Rotary-Tiller Design Parameters
Part I-Direction of Rotation
James G. Hendrick
T HE rotary tiller has been a device
that inspired both enthusiasm and
controversy since its original develop-
ment in the 1840s, along with the appli-
cation of steam power to agriculture
(Spence, 1960). The controversy still
exists, but a number of inherent advan-
tages of machines which transmit power
directly to the soil require that they
be considered as alternatives to drawing
tools through the soil. Detailed studies
must be made of powered tools in order
to evaluate their capabilities and
potentials.
The objective of this series of papers
is to examine the effects of three design
parameters of rotary tillers from the
research results from a number of
sources, for the purpose of establishing
the current state of knowledge. These
three design parameters—(a) direction
of rotation, (b) depth of operation, and
(c) ratio of rotor peripheral and ma-
chine forward velocities—will be the
subjects of discussion. These parameters
have a marked influence on all phases
of tiller operations, from the power re-
quired to the final soil condition. Two
of them (depth and direction of rota-
tion) have had relatively little research
attention in this country, while rather
dramatic results have been obtained
elsewhere.
Paper No. 69-661 (Part I) was presented at the Winter
Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engi-
neers, at Chicago, 111., December 1969, on a program
arranged by the Power and Machinery Division.
The authors are: JAMES G. HENDRICK, Agricultural
Engineer, and WILLIAM R. GILL, Director, National
Tillage Machinery Lab., AERD, ARS, USDA, Auburn,
Ala.
\T^s1SS" V ] }^_XJ>
' ' \ 'I
\ ; ^
*^> V\><y.
\ \\ ./ / / * \\
N
W Fig 2 Angles and speed of cutting with forward and reverse rotation:
.^irj^k
REVERSE ROTATION
FORWARD ROTATION
Fig. 1 Shapes of soil slices for forward and reverse
rotation as a function of the ratio of peripheral speed
to forward speed: Rw/v = u / v = X. Number of blades
operating in one plane Z = 3 (Bernacki)
1971 T R A N S A C T I O N S O F T H E ASAE
and William R. Gill
M E M B E R ASAE M E M B E R ASAE
Since the papers examine the general
results of a number of research find-
ings, the reader is directed to the origi-
to as a prolate or curate cycloid, de-
pending upon the geometry involved).
The equations which describe this path
nal papers for greater detail. are (see Fig. 2 ) :
x — vt + R cos o>t
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
y = R sin ut
Soil-Tool Geometry
where R = radius of rotor
The direction of rotation of the rotor v = forward velocity of
is a basic rotary-tiller design parameter. machine
While it has been common practice in w = angular velocity of rotor
this country to use only the forward <at = a — angular rotation
direction of rotation (i.e., the rotor measured from X axis, in
turns in the same direction as the the direction of rotation, to
tractor wheels), there are some aspects the point of interest
of reverse rotation which warrant
When forward rotation is used, the ma-
consideration.
jority of energy is expended in the first
When forward rotation is used, each quadrant (between 0 to 90 d e g ) .
blade cuts an increment of undisturbed [This entire analysis assumes that the
soil while entering from the surface depth of operation is less than the
(Fig. 1), and with reverse rotation the radius of the rotor (h < R ) , and ne-
soil increment is cut from the bottom glects the energy required for "churn-
upward. Reversing the direction of rota- ing" previously cut soil.] When reverse
tion changes the geometry of the soil- rotation is employed, the cutting is
tool system, even where the ratio of mainly in the fourth quadrant and
rotor peripheral speed to forward ma- occurs between 270 and 360 deg.
coR
The volume of soil slices can be
chine speed ( — = A) is constant.
v approximated with acceptable accuracy
The shape of the soil slice cut is one as (Fig. 3 ) :
of the more obvious differences, even
though the volume of the slice is essen- Volume = hLw
tially equal in both cases. where h = depth of operation,
A point on the periphery of an indi- L = tilling pitch, and
vidual blade describes a trochoidal path w = width of slice
during operation (sometimes referred Tilling pitch (L) can be calculated
1 1 •
.,-.#''
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
circumference; Ad, angle between rotor circumference and trochoidal
path (intersection angle); 5', application angle of blade edge; v, forward
velocity of the machine; u, peripheral velocity of rotor; u s = u + v
(Bernacki)
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 =
n RATIO OF
v 2nR
or L = —
u z
where v = forward speed of machine
n = rotational velocity of rotor
z = number of blades which
would cut identical paths
if v = 0
u = peripheral velocity of the
rotor (u — wR)
R = radius of the rotor
Both the velocity of cutting (ws)
and the effective cutting angle between
the front face of a blade and the path
of cutting (7) vary with the amount
of rotation (a) and the direction of
rotation (Fig. 2 ) . The apparent cutting
angle, the angle between a tangent to
the rotor circumference and the face of
the blade, y0, can be expressed as:
To = P + *
where p represents the sharpening
angle of the blade and
5 is the apparent clearance
angle, that is, the angle be-
tween the back surface of
sharpened edge and a tangent
to the rotor circumference
The effective cutting angle y is the
angle between the front surface of the
blade and the trochoid (surface of
undisturbed soil) and may be expressed
as:
7 = 7 0 — Ad = j8 + 5 — A5
where A5, the path intersection angle,
is the angle between the tangents to
the rotor circumference and the tro-
choid at the point of interest. Another
angle, 5 — A5 = 5', defined as the
effective clearance angle, is the angle
between the back face of the sharpened
surface and the trochoid. This angle
must be greater than zero to prevent
the back face from compressing uncut
soil (called "troweling").
The magnitude of A5 depends upon
the value of u/v — X (the ratio of
peripheral and forward speeds), the
angle of rotation and the direction of
W C.6 at C.4 02 o 0.0 a: 3.4 OS 03 10
h
/R
Fig. 4 Intersection angle (A5) as a function of angle of revolution
(a) for various values of X (Bernacki)
rotation. The smaller the value of X, The velocity of cutting for either
the greater the change in A5 during one rotary direction can be calculated with
cut, and thus, the greater must be the the equation (Fig. 2 ) :
angle 5 to prevent compaction of uncut
soil. The largest value of A5 occurs near ut u — v sin a
uR = COS A5
the beginning of cutting for forward COS A5
rotation, and at the end of cutting for
V I Sin a
reverse rotation (Fig. 4 ) . For a given
situation, the variation of A5 in one \vCOS A5
J
cutting stroke is less for reverse rotation
than for forward rotation. Hence, the For ratios of X > 5 we may accept
blade can operate at more nearly an that cos A5 = 1, when the equation
optimum angle in reverse rotation reduces to:
throughout the cutting process. us = v (X — sin a).
Bok (1964, 1965) investigated the
From this equation and Fig. 2, it fol-
change in A5 during forward and re-
lows that the cutting velocity, at the
verse rotation and reached the same
same values of X, is greater for reverse
conclusion. Using a graphical technique
rotation than for forward rotation.
he studied the cutting geometry and
the speed of cutting at any point in Cutting Resistance
the tooFs path.
Given the intended conditions of Since each rotary-tiller blade cuts a
soil slice of continuously varying thick-
depth of operation (h) and the value
for X, it is possible to determine a value
for designing the apparent cutting
angle 7 0 using Fig. 4, since 40
{ \ /FORWARD ROTATION |
35'
For example, if p = 10 deg and 5' \Y.REVERSE ROTAT ION
30c
= 5 deg, then 7 m i n = 15 deg. If
h/R — 0.6 and X = 5, for forward I
25*
rotation A5 = 11 deg, thus 7 0 = 15
+ 11 = 26 deg; for reverse rotation 2<?
I
7 o = 15 + 9.5 deg = 24.5 deg. i l
: ! I
Fig. 4 also shows that a larger change 15
occurs in A5 at smaller values of X in |
both directions of rotation. This indi- c;
!
5°_ 4
cates that higher ratios of u/v allow
more efficient cutting from the stand-
point of maintaining an optimum value
of 7. Fig. 5 illustrates how a decrease 0 2 4 6 8 10 1
of X requires a rapid change in the X. U
V
value of 7 0 to provide clearance. In this
Fig. 5 Relationship showing necessary value of
instance, 7o to provide adequate blade clearance at dif-
7 m i n = /3 + 5' = 10 + 5 = 15 deg ferent values of X = u/v (Bernacki)

670 1971 • TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE

ness (Fig. 2 ) , there is considerable metal friction, etc.), the
variation in the torque requirement of minus sign preceding the ex-
an individual blade during cutting. pression refers to reverse
While some other investigators have rotation.
considered various aspects of rotary Bernacki (1962) plotted graphs of
soil-tool reactions, only Bernacki has O 60 these equations (Fig. 9) using the
attempted to describe the general char- en assumptions that with forward rotation
o
acter of tool reactions to cutting using the cutting force has the shape pre-
both forward and reverse rotation. sented in Fig. 6 (line c ) , that for re-
In general, the blades of rotary tillers H verse rotation the cutting force has the
have the shape of inclined planes. If 3 20 shape presented in Fig. 7, and that
we are willing to accept the assumption O ^ has a constant value of 15 deg.
that the cutting force of the blade is A \ \\c \ Dalin and Pavlov (1950) measured
proportional to the specific soil resist- 255" 270° 285° 300° 315° 330° 343° 300° the forces on single blades during cut-
ance and that the cutting resistance is ANGLE OF ROTATION a ting in both directions. Figs. 10 and 11
perpendicular to the path of the cut, show their findings of force vs. length
Fig. 7 Theoretical pattern of cutting resistance
then: of one blade on a reverse-turning rotary tiller of path of cut (£) along the trochoid
P = pA = F as a function of angle of revolution (Bernacki) and angular rotation. The thickness of
where P = cutting resistance of the the soil slice is shown as a shaded area.
soil Bernackfs descriptions conform gen-
p = specific soil resistance Actual measurements show that the erally to their experimental curves.
A = cross section of soil slice maximum value of F is a function of Energy Requirements
(also proportional to slice blade shape and type of mounting
thickness) (rigid or spring) and that the path BC The objective most often given for
F — cutting force of the blade is irregular (Soehne, 1957; Matsuo, investigating reverse rotation is to re-
Using the assumption that the cut- 1961; Dalin and Pavlov, 1950). The duce the energy requirements of tillage.
ting resistance is directly proportional general shape (ABC), however, appears The logic generally is that reverse rota-
to the thickness of the slice of soil to be valid, except for the more curved tion causes the tiller blade to operate
(which means the result will be a first Japanese blades which have a curve toward an unconfined area (the soil
approximation and will not consider of torque vs. rotation resembling a surface) and that more of the soil will
such real-life complicating factors as warped parabola (a smoother peak). fail in tension than in the case of for-
variation in soil-cutting resistance with If line c of Fig. 6 is taken as a valid ward rotation. While some researchers
approximation of the values of BC, have found that less energy is required
depth, blade shape, acceleration, soil-
then the average cutting force will be to turn the rotor in the reverse direction,
metal friction, etc.), an analysis can
few of them have considered the total
be made for both rotary directions. Fig. one-half the maximum value:
energy requirement which would in-
6 presents three patterns of the cutting F = %F
•"- avg •*- max clude me energy to move the tiller.
force of a blade rotating in the forward
For reverse rotation, if the assump- Fewer Jstill presented quantitative data
direction as a function of angle of revo-
lution and: the change in slice thickness tion that the cutting resistance was
(line a); the average of actual measure- directly proportional to the slice thick-
ments (line b), and a simplifying ap- ness were rigidly followed, then the
proximation (line c). In the first phase resulting diagram would be the reverse
of cutting (AB) there is a rapid rise of Fig. 6. We know, however, that upon
of cutting force, which reaches a maxi- initial contact with undisturbed soil,
mum at 10 to 12 degrees rotation after there is a considerable increase in
force. It might be expected that there
initial soil entry, and diminishes to
would be a considerably greater initial
0 (BC) after approximately another
increase than if the cutting force were
70 degrees of rotation.
only due to slice thickness. Also, the
magnitude of the cutting angle is
greatest upon entry into the uncut soil,
and this increases resistance to cutting.

f \ \ With these rational modifications to the

initial assumptions, we might expect an
\\ > n approximation of the pattern of cutting
\ \ \ .
/
c force to be similar to that in Fig. 7
\ 1
1 \\\ s. \
o \ \ rb i
i
! where the maximum cutting force
\• o\ ! occurs in the middle of the cutting
path. The average value of cutting force
X
\\ will still be half of the maximum.
\\ i The components of the cutting force
(Fig. 8) can be calculated from:
0

1
20°
ANGLE
40°
OF
60°
ROTATION

Fig. 6 Theoretical patterns of cutting force of

80° 100°
a
120°
F x = ± F sin (a + * — Ad)
F y = ± F cos (a + * — AS)
where ^r is the angle between the cut-
ting force F and the tangent
one blade on a forward-turning rotary tiller as to the trochoid at that point
a function of angle of rotation according to: (i.e., recognizing that the
(a) thickness of soil slice, (b) average of meas-
ured values, (c) simplifying approximation cutting force includes such Fig. 8 Theoretical reaction force components
(Bernacki) forces as acceleration, soil- acting on a rotary tiller blade (Bernacki)
1971 • T R A N S A C T I O N S O F T H E ASAE 671
 BU
a b tilling. Unfortunately only a portion of
z l~5 the information is translated. He devel-
10
60 — oped theoretical and experimental data
(reference 13) comparing forward
40
("down-cut") and reverse ("up-cut")
1 tiller operation using a Japanese-style
blade having a rotor radius of 220 mm.
I
\ 250
1 270
Fig. 12 shows work requirements of
290 310 330 350 Of
forward and reverse rotation over a
v
.5 depth range of 2 to 18 cm, a tilling
pitch range of 2 to 15 cm and a range
of rotational velocity of 50 to 350 rpm.
~ Matsuo found that the power require-
ments were less for reverse rotation,
given the same pitch of cut, and that
REVERSE
ROTATION \ the reduction in power became larger
ANGLE OF
ROTATION
as the soil strength became smaller.
Dalin and Pavlov (1950) present
Fig. 9 Theoretical pattern of force components acting on a blade as a
function of the angle of rotation for various ratios of u / v = X data in which a rotor fitted with pick
(Bernacki) blades and a rotor with a c-type blade
were operated in both directions. Fig.
13 shows their data for the power re-
quired for tilling and for pulling (or
pushing) the rotor. Since the forward
and peripheral velocities were different
for the two series of tests, comparisons

REVERSE ROTATION (CALCULATED)

REVERSE ROTATION (MEASURED)
FORWARD 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
/ /

forward rotation (no mention of draft / // ^ /

20
force). (Here the depth of operation ^
on soil breakup. The results of se-
lected researchers will be considered was less than 0.8 R.) While these 1
15 A / ,f .
V^
^

individually. authors did compare forward vs. re- 10

Grinchuk and Matyashin (1968), verse rotation, the objective was mainly / '/
5
summarizing the results of four pre- to find the optimum depth of operation.
2 - s=r-==:f
—r —
^"r L
=r=
— 4

vious Russian researchers, reported Bok (1965) reported that, based on 0 =~=- 15
- • - - 1 , i

that, in general, the reverse rotation
decreased the force of cutting by 1.5
times, gave better depth stability, re-
duced breakdowns of the tools in stoney
soils, and made possible a wider range
of peripheral to forward velocities.
Among the disadvantages they associ-
ated with reverse rotation were a
672
10 20 25
a theoretical analysis, the main disad- DEPTH (CM)
vantages of reverse rotation were the
throwing of soil forward and the re- Fig. 13 Power requirements for rotary tilling
versing of the horizontal component on (curves 1 and 3) and moving the tiller (curves
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-
pulling. tion. The power to move the tiller is negative
Matsuo (references 11, 12, 13) in the event of reverse rotation (Dalin and
studied many relationships in rotary Pavlov)
1971 • TRANSACTIONS O F T H E ASAE
cannot be made between the two
blades. In each test the rotary power
was greater for forward than for re-
verse rotation. The horizontal com-
ponent to move the tiller during reverse
rotation is negative.
They concluded, from the pick blade
tests, that reverse rotation required 12
to 16 percent less energy for rotation,
but the total power requirement was
14 to 28 percent less for forward rota-
tion because of the horizontal compo-
nent. For the tests using c blades, the
general results were the same, with a
reduction in power of 12 to 16 percent
for reverse rotation, but the total power
requirement for reverse operation was
0.5 to 11 percent greater than forward
rotation. Reversing the rotation of the
c blade did not reduce the rotary energy
as much as the pick blade because the
c blade does more cutting than the
pick blade and the advantage of reverse
rotation is in increasing failure by
tension.
can have considerable influence, espe-
cially when working in marginal trac-
tion conditions such as in rice paddies.
The shape of the blade can greatly
influence power requirements. While
blade shape is not a specific concern
here, Furlong's results indicate major
influences of shape on power require-
ment vs. direction of rotation. The net
rotor power requirements vs. tilling
pitch was determined for the various
blades at 148 rpm (u = 700 fpm).
From Fig. 16 we see that reversing the
direction of rotation of blades No. 4
and No. 6 does not appreciably alter
the power requirements. Blades No. 1
and No. 2, on the other hand, show
rotary direction has a large influence
which increases with the tilling pitch.
Fig. 16c shows that the power require-
DRAWBAR POWER
ment for blades Nos. 3 and 5 can be
more favorable for either direction of
rotation, depending upon the tilling
pitch (the ratio u/v may have been
such that the back of the blades com-
pressed uncut soil at longer tilling
pitches in forward rotation).
Furlong (1956) also reports results
of tillage at h = 2 in. and 6 in. depth
and u = 400, 700 and 1,000 fpm. Ob-
servations on ranges of vertical forces
and evenness of the furrow bottom
are also provided.
Uniformity of Furrow Bottom
One measure of performance that
Russian investigators appear to con-
sider important is the evenness of the
bottom of the furrow.
Grinchuk and Matyashin (1968) ex-
pressed the height of the peaks, or
ridges, left in the furrow bottom be-
tween successive soil slices (see Fig. 1)
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
perform equally well in both directions.
Fig. 14 shows differences in the rotor 500J-
power when blades are run in different
directions; there is an interaction of 600 L
2 3 4 5 6 AVG.
blade shape with direction of rotation. (-) I
On the average, reverse rotation re- 7 ILLER BLADES
quired 70 percent more total power
Fig. 15 Horizontal forces exerted by six rotary
than forward rotation when operating
tiller blades used by Furlong during forward
under the conditions of the tests. The and reverse rotation. A ( + ) force indicates the
direction of drawbar load (Fig. 15) tiller was pushing forward on the machine
2 3 4 5 6
LENGTH OF CUT L (IN)
Fig. 16 Curves comparing the different tiller
blades used by Furlong when used in the for-
ward and reverse directions. The top chart
shows that blades 4 and 6 are almost as effi-
cient used in either direction. According to the
center graph, blades 1 and 2 are much more
efficient when used with forward rotation. The
tilling pitch seems to determine whether blades
3 and 5 are more efficient turning in the for-
ward or reverse direction

1971 • T R A N S A C T I O N S O F T H E ASAE 673

where h2 = ridge height h2, REVERSE ROTATION
R = rotor radius
h2 FORWARD ROTATION 2 Z =
a2 = angle between the verti-
cal and a straight line
from the ridge to the 0.12
center axis of the rotor 0.6
The magnitude of a2 can be found
from the relation:
TT/Z = X s i n a2 ± a2 0.4
1 0.08
where z — number of blades operat-
ing in one plane | \ \
X = ratio of peripheral to for-
0.2
ward velocities, the nega- 0.04
tive ( —) sign is for for-
ward and positive ( + )
sign for reverse rotation
The relations for the ratio of ridge
^kfe
height to rotor radius (h2/R) as a func-
tion of X and z for forward and reverse Fig. 17 Relation showing relative height of furrow ridges to the value
rotations are presented in Fig. 17. of X and the number of blades cutting successive paths Z for forward
Knowing the "agronomic" tolerance of and reverse rotation (Grinchuk and Matyshin, 8)
furrow-bottom uniformity, it is possible
to select a suitable rotary tiller system,
using these graphs. An example of un- I FORWARD CZD REMAINDER R ^ REAR
suitable unevenness occurs where suc- « ^ M ^ ^ ^ 110 RPM
cessive blade cuts do not overlap and N5 g i B M i » a ZZ3 2 2 0
a ridge of undisturbed soil reaches the > f » l l l l i « C J±Z2 3 3 0
surface. Since the energy requirement
i:x.^.^::::-:--:.^:;:^^:o:-j I E SSS 110
increases with rotor velocity, a saving
of energy can be achieved for given N2 ^ ^ v ^ v ^ ^ ^ SZ3 220
values of h2 and v by selecting a lower f;:>;-:^^:::Ov:3^ ±EE3 330
value of X and a reverse direction of 'B^M^KS^^ ZZD I 10
rotation. N9 ZB 220
Furlong's observations on the subbed :E±3 330
condition were not related to the direc-
tion of rotation. •^^^^^^^^s^z 3 110
IK7 E E ^ ^ ^ ^ S S M S S T SI 220
Other Considerations l i l » » M l l SI 330
The amount and direction of soil 20 40 60 80 100 (%)
thrown by blades during reverse rota-
Fig. 18 Percent of total soil thrown in the longitudinal direction when
tion has been investigated. Matsuo four different blades were operated in reverse direction at 110 to 330
(1963) investigated the soil scattering rpm. Depth of operation about 12 cm (Matsuo, 13)
characteristics of different blades at
various depths of operation and rotary
speeds. Fig. 18 shows the scattering of which may be controlled by shield geometry. No information was avail-
distribution for four reverse rotating design). On the other hand, this throw- able showing an efficiency of energy
blades as a function of rotary velocity. conversion into soil pulverization as a
ing may be useful when using rotating
He reported that twice as much soil function of direction of turning. Maty-
diggers to load soil onto a conveyor.
was scattered by reverse rotation as by ashin (1968) did state qualitatively
Reducing the diameter of the tiller
forward rotation. Dalin and Pavlov that the degree of soil crumbling was
(1950) found that reverse rotation in allows greater "submergence" for the
same depth of tilling and reduces unde- significantly greater with reverse rota-
ditch-digging machines made effective
sirable scattering. (Continued on page 683)
ditchers if deflectors were provided to
throw the dirt sideways. On the other Bok (1965) pointed out a force ad-
hand, Blaauw (1968) reports reverse vantage of using reverse rotation. A
rotation caused excessive soil buildup lower ratio of rotary velocity to forward
ahead of the tiller, causing ridging on velocity (X) reduces the dynamic loads
either side of the rotor and excessive at higher forward velocities, since
pulverization when reverse rotation was higher rotational velocities increase the <
used on a 1967 Case garden tiller. peak loads imposed on the drive system.
Grinchuk and Matyashin (1969) re- Very little information relative to the
ported that soil scattering was not soil pulverization vs. direction of rota- <2
severe at deeper tilling depths (h = tion is available. Reverse rotation, at
1.8 R) in pasture renovation because the same ratio of peripheral to forward 3 4 5 6 AVG.
the sod passed over the tiller in an velocity, causes thinner soil cuts to be TILLER BLADES
unbroken strip, but the tiller ground made; but too many other factors enter
up the soil excessively. Thus it appears Fig. 19 Range in clod sizes produced in a silt
into soil crumbling to base any predic- loam soil by different blade shapes during for-
that shallow, reverse rotation does tion primarily on that factor. Yet the ward and reverse rotation. 4 in. depth, 400 fpm
throw a great deal of soil forward (some maximum clod size is limited by cutting peripheral speed
1971 • TRANSACTIONS O F T H E ASAE
674

soil reaction, and perhaps even in the
fundamental behavior of the soil.
And, in conclusion, it is interesting
to note the time and degree of research
activity in rotary tillage in various lo-
calities, as evidenced by technical pub-
lications available to this author. The
German journals had many rotary tool
publications in the late 1950s, the
Japanese in the early 1960s, and the
Russians are publishing in that area
now. The Russian articles indicate, too,
considerable interest in rotary tillage
work since the 1930s. The United
States literature shows the most interest
in rotary tillers, as tillers, in 1930 and
1940. A number of articles have been
published in the United States recently
evaluating the rotary tiller as an imple-
ment for incorporating chemicals into
the soil.
References
i Adams, W. J., Jr. and D. B. Furlong. 1959. Rotary
tillage in soil preparation. Agricultural Engineer
40(10) :6oo-6o3, 607, October.
PART I—
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
(Continued from page 674)
tion. Matsuo (1963) found that reverse
rotation resulted in soil clods that were
larger and more irregular, since they
were broken off as the blade came up
toward the surface and broke the soil
rather than cutting it. Furlong (1956)
presents some information on the size
clods resulting from both rotary direc-
tions (Fig. 19) which shows that the
clod size was generally larger for re-
verse rotation. Whether large or small
clods are desirable depends on the
intended use of the soil; a fine seedbed,
a well-mixed roadbed, or mixing lime
into a subsoil may require small clods.
Large clods may be more desirable
after fall plowing for water and wind
erosion control or for breaking up ma-
terial to be loaded and moved.
Other factors which would be
affected by the direction of rotation
include incorporation of amendments
and residue chopping and incorporation
into soil.
1971 • TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
2 Bainer, Roy, et al. Miscellaneous tillage equipment,
Chapter 9, Principles of Farm Machinery, pp. 197-211.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y.
3 Beeny, J. M. and D. J. Greig. 1965. The efficiency
of a rotary cultivator. J. Agr. Engr. Res. 10(1) :5-g.
4 Bernacki, Henry. 1962. Theory of the rotary tiller.
Inst, of Mech. and Elect, of Agric. in Warsaw, Bui.
No. 2, pp. 9-64. (P., E . ) t §.
5 Dalin, A. D. and P. V. Pavlov. 1950. Rotary soil
working and excavating machines. Mashgiz, 258 pp.
(R., e . ) t
6 Frevert, Richard K. 1940. Mechanics of tillage.
Unpublished M.S. thesis. Iowa State College, Ames,
Iowa.
7 Furlong, D. B. 1956. Rotary tiller performance
tests on existing tines. Tech. Report #1049, F.M.C.
Corporation, San Jose, Calif., September.
8 Gill, W. R. and G. E. Vanden Berg. Soil dynamics
in tillage and traction. Agriculture Handbook No. 316,
ARS, USDA.
9 Grinchuk, I. M. and Yu. I. Matyashin. 1968.
Systems of operation of soil rotary tillers. Mech. i
Elektrif. Sots. Sel. Khoz. 6:7-9. (R., E., PB-183
827T)*.
10 Grinchuk, I. M. and Yu. I. Matyashin. 1969.
The problem of selecting basic construction parameters
and systems of operations of soil rotary tillers. Traktory
i Sel'khozmashiny, 1:25-28. (R., E., PB-184 878T)*.
11 Hendrick, J. G. 1969. Depth, direction of rotation
and peripheral to forward velocities as design param-
eters of rotary tillers. ASAE Paper 69-661, ASAE,
St. Joseph, Mi. 49085.
12 Hendrick, J. G. and W. R. Gill. 1971. Rotary
tiller design parameters, I: Direction of rotation.
Transactions of the ASAE, this issue.
13 Hendrick, J. G. and W. R. Gill. 1971. Rotary
tiller design parameters, II: Depth of operation. Trans-
actions of the ASAE, this issue.
14 Kisu, M., Y. Kohda S. Yagi, and K. Seyama. 1966.
CONCLUSIONS
The reverse rotation of rotary-tiller
blades appears to have a 20 to 30
percent general reduction in power re-
quirement when h > R. Since the ver-
tical cutting component is reduced, the
vertical stability is increased. Reverse
rotation tends to throw more soil for-
ward where h < R so that it tends to
be recirculated when the drum has a
conventional orientation.
References
i Bernacki, Henry. 1962. Theory of the rotary tiller.
Inst, of Mech. and Elect, of Agric. in Warsaw, Bui.
No. 2, pp. 9-64. (P., E . ) t §
2 Blaauw, Andrew. 1968. Development of the Case
hydraulic tiller. ASAE Paper No. 68-615, ASAE, St.
Joseph, Mi 49085.
3 Bok, N. B. 1964. Determination of the angle of
mounting of working tools of rotary tillers. Traktory i
Sel'khozmashiny, 34(9):23-24. (R., E., PB-178213T)*.
4 Bok, N. B. 1965. Determination of basic parameters
of soil rotary tillers. Traktory i Sel'khozmashiny,
35(7) =30-32. (R., E., T.T. 67-61064)*.
5 Dalin, A. D. and P. V. Pavlov. 1950. Rotary soil
working and excavation machines. Mashgiz. 258 pp.
(R., e.)t
6 Furlong, D. B. 1956. Rotary tiller performance
tests on existing tines. Tech. Report #1049, F.M.C.
Corporation, San Jose, California, September.
7 Gill, W. R. and G. E. Vanden Berg. Soil dynamics
in tillage and traction. Agriculture Handbook No. 316,
ARS, USDA.
8 Grinchuk, I. M. and Yu. I. Matyashin. 1968.
Systems of operation of soil rotary tillers. Mech. i.
Elektrif. Sots. Sel. Khoz. 6:7-9. (R-, E., PB-183827T)*.
9 Grinchuk, I. M. and Yu. I. Matyashin. 1969.
Studies on trafficability, tractive and rotary tilling per-
formance of tractor. Technical Report Ins. of Agri.
Machinery, Omiya, Japan, 108 pp. (J. E.)f.
15 Kbszeghy, Geza. 1964. Some problems of research
with rotary tillers. Jarmiivek, Mezogazdasagi Gepek,
11(6)1220-226. (H., E . ) t
16 Lisunov, E. A. 1968. Expenditures of energy for
rotary tilling soil. Mech. i Electrif. Sots. Sel'khoz.
10:36-37. (R., E., PB-184 257T)*.
17 Matsuo, M. 1961. Fundamental studies on the
rotary cultivation. Bui. of the Yamagata Univ. (Agric.
Sci.) Vol. 3, No. 4, 197 pp. (J., e . ) | .
18 Mursch, B. 1957. Investigations on a rotary
cultivator. Landtech. Forsch. 7(4) :93. (G., e.)$.
19 Richardson, R. D. 1958. Some torque measure-
ments taken on a rotary cultivator. J. Agric. Engr.
Res. 3(4):66-68.
20 Serdechnyi, A. N. and I. M. Grinchuk. 1968.
Basic design parameters and systems of operation of
rotary drums of silage loaders. Mech. i. Electrif. Sots.
Sel. Khoz. 2:17-19. (R., E., PB-180 962T)*.
21 Tsuchiya, M. 1965. Studies on power tillers in
Japan (English translation). Yamagata Univ., Tsuruoka-
shi, Japan. Shin-Norin Co., Ltd. Tokyo, Japan.
* Paper has been translated and is available from
Federal Scientific & Technical Information, U. S.
Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151. (The
number is the translation number.)
f The article has been translated and a copy of the
translation is at the NTML.
t The article has an English summary, or portions
have been translated.
§ The letters in parentheses indicate: (a) First letter,
the original language if different from English (R =
Russian, P = Polish, J = Japanese, G = German);
(b) second letter, the language into which it was
translated or summarized (E = full translation into
English, e — English summary).
The problem of selecting basic construction parameters
and systems of operation of soil rotary tillers. Traktory
i Sel'khozmashiny, 1:25-28. (R., E., PB-184878T)*.
10 Hendrick, J. G. 1969. Depth, direction of rotation
and peripheral to forward velocity ratio as design
parameters of rotary tillers. ASAE Paper 69-661, ASAE,
St. Joseph, Mich. 49085.
11 Matsuo, M. 1961. Fundamental studies on the
rotary cultivation. Bui. of the Yamagata Univ. (Agric.
Sci.) 3(4):i97- (J-, c ) t
12 Matsuo, M. 1962. Studies on the up-cut method
of rotary cultivation (1): Load characteristics of rotary
up-cut method. J. Soc. Agric. Mach., Japan,
24(3):i29-i33, December. (J., e.)$.
13 Matsuo, M. 1963. Studies of the up-cut method
of rotary cultivation (II): The characteristics of soil
breaking, soil scattering and soil turning. J. Soc.
Agric. Mach., Japan, 24(4)1170, 203-206, March.
(J., e.)t
14 Matyashin, Yu. 1968. Means of decreasing energy
requirements of rotary tillers. Tekhnika V. Sel'skom
Khozyaistve. 5:81-82. (R., E., PB-184261T)*.
15 Matyashin, Yu. I. and V. K. Zhurkin. 1968.
Parameters and operating characteristics of soil rotary
tiller. Vestnik Sel'Skokhozyaistvennoi Nauki No.
9:131-133. (R-, E., PB-185800T)*.
16 Soehne, W. 1957. Influence of shape and arrange-
ment of tools on torques of rotary hoes. Grundl.
Landt. No. 9, 69-87. (G., E.) (NIAE Translation).
17 Spence, Clark C i960. God speed the plow.
Univ. of Illinois Press.
* Paper has been translated and is available from
Federal Scientific & Technical Information, U. S.
Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151. (The
number is the translation number.)
f The article has been translated and a copy of the
translation is at the NTML.
$ The article has an English summary, or portions
have been translated.
§ The letters in parentheses indicate: (a) First letter,
the original language if different from English (R =
Russian, P = Polish, J = Japanese, G = German);
(b) second letter, the language into which it was
translated or summarized (E = full translation into
English, e = English summary).
683