need to adopt a hydroponics system. In addition the
recirculating hydroponics system is more sustainable since in the open system there is still
massive waste of water and nutrients with environmental pollution as occurs in conventional
agriculture although the yield of tomatoes in open and recirculating hydroponics systems is the
same.

1.4 Site analysis and inventory
The site of this design was HM Clause farm located in Nanyuki, Kenya. The description of
Nanyuki was obtained from Google Wikipedia as follows. Nanyuki is a market town in Laikipia
County of Kenya lying northwest of Mount Kenya along the A2 road and at the terminus of the
branch railway from Nairobi. It is situated just north of the Equator (0° 01' North).
Figure 1: Location of Nanyuki Kenya Source: Google images
Figure 2: Location of Nanyuki Kenya

Source: Google images

Nanyuki municipality had an urban population of 31,577 in 1999. Most members of the
population earn their money through trade. Shops in the town supply many farms, ranches and
game parks in a wide circle. Climbers and backpackers visit Nanyuki on their way to or from
Mount Kenya along the Sirimon and Burguret routes and many other tourists pass through the
town. Nanyuki therefore has many hotels, of which Mount Kenya Safari Club and Sportsman’s
Arms Hotel are the most prominent and best known.
Nanyuki has some of the cleanest water in Kenya since the water supply source is a river from
Mt. Kenya. The entire water system is gravity fed, from the supply to the sewer system. The
Geology of the area consist of volcanic soils, mainly basaltic lavas from which are derived the
black soils of the Laikipia plains (Shitakha, 1986)
Table 2: Climate data for Nanyuki

Climate data for Nanyuki
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Average high °C 25 26 25 23 23 23 22 23 24 24 23 23 23.7
(°F) (77) (79) (77) (74) (73) (74) (72) (73) (76) (75) (73) (74) (74.8)
Average low °C 7 8 9 11 10 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 8.6
(°F) (45) (47) (49) (51) (50) (48) (47) (47) (46) (47) (49) (47) (47.8)
Precipitation mm 13 23 46 119 81 50 69 66 48 64 86 38 703
(inches) (0.5) (0.9) (1.8) (4.7) (3.2) (2) (2.7) (2.6) (1.9) (2.5) (3.4) (1.5) (27.7)
Source: "Weatherbase: Historical Weather for Nanyuki, Kenya". Weatherbase. 2014. Retrieved on October
31, 2014.

Figure 3: Existing Greenhouse structure taken during a visit to the Nanyuki Farm, (2015)
The existing structure of the 3 ha farm greenhouse for tomato growing comprised of two units;
16 bays of 12.8m by 104m gutter length. The column height is 5m with a total height of 8.4m at
the centre and the columns are spaced at 4m apart.

3ha
farm
Figure 4: Aerial location of the 3ha farm. Source: Google Earth

Figure 5: Layout of HM Clause farm, (2015)
The greenhouse farm uses water from the main reservoir where rain water is collected. The
effective amount of rain water received in Nanyuki per year is 651.4mm per annum which is
sufficient to be harvested and used in irrigation. The rain water is harvested in an existing
reservoir in the farm of capacity 25,000m3. The water is then pumped to green house 1 as shown
in Figure 17.The demand in quantity and quality of tomatoes by the population and visitors of
Nanyuki and by the population of neighbouring cities such as Nairobi and Thika all year round
creates the need to produce quality vegetables including tomatoes in a closed hydroponic
greenhouse to achieve required tomato yield and quality. The concept implemented in the 3ha
farm can then be adopted by the farmers in the area and in Kenya.

1.5 Objectives
The overall objective of this study is to design a recirculating hydroponics system for a 3hectare
greenhouse for HM Clause farm located in Nanyuki to grow tomatoes in order to achieve
consistent high yield produce and environmental sustainability.
To achieve the above overall objective the following specific objectives have been set:
1. To identify pertinent parameters required in the design of a recirculating hydroponics
system for a greenhouse
2. To use the pertinent parameters in (1) to size the individual components of the design
3. To establish a Cost Benefit analysis of the recirculating hydroponic system.
1.6 Statement of Scope
This project sought to design a recirculating hydroponics system to minimize loss of water and
nutrients and achieve high consistent yield of tomatoes. It culminated into system components
specifications and design drawings that would enable the installation of the recirculating
hydroponics system. The hydroponics layout was determined depending on agronomists’
specifications. The irrigation and drainage layout depended on the discharge required or
expected and the slope. The design covered the sizing and selection of pumps, hydroponic
troughs, pipes and laterals depending on the crop water requirement, over-irrigation to prevent
accumulation of salts, and the irrigation scheduling. The drain water tank, UV treatment unit and
the treated storage water tank were sized according to the amount of drain water from each
trough. The amount of water and nutrients recycled was used to establish the efficiency of the
system. The constraint encountered was the availability of manufacturer’s catalogue in order to
select exact system components.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Brief History of Hydroponics
The use of solution culture for agricultural production was introduced to the public in 1929 by
William Frederick Gericke of the University of California. He grew tomato vines twenty-five
feet high in his backyard in mineral nutrient solutions rather than soil. In 1937 Gericke termed
the technology hydroponics which would enable countries to produce more food with fewer
resources. Gericke argued concerning the World War 1 that Nations such as Italy and Japan
which were worried by crowded populations and inadequate agricultural land could easily
increase their production of food through hydroponics getting rid of the need for territorial
expansion. One of the earliest successes of hydroponics occurred on Wake Island in the Pacific
Ocean that was used as a refueling stop for Pan American Airlines. Hydroponics was used in the
1930s to grow vegetables for passengers since there was no soil on the Island and it was
expensive to airlift fresh vegetables. In the USA the hydroponics industry was driven by the fact
that greenhouse soils had to be replaced at frequent intervals or be maintained year to year by
adding large quantities of commercial fertilizers.
2.2 Hydroponics Technology
Hydroponic systems consist of a soil-free plant growing system, where a controlled nutrient-rich
solution supplies plant roots with nourishment hence maximum yield and quality of produce as
compared to open field farming, (Government of Western Australia, Department of water, 2013).
It is a broad term that includes all techniques for growing plants in solid media other than
(substrate culture) or in aerated nutrient solution (water culture).The classification of soilless
culture considers the type of substrate and container, how the nutrient solution is delivered to the
plant (drip irrigation; sub-irrigation; flowing, stagnant or mist nutrient solution culture) and the
fate of the drainage nutrient solution: open (free-drain) or closed (recirculating water) systems.
The most widely used soilless techniques are container cultivation, while water culture systems
such Nutrient Film Technique (NFT), floating culture and Aeroponics are widely used for
research work, but much less on commercial scale with some exception, (Pardossi, 2009).

Pardossi described that water culture could be used only for crops with short growing cycles,
such as leafy vegetables. He also stated that container (substrate) culture is generally used for
row crops, such as fruit vegetables (solanancea, cucurbits), strawberry and cut flowers (rose,
gerbera, anthurium, etc.). Different containers (banquette, pots, bags, slabs) are used filled with
inorganic or organic substrate, or a combination of two or three different materials, such as the
peat-perlite or peat-pumice mixture. Coco peat is a regularly used plant support medium, as it is
economical and has no harmful environmental disposal problems.
2.3 Benefits of Hydroponics Systems
Hydroponics offers significant benefits over traditional farming which have resulted in increased
farming area under hydroponic production as more people turn to hydroponics.
Hydroponics offers people the ability to grow food in places where traditional agriculture is
impossible. Bambi, 2008 describes that in areas with arid climates, like Arizona and Israel,
hydroponics has been used to expand their food production and to enjoy locally produced food.
Similarly, he states that hydroponics is useful in dense urban areas, where land acreage is
reduced. In Tokyo, hydroponics is used as a substitute of traditional soil-based plant growth.
Hydroponics is also useful in remotes locales, such as Bermuda as described by Bambi, 2008.
With so little space available for planting, Bermudians have turned to hydroponic systems, which
take around 20 percent of the land usually required for crop growth. This allows the citizens of
the island to enjoy year-round local produce without the expense and delay of importation.
Finally, areas that don't receive consistent sunlight or warm weather can benefit from
hydroponics. Places like Alaska and Russia, where growing seasons are shorter, use hydroponic
greenhouses, where light and temperature can be controlled to produce higher crop yields
(Bambi, 2008).
There are also significant environmental benefits to hydroponics use. These are described as
follows by Bambi, 2008. Hydroponics systems require only around 10 percent of the water that
soil-based agriculture requires. This is due to the fact that hydroponic systems allow recycling
and reuse of water and nutrient solutions, and the fact that no water is wasted. This can have

quite an impact on areas where water is scarce, such as in the Middle East and parts of Africa.
Similarly, hydroponics requires little or no pesticides and only around 25 percent of the nutrients
and fertilizers required of soil-based plants. This represents not only a cost savings but also
benefits the environment in that no chemicals are being released into the air. Environmental
impacts of transportation are also reduced with the adoption of the hydroponics technology. As
hydroponics allows produce to be grown locally and requires fewer areas to import their crops,
there is a reduction in both price and greenhouse gas emissions due to reduced transportation
requirements (Bambi, 2008).
Hydroponics offers us the benefit of a shorter harvest time. Plants grown in this manner have
direct access to water and nutrients and therefore, are not forced to develop extensive root
systems to allow them to find the nutrients they need. This saves time and produces healthier,
lusher (succulent, juicy plants) in about half the time as traditional agriculture (Bambi, 2008).
Research has shown that hydroponics offers exceptional advantages in that the roots of the plant
have constant access to oxygen and the plants have access to as much or as little water as they
need (Bambi, 2008). This is important as one of the most common errors when growing is over-
and under- watering; and hydroponics prevents this from occurring as large amounts of water can
be made available to the plant and any water not used, drained away, recirculated, or actively
aerated, eliminating anoxic conditions, which drown root systems in soil. In soil, a farmer needs
to be very experienced to know exactly how much water to feed the plant. Too much and the
plant will not be able to access oxygen; too little and the plant will lose the ability to transport
nutrients, which are typically moved into the roots while in solution (Bambi,2008).

2.4 Types of Hydroponics Systems
According to Smart! Grow Intelligently, 2014, there are two main types of hydroponic systems -
closed hydroponic systems and open hydroponic systems. Hydroponic systems that do not
involve growing media are usually closed systems, while hydroponic systems that involve
growing media (container plants), may be closed or open systems.
2.4.1 Closed Hydroponic Systems
Smart! Grow Intelligently, 2014 states that in closed hydroponics systems the same nutrient
solution is recirculated and the nutrient concentrations are monitored and adjusted accordingly.
Keeping the nutrient balance in such hydroponic systems is a challenge and the hydroponic
nutrient solution has to be sampled and analyzed at least once a week. The nutrient solution
composition has to be adjusted according to the results. If not managed properly, the nutrient
solution might get out of balance.
Closed hydroponic systems include both simple hydroponic systems, as well as sophisticated
ones. The following is a short brief of some of these systems according to Smart! Grow
intelligently, 2014:
Deep Water Culture (DWC) hydroponic systems - This is the most simple type hydroponic
systems. In this type of hydroponic systems plants are suspended in an oxygen-enriched nutrient
solution.
The Wick hydroponic systems - This is a passive hydroponic system, in which wicks run from
the base of the plant container down to a reservoir and draw the nutrient solution upwards.
Ebb and Flow - This is the most popular hydroponic system due to its low maintenance and low
cost. It is widely used for plug production and potted plants. In this type of system the growing
bed is flooded with nutrient solution and then it is allowed to drain. The duration and frequency
of the flood depends on factors such as the type of growing medium used, size of containers
and plants water requirements.

NFT (Nutrient Film Technique) hydroponic systems - This system uses a continuous nutrient
solution flow over the roots. This results in a thin film of nutrient solution around the roots,
allowing them both aeration and access to nutrients.
2.4.2 Open Hydroponic Systems
In open hydroponic systems a fresh nutrient solution is introduced for each irrigation cycle. The
nutrient solution is usually delivered to the plants using a drip system. In open hydroponic
systems an adequate run-off must be maintained in order to keep nutrient balance in the root
zone (Smart! Grow Intelligently, 2014).
2.5 Open versus closed hydroponics systems
Both open and closed system may be set-up for drip-irrigated substrate culture. In closed
systems, the drainage water is captured and reused following the adjustment of pH and nutrient
concentration (namely, the electrical conductivity, EC) and, eventually, disinfection to minimize
the risks of root-borne diseases, (Pardossi,2011).
In substrate culture, an excess of fresh (newly prepared) nutrient solution is generally supplied to
overcome the difficulties associated with unequal transpiration of individual plants and to
prevent the salt accumulation and the imbalance in the nutrient solution. Typically, a drain
fraction of at least 20-25% is used in substrate cultivation to prevent root zone salinization.
Therefore, in open soilless systems there is a massive waste of water and nutrients, which is
responsible for an increase in running costs and in contamination of ground and surface water.
For instance, Pardossi reported that the annual drainage loss of water and nitrogen from open
substrate culture of rose was, respectively, 2123 m3/ha and 1477 kg ha-1. The application of
closed soilless systems is essential for sustainable protected horticulture. Unfortunately, the
application of these systems is scarce on a commercial scale and, with the exception of the
Netherlands where they are compulsory, open soilless cultures are commonly used for vegetable
and ornamental crops, as their management is much simpler. Along with the risks consequent to
the possible diffusion of root pathogens, the salinity of irrigation water represents the main

difficulty for the management of closed growing systems. When the use of saline water is
imposed, there is a more or less rapid accumulation of ballast ions, like sodium and chloride.
Under these conditions, the nutrient solution is normally recirculated till electrical conductivity
(EC) and/or the concentration of some potential toxic ion reach a maximum acceptable value,
afterwards it is replaced, at least partially (‘semi-closed’ systems), (Pardossi,2011)
Pardossi, 2011 tested the application of closed substrate culture to greenhouse tomato cultivation
in a commercial greenhouse in Tuscany, Italy. In the closed system, the plants were fed with a
slightly different nutrient solution (in general, it had lower nutrient concentration) with respect to
that used in the open culture, in order to maintain a constant nutrient concentration in the root
zone. In closed system, recirculating nutrient solution was periodically analyzed with
reflectometer in order to adjust the composition of the refill nutrient solution. Fruit yield and
quality were not significantly different in the two cultures. The application of closed system
reduced the use of water (-21%) and nutrients (-17 to -35%) and made it possible to carry out the
cultivation without any nutrient leaching, which instead was massive in open culture.
2.6 Fertigation
According to Smart! Grow Intelligently, 2014, fertigation is the process in which fertilizers are
applied with the irrigation water: Fertilization + Irrigation. The fertilizer solutions are prepared
in advance in stock tanks and the solution is then injected into the irrigation water. Fertigation
has various advantages over other fertilization methods, and when properly used, it saves time
and money. Some of the advantages are according to Smart! Grow intelligently, 2014:
 Fertilizer application is more accurate and uniform
 Fertilizers are applied to specific areas, where they are needed
 Nutrient are immediately available to plants
 Uptake of nutrients by roots is improved
 It saves labor
 It helps to save water, because plants develop a healthier root system
 Nutrient losses are minimized

2.6.1 Fertigation Approaches
The most common fertigation approaches are the quantitative approach and the proportional
approach as described by Smart! Grow Intelligently, 2014.
The quantitative approach is commonly used in open fields. The grower first decides how much
fertilizer has to be applied per area (e.g. kg/ha, lbs/acre). This quantity of fertilizer is then
delivered through the irrigation water (Smart! Grow Intelligently, 2014).
The proportional approach is mostly used in soil-less media and sandy soils. Here, a defined
quantity of fertilizer stock solution is injected into each unit of water flowing through the
irrigation system (e.g. l/m3, lbs/gal) (Smart! Grow Intelligently, 2014).
Nutrient levels are determined by their concentration in the irrigation water. Most growers who
use proportional approach, use units of ppm (parts per million) or mmol/l.
2.6.2 Fertigation Systems
The process of fertigation is done with the aid of special fertilizer apparatus (injectors) installed
at the head control unit of the system, before the filter. The element most commonly applied is
nitrogen. However, applications of phosphorous and potassium are common for vegetables.
Fertigation is a necessity in drip irrigation, though not in the other micro-irrigation installations,
although it is highly recommended and easily performed.
Several techniques have been developed for applying fertilizers through the irrigation systems
and many types of injectors are available on the market. There are two main techniques: the
ordinary closed tank and the injector pump. Both systems are operated by the system’s water
pressure. The injector pumps are mainly either Venturi type or piston pumps. The closed tanks
are always installed on a bypass line, while the piston pumps can be installed either in-line or on
a bypass line.
Fertilizer (closed) tank is a cylindrical, epoxy coated, pressurized metal tank, resistant to the
system’s pressure, and connected as a bypass to the supply pipe of the head control. It operates

by differential pressure created by a partially closed valve, placed on the pipeline between the
inlet and the outlet of the tank. Part of the flow is diverted to the tank entering at the bottom. It
mixes with the fertilizer solution and the dilution is ejected into the system. The dilution ratio
and the rate of injection are not constant. The concentration of fertilizer is high at the beginning
and very low at the end of the operation (FAO, 2015).
Venturi type is based on the principle of the Venturi tube. A pressure difference is needed
between the inlet and the outlet of the injector. Therefore, it is installed on a bypass arrangement
placed on an open container with the fertilizer solution. The rate of injection is very sensitive to
pressure variations, and small pressure regulators are sometimes needed for a constant ejection.
Friction losses are approximately 1.0 bar. The injectors are made of plastic in sizes from to 2
inches and with injection rates of 40–2 000 liters/h. They are relatively cheap compared to other
injectors (FAO, 2015).
Piston pump is a type of injector that is powered by the water pressure of the system and can be
installed directly on the supply line and not on a bypass line. The system’s flow activates the
pistons and the injector is operated, ejecting the fertilizer solution from a container, while
maintaining a constant rate of injection. The rate varies from 9 to 2 500 liters/h depending on the
pressure of the system and it can be adjusted by small regulators. Made of durable plastic
material, these injectors are available in various models and sizes. They are more expensive than
the Venturi-type injectors (FAO, 2015).

Figure 6: Fertigation Injectors. Source: Pressurized irrigation techniques, FAO 2015

Figure 7: Fertigation Systems. Source: Google images on
fertigation systems
A Fertijet is a by-pass fertigation system. It adapts to any kind of flow line from 20m3/h up
wards. It is compact and very simple to install. It is good for EC/pH control. A Fertijet and a
Galcon Irrigation controller are shown in Appendices C1 and C2 respectively.
2.7 Treatment of Irrigation Water
As environmental issues are on the rise in hydroponics it necessitates farmers to recirculate the
nutrient solution. Disinfection systems are thus crucial since with the use of recirculation systems
the risk of root pathogens infecting the whole system is high. There are several methods to
disinfect the nutrient solution in order to kill water borne pathogens and thus avoid losses in
yield and quality. Surface water sources such as rivers, ponds and reservoirs for storing runoff
water are mostly contaminated with bacteria and pathogens yet they are used for irrigation. This
requires that the water is disinfested before use in irrigation.
2.7.1 Pre-treatment or Filtration
Pre-treatment or filtration of irrigation water is of necessity since large particles in the water are
likely to clog the irrigation system and also the effectiveness of pathogens treatment methods is
reduced in water that contains particulate organic matter. Ultra violet treatment requires clear

water for radiation wavelength to be transmitted through the pathogen walls while chlorine will
react with organic material and thus its treatment will be less effective. Filtration involves the
removal of organic and inorganic particulate matter i.e. debris, sediment, soil particles, algae, etc
from the dirty water prior to treatment to destroy pathogens.
Filters are categorized depending on the method used to filter the water. Screen filters have the
ability to remove hard particulate from water like sand but are limited in removing organic
materials such as algae, mold e.t.c. The organic material tends to stick in the screen thus difficult
to remove or they can actually slide through the mesh in the screen by temporarily taking a
different shape. Cleaning of the screen filters is done by flushing a stream of water through the
filters or by hand cleaning.
Media filters operate by forcing the water through a container with media which in most cases is
uniformly sized crushed sand. The water passes through the media and the debris is trapped in
the small spaces in the media. The media is usually sharp edged thus these filters are best in
removing organic matter since the edge traps the organic material that would otherwise slide
through the small spaces in the media. Cleaning of media filters is done by back flushing where
the water going backwards through the filter separates the media and thus the debris is freed and
is washed out through a flush valve. A small amount of media is washed out thus it is necessary
to refill the media occasionally. For cases where the water contains sand it is not appropriate
since the sand will not be flushed out thus it will fill up the filter. Media filters must be selected
to fit the system flow rate for proper operation. When the media used is gravel the filters are
known as gravel filters. Gravel filters are designed to be modular to cater for most flow
measurements and are used for primary filtration of water from reservoirs, dams, open canals,
rivers, sewage water and other types of contaminated water.

Figure 8: Media filters e.g. gravel filters. Source: Google images.
Disk filters have characteristics of both screen and media filters. They have the ability to remove
both sand and organic matter. This filter contains an array of round disks in which the face of
each disk has various sized bumps. The bumps are sharp pointed and when stacked together have
tiny spaces between them. Water flowing through the disks will leave behind particulates. The
organics are trapped by the sharp pointed bumps. In automatic cleaning the disks are separated
which frees the debris thus they are flushed. In manual cleaning the disks are removed and they
are hosed off.
Centrifugal filters also known as sand separators are particularly for removing particulates such
as sand from water. They are best fit for water that contains a lot of sand as compared to other
filters. This is because the mechanism of swirling the dirty water when it enters the cylinder a
centrifugal force causes the sand particles to move to the edge of the cylinder where they slowly
slide to a tank at the bottom. These filters are applied when pumping water from well or
reservoirs since in them there exist a lot of sand particles. The centrifugal filters are cheap,
simple and very efficient in removing sand particles from dirty water. The selection of the
centrifugal filter must be matched to the flow or GPM for it to function correctly.
2.7.2 Treatment of Irrigation water to remove pathogens
Disinfection methods that can be used to improve microbial irrigation water quality include
chlorination, ultraviolet radiation and ozonation. Chlorination hinders bacteria from increasing
by damaging their membranes. In this method, chlorine is injected into irrigation systems as
liquid by a metering pump as required and is controlled to meet variations in water quality.
Chlorination is cheap since the low required doses (2-3 mg/L) and also the capital cost as

compared to UV system is low. The effectiveness of this method is dependent on water quality
i.e. organic content, contact time, pH and temperature. This method requires proper management
of the chemicals since discharge of the chemicals to the environment is injurious.
Figure 9: A chlorine injection system. Source: Van der Gulik. T, 2003.
Ultra violet radiation systems allow exposure of irrigation water to UV radiation which
inactivates bacteria rendering them unable to reproduce. They are chemical free systems thus
will have no effect on plants unlike chemical treatments. The systems have no residual effect that
is they do not permanently alter the water outside pathogen destruction. These systems comprise
of cylindrical mercury arc lamps that are placed inside a cylindrical stainless steel chamber. The
lamps have different lengths and energy outputs and provide higher intensities than sunlight.
Water enters one end of the cylinder flows around the lamps and exits through the other end. The
amount of bacteria that is inactivated is depended on the applied UV dose which streams down
from the radiation intensity and the exposure time. These systems are sensitive to high turbidity
and organic matter content of which both reduce UV transmittance thus UV disinfection. In
order to remove excess turbidity and organic matter pre-treatment by filtration is required.
Filtration ensures adequate penetration of ultraviolet light through the entire flow profile.

The design criteria for an Ultraviolet treatment system requires that filters are provided for pre-
treatment of which after filtering the water the radiation transmission level is estimated to be
50%. Turbulent flow is required in the ultra violet units in order to enable enough contact time
of the radiation with the microorganisms. Standard UV dosages have being set for cropping
washing facilities as 40,000 and irrigation system treatment as 16,000. Chlorination is used with
the washing facilities but residual chlorine has to be checked before discharge. Irrigation treated
is required to start 30 days before harvest. The maximum required pressure in the treatment unit
is 100 psi thus a booster pump is usually required after the UV treatment unit in large scale
irrigation systems. The sizing of the ultraviolet treatment unit depends on the flow rate, light
intensity and the required water quality.
Figure 10: A pilot scale UV disinfection system. Source: Van der Gulik. T, 2003.

Figure 11: Ultraviolet treatment unit. Source: Van der Gulik. T, 2003.
Ozonation involves machines that produce ozone a strong oxidizing agent that kills bacteria in a
short time. It involves carbon filtration for complete water treatment as it does not protect the
water at initial dosing. It has the capability of achieving high disinfection levels that UV and
chlorination but the technology requires testing for irrigation applications.
2.8 Recirculating Hydroponics system
The recirculating hydroponics system includes water source, reservoir tanks, pump house, filters,
U.V. cylinder, fertilizer mixing tanks, fertiget, irrigation controller, Irrigation lines, drainage
lines, drainage collection tank, disinfection unit, treated water tank and valves (electronic flow
meters). The system mostly uses drip irrigation on the hydroponic troughs (Rono, 2015). The
dimensions of the hydroponic troughs are dependent on the plant spacing, plant population and
the length of the farm. The standard number of drip lines in drip-irrigated hydroponic troughs is
2 drip lines per tough (Rono, 2015). The size of the hydroponic troughs of the system is
depended also on the 2 drip lines per trough which determines the plant population. Once the
dimensions of the trough are specified they are selected from manufacturer’s catalogue. Large
greenhouse areas can be divided into ‘fertigation zones’ which can be managed individually with
their own nutrient strength and irrigation program.

40% of irrigation water supplied to the crops is drained (Rono, 2015). The drain water is filtered
to remove organic matter, disinfected using U.V, checked for fertigation requirements and then
recycled. The amount of EC and Na is monitored in the drain water and when maximum the
water is drained away but if less the drained water is recycled which is described as a semi-
closed system. The EC and Na can be regulated to obtain various options of substrate
management layouts. Below are layouts of the recirculating hydroponic system.
Figure 12: Typical layout of a (hydroponics) substrate soilless growing system. Source:
Pardossi, (2011). Fertigation and Substrate Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Pg.45

Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Pg.47
Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Pg.50

Figure 15: Hydroponics troughs layout with 2 drip lines per trough. Source: Irrico International
Ltd Images
2.9 Design of Irrigation and Drainage lines

The irrigation lines in an irrigation system include the mainline, the sub-mains, valves and
laterals. The mainline conveys water from the pumps to the valves in each of the fertigation
zones where the sub-mains then convey water to the laterals. The size of mainline is determined
by required flow rate through the pipe determined from emitter discharge, emitter spacing and
drip line/lateral length. Drip lines are selected from plant spacing. The size of the main line is
also determined by overall length of line, static height, flow velocity and factor of safety.
The sub-mains area sized depending on the no. of the drip-lines per section of the fertigation
zones, the slope, length of the line, flow velocity and the static head. The sub-mains are designed
to ensure that the last laterals get water. The laterals/drip lines are selected from the
manufacturer’s list depending the plant spacing, pressure requirements, length of the drip line

and cost. The valves are designed depending on the discharge required in each fertigation zone.
The sizing of the drainage lines is dependent on the 40% drained irrigation water and the slope.
In designing irrigation and drainage lines, the following factors should be kept in mind (Rono,
2015); maximum permissible velocity should not exceed 2.5m/s, maximum friction losses should
be limited to less than 3% along the length of the pipe, mainlines should follow the shortest
possible route and larger pipe diameters are more expensive thus it is important to manage the
discharge in each irrigation cycle in order to obtain lesser discharges thus less pipe diameters and
therefore less cost. Friction loss through pipelines can be calculated using the modified Hazen-
Williams formula.
2.10 Irrigation Hydrants
Hydrants define a combination of both a valve and a meter in one compact body. The meter is
included to calculate and indicate volumes of water. The hydrants are manually or automatically
operated to control the flow required for the irrigation area. They are fitted with electric
solenoids to make them automatic. In that case other accessories can also be fitted to control
other hydraulic parameters such as a pressure reducing accessory.
Figure 16: Automatically operated hydrant. Source: Google images.

Figure 17: Manually operated hydrant. Source: Google images.
Valves are used to control the flow required per given time. They are selected based on the flow
and manufacturer’s specifications.
Figure 18: Valve Source: Google images
2.11 Pump Selection
For ordinary pumping, the roto-dynamic pump is most commonly used as it provides satisfactory
and economic service. At very low flow rates the rotary pump is less costly if the water to be
pumped is free of grift.

The discharge of a centrifugal pump varies with the head and a variable-speed drive is necessary
if constant discharge is to be maintained under varying head. A reciprocating pump overcomes
this difficulty since its discharge depends only on the speed of the pump. Reciprocating pumps
are high in first cost and difficulty to maintain in efficient operating conditions. They are best
adapted for use under very high heads. Centrifugal pumps are well suited to pumping wastewater
and water containing solids, but displacement pumps are not generally used for such duty. The
hydraulic ram, although wasteful of water, finds occasional use where water is plentiful and
outside power unavailable.
The operating efficiency of any pump depends upon a combination of capacity, discharge
pressure and pump speed. A properly selected pump will have its highest operating efficiency
when delivering the system’s design output in gallons per minute (GPM) and head (pressure).
Changes in the system (e.g., pumping lift, discharge rate or pressure) that take place after a pump
has been selected and installed will usually reduce pumping efficiency.
Manufacturer’s pump performance curves are published for each model and size pump. These
curves indicate pump performance and efficiency at any combination of head and capacity
conditions and pump speed. They also show the pump’s required horsepower to meet the
system’s design conditions.
2.12 Softwares used in the product design of this project
2.12.1 CROPWAT 8.0
According to FAO, CROPWAT 8.0 is a computer program used for the calculation of crop water
requirements and irrigation requirements based on soil, climate and crop data. The program
allows the development of irrigation schedules for different management conditions and the
calculation of scheme water supply for varying crop patterns. It can also be used to evaluate
farmers’ irrigation practices and to estimate crop performance under both rain fed and irrigated
conditions.
All calculation procedures used in CROPWAT 8.0 are based on the two FAO publications of the
Irrigation and Drainage Series, namely, No. 56 "Crop Evapotranspiration - Guidelines for
computing crop water requirements” and No. 33 titled "Yield response to water".

FAO states that as a starting point, and only to be used when local data are not available,
CROPWAT 8.0 includes standard crop and soil data. When local data are available, these data
files can be easily modified or new ones can be created. Likewise, if local climatic data are not
available, these can be obtained for over 5,000 stations worldwide from CLIMWAT, the
associated climatic database. The development of irrigation schedules in CROPWAT 8.0 is
based on a daily soil-water balance using various user-defined options for water supply and
irrigation management conditions. Scheme water supply is calculated according to the cropping
pattern defined by the user, which can include up to 20 crops.
2.12.2 CLIMWAT 2.0
FAO defines CLIMWAT as a climatic database to be used in combination with the computer
program CROPWAT and allows the calculation of crop water requirements, irrigation supply
and irrigation scheduling for various crops for a range of climatological stations worldwide. It is
a joint publication of the Water Development and Management Unit and the Climate Change and
Bio-energy Unit of FAO. It offers observed agro-climatic data of over 5000 stations worldwide.
According to FAO, CLIMWAT provides long-term monthly mean values of seven climatic
parameters, namely:
 Mean daily maximum temperature in °C

 Mean daily minimum temperature in °C
 Mean relative humidity in %
 Mean wind speed in km/day
 Mean sunshine hours per day
 Mean solar radiation in MJ/m2/day
 Monthly rainfall in mm/month
 Monthly effective rainfall in mm/month
 Reference Evapotranspiration calculated with the Penman-Monteith method in mm/day.
2.12.3 HydroCalc
NETAFIMTM is an Irrigation Company that has developed the HydroCalc Irrigation Planning
software for the irrigation community. It describes HydroCalc as a simple and easy calculation

tool to perform some basic hydraulic computations. The use of HydroCalc would allow the
designer, dealer or end-user to evaluate the performance of micro irrigation in-field components,
such as:
 Drip laterals and micro sprinklers

 Sub mains and manifolds
 Mainlines (PVC, PE, etc)
 Valves
 Energy Calculation

3.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Evapo-transpiration (ETO)

According to FAO, ETO is the reference crop evapo-transpiration or reference evapo-
transpiration, denoted as ETo. The reference surface is a hypothetical grass reference crop with
an assumed crop height of 0.12 m, a fixed surface resistance of 70 s m-1 and an albedo of 0.23.
The reference surface closely resembles an extensive surface of green, well-watered grass of
uniform height, actively growing and completely shading the ground. The fixed surface
resistance of 70 s m-1 implies a moderately dry soil surface resulting from about a weekly
irrigation frequency.
ETo can be computed from meteorological data using the FAO Penman-Monteith method which
is recommended as the sole standard method for the definition and computation of the reference
evapo-transpiration. The FAO Penman-Monteith method requires radiation, air temperature, air
humidity and wind speed data.
900
0.408∆(Rn −G)+ γ(T+273)U2 (es −ea )
ETO = 3.1
∆+γ(1+0.34U2 )
where
ETo is reference evapo-transpiration, mm/day,
Rn is net radiation at the crop surface, MJ/m2/day,
G is soil heat flux density, MJ/m2/day,
T is mean daily air temperature at 2 m height, °C,
U2is wind speed at 2 m height, m/s,
es is saturation vapour pressure, kPa,
ea is actual vapour pressure, kPa,
es-ea is saturation vapour pressure deficit, kPa,
∆ is slope vapour pressure curve, kPa/°C,
γ is psychometric constant, kPa/°C.

3.2 Crop water requirement
According to FAO, the crop water requirement is the amount of water needed to compensate the
evapo-transpiration loss from the crop field is termed as crop water requirement. The value of
crop water requirement is identical to evapo-transpiration. Crop water requirement varies with
time and space, as the evapo-transpirative demand varies with local climate and crop condition.
Crop water requirement represents the evapo-transpiration (ET) under ideal crop growth
condition.
ETc = K c × ETo 3.2
where
ETc is crop evapo-transpiration,
ET0 is reference evapo-transpiration,
Kc is the crop coefficient
The crop evapo-transpiration differs distinctly from the reference evapo-transpiration (ETo) as
the ground cover, canopy properties and aerodynamic resistance of the crop are different from
grass. The effects of characteristics that distinguish field crops from grass are integrated into the
crop coefficient (Kc).
Crop water requirement can be calculated from the climate and crop data. Crop water
requirement for a given crop, i, for the whole growing season:
𝐶𝑊𝑅𝑖 = 𝐸𝑇𝑐 = ∑𝑚
𝑡=0 = (𝐸𝑇𝑜𝑡 × 𝐾𝑐𝑡 ) 3.3
where
CWRi is the crop water requirement for the growing period, mm,
ETc is the crop evapo-transpiration for the growing period, mm,
t is the time interval in days,

m is the days to physiological maturity from sowing or transplanting (total effective crop
growth period), in numbers,
ET0t is the reference crop evapo-transpiration of the location concern for the day t, mm,
Kct is the crop coefficient for the time t day.
N.B; Physiological maturity is the status of maturity after which the weight of the grains does not
change/increase. Normally it reaches a week (7 days) ahead of traditional harvest time in cereals,
and 3–5 days in pulses and oil seeds. Crop water requirement for a particular growth stage (or
period) of the crop can be calculated using the Kc for that growth stage (or period).
Crop water requirement (CWR) and irrigation water requirement (IWR) can be best described
with the following mathematical functions:
 CWR = f (weather, crop)
 IWR = f (weather, crop, soil, rainfall, irrigation method, depth to water-table or saturated
layer)
3.3 Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR)

According to FAO, it is given by:
NIR = ∑(K c × ETo ) + P − (Re + GWC ) 3.4
where
NIR is the net irrigation requirement for normal growth period (from
sowing/transplanting to last watering, i.e., excluding land preparation and pre-sowing
irrigation), mm,
GWc is the groundwater contribution during the period, mm,
P is the deep percolation loss during the period concerned, mm,
For a particular irrigation event, irrigation water requirement based on soil moisture deficit is
(FCi –SMi ) ×di

NIWRm = ∑ni=1 3.5
100 (1 −LF)

where
FCi is the field capacity (water holding capacity) of soil of i layer, in percent volume,
SMi is the present soil moisture content, in percent volume,
d is the depth of i layer, in cm,
LF is the leaching fraction. If leaching is not required LF = 0
3.4 Gross Irrigation Requirement (GIWR)

According to FAO, the Gross water requirement is the water required for irrigation considering
field application loss and conveyance loss. That is
𝑁𝐼𝑊𝑅
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝐺𝐼𝑊𝑅 = 3.6
𝐸𝑎 ×𝐸𝑐
Where
Ec is the field conveyance efficiency,
Ea is the field application efficiency.
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑇𝐼𝑅 = 𝐺𝐼𝑅 × 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 3.7
3.5 Irrigation Scheduling
The problem of irrigation consists of when to irrigate, and how much to irrigate. Efficient water
use depends on timely application of water at right amount at right time with right way or
method. Irrigation scheduling means when to irrigate and how much water to apply in crop field.
In other words, irrigation scheduling is the decision of when and how much water to be applied
in a crop field. The objectives of irrigation scheduling are to maximize yield, irrigation
effectiveness/efficiency, and crop quality by applying the exact amount of water needed by the
crop (or to replenish the soil moisture to the desired level). Irrigation scheduling can be
determined from the flow chart below;

Figure 19: Conceptual framework of irrigation scheduling in soilless culture. Source: Pardossi,
(2011). Fertigation and Substrate Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Pg.28

3.6 Calculation of head losses n the pipes by Hazen Williams equations
It was developed for water flow in larger pipes (D>5 cm, approximately 2 in.) within a moderate
range of water velocity (V<3 m/s, approximately 10 ft/s). Hazen-Williams equation, originally
developed for the British measurement system, has been written in the form
𝑉 = 1.318 𝐶𝐻𝑊 𝑅ℎ0.63 𝑆 0.54 3.8

where
h
S= slope of the energy grade line, or the head loss per unit length of the pipe (S = 𝐿f )
Rh = the hydraulic radius, defined as the water cross sectional area (A) divided by wetted
perimeter (P).
𝜋𝐷 2
For a circular pipe, with A = and P = π D, the hydraulic radius is
4
𝐴 (𝜋 𝐷 2 ⁄4) 𝐷
𝑅ℎ = = (𝜋 𝐷)
= 3.9
𝑃 4
The Hazen-Williams equation in SI units is written in the form of
𝑉 = 0.849 𝐶𝐻𝑊 𝑅ℎ0.63 𝑆 0.54 3.10

Velocity in m/s and Rh is in meters.
Given;
𝑉 = 𝐵 × 𝐶 × 𝑅ℎ0.63 × 𝑆 0.54
𝐷
Where Rh = 4
hf
Slope,S = 𝐿
B = 1.318 in British system

B = 0.85 in S.I. units
C = Hazen William coefficient
𝐷 0.63 ℎ 0.54
𝐴 × 𝑉 = 𝑄 = 𝐴 × 𝐵 × 𝐶 × (4 ) × ( 𝐿𝑓 )
𝐿 7.88
ℎ𝑓 = 𝐶 1.85 × 𝐷4.87
× 𝐵1.85
× 𝑄1.85

𝐿 7.88
𝑅𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑛 𝑊𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑠 = 𝐶 1.85 × 𝐷4.87
× 𝐵1.85
Thus head loss,

ℎ𝑓 = 𝑅𝐻𝑎𝑧𝑒𝑛 𝑊𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑠 × 𝑄1.85 3.11
3.7 Crop electrical conductivity and Ph requirements for fertigation unit
According to Camberato, et.al, 2015, nutritional problems are one of the primary causes of poor
crop quality and plant losses in greenhouses and nurseries. Monitoring the pH and electrical
conductivity (EC) of growing substrates gives you the ability to correct tissues before they
become problems that damage crops.
The pH of the growing substrate or media affects the availability of nutrients, especially
micronutrients. EC is a measure of the dissolved salt concentration in a growing substrate. EC
values provide a measure of the amount of fertilizer available for plant growth or indicate an
accumulation of salts in the media. It is important to routinely monitor substrate pH and EC
levels before nutrition problems arise. Some of the methods to determine the EC and Ph
according to Camberato, et.al, 2015 are as follows:
 PourThru Test
The PourThru extraction method has several advantages: it samples the solution from the entire
root zone, is nondestructive, and can be used with media that contain slow- or controlled-release
fertilizers. It also can be used to test the bark, coconut coir, orsphagnum moss media used to
grow orchids. The major disadvantage of this method is that results are variable. Sampling from
dry pots may result in greater EC because of higher salt concentration. Adding too much water
could dilute the sample and result in a lower EC. Irrigating the crop as usual (see step 1 below)
and monitoring the volume of water added (see step 4) will help minimize these sources of
variation. To sample using the PourThru test method:
1. Fertigate or irrigate the crop as usual for your production program and establish a specific
testing day if fertigation is conducted once a week.
2. Allow the substrate to drain for 30 to 60 minutes.

3. Place a saucer under the pot.
4. Apply enough distilled water (approximately 100milliliters (3.4 ounces) per 6.5-inch pot)
to collect as close to 50 milliliters (1.7 ounces) of leachate as possible. More than 70
milliliters (2.4 ounces)of leachate can dilute the salt content, while less than 50 milliliters
of leachate may not provide enough solution to cover the probe
5. Measure the pH and the EC of the leachate.
 Saturated Media Extract Test

The saturated media extract test has the advantage of being an accurate test. However, it requires
removing substrate from the pot, which can be a disadvantage because this disturbs the roots, and
care must be taken to avoid breaking any fertilizer prills if the substrate contains slow-release
fertilizer. To sample using the saturated media extract method:
1. Obtain a 200- to 300-milliliter (7- to 10-ounce) sample of substrate from the root zone
(avoid sampling from the top inch and bottom inch of the pot because of the potential for
a higher salt content).
2. Place the sample in a 500-milliliter (17-ounce) beaker or container.
3. Add only enough distilled water to wet the sample to saturation — there should be no
free water on the sample surface
4. Let the sample stand for 30 minutes to equilibrate.
5. Pour the mixture into a clean funnel lined with a filter (such as a coffee filter, or a tea or
wire mesh strainer) to avoid getting substrate in the solution. Attaching a vacuum line or
squeezing the solution through the filter with a spatula or gloved hand, can help obtain
the sample more quickly.
6. Measure the pH and the EC of the leachate.
3.8 Pump Design
The pump is an electro-mechanical device that lifts a fluid from one level to another and delivers
it with a desired pressure. Pumps are selected based on the total head, h (pressure) and discharge,
m³/ hour (Rono, 2015).
Pump discharge is the required irrigation water or drain water per irrigation schedule. Total head

of the pump is a summation of the following parameters:
 Suction – vertical distance between water level and pump center line
 Delivery – vertical distance between pump center line and ground level
 Frictional head loss in irrigation and drainage pipe lines– as a factor of coefficient of
friction. Different pipe materials have different coefficients of friction; roughness or
smoothness of the inner wall.
 Operating pressure – operating pressure of the emitter of the drip line is determined and
specified by the manufacturer.
 Frictional head loss in fittings – tees, bends, valves, reducers , gravel filters and other
fittings contribute to about 10 m friction loss in a system.
 Ground elevation – this is the vertical distance between the lowest point on the ground
and the highest point on the field under consideration.
Total Pump head = Suction + delivery + frictional head loss in pipe + Operating pressure +
frictional head loss in fittings + Ground elevation
Power input to run the pump is usually indicated in the pump curve. If not indicated, power in
Horsepower can be calculated.
The power required, N, for driving a pumping unit can be calculated with the following formula:
𝑄𝑥𝐻
N= kW 3.12
102𝑥𝐸
where
Q = Flow in 1/s
H = Pumping head in meter
e = pumping efficiency (will have a value between 0 and 1)
The energy demand can be calculated with the following formula:
𝑄𝑥𝐻
E= kWh per year 3.13
𝑒
where

Q = pumped quantity of water per day, m3/day
H and e = as above
In practice the efficiency of small-capacity pumps in particular is low. It can be assumed that the
efficiency is in the range of 30% for a 0.4 kW pump and 60% for a 4 kW or bigger pump.
Figure 20: Total Pump head for an Irrigation system. Source Google images
3.9 Drip Irrigated Hydroponics Design
For hydroponics 40% of the water is drained because of the porous characteristics of the medium
i.e. coco peat, 20% of the irrigation water is lost due to evaporation losses and other losses, thus
only 20% of the applied irrigation water is taken up by the plants, thus effective precipitation is
60% of the irrigation water. Therefore to obtain the effective crop water requirement;
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

Effective crop water requirement = 3.14
0.6
The flow required in the drip irrigation area;
𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ∗𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒
Flow required (m3/hr) = 3.15
𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔∗1000

The irrigation schedule is determined from;
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑/𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Depth of Irrigation water application required =
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑠
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

Irrigation schedule = 3.16
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑/𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Sizing the valves;

Discharge in valves = Velocity * Area
Q=V*A 3.17
𝜋𝐷2 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎∗4
Area = ; D2 =
4 𝜋
The slope is given by ;
∆𝑦
Slope = 3.18
∆𝑥

4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Feasibility Study

In order to determine the technical feasibility of the project the yield of tomatoes in the field
grown crops and hydroponically grown crops including tomatoes were compared from previous
yields worldwide. The yield in open field was found to be approximately 69,231 kg/ha/yr and in
hydroponics the yield was found to be approximately 585,000 kg/ha/yr. I determined that with
the yield of tomatoes in hydroponics being 585,000 kg/ha/yr and with my case study farm being
3ha the cost of the installation would be recovered in the sale of the crop.
I also gathered from industrial consultation that 40% of irrigation water is drained in run-to-
waste hydroponics and therefore with recirculation, water and fertilizer are conserved. Also the
hydroponic troughs are over-irrigated by 60% allow for losses. Thus from equation 3.14

0.6
4.2 Data Acquisition
Some of the important data that was required for the design included Geological data, climatic
data, crop data and farm coordinates. Geological data of the area was obtained from record of
Kenya soil survey who had compiled data from the Nanyuki Railway meteorological station in
order to determine the soil structure thus conclude on the superiority of the hydroponics media.
Coordinates of the farm were collected using a GPS receiver in order to use them on Google
earth to generate the ground dimensions of the farm. The coordinates were used on Google earth
as shown in the site analysis. Climatic data of the area and crop data were obtained from
CropWat and ClimWat respectively. For CropWat the highest ETc obtained was taken as the
crop water requirement and since it is hydroponics 60% of the crop water requirement was
allowed for drainage and evaporation losses. Thus the crop was over-irrigated by 60%.

4.3 Assessment of Existing Greenhouse
Observations of the greenhouse farm were carried out to determine the slope of existing
structure, position of existing rain water harvesting reservoir, space for nurseries and main
growing areas. The physical structures were documented by taking photographs as shown in
Appendix C. A desk study of the area was carried out by analyzing the documentation kept by
the farm concerning the structure of the greenhouse.
4.4 Sizing of System Components
4.4.1 Selection of drip lines and hydroponic troughs
The drip lines were selected depending on the plant spacing, the length of the drip line and
operating pressure and also the crop water requirement. The discharge of the emitters must meet
the daily crop water requirement per irrigation schedule. The hydroponic troughs sizes were also
selected from the plant spacing and the length of the farm. They are then selected from
manufacturer’s specifications.
4.4.2 Determination of hydroponic Layout
The no. of bays of the greenhouse was obtained from desk study. The no. of bays was used to
divide the green house into fertigation zones. The fertigation zones were obtained by dividing the
bays into manageable sections for various irrigation and fertigation requirement. The tomato
bush spacing was allowed between the hydroponic troughs from agronomic specifications. The
section length was also divided into manageable blocks leaving paths for management practices.
The greenhouse structure also takes the design from manufacturer’s specifications.
4.4.3 Sizing the irrigation lines
The flow required per section was determined from the total drip line length per section, emitter
spacing and emitter discharge from equation 3.15.
Flow required (m3/hr) = 3.15

The flow required is used to size the main line and valves for each fertigation zone. This
discharge is also used in the selection of the irrigation pump selection of the gravel filters, and
U.V cylinders.
The irrigation schedule is determined from area by obtaining the depth of irrigation water
application. Using the effective crop water requirement and the depth of irrigation water
application the irrigation schedule is obtained from equation 3.16 as;
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑠
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡

Irrigation schedule = 3.16
The main lines and the sub-mains were sized using hydro calc and the following parameters flow
required, length of the line, cumulative end pressure required from manufacturer’s specifications
for the drip line to the specific line, maximum flow velocity of 2.5m/s, cumulative pressure loss
of >3% and the Hazen Williams equation 3.10
𝑉 = 0.849 𝐶𝐻𝑊 𝑅ℎ0.63 𝑆 0.54 3.10
4.4.4 Sizing the valves or hydrants

The valve or the hydrant for each fertigation zone was sized depending on the floe required in
those zones per irrigation schedule and the velocity in the main line determined from hydro calc.
The sizes of the valves for each fertigation zone was determined using equation 3.17 and
equation for area
Discharge = Velocity * Area

Q=V*A 3.17
𝜋𝐷2 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎∗4
Area = ; D2 =
4 𝜋

4.4.5 Selecting Irrigation Pump, filters and U.V cylinders
The irrigation pump was selected by determining the total head from equation
Once the total head was obtained and the required discharge at the main line is known the pump
was selected from the manufacturer’s specifications.
The power required if not specified in the manufacturer’s pump curve is obtained from equation
3.12
𝑄∗𝐻
Power required, N = (
102∗𝑒
) 𝑘𝑊 3.12
where Q – flow in l/s

H – Pumping head in meters (static head + losses)
e – Pumping efficiency (30% - 85% for a centrifugal pump)
Irrigation water U.V. cylinders and Filters were selected from the manufacturer’s catalogue
depending on the discharge required at the mainline. For the filters 60% of the flow was allowed
for back flushing. Thus flow required to select filters was;
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛

Flow used to select filters =
0.6
4.4.6 Sizing and selection of the fertigation system

The fertilizer system selected was a fertiget which uses venturi to discharge the fertilizer mixed
in irrigation water. The fertiget does the EC and Ph adjustments and determines the fertilizer
injected using the Galcon Controller.
Fertigation required per irrigation schedule = Fertigation required per m 3 * flow required per
irrigation schedule
Fertigation required per irrigation schedule is determined from the tomato fertilizer requirements
per growing season. The fertigation required is used to size the injection venturi. The size of the
fertiget depended on the fertigation required and the irrigation schedule i.e.
Size of the fertiget = Fertigation required per irrigation schedule * Irrigation time
The Fertiget was the selected from manufacturer’s catalogue to cater for the obtained volume.
The fertilizer mixing tanks are recommended to be 2 tanks for fertilizer and 1 tank of acid. The
sizing of the fertilizer mixing tanks was done for 3.3 days and using the fertigation required per
days. The acid tank was half the size of the fertilizer tanks since it is used for ph control.
4.4.7 Sizing the tank for Irrigation

The size of the tank for irrigation depended on the discharge required on the 3 hectare farm per
day and was sized for two days in order to reduce the cost of a large tank and also to fit
manufacturer’s specifications.
4.4.8 Sizing the Drainage system

Drainage layout was done in order to allow drainage by gravity. The land slopes at 1% in
opposite directions from the 4 m path in the middle of the farm and along the length it slope
downwards. This is slope was obtained during the green house construction. Drainage pipe was
placed at the end of the troughs of 40% of the water is drained.
In order to size the drainage pipes the drainage from 1 trough was determined using equation
Total discharge in one trough = No. of emitters/lateral * No. laterals/trough * Discharge per
emitter
In sizing the drainage pipe under the hydroponic troughs the distance of the troughs was
considered and the pressure in the drip lines. The drainage pipes on each block was sized
cumulatively first 10 bays then next 16 bays since the drainage is flowing by gravity and down
slope there would be more water. The same consideration was taken in the design of the main
drainage pipe. In general the drainage pipe was sized using hydro calc and using parameters such
as length of the pipe, discharge and pressure. The pipes were designed to have a maximum
velocity of 2.5m/s and cumulative pressure losses of >3% and also using Hazen Williams
equation 3.10
𝑉 = 0.849 𝐶𝐻𝑊 𝑅ℎ0.63 𝑆 0.54 3.10

Since drainage will be on gravity a velocity of 1m/s was required in the drainage pipes.
4.4.9 Sizing the Drainage tank
The drainage tank was sized depending on the drain per day and the time that the drain water will
take to drain. The assumption taken was that the pump will pump water half the drainage time.
4.5.0 Sizing the recirculation System
Booster pumps were placed in the drainage tanks to pump the water automatically when the tank
is full.
Theoretically maximum suction for the operation of a pump is 6m, the elevation head is
determined from 1% slope , frictional losses and operation pressure are determined from hydro
calc.
Calculating elevation head using 1% slope from equation 3.18
∆𝑦
Slope = 3.18
∆𝑥
∆𝑦 ∆𝑦
0.01 = =
∆𝑥 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘−𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘
Thus ∆𝑦 = 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 ∗ 0.01
Once the total head was obtained and the required discharge at the main line is known the pump
was selected from the manufacturer’s specifications.
The power required if not specified in the manufacturer’s pump curve is obtained from equation
3.12
𝑄∗𝐻
102∗𝑒
) 𝑘𝑊 3.12
where Q – flow in l/s


The drainage water media filter and U.V. cylinders were selected based on the drain water per
day and the irrigation time i.e. the discharge that is re-used.
4.5.1 Sizing the treated water tank

The treated water tank was sized depending on the drain water per days and to 15 days storage
then selected from manufacturer’s catalogue.
4.5.2 Sizing the valves for drainage water
The valves were sized depending on the drain water per day and the irrigation time. Also if the
stored water was sufficient they were sized to the irrigation requirement.
4.5.3 Cost benefit Analysis
The cost of installation was obtained from the bill of quantities and was compared to the sale of
yield of tomatoes from a hectare of hydroponic production. Also the amount of fertilizer recycled
or obtained from drain water was determined by taking 40% of applied fertilizer per m3

Design of the
Data drip irrigation
Acquisition and hydroponic
troughs layout.
Sizing of the
Sizing &
Sizing of pipes drainage and
selection of a
and pumps recirculating
fertigation unit .
system.
Output = A complete
Development of
design of a
a Bill of
recirculating
Quantities
hydroponics system
Figure 21: Generation of Concept Design

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The design of the recirculating hydroponics system was to;

 increase the yield of tomatoes from HM Clause farm
 provide a recirculating system to enable efficient use of water and fertilizer thus prevent
pollution of environment by drain water from the commercial farming at HM clause farm
Design considerations that facilitated the calculations;
Some of the considerations in the design of the hydroponics system are that in the green house
there is maximum ventilation, fans to simulate the wind, radiation of about 85% - 90%, fogging
to simulate humidity and controlled for optimum conditions thus this allows for the use of
CropWat which calculates crop water requirement (ETc) using the climatic conditions, soil type,
radiation, wind speed and rainfall of the area. Also in the use of CropWat effective rainfall is not
considered since irrigation water is supplied from the reservoir.
The greenhouse has 16 bays each of 12.8m along the length. There is a path of 4m at the middle
of the greenhouse that separates the greenhouse into two units. The irrigation layout is done by
dividing the greenhouse layout into fertigation zones of 3 bays each and 1 section of 1 bay on
either side of the 4m path giving a total of 12 sections. This is from agronomic specifications to
cater for seed varieties, pollination and fertilizer requirements.
5.1 Design Criteria
60% of the irrigation water. Therefore to obtain the effective crop water requirement;

0.6

In the design of pipes, it is recommended that the velocity in the pipe should not be more than
2.5m/s and the pressure losses are not supposed to go beyond 3% losses. In the design of the
drainage system, the drainage is by gravity since there 1% slope is on opposite sides of the
blocks. The minimum velocity allowed in gravity flow is 1m/s.
5.2 Identification of pertinent parameters
The pertinent parameters include dimensions of the farm and the crop water requirement. The
dimensions of the farm were found to be 209.8m x 140m. The green house has 16 bays of 12.8m
which is a manufacture’s design. A manufacturer’s path of 2.5m is left on either side of the
length for support thus 209.8m – (2.5m * 2) = 204.8m. Along the width a path of 4m is left for
management practices thus on either side a width of 68m is left. These creates two unit of which
again the unit is divided by a 1m path at the center and 1.5m paths on either side of the unit thus
68𝑚−1𝑚−(2.5𝑚∗2) 64𝑚
the actual length of hydroponic troughs is 32m i.e. = = 32𝑚 on
2 2
either side of the unit. The layout of the 32m hydroponic troughs along the length begins at 0.6m
from the 2.5m path and the distance between troughs is 1.2m thus there are 8 troughs in 1 bay of
12.8m. The layout is then again divided into sections of 3bays. This gives 5 sections on each
block but 10sections in each unit. There is also an extra bay to make 16 bays. This bay makes the
1 bay section in each block but 2 sections of 1 bay in each unit. The sizing of the sections was
determined from agronomists’ requirement in order to grow seed varieties of tomatoes and also
apply different fertigation requirements and also for the cause of difference in pollination.
The crop water requirement was taken from CropWat from the highest ET c. The highest ETc was
50𝑚𝑚/𝑑𝑒𝑐
found to 50mm/dec. In order to find the crop water requirement per day; = 5mm/day
10𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
since decade in CropWat indicates 10 days. The effective rainfall was obtained from ClimWat as
651.4mm which is sufficient for rain water harvesting in the farm.

Table 3: Coordinates of the points of the farm along the outside boundary of the farm as shown
on the Google earth image in site analysis
POINTS NORTHINGS EASTINGS
A 00 03’ 06.93’’ N 370 07’ 51.03’’ E
B 00 03’ 09.97’’ N 370 07’ 55.34’’E
C 00 03’ 08.92’’ N 370 07’ 59.20’’ E
D 00 03’ 08.70’’ N 370 07’ 59.44’’ E
E 00 03’ 05.57’’ N 370 08’ 02.87’’ E
F 00 03’ 00.59’’ N 370 07’ 58.18’’ E
G 00 03’ 03.58’’ N 370 07’ 54.92 E
H 00 03’ 03.83’’ N 370 07’ 54.64’’ E
The crop water requirement was extracted from CropWat as shown below;
Figure 22: Crop water requirement from CropWat, (2015)

Table 4: Rainfall data from ClimWat, (2015)
5.2.1 Selecting the drip lines from manufacturer’s catalogue

Tomato plant spacing is 20cm x 20cm. From agronomic specifications the distance between the
different troughs is 1.2m to allow for tomato bush when the crop matures. The layout of drip
lines in hydroponics is that there are 2 drip lines in each trough. The hydroponics troughs were
selected from manufacturer’s specifications as 20cmx40cmx20cm since the tomato plant spacing
is 20cm x 20cm thus the selection of the 40cm trough.
The Drip lines are also selected considering tomato plant spacing of 20cm x 20cm, head pressure
and pipe diameter in relation to cost thus from John deer Hydro PCND specifications drip lines
were selected with emitter spacing of 20cm as follows;
Hydro PCND (No-drain-flow-regulated integral drip line): Emitter spacing = 20cm, Emitter
discharge = 1.65L/hr, Lateral diameter =16mm, Thickness = 35mils and operating pressure

ranges between 0.8 – 3.5bar. The diameter of 16mm has relatively low head pressure and also
the cost is favourable as compared to the 20mm and 12mm diameter drip lines from hydro calc.
The drip lines selected are pressure compensating drip lines. This means that they deliver a
uniform flow rate even in areas with difficult topographical conditions. They also have a unique
pressure differential mechanism that regulates flow and provides self-cleaning action, even while
irrigating - for a clog-resistant design and high emission uniformity. It is the most appropriate for
green house application.
5.2.2. Flow required per fertigation zone/section
Calculating the total drip line length:

1 bay has 8 troughs, a trough is 32 m, and there are 2 drip lines on each trough
For a section that includes either side of the 4 m path and has 3 bays the drip line length is;
Drip line length for a section with 3 bays = 8 troughs per bay * 32m*2 either sides of the 4m
path *2 drip lines per troughs *3bays
Drip line length/section of 3 bays = 3072 m
Flow required for one section of 3 bays (m3/hr) = 3.15
3072𝑚∗1.65𝐿/ℎ𝑟
Flow required/section of 3 bays = = 25.344m3/hr
0.2𝑚∗1000
Drip line length for a section with 1 bay = 8 troughs per bay * 32m*2 either sides of the 4m path
*2 drip lines per troughs *1bay
Drip line length/section of 1 bay = 1024 m
Flow required for one section of 1 bay (m3/hr) = 3.15
1024𝑚∗1.65𝐿/ℎ𝑟
Flow required/section of 1 bay = = 8.448m3/hr
0.2𝑚∗1000

5.2.3 Time clock Irrigation scheduling
In this technique of irrigation scheduling, irrigation applications are programmed at fixed

intervals and rates. Usually, it is known as “hourly irrigation” because the irrigation application
interval is generally one hour, although it can be changed. The main disadvantage of this method
is that it is difficult to satisfy varying crop water requirements during the day, and during
different periods in the growing season. Irrigation requirements depend upon plants, varieties,
the development stage of plants, and substrates. Therefore, this irrigation system can make the
roots too wet or too dry and result in unbalancing the plants. Scheduling using solar integrators
can be used to start irrigation at a set level of radiation during varying day conditions but must be
supplemented by time clock scheduling during dark hours.
Irrigation schedule per section:

Length of troughs = 8 troughs/section * 32m * 2 either sides of the 4 m path * 3 bays/section
Total Length of troughs = 1536m
Area of the troughs = Total length * width
Area of the troughs = 1536m * 0.4m =614.4m2
Thus the schedule can be obtained from:
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑜𝑓𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑠
25.344∗1000
Depth of irrigation water application required = = 41.25 mm/hr/section
614.4
Crop water requirement for tomatoes from CropWat = 5mm/day
60% of the irrigation water
5𝑚𝑚/𝑑𝑎𝑦
Effective crop water requirement = = 8.333mm/day
0.6
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
Thus the irrigation schedule = 3.16
8.333∗60
Irrigation schedule = = 12.12 min/day
41.25

12.12𝑚𝑖𝑛/𝑑𝑎𝑦∗10𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
Irrigation time required for 10 sections with 3 bays each =
60 𝑚𝑖𝑛
Irrigation time required for 10 sections with 3 bays each = 2.02 hrs
12.12𝑚𝑖𝑛/𝑑𝑎𝑦∗2𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
Irrigation time required for 2 sections with 1 bay each =
60 𝑚𝑖𝑛
Irrigation time required for 2 sections with 1 bay each = 0.404 hrs
Thus the total irrigation time per day is 2.424 hrs.
Total discharge required for the 3 ha greenhouse farm per day = (Total irrigation time in 10
sections*discharge per section of 3 bays) + (Total irrigation time in 2 sections * discharge per
section in 1 bay)
Total discharge required for the 3 ha green house farm per day = (2.02 * 25.344) + (0.404 *
8.448)
Total discharge required for the 3 ha green house farm per day = 54.61m3/hr thus approximately
gives 60m3/hr for 2.424hrs
5.2.4 Fertigation Requirements

The fertigation requirement for hydroponics is approximately 5litres of fertilizer/m3 of water.
Fertigation design involves selection of fertigation system. In this case the fertigation system
used is the Fertiget which is automated. The fertiget uses a venturi and therefore the design
involves the selection of the venturi size which is dependent on the fertigation requirement of
tomatoes hydroponically grown and discharge required per irrigation schedule of which is also
the fertigation schedule since fertilizer is provided with irrigation water. The fertiget is sized
depending on the fertigation duration for the whole farm and also the requirement per irrigation
schedule.

Table 5: Nutrient required at each stage growth of a tomato plant. Source: Pelemix’s experience,
Fertigation on wikipedia
Nutrient N P K Ca Mg Fe Zn Mg Cu
Stage of
Growth
Planting 80-90 45 120 100 40 1 0.4 0.65 0.02
Flowering 140 45 180 100 40 1.2 0.5 0.75 0.05
Production 160 45 250 120 40 1.2 0.55 0.75 0.05
Total 390 135 550 320 120 3.4 1.45 2.15 0.12
(ppm)
From the table above the fertigation supplied throughout the growth of tomatoes is a total of
1,522.12ppm which is 1.52212L/m3. Since 40% of irrigation water is drained, an excess of this
1.52212
requirement is applied thus hydroponics fertigation requirement = = 3.8𝐿/𝑚3.
0.4
Industrial approximation takes this value as 5L/m3 to cater for unprecedented losses.
5.3 Design of main lines, sub-mains and valves
5.3.1 Sizing of the sub-mains

In sizing the sub-mains, the pressure at the inlet must be sufficient to supply water to the end of
the drip lines. From the manufacturer the operating pressure in the drip line specified. Since the
connection of the drip lines to the sub-main is at the start of the drip lines the start pressure of the
drip lines is the required end pressure of the sub-mains. The sub-main was designed such that it
branches from the hydrant and supplies water to section halfway up and halfway down i.e. the
hydrant is at the middle of the section and thus the sub-mains take water from the hydrant in two
directions up and down from the hydrant thus the flow in the main line was halved for the sub-
mains in order to achieve smaller pipe diameters thus less cost and also to ensure that the
working pressure is not too high.
5.3.1.1 Obtaining discharge in the sub-main
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Discharge required in each sub-main in the section with 3 bays =
2

25.344
Discharge required in each sub-main in the section with 3 bays = = 12.672m3/hr
2
That is 8 troughs*3bays = 24 troughs
There are two sub-mains in a section therefore each sub-main supplies to 12 troughs each.
Thus discharge required in each sub-main =
12 troughs ∗ 2 drip lines ∗ 64m length of the troughs∗1.65L/hr
0.2𝑚∗1000
Discharge required in each sub-main for the 3 bay section = 12.672m3/hr
38.4
To be used in Hydro-Calc Length of the sub-main in 3 bay section = 12.8m*3 bays = = 19.2
2
m
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Discharge required in each sub-main in the section with 1 bay =
2
8.448
Discharge required in each sub-main in the section with 3 bays = = 4.224 m3/hr
2
That is 8 troughs*1bays = 8 troughs
There are two sub-mains in a section therefore each sub-main supplies to 4 troughs each.
Thus discharge required in each sub-main =
4 troughs ∗ 2 drip lines ∗ 64m length of the troughs∗1.65L/hr
0.2𝑚∗1000
Discharge required in each sub-main = 4.224 m3/hr
12.8
To be used in Hydro calc; Length of the sub-main in 1 bay section = 12.8m*1 bay = = 6.4 m
2
5.3.1.2 Using hydro calc to size the sub-mains
Drip line end pressure from manufacturer = 20m, the drip line start/head pressure from hydro
calc head pressure is 20.69 m, velocity is 0.45 m/s and cumulative pressure loss is 0.69. The end
pressure of the sub-main is therefore 20.69 m. Cumulative pressure loss should be >3% thus
𝐶𝑢𝑚.𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 0.69
∗ 100% = ∗ 100% = 2.1562% thus appropriate selection of drip line
𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 32
head pressure.
For the sub-main in the 3 bay section, the parameters to be used in hydro calc are flow rate
required as 12.672m3/hr, PVC pipe, length of sub-main as 19.2 m, end pressure of 20.69m and

using the Hazen William’s equation; the results obtained are head pressure of the sub-main as
21.29 m, cumulative pressure loss as 0.60 m, velocity as 2.03 m/s and nominal diameter of
𝐶𝑢𝑚.𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒
50mm Class B. Cumulative pressure loss should be >3% thus ∗ 100% =
𝑠𝑢𝑏−𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
0.60
∗ 100% = 3.125% which is approximately 3% thus appropriate head pressure and
19.2
diameter of pipe.
For the sub-main in the 1 bay section the parameters to be used in hydro calc are flow rate
required as 4.224 m3/hr, PVC pipe, length of the sub-main as 6.4 m, end pressure of 20.69m and
using the Hazen William’s equation; the results obtained are head pressure of the sub-main as
20.78 m, cumulative pressure loss as 0.09 m, velocity of 1.09 m/s and nominal diameter of
40mm of Class B. Cumulative pressure loss should be >3% thus ∗ 100% =
0.09
6.4
diameter of pipe.
Each section has 1 hydrant that is required to have a flow of 25.344m3/hr from the discharge
required per section of 3 bays and 8.448m3/hr for the 1 bay section. For the hydrant the end
pressure of the hydrant is the head pressure of the sub-main thus it is 21.29m which is the
maximum between the 3 bay section and 1 bay section head pressure of sub-main. The head
pressure for the hydrant is obtained from hydro calc on the valve icon; the parameters used are
valve type as Pressure Regulating Valve (PRV), regular flow as 25.344m3/hr, the result obtained
is frictional loss of 8.89 thus the head pressure of the hydrant is 21.29m + 8.89 = 30.18m which
the end pressure of the main line.
5.3.2 Sizing of the main line

The design of the main line involved having multi-mainlines i.e. each section had its own main
line due to the different requirements of the different sections i.e. different varieties and different
fertilizer injections. These multi-mainlines are connected to a manifold and each mainline has a
valve to control a flow of 25.344m3/hr for each section in an irrigation session.

Length of the main line to be used in hydro calc to size the diameter of the main line is given by
length to the last section plus length from the pump house to the start of the farm.
Thus; Length of main line = length of 1 bay + length of 12 bays + (Length of 3 bay*0.75) +
measured length from pump house
Length of the main line = 12.8m + (12bays*12.8m) + (12.8m * 3bays * 0.75) + 74m = 268.4m,
approximately 270m
For the main line the parameters to be used in hydro calc are flow rate required as 25.344m3/hr,
PVC pipe, length of main line as 270 m, end pressure of 30.18m and using the Hazen William’s
equation; the results obtained are head pressure of the main line as 35.84 m, cumulative pressure
loss as 5.66 m, velocity as 1.35 m/s and nominal diameter of 90mm Class C. Cumulative
pressure loss should be >3% thus ∗ 100% = ∗ 100% = 2.0963%
𝑠𝑢𝑏−𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 270
which is approximately 3% thus appropriate head pressure and diameter of pipe.
5.3.3 Sizing of the irrigation hydrants or valves

Each section has 1 hydrant that is required to have a flow of 25.344m3/hr from the discharge
required per section of 3 bays and 8.448m3/hr for the 1 bay sections. The velocity in the main
line is 1.35m/s. To obtain the size of the valves for each of the sections:
Discharge required in the section of the 3 bays = Velocity * Area

Q=V*A 3.17
25.344
25.344m3/hr = 1.35m/s * Area thus; Area = = 0.005215𝑚2
1.35∗3600
𝜋𝐷2 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎∗4 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎∗4 0.005215∗4
Area = ; D2 = ;D=√ =√ = 0.0815m = 3.2”
4 𝜋 𝜋 𝜋
Discharge required in the section of the 1 bay = Velocity * Area

Q=V*A 3.17
8.448
8.448m3/hr = 1.35m/s * Area thus; Area = = 0.001738𝑚2
1.35∗3600
𝜋𝐷2 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎∗4 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎∗4 0.001738∗4
Area = ; D2 = ;D=√ =√ = 0.047m =1.85”
4 𝜋 𝜋 𝜋

There are 16 bays each with 8 hydroponic troughs, each trough has 2 drip lines/laterals; the
valves are placed as per the sections designed for management practices. There are 10 sections of
3 bays and 2 sections of 1 bay. Thus depending on the irrigation cycle of 12.12min per section as
per required flow each section has a valve. For the 10 sections the valve size is 3” to serve 48
laterals and for the 2 sections the valve size is 2” valve to serve 16 laterals.
5.4 Selecting the Irrigation Pump

Theoretically maximum suction for the operation of a pump is 6m but the steel tanks are on a
higher ground than the pump house thus the suction is termed as flooded suction i.e. head due to
suction and delivery is 0m, also the elevation head is zero, frictional losses in the fittings
especially the gravel filters is approximately 10m
The total head of the irrigation pump = 0m + 0m + 10m + 35.84m = 45.84m

Total discharge required is 25.344m3/hr
𝑄∗𝐻
102∗𝑒
) 𝑘𝑊 3.12
Where Q – flow in l/s

25.344∗1000∗45.84
Thus power required, N = ( ) = 5.273kW
102∗3600∗0.6
Pump of 5.273kW is selected from manufacturer’s catalogue. A Grundfos pump with the
specifications of 97839207 NB 32-200/190 50 Hz was selected. The irrigation pump curve is
attached on the Appendix. The power is supplied by the farm’s power system.
5.5 Selecting the irrigation water U.V. cylinders and Filters

U.V. treatment pipes or units are cylindrical in shape with a diameter between 20cm and 30cm
and length of 1.5m The U.V. are selected from the manufacturer’s catalogue to cater for a flow
of 25.344m3/hr. The U.V. and gravel filters are obtained from Israel’s, John Deere.
Gravel filters and UV components based on the discharge per irrigation schedule to filter the
water to prevent clogging in the distribution pipes and drip line and treat pathogens in the drain
water respectively were selected. This is to ensure hygienic conditions in the troughs to prevent
diseases.
Gravel Filters are selected from manufacturer’s list to cater for the required discharge per
irrigation session which is 25.334m3/hr. 60% the flow is allowed for back flushing from
theoretical background. Thus the filters are selected for a flow that allows for back flushing. The
flow is obtained by:
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 25.344
Flow used to select filters = = = 42.24 m3/hr
0.6 0.6
Filters are selected with a flow of 42.24 m3/hr from manufacturer’s catalogue.
5.6 Sizing the fertigation system

Fertigation required per irrigation schedule = Fertigation required per m 3 * flow required per
irrigation schedule
Fertigation required per irrigation schedule = 5L/m3 * 25.334m3/hr =126.67L/hr
Venturi is selected from manufacturer’s catalogue for a flow of 126.67L/hr

Size of the fertiget = Fertigation required per irrigation schedule * Irrigation time
Size of the fertiget = 126.67L/hr * 2.424hrs = 307.05L
Fertiget is selected from manufacturer’s catalogue to cater for the volume of 307.05L
The fertilizer mixing tanks are recommended to be 2 tanks for fertilizer and 1 tank of acid. The
sizing of the fertilizer mixing tanks was done.
Sizing the fertilizer tanks for 3.3 days;
(Fertigation per day which is for 2.424hrs) * 3.3 days =307.05L* 3.3 = 1,000L

The Tank capacity 1,000L thus the fertilizer tanks were selected to be 1000L each. The acid tank
was designed to have a capacity of 500L half of the fertilizer tanks since it is used to regulate the
pH of the fertilizer mix injected into the main line. The tanks are Kentank plastic tanks. They are
selected as the shorter tanks and are open at the top to allow mixing of fertilizers.
5.7 Tank sizing for Irrigation

The discharge required for the 3 ha farm is 60m3/day. Sizing the tanks for 2.5 days gives:
Size of the Genap steel tank = 60m3/day * 2.5 days = 150m3 which is a size that fits the
manufacture’s specifications and is not too costly.
5.8 Sizing of the drainage system

Drainage layout is done in order to allow drainage by gravity. The land slopes at 1% in opposite
directions from the 4 m path. This is slope was obtained during the green house construction.
Drainage pipe is placed at the end of the troughs of 40% of the water is drained.
5.8.1 Sizing of the outlet of the troughs to the drainage pipe

1 trough has 2 drip lines; emitter discharge is 1.65 lph, emitter spacing = 0.2m, length of drip
32𝑚
line = 32m, Thus; No. of emitters per drip line = = 160 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠/𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙
0.2𝑚
Total discharge in one trough = 160 emitters/lateral * 2 laterals * 1.65lph =528 lph
Drainage from 1 trough = 0.4 * 528lph = 211.2 lph = 0.2112m3/hr
Since drainage will be on gravity a velocity of 1m/s is required in the pipe thus;
For the drainage pipe for the hydroponic troughs the parameters to be used in hydro calc are flow
rate required as 211.2 lph, P.E pipe, length of drainage pipe as 32 m, end pressure of 20.69m
and using the Hazen William’s equation; the results obtained are head pressure of the drainage
pipe as 21.41 m, cumulative pressure loss as 0.72 m, velocity as 0.63 m/s and nominal diameter
of 20mm Class B. Cumulative pressure loss should be <3% thus ∗ 100% =
0.72
32
diameter of pipe.

5.8.2 Sizing the drainage pipe for the blocks vertical and across where the
drain water is directed to a drain tank
There are 4 blocks for the 3 ha farm. Each block will have a drainage pipe where the hydroponic
troughs slope. For 1 block the total drainage flow is; given that there are 16 bays each with 8
troughs and drainage from 1 trough is 211.2 lph
Total drainage flow for 1 block = 211.2 lph * 16bays * 8 troughs each = 27,033.6lph which is
also the drainage from 16*8*2 = 256 laterals assuming that all the blocks are irrigated at the
same time.
Sizing the drainage pipe using hydro calc for 1 block involves sizing for the sections
cumulatively. The drainage pipe for each block is divided into to the first four sections which
include the 1, 1 bay section and 3, 3 bay sections giving a total of 10bays thus the drainage pipe
collects water for 80 troughs. The parameters to be used for this part are 211.2lph per trough, No.
of drainage pipes from the hydroponic troughs in the first part of the drainage pipe in each block,
Length of drainage pipe for each block which is 12.8m * 10 bays = 128m, end pressure of
21.41m and using the Hazen William’s equation; the results obtained are head pressure of the
drainage pipe as 23.53 m, cumulative pressure loss as 2.12 m, velocity as 1.71 m/s and nominal
diameter of 63mm Class B. Cumulative pressure loss should be <3% thus ∗
2.12
100% = ∗ 100% = 1.6563% which is approximately 3% thus appropriate head
128
pressure and diameter of pipe. Each block will have a drainage pipe of diameter 63mm PVC pipe
Class B for the first 10 bays. The second part of the drainage pipe for each block include the last
two sections which include 3 bays each giving a total of 6bays thus the drainage pipe collects
water for cumulative 80troughs + (6bays*8troughs/bay) = 128 troughs. The parameters to be
used for this part are 211.2lph per trough, No. of drainage pipes from the hydroponic troughs in
the second part of the drainage pipe in each block, Length of drainage pipe for each block which
is 12.8m * 6 bays = 76.8m, end pressure of 23.53m and using the Hazen William’s equation; the
results obtained are head pressure of the drainage pipe as 24.8 m, cumulative pressure loss as
1.27 m, velocity as 1.71 m/s and nominal diameter of 75mm Class B. Cumulative pressure loss
should be <3% thus ∗ 100% = ∗ 100% = 1.6536% which is
𝑠𝑢𝑏−𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 76.8

approximately 3% thus appropriate head pressure and diameter of pipe. Each block will have a
drainage pipe of diameter 75mm PVC pipe Class B for the last 6 bays cumulative of 16bays.
Sizing the main drainage pipe using hydro calc for the 3 ha farm involves sizing drainage pipes
for each of the four blocks cumulatively. For the first block parameters to be used are 211.2lph
per trough, No. of drainage pipes from the hydroponic troughs in 1st block which is 128, Length
of drainage pipe for 1st block which is 32m, end pressure of 24.8m and using the Hazen
William’s equation; the results obtained are head pressure of the drainage pipe as 25.33 m,
cumulative pressure loss as 0.53 m, velocity as 1.92 m/s and nominal diameter of 75mm Class
B. Cumulative pressure loss should be <3% thus ∗ 100% = ∗
100% = 1.6563% which is approximately 3% thus appropriate head pressure and diameter
of pipe.
For the second block parameters to be used are 211.2lph per trough, Cumulative No. of drainage
pipes from the hydroponic troughs in 1st block and the 2nd block which is 256, Length of
drainage pipe for 2nd block which is 32m, end pressure of 25.33m and using the Hazen
of pipe.
For the third block parameters to be used are 211.2lph per trough, Cumulative No. of drainage
pipes from the hydroponic troughs in 1st block, the 2nd block and 3rd block which is 384, Length
of drainage pipe for 3rd block which is 40m, end pressure of 25.6m and using the Hazen

of pipe.
For the fourth block parameters to be used are 211.2lph per trough, Cumulative No. of drainage
pipes from the hydroponic troughs in 1st block, the 2nd block, 3rd block and 4th block which is
512, Length of drainage pipe for 4th block which is 40m, end pressure of 25.99m and using the
Hazen William’s equation; the results obtained are head pressure of the drainage pipe as 26.33
m, cumulative pressure loss as 0.37 m, velocity as 1.38 m/s and nominal diameter of 140mm
Class B. Cumulative pressure loss should be <3% thus ∗ 100% = ∗
100% = 0.925% which is approximately 3% thus appropriate head pressure and diameter of
pipe.
5.8.3 Sizing the Drainage tank
The discharge from the main drainage pipe is 1 trough = 211.2lph

The total drainage discharge per section of 3 bays = 211.2lph * 24 troughs = 5068.8lph =
5.0688m3/hr
The total drainage discharge per section of 1 bay = 211.2lph * 8 troughs = 1,689.6lph
=1.6896m3/hr
The irrigation time is 2.424 hrs per day thus the total drainage per day is:
Total drainage per day = (5.0688m3/hr * 2.02 hrs) + (1.6896m3/hr * 0.404 hrs) = 10.92m3/ day
Sizing the drainage tank for a day’s drain;
Size of the drainage tank = 10.92m3/day; Thus the drainage tank was sized to 10,000L capacity.
This is because it will take double the time of irrigation for water to drain in to the tank. Since
the irrigation time is 2hr the drain time is approximately 4hrs.
5.9 Design of the recirculation System
Sizing the pipe that takes the drain water from the drainage tank through the pump, the media
filters and U.V was done using hydro calc. The parameters to be used are flow rate required as
4.505m3/hr, PVC pipe, length of pipe as 270 m, end pressure of 15m and using the Hazen
William’s equation; the results obtained are head pressure of the sub-main as 18.34 m,

B. Cumulative pressure loss should be >3% thus ∗ 100% = ∗
100% = 1.237% which is approximately 3% thus appropriate head pressure and diameter of
pipe.
5.9.1BoosterDrainage Pump selection
Booster pumps are placed in the drainage tanks to pump the water automatically when the tank is
full.
Theoretically maximum suction for the operation of a pump is 6m, the elevation head is
determined from 1% slope , frictional losses and operation pressure are determined from hydro
calc.
Calculating elevation head using 1% slope
∆𝑦 ∆𝑦
0.01 = = =
∆𝑥 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘−𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘
∆𝑦 ∆𝑦
=
2530−1890 640
Thus ∆𝑦 = 640 ∗ 0.01 = 6.4𝑚

From hydro calc the frictional head losses are 3.34m and the operational head is 18.34m thus;
The total head of the irrigation pump = 6m + 6.4m + 3.34m + 18.34m = 34.08m
Total discharge required is 4.505m3/hr
𝑄∗𝐻
102∗𝑒
) 𝑘𝑊
Where Q – flow in l/s
4.505∗1000∗34.08
Thus power required, N = ( ) = 0.697kW
102∗3600∗0.6

Pump of 0.697kW and head of 34.08m was selected from manufacturer’s catalogue. The pump
was selected from Grundfos as 97839201 NB 32-160.1/139 50 Hz. The power is supplied from
the farm’s power system.
5.9.2 Selecting media filter for drain water

The drain water per day is 10.92m3/day. The fertigation time which is the irrigation time is
10.92
2.424hr / day. Thus the discharge that is re-used is = = 4.505m3/hr. The media filters are
2.424
selected based on the flow of 4.505m3/hr. From John Deere an Israel manufacturer of media
filter the F2000 Media Filter, 2 inch connection diameter, 16 inch body diameter, Minimum flow
rate of 6m3/hr , Maximum flow rate of 11m3/hr, 10m3/hr back flush flow rate and Item no. BSP
101043070 was selected.
5.9.3 Selecting of U.V. Cylinders for drain water
The U.V. treatment pipes or units are cylindrical in shape with a diameter between 20cm and
30cm and length of 1.5m The U.V. are selected from the manufacturer’s catalogue to cater for a
flow of 4.505m3/hr.
5.9.4. Sizing the treated water tank
The drain water per day is 10.92m3 thus designing the treated water tanks for 15 days;
Tank capacity = 10.92m3/day * 15 days = 163.5m3. The tank was sized to 150m3 which is an
available capacity of the Genap steel tanks, a company of the Netherlands.
5.9.5 Selecting of injection valves
The drain water per day is 10.92m3/day. The fertigation time which is the irrigation time is
10.92
2.424hr / day. Thus the discharge that is re-used is = = 4.505m3/hr. The valve was selected
2.424
based on the flow of 4.505m3/hr. When the water is enough in the treated water tank, the valves
could be sized to the requirement in irrigation that is 25.344m3/hr which is a 2” valve.

5.10 Cost benefit Analysis
Sizing the valve from treated water tank; given that 5L/m3 of water is supplied in fertigation
5L/m3 * 0.4 = 2L/m3
Total drainage per day = 10.92m3/day
Fertilizers in drain water = 10.92 * 2 =21.84 L/day which is recycled.
The cost of installation of the system is obtained from the bill of quantities attached in Appendix.
The prices used in the bill of quantities were obtained from Irrico International Limited. The
summary of the bill of quantities is as shown below in Figure 23. The bills of quantities with
specific parts are in the Appendix D.
The cost of installation of the system is approximately Ksh.13, 195,838.26 which is quite costly
but in comparison with the returns from the sale of produce the system design is profitable and
viable.
The yield from hydroponic farming is approximately 585,000kg/yr/ha. The cost of 1 kg of
tomatoes in Kenya is approximately Ksh.110.
Total sales from maximum yield of hydroponic tomatoes for 3 ha farm = 585,000kg/yr/ha *
Ksh.110/kg * 3ha = Ksh.193, 050,000
Thus the profit margin = Ksh.193, 050,000 - Ksh.13, 195,838.26 = Ksh.179, 854.161.7 per year.
This implies that the cost of installation is recovered within the first year of sales of produce.

COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING
F21/1700/2010
Date: May 4, 2015
HM-CLAUSE FARM NANYUKI

TOMATO PRODUCTION UNIT PROJECT FOR A 3HA FARM
PRICED BILL OF QUANTITIES
GREENHOUSE DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM

COST
DESCRIPTION OF GOODS AMOUNT
KSH
1 UV WATER TREATMENT FOR IRRIGATION WATER 1,679,042.20
2 DRIP IRRIGATION 2,505,699.13
3 FERTIGATION AND CONTROLLERS 1,287,330.91
4 DRAINAGE COLLECTION, 1,081,553.94
5 HYDROPONIC TROUGHS 5,130,548.70
6 RECIRCULATION AND TREATMENT 1,511,663.38
GRAND TOTAL 13,195,838.26
Figure 23: Summary of the bill of quantities attached in the Appendix D

5.11 Design Drawing
Figure 24: Irrigation layout
In Fig. 24, water is pumped from the main reservoir in the farm to a second reservoir where
water is stored. The water is then pumped from the second reservoir through gravel filters and
then U.V. cylinders. The rain water requires filtering of organic and gravel matter in order to
achieve hygienic conditions required by hydroponics system. The water goes to Genap steel
tanks whereby it is stored for irrigation. From the Genap steel tanks the water is pumped through
gravel filters again to achieve hygienic conditions required in hydroponics. The water is then
passed through the fertigation then to the main line manifold. At the main line manifold there are
valves that control irrigation to each main line of the fertigation zones. The main lines also have
valves at the different fertigation zones. The sub-mains are connected to the valves and the drip

lines are connected to the sub-mains. The drainage pipes are on each trough and on each block
vertically and across to the drain tank.

6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions
The overall objective of this design was achieved. A complete recirculating hydroponic system
for a 3 ha greenhouse was obtained. If installed this project would cost Ksh.13, 195,838.26 but
within a year the incurred cost of installation if recovered and high profits are also achieved with
the cost of a kg of tomatoes being 110 shillings given that the yield of hydroponics tomatoes is
585,000kg/yr/ha. This system will over the years ensure maximum yield and quality of tomatoes
all year round and at the same time ensuring protection of the environment that is minimal waste
of water and fertilizers. The result would be reduced food scarcity, improved quality of life, and
increased profit margin for tomato farming for the 3 ha farm in Nanyuki and generally Kenyan
farmers.
The pertinent parameters were identified which included the crop data i.e. tomato planting
spacing which is 20cm x 20cm, the crop water requirement which was 5mm/day. The
dimensions of the farm were obtained using GPS coordinates. The actual area in the greenhouse
that would have hydroponic troughs was obtained using a trough spacing of 1.2m, distance
between one section and the next of 0.6m and also the width of the toughs which was 40cm.
Hydroponic dimensions were selected from manufacture’s specifications and the plant spacing.
There were 2 drip lines in each trough from management practices thus with a plant spacing of
20cm the width of the trough would be 40cm thus the dimensions of the troughs were selected
are 20cm x 40cm x 20cm. The medium used in the troughs was coco peat. The drip line was
selected from manufacture’s catalogue and appropriate discharge and pressure considerations
done on the drip line using hydro calc. The pressure variation graph was generated and is shown
in the Appendices.
The total flow required for each section of the farm was determined which was 25.344m 3/hr for
the 3 bay sections and 8.448m3/hr .for the 1 bay sections. This flow was used in Hydro calc to
determine the size of the multi-mains i.e. a main line for each section and the sub-mains. This
flow was also used with a total pump head of 45.84m to select the irrigation pump. The pump

selected has a power of 5.273kW. The valves to control the flow to each section were sized
depending on the discharge required per section. The flow was also used in the selection of
gravel filters and U.V. The irrigation tank was sized depending on the discharge per section and
the irrigation schedule. The irrigation schedule was obtained as 12.12min/day/section. The total
discharge required in the farm per day was 60m3/day. The irrigation tanks were steel tanks of
150m3 sized to 2.5 days of irrigation. The fertigation system was sized to fertigation requirement
of 5L/m3. This was obtained from the specific requirement of tomato for each stage of growth as
shown in the results. The fertiget was sized to 3.3days requirement of fertilizer thus it would
have a capacity of 307.05L per day of fertigation. The two fertilizer tanks were sized to 3.3 days
too and the sizes were obtained as 1000L each and the acid tank as 500L. The drainage system
was sized depending on the flow drained per trough which was 211.2lph and also cumulatively
the first 10 bays then total drain flow from 16 bays. The main drainage pipe that would drain the
water to the drainage tank was sized depending on the flow drained from each block
cumulatively as obtained in the results. The drainage tank was sized to a day’s drain flow in
order to allow the water to be treated before being recycled. The capacity of the drainage tank
was obtained as 10,000L. The media filters, U.V. treatment unit and control valves were selected
depending on the flow that is drained per irrigation schedule. The booster pump that was placed
in the drainage tank was selected to a head of 34.08m and a discharge of 5m3/hr. The treated
water tank was sized to 15 days thus tank capacity was found to be 150m3.
7.2 Recommendations
The design outcome is a milestone towards a recirculating hydroponics system however the
following are some of the recommendations that would ease the maintenance of the system and
also increase the efficiency of the system. The recommendations include;
I. Automation of the system which would help in management of the irrigation and
fertigation requirement. That is the cabling of the green house in order to meet the
specific water and fertilizer requirements for each section. It would also involve
incorporating sensors that determine when to irrigate and also when get rid of the
medium or the recirculation water i.e. when the concentration of chemicals and presence
of pathogens is harmful that the drain water cannot be re-used.

II. The cost of fittings can further be reduced to fit to small scale farms and also make the
design viable to these farmers.
III. Awareness should be created on the benefits of hydroponics and also more critically the
environmental effects so that in a few years we would not be repairing the damage caused
by draining hydroponics nutrient solution.

7.0 REFERENCES
Pardossi A., Carmassi G., Diara C., Incrocci L., Maggini R., Massa D.(2011). Fertigation and
Substrate Management in Closed Soilless Culture. Dipartimento di Biologia delle Piante Agrarie,
Università di Pisa, Pisa.
Alberto Pardossi, (2011). Fertigation Management in Greenhouse Hydroponics. Euphoros

Workshop, Szentes HU. Retrieved from
https://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/1/c/f/26821c36-eb95-4fcb-9dbb-
d6c51639a253_Alberto_Pardossi_English_version.pdf
Christie Emerson, (2014). Water and Nutrient Reuse within Closed Hydroponic Systems.
Electronic Theses & Dissertations, Paper 1096. Georgia Southern University. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2154&context=etd
Government of Western Australia, Department of water,(2013). Hydroponic plant growing.

Water Quality Protection Note 19 (WQPN 19). Retrieved from
http://www.water.wa.gov.au/PublicationStore/first/84604.pdf
Jeremy Badgery-Parker, (2002). Managing waste water from intensive horticulture: a wetland
system. Journal of New South Wales Government, Department of Primary Industries,
Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/119372/horticulture-waste-water-
wetland-system-eng.pdf
New South Wales Government, Department of Primary Industries, Agriculture (2009).

Greenhouse Hydroponics. Retrieved from
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/horticulture/greenhouse/hydroponics
Fisher. P, 2015. Water Treatment Guidelines. Environment Horticultural Department, University

of Florida: IFAS Extension.

Fisher. P, 2011. Water Treatment: A grower’s guide for nursery and greenhouse irrigation.
www.WaterEducationAlliance.org
Mebalds, M., Hepworth, A.G., van der Linden, A., and Beardsell, D, 1995. Disinfestation of
plant pathogens in recycled water using UV radiation and chlorine dioxide in: Development of
Recycled Water Systems for Australian Nurseries. HRDC Final Report No. NY320.
Van der Gulik. T, 2003. Treating irrigation and crop wash water for pathogens. British Columbia
Ministry of Agriculture, food and fisheries: Water quality Fact sheet, Order No. 512.000-3.
Rimol Greenhouse Systems, (2015). Hydroponic Systems. Retrieved from

https://www.rimolgreenhouses.com/greenhouse-series/hydroponic-systems
George J. Hochmuth and Robert C. Hochmuth, (2001). Nutrient Solution Formulation for
Hydroponic Perlite, Rockwool, NFT Tomatoes in Florida. Horticultural Sciences Department,
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University
of Florida. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV21600.pdf
Louisiana State University, College of Agriculture, Horticulture (2013). Greenhouse Tomato

Production Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/our_offices/research_stations/redriver/features/research/horticult
ure/greenhouse+tomato+production+manual.htm
George J. Hochmuth and Robert C. Hochmuth, (2013). Keys to Successful Tomato and
Cucumber Production in Perlite Media. Department of Horticultural Sciences Department,
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University
of Florida. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS16900.pdf
Government of Alberta, Agricultural and Rural development, (2015).Commercial greenhouse

vegetable production. Retrieved from
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex1443

Cornell University, Biological and Environmental Engineering, (2014). Controlled Environment
Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.cornellcea.com/
University of Massachusetts Armhest Extension, (2013). Hydroponic Greenhouse Production

Resources. Greenhouse crops and Floricultural Program. Retrieved from
http://extension.umass.edu/floriculture/fact-sheets/hydroponic-greenhouse-production-resources
Turner, Bambi (2008). How Hydroponics Works. HowStuffWorks.com. Retrieved from

http://home.howstuffworks.com/lawn-garden/professional-landscaping/alternative-
methods/hydroponics.htm/printable
Smart! Grow Intelligently, (2014). Hydroponics systems. Retrieved from http://www.smart-

fertilizer.com/articles/hydroponic-systems
Smart! Grow Intelligently, (2014). Fertigation. Retrieved from http://www.smart-

fertilizer.com/articles/fertigation
Smart! Grow Intelligently, (2014). pH adjustment in Fertigation. Retrieved from

http://www.smart-fertilizer.com/articles/pH-in-fertigation
Ezgrow garden, (2015). Types of Hydroponics Systems. Retrieved from

http://ezgrogarden.com/hydroponics/types-of-hydroponic-systems/
Rick Donnan, (1994). Nutrient Management in Hydroponics Systems – Part 2, Issue 14. Practical
hydroponics and greenhouses. Retrieved from
http://www.hydroponics.com.au/issue-14-nurient-management-in-hydroponics-systems-part-2/
Macharia Mwangi, (2014). Hydroponics: Growing crops without soil. Smart Farm Magazine.
Retrieved from http://www.smartfarmerkenya.com/page/article/98-hydroponics:-growing-crops-
without-soil

Isaac Mwangi, (2015). Hydroponics Give Kenyan Farmers Fodder For Thought. AFK Insider.
Retrieved from http://afkinsider.com/10663/crops-grown-in-water-signal-sea-change-of-
fortunes-for-kenyan-farmers/2/
F.M.Shitakha, (1986). An Assessment of the Irrigation Suitability of the Soils of Mia Moja and
Matanya farms, Laikipia district. Site evaluation report No. P78. Ministry of Agriculture-
National Agricultural laboratories. Kenya Soil Survey.
GoK, Ministry of Water and Irrigation, (2005). Practice Manual for Water Supply Services in
Kenya. Kenya- Belgium Study Consultancy Fund.
Steve Carruthers, (2002). Issue 63: Hydroponics as an agricultural production system. Practical
hydroponics and Greenhouses. Retrieved from
http://www.hydroponics.com.au/issue-63-hydroponics-as-an-agricultural-production-system/
Mbaka, J.N., Gitonga, J.K., Gathambiri, C.W., Mwangi. B.G., Githuka, P. and Mwangi, M.,
(2013). Identification of Knowledge and Technology gaps in high tunnel (‘greenhouse’) tomato
production in Kirinyaga and Embu Counties. Presentation during the 2nd National Science,
Technology and Innovation week, 13th - 17th May 2013 ,K.I.C.C., Nairobi.
Diane M. Camberato, Roberto G. Lopez, and Michael V. Mickelbart, (2015). pH and Electrical
Conductivity Measurements in Soilless Substrates. Purdue Extension, Commercial Greenhouse
and Nursery Production, Purdue University.

8.0 APPENDICES
9.1 Appendix A
This Appendix has the Design drawings
Figure 25: A.1 Sub-mains layout

Figure 26: A.2 Hydroponics Layout

Figure 27: A.3 Fertigation Layout

Figure 28: A.4 Drainage Collection

Figure 29: A.5 Hydrant fittings

Figure 30: A.6 Reservoir fittings

9.2 Appendix B
This Appendix contains graphs generated from softwares such as Hydro calc and CropWat. Also
other drawings used in design.
Figure 31: B.1 Drip line selection

Figure 32: B.2 pressure head along the sub-main for 3 bay section that was used in the design of
the sub-main

Figure 33: B.3 pressure head used in design of sub-main for 1 bay section

Figure 34: B.4 pressure head used in the mainline design

Figure 35: B.5 pressure head used in the design of trough drainage pipe

Figure 36: B.6 pressure head used in the design Block drainage 1
Figure 37: B.7 pressure head used in the design of Block drainage 2

Figure 38: B.8 pressure head used in the design of main drainage pipe 1
Figure 39: B.9 pressure head used in the design of main drainage pipe 2

Figure 40: B.10 pressure head used in the design of the main drainage pipe 3
Figure 41: B.11 pressure head used in the design of the main drainage pipe 4

Figure 42: B.12 pressure head used in the design of the pipe that directs drainage water to
treated water tank

Figure 43: B.13 Kc for tomatoes
Figure 44: B.14 Etc requirement

Figure 45: B.15 Climatic data
Figure 46: B.16 Irrigation Pump specifications

Figure 47: B.17 Drainage pump specifications

9.3 Appendix C
Figure 48: C.1 FERTIJET, Source: Google Images on fertigation
Figure 49: C.2 GALCON CONTROLLER, Source: Google images on Galcon controller

Figure 50: C.3 Greenhouse structure on site
Figure 51: C.4 Inside of Greenhouse structure on site

Figure 52: C.5 Rain water harvesting reservoir

9.4 Appendix D
This Appendix has the BOQ
F21/1700/2010
Date: May 4, 2015
HM-CLAUSE
TOMATO PRODUCTION UNIT PROJECT OF 3HA

COST COST
DESCRIPTION OF GOODS U.O.M. QTY PRICE AMOUNT
KSH KSH
1.0 DRIP IRRIGATION
1.1 MULTILINES TO VALVES
1 3'' END CAPS PCS 12 332.00 3,984.00

2 90MM X 3'' VALVE SOCKETS PCS 12 417.60 5,011.20
3 90MM PVC ELBOWS PCS 48 374.10 17,956.80
4 90MM PVC PIPE CLASS C MTS 2460 253.00 622,380.00
5 90MM X 1'' SADDLE CLAMPS PCS 12 261.00 3,132.00
6 1'' GI RISER X 40CM PCS 12 56.55 678.60
7 1'' BALL VALVES PCS 12 661.20 7,934.40
8 1'' AIR RELEASE VALVE PCS 12 4,404.38 52,852.50
9 TANGIT KGS 46 852.60 39,219.60
10 PTFE PCS 96 21.75 2,088.00
SUB TOTAL 755,237.10
1.2 SUBMAINS AND HYDRANTS
1 90MM X 2'' SADDLE CLAMPS PCS 12 348.00 4,176.00

2 63MM X 2'' VALVE SOCKETS PCS 36 152.25 5,481.00
3 2'' HYDRAULIC VALVES C/W SOLENOIDS PCS 24 12,180.00 292,320.00
4 63MM PVC ELBOWS PCS 48 149.64 7,182.72
5 63MM PVC TEES PCS 36 217.50 7,830.00
7 63MM X 50MM REDUCER BUSH PCS 48 78.30 3,758.40
9 50MM PVC ELBOWS PCS 48 87.00 4,176.00
10 50MM X 1 1/2'' VALVE SOCKETS PCS 48 143.55 6,890.40
11 1 1/2'' ENDCAPS PCS 48 65.25 3,132.00
12 TANGIT KGS 43 852.60 36,661.80
13 PTFE PCS 168 21.75 3,654.00
1.3 PCND DRIP AND FITTINGS
1 16MM HYDROGOL PCND 1.65LPH AT 20CM SPACING MTS 34900 35.67 1,244,883.00
2 16MM START CONNECTOR C/W RUBBERS PCS 600 34.80 20,880.00
3 16MM PE PIPE PN6 MTS 600 18.42 11,054.12
4 16MM PE ENDLINES PCS 600 26.61 15,967.06
5 16MM DRIP TO DRIP CONNECTORS PCS 300 26.61 7,983.53
SUB TOTAL 1,300,767.71
TOTALS 2,505,699.13
Figure 53: D.1 BOQ for Drip irrigation

F21/1700/2010
Date: May 4, 2015
HM-CLAUSE FARM, NANYUKI

TOMATO PRODUCTION UNIT PROJECT OF 3 HA

COST COST
KSH KSH
2.0 FERTIGATION AND CONTROLLERS
2.1 TANKS AND FITTINGS
1 1000 LITRES FERTILIZER TANKS PCS 3 8,321.74 24,965.22

2 500 LITRES FERTILIZER TANKS PCS 1 5,041.99 5,041.99
3 1'' TANK CONNECTORS PCS 8 87.00 696.00
4 1'' SOCKETS PCS 16 65.25 1,044.00
5 32MM X 1'' PE MALE ADAPTORS PCS 4 78.30 313.20
6 32MM X 1'' BARDERED CONNECTOR PCS 4 104.40 417.60
7 32MM PE PIPE CLASS B MTS 20 31.90 638.00
8 1'' SCREEN FILTERS PCS 4 3,915.00 15,660.00
9 1'' BALL VALVES PCS 4 661.20 2,644.80
10 PTFE PCS 30 21.75 652.50
11 FITTINGS AND ACCESSORIES SET 1 26,100.00 26,100.00
SUB TOTAL 78,173.31
2.2 FERTIGATION SYSTEM AND GALCON CONTROLLER
1 PC COMPUTER AND SOFTWARES PCS 1 104,400.00 104,400.00

2 GALCON WEXX CONTROLLER 40 OUTPUT PCS 1 348,000.00 348,000.00
3 LOW FLOW FERTIGET C/W EC, PH MONITOR PCS 1 452,400.00 452,400.00
4 12M3/HR AT 60M HEAD BOOSTER PUMP PCS 1 250,000.00 250,000.00
5 CONNECTIONS TO THE MAIN LINE AND FITTINGS PCS 1 52,200.00 52,200.00
6 TANGIT KGS 1 852.60 852.60
7 PTFE PCS 60 21.75 1,305.00
SUB TOTAL 1,209,157.60
TOTALS 1,287,330.91
Figure 54: D.2 BOQ for Fertigation and Controllers

F21/1700/2010
Date: May 4, 2015


COST COST
KSH KSH
3.0 HYDROPONICS TROUGHS
3.1 HYDROPONICS TROUGHS
1 20CM x 30CM X 20CM HYDROPONICS TROUGHS COMPLETE MTS 16900 114.99 1,943,353.04
2 COCOPEAT KGS 84500 36.17 3,056,695.65
TOTALS 5,130,548.70
Figure 55: D.3 BOQ for hydroponic troughs

F21/1700/2010
Date: May 4, 2015


COST COST
KSH US $
4.0 RECIRCULATION & UV WATER TREATMENT
4.1 RECIRCULATION SYSTEM
1 5M3/HR AT 35M HEAD SUBMERSIBLE PUMP SET PCS 2 75,000.00 150,000.00

2 CABLINGS SET 1 10,440.00 10,440.00
3 PUMP FITTINGS SET 2 43,500.00 87,000.00
4 LOW LEVEL AND HIGH LEVEL CUT OUT SWITCH SET 2 7,500.00 15,000.00
5 PRESS CONTROL PCS 2 18,000.00 36,000.00
6 50MM PVC ELBOWS PCS 12 87.00 1,044.00
7 50MM PVC TEES PCS 1 126.15 126.15
8 1 1/2'' BALL VALVES PCS 2 1,392.00 2,784.00
9 50MM X 1 1/2'' VALVE SOCKETS PCS 4 143.55 574.20
11 TANGIT KGS 8 852.60 6,820.80
12 PTFE PCS 30 21.75 652.50
4.2 RECIRCULATION COLLECTION TANKS
1 10,000L WATER RESERVOIR LINED PCS 1 67,200.00 67,200.00

2 TANK CONNECTORS PCS 2 6,720.00 13,440.00
3 150M3 GENAP TANKS COVERED PCS 1 304,500.00 304,500.00
4 TANK FOUNDATIONS SET 1 45,675.00 45,675.00
4.3 WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
1 SINGLE PHASE 5M3/HR AT 40M HEAD SURFACE BOOSTER PUMP PCS 1 65,000.00 65,000.00
2 PUMP SUCTION PCS 1 30,450.00 30,450.00
3 PUMP DELIVERY PCS 1 39,150.00 39,150.00
5 5M3/HR UV WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SET 1 125,000.00 125,000.00
6 2'' X 20'' SAND GRAVEL FILTERS PCS 2 95,000.00 190,000.00
4.4 RECIRCULATION TO THE IRRIGATION LINE
1 SINGLE PHASE 5M3/HR AT 50M HEAD SURFACE BOOSTER PUMP PCS 1 65,000.00 65,000.00
2 PUMP SUCTION PCS 1 30,450.00 30,450.00
3 PUMP DELIVERY PCS 1 39,150.00 39,150.00
6 1 1/2'' BALL VALVES PCS 1 1,392.00 1,392.00
8 2 1/2'' BALL VALVES PCS 1 3,915.00 3,915.00
9 2 1/2'' X 1 1/2'' MIXING VALVES PCS 1 25,000.00 25,000.00
10 75MM X 2 1/2'' FLANGE AND STUBS PCS 2 565.50 1,131.00
11 50MM X 1 1/2'' FLANGE AND STUBS PCS 2 426.30 852.60
12 5/8'' X 2'' BOLTS, NUTS AND WASHERS PCS 16 208.80 3,340.80
13 90MM PVC TEES PCS 1 417.60 417.60
14 90MM X 50MM REDUCER BUSH PCS 1 278.40 278.40
15 50MM PVC ELBOWS PCS 12 87.00 1,044.00
TOTALS 1,511,663.38
Figure 56: D.4 BOQ for Recirculation and UV Treatment

F21/1700/2010
Date: May 4, 2015

TOMATO PRODUCTION UNIT PROJECT OF 3 HA
UV WATER TREATMENT
COST COST
KSH. KSH.
5.0 DRIP IRRIGATION WATER TREATMENT
5.1 PUMPSET
1 ELECTRIC PUMPSET 26M3/HR AT 46M HEAD PUMP, GRUNDFOS PCS 1 450,000.00 450,000.00
2 CONTROL PANEL PCS 1 65,250.00 65,250.00
3 CABLINGS PCS 1 13,050.00 13,050.00
5.2 FILTRATION SYSTEM
1 2'' x 20'' SAND GARVEL FILTERS C/W BACKFLUSH PCS 4 95,000.00 380,000.00
2 110MM X 4'' PVC FLAGE AND STUBS PCS 8 957.00 7,656.00
3 4'' WATER METER PCS 1 51,500.00 51,500.00
4 110MM PVC UNION GLUE TYPE PCS 1 2,697.00 2,697.00
5 110MM PVC ELBOWS PCS 10 826.50 8,265.00
6 5/8'' BOLTS, NUTS AND WASHERS PCS 32 208.80 6,681.60
7 GASKETS PCS 4 435.00 1,740.00
8 TANGIT KGS 1 852.60 852.60
5.3 UV WATER TREATMENT
1 26M3/HR UV WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PCS 4 150,000.00 600,000.00

TOTALS 1,679,042.20
Figure 57: D.5 BOQ for UV treatment

F21/1700/2010
Date: May 4, 2015
HM-CLAUSE FARM,NANYUKI
TOMATO PRODUCTION UNIT PROJECT FOR A 3 HA FARM

COST COST
KSH KSH
6.0 DRAINAGE COLLECTION,
6.1 DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR IRRIGATION WATER
1 20MM START CONNECTOR C/W RUBBER PCS 1100 65.25 71,775.00

2 20MM FLEIXIBLE PIPE MTS 550 53.22 29,272.94
3 75MM ENDCAPS PCS 8 187.00 1,496.00
4 75MM DRAINAGE PIPES MTS 850 337.50 286,875.00
7 110MM ELBOWS PCS 20 2,465.00 49,300.00
10 125MM PVC ELBOWS PCS 12 2,465.00 29,580.00
11 140MM X 125MM REDUCER BUSH PCS 10 1,020.00 10,200.00
13 140MM PVC ELBOWS PCS 5 700.00 3,500.00
TOTALS 1,081,553.94
Figure 58: D.6 BOQ for Drainage collection

Design of A Recirculating Hydroponics System For A Tomato Greenhouse (A Case Study of HM Clause Farm in Nanyuki, Kenya)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of A Recirculating Hydroponics System For A Tomato Greenhouse (A Case Study of HM Clause Farm in Nanyuki, Kenya)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

FEB 540: ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT

DESIGN OF A RECIRCULATING HYDROPONICS SYSTEM FOR A

CANDIDATE NAME: KAHEHU CHRISTINE WAIRIMU

A Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the

KAHEHU CHRISTINE WAIRIMU

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 i

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 ii

I would especially like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor at University of Nairobi,

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 iii

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 iv

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 v

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 viii

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 ix

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 x

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 xi

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 xii

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 1

Table 1: Hydroponic Production in various countries

2001 4,000 Rockwool Tomatoes

Canada 1987 100 Rockwool, Tomato, cucumber, lettuce

2001 1,574 Sawdust, NFT, Tomato, cucumber, capsicum

Germany 1996 650 Rockwool

New Zealand 1996 200 NTF, Pumice, Cut flowers, strawberry,

2001 660 Sawdust Tomato, capsicum, cucumber, lettuce,

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 2

1996 420 Sawdust & bark Flowers

Italy 1990 60 Roses, tomato, gerbera,

1999 400 Strawberry

USA 1984 228 Perlite, gravel, Tomato, cucumber, lettuce

1999 400 Sand, NTF

Finland 1996 370

Korea 1987 274 NFT, rockwool Tomato, cucumber, lettuce

1996 Perlite, NFT,

China 1987 5 Gravel bed Tomato, cucumber, lettuce, melon,

Brazil 1999 60 NFT Lettuce, arugula, water cress

Singapore 1996 30 Aeroponics,

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 3

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 4

1.2 Statement of the problem and problem analysis

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 5

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 6

Figure 1: Location of Nanyuki Kenya Source: Google images

Figure 2: Location of Nanyuki Kenya

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 7

Table 2: Climate data for Nanyuki

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 8

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 9

Figure 4: Aerial location of the 3ha farm. Source: Google Earth

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 10

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 11

1.6 Statement of Scope

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 12

2.1 Brief History of Hydroponics

2.2 Hydroponics Technology

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 13

2.3 Benefits of Hydroponics Systems

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 14

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 15

2.4.1 Closed Hydroponic Systems

UON, B.Sc. Engineering Design Project by: F21/1700/2010 16

2.4.2 Open Hydroponic Systems

2.5 Open versus closed hydroponics systems