Performance

PHILIPP AGRICof Sprinkler Irrigation Systems

SCIENTIST Kursad Demirel and
ISSNSabri Sener
0031-7454
Vol. 92 No. 3, 308-314
September 2009

Performance of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems at Different

Pressures and Under Varying Wind Speed Conditions in
Landscape Areas

Kursad Demirel* and Sabri Sener

Agricultural Engineering Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation,

University of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart. 17100, Canakkale, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: e-mail: kursaddemirel@yahoo.com, kdemirel@comu.edu.tr;
Phone: +90-286-2180018/1319; Fax: +90-286-2180545

Wind speed is an important parameter that affects water application efficiency in sprinkler
irrigation systems. In this study, the water distribution patterns of different sprinkler heads (pop-
up spray, pop-up rotor and classic rotor) used in landscape areas were determined at different
pressures (minimum, optimum and maximum) and under varying wind speed conditions (03,
36 and 69 m s-1). The experiment was conducted in the Agricultural Experimental Station of
Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey. The single sprinkler head test method was
used to determine the water distribution pattern. The non-corrected and corrected Christiansens
coefficient of uniformity (CU) and distribution uniformity (DU) values for each sprinkler head were
determined. Non-corrected CU and DU values varied from 4092% and from 3487%, respectively.
Corrected CU and DU values varied from 5796% and from 4392%, respectively. Based on the
research results, higher wind speeds had a negative effect on the water distribution pattern of
sprinkler heads. Performance values (CU) and (DU) of the sprinklers should be higher at suitable
pressure conditions. The wind effect was most visible on the water distribution pattern of rotor
sprinkler heads.

Key Words: Christiansens coefficient of uniformity (CU), distribution uniformity (DU), landscape areas, pop-up,
sprinkler irrigation

INTRODUCTION Wind speed and direction, temperature, and pressure are

Irrigation is highly important as a basic sub-structure
system for landscape areas. Surface irrigation systems
are very seldom used in landscape projects. On the other
hand, pressurized irrigation systems, especially sprinkler
irrigation systems, are commonly used for landscape
irrigation because irrigation water is applied similar to
natural rainfall (Smith 1997). At present, about 14% of the
worlds total irrigated area (39 million ha) is equipped with
pressurized methods, 12% (33 million ha) of which uses
sprinkler irrigation (Gopalakrishnan 2008). The sprinkler
water distribution pattern mainly depends on the design of
the sprinkler itself, the size, number and configuration of
nozzles, and the working pressure (Tarjuelo et al. 1999a).
also other factors that affect the water distribution pattern
in sprinkler irrigation systems (Clark et al. 2003). Under
high wind conditions, water distribution is not uniform. It
is therefore necessary to consider two important issues to
obtain maximum irrigation performance: (I) distribution
pattern as determined by theoretical calculations and (II)
distribution pattern due to the effect of wind.
The single sprinkler head test method was used in this
study as it was easy to organize the experimental pattern
with this method and also because it has been proved to
be suitable for agricultural applications. Pressure was
controlled by applying different pressure values. Flow rate,
rotation speed, wind velocity and direction, and temperature
values were also recorded during the single sprinkler test.

308 The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 92 No. 3 (September 2009)

Performance of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems
Average wind speed has been recorded as 4.4 m s-1 in the
Canakkale region (Anonymous 1999).
This study investigated the effect of wind on the
distribution pattern of sprinkler irrigation systems using
different pressure heads in Canakkale, which is considered
a windy region in Western Anatolia, Turkey. The effects
of different wind speeds on the water distribution pattern
were investigated by using different types of sprinkler heads
under different pressures. Moreover, this study is intended to
be a guide for sprinkler irrigation systems in other landscape
areas under similar wind conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was carried out in a 30 x 30 m experimental plot
(900 m2) at the Dardanos Agricultural Experimental Station
of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University in Canakkale City,
Turkey. The plan of the experiment is given in Figure 1. The
experimental area is located at 40 08 North latitude and 28
20 East longitude. Well water was used as the water resource
in the experiment. Clear well water was transported through
a pipeline to a 1 m3 capacity water tank. An electrical pump
was used to supply the water to the testing mechanism. Three
valves were used along the line, starting from the exit of
the water resource to the head. Two spherical valves were
used to regulate the operating pressure. One of them was
Fig. 1. Plan of the experiment.
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 92 No. 3 (September 2009)
Kursad Demirel and Sabri Sener
mounted on the entrance to the main pipeline and the other
was constructed on a recovery pipeline to remove excess
water running through the system.
Sprinkler heads commonly used in landscape areas
were used in this experiment: (I) rotor type sprinklers and
(II) spray type sprinklers. Thirteen sprinkler heads were used
in the experiment. Six of them were the spray pop-up type
and seven of them were of the rotor type. Rotor sprinkler
heads were investigated in two groups. Four of them were
pop-up sprinkler heads and three of them were classic
sprinkler heads. The spray sprinkler heads were assigned
the letters A, B, C, D, E and F; the rotor pop-up sprinkler
heads G, H, I and J; and the rotor classical sprinkler heads
were represented by K, L and M.
The field was leveled for the experiment and catch
cans were lined up using Pentax Automatic Level (AL240).
Catch cans were spaced at 1.5 x 1.5 m, and were tied to sticks
with a rubber band to prevent them from being disturbed
due to the effect of the wind. The leveling of catch cans was
adjusted with plate vials.
The water distribution pattern was determined for
each sprinkler head operating at three different pressures
(minimum, optimum and maximum depending on
sprinkler head specifications) and three different wind speed
ranges (03, 36 and 69 m s-1).
Following Fischer and Wallender (1988), we operated
each sprinkler for 4560 min (Tarjuelo et al. 1999a).
309
Performance of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems
Temperature and wind speed values were recorded at a
meteorological observation station located 30 m from the
experimental field. After the 4560 min operation time
for the sprinkler heads, the amount of water in each catch
can was measured in milliliters with a measuring cylinder.
Each test was done in triplicate. After three replicated
measurements, the arithmetic mean of the total measured
amount of water was calculated.
The water distribution patterns were determined by
using data obtained from each catch representing the 1.5
x 1.5 = 2.25 m2 area in the experiment site. Uniformity of
water distribution was evaluated by calculating CU and
DU coefficients. CU and DU values were calculated in
two different ways: I) Sprinkler head spacing and CU and
DU values were calculated according to windless or low
wind conditions, termed non-corrected CU and DU and
II) Sprinkler head spacing and CU and DU values were
calculated under windy or high wind conditions called
corrected CU and DU values. The coefficients of distance
between wind conditions and lateral spacing given by
McCulloch et al. (1967) are commonly used for design
purposes. Similar coefficients are also found in many other
studies (James 1993; Tarjuelo et al. 1999a).
Spacings were calculated by multiplying the design
diameters of the sprinkler heads with the coefficient of 0.60
for non-corrected CU and DU values. While calculating
corrected CU and DU values, the coefficient of 0.60 was
used for the 03 m s-1 wind speed (corrected and non-
corrected CU and DU values were therefore the same for
this wind speed); 0.50 was used for the 36 m s-1 and 0.30
for the 69 m s-1 wind speed. Equations for CU and DU
are as follows:
Christiansens Coefficient of Uniformity (CU);
Distribution Uniformity (DU); Average non-corrected and corrected DU values were
Ds D
CU = 100 x(1 n ) (1)
Ds
n 7492%. Their corrected CU values varied from 8096%.
diq
DU = ( D ( x 100 (2)
average
_ that as the wind velocity increases, CU values decrease. In
where Ds is the catch-can depth of application, D is the
mean catch-can depth and n is the number of catch cans
(Equation 1),
dq= average low quarter depth and Daverage = average
depth of water accumulated in all elements (Equation 2).
In general, a sprinkler irrigation system must have CU
values greater than 84% for a reasonable water distribution
pattern (Keller and Bliesner 1990), with a minimum DU
value of 70% for rotor head systems and 50% for spray
head systems (Wilson and Zoldoske 1997). The relationship
between CU and DU values was calculated by means of
regression analysis using SPSS for Windows statistical
310
Kursad Demirel and Sabri Sener
software (version 11.0). The water distribution pattern of
the heads was drawn with NETCAD software.
RESULTS
The CU and DU values of sprinkler heads used in the
experiment are given in Tables 1, 2 and 3. The same
coefficients were used for spray and rotor pop-up sprinklers
because they had a low water distribution diameter under
03 and 36 m s-1 wind speed conditions. The mean of non-
corrected and corrected CU values were 84.2% in the 03 m
s-1 wind speed range, and 74.279.7%, 67.286.8% at 36
and 69 m s-1 wind speed ranges, respectively.
Based on the results, non-corrected CU values for
rotor pop-up sprinklers varied from 4890% and from
6990% for corrected CU values. Non-corrected CU values
for rotor classical sprinklers were within the range of 4084
% and corrected CU values were in the range of 5791%.
Regression analysis performed for non-corrected and
corrected CU and DU values by using SPSS for Windows
(version 11.0) is given in Figure 2.
The water distribution curve for each sprinkler head
was plotted using Netcad Programme. The water distribution
curve of spray pop-up sprinkler A at 150 kPa operating
pressure, and at 03 and 36 m s-1 wind speed ranges, are
shown in Figure 3. Wind direction is shown with the ()
symbol.
DISCUSSION
determined for every combination of wind speed range.
They were the same for the 03 m s-1 wind speed range
because they were multiplied by the same coefficient. Non-
corrected CU values for spray pop-up heads varied from
For wind speeds ranging from 02 m s-1, 24 m s-1 and 46
m s-1, the average CU values were 87.4%, 85.3% and 77.2%
respectively (Tarjuelo et al. 1999b). Two studies showed
a spray sprinkler system, CU values ranged from 7585%
(Schneider 2000). In a study on different pressures (41, 69,
104 and 138 kPa) to examine the water distribution pattern
of the low drift nozzle (LDN), Clark et al. (2003) found that
CU values varied from 7090%.
In this study, non-corrected DU values varied between
3487% and corrected DU values ranged between 4092%
(Table 1, 2 and 3). Baum et al. (2005) reported average
DU values of 45% based on tests performed on residential
irrigation systems. Rotary sprinklers resulted in significantly
higher DU values compared with fixed pattern spray heads
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 92 No. 3 (September 2009)
Performance of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems Kursad Demirel and Sabri Sener

Table 1. Non-corrected and corrected CU, DU values of pop-up spray sprinkler heads.
Head Wind Speed Range (m s-1) Head Wind Speed Range (m s-1)
A B
03 36 69 03 36 69
Sprinkler Head Spacing (m) Sprinkler Head Spacing (m)
4.5 x 4.5 4.5 x 4.5 4.5 x 4.5 4.5 x 4.5 4.5 x 4.5 4.5 x 4.5
4.5 x 4.5 4.5 x 4.5 3x3 4.5 x 4.5 4.5 x 4.5 3x3

kPa CU DU CU DU CU DU kPa CU DU CU DU CU DU
100 92 79 90 69 85 60 150 87 85 84 79 78 81
92 79 90 69 96 90* 87 85 84 79 84 82
150 89 80 87 70 80 62 200 90 83 85 81 78 78
89 80 87 70 96 92 90 83 85 81 89 83
200 90 80 88 70 81 60 250 90 81 88 85 79 79
90 80 88 70 93 91 90 81 88 85 89 83
C D
150 89 75 83 70 78 65 200 86 80 83 74 78 75
89 75 83 70 83 77 86 80 83 74 95 92
200 87 76 85 73 80 67 250 85 82 85 76 80 74
87 76 85 73 90 83 85 82 85 76 92 90
250 88 75 84 74 82 65 300 90 84 85 80 84 71
88 75 84 74 89 82 90 84 85 80 93 91
E F
200 91 87 84 86 83 77 200 87 75 80 78 77 74
91 87 84 86 86 81 87 75 80 78 87 82
250 92 86 86 82 80 78 250 86 82 82 75 74 74
92 86 86 82 83 80 86 82 82 75 88 83
300 90 83 87 81 79 75 300 90 83 85 79 79 79
90 83 87 81 84 78 90 83 85 79 90 85
*Corrected spacings; corrected values of coefficient of uniformity (CU) and distribution of uniformity (DU) are given in italics.

Table 2. Non-corrected and corrected CU, DU values of pop-up rotor sprinkler heads.
Head Wind Speed Range (m s-1) Head Wind Speed Range (m s-1)
G H
03 36 69 03 36 69
Sprinkler Head Spacing (m) Sprinkler Head Spacing (m)
6x6 6x6 6 x6 9x9 9x9 9x9
6x6 4.5 x 4.5 3x3 9x9 7.5 x 7.5 4.5 x 4.5

kPa CU DU CU DU CU DU kPa CU DU CU DU CU DU
200 88 84 82 79 78 74 200 85 79 61 48 55 53
88 84 88 73 84 75 85 79 75 63 89 83
250 90 82 83 80 84 80 250 82 77 62 54 57 54
90 82 89 80 89 83 82 77 74 65 90 86
300 90 84 87 82 82 79 300 83 75 70 55 62 58
90 84 88 84 87 80 83 75 84 72 85 82
I 10.5x10.5 10.5x10.5 10.5x10.5 J 12x12 12x12 12x12
10.5x10.5 9x9 6x6 12x12 10.5x10.5 6x6
250 76 58 56 67 48 35 200 76 66 72 60 60 55
76 58 74 76 76 60 76 66 77 64 86 80
300 76 58 55 50 52 40 250 77 67 69 56 62 53
76 58 69 62 80 65 77 67 74 64 84 78
350 75 59 61 51 53 43 300 79 68 70 58 59 54
75 59 70 54 84 72 79 68 76 72 84 78
Corrected values of coefficient of uniformity (CU) and distribution of uniformity (DU) are given in italics.

The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 92 No. 3 (September 2009) 311

Performance of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems Kursad Demirel and Sabri Sener

Table 3. Non-corrected and corrected CU, DU values of classic rotor sprinkler heads.
Head Wind Speed Range (m s-1) Head Wind Speed Range (m s-1)
K L
03 36 69 03 36 69
Sprinkler Head Spacing (m) Sprinkler Head Spacing (m)
12x12 12x12 12x12 12x12 12x12 12x12
12x12 10.5x10.5 6x6 12x12 10.5x10.5 7.5x7.5
kPa CU DU CU DU CU DU kPa CU DU CU DU CU DU
150 84 78 71 67 40 35 150 72 58 52 34 42 36
84 78 82 68 86 78 72 58 67 43 86 64
200 82 73 67 63 43 36 200 74 54 50 38 41 37
82 73 75 64 90 79 74 54 59 44 83 67
250 82 74 69 60 45 40 250 74 57 44 40 41 40
82 74 77 63 91 83 74 57 57 45 79 71
M 12x12 12x12 12x12
12x12 10.5x10.5 7.5x7.5
150 78 63 64 50 64 36
78 63 76 66 84 75
200 80 61 64 51 60 40
80 61 77 67 82 75
250 84 60 66 51 61 41
84 60 74 60 83 74
Corrected values of coefficient of uniformity (CU) and distribution of uniformity (DU) are given in italics.

100 100
y = 0,8367x + 19,743 y = 0,5891x + 39,706
90 90
R2 = 0,8284 R2 = 0,8298
80 80
70 70
60 60
Cu (%)
Cu (%)

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Du (%) Du (%)

Fig. 2. Regression analysis for non-corrected and corrected coefficient of uniformity (CU) and distribution of uniformity (DU)
values.
(p=0.01) CU=0.8367DU+19.743 (a) CU=0.5891DU+39.706 (b)

(49% vs. 41%). Ascough and Kiker (2002) found higher DU
values varying from 56.981.4%.
Keller and Bliesner (1990) described a linear
relationship, especially between CU and DU values in
experimental studies performed on sprinkler irrigation
uniformity (Tarjuelo et al. 1999a). They found that numerous
studies had concluded that distributions of sprinkler
application depths under field conditions are often properly
described by a normal distribution function. Therefore, the
equation below is generally accepted (Equation 3):
CU = 0.63 DU + 37.0 (3)
Montero et al. (1997) obtained a very similar equation from
permanent solid set tests under average irrigation spacing
of 17.5 x 17.5 m. The following equation was deduced for

312 The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 92 No. 3 (September 2009)

Performance of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems
0-3 m s-1
Fig. 3. Water distribution curve of spray pop-up sprinkler at different wind velocities.
CU values over 70% (Tarjuelo et al. 1999a) (Equation 4):
CU = 0.60 DU + 40.0 (4)
Tarjuelo et al. (1999a) obtained the equation below for CU
values greater than 70%, achieved with irrigation spacing
of 18 x 18 m for a single sprinkler test (Equation 5):
CU = 0.55 DU + 42.2 (5)
The relationship between CU and DU values was statistically
significant. Equations derived in this study, especially for
corrected CU and DU values, were similar to those used
by Keller and Bliesner (1990) and Montero et al. (1997)
(Tarjuelo et al. 1999a).
The research results also showed that spray sprinklers
gave better water distribution performance than rotor
sprinklers. When the rotor sprinklers were compared with
one another, the pop-up sprinklers performed better than
the classical sprinklers. The highest CU and DU values
were observed at optimum operating pressures and at
maximum operating pressures for most of the sprinkler
heads. Sprinklers must be operated at suitable pressure
conditions, under which they have higher CU and DU
values, to achieve efficient water distribution performance.
It is necessary to use shorter (correct) sprinkler spacing
under windy conditions.
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 92 No. 3 (September 2009)
Kursad Demirel and Sabri Sener
3-6 m s-1
CONCLUSION
The results of the experiment showed that wind velocity
affects the water distribution pattern considerably. This
fact must be taken into account in the design of landscape
irrigation projects in areas where the annual average wind
speed is high. Although pop-up sprinklers are not common
for irrigation in the landscape areas of Turkey, results
obtained from this study indicated that better irrigation
uniformity values were achieved with pop-up sprinklers,
even under windy conditions.
REFERENCES CITED
Anonymous. 1999. Canakkale Meteorology Station Climate
Reports. Canakkale, Turkey.
ASCOUGH GW, KIKER GA. 2002. The effect of irrigation
uniformity on irrigation water requirements. Water SA
28:235-241.
BAUM MC, DUKES MD, MILLER GL. 2005. Analysis
of residential irrigation distribution uniformity. J Irrig
Drainage Eng 131: 336-341.
CLARK GA, SRINIVAS K, ROGERS DH, STRATTON R,
MARTIN VL. 2003. Measured and simulated uniformity
of low drift nozzle sprinklers. ASAE 46: 321-330.
FISCHER G, WALLENDER W. 1988. Collector size and
test duration effects on sprinkler water distribution
measurement. Trans ASAE 31 (2): 538-542.
313
Performance of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems
GOPALAKRISHNAN M. 2008. Sprinkler and micro-
irrigated areas in some member countries of ICID.
Secretary General ICID. Irrig and Drain 57: 603-604.
JAMES GL. 1993. Principles of Farm Irrigation System
Design. Florida.
KELLER J, BLIESNER RD. 1990. Sprinkle and Trickle
Irrigation. New York, N.Y: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McCULLOCH AW, KELLER J, SHERMAN RM,
MUELLER RC. 1967. Irrigation Handbook for Irrigation
Engineers (Revised by Jack Keller). 3rd ed. Canada: W.
R. Ames Company.
MONTERO J, TARJUELO JM, TEBAR JI, LOZANO F,
HONRUBIA FT. 1997. Water distribution in solid set
sprinkle irrigation. XV Irrigation and Drainage National
Congress. Lerida, Spain, 25-27 June 1997. Irrigation and
Drainage Spanish Association, Madrid, Spain.
314
Kursad Demirel and Sabri Sener
SCHNEIDER AD. 2000. Efficiency and uniformity of
the lepa and spray sprinkler methods. Trans ASAE 43:
937-944.
SMITH WS. 1997. Landscape Irrigation Design and
Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
TARJUELO JM, MONTERO J, VALIENTE M,
HONRUBIA FT, ORTIZ J. 1999a. Irrigation uniformity
with medium size sprinklers. Part I. Characterization
of water distribution in no-wind conditions. ASAE 42:
665-675.
TARJUELO JM, MONTERO J, HONRUBIA FT, ORTIZ J,
ORTEGA JF. 1999b. Analysis of uniformity of sprinkler
irrigation in a semi-arid area. Agric Water Manage 40:
315-331.
WILSON TP, ZOLDOSKE DF. 1997. Evaluating sprinkler
irrigation uniformity, Center for Irrigation Technology,
CATI Publication. (www.wateright.org).
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 92 No. 3 (September 2009)