Hydraulic Aspects on the Design and Performance of Drip Irrigation System By Abu Obaida Mohammed El Obeid B.Sc.(Agric) University of Mansoura A.R.E. 1980 A Thesis Submitted to the University of Khartoum in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Irrigation) Supervision Dr. Amir Bakheit Saeed Department of Agricultural Engineering Faculty of Agriculture University of Khartoum 2006 ﺑﺴﻢ ﺍﷲ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺗﻌﺎﱃ : (ﻓﺎﻥ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻭﺍﺑﻞ ﻓﻄﻞ ﻭ ﺍﷲ ﺑﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺑﺼﻴﺮ) ()256ﺳﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺮﺓ ﺍﻵﻳﺔ Dedication This work is dedicated to my father's soul, ... my mother, ... my wife and lovely kids, ...and all my friends with ever lasting love. ACKNOWLEDGMENT My praise be to ALLAH who gave me health and power to complete this work ... I would like to express my truthful gratitude and thanks to my supervisor Dr. AMIR BAKHIET SAEED for his leader ship, encouragement and help to carry out this work. My greatest gratitude and appreciation are extended to my family their support through all stages of this work. Special gratitude goes to Mohammed Omer and my colleagues who helped me in the lay out and data collection. Finally ... I would like to express deep thanks to all who gave me some help during the progress of this work. Table of contents Page Table of Contents ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... .... i List of Tables ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... .. ... vi List of Figures ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ... viii List of Plates ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... . .... .... ix Dedication ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ... . ... .... x Acknowledgement ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... .... . ... xi English Abstract . ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... .. ..... ..... xii Arabic Abstract ... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ......... ..... .... xv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION . ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 1 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... 4 2.1 Introduction ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... .... ..4 2.2 Irrigation definition .. ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ......4 2.3 Irrigation methods ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ...... 5 2.3.1 Surface irrigation...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... .....5 2.3.2 Sub-surface irrigation. ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... . 5 2.3.3 Sprinkler irrigation .. ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ...5 2.3.4 Drip (Trickle) irrigation ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...5 2.4 Concept of drip irrigation ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...6 2.5 Definition of drip irrigation ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ......6 2.6 Historical review. ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... 6 2.7 Advantages of drip irrigation . ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... . 7 2.8 Disadvantages of drip irrigation ........... ..... ..... ..... ........... ...... ...8 2.9 Types of drip irrigation ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..9 2.9.1 Bubbler irrigation ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .9 2.9.2 Drip (trickle) irrigation ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .9 2.9.3 Micro- Sprayers ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...9 2.9.4 Mobile drip system ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... 9 2.10 System components ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... 10 2.10.1 Pump ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ......... 10 2.10.2 Control head ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... 11 2.10.3 Valves ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... 11 2.10.4 Backflow preventers ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .. .11 2.10.5 Pressure and flow regulators...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... .... .11 2.10.6 Filters ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ...11 2.11 Fertilizing methods.... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... 14 2.12Main and submain lines ...... ...... ...... ....... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...15 2.13 Laterals . ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ....15 2.14 Manifolds ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... .... .15 2.15 Fittings...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ....16 2.16 Emission point ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....16 2.16.1 Line source-tubing ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..16 2.16.2 Emitters ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... .... 16 2.17 Hydraulics of emitters ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... 18 2.17.1 Reynold's number (RN) ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .18 2.17.2 Emitter discharge exponent (X) ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... .18 2.17.3 Emitter manufacturing coefficient of variation (CV) ...... ......19 2.17.4 Classification of emitter manufacturing coefficient of variation (CV) ............ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .19 2.18 Determining of allowable pressure difference ...... ...... ...... ......20 2.19 Laterals hydraulics ..... .......... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .21 2.19.1 Blasius equation ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ......21 2.19.2 Darcy-Weisbach equation ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... .... 22 2.19.4 Christensen's friction factor (F) ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... 22 2.19.3 Hazen-Williams equation ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..23 2.20 Uniformity of drip irrigation (EU%) ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... .... 23 2.21 Soil moisture content ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ......24 2.21.1 Field capacity (F.C) ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 24 2.21.2 Permanent wilting point (P.W.P) ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ........ 24 2.21.3Available water ..... .......... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 24 2.22 Measurement of soil moisture content ..... ..... ........... ...... .... .24 2.23 Drip and plant rooting ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... 25 2.24 Drip irrigation system design ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... . 25 2.25 Emitter spacing ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ......25 2.26 Number of emitters per plant ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... 26 2.27 Crop water requirement (CWR) ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... .......... . 27 2.28 The net crop water requirement (NCWR) ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... .29 2.29 Gross irrigation requirement (Ig) ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ...... 30 2.30 Irrigation efficiency for drip system..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... .31 2.31 depth of water to be applied by irrigation...... ...... ..... ..... ...... 32 2.32 Irrigation set time for drip...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... 32 2.33 Irrigation frequency...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... . 33 2.34 System capacity...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ...... ...... ......... 33 2.35 Squash...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ........ ... 33 2.36 Practices on drip irrigation... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ..... ...... 34 CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS ..... ..... .. .. 42 3.1 Site description and Experimental layout...... ...... ..... ...... ...... .... 42 3.2 Land preparation..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...42 3.3 Drip irrigation system description ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ....... 43 3.3.1 Pump unit.... .... ....... ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ..... .. ..... ..... .... ... 43 3.3.2 Control unit ...... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... .......... ..... .......... ..... 43 3.3.3 The main line ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ........ ...... ..... ...... 43 3.3.5The lateral lines.. .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... .......44 3.3.6 Emitters .... ..... ....... ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... .... ..... .... .... .... .......44 3.4 Furrow method .... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ... 44 3.5 The squash data collection ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ...... ...... ..... ..... . .. 44 3.6 Measurements .... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .. 45 3.6.1 Measurement of the discharge ...... ..... ...... .... ...... ........ ....... ...45 3.6.2 Measurement of the pressure ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .... 45 3.6.3 Measurement of the soil moisture content .... ..... ..... .... .... .... 45 3.6.4 Measurement of the wetted soil depth...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... 45 3.7 Experimental procedure..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... 46 Chapter four: RESULTS AND DISCUSSING ..... ..... ..... ........ 51 4.1 Emitters discharge...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ... 51 4.2 Emitters exponent (X) and discharge coefficient (Kd) ..... ..... ..... 51 4.3 Manufactory variation (CV) ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... .... 52 4.4 T he relation between the laterals lines length and emitters discharge ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 52 4.5 Emission uniformity (EU %) ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... 54 4.6 Reynold's number (Rn) and Blasius factor (f)..... ...... ...... ........ ...55 4.7 The pressure variation (head loss) along the lateral length.... .. . ..55 4.8 The calculated allowable pressure difference (head loss).... ...... 59 4.9 Calculated pressure difference (head loss) according to Darcy-Weisbach equation ..... ......... ...... ...... ........ ....... ....... 59 4.10 Calculated pressure difference (head loss) according to Hazen- Williams equation ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... 60 4.11 Squash water requirement ....... ...... ..... ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... .... 63 4.12 Irrigation efficiencies for the first season ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...63 4.12.1 Emission uniformity for squash lines (EU %) first season . ... 64 4.12.2 Water application efficiency first season...... ....... ...... ...... .... 65 4.13 Irrigation efficiencies for the second season ….. ….. ….. ..... 65 4.13.1 Emission uniformity for squash lines second season ...... ........65 4.13.2 Water application efficiency ...... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... .......66 4.14 Efficiency of water use (first season) ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ...... . 66 4.15 Efficiency of water use (second season) ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....66 4.16 Soil properties .... ..... ...... ..... .. ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....67 4.17 Squash plant under drip irrigation ..... ..... .......... ..... ...... ..... .... 68 4.18 Squash plant under furrow line...... ...... .... ..... .... ..... ... ....... 68 4.19 Data analysis .... .......... ...... ...... .... ..... .... ..... ...... .... .... 69 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..76 5.1 Conclusions ….. ….. …… … … …… …… ….. ….. …… …... 76 5.2 Recommendations ….. …… …… …. …… …… …… ……. .. 76 REFERENCES …. ….. …… …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …… . 77 APPENDICES …. ….. ….. ….. …… ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. …... 80 List of Tables Table No. Title Page 2.1 Recommendations of the filters types ...... ..... ..... . ............ ..... .... 13 2. Classification of screen and particle size ..... ...... . ...... ..... ..... .... 14 2.3 Classification of emitters coefficient of manufacturing variation (CV) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ....... ........... ....20 2.4 Emitters spacing according to type of soil.... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... 26 2.5 Water storage efficiency (Ks %) .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ..... ..... ...31 2.6 A comparison between surface, sprinkler, and drip irrigation systems ..... ...... ..... ...... ..... ..... ....... ..... ..... ... 34 2.7 A comparison between production of some crops under different irrigation systems.. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ....... ........ .... ....... ..... ..... 35 3.1 Emitters specifications . ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ....... 44 4.1 Emitters discharge..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ........51 4.2 Emitters discharge exponent (X) and discharge coefficient(kd) .. ..51 4.3 Manufacturing variation (CV)..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... . ... 52 4.4 Relation between lateral lines 40 m length and emitters discharge ..... ..... ..... ....... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... .. 52 4.5 Relation between lateral lines 60 m length and emitters discharge ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ......... ....... . 53 4.6 Relation between lateral lines 80 m length and emitters discharge ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... .......... ....... 53 4.7 Emission uniformity for different types of emitters (EU %).........54 4.7 Pressure variation 40 m lateral length.......... ...... ...... ..... ........ . 56 4.8 Pressure variation 60 m lateral length.... ..... ...... ..... ..... .... ...... . 56 4.9 Pressure variation 80 m lateral length.. ..... ..... ..... ........ ...... ... . 57 4.10 Summary of results for pressure variation (head loss) ....... ..... . 57 4.11 Calculated allowable pressure difference according to ASAE technique...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ........ 59 4.12 Calculated pressure difference according to Darcy-Weisbach equation ...... .... ..... ..... .. ..... ..... 60 4.13 Calculated pressure difference according to Hazen-Williams equation....... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .. 60 4.15 Estimating squash water requirement.... ...... ..... ......... .... ......63 4.16 Squash lines emission uniformity (first season).... ..... ...... ...... 64 4.17 Squash lines emission uniformity (second season)..... ...... ...... 65 4.18 Squash plant parameters (first season)...... ..... ..... .... ...... ....... 66 4.21 Summary of analysis of variance.... ....... ...... ...... ..... ........ .... 69 List of Figures Figure No. Page 2.1 Drip irrigation components ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ...... ..... 36 2.2 Some common types of emitters and tubing's. ..... ...... ..... .. 37 2.3 Wetted profile.... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... ... 37 3.1 Layout for hydraulic studies..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... 47 3.2 Layout for studies on water requirements..... ..... ..... ..... .......... 48 4.1 Pressure variation for 0.5 bar beginning pressure ...... ...... .... 58 4.2 Pressure variation for 1.0 bar beginning pressure..... ..... ......... 58 4.3 Comparison of the head loss between Hazen-Williams equation, Darcy-Weisbach equation, ASAE technique, and actual measured pressure under 5 m working pressure ...... ...... ...... . 61 4.4 Comparison of the head loss between Hazen-Williams equation, Darcy-Weisbach equation, ASAE technique, and actual measured pressure under 10 m working pressure ...... ...... ...... . 62 List of Plates Plate No. Page 2.1 Control head with a venturi tube.. ..... .... ..... .... ......... ..... ..... . 38 2.2 Control valve. ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ......... .......38 2.3 Manifold layout ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .......... ...39 2.4 Three types of drip irrigation filters ... ...... ..... ........... ..... ........40 2.5 Some important drip irrigation fittings ........... ...... ..... ..... ...... 41 3.1 Built-in (GR) tube.... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ...... ...... ...... ....... ..... 49 3.2 Built-on (Turbo-Key) emitter ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ...... .. 49 3.3 Pressure gauge (one bar capacity). ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .. 50 3.4 Disc filter ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 50 4.1General view of the experimental field .. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... 71 4.2 Squash plant..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ...... ..... ..... 71 4.3 Furrow line (control).. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ... 72 4.4 Built-on above soil surface line ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... 72 4.5 Built-on and built-in (sub surface) ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... .73 4.6 Built-in above soil surface with pressure gauge connected .. ..... 73 4.7 Furrow line showing high weed infestation..... ...... ..... ..... ....... 74 4.8 Emission (in-line dripper) .. ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 74 ABSTRACT Hydraulic characteristics, irrigation efficiency and water use efficiency, using drip irrigation system were studied under Shambat conditions, during 2003 to 2005. A complete randomized block experimental design was used for three lateral lengths (40,6o,80 m), two emitters types: built-in (GR), built-on (Turbo-Key) and two pressures (0.5, 1.0 bar). The 40 m lateral lines were placed either on the soil surface, or 10 cm below the surface. Squash was used as the indicator plant and furrow irrigation as a control. Higher Emission uniformities (EU) within the range of (88-96.3%) were obtained from the built-in emitters as compared to a range of (84.4- 95.3%) given by the built-on emitters, with the three lateral lengths operating under the pressure levels. The manufacturing coefficient of variations (CV) and the discharge exponent ( X ) were found to be 0.01, 0.011 and 0.384, o.433 for the built-in and built-on emitters respectively, hence both of them can be classified as excellent and partially pressure compensating emitters. The Darcy-Weisbach and Hazen-Williams equations gave similar values of friction losses in lateral lines compared to the experimental measured pressure, and the pressure variation was within the allowable value of the later length at the limit of 50 m. The Penman-Monteith formula gave crop water requirement (ETsquash) of 4.8 mm /day for quash. The yield of squash increased by 59.6 %, 55.6% and 55.2% for the built-in, built-on above soil surface and built-in emitters 10 cm below soil surface respectively as compared to that obtained by the conventional furrow method. However the yield decreased by 18.1% when the built-on emitters were buried 10 cm below the soil surface which was attributed mainly to emitters clogging. ﻣﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ أﺟﺮﻳﺖ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺑﻬﺪف دراﺳﺔ اﻟﺼﻔﺎت اﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰة ﻟﻬﻴﺪروﻟﻴﻜﺎ ﻧﻈﺎم اﻟﺮي ﺑ ﺎﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﻂ ،آﻔ ﺎءة اﻟ ﺮي، آﻔﺎءة اﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﻤﻴ ﺎﻩ و ﻣﻘﺎرﻧ ﺔ ذﻟ ﻚ ﺑ ﺎﻟﺮي اﻟ ﺴﻄﺤﻲ )اﻟ ﺴﺮاب( .ﺗ ﻢ اﺳ ﺘﺨﺪام ﻧﻈ ﺎم اﻟﻤﺮﺑﻌ ﺎت ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺘﻮزﻳ ﻊ اﻟﻌ ﺸﻮاﺋﻲ ﻟﻠﺨﻄ ﻮط ﻓ ﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴ ﺬ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑ ﺔ اﻟﺤﻘﻠﻴ ﺔ اﻟﺘ ﻲ أﻗﻴﻤ ﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺰرﻋ ﺔ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴ ﺔ ﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌ ﺔ 2005 -2003اﻟﺨﺮﻃﻮم ،ﺷﻤﺒﺎت.ﻓﻲ اﻟﻔﺘﺮة ﺑﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ و ﺗﺮآﻴﺐ ﻧﻈﺎم اﻟﺮي ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﻂ ﻟﻴﺘﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼث ﺧﻄﻮط ﺛﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ ذات أﻃﻮال ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﺘ ﺮ( ﻟﻨ ﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔ ﻴﻦ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻨﻘﺎﻃ ﺎت ،ﻧﻘﺎﻃ ﺎت داﺧ ﻞ اﻟﺨ ﻂ )ﺟ ﻲ-ﺁر( و ﻧﻘﺎﻃ ﺎت ) 40, 60, 80 ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻂ )ﺗﻮرﺑﻮ – آﻲ( ﺗﺤﺖ ﺿﻐﻄﻴﻦ ﺗﺸﻐﻴﻠﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ )ﻧﺼﻒ ﺑﺎر و واﺣﺪ ﺑﺎر(. ﻣﺘ ﺮ ﺗﺤ ﺖ ﺿ ﻐﻂ ﺗ ﺸﻐﻴﻠﻲ واﺣ ﺪ ﺑ ﺎر و 40ﺗﻤﺖ زراﻋﺔ ﻧﺒﺎت اﻟﻜﻮﺳﺎ آﻤﺆﺷﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻄﻮط ﺑﻄ ﻮل ﺳ ﻢ ﺗﺤ ﺖ ﺳ ﻄﺢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑ ﺔ ،و ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﺳ ﻄﺢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑ ﺔ( ﺑﺎﻹﺿ ﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﺨ ﻂ ﻟﻠ ﺮي 10ﻋﻠﻰ وﺿﻌﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔ ﻴﻦ ) اﻟﺴﻄﺤﻲ )اﻟﺴﺮاب( ﻟﺘﺘﻢ اﻟﻤﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺑﻪ. ( ﻣﻘﺎرﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻘﺎﻃﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ %95.9 %95.1,آﺎن ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ اﻧﺘﻈﺎم اﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﻂ أﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﺎﻃﺎت داﺧﻞ اﻟﺨﻂ ) ( ﻟﻠﺜﻼث ﺧﻄﻮط ﺗﺤﺖ ﺿﻐﻄﻴﻲ اﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺬآﻮرة%96 ،%94.5 .اﻟﺨﻂ ) و 0.384و ﺛﺎﺑ ﺖ أس اﻟﺘ ﺼﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﺎﻃ ﺎت 0.010و 0.011آ ﺎن ﻣﻌﺎﻣ ﻞ اﻹﺧ ﺘﻼف اﻟﺘ ﺼﻨﻴﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﺎﻃﺎت داﺧﻞ اﻟﺨﻂ وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻂ ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻟﺘ ﻮاﻟﻲ ،ﺣﻴ ﺚ ﺗ ﺼﻨﻒ ﻧﺘ ﺎﺋﺞ ه ﺬﻩ اﻟﻨﻘﺎﻃ ﺎت ﺑﺄﻧﻬ ﺎ 0.433 ﻣﻤﺘﺎزة و ﻣﻌﻮﺿﺔ ﻟﻠﻀﻐﻂ ﺟﺰﺋﻴًَُﺎ . ﺗﻢ ﺣﺴﺎب ﻓﻮاﻗﺪ اﻟﻀﻐﻂ اﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﻋﻦ اﻹﺣﺘﻜﺎك ﺑﻮاﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﻌﺎدﻟﺘﻲ دارﺳﻲ -واﻳﺰﺑﺎخ و هﺎزﻳﻦ -وﻟﻴﺎﻣﺰ و ﻟﻘﺪ أﻋﻄﺖ اﻟﻤﻌﺎدﻟﺘﻴﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﺘﻘﺎرﺑﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ اﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻄ ﻮط اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑ ﺔ، ﻣﺘﺮ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﻮط اﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ50.آﻤﺎ آﺎن اﻧﺨﻔﺎض اﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺤﺪود اﻟﻤﺴﻤﻮح ﺑﻬﺎ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻃﻮل ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﻌﺎدﻟﺔ ﺑﻨﻤﺎن -ﻣﻮﻧﺘﻴﺚ ﺣﻴﺚ آﺎﻧ ﺖ )(ETsquashﺗﻢ ﺣﺴﺎب اﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺟﺎت اﻟﻤﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﺒﺎت اﻟﻜﻮﺳﺔ ﻣﻢ /ﻳﻮم4.8 . ﻟﻠﻨﻘﺎﻃﺎت داﺧﻞ اﻟﺨ ﻂ ﻓ ﻮق 55.2 %و59.6 % ، 55.6 %ﺗﻔﻮق اﻹﻧﺘﺎج ﻟﻨﺒﺎت اﻟﻜﻮﺳﺎ ﺑﺤﻮاﻟﻲ وﺗﺤﺖ ﺳﻄﺢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ واﻟﻨﻘﺎﻃﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨﻂ ﻓﻮق ﺳﻄﺢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑﺔ ﻋﻠ ﻰ اﻟﺘ ﻮاﻟﻲ ﻣﻘﺎرﻧ ﺔ ﺑ ﺎﻟﺮي اﻟ ﺴﻄﺤﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﺎﻃﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺨ ﻂ ﺗﺤ ﺖ ﺳ ﻄﺢ اﻟﺘﺮﺑ ﺔ و 18.1%ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ اﻧﺨﻔﺾ ﺑﺤﻮاﻟﻲ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪي )اﻟﺴﺮاب( ﻳﻌﺰى ذﻟﻚ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺪاد اﻟﻤﺘﻜﺮر ﻟﻠﻨﻘﺎﻃﺎت. CHAPTER ONE Introduction The major constraints to produce more food to meet the increasing demands of the world population are land and water. In many parts of the world the amount and timing of rainfall are not adequate to meet the moisture requirement of crops. Water needs to be applied artificially through an irrigation technique to supplement rainfall. Sudan is an agricultural country, rich in natural resources. But land and water need to be utilized efficiently for self satisfaction in food and fibre, and with the excess for export. The cultivable land is estimated to amount up to about 105 million hectares of which only 7.4 million hectares is under rain fed agriculture and about 1.3 million hectares under irrigation. The water resources at Sudan are rain, underground aquifers, permanent and seasonal rivers. River Nile and its tributaries are considered the main conventional source of water for reliable agricultural development. However this source is governed by international agreements of which the most famous are the two bilateral agreements between Egypt and Sudan, signed in 1929 and 1959. According to the 1959 Nile Water Agreement, Sudan is allotted an annual share of 18.5 milliard m3 as measured at Aswan in Egypt . Nevertheless, additional supplies of water can be made available through water conservation projects such as saving water losses by evaporation and runoff in the swampy (Sudd) areas in the southern region of the country. Jongli Canal is one of these promising projects but had not been completed for security reasons. Other approaches to conserve water can be through improving and / or modernizing water application techniques at the on farm level. The traditional method adopted in Sudan is the surface irrigation mainly with low efficiencies but there are serious efforts for improvement. These include precision leveling by the laser technology coupled with long furrow irrigation whereas the use of the hydoflume is still under preliminary investigation. Irrigation modernization is accepted as a strategic option to improve water use efficiency and increase total production and economic output. The over head systems, particularly the centre pivot system have shown good success under Sudan conditions. On the other hand the use of drip irrigation system is still confined (mainly plastic houses), small private farms, wind break trees and landscaping. There are many areas in Sudan which are adaptable to drip irrigation for their soil characteristics, water scarcity and /or low quality. Such areas are mainly found in Northern, Eastern and River Nile, North Kordufan and Darfour states. The use of drip irrigation under Sudan open field conditions is rapidly disseminating and getting popularity. This study is conducted with a view to achieving the following objectives: • To evaluate the performance of two types of drip emitters namely; the built-in (GR) and the built-on (Turbo-Key). The evaluation will consider important hydraulic parameters for the two types of the emitters using: the rate of emitter outflow (discharge) as affected by pressure, coefficient of variation, lateral length, and location (above or below soil surface). • To evaluate growth and production of squash crop under open field conditions as compared to the conventional surface (furrow) irrigation method. CHAPTER TWO Literature review 2.1 Introduction Drip irrigation is one of the most recent irrigation systems in the world. It has the concept of compensating the actual transpiration of the plant plus the over need of the plant growth. The system is widely applied today despite some of the shortage symptoms observed in the high initial cost and settlement of installments. This system is well and quickly disseminating worldwide specially in dry countries of desert nature since it provides waters of hard renewal and high cost. Water is becoming a very scarce resource. If farmers want to ensure their survival for the future they must employ and adhere to stringent water conservation methods (Arid Lands technologies, 1998) . Drip irrigation is the most efficient method of irrigation. While sprinkler systems are can reach efficiency of 75% →85%, drip systems can reach efficiency 90% or more. For this reason drip is the preferred method of irrigation in the desert regions and arid lands. Moreover drip irrigation has other benefits, which make it useful almost anywhere. It is easy to install, to design to reduce plant disease, and can be inexpensive when are to be irrigated unleveled lands. 2.2 Irrigation definition: Irrigation is the artificial application of water to the soil for the purpose of crop production. Irrigation water is applied to supplement the water available from rainfall and the contribution to soil moisture from ground water. In many arid and semiarid areas of the world amount and timing of rainfall are not adequate to meet the moisture requirements of crops and irrigation essential to raise crops necessary to the needs of food and fibre. (Michel,1978). 2.3 Irrigation methods: Irrigation may be accomplished by four different ways: 1- Direct surface application (Surface irrigation). 2- Applying water below soil surface (Subsurface irrigation). 3- Spraying water overhead (Sprinkler irrigation). 4- Applying water in a limited zone of the field area (Drip irrigation). 2.3.1 Surface irrigation: In this method the water is applied directly to the soil surface from a channel at the upper reach of the field. Water may be distributed by any one of the following systems as stated by (Khalil, 1998). • Basins. • Borders or strips. • Conventional furrow or their modifications. 2.3.2 Subsurface irrigation: Water is applied below the soil surface. It reaches plant roots through the capillary action, and may be introduced through open ditches or under ground pipes (Michel,1978). 2.3.3 Sprinkler irrigation: In this method the water is sprayed in the air and allowed to fall like rain. The spray is developed by creating pressure through nozzles, (Khalil,1998). 2.3.4 Drip or trickle irrigation: Drip or trickle irrigation is the newest of all the commercial methods of water application. It is described as the frequent, slow application of water to the soil through mechanical devices called emitters or applicators located at selected points along the water delivery lines (Jensen, 1993). 2.4 Concept of drip irrigation: The basic concepts of drip irrigation systems are to provide near optimal soil moisture content in the root zone of the plant. Drip irrigation of outdoors crops dates back to 1960 where some trails in Israel replaced the idea of the soil as a storage reservoir with the concept of irrigation keeping up with evaprotranspiration on a daily basis, (Keller and Kamelli, 1975; Jensen, 1993) 2.5 Definition of drip irrigation: Drip irrigation is also commonly refered to as trickle irrigation, low flow irrigation, micro irrigation, bubblers, they all have similar design and management criteria. These systems deliver water for the individual plant or rows of plants. The outlets are generally placed at short intervals along small tubing, and unlike surface or sprinkler irrigation only the soil near the plant is watered. The outlets include emitters, orifices, bubblers and micro-sprays or micro-sprinklers with flow ranging from 2 to over 200 liter / hour, ( Schwab, etal., 1993). 2.6 Historical review: Drip irrigation was born in Germany in 1869 where subsurface irrigation was performed in combination with drainage systems, in which short porous clay pipes were used. In 1912 the first subsurface drip irrigation was reported using iron pipes in U.S.A, but it was highly expensive as being practical. In 1925-1932 some experts in France and Russia used subsurface drip irrigation. in England it was used between 1945-1948 to irrigate tomato plants in greenhouses. Technological development of plastic pipes after the second world war made the use of drip irrigation system practical. Micro irrigation research began in Germany about 1860, and in the 1940th it was introduced to England especially for watering and fertilizing plants in greenhouses. With increased availability of plastic pipe and the development of emitters in Israel in the 1950s, it has since become an important method of irrigation in Australia, Europe, Israel, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States (Schwab, etal., 1993). 2.7 Advantages of drip irrigation: 1- A major advantage of trickle irrigation systems is that the close balance between applied water and crop evaprotranspiration reduces surface runoff and deep percolation to a minimum (Ceunca,1989). 2- For perfect drip irrigation system design, about 40% of the irrigation water is saved with an application efficiency of 85% -95% as compared-with other irrigation systems. 3- Trickle systems produce higher ratio of yield per unit area and yield per unit volume of water than typical surface or sprinkler irrigation systems (Ceunca,1989). 4- Labur requirements are lowered and the system can be readily automated, (Abbas, etal., 1992). 5water Frequent or daily application of water keeps the salts in the soil more dilute and leached to the out limits of the wet zone to make the use of saline water more practical,( Jensen, 1983). 6- Weeds growth is reduced because of the limited wet soil surface, ( Lateif, etal., 1988). 7- Use of trickle irrigation is practical even in fields that have 5-6% slope without erosion (Khalil, 1998 ). 8- Trickle irrigation needs no leveling , no drainage and no other field operations like ridging. 9- Fertilizers and chemicals can be injected into the irrigation water causing a uniform distribution at the root zone (Al-Amoud,1997). 10- Bacteria, Fungi and other pests and diseases that depend on moist environment are reduced, as the above ground plant parts are normally completely dry. (Schwab, etal., 1993). 11- Landscape is the area where drip irrigation is experienced it would widely suit many landscape situations, balancing the high and rapidly rising cost of water and pumping energy. 12- The environment is kept sound by not allowing chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides) to run deep and penetrate into the soil to affect ground water. 2.8 Disadvantages of drip irrigation: 1- The major disadvantage of the system is its high capital or initial cost, (Michael, 1999). 2- Clogging of emitters by biological, chemical and physical matters. 3- Frequent application of water leach the salts out to the limit of the wetted zone, if system stops supplying water, the salts may enter to the root of the plant causing wilting or poisoning the plant, (Abd elazeem, 1997). 4- Shallow roots due to the limited wet zone. The field needs frequent irrigation and in case of trees they are liable to tilt in the windward direction and may be uprooted. 2.9 Types of drip irrigation systems: 2.9.1 Bubbler irrigation: Application of water as a small fountain. It is a combination of surface and drip irrigation that needs a small basin, because the discharge is too high to infiltrate, about 20 to 225 liters per hour. It is usually used for orchards and big trees ( Ismail, 2001) 2.9.2 Drip (trickle) irrigation Delivering slow frequent applications of water in discharge points or line source with a discharge of 2-100 liter / hour. Trickle irrigation can be on the surface or sub surface The latter is preferred in light soils. 2.9.3 Micro-Sprayers: Small applications are used to spray irrigation water to cover an area of 1-10 square meters. They are also called aerosol emitters, foggers, micro sprayers, or miniatures sprinklers. (Michel, 1990) 2.9.4 Mobile Drip Irrigation System: Combine the benefits of trickle and sprinkler irrigation systems. Using linear system or center pivot replacing the sprinkler with laterals finished with emitters (Al-Amoud, 1997). 2.10 System components: The components required for trickle systems are generally more complicated than those for other applications systems due to the need to filter the water supply and to maintain a specific pressure distribution throughout the system. The components of a typical trickle system are shown in Fig. 2.1. The system can be divided into the mainline, submain, and lateral. The mainline has a pump to pressurize the system and possibly a chemical injector to conveniently apply nutrients through the distribution system. Primary filter is used to screen the largest particles out of the system . Primary pressure gauges on either side of the filter are used to evaluate when pressure drop across the filter is high enough to required backflushing. The final components on the main line are control valve, pressure and flow regulation. The submain line has a secondary filter for finer particles and a solenoid valve to aid in system automation. A pressure regulator is required on this line to keep the system operating within the close tolerances of discharge necessary for the water balance. Secondary pressure gauges are used to verify the operating pressure. Flush valves are shown at the end of the submain line to periodically clear accumulated debris from the line. Lateral lines are shown coming off the submains. The lateral distributes water to the emitters which deliver water directly to the root zone. 2.10.1 Pump: The irrigation pumps force the water to create matching pressure for the system designed. Centrifugal pumps are usually used in irrigation. Its mechanism uses an impeller to spin water rapidly in a housing. This type of pump must have water in the case so it has a small valve to hold water. Centrifugal pumps are divided into End–Suction Centrifugal the most common pump in drip systems, Submersible usually shaped like a long cylinder to match the works inside the wells and Turbine pumps which are mounted under the water and would be attached by a shaft to a motor raised above the water. Turbine pumps are the most efficient type of pumps that can be used in wells or lakes. 2.10.2 Control head The head works consist of the main control station and may consist of the pump, filters, pressure regulating, valves, flow regulating valves, control valves, water meters, pressure gauge, automatic controllers, or time clocks, and chemical injection equipment, (Jensen,1993) Plate 2.1 Plate 2.1Control head with aventuri tube 2.10.3 Valves A valve is a device to control the flow of water. Valves are divided into: a- Emergency shutoff valves which should be located at the way of the water to the system. The commonly used are gate valves, ball valves, disc valves, or butter fly valves. b- Control valves can be operated manually, electrically, hydraulically, and automatically. Material used for valves is brass or plastic, (Plate 2.1). Plate 2.2 Control valve 2.10.4 Backflow preventer: The backflow preventer is located before the pump to prevent the flow back of irrigation water not to contaminate the source with chemicals and fertilizer 2.10.5 Pressure and flow regulators: Installed in the mainline to save the system from increasing the pressure and regulate the flow. 2.10.6 Filters: The filter is an essential component of the drip system its aim to minimize or prevent emitter clogging, the type of filtration needed depends on water quality and on emitter type. (Gilbert, etal., 1979,1981; Ravina, etal.,1992). Each type of filter is effective for a particular particle size and type of suspended material, for a specific flow rate, and has a characteristic capacity for sediment collection. (Dasberg, etal., 1999), (Plate 2.3). Filters can be classified into: a-Screen filters: The most common filter. It is excellent for removing hard particulates, but is not so good at removing organic materials. b- Cartridge filters: Most of the cartridge filters contain a paper filter which works like a screen filter. It removes organic materials well. Most of them are replaceable when dirty. c- Media filters: Media filter cleans water by forcing it through a container filled with a small sharp edged media, in most cases the media is uniform sized crushed sand. d- Disc filter: Disc filters are a cross between screen and media filters with many of the advantage of both. A disc filter is good at removing particulates like sand and organic materials. Media Filter Cartridge Filter Disc filter Plate 2.3 shows three types of drip irrigation filters e- Centrifugal filters: Also known as 'sand separation', they are primary for removing particulates such as sand from water where a lot of sand is present in the water (Stryker, 2001). Table 2.1 gives a summary of recommendation on the types of filters to be used under different condition of water quality. On the other hand Table 2.2exhibits classification of screen and particle size as adopted from Nakayama, (1986) and Cuenca, (1989). Table 2.1 Filters types recommendations Water source Filter Municipal water system Screen filter, centrifugal filter, or disk filter Well Screen filter, centrifugal filter, or disk filter River or creak Disk filter, media filter, screen filter, and centrifugal filter. Pond or lake disk filter, Media filter, screen filter, and centrifugal filter. Spring or Artesian well Screen filter, centrifugal filter, or disk filter Organic material in disk filter, media filter, screen filter, and water centrifugal filter. Sand in water Screen filter, centrifugal filter, or disk filter Source: Stryker, (2001). Table 2.2 Classification of screen and particle size Equivalent Particle Equivalent diameter designation diameter (microns) (microns) 16 1180 Coarse sand > 1000 20 850 Medium sand 250-500 30 600 Very fine sand 50-250 40 425 Silt 2-50 100 150 Clay <2 140 106 Bacteria 0.4-2 170 90 Virus < 0.4 200 75 270 53 400 38 Adopted from Nakayama (1986), Cuenca, (1989). 2.11 Fertilizing methods The fertilizing system used to add chemicals, (nutrients, herbicides, or pesticides) to the irrigation water is considered an integral part of the drip system. The process of adding fertilizer with irrigation water is called "Fertigaition" The solubility of fertilizer must be known, and the system or advice must be calibrated. The following equation stated by Ismail, ( 2002) can be used for calibration: (2.1) Qf = Where: Fr × A .............................................................. T × Tf × Fc Qf = The rate of fertilizers injection (l /h) Fr = Fertilizer required dose (Kg /fed) A = Area (fed) T = Irrigation set time (h) Tf = Fertigaition time (not more than 50% of T) Fc = Fertilizer concentration (Kg / l) There are various ways to performing fertigaition: - Venturi tube principle: A constriction in the main water flow pipe increases the water flow velocity thereby causing a pressure differential (vaccum) which is sufficient to suck fertilizer solution from an open reservoir into the water system. - Fertilizer tank (By-pass system): The method employs a tank into which dry or liquid fertilizer is placed, the tank is connected to the main irrigation line by means of a by pass so that some of the irrigation water flows through the tank and dilutes the fertilizer solution. The concentration of fertilizer in the tank degreases gradually, until it reaches the level of irrigation water . - Injection system: With this method a pump is used to inject fertilizer solution into the irrigation line. The solution is normally pumped from an unpressurized reservoir. 2.12 Main and submain lines The main and submain lines are usually placed underground and they supply water to the laterals. Normally they are made of polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipes or polyethylene (PE). The (PVC) pipes are divided into low and high pressure categories, based on pipe diameter and design operating pressure, rarely asbestos and cement pipes are used for the main lines. 2.13 Laterals: Laterals are the tubes on which the emitters are mounted or within which they are insert or integrated. They are usually made of polyethylene with the following features: flexibility, non corrosivity, resistivity to solar radiation and the effect of temperature fluctuations , ease in manipulation, and generally, black in color (Recently, green or brown colored). Laterals usually have inner diameter in the range of 12-32mm, and wall thickness made to withstand pressure up to 4-6 bar depending on need, ( Dasberg, etal., 1999). 2.14 Manifolds: A manifolds is the part of pipe net work between the main and the laterals, manifolds also called trenches. Depth of trenches depends on the depth of the main lines, PVC pipes must be at least 45 cm (18") deep measure from the top of the pipe, so trench goes to 50 cm (20") deep under the ground surface, (Plate 2.4) Plate 2.4 Manifolds 2.15 Fittings: Fittings are the standard name used for various parts which attach pipes together, as shown in Plate 2.3 crosses, bushings, couplings, elbows, reducers, tees and adapters male or female are fittings. It may be threaded, barbed or welded to pipe. Usually glue or cement is used on plastic fittings, but threaded plastic fittings are tightened with hand only. End cap Elbow Adapter Tee Grommets Reducer Connectors Plate 2.5 Shows some important drip irrigation fittings 2.16: Emission point: The point on or close to the ground surface, where emitters discharge water are emission point According to the discharge spacing, when spacing is 1 meter or more it is called point-source, and when its less than 1 meter it is a line–source. Plate 2.6 Emission point, in-line dripper 2.16.1 Line- source tubing: There are three types of line –source tubing: a- Single-chamber tubing: It is a small diameter hose ( less than 25mm ) that has orifice punched or complex emitters or inserted at intervals of 0.6m or less. b- Double-chamber tubing: This is a small diameter hose ( less than 25mm ) that has both a main and an auxiliary bore separated by a single wall. Widely spaced inner orifice punched in the separated wall, for each inner orifice 3 to 6 exit orifices are punched at intervals of 1.5 to 0.6 meter in the outer wall of the auxiliary bore. c- Porous-wall tubing: It is a small diameter hose ( less than 25mm ) that has a uniformly porous wall The pores are at capillary size and ooze water when under pressure. 2.16.2 Emitters The emitter is a device used to dissipate the pressure and to discharge water at a constant rate at many points along a lateral. It is the main component of the drip irrigation system and determines it characteristics. Emitters have many types and may be classified according to the flowing criteria; flow rate, form of pressure dissipation and details of construction and incorporation in the lateral, (Karmeli, 1977; Dasberg, etal., 1999), (Plate 2.6). a- Flow rate and its variation: Each emitter has a certain design flow rate, by its mean at normal operating pressure. The coefficient of manufacturing variation (CV) may vary from 0.02 for spiral long path emitters to 0.4 for porous pipe, and has a critical effect on the irrigation efficiency of the system. The flow rate is affected by pressure, temperature and obviously by clogging. b- Form of pressure dissipation: The operating pressure of most emitters is in the range of 0.1 – 0.2 MPa. This pressure is dissipated in the emitter pathway and reaches the outlet at atmospheric pressure, by directing water flow through long narrow path (long–path emitters), through small opening (orifices emitters) or through labyrinth to create a turbulent flow. c- Discharge regulation by pressure compensating: Some emitters are equipped with special constructed membrane or diaphragm to ensure a constant pressure over a wide range of pressures. These emitters are usually more expensive but allow very long laterals (more than 500 m for emitters of 1.6 (l/h) at 1 m distance between emitters), (Dasberg etal., 1999). 2.17 Hydraulics of emitters: The relation between emitter discharge and operating pressure is dependent on flow regime, which is determined by the dimensionless Reynold's number (RN). 2.17.1 Reynold's number(RN): RN = VD / (1000v) ...................................................... .. (2.2) Where : Rn = Reynold's number, dimensionless V = flow velocity, m /sec D = emitter diameter, mm v = kinematics viscosity of water, m2 /sec The flow regime is divided into the following types due to Rn: a – Laminar flow (RN < 2000) b – Turbulent flow (RN > 4500) c – Unstable flow regime (2000 < RN > 4500) The friction factor (f) for laminar flow is, (f) = 64 / RN ........ . (2.3) The friction factor (f) for turbulent flow is, (f) = 0.316 / RN0.25 ...(2.4) 2.17.2 Emitter discharge exponent: According to Hillel, (1987) the discharge for most trickle irrigation emitters or sprays with fixed or unfixed cross section can be given by: Q = Kd × H X ....................................................................... ...(2.5) Where : Q = Emitter flow rate or discharge (l /h) Kd = Discharge coefficient (empirical factor) H = Working head pressure at the emitter X = Emitter discharge exponent In order to find the value of (X) the expression used is : X = Log (Q2 / Q1) ................................................ (2.6) Log (H2 / H1) Where : Q1, Q2 are discharge; H1, H2 are pressure at two known points. (Kd) is computed by compensating (X) value in equation (2.4) The values of (X) should range from 0 for pressure compensating emitter to 1 for an emitter in laminar flow regime. The discharge exponent should equal about 0.5 for emitter operating in turbulent flow regime, (Cuenca, 1989). 2.17.3 Emitters manufacturing coefficient of variation( CV): It is impossible to manufacture the emitters exactly alike , because of the critical dimensions of emitter passage .So the small difference may cause significant variation .The manufacturing coefficient of variation for emitter (CV) can be calculated from the discharge data of a sample of at least 50 emitters by the following equation: CV = ………(2.7) √ (q1 2 + q2 2 + ….. qn 2 – nqa2 ) / (n-1) qa which is (2.8) Where : CV = sd / q a ……………… CV = coefficient of manufacturing variation n = number of emitters in the sample qa = average emitter discharge rate for the sample ( q1 + q2 … + qn ) / n , l/h. sd = estimated standard deviation of discharge rates of the population (l/h) Table 2.3 Classification of emitter coefficient of manufacturing variation (CV) Classification Excellent Drip or spray emitters Line source tubing CV < 0.05 CV < 0.1 Average 0.05 < CV < 0.07 0.1 < CV < 0.2 Marginal 0.07 < CV < 0.11 Poor 0. 1 < CV 0.15 Unacceptable 0.15 < CV 0.2 < CV < 0.3 0.3 < CV Source: Keller, etal., (1990 ) This has basically been adopted in the Engineering Practice Standard : ASAE EP405.1 ( Keller, etal., 1990 ) 2.18 Determining of the allowable pressure difference : In order to conduct the allowable pressure difference there are two techniques. (1) The American Society for Agric. Engineers (ASAE) which suggests that the allowable discharge variation is ± 10 % , and with the use of equation (2.4) the allowable pressure difference (∆P) is computed by equation (2.8). ∆ P = 1 dq × H ……………………………………… .(2.9) X q Where: ∆ P = allowable pressure difference dq = discharge variation. q = Emitter discharge (l/h). X = Emitter exponent. H = Operating pressure. (2) Design uniformity technique EU = 1- 1.27CV qmin …(2.10) √N ……………………… qav Pmin / Pav = (qmin / qav)1/x ………………………… (2.11) Where: CV = coefficient of manufacturing variation. N = number of emitters. EU = field test emission uniformity % qav = average or design emitter discharge, (l/h). qmin = average rate of discharge of the lowest one-fourth of the field data emitter discharge readings, l/h Pmin = lowest calculated pressure.(m) Pav = operating pressure (m). Traditional way to carry out (∆ P) is equation (2.11): ∆ P = 2 (hav –hmin) …………………………….. (2.12) Where: hav = operating pressure (m). hmin = lowest calculated pressure (m) from equation (2.10) 2.19 Laterals hydraulics: Head losses along laterals (hf) of drip irrigation systems strongly affect the available head at emitter nozzles. Consequently, discharge is significantly affected when conventional non-compensating emitters are used. These losses are frequently estimated by adding frictional losses, (Juana, etal., 2002) 2.19.1 Blasius equation calculates friction factor (f) in smooth pipes as follows: f = 0.316 RNo.25 / ........................………………………(2.3) The Darcy- Weisbach equation is used to calculate laterals hydraulics (Cuenca , 1990.) .The Darcy–Weisbach (f) factor can be used to calculate friction losses over a range of Reylond's number in both laminar and turbulent flow regimes. The Darcy–Weisbach equation calculates friction losses in a length of pipe with known flow and pipe diameter. (Stryker, 2001). 2.19.2 Darcy–Weisbach equation: hf = 6.377 fL Q2 /D5 …… .... ...... ..... …….(2.13) Where : hf = friction losses along lateral, m. L = lateral length , m. ........ …… Q = total lateral flow rate , l/h. D = lateral diameter , mm f = Darcy–Weisbach friction factor . 2.19.3 Christensen's friction factor: To covert from pressure losses in fully flowing pipe to pressure losses in a pipe in regular outlets such as drip irrigation, (A.B.E. 2001) hac= hf F ……… …… …… ..... ...... ....... .… ….(2.14) Where : hac = actual pressure losses in the pipe. F = Christensen's friction factor Christensen's friction factor (F) is given by the equation 1 + M+1 F= 1 + 2N ( M – 1 )0.5 ....... ........ ...(2.15) 6N2 Where: N = number of outlets. M =exponent in Hazen–Williams equation 2.19.4 Hazen–Williams equation: (2.16) hf = KL [Q/C1.852] ……… ……… …… … .... D4.87 Where : K = conversion constant, 1.21×1010 L = length , m . Q = flow rate l/sec. C = Hazen-Williams coefficient, C =140 for drip and PVC pipe D = pipe diameter, mm. 2.20 Uniformity of drip irrigation : Emission uniformity EU% is a measure of emissions from all the emission points within an entire trickle irrigation system. (Keller,etal.1990). EU% = 100 qn / qa …………………………..(2.17) Where : EU% = field test emission uniformity % qn = average rate of discharge of the lowest one-fourth of the field data emitter discharge readings, (l/h) qa = average discharge rate of all the emitters checked in the field (l/h) EU can also be given by the equation (2.10) 2.21 Soil moisture content : Generally plant growth depends mainly on the soil moisture between field capacity and permanent wilting point which is known as available soil moisture . 2.21.1 Field capacity ( F.C.): The field capacity (F.C.) is the water content after drainage of the gravitational water has become slow and the water content has become relatively stable .This situation usually exists one to three days after rain or irrigation. Field capacity content depends on soil texture. In this situation soil moisture tension ranges between 0.1 to 0.7 bar, (Khalil,1998). 2.21.2 Permanent wilting point (P.W.P) : Michael (1978) mentioned that permanent wilting point is the soil moisture content at which plants can no longer obtain enough moisture to meet transpiration requirement, it is at moisture tension of about 15 bar. 2.21.3 Available water : Available water is the moisture content between field capacity and permanent wilting point. Available water can be expressed as percentage moisture, percentage volume or depth. 2.22 Measurement of soil moisture content: Soil moisture is measured directly by using the gravimetric method or indirectly by measuring soil water potential using certain devices such as tensiometers, electrical resistance blocks, neutron scattering and magnetic field resistance. 2.23 Drip and plant rooting : In studies of tomato root distribution under drip irrigation, 90% of the roots were found to concentrate at the upper half of the roots depth, and at 50 to 150 mm of the emission point of the horizontal axis (Al Amoud, 1997). 2.24 Drip irrigation system design : Trickle irrigation designing, is usually done by a first guess for an emitter spacing acceptable for the selected crops - and flow rate matching the soil texture. Then the crop water requirement is computed at the maximum daily crop requirement in the middle of summer. Then to calculate the pump power and discharge, filters types and capacities, main, submain and laterals lines hydraulics. 2.25 Emitter spacing: Spacing between emitters depends on the volume of soil wetted per a single emitter. Table 2.4 shows the suggested emitter spacing according to soil texture, (Khalil, 1998). Table 2.4 Suggested emitters spacing according to type of soil. Distance between emitters m Emitter discharge l/h Coarse texture Medium texture Fine texture > 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.9 2 0.3 0.7 1.0 4 0.6 1.0 1.3 8 1.0 1.3 1.7 12< 1.3 1.6 2.0 Source: Khalil, (1998) Keller, etal., (1991) proposed the following equation to calculate the spacing between emitters Se ≤ 0.8 dw …… …… ..... ....... ..... ...... ..... ( 2.18) Where : Se =emitter spacing dw = soil surface wetted by a single emitter 2.26 Number of emitters per plant: James, (1988). suggested the following equation to calculate the number of emitters per plant. N = (1000 × P × S × L) dw × Se …………………………… (2.19) Where : N = number of emitters per plant. dw = maximum diameter of wetted area caused by a single emitter. Se = spacing between emitters (cm) P = percentage of wetted area (decimal) S = spacing between emission points (m) L = spacing between plant rows (m) 2.27 Crop water requirement (CWR): Crop water requirement under trickle irrigation systems is different from crop water requirement under surface and sprinkler irrigation systems because the field wetted area is reduced, resulting in less evaporation from the soil surface. Most methods of estimating crop water requirement provide estimates of evapotranspiration which probably contain a significant soil evaporation component (Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1977; Gangopadhayaya , etal., 1966 and Jensen, 1974) Crop water requirements are usually expressed in units of water volume per unit land area (m3 /ha), depth per unit time (mm/day), (Jensen, 1983). Crop water requirement, which is equal to crop evapotranspiration can be calculated according to the following equation : ETc = ETo × Kc ……………………………(2.20) Where : ETc = Crop Evapotranspiration (mm/day). ETo = Reference crop Evapotranspiration (mm/day). Kc = Crop coefficient Reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) can be calculated according to the Penman-Monteith formulas as stated by Ismail, ( 2002). ETo = Where : ETo ∆ . Rn + ɤ (900/T + 273) U2 (es – ea) ……… (2.21) ∆ + ɤ (1+ 0.34 U2) = Reference crop evapotranspiration. Net radiation at crop surface (Mjm-2 day -1 ). Rn = T = Average temperature at 2 m high . (es – ea) = Vapor pressure deficit for measurement at 2 m high. = Wind speed at 2 m high (ms-1). U2 The following formula was used to adjust the wind speed data from 20 m to standard height of 2 m, as stated by Ismail (2002) U2 .....(2.22) = Uz In 4. 85 . ..... Zm – 0.08 0.015 Where : Uz = mean wind speed measured at height (z) ( m/sec) . U2 = mean wind speed measured at height 2m (m/sec) . Zm = height at which wind speed is measured (m). When there is no enough data to calculate U2 , it is possible to use the International average wind speed (1+3) / 2 = 2m/ sec . ∆ = Slope of vapor pressure curve (K Pa C°). ɤ = Psychometric constant (K Pa C°). 900 = Coefficient for reference crop (Kj Kg day -1). 0.34 1 = Wind coefficient for the reference crop (Sm- ) Reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) can also be calculated by the the Penman-Monteith formulas (2.23) as stated by Ismail, ( 2002). 0.408 ∆(Rn – G) + ɤ (900/T + 273)U2 (es – ea) …… ETo = (2.23) ∆ + ɤ (1+ 0.34U2 Where : G = Soil heat flux(Mj m-2 day-1). Soil heat flux(Mj m-2 day-1) (G) may be uncounted if the period is less than 10 days. And it can be calculate according to the equation G moth = 0.14 (T month – T month-1) ………………......... (2.24) Where : T month = Average temperature for the mentioned month (C°). T month-1 = Average temperature for the month before (C°). ea = es × relative humidity as a friction (Ismail, 2001)... (2.25) 2.28 The net crop water requirement (NCWR): The net crop water requirement is the amount of water needed to supplement the effective rainfall in the crop root zone. Effective rainfall is the portion of rainfall that contributes to meet the evapotranspiration requirement of crop, (Hershfield.1964) In order to determine the effective rainfall four different equations can be used as suggested by Smith, , etal., (1991) and FAO(1992). 1-Fixed percent of rainfall: pe = a × ptot ……………………. (2.26) Where : a = fixed percentage that accounts for losses from rain fall and deep percolation. pe = effective rainfall (mm /month). ptot = total rainfall in given month (mm /month). 2 -Dependable rainfall: pe = 0.6 × ptot – 10 ………………………… (2.27) (for ptot ≤ 70 mm ) pe = 0.8 × ptot – 24 ………………………….(2.28) (for pe ≥ 70 mm) where: pe and ptot are as defined before. 3 –Empirical formula: pe = a × ptot + b ………………….(2.29) (for ptot ≤ z mm) pe = c × ptot + d …………………(2.30) (for ptot ≥ z mm) 4 –USDA soil conservation services method: pe = ptot (125 – 0.2ptot) /125 …………..(2.31) (for ptot ≤ 250mm) pe = 125+ 0.1ptot ………………………(2.32) (for ptot ≥ 250mm ) Where : Pe and ptot = are as defined before. a,b,c, d z = are correlation coefficients. = is an empirical defined value of target rainfall characterizing the study area. 2.29 Gross irrigation requirement (Ig): Gross irrigation is the depth or volume of irrigation water requirement over the whole cropped area excluding contribution from other sources , plus water loss or operational wastes. Verneiren and Gobling (1980) suggested the following relation: Ig =In + Lr …………………………….. (2.33) Ea Where: Ig = gross irrigation requirement (L) In = net water requirement (L) Ea = application efficiency (decimal) Lr = extra amount of water needed for leaching (L) 2.30 Irrigation efficiency for drip systems: Irrigation efficiency is defined as the ratio of the quantity of water put into the crop root zone and utilized by the growing crops to the quantity delivered to the field (Bos and Nugteren, 1990). The overall application efficiency of drip irrigation (Ea) may be defined as stated by Vermeiren and Gobling, (1990) as follows: Ea = Ks ×Eu ……… ……… ………… ……… ……….. (2.34) Where: Ks = ratio between water stored and that diverted from the field, expresses the water storage efficiency of the soil. It takes into account unavoidable deep percolation as well as other losses. Table 2.5 shows values of Ks for different soil types. Eu = coefficient which reflects the uniformity of application. Table (2.5) Water storage efficiency (Ks %) Type of soil Water storage efficiency (Ks %) Clay 100 Mixed silt, clay and 95 loamy Loamy 90 Sandy 87 Source: Elghundi, (2000) 2.31 Depth of water to be applied by irrigation: It is the amount of irrigation water required to bring the soil moisture content level in the effective root zone to filed capacity .Vermeiren and Gobling (1980), proposed an equation to calculate the depth considering that only part of the soil volume is to be wetted by drip irrigation a follows: D = 10(FC - PWP)×d× Z ×P ……………….(2.35) Where: D = maximum amount (depth) of water to be applied (mm) FC = filed capacity (cm/m) PWP = permanent wilting point (cm/m) d = the root zone depth (m) Z = the moisture depletion percentage allowed or desired (decimal) P = the volume of soil wetted as a percentage of total volume (decimal) 2.32 Irrigation set time for drip: It is the time required to apply an irrigation .Vermeiren and Gobling (1980) stated that the estimation of the maximum time of application is based on providing water for plant when it can use it . T = ETc × Se ×SL × K … ………… ……….. (2.36) E ×Q Where: T = Irrigation set time (h). ETc = crop evapotranspiration (mm / day). Se = emitter spacing along the lateral (m). SL = lateral spacing (m). E = emitter efficiency (%). Q = emitter discharge (1/h). K = constant (in metric system = 1). 2.33 Irrigation frequency: It is the number of days between irrigations during periods without rainfall. Goldberg, et al , (1971) stated that on most soil such as loam and clay loam there is much experimental evidence showing that irrigation interval of 2 – 3 days provides an optimum moisture regime. 2.34 System capacity: Capacity depends on the irrigation application rate, time of irrigation, and interval between irrigations. Wu (1975) suggested an equation to calculate the system capacity as follows: Q = (Ig × A) ………………………. (2.37) T Where: Q = drip irrigation system capacity (m³/h). Ig = gross irrigation water requirement (m). A = the global area to be irrigated (m²). T = irrigation time (h) 2.35 Squash: The squash plant (Cucurbita pepo), family (Cucuribitceae), has large rough leaves ,and a crumbly stem. The total root growth of the squash plant resembles the root growth of other pumpkins to an extent, as its secondary roots spread within the 30 cm, below the soil surface. Sowing date for the Summer season is during the second half of February upto the first half of April. And for the Winter season, from September to November. Crop collection starts after forty days after planting during the Summer season and after fifty days during the Winter season. The parameters measured for comparing the results were: 1- Yield and yield components which include. a- Yield (Kg / line) b- Efficiency of water use (Kg / m3) 2- Plant diameter (cm) 3- Plant height (cm) 2.36 Field practices of crop production under different irrigation systems: Shehata and Bakeer (1995) studied the effect of irrigation systems on potato crop in sandy soil, under Egypt climatic conditions. The study gives a comparison between surface, sprinkler, and drip irrigation, systems, as shown in Table 2.6. On the other hand AL-Amoud, (1998) reported the production of some crops under different irrigation systems, as shown in Table 2.7 Table 2.6 A comparison between surface, sprinkler, and drip irrigation systems. Irrigation system Case study Amount of water applied Surface Sprinkler Drip 6981 6064 4564 5.159 7.525 8.83 8 1.24 1.94 (m3 /fed.) Yield (ton /fed.) Irrigation water use efficiency (Kg 0.74 /m3) Source: Khalil (1998) Table 2.7 A comparison between production of some crops under different irrigation systems. Irrigation Crop yield system (ton / ha) Sac / ha Kg tree Beans potato Pepper tomato Cucumbe Onion Apple 712 37.5 r Drip 1.636 36.50 0 5.42 13.64 11.60 / Furrow 1.432 _ 4.20 10.72 10.64 472 _ sprinkler 0.890 32.70 _ _ _ 668 16.4 0 Source: AL-Amoud, (1998 ) Water source Pump Pressure gauges Water filter Source: Hillel, (1987) Fig 2.1drip irrigation components Main line Main gate valve Pressure regulator Flow meter Fertilizer injector Submain line Electric controls Solenoid valve Laterals Emitters Zone two Zone one Sub main unit CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Site description and experimental layout: The experiment was conducted in the Demonstration Farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Shambat at latitude 15° 36' N, longitude 32° 32' E and altitude 380 m above mean sea level. The climate of the area is tropical semi arid. It is characterized by low relative humidity, with mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures of about 36° C and 21° C respectively. The annual rainfall is about 158 mm mainly during July, August and September (Sudan Meteorological Department 1951- 1980). The soil of the experimental field is heavy clay with percentage ranging between 65% in the top 15 cm and 55% in the 100-140 cm profile. The soil reaction is moderately alkaline with a pH ranging from 7to 8, (Saeed, 1968). The infiltration rate is low and has been estimated to be about 20mm /h in the first two hours and 5mm / h after 10 hours (Ferguson, 1970). An area of 1/2 feddan was used for conducting a randomized block experimental design (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2) 3.2 Land preparation: The experimental field was ploughed with a standard integral mounted disk plough at a depth of about 0.25 m. The land was then left for about two weeks, then leveled with a general purpose blade. Ridging was done at a spacing of 0.7 m with a general purpose ridger. However when planting squash a ridge between every two ridge was left with out planting to give a spacing of 1.40 m in accordance with the standard practice for growing squash as recommended by the State Ministry of Agriculture, Khartoum. 3.3 Drip irrigation system description: 3.3.1 Pump unit: An Indian make electric 2 inches centrifugal pump, (Model 2kd-20) was used to draw irrigation water from the main line of Shambat domestic water supply system. The pump specifications, are, maximum pressure head-16 m;. maximum discharge 420 l/h; maximum suction head 9 m; r.p.m. 2850/min and power is 1.1 kw 3.3.2 Control unit includes: a- An emergency shut off valve is located before the pump. b- Control valve located after the pump. c- Three pressure gauges two 5 bar each and one 1 bar. d- Filter, disk type (Model Drop ) Turkish make with maximum pressure of 8 bar .Plate 3.1 Plate 3.1 Disc filter e- Vacuum breaker . f- Pressure regulator j- Venturi tube principle 3.3.3 The main line: A 30 m, 5cm diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC), main line was buried below ground surface at a depth of 50 cm meters. 3.3.4 Submain line: Two PVC submain pipes were connected directly to the main line each pipe was 16 meter in length and 2.5cm in diameter. The submains were also buried at 50 cm below ground surface. 3.3.5 The lateral lines: The 13 mm diameter lateral pipes, were made of black linear, low densi Poly ethylene (LLDPE). There were two types of the emitters (built-in GR. and built-on Turbo-Key). The laterals were connected to the submain at 0.75 m spacing and 140 cm spacing for squash. 3.3.6 Emitters: The built-in, G.R. Eurodrop emitter rated at 3.8 l/h, are Egyptian make, and the Turbo Key on-line emitter rated at 4 l/h, are Saudi Arabian make. Plates 3.2 and 3.3 show built-in and built-on emitter respectively. The emitters specifications are show in Table 3.1 Plate 3.2 Built-in (GR) tube Plate 3.3 Built-on (Turbo-Key) emitter Table 3.1 Emitters specifications Type Model Country of Discharge origin In-line GR Egypt 3.8 On- Turbo- K. Arabia Saudi 4.0 line Key 3.4 Furrow method: The water was drawn by the same pump to supply the control lines for the second part of the experiment, through a 13 mm inside diameter pipe in which the discharge (flow rate) was calibrated volumetrically. 3.5 The squash data collection: The squash crop was paused at 50 cm between plants,140 cm between rows, in accordance with the standard practice recommended by the State Ministry of Agriculture, Khartoum. The variety used was Exandrany squash, with 100 % purity, and 86 % for germination rate. The parameters measured for the crop consisted of the following: - Yield and yield components (Kg/ line) - Efficiency of water use (Kg/m3) - Plant diameter to compute reduction factor (Kr.) (cm) - Plant height. (cm) 3.6 Measurements: 3.6.1 Measurement of discharge: Volumetric calibration of the emitters was made with the help of a graduated cylinder and a stop watch and was replicated at least three times for each emitter. This application was done every 10 meters along the laterals lines. 3.6.2 Measurement of the pressure: Two gauges type Bourdon 5 bar each, were used in the head unit and one, a bar divided to 10 sections for measuring laterals pressure. Plate 3.4 Plate 3.4 Pressure gauge (one bar capacity) 3.6.3 Measurement of the soil moisture content: Soil moisture content was determined gravimetrically before and after each irrigation using the relationship as follows: Moisture content % = (mass of wet sample – mass of oven dry sample )x100 mass of oven dry sample Five samples were randomly selected from depths 0-10,10-20, 20-30, 30- 40 and 40-50 cm. The soil moisture content was then converted to moisture content on volume basis by multiplying it by the soil bulk density. 3.6.4 Measurement of the wetted soil depth: The depth of wetted soil under the emitter was measured using a graduated steel penetrometer. 3.7 Experimental procedure: The experiment was conducted in two parts. The first one was concerned with some hydraulic studies. Three lateral lines having the lengths of 40, 60, 80 meters, replicated 3 times Fig. 3.1 to evaluate the effect of laterals length on the distribution of discharge, pressure and ultimately emission uniformity. The second part of the experiment was conducted for the crop water requirement studies using drip irrigation system. This part was conducted during two seasons (Feb. to April) and (Oct. to Dec.). Forty m long laterals were connected to the submain at 140 cm spacing to match the squash spacing. Two types of emitters (built-in and built-on) were used and laterals were placed at two positions: above soil surface , and 10 cm below soil surface, while the furrow system was used as a control. The treatments were replicated three times, as shown in Fig 3.2. The data collected included soil moisture content on volume basis, water requirement for squash, drip irrigation system emission uniformity and efficiency. CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Emitters discharge: Table 4.1 shows the results of average discharge for two different working pressures and it appears that the discharge increases as pressure increases.(App. 1) Table 4.1Emitters discharge Type of emitters Pressure (bar) 0.5 1.0 Discharge (l/h) Built-in tube 2.95 3.84 Built-on line 2.97 4.01 4.2 Emitters exponent (X) and discharge coefficient (Kd): Table 4.2 shows the value of the emitter discharge exponent (X) and the discharge coefficient (Kd) of equations (2.5) and (2.6). It shows also the discharge-pressure co-relation for the two types of emitters used. (App.2) Table 4.2 Emitters discharge exponent (X) and the discharge coefficient (Kd) Co-relation (r2) Type of emitters X Kd Built-in line 0.384 1.59 0.98 Built-on line 0.433 1.48 0.96 As a low value of the pressure exponent means that the discharge is less affected by pressure, hence the built-in tube has a less discharge variation with respect to the pressure, however both emitters are considered partially pressure compensating emitters. 4.3 Manufacturing variation (CV): Table 4.3 shows the manufacturing variation (CV) values for the two types of emitters and the respective classification according to equation 2.7 and Table 2.3 (App. 3) Table 4.3 Manufacturing variation (CV) Type of dripper CV Classification Built in line 0.011 Excellent Built on line 0.010 Excellent 4.4 The relation between the laterals lines length and emitters discharge: Tables 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 show emitter discharge in (l/h) at 10 m intervals for the different types of drippers for 40, 60, and 80 m lateral length. Table 4.4 The relation between the laterals lines length and emitters discharge at 40 m length. Type of Pressure at Distance (m) average dripper beginning of lateral 0 10 (bar) 20 30 40 Discharge (l/h) Built-in 0.5 3.05 2.96 2.98 2.92 2.84 2.95 line 1.0 4.01 3.90 3.92 3.79 3.64 3.85 Built-on 0.5 2.97 2.90 2.94 2.79 283 2.97 line 1.0 4.16 4.13 3.98 3.99 3.78 4.01 Table 4.5 The relation between the laterals lines length and emitters discharge at 60 m length. Type of Pressure at average Distance (m) dripper beginning of lateral 0 (bar) 10 20 30 40 50 60 Discharge (l/h) Built-in 0.5 2.94 2.93 2.88 2.84 2.77 2.67 2.59 2.81 line 1.0 3.79 3.78 3.74 3.62 3.64 3.51 3.31 3.62 Built-on .05 2.97 2.95 2.90 2.82 2.73 2.67 2.52 2.79 line 1.0 4.00 4.00 3.94 3.85 3.65 3.59 3.39 3.77 Table 4.6 The relation between the laterals lines length and emitters discharge at 80 m length. Type of Pressure dripper at Distance (m) average beginning 0 10 20 30 of lateral 40 50 60 70 80 Discharge (l/h) (bar) Built in 0.5 2.95 2.90 2.84 2.72 2.61 2.45 2.45 2.35 2.29 2.62 line 1.0 3.79 3.75 3.69 3.54 3.36 3.22 3.14 3.00 2.95 3.38 Built on 0.5 2.97 2.92 2.84 2.70 2.59 2.43 2.39 2.29 2.21 2.59 line 1.0 4.01 3.89 3.84 3.68 3.48 3.20 3.06 3.00 2.87 3.40 It is apparent that the average discharge decreases with the increase in lateral length. 4.5 Emission uniformity (EU %) Table 4.7 shows the emission uniformity (EU %) for different types of emitters, lengths of laterals, pressures, and emitter cost, per Sudanese Dinar for 100 meter, 50 cm spacing. Table (4.7) Emission uniformity (EU %) for different types of emitters and emitter cost. Lateral length (m) Pressure (bar) Emission uniformity (EU%) 40 60 80 Cost SD / 100 m Built-in Built-on 0.5 96.3 95.3 1.0 94.5 94.2 0.5 92.1 90.3 1.0 91.4 89.9 0.5 88.4 85.3 1.0 88 84.4 ___ 11250 17500 App. 4 and Table 4.7 show that the emission uniformity (EU %) decreases with the increasing lateral length, the following information can also be drawn: • The emission uniformity (EU %) of built-in and built-on lines at working pressure of 0.5 bar, for 40 m length were found to be 96.3 % and 95.3 % respectively, and they were the highest emission uniformities compared with other lengths in the experiment. • The emission uniformity (EU %) of built-in and built-on lines at working pressure of 1.0 bar, for 40 m length were found to be 94.5 % and 94.2 % respectively. • The emission uniformity (EU %) of built-in and built-on lines at working pressure of 0.5 bar, for 60 m length were found to be 92.1 % and 90.3 % respectively. • The emission uniformity (EU %) of built-in and built-on lines at working pressure of 1.0 bar, for 60 m length were found to be 91.4 % and 89.9 % respectively. • The emission uniformity (EU %) of built-in and built-on lines at working pressure of 0.5 bar, for 80 m length were found to be 88.4 % and 85.3 % respectively. • The emission uniformity (EU %) of built-in and built-on lines at working pressure of 1.0 bar, for 80 m length were found to be 88 % and 84.4 % respectively. • The cost of drip irrigation lines using built-on (Turbo-Key), 50 cm spacing was approximately twice that for the built-in. 4.6 Reynold's number (Rn) and Blasius factor (f): Reynold's number (Rn) was found to be 8450, 8775 for built-in and built-on respectively App. 5 indicating turbulent flow regime since RN > 4500 the flow regime is fully turbulent. According to the Blasius equation (2.4) the friction factor (f) for both built-in and built-on was found to be 0.033 4.7 The pressure variation (head loss) along the lateral length: Table 4.8 Pressure variation along 40 m. lateral length. Type of emitters Distance (m) 0 10 20 30 40 Pressure (bar) Built-in line Built-on line 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.46 1.0 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.93 0.5 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.45 1.0 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.93 Table 4.9 Pressure variation along 60 m. lateral length. Distance (m) Type of emitters 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pressure (bar) Built-in line 0.5 0.49 o.49 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.4 1.0 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.89 0.75 Built-on line 0.5 0.49 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.44 0.36 1.0 .098 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.88 0.81 Table 4.10 Pressure variation along 80 m. lateral length. Distance (m) Type of emitters 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Pressure (bar) Built-in line 0.5 0.48 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.31 0.30 0.27 0.25 1.0 0.97 0.92 0.83 0.72 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.49 Built-on line 0.5 0.48 0.44 0.38 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.24 0.23 1.0 0.96 0.91 0.80 0.72 0.63 0.55 0.51 0.46 Pressure variation due to lateral length at 5 m pressure head 3 2 Built-in 1.5 Built-on 1 Head loss (m) 2.5 0.5 0 80 60 50 40 Lateral length (m) Fig 4.1 6 5 4 Built-in 3 Built-on 2 1 Head loss (m) Pressure variation due to lateral length at 10 m pressure head 0 80 60 50 Lateral length (m ) 40 Fig. 4.2 Figs 4.1 and 4.2 Summary of results for the pressure variation (head loss) in meters for the different laterals types and lengths. 4.8 The calculated allowable pressure difference (head loss): Table 4.11 shows the calculated allowable pressure difference ( head loss) in meters for the different laterals types and lengths according to ASAE technique, using equation (2.10), App. 6 Table 4.11 Calculated allowable pressure difference for the different laterals types and lengths according to ASAE technique. Type of emitters Lateral beginning Built-in line Built-on line Lateral length m Pressure at the 40 50 60 80 (m) Head losses (m) 5.0 0.48 o.64 1.01 1.64 10.0 1.42 1.41 1.87 5.0 0.54 0.57 1.12 1.69 10.0 0.92 1.1 2.8 1.65 3.67 The pressure decreases with increasing lateral length. The difference in the pressure is allowable up to 50 meters lateral length. 4.9 Calculated pressure difference (head loss) according to DarcyWeisbach equation: Table 4.12 shows the calculated pressure difference, ( head loss) in meters for the different laterals types and lengths according to Darcy-Weisbach equation, using equation (2.11) and App.7 Table 4.12 Calculated allowable pressure difference for the different laterals types and lengths according Darcy-Weisbach equation Type of emitters Pressure at the lateral beginning Lateral length m 40 (m) Built-in line Built-on line 50 60 80 Head losses (m) 5.0 0.43 o.76 1.27 2.75 10.0 0.73 1.28 2.11 5.0 0.43 0.76 1.29 2.59 10.0 0.78 1.40 2.32 4.46 4.4 4.10 Calculated pressure difference (head loss) according to HazenWilliams equation: Table 4.13 shows the calculated pressure difference, ( head loss) in meters for the different laterals types and lengths according to Hazen-Williams equation, using equation (2.14), App. 8 Table 4.13 Calculated pressure difference for the different laterals types and lengths according to Hazen-Williams equation. Lateral length m Type of emitters Pressure at the Lateral beginning (m) Built-in line Built-on line 40 50 60 80 Head losses (m) 5.0 0.44 o.93 1.28 2.54 10.0 0.72 5.0 0.45 0.93 1.26 2.49 10.0 0.78 1.67 2.05 4.11 1.5 2.21 4.07 Built-in Pressure varriation Built-on 3 2 1.5 1 Headloss (m) 2.5 0.5 0 d re su ea d M ure 40 as d e M ure 50 as d e M ure 60 as e M 80 AE AS 40 AE AS 50 AE ch AS ba 60 AE eis ch AS -W ba 80 rcy eis h c a D -W ba 40 rcy eis ch a D -W ba 50 rcy eis s a D -W iam 60 rcy ill s a W D n- iam 80 ze ill s a W H n- iam 40 ze ill s a W H n- iam 50 e ill az W H ne az H 60 80 Fig 4.3 Comparison of head losses between allowable pressure difference according to ASAE technique, Darcy-Weisbach equation, Hazen-Williams equation, and actual measured pressure, under 5m working pressure. Built-in Built-on Pressure variation 6 4 3 2 Head loss (m ) 5 1 0 Da Ha Ha Ha Ha ze ze ze ze n- n- W W W n- n- am i ll i am i ll i am i ll i s s d re su ea M r ed 40 a su e M r ed 50 a su e M r ed 60 a su e M 80 AE AS 40 AE AS 50 AE AS ch 60 AE isb a AS - We ach y 80 b c s r ei h Da c W 40 rcy - sb a i D a We ch 50 cy - sb a r i D a We s y - iam rc i ll W s 60 80 40 50 60 80 Fig 4.4 Comparison of head losses between allowable pressure difference according to ASAE technique, Darcy-Weisbach equation, Hazen-Williams equation and the actual measured pressure, under 10 m working pressure head 4.11 Squash water requirement: Table 4.14 Estimating squash crop water requirement. Month Eto Kc Etc Etc Day mm /day mm /day mm /month February 18 6.034 0.5 3.17 57.06 March 31 6.913 0.95 6.57 203.59 April 26 7.41 0.75 5.56 150.05 Mean 6.79 0.73 5.1 136.87 October 26 5.832 0.5 2.92 75.92 November30 6.509 0.95 6.18 185.40 December 17 5.928 0.75 4.45 62.30 Mean 6.09 0.73 4.52 107.9 The mean monthly reference crop evapotranspiration for three months was found to be 6.8 mm/day in the first experiment (Feb. to April) and 6.09 mm/day in the second experiment (Oct. to Dec.) The calculated squash water requirement (Etsquash) for three months which represented the length of the growing season was found to be 5.1 mm/day for the first (Feb. to April) and 4.5 mm/day for the second. (Oct. to Dec.) and as a result of this, squash water requirement (Etsquash) was found to be 4.8 mm/day. App. 9 to 11d. 4.12 Irrigation efficiencies for the first season (Feb-April): Table 4.15 shows the average measured discharge in (l/h) and emission uniformity (EU %) for the different types and positions of laterals. Table (4.16) Average measured discharge and emission uniformity (EU %) for the different types and positions of laterals, for the first season. Types and positions Average EU Distance m of lateral (l /h) % 3.95 3.81 3.88 3.78 3.66 3.81 96.1 Built-in-line 10 cm below 390 3.87 3.80 3.72 3.60 3.78 95.5 4.00 95.0 3.01 69.1 0 10 20 30 40 Discharge l/h Built in-line above soil surface the soil surface Built-on-line above soil 4.22 4.04 4.01 3.95 3.80 surface Built-on-line 10 cm below 3.24 4.26 2.31 3.17 2.08 the soil surface Plate 4.1 General view of the experimental field 4.12.1 Emission uniformity for squash lines (EU %): With reference to Table 4.15 and App. 12 the emission uniformity (EU%) was found to be 96.1% and 95.5% for built-in lines below and above the soil surface respectively. For the built-on above soil, surface it was 95.0% where as for the built-on below the soil surface it was found to be 69.1% and this is attributed to the wide fluctuation in discharge and (EU%) due mainly to emitters clogging. 4.12.2 Water application efficiency: Irrigation efficiencies (Ea) were found to be 93.3% and 92.5% for built-in lines below and above the soil surface respectively, and for built-on above the soil surface they were found to be 92.9%. But for the built-on below the soil surface they were found to be 69.1%, this is also attributed to emitter clogging. The furrow efficiency was 40%-60% which is in line with Khalil findings, (1998). Plate 4.2 Built-in and built-on (sub surface) 4.13 Irrigation efficiencies for the second season (Oct. - Dec.): Table 4.16 shows the average measured discharge in (l/h) and emission uniformity (EU %) for the different types and positions of laterals in the second season. Table 4.17 Average measured discharge and emission uniformity (EU %) for the different types and positions of laterals for the second season. Average EU Distance (m) Types and positions (l /h) % 3.95 3.94 3.89 3.83 3.71 3.86 96.1 3.90 3.83 3.84 3.77 3.61 3.79 95.3 4.05 4.07 4.03 3.96 3.80 3.98 95.5 2.44 2.08 3.78 2.56 3.17 3.41 61.1 of lateral 0 10 20 30 40 Discharge l/h Built in-line above soil surface Built in-line 10 cm below the soil surface Built on-line above soil surface Built on-lines 10 cm below the soil surface 4.13.1 Emission uniformity for squash lines (EU %): With reference to Table 4.16 the emission uniformity (EU%) was found to be 96.1.% and 95.3% for built-in lines below and above the soil surface respectively, and for the built-on above soil surface it was 95.5%, for the built-on below the soil surface it was found to be 61.1% This wide fluctuation on discharge and (EU%) is attributed to emitters clogging irrespective of the filtration which was incorporated with the built-on emitters. Plate 4.3 built-on above soil surface Plate 4.4 Built-in above soil surface, with pressure gauge connected 4.13.2 Water application efficiency: Irrigation efficiency (Ea) was found to be 93.5% and 92.8% for the built-in lines below and above the soil surface respectively. For the built-on above the soil surface it was found to be 92.9%., where as for the builton below the soil surface it was found to be 59.5%, still emitters clogging is considered the main reason for that. Table 4.18 Squash plant parameters (first season) Parameters Irrigation system Built-in Yield Leaf width Plant height Plant diameter Kg/line cm cm cm Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean 25 23 24 57 52 55 53 51 52 45.4 25 22 23 56 50 54 52 53 53 46.7 22 9 18 54 8 31 50 18 34 23.7 25 23 24 51 48 50 51 48 50 45.6 27 10 19 58 11 35 52 17 35 29.3 subsurface Built-in surface Built-on subsurface Built-on surface Furrow 4.14 Water use efficiency WUE (first season) Efficiency of water use was found to be 2.3, 2.67, 1.20, 2.3, 1.49 Kg/m3 for built-in subsurface built-in surface, , built-on subsurface, built-on surface, and furrow lines respectively App 13. The results show the superiority of drip irrigation over the furrow method, guard statistic. Table 4.19 Squash plant parameters (second season) Parameters Irrigation system Built-in Leaf width Plant height Plant diameter cm cm cm Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Yield Kg/line 25 23 24w 57 52 55h 53 51 52 44.7 23 22 23 56 50 54 52 53 53 45.3 23 8 15 54 9 33 51 15 33 32.2 23 21 22 51 48 50 51 50 50 45 25 11 18 58 11 35 52 16 34 37.1 subsurface Built-in surface Built-on subsurface Built-on surface Furrow 4.15 Water use efficiency WUE (second season) Water use efficiency was found to be 2.27 ,2.3, 1.6, 2.8, 1.9 Kg/m3 for built-on subsurface built-in surface, , built-on subsurface, built-on surface, and furrow lines respectively. The results show the superiority of drip irrigation over the furrow method, guard statistic. 4.16 Soil properties: The soil of the experimental site was heavy clay with clay content of 65% at the top 15 cm layer. The soil was moderately alkaline (pH 7-8). This is in line with the findings of Saeed (1968). The infiltration rate according to Ferguson (1970) was 20 mm / hr in the first two hours and 5 mm / h after 10 hours. The field capacity on dry weight basis was 27.% while the permanent wilting point was 13% , this would result in an average available soil moisture content of 14% App. 14. The mean bulk density was 1.3 g / cm3 for the dry soil according to Khalil (1998) and Bashir, (2001) who worked in the same site. 4.18 Squash plant under drip irrigation The squash crop (Plate 4.1) was taken as an indicator crop. Plate 4.6 Squash plant Reduction factor (Kr); Plant dimensions were measured to compute the reduction factor (Kr).From Tables 4.18, 4.19 and App. 15 the average ground cover was found to be 0.77 and hence the reduction factor was 91%. Net irrigation requirement (In) was found to be 4.6 and 4.1 mm / day for the first and second seasons respectively. Gross irrigation requirement (Ig) was found to be 5.1 and 4.6 mm / day for the first and second seasons respectively. The depth of water applied as determined by equation (2.35) was 11.47 mm /day. Irrigation interval was found to be 3 days. Irrigation set time (T) was found to be 0.9 hour using equation (2.36) The amount of fertilizer was found to be 29 liter solution fertilizer. The rate of fertilizer injection (Qf) was found to be 8 liters per hour for built-in and built-on using equation (2.1), per one set irrigation, in the accordant of not more than one kilogram fertilizer per cubic meter of water. 4.19 Squash plant under Furrow line: The discharge (Q) was found to be 740.8 (l/h) for the furrow line. Net irrigation requirement (NIR) was found to be 21 mm /day. Gross irrigation requirement (GIR) was found to be 35 mm /day. Irrigation intervals (Ii) was found to be 7 days. Irrigation set time (T) was found to be 2.5 hour. (App. 16) Plate 4.7 furrow line (control) Plate 4.8 Furrow line showing high weed infestatio 4.20 Data Analysis: Table 4.20 Analysis of variance Source (df) M.S F Calculated Scheduled 4.056 2.67 built-on surface ,built-in 4 surface built-in , subsurface 25 X Furrow 39.323 9.695 built-on X surface Furrow built-on surface ,built-in surface built-in , subsurface Yield 1 9 4 25 4 4.356 0.819 5.32 39.323 4.056 9.695 7786.219 7581.518 2.87 3 1527.302 1487.149 3.10 12 7395.792 7201.355 2.28 3 275.111 3.49 2 1779.292 717.168 3.89 6 29.403 116.17 3.00 4 217.638 3.487 3.06 2 1.059 0.017 8 6.105 0.1 3 369.084 0.804 3.1 3 2363.993 5.156 3.1 9 5136.484 11.203 2.39 Plant diameter leaf width Plant height 1100.444 2.67 2.67 Table 4.20 gives a summary for App. 17 that shows that there are significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) between the built-in lines below and above the soil surface, and built-on above the soil surface as compared with furrow system, with respect to crop yield, plant height and plant diameter, but for leaf width is significant difference was found (p ≤ 0.05). CAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions: From the results of this study the following conclusions can be drawn: • Darcy-Weisbach and Hazen-Williams equations have similar results for lateral hydraulic calculations. • For high performance of drip irrigation the lateral length should not be more than 50 meters, particularly when partially pressure compensating emitters are used. • Built-on emitters should not to be used below soil surface. • Using Penman-Monteith formula, the estimated squash water requirement (ETsquash) was found to be 4.8 mm/day under Shambat conditions. • Drip irrigation systems produce more yield per unit area and yield per unit volume of water than conventional surface irrigation system. 5.2 Recommendations: • For a perfect drip irrigation system design it is necessary to consider the manufacturing coefficient of variation under the recommended pressure. • For a higher performance of drip irrigation system the matching type of filter and the recommended number of mesh must be used. REFERENCES Abas, J.I; Abd Elnasir, A. (1992). “Irrigation and Drainage” Halab University, Syrian. Directorate of books and bulletin of the universities. Abd Alla. N.A. (2000). “Drip irrigation System Performance a Case study. Oumdom farm” M.Sc. Thesis, Depart of Agric. Engineering Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum. Abd Elazeem, B.M. (1997). “Irrigation Principles and Practise in Land Reclamation” Elmalim Institution, Alexandria, A.R.E. A.B.E. (2001). “Drip irrigation” http://ag.ari3ona.edu/classes/ABE456/2001ABE456/Drip%20irrigation.ht m Ahmed, M. A. (2002). “Design and Installation of Drip Irrigation System for Establishment of a Shelter-belt at Al- Rawakeeb Area” M.Sc. Thesis, Depart of Agric. Engineering Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum. Al-Amoud, A.L. (1992). “Drip irrigation Systems” University of King Saud, Riyadh, Saudi Arabian. Alteif, N.I; Isam, K.A. (1988) “Irrigation principles and practices” Ministry of High Education and Scientific Researches University of Baghdad, Iraq. Anwar, A.A. (1999) “Factor of G for Pipelines with Equally Spaced Multiple Outlet and Outflow” American Society of Civil Engineers (1999) pp34 – 38. Bashir, E.E.(2001) “Drip Irrigation System Design under the Semi Arid conditions of Shambat using simple computer model” M.Sc. Thesis,Depart of Agric. Engineering Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum. Cuenca, H.R. (1989). “Irrigation System Design, an Engineering Approach” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Dasberg, S; Dani O. (1999). “Drip Irrigation Applied Agriculture” Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, (1999), Germany Elghundi, A. M; Ahmmed, A. A; Isam, A.S; Deya-Eldeen, A.(2000) “Design of Irrigation and Drainage Nets” Ain - Shams University, Cairo (A.R.E). Elramlawi, H. R. (2001). “Simulation and Operation of Irrigation Water Demand and Supply”. Ph. D. Thesis, Depart of Agric Engineering Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum. FAO, (1992). “Irrigation and Drainage” paper No. 46. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO), Rome. FAO, (1996). “Guidelines for Planning Irrigation and Drainage Investment Projects” FAO Investment Centre, Technical paper No.11. Rome. FAO, (2001). “Handbook on Pressurized Irrigation Techniques” Rome. Ferguson, J. (1970) “The values of Natural Evaporation from Shallow Ponds” Aust. J. Sc. Res. (5): 315 – 330. Goldberg, S. D; Rinot, M; Karu, N. (1971) “ Effect of Trickle Irrigation Intervals on Distribution and Utilization of Soil Moisture in Vineyard” Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.35. Hillel, D. (1987). “Advances in Irrigation” Academic press, Inc. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich publishers. Ismail, S.A. (2002). “Design and Management of Field Irrigation systems” 1st. Ed. Glal Hazi and Participates, Education institution Alexandria, A.R.E. James, L.G. (1988). “Principles of Farm Irrigation System Design” 1st . Ed. John Willey and Sons, Inc, New York. Jensen. M. E. (1993). “Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems” Revised printing. American Society of Agric. Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, U.S.A. Juana, L; Leonor, R. S; Alberto, L. M. “Determining Minor Head Losses in Drip Irrigation Laterals”. I: Methodology II: Experimental study and validation American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering”. Vol.128, No. 5.2002, pp 376 – 396. Keller. J; Ron, D. B. (1990). “Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation” Van Host rend Peihold New York. Khalil, A. M. (1998). “Irrigation Systems and Water Relationship”, Glal Hazi and participates, Education institution Alexandria. Michael, A.M. (1978). “Irrigation: Theory and Practice”, 1st Ed. Vikas. Publishing House PVT. L.T.D. New Delhi. India. Michael, A.M. (1999). “Irrigation Theory and Practice” Vikas Publishing, T. L.T.D. New Delhi. India. Saeed, A.M. (1968). “Some physical and Chemical Properties of Centre Shambat Soil”. M. Sc. Thesis, Depart of Agric. Engineering Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum. Schwab, G.O; D.D. Fang Meier; W.J. Elliot and R.K. Frevert (1993). “Soil and Water Conservation Engineering” 4th Ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc New York. Scott, H.D. (2001). “Soil Physics, Agricultural and Environmental Applications” Iowa Sate University Press /Ames. Smith, M.G; Allan, J. L; Monteith, A; Perrier, L; Pereira, ; A. Sergen, A. (1991). “ Report of the Expert Consultation on Procedures for Revision of FAO Guidelines for Prediction of Crop Water Requirement” UN. FAO, Rome, Italy, 54p. Smith, W.S. (1990). “landscape Irrigation Design and Management” John Willey and Sons, Inc. Solomon, K. (1979). “ Manufacturing Variation of Trickle Emitters”. American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. Vol. 22 No. (5) pp 1034 – 1043. Stryker’s. J. (2001). “Irrigation Tutorials”. WWW.Irrigationtutorials.com Sudan Meteorological Department. (1980), “Annual Report” (1951 – 1980), Shambat Metrological Station, Sudan. Valiantzas, D. J. “ Continues Outflow Variation Along Irrigation Laterals Effect of the Number of Outlets”. American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. Vol. 128. No.1 2002.pp. 34 – 42. Valiantzas, J. D. “Hydraulic Analysis and Optimum Design of Multi Diameter Irrigation laterals”, American Society of Civil Engineers, (ASCE) Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering Vol.128.No.2.2002.pp 18 – 86. Vallesguino, P; Pedro, L.L. “Equivalent Friction Factor Method for Hydraulic in Irrigation Laterals” American Society of Civil Engineer Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. Vol.128. No.5.pp 278 – 285. Vermeiren, L; Gobling, G. A. (1980). “Localized Irrigation and Drainage” Paper No. (36), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO), Rome. Wu, I. P. (1975) “Design Capacity of Drip Irrigation System”. Engineer Notebook. No. (25) Coo. Ext. Srv. Hawaii, Monoa. Wu. I. P. “Design Criteria for Microirrigation Systems” Transactions of the ASAE.Vol.43. No5.2000. paper 1145 APPENDICES Appendix (1) discharge distribution: Distance built-on (0.5 bar) Average 0 3.25 3.32 3.16 3.15 3.23 2.95 3.20 2.86 2.98 3.16 3.13 10 3.19 3.1 20 2.83 2.96 2.87 2.79 2.8 30 3.03 3.84 2.95 2.88 2.67 2.60 2.28 2.79 2.77 2.81 2.86 40 2.71 3.00 2.86 2.73 2.68 2.87 2.63 3.15 2.89 2.82 2.83 3.16 3.18 3.13 3.00 2.95 3.2 3.03 3.25 3.07 2.56 2.77 2.90 3.09 2.85 2.94 Average 2.97 Distance built-in (0.5 bar) Average 0 3.15 3.15 3.16 3.05 3.10 2.89 3.03 2.98 2.99 3.04 3.05 10 3.21 3.38 2.99 2.84 2.87 2.85 2.94 2.97 2.87 2.7 29.6 20 3.18 2.94 3.06 3.06 2.99 2.96 2.97 2.90 3.15 2.95 2.98 30 3.13 3.24 2.95 2.88 2.67 2.90 2.88 2.89 2.87 2.81 2.92 40 2.71 3.01 2.86 2.73 2.68 2.87 2.63 3.15 2.89 2.82 2.8 4 Average 2.95 Distance built-in (1.0 bar) Average 0 4.06 4.15 3.99 4.00 3.96 4.18 4.02 3.89 4.17 4.12 4.01 10 4.01 4.14 4.00 3.86 4.01 3.95 4.07 3.96 3.69 4.11 3.98 20 3.97 3.90 3.85 3.86 3.67 3.74 3.64 3.97 3.86 3.68 3.80 30 4.00 3.86 4.00 3.73 3.78 3.65 3.58 3.80 3.69 3.55 3.76 40 3.89 3.76 3.84 3.67 3.70 3.61 3.54 3.75 3.52 3.62 3.69 3.85 Average Distance built-on (0.5 bar)= Average Distance built-on (1.0 bar) Average 0 4.26 4.35 4.09 4.20 3.96 4.28 4.12 4.09 4.17 4.12 4.16 10 4.31 4.25 4.00 4.22 4.11 3.95 4.17 4.08 3.99 4.21 4.13 20 4.01 4.14 4.00 3.86 4.01 3.95 4.07 3.96 3.69 4.11 3.98 30 4.10 4.27 3.97 4.06 3.87 3.89 4.02 4.07 3.82 3.85 3.99 40 3.96 4.08 4.00 3.73 3.79 3.69 3.69 3.68 3.69 3.51 3.78 Average 4.01 Distance built-in (1.0 bar) Average 0 4.07 4.04 3.98 3.81 3.85 3.79 3.79 3.58 3.50 3.49 3.79 10 4.00 3.96 3.90 3.63 3.71 3.75 3.63 3.78 3.65 3.59 3.76 20 3.72 3.66 4.02 4.15 3.63 3.77 3.56 3.65 3.64 3.69 3.74 30 3.98 3.77 3.82 3.77 3.60 3.64 3.56 3.65 3.52 3.57 3.69 40 3.79 3.76 3.90 3.88 3.52 3.67 3.50 3.05 3.68 3.65 3.64 50 3.80 3.79 3.7 60 3.71 3.56 3.42 2.95 3.33 3.32 3.05 3.23 3.30 3.26 3.31 3.55 3.67 3.46 3.57 3.37 3.46 2.62 3.51 Average 3.62 Distance built-on (1.0 bar) Average 10 4.22 4.11 3.97 3.94 3.80 4.01 4.02 4.08 3.91 3.94 4.00 10 3.79 4.02 4.05 3.97 4.18 4.02 3.98 4.08 3.86 4.05 4.00 20 4.14 4.08 3.85 3.89 3.85 3.90 4.13 3.71 3.97 3.88 3.94 30 4.02 4.07 3.96 3.81 3.75 3.65 3.73 3.68 3.79 4.07 3.85 40 3.66 3.99 3.78 4.00 3.63 3.42 3.78 3.58 3.57 3.11 3.65 50 3.51 3.48 3.61 3.53 3.65 3.51 3.62 3.52 3.61 3.86 3.59 60 3.61 3.77 3.49 3.38 3.66 3.83 2.82 2.96 2.81 3.06 3.39 Average 3.77 Distance built-on (0.5 bar) Average 10 3.36 3.24 2.99 2.97 2.85 2.92 2.91 3.00 2.67 2.81 2.97 10 3.08 2.94 3.10 3.11 2.79 2.99 2.88 2.70 2.86 3.05 2.95 20 3.03 3.07 2.88 2.74 2.75 2.83 3.02 2.98 2.76 2.94 2.90 30 2.90 2.98 2.98 2.71 2.73 3.07 2.77 2.78 2.75 2.55 2.82 40 2.77 2.93 2.72 2.65 2.94 2.74 2.82 2.54 2.59 2.64 2.73 50 2.90 2.91 2.95 2.78 2.76 2.77 2.66 2.72 2.64 2.50 2.76 60 2.61 2.72 2.57 2.35 2.67 2.46 2.67 2.54 2.56 2.32 2.52 Average 2.79 Distance built-in (0.5 bar) Average 10 2.93 2.97 3.00 2.92 2.92 2.96 3.03 2.93 2.84 2.90 2.94 10 2.95 2.89 3.20 2.72 3.00 2.89 2.98 2.78 2.89 3.00 2.93 20 2.91 3.09 2.76 2.90 2.73 2.94 2.78 2.66 2.67 3.39 2.88 30 2.80 2.83 2.98 2.66 2.93 3.20 2.78 2.75 2.64 2.64 2.84 40 2.50 2.85 2.76 2.80 2.74 2.87 2.94 2.70 2.65 2.89 2.77 50 2.62 2.66 2.59 2.75 2.56 2.57 2.72 2.66 2.69 2.90 2.67 60 2.48 2.49 2.62 2.63 2.85 2.53 2.62 2.52 2.63 2.52 2.59 Average 2.81 Distance built-on (0.5 bar) Average 10 3.06 3.04 2.89 2.97 3.04 2.92 2.92 3.10 2.88 2.90 2.97 10 2.95 3.07 2.95 2.84 2.79 2.93 3.05 2.98 2.72 2.74 2.92 20 2.60 2.80 2.87 2.65 2.83 3.20 2.88 2.75 2.75 2.63 2.84 30 2.72 2.56 2.69 2.74 2.59 2.53 2.62 2.67 2.69 2.79 2.70 40 2.39 2.58 2.40 2.75 2.77 2.71 2.53 2.61 2.67 2.50 2.59 50 2.62 2.83 2.77 2.71 2.78 2.76 2.62 2.74 2.40 2.93 2.43 60 2.42 2.21 2.24 2.29 2.75 2.13 2.37 2.25 2.31 2.53 2.35 70 2.43 2.42 2.26 2.23 2.27 2.15 2.13 2.56 2.29 2.16 2.29 80 2.07 2.29 2.55 2.03 2.05 2.17 2.13 2.16 2.32 2.30 2.21 Average 2.59 Distance built-on (1.0 bar) Average 0 4.04 4.18 401 3.91 3.87 4.01 4.05 3.95 3.91 4.09 4.01 10 3.97 4.11 3.96 370 20 3.81 3.90 3.87 3.85 3.73 399 30 3.59 3.75 3.57 3.80 3.84 3.59 3.65 3.63 3.67 3.64 3.68 40 3.71 3.68 3.51 3.53 3.65 3.31 3.52 3.52 3.60 3.56 3.48 50 3.24 3.17 3.33 3.39 3.15 3.22 3.05 3.24 3.24 3.01 3.20 60 2.93 2.80 2.87 2.76 2.97 2.88 2.91 2.71 2.83 2.90 3.06 70 3.25 2.95 2.78 2.87 2.93 2.82 3.08 2.73 2.86 3.14 3.00 80 2.91 2.87 2.94 2.90 3.19 3.08 2.82 3.01 2.92 2.89 2.87 3.86 3.94 3.87 3.73 3.68 3.92 3.89 3.78 3.75 3.84 3.83 3.84 Average 3.4 Distance built-in (0.5 bar) Average 10 2.82 2.74 2.81 3.05 2.93 2.92 2.87 2.86 2.96 3.00 2.95 10 2.56 2.62 2.76 2.57 2.77 2.95 2.88 2.68 2.64 2.71 2.90 20 2.92 2.86 2.72 2.69 2.87 2.68 3.20 2.79 2.78 2.81 2.84 30 2.70 2.89 2.76 2.79 2.80 2.75 2.65 2.98 2.08 2.85 2.72 40 2.51 2.69 2.84 2.65 2.67 2.59 2.50 2.51 2.52 2.54 2.61 50 2.63 2.43 2.35 2.26 2.47 2.23 2.86 2.39 2.36 2.42 2.45 60 2.43 2.36 2.36 2.59 2.35 2.13 2.37 2.35 2.43 2.23 2.45 70 2.22 2.11 2.24 2.29 2.75 2.43 2.37 2.25 2.31 2.53 2.35 80 2.07 2.29 2.55 2.08 2.05 2.17 2.13 2.19 2.32 2.33 2.29 Average 2.62 Distance built-in (1.0 bar) Average 0 4.06 4.05 3.76 383 10 3.95 4.3 3.4 20 3.81 358 3.69 3.51 3.86 3.56 3.55 3.65 3.68 3.69 3.69 30 3.49 3.71 3.40 3.45 3.76 3.31 3.60 3.54 3.58 3.55 3.54 40 3.10 3.32 3.39 3.25 3.45 3.57 3.15 3.33 3.40 3.54 3.36 50 3.33 3.36 3.11 3.25 3.09 3.15 3.27 3.14 3.33 3.14 3.22 60 313 70 3.20 301 80 3.02 2.64 2.71 3.05 2.63 2.92 3.07 2.81 2.96 3.20 2.95 Average 3.94 3.62 3.89 3.87 3.43 4.26 3.79 3.90 3.86 3.51 3.64 3.68 3.68 3.94 3.75 3.31 3.22 3.13 3.24 2.97 3.02 3.16 2.95 3.04 3.14 304 2.89 2.79 2.84 3.08 2.76 2.81 3.05 3.00 3.38 Appendix (2) Discharge exponent (X) and (Kd) coefficient: Q = K d Hx Built-in: Q1 = 2.95, Q2 = 3.85 X= H1 = 5m, H2 = 10m log (Q1/Q2) log (H1/H2) = log (2.95/3.85) = 0.384 log (5/10) Kd = 3.85/ 100.384 = 1.59 Built-on: Q1 = 2.97 l/h, Q2= 4.01 l/h X= H1= 5m, H2= 10m log (2.97/4.01) = 0.433 log (5/10) Kd = 4.01/100.433 = 14.8 Q = Kd.HX discharge (Q) Built-in 40 = 3.85 60 = 3.62 80 = 3.38 discharge (Q) Built-on 40 = 4.01 1.48 60 =3.77 1.39 80 = 3.4 X= .384 HX = 2.42 (3.85 = 2.42K) (3.62 = 2.42K) (3.38 = 2.42K) X = .433 HX = 2.71 (4.01 = 2.71K) Kd = (3.77 = 2.71K) Kd = ( 3.4 = 2.71K) Kd = 1.25 r2 = Kd =1.59 Kd =1.5 Kd = 1.4 (n Σ xy - Σ x y)2 [n Σx2 - (Σ x2)] [n Σ y2 - Σ y2 ] r2 = 0.98 and 0.96 for built-in and built-on respectively Appendix (3) Coefficient of Manufacturing Variation (CV): ____________________________________________ Built-in line (cv) = √ (4.01)2+ (3.9)2+ (3.92)2+ (3.64)2+ (3.79)2 – 5/ (3.85)2/4 3.85 = 0.011 ___________________________________________ Built-on line (cv) =√ (4.26)2+ (4.12)2+ (3.92)2+ (3.94)2+ (3.80)2– 5(4.01)2/4 4.01 = 0.010 Appendix (4) Uniformity of system hydraulic studies (EU%): EU = (Qmin /Qave) 100% Built-in 0.5 bar length 40m (2.84 / 2.95) 100 = 97.4% Built-in 0.5 bar length 60m (2.59 / 2.81) 100 = 92.2% Built-in 0.5 bar length 80m (2.29 / 2.62) 100 = 87.4% Built-in 1.0 bar length 40m (3.72 / 3.85) 100 = 96.6% Built-in 1.0 bar length 60m (3.48 / 3.62) 100 = 92.8% Built-in 1.0 bar length 80m (2.97 / 3.38) 100 = 87.9% Built on 0.5 bar length 40m (2.83 / 2.97) 100 = 95.3% Built-on 0.5 bar length 60m (2.52 /2.79) 100 = 90.3% Built-on 0.5 bar length 80m (2.21 /2.59) 100 = 85.3% Built-on 1.0 bar length 40m (3.85 /4.01) 100 = 96.0% Built-on 1.0 bar length 60m (3.40 /3.77) 100 = 90.2% Built-on 1.0 bar length 80m (2.87 /3.40) 100 = 84.4 Appendix (5) Reynolds number(RN),Blasius friction factor (f) and Christensens friction (F) a- (for built-in tube, pressure 1.0 bar, length 40 m) RN = VD / (1000v) V = Q /A (l/h) = 308/(1000×3600) (0.0065)2 ×3.142 V = 0.64 m/sec RN = 0.65 ×13 × 1000 = 8450 b- (for built-on tube, pressure 1.0 bar, length 40 m) V= V= 320.8/(1000×3600) (0.0065)2 ×3.142 0.675 m/sec RN = 0.675 ×13 × 1000 = 8775 Where (RN > 4500) so the regime of the flow is fully turbulent and, according to the Blasius equation the friction factor (f) for turbulent flow is, f = o.316/RN0.25 f = 0.316 /8450.25 and 0.316 /8775.25 = 0.033 for builtin and built-on respectively. Christensen's friction factor (F) for 80 emitter: 1 + 1 + ( m – 1)0.5 m +1 2(80) 6(80)2 Christensen's friction factor (F) with (m = 1.852) for 80, 100, 120,160 F= outlet was found to be: 0.357, 0.356, 0.355, 0.353 respectively. Christensen's friction factor (F) with (m = 2) for 80, 100, 120,160 outlet was found to be: 0.340, 0.338, 0.337, 0.336 respectively. Appendix (6) 6.1 Allowable Pressure difference ASAE Technique: ∆P = 1/X (dq) h (Q) 6.1.1 Built-in 0.5 bar X = 0.384 ∆P = 1/X = 2.6 40m length 2.6 (0.11) 5 (2.95) = 0.484m = 50m length 2.6 (0.17) 5 = 0.778m (2.84) = 60m length 2.6 (0.22) 5 = 1.017m (2.81) = 80m length 2.6 (0.33) 5 = 1.637m (2.62) 6.1.2 Built-in 1.0 bar: 40m length 2.6 (0.21)10 = 1.418m (3.85) 50m length 2.6 (0.20)10 = 1.41m (3.68) 60m length 2.6 (3.62)10 = 1.867m (3.62) 80m length 2.6 (0.41)10 = 3.153m (3.38) 6.1.3 Built-on: X = 0.433 1/X = 2.31 ∆P 0.5 bar, 40m length = 2.31 (0.14) 5 = 0.544m (2.97) 50m length = 2.31 (0.17) 5 = 0.691m (3.77) 60m length = 2.31 (0.27) 5 = 1.177m (2.97) 80m length = 2.31 (0.38) 5 = 1.694m (2.59) 6.1.4 Built-on: 1.0 bar, 40m length = 2.31 (0.16) 10 = 0.921m (4.01) 50m length = 2.31 (0.17)10 = 1.382m (2.84) 60m length = 2.31 (0.25) 10 = 2.267m (3.77) 80m length = 2.31 (0.53) 10 = 4.82m (3.40) Appendix (7) Head loss according to Darcy–Weisbach equation: hf = 6.377 fL Q2 /D5 Where: L =lateral length (m); Q = [q (emitters average discharge)×N (No. of outlets -l/sec )]; D (inner diameter) = 13mm hf = 6.377×0.033×40×2362 /135 For the built-in with a begging pressure of 0.5 bar, the pressure head loss was found to be 0.43, 0.764, 1.29, 2.75 meters for 40, 50, 60, 80 (m) lateral length respectively. For the built-on with a begging pressure of 0.5 bar, the pressure head loss was found to be 0.43, 0.76, 1.27, 2.59 meters for 40, 50, 60, 80 (m) lateral length respectively. For the built-in with a begging pressure of 1.0 bar, the pressure head loss was found to be 0.73, 1.28, 2.11, 4.4 meters for 40, 50, 60, 80 (m) lateral length respectively. For the built-on with a begging pressure of 1.0 bar, the pressure head loss was found to be 0.78, 1.4, 2.32, 4.46 meters for 40, 50, 60, 80 (m) lateral length respectively. Appendix (8) Head losses according to Hazen–Williams equation: (with C= 140) hf = KL [Q/1401.852] D4.87 K =1.21×1010 ;L = lateral length (m); Q = [q (emitters average discharge)×N (No. of outlets- l/sec )] D (inner diameter) = 13mm For the built-in with a begging pressure of 0.5 bar, the pressure head loss was found to be 0.443, 0.933, 1.279, 2.538 meters for 40, 50, 60, 80 (m) lateral length respectively. For the built-on with a begging pressure of 0.5 bar, the pressure head loss was found to be 0.448, 0.933, 1.263, 2.485 meters for 40, 50, 60, 80 (m) lateral length respectively. For the built-in with a begging pressure of 1.0 bar, the pressure head loss was found to be 0.722, 1.505, 2.205, 4.068 meters for 40, 50, 60, 80 (m) lateral length respectively. For the built-on with a begging pressure of 1.0 bar, the pressure head loss was found to be 0.782, 1.671, 2.045, 4.113 meters for 40, 50, 60, 80 (m) lateral length respectively. April March Feb. 36.5 40.4 36.5 T. max 32.6 25.9 20.4 24.1 20.3 T. min 16.8 28.1 32.6 28.5 32.2 28.4 Tc◦ mean 24.7 0.184 0.153 0.199 0.226 0.269 0.226 0.184 39.3 29 41 48 17.3 15 16 21 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.6 11.9 12.4 11.9 11.5 -0.399 - 0.58 - 0.63 0.014 0.357 0.532 0.518 0.21 G 3.915 3.075 3.780 4.891 3.691 4.739 3.089 3.075 es 1.578 1.135 1.250 2.348 0.661 0.713 0.623 0.646 ea Ra Mean 39.3 21.0 24.4 0.179 Month Tempura Oct. 35.2 17.0 28.4 Mj/m²/day Nov. 31.7 21.3 Wind speed m/sec Dec. 35.4 ∆ Relative Kpa/c◦ Humidity % Mean ea = es × relative humidity as a friction ….......... (2.24) Mean monthly meteorological data and the values of Penman Monteith formula elements. Appendix (9) Appendix (10) Value of vapor pressure deficit for measurement at 2 m high. (es – ea) Feb: ea = 3.075× 0.21 = 0.646 March: ea = 3.089× 0.21 =0.494 April: ea = 4.739× 0.21 =0.719 Oct.: ea = 4.891× 0.21 =1.445 Nov.: ea = 3.780× 0.21 =0.983 Dec.: ea = 3.075× 0.21 =0.892 Appendix (11) Value of soil heat flux (G) (Mj m-2 day-1). G moth = 0.14 (T month – T month-1) ………………......... (2.23) G Feb. = 0.14 (24.7 – 23.2) = 0.21 G March = 0.14 (28.4 – 24.7) = 0.518 G April = 0.14 (32.2 – 28.4) = 0.532 G Oct. = 0.14 (32.6 –32.5) = 0.014 G Nov. = 0.14 (28.1 –32.6) = -0.63 G Dec. = 0.14 (24.4 –28.1) = -0.58 Appendix (11a) Penman-Monteith formulas: Eto = 0.408 ∆ (Ra – Q1) + Y [(900)/ (T + 273)] × U2 (es – ea) ….(2.21) ∆ + Y (1 + 0.34 U2) February: Eto = 0.408 × 0.184 (11.5 – 0.21) + 0.066[(900)/(247+273)]2(3.075 – 0.696) 0.184 + 0.066 (1 + 0.34 × 2) = 6.034mm/day March: Eto = 0.408 × 0.006 × 11.823 + 0.066 (2.986 × 2 × 3.262) 0.226 + 0.111 = 6.913 mm/day April: Eto = 0.408 × 0.269 × 11.308 + 0.66 (2.949 × 2 × 4.04) 0.269 + 0.111 = 7.41 mm/day October: Eto = 0.408 × 0.199 × 11.586 + 0.066 (2.95 × 2 × 9.505) = 5.832 mm/day November: Eto = 0.408 × 0.153 × 11.83 + 0.066 (3.395 × 2 × 2.23) 0.153 + 0.111 = 6.569 mm/day December: Eto = 0.408 × 0.184 × 11.68 + 0.066 (3.026 × 2 × 2.183) 0.184 + 0.111 = 5.928 mm/day Appendix (12) Uniformity of the squash drip irrigation lines (EU%) EU % = (Qmin /Qave) 100% Built-in line above soil surface (3.66 3.81) = 96.1% Built-in line 10 cm below the soil surface (3.60/ 3.78) = 95.5% Built-on line above soil surface (3.80 /4.00) = 95.0% Built-on lines 10 cm below the soil surface (2.08 / 3.01) = 69.1% Appendix (13) Irrigation efficiency (Ea): Ea =Ks × EU………….. (2.34) Ks% = {100(clay) + 97(loam) + 95(fine sand)} / 3 = 97.3% (Ismail, 2002) Built-in line above soil surface (97.3× 96.1) = 93.5 % Built-in line 10 cm below the soil surface (97.3× 95.5) = 92.9 % Built-on line above soil surface (97.3× 95.0) = 92.4 % Built-on line 10 cm below the soil surface (97.3× 69.1) = 67.2 % Furrow line(Control) = 60% Appendix (14) Squash: Reduction factor (kr) 77 / 85 = 91%. Depth of water to be applied (D) under drip irrigation system =10 (Fc - pwp) d × z × p (equation 2.35) = 10 × 0.3 × (27– 13) ×0.3 × 0.91= 11.47 mm /day Gross irrigation requirement (GIR) = NIR / E 11.47/93 = 12.33 mm /day Irrigation intervals (Ii) =NIR / ETc = 11.47 / 4.8 = 3 days. Irrigation set time (T) = ETc ×Se ×SL ×K / Q × E (equation 2.36) = 0.5×1.4×4.8× × / 4 = 0.9 hour. Appendix (15) Furrow line discharge: Discharge Discharge litre / 5 minutes Litre / hour 62.4 748.8 57.6 691.2 60.7 728.4 65.6 797.2 64.7 776.4 53.4 640.8 63.0 756 63.2 758.4 54.3 651.6 71.6 859.2 Average 74 0.8 The discharge (Q) was found to be 740.8 (l/h) for the furrow line. Net irrigation requirement (NIR) = MAD (Fc - PWP) = 0.5 × (27– 13) ×0.3 = 21 mm /day Gross irrigation requirement (GIR) = NIR /Ea (60%) = 21 / 0.6 = 35 mm /day. Irrigation intervals (Ii) = NIR / ETc = 35 / 4.8 = 7 days. Irrigation set time (T) = 0.5×1.4×4.8×80 ×7 / 740.8 = 2.5 hour. Appendix (16) Rep. No. Weight gm wetted soil 1 48.6 2 52.4 3 51.9 4 44.9 5 47.2 6 57.3 7 53.2 8 43.4 9 48.1 10 55.2 Average 50.22 dry soil 37.7 41.4 39.5 35.8 37.7 44.8 40.6 35.3 38.0 43.8 39.46 Moisture 10.9 11 12.4 9.1 9.5 12.5 12.6 8.1 10.1 11.4 10.76 FC PWP AW Øm% 28.9 26.6 31.4 25.4 25.2 27.9 31 22.9 26.6 26 27.19 % 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 % 15.9 13.6 18 12.4 12.2 15.9 18 9.9 13.6 13 14.19 Appendix (17) analysis of variance of (built-on subsurface X furrow) Source Sum of squares Degrees of Variance freedom (df) Between SSB = 4.356 V1 = 1 S2B = 4.356 groups With in SSW= 47.888 V2 = 9 S2W = 5.32 groups Total SST = 52.244 N-1 =10 F Calculate Schedule d d 0.819 2.67 analysis of variance (built-on surface X built-in surface X built-in subsurface X built-on subsurface X furrow) F Source Sum of Degrees of Variance squares freedom (df) Calculate Schedule d d 2 Between SSB = V1 = 2 SB = 0.344 2.67 groups 02.133 1.067 With in SSW= V2 = 12 S2W = 3.1 groups 37.200 Total SST = N-1 =14 39.333 analysis of variance (built-on surface X subsurface Source Sum of Degrees of squares freedom (df) Between SSB = V1 = 4 groups 157.290 With in SSW = V2 = 25 groups 242.378 Total SST = N-1 =29 399.668 analysis of variance of leaf width built-in surface X built-in X Variance S2 B 39.323 S2 W 9.695 F Calculate Schedule d d 2.67 = 4.056 = Source Sum of squares Degrees of Average freedom (df) F of Calculat Schedule squares ed d Replicate SSR = 1107.253 4-1=3 369.084 0.804 3.1 Treatment SSC = 7091.978 4-1=3 2363.993 5.156 3.1 Interaction SSI = 46228.359 3×3=9 5136.484 11.203 2.39 Error SSE = 7335.842 4× 4×(2-1) = 458.490 0.172 2.99 16 MSR PMSE Total / 369.084 / 25 2142.568 4× 4×(2)- 1= 31 analysis of variance of plant yield Variance Sum of squares Degrees source Rows of Average freedom (df) SSR = 5-1=4 F of Calculate Schedule squares d d 7786.219 7581.518 2.87 31144.874 Columns SSC = 4581.907 4-1=3 1527.302 1487.149 3.10 Interaction SSI = 88749.501 4 × 3 = 12 7395.792 7201.355 2.28 Error SSE = 20.53 5× 4×(2-1) = 1.027 20 Total 5× 4×(2)- 1= 39 analysis of variance of plant diameter Source Source Replicate Treatment Rows Columns Interaction Interaction Error Error Total Sum of squares Degrees of Average freedom (df) of squares Calculate Degrees of Average F d freedom (df) of Calculate SSR = 825.334 4 - 1 = 3 275.111 1100.444 squares d SSC = 3-1=2 1779.292 717.168 SSR = 5870.553 5 - 1 = 4 217.638 3.487 3558.583 SSC==176.416 2.117 3-21==62 1.059 0.017 SSI 3× 29.403 116.17 Sum of squares SSI = SSE = 48.837 3 × 2= 8= 12 4×43(2-1) 6.105 0.25 SSE = 936..312 4×5× 4×(2-1) = 62.421 3×(2)1= 23 15 Total F 5× 4×(2)- 1= 29 analysis of variance of plant height 0.1 Schedule d Schedule 3.49 d 3.89 3.06 3.00
© Copyright 2024