J. agric. Engng Res.

(1996) 64, 109 – 118

Design and Management Optimization of Trickle Irrigation Systems using

Non-linear Programming
J. C. C. Saad;* J. A. Frizzone†
* Departamento de Engenharia Rural, FCA-UNESP, Caixa Postal 237, 18603-970 Botucatu, SP, Brazil
† Departamento de Engenharia Rural, ESALQ-USP, Caixa Postal 9, 13418-900 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil

(Receiy ed 3 March 1995; accepted in rey ised form 8 January 1996)

A non-linear model is presented which optimizes C8 constant in Eqn (13)

the lay-out, as well as the design and management of C9 constant in Eqn (14)
trickle irrigation systems, to achieve maximum net C 10 constant in Eqn (15)
benefit. The model consists of an objective function C 11 constant in Eqn (15)
that maximizes profit at the farm level, subject to C 12 constant in Eqn (16)
appropriate geometric and hydraulic constraints. It C 13 constant in Eqn (16)
can be applied to rectangular shaped fields, with C 14 constant in Eqn (18)
uniform or zero slope. The software used is the C 15 constant in Eqn (18)
Gams-Minos package. The basic inputs are the crop- Ccp cost of control panel, US$
water-production function, the cost function and cost C cs cost of control station, US$
of system components, and design variables. The main Ce emitter cost, US$
outputs are the annual net benefit and pipe diameters C ee annual cost of electric energy, US$ / yr
and lengths. To illustrate the capability of the model, C ie annual cost with with investment and
a sensitivity analysis of the annual net benefit for a energy, US$ / ha yr
citrus field is evaluated with respect to irrigated area, C kw cost of the kWh, US$
ground slope, micro-sprinkler discharge and shape of Cp annual production cost (without
the field. The sensitivity analysis suggests that the irrigation), US$ / ha yr
greatest benefit is obtained with the smallest micro- Cpe cost of polyethylene pipe, US$ / m
sprinkler discharge, the greatest area, a square field C ps cost of pumping station, US$
and zero ground slope. The costs of the investment C pvm cost of p.v.c. pipe used in main line,
and energy are the components of the objective US$ / m
function that had the greatest effect in the 120 C pvn cost of p.v.c. pipe used in manifold line,
situations evaluated. ÷ 1996 Academic Press Limited US$ / m
C pvs cost of p.v.c. pipe used in submain
diameter, US$ / m
Notation
Cv cost of valves and registers, US$
h pump eficiency D inside diameter of the pipe, m
A total area, m2 Dld downhill lateral line diameter, m
Ba annual benefit, US$ / ha yr Dlu uphill lateral line diameter, m
Bn annual net benefit or profit from the dm maximum net depth of water to be
irrigated crop, US$ / ha yr applied per irrigation
C1 constant in Eqn (10) Dmd downhill main line diameter, m
C2 constant in Eqn (10) Dmu uphill main line diameter, m
C3 constant in Eqn (11) Dnd downhill manifold line diameter, m
C4 constant in Eqn (11) Dnu uphill manifold line diameter, m
C5 constant in Eqn (12) Ds submain line diameter, m
C6 constant in Eqn (12) dx ground slope in x direction, m / m
C7 constant in Eqn (13) dy ground slope in y direction, m / m

109
0021-8634 / 96 / 060109 1 10 $18.00 / 0 ÷ 1996 Silsoe Research Institute
110 J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

Ea water application efficiency On number of outlets in the manifold line

El number of emission points in the lateral Os number of outlets in the submain line
line P price of product in US$ / kg
E mv manufacturing variation in emitter Pw percentage area wetted
expressed as a coefficient of variation Q flow rate in the pipe, m3 / s
E nt number of emitters per emission point Q av available discharge, m3 / s
Et total number of emitters Qe average emitter discharge, m3 / s
ETa actual seasonal evapotranspiration, m Ql lateral line discharge, l / h
ETp average daily evapotranspiration during Qm main line discharge, l / h
peak-use period, m / d q min minimum emission rate in the subunit,
ETs maximum evapotranspiration per l/ h
season, m Qn manifold line discharge, l / h
Eu emission uniformity Qs submain line discharge, l / h
Fcr capital recovery factor Qt total discharge at pump outlet, l / h
Hcs head losses in the control station, m Se distance between emission points in a
Hf head loss due to pipe friction, m lateral line or distance between plants in
Hld downhill lateral head losses, m a row, m
Hlu uphill lateral head losses, m Sl distance between laterals or between
hm average emitter pressure, in m rows of plants, m
Hmd downhill main line head losses, m Tav number of hours available for irrigation
h min minimum pressure in the subunit, m per day
Hmu uphill main line head losses, m Vmd average flow velocity in the downhill
Hnd downhill manifold head losses, m main line, m / s
Hnu uphill manifold head losses, m Vmu average flow velocity in the uphill main
Hs submain line head losses, m line, m / s
Ht total head losses plus total difference in Vs average flow velocity in the submain
elevation, m line, m / s
hv allowable pressure head variation in the Vt volume of water applied per plant during
subunit, m the season, m3
If irrigation frequency, d Wa available water-holding capacity of the
Ifx maximum irrigation frequency, d soil, m / m
Is number of irrigation days during the Y actual yield, kg / ha yr
season Ym maximum annual yield, kg / ha yr
It number of irrigation hours per set of Yr relative yield
subunits working simultaneously, during Z plant root depth, m
an irrigation interval
Ky yield response factor
L length of pipe, m 1. Introduction
Ll lateral line length, m
Lm main line length, m Trickle irrigation is a convenient and efficient
Ln manifold line length, m method of supplying water directly to the root zone of
Ls submain line length, m row crops or to individual plants, such as trees and
Ltl total lateral line length, m vines. A trickle irrigation system offers special ag-
Ltm total main line length, m ronomical, agrotechnical and economic advantages for
Ltn total manifold length, m the efficient use of water and labour (Keller and
Lts total submain length, m Bliesner1). For a given site there are many possible
Lx length of field in x direction, m variations in the lay-out, design and management of
Ly length of the field in y direction, m trickle systems. Improvements in equipment technol-
Mad management allowed deficit, % ogy and the rapid increase in energy, equipment and
Ns number of submain lines manpower costs has demanded that designers and
Nsu total number of subunits farmers consider the fundamental economic aspects.
Nsus number of subunits working Hence, the optimization of lay-out, design and opera-
simultaneously tion has become an important factor affecting far-
Om number of outlets in the main line mers’ profit.
 OPTIMIZATION OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Initially (Pleban and Amir;2 Oron and Karmeli;3
Benami and Ofen;4 Oron and Karmeli;5 Karmeli and
Oron;6 Oron and Walker7), the optimization objec-
tive was to minimize the total cost. This consisted of
two opposing factors: the cost of the investment and
the operational cost. The investment included the cost
of all network components, while the operational cost
included mainly labour and energy. Generally, larger
pipe diameters for a given length and discharge,
increase capital costs but, at the same time, decrease
the energy requirements. On the other hand, smaller
pipe diameters decrease capital costs but increase the
energy requirements.
Linear programming was utilized to optimize the
pipe network, when the lay-out and operation of
permanent irrigation systems were defined (Pleban
and Amir;2 Oron and Karmeli;3 Benami and Ofen4).
Another optimization method, referred to as geo-
metric programming associated with the ‘‘branch and
bound technique’’, was used when the lay-out, design
and management of the solid-set pressurized irrigation
system were not defined (Oron and Karmeli;5 Karmeli
and Oron;6 Oron and Walker7).
Allen and Brockway8 pointed out that the best
criterion for irrigation system optimization was the
maximization of the net economic benefit, and not the
minimization of the total cost. Holzapfel et al.9
developed a non-linear optimization model for the
design and management of drip irrigation systems
which maximized profit from the irrigated crop. Their
Micro-sprinkler Lateral
Valves
Submain
Pump and control station
Fig. 1 . Basic configuration adopted by the trickle irrigation system optimization model (with main line)
111
model is applicable to flat areas and will be the main
reference for the development of the present work.
The purposes of this paper are (1) to develop a
non-linear model that provides the optimization of
lay-out, design and management of trickle irrigation
systems in both flat and sloping areas, to maximize
crop profit; and (2) to illustrate the capability of the
model by means of a sensitivity analysis of the annual
net benefit for a citrus field located in Limeira, Sao
Paulo, Brazil, by varying area, micro-sprinkler dis-
charge, ground slope and shape of the field.
2. Model development
The trickle irrigation system optimization model
consists of an objective function that maximizes profit
at the farm level, subject to appropriate constraints.
The basic assumptions in the model are as follows (see
also, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 ): (1) the area must be
rectangular; (2) the slope must be uniform in both
directions; (3) the pump and control stations are
placed at the middle of one edge of the field (in the x
direction); (4) the lateral lines are polyethylene and
the others are polyvinyl chloride (p.v.c.); (5) there
must be at least one subunit working in each submain
line during the effective period of irrigation; (6) the
total number of subunits must be equal to or a
multiple of the number of subunits working simul-
taneously; (7) the ratio of the total number of subunits
Manifold
Subunit
y
Main
x
112 J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

Valves
Subunit direction, submains will all be either uphill or down-
hill. There are two basic configurations: one with main
Micro-sprinkler
line (Fig. 1 ) and another without it (Fig. 2 ). The
others possible configurations are obtained by simple
Lateral
multiplication of the above subunits.

Manifold
2.1 . Objectiy e function

The objective function to be maximized is the

annual net benefit and is given by the benefit minus
the costs of the investment, energy and production.
Thus
B n 5 B a 2 C ie 2 C p (1)
where Bn 5 annual net benefit or profit from the
Submain irrigated crop in US$ / ha yr; Ba 5 annual benefit in
US$ / ha yr; Cie 5 annual cost of the investment and
energy in US$ / ha yr; Cp 5 annual production cost
without irrigation, in US$ha yr.
The benefit is
B a 5 PYm Yr (2)
where
Y
Yr 5 (3)
Ym
and P 5 price of product in US$ / kg; Ym 5 maximum
annual yield in kg / ha yr; Yr 5 relative yield and
Y 5 actual yield in kg / ha yr.
The benefit depends on the yield and the model
used to quantify the relationship between yield and
y water, when any other required resource is at the
Pump and control station
optimum level, is (Doorenbos and Kassam10)

S D
x
Y ETa
Fig. 2. Basic configuration adopted by the trickle irrigation 12 5 Ky 1 2 (4)
system optimization model (without main line) Ym ETs
Then

working simultaneously to the number of submain Yr 5

Y
Ym
5 1 2 Ky 1 Ky
ETa
ETs
S D (5)
lines must be an integer; (8) the ratio of the total
number of subunits to the number of submain lines where Ky 5 yield response factor; ETa 5 actual seas-
must be an even number and (9) the length and the onal evapotranspiration in m; ETs 5 maximum evapo-
width of the irrigated area must be multiples of the transpiration per season, m.
distance between emission points in the lateral line The volume of water applied per plant (or tree) per
and of the distance between lateral lines. season (Vt), in m3, is given by
A trickle irrigation system is usually composed of
ETa Se S1 3600E nt Q e Is It
subunits, that in this paper consist of emitters (or Vt 5 5 (6)
micro-sprinklers), pipes (laterals and manifold), and Ea If
accessories such as valves. Each subunit is connected
directly to a submain or to a main line. On sloping ETa 5 S3600EI SES Q I I D
a

f e 1
nt e t s
(7)
fields the lateral, manifold and main pipelines will be
Thus
laid uphill and downhill. The exception is the sub-
main. Because the control and pump stations are
placed at the middle of one edge of the field in the x
F
Ba 5 PYm 1 2 K y 1 K y S If Se S1 ETs
DG
3600E a E nt Q e It Is
(8)
 OPTIMIZATION OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
where Se 5 distance between emission points in a
lateral or distance between plants (or trees) in a row,
in m; S1 5 distance between laterals or between rows
of plants (or trees), in m; E a 5 water application
efficiency; E nt 5 number of emitters per emission
point; Q e 5 average emitter discharge in m3 / s; It 5
number of irrigation hours per set of subunits working
simultaneously, during an irrigation interval; Is 5
number of irrigation days during the season and
If 5 number of days in the irrigation interval (irriga-
tion frequency).
The cost of the investment and energy, Cie,
(US$ / ha)
Cie 5
h[(Ce E t) 1 (C pe Ltl) 1 (C pvn Ltn) 1 (C pvs Lts)
1 (C pvm Ltm) 1 Cv 1 C cp 1 C cs 1 C ps]Fcr 1 C eej10 000
A On 5 number of outlets in the manifold and Nsus is the
(9)
where Ce 5 emitter cost, in US$; E t 5 total number of
emitters; C pe 5 cost (US$ / m) of polyethylene pipe
expressed as a function of the diameter (m); Ltl 5 total
length of lateral in m; C pvn 5 cost (US$ / m) of p.v.c.
pipe expressed as a function of the manifold diameter
(m); C pvs 5 cost (US$ / m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a
function of the submain diameter (m); C pvm 5 cost
(US$ / m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a function of the
main diameter (m); Ltn 5 total length of manifold in
m; Lts 5 total length of submain in m; Ltm 5 total
length of main line in m; C v 5 cost (US$) of valves;
Ccp 5 cost (US$) of control panel; C cs 5 cost (US$) of
control station; C ps 5 cost (US$) of the pump station;
Fcr 5 capital recovery factor; C ee 5 annual cost
(US$ / yr) of electric energy and A 5 total area, m2.
The pipe cost expressed as function of line diameter
are expressed by regression equations as follows
Cpe 5 C 1(Dlu 1 Dld) 2 C 2 (10)
C pvn 5 C 3[(Dnu)C4 1 (Dnd)C4] (11)
Cpvs 5 C 5(Ds) C6
(12)
C pvm 5 C 7[(Dmu) 1 (Dmd) ]
C8 C8
(13)
where Dlu is the uphill lateral line diameter, in m; Dld
is the downhill lateral line diameter, in m; Dnu is the
uphill manifold line diameter, in m; Dnd is the
downhill manifold line diameter, in m; Ds submain
line diameter, in m; Dmu is the uphill main line
diameter, in m; Dmd is the downhill main line dia-
meter, in m; C 1 , C 2 , C 3 , C 4 , C 5 , C 6 , C 7 and C 8 are
constants.
The cost (US$) of valves expressed as a function of
the total number of subunits is given by
C v 5 C 9 Nsu (14)
113
where Nsu 5 total number of subunits in the field;
C9 5 constant.
The cost (US$) of the control panel expressed as a
function of the total number of subunits is given by
Cpc 5 C 10(Nsu)C11 (15)
where C10 and C 11 are constants.
The cost (US$) of the control station expressed as a
function of the actual discharge is given by
C cs 5 C 12 1 (C 13 Qt) (16)
where C12 and C 13 are constants and Q t is the total
discharge (m3 / s) at the pump outlet, given by
Q t 5 2Q e E nt E l On Nsus (17)
where El 5 number of emission points in a lateral;
number of subunits working simultaneously. The fac-
tor 2 is used because there are lateral lines on both
sides of the manifold line. The same factor appears in
a number of other equations, such as Eqns (18), (20),
(47) and (48).
The cost (US$) of the pump station expressed as a
function of the required power is given by
S2000Q E E75OhN D
(hm 1 Ht) C15
e nt l n sus
Cps 5 C 14 (18)
where hm is the average emitter pressure, in m; h is
the pump efficiency; C 14 and C15 are constants and Ht
is the total head losses plus the total difference in
elevation, in m, given by
Ht 5 [(Hlu 1 Hnu 1 Hs 1 Hmu 1 Hcs)1?05]
1 [(Ll d y) 1 (Ln dx) 1 (Ls d y) 1 (Lm d x)] (19)
where Hlu 5 uphill lateral head losses (m); Hnu 5 uphill
manifold head losses (m); Hs 5 submain head losses
(m); Hmu 5 head losses in the uphill main line (m);
Hcs 5 head losses in the control station, m; Ll 5 lateral
line length, in m; d y 5 ground slope in y direction
(m / m); Ln 5 manifold line length, in m; d x 5 ground
slope in x direction (m / m); Ls 5 submain line length,
m and Lm 5 main line length in m. The factor 1?05 is
adopted to compensate head losses produced by
valves, registers, emitter connections and others.
The annual cost (US$ / yr) of electric energy ex-
pressed as a function of the consumption is given by
Cee 5 C kwS2Q E E O N
e nt l n sus 9?80665It Is Nsu(hm 1 Ht)
hNsus If
D
(20)
where Ckw is cost of kWh, in US$.
114 J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

The amount of each item in a trickle irrigation The Darcy – Weisbach equation is used to determine
system can be obtained using the following equations. the pipe head losses. For use with smooth plastic pipes
and hoses less than 0?125 m in diameter, this equation
AE nt
Et 5 (21) is given by (Keller and Bliesner1)
Se Sl
Q 1?75
A A Hf 5 7?89 3 1024L (34)
Ltl 5 2 (22) D 4?75
Sl 2El Sl
in which Hf 5 head loss due to pipe friction (m);
A A
Ltm 5 2 (23) L 5 length of pipe (m); Q 5 flow rate in the pipe
2El Se 4El Se On (m3 / s) and D 5 inside diameter of the pipe (m).
0?5A 0?5Lx E l Se For larger plastic pipe, where the diameter is
Lts 5 2 (24) greater than 0?125 m, the Darcy – Weisbach equation is
On Sl Sl On
given by (Keller and Bliesner1)
Ltm 5 Lx 2 (2On Sl) (25)
Q 1?83
Ll Hf 5 9?58 3 1024L (35)
El 5 1 0?5 (26) D 4?83
Se
The laterals and manifold lines are designed as a
Ln function of the emission uniformity. For design pur-
On 5 1 0?5 (27)
Sl poses, the allowable pressure head variation in a
subunit that will give a reasonable emission uniformity
Lts
Ns 5 (28) (Eu) can be computed by (Keller and Bliesner1)
Ly 2 (El Se)
h v 5 2?5(h m 2 hmin) (36)
Nsu
Os 5 (29) where hv 5 allowable presure head variation in the
2Ns
subunit (m); h min 5 pressure head that will give the
Ns minimum emission rate in the subunit (m).
Om 5 (30)
2 To estimate the emission uniformity for a proposed
design, Karmeli and Keller11 used
where Lx is the length of the field in the x direction, in
m; Ly is the length of the field in the y direction, in m;
Ns is the number of submain lines; Os is the number of S
Eu 5 100 1 2 1?27
E mv
4Ent
D qQ min

outlets in the submain line and Om is the number of
outlets in the main line.
2.2. Constraints
The constraints in the present analysis are the
hydraulic conditions, the irrigation criteria, the geo-
metric limitations and the operational characteristics.
2.2.1. Hydraulic constraints
In sloping fields, the model solves the design of the
trickle irrigation system assuming that the uphill and
the downhill pipes have the same length, but different
diameters. Thus
Hlu 1 (Ll d y) 5 Hld 2 (Ll d y) (31)
Hnu 1 (Ln d x) 5 Hnd 2 (Ln d x) (32)
Hmu 1 (Lm d x) 5 Hmd 2 (Lm d x) (33)
in which Hld 5 downhill lateral head losses (m);
Hnd 5 downhill manifold head losses (m) and Hmd 5
head losses in the downhill main line (m).
e
(37)
in which Eu 5 emission uniformity (expressed as a
decimal); E mv 5 manufacturing variation in emitter
expressed as a coefficient of variation and qmin 5
minimum emission rate in the subunit (m3 / s).
The hv value must be divided among the lateral and
manifold lines. Keller and Bliesner1 recommended, as
a general design guideline, that the allowable subunit
head variations should be allocated equally between
the lateral and manifold head variations. Karmeli and
Peri12 found the most economic division is approxi-
mately 55% in the lateral and 45 percent in the
manifold. This paper uses limits of 40% and 60% to
subdivide hv to find the division that maximizes profit.
Thus
Hlu 1 (Ll dy) > 0?4h v (38)
Hlu 1 (Ll dy) < 0?6h v (39)
Hnu 1 (Ln d x) > 0?4h v (40)
Hnu 1 (Ln d x) < 0?6h v (41)
h v 5 Hlu 1 Hnu 1 (Ll d y) 1 (Ln d x) (42)
 OPTIMIZATION OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 115

The diameters of the main pipelines and submains are data: the price of the product, production cost, capital
selected so that the flow velocities are maintained recovery factor, energy cost, cost function and cost of
between the limits of 0?2 and 2 m / s. the system components; and (3) design variables:
number of plants (trees) per hectare, number of
2.2.2. Management constraints emitters per emission point, number of irrigated days
The irrigation frequency (If) must be less than the during the cycle, maximum evapotranspiration per
maximum value (Ifx) season at the design of percentage of confidence, peak
evapotranspiration rate, recommended emitter pres-
If < Ifx (43) sure, efficiency of the motor and the pump and emitter
where coefficient of manufacturing variation.
dm
Ifx 5 (44)
ETp
in which Ifx is the maximum irrigation frequency, d; d m 2.4 . Model output
is the maximum net depth of water to be applied per
irrigation, m and ETp 5 average daily evapotranspira- The output data are: (1) net benefit, total cost of the
tion during peak-use period, m / d. For trickle irriga- trickle irrigation system and the cost of each com-
tion dm (in m) is given by ponent; and (2) length and diameter of all pipelines in
the hydraulic network, number of subunits and num-
Mad Pw ber of subunits working simultaneously, emission
dm 5 Wa Z (45)
100 100 uniformity, irrigation frequency, number of irrigation
hours per set, average flow velocity in the submain
where Mad 5 management allowed deficit, %; Pw 5
and main line.
percentage area wetted (the average horizontal area
wetted in the top 15 to 30 cm of the crop root zone as
a percentage of the total crop area); Wa 5 available
water-holding capacity of the soil, m / m and Z 5 plant 2.5. Variables utilized in the sensitiy ity analysis
root depth, m.
The available time to irrigate the total field area is a To illustrate the capability of the model, the net
restriction benefit for a citrus field, located in Limeira, Sao
Paulo, Brazil, was evaluated for the following vari-
Nsu It
< Tav (46) ables: total area (8?29 and 23?04 ha); micro-sprinkler
Nsus If discharge (35, 56 and 87 l / h); ground slope (the same
in which Tav 5 number of hours available for irrigation value in x and y directions of 0, 1, 3 and 5%); shape of
per day. the field (field length in x direction / field length in y
The water discharge is restricted by the water direction: ratios of 0?25, 0?44, 1, 2?25 and 4). The
available to the field combination of these variables resulted in 120 possible
configurations. Each model configuration has 67 lines
2Qe E nt E l On Nsus and 59 rows, with 59 decision variables and 216
< Q av (47)
Ea non-zero values. The input data are shown in Table 1.

in which Qav 5 available water in m3 / s.

The irrigated area under the trickle irrigation
system must cover the total area (A) of the field 2.6 . Software

A
Nsu 5
2El On Se Sl
2.3 . Model inputs
The model requires basic inputs such as: (1) topog-
raphic data: total area, field length and ground slope
along the x and y directions; distance between plants
in a row and distance between plant rows; (2) cost
(48) The optimization model was run on a AT-486
microcomputer using the GamsS-Minos package
(Brooks et al.13). This software uses the simplex
method, the quasi-Newton method, the reduced gra-
dient method and the projected Lagrange method to
solve linear, non-linear and mixed optimization prob-
lems. A configuration is composed by a value of area,
micro sprinkler discharge, ground slope and shape of
the field. Each model configuration was solved in
about 1 min.
116 J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

Table 1 3. Results and discussion

Input data used in the example
In all configurations, the results did not violate the
Input data Value basic assumptions of the optimization model. For
Annual production cost, US$ / ha yr example: the configuration with the greatest net bene-
(Cp) 1356 fit has four subunits, one subunit working simul-
Available discharge, m3 / s (Qav) 0?2 taneously, one submain line, and area of 480 m 3
Available water-holding capacity of 480 m. These values are consistents with assumptions
the soil, m / m (Wa) 0?1
Average (or design) pressure, in m 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
(h m) 15 The model describes the pipe diameters as con-
Average daily evapotranspiration tinuous variables, although pipes can only be pur-
during peak-use period, in m / d chased in discrete diameters. The diameters found by
(ETp) 4?7
Capital recovery factor (Fcr) 0?135 87 the model can be interpreted as the equivalent dia-
Coefficient of Eqn (10) (C1) 9?03 meter for a pipe section consisting of two successive
Coefficient of Eqn (10) (C2) 0?009 0 commercial pipe segments.
Coefficient of Eqn (11) (C3) 91?41
Coefficient of Eqn (11) (C4) 1?51
Coefficient of Eqn (12) (C5) 380?45
Coefficient of Eqn (12) (C6) 1?78
Coefficient of Eqn (13) (C7) 190?23 2950
Coefficient of Eqn (13) (C8) 1?78
Coefficient of Eqn (14) (C9) 403?43 Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr 2940
Coefficient of Eqn (15) (C10) 683?90
2930
Coefficient of Eqn (15) (C11) 0?52
Coefficient of Eqn (16) (C12) 1812?12 2920
Coefficient of Eqn (16) (C13) 0?1
Coefficient of Eqn (18) (C14) 834?22 2910
Coefficient of Eqn (18) (C15) 0?47
Cost in the kWh, in US$ (Ckw) 0?050 64 2900
Distance between emission points in
a lateral or distance between trees 2890
in the row, in m (Se) 4
Distance between laterals or between 2880
0·0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 4·0
rows of tree, in m (Sl) 8
Ground slope in x direction, % (d x) 0; 1; 3 or 5 Length in x direction / length in y direction
Ground slope in y direction, % (d y) 0; 1; 3 or 5 Fig. 3. Annual net benefit (US$ / ha yr) as a function of the
Head losses in the control station, in ratio of length in x direction / length in y direction , for
m (Hcs) 15 micro -sprinkler discharge of 35 l / h and ground slope in both
Length of field in x direction / length 0?25; 0?44; 1; directions of zero. Irrigated area : m , 8?29 ha; j , 23?04 ha
of field in y direction 2?25 or 4
Management allowed deficit, % (Mad) 50
Manufacturing variation in micro-
sprinkler expressed as a coefficient
Annual cost of irrigation system, US$/ha yr

of variation (Emv) 0?05 390

Maximum evapotranspiration per 380
season, in m (ETs) 0?487
Maximum irrigation frequency, day 370
(Ifx) 5?32 360
Maximum yield, kg / ha yr (Ym) 82 742?4
Micro-sprinkler cost (Ce) 2?11 350
Micro-sprinkler discharge, l / h (Qe) 35; 56 or 87 340
Number of hours available for irriga-
tion per day (Tav) 21 330
Number of irrigation days during the 320
season (Is) 120
Number of micro-sprinklers per 310
emission point (Ent) 1 300
Percentage area wetted (Pw) 50 0 0·5 1 1·5 2 2·5 3 3·5 4
Plant root depth, m (Z ) 1 Length in x direction / length in y direction
Price of citrus in US$ / kg (P ) 0?055 88 Fig. 4. Annual cost of irrigation system (US$ / ha yr) as a
Pump efficiency (h ) 0?65
function of the ratio of length in x direction / length in y
Total area, in m2 (A) 82 944 or 230 400
Water application efficiency (Ea) 0?90 direction , for the micro -sprinkler discharge of 35 l / h and
Yield reduction ratio (K y) 1 ground slope in both directions of zero. Irrigated area : m ,
8?29 ha; j , 23?04 ha
 OPTIMIZATION OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 117

The final result for any configuration is obtained
using an iterative process. The first iteration results in
non-integer values that are not desirables in some
variables (for example, the total number of subunits).
With these values and with the basic assumptions, it is
possible to establish alternatives with integer values
for the variables where this is necessary. The alterna-
tive that gives the greatest net benefit will be accepted
as the final result for that configuration.
The production cost, in all cases, was
US$1316 / ha yr and the benefit was US$4624 / ha yr
(except in three cases). This value of benefit is
equivalent to a relative yield of unity, that is, the real
production is equal to the maximum production. So,
the variation of the net benefit in the 120 configura-
tions is a function of the variation of the cost of the
investment and energy. This can be observed by
comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 . The costs of the
investment and energy are the most sensitive com-
ponents of the net benefit.
The greatest net benefit (US$2946 / ha yr) was ob-
tained with the smallest micro-sprinkler discharge

Table 2
Variables for the configurations with the greatest net benefit and smallest net benefit

Variables Greatest Smallest Variables Greatest Smallest

Total area (A) m2 230 400 82 944 Lateral line discharge (Ql), l / h 1050 783
Length of field in x direction (Lx), Lateral line length (Ll), m 118 34
m 480 192 Main line discharge (Qm), l / h — —
Length of field in y direction (Ly), Main line length (Lm), m — —
m 480 432 Manifold line discharge (Qn), l / h 63 000 18 792
Micro-sprinkler discharge (Qe), l / h 35 87 Manifold line length (Ln), m 236 92
Slope in x direction (d x), % 0 5 Minimum pressure in the subunit
Slope in y direction (d y), % 0 5 (h min), m 11?25 11?27
Allowable pressure head variation Number of emission points in the
in the subunit (h v), m 9?37 9?34 lateral line (El) 30 9
Annual benefit (Ba), US$ / ha yr 4624 4624 Number of outlets in the main line
Annual cost of electric energy (Om) — —
(Cee), US$ / yr 1120 619 Number of outlets in the manifold
Annual cost with investment and line (On) 30 12
energy (Cie), US$ / ha yr 322 536 Number of outlets in the submain
Annual net benefit (Bn), US$ / ha yr 2946 2732 line (Os) 2 6
Average flow velocity in the down- Number of submain lines (Ns) 1 1
hill main line (Vmd), m / s — — Number of subunits working simul-
Average flow velocity in the sub- taneously (Nsus) 1 2
main line (Vs), m / s 1?7 1?7 Submain line diameter (Ds), m 0?114 0?089
Average flow velocity in the uphill Submain line discharge (Qs), l / h 63 000 37 584
main line (Vmu), m / s — — Submain line head losses (Hs), m 4?54 4?73
Cost of control panel (Ccp), US$ 1406 2490 Submain line length (Ls), m 360 396
Cost of control station (Ccs), US$ 8112 5570 Total discharge in pump outlet
Cost of pump station (Cps), US$ 3095 2876 (Qt), l / h 63 000 37 584
Cost of values (Cv), US$ 1614 4641 Total head losses (Ht), m 30?35 50
Downhill lateral head losses (Hld), Total lateral line length (Ltl), m 28 320 9792
m 5?13 5?64 Total main line length (Ltm), m — —
Downhill lateral line diameter Total manifold line length (Ltn), m 944 1104
(Dld), m 0?017 0?012 Total number of micro-sprinklers
Downhill main line diameter (Et) 7200 2592
(Dmd), m — — Total number of subunits (Nsu) 4 12
Downhill main line head losses Total submain line length (Lts), m 360 396
(Hmd), m — — Uphill lateral head losses (Hlu), m 5?13 2?24
Downhill manifold head losses Uphill lateral line diameter (Dlu), m 0?017 0?014
(Hnd), m 4?24 10 Uphill main line diameter (Dmu), m — —
Downhill manifold line diameter Uphill main line head losses
(Dnd), m 0?094 0?042 (Hmu), m — —
Emission uniformity (Eu) 0?80 0?81 Uphill manifold head losses
Irrigation frequency (If), d 3?2 5?3 (Hnu), m 4?24 0?8
Irrigation time per set of subunits Uphill manifold line diameter
working simultaneously (It), h 13?28 8?82 (Dnu), m 0?094 0?071
118 J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

2960 direction / field length in y direction between 0?44 and

1 resulted in the best values.
Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr

2940

2920

2900
2880
2860
2840
2820
0 1
Ground slope in both directions (%)
Fig. 5. Annual net benefit (US$ / ha yr) as a function of the
ground slope in both directions(%) , for micro -sprinkler
discharge of 35 l / h and Lx / Ly 5 1. m , 8?29 ha; j , 23?04 ha
(35 l / h), the greatest area (23?04 ha), field length in x
direction / field length in y direction ratio of 1 and
zero ground slope. The smallest net benefit
(US$2732 / ha yr) was given by the greatest slope
ground (5%), micro-sprinkler discharge of 87 l / h,
smallest area (8?29 ha), and ratio between field length
in x direction and field length in y direction of 0?44
(Table 2).
3.1. Sensitiy ity analysis of the net benefit
The net benefit per unit area decreased as the
ground slope increased (Fig. 5 ) and as the micro
sprinkler discharge increased (Fig. 6 ). The most
profitable shape of the 8?29 ha field was a square area.
For the 23?04 ha area, the ratio field length in x
2960
Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr
4. Conclusions
All 120 configurations evaluated gave results that
did not violate the basic assumptions of the trickle
irrigation system optimization model, developed for
application in flat and sloping fields. The sensitivity
analysis involving the effect of area, ground slope,
2 3 4 5
micro-sprinkler discharge and the shape of the field
showed that the greatest net benefit is obtained with
the smallest micro-sprinkler discharge, the greatest
area, a square field and zero ground slope. The cost of
the investment and energy are the components that
change most in the 120 situations evaluated. The net
benefit per unit area decreases as the ground slope
increases and as the micro-sprinkler discharge in-
creases. This optimization model can help engineers to
design trickle irrigation systems.
References
1
Keller J; Bliesner R D Sprinkle and trickle irrigation.
New York: AVI Book, 1990
2
Pleban S; Amir I An interactive computerized aid for the
design of branching irrigating networks. Transactions
of the ASAE 1981, 24(2): 358 – 361
3
Oron G; Karmeli D Solid set irrigation system design
using linear programming. Water Resources Bulletin
1981, 17(4): 565 – 570
4
Benami A; Ofen A Irrigation engineering. Haifa: IESP,
1984
5
Oron G; Karemli D Procedure for the economical
evaluation of water networks parameters. Water
Resources Bulletin 1979, 15(4): 1050 – 1060
6
Karmeli D; Oron G Analysis of closed conduit irrigation
system and its subdivision. Journal of the Irrigation
and Drainage Division, ASCE, 1979, 105(2): 187 – 196
7
Oron G; Walker W R Optimal design and operation of

2940 permanent irrigation systems. Water Resources Re-

search 1981, 17(1): 11 – 17
2920 8
Allen R G; Brockway E Concepts for energy-efficient
2900 irrigation system design. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering 1984, 110(2): 99 – 106
9
2880 Holzapfel E A; Marin˜ o M A; Valenzuela A Drip
irrigation nonlinear optimization model. Journal of the
2860 Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 1990,
116(4): 479 – 496
2840 10
Doorenbos J; Kassam A H Yield response to water.
2820 Roma: FAO, 1979 (Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 33)
11
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Karmeli D; Keller J Trickle irrigation design. Glendora;
Rain Bird Sprinkler Manufacturing Corp, 1975
Micro-sprinkler discharge, l / h 12
Karmeli D; Peri G Trickle irrigation design principles.
Fig. 6. Annual net benefit (US$ / ha yr) as a function of the Haifa: The Technion Students Publishing House, 1972
13
micro -sprinkler discharge (l / h) , for a ground slope of zero in Brooks A; Kendrick D; Meeraus A Gams; a user’s guide.
both directions and Lx / Ly 5 1 . m , 8?29 ha; j , 23?04 ha Redwood City: The Scientific Press, 1988