Design and Performance Evaluation of Circular Chisel Plow ... · chisel plow designed in the form...

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 11, November 2014)

1

Design and Performance Evaluation of Circular Chisel Plow in

Calcareous Soil Meselhy, A. A.

1

1Researcher in Soil Conservation and Water Resources Department, Desert Research Center, Egypt.

Abstract - The research aims to design and manufacture of

circular chisel plow which cultivates the soil in peripheral

circles form not in straight lines as the traditional chisel plow.

These peripheral circles repeated and moving forward along a

tillage operation direction and make cultivated area consists

of overlapping cultivated circles, which increases the tillage

efficiency compared with traditional chisel plow. The circular

chisel plow designed in the form of circular an average

diameter of 1.5 meters spread over the circumference of plow

seven shanks with seven chisel blades were willing to work in

four directions. The circular chisel plow consists of two parts,

a fixed part of the three hitch point with tractor and other

moving part based on a central axis with ball bearing this is a

moving part which carries the seven shanks. The circular

chisel plow moves two movements: the first movement is

conventional movement to forward direction with tractor and

the second movement is rotational by P.T.O of the tractor,

where the rotational motion of the plow make cultivated

peripheral circles of soil this cultivated circles repeated along

the line of tillage operation. As a result of the two movement

(forward and rotational) the chisel blades of circular plow

work in all directions, from north to south and vice versa, east

to west and vice versa and move diagonally. These movements

in many directions allowing to this plow for producing more

fragmentation of soil clods and leave the soil surface more

leveling unlike with traditional chisel plow. So that the chisel

blade for the circular chisel plow consists of four

perpendicular blades to cultivate the soil in all directions with

the rotation of the plow. The efficiency of circular chisel plow

in fragmentation of soil clods increases by increasing the

rotation velocity of the plow as fast as compared with the

forward speed of tractor, which makes a more number of

cultivated circles per unit area and increases the degree of the

fragmentation of soil clods. The evaluation process for

circular chisel plow was performed by carrying out two field

experiments in Maryut Research Station in Alexandria

governorate through calcareous sandy clay loam soil as

follows: The first field experiment conducted to select the

optimum rotation velocity for the circular chisel plow so that

three rotation velocity were tested (30, 60 and 90 r.p.m) the

results showed that velocity of 90 r.p.m achieved the pest

results compared with other velocities 30 and 60 r.p.m, where

obtained the highest increasing percentage in actual field

capacity, field efficiency, soil porosity and fuel consumption.

But achieved the highest decreasing percentage in soil bulk

density, soil penetration resistance, soil mean weight diameter,

soil surface roughness, pulling force and the tillage cost.

The second field experiment conducted to evaluate the

performance of the circular chisel plow by compared between

three plows (traditional chisel plow, circular chisel plow

without rotational motion and circular chisel plow with

rotational motion, at rotation velocity has been tested in the

first experiment (90 r.p.m)), three levels of the tractor

forward speed (3.5 km/h, 5.5 km/h and 7.5 km/h) and two

levels of tractor passes (one pass and two passes) the

treatment of circular chisel plow with rotational motion

achieved the pest results compared with traditional chisel

plow and circular chisel plow without rotational motion,

especially at forward speed of 7.5 km/h and two passes, where

this treatment achieved the highest increasing percentage in

actual field capacity, field efficiency, soil porosity and wheat

yield of (grain, straw and biological yield). But achieved the

highest decreasing percentage in soil bulk density, soil

penetration resistance, soil mean weight diameter, soil surface

roughness and pulling force. The circular chisel plow with

rotational motion at forward speed of 7.5 km/h and two passes

achieved the highest percentage of fuel consumption, but

showed a high rates of the performance rates, high

productivity of wheat crop and the highest increasing

percentage in net profit about of (35% and 20%) compared

with traditional chisel plow and circular chisel plow without

rotational motion at the same operation conditions

respectively.

Keywords - Calcareous soil, circular chisel plow, power

requirements, soil physical properties, traditional chisel plow,

and wheat yield.

I. INTRODUCTION

The design of tillage tools to accomplish different level

of soil preparation is a very complex engineering work.

This is based on the fact that different crops require

different soil preparations. Different soil conditions also

require different tillage operations. Shape and size are

usually the first parameters to be considered in the design

of any tillage tool. The shape influences the pattern of soil

movement and final soil conditions while the size

determines the power required to pull the tool through the

soil. Although the designer can control tool shape and size,

tools cannot perform optimally without proper combination

and orientation of the tool design parameters. Tillage tools

of different shapes and sizes have been designed and

constructed for the purpose of soil manipulation.



2

One of the most important performance criteria in tillage

tool design is the force needed to pull the tool through a

given soil (Gill and Vanden-Berg, 1967). Wismer et al.

(1968) reported that the active elements of tillage

implements can produce negative draft. Bernacki et al.

(1972) mentioned that, active implements driven by the

P.T.O shaft of the tractor. The speed of soil cutting is

always higher than the travel speed of the implement. Total

power requirements for active elements are high even

though they have low or negative draft requirements. Hillel

(1982) found that bulk density is nearly always altered by

tillage operations. An ideal soil contains about 50% solid

particles and 50% pore space by volume. Palmer and

Kruger (1982) mentioned that the pulling force for tillage

operation was dependent on implement travel speed. Singh

(1983) mentioned that tillage is a major operation for

seedbed preparation and is one of the largest material

handling operations. It is one of the major items of energy

and cost expenditure in crop production. The energy input

in soil manipulation is exceeded only by the level of energy

input in irrigation. Thus, increasing the effectiveness of

tillage. Jacobs and Harrol (1983) indicated that according

to the previous researches, about 60% of total energy

required for preparing the soil is used for tillage and

preparing a good seedbed. Therefore it is very important to

know which parameters can reduce the cost of tillage and

traffic in fields. Upadhyaya et al. (1984) mentioned that

draft also depends on soil conditions and geometry of the

tillage implements. Tractive efficiency occurs at about 5%

wheel slip on concrete, 10% on firm soil, 13% on tilled soil

and 15% on soft or sandy soil. It is most desirable to

operate near this slip to obtain maximum. Grisso and

Perumpral (1985) showed one of the main aims of a good

farm manager is to prepare the soil for planting in the

shortest possible time. This can be accomplished by

maximizing the field capacity of the tillage implement. The

field capacity, which is the rate of field coverage, is the

product of the width and speed of operation. The choice is,

therefore, between operating large equipments at low speed

or smaller equipments at higher speed. The combination

that accomplishes the task in the shortest time and keeps

the power requirements and accompanying fixed and

operating costs at a minimum is usually selected. In making

this decision, the relationship between tool force and speed

must be known. Kepner et al. (1987) reported that tillage

is one of the most fundamental and essential operations in

agricultural production. It might be defined as the

manipulation of soil to develop a desirable soil structure for

seed-bed or root-bed to provide adequate air capacity and

to establish specific surface configuration for planting

operations.

Chi and Kushwaha (1990) mentioned that draft force

are mainly influenced by physical and mechanical

properties of soil, tillage tool geometry, operation depth

and speed. Bengough and Mullins (1990) mention that

cone penetration resistance measures are useful for

assessing soil strength. Chang and Lindwall (1990)

indicated from a literature review that soil property changes

due to tillage are related to several things. Those things

include soil type, type of tillage equipment, tillage depth,

forward speed, soil conditions such as moisture content at

the time of tillage and climatic conditions. Yassen et al.

(1992) reported that increasing the plowing depth and

travel speed decreased mean weight diameter (MWD).

Singh et al. (1992) reported that penetration resistance is a

measure of soil strength and an indicator of how easily

roots can penetrate into soil, and thus a measure of plant

growth and crop yield. Suliman et al. (1993) used five

different tillage treatment and they found that both the soil

bulk density and the penetration resistance decreased after

all the tillage treatments while, both of them increased with

increasing the forward speed and tillage depth. Srivastava

et al. (1993) reported that one of the tillage implements

widely used by farmers is the chisel plow which is

considered to be a primary tillage implement because it is

mainly used for the initial soil working operations. Grisso

et al. (1994) found that the effect of speed on implement

draft depends on the soil type and the type of implement. It

has been widely reported that the draft forces on

implements increase significantly with speed and the

relationship varies from linear to quadratic. Ros et al.

(1995) indicated that tillage tools direct energy into the soil

to cause some desired effect such as cutting, breaking,

inversion, or movement of soil. Soil is transferred from an

initial condition to a different final condition by this

process. Makanga et al. (1997) mentioned that seedbed

preparation greatly contributes towards the overall cost of

farm operations, implying that significant savings are

possible through optimized design and development of

tillage machinery. Al-Suhaibani and Al-Janobi (1997)

evaluated the effects of tillage depth and forward speed on

draft of moldboard, disk and chisel plows on sandy loam

soil. The results showed that draft increased with increases

of forward speed and tillage depth for all the implements

and the moldboard and chisel plow had highest and lowest

specific draft, respectively. El-Said et al. (1998) found that

the value of soil penetration resistance increased by

increasing soil layer depth to increase the soil compaction.

Also, he indicated that the soil physical properties affected

by soil tillage treatments could influence the yield level of

grown crops.



3

Aggregate size, moisture content, penetration resistance,

and bulk density are important soil physical properties. Soil

moisture content is a very important parameter for cutting

and milling the soil by moldboard plow. With low soil

moisture content the cohesion force between particles of

soil is very strong and a lot of energy is needed during

tillage. Also after tillage there are big clods in the field.

With the higher soil moisture content, tillage equipment

cannot be used in the field. Taniguchi et al. (1999)

reported that an increase in tillage operating speed resulted

in more soil pulverization. Marquesda Silva and Soares

(2000) showed that tillage tools have impacts on the

translocation of the soil surface. Tillage operations reduce

erosion and increase the roughness. Metwalli et al. (2000)

found that soil bulk density decreased after tillage with

mouldboard plow, chisel plow (one pass) and chisel plow

(two passes) and rotary plough compared with that before

tillage. Khader (2000) reported that power and energy

requirements for tilling the soil increased by increasing the

tilling depth and operating speed. Mouazen and Ramon

(2002) reported that the draught force of a tillage

implement increases with increasing bulk density. The

relationship between draught and speed has been reported

as linear, second-order polynomial, parabolic and

exponential. These differences occur as a result of the

inertia required to accelerate soil, effect of shear rate on

shear strength and effect of shear rate on soil-metal friction,

all of which vary with soil type and condition. Macmillan

et al. (2002) reported that implement width, operating

depth and speed are factors that affect draft of a tillage

implement. Stenitzer and Murer, (2003) found that yields

of wheat increased 1.6 Mg/ha and yields of soybean

increased 1.5 Mg/ha for each 1 MPa decrease in mean

profile cone index. These results were shown on a loamy

sand. Zoz and Grisso (2003) reported that drawbar power

is defined by pull (or draft) and travel speed. Therefore, the

ideal tractor converts all the energy from the fuel into

useful work at the drawbar. Khadr (2004) concluded that

the fuel consumption, the overall energy efficiency and the

specific energy were increased with the increase of the

agricultural operating speed. Also, he indicated that net fuel

consumption of a tractor was found to be dependent upon

implement draft and plowing depth. Vidal et al. (2005)

mentioned that soil roughness describes the micro

variations in surface elevation resulting mainly from

management practices and is one of the main factors

influencing wind and water erosion. Abdel-Aal et al.

(2005) indicated that the soil bulk density and soil

penetration resistance were decreased after tillage.

Mamman and Oni (2005) reported that a soil particle size

range of 1 to 5 mm is required for seedbeds.

Draught is an important parameter for measuring and

evaluating implement performance for energy

requirements. Sahu and Raheman (2006) reported that the

draft of the tillage implements was significantly affected by

depth and speed of operation and with increase in depth

and speed of operation, the draft of the tillage implements

increased. This was because of the higher soil resistance

and more volume of soil handled with increase in depth and

higher force required accomplishing the soil acceleration

with increase in speed of operation. Boydas and Turgut

(2007) found that soil physical properties are extremely

vital to plant growth. The influence of tillage implements

on soil physical properties is significant. Panachuki et al.

(2010) found that up to 3.8 times higher surface roughness

after tillage compared before tillage. Boulal et al. (2011)

mentioned that the water storage capacity of the soil

surface depends almost exclusively on the surface

roughness. Alvarez-Mozos et al. (2011) showed that

different tillage tools have different impacts on the

translocation of the soil surface. The water storage capacity

of the soil surface depends almost exclusively on the

surface roughness. Julieta et al. (2012) mentioned that the

method of soil preparation affected of the soil surface

roughness indices significantly, demonstrating the

importance of soil tillage for the physical conditions on the

soil surface. Reported also before tillage the soil surface

roughness ranged from 3.89 to 5.99 cm and before tillage

soil surface roughness values did not differ significantly

and that an average of these values can be considered. After

soil tillage the soil surface roughness values ranged from

6.56 to 13.03 cm and the test showed that the soil surface

roughness values were 2.2 times higher after tillage

compared with before tillage because moving the soil by

tilling raises the soil surface level.

Therefore, the primary objective of this research was to

design and manufacture the circular chisel plow after that

evaluation the circular chisel plow by conducted the field

experiment in calcareous sandy clay loam soil to compare

the performance of circular chisel plow with traditional

chisel plow in different levels of tractor forward speed and

the number of tractor passes.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Circular chisel plow was manufactured locally and the

evaluation process for the performance of this plow

achieved by conducting field experiment which carried out

in Maryut Experimental Station, Desert Research Center.

This study was carried out in the winter season 2013-2014

(from November 2013 to May 2014) with an experimental

area of about 1.5 feddans.



4

Tillage operation for all treatments was conducted at

20cm of tillage depth, 20% of soil moisture content (dry

base, d.b.), 40.48 % of Ca Co3 content (calcareous soil) and

the soil texture was sandy clay loam.

A. Implements Specifications:

Specifications of the implements used in this study were

summarized in Table (1).

Table 1

Some specifications of the implements.

Implement Specifications

Tractor Ursus C-385 (4 cylinders) the tractor mass

2560kg, 51.5kW (70HP). P.T.O shaft

speed 540 and 1000 r.p.m. Rear and front

wheels diameters 15.5-38 inch and 7.5-20

inch respectively.

Traditional

chisel plow

Mounted type with 150cm working width.

Seven shanks (2.5 x 7cm) arranged in two

rows. Each shank carry the chisel blade

(6cm width). The plow mass 250 kg.

Circular

chisel plow

Mounted type with 150 cm working

diameter. Seven shanks (4.5 x 4.5cm)

arranged on the circumference of the plow

body, which rotates on a central axis by

tractor P.T.O as shown in figures (1 and 2).

Each blade (6cm width) consists of four

chisel blades perpendicular to each other

which has the same dimension and

specifications for the blade of traditional

chisel plow which used in this study as

shown in figure (3). The plow mass 280

kg.

B. Experimental Procedure:

The following are the experimental details:

1. Experimental design:

Experiment area was about of 1.5 fed. This area was

divided into two pieces (two field experiments). The first

field experiment carried out to evaluate the circular chisel

plow at three levels of rotation velocity and choice the

optimum velocity of them to use it in the second

experiment. It was established as a one way completely

randomized in three replicates, divided into three plots

involved three rotation velocity (30, 60 and 90 r.p.m)

resulted in a total of 9 plots, each of 100m2. The second

field experiment carried out to compare two types of plows,

traditional chisel plow and circular chisel plow at different

levels of tractor forward speed and number of tractor

passes.

It was established as a split split plots in three replicates,

divided into three main plots involved three types of plows

(traditional chisel plow, circular chisel plow without

rotation and circular chisel plow with rotation). Each main

plot includes three sub-plots, which involved three forward

speeds (3.5, 5.5 and 7.5 km/h). Each sub-plot includes three

sub-sub-plots, which involved two number of tractor passes

(one pass and two passes). Each sub-sub-plot resulted in a

total of 54 plots, each of 100m2.

2. Wheat seeds and planting method:

The wheat was planted by seeder machine in November,

with a rate of 50 kg/fed (variety of Sakha 8) and harvested

in May.

3. Harvesting:

Before harvesting wheat crop, three randomized samples

were taken by hand from each plot using a wooden square

frame (1m2) as a simpler to determine the wheat yield per

feddan. Finally, the wheat crop was harvested using a

mounted mower and threshing by thresher. Moisture

content of wheat grain at harvesting was 12% d.b.

C. Measurements:

1. Soil bulk density.

Measured by using a core samples (Three replicates for

each sample) according to Black et al (1965) method.

2. Total soil porosity.

Determined according to Black et al. (1965) equation

as follows:

Where: Sp : Total soil porosity, (%);

ρd : Bulk density of the soil, (g/cm3) and

ρs : Density of solid soil substance, it was

assumed to be constant (2.65 g/cm3).

3. Soil penetration resistance:

Measured by a Japanese cone index penetrometer (SR-2,

DIK-500)

4. Soil mean weight diameter (M.W.D).

M.W.D. was determined according to Van Bavel,

(1949) as follows:

……….…….… (3)



5

Where: xi : The mean weight diameter of each fractions,

(mm); wi : The weight of the soil retained on i

th sieve,

(gm);

wT : The total weight of the soil retained on the

sieves, (gm);

ε I : Sieve mesh and

i : Number of sieves.

5. Soil surface roughness.

A pin meter was specifically designed on the basis of a

review of the literature (Burwell et al., 1963; Podmore

and Huggins, 1981; Wagner and Yiming, 1991) and in

keeping with the plot size (1m2) Figure (4).

Figure 1: Circular chisel plow.



6

Figure 2: Elevation and side views of the circular chisel plow.

Figure 3 Elevation and plan views of the chisel blade of circular chisel plow.



7

Figure 4: Pin-meter.

The pin-meter consisted of a row of 35cm high pins

placed in a frame in which they could slide up or down to

conform to surface irregularities. The pin heads were

marked with a blue band to better visualize their respective

positions when in contact with the soil. The device was

designed to be moved horizontally without disturbing the

pin patterns. The total height of the instrument, which made

of aluminum, was 85 cm. The pins were set against a white

backing to ensure the visibility of the blue bands. With

rows containing 50 pins spaced at 20mm intervals, each x-

axis reading covered one full meter of ground. The y-axis

readings were taken by sliding the instrument across the

one square meter plots. The cells on the resulting grid

measured 20 x 20 mm, and a total of 2500 readings were

taken per square meter. An earlier study (Garcia Moreno,

2006) showed this spacing to be sufficient to measure the

surface roughness. Soil surface roughness was computed

through the standard deviation (SD) as follow:

……..…… (4)

Where: xi is the location of the ith

measurement, Z ( x i ) is

the elevation, is the average value of set

Z( x i ) and N is the number of data points.

6. Theoretical and actual field capacity and field

efficiency.

Theoretical and actual field capacity and field efficiency

were calculated by using equations mentioned by kepner

et al, (1978).

7. Pulling force

Draft force was measured by hydraulic dynamometer

which, coupled between the two tractors with the attaching

chisel plough to estimate its draught force. A considerable

number of readings were taken at a time interval 10

seconds to obtain an accurate average of draught force.

The hitch was always adjusted in order to keep the line

of pull as horizontal as possible.

8. Fuel consumption rate.

Fuel consumption per unit time was determined by

measuring the volume of fuel consumed during plowing

time. It was calculated using the fuel meter equipment as

shown in Figure (5). The length of line which marked by

the marker tool on the paper sheet represents the fuel

consumption. The fuel meter was calibrated prior and the

volume of fuel was determined accurately.

Figure 5: Fuel meter for measuring fuel consumption.

9. Total cost of performing a tillage operation.

Total hourly cost was determined according to EL-

Awady (1978) as follows:

Where:

C: Hourly cost, (L.E./h);

p: Initial price of the tractor, (L.E);

h: Yearly working hours of tractor. (h/year);

L: Life expectancy of the tractor (year);

t: Annual taxes and overheads ratio, (%);

f: Fuel price, (L.E./L);

m: The monthly average wage, (L.E./month);

1.2: Factor accounting for lubrications;

RFC: Actual rate of fuel consumption, (L/h);

i: Annual interest rate, (%);

r: Annual repairs and maintenance ratio for tractor,

(%);

: Initial price of the preparing implement, (L.E);

: Yearly working hours of preparing implement,

(h/year);

: Annual repairs and maintenance ratio for

preparing implement, (%);



8

L1: Life expectancy of preparing implement (year)

and

144: Operator monthly average working hours,

(h).

Total cost per unit area was determined as follows:

Tca = C /Afc …………………………… (6)

Where: Tca : Total cost of unit area, (L.E/fed);

Afc : Actual field capacity, (Fed/h) and

C : Hourly cost, (L.E/h).

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Two field experiments were carried out as follows:

The first field experiment was conducted to evaluation

the circular chisel plow at three levels of rotation velocity

to choice the optimum velocity of them and using it in the

second experiment. The results showed that:

Effect of rotation velocity on measurements of the first

experiment.

The results presented in Table (2) pointed that in

general, actual field capacity, field efficiency, soil porosity

and fuel consumption increased when increasing rotation

velocity of the circular chisel plow and the rotation velocity

of 90 r.p.m achieved the highest average increasing

percentage of all previous measurements compared with

velocities 30 and 60 r.p.m about of (22% - 10%), (22% -

10%), (11% - 7%) and (8% - 17%) respectively. But found

that soil bulk density, soil penetration resistance, mean

weight diameter, soil roughness surface, pulling force and

tillage operation cost decreased when increasing rotation

velocity of the circular chisel plow and the rotation velocity

of 90 r.p.m achieved the highest average decreasing

percentage of all previous measurements compared with

velocities 30 and 60 r.p.m about of (11% - 6%), (38% -

22%), (59% - 42%), (62% - 42%), (17% - 8%) and (13% -

7%) respectively. The results showed that the rotation

velocity of 90 r.p.m is the optimum rotation velocity from

all velocities which tested in the first experiment so that

this velocity used in the second experiment when using the

circular chisel plow with rotational motion.

The second field experiment was carried out to compare

two types of plows, traditional chisel plow and circular

chisel plow at different of tractor forward speed and

number of tractor passes. The results showed that:

Effect of study treatments on actual field capacity, field

efficiency, pulling force and fuel consumption.

From the results as shown in Table (3) found that actual

field capacity increased with increasing forward speed and

decreased with increasing number of plow passes where the

average increasing percentage at forward speed 7.5 km/h

were (81% and 25%) compared with others two speeds 3.5

km/h and 5.5 km/h respectively. The average decreasing

percentage for actual field capacity at two passes was

(49%) compared with one pass. But field efficiency

decreased with increasing forward speed and increased

with increasing number of plow passes where the average

increasing percentage at forward speed 7.5 km/h were

(16% and 9%) compared with others two speeds 3.5 km/h

and 5.5 km/h respectively. The average increasing

percentage for field efficiency at two passes was (3%)

compared with one pass. The results showed that when

using circular chisel plow with rotational motion the actual

field capacity and field efficiency increased compared with

circular chisel plow without rotational motion and

traditional chisel plow where the average increasing

percentage were (15% and 26%) and (14% and 26%) for

actual field capacity and field efficiency respectively. The

average increasing percentage for actual field capacity and

field efficiency when using circular chisel plow without

rotational motion compared with traditional chisel plow

was (10% and 10%) respectively. The circular chisel plow

caused increasing of actual field capacity and field

efficiency compared with traditional chisel plow because

the circular shape for the circular chisel plow compared

with traditional chisel plow as shown in Figure (6).



9

Table 2:

Effect of rotation velocity on measurements of the first experiment

For example if the circular chisel plow rotation in 60

r.p.m (about one r.p.sec) therefore the plow make complete

cultivated circle of the soil after make 1/7 rotation of plow

in other words the plow make seven cultivated circles after

one sec. and assuming that the plow moved to the forward

at forward speed one m/sec so that the plow will make

seven cultivated circles in this meter of soil and the tillage

area is about of 1.5m x 2.5m as shown in Figure (6). But

the tillage area for traditional chisel plow is about of 1.5m

x 1m as shown in Figure (6). So that the circular chisel

plow cultivated the big area of soil than the cultivated area

by traditional chisel plow at the seam tillage width and

forward speed. Data in Table (3) showed that pulling force

and fuel consumption increased with increasing forward

speed and number of plow passes where the average

increasing percentage at forward speed 7.5 km/h were

(29% and 11%) and (20% and 9%) compared with others

two speeds 3.5 km/h and 5.5 km/h for pulling force and

fuel consumption respectively and the average increasing

percentage at two passes were (76% and 78%) compared

with one pass for pulling force and fuel consumption

respectively. The results showed that when using circular

chisel plow with rotational motion the pulling force

decreased compared with circular chisel plow without

rotational motion and traditional chisel plow where the

average decreasing percentage were (7% and 20%)

respectively. The average decreasing percentage for pulling

force when using circular chisel plow without rotational

motion compared with traditional chisel plow was (14%).

When using circular chisel plow with rotational motion

the fuel consumption increased compared with circular

chisel plow without rotational motion and traditional chisel

plow where the average decreasing percentage were (87%

and 55%) respectively but the fuel consumption decreased

when using circular chisel plow without rotational motion

compared with traditional chisel plow and the average

decreasing percentage was (17%). Can be summarized why

the pulling force decreased when using circular chisel plow

compared with the traditional chisel plow as the following:

- First, in the case of rotation of the circular chisel plow

by P.T.O. Because that the rotation velocity of the plow

faster than the forward speed of the tractor, the plow

cultivates the soil due to rotation force before it moves to

forward, which leading to reduce the pulling force of the

circular chisel plow compared with traditional chisel plow.

- Second, in the case of not rotation of the circular

chisel plow by P.T.O (free rotation). In this case the

circular chisel plow make free rotation around its central

axis and be in a balance position if the number of shanks of

plow on the both of sides of the central axis is equal, as

shown in Figure (7), but when the plow moves to forward

during tillage process, as a result of unequal the number of

shanks on both sides of the central axis which causing

increasing cumulative resistance of the soil on one side

than the other and causing rotation the plow around its

central axis and this rotational motion is working to

cultivate the soil and this rotation is working to avoid the

strong rocks in soil, which resulting in the end decreases

the pulling force compared with traditional chisel plow.



10

Effect of study treatments on soil bulk density, soil porosity,

soil penetration resistance, mean weight diameter and soil

roughness surface.

Table (4) showed that soil bulk density, soil penetration

resistance, mean weight diameter and soil roughness

surface decreased with increasing both of forward speed

and number of plow passes where the average decreasing

percentage at forward speed 7.5 km/h were (9% and 4%),

(38% and 24%), (42% and 25%) and (37% and 22%)

compared with others two speeds 3.5 km/h and 5.5 km/h

respectively. The average decreasing percentage for soil

bulk density, soil penetration resistance, mean weight

diameter and soil roughness surface at two passes were

(2%, 10%, 12% and 10%) compared with one pass


chisel plow with rotational motion soil bulk density, soil

penetration resistance, mean weight diameter and soil

roughness surface decreased compared with circular chisel

plow without rotational motion and traditional chisel plow

where the average decreasing percentage were (6% and

10%), (33% and 42%), (41% and 56%) and (44% and 53%)

for soil bulk density, soil penetration resistance, mean

weight diameter and soil roughness surface respectively.

The average decreasing percentage for soil bulk density,

soil penetration resistance, mean weight diameter and soil

roughness surface when using circular chisel plow without


were (5%, 13%, 24% and 16%) respectively. The data in

Table (4) showed that soil porosity increased with

increasing both of forward speed and number of plow

passes where the average increasing percentage at forward

speed 7.5 km/h were (8% and 4%) compared with others

two speeds 3.5 km/h and 5.5 km/h respectively. The

average increasing percentage for soil porosity at two

passes was (2%) compared with one pass. The results

showed that when using circular chisel plow with rotational

motion soil porosity increased compared with circular

chisel plow without rotational motion and traditional chisel

plow where the average increasing percentage were (6%

and 10%) respectively. The average increasing percentage

for soil porosity when using circular chisel plow without


was (4%).



11

Table 3:

Effect of study treatments on actual field capacity, field efficiency, pulling force and fuel consumption.



12

Figure 6: The shape of tillage area at 100 cm movement distance for traditional chisel plow and circular chisel plow.



13

Figure 7: Effect of soil resistance force on shanks of circular chisel plow when the plow is not rotation by P.T.O (free rotation).



14

Table 4:

Effect of study treatments on soil bulk density, soil porosity, soil penetration resistance, mean weight diameter and soil roughness surface.



15

Effect of study treatments on wheat yield and net profit.

Table (5) displayed that wheat grain yield, wheat straw

yield and biological yield increased with increasing both of

forward speed and number of plow passes where the

average increasing percentage at forward speed 7.5 km/h

were (30% and 13%), (32% and 14%) and (31% and 14%)

compared with others two speeds 3.5 km/h and 5.5 km/h

respectively. The average increasing percentage for wheat

grain yield, wheat straw yield and biological yield at two

passes were (10%, 7% and 8%) compared with one pass


chisel plow with rotational motion wheat grain yield, wheat

straw yield and biological yield increased compared with

circular chisel plow without rotational motion and

traditional chisel plow where the average increasing

percentage were (21% and 27%), (5% and 25%) and (11%

and 26%) for wheat grain yield, wheat straw yield and

biological yield respectively. The average

increasingpercentage for wheat grain yield, wheat straw

yield and biological yield when using circular chisel plow

without rotational motion compared with traditional chisel

plow were (5%, 19% and 13%) respectively. The data in

Table (5) showed that net profit increased with increasing

both of forward speed and number of plow passes where

the average increasing percentage at forward speed 7.5

km/h were (42% and 18%) compared with others two

speeds 3.5 km/h and 5.5 km/h respectively.



16

Table 5

Effect of study treatments on wheat yield and net profit.

The average increasing percentage for net profit at two

passes was (11%) compared with one pass. The results

showed that when using circular chisel plow with rotational

motion net profit increased compared with circular chisel

plow without rotational motion and traditional chisel plow

where the average increasing percentage were (20% and

35%) respectively.

The average increasing percentage for net profit when

using circular chisel plow without rotational motion

compared with traditional chisel plow was (12%).



17

IV. CONCLUSION

The previous discussions showed that the circular chisel

plow consumed more fuel in rotational motion compared

with traditional chisel plow, but this rotational motion

caused increasing of plow performance rates, improvement

the soil physical properties, decreasing pulling force and

increasing the wheat productivity, so that caused an

increasing of net profit in the end compared with traditional

chisel plow. The discussions also proved that the efficiency

of the circular chisel plow increased with increasing the

passes number of plow, increasing the rotation velocity and

increasing tractor forward speed, with note that the rotation

velocity of the circular chisel plow always be faster than

the tractor forward speed.

Recommendations:

1- Should be tested the circular chisel plow in other soil

types to determine the optimum operating conditions for

circular chisel plow in each soil type.

2- Should be compared the circular chisel plow with other

types of traditional plows, such as rotary tiller to

determinate the important advantages and disadvantages of

this plow.

REFERENCES

[1] Abdel-Aal, S. E., A. M. Kishta and A. Lotfy. 2005. Seedbed

preparation and irrigation depths affecting soil physical properties and rice yield. Misr J.Agr. Eng., 22(2); 572-591.

[2] Al-Suhaibani, S. A. and A. A. Al-Janobi. 1997. Draught requirements of tillage implements operating on sandy loam soil.

Journal of Agric. Engineering Researches 66:177-182.

[3] Alvarez-Mozos, J., C.A. Miguel, R. Gimenez, J. Casali, and U. Leibar. 2011. Implications of scale, slope, tillage operation and

direction in the estimation of surface depression storage. Soil Tillage

Res., 111: 142-153.

[4] Bengough, A. G. and C. E., Mullins. 1990. Mechanical impedance to

root growth: a review of experimental techniques and root growth responses. J. Soil Sci. 41, 341–358.

[5] Bernacki, H., J. Haman and C. Kanafojski. 1972. Agricultural Mechines (Theory and Construction). Vol. 1, Published by the

Scientific Puplications Foreign, Warsow, Poland. P: 433.

[6] Black, C. A. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. 1st Edn. American Society Agronomy, Madison, WI., USA.

[7] Boulal, H., H. Gómez-Macpherson, J.A. Gómez and L. Mateos. 2011. Effect of soil management and traffic on soil erosion in

irrigated annual crops. Soil Tillage Res., 11:62-70.

[8] Boydas, M. G and N. Turgut. 2007. Effect of tillage implements and operating speeds on soil physical properties and wheat emergence.

Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 31, 399-412.

[9] Burwell, R. E., R. R. Allmaras and M. Amemiya, 1963. A field

measurement of total porosity and surface microrrelief of soils, Soil

Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 27, 697–700.

[10] Chang, C. and C. W. Lindwall. 1990. Comparison of the Effect of

Long Term Tillage and Crop Rotation on Physical Properties of a Soil. Canadian Agri. Engineering, 32, 53-55.

[11] Chi, L. and R. L. Kushwaha. 1990. A Non-linear 3-D finite element

analysis of soil failure with tillage tool. Journal of Terra mechanics, 27(4), 343-366.

[12] El-Awady, M. N. 1978. Engineering of Tractor and Agricultural Machinery. Text Book, (in Arabic), Fac. Of Ag. Ain Shams Univ.,

Cairo, Egypt.

[13] El-Said, K. M., Z. M. Imara and K. El-Sayed. 1998. Effect of ploughing type on some physical properties of a clay soil. Misr J.

Agric. Eng., 15(2): 276-290.

[14] Garcia Moreno, R. 2006. Desarrollo de una metodolog´ıa para

lamedici´on de la rugosidad delsuelo, Ph.D. Dissertation,

Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM), 120 pp.

[15] Gill, W.R. and G.E. Vanden-Berg. 1967. Soil dynamics in tillage

and traction. Agricultural Handbook No.316. Agricultural Research Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[16] Grisso, R. D. and J. V. Perumpral. 1985. Review of models for

predicting the performance of narrow tillage tools. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. (ASAE). 28(4), 1062±1067.

[17] Grisso, R. D., M. Yasin and M. F. Kocher. 1994. Tillage Implement Forces Operating in Silty Clay Loam. ASAE paper No.94-1532, St.

Joseph, Mich., USA.

[18] Hillel, D. 1982. Introduction to Soil Physics. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, FL. USA.

[19] Jacobs, C. O. and W. R. Harrol. 1983. Agricultural Power and Machinery. Mc Graw Hil Press, New York.

[20] Julieta B., I. C. De Maria, R. Lemos and S. Crestana. 2012.

Relations between soil surface roughness, Tortuosity, tillage treatments, rainfall Intensity and soil and water losses from a red

Yellow latosol. R. Bras. Ci. Solo, 36:1291-1297.

[21] Kepner, R. A., R. Bainer and E. L. Barger. 1978. Principles of Farm

Machinery. Ch 5, The AVI Publishing Company.

[22] Kepner, R. A., R. Bainer and E. L. Barger. 1987. Principles of farm machinery, 3th Ed. AVI Publ. Co., Inc. Westport, Cone, 392- 428.

[23] Khadr, Kh. A. A. 2000. A study some factors affecting the power tiller performance. Misr J. Agric. Eng., 17 (3): 636- 646.

[24] Khadr, Kh. A. A. 2004. Energy requirements for some seed-bed

preparation implements under Egyptian conditions. 12th Annual Conf. of Misr Society of Agric. Eng.., 21(4):481-491.

[25] Makanga, J. T., V. M. Salkhe and D. Gee-Clough. 1997. Effects of tine rake angle and aspect ratio on soil reactions in dry loam soil. J.

Terra. 34: 235-250.

[26] Mamman, E. and K. C. Oni. 2005. Draught performance of a range

of model chisel furrowers. Agricultural Engineering International:

the CIGR E journal. .PM 05 003. Vol. VII. Nov. 2005.

[27] Marquesda Silva, J. R. and J. M. C. N. Soares. 2000. Description

standards of primary tillage implements, Soil Till. Res., 57, 173–

176.

[28] Metwally, M. E., R. R. Abou-Shieshaa, R. M. Kholief and R. E.

Kanany. 2000. Effect of four different tillage systems and nitrogen sources on wheat production under improved salt affected soil. Misr

J. Agric. Eng., 17(3): 539-554.



18

[29] Mouazen, A. M., and H. Ramon, 2002. A numerical-statistical

hybrid modeling scheme for evaluation of draught requirements of a subsoiler cutting a sandy loam soil, as affected by moisture content,

bulk density and depth. Soil and Tillage Research, 63:155-165.

[30] Palmer, A. L. and I. R. Kruges. 1982. Comparative drafts of six tillage implements. In Proc. Conf. on Agric. Eng. 163-167,

Armidale, New Australia 22-24 August. Nat. Committee Agric. Eng.

Of Insttution of Engineers, Australia, Barton, Australia.

[31] Panachuki, E., I. Bertol, S. T.A. obrinho, A. C. T. Vitorino, C.M.A.

Souza and M.A. Urchei. 2010. Rugosidade da superfície do solo sob diferentes sistemas de manejo einfluenciada por chuva artificial. R.

Bras. Ci. Solo, 34:443-452.

[32] Podmore, T. H. and L. F. Huggins. 1981. An automated profile meter for surface roughness measurements, ASAE, 24, 663-665.

[33] Ros V., R. J. Smith, S. J. Marley and D. C. Erbach. (1995). Mathematical modeling and computer aided design of the passive

tillage tools, Transactions of the ASAE, 38(3), 675–683.

[34] Sahu, R. K. and H. Raheman 2006. An approach for draft prediction

of combination tillage implements in sandy clay loam soil. Soil &

Tillage Res., 90 (1-2): 145-155.

[35] Singh G. 1983. Optimal energy for tillage tools. Unpublished M

Tech Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

[36] Singh, K. K., T. S. Colvin, D. C. Erbach and A.Q. Mughal. 1992.

Tilth index: An approach to quantifying soil tilth, Transactions of the

ASAE. 35: 1777-1785.

[37] Srivastava, A. K., C. E. Goering and R. P. Rohrbach. 1993.

Engineering Principles of Agricultural Machines. ASAE Textbook,

pp: 149-219.

[38] Stenitzer, E. and E. Murer. 2003. Impact of soil compaction upon

soil water balance and maize yield estimated by the SIMWASER model. Soil Till. Res. 73, 43–56.

[39] Suliman, A. E., G. M. Nassr and W. M. I. Adawy. 1993. A study on

the effect of different tillage systems on the physical properties of the soil. Misr J. Agr. Eng., 10 (2):169-189.

[40] Taniguchi, T., J. T. Makanga, K. Ohtoma and T. Kishimoto. 1999.

Draft and soil manipulation by a moldboard plow under different forward speed and body attachments. Transactions of the ASAE. 42:

1517-1521.

[41] Upadhyaya, S. K., T. H. Williams, L. J. Kemble and N. E. Collins.

1984. Energy requirement for chiseling in coastal plain soils. Trans.

of the ASAE. 27(6):1643-1649.

[42] Van Bavel, C. M. 1949. Mean weight diameter of soil aggregates as

a statistical index of aggregation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 14: 20-23.

[43] Vidal V´azquez, E., J. G. Vivas Miranda and A. G. Onzalez. 2005.

Characterizing anisotropy and heterogeneity of soil surface micro

topography using fractal models, Ecol. Model., 182, 337-353.

[44] Wagner, L. E. and Y. Yiming, 1991. Digitization of profile meter

photographs, Trans. ASAE, 34(2), 412-416.

[45] Wismer R. D., E. L. Wegshied, H. J. Luth and B. E. Romig. 1968.

Energy application in tillage and earth moving. SAE Paper No. 68–

677, Warren, PA.

[46] Yassen, H. A., H. M. Hassan and I. A. Hammadi. 1992. Effects of

plowing depth using different plow types on some physical properties of soil. AMA, 23(4), 21- 24.

[47] Zoz, F. M. and R. D. Grisso. 2003. Traction and Tractor

Performance, ASAE Distinguished Lecture Series 27, ASAE Publication Number 913C0403. Paper presented at Agricultural

Equipment Technology Conference held at Louisville, Kentucky,

USA between February 9-11.

Design and Performance Evaluation of Circular Chisel Plow ... · chisel plow designed in the form...

Documents

Transcript of Design and Performance Evaluation of Circular Chisel Plow ... · chisel plow designed in the form...