Evaluation of the UC Davis Compaction Profile Sensor

Andrade, Pedro Santarém; Upadhyaya, Sushant; Jenkins, B. M.; Filho, Abilio Garcia S.

doi:10.13031/2013.15700

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another prototype of the vertical blade equipped with an array of strain gauges was used both to estimate a spatial pattern of soil resistance and to identify the trend of soil resistance change with depth, assuming a linear change of resistance pressure with depth (Adamchuk et al, 2001b). Andrade et al (2001bAndrade et al ( , 2002) developed a compaction profile sensor that used eight independent load cells housed within a shank body to measure soil cutting force acting over eight cutting elements spaced 5 cm apart. These cutting elements were evenly distributed over an operating depth of 61 cm.…”

Section: Mechanical Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On-the-go soil sensors for precision agriculture

Adamchuk

Hummel

Morgan

et al. 2004

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

635

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The basic objectives of site-specific management of agricultural inputs are to increase profitability of crop production, improve product quality, and protect the environment. Information about the variability of different soil attributes within a field is essential for the decision-making process. The inability to obtain soil characteristics rapidly and inexpensively remains one of the biggest limitations of precision agriculture. Numerous researchers and manufacturers have attempted to develop on-the-go soil sensors to measure mechanical, physical and chemical soil properties. The sensors have been based on electrical and electromagnetic, optical and radiometric, mechanical, acoustic, pneumatic, and electrochemical measurement concepts. While only electric and electromagnetic sensors are widely used at this time, other technologies presented in this review may also be suitable to improve the quality of soil-related information in the near future.

show abstract

Section: Mechanical Sensorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On-the-go soil sensors for precision agriculture

Adamchuk

Hummel

Morgan

et al. 2004

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

635

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2002) and Mouazen (2003) or by instrumenting the tractor three‐point hitch (Richards, 2000), the stress distribution over the tine depth (Glancey et al. , 1989) and load cell forces (Stafford & Hendrick, 1985, 1988; Andrade et al. , 2001, 2002; Manor & Clark, 2001; Andrade & Upadhyaya, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 1989) and load cell forces (Stafford & Hendrick, 1985, 1988; Andrade et al. , 2001, 2002; Manor & Clark, 2001; Andrade & Upadhyaya, 2004). The linkage of these data to global positioning data should provide information about the spatial distribution of variability of soil compaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies determining the mechanical strength encountered by soil-engaging implements pulled through soil have been made by Verschoore et al (2003) by measuring the bending moment using instrumented wings mounted on two sides of a tine, the draught force of a tine either attached to an extended octagonal ring transducer (Godwin, 1975;O'Dogherty, 1975), by Sirjacobs et al (2002) and Mouazen (2003) or by instrumenting the tractor three-point hitch (Richards, 2000), the stress distribution over the tine depth (Glancey et al, 1989) and load cell forces (Stafford & Hendrick, 1985, 1988Andrade et al, 2001Andrade et al, , 2002Manor & Clark, 2001;Andrade & Upadhyaya, 2004). The linkage of these data to global positioning data should provide information about the spatial distribution of variability of soil compaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the performance of a soil compaction sensor

Sharifi

Godwin

O’Dogherty

et al. 2007

Soil Use and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most significant soil parameters affecting root growth is soil compaction. It is therefore important to be able to determine the presence of compacted layers, their depth, thickness and spatial location without the necessity of digging a large number of holes in the field with either a spade or backhoe. Previous investigations have identified soil compaction by different methods such as: using ground penetrating radar, acoustic systems, vertical and horizontal penetrometers and instrumented wings mounted on the faces of tines. Linking the output from these sensors to global positioning systems would give an indication of the spatial patent variation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a soil compaction profile sensor in both controlled laboratory and field conditions. The sensor consisted of a series of instrumented flaps; a flap is defined as the sensing element which comprises one half of a pointed leading edge to the leg of a tine to which strain gauges are placed on the rear face of the flap. Studies measured the effect of compaction on the changes in the soil resistance acting upon a flap face in a soil bin laboratory and under field conditions. The results indicated that the sensor was sensitive to differences in soil strength at different depths in soils. A technique was developed to identify the soil compaction resulting from different tyre inflation pressures and loads. The soil compaction profile sensor was tested on a number of fields in south‐eastern England to determine the changes in soil strength below the wheelings of a pea harvester operating at different tyre inflation pressures.

show abstract

“…The soil cutting force was influenced by soil water content, depth of operation of the tine, and location of the cutting edge. Later evaluation of the sensor showed that the effect of operating speed on cutting force was not significant between 0.65 and 1.25 m s −1 and that the sensor output could be expressed as a function of CI and operating depth with a coefficient of multiple determination of 0.985 (Andrade et al, 2002). One potential issue with this sensor design was the possibility that interactions between the adjacent cutting edges and between the main blade and cutting edges would affect the sensed soil strength.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%