Figure 1: The CCAT garden beds and the existing gravity fed drip irrigation system. The storage bucket is scene in the background while the main water lines are visible on the back of the bottom terrace..[1]

This page was created for two reasons:

  • to describe the current gravity fed drip irrigation system located at the Cal Poly Humboldt Campus Center of Appropriate Technology in Arcata, California
  • to suggest recommendations that would increase the performance of the current system. This page was created as part of the class requirements for Engineering 115 Fall 2009 taught by Dr. Dustin Poppendieck. Please note that another CCAT gravity fed drip irrigation page exists. The CCAT Gravity Fed Drip Irrigation link on Appropedia describes the original system construction by a Engineering student in 2008. The existing system is pictured in Figure 1.

Overview of Existing System[edit | edit source]

Arcata receives most of its rainfall between November and April and has an average rainfall of about 5 inches during these months.[2] The existing gravity fed drip irrigation system located at CCAT is intended to be used during the summer months when rain is scarce. The irrigation system has a storage unit consisting of a five gallon bucket. The storage bucket is attached to a retaining wall located on the uphill side of the garden (Figure 2). Water is manually placed in the storage bucket. An outlet is located at the bottom of the storage bucket to allow water to flow into a 0.5 inch main water line. The main water line is split via a T-fitting immediately upon exiting the storage bucket (Figure 3). The T-fitting allows water to be delivered to a pair of ten meter long main water lines. The two main water lines are designed to simultaneously deliver water to several plants via 1/4" lateral lines branching off from the main water lines. The main water lines each have between fifteen and twenty lateral lines. The lateral lines are attached to the main water line using emitters. The objective of this design is to allow irrigation water to be efficiently delivered to several plants in multiple beds simultaneously. The irrigation water in the main water lines is blocked from exiting the terminal end of each main water line in order to direct the flow to the lateral lines of the system. The blockage of flow is achieved using clamps attached at the end of each main water line (Figure 4). The system is designed to allow the two main water lines to be manually moved to fed a series of four terraced garden beds. Each of the four beds has a surface area of about ten square meters and a depth of about one meter.

  • Figure 2: The existing 5-gallon storage bucket is the system's water source. The storage bucket is mounted to the retaining wall above garden beds.[1]

    Figure 2: The existing 5-gallon storage bucket is the system's water source. The storage bucket is mounted to the retaining wall above garden beds.[1]

  • Figure 4: The hose clamp used for the gravity fed drip system.[1]

    Figure 4: The hose clamp used for the gravity fed drip system.[1]

  • Figure 3: The T-fitting located at the storage bucket outlet splits the main water line to allow watering of multiple beds.[1]

    Figure 3: The T-fitting located at the storage bucket outlet splits the main water line to allow watering of multiple beds.[1]

Current Performance[edit | edit source]

The existing system is not working as the original design intended. The system has been all but abandoned (Figure 5). The main complaint voiced by the occupants of CCAT is that the existing system does not deliver water to the garden beds from many of the lateral drip lines (Figure 6). The CCAT residents have observed that the water flowing through the system is only emitting from the lateral lines near the terminal end of the main water line.

  • Figure 5: The existing storage bucket has debris and algae growth in standing water.[1]

    Figure 5: The existing storage bucket has debris and algae growth in standing water.[1]

  • Figure 6: The lateral lines branch off the main water line and are designed to deliver water to individual plants.[1]

    Figure 6: The lateral lines branch off the main water line and are designed to deliver water to individual plants.[1]

Potential Problems of Existing System[edit | edit source]

The current gravity fed drip irrigation system is not working as the original design intended. Some possible causes for the lack of performance associated with the current system are highlighted below:

  • The semi-transparent storage bucket facilitates algae growth which may reduce water flow in the system.[3]
  • The lack of a filter at the bucket outlet allows particle build up in both the main water lines and lateral lines of the system.[3]
  • The lack of a cover on the storage bucket allows large debris to enter and potentially clog the system resulting in reduced water delivery.[3]
  • The ninety degree bend in the main water line introduces increased frictional losses to the system and further reduces water delivery.[4]
  • The length of the main water line exceeds the recommended length constraints based on the bucket storage capacity.[5]
  • The T-fitting in main water line splits the total volume of stored water between the two main lines resulting in a reduced amount of water delivered to each plant for each full bucket of water.[4]
  • Many of the system's lateral water lines exit the main water line on the top side of the pipe result in an increased head requirement and reduced flow to the plant (Figure 6).
  • The number of lateral lines exceeds the recommended spacing frequency. The recommended frequency is 36 inches for medium soil type.[6] The water line should be within 18 inches of all plants in the beds for this frequency to be effective.
  • The type of emitter used on the current system is designed for higher pressure systems.[7] The use of inline emitters would eliminate the need for lateral lines as long as the main water line in within 18 inches of the plant.

Proposed System Improvements[edit | edit source]

The authors performed an assessment of the existing CCAT gravity fed drip irrigation system based on both an initial site visit and subsequent visits. The assessment includes several suggested system improvements. The proposed changes include:

  • Relocating the existing storage bucket to result in an increased head potential (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Relocating the storage bucket to the top of the railing will result in an increase in the system head.[1]

Relocating the storage bucket to the top of the existing retaining wall would increase the system head by about one meter. The proposed new location for the bucket would also allow for easier access and maintenance of the system. Accessing the bucket at its current location requires users of the system to carefully walk amongst the garden plants resulting in a higher potential for crop damage by trampling as well as increased soil compaction.

  • Eliminate excess length of main water line, T-fitting, and 90 degree bend in the main water line

The frictional losses in the system would be reduced by eliminating the excess length in the line.[4] The current system has an estimated ten meters of line coiled and laying in the garden bed area (Figure 8). The elimination of this coiled line would also increase the aesthetic value of the system. The system storage tank is not large enough to supply more than one main line at a time. Eliminating the T-filling and replacing it with a single line at the outlet of the storage bucket would increase volume of delivery per plant. The 90-degree bend fitting in the existing line has no apparent use and should also be eliminated from the system to reduce losses.

Figure 8: The current system has excess water line coiled in a pile resulting in added frictional losses.[1]
  • Replace current emitters with non-pressurized flag emitters or inline emitters.[7]

The current system is using emitters designed to be used with pressurized irrigation systems. The system would benefit by replacing the existing emitters with short path or "flag" emitters. The flag emitter is designed for use in systems with very low pressure such as gravity fed drip systems.

  • Install stabilizers on main water line to reduce vertical splining of the water line

The installation of stabilizers on the main water line would reduce dips in the line (Figure 9). The current system has numerous dips in the main water line resulting in considerable head loss. The addition of the proposed hose stabilizers would also eliminate the need for the lateral water lines currently being used to direct the irrigation water to the plants. The hose stabilizers may be placed such that the emitters are located at the desired location to maximize water delivery to the plant.

Figure 9: The proposed hose stabilizers will hold the main water line at specific locations resulting in increased water delivery to the plants.[8]
  • Replace existing storage bucket with a darker colored bucket

The existing white storage bucket is allowing sunlight to penetrate into the stored water and facilitate algae growth. The algae present in the current system main lines and laterals may be resulting in reduced flow and system performance. Replacing the white storage bucket with a darker colored bucket will decrease the amount of sunlight passing into the stored water and reduce the growth of algae in the system (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Algae growth should decrease while system performance is increased by replacing the existing white storage bucket with a darker bucket.[9]
  • Include a storage bucket lid in order to eliminate debris contamination of the system

The addition of a lid to the storage bucket will deter larger contaminants, such as leaves and debris, from entering the system. This will result in a more efficient and cleaner flowing system (Figure 10).

  • Shorten Lateral Drip Lines

The existing 1/4" lateral drip lines are up to 1 foot in length. These lateral lines are increasing the head requirements of the system and adding to the decreased performance. Shortening the lateral lines and placing them on the under side of the main water lines will further reduce system losses.

  • Increase Storage Capacity

The existing five gallon storage bucket is undersized for the current system needs. Increasing the storage capacity of the system may be achieved by replacing the existing five gallon bucket with a larger storage tank or by increasing the number of storage buckets in the system. One option is to supply each garden bed with a separate storage bucket. The existing retaining wall railing has enough space to accommodate up to five buckets. The additional buckets could be placed behind the existing landscaping vegetation increasing the aesthetics of the garden area. Another option to increase the storage capacity of the system would be to tie into the existing CCAT Rainwater Catchment System located uphill from the garden.

  • Install filter at storage bucket outlet

The current system is lacking any sort of filter. The lack of a filtering component allows algae and particles to enter the main water line of the system resulting in decreased flow. The addition of a filter at the storage bucket outlet will reduce both fine and coarse particles from entering the main water line of the system. Reducing the concentration of particulate matter in the system will result in increased system performance (Figure 11).

Figure 11: The proposed hose filter will reduce the amount of debris flowing into the main water lines.[10]

Costs Associated with Proposed Improvements[edit | edit source]

An itemized list of the costs associated with the proposed system improvements is included below (Table 1).

Table 1: Costs associated with the proposed improvements
Quantity Item Cost ($) Total ($)
1 5 gallon bucket and Lid 7.29 7.29
1 3/4" Hose Thread Filter 11.55 11.55
1 100 Feet- Premium Grade 1/2" Polyethylene tubing 12.99 12.99
1 100 Feet- Premium Grade 1/4" Vinyl Micro tubing 8.29 8.29
35 1/4" Barbed Connectors 0.15 5.25
35 1/4" in line shut off valve 0.69 24.15
35 6" Micro tube Stabilizer Stake 0.25 8.75
1 Standard Punch - 1/4" Hole 2.29 2.29
20 Goof Plug 0.15 3.00
3 Perma-Loc Hose Coupling 0.64 1.92
4 Perma-Loc Hose Cap 0.84 3.36
3 Perma-Loc Hose Tee 1.62 4.86
Total Cost 93.70

Update October 2014[edit | edit source]

As of October 2014, the Gravity fed drip irrigation has been retrofitted with new t-fittings and irrigation lines. The old lines were corroded, leaky and clogged with debris. The system is operating fine now however, the irrigation system is no longer gravity fed, it is pressure fed from a garden hose hookup at the top of the trellised garden. A source who uses the irrigation system at CCAT says that the irrigation lines were connected to the rainwater catchment system but the hookup did not produce the gravitational force necessary to efficiently get water out of the lines. Another problem with the rainwater catchment system is it did not successfully remove all of the large debris from the water which would then get clogged in the irrigation lines. This blockage prevented some lines from producing water at all. With the garden hose hookup, the system gets more than enough water volume and pressure running through it to function correctly. The CCAT workers use the irrigation system once a week for 20min in the winter and 2-3 times a week for 20-30min in the summer months. The garden hoses were being used at the time I investigated the irrigation system so I could not try it out for myself. The source I spoke with assured me the lines were dripping water without a problem and the system has never been better since the introduction of the garden hose attachment.

  • GravDrip1.jpg
  • GravDrip2.JPG
  • GravDrip3.JPG
  • GravDrip4.jpg
  • GravDrip5.JPG

Glossary of Terms[edit | edit source]

  • Emitter: Device used to extrude water[11]
  • Frictional Losses: Pressure lost by water due to friction between water and the pipe while moving through the line[4]
  • Head: Internal energy of a fluid due to pressure exerted on the water surface[12]
  • Lateral Lines: Smaller water lines that originate at the main water line used to deliver water to the plant[13]
  • Main Line: Larger water line that originates at the storage container[14]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Photos by Garrett McElroy: Fall 2009.
  2. ↑ Wikipedia.org. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcata,_California#Climate
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Do It Yourself Bucket Drip Irrigation. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20141014161607/http://www.csupomona.edu:80/~jskoga/dripirrigation/
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Munson, B. R., Young, D. F.,& Okiishi, T. H. (2002). Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  5. ↑ The Drip Store Gravity Feed Systems. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20101125205444/http://www.dripirrigation.com:80/drip_irrigation_help.php?pgv=Gravity
  6. ↑ Irrigation Tutorials Drip Emitter Spacing. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://www.irrigationtutorials.com/drip-spacing.htm
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Irrigation Tutorials. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://www.irrigationtutorials.com/drip-emitter.htm
  8. ↑ TheGarden.co.uk. Accessed online December 9th, 2009.http://www.thegarden.co.uk/stock images/1111886.jpg
  9. ↑ US Plastics Corp. Accessed online December 9th, 2009.greenbucket.jpg
  10. ↑ The Drip Store. Accessed online December 9th, 2009.http://web.archive.org/web/20060318023306/http://www.dripirrigation.com/popup image.php?pID=121
  11. ↑ Wikipedia.org. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter
  12. ↑ Wikipedia.org. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_head
  13. ↑ Merriam Webster Online Search. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://m-w.com/dictionary/lateral
  14. ↑ Merriam Webster Online Search. Accessed online December 9th, 2009. http://m-w.com/dictionary/main
Page data
Authors Michael, Garrett McElroy, Beth Eschenbach, Matt Vedo, asb59@humboldt.edu
License CC-BY-SA-3.0
Language English (en)
What links here 15 pages
Translations Korean
Impact 909
Created October 15, 2009 by Michael
Modified June 8, 2023 by Felipe Schenone
Cite as Michael, Garrett McElroy, Beth Eschenbach, Matt Vedo, asb59@humboldt.edu (2009–2023). "CCAT gravity fed drip irrigation". Appropedia. Retrieved September 22, 2023.
API queries basic, properties, semantic, html, files, more
Retrieved from "https://www.appropedia.org/w/index.php?title=CCAT_gravity_fed_drip_irrigation&oldid=739758"

Discussion[View | Edit]

Elizabeth Gutierrez's Comments[edit source]

Elizabethg1990 1.Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. I believe that the target audience for this document is people interested in gravity fed drip irrigation and/or HSU’s CCAT. I think that the authors need to define the terms they use throughout the document. It is clear they have researched this situation substantially but they need to tell the reader about it in terms that any reader can understand and if they need to use terms that the reader might not know they need to explain what those terms mean.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Yes, the authors presented their information in a format that is very easy to navigate through. I can easily find information. I cannot think of any improvements.

3.Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. Yes, I believe the headings are used very well, although the bullet headings in the “Proposed System Improvements” section would be better if bold. The headings seem to be specific enough and in logical order.

4.Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. Yes, the authors did a good job in writing clear topic sentences that alert the reader in what will be coming in the following paragraph and then did a good job in making sure that the rest of the paragraph followed the topic sentence.

5.Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) The writing is object for the most part but beware of few exceptions such as: “The current system was implemented with the best intensions.” Try to find a way of expressing this idea with more objective speech.

6.Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? The figures are very helpful in understanding the material but more could be used when talking about certain aspects of the system that readers might not be familiar with such as the lateral water lines.

7.Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. The author does not refer to the figures and the figures are not labeled or numbered. It would be greatly beneficial if the author could mention the figures while explaining the items in the figures.

8.If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.

9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? What sites did the authors use to get “internet research”?

10.Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? There could be more, such as the sites used for their “internet research”.

11.Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? I think the length is perfect.

12.Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? Yes to both.


13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Very good amount of information.


14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Too technical and not enough explaination of terms.


15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I really hope this helps, I didn't mean to bash on your work, I just meant to be helpful. Your page looks amazing, I'm sure you will get a wonderful grade. Keep up the good work and good luck! =] Elizabethg1990

Chet Jamgochian's Comments[edit source]

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. I feel that the target audience would be the people at CCAT and anyone interested in CCAT

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? The information is fairly easy to navigate. However the site seems “bulky.” I’m not sure the wikitables work that well in this situation. Maybe try it in paragraph form. Try some level two headings too.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. The level one headings are all used well. They are in logical order. I think that the page would be easier to follow if there were more level two and maybe level three headings. E.g. for the proposed improvements try having each improvement under its own heading.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. The site is not in paragraph form. However each section does have a topic sentence.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) Yes the site is objective. It seems to be technical and straightforward.

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? Yes the photos are all clearly labeled.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. They aren’t referred to in the text but the pictures are fairly self-explanatory. You might try referring to the pictures in your text as well. The captions all are good. There are huge gaps around some of the pictures. Either make the pictures bigger or try placing them among the text.

8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand. Not RCEA

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? No it looks good.

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? Yes there are links. For the appropedia links try using the double brackets [[RCEA]] The CCAT Rainwater Catchment System link doesn’t work. The links are all relevant. You don’t need to but you might try adding a couple more links. Maybe a link to the apporpedia CCAT page in the Purpose Statement section.

11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? The length is fine. The only thing that needs to be changed are the large gaps of empty space.

12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? Yes

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) There is a lot of information presented. I like that you list out what needs to be fixed and why. Also the table of costs for the proposed changes adds to the page.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The layout of the page is not that visually pleasing. There is a lot of empty space. I strongly suggest that you change from wikitable style to paragraph style with headings and subheadings. There are a few typos. Appropedia doesn’t have that great of a spell checker. Try copying the page into a word document and spell checking it there to find errors.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) The page is good. There is a lot of good information and it is presented well.

 

 

Heather Baker's Comments[edit source]


1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.

I feel the target audience is anyone interested in reading about the gravity-fed drip irrigation system at CCAT or anyone looking online to construct a system of their own.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

I find the information very easy to navigate and to follow along with. If I was creating a system of my own, then I would follow this page. The necessary information can easily be found. I would not improve the layout much, because I think the creators did a good job.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.

All headings are used successfully. They are all the same height and in the same font and are all bold. I think there are enough headings used, as all pertinent areas have a proper heading. I think the headings are specific. They are to the point and sum up what the following information below them are about.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.

Under system highlights, I would remove the sentence: “The current system was implemented with the best intensions.” The sentence that follows is a much better sounding sentence and is straight to the point. The one above is not necessary. Other than this all topic sentences exist and all following sentences relate to the topic sentence.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)

Aside from the previously stated sentence, all writing seems to be objective. The previous sentence could be debated, as it is somewhat opinionated and contains an adjective (“best”.)

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

The figures and photographs are very helpful and well-done. Adding more pictures could help brighten up the page. The coiled line photo is good with its slash and circle to show this is not feasible. That was very clever. The cost associated with improvements is helpful and gives a thorough overview of what needs to be purchased for improvement efforts. I am unable to suggest any more figures.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.

The writers do not refer to figure numbers in the text because each area of text has its own pertinent photos. All figures have captions. I am a little confused as to what the one reference is referring to exactly, is it going to the hose stake photo? If so, the photo itself is titled hose stake whereas the reference is titled garden stake. I am assuming all other photos were taken by the writers and am not sure how those would be cited or if they even have to be cited.

8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.

This is not a RCEA page. Not applicable.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

Is there work being done to fix this non-functioning system? There are not many references, only one reference currently. A lot of information on this page seems like it might have been from personal visits to the site and so I am unsure how this is referenced.

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?

There are links to related sites. The link to the other gravity-fed irrigation system webpage on Appropedia was a smart idea. There maybe could be some more site links, if you found areas to add more, but I think there are enough links. The links are technical enough for most people reading this webpage to understand and follow. The relevance is clear. There is a summary of references, but again, only one reference.

11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?

The document meets requirements in terms of length.

12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?

The progress banner is on the top of the page as needed. The correct categories to the ENGR 115 class and to CCAT are appropriately at the bottom of the page as required.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The webpage is clear, easy to follow along with and conveys what is going on with the gravity-fed drip irrigation system. Everything is layed out nicely and if I was doing a research project on the system, everything I would need to know is there on the webpage. The pictures are helpful and I like the recommendations given to make the system function once again and what these costs would be to make those improvements.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
The references need to be improved (if there are citations needed for pictures the writers took themselves). I noticed some spelling errors.


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)
I really like your page. I think if I were to come across your webpage via a search engine, I would find it very useful whether I was doing a research project or constructing a system myself.


Annie Bartholomew's Comments[edit source]

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. I feel anyone interested in gravity fed drip irrigation is the target audience ranging from recreational gardeners to students of appropriate technology. Excellent language.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? Very easy to navigate. Everything was there and easy to read. I was not a fan of the “box” formatting, it is functional, just less aesthetically pleasing.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. Perfect number of headings, addresses all concerns of reader in the correct order.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. The topic sentences flow into the paragraphs. All the information is there, I don’t have much to criticize except for the specific sentences I noted in your page. Some sentences are too technical.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) The writing was objective. You may want to change language like “with the best of intentions” (System Highlights) and “all but abandoned” (Current Performance) because it’s less technical in nature.


6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? I would explain that a “hose stake” is a type of stability. Some of the pictures could have been made large including: “Existing System” and “Current Bucket Placement vs. Proposed Bucket Placement.”

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. The writer does not refer to figures using figure numbers. The captions were most informative, but more details could be added within the text and within the captions.


8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand. CCAT Page. All of the figures of cost are there in a nicely displayed table. It is very straight forward and easy for the reader to understand.


9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? I would like to see a “Future Improvements” section including if there is interest in fixing the system or creating a new one. What it would take to restore the old system beyond the technical side –a grant from HEIF?

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? I saw two links to sites, the Rainwater CCAT Catchment System link did not work. I would like to see more links to sites including once that are not on Appropedia including sites about other methods of gravity drip irrigation.


11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? This document met all the expectations of length. I was pleasantly surprised at all the detail that it included.


12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? Banner and correct categories present.


13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Addresses all questions, uses appropriate language, and is a strong piece of technical writing. I believe it is the correct length for an assignment and topic of this nature.


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Minor spelling errors, sometimes language is too vague, other times too technical. The box organization makes it seem longer than it is, and it doesn’t need the extra space.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) I felt like this group met the expectations of the first draft. They obviously put in time and effort creating a quality page with excellent photographs and calculations. With the exception of layout, I feel like this is a good example for the first draft of an Appropedia page.

Add topic
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.