agronomy Article
Design, Development, and Performance Evaluation of a Trash-Board Moldboard Plow for the Interaction between Soil and Straw with Two Different Water Content Levels Farid E. Abdallah 1, *, Weimin Ding 1 , Qishuo Ding 1 and Genxing Pan 2 1
2
*
College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University; Key Laboratory of Intelligent Agricultural Equipment of Jiangsu Province, Nanjing 210031, China;
[email protected] (W.D.);
[email protected] (Q.D.) College of Resource and Environmental Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210031, China;
[email protected] Correspondence:
[email protected]; Tel.: +86-178-0500-5357
Academic Editors: Leslie A. Weston, Xiaocheng Zhu and Peter Langridge Received: 23 December 2015; Accepted: 2 May 2016; Published: 6 May 2016
Abstract: A two-year field study was conducted to investigate the performance of a lightweight trash-board moldboard plow (with and without a trash-board), as influenced by stubble height and water content. Both fields were measured for the performance of a trash-board moldboard plow when used during the optimization of the plowing depth, the water content, and the reaction forces. The results showed that in the first year, when a trash-board was required, the results were significantly different. The fields had lower draft and reaction force in the soil with only stubble height, which was greater than that in the soil with dense straw for all water content levels. This was also observed in the second year for the whole depth. This study shows that the moldboard plow with a trash-board provided minimum draft and reaction forces with only straw and heavy straw. The results indicate that straw nearby shear significantly increased displacement for all treatments, with variance of straw nearby moldboard. Hence, the results verify that a trash-board continuously created large soil fragmentation with different water content. Straw labels create a position of straw which also allows for better results. It is important to install trash-boards with the moldboard plow for heavy straw incorporation. Keywords: trash-board attachment; straw incorporation; moldboard plow; water content; soil
1. Introduction The most important estimation parameters of tillage operation are efficiency, fuel consumption, and qualitative indices of technological process. However, both stubble height and stubble density affect water evaporation [1]. It is known that the draft resistance of plows, the energy requirement for plowing, the quality of plowing, and expenses depend on the plow body design, which is determined by the share-moldboard parameters and the parameters of its supporting surfaces. The tillage of soil is considered to be one of the biggest farm operations, as the tillage operation requires the most energy on the farm. The moldboard plow is widely used by farmers as a primary tillage tool. Its performance evaluation is essential in order to reduce the cost of the tillage operation [2–4]. However dynamometer is required to measure drawbar forces in field research on energy inputs for agricultural field equipment [5]. Tillage speed and depth, as well as soil bulk density, were additional variables that had a highly significant effect on displacement [6]. Kosmas has found that tillage operations transport large amounts of soil from convex slopes and deposit on concavities in hilly cultivated areas [7].
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30; doi:10.3390/agronomy6020030
www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
2 of 12
The draft requirements of tillage tools are accomplished by the sensors, which have been extensively studied by many researchers [8–11]. The results indicated that the average opening width was 40 mm, deviation of opening depth was 5 mm, cut rate of corn stubble was over 86%, and soil disturbance rate was 18%–22%. The arc blade type opener can improve the traffic ability of the seeder and the performances of opening and cutting stubbles. Therefore, it can satisfy the opening requirement of wheat no-till sowing in the hilly area in the southwest [12]. The plowing of rheological soil is a unique tillage practice in humid or water-logged agricultural production regions in China. System optimization of moldboard plow for rheological soil condition is necessary for improving its performance and providing a reduced draft and minimized energy consumption. An orthogonal test using four factors with three levels was conducted to optimize plow body structural and working parameters [13]. The moldboard plow is an instrument that is one of the most widely used machines in agricultural history. Compared with the ordinary moldboard plow, the mounted roll-over plow can work alternately because it has two groups of plowing bodies on the plow stock; it reduces the distance of the tractors and improves its efficiency [14]. There were clear differences in specific draft between the different tine and share types, the lowest specific draft recorded for the moldboard plow and the sweep share [15]. Specific draft was generally the highest for the chisel plow and the lowest for the moldboard plow and the disc harrow. The differences can probably be explained by differences in implementation geometry and mode of soil breakage. Specific draft increased with decreasing water content [16]. Due to the importance of the tillage stage, different factors should be selected for determining various tillage machineries and practices. Using the moldboard plow increases energy consumption, which decreases the impedance of soil; therefore, it is effective in improving crops’ growth [17]. Crop residue standing above the soil surface is five to ten times more effective in preventing wind erosion than the same mass of residue lying flat on the soil surface [18]. Doan found that the stubble height, soil, and residue conditions affect the seeding performance, such as seeding depth and residue hair pinning. As seeding performance indicates the yield potential, knowing the benefits and limitations of no-till openers in handling different residue statuses is useful in improving the crop yields and the design of the openers [19]. It has been determined that, at the beginning of the harvesting period, when the average water content of the wheat stems is 70 mm in length (40.5%), 100 mm height stubble mass comprises 24.2% ˘ 1.9% of all the stem mass, and its water content is equal to 59.4% ˘ 2.7% [20]. It was found that residue distribution and incorporation were affected by the speed and depth of tillage operation, type of implement, soil conditions, type of crop residues, and height of stubble [21,22]. There are three important aspects of soil management that have the potential to enhance soil conservation efforts within agricultural fields: residue management, tillage roughness, and tillage erosion. Generally, the wheat is cut leaving approximately 100 mm stubble height [22]. However, high amounts of residue are not needed and part of the crop residue needs to be removed by bailing, and part of the crop residue needs to be incorporated into soil. Therefore, detailed data of soil, crop residue, and tillage tool interactions are needed. It is very difficult to acquire this data in field tests [23]. Tillage practices have a large impact on crop residue and how it is plowed vertically across the tillage depth. The direction of soil velocity was vertical to the surface of the plow, and its distribution was radiating. The distribution of equivalent stress was isocline, and the data was decreasing from the contact point to outer areas. The results of the simulation were verified by the data of experiments in a soil bin [24]. Some forms of tillage, if done too deeply or too quickly, can bury all residues to a depth even greater than that of the tillage depth, making very big clods of soil, and height forces are required so a trash-board can solve this problem by making height fragmentation soil and reduce soil resistance. Practices, such as the use of a trash-board during tillage, will increase the amount of surface residue present between and into the following growing seasons. Little research has been done to study how stubble height, soil, and straw conditions affect trash-board performance, such as depth, force requirement, soil fragmentation, straw burial, and straw movement. Lightweight
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30 Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
3 of 12
3 of 12
fragmentation andplow protect soil. Implements and have and the greatest influence on the draft trash-board moldboard performance indicates thetheir yielduses potential operation cost. Knowing requirement for tillage the most tools. To fill in the is gaps in the data, a research the benefits and limitations ofwith trash-board incommon handlingtillage different residue statuses useful in improving program was carried out to investigate the performance of the lightweight trash-board the soil fragmentation and protect soil. Implements and their uses have the greatest influenceon onthe thewheat stubble height, tillage depth, low speed on straw displacement, and two different water draft requirement for tillage with the most common tillage tools. To fill in the gaps in the data, content a levels. This was wascarried done by plow draft requirement and verticaltrash-board reaction (suction) research program out measuring to investigate the performance of the lightweight on the for combinations of depth lowon speeds operation under edaphic conditions. wheatdifferent stubble height, tillage depth, lowand speed strawofdisplacement, and practical two different water content The problem with the moldboard plow is that the implement tends to cut both the residue and isolates in levels. This was done by measuring plow draft requirement and vertical reaction (suction) for different the soil, of trans-locate, the of soil. This plow haspractical a lesser effect on conditions. straw incorporation and poor combinations depth and burying low speeds operation under edaphic The problem traction efficiency. Therefore, a detailed study on tillage tool–soil–crop residue interaction with the moldboard plow is that the implement tends to cut both the residue and isolates in the soil,under controlled conditions is required. to effect acquire necessary data rate commonly used with trans-locate, burying the soil. This plowWe hasaimed a lesser onthe straw incorporation and poor traction plow designs and to identify any required modifications. Therefore, the objectives of this study efficiency. Therefore, a detailed study on tillage tool–soil–crop residue interaction under controlled were to: investigate a trash-board bynecessary stubble heights and soil resistance different conditions is required. We aimed toinfluenced acquire the data rate commonly used with with two plow designswater examinemodifications. the correlations between the soilobjectives strength, soil movement, andto:a trash-board; and tocontent identifylevels; any required Therefore, of this study were investigate and study the effects of plowing interaction on soil and straw displacement with and without a trasha trash-board influenced by stubble heights and soil resistance with two different water content levels; board. examine the correlations between soil strength, soil movement, and a trash-board; and study the effects of plowing interaction on soil and straw displacement with and without a trash-board. 2. Results 2. Results 2.1. Soil Water Content 2.1. Soil Water Content In both years, wheat had more flat residue and standing residue above ground. When the In both years, wheat hadthe more residue andatstanding residue ground. When residue residue was removed, soilflat water content 0, 100 mm, and above 150 mm in depth wasthe highest in 2013, was removed, the soil water content at 0, 100 mm, and 150 mm in depth was highest in 2013, followed followed by 2014 for both years (Figure 1), which have F value = 0.999, F Critical = 0.336. This trend by 2014 forpossibly both years (Figure 1),to which have standing F value = stubble 0.999, F which Criticaltrapped = 0.336. aThis trend wasair possibly was attributable the taller layer of still close to the attributable to the and tallerslowed standing stubble trapped layer of still air the 20 soilmm surface and 30% soil surface down the which evaporation ofasoil moisture. A close layertowas for each, slowed down the evaporation of soil A layer was 20 for(Table each, 30% average moisture for 2013, andmoisture. 24% average moisture formm 2014 1). average moisture for 2013, and 24% average moisture for 2014 (Table 1).
Figure 1. Gravimetric soil water content at the time of testing in experiments: for 2013 and 2014. Figure 1. Gravimetric soil water content at the time of testing in experiments: for 2013 and 2014.
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
4 of 12
Table 1. Main soil strength parameters and average value of soil bulk density on each 20-mm layer.
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
2013
4 of 12
2014
Table 1. Normal Main soil strength and average of soil bulk density on each 20-mm Layers Dryparameters Bulk Wet Bulk value Normal Dry Bulk Wetlayer. Bulk mm 2014 Stress Density 2013 Density Stress Density Density 3 3 3 Normal Dry Bulk Wet Bulk Normal Dry Bulk Wet Bulk3 (kPa) g/cm g/cm (kPa) g/cm g/cm Layers mm Stress 1.07 Density Density Stress Density Density 20 0 1.49 0.00 0.26 1.05 3 3 3 (kPa) 1.22 g/cm3 (kPa) g/cm g/cm 40 83 1.51g/cm 30 0.30 1.20 20 75 0 0.26 1.05 60 1.96 1.07 1.42 1.49 600.00 0.28 1.14 40 68 83 1.10 1.22 0.30 1.20 80 1.55 1.51 6030 0.32 1.27 60 75 1.96 1.42 60 0.28 1.14 100 144 1.13 1.83 68 0.35 1.39 80 68 1.10 1.55 60 0.32 1.27 120 100 386 1.14 1.81 212 0.40 1.58 144 1.13 1.83 68 0.35 1.39 140 120 651 1.85 1.81 204212 0.45 1.81 386 1.22 1.14 0.40 1.58 140 651 1.22 1.85 204 0.45 1.81 160 606 1.84 1.98 333 0.44 1.76 606 0.44 1.76 180 160 545 1.97 1.84 2.03 1.98 568333 0.47 1.86 180 545 1.97 2.03 568 0.47 1.86 200 200 727 2.27 2.020 569 0.51 2.03 727 2.27 2.020 569 0.51 2.03
2.2. Soil Forces on the Trash-Board Moldboard Plow at 30% Water Content and Tool Parameters 2.2. Soil Forces on the Trash-Board Moldboard Plow at 30% Water Content and Tool Parameters Soil forces on the surface of moldboard plow with and without a trash-board at 30% average Soil forces on the surface of moldboard plow with and without a trash-board at 30% average water water content with a standard deviation of 2.1%, different depths of operation and two straw content with a standard deviation of 2.1%, different depths of operation and two straw conditions are conditions are shown in Figure 2, which have F value = 0.788, F Critical = 0.355. This indicates that, at shown in Figure 2, which have F value = 0.788, F Critical = 0.355. This indicates that, at a depth of a depth of 15 cm, soil forces were 2794.883 N with a trash-board under dense straw cover and 3248.87 15 cm, soil forces were 2794.883 N with a trash-board under dense straw cover and 3248.87 N without a N without a trash-board at the same height. The results were 2345.686 N with a trash-board under trash-board at the same height. The results were 2345.686 N with a trash-board under only the stubble only the stubble condition and 2760.805 N without a trash-board, respectively. It was observed that condition and 2760.805 N without a trash-board, respectively. It was observed that minimum forces minimum forces were applied on the plow with a trash-board in stubble condition (WTNS), while were applied on the plow with a trash-board in stubble condition (WTNS), while maximum forces maximum forces were applied on the plow without a trash-board in dense straw cover (WTOHS). were applied on the plow without a trash-board in dense straw cover (WTOHS). Similar trends were Similar trends were observed at 5 cm and 10 cm operating depths, respectively. The data shows that observed at 5 cm and 10 cm operating depths, respectively. The data shows that using a trash-board using a trash-board decreased soil force requirements at 30% water content (Figure 3). Attaching the decreased soil force requirements at 30% water content (Figure 3). Attaching the trash-board with the trash-board with the moldboard plow is important where straw cover was dense [25,26]. moldboard plow is important where straw cover was dense [25,26].
Figure 2. Soil force at 30% water content and tool parameters with different straw conditions and Figure 2. Soil force at 30% water content and tool parameters with different straw conditions and different depths. WTNS: plow with a trash-board in stubble condition; WTONS: plow without a different depths. WTNS: plow with a trash-board in stubble condition; WTONS: plow without a trashtrash-board in stubble condition; WTHS: plow with a trash-board in dense straw cover; WTOHS: plow board in stubble condition; WTHS: plow with a trash-board in dense straw cover; WTOHS: plow without a trash-board in dense straw cover (WTOHS). without a trash-board in dense straw cover (WTOHS).
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
5 of 12
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30 Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
5 of 12 5 of 12
Figure 3. Comparison between attached trash-board (B) and without a trash-board (A,A1). Figure 3.the Comparison between attached trash-board (B) and and without aa trash-board (A,A1). 2.3. Soil Forces on3. Trash-Board Moldboard Plow at 24% Water Content and Tool Parameters Figure Comparison between attached trash-board (B) without trash-board (A,A1).
Figure 4 shows forces on the surface ofata 24% moldboardContent plow with Tool and without a trash-board 2.3. Soil Soil Forces on the the soil Trash-Board Moldboard 2.3. Forces on Trash-Board Moldboard Plow Plow at 24% Water Water Content and and ToolParameters Parameters at 24% average water content. It had a standard deviation 1.2%, with two straw conditions which Figure forces the aa moldboard plow without aa trash-board shows soil forces=on on the surface surface ofindicates moldboard plow with and without trash-board have Figure F value44=shows 0.552, soil F Critical 0.355. The dataof that, at the with depthand of 15 cm, soil forces were at 24% average water content. It had a standard deviation 1.2%, with two straw conditions at 24% average water content. It had standard deviation 1.2%, with two straw conditions which which 1794.883 N without a trash-board, 150 amm in straw height, and 1248.87 N with a trash-board at the have F value = 0.552, Critical 0.355. The The dataaindicates indicates that,0at at thein depth ofheight, 15 cm, cm, and soil forces forces were have Fheight. value The = 0.552, FF Critical == 0.355. data that, the depth of 15 soil were same results were 1345.686 N with trash-board, mm straw 1060.805 N 1794.883 N without a trash-board, 150 mm in straw height, and 1248.87 N with a trash-board at the 1794.883aNtrash-board, without a trash-board, 150height, mm in respectively. straw height,Itand 1248.87 N with a trash-board the without 0 mm in straw is observed that minimum forces at were same height. height. The results werea1345.686 1345.686 N with with trash-board, mm in straw height, and N same The results were N aa trash-board, 00 mm in straw while height, and 1060.805 1060.805 N applied on the plow without trash-board in stubble condition (WTONS), maximum forces without a trash-board, 0 mm in straw height, respectively. It is observed that minimum forces were without a trash-board, 0 mm inSimilar straw height, It isatobserved forces were were applied on the WTOHS. trends respectively. were observed 5 cm andthat 10 minimum cm operating depths, applied on plow without a trash-board in stubble condition (WTONS), while maximum forcesforces were applied onthe the plow without a trash-board inlow stubble condition (WTONS), while maximum respectively; thus, using a trash-board with water content increases soil force requirements. applied on the on WTOHS. Similar were observed atdifferent 5 cm and 10 cmcontent operating respectively; were applied the WTOHS. Similar trends were atwater 5 cm and 10levels, cmdepths, operating depths, When comparing the usage of atrends trash-board with twoobserved we suggest that thus, using a trash-board with low water content increases soil force requirements. When comparing respectively; thus, usinghigh a trash-board with low water content soil force requirements. it is better to use it with water content. The statistical analysisincreases of the data was highly significant the< usage of a trash-board with different with watertwo content levels, we suggest it iswe better to use it When comparing the usage of atwo trash-board different water content that levels, suggest that (p 0.01). with high water The water statistical analysis the dataanalysis was highly significant < 0.01). it is better to usecontent. it with high content. The of statistical of the data was(phighly significant (p < 0.01).
Figure 4. Soil force at 24% water content and tool parameters with different straw conditions and Figure 4. Soil force at 24% water content and tool parameters with different straw conditions and different depths. WTNS: plow with a trash-board in stubble condition; WTONS: plow without a different depths. WTNS: plow with a trash-board in stubble condition; WTONS: plow without a trashtrash-board in stubble condition; WTHS: plow with a trash-board in dense straw cover; WTOHS: plow board condition; WTHS: plow with a trash-board dense straw cover; Figurein4. stubble Soil force at 24% water content and tool parametersinwith different straw WTOHS: conditionsplow and without a trash-board in dense straw cover (WTOHS). without trash-board in plow densewith straw cover (WTOHS). differentadepths. WTNS: a trash-board in stubble condition; WTONS: plow without a trash-
board in stubble condition; WTHS: plow with a trash-board in dense straw cover; WTOHS: plow
A trash-board trash-board displaces displaces large large amounts amounts of soil soil from from aa convex convex slope, slope, which which changes changes soil soil properties properties A without a trash-board in dense straw coverof (WTOHS). to those those less less favorable favorable for for wheat wheat production. production. Application Application of of the the obtained obtained empirical empirical functions functions shows shows to that this occurs under existing climatic conditions and management practices. It has been demonstrated trash-board displaces large amounts soil from a and convex slope, whichpractices. changes soil that A this occurs under existing climatic ofconditions management It properties has been through experiments that the use production. of athat trash-board further in thefunctions soil on both the to those less favorable for wheat Application of the fragmentation obtained empirical shows demonstrated through experiments the use ofcreates a trash-board creates further fragmentation in the soil water and theexisting straw condition. above results verify that trash-boards that this content occurs under climatic The conditions and management practices. continuously It has been demonstrated through experiments that the use of a trash-board creates further fragmentation in the
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
6 of 12
created large fragmentation, compared to cases when a trash-board was not used under the same conditions. Moreover, the findings of Yousef Abbaspour et al. [22] concluded that an increase in soil water content resulted in a decrease in draft forces. However, Taniguchi et al. [27,28] and Olatunji et al. [29] observed that drafts required for a given implement are affected by the soil conditions and tool parameters. 2.4. Soil Displacement and Clod Size Displacement of soil by moldboard plowing is an important land degradation process on agricultural soil in China. A trash-board displaces large amounts of soil. In Table 2, it has been shown that the use of a trash-board reduces the soil displacement, as indicated by the differences between the plows in without-trash and with-trash conditions. It has also been demonstrated through experiments that the use of a trash-board creates further fragmentation in the soil on both the soil water content and straw condition. The above results verify that trash-boards continuously created large fragmentation compared to cases when a trash-board was not used under the same conditions. However, the blank space was smaller when using a trash-board, and clod size was larger when not using a trash-board. The results also demonstrated that the differences of soil displacement between the plow with a trash-board and plow without a trash-board were significant. The large soil displacement in the field was potentially caused by soil rolling, as visually observed in the study. Roots in the field may hold the soil together to form root balls. These root balls might be responsible for the soil rolling. The existence of the trash-board reduced the force requirement and reduced soil resistance. The soil displacement ranged from 70 to 300 mm. Rahman et al. showed the average of the soil forwarded by displacement (146 mm) [30]. Table 2. Soil moisture, average soil displacement, average clods width, average clods length, and average blank spaces. Soil Treatments Moisture
Soil Displacement
Clods Width cm
Clods Length cm
Blank Space
30%
WTNS WTONS WTHS WTOHS
48.89 64.22 46.44 49.78
21.33 29.78 20.44 34.78
27.22 45.33 48.11 67.78
6.55 9.56 10.78 11.56
24%
WTNS WTONS WTHS WTOHS
31.22 39.56 38.78 41.44
20.89 24.78 26.2 32.11
19.33 25.33 32.11 41.56
4.89 7.22 9.44 12.56
WTNS: plow with a trash-board in stubble condition; WTONS: plow without a trash-board in stubble condition; WTHS: plow with a trash-board in dense straw cover; WTOHS: plow without a trash-board in dense straw cover (WTOHS).
2.5. Straw Displacement A measurement of straw movement at two water contents is characterized by a high degree of variability. It appears that the forward straw displacement increases with the increase of straw length with and without a trash-board. For any straw length, using a trash-board decreased straw displacement. Lateral straw position produced significantly larger straw displacement, compared to that of using a forward method. The lateral distribution of all straw pieces applied in the center area of a plot were measured by counting the number of straw, position of label, and number of pieces located between the stems of straw. Lateral straw distribution is an indicator that shows how the straw will be redistributed after a specific tillage operation. The results showed that using a trash-board significantly decreased lateral straw displacement for all four lengths in 2013 and five lengths in 2014 because a little straw was removed to the outside of the second and third furrows, as shown in Table 3. The indictor of straw label creates the position of straw, which can be clearly seen in Figure 5. The results indicate
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
7 of 12
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
7 of 12
that straw sheared nearby significantly increased displacement forwhich all treatments, at variance of that in Table 3. The indictor of straw label creates the position of straw, can be clearly seen in Figure nearby moldboard. 5. The results indicate that straw sheared nearby significantly increased displacement for all treatments, at variance of that nearby moldboard. Table 3. Average straw displacement at tow water content by three parallel passes with and without a trash-board in the field. Table 3. Average straw displacement at tow water content by three parallel passes with and without a trash-board in the field.
Forward Straw Displacement mm Straw Forward Straw Displacement mm with a Trash-Board without a Trash-Board Straw Length with a Trash-Board without a Trash-Board Length Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby mm Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Shear Moldboard Shear Moldboard mm Shear
Moldboard
Shear
a 100 65.5 (453.3) 30.8 (198.1) c 75.2 (353.7) a a 100 65.5 (453.3) 30.8 (198.1) c 75.2 (353.7) a 150 70.3 (165.5) a 45.7 (245.1) b 79.6 (542.8) a (165.5) a (245.1) b (542.8) a 150250 70.373.4 (275.7) b 45.7 50.9 (349.4) a 79.6 83.2 (324.1) a 250 73.4 (275.7) b 50.9 (349.4) a 83.2 (324.1) a
Moldboard
2013 2013 (258.1A) b 38.1 38.1 (258.1A) b 49.2 (303.1) b (303.1) b 49.2 55.3 (220.0) c (220.0) c 55.3 2014 (353.7) a 2014 30.2 (254.7) a 39.5 (353.7) a 30.2 (198.1) (254.7) ac 50.6 39.5 (145.4) (198.1) ca 66.1 50.6
Lateral Straw Displacement mm
Straw Displacement with a Lateral Trash-Board without mm a Trash-Board with a Trash-Board without a Trash-Board Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Shear Moldboard Shear Moldboard Shear
38.1 (353.7)aa 38.1 (353.7) 49.2 (198.1) c (198.1) c 49.2 55.3 (124.1) b 55.3 (124.1) b
Moldboard
70.1 (232A) cc 70.1 (232A) 75.6 (278.4) c (278.4) c 75.6 80.5 (419.7) a 80.5 (419.7) a
Shear
Moldboard
a a 45.8 (175A) 80.5 (353.7) 45.8 (175A) a 80.5 (353.7) a 50.8 (326.2) c 87.2 (222.2) b (326.2) c (222.2) b 50.8(295.4) 87.2 c (218.5) a 68.7 99.7 68.7 (295.4) c 99.7 (218.5) a
28.8 (353.7) b 35.4 (415.2) a 30.2 (471.5) a 65.4 (298.1) c 39.5 (398.1) c 75 60 (4272.0) b (353.7) a (214.1) c (198.1) c (353.7) b (325.7) a (321.0) a 33.2 48.2 39.5 71.9 45.1 125 69.5 (4272.0) b (353.7) b (415.2) a (471.5) a (298.1) c 75 60 28.8 35.4 30.2 65.4 39.5 (398.1) c (213.7) (198.1) (353.7) (153.7)ba (353.7) ba (251.7) b (353.7) a a 33.245 (214.1) c c 48.2 (198.1) ca (353.7) 49.4 50.6 89.2 (325.7) 56.5 125175 69.587.3 39.5 71.9 45.1 (321.0) a (353.7) (353.7) (251.7) (325.3)ab (323.8) b b c b (213.7) a a 4557.2 (198.1) c b 49.4 (353.7) ac (251.7) 63.4 66.1(153.7) 112.8 74.2 175225 87.393.5 50.6 89.2 (353.7) 56.5(453.0) (353.7) a (353.7) b (251.7) c (145.4) a (325.3) b (323.8) b (453.0) c 225 93.5 57.2 63.4 66.1 66.1 112.8 74.2 A standard deviation of three replications. a, b, and c Letters following straw length
50.6 (353.7) a (353.7) a 58.8 50.6 (353.7) a (214.3) c 66.6 58.8 (353.7) a (353.7A) a c 77.8 66.6 (214.3) (353.7A) a 77.8 show the
A standardof deviation of three displacement replications. a, b, andthree c Letters following length show thelengths, differences of differences mean forward over tillage speedsstraw among nine straw tested mean forward displacement over three tillage speeds among nine straw lengths, tested by two-way ANOVA by two-way ANOVA with Duncan’s test at significant level of 0.1. with Duncan’s test at significant level of 0.1.
Figure 5. of the (100, 150, 150, and Figure 5. An An overview overview of the straw straw tracer tracer used used in in the the study study for for displacement displacement analysis analysis (100, and 250 mm mm length length of of tracer tracer used used in in 2013 2013 with with label, label, color color and and number), number), (75, (75, 125, 125, 175, 175, and and 250 250 mm mm length length 250 of straw straw tracer of tracer used used in in 2014). 2014).
Discussion 3. Discussion A trash-board, straw displacement werewere affected by many factors,factors, such assuch waterascontent, trash-board,soil, soil,and and straw displacement affected by many water soil type,soil andtype, cropand residue and operational factors. The length and label and of straw content, cropconditions residue conditions and operational factors. The length labelimpacted of straw straw displacement, and cover was to explore fieldthrough studies due the complexity of impacted straw displacement, and difficult cover was difficultthrough to explore fieldtostudies due to the field conditions. Fieldconditions. experiments can simplify a trash-board, soil, astraw, and moldboard plow and complexity of field Field experiments can simplify trash-board, soil, straw, control experimental it is easier to study theitimpact ofto the above-mentioned moldboard plow and factors. control Consequently, experimental factors. Consequently, is easier study the impact of factors on soil and straw movement, compared to using and not using a trash-board. The apresent the above-mentioned factors on soil and straw movement, compared to using and not using trashstudy utilized new study experimental which will facilitatewhich research this area in the future. board. The present utilized methods, new experimental methods, will in facilitate research in this Initial on the soil and theon displacement the length of theofaffected hayof and trash-board area indata the future. Initial data the soil andof the displacement the length thestraw affected hay and
straw trash-board are presented. Furthermore, it is better to provide readers with information that is not similar to or referencing existing data.
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
8 of 12
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
8 of 12
are presented. Furthermore, it is better to provide readers with information that is not similar to or 4. Materials and Methods referencing existing data.
4.1.Materials Site 4. and Methods Experiments were carried out in 2013 and 2014 to investigate the effect of stubble height, water 4.1. Site content, and straw movement on the performance of a trash-board moldboard plow under two straw Experiments were carried out in 2013 and 2014 investigate effect of stubble water conditions. The experiments were conducted ontothe Jiangputhe experimental farmheight, at Nanjing content, and straw movement on theChina. performance of a is trash-board under two straw Agricultural University, Nanjing, The farm located inmoldboard a suburb plow of Nanjing (latitude: conditions. The experiments were conducted on area the Jiangpu experimental Nanjing Agricultural 32°3′4.96″ N; longitude: 118°36′38.78″ W). This is characterized by afarm cold at and arid climate in the 1 4.96” N; University, is located in a suburb of Nanjing (latitude:were 32˝ 3shown winter, and Nanjing, a hot andChina. heavily The rainyfarm climate in the summer. However, soil properties in longitude: 1184.˝ 361 38.78” W). This area is characterized by a cold and arid climate in the winter, and a Tables 1 and hot and heavily rainy climate in the summer. However, soil properties were shown in Tables 1 and 4. Table 4. Measurement of soil cohesion and soil friction angle before tillage at different soil water Table 4. Measurement of soil cohesion and soil friction angle before tillage at different soil content. water content.
Items
2013
Items (%) Soil water content
2013 30
water content SoilSoil cohesion (mPa) (%) Soil cohesion (mPa) Friction angle (Φ) Friction angle (Φ)
30 51.39 51.39 12.85° ˝ 12.85
2014 2014 24 2446.284 46.284 7.81° 7.81˝
4.2. Trash-Board Description 4.2. Trash-Board Description The purposed design is based on the preliminary general field observations and requirements. The purposed design is based on thethe preliminary field observations andstudy requirements. The actual designs were developed after collection general of field information from the area. The The actual designs were developed after the collection of field information from the study trash-board attachment was developed using Chinese manufacturing facilities and Pro Engineering area. The(version trash-board attachment was developed usingCorporation, Chinese manufacturing facilities andAfter Pro software number 5.0, Parametric Technology Needham, MA, USA). Engineering software (version number 5.0, Parametric Technology Corporation, Needham, MA, USA). development of the machine, it was field tested for its performances, potential problems, and effects After of the machine, it waswere field used tested(Figure for its performances, potential on thedevelopment soil crop parameters. Parameters 6), and Farid Eltom [26]problems, describedand the effects on the soil crop parameters. Parameters were used (Figure 6), and Farid Eltom [26] described shapes of the trash-board moldboard plow, which was used for data collection. The plows were the shapeson ofathe trash-board moldboard plow, which was used for data collection. The plows were mounted platform rig described below. mounted on a platform rig described below.
Figure 6. Schematic views of 3D solid model of a trash-boar. TL: trash length; TBL: trash blade length; Figure 6. Schematic views of 3D of a trash-boar. TL: trash length; TBL: trash blade length; TBH: trash blade height; and TH:solid trashmodel height. TBH: trash blade height; and TH: trash height.
4.3. Design and Development of the Trash-Board for the Moldboard Plow 4.3. Design and Development of the Trash-Board for the Moldboard Plow The design of a trash-board is a key part of plowing and directly touches the soil with the The design a trash-board is atrash-board key part of plowingcoverage and directly touches soil and withstalk. the moldboard plow. of This easily attached improves in heavy trash the stubble moldboard plow. This easily attached trash-board improves coverage in heavy trash stubble and It is superior to ground-penetrating covering devices, has no adverse effects on the plow, has a lighter stalk. and It is is superior to ground-penetrating covering devices, has no adverse effectssoil onbed the preparation plow, has a draft, easier and less complicated to adjust. The trash-board creates suitable lighter draft, and is easier and less complicated to adjust. The trash-board creates suitable soil also bed for fertilizing and sowing. Its structure not only determines the shape of the trash-board but preparation for fertilizing and sowing. Its structure not only determines the shape of theand trash-board affects its buried performance, reduces soil resistance, and increases soil fragmentations resisting but also affects its buried reduces soil resistance, andthe increases soil fragmentations and force of the whole seeder. performance, Therefore, it affects sowing quality and germination rate of the seed. resisting force of the whole seeder. Therefore, it affects sowing quality and the germination rate of the seed. Pro/Engineer is a three-dimensional software designed by PTC in America. Currently, the software has been widely used in the field as part design, product assembly, model development,
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30 Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
9 of 12 9 of 12
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
9 of 12
Pro/Engineer a three-dimensional software designed byand PTCsoinon. America. Currently, the reverse engineering,ismechanism analysis, finite element analysis, The software has been software has been widely used in the field as part design, product assembly, model development, widely and promoted analysis, by many finite companies around the world. thoughhas the been soil reverserecognized engineering, mechanism element analysis, and so However, on. The software reverse engineering, mechanism analysis, finite element analysis, and so on. The software has been model and the trash-board were drawn in Pro/ENGINEER, the steps of design are given below widely recognized and promoted by many companies around the world. However, though the soil widely recognized and promoted manyincompanies around the the world. though soil (Figure model 7). and the trash-board were by drawn Pro/ENGINEER, steps ofHowever, design are giventhe below model and the trash-board were drawn in Pro/ENGINEER, the steps of design are given below (Figure 7). (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Views and dimensional of Pro/E solid model. Figure 7. Views and dimensional of Pro/E solid model. Figure 7. Views and dimensional of Pro/E solid model.
Slots in trash-board support bracket (B) provide ample adjustment. Set trash-board (A) as high Slots in trash-board support bracket (B) provide ample adjustment. Set trash-board (A) as high as possible, sure the front point remains against the shin. This allows trash-board Slots inmaking trash-board support bracket (B) provide ample adjustment. Set the trash-board (A) to asturn high as possible, making sure the front point remains against the shin. This allows the trash-board to turn trash quicker and provide a lighter draft. If more trash coverage is desired, lower the rear of the trash, as possible, making sure the front point remains against the shin. This allows the trash-board to turn trash quicker and provide a lighter draft. If more trash coverage is desired, lower the rear of the remove the retainer nuts from plow bolts (C), or attach a supporting (B)rear using existing trash quicker and provide a lighter draft. If more trash coverage is desired,bracket lower the of the trash, trash, remove the retainer nuts from plow bolts (C), or attach a supporting bracket (B) using existing hardware. The implement, was conceived cutting, shredding, and frogmen within the remove the retainer nuts from plow boltsfor (C), or attach a supporting bracket of (B)soil using existing hardware. The implement, was conceived for cutting, shredding, and frogmen of soil within the moldboard plow. The implement was primarily comprised of three overlapping parts (Figure 8). hardware. The implement, was conceived for cutting, shredding, and frogmen of soil within All the moldboard plow. The implement was primarily comprised of three overlapping parts (Figure 8). three parts will setThe the implement trash-boardwas as high as possible, making sure overlapping the front point remains against moldboard plow. primarily comprised of three parts (Figure 8). All All three parts will set the trash-board as high as possible, making sure the front point remains against the shin. three parts will set the trash-board as high as possible, making sure the front point remains against the shin. the shin.
Figure 8. Trash-board parts: (A) trash-board; (B) support bracket; (C) plow bolts. Figure 8. Trash-board parts: (A) trash-board; (B) support bracket; (C) plow bolts.
4.4. ExperimentFigure Layout8. Trash-board parts: (A) trash-board; (B) support bracket; (C) plow bolts. 4.4. Experiment Layout The main parameters controlled in the field plowing test include forward speed and tillage 4.4. Experiment Layout TheThe main parameters controlled in thedesign field relating plowingtotest forward speed tillage depth. complete factorial experimental twoinclude straw conditions and a and moldboard depth.The Themain complete factorial experimental design relating to two straw conditions and a moldboard parameters controlled in the field plowing test include forward speed and tillage plow with without a trash-board attachment ledrelating to four to treatments: plow withand a trash-board in depth. Theand complete factorial experimental design two strawaconditions a moldboard stubble condition (WTNS), a plow without a trash-board in stubble condition (WTONS), a plow with plow with and without a trash-board attachment led to four treatments: a plow with a trash-board in
stubble condition (WTNS), a plow without a trash-board in stubble condition (WTONS), a plow with
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
10 of 12
plow with and without a trash-board attachment led to four treatments: a plow with a trash-board in stubble condition (WTNS), a plow without a trash-board in stubble condition (WTONS), a plow with a trash-board in dense straw cover (WTHS) and a plow without a trash-board in dense straw cover (WTOHS). Combined with three working depths, the total experimental layouts contained 12 combinations. 4.5. Measurements Before starting the experiment, standing and flat residue were collected separately, as stubble height treatments alter the ratio of flat to standing stubble. At the time of experiments, two sensors were installed to measure reaction forces and soil samples for gravimetric soil water content. Measurements were randomly taken in each plot at the depths of 0 to 50 mm, 50 to 100 mm, and 100 to 150 mm. The determination method was the same as that used by [6]. Therefore, straw pieces originally situated in the central area were easily distinguished after tillage [25]. A 1-m2 quadrat was randomly placed on the surface of each plot at three random locations. The flat straw contained within the quadrat was placed before running, and straw unburied was collected first and placed into a paper bag, and the remaining standing straw was measured to determine the average straw brail. Combined with three working depths, total experimental layouts contained 12 combinations. Each treatment was replicated 3 times, leading to 36 testing plots. Each treatment was done within a plot in a size of 3 m ˆ 10 m. Nine aluminum cubes of 1 cm3 were used as tracers for soil movement. The tracers were arranged in lines perpendicular to the direction of tool travel. These cubes were labeled and inserted into the soil, and the top surfaces were leveled with soil surface to trace soil movement. Clod sizes were measured with a ruler directly after plowing test. Every clod was numbered and marked in its center for ease of handling. 4.6. Field Testing Platform The platform for field experiment was designed and constructed in the department of Agricultural Mechanization, College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University [12,25]. The platform was equipped with motion mechanisms and a traction power unit. During the field operation for each tillage treatment, the tractor was operated at the same forwarding speed [13]. Tractor-DT910 tow-wheel-drives 11 kW is equipped to measure engine speed (rpm) in addition to the load cell, consisting of several modules. 4.7. Statistical Analysis This research was planned as the randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Soil forces of the moldboard plow in different working conditions, soil water content, a used trash-board, straw movement, and depths were analyzed by SPSS (version 16, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) with ANOVA. 5. Conclusions Stubble water content is approximately 1.8 times greater than the average stem water content. Our research results agree with previous statements that longer straw had larger displacement at different water content levels. Measured straw displacement had large variances, which were the main reason for the withdrawal of straw. The findings were as follows. 1. 2. 3.
The draft was generally the highest without a trash-board and lowest when attaching a trash-board, and only the straw stem had high water content. Draft requirement decreased with the installation of a trash-board and increased water content. The trash-board was also closely related to soil cohesion derived from vane shear measurements. The trash-board has the largest effect for soil fragmentation at different water content levels, but this may be attributed to the benefit of a trash-board, as shown in the result.
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
4.
5. 6. 7.
8. 9.
11 of 12
Both straw length and soil water content impact straw displacement. Thus, it is recommended for farm operators that a trash-board be used with more than 30% water content according to the percentage of straw to be displaced. The results indicate that straw nearby shear significantly increased the displacement for all treatments, at variance of that nearby moldboard. The present study introduced new experimental methods, which will facilitate research in this area. Displacement of soil by moldboard plowing is a severe land degradation process for hilly agricultural land. Reduced soil displacement with a trash-board attachment was also found in other soil conditions, both in bare soil and with standing stubbles. Similar effects of reduced soil displacement were also true for working depths. It is better to set a trash-board as high as possible, making sure the front point remains against the shin. This allows the trash-board to turn trash quicker and provide a lighter draft. If more trash coverage is desired, then the rear of the trash-board should be lowered; (a) remove and retain nuts from plow bolts, and (b) attach the supporting bracket using existing hardware.
Acknowledgments: The work was supported by the National Support Program of Science and Technology (no: 2013BAD08B04). The authors wish to thank Elizabeth Lewis and Janet Abena Serwah Amparbeng for their help in improving the language. Author Contributions: Research conceived and guided by Weimin Ding, Qishou Ding and Genxing Pan. Laboratory and field experiments performed by Farid E. Abdallah. Paper written by Farid E. Abdallah. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10.
11. 12.
Arvidsson, J.; Keller, T.; Gustafsson, K. Specific draught for mouldboard plow, chisel plow and disc harrow at different water contents. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 79, 221–231. [CrossRef] Arvidsson, J.; Hillerström, O. Specific draught, soil fragmentation and straw incorporation for different tine and share types. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 110, 154–160. [CrossRef] Shirneshan, A. The effect of different types of tillage on soil’s physical, mechanical and biological properties. Researcher 2011, 3, 25–29. Chen, Y.; Monero, F.; Lobb, D.A.; Tessier, S.; Cavers, C. Effects of six tillage methods on residue incorporation and crop performance under a heavy clay soil condition. Trans. ASAE. 2004, 47, 1003–1010. [CrossRef] Chen, Y.; McLaughlin, N.B.; Tessier, S. Double extended octagonal ring (DEOR) drawbar dynamometer. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 462–471. [CrossRef] Doan, V.; Chen, Y.; Irvine, B. Effect of oat stubble height on the performance of no-till seeder openers. J. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 2005, 47, 37–44. Fox, F.; Wagner, L. A laser distance-based method for measuring standing residue. In Soil Erosion Research for the 21st Century; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2001; pp. 143–146. Godwin, R.J. An extended octagonal ring transducer for use in tillage studies. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1975, 20, 347–352. [CrossRef] Godwin, R.J.; Reynolds, A.J.; O’Dogherty, M.J.; Al-Ghazal, A.A. A triaxial dynamometer for force and management measurement on tillage implements. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1993, 55, 189–205. [CrossRef] Shinde, G.U.; Badgujar, P.D.; Kajale, S.R. Experimental Analysis of Tillage Tool Shovel Geometry on Soil Disruption by Speed and Depth of Operation. In International Conference on Environmental and Agriculture Engineering, IPCBEE 2011; ACSIT Press: Singapore, Singapore, 2011. Hanna, H.; Melvin, S.; POPE, R. Tillage implements operational effects on residue cover. Appl. Eng. 1995, 11, 205–210. [CrossRef] Ding, Y.Z.; Jin, J.H.; Guo, X.L.; Tang, H.; Yang, H.J. Study on 3-D Numerical Simulation for Soil Cutting with Large Deformation. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2012, 4, 30.
Agronomy 2016, 6, 30
13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
18. 19.
20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
26. 27. 28. 29.
30.
12 of 12
Wang, J.S.; Yang, R.B.; Shang, S.Q. Analysis of influencing factors on operating resistance of machine-soil system. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 422, 596–600. (In Chinese) [CrossRef] Ming, Z.; Zhang, G.Z.; Yao, X.L. Applications of Finite Element Analysis in Soil Cutting. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 2015, 9, 57. (In Chinese) Heckrath, G.; Djurhuusa, J.; Goversc, G. The effect of tillage direction on soil redistribution by mouldboard plowing on complex slopes. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 88, 225–241. [CrossRef] Kirisci, V.; Blackmore, B.S.; Godwin, R.J.; Blake, J. Design and Calibration of Three Different Three-Point Linkage Dynamometers; ASAE/CSAE Paper No. 93-1009; ASAE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 1993. Kosmas, C.; Gerontidisa, S.; Marathianoua, M.; Detsisa, B.; Zafirioua, T.; Nan Muysenb, W.; Goversb, G.; Quinec, T.; Quinec, K. The effects of tillage displaced soil on soil properties and wheat biomass. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 58, 31–44. [CrossRef] Liu, J.; Chen, Y.; Kushwaha, R. Effect of tillage speed and straw length on soil and straw movement by a sweep. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 109, 9–17. [CrossRef] Nielsen, D.C. Optimum wheat stubble height to reduce erosion and evaporation. In Conservation Tillage Factsheet; USDA-ARS, NRCS, and Colorado Conservation Tillage Association: Akron, OH, USA, 2003; pp. 4–97. Shelton, D.P.; Dickey, E.C.; Kachman, S.D.; Fairbanks, K.T. Corn residue cover on the soil surface after planting for various tillage and planting systems. Soil Water Conserv. 1995, 50, 399–494. Manuwa, S.; Ademosun, O.C. Draught and Soil Disturbance of Model Tillage Tines under Varying Soil Parameters. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2007, 9, 1–18. Špokas, L.; Steponaviˇcius, D. Impact of wheat stubble height on combine technological parameters. Food Agric. Environ. 2010, 8, 464–468. Taniguchi, T.; Makanga, J.T.; Kishimoto, K. Draft and manipulation by a moldboard plow under different forward speed and body attachments. Trans. ASAE 1999, 99, 1517–1521. [CrossRef] Zhai, L.; Ji, C.; Ding, Q.; Yu, Y. Analysis of Distribution of Displacement on Soil Surface in Front of Plow with FEM. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2011, 10, 10. (In Chinese) Farid Eltom, A.E.; Ding, W.; Ding, Q.; Tagar, A.A.; Talha, Z.; Gamareldawla. Field investigation of a trash-board, tillage depth and low speed effect on the displacement and burial of straw. Catena 2015, 133, 385–393. [CrossRef] Farid Eltom, A.E.; Ding, W.; Ding, Q.; Ali, A.B.B.; Adam, B.E. Effect of trash-board on moldboard plow performance at low speed and under two straw conditions. J. Terramech. 2015, 59, 27–34. [CrossRef] Rahman, S.; Chen, Y.; Lobb, D.A. Soil movement resulting from sweep type manure injection tools. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2005, 91, 379–392. [CrossRef] Olatunji, O.M.; Davies, R.M. Effect of Weight and Draught on the Performance of Disc on Sandy-loam Soil. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2009, 1, 22–26. Abbaspour, Y.; Alimardani1, R.; Khalilian, A.; Keyhani, A.; Sadati, S.A.H. Energy Requirement of Site-specific and Conventional Tillage as Affected by Tractor Speed and Soil Parameters. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2006, 8, 499–503. Zoerb, G.C.; Musonda, N.G.; Kushwaha, R.L. A combined drawbar pins and force transducer. Can. Agric. Eng. 1983, 25, 157–162. © 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
