脉冲宽度调制(PWM)喷嘴控制系统的喷嘴流量、压降和响应时间

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
J. Fabula, A. Sharda, Qing Kang, D. Flippo
{"title":"脉冲宽度调制(PWM)喷嘴控制系统的喷嘴流量、压降和响应时间","authors":"J. Fabula, A. Sharda, Qing Kang, D. Flippo","doi":"10.13031/TRANS.14360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":23120,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the ASABE","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nozzle Flow Rate, Pressure Drop, and Response Time of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) Nozzle Control Systems\",\"authors\":\"J. Fabula, A. Sharda, Qing Kang, D. Flippo\",\"doi\":\"10.13031/TRANS.14360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transactions of the ASABE\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transactions of the ASABE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13031/TRANS.14360\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the ASABE","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/TRANS.14360","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在不同的应用速率和应用压力下,PWM系统的喷嘴压降不同。在不同速率和压力下,相对于预期流量的流量变化在PWM系统之间是不同的。在系统达到目标应用程序压力之前有一段延迟。PWM系统的工作时间小于规定的占空比,这可能会导致应用误差。本研究使用了Capstan PinPoint II、John Deere ExactApply和Raven Hawkeye三种PWM喷嘴控制系统,分别称为系统S1、S2和S3。使用LabVIEW程序和cRIO数据采集系统,记录了两种应用速率(112.2和187.1 L ha-1)和两种应用压力(275.8和448.2 kPa)在1 kHz下,不同占空比(25%、50%、75%和100%)和工作频率(10、15和30 Hz)下的喷嘴压力、动臂压力、流量和响应时间数据。结果表明,在不同的应用速率、压力、占空比和频率下,PWM系统的性能是不同的。在运行过程中,每个PWM系统在喷嘴处提供不同的压降。施加量和压力的增加使压降增大。相对于预期流量的流量百分比变化在PWM系统之间也有显着差异,这可能是由于喷嘴在运行期间提供的压力不同。在工作过程中,PWM系统在达到目标应用压力之前也显示出延迟,并且在稳定的目标压力下工作的时间少于指定的占空比,同时即使在电磁阀关闭后也继续喷射。在选择PWM系统时,应仔细考虑峰值和下降时间期间的应用压力以及一个周期内稳定应用压力的时间,因为它们会导致应用误差。生产者还应考虑所选PWM系统的压降和目标应用速率,以使系统应用于所需的压力。制造商大多建议在10hz操作PWM系统。为了本研究的目的,S1的PWM系统的工作频率设置为10和15 Hz, S2的工作频率设置为15和30 Hz, S3的工作频率设置为10、15和30 Hz。如果选择更高的频率,生产商应该期望在压降、稳定压力应用时间和流量方面存在差异。本研究的结果仅适用于所使用的喷嘴体和喷嘴尖端的类型。根据双孔阀系数方程,数据会有所不同:第二孔越大,压降越大。这将影响最终孔板压力,以及流量。本研究没有解决喷嘴体和喷嘴类型设计差异对流动阻力的影响。关键词:喷嘴流量,压降,脉宽调制控制模块,响应时间
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nozzle Flow Rate, Pressure Drop, and Response Time of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) Nozzle Control Systems
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transactions of the ASABE
Transactions of the ASABE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed journal publishes research that advances the engineering of agricultural, food, and biological systems. Submissions must include original data, analysis or design, or synthesis of existing information; research information for the improvement of education, design, construction, or manufacturing practice; or significant and convincing evidence that confirms and strengthens the findings of others or that revises ideas or challenges accepted theory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信