Category: Calibration

Horizontal boom sprayer calibration

  • Methods for Testing Nozzle Flow Rate

    Methods for Testing Nozzle Flow Rate

    Calibration should be a regular practice for every operation that uses a sprayer. Part of that process is confirming that each nozzle is operating within the manufacturer’s specifications. This is a must for researchers that adhere to Good Laboratory Practices and for custom operators that sell their services. But we didn’t just fall off the turnip truck… we know nobody else does it. In fact, we’re surprised when we hear an operator HAS checked their nozzle flow.

    And we get it. It can be awkward and time consuming. A field sprayer with 72 nozzle bodies and three nozzles in each position has a whopping 216 nozzles. A tower-style or wrap-around airblast sprayer has fewer nozzles, but the operator needs a ladder to reach them all and they don’t point straight down, so a tube must be used to guide the spray into a collection vessel.

    And when pressed, any operator that does not regularly check their nozzles counters by saying “my tank empties in the same place every time, so why check them?” Even if the sprayer does start to go further on a tank, the operator can speed up or adjust the rate controller to drop the pressure a little.

    Fair enough. This isn’t a hill we choose to die on.

    But we will say that nozzles worn by even a few percent don’t only cause a change in flow rate, but may indicate a deteriorating spray quality and spray geometry. And, when one (or a few) nozzles are worn and others are not, it’s the same as when a single nozzle is plugged – the operator won’t be able to tell from the cab because the rate controller tends to mask the problem. And, if using PWM to apply a simultaneously reduced broadcast rate, perhaps the issue is amplified? All of this impacts coverage uniformity.

    We’ll get off our soapbox now.

    Over the years we’ve encountered many methods for determining a nozzle’s flow rate. We wanted to try each of them and characterize their accuracy, precision, time required, and ease of use. This is not a ranking where we wanted to find “The Best” method. The best method depends on your situation. If you’re a researcher, then accuracy and precision may trump time and expense. If you’re a custom applicator, then perhaps time is the critical factor. And if it’s your own operation, perhaps expense matters most. It’s up to you.

    Method

    The following tests were performed on a spray patternator table. A single nozzle was operated by a ShurFlo 2088-594-154 positive displacement pump. Pressure was set using a bypass regulator and an analog pressure gauge, confirmed by a SprayX digital manometer positioned under the nozzle body via a splitter. Room temperature water was used.

    “Patty” the spray patternator table. Designed and constructed by Mohawk College, Brantford, Ontario.
    Digital manometer on a splitter parallel with the test nozzle.

    We tested ten nozzle flow rate measurement systems. There are others out there, but we limited the selection to farmer-oriented systems and not those used in mandatory government inspections.

    1. Billericay Flowcheck
    2. Delavan Calibration Cup
    3. Graduated Cylinder
    4. Greenleaf Calibration Pitcher
    5. SprayX SprayFlow Turbo
    6. SpotOn SC-1
    7. SpotOn SC-2
    8. SpotOn SC-4
    9. Weighed Output
    10. Lurmark McKenzie Calibrator

    Three samples were taken from a new TeeJet XR8004 at ~40 psi and three samples taken from a new TeeJet AIXR11004 at ~70 psi. An exception was made for the Billericay Flowcheck which specified 43.5 psi (3 bar) for all sampling. All systems were emptied or dried as much as their design permitted between samples.

    All data was converted to gallons per minute and the flow measured was compared to the calculated flow for the nozzle and pressure used. For example, if the manometer read 38 psi for the 8004, then the formula 0.4 x (38 psi ÷ 40) 0.5 gives us a calculated flow of 0.39 gpm. If the method reported 0.41 gpm, then it would be off by +5.1%.

    Results

    Consider the accuracy and the precision of each system when you review the results. Remember that precision means you get the same result with very little variation while accuracy means that on average you get the correct result. And, for context, remember that most recommend changing a nozzle when it is 10% more than the ideal flow rate. We prefer 5%, and if three or more nozzles are off spec, replace them all as a batch because they’re likely all very close. Compared to most spraying costs, a set of nozzles is not worth quibbling about. Some operators just change them annually and don’t bother with testing at all.

    Billericay Flowcheck: This is a passive measurement system. You must select the nozzle size on the bottom of the collector and suspend the unit from the nozzle body. It’s designed for a horizontal boom and you’d have trouble using it with any other sprayer. You also have to set the pressure to exactly 43.5 psi (3 bar). While fairly accurate, it spanned about +/-2.5% off ideal. You have to read from the right scale, which in this case was red and rather difficult to read because of the low contrast. It took about two minutes to reach equilibrium for each reading and a lot of liquid is lost during the process.

    We attempted to keep the unit plumb so the meniscus and scale aligned correctly. We found it difficult to read the ’04 scale because of low contrast. Pictured is 1.53 lpm.

    Delavan Calibration Cup: This small, one-handed plastic cup had a scale printed on the outside. We were limited to a 15 second collection because of how quickly it filled. Some spray was lost to mist and bounce and we used the “Fluid Oz” scale to get the highest resolution from the measurement. It took less than a minute to collect and read from the cup, but had the lowest precision and accuracy.

    Graduated Cylinder: There was little or no mist or bounce from escaping spray during collection. Our 1,000 ml graduated cylinder took 30 seconds at 40 psi and 20 seconds at 70 psi to fill making it roughly one minute per reading. A few light taps removed bubbles and once the liquid settled we could read the level. This must be performed on a level surface (in our case we used the digital level app on our iPhone). This was a very precise method, varying by less than 2%, but it wasn’t very accurate. We may have introduced error when reading the meniscus (always read from the centre) or perhaps the plastic distorted over time and affected accuracy. It may be difficult for most people to get a high quality, scientific-grade graduated cylinder.

    Greenleaf Calibration Pitcher: The pitcher had multiple scales but once again we used fluid ounces because it had the highest resolution. With the highest capacity, we were able to collect for an entire minute. Despite holding the vessel at different angles and distances, we lost a lot of spray to mist and bounce and the nozzle body was beaded with water at the end of each trial. After tapping the vessel to remove bubbles and reading on a level surface, it took about 1.5 minutes per sample and averaged an average 3% more than the calculated ideal flow rate.

    Innoquest Spot On Digital Calibrator: We’ll discuss all three Spot Ons together. The Spot Ons were a game-changer in North America when they first came out. You can read a peer-reviewed article about the SC-1 by Dr. Bob Wolf et al. published in 2015 in the Journal of Pesticide Safety here. The SC-2 is a new version of the SC-1 with added digital features that allow the user to calculate gallons per acre and it indicates tip wear based on the 10% industry standard . The most important improvements were a reduced sensitivity to foam and a thicker foam diffuser to reduce the chance of errors. The SC-4 works exactly like the SC-1, but has a larger capacity intended for high flow rate nozzles (e.g. hollow cones on an airblast sprayer). In each case, the Spot On will report in several units, and must be held steady under the nozzle flow (i.e. not moved during reading). The SC-1 and 2 took less than 12 seconds for each reading and the SC-4 took closer to 30. The SC-1 and SC-2 were relatively precise but read consistently higher than the calculated flow rate. This may be an artefact given that the units only read to 2 decimal places and this may have exaggerated any error. The SC-4 was the least accurate and precise of the three. The Spot Ons were the fastest and easiest to read of the methods used.

    Weighed Output: This method is based on the fact that 1 ml of water weighs one gram. Spray was collected for 30 seconds and weighed on a new, $25 CAD digital kitchen scale, which was tared (i.e. the weight of the vessel subtracted from the overall weight). While subject to errors from manual timing, it has the merit of removing the challenge of reading a meniscus and it’s relatively inexpensive. This method was precise and relatively accurate compared to the other methods used. It took about a minute per sample.

    SprayX SprayFlow Turbo: This was the most sophisticated method we used. The kit comes with a digital manometer, a flowmeter and a digital scale. It works though a smartphone app (screenshot below). You first have to set up a virtual sprayer, informing the app how many sections and nozzles will be tested. Then you must calibrate the flow sensor by taking three measurements versus a weighed output to eliminate possible variations caused by the nozzle, pressure, temperature, and the density of the liquid. The app walks the user through each step. This method took the most time to set up (easily 10 minutes). However, once it was set up, each nozzle could be tested in less than 30 seconds apiece. This method was the most accurate and precise, but the price may place it out of reach for the typical user.

    Screenshot from the SprayX SprayFlow app.

    Lurmark McKenzie Calibrator: This method is not reported in the box-and-whisker plot because there were significant problems that prevented accurate readings. It was difficult to get a seal over the nozzle and the floater ball would either stick or fluctuate. After several attempts, this method was abandoned.

    Conclusion

    In order to test if a process, or a thing, is occurring or produced within acceptable limits, we need a detection system with a high enough resolution. In manufacturing (e.g. factory production) this is an essential requirement in quality assurance. Let’s consider a +10% deviation from the nozzle’s ideal flow rate to be our indication that a nozzle needs to be replaced. We need a measurement system with an appropriate scale and one with sufficient precision to ensure we don’t get a false reading. Based on our data, I would suggest all systems reviewed, save the measurement cup, are viable. Even if we elect to use a more stringent rejection threshold of 5%, some systems are more precise than others (i.e. less variability), but all but the cup should still be sufficient.

    What’s the penalty for not testing, assuming we’re not talking about significantly deviant nozzles? Let’s say, for example, we are not using a rate controller and we are applying 20 US gpa at 12 mph using 72 nozzles on 20″ centres. Our boom would have to spray 58.2 gpm, which means each nozzle would have to emit 0.81 gpm. If those nozzles sprayed 5% more than intended, we’d be spraying 21 gpa instead of 20 gpa. That means for a 1,200 gallon sprayer, you’d do 57 acres instead of 60. We would have the same result if we dropped from 12 mph to 11.45 mph, which is about 5% slower. Maybe that’s a big deal for your operation, or maybe not. For most, 5% is well within the typical error inherent to spraying. Then again, perhaps it’s more important to know that each nozzle is performing in a manner similar to its neighbours to ensure the highest degree of coverage uniformity.

    Ultimately, it is important to ensure you’re as efficient as possible, and that means understanding what your nozzles are doing so you can decide if-and-when it’s time to replace them. Pick whichever method makes it easiest for you to justify testing your nozzles and do it at least once a year when you take your sprayer out of long term storage.

    Thanks to all the companies that donated or loaned their calibrators to make this article possible.

  • How to Size a Nozzle for Pulse Width Modulation (PWM)

    How to Size a Nozzle for Pulse Width Modulation (PWM)

    PWM is gaining popularity, and there is an ever-increasing number of first-time users that need to make nozzle selections for their system. We’ve written about it here, here, and here.

    Recall the PWM replaces spray pressure with Duty Cycle (DC) of a pulsing solenoid as the primary means of controlling nozzle flow. The solenoid shuts off the flow to the nozzle intermittently, between 10 and 100 times per second depending on the system. The Duty Cycle is defined as the proportion of time that the solenoid is open, and for low-frequency systems, DC is more or less linearly related to flow rate.

    The first rule of PWM nozzle selection is to understand that under average travel speeds, we’d like to see the duty cycle of the system at between 60 and 80%. This means that the nozzle solenoid is open about 2/3 of the time. This value also describes the flow rate as a proportion of the full capacity that nozzle.

    The reason for this 2/3 duty cycle rule is to enable four key features of PWM:

    1. It’s ideal for turn compensation, allowing the outer nozzles to increase their flow 20 to 40%, and the inner nozzles to decrease flow about three-fold, in accordance with boom speed.
    2. It allows speed flexibility, providing some additional speed, but more importantly, reduced speeds should conditions require it, without a change in spray pressure.
    3. It compensates for pressure changes so that spray quality can be adjusted without requiring a speed change. Less pressure reduces nozzle flow, and increasing DC recoups accordingly.
    4. It allows for customized higher flows of certain nozzles, perhaps behind wheels, to address reduced deposition in their aerodynamic wake (available on some PWM systems).

    The best tool for selecting the right nozzle size is Wilger’s Tip Wizard. This site asks for your desired average speed ( although it calls this “Max Sprayer Speed”), and reports the expected DC for a host of nozzle size solutions and pressures. It also reports maximum and minimum travel speeds and other useful information such as spray quality.

    Fig 1: The Tip Wizard is a useful tool for sizing nozzles on any PWM system. Sizing information applies to any nozzle. Spray quality information is for Wilger ComboJet nozzles only.

    Although intended for Wilger nozzles, the site’s sizing feature works for any nozzle brand. It asks the user which PWM system they have for the purpose of calculating the documented pressure drop across the solenoid.

    Fig 2: Tip Wizard results for the Wilger SR11006 tip at 10 gpa and 15 mph. Look for a solution that provides 60 to 80% Duty Cycle (DC).

    If you don’t have access to the site, a basic calibration chart can still work with a simple trick. Recall that we use the top row to identify the desired water volume, and the table’s interior values are speeds, as described here.

    Below are two solutions for someone wanting to apply 10 gpa at 15 mph without PWM. The correct choice depends on the required pressure to produce the needed spray quality.

    Fig 3: A conventional calibration chart, solving a 10 gpa application for 15 mph.

    If you want to apply the same 10 US gpa using PWM, simply solve for a larger volume that offers the right DC. For example, choosing 13 gpa will over-apply by 3 gpa, or 30%. The PWM system adjusts by running at 100-30=70% DC. If the chart doesn’t offer 13 gpa, go nearby, to 14 gpa, as we did below:

    Fig 4: By pretending to require 14 gpa instead of the actual 10 gpa, the conventional calibration chart is tricked into solving for a nozzle size that will work with PWM at 60% Duty Cycle.

    Now solve for the same target speed, 15 mph. The solution will run at 60% DC. Again, there is more than one choice, and that will depend on the spray pressure needed.

    Fig 5: Two possible solutions for achieving 10 gpa at 10 mph. An 06 nozzle at intermediate pressure or an 08 nozzle at low pressure.

    We’ve developed a template, in US or metric units, that can be customized for any water volume. Here is the same chart with 13 gpa added:

    Fig 6: A conventional calibration chart with the 13 mph speed added.

    The best solution for 10 gpa at 15 mph is the 06 size nozzle at 50 psi. This is not engraved in stone. One of the nice things about PWM is that it has inherent flexibility. Make the nozzle pressure a priority to get the correct spray quality. It really doesn’t matter whether the resulting DC is 65 or 80%, the system will still work well. Simply avoid extremes that take you below 50% or above 90%, they will limit the system’s capabilities.

    The worksheet can be downloaded below:

    Application-Chart-Template-2-PWMDownload

    It can handle any water volume or nozzle spacing by filling in the blue cells. Two additional worksheets in the file automate the process, simply enter the desired application volume, travel speed, and nozzle spacing (yellow cells), and the solution that offers the optimal duty cycle range will be highlighted in light green.

  • What’s the Cost of Poor Deposit Uniformity?

    What’s the Cost of Poor Deposit Uniformity?

    We’ve heard it often: calibrate your nozzles to be sure your boom output is uniform across its entire width. The downside of poor uniformity is obvious: strips of over- or under-application causing problems with pest control or crop tolerance. A graduated cylinder held for 30 s under each nozzle is the approach of choice. Several electronic versions exist to make the job easier, for example the Spot On.

    But there’s more to the story. Nozzle calibration only ensures volumetric uniformity from nozzle to nozzle. It serves to identify worn, plugged, or damaged nozzles, and little else.

    After release, the spray is atomized and distributed across a wider area with a properly developed pattern. An operator adjusts boom height or spray pressure to generate proper overlap for a given fan angle at the target height. Unfortunately, the uniformity of this pattern can’t be measured with a graduated cylinder, so we’ve traditionally used a “patternator”, a flat collector placed under a few nozzles that uses a series of channels to show the peaks and valleys of the volumetric distribution. Both calibration and patternation are done with a stationary spray boom. Nozzle manufacturers employ both methods to ensure their products meet international uniformity standards before marketing.

    A spray patternator determines the uniformity of a stationary boom’s spray distribution (Photo: TeeJet)

    Burt even that isn’t enough. We can have good volumetric distribution but still have inconsistent coverage in places. To identify those regions, we need a way to measure small amounts of spray deposit under a moving boom, ideally in the canopy we intend to treat. Here we have a few options. We can place a tracer (dye, salt, etc.) in the tank, and collect spray on small collectors placed throughout the area to be treated. We collect the samples, wash them, and analyze the solvent for the tracer. This requires special equipment and takes time. It’s useful, but only measures dose, not droplet size or density.

    Plastic straws can act as collectors of sprays under field conditions.
    Monofilament strings can be used to collect spray over long distances.

    A faster way is to use water-sensitive paper, about which we’ve written here and here. Using WSP is fast and easy, and it can provide additional information such as the number of droplets per unit area, or the total percent of the area covered, or even the size of the deposits, with the right equipment. We call this “coverage”, and believe this to be one of the two components of good pest control (the other being “dose”, the total amount of material deposited). Because the world isn’t fair, WSP isn’t great at quantifying dose.

    Water-Sensitive paper provides a quick visual indication of the deposit, not just amount but also qualitative aspects such as droplet size and distribution.

    The industry has done a good job of identifying the dose required for good control, and this is reflected in the rate recommendations on a label. But there are a few gaps. They don’t tell us, for example, what “good coverage” is, despite often telling us to “ensure” it.

    Back to Deposit Uniformity

    We quantify deposit uniformity by calculating the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of a series of measurements. The CV is defined as the standard deviation of these measurements, expressed as a percent of the mean value.

    Because it’s hard to measure, it’s easy to ignore. But here are a few basics our research has told us: (In the first three examples, deposits were measured under a spray boom using petri plate or drinking straw samplers. There was no interference from a canopy. The last example was taken from within a canopy.)

    • When measuring the deposited dose, the CV under a boom tended to rise with increased wind speed. This is no surprise, as it reflects that more wind has a greater chance to displace spray from its intended destination.
    Spray deposit uniformity, observed during various spray drift studies, tended to decrease with higher wind speeds.
    • Higher booms and increased travel speed also tended to increase deposit CV.
    Faster travel speeds during spray drift studies tended to decrease uniformity.
    • Finer sprays tended to increase deposit CV. This makes sense, as the finer droplets are more easily displaced by air movement.
    Coarser sprays created more uniform deposits possibly because they were more resistant to turbulent displacement.
    • Deposits were reduced and became more variable deeper in a broadleaf canopy. Again this makes sense, as there are a lot of obstacles to clear and canopies themselves are by no means uniform.
    Deposit amount was lower in the canopy, as expected. But the lower deposit was also more variable.

    Also note that the CV in the canopy was quite a bit higher (40 – 60%) than for the exposed targets (10 – 20%). That’s another challenge.

    To recap, the best uniformity was achieved with low booms (as long as patterns overlap sufficiently), slow speeds, low winds, and coarser sprays. It’s easy to see that current spray practice isn’t always conducive to uniform deposits.

    Deposit variability as captured by a 2 mm diameter string with two sprayer configurations.

    So What?

    Why does uniformity matter? It matters because more variable deposits are less efficient. They require higher doses for the same effect as uniform deposits. Here’s why:

    The figure below shows a typical dose response curve for a herbicide. On the y-axis, we see weed biomass, on the x-axis herbicide dose. At low pesticide doses, not much happens. (In fact, we often see a slight increase in biomass with very low herbicide doses.) As we increase dose, biomass begins to decline, and as dose increases further, the effect begins to taper off. At a certain dose, no further biological response is possible.

    A typical dose response curve for a herbicide.

    In the next figure, we see that application of a uniform dose “a” results in biomass “y”, about 20% of untreated.

    A dose response curve represents the weed biomass that resulted from any applied dose.

    Next, we apply the same average dose, but we do it non-uniformly. At some locations under the boom, the deposit may be 40% higher or lower than average. The result is response “z”. Weed control is worse, as bad as it would have been at a lower uniformly applied dose (effective dose “b”).

    A variable dose across a field results in many individual weed biomasses because of deposit variation. The net result is lower control.

    This effect only happens when the effective dose is near the lower inflection point of the dose response curve. Perhaps we’re shaving rates. Perhaps the weather is challenging the herbicide’s performance. Or perhaps the weed is difficult to control. Under those conditions, any gain in performance with a higher dose is less than the penalty from a lower dose.

    There are two ways to correct this performance loss. One is to apply a higher herbicide rate. It’s commonly done, as insurance against – you guessed it – variability, and it’s one reason why label rates have some flexibility. The second way is to improve deposit uniformity. In effect, better uniformity allows for rate reductions.

    Label rates are typically in the flat region of the dose response curve to allow for variable conditions in weed susceptibility, weed growth stage, growing conditions, and deposit variability.

    Take Home Message

    Uniform spray deposition improves overall control. Our examples used herbicides, but the same is true for fungicides and insecticides. It’s true for field crops as well as fruit and vegetable sprays.

    Uniformity is especially important when the application is done under adverse conditions in which the pesticide performance is challenged. It’s a fundamental part of good application practice.

    It’s not always easy to improve uniformity. But at least it should be measured. Without measuring it, an applicator may never know how much product is being wasted. Have a look at the Crop Adapted Spraying approach Jason is using, it’s a template for all sorts of applications.

    What can you do? The easiest task is to record the flow from each nozzle. The results might be surprising. Ensuring proper and consistent boom height is also important. Using water-sensitive paper to visualize the quality of the job would be icing on the cake. And adjusting application method, with uniformity as a goal…that gets you a gold star.

  • Spray Patterns for Spot Sprays

    Spray Patterns for Spot Sprays

    Spot spraying promises to dramatically cut herbicide use. Data from Green-on-Brown (GoB) sprays suggest at least 50% and possibly 90% savings are possible, depending on weed density and the system employed. These savings are significant. But system performance depends on the nozzle selection even more than for broadcast sprays. What are the issues?

    Pattern Width

    Spot sprays represent a unique mix of single nozzle banding and multiple nozzle broadcasting on the same boom at different times and locations, depending on what the weedy spots require. Both need to be optimized to get the best performance and savings out of such a system.

    Even (Banding) Nozzles

    Let’s say the spot spray boom has a spacing of 10” (25 cm) and is carried by wheels to ensure consistent height. An operator would want the spray pattern to have a very similar width as the nozzle spacing. A 30 degree even fan angle would create a band of about 10” wide at a boom height of 19” (48 cm, download a worksheet that solves this for any fan angle and boom height here). Assuming a travel speed of 12 mph (20 km/h) and a pressure of 40 psi (2.75 bar), an 03 sized nozzle would apply 14.9 US gpa (139 L/ha) in these 10” wide bands.

    But most applicators would be uncomfortable with zero overlap, and would prefer to raise the boom to allow, say, 20% overlap. This would ensure targetting of taller weeds that appear exactly between two sprays, for example. At 22” (56 cm) boom height, the pattern would be about 12” (30 cm) wide and affording 1” overlap on either edge.

    Spot spray booms activate any number of nozzles depending on the weed locations.

    Because the application is diluted by the extra pattern width, the applied volume is now 12.4 US gpa (116 L/ha), about 20% less than before. This change is easily accommodated by mixing the product more concentrated in the tank. The downside is that the overlap in banded sprays receives twice the dose, and this is less than ideal.

    Tapered (Overlapping) Nozzles

    A possible solution is to employ tapered flat fans that are the standard type on broadcast booms. These produce more of their volume in the centre, diminishing at the edges, to allow for overlapped patterns and thus functioning better when more than one nozzle is activated. In addition, the extra coverage from a wider pattern is not as wasteful as it is from an even pattern type since it comprises less volume. A single nozzle spray, however, would have a higher dose in the centre than at the edges, since a single pattern has a bell-shaped volume distribution. (note: a single nozzle moving through air loses some of its volume from the centre and places it at the edges, due to aerodynamics of the fan shape. That levels out the bell shape somewhat.)

    Broadcasting

    When more than one nozzle is triggered by the sensor, the spot spray of that region is just a small section of a broadcast boom. The average dose is now related to the nozzle spacing, not the actual band width as it was for a single nozzle. The wider the section of nozzles that are activated simultaneously, the less inefficiency a wider individual pattern creates because it’s only wasted on the outside edges of the outside nozzles.

    Clearly, a sprayer that sometimes functions as a single nozzle spot spray, and at other times as a broadcast boom requires some compromises. Monitoring the activation of nozzles and learning from the relative frequency of single vs multiple nozzle activations will be useful to optimize the configuration. But when boom height is constant, a good compromise solution is possible.

    Suspended Booms

    A more challenging situation arises from suspended booms that do not hold a consistent height. Let’s assume a boom height variance of 10” (5” in either direction), and a wish to retain 20% overlap at the lowest height to avoid misses from a 30 degree nozzle.  The lowest height would have about a 12” pattern width, achieved at 22”. The boom would be set 5” higher, 27” (69 cm). At this height, a 30 degree fan would produce a band width of 14.5” (37 cm), producing a 45% overlap. If the boom sways up to 32” (81 cm), the pattern width would be 17.1” (43 cm).

    For multiple adjacent nozzles, boom height determines overlap, and a minimum overlap must be achieved even when the boom sways low.
    For single nozzles, boom height determines band width and therefore dose.

    This is where it gets tricky. At suboptimal heights, the difference between a single band and a section of overlapping patterns increases. Do we calculate the tank mix for the rate a single nozzle delivers within its band, or for a set of nozzles activated simultaneously? If we knew that the majority of activations are for a set of two or more nozzles, we could opt to assume an application rate of a boom section with 10” spacing. An 03 nozzle at 40 psi and 10” spacing would apply 14.9 gpa (139 L/ha). But when a single nozzle is activated, the application volume in the 14.5” band is just 10.2 US gpa (95 L/ha), and the plants that triggered just a single nozzle would be under-dosed.

    At the top of the sway (32”), a single nozzle’s wider pattern would deliver about 8.7 gpa (81 L/ha) , another 16% less spray volume than at 27”. At the low end of its sway, the band is 12” wide, applying about 12.4 gpa (116 L/ha) , 23% higher than the 10.2 gpa rate at the 27” boom height.

    It’s clear that to take advantage of the potential savings of spot spraying, and to ensure good success with single nozzle activation, consistent and accurate boom heights are essential.  I’m not sure how much more obvious a development priority can be.

    Band Length

    Spot sprays allow the user to select the length of band that the spray is activated for. Shorter band lengths require more targetting certainty. If booms and travel speeds are both low, an individual detected weed can be targetted accurately with relatively short band lengths because relatively little can happen to displace the spray during its short journey. But as booms and travel speeds are higher, the time that the spray arrives at the target is more difficult to predict and longer band lengths need to be programmed. For example, wind can push the spray off its target. Or the faster speeds impart more of a horizontal vector to the spray, causing it to land further away from the point of release.

    The variances in where the spray lands along the direction of travel depend on droplet speed and boom height. A conventional flat fan nozzle produces an initial droplet velocity of about 20 m/s. These droplets slow at a rate dependent on their size and whether they’re entrained in the spray plume. At 45 cm below the nozzle, larger droplets are still moving at 10 m/s. Smaller droplets are only moving at 1 to 2 m/s.

    Droplets take time to reach their target, and the spray band length must accommodate variance in this time arising from different from boom heights or droplet speeds.

    Let’s assume an average droplet speed of 10 m/s for the journey. At that speed, the spray takes about 0.05 s to travel the 0.7 m (27”) from nozzle to target. During that time, the sprayer going 12 mph (5.6 m/s) moves about 0.25 m forward, as do the larger droplets from the released spray. If the boom sways down to 22” or up to 32”, the distance travelled by the sprayer is 0.2 and 0.3 m, respectively. In other words, the band length would need a buffer of 10 cm to accommodate the variability of the beginning and end of the band.

    Overall Efficiency

    Are these numbers such a big deal?  You might say that we’re already cashing in on some big savings here, so why sweat the details?

    It’s the principle and the resources. If we’re talking about individual nozzle band width and its change with boom height, accommodating boom sway means applying more than necessary on average to avoid under-dosing when booms sway high. The examples used here show a potential dose variance of 40% with a boom sway of 10”, a modest assumption. That’s a big number to leave on the table. If we had a constant boom height, we could decide what overlap we wanted and minimize these losses.

    One of the features on most spot sprayers is to turn on all nozzles of a section that exceed a certain boom height. While this prevents under-dosing and ensures an area is treated even when the sensor is outside of its optimal range, it is possibly an unnecessary use of product.

    If we’re talking band length, adding 10 cm to a band length of 50 cm is 20% over-application. That can also add up.

    The key to being efficient with spot sprays is accurate and consistent boom height. We know we can do that with a wheeled boom. But show me a suspended boom that can deliver on this, and I see an instant industry leader in spot spray application.

  • Broadcast Boom Nozzle Spacing

    Broadcast Boom Nozzle Spacing

    North American built boom sprayers have nozzle spacings of 20” (50 cm in the rest of the world), but other spacings such as 15” (37 cm) and 10” (25 cm) also exist. What are the reasons for these alternative spacings and do they offer any inherent advantages?

    Why spacing matters

    Nozzles are spaced along a boom to allow their fans (patterns) to overlap sufficiently at the target. In broadcast spraying, a uniform distribution of spray volume gives us the best chance for consistent coverage along the boom. Since flat fan nozzles produce a tapered pattern (i.e. the volume is highest in the centre and diminishes towards the edges), approximately 100% overlap (i.e. 50% from each neighbour) will produce a uniform swath.

    Figure 1: Tapered flat fans that require some overlap are the default pattern type for agricultural boom nozzles. This is true of conventional and low-drift styles. Note that the flat fans are turned 15° to prevent the spray patterns from interfering with one another.

    The 100% overlap isn’t just for volumetric distribution. Flat fan spray patterns tend to have more and finer droplets in the centre and fewer and coarser droplets at the edges. All droplet sizes contribute to coverage in different ways, so the overlap ensures both number and sizes are evenly distributed along the entire boom.

    Figure 2: 30% overlap may achieve volumetric uniformity. But because the centre of the pattern contains the majority of the smaller droplets, low overlap may result in low coverage in the overlap regions, resulting in striping.
    Figure 3: Consistent droplet number distribution along the boom requires at minimum 100% overlap (50% from each neighbouring nozzle). This blends those regions of the patterns with high and low droplet densities.

    The generic 20” spacing arose from long-held conventions about boom height, fan angle, and travel speed. Specifically, this spacing required a boom height of 20” to obtain good overlap of the once-dominant 80° fan angle. Combined with 0.15 to 0.3 US gallon per minute (gpm) nozzles and travel speeds of 6 to 8 mph, operators were able to apply 5 to 15 US gallons per acre (gpa) volumes. Using nozzles with smaller flow rates would generally result in nozzle blockages.

    But what if we want to change any of those variables? How does this affect nozzle spacing? Figuring out the pros and cons of an alternate spacing requires a little math and some contingency management.

    Boom Height Math

    First the math. If the boom has 20” nozzle spacing and we need 100% overlap, the width of the spray pattern at target height must be two times the nozzle spacing, which is 40″. You must calculate the required fan angle and boom height to achieve this. Most nozzle catalogues have tables to help with this, or you can download a handy spreadsheet to calculate your own scenarios here.

    For today’s standard 110° fans, a minimum boom height of 14” is needed to achieve 100% overlap. For 15” spacing, the height is reduced to 11”. For 10” spacing, we drop to a mere 7”. However, consider that most modern suspended booms are not operated at heights less than 24” to allow for sway. At that height, there’s plenty of overlap to go around for 20″ nozzle spacing. For those booms that are able to operate at a consistent height, narrower spacings permit lower heights that will reduce drift potential significantly. Every time we halve boom height, we also halve drift potential.

    Figure 4: Using 110° tips with 20″ spacing, the theoretical height at which we achieve 50% overlap is 11″ above target.

    By tilting the nozzles forward or backward from the vertical, we can reduce the boom height somewhat further and still get the same overlap. For example, for 20 and 15” spacings, angling nozzles forward or backwards by 30° allows us to drop the boom another 2” closer to the target.

    Contingencies

    A suspended boom hardly ever stays at a uniform height; It sways up and down with field conditions, topography, etc. This is why many operators set their booms above the minimum height – to prevent striping when the boom sways low. The penalty is that this increases the distance droplets need to travel, increasing drift potential and any turbulent displacement problems arising from the moving boom.

    Assuming a 110° flat fan at 24” boom height, each nozzle achieves a theoretical pattern width of about 70”, which is an overlap of 70÷20=3.4-fold or 240% on 20” nozzle spacing. Given a minimally-acceptable overlap of 50% (25% from each neighbouring nozzle), the boom could be as low as 11”. For 15” spacing, the minimum height for 50% overlap is 8”, and for 10” spacing it’s 5”. This means the narrower spray patterns gain 3” to 6” in allowed downward boom movement.

    Figure 5: Using 110° tips on 15″ spacing, the height for 50% overlap is 8″ above target.

    A second contingency is that spray patterns are rarely the exact value that the nozzle catalogues specify. A so-called 110° nozzle may operate at only 90°, or up to 150°, depending on the nozzle model, the spray pressure, and the tank mix. Learn more here and here. Patterns also don’t continue to grow at their rated fan angle, as droplets slow due to air-resistance and fall more vertically due to gravity. For that reason, a visual check is recommended to ensure the expected overlap is achieved.

    Figure 6: Fan angles indicate initial trajectories of droplets at the edge. With distance, gravity pulls these droplets downward, narrowing the pattern width from that achieved theoretically (figure adapted from image in TeeJet catalogue).

    A third issue to consider is less related to boom height but nonetheless affects spray distribution. Small droplets move with air currents, and the turbulence created by large, fast sprayers creates enough turbulence to move these droplets significantly. A perfect pattern under static conditions can look quite different at a fast travel speed with a modest side wind. Low booms may help prevent some of this displacement because droplets spend less time in flight, and their average velocity is faster.

    Figure 7: Spray deposition onto a 2 mm string to measure deposit uniformity for a fast travel speed and high boom and a slow speed, low boom configuration.

    Flow Rate Math

    Flow rate requirements per nozzle change whenever we equip a boom at an alternate spacing. The basic formulae are shown below.

    Moving from a 20″ to a 15″ spacing would require a nozzle with 0.75 of the flow rate, approximately from a 02 to 015 size, or 03 to a 025 size, or 04 to 03 size, etc.

    Pulse Width Modulation

    The use of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) has increased the overlap requirement. With PWM, alternate nozzles are on a 180° timing offset from their neighbours. This means that when running >50% duty cycle, when one nozzle is temporarily off, its neighbours are on. These neighbours’ patterns must now span the gap, and 100% overlap is the absolute minimum to achieve this. PWM users therefore select the wider pattern angles and some opt for >100% overlap.

    Figure 8: Pulse Width Modulated booms require 200% overlap so that the entire boom receives proper coverage when the alternate set of nozzles is off. For 110° fans at 20″ spacing, the minimum boom height would be 21″

    PWM Considerations

    • High flows (greater than 1 US gpm at the nozzle) that are common for fertilizer top-dressing may require higher-flow PWM valves.
    • Narrow spacings reduce the individual nozzle flow rates and can therefore support higher application rates before triggering a larger valve requirement.
    • PWM valves aren’t cheap and for example 15″ spacing compared to 20″ spacing adds 24 valves on a 120′ boom.

    Banding

    We noted that 20” nozzle spacing is a standard because it corresponds to what has traditionally been achievable with available boom heights and spray pattern angles. But things can change.

    Narrower spacings such as 15” originate with row crops and planter row spacings of 15” or 30”. These spacings exist so the spray pattern can be placed either over the top of a crop row, or in between the rows for banding. Using narrower fan angles and/or lower boom heights, together with “even” (as opposed to “tapered”) fans, banding sprays can be applied over the top of, or between crop rows. Or drop hoses can reach between the rows for top-dressing or directed sprays into the canopy.

    Canopy Penetration

    With narrower spacing, it can be argued that a greater proportion of the boom length has spray directed directly downward (corresponding to the centre of the pattern). Whether or not this translates into better penetration of a canopy is a fair question. In laboratory trials, use of 10” or 20” spacing did not improve penetration into a broadleaf canopy. But if the lower boom height afforded by the narrower spacing was utilized, some improvements in the deposit of angled sprays onto vertical targets was observed.

    Adjusting to Narrower Spacings

    As we showed earlier, use of 15” or 10” spacing booms for broadcast sprays requires a smaller nozzle size to achieve the same spray volumes as the 20” spacing. If boom height remains constant, narrower spacings result in greater pattern overlap which provides more latitude for sway. Alternately, lower boom heights can be used.

    Using smaller nozzles on narrower spacing presents some challenges. Generally, smaller nozzle size means finer spray quality. If an operator wants to retain the spray quality they had on a 20″ spacing, they may opt to use lower pressure (not advisable for non-PWM systems) or swap to different nozzle design that can produce the desired spray quality at the lower flow rate.

    Smaller nozzles are more prone to plugging, so that needs to be managed with filtration, filling practices and water sourcing. Be aware of the the product formulations and their requirements for filter mesh size. Most dry products specify a 50 mesh filter (or coarser). Also, check size options for nozzles. The smallest size for most nozzle models is 015, but certain PWM-specific nozzles are only available in 03 or larger.

    The marriage of narrow spacings with individual nozzle shutoff can result in a versatile system capable of producing high resolution banded sprays in narrow seeded crops. For example, consider a boom with a 10” nozzle spacing spacing that matches the seeder row spacing. The operator can shift from 10” to 20” or 30” from the cab if the valve control software allows it. With accurate guidance and good boom levelling, topdressing foliar products (e.g. nutrients, fungicides) can follow the crop row precisely.

    Spot Sprays

    Spot sprays present a situation where compromises are needed. Some, such as WEEDit, utilize narrower nozzle spacings to allow better treatment resolution and increase product savings. Any one nozzle or sets of adjacent nozzles may be triggered by the sensor. For single nozzle activation, to preserve the value of the better resolution a uniform, narrow band of spray needs to be created. This means a 30° or 40° fan angle from a banding nozzle will be necessary. For example, a 24” boom height will result in a 13” band with a 30° fan, and an 18” band with a 40° fan. In the latter case, the dose would be diluted by 80%, wasting much of the potential savings.

    Figure 10: Boom height is critical for banded sprays and for spot sprays. Too wide a pattern on a single nozzle reduces dose, too narrow creates misses.

    Frequently, a patch of weeds will trigger several adjacent nozzles. Now these individual bands need to work together to create a uniform swath. This will inevitably require some overlap to avoid gaps, but too much overlap will result in bands where twice the dose will be applied. A tapered fan may suit this situation better. As a result of these varying needs, tolerances for spot spray boom height are even more strict than for broadcast spraying. More thoughts on spot spray nozzle selection are here.

    Conclusions

    Narrower nozzle spacings on a broadcast boom allow somewhat lower boom heights and these can in turn reduce drift and improve deposition of sprays. Lower flow nozzles will be needed with narrower spacings, requiring management of plugging and potentially a more drift-prone spray quality. The value of narrower spacings depends on the availability of booms that control sway, allowing them to operate at uniform, low heights.