Private Irrigation Water Use in the Central Florida Ridge

Residential irrigation water use in the central florida ridge l.jpg
1 / 46
1435 days ago, 473 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Private Irrigation Water Use in the Central Florida Ridge Melissa Baum Haley Agricultural & Biological Engineering University of Florida

Slide 2

Why Study Residential Irrigation? Mortgage holders covet green yards Irrigation frameworks introduced in most recently assembled homes Uneven rain occasions

Slide 3

Water Use in Florida Residential water utilize contains 61% of people in general supply, in charge of 43% of groundwater pulled back. Somewhere around 1970 and 1995 there was a 135% expansion in groundwater withdrawals. Almost 30% of the is pulled back April through June. Florida devours more crisp water than some other state east of the Mississippi River.

Slide 4

Objectives of Study Irrigation water utilization Irrigation planning Microirrigation in slept with zones Residential System Uniformity Control System Uniformity Evaluation of Uniformity Procedure Uniformity Based on Soil Moisture

Slide 5

Where Research was Conducted

Slide 6

Water Use Three medications with various water system booking, scenes, and hardware Weather information recorded Installed stream meters on main water system line Recorded aggregate property water utilization

Slide 7

Treatment 1 Typical scene Turf range > Bedded region Typical water system rehearses

Slide 8

Treatment 2 Typical scene Turf region > Bedded zone Irrigation plan in view of chronicled ET prerequisites

Slide 9

Treatment 3 Atypical scene Turf territory < Bedded region Irrigation plan in light of authentic ET necessities Use of microirrigation in the had relations with zones

Slide 10

Examples of Microirrigation in T3

Slide 11

Irrigation Scheduling for T2 and T3

Slide 12

Landscape Percentages

Slide 13

Evapotranspiration and Rainfall Weather stations at each of the areas Downloaded month to month ET figured

Slide 14

Turf Quality NTEP quality rating strategy Quality watched regularly

Slide 15

Monthly Water Input and Requirement Effective precipitation in addition to connected water system for every treatment contrasted with evapotranspiration

Slide 16

Water Use Conclusions

Slide 17

Non - consistency (100% consistency (100% consistency 100% consistency Adequate water system Adequate water system Adequate water system not reasonable) not commonsense) not pragmatic Uniformity Testing Why is consistency imperative? How is consistency not the same as proficiency?

Slide 18

Uniformity Testing How to test for consistency? How is consistency computed?

Slide 19

Testing Locations Residential Systems – existing in-ground water system frameworks Control Systems – directed weight, dividing at half of producers appraised measurement

Slide 20

Testing Procedures Place get jars in a network arrangement To diminish edge impacts, inset from limit Test framework and head weight Wind blasts < 3.2 m/s Run times Spray zones = 25 min Rotor zones = 45 min

Slide 21

Comparison of Equipment Brands A, B, C Commonly introduced by temporary workers Fixed and customizable spouts Tested at prescribed, low and high weights

Slide 22

Results: Residential versus Control Systems Higher DU lq for control tests Control avg = 0.53* Homes avg = 0.45** *recommended weight **grid development

Slide 23

High Uniformity Pattern Spray head with quarter hover spout at suggested weight DU lq avg = 0.66

Slide 24

Low Uniformity Pattern Spray head at low weight DU lq avg = 0.33

Slide 25

Comparison of Head Type – Residential Systems Rotor heads had higher DU lq Rotor avg = 0.49 Spray avg = 0.40 P = 0.09 (91% certainty)

Slide 26

Comparison of Head Type – Control Systems Rotor heads have higher DU lq Regardless of weight Rotor avg = 0.55 Spray avg = 0.48 P = 0.007 (99.3% certainty)

Slide 27

Control Rotor Head Uniformity Brands: A, B, C Pressures: Low, Recommended Significant contrasts crosswise over brand No huge distinction crosswise over weight

Slide 28

Control Spray Head Uniformity Brands: An, An adj., B, B-adj., C Pressures: Low, Recommended, High Significant contrasts crosswise over brand Significant contrast crosswise over weight Interaction amongst weight and brand

Slide 29

Equipment Testing Conclusions Uniformity is influenced by: Irrigation outline Equipment choice System weight Rotor makes a beeline for have higher consistencies Low weight lessened consistency

Slide 30

Testing Method Comparison Uniformity strategy in this study framework arrangement +100 catch-jars per zone MIL technique irregular position in focus of zone 16-24 get jars for each zone

Slide 31

Results: MIL Procedures Average MIL DU lq = 0.53 Average Home DU lq = 0.43 Average Home DU lq simulating MIL methodology = 0.55

Slide 32

Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) Device used to quantify soil water content, by estimations of the volumetric water content (VWC) Relates the time required for an electrical flag to go along wave guides Must be aligned Sensitive to salt substance in the dirt

Slide 33

Why Test with the TDR Determine a brisk and simple technique for figuring framework consistency Compare the consistency values from the TDR gadget to the regularly honed catch-can test The TDR gadget ought to give precise consistency values since it depends on the dirt dampness content

Slide 34

Testing Procedures Place get jars in a network development Wind blasts < 3.2 m/s Run times Spray zones = 25 min Rotor zones = 45 min Use TDR at every estimation area to decide VWC

Slide 35

Results: Uniformity Comparison

Slide 36

Comparison of Uniformity Values

Slide 37

Results: Point Difference Average Point Difference between strategies 0.20 TDR DU is higher In concurrence with past work

Slide 38

Results: Measurements

Slide 39

Comparison of Measurements

Slide 40

Differences in Measurement Range TDR Scale 0-45% VWC Catch-Can Scale 0-1500 mL

Slide 41

Effects of an Irrigation Event What is the TDR consistency before a water system occasion? is the DU lower? is the DU the same (similarly high)?

Slide 42

TDR Pre-Irrigation Results The DU qualities were lower Pre-water system: 0.55 Post-water system: 0.64 This implies the dirt properties are influencing the consistency comes about

Slide 43

Difference between Methods TDR doesn't quantify appropriately spreading tests If TDR is measuring legitimately Maybe consistency doesn't make a difference that much TDR measures higher in light of the fact that what's in the jars doesn't mirror what's going on in the dirt redistribution

Slide 44

Soil Moisture versus Volume Conclusions Catch-Can DU is more regrettable in light of zero qualities Catch-can doesn't recount to us the entire story Ignores the dirt properties Too much variety between the DU lq values dictated by the TDR gadget and the catch-can technique. The TDR gadget may not be a feasible strategy for consistency comes about

Slide 45

Overall Conclusions Homeowners over-flood Irrigation planning diminished water utilize altogether Micro-water system in had relations with regions diminished water utilized for water system Residential framework consistency was lower than anticipated Rotor head zones have a tendency to have higher consistency than shower head zones The reported MIL consistencies were higher than the consistencies from this venture The method (number and arrangement of jars) has an impact There was not a connection between's dirt dampness and can volume

Slide 46

Thank You for Your Attention Acknowledgments I might want to thank the cooperators for taking an interest in this work, and the accompanying people for specialized support: Danny Burch, Clay Coarsey, Jeff Williams, Brent Addison, and Justin Gregory. I might likewise want to thank my Graduate Committee for direction and persistence. An uncommon thank you to Dr. Michael D. Dukes for being an awesome master!