Comparison of Three Commercial Automatic Boom Height Systems for Agricultural Sprayers

Author:

Burgers Travis A.,Gaard John David,Hyronimus Brian James

Abstract

HighlightsThree automatic boom height systems were compared: BoomTrac Pro (A), AutoBoom XRT (B), and UC5 Passive Roll (C).Boom leveling performance was quantified for three runs on each of three terrains for at least three speeds.System B kept the boom height significantly closer to target than Systems A and C.System B had significantly less boom height variability than Systems A and C.Abstract. Automatic boom height systems reduce the variability of agricultural sprayer boom height. Consistent boom height is important for three key reasons: to reduce uneven spray dispersion if the boom is too low, to reduce spray droplet drift if the boom is too high, and to reduce damage to the boom or crop if the boom is too low. No data is available comparing commercial boom height systems. Three leading North American automatic boom height systems were compared: John Deere BoomTrac Pro™ (System A), Raven AutoBoom® XRT (System B), and Norac UC5TM Passive Roll™ (System C) on a John Deere R4045 (Systems A and B) and RoGator 1100C (Systems B and C). Each system was evaluated with three test runs for at least three speeds over each of a mild, medium, and rough terrain course. Boom heights at the left and right outside sensors were measured with the AutoBoom XRT sensors. The accuracy of the automatic boom height systems was quantified with root mean squared deviation (RMSD), the Herbst-modified Hockley Index, and the fraction of points within 10 and 25 cm of target (f10 and f<25). With four exceptions out of 216 comparisons, System B significantly outperformed System A on the R4045 and System C on the RoGator for each metric, at each sensor location, at each speed, on each terrain. At 26 km/h on medium terrain, the RMSD for Systems A and C was 174% and 107% larger than System B, respectively. At 26 km/h on medium terrain, the fraction of points within 25 cm (f<25) was 56% and 21% higher for System B than Systems A and C, respectively. These results indicate System B kept the boom significantly closer to target with significantly less height variability. Keywords: Automatic control, Boom control, Spray boom, Spray dispersion, Spray drift, Spray height.

Publisher

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE)

Subject

General Engineering

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3