Tillage Mechanics COMPLETE NOTES
Tillage Mechanics COMPLETE NOTES
Tillage Mechanics COMPLETE NOTES
Chapter 4
in Soil Dynamics in Tillage and Traction, Agriculture Handbook No. 316, pp.117-210.
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
4.1 Introduction
Tillage tools are mechanical devices that are used to apply forces
to the soil to cause some desired effect such as pulverization, cutting,
inversion, or movement of the soil. Tillage tools usually produce
several effects simultaneously. The ultimate aim of tillage is to
manipulate a soil from a known condition into a different desired
condition by mechanical means.
The objective of a mechanics of tillage tools is to provide a
method for describing the application of forces to the soil and for
describing the soil’s reaction to the forces. An accurate mechanics
would provide a method by which the effects could be predicted and
controlled by the design of a tillage tool or by the use of a sequence
of tillage tools. Furthermore, the efficiency and economy of the
tillage operation could be evaluated from the mechanics. A tho-
rough knowledge of the basic forces and reactions is required to
develop the mechanics. Such knowledge is not available at present,
and soil reactions cannot even be predicted, let alone controlled. As
a result, an operation is performed, the conditions are arbitrarily
evaluated, and additional operations are performed in sequence until
the conditions are adjudged to be adequate. Thus, today, tillage
is more an art than a science.
Progress has been made, however, in developing mechanics where
simple tools or simple actions are involved and where forces and re-
actions can be described. This chapter presents several approaches
that have been used to develop simple forms of soil-tillage tool
mechanics. Only homogeneous soil conditions are considered. Al-
though this approach is completely unrealistic, it does not negate the
results of the studies. Complete knowledge of reactions for a homo-
geneous soil will provide a basis for solving problems dealing with
layered soils. Interactions of importance will probably occur, but
they should not present unsurmountable obstacles. The approaches
discussed in this chapter do not represent any final solution of the
problems that are posed. The approaches, however, do represent
those that have been utilized and those that may contribute to the
development of a successful mechanics of tillage tools.
4.2 The Reaction of Soil to Tillage Tools
The reaction of soil to a tillage tool can be quantitatively described
only by a mechanics. Visualize the soil as a continuous semi-infini-
tive mass composed of air, water, and solids arranged in some homo-
geneous manner. As a tool advances in the soil, the soil reacts
to the tool and some action occurs. For example, the soil may move
as a mass, the solids may displace the air or water, or the solids may
117
118 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
and bulk modulus and shear modulus are behavior parameters de-
fined by the equations that characterize the material. Simultaneous
consideration of the three behavior equations (note that stress-strain
behavior is simple even though the equations are mathematically
complex), together with all of the associated boundary conditions,
provides a basis for a mechanics. The solution of the system of
equations will account for the possible interaction. Interactions
can, therefore, influence the procedure for developing a mechanics.
Certain generalizations for developing a mechanics based on be-
havior equations can be concluded from the discussion of the New-
tonian examples and can be summarized under three points: (1)
The action to be quantitatively described must be defined. (2) The
behavior involved in the action to be described must be recognized.
(3) In most circumstances the behavior must be incorporated into a
mechanics that describes the action. Point S-recognizing the be-
havior involved-is by far the most difficult of the three points,
because recognition usually implies selection. Defining the action,
however, must be accomplished first, so it is discussed first.
The action to be described is defined by interest from outside the
action. A problem to be solved, curiosity, or merely a quest for
knowledge are sources of interest. In the example of the projectile,
interest determines whether the path of motion of each mathematical
point of the projectile must be described or whether only the path
of motion of the center of mass must be described. No set procedure
can be established for defining an action because the procedure
usually embodies simply defining the problem. Personal interest
and the nature of the action itself will influence the definition.
Until the action (defined here as the doing of something) has been
at least qualitatively defined, however, the problem of quantitatively
describing the action cannot be undertaken.
In any action known to man today, more than one behavior is
involved. Behavior is defined here as any phenomenon that can be
identified, isolated, and studied so that a behavior equation can be
written to quantitatively describe the phenomenon. Thus, Ohm’s
Law, stress-strain equations, and Newton’s Second Law of Motion
are examples of behavior in the sense defined here. We know from
available knowledge that a rigid body is not really rigid. Strain
always occurs so that the concept of rigidity is relative. Similarly,
a body that strains and is assumed to be continuous is really not
continuous. The body is built up of crystals or aggregates formed
from molecules that are, in turn, formed from atoms. When the
action to be described concerns so-called rigid body movements, all
of the smaller behaviors (smaller because of the physical size of
their sphere of influence) can usually be ignored. Even when the
action to be described is in the realm of the atomic dimensions, today
we know that the atom has a nucleus and the nucleus itself is being
subdivided. Presumably, behavior equations must exist for particles
within the nucleus; therefore, any action known today probably
involves more than one behavior.
No unique system or structure of behavior equations exists. Such
a structure can be developed only when matter itself can be abso-
lutely defined. If, for example, the makeup of the nucleus itself
were precisely determined, matter could perhaps be absolutely de-
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 121
fined. Even if such a structure did exist, its practicalit would be
limited. The practical limitation was clearly stated by Dirac, who
is one of the founders of quantum mechanics ( 112 ). Quantum
mechanics deals with the motions of electrons or nuclei inside atoms
and molecules. The sphere of influence of the mechanics is thus
small. Dirac, as quoted by Eliezer, stated: “The general theory of
quantum mechanics is now almost complete . . . . the underlying laws
necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and
the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty
is only that the exact solution of these laws leads to equations much
too complicated to be soluble.”
Because no unique structure exists, because of the mathematical
complexity of the structure, and because more than one behavior
is always involved, two guidelines for choosing behavior involved
in an action are indicated. First, the choice of behavior must be
arbitrary. In other words, for any specific action most of the be-
havior can be ignored. Second, the mathematical complexity sug-
gests choosing behavior where the inputs and outputs of the behavior
equation are as close as possible to the factors that will describe
the action. For example, stress and strain do not lend themselves
to describing the path of motion of a projectile.
Within these two guidelines several qualifications must be in-
cluded. Only one behavior equation may be required to determine
an accurate description of the action. If an interaction exists, how-
ever, an accurate description will require additional behavior equa-
tions. The added behavior equations may be very remote from
factors that describe the action; if they are, the second guideline
must be amended. The elastic spinning projectile illustrates such
a situation. Sacrificing accuracy of the description of the action,
however, may permit ignoring the interaction. The arbitrariness of
the behavior structure, the requirement of mathematical simplicity,
and the possibility of interaction-all indicate that judgment, in-
genuity, and perhaps some luck are needed when choosing behavior
to describe an action.
Incorporating behavior into a mechanics is the final generalization
in procedures for developing a mechanics. If the action to be
described can be closely represented by a behavior equation, no
mechanics is required. Ohm’s Law completely represents the action
of current flowing through a simple conductor. If, however, a net-
work of conductors is constructed, a mechanics is required to describe
the action of the network. But the fundamental behavior of the
network itself and every element in the network is represented by
Ohm's Law. As simple an action as a falling body requires a
mechanics so that even when only one behavior equation is required,
a mechanics must often be developed.
When more than one behavior equation is required, a mechanics
is required to combine the behavior equations. Just as no specific
procedure can be given for defining an action, so no specific pro-
cedures can be given for combining behavior equations. Each
situation has its own peculiarities. As suggested in the example of
the projectile, including a second behavior equation may so change
the result of the mechanics that little similarity remains. While
the details of procedure will vary, combining behavior equations
122 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
thetical forces that act on the segment of soil as it reacts to the ad-
vancing tool. In essence, the behavior outputs have been specified.
Locating failure surfaces specifies the orientation and location of the
force inputs that cause the assumed behavior. The magnitude of the
forces has not been specified. Forces CF1 and µN1 are due to soil
shear and are those present at the instant incipient shear failure
occurs. Forces due to soil-metal friction (µ'Nº) and acceleration
(B) are also present. Soehne visualized a pure resistance of the soil
to being split by the cutting edge of the, tool (kb). Thus, in prin-
ciple, the simple behavior outputs have been specified in figure 78,
and they represent the complex reaction of the soil to an inclined-
plane tillage tool.
By using the notation in figure 78, an equilibrium equation can be
written for the forces in the horizontal direction acting on the in-
clined tool. The forces on the tool itself are not shown in figure 78,
but the would be the forces reacting to those acting between the
soil and tool and the draft. Equilibrium gives
(57)
where W = draft force,
µ' = coefficient of soil-metal friction,
N° = normal load on the inclined tool,
k = pure cutting resistance of soil per unit width,
b = width of tool,
= lift angle of the tool.
Soehne reasoned that the pure cutting resistance of the soil is small
and becomes important only when stones or roots are present or the
cutting edge of the tool is dull. In the absence of such situations,
the cutting component of the total force might be considered neg-
ligible so that a specific resistance of the soil W* can be defined and
may be indicated as
128 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OR AGRICULTURE
W*=W-kb,
(58)
Concentrating now on the soil segment rather than on the tool,
the vertical forces can be summed and placed in equilibrium. With
the notation and the relations shown in figure 78, equilibrium gives
(59)
where G = weight of the soil segment,
N1 = normal load on the forward failure surface,
= angle of forward failure surface,
µ = coefficient of internal soil friction,
µ' = coefficient of soil-metal friction,
F1 = area of forward shear failure surface,
C = cohesion of soil,
B = acceleration force of the soil,
= lift angle of the tool,
The horizontal forces on the soil segment can be summed and placed
in equilibrium from the relations shown in figure 78 to give
Equations 58, 59, and 60 can be used to eliminate the normal forces
No and N1. No can be found from equation 58 and substituted into
equation 60. Rearranging terms and solving for N1 gives
(61)
and by letting
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 129
Equation 62 relates the forces acting in the soil-tool system. In
principle, the unknown forces No and N1 have been mathematically
eliminated and that is all that can be accomplished by these manipu-
lations. Since pure cutting behavior has been ignored and accelera-
tion behavior has not yet been utilized, only two behavior equations
are represented in equation 62. Thus in principle, the two equations
have eliminated two unknowns. The remaining unknowns in equa-
tion 62 must be determined from the remaining behavior equation
(acceleration) and other relations yet to be developed. Parameters
of the behavior equations, of course, must be experimentally deter-
mined since they characterize the soil or metal. Other parameters
will characterize the mode of operation. In a loose sense the para-
meters may be considered as boundary conditions.
The weight of soil may be calculated from the volume of the soil
supported by the inclined tool. Figure 79 shows a trapezoidal area
(63)
(64)
(66)
(67)
and
(68)
(69)
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 131
Equations 63, 64, and 69 could be substituted into equation 62 to
provide a single equation in which parameters of the tool, soil, and
mode of operation are related to the horizontal force to move the
tool. Thus, tool parameters b and Lo, soil parameters µ, y, and C,
soil-tool parameter µ’, and mode of operation parameters d, vo, and
provide the basis to describe the tillage action. Soehne did not in-
dicate how he determined the value for ß. The angle can be calcu-
lated from the relations shown in figure 41. Equations 17 and 18
define the relations
µ = tan
where is the angle of internal friction. Figure 41 shows that the
shear surface will be oriented 90° - from the largest principal
stress. By following the usual sign conventions and recalling that
the magnitude of angles in the Mohr’s circle represents twice the
magnitude of the angle in the physical body, ß can be evaluated from
the equation
ß = ½ (90°- . (70)
Vertical forces on the tool could be placed in equilibrium to provide
a relation similar to equation 57 and equations 59 and 60 again could
be used to calculate an equation similar to equation 62. Equation
62 and its implied vertical counterpart thus constitute a simple me-
chanics for inclined tools.
Soehne attempted to verify equation 62 experimentally. He did
not use the soil and tool arrangement shown in figure 77, which
eliminated extraneous forces; he used a similarly inclined tool that
was supported only in the center. Because it was operated entirely
below the surface of the soil, some forces on the edges of the tool and
on the supporting standard were not considered in the mechanics.
Figure 80 compares the measured and calculated values. Additional
values not shown in figure 80 were measured for a loam soil and were
found to be approximately 18 percent lower than values calculated by
the mechanics.
The lack of agreement indicates that the mechanics is not com-
pletely accurate. On the other hand, the values are close enough to
indicate that the mechanics is not completely wrong. Any one of
several factors could contribute to the lack of agreement. First,
edge and supporting standard effects were present for the tool, but
not for the mathematical model. Second, experimental determina-
tion of the dynamic soil parameters may have been in error for rea-
sons discussed in section 3.2.1.1. Third, the behavior equations may
not have been properly applied. Soehne assumed that No and N1
were constant along the respective surfaces on which they act. Dis-
tributions are not necessarily uniform. In fact, moving pictures of
such failures indicate that the shear failure surface may be a pro-
gressive failure rather than a simultaneous failing of the entire sur-
f ace. The velocity imparted to the soil that caused acceleration was
assumed to be v8. No justification can be put forth to assure that
the assumption is valid. Furthermore, the concept of an average ac-
celeration may not describe the situation. Needless to say, if all of
the points concerning possible misapplication of the behavior equa-
132 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
(A) (B)
FIGURE 80.-Soil resistances (draft) are measured and calculated for an in-
clined tillage tool operating in a sandy soil. ( Soehne, Grundlagen der Land-
technik ( 398 ).)
FIGURE 81.-Free body diagram showing sliding force components due to fric-
tion and adhesion. (Rowe and Barnes, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans.
FIGURE 83.-The effect of depth of cut d and lift angle on the draft force
of an inclined tool. (Kawamura, Soc. Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) ( 209 ) .)
FIGURE 84.- Measurement of the angle of a shear surface for a soil reacting
to an inclined tool. (Kawamura, Soc. Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) ( 209 ).)
84 also shows a clever means that was used to determine the average
shear angle experimentally.
Kawamura noted that as the tool approached the location of the
Ames dial, the surface of the soil rose linearly (slope ~ 0.001-0.01)
with the advancing tool until a critical range was reached. During
the critical range the surface rose at an increasing rate as the tool
continued to advance (relation was a curve). After the critical
transition range had been passed, the relation between the rising
surface of the soil and the advancing tool was again linear but at a
much higher rate (slope ~ 1.5) than before the critical range.
Kawamura believed that the last linear movement was due to the
rigid block of soil rising on the inclined tool, whereas the initial
linear movement was due to the elastic behavior of the soil. The
critical range, however, coincided with the formation of the shear
surface and reflected the transition state between the time when the
block of soil was part of the soil mass and when it was completely
separated from the soil mass. The shear surface could thus be ap-
proximated by a straight line extending from the tip of the tool to
the soil surface where the critical range began. The average angle
of the shear surface could be determined from the relation
FIGURE 85-The relation between the lift angle and the average shear
surface angle (ß) for soil reacting to an inclined tool. (Kawamura, Soc.
Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) ( 209 ).)
cate that the average shear angle is influenced by both the depth of
tool operation and the lift angle of the tool.
Kawamura used two theories from the so-called classical soil
mechanics in attempting to calculate the draft force. Both theories
are based on one behavior equation-yield by shear as represented
by equation 18. In the Rankine theory, the shear angle is a constant
given by equation 70. By considering only the mass of the soil and
the shear failure stress (ignoring the magnitude of the normal
stress), the weight of soil and total shear stress on the failure surface
can be calculated. Equilibrium conditions then permit determining
the draft component. In the Coulomb theory, the same procedure is
followed except the shear angle is given by a complicated relation
involving the lift angle and the soil friction angle. Neither theory,
however, was sufficiently accurate to be acceptable.
Since the observed shear surface was a curve and the angle of the
shear surface varied with the tool lift angle, Kawamura ( 210 ) at-
tempted to use plastic equilibrium to calculate the observed phenome-
non. He reasoned that the inclined tool often created a stress state
in the soil different from that required for applying either the
Coulomb or the Rankine theories. He envisioned a transient region
between the tool and the conditions that were accurately represented
by the Coulomb or Rankine theories. At large lift angles, the
Coulomb theory predicted the measured draft closely but the Rankine
theory predicted the observed shear angle better than did the
Coulomb theory. Thus, when small lift angles were used, the devia-
tions between measured and calculated draft could be attributed to
the transient stress region. If the transient region could be con-
sidered to be in a state of plastic equilibrium, the condition could
be properly described by using available plastic flow theories.
The mathematical details or using plastic flow theory are too
long and too complex to be presented here. A discussion of the
principles, however, will illustrate the procedure Kawamura used
to develop a mechanics. When all displacement lies in a plane in a
stress-strain situation, state of plane strain is said to exist. Such a
situation occurs for a wide inclined tool, since all displacement can
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 137
be assumed to lie in a plane containing the direction of travel and a
direction normal to the surface of the soil. If the soil material is
assumed to be incompressible, one can demonstrate that there always
will exist two directions (oriented at right angles to each other and
normally identified as a and ß) that bisect the principal directions
of strain (normally identified as directions 1 and 2).
Directions a and ß are characterized by vanishing linear strain and
have maximum angular or shear strain. The curves that are every-
where tangential to these directions form two families of orthogonal
curves that are often termed “slip lines.” Since all movement on
such lines Z-tangential (slip), the name is appropriate. The forma-
tion of slip lines in a physical material represents a transient state of
incipient failure. Before a state of incipient failure occurs, an in-
finitesimal increase in the stresses results in an infinitesimal increase
in strain. When the stresses are in a state of incipient failure, how-
ever, an infinitesimal increase in the stresses results in a large
increase in strain--this is, plastic flow. For a perfectly plastic
material, the stresses causing failure cannot be increased beyond the
incipient failure state since failure is reached and the material will
flow plastically to adjust to boundary conditions. As one might
suspect, the direction of plastic flow is parallel to the slip surfaces.
Thus, the stress state at incipient plastic flow represents a condition
of plastic equilibrium in the material.
Specifying the criterion for plastic flow requires a behavior equa-
tion that in turn makes possible the establishment of a mechanics.
By referring the stresses to a coordinate axis oriented along the slip
lines and by using the differential equations of equilibrium on
stresses, a two-dimensional plastic flow theory can be developed.
Solution of the equilibrium equations, together with the yield cri-
terion and appropriate boundary conditions, determines the magni-
tudes of the stresses and the equations of the slip lines. However,
the solution is not easily obtained except in simple circumstances.
Nothing in the theory describes reactions either before or after
incipient failure. Hence, the solution is valid regardless of any
stress-strain relations before incipient plastic flow. In order to
assure that the slip lines are orthogonal families of curves, however,
the material must be incompressible and displacements must lie in
one plane. All these situations do not have to exist in order to
have slip lines formed; but when the slip lines are not orthogonal,
their description becomes very complex.
Kawamura used the general procedures of plastic equilibrium in
developing a mechanics. For the yield criterion he used shear failure
as given by equation 18; this is the only behavior equation in the
mechanics. Because of the nature of boundary configurations for
the inclined tool, he used polar coordinates as shown in figure 86.
He obtained expressions for the equilibrium equations in the chosen
coordinate system and in terms of the shear yield condition. From
boundary conditions and considerable mathematical analysis, Kawa-
mura was able to demonstrate that angle ß’ in figure 86 could be
reasonably assumed to be independent of the radius coordinate and
a function only of the angular coordinate. Such an assumption
simplified the equilibrium equations, and a numerical solution of the
equations could be obtained. The difficulty in obtaining an analytical
138 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
and calculated draft values over a range of lift angles. The agree-
ment is reasonably good, but more data are required to verify the
procedures. Recall that Kawamura has not considered soil-metal
friction or acceleration forces, and their consideration might improve
the accuracy of the mechanics. On the other hand, he has recog-
nized and considered the curved failure surface and the possibility
of a varying stress distribution on the failure surface. Kawamura
concluded that his procedures represented and explained observed
facts better than any theories that were available at that time.
While his procedures are mathematically complex (primarily be-
cause of permitting a nonconstant stress distribution), they do repre-
sent a mechanics for inclined tools.
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 139
4.3.2 Vertical Tools
A vertical plane, perpendicular to the direction of travel, repre-
sents a simple form of tillage tool. Payne ( 329 ) studied tools of
this type in detail. Based primarily on the passive earth pressure
theory of Rankine, Payne was able to develop a mechanics to repre-
sent the tillage action. He began his study by qualitatively observ-
ing the soil reacting to a vertical tool. Figure 88 shows the ob-
served soil failure.
(A) (B)
FIGURE 88--The nature of soil failure caused by a vertical tool in a firm soil:
A, Side view ; B, plan view. (Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. ( 329 ).)
For wide tools, the side effect can reasonably be ignored since their
area is small compared to the bottom failure surface (fig. 88). A
tool was considered to be a wide tool when its width was at least
twice its depth of operation. The classical Rankine theory can be
modified to represent the curved failure surface shown in figure 88, A.
When friction is present between the soil and the tool, the directions
of principal stresses do not remain horizontal and vertical. At the
surface of the soil, the principal stresses must be horizontal and
vertical; but their orientation rotates as one proceeds downward
along the failure surface to the vertical tool. The rotation results in
the curved surface. The shape of the curve has been demonstrated
to be a logarithmic spiral, and methods are available to determine
the stresses and the actual arc of the logarithmic spiral ( 427 ).
Payne concluded that the modified Rankine theory represented wide
tools with reasonable accuracy.
When narrow tools are considered, side effects can no longer be
ignored. Furthermore, Payne reasoned that shear failure surfaces
must exist which pass along the sides of the tool as well as the bottom
of the tool. Such surfaces will interrupt the bottom curved failure
surface shown in figure 88, A, and these surfaces will be at
to the principal stress. In narrow tools, Payne further reasoned
that the vertical shear surfaces would intersect each other as well
as the bottom curved surface. Thus, a wedge of soil immediately
adjacent to the tool would be isolated from the rest of the soil block
that was sheared from the soil mass. In wide tools, the vertical
shear surfaces would not intersect each other so that the wed e
would never be formed. The wedge changes the boundary condi-
tions for the Rankine theory so that the failure zone of soil can be
140 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
(A) (B)
FIGURE 89.-The nature of soil failure for soil reacting to a narrow vertical
tillage tool. (Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. ( 329 ) .)
(A) (B)
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
(A) (B)
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
(72)
There are two vertical sides of the wedge, and the vertical forces can
be placed in equilibrium so that from figure 91, B,
(73)
From equilibrium of forces on the tool (not shown), DR cos will
be the draft. One unknown can be eliminated in a simultaneous
solution of equations 72 and 73. The angles and are dynamic
soil parameters that can be measured, but the remaining unknowns
must be determined from other relations. Equations 72 and 73, how-
ever, are a basis for developing a mechanics of narrow vertical tools.
The angles and that describe the shape of the wedge are de-
termined by the angles of soil-metal friction and internal soil fric-
tion. Soil-metal friction acts on the back side of the wedge (soil-tool
interface), since the wedge moves up the tool. The adhesive com-
ponent of equation 47 is small compared to the friction component
so that the principal stress acting on the back of the wedge can be
assumed to act in the direction of DR. Since the principal stress is
compressive, it will be algebraically the smallest principal stress; as
shown in figure 42, the shear surface will be inclined
to the principal plane-a plane perpendicular to DR. Note that the
shear surface will be inclined to the direction of the
principal stress-the direction of DR. Thus, in figure 91, B,
144 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
(74)
DA = Ca la, (76)
where l = depth of operation of tool,
a = width of tool,
Ca = soil-metal adhesion.
(77)
(78)
(79)
FIGURE 92.-Forces and their location while acting on a wedge of soil formed
by a narrow vertical tool : A, Horizontal plane ; B, vertical plane. (Payne,
Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. ( 329 ).)
146 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
(A) (B)
FIGURE 93.-Forcesacting on the side of a wedge of soil : A, In perspective ; B,
on a cross section of the wing. (Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. ( 329 ) .)
(80)
FIGURE 94-Relations between predicted and measured mean drafts for nar-
row vertical tillage tools operated in several soil conditions. (Payne, Jour.
Agr. Engin. Res. ( 329 ) .)
FIGURE 95.-Soil cutting as influenced by the height of lift of the cutter and
depth of operation.
(A) (B)
FIGURE 96.-A, Soil movement caused by a thin vertical cutter; B, relation of
cutting force to depth of operation for a vertical cutter. (Kostritsyn ( 230 ).)
(A) (B)
FIGURE 97.-Forces on and shape of two soil cutters. (Kostritsyn ( 230 ) .)
(82)
(85)
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 153
Equation 85 provides a means for experimentally studying cutting.
For a specific cutter, the values of F1, F2, and µ' are known or can
be determined and only K1 and K2 are unknown. By measuring P
for a cutter shaped as shown in figure 97, A, K1 can be evaluated
from equation 85 since F2 will be zero. If a similar cutter, but shaped
as shown in figure 97, B is also used, the value determined for K1 and
equation 85 are sufficient to evaluate K2. Figure 99 shows the differ-
maximum occurs when point a in figure 100 reaches the widest part
of the wedge section of the cutter. The maximum deformation is
shown in figure 100 in the triangle bb''b'' ' where geometry indicates
that the angle b''bb'' ' is (a/2 + ) so that the length b''b is given
by the equation
(87)
(89)
(90)
(91)
where Loo = diameter of soil particles,
Ko = maximum stress to cause deformation.
Equation 90 was reasonably accurate as long as Lo was greater than
Loo. To overcome the restriction placed on equation 90, Kostritsyn
used an equal area technique to evaluate the shape of curves and
obtained the equation
(A) (B)
the cutter to move from A to B along the projected path (fig. 103,
A), several of the large particles would have to be sliced and sep-
arated. Contrast this action to the actions implied in Kostritsyn’s
mechanics for cutting, where particles presumably smaller than the
cutter are merely displaced but not sliced. A possible fourth term
160 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
(29)
The accuracy of this equation is determined by the assumptions in-
volved. These include the concepts that the soil surface does not
change during movement and that the normal force acting on the
sliding surface is due to the weight or the mechanical forces applied
to the surface. On the basis of past research, neither of these as-
sumptions appears to be valid. Since actual behavior cannot be
mathematically described at present, descriptive data to illustrate the
complex behavior are presented.
4.4.1.1. Measurement of Slidings Actions
One method of determining whether the soil surface changes is to
determine whether continued sliding over a given increment of soil
causes a change in the coefficient of soil-metal sliding friction µ’. If
a short slider is drawn over the surface of the soil, undisturbed soil
is continuously renewed at the front of the slider. As the slider
passes over a specific point on the surface, the surface may be
changed by pressing and smearing so that the last increment of the
slider passes over a soil surface quite different from that which the
leading edge encountered. This fact may be experimentally de-
termined by measuring with sliders of different lengths or by con-
tinuously rotating an annulus-shaped slider on the same spot. The
basic question then becomes whether the change in the sliding resist-
162 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
FIGURE 105.-Effect of the length of the sliding path on the coefficient of soil-
metal friction for steel at different moisture contents: A, In sand; B, in
loam ; C, in clay soil. (Soehne, Grundlagen der Landtechnik ( 397 ) .)
length of the sliding path in sand A, loam B, and clay soil C. The
increase in µ' resulting from an increase in the sliding distance was
greatest at low moisture contents. Under the wettest conditions,
the lesser influence of the length of the sliding path on the coefficient
of soil-metal friction for steel was probably due to the low strength
of the soil. When wet, complete puddling presumably occurred with
the slightest movement and no further change was possible. Ad-
hesion was probably not altered to any appreciable extent with ad-
ditional movement.
In contrast to a sliding surface of steel, rubber sliding over the
soil presented a different relation. As shown in figure 106, little
influence of the length of the sliding path appears in either sand A
or loam soil B. In clay soil C, however, the coefficient increased
FIGURE 106. -Effect of the sliding path of the coefficient of soil-rubber friction
at different moisture contents: A, In sand; B, in loam; C, in clay soil.
(Soehne, Grundlagen der Landtechnik ( 397 ) .)
166 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
Sliding resistance has not been calculated in this fashion and it can-
not be determined from studies utilizing simple sliders. The distri-
bution of normal pressure might be determined by means of pressure
transducers. If pressure transducers were imbedded in a tool as
shown in figure 107, the pressure at each of the small segments of
interest could be determined.
Mayauskas ( 295 ) used simple pressure transducers to determine
the normal distribution along plowshares during actual field opera-
tions. The results are discussed in section 6.4.1.
FIGURE 109. -The influence of the normal load on the coefficient of sliding
friction. (Vetrov (465).)
depend on the soil materials that are deposited along the tillage tool
surface. These coating materials might be waxes, moisture, fine clay
particles, or other materials in soil. Surface coatings would account
for the change in µ' ; however, µ' might be expected to remain fairly
constant after equilibrium is established on the surface. After a
plow travels far enough to coat the entire surface, a uniform value
of µ' might be found for the entire surface. In a final analysis, both
the soil surface and the metal surface may change.
Physical reality must accompany mathematical representation of
pressure distributions along sliding surfaces. The few pressure
measurements that have been made along the sliding surfaces of tools
indicate that wide variations may occur. If detailed studies are to
be realistic, cognizance must be taken of interactions. Values of µ'
must be determined for the entire range of pressures distributed over
sliding surfaces. The extent to which this type of information may
alter the concepts of theory or design is not known. As an example,
it has been suggested ( 106 ) that a uniform pressure is required to
produce a uniform acceleration of the soil. Actually, a uniform
movement of soil across the face of the tool is desired; and this may
conceivably be obtained with different normal pressures along the
surface of the tool.
Let us imagine a distribution of pressure that might occur along
a plow surface when shear failure occurs as visualized in the Nichols
model (fig. 110). If all blocks of soil are to be accelerated with a
uniform force, the resistance to movement of all blocks must be
the same. This is not the case, since the shear force along the bound-
ary between block A and the soil mass M is very large compared to
that between any of the other blocks of soil. Theory then must
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION
recognize that the forces on the share of a plow are different from
those on other parts. Equation 107 (sec. 4.4.1.3) incorporates this
principle by keeping forces on the share separate from those of the
sliding surface. Little or no twisting of the furrow slice occurs at
the forward part of the plow, but as the individual blocks progress
up along the plow surface the forces on the plow vary considerably.
Indeed, the twisting action of a moldboard may pull the blocks apart
so that gravitational forces actually cause overhanging segments to
be placed in tension, as shown in figure 111. Obviously, the pressure
on the surface of the tool goes to zero where the cracks appear.
There seems to be little value in making additional theoretical
of the sliding surface and the path of the sliding particle. A sec-
ond angle, the ascending angle was identified. It was measured
from a horizontal line in the direction of travel and the path of the
sliding particle. This angle might be utilized to compute the work
done against gravity.
A number of factors, such as the frictional and adhesive character-
istics of interface systems, may be expected to affect the location of
the sliding path. With the exception of the speed and the shape of
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 171
the tool, few of these have ever been studied. As shown in figure
113, both the particle size and the angle of inclination of a plane tool
surface influence the angles of ascent and sliding. A knowledge of
the factors that govern the movement of soil particles will be helpful
in the design of tools, since it becomes important to be able to direct
the sliding of soil along predetermined paths. These paths may
direct the movement of the soil so that a minimum energy may be
required for the movement or so that shearing strains will break up
the soil. One of the more generally recognized directive actions is
the inversion or movement of soil to some specific location at the
boundary of a tool.
4.4.1.3 Mechanics for Draft Force of Sliding Actions
The foregoing material has been presented to describe soil be-
havior in sliding. The failure zone is predetermined by the interface,
since any coupling between the slider and the soil results in shear
or soil-soil sliding rather than soil-metal sliding. In the sliding ac-
tions that have been discussed, only flat surfaces have been considered.
The research that was reported was directed mainly toward deter-
mining the basic behavior equation and identifying the input and
outputs of the equation. In addition, studies were directed toward
identifying the basic parameters of the equation. The studies indi-
cate that more basic relations must be considered before the data can
172 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
(100)
The third force normal to the surface results from the resistance
to motion along the surface and is called a buckling force (fig. 115).
This force might increase or decrease the normal force on the surface,
depending on the direction of the curvature. The buckling force
may be calculated at any point on a curved path from the tangential
and normal forces. At any distance S along the path, the forces
may be resolved into a tangential force Ft, and a normal force Fn.
At a more distant point S+dS, the two forces would be correspond-
ingly F t + d F t a n d F n + d F n . Simultaneously with an increase in
the distance S, there would be a change in direction of the normal
force because of the curvature of the surface and the buckling effect
would be
(101)
(103)
174 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
FIGURE 115.--Left, The path of soil on a plow; upper right, the force on a
small increment of soil ; lower right, the buckling force on soil. (Doner
and Nichols, Agr. Engin. ( 106 ) .)
(106)
If the sliding resistance R varies uniformly with increases in the
length of the sliding path, there will be no pressure concentrations
that would cause soil to stick to the plow. The logarithmic spiral
expresses a curve in which the radius of curvature varies with path
length and when expressed in polar coordinates it has the form
The minimum draft resistance of R of equation 106
would be attained when = 0. Then a could be evaluated, and
Substituting this relation into equation 106 and integrat-
ing permits evaluating the constant of integration from conditions at
the share where = 0, S = 0, and R, is the resistance clue to the
share so that
In incipient cases of sliding, the soil moves across the tool so slowly
that the soil on the tool acts as a rigid body which is driven through
the soil mass. Soil does not flow smoothly across the plow when this
occurs. Figure 117 shows the action of two plows shown in figure
116 in the same soil. The polytetrafluoroethylene-covered plow
FIGURE 117.-Soil after plowing: Left, With good scouring; right, with poor
scouring.
178 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
scoured and the steel plow essentially pushed the soil aside. The
problem of handling a nonscouring so-called “push soil” is of general
interest. As a rule, the adhesion between the tool and the soil is
greater than that of the cohesion within the soil so that failure takes
place within the soil to cause nonscouring.
Doner and Nichols ( 106 ) defined the scouring S at any point on a
sliding surface as being approximately equal to the tangential force
of the sliding added to the shear resistance of the soil F8 minus the
frictional force at the same point µ'Fn. They concluded from their
studies that plow curvature at the wing rather than at the share
would reduce soil sticking.
Payne and Fountaine ( 331 ) studied the mechanics of scouring
along simple surfaces and concluded that the following factors affect
the scouring of a tool in soil:
1. The coefficient of soil-metal friction
2. The coefficient of soil-soil friction
3. The angle of approach of the tool
4. The soil cohesion
5. The soil adhesion
They analyzed the equilibrium conditions at the point of scouring
for a simple system in which they considered only forces along the
sliding surface. Figure 118 shows the forces as seen from above at
a situation, the sticking soil (block ABF) must be a thin layer paral-
lel to AB and the same normal stress must act on both the soil-soil
surface and the soil-metal surface. To satisfy all conditions (circle
through O tangent to HJ and also soil shear failure so that soil
is separated from the soil mass) the point of tangency must also be
the point of intersection of the lines HJ and LM, as shown in figure
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 181
120. For any other circumstances, either the metal must fail in shear
or a situation as shown in figure 119 will be in effect. Thus the re-
lations between the factors governing scouring can be determined
from the principles illustrated in figures 119 and 120.
4.4.2 Penetration
Penetration is an action that may be described by a composite be-
havior since the soil usually fails by some combination of cutting,
shearing, compacting, and flowing (plastically) as a cutter or a
robe is forced into the soil. As was discussed in section 3.2.2.1,
failure during penetration is usually considered to occur in the im-
mediate vicinity of the tip of the probe. Penetration is thus often
termed cutting since cutting usually implies a localized soil failure
in the neighborhood of the cutter (sec. 4.3.3). Although they were
not discussed in section 4.3.3, Kostritsyn developed equations pre-
dicting the cutting force for cone-shaped cutters. Many so-called
penetrometers are cone-shaped so that distinguishing between cutters
and penetrometers is perhaps not realistic. In studying the behavior,
researchers have used probes, cutters, penetration, and cutting rather
loosely and interchangeably. Localized failure rather than the mode
of failure is the common basis for discussing the behavior. Intui-
tively, it appears that a penetrometer assesses soil strength, and the
inherent simplicity of the measurement contributes to its practical
usefulness. Thus, in spite of its composite nature, penetration be-
havior has been studied in some detail and has even been incorporated
into a partial mechanics.
The geometry of cutters or penetrometers is important because
of its influence on the stress distribution in the soil near the tool.
Consequently, the effect of geometry on penetration behavior has re-
ceived considerable attention. The geometry may determine whether
a tool acts as a knife-type tool that slides through the soil without
soil sticking to its surface or whether it creates a compacted body of
soil that sticks on its surface. As shown in figure 121, a compacted
mass of soil may gather on a blunt tip and move with the tool as an
intricate part of the tool. At this time, primarily soil-soil friction
is active since most sliding is between soil and soil. Even though
a point is blunted or rounded, it may have little influence on the
external appearance of the compacted soil body or core and on the
182 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
force required to move the tool in the soil. As the shape of the tip
approaches that of the shape of the soil body, the tendency for the
soil to slide from the tool increases and ultimately the frictional
resistance along the surface of the tool is reduced to where sliding
begins. At this time, primarily soil-metal friction is active so that
the force to move the tool may be less than when soil-soil friction is
present. According to Zelenin ( 515 ), the compacted core appears
when the angle of the tip exceeds 50°.
Attempts have been made to determine whether the presence of the
compacted body of soil influences the resistance to penetration.
Data reported by the Waterways Experiment Station ( 472 ) indi-
cate that the shape of the tip of the probe may have only a small
influence on the resistance to penetration (fig. 122).
Figure 122, A compares a 30° right circular cone with flat and
hemisphere-shaped tips. The measurements were made on slowly
moving penetrometers and, with the exception of the cone, a com-
pacted body should have been present. The data indicate little dif-
ference due to the presence of such a body.
Figure 122, B shows the influence of cone angles of impact
penetrometers. The impact measurement was made on a l-inch cone,
driven with one blow from a 1¼-pound hammer dropped 4 inches.
Figure 122, C shows the relation between a 30° static cone penetro-
meter and a 45° impact cone penetrometer where 5 inch-pound of
energy (see curve a) and 8 inch-pound of energy (curve b) were
used. For the 15° cone, 5 inch-pound (curve c), 7.5 inch-pound
(curve d) , 8 inch-pound (curve e) , and 30 inch-pound (curve f)
were used. At the higher energies and lower cone angles, deeper
penetration resulted ; but in all relations the slope was constant.
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 183
Since the slopes remained nearly constant over a considerable range
of soil strength (from cone penetrometer readings of 10 p.s.i., which
is soft, to more than 200 p.s.i., which is fairly hard for the clay
soil used), it appears that either an impact or a static penetrometer
could be used to measure penetration. Furthermore, interactions
between the soil and the probe must remain constant for the various
soil conditions, which tends to indicate that shape is not of great im-
portance. Presumably, failure was restricted to the immediate
neighborhood of the probe tip and the soil reaction was independent
of the shape of the probe.
Kostritsyn ( 230 ) extended his studies of cutting by investigating
the effect of a fixed tool thickness on the cutting force while varying
the angle of the cutter. With a triangular cutter, the forces on the
cutter are as given in equation 85 except that F2 is zero because no
sides are present. Thus, the forces on the triangular cutter are
(109)
where P = total force (draft) on cutter,
K1 = specific resistance of the soil,
F1 = area of wedge of cutter,
a = wedge angle,
µ' = coefficient of soil-metal friction.
The area of the sliding surface can be calculated from the equation
(111)
where D = a constant,
= angle of soil-metal friction.
Equations 110 and 111 can be substituted in equation 85 and, recalling
that = tan the equation becomes
45°50' and 29° are angles of soil-soil friction and 40°30’ is the
angle of soil-metal friction The data indicate that a minimum
force occurs at a wedge angle at approximately 45º regardless of the
type of the angle ( or Thus, even if soil sticks to the cutter SO
that soil-soil friction becomes active, nearly the same optimum wedge
angle results. The 45° friction angle shown in figure 123 is a typical
soil-soil friction angle, according to Kostritsyn. He reported ex-
perimental data that tended to confirm his calculated results. A
minimum cutting force would thus appear to result regardless of
the magnitude of the cutting force, and this minimum occurs at a
wedge angle of approximately 45º.
Perhaps the most thorough study of the influence of the geometry
of penetrometers on resistance to penetration was made with di-
mensional analysis techniques by Kondner and associates ( 85-87,
223-227 ). While Kondner envisioned his tools as model footings,
their cross-sectional area was less than 3 square inches. Dimensional
analysis gives the functional relationship between tool and soil
variables as
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 185
(113)
where x = penetration,
t = time,
F = total force,
c = perimeter of tool,
A = cross-sectional solid area,
= tip angle of tool,
= maximum unconfined compressive strength of soil,
= viscocity of soil.
The dimensionless terms were interpreted by Kondner to reflect
certain physical characteristics of the system. The dimensionless
terms in equation 113 reflect, respectively, penetration (the dependent
variable) , strength ratio of soil shape effect of tool tip
characteristics and rate of penetration as influenced by viscous
creep of the soil By allowing time for equilibrium during
a static test and by maintaining a fixed tip angle, the last two terms
in equation 113 are constant so that the relation simplifies to
(114)
stant Figure 125 shows the data plotted against the shape
(115)
2
FIGURE 127.-Dimensionless plot of x/c versus c /A for various geometrical
shapes : Left, Arithmetic relation ; right, Log-log relation. (Kondner, Water-
ways Experiment Station ( 224 ).)
(116)
where b = constant,
d = constant,
S = constant.
The magnitudes of b, d, and S are determined by the specific rela-
tions of the intercepts and slopes to the strength term. Figure 128
shows the results of the varying tip angle upon when expressed
(117)
where I = intercept,
= angle in radians,
m = slope.
The relation between I and m and the strength term was not as
simple as for the data shown in figure 127. Equation 117 could not
be made as descriptive as equation 116, since the intercept and slope
are not constants. Equations 116 and 117 are not presently useful
since they are restricted to the soil conditions Kondner investigated.
Furthermore, equation 117 is restricted in application to circular
shapes where c2/A is a minimum and equation 116 applies when
has a constant value. If equations 116 and 117 could be combined
into one expression, the latter restriction would be eliminated.
The most important contribution by Kondner is the accuracy of
the combination of variables indicated in equation 113. They per-
mitted him to consistently collapse data to an acceptable degree.
Furthermore, he demonstrated techniques for actually determining
the behavior equation describing the composite behavior, penetration.
The geometry of cutters must be studied further to reconcile the
differences that appear to exist. As an example, occurrence of a
minimum cutting force as determined by Kostritsyn is not reflected
in the data of either the Waterways Experiment, Station or Kondner.
The occurrence of minima such as those due to the circular shape
and the cutting angle must be sought and verified because of their
importance in the design of practical tillage tools.
Zelenin ( 515 ) has developed empirical relations between the
draft, force of a cutting tool and physical conditions of the soil
as measured by a penetrometer. The relation was developed to the
point where it constituted a partial mechanics. Zelenin conducted
a large number of experiments in which he used horizontal cutters
of the type shown in figure 77 and measured the draft and depth of
cutting. The size of the cutting tool and depth of operation were
such that, pure cutting as defined by Kostritsyn (sec. 4.3.2) was not
the only quantity being measured. Thus, types of soil failure in
addition to pure cutting were involved. Zelenin observed that the
draft and depth were parabolically related according to the relation
P = khn, (118)
where P = cutting force (draft) of a horizontal blade,
k = coefficient, of soil resistance,
h = depth of operation,
n = coefficient.
Based on a wide range of soil and moisture conditions, the value for
n was found to be approximately a constant whose value was 1.35.
Zelenin further observed that the coefficient k was directly propor-
tional to C, the number of blows of an impact penetrometer (sec.
190 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
FIGURE 130.-Soil body formed at two tool speeds: Left, 0.015 m.p.h. ; right,
0.5 m.p.h.
FIGURE 131.-A soil body formed on a subsoiler during tillage of a dry clay
soil. (Nichols and Reaves, Agr. Engin. ( 322 ) .)
the geometry of the tool, the forces on the tool may not remain fixed.
In most cases the wear of a tool beyond the point where a refined
degree of polish promotes scouring results in an undesirable situ-
ation.
An analytical study of the alteration in forces due to the change
of geometry by wear was made by Gavrilov and Koruschkin ( 140 ).
Based on the observation that wear occurs along the underside of the
tool, the angle of change in sharpness of the tool a was visualized as
shown in figure 132. As wear increases on the underside of the edge,
the clearance angle y decreases to the point where it could become
negative and in fact become an angle of approach. When it becomes
an angle of approach, there is no longer clearance under the tip and
196 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
(A) (B)
a larger area of the tool is in contact with the soil. Under severe
wear conditions, the angle can increase to the relative magnitude
shown in figure 132, B so that a normal force R develops on the front
of the worn surface AC. Soil-metal friction changes the direction
of the resultant force to R1 = R/cos With a forward movement
of the tool, a horizontal resistance P1 develops in front of the tool.
This resistance is related to both R1 and R in the form
P1 = R1 sin ( +y), (124)
or P1 = R sin
(127)
When P' becomes a maximum (fig. 133), it is possible to establish a
relation between and y having the form
M = R 1 L, (129)
where R1 =
L =
(130)
and when x = B cos y,
(131)
The moment M results in an upward component of force so that
vertical stability of the tool may be reduced because of the worn
edge.
Wear occurs over the entire surface of the tool, but this type of
wear normally changes geometry less than wear at a tip or cutting
edge. Areas over which surface wear is most severe may be esti-
mated by a technique used by Pfost ( 334 ). Varnish covering the
surface of the tool will be worn away by soil abrasion. As shown
in figure 134, the progress of wear, as determined by the loss of
where the surface influence did not exist. While these studies served
a purpose, the need remains to examine the soil-tool relations near
the surface where the variable boundary conditions exist.
Zelenin attempted to explore the soil confinement along a vertical
boundary that was essentially an open furrow wall ( 515 ). Data in
table 13 show that the cutting resistance of the soil adjacent to the
wall was considerably less than it was farther from the wall where
the confinement was greater. Regardless of the thickness, shape, or
angle of operation of a tool, enough soil must be displaced to permit
passage. Consequently, for the conditions in table 13, cuts made
m excess of 35 centimeters from the wall required an ultimate cutting
force of about 75 kilograms. The actual distance reflects the influ-
ence of geometric characteristics of the soil and the tool boundary
and dynamic behavior patterns of the soil. The distance from the
open wall where the ultimate draft resistance is reached reflects the
point where the total displacement or strain required to cause ade-
quate failure is absorbed within the mass of the soil. At lesser dis-
tances from the wall, the soil is probably detached and moved into
an open furrow as a rigid body in order to provide room for pas-
sage of the tool; hence, the forces required for displacement are
reduced. Data are not available of side forces on tools operating
in these conditions but they should provide information that would
be of assistance in evaluating the influence of geometry in such a
soil-tool system.
Nothing in the previous discussion implies that the specific strength
of the soil was changed by the different soil-tool boundary condi-
tions. The change in draft of the tool was due to the different
200 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
FIGURE 135.-Plan view of different soil-tool systems in which the soil reaction
is essentially the same. (Zelenin ( 515 ).)
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 201
applied by the movement of the tool and the direction of maximum
resistance of the soil (table 14). The magnitude and direction of
soil resistance arrows R (fig. 135) explain the magnitude of the cut-
ting resistance that is measured. Thus, it has been demonstrated
that the geometry of a tool is important even when the tool is
operated near an open wall.
1
2
Shape of cutters is shown by designated letters in figure 135.
Tools operated 15 cm. deep in loam soil.
S O U R C E : Zelenin ( 515 ) .
INCLINATION
FIGURE 136.-Effect of tool orientation on draft resistance when the tool does
not have a surface boundary. (Hueckel, 4th Internatl. Conf. Soil Mech.
Found. Engin. Procs., Butterworths, London ( 187 ).)
202 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
FIGURE 137.-Effect of the side angle on the draft of a simple inclined tool.
(Kaburaki and Kisu, Kanto-Tosan Agr. Expt. Sta. Jour. ( 204 ).)
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 203
essentially doubled when the lift angle was increased from 20° to 90°.
Increases in the side angle ß decreased draft until an angle of ap-
proximately 40º to 50º was attained. After that, point, draft be-
came essentially constant for each value of a. In no case did the
decrease in draft exceed 25 percent. For one special case, where
a = ß = 45°, a parabolic increase in draft, was found to be due to
an increase in the width of cut regardless of the depth of cut. This
relation has an important effect on the design and use of tools when
optimum draft relations are of interest. The results of the influence
of other orientations on the draft of a tool are shown in table 36,
where increases in the angle of approach result, in increases in the
draft force. This orientation is easily described in a simple tool sys-
tem, but, we shall see that much research is needed with regard to the
orientation of tools having more complex shapes.
When the main tillage action is cutting, the size of the isolated soil
mass is determined by the size of cut of the tool. In a number of
cases, however, the final projected area of disturbed soil is not the
same as the projected area of the tool. Because of this, tools may be
located and oriented so that their sphere of influence includes all
of the area to be tilled even though the tools do not intercept all of
the periphery. Kostritsyn ( 230 ) reported data of Dalin and Pav-
lov, who measured the area of soil disturbance of small cylindrical
tines (table 15). The data show that either soil bodies must form on
tools or the arching effect in the soil results in a disturbed zone of
soil considerably larger than the projected area of the tool.
(A) (B)
FIGURE 140.-Soil reaction to narrow, long tillage tools. (Zelenin ( 515 ).)
gravity S of a unit of the plow furrow slice when plowing was done
on a 15° slope with a right-hand plow at two speeds. The initial
location S is shown at the center of the direction rays. The final
location of the center of gravity of the plow furrow is shown by Sn,
where 12 is the numbered direction in which the plow traveled. The
experiment demonstrates a method by which the soil reaction was
described in a simple quantitative manner. Since the minimum
movement of the centroid of the soil mass represents the minimum
expenditure of energy commensurate with the work accomplished,
perhaps this technique can be used to partly evaluate the performance
of plows.
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 207
4.5.5 Geometry of Interacting Tools
The concept of a tool operating independently in a semi-infinite
mass of soil is a physical unreality in actual tillage machines. Until
now, each tool has been discussed as being isolated. The mechanics
of a combined tool system can be approached on a rationalized basis
only when any interaction is identified and characterized. Little
progress has been made in this direction except for general observa-
tions of interactions. In the development of a mechanics for inter-
acting tools, the state of knowledge remains in the recognition stage
(fig. 76) and more qualitative information is required. The import-
ance of interactions due to geometrical relations is discussed in
chapter 5 in connection with design considerations.
Rathje ( 342 ) conducted studies concerning the interaction of two
vertical straight tools. The interactions of the soil reactions are
illustrated in figure 142, where two tools may be visualized as op-
TOP VIEW
FRONT VIEW
increased still further, the draft increased until the point d = 2.5t
was reached and the cutters were acting independently.
Zelenin ( 515 ) repeated experiments of this type at several depths
and found a similar relation (fig. 143). At the shallow depths, the
aggregate but that the mean load per unit of active cutting edge was
fairly constant for any given soil condition. Even with small aggre-
gates (22, 8, and 3 mm.), failure occurred along the path of the cutter
and not along natural cleavage surfaces. Thus, cutting is a directed
action and the concentrated force causes a failure in the immediate
vicinity of the tool so that other failures must be due to forces ap-
plied by other non cutting segments of the tool. The observation by
Kawamura that the soil may fail below the cutting edge follows from
the condition where deformation of the mass by a rearward portion
of the tool strains the mass to a progressive failure at some point
in front of the cutting edge. The total strain induced by the tool
was not absorbed by the soil; hence, the soil was displaced as a rigid
body and the shear block formed. Not all shear blocks fail in this
manner, and in some the edge did cut soil as the tool moved. Thus,
conceivably, there will be instances where no continuous pure cutting
action occurs since the soil may be intermittently torn apart by in-
ternal stresses or cleaved apart by a soil body which is formed on
the tool. Kostritsyn’s restriction of theory to the zone of the hori-
zontal soil deformation in figure 96 does not imply that no cutting
action is taking place in the upper part of the soil profile. The
action was neglected to simplify the definition of forces within the
system he had undertaken to study.
The mechanics of a complex reaction that, includes cutting can be
developed only when a pure component of cutting is envisioned and
described in quantitative terms by a behavior equation. The pure
cutting behavior equation must be included with shear, tension, fric-
tion, adhesion, and acceleration equations to form the mechanics.
Until this is done, the intermittent influence of cutting will cause
discrepancies between measured and calculated values of perform-
ance.
Complex reactions will be exceedingly difficult to describe by a
mechanics. If the action to be described is simple, the mechanics
will probably be simple since fewer behavior equations will be re-
quired. The mathematics of the mechanics must fit the observed
action, or the incorporation of mathematical rigor into the mechanics
will be of no avail. The principles discussed in section 4.2 should
provide a means of developing the mechanics for complex tools.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: