Droplet deposition of agrochemical spraying: Comparison of results from a random‐walk model and <scp>CFD</scp> simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effectiveness of agricultural spraying processes depends considerably on the ability of the atomized droplets to reach the target site in the desired amount. In this work, two mathematical models to study the trajectories and deposition of atomized droplets are implemented and compared. On the one hand, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupled with discrete phase model (DPM) is implemented to calculate the trajectories of atomized droplets and determine distances at which the droplets are deposited. The continuous phase (atmospheric air) is modelled by continuity, momentum, and energy equations. On the other hand, a Lagrangian random‐walk (LRW) model based on force and energy balances to predict the pulverization process of a nozzle is formulated and implemented in Python. Both models take into account the effects of drag, gravity, buoyancy, and evaporation on individual droplets, as well as the impact of atmospheric stability and dispersion. By tracking a large number of trajectories, meaningful estimates of dispersal statistics can be obtained. The LRW model accurately replicated the trajectories, deposition distances, and final diameters of atomized droplets for three atmospheric stability cases, compared with CFD simulation results. The results of both models agreed that 100 μm droplets were most susceptible to wind‐induced spray drift, depositing at the furthest distances from the nozzle. In addition, 50 μm droplets exhibited a significant tendency to evaporate entirely before reaching the ground. The LRW model is found to be a cost‐effective alternative for estimating spray drift compared to the computationally intensive CFD approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".