March, 2014 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 16, No.

1 69

Influence of tillage depth, penetration angle and forward speed on

the soil/thin-blade interaction force

A. Moeenifar1, S. R. Mousavi-Seyedi2, D.Kalantari2*

(1. M.Sc Student of Mechanical Engineering,Department of Agricultural Machinery, Sari Agricultural and Natural Resources University
(SANRU), Sari, Iran;
2. Dep. of Mechanics of Agr. Machinery, Sari Agricultural and Natural Resources University (SANRU), Sari, Iran)

Abstract: In this study, an experimental investigation regarding the influence of three independent variables including tillage
depth (10, 15, 20 cm), angle of attack (60, 75, 90 degrees) and forward speed (0.5, 1, 1.35, 1.7 m/s) on draft force of a thin
blade is presented. Chisel plow in this research was constructed in two furrows with a blade width of 3 cm and a maximum
depth of 25 cm (the distance between two blades was 1 m). Some changes were made in the chassis of the chisel plow in
order to obtain different attack angle of the blade. The experimental work was then complemented with a new theoretical
model for predicting the blade force using dimensional analysis method. The final expression for estimating the pull
resistance is as a function of several soil engineering properties (soil bulk density, soil adhesion and cohesion coefficients),
blade parameters (blade width and blade rake angle) and operational conditions (tillage depth and forward speed). Finally
constants of the model were computed based on obtained experimental data. The proposed model properly estimated the draft
force of a thin blade. Results obtained in this study indicate the stronger influence of tillage depth on the pulling force of a
thin soil-working blade compared to the penetration angle and forward velocity. The average error for the vertical blade with
depth of 20, 15 and 10 cm were obtained equal to 4.5%, 4% and 1.5%, respectively.

Keywords: tillage, thin blade, chisel plow, interaction force, dimensional analysis

Citation: Moeenifar,A., S. R. Mousavi-Seyedi, D.Kalantari. 2014. Influence of tillage depth, penetration angle and forward
speed on the soil/thin-blade interaction force. Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 16(1): 69－74.

(Shen and Kushwaha, 1998). The tillage operation

1 Introduction 

requires the most energy and power spent on farms.

One of the criteria used to assess the suitability of a Therefore, draft and power requirements are important in
tool for soil manipulation is the force required in pulling order to determine the size of the tractor that could be
the tool through the soil (McLaughlin et al., 2008; used for a specific implement. The draft required for a
Olatunji et al., 2009; Mamman and Oni, 2005; Gill and given implement will also be affected by the soil
Vanden Berg, 1967; Arvidsson et al., 2004; Khanghah, conditions and the geometry of the tillage implement
2009). The dynamic response of soil to farm (Taniguchi et al., 1999; Naderloo et al., 2009; Olatunji et
implements is amain factor in determining their al., 2009). To reduce tillage, it is important to know the
performance (Tong and Moayad, 2006). The interaction draught requirement for different implements. Most of
between tillage tools and soil is of a primary interest to the research on draught in soil tillage has concerned
the design and use of these tools for soil manipulation forces on narrow tines (Arvidsson et al., 2004). Based
on the conducted researches, three factors of weight,
Received date: 2013-07-19 Accepted date: 2014-01-01
velocity, blade cut angle and their interactions have
*Corresponding author: DavoodKalantari, Ph.D. of Mechanical
Engineering, Sari Agricultural and Natural Resources University
significant effect on the tensile strength and with
(SANRU), Sari, Iran, Tel. +98 912 257 4990. Email: increasing these three factors, the tensile strength
[email protected]. significantly increases (Aykas et al., 2004). Kuczewsk
 70 March, 2014 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 16, No.1

and Piotrowska (1998) introduced a new model for forces found the vertical force on the tine to increase linearly
on narrow soil cutting tinestaking into account variability with the operating depth while the horizontal force,
of the inclination angle of bottom failure surface in the moment and total force to increase quadratically with
side segment and inertial forces for different side operating depth. Mamman and Qui (2005) studied the
segments. Draft force and power requirement for tillage draft performance of a chisel plow model using a soil bin.
implements were considerably affected by implement The design parameters considered were: nose angle, slide
design and conditions of soil. In terms of effects on angle, depth and speed. The draft increased with
draft force and soil disturbance, Rahman and Chen (2001) increases in tillage depth and the levels of nose and slide
reported that the working depth of tillage implement was angles and the cutting edge height. Grisso et al. (1996)
more critical than the working speed. Kheiralla et al. determined the draught of a tandem disk, chisel plough
(2004) formulated a draft force models for ploughs based and field cultivator in a silty clay loam soil on wheat
on traveling speed and tillage depth. Abo-Elnor et al. stubble field. Travel speed and tillage depth were used
(2004) concluded that the bladecutting width had a to study the draught of the tillage implements. They
significant effect on cutting forces so that the cutting found the draught of the tillage implements to be
forces increased but not in linear proportion as the cutting significantly affected by both travel speed and tillage
width increased. McKyes and Maswaure (1997) depth. The draught for the tandem disk varied
demonstrated that designing a tillage tool for minimum quadratically with depth when used as a primary tillage
draft requirement and high soil cutting efficiency called implement. The tillage depth mostly influenced the
for a shallow operating depth and rake angle of 30°. draught of the chisel plough. Although the linear effect
Mulqueen et al. (1977) found that cohesion and of travel speed was found significant, speed showed little
penetration resistance increased as the soil bulk density effect on chisel plough draught. The field cultivator
increased. Dahab and Mutwalli (2002) reported that the draught was linearly dependent on speed and speed by
traction force for chisel plough was higher in a soil of depth interaction, and quadratic dependent on depth.
higher bulk density and the traction power increased as Fielke (1996) studied the effect of the cutting edge
traction force increased. The effects of soil conditions, geometry of tillage implements on tillage forces, soil
tillage depth and forward speed on soil translocation by failure and soil movement below the tillage depth in the
chisel plow were studied by Van Muysen et al. (2000). field and in a laboratory soil bin. Experimental sweeps
The specific draft (force per cross sectional area of that were standardized with 400 mm width; 32 mm lift
worked soil), energy use for moldboard plow, chisel plow height, 10º rake angle and 70º sweep angle were used.
and disc harrow at different soil conditions were The authors reported that increasing the speed of
investigated by Arvidsson et al. (2004). They found that operation consistently increased the draught but had little
the specific draft was generally the highest for the chisel effect on the vertical force. An increase in cutting edge
plow and the lowest for the moldboard plow and the disc height increased the forward and downward movement of
harrow and referred that to the differences in implement soil at the cutting edge, and an increasing draught and
geometry and mode of soil break-up. Several models vertically upward forces accompanied this. The sharp
were developed to predict draft for tillage tools based on cutting edge of the tillage tool minimized the draught and
soil condition, soil properties and implement width (Sahu vertically upward forces and it also gave a minimum of
and Raheman, 2006). Taniguchi et al. (1999) reported soil disturbance below the tillage depth. Basically
an increase in draught with increases in travel speed for a dimensional analysis is known to be a strong analytical
mouldboard plough and the relationship between speed tool which is designed to find or check relations among
and draught was linear. Owen (1989) studied the physical quantities by using their dimensions. It makes
force-depth relationship of a chisel plow tine with three possible to generalize the experimental results. General
different wing types in a compacted clay loam soil and analyzing the phenomena without limiting to a special
 March, 2014 Influence of tillage depth, penetration angle and forward speed on the soil/thin-blade interaction force Vol. 16, No.1 71

state of the performed experiments causes less 1.7 m/s) on tractive force were measured. Chisel plow
experimental requirements and also time and expense was constructed in two furrows with a blade width of
consuming. Obtained results can be provided to 3 cm and a maximum depth of 25 cm (the distance
engineers more practically and more compacted for easier between two blades was 1 m). Some changes were
application (Murphy, 1950). made in the chassis to create different attack angle of the
In this study, an experimental investigation regarding blade (Figure 1). Two-tractor according to RANM
the influence of tillage depth, penetration angle and method was used with drawbar dynamometer (Figure 2)
forward speed on the soil/thin-blade interaction force is to measure the force exerted on the blade.
presented. Influence of three independent variables Table 2 The properties of testing soil
including tillage depth, angle of attack and forward speed Soil texture Silt-Sand
on draft force were measured. The experimental work Percentage of clay (<0.002 mm) 47%
was then followed by a new theoretical model for Percentage of silt (0.002±0.05 mm) 43%

predicting the blade force using dimensional analysis percentage of sand (>0.05 mm) 10%
Cohesion (c) 2.3 kPa
method. Finally constants of the model were computed
Angle of internal friction 35°
based on the obtained experimental data. Moisture content 250 g/kg
The dry density for experiment 1.19 g/cm3
2 Material and methods Humidity for experiment 250 g/kg

In this study, the factors influencing the forces acting

on the blade are presented in Table 1 as a function of soil
engineering properties, tool design parameters and
operating conditions, (Abo Al-Kheer et al., 2011).

Table 1 The effective factors of soil force acting on blade

Effective factors Definition Symbol

soil bulk density (g cm-3) γ

Angle of internal friction of soil (deg) φ
Figure 1 The used Arvid 354 tractor together with the
Soil engineering
Cohesion (kPa) c
properties examined chisel plow
Adhesion (kPa) ca
Angle of soil metal friction (deg) δ
Tool width (m) w
Tool design
parameters Rake angle (deg) α
Tool depth (m) d

Operational Surcharge (kPa) q

conditions Speed (m s )-1
v

Field experiments of the research were performed in

the Research Station of the SANRU (Sari Agricultural
and Natural Resource University). Engineering
characteristics of the examined soil are given in Table 2.
In this study, three independent variables of speed,
tillage depth and penetration angle of the plow blade were Figure 2 Two-tractor method with drawbar dynamometer for
considered with 36 treatments: 3 tillage depths, 3 measuring the force exerted on the blade
penetration angles, and 4 forward speeds in three
3 Model Construction
replications. Influence of three independent variables
including tillage depth (10, 15, 20 cm), angle of attack Regarding the listed factors in Table 1, variables
(60, 75, 90 degrees) and forward speed (0.5, 1, 1.35, involving in the applied force of a soil working blade (p)
 72 March, 2014 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 16, No.1

can be written in the form of: After substituting the obtained Π-numbers in
p = f(v, d, w, α, γ, c, ca, φ, δ, q) (1) Equation (3), one obtains
Assuming that q is generally absent in working of a P cc d
2 2
 f ( 2 a , , sin  ) (4)
thin soil blade and influences of angles φ and δ are v w v w
considered in cohesive properties of the soil, therefore The final form of the function to estimate the pull
their direct presence in the model can be neglected. resistance is considered in this study in the following
Also both adhesive and cohesive soil properties will be form.
merged together due to their similar dimensions. c  ca n1 d n2
P  (v 2 w)( ) ( ) (sin  ) n3 (5)
According to Buckingham’s theory, the number of v 2 w
invariants and repetitive invariants were seven and three In Equation (5), the constant values of n1, n2, and n3
respectively, so four constant pi-values are obtained. In can be obtained by statistical computation of the
this research, three repetitive invariants are velocity (v), measured experimental data.
specific weight (γ) and tool width (w).
Dimensionless parameters were formed in a matrix 4 Results and discussions
form and the following dimensionless parameters were In this study, a factorial experiment was used in a
extracted. randomized complete block design with 36 treatments (3
a1 b1 c1 0 0 0
1  [( )  (v)  ( w) ] p  M L T tillage depth × 3 penetration angle × 4 forward speed) in
 a b c 0 0 0
 2  [( ) 2  (v) 2  ( w) 2 ]c  M L T three replications. Influence of three independent
 a3 b3 c3 0 0 0
variables including tillage depth (10, 15, 20 cm), angle of
3  [( )  (v)  ( w) ]  M L T
 a b c 0 0 0
attack (60, 75, 90 degrees) and forward speed (0.5, 1,
 4  [( ) 4  (v) 4  ( w) 4 ]  M L T (2)
 a5 b5 c5 0 0 0 1.35, and 1.7 m/s) on tractive efficiency as the dependent
5  [( )  (v)  ( w) ]ca  M L T
  [( ) a6  (v) b6  ( w)c6 ]d  M 0 L0T 0 variable was evaluated. The obtained results were
 6
7  [( ) a7  (v)b7  ( w)c7 ]  M 0 L0T 0 analyzed based on the factorial experiment using analysis
of variance. Treatment means were compared by
The combination of extracted Π-numbers can be
Duncan’s multiple range test using SAS software. Table
written as a functional equation in the form of:
3 shows the comparison of the mean force exerted on the
 P
1  v 2  w2 blade (in kN) at different levels of plowing depth, speed
 and angle of attack.
 c  ca
 2  2 The data presented in this table indicate the
 v (3)
 d significant influence of tillage depth, penetration angle,
 3 
 w and forward speed on the draft force of the examined
  sin 
 4 chisel plow with tin blades.

Table 3 Comparison of mean draft force of the examined chisel plow containing two tin blades (kN) at different levels of plowing
depth, angle of attack and forward speed
Penetration angle (degree)

60 75 90
Speed/
Tillage depth (cm) Tillage depth (cm) Tillage depth (cm)
(m/s)
10 15 20 10 15 20 10 15 20 Average(X)
zα pqr hij yzα m fg tuv hi
0.75 0.4 0.64 1.01 0.45 0.81l 1.2 0.58 1.04 1.56 0.859A
xyzα mnop def vwxy kl cde qrt fg
1.00 0.43 0.78 1.1 0.5 0.88 1.29 0.65 1.15 1.67 0.934B
xyz lmn fg uvw hij a opq cd
1.35 0.47 0.8 1.2 0.56 0.97 1.4 0.72 1.3 1.85 1.024C
1.70 0.51vx 0.91k 1.35bc 0.62ru 1.06h 1.6 0.78mno 1.38bcd 2.1 1.146D
E F G H I J K L M
Average(X) 0.4525 0.7825 1.165 0.5325 0.93 1.3725 0.6825 1.218 1.795
Note: The means indicating with the common letters are not significantly different at 5%.
The means X indicating with the common letters are not significantly different at 5%.
 March, 2014 Influence of tillage depth, penetration angle and forward speed on the soil/thin-blade interaction force Vol. 16, No.1 73

To obtain the coefficient n1, experimental data for the Results of Equation (6) together with the
force as dependent variable and speed as independent experimental data for the vertical blade (90°penetration
variable was plotted in the Excel software. angle) are shown in Figure 3a. As shown in this figure,
To obtain the n2 and n3 coefficients, the same the estimated data using the Equation (6) (solid lines) has
procedure was used except that the independent variables a good agreement with the experimental data. The
for n2 and n3 in each graph were tillage depth and average error for the depth of 20, 15 and 10 cm were
penetration angle, respectively. Finally, the formula for obtained equal to 4.5%, 4% and 1.5%, respectively.
calculating the force exerted on the blade was obtained in The same qualitatively results were observed for the
the form of 75° and 60° penetration angles. These results are
c  ca 0.84 d 1.46 illustrated in Figures 3b and 3c, respectively.
P  0.0082[(v 2 w)( ) ( ) (sin  ) 2.6 ] (6)
v 2 w

Figure 3 Influence of forward speed and tillage depth on the soil/ thin blade interaction force: penetration angle of 90°,
75°, and 60°; lines are estimation using the Equation (6)

5 Conclusions are in the next step. Forward speed had minimum

influence compared to other two examined parameters.
Summary of the results obtained in this study are
shown in Table 4, indicating the maximum variation of Table 4 Maximum variation of the forces exerted on the
the forces exerted on the blade due to variation of the blade due to the forward speed, tillage depth and angle of
penetration
speed, penetration angle and tillage depth. These data
were computed using the data shown in Table 3. Level
Force changes due to Force changes due to Force changes due to
depth changing/% speed changing/% angle changing/%
Results obtained in this table indicate stronger influence
1 74 9 20
of tillage depth on the pulling force of the blade in
2 159 20 132
compare to the penetration angle and forward velocity. 3 33
Influences of the penetration angle and forward velocity
 March, 2014 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 16, No.1 74

References
Abo Al-Kheer, A., M. G. Kharmanda, A. El-Hami, and A. M. McLaughlin, N. B., C. F. Drury, W. D. Reynolds, X.M. Yang, Y.X.
Mouazen. 2011. Estimating the variability of tillage forces Li, T. W. Welacky and G. Stewart. 2008. Energy inputs for
on a chisel plough shank by modeling the variability of tillage conservation and conventional primary tillage implements in a
system parameters. Journal of Computers and Electronics in clay loam soil. Transaction of the ASABE, 51(4): 1153-1163.
Agriculture., 78(1): 61–70. Mulqueen, J., J. V. Stafford, and D. W. Tanner. 1977.
Abo-Elnor, M., R. Hamilton, and J. T. Boyle. 2004. Simulation Evaluation of penetrometers for measuring soil strength.
of soil– blade interaction for sandy soil using advanced 3-D Journal of Terramechanics, 14(3): 137–151.
finite element analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 75(1): Murphy, G. C. 1950. Similitude in Engineering. Ronald Press
61–73. Company. New York.
Arvidsson, J., T. Keller, and K. Gustafsson. 2004. Specific Naderloo, L., R. Alimadani, A. Akram, P. Javadikia, and H. Z.
draught for mouldboard plough, chisel plough and disc harrow Khanghah. 2009. Tillage depth and forward speed effects
at different water contents. Soil and Tillage Research, 79: on draft of three primary tillage implements in clay loam soil.
221-231. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 76(3): 382–
Aykas, E., E. Cakir, and E.Gulsoylu. 2004. The effect of tillage 385.
parameters of the heavy duty offset disk harrow.Asian Journal Olatunji, O. M., W. I. Burubai, and R. M. Davies. 2009. Effect
of Plant Sciences, 3(4): 425-428. of weight and draught on the performance of disc plough on
Dahab, M. H. and M. D. Mutwalli. 2002. Tractor tractive sandy loam soil. Journal of Applied Science, Engineering and
performance as affected by soil moisture content, tyre inflation Technology, 1(1): 22–26.
pressure and implement type. Agricultural Mechanization in Owen, G.T. 1989. Subsoiling forces and tool speed in compact
Asia, Africa and Latin America, 33(1): 29–34. soils. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 31(1): 15-20.
Fielke, J. M. 1996. Interactions of the cutting edge of tillage Rahman, S., and Y. Chen. 2001. Laboratory investigation of
implements with soil. Journal of Agricultural Engineering cutting forces and soil disturbance resulting from different
Research, 63(1): 61-72. manure incorporation tools in a loamy sand soil. Soil and
Gill, W. R., and G. E. Vanden Berg. 1967. Soil dynamics in Tillage Research, 58(1): 19–29.
tillage and traction. Handbook No. 316, U. S.D.A. 511pp. Sahu, R. K., and H. Raheman. 2006. Draught prediction of
Grisso, R. D., M. Yasin, and M. F. Kocher. 1996. Tillage agricultural implements using reference tillage tools in sandy
implement forces operating in silty clay loam. Transactions clay loam soil. Biosystem Engineering, 94(2): 275-284.
of the ASAE, 39(6): 1977-1982. Shen, J. and L. R. Kushwaha. 1998. Soil-machine interaction: a
Kheiralla, F. A., A. Yahia, M. Zohadie, and W. Ishak. 2004. finite element perspective. Marcel Dekker
Modelling of power and energy requirements for tillage Taniguchi, T., J. T. Makanga, K. Ohitomo, and T. Kishimoto.
implements operating on Serdangsandy clay loam, Malaysia. 1999. Draft and soil manipulation by a moldboard plow under
Soil and TillageResearch, 78(1): 21-34. different forward speed and body attachments.
Kuczewsk, J., and E. Piotrowska. 1998. An improved model for Transactions.of the ASAE, 42(6): 1517–1521.
forces on narrow soil cutting tines. Soil and Tillage Research, Tong, J., and B. Z. Moayad. 2006. Effect of rack angle of chisel
46(3): 231–239. cutting on soil cutting a. factors and power requirement: A
Mamman, E., and K. C. Oni. 2005. Draught performance of a computer simulation. Soil and Tillage Research, 88(1): 55–
range of model chisel furrowers. Agricultural Engineering 64.
International: CIGR Journal, 3(7): 1–7. Van Muysen, W., G. Govers, K. van Oost, and A. van Rompaey.
McKyes, E., and J. Maswaure. 1997. Effect of design 2000. The effect of tillage depth, tillage speed and soil
parameters of flat tillage tools on loosening of clay soil. Soil condition on chisel tillage erosivity. Journal of Soil and
and Tillage Research, 43(3): 195–204. Water Conservation, 55(3): 355-364.