Advertisement

Influence of Ploughshare Wear on Plough Efficiency

  • Giovanni Molari
  • Massimiliano VaraniEmail author
  • Michele Mattetti
Conference paper
  • 29 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 67)

Abstract

Regarding agricultural machines, one of the main durability requirements are the wear resistance of the soil engaging tools. Wear of soil engaging tools should be minimized, since it impairs the tool specifications and affects tractor performances, tillage quality and machine maintenance costs. The purpose of this work was to investigate the impact of a worn ploughshare on tractor performances. Wear leads to a geometrical change of the soil engaging tools and previous studies investigated the relationship between the tool cutting edge geometry and the developed drought by means of trials and Finite Elements Modelling. However, no study has reported the influence of worn ploughshares on the power requirements of soil engaging tools. The methodology adopted in this study consists in a comparison of the tractor performances between its configuration with a plough equipped with a worn ploughshare and the configuration with the same plough with a new ploughshare. The tractor speed was measured with a GPS receiver and important tractor parameters such as engine torque and fuel consumption were acquired through a CAN logger.

Keywords

Plough Wear Durability Tractor performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by PRIN (Research projects of significant national interest) notification 2015 “Optimization of operating machinery through analysis of the mission profile for more efficient agriculture” Grant number: 2015KTY5NW.

References

  1. ASABE. (2006). Agricultural machinery management data. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Standard ASABE, EP496.3, 385–390.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM. (2009). D2488—Practice for description and identification of soils (visual-manual procedure). West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
  3. ASTM. (2010). D4318—Test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
  4. Bayhan, Y. (2006). Reduction of wear via hardfacing of chisel ploughshare. Tribology International, 39, 570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cucinotta, F., Scappaticci, L., Sfravara, F., Morelli, F., Mariani, F., Varani, M., et al. (2019). On the morphology of the abrasive wear on ploughshares by means of 3D scanning. Biosystems Engineering, 179, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fielke, J. M. (1999). Finite element modelling of the interaction of the cutting edge of tillage implements with soil. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 74, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fielke, J. M., Riley, T. W., Slattery, M. G., & Fitzpatrick, R. W. (1993). Comparison of tillage forces and wear rates of pressed and cast cultivator shares. Soil and Tillage Research, 25, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grisso, R. D., Yasin, M., & Kocher, M. F. (1996). Tillage implement forces operating in silty clay loam. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 39, 1977–1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grisso, R. D., Vaughan, D. H., & Roberson, G. T. (2008). Fuel prediction for specific tractor models. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 24, 423–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horvat, Z., Filipovic, D., Kosutic, S., & Emert, R. (2008). Reduction of mouldboard plough share wear by a combination technique of hardfacing. Tribology International, 41, 778–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mattetti, M., Molari, G., & Sereni, E. (2017a). Damage evaluation of driving events for agricultural tractors. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 135, 328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mattetti, M., Varani, M., Molari, G., & Morelli, F. (2017b). Influence of the speed on soil-pressure over a plough. Biosystems Engineering, 156, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mazoyer, M., & Roudart, L. (2006). A history of world agriculture: From the neolithic age to the current crisis. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  14. Natsis, A., Papadakis, G., & Pitsilis, J. (1999). The influence of soil type, soil water and share sharpness of a mouldboard plough on energy consumption, rate of work and tillage quality. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 72, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Owende, P. M. O., & Ward, S. M. (1996). Characteristic loading of light mouldboard ploughs at slow speeds. Journal of Terramechanics, 33, 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Richardson, R. C. D. (1967). The wear of metals by hard abrasives. Wear, 10, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richardson, R. D. (1969). The wear of metal shares in agricultural soil. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  18. Stawicki, T., Białobrzeska, B., & Kostencki, P. (2017). Tribological properties of plough shares made of pearlitic and martensitic steels. Metals, 7, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Swanson, P. A. (1993). Comparison of laboratory abrasion tests and field tests of materials used in tillage equipment. In A. Ruff & R. Bayer (Eds.), Tribology: Wear test selection for design and application (pp. 80–99). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.Google Scholar
  20. USDA. (1987). Soil Mechanichs Level I.Google Scholar
  21. Varani, M., Mattetti, M., Molari, G., & Morelli, F. (2017). Experimental evaluation of the soil pressure distribution on plough parts. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 58, 247–252.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Molari
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Varani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michele Mattetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Food SciencesUniversità di BolognaBolgnaItaly

Personalised recommendations