Selection and experimental evaluation of shaking rods of canopy shaker to reduce tree damage for citrus mechanical harvesting

Yingjun Pu, Arash Toudeshki, Reza Ehsani, Fuzeng Yang, Jaafar Abdulridha

Abstract


Canopy shaking system is one of the research hotspots for large-scale mechanized fruits harvesting. Shaking rods considered as one of the essential components of canopy shaker are responsible for transferring mechanical energy from shaking mechanism to different regions of tree canopy. This transfer depends on the characteristics of the shaking rods that directly strike the tree canopy. In order to evaluate the effects of the shaking rods on tree damage level and fruit removal percentage, three kinds of shaking rods with different materials or shapes were selected. Based on the results of bending deformation tests, it was proven that the rigid shaking rod (R1) with the material of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) did more resistance against producing bending deformation in comparison with the other two types of shaking rods with the material of Polyamide Nylon 12 (PA). By contrast, the position close to the free end of the flexible shaking rod was easier to be deformed by less external force. In addition, dynamic analysis and vibration performance tests indicated that the rigid shaking rod could produce stronger vibration with higher shaking frequency of 4.8 Hz and maximum acceleration of 31.4 m/s2. Finally, the results of field trials indicated that the flexible bow-shaped shaking rod (R3) has a better widespread performance to achieve comparative higher fruit removal percentage up to 82.6% while producing lower tree damage rate of 5.36%. This study demonstrates that the materials or shapes of the shaking rod could significantly influence the fruit detachment rate and tree damage level. This study would provide an essential reference for the application of shaking rods for canopy shaker.
Keywords: citrus harvester, shaking rod, canopy shaker, bending deformation, tree damage, fruit removal
DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20181102.4126

Citation: Pu Y J, Toudeshki A, Ehsani R, Yang F Z, Abdulridha J. Selection and experimental evaluation of shaking rods of canopy shaker to reduce tree damage for citrus mechanical harvesting. Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 2018; 11(2): 48–54.

Keywords


citrus harvester, shaking rod, canopy shaker, bending deformation, tree damage, fruit removal

Full Text:

PDF

References


USDA-NASS. Citrus production forecast on 2016-17 season. Washington DC: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Florida Field Office. 2017. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/ Florida/Publications/Citrus/Citrus_Forecast/2016-17/cit0717.pdf. Accessed on [2017-09-26].

Sanders K F. Orange harvesting systems review. Biosyst Eng, 2005; 90(2): 115–125.

Torregrosa A, Orti E, Martin B, Gil J, Ortiz C. Mechanical harvesting of oranges and mandarins in Spain. Biosyst Eng, 2009; 104(1): 18–24.

Brown G K. New mechanical harvesters for the Florida citrus juice industry. Horttechnology, 2005; 15(1): 69–72.

Du X Q, Wu C Y, He L Y, Tong J H. Dynamic characteristics of dwarf Chinese hickory trees under impact excitations for mechanical fruit harvesting. Int J Agric Biol Eng, 2015; 8(1): 17–25.

Shamshiri R, Ehsani R, Maja J M, Roka F M. Determining machine efficiency parameters for a citrus canopy shaker using yield monitor data. Appl Eng Agric, 2013; 29(1): 33–41.

Sola-Guirado R R, Castro-Garcia S, Blanco-Roldan G L, Jimenez-Jimenez F, Castillo-Ruiz F J, Gil-Ribes J A. Traditional olive tree response to oil olive harvesting technologies. Biosyst Eng., 2014; 118: 186–193.

Whitney J D. Field test results with mechanical harvesting equipment in Florida oranges. Appl Eng Agric, 1999; 15(3): 205–210.

Peterson D. Mechanical harvester for process oranges. Appl Eng Agric, 1998; 14(5): 455–458.

Castro-Garcia S, Rosa U A, Gliever C J, Smith D, Burns J K, Krueger W H, et al. Video evaluation of table olive damage during harvest with a canopy shaker. Horttechnology, 2009; 19(2): 260–266.

Savary S K J U, Ehsani R, Schueller J K, Rajaraman B P. Simulation study of citrus tree canopy motion during harvesting using a canopy shaker. Trans of the ASABE, 2010; 53(5): 1373–1381.

Spann T M, Danyluk M D. Mechanical harvesting increases leaf and stem debris in loads of mechanically harvested citrus fruit. Hortscience, 2010; 45(8): 1297–1300.

Hong M Y, Rosa U A, Upadhyaya S K. Optimum operating parameters for a rotary drum shaker for harvesting jatropha curcas L. Trans of the ASABE, 2012; 55(6): 2051–2058.

Yu P C, Li C Y, Takeda F, Krewer G, Rains G, Hamrita T. Quantitative evaluation of a rotary blueberry mechanical harvester using a miniature instrumented sphere. Comput Electron Agr, 2012; 88: 25–31.

Sola-Guirado R R, Jimenez-Jimenez F, Blanco-Roldan G L, Castro-Garcia

S, Castillo-Ruiz F J, Ribes J A G. Vibration parameters assessment to develop a continuous lateral canopy shaker for mechanical harvesting of traditional olive trees. Span J Agric Res, 2016; 14(2): 1–10.

Pezzi F, Caprara C. Mechanical grape harvesting: Investigation of the transmission of vibrations. Biosyst Eng, 2009; 103(3): 281–286.

Caprara C, Pezzi F. Measuring the stresses transmitted during mechanical grape harvesting. Biosyst Eng, 2011; 110(2): 97–105.

Caprara C, Pezzi F. Evaluation of quality of harvest and mechanical aspects related to beater adjustments in mechanical grape harvesting. Trans of the ASABE, 2014; 57(4): 991–997.

Wilson W C, Coppock G E. Abscission chemical effects on shaker-catchframe harvest system performance and subsequent hamlin and pineapple orange yield. Hortscience, 1981; 16(3): 299–300.

Burns J K, Buker R S, Roka F M. Mechanical harvesting capacity in sweet orange is increased with an abscission agent. Horttechnology, 2005; 15(4): 758–765.

Burns J K, Roka F M, Li K T, Pozo L, Buker R S. Late-season 'Valencia' orange mechanical harvesting with an abscission agent and low-frequency harvesting. Hortscience, 2006; 41(3): 660–663.

Ebel R C, Burns J K, Morgan K T, Roka F. Abscission agent application and canopy shaker frequency effects on mechanical harvest efficiency of sweet orange. Hortscience, 2010;45(7): 1079–1083.

Moreno R, Torregrosa A, Molto E, Chueca P. Effect of harvesting with a trunk shaker and an abscission chemical on fruit detachment and defoliation of citrus grown under Mediterranean conditions. Span J Agric Res, 2015; 13(1): 1–12.

Chen D, Du X, Zhang Q, Whiting M, Scharf P, Wang S. Performance evaluation of mechanical cherry harvesters for fresh market grade fruits. Appl Eng Agric, 2012; 28(4): 483–489.

Gupta S K, Ehsani R, Kim N H. Optimization of a citrus canopy shaker harvesting system: Mechanistic tree damage and fruit detachment models. Trans of the ASABE, 2016; 59(4): 761–776.

Liu T H, Ehsani R, Toudeshki M, Zou X J, Wang H J. Experimental study of vibrational acceleration spread and comparison using three citrus canopy shaker shaking tines. Shock & Vibration, 2017; 1: 1–9.

Cardarelli F. Materials handbook. A concise desktop Reference. 2nd Edition. In: Polymers and Elastomers. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology Press, 2008; pp. 694–726.

Beer F P, Johnston E R, Dewolf J T, Mazurek D F. Mechanics of materials. 6th Edition. In: Deflection of Beams. Beijing: China Machine Press, 2015; pp.500–581. (in Chinese)

Savary S K J U, Ehsani R, Salyani M, Hebel M A, Bora G C. Study of force distribution in the citrus tree canopy during harvest using a continuous canopy shaker. Comput Electron Agr, 2011; 76(1): 51–58.

Willis J R, Milton G.W. On modifications of Newton’s second law and linear continuum elastodynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2007; 463(2079): 855–880.




Copyright (c)



2023-2026 Copyright IJABE Editing and Publishing Office