J. agric. Engng Res.

(1996) 64, 109 118

Design and Management Optimization of Trickle Irrigation Systems using

Non-linear Programming
J. C. C. Saad;* J. A. Frizzone
* Departamento de Engenharia Rural, FCA-UNESP, Caixa Postal 237, 18603-970 Botucatu, SP, Brazil
Departamento de Engenharia Rural, ESALQ-USP, Caixa Postal 9, 13418-900 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
(Receiy ed 3 March 1995; accepted in rey ised form 8 January 1996)

A non-linear model is presented which optimizes

the lay-out, as well as the design and management of
trickle irrigation systems, to achieve maximum net
benefit. The model consists of an objective function
that maximizes profit at the farm level, subject to
appropriate geometric and hydraulic constraints. It
can be applied to rectangular shaped fields, with
uniform or zero slope. The software used is the
Gams-Minos package. The basic inputs are the cropwater-production function, the cost function and cost
of system components, and design variables. The main
outputs are the annual net benefit and pipe diameters
and lengths. To illustrate the capability of the model,
a sensitivity analysis of the annual net benefit for a
citrus field is evaluated with respect to irrigated area,
ground slope, micro-sprinkler discharge and shape of
the field. The sensitivity analysis suggests that the
greatest benefit is obtained with the smallest microsprinkler discharge, the greatest area, a square field
and zero ground slope. The costs of the investment
and energy are the components of the objective
function that had the greatest effect in the 120
situations evaluated.
1996 Academic Press Limited

C8
C9
C 10
C 11
C 12
C 13
C 14
C 15
Ccp
C cs
Ce
C ee
C ie
C kw
Cp
Cpe
C ps
C pvm
C pvn
C pvs

Notation

h
A
Ba
Bn
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7

Cv
D
Dld
Dlu
dm

pump eficiency
total area, m2
annual benefit, US$ / ha yr
annual net benefit or profit from the
irrigated crop, US$ / ha yr
constant in Eqn (10)
constant in Eqn (10)
constant in Eqn (11)
constant in Eqn (11)
constant in Eqn (12)
constant in Eqn (12)
constant in Eqn (13)

0021-8634 / 96 / 060109 1 10 $18.00 / 0

Dmd
Dmu
Dnd
Dnu
Ds
dx
dy
109

constant in Eqn (13)

constant in Eqn (14)
constant in Eqn (15)
constant in Eqn (15)
constant in Eqn (16)
constant in Eqn (16)
constant in Eqn (18)
constant in Eqn (18)
cost of control panel, US$
cost of control station, US$
emitter cost, US$
annual cost of electric energy, US$ / yr
annual cost with with investment and
energy, US$ / ha yr
cost of the kWh, US$
annual production cost (without
irrigation), US$ / ha yr
cost of polyethylene pipe, US$ / m
cost of pumping station, US$
cost of p.v.c. pipe used in main line,
US$ / m
cost of p.v.c. pipe used in manifold line,
US$ / m
cost of p.v.c. pipe used in submain
diameter, US$ / m
cost of valves and registers, US$
inside diameter of the pipe, m
downhill lateral line diameter, m
uphill lateral line diameter, m
maximum net depth of water to be
applied per irrigation
downhill main line diameter, m
uphill main line diameter, m
downhill manifold line diameter, m
uphill manifold line diameter, m
submain line diameter, m
ground slope in x direction, m / m
ground slope in y direction, m / m
1996 Silsoe Research Institute

110

J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

Ea
El
E mv
E nt
Et
ETa
ETp
ETs
Eu
Fcr
Hcs
Hf
Hld
Hlu
hm
Hmd
h min
Hmu
Hnd
Hnu
Hs
Ht
hv
If
Ifx
Is
It

Ky
L
Ll
Lm
Ln
Ls
Ltl
Ltm
Ltn
Lts
Lx
Ly
Mad
Ns
Nsu
Nsus
Om

water application efficiency

number of emission points in the lateral
line
manufacturing variation in emitter
expressed as a coefficient of variation
number of emitters per emission point
total number of emitters
actual seasonal evapotranspiration, m
average daily evapotranspiration during
peak-use period, m / d
maximum evapotranspiration per
season, m
emission uniformity
capital recovery factor
head losses in the control station, m
head loss due to pipe friction, m
downhill lateral head losses, m
uphill lateral head losses, m
average emitter pressure, in m
downhill main line head losses, m
minimum pressure in the subunit, m
uphill main line head losses, m
downhill manifold head losses, m
uphill manifold head losses, m
submain line head losses, m
total head losses plus total difference in
elevation, m
allowable pressure head variation in the
subunit, m
irrigation frequency, d
maximum irrigation frequency, d
number of irrigation days during the
season
number of irrigation hours per set of
subunits working simultaneously, during
an irrigation interval
yield response factor
length of pipe, m
lateral line length, m
main line length, m
manifold line length, m
submain line length, m
total lateral line length, m
total main line length, m
total manifold length, m
total submain length, m
length of field in x direction, m
length of the field in y direction, m
management allowed deficit, %
number of submain lines
total number of subunits
number of subunits working
simultaneously
number of outlets in the main line

On
Os
P
Pw
Q
Q av
Qe
Ql
Qm
q min
Qn
Qs
Qt
Se

Sl
Tav
Vmd
Vmu
Vs
Vt
Wa
Y
Ym
Yr
Z

number of outlets in the manifold line

number of outlets in the submain line
price of product in US$ / kg
percentage area wetted
flow rate in the pipe, m3 / s
available discharge, m3 / s
average emitter discharge, m3 / s
lateral line discharge, l / h
main line discharge, l / h
minimum emission rate in the subunit,
l/ h
manifold line discharge, l / h
submain line discharge, l / h
total discharge at pump outlet, l / h
distance between emission points in a
lateral line or distance between plants in
a row, m
distance between laterals or between
rows of plants, m
number of hours available for irrigation
per day
average flow velocity in the downhill
main line, m / s
average flow velocity in the uphill main
line, m / s
average flow velocity in the submain
line, m / s
volume of water applied per plant during
the season, m3
available water-holding capacity of the
soil, m / m
actual yield, kg / ha yr
maximum annual yield, kg / ha yr
relative yield
plant root depth, m

1. Introduction
Trickle irrigation is a convenient and efficient
method of supplying water directly to the root zone of
row crops or to individual plants, such as trees and
vines. A trickle irrigation system offers special agronomical, agrotechnical and economic advantages for
the efficient use of water and labour (Keller and
Bliesner1). For a given site there are many possible
variations in the lay-out, design and management of
trickle systems. Improvements in equipment technology and the rapid increase in energy, equipment and
manpower costs has demanded that designers and
farmers consider the fundamental economic aspects.
Hence, the optimization of lay-out, design and operation has become an important factor affecting farmers profit.

111

OPTIMIZATION OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Initially (Pleban and Amir;2 Oron and Karmeli;3

Benami and Ofen;4 Oron and Karmeli;5 Karmeli and
Oron;6 Oron and Walker7), the optimization objective was to minimize the total cost. This consisted of
two opposing factors: the cost of the investment and
the operational cost. The investment included the cost
of all network components, while the operational cost
included mainly labour and energy. Generally, larger
pipe diameters for a given length and discharge,
increase capital costs but, at the same time, decrease
the energy requirements. On the other hand, smaller
pipe diameters decrease capital costs but increase the
energy requirements.
Linear programming was utilized to optimize the
pipe network, when the lay-out and operation of
permanent irrigation systems were defined (Pleban
and Amir;2 Oron and Karmeli;3 Benami and Ofen4).
Another optimization method, referred to as geometric programming associated with the branch and
bound technique, was used when the lay-out, design
and management of the solid-set pressurized irrigation
system were not defined (Oron and Karmeli;5 Karmeli
and Oron;6 Oron and Walker7).
Allen and Brockway8 pointed out that the best
criterion for irrigation system optimization was the
maximization of the net economic benefit, and not the
minimization of the total cost. Holzapfel et al.9
developed a non-linear optimization model for the
design and management of drip irrigation systems
which maximized profit from the irrigated crop. Their

Micro-sprinkler

Lateral

model is applicable to flat areas and will be the main

reference for the development of the present work.
The purposes of this paper are (1) to develop a
non-linear model that provides the optimization of
lay-out, design and management of trickle irrigation
systems in both flat and sloping areas, to maximize
crop profit; and (2) to illustrate the capability of the
model by means of a sensitivity analysis of the annual
net benefit for a citrus field located in Limeira, Sao
Paulo, Brazil, by varying area, micro-sprinkler discharge, ground slope and shape of the field.

2. Model development
The trickle irrigation system optimization model
consists of an objective function that maximizes profit
at the farm level, subject to appropriate constraints.
The basic assumptions in the model are as follows (see
also, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 ): (1) the area must be
rectangular; (2) the slope must be uniform in both
directions; (3) the pump and control stations are
placed at the middle of one edge of the field (in the x
direction); (4) the lateral lines are polyethylene and
the others are polyvinyl chloride (p.v.c.); (5) there
must be at least one subunit working in each submain
line during the effective period of irrigation; (6) the
total number of subunits must be equal to or a
multiple of the number of subunits working simultaneously; (7) the ratio of the total number of subunits

Manifold
Subunit

Valves

Submain

Main

Pump and control station

x

Fig. 1 . Basic configuration adopted by the trickle irrigation system optimization model (with main line)

112

J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

Valves

Subunit
Micro-sprinkler
Lateral

Manifold

direction, submains will all be either uphill or downhill. There are two basic configurations: one with main
line (Fig. 1 ) and another without it (Fig. 2 ). The
others possible configurations are obtained by simple
multiplication of the above subunits.
2.1 . Objectiy e function
The objective function to be maximized is the
annual net benefit and is given by the benefit minus
the costs of the investment, energy and production.
Thus
B n 5 B a 2 C ie 2 C p

Submain

(1)

where Bn 5 annual net benefit or profit from the

irrigated crop in US$ / ha yr; Ba 5 annual benefit in
US$ / ha yr; Cie 5 annual cost of the investment and
energy in US$ / ha yr; Cp 5 annual production cost
without irrigation, in US$ha yr.
The benefit is
B a 5 PYm Yr

(2)

where
Yr 5

y
x

Pump and control station

Y
Ym

and P 5 price of product in US$ / kg; Ym 5 maximum

annual yield in kg / ha yr; Yr 5 relative yield and
Y 5 actual yield in kg / ha yr.
The benefit depends on the yield and the model
used to quantify the relationship between yield and
water, when any other required resource is at the
optimum level, is (Doorenbos and Kassam10)
12

Fig. 2. Basic configuration adopted by the trickle irrigation

system optimization model (without main line)

Y
ETa
5 Ky 1 2
Ym
ETs

Then
working simultaneously to the number of submain
lines must be an integer; (8) the ratio of the total
number of subunits to the number of submain lines
must be an even number and (9) the length and the
width of the irrigated area must be multiples of the
distance between emission points in the lateral line
and of the distance between lateral lines.
A trickle irrigation system is usually composed of
subunits, that in this paper consist of emitters (or
micro-sprinklers), pipes (laterals and manifold), and
accessories such as valves. Each subunit is connected
directly to a submain or to a main line. On sloping
fields the lateral, manifold and main pipelines will be
laid uphill and downhill. The exception is the submain. Because the control and pump stations are
placed at the middle of one edge of the field in the x

(3)

Yr 5

Y
ETa
5 1 2 Ky 1 Ky
Ym
ETs

(4)

(5)

where Ky 5 yield response factor; ETa 5 actual seasonal evapotranspiration in m; ETs 5 maximum evapotranspiration per season, m.
The volume of water applied per plant (or tree) per
season (Vt), in m3, is given by
Vt 5

ETa Se S1 3600E nt Q e Is It
5
Ea
If

ETa 5

(6)

S3600EI SES Q I I D
a

nt

e t s

(7)

f e 1

Thus

Ba 5 PYm 1 2 K y 1 K y

DG

3600E a E nt Q e It Is
If Se S1 ETs

(8)

113

OPTIMIZATION OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

where Se 5 distance between emission points in a

lateral or distance between plants (or trees) in a row,
in m; S1 5 distance between laterals or between rows
of plants (or trees), in m; E a 5 water application
efficiency; E nt 5 number of emitters per emission
point; Q e 5 average emitter discharge in m3 / s; It 5
number of irrigation hours per set of subunits working
simultaneously, during an irrigation interval; Is 5
number of irrigation days during the season and
If 5 number of days in the irrigation interval (irrigation frequency).
The cost of the investment and energy, Cie,
(US$ / ha)
Cie 5
h[(Ce E t) 1 (C pe Ltl) 1 (C pvn Ltn) 1 (C pvs Lts)
1 (C pvm Ltm) 1 Cv 1 C cp 1 C cs 1 C ps]Fcr 1 C eej10 000
A
(9)
where Ce 5 emitter cost, in US$; E t 5 total number of
emitters; C pe 5 cost (US$ / m) of polyethylene pipe
expressed as a function of the diameter (m); Ltl 5 total
length of lateral in m; C pvn 5 cost (US$ / m) of p.v.c.
pipe expressed as a function of the manifold diameter
(m); C pvs 5 cost (US$ / m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a
function of the submain diameter (m); C pvm 5 cost
(US$ / m) of p.v.c. pipe expressed as a function of the
main diameter (m); Ltn 5 total length of manifold in
m; Lts 5 total length of submain in m; Ltm 5 total
length of main line in m; C v 5 cost (US$) of valves;
Ccp 5 cost (US$) of control panel; C cs 5 cost (US$) of
control station; C ps 5 cost (US$) of the pump station;
Fcr 5 capital recovery factor; C ee 5 annual cost
(US$ / yr) of electric energy and A 5 total area, m2.
The pipe cost expressed as function of line diameter
are expressed by regression equations as follows
Cpe 5 C 1(Dlu 1 Dld) 2 C 2

(10)

C pvn 5 C 3[(Dnu)C4 1 (Dnd)C4]

(11)

Cpvs 5 C 5(Ds)

C6

(12)

C pvm 5 C 7[(Dmu) 1 (Dmd) ]

C8

C8

(13)

where Dlu is the uphill lateral line diameter, in m; Dld

is the downhill lateral line diameter, in m; Dnu is the
uphill manifold line diameter, in m; Dnd is the
downhill manifold line diameter, in m; Ds submain
line diameter, in m; Dmu is the uphill main line
diameter, in m; Dmd is the downhill main line diameter, in m; C 1 , C 2 , C 3 , C 4 , C 5 , C 6 , C 7 and C 8 are
constants.
The cost (US$) of valves expressed as a function of
the total number of subunits is given by
C v 5 C 9 Nsu

(14)

where Nsu 5 total number of subunits in the field;

C9 5 constant.
The cost (US$) of the control panel expressed as a
function of the total number of subunits is given by
Cpc 5 C 10(Nsu)C11

(15)

where C10 and C 11 are constants.

The cost (US$) of the control station expressed as a
function of the actual discharge is given by
C cs 5 C 12 1 (C 13 Qt)

(16)

where C12 and C 13 are constants and Q t is the total

discharge (m3 / s) at the pump outlet, given by
Q t 5 2Q e E nt E l On Nsus

(17)

where El 5 number of emission points in a lateral;

On 5 number of outlets in the manifold and Nsus is the
number of subunits working simultaneously. The factor 2 is used because there are lateral lines on both
sides of the manifold line. The same factor appears in
a number of other equations, such as Eqns (18), (20),
(47) and (48).
The cost (US$) of the pump station expressed as a
function of the required power is given by
Cps 5 C 14

S2000Q E E75OhN
e

nt

(hm 1 Ht)

sus

C15

(18)

where hm is the average emitter pressure, in m; h is

the pump efficiency; C 14 and C15 are constants and Ht
is the total head losses plus the total difference in
elevation, in m, given by
Ht 5 [(Hlu 1 Hnu 1 Hs 1 Hmu 1 Hcs)1?05]
1 [(Ll d y) 1 (Ln dx) 1 (Ls d y) 1 (Lm d x)]

(19)

where Hlu 5 uphill lateral head losses (m); Hnu 5 uphill

manifold head losses (m); Hs 5 submain head losses
(m); Hmu 5 head losses in the uphill main line (m);
Hcs 5 head losses in the control station, m; Ll 5 lateral
line length, in m; d y 5 ground slope in y direction
(m / m); Ln 5 manifold line length, in m; d x 5 ground
slope in x direction (m / m); Ls 5 submain line length,
m and Lm 5 main line length in m. The factor 1?05 is
adopted to compensate head losses produced by
valves, registers, emitter connections and others.
The annual cost (US$ / yr) of electric energy expressed as a function of the consumption is given by

S2Q E E O N

Cee 5 C kw

nt

9?80665It Is Nsu(hm 1 Ht)

hNsus If
(20)

sus

where Ckw is cost of kWh, in US$.

114

J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

The amount of each item in a trickle irrigation

system can be obtained using the following equations.
Et 5

AE nt
Se Sl

(21)

A
A
Ltl 5 2
Sl 2El Sl

(22)

A
A
Ltm 5
2
2El Se 4El Se On

(23)

0?5A 0?5Lx E l Se
2
On Sl
Sl On

(24)

Lts 5

Ltm 5 Lx 2 (2On Sl)

(26)

Ln
On 5 1 0?5
Sl

(27)

Ns 5

Lts
Ly 2 (El Se)

(28)

Q 1?75
D 4?75

(34)

in which Hf 5 head loss due to pipe friction (m);

L 5 length of pipe (m); Q 5 flow rate in the pipe
(m3 / s) and D 5 inside diameter of the pipe (m).
For larger plastic pipe, where the diameter is
greater than 0?125 m, the Darcy Weisbach equation is
given by (Keller and Bliesner1)
Hf 5 9?58 3 1024L

Q 1?83
D 4?83

(35)

The laterals and manifold lines are designed as a

function of the emission uniformity. For design purposes, the allowable pressure head variation in a
subunit that will give a reasonable emission uniformity
(Eu) can be computed by (Keller and Bliesner1)
h v 5 2?5(h m 2 hmin)

Nsu
Os 5
2Ns

(29)

Ns
2

(30)

Om 5

Hf 5 7?89 3 1024L

(25)

Ll
1 0?5
Se

El 5

The Darcy Weisbach equation is used to determine

the pipe head losses. For use with smooth plastic pipes
and hoses less than 0?125 m in diameter, this equation
is given by (Keller and Bliesner1)

where Lx is the length of the field in the x direction, in

m; Ly is the length of the field in the y direction, in m;
Ns is the number of submain lines; Os is the number of
outlets in the submain line and Om is the number of
outlets in the main line.

(36)

where hv 5 allowable presure head variation in the

subunit (m); h min 5 pressure head that will give the
minimum emission rate in the subunit (m).
To estimate the emission uniformity for a proposed
design, Karmeli and Keller11 used

Eu 5 100 1 2 1?27

E mv
4Ent

D qQ

min

(37)

2.2.1. Hydraulic constraints

In sloping fields, the model solves the design of the
trickle irrigation system assuming that the uphill and
the downhill pipes have the same length, but different
diameters. Thus

in which Eu 5 emission uniformity (expressed as a

decimal); E mv 5 manufacturing variation in emitter
expressed as a coefficient of variation and qmin 5
minimum emission rate in the subunit (m3 / s).
The hv value must be divided among the lateral and
manifold lines. Keller and Bliesner1 recommended, as
a general design guideline, that the allowable subunit
head variations should be allocated equally between
the lateral and manifold head variations. Karmeli and
Peri12 found the most economic division is approximately 55% in the lateral and 45 percent in the
manifold. This paper uses limits of 40% and 60% to
subdivide hv to find the division that maximizes profit.
Thus

Hlu 1 (Ll d y) 5 Hld 2 (Ll d y)

(31)

Hlu 1 (Ll dy) > 0?4h v

(38)

Hnu 1 (Ln d x) 5 Hnd 2 (Ln d x)

(32)

Hlu 1 (Ll dy) < 0?6h v

(39)

Hmu 1 (Lm d x) 5 Hmd 2 (Lm d x)

(33)

Hnu 1 (Ln d x) > 0?4h v

(40)

in which Hld 5 downhill lateral head losses (m);

Hnd 5 downhill manifold head losses (m) and Hmd 5
head losses in the downhill main line (m).

Hnu 1 (Ln d x) < 0?6h v

(41)

h v 5 Hlu 1 Hnu 1 (Ll d y) 1 (Ln d x)

(42)

2.2. Constraints
The constraints in the present analysis are the
hydraulic conditions, the irrigation criteria, the geometric limitations and the operational characteristics.

OPTIMIZATION OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

The diameters of the main pipelines and submains are

selected so that the flow velocities are maintained
between the limits of 0?2 and 2 m / s.
2.2.2. Management constraints
The irrigation frequency (If) must be less than the
maximum value (Ifx)
If < Ifx

(43)

where
Ifx 5

dm
ETp

Mad Pw
Wa Z
100 100

(45)

where Mad 5 management allowed deficit, %; Pw 5

percentage area wetted (the average horizontal area
wetted in the top 15 to 30 cm of the crop root zone as
a percentage of the total crop area); Wa 5 available
water-holding capacity of the soil, m / m and Z 5 plant
root depth, m.
The available time to irrigate the total field area is a
restriction
Nsu It
< Tav
Nsus If

(46)

in which Tav 5 number of hours available for irrigation

per day.
The water discharge is restricted by the water
available to the field
2Qe E nt E l On Nsus
< Q av
Ea

(47)

in which Qav 5 available water in m3 / s.

The irrigated area under the trickle irrigation
system must cover the total area (A) of the field
Nsu 5

A
2El On Se Sl

data: the price of the product, production cost, capital

recovery factor, energy cost, cost function and cost of
the system components; and (3) design variables:
number of plants (trees) per hectare, number of
emitters per emission point, number of irrigated days
during the cycle, maximum evapotranspiration per
season at the design of percentage of confidence, peak
evapotranspiration rate, recommended emitter pressure, efficiency of the motor and the pump and emitter
coefficient of manufacturing variation.

(44)

in which Ifx is the maximum irrigation frequency, d; d m

is the maximum net depth of water to be applied per
irrigation, m and ETp 5 average daily evapotranspiration during peak-use period, m / d. For trickle irrigation dm (in m) is given by
dm 5

115

(48)

2.3 . Model inputs

The model requires basic inputs such as: (1) topographic data: total area, field length and ground slope
along the x and y directions; distance between plants
in a row and distance between plant rows; (2) cost

2.4 . Model output

The output data are: (1) net benefit, total cost of the
trickle irrigation system and the cost of each component; and (2) length and diameter of all pipelines in
the hydraulic network, number of subunits and number of subunits working simultaneously, emission
uniformity, irrigation frequency, number of irrigation
hours per set, average flow velocity in the submain
and main line.

2.5. Variables utilized in the sensitiy ity analysis

To illustrate the capability of the model, the net
benefit for a citrus field, located in Limeira, Sao
Paulo, Brazil, was evaluated for the following variables: total area (8?29 and 23?04 ha); micro-sprinkler
discharge (35, 56 and 87 l / h); ground slope (the same
value in x and y directions of 0, 1, 3 and 5%); shape of
the field (field length in x direction / field length in y
direction: ratios of 0?25, 0?44, 1, 2?25 and 4). The
combination of these variables resulted in 120 possible
configurations. Each model configuration has 67 lines
and 59 rows, with 59 decision variables and 216
non-zero values. The input data are shown in Table 1.

2.6 . Software
The optimization model was run on a AT-486
microcomputer using the GamsS-Minos package
(Brooks et al.13). This software uses the simplex
method, the quasi-Newton method, the reduced gradient method and the projected Lagrange method to
solve linear, non-linear and mixed optimization problems. A configuration is composed by a value of area,
micro sprinkler discharge, ground slope and shape of
the field. Each model configuration was solved in
about 1 min.

116

J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

3. Results and discussion

Annual production cost, US$ / ha yr

(Cp)
Available discharge, m3 / s (Qav)
Available water-holding capacity of
the soil, m / m (Wa)
Average (or design) pressure, in m
(h m)
Average daily evapotranspiration
during peak-use period, in m / d
(ETp)
Capital recovery factor (Fcr)
Coefficient of Eqn (10) (C1)
Coefficient of Eqn (10) (C2)
Coefficient of Eqn (11) (C3)
Coefficient of Eqn (11) (C4)
Coefficient of Eqn (12) (C5)
Coefficient of Eqn (12) (C6)
Coefficient of Eqn (13) (C7)
Coefficient of Eqn (13) (C8)
Coefficient of Eqn (14) (C9)
Coefficient of Eqn (15) (C10)
Coefficient of Eqn (15) (C11)
Coefficient of Eqn (16) (C12)
Coefficient of Eqn (16) (C13)
Coefficient of Eqn (18) (C14)
Coefficient of Eqn (18) (C15)
Cost in the kWh, in US$ (Ckw)
Distance between emission points in
a lateral or distance between trees
in the row, in m (Se)
Distance between laterals or between
rows of tree, in m (Sl)
Ground slope in x direction, % (d x)
Ground slope in y direction, % (d y)
Head losses in the control station, in
m (Hcs)
Length of field in x direction / length
of field in y direction
Management allowed deficit, % (Mad)
Manufacturing variation in microsprinkler expressed as a coefficient
of variation (Emv)
Maximum evapotranspiration per
season, in m (ETs)
Maximum irrigation frequency, day
(Ifx)
Maximum yield, kg / ha yr (Ym)
Micro-sprinkler cost (Ce)
Micro-sprinkler discharge, l / h (Qe)
Number of hours available for irrigation per day (Tav)
Number of irrigation days during the
season (Is)
Number of micro-sprinklers per
emission point (Ent)
Percentage area wetted (Pw)
Plant root depth, m (Z )
Price of citrus in US$ / kg (P )
Pump efficiency (h )
Total area, in m2 (A)
Water application efficiency (Ea)
Yield reduction ratio (K y)

Value
1356
0?2
0?1
15
4?7
0?135 87
9?03
0?009 0
91?41
1?51
380?45
1?78
190?23
1?78
403?43
683?90
0?52
1812?12
0?1
834?22
0?47
0?050 64

In all configurations, the results did not violate the

basic assumptions of the optimization model. For
example: the configuration with the greatest net benefit has four subunits, one subunit working simultaneously, one submain line, and area of 480 m 3
480 m. These values are consistents with assumptions
5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
The model describes the pipe diameters as continuous variables, although pipes can only be purchased in discrete diameters. The diameters found by
the model can be interpreted as the equivalent diameter for a pipe section consisting of two successive
commercial pipe segments.

2950

4
8
0; 1; 3 or 5
0; 1; 3 or 5
15
0?25; 0?44; 1;
2?25 or 4
50
0?05
0?487
5?32
82 742?4
2?11
35; 56 or 87
21
120
1
50
1
0?055 88
0?65
82 944 or 230 400
0?90
1

2940
2930
2920
2910
2900
2890
2880
00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Length in x direction / length in y direction

Fig. 3. Annual net benefit (US$ / ha yr) as a function of the

ratio of length in x direction / length in y direction , for
micro -sprinkler discharge of 35 l / h and ground slope in both
directions of zero. Irrigated area : m , 8?29 ha; j , 23?04 ha

Annual cost of irrigation system, US$/ha yr

Input data

Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr

Table 1
Input data used in the example

390
380
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
300
0

05

15

25

35

Length in x direction / length in y direction

Fig. 4. Annual cost of irrigation system (US$ / ha yr) as a

function of the ratio of length in x direction / length in y
direction , for the micro -sprinkler discharge of 35 l / h and
ground slope in both directions of zero. Irrigated area : m ,
8?29 ha; j , 23?04 ha

117

OPTIMIZATION OF TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

The final result for any configuration is obtained

using an iterative process. The first iteration results in
non-integer values that are not desirables in some
variables (for example, the total number of subunits).
With these values and with the basic assumptions, it is
possible to establish alternatives with integer values
for the variables where this is necessary. The alternative that gives the greatest net benefit will be accepted
as the final result for that configuration.
The production cost, in all cases, was
US$1316 / ha yr and the benefit was US$4624 / ha yr

(except in three cases). This value of benefit is

equivalent to a relative yield of unity, that is, the real
production is equal to the maximum production. So,
the variation of the net benefit in the 120 configurations is a function of the variation of the cost of the
investment and energy. This can be observed by
comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 . The costs of the
investment and energy are the most sensitive components of the net benefit.
The greatest net benefit (US$2946 / ha yr) was obtained with the smallest micro-sprinkler discharge

Table 2
Variables for the configurations with the greatest net benefit and smallest net benefit
Variables

Greatest

Smallest

Total area (A) m2

230 400
82 944
Length of field in x direction (Lx),
m
480
192
Length of field in y direction (Ly),
m
480
432
Micro-sprinkler discharge (Qe), l / h
35
87
Slope in x direction (d x), %
0
5
Slope in y direction (d y), %
0
5
Allowable pressure head variation
in the subunit (h v), m
9?37
9?34
Annual benefit (Ba), US$ / ha yr
4624
4624
Annual cost of electric energy
(Cee), US$ / yr
1120
619
Annual cost with investment and
energy (Cie), US$ / ha yr
322
536
Annual net benefit (Bn), US$ / ha yr
2946
2732
Average flow velocity in the downhill main line (Vmd), m / s

Average flow velocity in the submain line (Vs), m / s

1?7
1?7
Average flow velocity in the uphill
main line (Vmu), m / s

Cost of control panel (Ccp), US$

1406
2490
Cost of control station (Ccs), US$
8112
5570
Cost of pump station (Cps), US$
3095
2876
Cost of values (Cv), US$
1614
4641
Downhill lateral head losses (Hld),
m
5?13
5?64
Downhill lateral line diameter
(Dld), m
0?017
0?012
Downhill main line diameter
(Dmd), m

Downhill main line head losses

(Hmd), m

Downhill manifold head losses

(Hnd), m
4?24
10
Downhill manifold line diameter
(Dnd), m
0?094
0?042
Emission uniformity (Eu)
0?80
0?81
Irrigation frequency (If), d
3?2
5?3
Irrigation time per set of subunits
working simultaneously (It), h
13?28
8?82

Variables

Lateral line discharge (Ql), l / h

Lateral line length (Ll), m
Main line discharge (Qm), l / h
Main line length (Lm), m
Manifold line discharge (Qn), l / h
Manifold line length (Ln), m
Minimum pressure in the subunit
(h min), m
Number of emission points in the
lateral line (El)
Number of outlets in the main line
(Om)
Number of outlets in the manifold
line (On)
Number of outlets in the submain
line (Os)
Number of submain lines (Ns)
Number of subunits working simultaneously (Nsus)
Submain line diameter (Ds), m
Submain line discharge (Qs), l / h
Submain line head losses (Hs), m
Submain line length (Ls), m
Total discharge in pump outlet
(Qt), l / h
Total head losses (Ht), m
Total lateral line length (Ltl), m
Total main line length (Ltm), m
Total manifold line length (Ltn), m
Total number of micro-sprinklers
(Et)
Total number of subunits (Nsu)
Total submain line length (Lts), m
Uphill lateral head losses (Hlu), m
Uphill lateral line diameter (Dlu), m
Uphill main line diameter (Dmu), m
Uphill main line head losses
(Hmu), m
Uphill manifold head losses
(Hnu), m
Uphill manifold line diameter
(Dnu), m

Greatest

1050
118

63 000
236
11?25
30

Smallest

783
34

18 792
92
11?27
9

30

12

2
1

6
1

1
2
0?114
0?089
63 000
37 584
4?54
4?73
360
396
63 000
30?35
28 320

944
7200
4
360
5?13
0?017

37 584
50
9792

1104
2592
12
396
2?24
0?014

4?24

0?8

0?094

0?071

118

J. C. C. SAAD ; J. A. FRIZZONE

direction / field length in y direction between 0?44 and

1 resulted in the best values.

Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr

2960
2940
2920

4. Conclusions

2900
2880
2860
2840
2820

Ground slope in both directions (%)

Fig. 5. Annual net benefit (US$ / ha yr) as a function of the

ground slope in both directions(%) , for micro -sprinkler
discharge of 35 l / h and Lx / Ly 5 1. m , 8?29 ha; j , 23?04 ha

(35 l / h), the greatest area (23?04 ha), field length in x

direction / field length in y direction ratio of 1 and
zero ground slope. The smallest net benefit
(US$2732 / ha yr) was given by the greatest slope
ground (5%), micro-sprinkler discharge of 87 l / h,
smallest area (8?29 ha), and ratio between field length
in x direction and field length in y direction of 0?44
(Table 2).

All 120 configurations evaluated gave results that

did not violate the basic assumptions of the trickle
irrigation system optimization model, developed for
application in flat and sloping fields. The sensitivity
analysis involving the effect of area, ground slope,
micro-sprinkler discharge and the shape of the field
showed that the greatest net benefit is obtained with
the smallest micro-sprinkler discharge, the greatest
area, a square field and zero ground slope. The cost of
the investment and energy are the components that
change most in the 120 situations evaluated. The net
benefit per unit area decreases as the ground slope
increases and as the micro-sprinkler discharge increases. This optimization model can help engineers to
design trickle irrigation systems.

References
1

3.1. Sensitiy ity analysis of the net benefit

The net benefit per unit area decreased as the
ground slope increased (Fig. 5 ) and as the micro
sprinkler discharge increased (Fig. 6 ). The most
profitable shape of the 8?29 ha field was a square area.
For the 23?04 ha area, the ratio field length in x

Annual net benefit, US$/ha yr

2960

2940
2920

2900
9

2880
2860
2840

10

2820

11

30

40

50
60
70
Micro-sprinkler discharge, l / h

80

90

Fig. 6. Annual net benefit (US$ / ha yr) as a function of the

micro -sprinkler discharge (l / h) , for a ground slope of zero in
both directions and Lx / Ly 5 1 . m , 8?29 ha; j , 23?04 ha

12

13

Keller J; Bliesner R D Sprinkle and trickle irrigation.

New York: AVI Book, 1990
Pleban S; Amir I An interactive computerized aid for the
design of branching irrigating networks. Transactions
of the ASAE 1981, 24(2): 358 361
Oron G; Karmeli D Solid set irrigation system design
using linear programming. Water Resources Bulletin
1981, 17(4): 565 570
Benami A; Ofen A Irrigation engineering. Haifa: IESP,
1984
Oron G; Karemli D Procedure for the economical
evaluation of water networks parameters. Water
Resources Bulletin 1979, 15(4): 1050 1060
Karmeli D; Oron G Analysis of closed conduit irrigation
system and its subdivision. Journal of the Irrigation
and Drainage Division, ASCE, 1979, 105(2): 187 196
Oron G; Walker W R Optimal design and operation of
permanent irrigation systems. Water Resources Research 1981, 17(1): 11 17
Allen R G; Brockway E Concepts for energy-efficient
irrigation system design. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering 1984, 110(2): 99 106
Holzapfel E A; Marin o M A; Valenzuela A Drip
irrigation nonlinear optimization model. Journal of the
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 1990,
116(4): 479 496
Doorenbos J; Kassam A H Yield response to water.
Roma: FAO, 1979 (Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 33)
Karmeli D; Keller J Trickle irrigation design. Glendora;
Rain Bird Sprinkler Manufacturing Corp, 1975
Karmeli D; Peri G Trickle irrigation design principles.
Haifa: The Technion Students Publishing House, 1972
Brooks A; Kendrick D; Meeraus A Gams; a users guide.
Redwood City: The Scientific Press, 1988