2011 pe review: iv-c: s&w management

83
2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management Michael C. Hirschi, PhD, PE, D.WRE Professor and Assistant Dean University of Illinois [email protected]

Upload: watson

Post on 05-Jan-2016

45 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management. Michael C. Hirschi, PhD, PE, D.WRE Professor and Assistant Dean University of Illinois [email protected]. Acknowledgements: Chris Henry, I-C PE Review (2006-2009) Rod Huffman, PE Review coordinator. Session Topics. Soil & Water Basics Review - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

2011 PE Review:IV-C: S&W Management

Michael C. Hirschi, PhD, PE, D.WREProfessor and Assistant Dean

University of [email protected]

Page 2: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Acknowledgements:

Chris Henry, I-C PE Review (2006-2009)Rod Huffman, PE Review coordinator

Page 3: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Session Topics

• Soil & Water Basics Review

• Evapotranspiration

• Subsurface Drainage

• Irrigation

• Nutrient Management

Page 4: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

S&W Basics Review

• Soil makeup

• Infiltration & soil-water

• Soil-Water-Plant Relations

Page 5: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Subsurface Drainage

• Basic issues

• Design considerations

• System sizing

• System installation

Page 6: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Irrigation

• Plant water use

• Types of irrigation– Sprinkler– Flood– Drip

• Design considerations

Page 7: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Nutrient Management

• Soil loadings

• Application issues

Page 8: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

A few comments

• Material outlined is about 3 weeks or more in a 3-semester hour class. I’m compressing at least 6 hours of lecture and 3 laboratories into 2 hours, so I will:– Review highlights and critical points– Do example problems

• You need to:– Review and tab references– Do additional example problems, or at least

thoroughly review examples in references

Page 9: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Basics – Soil Make Up

• Mineral

• Water

• Air

• Organic Matter

Page 10: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Mineral Component - Particles

• Sand

• Silt

• Clay

• Aggregates– Silt & Sand sizes– Less dense than primary particles

Page 11: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Particle Size Classifications

Page 12: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

USDA Texture Triangle

Page 13: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Example

After soil sample dispersal to ensure only primary particles are measured, a sample is determined to be 20% clay, 30% silt and 50% sand. What is the USDA soil texture?

A: Sandy Clay LoamB: Sandy LoamC: LoamD: Clay Loam

Page 14: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Solution

Answer: C, Loam

20% Clay

30% Silt

Page 15: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Infiltration & soil-water

• Infiltration is the passage of water through the soil-air interface into pores within the soil matrix

• Movement once infiltrated can be capillary flow or macropore flow. The latter is a direct connection from the soil surface to lower portions of the soil profile because of root holes, worm burrows, or other continuous opening

• Infiltrated water can reappear as surface runoff via “interflow” and subsurface drainage

Page 16: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Soil, water, air

The inter-particle space (voids) is filled with either water or air. The amount of voids depends upon the soil texture and the condition (ie. tilled, compacted, etc.).

Page 17: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Water (moisture) content

• Special terms reflect the fraction of voids filled with water (all vary by texture and condition):– Saturation: All voids are filled with water– Field Saturation: Natural “saturated” moisture content

which is lower than full saturation due to air that is trapped.

– Field capacity: Water that can leave pores by gravity has done so (0.1 to 0.33 bars)

– Wilting point: Water that is extractable by plant roots is gone (15 bars)

– Hygroscopic point: Water that can be removed by all usual means is gone (but some remains, 30 bars)

Page 18: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Saturated (all pores filled)

Field Capacity (Some air, some water)

Wilting point(water too tightly held for plant use)

Page 19: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management
Page 20: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Plant Available Water

Page 21: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Soil Water Holding Capacity

(inches-water/foot-soil)Soil Texture Range Average

Sand 0.4 - 1.0 0.8 Sandy Loam 1.0 - 1.5 1.3 Loam 1.0 - 2.0 1.6 Silt Loam 1.3 – 2.6 2.0 Clay Loam 1.3 – 2.6 2.0 Clay 1.4 – 2.4 1.8

Page 22: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Water States by Soil Texture

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sand SandyLoam

Loam Silt Loam ClayLoam

Clay

Vol

umet

ric

Wat

er c

onte

nt

Gravitational

Plant Available

Unavailable

Page 23: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Commentary

• Later, when we discuss drainage, it is the gravitational water that is of interest, eg. saturation down to field capacity. The volume of this water, the hydraulic characteristics of the soil in question, and the wet-condition-tolerance and value of the crop being grown dictate the drainage system design and its feasibility.

• When we consider irrigation, plant available water (AW) is that held between field capacity and wilting point. It is this water that we manage via irrigation to supply water to plants. The volume of AW the soil can hold within the crop root-zone, the crop value and water use, and the crop tolerance of dry conditions dictate irrigation design and feasibility.

Page 24: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Moisture “release” curve

-10cm

-100cm

-1000cm

-10000cm

Page 25: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Any questions on general soil and water basics?

Page 26: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Evapotranspiration (ET)

• Evaporation

• Crop water use

• Reference Crops

• Pan Evaporation

• Crop Coefficients

Page 27: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Evaporation

• Transfer of water from liquid to vapor state

• Tabulated as “lake evaporation” across the US.

Generally, evaporationexceeds precipitationwest of the Mississippi River.

Page 28: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Example

• The mean annual lake evaporation in inches in Amarillo, TX (panhandle), is most nearly:

A. 50

B. 65

C. 75

D. 85

Page 29: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Evaporation

Fangmeier et al. (2006), pg 56

Page 30: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Evaporation

The mean annual lake evaporation in inches in Amarillo, TX (panhandle), is most nearly:

A. 50

B. 65

C. 75

D. 85

= 1900mm/25.4 mm/in = 75 in, so answer is C

Page 31: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Evapotranspiration (ET)

• Combined Evaporation and Transpiration

• Also called “consumptive use”

• Useful to predict soil water deficit

• Estimation methods (predict ETo, which is for Reference Crop)– Evaporation Pan– Penman-Monteith (see example in Fangmeier

et al., 2006, pages 64-66)

Page 32: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

ET vs. Precipitation

Page 33: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Reference Crops

• Alfalfa (comparable to field crops)

• Grass (easy to maintain under weather station, data can be related to alfalfa data)

Page 34: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Crop Coefficients

• Relate crops at various stages of growth to reference crops

• ETc = Kc x ETref

Page 35: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Crop Coefficients

Both figures: Fangmeier et al. (2006)page 70

Page 36: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Crop Coefficients, by crop & stage

Fangmeier et al. (2006)page 71

Page 37: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Crop growth stages

Fangmeier et al. (2006) page 71

Page 38: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Example

Estimate ETc for corn (maize) in Sioux City, Iowa if the ETref is 8mm/day on July 1. Planting date was April 15.

A: 8mm

B: 9mm

C: 10mm

D: 11mm

Page 39: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Solution

ETc = Kc x ETref

Initial growth stage is 20 days, to May 5Development stage is 40 days, to June 9Mid stage is 50 days, to July 29So, on July 15, in Mid-stage, so Kc is 1.2

ETc = Kc x ETref = 1.2 x 9 = 10.8mm, or 11mm (D)

Hint: Follow Fangmeier example 4.4

Page 40: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Any questions on ET?

Page 41: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Drainage

• Removal of excess water• Benefits include

– More days to work in field– Less crop stress due to high moisture– Early germination because of warmer soil

• Liabilities include– Expense– Potential water quality issues– Outlet required, may need pump

Page 42: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Objective of Drainage is Financial Benefit

• Optimize crop growth– Increase yield– Reduce wetness-based disease– Reduce variability within fields and from year to year

• Improve timeliness of field work– May use smaller equipment– May increase acreage– May reduce labor costs

• Increase value of land

Page 43: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Drainage types

• Surface– Basic enhancement of flow patterns– Surface grading/planing– Surface ditching

• Subsurface– Irregular– Regular

• Watertable Management

Page 44: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Subsurface Drainage

• Removes gravitational water only

• Degree of drainage specified as depth/day

• System design dictated by crop, soil, location, topography and more…

• Can be used to manage watertable down or up

• Changes hydrologic response of field and if widely installed, the watershed

Page 45: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

HYDROLOGIC CYCLE (with tiles)

Page 46: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Design Considerations

• Soil type

• Crop to be grown

• Outlet

• Topography

Page 47: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

100

Tile Density

Pro

fita

bili

ty

Cost/Acre Crop Yield Rate of Return

Co

st o

r Y

ield

Rat

io (

%)

Spacing

Page 48: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Drainage system design

• Capacity to remove water is expressed as depth/day (eg. 3/8 in/day)

• Spacing, maximum and minimum depth (absolute minimum of 24” without special protection), and maximum and minimum slope are dictated by soil and topography

Page 49: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Depth/Spacing ChoicesDepth/Spacing ChoicesDepth/Spacing ChoicesDepth/Spacing Choices

Page 50: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Excellent Reference:ASABE Standards

The material that follows is directly from ASABE EP480, issued MAR1998 (R2008), “Design of Subsurface Drains in Humid Areas”

Page 51: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Drain Spacing

Page 52: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Diagram for Hooghoudt Eq.

Page 53: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Drain Spacing by Hooghoudt Eq

Page 54: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Area Drained

Page 55: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management
Page 56: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

CPT Capacity

Page 57: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Example

A subsurface drainage system is to be installed on a square 160 acres (1/4 section) in East Central Illinois. The Drainage Coefficient is 3/8”/day and the Illinois Drainage Guide indicates a 120’ spacing at 4’ depth. The proposed slope is 0.1%. What diameter CPT is needed for each lateral?

A: 3”B: 4”C: 5”D: 6”

Page 58: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Solution

A square 160 acres is a ½ mile on each side, or 2640’. A spacing of 120’ gives an area for each lateral of 120x2640 or 316800 sq.ft. If the system removes 0.375”/day, the flow rate needs to be 316800ft2*0.375in/day/12in/ft/24hr/day/3600s/hr or 0.115 cfs.

Enter the chart

Page 59: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Answer: D, 6”

Page 60: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Irrigation

• Supplements rainfall• Need and design dictated by crop, soil, location,

topography, water availability, energy price, and more…

• Simplistic description: Use the soil as your water tank– Deplete it to some predetermined safe level– Refill it as needed– Don’t overtop and waste water (runoff)

• Plant Available Water is soil moisture held between Field Capacity and Wilting Point.

Page 61: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Irrigation methods

• Sprinkler (entire area is covered)• Surface (flood, furrow)• Drip (trickle, only plant root zone is watered)• Subirrigation

Page 62: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Information needed for design

• Soil texture and profile water storage• Soil infiltration rate• Water source• Available flow and pressure• Water quality• Water cost• Irrigated area• Elevation changes on site• Plants to be irrigated, root depth• Plant water use (inches/day)

Page 63: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Design decisions and specific computed data needs

• How much do we let the soil-water deplete prior to irrigation (“management allowed depletion”, MAD, % as decimal, typically 40-50%, though can vary depending upon crop and climate)?

• How much water is available to the plant within its root zone (total amount is “available water”, AW, in inches)?

• How much water will we replace with each irrigation (equal to MAD * AW or “readily available water”, RAW, in inches)?

• How much total water do we need per irrigation cycle (equal to RAW*total irrigated area/efficiency)?

• How often do we need to irrigate the same area of plants (“irrigation interval”, equal to AW/(plant water use, in/day))?

All these concepts and equations are in any basic book or chapter on irrigation, such as Fangmeier et al. (2006).

Page 64: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Available Water, AW

• Soils vary in their characteristics by depth• Soil surveys have information on each soil by

depth• For example, consider the AW with depth for two

Illinois soils (data from WebSoilSurvey):

Layer Drummer SiCL Plainfield Sand

0-9” 0.18 in/in 0.07 in/in

9-18” 0.17 in/in 0.06 in/in

18-27” 0.16 in/in 0.06 in/in

27-36” 0.16 in/in 0.06 in/in

Page 65: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

AW for Corn

• If we assume a 36” rooting depth for corn on either soil, we get the following AW:

• Drummer: AW=0.18*9+0.17*9+0.16*18= 6.03”, so 6.0” in root zone

• Plainfield: AW=0.07*9+0.06*27=2.25”, so 2.3” in root zone

Page 66: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Irrigation Interval

• So, given those 2 soils, and corn has a 0.25 in/d water use, if no rain, how many days before all available water is depleted?

• Drummer: 6”/.25ipd = 24days• Plainfield: 2.3”/.25ipd=9days

Now you know why there are many irrigated acres of Plainfield and few irrigated acres of Drummer

Page 67: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Example

You are designing a sprinkler irrigation system for a pick-your-own strawberry field. Your references indicate that strawberries use 0.25 in/day. The soil profile has a field capacity value of 0.36 in/in and a wilting point value of 0.24 in/in. The rooting depth of strawberries is 9”. You don’t wish to deplete your soil moisture below 50% available water. How much will you irrigate and how often? Assume 100% efficiency

A: 1” every 7 days; B: 0.5” every 2 days; C: 0.25” every day; D: Not enough information

Page 68: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Solution

Plant available water (AW) in the root zone is (0.36in/in-0.24in/in)*9in = 1”. The amount of water you wish to replace is half that amount (MAD), or 0.5” (RAW), which is your irrigation depth. Given the strawberries use 0.25 ipd, you will have to irrigate 0.5” (irrigation depth) every 2 days (irrigation interval) if it doesn’t rain.

Answer: B

Page 69: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Lateral Size

• Assume you will use a single lateral of pipe that you are able to move across the strawberries. It is Schedule 40 PVC and you chose four Rainbird 20JA impact sprinklers. The technical specs indicate the nozzles deliver 4.5gpm at 40psi while delivering water to a radius of 40’. Your plan for the lateral is to have the 1st sprinkler at 20’, then at 40’ intervals. What size PVC do you need between each sprinkler if your planned variation in pressure from high to low is +/- 10%?

Page 70: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Lateral Size

Use the friction factor equation to determine how much loss/100’ of pipe is allowable and choose lateral sizes accordingly:

Ff = (Po)*(Pv)/Lc

Where:

Ff is the maximum pipe friction factor (psi/100’),

Po is the design operating pressure (psi),

Pv is the allowable pressure variation (+/-, as decimal, psi), and

Lc is the critical length (distance to furthest sprinkler, ft)

Page 71: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Lateral Size

Now, Po is 40psi, Pv is +/- 10% or 0.2 expressed as decimal, Lc is 20’+40’+40’+40’ = 140’, So, Ff = 40*0.2/140 = 0.057 psi or 0.05 psi

The first section of pipe has flow for all four nozzles, or 18gpm. The next section has three nozzles flow, or 13.5gpm, the last two sections have 9gpm and 4.5gpm, respectively

Standard tables are available in many texts for pressure loss in pipes due to friction. Such a standard table is on the next page (from Rainbird website).

Page 72: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management
Page 73: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Lateral Size

• So, if we are to keep friction factor at 0.05 psi/100’ or less, we need to begin with 3” PVC, and it needs to stay 3” after the first nozzle, but can reduce to 2” after the second nozzle. If a bit more variation is OK (eg. +/- 15%, or 0.086psi/100’), the lateral can reduce to 2-1/2” after the first nozzle, 2” after the second and 1-1/2” after the third.

Page 74: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Example

You have determined that you will have to supply 2” of water every 10 days to meet a corn field water demand. You will use a lateral move system to apply the water in a 16-hr period every 10 days. The field in question is 20 acres (933 feet square). Assume an 80% sprinkler efficiency. How much water will you apply each irrigation and at what flow rate?

Page 75: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Solution

2” every 10 days means volume is

2”/12 in/ft*933ft*933ft = 145081 ft3 or 1,085,200 gal

Prior to efficiency being considered, flow rate is 1,085,200gal/(16hr*60min/hr) or 1130 gpm

At 80% efficiency, 1085200/.8 gal need to be sprayed or 1,356,500gal for a flow rate of 1413 gpm

Page 76: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Reference Recommendations

• ASABE Standards

• Fangmeier et al. (2006) or Schwab et al. (1993)

• MWPS Sprinkler Irrigation Manual

Page 77: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Questions on irrigation?

Page 78: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Nutrient Management

• One feeder pig produces 10.3 lbs of manure per day. Assuming that manure has the same density as water, how much manure, in cubic feet, is most nearly produced annually from a 1000 head barn that has 3 sets (or turns) per year.

a) 40,000b) 70,000 c) 76,000d) 257,000

Page 79: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Nutrient Management

• One feeder pig produces 10.3 lbs of manure per day. Assuming that manure has the same density as water, how much manure, in cubic feet, is most nearly produced annually from a 1000 head barn that has 3 sets (or turns) per year.

a) 40,000b) 60,000 c) 76,000d) 257,000

Answer B, 10.3/62.4*1000*365=60,248

Page 80: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Nutrient Management/Facilities

• The maximum loading rate (pounds of volatile solids per 1000 cubic foot per day) for an anaerobic lagoon for animal waste in West Central Illinois is most nearly:

a) 2.0b) 3.0c) 4.0d) 5.0

Page 81: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Nutrient Management/Facilities

• The maximum loading rate for an anaerobic lagoon for animal waste in West Central Illinois is most nearly:

a) 2.0

b) 3.0

c) 4.0

d) 5.0

C, 4.0, EP403.3

Page 82: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Loading of Soils Conversions

K 1.2 K2O

N 4.43 NO3

P 2.29 P2O5

N 1.29 NH4

cu ft 7.48 gallons

Page 83: 2011 PE Review: IV-C: S&W Management

Questions?