Irrigation system for a large (still) empty plot

So. Now I have drawn in a few sprinklers.
For now, just for the lawn irrigation.

As can be seen at the top right of the picture, the different colors represent MP1000 (6x), MP2000 (9x), and MP3000 (19x) rotators.



Is this understandable in general for now?

I have now inserted a few letters where I still have questions:

A: I saw something somewhere about rectangular sprinklers. I think they would be more suitable here, right? Or should they be avoided?

B: Here I have large overlaps of the sprinklers with the shrubs. I understood that you can adjust the sprinklers so that those areas are excluded. Does that work very well or rather roughly? Especially for the one MP3000 in this case, it would be very limited. Actually, it is more of a very long narrow strip.

C: Similar to A. Better to use a rectangular sprinkler here?

D: Could the 90° MP3000 in the corner be omitted or better not?

E: Here the MP1000 covers a very small area. Can this be solved more efficiently somehow?

In general. If I set a sprinkler in an area of 90° so that it throws the first 45° up to 8m, the next 30° only 6m, and the remaining 15° again 7m.
Can the MP rotator do that? And if yes, then is the precipitation rate per irrigated m2 equal over the entire 90°? So the MP1000 90° only requires 0.8 l/min if it is set to full throw distance over the entire 90°, and if I reduce parts of the throw distance, it "consumes" correspondingly less. What do the square and triangle in the last two columns of precipitation mm/h mean?

Hello Denz,

already a good start.

A: Whether you can use the Hunter rectangular sprinklers effectively depends on the distances/areas. Open the data sheet. In narrow areas/paths/passages, they are a good solution. Use them on both sides of the path. That’s the nice thing about the rotor system that you can combine sprinklers freely. You can use the rectangular sprinklers without hesitation if it makes sense. Here is a case where I would use them.

B: No, you cannot exclude areas in the middle. You can only set the angle and the start point. The rule here is actually "start from the corners". So at the boxwood and the hedge. In this special case, I would rather use rectangular sprinklers below and omit the MP3000. From above, you already have multiple coverage so that the overlap of the rectangular sprinklers among each other would be sufficient.

C: No meaningful application area for rectangular sprinklers. Replace MP1000 with MP2000 so that they reach each other.

D: Could be omitted since you reach the spot from two sides with the other sprinklers.

E: The sprinkler belongs on the outer edge, so further left. In general, this field is not well solved and you have a dry area above (intended?). Furthermore, the sprinklers do not reach each other. I understand that you want to save on required flow rate and sprinklers. I would still place a sprinkler in the lower right. The advantage is that the tree is located fairly centrally. Therefore, the water will hit the tree close to the ground and it should not harm it. Depending on the tree, additional tree irrigation could be omitted.

Again on the functions of the rotor heads:
- MP1000, 2000, 3000 have different ranges that can be regulated up to 25%
- The heads are available in different angles: 90°-210°, 210°-270°, 360°, Corner 45°, Strip 180°, Strip 90° right and left. You can regulate the angles on the first three. Range and angle are then fixed for the entire path.

If you reduce the range, the water consumption also decreases. Likewise, if you use, for example, a 45° corner instead of a 90° head, water consumption is only 0.4 l/min instead of 0.8 l/min. Now the big advantage: precipitation rate per m2 remains (almost) the same. Thus, you can combine all possible heads. With different sprinkler systems, you would otherwise have to calculate the precipitation rates and possibly create separate circuits for different sprinklers.

What you described is a multi-area sprinkler. Available from, for example, Gardena. So far we have had only bad experiences. Not durable, no homogeneous precipitation, wind-sensitive, expensive, etc. It is also not retractable. There is a reason why this does not exist in the professional sector (Hunter, RainBird, Perrot).

The square and the triangle describe the sprinkler arrangement and the associated precipitation rates. Square layout and equilateral triangle. You don’t have to worry about that. The precipitation amount only needs to be homogeneous. You regulate the absolute water amount via the irrigation duration. Important for you is the required volume per hour m3/h in order to determine the circuits.

Hello Rick,

ok thanks. Now it's slowly becoming clearer. That means I set a sprinkler, for example 140°, and a throw distance of 7.5m, and then it is fixed over the entire area it waters.



So I set sprinkler 4, which now slightly overlaps the terrace from the right, so that it does not water the terrace. So to a radius of 7.8m. However, then it no longer reaches sprinklers 5 and 6. That means I have to shift everything a little upwards on the plan and then the rectangular sprinkler at the bottom no longer quite fits.

How is it with sprinklers 2 and 6, would you leave them set like that and just water the shrubs accordingly?

I don’t quite understand why sprinkler 3 should be changed from MP1000 to MP2000. That way it doesn’t reach the other one either. Now I also have to set the two so that they do not water the path. Then they reach each other even less. In theory, I probably should use 4 sprinklers – one in each corner – but isn’t that overkill?

At 1 there is supposed to be a wooden shelter, including a space for garbage bins. The path to it runs diagonally, so I didn’t place the sprinkler there at the hedge but at the bending point of the wooden shelter and the beginning of the paving, so I can set the angle accordingly on the sprinkler.

So to understand correctly, all sprinklers of the MP Rotator series have approximately the same precipitation per m²? That means I now only divide the groups according to 2 aspects: once by different water requirements. For the entire lawn it is basically the same (or do I have to group shaded areas separately?) and the beds and hedges each get separate groups/circuits.

I wanted to prepare the Excel sheet now to determine the circles later. I noticed that different pressures also produce different throwing distances. That’s clear. However, I somehow assumed that the maximum throwing distance was already reached at the recommended pressure of 2.8 bar. That is true for the MP3000. Unfortunately, not for the others. In addition, the information on the website is also different. In the Models tab, the MP2000 range is given as 4.0-6.7m. But in the Operating Data tab, only a maximum of 6.4m is indicated. So what is correct? (Additionally, I have only assumed 90-93% of the specified throwing distance for the planning.)

Hello Denz,

unfortunately I don't have time right now, so just a brief answer to some points:
- with 3 sprinklers either set them so that they reach each other (and thereby also water the path) or use several sprinklers. Multiple sprinklers cost more, require more volume per hour, but you have a shorter watering duration. The precipitation rate is still low enough so that the lawn won't be flooded.

- Yes, the rotor heads have (almost) the same precipitation per m2. When creating the circles, you just need to pay attention to the maximum flow/water consumption, shaded and sunny areas, and the water requirements of the plants if these differ.

- Regarding pressure and throw distances: download the datasheet of the Hunter rotors. I would recommend using pressure-regulating housings (PRS-40). This way the pressure at each sprinkler head is the same and it doesn't matter where in the circle it is located. Additionally, this gives you more freedom in positioning within the irrigation circles. The pressure is always at 2.8 bar. You run with nearly the maximum allowable pressure of the housings into the supply line (6 bar). The 2.8 is the optimal operating range. Thus you also have constant throw distances that you can plan with.

No problem. The time isn’t pressing yet.

I’ve roughly calculated now and must have a mistake somewhere:

I currently have 4x MP1000, 10x MP2000, 16x MP3000, 3x MP left/right strip and 3x MP side strip.
With the flow rates from the datasheet for the individual angles etc., I come to a total of 179.88 l/min.

I’ve read that lawns need about 10-15 l/m² twice a week. The sprinklers all have a precipitation rate of 10-12 mm.
Let’s assume 10mm and 10l twice a week to simplify things. (10mm equals 10l/h.)

That means I need, say, 2100m² (the rest is built-up) 21,000l = 21m³ and that twice a week.
With 10mm precipitation, the sprinklers run (assuming the pump delivers 2m³/h and the lawn needs the same amount everywhere and there are no odd numbers) 21m³ / 2m³/h * 2x a week = 21m³ per week * 4 weeks/month = 84m³/month just for the lawn.
The average water consumption per year is 3.5m³/person/month. So for 2 people a year that’s exactly 84m³ but per year. Crazy!

The sprinklers would then run a total of 10.5 hours per week.

Do I have a mistake here somewhere? I find the amount that goes just to the lawn pretty huge.

Well, I haven’t considered natural precipitation in the form of rain here.