1

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING,

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI

NAME: TANKO BAKO

REGISTRATION NUMBER: 15/8978/PhD

COURSE: TILLAGE MACHINES AND MACHINERY (AEE 722) ASSIGNMENT 1

COURSE LECTURER: ENGR. DR. D. ADGIDZI

DATE: 20TH MAY, 2016

QUESTIONS:

With the aid of a Tractor - Implement combination, indicate all the forces:
(a) When in stationary position.
(b) When operating in a slope.
(c) Derive equation of stability for the combination.
(d) Show the forces and derive equation of the implement in operation.
(e) Explain the objectives of tillage.
(f) In the design of tillage tools in relation to soil conditions, what are the operation parameters
to be considered?
(g) Give and explain the general mathematical equation for the design of tools.
 2

SOLUTIONS:

(a) FORCES ACTING ON A TRACTOR IMPLEMENT COMBINATION IN

STATIONARY POSITION

Fig. 1: Forces acting on a tractor implement combination when in stationary position

KEY

W1= Weight of the tractor on the rear wheel.

W2= Weight of the tractor on the rear wheel.

R= Reaction exerted by the ground on the rear wheel.

Rf = Reaction exerted by the ground on the front wheel.

P= Force exerted by the implement on the tractor.

 3

(b) FORCES ACTING ON A TRACTOR IMPLEMENT COMBINATION

OPERATING IN A SLOPE

Fig. 2: Forces acting on a tractor implement combination when operating in a slope

KEY

W= Weight of the tractor at the centre of gravity.

Vf = Reaction exerted by the ground on the front wheel.

Vr = Reaction exerted by the ground on the rear wheel.

P= Force exerted by the implement on the tractor.

 4

(c) EQUATION OF STABILITY FOR TRACTOR IMPLEMENT COMBINATION

EQUATION OF STABILITY FOR TRACTOR IMPLEMENT COMBINATION IN

STATIONARY POSITION

Fig. 1: Forces acting on a tractor implement combination when in stationary position

Figure 1 represents the various forces present on a tractor operating on a level horizontal

surface with pull being horizontal and parallel to the direction of motion.

On the basis of the assumptions listed above, gravitation may be conveniently and satisfactory

represented as shown in Figure1 by the weight W1, supported by the rear wheels, and the

weight W2, supported by the front wheels, when the drawbar pull is zero. Likewise, the soil

reaction can, for the purpose of this approximate analysis, be resolved into three components R,

Rf, and F.
 5

If the tractor is considered as free body, the algebraic sum of all forces acting parallel to the

motion must equal zero:

FP=0 (1)

Likewise, the algebraic sum of all forces acting perpendicular to the direction of motion must

equal zero:

R + Rf W 1 W 2 = 0 (2)

The algebraic sum of the moments about any given axis must equal zero. The problem is

greatly simplified by summing moments about C, the intersection of the soil reactions R and F

(Figure1). The line of action of force W1 also passes through this axis. The moment equation is:

W2 x1 Py1 Rf x1 = 0 (3)

From these three equations the values of the soil reaction may be readily calculated in terms of

the tractors weight and the drawbar pull.

Solving equation 3 for Rf:

(4)

And equation 2 for R:

R = W 1 + W 2 Rf (5)

Substituting the values of Rf from equation 4 for Rf in equation 5:

(6)
 6

The stability of a tractor is, to a great extent, determined by Rf and the tractive capacity by R.

The term expresses the change in soil reactions R and Rf, resulting from the drawbar pull P. The

soil reaction R, supporting the rear wheels, increases as P increases and the soil reaction R f

decreases. This relationship is true until P becomes large enough to cause to become equal to

W2, which in turn causes Rf to become zero. Any further increase in P will cause the front

wheels to leave the ground.

Whether the tractor will become unstable and tend to turn over backward will depend on a

number of factors, such as the location of the center of gravity of the tractor and the location of

the hitch points to the tractor and to the implements being pulled.

Although there is no actual shift of weight, this change in soil reactions R1 and R2 is commonly

known as weight transfer.

If zero is substituted for R2 in equation 4 and the equation is solved for P, an expression is

obtained for the value of the drawbar pull P at which the soil reaction against the front wheel

becomes zero.

(7)
 7

EQUATION OF STABILITY FOR TRACTOR IMPLEMENT COMBINATION

OPERATING IN A SLOPE

The following analysis of the tractor in the longitudinal, vertical plane is limited to the

calculation of wheel weight during steady state operation in normal work and to the prediction

of the conditions for impending instability. Although the tractor and implement are moving, the

assumption of steady state operation implies that there are no inertia forces; the forces are doing

external work but are not causing any acceleration. Hence the principles of statics and the

conditions for static equilibrium of rigid bodies can be applied.

Three independent equations of equilibrium can be written:

i. Sum of the forces in any two perpendicular directions are zero. The two directions

usually chosen are those parallel to and perpendicular to the ground surface.

ii. Sum of the moments about any two points in the vertical longitudinal plane are zero.

The two points usually chosen are the wheel- ground contact points or the centres of the

wheels.

In simple situations it may be sufficient to consider the whole tractor as a rigid body. Where the

external forces are known the weights on the wheels can be calculated directly. However it is

sometimes convenient to consider the tractor as composed of two rigid bodies. One the drive

wheels, rotate about a centre located in the other - the chassis of the tractor. This occurs under

the action of the torque acting on them which is internally produced by the engine.

Any such analysis must apply appropriate constraints i.e., that the forces and moments on each

are equal and opposite. In this analysis, the following simple assumptions are made:
 8

i. Forward motion is uniform; this assumes constant implement forces and no acceleration.

ii. Lines of forces on wheels are either tangential or radial or may be resolved as such;

wheel sinkage and tyre distortion (but not normal tyre deflection) are neglected.

iii. Tractor is symmetrical about the longitudinal vertical plane; all the forces and moments

may be considered to act in this plane.

iv. Other forces, such as the change in position of the fuel and oil in the tractor on sloping

ground, air resistance and other minor forces are neglected.

Fig. 2: Forces acting on a tractor implement combination when operating in a slope

Consider rear wheel drive tractor on a slope as shown in Figure 2. The implement force P acts

through the point (x', y') at an angle to the ground surface.

For the tractor, take moments about C:

(8)
 9

For the wheels, take moments about C: M = H. r

Resolve parallel to the slope: H =

Substitute for M and H above:

Combining;

(9)

Similarly weight on the rear wheels (Vr) perpendicular to the slope is given by:

(10)

Explanation of Terms

The terms in Equations can be identified as follows:

Wf, Wr are the static weight on the wheels when the tractor is on the slope.

: The moment effect of the weight component down the slope, decreasing the

front wheel weight and increasing the rear.

: The moment effect of the implement force component down the slope,

decreasing the front wheel weight and increasing the rear.

: The moment effect of the implement force component perpendicular to the slope,
 10

decreasing the front wheel weight.

: The direct ( P SIN) and the moment effect of the implement force

component perpendicular to the slope, increasing the rear wheel weight.

Referring to the Equations, moment effect of the component of the drawbar pull down the slope

has two effects:

increases and decreases with moment arm y

decreases and increases with moment arm r

The net effect of is therefore the difference between these two, i.e,

This fact gives rise to the idea that if the drawbar pull acts below the rear axle, its moment,

increases Vf and holds the front of the tractor down. While this is true, it omits the

more important, unrecognised aspect that a usually larger moment, tends to

decrease the weight on the front wheels.

 11

Special Cases

The following special cases are of interest:

i. If y' increases, i.e., the point of action (i.e., the drawbar) is raised, Y decreases and

the weight transfer, increases; the tractor may reach the condition of

impending instability when Vf = 0

ii. If y' = 0, the point of action (the drawbar) is at ground level, Y = r; there is no

weight transfer due to P.

iii. If y' is negative, the point of action is below ground level (i.e., as is possible with a

three point linkage or with the drawbar in a trench), Y is greater than r, the term

becomes positive and negative ie, weight is transferred from the rear to

the front wheels.

iv. If = 0, i.e., the implement force is parallel to the ground.

v. i.e., the ground is horizontal

vi. If also, P = 0, i.e., there is no implement force

 12

Effect of Rolling Resistance:

The above analysis neglects any effect of rolling resistance. However, this can be included by

introducing force acting along the slope (opposite the direction of motion) as a further force to

be overcome by the tractor.

The rolling resistance may be expressed in terms of a coefficient () as

Here the weight will be the wheel weights perpendicular to the slope, i.e., Vf and Vr as given in

by equations above. The rolling resistance for the tractor may be estimated by combining the

effect on the front and rear wheels by considering a coefficient for the tractor as a whole.

The total tractive force

(11)

Tractive force required (for a rear wheel drive tractor) in terms of the gross tractive coefficient;
 13

(12)

WEIGHT TRANSFER WITH DIFFERENT HITCHING SYSTEMS

Considering the three common hitching systems, evaluation with respect to weight transfer can

be done, i.e., the increase in the weight on the rear wheels as a result of the implement forces.

This analysis does not take into account the weight of the implement, which is more significant

for the mounted and semi-mounted systems than for the trailed. However, it provides a valid

comparison of the relative advantages of weight transfer of the three systems on the basis of the

soil forces and of the conditions under which these advantages will be achieved.

Different types of hitch systems for a tractor are:

(i) Trailed on its own wheels

(ii) Semi-mounted on the lower links of the tractor and a rear wheel

(ii) Fully mounted on the three-point linkage.

In order to compare them it is necessary to determine the dynamic weight on the front and rear

wheels of the tractor for each system; the same soil force S, acting at an angle to the ground

surface as shown, is assumed for each.

 14

(I) TRAILED TYPE HITCH SYSTEM

Fig. 3: Tractor with trailed type hitch system

Tractor with trailed type hitch system is shown in Figure 3.

Resolving horizontally: P = S cos

Moments about Q for the tractor:

(13)

And

(14)

Weight transfer will occur if Vr> Wr, i.e., if y' is positive, i.e., if the drawbar is above ground

level; it will be increased by increasing the drawbar height, y'.

 15

(II) SEMI-MOUNTED TYPE HITCH SYSTEM

Fig. 4: Tractor with semi mounted hitch system

Tractor with semi mounted hitch system is shown in Figure 4.

Resolving horizontally: P = S cos

The dynamic weight T on the tractor drawbar is given by moments about A for the cultivator:

Where b gives the horizontal location of the soil force.

Substituting for P

The dynamic weight on the rear wheels is given by moments about Q:

 16

Substituting for T and P:

Similarly is given by;

(15)

Weight transfer will occur if Vr > Wr which will always occur unless one of the following

terms is negative and greater in magnitude than the other.

The first term will be negative if b > a, i.e., the soil force is behind the wheel. The second will

be negative if y' is negative (below ground level) and greater than z or z is negative (above

ground level) and greater than y'. All of these conditions are unlikely to occur for a semi-

mounted implement; hence weight transfer will always occur.

 17

(III) MOUNTED TYPE HITCH SYSTEM

Fig. 5: Tractor with mounted hitch system

Tractor with mounted hitch system is shown in Figure 5.

The dynamic weights Vr on the rear wheels is given by moments about Q for the tractor and

implement system as a whole:

(16)

The dynamic weight Vf on the front wheels is given by moments about O for the tractor and

implement system as a whole:

(17)

Increasing the length of mounted implements (hence increasing b) will increase the weight

transfer to the rear wheels due to the direct effect and the moment
 18

effect from the front wheels. The limit will be the length and weight that will

still allow the tractor to lift the implement without it tipping up; weights may be added to the

front of the tractor to avoid this.

Weight transfer will occur if:

This implies that weight transfer to the rear wheels will occur if the soil force passes above the

front wheel /ground contact point.

The above includes the contribution of the vertical component of the soil force (S sinto the

rear wheel weight. Another measure associated with weight transfer from the front wheels in

the mounted system is the condition that;

This implies that weight transfer from the front wheels to the rear will occur if the soil force

passes above the rear wheel / ground contact point. Further, weight transfer will increase as b

increases, i.e., the implement gets longer.

 19

(d) FORCES AND EQUATION OF IMPLEMENTS IN OPERATION

The engineers are concerned with the forces acting on a tillage implement because of:

i) Total power requirements.

ii) Proper hitching or application of pulling force.

iii) Designing for adequate strength and rigidity.

iv) To determine best shape and adjustment of tools.

A tillage implement (or tool) moving at a constant velocity is subjected to three main forces or

force system which must be in equilibrium. These are:

i) Force of gravity upon the implement.

ii) The soil forces acting upon the implement.

iii) The forces acting upon the implement and the prime mover.

If torque from rotary power transmission is not involved, the resultant of these forces is the pull

of the power unit upon implement.

Clyde sub-divides the total soil reaction into two:

Useful forces: Are those forces which the tool must overcome in cutting, breaking and

moving of soil.

Parasitic forces: Are those forces (including friction and rolling resistance) that act on

stabilizing surfaces such as land side and sole of plow or upon supporting runners or wheels.

Under given set of operating conditions with a specific implement the operator has some

control over useful soil-resistance forces. However, both designer and operator have some

control over parasitic forces.

 20

Fig. 6: Forces acting on tillage implement or tool

If tool is not symmetrical about the vertical, longitudinal plane through its center line, useful

soil forces usually introduce rotational effect.

If P = Pull exerted by power unit has components in all the major planes and associated with it

is a couple.

R = Resultant of all useful forces acting upon tool or implement.

Let us resolve the forces in three components L, S, V.

L = Horizontal component also called draft.

V = Vertical component. It removes load from the front wheel of tractor and effects on
 21

tractive ability of tractor, stability and steerability. It helps in penetration and

maintains working depth.

S = Side draft or force.Maintains directional stability on tractor and implement and affects

on draft of implement because of frictional forces.

From Figure 6;

L = R cos cos

V = R sin cos

S = R cos sin

Where;

= Angle of inclination of R in vertical plane with horizontal.

= Angle of inclination of R in transverse plane with horizontal.

For mounted implements supported and pulled by tractor, this force P between implement and

tractor in vertical plane is force containing L and V component.

P = L2 +V2

= R2 cos 2 cos 2 + R2 sin2 cos 2

= R2 cos 2 ( cos 2 + sin 2 )

= R cos

As tools are not symmetrical about vertical and longitudinal plane. There are different ways of

expressing total soil reaction on tillage tool with rotational effect.

 22

(a)

Fig. 7a: Two non-intersecting forces RL and V

(b)

Fig. 7b: One force R, plus a couple Va in a plane L to the line of motion

(c) A wrench i.e. one force plus a couple in the plane perpendicular to the force.

(d) Three forces on mutually perpendicular axes and three couples in the planes of intersection

of axes.

(e) Three forces in three major planes.

 23

Results of force measurements may be represented by any of these five methods and results

expressed in one form can be transposed to another form by method of statics.

Typical Location of Rh and its relation to the Landside Force and Pull

Following discussion force R and its components L, S, V, Rh and Rv refer to resultant of useful

soil forces Q indicates parasitic force and P, Pv , Ph and Px (draft) include effect of both useful

and parasitic forces and force of gravity.

Fig. 8a: Straight pull

Horizontal force relations

Horizontal component L equal and opposite to Rh

Rh - Resultant of L and S.

There is no side force on landside and draft = -L

 24

When horizontal Pulling force is in the direction of travel i.e. Px (draft) Parasitic side force

automatically introduced on landside to counteract S.

Qh = Resultant of side force and accompany friction force on landside.

H = Intersection of Rh and Qh.

It is the horizontal location of center of resistance of plow bottom.

Fig. 8b: Angled pull

If Pull is angled to left (Figure 8b), Ph = Component of P in horizontal plane. It increases land

side force and increase Px (draft) more.

 25

Fig. 8c: Long land side

Figure 8c, increasing the landside length Qh (Parasitic force) moves to rear. Thus, H has to be

relocated, farther back. Now H is closer to landside as line of Rh does not change. Taking most

of side force on rear furrow wheel has similar effect.

Vertical force relation

i. Mould board plow has downward acting vertical component.

ii. Magnitude of V in relation to L varies widely and influenced by soil type, soil condition,

depth of cut, share edge shape, share sharpness.

iii. Penetrating ability is important characteristic.

iv. In case of mounted and semi-mounted implements V contributes directly to vertical load on

tractor rear wheels and increases load transfer from front wheel to rear wheel.
 26

v. Shares with downward Pitch Point (extended forward beyond the line of share edge) have

greater suction (downward V) than straight shares, particularly at shallow and moderate depth.

vi. Share having top beveled - less downward V.

vii. Share having bottom beveled - more downward V.

viii. Leading portion of bottom slightly higher than rear portion reduces V and increases soil

compaction.

ANALYSIS OF FORCES ACTING ON TRACTOR TRAILER SYSTEM

Fig. 9: Schematic representation of forces acting on tractor trailer system

 27

Nomenclature

W1= weight of tractor.

W2= weight of trailer.

N1= soil reaction against the trailer wheels.

N2= soil reaction against the rear wheels of the tractor.

N3= soil reaction against the front wheels of the tractor.

R1= rolling resistance of the trailer wheels.

R2= rolling resistance of the rear wheels of the tractor.

R3= rolling resistance of the front wheels of the tractor.

Py= normal component of the drawbar pull to the tractive surface.

Px= parallel component of the drawbar pull.

F = total of net traction forces developed by rear wheels of tractor.

F2= braking force on the rear wheels of the tractor.

F3= braking force on the front wheels of the tractor.

RA= air resistance.

I1(2)= the moment of inertia of the entire tractor (trailer) about a transverse axis through

the center of gravity

a1(2)= the angular acceleration of the entire tractor (trailer).

Ir(f)= the moment of inertia of the wheels about the center of the rear (front) axle.

Iwt = the moment of inertia of the trailer about the center of the trailer axle.

af(r)= angular acceleration of the front wheels (rear wheels).

awt = angular acceleration of the trailer wheels.

ah = the acceleration of the center of gravity in the direction of motion (w.r.t. earth).
 28

av = the acceleration of the center of gravity in the direction normal to the tractive surface.

b = angle of the uphill grade relative to horizontal.

c = coefficient of rolling resistance.

m = traction coefficient.

y1= height of the center of gravity of trailer above the ground.

y2= height of the tractor hitch point above the ground.

y3= height of the center of gravity of tractor above the ground.

y4= height of the air resistance.

x1= distance of center of gravity of trailer forward of the axle of the trailer.

x2= distance of axle of trailer rearward of the hitch point.

x3= distance of hitch point rearward of the rear axle of the tractor.

x4= distance of center of gravity of tractor forward of the rear axle of the tractor.

x5= wheel base of the tractor.

Rf(r)= radius of the front (rear) wheels of the tractor.

Rt= radius of the trailer wheels.

General Equilibrium Equations

A rear wheel drive tractor in combination with a single axle trailer was considered in this study

(Figure 9). The analysis was based on the following assumptions:

1- Line of action of the drawbar pull, P, located midway between the traction wheels and

parallel to the direction of motion.

2- Line of action of the normal soil reaction passes through the center of wheels.

3- Lines of action of the traction forces and rolling resistances are tangent to the wheels.
 29

The equations of motion are:

For Tractor

Summation of forces parallel to the direction of motion gives:

Likewise, summation of forces in the direction normal to the tractive surface gives:

Also, summation of moments about the point of intersection of all forces at the rear wheel-soil

interface

For The Trailer

Summation of forces parallel and in the direction normal to the tractive surface gives:

Summation of moments about the point of intersection of all forces at the rear wheel-soil

interface gives:
 30

(e) OBJECTIVES OF TILLAGE

Tillage is the mechanical manipulation of soil to provide favourable condition for crop

production. It breaks the compact surface of earth to certain depth and loosens the soil mass so

that roots of the crop penetrate and spread into the soil. These include ploughing, harrowing,

mechanical destruction of weeds and breaking of soil crust.

Classification of Tillage: Tillage can be classified into (a) primary tillage (b) secondary tillage.

(a) Primary Tillage: The operation performed to open up any cultivable land with a view to

prepare a seedbed for growing crops, is termed as primary tillage. It is normally designed to

reduce soil strength, cover plant materials and rearrange aggregates. The various equipments

used for primary tillage are mould board plough, disc plough, heavy- duty disc harrow, chisel

plough and rotavator.

(b) Secondary Tillage: Lighter and finer operations performed on the soil after primary tillage,

are termed as secondary tillage. These operations are generally performed on surface soil. Very

little inversion and shifting of soil takes place and consequently less power requirement per unit

area. Implements are disc/other harrows, cultivators, sweeps, tillers etc.

Tillage operations following primary tillage which are performed to create proper soil tilth for

seeding and planting are secondary tillage. These are lighter and finer operations, performed on

the soil after primary tillage operations. Secondary tillage consists of conditioning the soil to

meet different tillage objectives. The implements used for secondary tillage operations are

called secondary tillage implements. Secondary tillage operations do not cause much soil

inversion and shifting of soil from one place to other. These operations consume less power per
 31

unit area compared to primary tillage operations. Secondary tillage is stirring of soil

comparatively at shallow depth.

Main Objectives of Tillage

i. To obtain deep seed bed, suitable for different type of crops. A granular structure is

desirable to allow rapid infiltration and good retention of rainfall, to provide

adequate air capacity and exchange within the soil.

ii. To control weeds or to remove unwanted crop plants (thinning).

iii. To manage plant residues, thorough mixing of trash will add humus and fertility of

soil, while retention of trash on surface reduces erosion.

iv. To minimize soil erosion by following such practices as contour tillage, listing and

proper placement of trash.

v. To establish specific surface configurations for planting, irrigating, drainage and

harvesting operation.

vi. To incorporate and mix fertilizers, pesticides or soil amendments into the soil.

vii. To accomplish segregation. This may involve moving the soil from one layer to

another, removal of rocks and other foreign objects or root harvesting.

Objectives of Secondary Tillage

a. To improve seedbed by better pulverization of soil.

b. To destroy weeds.

c. To cut the crop residue and mix vegetative matter in top soil.

d. To break clods making the soil tilth better for better germination of seeds.
 32

e. To aerate the soil. The soil should not be compacted because it will affect

germination.

(f) PARAMETERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE DESIGN OF TILLAGE TOOLS IN

RELATION TO SOIL CONDITIONS

Tillage is the manipulation of soil by mechanical forces. The purpose of tillage tool design is to

create a mechanical system, that is, a tillage machine or a series of machines capable of

controlling the applied forces in order to achieve a desired soil condition. As a matter of

definition, a tillage tool will be considered a single soil working element whereas a tillage

implement or machine will be considered a group of soil-working elements. A tillage

implement or machine will include the frame, wheels, or other structural units that are needed

for guidance and support. Although tillage is nearly always effected with an implement, the

emphasis here will be on the design of tillage tools rather than implements.

The pressing need for design information has demanded that methods for design be developed.

In fact, the need is so great that qualitative procedures have been and still are widely used. The

qualitative procedures have often been based on art rather than science. That these procedures

must be changed if progress is to be made in tillage tool design, is clearly demonstrated by the

history of tillage tools.

Basic tools such as the forked stick date back into antiquity; yet, they are still found in their

original form in many parts of the world. Even in more advanced societies, today, the

moldboard plow is designed by empirical methods. Generally, these empirical methods are

trial-and-error attempts; the tool is varied in some manner and acceptable designs are identified
 33

when the resulting soil condition is adjudged to be satisfactory. Quantitative descriptions or

representations of the final soil condition are seldom used and, in addition, the forces required

to move the tool are frequently not quantitatively assessed. Generally, no effort is made to

describe the reaction of the soil. Consequently, design today merely accepts what occurs; it

does not control what occurs. Thus, even though the need for design is great, design in the true

sense of the word is not accomplished and probably will not be accomplished until quantitative

information is available.

To illustrate the pressing need for design information, consider the economic possibilities of the

results of better design. In the United States, more than 250 billion tons of soil is estimated to

be stirred or turned each year. To plow this soil once requires 500 million gallons of gasoline

costing $105 million. If proper design could decrease the draft of the plow only 1 percent, a

savings in direct operating cost of $1 million per plowing would result. If soil manipulation can

be controlled by proper design so that subsequent operations may be minimized or even

eliminated, additional savings would result. Control cannot be assigned realistic dollar values

today because its economic effects are not known. The benefits of control in road building, land

leveling, and plant growth, however, must be considered.

DESIGN PARAMETERS (FACTORS)

In tillage tool design, a limited number of abstract factors become of primary importance. In

order to utilize the capability of soil for some specific purpose, the soil must be manipulated

(changed, moved, or formed) to a desired condition. The manipulation is accomplished with a

tillage tool by moving the tool through the soil. To obtain different final soil conditions, only

the shape of the tool and the manner of moving the tool can be varied.
 34

The major design factors that define the soil manipulation are,

1. initial soil conditions,

2. shape of the tillage tool, and

3. manner of moving the tool

4. forces required to move the tillage tool through the soil

5. results of the manipulation i.e., the final soil conditions

The first three factors are not clearly defined in a quantitative sense although qualitatively they

represent distinct and complete elements in tillage tool design. Hence, they are called abstract

design factors.

Unlike the above three design factors, the forces can be quantitatively defined. These forces are

not those that are applied to the soil; they are those that must be applied to the tool to move it.

The tool, in turn, applies equal but opposite forces to the soil. The five design factors represent

the five elements that are of direct concern and, hence, of importance to a tillage tool designer.

Relations between the various design factors provide a means for designing a tillage tool. These

relations can be qualitatively determined from available knowledge of the physical action of a

tool that is manipulating soil. The concept of a mathematical function is useful in representing

the relations. Two real variables are mathematically defined to be functionally related within

some range if a definite single value of one of the real variables corresponds with a definite

single value of the other variable according to some rule. The rule that prescribes the

corresponding value is the functional relation.

 35

The concept can be extended to several variables. A functional relation exists if a definite single

value for each independent variable corresponds to a definite single value for a dependent

variable according to some rule. For example, if a dependent variable is a function of four

independent variables, specifying the value of each of the four independent variables

determines the value of the dependent variable. Consider the number of single value

correspondence rules possible for the five design factors. If tool shape is physically varied but

the manner of movement, and the initial soil conditions are kept constant, the forces required to

move the tool and the resulting soil conditions vary as tool shape is varied. Furthermore, for

each value of tool shape, a definite value of the forces and final soil condition exists. If a

definite value does not exist, no unique law of nature exists. Available knowledge indicates that

some kind of law does exist and tool shape does affect tool forces and the resultant soil

condition. Thus, in mathematical terms, shape, forces, and final soil condition are functionally

related.

The purpose of the tillage tool is to manipulate a soil as required to achieve a desired soil

condition. There are three abstract design factors namely, i. initial soil condition, ii. tool shape

and, iii. manner of tool movement. These three design factors control or define the soil

manipulation. The results of these three input factors are evidenced by two output factors,

namely, i. the final soil condition and, ii. the forces required to manipulate the soil. All five

factors are of direct concern to a tillage implement designer.

Of the three input factors, the designer has complete control only on the tool shape. The user

may vary the depth or speed of operation and may use the tool through a wide range of soil

initial conditions. However, tool shape cannot be considered independently of the manner of
 36

movement or initial soil condition. The orientation of a tool shape with respect to the direction

of travel must be defined. Different initial soil condition sometime requires different shapes.

For example many different shapes of the mould board plows have been developed for different

soil types and conditions.

The shape that is of concern in design is the surface over which the soil moves as a tillage tool

is operated. Gill and Vanden Berg classify three shape characteristics as i. macroshape, ii.

edgeshape and iii. microshape. The term macroshape designates the shape of the gross surface.

The edgeshape refers to the peripheral and cross-sectional shape of the boundaries of the soil

working surface. Notched and smooth disk blades have different edgeshape but the macroshape

may be the same. The microshapes refer to the surface roughness.

Most tillage tool have been developed by cut-and-try methods on the basis of qualitative

analysis. The manipulation-shape relation has received has greatest emphasis in the

development of the mould board plow bottoms, whereas force shape relations have been of

concern in subsoilers and chisel type tools. Mathematical description of the shapes are the most

versatile means of representation, but tools such as mouldboard plough have complex shapes

that cannot easily be representative in mathematical form. Graphic representation is often

employed for plow bottoms, although mathematical analysis has been attempted and computer

analysis of plow-bottom shapes is increasing.

The shape of the cutting edge can materially affect draft as well as vertical and lateral

components of soil forces. For example, disk blades sharpened from the concave side penetrate

more readily than blades sharpened from the convex side. Worn plowshares reduce the vertical

downward force V, tend to cause soil compaction, and sometimes substantially increase draft.
 37

The roughness of a surface over which soil slides (microshapes) influences friction forces.

Surface roughness is related to the initial polish and the effect of abrasive wear, and may result

locally from the rust, scratches, or small depressions. Frictional resistance can account for as

much as 30% of the total draft of a mould board plow. Microshapes can also have an important

effect on other aspects of soil movement, such as scouring.

(g) GENERAL MATHEMATICAL EQUATION FOR THE DESIGN OF TOOLS

When designing a tillage tool for the purpose of establishing a new soil condition, our interest is

no longer concentrated on the dynamic progress of the reaction of soil per se but rather on a soil

tillage tool system and on the results of the reaction--the final soil condition. In design, an

accurate description of how soil reacts is not essential. But the results of the reaction and what

can be done to control the reaction are essential. Therefore, for design, our scope of interest

must be concentrated on a quantitative description of the final soil condition and on how the

manipulation can be controlled.

RELATION BETWEEN SOIL AND TOOL FACTOR IN DESIGN

Consider the situation where the tool shape and manner of movement are kept constant but soil

conditions are physically varied. Available knowledge indicates that for each initial soil

condition (a single value), definite tool forces are required and a definite final soil condition

results. A functional relation between initial soil condition, tool forces, and resultant soil

condition represents the situation. By similar reasoning, the manner of tool movement, tool

forces, and resultant soil condition are also functionally related. Consider the possibility of

physically varying tool forces for constant tool shape, manner of movement, and initial soil
 38

condition. Available knowledge indicates that in a constant initial soil condition, the forces

cannot be varied unless tool shape or manner of movement is changed. If a tool is operated in a

soil whose condition is constant and the tool forces are not sufficiently large, the tool cannot be

moved. If the forces are too large, the tool will be accelerated or its path of movement changed.

Tool shape, manner of movement, and the initial soil condition, therefore, completely determine

the magnitude of the forces required to move the tool. In a similar manner, tool shape, manner

of movement, and the initial soil condition completely determine the resultant soil condition.

Mathematically, tool shape, manner of movement, and the initial soil condition are independent

variables. The tool forces and resultant soil condition are each dependent variables, and they are

mathematical functions of the same independent variables.

The implied relation between design factors is schematically represented in figure 10.

Fig. 10: Relation between soil and tool factors in design

 39

The generalized tillage relation can be mathematically represented by the two equations

Where,

F = forces on the tool to cause movement,

Ts = tool shape,

Tm = manner of tool movement,

Si = initial soil condition,

f = functional relation between F, Ts, Tm, Si

Sf = final soil condition,

g = functional relation between Sf, Ts, Tm, Si.

Equation (1) is force tillage equation and equation (2) is soil condition tillage equation. The two

equations represent the most general situation because, as written, the functional relations f and

g are completely arbitrary. Furthermore, the two functions may or may not be different. The

independence of the functional relations is of interest because of a possible higher order

functional relation between F and Sf. If F and Sf are functionally related, equations 1 and 2 can

be combined so that the relation between the design variables is represented by only one

equation. Available knowledge does not conclusively indicate whether F and S f should be

related. The possibility thus exists that two separate equations inaccurately represent the

generalized relations between the design factors.

 40

Available mathematical knowledge helps to resolve the situation. Available mathematical

theorems prove that F and Sf will be related only if the nature of f and g is such that their

Jacobian is zero. Furthermore, the mathematics provides a means for determining the higher

order relation if it exists. Thus, no mathematical restrictions are imposed on the possible

functional relations if two equations are used. Two equations actually simplify the situation

since each can be studied independently, although physically both equations operate

simultaneously. From Equations 1 and 2, it is found that F and Sf are both dependent variables

of the same independent variables. The general relation between the five design factors is,

therefore, accurately represented by equations 1 and 2.

When designing a tillage tool for the purpose of establishing a new soil condition, our interest is

no longer concentrated on the dynamic progress of the reaction of soil per se but rather on a soil

tillage tool system and on the results of the reaction-the final soil condition. In design, an

accurate description of how soil reacts is not essential. But the results of the reaction and what

can be done to control the reaction are essential. Therefore, for design, our scope of interest

must be concentrated on a quantitative description of the final soil condition and on how the

manipulation can be controlled. The design factors and their relations indicated by equations 1

and 2 represent the desired quantitative descriptions for a scope of interest concerned with

design.

The circle (Figure 10) hypothetically illustrates a change in our scope of interest. Inside the

circle, the soil may be visualized as being manipulated. Forces cause the manipulation, so our

scope of interest, centers on describing the reaction of soil to forces. Outside the circle, the
 41

results of the final soil condition and the control of the manipulation are of primary concern.

The design scope of interest is thus represented by quantities operating outside the circle.

The procedural framework for designing a tillage tool is contained in equations 1 and 2.

Knowledge of the functions represented in the equations would permit a designer to use

equation 2 to determine the resulting soil condition and equation 1 to determine the forces

required to move the tillage tool. By simultaneously considering both equations, the possible

tool shapes and movements could be optimized to effect the desired manipulation with

minimum force. Since the functions are not yet known, the equations cannot be used directly

for design. Even in their generalized functional form, however, they inherently establish

guidelines for empirical design procedures.

The total differential of equation of 1 is

------------------------ (3)

and similarly the total differential of equation 2 is

----------------------- (4)

Equations 3 and 4 give the reasoning behind qualitative design procedures. For example, the

shape of a tillage tool can be varied and the tool in each of its various shapes can be operated in

a soil of uniform condition. If the movement of the tool is not changed (depth, width, speed,

etc.), any change in the forces required to move the tool or any change in the results of the
 42

manipulation must come from the change in its shape. The conclusion is valid because

equations 3 and 4 become, respectively,

since dTm and dSi are both zero for the conditions of the observations. If one particular shape

produces a soil manipulation that is judged to be superior, a description of that shape provides

useful design information. Only the shape would need to be quantitatively described; the forces

and the resulting soil change would not. The tool with the selected shape could be operated in

various soil conditions to verify its action. If the required forces and the resultant soil

manipulation were judged satisfactory, it could be concluded that the selected shape is an

acceptable design for these soil conditions. Describing the soil conditions even in qualitative

terms provides additional design information that can be associated with the description of the

shape. Such procedures have led to the development of sod bottoms, general purpose bottoms,

and slat bottoms for moldboard plows. The procedures were qualitative because numerical

descriptions of all of the design factors were not necessarily used and no attempt was made to

relate the design factors. Quantitative design procedures involve numerically relating the design

factors to each other. If F and Ts are measured (numerically assessed) in circumstances that are

accurately represented by equation 5, a unique relation between F and Ts must exist. The

relation can be represented graphically by plotting the variables against each other. The plot

results in a curve that represents the relation, and the equation for the curve is the solution of

the differential equation in equation 5. The relation between Sf and Ts could be developed in a
 43

similar manner. Repeating the measurements in different soil conditions results in the

development of a family of curves with each curve representing a constant soil condition. If the

soil conditions are quantitatively described, relations between F and Si and Sf and Si for

constant tool shape can be obtained. The equations that describe the relations provide the

solutions to equations 3 and 4 when only the soil is varied. In a similar manner, tool movement

can be varied when tool shape and initial soil conditions are constant to again provide equations

to describe the indicated relations. Conceivably, all of these equations could be simultaneously

considered or combined so that ultimately equations 1 and 2 could be developed. Quantitative

design procedures, therefore, can lead to the development of the functions f and g in the tillage

equations.

A certain group of tillage tools can be described geometrically by one equation or more. For

example, all disks made from sections of spheres can be described by the equation for a sphere.

The radius of the sphere and the limits that describe the section of the sphere from which the

disk is made (diameter of the disk) become parameters of the geometrical description equations.

Specifying a particular disk fixes the parameters of geometrical description equations just, as

specifying a particular soil condition fixes the parameters of dynamic property equations. The

system of equations forms a mechanics, and the solution of the system of equations can be

obtained in terms of the parameters of both the soil (dynamic parameters) and the tool

(geometrical parameters). The solution will be a tillage equation. From such a generalized

solution, the effects of varying either the soil conditions for a specific tool or the tool for a fixed

soil condition could be determined.

 44

Another possible application of a general solution would be to consider only one specific tool.

The path of motion could be expressed by equations, then mathematically varied, and the

results determined. An elementary example of this approach would be in varying width and

depth of operation. A generalized solution of the system of equations in terms of the parameters

of soil (dynamic parameters) and path of motion parameters thus provides another tillage

equation. In this instance the effects of varying either the soil path in fixed soil conditions or the

soil conditions for a fixed soil path could be determined. The general procedure described here

provides a means for determining tillage equations to form a soil tillage tool mechanics.

Since many design equations must, exist, a technique for representing a design factor may aid

in developing tillage equations. Recall that behavior equations were said to contain parameters,

and these parameters assessed the contribution of the material to the behavior. In a similar

manner, parameters of tillage equations can be used to represent one of the independent design

factors.

To illustrate the technique, consider a situation where equation 5 is applicable. Assume that a

relation between F and Ts is experimentally obtained and is graphically represented. The

resulting curve represents the relation between F and Ts at a constant soil condition and a

constant manner of movement. If the measurements are repeated in a different soil condition the

resulting curve probably will be different. By repeating the measurements in several soil

conditions, a series of curves can be developed. The difference between curves reflects the

difference between initial soil conditions. Assume that the curves are all similar and that an

equation can be developed that represents the curves. The equation that describes all of the

curves can be said to be a general equation. To be a general equation, rather than a specific
 45

equation, it must contain parameters. These parameters will numerically assess the initial soil

condition. For example, if the relation between F and Ts is linear, the intercept and slope are

parameters of the equation and they would numerically assess Si in the tillage equation. Each

different soil condition will have a different slope and intercept. If the manner of tool

movement were changed, rather than initial soil conditions, a different family of curves would

result. Developing a general equation to represent the curves again will define parameters. In

this case they will assess the manner of movement rather than the initial soil condition. In short,

the technique provides a means to numerically define and assess one of the independent

variables in the tillage equation.

The technique has one serious limitation. Just as behavior equations define behavior

parameters, so tillage equations define design parameters. Consequently, the design parameters

are defined by the soil-tillage tool system. In order to assess the parameters, a particular tool

must be physically operated in a manner that simulates the system being represented. Once the

parameters have been assessed, all similar tools can be described by the equations. The cutting

parameters were defined by the mechanics of cutting rather than by a behavior equation. The

limitation could possibly be minimized if the design parameters could be related to some other

defined factor in the system. For example, if the design parameters assess the soil, they must be

determined by the material and state properties of the soil just as dynamic behavior parameters

must be determined by these same soil properties. Establishing the relation would overcome the

limitation of the technique.

The need for design information and the complexity of the relations involved between the

design factors clearly indicate that both the empirical approach and the derived approach should
 46

be simultaneously followed. Each approach requires certain facilities and interests. The

empirical approach requires facilities for keeping soil condition constant and for producing

various shapes of tools and equipment for controlling the manner of movement. As equations 3

and 4 indicate, control must be sufficient so that any change in F or Sf can be attributed to the

correct design factor. In the derived approach, soil behavior can often be studied with small

samples of soil and rather simple apparatus. A mechanics based on behavior equations can be

developed with only a pencil and paper. Facilities and personal interest, therefore, should partly

determine the approach to follow. In the empirical approach, however, emphasis must be placed

on establishing quantitative relations. Only when design information must be immediately

available should qualitative empirical procedures be followed. Qualitative procedures can never

lead to the information needed for design where control of soil manipulation is possible.

Finally, one should recognize that a complete understanding of the general behavior of soil

reacting to a tillage tool can be obtained only from knowledge based on scientific principles.

Such principles can never be deduced from an empirical description of general behavior.

Therefore, the derived approach will ultimately have to be fully developed before a complete

understanding of the soil-tillage tool system can be attained.

 47

REFERENCES

Anantha, Krishnan D. (2015). Mechanics of Tillage and Traction. Agricultural Engineering

College and Research Institute, TNAU, Coimbatore. E-mail: tnauananth@yahoo.com

Macmillan, R. H. (2002). The Mechanics of Tractor - Implement Performance, theory and

Worked Examples. A Textbook for Students and Engineers. Agricultural Engineering

International Development Technologies Centre, University of Melbourne.

http://www.eprints.unimelb.edu.au

Manjit, Singh (2016). Tractor Design and Testing. Department of Farm Machinery and Power

Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana. E-mail: manjeet@pau.edu

Ritu, Dogra (2016). Farm Machinery and Equipment I. Department of Farm Machinery and

Power Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana. E-mail: ritudogra@pau.edu

Rohinish, Khurana (2016). Tractor Systems and Controls. Department of Farm Machinery and

Power Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana. E-mail: rohinish_244@hotmail.com