Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For ...
Transcript of Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For ...
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI FIRENZE FACOLTÀ DI AGRARIA
Istituto Agronomico Per L’oltremare (IAO)
Master on “Irrigation Problems in Developing Countries”
HYDRAULIC MODELLING OF PRESSURIZED
IRRIGATION NETWORKS FOR OPTIMIZATION
IN DESIGN
Supervisor
IVAN SOLINAS
…………............
Master thesis by
FRANK OWUSU-ANSAH
…………………………….
Florence, Italy
2011
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I sincerely wish to extend my heartfelt appreciation to the Government of Ghana, Italian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Istituto Agronomico Per L’oltremare (IAO) and the Università Degli
Studi Di Firenze for the opportunity to study here in Florence, Italy as well as the numerous
logistics and resources they placed at my disposal without which conducting this study would
have been very difficult.
I am grateful to the Director General of IAO, Dr. Giovanni Totino, Technical Director of IAO
Dr. Tiberio Chiari, Coordinator of the Master, Professor Elena Bresci, Administrative assistant
Dr. Andrea Merli, Academic Tutor, Dr. Paulo Enrico Sertoli, and all staff of IAO who showed
genuine concern in my studies and stay here in Florence, Italy.
I would like to show my gratitude and thanks to my supervisor, Mr. Ivan Solinas who always
gave me guidance throughout the study. I have also learnt from him many valuable skills in the
field of Information Technology applied to Irrigation.
Special thanks go to Mr. Kwabena Boateng and Mr. Kofi Modzaka, Engineers at Ghana
Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA) for their generosity and encouragement which gave
me the idea to conduct this study. Learning from their in-depth understanding on irrigation has
been tremendous for me in coming this far. May God richly bless you all.
My thanks goes out also to all my colleagues in this 4th
Edition of the Master on Irrigation Class,
I cannot thank them enough for their constructive criticisms as well as sincere contributions in
all aspects of academics and life.
Last but definitely not the least; I would like to make special mention of all my colleagues and
mentors at Ghana Irrigation Development Authority (GIDA), my dear family and friends all over
the world who gave me moral support.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. ii
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. iv
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. GENERAL .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................. 2
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 2
1.4. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ............................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2. TECHNIQUES IN PRESSURIZED WATER NETWORKS DESIGN ....................................... 4
2.2.1. Conventional Techniques ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2. Programming techniques in network design ......................................................................... 4
2.2.3. Linear -programming ............................................................................................................ 5
2.2.4. Non-Linear Programming ..................................................................................................... 6
2.2.5. Dynamic Programming ......................................................................................................... 6
2.2.6. Heuristic Optimization Techniques....................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 8
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.2. EPANET SIMULATION TOOL .................................................................................................. 8
3.3. PARTS OF EPANET .................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.1 EPANET input data file ........................................................................................................ 9
3.3.2 The EPANET programme ..................................................................................................... 9
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
iii
3.4. STEPS IN USING EPANET ...................................................................................................... 11
3.5. ACQUISITION OF EPANET .................................................................................................... 11
3.6. ADVANTAGES OF USING EPANET ...................................................................................... 11
3.7. DISADVANTAGES OF USING EPANET ............................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 12
MODELLING, RESULTS AND ANALYSIS USING CASE STUDIES ................................................. 12
4.1. NETWORK 1: SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM ............................................................. 12
4.1.1. Design and formulation ....................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2. Sprinklers ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.1.3. Network configuration ........................................................................................................ 14
4.1.4. Results ................................................................................................................................. 16
4.1.4.1. Cost of pipes ................................................................................................................ 16
4.1.4.2. Pressure in system ....................................................................................................... 18
4.1.4.3. Velocity ....................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.4.4. Energy Usage .............................................................................................................. 23
4.2. NETWORK 2: USING EPANET TO SOLVE NETWORK PROBLEM .................................. 24
4.2.1. Solving problem of network ............................................................................................... 25
4.2.2. Results for real Irrigation network ...................................................................................... 27
4.2.2.1. Initial simulated results using supplied pump ............................................................. 27
4.2.2.2. Results using specified pump ...................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 30
CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 30
5.1. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 30
5.2. RECCOMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 31
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................. 35
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
iv
SUMMARY
A pressurized irrigation network is a complex hydraulic system consisting of elements such as
reservoirs, pumps, pipes, sprinklers, hydrants, valves etc. It is designed to deliver water to the
irrigable field at adequate pressure head and demand. It is very important to design a network
that is not only cost effective but also satisfies the system constraints such as adequate pressure
and velocity.
Manual calculation in designing such a network is based on trial and error and can be very
difficult especially if the network is large. This study aims to apply a hydraulic modelling tool
EPANET in pressurized irrigation networks design and analysis. The study includes the optimal
design of new sprinkler irrigation network and analyzing a real simple irrigation network to
verify the adequacy of pumps installed.
In recent years a lot of research has been done on the development of computer software
programmes as well as optimization techniques to search for the optimal solution to piped
networks. Some of these techniques are linear and non-linear programming, dynamic
programming and heuristic optimization techniques.
Modelling a sprinkler irrigation system indicated some interesting results. The aim of many
hydraulic engineers is to design a system with least- cost of pipes which is normally considered
as the optimal solution. However, the optimal solution may be infeasible for a number of
reasons. In this example, manual calculation yielded the least cost of pipes (US$13,084.49) but
did not necessarily represent the optimal solution because constraint like maximum pressure
variation which is very important was not met.
The optimal solution based on the EPANET simulation even though more expensive
(US$18,012.84) provided significantly better pressure characteristics than the least cost
solution, though both solutions meet the velocity requirement. Again head losses along the pipes
in the simulation were significantly lower than the pipes in the calculated network. EPANET can
give designers power over their designs and also enhance analysis concerning pressurized
networks. Modelling a simple irrigation network helped engineers supervising a project to verify
whether the required equipment of pump has been installed.
The network solver depends on the system of network equations, the user-specified accuracy and
the accuracy of design inputs as such it should be used with caution. It is not a panacea to all the
problems of manual calculation but rather a tool to enhance the design process. The network
solve performs only steady and extended period simulations, analysis of the network should
include the effect of water hammer for example on the network. It should be mentioned that the
solver only does the simulation based on the pipe sizes inputted by the designer. It can be linked
to other optimization techniques like Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE) to automatically search
and select from a set of commercial pipe sizes. This will enhance the results and make the
analysis more robust. Again other hydraulic network solvers such as MIKE NET, KYPIPE,
Pipeflow expert, WATERCAD etc. should be considered in the pressurized network
performance and compared with that of EPANET.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
v
ABBREVIATIONS
LP Linear Programming
NLP Non-Linear Programming
DP Dynamic Programming
HO Heuristic Optimization
GRG Generalized Reduced Gradient
GA Genetic Algorithms
SA Simulated Annealing
TS Tabu Search
MH Meta Heuristic
U.S United States
HGL Hydraulic Grade Line
GUI Graphical User Interface
SOP Sprinkler Operating Pressure
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
CCE Certified Computer Examiner
SCE Shuffled Complex Evolution
CMH Cubic Meters Per Hour
LPS Liters Per Second
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3.1 Typical GUI of EPANET 10
Figure 4.1 EPANET network configuration 15
Figure 4.2 Simulated Node Results indicating pressures on highest reference lateral 19
Figure 4.3 Simulated Node Results indicating pressures on lowest reference lateral 20
Figure 4.4 Calculated Node Results indicating pressures on lowest reference lateral 21
Figure 4.5 Calculated Node Results indicating pressures on highest reference lateral 21
Figure 4.6 Schematic diagram of network 24
Figure 4.7 Network indicating pipes and junctions ID 25
Figure 4.8 Pressure Frequency distribution of system 29
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1 hydraulic constraints of network 12
Table 4.2 Commercial PE pipe sizes 13
Table 4.3 Basic design data for pipes 16
Table 4.4 Cost of pipes using EPANET simulation 17
Table 4.5 Cost of pipes using manual calculation 18
Table 4.6 Simulated Velocity and head losses for main lines 22
Table 4.7 Calculated Velocity and head losses for main lines 23
Table 4.8 Simulated Energy Usage 23
Table 4.9 Basic design data for network 26
Table 4.10 Node Results 27
Table 4.11 Node Results of network 28
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. GENERAL
A pressurized irrigation network can be a good investment when well designed, installed,
maintained and managed. Good design of a pressurized irrigation network requires that key
issues of pipe dimensions, pressure distribution, discharge as well as a number of hydraulic
parameters are taken into consideration. The main parts of a pressurized irrigation network are:
(1) pumping or lifting unit (2) Main line (3) Sub main (4) Lateral Lines. Water from a storage
reservoir, lake, river, stream or a well is transported to the irrigable land through a water
distribution system. The water distribution system is a hydraulic infrastructure made up of
various elements such as pipes, tanks, reservoirs, pumps, and valves. All of them are essential in
delivering water of adequate quantity and pressure.
According to McGhee (1991), because a lot of resources are vested in the design of a pressurized
network, it is important to investigate and establish a reliable network which satisfies the
following conditions (1) economic design and layout (2) adequate quantity of water and (3)
required hydraulic pressure. Satisfying these conditions and the other elements of the hydraulic
infrastructure complicate the design and analysis.
Normally the problem of irrigation engineers is how to come out with a design that to a high
degree of accuracy represents the best solution for the irrigation system. The optimal solution is
highly connected to economic issues as well as the efficient management of the irrigation
system. The usual method of designing from first principles with its trial and error iterations is
cumbersome, time consuming and very much subjected to human errors. Then there is the
problem of how the system will function in the field. Modern design with computer software
programmes are able to model and perform steady-state as well as extended period simulations
(Walski et al., 2001) under a host of hydraulic conditions indication how the irrigation system
will function in the field and this gives irrigation engineers power over their design and also do
sensitivity analysis. Other issues related to operation of the system can be captured.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
2
Chadwick and Morfett (1993), explains that steady-state refers to the conditions of the system
that do not vary with time. Steady-state simulation predicts the response of the system to a
specific set of hydraulic conditions (for example, minimum operating pressure) at a certain time.
On the other hand extended period simulation shows variation of hydraulic conditions of the
system with time. They all involve solving a set of simultaneous non-linear equations, for
example; continuity equation (conservation of flow to be satisfied at each node), energy equation
and the equation that relates pipe flow and head-losses, such as the Hazen-Williams, Darcy-
Weisbach and Manning’s equations.
There are a host of useful and efficient computer programs available for piped network
simulation such as KYPIPE, Pipeflow expert and WaterCAD. EPANET (Rossman, 2000) is a
popular simulation tool which plays an important role in the layout, design and operation of the
network. The programme is able to solve continuity equation, energy equation and head-loss
equations such as Hazen-Williams, Darcy-Weisbach and Manning’s simultaneously. The
Hydraulic Engineer is able to determine the optimal pipe sizes and other network parameters
(pipe roughness coefficients, nodal demands, pressure and velocity).
1.2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Arriving at an optimal design of pipe sizes and some parameters of water distribution network
has been problematic for Irrigation engineers. Instead of using the cumbersome and
computationally long trial-and-error approach, a water modelling software programme has been
considered in the field of pressurized water distribution network modelling. The study looks
primarily at how EPANET can be used to model a sprinkler irrigation system and also solve
issues relating to pressurized networks.
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The aims of this study are
1. Application of EPANET in optimal design of a sprinkler irrigation system.
2. Using EPANET to solve a network problem.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
3
1.4. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
Chapter 2 describes various works done in the field of water distribution modelling and the
issues related to optimal design of water distribution systems. Chapter 3 which is the project
methodology basically describes how EPANET network solver is used in the modelling. Chapter
4 demonstrates the application of EPANET in modelling a new sprinkler irrigation system and
solving a network problem. Finally, the conclusions and the recommendations reached in the
study are presented in chapter 5 for further research.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. INTRODUCTION
A well designed pressurized network is very important in the realization of the objectives of the
irrigation scheme such as maximizing efficiency and being cost effectiveness. The network must
also satisfy various demands while meeting minimum pressure requirements. Cost effective
solutions that satisfy the hydraulic constraints of the system are always desired, however such a
solution is very difficult to achieve manually as stated earlier on. In recent years a lot of research
has been done on the development of computer software programmes as well as optimization
techniques to search for the optimal solution to piped networks. In this chapter, various
techniques known in the design of water distribution networks have been reviewed.
2.2. TECHNIQUES IN PRESSURIZED WATER NETWORKS DESIGN
2.2.1. Conventional Techniques
Design and analysis of pressurized water distribution networks with the conventional procedure
uses a trial-and-error approach. The outcome depends solely on the designers experience,
knowledge and skills. However, this approach is extremely difficult and inefficient more
especially if the network is large and complex. It also involves much iteration which can be very
cumbersome.
2.2.2. Programming techniques in network design
A wide variety of techniques have been used in recent times, with some of the most studied
being the Linear Programming (LP) , non-linear programming (NLP), Dynamic programming
(DP) and Heuristic optimization (HO) techniques (Eiger, et al., 1994). Some approaches attempt
to employ efficient methods that combine the various techniques to the optimal design
problem. Gessler, (1982) linked a network hydraulic simulation model to a filtering subroutine
to efficiently enumerate all feasible solutions in pipe network design. This model selects both
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
5
the optimal design, as well as several near-optimal solutions for tradeoff analysis, and is perhaps
the most widely used optimization model.
2.2.3. Linear -programming
Methods based on the use of linear programming (LP) have been developed which are capable
of maintaining the constraint on discrete pipe sizes without the need for rounding off
solutions. Morgan and Goulter (1985) modified the procedure of Kally (1972) to link a Hardy-
Cross network solver with linear programming model. The model is designed to optimize both
the layout and design of new systems and expansion of existing systems. It is a highly efficient
method, with the main disadvantage being the generation of split pipe solutions (i.e., with some
pipe sections requiring two pipe sizes). The latter indeed reduces system costs, but may not be
attractive to design engineers. More recent literature emphasizes reliability issues in water
distribution system design, with consideration of the probabilities of satisfying system flow and
pressure requirements. Recent studies have attempted to apply a variety of heuristic
programming methods to the optimal design of water distribution systems. These include the
application of genetic algorithms (Savic and Walters, 1997) and simulated annealing (Cunha and
Sousa, 1999). The advantages of these methods are that they allow full consideration of system
nonlinearity and maintain discrete design variables without requiring split pipe solutions. The
disadvantages include:
cannot guarantee generation of even local optimal solutions, particularly for large-scale
systems
require extensive fine-tuning of algorithmic parameters, which are highly dependent on
the individual problem
can be extremely time consuming computationally
Current applications have not included use of multiple demand loadings because of
computational difficulties.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
6
2.2.4. Non-Linear Programming
Compared to LP, NLP model can deal with multiple demand pattern and much higher number of
design variables (Lansey and Mays 1989). Using nonlinear programming approach has yielded
practically satisfactory results in acceptable computing time even for relatively large networks.
For years, non-linear programming procedures have widely been used for solving water
distribution network problems. The most efficient of these methods are gradient based
algorithms that require at least the first order derivatives of both objective and constraint
functions; these are needed to define the appropriate search direction. Gradient based techniques
can easily identify a relative optimum closest to the optimum design. However, these methods do
not guarantee the global optimal solution if the design space is non-convex (Simpson et al.,
1994). According to Savic and Walters (1997), it is also inadequate in problems where the design
space is discontinuous, as the derivative of both the objective function and the constraints may
become singular across the boundary of discontinuity. In addition, the pipe diameters considered
in NLP are continuous that may not match the available commercial pipe sizes and require
rounding up of the final solution.
Other authors have formulated the optimal design problem as a nonlinear programming problem
with discrete pipe sizes treated as continuous variables. Lansey and Mays (1989) linked the
generalized reduced gradient (GRG) algorithm with a water distribution simulation model to
optimally size pipe network, pump stations, and tanks. The main disadvantage of these NLP
methods is the rounding off of optimal continuous decision variables to commercially available
sizes, which raises questions as to optimality of the adjusted solution.
2.2.5. Dynamic Programming
Dynamic programming is a method of solving complex problems by breaking it into
substructures or overlapping subproblems. The results (outputs) found in the previous
subproblem are then used as an inputs for the subsequent subproblem Lin et al. (1997). Dynamic
Programming (DP) has been used in the field of hydraulic engineering for optimization and
management.
The network in the model represents the possible connections between decisions and expresses
costs of going from one to another. The model used iterative algorithm which successively
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
7
converges to the solution (least cost option). However, the application of dynamic programming
was limited to simple network systems. They observed that if the system increases in size, the
computational time required to solve the optimal strategy becomes very large
2.2.6. Heuristic Optimization Techniques
In order to overcome the bottlenecks of the above mentioned techniques in piped network
design, heuristic optimization techniques have been employed. Heuristic techniques solve
complex network problems by focusing on branches of the network that are more likely to
produce better solutions. Savic and Walters (1997) mentions that the optimum solution obtained
by the above discussed techniques might have discrete pipes of different diameters but the
methods are based on continuous diameter approach. The designer is tempted to alter the split-
pipe size into one diameter and then change the solution of the network. This could result in a
solution that is not feasible.
Gessler (1985) and Loubser and Gessler (1993), applied this algorithm to the design and to the
rehabilitation of water distribution network. The algorithm uses a combination of pipe diameters,
and check each combination whether the pressure constraints are satisfied. Eventually, the
combination with least cost of pipes is chosen. However it was noticed that this required a lot of
computation time since many comparisons have to be made with commercial pipe sizes
especially for large networks
Recently, researchers focus on the use of meta- heuristic techniques to evaluate network designs.
Simpson et al. (1994) Cunha and Sousa (1999) applied simulation based meta-heuristic
algorithms, such as genetic algorithms (GA), simulated annealing (SA) and tabu search (TS) to
water network design. These search techniques results in more refined optimization models
because they could solve the problem of split-free commercial diameters.
Based on MH techniques, computer model GANET to design least-cost pipe network has been
developed Savic and Walters (1997). Gupta et al., (1999) also applied GA with a hydraulic
simulator ANALIS (Bassin et al., 1992) to assess the hydraulic performance of the network
design.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
8
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1. INTRODUCTION
The study aims to introduce EPANET to model a sprinkler irrigation network as well as solving
a problem related to an irrigation system. The model consists of an optimization technique from
a network solver EPANET used to arrive at the proposed scheme.
EPANET is chosen because it handles both steady state and extended period simulation of water
distribution network. This chapter presents discussions on EPANET simulation model using a
sample model of a sprinkler irrigation system and a real irrigation system.
3.2. EPANET SIMULATION TOOL
EPANET (Rossman, 2000) is a free to public, water distribution system programme developed
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Supply and Water Resources Division. It
performs both steady-state and extended period simulations. It computes hydraulic performance
(pressures, flows, head-loss in the pipe) for a given layout and nodal demands. It can analyze the
performance of the system and can be used to design system components to meet distribution
requirements. In addition, it can perform water quality modelling, determining the age of water,
performing source tracking, finding the fate of a dissolved substance, or determining substance
growth or decay. The basic hydraulic equations involved in EPANET are briefly described
below:
1. The flow equations in hydraulic model are governed by conservation of mass and energy. The
law of mass conservation states that the rate of storage in a system is equal to the difference
between the inflow and outflow to the system.
For each junction, the conservation of mass can be expressed as: ΣQin − ΣQout = Qext
Where Qin and Qout are the inflows and outflows of the node; and Qext is the external demand.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
9
2. Conservation of energy states that the difference in energy between two points is equal to the
frictional and minor losses and the energy added to the flow component between these points.
3. The head loss in the pipe is the difference between nodal head at both ends.
3.3. PARTS OF EPANET
The EPANET computer model used for water distribution network analysis is composed of two
parts: (1) the input data file and (2) the EPANET computer program.
The data file defines the characteristics of the pipes, the nodes (ends of the pipe), and the control
components (such as pumps and valves) in the pipe network. The computer program solves the
nonlinear energy equations and linear mass equations for pressures at nodes and flow rates in
pipes.
3.3.1 EPANET input data file
The EPANET input data file includes descriptions of the physical characteristics of pipes and
nodes, and the connectivity of the pipes in a pipe network system. The user can graphically
layout the water distribution network, if desired. Values for the pipe network parameters are
entered through easy-to-use dialog boxes. The pipe parameters include the length, inside
diameter, minor loss coefficient, and roughness coefficient of the pipe. Each pipe has a defined
positive flow direction and two nodes. The parameters of nodes consist of the water demand or
supply, elevation, and pressure or hydraulic grade line. The hydraulic grade line (HGL) is the
summation of node elevation and pressure head at the node. The control components, which
usually are installed on pipes, include control valves and booster pumps. They are also part of the
input data file. A portion of a typical input file format is shown in Appendix B.1.
3.3.2 The EPANET programme
EPANET Version 2 programme used in this model is designed to run under the Windows
95/98/NT operating system of an IBM/Intel-compatible personal computer. The program
computes the flow rates in the pipes and then HGL at the nodes. The calculation of flow rates
involves several iterations because the mass and energy equations are nonlinear. The number of
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
10
iterations depends on the system of network equations and the user-specified accuracy. A
satisfactory solution of the flow rates must meet the specified accuracy, the law of conservation
of mass and energy in the water distribution system, and any other requirements imposed by the
user. The calculation of HGL requires no iteration because the network equations are linear.
Once the flow rate analysis is complete, the water quality computations are then performed.
In the programme is a graphical user interface (GUI) that facilitates the construction of layout of
the network to be simulated. A network is constructed easily by pointing and clicking an icon on
the GUI that represents the physical entity (pipes, valves, sprinklers etc.). Editing the properties
of the network components and its simulation options can also be done. Simulation carried out is
presented to the user in a readable format here on the GUI. Figure 3.1 below presents a typical
GUI.
Figure 3.1 Typical GUI of EPANET
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
11
3.4. STEPS IN USING EPANET
The EPANET manual by Rossman (2000) outlines the following steps in using EPANET to
model a water distribution system
1. Draw a network representation of your distribution system or import a basic description of the
network placed in a text file.
2. Edit the properties of the objects that make up the system
3. Describe how the system is operated
4. Select a set of analysis options
5. Run a hydraulic/water quality analysis
6. View the results of the analysis
3.5. ACQUISITION OF EPANET
EPANET is distributed as a single file, en2setup.exe, which contains a self-extracting setup
program. Setup and manual can be downloaded at http://servicecenter.kcc.usda.gov/sfwel.htm.
EPANET has USDA CCE certification.
3.6. ADVANTAGES OF USING EPANET
Survey data can be read into the program.
All calculations are done internally and quickly.
Graphics, summary output tables for quick references.
Easy to compare simulation with other calibrated data.
Changes are quick and easy to make.
Unlimited network size and complexity (looped systems, etc.).
Error checking and warnings.
3.7. DISADVANTAGES OF USING EPANET
Having to learn the program (can take some time).
It requires that the designer understands the principles of hydraulics.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
12
CHAPTER 4
MODELLING, RESULTS AND ANALYSIS USING CASE STUDIES
4.1. NETWORK 1: SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
The sprinkler irrigation network presented is for a small holder farmer in an irrigation scheme in
Ghana. The total area to be irrigated is 18ha (600mx300m). Crop to be irrigated is sweet pepper
with peak crop irrigation requirement of 1.02mm/day and system efficiency of 75%. Net
application of 7020 m3 of water will be required per irrigation to bring the root zone depth of the
soil from the 50% allowable depletion level to the field capacity of the soil.
The design is a periodic move sprinkler irrigation system with quick coupling PE pipes. The
irrigation cycle is 8 days with 3 pairs of laterals making 2 shifts per day. There are
approximately 50 moves for the laterals (600m length of field/12m sprinkler spacing). Hazen
William pipe roughness C of 140 was used. Appendix A.1 presents the basic data used for the
design of sprinkler irrigation system.
4.1.1. Design and formulation
The aim of design of the network is to find the optimal pipe size for each pipe in the network for
a given layout, satisfying hydraulic constraints of the system. The constraints of the system are
maximum allowable flow velocity in pipe stretches, minimum operating pressure of the
sprinklers (Table 4.1). According to labye et al. (1988) the maximum velocities in pipes
generally should not exceed 1.5m/s. Again diameter of the pipes must be selected from some
commercially available sizes (Table 4.2).
Table 4.1 hydraulic constraints of network
CONSTRAINT VALUE
Max. allowable Velocity 1.5m/s
Minimum operating pressure (SOP) 30m
Pressure variation 20% of SOP
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
13
Table 4.2 Commercial PE pipe sizes
Polietilene PE 80
PN 8* - SDR 17,6
Ø Est.
mm
Internal
diameter
mm
US$/m
50 44 2.70
63 55.4 4.23
75 66 5.99
90 79.2 8.21
110 96.8 12.27
125 110.2 15.50
140 123.4 19.47
160 141 18.15
180 158.6 32.15
200 176.2 39.67
225 198.2 50.30
250 220.4 61.65
(Source www.oppo.it/31/05/2011/1030am)
4.1.2. Sprinklers
Nodes in the EPANET network represent a sprinkler or a hydrant. EPANET models sprinklers as
emitters with the equation q=KHY
Q= discharge of each sprinkler (m3/hr.)
K= Emitter co-efficient (0.100, refer to Appendix A.2)
H= operating pressure of sprinkler (m)
Y=Emitter exponent (0.5)
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
14
From the design chart of VYRSA Range of sprinklers (Appendix A.2), a sprinkler with 2.8 mm
nozzle discharging 0.55m3/hr, precipitation rate 3.8mm/hr at 3.0 bars with 12x 12 m spacing was
used as an example. This sprinkler chosen satisfies all the conditions related to soil, wind effect
and dimensions of land.
4.1.3. Network configuration
The Figure 4.1 below shows the EPANET Network configuration used for the analysis. There
are a total of 72 sprinklers, 6 laterals and 82pipes. Pipes 1 to 10 are the main lines whilst the rest
are laterals spaced at 12m. Dummy nodes (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) have been included to
represent the positions of hydrants. Water is pumped from a reservoir at an elevation of 100m.
An electric pump of system discharge 40m3/hr and head 45m was used (refer to pump
characteristics in Appendix A.3). The network also shows a control valve.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
15
Figure 4.1 EPANET network configuration
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
16
Table 4.3 Basic design data for pipes
pipe Length
m
Diameter
mm
1 210 123.4
2 60 123.4
3 60 123.4
4 60 123.4
5 60 110.2
6 60 110.2
7 60 110.2
8 60 79.2
9 60 79.2
10 108 79.2
laterals 12 66
4.1.4. Results
4.1.4.1. Cost of pipes
Choosing PE pipes for the design and selecting from commercially available pipe sizes ranging
from 44mm to123.4mm, the cost of pipes for this system was calculated using the formula
Cs = ∑Uk x Lk,
Cs is the total cost of system in US Dollars $
Uk is the cost per meter in $/m
Lk is the Length in meters of the kth pipe.
K is the pipe ID starting from 1 to k
From the simulation with EPANET and keeping the velocity in the system below 1.5m/s, it was
realized that the simulated results yielded a cost of US$18,012.84 whilst the calculated results
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
17
yielded a cost of US$13,084.49 (Table 4.4 and 4.5). This amounted to a difference of
US$4,928.35.
Variations in the cost is a results of the fact that designers using the trial and error approach most
at times assume a particular pipe diameter for entire sections of the network during the
calculation which is an easier approach, however it should be noted that prices of commercial
pipes are very much dependent of the pipe diameters for a particular pressure rating. Again
whilst the calculated diameter yielded a lower cost of pipes because the diameters used were
smaller than the ones used for the simulation but its subsequent effect on pressure, velocity and
unit head loss were undesirable and did not satisfy the constraints set for the system.
Table 4.4 Cost of pipes using EPANET simulation
Pipe
ID
Length
m
Diameter
Simulated
mm
Unit
Cost
US$/m
Cost
US$
1
251
123.4
19.47
4,887.85
2
60
123.4
19.47
1,168.41
3
60
123.4
19.47
1,168.41
4
60
123.4
19.47
1,168.41
5
60
110.2
15.50
930.03
6
60
110.2
15.50
930.03
7
60
110.2
15.50
930.03
8
60
79.2
8.21
492.42
9
60
79.2
8.21
492.42
10
108
79.2
8.21
886.36
laterals (66x12m +6x6m)
828
66
5.99
4,958.48
18,012.84
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
18
Table 4.5 Cost of pipes using manual calculation
Pipe
ID
Length
m
Diameter
calculated
mm
Diameter
St. sizes
mm
Unit
Cost
US$/m
Cost
US$
1
251
120
123.4 19.47
4,887.85
2
60
110
110.2 15.50
930.03
3
60
110
110.2 15.50
930.03
4
60
110
110.2 15.50
930.03
5
60
85
96.8 12.27
736.02
6
60
85
96.8 12.27
736.02
7
60
85
96.8 12.27
736.02
8
60
49
55.4 4.23
254.04
9
60
49
55.4 4.23
254.04
10
108
49
55.4 4.23
457.27
laterals (66x12m +6x6m)
828
44
44 2.70
2,233.12
19.47 13,084.49
4.1.4.2. Pressure in system
It is desired that the pressure in the system should not be below the sprinkler operating pressure
of 30m. Assuming 20% pressure variation (FAO, 2001) between the lowest point and the
highest point is allowed, the variation then should not exceed 6m (20% of 30 SOP). This
pressure differences throughout the system should be maintained in such a range so that a high
degree of uniformity of water application is achieved.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
19
From the Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 below , minimum pressure in the system is 36.80m occurring
at the highest point (elevation 108m) on the field whilst the maximum reference pressure is
39.66m (elevation 105m, ). The pressure variation therefore is 2.86m which is within the limit.
Moreover the minimum pressure requirement satisfies the constraint of 30m sprinkler operating
pressure. Calculated results yielded a maximum and minimum pressure of 40.24m and 31.71m
(Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5) respectively which is also satisfies the sprinkler operating pressure;
however a pressure variation of 8.82m was accrued which is way above the limit of 6m.
Figure 4.2 Simulated Node Results indicating pressures on highest reference lateral
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
20
Figure 4.3 Simulated Node Results indicating pressures on lowest reference lateral
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
21
Figure 4.4 Calculated Node Results indicating pressures on lowest reference lateral
Figure 4.5 Calculated Node Results indicating pressures on highest reference lateral
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
22
4.1.4.3. Velocity
Tracking velocity changes in a network can be very difficult to do manually especially if the
network is large. Most designers tend to ignore the effect of velocity in the system. High
velocities tend to increase the unit head losses in the pipe stretches. Assuming it is desired but
not always necessary that the unit head loss should not exceed the “economic friction loss
gradient” of 1m/100m or 10m/km (ARC, 2003). The analysis as presented in Tables 4.6 and 4.7
compares the subsequent effect of pipe sizes and velocity on the unit head losses in the system.
The simulation yielded unit head losses below 10m/km for the chosen pipe dimensions whist the
calculation yielded head losses above this threshold. High head losses subsequently resulted in a
low pressure at the sprinkler in the highest point on the farm and increased the pressure variation.
The advantage of EPANET is that every change in pipe diameter and length is automatically
calculated and changes in key parameters such as velocity and pressure are indicated on the
computer screen at the particular location for the designer to make a decision. Tables are also
generated for assessment. The Tables 4.6 and 4.7 below are examples for this network as well as
the head losses along the main lines.
Table 4.6 Simulated Velocity and head losses for main lines
-----------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss
ID CMH m/s m/km
-----------------------------------------------
1 44.12 1.02 8.69
2 36.58 0.85 6.15
3 36.58 0.85 6.15
4 36.58 0.85 6.15
5 21.92 0.64 4.13
6 21.92 0.64 4.13
7 21.92 0.64 4.13
8 7.59 0.43 2.90
9 7.59 0.43 2.90
10 7.59 0.43 2.90
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
23
Table 4.7 Calculated Velocity and head loss for main lines
---------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss
ID CMH m/s m/km ---------------------------------------------------
1 42.89 1.00 8.25
2 35.42 1.03 10.05
3 35.42 1.03 10.05
4 35.42 1.03 10.05
5 21.02 0.79 7.19
6 21.02 0.79 7.19
7 21.02 0.79 7.19
8 7.07 0.81 14.47
9 7.07 0.81 14.47
10 7.07 0.81 14.47
4.1.4.4. Energy Usage
EPANET has the ability to calculate the daily cost of energy used by the system. In this example
a value of 8 US cents per Kw-hr which is the estimated cost of energy in Ghana was used (. The
programme generated a cost of USD$14.62 per day for the system. (Table 4.8). This could be
interesting for economic analysis.
Table 4.8 Simulated Energy Usage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usage Avg. Kw-hr Avg. Peak Cost
Pump ID Factor Effic. /m3 Kw Kw /day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
81 100.00 75.00 0.17 7.61 7.61 14.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Charge: 0.00
Total Cost: 14.62
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
24
4.2. NETWORK 2: USING EPANET TO SOLVE NETWORK PROBLEM
The schematic diagram and EPANET configuration of a real irrigation network in Ghana are
shown in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7 respectively. This network consists of 23 pipes (links) and 24
nodes of which 20 are hydrants, one reservoir (source node) and one pump. Minimum pressure
requirement is 10m. The length of the PVC pipe ranges from 75 m to 152 m with Hazen-
Williams roughness coefficients of 140 for all pipes.
Figure 4.6 Schematic diagram of network
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
25
Figure 4.7 Network indicating pipes and junctions ID
4.2.1. Solving problem of network
The network represents the arrangement of hydrants in a unit of irrigable field. The reservoir is a
river with lowest water level of 79m and the highest elevation of the land in this field is 92m.
Pump supplied by the contractor is a diesel pump of characteristics 42l/s and 15m head. It is
required to determine whether this pump meets the required head and discharge as specified in
the bill of quantities. Each of the hydrants have a base demand of 2.1l/s. The table 4.9 below
presents the design inputs for the network.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
26
Table 4.9 Basic design data for network
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
P1 J1 J2 152 200
P2 J2 J3 125 150
P3 J3 J4 105 150
P4 J4 J5 75 150
P5 J5 J6 75 150
P6 J6 J7 75 150
P7 J7 J8 75 150
P8 J8 J9 75 150
P9 J9 J10 75 150
P10 J10 J11 75 150
P11 J11 J12 75 100
P12 J12 J13 75 100
P16 J2 J17 125 150
P17 J17 J18 105 150
P18 J18 J19 75 150
P19 J19 J20 75 150
P20 J20 J21 75 150
P21 J21 J22 75 150
P22 J22 J23 75 150
P23 J23 J24 75 150
P24 J24 J25 75 150
P25 J25 J26 75 100
P26 J26 J27 75 100
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
27
4.2.2. Results for real Irrigation network
4.2.2.1. Initial simulated results using supplied pump
In the Table 4.10, simulation by EPANET solver using the pump supplied by the contractor
indicates that with the exception of node J1 (pressure 15m). Moreover J11-J13 and J22-J27 all
returned negative pressures as shown in the table below. The full simulated result of this network
is presented in the Appendix B.2. This clearly indicates that the pump supplied by the contractor
in this instance does not meet the required head of the network.
Table 4.10 Node Results: -----------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure
ID LPS m m -----------------------------------------------
J1 0.00 94.00 15.00
J2 0.00 92.77 12.77
J3 0.00 91.63 11.13
J4 2.10 90.67 9.67
J5 2.10 90.11 8.11
J6 2.10 89.66 7.16
J7 2.10 89.31 6.31
J8 2.10 89.04 5.04
J9 2.10 88.85 3.85
J10 2.10 88.73 1.73
J11 2.10 88.65 -0.35
J12 2.10 88.40 -1.60
J13 2.10 88.34 -2.66
J17 0.00 91.63 9.63
J18 2.10 90.67 6.67
J19 2.10 90.11 5.11
J20 2.10 89.66 3.66
J21 2.10 89.31 2.31
J22 2.10 89.04 -0.46
J23 2.10 88.85 -1.15
J24 2.10 88.73 -1.77
J25 2.10 88.65 -2.35
J26 2.10 88.40 -3.10
J27 2.10 88.34 -3.66
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
28
4.2.2.2. Results using specified pump
In order to help management take a decision on this situation, EPANET was used to simulate the
network using the designed and specified pump which has characteristics of 42l and 31m head.
From the Table 4.11, the highest pressure of 31m occurs at node J1 whilst the minimum of
12.34m occurs at node J27. This satisfies the minimum pressure requirement in the system
confirming that the pump supplied by contractor does not meet the specifications.
Table 4.11 Node Results of network -----------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure
ID LPS m m -----------------------------------------------
J1 0.00 110.00 31.00
J2 0.00 108.77 28.77
J3 0.00 107.63 27.13
J4 2.10 106.67 25.67
J5 2.10 106.11 24.11
J6 2.10 105.66 23.16
J7 2.10 105.31 22.31
J8 2.10 105.04 21.04
J9 2.10 104.85 19.85
J10 2.10 104.73 17.73
J11 2.10 104.65 15.65
J12 2.10 104.40 14.40
J13 2.10 104.34 13.34
J17 0.00 107.63 25.63
J18 2.10 106.67 22.67
J19 2.10 106.11 21.11
J20 2.10 105.66 19.66
J21 2.10 105.31 18.31
J22 2.10 105.04 15.54
J23 2.10 104.85 14.85
J24 2.10 104.73 14.23
J25 2.10 104.65 13.65
J26 2.10 104.40 12.90
J27 2.10 104.34 12.34
Verification of head losses along the Main pipelines confirmed the inadequacy of the pumps that
have been installed.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
29
This assisted Engineers supervision the project to bring to the attention of management that the
desired aim of getting water to the irrigable lands may not be achieved if the specified pumps are
not provided.
It should be indicated that manually calculated results yielded similar results, however EPANET
did the calculation within seconds and it returned easy to understand tables and graphs for quick
decisions to be taken. As an example the Figure 4.8 below presents the pressure distribution in
the system. The plot is frequency of pressure as against the actual values of pressure. It shows
the percentage of pressure less than a specific pressure value. In the Figure 4.8, for a pressure of
20 m, there are 45 percent of the nodes less this value.
Figure 4.8 Pressure frequency distribution of system.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
30
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS
5.1. CONCLUSIONS
The main concern in the design of pressurized irrigation networks is to achieve an optimal
solution which satisfies the constraints of the network, an undertaken which is very difficult to
achieve manually especially if the network is large. Hydraulic Modelling computer softwares can
be used to lessen the burden. EPANET is one such tool that has been used to great success.
Modelling a sprinkler irrigation system in this thesis indicated some interesting results. The aim
of many hydraulic engineers is to design a system with least- cost of pipes which is normally
considered as the optimal solution. However, the optimal solution may be infeasible for a
number of reasons.
In this example, manual calculation yielded the least cost of pipes (US$13,084.49 ) but did not
necessarily represent the optimal solution because constraints like minimum operating pressure
which is very important was not met.
The optimal solution based on the EPANET simulation even though more expensive
(US$18,012.84) provided significantly better pressure characteristics than the least cost
solution, though both solutions meet the velocity requirement. Again head losses along the pipes
in the simulation were significantly lower than the pipes in the calculated network.
EPANET can give designers power over their designs and also enhance decision making
concerning pressurized networks. Modelling a simple irrigation network helped engineers
supervising a project to verify whether the required equipment of pump has been installed. The
analysis with EPANET was done quickly while easy to understand reports were also generated.
Further sensitivity analysis can be done quickly on this network.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
31
5.2. RECCOMENDATIONS
The following are some suggestions relevant to future works in modelling pressurized irrigation
networks:
1. EPANET solver depends on the system of network equations, the user-specified accuracy
and the accuracy of design inputs as such it should be used with caution. It should not
necessarily be seen as a solution to all the problems of manual calculation but rather a
tool to enhance the design process.
2. The network solve performs only steady and extended period simulations, analysis of the
network should include the effect of water hammer for example on the network.
3. The solver for now only does the simulation based on the pipe sizes inputted by the
designer. It can be linked to other optimization techniques like Shuffled Complex
Evolution (SCE) to automatically search and select from a set of commercial pipe sizes.
4. Other hydraulic network solvers such as MIKE NET, KYPIPE, Pipeflow expert,
WATERCAD etc. should be considered in the pressurized network performance and
compared with that of EPANET.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
32
REFERENCES
1. ARC, 2003. “Pipe hydraulics”. Institute for Agricultural Engineering design manual.
2. Bassin, J.K., Gupta, I., and Gupta, A. (1992). “Graph theoretic Approach to the Analysis of
Water Distribution System.”, Journal of Indian Water Works Association, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.
269–276.
3. Chadwick, A., and Morfett, J. (1993). “Hydraulics in Civil and Environmental Engineering.”
Chapman and Hall. 2nd
edition.
4. Cunha, M.D.C., and Sousa, J. (1999). “Water Distribution Network Design Optimization:
Simulated Annealing Approach.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
Vol. 125, No. 4, pp. 215-221.
5. Eiger, G., Shamir, U., and Ben-Tal, A. (1994). “Optimal Design of Water Distribution
Networks and Water Resources.” Res., 30 (9), 2637-2646.
6. FAO. 2001. “Sprinkler Irrigation Systems. Planning, design, Operation and Maintenance”.
FAO Irrigation Manual Module 8, pp. 18.
7. Gessler, J. (1982). “Optimization of Pipe Networks.” Proc. of the Ninth International.
Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Control, Univ. of Ky.,
Lexington, July 27-30.
8. Gessler, J. (1985). “Pipe Network Optimization by Enumeration.” Proceeding of Computer
Applications in Water Resources, ASCE, New York, N.Y., pp. 572-581.
9. Gupta, I., Gupta, A., and Khanna, P. (1999). “Genetic Algorithm for Optimization of Water
Distribution Systems.”, Environmental Modelling & software Vol.-4, pp. 437-446.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
33
10. Labye, Y., Olson, M.A., Galand, A., and Tsiourtis, M. (1988). “Design and Optimization
of Irrigation Distribution Networks.” Irr. & Drainage Paper 44, FAO, Rome, Italy: 89-146.
11. Kally, E. (1972). Computerized Planning of the Least Cost Water Distribution Network,
Water sewage works pp121-127.
12. Lansey, K. and Mays, L. (1989). “Optimal Design of Water Distribution System Design.”
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 10, pp. 1401-1418.
13. Lin, B.L., Wu, R.S., and Liaw, S.L. (1997). “A Heuristic Approach Algorithm for the
Optimization of Pipe Network Systems.” Water Sci. Technol., Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 219-226.
14. Loubser, B.F. and Gessler, J. (1993). “Computer Aided Optimization of Water Distribution
Network.” Integrated Computer Applications in Water Supply, pp. 103-115.
15. McGhee, T. J. (1991). “Water supply and sewerage.” McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
16. Morgan, D. and Goulter, I. (1985). “Water Distribution Design with Multiple Demands.”
Proceedings of Specialty Conference on Computer Application in Water Resources, ASCE,
New York, pp. 582-590.
17. Rossman, L.A. (2000). “EPANET, User’s Manual.” Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
18. Savic, D.A. and Walters, G.A. (1997). “Genetic Algorithms for Least-cost Design of Water
Distribution Networks.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol.
123, No. 2, pp. 67-77.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
34
19. Simpson, A.R., Dandy, G.C., and Murphy, L.J. (1994). “Genetic Algorithms Compared to
other Techniques for Pipe Optimization.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 4, pp. 423-443.
20. Walski, T.M., Chase, D.V., and Savic, D.A. (2001). “Water distribution modelling.” 1st Ed.,
Haested Press, New York.
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
35
APPENDIX A
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
36
APPENDIX A. 1 DESIGN DATA FOR SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Climatic and Agronomic data (New_locClim and CROPWAT)
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
37
*Peak crop water requirement used is 10.2mm/dec or 1.02mm/day
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
38
Engineering
1 A Irrigable Area ha 18
3 T Operation hours in a day hrs 6
4 S Set /day no 2
5 C Irrigation cycle (50 moves/3 x2 ) day 8
6 L1 Spacing between sprinklers m 12
7 L2 Spacing between hydrants m 60
8 q Discharge of each sprinkler m3/hr 0.55
10 w wind speed km/hr 5.4
11 Ea Application efficiency % 75
12 GAR Gross application rate mm/hr 3.8
13 V Max. Design velocity in main pipeline m/s 1.5
17 W Wetted diameter m 22.5
Results
1 a Area of each sprinkler (L1 × L1) m
2 144
2 q Discharge of each sprinkler (GAR × a) m3/hr 0.55
3 Nc Set cycle (S× C) no 16
4 Ns Number of sprinklers [Qs/q] no 72
5 Qs Design discharge for entire system * m3/hr 40
*Discharge Q of system= (1.02mm/day x 0.001m)/6 x A x 10,000
=30.6m3/hr
Q=30.6/0.75
Qs=40m3/hr
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
39
head losses estimation
1 Eh Highest elevation of land m 108
2 El lowest water level m 99
8 g acceleration due to gravity m2/sec 9.81
9 L total length of main pipeline * m 210
10 D Diameter of main pipeline mm 123.4
11 hr height of riser m 0.6
12 nl number of sprinklers on a lateral line no 12
13 dl Diameter of laterals mm 66
14 dr Diameter of risers mm 25
15 dn Diameter of sprinkler nozzle mm 2.8
16 l length of lateral line m 138
Results
main
pipe
1 v Max. velocity in pipeline (Qs/area of pipeline) m/s 1.5
2 hd dynamic losses along mainlines # m 13.5
3 hm minor loss (10% of hs and hd) m 2.25
4 hs static loss in system (Eh-El) m 9.00
head losses in laterals
1 ql discharge in lateral (q x n1) m
3/s 0.001833
2 hlat
dynamic loss in lateral [l(3.59× ql /148×
d^2.63
)^1.852
× 0.384× 0.77] m 0.09
Additional losses in risers
1 hriser
dynamic loss in riser (2.793× 10^-10
× hr ×
q^1.85
)/dr^4.87
m 0.26
2
h(stat. in
riser) static head loss in riser=height of riser( hr) m 0.6
losses in sprinkler head
1 hsprinkler head loss in sprinkler head (hn × 6) m 16.8
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
40
total head losses in entire system
1 H
Total Head loss in system (hd+hs+hlat+hriser+h (stat.
in riser)+hsprinkler +hm m 42.50
*The length of the supply line is 210 m (50 m from pumping station to field edge plus 150 m from
field edge to the middle of the field, plus 4 m for the road, plus 6 m to the first hydrant)
# Hazen-Williams equation
hf=L (3.59Q/Ch d^2.63)^1.852
hf= frictional losses (m)
Q= discharge (m/s)
Ch=Hazen-Williams coefficient (140 for smooth pipes)
L= length of pipe (m)
D=diameter of pipe (m)
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
41
APPENDIX A.2 SPRINKLER CHARACTERISTICS
Precipitation rate of sprinkler = 3.8mm/hr
Discharge of sprinkler = 0.55m3/hr
Emitter coefficient for sprinkler Nozzle 2.8mm pressure 3.0 bars or 30m
Q H Emitter coefficient
m3/hr m w.c.
0.45 20 0.101
0.5 25 0.100
0.55 30 0.100
0.59 35 0.100
0.63 40 0.100
0.100
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
42
APPENDIX A.3 PUMP CHARACTERISTICS
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
43
APPENDIX A.4 SIMULATED RESULTS FOR SPRINKLER NETWORK
Page 1 6/18/2011 9:40:03 PM
**********************************************************************
* E P A N E T *
* Hydraulic and Water Quality *
* Analysis for Pipe Networks *
* Version 2.0 *
**********************************************************************
Input File: 18 HA DRAWN SIMULATED.NET
Link - Node Table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 2 210 123.4
2 3 4 60 123.4
3 4 5 60 123.4
4 5 6 60 123.4
5 6 7 60 110.2
6 7 8 60 110.2
7 8 9 60 110.2
8 9 10 60 79.2
9 10 11 60 79.2
10 11 12 108 79.2
11 3 13 6 66
12 13 14 12 66
13 14 15 12 66
14 15 16 12 66
15 16 17 12 66
16 17 18 12 66
17 18 19 12 66
18 19 20 12 66
19 20 21 12 66
20 21 22 12 66
21 22 23 12 66
22 47 46 12 66
23 46 45 12 66
24 45 44 12 66
25 44 43 12 66
26 43 42 12 66
27 42 41 12 66
28 41 40 12 66
29 40 39 12 66
30 39 38 12 66
31 38 37 12 66
32 37 36 12 66
33 36 6 6 66
34 6 24 6 66
35 24 25 12 66
36 25 26 12 66
37 26 27 12 66
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
44
Page 2
Link - Node Table: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
38 27 28 12 66
39 28 29 12 66
40 29 30 12 66
41 30 31 12 66
42 31 32 12 66
43 32 33 12 66
44 33 34 12 66
45 34 35 12 66
46 71 70 12 66
47 70 69 12 66
48 69 68 12 66
49 68 67 12 66
50 67 66 12 66
51 66 65 12 66
52 65 64 12 66
53 64 63 12 66
54 63 62 12 66
55 62 61 12 66
56 61 60 12 66
57 60 9 6 66
58 9 48 6 66
59 48 49 12 66
60 49 50 12 66
61 50 51 12 66
62 51 52 12 66
63 52 53 12 66
64 53 54 12 66
65 54 55 12 66
66 55 56 12 66
67 56 57 12 66
68 57 58 12 66
69 58 59 12 66
70 83 82 12 66
71 82 81 12 66
72 81 80 12 66
73 80 79 12 66
74 79 78 12 66
75 78 76 12 66
76 76 75 12 66
77 75 74 12 66
78 74 73 12 66
79 73 72 12 66
80 72 12 6 66
83 83 85 12 66
84 23 77 12 66
85 85 86 12 66
81 84 1 #N/A #N/A Pump
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
45
Page 3
Link - Node Table: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
82 2 3 #N/A 123.4 Valve
Energy Usage:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usage Avg. Kw-hr Avg. Peak Cost
Pump Factor Effic. /m3 Kw Kw /day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
81 100.00 75.00 0.17 7.61 7.61 14.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Charge: 0.00
Total Cost: 14.62
Node Results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure Quality
ID CMH m m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.00 146.53 46.53 0.00
2 0.00 144.70 40.70 0.00
3 0.00 144.70 39.70 0.00
4 0.00 144.33 39.13 0.00
5 0.00 143.96 38.56 0.00
6 0.00 143.60 37.60 0.00
7 0.00 143.35 37.15 0.00
8 0.00 143.10 36.70 0.00
9 0.00 142.85 35.85 0.00
10 0.00 142.68 35.48 0.00
11 0.00 142.50 35.10 0.00
12 0.00 142.19 34.19 0.00
13 0.63 144.66 39.66 0.00
14 0.63 144.59 39.59 0.00
15 0.63 144.53 39.53 0.00
16 0.63 144.48 39.48 0.00
17 0.63 144.44 39.44 0.00
18 0.63 144.41 39.41 0.00
19 0.63 144.39 39.39 0.00
20 0.63 144.37 39.37 0.00
21 0.63 144.36 39.36 0.00
22 0.63 144.35 39.35 0.00
23 0.63 144.35 39.35 0.00
24 0.61 143.56 37.56 0.00
25 0.61 143.49 37.49 0.00
26 0.61 143.43 37.43 0.00
27 0.61 143.39 37.39 0.00
28 0.61 143.35 37.35 0.00
29 0.61 143.32 37.32 0.00
30 0.61 143.30 37.30 0.00
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
46
Page 4
Node Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure Quality
ID CMH m m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
31 0.61 143.28 37.28 0.00
32 0.61 143.27 37.27 0.00
33 0.61 143.27 37.27 0.00
34 0.61 143.26 37.26 0.00
35 0.61 143.26 37.26 0.00
36 0.61 143.56 37.56 0.00
37 0.61 143.49 37.49 0.00
38 0.61 143.43 37.43 0.00
39 0.61 143.39 37.39 0.00
40 0.61 143.35 37.35 0.00
41 0.61 143.32 37.32 0.00
42 0.61 143.30 37.30 0.00
43 0.61 143.28 37.28 0.00
44 0.61 143.27 37.27 0.00
45 0.61 143.27 37.27 0.00
46 0.61 143.26 37.26 0.00
47 0.61 143.26 37.26 0.00
48 0.60 142.81 35.81 0.00
49 0.60 142.75 35.75 0.00
50 0.60 142.70 35.70 0.00
51 0.60 142.65 35.65 0.00
52 0.60 142.62 35.62 0.00
53 0.60 142.59 35.59 0.00
54 0.60 142.57 35.57 0.00
55 0.60 142.55 35.55 0.00
56 0.60 142.54 35.54 0.00
57 0.60 142.54 35.54 0.00
58 0.60 142.53 35.53 0.00
59 0.60 142.53 35.53 0.00
60 0.60 142.81 35.81 0.00
61 0.60 142.75 35.75 0.00
62 0.60 142.70 35.70 0.00
63 0.60 142.65 35.65 0.00
64 0.60 142.62 35.62 0.00
65 0.60 142.59 35.59 0.00
66 0.60 142.57 35.57 0.00
67 0.60 142.55 35.55 0.00
68 0.60 142.54 35.54 0.00
69 0.60 142.54 35.54 0.00
70 0.60 142.53 35.53 0.00
71 0.60 142.53 35.53 0.00
72 0.58 142.15 34.15 0.00
73 0.58 142.08 34.08 0.00
74 0.58 142.01 34.01 0.00
75 0.58 141.96 33.96 0.00
76 0.58 141.92 33.92 0.00
78 0.58 141.88 33.88 0.00
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
47
Page 5
Node Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure Quality
ID CMH m m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
79 0.58 141.86 33.86 0.00
80 0.58 141.84 33.84 0.00
81 0.58 141.82 33.82 0.00
82 0.58 141.81 33.81 0.00
83 0.58 141.81 33.81 0.00
85 0.58 141.81 33.81 0.00
77 0.63 144.35 39.35 0.00
86 0.61 141.80 36.80 0.00
84 -44.12 99.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir
Link Results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID CMH m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 44.12 1.02 8.69 Open
2 36.58 0.85 6.15 Open
3 36.58 0.85 6.15 Open
4 36.58 0.85 6.15 Open
5 21.92 0.64 4.13 Open
6 21.92 0.64 4.13 Open
7 21.92 0.64 4.13 Open
8 7.59 0.43 2.90 Open
9 7.59 0.43 2.90 Open
10 7.59 0.43 2.90 Open
11 7.54 0.61 6.94 Open
12 6.91 0.56 5.91 Open
13 6.28 0.51 4.95 Open
14 5.65 0.46 4.07 Open
15 5.02 0.41 3.27 Open
16 4.39 0.36 2.55 Open
17 3.76 0.31 1.92 Open
18 3.14 0.25 1.37 Open
19 2.51 0.20 0.91 Open
20 1.88 0.15 0.53 Open
21 1.25 0.10 0.25 Open
22 -0.61 0.05 0.07 Open
23 -1.22 0.10 0.24 Open
24 -1.83 0.15 0.51 Open
25 -2.44 0.20 0.86 Open
26 -3.05 0.25 1.30 Open
27 -3.66 0.30 1.83 Open
28 -4.27 0.35 2.43 Open
29 -4.89 0.40 3.11 Open
30 -5.50 0.45 3.87 Open
31 -6.11 0.50 4.71 Open
32 -6.72 0.55 5.62 Open
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
48
Page 6
Link Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID CMH m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
33 -7.33 0.60 6.60 Open
34 7.33 0.60 6.60 Open
35 6.72 0.55 5.62 Open
36 6.11 0.50 4.71 Open
37 5.50 0.45 3.87 Open
38 4.89 0.40 3.11 Open
39 4.27 0.35 2.43 Open
40 3.66 0.30 1.83 Open
41 3.05 0.25 1.30 Open
42 2.44 0.20 0.86 Open
43 1.83 0.15 0.51 Open
44 1.22 0.10 0.24 Open
45 0.61 0.05 0.07 Open
46 -0.60 0.05 0.06 Open
47 -1.19 0.10 0.23 Open
48 -1.79 0.15 0.48 Open
49 -2.38 0.19 0.82 Open
50 -2.98 0.24 1.25 Open
51 -3.58 0.29 1.75 Open
52 -4.17 0.34 2.32 Open
53 -4.77 0.39 2.98 Open
54 -5.37 0.44 3.70 Open
55 -5.97 0.48 4.50 Open
56 -6.56 0.53 5.37 Open
57 -7.16 0.58 6.32 Open
58 7.16 0.58 6.32 Open
59 6.56 0.53 5.37 Open
60 5.97 0.48 4.50 Open
61 5.37 0.44 3.70 Open
62 4.77 0.39 2.98 Open
63 4.17 0.34 2.32 Open
64 3.58 0.29 1.75 Open
65 2.98 0.24 1.25 Open
66 2.38 0.19 0.82 Open
67 1.79 0.15 0.48 Open
68 1.19 0.10 0.23 Open
69 0.60 0.05 0.06 Open
70 -1.77 0.14 0.47 Open
71 -2.35 0.19 0.80 Open
72 -2.93 0.24 1.21 Open
73 -3.51 0.29 1.69 Open
74 -4.10 0.33 2.25 Open
75 -4.68 0.38 2.87 Open
76 -5.26 0.43 3.57 Open
77 -5.84 0.47 4.34 Open
78 -6.43 0.52 5.17 Open
79 -7.01 0.57 6.07 Open
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
49
Page 7
Link Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID CMH m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
80 -7.59 0.62 7.04 Open
83 1.19 0.10 0.23 Open
84 0.63 0.05 0.07 Open
85 0.61 0.05 0.07 Open
81 44.12 0.00 -47.53 Open Pump
82 44.12 1.02 0.00 Active Valve
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
50
APPENDIX A.5 CALCULATED RESULTS FOR SPRINKLER NETWORK
Page 1 6/18/2011 10:21:25 PM
**********************************************************************
* E P A N E T *
* Hydraulic and Water Quality *
* Analysis for Pipe Networks *
* Version 2.0 *
**********************************************************************
Input File: 18 HA DRAWN CALCULATED.NET
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 2 210 123.4
2 3 4 60 110.2
3 4 5 60 110.2
4 5 6 60 110.2
5 6 7 60 96.8
6 7 8 60 96.8
7 8 9 60 96.8
8 9 10 60 55.4
9 10 11 60 55.4
10 11 12 108 55.4
11 3 13 6 44
12 13 14 12 44
13 14 15 12 44
14 15 16 12 44
15 16 17 12 44
16 17 18 12 44
17 18 19 12 44
18 19 20 12 44
19 20 21 12 44
20 21 22 12 44
21 22 23 12 44
22 47 46 12 44
23 46 45 12 44
24 45 44 12 44
25 44 43 12 44
26 43 42 12 44
27 42 41 12 44
28 41 40 12 44
29 40 39 12 44
30 39 38 12 44
31 38 37 12 44
32 37 36 12 44
33 36 6 6 44
34 6 24 6 44
35 24 25 12 44
36 25 26 12 44
37 26 27 12 44
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
51
Page 2
Link - Node Table: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
38 27 28 12 44
39 28 29 12 44
40 29 30 12 44
41 30 31 12 44
42 31 32 12 44
43 32 33 12 44
44 33 34 12 44
45 34 35 12 44
46 71 70 12 44
47 70 69 12 44
48 69 68 12 44
49 68 67 12 44
50 67 66 12 44
51 66 65 12 44
52 65 64 12 44
53 64 63 12 44
54 63 62 12 44
55 62 61 12 44
56 61 60 12 44
57 60 9 6 44
58 9 48 6 44
59 48 49 12 44
60 49 50 12 44
61 50 51 12 44
62 51 52 12 44
63 52 53 12 44
64 53 54 12 44
65 54 55 12 44
66 55 56 12 44
67 56 57 12 44
68 57 58 12 44
69 58 59 12 44
70 83 82 12 44
71 82 81 12 44
72 81 80 12 44
73 80 79 12 44
74 79 78 12 44
75 78 76 12 44
76 76 75 12 44
77 75 74 12 44
78 74 73 12 44
79 73 72 12 44
80 72 12 6 44
83 83 85 12 44
84 23 77 12 44
85 85 86 12 44
81 84 1 #N/A #N/A Pump
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
52
Page 3
Link - Node Table: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
82 2 3 #N/A 123.4 Valve
Energy Usage:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usage Avg. Kw-hr Avg. Peak Cost
Pump Factor Effic. /m3 Kw Kw /day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
81 100.00 75.00 0.18 7.52 7.52 14.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Charge: 0.00
Total Cost: 14.43
Node Results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure Quality
ID CMH m m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.00 147.27 47.27 0.00
2 0.00 145.53 41.53 0.00
3 0.00 145.53 40.53 0.00
4 0.00 144.93 39.73 0.00
5 0.00 144.33 38.93 0.00
6 0.00 143.73 37.73 0.00
7 0.00 143.30 37.10 0.00
8 0.00 142.86 36.46 0.00
9 0.00 142.43 35.43 0.00
10 0.00 141.56 34.36 0.00
11 0.00 140.70 33.30 0.00
12 0.00 139.13 31.13 0.00
13 0.63 145.24 40.24 0.00
14 0.63 144.74 39.74 0.00
15 0.63 144.32 39.32 0.00
16 0.62 143.98 38.98 0.00
17 0.62 143.70 38.70 0.00
18 0.62 143.49 38.49 0.00
19 0.62 143.33 38.33 0.00
20 0.62 143.21 38.21 0.00
21 0.62 143.13 38.13 0.00
22 0.62 143.09 38.09 0.00
23 0.62 143.07 38.07 0.00
24 0.61 143.45 37.45 0.00
25 0.61 142.98 36.98 0.00
26 0.60 142.59 36.59 0.00
27 0.60 142.27 36.27 0.00
28 0.60 142.01 36.01 0.00
29 0.60 141.81 35.81 0.00
30 0.60 141.66 35.66 0.00
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
53
Page 4
Node Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure Quality
ID CMH m m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
31 0.60 141.55 35.55 0.00
32 0.60 141.48 35.48 0.00
33 0.60 141.44 35.44 0.00
34 0.60 141.42 35.42 0.00
35 0.60 141.41 35.41 0.00
36 0.61 143.45 37.45 0.00
37 0.61 142.98 36.98 0.00
38 0.60 142.59 36.59 0.00
39 0.60 142.27 36.27 0.00
40 0.60 142.01 36.01 0.00
41 0.60 141.81 35.81 0.00
42 0.60 141.66 35.66 0.00
43 0.60 141.55 35.55 0.00
44 0.60 141.48 35.48 0.00
45 0.60 141.44 35.44 0.00
46 0.60 141.42 35.42 0.00
47 0.60 141.41 35.41 0.00
48 0.59 142.17 35.17 0.00
49 0.59 141.73 34.73 0.00
50 0.59 141.36 34.36 0.00
51 0.58 141.06 34.06 0.00
52 0.58 140.82 33.82 0.00
53 0.58 140.63 33.63 0.00
54 0.58 140.48 33.48 0.00
55 0.58 140.38 33.38 0.00
56 0.58 140.32 33.32 0.00
57 0.58 140.28 33.28 0.00
58 0.58 140.26 33.26 0.00
59 0.58 140.25 33.25 0.00
60 0.59 142.17 35.17 0.00
61 0.59 141.73 34.73 0.00
62 0.59 141.36 34.36 0.00
63 0.58 141.06 34.06 0.00
64 0.58 140.82 33.82 0.00
65 0.58 140.63 33.63 0.00
66 0.58 140.48 33.48 0.00
67 0.58 140.38 33.38 0.00
68 0.58 140.32 33.32 0.00
69 0.58 140.28 33.28 0.00
70 0.58 140.26 33.26 0.00
71 0.58 140.25 33.25 0.00
72 0.56 138.87 30.87 0.00
73 0.55 138.41 30.41 0.00
74 0.55 138.02 30.02 0.00
75 0.54 137.70 29.70 0.00
76 0.54 137.43 29.43 0.00
78 0.54 137.21 29.21 0.00
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
54
Page 5
Node Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure Quality
ID CMH m m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
79 0.54 137.05 29.05 0.00
80 0.54 136.92 28.92 0.00
81 0.54 136.83 28.83 0.00
82 0.54 136.77 28.77 0.00
83 0.54 136.73 28.73 0.00
85 0.54 136.72 28.72 0.00
77 0.62 143.06 38.06 0.00
86 0.56 136.71 31.71 0.00
84 -42.89 99.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir
Link Results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID CMH m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 42.89 1.00 8.25 Open
2 35.42 1.03 10.05 Open
3 35.42 1.03 10.05 Open
4 35.42 1.03 10.05 Open
5 21.02 0.79 7.19 Open
6 21.02 0.79 7.19 Open
7 21.02 0.79 7.19 Open
8 7.07 0.81 14.47 Open
9 7.07 0.81 14.47 Open
10 7.07 0.81 14.47 Open
11 7.46 1.36 49.17 Open
12 6.83 1.25 41.71 Open
13 6.20 1.13 34.86 Open
14 5.57 1.02 28.62 Open
15 4.95 0.90 22.96 Open
16 4.33 0.79 17.90 Open
17 3.71 0.68 13.44 Open
18 3.09 0.56 9.58 Open
19 2.47 0.45 6.33 Open
20 1.85 0.34 3.72 Open
21 1.23 0.23 1.75 Open
22 -0.60 0.11 0.46 Open
23 -1.19 0.22 1.64 Open
24 -1.79 0.33 3.48 Open
25 -2.38 0.44 5.93 Open
26 -2.98 0.54 8.96 Open
27 -3.57 0.65 12.57 Open
28 -4.17 0.76 16.75 Open
29 -4.77 0.87 21.48 Open
30 -5.38 0.98 26.77 Open
31 -5.98 1.09 32.61 Open
32 -6.59 1.20 39.02 Open
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
55
Page 6
Link Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID CMH m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
33 -7.20 1.32 46.00 Open
34 7.20 1.32 46.00 Open
35 6.59 1.20 39.02 Open
36 5.98 1.09 32.61 Open
37 5.38 0.98 26.77 Open
38 4.77 0.87 21.48 Open
39 4.17 0.76 16.75 Open
40 3.57 0.65 12.57 Open
41 2.98 0.54 8.96 Open
42 2.38 0.44 5.93 Open
43 1.79 0.33 3.48 Open
44 1.19 0.22 1.64 Open
45 0.60 0.11 0.46 Open
46 -0.58 0.11 0.43 Open
47 -1.15 0.21 1.55 Open
48 -1.73 0.32 3.28 Open
49 -2.31 0.42 5.59 Open
50 -2.89 0.53 8.46 Open
51 -3.46 0.63 11.86 Open
52 -4.04 0.74 15.80 Open
53 -4.63 0.84 20.26 Open
54 -5.21 0.95 25.25 Open
55 -5.79 1.06 30.76 Open
56 -6.38 1.17 36.81 Open
57 -6.98 1.27 43.39 Open
58 6.98 1.27 43.39 Open
59 6.38 1.17 36.81 Open
60 5.79 1.06 30.76 Open
61 5.21 0.95 25.25 Open
62 4.63 0.84 20.26 Open
63 4.04 0.74 15.80 Open
64 3.46 0.63 11.86 Open
65 2.89 0.53 8.46 Open
66 2.31 0.42 5.59 Open
67 1.73 0.32 3.28 Open
68 1.15 0.21 1.55 Open
69 0.58 0.11 0.43 Open
70 -1.64 0.30 2.95 Open
71 -2.17 0.40 5.00 Open
72 -2.71 0.49 7.52 Open
73 -3.25 0.59 10.52 Open
74 -3.79 0.69 13.98 Open
75 -4.33 0.79 17.90 Open
76 -4.87 0.89 22.28 Open
77 -5.41 0.99 27.11 Open
78 -5.96 1.09 32.42 Open
79 -6.51 1.19 38.19 Open
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
56
Page 7
Link Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID CMH m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
80 -7.07 1.29 44.44 Open
83 1.10 0.20 1.42 Open
84 0.62 0.11 0.49 Open
85 0.56 0.10 0.41 Open
81 42.89 0.00 -48.27 Open Pump
82 42.89 1.00 0.00 Active Valve
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
57
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
58
APPENDIX B
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
59
APPENDIX B.1 EPANET INPUT FILE
[TITLE]
REAL IRRIGATION NETWORK
[JUNCTIONS]
;ID Elev Demand Pattern
J1 79 0 ;
J2 80 0 ;
J3 80.5 0 ;
J4 81 2.1 ;
J5 82 2.1 ;
J6 82.5 2.1 ;
J7 83 2.1 ;
J8 84 2.1 ;
J9 85 2.1 ;
J10 87 2.1 ;
J11 89 2.1 ;
J12 90 2.1 ;
J13 91 2.1 ;
J17 82 0 ;
J18 84 2.1 ;
J19 85 2.1 ;
J20 86 2.1 ;
J21 87 2.1 ;
J22 89.5 2.1 ;
J23 90 2.1 ;
J24 90.5 2.1 ;
J25 91 2.1 ;
J26 91.5 2.1 ;
J27 92 2.1 ;
[RESERVOIRS]
;ID Head Pattern
1 79 ;
[TANKS]
;ID Elevation InitLevel MinLevel
MaxLevel Diameter MinVol VolCurve
[PIPES]
;ID Node1 Node2 Length
Diameter Roughness MinorLoss Status
P1 J1 J2 152 200
140 0 Open ;
P2 J2 J3 125 150
140 0 Open ;
P3 J3 J4 105 150
140 0 Open ;
P4 J4 J5 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P5 J5 J6 75 150
140 0 Open ;
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
60
P6 J6 J7 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P7 J7 J8 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P8 J8 J9 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P9 J9 J10 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P10 J10 J11 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P11 J11 J12 75 100
140 0 Open ;
P12 J12 J13 75 100
140 0 Open ;
P16 J2 J17 125 150
140 0 Open ;
P17 J17 J18 105 150
140 0 Open ;
P18 J18 J19 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P19 J19 J20 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P20 J20 J21 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P21 J21 J22 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P22 J22 J23 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P23 J23 J24 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P24 J24 J25 75 150
140 0 Open ;
P25 J25 J26 75 100
140 0 Open ;
P26 J26 J27 75 100
140 0 Open ;
[PUMPS]
;ID Node1 Node2 Parameters
1 1 J1 HEAD 1 ;
[VALVES]
;ID Node1 Node2 Diameter Type
Setting MinorLoss
[TAGS]
[DEMANDS]
;Junction Demand Pattern Category
[STATUS]
;ID Status/Setting
[PATTERNS]
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
61
;ID Multipliers
[CURVES]
;ID X-Value Y-Value
;PUMP:
1 42 31
;PUMP:
2 42 15
[CONTROLS]
[RULES]
[ENERGY]
Global Efficiency 75
Global Price 0
Demand Charge 0
[EMITTERS]
;Junction Coefficient
[QUALITY]
;Node InitQual
[SOURCES]
;Node Type Quality Pattern
[REACTIONS]
;Type Pipe/Tank Coefficient
[REACTIONS]
Order Bulk 1
Order Tank 1
Order Wall 1
Global Bulk 0
Global Wall 0
Limiting Potential 0
Roughness Correlation 0
[MIXING]
;Tank Model
[TIMES]
Duration 0
Hydraulic Timestep 1:00
Quality Timestep 0:05
Pattern Timestep 1:00
Pattern Start 0:00
Report Timestep 1:00
Report Start 0:00
Start ClockTime 12 am
Statistic None
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
62
[REPORT]
Status No
Summary No
Page 0
[OPTIONS]
Units LPS
Headloss H-W
Specific Gravity 1
Viscosity 1
Trials 40
Accuracy 0.001
CHECKFREQ 2
MAXCHECK 10
DAMPLIMIT 0
Unbalanced Continue 10
Pattern 1
Demand Multiplier 1.0
Emitter Exponent 0.5
Quality None mg/L
Diffusivity 1
Tolerance 0.01
[COORDINATES]
;Node X-Coord Y-Coord
J1 1432.20 6610.17
J2 3008.47 6610.17
J3 3008.47 5338.98
J4 3008.47 4135.59
J5 3652.54 4135.59
J6 4279.66 4135.59
J7 4872.88 4135.59
J8 5449.15 4135.59
J9 6025.42 4135.59
J10 6584.75 4135.59
J11 7127.12 4135.59
J12 7686.44 4135.59
J13 8228.81 4135.59
J17 3007.04 7828.50
J18 3007.04 8929.19
J19 3619.79 8929.19
J20 4232.55 8929.19
J21 4788.57 8929.19
J22 5424.02 8929.19
J23 6002.73 8929.19
J24 6524.71 8929.19
J25 7023.99 8929.19
J26 7614.05 8929.19
J27 8238.15 8929.19
1 136.17 6602.99
[VERTICES]
;Link X-Coord Y-Coord
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
63
[LABELS]
;X-Coord Y-Coord Label & Anchor Node
-339.01 6289.11 "RESERVOIR"
5008.47 9406.78 "Hydrants "
5151.68 3890.98 "Hydrants"
680.84 7000.14 "PUMP"
[BACKDROP]
DIMENSIONS 0.00 0.00 10000.00
10000.00
UNITS None
FILE
OFFSET 0.00 0.00
[END]
Climate Farm Irrigation Efficiency
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
64
APPENDIX B.2
RESULTS USING SUPPLIED PUMP
Page 1 6/13/2011 11:30:04 AM
**********************************************************************
* E P A N E T *
* Hydraulic and Water Quality *
* Analysis for Pipe Networks *
* Version 2.0 *
**********************************************************************
Input File: YAIPE.net
Link - Node Table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P1 J1 J2 152 200
P2 J2 J3 125 150
P3 J3 J4 105 150
P4 J4 J5 75 150
P5 J5 J6 75 150
P6 J6 J7 75 150
P7 J7 J8 75 150
P8 J8 J9 75 150
P9 J9 J10 75 150
P10 J10 J11 75 150
P11 J11 J12 75 100
P12 J12 J13 75 100
P16 J2 J17 125 150
P17 J17 J18 105 150
P18 J18 J19 75 150
P19 J19 J20 75 150
P20 J20 J21 75 150
P21 J21 J22 75 150
P22 J22 J23 75 150
P23 J23 J24 75 150
P24 J24 J25 75 150
P25 J25 J26 75 100
P26 J26 J27 75 100
1 1 J1 #N/A #N/A Pump
Energy Usage:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usage Avg. Kw-hr Avg. Peak Cost
Pump Factor Effic. /m3 Kw Kw /day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 100.00 75.00 0.05 8.23 8.23 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Charge: 0.00
Total Cost: 0.00
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
65
Page 2
Node Results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure Quality
ID LPS m m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
J1 0.00 94.00 15.00 0.00
J2 0.00 92.77 12.77 0.00
J3 0.00 91.63 11.13 0.00
J4 2.10 90.67 9.67 0.00
J5 2.10 90.11 8.11 0.00
J6 2.10 89.66 7.16 0.00
J7 2.10 89.31 6.31 0.00
J8 2.10 89.04 5.04 0.00
J9 2.10 88.85 3.85 0.00
J10 2.10 88.73 1.73 0.00
J11 2.10 88.65 -0.35 0.00
J12 2.10 88.40 -1.60 0.00
J13 2.10 88.34 -2.66 0.00
J17 0.00 91.63 9.63 0.00
J18 2.10 90.67 6.67 0.00
J19 2.10 90.11 5.11 0.00
J20 2.10 89.66 3.66 0.00
J21 2.10 89.31 2.31 0.00
J22 2.10 89.04 -0.46 0.00
J23 2.10 88.85 -1.15 0.00
J24 2.10 88.73 -1.77 0.00
J25 2.10 88.65 -2.35 0.00
J26 2.10 88.40 -3.10 0.00
J27 2.10 88.34 -3.66 0.00
1 -42.00 79.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir
Link Results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID LPS m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P1 42.00 1.34 8.10 Open
P2 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open
P3 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open
P4 18.90 1.07 7.49 Open
P5 16.80 0.95 6.02 Open
P6 14.70 0.83 4.70 Open
P7 12.60 0.71 3.54 Open
P8 10.50 0.59 2.52 Open
P9 8.40 0.48 1.67 Open
P10 6.30 0.36 0.98 Open
P11 4.20 0.53 3.33 Open
P12 2.10 0.27 0.92 Open
P16 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open
P17 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open
P18 18.90 1.07 7.49 Open
P19 16.80 0.95 6.02 Open
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
66
Page 3
Link Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID LPS m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P20 14.70 0.83 4.70 Open
P21 12.60 0.71 3.54 Open
P22 10.50 0.59 2.52 Open
P23 8.40 0.48 1.67 Open
P24 6.30 0.36 0.98 Open
P25 4.20 0.53 3.33 Open
P26 2.10 0.27 0.92 Open
1 42.00 0.00 -15.00 Open Pump
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
67
APPENDIX B.3
RESULTS USING SPECIFIED PUMP
Page 1 6/13/2011 11:07:43 AM
**********************************************************************
* E P A N E T *
* Hydraulic and Water Quality *
* Analysis for Pipe Networks *
* Version 2.0 *
**********************************************************************
Input File: YAIPE.net
Link - Node Table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Start End Length Diameter
ID Node Node m mm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P1 J1 J2 152 200
P2 J2 J3 125 150
P3 J3 J4 105 150
P4 J4 J5 75 150
P5 J5 J6 75 150
P6 J6 J7 75 150
P7 J7 J8 75 150
P8 J8 J9 75 150
P9 J9 J10 75 150
P10 J10 J11 75 150
P11 J11 J12 75 100
P12 J12 J13 75 100
P16 J2 J17 125 150
P17 J17 J18 105 150
P18 J18 J19 75 150
P19 J19 J20 75 150
P20 J20 J21 75 150
P21 J21 J22 75 150
P22 J22 J23 75 150
P23 J23 J24 75 150
P24 J24 J25 75 150
P25 J25 J26 75 100
P26 J26 J27 75 100
1 1 J1 #N/A #N/A Pump
Energy Usage:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usage Avg. Kw-hr Avg. Peak Cost
Pump Factor Effic. /m3 Kw Kw /day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 100.00 75.00 0.11 17.02 17.02 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Charge: 0.00
Total Cost: 0.00
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
68
Page 2
Node Results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Node Demand Head Pressure Quality
ID LPS m m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
J1 0.00 110.00 31.00 0.00
J2 0.00 108.77 28.77 0.00
J3 0.00 107.63 27.13 0.00
J4 2.10 106.67 25.67 0.00
J5 2.10 106.11 24.11 0.00
J6 2.10 105.66 23.16 0.00
J7 2.10 105.31 22.31 0.00
J8 2.10 105.04 21.04 0.00
J9 2.10 104.85 19.85 0.00
J10 2.10 104.73 17.73 0.00
J11 2.10 104.65 15.65 0.00
J12 2.10 104.40 14.40 0.00
J13 2.10 104.34 13.34 0.00
J17 0.00 107.63 25.63 0.00
J18 2.10 106.67 22.67 0.00
J19 2.10 106.11 21.11 0.00
J20 2.10 105.66 19.66 0.00
J21 2.10 105.31 18.31 0.00
J22 2.10 105.04 15.54 0.00
J23 2.10 104.85 14.85 0.00
J24 2.10 104.73 14.23 0.00
J25 2.10 104.65 13.65 0.00
J26 2.10 104.40 12.90 0.00
J27 2.10 104.34 12.34 0.00
1 -42.00 79.00 0.00 0.00 Reservoir
Link Results:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID LPS m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P1 42.00 1.34 8.10 Open
P2 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open
P3 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open
P4 18.90 1.07 7.49 Open
P5 16.80 0.95 6.02 Open
P6 14.70 0.83 4.70 Open
P7 12.60 0.71 3.54 Open
P8 10.50 0.59 2.52 Open
P9 8.40 0.48 1.67 Open
P10 6.30 0.36 0.98 Open
P11 4.20 0.53 3.33 Open
P12 2.10 0.27 0.92 Open
P16 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open
P17 21.00 1.19 9.11 Open
P18 18.90 1.07 7.49 Open
P19 16.80 0.95 6.02 Open
Hydraulic Modelling Of Pressurized Irrigation Networks For Optimization In Design 2011
69
Page 3
Link Results: (continued)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Flow VelocityUnit Headloss Status
ID LPS m/s m/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P20 14.70 0.83 4.70 Open
P21 12.60 0.71 3.54 Open
P22 10.50 0.59 2.52 Open
P23 8.40 0.48 1.67 Open
P24 6.30 0.36 0.98 Open
P25 4.20 0.53 3.33 Open
P26 2.10 0.27 0.92 Open
1 42.00 0.00 -31.00 Open Pump