Intl. J. Agric. Env. Biotech.

5(3): 219-224, September, 2012

Agricultural Engineering

Drip irrigation design based on different pressure units

D.L. Zhu, P.T. Wu *, L. Zhang, and J. Wang

Institute of Water-saving Agriculture in Arid Area of China, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Yangling, Shaanxi,
China
*Email: dlzhu@126.com
Paper no: 33
Received: 14 March 2012
Received in revised form: 21 July 2012
Accepted: 17 August 2012

Abstract
The costs of micro-irrigation can be reduced effectively by using optimal design methods and by
reasonably using pressure head supplied by pressurized pump. In this paper, a simple optimal design
of the pressurized pipe is proposed based on minimizing capital costs and the present operational
cost. In the design of the main pipes, a two-stage optimal design method is used. In the first design
stage, the pipe cost is minimized and a set of optimal manifold pipe diameters and optimal friction
losses are obtained by using a non-linear optimal model. In the second design stage, partial lists of
available diameters are prepared based on the stage-1 optimal diameters, and the lengths for available
diameters are calculated by using a linear optimal model and simplex method. In addition, because the
pressure regulator is not set on the inlet of subunits, the subunit close to the pump gets higher
pressure head than that far from the pump. Less irrigation working hours should be used in the
subunit with higher pressure. Therefore, the energy cost of the drip irrigation system can be decreased
compared to previous design strategies. As a result, a new design procedure is developed in this
paper.
@2012 New Delhi Publishers. All rights reserved

Keywords: Pressurized drip irrigation; Emitter spacing; Optimization design

The design of effective micro-irrigation is usually constrained

by three conditions: The first condition concerns outflow
uniformity, which should not exceed the allowable limit (Keller
and Bliesner, 1990). Second, emitters should supply the volume
of water required by each plant. And third, the costs of the
system should be minimized. The high costs of micro-irrigation
are the main problem limiting its development. In the previous
research efforts (Wu and Barragan, 2000; Juana, 2004), an
irrigation uniformity criterion is that a nearly equal discharge
should be distributed to every emitter. A more realistic criterion
would be that each plant receives its requisite water volume.

The required water volume of each plant is equal to the emitter

discharge multiplied by the duration of time it is irrigated. This
implies that every plant can get the same amount of water
when the discharge of each emitter is different by adjusting
the duration of time plants are irrigated for. Additionally, past
micro-irrigation systems have pressure regulators that are set
on the inlet of manifolds or laterals so that the different
manifolds or laterals obtain the same inlet pressure head (Kang
and Nishiyama, 1995). This causes the energy waste because
the inlet pressure head of the manifold close to the pump is
decreased. With respect to optimum design techniques of

Zhu et al.

pressurized pipes, the most economic designs are normally

accomplished by a life-circle cost analysis, which is based on
balancing the fixed and operating costs.
The main optimization techniques which have been applied to
water distribution networks include: 1) Partial enumeration
(Singh et al., 2001); 2) Nonlinear programming (John et al.,
2005); 3) Linear programming (Kale et al., 2008); 4) and Genetic
algorithms (Dandy and Hassanli, 1996). The above mentioned
optimization methods do not optimize pipe friction losses,
which also influence the system cost.This paper presents an
accurate and simple optimal design method of muti-outlet pipe
diameters and friction losses.
Optimal model of the main pipe

than that of outlet, E<0 for when the elevation of the pipe
inlet is less than that of outlet, and E=0 for the elevation of
pipe inlet equal to that of outlet; ); H(0) is the pipe inlet pressure
head (m); and, H(N) is the pipe outlet pressure head (m); and Hf
is friction loss in the main pipe (m).
Hf is related to the pipe diameter and energy cost. With a larger
pipe size, the average flow velocity for a given discharge
decreases, causing a corresponding decrease in friction loss.
This reduces the pressure head on the pump, resulting in
energy savings. Therefore, the selection of friction loss and
pipe size should be a trade off between the fixed costs and the
annual energy costs. The objective function of the pipe design
is equal to the capital cost of the pipe and the present value of
the operating cost, which has be defined by Wu et al. (2010)
as:

The two-stage optimal procedure is used in order to obtain the

nominal diameter and the optimal friction losses.

i=1

Stage-1: Optimal pipe diameter and friction loss.

The branched irrigation pipe networks can be divided into
several mainline pipes as shown in Figure 1. Each mainline
pipe includes several manifolds. The area irrigated by a
manifold is called a subunit, in which a manifold supplies water
to many laterals. The index numbers corresponding to the main
pipe segments and nodes are shown in Figure 1. From Figure
1, the number of subunits along the main pipe is N. The inlet
pressure head and main pipe size have to satisfy the discharge
and pressure head requirements of the worst subunit (the Nth
subunit) first. The main pipe friction loss can be expressed as
follows:

Hf =H(0) H(N) + E .

(1)

where E is the elevation difference along the mainline pipe

(m), with E>0 when the elevation of the pipe inlet is higher

C = Cpipe + Cen = 1 Di2Li + 2Q(1)H(0 ) .

(2)

in which,
1- (1 + r ) -t
3
2 = 2.72 (10 ) EOt
.
r

(3)

where C is the objective function to be minimized ($); Cpipe is

the capital cost of the pipe ($); Cen is the present value of the
operating cost ($); i is the index of pipe segment and nodes; N
is the number of the nodes and pipe segments. Di is the main
pipe diameter of the ith segment (mm); Li is the main pipe length
of the ith segment (m); Q(1) is the inlet flow rate of the main pipe
(m3 / h); 1 is the pipe price factor ($/m3); 2 is the energy price
factor ($h/m4); E is the electricity price ($ / KWh); Ot is the
pump annual working hours (h); and r is the interest rate in
fraction; and, t is the useful life span (yr).

Figure 1: the index numbers corresponding to pipes segments and subunits

220

Drip irrigation design based on different pressure units

The objective function is subject to the following constraint:

a

Q
K.f i b Li H f = 0 .

Di
i =1

Hf =

The supplemental function is established, in which the problem

with constraints is turned into a problem without the
constraints. Following Eqs. (2) and (4), a non-linear model is
obtained as follows:
N
N Q aL
C ( h f , D1, D2 , ,DN ) = 1 L iD2i + 2 Q0 (Hf + Hm(N) E ) + Kf i b i
i=1
i=1 Di

Hf .

(5)

where C (hf, D1, D2 DNL) is the supplemental function; and,

is a sufficiently large number (typically >1010). When is a
very large number, the solution to the original function (Eq. 6)
is equal to the supplemental function, and the term in
parentheses should be zero according to Eq. (4).
Because both pipe diameters and friction loss are the design
variables, and the objective function (Eq. (5) is minimized when
the derivative C/Di and C/Hf are equal to zero, respectively.
The following equation is obtained by differentiating Eq. (5):

2 1D
= 2Q0 .
bKfQ

and

2 Q0 bKfQia b 1+ 2
) .
2 1

Di = Q

a
b+2
i

KfLi Qi
i =1

Hf

2a
b+ 2

b
b+2

( Kf ) b+ 2

2 bQ 0

2 1

b
b + 2 i =1

2a
b +2
i

2a
N

Li = 3 Qib+ 2 Li
i
1
=

(9a)
in which,
2

3 =

( Kf ) b+2
b

2 bQ0 b + 2

21

(9b)

Stage-2: Standardization of the main pipe diameters

In the second stage, a few commercially available pipe sizes
that are very close to the diameter obtained in the first stage
are selected. The friction loss (hf) and the pipe inlet pressure
head (H(0)) are still equal to the results obtained in the first
stage. Thus, the energy cost in the Eq. (2) is constant and can
be ignored in the second-stage optimal objective. The decision
variables are the length corresponding to the nominal diameters.
The new objective function (which also must be minimized) is
expressed as follows:
NP MP

Min C = A j X ij
i =1 j =1

(10a)

(6)

Aj = 1D 2j .

(7)

where Dj is the jth nominal diameter(mm); Aj is the cost of unit

length of the jth diameter($/m)Xij is the length of the ith pipe
segment for the jth nominal diameter (m); MP is the number of
the nominal diameters; and j is the index of the nominal
diameters.

in which is the same for every pipe segment, the following

equation is obtained according to Wu. et al. (2010).
N

i =1

2a

in which

b+ 2
i
a
i

Di = (

2 bQ 0

2 1

(4)

where Qi is the discharge of the ith main pipe segment (m3/h); K

is a coefficient to account for local hydraulic losses at each
emitter (K 1); and f, a and b are constants depending on the
friction loss equation (a = 1.75, b = 4.75 and f=94800 for the
Blasius equation).

( Kf ) b+ 2 Qib +2 Li

The following three constraints should be satisfied:

N

MP

1
b

i =1 j =1

(8)

(10b)

ij

X ij h f = 0 .

(10c)

in which,

Ji j =

Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (5), we get:

KfQi m
Djn .

(10d)

where Jij is hydraulic slope of the ith pipe segment for the jth
nominal diameter; and
221

Zhu et al.

The above optimal model is linear and can be solved using the
simplex method.

avg

Uniformity Analysis of a Manifold Subunit

To achieve the desired water distribution uniformity, Keller
and Bliesner (1990) have proposed the following emit ion
uniformity formula:

CVq( m)
EU 1 1.27

Np

where EU is the target irrigation uniformity (fraction); x is the

emitter discharge exponent; CVq (m) is the emitter manufacturing
variation coefficient; Np is number of emitters per plant; Havg (i)
is the average emitter pressure head in the ith manifold subunit
(m); and Hmin (i) is the minimum emitter pressure head in the ith
manifold subunit (m)
By rearranging Eq. (11), the following equation can be obtained:
1

H min i

EU
H avg ( i )

C Vq ( m )

1
.2
7

Np

(14)
.

where Hm (i) is the inlet pressure head of the manifold in the ith
manifold subunit (m); and is a constant for the given
uniformity criteria and given emitter type.
Through Rearranging Eq. (14), the emitter average operating
pressure head for different subunits can be calculated as
follows:

(15)

Qi a
Li E i .
Di b

(16)

An objective of irrigation engineering design is to irrigate with

a nearly equal discharge to each plant in different subunits. If
the pressure regulator is not set on the inlet of the manifold,
the different subunits will obtain different pressure heads and
different discharges. By adjusting irrigation working hours for
different subunits, the above problem can be solved. The
irrigation working hours for different pressure units can be
calculated as follows:

MAD pwS1S2 Zr Wa
q p(i)

(17)

in which
x
q p(i) N p kH avg(i)
.

ith manifold inlet.

(13)

The inlet pressure head of the manifold in the ith manifold

subunit for a flat field should be:

EU
H m i = H m i H m i n i 2 .5H avg i 1

C Vq ( m )

1
.27

Np

EU

H
2 .5 1.5
H av g i
C Vq ( m ) av g i

1 1 .2 7

N
p

and E i is the elevation difference between the (i-1)th and the

Ut (i) 10 7

where Hm(i-1) is the inlet pressure head of the (i-1)th manifold(m);

(12)

According to Keller (1990), the allowable pressure difference

of different manifold subunits is:

H m i =2.5 H avg i H min i

H m i =H m i-1 Kf

The inlet pressure head of the manifold can be expressed as:

q min i
CVq (m ) H min i

(11)
1 1.27
q avg i
N p H avg i

EU
H avg i
CVq (m)
1 1.27

Np

i =

(18)

where pw is percent wetted area of the drip (%); M AD is

management-allowed deficit (%); Zr is effective root depth (m);
Wa is available water-holding capacity of the soil (mm/m); S1 is
plant spacing within the line (m); S2 is the plant spacing within
the column (m) Ut(i) is irrigation working hours for different
subunits (h); qp(i) is the required irrigation discharge for each
plant, corresponding to the emitter average pressure head for
different subunits(m 3/h); and k is the emitter discharge
coefficient.
Results and Discussion
Consider an example of drip irrigation system on apple orchard
with an area of 6.4 hm2. It is divided into eight subunits and the
area of each subunit is 8000m2 with a 180-m length and a 44.4m width, as shown in Figure 2. The irrigated ground is flat.
Irrigation water is supplied by a well with 40-m3/h discharge.
The required annual irrigation amount for the apple trees is
190mm/m, and the required annual irrigation frequency is 10
times. The irrigation working hours is less than 10 h. The

222

Drip irrigation design based on different pressure units

manifold 5, 6, 7 and 8 are a rotation irrigation group and the

manifold 1, 2, 3 and 4 are another rotation irrigation group. The
following values are known: MAD =30; pw = 35; S1 = S2 = 3 m; Zr
= 0.6 m; EU = 0.80; Ka = 1.6(10)-3; x = 0.5; CVCVq(m) = 0.07; f =
94800; a = 1.75; b = 4.75; K = 1.1; L(1) = 80 m; L(2) =142.5 m; L(3)
= L(4) = 90 m; L(5) = L(6) = 180 m; E = $0.2/kWh; t = 10 yr; r=0.01,
1=2.79(10)-4 $/m3.With the above information we are interested
to determine the required discharge of the subunit and each
main pipe segment, hydraulic calculation according to the worst
subunit, designing another main pipe and calculating the inlet
pressure head and the average emitter operating pressure in
different subunits.

1. To Determine the required discharge of the subunit and

each main pipe segment:
Assume that Ut (6)= 10 h, qp = 10.8(10)-3 m3/h, using Eq. (14). All
subunits have the same area and the same number of apple
trees. Then, Q3= Q4 = Q5 = Q6 = 10.8(10)-3 (m3/h)/tree16000 m2/
subunit 9m2/tree = 19.2 m3/h. The successive segment
discharges of the main pipe are: Q1=19.2 m3/h2 = 38.4 m3/h,
Q2= Q3= Q4= Q5 = Q6= 19.2m3/h.

2.To carrying out the hydraulic calculation according to the

worst subunit:
Node 6 is the farthest from water recourse, which is the worst
subunit and line from water resource to the furthest node (0-12-4-6), and is the worst line in hydraulics. Assuming the average
emitter operating pressure is 5 m (Havg(6)= 5 m ) on the worst
subunit controlled by node 6, Hm(6) = 6.70 m can be calculated
using Eq. (14a). Using Eq. (9), the total friction loss was
obtained as 19.9 m. Using Eq. (8), the successive diameters of
the main pipe segments are determined as shown in table 1.
They changed from 62.2 to 74.6 mm. Two commercial diameters,
80 and 60mm, were selected. Next, by using the stage-2 optimal
method, the main pipe length of 80, 90 and 180m, corresponding

to commercial diameters of 80, 80 and 60 mm, were determined,

respectively. Total friction loss is 20.3 m in the stage-2 optimum.
The inlet pressure head of the main pipe was determined, Hm (0)
20.3 m+6.7 m =27 m, according to Eq. (1).
=

3. Designing another main pipe (0-1-3-5):

In order to have same inlet pressure head in both main pipes,
friction loss of pipe line 0-1-3-5 is equal to that of pipe line 01-2-4-6, 19.9 m. Using Eq. (8), the successive diameters of the
main pipe segments are determined as shown in table 1, ranging
from 66.4 to 79.7 mm. Three commercial diameters, 80, 75 and
60mm, were selected. Then, by using the stage-2 optimum, the
segment lengths of the main pipes were determined such that
they correspond to the commercial diameters. The results are
shown in table 1.
4. Calculating the inlet pressure head and the average emitter
operating pressure in different subunits:
According to Eq. (16), the inlet pressure head of the different
subunits are: Hm(3) = 17.2m, Hm(5) = 6.1m , Hm(4) =17.8m, and,
Hm(6) =6.7 m; According to Eq. (12), the average pressure head
of the different subunits are: Havg(3)= 12.8 m, Havg(5) = 4.60m,
Havg(4) = 13.2 m, and, Havg(6) = 5.0 m;
5. Calculating the irrigation working hours for different
subunits:
According to Eq. (15), the irrigation the duration of each
irrigation period for each of the subunits are: Ut (3) =6.20, Ut (3)
=10.4, Ut (4) =6.1, and Ut (6) =10.0 h.
Conclusion
In this study, a formula for calculating friction losses and the
diameter of the main pipes while minimizing systems costs,
including fixed pipe costs and energy costs, was presented.
The average pressure head and the irrigation working hours

Table 1: the result of main pipe calculation

i

Li (m)

Qi

D i (mm)

Hf m

Hmi (m)

D (mm)

Hf ( m)

(m3/h)

in stage-1

In stage-1

in stage-2

in stage-2

in stage-2

0
1
3
5

0
80
90
180

0
38.5
19.2
19.2

0
74.6
62.2
62.2
Total:

0
6
4.7
9.3
19.9

0
90
90
80
Total:

4.3
5.5
11.1
20.9

0
1
2
4
6

80
142.5
90
180

38.5
19.2
19.2
19.2

79.7
66.4
66.4
66.4
Total:

4.3
5.4
3.4
6.8
19.9

80
75
75
60
Total:

4.3
3
1.9
11.1
20.3

223

27
22.7
17.2
6.1
27
22.7
19.7
17.8
6.7

Zhu et al.

the increase of the pump operating hours. The irrigation

hours increase with the decrease of the average
pressure head in different subunits.
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by the Project of Native Sci-technology
Support (2011BAD29B00), by the Project of Northwest
Agriculture and Forestry Univ. (CX200909), and by 111 Project
of Chinese Education Ministry (B12007).
References

Figure 2: Layout of drip irrigation

for each subunits were given. The following conclusions are

drawn:
1.

The optimal pipe diameters and friction loss were

obtained by using the two-stage design method, which
balances the capital cost and energy cost. The
proposed design method is simple, compared to
previous design methods. The optimal methods are
almost suitable to all multi-outlet pipes.

2.

The drip irrigation design procedures were analyzed.

The inlet pressure head of the main pipe is first
calculated according to the worst subunit. Then, the
inlet pressure head and the average pressure head of
the other manifold subunits are determined. Finally, the
irrigation hours are calculated for different subunits.

3.

With the application of the optimization methods, the

pipe size will increase and friction loss decrease with

Barragan, J. and Wu, I.P. 2005. Simple pressure parameters for microirrigation design. Biosystems Engineering, 90 (4):463-475.
Dandy, G. C. and Hassanli, A.M. 1996. Optimum design and
operation of multiple subunit drip irrigation systems .Journal
of Irrigation Drainage Engineering ASCE, 122(5): 265-275.
John, D. and Valiantzas, C. 2005. Inlet Pressure, Energy Cost, and
Economic Design of Tapered Irrigation Submains. Journal of
Irrigation Drainage Engineering ASCE, 131 (4): 224-229.
Juana, L., Losada and Rodrigoez, A.S. L. 2004. Analytical relationships
for designing rectangular drip irrigation units. Journal of
Irrigation Drainage Engineering ASCE, 130 (1): 4759.
Keller, J. and Bliesner, R.D. 1990. Sprinkler and trickle irrigation.
New York, The Blackburn Press: 498-508.
Kale, R., Singh, V.R.P., Mahar, P. S. (2008) Optimal design of
pressurized irrigation subunit. Journal of Irrigation Drainage
Engineering ASCE ASCE, 134(2):137-146.
Kang,Y.H. and Nishiyama, S. 1995. Hydraulix anlysis of
microirrigation submain units. Transactions of the ASAE, 38(5):
1377-1384.
Singh, A., Singh, R. P. and Mahar, P.S. 2001. Optimal design of
tapered micro-irrigation submain manifolds. Journal of
Irrigation Drainage Engineering ASCE ASCE, 126(6): 371374.
Wu, I.P. and Barragan, J. 2000. Design criteria for micro-irrigation
systems. Transactions of the ASAE, 43(5):11451154.
Zhu, D.L., Wu, P.T. and Merkley, G.P. 2010. Drip Irrigation Lateral
Design Procedure based on Emission Uniformity and Field
Micro-topography Variation. Irrigation and Drainage,
59(3):535-546
Wu, P. T., Zhu, D. L. and Wang, J. 2010. Gravity-fed Drip Irrigation
Design Procedure for a Manifold Subunit. Irrigation Science,
28(4):359-396
Wu, P. T., Zhu, D. L. and Wang, J. 2010. Design of drip irrigation
lateral for optimum capital and operating cost. Water Science
and Technology, 943-951.

224

Copyright of International Journal of Agriculture, Environment & Biotechnology is the property of New Delhi
Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.