Islamic Azad University-Takestan Branch, Iran

Department of Biosystems Engineering

Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Potato Yield Monitoring System

Davood Mohammad Zamani

Assistant Professor

International Conference on Advances in Pure & Applied Sciences

Kuala Lumpur

November, 2014

1

Precision Farming (PA)

Variable Rate Application (VRT)

Site-Specific Crop Management (SSCM)

Yield Monitoring Map

2

3

Goginen (2002) designed and implemented sweet potato yield

monitoring system.

Caryn (2002) installed a sugarcane yield monitoring system on

Cameco CH combine.

Lee, et.al, (2002) designed a yield monitoring system to silage

forage. In this study, global positioning systems, load-cell.

Bassam.et.al, (2006) have developed the performance of a sensor

for measuring the onion specific gravity.

4

The ultimate objective of this

research is to designing,

construction and evaluation a

system for on-the-go measuring

yield crop and to obtain the best

system performance at different tray

angles relative to the horizontal,

shock absorber and forward speed.

5

Potato harvesting machine

Weighting tray

6

Two load-cells was used for

weighing potatoes

PLC we used as a controller

7

Potato harvesting machine with the equipment used for

generating yield map

Weighting

tray

Signal

Transmitter

PLC

Load cell

8

For evaluation of the designed system and get the best

performance of the system, 108 laboratory tests were conducted

on potato harvesting machine.

Independent variables to test included forward speed, angle of

tray and different shock absorbers

9

Calibration of load-cells

10

Source of variation

Sum of squaresDegrees

of freedom

Mean-square F Significant

Angle 2 21.791 0.000

Speed 2 8.270 0.001

Fender 8836712.289 3 2945570.763 0.665 0.577

Repeat 8503756.995 2 4251878.498 0.959 0.388

Angular speed 4 3987877.250 0.900 0.469

Angle, shock absorbers

1.022 6 1703819.410 0.384 0.877

Speed, shock

absorbers6 7344991.370 1.657 0.145

Angle * Speed *

Shock absorber12 2.361 0.013

Error 70 4432686.317 - -

Total 108 - -

ANALYZE OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)

11

Angle (degree)

Forward speed(Km/hr)

Shock absorberaverag

eStandard

error

Confidence level95% Error

(%)Lower limit

Upper limit

30

37

45

4

Without shock absorber

947.5064

550.1215 609.2640

285.7489

4.85

Thickness 10 mm385.6660

550.1215 047.4236

723.9084

Thickness 20 mm713.9514

550.1215 375.7090

051.11939

Double wall polycarbonate

403.5559

550.1215 065.3135

742.7983

2

Without shock absorber

522.9718

550.1215 184.7294

860.12142

Thickness 10 mm126.7375

550.1215 787.4950

464.9799

Thickness 10 mm071.11

394550.1215 732.896

9409.138

18

2.8116.3

4

Double wall polycarbonate

050.8370

550.1215 712.5945

389.10794

2

Without shock absorber

741.5898

550.1215 402.3474

079.8323

Thickness 10 mm942.6945

550.1215 604.4521

280.9370

Thickness 20 mm639.8365

550.1215 300.5941

977.10789

Double wall polycarbonate

700.5200

550.1215 362.2776 038.762

5

Interaction between plate angle, forward speed and shock absorber

12

In the use of shock absorbers made of 20 mm thick polymer

because the value of R2= 0.97, and was close to 1, weighting

system measured weight values close to the actual values. In

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's comparison

method, by changing the angle of tray and traveling speed,

results significantly changed, but with various shock absorbers

and repeat no significant difference seen.

13

Thank you