Full TGIF Record # 232967
Item 1 of 1
DOI:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00075.x
Web URL(s):http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00075.x/full
    Last checked: 11/21/2013
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00075.x/pdf
    Last checked: 11/21/2013
    Requires: PDF Reader
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Publication Type:
i
Report
Author(s):Lesmeister, Crystal; Pochop, Larry; Kerr, Greg; Wulff, Shaun S.; Johnson, Drew
Author Affiliation:Lesmeister: Engineer, WWC Enginering, Sheridan, Wyoming; Pochop: Emeritus Professor; Kerr: Director of the Office of Water Programs; Johnson: Associate Professor, Department of Civil & Architectural Engineering; Wulff: Associate Professor, Department of Statistics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming
Title:Evaluating the "catch-can" test for measuring lawn sprinkler application rates
Section:Other technical papers
Other records with the "Other technical papers" Section
Source:Journal of the American Water Resources Association/AWRA. Vol. 43, No. 4, August 2007, p. 938-946.
# of Pages:9
Publishing Information:Minneapolis, Minnesota: American Water Resources Association
Related Web URL:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00075.x/abstract
    Last checked: 11/21/2013
    Notes: Abstract only
Keywords:TIC Keywords: Can test; Evaluative methods; Irrigation rates; Irrigation uniformity
Abstract/Contents:"The effectiveness of measuring lawn sprinkler application rates using the catch-can test was evaluated. A survey of sources recommending the catch-can test for measuring application rates show that catch-can test procedures differ in the collector type, collector placement, number of collectors, and test duration. Analyses of catch-can tests were performed to address these procedural differences, with emphasis on the type and number of collectors required to provide a reasonable level of confidence in test results. The accuracy of the catch-can test generally improves as the number of randomly placed collectors increases. In order to achieve an accuracy of ±25% for 90 out of 100 catch-can tests, the number of randomly placed collectors required ranged from 6 to over 50 for hand-move systems, while for in-ground systems, the number of randomly placed collectors required ranged from 2 to 8, depending on the pressure and percent overlap of the water distribution pattern. As long as a reasonable number of collectors were used when performing a catch-can test, no consistent differences were observed in catch-can test results due to type of collectors when using tuna fish cans, soup cans, or coffee mugs."
Language:English
References:14
Note:Figures
Tables
Graphs
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Lesmeister, C., L. Pochop, G. Kerr, S. S. Wulff, and D. Johnson. 2007. Evaluating the "catch-can" test for measuring lawn sprinkler application rates. Water Resour. Bull. 43(4):p. 938-946.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=232967
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 232967.
Choices for finding the above item:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00075.x
Web URL(s):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00075.x/full
    Last checked: 11/21/2013
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00075.x/pdf
    Last checked: 11/21/2013
    Requires: PDF Reader
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Find Item @ MSU
MSU catalog number: b2206946~S1a
Find from within TIC:
   Digitally in TIC by record number.
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)