Article citation information:
Wheatley, G.,
Rubel, R.I. An autonomous braking control system for a 2017 Yamaha
Grizzly 700. Scientific Journal of
Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 2022, 115, 211-226. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2022.115.15.
Greg
WHEATLEY[1],
Robiul Islam RUBEL[2]
AN AUTONOMOUS BRAKING CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A 2017 YAMAHA GRIZZLY 700
Summary. Weed control
is an important issue for environmental protection all around the world.
Traditional hand weed control is laborious whereas chemical control is costly
and a threat to the atmosphere. A chemical patch weed control system is an
optimized system but lacks cheap technical equipment. This research outlines a
design process and test of a braking system that can be applied during the
designing of an autonomous braking system for a 2017 Yamaha Grizzly 700. The
system is intended to be used as an autonomous weed chemical spraying.
A bolt-on approach that did not require any manipulation of the stock, an
internal braking system was followed to reduce the complexity and installation
time of multiple systems. Three different types of autonomous braking system
solutions were initially investigated, with the linear actuator solution being
decided on through the assistance of a weighted decision matrix. The system was
designed around a 30 kg hand force; however, a spare actuator of approximately
20 kg of force was repurposed and used instead. Finite element analysis
concluded that all major components within the proposed system were suitable
for a lifetime of at least 1,000,000 cycles with a mild steel yield stress
failure criterion of 370 MPa. A stationary test for the system was
conducted to determine the success of the system, which pushed the brake lever
approximately 25% of its disengaged handlebar to lever length. The resulting
system met the requirements of the expectation and could be used to apply
the ATV’s brakes autonomously while retracting the gear interlocking
mechanism enough to change gears.
Keywords: weed
control, hand and chemical control, autonomous braking system, FEA
1. INTRODUCTION
Australia is
one of the largest agricultural industries [1][2] and weeds are
one of the most serious threats to its environment [3][4][5]. Without proper control they can
adversely affect crop health, leading to a decrease in farming productivity [3][4][5][6]. Purely
through moisture competition between weed and crop, yields can be reduced by
over 50% [5]. It is also
estimated that the global damage from weeds costs 40 billion dollars per year [5]. To combat
this, farmers spend long hours in the sun spraying crops with weed-killing
agents. Weeding by hand is a traditional method of weed control; however, it is
very costly [7]. In the
United States alone, hand weeding costs $9259/ha [8]. This is five
to seven times more expensive than chemical control. Not only is this a safety
risk, but replacing the necessity for human action could allow for labor to be
spent more effectively in other areas [8].
More so,
chemical control requires less manual labor for the same result. As observed,
weed control using weed-killing agents appears to be the most effective
solution [9]. Weed-killing
agents may be distributed evenly across an agricultural area or sprayed in
patches [9]. Although
uniform spraying ensures most weeds are exposed to the agent, it can have
detrimental effects on the crop. While very beneficial, weed-killing chemicals
also have their limitations. The use of these chemicals can be detrimental to
the crop, as well as the surrounding environment. Herbicides, chemicals
designed to inhibit or kill the growth of plant pests, not only affect weeds
but also mix with air, water, and soil [10]. There are
two categories of herbicides: selective and non-selective. Selective herbicides
only kill weeds without greatly damaging crops, whereas non-selective
herbicides kill all plants in the application zone [10]. If a certain
plot of land is continuously exposed to the same weed-killing chemical, the
effectiveness drops. Pesticide concentration assessed in North America and
Europe has shown substantial contamination in groundwater streams, both in
agricultural and urban environments [11].
Spraying
chemicals by the selective method to kill weeds and minimizing the chemical
amount is thus a great challenge. Patch spraying can therefore be seen as an
advantageous method of application. But identifying and applying chemicals in
patches is also almost like traditional hand weed control [6]. Automatic
identification and chemical spray are needed for the mechanized implementation
of such an idea. However, for an autonomous scenario challenges arise in the
complexity of computerized weed identification. Concerned with designing and
building a weed-spraying system, a 2017 Yamaha Grizzly 700 all-terrain vehicle
(ATV) is intended to modify [3][12]. The end goal
for this system is autonomous control; however, the manual operation should
still be possible while the automation process is running. The ATV will possess
the ability to navigate autonomously with pathfinding and object detection.
Additionally,
it will be equipped with onboard cameras and pattern recognition software to
control weeds through target identification and patch spraying. As part of this
project, the braking system of the selected vehicle is also required to modify
adjusting to the targeted autonomous weed-spraying system. This part of the
work is the design and validation of a mechanical braking system integrating
electrical input control for the selected vehicle model. The ideal design would
allow overriding by an operator riding the ATV. Three different types of
braking systems were considered for the proposal: a stepper motor, linear
actuator, and solenoid driven system. The final decision on the most
appropriate type of system for the design was assisted by a weighted decision
matrix [13].
2. LITERATURE
REVIEW
Patch
weed control needs a system of identification and applying chemicals
automatically to reduce manual labor [9][14]. In the
market, a few types of patch weed control machines are available; however,
price and size have made it acceptable for only huge farmland applications and
not for day-to-day applications for small to mid-range applications. To make
something for small to mid-range applications, we were looking for low-cost,
easily driveable, and customizable vehicles. Since weeds grow in the fields,
the type of the selected vehicle should be an off-road vehicle. A four-wheeler
Yamaha Grizzly 700 ATV [12] was found suitable for the
intended weed-spraying system to modify or customize on our own. We have
concise our focus on the brake customization for the selected vehicle in this
work in weed spraying application.
Yamaha
Grizzly 700 ATV [12] has a stock
braking system that features dual front and rear hydraulic disc brake systems.
The right-hand brake lever is connected to the front wheel braking system,
while the left-hand brake lever is connected to the rear wheel braking system.
There is also an additional foot brake on the right-hand side of the vehicle
with a direct-acting cable link to the left-hand brake lever. In the case of
this bike’s system, the master cylinder reservoir is disconnected from
the hydraulic line by a single spring and piston component. Any excess force is
transmitted directly into the hydraulic line. At the other end of the hydraulic
line is a slave cylinder at each wheel (only considering one brake line). Since
the slave cylinder piston’s area is larger than the master cylinder
piston’s area, it travels less; however, exerting a larger force. This
force is applied to the brake disc through the caliper’s two brake pads.
The first brake pad clamps down on the brake disc due to the pressure in the
hydraulic line. Since the caliper housing is allowed to translate away from the
first pad that is in contact with the disc, excess force results in the second
pad clamping on the opposite side of the brake disc. A force beyond this is
evenly distributed between the two brake pads, ensuring even wear.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Handgrip
strength
To
determine an appropriate force to design the braking control system around,
research was conducted into typical handgrip strengths for males and females in
different age categories. Table 1 shows that the average right- and left-hand
grip strengths for men between the ages of 20 and 59 are 46.5 and 45 kg,
respectively [15].
It also shows that the average right- and left-hand grip strengths for women
between the ages of 20 and 59 are 29.5 and 27.75 kg, respectively. The highest
pressure that the braking system reached is 14 bar or 1.4 MPa according to a
braking profile for a motorbike braking while traveling above 100 km/h.
Tab. 1
Mean and standard deviation and hand grip
strength in kilograms,
for men and women, presented in ascending age groups [15]
|
Men |
Women |
||||||
|
Age |
Right |
Left |
BMI |
Age |
Right |
Left |
BMI |
|
20
to 29 |
47(9.5) |
45(8.8) |
26.4(5.1) |
20
to 29 |
30(7) |
28(6.1) |
25.1(5.8) |
|
30
to 39 |
47(9.7) |
47(9.8) |
28.3(5.2) |
30
to 39 |
31(6.4) |
29(6) |
27.3(6.8) |
|
40
to 49 |
47(9.5) |
45(9.3) |
28.4(4.6) |
40
to 49 |
29(5.7) |
28(5.7) |
27.7(7.7) |
|
50
to 59 |
45(8.4) |
43(8.3) |
28.7(4.3) |
50
to 59 |
28(6.3) |
26(5.7) |
29.1(6.4) |
|
60
to 69 |
40(8.3) |
38(8) |
28.6(4.4) |
60
to 69 |
24(5.3) |
23(5) |
28.1(5.1) |
|
70+ |
33(7.8) |
32(7.5) |
27.2(3.9) |
70+ |
20(5.8) |
19(5.5) |
27(4.7) |
Examining the data in Table 1, a
handgrip strength value of 30 kg (approx. 300 N) was initially chosen to design
around. For justification, initial calculations using the chosen value and the
fundamental equations were conducted. Fundamental terms like the deceleration
rate, stopping distance, and force a driver can apply to the master cylinder
are determined by the relation DR = µg, SD = Vmax2/2DR,
and Fmc = Fdriv × 4. The pressure
developed by Fmc in the hydraulic line is Pline = Fmc/Amc, and the
force on the caliper is Fcal = Pline
× Acal where the
force on the rotor is Frot = Fcal × 2 [16]. Thus, the
total frictional force will be created as Fric = Frot
× µ, and the
torque on the rotor will be τrot = Ffric
× rrot. The final force acting on one tire will be Ftyre
= rrot/rtyre [17].
Originally, a 700 N, 11.5 mm/s
linear actuator was selected for the design. This was changed to the 200 N, 35
mm/s actuator, which did not suit its purpose for the bike’s gearing
system. This actuator was approximately three times as fast, and the repurposing
saved from having to buy another actuator. The downside was the reduction in
output force. While the repurposed actuator did not output 30 kg of hand force,
this value was deemed over conservative since it was chosen from maximum hand
forces and was not required for an appropriate level of brake actuation.
Estimated values of the
necessary parameters
|
Parameters |
Values |
Parameters |
Values |
|
Amc |
5.067×10-4
m2 |
Fmc |
1177.2 N |
|
Fdriv |
294.3 N |
Pline |
2.323 MPa |
|
Wbike |
314
kg |
Fcal |
2.323×10+6
× Acal |
Since Acal
could only be obtained by disassembling the physical caliper on the ATV, and
this was only a preliminary calculation, it had been temporarily assumed that Acal
was approximately two times greater than Amc. The
corresponding Fcal is 2.35 kN. The pressure experienced in
the designed system was predicted to be approximately 2.3 MPa, which
demonstrated that there would be enough braking force applied.
3.2. Decision
about the type of brake
To assist in the
decision-making process for the type of braking control system to use, a weighted
decision matrix [13] table was constructed with the results shown in Table
3. The three systems were compared against each other on a relative scale
out of 10. For example, stepper motors and solenoids found online were both
upwards of $200. The linear actuator found, however, was only around $80.
Approximate relative values of 6 for the stepper motor and solenoid and 10 for
the linear actuator were chosen for the matrix in the cost of system row [18]. The weighting was determined by the importance of
each criterion to ensure that critical factors were assigned a higher score.
From the decision matrix shown in Table 3, it was clear that the linear
actuator braking system design was by far the most appropriate choice.
Tab.
3
Weighted decision matrix for braking system type
|
Criteria |
Weighting (/10) |
Stepper Motor |
Linear Actuator |
Selenoid |
|
Relability |
10 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
|
Speed |
7 |
8 |
10 |
10 |
|
Suitability |
6 |
7 |
7 |
4 |
|
Cost
of System |
5 |
6 |
10 |
6 |
|
Simplicity |
4 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
|
Total |
254 |
288 |
250 |
|
3.3. Selected
system for design
The chosen design
consisted of the following major components:
-
A Barkbusters
handlebar insert as a frame for the actuator, $90.00 from Motosport Townsville.
-
A 200 N, 35 mm/s, 12
V, 50 mm stroke linear actuator, $84.65 from Motion Dynamics.
-
Custom machined
mounting plates to fix the actuator to the Barkbusters frame.
The linear actuator
was intended to be fixed onto the Barkbusters frame. Originally, the actuator
was designed with a 300 lb strong wire set up to pull the brakes as the
actuator retracts. Since the team required a more robust and reliable solution,
this design was reversed such that the actuator would push the brakes with a
custom front plate for this purpose. This proposed system costs approximately
$200.
The success of this
design is to be determined through testing of the finished quadbike braking
system. Time and quadbike status constraints limited the final test to be
stationary, with success visually determined by the degree of braking achieved
and the clearance of the gearing interlock mechanism for shifting gears while
braking. Prototyping of the braking system design was considered; however, due
to the simplicity and robustness of the solution, this was not required. The
linear actuator load strength rating was validated visually by ensuring it
could activate the brake lever to a satisfactory degree before it was trusted
for autonomous use. A braking test at multiple speeds was initially planned;
however, due to the state of the vehicle during testing, only a stationary test
could be conducted. Finally, finite element analysis (FEA) was performed on
both the Barkbusters frame, as well as the custom mounting plates and front
interfacing plates, to determine the stress profiles under standard operation,
as well as the simulated hand force, which would lead to failure with fatigue
testing. This was conducted using Solidworks for the CAD modeling and the
Static Structural FEA package within ANSYS for stress analysis.
3.4. CAD model
development
To determine the
geometry of the custom parts required for the braking system, mock models for
the linear actuator, handlebar, and the Barkbusters frame were created in
Solidworks. Most of the linear actuator’s dimensions were provided by the
manufacturer; however, some were omitted. Fortunately, the critical dimensions
were known such that an accurate enough model could be constructed. A set of
Kincrome digital Vernier calipers were used to determine the exact dimensions
of the Barkbusters frame and handlebar. Since the brake lever itself was a
complex geometry that could not be replicated without 3D scanning, a rough
estimation was used for the mock model in Solidworks. Estimations of the
distance between the handlebar and brake lever were recorded with the calipers
and replicated in the CAD assembly. Finally, the custom plates used for
mounting the actuator to the Barkbusters frame, and the front plate, which was
used to directly push the lever, were designed. The custom parts required,
shown in blue in Figure 1, were manufactured at the James Cook University
mechanical workshop.
Barkbusters
Frame Linear Actuator Mounting Plate Handlebar Front Plate Brake Lever Alternative view
Fig. 1. Solidworks design
4. RESULTS AND
DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Finite
element analysis of the system
Finite element
analysis was performed on three parts within the newly designed autonomous
braking system: the mounting plate, the front plate assembly, and the
Barkbusters frame. Each model was analyzed for von Mises stress, with the
failure criterion specified at 370 MPa, the approximate yielding point for
mild steel [19]. Fatigue analysis using the Goodman method was also
performed with a lifetime of 1,000,000 zero-based cycles.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. (a) Mounting plate FEA setup, (b) Mounting plate FEA von Mises stress
Fig. 3. Mounting plate FEA von Mises stress
(close-up)
Fig. 4. Mounting plate FEA Safety Factor
Fig. 5. Mounting plate FEA safety factor (close-up)
Originally, the
system was designed around a 300 N actuation force. Instead of reducing the
force used within the FEA to 200 N to match the actuator's maximum output, a
decision was made to maintain the system’s design based on the 300 N
force. This conservative approach ensured that the parts to be manufactured
were without a doubt strong enough to last well beyond their required lifetime,
especially necessary in a critical autonomous braking system. Figures 2-5 show
that the mounting plate design was appropriate to ensure a full life. The
system was set up with restrictive remote displacement support at the faces
within the slot for the Barkbusters frame, and a 300 N force was applied at the
cylindrical face acting to the right. The resulting maximum von Mises stress
was found to be approximately one-third of the yielding stress, and the fatigue
analysis showed that no sections would fail before the end of their lifetime.
The safety factor is shown as 1.23; however, this is only in a small region of
stress concentration. The safety factor increases above 10 slightly beyond this
region, so at worst, a small crack would form. To reduce concerns even further,
the Barkbusters frame has rounded edges, which would provide some relief to the
stress concentration.
Figure 6 shows that
the front plate design for pushing the brake lever is suitable and ensures a
full lifetime. The system setup included a 300 N force acting on the two front
surfaces of the assembly and a remote displacement to restrict movement and rotation
at the cylindrical surface. As seen in Figure 6(b), the front plate did not
experience any significant stress, further validated by the safety factor shown
in Figure 7(a). This shows that this manufactured part should easily exceed its
required lifetime.
Figures 7(b)-10 show
that the Barkbusters handlebar insert frame should also exceed its required
lifetime. The system was set up with restrictive remote displacement support at
the furthest cylindrical face, and two 150 N forces spaced 45 mm apart (the spacing
of the mounting plates). Figure 8 shows that the system only experiences
approximately one-third of the yielding stress of mild steel. When fatigue is
investigated, the safety factor was found to be 1.37 (Figure 10). This is not
actually a concern for two reasons. First, the fatigue analysis is conducted
over 1,000,000 cycles. The actual cycles within the part’s realistic
lifetime would be severely less than this. This analysis shows that even with
such an extended lifetime, the part still does not fail (despite it being
close). The second reason is that the actual material of the Barkbusters frame
is unknown. This analysis assumes a worst-case material, which is mild steel.
In reality, it is likely that the material used is much stronger and resists
bending even further since it was designed for impact protection. Furthermore,
it is also important to consider that not all dimensions of this mock model are
accurate.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 6. (a) Front plate FEA setup, (b) Front plate FEA von Mises stress
Fig. 7. (a) Front plate FEA
safety factor, (b) Barkbusters frame FEA setup
Fig. 8. Barkbusters frame FEA
von Mises stress
Fig.
9. Barkbusters frame FEA von Mises stress (close-up)
The critical dimensions such as the diameter and
location of the holes and height and thickness of the bar were measured with
the Vernier calipers; however, the exact length of the bar sections and curve profile
were not known, so they were approximated. The actual curved profile of the
Barkbusters frame was likely better designed to resist failure due to bending.
Additionally, as stated earlier, the actuation force was one-third lower at 200
N. For all the reasons stated above, it was concluded that the Barkbusters
frame was suitable for use in the autonomous braking system.
Fig.
10. Barkbusters frame FEA safety factor
4.2. System
testing
Once
the parts were deemed safe for use, the system was ready for assembly and
testing. The system was positioned on the frame such that actuation occurred as
far away from the pivot point to increase the lever arm and reduce the force
requirement. The mounting plates were then fixed in position with a hose clamp
on either side. An H-bridge circuit with a forward and reverse button was coded
and set up [20]. The setup of
the system is shown in Figure 10. As stated earlier, the test was conducted on
a stationary quadbike, with success determined visually by the degree of
braking achieved, including the clearance of the interlocking mechanism on the
gearing.
Once
all the parts had arrived and were ready for assembly, a complication was
discovered with the design of the ATV’s handlebars. Upon removing the
rubber grips, it was evident that despite the Barkbusters website providing the
specific part to fit this make and model, the handlebars were not completely
hollow as seen in Figure 11(a). Approximately 7 mm deep, it appeared a metal
“plug” had been hammered in and welded. The Barkbusters handlebar
inserts required a hollow handlebar for attachment since this design used an
internal collet to grip the inside of the handlebar. A simple acoustic test was
performed to determine the length of the inner metal and found that it extended
beyond the requirement of the collet. Upon consultation with relevant experts,
a decision was made to drill into the metal, stepping up to 14 mm since this
was approximately 0.5 mm larger than the collet diameter. An alternative
solution of drilling and tapping the hole for the M8 bolt was considered. This,
however, was considered more difficult since the hole would have to be drilled
almost perfectly straight for the taping to work.
To
drill the metal in the handlebar out to 14 mm, it was found that multiple
step-ups were required. What was not known was how many millimeters each step
should be. To start conservatively, a step size of 3 mm was chosen. The depth
of the cut required was marked on the handlebar, shown in Figure 11(b).
Starting at 3 mm, half of the cut was made. Copious amounts of cutting fluid
were used to reduce the difficulty of the cut, as well as increase the drill
bits’ lifespans. The drill was retracted every 20 to 30 seconds and
compressed air was sprayed into the cut to clear metal fragments. A decision
was then made to split the drilling depth into two stages of cuts since
progress increasingly slowed down as metal shavings struggled to travel up the
bit to exit the hole. A jump of 4 mm from a 6 mm to 10 mm diameter was
attempted; however, this was reverted to 8 mm before the 10 mm cut since the
drilling jobber started to smoke and struggle. Figure 11(c) shows the
progression of these cuts. Finally, 12, 13, and 14 mm cuts were made. This
allowed the Barkbusters frame to be successfully inserted into the handlebar,
where it was able to be secured using the collet.
As
evident in Figures 12-14, the result of the braking system test was a success.
The system was shown to activate the brakes to an acceptable degree, validated
by the clearance of the gearing interlock mechanism. This allowed the gears to
be changed once the brakes are applied. Overlaying the green lines shown in
Figures 12-14 and measuring the percentage difference showed that the
approximate lever movement was 25% of the disengaged distance from the
handlebar. Despite the success of the system, the gear interlocking mechanism
would be better off with more clearance. Future recommendations on this topic
are discussed in a later section.
Fig. 10. Full assembly during testing
Fig. 11.
(a) Metal "plug" discovered in handlebar, (b)
Marking for depth of drilling cut,
(c) Drilling step-up progress
Fig. 12. Braking system test-system
disengaged
Fig. 13.
Braking system test-system engaged
(a)
(b)
Fig. 14. (a)
Gear interlock mechanism-system disengaged,
(b) Braking system test-system engaged
4. CONCLUSION
This work has
successfully designed and tested the autonomous braking control system for a
2017 Yamaha Grizzly 700. The resulting designed system is capable of satisfying
the requirements needed in the field for weed control. In its current state,
the system could apply and release the ATV’s brakes through an external
H-bridge circuit with a forward and reverse button. The gear interlocking
mechanism retracts enough for gear switching; however, it is a small clearance.
Finite element analysis conducted through ANSYS’ Static Structural
package confirmed the reliability of the system well beyond its expected
lifespan. The mechanical components within the system were conservatively
designed, ensuring that a system as critical as the braking on an autonomous
vehicle would not fail unexpectedly and could be trusted. The mechanical
components of the system are fully designed, although further refinements may
be beneficial depending on the future vision and direction of the team. The
total weight of the components in the braking system was negligible compared to
the original vehicle weight, and thus, no issue of balancing or
counterweighting. Simple construction is also removable in any case if needed.
Additionally, the modification is cost-effective as the total cost required for
the whole setup and integration cost lies only $1000 much lower than any
presently available commercial vehicle. The cost of the components was a
reasonably weighted factor in the decision of the system type for design. The
total price for the chosen system is expected to be approximately $200 for a
commercially anticipated setup. The 2017 Yamaha Grizzly 700 did not lose its
normal functions and usability even after the setup of the braking system for
weed control, which may be regarded as a dual benefit.
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the clearance of the gear interlocking
mechanism is small, a few future changes to the system would be beneficial.
First, the actuator could be upgraded to ensure a greater braking action.
Generally speaking, a more powerful actuator results in a slower speed unless a
significant price increase is met. This could be countered by fixing the
actuator closer to the pivot point of the brake lever, resulting in a lower
travel requirement and larger force requirement. Testing would be required to
ensure that the travel force/speed trade-off would balance positively for the
system. Alternatively, as suggested by an expert, a cleaner wiring solution for
the circuit may be beneficial. The current electrical circuit consists of
daisy-chaining solutions using old spare wires. With fewer resistances and
losses from exposed and inefficient wiring, the voltage provided would be
higher, and hence, the clearance of the mechanism would increase. Finally, if
necessary, two actuators could be used for the single brake lever. This would
also be beneficial as a backup if one actuator malfunctions. With the purchase
of another identical actuator, the system would also be ready to be applied to
the other handlebar if desired by the team since all other components are ready
at the workshop.
References
1.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 7501.0 - Value of principal
agricultural commodities produced, Australia, Preliminary, 2016-17, 2018.
Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/4AC458DB13299EF1CA2573EC0073A449?OpenDocument.
2.
Agriculture: A $2.4 Trillion industry worth protecting, 2015. Available
at:
https://croplife.org/news/agriculture-a-2-4-trillion-industry-worth-protecting/.
3.
Petit S., et al. 2015.
“Ecological intensification through pesticide reduction: weed control,
weed biodiversity and sustainability in arable farming”. Environ.
Manage. 56: 1078-1090.
4.
Abouziena H.F., W.M. Haggag. 2016. “Weed control in clean
agriculture: a review”. Planta Daninha 34(2): 377-392.
5.
Baumann P.A., P.A. Dotray, E.P. Prostko. 2008. “Herbicides: how
they work and the symptoms they cause”. P. 1-12. Available at: https://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu/library/gardening/herbicides-how-they-work-and-the-symptoms-they-cause/.
6.
Appleby A.P. 2005. “A history of weed control in the United States
and Canada-a sequel”. Weed Sci. 53(6): 762-768.
7.
Khan M.H., N. Khan, N. Badshah. 2003. “Effect of weedicides and
hand weedings on the yeild of onion (Alliam cepa L.)”. Asian J.
Plant Sci. 2(6): 464-466.
8.
Tu M., C. Hurd, J.M. Randall. 2001. „Weed control methods
handbook: tools & techniques for use in natural areas”. The Nature
Conservancy. Available at: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu.
9.
Varshney S., S. Hayat, M.N. Alyemeni, A. Ahmad. 2012. “Effects of
herbicide applications in wheat fields: Is phytohormones application a
remedy?” Plant Signal. Behav. 7(5): 570-575.
10. Debenest T., J. Silvestre,
M. Coste, E. Pinelli. 2010. “Effects of pesticides on freshwater
diatoms”. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 203: 87-103.
11. Yamaha Motor Australia.
„Grizzly 700”. 2017. Available at: https://www.yamaha-motor.com.au/products/motorcycle/atvrov/utility-atv/grizzly-700.
12. Ouye J. Weighted
criteria matrix. Facility Technics Facility Management Consulting, 505 17th
Street, Suite 300, Oakland, CA 94612.
13. Gonzalez-de-Santos P., et al. 2017. „Fleets of robots for environmentally-safe
pest control in agriculture”. Precision Agriculture 18:
574-614.
14. Massy-Westropp N.M., T.K.
Gill, A.W. Taylor, R.W. Bohannon, C.L. Hill, 2011. “Hand grip strength:
age and gender stratified normative data in a population-based study”. BMC
Res. Notes 4: 127.
15. Shrivastava D. 2014.
“Designing of All Terrain Vehicle (ATV)”. Int. J. Sci. Res.
Publ. 4(12).
16. Raagul
Srinivasan K.A., J. Jawagar Shrehari. 2006. “Design, analysis and
fabrication of allterrain vehicle (Quad-Bike)”. Int. J. Inn. Res. Sci. Eng. Tech. 5(11): 12-26.
17. Bashash S., K. Vora, N.
Jalili. 2010. “Distributed-parameters modeling and control of rod-type
solid-state actuators”. J. Vib. Control 17(6): 813-825.
18. AZO Materials, AISI 1018
Mild/Low Carbon Steel. 2012. Available at:
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6115.
19.
What is an H-Bridge? H-Bridge concept. 2018.
Available at: https://www.build-electronic-circuits.com/h-bridge/.
Received 03.01.2022; accepted in
revised form 21.03.2022
Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
[1] College of Science &
Engineering, James Cook
University, James Cook Dr, Douglas QLD 4814 Australia. Email: greg.wheatley@jcu.edu.au.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9416-3908
[2]
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bangladesh Army University of Science and
Technology, Saidpur 5310, Bangladesh. Email: rubel.ruet10@gmail.com. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8340-8877