机械专业毕业论文英语翻译1

MechanicalharvestingofpistachionutsRefikPolata,*,IbrahimGezerb,MetinGunerc,ErginDursunc,DoganErdogancHasanC.BilimdaFacultyofAgriculture,DepartmentofAgriculturalMachinery,UniversityofHarran,63040Sanliurfa,TurkeybProgramofAgriculturalMachinery,MalatyaTechnicianTrainingCenter,UniversityofInonu,44080Malatya,TurkeycDepartmentofAgriculturalMachinery,FacultyofAgriculture,UniversityofAnkara,06110Ankara,TurkeydPistachioResearchInstitute,27060Gaziantep,TurkeyReceived25November2005;accepted29March2006Availableonline18April2006AbstractÓ2006ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.Keywords:Pistachionut;Mechanicalharvest;Limbshaker;DetachmentforceTurkeyisoneofthemainpistachiosproducingcoun-triesintheworldandpistachioisanimportantproductforTurkey.AlthoughTurkishvarietiesaresmallerinbothshellandkernel,thesevarietiesarepreferredinmanyEuro-peanandUSAmarketsbecauseoftheirbettertasteandmoreuniformlygreenkernels(Ozeker,Misirli,&Isfendiy-aroglu,2001;Woodroof,1982.OneoftheoriginplacesofpistachionutisAnatolia.Therefore,itisgrowninalloverTurkey,especiallyinSoutheastAnatolia(Kaska,1995.AgriculturalsectorstillplaysanimportantroleinthedevelopmentandsocialeconomicstructureofTurkey.Because41.1%ofthepopulationlivesinthecountryside.Inaddition,agriculturalsectormeets16.8%ofnationalincomeand11.7%ofexport.45.9%ofactivepopulationworksintheagriculturalsector(Karli&Cakmakli,2001.Turkeyhasmanyadvantagesingrowingfruitintermsofclimateconditionsandsourceofsoil.USAandIranaretwoimportantcountries,whichgrowmostofpis-tachiogrowingintheworld.Thesetwocountrieshaveaverystronglevelintheproductionofthepistachio.TurkeyisthethirdpistachioproducerafterIran(243,077tandUSA(106534tandhasapproximately10.6%ofthetotalproductionoftheworld.Inlastfouryearsthemean*Correspondingauthor.E-mailaddresses:refikpolat@.tr(R.Polat,igezer@.tr(I.Gezer,derdogan@.tr(D.Erdogan,hcembilim@(H.C.Bilim.JournalofFoodEngineering79(20071131–1135productionofpistachionutsinTurkeywas52,000t.Thereare37,069hapistachionutproductareainTurkey(Fao,2004.ThelargestquantityisfromtheKirmiziPistachionutvariety.InTurkeypistachionuttreesaregenerallyhar-vestedbytraditionalmethodswherethelimbsareshakenwithapole,byhandorbyshoving.Thenutsthenfalldirectlyontothegroundorarecaughtonacatchingsur-face.Thistypeharvestingofpistachionutsistimeconsum-ing.Itis43.33%oftotallaborusedforharvestingoperationsofpistachionuts(Yildiz,1998.Theharvestingofpistachionuttreeshasnotbeenmech-anizeduntilrecentlyinTurkeyandtherehasbeenaveryshortperiodofmaturitystageavailableforharvesting.MechanicalharvestingofpistachionutsisveryimportantforTurkey.ThisstudywasconductedinGaziantepwhichisacityintheSoutheastofTurkeyandwherepistachionuttreesarewidelygrown.Somestudiesformechanicalhar-vestingoftreefruitwerecarriedout.Therearetwobroadapproachestothemechanicalharvestingconsiderations;oneisthemassharvestingmethod,harvestingindiscrimi-natelyfromthewholetreeoraportion,withoutdirectcon-cernforindividualfruits.Theotherisindividualfruitharvesting.Inindividualfruitharvesting,severalfruitscouldbeharvestedatthesametimebyseparators(Schertz&Brown,1968.Theobjectiveofthisstudyistoinvestigatethemechan-icalharvestingofpistachionut.2.MaterialandmethodsTheexperimentswereconductedonPistachionuttrees(PistachioveraL.atGaziantepprovincesinTurkeyoftheKirmizivariety.TheexperimentswereheldinthefirstweekofSeptember2005.Someorchard,treeandfruitpropertiesaregiveninTable1.2.1.Determinationoftheparameteroffruitdetachmentforce/fruitweightTheratiooffruitdetachmentforcetofruitweight(FDF/Wisusedforcomparingthesuitabilityofpistachionutformechanicalharvesting.Thefruitdetachmentforcewasmeasuredbythehelpofhanddynamometerwith10Ncapacitiesand0.1Ndivisions.ThefruitweightwasTable1Someorchard,treeandfruitpropertiesOrchard(ha12TrainingsystemFreelyprunedDistancebetweenrows(m8Treespacingintherow(m8Yield,dryfruit(kg/tree12100dryfruitmass(g100–120Trunkdiameter(mm240–310Trunkheight(cm55–110Totaltreeheight(m3–5Crownwidth(m6–81132R.Polatetal./JournalofFoodEngineering79(20071131–1135determinedwithanelectronicscale2.0kgcapacityand0.1gdivisions.2.2.InertiatypelimbshakerAninertiatypelimbshakerdesignedbyErdog˘anetal.(2003wasusedformechanicalharvestingofpistachionut.Fig.1showsthedesignedshaker.Theshakerwascompletelyhydraulicallypoweredanddrivenbythepowertake-off.Themainframeismountedonthethree-pointlinkageofthetractor.Theequipmentcomprisesahydrau-licpump,ahydraulicmotor,atank,aflowcontrolvalve,ahydrauliccylinder,adirectioncontrolvalve,andaverticalsteeltubularframetosupporttheshaker,pendulumandotherauxiliarycomponents.Thehydraulicpumpisdriventhroughagearboxwithanoutputspeedofthreetimesthestandardpowertake-offspeedof540minÀ1.Firstly,theoilispumpedtothecylinder,oneendofwhichisattachedtotherodandtheotherendtotheclamp.Eachlimbisclampedfirmlyandthentheoilispumpedtothehydraulicmotortoshakethelimbs.Areciprocatingmotionispro-videdtotheshakerarmbythehydraulicmotor.Frequencycanbeeasilyadjustedintherangeof10–20Hzbycontrol-lingthespeedofthemotorwithaflowcontrolvalve.Amplitudecanbechangedbetween20and60mm.Theshakeriscapableofharvestinglimbsupto180mmthick.Thetotalshakermasswithanemptytankis246kg.Theshakerarmbetweentheshakingmechanismandtheclampendisatube,3.34mlong,85mmdiameter,and5mmwallthickness.Themassesofthehousingwiththedrivingmotorandtheshakerarmbetweenthependulumandclampendare70and56kg,respectively.Thecompleteshakerisbalancedandpendulouslyhungfromaposition-ingmechanismbyaswinginglinkattachedtotheverticalsteeltubularframe.Thedesignpermits360°rotationoftheshakeraboutitslongitudinalaxisforaligningtheclampwiththelimbs.Thisdesignpermitstheframetoabsorbsomeofthereactiveforceoftheshakerwithoutcausingexcessivevibrationoftheframewhentheshakerisoperatingunderlongamplitudeconditions.Thelimbclampisanimportantcomponentoftheshakerandhasbeengivenspecialdesignconsiderationtoeliminatepossi-bledamagetothetreebark.Theclampconsistsofaframewithtworubberpads,onestationaryandtheotherattachedtotherodendofahydrauliccylinder.Totalclampingareaforeachofthetwoplatesis0.014m2andthetypeofpaddingissoftrubber20mmthick.Theclampactioniscontrolledbyavalveanditspressureonthelimbiscontrolledbyanadjustablereliefvalve.2.3.DeterminationoftheeffectsofshakingfrequencyandamplitudeonfruitremovalpercentageThetreeswithmaturepistachionutswereidentifiedandthreetofivelimbswithappropriatepropertiesandsizesoneachtreeindifferentdirectionswereselectedforshaking.Theremaindersofthetreewerepickedmanuallybywork-ersusingtraditionalharvestingmethods.Afterwards,theremaininglimbswithfruitswereattachedtotheshakerindividuallyandharvestedbyapplyingdifferentamplitudeandfrequencycombinations.Pistachionutsremovedfromeachlimbwerecollected,filledintoboxesandthenweighed.Inthetests,thelimbswereshakenat40,50and60mmamplitudeand10,15and20Hzfrequencies.Theresultsofthreereplicateswereanalyzedtodeterminetheeffectsoffrequenciesandamplitudeonthefruitremovalpercentage.Theshakerwasattachedtothelimbsatadis-tanceof0.5–0.7mfromthetrunkofthetree.Fourpersonsincludingthetractoroperatorwereemployedinthetests.Thefruitremovalpercentagewasdeterminedbyfollowingequation:Pr¼100mrmrþmu;wherePristhefruitremovalpercentage,mristhemassoffruitremovaling,andmuisthemassoffruitunremovaling.2.4.DeterminationofharvestrateandcomparisonswithotherharvestingmethodsTwomethodsofhandharvestingandmechanicalhar-vestingofpistachionutswerecomparedwithrespecttotheresultingyield,thenumberoftreeharvestedperhour,theareaharvestedperhour,andtheaveragetimeneededtoharvestatree.Forthehandharvestingmethod,thepis-tachionutswerepickedbyhandindividually.Forthemechanicalharvestingmethod,theexperimentalinertiatypelimbshakerwasusedtoshakethelimbs.3.Resultsanddiscussion3.1.Variationofthefruitdetachmentforce(FDF/weight(WatdifferentmaturitytimesFruitmaturityhasanimportanteffectontheforcerequiredforremovalonmechanicalpropertiesandonFig.1.Theshakerusedinstudy.R.Polatetal./JournalofFoodEngineering79(20071131–11351133relativesusceptibilityofthefruittomechanicaldamage(Kader,1983,1991.AccordingtoO’Brien,Cargil,andFridley(1983,theratiooffruitdetachmentforceinNtotheweightinNshouldbehigherthanoneformechanicalharvesting.ThechangesinFDF/WratioasafunctionofmaturitytimesareshowninFig.2.FDF/Wratiodecreasedwhenasmaturitytimeincreased.TheFDF/Wratiovariedfrom38.7to6.8N/gwithinonemonthoftests.Kececioglu(1975reportedthattheholdingforcetopedicledecreasedasthefruitwasmatured.Thisisduetocorkthatisformedinthestemholdingplace.Moser(1984saidthatmassandruptureforcewereimportantformechanicalharvestingandgavethefruitdetachmentforceas1–5Natmaturitystageforstonefruits.SessizandO3.2.TheeffectsofshakingfrequencyandamplitudeonfruitremovalpercentageThefruitremovaldependingprimarilyonshakingfre-quencyandamplitudeisshowninFig.3.Mechanicalhar-vestedfruitisdefinedaspre-harvestfruitdropplusfruitremovalbyashakerfromatree.Theharvestingwascar-riedoutinthebeginningofSeptember.Thisseason,FDF/Wratiowas6.8N/g.Theshakeramplitudeandfre-quencyareimportantvariablesforfruitremovalpercent-age,butthefruitremovalisalsodependentonthelimbamplitude.Fruitremovalpercentageofpistachionutincreasedwithincreasingfrequencyandamplitude.Orch-ardtestsshowedthatmaximumfruitremoval(100%wasachievedattheamplitudeof60mmandafrequencyof20Hz.Fruitremovalfortheamplitudeof60mmandfre-quencyof15Hzwas95.2%.Butcloselyresultswereachievedatamplitudeof50mmandafrequencyof20Hz.Atthisamplitudeandfrequencyfruitremovalwas95.5%.Theshakercausedexcessivevibrationoftheframewhenitwasoperatedatgreatamplitudes.Therefore,thelowamplitudesandfrequenciescanbepreferredformechanicalharvesting.Itwasobservedthattheunhar-vestedpistachionutswithafrequencyof50mmandwidthof20mmwereeitherimmatureornokernelinit.andO¨zcan(2006investigatedtheeffectofvibrationonmechanicaloliveharvestingandfoundthatnomorethan˘anetal.(2003statedthattheoptimumshakingfrequencyandamplitudeofapri-cotlimbswere15Hzand40mm,respectively.3.3.ComparisonsbetweenhandharvestingmethodandmechanicalharvestingHandharvestingandmechanicalharvestingwerecom-paredintermsofthenumberoftreesharvestedperhour(trees/h,theharvestingtimeforharvestof1kgpistachionutfruit(min/kg,theharvestingtimeperpersonforhar-vestingof1kgofpistachionuts(min/kg-person,andtimeneededtoharvestatree(min/tree.TheresultsareshowninTable3.Forthecomparisonspresented,theyieldofatree(freshfruitandthenumberoftreesinonehectareRemovalPercentage,%Fig.2.Thevariationofthefruitdetachmentforce/weight(FDF/Watdifferentmaturitytimes.1520Frequency,HzAmplitude40mmAmplitude50mmAmplitude60mmRemovalPercentage,%Fig.3.Theeffectsofshakingfrequencyandamplitudeonfruitremovalpercentage.Table2TheDuncantestresultsinrelationtotheeffectoffrequencyonfruitremovalpercentageAmplitude(mmFrequency(HzFruitremoval(%401062.4b1569.5b2078.4a501074.8b1583.5a2095.5a601087.4a1595.2a20Valuesinthesamecolumnfollowedbythesameletterarenotsignificantlydifferent(probabilityP<0.01.1134R.Polatetal./JournalofFoodEngineering79(20071131–1135wereassumedtobe25–30kg/treeand100trees/ha,respec-tively.Thehighestharvestingratewasobtainedbymechanicalharvesting.Theaveragetimeneededtoharvestatreewas4.85min.Tomechanicallyharvest1kgofpista-chionutbyamanlabor,1.56minarenecessary.Theresultsofpistachionutfruitharvesting(Kirmizivarietywithaninertiatypelimbshakercanbesumma-rizedasfollows:1.Thefruitdetachmentforce/weight(FDF/Wratioofpis-tachionutfruitdecreasedlinearlyasmaturitytimeincreases.Consequently,themostappropriatetimeforharvestingofpistachionutisthefirstweekofSeptember.2.Shakingtimewas10sforallofthefrequencyandamplitudetests.Itwasfoundoutthatthistimeisenoughfortheaveragetimeneededtoharvestatreelimb.3.Toobtainmaximumfruitremovalwithminimumvibra-tionandreactiveforce,theinertiatypelimbshakershouldbeoperatedintherangeof50mmamplitudeand20Hzfrequency.Fruitremovalpercentageincreasedwithanincreaseinshakingfrequencyandanincreaseinamplitude.4.Thehighestharvestingratewasobtainedbymechanicalharvesting.Theshakerandclampdidnotcauseanybarkdamage.5.Treestructureisthemostsignificantfactorinfluencingthesuccesswithmechanicalharvestingoffruits.Shakingofthelimbsinthecentreofthetreeswasdifficultbecauseofthepruningmethodforpistachionut.Thetreeswhichhadcorrectivepruningwereshakensuccessfully.6.Asaresult,thisstudyshowedthatmechanicalharvest-ingofpistachionutbyaninertiatypelimbshakerisfeasible.ReferencesAdrian,P.A.,&Fridley,R.B.(1965.Dynamicsanddesigncriteriaofinertiatypetreeshakers.TransactionsoftheASAE,8(1,12–14.Donald,L.P.,&Stephen,S.M.(1989.Advancesinmechanicalharvestingoffreshmarketqualityapples.JournalofAgriculturalEngineeringResearch,42(1,43–50.Erdog˘an,D.,Gu¨ner,M.,Dursun,E.,&Gezer,_I.(2003.Mechanicalharvestingofapricots.BiosystemsEngineering,85(1,19–28.Horvath,E.,&Sıtkei,G.(2001.Energyconsumptionofselectedtreeshakersunderdifferentoperationalconditions.JournalofAgriculturalEngineeringResearch,80(2,191–199.doi:10.1006/jaer.2001.0727.Kader,A.(1983.Influenceofharvestingmethodsonqualityofdeciduousfreefruits.Proceedingsofthesymposiumontheinfluenceofmechanicalharvestingonthequalityofhorticulturalcrops.Hort-science,18(4,409–411.Kader,A.(1991.Maturation,harvestingandnutqualityofpistachio.DepartmantofPomology,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis,CA95616-8683.Karli,B.,&Cakmakli,M.(2001.AstudyontheeconomicanalysisofpistachiofarmsinSanliurfaprovince.InXIGrempaseminaronpistachioandalmonds.Proceedings.56(pp.289–294.Kaska,N.(1995.PistachionutgrowinginTurkey.ActaHorticultural,419,161–164.Kececioglu,G.(1975.Ataletkuvvettiplisarsıcıilezeytinhasadıimkanlarıuzerinebirarastırma[Researchonoliveharvestingpossi-bilitieswithaninertiatypeshaker].DepartmentofAgriculturalMachinery,AgriculturalFaculty,EgeUniversity.Izmir,Turkey.Moser,E.(1984.VerfahrenstechnikIntensivkulturen[Managementofintensiveagriculturalcrops].Hamburg:VerlagPaulParey.O’Brien,M.,Cargil,B.F.,&Fridley,R.B.(1983.Harvestingandhandlingfruitsandnuts.Westport,CT,USA:AviPublishingComp.Inc.Ozeker,E.,Misirli,A.,&Isfendiyaroglu,M.(2001.DescriptionoffruitcharacteristicsofsomePistachiaspp._InManisa-Yuntmountainarea.Preliminaryresults.InXIGrempaseminaronpistachioandalmonds.Proceedings.56(pp.283–286.Parameswarakumar,M.,&Gupta,C.P.(1991.