Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
\T^s1SS" V ] }^_XJ>
1 1 •
' ' \ 'I
\ ; ^
*^> V\><y.
\ \\ ./ / / * \\
N
W Fig 2 Angles and speed of cutting with forward and reverse rotation:
.^irj^k
REVERSE ROTATION
.,-.#''
FORWARD ROTATION
a, rotation angle; j8, sharpening angle of blade; 7 , effective angle of
cutting (between blade face and trochoidal soil surface); 70, apparent
angle of cutting (between blade face and tangent to r.otor circumference);
d, angle between back side of sharpened blade and tangent to rotor
Fig. 1 Shapes of soil slices for forward and reverse circumference; Ad, angle between rotor circumference and trochoidal
rotation as a function of the ratio of peripheral speed path (intersection angle); 5', application angle of blade edge; v, forward
to forward speed: Rw/v = u / v = X. Number of blades velocity of the machine; u, peripheral velocity of rotor; u s = u + v
operating in one plane Z = 3 (Bernacki) (Bernacki)
1971 T R A N S A C T I O N S O F T H E ASAE 669
FORWARD ROTATION REVERSE ROTATION
£* % I
UJ
-J
O
z ^ X ?,5 ^
< J !j
I"1
O
5^.
i
i
Fig. 3 Dimensions of the soil slice. L, tilling i
UJ 8 I i „
pitch ( d m ) ; b = width (dm); h = tilling
depth ( d m ) ; £ = length of cutting path (dm) en L . ^ ,
(Bernacki) en e | i _
UJ r— i~t-
i
i L
from: •J
(£
}J 45 50 7} go ?70
Angle of Revolution cC *
MS ^ J00 J'S JD
&
MS U0
60
L = W C.6 at C.4 02 o 0.0 a: 3.4 OS 03 10
h
n RATIO OF /R
v 2nR
or L = — Fig. 4 Intersection angle (A5) as a function of angle of revolution
(a) for various values of X (Bernacki)
u z
where v = forward speed of machine
n = rotational velocity of rotor
z = number of blades which rotation. The smaller the value of X, The velocity of cutting for either
would cut identical paths the greater the change in A5 during one rotary direction can be calculated with
if v = 0 cut, and thus, the greater must be the the equation (Fig. 2 ) :
u = peripheral velocity of the angle 5 to prevent compaction of uncut
soil. The largest value of A5 occurs near ut u — v sin a
rotor (u — wR) uR = COS A5
the beginning of cutting for forward COS A5
R = radius of the rotor
Both the velocity of cutting (ws) rotation, and at the end of cutting for
V I Sin a
and the effective cutting angle between reverse rotation (Fig. 4 ) . For a given
the front face of a blade and the path situation, the variation of A5 in one \vCOS A5
J
of cutting (7) vary with the amount cutting stroke is less for reverse rotation
than for forward rotation. Hence, the For ratios of X > 5 we may accept
of rotation (a) and the direction of
blade can operate at more nearly an that cos A5 = 1, when the equation
rotation (Fig. 2 ) . The apparent cutting
optimum angle in reverse rotation reduces to:
angle, the angle between a tangent to
the rotor circumference and the face of throughout the cutting process. us = v (X — sin a).
the blade, y0, can be expressed as: Bok (1964, 1965) investigated the
From this equation and Fig. 2, it fol-
To = P + * change in A5 during forward and re-
lows that the cutting velocity, at the
where p represents the sharpening verse rotation and reached the same
same values of X, is greater for reverse
angle of the blade and conclusion. Using a graphical technique
rotation than for forward rotation.
5 is the apparent clearance he studied the cutting geometry and
angle, that is, the angle be- the speed of cutting at any point in Cutting Resistance
tween the back surface of the tooFs path.
Given the intended conditions of Since each rotary-tiller blade cuts a
sharpened edge and a tangent soil slice of continuously varying thick-
to the rotor circumference depth of operation (h) and the value
The effective cutting angle y is the for X, it is possible to determine a value
angle between the front surface of the for designing the apparent cutting
angle 7 0 using Fig. 4, since 40
blade and the trochoid (surface of
undisturbed soil) and may be expressed { \ /FORWARD ROTATION |
35'
as: For example, if p = 10 deg and 5' \Y.REVERSE ROTAT ION
7 = 7 0 — Ad = j8 + 5 — A5 30c
= 5 deg, then 7 m i n = 15 deg. If
where A5, the path intersection angle, h/R — 0.6 and X = 5, for forward I
25*
is the angle between the tangents to rotation A5 = 11 deg, thus 7 0 = 15
the rotor circumference and the tro- + 11 = 26 deg; for reverse rotation 2<?
I
choid at the point of interest. Another 7 o = 15 + 9.5 deg = 24.5 deg. i l
: ! I
angle, 5 — A5 = 5', defined as the Fig. 4 also shows that a larger change 15
effective clearance angle, is the angle occurs in A5 at smaller values of X in |
between the back face of the sharpened both directions of rotation. This indi- c;
!
5°_ 4
surface and the trochoid. This angle cates that higher ratios of u/v allow
must be greater than zero to prevent more efficient cutting from the stand-
the back face from compressing uncut point of maintaining an optimum value
of 7. Fig. 5 illustrates how a decrease 0 2 4 6 8 10 1
soil (called "troweling").
The magnitude of A5 depends upon of X requires a rapid change in the X. U
V
the value of u/v — X (the ratio of value of 7 0 to provide clearance. In this
Fig. 5 Relationship showing necessary value of
peripheral and forward speeds), the instance, 7o to provide adequate blade clearance at dif-
angle of rotation and the direction of 7 m i n = /3 + 5' = 10 + 5 = 15 deg ferent values of X = u/v (Bernacki)
1
20°
ANGLE
40°
OF
60°
ROTATION
0 4 8 12 16 0 3 6 9 12 15
TILLING DEPTH h (CM) TILLING PITCH L (CM)
10 20 30 40 50
CUTTING PROGRESS (CM) < 15
Q:
Fig. 11 Average of several replications of meas- ^ 10
uring cutting force vs. cutting progress for a o
field hook in forward rotation. The top curve
U (M/SEC)
represents the average maximum values and
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
the bottom curve represents the average mini-
m u m values. The shaded area represents the o o 100 200 300 400
0 20° 4 0 ° 6 0 ° a thickness of the soil slice (Dalin and Pavlov) ROTARY SPEED n (RPM)
ANGLE OF ROTATION
Fig. 12 Rotary power requirements for forward and
greater energy requirement at a depth reverse rotation as speed, depth and pitch are varied
Fig. 10 Average of several replications of of operation of h < R, and the need to
measuring cutting force vs. angle of rotation (Matsuo, 13)
for a field hook in reverse rotation. The top increase the rotary velocity to prevent
curve shows average maximum values and the throwing soil ahead of the tiller. • FORWARD ROTATION
bottom curve shows average minimum values. In a second study, Grinchuk and REVERSE ROTATION
The shaded area represents the thickness of Matyashin (1969) reported another re-
the soil slice vs. angle of rotation (Dalin and y
'z
searcher found reverse rotation re- 30 yS S"
Pavlov)
quired 12 to 16 percent less power than 25 X S
/ /
vious Russian researchers, reported Bok (1965) reported that, based on 0 =~=- 15
- • - - 1 , i
10 20 25
that, in general, the reverse rotation a theoretical analysis, the main disad- DEPTH (CM)
decreased the force of cutting by 1.5 vantages of reverse rotation were the
times, gave better depth stability, re- throwing of soil forward and the re- Fig. 13 Power requirements for rotary tilling
duced breakdowns of the tools in stoney versing of the horizontal component on (curves 1 and 3) and moving the tiller (curves
soils, and made possible a wider range the drawbar (draft) from pushing to 2 and 4) for a field hook (1 and 2) and a bog
knife (3 and 4) for forward and reverse rota-
of peripheral to forward velocities. pulling. tion. The power to move the tiller is negative
Among the disadvantages they associ- Matsuo (references 11, 12, 13) in the event of reverse rotation (Dalin and
ated with reverse rotation were a studied many relationships in rotary Pavlov)
1971 • TRANSACTIONS O F T H E ASAE
672
cannot be made between the two can have considerable influence, espe- ment for blades Nos. 3 and 5 can be
blades. In each test the rotary power cially when working in marginal trac- more favorable for either direction of
was greater for forward than for re- tion conditions such as in rice paddies. rotation, depending upon the tilling
verse rotation. The horizontal com- The shape of the blade can greatly pitch (the ratio u/v may have been
ponent to move the tiller during reverse influence power requirements. While such that the back of the blades com-
rotation is negative. blade shape is not a specific concern pressed uncut soil at longer tilling
here, Furlong's results indicate major pitches in forward rotation).
They concluded, from the pick blade
tests, that reverse rotation required 12 influences of shape on power require- Furlong (1956) also reports results
to 16 percent less energy for rotation, ment vs. direction of rotation. The net of tillage at h = 2 in. and 6 in. depth
but the total power requirement was rotor power requirements vs. tilling and u = 400, 700 and 1,000 fpm. Ob-
14 to 28 percent less for forward rota- pitch was determined for the various servations on ranges of vertical forces
tion because of the horizontal compo- blades at 148 rpm (u = 700 fpm). and evenness of the furrow bottom
nent. For the tests using c blades, the From Fig. 16 we see that reversing the are also provided.
general results were the same, with a direction of rotation of blades No. 4
reduction in power of 12 to 16 percent and No. 6 does not appreciably alter Uniformity of Furrow Bottom
for reverse rotation, but the total power the power requirements. Blades No. 1
and No. 2, on the other hand, show One measure of performance that
requirement for reverse operation was Russian investigators appear to con-
0.5 to 11 percent greater than forward rotary direction has a large influence
which increases with the tilling pitch. sider important is the evenness of the
rotation. Reversing the rotation of the bottom of the furrow.
c blade did not reduce the rotary energy Fig. 16c shows that the power require-
as much as the pick blade because the Grinchuk and Matyashin (1968) ex-
c blade does more cutting than the pressed the height of the peaks, or
pick blade and the advantage of reverse ridges, left in the furrow bottom be-
rotation is in increasing failure by tween successive soil slices (see Fig. 1)
tension.
DRAWBAR POWER D by the equation:
1
^E3 REVERSE
ROTOR POWER<,
O FORWARD h2 — R (1 — cos a 2 )
Matyashin (1968) reported that at
shallow tilling depths (i.e., h < R)
forward rotation required 10 to 15 £4
percent less energy than reverse rota- fll 10
tion. When tilling deep (h > R), re-
verse rotation reduced the energy J i X
Q.
7 0 0 FPM
requirement by 20 to 30 percent.
1 1 cr 8
o
PERIPHERAL
SPEED
1
(Draft forces were not reported.)
Furlong (1956) prepared a most in- 9 i 1 i
o
fc 6
formative report which contains the
results of testing six different rotary-
tiller blades. He studied the rotary and
till i i-
2 3 4 5 AVG
draft power requirements, soil pulver- TILLER BLADES
ization and other factors as a function
Fig. 14 Power input for forward and reverse
of direction of rotor rotation, width of rotation. Blades 1, 3, and 4 are L-shaped
rotor, peripheral velocity, tilling pitch, blades; 2 is a pick blade; 5 and 6 are " c "
and depth of tillage. Only an abbrevi- shaped blades. (400 fpm peripheral speed, 4 in.
ated statement of the results of the deep, 4 in. length of cut, 24 in. wide)
direction of rotation test can be dis- (Furlong)
cussed. Fig. 14 presents a graph
showing the rotor and drawbar power
requirement for both directions of rota-
tion, with h = 0.45 R for each blade (+) FORWARD ROTATION
REVERSE ROTATION
shape. In all cases, except blade No. 2, 400 r
reverse rotation required more rotor 300 y 3
X«— 3
power (blade No. 2 is a pick blade; m
HI •1 1 i
the rest are some form of "L", "Bolo", t/) 200 10 -"^^ /
Q. -"--" "" " S
"C", or other conventional blade). The CD
X ~-~~~" / /*
fact that the pick blade required less d IOO yi cr 8 / ^r^ 5
rotor power in reverse rotation supports X 0 o /^'^<
the contentions of Dalin and Pavlov >3fc h- ^x" j ^s^
and of Matsuo regarding failure in ten- w10° m K-'A o
cc 6
-""' "y^ly^^^
zZ^zr^^
sion. However, all other types of blades
required more rotor power in reverse
£ 200 1L'.A
y.-A
i.'A h-
UJ
^^
<^^
rotation. One shape of blade may not
£ 300 v>\ '/A
•V I
2 A i
400 /A 2 3 4 5 6
perform equally well in both directions. LENGTH OF CUT L (IN)
Fig. 14 shows differences in the rotor 500J-
power when blades are run in different Fig. 16 Curves comparing the different tiller
directions; there is an interaction of 600 L blades used by Furlong when used in the for-
2 3 4 5 6 AVG.
blade shape with direction of rotation. (-) I ward and reverse directions. The top chart
shows that blades 4 and 6 are almost as effi-
On the average, reverse rotation re- 7 ILLER BLADES cient used in either direction. According to the
quired 70 percent more total power center graph, blades 1 and 2 are much more
Fig. 15 Horizontal forces exerted by six rotary efficient when used with forward rotation. The
than forward rotation when operating tilling pitch seems to determine whether blades
tiller blades used by Furlong during forward
under the conditions of the tests. The and reverse rotation. A ( + ) force indicates the 3 and 5 are more efficient turning in the for-
direction of drawbar load (Fig. 15) tiller was pushing forward on the machine ward or reverse direction