Articulated Header Suspension for Terrain Following and Load Relief

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Wider headers in combine harvesters, while increasing throughput, often result in decreased crop yield efficiency due to their inability to conform to uneven terrain and increased structural loads on the combine, leading to higher operational costs and material requirements.

Innovation Solution

An articulated header with a suspension system that allows independent pivoting of sections, enabling the header to adapt to terrain variations while reducing structural loads by varying its spring rate between harvesting and transport modes.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If the header width is increased to improve throughput, then the harvesting rate increases, but the ability to conform to terrain variations decreases and structural loads increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveharvesting throughputVSAvoidterrain conformance
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The header is divided into multiple sections (first section, second section, and intermediate section) that can independently pivot relative to each other. This segmentation allows each section to adapt to terrain variations while maintaining an overall wide harvesting span, resolving the contradiction between width and terrain conformance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The header sections are made dynamically movable through pivot joints rather than being fixed rigidly. The suspension system enables dynamic adjustment of section positions in response to terrain changes, allowing the wide header to maintain both its width and adaptability to varying ground conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Productivity

If the header width is increased to improve throughput, then the harvesting rate increases, but the structural loads on the combine increase requiring reinforced structures

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveharvesting throughputVSAvoidstructural loads
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSForce

Solution Approach 1:

By dividing the wide header into multiple suspended sections, the structural loads are distributed across multiple pivot points and suspension elements rather than concentrating all forces on the combine structure. This allows wider headers to be used without proportionally increasing structural requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The suspension system acts as an intermediary between the header sections and the combine, absorbing and distributing dynamic loads. This intermediary mechanism reduces the peak forces transmitted to the combine structure, enabling wider headers without reinforced combines.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Strength

If rigid frame headers are used to maintain structural integrity, then strength is improved, but the ability to conform to terrain variations decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestructural integrityVSAvoidterrain conformance
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The rigid frame is segmented into multiple sections connected by pivot joints and suspension elements. Each section maintains structural integrity through its own rigid framing while the connections between sections provide the flexibility needed for terrain conformance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Different parts of the header have different properties: the sections themselves are rigid for strength, while the connections between sections are flexible for adaptability. This local differentiation of rigidity and flexibility allows the header to simultaneously achieve both structural integrity and terrain conformance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

4Strength

If reinforced combine structures are used to support wider headers, then structural capacity is improved, but material costs and operational costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestructural capacityVSAvoidmaterial costs
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The suspension system serves as an intermediary that absorbs and manages the additional loads from wider headers, preventing these loads from being fully transmitted to the combine structure. This reduces the need for expensive reinforced combines while still supporting wider, more productive headers.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

By segmenting the header into multiple suspended sections, the load distribution is optimized to reduce peak forces on the combine structure. This segmentation allows standard combines (rather than reinforced ones) to support wider headers, reducing material and operational costs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

This configuration allows for increased header width without requiring reinforced combines, enhancing crop yield efficiency and reducing operational stresses on the harvesting system.

Implementation Method 1

varying its spring rate between harvesting and transport modes

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectSpring rate: Spring

Data Source

PatentEP3593617B1Suspension compliance to reduce frame loading
Publication Date: 2021.03.03 DEERE & CO
  • EP3593617B1 patent drawingFigure 1A
  • EP3593617B1 patent drawingFigure 1B
  • EP3593617B1 patent drawingFigure 1C

AI summary

A harvesting system includes a header pivotally attached to a combine. The header includes a center section to which a left wing and right wing are pivotally attached. A suspension system of the harvesting system includes first and second engageable states that enable dynamic wing behavior and reduce structural load. The first state corresponds to a harvesting configuration of the header in which the wings are allowed to pivot to allow the header to follow changes in terrain. The second state corresponds to a configuration in which the header is elevated relative to the ground. In the second state, the ability of the wings to pivot is minimized as compared to the first state, which allows the header tobe maintained in a substantially flat configuration while minimizing the amount of dynamic load imparted by the header on the combine during non- harvesting transport of the header.