Michael Dukes Irrigation

Smart Irrigation Controllers: Water Conservation Potential Michael D. Dukes, Ph.D., P.E. Agricultural & Biological Engineering Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Utah Green Industry Conference Salt Lake City, UT, Jan 26, 2010

Irrigation is a Standard “Appliance”

SMS TESTING ON BERMUDAGRASS PLOTS

12' × 12'

SMS Testing Bermudagrass, Gainesville • 1 d/wk four brands SMS • 2 d/wk four brands SMS 3 SMS frequencies • 7 d/wk four brands SMS • Time 2 d/wk with rain sensor • 60% of time 2 d/wk with rain sensor • Time 2 d/wk without rain sensor Comparisons • Non-irrigated

IFAS Recommended Irrigation Run Times Weekly Monthly Irrigation Irrigation (inches) (inches) Jan 0.04 0.16 Feb 0.00 0.00 Mar 0.09 0.34 Apr 0.49 1.98 May 0.84 3.34 Jun 0.75 3.00 Jul 0.70 2.79 Aug 0.64 2.57 Sep 0.82 3.28 Oct 0.54 2.15 Nov 0.34 1.34 Dec 0.13 0.52 Total 21.5

IFAS Irrigation Recommendations - Tables

SMS Testing Bermudagrass, Gainesville • 1 d/wk four brands SMS • 2 d/wk four brands SMS • 7 d/wk four brands SMS • Time 2 d/wk with rain sensor (100% IFAS) • 60% of time 2 d/wk with rain sensor (60% IFAS) • Time 2 d/wk without rain sensor • Non-irrigated

Acclima Rain Bird Irrometer Water Watcher

1 SMS Controllers in Experiment 1: Sensor Controllers 2:Timer 2

Expanding Disk Rain Sensor

TQ RATINGS (1 to 9 scale) 3 4 5 7

Water Savings 2004+05, Normal Rainfall Frequency Treatment TOTAL Savings compared to (in) 2-WOS (%) 2-WOS 59.6 0 SMS Based Avg 16.5 72 1-d/w 16.5 b 72 2-d/w 18.8 a 68 7-d/w 14.3 c 76 WOS = without sensor Avg = average SMS = soil moisture sensor

Turfgrass Quality

Water savings 2006 Dry Conditions Treatment TOTAL Savings compared to (in) 2-WOS (%) 2-WOS 25.9 0 SMS Based Avg 11.9 54 1-d/w 14.9 a 43 2-d/w 11.7 b 55 7-d/w 9.2 c 64 WOS = without sensor Avg = average SMS = soil moisture sensor

Conclusions • Rain sensor ¼”  34% savings normal rainfall frequency; 13% savings dry weather

Conclusions • Rain sensor ¼”  34% savings normal rainfall frequency; 13% savings dry weather • SMS savings: 72% rainy weather; 54% dry weather, >2 times more than an RS

Conclusions • Rain sensor ¼”  34% savings normal rainfall frequency; 13% savings dry weather • SMS savings: 72% rainy weather; 54% dry weather, >2 times more than an RS • SMS controllers can minimize irrigation and maintain turf quality in dry weather

SMS/ET Controllers 2006-08, Drought Conditions St. Augustinegrass testing ongoing since March 2006 72 plots 18 treatments & 4 replicates A: Rain Sensors B: Soil Moisture Sensor & ET Controllers Photo May 2006, M.L. Shedd

Irrigation Savings Compared to a Time Schedule No Rain Sensor 80 72 70 59 60 Irrigation Savings (%) 54 50 39 40 Gainesville Citra 30 20 10 0 Normal rainfall Dry conditions

Soil Moisture Sensors X X Water Watcher Rain Bird Irrometer Acclima

Base Line LawnLogic

SMS & RS TESTING ON COOPERATING HOMES, PINELLAS CO.

Experimental Design • 59 residential cooperating homes  4 locations • 4 treatments

Treatments • SMS, Current irrigation system without rain sensor and with a soil moisture sensor controller • EDU+RS, Current irrigation system with rain sensor & seasonal run time guidelines • RS, Current irrigation system with rain sensor • WOS, Current irrigation system without a sensor

Pinellas County Homes, Irrigation Nov 06 – Dec 08 70 0 62 a 2 60 54 a 4 Monthly Effective Precipitation (inches) Irrigation Application (inches) 50 6 8 40 34 a 10 30 12 22 b 14 20 16 10 18 0 20 Nov-06 Feb-07 May-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Effective Rainfall SMS EDU+RS RS WOS

Pinellas County Homes, Irrigation Nov 06 – Dec 08 70 0 62 a 2 60 54 a 4 Monthly Effective Precipitation (inches) Irrigation Application (inches) 50 6 8 40 34 a 10 30 12 22 b 14 20 65% 16 10 18 0 20 Nov-06 Feb-07 May-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Effective Rainfall SMS EDU+RS RS WOS

Irrigation Frequency (# Irrig. Events per Month) Treatment Mean Std. Dev. Max Min (#/month) (#/month) (#/month) (#/month) SMS 2.1 b 2.8 11 0 EDU+RS 3.6 ab 4.1 20 0 RS 4.7 a 5.6 22 0 WOS 5.2 a 6.5 29 0

Meter Only Home (not in compliance) Meter Only Home (in compliance) 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Irrigation Application (inches/day) Irrigation Application (inches/day) Precipitation (inches/day) Precipitation (inches/day) 0.8 2.0 0.8 2.0 0.6 3.0 0.6 3.0 0.4 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.2 5.0 0.2 5.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Rain Sensor Home Soil Moisture Sensor Home 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Irrigation Application (inches/day) Irrigation Application (inches/day) Precipitation (inches/day) Precipitation (inches/day) 0.8 2.0 0.8 2.0 0.6 3.0 0.6 3.0 0.4 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.2 5.0 0.2 5.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08

200 0 200 0 180 180 160 50 160 50 Monthly Precipitation (mm) Monthly Precipitation (mm) Irrigation Application (mm) Irrigation Application (mm) 140 SMS 140 RS 120 100 Homes 100 120 100 Homes 100 80 150 80 150 60 60 40 200 40 200 20 20 0 250 0 250 Effective Rainfall Avg. Irr. Applied (SMS) Calculated Irr. Need Effective Rainfall Avg. Irr. Applied (RS) Calculated Irr. Need 200 0 200 0 180 180 160 50 160 50 Monthly Precipitation (mm) Monthly Precipitation (mm) Irrigation Application (mm) Irrigation Application (mm) 140 120 Meter 100 140 120 RS + 100 100 Only 100 Edu. 80 Homes 150 80 Homes 150 60 60 40 200 40 200 20 20 0 250 0 250 Effective Rainfall Avg. Irr. Applied (MO) Calculated Irr. Need Effective Rainfall Avg. Irr. Applied (EDU) Calculated Irr. Need

ET CONTROLLER TESTING, HILLSBOROUGH CO.

ET Controller Study GCREC Hillsborough County • Three ET controllers: T1, T2, T3  Weathermatic, Smartline SL800  Toro, Intellisense TIS-612OD  ETwater, Smart Controller 100 • T4: Timeclock with RS • T5: 60% of T4

GCREC Plot plan

GCREC Rainfall 25 2006-2007 100 Historical Mean 90 91.2 Cumulative 2006-2007 Cumulative Rainfall (in) 20 80 Monthly Rainfall (in) Cumulative Historical 70 16.0 71.2 15 60 50 10 8.8 40 8.3 8.3 8.8 8.4 8.0 7.5 8.4 7.5 6.6 30 6.5 6.0 4.9 5.1 5 3.7 4.0 20 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.4 2.7 1.8 2.1 2.2 10 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.0 0 0 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Month (2006-2007)

ET Controller Conclusions Summary • Water Savings Compared to Time (no RS) • ET controllers • 43% average annual • 60% winter • Rain sensor (RS), 21% • Reduced time w/ RS treatment, 53% • No relationship between water application and turfgrass quality. More potential savings?

But will ET controllers work in the real world?! Residential study in Hillsborough County… • 38 residential cooperators in Hillsborough Co. o 21 homes have an ET controller o 17 homes are a comparison group • All volunteers are moderate to high water users

ET Controller Initial Data, SW Fla. Two Sites 10 Cumulative Average Irrigation Applied 9 Comparison ET Controllers 8 Historical Comparison 7 Historical ET Controllers 6 ~50% 5 (in) 4 3 2 1 0 9/26 10/10 10/24 11/7 11/21 12/5 12/19 1/2 1/16 Date (2008-2009)

Smart Irrigation Controller Irrigation Reduction Potential Method Location Irrigation Weather Funding Savings agency Time clock Homes in Central adjustment w/ 30% Normal to rainy SJRWMD Fla. rain sensor Rain sensor Plots in Gainesville 34% Normal to rainy SWFWMD 15% Dry Soil moisture Plots in Gainesville 70-90% Normal to rainy SWFWMD sensor control Plots in Up to 40% Dry Gainesville/Citra Homes in Pinellas Co. 65% Dry (1 d/wk) SWFWMD Plots in Hillsborough Hillsborough ET controllers Up to 60% ~Normal Co. Co./FDACS Up to 40% Dry Homes in ~50% Dry (ET, variance) Hillsborough Co. (initially)

The Answer is NOT Only Smart Controllers • Smart Controllers have water conservation potential but….

The Answer is NOT Only Smart Controllers • Smart Controllers have water conservation potential but…. • Target “high” water users • Must be implemented with hands on training of contractors • Ongoing certification/verification program should be implemented

Irrigation Savings Potential 80 Rainy 70 Dry Irrigation Savings (%) 60 50 40 30 20 No data No data No data 10 0 Time Clock Rain Sensor Soil Soil ET ET Adjustment Moisture Moisture Controller, Controller, Sensor, Sensor, plots homes plots homes

So, What’s the Silver Bullet in Smart Irrigation Control?

BLANK SLIDE

Soil Moisture Sensors • Advantages  Inexpensive, for smaller sites with “lumped” hydrozones  Simple programming of SMS controller  Integrates on site rainfall • Disadvantages  Burying wires  Not all sensors are accurate under variety of conditions  Programming time clock runtimes correctly

ET Controllers • Advantages  No wires to bury  Programming matches irrigation theory  Two way communication in some cases • Disadvantages  Steep programming learning curve (depends on device)  Costly for “simple” sites  Ongoing fees for some  Replaces the existing and functional timer

PAYBACK EXAMPLE

Payback Period, Irrigation Meter Assumes 50% irrigation efficiency; JEA 2009 costs; total annual irrigation of 43”; 50% savings $4,000 3.0 ac $3,500 2.5 ac $3,000 2.0 ac $2,500 Irrigation Savings $2,000 1.5 ac $1,500 $500 1.0 ac installed $1,000 cost, one SMS 0.5 ac controller $500 0.25 ac $0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month

Irrigation applied, Irrigation Meter Assumes 50% irrigation efficiency; JEA 2009 costs; total annual irrigation of 43” 4,000 3.0 ac 3,500 3,000 2.5 ac Landscape Irrigation (kgal) 2,500 2.0 ac 2,000 1.5 ac 1,500 1.0 ac 1,000 0.5 ac 500 0.25 ac 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month

Payback Period, Potable+Sewer Assumes 50% irrigation efficiency; JEA 2009 costs; total annual irrigation of 43”; 50% savings $12,000 3.0 ac $10,000 2.5 ac $8,000 2.0 ac Irrigation Savings $6,000 1.5 ac $4,000 1.0 ac $500 installed 0.5 ac $2,000 cost, one SMS 0.25 ac controller $0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month

See Videos & Narrated Power Point • http://irrigation.ifas.ufl.edu • Video  Irrigation controllers  Rain sensors  Soil moisture controllers  Weather based (ET) controllers  Smart Water App. Tech. (virtual turf field day) • Narrated ppts  ET controllers  Irrigation scheduling  Irrigation components  Irrigation myth busters  Soil moisture sensor controllers

Thank you! Southwest Florida Water Management District, Pinellas Co. Utilities, St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Hillsborough Co. Water Dept., Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Assoc., Florida Turfgrass Assoc., Florida Sod Growers Co-op. mddukes@ufl.edu http://irrigation.ifas.ufl.edu

Michael Dukes Irrigation

by Utah Nursery and Landscape Association

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 10

Statistics

Michael Dukes Irrigation Presentation Transcript