Figure 1 - uploaded by Francisco Castillo
Content may be subject to copyright.
Prototype of lateral canopy shaker harvesting a traditional olive tree.  

Prototype of lateral canopy shaker harvesting a traditional olive tree.  

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
The fruit harvesting is a key factor involving both product quality and profitability. Particularly, mechanical harvesting of traditional oil olive orchards is hint by tree training system for manual harvesting, tree size and several and slanted trunks which makes difficult trunk shaker work. Therefore, canopy shaker technology could be a feasible...

Context in source publication

Context 1
... canopy shaker prototype with adjustable operating parameters was designed and developed (Fig. 1). The shaking system was based on a slider-crank mechanism with high amplitude of movement (from 0.12 to 0.17 m) capable of reaching excitation frequencies ranging between 0.5 y 6 Hz in its six beating drums (Fig. 2). The shaking system was made up of six iden- represent 74% of this total (ESYRCE, 2013). The eco- nomic viability of ...

Citations

... They found that the suitable machine productivity, fruit removal percentage and fruit damage percentage were achieved at 1600 rpm of head rotating speed. Sola-Guirado et al. (2018) developed a continuous lateral canopy shaker harvester and tested it on large olive trees in order to evaluate the vibration amplitude and frequency and their effects on the fruit removal efficiency. They found that the removal efficiency, shaking duration and amplitude were 77.3%, 28 s, and 0.17 m, respectively. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this research is to evaluate three types (pulsed motion double head, hook type, and pneumatic comb) of commonly used hand-held olive harvesters for small scale olive orchards. The evaluation criteria were harvester productivity (Pr), fruit removal percentage (FR), fruit damage (FD), specific consumed energy (SCE), and olive harvesting cost (HC). Overall evaluation criterion (OEC) was developed depending upon the relative weight of each evaluation criterion. Relative weights were arranged according to the importance of each evaluation criterion. The results showed that the highest value of the overall evaluation criterion was 84.9% for the T3P1500 treatment (pulsed motion double head olive harvester at speed of 1500 rpm). Through this condition, the values of evaluating criteria were 88.4 kg h-1 , 98%, 6.6%, 17.0 W h kg-1 , and 0.041 $ kg-1 for Pr, FR, FD, SCE and HC respectively. In addition, the values of OEC of the pulsed motion double head olive harvester for the other treatments (T1P1100 and T2P1300) outperformed the other harvesters at all treatments.
... Nevertheless, they do cause some damage by shaking branches and harvested fruits. Several researches were done to determine the optimum operating parameters of handheld olive harvesters (Sola-Guirado et al., 2016;Alzoheiry et al. 2020;Ghonimy et al. 2020). Ibrahim (2018) found that the most suitable operating conditions of the hand-held olive harvesting machine were at a pitting head speed of 1100-1500 rpm with 17-cm head length. ...
Article
Full-text available
A pneumatic olive harvester was developed and evaluated in this study. The components of the developed machine were the limb clamp, vibrating unit, control elements, main tube, air-pressured hoses, control valve, and power source. The measurements that related to the development of the harvester were fruit and limb damage, and some physical and mechanical properties of the olives fruit-stem system. The results demonstrated that the effectiveness of the developed machine to harvest olive fruits. The appropriateness of the developed machine was evaluated by some criteria: machine productivity, fruit removal, fruit damage, limb damage depth at the contact point with the clamp of the machine, breakage of shaken limb, and consumed energy. The suitable values of these criteria were achieved at 27 Hz frequency and 60 mm stroke.
... Previous studies confirm that canopy shakers are more efficient when working on a compact canopy rather than on a thinned canopy and flat canopy surface (36), similarly to mechanical pruning (13). Canopy shakers are eligible to perform in multi-trunk traditional olive trees (30) or in big sized canopies (10). In this case of study, tree height was adequate for trunk shaker with manual aids making possible harvesting with long poles or hand-held devices and also for the canopy shaker, but nonetheless, trees could be higher for canopy shakers because the machine height could be enlarged. ...
... Trunk shakers have been mainly adapted to table olive harvesting condition by the regulation of the frequency vibration, shaking time and also with softer padding materials, but still required a complementary manual rod beating. Canopy shaker regulation entails a greater number of factors that affect the harvesting as rod amplitude and motion, frequency vibration, rod material, rod density or inclination and the ground speed (30). Table 3. Vibration analysis in tested orchards for the canopy shaker (CS) and the trunk shaker along with shaker combs (TS+SC). ...
... The harvesting of ripe olive fruits only (using the vibrating manner) depends upon the good determination of vibration parameters such as frequency, amplitude, and vibration time (Bacenetti and De Luca, 2018). Sola-Guirado et al. (2016) found that the increase in vibration frequency and/or vibration amplitude enhances harvest efficiency. The determination of the natural frequencies of the fruit stem system is the first step in successfully using a tree vibratory harvester. ...
... Successful Olive mechanical harvesting depends on determining the optimum vibrator operating parameters; frequency and amplitude (O'brien et al., 1983). Several methods can be used to determine the optimum operating parameters (Cini and Catalano, 1996;Ciro, 2001;Sola-Guirado et al., 2016). Both S.D.F.M and T.D.F.M were effective in predicting suitable harvester operating parameters. ...
Article
Full-text available
The good performance of olive mechanical harvesting by shaking depends on the suitable values of limb vibrator operating parameters (frequency and amplitude). Mathematical models of a single degree of freedom (S.D.F.M) and two degrees of freedom (T.D.F.M) were used to estimate the natural frequency (FN) of olive fruit stem system. The results from these models indicated that the FN values were 33.9, 31.9, and 28.0 Hz for the full mature stage, half-ripe olive, and full-ripe olive respectively. Branch vibrator was operated at three levels of frequency 25, 30 and 35 Hz and 3 levels of amplitude 25, 30 and 35 mm at a vibration time of 10 s. Measurements covered the fruit removal percentage (FRP) and degree of full-ripe fruit selectivity (DS). The results showed that the maximum FRP value, 90.6%, was achieved at a frequency of 35 Hz and amplitude of 25 mm while the maximum DS value, 78.58%, was obtained at 25 Hz frequency and 25 mm amplitude.
... Mechanical Fruit Harvester : The mechanical harvesting techniques are trunk shaking, limb shaking, canopy shaking, air shaking, and the use of a chemical agent to assist harvesting by loosening the fruits 18,2728 . Researchers have also reported pneumatic cut-clamp litchi picking 28 , self-propel shaker, mechanical beater with catching frame (reversed umbrella) for olive 29 , lateral canopy shaker for olive harvesting 30 ,tractor operated trunk shaker for almond harvesting 31 , a mobile platform for orange harvesting 32 and motorized variable-length plucking/cutting machine for coconut 33 . ...
... In the last decades, increasing efforts have been made to develop machines for olive harvesting. For large-scale orchards, the development of harvesters has concentrated on different types of trunk shakers and, to a lesser extent, mechanical beaters (canopy shakers), while in the last 25 years the establishment of super-intensive olive orchards has favoured the development of overhead harvesters (Ferguson, 2006;Di Vaio et al., 2012;Famiani et al., 2014;Bernardi et al., 2016;Sola-Guirado et al., 2016). For small farms, as are generally found in countries where olives are cultivated, and for farms where the structure of the trees does not allow the use of trunk shakers and their height does not exceed 4.0-4.5 m, small hand-held machines have been developed (Ferguson, 2006;Lavee, 2010). ...
Article
This study evaluated the effects of different olive harvesting systems and fruit storage durations on quality of oils from both super-intensive (cv. Arbequina) and intensive (cv. Frantoio) olive groves. Four harvesting systems were used: gentle manual harvesting, manual harvesting with hand-held combs, facilitated harvesting with hand-held pneumatic combs, and mechanical harvesting with a straddle machine (in super-intensive grove) or a trunk shaker + reversed umbrella (in intensive grove). Gentle hand harvesting caused the least damage to the fruits, whereas the trunk shaker and the straddle machine caused the greatest damage. The damage increased with olive storage. Total polyphenols and single secoiridoid were all negatively correlated with the degree of fruit damage. Volatile compounds (aldehydes, alcohols, esters and ketones) were strongly affected by both the harvesting system and the olive storage. In both cultivars, increasing the mechanization level (from gentle hand harvest to the straddle machine or the trunk shaker) caused a decrease of total aldehydes and total esters, and an increase of total alcohols and total ketones. Moreover, there were negative relationships between the degree of fruit damage and the total C5 and C6 aldehydes and total esters and positive relationships between the degree of fruit damage and the total ketones. Overall, the results indicate that fruit damage explains most of the worsening of oil quality across harvesting systems and storage duration. This is the first study reporting a clear quantitative/linear correlation between fruit damage and important components of oil quality, such as polyphenols and volatile compounds deriving from the lipoxygenase pathway.
... The use of a canopy shaker prototype in traditional olive groves with large canopy trees showed lower efficiency than the obtained with trunk shakers (Sola-Guirado et al., 2014). In the prototype used by Sola-Guirado et al. (2016) it was found that an increase in vibration frequency or vibration amplitude enhances harvest efficiency. In 2009 the authors started a research project to develop the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester-SRCCSH , which has been intensively tested ever since. ...
Article
Full-text available
In 2009, the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester project was set to develop such technology. The prototype comprises two symmetrical harvesters trailed by a farm tractor. Each harvester has a vibratory rotor with flexible rods, a catching platform with conveyors belts delivering fruits to a temporary storage bag. The removal efficiency of canopy shakers are influenced by factors like shaking frequency, ground speed as well as the dimension and shape of olive canopy. In 2014 authors started a trial to evaluate the influence of pruning in olive yield and in the performance of the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester. The trial was established in an irrigated olive orchard of Picual cultivar planted in 1996 with the array 7 m x 3.5 m. In a randomised complete block design with three replications, four treatments are being compared leading to 12 plots with 30 trees/plot. The treatments under study are: T1—manual pruning using chain saws, in 2014 and 2017; T2—mechanical pruning: topping and hedging the two sides of the canopy, followed by manual pruning complement to remove wood suckers inside the canopy, in 2014 and 2017; T3—mechanical pruning: topping the canopy parallel to the ground and hedging southeast side of the canopy in 2014 and 2017; topping the canopy in July 2015 (summer pruning); hedging northwest side in winter 2016; T4—mechanical pruning: topping and hedging the two sides of the canopy in 2014 and 2017; topping the canopy in July 2015 (summer pruning). Regarding to olive yield per tree, significant differences were found among treatments on different years. However, no significant differences were found regarding the average olive yield per tree, over the period of 2014–2017. Regarding to the olive removal efficiency, only in 2016, significant differences were found among treatments on different years. No significant differences were found regarding the average of the olive removal efficiency, over the period of 2014–2017.
... The mechanical harvesting systems based on canopy contact technology can provide a continuous harvesting process where a forced vibration is applied directly to fruitful branches to detach the fruit [7] . In addition, the canopy shaker systems can partially regulate some of their operating parameters to be adapted to the characteristics of different tree species [8] . The introduction of these machines in the citrus sector would be facilitated if it could be used in various crops, such as olive groves [9,10] , coffee [11] or blueberry [12,13] . ...
... The olive wood mechanical properties describe the olive wood as a polymeric material which is defined in terms of elastic solids and viscous liquids [5]. The vibration frequency was between 23Hz and 32Hz and acceleration was between 160.1 ms -2 and 212.1 ms -2 in the tree trunk knowing this value from theory and other experiments [6,7,8,9]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The paper presents the results of the study regarding the olive harvesting trees systems and the concept of an olive tree robot. Important is the result, namely the harvesting speed and accuracy. Mechanical and automatic harvesting methods collect more olives than the traditional methods but may damage the olive trees. The necessity of an olive tree robot is based that the agricultural industry is very complex and need a lot of attention and qualified employments but is an activity only seasonal and are hands work. The same think is in grove-olive, where necessary many workers with experience to collect olives with their hands. In this case take a lot of time to collect the entire olive grove. Our study shows that the best system to increase the production of olives is to harvest the olives trees mechanics with robots.
... This factor may slow down the harvesting process for trunk shakers compared with new integral harvesters, mainly when trees are not properly trained as occurs in large-sized trees (Famiani et al, 2014) or in multitrunk traditional trees (Muñoz-Cobo & Humanes-Guillén, 2006). New harvesting methods for olives based on straddle or side-by-side commercial harvesters usually present a higher effective field capacity and lower harvesting costs (Ravetti & Robb, 2010), which is why new harvesters are being developed for traditional olive orchards (Sola-Guirado et al, 2016). Furthermore, the new super-intensive olive orchards make it possible to deploy highly efficient harvesting systems which depend on the continuity of the crown (Rallo et al, 2013), making it necessary to limit vigour in these plantations (Tombesi & Farinelli, 2016) in order to perform mechanical harvesting. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Trunk shakers are widely used for olive harvesting, being the main detachment system for fruit harvesting. In recent decades, the components of trunk shakers have evolved at mechanical, hydraulic and control levels. However, machine accuracy depends on the operator, whose expertise is a key factor for issues such as trunk debarking caused by grabbing systems, shaking parameters, or on-foot operator safety. The objective of this work was to develop an automatic harvesting system to reduce operator influence on the process. Thus, an automatic system for trunk detection via infrared sensor was implemented on a trunk shaker head hitched to a tractor. An algorithm and a visualisation interface for trunk shaker guidance were developed. The automatic system was tested under laboratory and field conditions to assess the influence of some variables on trunk detection. The evaluated variables were colour, material, diameter, and target location within the sensor field of vision. The success rate of the automatic system was 91% for trunk grabbing. In the field phase, the efficacy of the automatic system was compared to an operator performing the tasks manually, obtaining times of 16.05 ± 2.8 s tree-1 and 21.54 ± 5.29 s tree-1 respectively, and a percentage of success in trunk grabbing of 93%. Work capacity increased by 25% compared to the manual system. The developed system reduced operator influence on trunk shaker gripping success, reducing the influence of the human factor on the harvesting process.