The mechanized sugarcane harvesting process is the most representative component of the total operational value, corresponding to approximately 40% of production costs. With the need to optimize costs, the correct operational dimensioning of the equipment used in harvesting is necessary, to avoid idle machines or lack of equipment for the process. To manage agricultural operations, it is necessary to work based on information generated in the process, searching for and correctly interpreting available information as a way of eliminating empirical analyses. One of the process management techniques is the PDCA method (1: Plan - plan; 2: Do - execute; 3: Check - control; 4: Action - act), used by companies to manage processes and ensure the achievement of goals established, taking information as a factor in guiding decisions. Figure 1 illustrates the PDCA cycle with emphasis on stage 1 (mechanized harvest planning).
Taking these aspects into account, the text aims to analyze the times and movements of the transshipment process in the sugarcane harvest, using two types of transshipment with different reservoir volumes, for process planning purposes, thus defining the type and quantity of machines needed for my harvest.
During the period from May 1 to August 31, 2018, over a period of 123 days, the times and movements of two tractor-transshipment sets were collected in a sugarcane factory, one of which has a reservoir of ten tons and another with 21 tons. The data was collected from on-board computers that monitor and record the times and movements of the machines, being centralized in the company's agricultural operational control, from which they were extracted.
Transshipments take place four times (Figure 2): first, the transshipment is loaded with the harvester and then, with the transshipment loaded, it is moved to the unloading point on the truck to be transported to the plant. Finally, the transshipment returns empty to the harvester to restart the cycle. The sum of the four times results in the total transshipment cycle.
Figure 3 shows the flowchart of the calculations performed. It is possible to observe that the operational efficiency of transshipment was calculated through productive and unproductive times for auxiliaries in relation to the working day (three eight-hour shifts). With the transshipment cycle time, efficiency and volumetric capacity of transshipments, the production capacity in tons per hour is defined.
The transshipment demand per harvester is measured by the relationship between the total transshipment cycle and the harvester's production capacity.
With the data, a correlation was made between the transshipment loading time in relation to the demand for harvester and the transshipment loading time in relation to the transshipment loading cycle.
It can be seen in Figure 4 that, for the period analyzed, the transshipment with a capacity of ten tons has a loading time between five and 20 minutes while in the transshipment of 21 tons, the loading times ranged between ten and 30 minutes. The total transshipment cycle of ten tons varies between 20 and 45 minutes, while the total transshipment cycle of 21 tons was higher, with values between 25 and 50 minutes. As a result, the transshipment of 21 tons had an average total cycle time of 7,66 minutes longer, which represents an increase of 27,1% in the cycle. As the travel and unloading times of the transshipments were similar (17,07 minutes for the 10t transshipments and 16,87 minutes for the 21t transshipments), it is assumed that the increase in the cycle is due to the loading time of the transshipments.
Figure 5 shows the relationship between loading time and transshipment demand per harvester for the two types of transshipment analyzed. It is noted that, for the period analyzed, transshipment with a capacity of ten tons has a demand between 1,5 and five units per harvester and that for transshipment of 21 tons, the transshipment demand varies between 1,4 and three units per harvester. harvester. As a result, the transshipment of 21 tons presented an average demand of 1,91 units, while for the transshipment of ten tons there was an increase of 0,71 units due to the lower value of the loading time for this type of transshipment.
Figure 6 shows the use of average transshipment demand values per harvester at the harvest front with different numbers of harvesters. Using the average transshipment demand values found for harvesting fronts with different units (three, four and five harvesters, respectively), it is observed that for a harvesting front with five units, there is a demand of 9,55. 3,55 transshipments to the harvest front, with a reduction of XNUMX units, when compared to the use of transshipments of ten tons.
For the study conditions, it appears that there is a negative correlation between the transshipment loading time in relation to the transshipment demand per harvester, that is, the longer the loading time, the lower the transshipment demand. In the case of a front of five harvesters, with the use of 21 ton transshipment, there is a reduction in transshipment demand by 27,1%, compared to ten ton equipment.
José V. Salvi
Amanda C. Parra,
Fatec “Shunji Nishumura”, Pompeii/
Luis R. Bergamo
Mylene IA Crespe,
Solinftec, Araçatuba
Receive the latest agriculture news by email
Receive the latest agriculture news by email
Correct calibration of machines, use of specific phytosanitary products and control at the correct time are fundamental aspects to guarantee an efficient and safe application in coffee cultivation
