Research Article

Comparison of different fulljet nozzles used in laboratory type rain simulator in terms of some rainfall characteristics

Volume: 59 Number: 1 March 30, 2022
EN TR

Comparison of different fulljet nozzles used in laboratory type rain simulator in terms of some rainfall characteristics

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine and compare rain intensities, Christiansen coefficients, drop diameters and kinetic energies, by using Full Jet type nozzles at different pressures. Material and Methods: In this study, simulated rainfalls were applied on 17 cups (250 cm3), were placed on a platform, during 5 minutes at 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 kPa pressures by using ½ HH-36 SQ, ½ HH-40 SS and ½ HH-50 WSQ nozzles with 3 replicated. The drop diameters were determined by the flour pellet method. Rainfall intensities, Christiansen coefficients, terminal velocities, drop diameter ratio, terminal velocity ratio, moment, kinetic energy, moment per unit area, kinetic energy per unit area ratios and kinetic energy for each nozzles were calculated. Results: It was found that average rain intensities were 97-210 mm h-1, average uniformity coefficients were 85-86 %, average drop diameters were 1.89-2.11 mm, average terminal velocities were 6.35-6.79 m s-1 for nozzles. Average kinetic energies for each nozzles were also calculated between 16.30-23.32 J m-2 mm-1. Conclusions: According to this study, it was determined that the most suitable nozzle for erosion studies is Fulljet ½ HH-50 WSQ.

Keywords

rain intensity , christiansen homogeneity coefficient , drop diameter , terminal velocity , kinetic energy

References

  1. Agassi, M. & J.M. Bradford, 1999. Methodologies for interrill erosion studies. Soil and Tillage Research, 49: 277-287.
  2. Anonymous, 1999. SPSS 9 for Windows User’s Guide. Copyright 1999 by SPSS Incorporation SPSS, Chicago, IL.
  3. Anonymous, 2019. CAT 75 HYD., Wheaton, IL 60187-7901 USA. http://spraying systems co., Erişim tarihi: 20.04.2020.
  4. Arnaez, J., T. Lasanta, R. Ruiz-Flano & L. Ortigosa, 2007. Factors affecting runoff and erosion under simulated rainfall in Mediterranean vineyards. Soil and Tillage Research, 93: 324-334. https:// doi.10.1016/j.still.2006.05.013.
  5. Bubenzer, G.D. & L. D. Meyer, 1965, Simulation of rainfall and soils for laboratory research. Transaction of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 8: 73-75.
  6. ÇEM, 2018. Dinamik Erozyon Modeli ve İzleme Sistemi (DEMİS) Türkiye Su Erozyonu İstatistikleri, Teknik Özet. T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Çölleşme ve Erozyonla Mücadele Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, TÜRKİYE.
  7. Cerda, A., 1997. Rainfall drop size distrubution in the Western Mediterranean basin, Valencia, Spain. Catena 30: 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(97)00019-2.
  8. Chouksey, A. V. Lambey, B. R. Nikam, S. P., Aggarvald & S. Dutta, 2017. Hydrolgical modelling using a rainfall simulator over an experimental hillslope plot. Hydrology 4: 17. https://doi. 10.3390/hydrology4010017.
  9. Christiansen, J. E., 1942. Irrigation by sprinkling. University of California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, No: 670.
  10. De Sausa Junior, S. F., T.A. Mendes & E. Q. De Siqueirra, 2017. Development and calibration of a rainfall simulator for hydrological studies. Brazilian Journal of Water Resources, 22 (59): 2017. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0331.0217170015.