Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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:
STATIONARY POSITION
KEY
OPERATING IN A SLOPE
KEY
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
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
(4)
R = W 1 + W 2 Rf (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
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
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
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
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
iv. Other forces, such as the change in position of the fuel and oil in the tractor on sloping
Consider rear wheel drive tractor on a slope as shown in Figure 2. The implement force P acts
(8)
9
Combining;
(9)
Similarly weight on the rear wheels (Vr) perpendicular to the slope is given by:
(10)
Explanation of Terms
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
: The moment effect of the implement force component down the slope,
: The moment effect of the implement force component perpendicular to the slope,
10
: The direct ( P SIN) and the moment effect of the implement force
Referring to the Equations, moment effect of the component of the drawbar pull down the slope
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
Special Cases
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
ii. If y' = 0, the point of action (the drawbar) is at ground level, Y = r; there is no
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 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
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.
(11)
Tractive force required (for a rear wheel drive tractor) in terms of the gross tractive coefficient;
13
(12)
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.
(ii) Semi-mounted on the lower links of the tractor and a rear wheel
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
(13)
And
(14)
Weight transfer will occur if Vr> Wr, i.e., if y' is positive, i.e., if the drawbar is above ground
The dynamic weight T on the tractor drawbar is given by moments about A for the cultivator:
Substituting for P
(15)
Weight transfer will occur if Vr > Wr which will always occur unless one of the following
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-
The dynamic weights Vr on the rear wheels is given by moments about Q for the tractor and
(16)
The dynamic weight Vf on the front wheels is given by moments about O for the tractor and
(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
This implies that weight transfer to the rear wheels will occur if the soil force passes above the
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
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
The engineers are concerned with the forces acting on a tillage implement because of:
A tillage implement (or tool) moving at a constant velocity is subjected to three main forces or
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
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
If tool is not symmetrical about the vertical, longitudinal plane through its center line, useful
If P = Pull exerted by power unit has components in all the major planes and associated with it
is a couple.
V = Vertical component. It removes load from the front wheel of tractor and effects on
21
S = Side draft or force.Maintains directional stability on tractor and implement and affects
From Figure 6;
L = R cos cos
V = R sin cos
S = R cos sin
Where;
For mounted implements supported and pulled by tractor, this force P between implement and
P = L2 +V2
= R cos
As tools are not symmetrical about vertical and longitudinal plane. There are different ways of
(a)
(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.
Results of force measurements may be represented by any of these five methods and results
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
Rh - Resultant of L and S.
When horizontal Pulling force is in the direction of travel i.e. Px (draft) Parasitic side force
If Pull is angled to left (Figure 8b), Ph = Component of P in horizontal plane. It increases land
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
ii. Magnitude of V in relation to L varies widely and influenced by soil type, soil condition,
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.
viii. Leading portion of bottom slightly higher than rear portion reduces V and increases soil
compaction.
Nomenclature
I1(2)= the moment of inertia of the entire tractor (trailer) about a transverse axis through
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.
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.
m = traction coefficient.
x1= distance of center of gravity of trailer forward of the axle of the trailer.
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.
A rear wheel drive tractor in combination with a single axle trailer was considered in this study
1- Line of action of the drawbar pull, P, located midway between the traction wheels and
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
For Tractor
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
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
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,
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
(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
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
i. To obtain deep seed bed, suitable for different type of crops. A granular structure is
iii. To manage plant residues, thorough mixing of trash will add humus and fertility of
iv. To minimize soil erosion by following such practices as contour tillage, listing 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
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.
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 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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
employed for plow bottoms, although mathematical analysis has been attempted and computer
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
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
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
The implied relation between design factors is schematically represented in figure 10.
The generalized tillage relation can be mathematically represented by the two equations
Where,
Ts = tool shape,
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
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
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,
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
------------------------ (3)
----------------------- (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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
REFERENCES
http://www.eprints.unimelb.edu.au
Manjit, Singh (2016). Tractor Design and Testing. Department of Farm Machinery and Power
Ritu, Dogra (2016). Farm Machinery and Equipment I. Department of Farm Machinery and
Rohinish, Khurana (2016). Tractor Systems and Controls. Department of Farm Machinery and