Final Design Report

DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF DRIP AND MICRO SPRINKLER
IRRIGATION TEACHING AND DEMONSTRATION UNITS AT

UKULINGA RESEARCH FARM.
Amutenya HK (207505079)
Manyako KE (206509267)
Bioresources Engineering Design Project (ENAG4BD)
FINAL DESIGN REPORT
Hand in No: 7
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of BSc Agricultural Engineering
School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology

University of KwaZulu-Natal
Pietermaritzburg
10 October 2011
Declaration:
We hereby declare that all the work contained in this report is our own unless otherwise
indicated and we have not transgressed the University rules on cheating.
Signed: _______________Date: ___________

Signed: _______________Date: ___________
ABSTRACT
Some students have a limited background in irrigation systems and this has raised the need for
designing a drip and micro irrigation system for teaching and demonstration purposes. The
systems will demonstrate various aspects of irrigation to students so that they apply the
theoretical knowledge in relation to the practical knowledge of the irrigation systems. The
client requires the systems that will irrigate vegetable crops on an area of 0.54 ha.
The systems components namely, the (i) supply line, (ii) mainline, (iii) manifolds, (iv)
laterals/driplines with emitters, (v) a filter, and (vi) pressure reducing valve and other valves
for opening and closing the water system will be incorporated in the design. The mainline,
manifolds and laterals will be sized based on the flow rate and the pressure losses. One disk
filter will be used to filter the irrigation water because water quality is critical for drip
systems. Pressure reducing valves will control the pressure and the flow of the required water.
In the drip irrigation system, three sub-units will operate sequentially to allow time of repairs
and to optimise equipment use. The system will operate for 1h.day-1.sub-unit-1. A 2 l.h.-1
discharge emitters at an operating pressure of 10 m was selected. The allowable pressure
variation in any given sub-unit is 1.60 m. The flow rate in the laterals is 0.3 m3.h-1 while that
of the manifold and the mainline is 3 m3.h-1. The total dynamic head required is 11.66 m. Two
sub-units of the same size will run sequentially in the micro sprinkler irrigation system, to
allow time for repairs and demonstrating to students the irrigation aspects. Each sub-unit will
having a standing time of 6 h.day-1. Sprinklers discharging 128 l h-1 will be used in the sub-
units. The flow rate in a lateral is 0.64 m3.h-1 and the flow rate in the manifold is 6 m3.h-1.The
total dynamic head required is 23.18 m.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................ I
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. VI
1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PROJECT AIMS ...........................................................2
2.1 Problem Identification ................................................................................................2
2.2 Problem Analysis ........................................................................................................2
2.3 Client Needs and Design Criteria ...............................................................................2
2.4 Project Aims ...............................................................................................................3
3. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS ................................................4
3.1 Design Information and Specifications.......................................................................4
3.2 Evaluation of Relevant Literature ...............................................................................5
3.2.1 Drip irrigation systems .....................................................................................5
3.2.2 Micro sprinkler irrigation systems ...................................................................6
3.3 Required Design Skills ...............................................................................................6
3.3.1 Engineering knowledge ....................................................................................6
3.3.2 Engineering skills .............................................................................................7
3.3.3 Other knowledge and skills ..............................................................................7
4. SELECTION OF PREFERRED SOLUTIONS ..................................................................8
4.1 Different Solutions......................................................................................................8
4.2 Evaluation of Different Solutions ...............................................................................8
4.2.1 Advantages and disadvantages .........................................................................8
4.2.2 Operational health and safety (OHS) ...............................................................9
4.3 Preferred Solution .......................................................................................................9
4.4 Feasibility Study .......................................................................................................10
5. DESIGN APPROACH/METHODOLOGY .....................................................................12
5.1 Design Approach ......................................................................................................12
5.1.1 Data collection and analysis ...........................................................................12
5.1.2 Required tools and resources ..........................................................................12
5.2 Project Plan ...............................................................................................................13
6. THEORETICAL DESIGN ...............................................................................................14
6.1 Scientific Knowledge ................................................................................................14
ii
6.2 Synthesis and Analysis .............................................................................................14
6.3 Modelling and Optimisation .....................................................................................15
6.4 Design Tools .............................................................................................................15
6.5 Design Steps .............................................................................................................17
6.6 Design Factors Considered .......................................................................................18
6.7 Irrigation System Designs .........................................................................................18
6.7.1 Overall design for drip irrigation system (Helen) ..........................................18
6.7.2 Overall design for micro sprinkler irrigation system (Khutsang) ..................20
6.7.3 Bill of quantities .............................................................................................22
7. EVALUATION OF DESIGN ON SOCIETY ..................................................................23
7.1 Health and Safety Aspects ........................................................................................23
7.2 Environmental Issues ................................................................................................23
7.3 Legal Requirements ..................................................................................................23
8. CONSTRUCTION............................................................................................................24
8.1 Construction Steps ....................................................................................................24
8.1.1 Setting out.......................................................................................................24
8.1.2 Trenching and bedding ...................................................................................25
8.1.3 Grommets take off ..........................................................................................25
8.1.4 Pipe laying and jointing ..................................................................................26
8.1.5 The irrigation control assembly......................................................................27
8.1.6 Thrust blocks ..................................................................................................28
8.1.7 Automation .....................................................................................................29
8.2 Evaluation of Construction Process and Lessons Learned .......................................29
8.2.1 Evaluation of construction process.................................................................29
8.2.2 Lessons learned by the team ...........................................................................29
9. ASSESSMENT OF SOLUTION ......................................................................................31
9.1 Evaluation Methodology and Equipment .................................................................31
9.2 Results.......................................................................................................................32
9.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................33
9.3.1 Drip irrigation system .....................................................................................34
9.3.2 Micro sprinkler irrigation system ...................................................................34
9.4 Critical Evaluation of the Project..............................................................................34
9.4.1 Suggested changes to the project and theoretical analysis .............................35
iii
9.4.2 Construction / installation and testing ............................................................35
10. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................37
11. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................38
APPENDIX A1: DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS ..........................................................................40
APPENDIX A2: OTHER DESIGN FACTORS CONSIDERED ............................................43
APPENDIX B: ESTIMATED FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS OF DRIP AND
MICRO SPRINKLER IRRIGATION IN RANDS PER HECTARE...............................48
APPENDIX C: GROSS MARGIN FOR THE SELECTED CROPS 2009/2010
(ARCHER, 2009/2010) ....................................................................................................50
APPENDIX D1: THE WORK BREAK DOWN STRUCTURE (WBS) OF THE
PROJECT..........................................................................................................................55
APPENDIX E1: ETO FOR UKULINGA, COMPUTED FROM CROPWAT 8.0..................56
APPENDIX E2: CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR TOMATO GENERATED
FROM (CROPWAT 8) .....................................................................................................57
APPENDIX E3: MONTHLY CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE
CROPS GENERATED FROM EXCEL SPREADSHEET ..............................................58
APPENDIX F: SOIL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................61
APPENDIX G: IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY ...............................................................64
APPENDIX H: DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN CALCULATIONS ......................65
APPENDIX I: MICRO SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN
CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................................79
APPENDIX J1: THE GROUND COVER REDUCTUCTION FACTOR KELLER
AND BLIESNER (1990) ..................................................................................................93
APPENDIX J2: FIELD APPLICATION EFFICIENCY (FAO, 2002) ....................................94
APPENDIX J3: WETTED AREA VALUES ...........................................................................95
APPENDIX J4: DESIGN EMISSION UNIFORMITY (EU) (FAO, 2002) .............................96
APPENDIX K1: NETAMIM CATALOGUE FOR DRIP IRRIGATION DATA
(NETAFIM, 2004) ............................................................................................................97
APPENDIX K2: NETAFIM CATALOGUE FOR MICRO IRRIGATION DATA
(NETATIM, 2004) ............................................................................................................98
APPENDIX L1: POLYETHYLENE PIPES HEAD LOSSES CHART ..................................99
APPENDIX L2: FRICTION LOSS CHART FOR UPVC PIPES (FAO, 2002) ....................100
APPENDIX M1: FLOW RATE EQUATION (IDM, 2003B) ...............................................101
iv
APPENDIX M2: FRICTION REDUCING FACTOR ( IDM, 2003B) ..................................102
APPENDIX M3: SECONDARY PRESSUR LOSS FACTORS (IDM, 2003B) ...................103
APPENDIX N: BILL OF QUANTITY ..................................................................................104
APPENDIX O: FIELD LAYOUT DRAWING......................................................................107
APPENDIX P: TYPICAL LATERAL SPACINGS AND PERMISSIBLE LATEARL
LENGTH ........................................................................................................................108
APPENDIX T: METHOD OF EVALUATION .....................................................................108
APPENDIX T2 : STUDENT DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES ...................................121
APPENDIX T3: TRENCHING REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................133
APPENDIX T4: THRUST BLOCKS CALCULATIONS .....................................................136
APPENDIX U: AUTOMATION............................................................................................138
APPENDIX V: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR DRIP
IRRIGATION SYSTEM ................................................................................................142
APPENDIX W: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR MICRO
SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM..........................................................................145
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1 Summary of the design tools/resources required .................................................... 16

Table T3a Data form for recording emitter discharge rates in the field for calculating
field emitter flow variation. ................................................................................ 110
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 6.7 The layout for both drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems…………………23
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
The scarcity of water resources in South Africa has raised the need for irrigated agriculture
(Simpson and Reinders, 1999). The development of drip (surface) and micro sprinkler
irrigation systems has become quite common in recent years because of their water use
efficiency (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). The basic principle of drip and micro sprinkler
systems is to discharge water directly to the root zone of plants through a pressurised pipe
system in order to meet crop water requirements. Drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems
are different from other irrigation methods, the standard values used in planning the volume
of water to be applied, time and duration of application must be modified to suit these
methods. Specific guidelines and installation requirements have been developed, resulting in
improved system performances (Freddie et al., 2007).
Drip and micro sprinkler systems are considered as the most efficient irrigation methods with
an application efficiency of approximately 80 - 95%, as only a limited portion of the soil
profile is wetted (IDM, 2003e). Keller and Bliesner (1990) have shown that these systems can
also be inefficient as a result of water quality, mismanagement and maintenance problems.
Basic components of drip and micro sprinkler systems can include a pump, filters, pipes,
emission devices (emitters and sprayers) and devices for controlling the volume of water and
pressure in the system (Isaya, 2001).
Approximately 90% of the students who undertake irrigation courses at the University of
KwaZulu-Natal come from non-farming backgrounds and this makes it difficult for the
students to visualise and conceptualise how irrigation systems work. Drip and micro sprinkler
teaching and demonstration units need to be developed to help students learn various
concepts of working irrigation systems. The two irrigation systems should be able to
demonstrate to students: (i) how system pressure variation affects emitter discharge, (ii) the
effect of emitter discharge on water distribution uniformity, (iii) the effect of using large or
small diameter and short or long pipes on friction losses and, (iv) the effect of running all the
manifolds simultaneously than designed for. The objective of the design is to achieve the
above mentioned aspects of the irrigation systems.
1
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND PROJECT AIMS
This section discusses problem identification, problem analysis, client needs and design
criteria, as well as project aims.
2.1 Problem Identification
In South Africa, drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems play an important role in areas
where water quality and availability is of major concern (van der Stoep, 2001). Poor designs
of drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems have a significant effect on the field to be
irrigated if optimal crop production and water management is to be attained (Freddie et al.,
2007).
2.2 Problem Analysis
Currently, students taking Irrigation Engineering (ENAG3EI) module visit outside farms
during practical sessions to see how irrigation systems work. The client (Dr. Senzanje) has
therefore realized a need for developing irrigation teaching and demonstration units at the
Ukulinga Research Farm. The irrigation systems will allow students to gain practical
knowledge in irrigation systems.
2.3 Client Needs and Design Criteria
The design criteria delineated by the client for designing drip and micro sprinkler systems are
as follows:
• the design should have components (e.g pressure regulators) that show the effects of
pressure variation on the systems,
• the design should demonstrate the effects of operating many sub-units at a time than
designed for on the systems performance,
• the systems should demonstrate the effects of using long or short laterals/driplines
and smaller or larger diameter pipes than designed for on the permissible friction
losses, and
2
• the design should be able to demonstrate the effect of emitters discharge on water
distribution uniformity.
Having considered all these aspects in the design, this will help students to appreciate, relate
and apply the theory and practical knowledge when designing irrigation systems.
2.4 Project Aims
The specific objectives of the project are:
• to design, install and evaluate drip and micro sprinkler systems for teaching and
demonstration purposes,
• to have the two irrigation systems designed such that they add more value to
Irrigation Engineering Module (ENAG3EI),
• to design the systems that will demonstrate different irrigation related aspects taught
in lectures (such as the effect of pressure variation, emitter discharge, pipe length and
sizes on the system performance),
• to design the systems that will help students to relate theory to practical knowledge
which is gained during practical sessions, and
• to design drip and micro sprinkler systems that comply with the South African
Irrigation Institute (SAII) design norms.
3
3. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS
This section discusses design standards and specifications considered in the design to ensure
that proper guidelines and regulations are established as per South African standards.
3.1 Design Information and Specifications
Drip and micro sprinkler systems will be designed and installed to meet the following South
African Irrigation Institute (SAII) design norms and standards as summarized in ENAG3EI
class notes (2010/2011).
• the head losses in the laterals due to friction loss should not exceed 20% of the design
operating pressure of the sprinklers,
• the emission uniformity (EU) value of greater than 90% in the sub-units should be
maintained by ensuring that the head loss and elevation difference within each sub-
unit does not exceed the allowable variation pressure head (∆Hs),
• systems should operate less than 144 irrigation hours per week,
• lateral length should be less than 300 m,
• the total pressure loss over the disk filters should not exceed 10 kPa,
• the permissible flow velocity in all lines should not exceed 2 m.s-1 to avoid water
hammer,
• drip lines should have zero tolerance to emitter clogging, and
• there should be no air entrapment within the pipelines to minimise water hammer
problems.
The following is a list of codes of practice which will be included in this design:
• SABS 966 of 1976 (uPVC pipes)

• SABS ISO 4427 of 1996 high density polyethylene pipes(HDPE)
• SABS 664 standards ( valves)
• SABS 664 specifications (pressure reducing valves)
• SANS 1200 (correct installation procedures)
4
3.2 Evaluation of Relevant Literature
The literature review discusses the design factors of drip and micro sprinkler irrigation
systems, together with the potential advantages and disadvantages associated with each
system. System components will also be considered in the design.
3.2.1 Drip irrigation systems
Drip irrigation systems involves discharging water into the root zones at very low flow rates
of 2 - 8 l.h-1 from a system of small diameter pipes fitted with emitters (IDM, 2003d). The
general aim of designing a drip system is to distribute irrigation water uniformly and
efficiently in order to maintain an optimum crop root zone water balance. The main factors
that should be considered when designing drip irrigation systems are: (i) peak crop water
requirements, area of fields to be irrigated, (ii) availability of irrigation water and power, (iii)
irrigation water quality, (iv) soil characteristics and (v) topography (Koegelenberg et al.,
2002).
The advantages associated with drip irrigation systems are potential energy and water saving
in areas where water is scarce (Young, 1976). If designed effectively, the system can achieve
an application efficiency of 90 - 95% (IDM, 2003f). Drip irrigation systems operate well
under low pressure (34 - 200 kPa) with an emission uniformity value of 90% and require less
energy. Drip irrigation systems can be fully automated. The disadvantages associated with
drip irrigation systems are namely: the initial high capital cost compared to other irrigation
methods, salinity, and emitter clogging problems due to sensitivity of emitters (Freddie et al.,
2007). Root diseases are more prevalent because of the root zone being almost permanently
wet. The system components include a pump, uPVC (40 - 250 mm inside diameter) and
polyethylene (10 - 35 mm diameters) pipes, pressure control devices, filters and emission
devices.
5
3.2.2 Micro sprinkler irrigation systems
Micro sprinkler irrigation systems use small sprayers to distribute water into the air which
then fall on the soil surface. Water is discharged through a small opening (0.55 - 2.2 mm in
diameter) and spread by a fixed or rotating distributor connected to the laterals through
support stand, called an assembly stake (IDM, 2003e and Freddie et al., 2007). An
application efficiency of 80 - 90% can be achieved (IDM, 2003d). Micro sprinkler systems
have the same disadvantages as drip irrigation systems except that this method is susceptible
to wind drift, which can have an effect on water distribution efficiency. In addition, the effect
of wind can increase evaporation losses. The factors and system components to be considered
when designing micro sprinkler irrigation systems are the same as for drip irrigation systems.
The literature survey included the design of drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems.
Factors including crop water requirements, topographic survey, water availability, irrigation
water quality and soils properties will all be considered in the design process. Systems
components such as uPVC and polyethylene pipes, filters, pressure reducing valve and
emitters/sprinklers will be the best solution to consider during the system designs.
3.3 Required Design Skills
This section provides the skills required in the design process of drip and micro sprinkler
irrigation systems as outlined below
3.3.1 Engineering knowledge
Engineering knowledge applied to the drip and micro sprinkler design project incorporates
the application of scientific and mathematical knowledge in order to find or generate relevant
variables and input parameters that will meet the design criteria, as well as the client`s needs.
Engineering knowledge of irrigation engineering is required to calculate the crop water
requirements. Fluid mechanics has also been implemented in the design as part of the
hydraulic design to determine the pipes sizes required as well as to calculate the frictional
losses and hydraulic energy grade lines. Knowledge acquired from surveying was required to
carry out the land topographic survey.
6
3.3.2 Engineering skills
Knowledge of models such as CROPWAT 8.0 is required as a possible modelling tool for
calculating crop water requirements and determining an irrigation schedule. Skills on
AutoCad and Autodisk Inventor software are required for the presentation of the field layout
drawings with detailed solutions. Time management skills are required to accomplish the
project on time. Communication skills, including reports writing and oral presentations, are
required to understand the overall design of the two systems by other people.
3.3.3 Other knowledge and skills
Other knowledge required include the data collection and processing, types of crops to be
grown in terms of their climatic requirements, analysis of soil properties, irrigation water
quality and energy requirements. Skills needed to solve this problem are the ability to
evaluate and the system performance with respect to the design factors considered in the
design process.
7
4. SELECTION OF PREFERRED SOLUTIONS
Drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems consist of different components. This section
summarizes different solutions considered for the drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems.
The preferred solutions will be selected to meet the client’s needs and design criteria.
4.1 Different Solutions
Different solutions address the types of components that apply for drip and micro sprinkler
irrigation systems, as discussed in APPENDIX A1. These components were compared
according to their advantages and disadvantages.
4.2 Evaluation of Different Solutions
Different solutions were evaluated as outlined below. Operational health safety (OHS) issues
are also provided in this section.
4.2.1 Advantages and disadvantages
Emitters: Orifice and vortex control emitters do not compensate for pressure losses, this
implies that they can demonstrate the effect of pressure variation on water distribution
uniformity and system’s performance. In contrast, pressure compensating emitters have no
effect on pressure and flow rate. Parameters such as pressure and flow rate can be varied to
demonstrate the effects of pressure on water distribution and emission uniformity.
Valves: Gate, ball and butterfly valves are the typical valves which are used in Agriculture.
Gate valve is used commonly in irrigation systems. It opens or closes slowly, eliminating the
formation of a water hammer. Ball and butterfly valves have opposite effects, they open
quickly, possibly causing water hammer and pipe damages. For demonstration purposes,
either ball or butterfly valves will work.
Pipes: Polyethylene pipes are flexible, making it easier for pipe coupling (pipe lengthening)
in order to show the effects of increasing the pipe length. The increase in pipe length results
8
in pressure drop, which in turn affects the flow rates and water distribution. PVC pipes are
hard, hence they may not be a good solution.
Filters: Filters are dependent on the type of irrigation system to be used. Drip irrigation
systems are more sensitive to emitter clogging than micro sprinkler irrigation system. Filters
considered were disc, screen (mesh) and sand filters. Disc filters have high filtering action,
which makes them to have high filter capacity. Screen filters are not back-washable, therefore
they are not recommended for drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems (IDM, 2003f).
Sand filters exhibit higher filtering action than the other filter types because of their large
medium area and three-dimensional filtering action. In drip irrigation systems, sand filters
fitted with secondary filters such as disc filters are recommended. In micro sprinkler
irrigation systems, the use of disc filters is satisfactory.
4.2.2 Operational health and safety (OHS)
The health and safety issues were considered in order to provide protection of health to
anyone installing and operating the irrigation equipment. The systems should be designed
such that during the operation, the operator does not get injured due to faulty system
components. During the installation phase protective clothing should be worn to minimize the
risk of health associated with the field conditions. Operational tests should be carried out in
accordance to system specifications, technical manuals, environmental and OHS
requirements for irrigation systems. It is required that, troubleshooting be checked and
identified within the system.
4.3 Preferred Solution
The preferred solutions are mostly focused on the best solution that will address the client’s
needs and the project’s objectives. The preferred solutions were selected from the different
solutions. For more detailed information on alternative solutions, refer to APPENDIX A1.
The selected components that are considered the best are orifice control, polyethylene pipes,
ball and gate valves and disc filters.
9
Orifice control emitters have low emitter clogging problems due to turbulent flow and high
flow velocities. In addition, the effects of pressure variation can be observed. It implies that
some aspects of engineering such as emission uniformity, water distribution pattern and how
the wetted diameter varies with pressure.
Polyethylene pipes are light, making it easier to handle during demonstration sessions. They
can also be joined easily to increase the pipe length. The longer the pipe the more the
frictional losses are, within the pipe. Design specifications require that laterals should be less
than 300 m long. Changing the diameter of the pipe can also have an effect on the flow rate
and pressure.
For this project, butterfly and ball valves will be the preferred solution. Gate valves will not
be used in the system because they do not cause water hammer problems. In order to serve
the purpose of this project, butterfly and ball valves will be installed, specifically for
demonstrating water hammer effects.
Sand filters are already installed at Ukulinga farm from the main supply line, therefore only
disc filters will be required for the two irrigation systems. Disc filters are adequate for micro
sprinkler irrigation systems. In drip irrigation system, disc filters are treated as secondary
filters. They are able to trap fine particles. The criterion of selecting disc filters was based on
drip irrigation system because emitters are more sensitive to clogging than in micro sprinkler
irrigation systems.
4.4 Feasibility Study
The feasibility study outlines the cost analysis and benefits of the project by looking at the
two irrigation systems as well as the crops to be irrigated. The project is not aiming to make
profit but to break-even. With the irrigation systems the analysis is based on the costs
incurred in capital development, running and management costs. With the crops, the cost
analysis looks at the production, water requirement, labour requirements as well as the
expected yield.
10
With reference to the Netafim South Africa (2009), on average drip and micro sprinkler
irrigation systems on a 1 ha area has an initial investment cost approximately R10 738.00 to
R11 538.00. The proposed field to be irrigated is 5400 m2 i.e. 90 m (length) by 60 m (width).
The field will be partitioned in to two equal areas (2700 m2 for drip irrigation system and the
other half for micro sprinkler irrigation system). The cost estimations for drip and micro
sprinkler system on a 0.27 ha is about R 2899. 26 and R 3115.26 respectively. The estimated
component costs (installation included) for drip system on a 0.27 ha is R1301.13 while for
micro sprinkler is R 1396.71. See Table B2 in APPENDIX B.
The production costs of the selected crops were estimated from COMBUD crop budgets
2009/2010 for KwaZulu-Natal (Archer, 2009/2010). The estimated input costs of tomato
production on a 0.27 ha area is R 35 161.82, green peas is R 4829.08, onions and green beans
is R 9240.84 and R 7091.64, respectively. The gross income per 0.27 ha is estimated to be R
50 895 (tomatoes), R13 770 (green peas), R 15 525 (onions) and R 10 935 (green beans). The
gross margin per 0.27 ha were estimated to be R 15 733.18 (tomatoes), R 8940.92 (green
peas), R 6284. 16 (onions) and R 3843. 36 for green peas. See APPENDIX C for detailed
figures. The two irrigation systems are estimated to last for at least 10 years.
11
5. DESIGN APPROACH/METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the methodology that the project will follow. The approach to the
project considers the engineering skills that are required. Design tools required will also be
addressed in the section. The project plan which includes the work break down structure and
the summary of the Gantt chart will be presented in this section as part of the approach to the
project.
5.1 Design Approach
The way the project will be approached is as follows.
5.1.1 Data collection and analysis
The following factors that will be considered in the design are provided below:
• climate,
• soil,
• topographic survey,
• water quantity and quality,
• crops,
• energy availability,
• labour availability, and
• environmental and socio- economic issues.
5.1.2 Required tools and resources
Modelling skills are required to calculate the crop and irrigation water requirements. The
CROPWAT 8.0, SAPWAT models and Excel are the design tools required for the calculation
of crop and irrigation water requirements. Irrigation engineering and fluid mechanics skills
are required in order to determine the total dynamic head (TDH) and system capacity. The
skill from the above mentioned modules will also be needed when sizing and selecting
different system’s components.
12
5.2 Project Plan
The project includes the work break structure (WBS) and the Gantt chart. Refer to
APPENDIX D1 and D2.
13
6. THEORETICAL DESIGN
This section provides the scientific knowledge used in the design processes. Analysis,
synthesis, modelling and optimisation and design tools required are also incorporated in this
section. This section further discusses the design steps followed in the overall design process.
Components design, bill of quantity and detailed drawings are also incorporated.
6.1 Scientific Knowledge
Field experiments were conducted in order to collect the required information to start the
project, the science role has been used in the determination of physical soil properties that are
required for the calculation of crop water requirements. The infiltration rate, water holding
capacity, soil depth, water quality, soil salinity and particle size distribution were determined
by using relevant methods. Soil and water analysis was conducted in the Hydrology and
Chemistry lab at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. The results were analysed scientifically.
The planning, laying out of the irrigation system, technical drawing, decision for the most
optimum pipe configuration and selection of appropriate design components formed part of
engineering knowledge. The design was guided by certain design criteria and constraints. The
guidelines from the SABI design norms have been applied extensively to achieve a feasible
design.
6.2 Synthesis and Analysis
The design of micro irrigation systems involves the integration of many components, tools
and information required for a well designed irrigation system. Drip and micro sprinkler
irrigation systems are designed to achieve high efficiency. A careful plan to achieve this,
involves the collection of data through field experiments such as climatic data collection, soil
survey, topographic survey, water quality test, soil salinity test, health and environmental
study.
14
6.3 Modelling and Optimisation
Modelling and optimisation are very important in solving engineering problems, for this
reason most of the calculations for crop water requirements were performed using various
modelling tools such as CROPWAT 8, SAPWAT and Excel. For this project modelling will
be limited only to the crop water requirement calculations and irrigation scheduling.
Modelling will help with the optimisation of input variables to the irrigation systems. The
models will be used in the design for comparison purposes and decisions can then be made
based on the results.
Mathematical tool (Excel) was used to calculate of crop water requirement for single crop.
This method use involve single crop coefficient which is a combination of the effects of
average soil water and crop evaporation. The approach is suitable for surface or sprinkler
irrigation systems where the irrigation frequency is several days or more (Richard et al.,
2000). This approach can be used where dual crop coefficients are not available. The
CROPWAT 8 model uses a dual crop coefficient; this approach counts for real time irrigation
scheduling, water quality, research and modelling where accurate estimates of evaporation
are required. Dual crop coefficients are more suitable for high frequency interval irrigation,
thus this option is appropriate for micro sprinkler and drip irrigation system since they all
require high frequency of irrigation. The seasonal water requirements calculated from the two
approaches will be compared (refer to APPENDIX E3).
6.4 Design Tools
The project requires certain tools that would be of important use in the development of the
two irrigation systems. Design tools were evaluated in order to solve the problem at hand.
15
Table 6.1 Summary of the design tools/resources required
Required resources Sources of information
Information about the area: School of
• Climate data BioresourcesEngineering
• Water source and Environmental
• Field maps Hydrology
Surveying Consultants
Topographic survey: (Howard College)
• GPS Trimble 8
• Measuring tape
Soil survey and water analysis School of Bioresources
• Soil: Double ring infiltrometer Engineering and
• Laboratory for soil analysis Environmental
• Water: Laboratory for water Hydrology
quality analysis
Field Layout Drawing AUTOCAD software
The resources/tools given in the table above would be required in the design process of the
project in order to meet the project aims and client`s requirements.
16
6.5 Design Steps
The design process of drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems involve various steps. The
flow chart below describes the steps followed in the design. Source (Andreas and Karen,
2001).
Basic Farm Data
Water quality and Energy Labour Env. and socio-
quantity availability requirements economic issues
Design Factors
Climate Soil Crop Systems
Infiltration AWHC Soil depth Root depth Depletion Kc

Rainfall Systems
Eo
rate (MAD) efficiency
& ETo
Available Effective root Readily available

Effective
water depth water (RAW)
rainfall (Pe)
Net irrigation water Gross irrigation

requirements (NIR) requirements (GIR)
Gross application
Final Design Steps Cycle length (tc)
rate(GAR)
Hydraulic design of systems

components
Emitters & sprinklers Pipe sizing

Filters, water meter &
selection
valves sizing
Total dynamic head
Systems field layout
Systems capacity
drawing
Fig 6.5. Flow diagram of the general steps in the design process Bill of quantity
17 System costs
Operation instructions
6.6 Design Factors Considered
This section provides a brief summary of the factors considered in the design. These factors
include climate, soil, crops, water and energy availability, environmental and socio-economic
issues, and labour requirements. For detailed discussion of each factor refer to APPENDIX
A2.
6.7 Irrigation System Designs
This section involves a brief description of the drip and micro sprinkler irrigation system
designs. Detailed calculations for drip irrigation system are provided in APPENDIX H and
for micro sprinkler system in APPENDIX I. Each decision was made in accordance to the
SABI norms, resources available and the client’s requirements.
6.7.1 Overall design for drip irrigation system (Helen)
This section includes both the preliminary and hydraulic design.
Preliminary design
The drip irrigation system was designed based on the crop (tomatoes) with the peak crop
water requirements. The crop water requirement for tomatoes was calculated to be 5.47
mm.day-1(refer to APPENDIX H). The gross irrigation requirement was calculated to be 2.99
mm.day-1 (see APPENDIX H). An emitter of 2l.h-1 discharge was selected from the Netafim
catalogue in APPENDIX K1, because there is no standard size of 1.08.h-1 discharge emitters
as was theoretically calculated. The emitter operating pressure required to give a discharge
equal to average discharge (qa) for the selected design emission uniformity (EU) of 92 % as
a design criterion (Keller and Bliesner, 1990) was calculated to be 10 m (refer to APPENDIX
H for detailed calculations).
Hydraulic design
18
Figure 6.7 The layout for both drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems
Note: Drip irrigation system is on the left hand side half of the field and micro sprinkler
irrigation system is on the right hand side.
Driplines sizing: Driplines are the smallest diameter pipelines of the system. They are fitted
to the manifolds, perpendicular to them as shown in Figure 6.7 on the left hand side. The
driplines are 60 m long and spaced at 1.5 m between rows. The flow rate in each dripline is
calculated as 0.3 m3.h-1 (see APPENDIX H). The diameter of the dripline is 16 mm diameter,
polyethylene class 4 pipes. The actual head losses (Hl) in the dripline is 0.99 m (refer to
APPENDIX H for calculations done).
Manifolds (feeder lines) sizing: There are three manifolds, each is 15 m long. They are laid
up along the main slope refer to Figure 6.7. The flow rate in each manifold is calculated to be
3 m3.h-1 (refer to APPENDIX H). The diameter of each manifold is 40 mm, polyethylene
(low density pipe) class 3 pipes. The head loss (Hl) in the manifold plus secondary losses due
to fittings is calculated to be 0.26 m (refer to APPENDIX H for detailed calculations).
19
Mainline sizing: The mainline connected to the three manifolds is 30 m long. The total flow
rate is calculated as 3 m3.h-1 (as in APPENDIX H). This is equal to the flow rate in the
manifold because the design is aiming to irrigate each hydraulic unit sequentially. The size of
the mainline is 63 mm, uPVC class 9. The head loss (Hl) in the mainline plus secondary
losses due to fittings was calculated to be 0.11 m (see APPENDIX H).
6.7.2 Overall design for micro sprinkler irrigation system (Khutsang)
Preliminary design
The design will be based on tomato since it has the highest crop water requirements of 5.82
mm.day-1 (see APPENDIX E2). The net irrigation requirements and gross irrigation
requirements per cycle were estimated to be 5.47 mm.day-1 and 19.4 mm (refer to
APPENDIX I). The theoretical emitter discharge is estimated to be 116.4 l.h-1 (refer to
APPENDIX I). The emitter selected has a flow rate of 128 l.h-1 and an operating pressure of
20 m or 2.0 bars (refer to Netafim Catalogue, APPENDIX K2). The selected emitter will
apply a net application rate of 3 mm.h-1(see APPENDIX I). This value is acceptable since it is
recommended that a minimum application rate of 3 mm.h-1 must be applied by an emitter
(IDM, 2003c).
Hydraulic design
Laterals sizing: The layout of micro sprinkler irrigation system is shown in Figure 6.7 on the
right hand side. Manifolds and laterals are 45 and 30 m long, respectively. Each manifold has
8 outlets and each one has 5 emitters. Emitters and laterals are spaced 6 x 6 m. The flow rate
in each lateral is 0.64 m3.h-1(see APPENDIX I). The 20 mm diameter, smooth class 4
polyethylene pipes are used for the laterals. The total head loss within the lateral is 1.34 m
(see APPENDIX I).
20
Manifolds sizing: Each manifold carries a flow rate of 5.12 m3.h-1 (see APPENDIX I). The
two manifolds will operate sequentially, therefore the total system capacity is 5.12 m3.h-1. All
the manifolds are made of polyethylene (LD) class 3 pipes, 40 mm diameter. The head loss
within the manifold is estimated to be 0.82 m (see APPENDIX I).
Allowable pressure variation (∆Hs): Andreas and Karen (2002) suggests that for emitters
with exponent x = 0.5, the allowable pressure variation should be 20% of the emitter
operating pressure. The combined head losses within the manifold and lateral are 2.16 m.
These head losses are less than the ∆Hs, this limits the flow variability among emitters to
10% (refer to APPENDIX I for detailed calculations).
Main line sizing: The mainline is 78 m long. The pipe is uPVC class 9, with a diameter of 63
mm. The head losses within the mainline were calculated to be 0.67 m (refer to APPENDIX
I).
Pressure reducing valve and filter sizing (Helen and Khutsang)
Pressure reducing valve (PRV) selection: A 50 mm PRV with Code 14033065 was selected
from the AGRICO product catalogue (refer to APPENDIX Q2). Other valves include
butterfly (main valve) and ball valves in drip irrigation system that simply open and shut off
the flow. The micro sprinkler irrigation system will be operated with automated valves.
Filter sizing: In terms of filtration requirements, drip irrigation system is the most
disadvantaged one (IDM, 2003f). Hence, the filter selection is based on the drip irrigation
system. The filter selection is based on the criterion that states that filtration must remove all
particles larger than 1/10 of the diameter of the emitter passageway (Keller and Bliesner,
2000). This method is safer than the design criterion that states that the fineness of disk filters
should be smaller than 1/5 of the discharge orifice of the emitters in the system (IDM, 2003f).
The selected filter is 115 micron disk filter, Code 14540050 (see APPENDIX Q1).
Operation and management: The total operating time allowed for micro irrigation is 22
hours. The two irrigation systems will be allowed a total time of 15 hours per day which is
21
below 22 hours. The two irrigation systems operate on different working pressures. A flow
rate of 5.12 m3 and 2.3 bars is required when the micro sprinkler irrigation system is in
operation. The pressure will have to be readjusted to approximately 1 bar when drip irrigation
system is in operation since it not designed to withstand a pressure of 2.3 bars.
6.7.3 Bill of quantities
The bill of quantity which reflects the cost of each material required in the system is
presented in APPENDIX N.
22
7. EVALUATION OF DESIGN ON SOCIETY
The project aims to design the systems that will teach and demonstrate irrigation aspects to
students. The design will be evaluated based on the, health, safety and environmental issues
that are associated with the design.
7.1 Health and Safety Aspects
The health and safety issues were evaluated in the design in order to provide protection of
health of the persons who will install and operate the irrigation equipment. The systems
should be designed such that during the demonstration session, students does not get injured
due to faulty system components and other the risk of health associated that might be
associated with the field conditions. Operational procedures for the two irrigation systems
should be carried out in accordance to system specifications, technical manuals,
environmental and OHS requirements for irrigation systems. Regular maintenance of the
systems is required promote the safety use of the irrigation equipment.
7.2 Environmental Issues
Environmental issues associated with the design were taken into consideration. The design
will be evaluated based on the possible environmental impact which would result from the
development of the irrigation systems. Possible impact might be water logging, salinity, soil
erosion and water related diseases.
7.3 Legal Requirements
Legal considerations of this project are proper guidance and teaching of students on how the
systems operate, and also for health and safety reasons. The design involves the correct
procedures regarding the usage of water for irrigation purposes.
23
8. CONSTRUCTION
The following section includes the steps followed during construction/evaluation and
evaluation of construction process.
8.1 Construction Steps
The following section includes all the construction process that was followed during the
design process
8.1.1 Setting out
According to the FAO (2001), setting out is the process of transferring the design layout and
elevations from the design map to the ground. Survey equipment (the theodolite) was used in
the field in order to establish the exact positions of the irrigation system pipelines. Wooden
pegs were placed in the field where the pipelines (supply line, mainline and manifolds) would
run along in the field layout. This was also done to make it easier for the ripping operator to
follow the trench line. Figure 8.1 shows the field with the pegs positioned accordingly.
Figure 8.1 Setting out
24
8.1.2 Trenching and bedding
The trenching started with 15 cm depth of ripping for manifolds and followed by 500 mm
depth for the 63 mm uPVC pipe (mainline), and 700 mm depth for the 90 mm uPVC pipe
(supply line). In accordance to the standard ASAE EP340.2, the width of the trenching must
be 0.3 m wider than the pipe diameter, however the trenching equipment which was available
at Duzi plant hire could only use a 600 mm bucket. This has been advantageous because the
working area for laying and jointing the pipes has increased. The total length of the trench
was 120 m. Figure 8.2 shows the excavator which was used for trenching.
Mainline trench
600 mm (W) x 500 mm (D)
Figure 8.2 Trenching
The volume of soil required to be excavated is 25.5 m3, Refer to APPENDIX T3 for detailed
calculations of the volume of soil required to be excavated. For this project, the soil
excavated from the field was used as bedding material after a test showed that the soil is
suitable for bedding. The suitability of the soil for bedding was tested in accordance with
SABS 1200. The bedding material required is 5 m3.
8.1.3 Grommets take off
The grommets take off are the component devices that connect the laterals/driplines to the
manifolds. The length of the grommet take off was established to be 10 cm and it is
connected to the 90 degrees insert elbow which connects directly to the lateral or dripline.
25
The manifolds (40 mm diameter) are laid in a 15 cm trench in such a way that the laterals or
driplines lie flat on the ground after installation. Figure 8.4 shows the sequencing of the
distribution component 1, 2 and 3, number 3 is the end component (micro sprinkler or
dripper) which eventually provides water at a desired application rate.
1 3
Figure 8.4 Distribution network for micro sprinkler irrigation system
8.1.4 Pipe laying and jointing
Both the 90 mm and 63 mm uPVC pipes were laid above the 10 cm bedding before
backfilling. Figure 8.5 shows the 63 and 90 mm pipe. All the joints (elbows, reducers, and T-
piece) were solvent weld which made the connections stronger.
26
90 mm supply line 110 mm T-piece 110/90 mm reducer
90 mm elbow
Figure 8.5 Joints
8.1.5 The irrigation control assembly
This comprises of the Anjet disc filter (115 microns), 50 mm flanged butterfly valve, Bermad
pressure regulator (flanged), and water meter (flanged). The following photograph shows the
assembly after installation.
Pilot
Butterfly valve
Water meter
Disc filter Pressure regulator
Figure 8.6 Irrigation control assembly

27
8.1.6 Thrust blocks
Thrust blocks are mainly designed to transmit the loads imposed on them by the pipeline to
the adjacent soil. The required volume of ready concrete mix was determined to be 0.1 m3,
this means that 5 bags of 25 kg mixed concrete were used for thrust blocks. During the
installation process thrust blocks were placed at changes in direction of pipes such as 63 mm
elbows as well as at the 63 mm and 90 mm end caps. The thrust forces and the size of the
thrust blocks were calculated depending on the pipe size and load bearing capacity of the soil
as well the pressure that the pipeline will be subjected to. The concrete thrust block was cured
for 7 days because this was the time it would have reached its compressive strength of 21
MPa. The compressive strength of 21 MPa (2/3 of its maximum strength) is considered
adequate since the maximum pressure that the pipes will be subjected to, is 0.8 MPa. Figure
8.7 shows the thrust block installed at the 63 mm diameter elbow of the mainline.
90 degree elbow
63 mm mainline
Thrust block
Figure 8.7 Thrust block
Refer to APPENDIX T4 for detailed calculations of the resultant forces and the area that the
concrete thrust block must bear against undisturbed soil.
28
8.1.7 Automation
The whole irrigation system consists of 5 valves, two for the micro sprinkler irrigation system
and two for the drip irrigation system. The system is designed such that micro sprinkler
irrigation system valves operate automatically and the drip irrigation system operates
manually. The automated system (micro) consists of two control stations, each one comprises
of a Gulf solenoid valve, Smart Valve Controller (SVC-100). The two controllers were
offered by Mr Kunz, therefore only the two solenoid valves and one rain sensor have to be
bought. Refer to APPENDIX U for more detailed explanation on how automation works.
8.2 Evaluation of Construction Process and Lessons Learned
The following section discusses the evaluation of construction process and the lessons
learned by the team.
8.2.1 Evaluation of construction process
During the installation process all the irrigation components were sized and installed, except
for the thrust blocks which were constructed. This section will only give a detailed discussion
on the evaluation of the thrust blocks construction.
The concrete used was a mixture of cement, sand (fine aggregates) and stones. The water to
cement ratio in a concrete mix was kept at 0.45. This means that for every 1kg of cement mix
0.45 kg of water was used, this ratio is desirable for normal exposure conditions. The
maximum compressive strength that can be reached with this ratio is 32 MPa in 28 days
(Johnson, 2006). The curing of the thrust blocks was 7 days, this is adequate because the
compressive strength of 21MPa would have been reached. The strength of 21 MPa will be
sufficient to withstand thrust forces because the maximum pressure expected in the system is
0.8 MPa. Refer to Figure 8.7 for the thrust block which was constructed.
8.2.2 Lessons learned by the team
29
Lesson 1: The more one get hands on work, the more one gets exposed to real problems
which require engineering knowledge and skills.
Lesson 2: Having interest in what we do add more creativity.
Lesson 3: Undermining our potential can be misleading, we actually have more potential than
what we thought.
Lesson 4: Leading the project equips us with more responsibility hence, the strength to
generate solutions.
Lesson 5: As the project progresses, more problems arise, therefore we should always be
prepared for those unanticipated problems.
Lesson 6: Effective communication brings quick solutions, no delays of activities.
Lesson 7: If we had to start a similar project, there would be more improvement than what the
client required.
Lesson 8: As the time of finishing the project approaches, more interesting ideas develop, but
they require time to be exercised.
Lesson 9: Team work works better, working alone is not a good thing at all because there is
no one to critique your proposed ideas, so a person working alone is likely to think that a
wrong decision is the right one.
Lesson 10: The more you get closer to problems, the more you understand them and the more
they become easier to solve.
The Illinois students
The Illinois students (Mathew and Julie) were allocated three tasks to work on, constructing a
support stand, design experimental procedures for student demonstration and researching on
possible methods for simulating sprinkler profiles. Refer to APPENDIX T1 for the attached
experimental procedures to be followed during the demonstration sessions. The support stand
has been constructed successfully. The complete sprinkler profile spreadsheet is to be sent
after completion.
30
9. ASSESSMENT OF SOLUTION
This section summarizes the assessment of the solution based on the evaluation methodology.
Results discussion and critical evaluation of the project.
9.1 Evaluation Methodology and Equipment
The performance evaluation of the drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems was based on
the following performance parameters.
• Absolute emission uniformity (EU’a),
• Application efficiency (AE),
• Christiansen uniformity coefficient (CU),
• Distribution uniformity (DU),
• Emitters flow variation (qevar),
• Statistical emission uniformity (EU’), and
• Statistical uniformity coefficient (Us).
The above mentioned parameters were used to determine the system efficiency. APPENDIX
T includes both the methodology and equipment used for performing the test that was carried
out at Ukulinga Research Farm.
31
9.2 Results
Table 9.2a Drip irrigation system

Performance parameters Manifold 1 Manifold 2 Manifold 3
Statistical Emission Uniformity 95.5 97.7 96.7
Absolute Emission Uniformity 95.1 94.9 95.8
Statistical Uniformity coefficient 96.3 95.2 97.3
Emitter flow variation 9.8 17.9 8.8
Table 9.2b Micro sprinkler irrigation system

Performance parameters (%) Test block 1 Test Block 2 Test Block 3 Design
criteria (%)
Christiansen Uniformity Coefficient 97.7 89 89.3 >70
Distribution Uniformity coefficient 94.9 81.2 81.6 >75
Application Efficiency 74.2 84.9 78.2 >85
Depth caught distribution

12
Rain gauge reading (mm)
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Raingauge No (highest depth to lowest depth caught)
Figure 9.1 Test block 1
32
10

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Rain gauge No (highest depth to lowest depth caught)
10
Raingauge reading (mm)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
9.3 Discussion
This section summarizes the discussion of the results from system evaluation undertaken at
Ukulinga Research Farm.
33
9.3.1 Drip irrigation system
The system was tested on a design pressure of 1.1 bar. Both the statistical and absolute
emission uniformities were found to be more than 92 % which is the design criterion. This
shows that water will be distributed evenly to the crops. All the statistical uniformity
coefficients were greater than 90 % as shown in Figure 9.1a. This complies with the design
criterion of 90 % and above.
The flow variations for manifolds 1 and 2 are in accordance with SABI design standard. The
only deviation was on manifold 2 with flow variation of 17.9 % which exceeds 10%. These
deviations were caused because of the drip lines not lying perfectly on contours. The
efficiency can be improved by placing the driplines on the correct contours.
9.3.2 Micro sprinkler irrigation system
The system was tested on a design pressure of 1.9 bar, a gain in head of 0.4 bar was taken
into consideration. Three blocks were selected randomly in the manifold. The results show
sufficient performance with DU and CU values exceeding the design criteria as specified in
Table 9.2b. The uniformity coefficients show how well the irrigation water is distributed on
the soil (refer to Figure 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3) for the distribution of water in raingauges.
The application efficiencies for the two blocks were not able to achieve the design criteria.
During the time of test, the wind speed was 6 km /hr and the average temperature was 22
degree celsius. These two weather parameters have affected the efficiencies of the system.
The system shows an average application efficiency of 80 %.
9.4 Critical Evaluation of the Project
The following section summarizes the critical evaluation which is based mostly on the
problems encountered during the design process.
34
9.4.1 Suggested changes to the project and theoretical analysis
Pipes types: Initially the pipes selected for the manifolds were uPVC, however all the
manifolds pipes were changed to low density polyethylene. The change was made because
the high density polyethylene pipes are hard to punch holes for the grommets take off.
Theoretically, the pipes used for manifolds are hard polyethylene pipes or HDPE (Phocaides,
2001)
Pipe diameters: The selected 20 mm diameter driplines offer low resistance to flow due to
the large diameter (IDM, 2003d). This pipe size was not considered for the design because
driplines of this size are seldom used and were not available in the market (Pottow, 2011).
Pipe classes: Pipe classes for pipes were selected based on the pressure and flow rate
expected. Along the mainline, class 6 were selected, however this was changed to class 9.
This is because when there is no flow in the system (manifold valves closed), the pressure
will exceed 6 bar (Pottow, 2011). This will occur in case when the main valve is left open and
with no pressure regulation from the upstream (when pressure regulator is bypassed).
9.4.2 Construction / installation and testing
Setting out: The problem associated with the setting out was that the layout could not be
fitted onto the field in such a way that the laterals follow the contour pattern.The team had to
look at different alternatives of solving the problem. The final solution was to have a slight
bend of the supply line that is connected to the pressure regulator so that the mainline could
be shifted in such a way that the laterals are in parallel with the contours on the field. The
shifting follows the contours (arrow direction) as shown in Figure 9.1. This has led to 2.6 %
of the area left un-irrigated.
35
Road to the field
The ridge
Pressure regulator
Un-irrigated area
Contour pattern
Mainline
Lateral direction
Figure 9.1 Field view (Google map, Accessed on 10/10/2011)
Testing: Testing was done after installation in order to check whether the system could
operate at the designed pressure of 2.3 bars for micro sprinkler and 1 bar for drip irrigation
system. The systems were tested and evaluated, and they operated perfectly well on these
designed pressure. Some minor problems came in the first test, the pressure regulator could
not monitor the pressure downstream. The problem was identified, it was found that
plumbing of the pressure regulator is connected in such a way that it (refer to Figure 8.6)
overrides the pilot, which results in the pressure regulator being on an open position. The
pilot is the component of the pressure regulator which controls the pressure. The problem was
then solved by the supplier (Irrigation and drainage).
Air build up in the system: During the installation, the air which was trapped in the system
also led to the malfunctioning of the pressure regulator, the problem was identified when the
air bubbles formed on the pressure taps. The action of air trapped in the system stopped only
when the pressure regulator was further adjusted on the pilot screw. This adjustment does not
offer a permanent solution because air build up will not stop unless the air valves are installed
in the system.
36
10. CONCLUSION
The aim of the project was to design, install and evaluate drip and micro sprinkler irrigation
systems for teaching and demonstration purposes. The two irrigation systems were designed
and irrigation components were installed in the field at the Ukulinga Research farm. These
components were sized according to the irrigation design specifications and standards in
order to meet the project objectives as well as the client`s requirements.
The two irrigation systems were operated after installation phase and the system`s
performance was evaluated based on the system`s efficiencies. For drip irrigation system the
performance evaluation parameters were found to be in compliance with the design criteria.
The evaluation in terms of flow variation in drip at the design pressure did not give good
results in one of the manifolds during the test because the driplines were not running along
the contour lines. This could also be because on that particular manifold there was a minor
leak due to inadequate threading of the joint on the ball valve.
The performance evaluation of the micro sprinkler irrigation system was carried out to
determine the system efficiency. The system was found to operate well at the design pressure
because all the sprinklers were overlapping. Standard evaluation results were found to be
slightly deviating from the design criteria because of the high wind drift and high
temperature. The other problem was because of the pressure variation in the system at the
manifold.
In addition to the main objectives, the micro sprinkler irrigation system was automated and
this was achieved within the allocated budget than what the client required. Considering
automation in the design will help the client and the students to appreciate the working
irrigation systems for demonstration purpose in future.
37
11. REFERENCES
Andreas PS and Karen F. 2001. Sprinkler Irrigation Systems Planning, Design, Operation
and Maintenance. FAO Irrigation Manual. Harare. Zimbabwe.
Archer CG. 2009/2010. COMBUD Crop Budgets Horticultural Crops. KwaZulu-Natal
Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs. KwaZulu-Natal. South
Africa.
Dane JH. 2002. Method of soil analysis. Madison publisher. United State of America.
ENAG3EI notes. 2010. University of KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermaritzburg. South Africa.
ENAG3EI notes. 2011. University of KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermaritzburg. South Africa.
Freddie RL, James EA and Francis SN. 2007. Micro-irrigation for Crop Production.
Design, Operation and Management. The Boulevard, Oxford OX5 1GB, United
Kingdom.
Hersiende V. 1970. Classification and description of soil series. Soil classification project
Eastern Transvaal Highveld. Pretoria. South Africa.
Irrigation System Design Manual (IDM). 2003a. Chapter 5 Water. ARC-Institute for
Agricultural Engineering. South Africa
Irrigation System Design Manual (IDM). 2003b. Chapter 6 Pipe hydraulics. ARC-Institute
for Agricultural Engineering. South Africa.
Irrigation System Design Manual (IDM). 2003c. Chapter 9 Irrigation Accessories. ARC-
Institute for Agricultural Engineering. South Africa.
Irrigation System Design Manual (IDM). 2003d. Chapter 10 Irrigation Systems. ARC-
Institute for Agricultural engineering. South Africa.
Irrigation System Design Manual (IDM). 2003d. Chapter 11 Planning. ARC-Institute for
Agricultural engineering. South Africa.
Irrigation System Design Manual (IDM). 2003e. Chapter 12 Micro Irrigation Systems. ARC-
Institute for Agricultural engineering. South Africa.
Isaya VS. 2001. Drip Irrigation. Options for Smallholder Farmers in Eastern and Southern
Africa. Technical Handbook No. 24. Regional Land Unit, Nairobi. Kenya.
Keller J and Bliesner RD. 1990. Sprinkle and Trickle Irrigation. Caldwell, New Jersey,
United State of America.
38
Koegelenberg FH, Reinder FB, Niekerk AS and Uys WJ. 2002. Performance of Surface
Drip Irrigation Under Field Conditions. WRC Report No. 1036/1/02. Pretoria. South
Africa.
Netafim South Africa (PTY) LTD, 2009. Agricultural Price List. South Africa.
Netafim South Africa. 2004. Product manufacturer catalogue. South Africa.
Pair CH. 1975. Sprinkler Irrigation. The Irrigation Association, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Phocaides A. 2001. FAO handbook on pressurized irrigation techniques. Publishing and
multimedia service, Rome, Italy.
Rhoades JD, Chanduvi F and Lesch S. 1999. FAO 57. Soil Salinity Assessment, Methods
and Interpretation for electrical conductivity measurements. Rome. Italy.
Richard GA, Luis SP, and Martin S. 2000. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56.
Crop evapotranspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Rome,
Italy.
Senzanje A. 2011. Personal Communication. School of Bioresources and Environmental
Hydrology. University of KwaZulu-Natal. Pietermaritzburg. South Africa.
Simpson GB and Reinders FB. 1999. Evaluation of the performance of two types of
sprinkler emitters installed on permanent and dragline systems. WRC Report No
KV119/99. Pretoria. South Africa.
Van der Stoep. 2001. Evaluation of the Appropriateness of Micro-irrigation Systems in
Small-scale Farming. WRC Report No 768/1/01. Pretoria. South Africa.
Westcott B and Ayers A. 1985. Water quality for Agriculture. FAO irrigation and drainage
paper 29. Califonia. United States of America.
Young VE. 1976. Sprinkler Irrigation Systems. Craftsman Press, Washington, United
State of America.
39
APPENDIX A1: DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS
Drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems have a wide variety of components. The
following section summarizes different alternative solutions considered for the drip and
micro sprinkler irrigation systems from which the preferred solutions were then selected.
Alternative Solutions
Different types of components that apply for drip and micro sprinkler are discussed in more
detail as follows.
Emitters types
Orifice control emitters: In orifice control emitters, the discharge is controlled by the orifice
diameter. The flow rate in the emitter is regulated by dissipating energy by friction of water
on the walls, energy is also dissipated between the fluid particles. Flow velocities are high
for orifice control emitters since the flow is turbulent, thus potential for emitter clogging is
less than for the laminar flow devices. Flow rates are less sensitive to both change in
temperature and pressure. The pattern and spread of the water is controlled by the head of the
emitter (Freddie et al., 2007).
Vortex control emitters: Vortex control emitters are known to be less sensitive to pressure
variation than turbulent or laminar flow devices. These emitters operate by forcing water to
form a whirlpool or vortex at the centre of the emitter. The rotating water is pushed towards
the outer edge of the vortex by the centrifugal forces. Due to this action, the pressure drops in
the centre, where the orifice is located (Freddie et al., 2007). The resistance to the flow and
the head loss is greater than for a simple orifice control emitters having the same diameter
(Keller and Bliesner, 1990).
Pressure compensating emitters: The flow rate in pressure compensating emitters is

controlled by a diaphragm which is made from an elastro-metric material. As the pressure is
increased in the emitter, the diaphragm constricts the passage diameter. Pressure
compensating emitters are constructed to provide a nearly constant discharge over a wide
40
range of pressures (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). The major drawback of the pressure
compensating emitter is the change in elasticity of the diaphragm over time, retaining of
moisture when the pressure is off and invasion of living organism (Freddie et al., 2007).
Filters
Poor water quality has an impact on the lifespan of emitters. Water quality can be improved
by removing harmful soil material such as sand, silt, clay and organic matter. Filters prevent
big particles and other substances from entering the irrigation systems. The different types of
filters include mesh, disc and sand filters. Mesh filters consist of permeable membrane, the
size of mesh openings and mesh area offer different filtering qualities.
Disc filters have three dimensional filtering action and they consist of circular plastic discs
which are tightly held together. All foreign particles which are larger than the openings are
retained by the discs. Disc filters have higher capacity compared to mesh filters. Sand filters
also have three dimensional filtering action and have higher filtering capacity compared to
the other two filters because of their large medium area (IDM, 2003d).
Types of Pipes
There is a large variety of pipe types available which can be used in micro sprinkler and drip
irrigation systems. Possible types of pipes used are uPVC, polyethylene and PVC pipes.
uPVC pipes exhibit good corrosion resistance. They are light weight and easy to handle.
Their smooth inner walls result in low friction losses. They have high thermal expansion and
become brittle at low temperatures. uPVC pipes are associated with some disadvantages.
They become brittle when the temperatures are low and their coefficient of expansion is
higher than that of steel. The permissible working pressure of the uPVC pipes must be
decreased when the temperatures exceed 25 C (IDM, 2003b).
Polyethylene pipes are mostly used for laterals and driplines. They have the same advantages
as the uPVC pipes except that they are more flexible and ductile. The high ductility of these
pipes makes the cutting and joining easy. The permissible working pressure of polyethylene
pipes reduces quickly when temperature exceeds 25 C (IDM, 2003b).
41
PVC pipes are usually used for the mainline and sub-main. They are durable and hard to
damage. PVC pipes do not rust and wear over time. They are not very good in terms of
withstanding high temperature so they are usually buried in order to minimize pipe damages
(Freddie et al., 2007).
Types of Valves
There are various types of valves, namely gate (sluice), saddle, ball and butterfly valve. They
are differentiated according to the mechanisms they use to shut off or control water. Sluice
valve consists of three main components namely sluice, body and lid. A sluice closes by
moving between the two sealing surfaces. A hand wheel and threaded spindle are used to
move the sluice up and down. Gate valves are suitable where minimum friction losses
through the valve are required. The disadvantage of this type of valves is the inability to
control the pressure and flow (IDM, 2003a).
Ball valves are new in agriculture. They consist of the body, ball and sealing surface. They
are light and can be fitted to anywhere in the irrigation system. They open and close by
rotating at 90 degrees. They are maintenance free and they do not use external seals. Ball
valves are closed and opened by applying little force to the lever. The disadvantage of these
valves is that they can close too quickly, causing water hammer in the pipe. This action
results in pipe damages.
Butterfly valves have also been developed recently, they consist of the body, sealing disc,
seal and gearbox. A shaft passes through the centre of the sealing disc. The valve is closed
and opened through a 90 degrees rotation. They can also be used for controlling the flow and
the pressure but care must be taken that the valve is at 15 to 20 % open (IDM, 2003c).
Butterfly valves can also open too quickly, and are likely to cause water hammer.
42
APPENDIX A2: OTHER DESIGN FACTORS CONSIDERED
Climate
The Ukulinga farm is located at an altitude of 805 m above sea level. The latitude is 29.400
South and longitude is 30.240 East. The daily long term climate data record of Ukulinga farm
for the years 1974 to 1999 were collected from the School of BEEH database. The long term
climatic data were considered to be the most reliable and adequate for use in irrigation system
design (IDM, 2003a). The years considered in data processing were from 1983 to 1999 (i.e.
17 years period) because there were no missing data for that period. Effective rainfall
(defined as the amount of rainfall that is available to meet crop water requirement after
runoff, deep percolation and surface evaporation) was calculated from the collected data. The
monthly climatic data are shown in Table E1 of APPENDIX E1.
Soils characteristics
This section provides the soil properties and required parameters that were determined form
the soil survey. The soil type in the field is Westleigh We 11. This property was obtained
from the School of BEEH database. Detailed soil survey was performed to determine
parameter including the (i) soil texture, (ii) infiltration rate, (iii) water holding capacity, and
(iv) salinity are discussed on how the necessary parameters were measured.
Soil texture
Representative soil samples collected from the two survey pits were analysed in the
laboratory to obtain the soil characteristics needed to determine the soil texture. Results in
Table F1 of APPENDIX F, the soil texture for the field was determined to be sandy loam
since this was the dominant texture in the samples collected. The texture obtained from the
soil samples was compared to the one in the South Africa classification handbook (for
Westleigh soils) and it was found to be the same.
Infiltration rate
43
According to Andreas and Keller (2002), the double ring infiltrometer method is adequate for
determining the infiltration rate of the soil. During the soil survey, a double ring infiltrometer
was used to determine the infiltration rate. The results are tabulated in Table F2 of
APPENDIX F. The infiltration rate was found to be 18.1 mm.m-1 and this value falls within
the range of the basic infiltration rates for sandy loam soils (15-30 mm.h-1).
Available soil water holding capacity
The water retention method by Dane (2002), was used to determine the available soil water
holding capacity. The soil moisture equipment was accessed in the Hydrology Laboratory as
a tool to extract the water from the samples. The soil water retention characteristics of the soil
depend on the shape, volume and continuity of soil pores. These help to determine the water
and aeration status of the soil. The results obtained from the experiment are presented in
Table F3 of APPENDIX F. The available soil water holding capacity was found to be around
270 mm.m-1. This value is not close to110 mm.m-1 found in SA classification and description
of soil series for the same soil texture. The value could be high due to one pressure regulator
that was not operating properly. Although 270 mm.m-1 is for real field condition, the water
holding capacity of 110 mm.m-1 (Hersiende, 1970) which is probably for irrigation conditions
was used for all the calculations.
Soil salinity
To avoid using salt affected soil for crops which are not tolerant to salt, the soil was tested for
salinity. The soil salinity test results in Table F5 of APPENDIX F was compared to the
salinity standards in Table F4 of APPENDIX F. By comparison, the soil is not salt affected
since the concentration of the parameters tested in the soil were below the specified standard
values, therefore no reclamation of the soil is needed and most crops are likely to be suitable
for this soil.
Topography
44
A topographic survey was carried out at the field using a Trimble R8 GPS survey instrument,
with a resolution of 2 cm accuracy. The method used was to establish a temporary bench
mark or a fixed point at an unknown coordinate. The team carried out the detailed survey and
the data collected were loaded on the model maker software to create the contour map
provided in APPENDIX R. Important parameters obtained from the survey include; the slope
(8.5%) along the main length and 0.5% across, contour intervals (0.5 m) and the elevation
difference which has an impact of pressure variation within the pipelines.
Water requirements
Factors to be considered in the water survey are water quality and quantity. Water quality is
important in order to make decisions on what filter size is required for system. Water quantity
is important in determining how much water is available to irrigate.
Water quality: According to Wescott and Ayers (1985) good water quality for micro
irrigation should meet the standards as shown in Table G1 of APPENDIX G.
A water quality analysis was performed in order to determine the size of the filter required.
Different chemical components in the water namely pH, electrical conductivity, boron,
calcium and sodium content were tested as these parameters can present potential problems in
micro irrigation systems (Wescott and Ayers, 1985). Three water samples were taken from
the Ukulinga farm. Sample 1 was taken from the farm reservoir, sample 2 was taken at the
valve after the sand filters and sample 3 was taken from the laterals after the disk filters. The
tests of pH and electrical conductivity tests were performed in the Hydrology Laboratory at
the University of KwaZulu-Natal using the Micro-computer pH and Conductivity meters. For
boron, calcium and sodium the water samples were analysed at the Chemistry Laboratory
(UKZN) using an Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) meter. The results are shown in Table
G2 of APPENDIX G.
The overall quality of the irrigation water was found to be moderate. This was determined by
using the standards of FAO (Westcott and Ayers, 1985) given in Table G1 of APPENDIX G
These standards stipulates the quality for drip irrigation water and engineering judgement to
45
state the quality of the water. The water can be used for irrigation since it is not of poor
quality as far as irrigation is concerned.
Water quantity: The total amount of water required by the crops for evapotranspiration was
calculated using two methods for comparison purposes. The first method was the use of
Excel and the crop water requirement calculations involve the use of single crop kc values.
The second method considered more advanced is CROPWAT 8 model for crop water
requirements. The total yearly water demand was calculated by adding the gross irrigation
water requirements of all the crops, namely tomatoes, onions, green beans and green peas.
APPENDIX F gives more detailed calculations. For comparison purposes, the calculated
yearly water requirement is half the amount of water that is presently consumed by one of the
3 ha irrigated fields at Ukulinga. There is enough water available at the farm to irrigate the
field.
Energy availability
The current system uses gravity flow to energise the water from the water source. The
available static head is 80 m, and the required total dynamic head is 23.68 m. The 80 m head
will need to be reduced by installing a pressure regulator (pressure reducing valve) to drop
the pressure.
Labour requirements
Labour will be required during the installation stage. The project team will also be part of the
labour. Because the systems are aimed for demonstrating various aspect to students, from the
client`s needs point of view only one labour will be required to operate the system.
Health and safety factors
Most diseases are associated with the use of surface irrigation systems. Micro irrigation has
less potential for creating disease vector habitats and this is because the water is delivered in
closed pipes, however the micro sprinkler can also be associated with mosquito breeding sites
46
if there is an over application of water (Andreas and Karen, 2002). So the irrigation systems
will be designed in such a way that the right amount of water is applied at the right time and
this will involve the planning of a good irrigation schedule.
Environmental aspects
The safety of the environment is one of the important aspects that need to be considered.
According to FAO (2002), salinity is the main problem in micro irrigation. It changes both
the chemical and physical properties of the soil. In order to avoid the soil’s degradation by
high concentration of salts, the physical condition of the soil has been evaluated by using the
FAO classification of salt affected soils. The two soil samples from different pits were tested
in the lab. The results showed that none of the samples were classified as salt affected.
Irrigation water was also tested for its quality in terms of its salinity and sodicity. The
electrical conductivity for both the irrigation water and soil extract were found to be very low
i.e 0.0075 dS.m-1 and 0.00967 dS.m-1 ,respectively. The soil condition was further checked
for sodicity. The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) was calculated from the measured
concentrations of sodium, magnesium and calcium. The average SAR values of soil extract
and irrigation water were 2.28 and 3.6 respectively. According to Freddie et al., (2007) the
SAR of 12 to 15 have potential problems in the soil physical properties.
Socio-economic issues
Socio-economic issues involve the benefits that the two irrigation systems will offer to the
students. This will also take into consideration of the client’s needs. With the engineering
decisions made, the system will show to students the effect of increasing or decreasing pipe
diameters on the water application and distribution uniformity. The two systems will
demonstrate to students the effect of the system behaviour and pressure fluctautions, when
laterals are subjected to various operating conditions than designed for. The system will help
student to visualise, appreciate and familiarize themselves with the working systems on the
ground. Other benefits will be that the systems will create job opportunities to the local
community.
47
APPENDIX B: ESTIMATED FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS OF DRIP
AND MICRO SPRINKLER IRRIGATION IN RANDS PER HECTARE
Table B1 Capital Costs (Netafim South Africa, 2009)
Cost categories Drip (R) Micro sprinkler (R)
Initial investment R 10 738 R 11 538

Annual fixed costs R 4 200 R 4 620
Annual variable costs R 448 R 500
Annual total costs R 4 648 R 5 120
Note: inflation rate was adjusted at 10%
Table B2 The estimated initial costs of drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems
components in Rands per hectare (Agriplas price list, 2011).
Components description Drip Micro sprinkler

PE drip lines (300 m, class 4, 20
mm) at 0.4 m emitter spacing R859.00 R859.00
uPVC pipes ( class 4 , 50 mm) 1 029. 00 1 029.00
1 disk filter (200 µm) R445.00 R445.00
Connectors and fasteners R139.00 R186.00
Assembly/spay stake R3.00 per unit × 50
Sprinkler (head only) R2.80 per unit × 50
Pressure regulator ( for low flow) R55.00 R55.00
Valve ( Back flush 50×50 mm) R1 650.00 R1 650.00
Installation R642.00 R659.00
Total 4 819. 00 5 173.00
48
Estimates of the indirect costs that will be incurred during the project development.
Incurred Costs
Date Telephone (R ) Travelling ( R ) Other costs (R ) Total costs (R )
Jan
240(topographic
survey, soil and
Feb 84 water analysis) 324
March 3.16 126 129.16
April 2.97 126 128.97
May 2.29 42 44.29
June 150 84 234
July 10.64 180 190.64
August 52.89 300 352.89
September 13.75 240 253.75
October
Total 235.7 1182 240 1657.7
49
APPENDIX C: GROSS MARGIN FOR THE SELECTED CROPS
2009/2010 (ARCHER, 2009/2010)
Price Per
Unit Qty Per Ha
Unit
TOMATOES
GROSS INCOME 188500.00
Product Income (Vegetables)
4 Kg
Tomatoes Box 14.50 13000.00 188500.00
TOTAL ALLOCATABLE VARIABLE COSTS 130228.98
DIRECTLY ALLOCATABLE VARIABLE COSTS 127644.98
A) PRE-HARVEST COST 43872.48
Plant Material
Tomato Seedlings Each 0.87 12000.00 10440.00
Fertilizer
Pot. Nitrate SG Ton 11040.00 0.66 7286.40
LAN 28% Ton 2977.00 0.10 297.70
Urea (46) Ton 4077.00 0.35 1426.95
MAP (33) + 0.5%Zn Ton 4277.00 0.20 855.40
Lime and Manure
Dolomitic Lime Ton 625.00 1.00 625.00
Gypsum
Agric. Gypsum Kg 448.00 0.30 134.40
Weed Control
Sencor Litre 179.41 3.00 538.23
Gramaxone Litre 52.86 3.00 158.58
Pest Control
Alfathrin Litre 117.49 0.10 11.75
Thiorex Litre 85.29 10.00 852.90
Temik Kg 102.08 20.00 2041.60
Thioflo 475 SC Litre 77.06 2.50 192.65
Comite Litre 301.47 1.10 331.62
Lannate Litre 267.99 1.00 267.99
Fungicide Control
Patron Kg 914.76 1.00 914.76
Dithane M45 Kg 56.58 12.00 678.96
Kocide Kg 118.36 23.00 2722.28
Ridomil Gold Kg 252.61 8.00 2020.88
Rovral Litre 233.74 1.20 280.49
Rimit Kg 79.10 6.00 474.60
Score Litre 714.37 1.75 1250.15
Bravo Litre 128.34 15.00 1925.10
Trace Elements
Calmac B Kg 13.33 20.00 266.60
Maintenance
Support Poles Each 1.60 1600.00 2560.00
Wire 16 Gauge Meter 0.30 4800.00 1440.00
Labour
Casual Labour Days 55.00 42.50 2337.50
Irrigation
Irrigation mm 3.85 400.00 1540.00
50
B) HARVEST COSTS 83772.50
Packaging
4kg Tomato Box Each 3.15 13000.00 40950.00
Labour
Marketing Cost
Agents Commission 12.50% 23562.50
Transport
Contract Ton 75.00 52.00 3900.00
MARGIN ABOVE DIRECTLY ALLOCATABLE
VARIABLE COSTS 60855.02
INDIRECTLY ALLOCATABLE VARIABLE
COSTS 2584.00
C) PRE-HARVEST COST 2584.00
Fuel Litre 8.00 170.00 1360.00
Repairs and
Maintenance 1224.00
TOTAL PRE-HARVEST COSTS 46456.48
TOTAL HARVEST COSTS 83772.50
GROSS MARGIN ABOVE TOTAL
ALLOCATABLE VARIABLE COSTS 58271.02
Price
Unit Per Qty Per Ha
GREEN PEAS Unit
Green Peas Ton 8500.00 6.00 51000.00

Plant Material
Pea seed
(Greenfeast) Kg 55.00 75.00 4125.00
Fertilizer
L.A.N. (28) Ton 2977.00 0.08 223.28
2:3:4 (30) Ton 5037.00 0.25 1259.25
Sodium Molibdate Kg 572.00 0.06 34.32
Herbicides
Basagran Litre 122.08 1.25 152.60
Eptam Super Litre 91.56 4.00 366.24
Guardian Litre 101.62 1.00 101.62
Pesticides
Fungicides
Punch Extra Litres 232.25 1.20 278.70
Irrigation
Irrigation Mm 3.85 300.00 1155.00
Packaging
5kg Pockets Each 0.75 1200.00 900.00
Labour
51
Marketing costs
Market Commission 5.0% 2550.00
Transport
Contract Ton 75.00 6.00 450.00
INDIRECTLY ALLOCATABLE VARIABLE COSTS 1216.00

Fuel Litre 8.00 80.00 640.00
Repairs and
Maintenance 576.00
GROSS MARGIN ABOVE TOTAL ALLOCATABLE
Price
Unit Per Qty Per Ha
ONIONS Unit
Onions Ton 2300.00 25.00 57500.00
Plant Material
Onion plants Each 0.16 50000.00 8000.00
Fertilizer
L.A.N. (28) Ton 2977.00 0.30 893.10
2:3:4 (30) Ton 5037.00 0.50 2518.50
Herbicides
Focus Litre 200.00 0.60 120.00
Ronstar Litre 316.67 5.00 1583.35
Pesticides
Oftanol Litre 50.00 6.00 300.00
Tronnic (Wetting
agent) Litre 44.07 13.00 572.91
Casual labour
Cultivation Days 60.00 25.00 1500.00
Irrigation Mm 3.85 300.00 1155.00
Labour
Packaging
10kg Pockets Each 1.00 2500.00 2500.00
Marketing Cost
Transport Ton 75.00 25.00 1875.00
52
Fuel Litre 8.00 100.00 800.00
Repairs and
Maintenance 720.00
Price
Unit Qty Per Ha
BREEN BEANS Per Unit
Green Beans Ton 5000.00 8.10 40500.00
Plant Material
Bean Seed Kg 70.00 70.00 4900.00
Fertilizer
LAN 28% Ton 2977.00 0.30 893.10
2.3.2 (22) Ton 3847.00 0.50 1923.50
Sodium Molibdate Kg 572.00 0.06 34.32
Herbicides
Basagran Litre 122.08 2.00 244.16
Pesticides
Dithane Kg 56.58 4.00 226.32
Decis Litre 413.89 0.20 82.78
Dursban Litre 104.22 0.50 52.11
Irrigation
Irrigation Mm 3.85 300.00 1155.00
Labour
Packaging
5kg pocket Each 0.75 1620.00 1215.00
Labour
Marketing Cost
Transport
Contract Ton 75.00 8.00 600.00
Fuel Litre 8.00 100.00 800.00
Repairs and 720.00
53
Maintenance

Price
Unit Per Qty Per Ha
Unit
Onions Ton 2300.00 25.00 57500.00
Plant Material
Onion plants Each 0.16 50000.00 8000.00
Fertilizer
L.A.N. (28) Ton 2977.00 0.30 893.10
2:3:4 (30) Ton 5037.00 0.50 2518.50
Herbicides
Focus Litre 200.00 0.60 120.00
Ronstar Litre 316.67 5.00 1583.35
Pesticides
Oftanol Litre 50.00 6.00 300.00
Tronnic (Wetting
agent) Litre 44.07 13.00 572.91
Casual labour
Cultivation Days 60.00 25.00 1500.00
Irrigation Mm 3.85 300.00 1155.00
Labour
Packaging
10kg Pockets Each 1.00 2500.00 2500.00
Marketing Cost
Transport Ton 75.00 25.00 1875.00
Fuel Litre 8.00 100.00 800.00
Repairs and
Maintenance 720.00
54
APPENDIX D1: THE WORK BREAK DOWN STRUCTURE (WBS)
OF THE PROJECT
DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF DRIP AND MICRO SPRINKLER SYSTEMS

AT UKULINGA RESEARCH FARM
Procure the
Installation
Material
Theoretical Design
Testing and
Project plan
Evaluation
Project Final Design Summary

Proposal Report sections of final
report
Data collection
Final presentation to
KZN-SAIAE
Site analysis
Identify need or
problem
55
APPENDIX E1: ETO FOR UKULINGA, COMPUTED FROM
CROPWAT 8.0
The long term daily climatic data for Ukulinga farm were collected. Table E1 provides the
monthly average ETO data generated using CROPWAT 8.0 model
Table E1 ETO for Ukulinga farm

ETo
Month Tmin T max Humidity Wind Sun Rad PenMon
°C °C % Km.day-1 Hours MJ.m².day-1 mm.day-1
January 16.6 26.1 77 138 7.2 22 4.38
February 16.7 26.3 76 138 6.5 19.8 4.03
March 15.9 26.1 72 138 7.4 18.9 3.82
April 13.5 24.2 69 138 6.6 14.9 2.98
May 10.6 22.4 64 138 9.1 14.8 2.54
June 8.2 20.7 60 138 9.6 13.7 2.14
July 8.1 20.9 61 138 11.6 16.4 2.3
August 9.6 22.2 61 138 9.8 17.3 2.86
September 11.5 23.4 64 138 7.4 17.7 3.36
October 12.6 23.3 70 138 8.1 21.4 3.92
November 14.2 23.9 73 138 6 19.8 3.87
December 15.7 25.8 74 138 9.9 26.5 5.02
Year 12.8 23.8 68 138 8.3 18.6 3.44
56
APPENDIX E2: CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR TOMATO
GENERATED FROM (CROPWAT 8)
Crop: Tomato
Eto station: Ukulinga
Rain station: Ukulinga
Month Decade Stage Kc Etc Etc Eff rain

mm.day- mm.dec- mm.dec-
1 1 1
Coeff
Oct 1 Init 0.6 2.24 22.4 21.7
Oct 2 Init 0.6 2.35 23.5 23.2
Oct 3 Deve 0.6 2.35 25.8 25
Nov 1 Deve 0.68 2.61 26.1 27.3
Nov 2 Deve 0.81 3.06 30.6 29.3
Nov 3 Deve 0.94 3.94 39.4 28.7
Dec 1 Mid 1.07 5.1 51 27.6
Dec 2 Mid 1.12 5.82 58.2 27.2
Dec 3 Mid 1.12 5.51 60.6 27.8
Jan 1 Mid 1.12 5.12 51.2 28.8
Jan 2 Mid 1.12 4.88 48.8 29.4
Jan 3 Late 1.08 4.59 50.5 28.5
Feb 1 Late 0.96 3.97 39.7 27.2
Feb 2 Late 0.84 3.39 33.9 26.3
Feb 3 Late 0.77 3.05 6.1 6.6
Total 568.1 384.6
57
APPENDIX E3: MONTHLY CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR
SINGLE CROPS GENERATED FROM EXCEL SPREADSHEET
Table E3 Monthly crop water requirements

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
ETo(mm) 131 113 115 89 76 64 70 86 101 112 116 151 1224
Kc tomato 1.12 0.6 0.94 1.12
Kc green peas 0.5 0.86 1.14 1.14
Kc green beans 0.52 1 1.03 0.91
Kc onion 0.7 1.01 1.04 0.93
ETc tomato 146.7 109.0 169.1 424.88
ETc green peas 32 60.2 98.04 115.1 190.24
ETc green beans 58.76 115 91.67 69.16 334.59
Etc onion 62.3 76.76 66.6 65.1
Dependable rainfall(mm) 85 76 77 34 17 9 8 21 50 66 83 80 606
Effective rainfall Pe(mm) 73.4 66.8 67.5 32.2 16.5 8.9 7.9 20.3 46.0 59.0 72.0 69.8 540.2
IWRn tomato 37.1 99.4 136
IWRn green peas 23 52 78 153
IWRn green beans 47.5 59.5 52.6 160
IWRn onion 30.1 60.2 57.7 57.2 205
Where all data = monthly average

ETc = crop evapotranspiration( ETc = f Eo ), Pe = dependable effective rainfall, IWRn = net
irrigation requirement (IWRn = ETc - Re )
SEASONAL CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS
Method 1 (Excel spreadsheet) for determining seasonal crop water requirements

Drip system Area Total Total GIR[m3.ha.- Total
-1 - 1 -1
[ha] GIR[mm.ha .yr yr ] GIR[m3.ha.yr
1 -1
] ]
Crop
Tomato 0.27 143.2 1432 386.6
Green peas 0.27 161.1 1611 434.97
Green beans 0.27 168.4 1684 454.68
58
Onion 0.27 215.8 2158 582.66
Total GIR 1858.91

= 3936.11 m3.yr-1
Method 2 (Cropwat 8.0) for determining seasonal crop water requirements
Drip System Area[ha] Total Total Total

- 3
GIR[mm.ha GIR[m .h GIR[m3.yer-
1
.yr-1] a-1.yr] 1
]
Crop
Tomato 0.27 215.4 2154 581.6
Green peas 0.27 208.6 2086 563
Green beans 0.27 93.8 938 253
Onion 0.27 307.2 3072 829.4
Total GIR 2227.02
Micro Area Total Total Total

sprinkler [ha] GIR[mm.ha-1.yr- GIR[m3.ha GIR[m3.yr-
1 -1
system ] .yr-1] 1
]
Crops
Tomato 0.27 160 1600 432
Green peas 0.27 180 1800 486
Green beans 0.27 188.2 1882 508
Onion 0.27 241.2 2412 651.2
Total GIR 2077.2
Micro Area[ha] Total Total Total
sprinkler GIR[mm.ha- GIR[m3.h GIR[m3.yr-1]
1
.yr-1] a-1.yr-1]
Crop
59
Tomato 0.27 354 3540 956
Green peas 0.27 233.2 2332 630
Green beans 0.27 104.8 1048 283
Onion 0.27 343.3 3433 926.9
Total GIR 2795.9

5022.9 m3.yr-1
Analysis of results
(IDM, 2003e) (1)

Where
ETc =crop water requirements
Kc = single crop coefficient (dimentionless)
Eo = reference evaporation (mm.day-1)
!" #$"% $& ' !( (Richard et al., 2000) (2)
Again ETc and ETo are as defined in eqn (3.2), whereas Kcb and Ke are basal crop and soil
water evaporation coefficient, respectively. From eq(2), it is quite clear that the crop water
requirements will be high. CROPWAT uses eq (2) to calculate crop water requirements. This
equation takes into account a day to day variation of soil moisture content (Richard et al.,
2000). This equation is suitable for high frequency micro irrigation systems such drip and
micro sprinkler. According to Richard et al (2000), Eq(1) is suitable where the time interval
between two successive irrigations is of several days or often 10 days or more. It is suitable
for surface and sprinkler irrigation systems. For this project, the CROPWAT model will be
used since it is more appropriate for drip and micro sprinkler irrigation system.
60
APPENDIX F: SOIL ANALYSIS
Soil survey regarding aspects of the field condition was performed to determine the
parameters that are required in the design process. Table F1, F2, F3 and F5 tabulate the
results that were obtained from the experiments carried out in the laboratory.
Table F1: Proportion of clay, silt and sand in the samples

Sample No Sand [%] Silt [%] Clay [%] Total Texture
CH1 75.76 11.54 12.69 100 Sandy loam
CH2 70.54 11.26 18.2 100 Sandy loam
CH3 65.34 12.94 21.72 100 Sandy clay loam
CH4 44.64 25.52 29.84 100 Clay loam
Table F2: Soil infiltration tests results

Drop in water Cumulative Time
[mm] [mm] Time [s] [h] i[mm.h-1]
3 3 33.12 0.0092 108.7

6 9 57.6 0.016 62.5
9 15 68.4 0.019 52.6
12 21 79.2 0.022 45.4
15 36 86.4 0.024 41.6
18 54 97.2 0.027 37.0
21 75 108 0.03 33.3
24 99 122.4 0.034 29.4
27 126 136.8 0.038 26.3
30 156 154.8 0.043 23.2
33 189 176.4 0.049 20.4
36 225 194.4 0.054 18.5
39 265 194.4 0.054 18.5
42 310 198 0.055 18.1
45 358 198.3 0.055 18.1
48 406 201.2 0.055 18.1
61
infiltration (mm) 0.06 120
infitration rate
0.05 100
(mm.hr-1)
0.04 80
0.03 60
0.02
0.01 40
0 20
0
0 50 100
0 0.02 0.04 0.06
time (h)
time (h)
Figure F The infiltration rate curves
Table F3: Soil Water Retention Results

CH1 CH2 CH3 CH4
0 -15 cm 15 -25 cm 25-30 cm 30-45 cm

Vol. Vol. Vol. Vol.
water water water water
Pressure [cm] content Pressure [cm]
[c content Pressure[cm] content Pressure [cm] content
27.7 0.494 30.1 0.497 24.7 0.497 28.8 0.497
72.7 0.486 74 0.459 72.8 0.474 62.4 0.487
115.7 0.475 106.5 0.427 117 0.45 110 0.474
131.4 0.444 145.9 0.359 139.1 0.423 112 0.447
202.6 0.429 282.6 0.325 258.7 0.402 265.3 0.421
476 0.416 481.3 0.315 488 0.391 501.3 0.402
702.7 0.384 690.7 305 716 0.373 714.7 0.384
894.7 0.381 886.1 0.302 886.7 0.37 900 0.376
FC 1032 0.375 1013.3 0.298 1008 0.345 1031 0.367
2039.4 0.025 2039.4 0.003 2039.4 0.015 2039 0.004
3823.9 0.013 3823.9 0.01 3823.9 0.0012 3824 0.0087
10197 0.0095 10197 0.016 10197 0.0035 10197 0.0089
PWP 15295.5 0.0022 1529.5 0.002 1529.5 0.002 1580 0.0091
Difference 0.3728 0.296 0.343 0.3579
Soil depth [mm] 750
AWC [mm.m-
1
] 279.6 221.7 257.3 268.43
62
Table F4: Soil salinity standards for irrigation development (Rhoades et al., 1999)
Salt affected soil Electrical Soil pH Sodium Soil physical
classification conductivity adsorption ratio condition
-1
[dS.m ] [SAR]
Saline >4 <8.5 <13 Normal
Saline sodic >4 <8.5 >13 Normal
Sodic <4 >8.5 >13 Poor
Table F5: Soil salinity test results

Sample number Electrical Soil pH Mg [mg.l-1] Ca [mg.l-1] Na [mg.l-1] SAR
conductivity
[dS.m-1]
1 0.00791 7.7 5.8 8.9 4.8 3.4
2 0.00967 7.3 6.2 9.5 5.9 3.7
63
APPENDIX G: IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY
Table G1: Water quality standards for the design and operation of micro irrigation (after
Bucks et al., (1979), Wescott and Ayers (1985) and IDM (2003a)
Parameters Fitness for use for irrigation water
Minor Moderate Severe
pH < 7.0 7.0 - 8.0 > 8.0
Electrical Conductivity [dS/m] 0 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.9 0.9 – 2.7
Boron [mg/l] 0 - 0.2 0.2 – 0.9 0.9 – 1.5
Sodium [mg/l] 0–3 3–5 5 -7
Sodium Adsorption Ratio [SAR] 0-1.5 1.5-3 3-5
Table G2: Water quality test results

Sample Electrical pH Boron Magnesium Calcium Sodium SAR Quality
number conductivity [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] [mg/l] of water
[dS/m] for drip
irrigation
1 0.0076 7.58 0.20 3.79 4.25 1.98 0.31 Moderate
2 0.0070 7.69 0.15 4.12 8.19 4.19 2.74 Moderate
3 0.0078 7.68 0.12 5.01 8.16 3.94 5.85 Moderate
64
APPENDIX H: DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN
CALCULATIONS
The Keller and Bliesner (1990), Andreas and Karen (2002) and Irrigation Design Manual
(2003) approach was used in the design calculations. The design is based on the tomato crop
because it has the highest peak water demand.
Crop Water Requirements (CWR)
ETc-drip = Etc × Kr
where
Etc = crop evapotranspiration (refer to Table E2 in APPENDIX E2 for ETc = 5.82 mm.day-1),
Kr = ground cover reduction factor (refer to Table 1 in APPENDIX J1 for Kr = 0.94 from the
assumed ground cover of 80%).
Etc-drip = 5.82 mm.day-1 × 0.94
= 5.47 mm.day-1
Irrigation Water Requirements (IWR)
Net Irrigation Requirement (IRn) = (Etc × Kr) – Re + LR

where
Re = effective rainfall (refer to Table E2 in APPENDIX E2 for Re = 2.72 mm.day-1)
LR = leaching requirement
According to Keller and Bliesner (1990), the electrical conductivity (EC) that would reduce
crop yield for tomatoes range between 2.5 and 12.5 dS.m-1.Values of EC for irrigation water
in Table G2 of APPENDIX G show that the irrigation water will not have any adverse effect
on tomatoes yield, therefore LR was considered to be zero for this design.
IRn = 5.47 – 2.72 + 0

= 2.75 mm.day-1
Gross Irrigation Requirement (IRg) =

)*+
,-
where
Ea = application efficiency calculated as Ea = Ks × EU
65
where
Ks = soil factor for application efficiency dependent on the soil type
=1 (refer to APPENDIX J2) for soil type corresponding to that found at Ukulinga
EU = design emission uniformity, defined as the measure of the uniformity of emissions from
all the emission points within the entire drip irrigation system. The design EU value was taken
to be 92% as a design criterion (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). EU is set high because in drip
irrigation systems there is a concern of under-irrigation.
Ea = Ks ×EU
= 1 × 0.92
= 0.92
Gross irrigation requirement (IRg) = 2.75 ÷ 0.92

= 2.99 mm.day-1
Wetted Area (Aw)
Area wetted by each emitter along a horizontal plane below the soil surface depends on the
emitter discharge and soil type (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). See Table 3 of APPENDIX J3 for
the Aw = 1.6 m2, based on the soil characteristics. Field test was not carried out as
recommended by the IDM (2003a) because Keller and Bliesner (1990) recommend the use of
Table 3 of APPENDIX J3 if no field test has been carried out.
Emitters
./0102
3/
Np =
where
Np = number of emitters per plant

Pw = percentage wetted area (%)
Sp × Sr = area per plant (Sp = plant spacing and Sr = row spacing)
Tomatoes are spaced at 0.4 m within the row and 1.5 m between rows (Freddie et al., 2007
and ENAG3IE notes, 2010).
According to Keller and Bliesner (1990), Pw should be between 33% < Pw < 67% but for
66
closely spaced crops with rows and emitters spaced less than 1.8 m apart, Pw often
approaches 100%. The design is aiming to achieve a Pw close to 100% but certainly greater
than 67% because this may increase production by another 20% (Andreas and Karen, 2002).
45647
48
Np =
= 0.4 emitters.plant-1
= 1 emitter.plant-1 (practical)
455910:;
0102
Pw =
W = wetted width, defined as the width of the strip that would be wetted by a row of emitters
spaced closer along a single lateral line (Keller and Bliesner, 1990).
63/ 6>
W=< = <
= =
= 1.43 m
45545646?
5647
Pw =
= 95.3%
This is acceptable because it is close to 100% recommended by Keller and Bliesner (1990)
and this further means that the production may be increased by another 20%.
Irrigation Frequency and Duration of irrigation
)*+0102
4555
IRn per plant =
#B '
@A7
4555
=
= 0.00165 m3.day-1.plant-1
= 1.65 l.day-1.plant-1
Area of wetted soil = Sp ×Sr ×Pw

= 0.4 ×1.5 × 0.95 = 0.57 m2
Available soil water per plant (TAW)
67
TAW = AWHC× Aw× ERD
where
Available soil water holding capacity (AWHC) = 110 mm.m-1 (Hersiende, 1970) this value
was adopted than the 270 mm.m-1 obtained from the field survey because 110 mm.m-1 may be
for irrigation condition while 270 mm.m-1 is just for the soil conditions.
Effective root depth (ERD) = min (Natural root depth and Effective soil depth) (adopted from
the IDM, 2003e).
Natural root depth (NRD) for tomato = 1.1 m (adopted from Freddie et al., 1990)
Effective soil depth (ESD) for the soil at Ukulinga = 0.75 m (obtained from the soil survey).
This means that ERD = 0.75 m
445
TAW = 4555× 0.57 m2 × 0.75 m
= 0.047 m3.plant-1 = 47 l.plant-1
Readily Available Water for drip system to be replenished by irrigation (RAW)
RAW= MAD × TAW

MAD = Management allowable depletion in percentage
Irrigation is applied when 40% of the available soil water in the root zone is depleted (Keller
and Bliesner, 1990). Micro irrigation systems provide the means for frequent irrigation,
therefore a low MAD (say 20%) must be used in order to have a short cycle length. This
decision was further made with reference to the Martinez approach (IDM, 2003f) ideal water
and nutrients need to be provided on a daily cycle.
RAW = 20% × 0.047 m3.plant-1
= 0.0094 m3.plant-1
= 9.4 l. plant-1
Irrigation frequency or cycle length at peak demand (Tc)

*3;
)*+
Tc =
C6D1E-+FG4
487D1E-+FG4
=
= 5.6 days (6 days practical)
Gross irrigation requirement (IRg) for current conditions per day per plant
68
HIJK K
)*L3F
4555
@CC4756
4555
=
= 0.0018 m3.day-1.plant-1 = 1.8 l.day-1.plant-1
Duration of irrigation (Ta)
Try to determine the duration of irrigation (Ta2) with a 2l.h-1emitters because it is a standard
emitter discharge (Tiran 16D) available in South Africa (see APPENDIX K1).
)*M
91NO
Ta2 = =
= 0.9 h.day-1.plant-1
= 1h (practical)
This is the number of hours that a given per sub-unit valve will be open to irrigate one
hydraulic unit. According to the SABI design norms stated in (ENAG3IE notes, 2010),
irrigation hours per week for drip irrigation system should not exceed 144 hours. The field
will be divided into three sub-units. The decision was made in order to minimise the capital
cost of having many sub-units (say 4) in a small area of 0. 27 ha. other reasons for not having
less than 3 sub-units (say 2) is to minimise the effect of too many laterals in the field and this
also increases cost which implies that the operating time per day will be 3 hours. The total
irrigation time per week is 21 hours which is less than 144 hours, and this is acceptable.
Emitter Selection
)*LP102 4T5647
PF-+QR+LFRS: 4
Emitter Discharge (qe) = = = 1.08 l.h-1
Use standard emitter discharge of 2 l.h-1 from Natafim catalogue (2004) in APPENDIX K1.
The data below were chosen from the attached Netafim South Africa (NSA) product
catalogue (2004) in APPENDIX K1.
69
Discharge versus pressure relationship qe =UVW
where
qe (emitter discharge for non pressure compensating emitters) = 2l.h-1
k = 0.693
x =emitter discharge exponent (0.46)
H = average emitter operating pressure required to give a discharge equal to average
discharge for the selected EU, selected to be 92% as a design criterion.
[
X OZ
N \
Y
H=
=X Z
@E]2^[ _`a
58C?
= 10 m
Manufacturer coefficient of variation (CVm) = 0.04 (Netafim, 2004)

W
X Z
Nb fb
Ncde fcde
Relationship between two emitters of similar characteristics: = from Keller
and Bliesner (1990) and IDM (2003f, page 12.41).
where
qa = average emitter discharge under pressure Ha
qmin = emitter discharge for pressure Hmin
Design Emission Uniformity (EU)
EU = g h mX Z
ijc Nc
k9 l Nb
refer to APPENDIX J4 for the given equation
,n
SR+ =
C@@
B
455Xh Z
=
pq
455oh s t
<rK
=1.94 l.h-1
[ [
Hmin = g m = 10X Z
Ncde \ 4C6 _`a

= 9.36 m
70
Allowable Pressure Variation (∆Hs)
According to IDM (2003f, p 12.42) after Burt and Styles (1999) and Andreas and Karen
(2002), ∆Hs is the allowable pressure variation in a sub-unit that will give an EU comparable
to design value.
∆Hs = 2.5 (Ha- Hmin) = 2.5 (10- 9.36) refer to APPENDIX J4 for this equation
= 1.60 m
Note: the Hloss and elevation differences within each sub-unit should not exceed the allowable
pressure variation (∆Hs) which is 1.60 m.
Pipe size determination
To maintain EU at 92% in a subunit, ∆Hs = 1.60 m
Driplines sizing
Common pipe sizes are 12, 16 and 20 mm (Phocaides, 2001), polyethylene pipes class 4.
Class 4 pipes were selected because the operating pressure will not exceed 4 bar.
u:+LF]vQ2R1ER+:P#S'
,SRFF:2PP1-R+L#S'
Number of emitters per dripline =
85
56
=
= 150 emitters per dripline

Therefore, the flow rate (Q) in a dripline is calculated as follows.
Qdripline = rw xK K 150 × 1 lateral × 2 l.h-1 = 300 l.h-1 = 0.3
m3.h-1
From the polyethylene friction charts in APPENDIX L1, head losses in smooth polyethylene
pipes are tabulated below
F = friction reducing factor, taken from Table 6.9 in the IDM, 2003b.
71
Pipe HL/100 [m] Length of F Htotal [m] Inline H actual
diameter (from the polyethylene driplines (Table for Total head loss losses [m] [m]
= HL/100 * L *f HL/100 * 0.22
[mm] pipe chart [m] 150 outlets)
of pipe length
12 0.25 60 0.347 5.21 0.055 5.26
16 0.047 60 0.347 0.98 0.01 0.99
The 16 mm diameter pipe will be used for driplines because its head loss is less than ∆Hs.
i.e. 0.99 m < 1.60 m.
Balance the left between yVx head loss in dripline = 1.60 – 0.99 = 0.61 m (this should be
able to cover Hloss in the manifold and the change in elevation along the dripline which is
0.5/100 × 60 m = 0.3 m)
Drip manifolds sizing
The system will include three hydraulic units (3 sub-units), the decision was made to have
three sub-units as explained previously under duration of irrigation (Ta).
zR:EQE:+LF]#S'
?P{|G{+RFP
Length of each manifold =
67S
?P{|G{+RFP
Length of each manifold =
= 15 m
u:+LF]vF]:S-+RvEQ#S'
}2R1ER+:PP1-R+L#S'
Number of driplines per manifold =
=
47
47
= 10 laterals
72
~ # '
rw K x rw xK K
x J
= 10 ×150 × 2 l .h-1
= 3000 litres .h-1
= 3 m3 .h-1
The common pipe sizes for manifolds are 40, 50, 63 and 75 mm (Phocaides, 2001 and IDM,
2003b).
Choose 40 mm Low Density Polyethylene Pipe (LDPE), class 3 refer to friction loss chart in
APPENDIX L2.
Head losses in a 40 mm diameter pipe for Qmanifold = 3 m3.h-1 is:
HLmanifold (m) = HL/100 (m) × manifold length × F
HL/100 m = 0.016 m (from friction loss chart)
F = friction reducing factor taken from Table 6.9 (IDM, 2003b)
= 0.365 for 10 outlets
L = manifold length (m)
HLmanifold = 0.016 × 15 × 0.365
= 0.09 m
Check: Balance left between drip lines and change in elevation along the dripline (0.61 – 0.3
= 0.31 m). Manifold head losses should not exceed 0.31 m.
Secondary pressure losses in the manifold (Grommets take-off and elbow losses)
Secondary pressure losses are expressed in terms of equivalent length of straight pipe of the
relevant diameter using the secondary friction loss factors. According to the IDM (2003b), in
practice these losses make up a small percentage of the total friction that they are nominally
allowed for an estimated percentage of the pipe losses. These losses will be accounted for in
the design.
Grommets take-off
Grommets take-off consists of 10 cm riser and an elbow which is directly connected to the
73
lateral/drip line.
Diameter of the riser = 16 mm
Head loss through the riser = 0.1 m
Head loss through the elbow:
Qmanifold = 3 m3.hr-1
Qdripline = 0.3 m3.hr-1

= 0.000083 m3.s-1
#5548'
KK
}
6 6
= = 0.00020 m2
According to SABI norms, flow velocity for the selected pipe diameter must not be lower
than 0.4 m.s-1 but not more than 2 m.s-1 to avoid siltation and sedimentation (IDM, 2003b).
The flow velocity was checked against the SABI norms using continuity equation as follows.
Q=V×A (refer to APPENDIX M1 for the given equation)
Where Q = flow rate (m3.s-1)

V = flow velocity (m.s-1)
A = cross sectional area (m2)
55555T?
q #' 3 =

5555@5
= 0.42 m.s-1
This is acceptable because 0.42 m.s-1 is more than 0.4 m.s-1 and less than 2 m.s-1.
From the IDM, 2003b Page 6.16 of pipe hydraulics, the secondary pressure losses is calculated
as follows.
Yj@
@L
where
k = velocity loss factor
= 0.75 for elbow- fitting (refer to Table 6.8 in APPENDIX M)
v = velocity in the pipe (m.s-1), in this case the 10 cm riser
g = gravitational acceleration
= 9.81 m.s2
74
B@

>
xx x # ' x > >
Total head losses in the manifold = 0.067 m + 0.1 + 0.09 = 0.26 m

The 40 mm diameter manifold pipes will be used because 0.26 is less than 0.31 m which is the
allowable pressure variation (∆Hs) in the manifold.
Check: hf laterals + hf manifold + ∆ elevation along the lateral < ∆Hs

0.99 m+ 0.26 m + 0.3 m < 1.60 m
1.55 < 1.60 m
Drip mainline pipe sizing
The three manifolds will operate sequentially which implies that the flow rate in the mainline
is equal to the flow rate in manifold 1, 2 and 3.
When the last manifold is in operation, there are higher frictional losses within the mainline
therefore, the mainline will be sized based on the last manifold.
Qmainline = 3 m3.h-1
Mainline length = 30 m
Try 63 mm diameter uPVC pipe, class 9. A bigger class is chosen because when there is no
flow in the system the pressure approaches 8 bars, this will prevent pipes from bursting.
Head losses in the mainline (HLmainline) = HL/100 × Length of the mainline
HL/100 m = 0.0031 m (uPVC friction loss chart, refer to APPENDIX L3)

Length of the mainline = 30 m
HLmainline = 0.0031 × 30 = 0.09 m
Note: the sizing of the mainline in drip irrigation system might be subjected to changes since
75
the correct sizing must be based on the last manifold of micro sprinkler irrigation system
because of the higher frictional losses and bigger flow rates, refer to micro sprinkler irrigation
system for the mainline sizing.
Secondary pressure losses in the mainline
Head losses from the elbow fitted on the galvanised piping:
= 0.00083 m3.s-1
Pipe diameter = 40 mm (galvanised pipe)
= 0.04 m
#5556'

}
6 6
= = 0.0013 m2
5555T?
q #' 3 =

5554?
= 0.64 m.s-1
Uq@

J
>B@
k (velocity loss factor) = 0.75 elbow fitting

>
= 0.00083 m3.s-1
Pipe diameter = 50 mm (galvanised pipe, connecting the water meter and elbow)
= 0.05 m
#5557'

}
6 6
= = 0.0020m2
76
5555T?
q #'

3 555@5
=
= 0.42 m.s-1
Uq@

J
B@

>
The other elbows fitted on the galvanized piping are not included on the above calculations
since there will be no flow through them when only one manifold is in operation.
Total head losses in the mainline = HLmainline + secondary losses

= 0.09+ ( 0.016 + 0.0067)
= 0.11m
Size of the drip irrigation group/block
zR:EQ-2:- @A55S
0O 0 5647
Number of emitters per group (ne) = = = 4500 emitters per 0.27 ha
Because there are three blocks, this means that each block will then have 1500 emitters.
47554756
45555 45555
Area of group in hectares (Ag) = = = 0.09 ha
3 5@A]-
3Ml 55C]-
Check: Number of groups = = = 3 groups
1:2-FR+L]{2PR+-Q- ?]
0F-+QR+LFRS:#FP' 4]
Number of settings = = = 3 settings
The number of blocks agrees with the possible number of settings, and no further adjustment
is required (IDM, 2003e). The design is correct.
77
Total Dynamic Head (TDH) for Drip Irrigation System
System component Head [m]
Mainline 0.11
Manifold 0.26
Dripline 0.99
Emitter operating pressure 10.00
Change in elevation 0.3
Total 11.66
The total dynamic head of 11.66 m must be provided for the drip irrigation system. The
available head is approximately 70 m, this will be reduced by using a pressure regulator.
78
APPENDIX I: MICRO SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Keller and Bliesner (1990), Andreas and Karen (2002) and Irrigation Design Manual (2003)
approach was used in the design calculations. The design is based on the tomato crop because
it has the highest peak water demand.
Crop water requirements
SR2 2 ( refer Table E2 of APPENDIX E2)

where
ETmicro= crop water requirements for micro sprinkler (mm.day-1)
ETc = crop evapotranspiration (mm.day-1)
Kr = ground cover (%)
Refer to Table E2 of APPENDIX E2 for the crop water requirements. Crop reduction factor is
dependent on the ground cover of the crop. A larger ground cover implies that the crop
transpires more water because of the large leaf canopy. In order to design for peak water
requirements, a ground cover of 80% was assumed, which corresponds to a Kr value of 0.94
(refer to Table 1 in APPENDIX J1 for the Kr value). Crop water requirements are calculated
below.
SR2 2
SR2 B
5.47 mm.day-1
Net irrigation requirements (IRn)
HI + h I I
where
Re = Effective rainfall (mm) (refer to Table E2 of APPENDIX E2)
L= Leaching requirement (mm)
Leaching requirement is taken as zero as in the drip irrigation system design.
79
HI + B h I I
h
G4
Readily available water (RAW)
I Vp I

where
SWHC = Soil water holding capacity (mm.m-1)
ERD = Effective root depth (m)
MAD = Management Allowable Depletion (%) (see Table 3.6 of APPENDIX J5 )
= 40 %
According to Keller and Bliesner (1990) and IDM (2003e), irrigation is applied when 40 % of
the available soil water is depleted, therefore MAD of value of 40% will be adopted.
Effective root depth is the lesser of effective soil depth and natural root depth. The effective
root depth is 0.75 m since they are equal.
I B

Cycle length (tc)
I

HI +
Wetted (W) strip is the wetted area as percentage of total soil area per emitter (%). According
to Andreas and Karen (2002), if crops are less spaced (< 1.8 m) the wetted area can approach
100%. A wetted area of 90% was assumed since all the crops to be grown have small spacing.

x#xK '

As a rule, micro irrigation systems provide the means for extremely frequent irrigation
(Andreas and Karen, 2002). This entails the use of very low MAD. A cycle length reduces
80
when small MAD value is used. A small MAD value (say 25%) will be used in order to
shorten the cycle length. This implies that readily available water must be calculated from the
assumed MAD.
I Vp I

>
A new cycle length is now calculated as follows.
>
>x

A practical cycle length of 6 days will be used.
Gross irrigation requirement per cycle

HI HI +
P
where
GIRc = Gross irrigation requirement (mm)
IRn = Net irrigation requirement (mm.day-1)
s= system efficiency (%)
= 85% (IDM, 2003f)

HI > B

Emitter discharge
HI
:
P
where
qe = Emitter discharge (m3.h-1)
GIRc = Gross irrigation requirement per cycle (mm)
81
Ts = Standing time
A = Total theoretical area served by an emitter (m2)

= Ld x Le
where
Ld = lateral spacing ( m)
Le = emitter spacing (m)
According to Phocaides (2001), the sprinkler spacing along the lateral and between the
laterals should range from 5 to 7 m, hence common spacings are 5 x 5, 5 x 6, 5 x 7 and 6 x 6.
For this project, 6 x 6 will be used.
The standing time depends on the type of irrigation system, minimum amount of daylight
hours and management aspects (IDM, 2003e). In order to maintain reasonable investment
costs, the micro sprinkler system must be designed to operate for as long as possible but
should not exceed 22 hours per day, to allow for a margin of safety, repairs, weeding and
other activities. The client (Dr. Senzanje) said that he will appreciate if a reasonable standing
time is adopted.
A reasonably longer standing time of 6 hours was chosen to account for weeding, repairs,
time for student’s demonstration and other activities. The field for micro sprinkler irrigation
system is 0.27 m2. The field is divided into 2 sub-units. This implies that the total operating
time is 12 hours, which is less than 22 hours.
The field is also divided in such a way that the lateral lengths are below the maximum
permissible lengths for 6 m lateral spacing (refer to APPENDIX P for maximum permissible).
SABI recommends that irrigation hours per week must not exceed 144 hours for micro
sprinkler irrigation systems. The total irrigation time per week is 60 hours, taking into
consideration that the system will be operated on a 5 day working week. This is acceptable
since the working hours are less than 144 hours.
Emitter discharge is calculated as follows.
B > >

: >B G4
>
82
The practical emitter discharge that can be used is 128 l.hr-1 (refer to APPENDIX K2 for
emitter characteristics). This emitter operates at a pressure of 25 m and a wetted diameter of
8.5 m. This emitter was also selected because it will be able to achieve 100 % wetted area.
Net application rate
: -
rI

where
NAR = Net application rate (mm.h-1)
qe = Emitter discharge (m3.h-1)
a= application efficiency
= 85 (%) (IDM, 2003f)

rI
> >
G4 G4 ( IDM, 2003c)
This result complies with the norms for minimum emitter discharge.
This value is acceptable since it is less than the infiltration rate of soil which is 18.1 mm.h-1 (
refer to Table F2 in APPENDIX F2).
Pipe size determination
Laterals
The layout of the micro sprinkler irrigation system is on the right hand side of the drawing
(refer to the field layout in APPENDIX O.)
The laterals are made of polyethylene pipes, the common sizes used in micro sprinkler
irrigation systems are 20, 25 and 32 mm (Phocaides, 2001, Andreas and Karen, 2002 and
ENAG3EI notes, 2011).
As a trial, 20 mm class 4 polyethylene pipes are considered. Class 4 pipes are chosen since
the operating pressure will not exceed 4 bars, which is 2 bars.
83
Diameter = 20 mm
Lateral length = 30 m
: G4
Number of emitters per lateral

J
x
xK J

x
>
Half emitter spacing is allowed before the first emitter in the lateral.
h

E-F:2-E x J r x
E-F:2-E
>B G4
>B? G4
Lateral head losses:

VE-F:2-E V ~
where
HLlateral = head loss through the pipe (m)
V = head loss for every 100 m of a pipe (m) (refer to APPENDIX LI)
L = length of pipe (m)
F = pressure reducing factor (refer to Table 6.9 of APPENDIX M1)
= 0.390 (for 5 micro sprinkler outlets).
VE-F:2-E V ~
>
>B
10% for micro tubing (connection of micro sprinkler to lateral)
Total = 0.64 ×1.10 = 0.70 m.
Total head loss through the lateral (HLtotal) = 0.64 + 0.70 = 1.34 m.
Change in elevation along the lateral = 0.5/100 × 30 = 0.15 m
84
Manifolds
According to Phocaides (2001), sizes of manifold pipes should be 40, 50 and 63 mm High
Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) or Low Density Polyethylene Pipe (LDPE) and they must
not exceed 75 mm for micro sprinkler irrigation systems.
Try 40 mm Low Density Polyethylene Pipe (LDPE) class 3, refer to friction loss chart in
APPENDIX L2.
Diameter = 40 mm (LDPE class 3)

Length of manifold = 45 m (refer to layout, APPENDIX O )
S-+RvEQ : r: r x

where
Qmanifold = Total discharge in the manifold (m3.h-1)
Ne = Number of emitters
qe is as defined in previous calculations.
S-+RvEQ
5120 l.h-1
= 5.12 m3.h-1
Head losses in the manifold:

VS-+RvEQ V ~
where
HLmanifold = head loss through the pipe (m)
V = head loss for every 100 m of a pipe (m)
= 0.04 m (refer to APPENDIX L2)
L = length of manifold (m)
F = pressure reducing factor (refer to Table 6.9 of APPENDIX M2)
= 0.37 m (for 8 outlets)
A length of 42 m will be used in the head losses calculations since the 3 m clearance was
made before the first lateral in the manifold.
85
VS-+RvEQ V ~
B B
>
Secondary pressure losses in the manifold (Grommets take-off and elbow losses)
Secondary pressure losses are expressed in terms of equivalent length of straight pipe of the
relevant diameter using the secondary friction loss factors. According to the IDM (2003b), in
practice these losses make up a small percentage of the total friction that they are nominally
allowed for an estimated percentage of the pipe losses. These losses will be accounted for in
the design.
Grommets take-off
Grommets take-off consists of 10 cm riser and an elbow which is directly connected to the
lateral/drip line.
Diameter of the riser = 20 mm
Head loss through the riser = 0.1 m
Head loss through the elbow:
Qmanifold = 5.12 m3.hr-1
Qdripline = 0.64 m3.hr-1

= 0.00017 m3.s-1
#55@'
KK
}
6 6
= = 0.00031 m2
According to SABI norms, flow velocity for the selected pipe diameter must not be lower
than 0.4 m.s-1 but not more than 2 m.s-1 to avoid siltation and sedimentation (IDM, 2003b).
The flow velocity was checked against the SABI norms using continuity equation as follows.
Q=V×A (refer to APPENDIX M1 for the given equation)
Where
Q = flow rate (m3.s-1)
V = flow velocity (m.s-1)
A = cross sectional area (m2)
86
55554A
q #' 3 =

5555?4
= 0.55 m.s-1
This is acceptable because 0.55 m.s-1 is more than 0.4 m.s-1 and less than 2 m.s-1.
From the IDM, 2003b Page 6.16 of pipe hydraulics, the secondary pressure losses is
calculated as follows.
Yj@

@L
where
k = velocity loss factor
= 0.75 for elbow- fitting (refer to Table 6.8 in APPENDIX M3)
v = velocity in the pipe (m.s-1), in this case the 10 cm riser
g = gravitational acceleration
= 9.81 m.s2
@

xx x # ' x >
Total head losses in the manifold = 0.62 m + 0.1 + 0.096 = 0.82 m
Allowable pressure variation (yVP )
yVP xx x xx x
For the system to operate well, the allowable pressure variation must not be exceeded by the
sum of manifold, lateral and elevation losses. Elevation head will not be included in the
calculation because the manifold is gaining head, this implies that the elevation will not
affectyVP .
Allowable pressure variation is taken as 20% of the operating pressure (IDM, 2003f). The
pressure losses along the manifold or lateral must not exceed this pressure in order for the
87
irrigation system to function well. The combined head loss through the manifold and lateral
must not exceed 20% of the operating pressure. This is because in micro irrigation, it is
important to be more concerned about under-irrigation than over-irrigation (Andreas and
Karen, 2002). The operating pressure of the micro sprinkler is 20 m, therefore ∆Hs is 5 m.
Pressure variation in the sub-unit = total lateral losses + change in elevation along the lateral
+ manifold losses =1.34 + 0.15 + 0.82 = 2.31 < 5 m.
This is acceptable since the head losses in the manifold and lateral do not exceed the
allowable pressure variation.
Mainline sizing
Manifold 4 and 5 will operate sequentially, which implies that the flow rate in the mainline is
equal to the flow rate in each of the manifolds.
When manifold 5 is in operation, the mainline experiences higher frictional losses, therefore
the mainline will be sized based on manifold 5.
The mainline of 63 mm diameter, uPVC pipe class 9 will feed the two manifolds.
Length of mainline = 78 m (refer to APPENDIX O for the field layout)
S-R+ER+: m3. h-1
Head losses:
VS-R+ER+: V

Secondary pressure losses in the mainline
Qmainline = 5.12 m3.h-1

= 0.0014 m3.s-1
Pipe diameter = 40 mm (galvanised pipe)
88
= 0.04 m
#556'

}
6 6
= = 0.0013 m2
55546
q #' 3 =

5554?
= 1.1 m.s-1
Uq@

J
@

B>
Qmainline = 5.12 m3.h-1

= 0.0014 m3.s-1
Pipe diameter = 50 mm (galvanised pipe, connecting the water meter and elbow)
= 0.05 m
#557'

}
6 6
= = 0.0020m2
55546
q #'

3 555@5
=
= 0.7 m.s-1
Uq@

J
@

89
For 90 degrees elbow:
Diameter = 63 mm
Flow rate = 5.12 m3.h-1
#558?'

}
6 6
= = 0.003 m2
55546
q #' 3 =

555?5
= 0.46 m.s-1
Kf = 0.75
B>@
Vv
J
0.01 m
The other elbows fitted on the galvanized piping are not included on the above calculations
since there will be no flow through them when only one manifold is in operation.
Total head losses in the mainline = HLmainline + secondary losses

= 0.59+ ( 0.046 + 0.02 + 0.01)
= 0.67 m
Table I: Total dynamic head (TDH)

System component Head (m)
Mainline 0.67
Manifold 0.82
Lateral 1.34
Emitter operating pressure 20.00
Emitter height above ground 0.20
Change in elevation 0.15
Total 23.18
The total dynamic head required to run the micro sprinkler irrigation system is 23.18 m. The
available head is approximately 70 m, this means that a pressure regulator (pressure reducing
valve) is required to drop the pressure to the desired one.
90
Drip and micro sprinkler head requirements (Helen and Khutsang)
Pressure reducing valve, filter sizing and valve selection
Pressure reducing valve (PRV) selection
A 50 mm PRV with Code 14033050 was selected from the AGRICO product catalogue (refer
to APPENDIX Q2).
Disc filter sizing
The filter selection is based on the drip irrigation system since it is more susceptible to emitter
clogging. SABI recommend that fineness of disk filters should be smaller than 1/5 of the
discharge orifice of the emitters in the system. Keller and Bleisner (2000), recommend that
filtration must remove all particles larger than 1/10 the diameter of the emitter passageway.
Keller and Bliesner’s method will be used as a selection criterion.
The orifice diameter is 2 mm
fineness =

From the above calculation, 0.2 mm (Grey 115 micron) disk filter Code 14540052 with a flow
rate of 10 m3.h-1 and a pressure loss of 0.05 bar (5 kPA) was selected from AGRICO
manufacturer catalogue in APPENDIX Q1 because the total flow rate required in the system
is 5.12 m3.h-1. Phocaides (2001) recommends that filtration requirements should be 300 to 250
microns for micro sprinkler irrigation systems.
Gate valves selection
A 40 mm gate valve brass Code 34130065 was selected for drip and micro sprinkler irrigation
systems from the AGRICO product catalogue (refer to APPENDIX Q3). An additional 40
mm ball valve brass Code 34138050 was selected for demonstration purpose.
91
Supply line
The irrigation water will be supplied by the pipe that extends from the 600 kPa, where Mr
Kunz connected his mainline. The current pipe that is supposed to be supplying water to the
two irrigation systems is about 40 m and it is 50 mm class 6, PVC pipe. This pipe ends to the
two irrigation systems and is laid at a point where the pressure exceeds 600 kPa, which
implies that in future this pipe might burst due to high pressure. Mr Kunz and the ACCI
officials were contacted about this issue. The ACCI officials suggested that the pipe can be
replaced by a bigger pipe so that it can also be helpful for future projects. The suggested pipe
size is 90 mm, class 9 uPVC since the pressure will not exceed 9 bar at a point where this pipe
starts distributing water to the two irrigation systems. Pressure reducing valve and disc filter
will be situated at the end of this pipe where the pressure ranges between 6 and 8 bars.
Total Dynamic Head

Micro Disc filter (m) Total head (m)
sprinkler (m)
23.18 0.5 23.68
The hydraulic grade lines for both drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems are provided in
APPENDIX S1 and S2. The pressure on the most disadvantaged emitters for drip irrigation
system was found to be 9.65 m (approximately 10 m). For micro sprinkler irrigation system, it
was found to be 20 m. These two values correspond to emitter operating pressure of 10 and 20
m. This is acceptable, a flow variability of 10 % can only be allowed.
92
APPENDIX J1: THE GROUND COVER REDUCTUCTION FACTOR
KELLER AND BLIESNER (1990)
93
APPENDIX J2: FIELD APPLICATION EFFICIENCY (FAO, 2002)
94
APPENDIX J3: WETTED AREA VALUES
95
APPENDIX J4: DESIGN EMISSION UNIFORMITY (EU) (FAO, 2002)
96
APPENDIX K1: NETAMIM CATALOGUE FOR DRIP IRRIGATION
DATA (NETAFIM, 2004)
97
APPENDIX K2: NETAFIM CATALOGUE FOR MICRO IRRIGATION
DATA (NETATIM, 2004)
98
APPENDIX L1: POLYETHYLENE PIPES HEAD LOSSES CHART
Source: FAO by Andreas and Karen (2002)
99
APPENDIX L2: FRICTION LOSS CHART FOR UPVC PIPES (FAO,
2002)
100
APPENDIX M1: FLOW RATE EQUATION (IDM, 2003B)
101
APPENDIX M2: FRICTION REDUCING FACTOR ( IDM, 2003B)
102
APPENDIX M3: SECONDARY PRESSUR LOSS FACTORS (IDM,
2003B)
103
APPENDIX N: BILL OF QUANTITY
Micro sprinkler components Quantity Units Cost/R
Mainline
uPVC pipe 63 mm class 4 78 (13 by 6 m piece) M 1950
Manifolds
HDPE pipe 50 mm class 4 90 m 746
elbow 90 0 uPVC 50 mm 1 each 15
uPVC tee 50 mm x 63 mm x 63 mm 1 each 3.5
Laterals
Soft polyethylene pipe 20 mm 480 (1 x 500 m coil) m 1830
grommet take off 20 mm 16 each 24.75
microsprinklers with qs=128 l/h, H= 25 m 80 each 2321
stakes for microsprinklers 80 each 960
end sleeves, 2 cm long, 40 mm 16 each 32
Drip components
Mainline to drip
uPVC pipe 50 mm class 4 31 ( 6 by 6 m piece) m 600
elbow 90 0 uPVC 50 mm 1 each 55
uPVC tee 50 mm x 50 mm x 50 mm 2 each 7
Manifolds
HDPE pipe 50 mm 45 m 564.42
elbow 90 0 mm uPVC 50 mm 3 each 10
Driplines
polyethylene driplines, 20 mm x 2 l/h, 0.4 m 4 x 500 m coil m 5276
driplines spacing and 1mm thickness.
end sleeves/caps 30 each 60
Other components
90 mm, uPVC class 9 Supply line 40 (7 by 6 m piece) m 1190
disc filter 1 each 1139
65 mm pressure reducing valve 1 each 1000
104
50 mm gate valve brass 4 each 1596
65 mm ball valve 1 each 234
Total R
19613.67
105
106
APPENDIX O: FIELD LAYOUT DRAWING
107
APPENDIX P: TYPICAL LATERAL SPACINGS AND PERMISSIBLE
LATEARL LENGTH ( Phocaides, 2001)
APPENDIX T: METHOD OF EVALUATION
1. Standard evaluation and performance design criteria for drip and micro sprinkler
irrigation systems
(a) Testing the pressure variation within the lateral

The pressure drop within the lateral will be measured by using pressure gauges at the inlet and
outlet of the lateral. A pressure gauge will be inserted at the end of the lateral to measure the
pressure.
According to the IDM (2003), the pressure drop within the lateral should not exceed 20% of
the emitter operating pressure. The actual pressure drop will be measured and compared to
this design criterion when the irrigation system is operating at the system design pressure
.
(b) Checking the pressure variation within a block or sub-unit
Variation in pressure reaching the inlet of individual laterals is determined by measuring the
inlet pressure at both the first lateral after the pressure regulation point and the last lateral on
the manifold. A pressure gauge will be used to measure the pressure.
According to Andreas and Karen (2001), the pressure variation within the manifold should
not exceed 20 % of the emitters operating pressure in order to limit the flow variability among
emitters to 10%. The measured pressure variation within the manifold will then be compared
with the design criterion which is 20 %.
(c) Comparing the inlet pressure with the design pressure
The two irrigation systems will be run at their respective system pressures and the
corresponding pressures at the inlet of the manifold will be compared with the design pressure
at the manifolds by inserting the pressure gauge at the inlet of the manifolds.
108
(d) Comparing the system capacity with the one specified by the designer at the
distribution point
The operating pressure of the system must be able to provide the required flow in the system.
A water meter/flow measuring device and stop watch will be used to measure the volume of
water over a specified period. The flow rate will be estimated by dividing the accumulated
water (m3) by the time. The calculated flow rate is compared with the one that was designed
for the system.
(e) Determine application efficiency (AE)
The application efficiency is a measure of how well the system can apply water if
management is optimal (Jensen, 1981). The application efficiency is expressed calculated
using the equation below.
-:2-L:E/N{-2F:2Q:1F]v/-F:2R+REF2-F:Q
-:2-L:Q:F]v/-F:2-11ER:Q
AE = (1)
2. Standard evaluation procedures for the drip irrigation system
(a) Testing the emitter flow variation (qvar) in the manifold
Theoretical background
Emitter flow variation is the measure of emitter to emitter discharge. According to Phocaides
(2001) and IDM (2003), the flow variation between emitters should not exceed 10%.
Measuring cylinders will be used to collect water at specified time from the five selected
driplines/laterals in the irrigation block. The flow variation will be calculated by dividing the
109
difference between the maximum and minimum delivery in the block by the maximum
delivery. The formula for calculating the flow variation is given as follows.
:-2 X h Z
NOcde
NOcb\
(2)
where
qe min= minimum emitter discharge in a data set (measured emitter discharge)
qe max= maximum emitter discharge in a data set (measured emitter discharge)
Field evaluation procedures

Step 1: Select five laterals in the sub-unit and four emitter positions on each lateral,
distributed uniformly as given in Figure 1.
Step 2: Collect water emitted from each emitter at a specified period of time (say 5 min) by
using a cylinder.
Step 3: Measure the amount of water collected from the cylinders by using a measuring
cylinder.
Step 4: Repeat step 1 and 3 for all emitter locations
Step 5: Determine the minimum and maximum emitter discharge in a data set and use eqn(2)
to calculate the emitter flow variation. Use Table T1a to fill in the collected data.
Figure T1a Test block for drip irrigation system
Table T2a Data form for recording emitter discharge rates in the field for calculating field
emitter flow variation.
Laterals Emitter location on the
110
lateral
L/3 2L/3 L
0
Ml l.h-1 ml l.h-1 ml l.h-1 ml l.h-1
1
2
3
4
5
(b) Determine the statistical emission uniformity (′) [%]

EU` is the measure of the uniformity of emissions from the emission points within an
irrigation block. The EU` value will be calculated using the following formula during the
evaluation process.
NO¡¢

NOb£
′
where
qe LQ = measured average of lowest quarter of emitter discharges [l.h-1]
qe av = measured average emitter discharge [l.h-1]
The statistical emission uniformity value must not exceed 92% which is the design criterion.
Step 1: Choose five lateral lines and four emitters on each lateral per location on lateral as
illustrated in Figure T1a.
Step 2: Measure the volume of water in ml collected at each emitter for five minutes using a
measuring cylinder.
Step 3: Calculate the average of lowest quarter of emitter discharge in litres per hour for each
of the twenty positions.
Step 4: Calculate the average emitter discharge in litres per hour.
Step 5: Use eqn (3) to calculate the statistical emission uniformity.
Note: Use Table T1b for field data records.
111
Table T1b data form for recording discharge rates in the field for calculating field emission
uniformity.
Laterals Emitter location on the
lateral
L/3 2L/3 L
0
Ml l.h-1 ml l.h-1 ml l.h-1 ml l.h-1
1
2
3
4
5
(c) Determine the absolute emission uniformity (′a) [%]

′a is identical to the design emission uniformity (EU), except that it takes the maximum
emitter discharge into account (IDM, 2003). The following equation is used to calculate
absolute emission uniformity during the evaluation phase.
4 N
′- = 100 @ X NO¡¢ N Ob£ Z
N
(4)
Ob£ Ocb\
where
qe LQ = measured average of lowest 1/4 of emitter discharges [l.h-1]
qe av = measured average emitter discharge [l.h-1]
qe max = measured average of highest 1/8 of emitter discharges [l.h-1]
The measured absolute emission uniformity must not exceed the design emission uniformity
(EU) which is 92 %.
Use the data recorded in Table T1b to determine the average of highest 1/8 of emitter
discharges. Other parameters are as determined in statistical emission uniformity`s field
procedures.
(d) Determine statistical uniformity coefficient (Us)
112
Statistical uniformity coefficient is another parameter for estimating the performance of an
irrigation system. Statistical uniformity measures how well water is applied to the soil. The
following equation is used to calculate the statistical uniformity coefficient.
Us = 100 X h ¤ Z
0N
N
(5)
where
Sq = standard deviation of the flow (l.h-1)
¥= mean of the emitter discharge (l.h-1)
The Us value of greater than 90% is acceptable (Nakayama and Bucks, 1986).
The same field data collected in Table T1a will be used for calculating the statistical
uniformity coefficient. Calculate the standard deviation and the average emitter discharges
and use eqn (5) to calculate the statistical uniformity coefficient.
2. Standard evaluation procedures for micro sprinkler irrigation system.
(a) Testing the sprinkler flow variation (qevar) in the manifold
The evaluation procedures for sprinkler flow variation are similar to that of drip and the
formula for calculating the flow variation is given as follows.
:-2 X h N Ocde Z

N
(6)
Ocb\
where
qe min= minimum sprinkler discharge in a data set (measured sprinkler discharge)
qe max= maximum sprinkler discharge in a data set
113
Step 1: Select eight laterals in the sub-unit and three sprinkler positions on each lateral,
distributed uniformly as shown in Figure T1b.
Step 2: Collect water emitted from each sprinkler at a specified period of time (say 5 min) by
using a cylinder.
Step 3: Measure the amount of water collected from the cylinders by using a measuring
cylinder.
Step 4: Repeat step 1 and 3 for all sprinkler locations
Step 5: Determine the minimum and maximum sprinkler discharge in a data set and use eqn
(6) to calculate the sprinkler flow variation. Use Table T1c to fill in the collected data.
Figure T1d Test block for micro sprinkler irrigation system
Table T1c Data form for recording sprinkler discharge rates in the filed
Laterals Sprinklers location on the lateral
L/2 L
0
114
ml l.h-1 ml l.h-1 ml l.h-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(b) Determine distribution uniformity (Du) [%]
According to the (IDM, 2003), the criterion of the uniformity of distribution is determined by
measuring and giving an indication of the measure in which under-irrigation is taking place in
an irrigation block. DU will be calculated using the relationship between the lowest quarter of
the data set and the average of all measurements in the block. To determine DU, first of all the
gross application rate (GAR) will be determined whereby catch cans will be placed in an
irrigated area and the amount of water collected in ml will be measured, converted to a depth
in mm. The catch can test method is adopted from Keller and Bliesner (1990). This will then
be divided by the number of cans to give a GAR in mm.h-1.
I
¦F-EQ:1F]#SS'EE:F:QR+-F]-+P1:2]{2
+{S|:2v-F]-+P
(7)
GAR should not exceed the infiltration rate which was determined to be 18.1 mm.h-1 from the
soil analysis, otherwise run-off will result.
When all the volumes have been converted to depths, the lowest quarter catch cans are
selected. The average of the lowest quarter is divided by the GAR to give the DU value.

3:2-L:Q:1F]vE/:PFN{-2F:2v-F]-+P
§3*
(8)
115
DU greater than 75% is acceptable for sprinkler systems (ENAG3IE, 2011). The higher the
DU, the more evenly the water is being distributed.
Step 1: Set out the irrigation test block (6 × 6 m) as shown in Figure T1c.
Step 2: The selection of grid spacing and the number of catch cans should be in accordance
with the ASAE standards.
Step 3: Run the irrigation system for a period of one hour or until an average of 10 mm depth
of water is collected.
Step 4: Calculate the GAR using eqn (7).
Step 4: Determine the average of the lowest quarter of catch cans.
Step 5: Use eqn (8) to calculate DU in percentage.
Figure T1e Test block for micro sprinkler irrigation system
116
(c) Determine Christiansen Uniformity Coefficient (CU) [%]
CU is a statistical parameter giving a description of how evenly the irrigation water is

distributed in an irrigation block on a grid over the given area (Keller and Bliesner, 1990 and
IDM, 2003). CU will be determined using the following equation.
p X h Z
¨©WRGW¥©
¤+
W
(9)
where
xi= the application depth at point i as collected in the meter [mm]
ª¥ = average application [mm]
n = number of measuring points/observations
According to Keller and Bliesner (1990), the test data for CU should be greater than 70 % for
a normal distribution.
Step 1: Follow step 1 to 3 used in determining the distribution uniformity and use Table T1d
to fill up the data.
Step 2: Calculate the CU value.
Table T1d Evaluation data sheet

Depth Mean Deviation from the
Catch can (mm) (mm) mean (mm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
117
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sum
Average
Average standard
deviation
(d) Determine statistical uniformity coefficient (Us)
Statistical uniformity coefficient is another parameter for estimating the performance of an

irrigation system. Statistical uniformity measures how well water is applied to the soil. The
following equation is used to calculate the statistical uniformity coefficient.
Us = 100 X h ¤ Z
0

(10)
where
Sy = standard deviation of the irrigation depth
«¥ = mean depth of irrigation
The Us value of greater than 90% is acceptable (Nakayama and Bucks, 1986).
The same field data collected in Table T1c will be used for calculating the statistical
uniformity coefficient. Calculate the standard deviation and the average depth and use eqn
(10) to calculate the statistical uniformity coefficient.
118
Other evaluation criteria
Other evaluation factors include checking whether there are leaks in the pipelines. Leakages
are likely to occur on the joints. After laying the pipes, the joints will not be buried until it is
verified that there are no leakages. The irrigation systems will be operated for a while with
uncovered joints in order to identify any leakages. Visual observations will also be used to
check the adequacy of the spray pattern overlap..
119
120
APPENDIX T2 : STUDENT DEMONSTRATION PROCEDURES
LAB 1: The Effect of Pipe Length and Diameter on Head Loss in a Drip Irrigation
System
Introduction: Dynamic pressure losses in a pipe are affected by three factors: Elevation
change, friction losses, and pressure losses in valves, meters, and fittings. In this field
exercise, we will experiment with two different sources of friction and determine how these
factors affect head loss. Velocity of the water, inside roughness of the pipe, inside diameter
of the pipe, and length of the pipe all contribute to friction losses.
Objective: Using varying lengths and diameters of lateral piping, determine the resulting
effect on the dynamic pressure drop over one lateral in an irrigation system.
Materials:
• Drip irrigation system located at Ukulinga Research Farm

• Original to the system: 60m length drip lateral piping (16mm diameter)
• Two alternate lengths of piping (80m, 40m) with consistent diameters
• Two alternate diameters of piping (12mm, 10mm) with consistent lengths
• Pressure gauges
• Pitot tube
• Measuring tape
Procedure:
Pipe Length
1. Measure and record the exact lengths of the 40m, 60m, and 80m lateral pipes.
2. Measure the inside diameters of the three different lengths of lateral pipes to ensure
that they are 16mm in diameter.
3. Close the ball valves leading to the micro-sprinkler irrigation system and the two drip
manifolds furthest from the pressure regulator.
121
4. Using the pressure regulator at the beginning of the field, record the designed initial
operating pressure of the system.
5. Measure the final pressure of the first drip lateral (located at the very top of the field)
by inserting a pitot tube into the end of the lateral. Record the reading in Table T2a.
6. Repeat step 5 two more times, and record results in Table T2a.
7. Close the ball valve between the mainline and the manifold in use, detach the 60 m
pipe, and replace it with the 40 m pipe.
8. Reopen ball valve between the mainline and the manifold in use, and repeat steps 4-6.
Record results in Table T2a.
9. Close the ball valve between the mainline and manifold in use, detach the 40 m pipe,
and replace it with the 80 m pipe.
10. Reopen ball valve between the mainline and manifold in use, and repeat steps 4-6.
Record results in Table T2a.
Pipe Inside Diameter
1. Measure and record the exact inside diameters of the 16 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm
lateral pipes.
2. Measure the lengths of the three different lateral pipes to ensure that they are 60 m in
length.
3. Again, check that the ball valves leading to the micro-sprinkler irrigation system and
two drip manifolds furthest from the pressure regulator are in the closed position.
Also, the pressure regulator should still be set to the designed initial pressure.
4. Measure the final pressure of the first drip lateral (located at the very top of the field)
by inserting a pitot tube into the end of the lateral. Record the reading in Table T2b.
5. Repeat step 4 two more times, and record results in Table T2b.
6. Close the ball valve between the mainline and manifold in use, detach the 16 mm
diameter pipe, and replace it with the 12 mm wide pipe.
Record results in Table T2b.
8. Close the ball valve between the mainline and manifold in use, detach the 12mm
diameter pipe, and replace it with the 10 mm wide pipe.
122
Record results in Table T2b.
Analysis:
a. Calculate the average pressure at the end of the first lateral for each setup.
b. Calculate the pressure drop across the first lateral for each setup.
c. Using the Excel template, construct a 3-dimensional plot comparing the head losses
incurred over one drip lateral when varying lengths and diameters of pipe were
installing.
d. The pressure regulator will hold the system at a constant initial pressure when varying
diameters of lateral piping is introduced. Considering this, explain how the pressure
regulator is related to the velocity of the water in the laterals.
Notes:
• The initial pressure of the system, set by the pressure regulator, will be very close to
the pressure at the beginning of the first lateral.
• When appropriate, multiple lateral pipes should be attached end to end until the
specified length of pipe is created. This method will help conserve resources.
• All materials needed for this lab can be found either in the irrigation field or the shed
by the Agricultural Engineering workshop at Ukulinga Research Farm.
LAB 1 RESULTS:
Table 1: Pipe Length

Pipe Pressure at end of lateral (bar)
Pipe length diameter Initial system ∆P along
(m) (mm) pressure (bar) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average lateral (bar)
40 16
60 16
80 16
123
Table T2b: Pipe diameter
Pipe Pressure at end of lateral (bar)
diameter Pipe length Initial system ∆P along
(mm) (m) pressure (bar) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average lateral (bar)
10 60
12 60
16 60
124
Lab 2: The Effect of Lateral Pipes on Head Loss in a Drip Irrigation System
Introduction: Bernoulli’s equation and the continuity equation define the relationship
between pressure, velocity, and areas. As we add or detach lateral piping from the irrigation
system we in turn alter its orifice area, the area through which water can exit the system,
while keeping the initial area the same. In this lab we will look at how changing the ratio of
these areas affects the pressure of the drip irrigation system.
Objective: Determine the effect that varying numbers of lateral pipes have on the pressure
drop across the manifolds in a drip irrigation system.
Materials:
• Drip irrigation system located at Ukulinga Research Farm

• Pressure gauges
Procedure1:
1. Close ball valves leading to the micro-sprinkler irrigation system.

2. Count and record the number of lateral pipes in the designed drip irrigation system in
Table T2a.
3. Remove the first lateral of the first manifold (at the top of the field) and attach the
pressure gauge at this point. Repeat measurement two more times and record results
in Table T2a.
4. Remove the last lateral of the first manifold, and using the same method as in step 3,
measure the pressure at this point. Repeat measurement two more times and record
results in Table T2a.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 with each of the three manifolds in the drip irrigation system, and
record results in Table T2a.
6. Close the ball valve between the mainline and manifold in use.
7. Kink every third drip lateral pipe at its connection to the manifold so that no water will
flow into the kinked pipes. Record the number of remaining unkinked lateral pipes
(should be 20) in Table T2b.
125
8. Reopen the ball valve between the mainline and the manifold in use.
9. Repeat steps 3-5 and record results in Table T2b.
10. Kink every other drip lateral pipe at its connection to the manifold so that no water
will flow into the kinked pipes. Record the number of remaining unkinked lateral
pipes (should be 10) in Table T2c.
11. Repeat steps 3-5 and record results in Table T2c.
Analysis:
a. Calculate the average pressure at the inlet and outlet points of each manifold for each
set up.
b. Calculate average pressure drop across the first, second, and third drip manifolds.
c. Construct a plot comparing the average head losses incurred across the drip manifolds
when the number of laterals is varied.
d. Explain using Bernoulli’s Principle how varying the orifice area of the manifold will
have an affect on pressure drop across the manifold.
Bernoulli’s Equation and one dimensional continuity equation:
¬ h ¬® @ ¯#° @ h °® @ '
4
± ° ±® °®
126
LAB 2 RESULTS:
Table T2b: All original laterals in place

Manifold inlet pressure (bar) Manifold outlet pressure (bar) Average ∆P
Number of across
Manifold laterals Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average manifold
1
2
3
Table T2b: 1/3 of original laterals removed

Number of across
1
2
3
Table T2b: 2/3 of original laterals removed

Number of across
1
2
3
127
LAB 3: The Effect of Varying Initial Pressures on Emitter Discharge in Drip and
Micro-sprinkler Irrigation Systems
Introduction: In an irrigation system, pressure, water velocity, and flow rate are measurably
related. In this lab we will focus on the relationship between final flow rates and the initial
pressure of the system.
Objective: Determine how changes in the initial pressure of an irrigation system will affect
the flow-rate of the water discharged from emitters in an irrigation system.
Materials:
• Drip and micro-sprinkler irrigation system located at Ukulinga Research Farm

• Pressure gauges
• Plastic garbage bags
• Scissors
• Tape
• Measuring buckets
• Stopwatch
Procedure:
Drip Irrigation
1. Close ball valves leading to the micro-sprinkler irrigation system.
2. Close the ball valve between the mainline and manifold in use.
3. Using the pressure regulator at the beginning of the field set the system to the
designed initial operating pressure.
4. Place one measuring bucket under the final emitter at the end of the first drip lateral
(at the very top of the field), the last drip lateral, and the middle drip lateral. Situate
the bucket so that it will catch all of the water discharged from that emitter.
5. Prepare the stopwatch.
128
6. Open the ball valve between the mainline and manifold in use for 1 minute. This will
allow water to flow through the drip system and be discharged from the emitters on
the laterals.
7. Close the ball valve between the mainline and manifold in use after exactly 1 minute.
8. Measure and record the amount of water collected in each bucket.
9. Empty buckets, and repeat steps 6-8 two more times. Record results in Table T2a.
10. Using the pressure regulator at the beginning of the field, reduce the initial pressure of
the system by 0.5 bar.
11. Repeat steps 4-9. Record results in Table T2b.
12. Using the pressure regulator at the beginning of the field, increase the initial pressure
of the system by 0.5 bar in Table T2c.
13. Repeat steps 4-9. Record results.
Micro-sprinkler Irrigation
1. Close ball valves leading to the drip irrigation system.
2. Close the ball valves between the mainline and manifolds in use.
3. Using the pressure regulator at the beginning of the field set the system to the
designed initial operating pressure.
4. Using the scissors cut a small hole in the bottom of three different plastic garbage
bags. The hole should be just large enough to fit around the sprinkler head.
5. Place one bag around the final emitter at the end of the first drip lateral (at the very top
of the field), the last drip lateral, and the middle drip lateral. Situate the bag so that
the cut hole is around the emitter head.
6. Tape the edges of the hole around
7. Hold the bag closed in such a way that it will trap all of the water discharged from that
emitter.
8. Prepare the stopwatch.
9. Open the ball valve between the mainline and manifolds in use for 1 minute. This will
allow water to flow through the micro-sprinkler system and be discharged from the
emitters on the laterals.
10. Close the ball valve between the mainline and manifolds in use after exactly 1 minute.
11. Being careful not to lose any water out of the bag, remove it from around the emitter.
129
12. Using a measuring bucket, measure and record the amount of water collected from
each emitter.
13. Empty buckets, and repeat steps 6-8 two more times. Record results in Table T2d.
14. Using the pressure regulator at the beginning of the field, reduce the initial pressure of
the system by 0.5 bar.
15. Repeat steps 4-9. Record results in Table T2e.
16. Using the pressure regulator at the beginning of the field, increase the initial pressure
of the system by 0.5 bar.
17. Repeat steps 4-9. Record results in Table T2f.
Analysis:
a. Calculate the average flow rates for each emitter tested.

b. Using flow-rate results and the following formula, calculate the flow variation for both
the drip and micro-sprinkler irrigation systems.
:SR+
:-2 g h m
:S-W
:SR+ x J for a given data set
:S-W ª x J J x
c. Emitter flow variation in both drip and micro-sprinkler irrigation systems should not
exceed 10%. Will :-2 ever exceed this 10% standard? If so, at what initial
pressures does this occur?
d. Construct a plot describing a relationship between the initial pressure of the system
and :-2 .
130
LAB 3 RESULTS:
Table T2a: Drip (designed initial pressure)

Time Amount of water discharged from final emitter
Trial elapsed First lateral Middle lateral Last lateral
(min) (L) (L) (L)
1 1
2 1
3 1
Average
Table T2b: Drip (designed pressure -0.5 bar)

(min) (L) (L) (L)
1 1
2 1
3 1
Average
Table T2c: Drip (designed pressure +0.5 bar)

(min) (L) (L) (L)
1 1
2 1
3 1
Average
131
Table T2d: Micro-sprinkler (designed initial pressure)
(min) (L) (L) (L)
1 1
2 1
3 1
Average
Table T2e: Micro-sprinkler (designed pressure -0.5 bar)

(min) (L) (L) (L)
1 1
2 1
3 1
Average
Table T2f: Micro-sprinkler (designed pressure +0.5 bar)

(min) (L) (L) (L)
1 1
2 1
3 1
Average
132
APPENDIX T3: TRENCHING REQUIREMENTS
It is required that the depth and width of trench is according to the standard ASAE EP340.2.
Through the application of the ASAE standards, the 42 m uPVC pipes with a diameter of 90
mm, the trench depth should be 0.7 m deep.
With respect to the width for the same pipe diameter, it should be 0.39 m (pipe diameter plus
0.3 m) wide.
For the 63 mm diameter pipes, the trenching length is 78 m, the depth should be 0.5 m and the
width should be 0.36 m wide.
Volume of earth to be excavated

Trench for the 90 mm diameter pipe
Depth = 0.70 m
Length = 42 m
Width = 0.39 m
Volume of earth = Length ×Width × Depth

= 42 × 0.39 × 0.70
= 11.4660 m3
133
Trench for the 63 mm diameter pipe (to micro sprinkler irrigation system)
Depth = 0.50 m Length = 78 m
Width = 0.36 m
Volume of earth to be removed = 78 × 0.36 × 0.50

= 14.04 m3
Total volume of soil to be excavated = 25.5 m3
Bedding Material
Volume of bedding material required for the 90 mm diameter pipe
42 m
0.1 m
0.39 m
134
Volume = 0.1 × 0.39 × 42
= 1.64 m3
78 m
0.1 m
0.36 m
Volume = 0.1 × 0.36 × 78
= 2.83 m3
Total volume of bedding required = 5 m3
135
APPENDIX T4: THRUST BLOCKS CALCULATIONS
90 mm pipeline at stop-end
! ² ³ ´ @
where
T = resultant thrust force (N)
P = internal pressure (pa)
D = diameter of the stop-end pipe (m)
The pressure exerted on the 90 mm stop end = 700000 pa
D = 0.09
! B @
= 4450.95 N
The required minimum area that a concrete thrust block must bear against undisturbed soil
shall be in accordance with the following formula
± ¶ (S.F)
µ
·
where
A = area of thrust block
T = resultant thrust force
Sb = allowable soil bearing capacity (100)
S.F = safety factor
6675C7
455
A= (1.5)
= 66.76 m2
Area = 0.26 m wide and 0.26 m deep (260 mm by 260 mm)
The width of the trench is 600 mm (this will be the length of the thrust block)
Thrust block force on the 63 mm stop-end
63 mm diameter stop-end
Internal pressure = 738000 pa
136
Diameter = 0.063 m
! B >@
= 2299.36 N
±
@@CC?8
455
(1.5)
= 34.49 m2
Therefore area = 0.185 m wide by 0.185 m depth (185 mm by 185 mm)
Trench width still 600 mm thus the length of the thrust block is 600 mm.
Thrust block force on the 63 mm elbow
¸¹º»
! ² ³ ´ @ g m

θ J w # J x'
¸¹º
! B >@ g m

= 3913.068 N
±
?C4?58T
455
(1.5)
= 58.71 m2
Area = 0.24 m wide and 0.24 m deep (240 mm by 240 mm), for each restraining surface.
137
APPENDIX U: AUTOMATION
Background on automation
The smart valve controllers are used to keep the valve closed or opened. Electronic
communication takes place between the SVC controllers and the solenoid valves. SVC-100
controls 1 valve, SVC-200 and SVC 400 are multi-station controllers, they can control up to 2
or 4 solenoids respectively. The Hunter SVC controllers also work with other models such as
Baccara, Bermad, Nelson and Rain Bird. In this project, the Hunter SVC controllers will be
operated with the Gulf solenoid valves. The following figure shows the SVC-100 controller
and the Gulf solenoid valve. Figure Ua shows the solenoid valve installed for micro sprinkler
irrigation system.
Valve body SVC controller

Gulf solenoid
Figure Ua Solenoid valve
138
Energy requirement
The SVC controllers use little energy to energize the solenoid valve, These controllers are
powered by a 9 volt alkaline battery. Because of the DC latching solenoids, the battery can
last up to a year. This is because in latching solenoids, there is no need for continuous flow of
electric charges. The controller energizes the solenoid valve by sending a positive pulse which
causes the plunger of the solenoid valve to pull up, which in turn causes the diaphragm to lift
off the valve seat which opens for the flow of water. The opposite occurs when the run time
(irrigation time) reaches zero, the controller sends a negative pulse, which causes the valve to
close. Between the closing and opening of the valve, no energy is supplied to the system,
which makes the controller to consume low electric energy.
Rain sensor
In order to avoid irrigating even when it is raining, one rain sensor will be used to sense
specific amounts of rainfall. The Rain Bird sensor senses from 5 up to 20 mm of rainfall, it
consists of moisture sensing disks. Rainfall settings are dependent on the site conditions. For
clay type soils, rainfall setting is 5 to 10 mm of rainfall, for sandy soils rainfall setting is 15 to
20 mm of rainfall.
Installation of the rain sensor
The rain sensor was installed in such a way that it can only capture natural precipitation, the
elevation of the rain sensor was minimized in order to avoid the effects of high winds at
higher elevation, therefore the sensing disks do not dry at a faster rate than required. The
maximum radius of throw for micro sprinkler is 4.25 m, hence the rain sensor is located 5 m
away from the closest micro sprinkler, which prevents the rain sensor from sensing the water
that is sprayed by the micro sprinkler. Figure Ub shows the RSD sensor which is already
installed at Ukulinga.
139
Figure Ub Rain sensor installation at Ukulinga Research Farm
The rain sensor acts as a switch between the controller and the solenoid valve, it cuts off the
communication between the controller and the solenoid valve, which makes the controller to
stop irrigation while the sensing disks are wetted. Because of the sensor acting as a switch, it
is connected in series with the solenoid valve and the SVC controller.
Complete control station with weather station
Figure Uc shows the two control centres, namely station 1 and station 2. The control stations
have two things in common , the solenoid valve and the SVC controller . In addition, station 1
has a weather station which shuts off the system when a specific millimetres of rainfall is
sensed
140
Control Station 1, with weather station Control station 2
Rain sensor Pressure tap
Valve box
Figure Uc Control station 1 and 2
141
APPENDIX V: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR
DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Table Va
Laterals Emitter location on the lateral

0 l/3 2l/3 l/3
ml l/h ml l/h ml l/h ml l/h
1 66.5 2.00 63.5 1.91 60 1.8 60 1.8
2 66 1.98 62.9 1.89 61.5 1.85 59.9 1.797
3 66.1 1.98 64 1.92 63.3 1.9 61.2 1.836
4 64 1.92 62 1.86 61 1.83 60 1.8
5 66.4 1.99 66 1.98 64 1.92 61.4 1.842
verage emitter discharge 65.8 1.97 63.68 1.91 62 1.86 60.5 1.815
average emitter discharge/l/hr 1.89
Qevar 9.77
Average of lowest quarter of
emitter discharge 1.81
EU 95.55
Absolute Emission Uniformity 95.13
Stastical Uniformity coefficient
Standard deviation of the flow 0.07
Us 96.28
Sample calculations
Emitter flow variation (qvar) in the manifold
:-2 X h N Ocde Z

N
Ocb\
where
qemin = 1.8 l.h-1
qemax = 1.995 l.h-1
:-2 X h 4CC7Z

4T
= 9.77 %
Statistical emission uniformity (′) [%]
142
N
′
NO¡¢
Ob£
where
4T?¼4T¼4T¼4T¼4ACA
7
qe LQ =
= 1.8054 l.h-1
4CA6¼4C456¼4T7TT¼4T47
6
qe av =
-1
= 1.8895 l.h
#4TTC7)
′ 4T576
= 95.55 %
Absolute Emission Uniformity (′½ )
4 NO¡¢
′- = 100 X Ob£ Z
N
@ NOb£ NOcb\
= 100 X Z
4 4T576 4TTC7
@ 4TTC7 4CC7
= 95.13 %
Statistical uniformity coefficient (Us)
Us = 100 X h N¤ Z
0N
where
Sq = 0.07033 l.h-1
¥= 1.8895 l.h-1
Us = 100 X h Z
55A5??
4TTC7
= 96.28 %
Table Vb
0 l/3 2l/3 l/3
Ml l/h Ml l/h ml l/h Ml l/h
1 86.5 2.60 84 2.52 79 2.37 71 2.13
2 81.5 2.45 82 2.46 77.2 2.32 76 2.28
143
3 85.5 2.57 80.7 2.42 78.6 2.36 79 2.37
4 81.6 2.45 82.9 2.49 79 2.37 77 2.31
5 83 2.49 78 2.34 75.2 2.26 76 2.28
average emitter discharge 83.62 2.51 81.52 2.45 77.8 2.33 75.8 2.27
average emitter
discharge/l/hr 2.39
Qevar 0.18
Average of lowest quarter
of emitter discharge 2.34
EU 97.71
Absolute Emission 94.9
Uniformity
Stastical Uniformity
coefficient
Standard deviation of the
flow 0.11
95.22
Us
Table Vc
0 l/3 2l/3 l/3
ml l/h ml l/h ml l/h ml l/h
1 72 2.16 71.2 2.14 69.5 2.09 68 2.04
2 69 2.07 70 2.1 68.5 2.06 66 1.98
3 69.9 2.097 67 2.01 66.6 2 66.2 1.99
4 69 2.07 68.7 2.06 67.5 2.03 65.9 1.98
5 69.4 2.082 69.8 2.09 66.8 2 65.7 1.97
average emitter discharge 69.86 2.09 69.34 2.08 67.8 2.03 66.4 1.99
average emitter discharge/l/hr 2.050
Qevar 0.087
Average of lowest quarter of
emitter discharge 1.98
EU 96.70
Absolute Emission Uniformity 95.80
Stastical Uniformity coefficient
Standard deviation of the flow 0.05
Us 97.33
144
APPENDIX W: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR
MICRO SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Table Wa
Deviation from the
Rain gauge No. Depth(mm) Mean(mm) mean
1 9.8 7.31 2.49
2 7 7.31 0.31
3 8.3 7.31 0.99
4 7.9 7.31 0.59
5 9.9 7.31 2.59
6 6.8 7.31 0.51
7 6.5 7.31 0.81
8 8.4 7.31 1.09
9 8.3 7.31 0.99
10 4.5 7.31 2.81
11 4.9 7.31 2.41
12 7.5 7.31 0.19
13 6.8 7.31 0.51
14 6.1 7.31 1.21
15 5.7 7.31 1.61
16 5.5 7.31 1.81
17 8.2 7.31 0.89
18 7.5 7.31 0.19
19 5.8 7.31 1.51
20 10.8 7.31 3.49
Total Depth 146.2
7.31
Average depth
Average lowest quarter of water
caught 5.28
Sum of the deviation from the mean 27
CU 81.53
Distribution Uniformity 72.22
Micro sprinkler discharge 128
Test block Area 36
Average application rate 7.11
Application Efficiency 74.25
Sample calculations
Distribution uniformity (Du) [%]
145

3:2-L:Q:1F]vE/:PFN{-2F:2v-F]-+P
3:2-L:Q:1F]
Average depth of lowest quarter of water caught

7T¼7A¼77¼6C¼67
7
=
= 5.28 mm
CT¼A¼T?¼¾¼45T
@5
Average depth =
= 7.31 mm
A?4
7@T
= 72.22 %
Christiansen Uniformity Coefficient (CU) [%]
p X h Z
¨©WRGW¥©
¤+
W
where
xi - ª¥ = 27 mm (sum of deviation from the mean)
ª¥ = 7.31 mm
n = 20
p X h A?4@5Z
@A
= 81.53 %
Application Efficiency (EA)
-:2-L:E/N{-2F:2Q:1F]v/-F:2R+REF2-F:Q
-:2-L:-11ER-FR+2-F:
AE =
xK U x J
J KK U
xwU
Sprinkler discharge = 128 l. h-1
Test block area = 6 m × 6 m
Time = 2 hours
4@T?855
Average application rate = ?8@?855
146
= 7.11 mm.h-1
7@T
AE = A44 × 100
= 74.25 %
12
11
10
9 LQ
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Raingauge No (highest depth to lowest depth caught)
Figure Wa Depth caught distribution
Table Wb
Deviation from
Rain gauge No. Depth(mm) Mean(mm) the mean
1 9.4 7.43 1.97
2 7.1 7.43 0.33
3 7.6 7.43 0.17
4 8.9 7.43 1.47
5 8.1 7.43 0.67
6 6.6 7.43 0.83
7 6.1 7.43 1.33
8 7.9 7.43 0.47
147
9 7.1 7.43 0.33
10 5.8 7.43 1.63
11 6.1 7.43 1.33
12 5.6 7.43 1.83
13 8.4 7.43 0.97
14 7.1 7.43 0.33
15 7.4 7.43 0.03
16 7.6 7.43 0.17
17 8.1 7.43 0.67
18 7.3 7.43 0.13
19 7.6 7.43 0.17
20 8.9 7.43 1.47
Total Depth (mm) 148.7
Average depth (mm) 7.43
caught (mm) 6.04
Sum of the deviation from the mean
(mm) 16.3
CU (%) 89.03
Distribution Uniformity (%) 81.23
Micro sprinkler discharge (l/h) 128
Test block Area (m2) 36
Average application rate (mm/h) 7.11
Application Efficiency (%) 84.93
148
10
9
LQ
8
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Figure Wb Depth caught distribution
Table Wc
Deviation from the
Catch can No. Depth (mm) Mean (mm) mean
1 8.6 6.81 1.79
2 6.4 6.81 0.41
3 7 6.81 0.19
4 8 6.81 1.19
5 7.4 6.81 0.59
6 6 6.81 0.81
7 5.6 6.81 1.21
8 7.2 6.81 0.39
9 6.4 6.81 0.41
10 5.4 6.81 1.41
11 5.6 6.81 1.21
12 5.2 6.81 1.61
13 7.8 6.81 0.99
14 6.6 6.81 0.21
149
15 6.8 6.81 0.01
16 7 6.81 0.19
17 7.4 6.81 0.59
18 6.8 6.81 0.01
19 7 6.81 0.19
20 8 6.81 1.19
Total Depth (mm) 136.2
Average depth (mm) 6.81
caught (mm) 5.56
Sum of the deviation from the mean 14.6

CU (%) 89.28
Distribution Uniformity (%) 81.6
Micro sprinkler discharge (l/h) 128
Test block Area (m2) 36
Average application rate (mm/hr) 7.11
Application Efficiency (%) 78.18
10
9
LQ
8
Raingauge reading (mm)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Rain gauge No(highest depth to lowest depth caught)
Figure Wc Depth caught distribution
150
151

Final Design Report

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

Final Design Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF DRIP AND MICRO SPRINKLER

IRRIGATION TEACHING AND DEMONSTRATION UNITS AT

Bioresources Engineering Design Project (ENAG4BD)

FINAL DESIGN REPORT

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the

School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology

Signed: _______________Date: ___________

Table 6.1 Summary of the design tools/resources required .................................................... 16

2.1 Problem Identification

2.2 Problem Analysis

2.3 Client Needs and Design Criteria

2.4 Project Aims

The specific objectives of the project are:

3.1 Design Information and Specifications

• SABS 966 of 1976 (uPVC pipes)

3.2.1 Drip irrigation systems

3.3 Required Design Skills

3.3.1 Engineering knowledge

3.3.3 Other knowledge and skills

4.1 Different Solutions

4.2 Evaluation of Different Solutions

4.2.1 Advantages and disadvantages

4.2.2 Operational health and safety (OHS)

4.3 Preferred Solution

4.4 Feasibility Study

5.1 Design Approach

The way the project will be approached is as follows.

5.1.1 Data collection and analysis

5.1.2 Required tools and resources

6.1 Scientific Knowledge

6.2 Synthesis and Analysis

6.4 Design Tools

Infiltration AWHC Soil depth Root depth Depletion Kc

Available Effective root Readily available

Net irrigation water Gross irrigation

Hydraulic design of systems

Emitters & sprinklers Pipe sizing

6.7 Irrigation System Designs

6.7.1 Overall design for drip irrigation system (Helen)

This section includes both the preliminary and hydraulic design.

6.7.2 Overall design for micro sprinkler irrigation system (Khutsang)

Pressure reducing valve and filter sizing (Helen and Khutsang)

6.7.3 Bill of quantities

7.1 Health and Safety Aspects

7.2 Environmental Issues

7.3 Legal Requirements

8.1 Construction Steps

8.1.1 Setting out

Figure 8.1 Setting out

600 mm (W) x 500 mm (D)

Figure 8.2 Trenching

8.1.3 Grommets take off

Figure 8.4 Distribution network for micro sprinkler irrigation system

8.1.4 Pipe laying and jointing

Figure 8.5 Joints

8.1.5 The irrigation control assembly

Disc filter Pressure regulator

Figure 8.6 Irrigation control assembly

Figure 8.7 Thrust block

8.2 Evaluation of Construction Process and Lessons Learned

8.2.1 Evaluation of construction process

8.2.2 Lessons learned by the team

The Illinois students

Signed: _____Date: _

(IDM, 2003e) (1)

!" #$"% $& ' !( (Richard et al., 2000) (2)

Gross Irrigation Requirement (IRg) =