UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING

FEB 540: ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT REPORT

2015/2016 ACADEMIC YEAR

DESIGN OF SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR A FARM IN

MENARA

CANDIDATE NAME: FRANCIS OCHIENG OSEKO

CANDIDATE ADM No.: F21/1764/2011

DATE: ……………. SIGN: ……………….

SUPERVISOR’S NAME: MR. STEPHEN CONRAD ONDIEKI

DATE: ……………. SIGN: ……………….

Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the Degree of Bachelor of Science
in Environmental and Biosystems Engineering, of the University of Nairobi

31st MARCH, 2016

 

Declaration

Student’s Declaration

I, Francis Ochieng Oseko, declare that the information contained herein is my own work

and has not been presented for a degree in this faculty or any other academic award

outside the institution.

Signature ……………………………….. Date…………………………….

This project has been accomplished and submitted with oversight from a project

supervisor at the University of Nairobi.

Name: Mr. Stephen Conrad Ondieki

Signature ……………………………….. Date…………………………….

F21/1764/2011 
i
Dedication

This project is dedicated to my parents, Mr. & Mrs. Oseko, and my brother and sisters. I am

grateful for their unreserved moral support and donation of funds towards the accomplishment of

this design project.

F21/1764/2011
ii
Acknowledgement
I would wish to thank the Supreme God for seeing me through this endeavor. My solemn

gratitude goes to my supervisor, Mr. Stephen Ondieki, for guiding me through the design process

of this project.

I am thankful to the Department’s Chairman, Dr. Ayub Gitau, the School of Engineering and

Department of Environmental and Biosystem Engineering for their financial and academic

support towards the success of this undertaking. I also acknowledge Mr. Boniface Muliro,

technician, for providing the necessary assistance needed in carrying out soil tests on the soil

samples.

Ultimately, I would wish to express my sincere gratitude to my colleagues for their assistance

towards this cause, and the project co-coordinators Dr. Duncan Mbuge and Mr. Albert Inima for

facilitating an enabling environment for carrying out the design project.

F21/1764/2011
iii
Abstract
Kenya is among many countries in sub-Saharan Africa managing food crisis which could be

attributed to numerous theoretical ideals such as inaccessibility to latest food production

technologies, inadequacy of farm equipments, poor agricultural practices and insufficient water

for agriculture. However, the practice of small scale irrigation in the recent years has covered

substantial grounds in curbing food security. In light of this, the project is based on the design of

a sprinkler irrigation system for a farmer who needs to increase his crop production. The farm

land area is situated on a leeward side of a hilly area and receives relatively low rainfall.

The design of the project involved an in-depth exploration of literature review on sprinkler

irrigation in chapter II and III. A pre-visit was conducted in the area of study which involved a

visual inspection of the area and getting acquitted with the farm owner. Soil sample collection

and inspection of the point of water abstraction were carried out in the subsequent visit. Climatic

data for 10 years from a nearby meteorological station, Menara/Homalime, was also collected

and used in the results analysis section. Chapter IV of methodology expounds on the various

experimental procedures and mathematical procedures explored.

Chapter V involves the analysis of collected results and the design computations of the project.

The project was a success regardless of a few challenges in conducting soil tests, details of the

conclusions and recommendations are comprehensively captured on Chapter VI. Chapter VII

also proposes a bill of quantities based on current market prices. This also chapter contains the

projects work plan and budget for designing the project. The implementation of this project

could reduce CO2 emissions and increase food production in Kenya at affordable implementation

and operational costs.

F21/1764/2011
iv
Table of Contents
1  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1  Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 
1.2  Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 4 
1.3  Justification ............................................................................................................................. 5 
1.4  Site Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 5 
1.5  Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 6 
1.5.1  Overall Objective ............................................................................................................ 6 
1.5.2  Specific Objectives ......................................................................................................... 6 
1.6  Project Scope .......................................................................................................................... 7 
2  LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 8 
2.1  Overview of Sprinkler Irrigation ............................................................................................ 8 
2.1.1  Sprinkler Irrigation .......................................................................................................... 8 
2.1.2  General Classification of various types of sprinkler systems ......................................... 8 
2.2  Crop Water Requirement ........................................................................................................ 9 
2.3  Irrigation Requirements ........................................................................................................ 12 
2.3.1  Net depth of water application ...................................................................................... 12 
2.3.2  Irrigation frequency ....................................................................................................... 13 
2.3.3  Gross depth of water application .................................................................................. 14 
2.3.4  System Capacity ............................................................................................................ 14 
2.4  Soil Infiltration Rate and Topography .................................................................................. 15 
2.4.1  Soil Infiltration Rate ...................................................................................................... 15 
2.4.2  Constant Head Method .................................................................................................. 15 
2.4.3  Topography ................................................................................................................... 16 
2.5  Soil Moisture Content ........................................................................................................... 17 
2.6  Soil Texture .......................................................................................................................... 17 
2.6.1  Hydrometer method ...................................................................................................... 18 
2.7  Soil Moisture Potential ......................................................................................................... 18 
2.8  Soil pH and Electrical Conductivity ..................................................................................... 19 
2.9  Sprinkler selection and spacing ............................................................................................ 19 
2.9.1  Set time (Ts) .................................................................................................................. 20 

F21/1764/2011
v
 2.10  Pipe size determination ......................................................................................................... 21 
2.11  Total Head Requirements ..................................................................................................... 21 
2.12  Pump selection and Power requirements .............................................................................. 22 
3  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................... 24 
3.1  Primary components of a sprinkler system ........................................................................... 24 
3.2  Types of solar pumps ............................................................................................................ 25 
4  DESIGN METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 27 
4.1  Software Inventory ............................................................................................................... 27 
4.2  Collection of Climatic data ................................................................................................... 27 
4.3  Site Survey and sampling of soil .......................................................................................... 27 
4.3.1  Soil sampling................................................................................................................. 27 
4.3.2  Generation of contour map for the site ......................................................................... 28 
4.4  Measurement of Soil Parameters .......................................................................................... 30 
4.4.1  Soil Moisture Content Determination ........................................................................... 30 
4.4.2  Soil Classification Experiment ...................................................................................... 30 
4.4.3  Rate of Infiltration / Hydraulic Conductivity ................................................................ 30 
4.4.4  Determination of FC, AW and PWP via pF Experiment .............................................. 31 
4.4.5  Determination of pH and Electrical Conductivity ........................................................ 31 
4.5  Calculation of Spinach Water Requirement ......................................................................... 31 
4.6  Criteria for Analyzing Data .................................................................................................. 32 
4.6.1  Establishment of the Irrigation Water Requirement ..................................................... 32 
4.6.2  System capacity Determination .................................................................................... 32 
4.6.3  Sprinkler Selection and spacing .................................................................................... 32 
4.6.4  Determination of set time .............................................................................................. 32 
4.6.5  Determination of Application Rate ............................................................................... 32 
4.6.6  Pipe type and size determination .................................................................................. 33 
4.6.7  Factorization of Total Head Requirements ................................................................... 33 
4.6.8  Calculation of Power Requirements and Pump Selection ............................................. 33 
5  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 34 
5.1  Climatic Data ........................................................................................................................ 34 

F21/1764/2011
vi
 5.2  Soil Moisture Content Results .............................................................................................. 35 
5.3  Classification Results ............................................................................................................ 35 
5.4  Soil pH and Electrical Conductivity Results ........................................................................ 36 
5.5  Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Results .................................................................................... 37 
5.6  Net depth of water application .............................................................................................. 38 
5.7  Irrigation Frequency ............................................................................................................. 38 
5.8  Gross depth of water application .......................................................................................... 38 
5.9  Theoretical System Capacity ................................................................................................ 38 
5.10  Sprinkler selection and Spacing ............................................................................................ 39 
5.10.1  Sample computation: ..................................................................................................... 39 
5.10.2  Calculation of set time .................................................................................................. 41 
5.11  Practical System Capacity / Application rate ....................................................................... 41 
5.12  Pipe type and size determination .......................................................................................... 42 
5.12.1  Determination of the diameter of laterals...................................................................... 42 
5.12.2  Determination of the diameter of rising pipes of each sprinkler ................................... 43 
5.12.3  Determination of the diameter of main line .................................................................. 44 
5.12.4  Calculation of Head Losses ........................................................................................... 45 
5.13  Power Requirements ............................................................................................................. 47 
5.14  Recommendation of number of Solar panels ........................................................................ 48 
5.15  Computation of the reduction in Green gases emission ....................................................... 48 
5.16  Cost Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................... 49 
5.17  Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 50 
6  CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 51 
6.1  Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 51 
6.2  Recommendations................................................................................................................. 51 
7  SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES, BUDGET & BILL OF QUANTITIES ..................................... 53 
7.1  Work Plan ............................................................................................................................. 53 
7.2  Budget ................................................................................................................................... 53 
7.3  Bill of Quantities ................................................................................................................... 54 
8  REFERENCE LIST ...................................................................................................................... 55 

F21/1764/2011
vii
9  APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 57 
9.1  Appendix I: Tables ............................................................................................................... 57 
9.2  Appendix II: Figures ............................................................................................................. 60 

F21/1764/2011
viii
List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Google Earth Pro image of the site (Co-ordinates: 0o 09’ 59.44” S, 35o 14’ 09.06” E) .... 6

Figure 2.1: Sprinkler pressure effect (Low pressure) .......................................................................... 19

Figure 2.2 : Sprinkler pressure effect (Moderate Pressure) ................................................................. 20

Figure 2.3 : Sprinkler pressure effect (High Pressure)......................................................................... 20

Figure 4.1 : Bottom soil sample for point A ........................................................................................ 28

Figure 4.2 : Top soil sample for point A .............................................................................................. 28

Figure 4.3 : Contour map of Menara Site ............................................................................................ 29

Figure 4.4 : Section of River Menara................................................................................................... 29

Figure 4.5 : Hydraulic conductivity test............................................................................................... 30

Figure 4.6 : pF Experiment .................................................................................................................. 31

Figure 5.1 : CROPWAT ETc values.................................................................................................... 37

Figure 9.1 : A Graph of Average Monthly Rainfall for 10 yrs ............................................................ 60

Figure 9.2 : Friction loss chart for uPVC pipes (Source: South African Bureau of Standards) .......... 61

Figure 9.3 : Sprinkler Irrigation Method.............................................................................................. 62

Figure 9.4 : Sprinkler Components ...................................................................................................... 62

Figure 9.5 : Schematic Representation of a Sprinkler System ............................................................. 63

Figure 9.6 : Mock up of a Sprinkler System ........................................................................................ 64

Figure 9.7 : Map of Kisumu County (Source: ILRI) ........................................................................... 64

Figure 9.8 : County Map of Kenya (Source : ILRI)............................................................................. 65

Figure 9.9 : CROPWAT values of Effective rainfall ........................................................................... 66

Figure 9.10 : PVC Pipe Specifications ( Source : Davis & Shirtliff)................................................... 66

Figure 9.11 : Pump efficiency chart (Source: Davis & Shirtliff) ......................................................... 67

Figure 9.12: Photovoltaic ratings ......................................................................................................... 67 

F21/1764/2011
ix
List of Tables

Table 2.1 : Farm irrigation efficiencies for sprinkler irrigation ........................................................... 14 

Table 2.2 : Basic soil infiltration rates ................................................................................................. 16 

Table 2.3 : Precipitation rate reduction on sloping ground .................................................................. 17 

Table 5.1 : Monthly average Climatic Data (Source: Menara/Homalime Station) .............................. 34 

Table 5.2 : Soil Moisture Content ........................................................................................................ 35 

Table 5.3 : Soil Classification .............................................................................................................. 35 

Table 5.4 : Soil pH and Electrical Conductivity .................................................................................. 36 

Table 5.5 : Soil Hydraulic Conductivity .............................................................................................. 37 

Table 5.6 : Selection of sprinkler spacing ............................................................................................ 40 

Table 5.7 : Total Dynamic Head .......................................................................................................... 47 

Table 9.1 : Ranges of Effective Rooting Depth for Some Crops (Source: FAO-56, 2006) ................. 57 

Table 9.2 : Performance of Some Sprinklers (Source: Keller and Bliesner) ....................................... 57 

Table 9.3 : Maximum sprinkler spacing as related to wind velocity, rectangular pattern (Source:

Keller and Bliesner, 1990)............................................................................................................ 58 

Table 9.4 : Maximum sprinkler spacing as related to wind velocity, square pattern (Source: Keller

and Bliesner, 1990) ...................................................................................................................... 58 

Table 9.5 : Maximum precipitation rates to use on level ground (Source: Keller and Bliesner, 1990)

 ...................................................................................................................................................... 58 

Table 9.6: Christiansens "F" factors for various outlets (Source: Keller and Bliesner, 1990) ............. 59 

F21/1764/2011
x
List of Abbreviations

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

WFP – World Food Programme

MDG – Millennium Development Goal

WFS – World Food Summit

IFAD – International Fund for Agricultural Development

NCPD – National Council for Population and Development

ETo – Reference evapo-transpiration rate

ETc – Crop evapo-transpiration rate

FC – Field Capacity

PWP – Permanent Wilt Point

RZD – Root zone depth

Kc – Crop co-efficient

SSR – Soil Sample Ring

ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials

TDH – Total Dynamic Head

uPVC – Unplasticized Polyvinyl Chloride

F21/1764/2011
xi
 

CHAPTER I

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In the wake of civilization and technological advancements, food insecurity poses as one

of the epic challenges towards achieving the global millennium development targets. An

estimated 795 million human beings are underfed globally which is slightly lower by 167 million

over the past decade and 216 million down in 1990 – 1992 (FAO, IFAD & WFP, 2015). This

vividly depicts sulky progress; over one in nine individuals in the world are incapable of

consuming sufficient food to support an active and healthy life. Regrettably, fatalities of 45% in

children are due to poor nutrition which rounds up to distressful figures of 3.1 million per year!

Nevertheless, hunger continues to take its toll with one in six children underweight; a rough

estimate of 100 million kids. The World Food Programme hunger statistics also report a dire case

of one in four children having stunted growth due to malnourishment (FAO, 2015). About 161

million under the age of 5 have stunted grow half of which living in Asia and more than a third

in Africa.

According to the latest findings by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (2015), the percentage majority of people who are affected by hunger live in developing

regions. Notably, the generality of undernourishment has waned by 44.4% since 1990 – 1992.

However, 12.9% of the world’s total population is still overshadowed by the reality of hunger

(FAO, IFAD & WFP, 2015). The year 2015 sees to it the end of watch for the Millennium

Development Goal (MDG) and World Food Summit (WFS) hunger targets. A statistical

vanishing point depicts that the goals of the aforementioned organs were missed with the WFS

registering large margins. To exemplify, the envisioned figure of people is approximately 285

F21/1764/2011 
1
million above the 2015 goal. The MDG equally missed its mark by a small margin. 72

developing nations of the monitored 129 countries have reached the Millennium Development

Goal 1c hunger objective (FAO, IFAD & WFP, 2015). Of these, 12 countries have attained the

MDG 1c aim of maintaining malnourishment very close to or below 5%.

Majority of the nations that have scored the set international hunger goals wallow in

stable political environs and economic progress, along with tenable social protection policies

geared towards unprotected population groups (FAO, 2015). The dedication to curb food

insecurity emerged successful in those countries regardless of the situations thrown by increased

population growth, high food and energy prices, fickle commodity prices, unemployment

upheaval and economic crises in the late 1990s and after 2008. Contrary to expectations of

MDG, several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Africa and Eastern Africa have failed to

score the set targets for suppressing food insecurity, among other goals. This has led to

protracted food crisis and the need for a pragmatic approach towards the mitigation of food

insecurity in developing countries (FAO, IFAD & WFP, 2015). Retrospectively, there is growing

consensus towards the adoption of irrigation practices as an initiative to unbraid the shackles of

food insecurity on Millennium Development Goals. In line with this, concerted efforts have been

channeled towards the development of irrigation projects.

Essentially, the world’s 288 million (19%) Ha of a total 1500 million Ha of tillable land

is currently irrigated (Kulkarni, 2011). The demand for irrigation and consequent increased food

production is principally driven by the world’s population growth. The world’s population is

anticipated to rise from 6.1 billion to 8.1 billion between 2000 and 2030. Nonetheless, a

threefold increase in world population between 1950 and 2000 doubled the increase in irrigated

area (Kulkarni, 2011). Sustainable economic shape up in Africa is interlaced with the

F21/1764/2011
2
progression of its agricultural domain upon which 60% of its population depends. Irrespective,

Africa still depicts a low level of venture into fundamental infrastructure such as irrigation. High

initial costs, volatile food prices and perceived relapse of previous irrigation projects feature as

some of the key reasons for reluctance on the part of development agencies and regimes in Sub-

Saharan Africa (FAO, 2015).

The East Africa is part of Sub-Saharan Africa with a total area of approximately 3.5

million square kilometers or 10% of Africa. This region borders the Central region, Northern

region, Southern region and the Indian Ocean. At the heart of East Africa is Kenya: bordering

Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia and the Indian Ocean. The country has an area of 571 466

square kilometers (NCPD, 2013). Northern Kenya and parts of Ethiopia have dry climates

largely influenced by the Sahara Desert. The country also enjoys equatorial climate experienced

in western parts of Kenya and other regions along the equator. Moreover, the Southern part of

the country has widespread moderate tropical and tropical climates.

The arid and extremely arid realms comprise 65% of the country and receive an estimated

annual mean rainfall of 200mm – 600mm with temperatures varying from 23oC – 34oC. The

semi-arid regions at altitudes of 900m – 1800m receive mean yearly rainfall of 500mm –

1000mm (NCPD, 2013). The coastal region experiences a mean annual downpour of 1000mm –

1250mm with moderate temperatures of 22oC – 30oC. The western and central highlands, and

parts the Rift Valley at altitudes of 900m – 4000m have a moderate annual downpour of 950mm

– 3000mm with temperatures ranging from 14oC – 28oC (NCPD, 2013). Hence, Kenya has

diversified climates.

F21/1764/2011
3
 Kenya has a demographic population of around 42 million which is expected to reach 60

million by 2030 (NCPD, 2013). The nation’s proportion of people living below the poverty line

is 46% as of 2010 against the MDG target of 23.5%. The rate of infant mortality is at 52/1000

against the MDG 26/1000; most of the deaths are as a result of undernourishment. Agriculture

serves as the backbone of the country’s economy with a contribution of up to 50% to Gross

Domestic Product (NCPD, 2013). 20% of Kenya’s land is arable with potential irrigable land of

approximately 540 000 Ha, 9.6% of which has been developed.

However, food security still poses a challenge to Kenya with an estimated 10 million plus

being food insecure (NCPD, 2013). A proportionate number also depend on relief aid with

majority struggling to put food on the table. According to FAO (2015), Kenya’s food security

upshots of economic trade are below the set targets. It is against this backdrop that small-scale

irrigation finds it roots. Moreover, the promotion of irrigation development agrees with the

country’s vision 2030 on the stabilization of food production via optimum utilization of land and

water resources. Irrigation expansion also ranks as a reasonable measure in the fight against

climate change (Blank, 2002). Arguably, sprinkler irrigation systems do offer one of the best

strategies in realizing the highlighted prospects of the country’s vision. This project, therefore,

focuses on the design of a sprinkler irrigation system for a small farm situated on a medium

potential area. The supposed land is irrigable and can support crop growth. The project is

inclined towards increasing the farmer’s crop yield and is formidable step in solving the

country’s food insecurity problem.

1.2 Problem Statement

Due to the leeward location and climatic changes of the surrounding environment, the

area around the farm receives relatively low rainfall in the extensive period of the year: except

F21/1764/2011
4
for the long rains. The change in climate is attributed to extensive clearing of vegetation and

atmospheric pollution from sugarcane burning, sugarcane factory and limestone factory.

Majority of the farmers in the area are also affected by the periodic rainfall seasons and do not

have any form of supplemental irrigation for their crops. This project design, therefore, seeks to

come to the rescue of an affected farmer who is in dire need of a supplemental irrigation system

for improving the existing crop production to supply a local market and supermarket.

1.3 Justification
The farmer in question has an inclination towards the use of sprinkler irrigation system to

irrigate his crops. He seeks to expand his production of spinach on a 2.18 acre farm and provide

neighboring markets and an urban center supermarket with his product. The farmer also has the

intention of integrating pest control unit into the sprinkler system in the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, the expensive cost of fuel has led to the exploration of solar energy as remedy. The

project also aligns with one of the country’s initiatives in improving food security.

1.4 Site Analysis

The farm under consideration is in Menara, Muhoroni Constituency in Kisumu County.

The location is about 55km stretch from Kisumu City and 45km from Kericho Town. The area

receives an annual rainfall of 1365mm while the effective rainfall is 1089.5mm as computed by

CROPWAT (Appendix II: Figure 9.9). The area is at an altitude of 1375m above sea level with a

tropical climate. The size of the farm is 2.18 acres and is 80m from, Menara River, a major

tributary of River Nyando.

F21/1764/2011
5
  
Figure 1.1: Google Earth Pro image of the site (Co-ordinates: 0o 09’ 59.44” S, 35o 14’ 09.06” E)

1.5 Objectives

1.5.1 Overall Objective

1. To design a sprinkler irrigation system for a farmer in Menara so as to improve his crop

yield that is supplied to a local market and supermarket.

1.5.2 Specific Objectives

a) To determine the crop water requirements and related irrigation parameters

b) To determine the soil characteristics and topography of the area under consideration

c) To use the variables from (a) and (b) in designing system components of the sprinkler

irrigation which include; pipe work, type of pump, size of pump and the number of

sprinkler heads

d) To establish the power requirements, recommend the right pump and number of solar

panels that can power the sprinkler irrigation system

F21/1764/2011
6
1.6 Project Scope
The project focuses on the design of a solar powered sprinkler irrigation system of a

small farm, 2.18 acres, in Menara. The design will entail the determination of the field layout,

collection of agro-climatic data of the region, estimation of crop water requirements against the

watering schedule, system capacity requirement estimation, pipe size determination, sprinkler

selection and spacing, factorization of total head requirements, power requirements calculations

and recommendation for the right sizing of solar energy pump equipment needed.

This project will not cover the design of a structure needed to house the pumping unit;

however, the work will be sub-contracted to qualified parties of interest. It will also not

concentrate on the design intricacies of a solar plant but will borrow the services from a capable

electrical engineer using the recommended power requirements and irrigation set time. The

project will use an existing weir at the point of abstraction so this design will not include the

design of a weir.

F21/1764/2011
7
CHAPTER II

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview of Sprinkler Irrigation

2.1.1 Sprinkler Irrigation

Sprinkler irrigation refers to a method of applying irrigation water which is similar to

natural rainfall (Scott, 2007). In this system, water is distributed via a connection of pipes usually

by pumping and sprayed into the air through sprinkler heads so that it breaks smaller droplets

which fall onto the ground. The sprinkler, pump supply system and operating conditions are

often designed to enable uniform application of water. Spray heads distribute water evenly over

the entire soil surface. Sprinklers render efficient coverage for minimal to extensive areas and are

fit for all types of crops. Nevertheless, they can be used in virtually all irrigable soils and

topography (Davis, 2015).

2.1.2 General Classification of various types of sprinkler systems

Sprinkler irrigation systems are broadly categorized into the following main types on the basis of

their alignment in spraying irrigation water:

1. Rotating head system

2. Perforated pipe system

Rotating Head System

This system has small size nozzles which are mounted on riser pipes fixed at equal

intervals along the length of the lateral pipe that are laid on the ground. The rotating components

may also be fixed on posts that are above the crop height and rotated via 90o, to water a

rectangular strip. The rotating head is integrated with a small hammer which is activated by the

F21/1764/2011
8
thrusting action of water striking against a vane attached to it (Scott, 2007). Examples of

irrigation system using rotating head include: center pivot system and side roll system.

Perforated Pipe System

This technique comprise of drilled holes along their length through which water is

sprayed under pressure (Laycock, 2011). The system is designed for comparatively low pressure.

Its application rates vary from 1.25 – 5 cm/hr for respective pressure and spacing. They are

classified on the basis of portability into the following varieties:

a) Portable system: It has movable Sub-main lines, laterals and pumping unit.

b) Semi-portable system: It has the same configuration as the portable system except that

the location of water source and pumping plant is geostationary.

c) Semi-permanent system: A semi-permanent irrigation system has portable lateral lines,

permanent main lines and sub-mains and a fixed water source and pumping plant.

d) Solid set system: It has numerous laterals to obviate their lateral movement their lateral

movement. The laterals are set before the crop season and remain in the field for an entire

season.

e) Permanent system: It constitutes a system of permanently laid mains, sub-mains and

laterals and stationery water source and pumping plant.

2.2 Crop Water Requirement

It is the quantity of water that is needed to meet the evapo-transpiration rate for the crops

to thrive. The estimation of crop water requirement necessitates that the crop evapo-transpiration

rate is measured first (Gipson, 2015). The reference rate (ETo), refers to the approximate quantity

of water that is utilized by a well-watered grass of about 8-15cm in height. It represents the

F21/1764/2011
9
maximum or potential evapo-transpiration that can occur. The water requirement of the crop is

often less than ETo. With factors such as the plant’s growth stage, leaf coverage and other

specifics put into consideration, the ETo is calculated into ETc through the crop-specific

coefficient Kc (Keesen, 2013). The ETo can be calculated as a reference for approximating actual

crop evapo-transpiration (ETc).

ETc = Kc × ETo ...................................................................................Eq. 2.1

where: ETc = evapo-transpiration rate of the crop under standard conditions (mm/day)

The most common methods that can be used to predict evapo-transpiration rate of crops are:

Evaporation Pan Method, Penman-Monteith Method, Blaney-Criddle Method and Radiation

Method (Wilson, 2015).

Penman-Monteith Method

This is the most accurate and sophisticated technique of determining crop evapo-

transpiration. It requires climatic data for air temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation and

wind speed, and recommended where the data is available (Wilson, 2015). Additionally, the

method can be adjusted to suit the physical features of any weather station. The modified

equation is given as follows:

.......................................................................Eq. 2.2

ETo = reference evapo-transpiration [mm/day]

Rn = net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m-2 day-1]

G = soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1] T = mean daily air temperature at 2 m height [°C]

F21/1764/2011
10
u2 = wind speed at 2 m height [m/s] es = saturation vapor pressure [kPa]

ea = actual vapor pressure [kPa] es - ea = saturation vapor pressure deficit [kPa]

Δ = slope vapor pressure curve [kPa °C-1] γ = psychrometric constant [kPa °C-1].

Blanely-Criddle Method

It primarily takes into account temperature as the variable parameter hence; it is not very

accurate in the estimation of reference evapo-transpiration rate (Wilson, 2015). The equation for

this approach is given as:

ETo = p (0.46Tmean + 8) ...................................................................................Eq. 2.3

where:

ETo = Reference crop evapo-transpiration (mm/day) Tmean = mean daily temperature (oC)

p = mean daily percentage of annual daytime hours

Evaporation Pan Method

The evapo-transpiration of reference crop can be obtained by measuring the rate of

evaporation from a shallow, open-faced pan (Wilson, 2015). Class A evaporation pans are used

and water is kept between the height of 2 -3 inches below the rim of the pan. The reference crop

ET is estimated by computing the following parameters:

ETo = kp Epan ....................................................................................Eq. 2.4

where:

ETo = evapo-transpiration of reference crop [mm/day] kp = pan coefficient

Epan = evaporation from the pan [mm/day]

F21/1764/2011
11
Radiation Method
This technique depends on solar radiation and air temperature data to measure ETo in the

absence of climatic data. It is recommended for arid areas and shouldn’t be used near the ocean

in cool climates (Wilson, 2015). The radiation equation is expressed as:

...........................................................Eq. 2.5

where:

br = adjustment factor depending on the average relative humidity and daytime wind speed

ETo = evapo-transpiration of reference crop [mm/day]

Δ = slope vapor pressure curve [kPa °C-1] γ = psychrometric constant [kPa °C-1].

Rs = incoming solar radiation [MJ m-2 day-1] λ = heat of vaporization of water

2.3 Irrigation Requirements

2.3.1 Net depth of water application

This the quantity of water that is applied during irrigation so as to replace the water

utilized during by the crop during evapo-transpiration (Davis, 2015). The calculation of the net

depth of water application needs the following variable parameters:

 Allowable soil moisture depletion (P)

 Available soil moisture (FC-PWP)
 Effective root zone depth of the crop (RZD)

Depending on the crop sensitivity to water stress, the soil moisture should be permitted to

deplete partially (Wilson, 2015). On average, a depletion of 50% of the available moisture is

allowable. The net depth to be applied per irrigation is expressed as:

F21/1764/2011
12
dnet = (FC-PWP) × RZD × P ..................................................................................Eq. 2.6

where:

dnet = net depth of water application per irrigation for a given crop (mm)

FC = soil moisture at field capacity (mm/m)

PWP = soil moisture at the permanent wilting point (mm/m)

RZD = depth of soil that the roots exploit effectively (m)

P = allowable moisture permitted for depletion by the crop before the next irrigation

In order to express the depth of water in terms of the volume, the proposed area for irrigation is

multiplied by depth:

V = 10 × A × d ..................................................................................Eq. 2.7

where:

V = volume of water to be applied (m3) A = area proposed for irrigation (ha)

d = net depth of water application (mm)

2.3.2 Irrigation frequency

It is the duration it takes the crop to deplete the soil moisture at a given soil moisture

depletion level. For design purposes, the peak daily water used by the crop (evapo-transpiration

rate of the crop) is of interest (Keesen, 2013). Following the establishment of dnet, the irrigation

frequency at peak water demand is obtained using the given equation:

IF = ...................................................................................Eq. 2.8

where:

IF = irrigation frequency (days) dnet = net depth of water application (mm)

F21/1764/2011
13
ETc = evapo-transpiration rate of the crop (mm/day)

2.3.3 Gross depth of water application

The gross depth of water application is given by dividing the net depth of irrigation with

farm irrigation efficiency. The farm irrigation efficiency of sprinkler systems varies depending

on whether the climate is cool, moderate, hot or moderate (Keesen, 2013). Farm irrigation

efficiency also incorporates possible losses of water from pipe leakages:

dgross = .................................................................................Eq. 2.9

Where: E = farm irrigation efficiency

Table 2.1 : Farm irrigation efficiencies for sprinkler irrigation

Climate Farm Irrigation Efficiency

Cool 80%

Moderate 75%

Hot 70%

Desert 65%

2.3.4 System Capacity

It is the volume of water to be supplied in an hour of irrigation (Keesen, 2013). The

system capacity is given by the following equation:

Q= ...................................................................................Eq. 2.10

where:

Q = system capacity (m3/hr) A = design area (ha)

F21/1764/2011
14
d = gross depth of water application (mm) I = irrigation cycle (days)

Ns = number of shifts per day T = irrigation time per shift (hr)

2.4 Soil Infiltration Rate and Topography

2.4.1 Soil Infiltration Rate

This is the velocity at which water penetrates into the soil and it is quantified in depth

(mm) per hour (Wilson, 2015). In order to avoid runoff, the sprinkler application rate ought not

to surpass the basic soil infiltration rate: hence, its determination is a guide in selecting a

sprinkler with a lower precipitation rate than the infiltration rate. Infiltration is established using

double ring infiltrometers. Alternatively, the infiltration rate of the soil can be determined using

the saturated hydraulic conductivity (KSAT). The hydraulic conductivity of a given soil K,

defines the quantity of water that passes via a unit cross-sectional area of soil in a unit time. The

KSAT parameter is primarily used for the comparison of different KSAT rates of variant soil

horizons as a guide to soil water movement and irrigation planning (Rhoades, 1982). The three

methods of KSAT measurements include: constant head method, falling head method and auger

hole method. However, constant head method is the most commonly used because of its ease of

use.

2.4.2 Constant Head Method

The measurement of hydraulic conductivity of saturated soils in the lab relies on direct

application of the Darcy’s equation to a saturated soil column of uniform cross-sectional area

(Rhoades, 1982). A hydraulic head difference is imposed on the soil column and the resultant

flux measured. The hydraulic conductivity is thus given as follows:

KSAT = ...................................................................................Eq. 2.11

F21/1764/2011
15
Where: KSAT = hydraulic conductivity / infiltration rate (cm/hr)

Q = Volume flow rate of water (cm3/hr)

H = hydraulic head difference (cm)

T = time (hr)

L = sample length (cm)

A = cross-sectional area of sample (cm2)

Some ranges of infiltration for soil types are presented in the table below:

Table 2.2 : Basic soil infiltration rates

Soil Type Basic infiltration (mm/hr)

Clay 1–7

Clay Loam 7 – 15

Silt Loam 15 – 25

Sandy Loam 25 – 40

Sand > 40

2.4.3 Topography
The topography of the land also affects the infiltration rate of the soil and a correction of

the precipitation is necessary so as to avoid runoff in sloping land (Wilson, 2015). The slope of a

given land can be calculated by measuring various altitude points then using the given formulae

to compute slope percentage:

Slope percentage = × 100 % ........Eq. 2.12

The precipitation rates reduction on sloping land is given in the table below:

F21/1764/2011
16
Table 2.3 : Precipitation rate reduction on sloping ground

Slope % Reduction

0 – 5% 0

6 – 8% 20

9 – 12% 40

13 – 20% 60

> 20% 75

2.5 Soil Moisture Content

It is the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of the solids in a given mass of soil.

This ratio is often expressed as a percentage. The knowledge of the soil moisture content has

many application areas, to mention a few; it is used in determining the bearing capacity and

settlement (Rhoades, 1982). It gives an idea of the state of soil in the field. The oven drying

method is given by:

W% = × 100 ...............................................................................Eq. 2.13

Where: W % = moisture content

W2 = weight of wet soil sample (g)

W1 = weight of can (g)

W3 = weight of dry soil sample (g)

2.6 Soil Texture

The particle size distribution of mineral particles is an important measure of soil because

finely divided soil particles have greater surface per unit mass than coarse particles. Therefore, a

miniature quantity of fine clay and silt will be more essential in chemical reactions, release of

nutrient elements and retention of soil moisture. Soil particles are broadly classified into three

F21/1764/2011
17
size classes: sand, clay and silt (Rhoades, 1982). The most commonly used methods for

determining soil particle distribution are: hand texture method, separation by sieving and

separation by sedimentation.

2.6.1 Hydrometer method

This method falls under separation by sedimentation category and it depends on the

fundamentals of Stokes’ law where the buoyant force on a hydrometer is determined by

suspension density (Rhoades, 1982).

2.7 Soil Moisture Potential

Water potential quantifies the tendency of water to move from one area to another due to

osmosis pressure, gravity, and mechanical pressure or matrix effects such as soil capillary action.

Water retention in the soil is determined by various binding forces between water and the solid

particles in their soil matrix. The hydrostatic pressure in the soil matrix is often lower than the

atmospheric pressure and is known as matrix suction which expressed in bars or atmospheres

(Rhoades, 1982). The soil moisture potential is expressed as given for water suctioned at various

bars:

Ɵ= ...................................................................................Eq. 2.14

Where: Ɵ = Soil water retention/ moisture potential (cm/cm3)

Wt(i) = Weight of soil at given pressure (g)

Wt(OD) = Oven Dried weight of soil sample (g)

Vt = Field volume of soil sample (cm3)

Pw = Density of water (g/cm3)

F21/1764/2011
18
2.8 Soil pH and Electrical Conductivity
The measurement of pH is expressed as the inverse log of the hydrogen ion

concentration. The pH of the soil solution controls the form and solubility of many plant

nutrients. Soil pH is measured on 2.5:1 water to soil suspension. The electrical conductivity

measurement identifies the soils which are potentially saline. The electro-conductivity of the

saturated paste extract is often measured to determine the degree of salinity (Rhoades, 1982).

These tests are carried out using conductivity meter and pH meter.

2.9 Sprinkler selection and spacing

The choice of the appropriate sprinkler relies on how the best fit spacing with a particular

pressure and nozzle size can provision water at an application rate that does not cause runoff

(Keesen, 2013). The spacing should also provide the best uniformity of application under

prevailing wind conditions.

Another aspect considered in sprinkler selection is the energy cost. Lower pressures are

reasonable as long as the uniformity of application is not compromised. The co-efficient of

uniformity is a quantization of the uniformity of water application. A value of 100% is an

indication of perfect uniformity which means that water is applied at uniform depth (Keesen,

2013). Moreover, the effect of pressure on water distribution pattern portrays the following

situations:

Figure 2.1: Sprinkler pressure effect (Low pressure)

F21/1764/2011
19
If the sprinkler operates at a relatively low pressure, the size of droplets are large and water

would concentrate in a ring-shaped form around the sprinkler.

Figure 2.2 : Sprinkler pressure effect (Moderate Pressure)

The precipitation rate shown above is within the desirable range

Figure 2.3 : Sprinkler pressure effect (High Pressure)

In cases where the pressure is too high, the water breaks into very fine droplets and

settles around the sprinkler in no wind conditions (Keesen, 2013). Under wind conditions, the

distribution pattern is easily distorted.

2.9.1 Set time (Ts)

The set time refers to time each set of sprinklers should operate at the same position so as

to deliver gross irrigation depth (Wilson, 2015). It is given by the following equation:

Ts = ...................................................................................Eq. 2.15

Where: Ts = set time (hr)

Pr = sprinkler precipitation rate (mm/hr)

F21/1764/2011
20
2.10 Pipe size determination
This involves the selection of appropriate diameters of pipe types that can carry a given

flow below the set velocity limit. For instance, the velocity limit for uPVC pipes is

approximately 2m/s (Wilson, 2015). The pipe sizes are also determined based on various classes

of pipe. uPVC pipes are available in pressure ratings of 6 bar– Class B, 9 bar – Class C, 12 bar –

Class D and 15 bar – Class E (Appendix II: Figure 9.10). Alternatively, the pipe diameters for

use can be determined with the following equations:

Q A V ...................................................................................Eq. 2.16

where: A = area (m2), V= velocity of flow (m2/s), Q = volume (m3/s)

π
A ...................................................................................Eq. 2.17

where: π = Pi Constant d= diameter of pipe

D=d= ...................................................................................Eq. 2.18

π

2.11 Total Head Requirements

The total head requirements constitute the pump suction lift, the friction losses in the

supply line, the friction losses in the mainline, lateral and fittings, the riser, the sprinkler

operating pressure and difference in elevation (Keesen, 2013). The suction lift is the difference in

elevation between the water level and the eye of the pump impeller added to the head losses in

the suction pipe. The head losses of the suction pipe constitute the frictional losses of the fittings,

pipe and the velocity head. The recommended diameter for suction pipes ought to be selected

such that water velocity is less than 3.3 m/s (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). The head losses can be

read from provided friction loss charts. However, the velocity head is ignored if the pipe is short

(Wilson 2015).

F21/1764/2011
21
Velocity Head = ...................................................................................Eq. 2.19

where: V = water velocity (m/s), g = acceleration (9.81 m/s2)

H = HSL + HS + HM + HL +HR + SOP + HF + HE ...................................................Eq. 2.20

H = total dynamic head

HS = supply line head loss HSL = suction lift head loss

HM = sub-main line head loss HL = lateral head

HR = riser head loss SOP = sprinkler operating pressure head

HF = fitting head loss HE = loss due to elevation

Alternatively, the head losses can be calculated using the Darcy equation given below and added

to obtain the total head losses:

hf = ...................................................................................Eq. 2.21

Where: hf = head loss (m) f = friction factor g = acceleration (m2/s)

f= ...................................................................................Eq. 2.22

Where: Re = Reynold’s number

2.12 Pump selection and Power requirements

A pump ought to provide the desired head and achieve flow at the highest possible

efficiency (Keesen, 2013). The addition of the head losses gives the total dynamic head. The

pump is powered by an electric motor hence, the need for computing the power requirements

using the formula given:

F21/1764/2011
22

P= ...................................................................................Eq. 2.23

where:

P = energy transferred from pump to the water (kW)

Q = discharge (m3/hr)

TDH = total dynamic head (m)

Ep = the pump efficiency (%) from the pump performance chart

360 = conversion constants for metric units

An appropriate pump is then selected based on the power requirements needed to

overcome the head losses. The number of solar panels to produce the electricity is determined

from the pump power requirements.

F21/1764/2011
23
CHAPTER III

3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Primary components of a sprinkler system

Pumping Unit

A pump is needed to convey water from the source via the main line and laterals to the

sprinkler. The pressurized water at the nozzles is sprayed and applied to crops in the field.

Depending on the topography, sufficient pressure may develop at the nozzle and eliminate the

need for additional pumps (Scott, 2007). The most common pumps used are centrifugal or

submersible pumps which are fitted with requisite accessories. Nevertheless, the pumps under

consideration ought to be prescribed under the IS 10804 standard.

Main Line

It is made up of Aluminum or uPVC as per the BIS stipulation (IS 7092) for aluminum

tubes and IS 4985 for uPVC tubes. Light weight aluminum is preferable in case of designing

portable systems. The main line serves the purpose of carrying water from the pumping section

to other regions of the field (Scott, 2007). Portable main lines are relatively economical to fixed

main lines when the sprinkler system has variant applications in different fields.

Lateral pipes

They carry water from the main line to nozzles or sprinklers. The lateral lines are made

up of uPVC or aluminum tubes with quick couplings. These pipes are often purchasable in

lengths of 5m, 6m and 12m along with quick couplings (Keesen, 2013). The lateral pipes should

be of desirable quality and prescribed standards. The crop geometry, area to be wetted, water

F21/1764/2011
24
requirement of crop among other factors determines the number of laterals on a main pipe line

(Scott, 2007).

Regulators, gauges and valves

These comprise pressure regulators which are installed under the sprinkler to maintain an

incessant pressure applied to the sprinkler regardless of the upward or downward alignment of

the pipeline. Moreover, flow regulators are integrated to regulate the flow and pressure of

flowing via the sprinkler (Scott, 2007). The pressure gauges serve the purpose of establishing the

pressure at the sprinkler. The valves, on the contrary, control the flow of water. Screw type

valves are the most common with drain valves finding their application at valley portions of the

land. Other types of valves used include: conventional pressure relief valves, outlet valves, check

valves and air relief valves.

Sprinkler heads

They are the most indispensible part of the sprinkler system. The operating dimensions of

sprinkler heads under optimal water pressure and climatic circumstances determine the

suitability and efficiency of the system. They range from small-single nozzle sprinklers to

multiple nozzle sprinklers operating at high pressure. The jointure of pressure and rotation result

in the throwing of water to a reasonable distance (Scott, 2007).

3.2 Types of solar pumps

Submerged multistage centrifugal motor irrigation pump set: It is the most

commonly used solar pump for supplying water to towns and cities. It’s easy to install, has lay-

flat flexible pipe work and the motor irrigation pump set is submersed to prevent damage

(Agriculture Solar Powered Irrigation Pump Methods, 2013). AC or DC motors can be integrated

F21/1764/2011
25
to the motor with the exception that an inverter would be required for AC and replacement of

brushes (after 2 years). The most adopted system for irrigation has an AC pump and inverter

along with a solar panel.

Submersed irrigation pump with surface mounted motor: It is mostly used with

turbine pumps. It provisions for easy access to the pump motor when changing brush during

maintenance. However, it has low efficiency from power losses in its shaft bearings and has high

installation costs (Agriculture Solar Powered Irrigation Pump Methods, 2013).

Reciprocating positive displacement irrigation pump: This pump is well-suited for

high head and low flow applications. The water output is directly proportional to the speed of

irrigating pump (Agriculture Solar Powered Irrigation Pump Methods, 2013). Nevertheless, these

pumps create a cyclic load on the motor that should be balanced for efficient operation. For this

reason, the ground constituents are usually heavy and robust. Power controllers are also utilized

for impedance matching.

Floating motor irrigation pump sets: Its versatile floating unit set makes it handy for

irrigation pumping for canals and open wells. The pump set is portable and its dc motor is

electronically commutated: used on single stage submerged centrifugal irrigation pump. Its solar

panel has a handle to facilitate easy transportation (Agriculture Solar Powered Irrigation Pump

Methods, 2013).

Surface suction irrigation pump sets: It uses primary chambers and non-return valves

to guard against priming predicaments. However, its suction heads of over 8 meters are

impractical and it will always require an operator’s attendance (Agriculture Solar Powered

Irrigation Pump Methods, 2013).

F21/1764/2011
26
CHAPTER IV

4 DESIGN METHODOLOGY

4.1 Software Inventory

a) Google Earth Pro – For viewing, modification of markers and downloading map of the
farm.
b) TCX Converter- for converting points generated in Google Earth to comma separated
values that will be used in Surfer.
c) Surfer- For generation of contour map.
d) CROPWAT 8.0 – For establishing crop water requirements and soil parameters.
e) EPANET 2.0 – For designing layout of pipe line systems from water intake to the main
and lateral pipes.
f) Auto – CAD – For drawing project diagrams.

4.2 Collection of Climatic data

Average monthly rainfall data (mm), maximum temperature (oC), minimum temperature

(oC), sunshine hours, wind speed (km/hr) and humidity from 2004 to 2014 was acquired from the

nearby meteorological station which 1.5km from the site (Table 5.1).

4.3 Site Survey and sampling of soil

4.3.1 Soil sampling

Soil samples were drawn diagonally from three points on the field using Soil Sampling

Rings (SSR) at a depth of 0 - 15cm for top sample and 15 – 30cm for bottom sample,

respectively. Moreover, top and bottom samples were also collected in transparent labeled paper

bags for the aforementioned depths.

F21/1764/2011
27
  
Figure 4.1 : Bottom soil sample for point A

 
Figure 4.2 : Top soil sample for point A

4.3.2 Generation of contour map for the site

A contour map for the site was generated with the aid of Google Earth, TCX converter

and Surfer software. The diagram below is an illustration of the contour map output on Surfer:

F21/1764/2011
28
  
Figure 4.3 : Contour map of Menara Site

 
Figure 4.4 : Section of River Menara

F21/1764/2011
29
4.4 Measurement of Soil Parameters

4.4.1 Soil Moisture Content Determination

The moisture content of respective soil samples were determined using the ASTM D

2216 – Standard Test Method for laboratory determination of moisture content of soil, rock and

soil aggregate mixtures. This procedure is relatively accurate and was preferred because of the

availability of measuring instruments in the lab.

4.4.2 Soil Classification Experiment

The soil classifications of the various samples were established using the ASTM 152H

Standard Test Method. The hydrometer method was used because it is adapted for fast

determinations of general categories of sizes present in the soil samples. The procedure is

relatively more accurate to hand texture method or separation by sieving.

4.4.3 Rate of Infiltration / Hydraulic Conductivity

The hydraulic conductivity was carried out using the constant head method according to

the standard reference ASTM D 2434. This procedure was prioritized over other methods

because of the availability of instruments in the lab at the time of experiment. The method is

equally accurate is in comparison to the aforementioned procedures.

Figure 4.5 : Hydraulic conductivity test

F21/1764/2011
30
4.4.4 Determination of FC, AW and PWP via pF Experiment
The volumetric water content and bulk density of the soil was determined at various

pressures starting at 0.1 bars to 15 bars according to METH 005 procedure of World Agro-

forestry Center.

 
Figure 4.6 : pF Experiment

4.4.5 Determination of pH and Electrical Conductivity

The soil pH was performed using the standard reference ASTM D 4972 in the ratio of

2.5:1. The soil electrical conductivity was conducted as per the standard reference IS 14767

(2000). These procedures were preferred because of their high accuracy in determination of soil

salinity and the ready availability of the measuring instruments.

4.5 Calculation of Spinach Water Requirement

The spinach water requirement was established using the application CROPWAT 8.0

developed by FAO. This application has the Penman-Monteith Method which was used to

calculate the reference crop evapo-transpiration. It is the most accurate method. The crop

coefficient Kc, was adjusted for each development stage of the crop. The average ETo value

obtained from CROPWAT is 5.46 mm/day. The ETc values for various stages of crop

development were computed and displayed in Fig. 5.1.

F21/1764/2011
31
4.6 Criteria for Analyzing Data

4.6.1 Establishment of the Irrigation Water Requirement

The quantity of water required for irrigation was calculated in the given hierarchy using
the following equations:

dnet = (FC-PWP) × RZD × P (from Eq. 2.6)

ETc = Kc×ETo (from Eq. 2.1)

IF = (from Eq. 2.8)

dgross = (from Eq. 2.9)

4.6.2 System capacity Determination

Following the acquisition of irrigation water requirement, the following equation was
used to give the theoretical system capacity:

Q= (from Eq. 2.10)

4.6.3 Sprinkler Selection and spacing

The basic soil infiltration rate was used in selecting sprinklers and their spacing. This

ensured that the sprinkler precipitation rate was lower than the infiltration rate so as to avoid

runoff.

4.6.4 Determination of set time

The set time for the irrigation shift was calculated and compared against monthly minimum

sunshine hours.

4.6.5 Determination of Application Rate

The system capacity obtained above was compared against the practical required

discharge until an efficient sprinkler selection and spacing was obtained. The practical system

capacity due to application rate was calculated using the following equation:

F21/1764/2011
32
Q = Nc × Ns ×Qs ...................................................................................Eq. 4.1

Where:

Q = required discharge Nc = the number of laterals operating per shift

Ns = the number of sprinklers per lateral

Qs = the sprinkler discharge (from the manufacturer’s table)

4.6.6 Pipe type and size determination

UPVC pipes were used in the design of the laterals, risers, supply line and main line. Size

and type of pipe were determined based on a comparison of their pressure ratings and cost.

Provisioned friction loss charts were used in sizing the pipes. The friction losses were then

corrected using the Christiansen’s adjustment factor “F” (See Appendix I: Table 9.6).

4.6.7 Factorization of Total Head Requirements

The head losses of the system for various discharges were read from a friction head-loss

chart and added to obtain the total dynamic head. The following equation were used

H = HSL + HS + HM + HL +HR + SOP + HF + HE (from Eq. 2.20)

Where: H = total dynamic head

4.6.8 Calculation of Power Requirements and Pump Selection

The power requirement to overcome the head losses was calculated from the total

dynamic head (H) obtained from 4.5.6. Power requirement was computed using the given

equation in kW:

P= (from Eq. 2.23)

The appropriate solar powered pump for irrigation was recommended. Ep was obtained from a

pump efficiency chart.

F21/1764/2011
33
CHAPTER V

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Climatic Data

According to the climatic data shown below, the highest average monthly rainfall is 202

mm with the lowest average as 62 mm. The mean maximum monthly temperature is 30.8 oC and

a low temperature of 13.4 oC. The least mean sunshine hours are 7.625 hrs; this value was primal

in the determination of desirable operating hours since the irrigation system is solar powered.

The highest average of wind speed recorded per hr is 10.82 m3 / hr: the value will be used in the

selection of appropriate sprinkler spacing.

Table 5.1 : Monthly average Climatic Data (Source: Menara/Homalime Station)

Month Rainfall Max. Temp Min. Temp Sunshine Wind Humidity

(mm) (oC) (oC) (Hrs) speed(km/day) (%)
Jan 62 30.6 13.9 9.005 242.2 44.125

Feb 101 30.8 14.4 9.106 259.6 40.125

March 160 30.2 14.7 8.364 244.9 45.750

April 202 28.9 15.2 7.919 199.6 52.625

May 152 28.4 14.7 7.605 176.0 54.875

June 105 28.2 13.9 7.846 176.5 52.125

July 93 28.0 13.9 7.625 198.7 47.875

Aug 104 28.2 13.5 7.915 203.6 50.500

Sep 84 29.2 13.4 8.031 215.1 51.000

Oct 85 29.7 13.9 7.849 204.0 47.125

Nov 121 29.5 14.2 7.927 199.1 48.875

Dec 96 30.0 13.9 8.542 222.2 46.000

F21/1764/2011
34
5.2 Soil Moisture Content Results
Table 5.2 : Soil Moisture Content

REF No. Empty Can Can + Wet Can + Dry Moisture % Water
(g) Soil (g) Soil (g) Content (g) Content
A1T 24.57 69.04 58.06 10.98 32.79
A1B 23.34 75.22 60.46 14.76 39.76
B1T 24.27 70.02 57.28 12.74 38.59
B1B 25.10 67.42 54.91 12.51 41.97
C1T 24.99 61.15 52.09 9.06 33.43
C1B 25.34 68.09 55.02 13.07 44.04
Average 12.19 38.43
Using Eq. 2.13 the average soil moisture content was calculated as 38.43 %

5.3 Classification Results

Table 5.3 : Soil Classification

Start Time After 3 Hrs Quantified Results (%)

REF No. H1 T1 (oC) H2 T2 (oC) Sand Clay Silt
Water 0 22.5 0 23.0 -- -- --
A1T 23 23.0 17 23.0 51.84 36.16 12.00
A1B 24 23.0 19 23.0 49.84 40.16 10.00
B1T 24 23.0 18 23.0 49.84 38.16 12.00
B1B 25 23.0 20 23.0 47.84 42.16 10.00
C1T 22 23.0 17 23.0 53.84 36.16 10.00
C1B 24 23.0 19 23.0 49.84 40.16 10.00
From the results given in the table above, the soil type is generally Sandy Clay.

However, the top soils represented by A1T, B1T and C1T have relatively high percentage of

sand than their counter parts. Nevertheless, the bottom soils have relatively high clay content

than top soils as depicted in AIB, B1B and C1B percentages. Thus, the top soils have higher

infiltration rate on the top soils but infiltration slows as water traverses the lower soil profiles.

F21/1764/2011
35
Moreover, the lower soils have reasonable water retention capacity which is suitable for sprinkler

irrigation.

5.4 Soil pH and Electrical Conductivity Results

Table 5.4 : Soil pH and Electrical Conductivity

REF No. Weight (grams) pH Electrical Conductivity

(dS/m)
A1T 6 6.3 2.0
A1B 6 6.3 2.0
B1T 6 6.4 2.0
B1B 6 6.4 2.0
C1T 6 6.3 2.0
C1B 6 6.3 2.0

The average electrical conductivity of the soil is 2.0 dS/m which is within range the

recommended range for spinach (2.0 – 3.2) dS/m, therefore; the soils are non-saline. The lower

soils are more saline than the top soils. The pH results depict that the soil under consideration is

slightly acidic with a pH of 6.333.

F21/1764/2011
36
5.5 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Results
Table 5.5 : Soil Hydraulic Conductivity

REF No. H Q L A Infiltration

(cm) (ml/30min) (cm) (cm2) (cm/hr)
A1T 2.0 3.4 5.1 19.635 0.883116

A1B 2.4 2.0 5.1 19.635 0.519481

B1T 2.0 3.2 5.1 19.635 0.831169

B1B 2.0 2.6 5.1 19.635 0.675325

C1T 1.2 2.9 5.1 19.635 1.004329

C1B 1.5 2.3 5.1 19.635 0.796536

Average 0.784993

From the table above, the average soil infiltration rate is 7.85 mm/hr notably; the

infiltration rate is slightly higher in the top soil than lower soils because of the distribution of soil

particles described in the soil classification results.

 
Figure 5.1 : CROPWAT ETc values

F21/1764/2011
37
5.6 Net depth of water application
dnet = (FC-PWP) × RZD × P
Where: (FC-PWP) = 120.083mm/day
RZD = 0.5 m (Appendix I: Table 9.1)
P = 20%
dne t= 120.083 × 0.2 × 0.5

dnet = 12.0083 mm

5.7 Irrigation Frequency

IF =

ETc = 4.76 mm/day (Designing for worst case scenario) (Fig 5.1: CROPWAT ETc)
.
IF = = 2.523 days
.

IF ≈ 2 days
5.8 Gross depth of water application
dgross =

E = 70% (Assumption: irrigation efficiency for sprinklers)

.
dgross = = 17.155 mm
.

5.9 Theoretical System Capacity

Q=

Where:

A = 0.8832 Ha (area of farm)

dgross = 17.155 mm

Ns = 1 (a single shift per day)

T = 3 hrs (irrigation time per shift)

I = 2 days (irrigation cycle)

. .
Q= = 25.252 m3/hr

F21/1764/2011
38
5.10 Sprinkler selection and Spacing
As a rule of thumb, the chosen sprinkler ought to have a co-efficient of uniformity of at

least 85%. However, locally manufactured sprinklers are not often tested for co-efficient of

uniformity, hence it’s ethical to avoid using lower pressure sprinklers since they correspond to

low co-efficient of uniformity values.

In light of this information, the most preferable sprinklers are those with nozzle size 3.5

mm, 4.0 mm to 5.0 mm of higher pressures (Appendix I: Table 9.2). Additionally, the soil type is

Sandy Clay which falls under the category of medium textured soils with 6 – 12 mm/hr

precipitation rate (Appendix I: Table 9.5). Moreover, the precipitation rate should not exceed the

soil infiltration rate (7.85 mm/hr). Therefore, the selection of appropriate sprinkler is between

precipitation rates 6 mm/hr to less than 7.85 mm/hr.

According to the climatic data, February has the highest wind speed of up to 10.82 km/hr

which is considered for design purposes. Having considered the effect of wind on the type of

spacing using conversion percentages from Table 9.3 and Table 9.4 (Appendix I), the following

results came forthwith:

5.10.1 Sample computation:

For nozzle size 4.0mm, Pressure 300kPa, Wetted Diameter (D) 26.60 m and Sprinkler
spacing 12×12 and precipitation rate 7.50 mm/hr (Appendix I: Table 9.2). The sprinkler has a
square pattern with average wind speed at 10.82 km/hr, thus the conversion percentage is 50 %
(Appendix I: Table 9.4)

New sprinkler spacing = (wetted diameter*0.5) × (wetted diameter*0.5)

= (26.60*0.5) × (26.60*0.5)

New sprinkler spacing = 13.3 × 13.3 (m × m).

F21/1764/2011
39
 Since, 50% of D exceeds the 12×12, the wind requirement is satisfied. 40 % for

sprinklers and 60 % for laterals is used for rectangular spacing. Therefore, similar computations

are as given:

Table 5.6 : Selection of sprinkler spacing

Nozzle Pressure Wetted Precipitation Sprinkler Calculated Remarks on

Size (kPa) Diameter rate (mm/hr) spacing spacing wind
(mm) (m) (m×m) (m×m) requirement
3.5 250 26.85 6.94 9×12 10.74×16.11 OK

3.5 300 27.60 7.59 9×12 11.04×16.56 OK

3.5 350 28.35 6.59 9×15 11.34×17.01 OK, selected

4.0 300 26.60 7.50 12×12 13.30×13.30 OK

4.0 300 26.60 6.00 12×15 10.64×15.96 Not OK

4.0 350 30.50 6.44 12×15 12.20×18.30 OK

4.5 300 30.95 7.33 12×15 12.38×18.57 OK

4.5 300 30.95 6.11 12×18 12.38×18.57 OK

4.5 350 32.00 6.57 12×18 12.80×19.20 OK

4.5 350 32.00 6.31 15×15 16.00×16.00 OK,

4.5 400 33.05 7.04 12×18 13.22×19.83 OK

4.5 400 33.05 7.56 15×15 16.53×16.53 OK

5.0 400 35.60 6.05 18×18 17.80×17.80 Not OK

. .
Slope percentage = = × 100%

Slope percentage = 1.19 %

F21/1764/2011
40
 Therefore, a precipitation reduction is not necessary with reference to the slope

percentage on Table 2.3. The area has prevailing wind pattern which suits the chosen sprinkler

spacing. A sprinkler of nozzle size 3.5 mm, 350kPa and 9×15 spacing is a suitable choice: it has

a wetted diameter of 28.35 m.

5.10.2 Calculation of set time

Ts = where: dgross = 17.155 mm and Pr = 6.59 mm/hr (sprinkler precipitation rate)

.
Ts = = 2.603 hrs
.

Ts ≈ 3 hrs

The set time of 3 hrs for a single shift is below the minimum 7.605 hrs sunshine for the

month with the lowest sunshine average, therefore, the irrigation will complete even on a day of

least sunshine hours. The system is scaled to operate in a single shift. Therefore, the set time

factors in the sunshine required to power the solar system and complete an irrigation shift.

5.11 Practical System Capacity / Application rate

Dimension of the farm land is 96m × 92m. Assumption: 1 shift in a day’s irrigation

operation which lasts averagely 3 hrs, therefore:

Number of Laterals operating per shift= = = 6.4

Therefore, number of laterals = 6

Number of sprinklers per lateral = = = 10.22

Thus, number of sprinklers per lateral = 10

Q = Nc × Ns × Qs

F21/1764/2011
41
Where: Nc = number of laterals per shift = 3

Ns = number of sprinklers per lateral = 10

Qs = sprinkler discharge = 0.89 m3/ hr. (Appendix I: Table 9.2)

Practical system capacity as per the sprinkler spacing 9 × 15

Q = 3 × 10 × 0.89 = 26.7 m3/ hr

Retrospectively, the practical system capacity is considerably bigger than the theoretical system

capacity of 25.252 m3/ hr. Thus, a relatively bigger pumping unit will be required if the irrigation

is to complete in the set time per shift.

5.12 Pipe type and size determination

5.12.1 Determination of the diameter of laterals

The recommended velocity upper limit for uPVC pipes is approximately 2 m/s. Having

considered the discharge per sprinkler of the selected spacing as:

Q = 0.89 m3/hr

Total Discharge per lateral = 0.89 × 10 = 8.90 m3/hr

From the readings on the friction loss chart (Appendix II: Fig 9.2) and using a recommended

design velocity of 1.75 m/s:

Q A V where: Q = 8.90 m3/hr, V= 1.75 (m2/s)

π
A D=d=
π

. .
A= = 0.001526 m2 where: 1m3/hr = 0.0003 m3/s
.

F21/1764/2011
42
 .
D=d= = 44.07 mm
π

However, lateral pipes of diameter 44.07 mm are not in the PVC specification table (Appendix

II: Figure 9.10). Therefore, adjustments were made for the design velocity using existing nearest

upper diameter which is 50 mm (0.05 m).

Lateral’s design velocity scaling

= 0.05 m New Area = 0.0019635 m2

π

. .
V= = 1.36 m/s
.

Therefore, CLASS C pipes of diameter 50 mm (D50) and design velocity 1.36 m/s were chosen

for laterals.

5.12.2 Determination of the diameter of rising pipes of each sprinkler

Sprinkler Discharge = 0.89 m3/hr

Q A V where: Q = 0.89 m3/hr, V= 1.75 (m2/s)

. .
A= = 0.0001526 m2
.

.
D=d= = 13.94 mm
π

Riser pipes of diameter 13.94 mm are not available, thus the design velocity was recomputed

using D25 (Appendix II: Figure 9.10).

F21/1764/2011
43
Riser’s design velocity scaling

= 0.025 m New Area = 0.0004909 m2

π

. .
V= = 0.544 m/s
.

Therefore, CLASS E pipes of diameter 25 mm (D25) and design velocity 0.544 m/s were chosen

for risers.

5.12.3 Determination of the diameter of main line

Total discharge via main line = 0.89 × 10 × 3 = 26.70 m3/hr

Q A V where: Q = 26.70 m3/hr, V= 1.85 (m2/s)

. .
A= = 0.004330 m2
.

.
D=d= = 74.25 mm
π

Pipes of diameter 74.25 mm are not available, thus the design velocity was recomputed using

D75 (Appendix II: Figure 9.10).

Main line’s design velocity scaling

= 0.075 m New Area = 0.004418 m2

π

. .
V= = 1.813 m/s
.

Therefore, CLASS B pipes of diameter 75 mm (D75) and design velocity 1.813 m/s were chosen

for both sub-main line and supply line.

F21/1764/2011
44
5.12.4 Calculation of Head Losses

5.12.4.1 Suction Lift

To satisfy the condition that the velocity in suction pipes used with centrifugal pumps

should not exceed 3.3 m/s. A velocity of 2.8 m/s in the suction pipe was assumed. Using Darcy’s

equation:

.
Head loss due to friction in suction pipe (dynamic head) = = = 0.4 m
.

Where: g = 9.81 m2/s

Difference in elevation between the pump and point of abstraction (static head) = 0.7 m

Suction lift Head loss (HSL) = 0.4 + 0.7 = 1.1 m

5.12.4.2 Supply line

At discharge rate = 26.70 m3/hr. The head loss per 100 meters gives a conversion factor of 0.042

1.81 m/s.

Length of supply line = 80 m

Supply line Head loss (HS) = 0.042 × 80 = 3.360 m

5.12.4.3 Sub-main line

At discharge rate = 26.70 m3/hr. The head loss per 100 meters gives a conversion factor of 0.042

at 1.81 m/s.

Length of Sub-main line = 92 m Christensen’s Friction factor (1 outlet) =

1.000

Sub-main line Head loss (HM) = 0.042 × 92 × 1.000 = 3.864 m

F21/1764/2011
45
5.12.4.4 Laterals
At discharge rate = 8.90 m3/hr. The head loss per 100 meters gives a conversion factor of 0.035

at 1.3 m/s.

Length of a single lateral = 85 m No. of laterals per shift = 3

Christensen’s adjustment factor for 10 outlets = 0.444

Lateral Head loss (HL) = 0.035 × 85 × 0.385 × 3 = 3.436 m

5.12.4.5 Risers
At discharge rate = 0.89 m3/hr. The head loss per 100 meters gives a conversion factor of 0.027

at 0.544 m/s.

Length of a single riser = 1 m No. of risers per shift = 30

Riser Head loss (HR) = 0.027 × 1 × 30 = 0.810 m

5.12.4.6 Sprinkler Operating Pressure

From Table 9.2 (Appendix I), the chosen sprinkler operates at 350kPa which corresponds to a

pressure head of 35 m.

SOP = 35 m.

5.12.4.7 Fitting Head Losses

Fitting losses is 10 % of (SOP + HR + HM +HSL + HL + HS)

Fitting Head losses (HF) = 0.1 × (35 + 0.810 + 3.864 + 1.1 + 3.436 + 3.360) = 4.757 m

5.12.4.8 Elevation difference

The highest point through which the pipe passes is at an altitude of 1373 m whereas the lowest

altitude under consideration is 1371 m (the eye of the pump impeller).

Loss due to elevation (HE) = 1373 – 1371 = 2.000 m.

F21/1764/2011
46
5.12.4.9 Total Dynamic Head Requirements
Table 5.7 : Total Dynamic Head

Total Dynamic Head Component Head Loss (m)

Suction Lift (HSL) 1.100

Supply Line (HS) 3.360

Sub-main line (HM) 3.864

Laterals (HL) 3.436

Risers (HR) 0.810

Sprinkler Operating Pressure (SOP) 35.000

Fittings (HF) 4.757

Elevation difference (HE) 2.000

Total Dynamic Head (TDH) 54.327

5.13 Power Requirements

P=

Where: Q = 26.70 m3/hr TDH = 54.327 m

Ep = 60% (pump efficiency chart. See Appendix II: Figure 9.11)

Metric conversion unit = 360

. .
P= = 6.715 kW
.

Therefore, a centrifugal pump of TDH = 55 m, P = 7 kW and Ep = 60% was recommended given

that some of the energy is lost in power transmission and motor losses for a motor of efficiency

90%.

F21/1764/2011
47
5.14 Recommendation of number of Solar panels
YL280 produces 280 watts per panel (Appendix II: Figure 9.12). Therefore, for 7000 watts; the

number of panels = = 25.

Hence, up to 25 solar panels of 280 watts each are required.

5.15 Computation of the reduction in Green gases emission

A liter of diesel produces 10.7kWh and energy content of diesel is 38.6 GJ/kL with CO2

emission factor of 69.2 kg CO2-e/GJ (National Green House Accounts, 2014). Approximately

20% of the kilowatts produced are lost to power transmission and motor losses. Therefore, an

average of 3 liters per day would be used if the system was powered by a diesel fueled generator.

Given that: 1 kilo liter (kL) = 1000 L

The emission of gas is obtained using the given formula:

Eij = ...................................................................................Eq. 5.1

Where: Eij = emission of gas (CO2- e tonnes)

Qi = Quantity of fuel used (kL)

ECi = Energy content factor of fuel type (gigajoules – GJ)

EFijoxec = emission factor for gas type (kg CO2-e/GJ)

For Carbon Dioxide (CO2):

Qi = 3/1000 = 0.003kL ECi = 38.6 GJ/kL EFijoxec = 69.2 kg CO2-e/GJ

F21/1764/2011
48
 . . .
Eij = = 0.00801 CO2-e tonnes

For Methane (CH4):

Qi = 3/1000 = 0.003kL ECi = 0.2 GJ/kL EFijoxec = 69.2 kg CO2-e/GJ

. . .
Eij = = 0.0000415 CO2-e tonnes

For Nitrous Oxide (N2O):

Qi = 3/1000 = 0.003kL ECi = 0.6 GJ/kL EFijoxec = 69.2 kg CO2-e/GJ

. . .
Eij = = 0.0001246 CO2-e tonnes

Total green gas emissions = 0.0001246 + 0.0000415 + 0.00801

= 0.0081761 CO2-e tonnes.

Therefore, the use of solar energy to power the irrigation system will reduce green house

emissions by 0.0081761 CO2-e tones per day.

5.16 Cost Benefit Analysis

The price of 1 liter of diesel for operating a generator in the project site area is Ksh. 67.50.

1 liter produces approximately 10kWh which overcomes the total dynamic head in the system;

however, 20 % of the energy is lost in power transmission and motor losses. Therefore, 3 liters of

diesel is to be used for a day’s irrigation. The costs that could possibly be incurred in 3 hrs of

irrigation:

Cost of fuel for a day = 67.50 × 3 = Ksh. 202.50

F21/1764/2011
49
Assuming that fuel is purchased at the beginning of the week, hence, the transportation cost is at

Ksh. 500 per week.

Total days of irrigation in a week = 6 days

Estimated maintenance & labor charges per day for using a generator = Ksh. 400

Cost of fuel per week = 6 × 202.50 = Ksh. 1215.00

Cost of labor for operating a generator = 400 × 6 = 2400

Total cost per week = 1215 + 500 + 2400 = Ksh. 4115.00

Thus, the farmer saves up to Ksh. 4115.00 based on the current oil price rates for using solar

energy.

5.17 Discussion
The irrigation system was design to use three laterals per shift in a day for a period of 3

hours. Therefore, the system will irrigate with the least sunshine hour of 7.605 hrs (Table 5.1).

This ensures that irrigation is completed in the set duration and half of the field is irrigated in by

the end of the day. The 0.5 days equates to 12 hours which may be used for servicing and

maintenance. The MAD will be at 20 % by the end of the 2.5 days cycle. In addition, the

precipitation rate is 6.59 mm/hr which is below the soil’s infiltration rate of 7.85 mm/hr;

therefore, no run off will be generated.

F21/1764/2011
50
CHAPTER VII

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion
From the analysis of the results in the previous chapter, it is conclusive that the design

project was a success. Moreover, the experiments carried out on the soil samples reveal that the

soils are suitable for their intended purpose. Analytically, the design project works towards the

production of food with reduced CO2 emissions of up to 0.0081761 CO2-e tones per day. The

design has also reduced the operation costs often incurred for irrigating farm lands using fueled

generators. This initiative may go great lengths in facilitating the production of food at relatively

affordable prices if implemented. The price of solar installation is reasonably high given the total

dynamic head needed to be overcome however; it is a onetime installation cost that is replaceable

between 25 – 30 years.

Notwithstanding, there were minor challenges encountered during the design of the

project. For instance, the pF apparatus used in the soil experiment lab malfunctioned on several

occasions and could not work for pressures greater than 10 bars. Moreover, there were no

pressure plates of 10 bar and above. These shortcomings did delay the collection of results for

greater pressures and subsequent analysis of results.

On the contrary, the department’s relationship with other departments within Kabete

campus is impeccable and for that reason the student in question received assistance on carrying

out soil experiments at LARMAT.

6.2 Recommendations
This design did not include specific design of the solar components, however, it gives a

working value of the amount of power required to power the irrigation system. In light of this

F21/1764/2011
51
information, an interested student engineer can consider various designs of solar plants that can

power the irrigation system.

Depending on the location of the project, an improved design can also include water

storage tanks to run the system on days with minimum sunshine and no rainfall. Moreover, the

current design is manually operated which is tedious and can be expensive depending on the size

of the farm: therefore, an enhanced design may include a computerized system which operates

with real time daily weather and soil statistics.

F21/1764/2011
52
CHAPTER VII

7 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES, BUDGET & BILL OF QUANTITIES

7.1 Work Plan

Activity Month of the Year 2015 – 2016
SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APRIL

Identification of Design Title

Development of Concept Note
Desk Study
Literature Review
Proposal Development
Proposal Presentation
Site Visit & Data collection
Result Analysis
Final Report Development
Oral Defense Presentation
Final Report Submission
Project Log book

7.2 Budget
Activity/Resource Expenditure

Travelling Ksh.3000
Acquisition of climatic data & Ksh.500
Data Collection

Purchase of Engineering Log Book & Stationery Ksh.265

Printing of Reports & Binding, and Log book appendages Ksh.3000

Phone communication & Internet data bundles Ksh.500

Total Ksh.7265

F21/1764/2011
53
7.3 Bill of Quantities
Item Specification Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost

1.PVC Piping Supply/Sub-main pipes, D75 Class B 176 6m 996.00 29216.00

Lateral pipes, D50 Class C 510 6m 859.00 73015.00
Riser pipes, D25 Class E 30 6m 409.00 2045.00
PVC 45o elbow, D75 Class B 1 each 100.00 100.00
PVC 90o elbow, D75 Class B 1 each 100.00 100.00
2.PVC 50 mm VTP tees,75mm × 3”× 75mm 6 each 446.00 2676.00
Fittings

DIV reducing bush, 75mm × 75 mm 6 each 350.00 2100.00

25 mm VTP tees,50mm×1.5”×50mm 30 each 220.00 6600.00
DIV reducing bush, 50 mm × 50 mm 30 each 245.00 7350.00
CIV end cap 50 mm 6 each 200.00 1200.00
3.Sprinklers 3.5 mm Nozzle sprinklers,0.89 m3/hr 30 each 2300.00 69000.00
4.Labour Trenching and Back-filling: 15 a day 500.00 7500.00
(unskilled labour)
Setting out: (Skilled surveyor) 1 a day 5000.00 5000.00
(Unskilled labour) 3 500.00 1500.00
Pipe Laying: (Skilled labour) 1 a day 5500.00 5500.00
(Unskilled labour) 15 a day 500.00 7500.00
5.Pumping Suction pipe with screen, non-return 1 each 4370.00 4370.00
plant valve
Pressure gauge & flow meter 1 each 7766.00 7766.00
Solar powered centrifugal pump (Q = 1 each 75000.00 75000.00
3
26.7m /hr, H = 54.33, ƞ = 60 %)
Pump house 1 lump 25000.00 25000.00
6. Solar Solar panels 25 280w 28800.00 720000.00
sizing Solar Inverter 1 Each 70000.00 70000.00
Wiring and Installation - - 50000.00 25000.00
7.Cost of Implementation 1,147,538.00
8.Operation and Maintenance (5% of Implementation Cost) 57,376.90
Total Cost 1,204,914.90

F21/1764/2011
54
 8 REFERENCE LIST
1. Agriculture Solar Powered Irrigation Pump Methods. (2013). Accessed October 31, 2015,

from http://www.agriculturesolar.com/3b_irrigation_pump_solar_methods.html

2. Blank, H. (2002). The changing face of irrigation in Kenya: Opportunities for

anticipating changes in eastern and southern Africa. Colombo: International Water

Management Institute.

3. Climate-Data.org (2015). Accessed November 1, 2015, from http://www.en.climate-

data.org/location/11135/

4. Davis, A. (2015). Irrigation Engineering. London: Forgotten Books.

5. FAO (2015), The State of Food and Agriculture. Social protection and agriculture:

Breaking the Cycle of rural poverty. (2015). Rome: FAO.

6. FAO (2015), The State of Food and Agriculture. Social protection and agriculture:

Breaking the Cycle of rural poverty. (2015). Rome: FAO.

7. FAO, IFAD and WFP, (2015). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015.Meeting

the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Rome, FAO.

8. Food Security Report (Prepared by Kenya Agricultural Research Institute). (n.d.).

Accessed October 28, 2015, from http://www.foodsecurityportal.org/kenya/food-

security-report-prepared-kenya-agricultural-research-institute

9. Gipson, A. (2015). Irrigation for the Farm. London: Forgotten Books.

10. Keesen, L. (2013). The Complete Irrigation Workbook: Design, Installation,

Maintenance and Water Management (2nd ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing

Platform

11. Keller, J. & Bliesner, R. 1990. Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation. Chapman and Hall, New

York

F21/1764/2011
55
 12. Keller, J. 1989. Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation. Utah State University. Utah.

13. Kulkarni, S. (2011). Innovative technologies for Water saving in Irrigated Agriculture.

International Journal of Water Resources and Arid Environments, 1(3), 226-231

14. Laycock, A. (2011). Irrigation Systems: Design, Planning and Construction.

OxfordShire: CABI.

15. National Green House Accounts (2014). Australian National Green House Accounts:

Department of Environment & Government of Australia

16. NCPD (2013). Kenya Population Situation Analysis. Nairobi: GoK & UNFPA

17. Reij, C., & Bayer, A. (2014). Farmer Innovation in Africa a Source of Inspiration for

Agricultural Development. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

18. Rhoades, J (1982). In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Second Edition. American

Society of Agronomy. Madison, USA

19. Scott, J. (2007). Sprinklers and Watering Systems. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

20. Stewart, H. (2015). Irrigation for the farm, garden, and orchard. Leopold Classic

Library.

21. Wilson, H. (2015). Manual of Irrigation Engineering. London: Forgotten Books.

F21/1764/2011
56
9 APPENDICES

9.1 Appendix I: Tables

Table 9.1 : Ranges of Effective Rooting Depth for Some Crops (Source: FAO-56, 2006)

Crop Maximum Root Depth (m) Depletion Fraction for (ETc

≈ 5 mm / day)

Broccoli 0.4 – 0.6 0.45

Cabbage 0.5 – 0.8 0.45
Carrots 0.5 – 1.0 0.35
Cauliflower 0.4 – 0.7 0.45
Celery 0.3 – 0.5 0.20
Garlic 0.3 – 0.5 0.30
Lettuce 0.3 – 0.5 0.30
Spinach 0.3 – 0.5 0.20
Radishes 0.3 – 0.5 0.30

Table 9.2 : Performance of Some Sprinklers (Source: Keller and Bliesner)

Sprinkler precipitation rate (mm/hr)

Sprinkler Specifications
Sprinkler spacing (m × m)
Nozzle Pressure Q Wetted 9×12 9×15 12×12 12×15 12×18 15×15 18×18
Size (kPa) (m3/hr) Dia (m)
(mm)
3.0 250 0.57 25.00 5.28 4.22 3.96
3.0 300 0.63 25.60 5.83 4.67 4.38
3.0 350 0.68 26.20 6.30 5.04 4.72
3.5 250 0.75 26.85 6.94 5.56 5.21 4.17
3.5 300 0.82 27.60 7.59 6.07 5.69 4.56
3.5 350 0.89 28.35 8.24 6.59 6.18 4.94
4.0 300 1.08 26.60 8.00 7.50 6.00 5.00 4.60
4.0 350 1.16 30.50 8.59 8.06 6.44 5.37 5.16
4.5 300 1.32 30.95 9.17 7.33 6.11 5.87
4.5 350 1.42 32.00 9.86 7.89 6.57 6.31

F21/1764/2011
57
 4.5 400 1.52 33.05 10.56 8.44 7.04 7.56
5.0 300 1.70 33.00 9.44 7.87 8.18 5.25
5.0 350 1.84 34.30 10.22 8.52 8.18 5.68
5.0 400 1.96 35.60 10.89 9.07 8.71 6.05

Table 9.3 : Maximum sprinkler spacing as related to wind velocity, rectangular pattern (Source: Keller and
Bliesner, 1990)

Average wind speed (km/hr) Spacing as Percent of Wetted Diameter (D)

Up to 10 40% between sprinklers
65% between laterals
10 – 15 40% between sprinklers
60% between laterals
Above 15 30% between sprinklers
50% between laterals

Table 9.4 : Maximum sprinkler spacing as related to wind velocity, square pattern (Source: Keller and
Bliesner, 1990)

Average wind speed (km/hr) Spacing as Percent of Wetted Diameter (D)

Up to 5 55%
6 – 11 50%
13 – 19 45%

Table 9.5 : Maximum precipitation rates to use on level ground (Source: Keller and Bliesner, 1990)

Soil Type Maximum Precipitation Rates (mm/hr)

Light sandy soils 18 – 12
Medium textured soils 12 – 6
Heavy textured soils 6 – 2.5

F21/1764/2011
58
Table 9.6: Christiansens "F" factors for various outlets (Source: Keller and Bliesner, 1990)

Number of Outlets F for m = 2.0 Number of Outlets F for m = 2.0

1 1.000 13 0.373
2 0.625 14 0.370
3 0.518 15 0.367
4 0.469 16 0.365
5 0.440 17 0.363
6 0.421 18 0.361
7 0.408 19 0.360
8 0.398 20 0.359
9 0.391 21 0.357
10 0.385 22 0.355
11 0.380 23 0.353
12 0.376 24 0.351

F21/1764/2011
59
9.2 Appendix II: Figures

A Graph of Average Monthly Rainfall for 2004 ‐ 2014
250

200
Average Rainfall (mm)

150

100

50

0
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Months
 

Figure 9.1 : A Graph of Average Monthly Rainfall for 10 yrs

F21/1764/2011
60
  

Figure 9.2 : Friction loss chart for uPVC pipes (Source: South African Bureau of Standards)

F21/1764/2011
61
  
Figure 9.3 : Sprinkler Irrigation Method

 
Figure 9.4 : Sprinkler Components

F21/1764/2011
62
  
Figure 9.5 : Schematic Representation of a Sprinkler System

F21/1764/2011
63
  
Figure 9.6 : Mock up of a Sprinkler System

Menara Area

 
Figure 9.7 : Map of Kisumu County (Source: ILRI)

F21/1764/2011
64
 Kisumu County

 
Figure 9.8 : County Map of Kenya (Source : ILRI)

F21/1764/2011
65
  

Figure 9.9 : CROPWAT values of Effective rainfall

Figure 9.10 : PVC Pipe Specifications ( Source : Davis & Shirtliff)

F21/1764/2011
66
  

Figure 9.11 : Pump efficiency chart (Source: Davis & Shirtliff)

Figure 9.12: Photovoltaic ratings

F21/1764/2011
67