A combined chisel–ridger Implement for economizing power under heavy clay soils
By
Mohamed Hassan Dahab, Hassan Ibrahim Mohamed, Tarig Dafaalla Awad El Karim3 and Haitham Ragab Elramlawi4
1.Department of Agricultural Engineering. College of Agriculture, University of Khartoum 2- Department of Agricultural Engineering. Faculty of Agricultural Studies. SudanUniversity of Science and Technology. 3- Department of Agricultural Engineering. Faculty of Agriculture. University of Khartoum 4- Center of Dry land Farming Research and Studies, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Gadaref, Sudan.
KEYWORDS:Combined implements, Chisel – Ridger, tillage in clay soils
ABSTRACT
An experiment was carried out to study the performance of a primary and a secondarytillageimplementscombinedintoonemachinetoeconomizelabour,power,energyandtime.Thecombined implement was evaluated in the field and compared with individual tillage implements, a chisel and a ridger for unit draft, power requirement, slippage, fuel consumption and time. The results obtained showed highly significant differences at1%level between the different implements for the unit draft, required drawbar power, total time and fuel consumption, but the differences were not significant with respect to slippage and fuel consumption. When comparing the work of the combined implementwiththe cumulative work of the individual tillage implements, ridger and chisel together, the unit draft was reduced by 26%, the drawbarpowerrequiredand the total time were reduced by 49% and 47% respectively.Thesimpleandmultiplecorrelationanalysisshowedhighcorrelation between the different measured parameters (r = 0.87–0.92).
الملخص:
أجريت تجربة باستخدام آلة حراثة أولية وثانوية مدمجتين في آلة واحدة لأغراض تقليل تكلفة العمالة، والقدرة، والطاقة والزمن. تم تقويم الآلة المدمجة حقلياً وتم مقارنتها بأداء كل آلة مفردة(محراث حفار و طراد) باستخدام مؤشرات قوة السحب والقدرة المطلوبة والانزلاق واستهلاك الوقود والزمن.
أوضحت النتائج المتحصل عليها وجود اختلاف معنوي عالٍ عند مستوى 1.0%بين الآلات لمستخدمة بالنسبة لوحدة قوة السحب ، قدرة عمود القوة الحقلي المطلوبة والزمن الكلي واستهلاك الوقود لتر/ هكتار ولكن لا يوجد اختلاف معنوي بالنسبة للانزلاق واستهلاك الوقود لتر/ ساعة. عند مقارنة العمل بالآلة المدمجة مع الأداء التراكمي لكل من الحفار والطراد مجتمعتين اتضح أن وحدة قوة السحب قد انخفضت بنسبة 26%وانخفضت قدرة السحب المطلوبةوالزمن الكلي بنسبة 49 و 47 %على التوالي.
أوضح التحليل باستخدام نموذج الارتباط الخطي البسيط والمتعدد وجود ارتباط وثيق بين العوامل المتعددة التي تم قياسها(r = 0.87 – 0.92) .
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural machineries as a source of power are important and fundamental inputs for crop production and agricultural development. They help in reducing difficulties of carrying out agricultural operations and cost of production and maximizes production and returns.
Farmpower is one of three sources: human, animal and mechanical. Tractors are the main source of mechanical power on the farm and they are used fordoingtwokindsofwork:dynamic work as for implements drafting effort and staticworkusuallyforoperatingstationarymachinessuchas grainthreshers Kepner et al., (1982).
Tractorpower,whichisusedfordraftingimplementsinthefarmisutilized mainlythrough the drawbar, while some machines are also operated through the power take off (PTO), tocarry and move implements from one place to another the hydraulic system is usually used (Hunt, 1995). The power required from a tractor is estimated by the following equation:
Dbpr = FS/C, Kw……………………..(1)
PTOpr = 2 FRN/C, Kw…………………..…(2)
Hydpr = PW/C, Kw…………..…………(3)
Where:Dbpr = drawbar power; F= Force; S= speed; C= Conversion factor
PTOpr = power take off shaft; R = torque; N = number of revolutions Hydpr = hydraulic power; P = pressure; W = discharge rate.
Amongallagriculturaloperations,soilmanipulationforlandpreparationbytillageimplementsisthemostcostly operationinthe farm budget.(Culpin,1976) reported that tillage is of great economic importance for crop production as it absorbswelloverthehalfoftheexpenditureonthefarm.Duetoitsgreat economicimportancethemachinerymanagermustunderstandthetillageoper-ation characteristicsanditsapplicabilityundervariousconditions.(Staut,1979)reportedthat approximately 50%of theappliedenergyinthefarmisconsumedbythetillage operation.
Vastareasarecultivatedwithirrigatedcropsinthecentralclayplainsof the Sudan.Tillageinthesesoils isusuallymadebyusingchiselordiscplowattached to medium size tractors or by heavy disc harrows attached to large size tractors. This primary tillageoperationis followedbyridgingoperationattimeofonset ofrainfalltoeradicateweedsand facilitate surface irrigation. Due to the growing problemofincreasingcostsofusingheavytractorsormulti-operationsandtimeliness constraint farmers use the ridger implement instead of the chisel then followed by using it for, split ridging.However,ridgerisnottheproperimplement to replace chiseling andtheproblems of using multi-operations are not solved yet.
The concept of combined implements was found to be of great import-anceto carryout more than one operationatthesametimeandtoconserve energy and save labour costs.
Somepioneerstudieswerecarried out for combining tillage implements with planting machineasa minimum tillagecombined system (Sheruddenet al.,1981,Petersonetal.,1983,Paterno,1994andAbdalla,2000).Combiningplant-ing machines with other machines was found to be very effectiveinreducingtimeandfuelconsumptionandtohelpinexpansionof cultivableland(Abdalla,2000).Combiningtillageimplementswasnotgivenmuchconsiderationexceptinvery fewstudiescarriedoutrecently(Tuhtaku-ziev and Utepbergenov, 2002). Kailappan et al. (2001) found that combining tillage tools in two types of soils resulted in saving about 44-55% of the cost and 50-55% of the time. Therefore, theobjectiveofthisworkis to study the performanceofachisel-ridger combined tillageimplementforconservingpowerandtimeincomparingwitheachindividual implement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TheexperimentwasconductedinthedemonstrationFarmoftheFacultyof Agriculture,Shambat,UniversityofKhartoum,Sudan(latitude15040/N,longitude and altitude 360m aboveMSL) in an area of 0.48ha. The soil of the area is classified as heavy montmorillonitic clay soil (Ismail and Ahmed, 1994). Some of the physical properties of the soil are given in (Table 1). Two tractors were used in the experiment, one (Massey Ferguson 295, Engine power rated as 57kW) for testing and the other as auxiliary tractor (Case international 795, engine power rated as 60.8 kw). Each one of the two implements were used separately (Chiseland Ridger) and as a combined implement. The chisel plow is fullymountedwiththreeunitsspacedat70cmandtheridgerisfullymounted with three bottoms spaced at 70cm.
Table (1): Some Physical Properties of the Experimental Soil.
DepthCm / Mechanical Analysis% / M.C.
% / B.D
g/cm3 / pH
Silt / Clay / Sand
0-10 / 27 / 48 / 25 / 4.0 / 1.4 / 8.0
10-20 / 26 / 51 / 23 / 4.2 / 1.4 / 5.2
20-30 / 25 / 53 / 22 / 4.5 / 1.5 / 8.2
Thecombinedchisel-ridgerimplementwasdevelopedsimplythroughlinking the toolbar of the two implements by using two rigid spacer clamps and some bolts and nuts.
Otherequipmentusedinclude,aspringtype dynamometer for direct draft measurement,30mmeasuringtape,pegs,stopwatch,steelchain,measuringcylinder(onelitercapacity),fuelcontainer(16literCapacity) and chalk.
A completely randomized plot design was used with three treatments (ridger, chisel and chisel-ridger machine) and replicated four times. The treatments were randomly distributed within the twelve plots. Each plot was 20m×20minsize.Implementdraftmeasurementwasmadefollowing the method described by (Narayanarao and Verma, 1982). The test tractor was pulled by the auxiliary tractor through the dynamometer using the steel chain to recored the draft (unloaded). The tractor was then loaded with each implement separately and the draft was measured again for each implement. The implement total draft (KN) was calculated as recommended by (Hunt, 1995):
Implementtotaldraft (kN)=pull of the tester tractor with implement (kN)-pull of the tester tractor alone (kN) …………………….……... (4)
The unit draft (kN/m) for each implement was calculated as follows:
Unit draft =Total draft/implement width………….…………... (5)
The drawbar power exerted by the tractor to pull the implement was calculated as follows:
Dbpr = (D * S)/ 3.6 ……..………...………… (6)
Where:
Dbp = drawbar power (kW), D = implement draft (kN), S = Travel speed (km/h)
Rear wheel slippage was measured bymarking therear wheelofthe tested tractor at the point tangential to the ground surface using a piece of chalk. Five successive distances covered by five revolutions of the wheel when the tractor was unloaded with the specific implement was measured. Slippage was calculated according to the following relation suggested by(Person, 1979):
Totaltimetakenby each implement operating in each plot was these in chnded recorded productiontime,turningtime,lossestime.Thetotal timeper unit area (h/ha) taken for each implement was calculated as follows:
Where:
Pt = productive time (sec), Tt = turning time (sec),Lt = other loss time (sec).
Fuelconsumptionrateforeach implement in operation was measured by starting working the plot with full tank capacity. After finishing the plot, the fueltankwasrefilledwith a graduated cylinder. The amount of fuel which was usedforrefillingthetankwasrecordedandthetimetakentofinishthespecific plot was also recorded.ThefuelconsumptionratesinL/ha and L/hr were calculated as follows:
Fuelconsumptionrate(L/ha)=volume of fuel. (L)/plot area (ha)/Fuelconsumptionrate(L/h) =volume of fuel (L)/time recorded to cover the plot (h) ……...... … (9)
RESULTS AND DISCUTION
(Table2)showstheeffectofindividualandcombinedtillageimplements onunitdraft,drawbarpower,slippage,totaloperatingtimeandfuel consumption rate for a two-wheel tractor.
Table (2): Analysis of variance for the experimental parameters
Parameter / F- valuesF- Calculated (1%) / F- Tabulated (1%)
Unit draft (kN/m) / 144.13** / 8.02
Power (Kw) / 144.45** / 8.02
Slippage (%) / 0.63 n.s / 8.02
Total times (h/ha) / 0.018** / 8.02
Fuel cons. (L/h) / 3.56 n.s / 8.02
Fuel cons.(L//h) / 183.02** / 8.02
**: highly significant, n.s: not significant
(Table 3) illustrates analysis of variance for the different treatments and parameters.Itis clearthat thehighestunitdraft wasrecordedby thecombinedimplements(8.74KN/m),whiletheseparateridgerandchisel implements recorded 5.12 kN/m and 6.64kN/m, respectively. The value of the individual unit draft of the two implements when added together (11.76KN/m), is greater than the combined implement unit draft (8.74KN/m) by 34.6%. The differences between treatments were highly significant at 1% level (Table 3).
It was observed that the chisel–ridger combined implement recorded 7.33kW and 12.5kW drawbar which are higher than that of the separate chisel and ridger implements, respectively.Thehigherpowerrequiredbythecombinedimplementcomparedtotheindividualimplements may be due to the higher draft forceexertedbythecombinedimplements.(BelelandDahab,1997) reported that drawbarpowerwasincreasedasimplementdraftincreased.Thedifference betweentreatments washighlysignificantat1%level.Addingthepowerrequiredforbothridgerandchiselimplementandcomparingitwiththepowerofthe combined implement showed that, the drawbar power required isreduced by 10.59kW.Theseresults inasavingof25.72% of powerwhenusingthecombinedimplement.Thisisinlinewith(Paterno,1994)results.Therelationshipbetweenthedraftanddrawbarpowerasaffectedbytheimplementtypeisshownin(Fig.1).
Table (3): Unit draft, power, slippage, fuel consumption and total time as affected by the type of implement.
ParameterTreatments / Unit
Draft
KN/m / Power
Kw / Slippage % / Fuel
Consumption
L/h / Fuel
Consumption
L/ha / Total
Time
(h/ha)
Ridger / 5.12 / 17.92 / 18.40 / 12.10 / 12.39 / 0.96
Chisel / 6.64 / 23.25 / 19.16 / 12.36 / 13.15 / 1.06
Chisel - Ridger / 11.76 / 41.17 / 37.56 / 24.46 / 25.54 / 2.02
Ridger + Chisel / 8.74 / 30.58 / 21.18 / 12.55 / 13.64 / 1.08
Fig.: (1): Implement Draft and Power Relationship for the Different Implement Types
Thechisel-ridgercombinedimplementrecordedthehighestwheelslippage (21.1%)comparedeithertotheridger(18.4%)orchiselplough(19.20%). Statistically,thedifferencesbetweentreatmentswerenotsignificant(Table2).Addingthe slippagepercentageofthetwoimplements(chisel–ridger =37.6%) gave avaluehigherthan thatofthecombinedimplementsby77.4%.Thismeansthatalargeamountofpower,whichcouldbelostduetoslippage,willbeconserv-edbycombingthetwoimplementsandcarryingoutthetwooperationsinonepath.
Fig. (2): Relationship between implement draft slippage and fuel consumption
The total time in h/ha taken by each implement to execute the operation is given in (Table 2). The combined implement recorded the highest total time (1.0h/ha) compared to any one of the two implements (ridger 0.96, and chisel 1.06h/ha). This is less than the total time of individual implements when added together(2.02h/ha).Thetimesaved by the combined implement is in agreement with (Kailappanetal.,2001)whoreported a saving of about 50-55% of the time.
Therelationbetweenpower,total timeandslippageisshownin(Fig. 3).Thechisel–ridgercombinationasoneimplementrecordedthehighestfuelconsump-tionrate(12.3L/h)ascomparedtoridger(12.1L/h),orthechisel (12.3L/h).Consideringthecombinedchisel–ridgerimplementthatcancarryoutthe two operationsatonetimeandcomparingfuelconsumptionratewiththetwoimplements(chisel+ridger=24.46L/hr),itcanbeobservedthatthefuelconsumption ofthetwoindividualimplements is almost twice as much as that of the combined implement. This gives a saving of 49% of fuel. Which is in agree-ment with the findings of (Sheruddin et al., 1981 and Abdalla, 2000).
Fig (3): Effect of Implement Power Used on Slippage and Total Time
Therelationshipbetweenfuelconsumption rate, slippage and draft is shown in (Fig. 2), while the effect of implement power on slippage and total time is given in (Fig. 3).
Simple and multiple correlation analysis for either unit draft or power effect on slippage, fuel consummation and total time are shown in (Table 4).
Table (4): Simple and Multiple Correlations between Unit Draft, Power and the other Three Measured Parameters.
Relation /Simple
/ Multiple correlationr
/ R2 / RUnit draft x power / 1.00
Unit draft x slippage / 0.915
Unit draft x fuel consumption / 0.872
Unit draft x power & slippage / 1.00 / 1.00
Unit draft x fuel consumption & slippage / 0.985 / 0.992
Power x slippage / 0.915
Power x fuel consumption / 0.872
Power x total time / 0.901
Power x slippage & fuel consumption / 0.985 / 0.929
Power x slippage & total time / 0.863 / 0.929
Power x total time & fuel consumption / 0.929 / 0.964
Theslippagecorrelationanalysis shows that unit draft accounts for 95%, 92% and 87% of the variability in power, slippage and fuel consumption, respectively. Whereas power accounted for 87 and 92% and 90% of variability in fuel consumption, slippage and total time, respectively.
Themultiplecorrelationanalysisindicatesthatunitdraftandslippageaccounts for 99%and100%offuelconsumptionandpower variability, respectively. Whereas power and slippage accounts for 99% and 93% of fuel consumption and total time variability, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn:
The work of the combined implement when compared to the work of the sequential individual implements (chisel –ridger) was found to reduce the required unit draft by 26%, fuel consumption by 49% and save the total time required to complete the operation by 47%.Simple and multiple correlation analysis showed high correlation between the different measured parameters (r = 0.87 andR = 0.92).
REFERENCES
1-Abdalla, Y. A.(2000). Development and evaluation of a ridger-planter implement. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum.
2-Belal, M. M. and Dahab, M. H.(1997). Effect of soil conditions on a two wheel drive tractor performance, using three types of tillage implements. University of Khartoum, Journal of Agricultural Science 5(2): [1-22].
3-Culpin, C.(1975). Profitable farm mechanization, 3rded., published by Grosby Lockwood Staples, London, U.K.
4-Hunt, D. (1995).Farm Power andMachinery Management, 9th ed., lowaStateUniversity Press Ames, lowa 50014, USA.
5-Ismail, A. M. and Ahmed, M. F.(1994). Effects of watering regimes on two groundnut cultivars: plant growth and yield. University of Khartoum Journal of Agricultural Science 2(2): [17-44].
6-Kailappan, R, Vijayaraghavan, N.C.; Swaminathan, K. P. and muthan, G.(2001). Performance evaluation of the combination of tillage tools under field conditions. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America32 (4): [9-12].
7-Kepner, R. A; Bainer, R. and Barger, E. L. (1982).Principlesof Farm Machinery.4th ed. AVI Publishing Comp. INC, WestPort.
8-Narayanarao, V. P. and Verma, R. S. (1982). Performance of tractor mounted oscillatingsoilworkingtool.JournalofAgriculturalMachineryinAsia, Africa and Latin America13(2): [11-12].
9-Paterno, C. B.(1994). The multi-crop seeder. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America25(3): [14-22].
10-Peterson,C.L,Dowding, E. A. Hawley, K. N. and Harder, R. W.(1983). The chisel-planterminimum tillage system. Transaction of ASAE, 26(6): [1412- 1416].
11-Sheruddin, B.; Baloch, J. M; Rassol, G. M.; Nawaz, A. M. and Bhutto, A.(1981). Combination of rotary tiller and pneumatic seeder. Agricultural Mechaniz-ation in Asia, Africa and Latin America12(4): [13-15].
12-Staut, B. A.(1979). Energy for world Agriculture, FAO Agriculture Science (7): [286-288].
13-Tuhtakuziev, A. and Utepbergenov, B. K.(2002). Combined implements for simultaneouslooseningandlevelingofsoil surface, Journal of AgriculturalMechanizationin Asia,AfricaandLatinAmerica33(2):[15-16].