4LY-180型油菜聯(lián)合收割機-雙圓筒篩及糧箱的設(shè)計

4LY-180型油菜聯(lián)合收割機-雙圓筒篩及糧箱的設(shè)計,ly,油菜,聯(lián)合收割機,圓筒,設(shè)計 三 江 學 院 畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）任務(wù)書 機械工程 學院 機械設(shè)計制造及其自動化（數(shù)控技術(shù)）專業(yè) 論文題目 4LY-180型油菜聯(lián)合收割機--- 雙圓筒篩及糧箱的設(shè)計 學生姓名 張秉鑫 學 號 12010152016 起訖日期 2014.2.24-2014.6.14 指導教師姓名（簽名） 指導教師職稱 副教授 指導教師工作單位 江蘇大學機械學院 院（系）領(lǐng)導簽名 下發(fā)任務(wù)書日期 ： 2014年2月 24日 題 目 4LY-180型油菜聯(lián)合收割機的設(shè)計（雙圓筒篩及糧箱的設(shè)計） 論文時間 2014年2月24日至 2014年6月14日 課題的主要內(nèi)容及要求(含技術(shù)要求、圖表要求等) 圓筒篩長選L=1200mm 圓筒篩直徑D=450mm 雙圓筒篩是清選裝置，它主要是在改進其他清選裝置而設(shè)計的。一般清選裝置都是平的，利用其振動來達到清選的目的，而雙圓筒篩清選裝置可以消除振動。其動力由主電機提供，通過帶輪傳送到軸上，再通過鏈輪使兩圓筒篩同時轉(zhuǎn)動。清選下來的油菜籽通過輸送攪龍輸送到糧箱。而糧箱的設(shè)計重點在出糧口。用壓桿和彈簧設(shè)計了一個自動夾緊裝置，可以把蛇皮袋夾在上面讓其自動工作，減輕工人的勞動強度。糧箱上帶有扶手，供工人扶手用。糧箱頂上有蓋子，防止雨水及雜物落入其中。 課題的實施的方法、步驟及工作量要求 1.查閱有關(guān)資料和設(shè)計手冊，了解國家或行業(yè)對油菜聯(lián)合收割機的要求等； 2.確定試驗方案，擬定滿足設(shè)計要求的原理圖； 3.確定4LY-180型油菜聯(lián)合收割機雙圓筒篩及糧箱的設(shè)計方案，完成總裝配圖及零件圖，完成圖紙工作量累計3張零號圖紙以上； 4.完成外文翻譯漢字3000字以上； 5.完成畢業(yè)設(shè)計說明書（1萬漢字以上）。 指定參考文獻 1. 農(nóng)業(yè)機械學（上），中國農(nóng)業(yè)機械化科學研究院編，機械工業(yè)出版社 2. 農(nóng)業(yè)機械學（下），吳守一編，中國農(nóng)業(yè)機械出版社 3. 機械設(shè)計手冊（單行本）---機械傳動，成大先主編，化學工業(yè)出版社 4. 機械設(shè)計手冊（單行本）---軸及其連接，成大先主編，化學工業(yè)出版社 5. 機械設(shè)計手冊（單行本）---軸承，成大先主編，化學工業(yè)出版社 6. 機械設(shè)計手冊（新版第三卷），機械設(shè)計手冊編委會，機械工業(yè)出版社 7. 機械設(shè)計手冊（第四版，第1,2,3,4,5卷），成大先主編，化學工業(yè)出版社 8. 材料力學（第三版上、下冊），劉鴻文主編，高等教育出版社 畢業(yè)設(shè)計(論文)進度計劃(以周為單位) 第 1 周（2014年2月24日----2014年2月28日）： 下達設(shè)計任務(wù)書，明確任務(wù)，熟悉課題，收集資料，上交外文翻譯、參考文獻和開題報告 第 2 周——第 3 周（2014年3月3日----2013年3月14日）： 制定總體方案，繪制總裝圖草圖。 第 4 周——第 5 周（2014年3月17日----2014年3月28日）： 完成設(shè)計方案，擬定雙圓筒篩和糧箱的設(shè)計草圖。 第 6 周——第 7 周（2014年3月31日----2014年4月11日）： 完成雙圓筒篩及糧箱設(shè)計總圖及有關(guān)零件設(shè)計圖。 第 8 周（2014年4月14日----2014年4月18日）： 提交第1-8周的《指導記錄表》和已做的畢業(yè)設(shè)計內(nèi)容，由指導老師初審后上交學院 第 9 周——第 13 周（2014年4月21日----2013年5月23日）： 在指導老師指導下修改并完成設(shè)計，完成相關(guān)設(shè)計圖紙，同時撰寫畢業(yè)設(shè)計說明書，并提交指導老師初審。 第 14 周——第 16 周（2014年5月26日----2013年6月14日）： 修改畢業(yè)設(shè)計圖紙及說明書，完成后參加畢業(yè)答辯。 備注 注：表格欄高不夠可自行增加。此表由指導教師在畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）工作開始前填寫，每位畢業(yè)生兩份，一份發(fā)給學生，一份交院（系）留存。 Development and Testing of a Tractor-mounted Positioner for Mango Harvesting R.A. Gupta，R.M. Satasiya Pramod Mohnot ，N.K. Gontia Abstract In order to reduce losses sustained during harvesting of mango and to maintain fruit quality, a tractor- mounted positioner was developed and tested for mango harvesting at the Sagadividi farm of the Gujarat Agricultural University, Junagadh Campus. During operation, it was observed that using the positioner for harvesting, only the mature fruits with stalk of 10-20 mm length without sap bums and any other damage to the fruits, could be harvested. White layer (bloom), which is desirable from quality point of view, was also maintained. Though the work output was slightly reduced over all economics was in favour of the use of the positioner for harvesting as compared to the traditional picker. Using a positioner in orchards can save about Rs. 1,000 per tree in a good season. Introduction Mango (Manaifera indica),、the “king” of fruits, has prime importance among the commercial fruits grown in India-the largest producer and exporter of mango in the world. In Gujarat about 382 thousand tonnes of mango is produced annually over an area of 57 thousand hectare (Data book 2000). Gujarat produces export quality of mango mainly the Alphonso and Kesar varieties. The latter has excellent quality for export and grown almost throughout the state, concentrating in South Gujarat and Saurashtra. The quality of the fruits mainly depends on their maturity stages , harvest and post harvest techniques adopted by the mango growers. Harvesting of fruits in India is mostly done manually by means of a curved knife, pair of scissors or blades attached to a hanging basket to the distal end of bamboo sticks (Devnani, 1980). For harvesting mango, hand picking manually operated low capacity gadgets and tree shaking methods prevaile which results in high labour and energy requirements, drudgery, damaged fruits, damage to tree branches etc. The damage and bruising are very serious problem. The fruits should not be allowed to fall on the ground as the injured fruits cause spoilage to other healthy fruits during packaging and storage. Fruits harvested with 8-10 mm long stalks appear better on ripening as undesired spots on the skin caused by sap bum are prevented. Such fruits are less prone to stem — end and rot and other storage diseases (Sapovadia et. al. 2001). RTTC, Jurhat, Assam (1988) worked on fruit harvesting devices. The manually operated unit worked on the principle of individual fruit cutting by sickle / blade and collecting the fruit in a bag. The unit was found suitable for average size and big fruits, which would be damaged if allowed to fall freely on the ground. The other unit worked on the principle of mechanical shaking of tree. This unit was suitable for hard fruits. Brown and Schertz (1967) also worked on mechanically operated harvesters and reported that fruits harvested by mechanical shaking have more injuries in the form of splits, internal and external bruising and superficial peel scars than manually harvested fruits. RTTC, Gujarat Agricultural University, developed an improved picker and it showed better performance as compared to other pickers collected from various centres of the country. About 90% of the fruits could be harvested with stalk of 10-20 mm in length, which is most desirable specifically for export quality of fruit. Fruits should be harvested manually using mechanical aids like a positioner on which a person can stand and pick the fruit using a pair of scissors / secateure. As the fruits are picked form very close distance hence, only mature fruits are harvested without any damage. Hence, keeping the foregoings in view, a study for developing and testing of a trac- tor-driven and hydraulically operated positioner was undertaken at the centre. Material and Methods Prior to the design of the machine some preliminary information regarding the tree characteristics were studied to ensure that the movability of the machine in the field, distribution of fruits within the tree and the percentage of fruits that can be harvested are estimated (Tables 1 to 3). The height of the machine and size of the cage were likewise studied. Using the above information a hy- draulically-operated positioner for harvesting mango and other fruits, was designed and developed. The safety factors were also taken into consideration. The cost of the machine was kept minimum by reducing the number of moving components in the design of the machine. The machine consists of a frame, three-point linkage, hydraulic jack, supporting links,, extension pipe and cage. The frame of the machine is fabricated from angle iron of (50 × 50 × 6) mm size. The dimensions and structural members of the frame are shown in the Fig. 1. A hydraulic jack of 2 tonnes capacity with two cylinders is mounted at the centre of the frame with the help of a pin of 40 mm passing through two plates welded to the frame and lower end of the hydraulic jack. The upper end of the jack is supported by fastening three supports to the frame and upper end of the jack. Similarly, the upper end of the piston is fastened to a flange through nuts and bolts. To extend the height of the positioner an extension pipe of 100 mm and 1 m length is attached to the upper end of the piston through flange, nuts and bolts. On the upper end of the extension pipe another flange of the same size (20 × 20) cm is welded on which cage is fixed through nuts and bolts. The cage of machine is fabricated from angle iron, mild steel flat and wood. The frame of the cage is made out of angle iron. The size of the cage is (92 × 76 × 70) cm. At the bottom of the cage, wooden plank is provided. On one side of the bottom an opening of (55 ×47) cm size is provided through which an operator can get on the positioner to pick up the mature fruits. All the four sides of the positioner are kept folding so that when the machine is on transport from one place to another the sides can be lowered to keep the height minimum. To operate the machine, it is hitched to a tractor through three point linkages and hosepipe of the hydraulic jack is connected to the hydraulic system of the tractor. The cage is mounted on top of the ex- tens4?n piece and its sides are folded. The machine is transported to the orchard where mango picking is to be done. During operation, the machine is placed on ground and operator gets on the cage along with a pair of scissor and carton through the opening provided at the bottom of the cage. All the sides of the cage are kept in upright position and hinged to the frame through hooks pins for safety point of view. The hydraulic system of the tractor is operated to lift the cage. As soon as the valve is opened, the oil under pressure goes to jack through hosepipe, which lifts the piston of the jack, thus, the cage is lifted. When required height is reached, valve is closed to stop further upward movement of the cage. Then, the operator pick the fruits from a very close distance using a pair of scissors / secateure. Only matured fruits are picked and kept in the carton.When the carton is full of fruits it is packed and taken on the ground. The machine is taken around the tree to pickup matured fruits. Some of the fruitswhich are located on the top of the tree, are beyond the reach of the operator, are picked using manually operated mango picker. Fig. 1 Tractor-mounted positioner for harvesting mango. Fig. 2 Positioner attached with power Fig. 3 Operator picking mango using positioner. Testing A field testing of the machine was conducted at the Sagdividi farm of Gujarat Agricultural University, Junagadh campus for the Kesar variety of mango which is very popular among in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat state. The trees were planted at (12 X 12)m distance. HMT zetor tractor of 35 hp was used to operate the machine. An experienced worker was engaged to pick the fruits in standing posture on the positioner. During testing of the machine some important observations like number of fruits harvested / h, weight of fruit harvested / h, average stem length (mm), visible damage (%), physiological loss of weight (%), shelf life of fruits (days) etc. were recorded. The cost of harvesting was determined out considering the prevailing rates of the tractor and labour during the season. Two workers,one for picking the fruits and another to receive the harvested fruits,were required for the operation.The experienced worker is engaged in picking the fruits and was paid better than the less experienced worker. The same workers were used to harvest the fruits using the developed machine. In order to estimate physiological loss in weight (PLW) of the harvested fruits two plastic trays lined with newspapers, were kept on the table at room temperature (20°) and the harvested fruits were arranged in these trays in line keeping the stem end upward. The weight of the fruits was recorded every three days. On the 7th day, few fruits harvested using traditional picker showed symptoms of deterioration， are removed from the tray. Fig. 4 Fruit packet being taken from the positioner. Fig. 5 Operator picking coconut using positione Fig. 6 Fruits harvested using traditional mango picker. Fig. 7 Fruits harvested using developed positioner. Results and Discussion (i) Harvesting capacity The results recorded during the trial of the machine are shown in Table 4. The average number of fruits harvested using the positioner were 360 per hour compared with local mango picker which can pick an average of 377 fruits per hour. Thus, using the positioner the harvesting capacity of the operator was slightly reduced. Considering that in raising / lowering and shifting the positioner took more time. Similar results were reported by Schertz (1967). During his study he observed that an operator standing on the ground was more efficient than harvesting the fruits from a ladder / positioner. (ii) Stem length The stem length is one of the most desirable parameter’，The stem length of the stem fruits harvested using the positioner was within 20 mm. and uniform while in fruits harvested with traditional picker, had stems more than 50 mm and non-uniform. A number of fruits were harvested without stem, which is not desirable from the quality point of view. Such fruits do not have good appearance and a mango grower has to sell them at lower prices in the market. Moreover, it has been reported that fruits harvested without stem are subject to the occurrence of stem end rot disease. Fruits with stems recorded delayed ripening. It is necessary that the fruits should have stems ranging from 10 to 20 mm. (iii) Visible damage Visible damage on the fruit was observed in the form of sap burns. The fruits harvested without stem had sap bums. Such type of damage was almost nil in fruits harvested using the positioner because all the fruits had stem while the fruits picked using the traditional picker shows 11.11% visible damage. (iv) Shelf life of fruits This refers to the life of fruits in days for which they can be stored after harvesting without sustaining spoilage. The shelf life is affected by the harvesting methods. Fruits harvested using the positioner could be stored for 9 days without showing symptoms of spoilage. The appearance of the fruits was good and had attractive color. In comparison, those harvested using the traditional picker should dark spots on the body on the 7th day from the date of harvesting. If the fruit is physically damaged or injured the respiration rate of the fruit is increased and it is prone to microbial attack hence, during handling of the mango fruit, care taken to avoid any kind of injury and increase the shelf life of the fruits. (v) Cost of harvesting As indicated in the Table 4 the cost of harvesting for using the positioner was Rs. 2783 / tonne of mango fruit as compared to Rs. 368 / tonne using the traditional picker. Thus, the cost of operation for the former was high but the quality of harvested fruit was very good and not a single fruit was lost by way of spoilage or decay while 10 -15% fruit loss was observed in case of traditional picker. Hence, considering 10% loss out of every 1000 kg. only 900 kg. of fruits were available for sale. That too at lower rate (Rs. 17.50 / kg') amounting Rs. 15,750. The fruit harvested using the positioner could be sold at higher price (Rs. 20 / kg.) amounting Rs. 20,000, thus gaining Rs. 4,250 more as compared to using the local picker. Subtracting the extra operating cost required in the case of the positioner i.e., Rs. 2,415 a net profit of Rs. 1835 / tonne could be harvested by a mango grower. In other words, about Rs. 900 / tree can be saved by adopting the developed positioner for harvesting of mango. (vi) Physiological loss in weight Observations regarding the physiological loss in weight (PLW) were also recorded every three days in the laboratory for each method of fruit harvesting in percentage and presented in Table 5. The PLW was higher on 3rd, 6th and 9th day for the fruits picked using the traditional mango picker. The total PLW was 13.27% and 15.88% for fruit harvested with the positioner and traditional picker, respectively. Fig. 8 Tractor mounted positioner. Conclusions From the study following conclusions can be drawn: Using the positioner, mangoes without any mechanical injury are picked and only matured fruits are harvested as operation is conducted at a close distance. As 100 percent fruits are harvested with stems (1-2 cm), no sap bums were found and white layer (bloom) on the fruit is also maintained. Loss of fruit during storage and transportation is minimized. Due to high quality of fruit maintained during harvesting an fruit grower can harvest a net sum of Rs. 1000 per tree in a good season. REFERENCES Annual report, 2000. Research, Testing and Training Centre, Gujarat Agricultural university, Junagadh Campus, Gujarat. Brown and Schertz, 1967. Principles and practices for harvesting and handling of fruits and nuts, vol. Data book (1992-99). Director of Horticulture, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. Bulletin No. 20 / 2000 p. 8. Devnani, R.S. 1980. Harvesting equipments developed in India. Technical bulletin No. CIAE / 78 / 8，CIAE, Bhopal SapovadiaB.D., Patel H.N., Gupta R.A. and Pund S.K., 2001. Design and development of mango harvesting device. AMA30(l): 31-34.