Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.11573 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866918142842765312 |
|---|---|
| author | Plessen, Mogens |
| author_facet | Plessen, Mogens |
| contents | 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 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, nozzle clogging in open-field conditions, etc. In view of this complexity, the natural question arises if a simpler alternative exist. Therefore, ASC 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 3 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. An economic cost analysis is provided to compare the methods. 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 at low cost. Surprisingly strong economic arguments are found to not recommend ASC for small farms. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2508_11573 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Nominal Evaluation Of Automatic Multi-Sections Control Potential In Comparison To A Simpler One- Or Two-Sections Alternative With Predictive Spray Switching Plessen, Mogens Robotics Systems and Control 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 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, nozzle clogging in open-field conditions, etc. In view of this complexity, the natural question arises if a simpler alternative exist. Therefore, ASC 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 3 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. An economic cost analysis is provided to compare the methods. 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 at low cost. Surprisingly strong economic arguments are found to not recommend ASC for small farms. |
| title | Nominal Evaluation Of Automatic Multi-Sections Control Potential In Comparison To A Simpler One- Or Two-Sections Alternative With Predictive Spray Switching |
| topic | Robotics Systems and Control |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.11573 |