IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL AND BENEFICENT

To,MERCIFUL AND BENEFICENT
By
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,
I have been able to reach this position,
And whose hands are always raised for pray,
For my well being, even at this moment of time,
And under whose feet my heaven lies.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Allah Almighty never spoils my efforts. Every piece of work is rewarded according to
nature of devotion in it. I have the part of my eyes to admire blessings of the
compassionate and omnipotent because the words ate bound, knowledge is limited, and
time is short to express his dignity. It is one of the infinite blessings of Almighty Allah
that Allah bestowed me with potential and ability to complete the present research
program in time and make a material contributing towards the deep oceans of knowledge.
I offer my humblest thanks from the core of my heart to the Holy Prophet
(SAW), the most perfect and exalted, who is forever a model of guidance and knowledge
for humanity.
I feel much honor to complete my research work under enthusiastic guidance and
sympathetic attitude inexhaustible inspiration and enlighten supervision of Prof. Dr.
Manzoor Ahmad, Department of Farm Machinery & Power, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad. I extend deep emotions of appreciation, gratitude and indebtedness for his
valuable guidance.
I thankfully acknowledge my profound indebtedness to Dr. Abdul Ghafoor
Department of Farm Machinery and Power and thanks to Prof. Dr. Abdul Khaliq
Department of agronomy for their constructive criticism, valuable suggestions and
encouragements to improve this manuscript and special thanks to my great father Ch.
Muhammad Ajmal, Dr. Habib ur Rehman, Mr. M. Tayyab, Lecturer, Punjab Bio
Energy Institute, Dr. Kamran Akram, Ch. Usman Gujjar, Assistant Manager at Millat
tractors limited my beloved brother Talha Bin Ajmal and my uncle Sarfraz Randhawa.
I am also thankful to supporting staff of Department of Farm Machinery and
Power, UAF who extended a great support for this research.
Finally, I feel my proud privilege to mention the feelings of obligations towards
my colleagues and friends who never let me worry about anything and provided me
utmost help in all matters throughout my study program.
(Engr. Usama Bin Ajmal)
3.2.3 Field Test 46
3.2.3.4 Theoretical Time of Field Operation 48
3.2.3.5 Effective Time for Field Operation 50
3.2.3.6 Sugarcane Harvester Field Efficiency 51
3.2.3.7 Sugarcane Harvester Effective Material Capacity 52
3.2.3.8 Speed of Operation 54
3.2.3.9 Fuel Consumption 54
3.3.1 Factor Affecting Fixed Cost 55
3.3.1.1 Depreciation Cost 55
3.3.2.3 Labor Cost 56
3.4 Statistical Analysis 56
4.1 Physical Properties of Sugarcane 57
4.2 Bending Resistance and Deflection 59
4.3 Yield Variation 68
4.5 Cost analysis of sugarcane harvester 90
Summary 93
Conclusions 95
Recommendations 96
REFERENCES 97
No.
3.1 Values of minimum and maximum stalk diameter of various commonly
grown sugarcane varieties in Pakistan
25
3.2 TFC values at different working widths 48
3.3 Theoretical time of field operation and theoretical field capacity with
different working widths per hectare
49
3.4 Effective time required for farm operation(hr) at different effective
working widths 0.85 m
3.5 Sugarcane harvester effective material capacity values for variety CP-
77400
53
3.6 Sugarcane harvester effective material capacity values for variety US-633 54
3.7 Sugarcane harvester effective material capacity values for variety US-127 54
4.1 Length of different varieties of sugarcane crop 57
4.2 Stalk diameter of different varieties of sugarcane crop 58
4.3 Row to row and plant to plant spacing 59
4.4 Descriptive deflection analysis for US-127 59
4.5 Descriptive bending resistance analysis for US-127 60
4.6 Descriptive deflection analysis for US-633 61
4.7 Descriptive bending resistance analysis for US-633 62
4.8 Descriptive deflection analysis for CP-77400 63
4.9 Descriptive bending resistance analysis for CP-77400 64
4.10 Analysis of Variance Table for Effective Time required (ETR) at working
width (0.85 m)
70
4.11 Analysis of Variance Table for effective time required ETR at working
width (0.92 m)
71
4.12 Analysis of Variance Table for effective time required (ETR) at working
width (1.02m)
72
4.13 Analysis of Variance Table for forward speed (FS) at working width
(0.85m)
73
4.14 Analysis of Variance Table for Forward speed (FS) at working width
(0.92m)
74
4.15 Analysis of Variance Table for forward speed (FS) at working width
(1.02m)
75
4.16 Analysis of Variance Table for sugarcane harvester effective material
capacity (SHEMC) at working width (0.85m)
76
77
80
4.19 Analysis of Variance Table for sugarcane harvester field efficiency
(SHFE) (%) at working width (0.85m)
82
(SHFE) (%) at working width (0.92 m)
83
(SHFE) (%) at working width (1.02m)
84
x
4.22 Analysis of Variance Table for theoretical field capacity (TFC) with
working width (0.85 m)
85
4.23 Analysis of Variance Table for theoretical field capacity (TFC) (ha/hr)
with working width (0.92 m)
86
4.24 Analysis of Variance Table for theoretical field capacity (TFC) (ha/hr)
with working width (1.02m)
86
4.25 Analysis of Variance Table for theoretical time required (TTR) per
hectare with working width (0.85 m)
87
hectare with working width (0.85 m)
88
hectare at working width (1.02m)
89
xi
2.2 Burnt Cane Harvesting 08
2.3 Whole Stalk Harvester 11
2.4 Chopper Harvester 13
3.2 Composition of Sugarcane Leaves 27
3.3 Length Measurement of Sugarcane Stalk 28
3.4 Calculation of Mill-able Canes in 1 m2 30
3.5 Experimental setup to calculate bending resistance 31
3.6 Designed Sugarcane Harvester 34
3.7 Isometric View of Hitch Point(cm) 35
3.8 Side View of Hitch Point(cm) 35
3.9 Actual View of Hitch Point 36
3.10 Isometric View of Frame 37
3.11 Top View of Frame(cm) 37
3.12 Side View of Frame(cm) 38
3.13 Actual View of Base Cutter 39
3.14 Isometric View of Base Cutter 40
3.15 Top Cutter Isometric View 41
3.16 Top View of Top Cutter(cm) 42
3.17 Top Cutter Side View(cm) 42
3.18 Isometric View of Blower(cm) 43
3.19 Side View of Blower(cm) 44
3.20 Conveyer Frame 45
3.22 Power Requirements for different components with altered rpms 46
4.1 Variation in sugarcane stalk diameter of different varieties from top
to bottom
58
4.2(a) Variation in Deflection for US-127 Sugarcane stalk by change in
Force (load)
60
4.2(b) Variations in bending resistance for US-127 by change in Force
(load)
61
4.3(a) Variation in Deflection for US-633 Sugarcane stalk by change in
Force (load)
62
4.3(b) Variations in bending resistance for US-633 by change in Force
(load)
63
4.4(a) Variation in Deflection for CP-77400 Sugarcane stalk by change
in Force (load)
4.4(b) Variations in bending resistance for CP-77400 by change in
Force (load)
4.5 Variations in deflection with changing force at different stalk
diameters of selected sugarcane varieties
66
xii
4.6 Variations in bending resistance with changing force at different
stalk diameters of selected sugarcane varieties
67
4.7 Yield in ton/ha of three sugarcane varieties 68
4.8 Power required for base cutter with different cutter diameters at
different rpm
69
4.9 Reflecting effective time required (ETR) with respect to rpm and
gear variations (hr/ha)
70
4.10 Reflecting effective time required with respect to rpm and gear
variations (hr/ha)
71
4.11 Reflecting effective time required (ETR) with respect to rpm and
gear variations (hr/ha)
72
4.12 Showing forward speed (FS) variation with respect to rpm and gear 73
4.15 Effect of Gear and varieties on sugarcane harvester effective
material capacity (ton/hr)
76
4.16 Effect of Gear and Rpm on sugarcane harvester effective material
capacity (SHEMC)(ton/hr)
77
capacity (SHEMC) (ton/hr)
78
4.18 Effect of Gear and variety on sugarcane harvester effective material
79
4.19 Effect of variety and gear on sugarcane harvester effective material
80
capacity (ton/hr)
81
4.21 Effect of Gear and Rpm on sugarcane harvester field efficiency
(SHFE) (%)
82
4.22 Effect of Gear and Rpm on sugarcane harvester field efficiency (%) 83
4.23 Effect of Gear and Rpm on sugarcane harvester field efficiency (%) 84
4.24 Effect of Gear and Rpm on theoretical field capacity (ha/hr) 85
4.25 Effects of Gear and Rpm on theoretical field capacity (ha/hr) 87
4.26 Effect of Gear and Rpm at theoretical time required per ha (hr) 88
4.27 Effect of Gear and Rpm theoretical time required per hectare (hr) 89
4.28 Effect of Gear and Rpm theoretical time required per hectare (hr) 90
4.29 Breakeven analysis 92
hp = Horsepower
m = Meter
cm = Centimeter
mm = Millimeter
I = Moment of inertia
E = Young’s Modulus
hr = Hour
F = Force
A = Area under cultivation
Kw = Effective width of work
Cm = effective material capacity (tons/hr)
PKR= Pakistani rupees
C = Initial cost
S = Salvage value
TTR = Theoretical Time Required
ETR = Effective Time Required
SHEMC = Sugarcane Harvester Effective
xiv
ABSTRACT
Pakistan being an agricultural country is thriving day by day to improve agriculture sector
but still majority of farmers are not comfortable with the existing agriculture machines
available in the market. Among crops being grown, sugarcane has significant value for
local sugar industry as well as to export quality sugar. Unfortunately, in Pakistan the
major harvesting of sugarcane is carried out manually involving huge amount of female
labour. However, few farmers have tried to adopt imported sugarcane harvesters but due
to variation in cropping patterns and varieties a lot of issues are faced during sugarcane
harvesting. Therefore, the farmers are emphasizing for the modification and
indigenization of sugarcane harvester for better sugarcane recovery. Thus, keeping in
mind the above issues a study was carried out for the design modification and
performance evaluation of indigenous sugarcane harvester. After the development of the
machine, different experiments were performed in terms of machine forward speed, field
capacity, field efficiency and crop yield. Findings revealed that forward speed was found
directly linked with gear and rpm. Maximum power consumption of 17.564 hp (13.10
kW) was recorded with 0.522 m radius of base cutter at its 2250 rpm. Comparatively
lowest value 12.876 hp (9.60 kW) was observed at 2026 rpm of cutter. Sugarcane
harvester forward speed, theoretical field capacity and effective material capacity was
maximum (5.22 km/hr, 0.53 ha/hr, and 15.52 ton/hr) at gear (G3) respectively while
effective time required for harvesting was minimum 1.84 hr at gear (G1) with engine rpm
2000 and working width 1.02 m. Sugarcane harvester field efficiency was maximum
(75.10%) at gear (G1) with engine rpm 1800 for working width 1.02 m.
Keywords: Agricultural Mechanization , CP-77400, Ergonoimics, Sugarcane Harvester.
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION Agriculture sector is one of the pragmatic and prevailing sectors of Pakistan’s
economy (Rehman et al., 2015). It not only fulfills the food demand of the country but
also strengths the economy with its share in country exports by exporting the agricultural
products. It provides the raw material to various industries and helps the country to curtail
the impoverishment.
The crop yield per hectare in Pakistan is much lower than developed countries.
Low yield is not the only basic problem in agriculture sector (Ratod et al., 2013). Other’s
gigantic bottle necks are the scarcity of agricultural machinery, complex machinery
operation, high machinery cost, poor management skills, absence of marketing strategies,
small farms, improper storage facilities and lack of skilled labor (Montrees et al., 2012).
The unskilled labor is one of the main causes of low crop productivity which causes delay
and wastage of time in farm operations. Poor farmers are not economically sound enough
to rent/buy the sophisticated and costly imported machinery for crop cultivation or
harvesting. Pakistani farmers would not be able to compete the world’s agricultural sector
(Ashraf et al., 2007).
Poor farmers with small land holdings are not able to buy the crop cultivators or
harvester. They mostly rent tractors for sowing and hire harvesting machine, to harvest
the crop. In some areas of Pakistan, farmers are so less blessed that they cannot even rent
out the machinery and does the farm operation manually. Power shortage is another vital
problem. The average power level per hectare in Pakistan is 0.9hp which is far less than
standard 1.4hp. This significant difference also depicts the less use of machinery at
Pakistani farms. (Farooq, 2016).
Pakistan has 5 major crops among them sugarcane has its cardinal importance
because it is equally beneficial as edible crop as well as energy crop. (FAO, 2008)
Sugarcane is mostly planted in Sindh, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhaw provinces.
Cultivation area under sugarcane is increasing significantly with remarkable increase in
production. Its production was increased by 7.4 percent amounting 81.1 million tons
compared to last year. Its production accounted for 3.4% in agriculture’s value addition
and 0.7 % in overall GDP (Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2016-2017).
Sugarcane harvesting is most time consuming, labor intensive and expensive
operation (Spekken et al., 2015). Bastin and Shrider (2014) estimated that about 45% to
2
48% of total cultivation cost for sugarcane is used in harvesting. Rein, (2004) reported
that the conventional methods for sugarcane harvesting is to burn the leaves of sugarcane
in standing crop condition and retrieve the stalk manually but this procedure causes
fatigue in labor in a short span of time due to immense stress on muscles and joints of
laborer body (Clemenson and Hansen 2008). In addition to above, unskilled labor cannot
perform this procedure efficiently it damages the quality of crop and its juice contents.
(Masute et al., 2004). Moreover, burring operation creates environmental constrains. It
creates respiratory problem among the labor because burning produces small particles of
size less than 10um (Rozeff, 1994). Study has also revealed that these small particles can
cause asthma and sever lungs diseases (Le Blond et al. 2016). Environmental hazards are
not the only problem but burning also causes the weight loss, decrease in sweetness,
aggrandize production cost, annihilate organic material and soil structure to conclude,
Manual harvesting of sugarcane is not viable anymore due to its hazardous effects
(Johnson et al. 2003 and Cansee, 2010).
The design and commercial sugarcane harvester manufacturing was initiated in
Hawaii, Southern USA (Louisiana and Florida), Australia and Japan where the sugarcane
production was fully mechanized from 4 decades. (Mawla et al., 2014; Schmitz et al.
2017). Various mechanized harvesting machines have been used by developed countries
but the famous two are whole stalk harvester and Cut-chop-harvesting or chopper
harvesting (Cock et al., 2000 and Kumar et al., 2002). Chopper harvester design has
upper hand as it removes the leaves and convert the sugarcane stalk into billets. However,
these billets must be transported to sugar mill within three days otherwise quality of
sugarcane starts to be declining. (Ma et al., 2014). The typical manual sugarcane
harvesting method normally consists of manually cutting, de-topping, de-trashing,
bundling and loading canes into the transportation vehicles. These practices are still
executed normally in Egypt and many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin-America where
labor is comparatively cheap. (Arboleda, and Duran, 2009 and Abdel-Mawla, 2014).
Although chopper harvester removes the extraneous material from sugarcane, but
it cuts stalk into billets which must be transported within limited period to avoid
sugarcane deterioration. Manual harvesting process requires burning first to remove
extraneous material which is not environmentally friendly. (Richard et al., 2001 and Ma
et al. 2014). It is also compulsory to remove the extraneous material as this leafy portion
absorbs sugarcane juice after cutting because 10% less sugarcane price is obtained if
farmers sell sugarcane with leaves. Due to this billet formed by chopper harvester are not
3
accepted in sugar mills of Pakistan. Thus, whole stalk harvester is the best option for
sugarcane harvesting in Pakistan which have a lot of potential in sugarcane industry still
deprived of this facility (Ashfaq et al., 2014). The potential benefits of whole stalk
harvester are removal of dry extraneous material, cost saving, increased factory capacity,
decreased energy utilization for production of same amount of sugar, improved sugar
quality and supply of large quantity of biomass. (Ratod et al., 2013 and Whiteing et al.,
2001).
If an advanced farmer of Pakistan dares to buy the machine, then he requires a
skilled labor to run the complex machinery. Otherwise, unskilled labor will create a time
delay which will ruin the purpose of machine. On the other side of picture, impoverished
farmer is not capable to buy the machine due to its expensive cost. Opulent farmers and
deprived one’s are facing the machine related problems. One is affected by machine
requirements and other one is a victim of cost, old machinery, poor performance and lack
of skilled labor.
In a nutshell, to alleviate these shortcomings, this study aims to design & develop
an indigenous small-scale sugarcane harvester. The basic motive of machine development
was to minimize cost of sugarcane harvesting and time required for sugarcane harvesting.
This sugarcane harvesting machine will be economical, more efficient and will harvest
the sugarcane at faster rate. It will be helpful for small scale farmers and unskilled labor
would operate it without difficulty. The basic components of sugarcane harvester include
base cutter, conveyor, top green leaf cutter, blower fan for dry leaves removal and
hydraulic motors.
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this study was stated as “Development of an indigenous sugarcane
tractor operated harvester of capacity 55 tons/day with estimated price of Rs.400000 to
eradicate problems of manual harvesting viz. improper harvesting, unavailability and
requirement of skilled labor and delay in next crop sowing.”
4
Objectives
Considering above factors, this project was taken to facilitate Pakistani farmer
community by the fabrication of a low-cost sugarcane harvesting machine with following
specific objectives.
harvester.
5
Sugarcane harvesting is time consuming and labor-intensive process. Delay in
harvesting due to labor shortage, lack of skilled persons and non-availability of sugarcane
harvesting machinery are problems. So, to overcome these problem, different harvesting
practices have been used by the peasants all over the world according to their resource’s
availability, local environment and use of sugarcane. The cited findings which are being
reviewed and carefully accessed during my study regarding sugarcane harvesting have
been presented in this chapter.
2.1 Harvesting Practices
Various harvesting practices are being practiced. Two main types of harvesting are in
practice throughout the world. These practices include green cane harvesting and burnt
cane harvesting. Green cane harvesting involves the process that the labor cuts the
sugarcane manually than removes the dry and top green leaves. These leaves are
incorporated in soil. These dry and green leaves cause to increase the soil health. In case
of burnt cane harvesting farmers firstly burn the sugarcane crop to get rid of leaves than
harvests. Burning of sugarcane damages the soil health and hazardous for environment.
Pre-harvest burning also causes to increase the conversion of saccharose to ethanol after
fermentation.
2.1.1 Green Cane Harvesting
Braunback et al. (1999) determined the prospects of green cane harvesting
practice in Brazil. They concluded that instead of burning the sugarcane before harvesting
a mechanical harvester should be used. The residue should be left at the field. This
residue helped to control weeds, decrease moisture loss phenomena in soil and reduces
soil erosion. Nutrients cycling also enhanced due to the residue and these nutrients further
helped to aggrandize soil fertility and productivity. According to this study instead of
burnt cane harvesting green cane harvesting with mechanized harvester is better if residue
of the sugarcane has been left in the field after harvesting.
Whiteing et al., (2002) conducted a trial for cutting upper green leafy portion of
sugarcane. Topper is to remove and eject the green leafy top of the cane stalk. There were
two types of toppers used; drum toppers and shredder topper. Drum topper had a single
6
set of blades and shredder topper had multiple banks of blades. Shredder trope was more
effective. It provided more even ground to the trash and result in a faster rate of
decomposition of trash. According the study, topping reduced sugarcane yield by 6 tons
per hectare.
Meyer, (2007) evaluated biomass recovery rate by comparison of manual and
mechanical harvesting operation. He used two separate trails for evaluation. Results
showed that field losses were 60 % high in manual harvesting in comparison with
mechanical harvesting. So, a mechanical harvesting operation can be efficient than
manual harvesting process.
Nunez and Spans, (2008) mentioned in their study that green cane harvesting
practice reduced irrigation cost and weed control by 10% and 35% respectively. Soil
fertility power was also enhanced by increasing carbon and nitrogen 0.47 and
0.07mg/ha/year respectively with the use of green cane harvesting practice.
Wiedenfeld, (2009) found through his research work that organic matter content in
soil was increased three years by green harvesting compared to burnt cane harvesting
practice. Green harvesting in-comparison with burnt harvesting caused a 20% reduction
in production in the 2nd ratoon year also caused minor reduction in cane growth but had 8
% increase in sucrose content in the 3rd ratoon crop.
Sandhu et al. (2011) concluded through their study that green harvesting reduced
the chance of borer damage because the layer of trash inhibits the egg deposition and
increased the larval mortality.
Viator and Wang (2011) studied the effect of green harvesting method on the
yield of sugarcane. They deduced that green harvesting could have negative effect on the
yield of sugarcane in certain types of environment. Because trash layer lowered the soil
temperature which slowed down early plant growth. It can also enhance the chance of
frost injury in young plants.
Cardoso et al. (2013) evaluated that mechanized sugarcane harvesting is
flourishing day by day in Brazil. Enhancement in green sugarcane harvesting was due to
environmental constrains and legal issues. Another main issue was the shortage of labor
at the area of study. They suggested instead of burring of extraneous material of
sugarcane it should be collected through mechanized harvester and then spread it on the
field. It has numerous benefits such as nutrient recycling, carbon content enhancement in
the soil, greenhouse gases reduction and most importantly sugarcane yield increased.
Ma et al. (2014) wrote about the sugarcane harvesting technologies. They said that
due to environmental benefits and nutrients recycling, green cane harvesting is the more
sustainable method than burnt cane harvesting. They reported that weed control and
7
irrigation costs decreased by 35% and 10% respectively after green cane harvesting.
Nitrogen & carbon contents were increased by 0.07 to 0.47 mg/hectare/year under green
cane harvesting mechanism.
Sandhu et al. (2017) described that re-growth of sugarcane after harvesting the
first batch of the crop called as ratoon cane. The quality of ratoon cane has been affected
either in a positive or negative way due to the harvest methods (Green & burnt cane) and
post-harvest residue management. Constructive Impacts of green cane harvesting were
nutrients enrichment in the land, conservation of soil moisture and curtail weed growth.
Green cane harvesting also improved the air quality because no-burning was involved in
this method.
2.1.2 Burnt Cane Harvesting
Semenzato, (1995) reported that sugarcane burning had numerous negative
impacts on sugar yield. Burning of sugarcane was the major cause of saccharose
deterioration. This can also affect the sugar extraction yield. Semenzato mentioned that
burnt cane should be handled before 15 days otherwise fermentation process would start
which converts the saccharose into ethanol.
Cancado et al. (2006) reported that one of the most vital environmental issue
related to sugarcane was pre-harvesting burning of sugarcane to remove the extraneous
8
material. It has created environmental and worker health issues. Because of this pre-
harvest burning process of sugarcane facing worldwide opposition.
(Source: Marciadottin, 2014)
2.2 Harvesting Mode
Two main harvesting practices have practiced in the world now a days. The whole
stalk harvester method and the chopper harvester technique.
2.2.1 Whole Stalk Harvester
King, (1969) developed a harvester in Australia to harvest a whole stalk of
sugarcane. The machine had rotating knives, cutting bar and conveying system. Rotating
knifes used for top cutting, cutting bars to cut the cane from the bottom and the conveying
system used for the delivery of cut stalk in a storage place.
Kiatiwait et al. (1992) designed & developed a self-propelled walking type
sugarcane harvester-windrower in Thailand. The said machine was a one row single-axle
walking-behind type. As the machine moved forward along the row, the cluster of cane
stalks is guided from the divider by two sets of lugged chains and a spring-loaded guide
frame. At the narrowest point of guided path, canes were cut by blades of the base cutter,
revolving at peripheral speed approximately 42 m/s. Front part of the machine was
facilitated with pair of solid rubber-gage tractor wheels mounted at the front part of the
machine. This helped the machine to control the height of the cut and prevented blade
from striking the ground. The machine type was 4GZ-9 whole stalk harvester, mounted
on 11-14.7 kW hand tractor. Its productivity was 0.1-0.15 ha/h, and it was adapted to row
9
spacing ≥1.0 m. Different spacing along the adjacent rows was adjusted with the help of a
lock-pin.
Beckwith (1995) design & developed a whole stalk harvester for green cane
harvesting mechanism. When stalk went through defoliation device leaves and other leafy
materials were removed. This device could eject the complete cane directly into
wagons/trailers or any other transportation. Harvester helped to eradicate burning and
loading operations. Beckwith harvester called as a complete harvester because it reduced
one operation that was loading of sugarcane from field to the transportation vehicle.
Loading was also considered as the part of harvesting operation.
Gupta et al. (1996) designed and fabricated a self-propelled, walking-type
sugarcane harvester having a single axle operated by 6-kW (8-hp) gasoline engine. It was
initially designed for peasants of underdeveloped countries who could not have financial
capacity to purchase sophisticated sugarcane harvesters which were being used in
developed countries at that time. This machine reduced numbers of workforce and labor
cost as well.
Salassi et al. (1996) made the comparison between two types of sugarcane
harvesters. One was single row and the second was double row whole stalk harvester.
Comparison was made to access the performance ratings for both. A single-row chopper
harvester, a loader (combine harvester), and a transloaded (whole-stalk harvester) were
being used for the study. Comparison showed that per hour cost of a single-row machine
was 35% less than of double-row machine. On the contrary, single-row machine was 69%
more expensive as per acre cost. The field capacity of single row harvester was 61% less
than a double-row harvester.
Munoz et al. (2011) had conducted the study for the sugarcane varieties having
length 5 meters or more. They concluded that it is difficult to use whole stalk harvester
for the sugarcane having length of 5 meters or more. This is because whole stalk harvester
will twist the sugarcane into multi directions. As a result, it was problematic to manage
windrowed stalk into compressed form. Compact form was the cardinal requirement of
easy handling and transportation. To conclude, whole stalk harvester operation was not
suitable for the sugarcane of length 5 meters or more.
Moontree et al. (2012) developed a self-propelled sugarcane harvester. The
concept was to develop a harvester for the peasants to counter the problems like
transportation, labor cost and lack of availability of sugarcane to produce sugar. It was
operated by 180 hp engine (134.28 kW) at 2500 rpm. Harvester was being used to harvest
cane crop of age 12 months, length of average stalk was 1.8 m, average-stalk dia was
0.0254 m, each clump had 8 to 12 stalks and the distance between each sugarcane row
10
was 1.20 m. The small engine was being used to run the harvester. The average speed of
engine was 1109.73 m2/h and the fuel consumption of engine was 20.03 l/h. The mobile
speed of harvester was 0.25 km/h. The percentage of sugarcane-cut stalks was 100%.
Jain et al. (2013) designed and manufactured small scale Sugarcane harvesting
machine. It had a capacity to reduce the 50% of harvesting time and 60% of labor (in
manual sugarcane harvesting 15-16 labors were required). The cost of sugarcane
harvesting was being reduced by 34% by the machine as compare to manual harvesting
techniques. On the other hand, cost of machine was Rs. 30000/. So, it considered that
machine will be helpful for small scale farmers. They concluded that it can save
10,000/acre as compare to manual harvesting techniques.
Bastian and Shridar, (2014) conducted a study for measuring the mechanical
properties of sugarcane which affect the different units. The mechanical properties of
sugarcane stalk such as bending resistance, crushing resistance, cutting resistance and
penetration resistance were observed in this study. They found, the Young’s modulus of
the sugarcane stalks is 86MPa, the specific cutting resistance varies between 1764.56 and
957.48kNm-2, penetration resistance ranged from 29.74kNm-2 to 56.33kNm-2 and the
crushing force varied from 0.75kN to 1.53kN for top and bottom, respectively.
Ranveer Tambuskar, (2015) designed and fabricated a sugarcane harvesting
machine. This machine was equipped with tool which cut the sugarcane in small parts.
The small parts were easy to transport also huge amount of quantity can be
accommodated in one trolley. This sugarcane harvesting machine was equipped with
conveyer and collection unit. Conveyer and sugarcane collection unit took power from
the tractor. It had reduced farmer’s effort and has increased production. It also reduced
cost of operation.
Siddaling and Ravaikiran, (2015) carried out a study on sugarcane harvester. They
were interested to decrease the sugarcane harvesting cost. In India, manpower availability
for agriculture purpose was reduced. With the passage of time, labor wages were
increasing also need of agriculture related items were enhancing. Today’s India require
huge production rate of agriculture products due to increasing population rate. Demand of
sugarcane and its products were enhancing day by day in India as well as in the world.
Due to this reason there was dire need of cheap sugarcane harvester. They designed and
fabricated small-scale sugarcane harvester. Sugar cane harvester had reduced the farmer’s
effort and increased the production rate. The sugar cane harvester was easy to operate,
had low production cost and high efficiency at local level. The sugar cane harvester was
helpful for peasants and it was affordable in terms of purchase and operational cost.
11
2.2.2 Chopper Harvester
Chopper harvesting technique was not only used to remove the extraneous
material from the sugarcane stalks, but it also equipped with machinery to chop sugarcane
stalks into uniform size. First, this concept was showcased by Ken Gaunt back in 1955.
He was an Australian engineer. He tried to simplify sugarcane handling procedure. Gaunt
with his team developed and fabricated a sugarcane chopper harvester which had a
chopper unit. This became the utopian technology for sugarcane chopper harvester.
Burrows and Shlomowitz (1992) conducted the study about sugar quality. They
deduced that to get ideal sugar quality the harvested sugarcane should be processed
within 24 hours after harvesting. This shortcoming makes the transportation process
necessary within 24 hours of harvesting. However, it was impossible to transport the
sugarcane from the field to the desire destination within 24 hours. Eventually, quality of
sugarcane was compromised due to fermentation process decrease the saccharose content.
The suggested solution to preserve the quality of sugarcane was chopper harvesting and it
also eased the transportation process. Because small billets were easy to handle than
whole stalk. Study suggested that chopper harvesting did not require extra labor for
sugarcane collection and transportation to storage area. It saved additional labor and
equipment cost as well.
12
Braunbeck et al., (1999) conducted a research work for green sugarcane
harvesting and crop residue in Southern Brazil. According to his study 80% of sugarcane
crop is cultivated in Southern Brazil. Only 20% sugarcane was harvested mechanically
out of this just 2% was harvested green while other was burnt before harvesting practice
due to problems like labor cast, land topography, mechanical harvester performance and
other management issues during cultivation and harvesting. Sugarcane crop residue and
bagasse can be useful for many purposes like animal feeding, fertilizer, decrease soil
erosion and weed growth and energy generation. According to 1996/97 Brazil sugarcane
harvest studies highest yield 80 t/ha of sugarcane yield was in state of Sao Paulo and crop
waste containing bagasse and crop residue was 86 Modt. (Million oven-dry ton). While
0.316 odt was obtained per ton of sugarcane stalk having calorific value 19GJ/odt.
Yadav et al. (2002) conducted a study to evaluate the performance a chopper
harvester. They studied gigantic imported chopper harvester. Practically. They were very
expensive and can only be used for the large farms or can be used only by the big
farmers. These sugar cane harvesters were designed to be used in large scale farms and
minimum 1.50m row to row distance was required. Some small farmers tried to use these
gigantic harvesters at the field having distance between the row of 1.2 meter, but the
results were unsatisfactory. Thus, to solve the problem of small-scale farmer a design and
fabrication of small-scale chopper harvester was necessary.
Singh and Solomon, (2003) reported that although chopper harvester had its own
benefits, but it sometimes causes injury to the billets of sugarcane. Chopper process
increased sugar deterioration process as it provided easy approach to bacteria due to
abrasion process, failure points of cutting and surface of chopped billets. It was therefore
suggested to transport harvest billets for milling process as soon as possible. Study said
that sugar cane billets after seven days of harvesting had 18.93% of weight loss but in
comparison whole stalk canes had 13.6% of weight loss. Thus, study showed that
although, chopper stalk harvester process was more economical, but it deteriorated the
quality of sugarcane as compare to whole stalk harvesting process.
Ripoli and Ripoli (2009) evaluated the fuel consumptions of sugarcane harvester
and related it with total harvesting cost of sugarcane. They found that high fuel
consumption of the sugarcane harvesters (60 L h-1) was the greatest infuriating factor of
cane harvesting practice, as it accounts for about 40 % of the total cane harvesting costs.
Rajula and Muthusamy (2012) studied the effect of row-row spacing by relating
this factor with harvesting cost. They stated that wider row spacing (120 cm) gave a
13
difference in sugarcane cane yield of 5.70-41.59 ton/ha with comparatively low
harvesting cost than conventional narrow spacing (90 cm) and higher manual harvesting
costs Rs. 42,500 incurred per hectare.
Ramos et al. (2016) evaluated the fuel consumption of sugarcane harvester in
changed forward speeds (4.0 km h-1, 5.5 km h-1) and engine rotations (1800, 1950, 2100).
Harvesting was performed in a sugarcane experimental plot with variety RB 855156.
Meters regarding fuel flow data acquisition ware installed in the harvester. Different
performance parameters including filed harvesting capacity and fuel consumption
per/area of harvested sugarcane were assessed. Mean values of effective harvesting
capacity with the forward speeds were found 61.5 and 78.0 tons/h-1 at 1800 and 2100
rpms, respectively. Results of mean fuel consumption were 76.3 (L/ha-1) at 1800 rpms
and 101.6 (L/ha-1) at 2100 rpms. Forward speed had influence on both.
Gopi et al. (2018) conducted filed study in four different sugarcane fields and
recorded the total harvesting cost/tons. They noticed that total harvesting cost per ton was
841 Indian rupees for mechanical harvester and 1500 Indian rupees for manual harvesting
respectively. The results indicated that more row-row spacing with mechanized
harvesting practice would prove to be profitable regarding sugarcane yield (tons) and
harvesting cost compared to narrow spacing by manual harvesting ways.
(Source: Zala, 2018)
Figure2.4: Chopper Harvester
2.3 Base-Cutting Mechanism
Mello and Harris (1999) conducted a kinematic study with a curved edge of base
cutter. It was designed with five various angles between the disk tangent and the blade
edge of 26.7°, 22.7° ,19.4°, 16.7° and 14.5° degrees. Angle 22.7° was determined best
which is the main indicator between the ratio of a slicing and impact cut. Study suggested
that smaller angle of blade resulted into the greater slicing action.
Mello et al. (2000) conducted a study to determine the optimal blade angle for the
sugarcane harvester. They found a blade angle of 22.7° to be utmost efficient in cutting or
slicing sugarcane during harvesting. The slicing blade was found to be energy efficient
and the least damaging to the cane. The blade of 22.7° angle was based on 25% impact
and 75% slicing mechanisms.
Neves et al. (2001) conducted a study to compare two cutting blades. The current
wear of chopper harvester blades and blades fitted on a floating mechanism that prevents
the blades cutting the soil had been compared. The blades were made of SAE 5160 spring
steel. This material was widely used for such products. When the blade reached 95.6 % of
its original mass it was replaced. As blades lose their effectiveness if it would be used
further. On the standard chopper harvester (25.1 hours) mass reduction of 4.4% were
found earlier as compare to floating mechanism (62.7 hours). So, this study recommended
that the blade fitted on the floating mechanism requires less wear and tear and had long
life.
Mello and Harris (2003) did the comparison of serrated blades based on geometric
parameters. In this study, they studied two significant factors. First was length of the
serration pitch. Serration pitch is a distance from a point on one projection to the same
point on an adjacent projection. The second factor was the geometric shape of serrated
blade that was curved in forward or backward. To execute the test two kinds of serrated
blades with different pitch of 3mm and 7 mm, having forward and backward curve were
used. They conducted two-factorial experiment. It was deduced that the forward blade
with 3 mm pitch had the best result among all configurations examined. Smaller pitch had
effective cutting and energy efficient due to easy penetration because of greater projection
per unit sugarcane stalk length.
Song et al. (2006) carried out a lab-based study to deduce the effects on major
machine parameters due to cutting. In addition, they determined the effect of sugarcane
cutting on the performance of the base cutter of a sugarcane harvester with the passage of
15
time. According to study the blade cutting velocity and force were directly proportional
when the velocity of blade was less than 618 rpm, and these were in inverse proportion
when the blade velocity was more than 618 rpm.
Lyne et al. (2007) stated that manual techniques to harvest sugarcane in South
Africa were used rarely because of its cost. In addition to above, to find labor for cutting
sugarcane was a big constraint in South Africa because the life standard was becoming
high day by day. Manual harvesting of sugarcane was hard job and it was impossible for
the farmer to do it without any labor help. To alleviate these problems, A brush-cutter,
with a blade configuration which had been redesigned named as the Illovo mechanical
cane cutter, was developed. Innumerable performance parameters were accessed in field
trials with the help of this blade. During the study, efficiency of said cutter, durability of
cutter’s blade, performance standards such as ergonomics and economics were measured
and analyzed. It was concluded that blade was suitable for less labor and steep slope
areas.
Langton et al. (2008) concluded in his study that manual harvesting was labor
extensive and can be expressively affected by regional issues such as HIV/AIDS
infection. According to study, a significant proportion of sugarcane was planted at the
steep topography. At such topography mechanical harvester can’t be used. It was
therefore necessary to reconsider the manual sugarcane harvesting devices to made
sugarcane harvesting process more economical and easier. To overcome these issues, Mr
J. Van Tichelen proposed an idea. The idea was to use a small self-propelled sickle bar
mower to cut sugarcane stalk under different circumstances. A machine was designed and
developed. It was semi-mechanized. It could be operated by unskilled labor and had done
harvesting of sugarcane effectively & economically. This machine was called the Cane
Thumper. The results in terms of productivity, efficiency, economics and the overall
acceptance of machine in the South African sugar industry were remarkable.
Jun et al. (2012) conducted comparative study of traditional manual harvester and
mechanical harvester and determined effects on the sugarcane stubble quality as well as
on the growth of ratoon. The experimental results were as follows.
The height of stubble and the rate of stubble break was prominently high in
mechanized harvesting techniques as compared to manual harvesting.
The stubble height of lodging species and difficult defoliation species increased in
mechanical harvesting condition.
16
Sugarcane varieties with higher levels of fiber had lower rate of broken stubble.
The effect on germination of next year ratoon were quite different in case of
mechanical harvesting due to different varieties of cane had been used during this
study. It indicated that the good perpetual species had less impact than the poor
perpetual species.
Plant height was high in case of mechanical harvesting instead of manual
harvesting. In addition to above, single stem weight and less effective stem
number was also high in case of mechanical harvesting.
Gopi et al. (2018) evaluated the comparative performance of sugarcane harvester
and a manual harvester in the sugarcane crop fields of two districts, Kohir Mandal and
Medak, in India. An average height of sugarcane cut 4.1 cm (above ground) was observed
by sugarcane harvester whilst comparatively high value was recorded in case of manual
harvester. Findings regarding time taken per acre were 3 hours by sugarcane harvester
while relatively more time i.e 9 hrs in case of manual harvester. Results of field capacity
were 0.141 ha/h and 0.045 ha/h for sugar cane harvester and manual harvesting,
respectively.
Pérez-Reyes et al., 2018 evaluated the sugarcane harvester (CASE-IH) base cutter
(BONEM) performance. Instrument wear was examined in actual field conditions through
field and flaw analysis. According to results obtained it was observed that more than 50
% of systems flaw was due to base cutter blades and the implement damages resulting
total work capacity incited from the degree of the wear during 48 hours of experimental
period.
2.4 Experiments on Mechanical Harvester
Sharief et al. (2006) evaluated the performance of a self-designed tractor operated
sugarcane harvester. Parameters such as effective field capacity, harvester material
capacity and field efficiency were studied. The findings revealed that filed capacity was
up to 0.4-0.5 ha/hr. and 65.82 % field efficiency. The effective material capacity was
lowest (7.75 tons/hr.) and highest (21.04 ton/hr.) observed. They further concluded that
both parameters (filed capacity and field efficiency) are interconnected.
Montree et al. (2012) carried out the study at Thailand regarding development of
small-scale harvesting machine. The motive of the study was to facilitate the factory
owners and farmers. The average-stalk length was 1.8 m and the average diameter of stalk
was 0.0254 m. One clump had 8 to 12 stalks and the distance between each sugarcane
17
row was 1.20 m. In this study, machine was operated by engine of 180 hp (134.28 kW) at
2500 rpm. The average speed of sugarcane harvester was 1109.73 m/hr. and the fuel
consumption were 20.03 liter/hr. The sugarcane stalk cutting efficiency was 100%. It was
a thorough study of sugarcane harvester performance using small engine. Result
concluded that mechanical harvesting was better than manual.
Omrani et al. (2013) determined the field efficiency of a sugarcane harvester with
the help of modern technique, global positioning system (GPS). They elaborated the
comparative efficiency calculation with manual and computerized methods for the
calculation of some sugarcane harvester performance parameters such as field efficiency
of sugarcane harvester and effective material capacity. The values were 69% in case of
efficiency and 51.5 ton/hr for effective material capacity indicating that both parameters
are crucial one for the operational evaluation of a sugarcane harvester.
Narimoto et al. (2015) studied the operating efficiency of self-designed sugarcane
harvester by skilled and an unskilled labor in Brazil which is the largest sugarcane
producing country. Ergonomics work analysis (EWA) method was used to check the
sugarcane harvester operator competency and role of their health and other variable
activities management. According to this study, sugarcane harvester is the large complex
machine. It requires skilled labor for smooth operation. Study concludes that it requires
principal competence by the operator for the economical operation of harvester. It is
difficult to run the harvester without a skilled labor. It can be confirmed by the results of
this study that competencies attained by the operator is the key to attain the quality
harvest of sugarcane.
Pachkhande et al. (2015) designed and developed sugarcane harvester machine for
small land-holding farmers. Material for bars was mild steel and the diameter of cutter
shaft was 30mm along with an electric motor of 1HP, having A.C supply 720 rpm.
Machine was consisted of petrol engine and various mechanisms were being used in this
machine for sugarcane harvesting. The machines minimized peasant’s force and
aggrandize the production of sugarcane related products. Half of the harvesting time was
reduced by using the developed sugarcane harvester. Although, it’s a good effort but still
this machine is not useful for large scale farmers.
Ranveer and Tambuksar, (2015) performed various experiments to minimize the
force required for the cutting of sugarcane to enhance the efficiency of harvester.
Researcher did alternation in cutting angle and type of blade like serrated or normal
blade. The blade’s angle affected the finesse of the cut of sugarcane. Researchers
18
concluded that at 450 angle power required to cut the sugarcane was minimum and the
blades were placed at the angle of 45°. Researchers designed and fabricated a harvester of
price 35000 Indian rupee which was comparatively cheap as compare to any other
harvester available in the local market. This design was economical, easy to operate and
did not require skilled labor. Harvesting machine was attached with the tractor which
empowered the farmer as well as it was easy to get power for cutting tool from the tractor
engine. In a nut shell, design was cheap, easily available, not required skilled labor and
easy to use.
Siddaling and Ravaikiran, (2015 a) designed a sugarcane harvesting machine in
India where labor scarcity was a vital problem. In their study they emphasized that due to
high cost of conventional sugarcane harvester and huge price of labor, it was difficult for
the small land holding farmer to harvest the sugarcane at fast rate and in cheap price.
Their machine had sugarcane cutting capacity of 3 ton/hours.
Siddaling and Ravaikiran, (2015 b) had made a comparison between manual
harvester procedure with their designed harvester also compared their design with
conventional gigantic costly harvester machine. According to them manual harvesting
consumes 50% of harvesting time and 70% of labor but with their designed machine the
cost of harvesting reduces by 18%. The cost of designed machine was Rs. 16000 INR.
Thus, their design was more helpful for the local peasants as well as economical. This
machine was helpful for both large and small-scale farmers.
Another study was conducted in India regarding design of economical and efficient
sugarcane harvester by Zode et al. (2015). Author explained, how labor wages were
increasing day by day and what the needs of present epoch regarding sugarcane crop
cultivation. Design calculation had been carried in this study and conceptual picture of the
harvester also provided in the paper. Design calculation of V belt, shaft, bevel gear, gear
blank and cutter were made in this study. This study concluded by using harvesting
machine and mechanized the farming we can enhance the crop yield at minimum cost and
time also can solve the problem of labor shortage
Ashraf et al. (2016) designed a sugarcane harvester for less blessed peasants.
Motive of his study was to reduce the harvesting time as well as facilitate the small-scale
farmers with mechanized farming to reduce the laborer cost. The harvester consisted of
main parts i.e. engine (petrol, 3.73 kW, 3000 rpm), gear box (20:1), coupling, frame,
cutter frame, counter shaft, horizontal shaft, vertical shaft, cutter and ground wheel. All
these constituents were mounted on a frame and the wheels were attached to this frame.
19
The power was being provided by the petrol engine. Gear and chain mechanism were
being used to run the wheels. Engine also provided the power to cutter. Performance of
developed harvester was found satisfactory it gave field capacity 0.1005 ha/hr. with 5-
man hr./ha. This machine was good for small scale setup but not for the big farms.
Jamadar et al. (2017) gave a design of small-scale sugarcane harvesting machine
in his study in India. He also gave the cost analyses of harvester. Harvester had capacity
to cut the half acers of cultivated sugarcane in one hour. Furthermore, he elaborated, cost
of sugarcane harvesting abated in many folds when compared to manual harvesting.
Harvesting time and energy consumption was high when his basic design of harvesting
machine was being compared with already present harvester for large farms, but the
capital cost of harvester also matters. Their harvester cost is less than harvester available
in market. According to their comparison, 10,000 INR (Indian rupee) can be saved by
using small scale harvesting machine in an acer if farmers would use his machine instead
of manual harvesting.
Patel et al. 2017 fabricated a small sugarcane self-propelled harvesting machine. It
was a very basic trolley type harvesting machine. It did not help the farmer to remove the
extraneous material of sugarcane as well as did not facilitate in terms of sugarcane storage
or transportation. Although, it was a basic design for harvesting only, but it helped the
small-scale farmers of that specific area. It reduced the extensive labor requirement but
still labor was required for the collection of sugarcane, for the removal of extraneous
material and for transportation. Harvester gave much better result than manual harvesting.
But it was not helpful for large scale farmers.
2.5 Energy for Cutting Force
Another important parameter which involves in the evaluation of harvesting
machine cutter is a force of cutting required to cut the sugarcane through the blade of
harvester. Various studies had been conducted on this point. Some of them are as follow.
Kroes and Harris, (1996) carried out the study to determine the required cutting
force for the sugarcane detachment from the land. They used a rotary shaft encoder for
speed measurement of blades and a piezo-electric force transducer for force measurement.
Smaller peaks were considered as the friction between fibers and blade. This study was
done on a variety of cane called Q124 usually having dia. of 27.8mm. A typical cutting
force required for fine cut was 430 N according to this study.
20
Kroes and Harris, (1997) conducted the study of manually sugarcane cutting
knives. Force impact depends on mass of the plant, velocity of knife, the height of cut
above the ground, dia. of stem and bending resistance of stalk. The controllable variables
were the knife velocity, height of cut above the ground and cutting force applied. It was
concluded that to minimize sugar cane damage, the blade impact speed must not be
abridged below 14ms-1 for low fiber cane types and 17 ms-1 for high fiber cane varieties.
Kroes (1998) designed a splitting model to find out the relation between specific
splitting energy, knockdown angle and knockdown height. The findings disclosed that
certain energy, splitting length in cane stalks during cutting increased the angle and
reduced the height. There was a direct relation between cane stiffness and splitting length.
He found 2.1 KJ/m2 specific splitting energy for low fibre sugarcane and 3.1 KJ/m2 for
high fibre sugarcane.
Liu et al. (2007) conducted a research to compare damage rates of stalk by using
two different settings that was one blade & two blade cutting. It was deduced through
study that two-blade setting had less damage rate than one-blade. The reason behind this
was, that the force or impact required for the cutting of sugarcane was bigger for one-
blade setting than two-blade setting. Thus, there was more chance of failure in one-blade
setting. Ultimately it will cause the more damage to the crop. This study also suggested
that to improve the cutting quality enhancement in ratio of cutting disc rotational speed to
machine forward speed will help. Equation was used to determine the ratio (R) of cane
stalk diameter (D) to the distance (vmα /ω) of two adjacent blade tips in the direction
machine is moving. When R<1, the cane stalk is cut off only by one blade (called one-
blade cutting). When R>1, the cane stalk is cut off by two or more adjacent Blades. Since
cane stalk diameter (D) and the angle (α) are constant, the ratio (r) between cutting disc
rotational speed (ω) and machine forward speed (v) determines whether it will be one-
blade cutting or multiple blade cutting.
Stalk cutting quality = R = D/vα/ω = Dr/α
Where,
R = the ratio of cane stalk diameter to the distance of two adjacent blade tips in the
machine moving direction
r = the ratio of cutting disc rotating speed to machine forward speed.
Suleiman et al. (2012) conducted a study on sugarcane harvesting. According to
them sugarcane harvesting was labor intensive operation also it was difficult to purchase
the heavy harvesting machines from developed countries and further purchase their spare
21
parts for future use. Labor shortages during harvesting period severely damage the
sugarcane crop. In his study, they concluded, for the design and development of an
efficient harvesting machine of sugarcane, an initial data of energy demand for the cutting
and topping of sugarcane should be available to the designer. Thus, a simple apparatus
was developed to estimate the energy consumption for cutting and topping of sugarcane.
Said apparatus consist of: crank, sprocket, chain, freewheel, flange, front hub, spindle,
frame and the base support. Results had shown that 15.71 kj and 23.83 kj were needed for
cutting the top and base of the sugarcane, respectively.
Taghinezhad et al. (2013) conducted a study to determine effect of moisture
content on cutting. Researcher used a linear blade and universal test machine to determine
the effect of moisture content with respect to cutting element to quantify how much
energy can be possibly reduced. Moreover, study determined the effect of the dimensional
parameters on mechanical cutting properties such as cutting force, energy, ultimate stress,
and specific energy require for sugarcane stalks cutting. The machine calculated the shear
stress and energy characteristics of incoming force on sugarcane through a blade device.
Mean specific cutting energies of cane stalks at low, medium and high levels of moisture
content were 34.071, 28.339 and 16.297 kN/m and for ultimate stress were 7.086, 2.586
and 1.656 MPa, respectively. The high moisture content level produced a noteworthy
decrease in the ultimate stress and the specific energy with the difference of one second
as compared to low moisture content level.
Sureshkumar and Jesudas, (2015) collected introductory data for cutting and
lifting behaviour of sugarcane stalk through laboratory and field measurement. Data from
laboratory studies helped to measure the mechanical properties of sugarcane which
helped further in harvester designing. An apparatus was designed to determine the lifting
moment of sugarcane stalk from the lodged position to vertical under field conditions. A
pendulum type device was used to measure the cutting force requirement. Modulus of
elasticity was measured by Flexure test. The results were as follow. The maximum lifting
moment varied from 30.62 Nm to 129.11 Nm. The specific cutting energy amplifies
linearly when the oblique angle has increased from 0 to 35º. The specific cutting energy is
lowest at a tilt angle of 20º when the oblique angle is 30º. Young’s modulus values were
1165.27 to 1667.11 M Pa.
Zode et al. (2015) study depicted that nearly all peasants were encountering with
labor shortage problem in India. According to study, almost 65 to 70 % of Indian
population depends upon agriculture sector or belong to it somehow. Thus, to fulfilling
22
the future demand, design of economical sugarcane harvesting machine was dire need of
time. Since in India every farmer could not afford the agricultural machinery which
required for sugarcane harvesting. The cutting force for designed harvester to cut sugar
cane varied from 29.14 to 106.57 N.
2.6 Physical Properties of Sugarcane Crop
Bull (2000) studied the vegetative growth of sugarcane. Sugarcane is propagated
through cane sets, each having bugs (usually 2 or 3). Primary stalk arises from the bud
and each stalk contains nodes, internodes, buds and anchoring part (roots). Length of
internode varies from 10-300 mm, depending upon the cane age and conditions for
growth. Height of sugarcane stalk usually reached up to 2-3 m under normal growth
conditions. Leaves arise emerge from nodes (usually one leaf per nod). Each leaf
comprises of mainly two parts; a leaf sheath and blade. At mature sugarcane stalk consists
of around 10 leaves. Length of leaves varies between 0.9 m to 2.0 m depending upon
growth conditions as well as variety.
Hunsigi (2001) reported that the optimum spacing for planting of sugarcane was
0.9 to 1.0m between rows. In subtropical India, where growth of the plant was restricted
due to climatic parameters, a row spacing of 0.75m was adopted. Even though there were
different planting systems for sugarcane, the ridges and furrows system of planting was
very common in South India. The fields at different locations were studied for finding out
the existing row spacing of the crop, to decide the optimum spacing of the crop divider
and the effective width of the base cutter.
Miller and Gilbert, (2009) described the length and diameter of the joints varies
widely with different varieties and growing conditions. In general, however the joints at
the base were short and inter-nodal length gradually increases toward the top. The leaf of
the sugarcane plant was divided into two parts: sheath and blade, separated by a blade
joint. The sheath, as its name implies, completely sheaths the stalk, extending over at least
one complete inter node.
Anon (2010) carried out the study in which he studied the ripening and maturation
phase of sugarcane crop for a twelve-month. The crop lasts for about three months
starting from 270-360 days. Sugar synthesis and rapid accumulation of sugar occurred
during this period and vegetative growth of sugarcane crop was reduced. As maturing of
crop advanced, simple sugars (monosaccharide viz., fructose and glucose) were converted
into cane sugar (sucrose, a disaccharide). Sugarcane crop maturing proceeds from bottom
23
to the top. Hence, lower portion had more sugar than the top part. For better ripening of
crop dry weather, ample sunshine, clear sky, cool nights and warm days are important.
One ton of sugarcane crop produced 250 kg of dry leaves. According to (Chandel
et al. 2011) dry leaves and tops considered as the extraneous material. Its amount depends
upon sugarcane variety, cultivation method, harvesting technique and weather condition
during harvesting process. Extraneous material must be cleared to increase the efficiency
of milling operation.
Bastian and Shridar (2014) studied the physical properties of sugarcane pertaining
to de-topping, de-trashing and conveyance were for the designing of a whole stalk
sugarcane harvester. The various physical parameters for the major varieties of sugarcane
were measured in the farmers’ field. The farmers’ grow CO 86032 sugarcane at a row
spacing of 75 to 100cm, and the spacing was increased to 150 and 200 cm wherever
harvesting was done by self-propelled combine harvesters. The average number of
sugarcanes per meter varied from 27 to 30. The length of the mill able cane varies
between 1200 mm and 2700 mm. The maximum and minimum diameters were 40 mm
and 20 mm respectively. The trash content at the time of harvesting was 38.56 % where
the regular de-trashing processes were completely skipped by farmers.
24
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The gigantic mechanized imported sugarcane harvesters are not affordable for the
small peasants as well as expertise to operate such a heavy machinery is normally not
available in Pakistan. In addition, manual harvesting is also expensive due to
industrialization. Labors are getting better wages from the industry. Thus, they prefer to
work in industry instead of working in the agriculture field. It develops the lack of labor
availability during harvesting season. To overcome these issues, it is the dire need of time
to develop a small-scale tractor mounted sugarcane harvester to facilitate the small
farmer.
This chapter includes details of the design, development and performance
evaluation of understudy sugar cane harvester. The factors considered during design and
development phase were operational safety, cost of production, availability of spare parts
and ease of construction. It has been tried to make the machine simple and friendly in use.
Phase 1: Designing of Sugarcane Harvester
The tractor operated single row sugarcane harvester was designed and fabricated
in the engineering workshop at Tehsil Kot Addu district Muzaffargarh, and field trials
were conducted at local sugarcane farms. The machine was consisted of
1. Ground cutter to cut the sugarcane above the ground level,
2. Top cutter to remove the top unwanted part of sugarcane,
3. Blower to remove extraneous leaves
4. Conveyer to transport the sugarcane at the back of the machine on the ground.
The development and performance evaluation of single row harvester were discussed
under headings mentioned below.
3.1 Properties of Sugarcane
3.1.1 Physical Properties of sugarcane:
Physical parameters of sugarcane such as length and diameter of mill-able cane,
sugarcane node characteristics, leaf characteristics and amount of trash obtained from
different sugarcane varieties were measured at the farmer’s fields of Kot Addu District
Muzaffargarh for different commonly sown varieties (US-127, CP-77400 and US-633)
using Vernier calipers and measuring tape at mature stage. To assess the mass flow
through the machine, the crop geometry such as row spacing, weight and number of mill-
able cane per meter length of the row were also measured.
25
3.1.1.1 Stalk Diameter and its Measurement
A primary shoot emerges from seed of sugarcane. This shoot further forms
secondary shoots called tillers. The sugarcane stalk consists of segments called joints,
each made up of a node and internode. The node is a point where the leaf attaches with
the stalk and where the buds and root primordial has fashioned. The length and diameter
of the joints are different in different groups.
Sugarcane stalk diameter measurements had been considered as the first step in
sugarcane harvesting machine design. This parameter has so much importance as
innumerable sugarcane verities are present and these verities has different stalk diameter
measurements. The diameter changes with the crop varieties of sugarcane (Miller and
Gilbert 2009). To make the cutter of harvester workable for all types of sugarcane
verities, the average diameter of ten different sugarcane verities from two different
positions (top and bottom) were estimated. Diameter was measured to be considered it in
the designing of conveyer, to make the design system of conveyer able to accommodate
the variation in the diameter of sugarcane without affecting the forward speed of the
sugarcane in the conveyer (Bastin and Shridar 2014). Diameters of commonly grown
varieties are as follow.
Table 3.1: Values of minimum and maximum stalk diameter of various
commonly grown sugarcane varieties in Pakistan
Variety Dmin (cm) Dmax (cm)
HSF-240 1.8 3.3
CPF-246 2.5 3.1
CPF-247 2.3 3.0
CPF-248 2.8 3.6
CP-77400 2.3 2.7
US-127 2.4 2.5
US-633 2.1 2.3
US-778 2.4 3.6
US-272 2.8 4.0
US-658 2.2 3.7
The table 3.1 shows that minimum value of stalk diameter was 1.8 cm for HSF-240 and
maximum value was 4 cm for US-272. Diameter measurement method was the same as
adopted by Jamadar et al., 2017, (Bastin and Shridar, 2014). By keeping in view these
maximum and minimum diameters (Table 3.1) of commonly grown sugarcane varieties
(CP-77400, US-127 and US-633) harvester conveying mechanism was designed.
26
3.1.1.2 Leaf and its density Measurement
The leaf of sugarcane mainly has two parts namely sheath and blade. These parts
have been divided by the blade joint. Sheath part completely sheaths the stalk extending
over at least one complete internode. The leaves are normally jointed with nodes which
form two ranks on opposite sides. Depending upon variety of sugarcane and its growing
condition, the mature sugarcane plant usually has an average complete upper leave
surface of about 0.5 square meters and the number of green leaves per stalk are around
ten (Bastian and Shridar, 2014).
27
The blade joint is where two wedge shaped areas called "dewlaps" are found. The first
leaf from top to bottom of the stalk with clearly visible dewlap is designated as +1.
Downwards they receive, in succession, the numbers +2, and +3. The "top visible
dewlap" leaf (+3) is a diagnostic tissue that is frequently used in the evaluation of the
nutritional status (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2: Composition of Sugarcane Leaves
3.1.1.3 Length Measurement of Sugarcane Stalk
Sugarcane stalk length of under study sugarcane varieties (CP-77400, US-127 and
US-633) was measured to decide the cutter (de-topper) height used for cutting the upper
unwanted part of sugarcane. The operator will firstly adjust the top cutting height of
hydraulically operated de-topper before harvesting. De-topper blade assembly was to be
raised and lowered according the length of sugarcane to save the unwanted size reduction
of sugarcane (Bastin and Shridar 2014). The height of mill-able cane was measured in the
field with measuring tape. The maximum and minimum operating heights of the de-
topper were decided based on the length of the mill-able cane (Figure 3.3). The average
height of sugarcane was measured according the method suggested by the Bastin and
Shridar 2014.
3.1.1.4 Row Spacing
Another main consideration in the design of sugarcane harvester was the amount
of crop that was to be harvested and conveyed at the back of harvester through conveyer
at per meter run of the machine. This decided the capacity of the harvester in-terms of the
effective working width of the harvester. Working width of the harvester was directly
linked to the row spacing (Bastin and Shridar 2014).
The optimum row spacing for planting of sugarcane is about 0.9 to 1.0 m reported
by Hunsigi (1993). Usually, close row spacing is adopted under low fertility status, shy
tilling varieties, delayed planting and drought conditions. Narrow spacing is being
considered beneficial for the high bio-mass generation but it enhances the cost of seed,
29
hurdles in carrying out agricultural practices and harvesting cost. Traditional practice
consists of close row spacing in areas where harvesting is done manually. To
accommodate mechanical harvesters’ farmers have adopted wide row spacing. Row
spacing of different varieties of sugarcane under study at the peasant fields were
measured. Row spacing of sugarcane fields were measured to adjust the diameter of base
cutter and working width of sugarcane harvester. Row spacing of the sugarcane field was
measured by following the research of Bastin and Shridar (2014).
3.1.1.5 Number of Mill-able Canes
Sugarcane grows in clumps and the number of shoots per clumps depends upon on
the type of variety of cane, planting method, soil type and time of planting (Bastin and
Sharidar, 2014). Normally 90000 to 100,000 eye buds per hectare are planted. It gives
bud about 72000 to 80,000 per hectare. The average tillering is about 2.5 tiller per bud.
The initial shoot population is 1,80,000 to 2,00,000 shoots per hectare. In the end, almost
1,00,000 to 1,20,000 per hectare mill-able canes are available Hunsigi (2001).
To design a sugarcane harvester data of number of plants in the field and
distribution of stalks along the row are very much important. At the time of harvest,
number of canes in a meter length of row is an important factor to decide the capacity of
the machine. The design of harvesting machine was modified in such a way that it
became capable of handling the maximum amount of cane available per meter length of
row. Number of mill-able cans of different varieties were counted randomly at different
locations in the field (Bastin and Shridar, 2014).
30
3.1.2 Mechanical Properties
3.1.2.1 Bending Resistance
Modulus of elasticity was measured using cantilever beam test. The experimental
set up for conducting cantilever bending test consisted of a holding jaws, a bench vice and
a lifting mechanism with load cell. The holding jaws were provided with a socket for
holding one end of sugarcane stalk specimen and was held firmly by tightening clamping
screws. The socket was fixed to a square pipe and was fitted to a bench vice horizontally.
The test specimen, held by the jaw at one end, was remaining at horizontal cantilever
position. Load for bending the specimen was applied at the free end through a lifting
mechanism and load cell. The force required to lift the stalk can be read from the display
unit connected to the load cell and the deflection could be measured by using a measuring
scale. The experiment was conducted for sugarcane stalk specimen’s length of 500 mm.
The experiment was conducted for under study sugarcane varieties (CP-77400, US-127
31
and US-633). Load was applied at the free end through a lifting arrangement in
increments of 10 N. The corresponding deflections of the specimen were noted, and the
experiment was conducted for different diameters commonly grown varieties.
Figure 3.5: Experimental setup to calculate bending resistance
Young’s modulus for each test was calculated using the equation (Mohsenin, 1996).
.….. (3.1)
Where,
E = Young modulus (N/mm2)
…… (3.2)
Where,
Bending resistance for variety US-127
= (3.1416× (25.64)4)/64
= 21082.87 mm4
32
= (3.1416× (27.10)4)/64
= 26475.68 mm4
= 1152.95 N/mm2
= (3.1416× (22.10)4)/64
= 11709.52 mm4
= 2288.33 N/mm2
3.1.3 Design Considerations
This section deals with the designing of indigenous tractor operated single row
sugarcane harvester for sugarcane crop.
3.1.3.1 Functional Requirement
The harvester performed the following operations comfortably with help of tractor
power.
To minimize the crop damage
To move the sugarcane through conveyer and drop it at the back for collection
To remove the extraneous material of sugarcane such as dry leaf’s through high
power blower
Plant to plant spacing
Row to row spacing
3.1.4 Ergonomic Consideration
Ergonomics is the scientific study of the relationship between man and its working
environment. The goal of ergonomics is to design the task so that its demand stays within
the capacities of workers. Its objective is to increase the efficiency of human activity by
removing those features of design which are likely to cause inefficiency or physical
33
disability in the long term and thus to minimize the cost of operation. Further, to achieve
maximum efficiency a machine system must be designed (Murrel, 1979).
3.1.4.1 Criteria for Ergonomic Design
Sugarcane harvester should be able to cut properly the sugarcane from the bottom
and top.
Row to row spacing must be adjustable as experiments will be conducted on three
different varieties having different row spacing ranging from 50cm to 100cm.
The cost of the machine should be under the purchasing power of small farmers.
All tools which requires power should be entertained within the power capacity of
tractor.
3.1.5 Selection of Material
It was required to design a frame for assembling of all parts. Furthermore, a
conveyer was designed which was being used for the movement of harvested sugarcane.
These were constructed by mild steel angel irons (90°) because mild steel is corrosion
resistant, breakage resistant and have more strength due to its composition (0.4% Carbon,
0.04% Phosphorus, 0.6-0.9% Manganese, and up to 0.05% Sulphur). Conveyer sugarcane
catchers were made according to the diameter of sugarcane stalk with easily available
rubber tyre to avoid injury of sugarcane. In addition to above, bottom and top cutting
discs were designed to cut the bottom and top part of the sugarcane.
3.1.6 Design Consideration for Tractor Operated Harvesting Machine
The machine should be operated comfortably with tractor
The machine should be trouble free and easy to use
The rate, quality of work and the machine should be comparatively better as
compare to other machines of similar grade.
3.2 Sugarcane Harvester
Sugarcane harvester consisted of different parts and each part had its own
function. Initially, a frame was designed which had the capacity to bear the weight of the
harvester machine. This frame had also used to connect the harvester machine with the
75hp tractor. Tractor transferred its power to machine by PTO shaft. Further, PTO shaft
connected with the hydraulic control box unit of harvesting machine also transmitted its
power to base cutter through power reduction/speed increasing gear. Power to cutter was
transferred through chain sprocket mechanism. Remaining machinal parts of harvester
like top cutter, blower and conveyer get power from hydraulic control box. With the
forward moment of tractor, tractor used 22.5hp and transmits remaining 52.5 hp to the
34
harvester machine system through PTO shaft. 20 hp was used for the base cutter
mechanism and remaining 32.5 was transferred to hydraulic control system mounted on
the frame blower fan motor, conveyor motors and top cutter motor attached with the
harvester machine. Hydraulic control box provided power to the top cutter, conveyer and
blower through hydraulic system. This is a general description of harvester design and
working function.
3.2.1 Main Component of Sugarcane Harvester
1. Hitch Point
3.2.1.1 Hitch Point
To make a connection of tractor with harvester machine a three points connection was
manufactured at local workshop. Figure 3.7a shows how hitch point was attached with the
harvester at one end. It was constructed by joining angle of mild steel of three different
Conveyor
Frame
35
lengths of 80 cm, 72 cm and 80 cm in triangle shape to get triangle shaped frame. It was
coupled with tractor and harvester through compatible nut and bolts (Figure 3.7b and
3.7c).
36
3.2.1.2 Frame
The frame (Figure 3.10) was the key component for sugarcane harvester machine. Frame
provided a mean to compile individual components to work together as well as provides
connection with tractor. The major function of the frame was not only to support the parts
as bottom and top cutter, blower, conveyer, power transmission system but it also reduced
vibrations produced during machine operation. Extensive vibrations may cause damage of
machine or affect performance of different machine components (Khurmi and Gupta,
2005). Units used for dimensions in figures (3.11 and 3.12) are cm.
37
Figure 3.11: Top View of Frame (cm)
38
Figure 3.12: Side View of Frame (cm)
It was constructed by joining angle of mild steel of size 50×50×5 mm in
rectangular box section members to get rectangular shaped frame of 182×46 cm (L×W)
(Figure 3.11).
3.2.1.3 Base Cutter
Base Cutter was the main component of harvester. it was used to cut the sugarcane
stalk just above the land. After harvesting, sugarcane stalks were being captured and
moved out by conveyer (Figure 3.13 and 3.14).
39
Figure 3.13: Actual View of Base Cutter
The cutting force required to cut one cane is 106.57N. (Zode et al. 2015). The
dimensions of 8 blades mounted on the base cutter disc were 110*76.2*5mm (Length
(L)*Width(W)*Thickness(T)). Thus, total diameter of the blade was 110+815 = 925mm.
The power calculations for base cutter are given below;
40
T = Fr …… (3.3)
F = Force required to cut sugarcane, N
R= radius of the cutter, mm
Speed to cut the sugarcane varies 2000-2250 rpm
P = 2πNT/60000 …… (3.4)
N = speed of the base cutter (rpm)
T = torque of the base cutter (N mm)
The calculations are as follow
T = Fr= 106.57× 0.461= 49.129 Nm = 49129 N mm
P = 2πNT/60000
3.2.1.4 Top Cutter
Top and base cutter were mounted on same shaft attached at the right side of the
harvester. Top cutter got power through hydraulic motor. The radius of cutting disc was
380 mm. Height of the cutter was adjustable from 214 to 304 cm. It was compatible with
the height of sugarcane. The power to drive top cutter was calculated by using equation
3.3 and 3.4. Units used for all dimensions in figures (3.16 and 3.17) are cm.
T = Fr
= 56 × 0.38
P = 2πNT/60000
42
Figure 3.17: Top Cutter Side View (cm)
43
3.2.1.5 Blower
Blower was used to remove the dry leaf from the sugarcane stalk. The function of
base cutter was to cut the sugarcane stalk, conveyer captured it, upper cuter cut the tops of
sugarcane stalk and blower removed dry leaves of sugarcane stalk. Blower was operating
with 6 hp (4.48kw) hydraulic motor. The diameter of blower was 78cm. It had four
blades. Blower works with velocity of 25 m/s at 1300 rpm. Power was being transmitted
by the hydraulic controlling system. Units used for dimensions in figures (3.18 and 3.19)
are cm.
44
3.2.1.6 Conveyer
Sugarcane harvester conveyer was consisted of conveyer frame, rubber catchers,
chain and sprockets and two hydraulic motors. Conveyor frame (Figure 3.20) was
constructed by using mild steel iron angles which are resistant to corrosion and more
durable than simple iron angles. Conveyer rubber catchers were used to capture and
convey the sugarcane. Rubber catchers were made of locally available tire rubber. It had
63 catchers and 14 sprockets. The width of each catcher was 7.5cm, thickness was 0.5cm
and length was 36cm (Figure 3.21). The conveyer had capacity to change its working
width up to 30 cm depending upon crop spacing.
45
303
cm
44.5
cm
Figure 3.22 Power Requirements for different components with altered rpms
Data in above (Figure 3.22) shows that power required by different components of
harvester at different rpm. The main purpose of such calculations is to find the suitable
tractor required to run this machine. Power required was found increased with increase in
rpm of selected component because it is obvious that, increased rpm would need more
power. Maximum power required by single conveyor motor 9.396 hp, (7 kW) was
recorded with 1345 rpm followed by 8.879 hp, (6.62 kW) at 1271 rpm, 8.132 hp, (6 kW)
at 1164 rpms and 7.42 hp, (5.5 kW) was recorded at 1063 rpm of conveyor. Whilst
comparatively low value 6.923 hp, (5.16 kW) at 991 rpm of conveyor. In case of blower
fan maximum power required by blower motor was 5.99 hp, (4.46 kW) and 4.413 hp,
(3.29 kW) at 1345 and 1063 rpm respectively. Maximum power required by top cutter
motor was 4.016 hp, (3 kW) and 3.055 hp, (2.28 kW) at 1345 and 1063 rpm respectively.
3.2.3 Field Test
Field tests conducted in the field of South Punjab District Muzaffargarh Tehsil
Kot Addu. First trial of machine was conducted in the field before getting any result to
confirm that machine was working properly. The performance of the developed sugarcane
harvester was assessed in terms of field capacity, field efficiency, cost of operation,
energy requirement, quality of work, economics and to compare its performance with
traditional manual harvesting.

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL AND BENEFICENT

Documents

Transcript of IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL AND BENEFICENT