2005
DOI: 10.13031/2013.17936
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Damping Properties of Plum Trees Shaken at Their Trunks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The variations in A.t. as a function of clamping heights is in line with data obtained by Horvath and Sitkei (2005), who noted that energy dissipation is high, especially in low clamping due to soil damping, as well as to tree canopy damping in the air. The transmitted resultant acceleration value increased by approximately 2% when the clamping head was positioned in the upper part of the trunk, rather than the lower part.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The variations in A.t. as a function of clamping heights is in line with data obtained by Horvath and Sitkei (2005), who noted that energy dissipation is high, especially in low clamping due to soil damping, as well as to tree canopy damping in the air. The transmitted resultant acceleration value increased by approximately 2% when the clamping head was positioned in the upper part of the trunk, rather than the lower part.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…This damping component showed a marked nonlinearity and was inversely proportional to the frequency. The elevated value of the initial damping could be explained because the mass of the soil that vibrates with the tree-soil system absorbs most of the energy according to the largest amplitudes in the tree-soil vibrating system (Horvath and Sitkei 2005). The increase in the excitation frequency produces a decrease in the damping ratio, indicating that the viscous damping component has a reduced relative importance and, as pointed out by most of the authors, that the aerodynamic damping of the tree has an even more important role in forced vibration, where the amplitude of the movement is reduced.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The trunk shaker (Topavi) clamped the trunk at 0.9 m, and the displacements measured at 1.8 m above the ground were substantially higher (38-66 mm), and finally, the SMTA shaker was the equipment that clamped the trunks at the highest point (1.9 m) and reached the highest amplitudes, 125-170 mm; this high displacement can only be achieved, without the risk of breaking the trunk, when the clamping point is far from the ground. Moreover, this elevated clamping point allows the use of low power shakers, as demonstrated by [18]. In Table 2 the main parameters are summarized.…”
Section: Comparison Of the Vibrations Reached With Each Equipmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When the shaker must be applied to the trunk closer to the ground, the amplitudes must be reduced to between 20-30 mm. As a consequence, to obtain a good detachment percentage, the frequency must be increased (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25), but the shakes must be of short duration, of less than 10 s to avoid excessive defoliation [8][9][10][11][12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%