Michael Dukes Irrigation
-
Upload
utah-nursery-and-landscape-association -
Category
Education
-
view
1.008 -
download
0
Transcript of Michael Dukes Irrigation
Michael D. Dukes, Ph.D., P.E.Agricultural & Biological Engineering
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)
Utah Green Industry Conference
Salt Lake City, UT, Jan 26, 2010
Smart Irrigation Controllers:
Water Conservation Potential
Irrigation is a Standard “Appliance”
Irrigation is a Standard “Appliance”
SMS TESTING ON
BERMUDAGRASS PLOTS
12' × 12'
SMS Testing Bermudagrass, Gainesville
• 1 d/wk four brands SMS
• 2 d/wk four brands SMS
• 7 d/wk four brands SMS
• Time 2 d/wk with rain sensor
• 60% of time 2 d/wk with rain sensor
• Time 2 d/wk without rain sensor
• Non-irrigated
Comparisons
3 SMS frequencies
IFAS Recommended Irrigation Run Times
Weekly Monthly
Irrigation Irrigation
(inches) (inches)
Jan 0.04 0.16
Feb 0.00 0.00
Mar 0.09 0.34
Apr 0.49 1.98
May 0.84 3.34
Jun 0.75 3.00
Jul 0.70 2.79
Aug 0.64 2.57
Sep 0.82 3.28
Oct 0.54 2.15
Nov 0.34 1.34
Dec 0.13 0.52
Total 21.5
IFAS Irrigation Recommendations - Tables
SMS Testing Bermudagrass, Gainesville
• 1 d/wk four brands SMS
• 2 d/wk four brands SMS
• 7 d/wk four brands SMS
• Time 2 d/wk with rain sensor (100% IFAS)
• 60% of time 2 d/wk with rain sensor (60%
IFAS)
• Time 2 d/wk without rain sensor
• Non-irrigated
Acclima
Water WatcherIrrometer
Rain Bird
1
2
1: Sensor Controllers
2:Timer
SMS Controllers in Experiment
Expanding Disk Rain Sensor
4
5 7
3
TQ RATINGS (1 to 9 scale)
Water Savings 2004+05,
Normal Rainfall Frequency
Treatment Savings compared to
(in) 2-WOS (%)
2-WOS 59.6 0
SMS Based
Avg 16.5 72
1-d/w 16.5 b 72
2-d/w 18.8 a 68
7-d/w 14.3 c 76
WOS = without sensor Avg = average
SMS = soil moisture sensor
TOTAL
Turfgrass Quality
Water savings 2006
Dry Conditions
Treatment Savings compared to
(in) 2-WOS (%)
2-WOS 25.9 0
SMS Based
Avg 11.9 54
1-d/w 14.9 a 43
2-d/w 11.7 b 55
7-d/w 9.2 c 64
WOS = without sensor Avg = average
SMS = soil moisture sensor
TOTAL
• Rain sensor ¼” 34% savings normal rainfall
frequency; 13% savings dry weather
Conclusions
• Rain sensor ¼” 34% savings normal rainfall
frequency; 13% savings dry weather
• SMS savings: 72% rainy weather; 54% dry weather,
>2 times more than an RS
Conclusions
• Rain sensor ¼” 34% savings normal rainfall
frequency; 13% savings dry weather
• SMS savings: 72% rainy weather; 54% dry weather,
>2 times more than an RS
• SMS controllers can minimize irrigation and
maintain turf quality in dry weather
Conclusions
SMS/ET Controllers 2006-08, Drought
ConditionsSt. Augustinegrass
testing ongoing since
March 2006
72 plots
18 treatments & 4 replicates
A: Rain Sensors
B: Soil Moisture Sensor & ET
ControllersPhoto May 2006, M.L. Shedd
Irrigation Savings Compared to a Time Schedule No Rain Sensor
72
54
59
39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Normal rainfall Dry conditions
Irri
gati
on S
avin
gs
(%)
Gainesville
Citra
Acclima
Water Watcher
IrrometerRain Bird
Soil Moisture Sensors
XX
Base Line
LawnLogic
SMS & RS TESTING ON
COOPERATING HOMES,
PINELLAS CO.
Experimental Design
• 59 residential cooperating homes 4 locations
• 4 treatments
Treatments
• SMS, Current irrigation system without rain sensor
and with a soil moisture sensor controller
• EDU+RS, Current irrigation system with rain
sensor & seasonal run time guidelines
• RS, Current irrigation system with rain sensor
• WOS, Current irrigation system without a
sensor
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
200
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Nov-06 Feb-07 May-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09
Mo
nth
ly E
ffe
ctiv
e P
reci
pit
atio
n (i
nch
es)
Irri
gati
on
Ap
plic
atio
n (i
nch
es)
Effective Rainfall SMS EDU+RS RS WOS
Pinellas County Homes, Irrigation Nov 06 – Dec 08
62 a
54 a
34 a
22 b
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
200
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Nov-06 Feb-07 May-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09
Mo
nth
ly E
ffe
ctiv
e P
reci
pit
atio
n (i
nch
es)
Irri
gati
on
Ap
plic
atio
n (i
nch
es)
Effective Rainfall SMS EDU+RS RS WOS
Pinellas County Homes, Irrigation Nov 06 – Dec 08
62 a
54 a
34 a
22 b65%
Irrigation Frequency (# Irrig. Events per Month)
Treatment Mean
(#/month)
Std. Dev.
(#/month)
Max
(#/month)
Min
(#/month)
SMS 2.1 b 2.8 11 0
EDU+RS 3.6 ab 4.1 20 0
RS 4.7 a 5.6 22 0
WOS 5.2 a 6.5 29 0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08
Pre
cip
itat
ion
(in
che
s/d
ay)
Irri
gati
on
Ap
plic
atio
n (
inch
es/
day
)Meter Only Home (not in compliance)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08
Pre
cip
itat
ion
(in
che
s/d
ay)
Irri
gati
on
Ap
plic
atio
n (
inch
es/
day
)
Meter Only Home (in compliance)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08
Pre
cipi
tati
on (i
nche
s/da
y)
Irri
gati
on A
pplic
atio
n (in
ches
/day
)
Rain Sensor Home0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08
Prec
ipit
atio
n (in
ches
/day
)
Irri
gati
on A
pplic
atio
n (in
ches
/day
)
Soil Moisture Sensor Home
0
50
100
150
200
2500
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mo
nth
ly P
reci
pit
atio
n (
mm
)
Irri
gati
on
Ap
plic
atio
n (
mm
)
Effective Rainfall Avg. Irr. Applied (EDU) Calculated Irr. Need
0
50
100
150
200
2500
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mo
nth
ly P
reci
pit
atio
n (
mm
)
Irri
gati
on
Ap
plic
atio
n (
mm
)
Effective Rainfall Avg. Irr. Applied (MO) Calculated Irr. Need
0
50
100
150
200
2500
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mo
nth
ly P
reci
pit
atio
n (
mm
)
Irri
gati
on
Ap
plic
atio
n (
mm
)
Effective Rainfall Avg. Irr. Applied (RS) Calculated Irr. Need
0
50
100
150
200
2500
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mo
nth
ly P
reci
pit
atio
n (
mm
)
Irri
gati
on
Ap
plic
atio
n (
mm
)
Effective Rainfall Avg. Irr. Applied (SMS) Calculated Irr. Need
SMSHomes
Meter Only
Homes
RS + Edu.
Homes
RSHomes
ET CONTROLLER TESTING,
HILLSBOROUGH CO.
ET Controller StudyGCREC Hillsborough County
• Three ET controllers: T1, T2, T3 Weathermatic, Smartline SL800
Toro, Intellisense TIS-612OD
ETwater, Smart Controller 100
• T4: Timeclock with RS
• T5: 60% of T4
GCREC Plot plan
GCREC Rainfall
1.4
8.0
16.0
4.9
6.6
1.1 0.81.8
2.72.1
0.6
3.7
0.0
5.16.5 6.0
4.03.0
8.37.5
8.88.4
3.12.5 2.4
2.9 2.9 3.2
2.2
3.0
8.37.5
8.8 8.4
71.2
91.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
5
10
15
20
25
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
ain
fall
(in
)
Mo
nth
ly R
ain
fall
(in
)
Month (2006-2007)
2006-2007
Historical Mean
Cumulative 2006-2007
Cumulative Historical
ET Controller Conclusions Summary
•Water Savings Compared to Time (no RS)
•ET controllers • 43% average annual
• 60% winter
•Rain sensor (RS), 21%
•Reduced time w/ RS treatment, 53%
•No relationship between water application and turfgrass quality. More potential savings?
Residential study in Hillsborough County…
• 38 residential cooperators in Hillsborough Co.
o 21 homes have an ET controller
o 17 homes are a comparison group
• All volunteers are moderate to high water users
But will ET controllers work in the real world?!
ET Controller Initial Data, SW Fla.Two Sites
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 11/21 12/5 12/19 1/2 1/16
Cu
mu
lati
ve A
vera
ge I
rrig
atio
n A
pp
lied
(i
n)
Date (2008-2009)
Comparison
ET Controllers
Historical Comparison
Historical ET Controllers~50%
Smart Irrigation Controller Irrigation Reduction Potential
Method Location Irrigation
Savings
Weather Funding
agency
Time clock
adjustment w/
rain sensor
Homes in Central
Fla.30% Normal to rainy SJRWMD
Rain sensor Plots in Gainesville 34% Normal to rainy SWFWMD
15% Dry
Soil moisture
sensor controlPlots in Gainesville 70-90% Normal to rainy SWFWMD
Plots in
Gainesville/CitraUp to 40% Dry
Homes in Pinellas Co. 65% Dry (1 d/wk) SWFWMD
ET controllersPlots in Hillsborough
Co.Up to 60% ~Normal
Hillsborough
Co./FDACS
Up to 40% Dry
Homes in
Hillsborough Co.
~50%
(initially)Dry (ET, variance)
The Answer is NOT Only Smart Controllers
• Smart Controllers have water conservation potential but….
The Answer is NOT Only Smart Controllers
• Smart Controllers have water conservation potential but….
• Target “high” water users
• Must be implemented with hands on training of contractors
• Ongoing certification/verification program should be implemented
Irrigation Savings Potential
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time Clock Adjustment
Rain Sensor Soil Moisture Sensor, plots
Soil Moisture Sensor, homes
ET Controller,
plots
ET Controller,
homes
Irri
gati
on S
avin
gs
(%)
Rainy
DryN
o d
ata
No d
ata
No d
ata
So, What’s the Silver Bullet in
Smart Irrigation Control?
BLANK SLIDE
Soil Moisture Sensors
• Advantages Inexpensive, for smaller sites with “lumped”
hydrozones
Simple programming of SMS controller
Integrates on site rainfall
• Disadvantages Burying wires
Not all sensors are accurate under variety of conditions
Programming time clock runtimes correctly
ET Controllers
• Advantages No wires to bury
Programming matches irrigation theory
Two way communication in some cases
• Disadvantages Steep programming learning curve (depends on
device)
Costly for “simple” sites
Ongoing fees for some
Replaces the existing and functional timer
PAYBACK EXAMPLE
Payback Period, Irrigation MeterAssumes 50% irrigation efficiency; JEA 2009 costs; total annual irrigation of 43”; 50% savings
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Irri
gati
on S
avin
gs
Month
0.25 ac
0.5 ac
1.0 ac
1.5 ac
2.0 ac
2.5 ac
3.0 ac
$500 installed cost, one SMS controller
Irrigation applied, Irrigation MeterAssumes 50% irrigation efficiency; JEA 2009 costs; total annual irrigation of 43”
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landsc
ape Irr
igati
on (
kgal)
Month
0.25 ac
0.5 ac
1.0 ac
1.5 ac
2.0 ac
2.5 ac
3.0 ac
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Irri
gati
on S
avin
gs
Month
Payback Period, Potable+SewerAssumes 50% irrigation efficiency; JEA 2009 costs; total annual irrigation of 43”; 50% savings
$500 installed cost, one SMS controller
0.25 ac
0.5 ac
1.0 ac
1.5 ac
2.0 ac
2.5 ac
3.0 ac
See Videos & Narrated Power Point
• http://irrigation.ifas.ufl.edu• Video Irrigation controllers Rain sensors Soil moisture controllers Weather based (ET) controllers Smart Water App. Tech. (virtual turf field day)
• Narrated ppts ET controllers Irrigation scheduling Irrigation components Irrigation myth busters Soil moisture sensor controllers
Thank you!
Southwest Florida Water Management District, Pinellas Co. Utilities, St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Hillsborough Co. Water Dept., Florida Nursery Growers and
Landscape Assoc., Florida Turfgrass Assoc., Florida Sod Growers Co-op.
[email protected]://irrigation.ifas.ufl.edu