International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. Available online at www.ijagcs.com IJACS/2013/5-4/385-389 ISSN 2227-670X 2013 IJACS Journal Structural Evaluation of Four No-till Opener Sets on Planting Ebrahim Ebrahimi 1, Mohammad Mehdi Ranjbar Malekshahi 2, Mojtaba Bavandpour 3 1,3. Department of Mechanical Engineering of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah Branch, Kermanshah, Iran 2. Member of the young researchers club, Islamic Azad University Kermanshah Branch Corresponding author s email : e.ebrahimi57@gmail.com ABSTRACT: Planting without tillage, as a technological contribution to sustainable agriculture, depends on the production and use of inexpensive and efficient no-till planters. It is very important to identify some essential design factors to determine manufacturing criteria for inexpensive no-till planting machinery. Coulters are a component of no-till planter opener sets. The function of the coulter is primary cutting of the residue, both vertical (with root) and horizontal (without root). In this study the mechanisms of four kinds of no-till planters (two models with coulters and the others without) were compared by software simulation, static and dynamic analyses and farm experiments. The planters under investigation were Sfoggia Thesis Big 2.5(an Italian planter), Gaspardo Directa 300 Corsa (an Italian planter), Amazone NT250 (a Brazilian planter) and Agro Rhino Zero-Driller (an Indian planter). Due to the different design of the Agro Rhino opener set, its planting operation was simulated in a block of 200 square meters (2 100m) and compared with blocks of the same area. Residue levels for 20 samples with same random coordinates were investigated and instance blocks were estimated with the t-student test at 90% probability level. The results suggested that the model used in the initial conditions, in the reconstruction of Agro Rhino opener set can be used instead of a coulter as part of the opener set mechanism of no-till planters producing a type of reduced-tillage planter. Keywords: sustainable agriculture, no-tillage, no-till planters, coulters, reduce-till planter. INTRODUCTION Increasing populations coupled with land resource limitations challenge agricultural production to use new technology and farming methods in response to the growing need for improved quality and efficiency of food production (Rahmani, 2007). Conventional farming systems are based on an indiscriminate use of natural resources with the emphasis on economic growth, a strategy that is unsustainable long term (Karami, 1993). A sustainable agricultural system as opposed to conventional farming, is a more effective crop production system whereby natural resources are recycled reducing risk factors for both human health and the environment (Francis et al, 1990). The attributes of conservation tillage in sustainable agriculture are reduced working time, fuel consumption, energy requirement and cost by 55%, without making significant difference to product performance (Bonari et al., 1995), it can therefore be concluded that conservation tillage is an effective way to achieve sustainable agricultural practice (Ranjbar et al, 2010). Conservation tillage is performed in several ways such as mulch-till, rege-till, strip-till and no-till (Ranjbar & Khadem, 2010). In conservation tillage at least 30% of residue must remain on the land (McCarty et al., 1999). One of the key differences between no-till and conventional planters is that specific opener sets used in no-till planters can be used to simplify planting without the need for primary and secondary tillage. Opener sets used in no-till planters are classified by two types, either joined or separate opener sets which conventionally contain three parts; coulters, openers and press wheels (Ranjbar and Khadem, 2010). The separated types of opener sets, as they take up more space are commonly used in no-till planters for planting rows and the joined types are generally used for grain drilling. In order to overcome the problem of cutting strength needed to plant non-tilled soil joined opener sets by design are heavy and need to be pulled by high power tractors (Ranjbar et al, 2010). So, an adverse effect is that although the no-till system,
reduces the amount of machinery used in cultivation, the transportation of heavy equipment can aggravate cultivation conditions by causing soil compression (Håkansson, 1994), especially from giant tractors (Schjønning et al., 2006). One of the limitations that may affect agricultural production, especially in poorer countries is the economic constraint that prevents farmers from using the recommended technology (Mosavinejad & Hasanimoqadam, 1996). To identify essential factors (with respect to coulters) in the four no-till planters, each one was examined and tested with software comparisons and field treatments. The planters tested in this investigation were Sfoggia Thesis Big 2.5(an Italian planter), Gaspardo Directa 300 Corsa (an Italian planter), Amazone NT250 (a Brazilian planter) and Agro Rhino Zero-Diller (an Indian planter). The opener sets of each planter were simulated by CATIA V5R19, and their TDV (Translational Displacement Victor) performances were compared by finite element method at identical load conditions to determine the applicable static bends for each model. To identify the dynamic torque, opener sets of each planter in terms of tendency to penetration was simulated by Adams software using the same conditions. Using analyses of results because of the different performance of Agro Rhino opener set, with its absence of a coulter in its planting set, was selected for field treatments and the performance of its opener set penetration both horizontal (without root) and vertical (with root) was investigated on Syrian-4 wheat residue with simulated planting operation and using t-student test. MATERIALS AND METHODS Planters description Planters used in this study were Sfoggia Thesis Big 2.5(an Italian planter), Gaspardo Directa 300 Corsa (an Italian planter), Amazone NT250 (a Brazilian planter) and Agro Rhino Zero-driller (an Indian planter). There are advantages and disadvantages with each of these planters, but generally they don t match Iran agricultural conditions. Details of the planters are given according to treatment parameters (Table 1). Openers simulation and static analyses In this section, the planters openers were simulated and analyzed with CATIA V5R20 (fig.1), the metal properties were considered (Table 1) with the same loads, according to the actual pressure of the openers. The comparison criterion TDV (Translational Displacement Victor) indicated the maximum displacement of each structure from the applied loads material properties (Table 2) and supports. Element TE4 used for this static finite element analyses. Using this criterion, the point coordinates of the largest displacement from the applied loads were determined. These coordinates were used to apply concentrated loads for dynamic analyses in order to calculate the dynamic torque as an opener exit criterion. Figure 1.Right to left, Amazone nt250, Gaspardo directa 300, Sfoggia thesis big 2.5 and Agro Rhino zero-drill openers were simulated in CATIA environment. Table 1. Metal properties used in static analyses. Material Steel Young's modulus 2e+011N_m2 Poisson's ratio 0.266 Density 7860kg_m3 Coefficient of thermal expansion 1.17e-005_Kdeg Yield strength 2.5e+008N_m2 Dynamic analyses At this stage, data from each investigated opener was imported to Adams 2008r3 individually (fig.2), and according to the results of the previous section and considering the same load (76N (Ranjbar et al, 2010)) speed, was analyzed (approximate speed was determined according to the real speed of no-till planters on the farm during planting operations, 10 km/h or 2.7m/s (Ranjbar et al, 2010). Generally, dynamic analyses were done with the.1
presence of gravity (9.08 m/s 2 ) and using a translational displacement constraint, to simulate the forward movement of the openers with the mentioned speed. Field experiments According to the different performance of Agro Rhino opener, with respect to previous stage, this opener was selected for field experiments (planting simulation) to determine its physical performance against the residue. Figure 2.Right to left, Amazone nt250, Gaspardo directa 300, Sfoggia thesis big 2.5 and Agro Rhino zero-drill openers were imported in Adams environment. Site description The trials were located at the Iranian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research at Kermanshah (Bistoon Sararood) (34 19' 57.51" N, 47 17' 38.38" E). The soil type at the site was poorly drained silt/clay loam formed on marine sediment and classified as Typic Cryaquoll (Soil Survey Staff, 1998). The soil has been farmed conventionally (with primary and secondary tillage) since 1995. The last crop cultivated on the site was Syrian-4 wheat. The normal figures (1990 2010) for annual precipitation and mean temperature were 435 mm and 13.8 C. Experiment design and treatment description The treatment used for the experiment was the amount of residue that entered the planting rake during the procedure, combined in two blocks (B and C) the experimental block was (B) (Agro Rhino Planter block) and the instance block was (C). The amount of residue that entered in to the planting rake was imposed with a t-student design. Each block was 2m wide and 100m long and there was a border of 0.5m between the blocks (long measurements were taken with a 10m accurate GPS). T-student experiment description This experiment consisted of sampling and weighing the samples in two stages. A 0.5m 2 Quadrat was used for getting samples. 20 random samples taken from each block (total of 40 samples) and weighed with an AND EK600H scale with 0.1kg accuracy. After the experiment the crop residue was returned to the farmland. RESULTS Static analyses Results of this stage were in the form of schematic transformation (fig.3), translational displacement diagrams (Diagram.1) and maximum values (Table.1). Table 2. Planters' details using in software analyses and field treatments. Planter Coulter Opener set type Depth alignment Pressing wheels system Amazone Ability to install Backwards knife Hydraulic One v pressing wheels Agro Rhino - Forwards knife Mechanical - Gaspardo Jointed set Backwards knife Constant planting depth One embowed pressing wheels Sfoggia Apart set Double disks Mechanical Two embowed pressing wheels
Figure 3.Schematics of translational displacement victor criterion of openers. Dynamic analyses The result of dynamic analysis for each opener was calculated with Adams using Microsoft office Excel 2010, and a diagram of combinations was drawn (Figure 4). 2.5003 2.0003 1.5003 1.0003 5.0002 0.0000 5.0002 0.00001.00012.0001 Figure 4.Comparison of the openers reaction according to the same applied load. Field experiments According to T-table at 90% probability level, a significant difference between the Agro Rhino and the instance block was identified relating to the residue remains on the farmland. Discussions The TDV criterion of Agro Rhino opener was 98.38%, 98.29% and 99.83%, criteron for the other openers; Gaspardo, Amazone and Sfoggia openers was less, with the same loads applied to their cutting components. Torque exerted on the Agro Rhino opener, obtained from the dynamic analyses was 99.70%, 99.27% and 99.25% less than, of this parameter in Gaspardo, Amazone and Sfoggia openers (Table.3). Use of the Agro Rhino planter, resulted in remains of 69% residue on the farmland. CONCLUSION Low torque exerted during cultivation by the Agro Rhino opener, due to its structure, caused the unwillingness of this opener to release from the soil (forward opener). This opener cutting the residue from their
roots and due to intense cutting of the soil by this planter, 31% of the residue went in to the subsoil and taking this planter out of the no-till planter category. This planter deserves the description A Reduced-Till planter and its structure can be used for production of a kind of planter consistent with conservation agriculture patterns, without coulters. The use of row cleaners is applicable to farms with high residue concentrations.. Table 3.Maximum displacement of openers according to appalling a same load to them. Planters name Maximum displacement (mm) Agro Rhino 6.133114e-7 Gaspardo 3.779986e-5 Amazone 3.59527e-5 Sfoggia 3.69331e-4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah Branch for its support to this research. And also the skills of engineer, Kyumarz Sayyadian and technician, Mohammad Mohammadi, have contributed substantially to this work. Financial support from the head master of the Iranian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research Sararod Agricultural dry land institute is acknowledged. REFERENCES Bonari E, Mazzoncini M, Peruzzi A. 1995. Effect of conservation and minimum tillage on winter oilseed rape in a sand soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 33, 91-108. Francis C, Flora C, King L. 1990. Sustainable agriculture in temperate zones, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Hakansson I. 1994. Subsoil compaction caused by heavy vehicles a long-term threat to soil productivity. Soil Till. Karami A.1993. Second Symposium on Agricultural Policy in Iran, Department of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. McCarty JR, Pfost DL, Currence HD. 1999. Conservation tillage and residue management to reduce soil erosion. Agric. Pub. G1650. Clumbia: Univ. Ex., Univ. Missouri. Mousavi Nejad MG, Hasanimoqadam M.1996. Mazandaran rice economy, improving strategies of comparative advantage, Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development. Rahmani R. 2009. Second National Conference on Ecological Agriculture, University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran. Rajbar Malekshahi MM, Khadem SMR.2010. Comparison of Mechanisms and Performance of Planting sets of two kinds of No-till Planters Offered in Iran, Sixth National Congress of Agricultural Machinery and Mechanization, University of Tehran, Karaj. Ranjbar Malekshahi MM, Farzane B, Sadeghi M, Ghorbani A.2010. Free Dynamic Analysis of Two Kinds of No-Till planter Openers Offered in Iran, Sixth National Congress of Agricultural Machinery and Mechanization, University of Tehran, Karaj. Ranjbar Malekshahi MM, Valiei E.2010. Simulation of a soil profile with discrete element method, and recognition of behavior of a no-till planter in it, Second National conference on agriculture and sustainable development, Islamic Azad University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran. Schjonning P, Lamande M, Tgersen FA, Pedersen J, Mller Hansen PO. 2006. Reduction of soil compaction. DJF rapport, Markbrug, Nr. 127, 102 pp. (ISBN 87-91949-08-4, in Danish with English summary). Soil Survey S. 1998. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 8th ed. USDA, Washington, 326 pp. van Bavel, CHM. 1949. Mean weight diameter of soil aggregates as a statistical index of aggregation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 13, 20 23.