45 views

Uploaded by Rahma Ielmah

- (1900-1915) International Tractor Disk Harrow
- European Darkness Age
- chinese invention notes copy
- Organic Cane Farming
- Ejbss 1342 14 Perceivedstressandacademicperformance
- The Dan Lai in Con Cuong District
- 16124 Tillage
- 02 Vibrostar En
- Conservation Tillage and Water Productivity in Ethiopia
- Production Guide on Squash.docx
- Effect of Primary Tillage Implements on Soil Physical Properties under Maize Production
- Methods of Irrigation-057
- AgriculturForBeginners
- Hort 282 Modified
- Sugarcane Technologies
- hess-17-5185-2013
- History (India and Contemporary World)
- 2217_s11_ms_23
- File 3233
- Modelling of Dc Supply

You are on page 1of 10

Draught Prediction of Agricultural Implements using Reference Tillage Tools in Sandy Clay Loam Soil

R.K. Sahu; H. Raheman

Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India; e-mail of corresponding author: rohit@agfe.iitkgp.ernet.in, hifjur@agfe.iitkgp.ernet.in (Received 4 March 2005; accepted in revised form 20 January 2006; published online 18 April 2006)

An investigation was carried out to predict the draught requirements of commonly used tillage implements in any eld condition from the knowledge of : (i) the draught requirements of reference tillage tools in a reference soil condition; and (ii) the scale factors related to soil properties and implement geometry. In the rst step, the draught requirements of three different reference tillage tools: (1) a plough with a width of cut of 0 1 m; (2) a tine with a width of cut of 0 075 m and (3) a disc with a diameter of 0 3 m were veried in the soil bin by operating in a reference soil condition (sandy clay loam soil with average cone penetration resistance of 472 kPa and bulk density of 1170720 kg/m3) at three depths (0 05, 0 075 and 0 1 m) and four speeds (1 2, 2 2, 3 2 and 4 2 km/h). In the second step, the draught requirements of six different scale-model implements: two mouldboard ploughs (0 15 and 0 25 m width); two cultivators (2 and 3 tine); and two disc gangs (0 34 and 0 37 m width) were measured in the same soil with ve different soil conditions (average cone penetration resistance and the corresponding bulk density varied from 470 to 1420 kPa and 1170 to 1680 kg/m3, respectively) at particular depth (0 075 m) and speed of operation (3 2 km/h). The empirical equations for draught requirements of reference tillage tools and hence, scale-model implements were developed using orthogonal and multiple regression techniques. The developed empirical equations were veried in the laboratory as well as in the eld conditions. A good general agreement between observed and predicted draught values was found with the average absolute variations of 7 0%, 6 2% and 7 5% in the laboratory as compared to 10 6%, 10 2% and 13 2% in the eld for the mouldboard plough, cultivator and offset disc harrow respectively. This methodology produced sufciently accurate results to enable the draught prediction of tillage implements in different soil conditions by testing only the reference tillage tool in the desired soil type at reference soil condition.

r 2006 IAgrE. All rights reserved Published by Elsevier Ltd

1. Introduction The mouldboard plough, cultivator and disc harrow are generally used to prepare the soil bed for growing crops in the least possible time by accomplishing maximum eld capacity of tillage implements. For this, larger equipment at low speeds or smaller equipment at higher speeds is followed. However, the combination that enables the task to be completed in the shortest time with minimum operating cost and energy requirement is usually selected (Onwualu & Watts, 1998). The availability of data on the draught requirements of tillage

1537-5110/$32.00

implements is an important factor while selecting tillage implements for a particular farm situation. Farm managers and consultants use draught and power requirement data of tillage implements in specic soil types to determine the size of tractor required and to calculate the cost and energy requirement of different tillage implements. The draught requirement of any tillage implement was found to be a function of soil properties, tool geometry, working depth, travel speed, and width of the implement (Glancey et al., 1996). Soil properties that contribute to tillage energy are moisture content, bulk density, soil

r 2006 IAgrE. All rights reserved Published by Elsevier Ltd

275

276

Notation a, b, c C0, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 c0, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5 D d d*, d** f1, f2, f3 multiple regression exponents orthogonal regression coefcients multiple regression coefcients draught, N depth of tillage operation, m orthogonal depth functions related to operating parameters, implement geometry and soil conditions acceleration due to gravity, m/s2 set of characteristic lengths describing implement geometry, m coefcient of determination, decimal cone penetration resistance of soil, kPa V V* and V** W a rw Subscripts i r p Superscript s reference soil condition any tillage implement reference tillage tool prototype/scale-model implement speed of implement, km/h orthogonal speed tool or implement width, m set of characteristic angles describing implement geometry, degrees bulk density of soil, kg/m3

g L R2 Rc

texture and soil strength. The relationship between the draught of plane tillage tools and speed, has been dened as linear, second-order polynomial, parabolic and exponential (Rowe & Barnes, 1961; Siemens et al., 1965; Luth & Wismer, 1971; Godwin & Spoor, 1977;

From the studies conducted in cohesive and frictional soils, Wheeler and Godwin (1996) conrmed that inertia effects on p draught of tine are not signicant below speeds of 5 g W and are limited up to speeds of where g is the acceleration due to 5g W 0 6d p gravity in m/s2, W is tool width in m and d is the depth of tillage operation in m, while Glancey et al. (1996) found the speed effects to be less signicant as compared to the effect of depth. Many regression equations for the draught prediction of various tillage implements have been developed using the data collected from the eld experiments to facilitate machinery selection, implement matching with tractor and estimation of fuel consumption (Larson et al., 1968; Wang et al., 1972; Collins et al., 1978; Gee-Clough et al., 1978; Eradat-Oskoui & Witney, 1982; Eradat-Oskoui et al., 1982; Kepner et al., 1982; Kydd et al., 1984; Nicholoson & Bashford, 1984; Upadhyaya et al., 1984; Summer et al., 1986; Gebresenbet, 1989; Bashford et al., 1991; Harrigan & Rotz, 1995; Grisso et al., 1996; ASAE, 2000a ; Kheiralla et al., 2004). However, the applicability of such regression equations is limited to those soil and implement conditions for which these equations were developed. Therefore, new regression equations are required to be developed empirically for other soil and implement conditions. Alternative approaches to the use of regression equations for predicting the draught of tillage implement have also been developed using standard tillage tools (Glancey & Upadhyaya, 1995; Glancey et al., 1996; Desbiolles et al., 1997). In these approaches, the standard tillage tools were tested in the eld conditions with an instrumented mobile power

Godwin et al., 1984; McKyes, 1985; Swick & Perumpral, 1988; Gupta et al., 1989). These differences in the ndings are the result of inertia required to accelerate the soil, the effect of shear rate on shear strength and the effect of shear rate on soilmetal friction, all of which vary with soil type and condition. In this context, the current analytical methods of draught prediction (Godwin & Spoor, 1977; Godwin et al., 1984; McKyes, 1985; Swick & Perumpral, 1988) are inadequate as they have not, as yet, been successfully developed for complex tillage tool shapes. These methods predict the draught requirement at incipient soil failure, based upon failure mechanisms modelled from experimental observations, and follow the classical mechanics theories, which rely upon MohrCoulomb soil properties characterising a homogeneous and isotropic soil medium. These fundamental soil properties vary in the real-eld environment, where soil structure, vegetation, spatial variations in soil density, soil water content and stone content greatly inuence soil strength (Desbiolles et al., 1997). However, departing from the simple idealised soiltool systems operating in quasi-static conditions, Owen (1989) adopted an existing three dimensional soil wedge model of soil failure to predict the effect of tool speed on the draught requirement of a winged sub-soiler tine following the approach taken by Stafford (1979) in modelling the effect of velocity upon the draught of a simple tine.

277

source such as tractor to measure draught at the desired depth and speed of operation. However, eld studies of draught measurement require enormous amounts of time, energy and cost for gathering agricultural machinery management data to select matching implements with tractors, to estimate fuel consumption, and to simulate and compare the performance of different farming systems. In this study, the draught of any scalemodel is predicted using a reference tillage tool in a reference soil condition under laboratory conditions and prototype tests are conducted in the eld conditions to verify the approach. The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to develop the regression equations for predicting the draught of reference tillage tools in a reference soil condition in the laboratory; (2) to determine the scale factors related to soil properties and implement geometry; and (3) to verify the applicability of the developed equations for predicting the draught of scale-model and prototype tillage implements in laboratory and eld conditions, respectively. The study was limited to sandy clay loam with average soil moisture content of 9 1% dry basis (d.b.). This moisture content was chosen to coincide with the normal moisture level at which tillage operations are carried out in this soil.

Case I: For a given soil condition and implement, Eqn (2) can be expressed as Di f 1 d ; V (3) According to Glancey and Upadhyaya (1995), the general relationship for the draught of a given implement in a specic soil type and condition can be given as Di c0 c1 d c2 d 2 c3 V c4 V 2 c5 dV (4) These regression coefcients (c0, c1, c2, c3, c4 and c5) are tool and soil specic. The existence of multicollinearity between the term for d and d2 as well as V and V2 in Eqn (4) caused difculty in quantifying the coefcients. To overcome this problem, an orthogonal regression technique was adopted (Glancey & Upadhyaya, 1995) for correct determination of the coefcients. The transformed equation takes the form Di C 0 C 1 d n C 2 d nn C 3 V n C 4 V nn C 5 d n V n (5) where: d and d and V and V are orthogonal depth and speed, respectively; and C0C5 are orthogonal regression coefcients. Quantifying the coefcients and hence, knowing the signicant terms in the orthogonal regression equation [Eqn (5)] for an implement, the draught requirement of a s reference tillage tool Dr in N in a reference soil condition can be expressed using Eqn (4) containing signicant terms only and neglecting the non-signi cant terms. Case II: The draught requirements of different tillage implements in a given soil at same speed and depth can be expressed as Di f 2 W i ; Li ; ai (6)

* ** * **

2. Draught prediction approach for tillage implement The draught requirement of any passive tillage implement Di in N was found to be function of working depth d in m, travel speed V in km/h, width of the implement Wi in m, tool geometry characterised by angle ai in degree and length Li in m, and soil properties such as bulk density rw in kg/m3 and cone penetration resistance Rc in kPa (Upadhyaya et al., 1984) and can be expressed as Di f d ; V ; W i ; Li ; ai ; rw ; Rc Equation (1) can also be written as Di f 1 d ; V f 2 W i ; Li ; ai f 3 rw ; Rc (2) (1)

where: f1, f2 and f3 are functions related to operating parameters, implement geometry and soil conditions respectively. The contributions of a function towards the draught of an implement can be found by keeping the other two function variables constant. These are discussed in the following three cases.

In essence the standard tool is an analogue of the implement. Schafer et al. (1969) found that the draught of scale-models varied logarithmically with the scale factor for several implements such as triangular chisels, bulldozer blades, mouldboard ploughs, sweeps and cone penetrometer tips and concave discs. Although the interaction of implement geometry and soil properties is highly complex, the relationship between the draught of an implement and a standard tool was found to be consistently logarithmic (Glancey et al., 1996). Considering this, the ratio of draught requirements of the prototype/scale-model implement and the reference tillage tool in a given soil at same speed and depth can be expressed as Dp W p a Lp b ap c Dr Wr Lr ar (7)

where the subscripts p and r denote prototype and reference tillage tool, respectively; and a, b, c are multiple regression exponents.

278

Assuming the set of characteristic lengths and angles to be same for both reference tool and prototype/scalemodel implement, Eqn (7) can be reduced to Eqn (8). Dp Dr Wp Wr

a

(8)

Case III: The draught of an implement in any soil condition at same speed and depth can be given by Di f 3 rw ; Rc (9) Similar to Eqn (7), the ratio of draught requirements of a reference tillage tool in any soil condition and reference soil condition at same speed and depth is given as Dr Ds r rw rs w

a b

Rc Rs c

b

(10)

c

(11)

Taking logarithms on both sides of Eqn (11) results in log Wp Dp Rc r a log b log w c log s s s rw Dr Wr Rc (12) where, a, b and c are regression exponents that are specic to reference tillage toolimplement combinations. Thus, the draught requirement of a prototype implement in any soil condition can be predicted by knowing the scale factors for implement and soil conditions, and the draught of reference tillage tool in the reference soil condition at any speed and depth.

compacting the soil respectively to obtain the desired cone penetration resistance and a water sprayer for spraying water on the soil to maintain the desired average moisture content. The different speeds of operation were obtained by choosing suitable gears of a gear reduction unit coupled to the input shaft of the revolving drum, which was attached to soil processing trolley with stainless-steel rope. A control unit, placed outside the soil bin, controlled the direction of movement of the soil processing trolley. The testing tool/ implement was mounted on the frame of the implement trolley, where screw jack arrangements were provided to vary the depth of operation. The instrumentation for measuring the draught of reference tillage tools and scale-model implements in laboratory condition consisted of an extended octagonal ring transducer and a four-channel thermal write-out chart recorder with universal amplier. The extended octagonal ring transducer was designed and fabricated for a maximum force of 3 kN following the design of Godwin et al. (1993) and ODogherty (1996). The draught values were continuously recorded in the recorder after amplifying the signal coming from the transducer.

3. Experimental procedure All the experiments were conducted in the stationary soil bin to obtain the empirical regression coefcients in Eqns (4), (5) and (11). 3.1. Soil bin The soil bin comprised a stationary bin, a carriage system, implement and soil processing trolleys, power transmission system, control unit and instrumentation for draught measurement (Fig. 1). The bin was 15 0 m long, 1 8 m wide and 0 6 m deep. Two rails, one on top of each side of the bin wall, were used for supporting the soil processing and the implement trolleys. The soil processing trolley comprised a frame, rotary tiller, levelling blade and roller for tilling, levelling and

Fig. 1. Detail of experimental arrangement

Table 1 Some physical properties of the experimental soil Soil order Soil texture Sand Silt Clay Particle density Moisture content Cohesion Adhesion Frictional angle Alsol Sandy clay loam 57 1% 19 9% 23% 2650 kg/m3 10 3 % (d.b.) 11 76 kPa 7 66 kPa 221

279

3.1.1. Soil description and soil bed preparation Experiments were conducted under laboratory conditions in a remoulded sandy clay loam soil for which the physical properties are given in Table 1. Before starting the experiments, the soil bed was prepared to achieve the required levels of cone penetration resistance and bulk density. Firstly, the tiller was used to pulverise the soil after spraying water to achieve the required moisture content. Then, the soil was levelled with the levelling blade and compacted by the roller to achieve the required cone penetration resistance and bulk density in layers. At the end of each soil preparation, a hand-

operated soil cone penetrometer was used for measuring the cone penetration resistance to a depth of 0 15 m at intervals of 0 025 m at six locations in the soil bin following the procedures outlined in the ASAE Standards (ASAE, 2000b). The locations were 2 m apart along the centre of the bin and were selected to check the soil condition near the starting of the soil bed, at the middle and towards the far end. At each of these locations, two samples were taken across the bin (0 5 m apart). The locations were chosen so as not to interfere with actual tillage tests. To get soil uniformity, the soil bed preparation was repeated if the cone penetration

(a)

(b)

175 mm

(c)

Fig. 2. Reference tillage tools used in the experiments: (a) mouldboard plough, (b) cultivator time, (c) harrow disc

Direction of travel

280

resistances and bulk densities were signicantly different from each other. 3.2. Reference tillage tools and implements The mouldboard plough, tine and disc (Fig. 2) were selected as reference tillage tools to the prototype/scalemodel mouldboard plough, cultivator and disc harrow implements widely used in primary and secondary tillage operations, respectively. These reference tillage tools were similar to prototype implements but of smaller sizes. The soil manipulation by reference tillage tools and prototype implement were similar. These reference tillage tools were operated in a reference soil condition at different depths and speeds (Table 2) to determine the regression coefcients of Eqns (4) and (5). In addition to these reference tillage tools, six scale-model implements (two scale-model implements from each category of reference tillage tool) were selected for conducting experiments in the laboratory to determine the regression coefcients of the scale factor related to implement geometry and to validate the developed regression equation [Eqn (11)]. Three prototype implements (mouldboard plough, cultivator and offset disc harrow) were also selected to validate the developed regression equation [Eqn (11)] in eld conditions. 3.3. Experiment layout 3.3.1. Laboratory experiments A 3 by 4 by 3 by 3 factorial experiment (three reference tillage tools, four forward speeds, three depths, and three replications) was used to determine the effect

of speed and depth of operation on draught requirements of reference tillage tools in a reference soil condition. The levels of these variables are given in Table 2. A soft soil condition that is easy to prepare was selected as reference soil condition. The average moisture content during the tests was 9 1% d.b. with a maximum variation of 71 2% d.b. To nd the regression coefcients of the scale factors related to soil properties and implement width, the various levels used are also shown in Table 2. To verify the developed regression equation, a separate set of experiments was conducted using six scale-model implements: two mouldboard ploughs (0 15 and 0 25 m width); two cultivators (2 and 3 tine); and two disc gangs (0 34 and 0 37 m width). The experiments were conducted in the same soil at average cone penetration resistances of 813 and 1230 kPa, average bulk densities of 1390 and 1610 kg/m3, depths of 0 05 and 0 10 m and forward speeds of 2 2 and 3 2 km/h. The soil data were collected using core sample and hand-operated soil cone penetrometer before each tillage experiment. After xing the desired depth and selecting a gear for particular speed, the implement trolley along with reference tillage tool/scale-model implement was pulled by the soil processing trolley in the soil bin keeping the pulling arm horizontal to the soil bed. With the help of the calibrated extended octagonal ring transducer, the data for draught of reference tillage tool/model implement were continuously acquired by the measuring system. Simultaneously, the time taken to cover a xed distance of 10 m was recorded using a mechanical stopwatch to calculate the speed of operation.

Table 2 Variable levels for all experiments Experiment 1effect of speed and depth on draught of reference tillage tools Reference tillage mouldboard plough, cultivator tine and harrow disc tools Soil condition soft (Rc of 472735 kPa, rw of 1170720 kg/m3)-reference soil Speed 1 2, 2 2, 3 2 and 4 2 km/h Depth 0 05, 0 075 and 0 10 m Experiment 2effect of scale factors of soil condition and implement geometry on draught Model implements two mouldboard ploughs (widths of cut of 0 15 and 0 25 m) two cultivators (2 and 3 tine, spacing between tines of 0 23 m) two disc gangs (widths of cut of 0 337 and 0 367 m, disc diameter of 0 30 and 0 40 m, three discs in each gang) Soil condition average Rc of 470, 720, 980, 1250 and 1420 kPa and the corresponding to rw of 1170, 1340, 1470, 1600, and 1680 kg/m3 Speed 3 2 km/h Depth 0 75 m

Rc, cone penetration resistance; rw, bulk density of soil.

281

3.3.2. Field experiments Field experiments were conducted for three prototype tillage implements (two furrow mouldboard plough, nine tine cultivator and a double gang of seven disc offset disc harrow) with 37 kW two-wheel drive tractor in hard and soft soil conditions at two/different speeds in the range of 1 8 to 5 9 km/h and two depths of operation (0 135 and 0 185 m for the mouldboard plough, 0 05 and 0 095 m for the cultivator and 0 055 and 0 105 m for the offset disc harrow) with two replications. All eld tests were conducted in sandy clay loam soil. Fallow areas of approximately 0 6 ha each was selected after the rainy season as (1) hard soil condition (Rc of 1398 kPa, rw of 1600 kg/m3) and (2) soft soil condition (Rc of 699 kPa, rw of 1320 kg/m3). The soft soil condition was achieved by ploughing followed by twice discing and twice cultivating. Before starting the experiments, bulk density, moisture content and cone penetration resistance data for the plot were collected and are summarised in Table 3. To validate the developed regression equation, the draught values were measured during the eld tests of mouldboard plough, cultivator and offset disc harrow. The predicted draught for offset disc harrow was the sum of predicted draught values of the front and rear disc gangs. The soil condition for rear disc gang was taken as soft (average cone penetration resistance of 450 kPa and average bulk density of 1170 kg/m3) and very soft (average cone penetration resistance of 200 kPa and average bulk density of 600 kg/m3) to predict the draught of offset disc harrow on hard and soft soil conditions respectively. The measurement for draught was carried out for the set of implements using a developed force measuring system employing electrical strain gauges on a threepoint linkage system of the tractor. The strain gauges were mounted on each of the two lower links and proving ring attached to the top link. The strain gauges were then connected in the Wheatstone bridge to measure the draught. The implement operating depth, horizontal and vertical angles of the lower and top links were measured using potentiometer circuits. The experimental data from the force measuring system and

Table 3 Mean and deviation of soil bulk density, moisture content and Soil condition Dry bulk density, kg/m3 1600790 1320740 Dry moisture content, % (d.b.) 12 570 8 10 571 0 Cone penetration resistance, kPa 1398765 699752

potentiometers were recorded in a data logger (HP 34970 A, Hewlett Packard Company, USA). Simultaneously, the time taken to cover a xed distance of 50 m was noted using a stopwatch to calculate the operating speed of the tractor and implement combination.

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Effect of speed and depth on draught Orthogonal regression analyses were performed using a computer-based software (SPSS) package on the average draught data of reference tillage tools to determine the speeddepth response curves for each reference tillage tool in the reference soil condition and the results are summarised in Table 4. The regression coefcients determined (Table 4) from this analysis were the coefcients in Eqn (5). The high values for the coefcients of determination R2 in Table 4 indicate that the variables depth, speed and the interaction of speed and depth in the regression can explain most of the variability in the experimental data. In Table 4, it is noticeable from the values of orthogonal regression coefcients that depth is the dominant factor inuencing the draught of all reference tillage tools tested in the reference soil condition. Within the range of speeds and depths used, the depth, speed and the interaction of speed and depth were found to be signicant for both tine and disc reference tillage tools; whereas the square of speed and depth were found to be non-signicant. However, for the mouldboard plough all other terms

Table 4 Regression coefcients (C0C5) from different regression analyses on draught of each reference tillage tool in the reference soil condition; R2, coefcient of determination Regression coefficient Multiple c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 R2 Orthogonal c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 R2 Plough 00 831 00 00 00 588 0 971 180 13 65 66 7 45 21 90 00 7 91 0 994 Tine 00 726 00 00 00 241 0 981 102 37 38 04 00 8 89 00 3 63 0 988 Disc 00 573 00 00 00 208 0 945 84 82 29 60 00 7 95 00 1 90 0 948

Hard Soft

282

were found to be signicant except the square of the speed. It is apparent from the orthogonal regression that V2 term was not an important factor in explaining the draught even though mouldboard plough draught is believed to have a predominant V2 effect (Kepner et al., 1982; ASAE, 2000a). This observation is due to negligible inertia effect on the draught due to lower speed of operation at which the laboratory experiments were conducted. Similar nding has been reported by Glancey and Upadhyaya (1995) while predicting the draught of tillage implements using standard chisel and lister as reference tillage tools when operated at depths between 0 076 to 0 305 m and speeds between 0 8 and 7 2 km/h. To predict the draught beyond the depth and speed ranges of reference tillage tools, multiple regression equation was developed with the real depth and speed variables considering the signicant terms common to all the three reference tillage tools and the regression results are also presented in Table 4. Considering the result of multiple regression analysis, the draught requirement of a reference tillage tool in a reference soil condition can be expressed as Ds r c1 c5 V d (13) The high values for coefcients of determination R2 in Table 4 indicate that the variables depth and the interaction of speed and depth in the regression explain most of the variability in the experimental data. Comparing the values of multiple regression coefcients of Eqn (13) from Table 4, it can be stated that the depth of operation contributes more than the interaction of speed and depth towards the draught for all reference tillage tools. It is also noticeable from the Eqn (13) that the contribution of speed of operation on draught is less as compared to the effect of depth. The regression coefcients of Eqn (13) are soil and tool specic.

Table 5 Multiple regression exponents of scale factors for each reference tillage toolimplement combination based on the reference soil condition; R2, coefcient of determination Reference tillage toolimplement combination a Ploughmouldboard plough Tinecultivator Discdisc gang 0 98 1 15 0 94 Multiple regression exponent b 00 00 00 c 1 98 3 05 1 66 0 928 0 993 0 978 R2

From the regression results, it is stated that the scale factor of implement width contributes more than the scale factor of soil condition towards the draught ratio. Therefore, implement width has more effect on the draught than that of soil condition at given depth and speed of operation.

4.3. Validation of the developed draught equation 4.3.1. Laboratory tests The observed and predicted values of draught for all the tillage implements tested were compared [Fig. 3(a)]. From this graph, it can be seen that the slopes of the best-tted lines (0 95 for mouldboard plough, 1 01 for cultivator and 0 96 for disc harrow) were close to unity and hence the equation developed was veried. The regression equation predicted the draught of the mouldboard plough, cultivator and disc gang with an average absolute variation of 7 0%, 6 2% and 7 5%, respectively. These variations are considered acceptable considering the errors incurred while measuring the draught and variation in soil condition. 4.3.2. Field tests The observed and predicted values of draught for all the tillage implements were compared [Fig. 3(b)]. A good general agreement between observed and predicted values of draught was found with slope 0 94, 1 07 and 0 96 and the coefcient of determination 0 88, 0 97 and 0 91 for mouldboard plough, cultivator and offset disc harrow respectively. The average absolute variations between the observed and predicted values of draught were found to be 10 6%, 10 2% and 13 2% for the mouldboard plough, cultivator and offset disc harrow respectively in both hard and soft soil conditions. These variations are due to differences in implement design, implement adjustment and soil conditions. Since the variations were less than 15%, the implement draught equation developed for sandy clay loam soil is

4.2. Effect of scale factors on draught The multiple regression analysis was carried out to obtain the regression coefcients in Eqn (12) for each reference tillage toolimplement combination and the results are presented in Table 5. It is apparent from Table 5 that the variables such as scale factors of implement width and soil cone penetration resistance in the regression do explain most of the variability in the experimental data while the scale factor of soil bulk density is not signicant. This is due to relatively low operating depth and speed of operation maintained during the laboratory tests carried out for mouldboard plough, cultivator and disc harrow. The high values of s R2 indicate a good prediction of draught ratio Dp =D for r each reference tillage toolimplement combination.

283

1500

1000

750

500 250

condition and the scale factors related to soil properties and implement width. Orthogonal and multiple regression techniques were used to develop the draught equations based on the laboratory data. The developed empirical equations were veried in the laboratory as well as in the eld conditions. This methodology produced sufciently accurate results to enable for predicting the draught requirement of prototype implements in different soil conditions. Only the reference tillage tool needs to be tested in the desired soil type at reference soil conditions. The specic conclusions drawn from the study are given as: (1) An orthogonal regression technique was used successfully to quantify the effects of speed and depth as well as the higher-order effects of speed and depth on the draught of the three reference tillage tools and hence, prototype implements. (2) The draught values of all reference tillage tools and hence, scale-model/prototype implements were found to be primarily dependent on depth of operation. The effects of speed were found to be less within the test range of speed (1 24 2 km/h), when compared to the effects of depth. (3) The relationship between the draught ratio (draught requirements of model/prototype implement in any soil condition divided by the draught requirements of reference tillage tool in reference soil condition) and scale factors of implement width and soil condition was logarithmic for all the reference implement tillage tool combination. (4) A good general agreement between observed and predicted draught values was found with the average absolute variations of 7 0%, 6 2% and 7 5% in the laboratory as compared to 10 6%, 10 2% and 13 2% in the eld for the mouldboard plough, cultivator and offset disc harrow respectively. (5) The concept of the reference tillage tool and the reference soil condition was used successfully to predict the draught requirements of various prototype implements in eld conditions with scale factors related to soil properties and implement width.

0 0

(a)

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

6000

4000

2000

0

(b)

2000

10000

Fig. 3. Comparison of observed and predicted draught values for all implements tested in (a) the laboratory (b) the field: n, mouldboard plough; &, cultivator; , disc harrow

acceptable for gathering agricultural machinery management data for selecting matching implements with tractors, estimating fuel consumption, simulating and comparing the performance of farming systems. However, more tests are required for wider acceptability of the concept for developing the draught equation for different tillage implements in other soil types.

References

ASAE Standard (2000a). ASAE D497.4. Agricultural Machinery Management Data. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA ASAE Standard (2000b). ASAE S313.3. Soil Cone Penetrometer. ASAE St. Joseph, MI, USA Bashford L L; Byerly D V; Grisso R D (1991). Draft and energy requirements of agricultural implements in semi-arid regions of Morocco. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 22(3), 7982

5. Conclusions The draught prediction equation for tillage implements was developed using the concept of the draught requirements of a reference tillage tool in a reference soil

284

Collins N E; Kemble L J; Williams T H (1978). Energy requirements for tillage on coastal plains soil. ASAE Paper No. 78-1517. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, USA Desbiolles J M A; Godwin R J; Kilgour J; Blackmore B S (1997). A novel approach to the prediction of tillage tool draught using a standard tine. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 66, 295309 Eradat-Oskoui K; Rackham D H; Witney B D (1982). The determination of plough draughtpart II. the measurement and prediction of plough draught for two mouldboard shapes in three soil series. Journal of Terramechanics, 19, 153164 Eradat-Oskoui K; Witney B D (1982). The determination of plough draughtpart I: prediction from soil and meteorological data with cone index as the soil strength parameter. Journal of Terramechanics, 19, 97106 Gebresenbet G (1989). Measurement and prediction of forces on plow bodies1. Measurement of forces and soil dynamic parameters. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Agricultural Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 15391546 Gee-Clough D; McAllister M; Pearson G; Evernden D W (1978). The empirical prediction of tractorimplement eld performance. Journal of Terramechanics, 15, 8194 Glancey J L; Upadhyaya S K (1995). An improved technique for agricultural implement draught analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 35, 175182 Glancey J L; Upadhyaya S K; Chancellor W J; Rumsey J W (1996). Prediction of agricultural implement draught using an instrumented analog tillage tool. Soil and Tillage Research, 37, 4765 Godwin R J; Reynolds A J; ODogherty M J; Al-Ghazal A A (1993). A triaxial dynamometer for force and moment measurements on tillage implements. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 55, 189205 Godwin R J; Spoor G (1977). Soil failure with narrow tines. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 22, 213228 Godwin R J; Spoor G; Soomro M S (1984). The effect of tine arrangement on soil forces and disturbances. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 30, 4756 Grisso R D; Yasin M; Kocher M F (1996). Tillage tool forces operating in silty clay loam. Transactions of the ASAE, 39, 19771982 Gupta P D; Gupta C P; Pandey K P (1989). An analytical model for predicting draft forces on convex-type cutting blades. Soil and Tillage Research, 14, 131144 Harrigan T M; Rotz C A (1995). Draft relationships for tillage and seeding equipment. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 11, 773783 Kepner R A; Bainer R; Barger E L (1982). Principle of Farm Machinery, (3rd Edn). CBS Publisher, New Delhi, India

Kheiralla A F; Yahya A; Zohadie M; Ishak W (2004). Modelling of power and energy requirements for tillage implements operating in Serdang sandy clay loam, Malaysia. Soil and Tillage Research, 78, 2134 Kydd H D; Frehlich G E; Boyden A R (1984). Tillage power requirements in Western Canada. ASAE Paper No. 84-1027, ASAE St. Joseph, MI, USA Larson L W; Lovely W G; Bockhp C W (1968). Predicting draft forces using model moldboard plows in agricultural soils. Transactions of the ASAE, 11, 665668 Luth H J; Wismer R D (1971). Performance of plane soil cutting blades in sand. Transactions of the ASAE, 14(2), 255259, 262 McKyes E (1985). Soil Cutting and Tillage. Elsevier, Amsterdam Nicholson R I; Bashford L L (1984). Energy requirements for tillage from a reference implement. ASAE Paper No. 841039. ASAE St. Joseph, MI, USA ODogherty M J (1996). The design of octagonal ring dynamometers. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 63, 918 Onwualu A P; Watts K C (1998). Draft and vertical forces obtained from dynamics soil cutting by plane tillage tools. Soil and Tillage Research, 48, 239253 Owen G T (1989). Subsoiling forces and tool speed in compact soils. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 31, 1520 Rowe R J; Barnes K K (1961). Inuence of speed on elements of draft of a tillage tool. Transactions of the ASAE, 4, 5557 Schafer R L; Reaves C A; Young D F (1969). An interpretation of distortion in the similitude of certain soil machine systems. Transactions of the ASAE, 12, 149159 Siemens J C; Weber J A; Thornburn T H (1965). Mechanics of soil as inuenced by model tillage tools. Transactions of the ASAE, 8, 17 Stafford J V (1979). The performance of a rigid tine in relation to soil properties and speed. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 24, 4157 Summer J D; Khalilian A; Batchelder D G (1986). Draft relationships for primary tillage in Oklahoma soils. Transactions of the ASAE, 29, 3739 Swick W C; Perumpral J V (1988). A model for predicting soil tool interaction. Journal of Terramechanics, 25, 4356 Upadhyaya S K; Williams T H; Kemble L J; Collins N E (1984). Energy requirements for chiseling in coastal plane soils. Transactions of the ASAE, 27, 16431649 Wang J; Kwang L; Liang T (1972). Predicting tillage tool draft using four soil parameters. Transactions of the ASAE, 15, 1923 Wheeler P N; Godwin R J (1996). Soil dynamics of single and multiple tines at speeds up to 20 km/h. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 63(3), 243250

- (1900-1915) International Tractor Disk HarrowUploaded byHerbert Hillary Booker 2nd
- European Darkness AgeUploaded bylilinika
- chinese invention notes copyUploaded byapi-207047212
- Organic Cane FarmingUploaded byGunasridharan Lakshmanan
- Ejbss 1342 14 PerceivedstressandacademicperformanceUploaded byDimasalang Perez
- The Dan Lai in Con Cuong DistrictUploaded bythiyuhs
- 16124 TillageUploaded bysaibachadha
- 02 Vibrostar EnUploaded byPaul Petrila
- Conservation Tillage and Water Productivity in EthiopiaUploaded byhaithamelramlawi7503
- Production Guide on Squash.docxUploaded bydennis
- Effect of Primary Tillage Implements on Soil Physical Properties under Maize ProductionUploaded byAJER JOURNAL
- Methods of Irrigation-057Uploaded bysurabhidivya
- AgriculturForBeginnersUploaded byLuthiart
- Hort 282 ModifiedUploaded bypriyaa2688
- Sugarcane TechnologiesUploaded byYogesh Kamat
- hess-17-5185-2013Uploaded byabi zarkasyi
- History (India and Contemporary World)Uploaded byyash
- 2217_s11_ms_23Uploaded bymstudy123456
- File 3233Uploaded byDhananjay Kumar
- Modelling of Dc SupplyUploaded byJournalNX - a Multidisciplinary Peer Reviewed Journal
- RELATING UPROOTING RESISTANCE TO STEM BASAL DIAMETERS OF PLANTS FOR EROSION MITIGATIONUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Agriculture - FinalUploaded byArianna Maouna Serneo Bernardo
- Ag Mech Surveying - DistanceUploaded byJJ Enzon
- canary_7_2015Uploaded byheralddrupal
- Culumella bookUploaded byGeorge Giannakopoulos
- Dissolved Phosphorus Fuentes 2012Uploaded byKatty Bobadilla
- nhm sheet.pdfUploaded byGAURAV
- Investigation07 Task EnUploaded byreshamega
- SPT TESTUploaded byronnie_syncin
- NameUploaded bySanj Vaishal

- Rate CalculatorUploaded bymcpayod
- canary_18_2014Uploaded byheralddrupal
- lecture 1 farm mechanizationUploaded byapi-329635784
- Production Practices for Annual CropsUploaded byThaat Boy Tchutchu
- 2016 Weed Control Guide-17h5o2iUploaded byRehab Wahsh
- Organic Crop ProductionUploaded byDejanaDekacJacimovic
- Farm Machanization Index Data Tables-1Uploaded byAyush Chopra
- horticulture.pdfUploaded bysai
- canary_24_2014Uploaded byheralddrupal
- canary_12_2017Uploaded byheralddrupal
- Country Paper BangladeshUploaded bynazren700
- juliannaUploaded byJoseph del Rosario
- Primary, Secondary Tillage and Land ModificationsUploaded byMohit Awasthi
- LecturesUploaded byMuhammad Raza
- Agri COOP Presentation on Farm Mechanization Before Parliamentary Consultative Committee (Jan-2013)Uploaded bySudeep Keshri
- lec06Uploaded byሐይማኖቴ ህያዉ ናት
- RTC Farm MechanizationUploaded byShashank Sahu
- 934-928-1-PBUploaded bymeinit
- Indian Agricultural Equipment MarketUploaded byKoncept Analytics
- yuvraj 215Uploaded bydeepak_dhondge143
- NABARD Report on Farm MechanisationUploaded bywatchabc
- WheelHorse Raider 12 owners manual 1-6231_357Uploaded byKevins Small Engine and Tractor Service
- CapacityUploaded byMd. Aminur Rahman
- Updated ReviewUploaded bythunderhoss
- Peanuts Web Links 23Uploaded byRolfe Leary
- Agriculture Manitowoc County Historical Society the Edward Ehlert Series No. 2Uploaded byHistory
- Farm Tool and EquipmentUploaded byMarvin Laurence Sunga Eriarte
- MonosemUploaded byCarmen Ioana
- Custom Hiring CentreUploaded byvenucold
- 1977GardenWayHorseTillerManualWMUploaded byRon McDonald