| Literature DB >> 32143482 |
André Glória1,2, Carolina Dionisio1, Gonçalo Simões1, João Cardoso1, Pedro Sebastião1,2.
Abstract
This paper introduces a new way of managing water in irrigation systems, which can be applied to gardens or agricultural fields, replacing human intervention with Wireless Sensor Networks. A typical irrigation system wastes on average 30% of the water used, due to poor management and configuration. This sustainable irrigation system allows a better efficiency in the process of irrigation that can lead to savings for the end user, not only monetary but also in natural resources, such as water and energy, leading to a more sustainable environment. The system can retrieve real time data and use them to determinate the correct amount of water to be used in a garden. With this solution, it is possible to save up to 34% of water when using sensor data from temperature, humidity and soil moisture, or up to 26% when using only temperature inputs. Besides a detailed system architecture, this paper includes a real case scenario implementation and results discussion.Entities:
Keywords: ESP32; Internet of Things; LoRa; Wireless Sensor Networks; sustainability; water savings
Year: 2020 PMID: 32143482 PMCID: PMC7085535 DOI: 10.3390/s20051402
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1System Architecture [7] ©2019 IEEE.
Figure 2Smart Node.
Sensor node power consumption.
| Node Status | Power Consumption |
|---|---|
| Transmitting | 80 mA |
| Collecting data | 20 mA |
| Deep Sleep | 100 |
Sensor node power consumption.
| Interval | Battery Life-Cycle |
|---|---|
| 10 min | 2 months |
| 30 min | 5 months |
| 1 h | 13 months |
| 4 h | ±3 years |
| 12 h | ±5 years |
| 24 h | ±10 years |
Major Communication Wireless Protocols Characteristics.
| Feature | Wi-Fi | Bluetooth | ZigBee | LoRa | SigFox | NB-IoT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Rate (kbps) | 11 × 103 | 1 × 103 | 250 | 110 | 1 × 10−3 | 250 |
| Frequency (GHz) | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 0.868 | 0.868 | 1.8 |
| Range (m) | 1–100 | 10–100 | 10–100 | 5000 | 10,000 | 1000 |
| Nodes/Master | 32 | 7 | 65,540 | 15,000 | - | - |
| Power Consumption | 100–350 | 1–35 | 1–10 | 1–10 | 1–10 | 1–100 |
| Security | WPA/WPA2 | 128 bit | 128 bit | 128 bit | - | 128 bit |
Figure 3MQTT architecture.
Figure 4(a) Satellite Image of the Garden; (b) Irrigation zones and sensor implementation.
Figure 5(a) Smart Node with Soil sensor; (b) Irrigation zones and sensor implementation.
Figure 6Data collected: (a) 2 week June data; (b) 2 week July data.
Figure 7IPMA vs Sensor data comparison.
Average irrigation time per scenario.
| Scenario | Average Irrigation Time (min) |
|---|---|
| Current system | 42 |
| (1) | 33.6 |
| (2) | 32.3 |
| (3) | 28.7 |
Water used per scenario.
| Scenario | Water Used (L/h) | Savings |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | 614376 | - |
| (b) | 463561 | 24.55% |
| (c) | 452017 | 26.43% |
| (c) | 401541 | 34.64% |