DOI: 10.

1515/jwld-2017-0033
© Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), Committee on Agronomic Sciences JOURNAL OF WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Section of Land Reclamation and Environmental Engineering in Agriculture, 2017 2017, No. 34 (VII–IX): 3–9
© Institute of Technology and Life Sciences (ITP), 2017 PL ISSN 1429–7426
Available (PDF): http://www.itp.edu.pl/wydawnictwo/journal; http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jwld

Received 11.01.2017
Reviewed
Accepted
30.03.2017
24.04.2017
Field evaluation
of centre pivot sprinkler irrigation system
A – study design
B – data collection
C – statistical analysis
D – data interpretation
E – manuscript preparation
F – literature search
in the North-East of Iran

Meysam ABEDINPOUR ABCDEF

Kashmar Higher Education Institute, Water Science and Engineering Division, 998145784 Kashmar, Iran;
e-mail: [email protected]

For citation: Abedinpour M. 2017. Field evaluation of centre pivot sprinkler irrigation system in the North-East of Iran.
Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 34 p. 3–9. DOI: 10.1515/jwld-2017-0033.
Abstract
A field evaluation of the technical performance of centre pivot sprinkler irrigation system was carried out
during the maize crop growing season and when operating with different working speeds: S1 – 40%, S2 – 60%
and S3 – 80%. For this goal, four uniformity measurements are to be considered in the evaluation; coefficient of
uniformity (CU), distribution uniformity (DU), potential efficiency of low quarter application (PELQ) and actual
efficiency of low quarter application (AELQ). The first step of evaluation of the sprinkler irrigation system is to
compare the measured uniformity values with the standard values, DU ≥ 75%, CU ≥ 85%, AELQ and PELQ ≥
90%. Effect of variation of speed produced CU values of 80.3, 82.7 and 86% for S1, S2, and S3 speed, respec-
tively. Furthermore, DU standard value was obtained at S3 speed of 82%. Moreover, AELQ and PELQ were be-
low the acceptable standard level of 90% for all speeds. Non-uniform water application leads to over or under
irrigation in various parts of the field which can result in wasted water and energy. Therefore, regular evaluation
of the irrigation equipments is needed to efficiently and effectively manage irrigation.

Key words: centre pivot system, distribution uniformity, irrigation, uniformity coefficients

INTRODUCTION supported above the field by a series of A-frame tow-

ers, each tower having two driven wheels at the base.
Agriculture is central of food security and eco- The lateral line is rotated slowly around a pivot point
nomic growth in developing countries. However, food at the centre of the field by electric motors at each
production requires substantial amounts of water. tower. Water is discharged under pressure from
Therefore, irrigation water should be adequately ap- sprayers or sprinklers mounted on the laterals as is
plied to crops to avoid water waste. Hence, the effi- sweeps across the field or suspended by flexible hose
ciency of water use in agriculture needs to increase in over the crops. Evaluation of a system means to as-
a sustainable manner [NORELDIN et al. 2015]. Also, sess the system performance for parameters such as
agriculture water demand is one of the serious pres- irrigation efficiencies, water distribution coefficient
sures on water sector in Iran, since 80-85% of total and water adequacy at the field site.
available water is consumed in agriculture and cou- Precision agriculture technologies make it possi-
pled with poor irrigation management. Water scarcity ble for farmers to adjust production inputs site-
is a problem facing Iran these days. Centre pivot (CP) specifically to address the spatial variability in the
sprinkler irrigation systems are invented about 67 field. Currently two primary control methods are used
years ago to enhance agricultural production and crop to realize variable rate irrigation (VRI), speed control
water productivity. A centre pivot consist a lateral and duty cycle control. The speed control method var-
circulating around a fixed pivot point. The lateral is ies travel speed of the centre pivot to accomplish the

© Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) in Warsaw, 2017; © Institute of Technology and Life Sciences (ITP) in Falenty, 2017
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/1/17 2:13 AM
4 M. ABEDINPOUR

desired application depth, while the duty cycle control irrigation, conventional and floppy sprinkler systems,
changes the duty cycle of individual sprinklers or respectively [ASCOUGH, KIKER 2002]. Also, an evalu-
groups of sprinklers. Knowledge of the accuracy and ation was done on uniformity of water distribution
uniformity of an irrigation system are essential for the (CU) of a commercial variable rate centre pivot irriga-
success of precision irrigation management [LARUE, tion system. So, a constant water application rate
EVANS 2012]. Evaluation of a system performance is (100%) was applied in each zone, and in the other,
obligatory at each field repeated for two or three times variable application rates (0%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and
per year to find weather it works well. Although, 100%) were assigned to different zones. Results
many investigations about systems evaluation have showed a CU of 86.5% for the constant application
been done so far over the world, but due to variety of rate test. In the variable rate test, average CU over the
climates, soil types, types of plants and characteristics application rates of 30%, 50%, 70%, and 100% was
of systems, the results of investigation cannot be gen- 84.3% with the highest CU of 89.2% in the 100% ap-
eralized to other part of the world [AL-GHOBARI plication rate [SUI, FISHER 2015].
2010]. Overall, centre pivot sprinkler irrigation systems
Some works have been reported on the evaluation are often the preferred type of sprinkler irrigation sys-
of center pivot sprinkler irrigation system perform- tem by producers due to their relatively high water
ance. A research was conducted to evaluate the per- application uniformity and degree of automation
formance of centre pivot sprinkler irrigation system which can substantially reduce labour costs compared
and its effect on sugarcane yield at Ubombo Sugar to other types of sprinkler irrigation systems. The op-
estate in the South-East of Swaziland. Performance erational characteristics of commercial centre pivot
indicators showed that centre pivots were performing sprinklers are well documented but few studies have
relatively well as uniformity coefficients (CU – coef- been conducted to evaluate the effects that operating
ficient of uniformity and DU – distribution uniform- characteristics of a particular sprinkler (working speed
ity) for the systems were within acceptable standards and application rate) have on infiltration, system reli-
above the base values of 85% for CU and 75% for DU ability, and water satisfaction and distribution for spe-
[MSIBI et al. 2014]. Assessment of different portable cific soil types. The objectives for this study were:
sprinkler irrigation systems in Nigeria is reported at a) evaluate the coefficient of uniformity, distribution
the rate of 86% and 87% values for water distribution uniformity and potential application efficiency under
uniformity coefficient and water application efficien- field conditions providing necessary information for
cy, respectively [AHANEKU 2010]. A comparison was more effective water management; b) to evaluate per-
done for different sprinkler irrigation systems with formance of configurations of centre pivot operating
surface irrigation system in Utah State. The results conditions (speed: 40%, 60%, 80%) that can achieved
revealed that application efficiencies (Ea) were ob- to the best uniformity efficiencies (DU and CU).
tained by 70% for sprinkler and 50% for surface irri-
gation system [HILL 2002]. Evaluation of center pivot MATERIALS AND METHODS
sprinkler irrigation system was done using low quarter
distribution uniformity (DU) and water efficiency EXPERIMENTAL SITE
evaluation factors in the South Africa. The results
showed that the DU values of 81.4, 60.9, 72.7, 67.4 Jovein plain area of 42 830 hectares is located be-
and 56.9 percent and the values of 83.6, 73.5, 67.7 tween 57°25′19″ E longitude and 36°42′22″ N latitude
and 78.9 percent for centre pivot, rain gun, micro- at an average elevation of 1100 m a.m.s.l. This plain

Fig. 1. Location of the centre pivot irrigation systems; source: Google Earth

© PAN in Warsaw, 2017; © ITP in Falenty, 2017; Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 34 (VII–IX)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/1/17 2:13 AM
Field evaluation of centre pivot sprinkler irrigation system in the North-East of Iran 5

is located 75 km from the city of Sabzevar, Iran. The Table 1. The average of meteorological data during the
total number of 106 center pivot irrigating about 6000 experiment
hectares of the part of Jovain plain (Fig. 1). The cli- Temperature, °C Wind speed Rainfall RH
mate in this area is hot and dry which amount of an- Month
min max m·s–1 mm %
nual precipitation is about 219 mm. The historical June 26.9 34.4 1.81 0 55.3
weather data indicated that the average temperature in July 25.05 35.9 1.62 0 51.3
the hottest and coldest months of the year is 38 and August 24.6 36.7 1.72 0 63.6
–3°C. The averages of meteorological data of crop- September 24.0 30.8 1.51 15 58.8
ping period are presented in Table 1. The soil physical December 23.7 29.6 1.60 0 69.8
properties of the field experiment is presented in Explanation: RH = relative humidity.
Table 2. Source: own elaboration based on Sabzevar synoptic weather sta-
tion data.

Table 2. Physical properties of the soil of the field experiment

Soil depth Content, % Bd θFC θPWP Ks
Texture
cm sand silt clay g·cm–3 % % cm·d–1
0–20 sandy loam 54.4 21 24.6 1.45 22.8 10.7 26.7
20–40 sandy loam 53.5 18 28.5 1.43 26.1 11.8 25.6
40–60 loam 46 23 31 1.39 28.9 13.3 17.5
60–80 loam 37 25 38 1.35 30.5 13.7 18.3
Explanations: Bd = bulk density, θFC = gravimetric soil moisture at field capacity, θPWP = gravimetric permanent wilting point, Ks = saturated
hydraulic conductivity.
Source: own study.

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION

Under the standard, catch cans were spaced 3 m between cans within each tower, to give a total of 108
apart in two rows extending from the pivot centre cans. The diameter of each can was 10 cm with
straight out to the circle edge. When the pivot is start- a height of 15 cm. Each can represent an irrigated area
ed, no water should be entering the cans until the unit as part of the field, so the volume caught by each can
is at full pressure and speed. The centre pivot sprin- was the depth of water times the represented area.
kler installed in the experimental area was consisting Cans were placed across the way of the lateral. The
of 6 towers, with 54 m between towers and 3 m characteristics of centre pivot are shown in the Table 3.

Table 3. The characteristics of center pivot sprinkler irrigation system

Length Discharge Distance Discharge System
Number of Total number Pressure Type of
of spans of system between sprayers of sprayers length
span of sprayers bar sprayers
m dm3·s–1 m dm3·s–1 m
Nelson
54 6 43.5 108 2 3 0.4 324
R3000
Source: own elaboration.

The locations of cans were level and far enough ⎡ n

⎤
ahead of the lateral to ensure that no water enters the ⎢ ∑ (D − D ) ⎥ i t
cans. When the centre pivot (lateral) is passed over all CU = ⎢1 − i =1 ⎥100 (1)
⎢ n
⎥
of the cans, the volumes of water in each can was
measured and recorded for further process.
⎢ ∑ (D ⋅ S ) i i ⎥
⎣ i =1 ⎦

INDICATORS OF IRRIGATION UNIFORMITY where: n = number of collectors used in the evalua-

EVALUATION
tion; i = number assigned to identify a particular can
(i = 1 to i = n); Di = depth of water measured in the ith
Uniformity coefficient (CU) can; Si = distance of the ith can from the pivot point;
Dt = weight average of the depth of the water col-
This coefficient takes into account the amount of
lected, equation (2).
variation in test can readings both above and below
the average value of all can readings. A CU value of n
100% would represent a perfectly uniform or even
application of water. The industry standard suggests
∑ (D ⋅ S ) i i
Dt = i =1 (2)
that CU be greater than 85%. Modified Hermann and n

Hein formula will be used equation (1) to calculate ∑S

i =1
i
the coefficient of uniformity (CU) as follows:

© PAN in Warsaw, 2017; © ITP in Falenty, 2017; Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 34 (VII–IX)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/1/17 2:13 AM
6 M. ABEDINPOUR

Distribution uniformity (DU) satisfy the SMD (soil moisture deficit) when SMD =
MAD (management allowed depletion) in all parts of
Distribution uniformity is a measure of the uni- the field. Low PELQ usually is associated with ineffi-
formity of water application by sprinkler system using cient system design, but may be intentional for eco-
a catch can test. This coefficient takes into account the nomic reasons. The difference between PELQ and
average of the lowest 25% of readings obtained from AELQ is a measure of management problems, where-
test cans and compares this value to the average of all as low values for AELQ merely indicate the possible
readings. DU is an indicator of the magnitude of the existence of such problems.
distribution problems. A DU of 85% or greater is
considered excellent, 80% is considered very good, A (5)
PELQ = 100
75% is considered good, 70% is considered fair, and B
65% or less is considered poor and unacceptable where: A = average low quarter depth infiltrated when
[KELLER, BLIESNER 2000]. It is generally accepted equal to MAD; B = average depth of water applied
that sprinkler systems should have a minimum DU of when MAD just satisfied.
75%. In order to determine whether the system is
operating at acceptable efficiency, DU (of low The PELQ should be determined in order to eval-
quarter) will be calculated using equation (3). uate how effectively the system can utilize the water
supply and what the total losses may be. Then the
Dlq total amount of water require to irrigate the field fully
DU = 100 (3)
Da can be estimated. The PELQ is always a little lower
than DU a sprinkle irrigation systems because the av-
where: DU = low quarter distribution uniformity, %; erage water applied (which is the denominator for
Dlq = average weight of low 1/4 depth catch; Da = PELQ) is larger than the average water caught which
average weight of all depth catch. is the denominator for DU. The numerator for both
PELQ and DU is the average low quarter depth of
Low quarter actual water application efficiency catch. The difference between the average water ap-
(AELQ) plied and the water caught or received is an approxi-
mation of losses due to evaporation and drift plus loss
AELQ achieved in the field indicates how well of water due to some of the area's being ungauged are
a system is being used. When the average low quarter some evaporation from the gauge cans. It is therefore
depth of irrigation water infiltrated exceeds the soil a measure of the best management can do and should
moisture deficit (SMD), which is the storage capacity be thought of as the potential of the system within the
of the root zone, AELQ can be expressed as equa- limit that the test represents the whole field [MER-
tion (4): RIAM, KELLER 1978].
SMD (4) SMD
AELQ = 100 PELQ = 100 (6)
Da Dn
where: Da = mean water depth applied by nozzles. where: SMD = soil moisture deficit, mm
The average low quarter depth of infiltrated and
SMD = (θ FC − θ i )Drz (7)
stored water in the crop root zone is the mean value of
the lowest quarter depth (1/4) of the measured values. where: θFC = volumetric soil moisture content at field
Irrigated area means the area receiving water; for capacity, %; θi = volumetric soil moisture content
most systems this is the entire field. However, where before irrigation, %; Drz = effective root zone depth,
a limited area is being wetted, the term refers only to mm.
that part of the area receiving water. Implicit in AELQ
is a measure of uniformity, but it does not indicate
adequacy of the irrigation. It merely shows that, for RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
any value greater than zero, all the area is receiving
water. Low values for AELQ indicate problems in EFFECTS OF OPERATING DIFFERENT SPEED
ON DU
management and/or use of the system [MERRIAM,
KELLER 1978].
Effects of operating speed (40%, 60%, and 80%)
Low quarter potential water application efficiency on distribution uniformity (DU) are presented in Ta-
(PELQ) ble 4. Classes of DU acc. to Merriam and Keller
are as follows DU ≥ 85 – excellent, 75 ≤ DU <
The PELQ indicates a measure of system per- 85 – very good, 70 ≤ DU < 75 – good, 65 < DU
formance attainable under reasonably good manage- < 70 – fair, DU ≤ 65 – poor. The average distribu-
ment when the desired irrigation is being applied. The tion uniformity is good for 40% and very good for 60
PELQ is the precise value of AELQ when the low and 80% speeds. Furthermore, results of mean DU
quarter depth of water infiltrated is just sufficient to values are in the range of 73.9 to 82%.

© PAN in Warsaw, 2017; © ITP in Falenty, 2017; Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 34 (VII–IX)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/1/17 2:13 AM
Field evaluation of centre pivot sprinkler irrigation system in the North-East of Iran 7

Table 4. Variation of distribution uniformity (DU) with Table 5. Variation of coefficient uniformity (CU) with dif-
different operating speed and scale of evaluation ferent operating speed and scale of evaluation
Calculated DU, % Calculated CU, %
Replication speed set Replication speed set
40% 60% 80% 40% 60% 80%
1 72.4 75.6 81.7 1 78.1 82.7 83.2
2 78.5 77.2 84.3 2 83.6 84.6 90.1
3 70.8 74.5 79.8 3 79.2 80.8 84.7
Mean 73.9 75.8 82 Mean 80.3 82.7 86
Evaluation good very good very good Evaluation fair fair good
Source: own study. Source: own study.

Moreover, the results indicated that the distribu- 82.9 and 90.7 respectively, which indicate a range
tion uniformity increased as center pivot speed in- typical to that found in this study. Also, results of per-
creased. Also, Figure 2 shows that the average value formance evaluation of centre pivots were showed
of DU in the speed of S1 for all spans were 73.9%. that uniformity coefficient (CU) for the systems were
Also, DU values for S2 and S3 in this research did within acceptable standards above the base values of
meet the acceptable standard for all spans (DU ≥ 85% for CU [MSIBI et al. 2014].
75%). The results of this study are similar to those Also, results from a study showed that the low
verified by several authors in the literature. Distribu- value of uniformity coefficients obtained under differ-
tion uniformity of centre pivot irrigation system ent system speeds can also be attributed to clogging of
should be at least 75% [SAVVA, FRENKEN 2002]. nozzles caused by sedimentation, trashes and/or noz-
MSIBI et al. [2014] revealed that uniformity coeffi- zles being worn out [EVANS, SNEED 1996]. Figure 3
cient (DU) for the center pivot irrigation systems were shows that CU in the speeds of 40% and 60 % for all
within acceptable standards above the base values of spans were more than 75%, and were close together.
75% for DU.

Fig. 2. Distribution uniformity (DU) for all evaluation tests; Fig. 3. Uniformity coefficient (CU) for all evaluation tests;
source: own study source: own study

EFFECTS OF OPERATING DIFFERENT SPEED PELQ AND AELQ RESULTS

ON CU
The recommended AELQ were only met by span
Table 5 shows the effect of different operating number 2, 5 and 6 at the rate of 84, 81 and 88% for S1
speeds on coefficient uniformity (CU). Classes of CU speed (Fig. 4). Also, this parameter for S2 was 80 and
are as follows: CU ≥ 90 – excellent, 85 ≤ CU < 90 – 83 percent for spans number 5 and 6, respectively.
good, 80 ≤ CU < 85 – fair, CU < 80 – poor. The aver- Moreover, AELQ for maximum speed (S3) achieved
age CU is good for all operation speeds set. Also, re- by 84, 84 and 90% for spans number 2, 5 and 6, re-
sults of mean CU values were in the range of 80.3 to spectively (Fig. 4).
86%. CU values for S1 and S2 were 80.3% and 82.7% Also the maximum value for PELQ was matched
respectively which did not meet the acceptable stan- by span no. 6 with 83% in all speeds. The perform-
dard value (CU ≥ 85%). Moreover, the CU value for ance evaluation of centre pivot under all the operating
S3 was achieved by 86% with the above standard speeds did not meet the recommended performance
value of 85.0%. HASSAN [2015] reported that the CU standards which states that spray nozzle sprinkler cen-
values for 50%, 75% and 100% of speeds were 79.1, tre pivot PELQ and AELQ should be at least 90%.

© PAN in Warsaw, 2017; © ITP in Falenty, 2017; Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 34 (VII–IX)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/1/17 2:13 AM
8 M. ABEDINPOUR

obtained with the maximum operating speed (S3). This

clarified that the DU and CU increased as speed in-
creased as general treat. Also, Application efficiencies
(AELQ and PELQ) were below the standard value of
90%. Water leakage from the system is affecting the
performance of the sprayers and the distribution of the
water pressure at the sprayer's outlets. Finally, it is
crucial to regularly maintain a system and perform
a type of uniformity test to assure appropriate applica-
tions.

REFERENCES

AHANEKU I.E. 2010. Performance evaluation of portable

sprinkler irrigation system in Ilorin, Nigeria. Indian
Journal of Science and Technology. Vol. 3 p. 853–857.
AL-GHOBARI H.M. 2010. The performance of the center
pivot irrigation systems under Riyadh region conditions
in Saudi Arabia. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agri-
cultural Sciences. Vol. 9. Iss. 2 p. 55–68.
ASCOUGH G.W., KIKER G.A. 2002. The effect of irrigation
uniformity on irrigation water requirements. Water SA.
Vol. 28. Iss. 2 p. 235–242.
EVANS R.O., SNEED R.E. 1996. Selection and management
of efficient hand-move, solid-set and permanent sprin-
kler irrigation systems. North Carolina Cooperative Ex-
tension Service. Publication No. EBAE 91-152 pp. 12.
HASSAN I. 2015. Technical evaluation of performance of
center pivot sprinkler irrigation system at west Omdur-
man, Sudan. M.SC dissertation. Khartoum. Department
Soil and Water, Sudan University of Science and Tech-
nology (SUSTech) pp. 238.
HILL R.W. 2002. Sprinklers, crop water use, and irrigation
time. In: Uintah and Daggett Counties. 2nd ed. Proceed-
ing of Utah State University Extension p. 45–60.
KELLER J., BLIESNER R.D. 2000. Sprinkle and trickle irriga-
tion. Caldwell, NJ. The Blackburn Press. ISBN 1-
930665-19-9 pp. 351.
LARUE J., EVANS R. 2012. Considerations for variable rate
irrigation. 24th Annual Central Plains Irrigation Confer-
ence. Colby, Kansas p. 111–116.
Fig. 4. Low water application efficiency (AELQ) MERRIAM J.L., KELLER J. 1978. Farm irrigation system
and potential water application efficiency (PELQ) of the evaluation: A guide for management. 3rd ed. Utah State
system under different speeds: a) 40%, b) 60%, c) 80%; University. ISBN 0317347799 pp. 271.
source: own study MSIBI S.T., KIHUPI N.I., TARIMO A.K.P.R. 2014. Perform-
ance of centre pivot sprinkler irrigation system and its
effect on crop yield at Ubombo Sugar Estate. Research
CONCLUSIONS
Journal of Engineering Sciences. Vol. 3. Iss. 5 p. 1–11.
NORELDIN T., OUDA S., MOUNZER O., ABDELHAMID M.T.
The advantage of centre pivot irrigation system is 2015. CropSyst model for wheat under deficit irrigation
to operate under different speeds with acceptable wa- using sprinkler and drip irrigation in sandy soil. Journal
ter distribution uniformities. The higher water distri- of Water and Land Development. No. 26 p. 57–64.
bution uniformities percentage obtained as speed in- SAVVA A.P., FRENKEN K. 2002. Irrigation manual for plan-
creased. Also, effects of variation of speed obtained ning, development, monitoring and evaluation of irri-
CU values of 80.3, 82.7 and 86% for 40, 60, and 80% gated agriculture with farmer participation. 3th ed. Ha-
speed, respectively. The CU standard value (CU ≥ rare. FAO Sub-Regional Office for East and Southern
Africa. No. 58. ISBN 0-7974-2319-2 pp. 384.
85%) was achieved in S3. Furthermore, for DU the
SUI R., FISHER D.K. 2015. Field test of a center pivot irriga-
results obtained indicate standard levels (DU ≥ 75%) tion system. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. Vol.
for S2 and S3 speed, while a higher value of 82% is 31 p. 83–88.

© PAN in Warsaw, 2017; © ITP in Falenty, 2017; Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 34 (VII–IX)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/1/17 2:13 AM
Field evaluation of centre pivot sprinkler irrigation system in the North-East of Iran 9

Meysam ABEDINPOUR

Polowa ocena systemu deszczowania w północno-wschodnim Iranie

STRESZCZENIE

Polową ocenę sprawności technicznej systemu deszczowania przeprowadzono w sezonie wegetacyjnym ku-
kurydzy, kiedy system pracował z różną prędkością roboczą: S1 – 40%, S2 – 60% i S3 – 80%. W ocenie uwzględ-
niono cztery miary jednorodności: współczynnik jednorodności (CU), jednorodność dystrybucji (DU), poten-
cjalną wydajność dolnej ćwiartki aplikacji (PELQ) i rzeczywistą wydajność dolnej ćwiartki aplikacji (AELQ).
Pierwszym etapem oceny systemu zraszania było porównanie zmierzonych wartości jednorodności z wartościa-
mi standardowymi: DU ≥ 75%, CU ≥ 85%, AELQ i PELQ ≥ 90%. Wpływ różnych prędkości wyraził się różny-
mi wartościami CU, wynoszącymi odpowiednio 80,3, 82,7 i 86,0%, gdy prędkość była równa S1, S2, i S3. Ponad-
to standardową wartość DU uzyskano, gdy prędkość S3 wynosiła 82%. Wartości AELQ i PELQ były poniżej do-
puszczalnego standardu 90% dla wszystkich prędkości. Nierównomierne rozprowadzanie wody prowadzi do
nadmiernego bądź niedostatecznego nawodnienia w różnych częściach pola, co skutkuje zmarnowaniem wody
i energii. Z tego powodu niezbędna jest regularna kontrola urządzeń irygacyjnych dla wydajnego i efektywnego
zarządzania nawodnieniami.

Słowa kluczowe: nawodnienia, równomierność dystrybucji, system deszczowania, współczynniki równo-

mierności

© PAN in Warsaw, 2017; © ITP in Falenty, 2017; Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 34 (VII–IX)
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/1/17 2:13 AM