HighlightsNozzle pressure drop varies between PWM systems at different application rates and application pressures.Change in flow rate with respect to the expected flow differs between PWM systems at different rates and pressures.There was a latency before the system reached the target application pressure.PWM systems operate for less time than the specified duty cycle, which may cause application errors.Abstract. Three PWM nozzle control systems, Capstan PinPoint II, John Deere ExactApply, and Raven Hawkeye, referred to as systems S1, S2, and S3, respectively, were used in this study. Data on nozzle pressure, boom pressure, flow rate, and response time were recorded with different duty cycles (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%) and operating frequencies (10, 15, and 30 Hz) for two application rates (112.2 and 187.1 L ha-1) and two application pressures (275.8 and 448.2 kPa) at 1 kHz using a LabVIEW program and a cRIO data acquisition system. Results indicated that the PWM systems perform differently when operating at different application rates, pressures, duty cycles, and frequencies. Each PWM system provided a different pressure drop at the nozzle during operation. The increase in application rate and pressure increased the pressure drop. The percent change in flow rate with respect to the expected flow was also significantly different between the PWM systems, which could be due to the differences in pressure provided at the nozzle during operation. The PWM systems also showed latency before reaching the target application pressure during operation and operated for less time than the specified duty cycle at stable target pressure while also continuing to spray even after the solenoid valves had closed. The application pressure during peak and fall times and the time of stable application pressure within a cycle should be given careful consideration when selecting a PWM system, as they can contribute to application errors. Producers should also consider the pressure drop with the selected PWM system and target application rate to set up the system to apply at the desired pressure. Manufacturers mostly recommend operating PWM systems at 10 Hz. For the purpose of this study, the operating frequency of the PWM systems was set to 10 and 15 Hz for S1, to 15 and 30 Hz for S2, and to 10, 15, and 30 Hz for S3. Producers should expect differences in pressure drop, stabilized pressure application time, and flow rate if they choose to operate at a higher frequency. The results of this study are only applicable to the types of nozzle bodies and nozzle tips used. The data will differ based on the dual-orifice valve coefficient equation: the larger the second orifice, the greater the pressure drop. This will affect the final orifice pressure, as well as the flow rate. This study did not address the impact of flow resistance caused by differences in the design of nozzle bodies and nozzle types. Keywords: Nozzle flow rate, Pressure drop, Pulse width modulation control modules, Response time.
Evaluation of spray pattern uniformity using three unique analyses as impacted by nozzle, pressure, and pulse‐width modulation duty cycle
