Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI FIRENZE FACOLTÀ DI AGRARIA

Istituto Agronomico Per L’oltremare (IAO)

Master on “Irrigation Problems in Developing Countries”

HYDRAULIC MODELLING OF PRESSURIZED

IRRIGATION NETWORKS FOR OPTIMIZATION

IN DESIGN

Supervisor

IVAN SOLINAS

…………............

Master thesis by

FRANK OWUSU-ANSAH

…………………………….

Florence, Italy

2011

Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I sincerely wish to extend my heartfelt appreciation to the Government of Ghana, Italian

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Istituto Agronomico Per L’oltremare (IAO) and the Università Degli

Studi Di Firenze for the opportunity to study here in Florence, Italy as well as the numerous

logistics and resources they placed at my disposal without which conducting this study would

have been very difficult.

I am grateful to the Director General of IAO, Dr. Giovanni Totino, Technical Director of IAO

Dr. Tiberio Chiari, Coordinator of the Master, Professor Elena Bresci, Administrative assistant

Dr. Andrea Merli, Academic Tutor, Dr. Paulo Enrico Sertoli, and all staff of IAO who showed

genuine concern in my studies and stay here in Florence, Italy.

I would like to show my gratitude and thanks to my supervisor, Mr. Ivan Solinas who always

gave me guidance throughout the study. I have also learnt from him many valuable skills in the

field of Information Technology applied to Irrigation.

Special thanks go to Mr. Kwabena Boateng and Mr. Kofi Modzaka, Engineers at Ghana

Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) for their generosity and encouragement which gave

me the idea to conduct this study. Learning from their in-depth understanding on irrigation has

been tremendous for me in coming this far. May God richly bless you all.

My thanks goes out also to all my colleagues in this 4th

Edition of the Master on Irrigation Class,

I cannot thank them enough for their constructive criticisms as well as sincere contributions in

all aspects of academics and life.

Last but definitely not the least; I would like to make special mention of all my colleagues and

mentors at Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA), my dear family and friends all over

the world who gave me moral support.


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. ii

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. iv

ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. GENERAL .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................. 2

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 2

1.4. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ............................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 4

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.2. TECHNIQUES IN PRESSURIZED WATER NETWORKS DESIGN ....................................... 4

2.2.1. Conventional Techniques ...................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2. Programming techniques in network design ......................................................................... 4

2.2.3. Linear -programming ............................................................................................................ 5

2.2.4. Non-Linear Programming ..................................................................................................... 6

2.2.5. Dynamic Programming ......................................................................................................... 6

2.2.6. Heuristic Optimization Techniques....................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 8

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 8

3.2. EPANET SIMULATION TOOL .................................................................................................. 8

3.3. PARTS OF EPANET .................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.1 EPANET input data file ........................................................................................................ 9

3.3.2 The EPANET programme ..................................................................................................... 9


iii

3.4. STEPS IN USING EPANET ...................................................................................................... 11

3.5. ACQUISITION OF EPANET .................................................................................................... 11

3.6. ADVANTAGES OF USING EPANET ...................................................................................... 11

3.7. DISADVANTAGES OF USING EPANET ............................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 12

MODELLING, RESULTS AND ANALYSIS USING CASE STUDIES ................................................. 12

4.1. NETWORK 1: SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM ............................................................. 12

4.1.1. Design and formulation ....................................................................................................... 12

4.1.2. Sprinklers ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.1.3. Network configuration ........................................................................................................ 14

4.1.4. Results ................................................................................................................................. 16

4.1.4.1. Cost of pipes ................................................................................................................ 16

4.1.4.2. Pressure in system ....................................................................................................... 18

4.1.4.3. Velocity ....................................................................................................................... 22

4.1.4.4. Energy Usage .............................................................................................................. 23

4.2. NETWORK 2: USING EPANET TO SOLVE NETWORK PROBLEM .................................. 24

4.2.1. Solving problem of network ............................................................................................... 25

4.2.2. Results for real Irrigation network ...................................................................................... 27

4.2.2.1. Initial simulated results using supplied pump ............................................................. 27

4.2.2.2. Results using specified pump ...................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 30

CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 30

5.1. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 30

5.2. RECCOMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 31

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. 35

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................. 58


iv

SUMMARY

A pressurized irrigation network is a complex hydraulic system consisting of elements such as

reservoirs, pumps, pipes, sprinklers, hydrants, valves etc. It is designed to deliver water to the

irrigable field at adequate pressure head and demand. It is very important to design a network

that is not only cost effective but also satisfies the system constraints such as adequate pressure

and velocity.

Manual calculation in designing such a network is based on trial and error and can be very

difficult especially if the network is large. This study aims to apply a hydraulic modelling tool

EPANET in pressurized irrigation networks design and analysis. The study includes the optimal

design of new sprinkler irrigation network and analyzing a real simple irrigation network to

verify the adequacy of pumps installed.

In recent years a lot of research has been done on the development of computer software

programmes as well as optimization techniques to search for the optimal solution to piped

networks. Some of these techniques are linear and non-linear programming, dynamic

programming and heuristic optimization techniques.

Modelling a sprinkler irrigation system indicated some interesting results. The aim of many

hydraulic engineers is to design a system with least- cost of pipes which is normally considered

as the optimal solution. However, the optimal solution may be infeasible for a number of

reasons. In this example, manual calculation yielded the least cost of pipes (US$13,084.49) but

did not necessarily represent the optimal solution because constraint like maximum pressure

variation which is very important was not met.

The optimal solution based on the EPANET simulation even though more expensive

(US$18,012.84) provided significantly better pressure characteristics than the least cost

solution, though both solutions meet the velocity requirement. Again head losses along the pipes

in the simulation were significantly lower than the pipes in the calculated network. EPANET can

give designers power over their designs and also enhance analysis concerning pressurized

networks. Modelling a simple irrigation network helped engineers supervising a project to verify

whether the required equipment of pump has been installed.

The network solver depends on the system of network equations, the user-specified accuracy and

the accuracy of design inputs as such it should be used with caution. It is not a panacea to all the

problems of manual calculation but rather a tool to enhance the design process. The network

solve performs only steady and extended period simulations, analysis of the network should

include the effect of water hammer for example on the network. It should be mentioned that the

solver only does the simulation based on the pipe sizes inputted by the designer. It can be linked

to other optimization techniques like Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE) to automatically search

and select from a set of commercial pipe sizes. This will enhance the results and make the

analysis more robust. Again other hydraulic network solvers such as MIKE NET, KYPIPE,

Pipeflow expert, WATERCAD etc. should be considered in the pressurized network

performance and compared with that of EPANET.


v

ABBREVIATIONS

LP Linear Programming

NLP Non-Linear Programming

DP Dynamic Programming

HO Heuristic Optimization

GRG Generalized Reduced Gradient

GA Genetic Algorithms

SA Simulated Annealing

TS Tabu Search

MH Meta Heuristic

U.S United States

HGL Hydraulic Grade Line

GUI Graphical User Interface

SOP Sprinkler Operating Pressure

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

CCE Certified Computer Examiner

SCE Shuffled Complex Evolution

CMH Cubic Meters Per Hour

LPS Liters Per Second


vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3.1 Typical GUI of EPANET 10

Figure 4.1 EPANET network configuration 15

Figure 4.2 Simulated Node Results indicating pressures on highest reference lateral 19

Figure 4.3 Simulated Node Results indicating pressures on lowest reference lateral 20

Figure 4.4 Calculated Node Results indicating pressures on lowest reference lateral 21

Figure 4.5 Calculated Node Results indicating pressures on highest reference lateral 21

Figure 4.6 Schematic diagram of network 24

Figure 4.7 Network indicating pipes and junctions ID 25

Figure 4.8 Pressure Frequency distribution of system 29


vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 4.1 hydraulic constraints of network 12

Table 4.2 Commercial PE pipe sizes 13

Table 4.3 Basic design data for pipes 16

Table 4.4 Cost of pipes using EPANET simulation 17

Table 4.5 Cost of pipes using manual calculation 18

Table 4.6 Simulated Velocity and head losses for main lines 22

Table 4.7 Calculated Velocity and head losses for main lines 23

Table 4.8 Simulated Energy Usage 23

Table 4.9 Basic design data for network 26

Table 4.10 Node Results 27

Table 4.11 Node Results of network 28


1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. GENERAL

A pressurized irrigation network can be a good investment when well designed, installed,

maintained and managed. Good design of a pressurized irrigation network requires that key

issues of pipe dimensions, pressure distribution, discharge as well as a number of hydraulic

parameters are taken into consideration. The main parts of a pressurized irrigation network are:

(1) pumping or lifting unit (2) Main line (3) Sub main (4) Lateral Lines. Water from a storage

reservoir, lake, river, stream or a well is transported to the irrigable land through a water

distribution system. The water distribution system is a hydraulic infrastructure made up of

various elements such as pipes, tanks, reservoirs, pumps, and valves. All of them are essential in

delivering water of adequate quantity and pressure.

According to McGhee (1991), because a lot of resources are vested in the design of a pressurized

network, it is important to investigate and establish a reliable network which satisfies the

following conditions (1) economic design and layout (2) adequate quantity of water and (3)

required hydraulic pressure. Satisfying these conditions and the other elements of the hydraulic

infrastructure complicate the design and analysis.

Normally the problem of irrigation engineers is how to come out with a design that to a high

degree of accuracy represents the best solution for the irrigation system. The optimal solution is

highly connected to economic issues as well as the efficient management of the irrigation

system. The usual method of designing from first principles with its trial and error iterations is

cumbersome, time consuming and very much subjected to human errors. Then there is the

problem of how the system will function in the field. Modern design with computer software

programmes are able to model and perform steady-state as well as extended period simulations

(Walski et al., 2001) under a host of hydraulic conditions indication how the irrigation system

will function in the field and this gives irrigation engineers power over their design and also do

sensitivity analysis. Other issues related to operation of the system can be captured.


2

Chadwick and Morfett (1993), explains that steady-state refers to the conditions of the system

that do not vary with time. Steady-state simulation predicts the response of the system to a

specific set of hydraulic conditions (for example, minimum operating pressure) at a certain time.

On the other hand extended period simulation shows variation of hydraulic conditions of the

system with time. They all involve solving a set of simultaneous non-linear equations, for

example; continuity equation (conservation of flow to be satisfied at each node), energy equation

and the equation that relates pipe flow and head-losses, such as the Hazen-Williams, Darcy-

Weisbach and Manning’s equations.

There are a host of useful and efficient computer programs available for piped network

simulation such as KYPIPE, Pipeflow expert and WaterCAD. EPANET (Rossman, 2000) is a

popular simulation tool which plays an important role in the layout, design and operation of the

network. The programme is able to solve continuity equation, energy equation and head-loss

equations such as Hazen-Williams, Darcy-Weisbach and Manning’s simultaneously. The

Hydraulic Engineer is able to determine the optimal pipe sizes and other network parameters

(pipe roughness coefficients, nodal demands, pressure and velocity).

1.2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Arriving at an optimal design of pipe sizes and some parameters of water distribution network

has been problematic for Irrigation engineers. Instead of using the cumbersome and

computationally long trial-and-error approach, a water modelling software programme has been

considered in the field of pressurized water distribution network modelling. The study looks

primarily at how EPANET can be used to model a sprinkler irrigation system and also solve

issues relating to pressurized networks.

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The aims of this study are

1. Application of EPANET in optimal design of a sprinkler irrigation system.

2. Using EPANET to solve a network problem.


3

1.4. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

Chapter 2 describes various works done in the field of water distribution modelling and the

issues related to optimal design of water distribution systems. Chapter 3 which is the project

methodology basically describes how EPANET network solver is used in the modelling. Chapter

4 demonstrates the application of EPANET in modelling a new sprinkler irrigation system and

solving a network problem. Finally, the conclusions and the recommendations reached in the

study are presented in chapter 5 for further research.


4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. INTRODUCTION

A well designed pressurized network is very important in the realization of the objectives of the

irrigation scheme such as maximizing efficiency and being cost effectiveness. The network must

also satisfy various demands while meeting minimum pressure requirements. Cost effective

solutions that satisfy the hydraulic constraints of the system are always desired, however such a

solution is very difficult to achieve manually as stated earlier on. In recent years a lot of research

has been done on the development of computer software programmes as well as optimization

techniques to search for the optimal solution to piped networks. In this chapter, various

techniques known in the design of water distribution networks have been reviewed.

2.2. TECHNIQUES IN PRESSURIZED WATER NETWORKS DESIGN

2.2.1. Conventional Techniques

Design and analysis of pressurized water distribution networks with the conventional procedure

uses a trial-and-error approach. The outcome depends solely on the designers experience,

knowledge and skills. However, this approach is extremely difficult and inefficient more

especially if the network is large and complex. It also involves much iteration which can be very

cumbersome.

2.2.2. Programming techniques in network design

A wide variety of techniques have been used in recent times, with some of the most studied

being the Linear Programming (LP) , non-linear programming (NLP), Dynamic programming

(DP) and Heuristic optimization (HO) techniques (Eiger, et al., 1994). Some approaches attempt

to employ efficient methods that combine the various techniques to the optimal design

problem. Gessler, (1982) linked a network hydraulic simulation model to a filtering subroutine

to efficiently enumerate all feasible solutions in pipe network design. This model selects both


5

the optimal design, as well as several near-optimal solutions for tradeoff analysis, and is perhaps

the most widely used optimization model.

2.2.3. Linear -programming

Methods based on the use of linear programming (LP) have been developed which are capable

of maintaining the constraint on discrete pipe sizes without the need for rounding off

solutions. Morgan and Goulter (1985) modified the procedure of Kally (1972) to link a Hardy-

Cross network solver with linear programming model. The model is designed to optimize both

the layout and design of new systems and expansion of existing systems. It is a highly efficient

method, with the main disadvantage being the generation of split pipe solutions (i.e., with some

pipe sections requiring two pipe sizes). The latter indeed reduces system costs, but may not be

attractive to design engineers. More recent literature emphasizes reliability issues in water

distribution system design, with consideration of the probabilities of satisfying system flow and

pressure requirements. Recent studies have attempted to apply a variety of heuristic

programming methods to the optimal design of water distribution systems. These include the

application of genetic algorithms (Savic and Walters, 1997) and simulated annealing (Cunha and

Sousa, 1999). The advantages of these methods are that they allow full consideration of system

nonlinearity and maintain discrete design variables without requiring split pipe solutions. The

disadvantages include:

cannot guarantee generation of even local optimal solutions, particularly for large-scale

systems

require extensive fine-tuning of algorithmic parameters, which are highly dependent on

the individual problem

can be extremely time consuming computationally

Current applications have not included use of multiple demand loadings because of

computational difficulties.


6

2.2.4. Non-Linear Programming

Compared to LP, NLP model can deal with multiple demand pattern and much higher number of

design variables (Lansey and Mays 1989). Using nonlinear programming approach has yielded

practically satisfactory results in acceptable computing time even for relatively large networks.

For years, non-linear programming procedures have widely been used for solving water

distribution network problems. The most efficient of these methods are gradient based

algorithms that require at least the first order derivatives of both objective and constraint

functions; these are needed to define the appropriate search direction. Gradient based techniques

can easily identify a relative optimum closest to the optimum design. However, these methods do

not guarantee the global optimal solution if the design space is non-convex (Simpson et al.,

1994). According to Savic and Walters (1997), it is also inadequate in problems where the design

space is discontinuous, as the derivative of both the objective function and the constraints may

become singular across the boundary of discontinuity. In addition, the pipe diameters considered

in NLP are continuous that may not match the available commercial pipe sizes and require

rounding up of the final solution.

Other authors have formulated the optimal design problem as a nonlinear programming problem

with discrete pipe sizes treated as continuous variables. Lansey and Mays (1989) linked the

generalized reduced gradient (GRG) algorithm with a water distribution simulation model to

optimally size pipe network, pump stations, and tanks. The main disadvantage of these NLP

methods is the rounding off of optimal continuous decision variables to commercially available

sizes, which raises questions as to optimality of the adjusted solution.

2.2.5. Dynamic Programming

Dynamic programming is a method of solving complex problems by breaking it into

substructures or overlapping subproblems. The results (outputs) found in the previous

subproblem are then used as an inputs for the subsequent subproblem Lin et al. (1997). Dynamic

Programming (DP) has been used in the field of hydraulic engineering for optimization and

management.

The network in the model represents the possible connections between decisions and expresses

costs of going from one to another. The model used iterative algorithm which successively


7

converges to the solution (least cost option). However, the application of dynamic programming

was limited to simple network systems. They observed that if the system increases in size, the

computational time required to solve the optimal strategy becomes very large

2.2.6. Heuristic Optimization Techniques

In order to overcome the bottlenecks of the above mentioned techniques in piped network

design, heuristic optimization techniques have been employed. Heuristic techniques solve

complex network problems by focusing on branches of the network that are more likely to

produce better solutions. Savic and Walters (1997) mentions that the optimum solution obtained

by the above discussed techniques might have discrete pipes of different diameters but the

methods are based on continuous diameter approach. The designer is tempted to alter the split-

pipe size into one diameter and then change the solution of the network. This could result in a

solution that is not feasible.

Gessler (1985) and Loubser and Gessler (1993), applied this algorithm to the design and to the

rehabilitation of water distribution network. The algorithm uses a combination of pipe diameters,

and check each combination whether the pressure constraints are satisfied. Eventually, the

combination with least cost of pipes is chosen. However it was noticed that this required a lot of

computation time since many comparisons have to be made with commercial pipe sizes

especially for large networks

Recently, researchers focus on the use of meta- heuristic techniques to evaluate network designs.

Simpson et al. (1994) Cunha and Sousa (1999) applied simulation based meta-heuristic

algorithms, such as genetic algorithms (GA), simulated annealing (SA) and tabu search (TS) to

water network design. These search techniques results in more refined optimization models

because they could solve the problem of split-free commercial diameters.

Based on MH techniques, computer model GANET to design least-cost pipe network has been

developed Savic and Walters (1997). Gupta et al., (1999) also applied GA with a hydraulic

simulator ANALIS (Bassin et al., 1992) to assess the hydraulic performance of the network

design.


8

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1. INTRODUCTION

The study aims to introduce EPANET to model a sprinkler irrigation network as well as solving

a problem related to an irrigation system. The model consists of an optimization technique from

a network solver EPANET used to arrive at the proposed scheme.

EPANET is chosen because it handles both steady state and extended period simulation of water

distribution network. This chapter presents discussions on EPANET simulation model using a

sample model of a sprinkler irrigation system and a real irrigation system.

3.2. EPANET SIMULATION TOOL

EPANET (Rossman, 2000) is a free to public, water distribution system programme developed

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Supply and Water Resources Division. It

performs both steady-state and extended period simulations. It computes hydraulic performance

(pressures, flows, head-loss in the pipe) for a given layout and nodal demands. It can analyze the

performance of the system and can be used to design system components to meet distribution

requirements. In addition, it can perform water quality modelling, determining the age of water,

performing source tracking, finding the fate of a dissolved substance, or determining substance

growth or decay. The basic hydraulic equations involved in EPANET are briefly described

below:

1. The flow equations in hydraulic model are governed by conservation of mass and energy. The

law of mass conservation states that the rate of storage in a system is equal to the difference

between the inflow and outflow to the system.

For each junction, the conservation of mass can be expressed as: ΣQin − ΣQout = Qext

Where Qin and Qout are the inflows and outflows of the node; and Qext is the external demand.


9

2. Conservation of energy states that the difference in energy between two points is equal to the

frictional and minor losses and the energy added to the flow component between these points.

3. The head loss in the pipe is the difference between nodal head at both ends.

3.3. PARTS OF EPANET

The EPANET computer model used for water distribution network analysis is composed of two

parts: (1) the input data file and (2) the EPANET computer program.

The data file defines the characteristics of the pipes, the nodes (ends of the pipe), and the control

components (such as pumps and valves) in the pipe network. The computer program solves the

nonlinear energy equations and linear mass equations for pressures at nodes and flow rates in

pipes.

3.3.1 EPANET input data file

The EPANET input data file includes descriptions of the physical characteristics of pipes and

nodes, and the connectivity of the pipes in a pipe network system. The user can graphically

layout the water distribution network, if desired. Values for the pipe network parameters are

entered through easy-to-use dialog boxes. The pipe parameters include the length, inside

diameter, minor loss coefficient, and roughness coefficient of the pipe. Each pipe has a defined

positive flow direction and two nodes. The parameters of nodes consist of the water demand or

supply, elevation, and pressure or hydraulic grade line. The hydraulic grade line (HGL) is the

summation of node elevation and pressure head at the node. The control components, which

usually are installed on pipes, include control valves and booster pumps. They are also part of the

input data file. A portion of a typical input file format is shown in Appendix B.1.

3.3.2 The EPANET programme

EPANET Version 2 programme used in this model is designed to run under the Windows

95/98/NT operating system of an IBM/Intel-compatible personal computer. The program

computes the flow rates in the pipes and then HGL at the nodes. The calculation of flow rates

involves several iterations because the mass and energy equations are nonlinear. The number of


10

iterations depends on the system of network equations and the user-specified accuracy. A

satisfactory solution of the flow rates must meet the specified accuracy, the law of conservation

of mass and energy in the water distribution system, and any other requirements imposed by the

user. The calculation of HGL requires no iteration because the network equations are linear.

Once the flow rate analysis is complete, the water quality computations are then performed.

In the programme is a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates the construction of layout of

the network to be simulated. A network is constructed easily by pointing and clicking an icon on

the GUI that represents the physical entity (pipes, valves, sprinklers etc.). Editing the properties

of the network components and its simulation options can also be done. Simulation carried out is

presented to the user in a readable format here on the GUI. Figure 3.1 below presents a typical

GUI.

Figure 3.1 Typical GUI of EPANET


11

3.4. STEPS IN USING EPANET

The EPANET manual by Rossman (2000) outlines the following steps in using EPANET to

model a water distribution system

1. Draw a network representation of your distribution system or import a basic description of the

network placed in a text file.

2. Edit the properties of the objects that make up the system

3. Describe how the system is operated

4. Select a set of analysis options

5. Run a hydraulic/water quality analysis

6. View the results of the analysis

3.5. ACQUISITION OF EPANET

EPANET is distributed as a single file, en2setup.exe, which contains a self-extracting setup

program. Setup and manual can be downloaded at http://servicecenter.kcc.usda.gov/sfwel.htm.

EPANET has USDA CCE certification.

3.6. ADVANTAGES OF USING EPANET

Survey data can be read into the program.

All calculations are done internally and quickly.

Graphics, summary output tables for quick references.

Easy to compare simulation with other calibrated data.

Changes are quick and easy to make.

Unlimited network size and complexity (looped systems, etc.).

Error checking and warnings.

3.7. DISADVANTAGES OF USING EPANET

Having to learn the program (can take some time).

It requires that the designer understands the principles of hydraulics.

http://servicecenter.kcc.usda.gov/sfwel.htm


12

CHAPTER 4

MODELLING, RESULTS AND ANALYSIS USING CASE STUDIES

4.1. NETWORK 1: SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM

The sprinkler irrigation network presented is for a small holder farmer in an irrigation scheme in

Ghana. The total area to be irrigated is 18ha (600mx300m). Crop to be irrigated is sweet pepper

with peak crop irrigation requirement of 1.02mm/day and system efficiency of 75%. Net

application of 7020 m3 of water will be required per irrigation to bring the root zone depth of the

soil from the 50% allowable depletion level to the field capacity of the soil.

The design is a periodic move sprinkler irrigation system with quick coupling PE pipes. The

irrigation cycle is 8 days with 3 pairs of laterals making 2 shifts per day. There are

approximately 50 moves for the laterals (600m length of field/12m sprinkler spacing). Hazen

William pipe roughness C of 140 was used. Appendix A.1 presents the basic data used for the

design of sprinkler irrigation system.

4.1.1. Design and formulation

The aim of design of the network is to find the optimal pipe size for each pipe in the network for

a given layout, satisfying hydraulic constraints of the system. The constraints of the system are

maximum allowable flow velocity in pipe stretches, minimum operating pressure of the

sprinklers (Table 4.1). According to labye et al. (1988) the maximum velocities in pipes

generally should not exceed 1.5m/s. Again diameter of the pipes must be selected from some

commercially available sizes (Table 4.2).

Table 4.1 hydraulic constraints of network

CONSTRAINT VALUE

Max. allowable Velocity 1.5m/s

Minimum operating pressure (SOP) 30m

Pressure variation 20% of SOP


13

Table 4.2 Commercial PE pipe sizes

Polietilene PE 80

PN 8* - SDR 17,6

Ø Est.

mm

Internal

diameter

mm

US$/m

50 44 2.70

63 55.4 4.23

75 66 5.99

90 79.2 8.21

110 96.8 12.27

125 110.2 15.50

140 123.4 19.47

160 141 18.15

180 158.6 32.15

200 176.2 39.67

225 198.2 50.30

250 220.4 61.65

(Source www.oppo.it/31/05/2011/1030am)

4.1.2. Sprinklers

Nodes in the EPANET network represent a sprinkler or a hydrant. EPANET models sprinklers as

emitters with the equation q=KHY

Q= discharge of each sprinkler (m3/hr.)

K= Emitter co-efficient (0.100, refer to Appendix A.2)

H= operating pressure of sprinkler (m)

Y=Emitter exponent (0.5)

http://www.oppo.it/31/05/2011/1030am


14

From the design chart of VYRSA Range of sprinklers (Appendix A.2), a sprinkler with 2.8 mm

nozzle discharging 0.55m3/hr, precipitation rate 3.8mm/hr at 3.0 bars with 12x 12 m spacing was

used as an example. This sprinkler chosen satisfies all the conditions related to soil, wind effect

and dimensions of land.

4.1.3. Network configuration

The Figure 4.1 below shows the EPANET Network configuration used for the analysis. There

are a total of 72 sprinklers, 6 laterals and 82pipes. Pipes 1 to 10 are the main lines whilst the rest

are laterals spaced at 12m. Dummy nodes (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) have been included to

represent the positions of hydrants. Water is pumped from a reservoir at an elevation of 100m.

An electric pump of system discharge 40m3/hr and head 45m was used (refer to pump

characteristics in Appendix A.3). The network also shows a control valve.


15

Figure 4.1 EPANET network configuration


16

Table 4.3 Basic design data for pipes

pipe Length

m

Diameter

mm

1 210 123.4

2 60 123.4

3 60 123.4

4 60 123.4

5 60 110.2

6 60 110.2

7 60 110.2

8 60 79.2

9 60 79.2

10 108 79.2

laterals 12 66

4.1.4. Results

4.1.4.1. Cost of pipes

Choosing PE pipes for the design and selecting from commercially available pipe sizes ranging

from 44mm to123.4mm, the cost of pipes for this system was calculated using the formula

Cs = ∑Uk x Lk,

Cs is the total cost of system in US Dollars $

Uk is the cost per meter in $/m

Lk is the Length in meters of the kth pipe.

K is the pipe ID starting from 1 to k

From the simulation with EPANET and keeping the velocity in the system below 1.5m/s, it was

realized that the simulated results yielded a cost of US$18,012.84 whilst the calculated results


17

yielded a cost of US$13,084.49 (Table 4.4 and 4.5). This amounted to a difference of

US$4,928.35.

Variations in the cost is a results of the fact that designers using the trial and error approach most

at times assume a particular pipe diameter for entire sections of the network during the

calculation which is an easier approach, however it should be noted that prices of commercial

pipes are very much dependent of the pipe diameters for a particular pressure rating. Again

whilst the calculated diameter yielded a lower cost of pipes because the diameters used were

smaller than the ones used for the simulation but its subsequent effect on pressure, velocity and

unit head loss were undesirable and did not satisfy the constraints set for the system.

Table 4.4 Cost of pipes using EPANET simulation

Pipe

ID

Length

m

Diameter

Simulated

mm

Unit

Cost

US$/m

Cost

US$

1

251

123.4

19.47

4,887.85

2

60

123.4

19.47

1,168.41

3

60

123.4

19.47

1,168.41

4

60

123.4

19.47

1,168.41

5

60

110.2

15.50

930.03

6

60

110.2

15.50

930.03

7

60

110.2

15.50

930.03

8

60

79.2

8.21

492.42

9

60

79.2

8.21

492.42

10

108

79.2

8.21

886.36

laterals (66x12m +6x6m)

828

66

5.99

4,958.48

18,012.84


18

Table 4.5 Cost of pipes using manual calculation

Pipe

ID

Length

m

Diameter

calculated

mm

Diameter

St. sizes

mm

Unit

Cost

US$/m

Cost

US$

1

251

120

123.4 19.47

4,887.85

2

60

110

110.2 15.50

930.03

3

60

110

110.2 15.50

930.03

4

60

110

110.2 15.50

930.03

5

60

85

96.8 12.27

736.02

6

60

85

96.8 12.27

736.02

7

60

85

96.8 12.27

736.02

8

60

49

55.4 4.23

254.04

9

60

49

55.4 4.23

254.04

10

108

49

55.4 4.23

457.27

laterals (66x12m +6x6m)

828

44

44 2.70

2,233.12

19.47 13,084.49

4.1.4.2. Pressure in system

It is desired that the pressure in the system should not be below the sprinkler operating pressure

of 30m. Assuming 20% pressure variation (FAO, 2001) between the lowest point and the

highest point is allowed, the variation then should not exceed 6m (20% of 30 SOP). This

pressure differences throughout the system should be maintained in such a range so that a high

degree of uniformity of water application is achieved.


19

From the Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 below , minimum pressure in the system is 36.80m occurring

at the highest point (elevation 108m) on the field whilst the maximum reference pressure is

39.66m (elevation 105m, ). The pressure variation therefore is 2.86m which is within the limit.

Moreover the minimum pressure requirement satisfies the constraint of 30m sprinkler operating

pressure. Calculated results yielded a maximum and minimum pressure of 40.24m and 31.71m

(Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5) respectively which is also satisfies the sprinkler operating pressure;

however a pressure variation of 8.82m was accrued which is way above the limit of 6m.

Figure 4.2 Simulated Node Results indicating pressures on highest reference lateral


20

Figure 4.3 Simulated Node Results indicating pressures on lowest reference lateral


21

Figure 4.4 Calculated Node Results indicating pressures on lowest reference lateral

Figure 4.5 Calculated Node Results indicating pressures on highest reference lateral


22

4.1.4.3. Velocity

Tracking velocity changes in a network can be very difficult to do manually especially if the

network is large. Most designers tend to ignore the effect of velocity in the system. High

velocities tend to increase the unit head losses in the pipe stretches. Assuming it is desired but

not always necessary that the unit head loss should not exceed the “economic friction loss

gradient” of 1m/100m or 10m/km (ARC, 2003). The analysis as presented in Tables 4.6 and 4.7

compares the subsequent effect of pipe sizes and velocity on the unit head losses in the system.

The simulation yielded unit head losses below 10m/km for the chosen pipe dimensions whist the

calculation yielded head losses above this threshold. High head losses subsequently resulted in a

low pressure at the sprinkler in the highest point on the farm and increased the pressure variation.

The advantage of EPANET is that every change in pipe diameter and length is automatically

calculated and changes in key parameters such as velocity and pressure are indicated on the

computer screen at the particular location for the designer to make a decision. Tables are also

generated for assessment. The Tables 4.6 and 4.7 below are examples for this network as well as

the head losses along the main lines.

Table 4.6 Simulated Velocity and head losses for main lines

-----------------------------------------------

Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss

ID CMH m/s m/km

-----------------------------------------------

1 44.12 1.02 8.69

2 36.58 0.85 6.15

3 36.58 0.85 6.15

4 36.58 0.85 6.15

5 21.92 0.64 4.13

6 21.92 0.64 4.13

7 21.92 0.64 4.13

8 7.59 0.43 2.90

9 7.59 0.43 2.90

10 7.59 0.43 2.90


23

Table 4.7 Calculated Velocity and head loss for main lines

---------------------------------------------------

Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss

ID CMH m/s m/km ---------------------------------------------------

1 42.89 1.00 8.25

2 35.42 1.03 10.05

3 35.42 1.03 10.05

4 35.42 1.03 10.05

5 21.02 0.79 7.19

6 21.02 0.79 7.19

7 21.02 0.79 7.19

8 7.07 0.81 14.47

9 7.07 0.81 14.47

10 7.07 0.81 14.47

4.1.4.4. Energy Usage

EPANET has the ability to calculate the daily cost of energy used by the system. In this example

a value of 8 US cents per Kw-hr which is the estimated cost of energy in Ghana was used (. The

programme generated a cost of USD$14.62 per day for the system. (Table 4.8). This could be

interesting for economic analysis.

Table 4.8 Simulated Energy Usage

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Usage Avg. Kw-hr Avg. Peak Cost

Pump ID Factor Effic. /m3 Kw Kw /day

----------------------------------------------------------------------

81 100.00 75.00 0.17 7.61 7.61 14.62

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand Charge: 0.00

Total Cost: 14.62


24

4.2. NETWORK 2: USING EPANET TO SOLVE NETWORK PROBLEM

The schematic diagram and EPANET configuration of a real irrigation network in Ghana are

shown in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7 respectively. This network consists of 23 pipes (links) and 24

nodes of which 20 are hydrants, one reservoir (source node) and one pump. Minimum pressure

requirement is 10m. The length of the PVC pipe ranges from 75 m to 152 m with Hazen-

Williams roughness coefficients of 140 for all pipes.

Figure 4.6 Schematic diagram of network


25

Figure 4.7 Network indicating pipes and junctions ID

4.2.1. Solving problem of network

The network represents the arrangement of hydrants in a unit of irrigable field. The reservoir is a

river with lowest water level of 79m and the highest elevation of the land in this field is 92m.

Pump supplied by the contractor is a diesel pump of characteristics 42l/s and 15m head. It is

required to determine whether this pump meets the required head and discharge as specified in

the bill of quantities. Each of the hydrants have a base demand of 2.1l/s. The table 4.9 below

presents the design inputs for the network.


26

Table 4.9 Basic design data for network

Link Start End Length Diameter

ID Node Node m mm

P1 J1 J2 152 200

P2 J2 J3 125 150

P3 J3 J4 105 150

P4 J4 J5 75 150

P5 J5 J6 75 150

P6 J6 J7 75 150

P7 J7 J8 75 150

P8 J8 J9 75 150

P9 J9 J10 75 150

P10 J10 J11 75 150

P11 J11 J12 75 100

P12 J12 J13 75 100

P16 J2 J17 125 150

P17 J17 J18 105 150

P18 J18 J19 75 150

P19 J19 J20 75 150

P20 J20 J21 75 150

P21 J21 J22 75 150

P22 J22 J23 75 150

P23 J23 J24 75 150

P24 J24 J25 75 150

P25 J25 J26 75 100

P26 J26 J27 75 100


27

4.2.2. Results for real Irrigation network

4.2.2.1. Initial simulated results using supplied pump

In the Table 4.10, simulation by EPANET solver using the pump supplied by the contractor

indicates that with the exception of node J1 (pressure 15m). Moreover J11-J13 and J22-J27 all

returned negative pressures as shown in the table below. The full simulated result of this network

is presented in the Appendix B.2. This clearly indicates that the pump supplied by the contractor

in this instance does not meet the required head of the network.

Table 4.10 Node Results: -----------------------------------------------

Node Demand Head Pressure

ID LPS m m -----------------------------------------------

J1 0.00 94.00 15.00

J2 0.00 92.77 12.77

J3 0.00 91.63 11.13

J4 2.10 90.67 9.67

J5 2.10 90.11 8.11

J6 2.10 89.66 7.16

J7 2.10 89.31 6.31

J8 2.10 89.04 5.04

J9 2.10 88.85 3.85

J10 2.10 88.73 1.73

J11 2.10 88.65 -0.35

J12 2.10 88.40 -1.60

J13 2.10 88.34 -2.66

J17 0.00 91.63 9.63

J18 2.10 90.67 6.67

J19 2.10 90.11 5.11

J20 2.10 89.66 3.66

J21 2.10 89.31 2.31

J22 2.10 89.04 -0.46

J23 2.10 88.85 -1.15

J24 2.10 88.73 -1.77

J25 2.10 88.65 -2.35

J26 2.10 88.40 -3.10

J27 2.10 88.34 -3.66


28

4.2.2.2. Results using specified pump

In order to help management take a decision on this situation, EPANET was used to simulate the

network using the designed and specified pump which has characteristics of 42l and 31m head.

From the Table 4.11, the highest pressure of 31m occurs at node J1 whilst the minimum of

12.34m occurs at node J27. This satisfies the minimum pressure requirement in the system

confirming that the pump supplied by contractor does not meet the specifications.

Table 4.11 Node Results of network -----------------------------------------------

Node Demand Head Pressure

ID LPS m m -----------------------------------------------

J1 0.00 110.00 31.00

J2 0.00 108.77 28.77

J3 0.00 107.63 27.13

J4 2.10 106.67 25.67

J5 2.10 106.11 24.11

J6 2.10 105.66 23.16

J7 2.10 105.31 22.31

J8 2.10 105.04 21.04

J9 2.10 104.85 19.85

J10 2.10 104.73 17.73

J11 2.10 104.65 15.65

J12 2.10 104.40 14.40

J13 2.10 104.34 13.34

J17 0.00 107.63 25.63

J18 2.10 106.67 22.67

J19 2.10 106.11 21.11

J20 2.10 105.66 19.66

J21 2.10 105.31 18.31

J22 2.10 105.04 15.54

J23 2.10 104.85 14.85

J24 2.10 104.73 14.23

J25 2.10 104.65 13.65

J26 2.10 104.40 12.90

J27 2.10 104.34 12.34

Verification of head losses along the Main pipelines confirmed the inadequacy of the pumps that

have been installed.


29

This assisted Engineers supervision the project to bring to the attention of management that the

desired aim of getting water to the irrigable lands may not be achieved if the specified pumps are

not provided.

It should be indicated that manually calculated results yielded similar results, however EPANET

did the calculation within seconds and it returned easy to understand tables and graphs for quick

decisions to be taken. As an example the Figure 4.8 below presents the pressure distribution in

the system. The plot is frequency of pressure as against the actual values of pressure. It shows

the percentage of pressure less than a specific pressure value. In the Figure 4.8, for a pressure of

20 m, there are 45 percent of the nodes less this value.

Figure 4.8 Pressure frequency distribution of system.


30

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS

5.1. CONCLUSIONS

The main concern in the design of pressurized irrigation networks is to achieve an optimal

solution which satisfies the constraints of the network, an undertaken which is very difficult to

achieve manually especially if the network is large. Hydraulic Modelling computer softwares can

be used to lessen the burden. EPANET is one such tool that has been used to great success.

Modelling a sprinkler irrigation system in this thesis indicated some interesting results. The aim

of many hydraulic engineers is to design a system with least- cost of pipes which is normally

considered as the optimal solution. However, the optimal solution may be infeasible for a

number of reasons.

In this example, manual calculation yielded the least cost of pipes (US$13,084.49 ) but did not

necessarily represent the optimal solution because constraints like minimum operating pressure

which is very important was not met.

The optimal solution based on the EPANET simulation even though more expensive

(US$18,012.84) provided significantly better pressure characteristics than the least cost

solution, though both solutions meet the velocity requirement. Again head losses along the pipes

in the simulation were significantly lower than the pipes in the calculated network.

EPANET can give designers power over their designs and also enhance decision making

concerning pressurized networks. Modelling a simple irrigation network helped engineers

supervising a project to verify whether the required equipment of pump has been installed. The

analysis with EPANET was done quickly while easy to understand reports were also generated.

Further sensitivity analysis can be done quickly on this network.


31

5.2. RECCOMENDATIONS

The following are some suggestions relevant to future works in modelling pressurized irrigation

networks:

1. EPANET solver depends on the system of network equations, the user-specified accuracy

and the accuracy of design inputs as such it should be used with caution. It should not

necessarily be seen as a solution to all the problems of manual calculation but rather a

tool to enhance the design process.

2. The network solve performs only steady and extended period simulations, analysis of the

network should include the effect of water hammer for example on the network.

3. The solver for now only does the simulation based on the pipe sizes inputted by the

designer. It can be linked to other optimization techniques like Shuffled Complex

Evolution (SCE) to automatically search and select from a set of commercial pipe sizes.

4. Other hydraulic network solvers such as MIKE NET, KYPIPE, Pipeflow expert,

WATERCAD etc. should be considered in the pressurized network performance and

compared with that of EPANET.


32

REFERENCES

1. ARC, 2003. “Pipe hydraulics”. Institute for Agricultural Engineering design manual.

2. Bassin, J.K., Gupta, I., and Gupta, A. (1992). “Graph theoretic Approach to the Analysis of

Water Distribution System.”, Journal of Indian Water Works Association, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.

269–276.

3. Chadwick, A., and Morfett, J. (1993). “Hydraulics in Civil and Environmental Engineering.”

Chapman and Hall. 2nd

edition.

4. Cunha, M.D.C., and Sousa, J. (1999). “Water Distribution Network Design Optimization:

Simulated Annealing Approach.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,

Vol. 125, No. 4, pp. 215-221.

5. Eiger, G., Shamir, U., and Ben-Tal, A. (1994). “Optimal Design of Water Distribution

Networks and Water Resources.” Res., 30 (9), 2637-2646.

6. FAO. 2001. “Sprinkler Irrigation Systems. Planning, design, Operation and Maintenance”.

FAO Irrigation Manual Module 8, pp. 18.

7. Gessler, J. (1982). “Optimization of Pipe Networks.” Proc. of the Ninth International.

Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Control, Univ. of Ky.,

Lexington, July 27-30.

8. Gessler, J. (1985). “Pipe Network Optimization by Enumeration.” Proceeding of Computer

Applications in Water Resources, ASCE, New York, N.Y., pp. 572-581.

9. Gupta, I., Gupta, A., and Khanna, P. (1999). “Genetic Algorithm for Optimization of Water

Distribution Systems.”, Environmental Modelling & software Vol.-4, pp. 437-446.


33

10. Labye, Y., Olson, M.A., Galand, A., and Tsiourtis, M. (1988). “Design and Optimization

of Irrigation Distribution Networks.” Irr. & Drainage Paper 44, FAO, Rome, Italy: 89-146.

11. Kally, E. (1972). Computerized Planning of the Least Cost Water Distribution Network,

Water sewage works pp121-127.

12. Lansey, K. and Mays, L. (1989). “Optimal Design of Water Distribution System Design.”

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 10, pp. 1401-1418.

13. Lin, B.L., Wu, R.S., and Liaw, S.L. (1997). “A Heuristic Approach Algorithm for the

Optimization of Pipe Network Systems.” Water Sci. Technol., Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 219-226.

14. Loubser, B.F. and Gessler, J. (1993). “Computer Aided Optimization of Water Distribution

Network.” Integrated Computer Applications in Water Supply, pp. 103-115.

15. McGhee, T. J. (1991). “Water supply and sewerage.” McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.

16. Morgan, D. and Goulter, I. (1985). “Water Distribution Design with Multiple Demands.”

Proceedings of Specialty Conference on Computer Application in Water Resources, ASCE,

New York, pp. 582-590.

17. Rossman, L.A. (2000). “EPANET, User’s Manual.” Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

18. Savic, D.A. and Walters, G.A. (1997). “Genetic Algorithms for Least-cost Design of Water

Distribution Networks.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol.

123, No. 2, pp. 67-77.


34

19. Simpson, A.R., Dandy, G.C., and Murphy, L.J. (1994). “Genetic Algorithms Compared to

other Techniques for Pipe Optimization.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and

Management, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 4, pp. 423-443.

20. Walski, T.M., Chase, D.V., and Savic, D.A. (2001). “Water distribution modelling.” 1st Ed.,

Haested Press, New York.


35

APPENDIX A


36

APPENDIX A. 1 DESIGN DATA FOR SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Climatic and Agronomic data (New_locClim and CROPWAT)


37

*Peak crop water requirement used is 10.2mm/dec or 1.02mm/day


38

Engineering

1 A Irrigable Area ha 18

3 T Operation hours in a day hrs 6

4 S Set /day no 2

5 C Irrigation cycle (50 moves/3 x2 ) day 8

6 L1 Spacing between sprinklers m 12

7 L2 Spacing between hydrants m 60

8 q Discharge of each sprinkler m3/hr 0.55

10 w wind speed km/hr 5.4

11 Ea Application efficiency % 75

12 GAR Gross application rate mm/hr 3.8

13 V Max. Design velocity in main pipeline m/s 1.5

17 W Wetted diameter m 22.5

Results

1 a Area of each sprinkler (L1 × L1) m

2 144

2 q Discharge of each sprinkler (GAR × a) m3/hr 0.55

3 Nc Set cycle (S× C) no 16

4 Ns Number of sprinklers [Qs/q] no 72

5 Qs Design discharge for entire system * m3/hr 40

*Discharge Q of system= (1.02mm/day x 0.001m)/6 x A x 10,000

=30.6m3/hr

Q=30.6/0.75

Qs=40m3/hr


39

head losses estimation

1 Eh Highest elevation of land m 108

2 El lowest water level m 99

8 g acceleration due to gravity m2/sec 9.81

9 L total length of main pipeline * m 210

10 D Diameter of main pipeline mm 123.4

11 hr height of riser m 0.6

12 nl number of sprinklers on a lateral line no 12

13 dl Diameter of laterals mm 66

14 dr Diameter of risers mm 25

15 dn Diameter of sprinkler nozzle mm 2.8

16 l length of lateral line m 138

Results

main

pipe

1 v Max. velocity in pipeline (Qs/area of pipeline) m/s 1.5

2 hd dynamic losses along mainlines # m 13.5

3 hm minor loss (10% of hs and hd) m 2.25

4 hs static loss in system (Eh-El) m 9.00

head losses in laterals

1 ql discharge in lateral (q x n1) m

3/s 0.001833

2 hlat

dynamic loss in lateral [l(3.59× ql /148×

d^2.63

)^1.852

× 0.384× 0.77] m 0.09

Additional losses in risers

1 hriser

dynamic loss in riser (2.793× 10^-10

× hr ×

q^1.85

)/dr^4.87

m 0.26

2

h(stat. in

riser) static head loss in riser=height of riser( hr) m 0.6

losses in sprinkler head

1 hsprinkler head loss in sprinkler head (hn × 6) m 16.8


40

total head losses in entire system

1 H

Total Head loss in system (hd+hs+hlat+hriser+h (stat.

in riser)+hsprinkler +hm m 42.50

*The length of the supply line is 210 m (50 m from pumping station to field edge plus 150 m from

field edge to the middle of the field, plus 4 m for the road, plus 6 m to the first hydrant)

# Hazen-Williams equation

hf=L (3.59Q/Ch d^2.63)^1.852

hf= frictional losses (m)

Q= discharge (m/s)

Ch=Hazen-Williams coefficient (140 for smooth pipes)

L= length of pipe (m)

D=diameter of pipe (m)


41

APPENDIX A.2 SPRINKLER CHARACTERISTICS

Precipitation rate of sprinkler = 3.8mm/hr

Discharge of sprinkler = 0.55m3/hr

Emitter coefficient for sprinkler Nozzle 2.8mm pressure 3.0 bars or 30m

Q H Emitter coefficient

m3/hr m w.c.

0.45 20 0.101

0.5 25 0.100

0.55 30 0.100

0.59 35 0.100

0.63 40 0.100

0.100


42

APPENDIX A.3 PUMP CHARACTERISTICS


43

APPENDIX A.4 SIMULATED RESULTS FOR SPRINKLER NETWORK

Page 1 6/18/2011 9:40:03 PM

**********************************************************************

* E P A N E T *

* Hydraulic and Water Quality *

* Analysis for Pipe Networks *

* Version 2.0 *

**********************************************************************

Input File: 18 HA DRAWN SIMULATED.NET

Link - Node Table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID Node Node m mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 2 210 123.4

2 3 4 60 123.4

3 4 5 60 123.4

4 5 6 60 123.4

5 6 7 60 110.2

6 7 8 60 110.2

7 8 9 60 110.2

8 9 10 60 79.2

9 10 11 60 79.2

10 11 12 108 79.2

11 3 13 6 66

12 13 14 12 66

13 14 15 12 66

14 15 16 12 66

15 16 17 12 66

16 17 18 12 66

17 18 19 12 66

18 19 20 12 66

19 20 21 12 66

20 21 22 12 66

21 22 23 12 66

22 47 46 12 66

23 46 45 12 66

24 45 44 12 66

25 44 43 12 66

26 43 42 12 66

27 42 41 12 66

28 41 40 12 66

29 40 39 12 66

30 39 38 12 66

31 38 37 12 66

32 37 36 12 66

33 36 6 6 66

34 6 24 6 66

35 24 25 12 66

36 25 26 12 66

37 26 27 12 66


44

Page 2

Link - Node Table: (continued)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID Node Node m mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

38 27 28 12 66

39 28 29 12 66

40 29 30 12 66

41 30 31 12 66

42 31 32 12 66

43 32 33 12 66

44 33 34 12 66

45 34 35 12 66

46 71 70 12 66

47 70 69 12 66

48 69 68 12 66

49 68 67 12 66

50 67 66 12 66

51 66 65 12 66

52 65 64 12 66

53 64 63 12 66

54 63 62 12 66

55 62 61 12 66

56 61 60 12 66

57 60 9 6 66

58 9 48 6 66

59 48 49 12 66

60 49 50 12 66

61 50 51 12 66

62 51 52 12 66

63 52 53 12 66

64 53 54 12 66

65 54 55 12 66

66 55 56 12 66

67 56 57 12 66

68 57 58 12 66

69 58 59 12 66

70 83 82 12 66

71 82 81 12 66

72 81 80 12 66

73 80 79 12 66

74 79 78 12 66

75 78 76 12 66

76 76 75 12 66

77 75 74 12 66

78 74 73 12 66

79 73 72 12 66

80 72 12 6 66

83 83 85 12 66

84 23 77 12 66

85 85 86 12 66

81 84 1 #N/A #N/A Pump


45

Page 3


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID Node Node m mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

82 2 3 #N/A 123.4 Valve

Energy Usage:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Pump Factor Effic. /m3 Kw Kw /day

----------------------------------------------------------------------

81 100.00 75.00 0.17 7.61 7.61 14.62

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand Charge: 0.00

Total Cost: 14.62

Node Results:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Node Demand Head Pressure Quality

ID CMH m m

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0.00 146.53 46.53 0.00

2 0.00 144.70 40.70 0.00

3 0.00 144.70 39.70 0.00

4 0.00 144.33 39.13 0.00

5 0.00 143.96 38.56 0.00

6 0.00 143.60 37.60 0.00

7 0.00 143.35 37.15 0.00

8 0.00 143.10 36.70 0.00

9 0.00 142.85 35.85 0.00

10 0.00 142.68 35.48 0.00

11 0.00 142.50 35.10 0.00

12 0.00 142.19 34.19 0.00

13 0.63 144.66 39.66 0.00

14 0.63 144.59 39.59 0.00

15 0.63 144.53 39.53 0.00

16 0.63 144.48 39.48 0.00

17 0.63 144.44 39.44 0.00

18 0.63 144.41 39.41 0.00

19 0.63 144.39 39.39 0.00

20 0.63 144.37 39.37 0.00

21 0.63 144.36 39.36 0.00

22 0.63 144.35 39.35 0.00

23 0.63 144.35 39.35 0.00

24 0.61 143.56 37.56 0.00

25 0.61 143.49 37.49 0.00

26 0.61 143.43 37.43 0.00

27 0.61 143.39 37.39 0.00

28 0.61 143.35 37.35 0.00

29 0.61 143.32 37.32 0.00

30 0.61 143.30 37.30 0.00


46

Page 4

Node Results: (continued)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m m

----------------------------------------------------------------------

31 0.61 143.28 37.28 0.00

32 0.61 143.27 37.27 0.00

33 0.61 143.27 37.27 0.00

34 0.61 143.26 37.26 0.00

35 0.61 143.26 37.26 0.00

36 0.61 143.56 37.56 0.00

37 0.61 143.49 37.49 0.00

38 0.61 143.43 37.43 0.00

39 0.61 143.39 37.39 0.00

40 0.61 143.35 37.35 0.00

41 0.61 143.32 37.32 0.00

42 0.61 143.30 37.30 0.00

43 0.61 143.28 37.28 0.00

44 0.61 143.27 37.27 0.00

45 0.61 143.27 37.27 0.00

46 0.61 143.26 37.26 0.00

47 0.61 143.26 37.26 0.00

48 0.60 142.81 35.81 0.00

49 0.60 142.75 35.75 0.00

50 0.60 142.70 35.70 0.00

51 0.60 142.65 35.65 0.00

52 0.60 142.62 35.62 0.00

53 0.60 142.59 35.59 0.00

54 0.60 142.57 35.57 0.00

55 0.60 142.55 35.55 0.00

56 0.60 142.54 35.54 0.00

57 0.60 142.54 35.54 0.00

58 0.60 142.53 35.53 0.00

59 0.60 142.53 35.53 0.00

60 0.60 142.81 35.81 0.00

61 0.60 142.75 35.75 0.00

62 0.60 142.70 35.70 0.00

63 0.60 142.65 35.65 0.00

64 0.60 142.62 35.62 0.00

65 0.60 142.59 35.59 0.00

66 0.60 142.57 35.57 0.00

67 0.60 142.55 35.55 0.00

68 0.60 142.54 35.54 0.00

69 0.60 142.54 35.54 0.00

70 0.60 142.53 35.53 0.00

71 0.60 142.53 35.53 0.00

72 0.58 142.15 34.15 0.00

73 0.58 142.08 34.08 0.00

74 0.58 142.01 34.01 0.00

75 0.58 141.96 33.96 0.00

76 0.58 141.92 33.92 0.00

78 0.58 141.88 33.88 0.00


47

Page 5


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m m

----------------------------------------------------------------------

79 0.58 141.86 33.86 0.00

80 0.58 141.84 33.84 0.00

81 0.58 141.82 33.82 0.00

82 0.58 141.81 33.81 0.00

83 0.58 141.81 33.81 0.00

85 0.58 141.81 33.81 0.00

77 0.63 144.35 39.35 0.00

86 0.61 141.80 36.80 0.00

84 -44.12 99.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir

Link Results:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status

ID CMH m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 44.12 1.02 8.69 Open

2 36.58 0.85 6.15 Open

3 36.58 0.85 6.15 Open

4 36.58 0.85 6.15 Open

5 21.92 0.64 4.13 Open

6 21.92 0.64 4.13 Open

7 21.92 0.64 4.13 Open

8 7.59 0.43 2.90 Open

9 7.59 0.43 2.90 Open

10 7.59 0.43 2.90 Open

11 7.54 0.61 6.94 Open

12 6.91 0.56 5.91 Open

13 6.28 0.51 4.95 Open

14 5.65 0.46 4.07 Open

15 5.02 0.41 3.27 Open

16 4.39 0.36 2.55 Open

17 3.76 0.31 1.92 Open

18 3.14 0.25 1.37 Open

19 2.51 0.20 0.91 Open

20 1.88 0.15 0.53 Open

21 1.25 0.10 0.25 Open

22 -0.61 0.05 0.07 Open

23 -1.22 0.10 0.24 Open

24 -1.83 0.15 0.51 Open

25 -2.44 0.20 0.86 Open

26 -3.05 0.25 1.30 Open

27 -3.66 0.30 1.83 Open

28 -4.27 0.35 2.43 Open

29 -4.89 0.40 3.11 Open

30 -5.50 0.45 3.87 Open

31 -6.11 0.50 4.71 Open

32 -6.72 0.55 5.62 Open


48

Page 6

Link Results: (continued)

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

33 -7.33 0.60 6.60 Open

34 7.33 0.60 6.60 Open

35 6.72 0.55 5.62 Open

36 6.11 0.50 4.71 Open

37 5.50 0.45 3.87 Open

38 4.89 0.40 3.11 Open

39 4.27 0.35 2.43 Open

40 3.66 0.30 1.83 Open

41 3.05 0.25 1.30 Open

42 2.44 0.20 0.86 Open

43 1.83 0.15 0.51 Open

44 1.22 0.10 0.24 Open

45 0.61 0.05 0.07 Open

46 -0.60 0.05 0.06 Open

47 -1.19 0.10 0.23 Open

48 -1.79 0.15 0.48 Open

49 -2.38 0.19 0.82 Open

50 -2.98 0.24 1.25 Open

51 -3.58 0.29 1.75 Open

52 -4.17 0.34 2.32 Open

53 -4.77 0.39 2.98 Open

54 -5.37 0.44 3.70 Open

55 -5.97 0.48 4.50 Open

56 -6.56 0.53 5.37 Open

57 -7.16 0.58 6.32 Open

58 7.16 0.58 6.32 Open

59 6.56 0.53 5.37 Open

60 5.97 0.48 4.50 Open

61 5.37 0.44 3.70 Open

62 4.77 0.39 2.98 Open

63 4.17 0.34 2.32 Open

64 3.58 0.29 1.75 Open

65 2.98 0.24 1.25 Open

66 2.38 0.19 0.82 Open

67 1.79 0.15 0.48 Open

68 1.19 0.10 0.23 Open

69 0.60 0.05 0.06 Open

70 -1.77 0.14 0.47 Open

71 -2.35 0.19 0.80 Open

72 -2.93 0.24 1.21 Open

73 -3.51 0.29 1.69 Open

74 -4.10 0.33 2.25 Open

75 -4.68 0.38 2.87 Open

76 -5.26 0.43 3.57 Open

77 -5.84 0.47 4.34 Open

78 -6.43 0.52 5.17 Open

79 -7.01 0.57 6.07 Open


49

Page 7


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

80 -7.59 0.62 7.04 Open

83 1.19 0.10 0.23 Open

84 0.63 0.05 0.07 Open

85 0.61 0.05 0.07 Open

81 44.12 0.00 -47.53 Open Pump

82 44.12 1.02 0.00 Active Valve


50

APPENDIX A.5 CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SPRINKLER NETWORK

Page 1 6/18/2011 10:21:25 PM

**********************************************************************

* E P A N E T *



* Version 2.0 *

**********************************************************************

Input File: 18 HA DRAWN CALCULATED.NET

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID Node Node m mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 1 2 210 123.4

2 3 4 60 110.2

3 4 5 60 110.2

4 5 6 60 110.2

5 6 7 60 96.8

6 7 8 60 96.8

7 8 9 60 96.8

8 9 10 60 55.4

9 10 11 60 55.4

10 11 12 108 55.4

11 3 13 6 44

12 13 14 12 44

13 14 15 12 44

14 15 16 12 44

15 16 17 12 44

16 17 18 12 44

17 18 19 12 44

18 19 20 12 44

19 20 21 12 44

20 21 22 12 44

21 22 23 12 44

22 47 46 12 44

23 46 45 12 44

24 45 44 12 44

25 44 43 12 44

26 43 42 12 44

27 42 41 12 44

28 41 40 12 44

29 40 39 12 44

30 39 38 12 44

31 38 37 12 44

32 37 36 12 44

33 36 6 6 44

34 6 24 6 44

35 24 25 12 44

36 25 26 12 44

37 26 27 12 44


51

Page 2


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID Node Node m mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

38 27 28 12 44

39 28 29 12 44

40 29 30 12 44

41 30 31 12 44

42 31 32 12 44

43 32 33 12 44

44 33 34 12 44

45 34 35 12 44

46 71 70 12 44

47 70 69 12 44

48 69 68 12 44

49 68 67 12 44

50 67 66 12 44

51 66 65 12 44

52 65 64 12 44

53 64 63 12 44

54 63 62 12 44

55 62 61 12 44

56 61 60 12 44

57 60 9 6 44

58 9 48 6 44

59 48 49 12 44

60 49 50 12 44

61 50 51 12 44

62 51 52 12 44

63 52 53 12 44

64 53 54 12 44

65 54 55 12 44

66 55 56 12 44

67 56 57 12 44

68 57 58 12 44

69 58 59 12 44

70 83 82 12 44

71 82 81 12 44

72 81 80 12 44

73 80 79 12 44

74 79 78 12 44

75 78 76 12 44

76 76 75 12 44

77 75 74 12 44

78 74 73 12 44

79 73 72 12 44

80 72 12 6 44

83 83 85 12 44

84 23 77 12 44

85 85 86 12 44

81 84 1 #N/A #N/A Pump


52

Page 3


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID Node Node m mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

82 2 3 #N/A 123.4 Valve

Energy Usage:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------

81 100.00 75.00 0.18 7.52 7.52 14.43

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand Charge: 0.00

Total Cost: 14.43

Node Results:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m m

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0.00 147.27 47.27 0.00

2 0.00 145.53 41.53 0.00

3 0.00 145.53 40.53 0.00

4 0.00 144.93 39.73 0.00

5 0.00 144.33 38.93 0.00

6 0.00 143.73 37.73 0.00

7 0.00 143.30 37.10 0.00

8 0.00 142.86 36.46 0.00

9 0.00 142.43 35.43 0.00

10 0.00 141.56 34.36 0.00

11 0.00 140.70 33.30 0.00

12 0.00 139.13 31.13 0.00

13 0.63 145.24 40.24 0.00

14 0.63 144.74 39.74 0.00

15 0.63 144.32 39.32 0.00

16 0.62 143.98 38.98 0.00

17 0.62 143.70 38.70 0.00

18 0.62 143.49 38.49 0.00

19 0.62 143.33 38.33 0.00

20 0.62 143.21 38.21 0.00

21 0.62 143.13 38.13 0.00

22 0.62 143.09 38.09 0.00

23 0.62 143.07 38.07 0.00

24 0.61 143.45 37.45 0.00

25 0.61 142.98 36.98 0.00

26 0.60 142.59 36.59 0.00

27 0.60 142.27 36.27 0.00

28 0.60 142.01 36.01 0.00

29 0.60 141.81 35.81 0.00

30 0.60 141.66 35.66 0.00


53

Page 4


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m m

----------------------------------------------------------------------

31 0.60 141.55 35.55 0.00

32 0.60 141.48 35.48 0.00

33 0.60 141.44 35.44 0.00

34 0.60 141.42 35.42 0.00

35 0.60 141.41 35.41 0.00

36 0.61 143.45 37.45 0.00

37 0.61 142.98 36.98 0.00

38 0.60 142.59 36.59 0.00

39 0.60 142.27 36.27 0.00

40 0.60 142.01 36.01 0.00

41 0.60 141.81 35.81 0.00

42 0.60 141.66 35.66 0.00

43 0.60 141.55 35.55 0.00

44 0.60 141.48 35.48 0.00

45 0.60 141.44 35.44 0.00

46 0.60 141.42 35.42 0.00

47 0.60 141.41 35.41 0.00

48 0.59 142.17 35.17 0.00

49 0.59 141.73 34.73 0.00

50 0.59 141.36 34.36 0.00

51 0.58 141.06 34.06 0.00

52 0.58 140.82 33.82 0.00

53 0.58 140.63 33.63 0.00

54 0.58 140.48 33.48 0.00

55 0.58 140.38 33.38 0.00

56 0.58 140.32 33.32 0.00

57 0.58 140.28 33.28 0.00

58 0.58 140.26 33.26 0.00

59 0.58 140.25 33.25 0.00

60 0.59 142.17 35.17 0.00

61 0.59 141.73 34.73 0.00

62 0.59 141.36 34.36 0.00

63 0.58 141.06 34.06 0.00

64 0.58 140.82 33.82 0.00

65 0.58 140.63 33.63 0.00

66 0.58 140.48 33.48 0.00

67 0.58 140.38 33.38 0.00

68 0.58 140.32 33.32 0.00

69 0.58 140.28 33.28 0.00

70 0.58 140.26 33.26 0.00

71 0.58 140.25 33.25 0.00

72 0.56 138.87 30.87 0.00

73 0.55 138.41 30.41 0.00

74 0.55 138.02 30.02 0.00

75 0.54 137.70 29.70 0.00

76 0.54 137.43 29.43 0.00

78 0.54 137.21 29.21 0.00


54

Page 5


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m m

----------------------------------------------------------------------

79 0.54 137.05 29.05 0.00

80 0.54 136.92 28.92 0.00

81 0.54 136.83 28.83 0.00

82 0.54 136.77 28.77 0.00

83 0.54 136.73 28.73 0.00

85 0.54 136.72 28.72 0.00

77 0.62 143.06 38.06 0.00

86 0.56 136.71 31.71 0.00

84 -42.89 99.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir

Link Results:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 42.89 1.00 8.25 Open

2 35.42 1.03 10.05 Open

3 35.42 1.03 10.05 Open

4 35.42 1.03 10.05 Open

5 21.02 0.79 7.19 Open

6 21.02 0.79 7.19 Open

7 21.02 0.79 7.19 Open

8 7.07 0.81 14.47 Open

9 7.07 0.81 14.47 Open

10 7.07 0.81 14.47 Open

11 7.46 1.36 49.17 Open

12 6.83 1.25 41.71 Open

13 6.20 1.13 34.86 Open

14 5.57 1.02 28.62 Open

15 4.95 0.90 22.96 Open

16 4.33 0.79 17.90 Open

17 3.71 0.68 13.44 Open

18 3.09 0.56 9.58 Open

19 2.47 0.45 6.33 Open

20 1.85 0.34 3.72 Open

21 1.23 0.23 1.75 Open

22 -0.60 0.11 0.46 Open

23 -1.19 0.22 1.64 Open

24 -1.79 0.33 3.48 Open

25 -2.38 0.44 5.93 Open

26 -2.98 0.54 8.96 Open

27 -3.57 0.65 12.57 Open

28 -4.17 0.76 16.75 Open

29 -4.77 0.87 21.48 Open

30 -5.38 0.98 26.77 Open

31 -5.98 1.09 32.61 Open

32 -6.59 1.20 39.02 Open


55

Page 6


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

33 -7.20 1.32 46.00 Open

34 7.20 1.32 46.00 Open

35 6.59 1.20 39.02 Open

36 5.98 1.09 32.61 Open

37 5.38 0.98 26.77 Open

38 4.77 0.87 21.48 Open

39 4.17 0.76 16.75 Open

40 3.57 0.65 12.57 Open

41 2.98 0.54 8.96 Open

42 2.38 0.44 5.93 Open

43 1.79 0.33 3.48 Open

44 1.19 0.22 1.64 Open

45 0.60 0.11 0.46 Open

46 -0.58 0.11 0.43 Open

47 -1.15 0.21 1.55 Open

48 -1.73 0.32 3.28 Open

49 -2.31 0.42 5.59 Open

50 -2.89 0.53 8.46 Open

51 -3.46 0.63 11.86 Open

52 -4.04 0.74 15.80 Open

53 -4.63 0.84 20.26 Open

54 -5.21 0.95 25.25 Open

55 -5.79 1.06 30.76 Open

56 -6.38 1.17 36.81 Open

57 -6.98 1.27 43.39 Open

58 6.98 1.27 43.39 Open

59 6.38 1.17 36.81 Open

60 5.79 1.06 30.76 Open

61 5.21 0.95 25.25 Open

62 4.63 0.84 20.26 Open

63 4.04 0.74 15.80 Open

64 3.46 0.63 11.86 Open

65 2.89 0.53 8.46 Open

66 2.31 0.42 5.59 Open

67 1.73 0.32 3.28 Open

68 1.15 0.21 1.55 Open

69 0.58 0.11 0.43 Open

70 -1.64 0.30 2.95 Open

71 -2.17 0.40 5.00 Open

72 -2.71 0.49 7.52 Open

73 -3.25 0.59 10.52 Open

74 -3.79 0.69 13.98 Open

75 -4.33 0.79 17.90 Open

76 -4.87 0.89 22.28 Open

77 -5.41 0.99 27.11 Open

78 -5.96 1.09 32.42 Open

79 -6.51 1.19 38.19 Open


56

Page 7


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID CMH m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

80 -7.07 1.29 44.44 Open

83 1.10 0.20 1.42 Open

84 0.62 0.11 0.49 Open

85 0.56 0.10 0.41 Open

81 42.89 0.00 -48.27 Open Pump

82 42.89 1.00 0.00 Active Valve


57


58

APPENDIX B


59

APPENDIX B.1 EPANET INPUT FILE

[TITLE]

REAL IRRIGATION NETWORK

[JUNCTIONS]

;ID Elev Demand Pattern

J1 79 0 ;

J2 80 0 ;

J3 80.5 0 ;

J4 81 2.1 ;

J5 82 2.1 ;

J6 82.5 2.1 ;

J7 83 2.1 ;

J8 84 2.1 ;

J9 85 2.1 ;

J10 87 2.1 ;

J11 89 2.1 ;

J12 90 2.1 ;

J13 91 2.1 ;

J17 82 0 ;

J18 84 2.1 ;

J19 85 2.1 ;

J20 86 2.1 ;

J21 87 2.1 ;

J22 89.5 2.1 ;

J23 90 2.1 ;

J24 90.5 2.1 ;

J25 91 2.1 ;

J26 91.5 2.1 ;

J27 92 2.1 ;

[RESERVOIRS]

;ID Head Pattern

1 79 ;

[TANKS]

;ID Elevation InitLevel MinLevel

MaxLevel Diameter MinVol VolCurve

[PIPES]

;ID Node1 Node2 Length

Diameter Roughness MinorLoss Status

P1 J1 J2 152 200

140 0 Open ;

P2 J2 J3 125 150

140 0 Open ;

P3 J3 J4 105 150

140 0 Open ;

P4 J4 J5 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P5 J5 J6 75 150

140 0 Open ;


60

P6 J6 J7 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P7 J7 J8 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P8 J8 J9 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P9 J9 J10 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P10 J10 J11 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P11 J11 J12 75 100

140 0 Open ;

P12 J12 J13 75 100

140 0 Open ;

P16 J2 J17 125 150

140 0 Open ;

P17 J17 J18 105 150

140 0 Open ;

P18 J18 J19 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P19 J19 J20 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P20 J20 J21 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P21 J21 J22 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P22 J22 J23 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P23 J23 J24 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P24 J24 J25 75 150

140 0 Open ;

P25 J25 J26 75 100

140 0 Open ;

P26 J26 J27 75 100

140 0 Open ;

[PUMPS]

;ID Node1 Node2 Parameters

1 1 J1 HEAD 1 ;

[VALVES]

;ID Node1 Node2 Diameter Type

Setting MinorLoss

[TAGS]

[DEMANDS]

;Junction Demand Pattern Category

[STATUS]

;ID Status/Setting

[PATTERNS]


61

;ID Multipliers

[CURVES]

;ID X-Value Y-Value

;PUMP:

1 42 31

;PUMP:

2 42 15

[CONTROLS]

[RULES]

[ENERGY]

Global Efficiency 75

Global Price 0

Demand Charge 0

[EMITTERS]

;Junction Coefficient

[QUALITY]

;Node InitQual

[SOURCES]

;Node Type Quality Pattern

[REACTIONS]

;Type Pipe/Tank Coefficient

[REACTIONS]

Order Bulk 1

Order Tank 1

Order Wall 1

Global Bulk 0

Global Wall 0

Limiting Potential 0

Roughness Correlation 0

[MIXING]

;Tank Model

[TIMES]

Duration 0

Hydraulic Timestep 1:00

Quality Timestep 0:05

Pattern Timestep 1:00

Pattern Start 0:00

Report Timestep 1:00

Report Start 0:00

Start ClockTime 12 am

Statistic None


62

[REPORT]

Status No

Summary No

Page 0

[OPTIONS]

Units LPS

Headloss H-W

Specific Gravity 1

Viscosity 1

Trials 40

Accuracy 0.001

CHECKFREQ 2

MAXCHECK 10

DAMPLIMIT 0

Unbalanced Continue 10

Pattern 1

Demand Multiplier 1.0

Emitter Exponent 0.5

Quality None mg/L

Diffusivity 1

Tolerance 0.01

[COORDINATES]

;Node X-Coord Y-Coord

J1 1432.20 6610.17

J2 3008.47 6610.17

J3 3008.47 5338.98

J4 3008.47 4135.59

J5 3652.54 4135.59

J6 4279.66 4135.59

J7 4872.88 4135.59

J8 5449.15 4135.59

J9 6025.42 4135.59

J10 6584.75 4135.59

J11 7127.12 4135.59

J12 7686.44 4135.59

J13 8228.81 4135.59

J17 3007.04 7828.50

J18 3007.04 8929.19

J19 3619.79 8929.19

J20 4232.55 8929.19

J21 4788.57 8929.19

J22 5424.02 8929.19

J23 6002.73 8929.19

J24 6524.71 8929.19

J25 7023.99 8929.19

J26 7614.05 8929.19

J27 8238.15 8929.19

1 136.17 6602.99

[VERTICES]

;Link X-Coord Y-Coord


63

[LABELS]

;X-Coord Y-Coord Label & Anchor Node

-339.01 6289.11 "RESERVOIR"

5008.47 9406.78 "Hydrants "

5151.68 3890.98 "Hydrants"

680.84 7000.14 "PUMP"

[BACKDROP]

DIMENSIONS 0.00 0.00 10000.00

10000.00

UNITS None

FILE

OFFSET 0.00 0.00

[END]

Climate Farm Irrigation Efficiency


64

APPENDIX B.2

RESULTS USING SUPPLIED PUMP

Page 1 6/13/2011 11:30:04 AM

**********************************************************************

* E P A N E T *



* Version 2.0 *

**********************************************************************

Input File: YAIPE.net

Link - Node Table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID Node Node m mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

P1 J1 J2 152 200

P2 J2 J3 125 150

P3 J3 J4 105 150

P4 J4 J5 75 150

P5 J5 J6 75 150

P6 J6 J7 75 150

P7 J7 J8 75 150

P8 J8 J9 75 150

P9 J9 J10 75 150

P10 J10 J11 75 150

P11 J11 J12 75 100

P12 J12 J13 75 100

P16 J2 J17 125 150

P17 J17 J18 105 150

P18 J18 J19 75 150

P19 J19 J20 75 150

P20 J20 J21 75 150

P21 J21 J22 75 150

P22 J22 J23 75 150

P23 J23 J24 75 150

P24 J24 J25 75 150

P25 J25 J26 75 100

P26 J26 J27 75 100

1 1 J1 #N/A #N/A Pump

Energy Usage:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 100.00 75.00 0.05 8.23 8.23 0.00

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand Charge: 0.00

Total Cost: 0.00


65

Page 2

Node Results:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID LPS m m

----------------------------------------------------------------------

J1 0.00 94.00 15.00 0.00

J2 0.00 92.77 12.77 0.00

J3 0.00 91.63 11.13 0.00

J4 2.10 90.67 9.67 0.00

J5 2.10 90.11 8.11 0.00

J6 2.10 89.66 7.16 0.00

J7 2.10 89.31 6.31 0.00

J8 2.10 89.04 5.04 0.00

J9 2.10 88.85 3.85 0.00

J10 2.10 88.73 1.73 0.00

J11 2.10 88.65 -0.35 0.00

J12 2.10 88.40 -1.60 0.00

J13 2.10 88.34 -2.66 0.00

J17 0.00 91.63 9.63 0.00

J18 2.10 90.67 6.67 0.00

J19 2.10 90.11 5.11 0.00

J20 2.10 89.66 3.66 0.00

J21 2.10 89.31 2.31 0.00

J22 2.10 89.04 -0.46 0.00

J23 2.10 88.85 -1.15 0.00

J24 2.10 88.73 -1.77 0.00

J25 2.10 88.65 -2.35 0.00

J26 2.10 88.40 -3.10 0.00

J27 2.10 88.34 -3.66 0.00

1 -42.00 79.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir

Link Results:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID LPS m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

P1 42.00 1.34 8.10 Open

P2 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open

P3 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open

P4 18.90 1.07 7.49 Open

P5 16.80 0.95 6.02 Open

P6 14.70 0.83 4.70 Open

P7 12.60 0.71 3.54 Open

P8 10.50 0.59 2.52 Open

P9 8.40 0.48 1.67 Open

P10 6.30 0.36 0.98 Open

P11 4.20 0.53 3.33 Open

P12 2.10 0.27 0.92 Open

P16 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open

P17 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open

P18 18.90 1.07 7.49 Open

P19 16.80 0.95 6.02 Open


66

Page 3


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID LPS m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

P20 14.70 0.83 4.70 Open

P21 12.60 0.71 3.54 Open

P22 10.50 0.59 2.52 Open

P23 8.40 0.48 1.67 Open

P24 6.30 0.36 0.98 Open

P25 4.20 0.53 3.33 Open

P26 2.10 0.27 0.92 Open

1 42.00 0.00 -15.00 Open Pump


67

APPENDIX B.3

RESULTS USING SPECIFIED PUMP

Page 1 6/13/2011 11:07:43 AM

**********************************************************************

* E P A N E T *



* Version 2.0 *

**********************************************************************

Input File: YAIPE.net

Link - Node Table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID Node Node m mm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

P1 J1 J2 152 200

P2 J2 J3 125 150

P3 J3 J4 105 150

P4 J4 J5 75 150

P5 J5 J6 75 150

P6 J6 J7 75 150

P7 J7 J8 75 150

P8 J8 J9 75 150

P9 J9 J10 75 150

P10 J10 J11 75 150

P11 J11 J12 75 100

P12 J12 J13 75 100

P16 J2 J17 125 150

P17 J17 J18 105 150

P18 J18 J19 75 150

P19 J19 J20 75 150

P20 J20 J21 75 150

P21 J21 J22 75 150

P22 J22 J23 75 150

P23 J23 J24 75 150

P24 J24 J25 75 150

P25 J25 J26 75 100

P26 J26 J27 75 100

1 1 J1 #N/A #N/A Pump

Energy Usage:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 100.00 75.00 0.11 17.02 17.02 0.00

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand Charge: 0.00

Total Cost: 0.00


68

Page 2

Node Results:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID LPS m m

----------------------------------------------------------------------

J1 0.00 110.00 31.00 0.00

J2 0.00 108.77 28.77 0.00

J3 0.00 107.63 27.13 0.00

J4 2.10 106.67 25.67 0.00

J5 2.10 106.11 24.11 0.00

J6 2.10 105.66 23.16 0.00

J7 2.10 105.31 22.31 0.00

J8 2.10 105.04 21.04 0.00

J9 2.10 104.85 19.85 0.00

J10 2.10 104.73 17.73 0.00

J11 2.10 104.65 15.65 0.00

J12 2.10 104.40 14.40 0.00

J13 2.10 104.34 13.34 0.00

J17 0.00 107.63 25.63 0.00

J18 2.10 106.67 22.67 0.00

J19 2.10 106.11 21.11 0.00

J20 2.10 105.66 19.66 0.00

J21 2.10 105.31 18.31 0.00

J22 2.10 105.04 15.54 0.00

J23 2.10 104.85 14.85 0.00

J24 2.10 104.73 14.23 0.00

J25 2.10 104.65 13.65 0.00

J26 2.10 104.40 12.90 0.00

J27 2.10 104.34 12.34 0.00

1 -42.00 79.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir

Link Results:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID LPS m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

P1 42.00 1.34 8.10 Open

P2 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open

P3 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open

P4 18.90 1.07 7.49 Open

P5 16.80 0.95 6.02 Open

P6 14.70 0.83 4.70 Open

P7 12.60 0.71 3.54 Open

P8 10.50 0.59 2.52 Open

P9 8.40 0.48 1.67 Open

P10 6.30 0.36 0.98 Open

P11 4.20 0.53 3.33 Open

P12 2.10 0.27 0.92 Open

P16 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open

P17 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open

P18 18.90 1.07 7.49 Open

P19 16.80 0.95 6.02 Open


69

Page 3


----------------------------------------------------------------------


ID LPS m/s m/km

----------------------------------------------------------------------

P20 14.70 0.83 4.70 Open

P21 12.60 0.71 3.54 Open

P22 10.50 0.59 2.52 Open

P23 8.40 0.48 1.67 Open

P24 6.30 0.36 0.98 Open

P25 4.20 0.53 3.33 Open

P26 2.10 0.27 0.92 Open

1 42.00 0.00 -31.00 Open Pump

Documents

Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For