International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology

Volume 6, Issue 9, 2018, PP 24-38

ISSN 2349-4395 (Print) & ISSN 2349-4409 (Online)

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of

Subsoilers
Odey Simon O.1, Ovat Friday A.2 and Okon Orok O.3
1, 3,
Department of Wood Products Engineering, Cross River University of Technology, Calabar,
Nigeria
2,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cross River University of Technology, Calabar, Nigeria
*Corresponding Author: Odey Simon O, Department of Wood Products Engineering, Cross River
University of Technology, Calabar, Nigeria. simonodey@crutech.edu.ng.

ABSTRACT
Draughts, power requirements and soil disruption of tillage tools are important parameters useful for their
effective design, fabrication and performance during operation for effective agricultural mechanisation.
Subsoilers have gained much ground in their application for alleviating soil compaction; and are attracting
awareness in their utilization for conservative tillage practices. Subsoiler is a tractor mounted implement
used to loosen and break up soil hard-pan at depths up to 60 cm and above the level of a traditional disk
plough, mouldboard plough, chisel plough or rotary plough. Development and performance evaluation of
subsoilers and their energy requirements during operation has been of great concern to engineers and
farmers as these have direct and indirect effects on the efficiency of tillage operations. Draughts reduction,
minimal power utilisation and increased soil disruption and pulverisation are some of the main
performance indicators of subsoilers. Hence several researchers have studied various subsoilers and
parameters to minimize draught force and total power requirements with considerable increase in soil
pulverisation. Consideration should be given to the design of shanks shape of subsoiler, as they are very
important to the efficiency and effectiveness of subsoiling. Thus, variation in power requirements depends
on subsoiling depth, soil water conditions and the amount of compaction. In order to achieve better soil
disturbance, reduced draught force and energy requirements, and less traction resistance, the application
of vibratory (oscillatory) and rotary subsoilers in modern day design and development of subsoilers are
preferred for lower overall demand on engine power.
Keywords: Draughts, Power Requirements, Soil Disruption, Subsoilers, Deep Tillage

INTRODUCTION tools will break up and turn over surface soil to

a depth of 15-20 cm, while a subsoiler will
Draughts, power requirements and soil disruption
break up and loosen soil to twice those depths.
of tillage tools are important parameters useful Typically a subsoiler mounted to a Compact
for their effective design, fabrication and Utility Tractor will reach depths of about 30 cm
performance during operation for effective and above. The subsoiler is a tillage tool which
agricultural mechanisation. Development and will improve growth in all crops where soil
performance evaluation of tillage tools and their compaction is a problem. The design provides
energy requirements during operation has been deep tillage, loosening soil deeper than a tiller or
of great concern to engineers and farmers as plough.
these have direct and indirect effects on the
Agricultural subsoilers has the ability to disrupt
efficiency of tillage operations. hardpan down to 60 cm depth and more [1-2].
Tillage tools are mechanical devices used for Draft reduction, optimum power utilisation and
applying forces to the soil to cause one or more increased soil disruption and pulverisation are some
of cutting, movement, fracturing, loosening, of the main performance indicators of subsoilers.
overturning and pulverization of the soil to Hence several researchers have studied various
prepare a seed bed. Subsoiler is a tractor parameters to minimize draft force and total power
mounted implement used to loosen and break up requirements and considerable soil loosening [3].
soil at depths below the level of a traditional disk This attempt is therefore made to review the
plough, mouldboard plough, chisel plough or draught, power requirements and soil disruption
rotary plough. Most tractor mounted cultivation of subsoilers.

International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018 24

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

DRAUGHT AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS is directly related to working depth, tool geometry,
FOR SUBSOILERS travel speed, rake angle, width of the implement,
and soil properties [10]. Soil properties that
Draught is an important parameter for contribute to tillage energy are moisture content,
measurement and evaluation of implement bulk density, cone index, soil cohesion and
performance [4]. The specific draught of adhesion, and soil texture [11]. It has been
agricultural tools and implements varies widely reported that draught on tillage tools increases
under different conditions, being affected by significantly with speed and the relationship
such factors as the soil type and condition, varies from linear to quadratic.
ploughing speed, plough type, shape, friction
characteristics of the soil-engaging surfaces, [12]As reported by [8] estimated draught and
share sharpness, and shape, depth of ploughing, soil disturbance of conventional and winged
width of furrow slice, type of attachments, and subsoilers working at depth of 0.35 m to be
adjustment of the tool and attachments. A great 20.43 kN and 0.098 m2, and 26.58 kN and 0.184
deal of work has been done in evaluating these m2 respectively. He then recommended
various factors and investigating possible means approximate practical spacing for simple and
for reducing draught [5]. Rational design must winged tines for good soil loosening as: (i) 1.5 x
be based on knowledge of tool performance and depth of work for simple tines;(ii) 2.0 x depth of
soil parameters [6]. For efficient tillage, both work for winged tines.[13] Further stated that
must be considered with the aim of minimizing variation in power requirements depends on
specific resistance, which is draught per unit subsoiling depth, soil water conditions and the
area of soil disturbance [7 - 8]. amount of compaction. Power to pull a subsoiler
will depend on the number of shanks being
Quantification of force response relations for the pulled and tractive conditions. For most soil
soil cutting process can be used by the equipment conditions optimum tractive efficiency can be
designer for improving cutting element design, and obtained in the 10 to 15 percent slip range. If
for mathematically simulating whole vehicle slip is more than 15 percent or less than 10
performance. Traditional tools have been designed percent, ballast should be added or removed,
in the light of empirical experimentation based on respectively.
low speed tests and quasi-static theory of soil
cutting. Experimental results cannot be directly FORCES ON SUBSOILERS
extrapolated for use with high speed tools [14] Reported that the draught requirement of
because the results would be unrealistic. The any tillage implement was found to be a function of
developed concepts in soil dynamics depend on soil properties, tool geometry, working depth
controlled experiments. Soil-bin facilities are ,travel speed, and width of the implement [15].
usually employed for such controlled studies. Soil properties that contribute to tillage energy
The use of microcomputer based data acquisition are moisture content, bulk density, soil texture
and control system has greatly enhanced data and soil strength. The relationship between the
collection and processing and ensured better draught of plane tillage tools and speed, has
monitoring of the parameters varied during the been defined as linear, second-order polynomial,
experiments in the soil-bins [9]. parabolic and exponential.
A high-energy input is required to disrupt [8]Reported forces acting on tillage tools to
hardpan layer to promote improved root include: (i) horizontal or draught force: the
development and increased draught tolerance. amount of force required to pull or push the
Significant savings in tillage energy could be implement through the soil, (ii) vertical force:
achieved by site-specific management of soil the implement force assisting or preventing
compaction. Site-specific variable-depth tillage penetration into the soil, and (iii) lateral or
system can be defined as any tillage system sideways forces. In parallel to the work referred
which modifies the physical properties of soil to earlier, mathematical models have been
only where the tillage is needed for crop growth developed to predict the magnitude of the soil
objectives. It was revealed that the energy cost forces acting upon implements of different
of subsoiling can be decreased by as much as geometry. These are based upon the general soil
34% with site-specific tillage as compared to the mechanics equation and enable the draught and
uniform-depth tillage technique currently vertical forces to be calculated from knowledge
employed by farmers. There is also a 50% of the tool geometry, working depth, soil
reduction in fuel consumption by site-specific or physical properties and the type of the soil
precision deep tillage. Tillage implement energy disturbance pattern produced by the tool. They

25 International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

have been integrated into a unified model specific forces on tillage tools. This transducer
described by [16] and formulated into a number allows the measurement of forces in two
of spreadsheets for the use of those who wish to directions and the moment in the plane of these
estimate the effects of different implement forces [17].
geometry on the soil forces in a given soil and the
On the other hand, the load cell is a transducer
effect of different soils on a given implement
that is used to convert a force into an electrical
shape. The spreadsheets consider a range of
signal. This deforms a strain gauge. The strain
implements, namely: (1) single and multiple tines,
gauge measures the deformation (strain) as an
(2) land anchors, (3) discs, and (4) mould board
electrical signal, because the strain changes the
ploughs.
effective electrical resistance of the wire. A load
MEASUREMENT OF TILLAGE FORCES cell usually consists of four strain gauges in a
USING INSTRUMENTATIONS Wheatstone bridge configuration. Load cells of
one strain gauge (Quarter Bridge) or two strain
[9] and [17] Reported that measurement of gauges (half bridge) are also available. The
forces on tillage tools have been an issue of electrical signal output is typically in the order
great concern in soil tillage dynamics. Draught of a few mill volts and according to [21 -22] this
measurements are required for many studies requires amplification by an instrumentation
including energy input for field equipment, amplifier before it can be used. The output of
matching tractor to an implement size, and the transducer can be scaled to calculate the
tractive performance of a tractor. Vertical force force applied to the transducer. The various
affects weight transfer from implement to the types of load cells that exist include Hydraulic
tractor, and consequently, affects the tractive load cells, Pneumatic load cells and Strain
performance and dynamic stability of the tractor gauge load cells. Load cells are currently being
[18]. Several side loads can affect tractor‟s utilized in measuring different forces on tillage
steering ability. However, side force is generally tools. The first attempt to measure the forces
negligible during field operation [19]. between tractor and mounted implement were
Several researchers have worked on measurement made by measuring the forces in links themselves
of forces on tillage. [20] Explained four different [23]. This required simultaneous recording of at
types of instrumentations utilized in the least three forces which involved very complicated
measurement of forces on tillage tools. These instrumentation. [24] Later developed a three-
are transducer, dynamometer, strain gauge and point hitch dynamometer which could be used
extended orthogonal ring transducer. Transducer with hydraulic linkage providing position and
is a device that converts a signal in one form of draught control, unlike his previous design
energy to another form of energy. Energy types which was for un-restrained linkages.
include (but are not limited to) electrical, Measuring the drawbar power of tillage tools is
mechanical, electromagnetic (including light), accomplished by apparatuses such as hydraulic
chemical, acoustic and thermal energy. While and mechanical dynamometers. Drawbar
the term transducer commonly implies the use dynamometer is used for pull-type implements
of a sensor/detector, any device which converts while the three-point hitch type is employed for
energy can be considered a transducer. mounted implements. The first attempts to
Dynamometer is an instrument for determining measure the forces between tractor and mounted
power, usually by the independent measurement implement were made by measuring the forces
of forces, time and the distance through which in links themselves [23]. This required
the force is moved. A dynamometer must not simultaneous recording of at least three forces
only be able to measure the forces between itself which involved very complicated instrumentation.
and a tool, it must also be able to hold the tool in [25] Developed strain gauged pins for
position so that the tool depth, width and measuring the draught of a three-point link
orientation do not change during operation. implement. These pines could only measure
Strain Gauges have replaced earlier used longitudinal component of force in each link and
dynamometers with hydraulic units. With the were only suitable for free linkage systems.
advancement of technology, strain gauge force [24]Improved the system proposed by [26]. The
transducers have been developed. A direct- system used instrumented ball joints. These ball
connected strain gauge that senses only the joints system had friction induced cross sensitivity
draught component of the pull has been put in problems. [24]Reduced this effect by using self-
place. Extended octagonal ring transducer is one aligning ball bearings and longer beam length.
of the most common methods used to measure This caused the equipment heavier, displaced

International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018 26

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

the implement backwards and thus increased the could help in the design of tillage tools and
bending moment. Moving the implement back evaluating tractor performance. They reported
from its nominal position affects the tractor- that the dynamometer consists of three arms,
implement geometry and hence it‟s operating which slide in an inverted hollow T-shaped
characteristics. The instrument could not fit on section. The sliding arrangement also facilitates
many tractors. Modification to the tractor was attaching the dynamometer to implement
required to fit the system. The use of PTO was without the need for quick coupler. The end of
also obstructed. each sliding arm has inverted U-shaped
cantilever beam. To measure the draught, two
[24] Later developed a three-point hitch
strain gauges were attached on each cantilever
dynamometer which could be used with hydraulic
beam, and six strain gauges together with two
linkage providing position and draught control,
other dummy gauges were arranged in a
unlike his previous design which was for un-
Wheatstone bridge so that only the draught force
restrained linkages. The shape was such that it
is measured. The dimensions of the dynamometer
can permit PTO use accordingly. Friction was
components were selected to match the Category I
minimized by use of self-aligning ball bearings.
and II hitching systems with a capacity of 35 kN
Cross-sensitivity was 2% on horizontal draught
draught force.
force and 0.5% on vertical forces. Modifications
were needed if the instrument was to be used Many other designs were developed. Some
with mounted implement and was not fit to measured all the forces acting between the
category I implements. The construction was implement and tractor by using a six point
bulky which weighted 120 kg. The implement dynamometer suspension system using load cells
was shifted back by 23 cm from its nominal [27],[31]. Other systems measured longitudinal
position. and vertical forces only, assuming lateral forces
as zero. [32] Mounted strain gauges directly on
[27] Used six load cells mounted at different
the lower links of the tractor. He mounted these
points within an „A‟ shaped frame to measure
gauges on the linked arms to get tension and
horizontal, vertical and lateral forces. The
differential cantilever bridge. This system was
measurements were made with little error. The
calibrated for horizontal and vertical forces
implement moved back by 19 cm. [28] developed
while applying load only up to 100 kg. The test
a quick attachment coupler using pins mounted
results showed across-sensitivity of 2% in the
as strain gauged cantilever beams. It eliminated
differential cantilever (vertical force) bridge
the need for modification in either tractor or
while 12.5% in the tension (horizontal force)
implement since it could be used with category
bridge.
II and III hitch dimensions. This dynamometer
gave minimum sensing errors but the implement A bi-axial direct mounted strain gauged lower-
was pushed back by 21 cm. links system for measurement of tractor-
implement forces was designed by [23]. They
[29] Designed and developed a three-point hitch
developed and calibrated it for coincident and
dynamometer for measurement of loads
perpendicular loads up to 10 kN. The results
imposed on agricultural tractors by implement
revealed a high degree of linearity between
mounted on a standard three-point linkage
bridge output voltage and force applied. They
conforming to category I, II or III. He reported
reported that the hysteresis effect between the
that the 350 kg mass of the dynamometer limits
calibration curves for increasing and decreasing
its use with small tractors to light weight
applied coincident and perpendicular force was
implements. This mass and the rearward very small(<1.2%). They suggested that this
displacement of the implement by 17.35 cm is system is the best suited where medium type
slightly more than allowed by ASAE Standards equipment is used with a tractor. The use of a
S278.6. He also reported that the developed frame or frames in order to measure the forces
dynamometer has a force capacity of between tractor and implement has the
approximately 50 kN which provides adequate advantages of permitting easy resolution of the
sensitivity at the low end of the designed tractor forces into horizontal draught, vertical force,
power range with sufficient strength for the high and sideways force components and their
power range. respective moments, as well as being able to
Another three-point hitch dynamometer was easily fit to any standard tractor and implement
designed and manufactured by[30]. The combination. Against this was the disadvantages
dynamometer was capable of measuring tractor of substantially changing the tractor and
-implement forces in three dimensions, which implement geometry by moving the implement

27 International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

backwards and vertically relative to the tractor constant distance between them and another
and adding additional mass and resilience to the load cell measured the forces along the shank.
system [29].Apart from three-point hitch According to them the two load cells were
dynamometer, several researchers have made cantilevered with one side mounted to the centre
effort to study over drawbar dynamometer such of the shank‟s width and the other side connected
as: [18 - 19],[32- 38]. to wheels running inside a hollowed beam. The
wheels enabled the shank to be moved up and
According to [39] three hitch-point
down for different depths with the aid of a
dynamometers with chassis (frame type
hydraulic cylinder. The hydraulic cylinder was
dynamometer) are more flexible in application,
connected to the upper edge of the shank by the
that is, application is not limited to a special
lengthwise load cell. The resultant force on the
type of tractor. Hence a dynamometer equipped
shank was calculated by using the three
with chassis was designed and developed. The
measured forces, their directions and locations.
dynamometer consists of main frame (chassis),force
transducers, connecting members, and a data [42] Reported that a tractor-mounted three-
acquisition system including a notebook dimensional dynamometer was used to measure
computer (Toshiba Satellite 45 Notebook), data draught, vertical, and side forces in a Coastal
logger(CR10X), power supply (PS 12E), and Plain soil in Alabama. Three subsoiler systems
leading cable. The designed dynamometer was were evaluated at different depths of operation:
fabricated to be used for measuring the (i) Paratill “bentleg shanks”, (ii) Terramax “bentleg
resistance pull of the soil engaged implement. shanks”, and (iii) KMC “straight shanks”. A
The dynamometer is considered to be used with portable tillage profiler was used to measure
a 2WD Mitsubishi tractor (MT-250D) which has both above and below ground soil disruptions.
a weight of 1200 kg and provides power of 25 Shallower sub soiling resulted in reduced sub
kW. This tractor was selected since it was soiling forces and reduced surface soil
instrumented to measure parameters affecting disturbance. The bent leg subsoilers provided
the tractor performance in another research maximum soil disruption and minimal surface
projects. To satisfy the later goal, the dynamometer disturbance and allowed surface residue to
was installed on the fore-mentioned tractor. Note remain mostly undisturbed. Bent leg shanks
the purpose of this dynamometer was to measure provide optimum soil conditions for conservation
the draught of either single or multi-bottom systems by disrupting compacted soil profiles
tillage tools. while leaving crop residues on the soil surface
to intercept rainfall and prevent soil erosion.
[39]Further revealed that computations related
to the dynamometer chassis was accomplished SOIL DISRUPTION AND ITS MEASUREMENT
based on the design parameters of the tractor
Soil disruption or disturbance is the amount of
and maximum horizontal force. The resultant soil loosened by a tillage tool represented by its
force P, exerted by tractor is resolved into total area. Determination of soil disturbance or
horizontal (FX), vertical (FY) and side (FS) amount of soil loosened by a tillage tool is
components over lower link arms and accordingly, highly essential when considering the effect of
FX and FY over upper link arms of the three- tillage and soil parameters on soil disruption.
point hitches. Among components of draught Several authors [8]; [43] have revealed
force, side force FS is less important, therefore Parameters affecting soil loosening. These are
measurement of this component was ignored tool parameters such tool geometry, width,
and horizontal force merely was measured in height, curvature, rake angle, tool speed, depth
upper link arm. of operation, soil consistency, soil structure,
consolidation, soil strength, soil cohesion, soil
[40] Mounted shanks on a dynamometer car adhesion, soil type, soil structure, soil texture,
with a 3-dimensional dynamometer, which had angle of internal soil friction, cone index, bulk
an overall draught load capacity of 44 kN. density, porosity and soil moisture. These properties
Draught, vertical, side force, speed, and depth of and factors have tremendous significant on the
operation were recorded.[41 Made use of load extent of soil disturbance during tillage operation.
cells in the measurement and mapping of soil
hard-pans and real-time control of subsoiler Hence, researchers normally take into
depth. Two load cells measured the resultant consideration the accurate measurement of the
magnitude and direction of the soil reactions on area of soil disruption. Several methods have
the shank. Another two load cells measured been applied in doing this. According to [44]
forces perpendicular to the straight shank with a and [20], measurement of area of soil disruption

International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018 28

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

by tillage tools was carried out by using the results significantly correlated to the pin meter
meter rule. According to them, a steel metric findings, but with the advantage that the time
rule was laid on the original soil surface level across invested in gathering field data was 12 to 20
the trench. The distance measured between the ruler times shorter.
and the slot bottom represented the maximum
Another work has been carried out by [52] in
furrow depth to mound height (after soil cut
order to reproduce reliable rough surfaces able
furrow depth) (Df), maximum width of soil
to maintain stable, un-erodible surfaces to avoid
disturbance (W),maximum width of soil throw
changes of retention volume during tests by a
(using a sweep) (MWS), ridge to ridge distance
set of roughness indices was computed for each
(S), height of ridge above soil surface (H), and
surface by using roughness profiles measured
maximum furrow depth to mound height (F).
with a laser profile meter, and roughness is well
[45] Explained a new measurement method for represented by quintiles of the Abbot–Firestone
soil surface profile. This method includes new curve. Image analysis techniques have recently
designed soil profile meter, digital imaging been employed to measure different soil
equipment and image tracking & analysis parameters, example two dimensional
software. Using such modified soil profile meter displacement vectors in soils obtained by a
can help to observe and measure changes that block-matching algorithm [53], however, this
occur in irrigation channels, small ditches and to algorithm is incapable of tracking individual
quantify changes at specific cross sections within particles, let alone their rotations. Several
soil furrows. The recorded profiles heights for algorithms have been developed to track soil
different locations gave a perspicuous particles and measure their movements by
knowledge about the geometry of furrows and detecting the edges of individual soil particles.
ditches shapes before and after seasonal [54] Observed the displacement distribution in
irrigation process. According to[45] each type of the soil near the structure using photographs and
tillage tool and ditch creating method generate a discussed the thickness of the sand–steel interface.
characteristic oriented roughness and profile
[42] In his work „In-row subsoilers that reduce
pattern which is relatively easy to quantify using
soil compaction and residue disturbance‟,
simple geometric models. Many common
reported that, after each set of tillage experiments
techniques for collecting soil surface data and
was conducted, a portable tillage profiler [55 -
the analysis of the respective dataset have been
discussed. Pin meters are the devices most 56] was used to determine the width and volume
widely used for their simplicity. They consist in of „spoil.‟ The disturbed soil was then manually
a single probe or a row of probes spaced at pre- excavated from the trenched zone for each plot
established intervals and designed to slide up or for approximately 1 m along the path of tillage
down until the tip just touches the soil surface. to allow five independent measurements of the
Pin positions are recorded either electronically area of the sub soiled soil that was disturbed by
or manually [46 -47]. The chief disadvantage to the tillage event in each plot. This measurement
this technique is its destructive impact on the is referred to as the „trench.‟ Care was taken to
soil surface while recording data in the field. ensure that only soil loosened by tillage was
[48] Designed and tested a portable meter under removed.
typical field conditions; the tool can measure [57] Used a soil disturbance measurement
depths up to 500 mm and easily be modified for profilometerto estimate the area of soil disruption.
usage with large ditches. The instrument was made up of medium carbon
Measuring soil profiles by Laser technology steel frame and a wooden board (ceiling board).
also had very good laboratory results, but its The total height of the equipment was 800 mm
field use is limited because sunlight and hidden and a total width of 750 mm. The ceiling board
forms or shadows interfere with the readings, was sandwiched between the frame and was
while high temperatures affect the performance supported firmly by four steel plates, two each
of the sensitive measuring devices [49 - 50]. on opposite sides of the equipment. A graph
[51] Conducted study to develop a new method paper, 750 mm by 600 mm was pasted on the
for measuring soil surface roughness that would board. 14 holes were drilled at the base of the
be more reliable by using the principle underlying frame at same distance from each other. 14
shadow analysis is the direct relationship between number 4 mm diameter rods were inserted on
soil surface roughness and the shadows cast by the holes. Each of these rods was curved into
soil structures under fixed sunlight conditions. round shape at both ends. The curved end on the
They showed that shadow analysis yielded upper side had 9 mm diameter.

29 International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

Another rod, 8 mm diameter was passed across below the reference line. Also, on the paper the
through the frame close to the top of the depth and width of disturbance were estimated.
equipment. This horizontal rod passed through
SUBSOILER DESIGNS AND THEIR EFFECTS
each of the vertical rods at the curved end. The
ON DRAUGHT AND SOIL DISTURBANCE
vertical rods were guided in front by two
horizontal rods placed across the equipment at [8]Revealed that aspect ratio (depth/width) and
two points. These had the ability to protect the rake angle (α) are two major variables in the
vertical aluminium rods from falling off the design and selection of the appropriate geometry
board while sliding down during operation. The for given tillage implements such as subsoiler.
vertical aluminium rods can easily fall or slide Wide blades and narrow tines with depth/width
down when the equipment is placed across a ratios less than 5 and rake angles less than 900
depressed soil and the horizontal rod at the top tend to fail the soil in crescent manner, with the
of the equipment is removed. Thus the vertical wide blade creating a wide slot and narrow
rods will slide downwards and rest according to blade, narrow slot especially when the aspect
the geometry of the disturbed soil. The tips of ratio increases. As the depth/width ratio
the vertical rods can easily be traced on the increases the soil failure changes such that there
graph paper on the board. is a small crescent close to the soil surface but
the soil at higher depth is forced laterally to
The profilometer was then placed across the soil produce a slot. Thus the transition from one type
disturbed. Then the horizontal rod holding the of failure to another is referred to as the critical
vertical sliding rods was removed, allowing the depth (Figure 1). Rake angle has considerable
aluminium rods to fall freely and rested according effects on soil disturbance pattern as shown in
to the geometry of the soil disturbance. A marker Figure 2 below. As demonstrated by [58], tines
was then used to trace the tips of the rods of 50 mm and 100 mm widths operating at a
accordingly on the graph paper. There after the depth of 150 mm, and rake angles 1600, 900 and
area on the graph was estimated in square 200 respectively, disrupt the soil in a manner as
centimeters (cm2) based on the number of squares shown.

Figure1: Effect of implement depth/width ratio on pattern of soil failure; Source:[59].

Figure2: Effect of rake angle on soil disturbance patterns for tines of 50 mm and 100 mm widths operating at a
depth of 150 mm, and 1600, 900 and 200 rake angles respectively; Source:[58]

International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018 30

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

Wings or sweeps attached to the foot of the tine The work of [7] shows how tine spacing can
modify the type of soil disturbance as shown by affect the soil disturbance pattern produced by a
the work of [12] in Figure 3,by doubling the pair of tines operating at the same depth in
disturbed area for an increase in draught force of Figure 4.The effect of this on the resulting
30%. This significantly increases the effectiveness draught force, area of disturbance and specific
of the operation, by reducing the specific resistance is presented in Figure 5.From this
resistance (draught/disturbed area) by 30%. The work and that from studies on subsoiling
soil condition also affects the type of failure for equipment by [12] the practical spacing
a given implement shape with the drier and more recommended for good soil loosening are
dense soils tending to produce crescent failure to approximately:(i) 1.5 x depth of work for simple
a greater depth than the wetter, looser soils. tines;(ii) 2.0 x depth of work for winged tines.

Figure3: Effect of adding wings to subsoiler tines on the draught force, soil disturbance pattern and specific
resistance in a compact dry claysoil; Source:[12].

Figure4: Profile cross-sections of soil disturbance produced at different tine spacing in acompact sandyloam
soil(tine:25 mmwide,450rakeangle, 150mm working depth); Source:[7].

Figure5: Relationship between tine spacing and draught force, disturbed area and specific resistance for a pair
of 25mm wide tines operating at 165mm deep. Open circles represent a single 50 mm wide tine. Source:[7].

31 International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

The effect of rake angle is shown in Figure 6 angle(αc)0 =90 - δ (where the angle of soil metal
from the work of [58] and [60]. This shows friction (δ) is approximately 22.50).
clearly how both the horizontal and vertical
The horizontal force increases at an increasing
forces increase with rake angle. The data also
rate for a 900 rake angle tine operating in
clearly demonstrate that for low draught and
uniform soil conditions shown in Figure
good penetration, implements should be
7.Thevertical force increases at a similar rate but
designed with a low rake angle. The cross-over
value for the vertical force from upward to is generally of smaller magnitude; this,
downward force is atapproximately67.50 for a however, is a function of the rake angle of the
simple plane steel tine, where the critical rake tine, as shown in Figure2 above.

Figure6: Effect of tine rake angle on horizontal (solid) and vertical (broken) forces, Source:[8].

Figure7: Effect of tine depth on the horizontal (solid) and vertical (broken) forces acting on a 90 0 rake angle
tine, Source:[8].
Further results from [60] shown in Figure 8, increases with speed. [8] Revealed that implements
confirm the data by [61], and demonstrate how designed with rake angles less than 900 (α<900)
the implement width effect the magnitude of the tend to cut, loosen, invert and smoothen the soil
horizontal and vertical force. The results of data while implements with rake angles equal to or
from [62] for a tillage tine of width (w) 30 mm greater than 900 (α = > 900) tend to consolidate,
and a depth (d) of 25 mm operating at speeds up disintegrate and compact the soil during operation
to 20 km/ h are given in Figure9, these results (Figure 10).
are similar to those found by [6] where the force

Figure8: Effect of tine width on the horizontal (solid) and vertical (broken) forces acting on a 908 rake angle
tine, Source:[8].

International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018 32

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

Figure9: Effect of tine speed on the measured() and predicted (solid line) horizontal force and the measured ()
and predicted (broken line) vertical force acting on a 400-rake angle, 30mm wide, 250mmdeep tine in frictional
soil; Source:[62].

Figure10: Optimal tine rake angles for a range of soil operations and basic implements, Source:[8]
CATEGORIES OF SUBSOILERS AND THEIR reversing subsoiler. Thus, subsoilers are
DRAUGHT AND POWER REQUIREMENTS designed with various shapes depending on the
[63] Revealed different categories of subsoilers. form of sub soiling operation that will be
Subsoiler shapes such as Swept shank, Straight performed. An important consideration
shank, Curved (semi-parabolic) shank, Parabolic concerning sub soiling is the amount of soil
shank, Winged type and no-wing type, rotary, disruption for different soil conditions to
Vibration and non-vibration types, Coulter increase the long-term benefits of sub soiling
subsoiler, Coulter with blades subsoiler, Coulter [65]. [66] Reported that many subsoilers have
with blades and reversing subsoiler were been designed and tested, using a number of sub
considered. There exists different shapes of soiling techniques for alleviating compacted
shank designs in subsoiler. Shank design affects layers of various types and conditions of soils.
subsoiler performance, shank strength, surface [11] Found that a straight shank subsoiler
and residue disturbance, effectiveness in mounted at a positive rake angle gave reduced
fracturing soil, and the horsepower required to draught compared to curved subsoiler in sandy
pull the subsoiler [43], [64]. Such shapes are loam soils. Comparisons between an angled and
Swept shank, Straight shank, Curved (semi- a curved shank in two soil bins by [56], showed
parabolic) shank, Parabolic shank, Winged type that shank positioned at a 520 angle from the
and no-wing type, rotary, Vibration and non- horizontal plane in the direction of travel had a
vibration types, Coulter subsoiler, Coulter with lower draught requirement compared to a curved
blades subsoiler, Coulter with blades and shank. [67] and[68] Worked on conventional,

33 International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

parabolic, and triplex subsoilers affirmed that rarely been studied or used in commercial
the parabolic subsoiler draught ranged from 11 agriculture.
to 16% less than that for the conventional subsoiler ADEQUATE USE OF SUBSOILERS
over the speed range tested.[1] Reported that a
Compacted layers are typically 30 – 55 cm
large track-laying tractor in the order of 50t
deep. Ideally, the shank's tip should run 2.5 - 5
mass was needed for three winged subsoilers
cm (1-2 inches) below the compacted soil layer.
operating at 90 cm depth.
If the shank's tip is too deep, subsoiling may
Transmitting power directly to tillage tools by increase compaction because the compacted
oscillating them, appears to provide an opportunity layer will not be fractured. Shank spacing will
for reducing drawbar pull. [64]Reported that to vary depending on soil moisture, soil type,
achieve effective sub soiling with a medium size degree of compaction, and the depth of the
tractor (30-45 kW), a four-shank vibrating compacted layer. Spacing should be adjustable
subsoiler was developed. More than 60% of so the worked area can be fractured most
draught reduction was obtained when operated. efficiently. Shank spacing of 75 – 105 cm (30 –
[69]Studied vibrating subsoilers and found that 42 inches) is preferred for adequate subsoiling
draught ratio decreased rapidly when the velocity (Figure 11). Horsepower requirements depend
ratio increased to 2.25. [70]Reported that the on soil moisture, the depth and thickness of the
lower draught requirement typically measured compacted layer, and to a lesser extent, the soil
under oscillatory tillage reduces the reliance on type. Each shank may require from 30 to 75
less efficient drawbar power, such that a lower horsepower.
overall demand on engine power may occur. [2]
Equipment speed can affect subsoiling. Travel
Compared vibratory and non-vibratory shank to
speed that is too high can cause excessive
find out their influence on draught requirements.
surface disturbance, bring subsoil materials to
It was revealed that the traction resistance with
the surface, create furrows, and bury surface
the vibratory subsoiler was 6.9 % - 17 % less than
residues. Travel speed that is too slow may not
that of non-vibratory one.
lift and fracture the soil adequately. Contractors
[71] Measured the effects of loosening practices may prefer to travel more quickly to improve
on subsoil compaction with deep rotary tillage their profit per acre. It is best to follow the
subsoiling to a depth of 600 mm the soil ground contour whenever possible while
recompacted within three years to the same or subsoiling. This helps increase water capture,
worse physical properties.[72]Reiterated that the protect water quality, and reduce soil erosion,
usage of rotary subsoilers can be partially especially in burned areas or areas susceptible to
justified by the higher efficiency of power being erosion. Stay clear of waterways, ditches, and
transferred to the soil rather than through the other areas where subsoiling could affect
tractor wheels when shanks are pulled through hydrology. Shanks should be lifted out of the
the soil. [73] Used a rotary subsoiler to improve ground frequently to clear stumps, rocks, and
infiltration in a frozen soil for newly planted logs and to remove slash from the subsoiler. It
winter wheat. It was found that water storage in might be wise to consult your local silviculturist
winter was significantly increased, and runoff for advice on subsoiling next to trees and other
and erosion were decreased as compared with established plants. Always be cautious of areas
the conventional subsoilers. [66] Recorded that that might have buried utility lines, culverts, or
rotary subsoiling is a new concept, not widespread diversion channels. Flag or mark such areas
in common hardpan loosening practices and had before subsoiling [13],[8]; [43].

Figure11: Correct and incorrect spacing and depth of operation of subsoilers. Source: [43]

International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018 34

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

CONCLUSION tools. ASAE, 1994; paper No. 80-1518, St.

Joseph, Mi. 20 pp.
Draughts and power requirements of subsoilers
[5] Manuwa, S. I. and Ademosun, O. C.. “Draught
for increased soil pulverisation was studied. and Soil Disturbance of Model Tillage Tines
Consideration should be given to the design of Under Varying Soil Parameters”. Agricultural
shanks shape of subsoiler, as they are very Engineering International: the CIGRE journal.
important to the efficiency and effectiveness of 2007; PM 06 016. Vol. IX.
subsoiling. Shanks should be designed to handle [6] Stafford, J., The performance of a rigid tine in
rocks, large roots, and highly compacted soils. relation to soil properties and speed. J. Agric.
Thinner shanks are suited for agricultural use. Eng. Res., 1984; 24 (1), 41–56.
Thicker shanks hold up better in rocky conditions, [7] Godwin, R.J., Spoor, G., Somroo, M. S. The effect
but require larger, more powerful equipment to of tine arrangement on soil forces and disturbance.
pull them and disturb the surface more. Bent J. Agric. Eng. Res., 1984; 29, 47–56.
offset shanks, such as those found on Para till [8] Godwin, R. J. A review of the effect of implement
subsoilers, have a sideways bend. Subsoiler geometry on soil failure and implement forces,
Soil & Tillage Research, 2007; 97, 331–340.
shanks may be parabolic (curved) shaped or
[9] Odey, S. O.Development of Instrumented
straight and with or without wings. In generalthe
Subsoilers and Effect of Compaction on Growth
power required to pull a parabolic shank is less and Yield of Soybean. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis,
than a straight shank. The addition of wings to Department of Agricultural and Environmental
either parabolic or straight shanks increases the Engineering, Federal University of Technology,
power requirement. Sub soiling requires very Akure, Nigeria, 2015.
high draft and mechanical energy. Draft [10] Gill, W. R., and Vanden Berg, G. E. Design of
requirements depend on soil type and condition, Tillage Tools. Chapter Five in Soil Dynamics
manner of tool movement, and tool shape. in Tillage and Traction, Agriculture HandBook,
Therefore, for a given soil type and condition, draft 1968; No. 316, pp. 211-297. Washington, D.C.:
requirements depend on geometry of the subsoiler U.S. Government Printing Office.
shank, travel speed, and depth of operation. Thus, [11] Upadhyaya, S. K., Williams, T. H., Kembie, L.
J., Collins, N. E. Energy requirements for chiselling
variation in power requirements depends on
in coastal plain soils. Transaction of the American
subsoiling depth, soil water conditions and the
Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1984; 27 (6),
amount of compaction. In order to achieve 1643-1649.
better soil disturbance, reduced draft force and [12] Spoor, G. and Godwin, R. J.Experimental
energy requirements, and less traction resistance, Investigation into the deep loosening of soil by rigid
the application of vibratory (oscillatory) and tines. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 1978; 23 (3), 243-258.
rotary subsoilers in modern day design and [13] Jones, A. J.; Bashford, L. L.; Grsso, R. D.
development of subsoilers are preferred for Subsoiling in Nebraska. Published by corporate
lower overall demand on engine power. Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural
Resources; University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
REFERENCES Nebraska Corporate Extension, 1996;NF96-258.
[1] Mollazade, K., Jafari, A. and Ebrahimi, E. [14] Sahu, R. K.andRaheman, H. Draught Prediction
Application of Dynamical Analysis to Choose of Agricultural Implements using Reference
Best Subsoiler‟s Shape Using ANSYS. New Tillage Tools in Sandy Clay Loam Soil. Journal
York Science Journal,2010; 3(3). 93-100. of Biosystems Engineering, 2006; 94(2), 275–
[2] Li, X., Zhang, D., Zhang, R., Osman, A. 284. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
N.Performance of an oscillating subsoiler in [15] Glancey J. L; Upadhyaya S K; Chancellor W J;
reducing resistance. Presentation of the American Rumsey, J. W. Prediction of agricultural implement
Society of Agricultural and Biological draught using an instrumented analog tillage tool.
Engineers.2012; Paper No. 12-1341191. St. Joseph, Soil and Tillage Research, 1996; 37, 47–65.
Michigan. [16] Godwin, R. J., O‟Dogherty, M. J. Integrated
[3] Sakai, K. H., Terao, Nambu, S.The dynamic soil tillage force prediction models. J.
behaviour of a tractor-vibrating subsoiler system Terramechanics, 2006; 24(4): 32 - 41.
and the effect of the virtual hitch point. Journal of [17] Odey, S. O., Manuwa, S. I. and Ewetumo, T.
Terramechanics, 1988; 25(4), 241-247. Instrumentation Assembly for Measuring
[4] Grisso, R. D. Perumpral, J. V. and Desai, C. S. Draughts Of Subsoilers In Outdoor Soil Bin
A soil-tool interaction model for narrow tillage Facility. International Journal of Research in

35 International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

Engineering and Science (IJRES), 2018; vol. [32] Kirisci, V., Blackmore, B.S., Godwin, R.J. and
06, no. 02, 2018, pp. 01–10. Blake, J. Design and calibration of three
[18] Chen, Y., McLaughlin, N.B. and Tessier, S. different three-point linkage dynamometers.
Double extended octagonal ring (DEOR) ASAE/CSAE, 1993; Paper No. 93-1009.
drawbar dynamometer. Soil and Tillage ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Research, 2007; 93: 462-471. [33] Hoag, D. L. and Yoerger, R. R. Analysis and
[19] Leonard, J. J. An extended-octagon rigid drawbar design of load rings. Transactions of ASAE,
dynamometer. Agricultural Engineering .Australia, 1975; 19: 995-1000.
1980; 9: 3-8. [34] Zoerb, G.C., Musonda, N.G. and Kushwaha,
[20] Ademosun, O. C. Soil Tillage Dynamics in R.L. A combined drawbar pin and force
Nigeria: Potentials Prospects and Challenges. transducer. Canadian Agricultural Engineering,
Proceedings of Nigerian Branch of International 1983; 25: 157-161.
Soil Tillage Research Organisation. ISTRO- [35] Tessier, S., Guilbert, A., McLaughlin, N.B. and
Nigeria Symposium, Akure, 2014;ISN – 978- Tremblay, D. A double EOR drawbar pull
187-472-4. Pp 26-31. transducer for 3-d force measurement, 1992;CSAE
[21] Robert, B. and Louis N. Electronic Devices and Paper No. 92-406. Csae, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Circuit Theory, Prentice-Hall International, [36] Tessier, S. and Ravonison, N. Finite element
Inc., New Jersey,1996; pp 819-825. analysis of extended octagonal ring transducers.
[22] Ewetumo, T. Development of 3D- Department of Soil and Food Engineering,
Magnetometer for Real-Time Measurement of University Laval, Quebec, Qc. Unpublished
the Geomagnetic Field Strength.Ph.DThesis, research report submitted to Agriculture and
Physics, FUT., Akure, Nigeria, 2011; pp 58-63. Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1997.
[23] Khan, J., Godwin, R.J., Kilgour, J. and [37] McLaughlin, N. B. Correction of an error in
Blackmore, B.S. Design and calibration of a direct equations for extended ring transducers.
mounted strain gauged lower links system for Transactions of ASAE, 1996; 39: 443-444.
measurement of tractor-implement forces. ARPN [38] McLaughlin, N.B., Chen, Y. and Tessier, S. Effect
Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, of strain gage misalignment on cross sensitivity in
2006; 1(1): 22-25. extended ring transducers. CSAE Paper 05-063.
[24] Scholtz, D. C. A three-point linkage dynamometer CSAE, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2005.
for restrained linkage. Journal of Agricultural [39] Alimardani, R., Fazel, Z., Akram, A.,
Engineering Research, 1966; 11(1): 33-37. Mahmoudi, A. and Varnamkhasti, M.G. Design
[25] Reece, A. R. A three point linkage dynamometer. and Development of a three-point hitch
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, dynamometer. Journal of Agricultural Technology,
1965; 6: 45-50. 2008; 4(1): 37 – 52.
[26] Lal, R. Measurement of force on mounted [40] Raper, R. L. Force Requirements and Soil
implements. Transaction of the ASAE, 1959; 1: Disruption of Straight and BentlegSubsoilers for
109-112. Conservation Tillage Systems. ASAE Meeting
[27] Baker, G. L., Smith, A. and Clowick, R. F. Presentation, 2002; Paper No. 021139. St.
Three point hitch dynamometer for directional Joseph, Mich.
force measurements. ASAE, 1981; pp. 81-1044. [41] Manor, G. and Clark, R. L. Development of an
[28] Chung, Y.G., Marley, S.J. and Buchele, W. F. Instrumented Subsoiler to Map Soil Hard-Pans
Development of a three-point hitch and Real-Time Control of Subsoiler Depth. ASAE
dynamometer. ASAE, 1983;Paper No. 83-1066. Annual International Meeting, Sacramento
[29] Palmer, A.L. Development of a three-point Convention Cente, Sacramento, California, USA,
linkage dynamometer for tillage research. August, 2001.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, [42] Raper, R. L. In-row subsoilers that reduce soil
1992; 52:157-167. compaction and residue disturbance. Publication of
[30] Al-Jalil, H.F., Khdair, A. and Mukahal, W. American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Design and performance of an adjustable three- Engineers (ASABE), 2007; Vol. 23(3): 253-258.
point hitch dynamometer. Soil and Tillage ISSN 0883−8542.
Research, 2001; 62: 153-156. [43] Kees, G. Using subsoiling to reduce soil
[31] Chaplin, J., Lueders, M. and Zhao, Y. Three compaction. Tech. Rep. 0834–2828–MTDC.
point hitch dynamometer design and calibration. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
ASAE Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 1987; Forest Service, Missoula Technology and
10-13. Development Center, 2008; 14 p.

International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018 36

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

[44] Ale, M. O, Ademosun, O. C., Manuwa, S. I., and Science (IJRES), 2018a;Volume 6 Issue 1, PP.
Agbetoye, L. A. S., Adesina, A, and Ewetumo, 26-32
T. Assembly and Performance Evaluation of [58] Payne, P. C., Jr. and D. W. Tanner. The
the Instrumentation System of a Soil bin for relationships between rake angle and the
Tillage Study. Proceedings of The Nigerian performance of simple cultivation implements.
Institution of Agricultural Engineers, 2013; Jour. Agr. Eng. Res., 1959; 4:312-325.
Vol. 34, 2013.
[59] Smith, D.L.O., Godwin, R.J., and Spoor, G.
[45] Hegazy, R. Soil Surface Profile Computation Modelling soil disturbance due to tillage and
using Portable Profile Meter with Image traffic. In: Larson, W.E., et al. (Eds.), Mechanics
Processing and Tracking Technique. Global and Related Processes in Structured Agricultural
Journal of Researches in Engineering General Soils. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Engineering, 2013; Vol. 13 Issue 3 Version 1.0. Netherlands,1989; pp. 121–136.
[46] Römkens, M.J.M., Singarayar, S., Gantzer, C.J. [60] Godwin, R. J. and Spoor, G. Soil failure with
An Automated Non Contact Surface Profile narrow tines. Journal of Agricultural
Meter. Soil Tillage Res., 1986; 6, 193–202. Engineering Research,1977;22: 213 – 228.
[47] Wagner, L.E., Yiming, Y. Digitization of [61] Payne, P. C. J. The relationship between the
profile meter photographs. Trans. ASAE, 1991; mechanical properties of soil and the performance
34 (2), 12–416. of simple cultivation implement Sakaits. J.
[48] Kornecki, T.S., Fouss, J.L., Prior S.A. A Agric. Eng. Res., 1956; 1 (1), 23–50.
portable device to measure soil erosion/deposition [62] Wheeler, P.N., Godwin, R. J. Soil dynamics of
in quarter-drains. Soil Use and Management,2008; single and multiple tines at speeds up to 20
24, 401- 408. km/h. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 1996; 63, 243–250.
[49] Pardini, G. Fractal scaling of surface roughness [63] Odey, Simon O. and Manuwa, Seth I. Subsoiler
in artificially weathered smectiterich soil regoliths. Development Trend in the Alleviation of Soil
Geoderma, 2003; 117 (2203), 157–167. Compaction for Sustainable Agricultural
[50] Darboux, F., Huang, C.H. An instantaneous Production. International Journal of Engineering
profile laser scanner to measure soil surface Inventions,2018b;Vol. 7, Issue 8, pp. 29-38.
microtopography. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 2003; [64] Sakai, K., Terau, H., and Matsui, K. The study
67, 92–99. on Vibratory soil cutting by a Vibratory Subsoiler
[51] Moreno, R.G., SaaRequejo, A., Tarquis Alonso, (Part 1.). The optima cutting directional angle.
A.M., Barrington, S., Díaz, M.C. Shadow Journal of Japanese Society of Agricultural
analysis: A method for measuring soil surface Machinery, 1993; 45(1): 55-62.
roughness. Geoderma,2008; 146, 201–208. [65] Raper, R. L., Sharma, A. K. Soil Moisture
[52] Borselli, L., Torri, D. Soil roughness, slope and effects on energy requirements and soil disruption
surface storage relationship for impervious reas. of subsoiling of coastal plain soil. Transaction of
Journal of Hydrology, 2010; 393, 389–400. the American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
[53] Guler, M., Edil, T.B., Bosscher, P.J. 2004; 47 (6), 1899-1905.
Measurement of particle movement in granular [66] Celik, A. and Raper, R. L. Design and
soils using image analysis. J Comput Civil Eng, Evaluation of ground-driven rotary subsoilers.
ASCE,1999; 13(2):116–22. Soil and Tillage Research, 2012; 124, 203-210.
[54] Hu, L., and Pu, J. Testing and modeling of soil– [67] Smith, L. A. and Williford, J. R. Power
structure interface. J GeotechGeoenvironEng,2004; Requirements of Conventional, Triplex,and
130(8):851–60. Parabolic Subsoilers. Transactions of ASAE,
[55] Raper, R. L., T. E. Grift, and M. Z. Tekeste. A 1988;Vol. 31(6), 1685-1688.
portable tillage profiler for measuring [68] Tupper, G. R. Low-Till Parabolic Subsoiler: A
subsoiling disruption. Transactions of the New Design for Reduced Soil Surface Disturbance
ASAE, 2004; 47(1): 23-27. and Power Requirement. Approved for publication
[56] Raper, R. L. Subsoiler shapes for site-specific as Journal Article No. PS8704 of the Mississippi
tillage. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station,
2005; 21 (1), 25-30. Mississippi State University, 1994.
[57] Odey Simon O. and Manuwa Seth I. Development [69] Bandalen, E. P., Salokhe, V. M., Gupta, C. P.
of Profilometer for Measuring Area of Soil and Niyamapa, T. Performance of an
Disturbance by Narrow Tillage Tools. Oscillating Subsoiler in Breaking a Hardpan.
International Journal of Research in Engineering Journal of Terramechanics, 1999; 36: 117-125.

37 International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018

Draughts, Power Requirements and Soil Disruption of Subsoilers

[70] Slattery, M. and Desbiolles, J. Energy use and Loosening practices and effects. Soil Till. Res.,
soil loosening performance of a vibratory subsoiler 1993; 54, 23-31.
for soil amelioration in established vineyards. [72] Miszczak, M. A torque evaluation for a rotary
Paper 28 of the E-proceedings of the Australian subsoiler. Soil and Tillage Research, 2005; 84,
Conference on Engineering in Agriculture, 26-29 175-183.
September, 2002, WagaWaga – New South [73] Williams, J. D., Wuest, S. B., Schillinger, W.
wales, Australia. F., Gollany, H. T. Rotary Subsoiling of newly
planted wheat fields to improve infiltration in
[71] Kooistra, M. J. and Boersma, O. H. Subsoil frozen soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 2006;
compaction in Dutch marine sandy loams: 86, 141-151.

Citation: Odey Simon O., Ovat Friday A. and Okon Orok O. (2018). “Draughts, Power Requirements and
Soil Disruption of Subsoilers”. International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology,
6(9), pp.24-38.
Copyright: © 2018 Odey Simon O., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology V6 ● I9 ● 2018 38