- ‘~“H .Ev-ff: L. :‘i \“~.: 1.3 Li Ii ‘u x m f. L: .1 -\ 1...! ; I .1. . n 53.1. ,_. TH £815 .. * LIBIM RY Michigag Rate A Univcrfgty AN EVALUATION OF A PROTOTYPE APPLE HYDR OHANDLING SYSTEM by Paul Frederick Bergdolt AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to the Colleges of Agriculture and Engineering of Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SC IENC E IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING Department of Agricultural Engineering 1968 cur-3.74! ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF A PROTOTYPE APPLE HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM by Paul Frederick Bergdolt A prototype hydrohandling system for sorting and sizing apples before storage was developed previously and was used during the apple harvesting season in 1966. The system was carefully studied and evaluated, and records of performance were maintained. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the economic return of the system during operations in 1966, to analyze a hypo- thetical system by use of a computer, and to study proposed improvements in the accumulation of the apples after sizing and sorting has been completed. The ownership and operating costs of the system were calculated and compared to the economic return possible by use of the system. Two factors that can provide a profit with the removal of cull and utility fruits are: (l) a savings in CA storage costs, and (Z) a potential gain from utilization of the additional storage space for storage of good quality fruit. The analysis showed a very slight profit. An increased volume of fruit through the system could increase the profit which can be obtained. A computer program was written to provide an economic analysis of a hypothetical system. Six variables were allowed to assume a range of values, and a total of 1296 combinations of these variables were computed. These variables were: (1) cost of the PAUL FREDERICK BERGDOLT system, (2) efficiency of operation, (3) total volume using the system, (4) rate of operation, (5) gradeout percentages of the fruit, and (6) variety mix of the fruit. The costs were calculated as was gross return and net return. The effects of the variables on net return were studied. The results indicated that total volume and gradeout percentages were the most important factors. In the operation of the prototype system, it was observed that a problem existed in determining accumulator fill. Bulk boxes removed from the machine were often overfilled or underfilled. A study of a measuring device was conducted using three accumulators. In each case, it was attempted to relate volume of the apples to the buoyant force produced by the fruit. Two accumulators used a pressure sensing device, one contained an inner tube within the accumulator, the other used an air pillow placed above the accumulator. A manometer was used to measure pressure changes. The third accumulator was designed with a spring scale as a means of measuring the buoyant force. The accumulators were tested with three apple varieties. The results showed good correlation of manometer and scale deflections with the sample volumes for all three accumulators. Linear relationships existed in each case. Approved: ajor Professor Approved : A/ partment Chai'rman AN EVALUATION OF A PROTOTYPE APPLE HYDR OHANDLING SYSTEM by Paul Frederick Bergdolt A THESIS Submitted to the Colleges of Agriculture and Engineering of Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINE ERING Department of Agricultural Engineering 1968 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express gratitude and appreciation to the individuals who contributed in the administration and completion of the project. Dr. B. A. Stout, my major professor, for guidance and assistance throughout the course of the project. Dr. J. V. Beck, Mechanical Engineering Department, my minor professor, for serving on my guidance committee. Dr. D. H. Dewey, Horticulture Department, for providing fruit for the experiment and advice in the study of the prototype system. Mr. Joseph F. Herrick, Jr. , of the Transportation and Facilities Research Branch, ARS, USDA, for his suggestions and encouragement during the project. Mr. W. H. Braman of Belding Fruit Sales Company, for providing records of the prototype hydrohandling operations. The employees of Belding Fruit Storage Company, for providing assistance and cooperation in all the work concerned with the prototype system. Mr. Vern DeHoop, student employee, for assistance in the construction of the experimental equipment and in the conduct of the experiments . This research was carried out under contract No. 12-14- lOO-7791(52) between Michigan State University and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ....................... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................... 3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROTOTYPE APPLE HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM .......... Factors Considered in the Analysis ........ Assumptions ..................... Cost Analysis .................... Results ........................ Conclusions ..................... HONO‘rb #1 p—JH COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF A HYDR OHANDLING SYSTEM. 12 Variables ...... . . . . . . . . ......... 12 Assumptions ..................... 14 Method of Analysis ......... . ....... 1 5 Results ........................ 19 Conclusions ..................... 20 ACCUMULATOR STUDIES ..... . ..... . ..... 24 Measurement Principles Investigated ........ 24 Apparatus . . . ................... 25 Test Procedures ............. . ..... 29 Results ........................ 31 Conclusions ..................... 37 REFERENCES .................... .. . 39 iii Table LIST OF TABLES Price differentials between sale at harvest and upon removal from CA storage for three varieties of apples . ..... . . . . . . . . . Apples removed by use of hydrohandling system . . Values assigned to crop and machine variables in a computer analysis of a hydrohandling system . Designations, descriptions, and units for variables in a computer analysis of a hydrohandling system . ..... . ......... Comparisons of weights and volumes measured for three varieties of apples . . . . . . . iv Page 13 15 3O Figure 10 ll 12 13 14 15 LIST OF FIGURES The prototype apple hydrohandling system. The platforms along the sides were built for a demonstration of the system . . . . ...... A sample page of computer output from the computer analysis . . . . . . . . . . . ........ The effects of gradeout percentages, cost of system, and total bushels on annual net return. . . . The effects of efficiency of operation, operating rate, and total bushels on annual net return . . . . . The effects of variety mix and total bushels onannualnetreturn........... ..... .. Accumulator testing frame with sample ready for submerging . . . . . . .......... . Tube sensing device mounted in accumulator . . . . . Accumulator with tube attached to manometer . . . . Air pillow sensing device mounted to accumulator . . Scale mounted on accumulator ...... . . . . . . . Measuring volume of a sample by water displacement method. . ..... . ........ . . Manometer readings for McIntosh apples using the tube and air pillow accumulators . . . . . . Manometer readings for Golden Delicious apples using the tube and air pillow accumulators . . . . . . Manometer readings for Red Delicious apples using the tube and air pillow accumulators ...... Scale readings obtained with the scale accumulator for McIntosh, Golden Delicious, and Red Delicious apple varieties. ............... 21 22 23 26 26 27 27 28 28 33 34 35 36 INTRODUCTION Mechanization of the fruit and vegetables industries has been an important topic of research within the past decade. As ”stoop labor" becomes more difficult to obtain, emphasis has been placed on redming hand operations in picking, packing, and moving produce. Research is being conducted in production techniques, harvesting, handling, storage, packaging, and marketing. Apple production in Michigan in 1965, totaled 16 million bushels with a value of 24. 6 million dollars (Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 1966). The value and importance of this crop has prompted further research in the apple production industry. The principle of hydrohandling of fruit was employed by Pflug and Dewey (1960) with a hydrodumper, which utilizes water as a means of floating fruit from bulk boxes. This method successfully minimized fruit bruising and suggested the possibility of a complete sizing and sorting Operation with water as the handling medium. Further studies were conducted by Matthews (1963) and Dewey, et a1. (1966), in which various components of a hydro- handling system were evaluated, and a proposed design of a complete system was given. The final design and construction of the equip- ment was completed and the system was installed at a storage and packing warehouse (Stout, et a1. , 1966). Preliminary tests were conducted with the equipment with satisfactory results. The system was then utilized during the 1966 harvest season for approximately 35, 000 bushels of fruit. Evaluations and further studies were made during this operation. The effect of the system on fruit quality was also studied. The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine the economic value of the system for the tests conducted during fall, 1966, (2) to evaluate a hypothetical system by a computer analysis, and (3) to study measurement principles for more accurately determing the accumulator fill. LITERATUR E R EVIEW An economic study for a presizing and presorting system was conducted by Nichols (1965). This analysis presents the effects of operating cost, pregrading efficiency, storage size, and variety mix on net gain and also discusses the general effects of gradeout percentage and price differentials. Under the conditions assumed, the study shows that a system can increase profits. The importance of large volumes in apple packing operations is shown by Carman (1964). Substantial cost reductions per package are possible as the volume of fruit packed in a plant is increased. Stout arri Kline (1966) presented an economic feasibility study of several vegetable harvesting machines utilizing a computer analysis. Several machine and crop variables were studied. Minimum and maximum values for potential net income were obtained with the varying conditions stated. Cooper (1962) utilized a spring scale and an inverted wire basket to measure buoyant force of a sample of apples. Using the values obtained for buoyant force and the weights of the samples in air, he determined specific gravity of the fruit. Matthews (1963) investigated several bulk box filling devices while studying components of a proposed hydrohandling system. The accumulator method proved most successful, but no studies were conducted in a method to measure the amount of fill. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROTOTYPE APPLE HYDR OHANDLING SYSTEM A presizing and presorting operation for controlled atmosphere (CA) storage has been shown to be economically profitable (Nichols, 1965) under certain crop and storage conditions. However, in this study, many assumptions leading to the variables were presented. A prototype apple hydrohandling system has been built and installed (Stout, et al. , 1966) adjacent to an apple storage and packing ware- house (Figure l). The system was studied during commercial operations for the 1966 season. A total of 35, 554 bushels of apples were run through the machine over a period of seven weeks. The following analysis is based on the data and information collected during this study. The limitations of an experimental machine and a single season's operation must be realized when interpreting the results. Factors Considered in the Analysis Expenses for the system can be separated into two categories, ownership costs and operating costs. Ownership costs can be sub- divided into depreciation, interest on the investment, insurance, property taxes, and shelter (Bainer, 1955). Operating costs include labor requirements, utilities, maintenance, repair, and additional equipment. Profit from utilization of the system can also be separated into two categories. The elimination of cull and utility fruit prior to storage will reduce storage costs, since these fruit do not increase their sale value sufficiently during the CA storage season Figure l. The prototype apple hydrohandling system. The platforms along the sides were built for a demonstration of the system. to pay for their storage cost. With the removal of cull and utility apples, storage space becomes available for U. S. No. l and better grades, which will increase their sale value and provide a higher profit following a CA storage period. This can be regarded as a potential storage gain and is so designated in the analysis A s sumpti ons In the calculation of ownership costs it is necessary to assume a service life for the system and also a salvage value. Study of farm machinery shows a common method for evaluating depreciation as a straight-line relationship with the service life at ten years and the salvage value as ten percent of the initial cost of the machine (Bainer, 1955). These values will be utilized in the analysis. Interest on the investment will be calculated at the current rate, which is taken as six percent. Insurance and taxes can also be rated on an annual basis and shall be taken as one percent of the initial cost (Bainer, 1955). Utility costs (electrical power and water) are based on current rates for utilities, $0. 02 per kwh for electricity and $0. 20 per 100 cubic feet for water. The system is rated for 65 amps at 220 volts at full power, which is a requirement of 14. 3 kw per hour. The system has a water capacity of 20, 200 gallons or 2700 cubic feet, and the water should be changed after approximately 20, 000 bushels of apples. Some studies were conducted by Nichols (1965) on the market value of apples between the fall harvest season and following CA storage. The findings were averaged over the three year period, 1961-1963, for the three varieties of McIntosh, Jonathan, and Red Delicious. These results are presented in Table l and will be utilized in calculating storage cost savings and potential storage gain. A CA storage cost of $0. 55 per bushel is used. An estimated minimum cost of $0. 50 per bushel is given by Dalrymple (1956) while storage charges for CA were estimated at $0. 65 per bushel. Table 1. Price differential between sale at harvest and upon removal from CA storage for three varieties of apples. (1961 —l963 season average by Nichols) Variety Grade Price increase, iii/bu. McIntosh U. S. No. l and better 1. 34 Utility 0.17 Jonathan U. S. No. l and better 1. 38 Utility 0. 38 Red Delicious U. S. No. 1 and better 0. 95 Utility 0. 27 All varieties Cull 0.12 C ost Analysis A. Ownership costs 1. Depreciation - the total cost of the system will be used and this includes the price of the machine, facilities necessary to accommodate it, installation of utilities, installation of the machine, and incidental expenses incurred. a. approximate machine price 313 30, 000. 00’1< This figure is not to be considered as a retail price for a commercially available machine. b. concrete slab 3, 535. 00 c . utility installation (l) electricity 1, 213. 58 (2) water 165. 46 d. installation of machine 1, 902. 00* e. incidental expenses 563. 76** Total $ 37, 379. 80 Annual depreciation cost = (37,379.80 -3,737.98)/10 = 8 3,364.18 2. Interest on investment 0.06 (37379.80 23737.98) : 1,233.53 3. Insurance 0. 0025 (37379. 80) = 93. 45 4. Property taxes 0. 0075 (37379. 80) = 280. 35 5. Shelter (covering sorting rolls) 814. 75/10 = 81.48 Total ownership cost $ 5, 052. 99 B. Operating costs 1. Labor (record of Belding Fruit Storage Co.) $ 3, 034. 75 2. Utilities a. electricity (118. 25 hours of machine operation) 33. 82 b. water (1 change, 5400 ft.3 used) 10.80 * 680 hours labor at 82. 50/hr, 855. 00 for back hoe to dig pits and drain trench, $147. 00 for hand labor on pits and drain trench. ** $156.13 for filling and grading lot, $179. 28 for gravel, $228.35 for additional lumber and steel. 3. Maintenance and repair 90. 00 4. Additional equipment (3 lift trucks for 3 weeks at $60. 00 per week per truck) 540. 00 Total operating cost $ 3, 709. 37 C. Savings in storage cost - Table 2 is a summary of utility and cull fruit removed with the hydrohandling system during operations in fall, 1966. Table 2. Apples removed by use of hydrohandling system. (Values are from data recorded by Belding Fruit Storage Co.) L l Variety Grade Bushels Removed McIntosh Utility 2516 Cull 13 88 Jonathan Utility 551 Cull 2511 R ed Delicious Utility 1060 Cull 1196 The storage cost savings is calculated as the product of the number of bushels removed and the net loss per bushel resulting if poorer quality fruit is stored. 10 Saving 2 2516 (0. 55 - 0.17) = 956. 08 1388(0.55 -0.12) = 596.84 1060 (0.55 — 0. 27) = 296. 80 1196(0.55 -0.12) = 514.28 551(0.55 — 0.38) = 93.67 2511(0.55 — 0.12) = 1079.73 Total = $3537.40 D. Potential storage gain - the potential storage gain is calculated as the product of the number of bushels removed and the net gain per bushel resulting from CA storage of U. S. No. 1 or better quality fruit. Gain 2 (2516 +1388) (1.34 - 0. 55) = 3084.16 (1060 + 1196) (0.95 - 0. 55) = 902.40 (551+2511)(1.38-0.55)= 2541.46 Total = $6528.02 Results Summing the costs for ownership and operation we have: $ 5052. 99 3709.37 Total = $ 8762.36 The gross return which could be realized with the use of the hydro- handling system is the sum of storage cost savings and potential storage gain which is: 11 $ 3537.40 6528.02 Total = $10065.42 The net profit is the difference of gross return and total cost which equals $ 1303. 06. Conclusions The net profit which can be attained in this analysis is almost negligible when compared to the investment necessary. However, a good indication of an existing problem is the comparison of the owner- ship and operating costs. This shows the ownership cost at 1.6 times as great as the Operating cost. An increased volume of apples through the system would not affect the ownership cost, but it would provide considerably greater savings in storage cost and additional storage space for higher quality fruit. Other factors which may lead to higher costs are unexpected breakdowns due to inexperienced labor Operating the machine, and necessary design changes. This analysis is not intended to justify the use of the present hydrohandling techniques since no studies of fruit quality and condition have been presented. From studies conducted by the Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, it has been found that there may be an increase in fruit bruising and skin breaks (stem punctures) due to presizing and presorting with the hydrohandling system. Continued tests are being conducted to substantiate the results being obtained. COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF A HYDROHANDLING SYSTEM A hypothetical study of a system can provide valuable information in many cases. With the aid of computers, the task of carrying out many repetitions of tedious calculations becomes unnecessary, since a simple program can give such results in a very short time. The objective of this analysis is to combine variable crop and machine conditions, perform calculations to determine costs and profits and obtain a net profit or return. From the computer results, one can then see what minimum conditions are required for a minimum profit acceptable for the owner of the system. Variables Six variables are considered, three relate to the crop conditions and three relate to machine and operating conditions. Crop variables are: 1. Total volume of apples utilizing the equipment. 2. Gradeout percentages of U.S. No. l, * utility, and cull grades. 3. Variety mix of apples received at the storage plant. The total volume of apples utilizing the system depends on the volume of the apple crop for the season and also is affected by gradeout percentages. The gradeout percentages are the percent of U.S. No. 1, utility, and cull apples in a given lot and are an indication of the quality >:< This denotes apples of U.S. No. 1 or better grades. 12 13 of the fruit. With high quality fruit in the orchards, it may not be profitable to presize and presort the fruit. The total volume through the system may be decreased. The variety mix is the breakdown by percentage of the varieties which are being received at the storage plant. Machine variables are: l. The cost of the hydrohandling system. 2. The operating rate of the machine. 3. The efficiency of the presizing and presorting operation. Since we are dealing with a system which is not commercially available, an estimate must be made for the initial cost. The operating rate of the machine is expressed in bushels per hour, the maximum value is the rated capacity of the system. The efficiency of the operation can be expressed as the quotient of the number of cull and utility apples removed by presizing and presorting and the actual number of cull and utility apples present in the lot. Values assigned to the variables are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Values assigned to crop and machine variables in a computer analysis of a hydrohandling system. Variable designation Description Assigned values TOBU Total volume of apples 30000, 70000, utilizing the system, bu. 110000 GOPl, GOPU, Gradeout percentages 70-20-10 GOPC for U.S. No. 1, utility, 75-20-5 and cull grades 80-15-5 VMR, VMJ, VMM Variety mix of apples 25-30-45 received at the storage 0-50-50 plant (Red Delicious, 50- 0-50 Jonathan, McIntosh) 50-50-0 l4 COSY Cost of hydrohandling 50000, 60000, system, $ 70000 RATE Operating rate of machine, bu./hr. 300, 450, 600 EFF Efficiency of the operation, % 65, 75, 85, 95 A s sumptions The assumptions for the computer analysis closely follow those of the previous section. The depreciation is taken as initial cost minus salvage value divided by service life, where salvage value is ten percent of the initial cost and service life is ten years. Interest is taken as 6%. Annual costs for insurance and taxes are 0. 25% and O. 75% of the initial cost, respectively. An annual charge for maintenance, repairs, and lubrication is assumed as 4% of the initial cost (Bainer, 1955). The annual cost for additional equipment is calculated on the basis of a four week Operating period with three additional lift trucks required for the hydrohandling system. A current weekly rental rate for a lift truck is used. Utility charges are again based on local rates, $0. 02 per kwh for electricity and $0. 20 per 100 cubic feet for water. Labor charges are made in accordance with the expense incurred during actual operating conditions at Belding Fruit Storage Company. The average wage for labor was $1. 62 per hour and an average work force was 14 workers . An additional charge for supervisory labor was $3. 50 per hour. Calculations for savings in storage costs and potential storage gains utilized the price differential values given in Table 1, and an 15 assumed storage cost for CA storage of $0. 55 per bushel. A final assumption used in the analysis is that only the three varieties of Red Delicious, Jonathan, and McIntosh are being considered in the variety mix of the storage warehouse. These varieties are the most popular existing in Michigan (Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 1966). Method of Analygi s The computer variable names, descriptions, and units which were used in the program are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Designations, descriptions, and units for variables in a computer analysis of a hydrohandling system Variable Designation Description Units GEG Gross economic return $ OPCS Operating cost of the system $ OWCS Ownership cost of the system $ ANR Annual net return $ SCO Storage cost $/bu. EFF Efficiency of the operation % COSY Cost of hydrohandling system $ SLIF Service life of the system yrs. DEP Annual depreciation value of the system $ AIN Annual interest 51$ AIS Annual insurance 35 ATAX Annual tax 35 AWAT Annual water cost $ AAE AMRL HLAB HELP RATE TOBU TIME SSC O PSGl PDRl PDRU PDJl PDJU PDMl PDMU PDC VMR VMJ VMM GOPl GOPU GOPC 16 Annual cost for additional equipment Annual cost for maintenance, repair and lubrication Hourly labor cost Hourly electrical power cost Operating rate of machine Total volume of apples utilizing the system Operating time of the system Savings in storage cost by removal of cull and utility fruits Potential storage gain of U. S. No. l apples stored in place of cull and utility Price differential, Red Delicious, U. S. No.1 Price differential, Red Delicious, utility Price differential, Jonathan, U.S. No. 1 Price differential, Jonathan, utility Price differential, McIntosh, U.S. No. 1 Price differential, McIntosh, utility Price differential, all varieties, cull Variety mix, Red Delicious Variety mix, Jonathan Variety mix, McIntosh Gradeout percentage, U. S. No. 1, all varieties Gradeout percentage, utility, all varieties Gradeout percentage, cull, all varieties $/hr. $/hr. bu./hr. bu. hr. $/bu. 8/bu. 8/bu. 8/bu. $/bu. 8/bu. 8/bu. %; ‘% %. %. %) %. 17 To obtain the annual net return, we subtract operating and ownership costs from gross economic return. These variables are calculated with the following expressions: SALV = 0.10 (COSY) DEP = (COSY-SALV)/SLIF AIN : 0.06 (COSYZ+ SALV) AIS = 0.0025 (COSY) ATAX = 0.0075 (COSY) gags = DEP + AIN + AIS + ATAX AMRL = 0.04 (cosy) AWAT = (TOBU/20000)(5.40) TIME = (TOBU/RATE) 939s = TIME (HELP + HLAB) + AMRL + AWAT + AAE ssco = TOBU (EFF)[ GOPU(VMR)(SCO-PDRU) + GOPU(VMJ) (SCO-PDJU) + GOPU(VMM)(SCO-PDMU) + GOPC(sco-PDC)] PSGl = TOBU(GOPU+GOPC)[ VMR(PDR1 -sc0) + VMJ(PDJ1-SCO) + VMM(PDM1 -SCO)] gig = ssco + PSGl ANR = GEG - OWCS - OPCS The analysis generates a total of 1296 combinations of variables, each giving a different set of conditions and providing a unique result. Values printed in the computer output are ANR, GEG, OPCS, OWCS, COSY, EFF, TOBU, RATE, GOPl, GOPU, GOPC, VMR, VMJ, and VMM. A sample of the printout is shown in Figure 2. The computer program is listed in Appendix I. -*107.50 R1IO,11 15495.81 ~l6‘6.40 6218.40 17103.20 anq -?215.70 7276.70 157-9.!" ~1353.bfl 93‘5.1’ 20075.5‘ -9‘?.4” 10344.00 21641.2" -19‘%.70 5546.7» 1Q0‘9.1* -30'3.5“ 7605.17 1'2°3.8‘ -764?.t" 3514.4" 10911.?" -q505.7n 1816.70 13399.10 -dofl3.5" «375,17 "37?.4" 4904,40 1'1'1.?f ANR '1941.7P 7OA2.70 17567.1" '1099.50 10091-17 211n1.fl1 -61a.an 11050.9" 29719.20 -1671.70 6212.70 16137.10 '77l9.50 0201.17 19371.0: -7348.40 0390.00 Figure 2. 9405.0' 791‘5.0' 148**.u' 0005.00 391‘5.0* 348‘5.v” ctr 97*9,0' 99841.0' 158"3.9“ 07°9,0~ 79“‘1.0* 3‘A°3_nn 97‘9.w" 7?fl¢1_nr 35393.0“ °7*9.nn ??F‘1.C" 109‘1.1' O7D¢.~r 7?dd1.yr 15NCA,0' 3759,00 77N‘1.J“ fififififi.)n 97”9.0‘ )9flt1.qa “"1.3‘ 0709.0: 9?R‘1.0' 0199.00 9>n¢y,0~ ‘6403,3' Ct? 1"“‘6.0" 93527.0» 35071.0" 100‘3.0r 9‘577.09 16971.00 10053."” 9‘597.U' 3‘971.0’ 000*}.00 93577.0a 14971.00 10093.0" 73577.00 30971.00 100“3.00 73577.0" “597.5’ 7L35.fil 1-rt0,1' «~51.C' ‘h?h.6' agq‘.rn c‘rQ =(74_7~ 99‘4,5' 136‘l.9" 4&0)_R" 2,55.p¢ 1;oc.1‘ a;s1_4n §L)h'A‘ 79“.L. ;;7‘.,. 91‘d.fi“ 1on51.9” ;n99050 fi?E§.pl ’h*0.1’ du‘1,l' Iy7A.A ’“‘1.d‘ £174,7‘ £794,5r 11251.?" zyco'a‘ 7p§%.fli '-51.¢" th9~.5. =~‘1.i| n‘vk =(74.I‘ 49:4.00 115“.0F 4.0;.q0 AH‘S‘gt 0719_‘7 4 51.40 £595.51 1qflq.h! =I74,7" 531‘_‘1 13950.00 au99.9“ 72‘5.Al 0509.07 44‘1.6' 4995.5» A sample “Jin.u' ”S~0.0' “310.0' "5'0.U‘ ”3.0.0‘ “J'n.0' L’C‘ ‘6“fl.0‘ ‘6‘".0’ ‘6“n.0' tbkn.0a ‘6‘9.U‘ ‘b‘fl.u~ ‘0“0.o' t6‘r.oa ‘0‘“.06 19:0.0n ’94r.u~ 79.1.0: I9~n.u~ 'V”n.0' 79”h.U' 79“0.U' 79Hn_n- 79:0.0’ ”3.0.0 “s'r.o- ”3'0.U‘ 13~n.u' “s'nou' 03'0.0“ 13'0.00 "J'n.D" 0 cc ‘6‘0.n3 *6‘0.0‘ ‘h‘n.o— flhkn_00 ”1‘0."r Abfln.0n ‘6‘".0“ ‘6‘".00 ‘6‘".0' ’9“0.00 7990.00 79'0-0' 7999.00 Tohn.op 79“n.0* 79’0.o~ 79‘0.n* page 70000 70000 70000 7’0’9 2.0.” 7-orp 'OSY 5'0"0 5“0”D SfO‘O 50010 5‘0”: 5”0“O 5‘050 5:000 9“0“0 55940 ””090 6‘3‘0 Ana-n 6'0“” 6‘0"? 6'G”G 6“O”0 6'9“O 70060 Teonn 1.0.0 7‘000 7:000 7'000 70000 7"0‘0 FOQV 5‘0"0 50600 5'000 59000 50000 59000 5-000 5‘0‘0 S"0"0 6"0"0 6‘0’0 6"O"0 69000 1600003 6”0"0 onono 60000 18 0.75 0.75 3.75 of c omputer 30000 70000 110000 3(000 70000 '30000 anu 50000 70000 110000 66000 70000 910000 50000 70000 010000 J"O"fi 70300 11'0"" 10000 79000 11700" 51000 ["00” 110000 50000 10000 s1ncnn 30000 70000 30000 70000 110000 Yong 30000 '0000 110000 30000 70009 110000 30000 70000 110000 30000 70000 110000 30000 70000 1100001 30000 70000 450 300 300 ‘50 ISO 455 ‘00 ton to: 303 ion ‘03 ‘50 450 050 ‘00 ‘0? son ‘30 300 Inn ‘50 453 ‘00 ‘09 son RATE 3&0 300 300 450 050 450 ‘00 000 303 ion 390 450 450 490 ‘00 ‘00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.10 r.70 $.70 n.ln 0.70 0,70 L.7fl 0.)" 0.50 0.50 00," output from the computer analysis. 19 Results The effect of individual variables on the annual net return can be studied by changing one factor and keeping all other factors constant. Total bushels utilizing the system produces the greatest change in net return, as shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5. Throughout the entire analysis, net return was negative when operating with 30, 000 bushels. A linear relationship exists and net return increases as the volume through the system increases. Therefore, it is necessary to have large volumes available to effectively utilize this system. The effects of gradeout percentages and cost of the system are shown in Figure 3. As the apples increase in quality (GOPl increases), the net return decreases. This is an important factor to consider when the apples arrive at the storage plant. A quick check on quality should be made to determine whether the fruit should be hydrohandled. The cost of the system has a fixed effect on net return. As the cost increases, the net return decreases by a constant amount in each case. Figure 4 shows the effects of machine efficiency and operating rates on net return. Higher efficiency indicates higher return. This is due to the increases in savings on storage costs and potential storage gains. Increased operating rates also increase net return, especially as the volume of the apples is increased. The variety mix of the fruit utilizing the system has effects on net return as shown in Figure 5. Jonathan and McIntosh varieties are more desirable for CA storage since their increase in value is greater than that of Red Delicious (see Table 1). 20 Conclusions The hypothetical analysis presented shows the possibilities of operating a hydrohandling system with substantial profits. An important factor to consider is that a large volume of fruit must be available to utilize the machine. Also, the size and quality of the fruit must justify the use of the system. Other considerations are available labor for operation of the system, the additional time required for handling before the fruit is placed into storage, and the effects of the system on the quality of the fruit when it is removed from storage. 21 '5 ' osom . 7o, sow-20, sopc- IO A.GOPI - 30, cows 15, 6090- 5 VMR-O, VMJ-.50, Vim-.50 l2— RATE=300,EFF=.65 (D ‘5‘ 6' c: a— ll. 0 (D ‘2’ < 4‘ a» D O I 1.. 2; o a: D g... LIJ t: F ‘4‘ DJ 2 .l 4 3 z '87 «q _|2_ m I l 1 ' 30000 70000 00000 TOTAL BUSHELS Figure 3. The effects of gradeout percentages, cost of system, and total bushels on annual net return. THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ANNUAL NET RETU RN, 24 20 IS 12 22 A. EFF -.65 0 EFF -.95 .VMR'O , VMJ ' .50, VMM- .50 .GOPI'TO, GOPU820, GOPCB IO COSY I 50000 U- l l 1 ' 30000 70000 "0000 f TOTAL BUSHELS Figure 4. The effects of efficiency of operation, operating rate, and total bushels on annual net return. 24 201— l2“ O VMR I.25, VMJ I .30, VMM I .45 A, VMR I 0, VMJ I .50, VMM I .50 El. VMRI .50, VMJI 0, VMM I .50 Q VMR I .50, VMJ I .50, VMM I O EFFI 6.5 COSYI50000, RATEI I300 GOPII 7,0 GOPUI 20, GOPCI ANNUAL NET RETURN, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS Figure 5. ”H’sdao—o fits-60 W TOTAL BUSHELS The effects of variety mix and total bushels on annual net return. ACCUMULATOR STUDIES The operation of the prototype hydrohandling system presented several difficulties which indicated a need for further study and research. One of the difficulties was a problem in measuring the fill of the accumulators. The result was a great inconsistency in the fill of the bulk boxes as they were removed from the machine. This is undesirable for several reasons. If the box is underfilled, apples must be added to fill it (a hand operation), or storage space will be wasted. If the box is overfilled, spillage in the accumulator tanks occurs, often causing severe bruises, and apples must be removed from the box to allow stacking without further bruising the apples at the t0p of the box. Several methods to reduce this problem were studied. Measurement Principle 3 Investigated A basic principle which is used in this study is that of buoyant force. Specific gravities of apples, as determined by Cooper (1962), vary from 0. 790 to O. 861 among several varieties. When apples are submerged in water, they provide a vertical force which may be related to the volume of the sample. Two principles are used to measure the buoyant force of a sample of apples. The first utilizes a pressure sensing device attached to a manometer, which provides an indication of pressure changes in the device. The second principle uses a scale which is preloaded to a given deflection. As the buoyant force increases, the scale deflection decreases. 24 25 Apparatus A model testing frame was constructed to accommodate an accumulator and approximately one bushel of apples, Figure 6. The frame was mounted in a tank large enough to allow the entire accumulator to be submerged. Three accumulators are used in the experiment. The first accumulator was constructed of 1/4 inch plexiglass sheet and contains a wheelbarrow inner tube as a pressure sensing device, Figure 7. The tube is within the box and rests on a sheet of 1/8 inch plexiglass suspended by strings. The 1/8 inch sheet is free to move upward as apples float inside the accumulator. An angle iron frame restricts the upward motion of the box and keeps the tube from floating the accumulator. The tube is initially charged with a slight air pressure and is connected to the manometer with a plastic hose as shown in Figure 8. A second accumulator is constructed of polyethylene material and an air pillow serves as a pressure sensing device. The air pillow is placed above the accumulator, Figure 9, and a plexiglass sheet mounted on angle iron supports provides a rigid top. The polyethylene box will float at water level when the testing frame is submerged. Its corners are linked to the plexiglass sheet with chains to provide stability when apples float inside the box. The air pillow is also initially charged with a slight air pressure and connected to the manometer with a plastic hose. The polyethylene box is again used in the third measuring device. This consists of a 20 pound capacity scale, suspended from 26 Figure 6. Accumulator testing frame with sample ready for submerging. E7: 1" ‘31," ‘ «x . .' - \. f x- -r- _ - --r’; , —__--’_ ~v-‘-“’ Figure 7. Tube sensing device mounted in accumulator. 27 Figure 8. Accumulator with tube attached to manometer. Figure 9. Air pillow sensing device mounted to accumulator. 28 Figure 10. Scale mounted on accumulator. Figure 11. Measuring volume of sample by water displacement method. 29 an angle iron frame, and attached to the box with wires leading from the corners of the box, Figure 10. An initial deflection is provided by adding weights on the t0p of the box. A method to measure absolute volumes of the apple samples, by means of water displacement, was devised. A 12 inch by 12 inch by 30 inch box was constructed of 1/4 inch plexiglass sheet. The apple samples were placed in this box and completely submerged by using a wire mesh fastened to a small rod as shown in Figure 11. The water displaced by the apples was measured with the use of a tape attached to the box. A dynamometer scale, with a capacity of 100 pounds, was used to divide the apples, by weight, into ten samples. Test Procedures Three varieties of apples were used in the experiment, McIntosh, Golden Delicious, and Red Delicious. Each lot of apples was reduced to 10 samples by weight, ranging from 5 to 50 pounds. The volume measurements were made utilizing the box described. An initial reading was taken prior to introducing the sample. The final reading was taken while the apples were submerged. The volume of the sample was calculated from the difference in readings, since the inside dimensions of the box were 12 inches by 12 inches. The volume of the wire mesh used for submerging the samples was negligible in comparison to the volume of the samples and was therefore neglected. Table 5 gives a comparison of weights and volumes measured for the three varieties. 30 Table 5. Comparisons of weights and volumes measured for three varieties of apples. McIntosh Golden Delicious Red Delicious Weight, lbs. Volume, ft3 Volume, ft3 Volume, ft3 5 0. 099 0. 089 0.094 10 0. 203 0.188 0.161 15 0. 260 0. 292 0.286 20 0. 411 0.385 0.385 25 0. 500 0.479 0.484 30 0.615 0.583 0.578 35 0. 708 0.667 0.677 40 0. 797 0. 760 0.766 45 0.922 0.865 0.854 50 1.010 0. 953 0.948 Each accumulator was tested with all the samples. A tape attached to the manometer mount, see Figure 8, was read before each sample was submerged. The fluid in the manometer is water. The final reading was taken with the accumulators completely submerged in the tank. The plexiglass accumulator is restricted from floating and the force measured is that exerted on the interior plexiglass sheet depressing the tube. The friction of the apples on the walls may be a source of error. The polyethylene accumulator is light enough to float on the surface of the water. The force of the apples is dispersed in lifting the box and in depressing the air pillow. With the scale, the force of the apples is entirely measured by the negative deflection of the scale. 31 Results The data from the experiment was analyzed by use of a statistical computer program titled Least square curve fitting with orthogonal polynomials (LSCFWOP). The program will compute the polynomial of degree K, (K _<_ 100) which best fits M, (M E 3000), data points by the method of least squares. It will then evaluate the polynomial at the various abscissa points to obtain new ordinates. The computed ordinates are compared with the original ordinates to test the accuracy of fit. From this we obtain the standard error of estimate, SE, which is a measure of the amount of variation from the regression line. SE is defined by the expression: M _ _1_ (c) 2 1/2 where M = number of data points YEC) = computed ordinate Y. = original ordinate 1 The program is listed in Appendix II. A second program was used to calculate the coefficient of correlation of the data. The coefficient of correlation, r, is given by the following expression: nZXY-ZXZY r = L, fin 2 X2 - (EX)2][n z Y2 - (ZY)2] where n = number of observations X, Y 2 observed data The coefficient of correlation is a measure of how closely the variables 32 are related. With 8 degrees of freedom as in this experiment, the 99% significance level for r is 0. 765 (Steel). The program for calculating r is given in Appendix 111. Figure 12 shows the manometer deflection versus volume for McIntosh apples using the tube and air pillow accumulators. The regression equation for the tube accumulator is Y‘ = l. 793 +l50.15 X (Y' is the estimated value of Y) and the data has a correlation coefficient r = 0. 9921. The standard error of estimate is SE : 1. 870. For the air pillow accumulator we have Y' = 0. 8367 + 39. 39X, r = 0. 9968, and SE = 0. 9337. Figure 13 shows the results for Golden Delicious apples. For the tube accumulator, Y' = - 1.444 + 30. 31 X, r = 0. 9950, and SE = 0. 8399. For the air pillow accumulator, Y' = - 1. 901 + 20. 53 X, r = 0. 9676, and SE = 1.475. Figure 14 shows the results for Red Delicious apples. For the tube accumulator, Y':—0. 9788 + 44. 87 X , r = 0.9965, and SE = 1.044. For the air pillow accumulator, Y‘ : -0. 7440 + 31. 42 X, r = 0. 9948, and SE = 0.8913. Figure 15 shows the scale deflection versus volume for the three varieties, using the scale accumulator. The results for McIntosh are Y' = 0.9296 + 139.2 X, r 2 0. 9965, and SE = 3.447. For Golden Delicious, the estimated value for Y is Y' = l. 588 + 111. 8X, r = 0. 9943, and SE = 3.285. The values for Red Delicious are Y' = 9.453 + 108.0 X, r = 0.9963, and SE : 2. 595. MANOMETER DEFLECTION , INCHES 33 O TUBE A AIR PILLOW 3.0+- Mc INTOSH VARIETY 2.5 *- Y'= (.793 + 50.15x r = 0.9921 2.0 — 1.5— Y' I 0.8367 + 39.39X I.0 r = 0.9968 0.5 o 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 VOLUME, FT.3 Figure 12. Manometer readings for McIntosh apples using the tube and air pillow accumulators. 34 2.5 O TUBE g} A AIR PILLOW 5 20— GOLDEN DELICIOUS VARIETY Z - e Z. 9 I- . 8 |_5— Y I -l.444+30.3|X _J r I 0.9950 LL LU D E 10 '_ . LLI 2 0 Z < E 0.5- Y'.I - I.90|+20.53X r I 0.9676 0 l l 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 l.0 VOLUME, F13 Figure 13. Manometer readings for Golden Delicious apples using the tube and air pillow accumulators. 3.0 2.5 2.0 INCHES “1.5 1.0 MANOMETER DEFLECTION, 35 — @ TUBE A AIR PILLOW RED DELICIOUS VARIETY O Y'I -O.9788+ 44.87X r I 0.9965 0 O A 9 A A O A Y'I -0.7740+ 31.42X ° ‘ r I 0.9948 1.1 O A O A 1 1 1 1 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 vOLUME,FT.3 Figure 14. Manometer readings for Red Delicious apples using the tube and air pillow accumulators. 36 Io — o 9 _- 0 Mc INTOSH. Y'= 0.9296 + I392 x 8 r r = 0.9965 . ° A 7 I— 0 o a, a RED DELICIOUS ° 3 ‘1. g 6* Y'=9.453+l08.0x ' g r = 0.9963 0. A .. 5 — Z 2 .— 8 .1 4 7 1.1. 1.1.1 0 3 3 ‘ 8 o” a) A A GOLDEN DELICIOUS 2— .2 Y'= l.588+ lll.8X .. r =0.9943 A I — Ab / C 1 1 J 1 l o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 VOLUME, FTP Figure 15. Scale readings obtained with the scale accumulator for McIntosh, Golden Delicious, and Red Delicious apple varieties. 37 C onclusions The results of the experiment show linear relationships exist between the measuring devices tested and the volume of the sample. The high values for the correlation coefficients indicate that these relationships are highly significant. A value of r = 1. 0 is a perfect correlation. The values for the standard error of estimate also show that the data fits very closely to the regression equations. Comparisons of the tube and air pillow accumulators indicate slightly higher readings for the tube. This may be due to the fact that with the air pillow accumulator the force of the apples must lift the entire box to depress the pillow, while with the tube accumulator the apples lift only the 1/8 inch plexiglass sheet to depress the tube. It also seems that the stationary system of the tube accumulator is more desirable than the floating polyethylene box, which must be stabilized to maintain control. In a full scale application, the pressure measuring instruments would have to be quite accurate, since the force of 50 pounds of apples over an area of approximately 2 square feet is of the order of 0. 01 psi. The scale accumulator also shows good results. In this case, the total force exerted by the apples is measured, and sizeable changes (9 lbs. 2 oz.) were recorded for a 50 pound sample. The accuracy of the device can be more easily controlled for this accumulator. All three types of accumulators showed some variations with the different varieties of apples tested. Calibrations would be necessary for each variety in an operating system. The scale accumulator would be best for a full scale application since it records a greater deflection 38 and would require a less accurate measuring instrument. Changes in design would be necessary for adapting these methods to the pre 8 ent ope rational machine. R EFER ENC ES Bainer, Roy, R. A. Kepner, and E. L. Barger (1955). Principles of Farm Machinery, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , New York, 571 pp. Carman, H. F. (1964). Costwvolume relationships for packing apples in Michigan, Ph. D. Thesis, Michigan State University. Cooper, H. E. (1962). Influence of maturation on the physical and mechanical properties of the apple fruit, M. S. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University. Dalrymple, D. G. (1956). Marketing controlled atmosphere apples, Cornell University Agr. Expt. Sta., AF 1028. Dewey, D. H., B. A. Stout, R. H. Matthews, and F. W. Bakker- Arkema (1966). Development of a hydrohandling system for sorting and sizing apples for storage in pallet boxes, ARS, U. S. D.A. , Marketing Research Report No. 743. Little, T. M. (1966). Correlation and Regression, University of California Agricultural Extension Service, 62 pp. Matthews, R. W. (1963). A hydro-handling system for presorting and presizing apple fruits, M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University. Michigan Department of Agriculture (1966). l\/lichigan Agricultural Statistics, Mich. Dept. Agr., Lansing, 41 pp. Nichols, J. P. (1965). Some economic considerations of sorting and sizing apples for bulk storage, M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University. Pflug, I. J. and D. H. Dewey (1960). Unloading soft-fleshed fruit frombulk boxes, Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Quar. Bul. 43(1): 132-141. Steel, Robert G. D., and J. H. Torrie (1960). Principles and Procedures of Statistics, Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , New York, 481 pp. Stout, B. A. and C. K. Kline (1966}. Multiple or once over harvesting of vegetable crops, Michigan State University, ASAE paper no. 66-134. Stout, B. A., D. H. Dewey, E. G. Vis, and J. F. Herrick,Jr. (1966). A prototype hydrohandling system for sorting and sizing apples before storage. ARS 52414. 39 APPENDD§I EHOORAM Ante. Hm QEAD 20-5L3F798ie.wzss.006.099;acccwuau(1.0214-';m:.npwz.F;>.u 20 FORMAT<4F6.2.8F5.EI 1 READ 109 $0510 GODU9 GOPC: ”MP. VMJ9 VMM 10 FORMAT16F10.2) IF(1.-GOP11 2692694 4 DO 25 KEFF = 659 959 10 EFF 8 KEFF EFF = EFF/100. PRINT 2 2 FORMAT(*O ANR GEG OPCS OWCS COSY 1 EFF TOBU RATE GOP} GOPU GOPC VMR VMJ VMM8 5) DO 25 KCOSY = 59 79 1 COSY = KCOSY * 10000 00 25 KRATE = 3009 6009 150 RATE = KRATE DO 25 KTOBU = 39 119 4 TOBU = KTOBU * 10000 N0 = NO + l SALV = .10*COSY DEP = (COSY—SALV)/SLIF AIN = .O6*((COSY+SALV),-'Z) AIS = .0025*COSY ATAX = .0075*COSY OWCS = DEP + AIN + AIS + ATAX AMRL = .04*COSY AWAT=1TOBU/20000.)*5.4O TIME = TOBU/RATE OPCS=T1ME*(HELP+HLAB1+AMQL+AWAT+AAE SSCO=TOBU*EFF*(GOPU*VMR*ISCO-PDRU)+GOPU*VMJ*(SCO-PDJU)+GOPU*VMM*(S 2CO-PDMU)+GOPC*(SCO-PDC)1 PSG]:TOBU*(GOPU+GOPC)*(VMR*(pDRI*SCOI+VMJ*(pDJl-SCO)+VMM*(PDM1-SCO 3)) ' GEG SSCO + PSGI ANR = GEG - OWCS - OPCS PRINT 39ANR96EG9OPCS9OWC59COSY9EFF9TOBUeRATEoGOPl9GOPU9GOPC9VMR9VM 4J9VMM 3 FORMAT(*O*94F1O.2910X9F5.09F7.292F790910X96F602) 25 CONTINUE ' GO TO 1 26 END 'QUN9109091400 10. .286 26.18 720. .95 .27 1.35 .38 1.34 .17 .12 .55 7O 20 IO 25 30 45 7O 20 10 O 50 50 7O 2O 10 50 O 50 7O 2O 10 50 50 O 75 2O 5 25 30 45 75 2O 5 0 50 5O 75 2O 5 50 O 50 75 2O 5 50 50 O 80 15 5 25 3O 45 80 15 1 5 O 50 5O 80 15 5 50 O 50 BO 15 5 50 50 0 10000 40 APPENDDCH PROGRAM LSCFWOP DIMENSION VEC(3OOO96)9S(101)9ALP(101)9BETA(101)9RHOSQ(101)9XP(IOI DIMENSION 1NFMTIIO)9ID(IO) COMMON VEC9S9ALP9BETA9XP IHLT=8H 1327 READ 8000910 DO 1337 I=l910 IF(ID(I)-IHLT) 1400.1337.14oo 1337 CONTINUE GO TO 411 1400 PRINT 2 2 FORMAT(1H1) PRINT 8000910 READ 800091NFMT 8000 FORMAT(10A8) PRINT 15OO9INFMT 1500 FORMAT(//14H INPUT FORMAT IOA8/) READ 219MM9KK9KOT9KIP9KAP9KOP9NOP9N1P9MT1 21 FORMAT(IOI5) READ INFMT9XBAR9GAMMA9T0L PRINT 4 4 FORMAT(/44H MM KK KOT KIP KAP KOP NOP NIP MTI) RRINT 219MM9KK9KOT9K1R9KAP9KOP9NOP9N1P9MTI PRINT 1 1 FORMAT(//23H XBAR GAMMA TOL) PRINT 1NFMT9XBAR9GAMMA9TOL READ IANFMT9(VEC(J91)9VEC(J92)9J=19MM) CALL SHIFT(X8AR9GAMMA9MM) $1 = MM DO 31 J = 19MM VEC(J93) = 0.0 31 VECIJ94) = 1.0 BETA(1) = 0.0 53 = 0.0 DO 32 L = 19MM 32 S3 = 53 + VEC(L92)**2 K2 = KK + 1 DO 302 I = 19K2 $4 = 0.0 DO 33 J = 19MM 33 S4 = 54 + VEC(J92)*VEC(J94) 5(1) = 54/51 85 = S3-S(I)**2*Sl IF(MM-I-1)3O593059301 301 RHOSQ(I) = SS/FLOATF(MM-I-1) GO TO 303 305 RHOSQ(I) = $5 303 K1 = 1 -1 DO 34 K = 19K1 IF(ABSF(RHOSQ(K)-RHOSO(I))-TOL) 71971934 34 CONTINUE IF(1 - K2)35972972 35 DO 36 N = 19MM 36 VEC(N95) = VEC(N91)*VEC(N94) T1 = 0.0 41 I‘ili‘lll‘ I'll-Ill DO 37 JJJ = 19MM 37 T1 = T1 + VEC(JJJ95)*VEC(JJJ94) ALP(I+11 = Tl/SI ' T2 = 0.0 00 38 M = 19MM VEC(M95) = (VEC(M91)~ALP(I+1))*VEC{M94)-8ETA(I)*VEC(M.3) T2 = T2+VEC(M95)**2 VEC(M93) = VEC(M94) 38 VEC(M94) = VECIM95) BETA(I+1) = T2/SI S3 = 55 $1 = T2 302 CONTINUE 72 K3 = K2 GO TO 40 71 K3 = I 40 CALL UNSHIFT(XBAR9GAMMA9MM) KGL= 2 1F(KIP) 71897189717 717 CALL P0LK(K39KAP) 718 IF(NOP) 42097199719 719 DO 7000 J=19MM 7000 VEC(J95) = VEC(J92) IF(N0P)42094059407 407 PRINT 1001 1001 FORMAT(1H2/50H THE ORDINATE VALUES USING THE RECURRENCE FORMULAS) PRINT 2 MC = MM - GO TO 1002 . 405 CALL SHIFT(XBAR9GAMMA9MM) DO 406 N =19MM VEC(N92) = XP(1) K4 = K3 - 1 DO 406 K=19K4 406 VEC(N92) = VEC(N92)*VEC€N91) + XP(K+1) CALL UNSHIFT(XBAR9GAMMA9MM) IF(MTI-K4) 4760947609420 4760 PRINT 59K4 5 FORMAT(1H2/73H THE ORDINATE VALUES AS EVALUATED BY GENERATING THE lPOLYNOMIAL 0F DEGREE 14/1H1) CALL XPRINT(MM9K0P) 420 IF(KOT) 1327913279402 402 READ 219MC PRINT 821 821 FORMAT<1H2/61H THE FOLLOWING ORDINATES ARE CALCULATED FOR THE NEW 1ABSCISSAS) KGL = 1 KOT = KOT - 1 READ INFMT9(VEC(J91)9J=1¢MC) 1002 K2 = K3 - 1 NOP = 0 CALL SHIFT(XBAR9GAMMA9MC) D0 51 J = 19MC VEC(J92) 0.0 VEC(J93) 0.0 II 51 503 52 1004 1003 5436 643 799 705 707 701 702 703 502 5002 23 411 31 32 33 34 17 VEC(J94) = 1.0 DO 502 I = 19K3 DO 52 J = 19MC . VEC(J92) = VEC(J92) + S(I)*VEC(J94) 1F(I “K31503952952 P2 = (VEC1J91)-ALP(I+I))*VEC(J94) - BETA(I)*VEC(J93) VEC(J93) = VEC