## 3 Results  
### CPL and Split Lateral Irrigation Systems Cost Comparison  
The economical comparison was conducted taking into account the both layouts' component costs requirements as well as annual cash outflows. The below table (Table 4) presents summarized required expenses for CPL as well as split lateral in the plot for comparison and control. According to the outcomes CPL layout needed 15% less initial investment and a 7% lower estimated annual cost than traditional split lateral. As a result, these lower capital costs will lead to a minor yearly maintenance and repair costs as well as cheaper replacement and depreciation fee for components. It will also cause a lower insurance fee, tax as well as interest (opportunity expenses) that accounted for 2.5-3.3 percent of the total capital cost. CPL has the same water consumption but a 2.5% lower electricity requirement. TDH was calculated at negligible amount of only 1.6% lesser for CPL. Outcomes revealed that the 15% decline of capital cost for corner pivot design is due to its shorter pipe length and smaller size requirement, however the other components include outlet valves, fitting and burring fee have lower financial impacts. In total ten sprinklers and sprayers were needed to be installed on CPL but seven on split lateral layout (which could be less but would have negligible impacts financially). Yet, since the size and radiuses of sprinklers were decreased toward the corner in CPL, the overall sprinkler costs in CPL were only slightly higher compared to the split lateral. Moreover, the 2 inches of reduced pipe require a minor 2 inch fitting for CPL layout that is less expensive. Annual working hours for CPL were 9.5% higher because longer irrigation time per revolution in 7 set moves wa needed for sufficient watering compared to 8 set moves in split lateral. As a point of comparison, for CPL and split lateral layouts the grand total cost discrepancy in % during 25 years is shown in the below graph (Figure 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Item** & **Split Lateral \$** & **CPL \$** \\ \hline The total pipe cost & 174.5 & 106.3 \\ Sprinklers & 24.5 & 36 \\ Outlet valve (Hydrant) & 20 & 2.5 \\ Fitting (tee branches, elbows, valves, couplings, reducers, etc.) & 165 & 140 \\ Others (gage pressure, air vacuum/release valve, filter, tank) & 184 & 184 \\ Bury fee for the pipeline & 22 & 0 \\ Component transfer and installation fee & 134 & 114 \\ Pump, power unit and the installation cost & 228 & 228 \\
**Total Capital Cost** & **952** & **810.8 (15\%)** \\ Annual required energy cost (electricity) & 21 & 20.3 \\ Yearly repair and replacement (accounted for 3.3\%) & 31.42 & 26.7 \\ Taxes and Insurance costs (accounted for 2.5\%) & 23.8 & 20.2 \\ Yearly interest cost (accounted for 3.3\%) & 31.42 & 26.7 \\ The cost of water used for irrigation & 6.2 & 6.2 \\ The machinery costs for the plot & 50 & 50 \\ Pesticide, Farm seed and required fertilizer for the farm & 35 & 35 \\
**Estimated Total Annual Cost** & **198.8** & **185.1 (7\%)** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: CPL and split lateral layouts cost comparison for a half-acre farm in USD. As the diagram presents at the project start date, there will be a relatively high difference between CPL and the ordinary split lateral at 15%. The gap will gradually increase as the time passes and the total amount increases due to the additive annual costs. Hence, the capital cost will be lighter proportionally. Below diagram (Figure 7) however, shows the profitability difference between the two systems over the 25 years' time. The difference is lower in terms of ratio but increases for the monetary and quantity factors. It shows a small difference to some extent during the following decades at 9.6% after the next 10 and finally an 8.2% smaller grand total cost than split lateral in 25 years. Based on the quantitative calculations, the diagram would not reach 0% even within a century, that is remarkably larger than a regular project time horizon.