4.3 Article

Volume/shear work ratio influence on wear and stress of soil chisel tine modelled by DEM

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/13506501211058240

关键词

Soil; abrasive wear; DEM; cultivator; tine; stress

资金

  1. C. eska Zeme.de.lska Univerzita v Praze [2020:31200/1312/3102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agricultural equipment operates under high stress conditions, with chisels working at a depth of 30 cm and a maximum speed of 12 km/h. Due to unpredictable soil conditions, chisel tines experience high wear losses, leading to time and cost expenses. Wear resistance and agronomical requirements are the main criteria for producers, and the discrete element method is used to simulate soil properties and wear intensity.
Agricultural equipment is working in very high-stress conditions. However, it has a significant influence on the wear losses of soil processing parts. Chisel is operating at 30 cm working depth at a maximum of 12 km center dot h(-1) working speed. Due to unpredictable soil conditions, chisel tines suffer high wear losses. It leads to time consumption and cost expenses during the soil preparation period. Wear resistance, and agronomical requirements (working depth, loosening of soil) are the main criteria of agricultural equipment producers. The discrete element method is a solution that simulates soil as sphere shape particles with soil properties. Wear results reveal the change of parts shape, acting forces, and stresses during the simulation in the virtual soil bin. The used Rocky DEM software uses a parameter C (volume/shear work ratio) to describe wear intensity, which varies for different geometry. Chisel tine geometry should be divided into sections with varied parameter C according to stress acting on the surface. The test conditions can be used for future wear analysis of varied tool geometry and protection (sintered tungsten carbide plates, hard-faced surface, etc.) agricultural tools to compare its durability in different soil conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据