Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Computer Science, Automotive Engineering, Tractor, and 15 moreDynamometer, Calibration, Data acquisition, Can Bus, Machinery, Accuracy, Diesel engine, Agricultural Machinery, Power Take Off, Tractors, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Torque, J, Controller Area Network, and PTO
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science, Communication, and 8 moreElectrical and Electronics, Software, Can Bus, Data Collection, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering, and Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) technology
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Page 1. 1 Trends in the Automation of Agricultural Field Machinery by: Scott A. Shearer 1 , Santosh K. Pitla 2 , Joe D. Luck 3 Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA 1. Introduction Trends ...
Research Interests:
Page 1. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ...
Page 1. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ...
Page 1. 2 An ASABE Meeting Presentation Paper Number: 096726 Guidance Directrix Generation Using Laser Sensors SKPitla, Engineer Associate Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY40546,... more
Page 1. 2 An ASABE Meeting Presentation Paper Number: 096726 Guidance Directrix Generation Using Laser Sensors SKPitla, Engineer Associate Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY40546, santosh.pitla@bae.uky.edu ...
Page 1. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ...
Page 1. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ...
Page 1. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ...
ABSTRACT An off-the-shelf low cost laser sensor was tested and evaluated both in laboratory and field conditions. The sensor identified the angular and straight edges of the laboratory test surface and replicated the straight edge profile... more
ABSTRACT An off-the-shelf low cost laser sensor was tested and evaluated both in laboratory and field conditions. The sensor identified the angular and straight edges of the laboratory test surface and replicated the straight edge profile with an error of 4%. In field conditions, the sensor identified three types of cut crop edges (wheat, alfalfa and corn) and replicated distinct shapes (triangle, curved and rectangular edges). The sensor was tested at two sensor path offset distances and three tractor/sensor speeds (3.2, 6.4 and 9.6 km/h). In all test runs the sensor detected the cut-crop edges. Standard deviations and RMSE values in determining the actual cut-crop edges for the entire field test were within 210 cm and 13 cm respectively. The sensor performed the best in the case of wheat cut-crop edge where the RMSE was 4.2 cm (sensor path offset = 1m, speed 3.2 km/h) and performed the worst in the case of alfalfa cut-crop edge where the RMSE was 16.7 cm (sensor path offset = .30 m and speed 9.6 km/h).
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and... more
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical 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 ...
Page 1. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ...
Reducing off-target chemical application errors can improve profitability and reduce pesticide and nutrient losses to the environment from agricultural operations. Off-target errors include: skipped-application, multiple-application, and... more
Reducing off-target chemical application errors can improve profitability and reduce pesticide and nutrient losses to the environment from agricultural operations. Off-target errors include: skipped-application, multiple-application, and unintentional-application to environmentally sensitive areas. Current spray application technologies limit the ability of producers to control pesticide application to a resolution of approximately 5–10m or greater with large self-propelled sprayers. The objective of this
Research Interests:
Pesticide application is an essential practice on many U.S. crop farms. Off-rate pesticide application errors may result from velocity differential across the spray boom while turning, pressure fluctuations across the spray boom, or... more
Pesticide application is an essential practice on many U.S. crop farms. Off-rate pesticide application errors may result from velocity differential across the spray boom while turning, pressure fluctuations across the spray boom, or changes in boom-to-canopy height due to undulating terrain. The sprayer path co-ordinates and the status (on or off) of each boom control section were recorded using the sprayer control console which provided map-based automatic boom section control. These data were collected for ten fields of varying shapes and sizes located in central Kentucky. In order to estimate potential errors resulting from sprayer turning movements, a method was developed to compare the differences in application areas between spray boom control sections. The area covered by the center boom control section was considered the “target rate area” and the difference in these areas and the areas covered by remaining control sections were compared to estimate application rate errors. The results of this analysis conducted with sprayer application files collected from ten fields, many containing impassable grassed waterways, indicated that a substantial portion of the fields (6.5–23.8%) could have received application in error by more than ±10% of the target rate. Off-rate application errors exceeding ±10% of the target rate for the study fields tended to increase as the average turning angles increased. The implication of this is that producers may be unintentionally applying at off-label rates in fields of varying shapes and sizes where turning movements are required.