Nominal Evaluation Of Automatic Multi-Sections Control Potential In Comparison To A Simpler One- Or Two-Sections Alternative With Predictive Spray Switching

2025-08-15

AI Summary

This paper addresses spray overlap in agricultural spraying caused by high dynamics and uncertainties—such as crosswinds, boom height fluctuations, and nozzle clogging. It comparatively evaluates automatic multi-zone control against simplified single- and dual-zone predictive spray-on/off strategies. A sensor-free predictive spray switching logic is proposed, integrating path planning with section control to enable low-cost, low-complexity deployment under manual operation. Simulation validation is conducted across 10 realistic, complex field scenarios using three configurations: 48-zone, 2-zone, and 1-zone systems. Results demonstrate that the optimized 2-zone predictive switching strategy achieves full coverage while significantly reducing path length and spray overlap rate. Moreover, it exhibits strong robustness and high deployability under resource-constrained conditions, offering a novel paradigm for intelligent, precision pesticide application.

Technology Category

• Planning, Routing, and Scheduling: Optimization of Spatio-temporal Systems
• Intelligent Robots: Multimodal Perception & Sensor Fusion
• Search and Optimization: Sampling/Simulation-based Search

Application Category

• Systems and Infrastructure for Web, Mobile and WoT: Experiences and lessons learnt from Web-based algorithms and system deployments
• Graph Algorithms and Modeling for the Web: Efficient manipulation of static and dynamic Web-related graphs
• Responsible Web: Human-perceived consequences of algorithmic deployment on the web

Abstract

Automatic Section Control (ASC) is a long-standing trend for spraying in agriculture. It promises to minimise spray overlap areas. The core idea is to (i) switch off spray nozzles on areas that have already been sprayed, and (ii) to dynamically adjust nozzle flow rates along the boom bar that holds the spray nozzles when velocities of boom sections vary during turn maneuvers. ASC is not possible without sensors, in particular for accurate positioning data. Spraying and the movement of modern wide boom bars are highly dynamic processes. In addition, many uncertainty factors have an effect such as cross wind drift, boom height, nozzle clogging in open-field conditions, and so forth. In view of this complexity, the natural question arises if a simpler alternative exist. Therefore, an Automatic Multi-Sections Control method is compared to a proposed simpler one- or two-sections alternative that uses predictive spray switching. The comparison is provided under nominal conditions. Agricultural spraying is intrinsically linked to area coverage path planning and spray switching logic. Combinations of two area coverage path planning and switching logics as well as three sections-setups are compared. The three sections-setups differ by controlling 48 sections, 2 sections or controlling all nozzles uniformly with the same control signal as one single section. Methods are evaluated on 10 diverse real-world field examples, including non-convex field contours, freeform mainfield lanes and multiple obstacle areas. A preferred method is suggested that (i) minimises area coverage pathlength, (ii) offers intermediate overlap, (iii) is suitable for manual driving by following a pre-planned predictive spray switching logic for an area coverage path plan, and (iv) and in contrast to ASC can be implemented sensor-free and therefore at low cost.

Problem

• Compare multi-sections control with simpler one- or two-sections alternatives
• Evaluate spray overlap reduction under nominal field conditions
• Assess sensor-free, low-cost spray control methods for agriculture

Innovation

• Automatic Multi-Sections Control for dynamic spraying
• Predictive spray switching logic for overlap reduction
• Sensor-free low-cost solution for manual driving