NRHF Final Report

New River Hill Farm Solar
Watering System
Colby Dechiara, Riley Finn, Kathryn Sledd, Suraye Solis
Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Advisors: Gene Yagow, Ph.D. & Sharyl Ogle, Ph.D.
Expected Gradation Date: Colby Dechiara May 2017

Riley Finn May 2017
Kathryn Sledd May 2017
Suraye Solis May 2017
Signatures:
Contestant: _______________________ Date: _____________
Contestant: _______________________ Date: _____________
Contestant: _______________________ Date: _____________
Contestant: _______________________ Date: _____________
Advisor: _______________________ Date: _____________
Advisor: _______________________ Date: _____________

New River Hill Farm Solar Watering System
Abstract
The New River Hill Farm (NRHF) is located in Grayson County, VA and comprises 131
acres of land. NRHF is managed by the New River Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD),
and it functions as a working farm, while providing hands-on educational experience for youth in
Southwestern Virginia. Currently, wells provide water to two livestock watering systems and a
greenhouse on the farm; however, this system interferes with water use in the farmhouse. To
address this issue as well as promote its platform of sustainability and conservation of natural
resources in agriculture, NRHF would like to use solar power to pump from two ponds to meet the
watering needs of their livestock and greenhouse from May to October. The farm currently has
two distribution systems using in. diameter pipe: a northern system supplying three livestock
watering troughs and a southern system supplying four troughs and a greenhouse. The team used
NRCS standards and additional research, reviewed in detail in this report, to develop the final
design proposals, which include pipeline, pumps, and solar equipment. Two design alternatives
were developed for each system. The first design proposal utilizes existing in. piping at the farm,
and it was developed to reduce costs. The second design proposal recommends 1- in. piping,
which helps to increase the efficiency of the systems by reducing friction loss.
Acknowledgements
The team would like to thank the New River Hills Farm staff and Tim Phipps with the New
River Soil & Water Conservation District for help with surveying, allowing us to visit and
providing us the opportunity to design this watering system. We are grateful and appreciate the
assistance given to us by Dr. John Ignosh, Dr. Gene Yagow, and Dr. Sharyl Ogle. They have been
exponentially influential and valuable in understanding NRCS standards and providing us with
materials and tools for calculating requirements for pumps, solar panels, and pipe calculations as
well as design advice and overall support towards reaching our two proposal decisions. The team
would also like to thank Dr. Cully Hession and Qualla Ketchum for their assistance on this project.
1
Table of Contents
Abstract 1
Acknowledgements 1
Table of Contents 2
Introduction 3
Goals and Objectives 4
Approach 5
Criteria and Constraints 6
Standards 7
Engineering Design 7
Overview 7
Waterlines 8
Pump 12
Solar 13
Backup Plan 15
Conclusion & Recommendations 16
Cost Analysis 16
Future Recommendations 17
References 18
Appendix 1: Plan View of North Watering System 19
Appendix 2: Plan View of South Watering System 20
Appendix 3: Design Proposal 1, North System Spreadsheet Calculations 21
Appendix 4: Design Proposal 2, North Watering System Spreadsheet Calculations 22
Appendix 5: Design Proposal 1, South Watering System Spreadsheet Calculations 23
Appendix 6: Design Proposal 2, South Watering System Spreadsheet Calculations 24
Appendix 7: Example Calculations, Design Proposal 2, South Watering System 25
2
Introduction
Solar photovoltaic water pumping systems use the energy from the sun to pump water
without the production of greenhouse gases nor hazardous wastes. In developing countries, solar
pumping systems are primarily used to obtain drinking water; developed countries, however,
typically use these types of systems for livestock, wildlife, and vacation homes (Ghoneim, 2005).
Solar water pumping systems have two main advantages: they can be used in rural settings because
they do not require connection to the grid and they reduce pollution from fossil fuel energy
alternatives (Meah et al., 2008). In addition, these systems are low maintenance, easy to install,
reliable, and when properly sized, generated power and water needs nicely match (Ghoneim,
2005).
The New River Hill Farm (NRHF) is located in Grayson County, VA. It is comprised of
131 acres of land that was donated by O.D. Philen Jr. to the New River Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD) in 2012. The farms mission is to provide agricultural educational
experience for youth in Southwestern Virginia that promotes the conservation of natural resources.
The farms old solar-pumping watering system is no longer functioning. Therefore, the current
watering systems draw water from wells, where livestock and greenhouse demands interfere with
water use in the farmhouse. In order to continue the mission of providing a hands-on educational
experience, improved watering systems are required to keep the farm running smoothly.
The available water supply, two ponds, are located down-slope from the troughs and
greenhouse, where water is needed; consequently, pumping is required. The farm has two watering
systems: the north watering system, which provides for three watering troughs, and the south
watering system, which provides for four watering troughs as well as the greenhouse. Solar energy
has been requested by the client (New River SWCD) to power the pump. Watering systems that
utilize renewable energy can prove to be a great educational tool for the New River Hill Farm.
Additionally, a large benefit of solar energy is that connection to the grid, which can be difficult
in rural areas, will not be required. Therefore, the purpose of this project is to modify the current
watering system to run on solar power and to pump water from two ponds on site to meet the
livestock and greenhouse water requirements.
3
Figure 1. Bird's-eye view of New River Hill Farm (NRHF) showing two ponds used as water source for
the north and south watering systems.
Goals and Objectives

The goal of this project is to design two solar-powered water distribution systems for the New
River Hill Farm capable of meeting the farm's peak and daily demand.
Our team's objectives to meet this goal include:

Understand water requirements
The total daily demand for the cattle can be determined from the number of cattle and
the water requirements of each animal. The total daily demand of the greenhouse can
be determined using the irrigation patterns of the greenhouse.
Determine waterline that connects pumps, troughs, and reservoirs

A field mapping survey was conducted at NRHF of the north and south watering
systems with the assistance of NRCS and New River SWCD personnel and equipment.
Data from the survey were used to determine the elevation of the ponds, troughs, and
reservoirs. The pipe lengths from the pond to reservoir, as well as from the reservoir to
all watering troughs were also determined.
4
Understand energy requirements of waterline
Using the pipeline layout, the total dynamic head (TDH) of each system, as well as the
maximum flow rate and static pressure at each watering trough, were determined using
the Virginia Livestock Watering Spreadsheet provided by NRCS.
Select appropriate pump and solar equipment
The TDH of each system and design criteria were used to evaluate pump options.
Subsequently, solar panels that are capable of meeting the pump energy demand were
identified.
Choose suitable backup option for low solar irradiation events
Due to changes in solar irradiance availability on a daily basis, a key component of
solar-powered watering systems is the backup. This substitute will be used during
cloudy periods.
Approach
We started by researching each aspect of the design. This included solar panels, pumps,
piping, and livestock watering facilities. After learning about the theory and technology behind
each component, we studied the current watering system at NRHF. This began with a field
mapping survey of the farm which measured the locations and elevations of each trough, as well
as the greenhouse reservoir. The current system relies on two wells which supply water to the
farmhouse, greenhouse, and troughs. These wells pump water to two troughs which in turn gravity
feed two separate series of troughs. Henceforth we will refer to these as the North system and the
South system. The North system contains three troughs and a reservoir. Each trough contains a
float valve which shuts off flow when the trough is full. Water is pumped from the well to the
reservoir, and as the cattle drink, the float valves open and the preceding trough supplies
water. When the system is full, the reservoir overflows back into a nearby pond. The south system
contains a similar setup with four troughs and a newly installed reservoir, the uppermost trough
overflowing into a different pond. Our challenge was to re-design these two separate watering
systems, each of which would draw water from a separate pond, supply the daily water demands
for that system, and be powered by solar energy. The first step was to calculate daily demand and
total dynamic head for each system. The daily demand is calculated by multiplying the number of
cattle by the amount of water consumed per cow per day. Total dynamic head is a measure of the
extra force required to overcome gravity and friction in the pipelines. The elevation difference
between the ponds and their respective reservoirs along with information about pipe diameter and
friction constants were used to calculate TDH. This was done using a spreadsheet from the NRCS
Virginia Livestock Watering Spreadsheet. With this information, we determined that a positive
displacement pump (PDP) was the best option for both systems. Knowing the pump type and flow
requirements, we then determined the power required to meet daily demand and the number of
solar panels required to supply that power. Due to varying daylight conditions, a solar powered
system requires at least three days worth of storage as water or energy in batteries to ensure
sufficient water supply during cloudy periods. Because our system contains a large number of
troughs, we rely on this storage to provide a backup supply during cloudy periods. These backup
troughs contain a mixture of large tire troughs and smaller concrete troughs. Because the current
PVC piping does not supply peak demand when gravity-feeding these smaller troughs, there
5
may be periods when the cattle empty these troughs faster than they can be refilled. For this
reason we proposed two design alternatives, one using the existing piping and one installing
new 1- PVC piping which would meet peak demand at all troughs. We contacted Franklin
Electric to provide a cost estimate for a pump, panels, and mounting equipment, and contacted
CMC for PVC price estimates. The available reservoir in the south system currently waters the
greenhouse only, so the new proposed system would require installation of piping from the South
pond to the reservoir, and from the reservoir to the top trough in the South system. This would
provide a solar water source for both cattle and the greenhouse. We contacted the farm manager,
Tim Phipps, to determine the exact location of new piping to be laid from the greenhouse reservoir
to the South trough system. Using ArcGIS, we determined the approximate amount of new
piping required for the south system, and the total amount of 1- piping to replace the entire
system. This information, combined with quotes from Franklin Electric and CMC, were then used
to provide a cost estimate for both design proposals.
Criteria and Constraints

Throughout this design process, the team had to consider many different requirements,
most of which were imposed by the client. First and foremost, the design alternative solutions that
are proposed must be run entirely on solar power for it to be self-sustaining; secondly, the only
water sources to feed each system must be the two ponds that are on site. These were the two
constraints that were implemented from the beginning from the client, the owner of the New River
Hill Farm.
Virginia Livestock Watering Spreadsheet provided by NRCS allowed the group to evaluate
the quantitative data of the system. It was determined that a successful design for the watering
system on the south side of the farm will be able to pump 803 gallons of water per day from pond
1 to reservoir 1 up an elevation difference of 102 ft to provide water to four watering troughs and
the greenhouse. This value of 803 gallons per day is the total daily demand required for the system,
but does not account for the peak of 8 gallons per minute that must be met during peak demands,
while the cattle are drinking.
Using the same spreadsheet, calculations were conducted for the north watering system.
For the design of this north system to be considered successful, a few of the values were slightly
different, although the peak demand of 8 gallons per minute remains constant. To start, the north
system does not contain a greenhouse so daily demand will be determined exclusively by daily
demand for the cattle, which is 750 gallons per day. Additionally, the elevation difference from
pond to reservoir is slightly more than the south system, this value was found to be 120 ft.
The spreadsheet provided takes into account friction losses and combines these losses with
vertical head, or elevation difference, to calculate the total dynamic head of each system. The main
differences in the design alternatives proposed will be observed due to the differences in the
frictional losses due to pipe diameter, which results in a differing total dynamic head. Ideally, these
solutions will effectively meet these constraints and criteria at a minimal cost, something that was
taken into account when proposing solar pump, solar array, and controller type.
6
Standards
Existing standards had to be met for the proposed system in order for it to qualify for financial
assistance from the NRCS. Below are the relevant engineering design standards for solar powered
watering systems and pipelines.
1. NRCS Virginia Conservation Practice Standards Watering Facility Code 614

USDA-NRCS. (2011). Virginia Engineering Standard #614-Watering Facility.
Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1263189.pdf
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Agency/VA/Archived_614_VA_Standard_
Watering_Facility_Oct_2011_141117.pdf
2. NRCS Virginia Conservation Practice Standards Livestock Pipeline Code 516

USDA-NRCS. (2010). Virginia Engineering Standard #516-Livestock Pipeline.
Available at:
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VA/516_VA_Standard_Livestock_Pi
peline_Oct_2012.pdf
3. NRCS Virginia Conservation Practice Standards Renewable Energy System Code 716
USDA-NRCS. (2010). Virginia Engineering Standard #716-Renewable Energy
System. Available at:
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VA/VA-716-SOW_Oct_2011.pdf
4. NRCS Virginia Conservation Practice Standards Pumping Plant Code 533

USDA-NRCS. (2012). Virginia Engineering Standard #533-Pumping Plant. Available
at:
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VA/533_VA_Standard_Pumping_Pla
nt_Oct_2011.pdf
Engineering Design
Overview
Following the completion of the survey, described in Approach of this report, the team
was able to gain an understanding of the north and south watering systems, which are used to
supply the livestock and greenhouse, at NRHF. Two design alternatives for the north and south
watering systems were selected:
1. Use existing SCH 40 PVC in.

2. Use new SCH 40 PVC 1 in.
The first design proposal incorporates the existing in. pipe, at the request of the client. It
was critical to minimize the cost of the system, and the cost of trenching and labor associated with
7
laying down new pipes, would significantly increase the final cost of the project. However, the
friction loss from the smaller diameter pipe increases the TDH of each watering system, making
the systems less efficient. More importantly, the skin friction associated with the smaller diameter
pipe, reduces the achievable maximum flow rate at each trough to that below the peak flow rate.
Therefore, low storage troughs are at the risk of being emptied before the cattle finish drinking.
Consequently, the second design proposal recommends installing new 1 in. pipes that would
reduce the friction loss. The larger diameter pipe would increase the cost of the project, but it
would also increase the efficiency of the system, and ensure that the maximum flow rate at each
trough is able to meet the peak demand.
Calculations for TDH, maximum flow rate, and static pressure were completed. A Franklin
Electric, 4 in. submersible pump was selected. The selected pump is able to provide sufficient lift
for both design proposals. The energy demand of the pump was then determined and compatible
Franklin Electric, 285 W solar arrays were selected. Finally, the wells were chosen as the backup
plan for cloudy days. The waterline, pump, solar design, and backup are further described in the
following subsections.
Waterlines
North Watering System
The North Pump System at NRFH feeds a reservoir which then gravity feeds four watering troughs
that are located on the North side of the farm. Figure 2, located directly below, shows a schematic
of the system. The pond that will provide the water for the system is located at the green dot on
the schematic, labelled pump. The detailed plan view of this system with more information about
specific pipe lengths can be found in Appendix 1.
8
Figure 2. Schematic of north watering system showing watering troughs, reservoir, and pump.
For this system, no additional piping would be required using design proposal 1, or the
in. piping, however if design proposal 2 were implemented, 2256 ft of new piping would be
needed. This is illustrated in table 1; this table also shows the elevation difference from pond to
reservoir as well as friction loss in the system which results in the new Total Dynamic Head that
is shown.
Table 1. Required pipe length and TDH for each design proposal of the north watering system. D
Design Proposal
1 2
Necessary New Pipe (ft) 0 2556
Vertical Lift (ft) 120 120
Friction Loss (ft) 36 5
TDH (ft) 156 125
9
Table 2. Description of watering facilities in north watering system.
Maximum Flow Rate

Watering Storage Static Pressure (gpm)
Description
Trough # Volume (psi) Design Proposal
1 2
Heavy Equipment Tire
1 High
Trough (HETT) 6.3 2.6 10.5
Heavy Equipment Tire
2 High
Trough (HETT) 9.4 2.2 8.9
3 Freeze-proof Low 58.4 4.1 16.8
Based on the calculations that were completed using the elevation differences as well as
frictional losses in the pipes, the static pressure was calculated for this system. It is important to
note that the pressure in troughs 1 and 2 are both well below the threshold for a standard float
valve (10 psi) and will thus require low-pressure float valves. Based on table 2 it can be understood
that a peak flow value of 8 gpm is not met using design proposal 1 with the in. piping, however
design proposal 2 with the 1 in. piping will meet this peak demand at every trough. The reservoir
on this system is a tire trough that is the highest elevated trough on this system and was determined
to hold 300 gallons of water in it, water will be fed into it first from the pump and then gravity fed
down to the rest of the troughs.
South Watering System
The South Watering System at NRHF pumps water to a reservoir that gravity feeds four watering
troughs and a greenhouse. Below, figure 3 shows a schematic of the south system with the
elevations of the troughs, reservoir, and pump labelled. A detailed plan view of the system,
including pipe lengths, can be found in Appendix 2.
10
Figure 3. Schematic of south pump systems showing livestock watering troughs, reservoir, and pump.
The total required length for each design proposal are found in table 3, as well as, the
associated friction loss of each and subsequent total dynamic head (TDH). Design proposal 1 will
utilize the existing pipeline, which is seen in blue, and it will require new pipes for the additional
waterline section, seen in pink. Design proposal 2 will require new pipes to replace the existing
waterline, as well as, new pipes for the additional waterline. The additional waterline was placed
behind the sheds to avoid existing pipes and utility lines.
11
Table 3. Required pipe length and TDH for each design proposal of the south watering system.
Design Proposal
1 2
Necessary New Pipe (ft) 460 2558
Vertical Lift (ft) 102.2 102.2
Friction Loss (ft) 43.4 3.4
TDH (ft) 145.6 105.6
Water will be pumped to the reservoir to supply the greenhouse and gravity-feed the
troughs below. The system will fill up from bottom to top, with the reservoir being the last filled.
When the entire system is filled, water will flow from the reservoir to the overflow tire trough that
then pipes water to a stream that feeds back into the pond. Table 4 shows a summary of the
watering facilities in the pump-watering system.
Table 4. Description of watering facilities in south watering system.
Maximum Flow Rate

Watering Storage Static (gpm)
Description
Trough # Volume Pressure (psi) Design Proposal
1 2
1 Freeze-proof Low 12.3 2.8 11.5
2 Concrete High 44.5 4.5 18.4
3 Tire High 48.8 4.1 16.5
4 Concrete High 34.6 4.7 19.0
Elevation differences between the troughs and reservoir allows for static pressure within
the range (10-80 psi) of a standard float valve. As table 4E shows, design proposal 1 would not
meet the peak flow rate, 8 gpm, at any of the watering facilities. Consequently, the troughs may
be emptied as the cattle are drinking. Design proposal 2, on the other hand, has maximum flow
rates at each trough that exceed the peak demand.
Calculations are described in the Approach, and outlined in Appendix 4.
Pump
Our design calls for a model 5FDSP-0.75HP positive displacement pump from Franklin
Electric. PDPs are used when the total dynamic head (TDH) is high, but the required flow rate is
low. Because we are relying on storage to meet peak demand requirements, a low flow rate is
acceptable as long as daily demand is met. PDPs store water in cavities in the pump and force it
upward, which allows them to run with a small power input and pump without being damaged by
start/stop rotations like alternatives such as centrifugal pumps. This means that we can connect
the pump directly to the solar panel without need for a charge controller. PDPs have a variable
12
flow rate depending on the power input, so even in low sunlight conditions we can expect flows
from the pump. Given TDHs of 118 ft and 104 ft for the North and South pumping systems, we
can expect maximum flow rates of 3.09 gpm and 3.44 gpm respectively. For the North system,
given 6 hours of direct sunlight, we can expect a total of 1,112 gallons to be pumped each day. For
the South system, 1,238 gallons. This assumes the pump is receiving the maximum power point
voltage (Vmpp) of 84.9 V, which is the max voltage that our array can supply. By using the
performance curve provided by Franklin Electric, we calculated that at 75% power the pump would
supply the daily demand for the North system in 8 hours. This confirms that even on partially
cloudy days both pumps should meet demand.
Solar
Solar insolation is the measure of the amount of solar energy projected on a surface over a
specified length of time. It is strongly influenced by geographical location, season, and cloud
cover. To determine the solar insulation for the area, weather station data from Twin County
Airport, approximately 25 miles away (Code 7241077), was consulted. Data from 1995 to 2009
from this station was downloaded from a wetland modeling software, WetBud (Daniels, 2014).
Data from the months of March to October were reviewed, as those are the primary growing and
pasture months for the NRHF.
Table 5. Twin County Airport Solar Radiation Data
Month Solar Radiation

(k Wh/m2/day)
March 4.06
April 5.11
May 5.79
June 6.06
July 5.86
August 5.56
September 4.47
October 3.52
The average of these irradiances is 5.8 kWh/m per day; however, the lowest monthly
2
average was used to determine the design flow rate. The average solar radiation occurring in
October, 3.52 kWh/m /day, yielded a design flow rate of 3.8 gpm, which was rounded to 4 gpm.
2
Determining optimum photovoltaic (PV) array configuration is important since power is

the product of current and voltage. The power produced by the PV array is proportional to the level
of irradiance at any given time. Arab et al. (2012) tested four PV array configurations under
conditions that ranged from 10 to 40 m of TDH under sunny daylight hours. After comparing flow
rate and power between the four configurations they focused on the two configurations that
supplied similar power out but in different ways throughout the day. Both configurations use two
modules and differ in that one arranges them in parallel (PVG2) while the other is in series (PVG3).
Looking at power between the configurations, PVG2 is able to achieve maximum power early in
the morning and the power issued is practically constant during the day. PVG3 achieves maximum
power around noon when the sun is normal to the PV array, but current during morning and late
13
day is insufficient to provide the maximum power rate to the pump. The efficiency of PVG3 is
more significant and constant during the day than the overall efficiency of PVG2. The study
concluded that both configurations were suitable to supply the same average daily amounts of
water, but the series (PVG3) configuration is more appropriate when looking at overall system
efficiency. They propose using an array that allows utilizing both configurations when the need is
required. A parallel configuration being used for starting the pump and during optimum sunlight,
and a series configuration to operate at optimum efficiency. To do this they recommend an
Electronic Array Reconfiguration Controller be included to select appropriate configuration (Arab
et al., 2012).
Figure 4. Panels in parallel.
Figure 5. Panels in series
Based on the results of this study, a series configuration would limit early morning and
later afternoon watering capabilities as maximum power is reached when the sun is normal to the
PV array, around noon. During such times is when the farmhouse would most likely be in use thus
utilizing the well during such times would risk continuing the current issue of having less water
available at the house when it is needed. The effects of partial shading also need to be considered.
It is important to note that there are tree lines around both pond sites that could cause shading at
certain times of day. Shade on part of a panel can have a large impact on power output and overall
14
efficiency. For panels in series this will also impact current flow. A parallel configuration, which
may be less efficient, would be able to achieve maximum power early in the morning and supply
consistent power throughout the day. While shading will impact power on the specific panel its
covering, the current will not be as impacted unless all the panels are shaded at once. Because we
are using different pumps, panels and have a much larger total dynamic head it would be
recommended to test and compare the configurations before actual installation. The panel locations
will be near the docks located at each pond to minimize cable length. Manufacturing
recommendations for mounting and soil properties should be taken into consideration as well as
backfilling mount holes with concrete to ensure foundation strength (Morales & Busch, 2010).
Other considerations for the PV array are earthing and wiring. Earthing involves making a
strong connection between the frame of panel array and copper earthing wire. Installation and
adherence to such factors should be based on manufacturer instructions. Wire selections is
important because the total resistance of the wires will impact the voltage drop. Wiring the panels
close together and will help minimize cable length. This minimizes resistance in the cable which
minimizes the voltage drop.
Our design seeks to use 8 Franklin Electric 65.9 x 39.4 285W panels; four panels for
each pump. They will be able to provide enough DC power to the pumps to provide water under
the given solar conditions. The solar pump system will be able to meet the daily demands of the
farm using either of the proposed designs. We recommend a parallel configuration. This will allow
maximum power to be reached early in the morning. A series configurations may not reach full
power until noon, which would risk the farm house not having adequate water available when it is
use in the early morning and evening should the well backup be in use by the cows or greenhouse.
Because shading is a factor, especially in the North system where the pond is completely
surrounded by forest, a parallel configuration is also recommended as the overall current will not
be reduced if the sun casts shadows on the panels from nearby tree lines.
Backup Plan
It is recommended that solar water distribution systems have a 3-day surplus supply in the
event of cloudy weather conditions, when the PV panels are unable to provide sufficient energy to
the pump. The two primary options for backup plans are the use of batteries to store energy or
the use of reservoirs to store water (Morales & Busch, 2010). The north and south watering
systems reservoirs each provide 300 gallons of storage, which is less than even a days supply.
Additional storage from the troughs is minimal; therefore, it was necessary to incorporate a backup
plan into the final design. However, NRHF has the added option of using the existing wells during
these times. To avoid the expensive cost of batteries or of constructing additional reservoirs to
hold a 3-day supply of water, the well system is proposed as the backup. The reservoirs and troughs
can only provide limited storage; therefore, the wells will be used as backup in the case of extensive
periods of low solar irradiation.
15
Conclusion & Recommendations
Tables 6, below, shows a summary of the major components of design proposals 1 and 2
for the north and south watering systems at NRHF. Design proposal 1 uses existing in. PVC to
reduce the pipe and trenching cost incurred by the farm. Design proposal 2 recommends using 1-
in. PVC, which helps to reduce friction loss significantly, thereby increasing the efficiency of
the system. Consequently, proposal 2 ensures that peak demand is met at all watering facilities.
Table 6. Components of design proposal 1.
Descriptions Number of Items

Component North South
System System
1 2 1 2
Pipe PVC SCHEDULE 40 x 20 ft 0 114 23 129
Standard Float
Min. psi=10, Max. psi=80 4 4 1 1
Valve
Low Pressure Float
Minimum goes below 10 psi 0 0 2 2
Valve
Pump 4 in. pump & motor, 5 GPM 1 1 1 1
Solar Array 285 W each, 65.9 in. x 39.4 in. 4 4 4 1
Will start pump at 95V, continue operation
Controller 1 1 1 1
down to 75V
Wells remain connected & provide water at
Backup 1 1 1 1
low solar irradiation
Cost Analysis
The team received quotes from CMC Supply, Inc. to complete a cost analysis for each
design proposal. Below are compared costs for each design alternative for each watering system.
Costs remain the same for pump and solar equipment; however, the cost of piping differs between
design proposals 1 and 2. Pipe estimates do not include the price of associated trenching and labor,
which may significantly increase the overall cost of the project. Since the existing well system is
used for backup on cloudy days, there is no additional cost for the backup system.
16
Table 7. Estimated cost for design proposals for the north watering system.
Design Proposal
Item
1 2
Pump $450 $450
Solar Array $2885 $2885
Solar Mount $194 $194
Controller $745 $745
Pipe $0 $1189[a]
Total $4274 $5463
[a]
This estimate does not include associated trenching and labor costs.
Table 8. Estimated cost for design proposals for south watering system.
Design Proposal
Item
1 2
Pump $450 $450
Solar Array $2885 $2885
Solar Mount $194 $194
Controller $745 $745
Pipe $106 $1342[a]
Total $4380 $5616
[a]
This estimate does not include associated trenching and labor costs.
Despite additional costs, the team is still recommending design proposal 2. This design
solution truly satisfies all of the constraints and criteria initially established for this design project,
as proposal 1 fails to meet peak demand.
Future Recommendations
A more detailed cost analysis would be beneficial to determine a better estimate of the final
project cost. Additionally, after a few years of implementation of the system that was designed, it
would also be important to reevaluate the decision of backup options; the team decided for
financial purposes that it would be more feasible to use the well backup as opposed to an additional
reservoir. This decision may be revisited, and the system slightly adjusted, if the use of the well as
a backup is seen to be inconvenient.
17
References
Arab, A. Hadj. Bakelli, Y., Boutelhig, A. Mahammed, I. H. (2012). Energy. 39-1. 33-39.
Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu/10.1016/j.energy.2011.10.016
Buschermohle, M. J., & Burns, R. T. (2000). Solar-powered livestock watering systems.

University of Tennessee Agric. Ext. Service. PB1640-1M-1/00 E12-2015-00-151-00
Daniels, W. L. (2014). Wetbud: Wetland Water Budget Modeling Software. Soil and Landscape
Rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.landrehab.org/WETBUD
Ghoneim, A. A. (2006). Design optimization of photovoltaic powered water pumping systems.

Energy Conversion and Manag., 47(11-12), 1449-1463.
Meah. K., Ula, S., & Barrett, S. (2008). Solar photovoltaic water pumpingopportunities and
challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Rev., 12(4), 1162-1175.
Morales, T.D., & Busch, J. (2010). Design of small photovoltaic (PV) solar-powered water pump
systems. NRCS Technical Note, 28. 1-71.
USDA-NRCS. (2010). Virginia Conservation Practice Standard #516-Livestock Pipeline.

Retrieved from
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VA/516_VA_Standard_Livestock_Pipeli
ne_Oct_2012.pdf
USDA-NRCS. (2010). Virginia Conservation Practice Standard #716-Renewable Energy

System. Retrieved from https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VA/VA-716-
SOW_Oct_2011.pdf
USDA-NRCS. (2011). Virginia Conservation Practice Standard #614-Watering Facility.

Retrieved from
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Agency/VA/Archived_614_VA_Standard_Wat
ering_Facility_Oct_2011_141117.pdf
USDA-NRCS. (2012). Virginia Conservation Practice Standard #533-Pumping Plant. Retrieved

from
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VA/533_VA_Standard_Pumping_Plant_
Oct_2011.pdf
18
Virginia Livestock Watering Systems - Pressure-Energy/Gravity Flow Worksheet
1) Assistance Information Project Notes: North System (cattle only)
Customer: New River SWCD
County: Grayson
Date: 4/30/2017
Assisted By: NRHF Team
2) Water Budget
a) Total Daily Water Demand b) Daily Peak Water Demand c) Evaluate Source
Type of livestock: Beef Stockers No. of times herd drinks/day: 3 events Source flow rate: 10 gpm
Number of Animals: 50 Time desired to water herd: 30 minutes/event Source daily yield: 14400 gpd
Water demand/animal/day: 15 gpd Average peak demand: 8.3 gpm If source flow rate is close to or less than Peak
Total Daily Demand: 750 gpd Alternate peak demand: 5 gpm Demand, consider storage alternatives.
See Design Note for watering recommendations for various types See Design Note for considerations for estimating peak If source daily yield is less than Daily Demand,
of livestock. demand. consider an alternate or supplemental water source.
3) Design Parameters See Design Note or EFH Ch. 12 for guidance on pipe size selection.
a) Trough Information b) Pipe Information d) If Pumping to a Reservoir: Pumping rate should not exceed source rate.
Trough type(s): Pipe material: Desired pumping rate to reservoir: 4 gpm
Design flow rate: 5.0 gpm Pipe nominal diameter: Pumping duration required to meet daily demand: 188 min/day
Select flow rate to troughs as guided by Step 2 and Design Note. Pipe avg. inner diameter: 0.804 in. Ground elevation of water source: 2322.5 ft.
Typical design flow rates are: 8 gpm for frost-free troughs; 5 Pipe cross-sectional area: 0.0035 sq. ft. Elevation head: 122.6 ft.
gpm for storage troughs. Kp (head loss coefficient): 0.551 Static pressure in pipe (check against max. allowed): 53.1 psi
Maximum float valve pressure, if applicable: 80 psi Velocity check (<5 fps): 3.2 fps Dynamic Head Calculations:
Typical values range from 75-140 psi. Check manufacturer's If velocity is greater than 5 fps, consider a larger diameter pipe. Pipe length to reservoir: 809 ft
recommendations. Note: For flows greater than design flow, velocities will be greater. Add 10% for slope, fittings: 890 ft
Pipe pressure rating: 221 psi Friction loss/100': 4.2 ft/100 ft
Minimum float valve pressure, if applicable: 10 psi 72% of rating (See VA CPS 516): 159 psi Total friction loss: 37.4 ft
Varies depending on type of float. Use manufacturer's Note: If total friction loss exceeds 23.1 ft (10 psi), consider choosing
recommended minimum. Typical value is 10 psi. c) Gravity System Parameters a larger pipe diameter.
Reservoir gnd elev or spring box outlet elev: 2445.1 ft Dynamic Head added to pump by Friction + elev. 160 ft.
Reservoir depth below ground (typically 6'): 0 ft pressure component of system: head: OR
Reservoir bottom (elev for computing head): 2445.1 ft 69.3 psi
4) Flow and Static Pressure Checks
TROUGH ELEVATIONS: CALCULATIONS FOR FLOAT-VALVE SYSTEMS: CALCULATIONS FOR CASCADING SYSTEMS:
Enter trough elevations from survey data. For cascade- Troughs are tee-ed off from the main line, with flow to each Troughs are connected in series by way of their overflow pipes. Pipe
type systems, enter trough elevations in order from trough controlled by a float valve. Pipe length is measured length for Trough 1 is measured from the spring box. Subsequent
highest to lowest. from the reservoir or spring box. lengths are measured from the previous trough.
Pipe Length from Air lock can be a problem
Trough Head from Maximum Pipe Length
Trough ID and Estimated Water Surface Reservoir or Static Head from Upper Max. Flow Rate in spring-fed systems due
Ground Reservoir or Flow Rate Sub-System from Trough
Type Elev. (ft) Spring Box to Pressure (psi) Trough (ft) (gpm) to dissolved oxygen. Use
Elev. (ft) Spring Box (ft) (gpm) above (ft)
Trough (ft) a minimum diameter of 1-
Storage Trough 2430.5 2432.5 356 12.6 2.6 6.3 Spring box - T1 1/2" for pipe grades
bewteen 0.5-1.0%. Use a
T2 2423.4 2425.4 779 19.7 2.2 9.4 T1-T2 minimum pipe diameter of
T3 2310.2 2312.2 1467 132.9 4.1 58.4 T2-T3 2" for pipe grades less
T4 T3-T4 than 0.5%. See EFH Ch.
12.
T5 T4-T5
T6 T5-T6
T7 T6-T7
T8 T7-T8
T9 T8-T9
T10 T9-T10
Trough water surface elevation is assumed to be 2 ft Flow calculations assume a float valve efficiency of 80%. For For flow rates less than the design rate (yellow cells), consider
above ground elevation. flow rates less than the design rate (yellow cells), consider modifying the system or using larger volume troughs. If trough in-flow
modifying the system or using storage troughs (such as HETT or rate exceeds trough outflow rate (red cells), a flow restrictor, larger pipe
concrete). If static pressures exceed the manufacturer's diameter, or change in trough location may be necessary. This may
recommended maximum for the float valve, consider using a not be an issue if source flow rate is always less than the maximum flow
pressure reducer, adjusting the orifice, or relocating the trough. If possible.
static pressures are less than the recommended minimum (red
cells), consider moving the trough to a lower elevation. Cells are
coded orange for static pressures exceeding either maximum
recommended float valve or pipe pressures.
1) Assistance Information Project Notes: North System (cattle only)
County: Grayson
Date: 4/30/2017
2) Water Budget
Water demand/animal/day: 15 gpd Average peak demand: 8.3 gpm If source flow rate is close to or less than Peak
T4 T3-T4 than 0.5%. See EFH Ch.
12.
T5 T4-T5
T6 T5-T6
T7 T6-T7
T8 T7-T8
T9 T8-T9
T10 T9-T10
1) Assistance Information Project Notes: Pump system 1 (greenhouse+cattle).
County: Grayson
Date: 4/30/2017
2) Water Budget
Water demand/animal/day: 16.1 gpd Average peak demand: 8.9 gpm If source flow rate is close to or less than Peak
T4 2332.5 2334.5 644 74.9 4.7 34.6 T3-T4 than 0.5%. See EFH Ch.
12.
T5 T4-T5
T6 T5-T6
T7 T6-T7
T8 T7-T8
T9 T8-T9
T10 T9-T10
1) Assistance Information Project Notes: Pump system 1 (greenhouse+cattle).
County: Grayson
Date: 4/30/2017
2) Water Budget
Water demand/animal/day: 16.1 gpd Average peak demand: 8.9 gpm If source flow rate is close to or less than Peak
T4 2332.5 2334.5 644 74.9 19.0 34.6 T3-T4 than 0.5%. See EFH Ch.
12.
T5 T4-T5
T6 T5-T6
T7 T6-T7
T8 T7-T8
T9 T8-T9
T10 T9-T10
Appendix 7: Example Calculations, Design Proposal 2, South Watering
System
Daily Demand of Livestock

= . =
where,
No. of cattle = 50
Water demand day-1 = 15 gpd
Daily Demand of Greenhouse
.
=
=
where,
Irrigation Flow Rate = 40 gpm
Irrigation Time = 20 min
No. Irrigation Events day-1 = 4
Total Daily Demand
= + =
where,
Daily Demand of Livestock = 750 gpd
Daily Demand of Greenhouse = 53 gpd
Peak Demand
1 1
=
.
= .
where,
Daily Demand of Livestock = 750 gpd
No. of Drinking Events = 3
Time of Drinking Event = 30 min
Design Flow Rate for Pump

= = .
60
where,
Total Daily Demand = 803 gpd
25
Peak Sun Hours = 3.52 kWh m-2 day-1
Vertical Lift
=
= .
where,
Elevation at Bottom of Reservoir = 2412.41 ft
Depth Buried Belowground = 3 ft
Elevation at Water Level = 2308. 82 ft
Pressure Head = 0, no pressure in reservoir
Friction Loss
= = .
where,
Pipe Length to Reservoir = 938 ft
Safety Factor = 1.1
Friction Head Loss = 0.29
The safety factor adds 10% to pipe length to account for friction loss from pipefittings, bends,
and slope. The friction head loss factor was determined using Morales & Busch (2010) and the
design flow rate of the pump and pipe diameter.
Total Dynamic Head (TDH) for Pump
= + + = .
where,
Vertical Lift = 102.2 ft
Pressure Head = 0 ft
Friction Loss = 3.4 ft
Head from Reservoir at Watering Facility #1

=
+ . = .
where,
Elevation at Reservoir = 2412.41 ft
Depth Buried Belowground = 3 ft
Elevation at Trough = 2384.07 ft
Estimated Depth of Water in Trough = 2 ft
26
Maximum Flow Rate at Watering Facility #1
2
= 360

where,
Ac = cross-sectional area of pipe, 0.0101 ft 2
g = gravity, 32.2 ft s-2
Head from reservoir = 23.3 ft
Kp = head loss coefficient, 0.551
Pipe Length from reservoir = 547 ft
Static Pressure at Watering Facility #1

= = .
2.31
where,
Elevation at Reservoir = 2412.41 ft
Elevation at Trough = 2384.1 ft
27

NRHF Final Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

NRHF Final Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

New River Hill Farm Solar

Expected Gradation Date: Colby Dechiara May 2017

Contestant: _______________________ Date: _____________

Contestant: _______________________ Date: _____________

Contestant: _______________________ Date: _____________

Contestant: _______________________ Date: _____________

Advisor: _______________________ Date: _____________

Advisor: _______________________ Date: _____________

Goals and Objectives

Our team's objectives to meet this goal include:

Determine waterline that connects pumps, troughs, and reservoirs

Criteria and Constraints

1. NRCS Virginia Conservation Practice Standards Watering Facility Code 614

2. NRCS Virginia Conservation Practice Standards Livestock Pipeline Code 516

4. NRCS Virginia Conservation Practice Standards Pumping Plant Code 533

1. Use existing SCH 40 PVC in.

North Watering System

Maximum Flow Rate

South Watering System

Table 4. Description of watering facilities in south watering system.

Maximum Flow Rate

Calculations are described in the Approach, and outlined in Appendix 4.

Table 5. Twin County Airport Solar Radiation Data

Month Solar Radiation

Determining optimum photovoltaic (PV) array configuration is important since power is

Figure 4. Panels in parallel.

Figure 5. Panels in series

Table 6. Components of design proposal 1.

Descriptions Number of Items

Buschermohle, M. J., & Burns, R. T. (2000). Solar-powered livestock watering systems.

Ghoneim, A. A. (2006). Design optimization of photovoltaic powered water pumping systems.

USDA-NRCS. (2010). Virginia Conservation Practice Standard #516-Livestock Pipeline.

USDA-NRCS. (2010). Virginia Conservation Practice Standard #716-Renewable Energy

USDA-NRCS. (2011). Virginia Conservation Practice Standard #614-Watering Facility.

USDA-NRCS. (2012). Virginia Conservation Practice Standard #533-Pumping Plant. Retrieved

Daily Demand of Greenhouse

Total Daily Demand

Design Flow Rate for Pump

Pressure Head = 0, no pressure in reservoir

Total Dynamic Head (TDH) for Pump

Head from Reservoir at Watering Facility #1

Static Pressure at Watering Facility #1

Potrebbero piacerti anche

Contestant: ___________ Date: _

Contestant: ___________ Date: _

Contestant: ___________ Date: _

Contestant: ___________ Date: _

Advisor: ___________ Date: _

Advisor: ___________ Date: _