Evaluation of Hydraulic Performance Characteristics of a Newly Designed Dynamic Fluidic Sprinkler
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design of New Dynamic Fluidic Sprinkler Head
2.2. Working Principle
2.3. Experimental Procedures
2.4. Computed Coefficient of Uniformity
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Comparison of Water Distribution Profiles
3.2. Comparison of the Computed Uniformity Coefficient
3.3. Droplet Size Distributions
3.4. Droplet Characterization Statistics
4. Conclusions
- 1
- The smallest radius of throw was obtained when the sprinkler was operated at the pressure of 100 kPa, while the maximum radius of throw was obtained when the sprinkler was operated at the pressure of 250 kPa. The distance of throw increased with the increase in diameters of nozzle sizes. However, there was no significant different between the radius of throw for 250 and 150 kPa. With the rising cost of energy, it is appropriate to operate under 150 kPa in order to save water.
- 2
- The comparison of water distribution profiles at different operating pressures showed that all the different nozzle sizes produced parabola-shaped profiles, while the 5.5-mm nozzle size was flatter at a low pressure of 150 kPa. This implies that a 5.5-mm nozzle size can improve the non-uniform water distribution and save water for sprinkler-irrigated fields.
- 3
- For all the nozzle sizes, 5.5 mm gave the highest computed uniformity value of 86%, at a low pressure of 150 kPa. There was no significant difference between 250 and 150 kPa. Comparatively, the sprinkler with a 5.5-mm nozzle produced a better uniformity, and the average CU obtained was within the acceptable range.
- 4
- The mean droplet diameter for the nozzles sizes of 2, 3, 4, 5.5, 6 and 7 mm ranged from 0 to 4.2, 0 to 3.7, 0 to 3.6, 0 to 3.2, 0 to 0.5 and 0 to 3.8 mm, respectively. The comparison of the droplet size distribution for the various sizes showed that 5.5 mm had the optimum droplet diameter of 3.2 mm. The largest droplet size had a maximum value of 4.0 for a 2-mm nozzle size. Hence, using a 5.5 mm nozzle size can produce the optimum droplet sizes, which can minimize losses caused by wind drift and evaporation.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kahlown, M.A.; Raoof, A.; Zubair, M.; Kemper, W.D. Water use efficiency and economic feasibility of growing rice and wheat with sprinkler irrigation in the Indus Basin of Pakistan. Agric. Water Manag. 2007, 87, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montazar, A.; Sadeghi, M. Effects of applied water and sprinkler uniformity on alfalfa growth and hay yield. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 1279–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kincaid, D.C. Spray drop kinetic energy from irrigation sprinklers. Trans. ASAF 1996, 39, 847–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulkarni, S. Innovative technologies for Water saving in Irrigated Agriculture. Int. J. Water Resour. Arid Environ. 2011, 1, 226–231. [Google Scholar]
- Howell, T.A. Enhancing water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture. Agronomy J. 2001, 93, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, S.; Bae, S. Simulation of water entry of an elastic wedge using the FDS scheme and HCIB method. J. Hydrodynamics 2013, 25, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darko, R.O.; Yuan, S.Q.; Liu, J.P.; Yan, H.F.; Zhu, X.Y. Overview of advances in improving uniformity and water use efficiency of sprinkler irrigation. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.P.; Zhu, X.Y.; Yuan, S.Q.; Wan, J.H.; Chikangaise, P. Hydraulic performance assessment of sprinkler irrigation with rotating spray plate sprinklers in indoor experiments. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 2018, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Rao, M. Sprinkler water distributions as affected by winter wheat canopy. Irrig. Sci. 2000, 20, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.D.; Yuan, S.Q.; Qiu, Z.P. Development and research status of water turbine for hose reel irrigator. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng. 2018, 36, 963–968. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Ghobari, H.M. Effect of maintenance on the performance of sprinkler irrigation systems and irrigation water conservation. Food Sci. Agric. Res. Cent. Res. Bull. 2006, 141, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Kohl, R.A.; Koh, K.S.; Deboer, D.W. Chemigation drift and volatilization potential. Appl. Eng. Agric. 1987, 3, 174–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwomoh, F.A.; Yuan, S.Q.; Li, H. Sprinkler rotation and water application rate for the newly designed complete fluidic sprinkler and impact sprinkler. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2014, 7, 38–46. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, X.; Chikangaise, P.; Shi, W.; Chen, W.H.; Yuan, S. Review of intelligent sprinkler irrigation technologies for remote autonomous system. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2018, 11, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeBoer, D.W.; Monnens, M.J.; Kincaid, D.C. Measurement of sprinkler drop size. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2001, 17, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohl, R.A.; Bernuth, R.D.; Heubner, G. Drop size distribution measurement problems using a laser unit. Trans. ASAE 1985, 28, 190–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fukui, Y.; Nakanishi, K.; Okamura, S. Computer elevation of sprinkler uniformity. Irrig. Sci. 1980, 2, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, A.; Gilley, J.R.; Norman, J.M. Sprinkler water droplet evaporation a plant canopy model. Trans. ASARE 1993, 36, 743–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzini, G.; Wrachien, D. Performance assessment of sprinkler irrigation system a new indicator for spray evaporation losses. J. Int. Comm. Irrig. Drain. 2005, 54, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bautista, C.; Salvador, R.; Burguete, J. Comparing methodologies for the characterization of water drops emitted by an irrigation sprinkler. Trans. ASABE 2009, 52, 1493–1504. [Google Scholar]
- Wilcox, J.C.; Swailes, G.E. Uniformity of water distribution by some under tree orchard sprinklers. Sci. Agric. 1947, 27, 565–583. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, W.E.; Reynolds, W.N. Analytical design of sprinkler systems. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1965, 8, 83–85. [Google Scholar]
- Kay, M. Sprinkler Irrigation Equipment and Practice; Batsford Limited: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Keller, J.; Bliesner, R.D. Sprinkle and Trickle Irrigation; Van Nostrand Reinhold Pun: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Xiang, Q.J.; Xu, Z.D.; Chen, C. Experiments on air and water suction capability of 30PY impact sprinkler. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng. 2018, 36, 82–87. [Google Scholar]
- Karmeli, D. Estimating sprinkler distribution pattern using linear regression. Trans. ASAE 1978, 21, 682–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.P.; Liu, W.Z.; Bao, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, X.F. Drop size distribution experiments of gas-liquid two phase’s fluidic sprinkler. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng. 2017, 35, 731–736. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.P.; Yuan, S.Q.; Li, H.; Zhu, X.Y. Numerical simulation and experimental study on a new type variable-rate fluidic sprinkler. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2013, 15, 569–581. [Google Scholar]
- Dwomoh, F.A.; Yuan, S.; Hong, L. Field performance characteristics of fluidic sprinkler. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2013, 29, 529–536. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, X.; Yuan, S.; Jiang, J.; Liu, J.; Liu, X. Comparison of fluidic and impact sprinklers based on hydraulic performance. Irrig. Sci. 2015, 33, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, A.M.; Sun, P.N.; Ming, F.R.; Colagrossi, A. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics and its applications in fluid-structure interactions. J. Hydrodynamics 2017, 29, 187–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Yuan, S.; Liu, J. Effect of sprinkler head geometrical parameters on hydraulic performance of fluidic sprinkler. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2012, 138, 1019–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coanda, H. Device For Deflecting a Stream of Elastic Fluid Projected Into an Elastic Fluid. U.S. Patent No. 2,052,869, 1 Spetember 1936. [Google Scholar]
- American Society of Biological Engineers. Procedure for Sprinkler Testing and Performance Reporting; ASAE S398.1; American Society of Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Al-araki, G.Y. Design and Evaluation of Sprinkler Irrigation System. Doctoral Dissertation; University of Khartoum: Khartoum, Sudan, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, D.; Wallender, W.W. Droplet size distribution and water application with low-pressure sprinklers. Trans. ASAE 1985, 28, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Kawano, H.; Yu, K. Droplet size distributions from different shaped sprinkler nozzles. Trans. ASAE 1994, 37, 1871–1878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarjuelo, J.M.; Montero, J.; Valiente, M.; Honrubia, F.T.; Ortiz, J. Irrigation uniformity with medium size sprinkler, part I: Characterization of water distribution in no—Wind conditions. Trans. ASAE 1999, 42, 677–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, B.A.; Winward, T.W.; Bjorneberg, D.L. Comparison of Sprinkler Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements using a Laser Precipitation Meter and Photographic Method. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2013, 131594348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sudheera, K.P.; Panda, R.K. Digital image processing for determining drop sizes from irrigation spray nozzles. Agric. Water Manag. 2000, 45, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Liu, X.; Zhu, X.; Yuan, S. Droplet characterization of a complete fluidic sprinkler with different nozzle dimensions. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 148, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J.; Cheng, J. Numerical simulation analysis of energy conversion in hydraulic turbine of hose reel irrigator JP75. J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng. 2018, 36, 448–453. [Google Scholar]
Radius of Throw (m) | Standard Deviation | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nozzle Size (mm) | p | 100 | 150 | 200 | 250 | 300 | 100 | 150 | 200 | 250 | 300 |
2 | 6.4 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 8.7 | 8.1 | 0.2 m | 0.3 m | 0.5 m | 0.3 m | 0.7 m | |
3 | 8.5 | 9.7 | 10.7 | 11.7 | 10.7 | 1.2 m | 0.1 m | 0.6 m | 0.2 m | 0.4 m | |
4 | 11.3 | 12.4 | 13.1 | 12.8 | 11.5 | 0.2 m | 0.1 m | 0.2 m | 0.1 m | 0.2 m | |
5.5 | 10.3 | 13.3 | 13.5 | 13.6 | 12.5 | 0.3 m | 0.2 m | 0.1 m | 0.1 m | 0.2 m | |
6 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.5 | 8.2 | 7.2 | 0.1 m | 0.4 m | 0.2 m | 0.3 m | 0.1 m | |
7 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 7.4 | 8.4 | 7.5 | 0.1 m | 0.2 m | 0.4 m | 0.5 m | 0.4 m |
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances | t-Test for Equality of Means | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |||
Lower | Upper | |||||||||
Distance | Equal variances assumed | 0.727 | 0.442 | −2.530 | 4 | 0.065 | −0.26667 | 0.10541 | −0.55933 | 0.02600 |
Equal variances not assumed | −2.530 | 3.448 | 0.075 | −0.26667 | 0.10541 | −0.57876 | 0.04542 |
Nozzles Size | Pressure (kPa) | d10 | d25 | d50 | d75 | d90 | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 mm | 100 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.45 | 0.46 | 1.94 | 0.76 m |
150 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.36 | 1.09 | 1.55 | 0.65 m | |
200 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 1.08 | 1.56 | 0.65 m | |
250 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.27 | 1.09 | 1.85 | 0.7 m | |
300 | 0.09 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 1.3 | 1.87 | 0.87 m | |
3 mm | 100 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.36 | 0.47 | 2.09 | 0.83 m |
150 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.27 | 0.79 | 2.4 | 0.91 m | |
200 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.82 | 2.3 | 0.93 m | |
250 | 0.06 | 0.16 | 0.27 | 0.5 | 2.05 | 0.82 m | |
300 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.25 | 1.49 | 1.96 | 0.87 m | |
4 mm | 100 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.4 | 1.69 | 0.65 m |
150 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.71 | 1.88 | 0.75 m | |
200 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.73 | 1.86 | 0.74 m | |
250 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.26 | 1.02 | 1.82 | 0.74 m | |
300 | 0.09 | 0.6 | 0.25 | 1.18 | 1.7 | 0.65 m | |
5.5 mm | 100 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 2.05 | 0.69 m |
150 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.77 | 2.1 | 0.76 m | |
200 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.23 | 0.79 | 2.1 | 0.75 m | |
250 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.23 | 0.48 | 2.02 | 0.76 m | |
300 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.47 | 1.93 | 0.70 m | |
6 mm | 100 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 2.05 | 0.83 m |
150 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.24 | 0.77 | 2.1 | 0.85 m | |
200 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.23 | 0.79 | 2.1 | 0.85 m | |
250 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.48 | 2.02 | 0.81 m | |
300 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 1.47 | 1.93 | 0.87 m | |
7 mm | 100 | 0.05 | 0.16 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 1.92 | 0.76 m |
150 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.34 | 1.07 | 1.53 | 0.65 m | |
200 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.33 | 1.06 | 1.51 | 0.63 m | |
250 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.25 | 1.07 | 1.82 | 0.76 m | |
300 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.23 | 1.28 | 1.84 | 0.80 m |
Nozzle Size (mm) | Pressure (kPa) | dv | d50 | SDD | CVD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 100 | 0.73 | 3.12 | 0.45 | 0.94 m | 119 |
150 | 0.71 | 2.94 | 0.36 | 0.71 m | 87 | |
200 | 0.70 | 2.79 | 0.35 | 0.81 m | 107 | |
250 | 0.68 | 2.68 | 0.37 | 0.82 m | 124 | |
3 | 100 | 0.67 | 2.71 | 0.36 | 0.85 m | 116 |
150 | 0.69 | 2.09 | 0.27 | 0.71 m | 125 | |
200 | 0.60 | 1.93 | 0.25 | 8.0 m | 120 | |
250 | 0.59 | 1.68 | 0.23 | 0.84 m | 114 | |
4 | 100 | 0.78 | 2.81 | 0.27 | 0.84 m | 107 |
150 | 0.76 | 2.44 | 0.26 | 0.68 m | 91 | |
200 | 0.73 | 2.0 | 0.26 | 0.71 m | 99 | |
250 | 0.72 | 1.91 | 0.25 | 0.79 m | 120 | |
5.5 | 100 | 0.86 | 2.81 | 0.34 | 0.89 m | 106 |
150 | 0.77 | 2.34 | 0.24 | 0.68 m | 91 | |
200 | 0.69 | 2.25 | 0.23 | 0.77 m | 114 | |
250 | 0.57 | 2.20 | 0.21 | 0.83 m | 147 | |
6 | 100 | 0.89 | 2.80 | 0.37 | 1.02 m | 115 |
150 | 0.76 | 2.79 | 0.24 | 0.99 m | 132 | |
200 | 0.70 | 2.19 | 0.23 | 0.95 m | 136 | |
250 | 0.68 | 1.49 | 0.23 | 0.87 m | 127 | |
7 | 100 | 0.80 | 2.99 | 0.44 | 0.92 m | 119 |
150 | 0.79 | 2.39 | 0.35 | 0.67 m | 85 | |
200 | 0.75 | 2.21 | 0.33 | 0.71 m | 106 | |
250 | 0.66 | 1.92 | 0.25 | 0.79 m | 121 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhu, X.; Fordjour, A.; Yuan, S.; Dwomoh, F.; Ye, D. Evaluation of Hydraulic Performance Characteristics of a Newly Designed Dynamic Fluidic Sprinkler. Water 2018, 10, 1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101301
Zhu X, Fordjour A, Yuan S, Dwomoh F, Ye D. Evaluation of Hydraulic Performance Characteristics of a Newly Designed Dynamic Fluidic Sprinkler. Water. 2018; 10(10):1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101301
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhu, Xingye, Alexander Fordjour, Shouqi Yuan, Frank Dwomoh, and Daoxing Ye. 2018. "Evaluation of Hydraulic Performance Characteristics of a Newly Designed Dynamic Fluidic Sprinkler" Water 10, no. 10: 1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101301