AdvisorCoates, Wayne E.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractFour types of cable drawn farming systems, a single engine system, a double engine system, a perimeter system, and a double implement system, were analyzed to determine which was best suited for Arizona. The systems were compared in terms of relative cost, reliability/simplicity and field capacity. Field capacity computation variables were implement width, implement speed, tower travel speed, implement carrier travel speed, and implement rotation time. The analysis showed the single engine system was the least expensive, simplest system with a field capacity identical to that of the double engine system, eight percent lower than the double implement system, and approximately thirteen percent higher than the perimeter system. Based on these results, the single implement system was judged superior to the others. The parameters affecting single implement system performance were then examined to optimize performance. The evaluation yielded a recommendation that the system be designed to have a tower speed of 48 ft/min, and a rotation time of 7.5 seconds. A positioning system for the mobile truss of a cable drawn farming system was also developed and tested. The system used a linear move irrigation system's above ground cable guidance system for steering, a wicket positioning system for stopping the machine at the indexing locations, and a wire-alignment system to control inner tower alignment. The system was tested over a length of 280 ft using a five tower, 575 ft long, linear move irrigation system. It was found that the above ground cable guidance system provided ±0.5 ft steering accuracy, the wicket positioning system controlled the power unit and end tower position within ±0.2 ft of the target destination, and that the wire alignment system controlled inner tower position within ±0.3 ft of the target destination. Statistical analysis of the test results showed the probability of position error being controlled to within ±0.4 ft and ±0.8 ft to be at the 99.7% and 99.99% confidence levels, respectively.
Degree ProgramGraduate College
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering