An ASABE Meeting Presentation

Paper Number: 152179904

Monitoring of a forage harvester using multiple sensor

fusion
Mohsenimanesh, A., Necsulescu, D. S,. Nieuwenhof, P., Lagu, C.
A. Mohsenimanesh, E.I.T., Ph.D., Research Associate1
P. Nieuwenhof, ing., MSc., Research engineer2
D. Necsulescu, P Eng., Ph.D., Professor1
C. Lagu, P.Eng., ing.,FCAE., Ph.D., Dean3 and Professor1
1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5

Dion-Ag Inc. 429 ch. de la Cte Sud Boisbriand, Qc. Canada, J7E 4H5

Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1N 6N5

Written for presentation at the

2015 ASABE Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASABE
New Orleans, Louisiana
July 26 29, 2015
Abstract. An experimental hydraulic drive was designed for a pull-type F41 Dion forage harvester that can
measure and control the speed and load of the feed-rolls. The sensors that were placed on the experimental
harvester included: (1) four hydraulic pressure sensors to measure pressure at the input and output lines of the
feedroll and header motors; (2) four inductive proximity sensors to measure motor speed, and (3) a potentiometer
sensor to measure crop mass flow. The sensor power outputs were correlated with the experimental mass
flowrate for each feedroll and header. Throughput and feedroll opening were affected by forward speed.
Increased forward speed increased throughput and feedroll opening. The experimental results can be used to
optimize the size of the drive components and facilitated the development of a precise throughput monitoring.
The novel outcome is an optional yield sensor or throughput measurement that would be useful for in-field
operation and other features.
Keywords. Hydraulic power transmission system, Mass-flow technology, Multiple sensor fusion, Precision
agriculture.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this meeting presentation. The presentation does not necessarily reflect the official
position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an
endorsement of views which may be expressed. Meeting presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASABE editorial
committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an ASABE
meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Authors Last Name, Initials. 2015. Title of Presentation. ASABE Paper No. ---. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE. For
information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a meeting presentation, please contact ASABE at rutter@asabe.org or 269932-7004 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).

Introduction
Throughput measurement is important for most harvesting machines as it is a key operating variable for the
optimization of the harvesting process (Wild et al., 2005). Several studies have relied on various sensors installed
on forage harvesters to predict product mass flowrate: Connecting a potentiometer to the feedroll movement
(Martel and Savoie, 2000; Anonymous, 2012; Savoie et al., 2002); exerting force on fixed load cells attached to
the moving feedrolls (Forristal and Keppel 2001); or capacitance systems (Kviz et al., 2007). Another possibility
is to measure the torque requirement and the pressure drop for the drive systems (Wild et al., 2005). These
authors found that the pressure drop in the hydraulic motor depended not only on the mass of the material being
conveyed, but also the varying efficiency of the motor. A mechanical forage harvester was used to cut forage at
various Length Of Cut (LOC) by Savoie et al. (1989). They found that energy requirements at the power take-off
shaft were reduced by 22% at the longest values of LOC.
Hydraulic power drive systems are an important component for many types of agricultural machines that has a
direct influence on their serviceability and longevity (Mohsenimanesh et al., 2013; Zheng et al., 2007; Lagu et
al., 1997). Hydraulic motors are extremely reliable, compact, and exhibit very high power density which provide
a way to meet many needs for cost-effective power transmission requirements (Mohsenimanesh et al., 2003;
Mohsenimanesh, 1997). Multiple motors can be driven by a single pump and controlled using a wide array of
valves and variable displacement pump controls (Mohsenimanesh et al., 2013; Zheng et al., 2007; Lagu et al.,
1997). Motors can even be configured with electronic sensors to provide digital feedback. Canadian manufacturer
Dion-Ag Inc. has designed a hydraulic drive that can measure and control the speed of the feed-rolls and allow
fine tuning and a wider range of LOC on the motors. The particular case of the mass flowrate measurement of
the forage harvester needs to be investigated in light of the efficiency and of the power requirements. Therefore,
an experiment was developed with the following objectives:
1- To determine the relationship among the observed signals from speed, pressure and mass flowrate
sensors at different forward speed and LOCs;
2- To measure power requirements and efficiency in different conditions.

Material and Methods

The field experiment was designed with two levels of forward speed (0.75 and 1.5 m/s) and two levels of LOC
(9.5 and 15 mm) (Table 1). Each treatment was replicated four times. The experimental design was a randomized
complete block and the MSTATC statistical program was used to analyze the experimental data. The plots used
for each treatment were 2.25 m wide (the width of three corn rows) and 100 m long. The sensor outputs were
averaged over each 100 m length. The average, peak and standard deviation sensor outputs were then
correlated with the experimental mass flowrate for each section in each trial. Load calculation was accounted for
the motor efficiency using calibration curves derived from the efficiency data provided by the manufacturer. The
average yield was obtained along each of the 100 m long plot by weighing the forage box before and after each
plot. The mass flowrate (wet matter per unit time) for each of the 16 sections was then estimated.
Table 1. Speeds and LOCs combination
Treatment

Speed (m/s)

0.75-9.5
0.75-15
1.5-9.5
1.5-15

0.75
0.75
1.5
1.5

LOC (mm)
9.5
15
9.5
15

The sensors that were placed on the experimental F41 Dion forage harvester included: (1) four hydraulic pressure
sensors to measure presures at the input and output lines of the motors and the header load; (2) four integrated
tachometers to measure motor speed, and (3) a potentiometer sensor to measure crop mass flow (feedroll
opening) (Figure 1 and 2). A flow control valve was integrated in the hydraulic circuit to control the speed of the
motor. To obtain the relationship between the voltage and pressure data, pressures ranging from 0 to 204 MPa
were generated by means of a manual compressor, and the corresponding voltage data were measured using a
LabVIEW program. The result showed a very high linear regression (R2 = +0.99) for the calibration curve.

2015 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper

Page 1

Fig. 1. Side view of the prototype forage harvester with its component and the displacement sensor.

Fig 2. General view of the tractor - forage harvester - forage wagon combination with additional devices.

Results and discussion

The experimental measurements of the hydraulic pressure and calculated torque under various treatments on
the header and feedroll motors are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Mean hydraulic pressure in kPa and calculated torque in Nm.
Treatment

1.5-9.5
Pressure
Torque
(Mpa)
(Nm)

1.5-15
Pressure
Torque
(Mpa)
(Nm)

0.75-9.5
Pressure
Torque
(Mpa)
(Nm)

0.75-15
Pressure
Torque
(Mpa)
(Nm)

Header

1416

215

1273

184

1002

146

995

140

Bottom

1269

116

1180

100

939

83

891

76

Top

1037

117

1094

118

794

87

898

97

The measured hydraulic pressure and speed were used to determine the output power of the forage harvester
for the header and feedroll motors. Forward speed and LOC affected output power obtained for each of the
motors. Increased forward speed increased output power, while increased LOC decreased output power (Fig.
3).The data of the output power were similar to that obtained from laboratory experimental results by Stoll (2001).

2015 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper

Page 2

Power (kW)

Power-Header

Power-bottom

Power-Top

7
Speed 1.5 m/s

Speed 0.75 m/s

5
4
3
2
1
0
9.5

15

9.5

15

Length of cut (mm)

Fig. 3. Average power for the header and feedroll motors.

6.0
R = 0.7535
4.0

R = 0.3227

2.0
Linear (Header )
Linear (Top feedroll )
Linear (Bottom feedroll)

0.0
0

50

100
Throughput (Mg/h)

Output Power (KW)

Output Power (KW)

Increasing forward speed from 0.75 to 1.5 m/s at both LOCs of 9.5 and 15 mm increased the power requirements
of the header and feedroll motors (Fig. 4). In other words, harvester power consumption increased linearly with
increasing rate of forage throughput. A similar trend was observed with the same harvester machine equipped
with a mechanical power transmission system and different forward speed by Nieuwenhof (2002). The forward
speed varied from 1.25 m/s to 1.72 m/s, while the average power consumption increased from 4.18 kW to 5.08
kW. An analysis of variance was used with LOCs and forward speed as independent variables and the results
showed that output power for the header and feedroll motors were affected by forward speed (p <0.01). The
output powers were less for low speed than for high speed.
8.0
8.0
(a)
(b)
R = 0.2292
R = 0.9233
6.0

R = 0.7611

4.0

R = 0.7863

2.0

Linear (Header )
Linear (Top feedroll )
Linear (Bottom feedroll)

0.0
0

25

50

75
100
Throughput (Mg/h)

Fig. 4. Output power as a function of throughput at the LOC of (a) 9.5 mm and (b) 15 mm.

Forward speed affected the energy requirements for each of the motors. Increased forward speed from 0.75 to
1.5 m/s at both LOCs of 9.5 and 15 mm decreased the energy requirements of the header and feedroll motors
(Fig. 5 and 6). In other words, harvester energy requirements decreased linearly with increasing rate of forage
throughput.

2015 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper

Page 3

Energy (kW.h/Mg)

Energy-Header

Energy-bottom

Energy-Top

0.18
Speed 1.5 m/s

0.16

Speed 0.75 m/s

0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
9.5

15

9.5

15
Length of cut (mm)

Fig. 5. Average energy for the header and feedroll motors

0.25

Linear (Header )
Linear (Top feedroll )
Linear (Bottom feedroll)

0.2
0.15

R = 0.9667

0.1

R = 0.587

0.05

R = 0.8888
20

40

60

0.25

Linear (Header )
Linear (Top feedroll )
Linear (Bottom feedroll)

0.2
0.15

R = 0.6659

0.1

R = 0.7395

0.05

0
0

Energy (kW.h/Mg)

Energy (kW.h/Mg)

The energy data are similar to those obtained from field experimental results by Nieuwenhof (2002) and Roberge
(1999). Nieuwenhof (2002) used the same harvester machine with a mechanical power transmission system for
both a non-row-sensitive and three-row forage harvester. The forward speed varied from 1 m/s to 2.22 m/s, while
the average energy decreased for a non-row-sensitive from 0.76 to 0.48 kW.h/Mg and for three-row crop headers
from 0.43 to 0.22 kW.h/Mg.

80

100

Throughput (Mg/h)

R = 0.5502

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Throughput (Mg/h)

Fig. 6. Energy as a function of throughput at the LOC of (a) 9.5 mm and (b) 15 mm.

Conclusion
1- The sensor pressure outputs were correlated with the experimental mass flowrate for each feedroll and
header. Increased forward speed increased hydraulic pressure, torque and power, while increased LOC
decreased hydraulic pressure, torque and power for the header and feedroll motors.
2- Power requirements were estimated under different field operating conditions and the results showed
that harvester power consumption increased linearly with increasing rate of forage throughput.

2015 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper

Page 4

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada for the financial
support and Dion-Ag. Inc. for providing equipment and technical assistance provided to this project.

References
Anonymous (2012). Operator's manual GreenStar -Forage Harvester (2012). John Deere, Inc. California. USA.
Forristal, P.D., & Keppel, D. (2001). The application of harvester-mounted forage yield sensing devices. Teagasc, Oak Park.
ISBN: 184170 2323.
Kviz Z., Kumhala F., & Prosek. V. (2007). Capacitance sensor for forage mass determination. ASABE Publication No.
701P0307e. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
Lagu, C., Roy, P.M., & Savard, P. (1997). Wide-span implement carrier (WSIC) for cranberry production. Applied Engineering
in Agriculture., 13(3), 309-317.
Martel, H., & Savoie P. (2000). Sensors to measure mass-flow-rate through a forage harvester. Canadian Biosystems
Engineering., 42(3), 123-129.
Mohsenimanesh, A., Lagu, C., & Luo, C. (2013). Design & Simulation of Automatic Control and Operation of Agricultural WideSpan Implement Carrier (WSIC). ASABE Publication No. 131586740. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
Mohsenimanesh, A., Minaei, S., & Saeidirad, M.H. (2003). Design, development and evaluation of hydraulic auger for two wheel
tractors. Publication No: 82/200. Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Karaj, Iran.
Mohsenimanesh, A. (1997). Design and development of hydraulic power transmission system for combine Platform. M.Sc.
Thesis. Department of mechanical Agricultural Machinery, faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran.
Nieuwenhof, P., Roberge, M., Lamarche, B. (2002). Modeling and validation of specific energy required for a non-row sensitive
header of a pull-type forage harvester. AIC Paper No. 02-211. CSAE/SCGR Program Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Roberge, M. (1999). Design and evaluation of performance of a crop processor for a pull-type forage harvester. Ph.D. Thesis.
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Savoie, P., Lemire, P., & Theriault, R. (2002). Evaluation of five sensors to estimate mass-flow rate and moisture of grass in a
forage harvester. Applied Engineering in Agriculture.,18(4), 389-397.
Savoie, P., Tremblay, D., Theriault, R., Wauthy, J. M., & Vigneault, C. (1989). Forage chopping energy vs. length of cut. Trans.
of the ASABE., 32(2):437-442.
Stoll, A., 2001. Speed control for self-propelled forage harvesters. ASAE Paper No. 01-3032, St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
Wild, K., S. Ruhland., & Haedicke. S. (2005). Local yield detection of grass in a mower conditioner. ASABE Paper No. 051135.
St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
Zheng, D., Ou, Y., Li, Z., & Huang, C. (2007). Research and analysis on the hydraulic driving system of the whole-stalk sugarcane
harvester. ASABE Paper No. 071068. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.

2015 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper

Page 5