4.7 Article

Numerical analysis and validation of spray distributions disturbed by quad- rotor drone wake at different flight speeds

Journal

COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS IN AGRICULTURE
Volume 166, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2019.105036

Keywords

Quad-rotor plant protection drone; Lattice Boltzmann method; Large eddy simulation; Droplet drift

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61773171]
  2. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [2018A03130128]
  3. Guangzhou Science and Technology Project [201707010047]
  4. Leading Talents of Guangdong Province Program [2016LJ06G689]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The computational fluid dynamics method based on the lattice Boltzmann method (LBM), was used to simulate the downwash flow field of a quad-rotor drone. The downwash flow fields of a quad-rotor drone at flight speeds of 1-7 m/s and flight altitudes of 1-2 m were simulated. The horseshoe-shaped vortices were successfully captured at a speed exceeding 5 m/s. In order to capture the deposition and drift distribution of droplets with different sizes in the downwash flow field of a quad-rotor drone more accurately, the Lagrangian discrete phase particle tracking method was used to simulate the trajectories of droplets with different particle sizes. By changing the flight speed, flight altitude, vertical height of the boom from the rotor, and lateral distance between the nozzles, the effects of these conditions on the droplet deposition and drift behind the fuselage were studied. The accuracy of the numerical simulation was verified by a wind tunnel test. The results of the numerical simulation were in good agreement with the data from the wind tunnel test. It is shown that the computational fluid dynamics model developed in the paper can be successfully applied to the simulations of droplet drift and deposition of a quad-rotor plant protection drone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available