| Literature DB >> 35595883 |
Hongfei Tao1,2, Juanqin Tao3,4, Qiao Li3,4, Mahemujiang Aihemaiti3,4, Youwei Jiang3,4, Wenxin Yang3,4, Jianqun Wei3,4.
Abstract
The hydraulic performance of single-wing labyrinth drip irrigation tapes under the coupling effect of water and fertilizer affects the operating efficiency of the entire drip irrigation system. In this study, three types of single-wing labyrinth drip irrigation tapes were studied. We evaluated the average relative flow of each type and conducted indoor uniform orthogonal tests of three factors, namely, fertilizer concentration, sediment content, and operating pressure. The results showed that the order of the factors affecting the average relative flow of single-wing labyrinth drip irrigation tape was sediment content > fertilizer concentration > operating pressure. The projection pursuit regression (PPR) models of the average relative flow of three types of single-wing labyrinth drip irrigation tapes (H1, H2, and H3) were established. The root mean square errors (nRMSE) of these three models were 0.66%, 0.74%, 0.34%, respectively, indicating their excellent prediction performance. The optimal performance of the three types of tapes were obtained when the fertilizer concentration was 0.6 g/L, the sediment content was 1 g/L, and the operating pressure was 40 kPa. Under the optimal condition, the average relative flows of H1-type, H2-type, and H3-type were 0.792, 0.764, and 0.700, respectively.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35595883 PMCID: PMC9123216 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12638-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Photograph of drip irrigation tape.
Hydraulic performance parameters of studied drip irrigation tapes.
| Type | Outer diameter (mm) | Water outlet spacing (cm) | Number of trapezoidal flow channel teeth | Rated pressure (kPa) | Rated flow (L/h) | Flow coefficient | Flow regime index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | 16 | 30 | 85 | 100 | 1.8 | 0.11 | 0.60 |
| H2 | 16 | 30 | 63 | 100 | 2.6 | 0.16 | 0.61 |
| H3 | 16 | 30 | 54 | 100 | 3.2 | 0.25 | 0.55 |
Figure 2Sediment particle curve.
Figure 3Schematic of anti-clogging performance test platform for drip irrigation tapes/pipes.
UL9 (33) uniform orthogonal test design.
| No | Factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 40 |
| 2 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 100 |
| 3 | 0.6 | 3.0 | 70 |
| 4 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 100 |
| 5 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 70 |
| 6 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 40 |
| 7 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 70 |
| 8 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 40 |
| 9 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 100 |
Results of uniform orthogonal tests.
| No | Factor level | Average relative flow (q) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | H2 | H3 | ||||
| 1 | 0.6 | 1 | 40 | 0.793 | 0.702 | 0.764 |
| 2 | 0.6 | 2 | 100 | 0.653 | 0.628 | 0.653 |
| 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 70 | 0.564 | 0.523 | 0.587 |
| 4 | 1.8 | 1 | 100 | 0.702 | 0.693 | 0.711 |
| 5 | 1.8 | 2 | 70 | 0.564 | 0.657 | 0.588 |
| 6 | 1.8 | 3 | 40 | 0.523 | 0.502 | 0.534 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 70 | 0.603 | 0.647 | 0.621 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 40 | 0.55 | 0.573 | 0.548 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 100 | 0.431 | 0.457 | 0.451 |
Variance analysis of average relative flow.
| Type | Source of variance | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Fertilizer concentration | 0.030 | 2 | 0.015 | 121.908 | 0.008 |
| Sediment content | 0.056 | 2 | 0.028 | 227.378 | 0.004 | |
| Operating pressure | 0.003 | 2 | 0.002 | 12.377 | 0.075 | |
| Error | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | |||
| H2 | Fertilizer concentration | 0.007 | 2 | 0.003 | 25.732 | 0.037 |
| Sediment content | 0.054 | 2 | 0.027 | 204.190 | 0.005 | |
| Operating pressure | 0.001 | 2 | 0.000 | 2.048 | 0.328 | |
| Error | 0.0003 | 2 | 0.0001 | |||
| H3 | Fertilizer concentration | 0.025 | 2 | 0.012 | 66.928 | 0.015 |
| Sediment content | 0.046 | 2 | 0.023 | 125.351 | 0.008 | |
| Operating pressure | 0.000 | 2 | 0.000 | 1.152 | 0.465 | |
| Error | 0.0004 | 2 | 0.0002 |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Weight coefficients of influencing factors.
| Type | Factor | Sediment content (g/L) | Fertilizer concentration (g/L) | Operating pressure (kPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Weight coefficient | 1 | 0.712 | 0.261 |
| H2 | 1 | 0.733 | 0.076 | |
| H3 | 1 | 0.512 | 0.185 |
Results of PPR models.
| Type | Group | Measured value | Predicted value | Absolute error | Relative error (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | 1 | 0.793 | 0.792 | − 0.001 | 0.164 |
| 2 | 0.653 | 0.656 | 0.003 | 0.490 | |
| 3 | 0.564 | 0.558 | − 0.006 | 1.082 | |
| 4 | 0.702 | 0.698 | − 0.004 | 0.527 | |
| 5 | 0.564 | 0.565 | 0.001 | 0.230 | |
| 6 | 0.523 | 0.526 | 0.003 | 0.574 | |
| 7 | 0.603 | 0.611 | 0.008 | 1.244 | |
| 8 | 0.55 | 0.549 | − 0.001 | 0.200 | |
| 9 | 0.431 | 0.428 | − 0.003 | 0.650 | |
| H2 | 1 | 0.764 | 0.764 | − 0.001 | 0.065 |
| 2 | 0.653 | 0.660 | 0.007 | 1.072 | |
| 3 | 0.587 | 0.584 | − 0.003 | 0.545 | |
| 4 | 0.711 | 0.704 | − 0.007 | 1.055 | |
| 5 | 0.588 | 0.586 | − 0.002 | 0.323 | |
| 6 | 0.534 | 0.539 | 0.005 | 0.899 | |
| 7 | 0.621 | 0.626 | 0.005 | 0.741 | |
| 8 | 0.548 | 0.544 | − 0.004 | 0.730 | |
| 9 | 0.451 | 0.452 | 0.001 | 0.133 | |
| H3 | 1 | 0.702 | 0.700 | − 0.002 | 0.342 |
| 2 | 0.628 | 0.629 | 0.001 | 0.175 | |
| 3 | 0.523 | 0.522 | − 0.001 | 0.249 | |
| 4 | 0.693 | 0.693 | 0.000 | 0.058 | |
| 5 | 0.657 | 0.655 | − 0.002 | 0.244 | |
| 6 | 0.502 | 0.507 | 0.005 | 0.936 | |
| 7 | 0.647 | 0.648 | 0.001 | 0.139 | |
| 8 | 0.573 | 0.572 | − 0.001 | 0.262 | |
| 9 | 0.457 | 0.457 | 0.000 | 0.088 |
Comparison of measured and predicted values of average relative flow of testing samples (H1 type).
| No | Factor level | Average relative flow | Error | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured value | Predicted value | Absolute error | Relative error (%) | ||||
| 1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 40 | 0.836 | 0.801 | − 0.035 | 4.187 |
| 2 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 100 | 0.743 | 0.719 | − 0.024 | 3.230 |
| 3 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 70 | 0.572 | 0.594 | 0.022 | 3.846 |
| 4 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 100 | 0.734 | 0.766 | 0.032 | 4.360 |
| 5 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 70 | 0.657 | 0.625 | − 0.032 | 4.871 |
| 6 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 40 | 0.534 | 0.559 | 0.025 | 4.682 |
| 7 | 3 | 0.5 | 70 | 0.667 | 0.674 | 0.007 | 1.049 |
| 8 | 3 | 1.5 | 40 | 0.608 | 0.593 | − 0.015 | 2.467 |
| 9 | 3 | 2.5 | 100 | 0.438 | 0.457 | 0.019 | 4.338 |
Figure 4PPR contour map for H1 drip irrigation tape.
Figure 5PPR contour map for H2 drip irrigation tape.
Figure 6PPR contour map for H3 drip irrigation tape.
Optimal combination of average relative flow.
| Type | S sediment content (g/L) | E fertilizer concentration (g/L) | B operating pressure (kPa) | Measured q value | Predicted q value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | 1 | 0.6 | 40 | 0.793 | 0.792 |
| H2 | 1 | 0.6 | 40 | 0.764 | 0.764 |
| H3 | 1 | 0.6 | 40 | 0.702 | 0.700 |