Studying the Behavior of Traditional Drip Irrigation Emitter (Built in) at

Low Pressure

Dr. Taj Ali Khan a, and Engr Muhammad Nasir Jamal b

a
Professor, Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology

Peshawar. Pakistan.

b
Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar.

Pakistan. email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Study was conducted to investigate the behavior of conventional drip irrigation laterals with
built in drippers at low pressure. In laboratory emitter and discharge exponent were
calculate and emitter curve was developed. Drip irrigation systems for three different low
constant head (1.064, 0.798 and 0.5313 meter) were designed using this emitter curve.
System was installed in the field as designed. Constant head during experiments was
maintained with the help of float valve installed in the water tank, connected to external
water source. Emitters flow was recorded at three operating heads, emitter and discharge
exponent were calculated and emitter curve was drawn. Emitter curves at conventional and
low pressures were compared and it is concluded that conventional drip irrigation emitter
changes its behavior (emitter curve and nature of flow) at low pressure and its necessary to
develop emitter curve of conventional drip irrigation system emitters at low pressure before
its use.
Key Words: Low pressure, Emitters, Emitter curve, laterals, Uniformity coefficient.

1. INRODUCTION
Drip irrigation is a localized irrigation system which slowly and frequently applied irrigation
water into the root zone of plants. Drip Irrigation is further sub divided into many forms, like
Spray, Micro Jet, Mini Sprinkler, Bubbler and Low Pressure Drip Irrigation system.
Conventional drip systems are very costly to install and operate. These systems are even
more expensive for small land owners especially in developing countries, and are very
difficult to fit to the needs of small fields. (Belder et al, 2007).
Under such circumstance low pressure drip irrigation system can be a very good solution. In
these systems water source are elevated above field level by 1 to 1.5 m to provide the
required head for the operation of the system, thus eliminating the pump and its initial and
running cost (Belder et al, 2007) also this system has been proven to be the best system for
small land holders and it even work very well with saline water (Karlberg et al, 2007). The
main aim of such system is to enable small farmers to use less water with high efficiency and
introduce kitchen gardens for food production also it is strongly recommended by FAO to
allow small farmers to improve their livelihood (FAO, 2007). This system will results in
minimizing initial and running cost, reduce energy cost, and will require low maintenance.

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
Research was conducted in University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan to
investigate behavior of traditional drip irrigation emitter (Built in) at low pressure with
following objectives:
1. To develop emitter curve of traditional drip irrigation emitter at conventional
pressure.
2. To design and install low pressure drip irrigation system in field using conventional
drip irrigation lateral with built in emitters.
3. To develop emitter curve of the said system at low pressure.
4. To compare both emitter curves.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pereira, (1999) described that discharge of emitter is given by following equation:
Q  kp x (1)
Where
Q = Discharge of emitter (LPH)
k = emitter discharge coefficient (Unit less)
p = Nozzle Pressure (m)
x = emitter exponent (Unit less)
Emitter Exponent is the measure of change in emitter discharge with respect to correspondent
change in pressure. Its value ranges from 0 to 1. It also defines the characteristic of flow from
an emitter and is given by (Keller and Bliesner. 1990):
x  logQ1 / Q2 / log p1 / p2  (2)
Where
Q1 and Q2 are emitter discharges at pressures p1 and p2 respectively. Table 1 shows
classification of emitter flow on the bases of emitter exponent.
Through out laminar and unstable flow regime, flow will be a function of water temperature
and pressure head (Keller & Karmeli, 1974). Relation ship between discharge and friction
losses is linear in laminar flow and parabolic in turbulent flow (Yaron et al, 1973). The lower
the value of x, the less discharge will be affected by variation in pressure.
Each emitter is characterized by a constant of proportionality called coefficient of discharge.
It’s a unit less number, provided by manufacturer. If not provided or if this data is lost, it can
be calculated using following equation (Keller and Bliesner. 1990):
Q
k (3)
px

2.1 Calculating Friction Losses in Drip Irrigation System

Following equations are adopted from Yildirim, (2010) which are based on Darcy Weisbach
formula, which has been proven to be more accurate for calculating friction losses in drip
irrigation lateral as compared to other available formulas.

2.1.1 Calculating Total Friction Losses in Lateral Lines with Inline & Online Emitters
Total friction losses of lateral lines include the following. See Fig 1

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
Friction loss through inline emitter path can be given by:
 N 

H fe  KLg Qn1.75 / Dg4.75   i 1.75   (4)
 i 1 
Where
 
K  c v 0.25 / 2 g 4 /  
1.75
(5)
c = 0.316 for Blasius Formula
v = Kinematic Viscosity of water = 1.01 x 10 -6 (m2 s-1)
g = Acceleration due to Gravity (m/s2)
K = 7.792 x 10-4 for c = 0.316 and
K = 7.447 x 10-4 for c = 0.302
Lg = Longitudinal length of integrated inline emitter (m)
Qn = Nominal flow rate which assume equal to the average value of emitter flow
(m3/hr)
Dg = Internal diameter of an integrated inline emitter (m)
i = an integer represent consecutive number of emitter.
N = Total number of emitters in a lateral

Local energy losses due to presence of integrated inline/online emitter within a lateral
are given by:
 N 1 
 
H l   8 /  2 g Qn2 / Di4   i 2  (6) 
 i 1 
Where
 = Local loss coefficient due to both contraction and enlargement.
= 
0.056 Di / Dg  1
17.83
 (7)
Di = Internal diameter of lateral pipe (m)

Major energy loss along a lateral pipe can be given by:

For inline emitter:
KQn1.75 S  Lg  N 1
H fp 
Di4.74
i
i 1
1.75
(8)

For online emitter equation (8) will become

KQn1.75 S  N 1 1.75 
H fp  i  (9)
Di4.74  i 1 
Where
S = Emitter location at an equal spacing. (m)
K = Same as define in Eq 5

2.1.2 Friction Loss Calculation in Submain

In submain friction losses are the sum of friction losses due to intrusion of grommet take off
(GTO) in submain (connection losses) and submain pipe between these connections. Both of

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
these friction losses can be calculated with eq (10) and (12) respectively, which are actually
eq (6) and (9) with changed subscripts:

4  
  
N 1
H sml   8 /  2 g Qlt2 / Dsmi i2  (10)
 i 1 


  0.056 Dsmi / Dsmg 17.83  1  (11)

KQlt1.75 S  N 1 1.75 
H fsmp  4.74
i  (12)
Dsmi  i 1 
where
Hsml = Local head loss in submain (m)
Qlt = Flow of single lateral (m3/hr)
Dsmi = Internal diameter of submain (m)
N = Number of laterals on submain.
i = an integer represent consecutive number of laterals.
Dsmg = (Dsmi) – (Depth of GTO in submain) (m)
S = Spacing between laterals on submain. (m)
K = Same as define in Eq (5)

2.1.3 Friction Loss Calculation in Main

Friction loss in main pipe can be calculated with eq (13) which is actually eq (9) with
modifications:
KQm1.75 S
H fmp  (13)
Dmi4.74
where
S = Length of main pipe (m)
Qm = Flow of main pipe (m3/hr)
Dmi = Internal diameter of main pipe (m)
K = Same as define in Eq 5

2.1.4 Minor Friction Losses

James, (1988), described following two equation for minor friction losses in the fittings of
drip irrigation.
kv2
Ml  (14)
2g
Where
Ml = Friction loss (m)
v = Flow velocity (m/s)
g = Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
k = Coefficient for different fittings, given in following table.
Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
 Description Entrance Tee Elbow Valve
k. 0.8 1.8 1.177 0.15
For sudden expansion following equation is used.
2
 v  v12
M l  1  2  (15)
 v1  2g
Where
Ml = Friction loss due to sudden expension (m)
v1 = Inlet flow velocity (m/s)
v2 = Outlet flow velocity (m/s)
g = Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)

2.2 Drip Irrigation Evaluation:

Christiansen Uniformity Coefficient
Camp et al (1997) Christiansen uniformity coefficient
Cu  1001  Qd / Qav  (16)
Where
Cu = uniformity coefficient
N

Q
i 1
i  Qm
Qd = mean absolute deviation from mean emitter flow = (17)
N
Qi = flow of individual emitter
N = total number of emitters
Qm = mean emitter flow

2.3 Design and Experimental Setup

uPVC pipe of 57mm internal diameter was used as main and submain. Total length of
submain was 10.06 m. On either side of main, length of submain was 5.03 m. See Fig 2. In
main head losses were calculated by eq (13), in submain with eq (10) and (12). Minor friction
losses were calculated with eq (14) and (15).
Low density polyethylene (LDPE) pipe, manufactured by Alpha Vishaka, India, 16 mm outer
diameter with integrated (inline) coaxial emitters 2 lph emboss at 40cm was selected as
lateral pipe. Specifications of integrated drip line were evaluated in machinery workshop at
Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar.
Discharge of emitters was recorded at two different pressures and then by using eq (2) and (3)
emitter exponent and discharge coefficient was calculated respectively. Results, based on
Table 1 are given in Table 2. Emitter curve for the said emitters is presented in Fig 3.
Internal diameter of the emitter and lateral pipe was calculated by measuring the volume of
water required to fill one emitter and piece of lateral pipe of known length. Table 3
summarizes the calculated specifications of drippers and lateral used in experiments.

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
Maximum lateral length was designed for maximum flow variation of only 2%. Following is
the design procedure adopted for maximum lateral length calculation.
First flow rate of emitter was calculated using eq (1) for p = 1 m. Friction losses due to flow
through emitter body, emitter connection, LDPE pipe and emitter presence for the said flow
was calculated using eq (4), (6) and (8) respectively, for certain length of lateral. By hit and
trail procedure lateral length was calculated, for which total friction losses was equal to loss
which cause maximum flow variation of 2%. Above steps were repeated for p = 0.75 m and p
= 0.5m. Details of designed systems for different heads are given in Table 4.
In the field first of all inlet of water tank was fitted with float valve to maintain water at
constant level. Height of tank from bottom up to float level was 685.8 mm, further tank was
raised 381 mm above ground level, making total height of stable water surface 1064mm
(1.064m). The said tank was connected to overhead water tank through a flexible rubber pipe.
Another two holes were made for inlet at 798 and 531.3mm from ground level.
Main line was connected to submain from submain mid point through a valve and elbow.
Both ends of submain were blocked with end caps. Submain of 10.06 meter was laid and
holes for grommet were made at 0.9144m interval. At each hole, drilled in submain, GTO
was fixed and lateral of 28 meter long were connected to each GTO. Total number of laterals
was 12. For next two operating head of 0.798 and 0.5313 m, lateral length was 27.2 and 26m
respectively. Water tank was covered to avoid any algae growth and to protect water from
dust etc.
Following procedure was adopted for sampling flow rates at three different heads.
 For 1.06365m operating head emitter No. 2, 24, 47 and 71 were selected on lateral
No. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 starting from left side of water tank.
 For 0798m operating head emitter No. 2, 23, 46 and 69 were selected on lateral No. 2,
4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 starting from left side of water tank and
 For 0.5313m operating head emitter No. 2, 22, 44 and 66 were selected on lateral No.
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 starting from left side of water tank.
 After flushing, water was collected for five minutes in catch cans.
 Volume collected in each catch can was measured in graduated cylinder and data was
recorded.
 Three consecutive reading were taken with the same procedure and then average was
calculated.

3 Results and Discussions

3.1 Pressure Head Vs Flow Uniformity Parameter
Emitter discharge uniformity calculated with Christiansen Coefficient using Eq 16, shows
that at 0.798m system operating head CU was 90%, at 1.064m head, 90.3% and at 0.5313m
head, 87.1%. See Fig 4. Summary of results and system classifications are shown in Table 5.

3.2 Average Discharge of System Verses Pressure Head

Direct relationship between pressure and average flow of system was seen, i.e. an increase in
pressure head cause linear increase in emitter average flow. Difference between calculated
and actual flow was observed during field experiment. See Fig 5
The reason behind the situation was that in laboratory emitters were evaluated at 7.041m (10
psi) and 10.56m (15 psi). Emitter exponent and discharge coefficient was calculated based on
data obtained from said experiments. Estimated flow was calculated using these values of x

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
(0.425) and k (0.942). Same values calculated from actual field experiments were 0.7 (x) and
0.75 (k). This shows that conventional drip emitter perform differently at low pressure and
changes its state of flow, see Table 6. This means that conventional drip emitter may become
very sensitive to temperature and pressure at low pressure. This highlights the need for
estimating values of x and k at low pressures, if one wants to use conventional emitters at low
pressures.

3.3 Emitter Curve

As described earlier difference between values of x and k was seen at conventional and low
pressures. Both these parameters define emitter curve, difference in these values at different
pressures will create different emitter curves. Fig 6 shows that actual emitter curve intersect
with estimated emitter curve at some specific point.
This means that at this particular point emitter performance will remain same. Keeping in
view the difference in emitter operation at low and conventional pressures, a combined
emitter curve was developed. With the help of this curve one can estimate emitter
performance at any pressure category. See Fig 7.

4 Conclusions
 Conventional drip irrigation emitter changes its behavior (emitter exponent and
coefficient of discharge) at low head.
 Conventional drip irrigation emitter changes its state of flow at low pressure and may
become very sensitive to temperature and pressure variation.
 Emitter discharge uniformity calculated with Christiansen Coefficient show that at
0.798m system operating head CU was 90%, at 1.064m head, 90.3% and at 0.5313m
head, 87.1%.

5 References
Belder, P., D. Rohrabach, S. Twomlow and A. Senzanje. 2007. Can Drip Irrigation Improve
Food Security For Vulnerable Households In Zimbabwe? International Crop Research
Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)-Bulawayo. Briefing No. 07.
http://test1.icrisat.org/esa/can_drip_irrigation.pdf
Camp, C. R., E. J. Sadler and W. J. Busscher. 1997. A Comparison of Uniformity Measures
for Drip Irrigation Systems. Transaction of ASAE. Vol. 40(4). pp 1013-1020.
FAO, 2007. Low Cost Family Drip Irrigation System. Chapter 15, Hand Book on
Pressurized Irrigation Techniques. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations,
Rome 2007. pp 15.1-15.4
James, L. G. 1988. Principles of Farm Irrigation System Design. John Wiley and Sons.
Karlberg, L., J. Rockstrom, J. G. Annandale, and J. M. Steyn. 2007. Low Cost Drip Irrigation
- A Suitable Technology For Southern Africa?. An Example with Tomatoes Using Saline
Irrigation Water. Agriculture Water Management. Vol 89. Issue 1-2. pp 59-70.
Keller, J. and D. Karmeli. 1974. Trickle Irrigation Design Parameters. Transaction of ASAE.
Keller, J. and R. D. Bliesner. 1990. Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Pereira, L. S. 1999. Higher Performance through Combined Improvements in Irrigation
Methods and Scheduling: A Discussion. Agricultural Water Management. Vol. 40. pp
153-169.
Yaron, B., E. Danfors, and Y. Vaadia. 1973. Arid Zone Irrigation. Chapman and Hall Limited
London.

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
Yildirim, G. 2010. Total Energy Loss Assessment for Trickle Lateral Lines Equipped with
Integrated Inline and Online Emitters. Irrigation Science. Vol. 28. pp 341-352.

Fig 1 (a) Integrated (In Line) (b) Online Drippers

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
 Fig 2 Experimental Layout (Not to Scale)

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
 3

Q = 0.9422 p 0.4249
2.5

Flow (LPH) 2

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Pressure Head (m)

Fig 3 Head Verses Discharge Curve for Drippers

Cu Cu

90.5
90
89.5
89
%

88.5
88
87.5
87
86.5
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3

Pressure Heads (m)

Fig 4 Pressure Head Verses Uniformity Parameters

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
 Actuall Flow Calculated Flow

Qav= 0.4512p + 0.4658

Average Discharge (LPH)

1
2
R = 0.9969
0.8

0.6
Qav = 0.5406p + 0.1734
0.4 2
R =1
0.2

0
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3

Pressure Head (m)

Fig 5 Average Flow, Pressure Head Relationship

Estimated Emitter Curve Actual Emitter Curve

4 Q = 0.7501p 0.6999
2
R =1
3.5

3
Flow (LPH)

2.5

2
0.4258
Q = 0.9402p
1.5 2
R = 0.9997
1
0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Pressure Head (m)

Fig 6 Emitter Curve based on Lab Experiments (Estimated) and Field Experiments (Actual)

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
 Combination of Actual and Estimated Emitter Curve
Power (Combination of Actual and Estimated Emitter Curve)

2.5

2
Flow (LPH)

1.5
Q = 0.7897p0.5234
R2 = 0.9823
1

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Pressrue Head(m)

Fig 7 Combined Emitter Curve for Conventional and Low Pressure Operation

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
 Table 1 Classification of Emitter Flow on the Basis of Emitter Exponent
Value of x State of Flow

= 0.5 Turbulent

0.5 < x < 0.7 Partial Turbulent Flow

0.7 < x < 1 Unstable Flow Regime

=1 Laminar Flow

Source: Keller and Karmeli, 1974

Table 2 Specifications of Emitters, Based on Lab Experiment

Description Value Remarks
k. 0.942 ----
x. 0.425 Turbulent Flow

Table 3 Calculated Specifications of Lateral Pipe and Dripper

Pipe Inner Dia Inner Dia Dripper x. k.
(mm) Dripper (mm) Length (mm)

12.7389 11.9646 40.8975 0.425 0.942

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.
 Table 4 Details of Designed System for Different Heads
Parameters Unit Values
Nozzle Head m. 1 0.75 0.5
Emitter Discharge LPH 0.942 0.833 0.702
Flow Variation % 2 2 2
Lateral Length m. 28 27.2 26
No. of Emitters Nos. 71 69 66
Lateral Flow LPH 66.882 57.518 46.308
Lateral Spacing m. 0.9144 0.9144 0.9144
Emitter Spacing m. 0.4 0.4 0.4
Loss in Main m. 0.00031 0.00024 0.00016
Submain Head Losses
Pipe Loss m. 0.000189 0.000146 9.943E-05
Connection Loss m. 0.00635 0.004699 0.00305
Total Submain Loss m. 0.006543 0.00484 0.00314
Lateral Head Losses
In Emitter m. 0.00594 0.00444 0.00291
Connection Loss m. 0.00302 0.00217 0.00135
LDPE m. 0.03728 0.0278 0.0182
Total Lateral Loss m. 0.04624 0.0344 0.02244
Head Losses in Bend m. 0.000459 0.000339 0.0002199
Head Losses in Valve m. 5.84E-05 4.32E-05 2.81E-05
Head Losses in Tee m. 0.000701 0.000519 0.000336
Entrance Head Losses m. 0.00246 0.00182 0.00118
Sudden Expansion Head Losses m. 0.00268 0.00199 0.00129
Safety Factor % 5 5 5
Total Head m. 1.064 0.798 0.5313

Table 5 Classification of System Performance at Different Operating Heads

Operating Head Cu Classification
1.064 m 90.3% Excellent
0.798 m 90% Excellent
0.5313 m 87.1% Good

Table 6 Specifications of Emitters, Based on Field Experiment

Description Value Remarks
k. 0.75 ----
x. 0.7 Partial Turbulent Flow to Unstable Flow
Regime

Life Sciences International Journal. Vol 5 (3). Indus Scientific Publications, Pakistan.