Overview of soil-machine interaction studies in soil bins

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Review

Overview of soil-machine interaction studies in soil bins a,⁎

a

a

b

MARK a

Ozoemena A. Ani , B.B. Uzoejinwa , A.O. Ezeama , A.P. Onwualu , S.N. Ugwu , C.J. Ohagwu a b

a

Department of Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria Department of Material Science and Engineering, African University of Science and Technology, Abuja, Nigeria

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Soil-machine interaction Terramechanics Soil bin Tillage Traction Off-road vehicles

This paper presents a review of soil-machine interaction studies in soil bin test facilities; it provides an insight on the historical background, concepts, past and present studies and future research direction. Soil-machine interaction studies seek to provide scientific knowledge on how tillage tools and traction devices interact with the terrain over which they work or move. Variables usually investigated include; force required to pull or push the tillage tool, vertical and lateral forces on tools, soil failure patterns, soil particles displacement, force generated at the interface of the wheel and the soil, wheel sinkage, rolling resistance, wheel contact area estimation, and soil stress at different depths. Soil bin facility is a model laboratory for tillage and traction experiments. The main components include the soil bin that models the ground; mobile tool carrier that models tool/implement frame; soil engaging tool/device for modeling tillage tools or traction elements; power source and the drive system that model the prime mover; soil conditioning equipment for preparation of the soil before experiments; motion control system for controlling the moving components along the rails of the soil bin; measurement/data acquisition and analysis system for real time measurement, analysis and display of variables during experiments; a lifting system for hoisting of heavy components. Simulations with Finite Element and Discrete Element Methods together with experimental analyses in the field or the soil bin are applied by many researchers in studying soilmachine interaction. Results of this kind of study are useful for design, modeling, prediction, performance evaluation and optimization of different kinds of off-road vehicles, earth moving machines, tractors, tillage tools/implements, traction elements, wheeled mobile robots and autonomous traction vehicles.

1. Background The development of soil engaging tools and machines for soil tillage and traction started without any scientific knowledge of how the tools and traction elements interact with the soil while working the soil. This caused inefficiencies as the tools and machines were used under different operating conditions, environment and power sources. George Kuehne was the first researcher who initiated studies in a soil bin in the year 1914 in Berlin, Germany (Ademosun, 2014). However, Mark L. Nichols and John W. Randolph were the first (Gill, 1990) to conceive the idea and to develop a full-sized soil bin laboratory between 1920 and 1933, where controlled experiments could be carried out to study the relationship between tillage tools, traction equipment and the soil. The National Soil Dynamics Laboratory in Auburn Alabama, USA was the world’s first full-size laboratory. The soil bin consisted of powered, rail mounted tillage tool carriage working in soils isolated from external influences. Soil-machine interaction studies over the years, especially in the soil bin have provided insight to the operation mechanism and

hence the design of traction elements and tillage tools on different soils under varying soil conditions. Such traction equipment ranges from different kinds of off-road vehicles, earth moving machines to wheeled mobile robots used for military, agriculture, search and rescue, mining, terrestrial explorations, forestry, etc. Equipment manufacturers have utilized the results of soil-machine interaction studies in the soil bin to improve the design and efficiency of tillage implements, such as plows, harrows, planters and cultivators, and traction and transport machines, such as tractors, combines, and trailers. Studies in the soil bin have revolved around providing better understanding of soil failure patterns with different sizes and designs of tillage tools under varying conditions of both the soil and the machine, earth moving and transport, soil working and amendment, forces required to fail the soil, power requirements of tillage tool carriers or prime movers, optimizing traction efficiency for effective vehicle mobility and more recently autonomous navigation of wheeled mobile robots. Studies and research in this subject have undergone many interesting stages worth reviewing and taking note of, in order to provide current understanding of the trends

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (O.A. Ani), [email protected] (B.B. Uzoejinwa), [email protected] (A.O. Ezeama), [email protected] (A.P. Onwualu), [email protected] (S.N. Ugwu), [email protected] (C.J. Ohagwu). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.08.002 Received 29 September 2016; Received in revised form 27 June 2017; Accepted 3 August 2017 0167-1987/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

et al., 1996).

in this discipline and to point out future directions. This paper is therefore an attempt to provide an overview of soil-machine interaction studies, particularly in the soil bin, which will be a concise reference for all researchers and groups interested in the development of traditional and modern traction and tillage equipment.

3. Past and current trends in soil-machine interaction studies From the time of Dr. M. G. Bekker and A. R. Reece who are considered notable pioneers of soil-machine interaction studies, intensive research efforts were geared towards obtaining better understanding of the nature of the interaction of traction elements and tillage tools. Tractive performance of tractors and other off-road vehicles has been a challenging problem till date in the design, performance evaluation/ prediction and very recently in automation and control of earthmoving machines and wheeled mobile robots moving in uneven and deformable terrains. Soil-machine interaction studies have been carried out theoretically based on mechanics or by experimental methods in soil bins or full scale field tests. Usually, the soil and machine parameters in soil bins are controlled. Thus, soil-machine interaction studies are pivotal for design and development, optimization, automation and control of different types of off-road vehicles, earthmoving machines and wheeled mobile robots; and also for appropriate matching of implements with power sources and the selection of optimum operating conditions in agricultural mechanization for food production. Soil–tool interaction involves two aspects: on one hand are the forces developed at the interface of the soil and the tool such as draught, side and vertical forces; on the other hand is the displacement of soil particles also known as soil disturbance (Conte et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2013). To gain a balanced understanding of soil–tool interaction requires both field and laboratory experiments under controlled conditions such as that in soil bins at different soil physical conditions and operating conditions of the tool (Mouazen et al., 1999). According to (Mak et al., 2012) both analytical and numerical methods have been used to model soil–tool interactions with the aim of improving the design of soil engaging tools. The Universal Earthmoving Equation (UEE) which was developed from the theory of passive earth pressure is one example of analytical methods which has been used by many researchers (Hettiaratchi and Reece, 1967; McKyes and Ali, 1977; Godwin and Spoor, 1977). Earthmoving is a term originally associated with construction equipment such as scrapers, bulldozers, pay loaders etc. Later, the term became extended to agricultural machines involved in soil manipulation such as tillage, planting and harvesting tools. Analytical models for soil tool interaction are sometimes limited because not all the variables involved are captured. However in the recent time, Finite Element Method/Analysis (FEM/FEA) as a numerical method has been widely used to analyze soil-tool interaction problems (Upadhyaya et al., 2002; Mootaz et al., 2004; Hemmat et al., 2012; Bentaher et al., 2013). This method takes care of both material and geometric nonlinearities which characterize most soil–machine interaction problems. FEM assumes that continuum mechanics apply (Upadhyaya et al., 2002). Discrete Element Method (DEM) is also one of the newest numerical methods for soil-tool interaction modeling and simulation (Mak et al., 2012).

2. The concept of soil-machine interaction and terramechanics Soil-machine interaction which has now become known as terramechanics is a field of research that deals with terrain-vehicle mechanics for off-road vehicles and soil engaging machinery. Specifically it is the study of how the wheel of the vehicle or the tool of the machinery interacts with the material of the terrain surface which is mostly soil. This leads to the general classification of soil-machine interaction into two broad areas of either traction or tillage studies. Traction is defined as the capability of the vehicle’s wheel or other tractive elements to develop sufficient thrust force to overcome all types of vehicle resisting forces and hence keep the vehicle in constant motion in the direction of the force (Young et al., 1984). The study of vehicle traction mechanics provides insight and understanding of the scientific and mathematical relationships involved in the interaction of traction devices and the terrain; and this knowledge is useful for rational design, selection, operation, performance prediction, evaluation, modeling and design optimization of machine systems. On the other hand, tillage is the mechanical manipulation of the soil for different specific purposes such as seedbed preparation for crop production in agriculture, earth-moving in civil engineering, ditch-forming in military operation, hole-digging in forestry, tunnel-making in seabed operation, trenching in underwater pipe laying, etc. Tillage tools are mechanical devices that are used to apply forces to the soil to simultaneously cause several desired effects such as cutting, inversion, pulverization, movement of the soil or mixing. Techniques for evaluating soil-tool interaction and different phases in the development of a soil-tillage tool mechanics are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. The purpose of studying mechanics of tillage tools is to provide a way for describing the application of forces to the soil and for describing the soil’s reaction to the forces. Such mechanics provide methods by which the effects of the interaction can be predicted and controlled either through improved design of tools or improved techniques of operation (Gill and VandenBerg, 1968). The proper design and selection of soil-engaging tools to achieve desired soil tilth depends largely on the mechanical behavior of the soils (Rajaram and Erbach, 1998). Soil failure patterns play an important role in obtaining a better understanding of the mechanical behavior of soils under varied soil and tool conditions. The variation in soil failure patterns can be attributed to the variations of mechanical behavior of the soil (Al-kheer et al., 2011). Soil failure patterns can include collapse, fracturing (brittle), chip forming, and flow (Salokhe, 1986; Rajaram and Gee-Clough, 1988; Sharma, 1990). These failure patterns may vary with soil and tool parameters (Elijah and Weber, 1971; Godwin and Spoor, 1977; Stafford, 1981; Makanga

Fig. 1. Techniques for Evaluating Interaction (Onwualu, 1991).

14

Soil-Tool

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

Fig. 2. Phases in the Development of a Soil-Tillage Tool Mechanics (Adapted from (Gill and VandenBerg, 1968).

Cundall and Strack (1979) first introduced DEM in the study of rock mechanics, and since then it has been applied in the simulation of flow characteristics of particles. The outcome of such simulation studies help in the improvement of equipment used for material handling and processing (Landry et al., 2006). According to Mak et al. (2012), in DEM, the material of interest (soil for example) is modeled as collections of discrete particles, such that each particle interacts with the neighboring particles. Unlike FEM which may have numerical convergence problems when soil loses contact with the cutting tool, DEM can handle large particle displacement and crack propagation involved in the field operation of a soil engaging tool (Abo-Elnor et al., 2004). DEM has been used to simulate soil–tool interactions in many applications such as bulldozing (Franco et al., 2007; Momozu et al., 2003; Shmulevich et al., 2007) and agricultural operations (VanderLinde, 2007). Modeling soil–tool interactions using DEM and its underlying concepts have been discussed by (Shmulevich et al., 2009) and (Shmulevich, 2010), and it is a general idea of many researchers that DEM is a promising method for soil-tool interaction studies.

carrier that models soil engaging tool or implement frame; power source and the drive system that models the prime mover with its transmission system; soil conditioning equipment for preparation and preconditioning of the soil before experiments; motion control system for electronic control of the moving components along the rails of the soil bin in x, y and z directions; measurement/data acquisition and analysis systems for real time measurement, analysis and display of variables of the soil, the machine and their interface during experiments; then a lifting system for hoisting of heavy components. On the basis of their design, soil bins may be classified into two types. First are those that consist of straight or circular movable rails but the tools are stationary, and second are those with a fixed soil box and a carriage that travels over the soil. The merits of each of them were presented by (Chancellor, 1994). Upadhyaya et al. (1986) reported that soil bins where soil is transported to the test bed have been used in many studies to acquire many useful data. One of the earliest researchers who used soil bins was Nichols. Nichols (1931) developed and used soil bins to study basic soil–machine interaction. Past experiences with small soil bins in some laboratories in the United States necessitated the development of larger soil bins. A few examples of earlier soil bin facilities around the world include the National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture (NSDL, ARS and USDA) in USA; Cranfield University at Silsoe in UK; University of California at Davis in USA; National Tillage

4. Soil bin test facility and soil-machine interaction studies A soil bin test facility is equipment for laboratory experiments and tests of soil-machine interaction. A soil bin test facility comprises of (Fig. 3) soil box or bin that models the ground or soil; mobile tool

Fig. 3. Schematic of the components of a typical soil bin test facility.

15

16 1989

George, K.

Siemens, J.C. and Weber, J.A.

Wegscheid, E.L. and Myers, H.A.

Gill and Vanden Berg Batchelder, D. G Porterfield, J.G., Chisholm, T. S., McLaughli, G. L.

Collins, E. R., Lalor, W. F.

Godwin, R.J., Spoor, G. and Kilgour, J.

Durant, D.M., Perumpral, J.V. and Desai, C.S.

Gupta, C. P. and Surendranal, T.

Onwualu, A.P. and Watts, K.C.

Gupta, P.D., Gupta, C.P. and Pandey, K.P.

Alihamsyah, T., Humphries, E. G.,Bowers, C. G. Abdulrahman,A. A. and Abdalla M. Z.

Mamman,E. and Oni K. C.

Liu, J., Lobb, D. A. and Chen Y.

Yahya, A., Zohadie, M. Ahmad,D. Elwaleed, A.K. and Kheiralla A.F.

Agbetoye, L.A.S; Manuwa, S.I, Ademosun,

3.

4.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14

15.

17.

18.

19.

20.

16.

1989

Nichols, M.L. and Randolph, J.W.

2.

2010

2007

2002

2002

1997

1990

1989

1981

1980

1973

1967 1971

1967

1964

1927

1920–1933.

1914;

George, K.

1.

Year of study

Name of researchers

S/N

Table 1 Researchers/developers of soil bin test facility from 1914 to 2014.

Nigeria

Malaysia

Canada

Nigeria

Saudi Arabia

USA

India

Canada

Thailand

USA

UK

USA

Japan USA

USA

Munich Germany USA.

Berlin Germany USA

Country of research

Indoor type L = 10.24 W = 0.76 D = 0.91 H = 0.23 Indoor type L = 15.9 W = 1.07 H = 0.56 D = 0.38 Indoor type Indoor type L = 0.76 W = 0.60 D = 0.30 L = 39.62 W = 18.29 D = 1.0 Indoor type L = 13.0 W = 0.8 H = 0.50 D = 0.40 Stationary soil bin type L = 10 W = 0.91 D = 0.38 Indoor type L = 10.0 W = 1.00 H = 1.00 D = 0.60 Indoor type L = 7.32, W = 1.23 D = 0.6 Indoor type L = 15.6 W = 1.17 H = 1.10 D = 1.00 L = 1.52 W = 1.52 D = 0.20 Indoor type L = 4.5 W = 0.5 D = 0.25 Indoor type L = 5.6, W = 0.44, D = 0.58 Indoor type L = 20.0 W = 2.44 D = 1.0 Indoor type L = 6.4, W = 0.6, D = 0.8, Outdoor type

Indoor type

Full-sized indoor type

Indoor type

Type of Soil Bin and Bin Dimensions (m) (Ademosun, 2014). (Gill, 1990)

– –

(Ademosun, 2014) (Batchelder et al., 1971)

(Collins and Lalor, 1973) (Godwin et al., 1980)

– 50 hp electric motor with hydraulic pump

–

Tractor Powered

(Agbetoye et al., 2010)

(Yahya et al., 2007)

(Liu et al., 2002)

–

3-phase 7.5 kW electric motor

(Mamman and Oni, 2002)

(Alihamsyah et al., 1990) (Abdulrahman and Abdalla, 1997)

Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. (continued on next page)

Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University Putra Malaysia,

Dept. of Agric and Bioresources Engineering, University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Canada. [email protected]

University of Ilorin, Nigeria.

Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA. King Saud University College of Agriculture. Saudi Arabia.

Indian Institute Technology, Kharagpur, India.

Department of Agricultural Engineering, Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada.

(Onwualu and Watts, 1989) (Gupta et al., 1989)

Asian Institute Technology, Bangkok Thailand.

Agricultural Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Agricultural Engineering Dept. and Agricultural Experiment Station System, Auburn University, USA. Cranfield University, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4DT, UK.

Institute for Agric. Mechanization in Konosu, Japan. Agricultural Engineering Dept. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA

Deere and Company Moline, Illinois, USA.

Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Illinois, USA.

National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, Alabama, USA. Munich, Germany

Berlin, Germany

Address of researchers

(Gupta and Surendranath, 1989)

3.75 kW electric motor of 1500 rpm

7.5 hp D.C. shunt electric motor

Electric motor with belt-pulley drive

Integrated hydraulic power system: Vickers T80-80 US gallon hydraulic power pack with 30 hp, 1800 rpm double shaft electric motor –

Semi-automatic controlled hydro-static drive carriage

3-phase 2.2 kW A.C. electric motor with chain drives

(Durant et al., 1981)

(Wegscheid and Myers, 1967)

–

A standard 30 kW tractor.

(Siemens and Weber, 1964)

5 hp electric motor with hydraulic pump.

(Ademosun, 2014)

Source

Type of Power system

O.A. Ani et al.

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27 Department of Agricultural Mechanization, College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, China (Tagar, 2014)

Machinery Laboratory, NTML at Auburn, Alabama; University of Hohenheim in Germany and IMAG of Wageningen in The Netherlands (Yahya et al., 2007). More details of other soil bin facilities developed in different parts of the world are presented in Table 1. Soil bin investigation of tillage tools is essential for the development and improvement in the performance of tillage implements. Soil bin facilities allow to conduct controlled experiments of soil-machine interaction under specific soil conditions (Kepner et al., 1982). Many soil bin and related facilities have been developed in some African countries (Onwualu, 2011; Onwualu and Watts, 1998, 1989; Mamman and Oni, 2002, 2005; Ademosun et al., 2006; Manuwa, 2002; Abdulrahman and Abdalla, 1997; Ademosun, 1990; Adesanya, 2012; Manuwa and Ajisafe, 2010). Soil bins have been designed either as the large scale type, like the one in the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory where full scale implement testing is carried out; or the small scale type like the one described by (Siemens and Weber, 1964). Soil bin investigation of the interaction between the soil and soil engaging machines is required for modeling, performance prediction and developing rational design of traction and tillage equipment. A summary of soil-machine interaction studies from inception till the year 2015 is presented in Tables 1 and 2. 4.1. Past and ongoing soil bin studies A summary of soil-machine interaction studies in soil bins focusing on many different aspects is presented in Table 2. Also some earlier and recent soil bin test facilities developed by different researchers are shown in Figs. 4–10. Different types or aspects of soil bin facility have been developed with varying levels of instrumentation by several researchers in Nigeria (Onwualu, 1991; Abdulrahman and Abdalla, 1997; Manuwa, 2002; Mamman and Oni, 2002; Ademosun et al., 2006; Manuwa and Ajisafe, 2010; Adesanya, 2012; Manuwa. and Ademosun, 2007). For instance, (Onwualu, 1991) investigated tillage tool factors affecting sandy soil interaction with plane blades in a soil bin. Manuwa and Ademosun (2007) studied the influence of soil moisture content and cone index on draught force and soil disturbance of model tillage tools. Bailey et al. (1996) carried out a study to investigate the changes in the soil stress state caused by the operation of a tractor tire at two different levels of dynamic loads and inflation pressures. Wood et al. (1991) examined the effects of dynamic load on the tractive thrust components along the soil-tire contact zones in loose and compacted soil conditions at four levels of dynamic loads. Wood and Burt (1987) determined the thrust and motion resistance of a pneumatic tire by measuring the soil-tire interface stress vectors. Bailey and Burt (1988) carried out a study to determine the effect of tractor tire passes and slip on the soil stress states under different tire loadings in a soil bin at the National Soil Dynamics Laboratory (NSDL), Auburn, Alabama, using two 6-directional stress state transducers. Burt et al. (1987) also carried out a study to determine the tangential-to-normal stress ratio at the soiltire interface for a pneumatic tractor tire operating under a variety of conditions. Way et al. (1996) used stress state transducers to determine the orientation of the major principal stress in the soil beneath the centerline of an 18.4R38 radial-pry R-1 drive tire operated at 10% slip and at two dynamic loads (13.2 and 25.3 kN), each at two levels of inflation pressures (41 and 124 kPa). Way et al. (1997) determined the effects of tractor tire aspect ratio on soil stresses and rut depths for two tractor tires (580/70R38 and 650/75R32) with slightly different aspect ratios of 0.756 and 0.804 respectively at two dynamic loads and two inflation pressures on a sandy loam and a clay loam with loose soil above the hardpan beneath the centerlines and edges of the tires. Way and Kishimoto (2004) measured the soil–tire interface pressures of a tractor drive tire on structured and loose soils at three correctly inflated combinations of dynamic load and inflation pressures and applied the results in estimating the tire footprint areas for the operating tires. (Taylor, 1973) also carried out a study to determine the effect of lug angle on traction performance of pneumatic tractor tires by considering two conditions of the lug angles.

China 2014 Dept. of Agricultural Mechanization, College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, China.

24.

25

Ghana 2013

Indoor circular soil bin L = 1.0 W = 1.0 H = 0.7 Indoor L = 0.5 W = 0.3

Hydraulic system

Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, USA. Department of Agricultural Engineering, KNUST, Kumasi [email protected] (Upadhyaya et al., 2013) (Bobobee and Kumi, 2013) USA 2013

Upadhyaya, S. K., Mehlschau, J., Wulfsohn, D., Glancey, J. L. Bobobee, E. Y. H. and Kumi, F. 23.

Nigeria Manuwa, S. I., Ademosun, O. C., Agbetoye, L. A. S. and Adesina, A. 22.

2011

5.7 kW electric motor

Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria [email protected] (Manuwa et al., 2011)

–

Department of Agricultural Machinery, Urmia University, Iran. [email protected] (Mardani et al., 2010) 3 phase 22 kW of 1457 rpm electric motor and chains. Iran Mardani, A. K.,. Shahidi, A. Rahmani, B., and Mashoofi, H. K. 21.

O.C. and Adesina, A

2010

L = 48.0, W = 1.5 D = 1.2 Indoor type L = 23.0 W = 2.0 D = 1.0 Outdoor type L = 48 W = 1.5 D = 1.2 Outdoor type

31.6 kW MF 415 tractor.

Address of researchers Source Name of researchers S/N

Table 1 (continued)

Year of study

Country of research

Type of Soil Bin and Bin Dimensions (m)

Type of Power system

O.A. Ani et al.

17

1989 1991

Clark, S. J. Liljedahl, J. B.

Smith, J. L., Kermit H., Flikke, A. M. Chisholm, T. S., Porterfield, J. G., Bat, D. G.

Taylor, J. H.

Burt, E. C., Reaves, C. A., Bailey, A. C., Pickering, W. D. Koger, J. L., Trouse, A. C., Burt, E. C., Iff, R. H., Bailey, A. C. Kouwenhoven, J. K.

Chang, H. C., Donald, C. E.

Kushwaha, R. L. Vaishnav, A. S. Zoerb, G. C.

Wood, R. K., Burt, E. C.

Burt, E. C. Wood, R. K., Bailey, A. C. Bailey, A. C., Burt, E. C.

Ashenafi T. A., Tanaka, T and Yamazaki, M

Wood, R.K. Burt, E.C. Johnson, C.E.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. 14.

15.

18 1996

Smith, B. E., Burcham, T. N., To, F. S., VanDevender, K. W., Matthes, R. K.

Way, T. R., Johnson, C. E., Bailey, A. C., Raper, R. L., Burt, E. C. Morrison, J. E. Hendrick, J. G. Schafer, R. L.

19.

Way, T. R., Kishimoto T., Burt, E. C., Bailey, A. C. Onwualu, P. A. and K. C. Watts

24.

25.

23.

22.

BAILEY, A. C., RAPER, R. L., WAY, T. R., BURT, E.C., JOHNSON, C. E. Makanga, J. T., Salokhe, V. M., and GeeClough, D. Araya, K., Kudoh, M., Zhao D., F. Liu, F., Jia, H.

21.

20.

1994

Onwualu, A.P. and Watts, K. C.

18.

1998

1997

1996

1996

1996

1996

1993

1993

17.

1992

1987 1988

1987

1986

1986

1986

1984

1980

1973

1972 1972

1969

1968

Boccafogli A., Busatti, G., Gherardi, F; Malagutit, F. and Faoluzzi, R. Wang, J and Gee-clough, D.

16.

8.

Clark, S. J. Liljedahl, J. B.

2.

1968

Schafer, R. L. Bockhop, C. W., Lovely, W. G.

1.

Year of study

Name of researchers

S/N

Draught and vertical forces obtained from dynamic soil cutting

Soil stresses under a tractor tire at various loads and inflation pressures Effect of tine rake angle and aspect ratio on soil failure patterns in dry loam soil Improvement of Planosol Solum: Part 1, Experimental Equipment, Methods and Preliminary Soil Bin Experiments with Ploughs. Tractor tire aspect ratio effects on soil stresses and rut depths

Soil stress state orientation beneath a tire at various loads and inflation pressures Soil forces on coulter and disc-opener

Mobile soil-tire interface measurement system,

Soil compaction by multiple passes of a rigid wheel relevant for optimization of traffic. Dynamic load effects on thrust components along the soil-tire contact zone Experimental evaluation of cutting dynamic models in soil bin facility. Deformation and failure in wet clay soil: Part 2, soil bin experiments Real-time measurement of cone index in a soil bin

Soil bin evaluation of disc coulters under no-till crop residue conditions Thrust and motion resistance from soil-tire interface stress measurements Tangential-to-normal stress ratios for pneumatic tires Soil stress states under various tire loadings

Model studies on upheaval and reconsolidation of tilled soils in a laboratory soil bin. Cornstalk residue shearing by rolling coulters

Skidder tire size vs. soil compaction in soil bins.

Experimental analysis of vibratory tillage A soil bin study of three-dimensional interference between flat plate tillage tools operating in an artificial soil Lug angle effect on traction performance of pneumatic tractor tires A machine for testing tractor tires in soil bins

Model studies of single, dual and tandem wheels.

Soil bins, artificial soils and scale-model testing

Prototype studies of tillage implements

Research topic

Table 2 Researchers who carried out studies in a soil bin from 1968 to 2015.

Canada

(Onwualu and Watts.,

(Way et al., 1997)

(Araya et al., 1996)

China

USA

(Makanga et al., 1996)

(Bailey et al., 1996)

(Morrison et al., 1996)

(Way et al., 1996)

(Wang and Gee-clough, 1993) (Onwualu and Watts, 1993) (Smith et al., 1994)

(Boccafogli et al., 1992)

(Wood et al., 1991)

(Ashenafi et al., 1989)

(Burt et al., 1987) (Bailey and Burt., 1988)

(Wood and Burt, 1987)

(Chang and Donald, 1986) (Kushwaha et al., 1986)

(Kouwenhoven, 1986)

(Koger et al., 1984)

(Burt et al., 1980)

(Taylor, 1973)

(Clark and Liljedahl, 1968) (Clark and Liljedahl, 1969) (Smith et al., 1972) (Chisholm et al., 1972)

(Schafer et al., 1968)

Source

Thailand

USA

USA

USA

USA

Canada

Thailand

Italy

USA

Japan

USA USA

USA

Canada

USA

Netherlands

USA

USA

USA

USA USA

USA

USA

USA

Place of research

USDA, ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, P.O. Box 3439, Auburn, Alabama 36831-3439, U.S.A. Dept. of Agric. Engineering, Technical University of Nova (continued on next page)

CEMOTER-C.N.R. Institute for Earthmoving Machines, National Research Council, Cassana, Italy. Division of Agric. and Food Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok., Thailand. Dept. of Agric. Engineering, Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada. Dept of Agricultural Engineering, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Aubum University, Auburn Alabama, USA USDA, ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, P.O. Box 3439, Auburn, Alabama 36831-3439, U.S.A. USDA −ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, Alabama, USA. USDA, ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, Alabama, U.S.A Agricultural and Food Engineering Program, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand Heijian Agricultural Research Institute, Jiamusi, Heilongjiang, P. R. of China

Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

National Tillage Machinery Laboratory at Auburn, Alabama, USA Agricultural Engineering Dept., Kansas State University, USA Agricultural Engineering Dept., Kansas State University, USA University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. Agricultural Engineering Dept., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA. National Tillage Machinery Laboratory, AERD ARS, USDA, Auburn, Alabama, USA. National Tillage Machinery Laboratory, USDA-SEA-AR, Auburn, Alabama, USA. National Tillage Machinery Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Auburn, Alabama, USA. Wageningen Agricultural University, Tillage Laboratory, Netherlands. Agricultural Engineering Department, Iowa State University, USA. Agricultural Engineering Dept., University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada. Agricultural Engineering Dept., Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama, USA. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Auburn, Alabama, USA Faculty of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Sakyoku, Japan.

Address of researchers

O.A. Ani et al.

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

Endrerud, H.C.

Mouazen, M., Miklos, N., Schwanghart, H., and Rempfer, M.

Zhang, H., Araya, K., M. Kudoh, M., Zhang, C., Jia1, H., Liu, F., Sawai, T., Yang, S. Shafiqur, R.

Torbert, H.A., Prior, S. A., and. Rogers, H. H.

Carman, K.

Guo, G. and Araya, K.

Way, T. R., Kishimoto T.

Stranks, S.N.

Seyed-Reza, A. Z.

Cai Y., Shi, B., Charles W.W. N., Chao-sheng T. Sahu, R.K., and Raheman, H.

Loghavi, M., and Khadem, M. R.

Manuwa, S. I and Ademosun, O. C.

Liu, J; Chen, Y; Lobb, D.A., and Kushwaha, R.L. Yahya, A; M. Zohadie, M; Ahmad, D.; Elwaleed, A.K.; Kheiralla, A.F. Bianchinia, A.; and Magalha, P.S.G.

26.

27.

28.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

19

Marakoglu,T and Carman, K.

Jafari, R., Raoufat, M. H., Tavakoli H. T.

Godwin R. J.; Dresser, M. L.; Blackburn, D. W. K.; Hann M. J., and Dain-Owens, A. P. Way, T.R.

Yan Y.; Shang S.; Liu, X.

Gharibkhani M.; Mardani, A and Farshad, V.

Taghavifar, H., and Mardani, A.

45.

46.

47.

49.

50.

51.

48.

44.

Chung, S. O.; Sudduth, K. A.; Plouffe, C.; Kitchen, N. R. Rosa, U.A.; and Wulfsohn, D.

43.

42.

41.

29.

Name of researchers

S/N

Table 2 (continued)

2012

2012

2011

2009

2009

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2007

2007

2007

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

2000

1999

1999

Year of study

Trials to Identify Soil Cultivation Practices to Minimize the Impact on Archaeological Sites Three single wheel machines for traction and soil compaction research Design of Control System for Testing Platform of Soil-bin for Agricultural Machine Based on PLC Determination of wheel-soil rolling resistance of agricultural tire Contact area determination of Agricultural tractor wheel with soil

Effects of design parameters of a cultivator share on draft force and soil loosening in a soil bin. Soil-Bin Performance of a Modified Bent Leg Plow

Evaluation of coulters for cutting sugar cane residue in a soil bin Soil bin and field tests of an on-the-go Soil strength profile sensor Soil bin monorail for high-speed testing of narrow tillage tools

UPM indoor tire traction testing facility

Draught and soil disturbance of model tillage tines under varying soil parameters Soil-straw-tillage tool interaction: Field and soil bin study

Effect of polypropylene fibre and lime admixture on engineering properties of clayey soil Draught prediction of agricultural implements using reference tillage tools in sandy clay loam soil. Development of a soil bin compaction profile sensor

Compaction characteristics of towed wheels on clay loam in a soil bin Improvement of Whitish Oasis Soil, Part 2: Preliminary Soil Bin Experiments with a Four-stage Subsoil Inverting Plough Interface pressures of a tractor drive tire on structured and loose soils The effects of tire systems on the depth and severity of compaction. Modelling of energy requirements by a narrow tillage tool

Iran

Turkey

China.

USA.

UK

Iran.

Turkey

USA

Moline, USA

Brazil

Malaysia.

Canada

Nigeria

Iran

India

Saskatoon, Canada China

Silsoe, UK.

USA

Japan

Turkey

Manitoba Canada. USA

China

(Gharibkhani et al., 2012) (Taghavifar and Mardani, 2012)

(Yan et al., 2011)

(Way, 2009)

(Godwin et al., 2009)

(Rosa and Wulfsohn, 2008) (Marakoglu and Carman, 2008) (Jafari et al., 2008)

(Bianchinia and Magalha, 2008) (Chung et al., 2008)

(Yahya et al., 2007)

(Sahu and Raheman, 2006) (Loghavi and Khadem, 2006) (Manuwa and Ademosun, 2007) (Liu et al., 2007)

(Cai et al., 2006)

(SeyedReza, 2006)

(Way and Kishimoto, 2004) (Stranks, 2006)

(Guo and Araya, 2003)

(Carman, 2002)

(Torbert et al., 2001)

(Shafiqur, 2000)

(Zhang et al., 2000)

(Mouazen et al., 1999)

Hungary

Tillage Tool Design by the Finite Element Method: Part 2. Experimental Validation of the Finite Element Results with Soil Bin Test An Explosive Subsoiler for the Improvement of Meadow Soil, Part 2: Soil Bin Experiments. Studies on different liquid manure injection tools under Laboratory (soil bin) and grassland conditions Effect of elevated CO2 and temperature on soil C and N cycling

1998) (Endrerud, 1999)

Norway

by plane tillage tools Dynamic Performance of Drill Coulters in a Soil Bin

Source

Place of research

Research topic

USDA-ARS National Soil Dynamics Lab, Auburn, AL 36832, USA. Shenyang Agricultural University, Engineering College, Shenyang, China Dept. of Agric. Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Ege University, İzmir- Turkey Dept. of Mech. Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran (continued on next page)

Dept. of Agric. and Bioresource Engineering University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Canada. Department of Earth Sciences, Nanjing University, 210093, China. Agric. and Food Engineering Dept, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. [email protected] Dept. of Agric. Machinery, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran Dept. of Agric. Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. [email protected] Dept. of Biosystems Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor DE, Malaysia Dept. of Soil and Rural Engineering, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Brazil Soil and Crop Systems Engineering, Deere & Company Moline Technology Innovation Center, Moline, Illinois, USA Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept. University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. [email protected] Dept. of Agric. Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Selcuk, Konya Turkey. Department of Agricultural Machinery, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. Cranfield University, Silsoe, UK

Hejiang Agricultural Research Institute, Jiamusi, Heilongjiang, P. R. of China. [email protected] Department of Biosystems Engineering University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Canada. USDA-ARS Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, 808 East Blackland Road, Temple, TX 76502, USA. Dept. of Agric. Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Selcuk, Konya Turkey. Environmental Science Lab., Senshu Univ., Bibai, Hokkaido 079-01, Japan. [email protected] USDA, ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, P.O. Box 3439, Auburn, Alabama 36831-3439, U.S.A. Cranfield University, Silsoe, UK.

Scotia, Halifax, Canada Dept. of Agric. Engineering, Agricultural University of Norway, Norway [email protected] Institute of Agricultural Engineering, PANNON Agricultural University, Mosonmagyarova Hungary

Address of researchers

O.A. Ani et al.

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

Roozbahani A.; Mardani, A.; Roohollah, J., and Taghavifar, H. Taghavifar, H., and Mardani, A.

Taghavifar, H., and Madani, A.

Taghavifar, H.; Madani, A and Taghavifar, L

Taghavifar, H, and Mardani, A.

Tagar A.A.; Changying, J.; Qishuo D.; Adamowski,J.; Chandio, F.A. and Mari, I.A. Antille, D. L. Ansorge, D. Dresser, M. L. Godwin, R. J. Subrata M. K.; Bhattacharyya, B.; and Karmakar, S. Naderi-Boldaji, M.; Alimardanib, R.; Hemmatc, A.; Sharifid, A.; Keyhanib, A.; Tekeste, M. Z., and Keller, T. Taghavifar, H and Mardani, A.

52.

54.

55.

56.

57.

20

Taghavifar, H.; Mardani, A.; Karim-Maslak, H.

Tagar, A.A.; Changying, J.; Adamowski, J.; Malard, J., Chen, S. Q.; Qishuo, D.; and Abbasi, N.A

62.

63.

61.

60.

59.

58.

53.

Name of researchers

S/N

Table 2 (continued)

Multi-criteria optimization model to investigate the energy waste of off-road vehicles utilizing soil bin facility. Finite element simulation of soil failure patterns under soil bin and field testing conditions.

2015

3-D Finite element simulation of a single-tip horizontal penetrometer–soil interaction. Part II: Soil bin verification of the model in a clay-loam soil Analyses of energy dissipation of run-off-road wheeled vehicles utilizing controlled soil bin facility environment.

Evaluating and measuring the performance parameters of agricultural wheels. A knowledge-based Mamdani fuzzy logic prediction of the motion resistance coefficient in a soil bin facility for clay loam soil Investigating the effect of velocity, inflation pressure, and vertical load on rolling resistance of a radial ply tire A hybridized artificial neural network and imperialist competitive algorithm optimization approach for prediction of soil compaction in soil bin facility Potential of functional image processing technique for the measurements of contact area and contact pressure of a radial ply tire in a soil bin testing facility Soil failure patterns and draft as influenced by consistency limits: An evaluation of the remolded soil cutting test. Soil displacement and soil bulk density changes as affected by tire size Soil-blade interaction of a rotary tiller: soil bin evaluation

Research topic

2014

2014

2014

2014

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

Year of study

(Taghavifar and Madani, 2013) (Taghavifar et al., 2013)

Iran

China

Iran

(Tagar et al., 2015)

(Taghavifar et al., 2014)

(Taghavifar and Mardani, 2014b)

(Naderi-Boldaji et al., 2014)

Iran

Iran

(Subrata et al., 2014)

(Antille et al., 2013)

(Tagar, 2014)

India

U.K.

China

Iran

(Taghavifar and Mardani, 2013b)

(Taghavifar and Mardani, 2013a)

Iran

Iran

(Roozbahani et al., 2013)

Source

Iran

Place of research

Dept. of Mech. Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran [email protected] Dept. of Mech. Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran [email protected] College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210031, PR China.

CSIR-Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur, India Dept. of Mech. Engineering of Biosystems, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran

College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210031, PR China Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Cranfield University, Silsoe, U.K.

Dept. of Mech. Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Iran.

Dept. of Mech. Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran Dept. of Mech. Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

[email protected] Mechanical Engineering of Agric. Machinery Dept., Urmia University, Iran. [email protected] Dept. of Mech. Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

Address of researchers

O.A. Ani et al.

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

Fig. 4. The soil tillage dynamics equipment used in the study(Manuwa. and Ademosun, 2007) 1, load meter; 2, tool carriage; 3, tool vertical adjustment device; 4, tool angle measuring plate; 5, tool bar; 6,profilemeter; 7, soil processing trolley frame; 8, soil leveler; 9, compaction roller; 10, roller vertical adjustment device; 11 vertical adjustment pipe; 12, winding handle.

Fig. 8. Traction Research Vehicle (TRV) controlling a single 30.5L-32 forestry drive tire on an outdoor soil bin at the National Soil Dynamics Laboratory(Way, 2009).

Roozbahani et al. (2013) carried out a study to measure and evaluate the performance parameters of agricultural wheels. In this study, a single-wheel tester was designed, constructed and evaluated inside a soil bin. The wheel was powered by an electric motor and a power bolt was used to apply vertical load on the wheel. Parameters that could be measured by this system included draft force, tire sinkage, wheel contact area, soil stress at different depths and traction force which was measured using a load cell (Fig. 11). Tagar et al. (2015) applied a finite element method (FEM) for the simulation of the soil failure patterns as linked to consistency limits and to the sticky point of soil, and compared the simulation results with soil failure patterns observed in the soil bin and in the field. Results showed that FEM is a useful tool to simulate soil failure patterns; however, simulation models correlated better with soil bin than with field test results. Bianchinia and Magalha (2008) conducted series of laboratory experiments to evaluate the performance of toothed coulters in comparison with notched coulters and smooth coulters, in cutting sugar cane crop residue in a soil bin. The results showed that toothed coulters performed best, since they were more efficient than smooth and notched coulters in cutting crop residue, with smaller torque, and lower vertical and draught force requirements. Antille et al. (2013) investigated the changes in soil bulk density from soil displacement data produced by a range of combine harvester tires (680/85R32, 800/ 65R32, and 900/60R32) with a vertical load of 10.5 t and inflation pressures in the range between 0.19 and 0.25 MPa to provide a valuable indicator for tire selection, in a soil bin facility using a sandy loam soil maintained at 10% (w w−1) moisture content. The results showed that the initial bulk density was the main factor influencing soil displacement and soil bulk density changes beneath the tires, and that increasing the tire size and lowering the inflation pressure reduced soil displacement and increased soil bulk density. Sahu and Raheman (2006) carried out an investigation to predict the draught requirements of commonly used tillage implements in any field condition from the knowledge of the draught requirements of reference tillage tools in a reference soil condition and the scale factors related to soil properties and implement geometry. This method produced sufficiently accurate results to enable the draught prediction of tillage implements in different soil conditions by testing only the reference tillage tool in the desired soil type at reference soil condition. Kushwaha et al. (1986) carried out a study to evaluate the crop residue cutting ability of three common size plain disc coulters in a soil bin as influenced by soil resistance and straw density. The results showed that the 460 mm diameter coulter was able to cut nearly 100% of the straw under various test conditions, while 360 mm and 600 mm diameter coulters were not as effective. Schaaf et al. (1980) conducted an intensive study on performance of nine different coulters. Observations were made on draft requirements, vertical load, penetration ability and furrow shape for each coulter in a soil bin. The results indicated the penetration ability was inversely and vertical force was directly proportional to the

Fig. 5. Overall view of soil bin (Siemens and Weber, 1964).

Fig. 6. General view of soil bin (Godwin et al., 1980).

Fig. 7. Soil bin research equipment for studying the behavior of full-scale tillage tools (Gill, 1990).

21

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

Fig. 9. (a) Soil channel and (b) moving carriage drive unit of soil bin facility (Mardani et al., 2010).

(2014a) applied artificial neural network for estimation of traction force of agricultural wheel in a soil bin test facility. Taghavifar and Mardani (2013c) investigated the effect of velocity, tire inflation pressure, and vertical load on rolling resistance of a radial ply tire. They found that tire inflation pressure and vertical load had significant effect on the rolling resistance while velocity had no significant effect. Taghavifar and Mardani (2013b) carried out a study on the potential of a functional image processing technique for the measurements of contact area and contact pressure of a radial ply tire in a soil bin testing facility. Yan et al. (2011) designed a PLC based control system for a soilbin test facility for agricultural machine. Mardani et al. (2010) designed, developed and tested a 23 m long, 2 m wide and 1 m deep soil bin test facility with data acquisition system. Test result showed that the data acquisition system could receive the measured signals of force, speed, moment and displacement in real time, display them on a monitor screen and record into a computer. Chung et al. (2008) carried out both soil bin and field tests of an on-the-go soil strength profile sensor (SSPS). The SSPS which was previously developed was configured with five prismatic force-sensing tips and provides a soil strength profile to a depth of 50 cm. The SSPS was tested in a soil bin at different depths, forward speeds, and compaction levels; and mean values of measured prismatic soil strength index confirmed the repeatability and stability of soil strength sensing using SSPS. Çarman (2008) used a Fuzzy Logic approach to predict soil compaction under pneumatic tires. It was found that for the parameters investigated such as different tire types, vertical loads, inflation pressures and forward velocities, the relative error of predicted values was found to be within the acceptable limits (10%). Bianchinia and Magalha (2008) evaluated coulters for cutting sugar cane residue in a soil bin. They found that toothed coulters were more efficient than smooth and notched coulters in cutting crop residue, with smaller torque and lower vertical and draught force requirements. In recent times, terramechanics is being applied in the study of mobility and control of wheeled mobile robots designed to move on soft and deformable terrains on earth and other planetary bodies. Many researchers in this area have used single wheel and other forms of test beds for wheeled mobile robots similar to soil bin test facilities (Figs. 16–18), with most of the control and data acquisition

diameter of the coulter; and Coulter shape or style had no significant effect on draft or vertical force, but did influence furrow formation and the amount of soil disturbance. Taghavifar and Mardani (2014b) carried out an analysis of energy dissipation of run-off-road wheeled vehicles in a controlled environment of a soil bin facility (Fig. 12). Their results indicated that a decrease of inflation pressure from 350 kPa to 250 kPa decreased energy loss; however, further decrease from 250 to 150 to an underinflated pressure resulted in significant increment of energy loss. Taghavifar et al. (2013) conducted a study on hybridized artificial neural network (ANN) and imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA) optimization approach for prediction of soil compaction in a soil bin facility (Fig. 13). Their results elucidated that hybrid ICA-ANN denoted lower modeling error amongst which, cascade-forward network optimized by ICA yielded best quality solution. Taghavifar et al. (2014) carried out a multi-criteria optimization study using a soil bin test facility to investigate the energy waste of off-road vehicles. Their findings revealed that response surface methodology (RSM) with optimized value of 5.7175J, which corresponds to wheel load of 1 kN, velocity of 0.7 m/s and tire inflation pressure of 150 kPa, is achievable. Rosa and Wulfsohn (2008) developed a monorail soil bin test facility for testing high speed narrow tillage tools (Fig. 14). Subrata et al. (2014) carried out a soil bin evaluation of the interaction between the soil and blade of a rotary tiller. They found that soil moisture content and strength affects the torque and penetration resistance of the rotary tiller. Ibrahmi et al. (2014) used 3D Finite Element models to determine the effect of soilblade orientation on tillage forces. It was found that the narrow tool (width < 60 mm) has a greater effect on the specific draught force than a larger tool. Yahya et al. (2007) from Universiti Putra Malaysia developed an indoor soil bin facility for traction studies with real time data acquisition system (Fig. 15). Performance evaluation of the test facility showed that the data acquisition system was able to receive in real time the measured signals of forces, tire sinkage, tire speed and motion carriage speed; display on the monitor screen and record in its CPU storage memory. Taghavifar and Mardani (2013a) used a knowledge-based Mamdani fuzzy logic to predict the motion resistance coefficient for clay loam soil in a soil bin. Taghavifar and Mardani

Fig. 10. The test units: (a) tool carrier used for the field experiment (b) tool carriage used for the soil bin experiment. (Liu et al., 2007).

22

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

Fig. 11. (a) The testing facility used in the study and (b) The data acquisition system (Roozbahani et al., 2013).

Fig. 12. General configurations of experimental set up and its components (Taghavifar and Mardani, 2014b).

units are movable and vice-versa. For either option, the bin can be straight or circular depending on the type of study, space and energy requirements (Abdulrahman and Abdalla, 1997). According to Godwin et al. (1980) designs of soil bin range from the large scale type where full scale implement testing is carried out, to small automated soil bins. According to Godwin et al. (1980), soil bin design should meet the following requirements: (i) consistent provision of homogeneous and isotropic soil conditions for studies concerned with the testing of model and full scale soil engaging implements and the validation of force prediction models; (ii) utilization of commercially available equipment

systems attached to the single wheel systems or embedded in the robots unlike the conventional soil bins. 4.2. Things to consider when designing a soil bin test facility Design of soil bins vary from one facility to another depending on the main objective of the development, available space, energy requirements and financial constraints (Wismer, 1984). One distinguishing characteristic of each facility involves the component which is on motion. The bin can be stationary while the soil processing and tool

Fig. 13. The soil bin facility set up and its equipment (Taghavifar et al., 2013).

23

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

Fig. 16. Single-wheel test bed developed by MIT (Iagnemma, 2005).

Fig. 14. Mono rail system installed in a 10 m long soil bin (Rosa and Wulfsohn, 2008).

and instrumentation minimizing the need for specialist equipment; and (iii) minimization of capital costs and moderation of the hand labour requirement. The use of microcomputer based data acquisition and controlled system has greatly enhanced data collection and processing, and ensured better monitoring of the parameters varied during experiments in soil bin test facilities. However, it is necessary to design new facilities from first principles. Onwualu (1991) designed a soil bin facility to meet the following objectives: possibility of use for both tillage and traction devices, use of scale models only, continuous variation of tool speed and depth during tests, test speed up to 7 km/h, personal computer based data acquisition and control, rigid structural members (0.05 mm allowable deflection), no wall and floor boundary effects, ease of fabrication, space limitation of the laboratory. For soil-machine interaction studies for planetary and terrestrial exploration wheeled mobile robots, test beds (mainly soil box) are used; while automation of the mobile equipment, motion control and data acquisition systems are all embedded in the robot.

Fig. 17. Single-wheel test bed of Jilin University(Chen, 2007).

5. Applications of soil-machine interaction studies Precise understanding of soil-machine interaction is useful and can be applied in many areas of endeavor, including: rational design and performance optimization of soil engaging tools/implements and traction elements such as wheels, tires and tracks; design, development and automation of the engines of earth moving machines; development of mathematical models to describe the behavior of the machine, soil and their interacting interface, which can be used for prediction, evaluation and design; research and development of all types of off-road vehicles including wheeled mobile robots for diverse terrestrial and planetary applications; design and evaluation of offshore pipeline plough used in laying pipes in a trench beneath seabed; tractability, trafficability and agricultural machinery selection and management; navigation and motion control of autonomous off-road vehicles; teaching and demonstrations.

Fig. 18. Single-wheel test bed of HIT (Ding, 2009).

6. Summary and conclusion Knowledge of soil-machine interaction has developed from pure tradition and art to pure science, and is presently tending towards more and more advanced science and engineering applications. The relevant mechanics have been developed through various stages, comprising: initial observation of repetitive phenomena, recognizing specific soil behavior before and after application of external forces, separating different soil behaviors/responses, developing equations for each behavior in relation to applied forces, combining the equations to Fig. 15. Tire traction testing facility main components (Yahya et al., 2007).

24

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

Nig. Eng. 25 (1), 51–57. Ademosun, O.C., 2014. Soil tillage dynamics in Nigeria: potentials, prospects and challenges. In: Proceedings of the International Soil Tillage Research Oganisation (ISTRO) Nigeria Symposium. Akure, Nigeria. Adesanya, A.S., 2012. Electrically-Controlled System for Overhead Gantry Trolley for Indoor Soil Bin Operations Meng Thesis Thesis. Department of Agricultural Engineering Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria., Akure. Agbetoye, L.A.S., Manuwa, S.I., Ademosun, O.C., Adesina, A., 2010. Development of below-floor level soil bin system for soil tillage dynamics research at the Federal University of technology Akure. In: Nigeria 17th World Congress of the International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (CIGR). Québec City, Canada. Al-kheer, A.A., Aoues, Y., Eid, M., El-Hami, A., 2011. Integrating optimization and reliability tools into the design of agricultural machines. 20e Congre‘ s Franc¸ais de MécaniqueBesanc. AFM, Maison de la Mé canique, Courbevoie. Alihamsyah, T., Humphries, E.G., Bowers, C.G., 1990. A technique for horizontal measurement of soil mechanical impedance. Trans. ASABE 33 (1), 0073–0077. http://dx. doi.org/10.13031/2013.31296. Antille, D.L., Ansorge, D., Dresser, M.L., Godwin, R.J., 2013. Soil displacement and soil bulk density changes as affected by tire size. Trans. ASABE 56 (5), 1683–1693. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/trans.56.9886. ISSN 2151-0032. Araya, K., Kudoh, M., Zhao, D., Liu, F., Jia, H., 1996. Improvement of planosol solum: part 1, experimental equipment, methods and preliminary soil bin experiments with ploughs. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 63, 251–260. Ashenafi, T.A., Tanaka, T., Yamazaki, M., 1989. Soil compaction by multiple passes of a rigid wheel relevant for optimization of traffic. J. Terramech. 26 (2), 39–148. Bailey, A.C., Burt, E.C., 1988. Soil stress states under various tire loadings. Trans. ASAE 31 (3), 672–676 682. Bailey, A.C., Raper, R.L., Way, T.R., Burt, E.C., Johnson, C.E., 1996. Soil stresses under a tractor tire at various loads and inflation pressures. J. Terramech. 33 (1), 1–11. Batchelder, D.G., Porterfield, J.G., Chisholm, T.S., McLaughlin, G.L., 1971. A continuous linear soil bin. Trans. ASABE 14 (6), 1009–1010. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013. 38441. Bentaher, H., Ibrahmi, A., Hamza, E., Hbaieb, M., Kantchev, G., Maalej, A., Amold, W., 2013. Finite element simulation of moldboard–soil interaction. Soil Till. Res. 134, 11–16. Bianchinia, A., Magalha, P.S.G., 2008. Evaluation of coulters for cutting sugar cane residue in a soil bin. Elsevier: Biosyst. Eng. 100, 370–375. Bobobee, E.Y.H., Kumi, F., 2013. Development and performance evaluation of an abrasive wear testing equipment for tillage tools. J. Sci. Technol. 33 (1), 55–67. Boccafogli, A., Busatti, G., Gherardi, F., Malagutit, F., Faoluzzi, R., 1992. Experimental evaluation of cutting dynamic models in soil bin facility. J. Terramech. 29 (1), 95–105. Burt, E.C., Reaves, C.A., Bailey, A.C., Pickering, W.D., 1980. A machine for testing tractor tires in soil bins. Trans. ASAE 23 (3), 546–552. Burt, E.C., Wood, R.K., Bailey, A.C., 1987. Tangential-to-normal stress ratios for pneumatic tires. Trans. ASAE 30 (6), 1591–1594. Cai, Y., Shi, B., Charles, W.W.N., Chao-sheng, T., 2006. Effect of polypropylene fibre and lime admixture on engineering properties of clayey soil. Elsevier: Eng. Geol. 87, 230–240. Carman, K., 2002. Compaction characteristics of towed wheels on clay loam in a soil bin. Elsevier: Soil Tillage Res. 65 (37–43). Chancellor, W.J., 1994. Soil physical properties. In: In: Upadhyaya, S.K., Chancellor, W.J., Perumpral, J.V., Schafer, R.L., Gill, W.R., Vanden Berg, G.E. (Eds.), Advances in Soil Dynamics Vol. 1. ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich, pp. 21–254 ch. 2. Chang, H.C., Donald, C.E., 1986. Cornstalk residue shearing by rolling coulters. Trans. ASAE 29 (6). Chen, Y., Munkholm, L.J., Nyord, T., 2013. A discrete element model for soil–sweep interaction in three different soils. Soil Till. Res. 126, 34–41. Chen, B., 2007. Research on Traction Characteristics of the Rigid Wheel with Grouserson Sandy Soil. Jilin University, Changchun, China. Chisholm, T.S., Porterfield, J.G., Batchelder, D.G., 1972. A soil bin study of three-dimensional interference between flat plate tillage tools operating in an artificial soil. Trans. ASAE 15 (1). Chung, S.O., Sudduth, K.A., Plouffe, C., Kitchen, N.R., 2008. Soil bin and field tests of an on-the-go Soil strength profile sensor. Trans. ASABE 5 (1), 5–18. Clark, S.J., Liljedahl, J.B., 1968. Soil bins, artificial soils and scale-model testing. Trans. ASABE 11 (2), 0198–0202. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.39371. Clark, S.J., Liljedahl, J.B., 1969. Model studies of single, dual and tandem wheels. Trans. ASABE 12 (2), 240–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.38808. Collins, E.R., Lalor, W.F., 1973. Soil-bin investigation of a deep-working tillage tool. Trans. ASABE 16 (1), 0029–0033. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.37436. Conte, O., Levien, R., Debiasi, H., Sturmer, S.L.K., Mazurana, M., Muller, J., 2011. Soil disturbance index as an indicator of seed drill efficiency in no-tillage agro-systems. Soil Till. Res. 114, 137–142. Cundall, P.A., Strack, O.D.L., 1979. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Géotechnique 28 (1), 47–65. Ding, L., 2009. Wheel–Soil Interaction Terramechanics for Lunar/planetary Exploration Rovers: Modeling and Application. Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China. Durant, D.M., Perumpral, J.V., Desai, C.S., 1981. Soil Bin Test Facility for Soil-tillage Tool Interaction Studies Soil and Tillage Research 1. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Companying, Amsterdam, pp. 289–298. Elijah, D.L., Weber, J.A., 1971. Soil failure and pressure patterns for flat cutting blades. Trans. ASAE 14 (4), 781–785. Endrerud, H.C., 1999. Dynamic performance of drill coulters in a soil bin. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 74, 391–401.

completely describe the identified soil behaviors, development of mechanics and using it to model soil-machine interaction. These have been achieved through pure mathematical modeling, experimental analysis or both; resulting in analytical, semi-empirical and empirical models of soil-machine interaction. Experimental analyses have been carried out either full scale in the field or under controlled environment as in a soil bin test facility. Soil bin is a model laboratory for experiments and studies of the interaction of soil engaging tools and traction elements; which provide requisite knowledge for design, modeling, prediction, performance evaluation and optimization of different kinds of off-road vehicles, earth moving machines, tractors, tillage tools/implements, traction elements such as wheel or track, as well as wheeled mobile robots and autonomous traction vehicles. This paper has presented an overview of soil-machine interaction studies in soil bin test facilities; it provides an insight on the historical background, concepts, past and present studies and future research direction. It is believed that this study will be a concise reference for all researchers and groups interested in development of both traditional and modern traction and tillage equipment. 7. Future research direction Off-road vehicles and their accompanying machinery are being increasingly automated and the most advanced form are autonomous wheeled mobile robots (AWMR) which are actually intelligent vehicles. Also tractors have advanced into Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV), Sensor Guided Vehicles (SGV), and Variable Rate Technologies (VRT) for precision agriculture applications. Although the soil still remains basically the same, depending on the particular region and type; research has now expanded to include planetary bodies such as Moon and Mars with their peculiar characteristic terrains. Therefore soil-machine interaction studies are increasingly expanding to take care of the new types of off-road vehicles with new designs of tractive elements such as rigid metal wheels of diverse designs, legs, wheel-legs, wheel-tracks, traction wheels, etc. Also the tools and implements are increasing in sophistication just as their respective prime movers. Offshore pipeline plough used in laying pipes in a trench beneath seabed is another area of application of soil-machine interaction studies. Future research will focus in the direction of mechatronic traction and tillage machines, as well as the type of terrains over which they will be required to work which are mostly described as deformable, uneven, uncertain, rough terrains. Specifically, optimized designs as well as autonomous navigation and motion control of wheeled mobile robots in uncertain environments will be increasingly in the focus and the soil bin facilities are already being modified into different forms of whole or single wheel test beds suitable for the required experiments. However the conventional soil bins will still remain relevant for pure agricultural tillage and soil dynamics research. Furthermore, numerical methods such as Finite Element Method/Analysis (FEM/FEA), and more recently Discrete Element Method (DEM) are very useful tools for simulating stresses in soil and flow of soil when displaced. Such simulations which will necessarily need to be validated with either field or soil bin experiments will help to improve the design and performance of soil engaging and handling machines. References Çarman, K., 2008. Prediction of soil compaction under pneumatic tires using fuzzy logic approach. J. Terramech. 45, 103–108. Abdulrahman, A.A., Abdalla, M.Z., 1997. Development of soil bin test facility for soil tillage test interaction studies. Research Bult 72. Agric. Research Center, King Saud University, pp. 5–26. Abo-Elnor, M., Hamilton, R., Boyle, J.T., 2004. Simulation of soil–blade interaction for sandy soil using advanced 3D finite element analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 75 (1), 61–73. Ademosun, O.C., Manuwa, S.I., Ogunlowo, A.S., 2006. Development of an indoor soil bin facility for soil tillage dynamics research. FUTA J. Eng. Eng. Technol. Res. 5 (1), 31–36. Ademosun, O.C., 1990. The design and operation of a soil tillage dynamics equipment.

25

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

Naderi-Boldaji, M., Alimardanib, R., Hemmatc, A., Sharifid, A., Keyhanib, A., Tekeste, M.Z., Keller, T., 2014. 3D finite element simulation of a single-tip horizontal penetrometer–soil interaction. Part II: soil bin verification of the model in a clay-loam soil. Elsevier: Soil Tillage Res. 144, 211–219. Nichols, M.L., 1931. The dynamic properties of soil: an explanation of the dynamic properties of soils by means of colloidlal films. Agric. Eng. 12, 259–264. Onwualu, A.P., Watts, K.C., 1989. Development of a soil bin test facility. In: Annual Conference of ASAE. St Joseph: Michigan. Onwualu, P.A., Watts, K.C., 1993. Real-time measurement of cone index in a soil bin. Elsevier: Comput. Electron. Agric. 9, 143–157. Onwualu, A.P., Watts, K.C., 1998. Draught and vertical forces obtained from dynamic soil cutting by plane tillage tools. Soil Tillage Res. 48, 239–253. Onwualu, A.P., 1991. Tillage Tool Factors Affecting Sandy Soil Interaction With Plane Blades in a Soil Bin. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada, Halifax, Canada 471 pp. Onwualu, A.P., 2011. Soil dynamics in tillage. In: Proceeding of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization-Nigeria Symposium. ISTRO, Nigeria. Rajaram, G., Erbach, D.C., 1998. Drying stress effect on mechanical behaviour of a clayloam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 49 (1–2), 147–158. Rajaram, G., Gee-Clough, D., 1988. Force–distance behavior of tine implements. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 41 (2), 81–98. Roozbahani, A., Mardani, A., Jokar, R., Taghavifar, H., 2013. Evaluating and measuring the performance parameters of agricultural wheels. Int. J. Biol. Vet. Agric. Food Eng. 7 (2). Rosa, U.A., Wulfsohn, D., 2008. Soil bin monorail for high-speed testing of narrow tillage tools. Biosyst. Eng. 99, 444–454. Sahu, R.K., Raheman, H., 2006. Draught prediction of agricultural implements using reference tillage tools in sandy clay loam soil. Elsevier: Biosyst. Engi. 94 (2), 275–284. Salokhe, V.M., 1986. Cage Wheel Blocking in Wet Clay Soils. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand. Schaaf, D.E., Hann, S., Lindwall, C.W., 1980. Development of performance and data on seed drill coulters. CASE Paper No. 80–303. Edmonton, Alberta. Schafer, R.L., Bockhop, C.W., Lovely, W.G., 1968. Prototype studies of tillage implements. Trans. ASABE 11 (5), 0661–0664. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.39492. SeyedReza, A.Z., 2006. Modelling of Energy Requirements by a Narrow Tillage Tool. Thesis Thesis. Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering, University of Saskatchewan. Shafiqur, R., 2000. Studies on Different Liquid Manure Injection Tools Under Laboratory (Soil Bin) and Grassland Conditions. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Sharma, V.K., 1990. Soil–Tool Interactions for Tools of Simple Shape in Dry Sand. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. Shmulevich, I., Asaf, Z., Rubinstein, D., 2007. Interaction between soil and a wide cutting blade using the discrete element method. Soil Tillage Res. 97, 37–50. Shmulevich, I., Rubinstein, I.D., Asaf, Z., 2009. Discrete element modeling of Soil–machine interactions. Adv. Soil Dyn. 3, 399–433 ASABE. Shmulevich, I., 2010. State of the art modeling of soil–tillage interaction using discrete element method. Soil Till. Res. 111 (1), 41–53. Siemens, J.C., Weber, J.A., 1964. Soil bin for model studies on tillage tests and traction devices. J. Terramech. 1 (2), 56–67. Smith, J.L., Kermit, H., Flikke, A.M., 1972. Experimental analysis of vibratory tillage. Trans. ASAE 15 (5). Smith, B.E., Burcham, T.N., To, F.S., VanDevender, K.W., Matthes, R.K., 1994. Mobile soil-tire interface measurement system. Trans. ASABE 37 (5), 1633–1637. http://dx. doi.org/10.13031/2013.28250. Stafford, J.V., 1981. An application of critical state soil mechanics: the performance of rigid tines. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 26 (5), 387–401. Stranks, S.N., 2006. The Effects of Tyre Systems on the Depth and Severity of Compaction. Cranfield University, UK. Subrata, M.K., Bhattacharyya, B., Karmakar, S., 2014. Soil-blade interaction of a rotary tiller: soil bin evaluation. Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Res. 1 (3), 58–69. Tagar, A.A., Changying, J., Adamowski, J., Malard, J., Chen, S.Q., Qishuo, D., Abbasi, N.A., 2015. Finite element simulation of soil failure patterns under soil bin and field testing conditions. Elsevier: Soil Tillage Res. 145, 157–170. Tagar, A.A., 2014. Soil failure patterns and draft as influenced by consistency limits: an evaluation of the remolded soil cutting test. Soil Tillage Res. 137, 58–66. Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A., 2012. Contact area determination of Agricultural tractor wheel with soil. Cercetări Agronomiceîn Moldova 45 (2), 150. Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A., 2013a. A knowledge-based Mamdani fuzzy logic prediction of the motion resistance coefficient in a soil bin facility for clay loam soil. SpringerVerlag: Neural Comput. Appl. 23 (December (Suppl. 1)), 293–302 London. Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A., 2013b. Potential of functional image processing technique for the measurements of contact area and contact pressure of a radial ply tire in a soil bin testing facility. Elsevier: Measurement 46, 4038–4044. Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A., 2013c. Investigating the effect of velocity, inflation pressure and vertical load on rolling resistance of a radial ply tire. Elsevier: J. Terramech. 50, 99–106. Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A., 2014a. Use of artificial neural networks for estimation of agricultural wheel traction force in soil bin. Neural Comput. Appl. 24 (May (6)), 1249–1258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/00521-013-1360-8. Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A., 2014b. Analyses of energy dissipation of run-off-road wheeled vehicles utilizing controlled soil bin facility environment. Elsevier: Energy 66, 973–980. Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A., Taghavifa, L., 2013. A hybridized artificial neural network and imperialist competitive algorithm optimization approach for prediction of soil compaction in soil bin facility. Elsevier: Measurement 46, 2288–2299.

Franco, Y., Rubinstein, D., Shmulevich, I., 2007. Prediction of soil–bulldozer blade interaction using discrete element method. Trans. ASABE 50 (2), 345–353. Gharibkhani, M., Mardani, A., Vesali, F., 2012. Determination of wheel-soil rolling resistance of agricultural tire. Aust. J. Agric. Eng. AJAE 3 (1), 6–11. Gill, W.R., VandenBerg, G.E., 1968. Soil Dynamics in Tillage and Traction, Agriculture Handbook 316. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Gill, W.R., 1990. A History of the USDA National Tillage Machinery Laboratory xii. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Auburn, Alabama 36830, 1935-1985 Auburn, AL (283 Hillcrest Dr., Auburn 36830), pp. 250–255. Godwin, R.J., Spoor, G., 1977. Soil failure with narrow tines. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 22 (4), 213–228. Godwin, R.J., Spoor, G., Kilgour, J., 1980. The design and operation of a simple low cost soil bin. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 25, 99–104. Godwin, R.J., Dresser, M.L., Blackburn, D.W.K., Hann, M.J., Dain-Owens, A.P., 2009. Trials to Identify Soil Cultivation Practices to Minimize the Impact on Archaeological Sites. Guo, G., Araya, K., 2003. Improvement of whitish oasis soil, part 2: preliminary soil bin experiments with a four-stage subsoil inverting plough. Elsevier: Biosyst. Eng. 85 (May (1)), 7–18. Gupta, C.P., Surendranath, T., 1989. Stress field in soil owing to tillage tool interaction. Soil Tillage Res. 13, 123–149. Gupta, P.D., Gupta, C.P., Pandey, K.P., 1989. Performance evaluation of wide cutting tillage tools of different geometry for dryland farming. Soil Tillage Res. 14, 145–162. Hemmat, A., Nankali, N., Aghilinategh, N., 2012. Simulating stress–sinkage under a plate sinkage test using a viscoelastic 2D axisymmetric finite element soil model. Soil Till. Res. 118, 107–166. Hettiaratchi, D.R.P., Reece, A.R., 1967. Symmetrical three-dimensional soil failure. J. Terramech. 4 (3), 45–67. Iagnemma, K., 2005. A Laboratory Single Wheel Test-bed for Studying Planetary Rover Wheel–Terrain Interaction. Ibrahmi, A., Bentaher, H., Maalej, A., 2014. Soil-blade orientation effect on tillage forces determined by 3D finite element models. Span. J. Agric. Res. 12 (4), 941–951. Jafari, R., Raoufat, M.H., Hashjin, T.T., 2008. Soil-bin performance of a modified bent leg plow. Appl. Eng. Agric. 24 (3), 301–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.24493. Kepner, R.A., Bainer, R., Barger, E.L., 1982. Principle of Farm Machinery, 3rd Edition. CBS Publisher, New Delhi, India. Koger, J.L., Trouse, A.C., Burt, E.C., Iff, R.H., Bailey, A.C., 1984. Skidder tire size vs. soil compaction in soil bins. Trans. ASABE 27 (3), 0665–0669. http://dx.doi.org/10. 13031/2013.32848. Kouwenhoven, J.K., 1986. Model studies on upheaval and reconsolidation of tilled soils in a laboratory soil bin. Elsevier: Soil Tillage Res. 8, 289–302. Kushwaha, R.L., Vaishnav, A.S., Zoerb, G.C., 1986. Soil bin evaluation of disc coulters under no-till crop residue conditions. Trans. ASAE 29 (1). Landry, H., Lague, C., Roberge, M., 2006. Discrete element modelling of machine – manure interactions. Comput. Electron. Agric. 52, 90–106. Liu, J., Lobb, D.A., Chen, Y., 2002. Innovative design features of a soil bin to facilitate research on soil-Tool interaction. In: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, ASAE Annual Meeting. St. Joseph, Michigan. Paper number 021136. Liu, J., Chen, Y., Lobb, D.A., Kushwaha, R.L., 2007. Soil-straw-tillage tool interaction: field and soil bin study. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 49, 1–6. Loghavi, M., Khadem, M.R., 2006. Development of a soil bin compaction profile sensor. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 8, 1–13. Mak, J., Chen, Y., Sadek, M.A., 2012. Determining parameters of a discrete element model for soil-tool interaction. Soil Tillage Res. 118, 117–122. Makanga, J.T., Salokhe, V.M., Gee-Clough, D., 1996. Effect of tine rake angle and aspect ratio on soil failure patterns in dry loam soil. J. Terramech. 33 (5), 233–252. Mamman, E., Oni, K.C., 2002. Soil Bin Investigations of Draught of Model Chisel Furrowers in a Vertisol Thesis Thesis. Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Ilorin, Nigeria, Ilorin. Mamman, E., Oni, K.C., 2005. Draught performance of a range of model chisel furrowers. Agric. Eng. Int.: CIGR E J. 7 PM 05 003. Manuwa, S., Ademosun, O.C., 2007. Draught and soil disturbance of model tillage tines under varying soil parameters. Agric. Eng. Int.: CIGR E J. 9 (PM 06 016). Manuwa, S.I., Ajisafe, A.A., 2010. Development of overhead gantry as complementary equipment to indoor soil bin facility. J. Food Technol. 8 (3), 92–95. Manuwa, S.I., Ademosun, O.C., Agbetoye, L.A.S., Adesina, A., 2011. Development of outdoor soil bin facility for soil tillage dynamics research. J. Agric. Eng. Technol. (JAET) 19 (1). Manuwa, S.I., 2002. Development of an Equipment of Soil Tillage Dynamics and Evaluation of Tillage Parameters Thesis Thesis. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. Marakoglu, T., Carman, K., 2008. Effects of design parameters of a cultivator share on draft force and soil loosening in a soil bin. J. Agron. 8 (1), 21–26. Mardani, B., Shahidi, K., Rahmani, A., Mashoofi, B., Karimmaslak, H., 2010. Studies on a long soil bin for soil-tool interaction. Cercetări Agronomice în Moldova 43 (2), 142. McKyes, E., Ali, O.S., 1977. The cutting of soil by narrow blades. J. Terramech. 14 (2), 43–58. Momozu, M., Oida, A., Yamazaki, M., Koolen, A.J., 2003. Simulation of a soil loosening process by means of the modified distinct element method. J. Terramech. 207–220. Mootaz, A.E., Hamilton, R., Boyle, J.T., 2004. Simulation of soil–blade interaction for sandy soil using advanced 3D finite element analysis. Soil Till. Res. 75, 61–73. Morrison, J.E., Hendrick, J.G., Schafer, R.L., 1996. Soil forces on coulter and disc-opener. Trans. ASAE 39 (2), 369–376. Mouazen, A.M., Neményi, M., Schwanghart, H., Rempfer, M., 1999. Tillage tool design by the finite element method: part 2: experimental validation of the finite element results with soil bin test. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 72 53–58.

26

Soil & Tillage Research 175 (2018) 13–27

O.A. Ani et al.

185–194. Way, T.R., Kishimoto, T., Burt, E.C., Bailey, A.C., 1997. Tractor tire aspect ratio effects on soil stresses and rut depths. Trans. ASAE 40 (4), 871–881. Way, T.R., 2009. Three single wheel machines for traction and soil compaction research. Agric. Eng. Int.: CIGR E J. XI, 2009 Manuscript 1534. Wegscheid, E.L., Myers, H.A., 1967. Soil bin instrumentation. Agric. Eng. 48 (8), 442–445. Wismer, R.D., 1984. Soil bin facilities: characteristics and utilization. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, International Society for Terrain- Vehicle Systems. Cambridge, England, III. pp. 1201–1216. Wood, R.K., Burt, E.C., 1987. Thrust and motion resistance from soil-tire interface stress measurements. Trans. ASAE 30 (5), 1288–1292. Wood, R.K., Burt, E.C., Johnson, C.E., 1991. Dynamic load effects on thrust components along the soil-tire contact zone. Trans. ASAE 34 (1), 43–46. Yahya, M., Zohadie, D., Ahmad, D., Elwaleed, A.K., Kheiralla, A.F., 2007. UPM indoor tire traction testing facility. Elsevier: J. Terramech. 44 (4), 293–301. Yan, Y., Shu-qi, S., Xiao-hong, L., 2011. Design of control system for testing platform of soil-bin for agricultural machine based on PLC new technology of agricultural engineering (ICAE), 2011. International Conference. Young, R.N., Fattah, E.A., Kiadas, N., 1984. Vehicle Traction Mechanics. Development in Agricultural Engineering 3 3. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 307 ISBN 0-444-423 78-8. Zhang, H., Araya, K., Kudoh, M., Zhang, C., Jia, H., Liu, F., Sawai, T., Yang, S., 2000. An explosive subsoiler for the improvement of meadow soil, part 2: soil bin experiments. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 75, 209–219.

Taghavifar, H., Mardani, A., Karim-Maslak, H., 2014. Multi-criteria optimization model to investigate the energy waste of off-road vehicles utilizing soil bin facility. Elsevier: Energy 73, 762–770. Taylor, J.H., 1973. Lug angle effect on traction performance of pneumatic tractor tires. Trans. ASAE 16 (1), 16–18. Torbert, H.A., Prior, S.A., Rogers, H.H., 2001. Effect of elevated CO2 and temperature on soil C and N cycling CAB international, 2001. Sustainable Management of Soil Organic Matter. Upadhyaya, S.K., Mehlschau, J., Wulfsohn, D., Glancey, J.L., 1986. Development of a unique, mobile, single wheel testing device. Trans. ASABE 29 (5), 1243–1246. http:// dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.30303. Upadhyaya, S.K., Rosa, U.A., Wulfsohn, D., 2002. Application of the finite element method in agricultural soil mechanics. Adv. Soil Dyn. 2, 117–153 ASAE. Upadhyaya, S.K., Mehlscha, J., Wulfsohn, D., Glancey, J.L., 2013. Development of a unique, mobile, single wheel traction testing machine. Trans. ASABE 29 (5), 1243–1246. VanderLinde, J., 2007. Discrete Element Modeling of a Vibratory Subsoiler. MS Thesis Thesis. Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa, Matieland. Wang, J., Gee-clough, D., 1993. Deformation and failure in wet clay soil: part 2, soil bin experiments. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 54, 57–66. Way, T.R., Kishimoto, T., 2004. Interface pressures of a tractor drive tyre on structured and loose soils. Biosyst. Eng. 87 (3), 375–386. Way, T.R., Johnson, C.E., Bailey, A.C., Raper, R.L., Burt, E.C., 1996. Soil stress state orientation beneath a tire at various loads and inflation pressures. J. Terramech. 33 (4),

27