KTU Repository

Hydraulic performance assessment on dynamic fluidic and complete fluidic sprinklers under indoor and outdoor conditions

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Zhu, Xingye
dc.contributor.author Kong, Jing
dc.contributor.author Fordjour, Alexander
dc.contributor.author Lewballah, Joseph Kwame
dc.contributor.author Dwomoh, Frank Agyen
dc.contributor.author Ofosu, Samuel Anim
dc.contributor.author Liu, Junping
dc.date.accessioned 2025-02-07T15:04:17Z
dc.date.available 2025-02-07T15:04:17Z
dc.date.issued 2023-10-27
dc.identifier.uri http://ir.ktu.edu.gh/xmlui/handle/123456789/307
dc.description.abstract Since complete fluidic sprinklers (CFS) cannot function well in low-pressure environments, dynamic fluidic sprinklers (DFS) were developed to address this issue. In 2021, research in the field and laboratory were conducted to examine how well DFS and CFS performed hydraulically in both indoor and outdoor condi tions. In this investigation, a Thiess Clima laser precipitation mon itor was used to evaluate the droplet size and velocity distribution of two different types of sprinklers indoors. From the findings, DFS velocities ranged from 0.1 to 4 m/s whereas CFS ranged from 0.1 to 5.3 m/s. The maximum frequency value was obtained at velocities of 1 m/s for each combination. The DFS had a slightly greater discharge coefficient and spray pattern than the CFS. The DFS’s maximum spray range was 12.2 m, while the CFS’s maxi mum spray range was 10.8 m, with standard deviations of 1.07 and 1.66, respectively. Under high wind speed conditions, the maximum combined Coefficient of Uniformity (CU) of DFS and CFS were 81.1% and 78%, respectively. For a given pressure and sprinkler spacing, DFS delivered higher CU values than CFS, especially while running at low pressure, demonstrating that DFS offered a more favored water distribution pattern at low pressure. At different distances from the sprinkler, the highest application rates for DFS and CFS were 6.7 mm h−1 at 7 m and 6.5 mm h−1 at 7 m, respectively. A comparison of DFS and CFS under hydraulic performance indicated that DFS had a better performance than CFS. The study can serve as a guide for how to conserve water in sprinkler-irrigated fields. en_US
dc.publisher Journal of Agricultural Engineering en_US
dc.title Hydraulic performance assessment on dynamic fluidic and complete fluidic sprinklers under indoor and outdoor conditions en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search KTU-IR


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account