DISCRETE ELEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR WHEEL RUT TILLAGE DEVICES

Zhuang, Haiyang; Wang, Xianliang; Zhang, Xiangcai; Cheng, Xiupei; Wei, Zhongcai

doi:10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v43n3e20230039/2023

Haiyang Zhuang

School of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology/Zibo, China.

Xianliang Wang ^**Corresponding author. College of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology/Zibo, China. E-mail: wxl1990@sdut.edu.cn | ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7099-6286

School of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology/Zibo, China.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7099-6286

Xiangcai Zhang

School of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology/Zibo, China.

Xiupei Cheng

School of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology/Zibo, China.

Zhongcai Wei

School of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology/Zibo, China.

*Corresponding author. College of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology/Zibo, China. E-mail: wxl1990@sdut.edu.cn | ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7099-6286

Area Editor: Fábio Lúcio Santos

Thumbnail

FIGURE 1
1. triangular connecting plate, 2. spring down device, 3. spring down connecting rod, 4. soil lifting device, 5. Shaft, 6. soil crushing knife, 7. soil crushing knife fixing frame, 8. bolt hole, 9. hexagonal shaft, 10. Bearing, and 11. Sleeve.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 3
Analysis of the force on the shovel tip.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 4
Forces on the shovel handle during operation.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 2
(a) Details of the entry angle, lifting angle and offset distance of the soil lifting device, (b) thickness of the soil crushing knife

Thumbnail

FIGURE 5
Force analysis of the operation of the soil crushing knife.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 6
Soil force analysis.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 7
Fitting curve of the soil cutter.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 8
Angle of repose test.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 9
Image processing of the angle of repose.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 10
Linear fit of the image of the angle of repose[Ed15].

Thumbnail

FIGURE 11
Soil shear test. 1. Dial gauge, 2. Propulsion motor, 3. Shear box, 4. Force measuring ring, 5. Controller, 6. Hanging plate, and 7. Leveling handwheel

Thumbnail

FIGURE 12
Shear simulation test.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 13
Shear strength curve.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 14
Inter-particle bond.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 15
Soil trough

Thumbnail

FIGURE 16
Soil particle distribution map.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 17
Soil particle vector distribution.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 18
Movement of soil particles at different locations during the operation

Thumbnail

FIGURE 19
Variation of soil particle displacement for different factors during tillage (a) effect of entry angle, (b) effect of lifting angle, and (c) effect of offset distance.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 20
Traction resistance of the device during tillage (a) Resistance of the device at different angles of entry, (b) Resistance of the device at different lifting angles, and (c) Resistance of the device at different offset distances.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 21
Effect of cutting edge angle on bond fracture at different insert thickness(a) 4 mm; (b) 5 mm; (c) 6 mm.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 22
Effect of cutting edge angle on traction resistance for different insert thicknesses (a) 4 mm; (b) 5 mm; (c) 6 mm.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 23
Effect of tool thickness on the number of bond fractures at different cutting edge angles (a) 30°; (b) 40°; (c) 50°.

Thumbnail

FIGURE 24
Effect of tool thickness on traction resistance at different cutting edge angles (a) 30°; (b) 40°; (c) 50°.

Thumbnail

TABLE 1
Soil-65Mn sliding friction angle.

Thumbnail

TABLE 2
Shear stress under different loads (KPa).

Thumbnail

TABLE 3
Soil model simulation parameters.

Thumbnail

TABLE 4
Simulation parameters of the integrated lifting and shredding device.

Thumbnail

TABLE 5
Factors and levels of the quadratic orthogonal regression combination test for the operational effect of the soil lifting device.

Thumbnail

TABLE 6
Quadratic orthogonal regression combination test scheme and results of operation effect of soil lifting device.

Thumbnail

TABLE 7
Results of the ANOVA analysis of the regression analysis of the simulation of lift heights of soil particles[Ed22] .

Thumbnail

TABLE 8
Analysis of variance of the regression of the simulation of the resistance to the device.

Thumbnail

TABLE 9
Addition of working device motion subsets.

Thumbnail

TABLE 10
Single-factor test results.

Thumbnail

TABLE 11
Analysis of variance.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(16)

Parameter	Soil
Parameter	1st time	2nd time	3rd time
Scope	31.0～37.0	23.0～39.0	33.0～41.0
Average value	33.0	30.3	37.0

Parameter	Vertical pressure/KPa
Parameter	50	100	150	200
Average value	94.38	112.76	136.68	158.16

Parameters	Value
Poisson's ratio	0.38
Shear modulus Pa	1.24×10⁶
Density Kg ∙ m^-3	2150
Recovery factor	0.6
Static friction coefficient	0.36
Coefficient of dynamic friction	0.17
Normal stiffness N/m	3.4×10⁸
Tangential stiffness N/m	1.5×10⁸
Normal critical stress Pa	2×10⁵
Tangential critical pressure Pa	6.8×10⁴

Parameters	Value
Poisson's ratio	0.3
Shear modulus Pa	7.27×10¹⁰
Density Kg ∙ m^-3	7865
Recovery factor	0.6
Static friction coefficient between particles and deep loosening shovel	0.6
Coefficient of dynamic friction between the particles and the deep loosening shovel	0.05

Factor level	Angle of entry	Lifting angle	Offset distance
-1	40	18	125
0	45	23	150
1	50	28	175

Test serial number	Factor			Soil particle displacement/Y₁	Resistance/Y₂
Test serial number	Offset distance/ X₁	Angle of penetration/X₂	Lifting angle/X₃	Soil particle displacement/Y₁	Resistance/Y₂
1	125	45	18	49.02	628.86
2	125	50	23	49.63	627.83
3	175	45	18	49.55	637.69
4	150	40	28	56.41	642.27
5	175	50	23	48.84	637.19
6	175	40	23	50.69	644.94
7	125	45	28	57.41	632.85
8	150	50	28	50.86	634.16
9	150	45	23	53.12	637.22
10	175	45	28	53.01	642.76
11	125	40	23	53.98	633.98
12	150	50	18	50.98	628.72
13	150	45	23	52.01	637.22
14	150	40	18	51.86	638.08
15	150	45	23	51.98	638.34
16	150	45	23	52.98	635.21
17	150	45	23	51.32	636.37

Projects	Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean Square	F	P
Models	81.71	9	9.08	6.93	0.0092
X₁	7.90	1	7.90	6.03	0.0438
X₂	19.94	1	19.94	15.21	0.0059
X₃	33.13	1	33.13	25.28	0.0015
X₁X₂	1.56	1	1.56	1.19	0.3110
X₂X₃	6.08	1	6.08	4.64	0.0683
X₂X₃	5.45	1	5.45	4.16	0.0808
X²₁	3.32	1	3.32	2.54	0.1553
X²₂	1.56	1	1.56	1.19	0.3115
X²₃	3.07	1	3.07	2.34	0.1697
Residuals	9.17	7	1.31
Misfit value	6.89	3	2.30	4.03	0.1057
Error	2.28	4	0.5700
Total	90.89	16

Project	Square	Degrees of freedom	Mean square	F	P
models	363.34	9	40.37	38.41	＜0.0001
X₁	190.71	1	190.71	181.45	＜0.0001
X₂	123.01	1	123.01	117.04	＜0.0001
X₃	43.66	1	43.66	41.54	0.0004
X₁X₂	0.64	1	0.64	0.6089	0.4608
X₁X₃	0.2916	1	0.2916	0.2774	0.6147
X₂X₃	0.3906	1	0.3906	0.3717	0.5614
X²₁	1.40	1	1.40	1.33	0.2858
X²₂	0.404	1	0.404	0.3844	0.5549
X²₃	2.40	1	2.40	2.28	0.1746
Residuals	7.36	7	1.05
Misfit value	1.95	3	0.6486	0.4794	0.7139
Error	5.41	4	1.35
Total	370.69	16

Campaign sub	Binding
Mobile vice	Earth breaking knife
Rotating sub	Soil crusher-bearing
Mobile vice	Soil lifting device

Level	Knife thickness (mm)	Cutter cutting edge angle (°)
-1	4	30
0	5	40
1	6	50

	Projects	Sum of squares	Number of degrees of freedom	Mean square	F[Ed26]	P
Tractive resistance	Model	387.98	4	97.00	11.59	0.0179
	A	95.20	2	47.60	5.69	0.0677
	B	292.78	2	146.39	17.50	0.0105
	Residual	33.47	4	8.37
	Cor total	421.45	8
Number of broken bonds	Model	1.469E+07	4	3.673E+07	6.72	0.0460
	A	7.786E+07	2	3.893E+07	7.12	0.0481
	B	6.906E+07	2	3.453E+07	6.31	0.0579
	Residual	2.187E+07	4	5.468E+06
	Cor total	1.688E+08	8

[1] *Corresponding author. College of Agricultural Engineering and Food Science, Shandong University of Technology/Zibo, China. E-mail: wxl1990@sdut.edu.cn | ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7099-6286

Brasil

Brasil

DISCRETE ELEMENT-BASED DESIGN OF KEY PARAMETERS FOR WHEEL RUT TILLAGE DEVICES

ABSTRACT