Optimal Performance

from Center Pivot

Sprinkler Systems
Bradley A. King and Dennis C. Kincaid

A good supply of groundwater and the commercial develop-

ment of center pivot irrigation systems significantly increased
sprinkler-irrigated acreage in southern Idaho during the late 1960s
and early 1970s. Today, center pivot systems, with their automation,
large areal coverage, reliability, high application uniformity, and
ability to operate on relatively rough topography, are replacing
surface, handline, and wheelline systems.
The irrigated area under a center pivot system expands
substantially with increasing system length. To accommodate the
increased area, the application rate increases linearly along the
center pivot lateral through one of two methods: increased flow
rates through equally spaced sprinklers or gradually decreased
spacing of equal-flow sprinklers along the center pivot lateral. The
most common approach is to have equally spaced sprinklers with
increasing flow rates (nozzle sizes) along the center pivot lateral.

Cooperative Extension System ● Agricultural Experiment Station BUL 797

 High-Pressure Sprinklers
In the 1960s, center pivot irrigation systems had standard
high-pressure (greater than 50 pounds per square inch) impact
sprinklers. These sprinkler packages provided good application
uniformity when the system nozzles were properly sized and
pressure variation along the lateral was within recommended limits.
However, losses from wind drift and evaporation under the dry,
windy conditions often encountered in arid and semi-arid environ-
ments were excessive. The sprinkler irrigation industry addressed
this problem by developing low angle and low pressure (25 to 40
pounds per square inch) impact sprinklers. These effectively
reduced wind drift and evaporation losses, but flow rate variation
caused by undulating topography continued to be a significant
problem. In the mid 1970s, flow control sprinkler nozzles and fixed-
pressure regulators were developed. They reduce the flow rate
variation due to topography to within tolerable limits. As a result,
reduced-pressure impact sprinklers could be used on center pivots.

Low-Pressure Spray Sprinklers

In the mid 1970s, escalating energy costs made the high
energy requirement of impact sprinklers a major concern among
producers. The sprinkler irrigation industry responded by develop-
ing low-pressure spray sprinklers (less than 30 pounds per square
inch) for center pivots. These have a fixed-head and a part or full-
circle application pattern. A deflection plate creates spray by
deflecting the water jet exiting the nozzle. The deflection plate can
be smooth or grooved with a concave, convex, or flat shape. Water
leaves the smooth plates as a mist-like spray and leaves grooved
plates as tiny streamlets. The sprinklers are either mounted upright
on the top of the lateral or mounted upsidedown on drop tubes or
booms that extend below the lateral. On undulating topography,
pressure regulators are required to minimize flow rate variations
and are commonly used to minimize the influence of pressure loss
along the lateral.
Spray sprinklers have a smaller wetted area than impact
sprinklers and require closer sprinkler spacing. The smaller wetted
area greatly increases application rates along the center pivot
system. This can intensify runoff problems, particularly on loam and
silt-loam soils. Various types of sprinkler booms have been devel-
oped to reduce application rates by increasing the wetted area
under the center pivot lateral. Today, the most popular type is an
offset boom with a horizontal length of 10 to 20 feet perpendicular
to the center pivot lateral. These offset booms are commonly used
on the outer one-half to one-third of a center pivot lateral.

2
 Recently developed moving-plate spray sprinklers also
decrease application rates by increasing wetted area. These
sprinklers, such as Rotators, Spinners, and Wobblers, reduce
the number of water streamlets which increasing drop size and
water throw distance. At the same time, they maintain good
application uniformity. Moving-plate spray sprinklers combined
with offset booms along the outer spans of the center pivot
provide efficient irrigation.

LEPA Systems
In the early 1980s, a low pressure application package for
center pivot systems known as LEPA (Low Energy Precision
Application) was developed for the southern plains states. A LEPA
package has very-low-pressure (6 to 10 pounds per square inch)
bubblers or furrow drag socks suspended on drop tubes at a height
of 1 to 3 feet above the soil surface. Crop rows are planted to follow
the circular path of the center pivot system, and alternate furrows
are wetted. LEPA systems have characteristically high application
rates that usually exceed the water infiltration rate. Basin tillage is
required to provide soil-surface storage until the water infiltrates.
Some LEPA applicators can be converted to spray heads having
wetted areas on the order of 10 to 25 feet in diameter. These have
good sprinkler pattern overlap and apply water uniformly. When
used in the crop canopy, the heads are usually spaced to match
alternate crop rows.
Irrigation application efficiencies of 90 to 95 percent have
been measured using LEPA sprinkler packages. This efficiency is
the result of reduced evaporation. By locating the applicators within
the crop canopy and near the soil surface, the amount of wetted
soil and wetted plant surface area is minimized. Wind drift and
spray evaporation are also eliminated. However, their high applica-
tion rates and their limited clearance of the applicators make the
LEPA packages unsuitable for slopes. They can not be transferred
directly to the agricultural production systems of Idaho where
undulating topography is common. One study in idaho on a silt
loam soil with 1 percent slope that compared a LEPA sprinkler
package against low-pressure sprinklers mounted on offset booms
found no significant difference in crop yield. The increase in appli-
cation efficiency of the LEPA system was offset by increased runoff
(Kincaid, 1994.)

3
 Application Rate
The main disadvantage of center pivot irrigation systems is the
high water application rates under their outer spans. Since sprinkler
flow rate increases linearly along the system lateral, application
rates at the outer end also increase with the length of the system.
Application rates under the outer spans of the standard quarter-
mile-long low-pressure center pivot normally exceed infiltration rate
and result in runoff. Runoff, the lateral redistribution of applied
water, causes areas of excessive and deficient soil water content in
the field, reducing crop yield and quality in these regions. The
potential for localized chemical leaching from the crop root zone
also increases in places where runoff collects. Soil-surface water
storage in small, natural depressions decreases the actual volume
of runoff. Surface storage can be enhanced by tillage practices,
such as basin or reservoir tillage.
Infiltration rate, which determines the potential for runoff, is
dynamic. Infiltration rate decreases during irrigation (figure 1). The
initial soil water content also affects the infiltration rate; an increase
in the initial soil water content decreases the infiltration rate. In
addition, infiltration rates normally decrease over the season due to
soil-surface sealing from sprinkler droplet impact. As a result, in row
crops such as potatoes, runoff may increase throughout the season.
Decreasing infiltration rates combined with high water application
rates make runoff a near certainty for standard quarter-mile-long
center pivots on all but sandy soils. Optimal center pivot system
performance requires the use of both proper sprinkler packages to
minimize water application rates and basin or reservoir tillage to
minimize runoff.

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8 Potential Runoff

0.6

Infiltration Rate Figure 1.

0.4 Graphical representation of
how water application rates
under a center pivot exceed
0.2 infiltration rate. Potential
Application Rate runoff is represented by the
shaded area.
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (min)

4
 Typical relative water application rate patterns for various
center pivot sprinkler packages are shown in figure 2. High-pressure
impact sprinklers have the lowest application rates followed by low-
pressure impact sprinklers. Low-pressure spray sprinkler packages,
listed from lowest application rate to highest, are offset booms with
rotators, offset booms with sprays, drop tubes with rotators, drop
tubes with sprays, and in-canopy sprays.
The peak application rate along the outer spans of a standard
quarter-mile-long center pivot system for all the sprinkler packages
exceeds the infiltration rate of most soils. Booms are an effective
means for increasing sprinkler wetted area while decreasing water
application rate. Since application rates are lower nearer the center
pivot point, booms are usually only used on the outer one-half to
one-third of a quarter-mile-long center pivot system.

10
1. High presure impact
9 2. Low pressure impact
3. Offset boom—rotator
8 4. Drop tune—rotator
5. Drop tune—spray
7 6. In-canopy spray

1 1
2 3 4 5 6
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (ft)

Figure 2.
Comparison of relative
application rates under
various center pivot sprinkler
packages.

5
 Low–Pressure Sprinkler Patterns
For a low-pressure center pivot sprinkler package, the shape of
the application rate pattern is defined by pressure, nozzle size, plate
configuration, sprinkler height, and wind speed. Sprinkler application
rate pattern and spacing determine application uniformity.

Pressure and nozzle size

Pressure and nozzle size control the drop size distribution from
a sprinkler and drop size influences the application rate pattern.
Higher pressure creates smaller drops while bigger nozzles produce
larger drops. Drop size also influences the trajectory of a given
sprinkler droplet. When initial velocities are equal, large droplets will
travel farther from the sprinkler than small droplets. Consequently,
high pressure or small nozzle sizes, which tend to produce smaller
droplets, increase application rates near the sprinkler while low
pressure or large nozzle sizes, which tend to produce larger drop-
lets, increase application rates farther from the sprinkler.
Obtaining suitable application rate patterns is dependent on
following the manufacturer’s nozzle size and pressure range recom-
mendations. However, donut application rate patterns may be
accentuated at the lowest recommended pressure, reducing appli-
cation uniformity. At the highest pressure recommendation, droplet
size is smaller and wind drift losses will increase. The best results
are often found near the middle of the manufacturer’s recommended
pressure range.

Deflection plate configuration

Sprinkler deflection plate configuration has a large effect on the
sprinkler application rate pattern. In general, smooth deflection plates
produce small drop sizes, which are highly susceptible to wind drift
losses, except at lower pressures (10 to 15 pounds per square inch).
Serrated deflection plates have many small grooves and are used with
fixed-plate sprinklers. Grooved deflection plates have four to six large
grooves and are used on moving-plate sprinklers.
Moving-plate sprinklers are the most common type in Idaho.
They maximize wetted sprinkler area while minimizing operating
pressure. The application rate pattern depends on the number of
grooves, trajectory angle, and speed of motion. The number of
grooves in the plates affects the drop size distribution. Fewer
grooves produce larger streamlets and larger drop sizes, which
travel farther from the sprinkler and maximize wetted area. Within
limits, greater trajectory angles produce more uniform application
rate patterns. The primary disadvantage of higher trajectory angles
is a greater susceptibility to wind drift. Lowering the sprinkler
elevation will reduce wind drift.
The effect of plate configuration and motion on sprinkler
application rate pattern is shown in figures 3 through 7.

6
 Figure 3.
Application rate pattern from
a 4-groove rotating-plate
spray sprinkler with an 8°
trajectory angle.

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

A 4-groove plate with an 8 degree trajectory (figure 3)

produces a concentrated application of water near the outer
spans of the wetted pattern, creating a donut-shaped application
rate pattern. The application rate pattern for the same sprinkler
with a 6-groove plate and a 12 degree trajectory angle (figure 4)
creates smaller droplet sizes and increases water application
near the sprinkler. The smaller droplet sizes combined with the
higher trajectory angle reduce the wetted area slightly. The
donut-shaped application rate pattern remains but to
a lesser degree because a larger percentage
of the water is applied near the sprinkler.

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

Figure 4.
Application rate pattern for
a 6-groove rotating-plate
spray sprinkler with a 12°
trajectory angle.

7
 Figure 5.
Application rate pattern from
a 6-groove spinning-plate
sprinkler with a 12°
trajectory angle.

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

The application rate pattern for a fast rotating-plate (spinner) with

6 grooves and 12 degree trajectory angle is shown in figure 5. The
faster rotation of the plate provides a more uniform application rate
pattern of elliptical shape with the highest application rate near the
sprinkler. The application rate pattern for the same sprinkler with a 20
degree trajectory angle is shown in figure 6. The greater trajectory
angle slightly increases the wetted area of the sprinkler, reducing the
application rate near the sprinkler.

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Figure 6.
Application rate
pattern from a 6-
groove spinning-plate
spray sprinkler with a
20° trajectory angle.

8
 Figure 7.
Application rate pattern from
a 9-groove wobbling-plate
spray sprinkler with a 15°
trajectory angle.

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

The application rate pattern from a wobbling-plate type sprin-

kler having 9 grooves and a 15–degree trajectory angle is shown in
figure 7. This application rate pattern resembles a truncated cone
with an additional elliptical shaped peak near the sprinkler. The
application rate pattern is very uniform except near the sprinkler.
For donut-shaped application rate patterns, such as those
illustrated in figures 3 and 4, the cumulative application rate pattern
produced by multiple sprinkler overlap is reasonably uniform. This,
combined with the effect of averaging the cumulative application
rate pattern as a center pivot passes over a point on the soil sur-
face, provides excellent application uniformity. Application rate
patterns that are more uniform in shape, such as those in figures 6
and 7, provide excellent application uniformity with less sprinkler
overlap. However, the individual sprinkler wetted areas are usually
smaller so the required sprinkler spacing is about the same as that
of sprinklers with larger donut-shaped application rate patterns.

9
 Sprinkler height
Sprinkler height influences the size of the sprinkler wetted area
and wind drift losses. Increasing sprinkler height increases sprinkler
wetted area slightly with no significant effect over the practical
heights of 6 to 10 feet. Sprinkler heights greater than 6 feet on short
crops (height less than 3 feet) do not significantly increase applica-
tion uniformity. However, sprinkler heights less than 6 feet signifi-
cantly decrease application uniformity, particularly for sprinklers
having deflection plates with low trajectory angles. With taller crops,
the optimal sprinkler height is the maximum canopy height.
Sprinkler heights greater than 6 feet significantly increase
spray losses due to wind drift and evaporation. Spray losses aver-
age about 3 and 5 percent for sprinkler heights of 3 and 6 feet,
respectively. Spray losses increase to 10 percent for sprinklers
(spray and impacts) mounted on the top of the center pivot at
heights of 12 to 15 feet. Spray losses can double as wind speed
increases from 0 to 5 miles per hour to 5 to 10 miles per hour. For
short crops, sprinkler heights near 6 feet provide good application
uniformity while maintaining reasonable spray losses.

Wind speed
Wind distorts the application rate pattern from spray sprinklers
and affects application uniformity. The effects of wind on the applica-
tion rate patterns for a Spinner and a Wobbler type spray sprinkler
are depicted in figures 8 and 9, respectively. Comparing these
patterns with those of figures 6 and 7 for the same sprinklers under
lower wind speeds reveals that the application rate patterns are
largely shifted downwind. Distortion of the application rate pattern is
most pronounced near the sprinkler where the smallest droplets
occur. Computer simulation of composite wind-affected application
rate patterns under a center pivot indicates that application unifor-
mity is not significantly reduced for wind speeds up to 10 miles per
hour. This favorable result is largely due to the multiple sprinkler
overlap required to obtain good uniformity with low-pressure sprin-
klers and to limiting sprinkler height to about 6 feet.

10
 Figure 8.
Wind–affected application
rate pattern from a 6-groove
spinning-plate spray sprinkler
with a 20° trajectory angle.

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Figure 9.
Wind–affected application
rate pattern from a 9-groove
wobbling-plate spray
sprinkler with a 15°
trajectory angle.

11
 Sprinkler Droplet Kinetic Energy
Many soils, particularly those containing significant silt frac-
tions, are susceptible to soil-surface sealing from sprinkler droplet
impact. The force of the droplets hitting the ground breaks down the
surface soil structure, forming a thin compacted layer that greatly
reduces infiltration rate. The application rate and the kinetic energy
of sprinkler droplets at impact are the major factors affecting soil-
surface seal formation. The infiltration rate reduction is a function of
the particular soil and the energy flux density. Energy flux density
combines the effects of sprinkler droplet kinetic energy and water
application rate into a single parameter that is expressed as power
per unit area (feet-pounds per minute per square foot or watts per
square meter). It correlates very well with infiltration rate.
The relationship be-
tween energy flux density
Energy flux density (W/m2)
and depth of infiltration prior
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
140 to runoff is illustrated in figure
10 for two different soils
5
120 under dry, bare conditions.
The silt loam soil is very
4 100 susceptible to soil-surface
sealing. The infiltration depth
80 prior to ponding decreases
3
very rapidly with a minimal
60
increase in energy flux
2
40
density. The loam soil is less
susceptible to soil-surface
1 sealing, but the depth of
20
infiltration prior to runoff still
0 0 decreases significantly as
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 energy flux density increases.
Energy flux density (ft–lb/min/ft2) The effect of sprinkler
droplet impact on the infiltra-
Figure 10.
Infiltration rate reduction by tion rate of a particular soil must be measured to develop a quantita-
energy density flux of tive relationship similar to that of figure 10. This is difficult because
sprinkler droplets for two
soils. Adapted from Thompson the results depend on soil surface conditions, soil structure, and soil
and James (1985) and water content. However, the general trend shown in figure 10 is
Mohammed and Kohl (1987).
applicable to any soil and useful in the selection of sprinklers for a
center pivot irrigation system.
Studies of runoff under center pivot irrigation systems indicate
that soil-surface sealing continues to develop with each additional
irrigation. The only way to recover from soil-surface seal formation is
to physically destroy it with a tillage operation. The best approach
for limiting soil-surface seal formation is to protect the soil surface
through residue management and to exclude water application from
bare soil conditions.

12
 When water applications must be made on bare soils, the
energy flux density should be reduced to delay formation of the soil-
surface seal. This can be accomplished by either using sprinklers
with reduced droplet kinetic energy, reducing application rate, or
both. Reducing the application rate is easiest and can be done by
renozzling the center pivot system to reduce flow rate. The applica-
tion rate under a center pivot is independent of system speed, so
adjusting the system speed does not affect formation of a soil-
surface seal.
The kinetic energy of a sprinkler droplet depends on droplet
size (mass) and velocity at impact with the soil surface. Droplet
velocity is also a function of drop size. Drop size distribution is
determined by sprinkler nozzle size, pressure, and deflection
plate configuration.
Figure 11 shows the kinetic energy per unit volume of water
applied (foot-pounds per cubic foot or joules per kilogram) versus
the dimensionless ratio (ft/ft, m/m) of nozzle size to pressure head
for several types of sprinklers. Droplet kinetic energy is highest for
sprinklers producing the largest drop sizes, such as standard
impact sprinklers and rotator type sprinklers having deflection
plates with few grooves.
Droplet kinetic energy is the
lowest for sprinklers produc-
25
ing small drop sizes such as 500
those using fixed sprays with 2 4 1
5
flat or serrated plates. There 20
400
is little difference in droplet 6
8
kinetic energy between the 7 10
3
300 15
various spray sprinklers, 9
except for the 4-groove
1. Large nozzle impact
rotating-plate sprinkler. Overall, 200 2. Small nozzle impact 10
3. Square nozzle impact
droplet kinetic energy varies 4. Rotator, 4–groove plate
only by a factor of three across 5. LDN
6. Rotator, 6–groove plate
100 5
all sprinkler types. 7. Spinner, 6–groove plate
8. Wobbler
Despite this limited range 9. Fixed–plate, serrated
10. Fixed–plate, smooth
in droplet kinetic energy, a 0 0
study of sugar beet emergence 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
comparing sprinklers with 105 D/H x 1000
3 3
ft-lb/ft and 315 ft-lb/ft of drop- let kinetic energy found a 13 Figure 11.
percent increase in sugar beet emergence under the sprinkler with Sprinkler droplet kinetic
energy for various sprinkler
two thirds less droplet kinetic energy (Lehrsch et al.) types as a function of the
Sprinkler selection does influence soil-surface seal formation. dimensionless ratio of
sprinkler nozzle diameter to
This not only affects infiltration rate, but has other agronomic sprinkler pressure head.
implications such as soil erosion, water application efficiency, and Adapted from Kincaid (1996).
nutrient distribution in the soil profile.

13
 Optimal Sprinkler Package Selection
and Installation
Sprinkler selection and installation have a significant effect on
the performance of a center pivot irrigation system. Both application
rate relative to infiltration rate and the susceptibility of the soil to
surface sealing need to be considered in the system design. The
application rate of low-pressure spray sprinklers can be reduced by
using offset booms on alternate sides of the center pivot lateral. On
soils with extremely low infiltration rates or with a high susceptibility
to soil-surface sealing, offset booms on both sides of the center
pivot lateral can be used at each sprinkler outlet to further reduce
application rate. The effectiveness of offset booms for reducing
application rate is shown in figures 12, 13, and 14.
The composite application rate for 6-groove rotating-plate
sprinklers on drop tubes is shown in figure 12.
Figure 13 shows the composite application rate under the
same sprinkler conditions with offset booms on alternate sides of
the center pivot lateral. The average application rate is reduced
about 30 percent by offset booms.
The composite application rate with two offset booms at each
sprinkler location and each sprinkler nozzle providing one-half the
flow rate is shown in figure 14. The application rate is reduced 5
percent compared to the single offset boom. The major advantage
of the double offset boom is that it uses smaller nozzles, which
reduces the kinetic energy of the droplets.

0 Figure 12.
Composite application rate
pattern under a center pivot
from 6-groove rotating-plate
sprinklers on drop tubes
with 10-foot sprinkler
spacing and 10 gallons-per-
minute flow rate.

14
 Figure 13.
Composite application rate
pattern under a center pivot
from rotating-plate sprinklers
on offset booms having a 15-
foot horizontal projection on
alternate sides of the center
3
pivot lateral with 10-foot
sprinkler spacing and 10
gallons-per-minute flow rate.

Figure 14.
Composite application rate
pattern under a center pivot 0
from rotating-type sprinklers
on an offset boom having a
15-foot horizontal projection
on both sides of the center
pivot lateral with 10-foot
sprinkler spacing and 10
gallon-per-hour flow rate.

15
 Table 1.
Application rates and application rate reduction provided by offset booms of various
lengths with a 10-foot sprinkler spacing and flow rate of 10 gallons per minute.

Application rate
Offset Application rate reduction Application
Sprinkler distance Average High 10% Average High 10% uniformity
type (ft) (in/hr) (in/hr) (%) (%) (%)
Fixed-plate 0 2.03 3.84 — — 97
smooth 10 1.45 3.31 71 86 97
15 1.28 2.56 62 67 97
20 1.11 2.52 55 66 97
Fixed-plate 0 2.13 4.35 — — 98
The highest ten percent application serrated 10 1.52 3.51 71 81 98
rate is the rate for which ten percent 15 1.32 2.87 62 66 98
of the wetted area exceeds this 20 1.15 2.75 54 63 98
value. It provides a better measure Rotator 0 1.44 2.37 — — 98
for comparing peak application rates 4-groove 10 1.12 2.24 78 95 98
than the absolute highest rate. 15 1.00 2.21 70 93 99
20 0.91 1.82 63 77 98
Rotator 0 1.54 2.47 — — 97
6-groove 10 1.17 2.27 76 92 97
15 1.04 2.12 67 86 97
20 0.94 1.65 61 67 97
Spinner 0 1.58 2.76 — — 97
6-groove 10 1.22 2.49 78 90 97
15 1.09 1.97 69 72 97
20 0.97 1.50 62 54 97
Wobbler 0 1.42 2.41 — — 100
low angle 10 1.11 2.27 79 94 100
15 1.00 1.94 70 80 100
20 0.90 1.41 64 58 100

Table 1 lists the average and highest 10 percent application

rates for various types of spray sprinklers on offset booms installed
on alternate sides of a center pivot lateral. The same information for
two offset booms is listed in table 2. The exact application rates will
change with sprinkler flow rate, but the relative reductions will
remain nearly the same. Offset booms are relatively inexpensive
and very effective in reducing the application rate.
Since the application rate under low-pressure spray sprinklers
can be minimized by using offset booms, sprinkler selection should
be based on drop size distribution. Small drop sizes have the least
droplet kinetic energy but are the most susceptible to wind drift
losses. Large drop sizes have the highest droplet kinetic energy but
are the least susceptible to wind drift losses. Sprinklers that provide
a compromise between these two extremes are best. Most moving-
plate sprinklers have medium drop sizes and maximum wetted area.
Because they all have about the same droplet kinetic energy, the
final selection of the brand rests on personal preference.
The significant differences in the application rate patterns of
the various moving-plate sprinklers influence the spacing of the
sprinkler heads (table 3). Fixed-plate spray sprinklers with their
smaller wetted area require closer spacing than the moving plate
spray sprinklers. Wobbler type sprinklers with their more uniform
application rate pattern allow for larger spacing.

16
Table 2.
Application rates and reduction provided by double offset booms of various lengths
with a 10-foot sprinkler spacing and flow rate of 5 gallons per minute.

Application rate
Offset Application rate Reduction Application
Sprinkler distance Average High 10% Average High 10% uniformity
type (ft) (in/hr) (in/hr) (%) (%) (%)
Fixed-plate 0 2.03 4.02 — — 98
smooth 10 1.42 2.76 70 69 98
15 1.24 2.05 61 51 98
20 1.09 2.01 54 50 98
Fixed-plate 0 2.24 3.93 — — 99
serrated 10 1.52 3.23 68 82 99
15 1.33 1.96 59 50 99
20 1.15 1.96 51 50 99
Rotator 0 1.63 3.04 — — 99
4-groove 10 1.21 2.27 74 75 99
15 1.06 2.30 65 76 99
20 0.96 2.06 59 68 99
Rotator 0 1.90 3.37 — — 97
6-groove 10 1.35 2.65 71 79 97
15 1.19 1.80 62 54 96
20 1.05 1.69 55 50 97
Spinner 0 2.02 3.42 — — 96
6-groove 10 1.42 2.82 70 82 96
15 1.25 1.77 62 52 96
20 1.09 1.72 54 50 96
Wobbler 0 1.55 2.58 — — 98
low angle 10 1.17 2.19 75 85 98
15 1.02 1.80 66 70 98
20 0.94 1.33 61 52 98

Pressure also has a significant effect on the required spacing.

Higher pressure allows wider spacing because of the resulting
smoother application rate pattern and slight increase in the wetted
area. With most spray sprinklers, low pressure produces a donut-
shaped application rate pattern. As a result, closer spacing is
needed in order to maintain application uniformity. Due to the high
flow rates required on the outer portion of center pivots, large
spacings require large nozzle sizes, which may result in excessively
large drops, particularly at low pressures.
Center pivot sprinkler outlets are normally spaced about 8 to Table 3.
Recommended maximum sprinkler
10 feet apart. This spacing is adequate for all but fixed-plate spray spacings for low pressure spray sprinklers
sprinklers and rotators at 10 pounds per square inch. Since every at a 6-foot height.

sprinkler outlet is normally used along the outer half of a standard Sprinkler Pressure (psi)
quarter-mile-long center pivot, all the moving-plate type spray type 10 15 20 30

sprinklers provide good application uniformity. The difference Fixed-plate 6 8 8 10

Rotator 4-groove 8 10 12 14
between sprinklers occurs when spacing exceeds 10 feet, such as Rotator 6-groove 8 10 12 14
along the inner portion of the center pivot where alternate sprinkler Spinner 6-groove 8 10 12 14
Wobbler low angle 12 14 14 16
outlets are commonly used and flow rates are small. There may be Wobble high angle 14 16 16 18
a slight increase in application uniformity with sprinklers that allow
larger spacings. The actual application uniformity under field condi-
tions will likely be less than 95 percent due to wind effects and
actual sprinkler height. In general, all moving-plate type sprinklers
provide good application uniformity with spacings normally encoun-
tered on center pivots.

17
 Table 4.
Advantages and disadvantages of spray sprinkler deflection plate features and sprinkler mounting.
Feature Advantages Disadvantages
Deflection plate configuration
Fixed-plate, smooth Minimum droplet kinetic energy High application rate, high wind
drift loss, close sprinkler spacing
required for high application
uniformity
Fixed-plate, serrated Low droplet kinetic energy High application rate, high wind
drift loss, close sprinkler spacing
required for high application
uniformity
Moving-plate, 4-groove Lowest average application rate, Highest droplet kinetic energy
low wind drift loss, larger sprinkler
spacing allowable
Moving-plate, 6-groove & Low average application rate, low Moderate droplet kinetic energy
9-groove wind drift loss, larger sprinkler
spacing allowable

Trajectory angle
Less than 15 degrees Reduced wind drift loss Donut application rate pattern
requiring closer sprinkler spacing to
maintain high application uniformity
More than 15 degrees More uniform application rate Increased wind drift loss
pattern allowing larger sprinkler
spacing

Mounting configuration
Overhead Low cost, higher uniformity with High wind drift loss
larger sprinkler spacing
Drops Reduced wind drift loss Increased cost, slightly increased
application rate, spacing more
critical for high application
uniformity
Offsets Reduced application rate High cost

18
Summary
Center pivot sprinkler packages have changed significantly
since they were first introduced. The original high-pressure impact
sprinklers have been largely replaced by low-pressure spray sprin-
klers. The current moving-plate spray sprinklers, the result of years
of development by the sprinkler industry, minimize operating pres-
sure while increasing application uniformity. When properly selected
and installed, these sprinklers provide an efficient center pivot
irrigation system.
In general, there is very little difference in application uniformity
and irrigation efficiency between the common low-pressure moving-
plate spray sprinklers available today. The primary advantages and
disadvantages of the various low-pressure spray sprinkler features are
listed in table 4. Offset booms are usually required on the outer spans
of a center pivot to reduce application rates to acceptable levels to
minimize runoff potential, especially on silt loam soils.
Soils susceptible to soil-surface sealing can be protected by
reducing application rates and droplet kinetic energy via the use of
two offset booms at each sprinkler outlet, temporarily renozzling the
sprinkler package to reduce the system flow rate, and managing
residue through conservation tillage practices. Even with the use of
offset booms, application rates from low pressure spray sprinklers
exceed the infiltration rate of most soils. Basin or reservoir tillage
can increase surface storage and significantly reduce actual runoff.
Low pressure spray sprinklers should be installed at a height
of about 6 feet for low growing crops. This height maintains good
application uniformity, limits wind drift, and reduces droplet evapora-
tion losses to acceptable levels. LEPA packages should only be
used on near level topography. The increase in application efficiency
of LEPA systems from reduced evaporative and wind drift losses is
easily overcome by increased runoff on silt loam soils. The in-
creased cost of LEPA sprinkler packages relative to low pressure
sprinkler packages and the additional effort needed to plant crop
rows to follow the circular travel of the center pivot system are not
justified by the marginal increase in application efficiency.

19
References
Kincaid, D.C. 1996. Spray drop kinetic energy from irrigation sprinklers. Trans. ASAE 39(3):847-853.
Kincaid, D.C. 1994. Comparison of modified LEPA and low elevation spray system for center pivot irrigation.
ASAE Paper No. 94-2099. St. Joseph, MI.
Kincaid, D.C., M. Nabil, and J.R. Busch. 1986. Spray losses and uniformity with low pressure center pivots.
ASAE Paper No. 86-2091. St. Joseph, MI.
Lehrsch, G.A., D.C. Kincaid, and R.D. Lentz. 1996. PAM spray effects on sugarbeet emergence. Managing
Irrigation Induced Erosion and Infiltration with Polyacrylamide Conference Proceedings, University of
Idaho, Moscow, ID. p. 115-118.
Mohammed, D. and R.A. Kohl. 1987. Infiltration response to kinetic energy. Trans. ASAE 30(1):108-111.
Thompson, A.L. and L.G. James. 1985. Water droplet impact and its effect on infiltration. Trans ASAE
28(5):1506-1520.

Authors:
Bradley A. King is an irrigation research engineer in the Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department at the University of Idaho Aberdeen Research and Extension Center.
Dennis C. Kincaid is an agricultural engineer for the USDA Agricultural Research Service at the
Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly Idaho.

Copyright © 1997 University of Idaho College of Agriculture

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted for commercial purposes in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written consent of the publisher.

Copies of this publication can be obtain by sending $5.00 plus $2.00 postage and handling (and 5% Idaho sales tax if
applicable) to Agricultural Publications, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2240; TEL & FAX 208 885-7982; email
[email protected]; website http://info.ag.uidaho.edu. A copy of the Resources of Idaho catalog of publications and
videos can be obtained free from the same office.

Issued in furtherance of cooperative Extension work in agriculture and home economics, Acts of May 8 and June 30,
1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, LeRoy D. Luft, Director of Cooperative Extension System,
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83844. The University of Idaho provides equal opportunity in education and employ-
ment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, or status as a Vietnam-era veteran, as
required by state and federal laws.
600; 12-97 $4.00