K. Andekaeizadeh; M. J. Sheikhdavoodi; M. Byria
Abstract
Introduction Sugarcane is an important plant in the world that cultivate for the production of sugar and energy. For this purpose, evaluation of Sugarcane (SC) and Energycane (EC) methods is necessary. Energy is vital for economic and social development and the demand for it is rising. The international ...
Read More
Introduction Sugarcane is an important plant in the world that cultivate for the production of sugar and energy. For this purpose, evaluation of Sugarcane (SC) and Energycane (EC) methods is necessary. Energy is vital for economic and social development and the demand for it is rising. The international community look toward alternative to fossil fuels is the aim of using liquid fuel derived from agricultural resources. According to calculations, about 47% from renewable energy sources in Brazil comes from sugarcane so as, the country is known the second largest source of renewable energy. Sugarcane in Brazil provides about 17.5% of primary energy sources. Material such as bagasse and ethanol are derived from sugarcane that provide 4.2% and 11.2 % consumed energy, respectively . In developing countries, the use of this product increase in order to achieve self-sufficiency in the production of starch and sugar and thus independence in bioethanol production. Evaluation of energy consumption in manufacturing systems, show the measurement method of yield conversion to the amount of energy. Many of products of Sugarcane have ability to produce bioenergy. Many materials obtain from sugarcane such as, cellulosic ethanol, biofuels and other chemical materials. Hence, Energycane is introduced as a new method of sugarcane harvesting. But, one of the problems of this method is high cost and high energy consumption of harvester. So that the total cost of Energycane method is 38.4 percent of production total costs, whereas, this cost, in Sugarcane method is 5.32 percent of production total costs. In a study that was conducted by Matanker et al. (2014) with title “Power requirements and field performance in harvesting EC and SC”, the power requirements of some components of sugarcane harvester and its field capacity, in Sugarcane and Energycane methods were examined. The consumed power by basecutter, elevator and chopper was measured in terms of Mega grams per hour (Mg.h-1) Chopper energy consumption in Energycane method was 1.65 KJ more than Sugarcane method. The quantitative parameters including forward speed (km.h-1), field capacity (ha.h-1), the field performance (Mg.ha-1) and reed output (Mg.h-1) were also measured. Finally, statistical comparison was conducted between the two methods. The aim of this study is to provide Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method using the calculated parameters by the Matanker et al. This method provides decision-making ability for a manager. Materials and Methods In this study, quantitative parameters including fuel consumption (Lit.ha-1), harvester power (kW), efficiency of engine torque (%), energy of used hydraulic oil in basecutter, chopper and elevator (Mj.Mg-1), forward speed (km.h-1), field capacity (ha.h-1), the field performance (Mg.ha-1) and reed output (Mg.h-1 ) and qualitative parameters including the mean of average diameter of the stem (mm), stem height (m), number of stems on the meter (m-1), the percentage of cut stems and intact, cut stems and partially damaged and strongly damaged stems. The average height of straw and the stubble (mm), average of bulk density (kg.m-3), the average of moisture content, average of dry matter (biomass), (Mg.ha-1) were measured. Data analysis was conducted with Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method. Tables 1 and 2 in terms of qualitative and quantitative parameters for the two methods of A and B, to form of rij matrix and based on measured criteria (C) have arranged, respectively. Conclusion Choosing the appropriate method for sugarcane harvesting should be according to the purpose of harvesting. Energycane method has high energy consumption that it increases the operational costs. On the other hand, the quality of the obtained biomass from it is better, but Sugarcane method has high energy efficiency. But in terms of quality, the plant is not in good condition. For this reason, it is necessary, aim of harvesting and its type, be specified before crop planting.
K. Andekaeizadeh; M. J. Sheikhdavoodi; M. E. Khorasani
Abstract
Introduction Main part of energy consumption in agricultural mechanization is tillage operations therefore optimization of energy consumption in tillage operation is very important. A management method for system to optimize in agriculture is Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) methodology that this method ...
Read More
Introduction Main part of energy consumption in agricultural mechanization is tillage operations therefore optimization of energy consumption in tillage operation is very important. A management method for system to optimize in agriculture is Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) methodology that this method can operate according to criteria of the systems. This method states that, which system has better performance? (for example the system for agricultural tractors, type of implements, methods of tillage, planting and harvesting, and etc). Fuel consumption is the most important factor in terms of energy consumption in tractor because the fuel energy contributes to help tractor to work . Specific draught is important force that measured for investigation of energy consumption of tillage implements, it can show the amount of drawbar force that optimized (for work width 1 meter implements tillage) by using this method. The multiplication of the drawbar force in forward speed factor resulted drawbar power. The most common method is using of tractors drawbar power in mechanized agriculture. Important factor for assessment and determination performance of tractor is drawbar power. Several studies have been showed that about 20 to 55%of available drawbar power was wasting by implements tillage. Another important parameters that affect on traction efficiency pull’s machine is slip. A simple additive weighting two-step procedure involving basic weighted as follows: (1) scale the values of all attributes to make them comparable; (2) sum up the values of the all attributes for each alternative. Materials and Methods In this study, three implements tillage were studied including moldboard plow, disk plow and disk harrow and they called A, B and C, respectively. Three different forward speeds of 3, 4, 5, 6 km.h-1 for each implements were selected according to the type of work at various depths. In this study fuel consumption factor was measured by means of micro-oval flow meter, forward speed was measured by a Doppler radar, Slip was measured by Proxy Sensor, and drawbar force was measured by a three point auto hitch dynamometer. Depth tillage was maintained by depth-knob control system. tillage implements for comparison proper class was rated tables (1), (2) and (3) that includes low depth (12.4 cm moldboard plow, disk plow 12.3 cm and 12.4 cm disk harrow), middle depth (18 cm moldboard plow, disk plow 17.4 cm and 15.2 cm disk harrow) and the high depth (23.5 cm moldboard plow, disk plow 23.4 cm and 17.2 cm disk harrow). Results and Discussion The results of Table 5 shows a higher combined ratio of the amount of energy that is optimum performance in the form of (1), (2) and (3). Also Combined ratio is a way that the whole system will be valued according to their criteria that objective criteria according to the study, we classified as positive and negative criteria and all its problems the system had a higher combined ratio than the rest of the system is the optimal system performance. Kheiralla et al. (2004) in their research used statistical methods and indicated that energy efficiency disk harrow, disk plow and moldboard plow was better than the other devices but Simple Additive Weight way of energy efficiency in different conditions partially expressed. Conclusion The results showed that disk plow in different depth tillage and forward speed, has higher energy efficiency. Disk harrow compared with other tillage implements recommended for the high depth. Disc harrow is not optimal in the low depth because it compared to other implements has lower slip and tractive efficiency. Moldboard plow is optimum use energy in depth and average speeds (4 and 5 km h-1).
