Purpose: Pepper prices have risen continuously because of a decrease in cultivation area; therefore, mechanical harvesting systems for peppers should be developed to reduce cost, time, and labor during harvest. In this study, a screw type picking head for a self-propelled pepper harvester was developed, and the optimal working conditions were evaluated considering helix types, winding directions of helix, and rotational speeds of the helix. Methods: The screw type was selected for the picking head after analyzing previous studies, and the device consisted of helices and a feed chain mechanism for conveying pepper branches. A double helix and a triple helix were manufactured, and rotational speeds of 200, 300, and 400 rpm were tested. The device was controlled by a variable speed (VS) motor and an inverter. Both the forward and reverse directions were tested for the winding and rotating directions of the helix. An experiment crop (cultivar: Longgreenmat) was cultivated in a plastic greenhouse. The test results were analyzed using the SAS program with ANOVA to examine the relationship between each factor and the performance of the picking head. Results: The results of the double and triple helix tests in the reverse direction showed gross harvest efficiency levels of 60-95%, mechanical damage rates of 8-20%, and net marketable portion rates of 50-80%. The dividing ratio was highest at a rotational speed of 400 rpm. Gross harvest efficiency was influenced by the types of helix and rotational speed. Net marketable portion was influenced by rotational speed but not influenced by the type of helix. Mechanical damage was not influenced by the type of helix or rotational speed. Conclusions: Best gross harvest efficiency was obtained at a rotational speed of 400 rpm; however, operating the device at that speed resulted in vibration, which should be reduced.
Purpose: This study was conducted to understand the work performance of crank-type rotavators and compare them with those of rotary-type rotavators in Korean farmland conditions. Methods: Tillage operations were carried out using both rotavators with the same nominal rotavating width and rated power. During the operations, PTO speed and torque, actual work speed, and rotavating width and depth were measured. To evaluate work performance, pulverizing ratio, inversion ratio, and specific volumetric tilled soil were calculated and compared for each rotavator. Results: It is found that the crank-type rotavator has better specific volumetric tilled soil performance and deep tillage, while the pulverizing ratio is worse. Conclusions: Crank-type and rotary type rotavator have diffenent properties each other in several work performances. It's important, therefore, to choose a suitable type of rotavator that satisfy the farmer's requirements in accordance with the condition of field and the purpose of tillage operation.
This study was performed to develop accelerated life test methods for agricultural tractor transmission receiving variable load. To acquire parameters for calculation of accelerated life test, endurance tests were performed under different torque conditions. Test results showed that the shape factor of Weibull distribution was 1.5 and fatigue damage exponent was 5.4. The calculated test time was 5,877 hours under the conditions of average life (MTBF) 3,000 hours and 90% reliability for one test sample.According to the linear cumulative damage rule, test time could be reduced using increased test load. Test time could be reduced by 252 hours when 1.2 times of the rated load compared with 0.67 times of the rated equivalent load calculated by load spectrum of the agricultural tractor. Calculated acceleration coefficient was 23.3.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.