International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER)

www.ijmer.com Vol.3, Issue.2, March-April. 2013 pp-864-868 ISSN: 2249-6645

Development of Multinozzle Pesticides Sprayer Pump

Sandeep H. Poratkar, 1 Dhanraj R. Raut2

1
Mechanical Engineeringt, Tulsiramji Gaikwad Patil College of Engg & Technology, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Uumrer Polytechnic, Umrer

Abstract: India is a land of agriculture which comprises of small, marginal, medium and rich farmers. Small scale farmers
are very interested in manually lever operated knapsack sprayer because of its versatility, cost and design. But this sprayer
has certain limitations like it cannot maintain required pressure; it lead to problem of back pain. However this equipment
can also lead to misapplication of chemicals and ineffective control of target pest which leads to loss of pesticides due to
dribbling or drift during application. This phenomenon not only adds to cost of production but also cause environmental
pollution and imbalance in natural echo system. This paper suggests a model of manually operated multi nozzle pesticides
sprayer pump which will perform spraying at maximum rate in minimum time. Constant flow valves can be applied at nozzle
to have uniform nozzle pressure.

Keywords: Back pain, constant flow valves, drift, multinozzle pesticides sprayer pump, small; marginal; medium farmer.

I. INTRODUCTION
Agriculture plays a vital role in Indian economy. Around 65% of population in the state is depending on agriculture.
Although its contribution to GDP is now around one sixth, it provides 56% of Indian work force [10]. Table 1 shows that
share of marginal and small farmer is around 81% and land operated is 44 % in 1960-61. As far as Indian scenario is
concerned, more than 75 percent farmers are belonging to small and marginal land carrying and cotton is alone which
provide about 80 % employment to Indian workforce. So any improvement in the productivity related task help to increase
Indian farmer’s status and economy. The current backpack sprayer has lot of limitation and it required more energy to
operate. The percentage distribution of farm holding land for marginal farmers is 39.1 percentage, for small farmers 22.6
percentage, for small and marginal farmers 61.7 percentage, for semi-medium farmers 19.8 percentage, for medium farmers
14 percentage and for large farmers 4.5 percentage in year 1960-61.Table 1 clearly explain that the maximum percentage of
farm distribution belonged to small and marginal category.

Table I: Percentage distribution of farm holding and operated area for various farmers
Percentage distribution of farm holding Percentage distribution of Operated Area
Land Class 1960-61 1981-82 1991-92 2002-03 1960-61 1981-82 1991-92 2002-03
Marginal 39.1 45.8 56 62.8 6.9 11.5 15.6 22.6
Small 22.6 22.4 19.3 17.8 12.3 16.6 18.7 20.9
Small & Marginal 61.7 68.2 75.3 80.6 19.2 28.1 34.3 43.5
Semi-medium 19.8 17.7 14.2 12 20.7 23.6 24.1 22.5
Medium 14 11.1 8.6 6.1 31.2 30.1 26.4 22.2
Large 4.5 3.1 1.9 1.3 29 18.2 15.2 11.8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fig I Percentage-wise Land distribution from 1960 to 2003

Fig I shows that percentage of the marginal, small and semi medium farmers is about 92.15 %, which states that
growth of these farmers require advanced equipment which will work faster than existing one.

www.ijmer.com 364 | Page

 International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER)
www.ijmer.com Vol.3, Issue.2, March-April. 2013 pp-864-868 ISSN: 2249-6645

II. DESIGN REQUIREMENT

2.1 Drawbacks in Existing Sprayer Pumps:
The Indian farmers (small, marginal, small and marginal, semi-medium) are currently using lever operated
backpack sprayer. A backpack sprayer consists of tank 10 -20 liter capacity carried by two adjustable straps. Constant
pumping is required to operate this which result in muscular disorder [1].Also, the backpack sprayer cant maintain pressure,
results in drifts/dribbling[9].Developing adequate pressure is laborious and time consuming. [13].Pumping to operating pressure
is also time consuming[6]. Moreover, very small area is covered while spraying. So, more time are required to spray the entire
land. Back pain problems may arise during middle age due to carrying of 10-20 liter tank on back.

2.2 Uneconomical Existing High cost Pumps for Indian Marginal and Small Farmers
Presently farmers are using knap-sack sprayer for spraying pesticides on crops in their farms which costs for Rs
1800-4500/-.Pesticides are diverse and omnipresent[5].This sprayer has a wide limitations and thus farmers can use the other
sprayer also like bullock driven sprayer pump and tractor mounted sprayer. Cost of bullock driven is about Rs 28000/-[7]. But
though this these sprayer has high advantages but are not affordable by farmers of developing nation .So, it’s a need to find
out a golden mean among these. The height factor also play a key role in spraying .For cotton, about 5 to 6 times spraying of
pesticides is done. Cotton is one of the important commercial crops grown extensively in India. Over 4 million farmers in
India grow cotton as their main source and income & livelihood. The textile sector, which is primarily based on cotton fibre,
is the largest employer & income provider in India, second only to agriculture. It employs close to 82 million people – 35
million in textile & 47 million in allied sector Table III flashes the light on No. of crops on which spraying is done and their
horizontal, vertical distances and maximum height

Table II:-Existing high features high cost sprayer

S.N Type of sprayer No. of workers required Area for which sprayer is Time required Cost
. pump for spraying used generally for spraying
1 Bullock Driven 2 More than manually Less than More than
operated manually manually
operated operated Rs
28000/-
25 Tractor 1 More than other two Less than above More than other
Operated two two Rs 6.00
lacks to 7.00
lacks

2.3 Distances (horizontal & Vertical) and height of crop:

Table III:-No. of crops on which spraying is done and their horizontal, vertical distances and maximum height
Sr. no. Name of crop Distance between plants Height of crop
(horizontal/vertical)
1. Sorghum 15 inch /3-4 inch 5.5-7 feet
2. Pearl millet 15 inch /3-4 inch 5.5-7 feet
3. Sugarcane 15 inch /3-4 inch 5.5-7 feet
4. Soybean 15 inch / 2 inch 5.5-7 feet
5. Corn 15 inch /3 inch 5-7 feet
6. Groundnut 15 inch / 3 inch 1.5 feet
7. Cotton 24-36 inch /24-36 inch 2-5 feet
8. Pigeon Pea 15 inches / 6 inches 3-4 feet

III. Development of Model

Fig II CAD model of manually operated multi-nozzle pesticides sprayer pump

www.ijmer.com 365 | Page

 International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER)
www.ijmer.com Vol.3, Issue.2, March-April. 2013 pp-864-868 ISSN: 2249-6645

Fig III Side View of Manually operated multi-nozzle pesticides sprayer pump.

IV. Working
The working of this manually operated multi nozzle pesticides sprayer pump is based on the principles of motion
transmission due to chain and sprocket arrangement and plunger cylinder arrangement. The operator first stand behind the
trolley. He will grab the handle and lift it and push the trolley forward. As trolley move forward, the wheel rotates in
counterclockwise direction. As sprocket is mounted on same shaft of wheel, it also rotates in counter clockwise direction.
This motion is transferred to freewheel via chain drive arrangement. The freewheel, thus, also starts rotating in
counterclockwise direction. As freewheel and big spur gear are mounted on same shaft, it also start rotating in anticlockwise
direction. This will rotate small spur gear in clockwise direction as it is externally meshed with it. Due to this, the disc start
rotating which give motion to link as it is fixed on the disc. The plunger is attached to disc via link. The plunger got motion
due to this which stimulates pesticides to come outside via six nozzles.

Table IV Selection of components with their material specifications

Sr. Name of component Dimensions Material used Material specification
No
1. Frame 350*900 mm. M.S. Cheap, durable, good strenght
2. Tank 350*500 mm. plastic Light in weight , dureble
3. Nozzle D = 70 mm. Plastic For P upto 3 bar from traditional
sprayer..... wrtlr
4. Nozzle bar L = 2400 mm., W = 25 mm. Steel Dureble , light in weight
5. Adjuster bar L = 1500 mm., D = 25 mm. Steel Dureble , light in weight
6. Link L= 100 mm., W=10 mm. M.S. Cheap, durable,good strenght
7. Disc D = 150 mm.,w =5 mm. M.S. Cheap, durable,good strenght
8. Wheel D =550 mm., W=40 mm. Steel Cheap, durable,good strenght
9. Tyre D=560 mm. Rubber For friction purpose
10. Sprocket D=200 mm.,T = 45, m= 4.45 Steel Adopted from Hero Cycles
11. Free wheel D=70 mm.T= 18, m= 3.88 Steel Specification for transmittinf force
upto 50 N, chip, durable,
12. Spur gear big D=110 mm., T=108, m=1.01 Nylon For parallel shaft power
13. Spur gear small D=24 mm.,T=22, m=1.09 M.S with transmission and have high
hardened upto velocity ration
60 BHN
14. Shaft L=200 mm.,D=18 mm. M.S. bright bar Shaft is taken with respect to inner
15. Shaft L=230 mm. M.S. bright bar diameter of freewheel of Hero
cycle

V. Design Calculations
Sprocket: No. of Teeth = T1=45, Diameter = D1= 200 mm, Pitch = 12.5 mm
Freewheel: No. of Teeth = T2=18, Diameter = D2= 70 mm, Pitch = 12.5 mm
Spur gear big:No. of Teeth = T3=45, Diameter = D3= 110 mm
Spur gear small: No. of Teeth = T4=22, Diameter = D4= 24 mm
www.ijmer.com 366 | Page
 International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER)
www.ijmer.com Vol.3, Issue.2, March-April. 2013 pp-864-868 ISSN: 2249-6645

5.1Chain and sprocket

Gross weight of system = 25 kg=25*9.81=245.25 i.e. 246 N
Radius of rear wheel = rw=350 mm
Designed acceleration = ta=10 sec
Coefficient of rolling resistance = Crr=0.017
Gradient= 00
Total tractive force= sum of Rolling resistance, Gradient resistance and Accelerating force
Rolling resistance=weight* Crr =246*.017=4.17 N
Gradient Resistance=Weight * sin θ = 246*0=0
Accelerating force= (weight*V)/(g*ta)=(246*2)/(9.81*10) = 5N
Total Tractive Force = 4.17+0+5=9.17 N
Thus,
Force required to drive a system = 9.17 N
Now,
Pulling force transferred to handle = FR = ((F*RC* R2) / (RW* R1))
Where,
F=Force transmitted to wheel=9.17N
Rc=Distance between Pulling Centre to sprocket centre=520mm
R2=Radius of Rear Sprocket=200/2=100mm
R1=Radius of freewheel=70/2=35 mm
Therefore,
FR= ((9.17*350*100) / (520*35)) = = 17.63 N is a Pulling Force
Thus,
Torque = FR* distance =17.63*.2=3.526 N-m
Thus,
Power, PR= (2 * Pi* N *T)/60= (2*3.142*2*3.526)/60=0.7384 watts.
Design Power=Pd= PR*Kl=0.7384*1.2=0.88603 watts K l=1.2 from pn 150 TN XIV1 s.n.1
(D1* N1 / 60) = (D2*N2 / 60)
(200/70)= (N2/2) i.e. N2=5.82=6 rpm
Torque Available at freewheel is (T1/T2) = (D1/D2) i.e.T2=T1/(D1/D2)=1.2341 N-m
FR = ((F*RC* R2) / (RW* R1))
Power available at freewheel, P2= (P1*90%) = 0.7384*0.9=0.66456 watts
As Freewheel and Sprocket Mounted on Same shaft
T2=T3=1.2341 N-m and P2=P3=0.6656 Watts; N2=N3=6 rpm
As Gear 3 and Gear 4 are externally meshed,
(D4/D3) = (N3/N4) i.e. (24/110)/(6/N4) i.e. N4=28rpm

5.2 Calculation of Spur gear/Design of Spur gear

Tg = T3 = 108
Tp=T4=22
N2=N3=6 rpm
Np=N4=28 rpm
1. Pitch line velocity = Vp = (Pi*Dp*Np)/60000 =(Pi*264*28)/60000=0.387 m/s where, Dp=No. of teeth *
module=22*12=264
2. Design Power= Pd=Pr*Kl =(0.7384*1.25)=0.88603watts where, Kl=1.25 by Table no. XVI-2/P.N.166 of DDB
3. Velocity factor= Cv=0.885 T.N.XVI-3/pn166
4. Basic Stress for gears=So=175 Mpa T.N.XVI10
5. Modified Lewis Form Factor= Y=0.39- (2.16/Tp) = 0.39-(2.16/22)=0.291 TN XVI5
6. Bending Strength= FB=So*Cv*b*Y*m = 175*0.885*264*0.2918*12=1431.6 N
7. Dynamic load Fd=Ft+( (21 Vp(c*e*b+Ft)) / (21 Vp(c*e*b+Ft) 1/2) )) C=12300 TNXVI4
E=0.097mm for m=12 mm,
B=8m=8*12=96
Vp =0.387
Thus, Fd=2688 N

8. Limiting Wear Strength Fw= Dp*b*K*Q TN XIV1

Dp=364
b=8*12=96,
K=302 i.e.load stress factor pnXVI-6
Q = Size factor = 2 tg/(tg+tp) for externally meshing gear..
= (2*108)/(108+22)
=1.6615

www.ijmer.com 367 | Page

 International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER)
www.ijmer.com Vol.3, Issue.2, March-April. 2013 pp-864-868 ISSN: 2249-6645

Thus, Fw=12717.1 N
Check Fw Limiting Wear Strength > Dynamic loadFd,
As (Fw=) 12717.1 N > (Fd=) 2688 N Thus Design is safe

VI. Conclusion
1. The suggested model has removed the problem of back pain, since there is no need to carry the tank (pesticides tank) on
the back.
2. As suggested model has more number of nozzles which will cover maximum area of spraying in minimum time & at
maximum rate.
3. The c.f. valves can also be applied which help in reducing the change of pressure fluctuation and c.f. Valves helps to
maintain pressure.
4. Proper adjustment facility in the model with respect to crop helps to avoid excessive use of pesticides which result into
less pollution.
5. Imported hollow cone nozzles should be used in the field for better performance.
6. Muscular problems are removed an there is no need to operate the lever.
7. This alone pump can used for multiple crops

References
[1] Application technology: Problems and opportunities with Knapsack sprayer, Including the cf valves or Constant Flow Valves.-
David McAuliffe and Vanessa P. Gray
[2] Journal of arboriculture weed control in landscape plantings1 by J.F. ahrens april 1981 vol. 7, no. 4.
[3] Backpack Sprayer-Modified for small farm Crop Protection-Rutgers Snyder Research & Extension Farm Staff–Edited by John
Grande and Jack Rabin.
[4] To Spray or Not to Spray: Pesticides, Banana Exports, and Food Safety John S. Wilsona Tsunehiro Otsuki*,b a b Development
Research Group (DECRG), World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20433, USA March 2002.
[5] Farmers understanding of pesticides safety labels and field spraying practices. By Oluyede Clifford Ajayi and Festus K.
Akinnifesi_Scentific Research and Essay Vol (2), pp.204-210, June 2007 ISSN 1992-2248@2007 Academic Journals
[6] Wilcoz. M. 1969. A sprayer for application of small amounts of herbicides to flats. Weed Sci. 17:263-264
[7] Performance evaluation of bullock drawn sprayers for cotton crop-m. Veerangouda, k. V. Prakash, jag jiwan ram and g.
Neelakantayya
[8] Designing, construction and evaluation of tractor-back sprayer with Variable Rate Technology (VRT) by using aerial maps
information Mehrdad Fouj Lali1, Parviz Ahmadi Moghadam2 1 msc in Mechanics of Agricultural Machinery, Urmia University,
Iran 2 Assistant Professor in Mechanics of Agricultural Machinery, Urmia University, Iran.
[9] Effect of the Constant Flow Valves on Performance of Pesticide Sprayer by A. R. Tahir, F .H .Khan, A. A. Khan 1560-
8530/2003/05-1-49-52 International Journals of Agriculture and Biology
[10] Maharashtra Progressive Agriculture – A new Horizon –Confederation of Indian Industry
[11] Modification of a knapsack sprayer for more efficient use j. Founk
[12] Small farmers in India-Challenges and opportunities- S.Mahendra Dev-
[13] Modification of a Knapsack Sprayer for more efficient use- J.Founk Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Harrow, Ontario NOR.

www.ijmer.com 368 | Page