DLMN DEVELOPMENT AND LRR LABORATORY EVALUATION LIN OF A ROLLER RLLR MECHANISM MNIM FOR FR SUGAR CANE RESIDUE HARVESTING

Transcription

1 CIGR V Conference ISFAHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY DLMN DEVELOPMENT AND LRR LABORATORY EVALUATION LIN OF A ROLLER RLLR MECHANISM MNIM FOR FR SUGAR CANE RESIDUE HARVESTING Jalil Razavi and Mohsen Hajheidary Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering Isfahan University of Technology, Iran

2 INTRODUCTION Area of Sugarcane Cultivation: Worldwide : 29 million hectares Iran: around 100 thousand hectares. Worldwide cane production: 1,728 million metric tons Worldwide sugar production: 37% from sugar beet 63% from sugarcane 2

3 INTRODUCTION Sugar cane residue consisting of leaves and tops constitutes 15 to part of the p plant weight g wise,, depending p g on 30% of the aerial p the field conditions and variety planted. 3

4 INTRODUCTION Abundance of residue often hinders field operations and irrigation following harvesting sugarcane. 4

5 INRDIN INTRODUCTION Thus, a frequent practice to reduce residue in many sugarcane plantations is to burn up fields before and after harvest. Environmental pollution is a serious concern and ways to minimize damage must be considered. 5

6 INTRODUCTION O Attempts to remove residues in Brazil (Rippoli et al., 2004) and US in which sugarcane is grown under rain fed conditions resulted in the application of round balers. 6

7 INTRODUCTION However, in dry regions such as Iran because of the necessity to irrigate sugarcane fields and due to the shape of the fields ( 183 Cm center to center rows and furrows), ordinary round or rectangular balers can not be used. 7

8 MATERIAL AND METHODS Efforts were made to develop new systems adaptable to local field conditions in sugarcane plantations ti in Khuzestan Province in Iran from Several machines with different objectives of: 1- To shred and return residue to OM deficit soils of the region. 2- To gather/shred residue and partially remove from the fields and partially return to soil. 3- To completely remove residue from the fields, were designed d and developed, d nonetheless, with little success due to high rate of material deposited on the ground. 8

9 MRIL MATERIAL AND METHODS MD 9

10 10

11 MATERIAL AND METHODS In the year a roller pick-up mechanism adaptable to the width of furrows in S.C. plantations was devised, designed and fabricated to be tested stationary on a test rig at If Isfahan University it of Technology some 750 Km away from plantations in Khuzestan Province. 11

12 MATERIAL METHODS 12

13 MATERIAL METHODS 13

14 MATERIAL METHODS 14

15 15

16 MATERIAL METHODS Field dried residue in plastic bags were transported to Isfahan University of Technology for preparation of experiments on the test rig at the experimental shop of the Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering. 16

17 MATERIAL METHODS 17

18 Experiments were performed with a completely randomized design with three replications. Experimental factors included: Belt Speed (Km hr -1 ) Roller Speed Ratio to Forward Speed Upper Roller Higher Lower Roller Higher Equal Speed Rollers Speed Difference

19 Results and Discussion

20 Table 1- Analysis of Variance of Effective Parameters on Rollers Operation. Source of Variation df SS MS F P r > F Treatment *** Rollers Speed Diff. (A) * Belt Speed (B) /98*** < Roller Speed to Belt Speed Ratio(C) * AxB ns AxC ** BxC ns AxBxC * Error Total *,**,*** indicate significant effect at 5,1 and 0.1 percent level. ns indicate not significant at 5 % level. 20

21 Table 2- Mean comparison of amount of material lifted as affected by rollers speed difference. Rollers speed Difference Upper roller speed being higher (about1.25 higher) Average amount of material lifted 87.3 a Rollers equal speed 87.0 a Lower roller speed being higher (about1.25 higher) 85.7 b 21

22 Table 3- Mean comparison of amount of material lifted as affected by test rig conveyor belt speed Belt speed (km hr -1 ) Average amount lifted a b c 22

23 Table 4- Mean comparison of amount of material lifted as affected by ratio of rollers rotational speed and conveyor belt speed. Ratio of rollers rotational speed and conveyor belt speed Average amount lifted a a b

24 Table 5- Mean comparison of interaction effect of belt conveyor speed, speed ratio of rollers and belt conveyor and speed difference of rollers on amount of material lifted. Lower roller speed higher Ratio of rollers and belt speed Upper roller speed higher Ratio of rollers and belt speed Rollers speed equal Ratio of rollers and belt speed Belt speed (km/h) hijk 87.8 def 87.5 efg 87.8 def 90.3 a 89.6 ab 89.5 abc 88.4 cde 87.3 efg ghij 85.9 ijk 85.0 jkl 85.6 jkl 87.1 fgh 89.3 abc 84.4 m 85.1 klm 90.0 a ijkl 84.4 m 82.5 n 80.8 o 86.6 ghij 88.8 bcd 84.7 lm 86.9 fghi 86.7 fghij 5

25 Conclusions: Roller mechanism head designed showed the capability to pick up sugar cane residue satisfactorily. Results indicated that: 1- lower roller speed causes less material to be lifted up. Nonetheless, higher speed of upper roller only resulted in 1.6 % difference in material removal from the conveyor belt. 2-The highest amount of material picked up was at 2.5, 3.5 and 5 Km hr -1, respectively. 3- It is concluded that considering economic performance of the machine, operating at 3.5 km hr -1 with equal rotational speed of the rollers and ratio of 1:1 for rollers speed and conveyor belt speed would result in higher amount of material harvested. 4-On average 86,7 percent of the sugar cane residue was lifted up by the roller mechanism head.

26 Thank You For Your Attention ti 26