Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
C OREY BECKER
Problem
aluminum pipes with attached sprinkler heads are placed across a field and moved
to different spots at periodic intervals to avoid flooding. In our problem the farmer
is given a field with dimensions of 80m by 30m. The aluminum pipes with sprinkler
heads connected are 20m long. At the water source, the pressure is 420 Kilo-
Pascal’s with a flow rate of 150 liters per minute. The minimum water saturation is
2cm every 4 days while the maximum is .75cm per hour. Each pipe has a 10cm
inner diameter with rotating spray nozzles with an inner diameter of 6cm. The goal
of this project is to create the most efficient model of watering this field, using the
Our Interpretation
The problem states that a general goal should be to minimize the amount of
time to irrigate the field. Therefore, once every point has received the minimum
determining the efficiency include the number of times the farmer has to move the
sprinklers and the variation in water received by each point in the field. Decreasing
the variation of saturation between points on the field will decrease wasted water.
Every centimeter of water given to a point that is already passed the target
framework of sprinklers that can cover a large area of the field and with small
movements we will decrease excessive saturation. Before explaining our steps we
Assumptions
First, we will be ignoring the small effect that friction may play on the
pressure and velocity of the water in the irrigation pipes. Friction would obviously
have some effect but without a way to measure this small effect, we are forced to
Second, air and wind resistance could also have a large impact on the
distribution of water. Every person who has ever seen a sprinkler on a windy day
can see the effect it has on the droplets of water. However, without the necessary
are forced to assume that the farmer can adjust our model to account for wind
interference.
Third, the problem did not provide an angle of dispersion from the sprinkler
head. There are several variations of sprinklers that can spray water at just about
every angle. As you can see from the calculations we provide further down, the
angle of the water leaving the sprinkler has a significant impact on the radius of the
spray zone. For this project we will be assuming that the sprinkler sprays water at
Fourth, we will be assuming that the field is flat. Water may have a tendency
to run towards lower spots before being absorbed but without a topographical map
we have to assume that the field is level. This means that at the exact moment
sprinklers. Taking the pressure and volume of water moving through the 10cm
pipes we were able to calculate the velocity at which the water left the nozzle head.
also did not consider the drag on the water droplets as they fly through the air,
which is something that would have a quite substantial effect on the droplets when
We alsohad to consider the tools we had to work with. In the most abstract
sense, our problem is to water a rectangular region with circles. When circles are
placed together, there are large gaps created since circles can only be adjacent at a
single point. Therefore, since we have to cover the entire rectangular region, there
is going to be overlap between circles within the rectangle and wasted water that
doesn’t land within the rectangle. Thus, we must concede that “collateral” overlap
is inevitable and must simply try and minimize it. The sprinklers were connected by
these 20m segments of pipe which we assumed to be straight. This piping obstacle
also kept us from being more creative with our sprinkler layouts. We constructed
should shift the grid downward and to the right. The reasoning behind the move is
to minimize the amount of area that is oversaturated with water, thus we tried to
move the overlap areas to spots that was not an overlap area in the first grid. The
resulting grids with both moves are shown in the picture below:
Through extensive trial and error we were able to conclude that this system
was most effective due to its low number of moves (just 1) and low amount of
wasted water. The next hurdle was to regulate the system so that it would properly
water the ground at a rate no higher than 0.75cm/hour and no less than2cm every 4
days. In our previous paper we assumed every point within the spray radius
received the same amount of water so we simply divided the flow rate by the area
of the field that was covered. In this case, however, we will build a function to
represent the water distribution dependent upon the distance from the sprinkler
head. Assuming that the 150L of water flowed from the sprinkler head evenly 360
degrees around and 90 degrees from horizontal to vertical, we can begin by finding
2R*∆θ*∆φπ2
2R*∆θ*∆φπ2*ri*∆ri*∆θj
=2R*∆φπ2*ri*∆ri
lim∆θ,∆φ→∞=2R*∆φπ2*ri*∆ri=2Rπ2*r*dφdr
the following:
f'(r)=Rπ2rV04a2-r2m/s
This function represents the rate of change of water distribution based on the radius
or distance from the center. Therefore, the integral of this function will give us the
fr=Rπ2-aV02*lnV02a+V04a2-r2r
Given this equation we can then apply it to our two-dimensional layout. In order to
first divided the field into 2400 square meters and assign them a value based on
the distance from the sprinkler head. Then the MATLAB program uses the function
above to give each area a Z-value based upon its distance from the sprinkler. This
can be seen in the attached code below. Then we made a few adjustments to
create a more accurate model. First we leveled off the Z-values (amount of water)
at the extreme maximums since we assume that the equation isn’t perfect and the
amount of water when r approaches zero does not really approach infinity. The
leveled areas can be seen in the illustration where the red areas are actually
approaching infinity according to the function. These maximums were given values
Obviously, this model doesn’t come close to reaching all points on the field so we
so we add two more movements (two positions in x-direction and two in the y-
much more effective. However, there are still some low spots highlighted in blue.
We will have to calculate these values and determine if they reach the minimum of
This last value is the amount of water received by the driest point on the field over
four continuous days of watering. Since anything over 2cm would be wasted we
can divide 2 by 3.69 to get .542. This means that the driest spot on the field will
become fully watered after 2.17 days or 52.03 hours. Also, given that there are four
positions, this results in roughly 13hrs per position. Logistically, this would work
well since the farmer could position the sprinkler once per day at 7pm and it would
be done in the morning at 8am. One movement per day seems like an efficient
model as far as the time spent moving the system. However, the other element we
mentioned was wasted water. In our previous paper we concluded that any water
over 2cm per four days is “wasted” since we assumed that this 2cm was ideal. A
weakness of this model is the fact that we rounded values to create a more practical
numbers prevents us from finding how much water would land in the maximum
peaks. Based on our rough estimates the peaks that occur at sprinkler positions
receive about 9.365cm per four day cycle (13hrs per day). Considering the
maximum is 72cm (.75cm per hour), we feel that 9.365 is a very respectable value
The strongest part of our method is that it requires a very small amount of
oversight by the person in charge of irrigation. There only requires three moves in a
span of 4 days, and every portion of the 80m x 30m field issufficiently watered.
There also only needs to be 8 sprinklers for the entire 2400m2 field. The farmer can
set the sprinklers up at dusk and let them run overnight and wake up to a well-
watered field. Also, the movement pattern is very simple. The farmer just moves
the frame ten feet in one direction each day so that it completes a square.
Technically, the famer would probably want to move it a fourth time before watering
the first day of the second cycle so he’s not watering the same area two days in a
row but our model assumed the soil absorbed 100% so this was not important to
our design.
wasted water. While there were questions as to what the maximum points were, it
is clear that over the majority of the field, no spots are receiving remotely close to
That leads us to our first weakness. While the equation for our model may
have given us and accurate estimate for 99% of the field, at every sprinkler position
the amount of water approached infinity. Even for the smallest of areas this would
conflict with our parameters given in the problem. We decided to round off the
values because we knew the equation was not perfect and the small error shouldn’t
ruin the entire model. Even though the value was chosen arbitrarily, we still feel
that it’s an accurate representation of the water distributed to the respective points
on the field.
assume many things in order to proceed with the problem and finish in a timely
manner. If there was more context or goals, the grid system may have taken on a
different shape. With simply the goal of needing to water a field with 2cm of water
over 4 days but no faster than 0.75cm / hour, other things may not be to the liking
of a farmer. We have many spots that are watered twice as much as other parts,
and there are even regions that are watered four times as much as others. This
may cause dissatisfaction for a customer. Many of the assumptions made were fine,
but others may have a bigger impact on the situation. The drag on the water
droplets as they are flying through the air is quite substantial, especially at higher
speeds. Also, the whole system was assumed to be ideal and suitable for the
conditions that were being thrown at it. I very much doubt that this system would
really be able to shoot water out of a 0.6cm diameter opening at almost 90 m/s, and
also that the sprinkler would be able to handle such a flow of water. The possibility
of rain was also ignored but after some contemplation we figured that a simple rain
measurement could be subtracted from the four day value and then the farmer
We did find that the acceptable range of watering thefield was between 2cm
and 72cm based off of the problem state. Our range of distributions was between 2
and 9.365cm for 52.03hours. We believe that this is one of the most important
parts of the project because there will be collateral overlap if it is desired to water
everything, and we triedto minimize that as much as possible. It is because of this
that we believe that we have successfully solved the problem with respect to its
requirements.
Code:
n=8; %number of sprinklers
v0=88.41941283/n; %velocity of water-func of #sprinklers
g=9.81; %acceleration due to gravity
a=(v0^2)/g;
w=.0003125/n;
C=w/(pi^2);
x0=40;
y0=15;
x=0:1:80;
y=0:1:30;
[X,Y]=meshgrid(x,y);
R=zeros(31,81);
Z=R;
for l=0:20:20
for h=5:20:65
for i=1:81
for j=1:31
R(j,i)=sqrt((i-h)^2+(j-l)^2)+eps;
Z(j,i)=Z(j,i)-((1*(C*(-1/a)*log(abs((a+sqrt(a^2-
(R(j,i)^2)))/(R(j,i))))))/4)+eps;
if Z(j,i)>(5e-007)
Z(j,i)=(5e-007);
end
end
end
end
end
for l=10:20:30
for h=5:20:65
for i=1:81
for j=1:31
R(j,i)=sqrt((i-h)^2+(j-l)^2)+eps;
Z(j,i)=Z(j,i)-((1*(C*(-1/a)*log(abs((a+sqrt(a^2-
(R(j,i)^2)))/(R(j,i))))))/4)+eps;
if Z(j,i)>(5e-007)
Z(j,i)=(5e-007);
end
end
end
end
end
for l=0:20:20
for h=15:20:75
for i=1:81
for j=1:31
R(j,i)=sqrt((i-h)^2+(j-l)^2)+eps;
Z(j,i)=Z(j,i)-((1*(C*(-1/a)*log(abs((a+sqrt(a^2-
(R(j,i)^2)))/(R(j,i))))))/4)+eps;
if Z(j,i)>(5e-007)
Z(j,i)=(5e-007);
end
end
end
end
end
for l=10:20:30
for h=15:20:75
for i=1:81
for j=1:31
R(j,i)=sqrt((i-h)^2+(j-l)^2)+eps;
Z(j,i)=Z(j,i)-((1*(C*(-1/a)*log(abs((a+sqrt(a^2-
(R(j,i)^2)))/(R(j,i))))))/4)+eps;
if Z(j,i)>(5e-007)
Z(j,i)=(5e-007);
end
end
end
end
end
%meshz(X,Y,Z)
surfc(X,Y,Z)
%pcolor(X,Y,Z)
SOURCES & SOFTWARE
MatLab, The MathWorks, Inc.
Microsoft Excel