Session Description: smart irrigation technologies saving water on the weather ET-based smart controllers soil moisture sensors

Transcription

1 Trends in Smart Irrigation Technologies by Dr. Steven C. Carlin, Ph.D., CID, CLIA Teufel Landscape For Oregon Landscape Contractors Association (OLCA) December 1, 2011 Trends in Smart Irrigation Technologies Session Description: This session will focus on the two main smart irrigation technologies that have emerged for saving water in commercial and residential landscapes, namely irrigation controllers that adjust the watering schedules based on the weather (commonly called evapotranspiration or ET-based smart controllers) and those that adjust the watering frequency based on soil moisture sensors. It will briefly review the types of systems available for both technologies, and it will point out the need to improve and maintain the distribution uniformity of the irrigation system along with installing either of these new technologies. Also discussed will be results from multi-year evaluations of smart controllers in California and Texas where many different systems were tested for realworld performance in the hands of contractors and homeowners in many different parts of those states, along with preliminary results from the Portland Water Bureau's 3-year Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Study that the speaker is currently overseeing. Trends in Smart Irrigation Technologies Introductory Biography: The speaker has been involved with water conserving "smart" water technologies for over twenty-five years, having several patents for smart irrigation controllers. He helped to develop the LEIT 8000 controller for Solatrol, Inc. (now marketed by DIG Inc.) that was one of the first controllers to incorporate weatherbased irrigation scheduling with its Monthly Water Budget feature based on historical ETs. He also helped to develop the Calsense ET controllers, the RainMaster Evolution ET controller, the Accurate WeatherSet residential controller, and controllers for 3 other companies as well. Mr. Carlin has run many large RainBird Maxicom and other central irrigation systems for large campuses including Microsoft, Boeing, Intel, the Las Vegas Strip, and The Allison Inn in Newberg, and he is currently the Project Manager for the Portland Water Bureau's 3-year Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program.

2 Trends in Smart Irrigation Technologies Solar Radiation drives ETo Water, Carbon Dioxide, and Sunlight are the raw materials that plants use for making sugars & oxygen during Photosynthesis The amount of water used in photosynthesis is directly proportional to light intensity it or Solar Radiation. 90% of Plant Water Use Evapotranspiration or ETo) is driven by Solar Radiation. Stomata (plant pores for breathing ) open & close in response to light close on cloudy days. Photosynthesis Machine by Steven C. Carlin (Laboratory Guide for Biological Science, W. W. Norton, 1968) Seasonal Weather Changes Tigard Maxicom Weather Station ET To /1/2004 2/1/2004 3/1/2004 4/1/2004 5/1/2004 6/1/2004 7/1/2004 8/1/2004 9/1/ /1/ /1/ /1/2004 1/1/2005

3 Water Savings with Weather- based Irrigation Control Central Control Systems Baseline 6000 (hardwire, Ethernet, phone, radio) Calsense ET2000 (hardwire, phone, radio) Rainbird Maxicom (hardwire, Ethernet, phone, radio) Rainbird IQ 2.0 (hardwire, Ethernet, t phone, radio) Rainbird Site Control(hardwire, Ethernet, phone, radio) RainMaster Evolution (hardwire, phone, radio) RainMaster icentral (cell phone / Internet) Toro Sentinel (hardwire, phone, radio) Stand-alone alone Weather-based Controllers Accurate WeatherSet (uses Solar and Rainfall sensors on site) Aqua Conserve (uses historical ET & Temperature Sensor on site) Calsense ET2000 (uses ET Gage [atmometer] to measure ET) ET Water Systems (uses ETo data broadcast via the Internet) Hunter ET System (add-on unit uses on-site weather station) Hunter Solar Sync (uses Solar and rainfall sensors on site) Rainbird ET Manager (uses broadcast Weather Reach ETo data add on to existing controllers) Rainbird ESP SMT (uses on-site rain bucket and temperature sensor) RainMaster Eagle (uses broadcast ETo data via cellular modem card or on-site weather station) Weathermatic Smartline (uses historical ET & Temperature Sensor on site) WeatherTRAK (uses broadcast Weather [ETo] data) HydroPoint, Irritrol and Toro versions Weather Reach (uses broadcast weather [ETo] data add on to existing controllers now marketed as Rainbird ET Manager)

4 On-site Weather Sensors vs. Broadcast ET data New Smart Controller OR Add-on to Existing Controller Controllers Tested in Texas Smart ET Controller Study by Texas A & M University in 2010 Texas A & M Testing (Table 2): the controller name, type, communication method, and sensors attached to the controllers evaluated in this study. All controllers were connected to a rain shut off device unless equipped with a rain gauge. Communication Controller Name Type Sensors Method ET Water ET Pager None Rainbird ET Tipping Bucket ET Pager Manager Rain Gauge Accurate Sensor Based None Pyranometer WeatherSet Weathermatic Sensor Based None Temperature Smartline Hunter ET Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge, Sensor Based None System Pyranometer, Temperature/ RH Hunter Solar Sensor Based None Pyranometer Sync Rainbird ESP Sensor Based None Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge, SMT Temperature Toro Intellisense ET Pager None

5 Documented Real World Water Use from Weather- based Irrigation Scheduling in Texas Controllers Tested in California Real World Smart ET Controller Study sponsored by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Documented Real World Water Use from Weather- based Irrigation Scheduling in California (with 2287 residential & commercial sites installed throughout the state and operated by homeowners & contractors) California Smart Controller Evaluation (Table 56): Summarized data by controller manufacturer (weathernormalized change in use, % change in per site outdoor use, sorted by Ave. % Change in Outdoor Use) Manufacturer/Brand Number of Controllers Avg. Weather Std. Dev. Weather Normalized Change Normalized Change in Use (kgal) in Use (kgal) 95% Conf. Statistically Ave. % Change in Controller Retail Interval Significant? Outdoor Use Price Accurate WeatherSet or 9.1 Yes 33.20% $220 Hunter ET System or 44.5 No 13.30% $429+controller Calsense ET or No 12.00% $1,250 Aqua Conserve or No 10.00% $240 Rain Master Eagle / icentral or No 6.90% $640 ET Water or Yes 6.20% $490 Weathermatic Smartline or 5.8 No 4.20% $299 HydroPoint/Irritrol/Toro or 34 No +0.5% $349+fees All Sites or 27.5 Yes 6.10%

6 Documented Water Savings from Weather-based Irrigation Scheduling in California Documented water savings in Oregon using Rainbird ET Manager (previously called Weather Reach): 3-year Portland Water Bureau Pilot Study Portland Water Bureau: WeatherReach Pilot Study Average Consumption Prior to Weather Reach Average Percentage Customer Name Installation (Gal) Consumption (Gal) Decrease Forest Heights 1 1,155, ,374 39% Forest Heights 2 1,320,812 1,204,539 9% Congressional Beth Israel 2,757,009 2,352,467 15% Columbia Point 2,316,790 1,519,927 34% Port of Portland 1 2,462,011 2,257,787 8% Port of Portland 2 815, ,082 19% State Motor Pool 1,555,660 1,040,139 33% Kaiser Permanente 569, ,785 52% Total Average Percentage Decrease: 26% Documented water savings in Oregon using Rainbird ET Manager (Data courtesy Pacific Landscape Management)

7 Smart Controller Real World Testing: general conclusions from the studies done in California, Oregon, and Texas Some, but not all, of the tested Smart Controllers saved substantial amounts of water when tested in real world conditions by homeowners and contractors. In the California testing which involved over two thousand controllers installed in many different locations only two controllers (Accurate WeatherSet and ET Water) saved statistically significant amounts of water. In general the controllers that use on site sensors save more water than those that use broadcast ET data, although data from Oregon shows good savings with the Rainbird ET Manager system. In residential and small commercial applications the simplest controllers like the Accurate WeatherSet and the Hunter Solar Sync tended to achieve the greatest savings. With ET-based Smart Controllers reducing the amount of irrigation can lead to some turf stress if the irrigation uniformity is poor. It is important to improve the irrigation uniformity before installing any Smart Controller to avoid brown spots and stress when the controllers do their job and save water by reducing the irrigation frequency and runtimes. Soil : some of the systems available for controlling landscape irrigation Acclima Closed Loop Irrigation systems are governed by real time root zone soil moisture content as measured by its patented Digital TDT absolute soil moisture sensor. The Acclima sensor is the industry s only digital process time domain transmissometry soil moisture sensor. Acclima reports its digital process sensors measure the absolute soil moisture content regardless of changing soil types, electrical conductivity and temperature. All systems accommodate one or more soil moisture sensors and either an add on or stand alone controller. Controllers for all residential and commercial applications are available. ( The Baseline irrigation control systems are based on real time soil moisture content as measured by Baseline s patented bisensor TM TDT (time domain transmission) soil moisture sensor. All systems (non centralized) function with one or more soil moisture sensors that are offered with three controller options: a stand alone controller, an add on controller that interfaces with an existing clocktype controller, or a computerized system of multiple stand alone satellite controllers. Baseline manufactures systems that are suitable for both residential and commercial applications. ( Irrometer offers 4 different add on control devices for soil moisture based residential and commercial landscape irrigation control. The controllers use one or more of the Watermark soil moisture sensors to interrupt the existing clock/controller schedule until the soil moisture reaches the user prescribed level. Included with the purchase of an Irrometer control system is its WaterPerfect turf and landscape irrigation scheduling and water management software. This software program aids the user in the proper scheduling of irrigation utilizing Watermark soil moisture sensors, including calculation of total run times and cycle and soak times based on site conditions. ( Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program: background and scope of work for the field study BACKGROUND: In the past the Conservation program has pilot tested a weather-based controller finding over 20% water use reductions by those who participated overall. The City wanted to pilot test the soil moisture sensors to see if controlled on-site irrigation might work as well as the weather-based controllers that require third party communication. The Conservation program installed soil moisture sensors in a demonstration garden they developed in NE Portland. This system is entering its third year and works well with little maintenance. The City wants to determine if it is possible to save customers water and money by testing out tthese soil moisture sensors in the field. SCOPE OF WORK: The City of Portland Water Bureau s Conservation Program (City) wanted like to field test the performance of soil moisture sensors in small to medium-sized commercial properties in the Bureau s service territory. Summer water use, primarily irrigation, is what drives use during this peak time of the year. There is an assumption that using irrigation equipment that waters based on weather or soil moisture depletion would not only use less water by customers but also improve plant health. This pilot project was implemented to test this hypothesis under real-world conditions in the field.

8 Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Study: Test Sites selected for the field study Site Description OMSI Rose Quarter Complex Mc Donalds Port of Portland Metro Center Pacwest Center Essex Park Large commercial site with turf areas, shrub beds, and bio-swales. Replaced two existing controllers with Baseline 3200 controllers connected to the Internet via Ethernet connections to enable remote monitoring and control. Large commercial site with large turf area located on South-facing slope with sandy soil. Replaced existing controller with Ethernet-connected Baseline 3200 controller, and installed moisture sensors at the top, middle, and bottom of the slopes, as w ell as in the flat central area. Typical sm all commercial site w ith both law n and shrub areas. Kept existing controller and added Baseline S-100 moisture sensor and add-on control unit, which is much less expensive than the Baseline 3200 controllers installed at the other test sites. Typical medium commercialmercial site maintained by the Port of Portland. Replaced an existing ESP-8 MC stainless steel pedestal with a Baseline 3200 controller, and installed two Baseline moisture sensors (one in turf and the other in an ivy bed). Typical medium commercial site with Turf & beds on South controller & planters above parking for North controller. Replaced existing controllers with two Ethernet-connected Baseline 3200 controllers with two moisture sensors connected to each controller. Downtown high-rise with large ground-cover & shrub planters on 3 different levels. Replaced four existing controllers with one Ethernet-connected Baseline 3200 controller, and Baseline 5200-series tw o-w ire bicoder units that allow the existing field wires for the other 3 controllers to communicate with the 3200 controller via a two-wire path between the floors of the building. Typical neighborhood park maintained by the Portland Parks Bureau. Installed a Baseline 3200 controller setup to communicate via cell modem and two Baseline moisture sensors, one in an open turf area and the other in the perimeter turf under large existing trees. Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Study: Claimed Benefits of Baseline Soil HEALTHIER LANDSCAPES AND REDUCED WATER USE Baseline s soil moisture sensors (bisensorstm) using advanced Time Domain Transmissibility (TDT) are easy to use and are more accurate across real-world soil types and chemical compositions than sensors using other technologies such as capacitance or electrical conductivity measurement. THE THERMOSTAT FOR YOUR LANDSCAPE TM SAVE WATER - UP TO 70%! Recent studies indicate that properly configured soil moisture sensor based controls can reduce outdoor water use by up to 70%. SAVE LABOR Stop adjusting clocks - manage more and larger properties p with fewer people. p SAVE MONEY Reduce plant loss, labor costs, energy costs and water costs - retrofits with Baseline controls can break even within a single season! HEALTHIER LANDSCAPES Watering optimally increases landscape health, promotes deeper root growth, and makes plants more disease resistant. AUTO CALIBRATING Baseline controllers can automatically determine field capacity and depletion settings for any soil type. NO METAL CONTACT WITH SOIL Baseline sensors cannot rust or degrade, and are naturally immune to surges and lightning damage. OUTPERFORMS WEATHER BASED CONTROLS Recent studies show soil moisture sensors outperform similar weather based ET controls in real-world conditions. Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Study: Baseline WaterTec S-100 TM system for small sites

9 Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Study: Baseline 3200 Controller for larger sites Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Study: Baseline Soil Moisture Sensor Installation Detail Documented Preliminary Water Savings with a Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil for a commercial site OMSI Test Site: Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program Average Irrigation 2010 Irrigation Use (Gallons) with 2011 Irrigation Use (Gallons) with Use (Gallons) prior to installing 2 Baseline 3200 Controllers & 2 Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil Baseline Controllers & moisture Soil sensors Jan 14,688 53,108 0 Feb 7,752 11,968 0 Mar 26,860 12,716 3,740 Apr 43,724 31,416 0 May 122,060 58,344 0 Jun 264, ,712 72,556 Jul 417, , ,672 Aug 500, , ,908 Sep 421, , ,784 Oct 164, ,720 0 Nov 69,836 39,644 0 Dec 43, Total Irrigation (Gallons) 2,096,712 1,947,044 1,155,660 Percent Savings with Baseline 3200 Controllers & Soil 0% 7% 45%

10 Documented Preliminary Water Savings with a Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil for a large turf site Rose Quarter Test Site: Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program Average Irrigation 2010 Irrigation Use (Gallons) 2011 Irrigation Use (Gallons) Use (Gallons) prior to with Baseline 3200 Controller with Baseline 3200 Controller Baseline controller & soil & Soil & Soil moisture sensor installation Jan 3, ,472 Feb 3,142 2,244 0 Mar 8, Apr 35,605 8,228 0 May 68,816 3,740 0 Jun 182, ,540 40,392 Jul 333,758 86, ,796 Aug 265, , ,000 Sep 255, , ,648 Oct 148,852 65,824 92,752 Nov 18,850 22,440 0 Dec 2,992 11,968 0 Total Irrigation (Gallons) 1,327, , ,060 Percent Savings with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil 0% 42% 38% Documented Preliminary Water Savings with a Baseline WaterTec S-100 Soil Moisture Sensor at a small commercial site Mc Donalds Test Site: Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program Prior to installing Total Indoor & Outdoor Water Use After Installing S-100 Moisture Sensor Moisture Sensor Average Irrigation Use * 2011 Irrigation Use * Average Irrigation Use * Jan 57,256 52, ,224 Feb 70,448 54,604 97,240 Mar 62,016 59,092 50,116 Apr 62,152 50,116 61,336 May 76,024 56,848 59,092 14,235-3,740-3,291 Jun 153,272 59,092 65,824 91,483-1,496 3,441 Jul 144,160 87,516 81,532 82,371 26,928 19,149 Aug 155, ,720 86,020 94,203 44,132 23,637 Sep 139,876 86,020 79,288 78,087 25,432 16,905 Oct 103,904 84, ,115 23,936 Nov 61,472 63,580 0 Dec 57,392 83, ,143, , , , ,192 59,840 Percent savings vs Average Use: 0% 71% 85% * Irrigation Use calculated by subtracting average of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, Nov, and Dec use (when irrigation off) to compensate for building water use Documented Preliminary Water Savings with a Baseline WaterTec S-100 Soil Moisture Sensor at a small commercial site Mc Donalds Irrigation Water Use (Gals) before & after installing a Baseline S 100 Soil Moisture Sensor 94,203 Jan Feb Mar Apr May ,132 Jun Jul ,637 Aug Sep Average Irrigation Use (prior to sensor installation) 2010 Irrigation Use with S 100 Moisture Sensor 2011 Irrigation Use with S 100 Moisture Sensor Oct Nov Dec

11 Documented Preliminary Water Savings with a Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil for a commercial site Port of Portland Test Site: Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program Average Irrigation Use (Gallons) prior to installing Baseline Controller & moisture sensors 2010 Irrigation Use (Gallons) with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil 2011 Irrigation Use (Gallons) with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil Jan 79,475 31,416 37,400 Feb 67,320 28,424 24,684 Mar 72,743 34,408 38,896 Apr 121,550 44,880 33,660 May 97,988 33,660 38,148 Jun 115,379 29,172 34,408 Jul 110,143 21,692 39,644 Aug 98,362 20,944 34,408 Sep 80,410 20,944 35,156 Oct 68,629 23,188 8,976 Nov 71,247 21,692 0 Dec 86,768 60,588 0 Total Irrigation (Gallons) 1,070, , ,380 Percent Savings with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil 0% 65% 70% Documented Preliminary Water Savings with a Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil for a commercial site Metro Center Test Site: Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program Average Water Use (Gallons) prior to installing Baseline Controller & moisture sensors 2010 Water Use (Gallons) with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil 2011 Water Use (Gallons) with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil Jan 73,304 98,736 46,376 Feb 77,493 92,004 46,376 Mar 78,390 77,792 50,116 Apr 85,272 83,028 50,116 May 77,194 73, ,116 Jun 81,083 66,572 53,856 Jul 134,191 94,248 88,264 Aug 141,821 80,784 67,320 Sep 153,490 89,760 93,500 Oct 128,656 66,572 74,052 Nov 82,729 54,604 0 Dec 74,650 53,856 0 Total Irrigation (Gallons) 1,188, , ,092 Percent Savings with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil 0% 22% 48% Documented Preliminary Water Savings with a Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil for a high-rise site Pacwest Center Test Site: Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program Average Irrigation Water 2011 Irrigation Water Use (Gallons) Use (Gallons) prior to installing with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil Baseline Controller & moisture sensors Jan -89,530-25,167 Feb 9,803-2,767 Mar 9,087 27,933 Apr 59,087 87,733 May 93,620 75,033 Jun 243,687 83,233 Jul 242, ,033 Aug 462, ,133 Sep 525, ,733 Oct 217, ,333 Nov 132,003 0 Dec -61,363 0 Total Irrigation (Gallons) 1,844,357 1,368,233 Percent Savings with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil 0% 26% NOTE: Irrigation Water Use calculated by subtracting the average water use in Jan-Mar & Nov-Dec from the total water use for each month

12 Documented Preliminary Water Savings with a Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil for a City park site Essex Park Test Site: Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program Average Irrigation 2010 Irrigation Use (Gallons) with 2011 Irrigation Use (Gallons) with Use (Gallons) prior to installing Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil Baseline Controllers & Soil Jan 280 6,000 0 Feb Mar Apr 1,500 72,600 2,200 May Jun Jul 214, , Aug Sep Oct 478, , ,100 Nov Dec Total Irrigation (Gallons) 695, , ,000 Percent Savings with Baseline 3200 Controller & Soil 0% -34% 8% Summary of Preliminary Water Savings with Baseline Controllers & Soil for all 7 test sites for the first two years of the 3-year Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program: Summary for All Sites: Rose Quarter OMSI Port of Portland Metro Center Mc Donalds Pacwest Center Essex Park Total: All 7 Sites 2010 Water Savings (Gal) 560, , , , ,300 NA 236,780 1,716, Water Savings (Gal) 508, , , , , ,123 57,320 3,638,153 2-year Average Water Savings (Gal) 534, , , , , ,123-89,730 2,915, %age Water Savings 42% 7% 65% 22% 71% 0% 34% 25% 2011 %age Water Savings 38% 45% 70% 48% 85% 26% 8% 46% 2-year Average %age Savings 40% 26% 67% 35% 78% 26% -13% 35% Portland Water Bureau Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Program: conclusions from the preliminary results from years 1 & 2 of the 3-year study Both the Baseline 3200 controllers and the less expensive Baseline S-100 system saved a substantial amount of water when used with Baseline Soil. The preliminary data was not normalized for year to year changes in the weather, so the final percentage savings may be somewhat less than in the preliminary results because 2010 and 2011 were both cooler and wetter than normal. In general the plants were healthier when the irrigation frequency was regulated by the use of the Baseline Soil. The moisture sensors prevent irrigation whenever the moisture level in the soil is above the Lower Moisture Limit setting (which is typically set near the Field Capacity of the soil). That reduces the irrigation frequency, and it also automatically prevents irrigation when rainfall supplies enough soil moisture. Just like with ET-based Smart Controllers, reducing the amount of irrigation can lead to some turf stress if the irrigation uniformity is poor. The irrigation systems at all of the test sites were audited as part of the pilot program, and changes were made to improve the uniformity prior to installing the sensors.

13 References & links to additional information California-Weather-Based-Smart-Irrigation-Controller-Programs.pdf (309 page report on thousands of controllers in California) t% pdf (Texas A & M Evaluation of Smart Irrigation Controllers: Year 2010 Results) (Final EPA Watersense Specification for Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers) i ti /SWAT/D t /Cli t (Irrigation Association s 8th Draft SWAT Test Protocols for Climate Based Controllers) (preliminary SWAT testing procedure for soil moisture sensor based smart controllers) (US Bureau of Reclamation document detailing both ET and Soil Moisture Sensor Smart Controllers) (information on Portland Water Bureau s Water Conservation Program)