Misr J. Ag. Eng.

, 26(1): 224- 250 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

EFFECT OF NOZZLE SHAPE AND PRESSURE
ON WATER DISTRIBUTION

El-Berry A. M. 1, Ramadan M. Hany2, El-Adl A. Mohsen3 and

Mahmoud M. Hashem4

ABSTRACT
Sprinklers with circular and noncircular nozzles were tested to determine
the water application patterns. Circular nozzles usually produced greater
wetted radii than noncircular nozzles. Noncircular nozzles have the
advantages of providing an acceptable water application pattern over the
entire precipitation profile at low operating pressure. Noncircular nozzles
(square, rectangular and triangular) were compared to circular nozzle
for water application profiles with 100% overlapping. The over irrigation
percentage was higher for circular nozzle than all shapes of noncircular
nozzles.
Key wards: sprinkler, distribution, uniformity, noncircular, nozzles, low
pressure, water application.

INTRODUCTION

T he distribution of water in a field under sprinkler irrigation is

primarily a function of design, operation and climatic factor.
Effects of soil characteristics on the distribution are generally
considered negligible. Specific effects of these factors on the uniformity
of application in sprinkler irrigation are summarized by Walker (1980).
The well known and most widely used distribution uniformity coefficient
is Christiansen’s coefficient since six decades ago. Christiansen (1942)
studied distribution patterns of sprinklers and used the following
statistical expression as an index of the uniformity.

⎛
Cu = ⎜ 1 −
∑X − Xm ⎞
i
⎟ × 100 (1)
⎜ X m × n ⎟⎠
⎝

1 Prof of Agric. Eng., Dep. of Agric. Eng. , Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo

University, 2 and 3 Assoc. Prof of Agric. Eng. Dep. of Agric. Eng.,
Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Mansoura University, and 4 Agric. Res. Ins.,
Alexandria Branch, Alexandria, Egypt

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 224

where:
Cu = Christiansen distribution uniformity coefficient
n = Number of collecting cans in the overlapped area
Xi = Water depth in the ith collecting can, mm
Xm = Mean of water depth in the overlapped area, mm
Σ | Xi - Xm |= Sum of the absolute deviations from the mean
measurements, mm
A value of Cu = 100% means that the irrigation is completely uniform.
This value is unattainable in practice. In general, Cu = 80 % is the
minimum acceptable value. Lower values may be acceptable in design
area has ample rainfall during the irrigation season Soil Conservation
Services (SCS) (1984). A uniformity coefficient of 100% percent
obtained with overlapping sprinklers is indicative of absolutely uniform
application, whereas the water application is less uniform with a lower
percentage. A uniformity coefficient of 85% or more is considered to be
satisfactory Michale (1978). Distribution uniformity coefficients are used
to characterize the water distribution evaluated in field test. Several
coefficients have been proposed since sprinkler irrigation was first
introduced.
Christiansen (1942) studied the effect of wind on single sprinkler pattern,
and found that this effect on the distribution was very significant.
Wiersma (1955) studied overlapping application patterns from several
small head sprinkler systems operating in winds using different sprinkler
spacing and different water pressures. He concluded that: (a) tall risers
were superior to short ones, (b) angle of wind with respect to lateral line
had little or no effect on the distribution pattern, (c) there was a definite
breaking point between 15.2 and 18.3 m moves between lines, (d) high
pressure were superior to low ones, and (e) large quantities of water per
nozzle resulted in better patterns than small quantities
Uniformity tests have been run by Shull and Dylla, (1976). These data
show considerable scatter, depending on wind velocity, wind direction,
quantity of water output, and pressure. The average wind speed for these
tests was approximately 16 km/h (4.44 m/s). The average Cu’s were 70
and 75 percent for line spacing equal to 70 and 60 percent of the wetted
diameters, respectively. When operating within the recommended
pressure and lane spacing, the average Cu’s were 77 to 83 percent for lane

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 225

spacing equal to 70 to 50 percent of the wetted diameters. They also
found that wind elongated the pattern downwind from the sprinkler,
shortened the pattern upwind, and narrowed the pattern at right angles to
the wind. The wetted width and wetted distance upwind from the
sprinkler decreased at about the same rate as the wind velocity increased.
Wind distorts the application pattern. The higher the wind velocity, the
greater the distortion, and this factor should be considered when selecting
the sprinkler spacing under windy conditions (Michale - 1978).
Vories and Bernuth (1986) studied the effect of wind blowing direction
for rectangular spacing patterns. They found that winds blowing
perpendicular to the short spacing appear to cause some portions of field
to be very wet, while other portions are too dry. Those wet and dry areas
result in lower coefficients of uniformity. So they recommended to put
the lateral (short spacing) parallel to the wind blow to get more
uniformity.
Vories et al. (1987) used physically based equations to model the
relationship between the operating conditions of the sprinkler and the
Christiansen Coefficient of Uniformity. Sprinkler make, nozzle type,
pressure, spacing, and wind speed all affect uniformity Solomon, (1979).
He also stated that Cu can vary between identical tests, mainly due to
wind speed variation during a test. In some cases, a given set of
conditions can yield a Cu above 90% while another test with the same
conditions will have a Cu below 80 %. This problem makes it difficult to
predict the uniformity based on operating conditions.
Richards and Weatherhead (1993) studied the effect of wind and
reported that wind elongated the pattern at right angles to the wind
(crosswind). The wetted distance downwind from the sprinkler increased
as wind velocity increased but the increase was proportionately less than
the decrease in across wind wetted radius and wetted distance upwind.
The soil damage hazard due to large droplets was further compounded by
the high water application rate, near the perimeter (doughnut pattern), for
circular orifice nozzles operated at low pressures. Square and triangular
orifice nozzles produced doughnut shaped patterns only at the lowest
pressure tested, 138 kPa (20 Psi) Chen and Wallender (1985). They
added, the triangular orifice nozzle generates a more uniform pattern than

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 226

the circular nozzle, especially at low pressures. The circular jet produces a
characteristics doughnut pattern with a mound at the outer edge. Unlike
the triangular shaped patterns for the square nozzle, the pattern for the
triangular nozzle is more rectangular.
Li et al. (1994) reported that circular orifice nozzles usually produced
greater wetted radii and larger droplet diameters than noncircular orifice
nozzles, however, noncircular orifice nozzles gives higher overlapped
uniformity coefficients.
Increasing sprinkler base pressure is increased the effective irrigation
diameter and more uniform application may result Addink (1981).
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of nozzle shape
on water application patterns at different levels of low pressures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To study the precipitation depth the following steps were followed. The
floor was marked each 1m, and then the collectors were numbered and
weighted. Then the collectors were putted at each mark on the floor as
shown in Figure (1). The system was started and the sprinkler was left to
rotate 10 revolutions. Finally the system was stopped and collectors were
weighted again as shown in Figure (2).

Figure (1): The water collector during Figure (2): weighting the water
the precipitation event collector after the precipitation event

To get the water depth during the precipitation event the weight of
collectors after precipitation event were subtracted from collectors with
precipitated water. Then the water volume was calculated by using the
following equation:

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 227

 V = M/ρ (2)
Where:
V = water volume, cm3.
M = water mass, gm.
ρ = water density, gm/cm3.
Finally the water depth was calculated by using the following equation.

dw =10 (V/A) (3)

Where:
dw = water depth, mm.
V = water volume, cm3.
Α = area of collector entrance, cm2.

To describe the relationship between water depth (dw) as a dependent

variable and the sprinkler base pressure (Pr) and the traveling distance
from sprinkler (X) as independent variable, the following models were
developed using the multiple liner regression technique as follows.

I - For circle : dw = 10-5(9.7164 – 4.087 * 10-2 Pr + 2.5082 X) (4)

II - For square : dw = 10-5(112.5171 – 3.733 * 10-1 Pr + 11.182 X) (5)
III - For rectangular : dw = 10-5(129.9412 – 1.437 * 10-1 Pr + 4.091 X) (6) )
VI – For triangular: dw = 10-5(32.852 – 2.817 * 10-1 Pr + 1.470 X) (7)
Where:
dw = water depth, m.
P = sprinkler base pressure, kPa.
X = distance from sprinkler, m.

Theoretical approach
Calculation of water overlapping on area of 4 sprinklers:
To estimate the water overlapping on each collector (Figure 3); the
distance between that collector and the four sprinklers around it were
determined firstly. Then the water depths were calculated as a function of
sprinkler base pressure and the collector location relative to the
surrounded sprinklers according to the nozzle shape, by the regression
equation (4) to (7).
Calculation of the distance between the collector and each sprinkler:
To calculate the distance between the collector and each sprinkler (Figure
3). The distance between sprinklers was assumed as (N) and the distance

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 228

between laterals as (J). The distance between collector and sprinkler No.
1 was assumed as (n) in X direction and as (j) in Y direction. The
distance between collector and sprinkler No. 2 was (N-n) in X direction
and (j) in Y direction. By the same way the distance between collector
and sprinkler No. 3 was (N-n) in X direction and (J-j) in Y direction. For
sprinkler No. 4 the distance was (n) in X direction and (J-j) in Y direction.

N
Sprinkler 4 Sprinkler 3

J-j
Collector
J

Sprinkler 1 Sprinkler 2
n N-n

Figure (3): Distance between sprinklers and collectors.

The distance between each collector and the four overlapped sprinklers
were calculated using Pythagoras theory as shown in the following
equations. The Microsoft Excel spread sheet was used to calculate these
distances.

I – The distance between collector and sprinkler 1. (n2+j2)0.5 (8)

II – The distance between collector and sprinkler 2.((N-n)2+j2)0.5 (9)
III – The distance between collector and sprinkler 3.((N-n)2+j2)0.5 (10)
IV – The distance between collector and sprinkler 4.(n2+(J-j)2)0.5 (11)

Total water depth on the collector:

The total water depth on collectors (dw) during the precipitation event was
calculated using equations (4, 5, 6 and 7) by means of the distance
between collector (X) and each sprinkler using equations (8, 9, 10 and 11)
and sprinkler base pressure. The Microsoft Excel spread sheet was used to
calculate the accumulated water from the four overlapped sprinklers for
each collector.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 229

Christiansen distribution uniformity coefficient:
Parameters of Christiansen's coefficient (Cu), equation (1) were
substituted to calculate the uniformity. The first step was to calculate the
distance between each sprinkler and the collectors (equations 8, 9, 10 and
11). The second step was to calculate the water depth from each sprinkler
to the collector in the sprinkler throw range (equations 4, 5, 6 and 7).
Some collectors received water from 2 sprinklers and other collectors
from 3 sprinklers and the rest of collectors received water from 4
sprinklers depending on the collector position and sprinkler throw range.
The Christiansen's coefficient (Cu) was calculated using the accumulated
water from the four overlapped sprinklers for each collector (dw). These
calculations were done using the Microsoft Excel spread sheet.

Simulating water application profiles along the throw at 100%

overlapping:
To get the water application profile for two sprinklers working together at
100% overlapping, the water depth collected was simulated for
accumulation. Assuming the distance between sprinklers X, the
accumulation depth of water in the nearest collector to the sprinkler at 1
m is the accumulation of water depth in the collector located at the
distance 1 m and (X-1) m. The accumulation depth of water in the second
collector to the sprinkler is the accumulation water depth in the distance 2
m and (X-2) m and so on.
Over irrigation percentage calculations:
To achieve the water target for irrigation, the minimum application should
be equal to the targeted irrigation depth. Some areas were received over
irrigation. The over irrigation was calculated by assuming that the
minimum application is the targeted irrigation depth. The over irrigation
is the difference between the simulating water application depth in a point
and the targeted irrigation depth. The over irrigation percentage is the
percentage between the over irrigation and the targeted irrigation depth.
Reducing over irrigation realizes two advantages, saving water and
energy necessary to pumping this water.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 230

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Effect of nozzle shape on water distribution:

1- Square orifice shape:
Water application profiles are presented in Figure (4-A) for circular
compared with the square orifice. At the low pressure of 138 kPa, a
doughnut pattern results for both orifices but the effect is more
pronounced with the circular orifice. The doughnut shape changes to a
more rectangular profile at 172.5, 207.0 and 241.5 kPa pressures for the
square orifice while the circular orifice still produce the doughnut pattern
as shown in Figures (4-B), (4-C) and (4-D) respectively. The throw of the
circular orifice was approximately 4 m longer than that of the square
nozzle for relatively lower pressures (138.0 and 172.5 kPa) and 3 m for
higher pressures (207.0 and 241.5 kPa). The results are similar to that of
Li et al. (1994).

2- Rectangular orifice shape:

Water application profiles are presented in Figures (5-A) and (5-B) for
circular and rectangular orifice at the low pressure, 138 kPa and 172.5
kPa respectively, a doughnut pattern results for both orifices but the effect
is more well seen with the circular orifice. At the same time the doughnut
patterns less presented with 172.5 kPa than 138.0 kPa. With rectangular
orifice and higher pressures, 207.0 kPa and 241.5 kPa the doughnut shape
changes to a more rectangular profile. For the circular orifice the
doughnut shape still obvious at 207.0 and 241.5 kPa as shown in Figures
(5-C) and (5-D) respectively. The throw of the circular orifice was
approximately 3 m longer than that of rectangular orifice for all pressures.

3- Triangular orifice shape:

Triangular orifice shape produced a rectangular water application profiles
for all pressures used (138.0, 172.5, 207.0 and 241.5 kPa) as shown in
Figure (6-A), (6-B), (6-C) and (6-D) respectively. The circular orifice
shape produced a doughnut water application profiles for all pressures
especially with lowest pressure 138 kPa. The throw of the circular orifice
was approximately 3 m longer than that of the triangular orifice for all
pressures. These results agreed with that obtained by Chen and
Wallender (1985).

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 231

 3.0
138.0 kPa square
2.5 A Circle
B

Water depth, mm
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m
2.5 3.0
207.0 kPa square 241.5 kPa square
C 2.5 D Circle
2.0 Circle
Water depth, mm

Water depth, mm
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

Figure (4): Water application profiles for circle and square orifices at sprinkler base pressure
(A) 138.0, (B) 172.5, (C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.
 1.6 3.0
138.0 kPa Rectangle 172.5 kPa Rectangle
1.4 A 2.5 B Circle
Circle

Water depth, mm
Water depth, mm
1.2
1.0 2.0
0.8 1.5
0.6 1.0
0.4
0.2 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m
4.0 1.6
207.0 kPa Rectangle 241.5 kPa Rectangle
3.5 C 1.4 D Circle

Water depth, mm
Circle
Water depth, mm

3.0 1.2
2.5 1.0
2.0 0.8
1.5 0.6
1.0 0.4
0.5 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

Figure (5): Water application profiles for circle and rectangle orifices at sprinkler base pressure
(A) 138.0, (B) 172.5, (C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.
 1.2 1.2
138 kPa Triangle 172.5 kPa Triangle
Water depth, mm 1.0 A 1.0 B
Circle

Water depth, mm
Circle
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0
0.0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

1.4 1.8
207 kPa Triangle 241.5 kPa Triangle
1.2 C 1.6 D Circle
Circle

Water depth, mm
1.4
Water depth, mm

1.0
1.2
0.8 1.0
0.6 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

Figure (6): Water application profiles for circle and triangle orifices at sprinkler base pressure
(A) 138.0, (B) 172.5, (C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.
Effect of Sprinkler base pressure on water distribution:
1- Circular orifice shape:
Figure (7-A) shows very sharp doughnut pattern results from low
pressure (138 kPa). The doughnut pattern was less pronounced for
the higher pressures (172.5, 207.0 and 241.5 kPa) respectively.
The water application mound at the outer limit of the circular
orifice pattern corresponds to large mean droplet diameters,
compounding the potential soil damage due to droplet impact.
These results are corresponding with the ones obtained by Addink
(1981). The effect of pressure on water application among the
lower sprinkler base pressure (138.0, 172.5 and 204.0 kPa) is
prominent than its effect between the higher sprinkler base pressure
(204.0 and 241.5 kPa).
2- Square orifice shape:
Figure (7-B) shows the effect of pressure on water distribution
along the sprinkler radius. By increasing pressure the doughnut
pattern transfer gradually to rectangular shape having longer throw.
This would achieve more water distribution uniformity.
3- Rectangular orifice shape:
Figure (7-C) shows the effect of pressure on water distribution
along the sprinkler radius. By increasing pressure the doughnut
pattern transfer gradually to rectangular shape for 207.0 and 241.5
kPa with extend the radial distance from the sprinkler which gives
more water uniformity.
4- Triangular orifice shape:
Water distribution along the throw Figure (7-D) improved with the
sprinkler base pressure increase. Increasing pressure transfer the
doughnut pattern gradually to rectangular shape with pull out in the
water throw from the sprinkler which gives more water uniformity.
The improvement on water distribution pattern is palpable between
138.0, 172.5 and 207.0 kPa sprinkler base pressure respectively. In
the meantime, the effect is not sensible between 207.0 and 241.5
kPa.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 235

Simulating water application profiles along the throw at 100%
Overlapping:
To get the water application profile for two sprinklers working
together at 100% overlapping, the water depth collected was
simulated for accumulation. The simulated results were compared
among the circular and noncircular orifice nozzle shapes.
1- Water application profiles for square bore nozzle shape:
The water application profiles for circular and square orifice nozzle
sprinklers working on 138.0 kPa had the same concave shape (i.e.
low irrigation density in the middle and high near to sprinkler) as
shown in Figure (8-A). By increasing pressure to 172.5 kPa the
application profile took the same shape but the difference between
minimum and maximum application between sprinklers decreased
as shown in Figure (8-B). The higher pressures 207.0 and 241.5
kPa for square orifice nozzle changed the application profile to
produce lower application near the sprinklers and higher ones in the
middle (i.e. convex) between the sprinklers. Meanwhile the
application profile for the circular orifice nozzle shape still higher
near sprinklers than in the middle in between as shown in Figures
(8-C) and (8-D) respectively.

2- Water application profiles for rectangular bore nozzle

shape:
The water application profiles for circular orifice nozzle was high
near the sprinklers for all pressures range. Water application
profiles took the same trend for the rectangular orifice nozzles
shape but with less difference between the minimum application
near the middle of throw and the maximum near the sprinkles. The
difference between minimum and maximum applications decreases
by increasing pressure as shown in the Figures (9-A) to (9-D).

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 236

 0.9 6
241.5 kPa Circule Square 241.5 kPa
0.8 207.0 kPa A B 207.0 kPa
5

Water depth , mm
0.7
Water depth , mm
172.5 kPa 172.5 kPa
0.6 138.0 kPa 4 138.0 kPa
0.5
3
0.4
0.3 2
0.2
1
0.1
0 0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance From Sprinkler, m Distance From Sprinkler, m

3.0 3.5
Rectangle 241.5 kPa Triangle 241.5 kPa
C 207.0 kPa 3.0 D 207.0 kPa
2.5

Water depth , mm
Water depth , mm

172.5 kPa 172.5 kPa

2.5
2.0 138.0 kPa 138.0 kPa
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance From Sprinkler, m Distance From Sprinkler, m

Figure (7): Water application profiles for (A) circle, (B) square, (C) rectangle and (D) triangle
orifices at different sprinkler base pressure.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 237

3- Water application profiles for triangular bore nozzle shape:
The water application profiles for circular orifice nozzles were high
near the sprinklers for all pressures range. The water application
profiles for triangular bore nozzle shape near the sprinklers at 138.0
kPa was higher than the application at the middle distance between
sprinklers as shown in Figures (10-A). With increasing pressure to
172.5 kPa the difference between the minimum application near the
sprinkler and maximum application in the middle distance between
sprinklers decreased as shown in Figure (10-B). More increasing
of pressure to 207.0 kPa and 241.5 kPa the application is further
increased gradually in the middle distance between sprinklers than
near the sprinkler as shown in Figures (10-C) and (10-D).
Over irrigation percentage:
1- Square bore nozzle sprinkler:
The percentage of over irrigation for circular bore nozzle near the
sprinkler reached 775% which mean to get the targeted irrigation
depth at low application areas from 5 to 7 m from sprinkler (at the
middle distance between sprinklers) the areas near sprinkler were
received 675% more than the targeted water application.
Meanwhile with square bore nozzle these areas were received
123.5% more than the targeted water application as shown in
Figure (11-A).
With increasing pressure the over irrigation for circular bore
nozzles was still higher than the square bore nozzle but by lower
percentage. The over irrigation at the high pressure 241.5 kPa for
circular bore nozzles was 230.26 % meanwhile for square nozzles
was 55.43 % as shown in Figures (11-B) to (11-D).

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 238

 5.0 2.5
138.0 kPa 172.5 kPa
4.5 A B
4.0 2.0

Water depth, mm

Water depth, mm
3.5
3.0 1.5
2.5
2.0 1.0
1.5
1.0 Circle 0.5 Circle
0.5 Square Square
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

3.0 4.5
207.0 kPa 241.5 kPa
C 4.0 D
2.5
Water depth, mm

Water depth, mm
3.5
2.0 3.0
2.5
1.5 2.0
1.0 1.5
1.0
Circle
0.5 Circle 0.5
Square
Square 0.0
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

Figure (8): Water application profiles for circular and square orifices with 100% overlapping
at sprinkler base pressure (A) 138.0, (B) 172.5, (C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 239

 3.5 1.6
138.0 kPa 172.5 kPa
3.0 A 1.4 B

Water depth, mm

Water depth, mm
2.5 1.2
1.0
2.0
0.8
1.5
0.6
1.0 0.4
Circle Circle
0.5 0.2
Rectangle Rectangle
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

2.5 4.0
207.0 kPa 241.5 kPa
C 3.5 D
2.0

Water depth, mm
3.0
Water depth, mm

2.5
1.5
2.0
1.0 1.5
1.0
0.5 Circle 0.5 Circle
Rectangle
Rectangle 0.0
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

Figure (9): Water application profiles for circular and rectangle orifices with 100% overlapping
at sprinkler base pressure (A) 138.0, (B) 172.5, (C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 240

 4.5 1.8
138.0 kPa 172.5 kPa
4.0 A 1.6 B

Water depth, mm
Water depth, mm
3.5 1.4
3.0 1.2
2.5 1.0
2.0 0.8
1.5 0.6
1.0 0.4
Circle Circle
0.5 0.2
Triangle Triangle
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

2.5 4.0
207.0 kPa 241.5 kPa
C 3.5 D

Water depth, mm
2.0
Water depth, mm

3.0
1.5 2.5
2.0
1.0 1.5
1.0
0.5 Circle Circle
0.5
Triangle Triangle
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

Figure (10): Water application profiles for circle and triangle orifices with 100% overlapping at sprinkler base pressure (A) 138.0, (B) 172.5,
(C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 241

2- Rectangular bore nozzle sprinkler:
The rectangular bore nozzle were received 27.54% more than the
required water application near the sprinkler at 138.0 kPa sprinkler
base pressure as shown in Figure (12-A).The percentage of over
irrigation for circular bore nozzle near the sprinkler reaches to 775
%. The over irrigation for circular bore nozzles were still higher
than the rectangular bore nozzle for all pressure levels. Increasing
pressure from 138.0 to 172.5 kPa decreasing the over irrigation
percentage from 675% to 230.8%. The over irrigation at the high
pressure 241.5 kPa for circular bore nozzles was 230.26 % for the
meantime the rectangular nozzles was 14.04 % as shown in
Figures (12-B) to (12-D). The over irrigation percentage is totally
satisfaction for rectangular bore nozzle shape throw the all tested
pressure levels.
3- Triangular bore nozzle sprinkler:
Figure (13-A) show the over irrigation percentage for circular and
triangular bore nozzle. The maximum percentage of over irrigation
for circular bore nozzle near the sprinkler reaches to 775 %. For the
time being with triangular bore nozzle these areas were received
41.04% more than the targeted irrigation depth near the sprinkler.
The over irrigation for circular bore nozzles were still higher than
the triangular bore nozzle with increasing pressure. The over
irrigation at the high pressure 241.5 kPa for circular bore nozzles
was 230.26 % near the sprinklers meanwhile, for rectangular
nozzles was 39.37 % at the middle distance between sprinklers as
shown in Figures (13-B) to (13-D). Generally the over irrigation
percentage for triangular bore nozzle for all tested sprinkler base
pressure is under 40%.

Coefficient of uniformity among 4 sprinklers at 100%

overlapping:
To calculate the coefficient of uniformity using equation (1); four
sprinklers were virtually assumed to have square pattern. Four

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 242

levels of pressure (i.e. 138.0, 172.5, 207.0 and 241.5 kPa) were
examined. Four orifice shapes (i.e. circle, square, rectangle and
triangle) were tested.
The results indicated that the noncircular nozzles produce higher
coefficient of uniformity especially ones working at lower pressure
(138.0 kPa). The noncircular nozzles exhibited higher coefficient of
uniformity (over 75%) while the circular nozzle was 62%. By
increasing pressure the coefficient of uniformity increased for all
nozzle shapes. The difference between circular and non circle
nozzle decreased. For example the difference of Cu between
circular and triangular nozzle was 16.53% at 138 kPa. While, this
difference was 1.22% at 241.5 kPa as shown in Figure (14).
Effect of nozzle shape on saving energy:
Figure (14) was used to estimate the energy saving when different
types of nozzles were used. Assuming 80 % Cu, the equivalent
pressure needed for different nozzle shapes were determined on the
graph (i.e. Arrows shown on Fig.14). The rectangular and triangle
orifice nozzles need 150 kPa. For the same Cu figure, the square
nozzle traditional circular nozzle requires 142 and 188 kPa.
Pressure is function of the energy per unit volume. The percentage
of energy saving is equal to the percentage of pressure saving
between traditional (circular) nozzle and non circular. Table (1)
reports the percentage of energy saving of different operating
pressure compared with 300 kPa (the optimum average pressure for
traditional nozzle).
The energy saving per 1 m3 water volume is 58.5, 93, 127.5 and
162 kJ/m3 at 241.5, 207, 172.5 and 138 kPa respectively (Table 1).
Considering wheat crop irrigated by sprinkle system needs about 6
irrigations per season and 30 cm total irrigation depth per season
per Faddan at working pressure of 241.5, 207, 172.5 and 138 kPa
respectively. If the total cultivated area is 106 Faddan per year, the
total energy saving will multiplied by one million.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 243

 800 400
138.0 kPa 172.5 kPa
700 A 350 B

Over irrigation, %
600 300

Over irrigation, %
500 250
400 200
300 150
200 100
Circle Circle
100 50
Square Square
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m
400 400
207.0 kPa 241.5 kPa
350 C 350 D
Over irrigation, %

Over irrigation, %
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
Circle Circle
50 50
Square Square
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

Figure (11): Over irrigation application profiles % for circular and square orifices with 100% overlapping
at sprinkler base pressure (A) 138.0, (B) 172.5, (C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 244

 800 400
138.0 kPa 172.5 kPa
700 A 350 B

Over irrigation, %

Over irrigation, %
600 300
500 250
400 200
300 150
200 100
100 Circle Circle
50
Rectangle Rectangle
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m
400 400
207.0 kPa 241.5 kPa
350 C 350 D

Over irrigation, %
Over irrigation, %

300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
Circle Circle
50 50
Rectangle Rectangle
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m

Figure (12): Over irrigation application profiles % for circular and rectangular orifices with 100% overlapping
at sprinkler base pressure (A) 138.0, (B) 172.5, (C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 245

 800 400
138.0 kPa 172.5 kPa
700 A 350 B

Over irrigation, %

Over irrigation, %
600 300
500 250
400 200
300 150
200 100
Circle 50 Circle
100
Triangle Triangle
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m
400 400
207.0 kPa 241.5 kPa
350 C 350 D

Over irrigation, %
Over irrigation, %

300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
Circle Circle
50 50
Triangle Triangle
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance from sprinkler, m Distance from sprinkler, m
Figure (13): Over irrigation application profiles % for circular and triangular orifices with 100% overlapping
at sprinkler base pressure (A) 138.0, (B) 172.5, (C) 207.0 and (D) 241.5 kPa.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 246

 Figure (14): effect of Sprinkler base pressure on coefficient of uniformity
for different nozzle shapes.

Table (1): The percentage of energy saving for wheat crop as a

result of
reducing pressure from 300 kPa to low pressure levels.

Sprinkler base pressure, kPa

241.5 207 172.5 138
Pressure difference from 300, kPa 58.5 93 127.5 162
Energy Saving per unit volume, kJ/m3 58.5 93 127.5 162
Energy Saving, kJ/Faddan 7371 11718 16065 20412
Energy Saving, kw.hr/Faddan 20.475 32.55 44.625 56.7

CONCLUSIONS
Water distributions for square, rectangular and triangular nozzle shapes
were compared with the performances of circular nozzle. Generally the
noncircular nozzles were getting more efficient water application profiles
with 100% overlapping. Noncircular nozzles gives lower over irrigation
percentage comparing with circular nozzles especially in lower pressures.
The noncircular nozzles have acceptable coefficient of uniformity for all

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 247

pressures meanwhile the circular nozzles have unacceptable coefficient of
uniformity at 138.0, 172.5 kPa and gives acceptable at 207.0 kPa and
higher. Finally, at low pressures using triangular or rectangular nozzles
gives less percentage of over irrigation with acceptable coefficient of
uniformity. Using noncircular orifice nozzles at 172.5 kPa was reducing
energy than using traditional nozzle 127.5 kJ for each 1m3 of irrigation
water.

REFERANCES
Addink, J.W., 1981. Design and Operation of Sprinkler Systems. PP 621-
660 Cited from Design and operation of farm irrigation systems. 859
P. Ed. M. E. Jensen. An ASAE Monograph, No.3, ASAE, 2950 Niles
Rd. St. Joseph MI, USA.
Chen Dadiao and W. W. Wallender, 1985. Droplet size distribution and
water application with low pressure sprinklers. Transactions of the
ASAE 511-516.
Christiansen, J. E. 1942. Irrigation by sprinkling. Univ. of Calif. Agric.
Exp. Sta. Bul. 670. 124 p.
Li, J., H. Kawano and K. Yu, 1994. Droplet size distributions from
different shaped sprinkler nozzles. Transactions of the ASAE 37 (6) :
1871-1878.
Michale A.M., 1978 . Irrigation Theory and Practice, Vikas Publishing
House PVT LTD. First edition, 1978: 801.
Richards, P.J. and E.K. Weatherhead, 1993. Prediction of rain gun
application patterns in windy conditions. J. Agric. Eng. Research
54(4): 281-291.
Shull, H and A. S. Dylla, 1976. Wind effects on water application
patterns from a large single nozzle sprinkler Transactions of the
ASAE 19 (3): 501-504.
Soil Conservation Services, (SCS), 1984. Sprinkle irrigation. U.S.
Department of Agric., Soil Conservation Services, National Eng.
Handbook, Chapter 11, Section 15: 315
Solomon, K. 1979. Variability of sprinkler coefficient of uniformity test
results. Transactions of the ASAE 22 (5) : 1078-1986

Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009 248

‫‪Vories, E. D. and R. D. Von Bernuth, 1986. Single nozzle sprinkler‬‬
‫‪performance in wind. Transactions of the ASAE 29 (5) : 1325-1330.‬‬
‫‪Vories, E. D., R. D. Von Bernuth and R. H. Mickelson., 1987.‬‬
‫‪Simulating sprinkler performance in wind. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. ASCE‬‬
‫‪113 (1): 119-130.‬‬
‫‪Walker, W.R., 1980. Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation. Colorado State‬‬
‫‪University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80-523.‬‬
‫‪Wiersma, John L., 1955. Effect of wind variation on water distribution‬‬
‫‪from rotating sprinklers, South Dakota State University Agr. Exp.‬‬
‫‪Sta. Techn. Bull. No. 17, May.‬‬

‫الملخص العربي‬

‫تأثير شكل فتحة الرشاش والضغط على توزيع المياه‬

‫عزمي البري‪ ،١‬محمود ھانئ رمضان‪ ،٢‬محسن عبدالسالم العدل‪،٣‬‬

‫‪٤‬‬
‫ھاشم محمد عبدالمجيد‬

‫انتظام توزيع المياه ھو الھدف الرئيسي لعملية الري بالرش‪ .‬للوصول لذلك االنتظام باستخدام‬
‫الفتحات الدائرية تحتاج إلى ضغوط عالية نسبيا ً‪ .‬في ھذا البحث تم اختبار مجموعة من الفتحات‬
‫الغير دائرية )المربعة والمستطيلة والمثلثة بمواصفات معينة( ومقارنة أدائھم بالفتحة الدائرية عند‬
‫ضغوط التشغيل المنخفضة‪ .‬استخدمت ‪ ٤‬مستويات من الضغوط المنخفضة )‪،١٧٢,٥ ،١٣٨,٠‬‬
‫‪ ٢٤١,٥ ،٢٠٧,٠‬كيلوبسكال(‪ .‬بينت النتائج أن زيادة ضغط التشغيل يحسن من شكل توزيع المياه‬
‫لجميع أشكال الفتحات )الدائرية والغير دائرية(‪ .‬وكان مقدار التحسن في شكل توزيع المياه بين‬
‫التشغيل على ضغط ‪ ١٣٨‬و ‪ ١٧٢,٥‬كيلوبسكال وكذلك بين ‪ ٢٠٧,٠ ،١٧٢,٥‬كيلوبسكال أكبر‬
‫من التحسن عند التشغيل بين الضغوط ‪ ٢٤١,٥ ،٢٠٧,٠‬كيلوبسكال وذلك لجميع األشكال الدائرية‬
‫والغير دائرية‪ .‬الشكل الدائري يعطي شكل توزيع غير منتظم عند كل الضغوط مقارنة باألشكال‬
‫الغير دائرية‪ .‬الشكل المربع والمستطيل يحسن من شكل توزيع المياه بشكل واضح ابتدا ًء من‬
‫ضغط ‪ ١٧٢,٥‬كيلوبسكال أما المثلث فقد أعطى شكل توزيع جيد عند كل الضغوط المستخدمة‪.‬‬
‫بدراسة التداخل بنسبة ‪ %١٠٠‬بين رشاشين تبين أن األشكال الغير دائرية تعطي توزيع أفضل‬
‫من الشكل الدائري‪ .‬كما أھتم البحث بحساب نسبة كمية مياه الري الزائدة عن عمق الري‬
‫المستھدف‪ .‬أوضحت النتائج تفوق األشكال الغير دائرية على الشكل الدائري‪ .‬وصلت نسبة الماء‬
‫الزائد عن المستھدف للشكل الدائري إلى ‪ %٦٧٥‬عند ضغط ‪ ١٣٨‬كيلوبسكال بينما كانت للشكل‬
‫المثلث ‪ %٤١,٥‬فقط عند نفس الضغط‪ .‬ونتيجة لذلك تقل كمية المياه الزائدة عن المستھدف مما‬
‫يوفر في كمية الماء وكذلك في تكاليف الطاقة الالزمة للضخ‪.‬‬
‫أستاذ الھندسة الزراعية ‪ -‬كلية الزراعة ‪ -‬جامعة القاھرة‪٢.‬و‪ ٣‬أستاذ مساعد الھندسة الزراعية ‪-‬‬
‫كلية الزراعة‪ -‬جامعة المنصورة‪ ٤ .‬باحث مساعد محطة بحوث واختبار الجرارات ‪ -‬معھد‬
‫بحوث الھندسة الزراعية – وزارة الزراعة‬

‫‪Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009‬‬ ‫‪249‬‬

‫باستخدام برنامج األكسل تم عمل محاكاة لتشغيل ‪ ٤‬رشاشات وحساب كميات تساقط المياه على‬
‫رؤوس مربعات ‪١ × ١‬م وحساب معامل االنتظامية لألشكال المختلفة ومستويات الضغوط‬
‫المستخدمة في البحث أوضحت النتائج ارتفاع واضح لقيم معامل االنتظام لألشكال الغير دائرية‬
‫مقارنة بالشكل الدائري والسيما عند الضغوط األقل‪ .‬للوصول إلى معامل انتظامية ‪ %٨٠‬كان‬
‫يلزم لألشكال الغير دائرية أن تعمل على ضغط ال يقل عن ‪ ١٤٩‬كيلوبسكال أما الشكل الدائري‬
‫فكان يحتاج إلى ضغط فوق ‪١٨٨‬كيلوبسكال‪ .‬تم استنتاج أن استخدام الفتحات الغير دائرية على‬
‫ضغط ‪ ٢٠٧‬لري محصول القمح خالل موسم زراعته توفر ‪ ٣٢,٥٥‬كيلووات ساعة لكل فدان أي‬
‫‪ ٣٢,٥٥‬مليون كيلووات ساعة إلجمالي المساحة المنزرعة قمح بمصر على فرض أنھا مليون‬
‫فدان سنويا ً‪ .‬ويوصي البحث بضرورة التحول إلى الفتحات الغير دائرية والسيما الشكل المستطيل‬
‫والمثلث للعمل على ضغوط تشغيل منخفضة )توفيراً للطاقة( بأداء جيد‪.‬‬

‫‪Misr J. Ag. Eng., January 2009‬‬ ‫‪250‬‬