A N A L Y S I S AND D E S I G N O F S P R I N K L E R

IRRIGATION LATERALS

By Helmi M. Hathoot, ~ Member, ASCE, Hussein M. Abo-Ghobar, 2

Ahmed I. AI-Amoud, 3 Associate Member, ASCE, and Fawzi S. Mohammad 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: This paper addresses a new design technique for sprinkler irrigation
laterals with equally spaced sprinklers and constant longitudinal slope. The tech-
nique uses the Darcy-Weisbachfriction formula and accounts for the variation of
the friction coefficientfor a significant practical portion on a Moody diagram. The
head loss in sprinkler risers as well as losses in lateral pipe fittings are considered.
A computerprogram employingthis technique is designedso as to provide sprinkler
outflows and pressure head distributions along the lateral pipe. The results from
two numerical examples are compared with results obtained from a widely used
classical method. In some cases it is found that designs are substantially different.

INTRODUCTION

Sprinkler irrigation design procedures have been presented by many in-

vestigators. A m o n g the earliest of them are: Christiansen (1942); McCulloch
(1945); Gray et al. (1954); Jensen and Franzini (1957); Bittinger and Lon-
genbaugh (1962); and H e e r m a n n et al. (1974).
For a long time an approximate method has been used for designing
sprinkler irrigation laterals (Sprinkler 1975; Schwab et al. 1981; and Siv-
anappan 1987). In this method, the Hazen-Williams or Scobey equations
are generally applied to estimate the friction loss in a lateral without con-
sidering the existence of sprinklers. The estimated friction head loss is then
multiplied by a correction factor that depends upon the number of sprinklers
per lateral. The losses in couplers are considered approximately by increas-
ing the friction head loss ("Design" 1981).
Recently, Haghighi et al. (1988) and Saldivia et al. (1990) applied the
finite-element technique to analyze sprinkler irrigation networks. They used
the Hazen-Williams equation to estimate the friction head loss and consid-
ered some of the losses in pipe fittings.
The objective of this paper is to present a technique that takes into account
all minor losses to select the pipe lateral diameter. The proposed technique
uses the Darcy-Weisbach friction equation, which proved to be the most
accurate and reliable, in evaluating the friction coefficient (von Bernuth
1990; Watters and Keller 1978).
1prof., Dept. of Agric. Engrg., Coll. of Agric., King Saud Univ., P.O. Box 2460,
Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
2Assoc. Prof., Dept. OfAgric. Engrg., College of Agric., King Saud Univ., Riyadh,
11451, Saudi Arabia.
3Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Agric. Engrg., College of Agric., King Saud Univ., Riyadh,
11451, Saudi Arabia.
4Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Agric. Engrg., College of Agric., King Saud Univ., Riyadh,
11451, Saudi Arabia.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 1994. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
December 18, 1992. This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 3, May/June, 1994. 9 ISSN 0733-9437/94/0003-
0534/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Paper No. 5302.
534

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
In a sprinkler irrigation lateral, sprinklers are usually identical and equally
spaced. As shown in Fig. 1, the distance between the main, or submain,
and the first sprinkler, s], is generally different from the spacing between
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sprinklers, s. In most designs sl is taken as s/2.

In the sprinkler lateral of Fig. 1 if there are n sprinklers with a common
spacing s, the number of spacings between sprinklers will be n - 1 and the
total length of lateral
Z = s 1 -]- s ( n - 1) (1)

The pressure head at the lateral inlet /to and the pressure head just
upstream from the first sprinkler riser H~ (Fig. 1) are related by the following
equation:
H0 + Zo = HI + zl + h~ (2)
in which Zo and Zl = elevations of points 0 and 1; and h~ is the total head
loss between points 0 and 1. Solving (2) for H1
H 1 = H o + (z 0 - z,) - hI (3)
If the lateral pipe has a uniform slope So, we can write the following:
Z 0 -- Z 1 = -l-S,& (4)
Substituting (4) into (3)
14] = H o +- s~So - hi (5)
Von Bernuth (1990) reported that though some simple methods of calcu-
lating pipe friction loss had been found, yet the more complex Darcy-
Weisbach equation is the most universally accepted. Introducing the friction
head loss into (5)
8flsxO 2
111 = 11o +- s1So hl (6)
rr2gD 5

in which fa = coefficient of friction in the pipe reach between points 0 and

1; Qa = the lateral pipe discharge at inlet; g = acceleration due to gravity;
D = lateral diameter and h ~ = head loss in pipe fittings in the pipe reach
just mentioned.
Now applying the energy equation between points 1 and 2 (Fig. 1)
+ Q~ Q2
H 1 2 g A 2 + z , = 1-12 + ~ + z2 + h2 (7)

L~ ,, i~
r
s,--t:--- s *1" s *1

Main ~ ' 2 ~ 3

Qi:Qmoz Q2 Q3 Q4 Qn- I Qn Q= 0

FIG. 1. Sprinkler Irrigation Lateral

535

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 in which Qa and Q2 -- lateral discharges upstream of points 1 and 2, re-
spectively; H2 = pressure heat at point 2; A = cross-sectional area of the
lateral; and h 2 = total head loss between points 1 and 2. The lateral discharge
Q2 can be evaluated from
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Q2 = Q1 - qa (8)
in which ql = discharge of the first sprinkler.
Substituting (8) and (4) into (7), simplifying, and rearranging

Q~ ( Q I _ q~)Z +_ sSo 8f2s(Q~ - q,)2

-

He = H~ -~ 2gA2 2gA2 - 7r2gD5 - hl (9)

in which f2 = coefficient of friction in the pipe reach between points 1 and

2; and h~ = head loss in pipe fittings in the same pipe reach. For conven-
ience, (9) is put in the form
H2 = H , + B [ Q ~ - (01 - qO 2] - Ef2 (Q1 - q~)2 _ h l +- sSo (10)
in which
1
B = 2gA-----5_ (11)

and
8s
E = ,rr2gD--------
~ (12)

If two successive interior sprinklers are considered, (10) takes the following
general form:
H, = H , _ , + B [ Q 2 _ I - (Q,_I - qi_l) 21
- Ef,(Qe_z - q,_l) 2 - h; +- sSo (13)

SPRINKLER DISCHARGE
Sprinkler discharge is a function of the pressure at individual sprinklers
("Design" 1981; C R C 1982) and the relationship is of the following form:
q = Kd(Pk) ~ (14)
in which q = sprinkler discharge; Kd = nozzle discharge coefficient; and

FIG. 2. Lateral, Riser, and Sprinkler

536

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 Pk = pressure at point k, the sprinkler inlet, Fig. 2. For convenience, (14)
may be put in the form

q = Ce(Hg) ~ (15)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in which Hk = pressure head at point k; and Cd = modified discharge

coefficient.
Sprinkler manufacturers provide tables for pressures and corresponding
discharges for different types of sprinklers and hence for a certain type of
sprinkler either Ka or Cd can be easily calculated. The head at point u, just
upstream of the riser is related to the head at point k, Fig. 2, by the following
equation:

Hu =- n k + hur + h~ + hn (16)

where H, = head at point u; Hk = head at point k; hur head loss between

--=

points u and r; h~k = head loss between points r and k, and hR = height
of the riser. The head loss h,~ may be put in the form
Qz
h,r -- g u r - (17)
2gA 2

where Q. = lateral discharge at point u; and K.r = a coefficient that may

be evaluated by using Gardel's equation (Miller 1978)

+
(o.4_o.1)
(18)

where a = cross-sectional area of riser. Therefore the head loss between

points u and r is given by

l +(tt -0.3 +
t04
01AI]} (A)2 19,
Though the head loss in riser, hrk, is generally neglected, it should be
considered in some cases of long risers. Kincaid and Heermann (1970)
provided the following approximate equation:

hrk 2gA2 exp (q)

9.2 20,
For long risers the head loss hrg may be evaluated by using the Darcy-
Weisbach equation. Substituting the values of h,, and hrk as given by (19)
and (20), respectively, into (16) and considering sprinkler i
537

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 Hk (for sprinkler i) = Q, {o.95(,_-~,qi)2
Hi - 2gA---5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

+ (q/~2
\Q,i (_]]2
- 0 . 3 + 0 . 4 -','1/
. 0 ..1 . A.] } Q/z exp ( 9 2 q / ~
\ o.,I
- hR (21)

Combining (15) and (21) and considering a general sprinkler, i

qe = Ca ( Hi-2gA----
Q~{
~ 0.95
( 1 - ~ qi) 2 + (~ii) 2

1/2

-0.34 (a]2 -exp qi

From (22) the sprinkler discharge can be evaluated. It is worth noting that
qi is found on both sides of (22), hence a trial-and-error procedure is to be
applied. As a first trial, qi may be calculated from the following approximate
equation:
qi = C~v/(Hi - hn) (23)

COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
Flow in laterals is usually turbulent. Sometimes flow is fully turbulent at
the upstream end of the lateral and changes to laminar flow downstream
where the flow velocity is sufficiently small. Sprinkler irrigation laterals are
generally either plastic or aluminum pipes.

Plastic Pipes
Plastic pipes are made of smooth materials. In laminar flow, where Rey-
nolds number R is less than 2,000, the friction coefficient is given by
64 64v
f=R VD (24)
in which v = kinematic viscosity of water. Therefore

f~ =
16"rr
Qi
Dv (25)

For turbulent flow, 3,000 < R <- 105, the Balsius equation can be used
538

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 (~rDv~ 0.25
f/ = 0.316 \ - ~ / ] (26)

For fully turbulent flow, 10s < R < 107 (Watters and Keller 1978), we have
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(.ffDv) 0"172
f,. = 0.13 \ - ~ - 7 / (27)

Aluminum Pipes
In aluminum pipes the absolute roughness ranges between 0.1 and 0.3
mm ("Design" 1981). For laminar flow the coefficient of friction can be
evaluated from (25). For turbulent flow, in general, Swamee and Jain (1976),
presented the following equation:
1.325
f, = (28)
+ 5.74 ]]2
In
(4Q,]~
in which e - absolute roughness of pipe. Eq. (28) covers a significant portion
of the turbulent zone on Moody diagram. The preceding equation yields
errors less than --1% in the range 10 -6 -< E/D <-- 10 -2 and 5 • 103 --< R
_< 108.
Losses in pipe fitting should be considered in sprinkler irrigation lateral
designs if the average L/D ratio (pipe length over pipe diameter) between
fittings is less than 1,000 (Haghighi et al. 1988). The following discussion
summarizes the head losses in lateral fittings.

HEAD LOSS BETWEEN UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM POINTS

OF RISER
If we refer to Fig. 2, the head loss between points u and d could be
represented by the equation
Q2
h.a = k.d 2gA----
5 (29)
in which k,a = a constant given through Gardel's equation (Miller 1978)
as

therefore the head loss at sprinkler i can be generally written as

h,d(at sprinkler i)= ~Q~ [0.03 (1- Qi+l~/1

+ 0.35(~) 2- (~) (1 - - - O - - ] (31)

539

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 TABLE 1. Equivalent Pipe Length in Plastic Pipes
Diameter Equivalent length
(mm) (m)
(1) (2)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

13 0.46
19 0.76
25 0.91
32 0.91
38 1.22
51 1.83
64 2.13
76 2.44
102 3.35
152 5.49
203 7

HEAD LOSSlN COUPLERS

When couplers are used to connect two lengths of plain pipe, some ad-
ditional energy loss takes place as the water passes through the coupler.
The head loss in plastic couplers could be provided as equivalent length of
pipe (Sarsfield 1984) as shown in Table 1.
For aluminum pipes with couplers spaced 9 m, the energy loss can be
determined by increasing the friction factor, f, by 11% (Jensen 1981). De-
creasing the spacing to 6 m increases the percentage to 17% and increasing
the spacing to 12 m decreases the percentage to 8%.

HEAD LOSSlN SUDDEN CONTRACTION

In some cases the lateral may consist of a pipe with different diameters,
with the bigger diameter pipe being installed in the upstream reach. The
head loss resulting from reducing the pipe diameter may be written as
(Cuenca 1989)
Q2
hc = kc 4gA~ (32)

in which A2 = area of the downstream pipe and kc is a coefficient given by

(Sarsfield 1984)

0s(1
in which At = area of the upstream pipe. From (32) and (33) we have

hc
Q2( )
- -
4gA~ 1 - ) - ~
A2
(34)

Although a good design may recommend a pipe of more than one size, yet
most designers prefer to maintain one diameter whenever possible (Siv-
anappan 1987). In this study, one diameter was used in the program.
540

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT
For a sprinkler irrigation lateral it is of practical importance to consider
expressions for sprinkler uniformity, which is the relationship between the
minimum and average sprinkler discharge along the lateral. The Christian-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sen uniformity coefficient (Cu) is used herein to express uniformity of sprin-

kler discharge (Keller and Karmeli 1974). The uniformity coefficient is
defined as

, qav,
in which qa~ = average sprinkler discharge.

DESIGN CRITERIA
The usual criterion applied for the design of laterals is that the difference
in nozzle discharge along a single lateral is less than _+10%. This corresponds
to a maximum difference in nozzle operating pressure of -+20% (Cuenca
1989). Any design should be checked against a maximum velocity criterion
to insure that the flow is reasonably uniform. For the lateral inlet and the
riser the velocity should not exceed 1.5 m/s to avoid high friction losses
(Cuenca 1989). In addition, the uniformity coefficient should preferably be
as high as 0.95.

COMPUTER PROGRAM

A computer program for designing trickle irrigation laterals (Hathoot

et al. 1993) is modified to suit sprinkler irrigation design. Losses in fittings,
height of riser and losses in riser pipe are considered in the modified program
shown in Fig. 3. The objective of the program is to provide the design
diameter of the lateral pipe that fulfills the aforementioned design criteria.
In addition, the program is designed to provide pressure head and sprinkler
discharge distributions along the lateral.
The nozzle coefficient Cd can be evaluated as the manufacturer provides
H~v and qav" The quantities s, Sl, So, D, d, n, L, hn, e, and v are input of
the program. The computer program performs the following calculations.

1. The pressure at the mainline end of the lateral, H0, is determined by

adding a reasonable head increment, 40, to the average operating head,
Hay, of the sprinkler. Ao can be assumed to be 0.1Hay because the difference
between pressure heads at inlet and outlet should not exceed 0.2Hav.
2. The velocity at the lateral inlet, Vmax, is checked and if it is >1.5
m/s the lateral diameter should be increased.
3. The head loss in the lateral pipe reach upstream from the first sprin-
kler is evaluated. The pressure head in the lateral pipe at the first sprinkler
is then calculated, block I on the flowchart.
4. The sprinkler discharge is evaluated through a trial and error pro-
cedure, (21). In the first trial, the height of riser is considered without
considering the bead loss in it since the latter is not known in advance,
blocks I and II on the flowchart. Trials are then continued till the difference
between two successive trials of sprinkler discharge relative to the last trial
541

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 ~"o,A',D, z~D,d ,a,h R ,y,s ,sl,s o ,n ,6,Cc ,v,qov,l-lov,Cd ,L ,E, ,62l
I
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~ [Eq,II]~B~[IEq,'2"~, E -'~'E{$,/i).Ymox.Qmox./,
I BLOCK Z ]

" ,~ Block I
IBLOCK = ~
~.~ - I - ~ ox
Block
X-O
lr1"~:----~---~-~ IR=4Q=/(nD~))
i~1 E%~'~"k l I I~..'] --~ ', Hr ,=HI/ Hay
I Iqo ~'" "k ] I I ~ q . s ] "-~" H,, qr =ql/qav
[ I Z~eql.qO I T IHI~HII
,f, IP-,~(IOO/%) I I Ix'x+=~
iiq,-qo,. -' I I [q,'Cd(H,'h. )y

~ No

Q2" Qu'qu
R "4 Q2/(I"[D Y) IBLOC~K ]:1" ~
[ E . . z 5 0 , 2 0 ] - , f2
I IZEq.29"l- - , h.d
/ I h~ "h"d ~, No
"-I H~ "H~ } / [ EEq. I0] ""P H2 Hr=Ht/Hav
qr=ql/qov I
HI=H2
QI=Q2

Q2 = Q=" q0
[ I ~ IB oc."~ =
1 I v'" v/v"~
~_ IQi'Q= j----r--
< IHo=Ho'FA'~>O & ~ D,Ho DHII ,CuI
~' Yes

~Yes .~

FIG. 3. Flowchart of Computer Program

sprinkler discharge becomes less than a small quantity el, which is taken as
0.01.
5. As the outflow of an individual sprinkler, q;, is determined, the re-
maining lateral discharge downstream, Qi, is evaluated, block III on the
flowchart.
6. For each length between sprinklers at each step, Reynolds number
is calculated and the proper friction coefficient formula is used to evaluate
the head loss due to friction. After evaluating the head loss in pipe fittings
the new pressure head is evaluated by using (10), block III.
542

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 7. If (10) yields negative pressure heads somewhere along the lateral
pipe, this indicates that the assumed H0 should be increased by A'. At first
any reasonable A'-value is assumed, 1.0 m say, since successive trials are
designed to yield convergence to A'-values.
8. As negative pressure heads disappear, other conditions should be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fulfilled:
a. The velocity at any reach of the lateral pipe should be positive,
otherwise this would indicate that the sum of sprinkler outflows
is greater than the initial discharge, Q . . . . which means that H0
should be decreased by A' (A' being divided periodically by 10.0
on increasing or decreasing H0 to produce convergence to A'). Of
course the latter procedure can be replaced by assuming a constant
small A'-value with the disadvantage of a big number of trial steps
and a much longer computing time.
b. The discharge in the lateral pipe downstream from the last sprin-
kler should be zero as an important boundary condition. In the
program this condition is satisfied if the relative velocity at that
part becomes less than a significantly small quantity e2. For ex-
ample if e2 is taken 10 -5 m/s the velocity downstream from the
sprinkler is practically zero.
9. As the proper value of Ho is reached, outflow and the lateral pressure
head at each sprinkler are evaluated.
10. The difference between pressure heads of the first and last sprinklers
should be --- 0.2 Hay otherwise the lateral diameter is increased and steps
1-10 are repeated until the proper diameter is reached. For each diameter,
C, is also evaluated.

In the following examples results according to the present technique are

put side by side for comparison with those according to a widely used classical
method (Sprinkler 1975; Schwab et al. 1981; Sivanappan 1987).

Example 1
It is required to design the diameter of a horizontal sprinkler irrigation
lateral pipe for the following data: 33 sprinklers are equally spaced at 12.0
m, the first sprinkler is located 12.0 m from the main pipe. Lateral pipe is
of aluminum (e = 0.1 mm) and irrigation water is at 20~ (v = 1.01 x
10 -6 m2/s). The average sprinkler discharge is 0.315 L/s and the average
nozzle pressure is 310 kPa.

Solution
In the computer program the friction factor is multiplied by 1.08 to count
for losses in couplers 12.0 m apart ("Design" 1981).
Trials were made through the program to choose the proper diameter of
the lateral and the results are listed in Table 2. It is obvious that although
C, is acceptable for D = 76.2 mm, yet the head loss is above 35%, but the
pipe diameter 101.6 mm (4 in.) produces less than 20% of the head loss
between the first and last sprinklers with a higher C, value. In addition the
average velocity upstream from the first sprinkler is 1.282 m/s, which satisfies
the velocity constraint.
In Fig. 4 are plotted q/qav, H/Hav and the percentage head loss for the
equally spaced sprinklers. At the middle sprinkler 86.2% of the total re-
duction in sprinkler discharge and 86.4% of the total head loss are found.
543

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 TABLE 2. Results of Successive Trials in Example 1

Hi Head loss
(head at first between first and
D /4o sprinkler) last sprinklers
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(mm) C. (m) (m) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
50.8 76.7 95.8 87.6 221.5
76.2 95.8 40.9 39.9 35.1
101.6 98.9 33.8 33.6 8.6

About 50% of the losses both in sprinkler discharge and in the pressure
head loss occur upstream of sprinkler No. 8 (x -~ 22% L'). On the other
hand about 75% of the losses occur upstream of sprinkler No. 13 (x =
37.5% L').
To illustrate the practical value of the present technique the above results
are compared with those obtained using the classical design procedure.
The distance between the first and last sprinklers is 32(12) = 384 m and
the total length of lateral is 396 m. The average pressure head

H a v - 310(103) - 31.61m
9,807

The maximum discharge of lateral

Qmax = 33(0.319) = 10.395L/s

The allowable head loss

hper = 0.2(31.61) = 6.322 m

hpe~ __ 6.322
L ' - 384 = 0.0165 m/m

From tables (Cuenca 1989) for 33 sprinklers, the factor F = 0.366. There-
fore the actual allowable head loss

oo0604m,m

For aluminum pipes with joints at 12 m, the Hazen-Williams C = 135

(Cuenca 1989). Accordingly, the Hazen-Williams equation reduces to

hL 1.057(108)
(36)
L' [D(mm)] 4'87

in which hL = head loss. Trial values of the diameter and the corresponding
head loss are listed in Table 3.
If the difference between 0.0066 and 0.0060, which is 10%, is considered
small, the design diameter is taken 101.6 mm, otherwise the pipe diameter
according to the classical design is taken 127.0 mm (5 in.), which is 25%
larger in diameter than that according to the present technique.
544

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 I. 0 3 ~
'.02 (a)

,.oo
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

o . o o I" .
o.oe I I I I I

I , O l ~ (b)

1.04 I" ~ s ram"

I \ I o. IOl.e m,,
1,02'- ~ i 12.0 m

I .00 -

o.,o - - ~ -
o.~7 .....n I I J
I00 --
I- c)
Z 80
U
n*
"I1.
' 60
..I
J= 40

ZO

0 I I , I I ,
0,0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/L'
FIG. 4. Results of Example 1: (a) Variation of Relative Sprinkler Discharge; (b)
Variation of Pressure Head; (c) Head Loss along Lateral Pipe

According to the classical design the pressure head at the main-line end
of the lateral is given by
H0 = 31.61 + 0.75 (0.0022) 396.0
H0 = 32.26 m

which is about 4.6% less than that according to the present technique, which
means that the two methods produce nearly the same head loss. For D =
127.0 mm Cu is expected to be close to 100%.
It is worth noting that in this example the lower limit of the absolute
roughness (~ = 0.1 mm) is considered. However, for the upper limit (e =
545

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 TABLE 3. Results of Successive Trials According to Eq. (36), Hazen-Wiiliams (C
= 135)
D hL
L'
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(mm) (in.) (m/m) (m/m)

(1) (2) (3) (4)
50.8 2.0 0.521 0.1907
76.2 3.0 0.072 0.0264
101.6 4.0 0.018 0.0066
127.0 5.0 0.006 0.0022

TABLE 4. Results of Successive Trials According to Eq. (37), Hazen-Williams (C

= 128)
D hL
L' \L']
(ram) (in.) (m/m) (m/m)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
50.8 2.0 0.5748 0.2104
76.2 3.0 0.0798 0.0292
101.6 4.0 0.0197 0.0072
127.0 5.0 0.0066 0.0024

0.3 mm), considering D -- 101.6 mm, the h e a d loss as c o m p a r e d to the

average head is 10.4% (i.e., below 20%). Hence D = 101.6 m m is the
proper diameter for an aluminum lateral pipe. Some designers consider C
= 130 for aluminum pipes without couplers and if we consider C = 128
for pipes with couplers we get
hL ," 1.167(108)
L ' - [D(mm)] 487 (37)

It is evident from Table 4 that the pipe d i a m e t e r should be 127.0 mm. If C

is taken smaller than 128, the d i a m e t e r is expected to be bigger.

Example 2
For the same data of example 1 it is required to design the d i a m e t e r of
a lateral which has a constant upward slope of 0.005 m/m. It is also required
to design the pressure at the mainline end of this lateral. The riser height
is 1.0 m and its diameter is 19.05 ram.

Solution
The results according to the present technique are as follows: D = 101.6
mm with difference of pressure heads between the first and last sprinklers
= 14.38%. The pressure head a t the main line Ho -- 36.03 m, which
corresponds to P0 = 353.45 kPa. T h e Christiansen uniformity coefficient
C, = 0.955.
Now, let us consider the design according to the classical method. T h e
allowable head loss due to friction is given by
hper = 0.2(31.61) - 0.005(384.0) = 4.402 m (38)

546

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 As before, C = 135 and F = 0.366

(4.402~
allowable head loss = 0.366 \384.0] = 0.0042 m/m (39)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Refering to Table 3, the design diameter should be 127.0 mm. Now the
design pressure head at the main-line end of the lateral is computed as:
Ho = 31.61 + 0.75[0.0022(396.0) + 0.005(396.0)] + 1.0 (40a)
H o = 31.61 + 3.14 (40b)
Ho = 34.75 m (40c)
Po = 34.75(9.807) (41a)
Po = 340.79 kPa (41b)
If we consider C = 128, we have the following from Table 4: D = 127.0
mm and F(hL/L') = 0.0024 m/m. In this case Ho = 34.81 m and Po =
341.48 kPa.

CONCLUSIONS
The design technique presented in this paper is applied to solve two
numerical examples and the results are compared with those based on a
widely used classical method. It is predicted that according to the present
work, 25% saving in the lateral pipe diameter may be achieved in some
cases. When the head loss constitutes a small percentage of the average
pressure head, design pressures at the mainline end of the lateral pipe in
both methods are slightly different. Investigation of the pressure head dis-
tribution along the lateral pipe shows that at the middle sprinkler about
86% of the total head loss occurs. Half of the head loss occurs at about
22% of the distance between the first and last sprinklers whereas 75% of
the losses occur at about 38% of the distance mentioned above. Because
the aforementioned values are known, they provide verification of the
present technique.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers are indebted to Badr Sofyan, Department of Agricultural
Economics and Saleh A1-Hadary, of the Computer Centre, College of Ag-
riculture, for providing computer services.

APPENDIXI. REFERENCES
Bittinger, M. W., and Longenbaugh, R. A. (1962). "Theoretical distribution of water
from a moving irrigation sprinkler." Trans. ASAE, 5(1), 26-30.
Christiansen, J. E. (1942). "Irrigation by sprinkling." University of Califbrnia Bull.
640, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
CRC handbook of irrigation technology; Vol. 1. (1982). H. J. Finkel, ed., CRC Press,
Inc., Boca Raton, Fla.
Cuenca, R. H. (1989). Irrigation system design: an engineering approach. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
"Design and operation of farm irrigation systems." (1981). ASAE Monograph, M.
E. Jensen, ed., American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), St. Joseph,
Mich.
547

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 Gray, H. E., Levine, G., and Bogema, M. (1954). "Head loss in irrigation line quick
couplers." Agr. Engrg.
Haghighi, K., Bralts, V. F., and Segerlind, L. J. (1988). "Finite-element formulation
of tee and bend components in hydraulic pipe network analysis." Trans. ASAE,
31(6), 1750-1758.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Hathoot, H. M., A1-Amoud, A. I., and Mohammad, F. S. (1993). "Analysis and

design of trickle-irrigation laterals." J. Irrig. and Drain. Engrg., ASCE, 119(5),
756-767.
Heermann, D. F., Shull, H. H., and Mickelson, R. H. (1974). "Center pivot design
capacities in eastern Colorado." J. lrrig, and Drain. Div., ASCE, 100, 127-141.
Jensen, M. C., and Franzini, A. M. (1957). "F factor for sprinkler lateral design."
Agric. Engrg., 38(4), 247.
Keller, J., and Karmelli, D. (1974). "Trickle irrigation design parameters." Trans.
ASAE, 17(4), 678-684.
Kincaid, D. C., and Heermann, D. F. (1970). "Pressure distribution on a center
pivot sprinkler irrigation system." Trans. ASAE, 13(5), 556-588.
McCulloch, A. W. (1945). "Design procedure for portable sprinkler irrigation."
Agric. Engrg., 30, 23-28.
Miller, D. S. (1978). Internal flow systems. The British Hydrodynamics Research
Assoc., Fluid Engrg., Cranfield, Bedford, England.
Saldivia, L. A., Bralts, V. F., Shayya, W. H., and Segerlind, L. J. (1990). "Hydraulic
analysis of sprinkler irrigation system components using the finite-element method."
Trans. ASAE, 33(4),1195-1202.
Sarsfield, A. C. (1984). Irrigation technical manual: engineering data. Irrigation Tech-
nical Services, Lafayette, Calif.
Schwab, G. O., Frevert, R. K., Edminster, T. W., and Barnes, K. K. (1981). Soil
and water conservation engineering, 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York,
N.Y.
Sivanappan, R. K. (1987). Sprinkler irrigation. Oxford & IBH Publish. Co. Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Sprinkler irrigation. (1975). 4th Ed., C. H. Pair, ed., The Irrig. Assoc., Silver Spring,
Md.
Swamee, P., and Jain, A.(1976). "Explicit equations for pipe flow problems." J.
Hydr. Div., ASCE, 657-664.
von Bernuth, R. D. (1990). "Simple and accurate friction loss equation for plastic
pipe." J. Irrig. and Drain. Engrg., ASCE, 116(2), 294-298.
Watters, G. Z., and Keller, J. (1978). "Trickle irrigation tubing hydraulics." ASAE
Tech. Paper No. 78-2015; Proc., A S A E Summer Meeting, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), St. Joseph, Mich.

APPENDIX II. NOTATIONS

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A cross-sectional area of lateral pipe;

A1 = cross-sectional area of upstream reach of lateral pipe;
A2 = cross-sectional area of downstream reach of lateral pipe;
a = cross-sectional area of riser;
B = constant defined by (11);
cc-- coupler allowance coefficient, Fig. 3;
c d = modified nozzle discharge coefficient;
c . = Christiansen uniformity coefficient;
D= lateral pipe diameter;
d = riser diameter;
E= constant defined by (12);
F = correction friction loss factor;
548

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.

 friction coefficient for lateral pipe reach i;
g= acceleration due to gravity;
H , = pressure head at sprinkler i;
n ~ = pressure head at nozzle;
I-/o= pressure head at mainline end of lateral;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Univ. of Alabama At Birmingham on 01/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

H/H~v;
H . = pressure head at point just upstream from riser, Fig. 2;
hc = head loss due to sudden contraction in lateral pipe;
h;= headloss in fittings of pipe reach i;
hper = permissible pressure head loss between first and last sprinklers;
h n = height of riser;
hr~ = head loss between points r and k, Fig. 2;
hurl = head loss between points u and d, Fig. 2;
hut head loss between points u and r , Fig. 2;
I,c= coefficient defined by (38);
nozzle discharge coefficient;
k , d = coefficient defined by (34);
kur ~- coefficient defined by (19);
L = total length of lateral pipe;
t' = distance between first and last sprinklers;
n = number of sprinklers;
pressure at nozzle k;
Q i = discharge passing through reach i of lateral pipe;
Q , = lateral pipe discharge at section u, Fig. 2;
q = sprinkler discharge;
qav average sprinkler discharge;
q i = discharge of sprinkler i;
qr = q/qav;
R= Reynolds number for lateral pipe;
a f =
Reynolds number for riser;
So= slope of lateral pipe;
3" = spacing b.etween two successive sprinklers;
Sl = distance from mainline to first sprinkler;
V = average velocity in lateral pipe;
Vm~ = Q m a x / A ;
r r = V/Vmax;
X = distance from first sprinkler to general point on lateral pipe;
Zi ---~ elevation of lateral pipe at sprinkler i;
Z 0 ~- elevation of mainline end of lateral pipe;
E = absolute roughness of pipe material; and
p = kinematic viscosity of water.

549

J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 1994.120:534-549.