COMBINE HEADER CONTROL

Abdelmotaleb,, I. A.; El-Gendy, H.A.; Hassan, M.A.

doi:10.21608/mjae.2009.108719

COMBINE HEADER CONTROL

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Prof. and Head of Agric. Eng. Dep., Fac. of Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh Univ., Egypt.

² Sen. Res. and Supervisor of Technical Office, Agric. Eng. Res. Inst., Egypt.

³ Engineer, Agric. Eng. Res. Inst., Egypt.

10.21608/mjae.2009.108719

Abstract

Combines and reapers harvest the grain crops, the green grass and other similar plants, therefore the cutter bar should be able to cut from 30 to 100 mm above the ground surface. The cutting parts should also be protected from hitting the rocks or the soil. It should also be considered that any crop remains of cutting height on the ground after the harvest are a loss. The muddy conditions found in rice growing area proved difficult, because the cutter could hit the ground when the combine header would sink into the soil. Running the stubble cutter into the soil would cause it to jam or partially plug up, making it ineffective.
The main purpose of this study was to cut the crop at the lowest possible level by manufacturing an automatic control unit which controls upping/downing the combine header, in order to avoid the obstacles which face it when lowering the cutter bar level.
An automatic control unit has been constructed locally at the engineering workshop of Rice Mechanization Center (R.M.C), Meet El-Deeba, Kafrelsheikh Governorate, Egypt during the year of 2006.
The experiments were carried out during rice harvest season of 2007 in order to compare two combine systems for the combine (Yanmar-CA65V) under the same different operating conditions. The first combine has an automatic control unit (combine with control system). But the second combine hasn't an automatic control unit (combine without control system or the conventional combine). All experiments performed at the research farm of RiceMechanizationCenter.
The obtained results may be summarized as follows:
1-     The optimum operating conditions for the combine with control system are at forward speed of 2.5 km/h and cutting height of 0.05 m.

¹ Prof. and Head of Agric. Eng. Dep., Fac. of Agric., Kafr El-Sheikh Univ.
² Sen. Res. and Supervisor of Technical Office, Agric. Eng. Res. Inst., Egypt.
³ Engineer, Agric. Eng. Res. Inst., Egypt.
2-     The optimum operating conditions for the conventional combine are at forward speed of 2.5 km/h and cutting height of 0.10 m.
3-     The combine with control system is strongly recommended since it gives lower loss and costs, and higher field efficiency compared to the conventional combine.

Main Subjects

Agricultural Power and Machinery Engineering

References

Awady, M.N.; E.Y. Ghoniem and A.I. Hashish (1982). A critical comparison between wheat combine harvesters under Egyptian conditions. Res. Bul. 1920, Fac. of Agric. Ain Shams Univ.: 13p.

Dobie, J.B.; G.E. Miller and R.H. Mosley (1984). Ground level harvest of rice straw. Trans. of the ASAE, 27(5): 1263-1269.

Esquivel, M.; S. Marrero; E. Ponce; A. Guerrero; T. Stainlay; J. Villaruz; A.W. Wood and L.P. Bella (2008). Evaluation of the automatic base-cutter control system in the Australian sugar cane industry. Australian Society of Sugar cane Technologists, 29 April: 322-327.

Garson, C.A. and M. Armstrong (1993). Ultrasonic base cutter height control. Australian Society of Sugar cane Technologists, April: 52-59.

Hill, J.E.; S.R. Roberts; D.M. Brandon; S.C. Scardaci; J.F. Williams and R.G. Mutters (1998). Rice production in California (11/13). Available URL: http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/uccerice/product.htm.

Hunt, D. R. (1983).Farm power and machinery management .8^th ed., Iowa State Univ., press. Ames, U.S.A.

Kaul, E.R. and A.M. Egbo (1985). Introduction to Agriculture mechanization “Management and cost analysis” First published pp. 172-175.

Kepner, R.A.; R. Bainer and E.L. Barger (1982). Principles of farm machinery. The AVI publishing Co. Inc. West Port, Connecticut.

Lopes, G.T.; P.S.G. Magalhaes and E.G.O. Nobrega (2002). Optimal header height control system for combine harvesters. Biosystems Engineering, 81(3): 261-272.

McMaster, G.S.; R.M. Aiken and D.C. Nielsen (2000). Optimizing wheat harvest cutting height for harvest efficiency and soil and water conservation. Agronomy Journal, 92(6): 1104-1108.

Mosby, E. (1995). Combine harvester with secondary cutter. Ewen Mosby, Hartney, Manitoba. United States Patent No. 5,433,065. July 18.

Murphy, D.E. (2000). Stubble cutter on combine. Personal communication. J.H. Mcknight Ranch, Inc. Nelson, California.

Nader, G.; R.G. Mutters and P. Robinson (2000). Rice straw utilization by cattle. Annual report, RU-3, Comprehensive Research on Rice, University of California and USDA, Davis. CA.

Tandon, S.K. and J.S. Panwar (1989). Status of mechanization of harvesting and threshing of soybean in India. AMA, 20(1): 55-60.

Yore, M.W.; M.D. Summers and B.M. Jenkins (2001). Development of a stubble cutting system for a combine harvester. Trans. of the ASAE Paper No. 01-1087.