Nominal Evaluation of Automatic Multi-Sections Control Potential in Comparison to a Simpler One- or Two-Sections Alternative with Predictive Spray Switching

Automatic Section Control (ASC) promises to minimize spray overlap areas. The 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. Spraying and the movement of modern wide boom bars are highly dynamic processes with many uncertainty factors. Therefore, an Automatic Multi-Sections Control method is compared to a proposed simpler one- or two-sections alternative that uses a predictive spray switching. The comparison is provided under nominal conditions. Combinations of two area coverage path planning and switching logics as well as three sections-setups are compared. These 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. An economic cost analysis is provided. A preferred method is suggested that (i) minimizes area coverage pathlength, (ii) is suitable for manual driving by following a pre-planned predictive spray switching logic for an area coverage path plan, and (iii) and in contrast to ASC can be implemented sensor-free and therefore at low cost. Surprisingly strong economic arguments are found to not recommend ASC for small farms.