Soil Dynamics in Tillage and Traction: Agriculture Handbook No. 316

î4%
SOIL DYNAMICS
in
TILLAGE AND TRACTION
Agriculture Handbook No. 316
Agricultural Research Service

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
MBP0000263
SOIL DYNAMICS
in
TILLAGE AND TRACTION
By
WILLIAM R. GILL
Soil Scientist
Agricultural Engineering Research Division
and
Soil and Water Conservation Research Division
GLEN E. VANDEN BERG

Agricultural Engineer

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Trade names are used in this publication solely
to provide specific information. Mention of a trade
name does not constitute a warranty of the product
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or an endorse-
ment of the product to the exclusion of other products
not mentioned.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washin^srton, D.C., 20402 - Price $1.75 (paper cover)
Foreword
One of the most difficult problems of research workers, teachers,

and application engineers in any scientific and technical effort is to
obtain all of the existing pertinent knowledge on the specific subject
being investigated, taught, or applied.
There are at least two approaches to the solution of this problem.
One is to develop facilities for the ready retrieval of any publica-
tion pertinent to the specific subject. This approach is receiving wide
support, and good progress is being made by research and education
institutions, professional societies, and libraries in evolving rather
effective though often quite sophisticated systems of retrieving
information.
A second approach is to review, relate, evaluate, and assemble in
one volume or set of volumes all significant facts on a specific sub-
ject. This is a tedious, time-consummg activity, which requires broad
understanding and great skill. However, if well done, such reviews
are of great value to the scientific community. In fact, for the
progress of any discipline, periodic reviews of this type are an
essential supplement to even the best information retrieval system.
They serve as mileposts along the highway of knowledge.
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION is such
a milepost.
EUGENE G. MCKIBBEN, Director
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Preface
Soil dynamics is defined as the branch of knowledge that con-

siders the motion of soil. Soil movement results from man's attempts
(1) to change prevailing soil conditions to those that are more suit-
able or (2) to use soil for support and locomotion of vehicles. The
scope of soil dynamics thus includes soil-machine relations in both
tillage and traction. It is not restricted to agricultural soils and
problems since information on basic soil behavior is universally
applicable.
The tremendous amount of earth construction and land forming
throughout the world has made machine handling of soil increasingly
important in construction, military, and mining operations. The
final applications of soil dynamics knowledge may differ, but the
principles are independent of application.
This handbook is an attempt to convey both definitive and practical
information concerning soil dynamics to persons interested in tillage
and traction. The information has been brought together and de-
veloped in conjunction with the research program of the National
Tillage Machinery Laboratory, Auburn, Ala.
This is a handbook of ideas and concepts rather than methods or
procedures. The ideas stem from an attempt to wêld a comprehen-
sive organization of isolated bits of information into a coherent body
of knowledge that is designated soil dynamics. An attempt has been
made to be analytical as well as descriptive so that the significance
of data in the literature can be established. Where possible, mathe-
matical treatment has been developed in quantitative terms to express
specific soil-machine relations on the assumption that these relations
must obey fundamental laws.
Basic forms of soil behavior such as shear failure and sliding fric-
tion have been identified and quantitatively described by behavior
equations. Principles by which subordinate behaviors can be isolated
and quantitatively described are suggested. Definitive parameters
are inherent in each basic equation that describes a soil behavior.
These parameters, when identified and evaluated, provide a basis for
characterizing soil with regard to its movement behavior.
The feasibility of combining behavior equations into a simple soil-
machine mechanics is demonstrated. The procedure by which a com-
plete mechanics can be developed is described. Such a mechanics is
capable of describing and predicting the action of machines in terms
of performance. Criteria of performance are proposed and defined.
An evaluation of these criteria provides a basis for the design of
machines whose actions can be controlled and optimized.
Since only rudimentary behavior equations and soil-machine me-
chanics are available today, a sound theoretical basis for designing
soil tillage and traction machines does not exist. In the absence of
theoretical approaches, empirically established equations are proposed
PREFACE
as practical alternates. When properly developed, these equations

will provide information for designing soil tillage and traction
machines. The information will also contribute to the development
of a rigorous theoretical mechanics.
No attempt has been made to solve problems; rather it is estab-
lished that soil dynamics provides a fundamental approach for so
doing. This handbook has attempted to develop soil dynamics in
depth, scope, and extent so that it defines and delineates an area of
knowledge that will be a new discipline. Eesearch goals have been
suggested which should provide the information required to solve
most problems in soil dynamics.
Acknowledgment is made to A. W. Cooper, W. F. McCreery,
M. L. Nichols, C. A. Eeaves, and I. F. Eeed, who are members of the
National Tillage Machinery Laboratory staff, for assistance during
the preparation and review of the handbook.
Special acknowledgment is made to E. G. McKibben, W. M.
Carleton, L. A. Liljedahl, and S. W. McBirney of the Agricultural
Engineering Eesearch Division, Beltsville, Md., for their encourage-
ment and support of the project.
Acknowledgment is made to technical reviewers who are not mem-
bers of the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory Staff. They are :
W. F. Buchele, Agricultural Engineering Department, Iowa State
University ; L. O. Drew and T. H. Garner, Agricultural Engineering
Department, Clemson University; J. G. Hendrick, Department of
Agricultural Engineering, Auburn University; L. Johnson, Agricul-
tural Engineering Department, International Eice Eesearch Insti-
tute; S. Persson, Agricultural Engineering Department, Michigan
State University; J. A. Weber, Department of Agricultural Engi-
neering, University of Illinois; J. L. Dais, D. N. Koppes, N.
Osifchm, A. G. Vedejs, G. F. Weissmann, E. N. White and W. W.
Wood, members of the technical staff. Bell Telephone Laboratories.
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Historical 1
1.2 Soil Dynamics 3
1.3 Research Centers 5
1.3.1 The National Tillage Machinery
Iâboratory, Auburn, Ala. 6
1.3.2 The Army Mobility Research Center,
Vicksburg, Miss. 7
1.3.3 The Land Locomotion Laboratory,
Warren, Mich. 8
1.3.4 The National Institute of Agricultural
Engineering, Silsoe, England 8
1.3.5 Institute of Fundamental Research in
Agricultural Engineering, Volkenrode, Germany 10
1.3.6 Institute for Agricultural Mechanization,
Konosu, Japan 11
1.3.7 Other Research Centers 11
2. DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOILS 14
2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Stress in Soil 14
2.3 Strain in Soil 17
2.4 Stress-Strain Relations __ _ Z_~ZI 20
2.5 Soil Strength '___ 22
2.6 Stress Distribution _~II_ II_ 23
2.7 Strain Distribution _ _ _ _ _~~~___I"_" ..29
2.8 Yield in Soil __ I" __"_'_ __ "_""!""" 31
2.8.1 Shear IIII—II-"_-I_-I__II_I_._"_I 32
2.8.2 Compression __ 36
2.8.3 Tension _ _ _ ~~ ___ 37
2.8.4 Plastic Flow I_ _""" _ 39
2.9 Rigid Body Soil Movement I__I_ZIII_I 39
2.9.1 Momentum ~~ "~ Z"Jl ~ 40
2.9.2 Friction IIIIIIII_IIII__I__ _ 40
2.9.3 Adhesion IIIIIII_I_ZI_"~II_I 42
2.9.4 Abrasion II_I~I~II II __"_ II 52
2.10 Dynamic Versus Static Properties ___I__I_I_ I_ I "_"_" _"_I_ 53
3. ASSESSMENT OF THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL" "___ 55
3.1 Soil as a Physical System _ _ 55
3.2 Dynamic Parameters I" I I H "I QQ
3.2.1 Measuring Independent Parameters _I __~ _ _ ~~ 65
3.2.1.1 Shear __II I_~II aí
3.2.1.2 Tension IIIIIII Z.Jl.JlJl^ 74
3.2.1.3 Compression __ __ _ _ CA
3.2.1.4 Plastic Flow __"_ öQ
3.2.1.5 Friction I_ 22
3.2.1.6 Adhesion I-I-I'III _"~_'r_~~rri 89
3.2.2 Measuring Composite Parameters QQ
3.2.2.1 Penetration _ _ _ 04
3.2.2.2. Bearing Strength
3.2.2.3 Induced Strength ___ _ __ _ _ 100
3.3 Measuring Gross Dynamic Behavior 1X9
3.3.1 Rupture ~""~_ IAQ
3.3.2 Blast Erosion i}t¿
3.3.3 Abrasion I ,XQ
3.3.4 Movement -"""IIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIII—I—I 113
VI
CONTENTS Vil
4. MECHANICS OF TILLAGE TOOLS 117

4.1 Introduction }}!
4.2 The Reaction of Soil to Tillage Tools li¿
4.2.1 Principles for Developing a Mechanics ll»
4.2.2 The Complete Soil-Tillage Tool Mechanics 122
4.3 Mechanics of Simple Reactions 125
4.3.1 Inclined Tools 1^^
4.3.2 Vertical Tools 1^^
4.3.3 Cutting of Soil 14«
4.3.4 Conclusions l^jj
4.4 Soil Behavior in Simplified Systems l^Y
4.4.1 Soil-Metal Sliding 161
4.4.1.1 Measurement of Sliding Actions loi
4.4.1.2 The Sliding Path 170
4.4.1.3 Mechanics for Draft Force of
Sliding Actions 171
4.4.1.4 Scouring ^— 176
4.4.2 Penetration 181
4.5 Geometry of Soil-Tool Systems 191
4.5.1 Alteration of Tool Geometry by the
Formation and Adherence of Soil Bodies 192
4.5.2 Alteration of Tool Geometry Because of Wear 194
4.5.3 Soil-Tool Geometry 198
4.5.4 Orientation of the Soil-Tool System 205
4.5.5 Geometry of Interacting Tools 207
4.5.6 Conclusions 208
4.6 Mechanics of Complex Reactions 209
5. DESIGN OF TILLAGE TOOLS 211
5.1 Introduction 211
5.2 The Design Equations 212
5.3 Shape 219
5.3.1 Soil Loosening and Turning Tools 220
5.3.1.1 Macroshape 221
5.3.1.2 Microshape and Friction 232
5.3.1.3 Edgeshape and Wear 242
5.3.2 Soil Transporting Tools 249
5.3.3 Conclusions 255
5.4 Manner of Movement 255
5.4.1 Orientation 256
5.4.2 Path of Motion 260
5.4.3 Speed 263
5.5 Multipowered Tools 265
5.5.1 Electro-osmosis 266
5.5.2 Rotating Tools 269
5.5.3 Oscillating Tools 279
5.6 Implements — 288
5.7 Principles of Force Application 295
6. PERFORMANCE OF TILLAGE TOOLS 298
6.2 Description of Soil Conditions 300
6.3 Objectives of Tillage 308
6.4 Measuring Performance 310
6.4.1 Forces 310
6.4.2 Soil Conditions 318
6.4.2.1 Breakup 319
6.4.2.2 Segregation 322
6.4.2.3 Mixing 325
6.4.3 Specialized Tillage Actions 326
6.4.3.1 Handling Plant Residue 326
6.4.3.2 Insertion of Foreign Materials into Soil 330
6.4.3.3 Separating 332
6.5 Evaluating Performance 334
MECHANICS OF TRACTION AND TRANSPORT 340
7.2 Mechanics of Traction Devices 341
7.2.1 Nonrolling Traction Devices 342
vin CONTENTS
7.2.2 Rolling Traction Devices 345

7.2.3 Transport Devices 354
7.3 Characterizing Traction and Transport Devices 355
7.3.1 Dynamic Stress Distributions 355
7.3.2 Deflections or Movements Between
Devices and the Soil 362
7.3.3 The Shape of the Contact Surface 364
7.4 Evaluating Traction Performance 365
7.4.1 Criteria of Performance 366
7.4.1.1 Drawbar Pull 366
7.4.1.2 Speed and Slip 368
7.4.1.3 Energy Efíiciency 374
7.4.1.4 Load-carrying Capacity 376
7.4.2 Measures of Performance 377
7.4.3 Evaluation of Performance 379
7.5 Design of Traction and Transport Devices 381
7.5.1 Transport Devices 386
7.5.2 Driven Wheels 392
7.5.3 Tracks 405
7.5.4 Auxiliary Devices I 410
7.5.5 Operational Control of Design Factors 413
7.6 Vehicle Design, Use, and Performance 416
7.6.1 Vehicle Morphology 416
7.6.2 Vehicle Capabilities IIIII_II__ 417
7.7 Relative Importance of the Soil and the
Vehicle on Traction and Transport Capabilities 419
7.8 Predicting Traction Performance 420
8. SOIL COMPACTION I III"..!!!!! 430
8.1 Introduction ~ " 430
8.2 Compaction Behavior Equations l^l 2__2 I I 431
8.3 Compaction in Tillage and Traction " 441
9. SOIL DYNAMICS IN SOIL-MACHINE SYSTEMS _" 447
9.1 Systems Analysis 447
9.2 Soil Dynamics as a Discipline II " _ 450
9.3 Soil Dynamics and Tillage ~ I ~_I_ _" ~I_ 452
9.4 Soil Dynamics and Traction ___ I~I II__ I I__ AKQ
9.5 Conclusions - - - _
10. SELECTED REFERENCES _ _ __" TaL
11. GLOSSARY "_"" 1^^
12. INDEX _I___ 1^^
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Historical
Soil dynamics, a phase of soil science and mechanics concerned
with soiîs in motion, may be defined as the relation between forces
applied to the soil and the resultant soil reaction. This definition does
not restrict the source of the force applied to the soil ; consequently,
the dynamic reactions that result from the natural forces of wind,
water, and other sources are included. Reactions due to wind and
water are of paramount importance in erosion and hydrology and
the mechanics of these reactions are being studied ( 72, 391 )}
Only reactions caused by mechanical forces applied directly to the
soil are considered here. The dynamic reactions of soil in tillage and
traction affect the design and use of machines that handle soil.
Because the interrelations are of primary interest, ihç^ tool (or trac-
tion device) and the soil must be considered together.
In order not to restrict the final application of the research find-
ings, tillage is defined as mechanical manipulation of the soil (for
any purpose). This definition may be difficult to accept, but the
same type of plow that plows soil for agricultural purposes may also
be the basic tillage unit of a machine that lays antitank mines for
military purposes. The bulldozer does exactly the same work when
leveling land for irrigation and drainage purposes as when leveling
land for new buildings, roads, and parks. Tillage is therefore defined
in terms of applying forces rather than in terms of the reason for
which the forces are applied. .
Traction is the force derived from the soil to pull a load. This torce
is exerted against the soil by a traction device such as a wheel, track,
winch sprag, or spade. The dynamic resistance of the soil to provide
traction is supplied through an interaction between the traction de-
vice and the soil. This interaction is very complex and little head-
way has been made in solving some of the problems that result from
the interaction.
The practical importance of soil dynamics in tillage and traction
has been known for many years; however, soil dynamics research
has been conducted only since 1920. Until that time no concerted
effort was made to bring information together and to direct research
along fundamental lines so as to solve complex problems in tillage
and traction. What may have been the first doctorate thesis in agri-
cultural engineering in the United States was written by E. A.
White at Cornell University in 1918. It was entitled "A Study of the
Plow Bottom and its Action Upon the Furrow Slice." No doubt this
thesis will stand as í\\Q landmark identifying the point where a more
theoretical approach in the study of tillage tools began.
1 Italic numbers in parentheses refer to Selected References, p. 460.

1
^ AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
The initial flourish of research in soil dynamics that was started

in the 1920's increased until the mid-1930's, at which time it di-
minished for several reasons. Certainly the economic depression in
the 1930's and World War II wêre major contributing factors. In
addition, however, agricultural production increased tremendously
because of mechanization of agriculture and heavy applications of
fertilizer. Eesearch funds were directed toward this type of research.
One additional factor, which was by no means of minor importance,
was that the personnel who had been active in the original surge of
research moved into different positions. Frequently these positions
were administrative or were no longer allied with soil dynamics
research. Since most of the research was conducted by individual
workers, the programs were not self-perpetuating after the worker
left his assignment.
Advances in soil dynamics research since 1950 indicate that it is
again becoming a fully recognized area of research.
The American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) aided
greatly in establishing soil dynamics as a distinct and fundamental
area of research. The details of this recent activity are well known
in comparison to other areas of research. According to Baver {32 )^
Schubler was apparently the first to present a comprehensive and
systematic picture of the physical properties of soil. In a similar
manner. Baver {32 ) singles out Wollny as the individual who de-
fined the physical properties of soils from the point of view of
plant growth. Terzaghi and Peck ( 4^7 ) and others ( 18^^ 4^1 ) uni-
fied soil mechanics into a separate entity. The inspiration for each of
these studies undoubtedly came from a large number of individuals
whose names are not known. Nevertheless, these individuals spun
the loose fibers of diverse facts into a thread of organized knowledge.
In soil dynamics, undoubtedly the basic research of White ( 502^
503 ) pointed out the possibilities of research along rigorous lines.
Initially, the inspiring force came largely from R. W. Trullinger,
who was then in the Office of Experiment Stations, Department of
Agriculture. As chairman of the ASAE's Research Committee, he
advocated basic research and led the Society into an era of stimulating
research in soil dynamics ( 4^8-441 ). However, the systematic, basic
research program under the leadership of M. L. Nichols, then of the
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, should be recognized.
Much of the work of Nichols and his colleagues was published in
Agricultural Engineering under the title Soil Dynamics, and the
series of articles proved to be a classical series of papers for that
journal ( 105,106, 234, 235, 312-320 ). This work and other work in
the field at Prattville, Ala., led to the establishment of the National
Tillage Machinery Laboratory. Plans and suggestions of the person-
nel of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute (now Auburn University)
and the Bureau of Agricultural Engineering (now a part of the
Agricultural Research Service) of the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture were developed into a proposal. Supported by the American
Farm Bureau Federation, the proposal ultimately resulted in legisla-
tion that established the Laboratory as a USD A facility at Auburn,
Ala., in 1935.
Simultaneously with the development of soil dynamics in the
United States, research in the same general area was being con-
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION ó
ducted at the Kothamsted Experiment Station, England. The imagi-

nation, versatility, and productivity of the research of this Station
was outstanding and has been reviewed in considerable detail by
Keen ( 214 ) ; most of the reports on this research were published in
the Journal of Agricultural Science. Similarly, Russian and German
scientists have been extremely productive in soil dynamics research
( 28^ 103^ 158^ 3^2^ 515 ). Not all soil dynamics research, however,
was conducted in conjunction with agriculture. C. F. Jenkin, a
British civil engineer, suggested in 1932 that the experimental work
of Eathje and the theoretical work of Love provided a basis for
urgently needed research on plowing ( 201 ).
1.2 Soil Dynamics
A collective undertaking of the ASAE research committee re-
sulted in a comprehensive review by McKibben ( 266 ) of the factors
involved in soil dynamics. A brief summary of that report follows:
1. Natural soil is a result of geology, climate, and vegetation and
the time that the last two agents have been acting on the first.
2. Soils are modified by amendments, weather, and tillage and
other management practices.
3. A soil thus formed can be described by the condition of the
following physical, biological, and chemical properties:
a. Weathered solid matter: Elements, inorganic compounds,
organic compounds, organisms, texture, shape of particles,
and structure, size, shape, and arrangement of the aggregates.
b. Un weathered solid matter : Eocks and gravel ; plant material.
c. Liquid: Solvent and solute.
d. Temperature of soil.
4. Certain composite properties made up of a number of physical,
chemical, and biological properties listed in item 3 have been used
in attempts to make comparisons. These include moisture coeffi-
cients, specific gravity, and volume weight.
5. A definite atomic and molecular attraction complex results from
any combination and arrangement of the chemical, physiological,
and biological properties. This complex produces a definition of
these properties described as—
a. Cohesion (attraction between like molecules).
b. Adhesion (attraction between unlike molecules).
6. Certain working or shaping characteristics of a soil are caused
by the complexes mentioned in item 5.
a. Degree of plasticity (relation of elastic limit and point of
rupture).
b. Degree of hardness (relative resistance to permanent de-
formation).
c. In most materials these characteristics are determined by
empirical methods and expressed by arbitrary scales.
7. Certam relatively simple mechanical properties are also caused
by the complexes mentioned in item 5.
a. Tensile strength (tenacity).
b. Compressive strength.
c. Shearing strength.
d. Friction coefficients.
e. Modulus of elasticity.
4 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
These mechanical properties may be determined by more or less

standardized tests based on mathematical principles.
8. Certain composite mechanical properties are also caused by the
complex factors mentioned in item 5.
a. Resistance to penetration.
b. Bearing strength.
c. Tillage resistance characteristics.
d. Traction characteristics.
Tests for these properties have been and probably will continue
to be empirical in nature.
Evaluation of soil is still largely based on the concepts embodied
in the report by McKibben. Whiíe we have made some advances in
areas not specifically included in the foregoing outline, these ad-
vances have merely expanded some of the major outlined points.
Nichols ( 3H ) formulated and organized the elements of soil
d^^namics and provided a general classification of the variables in
soil dynamics studies. He posed questions that needed to be answered
by work in soil dynamics. These qnestion&Tiot only established the
scope of the problem but also served as a basis on which to establish
research objectives. The following types of questions were used:
What design of plow bottom is best adapted for push-soils ? What
design of plow will accomplish a given objective with the least draft?
What size of wheel and width of tire are most desirable for a given
load on a given soil?
Having established the scope of the soil dynamics problem, Nichols
pointed to two research ob]ectives: (1) to determine the reaction
properties of the soil to applied force as a basis for designing imple-
ments; and (2) to design simple tests by which soils can be compared
or their actions can be accurately predetermined.
Inherent in attaining the first objective is a logical method of
procedure, which is to determine the soil and implement variables
that enter into tillage problems and the interrelation of these vari-
ables. Nichols suggested a classification of the variables entering into
soil dynamics studies for use in obtaining the second objective.
1. Primary soil factors (measurable or controllable) : particle
size, colloidal content, moisture (percentage), apparent specific
gravity (state of compaction), organic matter, chemical composition
of colloid.
2. Design variables (controllable) : kind of metal, polish, bearing
area, curvature of surface applying force.
3. Dynamic properties of the soil (measurable) : coefficient of in-
ternal resistance (or shear value), friction, resistance to compression,
adhesion, moment of inertia.
4. Dynamic resultants (measurable) : fragmentation, arch action,
compaction, shear.
The interrelations among these factors constitute cause-and-efïect
relationships. Indeed, the accurate prediction of the reaction of a
soil to a force, as sought by Nichols, is more nearly the purpose of a
soil-machine mechanics than is a classification scheme. Given all of
the parameters and relations that describe a reaction, the elements
may then be classified into certain general natural relationships.
The major emphasis in this handbook is to examine the information
that is available or that is needed to establish accurate relationships.
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION Ö
The inability to measure and characterize soils has been the limiting
factor in soil dynamics.
The factors suggested by Nichols may presumably be related to
each other in some quantitative fashion. Soil dynamics constitutes
the basis on which to establish, interpret, and use all of the possible
relations that are involved. The problem may be broken down into
two general areas that center around practical objectives: (1) a
basic area, in which soil-machine dynamic relations and interactions
are established; (2) an application area, in which the performance
of a machine in a soil system is determined. The soil-machine me-
chanics should apply to all possible soil reactions and serve as a
basis on which the dynamic properties of soil can be used. Evalua-
tion of performance cannot be restricted to dynamic properties since
economic, soil, machine, plant, social, and other factors must be
considered. The number and kind of factors to be considered depend
on the specific application.
1.3 Research Centers
Following the decline in research in soil dynamics during World
War II, the resumption of research was slow. Since 1950, however,
the work has been expanding at an increasing rate and new research
centers are being developed. Because of the specific requirements of
soil dynamics research, future work will probably be conducted at
these research centers where specialized research facilities and per-
sonnel can be concentrated. For example, results obtained from
models are difficult to apply to full-scale equipment. Hence, appa-
ratus is needed that can handle full-size equipment and large
volumes of soil. The soil at these research centers is usually selected
on the basis of its physical properties, and it is frequently moved
to the center from great distances.
Rarely are attempts made to reconstruct soil profiles; rather, uni-
form soil conditions are established to provide a homogeneous soil
material. Special soil-fitting machinerv is required to establish and
maintain specific soil conditions {351). Considerable improvement
in this type of machinery is needed.
Another requirement arises since accurate measurements can be
made only when the device being examined is moved through the
soil at controlled speeds, orientations, and depths while resulting
forces are being measured. A track or guidance system, therefore,
must be used to maintain a fixed path for the device throughout a
test lane. Attempts to use portable tracks have not been successful,
and more workers are resorting to fixed tracks. The fixed-track sys-
tem is so specialized that it has little other use; hence, it must be
used continuously for that purpose once it is constructed. Because of
these factors, the facilities required in conducting the research are
not only specialized but also very expensive. The result is that these
facilities are constructed only when a long-range specialized program
is to be pursued. Since no two of the existing research centers have
facilities with the same capabilities, research on all types of prob-
lems cannot be conducted at every center. Specific problems may be
handled better at one center than another. However, the willingness
of the research agencies to cooperate to prevent needless duplication
is most encouraging.
Not all research utilizes full-scale equipment; smaller bins are

often used for studies with small tools or models. Workers at many
locations have small model equipment and their output of research
data has been prolific. Small oins may be moved on tracks while the
device to be investigated is held rigid. As the size of the soil bin
increases, the tool is moved and the oin remains stationary. Limita-
tations of speed and space are quickly encountered when small bins
are used so that there is always a need to compromise between the
size of the bin and the volume of soil that must be prepared. Be-
cause the preparation of soil becomes a problem when the required
volume increases, efforts are made to keep this operation to a
minimum.
A number of laboratories and organizations are engaged in re-
search in soil dynamics. A description of several of these research
centers is presented to show the type of research each is capable of
undertaking. Actually, improvements and expansions at most of
these centers are increasing their capabilities.
1.3.1 The National Tillage Machinery Laboratory, Auburn, Ala.
The National Tillage Machinery Laboratory (NTML), a research
facility of the Agricultural Research Service of the T^.S. Department
of Agriculture, has 11 large bins of soil in which full-size wheels,
tracks, vehicles, and tillage tools may be operated (fig. 1). The
FIGURE 1.—Soils varying in composition from sand to clay are contained

in bins 250 feet long and 20 feet wide at the National Tillage Machinery
Laboratory. Special measuring machinery operating on side rails permits
only the device under study to be in contact with the soil.
various forces acting on wheels or tools and the soil can be studied
to determine the basic dynamic relationships and soil reactions. The
soils vary in mechanical composition from sand to clay and provide
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION <
a wide range of soil material. The soils are prepared for tlie various
investigations with specialized machinery, and moisture can be con-
trolled to some degree by covering the plots or by watering them \yith
a special mobile sprinkler apparatus. Indoor facilities provide bet-
ter control of the environment for two large bins. Indoor labora-
tories provide facilities for emphasis on studies that do not require
full-scale tillage and traction machinery.
1.3.2 The Army Mobility Research Center, Vicksburg, Miss.
The Army Älobility Research Center, U.S. Army Engineers "Water-
ways Experiment Station, conducts research to determine the traffic-
ability of soil. Major emphasis is placed on soft soils where im-
mobilization of vehicles or aircraft is likely to occur.
A unique feature of the Center is an indoor small testing facility.
As shown in figure 2, this facility utilizes an overhead set of rails
FIGURE 2.—Movable soil bins and dynamometer, at the Army Mobility Research
Center, for determining the performance of normal-size wheels on different
soils and soil conditions. Electrical signals generated by the detecting device
are transmitted through instrumentation cables to recording equipment.
(Photograph courtesy of U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station)
on which the test car is operated. The soil bins are fitted with the
desired soil and then positioned under the guide rails during the
test. Forces can be measured on wheels at speeds up to 25 m.p.h.
A large indoor soil crushing and mixing plant is available for pre-
paring soil so that measurements can be made on a continuous basis
at any time of the year.
This Center probably has the largest concentration of (1) person-
nel; (2) instruments for measuring, recording, and processing re-
search data; and (3) supporting soil evaluation facilities for soil
8 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. Oí' AGRICULTURE
dynamics research. Research at the Center has covered many phases

of soil-veliicle relations that are important in all types of ofï-the-road
operations ( ^88 ).
1.3.3 The Land Locomotion Laboratory, Warren, Mich.
The Land Locomotion Laboratory of the U.S. Army Ordnance
Corps has pioneered in developing a land locomotion mechanics that
emphasizes the physical relations between the morphology of vehicles
ana the environment of their operation. Most of the work concerns
off-the-road operations. Many of the studies are theoretical ; but with
the aid of scale models tliey are frequently extended into experi-
mental studies for verification of j)rinciples. A sunnnary of the re-
searcli «¡¡proach and of some of the work that has been conducted
at this Laboratory has been published ( 35, 37 ). The use of models,
such as the one shown in figure 3, has reduced the time and expense
FIGURE 3.—A small model vehicle at the Land Locomotion Laboratory provides
an economical means of studying soil and vehicle parameters. The char-
acteristics believed to be of importance in land locomotion are being studied
for many soil conditions. (Photograph courtesy of U.S. Army Ordnance
Corps Land Locomotion Laboratory)
of research in the dynamic relations between vehicles and soil. Arti-

ficial soils have been used with the models to overcome some of the
disadvantages of natural soils. Full-size experimental vehicles have
been developed and evaluated at this Laboratory so that the overall
soil-vehicle system can be studied.
1.3.4 The National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe,
England
Research in soil dynamics is conducted at the National Institute of
Agricultural Engineering without the use of large soil bins. Research
in soil-implement relations has been studied with mobile testing
units that can be used under field conditions. Figure 4 shows the
dynamometer unit designed to measure tlie forces acting on tillage
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TIIXAGE AND TRACTION
FIGURE 4.—A mobile dynamometer unit .it the National Institute of Agricul-
tural Knglneerlng used to study the forces on tillage tools under dynamic
operating conditions. The electronic signals produced by the measuring
devices are recorded in an Instrument vehicle, which drives beside the test
vehicle. (Photograph courtesy of National Institute of Agricultural En-
gineering )
FIGURE 5.—The single-wheel tester at the National Institute of Agricultural

Engineering used to determine the drawbar pull of wheels through a wide
range of wheel slips. (Photograph courtesy of National Institute of Agri-
cultural Engineering)
tools. Depth is controlled by small outrigger tracks, and this method

appears to be satisfactory for a number of investigations. Tractive
work is conducted with a versatile single-wheel tester unit, shown
in figure 5 ( 310 ). The application of torque to the test wheel does
not result in a load transfer to the wheel during operation.
Both of these units may be used in the field without guide rails or
tracks so tliat fixed control facilities are not recjuired. In addition,
the units may be used in a variety of natural soil conditions; elab-
orate soil-fittmg equipment to duplicate natural conditions is not re-
quired. Considerable theoretical and experimental work concerning
the forces acting on tillage tools has been conducted witli this type
of equipment.
1.3.5 Institute of Fundamental Research in Agricultural Engi-
neering, Volkenrode, Germany
The Institute of Fundamental Research in Agricultural Engineer-
ing of the Agricultural Research Center has conducted research
concerning the forces acting on tillage tools. The mobile testing
apparatus shown in figure 6 has been used in this research. The
FIGURE 6.—The mobile plow testing unit used by the Institute of Fundamental
Research in Agricultural Engineering is shown with a disk plow in operating
position. An auxiliary engine permits rotation of the disk during operation.
(Photograph courtesy of Institute of Fundamental Research in Agricultural
Engineering)
apparatus is arranged so that the forces can be measured on a

powered rotating disk as it is drawn through the soil. The forces
acting on tillage tools operating in stony field soils can be measured
with this unit. The power required to make certain basic soil cuts
with individual rotary tiller tines has been determined by the use of
model testing facilities in laboratory studies. Reports on basic
studies of the forces acting on simple tillage tools have been a wel-
come addition to the world literature. Both theoretical and experi-
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 11
mental work on stress distribution and soil compaction have been
conducted at this Institute.
1.3.6. Institute for Agricultural Mechanization, Konosu, Japan
Soil bins have recently been constructed at the Kanto-Tosan Agri-
cultural Experiment Station at Konosu, Japan. The bins are now
under the jurisdiction of a newly created Institute for Agricultural
Mechanization. As shown in figure 7, these bins have many features
FIGURE 7.—The Institute for Agricultural Mechanization is equipped with six

soil bins 150 feet long and 15 feet wide. The transfer car in the foreground
is used to move the test machine from one bin to another or to the storage
area. A single machine is used both for preparing soil and for conducting
the tests. (Photograph courtesy of Kanto-Tosan Agricultural Experiment
Station)
of the bins at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory, Auburn,

Ala., including the tracks on which to oi)erate the measuring and soil-
preparation machinery. A considerable amount of the anticipated
research at this facility will be concerned with paddy-type soils.
Studies have been made of the power requirements of rotary tillers,
plows, and other tillage tools as well as of the traction and flotation
of wheels, tracks, and vehicles.
1.3.7 Other Research Centers
Many universities, experiment stations, and private and public
research institutions are also engaged in research in soil dynamics,
but the size of equipment that may be studied is limited. Individual
agricultural engineering and soil departments have made numerous
contributions, and many of these are described in chapters 3-8. Re-
search work from isolated departments tends to be intermittent be-
cause it is not the main research objective of the department.
Research is conducted by a number of conmiercial concerns and the
development of special research departments for this type of work is
increasing. Figure 8 shows some of the model facilities developed
12 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
FIGURE 8.-—A highly mechanized model testing apparatus used by the Cater-
piller Tractor Company. (Photo courtesy of Caterpillar Tractor Company)
FIGURE9.—A simple model apparatus at the National Tillage Machinery

Laboratory used to determine soil reactions that occur around tillage tools.
A glass side permits observation of underground soil reactions.
by the Caterpillar Tractor Company, Peoria 111. (78). The unit is

completely mechanized so that the soil may be fitted automatically by
a preset machine program. Not all model facilities are this large;
few are mechanized beyond the movement of the soil or the device
under test. One apparatus that has been used for a number of years
at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory is shown in figure 9.
This type of inexpensive apparatus is an extremely valuable research
tool when principles of simple systems are of interest.
The numerous facilities indicate that a collective effort is under-
way to enter a new era of research in soil dynamics. The applica-
tions of the various research agencies will differ, but work will be
based on the same underlying principles. The need arises to assess
our present position and to proceed in such a manner that funda-
mental knowledge is increased. Emphasis has been placed on secur-
ing practical answers, whereas the more basic aspects of problems
have been neglected. A study of numerous reports concerning tillage
and traction research indicates that failure to produce tangible re-
sults is usually traceable to the lack of information concerning fun-
damental parameters of the system. While there is need for infor-
mation that can be applied to a solution of intermediate problems,
more emphasis should be directed toward basic aspects of the
problems.
Continued effort must be made to coordinate research and to in-
crease cooperative research in order to use the very special and ex-
cellent facilities available for soil dynamics studies. This would pre-
vent the duplication of expensive control and measuring apparatus
that might later remain idle because of limited applications by a
particular research agency. The attitude and progress in this re-
spect has been commendable, and it is becoming apparent that there
is a mutual understanding and appreciation of the basic factors
underlying diverse applications of the research information.
2. DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOILS
2.1 Introduction
The dynamic properties of soil are properties made manifest
through movement of the soil. If a block of soil resting on a flat
surface is moved, the resultant friction is a dynamic property of the
soil; this property cannot be determined until movement occurs.
Similarly, as loose soil is compacted, its strength increases; hence,
strength is a dynamic property of soil. When soil moves, forces act
that cause deformation or actual physical displacement. To describe
the relations between the applied forces and resulting deformation,
certain basic mathematical equations containing parameters are re-
quired. The parameters are measures of the dynamic properties of
the soil.
The structure or texture of soil is not a dynamic property. The
structure may be changed as a result of movement, but it may be
measured both before and after the movement. Such is not the case
for dynamic properties. Studying dynamic reactions is difficult be-
cause the physical measurements must be made during the action.
In addition, the insertion of measuring equipment into the soil mass
may affect the soil reaction. The equipment may behave differently
than the soil, if, for example, it is harder or softer than the soil. In
spite of these difficulties, considerable progress has been made both
in identifying dynamic properties and in utilizing these properties
to describe the reaction of soil to forces {16).
2.2 Stress in Soil
Describing forces acting in soil is not as simple as first appearances
indicate. When discussing a finite block of soil, as in the case of
sliding friction, vector representation of the gravity forces, me-
chanically applied forces, and friction forces is probably sufficient.
Even describing the distribution of forces within the finite block is
not too difficult. When considering, however, that the mass of soil
under discussion is usually a semi-infinite medium where the applied
forces are distributed over a small finite section of the boundary, the
problem becomes much more difficult. The concept of force per unit
area becomes meaningless in a three-dimensional semi-infinite me-
dium where neither direction nor a finite area is fixed. A method
IS thus required to describe the forces acting at each point within
and on the medium.
The state of stress at a point is one method of describing forces
within a medium. The method can be developed in a rigorous math-
ematical manner if the material is assumed to be continuous—that is,
without any holes or gaps, unfortunately, the soil is not continuous
since it has pores and is a granular material. The mechanics of the
14
continuum, however, has been successfully applied to metals and

fluids that appear as solids on a macroscopic level but that appear
as mostly empty space on an atomic level. The difference between
continuity of soil and continuity in a metal is thus a difference of
degree rather than of quality. Since a finite area is required when
dealing with a soil mass, either for measurements or for physical
manipulation, the assumption of the continuum appears to be justi-
fied as long as the smallest area discussed is physically much larger
than the pores or individual aggregates of the soil. The concept of
stress has been successfully applied to soil by such workers as Bekker,
Nichols, Payne, Soehne, and Terzaghi, ( 37,106, 829, 398, ^^7 )., By
using stresses to describe forces in soil, each worker has assumed the
continuum whether expressly stated or not. However, when extend-
ing the description to soils containing large pore spaces, in which the
ratio of area under discussion to pore size is large, caution must be
exercised to be sure that the description remains realistic.
If an imaginary plane is passed through a body, the material on
one side of the plane exerts a force on the material on the other side.
If a small area ÙÂ containing point O lying in the plane is selected,
the vector sum of forces F acting on that area can be determined.
The calculus limit of the ratio of F to AA when AA shrinks to zero
is defined as the stress vector T at the point O associated with the
plane,
T = lim ^. (1)
For the limit to exist and have physical meaning, the area must be
continuous ; hence, the mathematical requirement for the continuum.
The stress vector T is usually broken into components normal to the
plane and tangent to the plane. Although many methods are used
to designate stresses, one common method uses the Greek letter sigma
(er) for normal stresses and the Greek letter tau (r) for shearing
stresses that are tangent to the plane. An appropriate subscript is
generally used to indicate the plane with which each stress is as-
sociated.
If another plane is passed through the same point O, usually a
different stress vector will be found. Since an infinite number of
planes can be passed through the same point some simple method is
required for calculating the stress vector on any plane once certain
specified values are given. It is possible to proceed along well-known
lines established by the mechanics of a continuous medium ( 119,
190 ). Specifying the stress vectors on three mutually perpendicular
planes is sufficient. Vanden Berg ( ^58 ) has pointed out that such
a specification requires nine quantities and in this case represents an
entity that is, by mathematical definition, a tensor. These nine com-
ponents of a stress tensor at point O are shown in figure 10. Since
graphically visualizing three intersecting planes is difficult, the
normal representation embodies a small cubical volume element.
The element is oriented with respect to a triad of orthogonal axes so
that the sides of the cube are perpendicular to the axes. The com-
ponents of stress shown are considered to be those that will be
present when the volume of the element shrinks to zero at point O.
z i<^Z
^ ZX
^
^
^z
."^v
J^ ^v ^YX
'<y^ )
^
^
FIGURE 10.—Normal and shearing stresses on a volume element.
To correctly describe the forces acting on and within soil, the nine
values must be specified at each point including the boundaries.
That the entity of nine values forms a tensor is in reality helpful,
since the powerful techniques of tensor analysis become available to
assist in solving the problem.
Certain simplifications are possible. From symmetry and equi-
librium, it can be shown that TX '7'xz — '7'z: and Tv By
utilizing these identities, three of the unknowns can be eliminated so
that only six independent values must be specified to describe the
state of stress at one point in the soil.
A property of the stress tensor is that the coordinate axes can
always be rotated (and with them the imaginary planes bounding
the cubical volume element) so that all shear stresses will be zero
and only normal stresses will act on the three mutually perpendicular
planes. The three normal stresses are the well-known principal
stresses, and their directions are the principal axes of the stress state.
The mean normal stress cr^ is defined as
(Tm — 1/3 (cri + a-2 +0-3), (2)
where CTI, 0-2, and era are principal stresses. The quantity is an in-
variant of the stress tensor so that the following relationship is also
true
o-^ = 1/3 (0-^ + 0-2,+o-z), (3)
where (TX, o-y, and o-^, are the normal stresses referred to any coordin-
ate axes of the stress state. A spherical state of stress is often dis-
cussed where each normal stress is equal to the mean normal stress—
that is, similar to the stress state in water at rest. Subtracting the
spherical stress from the total stress by appropriate mathematical
methods leaves a deviatoric stress. The total stress state is thus
mathematically separated into two components—spherical and devia-
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION IT
toric. In theories of elasticity and plasticity, spherical stress is gen-

erally associated with volume change; and deviatoric stress, with
change in shape. Such an interpretation leads to convenient and
often simplified relationships for describing behavior.
2.3 Strain in Soil
The application of force to soil generally produces deformation or
movement, or both. Just as the forces applied to soil must be de-
scribed both within and on the soil mass, so deformation must be ap-
propriately described. Unfortunately, the concept of a mathematical
description of deformation is not as simple as the concept of stress
used to describe forces. The usual procedure is to define strain at a
point within a medium in sufficient detail so that the strain of any
point in the neighborhood can be calculated relative to the chosen
point. More than one value is required to fully describe strain at
any point.
Several approaches ( 182, 190, IfSO ) can be made to develop ex-
pressions for strain at a point, but all are based on the same prin-
ciples. The position and lengths of line elements radiating from a
point are described relative to the point after deformation has oc-
curred. The change in the length of a line element is a measure of
lineal or longitudinal strain. Longitudinal strain is defined as
€ = 4^, > (4)

where lo — initial length of a line element,
I — final length after straining,
e = longitudinal strain.
For the expression to have physical meaning, the line element must
be continuous; hence the assumption of the continuum is required to
describe strain. Continuity assures the mathematical ^ correctness
of using differential calculus to express longitudinal strain as
d€ = f-, (5)
where de and dl are differential values of e and I as defined above.
Another measure of deformation is the change in angle between
two initially mutually perpendicular line elements. The usual defini-
tion (fig. 11) is
y = tan (90°-i//), (6)
where y = shearing strain,
90° — i// = deformation angle.
As in stress, six independent values must be specified to define
strain. Three mutually perpendicular longitudinal strains and three
shearing strains in the planes formed by the triad of longitudinal
strains are the required values. From these values, the longitudinal
strain of any line element or the shearing strain of any two initially
mutually perpendicular line elements radiating from the point can
be calculated. These six independent values form a second order
/■
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
^-^P'
A
FIGURE 11.—Shearing strain defined as change in 90° — i//, the angle
between two line elements.
symmetric tensor. Thus, a strain tensor similar to the stress tensoi

is required to define the strain at one point.
Unfortunately, the mathematical description of strain is not as
rigorous as it is for stress. The line elements generally do not re-
main straight after straining; they become curves. The physical
interpretations of the strain designations thus are erroneous. Fur-
thermore, the definition of shearing strain is accurate only as long as
the angular change between the initially mutually perpendicular line
elements is small, since the tangent of the angular change is an ap-
proximation of the lateral movement of the end of the line ele-
ments in the plane containing the line elements. A finite strain
theory ( 307 ) has been developed that will accurately describe de-
formation, but each component of the strain is a nonlinear expression
of partial derivatives. Finite strain is thus so complicated that it is
almost useless for practical purposes.
Two simplifying assumptions that result in useful descriptions of
strain have been made of the finite strain theory. The first and
most widely used assumption is that the expressions for strain be
restricted to small values so that the squares and products of the
values can be ignored. This assumption leads to the so-called small
strain or infinitesimal strain theory that successfully describes de-
formation in metals. For small strain theory to be accurate, strains
must generally be restricted to values of less than 0.1 percent. The
second assumption is that all straight line elements remain straight
and all parallel line elements remain parallel. While such an as-
sumption is not true over large areas, it is true in the immediate
neighborhood of a point. The conclusions that can be drawn from
these assumptions provide the basis for a relatively simple strain
description called homogeneous strain.
The usefulness of small strain theory can be extended to larger
strains by redefining the incremental equation representing strain
(equation 5) as
,- dl
(7)
where ? is a common designation of natural longitudinal strain. The
logic of the definition is reasonable since equation 7 states that incre-
mental natural strain is equal to the incremental change in length
divided by the instantaneous length being considered. In conven-
tional small strain, the incremental change in length is divided by the
original length, which is a constant (equation 5). Equation 7 can be
integrated to give
= In -y-. (8)
where I and lo are defined as in equation 4. Solving for l/lo from

equation 4 and substituting in equation 8 gives
€ = In (1 + e), (9)
which is the relation between the conventional and natural strain
systems. By analogy, natural shearing strain is defined as
y = In (1 + y), (10)
where y is natural shearing strain and y is conventional shearing
strain.
Appropriate subscripts are usually assigned to the designations of
strain in the various systems to orient the chosen directions for the
line elements. Just as for stress, the line elements can be rotated at
a point so that only longitudinal strains appear and all shearing
strains are zero. These special directions are the so-called axes of
principal strain and the longitudinal strains are the principal strains
at the point. Dilation or volume strain in conventional small strain
is defined as
A = €i + €2 + €3 = €-1, + €j, + €^ (11)
and in natural strain as
A = €1 + €2 + es = €a; + Cy + €a (12)
where subscripts 1, 2, and 3 refer to principal strains and a?, y, and s
refer to any coordinate axes at the point. Using equations 4 and 9,
one can show that equation 11 is an approximation of volume strain
and is accurate only for small strains, whereas equation 12 is ac-
curate for very large strains.
To further illustrate the difference between conventional and
natural strain, consider a bar of soil or some other material, as shown
in figure 12. Length L represents the initial length of the bar and
B. C^ ^D
I
I
-5L- A- -.5L-
I
I I
._L. .J
FIGURE 12.—A bar of material whose original length L was first

stretched to AC and later to AD.
AC and AD represent two additional lengths to which the bar is

stretched without failure. If the bar is strained to length J. 6^, con-
ventional strain will be 50 percent ; and if the bar is strained to length
AD^ the total conventional strain is 100 percent. If a second ob-
server were to find the bar after it had been strained to length AC
and he then strained the bar to AD, he would calculate conventional
strain to be 33 percent. Since the first observer calculated strain to
be 50 percent for the same deformation, the inherent inaccuracies of
small strain theory are apparent. To be used with consistency, the
entire history of soil would need to be known, but the entire history
of soil can never be known.
If the same bar is again considered by strains expressed in the
natural strain system, both the first observer and the second observer
will determine the strain to be 28.8 percent when the bar is stretched
from AC to AD. The natural strain system thus appears to be much
more suitable for describing large strains. While actual strains oc-
curring in the soil may not be as large as 100 percent, they will cer-
tainly often be much larger than 0.1 percent. An increase in bulk
density from 1.1 to 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter represents a vol-
ume change of 27 percent. In the so-called tillage range of soils, a
change of 0.3 gram per cubic centimeter in bulk density is not un-
reasonable ; therefore, great care must be used when a strain theory is
selected to describe deformation of soil.
2.4 Stress-Strain Relations
Appropriate mathematical descriptions for stress and strain are
only the first steps in describing the reaction of soil to forces. Con-
sider for a moment the possible reaction of a granular material such
as soil when it is subjected to mechanical forces. In general, the
applied stress will be compressive. Vector addition of the stress
over the boundary area will equal the applied forces. If the stress
is small, the soil may deform slightly and reach an equilibrium con-
dition through the storage of energy within the mass. Eelease of the
stress will allow the soil to return to its original position. A larger
compressive stress will produce enough strain so that a permanent
deformation will result. Depending on the nature and condition of
the soil, the yielding (permanent deformation) may result in a re-
distribution of the load, a new and different state of equilibrium, or
movement of the soil so that the load decreases or is no longer in con-
tact with the soil. These possible reactions of the soil to applied
forces can be described in mathematical relations between stress and
strain. But the relations are generally so complex that only in
special cases has enough knowledge become available so that accurate
relations can be established.
There is no logical way to calculate a stress-strain relation based
on present knowledge of physical laws. All stress-strain relations
have evolved from simple experiments where stress and strain are
measured simultaneously. A mathematical formula is then deter-
mined to express the observed behavior, and this formula is extended
to apply to generalized loadings.
The best known and most successful stress-strain relation is the
theory of linear elasticity. The basic premise of the theory is that
each of the six components of stress at every point is a linear function

of each of the six components of strain at every point. Such a rela-
tion implies that 36 coefficients are involved. These 36 coefficients
are parameters that are measures of the nature of the material and
can be considered dynamic properties of the material.
In the theory of elasticity, only 2 of the 36 parameters are mde-
pendent if the material is Isotropie. An Isotropie material is one in
which characteristics at every point are independent of direction.
Since many metals are nearly Isotropie and their observed stress-
strain behavior is approximately linear over a limited range, the
theory of elasticity has been very successful in describing the rela-
tions between forces and deformations. Also, small strain theory is
applicable since strains greater than 0.1 percent seldom are observed
before nonlinear behavior occurs and permanent deformations result.
The final step to complete the theory of elasticity is to develop a
sufficient number of equations so a general problem can be solved.
To illustrate, six unknown stresses and six unknown strains must be
determined at every point; therefore, at least 12 equations are re-
quired to be able to solve for the unknown values. Six of the re-
quired equations are readily available from the six stress-strain rela-
tions. Equilibrium conditions lead to three equations relating
stresses that must always be satisfied. Somewhat similar equations
of compatibility on strain can be established to furnish the final
three equations. The simultaneous solution of the 12 equations, to-
gether with boundary conditions, provides the solution to a problem.
While the solutions are not easy except for simple loadings, the
stresses and strains can usually be obtained. The solutions will ac-
curately describe the behavior of any material that exhibits a linear
relation between stress and strain—that is, isotropic-—and where the
strains never exceed 0.1 percent. Unfortunately, soil exhibits none
of the above characteristics except under very limited conditions.
Several stress-strain relations describing so-called plastic behavior
have been reasonably successful. They follow the general develop-
ment of elasticity. The principal difference is in the actual stress-
strain relation. Stress may be related to the time rate of change of
strain, or to strain through a parameter that is in turn a function of
the total strain that has occurred. One other difference between
elasticity and plasticity is that the former predicts a deformation that
is recoverable upon releasing the applied stress. The latter generally
predicts a permanent deformation, although some recovery may oc-
cur in certain elasto-plastic materials. Again, as in elasticity, none
of the presently available theories of plasticity adequately describes
the behavior of soil.
Soil deformation has a time-dependent property that is not recon-
ciled by plastic and elastic theories. Since this is an observed phe-
nomenon in soil, these theories are inadequate and must be discarded.
McMurdie ( 280 ) has applied the theory of viscoelasticity to soil in
a study of creep with some success. Although more work needs to
be done to prove this theory, the theory provides an approach which
considers time-dependent reactions and provides for a system with
which to handle observed behavior in soil more realistically.
Progress in developing stress-strain relations that adequately de-
scribe soil behavior has been delayed because of the wide range of
soil and its behavior. The observed nonlinearity of stress-strain
relations has yet to be mathematically described. Simplifying as-
sumptions have been made to circumvent stress-strain requirements
so that some degree of order can be made of soil reaction to forces.
These approaches are discussed in detail in chapter 3. One must
remember, however, that any approach not based on accurate stress-
strain relations can only approximately represent the true behavior
of soil. The development of suitable stress-strain relations, which
in turn define parameters, is one of the more important areas of re-
search in soil dynamics. Until such relations are determined, one
cannot even study the dynamic properties of soil because they have
not been clearly identified.
2.5 Soil Strength
Soil strength is the ability or capacity of a particular soil in a
particular condition to resist or endure an applied force. Soil
strength might also be defined as the capacity of soil to withstand
deformation or strain since strength is not evident without strain.
The concept of soil strength is thus quite clear and easily understood.
Soil strength is a physical quantity.
The problem is to measure and describe strength so that a definite
series of numerical values can be assigned. This problem has not
been satisfactorily solved to date. The wide range of strengths ob-
served in soils is one difficulty ; another is that the strength actually
changes when force is applied and movement occurs. Changing
strength is exhibited in many other materials but to a much lesser
degree than in soil. Strength is thus truly a dynamic property of
soil.
One obvious way of describing soil strength is to use the para-
meters of stress-strain equations. The numerical values of the para-
meters for each condition would quantitatively describe its strength.
Viscoelastic, yiscoplastic, and fluid mechanics equations are examples
of stress-strain equations.
Another way of describing soil strength is to evaluate the para-
meters involved in yield conditions. Yield conditions are fully dis-
cussed later in this chapter (sec. 2.8). Yield parameters are different
from the two parameters, modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio,
that appear in elasticity stress-strain equations. Accurate evaluation
of the parameters of stress-strain equations and of yield conditions
for soil provides a logical and sufficient means for describing strength.
Lack of both stress-strain equations and adequate yield conditions for
soil has prompted the use of simulation-type tests to describe soil
strength. Some examples of these tests are discussed in chapter 3.
The inability to describe soil strength accurately has dictated the
kind of much of the experimental work dealing with soil dynamics.
For example, tillage tools or traction devices can be compared only
in the same soil conditions. Results obtained in one soil condition
cannot be compared with those obtained in another soil condition.
This is true even when the same soil type is used, because the strength
may be different. The recent use of artificial soils ( 229, 2J4S, Slß^
383 ) is an attempt to eliminate strength changes, so that a variable
can be studied with the assurance that strength is constant. Until

soil strength can be evaluated, test results from one experimental lo-
cation cannot be quantitatively compared with those from another
location. The only valid comparison is between measurements made
in the same soil condition. Indeed, soil conditions change with time
—that is, climatic environment—so that in field studies where data
are obtained over periods of days, test comparisons may not be valid
even within one test period. Results may reñect changes in soil
strength.
One final word should be said about changing strength with load-
ing. Such a phenomenon is not unique with soil since it is often
observed in ductile metals after yield has been reached. The phe-
nomenon has been referred to as strain or work hardening. In soil,
strength increases as the soil becomes more compact. For stress-
strain equations to be accurate, the changing strength must be in-
cluded in the equations. In the tillage range of soils, loading causes
large changes in volume so that changes in strength should be ex-
pected. Strength change is considerably larger than the strain-
hardening effect in metals; furthermore, it occurs throughout the
entire loading and not after a certain threshold value, such as the
elastic limit, has been exceeded. Describing changing strength with
load is thus highly important and may be one of the more difficult
behaviors to describe in soil. More is said on this subject in the
discussion of yield by compression.
2.6 Stress Distribution
Transmission of stress through granular media is through the
points of contact of the individual grains. Because of the random
arrangement of the grains or particles, the points of contact do not
form an orderly pattern except along a rigid boundary such as a ñat
wall or ñoor. The contact pomts are thus randomly spaced in various
directions. The stress transmitted through granular materials is,
therefore, not in a straight line but in directions that are determined
by the location of the contact points. This natural action of dis-
tributing stress in granular materials has been termed arching.
Before proceeding, let us reconcile the foregoing model to the
model of the continuum that was assumed to define stress and strain.
Certainly a medium where force is transmitted by points of contact
is not continuous. Eecall, however, that stress and strain can be
described realistically as long as the surfaces or areas being consid-
ered are large compared to the size of the gaps or holes— that is, a
unit area has many points of contact from individual particles. The
same problem occurs when describing stresses in metals. The struc-
tural engineer calculates forces in terms of stresses and in the process
assumes that the material is continuous. The metallurgist, on the
other hand, treats the same material as crystalline when he studies
means of changing its strength, rigidity, machinability, or some other
property. In reality, each area of behavior is represented by a dif-
ferent model, and there is no difficulty in reconciling the two models.
Similarly, we can use a highly discontinuous granular model to help
explain the behavior of soil and still assume continuity when mathe-
matically representing its behavior. Many physical laws explaining
the actions of the same phenomenon are based on different models—

for example, the classical models of photons and waves, which repre-
sent light. Confusion and misunderstanding result only if each
model is not kept separated from the others.
Jenkin and others (200, 201, 313, JÔJf, 417-419) have studied
arch action in simple systems in which the soil surface was moved
and the mode of soil displacement noted, whereas others ( 105, 374 )
have developed theories about the nature of the arching phenomenon
in uniformly uncemented particles in a plane, as shown in figure 13.
(A)
(B)
FIGURE 13.—A, Idealized nature of arching; B, vertical stress distribution for

an idealized granular material. (Zelenin ( 515).)
The importance of the phenomenon is clearly demonstrated in a

tunnel opening where the roof is supported from the walls. Since
distributions are alwâys required in a semi-infinite mass, the arch-
ing or vectoring out of the stresses is important. One wonders, how-
ever, if the arching phenomenon would have received as much at-
tention as it has if a model other than a granular model had been
visualized. The same phenomenon occurs in metals or plastics or
nearly any other substance capable of withstanding a shearing
stress. The phenomenon in such materials has been adequately rep-
resented by the distribution of stresses within the material.
The important point, however, is that the distribution of forces in
granular media cannot be represented by the concept of pressure,
which is used in fluid media. The term stress rather than pressure
should be used in soils, since pressure is usually identified with the
state of stress in a fluid at rest. Under such a condition all normal
stresses at a point are the same, and the pressure is identically equal
to the mean normal stress.
To describe the reaction of soil to a tillage tool or traction device,
the distribution of force on and within the soil must be determined.
With adequate stress-strain relations the problem is simply to deter-
mine the stress distribution in the boundary area and obtain the
simultaneous solution of the system of stress-strain equations. Lack
of stress-strain equations has required other approaches to secure
results for some immediate practical use.
According to Taylor ( 4^21 ), Boussinesq in 1885 obtained a general
solution of the elastic equations under a point load that was applied
to a semi-infinite mass. In 1934, Froehlich ( 136 ) inserted into the
distributions a concentration factor that alters the distribution ac-
cording to the magnitude of the factor. The concentration factor
also introduced varying soil strength into the equations. Because
of radial symmetry under a point load, two of the three independent
shearing stresses must be zero. Thus, only four stresses are required
to specify the state of stress at a point. In cylindrical coordinates
and assuming Poisson's ratio to be %, stresses are
vP
o-, = COS'' <^, (13)
vP (14)
(Tn = cos"""^ (^ sin^ <^,
^TTT^
o-t = 0,
vP (15)
Th = r^ cos''"^ (f) sin (^,
where v is the concentration factor and the other terms are as indi-
cated in figure 14. Eotating the volume element about cTt axis so CTn
FIGURE 14.—Stresses on a volume element from a point load as defined in

cylindrical coordinates. (Soehne, Agr. Engm. {401).)
plane is perpendicular to r—that is, a polar coordinate system—re-

duces the stress system to cr^ and all other stresses are zero. These
are the principal stress axes and (Jr is given by
vP
cos"-^ 0. (16)
2TTr
Soehne ( ^01 ) assigned different values to v for soils in various

conditions and calculated the stresses under tractor tires. These dis-
tributions are discussed in chapter Y. The v values used were 4, 5,
and 6 for hard, medium, and soft conditions, respectively. The
larger the value of v^ the more concentrated the distribution along
the load axis (fig. 15). One must keep in mind, however, that the
f/ù,^:^///Jk^/??
FIGURE 15.—Calculated principal stress distributions (cr) in soil under tires:

Left, Hard soil; center, medium soil, and right, soft soil. (Soehne, Grund-
lagen der Landtechnik ( 395 ). )
distributions contain the inherent assumptions of linearity between

stress and strain, strains less than 0.1 percent, and isotropy. The v
factor merely modifies the general shape of the distribution and does
not, in fact, represent a measured soil parameter that has a true
physical significance. Also, a point load is never applied to the soil,
and rarely does the assumption of a point load even reasonably repre-
sent the true situation. Great caution is required if equations 15 and
16 are used to calculate stress distributions in soil.
Other approaches have been used to calculate stress distributions in
soil. Civil engineers have often assumed that soil under footings
behaves as an .elastic material, and they used solutions of the elastic
equations. Love in 1929 ( 256 ) obtained solutions to the elastic
equations for uniform circular loads applied to a semi-infinite body.
An attempt to simplify these equations for easier computations was
made by the Waterways Experiment Station ( ^78 ). Yield condi-
tions imposed on soil by tillage tools have been assumed and stress
distributions implied from the geometry of the loading. Examples
of this technique are discussed more fully in chapter 4.
One final method that merits discussion is based on the techniques
of limit analysis. Mathematicians have proved that only one solu-
tion is possible for a system of stress-strain equations and, hence, a
unique applied load exists for the solution. Also criteria have been
established that assure that a distribution will give loads that are
above and below the unique load. Distributions are assumed to sat-
isfy the appropriate criteria, and the associated loads are calculated
to bracket the final solution ever closer. When the loads above and
below the unique load are reasonably close, an approximation of the
correct answer is provided. This technique was applied successfully
to a study of the stability of earth walls by Murnaghan ( 307 ).
None of the foregoing approaches seem to be accurate enough to
adequately describe the observed stress distributions in soil ; improve-
ments in these methods or new methods have to be developed.
The direction and magnitude of stress in soil may be measured by
placing on or in the soil a sensing device that can detect the stress.
Many types of stress transducers and similar devices have been
designed for this purpose ( 90^ 157^ 395 ). Many have been used suc-
cessfully to measure stress distributions through highway fills, under
tractor wheels, and under compacting rollers. The electrical resist-
ance strain gage developed after World War II permits the most
successful design of sensing elements. Numerous transducers of this
type have been described and used ( 13, 83,175, 333, 337, 3^6, Ui, ^78,
481 ). Two principles have been used in constructing most of these
transducers. Figure 16, A shows a type of transducer in which the
i_z
FLUID CHAMBER SENSING DIAPHRAGMV
^ INSTRUMENTED DIAPHRAGMJP^sJ^ INSTRUMENTED DIAPHRAGIiM^

j ^j jj/^jjjj^jj U??? ? ? ?^ ?j ?j j? rr ///////^//^j'
•STRAIN GAGES'
(A) (B>
FIGURE 16.—Stress transducers instrumented on A, secondary and B, primary

diaphragms.
force applied over a known area is transferred uniformly to an

instrumented diaphragm by a fluid pressure. Figure 16, B shows an
instrumented diaphragm where the load is applied directly to the dia-
phragm. The amount o-f flexing of the instrumented diaphragm in
each transducer is interpreted in terms of applied stress.
Only the normal stress on a transducer is measured. The sensing
surface of a transducer represents a plane, and a stress vector acts
on the plane. Most transducers designed to date are insensitive to
shearing stresses and so respond only to the normal component of the
stress vector. One problem in using stress transducers is to follow
their orientation, particularly if large deformations of the soil occur
and the transducer rotates. With an adequate description of move-
ment of the transducer, corrections can be calculated.
The main problem in designing stress transducers has been to

overcome the effects of the arching phenomenon. If the transducer
is more rigid than the surrounding soil, a higher value will be ob-
tained than if the transducer has the same rigidity as the soil. Set-
tlement of soil immediately adjacent to the transducer results in arch
action that transfers some of the applied load to the transducer, as
shown in figure 17, A. Conversely, if the transducer is less rigid
CELL
CELL
(A) (B)
FIGURE 17.—Possible interactions that give erroneous stress readings.
than the soil, a lower value will be obtained since the load will be
transferred from the transducer to the surrounding soil, as shown in
figure 17, B. Thus the size, shape, and resiliency that the transducer
presents to the soil mass will affect the transducer's reading.
Within certain limits, the transducers appear to give valid read-
ings. A diameter-thickness ratio of 5:1 appears to give satisfactory
results for circular transducers, although ratios as low as 2:1 have
been used. Although no definite evidence has been presented, the
exact ratio is probably a function of the degree of soil settling dur-
ing loading and the closeness of the transducer to some firm object or
layer in the soil. No transducer has been devised that can make
measurements without some degree of disturbance to the soil, but use
of transducers in snow ( 4^0 ) shows that the degree of disturbance
may not preclude their profitable and reliable use until better trans-
ducers are devised. Improved instrumentation will permit studies
of stress distributions that heretofore could be evaluated only from
empirical calculations.
Certain stress indicators may be used to qualitatively determine
stress distribution in soil. Since compaction is caused by stress, the
density of soil increases as stress increases. The location of com-
pacted areas after loading a homogeneous soil is, therefore, an indi-
cation of a stress concentration. In snow studies, the "Nakaya Pit
Burning" technique ( 309^ 4^5^ JßO ), where smoke from an oil fire
deposits more carbon on denser snow, employs this principle so that
compacted areas can be detected. Materials that require small
strains for fracture—that is, stress coats—can be used in only rare
cases. Similarly, pliotoelastic techniques have highly limited ap-
plications in soil because of the extreme porosity of the soil, the in-
fluence of the material on soil strenjith, and the large strains result-
ing from yield. A soil box with one side made of thick glass plate
has been used at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory to locate
stress concentrations. Reaction of the soil to a tool can be viewed
through the glass side. The tool is moved through the soil im-
mediately parallel to and against the glass, and the compacted areas
are located visually. The stress concentrations are obvious in some
soils, as shown in figure 18.
FIGURE 18.—Stress concentrations inferred from soil reactions observed

through a glass-sided box.
2.7 Strain Distribution

Very little effort lias been made to determine strain distributions
in soil. The obvious means of obtaining strain distributions is to
solve representative stress-strain equations. Emphasis has not been
placed on other means of determining strain distributions, as it was
for stress, because the boundary conditions imposed on soil are
more easily expressed in terms of forces. Furthermore, most yield
conditions are based on stress so that stresses are much more useful
than strains.
Several attempts, however, have been made to measure strain m
soil. Woodruff ( 509 ) buried a simple elevation rod in the soil to

measure the vertical strain caused by shrinkage of the soil during
drying. Workers at the Waterways Experiment Station ( ^80 ) have
used linear deflection gages to measure strain in large masses of soil
subjected to heavy loads. Hendrick and Vanden Berg ( 181 )
measured dynamic strain on small briquettes of soil subjected to
uniaxial tension. Gliemeroth ( 155 ) used a photographic technique
to measure the displacement of soil particles under moving vehicles.
His method, shown in figure 19, consisted of digging a pit along
fwh-n DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
(A) (B)
FIGURE19.—Path of displacement of a soil particle under a vehicle recorded

photographically. (Gliemeroth, taken from Ztschr. f. Acker und Pzlanzenbau
96: 225. 1953. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin and Hamburg {155).)
the proposed path of the vehicle so that the soil was exposed in a
small area under the path. A movie camera in the pit recorded the
displacement of a marker in the soil as the vehicle passed over the
site.
Strain may also be measured on a volumetric basis under dynamic
loadings. Hovanesian ( 185 ) devised a volumeter utilizing a bal-
loon filled with soil, which was buried in a larger mass of the same
soil. The balloon opening was connected to a horizontal pipette
containing a drop of mercury that acted as a rolling seal. The soil
inside the balloon was assumed to act in the same manner as the sur-
rounding soil, so that it represented a small volume element of soil.
Any volume change inside the balloon forced air from the balloon
into the pipette and displaced the mercury seal by an amount equal
to the volume change. If the initial volume of soil inside the balloon
is not known, the final volume can be determined by water dis-
placement after the volumeter is removed from the soil. A slight
vacuum applied to the balloon insures that the final configuration of
the compacted soil is maintained. The volumeter is sensitive to
temperature, however, so that it must be used under isothermal con-
ditions. The volumeter was later modified { 186 ) to obtain an elec-
tric signal that could be recorded.
Figure 20 shows the components of the original volumeter as well
FIGURE20.—Volumeter provides a measure of soil compaction by measuring

the volume of air displaced from a soil-filled balloon. (Hovanesian and
Buchele, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. ( 186 ).)
as the transducer used to make the volumeter recording. A sensitive

stress transducer measures the increase in pressure in a closed sys-
tem. The volume change of saturated soils has been measured by
collecting the outflow of water from the triaxial apparatus. Vanden
Berg ( JfßS ) utilized the volumeter principle with appropriate tem-
perature control to measure air outflow in unsaturated soils in triaxial
apparatus.
Most investigations of strain have been confined to small volumes
of soil where static movements and measurements were made. Dis-
tributions have not been determined in complex systems, primarily
because of difficulty in instrumentation. Measurement of principal
stresses and principal strains completely defines the forces and de-
formations of the system. Simultaneous measurement would permit
studying stress-strain relations. Much research, therefore, remains
to be done in the area of stress-strain measurements.
2.8 Yield in Soil
The wide range of behavior of materials found in nature con-
tributes to possible confusion concerning the definition of yield. Be-
cause of the importance of ductile metals in the world, their behavior
has been more widely studied than has the behavior of other ma-
terials. Many of the concepts and terms that originally described
behavior of metals are confusing when applied to other materials.
A typical stress-strain curve of a ductile metal subjected to uniaxial
tension is shown in figure 21. For low stresses, if the stress is re-
duced to zero, the strain will also return to zero and no permanent
deformation will occur. The straight line portion of the curve
CO
(O
UJ
STRAIN (€)
FIGURE 21.—A typical stress-strain curve for a ductile material.
represents the elastic region where behavior is adequately described

by the classical theory of elasticity. Loading beyond the elastic
range results in a permanent deformation, and it is in this region
where theories of plasticity attempt to represent behavior. For
ductile materials, the stress CTO where permanent deformation first
appears is defined as yield. In many designs utilizing ductile metals,
the yield stress is considered the failure stress or highest stress that
can safely be carried by the metal. The stress cr^ is the familiar
ultimate stress—the value that produces fracture or separation.
Brittle materials differ from ductile materials in that fracture usually
occurs as or just after the yield stress is reached so that very little
plastic behavior is exhibited. Yield is, therefore, some point of
failure that is of interest in the stress-strain regime of the material.
Different types of failure or more than one criterion of failure may
be of interest for any one material, depending on one's interest in
the reaction to forces.
Failure in soil is much more complex than in metals or most brittle
materials. This complexity has led to confusion and misunderstand-
ing concerning yield in soil. Since soils found in nature vary from a
near liquid to a brittle material, the confusion is understandable. A
complete description of the reaction of soil to an applied force in-
volves not only stress-strain distributions but also yield conditions.
If stresses or strains exceed the yield values, the soil deforms so that
stresses are redistributed, or the load is decreased, or the soil be-
comes stronger so that yield is no longer exceeded. Four types of
failure for soil can be defined in terms of stress-strain behavior:
shear, compression, tension, and plastic now.
2.8.1 Shear
A pictorial concept of stress at a point will be useful in an attempt
to define shear failure. As discussed in section 2.2, the stress tensor
defines the state of stress at a point. To graphically describe a state
of stress, Mohr's circle provides an elegant representation in two di-
mensions. Jaeger ( 190 ) has reviewed Mohr's work to show how the
two-dimensional idea has been generalized to three dimensions.
The concept in three dimensions is to describe the normal and
shearing components of the stress vector that acts on all possible
planes passing through a point. While the mathematical derivation
of this representation is too involved to present here, the description
simplifies to plotting in two dimensions the magnitude of the normal
component against the magnitude of the shear component. The plot
of all such points for a particular stress state will cover some specific
area. The shape of the desired area can be described if the principal
stresses are known. Arranging the principal stresses so that CTI
represents the algebraically largest principal stress and o-m represents
the algebraically smallest principal stress, three circles can be con-
structed as shown in figure 22. The crosshatched area represents the
FIGURE 22.—A two-dimensional representation of a stress state in which the

shaded area represents the stress vector on all possible planes at the point.
desired area to describe the stress state. Note that if any two of the
principal stresses are equal, the three circles become one and the area
becomes the circumference of one circle ; the one circle is Mohr's rep-
resentation in two dimensions. Maximum shearing stress, largest
principal stress, and other stresses can be easily obtained from the
graphical representation of the state of stress.
Failure by shear has a clear meaning for brittle materials. The
classical example is the brittle-type shear fracture that develops
when a solid cylinder of material is loaded in compression as shown
in figure 23. This type of failure is also observed in soil. A similar
type of failure is observed in some soil conditions where no definite
fracture occurs but where the diameter of the specimen under test
gradually increases with load. The stress state that causes fracture
or incipient plastic now—that is, larger diameter and hence perma-
nent deformation—is a measure of shear failure. The definition of
failure by shear is thus some function of the stress state that just
causes the failure. In soil, both complete fracture and incipient
plastic flow have generally been indicated by the same stress function.
A review of shear by Jaeger ( 190 ) indicates that the first theory
FIGURE 23.—A brittle-type shear failure develops where a cylinder is failed

in axial compression.
to predict shear failure dates back to Coulomb. He proposed that

failure occurs when the maximum shear stress reaches some critical
value. This value by our terms of reference would be a dynamic
property of the material. Navier, as reviewed by Jaeger ( 190 ),
modified the maximum shear stress theory to a form that qualitatively
fits more facts than the original Coulomb theory. Navier proposed
that shear failure occurs on a plane where the shear stress reaches
some constant To that is increased by a constant factor /x times the
normal stress cr (compressive) acting on the plane. If cr is defined
as positive when compressive (the normal procedure for soils), the
criterion becomes
To + /XO-, (17)
where \T\ indicates the absolute value of the shearing stress to cause
failure. As figure 22 shows, there are two possible planes of failure
at each stress state where cr and r have the same absolute magnitude
but T has a different algebraic sign. In reality the sign is immaterial
with regard to actual behavior since the sign indicates the direction
of failure but does not change the condition for failure.
Mohr, according to Jaeger ( 190 ), also proposed a shear failure
theory ; he argued that cr and r on the plane of failure are connected
by some functional relationship. If a series of different stress states
that just cause failure are imposed on the same material and these
stress states are plotted as Mohr's circles, as in figure 22, the envelope
that is tangent to the circles represents a failure criterion since any
stress state whose circle touched the envelope would be at shear
failure. The simplest envelope to describe mathematically is a
straight line, and under this representation Mohr's criterion is identi-
cal with equation 17. Figure 24 shows a Mohr envelope where posi-
FIGURE 24.—A Mohr envelope of stresses from which soil parameters TO and 0
can be determined.
tive a is again considered to be compressive. The constant /x of

equation 17 is equal to the tangent of (/> where (/> is the angle indicated
in figure 24. The constancy of the ratio r to or is the same as the
Coulomb concept of sliding friction so that the angle (j> is otten
visualized as the angle of internal friction. The constant r, has been
called cohesion and is usually represented as G m equation 1«
T = Í7 + 0- tan (/), (18)
where 0 = cohesion,
(f) = angle of internal friction,
cr = normal stress,
T = shearing stress.
Cohesion has been rationalized as the shear stress at zero normal load.
While the straight line envelope of the Mohr theory does not
rigorously represent shear yield in all soil conditions, the theory
has been close enough to experimentally observed behavior so that
equation 18 has been almost universally accepted as a law.
One confusing factor is that G and (j) are so firmly entrenched that
they are often referred to as real physical properties of the soil, in
reality they are only parameters of the assumed yield equation.
Their logical existence can be explained only by an interpretation
of the equation and not from the physical nature of the soil itselt.
Another confusing factor has been the tendency to mix the distri-
bution of failure points in a soil mass with the criterion itselt.
Equation 18 represents shear failure at one single point, but the
representation suggests failure on a plane. Shear plane as a descrip-
tion of the failure is, therefore, logical terminology. In a distribu-
tion of failure points, as shown in figure 25 by the sharp ]0g in the
strings, a failure surface is indicated. Unfortunately, this failure
surface can often also be represented by a plane so that shear plane
has been applied to the surface. Care must be used to keep the
criterion for shear separated from the distribution of shear point
failures. The former is clearly represented by a plane, whereas the
latter is a surface that can have any shape.
_>(fl*iin?wT.
FIGURE 25.—Shear failures in front of a simple tillage tool, as viewed through

a glass-sided box.
Two methods have been used to measure failure by sliear in soil.

Both methods attempt to obtain quantitative values for the C and <^
of equation 18.
In the simpler of the two methods the failure surface is controlled
over a small area of soil, and shearing stresses are measured for sev-
eral normal stresses on the failure surface. These values are plotted
directly on a T, cr coordinate system. The line connecting the points
is an envelope and C and ^ can be read directly. The devices used
for these determinations fall into the general category of direct
shear, and several devices are discussed in chapter 3.
In the other method for determining shear failure, various stress
states are applied to soil and a series of Mohr's circles that represent
shear failure are determined. The envelope to the circles again per-
mits determining C and ^. The most widely used method of obtain-
ing Mohr's circles at failure is with triaxial apparatus, which is
discussed in chapter 3.
2.8.2 Compression
Failure by compression in soil has generally been associated with
volume change. In metals, volume changes are usually so small they
can be ignored, but in soil, these changes cannot be ignored. Com-
j)ression failure in soil should.not be confused with compression
failure in metals, which is generally defined as the value of uniaxial
stress in compression that causes failure. Most often this value is
assumed to be equal to the ultimate stress o-„ in tension (fig. 21).
Data which indicate that these are not the same for soils are shown
in table 1.
TABLE 1.—Tensile and compressive strengths of two soils

Tensile Compressive Ratio : Tensile strength/
Type of soil strength strength Compressive strength
Cecil : P.s.L P.SÀ,
Sample 1—. 52 86 0.60
Sample 2__. 51 125 .41
Hagerstown :
Sample 1—. 135 342 .39
Sample 2__. 182 357 .51
SOURCE : Winterkorn { 508 )
For our purposes, failure by compression in soil is defined as the

state of stress at incipient volume change. The observant reader will
immediately question such a definition. As shown in section 2.2,
the magnitude of six components of stress must be determined to
define the state of stress. Equations 11 and 12 imply that volume
strain can be accurately described by specifying the magnitude of
only one number—the dilation. The task of mathematically equat-
ing the six components of stress to one value for strain suggests
some functional relation. More precisely, a stress-volume strain
relation is required. Thus, the concept of compression failure, while
logical, requires a stress-strain relation that has never been estab-
lished. As a result, simplifying assumptions have been made to
describe the behavior. Confusion occurs if the behavior is considered
only as a stress-strain relation since it is also a criterion for com-
pression failure.
Confusion also occurs if failure by shear and failure by compres-
sion are considered as two separate phenomena. Their behavior in
nature is some combined action, and any mathematical representa-
tion that separates the action into two parts can be questioned re-
gardless of how rigorous the mathematics may be. The representa-
tion of failure by shear and by compression as separate criteria is
valid only as long as behavior can be adequately described. Data in
chapter 4 indicate that the two yield conditions are not independent.
Until compression failure and shear failure are more completely
described where they are considered as one combined phenomenon,
yield in soil cannot be adequately described.
Measurement of compression failure, of course, varies with the
assumed stress-volume strain relation. These relations are discussed
in chapter 3. Usually the procedure involves placing soil in some
type of confined container where the volume can be accurately de-
termined. The assumed function of the applied stress states is de-
termined, and generally the resulting percentage of pore space or
bulk density is associated with the stress function. A series of such
determinations gives a criterion for yield by compression.
2.8.3 Tension
Failure by tension has the same meaning in soil as in metal. Thus,
the ultimate tension CTU shown in figure 21 also represents tension
failure in soil when complete separation occurs. Expressing tension
failure in precise terms is difficult because of the porosity of soil.
The problem is to describe the area over which the force acts. The
total area (air, solid material, and water), the area of solid material
and water, and the area of only solid material have all been used for
this purpose. Using any area other than total area is an attempt to
incorporate behavior explained from a granular model into the
mathematical model of the continuum. As pointed out earlier, this
technique is not inconsistent and does not violate either model. The
area to use should be the one that results in the best representation
of tension failure.
The Mohr envelope of stresses (fig. 24) also indicates tensile
stresses. Along the ordinate, stresses to the left of the abscissas are
tensile stresses and those to the right are compressive. Willetts
( 50p ) has constructed the locus of shearing stress r from a combi-
nation of measured values of tensile and compressive stress loadings
that were imposed to cause soil failure. When uniaxial tensile stress
is applied to cause soil failure in a rigid body system, there should
be no shearing stress. When soil does not act as a rigid body, the
behavior induces shearing stresses. Accordingly, a shearing stress r
will accompany each tensile stress cr. Vomocil and Waldron ( Ii.68 )
have studied Mohr relations in which the shearing stress was less
than To^ In this case, the magnitude of the shearing stress may be
calculated from the ratio of the negative major to minor principal
stresses and the angle of internal friction.
Direct tension is seldom applied to soil by a tillage tool or traction
device. Tension failure does have physical significance, however,
and may sometimes be induced during soil manipulation. Although
soil is often thought to be incapable of sustaining a tensile force, its
tensile strength may be very high. Table 2 gives tensile failure
TABLE 2.—Tensile strengths of several soils
Type of soil Tensile strength Source

P.SÄ.
Cecil clay 65 Winterkorn {508).
Hagerstown clay 160 Do.
Putnam silt loam 188 Do.
Houston clay 354 National Tillage
Machinery Laboratory ( Sll ).
Hiwassee sandy loam 61 Do.
Lloyd clay 100 Do
strengths of several clay and loam soils. The soils were dry and
cemented; their strength decreased rapidly on wetting. Neverthe-
less, the values indicate that soil can be strong in tension.
The.shear criterion for failure (equation 18) implies that soil
strength is composed of two factors—cohesion and friction. Cohe-
sion is defined as the force that holds two particles of the same type
together. When soil fails in tension, only the cohesive part con-
tributes to resistance since the normal stress is zero. Such reasoning
immediately suggests that tensile failure may be exactly the measure
of cohesion. Unfortunately, no one has yet devised a means of meas-
uring direct shear at zero normal stress so the question has never
been resolved. In reality the argument is of academic interest only
since cohesion at zero normal stress is a "mathematical property" of

soil and not a real physical property.
Measurement of tensile failure is relatively simple since it involves
applying a uniaxial stress state across some known area. The various
techniques and apparatus are discussed in chapter 3. Most tension
measurements have been made on briquettes of soil formed by various
methods. The most useful aspects of tension failure are the sim-
plicity of the measurement and the ease with which laboratory con-
trol can be maintained in forming briquettes for test. In the ap-
plied stress state at tensile failure, all components of the stress tensor
are zero except one normal stress ; tensile failure is thus the simplest
application of forces that can be made to soil. Thus, failure can
perhaps be determined with less interaction of apparatus and soil
so that an intrinsic dynamic property of soil is determined. Tensile
failure appears to be an excellent means for studying some factors
that affect soil strength. It must be remembered that tensile tests
establish a single point on the yield surface and that they do not
provide information regarding the form of the yield surface and its
dependence on strain history.
2.8.4 Plastic Flow
The phenomenon of plastic flow in soil has never been clearly
defined. One example of the action termed plastic flow is observed
when a subsoiler moves through a wet clay. Instead of shattering
and developing shear failure surfaces, the soil flows around the sub-
soiler and remains essentially a continuous mass with only a cleavage
plane where the subsoiler has passed. For this action to occur, pre-
sumably the soil must fail in shear so that it can deform—that is,
strain—but no clearly defined failure surface develops. Eather, the
entire mass in the immediate neighborhood of the applied forces fails
by shear but does not strain to the degree that complete separation
occurs at any point in the mass.
If the state of stress on a volume element of soil is examined at
plastic flow failure, equation 18 can describe the yield stress condition
even though failure does not occur on a definite plane. Thus plastic
flow (failure) can be defined in terms of shear failure even though
the physical action involved is vastly different. Until stresses that
cause plastic flow can be measured quantitatively and a criterion for
plastic flow failure can be evaluated, plastic flow yield cannot be
rigorously defined.
2.9 Rigid Body Soil Movement
Our discussion so far has concentrated on forces and deformations
within the soil mass. Many actions occur in tillage where finite por-
tions of soil can be considered to move as a rigid body. For example,
a large clod of soil thrown by a moldboard plow can be represented
by a rigid body of soil where internal forces can be neglected. The
equations involving properties of soil such as friction, adhesion, and
abrasion describe the movement of a rigid body of soil with respect
to some other material. These descriptions are much simpler and
further developed than those involving stresses within the soil mass.
Unfortunately, the action of a complex tillage tool such as a non-
scouring moldboard plow involves both rigid and nonrigid body de-
scriptions; often the same mass of soil is involved in both descrip-
tions. This double involvement is complicated but justified since we
are using different mathematical mode^ls to represent only the ob-
served behavior.
2.9.1 Momentum
Momentum does not involve a dynamic property of the soil but is
often involved in the action of tillage and traction equipment. Mo-
mentum is the product of mass and velocity. Since a rigid block of
soil has a definite mass and when moving has a definite velocity, its
momentum can be defined. If properly utilized, this momentum can
have considerable inñuence on soil breakup. Besides describing the
momentum of a rigid block of soil, the Newtonian laws of motion
rigorously represent such factors as forces, accelerations, velocities,
displacements, and inertias. Thus, a mechanics of detached soil
masses is available and is clearly defined. The inherent assumption
when using Newtonian laws is that the mass being considered behaves
as a rigid body.
2.9.2 Friction
When two rigid bodies of soil move with respect to each other,
forces act on the mutual contact surface. The general laws of
Coulomb friction apply, but the exact nature of frictional forces is
not yet known {80). The usual procedure is to separate the acting
forces into those normal to the surface and those tangent to the
surface.
Following Coulomb's concept, a coefficient of friction can be defined
F
/^ -^ = tan i/;, (19)
where F = frictional force tangent to the surface,

N = normal force perpendicular to surface,
fjL = coefficient of friction (soil on soil),
ifj = angle whose tangent is /x,
as shown in figure 26. To move the upper block of soil, a force must
FIGURE 26.—Normal force and friction force between two rigid bodies of soil.
be applied. The magnitude of the applied force must exceed F

before movement starts, so that /x is a parameter of the equation re-
lating forces during the movement of one rigid body of soil over
another rigid body of soil. The coefficient of friction /x is thus a
dynamic property of soil.
The coefficient of friction /x in equation 19 should not be confused
with the tangent of the angle of internal friction ^ in equation 18.
Equation 18 with C equal to zero is exactly analogous to equation 19
if tan ^ is equated with /x, and F and N are expressed on a unit area
basis; but the two equations represent different phenomena. Equa-
tion 18 represents incipient shear failure within a soil mass. After
failure has occurred, the fracture surface separates the mass into two
distinct masses. These two masses can be depicted as rigid bodies,
and movement of the bodies relative to each other along the surface
is represented as sliding friction by equation 19. The two mathema-
tical models are thus completely different, and one would not expect
the two friction values to necessarily be the same. Unfortunately,
both i// and ^ are usually determined experimentally by the same
general procedures so that they cannot always be clearly separated,
and confusion often results when an attempt is made to apply the
values for design purposes.
Equation 19 represents sliding of soil, and within limits this pro-
cess can be represented as simple friction. Experimentation has
shown that /x is: (a) independent of normal load; (b) independent
of the area of the surface; (c) independent of the speed of slipping.
None of the conditions is completely true for soil, but they represent
observed behavior closely enough so that they are applied unless
very large normal loads or speeds are involved. Determining when
complete separation occurs and rigid body movement begins is per-
haps the most difficult problem in using equation 19.
The coefficient of friction is frequently measured by means of a
simple box, as shown in figure 27. The entire normal load on the
V///////
FIGURE 27.—A method for inducing direct shear failure along a predetermined
surface.
soil is transmitted through the soil. Shims are placed between the
upper and lower parts of the box during filling. Eemoving the
shims for measurement assures the necessary clearance. Failure oc-
curs between the two halves of the box so that F in figure 27 is
equivalent to the frictional force. If the coefficient of friction is
considered to be independent of normal load, a series of different
normal loads plotted versus the frictional force gives a straight line.
The slope of the line is a measure of the coefficient of friction /x.
Nichols ( SIS ) and others ( 12 ) have measured shear failure on two
surfaces as the central portion of a cylinder is moved. There appears
to be no disadvantage to this method (fig. 28). Values for the co-

efficient of friction have been found to be between 0.2 and 0.8.
FIGURE 28.—Direct shear measured along two cylindrical surfaces.
Frictional forces do not occur only between two rigid bodies of

soil ; they may also occur between soil and some other material. In
tillage tools, the material is usually steel but may be plastic; in
wheels or tracks, it may be rubber. The coefficient of friction between
soil and a material is determined in essentially the same manner as
shown in figure 27 except that a slider of the material replaces the
upper portion of the box. To distinguish the difference in the coeffi-
cient, the coefficient may be subscripted /¿ to indicate that it represents
a soil-material coefficient. The coefficient of friction between soil
and other materials is subject to the same general laws of friction
previously discussed. A number of factors affect the coefficient and
these will be discussed after the concept of adhesion has been de-
veloped.
2.9.3 Adhesion
Among the forces acting in the mutual contact surface of two
rigid bodies of different material is a force often required to pull the
two bodies apart. The force results from an attraction between the
two unlike materials and is defined as adhesion. Between soil and
some other material, adhesive forces are almost exclusively due to
moisture films. Moisture tension and surface tension of the soil
solution appear to explain the behavior of adhesive forces.
Surface tension is related to adhesion through the familiar capil-
lary equation that represents the rise of a solution in a capillary tube.
The height of rise is determined by
, 2r cos a
h = , (20)
g p r ^ ^
where h = height of rise,
T = surface tension,
g = acceleration of gravity,
p = density of solution,
r = radius of capillary tube,
a = contact angle.
The concept of theoretical maximum radius is useful and is based on
the fact that the angle of contact (wetting angle) is constant. Both
theory and observation indicate that the meniscus in a capillary tube
is approximately spherical. Figure 29 shows the relation between
FIGURE 29.—The curvature of a capülary film as related to the wetting angle.
the radius of the tube r, the angle of contact a, and the theoretical
maximum tube size R. The theoretical radius R is determined by the
spherical section of the meniscus, which in turn is determined by
the angle of contact, and R is interpreted as the maximum radius
tube that a given surface tension could support ; that is, r can theo-
retically be increased to i?.
The geometry in figure 29 shows that
cos a = (21)
R'
and substitution of equation 21 into equation 18 yields
h =
2r (22)
pgR
where R is now the radius of the theoretical limiting tube size or
pore size that a given surface tension will support. Since the term
A p ^ is a pressure term and gives a measure of pressure, equation 22
can be written
P -^ (23)
^ ~~ R'
where P is now pressure in the continuous solution. Since h in
equation 20 represents a pressure deficiency—that is, less than atmos-
pheric pressure—F in equation 23 is the basis for using moisture
tension measurements as a means of measuring pore size distribution
in soil. As the moisture tension is increased by some means such as
a moisture tension table ( 192 ) or a pressure membrane device
( JfJfS ), the soil pores will support the tension until the capillary
force is overcome and air enters the pore and causes drainage. Equa-
tion 23 gives the relationship between the applied moisture tension
and the theoretical maximum radius of water-filled pores. By using
equation 23 and the volume of soil solution removed under suction,
the size and amount of pore space in a soil sample can be determined.
Since the pores in soil are irregular in shape and vary in size, the R
calculated in equation 23 is a value that is theoretically equivalent to
the actual soil pore.
McFarlane and Tabor ( 26^^ 265 ) demonstrated the importance of
surface tension on adhesion by measuring the adhesion between a
glass sphere and a glass plate under saturated conditions. Figure 30
FIGURE 30.—The geometry of a glass sphere adhering to a plate used to com-

pute the force of adhesion. (McFarlane and Tabor, Roy. Soc. London
Proc, Ser. A {26J^).)
shows the water film between a flat plate and a sphere at saturation.
Since both surfaces in the experiment were glass, the contact angle
is the same. At saturation the water film contacts the plate at a
circle whose diameter is 4Ä, where R is the radius of the sphere.
Following the concept of capillary rise, the force F between the
sphere and plate is equal to the perimeter of contact multiplied by
the surface tension T^ and the cosine of the angle of contact a. This
relation is expressed as
F = 4:7rRT cos a. (24)
McFarlane and Tabor measured F, the adhesion force, for various
radii of beads. They used a clever method where the spherical glass
beads were suspended on the end of a fine fiber. The vertical plate
and bead were brought into contact; then the plate was moved back
until the bead fell away under the action of gravity. Figure 31 shows
the forces acting and shows how the angle 0 is a measure of F. Ad-
hesions as low as 10"^ grams could be readily measured with the
apparatus. Figure 32 shoAvs the results of this work. From the
slope of the line and equation 24, the surface tension for water could
be calculated. This method resulted in a value of 67.3 dynes per
centimeter, whereas the accepted surface tension of water at the same
temperature is 72.7 dynes per centimeter. They felt, however, that
the value was close enough to demonstrate the importance of surface
FIGURE 31.—A method used to determine the force of adhesion between a glass
bead and a flat plate.
100 r
.02 .04 .06 .08

RADIUS OF BEAD (cm)
FIGURE 32. -Effect of surface tension on adhesion. (McFarlane and Tabor,

Roy. Soc. London Proc, Ser. A (264).)
tension on adhesion. The values for surface tension for other liquids
in table 3 clearly verify the effect of surface tension on adhesion.
Fountaine ( 127 ) demonstrated the effect of moisture tension on
adhesion. He reasoned that when a soil is saturated and a continu-
ous water film exists between a plate and soil, tension m the \yater at
equilibrium would come to the same value throughout the soil mass.
To achieve equal tension most of the water-air menisci will move
into channels whose dimensions correspond with the tension governed
by the relation expressed in equation 23. Some of the menisci may
have to assume "forced" curvatures, since they are unable to reach
TABLE 3.—Surface tension of liquids as determined from measure-

ments of adhesion of thin films on glass surfaces
Surface tension
Type of
liquid Calculated from Accepted
adhesion value
Dynes/cm. Dynes/cm.
Water 67.3 72 7
Glycerine 59.0 63 5
Decane 22.4 25 0
Octane 19.9 21 8
SOURCE : McFarlane and Tabor ( 26Jf ).
channels of appropriate size. In this manner the water link will

give an adhesive strength per unit area of water film equal to the
moisture tension. If the plate is pulled from the soil slowly, the
water will move through the soil to the water film at the joint.
When the force exceeds the moisture tension value, failure occurs.
Fountaine ( 127 ) devised the apparatus shown in figure 33 to
SINTERED
GLASS BRASS
SOIL- PLATE
WATER
SOIL- ^SOIL
SCRAPED AWAY
COTTON- (B)
WOOL
WEIGHT
FIGURE 33.—Ân apparatus to measure the normal force between soil and a
metal plate. (Fountaine, Jour. Soil Sei. {121),)
measure the effect of moisture tension on adhesión. Up to 1 week

was required for equilibrium, and the load had to be applied very
slowly after equilibrium was reached. Rapid loading resulted in
higher measured adhesion than calculated. Fountaine reasoned that
the high values resulted from increased tension in the vicinity of the
film and that the increase was not transmitted through the soil to
the sintered glass plate where the exact value of tension was known.
Figure 34 shows the results for three soils. The lack of agreement
at higher moisture tensions in sandy loam and sand soils was be-
¡SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 47
CLAY LOAM SANDY LOAM SAND
8 12 16 20 4 8 12 16 20 4 8 12 16 20
MOISTURE TENSION (cm)
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE 34.—Effectiveness of soil moisture suction on adhesion for three soils.

(Fountaine, Jour. Soil Sei. { 127 ).)
lieved due to formation of discontinuities in the water film so that

the area in contact with the plate was not known. Attempts to
evaluate the exact area by using a low-powered binocular microscope
through a glass plate failed. Observations did confirm that bubbles
appeared at higher tensions. While no mechanism for explaining
the effect of moisture tension on adhesion was presented, the data
demonstrated that moisture tension did affect adhesion.
With the establishment of surface tension and moisture tension as
the primary means for transmitting force through moisture, the
factors that affect adhesion can be discussed." Since the wettability
of a material affects the angle of contact, factors that influence mois-
ture tension, such as surface tension and wettability, will have direct
influence on adhesion.
The surface tension of several liquids is shown in table 3. The
magnitude of surface tension for soil solutions has been determined
for several soils by Kummer and Nichols ( £35 ). Table 4 lists the
TABLE-4.—Surface tension of soil solutions of several soils

Sou type Surface tension
Dynes/cm.
Cecil clay 72.2
Greenville sandv loam 73.2
Sumnter clav _ 72.7
Lufkin clay _ - _ 70.5
values. Whether the reported values are representative of other soils

is open to speculation since these values appear to be the only ones
that have been published. Organic compounds such as benzene tend
to lower surface tension, but they are not generall}^ found in soil.
Salts appear to have little effect on surface tension since they ionize
and spread throughout the solution.
Increases in temperature decrease the surface tension of a liquid
in accordance with the relation
T ^ To (\-t/UY, (25)
where To = the surface tension depending upon critical constants
of the liquid,
tc = the critical temperature,
n = a universal constant,
T = the surface tension at any temperature t.
Data are virtually unavailable on the importance of temperature on
soil adhesion ( S12 ). According to equation 25, however, the natural
heating, due to friction, of tillage tools operating in soil should tend
to reduce adhesion. Heat has been applied to j)lows in an effort
to decrease adhesion and improve scouring. No significant decrease
was observed (23 ) but the experiment was not well controlled.
Wettability is a measure of the degree to which water will adhere
to the surface of a material. A material that is highly wettable will
be completely covered with a thin layer of water, whereas a non-
wettable material will merely support the water in a large drop on
the surface. The angle of contact a, illustrated in figure 35, is a
r
FIGURE 35.—The wetting angle of a film, indicated by the spreading that
occurs, is a measure of wettability.
measure of wettability. The greater the angle a, the less spreading

or wetting of the material. The angle a is the same angle considered
in equation 20 and is a function of both the soil and the solid ma-
terial. For adhesion to occur, the water must be attracted to both
the soil and the solid material.
Little research has been conducted on wettability of soils. Jamison
( 191 ) reported soils that were nearly completely resistant to wet-
ting. These soils became coated with waxy materials to the extent
that they were waterproofed and absorbed water very slowly. These
soils are not typical, however. Kummer and Nichols ( 235 ) de-
termined the wettability of metals that have been used in tillage tools.
Soil solutions were extracted from several soils by a laboratory
method in which the soil solution was displaced by another fluid.
Two specially ground and cleaned plates of test materials were
alined parallel and vertical and dipped into the solution. The solu-
tions rose between the plates in accordance with equation 20, and the
angle a could be determined from equilibrium heights and distance
between the plates as follows: Let œ be the difference in height oí
capillary rise between two plates when separated at two distances,
Wi and W2. Then from the geometry of the system and equation 20
Al = Ä2 + a?, (26)
and
2T cos a 2T cos a
1 = -^ ; à2 =
/l2 - ————. (27)
~ g p W2
Substituting for Äi and Ä2 and solving for cos a gives
xgp / WxW2 \
cos a = -^ (28)
\Wi - W2J'
the equation from which the angle of wetting a can be determined.
The experiments indicated that the wettability of different materials
by different soils is relatively constant (table 5).
TABLE 5.—Wetting angle of various soil solutions on several types

of metal surfaces
Soil from which solution was extracted
Type of
metal Sump ter CecU Greenville Lufkin
clay clay sandy loam clay
Degrees Degrees Degrees Degrees
Cast iron 65.5 76.7 73.7 66.5
Stainless steel 81.5 80.7 81.8 80.9
Plow steel 76.5 78.5 77.6 75.6
SOURCE : Kummer and Nichols ( 2S5 ).
Several other factors influence adhesion, but their effect has not
been clearly demonstrated for soils. The angle of wetting is prob-
ably affected by the surface roughness of the material. Presumably,
small irregularities act like small capillaries in which water can rise
and thereby increase the film contact. The viscosity of a fluid may
also affect adhesion, since it will influence the movement of water.
Where relatively short loading times are involved, lack of movement
may affect moisture tension or the area of contact in the immediate
neighborhood of the adhering moisture films. The effect of these
factors has yet to be determined for soils.
As was indicated in the discussion of friction, several factors affect
the coefficient of friction defined by equation 19. Obviously, one fac-
tor is adhesion ; furthermore, the effects of adhesion cannot be simply
separated from friction. The problem is usually circumvented by
specifying equation 19 as the apparent coefficient of friction. That
force normal to the sliding surfaces which is due to adhesion is inter-
preted in a change in the coefficient />t. Since experimentally the ap-
parent coefficient rather than the true coefficient of friction is meas-
ured, the apparent coefficient of friction is normally utilized.
Haines ( 169 ) demonstrated the importance of adhesion on the
sliding friction of metals on soil. The relation is expressed in the
form
^' = ^ - tan 8, (29)
where /x' = coefficient of sliding friction,

F = force to cause sliding,
N = normal force on sliding surface,
Ô = angle of soil-metal friction.
Haines measured the force required to pull a slider over different soils
having a wide range of moisture contents. He calculated the ap-
parent coefficient of sliding friction /¿^; typical results are shown in

figure 36. These data have been duplicated by other workers.
500
10 20 30
MOISTURE (PER CENT)
FIGURE 36.—Effect of the moisture content of soil on the coefficient of soil-

metal friction in sand (solid dots) and clay (circles). (Haines, Jour. Agr.
Sei., Cambridge University Press ( 169 ).)
In general, the curves can be explained on the basis of adhesion.

In sand, the initial flat part of the curve corresponds to the true co-
efficient of sliding friction, as considered in equation 19. As water
is added, moisture films develop between the slider and the soil, and
adhesion increases. The increase in adhesive force acts in the same
way as an increase in the weight of the slider, so that the increased
frictional force may not be due to a change in ¡JL- with moisture but
rather is due to an apparent change in the normal load caused by
adhesion. Since Haines had no measure of the increased adhesive
force and hence the increased normal load, he calculated an apparent
coefficient of sliding friction /JL% as defined by equation 29.
Fountaine and Payne ( 127, 331 ) conclusively proved that adhe-
sion acts as an increase in normal load under saturated conditions.
They used the experimental setup illustrated in figure 37. The
normal load on the slider could be applied either by moisture tension
or by weights. A series of different normal loads was applied to the
slider by each method, and the friction angle was determined from
observations of four soils. The results are given in table 6. Since
the friction angles were similar and since the curves of normal load
versus friction force would pass very close to the origin, the authors
concluded that adhesion acts as a normal load and is, in fact, equiva-
lent to normal loads applied by weight in low-moisture-tension
ranges. The equivalency at higher moisture tensions is open to spec-
ulation ; no work has clearly demonstrated the effect one way or the
other. Since the range covered in the experiment represents the
range where the apparent friction angle is high, the effect must be
considered; and it helps explain soil-metal friction.
WEIGHT APPLIED HERE
IF REQUIRED-I
SOIL CYLINDRICAL
SINTERED GLASS CONTAINER
FARADAYS WAX
MOISTURE TENSION
LOADING BUCKET-
FIGURE 37.—An experimental method used to control soil moisture suction on

a sliding surface. (Payne and Fountaine, Nati. Inst. Agr. Engm. {331),)
TABLE ß,—Effect of loads applied hy mechanical weights and hy soil

moisture suction on the frictional properties of several soils
Angle of sliding friction

Soil type Normal load applied Normal load applied
by mechanical weights by moisture suction
Degrees Degrees
r^lp-iT InfiTTi — ——— 35 41
TJOPTTI — ——— — 27 26
Snnrlv lofiTTi 27 31
16 17
Sand
SOURCE : Payne and Fountaine {331 ).
Nichols {316) has classified the general phases of soil friction.

The phases are largely determined by the moisture content of the soil
(fig 38). Moisture content is related to the area of moisture ñlm
present and to moisture tension; moisture content can thus be used
to explain the general behavior of soil-metal friction. According
to Nichols' classification, the friction phase is found when the soil
is dry. As moisture is added, adhesion.begins and the apparent co-
efficient of friction increases. The adhesive phase is found when
enough water is present to cause high adhesion but not enough to
provide a free water surface.
0.7 -
1
0.6 - /
0.5 - /
^,x^
0.4
0.3
FRICTION ADHESION LUBRICATION
0.2 PHASE PHASE PHASE
0.1
1 L_i 1
10 15 20
MOISTURE CONTENT (7o)
FIGURE 38.—General phases of soil friction used to identify soil reactions at
different moisture contents. (Nichols, Agr. Engin. (5i6).)
The rapid increase in apparent coefficient of friction in the ad-

hesive range can be explained from adhesion. As the moisture con-
tent increases, moisture tension decreases and adhesion decreases as
shown in figure 34. But since the normal load is a function of
total contact area, presumably the area is increasing faster than ad-
hesion is decreasing. The increased normal load thus gives a higher
apparent coefficient of friction. As more moisture is added and
moisture tension becomes even less, presumably a situation is reached
where adhesion decreases more rapidly than the area of moisture
film increases so that an actual decrease in total load results. The
final lubricating phase occurs when enough moisture is present to
cause low moisture tension and a free water surface to "lubricate"
the soil-metal surface, and thus reduce total adhesion. Lubrication
was perhaps a poor choice of words since data indicate that the ap-
parent coefficient of friction is usually higher in the lubrication phase
than in the friction phase.
2.9.4 Abrasion
When a large amount of soil slides over the surface of a machine
such as a metal tillage tool and the frictional forces are high, abra-
sion may make the machine ineffective. Parameters of both the tool
and the soil are important in abrasion (4^, 30), The abrasion
properties of soil are similar to the dynamic frictional properties.
When the soil acts as a rigid body, rolling of the soil grains is pre-
vented; and scratching, breaking, or grinding of the machine sur-
faces may be excessive.
The same principle applies to metal in which hard carbide crystals
are held in a firm matrix. The hardness (relative to that of the
sliding material), sharpness, size, and amount of soil grains and the
water content of the soil mass are physical characteristics or condi-

tions that affect abrasion. The metal characteristics that affect
abrasion are hardness, strength, and toughness. Dynamic parameters
of an abrading system include the stresses on the sliding surface and
the duration, and rate of sliding so far as it influences the tempera-
ture and stability of the sliding surface. Abrasion as a dynamic prop-
erty of soil is particularly manifest when its influence is permitted
to accumulate on a sliding surface. Wear of the soil by abrasion is
neither desirable nor of consequence so its effect is disregarded.
Wear of machine surfaces, on the other hand, has had practical
effects ; studies have therefore been directed toward securing remedial
actions. The mechanics of failure during abrasion is difficult to
study because soil does not act as a rigid body system. Stresses are
complex and a number of parameters in the soil-machine system have
not been fully characterized and evaluated.
2.10 Dynamic Versus Static Properties
The concept of dynamic and static properties of soil has been used
in this chapter. A dynamic property comes into play in the response
of soil to applied forces. The response usually results in movement
that can be considered as rigid body movement or as internal move-
ment in terms of stress and strain. A dynamic property, however,
does not have to change in size during movement. Conversely, the
size of a static property does not have to remain static during move-
ment. The connotation of the definition implied is the response of
soil to applied forces and not the size of the property. Thus, macro-
pore space is classified as a static property even though its size prob-
ably will change as the result of applied forces. Static is assigned
as a definition because the property exists even when forces are not
applied. On the other hand, friction as a physical force in tillage or
traction does not exist until the soil responds to a force and tends
to move. After motion begins, the size of friction may or may not
be static. The concept of static and dynamic properties must be
clearly understood if it is to be profitably used.
Separating properties of soil into static and dynamic categories is
one means of characterizing soil. Characterizing soil with regard
to plant growth, tillage tool design, or road building so that desired
results can be obtained has been and still is one of the goals of
researchers. One difficulty is that each area of interest probably re-
quires a different system or means of characterizing soil. Defining
dynamic properties in the foregoing manner provides a method to
systematically develop a characterization that will apply to the
reaction of soil to applied forces.
Such a procedure, however, does have limitations. If parameters
of equations describing soil behavior are the properties that form the
basis of a characterization, then the equations must relate to funda-
mental factors of interest. If not, the characterization will be un-
duly complex, will probably lack physical significance, and may have
very limited value. Such possibilities result because the equations
must be developed from simple experiments and the conclusions
extrapolated to the more general conditions found in nature.
Unfortunately, many relations can appear to be important under
the controlled conditions of a simple experiment when, in reality, a

more fundamental principle is involved. For example, Newton was
aware that material bodies fell to the ground according to Galileo's
laws of falling bodies, that all projectiles followed parabolic paths,
and that the planets moved around the sun in elliptical orbits accord-
ing to Kepler's laws of motion. The equations for each phenomenon
were complete and accurate. Yet Newton showed that each phe-
nomenon was in reality part of a more fundamental behavior, which
he represented in one simple equation that is the basis of his classical
theory of gravitation. From his one simple equation, all the other
equations can be deduced and the physical significance is much easier
to understand and explain. Such a possibility can occur with soils.
Furthermore, simple experiments can inadvertently control a factor
of which the researcher is unaware so that erroneous conclusions are
made. Eesearchers using parameters of equations to characterize
soil must strive to relate fundamental and independent quantities
that have been observed over as wide a range as possible. Only in
this manner can a simple yet representative characterization be de-
veloped.
ASSESSMENT OF THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES
OF SOIL
3.1 Soil as a Physical System

Soil is a granular medium that varies in composition from organic
peat to gravel and that may contain various amounts of water. The
soil physical system is continually being subjected to external forces
and is, therefore, dynamic. These external forces may be environ-
mental (climate, plants, animals, and micro-organisms) or mechanical
(forces applied by man using some type of machine). The specific
reaction of the soil to these forces is of interest. The forces provide
the means for changing soil from one condition into another and the
reaction indicates the kind and degree of change.
If one is to be able either to maintain a soil condition or to change
it to a more suitable condition, he must first have an understanding
of soil behavior ; this behavior must eventually be properly described.
Soil conditions and properties, widely varying types of forces, and
widely varying types of behavior must all be included in any de-
scription before the descripjtion can be satisfactory. The obvious
complexity of such a description requires that broad but realistic
classifications of reactions and soil conditions must be made. The
concept of dynamic properties presented in chapter 2 is an attempt
to make such a classification.
The first broad classification to consider in simplifying a descrip-
tion of behavior is the reaction of the soil to an applied force sys-
tem. If the forces cause the soil to yield, the reaction of the soil may
be active ; if the soil can support the forces, the reaction may be pas-
sive. To illustrate, consider the following situations. When a soil
is subjected to a dominant force system such as the force applied by
a plow, the reaction of the soil is active and movement of the
soil is determined largely by the geometry and method of operation
of the plow. On the other hand, if the soil is subjected to a trans-
mitted force system such as a low-velocity gas stream, the soil re-
sists the force and the gas flow through the soil is controlled primarily
by the geometry and size of the soil pores. Here the reaction of the
soil is passive. Thus, depending on the role of the soil, either its
dynamic or its static properties become operative to an applied force
system.
Static and dynamic properties of a soil mass that are operative in
soil behavior are not necessarily the same as those of the soil ma-
terial. The concept of a static, dynamic, or material property uses
the meaning of property in its broadest sense, namely, a characteristic
quality or trait proper to a person or thing. With this broad con-
cept, properties themselves can and should be categorized according
to purpose or intent.
55
One logical category identifies physical properties of the material.

For example, a piece of metallic wire can be identified by specifying
its chemical composition, size and shape, crystalline structure, and
density. These properties can be identified and measured without
regard to any functional use of the wire. If, however, we wish to
describe what happens to current when a voltage is applied to the
wire, we must describe the passive reaction or behavior of the wire
and the dynamic action of the current. From experience we know
that an electric current ñows in accordance with Ohm's law and the
electrical resistance of the wire is the property associated with the
electrical conductance behavior. Even though the particular piece of
wire can be identified by its physical properties, the relation of these
properties to the electrical resistance is neither obvious nor easily
determined. Thus, an electrical behavior property—that is, resist-
ance—is not the same as a physical property. It is a different kind
of property that characterizes the wire with regard to dynamic action
of the current under the influence of the applied voltage.
The same wire could be used to support a weight, and a different
behavior becomes of interest. How does the wire react to an ap-
plied force ? Experience tells us that the strength of the wire is im-
portant in the dynamic action ; therefore, strength is another kind of
behavior property. The wire stretches, and Hook's law may be used
as a simple mathematical expression to describe the reaction.
The essential difference between physical properties and resistance
and strength properties centers on the characterization being at-
tempted. Physical properties attempt to characterize the material
in question and no specific use of the material is implied. Eesistance
and strength properties characterize the reaction of the material in
a specific situation where some use for the material is implied. These
properties may properly be called behavior properties. While char-
acterization of behavior also involves identification, the main em-
phasis is on the implied use and characterization of the action of the
material. Identification properties and behavior properties are,
therefore, two broad, convenient classifications of properties.
The static and dynamic properties of interest in the examples of
the plow and low-velocity gas stream are behavior properties rather
than physical properties. Dynamic behavior properties of the soil
became involved when the plow applied forces to the soil and the
soil yielded. When the low-velocity gas stream was applied, the
soil resisted and static behavior properties of the soil became in-
volved. Simultaneously, however, d3^namic behavior properties of
the gas were involved. The active physical reaction of the soil to the
plow must be described by a soil-machine mechanics, whereas the
passive physical reaction of the soil, which guides and confines the
flow of the gas, must be described by passive behavior properties.
The dynamic action of the gas, on the other hand, must be described
by fluid mechanics. Static and dynamic properties are thus behavior
properties that characterize the reaction of the soil to applied forces.
As a general rule, areas in which reaction of the soil is passive are
considered in soil physics. The behavior capacity and the trans-
mission characteristics of the soil with reference to the movement of
air, water, and heat have been of particular interest ( 5, 32. 2H. 877 ).
Active and passive reactions must be recognized as separate if

behavior is to be fully understood and described. Nothing precludes
these two reactions from going on simultaneously. The dynamic re-
action affects the condition of the soil. The condition of the soil, in
turn, affects the size of the passive properties. An example of a
simultaneous action might be wetting that causes soil swelling which,
in turn, changes porosity and, consequently, the conduction of wâter
and air. As was discussed in section 2.10, the size of a dynamic
property does not necessarily change during soil movement and, con-
versely, the size of a static property does not necessarily remain fixed.
The distinction is on the action of the soil in any situation. Figure 39
provides a schematic illustration of soil behavior in which passive
and dynamic behavior properties of the soil are brought into play by
dominant or transmitted force systems.
The complexity of describing the reaction of soil to any applied
force system can only be partly envisioned from the oversimplified
schematic relation shown in figure 39. Generally, man's purpose or
use for soil has been more directly related to the static properties of
the soil that describe its in situ condition. For example, plant
growth is known to be affected by porosity, which controls mois-
ture and air movement. Soil temperature also affects plant growth,
so that heat capacity and rate of heat exchange are of interest.
The pressing need to improve and increase the capacity of the soil
for utilitarian purposes has spotlighted the apparent static proper-
ties. Much emphasis has been directed toward a study of passive
soil behavior in now phenomena. The need to improve relations of
this type has been so obvious that attempts have also been made to
relate soil conditions to behavior results in situations where dynamic
properties were involved. For instance, trafficability of soil has
been expressed in terms of static soil conditions ; yet the very action
oiP obtaining traction involves an active, not a passive, reaction to
soil. Similarily, the stability of building foundations and soil
impedance to plant root development involve active rather than pas-
sive soil reactions. As figure 39 indicates, however, soil conditions
characterized by static properties are affected by any active reaction.
Eelating behavior directly to static properties when active reactions
of the soil are involved thus must be a complex task and perhaps
even a futile one.
Even when soil reactions are passive, behavior is complex. This
passive behavior involves the movement of materials other than the
soil, but the movement is governed or modified by static soil behavior
properties. An equation to describe soil behavior will require some
form of force input to the soil. This input, together with the modi-
fying inñuences of the behavior properties, causes the output of the
equation—that is, the reaction in terms of air or water movement.
Thus, the static properties support the dynamic action of the trans-
mitted force system. Figure 39 shows that not only the dynamic
inputs (forces) but also the static property that characterizes the
specific behavior of the soil must be known and described. The input
of the metallic wire, discussed earlier, could be adequately described
in terms of voltage. With soil behavior, however, the forces ap-
plied to the soil by climate, plants, animals, and soil micro-organisms
■■¡■1 ^BíéíU^^^^^^V FORCE SYSTEM

Static State Properties
• Position
• Structure
• Density Tillage, Climate - Properties
Behavior Capacity Properties • Distribution
• Active - - Strength • Direction
• Passive - - Transmission • Magnitude
Material Properties 1 • Time Dependence
• Texture
• Minerals
• Chemical Composition
r T
I
r
SOIL YIELDS OR MOVES
DOMINATING FORCES
a
SOIL RESISTS MOVEMENT
TRANSMITTABLE FORCES
Dynamic Behavior Properties Passive Behavior Properties
• Cohesion • Pore Radius
^ Friction • Tortuosity of Pores
# Adhesion • Thermal Characteristics
ALTERED SOIL TRANSMISSION ACTIVITIES

Static State Properties
• Position
Behavior
• Structure
• Density # Aeration
Behavior Capacity Properties # Water Movement
• Active Strength # Heat Exchange
• Passive - Transmission
DOMIMANt FORCE SYSTEM TRANSMITTED FORCE SYSTEM
L
• MIXED FORCE SYSTEM • J
FIGURE 39.—Relation of static and dynamic behavior as a means of character-
izing soil reaction to an applied force system.
are so ill defined and involved that their magnitude and form are
generally not known. Thus, describing behavior in quantitative
terms, even for passive reactions, becomes almost impossible until the
forces can be adequately described.
At any one instant in time, forces such as those from climate can
cause a passive reaction; water entering soil is an example. When
the water content of a soil increases, these same forces can simul-
taneously cause an active reaction such as swelling. Thus, soil con-
ditions are often not static with respect to time but do, in fact, change
with time since the forces change with time. The actual condition
of the soil at any one time is, therefore, a function of the past his-
tory of forces. Since this history is generally not know^n, the con-
dition is attributed to such vague unknown quantities as weathering,
microbial activity, crop rotations, and aging. The inability to define
forces and the time dependence of forces are two factors that greatly
complicate describing behavior.
Mechanical forces such as those usually applied to a soil by tillage
tools or traction devices can be more specifically described than can
climatic or biological forces. Furthermore, their action is of rela-
tively short duration and their magnitude can be controlled. Con-
sequently, mechanical forces as a group can be separated and studied
with relative ease. It is this isolated group that is considered in de-
tail in this handbook on soil dynamics. Since mechanical forces that
are universally dominant forces cause soil reactions, behavior proper-
ties rather than static properties describe the reaction. Dominant
forces cause the soil to yield and become active rather than passive
in the soil reaction. A detailed study of behavior resulting from
mechanical forces, therefore, requires a detailed study of dynamic
properties.
To describe behavior in some rigorous manner, both input (forces)
and behavior (the soil's reaction) must be considered. The forces
cause the action, whereas the reaction determines the kind and amount
of change in soil condition. The action and the reaction are equally
important and must be properly described. The inñuence of the
condition of the soil on the reaction must also be indicated. Behavior
properties provide a logical means for describing this influence. A
relation is, therefore, implied to exist between physical and behavior
properties. A unique relation must exist because once a finite amount
of material is isolated for subjection to a force system, its physical
properties along with its behavior properties are fixed and deter-
mined. If these properties change during the action, the change can
theoretically be included in the description of behavior. A unique
though possibly complex relation, therefore, must exist between phy-
sical properties and each behavior property.
The relation between physical properties and behavior properties
can be more clearly seen when two facts are recognized. First,
physical properties primarily identify soil and its condition. They
are always in evidence. Behavior properties are made manifest
only when a specific action occurs. An action is not necessary for
physical properties to exist ; they are fundamental entities in them-
selves. A behavior property is not fundamental in itself ; rather, the
specific action is the fundamental entity and its defines the behavior.
The second fact is that static state and material properties (physical
properties) are independent of each other. A soil may be found
either in a dense state or in a loose, pulverized state. The soil ma-
terial is the same but its state is different. In a similar manner,
different soil materials can exist in the same static state. Therefore,
properties that identify a soil material and properties that identify
its static state are, within reasonable limits, independent of each
other. Furthermore, since physical properties describe the nature
of a material and its nature determines how the material will behave,
behavior properties must be a function of physical properties. In
other words, in a mathematical equation that describes a relation,
state and material properties are independent variables and behavior
properties are dependent variables.
Researchers have intuitively reasoned that a unique relation must
exist betwêen physical properties and behavior. If such a relation
does not exist, a different behavior would result whenever the same
system of forces is applied in the same manner to a material in a
given condition. Repetitive behavior, however, is observed when
carefully controlled and standardized procedures are followed.
Knowledge that such relations exist has often guided research
efforts in wrong directions. To illustrate, again consider the metallic
wire and Ohm's law. Available knowledge indicates that the resist-
ance of a piece of wire is inñuenced by the length of the wire, cross-
sectional area, chemical composition, and temperature. All these are
physical properties that identify the piece of wire. Imagine the
difficulty of describing behavior when voltage is applied if these
physical properties were to be included in the description without
knowledge of the behavior property, electrical resistance. Once re-
sistance has been identified, however, a logical means for describing
the behavior of current flow exists. First, behavior is described and
a behavior property is identified (Ohm's law and resistance). Then
the behavior property rather than the behavior itself can be studied.
Recognizing the existence of behavior properties and first search-
ing for them is a means of simplifying the problem of describing
behavior. The possibility exists that one physical property or some
simple combination of two or three physical properties might be
directly equivalent to a behavior property. In such instances, the
relation between physical properties and behavior may be found
without first identifying a behavior property. When the complex
behaviors of soil are observed, the possibility of directly relating
physical properties and behavior seems remote. It looul'd thus ap-
pear that the ^ relationship hetween the physical properties that
intuitively must affect dynamic properties and hence soil hehavior
must await means of identifying and quantitatively measuring the
dynamic properties. To fail to recognize this can only lead to con-
fusion and frustration.
3.2 Dynamic Parameters
In the preceding section, dynamic properties were shown to be
capable of characterizing soil as it reacts to applied forces. Inter-
relations betwêen applied forces, dynamic properties, and behavior
are implied in figure 39. The figure also suggests the qualitative na-
ture of these relations. The soil and the applied forces are both of
importance so that once a specific soil is isolated and a specific system
of forces applied, the resulting behavior is determined. The be-
havior must be considered in a restricted form; hence, a statistical
form of result is not produced. The soil and forces thus are primary
and basic, and the behavior is derived from these basic factors.
The forces, howêver, are the prime movers of any action. They
cause the action, so they may be properly termed inputs to any equa-
tion that expresses the manner of soil behavior. These inputs act
son. DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 61
on the soil, which may be schematically represented as a black box

that always correctly simulates soil behavior. The output from the
box is the result of the action. Thus, the forces, the black box, and
the results are related; and a description of the overall relation
suggests a function that can be expressed by a mathematical equa-
tion. The equation should relate inputs to outputs through the
black box so that the equation, in effect, describes the behavior under
consideration. In reality, the equation defines the dynamic behavior
properties. The relations implied in figure 39 suggest that each
dynamic property may appropriately be defined by a mathematical
equation.
Distinguishing between an initial identification and a subsequent
qualitative definition of dynamic properties is necessary in order to
clearly understand the relations between dynamic properties and
behavior. Consider the possible evolution of a hypothetical dynamic
property. By some means (probably experience) a specific behavior
is noted to be repetitive and of importance and, as a result, behavior
is isolated and observed.
Once the behavior has been isolated, a dynamic property should be
identifiable to characterize the soil's contribution to the behavior.
Since a dynamic property is a behavior property, it must be qualita-
tively defined by an equation as previously outlined. Thus, the sec-
ond step in the evolution of a dynamic property is its qualitative
definition by an appropriate equation. Determining such an equa-
tion requires much more knowledge than does the identification of
a dynamic property. Indeed, several isolated behaviors that have
been observed in soil were discussed in chapter 2. Only a few, how-
ever, were qualitatively defined by accurate equations. The gap be-
tween identification and qualitative definition of dynamic properties
may be very large and difficult to span.
A qualitative definition of a dynamic property is useful because
the equation that identifies it also identifies the inputs and outputs
of the soil behavior. Also, the equation generally indicates the
trends in the behavior.
A quantitative description of behavior is required before one can
predict and control behavior. A quantitative description requires a
third step in the evolution of a dynamic property—the establishment
of a unique correspondence between the magnitudes of inputs and
outputs of the basic equation. Such a correspondence requires that
the inputs and outputs be adequately described so that they can be
represented numerically. Furthermore, the dynamic property must
also be represented numerically to characterize the soil's contribution
to the behavior.
Dynamic parameters provide a means for numerically representing
dynamic properties. The parameter is defined as a quantity or con-
stant whose value varies with the soil conditions or circumstances.
Each equation that defines a dynamic property contains one or more
mathematical parameters that are measures of the dynamic property.
Thus, for a given circumstance (soil in a specific condition), the nu-
merical value of the parameter is a constant; but, as the soil condi-
tion varies because of such things as a change in moisture content,
the numerical value of the parameter may also vary. In other words,
the dynamic parameters are precisely determined by the physical
properties of the soil although the exact relation may not be known.
A complete quantitative description of behavior of the soil to forces
can be determined after one has identified, qualitatively defined, and
finally quantitatively assessed dynamic parameters of soil.
Although not indicated at the time, the requirements for a quanti-
tative description of behavior were met when dynamic properties
were discussed in chapter 2. For example, when soil deforms, the
output of the behavior equation is the resulting movement. Strain
was discussed in section 2.3 as a means of describing movement so
that numbers could be assigned. The forces acting in the system
cause the strain ; and stress, which numerically describes the forces, is
the input. Stress-strain equations replace the black box and define
a dynamic property, which reflects behavior. The parameters of the
stress-strain equations numerically assess the dynamic property.
Another example of behavior is shear; the output differs in this
instance, since the output description itself does not need to be
quantized. As indicated in section 2.8.1, shear is a yield condition;
and the output is the failure itself. Although the failure is clearly
described, a number is not necessarily specified. The input for shear
is again the applied forces, and they are the forces acting at incipient
failure. The relation between the stresses at incipient failure and
yield provides the real mathematical function of the black box.
Thus, equation 18 defines the dynamic property shear, whereas co-
hesion and the angle of friction are the dynamic parameters that
numerically represent shear. Both stress-strain equations and shear
yield equations are examples of force inputs that are related to be-
havior outputs by an equation that represents the behavior.
A superficial inspection of the previous analysis may raise the
question of whether forces are always inputs. In shear, for example,
shearing stress may seem to be an"^ output of the behavior since the
shear stress is the maximum value that can be obtained for the situa-
tions under consideration. If the intended purpose of the soil is to
obtain traction, shear stress may be visualized as the limiting value
of traction for the particular situation ; hence, shear stress is of direct
interest and appears to be an output of the behavior. Shear stress,
however, causes the failure; failure does not cause the shear stress.
The confusion is explained by Newton's Third Law of Motion, which
states that every force has an opposite and equal reaction force.
Thus, the shear stress has an opposite reactive stress, and this re-
active stress is the limiting value when the intended use of the soil
is for traction. Behavior and intended use of the soil, therefore,
must be kept separate if the mechanisms in behavior are to be clearly
understood.
Dynamic parameters are not always present in equations defining
dynamic properties. Such a situation arises when the behavior out-
put is not ¡quantized and the force input is simply represented. In
fact, the situation can be so simple that no equation is required.
In tensile failure, for example, the magnitude of the normal stress
completely describes the behavior at failure. Dynamic parameters,
thus, are not basic because they are defined only by the equations that
represent the mathematical models of the behavior. It is the be-
havior and implied dynamic property that are real and basic. For
SOIL DYNAMICS TN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 63
example, soil-metal friction is real and unique, and equation 29 de-

fines the dynamic property.
Only one parameter is needed to represent the property ; however,
we might choose some other model to represent the property so that
a different mathematical parameter or even more than one parameter
might represent the same property. Dynamic parameters, therefore,
are useful but are onl}^ a means for numerically representing the
basic factor, the dynamic property.
Assessing dynamic properties involves assigning numbers to dy-
namic parameters. Since the relations between the parameters and
physical properties are not known, some means of measuring the
parameters is required. Dynamic parameters can be extremely use-
ful even without knowledge of their relation to physical properties,
if the parameters can be assessed. In metals, for example, specify-
ing the yield strength permits a quantitative design of some specific
use for the metal such as an element of some machine or building.
Yet metallurgy, which deals with physical properties of metals,
cannot always provide the quantitative relationship between the phy-
sical properties and yield strength. While these relationships are
highly desirable, the lack of relationships between physical proper-
ties of soil and dynamic parameters of soil does not negate the
usefulness of the parameters.
As indicated in chapter 2, not all dynamic parameters have been
identified. Lack of suitable stress-strain equations is an example.
Even further, some that have been identified are not readily assessed.
Indeed^ this is the crux of the soil dynamics dilemma. If all the
idealized dynamic parameters could le successfully measured,^ con-
siderable progress could le made in developing a quantitative descrip-
tion of behavior. With such descriî)tions, relations between soil and
machines could be developed, a rigid mathematical soil-machme
mechanics could be established, and the soil's capacity could be
better used for a utilitarian purpose. Practical considerations, how-
ever, dictate that relations between soil and machines must be estab-
lished even if an empirical approach has to be followed. Consider-
able research, therefore, has been directed toward correlating machine
performance with one or more dynamic parameters of the soil.
Thus, in both theoretical and empirical approaches, dynamic para-
meters must be measured—that is, their identity and magnitude must
be defined and assessed.
Before techniques for measuring dynamic parameters are dis-
cussed, composite parameters should be defined. The parameters
indicated in chapter 2 may all be classed as independent parameters
because they appear in the mathematical models as independent
parameters that identify and assess the magnitude of the single
property under consideration.
A composite parameter, however, can also be visualized. For
example, the bearing strength of soil is useful for designing foot-
ings. Such a mathematical model conceives of the unit pressure that
the soil will support as a measure of the soil's capacity to support
a load. Obviously, this unit pressure is a yield condition and can
possibly be described in terms of cohesion and internal friction.
Thus, bearing strength could be a composite parameter of cohesion
64 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 31G, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
and internal friction. A composite parameter, therefore, is not in-

dependent since it combines the effects of two or more factors that
are known to be independent. From its mathematical model, how-
ever, the composite parameter may appear to be independent. The
bearing strength parameter is represented as force divided by the
area over which the force acts, and so it appears to be unique and in-
dependent. The difference between an independent parameter and
a composite parameter is thus one of degree rather than kind.
A parameter cannot be classified from its own mathematical model
but must be classified on the basis of additional knowledge. For
example, at one time matter was tliought to be composed of three
particles—electrons, protons, and neutrons.: Each defined an inde-
pendent unit. Today, many additional particles have been identified
so that the earlier three are no longer independent but are themselves
composites. Similarly, a dynamic parameter may be classified today
as independent but in the future may be found to be composite.
Nevertheless, dynamic parameters are a systematic means of identify-
ing and quantizing factors of importance for describing the type of
soil behavior under consideration. Their usefulness depends on the
accuracy of the defining mathematical equation and the success of
measuring the parameters, not on their specific relation to physical
properties.
Both independent and composite parameters must be measured in
both theoretical and empirical approaches for solving soil-machine
problems. Composite parameters must be used when independent
parameters have not been identified and when measurements are dif-
ficult or time consuming. In fact, no feasible means has yet been
devised to make some of the desired measurements.
The procedure is the same for measuring both independent and
composite parameters. Generally, an apparatus is devised that
applies and controls either forces or movements, or both, so that the
specific quantities of interest can be observed and measured. Thus,
a shear box (fig. 27) can be used to control the surface of failure in
the soil and the normal force N while the force F causing failure is
nieasured. Manipulation of the data permits evaluating the de-
sired parameters. The apparatus thus attempts to simulate the
conditions represented by the mathematical model.
Too often, however, an apparatus does not exactly duplicate the
action represented by the mathematical model so that the apparatus
itself influences the results. Measurements in such instances do not
yield values that intrinsically characterize the soil but rather values
that characterize both the soil and the device. Inaccuracies can re-
sult because the mathematical model is wrong or because the ap-
paratus does not represent the model, or both. In other instances,
the apparatus may measure in one range of forces while the machine
mav operate in another so that the magnitude of the parameters is
different. For example, if the coefficient of the soil-metal friction
varies with normal load, both the device used to assess the coefficient
and the machine to which the coefficient is applied should use com-
parable normal loads.
In spite of these complications, progress has been made in using
dynamic parameters to describe soil-machine relations. Some of these
relations are discussed in later chapters. In this chapter, brief at-

tention is given to the methods and techniques that have been used
to assess both independent and composite dynamic parameters.
3.2.1 Measuring Independent Parameters
By using appropriate apparatus, specific independent dynamic
parameters of shear, tension, compression, plastic flow, friction, and
adhesion can be measured under highly controlled conditions. As
indicated earlier, the methods that have been developed are not com-
pletely accurate or satisfactory. Specific instructions on how these
measurements should be made have been described in other publica-
tions ( 7, 11, U, 2J^5, £69, 4^j8, 1^50, JiS8). In addition, specialized
measurements are described in a number of research papers cited in
this handbook in connection with specific topics. Undoubtedly,
these measurement techniques will be modified or improved as re-
search is continued; however, techniques for a number of measure-
ments have been standardized to some extent, and an effort should
be made to use these when practicable.
3.2.7.7 Shear
Shear was interpreted in section 2.8.1 as a failure or yield condi-
tion, and the various ramifications were discussed. Basically, failure
was adjudged to occur, and the stresses acting at incipient failure
were used to describe the condition. A mathematical model repre-
senting the relations between the appropriate stresses was envisioned,
and the model suggested that shear was represented by two para-
meters. One of these is a cohesive parameter, which depends upon
the strength of in situ bonds. The other is made up of frictional
resistance which results from the sliding of soil over soil and which
appears to obey the laws of friction.
All present measurements of shear attempt to evaluate the two
parameters C and (/). Keep in mind, however, that these are para-
meters of the mathematical model representing shear. Physically,
the two parameters are not separate or unique entities and so are not
true physical properties. Until a different model is proposed, how-
ever, measurement of shear will center around evaluating cohesion
and internal friction ( 7, 12),
The means most widely used for measuring shear can be appro-
priately described as a direct shear apparatus. A direct shear ap-
paratus permits one to control the failure surface and simultaneously
provides a means for determining the appropriate stresses. Figures
27 and 28 illustrate a method that can be used on disturbed soil
samples.
An advantage of direct shear methods is that they can be adapted
for in situ measurements. The form of the apparatus for in situ
measurements is generally as shown in figure 40 and failure is en-
visioned to occur as in figure 40, B. Figure 40, A illustrates a pos-
sible failure that is not represented by the assumed mathematical
model describing shear. In this case the displacement of the device
and the deformation of the soil are not the same. When this type of
failure occurs, conclusions will be incorrect because of the inaccurate
representation. Other possible misrepresentations may result from
nonhomogeneous stress distributions along the shearing surface. In
N N
(A) (B)
FIGURE 40.—In situ direct shear apparatus showing shear failure : A, Soft
conditions; B, hard conditions.
addition, strain may not be uniform along the failure surface ; there-
fore, the observed movement of the apparatus does not represent
movement at the failure zone.
Jenkin ( 200 ) demonstrated the importance of distinguishing be-
tween conditions simulating constant volume and those simulating
constant stress. In an extreme condition represented by compacted
sand, he found that the force required to rotate a steel plate in-
creased 270 times when the volume was not permitted to expand
during shear. Confinement caused shear within individual sand
grains rather than between grains, hence the increased force.
Experiences such as Jenkin's indicate that shear should be meas-
ured under controlled stress. Extreme care is required to insure
that the envisioned model is being accurately represented by the ap-
paratus. The precautions and techniques will not be covered here.
The degree to which an apparatus duplicates conditions represented
by the assumed mathematical model depends on the kind of apparatus
and the techniques of its use. As a result, different shear values are
often obtained on the same soil with different apparatus. Various
aspects of their appropriateness will be discussed in conjunction with
individual apparatus.
In all direct shear apparatus, the normal and tangential forces
are measured as well as the relative movement of the apparatus with
respect to the soil. The normal and tangential forces divided by
the appropriate failure area gives the required stresses. Movement
is generally expressed in terms of strain. The data can be repre-
sented as shown in figure 41, where the tangential or shearing stress
is plotted versus the strain for a constant normal stress. The three
characteristic curves represent the range of behavior observed.
Condition A,is characteristic of highly cemented and dried soils or
hard, clean sands that exhibit a high peak strength. Once initial
failure occurs by breaking cemented bonds that reflect high cohe-
sion, the measured stress lessens and the friction component is pri-
marily represented. Condition B represents the other extreme where
the soil is loose and has low cohesive strength. Any number of
intermediate behaviors such as indicated by condition C may be
found.
From data such as indicated in figure 41, the parameters of shear
can be determined. Incipient failure is adjudged to occur either
when the shear stress reaches a definite peak (condition A) or when
the shear reaches a plateau (condition B). A series of shear meas-
A
STRAIN
FIGURE 41.—Typical shear stress-strain relations for soils in three conditions :

A, Cemented; B, loose; and C, dense. Each curve is at a constant normal
load.
urements are made at different normal stresses for a given soil

condition. The shear stress at incipient failure is plotted versus
the associated normal stress, as shown in figure 42, J., where points
T
B^,.^_
rc
-a
i w
(A) (B)
FIGURE 42.—Typical direct shear data indicating A, the components of shear,

used to construct B, the Mohr's circle representing a specific point of failure.
A, B, and C represent experimental points. The experimental points

usually lie on a straight line or a smooth curve that can be extra-
polated to zero normal stress. The slope of the curve defines the
angle of internal friction <^, whereas the intercept of the extrapolated
line with the shear stress axis defines G, the cohesion. As discussed
in section 2.8.1, a straight line can be represented by equation 18,
which has the form
r = 0 -{• cr tan <^, (18)
where r = shearing stress,
(T = normal stress,
G = cohesion,
(^ = angle of internal friction.
bö AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
Equation 18 is, therefore, the mathematical model that represents

shear failure. The parameters of the equation, C and <^, are the
desired measures of shear.
Direct shear data can yield more information than just the shear
parameters C and 0. Direct shear data basically provide informa-
tion concerned only with stress at failure. As discussed in section
2.8.1, the failure stress can be considered to act on a plane. Not only
is the orientation of the failure plane of interest, but also the magni-
tude of principal stresses of the stress state causing failure. Since
the line determined by points A, B, and C represents failure states,
the line must be a failure envelope for the Mohr's circles discussed
in section 2.8.1. Any circle just tangent to the line, therefore, must
be a failure circle. Constructing line BO perpendicular to the en-
velope so that BO intersects the abscissa, as shown in figure 42, ¿,
locates the center of the Mohr's circle associated with the failure
condition at point B. Constructing the appropriate circle then pro-
vides the desired information. Thus, while direct shear data provide
values oi C and ^ only, additional information can be obtained by
using conditions of the Mohr concept.
The simplest types of direct shear apparatus are illustrated in
figures 27 and 28. Many types are in use, and some may apply
normal stresses in excess of 1 ton per square foot to shear rock frag-
ments ( i^ ). Such types of direct shear have been utilized almost
entirely as laboratory apparatus.
One unique field type of direct shear for in situ measurements was
called the soil truss {177). The truss consisted of a parallelogram
mechanism, which was designed to apply normal as well as tangential
loads to the shear box in the soil. Adjustments of the lengths of
the parallelogram permitted the application of different ratios of
normal and shearing forces in order to obtain soil failure. Eela-
tionships of T versus c could be constructed from the measured data,
since the normal load-shearing force ratio was known for any posi-
tion of the apparatus.
Hvorslev, as reported by the Waterways Experiment Station
( 476 ), developed a unique modification of the direct shear apparatus
for in situ measurements. In this method a round shear box was
rotated instead of being moved in a straight path. The shearing
stress was computed by using, the equation
s - -B-, (30)
where M = torque to cause shear,
r = radius of the plate,
and by assuming that the soil was plastic and thus the stress was
independent of strain.
Fountaine and Payne ( 129 ) developed a portable apparatus to
measure shear strength of field soils. A hollow, circular shear box
was driven into the soil until the top of the box was in contact with
the soil. The soil against the outside of the box was then carefully
excavated before shear failure was measured, so only the soil at the
SOIL DYNÂMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 69
TORQUE
SHEAR BOX
WEIGHTS
r/m//M//á
FIGURE 43.—A simple field torsion shear apparatus.
bottom of the box was sheared (fig. 43). Markers were placed in
the soil inside the shear box so that they were visible through little
holes in the top of the box (fig. 43). By watching the position of
the markers as the soil was sheared, they concluded that the mass
of soil in the shear box moved as a unit and that the rate of strain
within the sample could be considered uniform.
Cohron ( 79 ) has devised a portable torsion shear of this type
that records the shear data without elaborate instruments.
In an effort to overcome the fact that the outermost elements must
move considerably farther than those in the center, a narrow annulus
has been used as a shear apparatus ( 1^8, 162, 2J^5, 397 ). Shearing
stress is easily calculated for a narrow annulus by using polar coor-
dinates. An elemental area is given by
r dB dr,
and assuming a constant shear stress S acting on the annulus area,
the force on the elemental area is
Srdddr,
The force acts at a distance r from the center so that the moment
at the center of the annulus is
S r^ de dr.
Integrating over the appropriate area gives the total moment, which
has the form
M Sr^ de dr.
J^2 Jo
Performing the integration gives
M - 3
and solving for S gives
UI
S (31)
277 {n^-r2^y
where S = shearing stress,
M = torque to shear the soil,
ri = outride radius of annulus,
^2 = inside radius of annulus.
Another rotating circular apparatus (fig. 44) has been proposed
2>
FIGURE 44.—A vane shear apparatus.
in the form of a vane shear ( 7 ). Once driven into the soil, rotation
causes shear of soil along the surface of the cylinder, which is gen-
erated by the vanes. This device may be used at great depths in the
soil without excavations. Measurements may be made at succeeding
depths without extracting the shear device, so that a rather complete
strength profile of natural soil conditions can be obtained. Shear
stress may be computed from the equation
UI
S = (32)
287rr^'
when the vanes have a height-to-radius ratio of 4:1. The vane shear
provides no means of varying normal load, although Evans and
Sherratt ( 113 ) have estimated values of cohesion from vane shear
data.
A more sophisticated shear device has been developed in the form
of a so-called triaxial apparatus (fig. 45). A cylinder of soil is
confined in a thin impermeable membrane, which is tightly sealed
around two parallel circular platens located at the ends of the soil
columns. As long as the membrane is very thin, it has essentially
no influence on the stresses within the sample ( Jiiïl ). When the
entire system is submerged in a fluid and pressurized from an ex-
ternal source, the soil is subjected to a uniform pressure on all sides
that is eqûivalent to the pressure in the external chamber. Friction
and arching may cause small irregularities in stress distribution at
-AXIAL LOAD
AXIAL
CHANGE
PRESSURE
RUBBER
MEMBRANE
DIAMETER
CHANGE
POROUS
PLATE
-HÔ
PRESSURE
Lhl^^VOLUME
CHANGE
FIGURE 45.—Triaxial shear apparatus modified to measure diameter strain.
the platens, but there will be considerably less friction and arching
in this system than in any other known system. Following an initial
uniform loading by the hydraulic system, an additional mechanical
axial stress can be applied to the soil by means of a rod that extends
out of the external pressure chamber. By increasing the axial stress
over the lateral stress, shear failure can be caused. Failure occurs
either when a clear fracture is evident or when the diameter of the
sample is increased. At incipient failure the principal stresses are
known, and the results may be plotted in Mohr's diagrams. Values
for C and ^ can be determined from the diagrams, as shown m
figure 24. While the name of the triaxial device indicates that the
stresses can be controlled along three axes, such is not the case be-
cause the two lateral stresses are always the same. Nevertheless, the
triaxial apparatus provides an excellent means for making shear
measurements.
The usefulness of basic shear data depends partly on how it is
incorporated into a soil-machine mechanics. As isolated values, C
and ^ have no practical usefulness other than to characterize soil
conditions. Several attempts have been made to extend the useful-
ness of the basic shear data. Payne ( 329 ) pointed out that much of
the time when soil is being moved, the maximum shear stress only
partly represents the conditions. He reasoned that large strains in
soil would indicate that the magnitude of the shear stress represented
by a plateau, as illustrated by condition A in figure 40, is a more
reasonable estimate of the acting stress. The value of 0 obtained m
the normal manner, therefore, might be too high. He proposed use

of a residual type of ¿7, which is designated Cr. The value Or was
derived from the portion of the shear curve represented by the pla-
teau rather than by the maximum shearing stress. Table 7 gives
TABLE 7.—Cohesion {0) and residual cohesion (Or) values for

several soils
Type of soil Cohesion (C) Residual

cohesion (Or)
P.s.i. P.sA.
Sandy loam 1.64 1.13
Sandy loam (nonscouring) 2.32 1.30
Clay loam 3.07 1 78
Loose sand .34 30
SOURCE : Payne {829 ),
some values for cohesion and residual cohesion reported by Payne.

The residual value Cr thus becomes an additional dynamic parameter
that can be secured from basic shear measurements in certain soil
conditions. Cohron ( 79 ) has also measured residual cohesion and
advocated its use.
An even further departure from C and cj) has been proposed when
the shear curve is the shape represented by condition B in figure 40.
Many surface soils can be represented by such a curve; and this
curve can, in turn, be approximated by two straight intersecting lines.
One line is horizontal and represents the plateau shearing stress,
Avhereas the other straight line represents the slope of the initial por-
tion of the curve. The strain distance at which the two lines intersect
was identified as AT, a deformation modulus ( 2^9 ). Low values of
K indicate brittleness, whereas higher values indicate deformability.
The deformation modulus becomes another possible dynamic para-
meter, but its interpretation is based on the mathematical model
representing the situation (here the two straight lines that approxi-
mate the basic curve) rather than any specific physical property of
the soil.
A more radical departure in evaluating shear was proposed by
Bodman and Kubin ( 4<S ), who based their evaluation on work done
on the soil. They subjected soil placed in a narrow annulus box to
vertical and tangential loads, which caused shear failure. Total work
was computed as
TT = Tf, + TFe, + TF. (33)
where W = total work.
Wo = work by action of normal stress alone,
Wcs = work by action of normal stress during shear,
Ws = work by action of tangential stress during shear.
Mathematical integration of differential equations representing the
apparatus results in simple expressions to evaluate each term in
equation 33. By using the work concept, shear in any specific soil
condition is characterized by the number representing the energy
expended in the work done in shearing the soil. Again, however, the
usefulness of the number depends on its application, and no effort to
date has been made to use shear work in a soil-machine mechanics.
The foregoing considerations of shear were based on a homogeneous
soil. Soil is often broken up by tillage or some other action so that
it is no longer homogeneous. Clods that have a high internal
strength may be formed, even though they are held together in a mass
that has a low intraclod strength. In this situation both clod
strength and overall mass strength may need to be known. With this
in mind, Fountaine, Brown, and Payne ( 128 ) developed a method
suitable for measuring the shear of individual clods. The principle
of their technique is illustrated in figure 46, where a clod of soil is
APPLY TORQUE
WAX
PLASTER
CLOD' OF PARIS
FIGURE 46.—A method for determining shear of individual soil clods. (Foun-
taine, Brown, and Payne, Sixth Internatl. Cong. SoU Sei. Soc, 1956 {128).)
cemented to jaws with a quick-drying plaster. The clod can be

firmly held and twisted without concentrating stresses on the ir-
regular surface. If the clod is coated with wax, the strength is not
altered by water in the wet plaster. Torque is applied to the clod
until failure occurs (a clean break), and the shearing stress is com-
puted by means of equation 30. A successful application of the re-
sults of the technique remains to be made.
The limitations and deviations from the various mathematical
models apply primarily to direct shear apparatus. A deviation has
also been noted in triaxial shear, and considerable effort has been
made to correct for the deviation. Triaxial shear has been widely
used in work on foundations and dam construction where the subsoil
is often saturated with water. Since water is incompressible, the
water may support part of the applied stress. This has been demon-
strated in so-called quick triaxial tests and slow-drained tests. In
the former, stresses are applied in a matter of minutes and the sample
is not allowed to drain. In the latter, the sample is allowed to drain
and stresses are applied slowly over a period of days so that often
more than a week is required to reach failure. Different values for
failure are often observed for the respective tests so that the kind of
triaxial test is usually specified when applying the results. Attempts
have been made to represent the situation by introducing the con-
cept of effective stress defined in equation 34.
(/ = (j^- cr^, (34)
where & — effective stress,
cr = applied stress,
cTyj — soil water stress.
Mohr's circles are constructed from effective stresses to represent
shear failure. The concept has been extended to unsaturated soil
where soil-water ' stress now becomes soil-water suction or tension.
Childs ( 7Ii, ) demonstrated the equivalence of moisture tension and
mechanical stress for low moisture-tension values, but recently Mc-
Murdie and Day ( 282 ) have demonstrated a discrepancy. To cor-
rect for the discrepancy, they proposed a modification by intro-
ducing a coefficient k^ as shown in equation 35.
or' = cr + ^cr^. (35)
In a simple glass bead system, the coefficient ranged from 0.21 to 2.30.
Thus, while the concept of effective stress appears to have meaning in
a saturated soil, more research is needed to indicate its suitability in
unsaturated soil.
More attention has been directed toward measuring and using
shear parameters to dynamically characterize the soil than has been
directed toward any other dynamic property. As the foregoing dis-
cussions indicate, completely satisfactory methods are still not avail-
able. In the future, more attention will be required both in conceiv-
ing mathematical models to represent shear and in determining means
of measuring the dynamic parameters defined by the models.
3.2.7.2 lension
The tensile strength of soil is conceived to be the force that is
required to pull the soil apart. As discussed in section 2.8.3, such a
representation involves specifying the tensile stress acting on the
failure surface. The mathematical model is thus very simple, and
the only parameter required to define failure is tensile stress at
incipient failure. Tensile failure is mathematically much easier to
represent than is shear failure. In tensile failure, the stress re-
quired to cause failure is probably not related to other possible
stresses on the failure surface but is assumed to be directly related
to the condition of the soil. In shear failure, the shear stress required
to cause failure is determined not only by the condition of the soil
but also by the normal stress acting on the failure surface. Because
of this, the relation between the various stresses must be represented
in shear. Thus, the parameters of the equation representing shear,
rather than the stress required to cause failure, become measures of
the soil condition (dynamic parameters). The directness of the rela-
tion between failure stress and the soil condition results in the simple
mathematical model of tensile strength.
^ Soils do fail in tension, so tensile strength is a parameter of prac-
tical value. The clearest example of a situation in which tensile
stress might be operative is shown in figure 98. The unsupported
soil extending beyond the edge of the tool is in tension because of
gravitational forces. In less cohesive soils, the tensile stress de-
veloped in the mass of soil would cause failure. Tension in soil was
measured as early as 1833 (32), and a number of methods have been
developed to measure it. The only method devised primarily to
measure tensile strength in situ appears to be that of Sourisseau
( 407 ) ; the principle is shown in figure 47.
FIGURE47.—A field method for measuring tensile strength of soil. ( Sourisseau,

Organ, and Rapts, du II Cong. Internatl. de Genie Rural (^07 ).)
Perhaps the most widely used means of causing tensile failure in

the laboratory has been with a so-called modulus of rupture pro-
cedure. Small blocks of soil are formed in the laboratory by some
suitable means, and they are represented mathematically as simple
beams. Forces applied as shown in figure 48, A bend the beam; this
places some of the beam in tension and some of the beam in compres-
sion. Simple beam theory gives an equation for the conditions
shown in figure 48, A of
S = (36)
where F = breaking force,

L = distance between supports,
B = width of beam,
D = depth of beam,
S — modulus of rupture,
which represents the tensile stresses envisioned to cause failure of
a rectangular beam. To obtain the simple expression in equation 36,
several assumptions were necessary. The two most important as-
sumptions are that strain is proportional to stress (elastic behavior)
and that the slope of the stress-strain relation (modulus of elasticity)
is equal in tension and compression. Furthermore, the neutral axis
in the beam (division between tension and compression stresses) was
assumed to be in the center of the beam. If all of the foregoing as-
sumptions are satisfied, the modulus of rupture can be considered
(A) (B)
FIGURE 48.—Methods of applying forces to simple beams to cause tension
failure.
the tensile stress at the outer edge of the soil beam at failure. Be-
cause the assumptions are not satisfied even for ductile metals, the
failure stress is designated modulus of rupture.
As shown in figure 48, a beam may be loaded in several ways. The
arrangement at the left provides maximum bending at the center of
the beam whereas that at the right provides a long central test sec-
tion in which bending is uniform. Carnes {61)^ Eichards ( 364, ) ?
and Allison ( 2 ) have utilized the modulus of rupture in the study
of soil crusts. Crusts on the surface of the soil can be collected with-
out undue disturbance. This simple measurement can be used to
evaluate their strength in a relatively undisturbed condition. This
method has been widely accepted and may be considered as stand-
ard {US).
Another method of causing tensile failure has been used by Kirk-
ham, DeBoot, and De Leenheer ( 218 ) for soil core samples. In this
method, a cylindrical sample is compressed laterally until a tensile
failure results, as shown in figure 49. The failure stress of the soil
FIGURE 49.—The indirect tension method for causing tensile failure, (Kirk-
ham, DeBoot, and De Leenheer, Soil Sei. ( 218 ).)
is determined from the equation
S (37)
TTDÚ
where F — breaking force,
L = length of the sample,
D = diameter of sample,
S = modulus of rupture.
The cores must be homogeneous for this method to be reliable. Its
utility lies in the fact that core samples provide relatively undis-
turbed soil samples for evaluation.
Mitchell ( 301 ) evaluated this indirect tension-measurmg method
for samples of concrete, and he concluded that the contact between
the compression plate and the sample was of extreme importance.
As shown in figure 50, different types of shatter result if the contact
NO PLATE IDEAL PLATE VERY LARGE PLATE
FIGURE 50.—Effect of size of contact plates on the type of rupture of concrete

cylinders. {From Mitchell, Mater. Res. and Standards {SOI ).)
area is changed. A high compressive stress {A) at a point causes

general shatter, whereas a wide application of the compressive stress
(¿7) results in shearing stresses under the widely distributed load.
An intermediate point {B) provides a suitable area of contact for
load application.
In practice, cardboard strips about l^/^ inches wide were suitable
for cores 5 inches in diameter ; rubber was too soft and masonite too
hard for concrete samples. Not only was the shatter altered by the
material in the strips, but the stresses and strains were also affected.
CARDBOARD PLATE
50,000
3 40;000
Q 30,000
<
3 20,000
10,000
10 30 50 70 90 10
STRAIN (microinches /in.)

FIGURE 51.—Effect of the deformabmty of strips on strain gage resuUs when
cardboard and masonite plates were used at the compression points. {From
Mitchell, Mater. Res. and Standards {SOI ).)
A linear increase in the strain, as measured by strain gages on the
sample, occurred when cardboard strips weê used at the points of
compression. As shown in figure 51, a linear increase did not occur
when masonite strips were used.
An application of the Mohr stress distribution theory was used to
examine the stresses at the center of the sample, and "these stresses
were found to be
«■- = (S) = ^^^, (38)
cr. = gf. (39)

Therefore, the compressive failure stress needs to be at least three
times the tensile stress to insure tensile failure. Under point load-
ing, o-y ranges from -^F/TTDL at the center to oo at the loading point
and, unless the concentration is prevented, failure will occur by com-
pression at the edge of the cylinder rather than by tension within
the sample. The stress distributions in the sample thus indicate the
need for extreme caution in selecting the loading strips employed
with this method.
Tension may be placed directly upon columns of soil by pulling
at the ends. Hardy {17^), Nichols {313), Winterkorn {508),
Gill {H6), Hendrick and Vanden Berg ( 181 ) and Willets ( 505 )
have used this method. As a rule this approach requires a prepared
sample that permits grasping in order to apply the tensile stress.
Wells ( 501 ) and Haefeli ( 168 ) froze attachments to the ends of
soil columns to provide a means of grasping the sample. Figure 52
shows an experimental apparatus developed at the National Tillage
Machinery Laboratory for applying tension forces to soil. Prepara-
tion of the sample essentially precludes measuring on undisturbed
soil samples with this apparatus. On the other hand, this method,
as well as other methods in which prepared samples are used, is ideal
for determining the factors that influence the strength of soils.
Evaluation of different soil treatments may be standardized ( 2, 193,
363, m), ^ V ' '
Data obtained at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory in-
dicate that the direct tension method and the modulus of rupture
method give the same tensile strength values for a clay soil. If this
remains true for other soils in different conditions, values may be
obtained that are relatively independent of the method of determina-
tion.
In one interesting method for applying tension forces to soil, a
block of soil is placed in a centrifuge after which the speed is in-
creased until failure occurs ( 168, ^69 ). At failure, the force is
determined from the equation
F = mcù^r, (40)
where m = mass,
CO = angular velocity,
r = radius to center of mass.
FIGURE 52.—Apparatus for applying tension forces to soil.
If the block is placed in an offset position, as shown in figure 53, the

tensile force is applied to only one side of the block; the other side
SOIL BAR
BREAK POINT
CENTRIFUGE HEAD
FIGURE 53.—Apparatus utilizing a centrifuge to determine tensile strength of
soil. (Vomocil, Waldron, and Chancellor, Soil Sei. Soc. Amer. Proc. { 469 ).)
of the block is confined by the rim of the centrifuge head. While the
sample should normally fail at the center of rotation, it may fail at
some other location and the radius r must be calculated on the center
of mass of that portion of the block. The acceleration force also
moves the water in the soil, and this movement may affect strength
at the center of the block. The tensile strength of soils may be very
high—indeed, as high as that of some building materials—but this
strength disappears very readily on wetting. Moisture movement,
therefore, can be important.
In general, tensile strength determinations have been made with
the aim of evaluating the maximum tensile stress of the soil. Hen-
drick and Vanden Berg ( 181 ) have also measured strain in the
failure area so that tensile stress-strain relations could be obtained.
A sensitive linear variable differential transformer was used to
measure very small strains before soil failure. As a result, strain
energy could be determined from an integration of the area under
the experimental stress-strain curve. Strain has also been measured
in conjunction with the beam and the indirect methods of measuring
tension. Whether this can be done with any degree of ease in the
centrifuge technique has yet to be determined.
One of the limitations of tensile strength expressions has been
the basis on which to express the force. Since only the solid or solid-
and-liquid phase can support stress, the force should be expressed
on this area rather than on the cross-sectional area of the soil sample.
The failure area is known when the soil is in either a completely solid
or a saturated condition but is not known when the soil contains air-
filled pores. Eeporting force on the basis of the void ratio is some
improvement but is still not exact. Unfortunately, no method has
yet been developed for determining the area that transmits stress.
A suitable method must be able to distinguish the bonds that have
continuous materials from pseudobonds that have only contiguous
materials. Low energy vibrations may serve as a means by which
to evaluate, without destroying, effective bonding areas in soil.
Recently, Vomocil and Waldron ( 1^68 ) have attempted to compute
the tensile strength for an unsaturated system of glass beads and
water based on the area of the moisture films and the soil moisture
suction. Following the approach of Fisher {119, 120), the pro-
jected wetted areas of spheres were used as a basis on which to
compute the tensile strength of a mass of wet beads. By using the
geometry of the system at different degrees of moisture saturation, it
was possible to determine a series of areas over which the tensile
force must operate. When these areas were multiplied by the
equivalent soil-moisture suction as predicted from capillary theory,
the computed tensile strength of the mass of spheres agreed with
the value determined from measurements. Unfortunately, computa-
tions based on the measured soil-moisture suction predicted tensile
strengths as much as 40 times greater than those measured. Thus,
there seems to be no simple way to relate soil-moisture suction to
tensile strength, even in a simple system.
3.2.7.3 Compression
As discussed in section 2.8.2, compression is a failure condition
associated with a change in volume of soil. Eecall that failure was
defined by the state of stress at incipient volume change. Since the

soil may have many densities (a measure of the volume), a stress-
strain relation is required. A suitable stress-volume strain relation
has not yet been established, so simplified assumptions must be made.
The mathematical parameters defined by the assumed stress-volume
strain relation are the defined dynamic parameters that characterize
compression of the soil. Unfortunately, lack of a suitable stress-
strain relation has deterred assessing compression in terms of specific
parameters. Eather, the stress and associated volume are usually
reported either in tables or graphs. Inability to use compression
parameters in soil-machine relations, except in an intuitive sense,
probably results from the fact that the sense of urgency which has
been associated with the development of shear parameters has been
lacking in the development of compression parameters.
In measuring compression, the stress-strain relation requires that
change in volume be expressed in some suitable manner. The usual
procedure has been to relate stress to compactness rather than to a
change in compactness. As will be verified later, the observed stress-
volume strain relations are not linear, so that absolute magnitudes
rather than change iñ magnitudes must, of necessity, be related.
Four expressions are commonly used to define the state of compact-
ness or compression. Where the volume of the soil is defined as the
volume occupied by soil solids, water, and air, the four expressions
are: (1) void ratio (volume of voids or pores divided by volume of
soil solids) ; (2) porosity (volume of voids or pores divided by
volume of soil) ; (3) dry bulk density (weight of soil solids
divided by volume of soil) ; and (4) apparent specific gravity (dry
bulk density divided by density of water). Wet bulk density is oc-
casionally used, and it is defined as weight of soil solids and water
divided by volume of soil. Methods have been developed and
standardized for measuring these quantities ( ^, i^, 2Iß^ %4S^ Jp50^
i53^ J^ôlp^ Jf73 ), and they will not be repeated here.
A suitable expression is needed not only for defining compactness
but also for defining stresses. As indicated in section 2.8.2, six stress
components are required to define the state of stress at a point so that
some functional relation between the state of compactness and the six
stress components is implied. Because this relation has not been
established, simplifying assumptions are necessary. The assumption
used will determine not only the resulting relation but also the
apparatus for measuring the stress.
A common assumption is that the largest principal stress is related
to a change in volume. With such an assumption, the soil is usually
confined in a suitable container, such as a cylinder, and uniaxial stress
is applied to an exposed surface, such as one end of the cylinder.
Since no shearing stresses are applied to the surface, the applied
stress is a principal stress and, intuitively, is the largest principal
stress. Expressing the degree of compactness for an applied stress
gives the desired value.
Unfortunately, the frictional characteristics of soil cause a non-
uniform stress distribution, and in a narrow compression chamber
arching may occur. The difficulty experienced in ramming soil
through a small pipe is a manifestation of arching. As shown in
figure 54, the stress measured at the bottom of a narrow, rigid.
10 15 20 25 30
SURFACE PRESSURE (psi)
FIGURE 54.—Measured vertical stress at the bottom of a cylinder, 3.75 inches

in diameter, filled with clay soil to different depths. (Reaves and Nichols,
Agr. Engin. ( 345 ).)
cylindrical container is never the same as that applied to the surface.

Use of containers with low depth-width ratios and lining the con-
tainers with greased, thin plastic liners minimizes the effect but does
not eliminate it {66). Since the volume change must be determined
for the entire sample, any irregular changes such as those that result
from nonuniform stress distributions will be averaged over the
entire sample. It is imperative to use a compressive system where
nonuniformity is reduced to a minimum, or the measured results will
not be accurate.
Another assumption that has recently been proposed is that the
mean normal stress is related to volume strain. Vanden Berg,
Buchele, and Malvern ( ^59 ) and Harris, Buchele, and Malvern
( 175 ) have examined this possibility but have not been able to prove
or disprove the assumption. Experimental verification of the mean
normal stress theory requires a different apparatus to study compres-
sion because three mutually perpendicular normal stresses must be
measured. One suitable device is the triaxial apparatus discussed
in section 3.2.1.1. The flexible walls along the side of the sample are
unable to support tangential stresses so that no shearing stresses are
applied to the soil sample. Thus, the three principal stresses are
measured and mean normal stress can be calculated. Recording the
volume change of the soil sample by a suitable means provides the
final required measurement, which is used as the output of the
reaction.
Irregularities in soil compression may be expected near the ends
of the sample where the rigid platens contact the soil. Howêver,
the irregularities are probably smaller than would be expected in a
rigid confining container. The triaxial apparatus can also be used

where the largest principal stress assumption is made, since that
value is also available from the measured data. Hovanesian and
Buchele ( 186 ) used water pressure to apply mean normal stress to
soil samples in flexible rubber containers. Such procedures provide
a simple method for measuring the compressibility of soil.
No standardized method can be developed until an accurate stress-
volume strain relation can be obtained. Shear and vibration affect
compressibility of soil and further complicate the situation. So-
called kneading compactors have been developed to better account
for the effects (5^, 125, Í01, -^0). The various ramifications of
these devices as well as the subtle interrelations of factors affectmg
compressibility are discussed in more detail in chapter 8.
3.2.7.4 P/ast/c F/ow
Plastic flow is a failure condition in soil just as shear, tension,
and compression are. As discussed in section 2.8.4, no criteria for
failure have been established, although the phenomenon is clearly
observed. Plastic-flow failure can be described in terms of shear
failure except that no distinct failure surface appears; rather, the
entire mass of soil in the neighborhood of the applied forces fails
by deforming without any distinct separation on any surface. Be-
cause no criteria for plastic-flow failure have been established, no
mathematical models have been proposed to represent the forces act-
ing at failure. Consequently, various plasticity parameters based
on other criteria have been arbitrarily proposed.
So-called plasticity parameters, which have been expressed in terms
of moisture content of the soil (that is, the Atterberg limits), have
been defined, and standard methods for making the measurements
have been established ( 1^ ^7, 369, J¡SO). The moisture content
of the soil where plastic or liquid failure occurs is designated,
respectively, as the plastic or liquid limit. The numerical difference
between these two limits is defined as the plastic index, which is
generally interpreted as the range in soil moisture where the soil has
the capacity to act in a plastic manner.
The plasticity of soils is not separate and distinct from other
physical properties ( 20,153, 332 ). Thus, in the absence of a plastic
index, a general characterization of soil may be obtained from the
cation exchange capacity, moisture holding capacity, or the specific
area.
Plastic parameters defined in terms of moisture content are not
rigorous smce they are not concerned with the forces involved at
failure. Nevertheless, the parameters are the only estimates pres-
ently available and are generally used. They are useful since they
are defined in relation to soil behavior. With sufficient experience,
an individual can translate the plastic parameters into potential soil
behavior and can make a practical judgment on the characterization
of the soil in terms of the parameters.
Nichols ( 317 ) attempted to make the parameters more than just a
characterization by^ describing a linear relation between the shearing
force and the plastic parameters. Equation 41 expresses the relation
84: AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
F - ^P^ --W) (0.06P/ + P + 1.8)

i^ S — (41)
PI
where Fs = shear stress,
PL = plastic limit,
PI = plastic index,
P = normal stress,
W = water content of soil.
The maximum shear force occurred near the lower plastic limit, so
that the maximum shear force could be estimated from the plastic
parameters when the soil was disturbed—that is, remolded before
shear force Avas measured. This equation does not hold for a con-
solidated cemented soil where the moisture content is varied by
drying.
Subsequent to Nichols' work, Croney and Coleman ( 88 ) reported
that a lineal relation exists between the logarithm of the soil mois-
ture suction (pF) and soil strength in the plastic range. They
measured strength by the number of blows required to cause plastic
failure with the standard liquid limit apparatus (U) as the soil
was permitted to dry. The relation held for soil that was continually
stirred during drying as well as for natural and initially disturbed
soils. The continual disturbance created a condition in which struc-
tural bonds that were initially present were destroyed and new bonds
wêre prevented from forming.
Greacen ( 161-163 ) used the equation
W = -A log P' + 0, (42)
where W = water content,
P^ = soil moisture suction,
C — water content at unit P',
A = ~dW/d\ogP' (slope),
to describe the Croney-Coleman type of relation. Based on a number
of actual measurements, P' was considered to be approximately 10
grams per square centimeter at the liquid limit (LL) and 666 grams
per square centimeter at the plastic limit (PL).
Evaluating equation 42 in terms of O at the liquid limit where
log P^ = 1,
C = A-\-LL (43)
and A as
A = {LL - PL)/{log f\r. - log PVL), (44)
provides a means of evaluating the constants of the equation. Sub-
stituting these in equation 42 and solving for log P%
logP'=l + 1.82(§f^). (45)
P' expresses the equivalent load on the soil during shear at different
water contents. Its value depends on the assumed linear relation
described earlier.
SOIL DYlN'AMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 85
Greacen ( 161 ) lias proposed that the strength of the soil be
described in terms of the maximum pressure that the soil can with-
stand without furtlier consolidation. He proposed that this load
bo expressed logarithmically and defined as the equivalent strength
of the soil log S. In saturated clays, where the angle of friction
can be considered to be zero, the shear strength in a continuously
straining soil may be assumed to be due to the applied suction P\
By definition, log S — log P' in equation 45 ; hence, the possibility
exists of calculating the equivalent strength of the soil from moisture
data. Plots of equivalent soil strength, as estimated from log ^ =
log P', versus the logarithm of the measured moisture suction during
shear did not produce a unit slope; lience complete agreement was
not found in the proposed relation. That the results did not agree
might be explained in part on the assumption that mechanical and
suction forces are equivalent. Kesults of McMurdie and Day ( 282 )
and Vomocil and Waldron (468)^ which Avere discussed earlier,
indicate that this assumption may not be valid in unsaturated con-
ditions.
Another measurement that appears to be particularly adapted for
evaluating plastic strength of soft, wet soils is the Jourgenson
squeeze test ( 487 ). The apparatus used resembles a shear box with
open ends (fig. 55). The soil is placed in the box and squeezed by
FIGURE 55.—Apparatus used for the Jourgensen squeeze test. Open ends per-
mit the soil to flow out under pressure. (Waterways Experiment Station
(^87).)
a vertical stress that causes the soil to be extruded from the open
ends of the box. The shear strength of the soil is calculated by
means of the equation
Pa
S = (46)
BU (l + ira/L)
where P normal load on upper plate,
B width of sample, •
a % sample thickness,
L % sample length.
The strength of soil determined by this method is not significantly
different from that determined by other methods. In thé Jourgensen
test, the magnitude of stress is the plastic parameter.
A pure shear device has been used by Murayama and Hata ( 306 )
to study the weakening of soil by repeated manipulations. The de-
vice was a shear box with movable walls that permitted the box to be
tilted back and forth. The two horizontal surfaces were kept a fixed
distance apart so that the volume of soil in the box did not change
during the tilting (fig. 56). Aö* shown in figure 57, weakening in-
(A) (B)
FIGURE 56.—The nature of shear in the pure shear apparatus where the
vertical angle is the tilting angle.
2 3 5 7 10 20 30 50 100 200
NUMBER OF REPETITIONS N
FIGURE 57.—Effect of the number of shearing cycles on the degree of weaken-
ing of soil (Murayama and Hata, 4th Internatl. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found.
Engin. Proc, Butterworths, London {S06).)
creases as the number of cycles of shearing increases. One inter-

esting point concerning soil weakening was observed in connection
with vehicles operating on soil. It was possible to correlate soil
weakening at a tilting angle of 40° with soil weakening under a
tractor. This is shown as the dotted line in figure 57, but no cor-
relations were made with vehicle performance. The speed of tilting
was increased to 80 cycles per second without effect, but a greater
angle of tilting reduced strength.
Although much remains to be learned concerning the plastic prop-
erties of soils, the methods described here should be of assistance m
pursuing this subject.
3.2.7.5 Fnction
The previously discussed dynamic properties of shear, tension,
compression, and plastic flow were all concerned with a failure condi-
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TII.LAOE AND TRACTION 8(
tion within the mass of soil. As discussed in section 2.9, ri<iid body
soil movement is often observed. Failure conditions are again of
interest, and mathematical models are envisioned to describe rela-
tions between forces of interest. Friction is one dynamic projjerty
involved in rifîd body soil movement. Friction appears as soil-soil
friction wlien two rifiid bodies of soil are involved, and it appears as
soil-material friction when one soil body is replaced by some other
material such as a steel tillage tool. The relative importance of the
two frictions in any soil-machine relation depends on the reaction,
but generally both must be considered.
The difficulty in measuring soil-soil friction as defined in equation
1!) is to distinguish between the soil-soil friction angle i// and the
shear failure friction angle <^that is, the slope of the line in the
mathematical model. That the two angles refer to t\yo distinct
))henomena was discussed in section 2.!). On the basis of these dif-
ferences, t|/ is usually measured by drawing a rigid body of soil having
a known cross-sectional area over a soil surface in a similar condi-
tion. The methods for measuring shear failure thus lend themselves
to soil friction measurements. Both direct apparatus and torsion
apparatus are used, and generally the tangential stress and strain are
simultaneously measured at various normal loads. The results are
expressed as shown in figure 41, and the numerical values for equa-
tion 1» can be determined after the shearing stress reaches a plateau
where clear separation on the failure surface is assumed to occur.
The limitations and errors of the measurements are the same as dis-
cussed in section 3.2.1.1. Thus, soil-soil sliding friction is represented
by the single dynamic parameter fi or tan ip.
Soil-material (soil-metal) friction can be identified as the angle of
sliding friction ô or the tangent of the angle /u,', which is determined
FIGURE 58—A simple slider system used to determine the coefficient of slidinK
friction.
from measurements made on a dynamic sliding system. Equation 29

is then used to relate the tangential and normal stresses. Actual
measurements may be made by using a simple slider system such as
the one shown in figure 58. Eecording the tangential force and
normal load during dynamic equilibrium provides the numerical
values needed to solve equation 29. Not all sliding occurs between
metal and soil ; sliders of other composition may also be used. The
slider shown in figure 58 may be covered with sheets of polytetrafluo-
roethylene or other material that does not readily stick to soils. This
simple slider iechnique has been used by a number of workers ( 89^
93^ 286^ Jf65 ) as a means of measuring soil-metal friction. Payne
( 328^ 372 ) has used a vertical slider for field studies. With an ap-
paratus of this type, perhaps /x^ can be measured in situ. The appa-
ratus is similar to a vertical chisel, which can be drawn through the
soil by a mobile dynamometer unit (fig. 4). A schematic diagram
of the sensing apparatus is shown in figure 59. The normal load on
-INSTRUMENTED BEAM
TINE
-SENSITIVE
PLATE
FIGURE 59.—The NIAE Friction Apparatus. The view on the right is a plan
view showing how the sensing area was subjected only to forces caused by
the soil sliding. (Rogers and Tanner ( S12 ).)
the sliding surface can be altered by changing the angle of approach

of the surface or by increasing the speed of operation.
More complicated devices have been developed in which a ring-
shaped metal surface or a circular disk wâs used. These were placed
on the soil and rotated in place. Soehne ( 397 ) has used an annulus
for this purpose, whereas Eowe and Barnes ( 376 ) have used a
circular disk. In each device, the contact area between the soil and
the slider was fixed by the physical size of the slider so that the
intensity of the load was not altered during operation.
Complications arise with rotating sliders because the slider operates
continuously on the same soil. Structural changes present a continu-
ously changing surface to the slider and /x' often changes. Also,
travel distances may vary considerably for different parts of the
slider. Use of an annulus instead of a circular disk reduces the
importance of this factor. However, some average distance through
which sliding occurs must be assumed. When the annulus is large
and narrow, there is little difference between the distance traveled at
the inner and outer edges of the slider so that the average is realistic.
The coefficient of sliding friction as a dynamic parameter has been
widely applied to soil-machine relations, and some of the applications

are discussed in more specific terms in chapter 4.
3.2.7.6 Adhesion
Adhesion as a dynamic property was discussed in section 2.9.3.
One of the unusual aspects of past research efforts has been the
emphasis to relate the physical properties of soil and moisture to the
adhesion phenomenon. Thus, adhesion has been theoretically de-
termined in terms of basic relations. Unfortunately, adhesion has
not been expressed in terms that can be easily incorporated into some
useful soil-machine relation. In other words, the dynamic property
adhesion has been related to physical properties but has not been
suitably defined by a quantitative equation describing behavior.
Force mputs causing the behavior have not been suitably expressed.
A comparison of adhesion with friction and shear shows that in
friction and shear the opposite situation exists. In friction and
shear, dynamic parameters have been identified and a means has been
developed for measuring the parameters and incorporating them into
soil-machine relations. The parameters, however, have not as yet
been related to physical properties except in gross approximations
( 315 ). Thus, the importance of identifying dynamic parameters
is clearly demonstrated. Even when a reasonably accurate relation
has been established between physical properties and a dynamic
property, little practical use can be made of the relationship unless
the dynamic property has been represented by a suitable parameter
or parameters.
There is no intent here to negate or minimize efforts to relate
dynamic properties to physical properties. Such information is ob-
viously necessary in order to have a complete soil dynamic theory.
The complexity of this yet undetermined theory, however, dictates
that parameters expressing the desired behavior in which the dynamic
properties are involved should be identified first. After the para-
meters have been identified, physical properties can then be related
to them.
Not all past research efforts have attempted to relate physical
properties to adhesion. But some attempts to identify adhesion in
terms of useful parameters have had a measure of success.
Adhesion has two important forms of behavior which must be
represented in soil-machine relations. The first of these is in connec-
tion with sliding friction ; the second is in connection with stickiness.
Although soil adheres to various materials, the forces required to
move the soil tangentially on the surface and normally from the sur-
face differ. An analogous situation can be visualized in the example
of two glass plates held together by a film of water. The ease by
which they may be slid apart is no index of the force required to
pull them apart. The effect of the adhesive force on both aspects
must be measured.
The basic measurement of adhesion as applied to friction requires
simultaneous measurement of (1) friction stress, (2) movement of the
soil tangent to the interface, and (3) the normal load on the surface.
Payne and Fountaine ( 331 ) have visualized soil adhesion as an ad-
ditional parameter in the soil-metal friction equation 29. On this
basis the equation has the form
90 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OP AGRICULTURE
S' = O. + o- tan Ô, (47)

where 8^ = sliding stress,
Oa — adhesion,
cr = normal stress of frictional surface,
8 = angle of soil-metal friction.
A plot of S' versus cr is constructed for measurements made by
methods discussed in section 3.2.1.1 at a series of different normal
loads. Since equation 47 has the same basic form as the familiar
Coulomb equation, the intercept was considered to be Oa. As a
general rule, a straight line or a slight curve can be drawn through
the points. Since tlie S' axis represents zero normal load, the re-
sidual value of S^ represents 6^„, the adhesion, and consequently is
the desired parameter. The slope of the line represents tan 8, the
angle of sliding friction. Payne and Fountaine thus use equation 47
as the mathematical model to represent adhesion.
A different mathematical model representing adhesion can be en-
visioned from an analogy with a sliding magnet. Suppose the co-
efficient of friction between an electromagnet and steel were being
determined. The friction force and the normal load could be meas-
ured as the magnet is slid along a steel surface with no current ap-
plied to the magnet. Equation 19 can be used to determine the co-
efficient of friction. If the electromagnet were activated and the
coefficient of friction again determhied, a higher coefficient would
appear to result since the same apparent normal load wôuld be ap-
plied but a higher friction force wT)uld be measured. The reason for
the increase in friction force in this simple case is obvious ; the normal
load wâs increased by the presence of the magnetic field. The in-
crease in friction force thus resulted from the increase in the normal
load and not from an increase in the coefficient of friction.
Adhesion can affect soil-metal friction in a similar manner. Equa-
tion 29 suggests ignoring adhesion and lumping it into an apparent
coefficient of sliding friction. Equation 47 is an attempt to represent
adhesion by Ca. If, however, adhesion acts as the magnet does in the
foregoing example, a different representation can be proposed. If
the added normal load that results from adhesion, which causes the
increase in friction force, can be specified, then equation 19 could be
written as
S' = (o-i + (T) tan 8, (48)
where S^ ~ sliding stress,
cTi = normal stress due to adhesion,
cr — mechanical stress,
Such a proposal is partially justified, since the equivalence of adhe-
sion and mechanical forces on friction has been demonstrated within
certain ranges by Fountaine and Payne ( 127^ 131 ) (sec. 2.9.3.). If
equation 48 can be verified, the parameter needed to represent the
effect of adhesion on soil-metal friction is 0*1, the adhesive stress.
Since the normal stress is already reasonably well related to physical
properties and sliding friction, such information can be directly ap-
plied to soil-machine relations. On the other hand, Ca would have
to be either measured or directly related to physical x^-operties by

suitable means. Thus, equation 48 offers a direct means of represent-
ing the effect of adhesion on sliding friction.
In nearly all applications of adhesion, the parameter Ca has been
used; hence, the methods and their limitations concerning application
of G, as discussed in section 3.2.1.1, also apply to adhesion. Payne
and Fountaine ( 331 ) have used the adhesion parameter G a to esti-
mate the values of the approach angle 8 of a tillage tool with the soil,
at which scouring would cease. Since the point where scouring ceases
is the point where soil shear begins, values of S and S' are equal.
Critical values of ô for selected values of G a or critical values of Ga
for selected values of ô can be computed by using the relations shown
in figure 119, along with known values of AS" = S\ G^ and ^. Several
examples are shown in table 8. Beyond this application to scouring,
little use has been made of adhesive parameters. Rowe introduced
Ga into the mechanism of a simple soil-tool system, but the degree
of refinement added by this contribution has not been clearly estab-
lished. A number of situations exist in which adhesion is an impor-
tant factor, but lack of a mechanics limits the use of the parameters
when they are in such a simple form as Ga^
Since soil adheres to metals and other materials, it becomes a prob-
lem to get or keep the surface of the material free of soil. Thus, the
second phase of adhesion—stickiness—becomes important. Measur-
ing the adhesion parameter Gcc does not measure the tenacity with
which soil is held against a surface. This force becomes important
under some conditions—for example, Avhen soil sticks between lugs
and grousers or other parts of tools or machinery. Under these
conditions, adhesion may contribute to vehicle immobilization or
substandard performance of the machine.
Stickiness was recognized many years ago, and a method was de-
veloped for determining the sticky point. The moisture content at
which soil would stick to a spatula was taken as the sticky point of
the soil. The method does not produce quantitative data, but it does
reflect the moisture-holding characteristics of the soil ( 151 ). Foun-
taine ( 127 ) and Kaburaki and Kisu ( W5 ) have used methods in
which a small flat metal plate was pressed against the soil after
which the force required to pull the plate from the soil was deter-
mined. This value was expressed in terms of force per unit area and
termed adhesion. Whether this value of adhesion is a realistic esti-
mate of the normal component of loading in friction is unknown.
Fisher ( 120 ) has made a convincing argument of this point based
on the reasoning that water would move in the bonds and that Ú\Q
dynamic stress during sliding would not be the same as the static
stress. The value, on the other hand, does represent a realistic as-
sessment of adhesion for cases where a similar type of removal oc-
curs. As an example, based on this measurement, the speed at which
soil could be torn from a rolling wheel could possibly be determined
for a specific wheel and soil condition.
Green ( 16Jp ) has studied the removal of soil adhering to root crops
by dropping them and letting the momentum of the soil overcome
the adhesion so as to tear free. The main objective of this research,
however, was directed toward cleaning the roots rather than the ad-
hesion problem.
value of
Critical
^^
o
5
Çjj TtH CO Tt^ 00
CO
eg
value of
Critical
II
c¿ CO CO o ïO
û^' T-í rH TH TtH
value of
Critical
CO
o
o Soococo
5
ÍSjíO COTí^CO
CD
en
is« value of
VA
A
«H
Critical
•'^* o iO o o
0 ^
C CO 00 l>; C5 W C5
û^" TH TH -A TjH
4.J
â>»
-M
A
% CÖ
OJ
u
value of
Critical
0 >H
«H p
MíO
value of
Critical
■gil •^' KÎ lo o o
do Oi TH 00 Oi
(^' r-i <N* TH Tti
•^ CO
'?
Cü -M
n^
-M
S
'5* ^^ CO
O» ^•OrH
.iH
iD
•
o; ,r|
pa <M **H
©0
>.^
00 t>5
u fl ,^^
CÖ
V^ Tt^ O CO O CÖ a OJ
a 0a .S
íO Ç55CO CO CO (M
0 O -M
0
03
a
03
P
-4J 02 ^=4
Co yj i3
«5
■e-
1 i3
a a '00
-M 03
05 CO CO CO CO
+j ci
03 A
A •^ 0)
a 4->
Ö
P>»
2 «O 0 ^
^
«H «H
0 0
0 o; Prl
o o Oí! (M C<1 C^ '^
C3 f3 C5
m
^^ 0
H ç^ m
The attractive force of adhesion is determined by two factors:
first, the actual strength of attraction of a unit area of bonding;
second, the actual area of the attractive bonds. The pressure applied
to the metal surface inñuences both of these quantities so that
evaluation of the results is difficult. The adhesive values measured
by the metal plate technique must have an initial conditioning load-
ing which duplicates the actual loading of the system under study
or the results will have little meaning. As shown in table 9, the
TABLE ^.—Efect of loading pressure on the adhesive force hetiveen

soil and a metal plate
Loamy sand with a Clay loam with a
Load on plate moisture content of2— moisture content of^-
(grams) 1
24 percent 18 percent 29 percent 24 percent
Gm./cmß Gm./cmß Gm./cmß Gm./cm.^
1,590 26 16 20 40
4,590 51 17 51 56
7,590 82 19 76 57
10,590 96 38 132 60
13,590 111 30 146 66
16,590 122 35 246 84
1 A highly poUshed, chromium-plated metal disk 5 cm. in diameter was used
as the test plate.
2 On an oven-dry basis.
SOURCE : Fountaine ( 126 ).
adhesive force is altered considerably by the pressure used to establish

contact between the soil and the test surface {126).
The extent to which specific soil properties influence sticking has
not been determined. A clay soil per se is not enough to dictate
greater sticking. When higher loadings were applied to the plate,
clay loam soil with a moisture content of 24 percent (table 9) did
not display greater stickiness than loamy sand soil. Additional in-
formation must be obtained before the various aspects of soil sticki-
ness can be understood.
3.2.2 Measuring Composite Parameters
As defined in section 3.2, a composite parameter combines the
effects of one or more dynamic parameters that are known to be in-
dependent. The distinction between an independent and a composite
parameter depends solely on prior knowledge. Thus in form, ap-
pearance, and assessment, the composite parameter is handled like
the independent parameter. The usefulness of the composite para-
meter is its simplicity and often its ease of measurement. Since an
independent parameter often cannot be assessed, a composite para-
meter must be used.
In attempting to use a composite parameter in a soil-machme rela-
tion, the dependence of the parameter on more fundamental factors
whose actions and interactions are combined in some average by the
composite must be recognized. Lack of recognition may lead to
erroneous conclusions or prevent putting appropriate restrictions on
the conclusions. Obviously, a complete soil dynamics theory must be
based on independent parameters; however, until the independent
parameters are identified and can be assessed, composite parameters
can be extremely useful.
Independent properties that have been identified were discussed
in chapter 2 and means of assessing them have been discussed in
this chapter. Composite properties are defined here together with
the means for assessing them. Basically, the process used is similar
to the one used for independent properties. Behavior of soil in terms
of a response to specifically applied forces is observed. A mathe-
matical model that represents the behavior is envisioned, and appro-
priate parameters of the model are used as measures of the dynamic
property. Penetration, bearing strength, and induced strength are
examples of composite properties.
3.2.2.7 Penetration
Before penetration can be discussed, a mathematical model is
required to represent behavior. The behavior observed with pene-
tration occurs when simple probes are pressed or driven into soil.
Depending on the shape and type of instrument used, cutting or sep-
aration, shear failure, friction failure, compression failure, or even
plastic failure, or any combination of these may occur as the instru-
ment is forced into the soil. Since the tip or probe of penetrometers
is usually small in terms of cross-sectional area (generally less than
1 square inch) and since the tip is generally larger than the driving
rod, the total resistance to penetration reflects the soil conditions near
the tip. Behavior can thus be described by expressing the resistance
to penetration at a given depth in some suitable manner. This re-
sistance, which is some combination of the possible failures, obviously
is a composite property. The resistance is usually considered to re-
flect the strength of the soil.
Many types of penetrometers are commercially available. Their
shape and size and the technique of driving them into the soil have
suggested the mathematical model used to characterize the behavior.
As a result of lack of standardization in the different models, inter-
pretation of the data reported has been difficult. With few excep-
tions, the penetrometer has been relegated to a position in which it
serves as a means for evaluating the uniformity of a particular soil
condition. To be widely used in research, penetrometers will prob-
Rblj have to be standardized unless the basic mechanics of the be-
havior is developed.
Two mathematical models have mainly been used to represent
penetration behavior. One model expresses the force required to
cause penetration, either in terms of magnitude or on a unit area
basis. The other model measures the energy required to cause pene-
tration. Generally, an average value over some depth is considered
representative of penetration.
Zelenin ( 515 ) has reported findings made on an impact penetro-
meter. The penetrometer had a flat, circular penetrating plunger
with a cross-sectional area of 1 square centimeter ; in extremely loose
soils the area was increased to 2 square centimeters. A 2.5 kilogram
weight was dropped a distance of 0.4 meter to drive the plunger into
the soil. Since each impact imparted 1 kilogram-meter of energy
to the plunger, the number of impacts was a measure of the energy
required to drive the tip to a certain depth. For the particular
penetrometer under discussion, the number of impacts C to penetrate
to a depth of 10 centimeters was the parameter used to express re-
sistance to penetration.
Zelenin correlated data obtained with the impact penetrometer to
data obtained with a static penetrometer pushed slowly into the
soil. The parameter expressing penetration resistance for the static
penetrometer was designated K^ in kilograms per square centimeter ;
thus, the static penetrometer uses the first mathematical model dis-
cussed above. Figure 60 shoAvs the relation between the number of
20 40 60 80 100
STATIC PENETROMETER RESISTANCE (Kg/cm*)
FIGURE 60.—Relation between impact and static penetrometer. (Zelenin {515).)
impacts and the force required to press the static penetrometer

through the soil. Each point in figure 60 represents a different soil
type or soil condition and clearly demonstrates the equivalence of the
two methods.
Because the static penetrometer is a simpler instrument than the
impact penetrometer, the majority of penetrometers have been the
static type. Recording penetrometers ( 90, 172, 261, 305, 31,9, 426 )
have been developed to provide a continuous record of resistance with
depth for various special purposes. Some of these have unique ap-
plications; McClelland {261 ) developed one design to measure the
horizontal resistance in soils, whereas Morton and Buchele ( 305 ) de-
veloped another to simulate a seedling. In the latter, the emergence
energy was computed from the measured data. As shown in figure
61, the resistance due to formation of a crust on the surface could be
readily detected.
Imaginative modifications of penetrometers have been developed.
Aerial penetrometers ( 483 ) that may be dropped from low-flying
aircraft have been designed. Culpin ( 90 ) measured the depth to
Avhich revolver bullets would penetrate into the soil by passing a stiff
wire into the open channel. Kondner ( 223 ) was able to reduce the
Oi
SOIL NOT
Wk PERMITTED TO DRY
SOIL PERMITTED
TO DRY
FORCE (lbs)
FIGURE 61.—Seedling emergence force as measured by a penetrometer. (Morton

and Buchele, Agr. Engin. ( 5Ö5 ). )
measurements he obtained from penetrometers of various sizes and

shapes to a common dimensionless basis; the basis is discussed
in detail in section 4.4.2 (fig. 127). Kondner's contribution probably
will extend the usefulness of the static penetrometer since results can
be interpreted in specific terms.
Several workers have attempted to relate penetrometer measure-
ments to various forces they were studying. For example, Stone and
Williams ( J^lJi, ) used a penetrometer to estimate the draft force of a
plow in various soil conditions. They established an empirical cor-
relation between the penetrometer reading and the specific draft of a
plow. No provisions were made to apply the data to other types of
plows. Zelenin ( 516 ) correlated the cutting force in soil to penetro-
meter size, and the correlation is discussed in section 4.4.2. Mc-
Kibben and Hall ( 277 ) used penetration resistance to predict rolling
resistance of towed wheels (sec. 7.8.2).
3.2,2,2 Bearing Strength
The soil behavior described by bearing strength is the sinkage that
results from an applied load. Settlement of building foundations is
one example of this behavior; the support required by vehicles and
machinery is another example. The forces acting when sinkage
occurs can be represented mathematically in terms of stress ex-
pressed on a unit area basis. With few exceptions, however, the
main criterion for evaluating bearing strength is depth of sinkage.
Thus, while the magnitude of the applied stress could be the para-
meter that assesses bearing strength, sinkage is so important that a
mathematical relation between the applied stress and the resulting
sinkage is needed. In reality, a penetrometer could provide a basis
for determining bearing strength except for one important factor.
The concept of penetration envisions a measurement of resistance as
it changes with depth. Consequently, the penetrometer attempts
to measure resistance near its tip. In bearing strength, however, the
surface of the soil sinks ; and it is the force that acts on this sinking
surface that is important. This subtle difference must be clearly
distinguished to properly use penetration and bearing strength para-
meters. The possible modes of failure in the soil are the same for
bearing strength as for penetration so that bearing strength is a
composite property.
Because the relative magnitude of permissive sinkage and the time
for sinkage to occur are greatly different for building foundations
than for off-the-road vehicles, separate mathematical models have
generally been used. For foundations, an equation relating sinkage
and load has been developed from the theory of elasticity ( P ).
The equation is
s = Gs{P/Ä){h/E){l-fi^), (49)
where s = settlement of load,
Gs = coefficient of shape and stiffness of the loading plate,
h = diameter or width of the load,
A = loaded area,
E = modulus of elasticity of soil,
fi = Poisson's ratio,
P = applied load.
This equation may be rearranged into a logarithmic form and the
equation is
log P/A = log s/h + log l/Cs{E/l - iJ?), (50)
where it has the linear characteristics of a straight line. Since the
slope of equation 50 is unity, the parameter of Ú\^ equation that
reflects bearing strength is the constant term
i/Gs{En-ii?).
The coefficient C^ can be evaluated theoretically from the theory of
elasticity so that by assuming a value for /x (usually 0.5), the mod-
ulus of elasticity E becomes the parameter that assesses bearing
strength. Data shown for one soil condition (fig. 62) demonstrate
that the influence of size and shape of the loaded area is minimized
by equation 50. The curvature of the average line and deviation
from a 45-degree slope reflect behavior that is not represented by the
theory of elasticity. Refinements have been made in the equation by
evaluating the changing slope of the line to better represent observed
behavior. Rather remarkable results have been noted. When com-
pared in the same soil condition, 40- X 50-foot rigid test blocks have
yielded the same load deflection curves as 8-inch diameter bearing
plates. However, these results are not always obtained, so that ad-
ditional refinements and even different mathematical models are
being sought.
The apparatus to assess the conditions represented by equation 50
is relatively simple. As has already been implied, generally a round
PLATE DIAMETER (in)
lOOc
JP
A 10:
I I I III11 ' ■■■■■■ -I 1 I I I Mil

0.0001 0.001 0.01
b
FiGUBE 62.—The relation between applied load and ratio of settlement to
diameter for four plate diameters. (Amer. Soc. for Testing Materials {9 ).)
rigid plate is suitably controlled so that it can be loaded in incre-

ments and allowed to settle to equilibrium. Equilibrium is generally
adjudged to occur when the rate of settling is 0.02 inch per hour
or less or when the load has been applied for a total of 30 minutes.
The biggest difficulty is obtaining a means of applying the load.
One often-used means has been a large truck, carrying up to 50 tons.
When shorter loading times and larger sinkages than in building
foundations are involved, the Bernstein equation ( 24S, 2^8 ) is the
generally accepted mathematical model for bearing strength. A
wheel having a contact area 1 foot long and traveling at 5 miles per
hour applies its load to a given area of soil for only 0.14 second.
Since many soil-moving operations are accomplished at about 5
miles per hour, rather short periods of time are always involved.
The basic equation as proposed by Bernstein has the form
P = k{^^), (51)
where P = pressure on the soil,
k = ù> constant,
3 = depth of sinkage,
n = a constant.
The parameters k and n when isolated from this equation are the
measures of the dynamic property, bearing strength. The value n
expresses soil characteristics whereas k expresses loading area as well
as soil characteristics. In any given soil condition, n is considered to
remain the same for all loading areas. Because of the effect of the
shape of the loading area, Bernstein's h was further divided to pro-
vide a cohesive component ¿c, which was considered to be a function
of the size of the loading area, and h^ a frictional component, which
was independent of the loading area. The component he was divided
by 5, the width of the loading area, as a simplified means to represent
the effect of the loading area so that h in equation 51 becomes
k = {h/i + k^). (52)
In the revised form, the modified Bernstein equation appears as
p = (hJl-\-'k;)z^, (58)
Equation 53 is the most widely used model of bearing strength for
soil-moving operations, and the three parameters ^c? h^^ and n are a
means of assessing the composite property, bearing strength.
An apparatus for assessing bearing strength, as represented by
equation 53, generally provides a means for applying a load to a
plate of known dimensions and simultaneously measures the load
and sinkages as the plate is forced into the ground. Various means
of obtaining the measurements have been proposed; one often-used
method was reported by the Land Locomotion Laboratory (^^5,
2Ji,8 ). Generally at least three sizes of plates are used for a given
soil condition. The parameters of equation 53 can be evaluated
most easily by constructing a logarithmic plot, as shown in figure 63.
LOG z
FIGURE 63.—Logarithmic plot of Bernstein equation from which 7c and n can

be determined.
Given a series of h values, equation 52 can then be plotted as shown

in figure 64, since equation 52 is of linear form having a slope of he
and an intercept of h^. When calculations can be performed by
machines, simultaneous solutions of equations 52 and 53 will give
the values of the parameters.
In practice the data do not always produce straight lines, or the
lines may not be parallel as they are shown in figure 63. Such devia-
tions indicate the inadequacy and inaccuracy of the modified Bern-
stein equation. Presumably a more complex equation could be
T
Í
FIGURE 64.—Graphical solution of equation 52 to give values of kc and k..
devised; however, such an equation will require even more complex

mathematical operations so that the added accuracy must be balanced
against the added complexity. Since bearing strength is already
known to be a composite property, a more complex representation
may be impractical ; thus, equation 53 is generally accepted as a sat-
isfactory compromise.
One recent attempt to evaluate bearing strength has followed a
slightly different approach. Since bearing strength is a composite
property, an interaction can be expected to occur with other dynamic
properties. In traction, a vehicle induces a combined reaction that
requires shearing resistance in a horizontal direction as well as bear-
ing strength in a vertical direction to prevent sinkage. Dickson
( 102 ) has developed a tilting plate penetrometer to simulate the
action of a vehicle and create a representative soil reaction. Soil
resistance to penetration of the plate was measured as the plate was
forced into the soil along a tilted axis. Control of the tilt angle
and the load on the plate simulated a soil movement that represented
the effects of horizontal slip as well as those of vertical sinkage.
This is obviously an attempt to assess specific soil behavior in terms
of a composite of composites. This approach may simulate overall
behavior of a soil-vehicle system more closely than one that embodies
the simultaneous but assumed independent dynamic properties of
shearing and bearing strength.
If reasonable accuracy and simplicity are obtained, the approach
merits further investigation. On the other hand, if the approach
does not yield new information that aids in identifying independent
dynamic properties of soil, its research value may be limited. Only
by identifying such properties can we further our understanding of
how and why the soil-vehicle system behaves as it does.
3,2.2,3 Induced Strength
One of the complicating behaviors in ôil is its change in strength
when it is subjected to mechanical forces. In metals, this behavior
has often been termed strain hardening and, as the name implies, in-
creases in strength may accompany movement. Observation gen-
erally confirms the implication. In soils, however, strength may
either increase or decrease, and the change is often much larger than
in metals. An example of the phenomenon is the manipulation of
snow into a snowball, which results in a severalfold increase in
strength.
In all materials, induced strength is affected by the physical
properties of the material as well as by the applied forces so that
both must be considered. Stress-strain relations provide one suitable
means for mathematically undertaking a simultaneous consideration
of both factors. As has already been stated, however, accurate
stress-strain relations are not available for soil. Attempts to measure
induced strength by other means have not successfully identified
parameters that assess the dynamic properties of induced strength.
Eather, the attempts have assessed the interaction of the manner of
application of the applied forces and the resulting change in strength.
Consequently, the results are composite assessments of the behavior.
Shear has been used in nearly every attempt to assess changing
strength. The parameters of equation 18 (discussed in sec. 3.2.1.1)
thus become the measures of induced strength. One exception has
been made in connection with traíRcability, in which soil resistance is
measured with a cone penetrometer before and after the soil is
subjected to a specified amount of manipulation that expressly rep-
resents vehicular traffic on the soil. The second measurement assesses
any change in strength—that is, induced strength. In shear, the
change of strength is usually represented as a change in cohesion,
since the angle of internal friction generally is assumed to remain
constant. T i
Shear may be measured both before and after some standardized
manipulation of the soil to assess the change. Since shear is actually
a manipulation of soil, a special interpretation may be applied to
the shear data to determine two values of cohesion. An example is
Payne's residual cohesion (sec. 3.2.1.1). Two values of cohesion
were developed from his initial measurements without any special
manipulation of the soil. The second value, of course, was based on
a decrease in strength because of a disruption of bonds in the soil
during shear.
A clear example of the before and after measurements is available
from Transportation Research Command data ( Í32, J^SB ). Two
distinct values of cohesion were proposed to reflect induced strength.
Precollapsed cohesion would reflect the initial strength, whereas post-
collapsed cohesion would reflect the strength after a load had been
applied. Any difference between the two values would be a measure
of induced strength. The only difficulty with the concept lies in
measuring postcollapsed cohesion, which obviously depends on the
load that is applied. Since the postcollapsed value can be deter-
mined only after the applied load has been removed, a misleading
value of cohesion can be obtained. Thus, from a practical standpoint,
the concept has a limitation because generally there is little need to
know the strength after the load—say, a vehicle—has passed over the
soil. Furthermore, the possible interaction between the soil and the
apparatus that measures shear limits the practical aspects of the
To avoid these difficulties, an average or relative cohesion Creh
concept.
was proposed that would reflect the desired cohesion in the appro-
priately loaded state. An example of the concept is shown in figure
65, where sinkage of various plates into snow is correlated by assign-
10 - 10
Orel 12 in DIA. PLATE
8 l2mDIA.PLATEv
9¡nDIA. PLATE \ V
r ■ 9 in DIA.
cr|ü 8 - -o-6 in DIA.
1 . -x-3in DIA.
PLATE
PLATE
PLATE
/f
ü
6 6 in DIA. PLÀTEv X y 6
3¡n DIA. PLATE. /\/ /.48 i V

or 4 4
a
--.32
§
2 -j 2
-^^T^^ 1 . 1 . 1 .
0 0 ■^î 1 • 1 . 1 ,
04 0.8 1.2 1.6 "¿0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 20

PLATE PENETRATION--f z
d PLATE PENETRATION
d
(A) (B)
FIGURE 65.—A, Pressure on plates versus sinkage in deep dry snow. B, Same
data as in A corrected for relative cohesion Crei. (Transportation Research
Command ( ^55 ).)
ing an appropriate value of relative cohesion. The relative cohesion

was not measured but was arbitrarily assigned to provide the best fit.
The fact that the data could be correlated demonstrates the practi-
cality of the concept. Application of the concept to trafficability is
discussed in section 7.8.2.
3.3 Measuring Gross Dynamic Behavior
As stated earlier, many dynamic properties have not been iden-
tified. Nevertheless, characteristic and repetitive behavior patterns
have been qualitatively observed, and the practical importance of
these behaviors has resulted in attempts to assess them quantita-
tively.
Since the dynamic properties in soil behavior have not been iden-
tified, other means have been used to measure the desired quantities.
In some cases, no mathematical model can be envisioned; conse-
quently, some highly empirical correlation that assesses the desired
quantities is attempted. For example, forces are involved in the
wear of tillage tools and, obviously, these forces appear only when
movement occurs. Qualitatively, not only does wear occur but also
the rate of wear is more rapid in a sharp-grained sandy soil than
in a clay soil. There must be dynamic properties that characterize
the forces and wear, but they have not been identified. Other ex-
amples of active soil behavior are rupture or separation of the soil
mass and soil displacement. In both examples, forces are involved
and movement must occur before the behavior is observed ; thus, both
can be characterized by dynamic properties that have not as yet been
identified.
Because these types of gross soil behavior seemingly are important

in tillage and traction, crude assessments have been made to provide
a method of control and evaluation that has practical usefulness.
Some of these gross behaviors are discussed in the following sections,
but they represent no final solution to the problems. Actually, they
merely represent a starting point for additional work.
3.3.1 Rupture
When brittle soils are strained severely, the result is a shattering
or rupture—often called pulverization. Indeed, one of the main
objectives of tillage is to cause pulverization; therefore, assessing the
degree to which a tillage action affects pulverization is important.
Pulverization results from shear failure, tensile failure, impact
forces, and possibly other complex force distributions between a tool
and soil. The complexity of the forces is one impeding factor in
identifying dynamic properties of rupture. The importance of as-
sessing the behavior can be demonstrated from qualitative observa-
tions. When soil strength is low, various tillage actions often create
the same final conditions. On the other hand, when strength is high,
gross differences in final conditions are often observed. The import-
ance of determining the effectiveness of various tillage tools or com-
binations of tools dictates that rupture be assessed.
An obvious means of evaluating the degrees of rupture is to
measure the size of clods into which the continuous mass of soil is
pulverized. Such a measure, however, does not assess the forces in-
volved. On the other hand, measuring the total soil forces acting on
the tillage tool does not assess rupture, since there is no evaluation
of what the forces did to break up the soil.
A simple correlation between clod size and draft force is not
sufficient for assessment. Consider the following hypothetical pos-
sibility in comparing two tools. The tool having the higher draft
requirement may also produce smaller clods. Neither tool can be
rated superior because the tool that has a lower draft requirement,
which is desirable, obviously does less work on the soil.
One recently developed approach to assess rupture is based on
energy principles. Marshall and Quirk ( 292 ) investigated clod
shatter and cutting. Gill and McCreery ( H9 ) developed a method
to logically relate measurements of clod size and soil forces on the
basis of energy. The method does not involve dynamic properties or
even a composite dynamic property. In fact, the method can be
applied only to a soil-tool svstem and therefore may be considered
a method of evaluating performance.
In the method proposed by Gill and McCreery clods were dropped
on a rigid surface and then screened to evaluate clod size. The
kinetic energy expended per unit weight of soil provided a means of
interpreting the results due to differences in the size and weight of
samples. By repeated droppings, different amounts of energy could
be used to shatter the clods and an energy-clod size relation could be
obtained for a given soil condition. The technique can be used only
when the soil is sufficiently cohesive so that complete shatter does
not occur with one drop. The height of drop must be adjusted so
that impact shatters the bonds in the soil, or the energy will be in-
effective.
Typical data obtained from the drop-shatter method are shown

in figure 66. The data are characteristic of a soil in only one condi-
tion and any change in moisture, density, or other factors would
require another determination of the energy-clod size relation.
<
I
Z
<
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
LOG INPUT ENERGY (Ft-Lb/Lb)
FIGURE 66.—Relation between drop energy and clod size as represented by

mean weight diameter. ( Gill and MeCreery, Agr. Engin. ( 149 ). )
The energy-clod size relation can be used as a basis for determining

the amount of effective work done to a particular soil by a tillage
tool. As an example, if a plow shattered the soil represented in
figure 66 from initial clod size X to final clod size Y, the equivalent
energy required to break up the soil could be determined. The input
energy for the plow can be determined from the draft and speed and
expressed on the unit weight of soil disturbed. For rotary or other
tools, torque energy would also be included. A ratio of the energy
required to operate the tool in the soil to the equivalent energy re-
quired to cause the same degree of shatter would be an index of the
efficiency of the tool (table 47). Thus, a basis is provided on which
to evaluate the tool. Both similar tools and widely different tools
can be compared on this basis. An example of an evaluation of
different tools is given in section 4.5.
The drop-shatter method does not measure the absolute energy
required for pulverization since the actual mechanism of failure in
the drop shatter method may be different from that in an actual
tillage system. Nevertheless, the principles are sound and the
method will be useful even if it evaluates rupture by an indirect
approach.
In another method, the rupture strength of soil has been deter-
mined by placing a small balloon in the soil and noting the inflation
pressure at which the surface of the soil ruptures. Bowen {51)
has used this method to study emerging plant seedlings, but its use
is not restricted to this application. The principal advantage of the
method is that it can be used to measure the rupture strength of a
relatively undisturbed soil. If the measuring device is mserted
when the soil is initially fitted into a desired condition, no further
disturbance is required before making the measurement. Indeed,
placement of the balloon at seed depth would provide an average
of any variation in strength due to factors such as crusting, drying,
and soil textural differences that occur in the soil profile.
Rupture of materials has been empirically determined by a number
of simple tests, but their use has not been extensive. Chepil ( 71 )
has used the change in particle size caused by a number of sievmgs
as an index of mechanical stability, which in turn reflects rupture.
Stewart {U^) has standardized a tumbling test for pellets that
could be adapted for evaluating breakup of small aggregates. Both
of these methods require some type of particle-size assessment to de-
termine the effect of the mechanical action on the soil. The actual
mechanics of breaking is never quite known in these tests, so their
usefulness is limited. Thus, until the dynamic properties involved
in rupture are identified, assessing rupture will depend on empirical
methods.
3.3.2 Blast Erosion
On occasion, soil is eroded by a type of blasting action that is
exhibited when sand blasting is used to clean metal surfaces. In ad-
dition to the obvious example of wind erosion, the exhaust blasts of
aircraft engines and, recently, rocket engines also cause erosion. In
this type of erosion, the abrading material is usually the soil itself.
Since both movement of the soil and forces to cause movement are
involved, the phenomenon is properly classified as dynamic behavior.
Although the behavior has been widely studied {69-72^ 4^-^)? no
dynamic properties have been identified to describe the phenomenon.
Eather, physical properties have been used in an empirical manner
to provide an indirect means for assessing the behavior.
Perhaps the most widely studied type of blast erosion is wind ero-
sion. For erosion to occur, surface soil particles usually must be
loose, dry, and small enough so that they become mobile in an air
stream. Chepil ( 72 ) reports that the particles become mobile, not
in relation to the actual velocity of the air stream but rather in rela-
tion to the rate of increase in velocity with height. This behavior is
based on principles of aerodynamics which indicate that the velocity
of air will be zero near the surface and will increase with height
above the surface. This rate of increase in velocity is often termed
drag velocity. Chepil defined the drag velocity just sufficient to
cause a given particle to move as the threshold drag velocity. He
demonstrated that threshold drag velocity is related to particle
diameter, and for particles larger than 0.1 millimeter m diameter
the relation is
y' = A ^[—^)gd, (54)

where V^ = threshold drag velocity,
^ = a coefficient whose value depends upon the range of
size and soil particles on the surface,
or — bulk density of the particle,
p = density of eroding fluid,
g = gravitational constants,
d — diameter of the particle.,
When the soil surface is not dry, moisture films provide a cohesive
force and the particles tend to adhere to the surface. Equation 54
must then be modified so that
y = A ^(^:H^ (55)
where c = resistance due to the cohesive force.

Chepil was able to demonstrate that the value c could be related to
an equivalent moisture content of the soil.
With a means of predicting when a soil particle would be carried
by air to act as an abrading material, blast erosion could be further
related to the soil. Representing the abrasion process mathematically
can be compared to the chain reaction associated with a nuclear ex-
plosion. As soon as the first particle on the surface of a soil is
moved by the airstream, the particle strikes another fixed particle.
In the process, an impact force probably much greater than the force
of the moving air is imparted to the fixed particle. This bombard-
ing process continues in a manner analogous to a chain reaction so
that soon the airstream is literally filled with particles and erosion
proceeds at a very rapid rate. A mathematical model to represent
the situation is obviously difficult, and this difficulty has to date
prevented defining a dynamic property of blast erosion.
In lieu of a mathematical model, Chepil defined a coefficient of
abrasion as a measure of the susceptibility of soil to blast erosion.
The coefficient is the quantity of soil material abraded per unit
weight of abrader blown against the aggregate in a 25-mile-per-hour
windstream. The coefficient can be determined only in a special
apparatus wherein the necessary measurements can be made. Using
this special apparatus and briquets made of particles of dry soil of
diiferent diameters, Chepil determined a relation between the coeffi-
cient of abrasion, the modulus of rupture (sec. 3.2.1.2), and particle
diameter, as shown in figure 67.
The extent to which this relation may be extended to other soils
is not known, but presumably the relation should be rather general
as long as the moisture content is controlled. As figure 67 shows,
blast erosion is not assessed in terms of its own dynamic property,
but it does appear to relate to the dynamic property tension. The
tensile property has not been directly related to behaviors described
by equations 54 or 55, but rather to the volume of soil loss. Because
of the ill-defined nature of the inputs and outputs of the behavior
relation, blast erosion is assessed indirectly in terms of gross behavior.
- \,^MODULUS OF RUPTURE
20 - ^X y^ -
10 \ y/
: \, / I
UJ \ ^COEFFICIENT - in
<
Q:
ID \ / OF ABRASION.
2 - CQ
<
1 _ /\ LL
a: " / ^ ' O
Ü-
o
- ^ \
.2 / .02 ^
\
.1 - / \ : .01
o / \ O
/ \ ■
o
.02 . . . \ ...002
.001 .002 .005 .01 .02 .05
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE (mm)
FIGURE 67.—Relation between the modulus of rupture and the coefficient of

abrasion of soils by windblown particles. ( Chepil ( 12 ). )
However, physical properties, not dynamic properties, are involved

in equations 54 and 55 so that if a relation is determined in the
future, dynamic behavior may not be fully described.
The practicality of the approach, however, is demonstrated in
figure 68. Figure 67 indicates that fine-grained soils are less sus-
ceptible to erosion than coarse-grained soils, and the data in figure 68
tend to support the conclusion. Furthermore, the definition of the
coefficient of abrasion implied that soil loss should be proportional to
the amount of abrader—that is, the curves in figure 68 should be
6000 X —FINE SANDY LOAM

o — LOAM
A—SILT LOAM (A)
5000 • —SILT LOAM (B)
A—SILTY CLAY
E
3 4000
O
"^ 3000
z
g
<
g 2000
<
1000
1500 2500
ABRADER (gm)
FIGURE 68.—The loss of soil by abrasion as influenced by the amount of soil

abrader in the windstream. (Chepil, Soil Sei. ( 7i ).)
linear. In spite of the success of the present assessment of blast

erosion, the exact mechanism of the battering action of the abrasives
is not fully understood. Presumably the action is different from that
of sliding abrasion ( llJf ). Until the dynamic properties of blast
erosion are identified, the exact mechanism representing the behavior
cannot be understood.
Not all blasting fluids contain abrasives; jet streams by themselves
have been used to elutriate soil {69)^ reduce friction in the soil
{AO)^ separate tubers ( 222 ) ; inject materials into soil {17 )^ and
secure thrust for vertical takeoff aircraft ( 1^3Jf, ). The basic ap-
proach is to consider the system analogous to that of a particle
moving through the fluid. Arya and Pickard {17 ) concluded that
the resistance of soil particles to penetration of a high-velocity jet
could be approximated by the equation
R = h d^v^, (56)
where R — resistance force,
h = 2i constant,
d — diameter of the particles,
V — velocity of the jet.
The nature of the jet determines the type of movement of the soil
particles (fig. 69) and the effectiveness of the jet blast. The depth
fTTTTTTnir^
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE 69.—A, A large particle displaced without rotation by a small jet

directed through the center of gravity. B, A large particle rotated and
moved by a smaU jet that applies an eccentric load. 0, A velocity gradient
in a large jet causes rotation of particles. (Arya and Pickard, Agr. Engin.
(Í7).)
of penetration of a vertical jet into a column of uncemented beads

increases with decreasing particle size (fig. 70). Apparently more
energy is wasted in direct impact in large particles than in small
particles. Theoretically, the total drag force should be the same.
The more favorable penetration in fine particles should not be taken
as an indication that the action would be more effective in fine-
1 ^
Í 3
UJ
I 2
100 200 300 400
DIAMETER (Microns)
FIGURE70.—Effect of size of particles on the depth of penetration of a jet into

uncemented glass beads at several pressures. (Arya and Pickard, Agr.
Engin. ( Í7 ).)
textured soils in the field. Cohesion genetally increases in finer tex-

tured soils so that an increase in resistance to abrasion, as shown in
figure 67, should be expected. Probably once the blast has started,
detached soil fragments are mobilized to constitute an abrading
charge in the jet and thus increase its boring effectiveness.
Cykler and Tribble ( 91 ) have used the blast principle to inject
soil fumigant through a heavy mulch paper and into soil to depths as
great as 10 inches. The kinetic energy of the liquid ranged from 7
to 77 foot-pounds, depending on the velocity and weight of the in-
jected charge. At least 14 foot-pounds of energy appeared to be
necessary to penetrate the mulch paper (fig. 71). Additional re-
search is required to develop measurement techniques that will pro-
vide a basis on which to predict the effectiveness of blast erosion.
Desirable parameters must include characteristics of the jet as well as
the soil. Until such parameters are identified, blast erosion must"
be assessed in terms of gross behavior.
3.3.3 Abrasian
The dynamic action of soil sliding over a metal surface (abrasion)
involves more than the mechanical loss of the metal due to friction.
Under high normal loads, soil particles scratch, cut, and gouge the
surface to wêar it away. Note that we are now concerned with a
different behavior than in blast erosion. During erosion, the soil
itself was eroded, whereas in abrasion a second material', usually
metal, is involved. It is important tct assess the erosion of this
second material in terms of iho^ abrasive characteristics of the soil.
As discussed in section 2.9.4, the interaction of soil and metal dur-
ing abrasion is highly complex. The soil generally cannot be char-
acterized as a rigid body, and the evidence of cutting and scratching
indicates that the forces within even small areas must be highly com-
lio AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
•
10
--
•
- •
3 ® --^ •
z •
o •
01 •
H
UJ r^
S 4-
Û- •
/
2 - /
./ 1 • 1 L.. 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
KINETIC ENERGY (Ft Lbs)
FIGURE 71.—The influence of kinetic energy of a liquid jet on the depth of

penetration through paper and into soil. (Plotted from Cykler and Tribble,
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. {91 ). )
plex and of varying magnitude. Consequently, no realistic mathe-

matical model representing the behavior has been developed, and
correlations between empirical wear tests and field experience have
been used to assess abrasion. Since final results (quantity of ma-
terial lost) rather than a specific mechanism have been used, the
assessment is properly categorized under gross behavior.
Key factors that must be considered in developing and using an
abrasion test include: the time and kind of contact between the
soil and the material ; the normal load on the abrading soil ; the soil
and surface material ; the temperature at the interface ; and the speed
of the sliding action. Under some conditions, such as during plow-
ing, the soil along the surface is continually replenished by a fresh
supply of sharp grains as the tool slides along. This is not the case
in a bearing where the same material acts as the abrading material
indefinitely. During the abrading process the particles may be
ground up and worn smooth so that their abrasive characteristics
change. When the load on the soil particles exceeds their strength,
they may be crushed ; and a different wear patterni results, as shown
in figure 72. In an empirical test, therefore, the load on the soil
particles as well as other service conditions must be the same as those
on the tool, or correlation of the results wîll be difficult.
A number of techniques have been devised to evaluate the wear
of different types of materials in soil. Eeed and Gordon ( 369 ),
Mohsenin and others ( 302 ), Lechner and McCoUy ( 252 ), and
Cooper and McCreery (81 ) have conducted experiments under
laboratory and field conditions which indicate that materials may be
selected by such an evaluation program. In all of the methods wear
was assessed in terms of quantity of material lost for some standard
condition.
.15
.13
.11
if)
O .09
.07
<
NORMAL LOAD .05
12 Lbs.
.03
.01
2 4 3 9 15 21 27
TIME OF WEAR (min) NORMAL LOAD (lbs)
FIGURE 72.—Effect of a crushing load on the abrasiveness of sand particles in

in a wear test. (Reed and Gordon, Agr. Engin. ( S59 ).)
Fairbanks ( llJf ) has attempted to measure the wear of plowshares

by a radioactive tracer technique. Small metal sections of plow-
shares were removed and radiated to make them radioactive. They
were then welded into their proper positions in the plowshares.
After operation in the field, particles detached from the plowshare
by wear were detected in the soil by means of suitable counters ;
the amount of radioactivity was considered to be an indication of the
wear. The success of this method awaits completion of additional
research.
Other techniques might be required for rubber or plastic com-
pounds, but little research has been conducted on these materials.
Good correlations between laboratory and field tests have been
difficult to establish for tillage tools. Undoubtedly this difficulty is
encountered because of the great variety of soils and soil condi-
tions under which tillage tools operate. Measurements of hardness
of the materials do not correlate as well with measurements of wear
as with the observed microstructures of the metal. High percentages
of primary alloy carbides have high resistance to soil abrasion, ir-
respective of the normal hardness values {8). It may be possible
to correlate the hardness of individual particles, such as Austenite
crystals, with wear by a microhardness Knoop test, whereas the
overall matrix hardness as determined by a gross test, such as the
Rockwell, would indicate no relation. Specific research is needed
on this point.
The foregoing assessments are based on the concept that a material
can be selected that offers maximum abrasion resistance for all soils.
The result is that various materials are subjected to a standard abra-
sive procedure and evaluated. Since the procedure itself influences
results, the attempted correlations with material properties may be
questioned.
Another approach is to study the abrasive characteristics of soil.
If a standard metal material can be evaluated in various soils, per-
haps the soil itself may be correlated with wear. Presumably, a
geographical map showing soil abrasiveness could be effected and

utilized to select special abrasion-resistant tools.
Few attempts have been made to relate soil characteristics to
abrasion. According to Gavrilov and Koruschkin ( IJfO ), Shchuch-
kin has reported an increase in soil-metal friction with a decrease
in percentage of soil fractions less than 0.01 millimeter (fig. 73).
BEFORE RAIN
0.5 AFTER RAIN
0.3
FRACTION < 0.01 MM (7o)

FIGURE 73.—Relation between fineness of soil particles and coefficient of
friction. ( Gavrilov and Koruschkin ( IJfO ). )
The hardness of pure minerals has been measured and classified in

terms of empirical scales ( 68^ 259 ). These data have limited value,
however, since the minerals in a soil may not be pure and their
hardness may be expected to vary. Carpenter and Deitz ( 62 ) report
a method for sorting nonsymmetrical particles that might be of
assistance. No data are available for correlating shape of particles
to wear. Other factors also may be expected to inñuence abrasive
wear, but concrete evidence is not available.
Any characterization of soil for assessing abrasiveness should in-
clude : first, parameters that reflect the sharpness ( ^91 ), hardness,
and other abrasive characteristics of the individual grains; second,
parameters indicating wêight or shear strength that would influence
the magnitude of the normal load operating on the abrading par-
ticles; and third, tool parameters that would further influence the
normal load on the abrading surface. A fourth strength factor
governs the rigidity with which the abrading particles are held by
the soil matrix. Additional knowledge is required to more fully
understand and characterize abrasion. Even in terms of gross
behavior, only slight progress has been made.
3.3.4 Movement
The condition of the soil at one time as compared to another
might be described in terms of its overall location or configuration.
This is not the same type of description that might be used to de-
scribe the internal arrangement or soil structure—that is, the
size and shape of the aggregates and how they are packed together.
Instead, the relative location of different parts of the general soil
mass are of interest. As an example, a lowering of the surface of
the soil would indicate that subsidence or compaction of some form
had occurred. In other cases, the soil may be inverted or moved
as in plowing, harrowing, or land forming and it would be import-
ant to trace the movement. This movement can be seen in a plowed
furrow, yet the movement is not easy to describe.
A study of the movement in detail requires the use of some ref-
erence system so that the initial and final locations may be identified.
Strain, as discussed in section 2.3, provides a rigorous model for
describing movement and final location in terms of initial locations.
As was pointed out, both rigid body movement—including rotation
and translocation—and strain are required for a suitable description.
But the mathematics becomes very complex even when simplifying
assumptions are made, and little progress has been made in using
strain to describe movement. Kather, initial and final locations are
identified in some suitable reference system so that gross movement
is observed. The movement is usually not even directly associated
with the soil itself as a means for characterizing the soil—that is,
a movement dynamic property. Instead, the movement is used to
qualitatively observe the behavior of the interaction of soil and
some device or machine.
The initial and final locations of soil have been assessed in several
ways. Nichols and Eandolph ( 320 ) placed aluminum foil marker
strips in the soil so that movement of the soil would move the strips.
The degree to which this material would alter the soil reaction would
depend on the strength of the aluminum and the amount of strain
in the soil. Other workers have used noncontinuous tracers such as
colored beads, brass rods, sticks, gypsum, and coal dust {90, 138.
200, 267, 418 ). Both line and grid patterns of these materials have
been used to mark the soil, depending on the object of the study.
These tracers must be placed in the soil very accurately before soil
movement is initiated. By carefully cutting the soil mass apart
after a specific operation has been completed ( 100, 251, 300 ), the
final position of the markers can be determined. The movement
of the soil can be inferred from a simple plot of the tracers. Figure
74 shows the nature of soil movement caused by a moldboard plow.
The description does not indicate the paths traveled by the in-
dividual markers.
Figure 75 shows a glass-sided box technique in which the soil
particles themselves serve as tracers. Although this technique has
limited application, it provides a means by which a continuous path
of movement can be observed. The visible lines are caused by the
movement of individual particles or aggregates of soil along the glass
side of the box. The particles scrape the fine layer of aluminum
I
^ 0 L
"
UJ 3 - >
o
<
-1
2 - LU
t-
13
• 4
1 - z
X
(B)
3
DISTANCE (Ft)
FIGURE74.—Markers used to trace the movement of différent portions of a

mass of soil by tillage tools. (Nichols and Reed, Agr. Engin. ( 32S ).)
FIGURE 75.—The scratching of an aluminum-coated glass plate showing the

movement of soil under loading.
from the glass so that the path of the particle in contact with the
glass is recorded.
Figure 75 represents the total movement that occurred in the
soil as a rectangular probe was forced into the soil along the glass.
Movements do not occur simultaneously and only a series of such
pictures would show the progress. The extent to which this move-
ment would occur in the soil if the glass side were not present has
been questioned. When the glass is lubricated, possibly the move-
ment of soil near the glass is relatively similar to that which would
occur if the glass were not present. When glass is not used or when
the tracers are not visible, their location must be determined by
other means.
The use of lead shot in soil has permitted determining their pro-
gressive location by means of X-rays without destroying the soil mass
( 217^ iOJf ). Photographs can be prepared to show the location of
the individual shot after various increments of soil movement.
Swietochowski, Bors, and Przestalski ( 1^17 ) used radioactive shot
from which gamma rays emanated. These rays impinged on photo-
graphic paper to mark the location of the shot sources. Unless the
location of each shot is determined as movement progresses, their
direction of movement cannot be determined. Fairbanks ( IH )
used plowshares containing radioactive materials so that particles
which were worn from the plow could be detected in the soil with
radiation detectors. Because the worn material would be attached
only to soil that slid on the plow surface, soil from that particular
layer could be identified.
Phosphors are materials that emit visible light during or after
radiation by ultraviolet light. Staniland ( Í09 ) and Wooten, Mc-
Whorter, and Eanney ( 512 ) have used ñuorescent tracers to study
the efficiency of cultivation methods. Under field conditions, an
ultraviolet light has been used at night to illuminate ñuorescent
tracer materials so as to be able to study the degree of soil mixing
caused by different tillage tools.
Martini ( 293 ) used plaster markers to identify the initial center
of gravity of a section of a furrow slice. He caught the plowed
soil in a large pan placed in the bottom of the furrow and then
balanced the pan to redetermine the center of gravity of the final
position of the soil mass from the test section. He considered the
difference in the location of the center of gravity as an index of
the soil reaction to the plow.
The configuration of the soil must often be altered into some
specific form for a special purpose. A description of the surface
is easy when the shape is simple. The most accurate method used
is to measure the elevation of each point of the surface in reference
to some base point. A surface contour map can be constructed from
the data. The field survey method is the most practical for describ-
ing large areas such as those in which land forming, grades, and
water courses are of interest. Mech and Free ( 296 ) and Soehne
( Jt02 ) have studied relatively rough plowed surfaces by a version
of this method. At least one device is commercially available for
measuring the irregularities in surface profiles of highways and
airfields ( ^7 ), but this apparatus is not adequate for most detailed
116 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S, DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
studies. Schäfer and Lovely ( 380 ) developed an automatic-record-

ing soil surface profile meter. Changes in elevation have been inter-
preted in terms of surface roughness when a baseline was chosen at
the highest or lowest point of contact. While all these methods
have been used to some extent, there is need for developing better
methods to determine the location and configuration of soil.
4. MECHANICS OF TILLAGE TOOLS
4.1 Introduction
Tillage tools are mechanical devices that are used to apply forces
to the soil to cause some desired effect such as pulverization, cuttmg,
inversion, or movement of the soil. Tillage tools usually produce
several effects simultaneously. The ultimate aim of tillage is to
manipulate a soil from a known condition into a different desired
condition by mechanical means.
The objective of a mechanics of tillage tools is to provide a
method for describing the application of forces to the soil and for
describing the soil's reaction to the forces. An accurate mechanics
would provide a method by which the effects could be predicted and
controlled by the design of a tillage tool or by the use of a sequence
of tillage tools. Furthermore, the efficiency and economy of the
tillage operation could be evaluated from the mechanics. A tho-
rough knowledge of the basic forces and reactions is required to
develop the mechanics. Such knowledge is not available at present,
and soil reactions cannot even be predicted, let alone controlled. As
a result, an operation is performed, the conditions are arbitrarily
evaluated, and additional operations are performed in sequence until
the conditions are adjudged to be adequate. Thus, today, tillage
is more an art than a science.
Progress has been made, however, in developing mechanics where
simple tools or simple actions are involved and where forces and re-
actions can be described. This chapter presents several approaches
that have been used to develop simple forms of soil-tillage tool
mechanics. Only homogeneous soil conditions are considered. Al-
though this approach is completely unrealistic, it does not negate the
results of the studies. Complete knowledge of reactions for a homo-
geneous soil will provide a basis for solving problems dealing with
layered soils. Interactions of importance will probably occur, but
they should not present unsurmountable obstacles. The approaches
discussed in this chapter do not represent any final solution of the
problems that are posed. The approaches, however, do represent
those that have been utilized and those that may contribute to the
development of a successful mechanics of tillage tools.
4.2 The Reaction of Soil to Tillage Tools
The reaction of soil to a tillage tool can be quantitatively described
only by a mechanics. Visualize the soil as a continuous semi-infini-
tive mass composed of air, water, and solids arranged in some homo-
geneous manner. As a tool advances in the soil, the soil reacts
to the tool and some action occurs. For example, the soil may move
as a mass, tlie solids may displace the air or water, or the solids may
117
break apart. The action of the soil's response can be described by

such qualitative terms as plowing, cultivating, and harrowing.
When a quantitative description is desired, however, numbers must
replace the qualitative terms.
In chapters 2 and 3, the concepts of behavior equations and dy-
namic properties were discussed. The behavior equations were
shown to quantitatively describe simple reactions of the soil to forces
and also to define dynamic parameters that assess the soil. Thus,
if an action such as plowing can be represented by the simultaneous
occurrence of phenomena represented by behavior equations, a pos-
sible means is available for developing the desired quantitative de-
scription. Incorporating behavior equations into a system of equa-
tions that describes an action for a specific set of circumstances is one
way to develop a mechanics. The equations of the mechanics will
provide the desired quantitative description.
Developing a mecnanics based on behavior equations is neither
new in concept nor unique to soil dynamics. The procedures are
generalizations of basic principles that have evolved over the years
from scientific investigations. Combining behavior equations may
seem to be an easy task. In principle this is the case, but in practice
complications often arise that are not apparent from the behavior
equations themselves. To illustrate some of the complications, as
well as the principles for developing a mechanics based on the be-
havior equations, examples from Newtonian mechanics will be dis-
cussed.
4.2.1 Principles for Developing a Mechanics
Newton's Second Law of Motion is a behavior equation. Consider
a ball that is dropped. Gravity acts on the ball and it falls. The
behavior is clearly observed, and Newton's Second Law is easily
identified as bein^ involved. The force of gravity is the input to
the behavior equation, and movement is the output. The equation of
the Law defines the behavior, and mass is the behavior parameter
that characterizes the material (the ball). Thus, the Second Law
is a behavior equation.
Newton's Second Law does not describe the action of a falling
body. Neither the magnitude of the force acting on a falling ball
nor the magnitude of its acceleration is of direct interest. Kather,
the action of the body is of interest and factors such as time, distance,
and velocity describe the action. These factors are not directly
given in Newton's Second Law.
To describe the action, a mechanics is required; and the mechanics
is embodied in the classical laws of falling bodies. The equations
representing the laws are easily developed. Defining the mass of a
body and its state (such as position and initial velocity), together
with the equations defining velocity and acceleration and the equa-
tion of Newton's Second Law, provides a system of equations whose
simultaneous solution yields the laws of falling bodies. The laws
are a mechanics based on a behavior equation, and the laws ac-
curately describe the action of a falling body. In this instance, a
mechanics was required because the action to be described was not
completely represented by the behavior equation. But this is not
always the case—for example, when Ohm's Law is used to describe
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TíÍACTION 119
the flow of an electric current. The inputs and outputs of Ohm's

Law are directly the factors of interest so that the action is com-
pletely described. In general, however, actions are not so simple
and a mechanics is required to completely describe the actions.
Other principles for developing a mechanics can be illustrated by
considering a spinning projectile moving through the air. Two
behaviors are involved. The first is falling body behavior and the
second is spinning behavior. Spinning behavior involves a force
system (a couple) that acts as a behavior input, and the resulting
rotating motion is the behavior output. Newtonian principles pro-
vide the basic behavior equation. The equation states that the total
applied moment (couple) is equal to the time rate of change of
angular momentum. The concept of angular momentum involves a
behavior property called moment of inertia. The physical signifi-
cance of moment of inertia is the magnitude and distribution of
mass within a body. Specifying the moment of inertia of a rigid
body requires six numbers so that six parameters define the be-
havior property (moment of inertia). Rigid body rotation about
itself can be considered the basic behavior equation together with
such associated definitions as moment of inertia, angular momentum,
couples, and positions. Simultaneous solution of this system of
equations provides a mechanics to describe the action of spinning.
Indeed, the actions of gyroscopes are explained by this mechanics.
Our interest in an action can dictate the nature of a required
mechanics. If our interest in the spinning projectile concerns only
where it will hit when it returns to the earth, falling body mechanics
will be adequate. The spinning action can probably be ignored.
On the other hand, if we are interested only in describing the move-
ment of the projectile rotating about itself, falling body mechanics
can probably be ignored and the spin mechanics will be adequate.
If the action to be described is the path of motion of every math-
ematical point of the body, then both behaviors must be considered
simultaneously. A mechanics can be developed to describe such an
action. Simultaneous consideration of both behavior equations, to-
gether with the associated definitions of moment of inertia, velocity,
position, etc., provides a system of equations to describe the action.
Our interest in an action, therefore, influences how the required
mechanics will be developed.
Interaction may influence how a mechanics is developed. If inter-
actions occur between behaviors, each behavior may have to be in-
cluded even if our interest in the action does not require a complete
description. Consider the situation where the path of motion of
the center of mass of an elastic spinning projectile is the action to
be described. The forces within the spinning projectile may cause
movement within the body, and a shift in the mass may occur. The
shift in mass will change the moment of inertia which, in turn, will
change the spin action. If the change in spin is great enough, the
path of motion of center of mass may be changed. All three be-
haviors, therefore, may need to be included in the mechanics to
accurately describe the path of motion.
The third behavior equation is, of course, stress-strain behavior
where stresses are inputs and strains are outputs. For idealized
elastic behavior, the theory of elasticity provides behavior equations ;
and bulk modulus and shear modulus are behavior parameters de-
fined by the equations that characterize the material. Simultaneous
consideration of the three behavior equations (note that stress-strain
behavior is simple even though the equations are mathematically
complex), together with all of the associated boundary conditions,
provides a basis for a mechanics. The solution of the system of
equations will account for the possible interaction. Interactions
can, therefore, influence the procedure for developing a mechanics.
Certain generalizations for developing a mechanics based on be-
havior equations can be concluded from the discussion of the New-
tonian examples and can be summarized under three points: (1)
The action to be quantitatively described must be defined. (2) The
behavior involved in the action to be described must be recognized.
(3) In most circumstances the behavior must be incorporated into a
mechanics that describes the action. Point 2—recognizing the be-
havior involved—is by far the most difficult of the three points,
because recognition usually implies selection. Defining the action,
however, must be accomplished first, so it is discussed first.
The action to be described is defined by interest from outside the
action. A problem to be solved, curiosity, or merely a quest for
knowledge are sources of interest. In the example of the projectile,
interest determines whether the path of motion of each mathematical
point of the projectile must be described or whether only the path
of motion of the center of mass must be described. No set procedure
can be established for defining an action because the procedure
usually embodies simply defining the problem. Personal interest
and the nature of the action itself will influence thé definition.
Until the action (defined here as the doing of something) has been
at least qualitatively defined, however, the problem of quantitatively
describing the action cannot be undertaken.
In any action known to man today, more than one behavior is
involved. Behavior is defined here as any phenomenon that can be
identified, isolated, and studied so that a behavior equation can be
written to quantitatively describe the phenomenon. Thus, Ohm's
Law, stress-strain equations, and Newton's Second Law of Motion
are examples of behavior in the sense defined here. We know from
available knowledge that a rigid body is not really rigid. Strain
always occurs so that the concept of rigidity is relative. Similarly,
a body that strains and is assumed to be continuous is really not
continuous. The body is built up of crystals or aggregates formed
from molecules that are, in turn, formed from atoms. When the
action to be described concerns so-called rigid body movements, all
of the smaller behaviors (smaller because of the physical size of
their sphere of influence) can usually be ignored. Even when the
action to be described is in the realm of the atomic dimensions, today
we know that the atom has a nucleus and the nucleus itself is being
subdivided. Presumably, behavior equations must exist for particles
within the nucleus; therefore, any action known today probably
involves more than one behavior.
No unique system or structure of behavior equations exists. Such
a structure can be developed only when matter itself can be abso-
lutely defined. If, for example, the makeup of the nucleus itself
were precisely determined, matter could perhaps be absolutely de-
fined. Even if such a structure did exist, its practicality would be

limited. The practical limitation was clearly stated by Dirac, who
is one of the founders of quantum mechanics ( ü^ ). Quantum
mechanics deals with the motions of electrons or nuclei inside atoms
and molecules. The sphere of inñuence of the mechanics is thus
small. Dirac, as quoted by Eliezer, stated : "The general theory of
quantum mechanics is now almost complete .... the underlying laws
necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and
the whole of chemistry are thus completely known, and the difficulty
is only that the exact solution of these laws leads to equations much
too complicated to be soluble."
Because no unique structure exists, because of the mathematical
complexity of the structure, and because more than one behavior
is always involved, two guidelines for choosing behavior involved
in an action are indicated. First, the choice of behavior must be
arbitrary. In other words, for any specific action most of the be-
havior can be ignored. Second, the mathematical complexity sug-
gests choosing behavior where the inputs and outputs of the behavior
equation are as close as possible to the factors that will describe
the action. For example, stress and strain do not lend themselves
to describing the path of motion of a projectile.
Within these two guidelines several qualifications must be in-
cluded. Only one behavior equation may be required to determine
an accurate description of the action. If an interaction exists, how-
ever, an accurate description will require additional behavior equa-
tions. The added behavior equations may be very remote from
factors that describe the action; if they are, the second guideline
must be amended. The elastic spinning projectile illustrates such
a situation. Sacrificing accuracy of the description of the action,
however, may permit ignoring the interaction. The arbitrariness of
the behavior structure, the requirement of mathematical simplicity,
and the possibility of interaction—all indicate that judgment, in-
genuity, and perhaps some luck are needed when choosing behavior
to describe an action.
Incorporating behavior into a mechanics is the final generalization
in procedures for developing a mechanics. If the action to be
described can be closely represented by a behavior equation, no
mechanics is required. Ohm's Law completely represents the action
of current flowing through a simple conductor. If, however, a net-
work of conductors is constructed, a mechanics is required to describe
the action of the network. But the fundamental behavior of the
network itself and every element in the network is represented by
Ohm's Law. As simple an action as a falling body requires a
mechanics so that even when only one behavior equation is required,
a mechanics must often be developed.
When more than one behavior equation is required, a mechanics
is required to combine the behavior equations. Just as no specific
procedure can be given for defining an action, so no specific pro-
cedures can be given for combining behavior equations. Each
situation has its own peculiarities. As suggested in the example of
the projectile, including a second behavior equation may so change
the result of the mechanics that little similarity remains. While
the details of procedure will vary, combining behavior equations
usually involves considering the equations simultaneously with

boundary conditions. Simultaneous solution of the system of equa-
tions results in the desired mechanics.
4.2.2 The Complete Soil-Tillage Tool Mechanics
By following the principles discussed in section 4.2.1, a soil-
tillage tool mechanics can be developed in progressive stages (fig. 76).
The purpose of the mechanics is to quantitatively describe the action
of tillage on the soil. In the initial recognition phase, the action
is observed and noted to be repetitive. The recognition phase is
gradually supplanted by a qualitative phase, in which the general
forces are identified and specific reactions are observed. Nearly all
of the world's literature on tillage research falls into the qualitative
phase as defined here. The tool size and shape, width and depth
of operation, speed of operation, and soil conditions are varied and
the soil reaction is noted. The procedure involves trial-and-error
methods of solving problems. The qualitative phase has been habit-
ually utilized for problem-solving purposes; unfortunately, relations
based on trial-and-error results rarely explain the underlying basic
principles. Hence, the relations generally may not be used to
SOIL CONDITIONS
AND FORCES
Soil Behaviors
f:UJmmm.^mM Separated
Repetitive
Soil Behavior Development of
Phenomenon
Recognized Individual Soil Behavior Mechanics
Observed
Equations Developed
Soil Behavior
Equations Combined
NEW
SOIL CONDITIONS
TILLAGE ACTION GENERAL WORD SPECIFIC WORD • • • • NUMERICAL

DESCRIPTIONS
FIGURE 76.—Phases in the development of a soü-tiUage tool mechanics to

to describe a tillage action.
satisfactorily explain new and untried situations, and more trial-

and-error studies must be made.
A soil-tillage tool mechanics must be based on quantitative descrip-
tions of the forces applied by the tool and the resulting physical be-
havior of the soil. The quantitative phase in figure 76 constitutes the
bulk of the basic work in soil dynamics. The actions recognized as
being present in tillage must be separated into simple behavior,
which can be studied. Simple behaviors include, for example,
stress-strain relations, soil-metal friction, and yield by shear.
Descriptions of simple behavior can be established through the
application of several distinct phases of study (sees. 3.1 and 3.2).
First, some specific behavior is observed and studied. Second, haying
noted the behavior, factors involved in the behavior are identified
and their relation is ascertained in a cause-and-effect manner.
Mathematical equations are required to quantitatively describe the
cause-and-effect relation and, hence, the behavior. Resorting to
mathematical equations is possible only when both input and output
quantities can be expressed in some form of numerical description.
Each behavior equation defines a dynamic property, and the param-
eters of the behavior equation identify the specific quantities that
must be measured. When measured values of the parameters are
substituted into the behavior eq[uation, they assess the property nu-
merically in that they quantitatively describe the material's contribu-
tion to the behavior. ^
While these steps may appear to be so elementary as to be obvious,
they are not always easy to execute. Even with simple behavior,
attempts to quantize relations have been extremely difficult. This
difficulty is compounded since the results of behavior (the action),
rather than the behavior itself, are of practical interest. Neverthe-
less, behavior equations must be developed and they must be accurate
and have clearly defined inputs and outputs.
An axiom to use in developing a soil-tillage tool mechanics is the
principle of compatibility, which can be stated: Quantities to be
considered simultaneously in representing a phenomenon should have
compatible levels of definition. This is to say that the definition of
forces and movements used in a mechanics must be as completely
defined as the inputs and outputs of the soil behavior equations which
provide the framework of the mechanics. The utilization of this
principle will serve to prevent the excessive development of unneces-
sary subbehavior equations along with their complexities.
With accurate behavior equations, a complete soil-tillage tool me-
chanics can be developed to quantitatively describe tillage actions.
A specific tillage tool has a fixed geometrical shape that can be ex-
pressed by appropriate mathematical equations. An overall co-
ordinate framework can be established in which the direction of
travel and path of motion of the tool, orientation of the tool, and
the continuous nature and profile of the soil can be described. Since
the tool operates as a rigid body having a much greater strength than
the soil, its movement displaces soil. Describing the path of motion
of the tool in the reference framework thus provides the necessary
boundary conditions to define the problem. Simultaneous solution
of the system of equations, utilizing the boundary conditions and
the magnitude of the parameters, provides a quantitative description
of the reaction. Stresses acting on the tool can be added vectorially
to give the forces required to move the tool in the specified path.
The path of movement of the soil determines its total displacement
and final position. Thus, from the description of the tillage action
the factors of interest can be calculated.
Few behavior equations have been determined that are suitable for
use in a soil-tool mechanics, and a quantitative assessment cannot al-
ways be made of those that are available. Thus, the complete me-
chanics does not exist today, and it is not likely to be forthcoming in
the immediate future. The complexity of mathematically solving
the system of equations will also be a deterrent to securing a rapid
solution, but a vast realm of mathematical knowledge is available for
assistance. Many mathematical techniques have yet to be used in
developing the mechanics. They range from methods for obtaining
rigorous solutions, to approximation solutions by finite differences, to
simulation on electronic analog computers. It is not lack of appli-
cation of these techniques that is limiting progress ; rather, it is lack
of fundamental equations expressing behaviors.
Any real progress in sight lies in the development of simplified
descriptions of behavior rather than in a simplified mathematical
method for solving the system of equations. Thus, although the
main challenge in soil dynamics research still lies ahead, the course
of research to be followed is clearly defined. Based on present
knowledge, the course can be charted with a reasonable degree of
certainty so that at least partial success is assured.
Thus, the ultimate goal of soil dynamics research is directed to-
ward developing an extremely complex mechanics. ISTevertheless,
the mechanics must be developed if we are tg reduce tillage of the
soil, one of man's oldest continuing tasks, to a science. Only the
most rudimentary form of mechanics has evolved and the complete
mechanics needs to be developed. One has only to compare the sug-
gestions Jenkin made in 1932 ( 201 ) concerning the development of
a soil-tillage tool mechanics with the tillage research undertaken in
1964 to realize that a third of a century has slipped by without
progress being made.
Unless some positive attempt is made to pursue the scientific as-
pects of soil dynamics and concentrate on the fundamentals of soil
behavior, other years will pass without progress. One of civilized
man's responsibilities is to develop knowledge of this type. Any
knowledge that permits man to know how his environment will act
or react will enable him to become less subject to the uncertainties
that have slowed his progress.
The ideal soil-tillage tool mechanics that has been described here
is termed complete because presumably all of the simple behaviors
that may have an influence on the action are included in the overall
mechanics. One of the difficulties in understanding a soil-tillage tool
action is that every behavior is not always operative. A behavior
may appear intermittently, and its presence may be difficult to detect
or assess. For example, a dry cemented soil does not simultaneously
exhibit plastic flow behavior or even compression failure to any great
extent. Similarly, a wet saturated soil may exhibit great plastic flow
but again little compression failure. The complete mechanics should
be capable of representing these complexities by mathematically

choosing which behaviors actually occur.
A mechanics can be based on a single behavior equation, however,
so that a so-called partial mechanics can be developed in lieu of a
complete mechanics. The partial mechanics must be restricted to
situations where the incorporated behavior occurs. Several attempts
have been made to develop partial mechanics where a pressing need
existed to obtain solutions to specific problems in soil dynamics.
While expediency dictates that partial mechanics be sought, the
development is also justified because of the progress that has been
made in recognizing soil reactions that are distinctly different.
The general nature of such observations is indicated in reports by
Nichols and Eeed ( 323 ) and by Pollard {338), As an example,
average soil in a "good plowing condition" shears in a regular pat-
tern along primary and secondary surfaces as failure occurs in the
soil. The soil is usually firm and without excessive amounts of
roots and stones. Dry cemented soils, on the other hand, break up
into large irregular blocks whose dimensions can be controlled to
some extent by the size of cut of the tillage tool. Freshly plowed or
loose soils cannot be satisfactorily replowed because they lack the
rigidity required to hold together so as to slide over the plow sur-
face in a uniform slice. The soil tends to roll and be pushed by the
plow. Clearly, these observations lack the definition required for
any mathematical treatment. The observations do indicate, how-
ever, that in some instances a reasonably simple but repetitive be-
havior is involved in the reaction of soil to a tillage tool. Therefore,
partial soil-tool mechanics can logically be developed and they will
probably have a practical application. Indeed, only partial me-
chanics will be available until the complete mechanics is eventually
developed.
4.3 Mechanics of Simple Reactions
The distinction between a complete soil-tillage tool mechanics and
a partial soil-tillage tool mechanics was made in section 4.2.2. In
general, a mechanics based on one, two, or any number of behavior
equations can be developed. Depending on the basis chosen, the
various mechanics may not resemble each other and may even iden-
tify completely different factors. Such a situation is possible be-
cause no practical unique structure exists for building a mechanics
based on fundamental behavior equations. Eecognizing this fact
is essential if any mechanics is to be properly understood. The only
justification for any mechanics, including the Newtonian mechanics,
IS that it properly and accurately describes actions in quantitative
terms.
Partial mechanics as used here thus applies to any soil-tillage-tool
mechanics that does not include all known behaviors. The tillage
action is assumed to be composed of certain recognized behaviors
and a mechanics is based on the chosen behaviors. Such a mechanics
will be accurate if it truly represents the situation and is not applied
to situations where the assumed behaviors do not occur. Of course,
some knowledge is required to follow such procedures.
As an extreme example, use of both electrical resistance behavior
and strength behavior as a basis for a mechanics to describe the flexi-

bility of a fishing pole is unnecessary since both are not expected to
be operative. Similarly, a mechanics need not include plastic flow
behavior of soil if the mechanics is to be applied only to dry ce-
mented soil. Available knowledge qualitatively indicates that plastic
flow does not occur in dry cemented soils. A partial mechanics can
thus be both valid and useful if its limitations are known.
A final point concerning the distinction between a partial and a
complete mechanics is the mathematical complexity of the mechanics.
Nothing indicates nor assures that the mathematics of a partial me-
chanics will be simple. The principal distinction as used here is that
the complete mechanics would be applicable to all conceivable situa-
tions where tillage tools are used to manipulate the soil. No limita-
tions would be placed on the complete mechanics. In contrast, a
partial mechanics will have restrictions. The restrictions may be on
the soil condition to which it is applicable or the type of tool it
represents, or both. In fact, a partial mechanics may have no prac-
tical usefulness, yet may be of value because it explains reasons for
observed tillage actions.
4.3.1 Inclined Tools
An inclined plane that is moved through the soil along a straight
path at a slow speed might be considered a tillage tool. The reaction
of the soil to the tool is relatively simple and is realistic; the tool
causes failure of the soil in a manner similar to that described by
Nichols and Eeed {323), The fundamental characteristic of the
action IS a repeated failure of the soil by shear, which forms small
blocks of soil (fig. 77).
l//fy7//r^:///^-///^////^/r
FIGURE 77.—Reaction of soil to a tiUage tool shaped as an inclined plane.
Soehne ( 398 ) analyzed the action of a simplified tool and con-

cluded that four simple behavior equations described the tillage
action: soil-metal friction, shear failure, acceleration force for each
block of soil, and cutting resistance. Figure 78 shows the hypo-
FIGURE 78.—Hypothetical forces and their orientation on a segment of soil

reacting to an inclined-plane tillage tool. (Soehne, Grundlagen der Land-
technik ( 398 ).)
thetical forces that act on the segment of soil as it reacts to the ad-
vancing tool. In essence, the behavior outputs have been specified.
Locating failure surfaces specifies the orientation and location of the
force inputs that cause the assumed behavior. The magnitude of the
forces has not been specified. Forces CFi and fJiNi are due to soil
shear and are those present at the instant incipient shear failure
occurs. Forces due to soil-metal friction {iJ/No) and acceleration
{B) are also present. Soehne visualized a pure resistance of the soil
to being split by the cutting edge of the tool {kh). Thus, in prin-
ciple, the simple behavior outputs have been specified in figure 78,
and they represent the complex reaction of the soil to an inclined-
plane tillage tool.
By using the notation in figure 78, an equilibrium equation can be
written for the forces in the horizontal direction acting on the in-
clined tool. The forces on the tool itself are not shown in figure 78,
but they would be the forces reacting to those acting between the
soil and tool and the draft. Equilibrium gives
TT = TVô sin 8 + ix'No cos Ô 4- hh, (57)
where W — draft force,
^' = coeiRcient of soil-metal friction,
No — normal load on the inclined tool,
k — pure cutting resistance of soil per unit width,
h — width of tool,
8 = lift angle of the tool.
Soehne reasoned that the pure cutting resistance of the soil is small
and becomes important only when stones or roots are present or the
cutting edge of the tool is dull. In the absence of such situations,
the cutting component of the total force might be considered neg-
ligible so that a specific resistance of the soil W* can be defined and
may be indicated as
TF* = W-kb,
TF* is the tool resistance without the cutting component
TF* = No sin 8-i-NofJi'cos d, (58)
Concentrating now on the soil segment rather than on the tool,
the vertical forces can be summed and placed in equilibrium. With
the notation and the relations shown in figure 78, equilibrium gives
G-No (cos d- fji' sin 8) - ;Vî (cos ß- a sin ß)
+ (OF^ + B) sin ß - 0, ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^^^^
where G = weight of the soil segment,
Ni = normal load on the forward failure surface,
ß = angle of forward failure surface,
fi = coefficient of internal soil friction,
fi' = coefficient of soil-metal friction,
Fi = area of forward shear failure surface,
O = cohesion of soil,
B = acceleration force of the soil,
8 = lift angle of the tool.
The horizontal forces on the soil segment can be summed and placed
m equilibrium from the relations shown in figure 78 to give
No (sin8 + /A^cos8) - Ni (sinyS +/.c cos^) - (OF^ + B) cos^ = 0.
(60)
Equations 58, 59, and 60 can be used to eliminate the normal forces
No and N^. No can be found from equation 58 and substituted into
equation 60. Kearranging terms and solving for Ni gives
¡V, = W-~ (OF,+ B) cos ß
sin y8 +/x cos )ß • ^^^)
Substituting for No and Ni in equation 59 gives
^ TTTT* COS b — uf sin 81
rcos^-usinßl
. ^^ ^ + {CF^ + B) sinyS = 0.
Lsin)ß + /xcos/3j \ ^ / H
Expanding and rearranging terms gives
^y^ pQS 8 - //.^ sin 8 ^ cos /3 - /x sin ^Sl ^ OF^-hB
[sin 8 + ^'cos 8 sin)8 + /xcos)8j ~ sin ß-h fjL cos ß'
and by letting
- ["cQS 8 - ^' sin 8 cosß- fji sin ßl
[sin 8 + /x' cos 8 sin yS + /¿ cos^8 J'
B ^(smß + fjLcosß)' ^^^^

Equation 62 relates the forces acting in the soil-tool system. In
principle, the unknown forces No and Ni have been mathematically
eliminated and that is all that can be accomplished by these manipu-
lations. Since pure cutting behavior has been ignored and accelera-
tion behavior has not yet been utilized, only two behavior equations
are represented in equation 62. Thus in prmciple, the two equations
have eliminated two unknowns. The remaining unknowns in equa-
tion 62 must be determined from the remaining behavior equation
(acceleration) and other relations yet to be developed. Parameters
of the behavior equations, of course, must be experimentally deter-
mined since they characterize the soil or metal. Other parameters
will characterize the mode of operation. In a loose sense the para-
meters may be considered as boundary conditions.
The weight of soil may be calculated from the volume of the soil
supported by the inclined tool. Figure 79 shows a trapezoidal area
FIGURE 79.—Geometrical relations between velocities and lengths for a seg-

ment of soil reacting to an incUned tiUage tool. (Soehne, Grundlagen der
Landtechnik {S98).)
that may be assumed to be supported by the tool. The area of the

trapezoid multiplied by the depth of the area (width of tool) and
the density of the soil gives the weight. By using the relationships
in figure 79, the weight of soil is
G = yM- (z. + ^^), (63)
where y = wet bulk density of soil,

J =z width of tool,
sm jS
cos (6 + ß)
Li = d
sin^S
L2 = 6?* tan 8.
The area of shear Ft can be easily determined from either figure 78

or 79, and the area is given by
"^ = itß- m
The acceleration force B is the only item in equation 62 that re-
mains to be specified. Newton's Second Law of Motion provides the
behavior equation, and it can be written
5 = m^, (65)
where m = mass of the soil accelerated,

V = velocity of the accelerated soil,
t = time.
Soehne argued that if the periodic failure process is considered to be
continuous, then the total work done to bring about acceleration is
not changed significantly and an average constant force can be de-
termined. The soil can thus be visualized to be at rest; but in some
time t it reaches a velocity Vs, as shown in figure 79. The mass of
soil to be accelerated in time t is given from the volume of soil dis-
turbed in time t so that
m = -^hdtvo, (66)
where y = wet bulk density,

h = width of tool,
d = depth of soil disturbed,
t = time,
Vo = velocity of the tool,
g = acceleration due to gravity.
Soehne assumed that
dt "= At ~ t-0 ~ T (^'^^

since the soil was initially at rest at time t ■=^ O, In addition, the
magnitudes of the velocity vectors were considered to be so related
that they form a closed triangle. Thus, from figure 79
Vo — 'Z^s COS )8 + ê COS 8,
and
Vs sin ß = Ve sin S,
so that Ve can be eliminated to give
sin 8
Substituting equations 66, 67, and 68 into equation 65 and simplify-

ing gives ^ "'
p —
B = ^
g Mv-^
" -r#^.
sin (8 + ^) • (69)
Equations 63, 64, and 69 could be substituted into equation 62 to

provide a single equation in which parameters of the tool, soil, and
mode of operation are related to the horizontal force to move the
tool. Thus, tool parameters h and Z», soil parameters ja, y, and (7,
soil-tool parameter /x', and mode of operation parameters d^ Vo and ô
provide the basis to describe the tillage action. Soehne did not in-
dicate how he determined the value for ß. The angle can be calcu-
lated from the relations shown in figure 41. Equations 17 and 18
define the relations
¡ji = tan (j)
where (^ is the angle of internal friction. Figure 41 shows that the
shear surface will be oriented 90° - <^ from the largest principal
stress. By following the usual sign conventions and recalling that
the magnitude of angles in the Mohr's circle represents twice the
magnitude of the angle in the physical body, ß can be evaluated from
the equation
^ = i/2(90°-(^). (70)
Vertical forces on the tool could be placed in equilibrium to provide
a relation similar to equation 57 and equations 59 and 60 again could
be used to calculate an equation similar to equation 62. Equation
62 and its implied vertical counterpart thus constitute a simple me-
chanics for inclined tools.
Soehne attempted to verify equation 62 experimentally. He did
not use the soil and tool arrangement shown in figure 77, which
eliminated extraneous forces ; he used a similarly inclined tool that
was supported only in the center. Because it was operated entirely
below the surface of the soil, some forces on the edges of the tool and
on the supporting standard were not considered in the mechanics.
Figure 80 compares the measured and calculated values. Additional
values not shown in figure 80 were measured for a loam soil and were
found to be approximately 18 percent lower than values calculated by
the mechanics.
The lack of agreement indicates that the mechanics is not com-
pletely accurate. On the other hand, the values are close enough to
indicate that the mechanics is not completely wrong. Any one of
several factors could contribute to the lack of agreement. First,
edge and supporting standard effects were present for the tool, but
not for the mathematical model. Second, experimental determina-
tion of the dynamic soil parameters may have been in error for rea-
sons discussed in section 3.2.1.1. Third, the behavior equations may
not have been properly applied. Soehne assumed that No and Ni
were constant along the respective surfaces on which they act. Dis-
tributions are not necessarily uniform. In fact, moving pictures of
such failures indicate that the shear failure surface may be a pro-
gressive failure rather than a simultaneous failing of the entire sur-
face. The velocity imparted to the soil that caused acceleration was
assumed to be Vs^ No justification can be put forth to assure that
the assumption is valid. Furthermore, the concept of an average ac-
celeration may not describe the situation. Needless to say, if all of
the points concerning possible misapplication of the behavior equa-
28r
24 24
d = 20 cm.
• MEASURED VALUES
'S 20
^ 5 20
ILÜ
ÜJ Ü
Ü
16 Z 16
z
<
h-
2
¡CO
/d = l5cm.
(0
V)
1? ijj 12
UJ ir
Q:
_J; 8 o
O
en
4-
-j -L.
5 10 15 20 10 20 30 40
FURROW DEPTH (cm) CUTTING ANGLE (»)
(A) (B)
FIGURE 80.—Soil resistances (draft) are measured and calculated for an in-
clined tillage tool operating in a sandy soil. ( Soehne, Grundlagen der Land-
technik (398).)
tions were included, the mathematics would-be greatly complicated.

Fourth, pure cutting was assumed to be negligible. Fifth, the
behavior equations themselves may not be accurate, even though they
represent real phenomena.
Kefinement in any one of these limiting factors could greatly im-
prove the accuracy of the mechanics. Also, the mechanics has not
been experimentally checked over a wide enough range of variables
such as speed, depth, soils, and cutting angles to establish the ac-
curacy of the mechanics. Additional verification is needed.
Kowe and Barnes ( 875, 376 ) attempted to overcome some of the
inherent limitations in the mechanics. They used the physical ar-
rangement shown in figure 77 to eliminate the influence of extraneous
forces along the sides of the soil block and the standard holding the
tool. They also incorporated into the mechanics the influence of
adhesion on the soil-metal sliding surface. The adhesion parameter
Oa (sec. 3.2.1.6) requires a change in the forces shown in figure 78.
The change is shown in figure 81. Incorporating the adhesion
parameter changes equation 62 to give
G
TF*
z
+ B (sinGF^-VB
ß-{- fjL cos ß)
+■
GJTQ
^(sin8 + />t'cos8) '
(71)
where Fo = area of inclined tool,

Ga = soil-metal adhesion.
Rowe and Barnes were primarily concerned with the influence of
speed on the magnitude of the soil shear parameters, which would, in
SOIL DYN"AMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 133
FIGURE 81.—Free body diagram showing sliding force components due to fric-
tion and adhesion. (Rowe and Barnes, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans.
( 376 ).)
turn, influence the draft. Consequently, they measured the soil

shear parameters at various speeds and assumed that the soil sheared
at velocity Vs^ which can be calculated by equation 68. The results
of their measurements and calculations are shown in figure 82. A
reasonable agreement was obtained between calculated and measured
values, but it appears that equation 71 has not been satisfactorily
verified.
Since Rowe and Barnes used only one tool orientation and one
depth of operation, the data should probably be considered as a
check on the mechanics as developed by Soehne rather than as a spe-
cial study on the effect of speed. Regardless of how the data are
SILTY CLAY LOAM CALCULATED

MEASURED
SAND CALCULATED
MEASURED
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

TOOL VELOCITY (Ft./Sec.)
FIGURE 82.—Measured and calculated draft of an inclined tillage tool at vari-

ous tool velocities. (Rowe and Barnes, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans.
( 376 ).)
viewed, however, considerable improvement is required before the

mechanics will be accurate.
Kawamura ( 207, 212 ) followed a different approach in develop-
ing a mechanics of inclined tools. His work actually preceded that
ot hoehne but, unfortunately, delay in translating his work has
limited Its availability. Kawamura ( 209 ) measured the draft force
ot an inclined tool when it was operating at various depths and
hit angles (angles of inclination). The measured results show (fig.
83) that a minimum in draft force occurred at a lift angle of about
E
Û-
FiGURE 83.—The effect of depth of cut d and lift angle ô on the draft force
of an inclined tool. (Kawamura, Soc. Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) ( 2ÖP ).)
25° for shallow operating depths; at deeper operating depths, the

minimum m draft force shifted to a lift angle of about 15°. An
interesting point is that Soehne's calculated curves (fig. 80) have
the same shape as the experimentally determined curves shown in
figure 83, so that Kawamura's data tend to confirm the curves
calculated from Soehne's mechanics. One difference in the experi-
mental procedure was that Soehne changed the length of his tool so
that the lift height was constant with various lift angles. Kawa-
mura, on the other hand, maintained a constant length of tool so that
the lift height was varied with the lift angle. Another difference
was that Kawamura's data were obtained at very slow speeds, whereas
Soehne used a speed of 1 meter per second which is approximately
21/4 miles per hour. While not expressly stated, Kawamura ap-
parently used speeds only one-tenth as fast as those of Soehne.
Kawamura also investigated the shape of the shear failure surfaces
that resulted in separation of the blocks of soil. When forward
velocities of the tool were very slow, the detached blocks of soil re-
mained intact. As a result, the shape of the shear surface and the
angle between the shear surface and the soil surface could be meas-
ured. The shear surfaces were observed to be curves rather than
straight lines, and on occasion the curved shear surface extended

slightly below the lowest part of the tool.
Kawamura also noted that at increased forward velocities of the
tool, the angle of the shear surface tended to alternate about two
relatively constant values. The extreme values of the angles oc-
curred (1) when failure started at the tip of the tool and went up-
ward, and (2) when failure started at the tip of the tool and swept
downward, then upward. Because of the curved surface and the al-
ternating angles, a mean shear angle ß was used (fig. 84). Figure
FIGURE 84.—Measurement of the angle of a shear surface for a sou reacting

to an inclined tool. (Kawamura, Soc. Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) (209).)
84 also shows a clever means that was used to determine the average
shear angle experimentally.
Kawamura noted that as the tool approached the location of the
Ames dial, the surface of the soil rose linearly (slope ^ 0.001-0.01)
with the advancing tool until a critical range was reached. During
the critical range the surface rose at an increasing rate as the tool
continued to advance (relation was a curve). After the critical
transition range had been passed, the relation between the rising
surface of the soil and the advancing tool was again linear but at a
much higher rate (slope ^/ 1.5) than before the critical range.
Kawamura believed that the last linear movement was due to the
rigid block of soil rising on the inclined tool, whereas the initial
linear movement was due to the elastic behavior of the soil. The
critical range, however, coincided with the formation of the shear
surface and reñected the transition state between the time when the
block of soil was part of the soil mass and when it was completely
separated from the soil mass. The shear surface could thus be ap-
proximated by a straight line extending from the tip of the tool to
the soil surface where the critical range began. The average angle
of the shear surface could be determined from the relation
tan ß = -y-,
with values obtained from figure 84.
In other aspects of the work, the lift angle of the tool was ob-
served to influence the mean shear angle so that the shear angle was
not a constant for a given soil condition. Figure 85 shows the
measured relation for two depths of tool operation. The data indi-
40
_ 30
20
10
10 20 30 40 50
8 n
FIGURE 85.—The relation between the lift angle (5) and the average shear
surface angle (ß) for soil reacting to an inclined tool. (Kawamura, Soc.
Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) ( 209 ).)
cate that the average shear angle is influenced by both the depth of
tool operation and the lift angle of the tool.
Kawamura used two theories from the so-called classical soil
mechanics in attempting to calculate the draft force. Both theories
are based on one behavior equation—yield by shear as represented
by equation 18. In the Kankine theory, the shear angle is a constant
given by equation 70. By considering only the mass of the soil and
the shear failure stress (ignoring the magnitude of the normal
stress), the weight of soil and total shear stress on the failure surface
can be calculated. Equilibrium conditions then permit determining
the draft component. In the Coulomb theory, the same procedure is
followed except the shear angle is given by a complicated relation
involving the lift angle and the soil friction angle. Neither theory,
however, was sufficiently accurate to be acceptable.
Since the observed shear surface was a curve and the angle of the
shear surface varied with the tool lift angle, Kawamura ( 210 ) at-
tempted to use plastic equilibrium to calculate the observed phenome-
non. He reasoned that the inclined tool often created a stress state
in the soil different from that required for applying either the
Coulomb or the Eankine theories. He envisioned a transient region
between the tool and the conditions that were accurately represented
by the Coulomb or Eankine theories. At large lift angles, the
Coulomb theory predicted the measured draft closely but the Eankine
theory predicted the observed shear angle better than did the
Coulomb theory. Thus, when small lift angles were used, the devia-
tions between measured and calculated draft could be attributed to
the transient stress region. If the transient region could be con-
sidered to be in a state of plastic equilibrium, the condition could
be properly described by using available plastic flow theories.
The mathematical details for using plastic flow theory are too
long and too complex to be presented here. A discussion of the
principles, however, will illustrate the procedure Kawamura used
to develop a mechanics. When all displacement lies in a plane in a
stress-strain situation, state of plane strain is said to exist. Such a
situation occurs for a wide inclined tool, since all displacement can
be assumed to lie in a plane containing the direction of travel and a

direction normal to the surface of the soil. If the soil material is
assumed to be incompressible, one can demonstrate that there always
will exist two directions (oriented at right angles to each other and
normally identified as a and ß) that bisect the principal directions
of strain (normally identified as directions 1 and 2).
Directions a and ß are characterized by vanishing linear strain and
have maximum angular or shear strain. The curves that are every-
where tangential to these directions form two families of orthogonal
curves that are often termed ''slip lines." Since all movement on
such lines is tangential (slip), the name is appropriate. The forma-
tion of slip lines in a physical material represents a transient state of
incipient failure. Before a state of incipient failure occurs, an in-
finitesimal increase in the stresses results in an infinitesimal increase
in strain. When the stresses are in a state of incipient failure, how-
ever, an infinitesimal increase in the stresses results in a large
increase in strain—this is, plastic flow. For a perfectly plastic
material, the stresses causing failure cannot be increased beyond the
incipient failure state since failure is reached and the material will
flow plastically to adjust to boundary conditions. As one might
suspect, the direction of plastic flow is parallel to the slip surfaces.
Thus, the stress state at incipient plastic flow represents a condition
of plastic equilibrium in the material.
Specifying the criterion for plastic flow requires a behavior equa-
tion that in turn makes possible the establishment of a mechanics.
By referring the stresses to a coordinate axis oriented along the slip
lines and by using the differential equations of equilibrium on
stresses, a two-dimensional plastic flow theory can be developed.
Solution of the equilibrium equations, together with the yield cri-
terion and appropriate boundary conditions, determines the magni-
tudes of the stresses and the equations of the slip lines. However,
the solution is not easily obtained except in simple circumstances.
Nothing in the theory describes reactions either before or after
incipient failure. Hence, the solution is valid regardless of any
stress-strain relations before incipient plastic flow. In order to
assure that the slip lines are orthogonal families of curves, however,
the material must be incompressible and displacements must lie in
one plane. All these situations do not have to exist in order to
have slip lines formed; but when the slip lines are not orthogonal,
their description becomes very complex.
Kawamura used the general procedures of plastic equilibrium in
developing a mechanics. For the yield criterion he used shear failure
as given by equation 18; this is the only behavior equation in the
mechanics. Because of the nature of boundary configurations for
the inclined tool, he used polar coordinates as shown in figure 86.
He obtained expressions for the equilibrium equations in the chosen
coordinate system and in terms of the shear yield condition. From
boundary conditions and considerable mathematical analysis, Kawa-
mura was able to demonstrate that angle ß' in figure 86 could be
reasonably assumed to be independent of the fadius coordinate and
a function only of the angular coordinate. Such an assumption
simplified the equilibrium equations, and a numerical solution of the
equations could be obtained. The diíRculty in obtaining an analytical
/m'^7/m//r7wwmmmr-
FiGURE 86.—Polar coordinates used to represent stresses on a slip line caused
by an inclined tool, ß' is the angle between the radial direction and the
?'^fn^\ ^^^ ®^^^ ^^°^- (Iâwamura, Soc. Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan)
solution resulted from the complexity of the mathematics but not

from the complexity of the physical principles.
With a numerical solution obtainable, Kawamura summed the
tangential stresses on the slip surface and equated the horizontal
component to draft. Figure 87 shows a comparison of experimental
24 r
22
CALCULATED-
20
^
< 16
Û
14
12-
10
10 20 30 40 50
S {")
FIGURE 87.—Calculated and experimental draft values for an inclined tiUage
tool. (Kawamura, Soc. Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) (210).)
and calculated draft values over a range of lift angles. The agree-
ment is reasonably good, but more data are required to verify the
procedures. Eecall that Kawamura has not considered soil-metal
friction or acceleration forces, and their consideration might improve
the accuracy of the mechanics. On the other hand, he has recog-
nized and considered the curved failure surface and the possibility
of a varying stress distribution on the failure surface. Kawamura
concluded that his procedures represented and explained observed
facts better than any theories that were available at that time.
While his procedures are mathematically complex (primarily be-
cause of permitting a nonconstant stress distribution), they do repre-
sent a mechanics for inclined tools.
4.3.2 Vertical Tools

A vertical plane, perpendicular to the direction of travel, repre-
sents a simple form of tillage tool. Payne ( 329 ) studied tools of
this type in detail. Based primarily on the passive earth pressure
theory of Rankine, Payne was able to develop a mechanics to repre-
sent the tillage action. He began his study by qualitatively observ-
ing the soil reacting to a vertical tool. Figure 88 shows the ob-
served soil failure.
(A) (B)
FIGURE 88.—The nature of soil failure caused by a vertical tool in a firm soil :
A, Side view; B, plan view. (Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. ( S29 ).)
For wide tools, the side effect can reasonably be ignored since their
area is small compared to the bottom failure surface (fig. 88). A
tool was considered to be a wide tool when its width was at least
twice its depth of operation. The classical Rankine theory can be
modified to represent the curved failure surface shown in figure 88, A,
When friction is present between the soil and the tool, the directions
of principal stresses do not remain horizontal and vertical. At the
surface of the soil, the principal stresses must be horizontal and
vertical; but their orientation rotates as one proceeds downward
along the failure surface to the vertical tool. The rotation results in
the curved surface. The shape of the curve has been demonstrated
to be a logarithmic spiral, and methods are available to determine
the stresses and the actual arc of the logarithmic spiral ( 4^7 ).
Payne concluded that the modified Rankine theory represented wide
tools with reasonable accuracy.
When narrow tools are considered, side effects can no longer be
ignored. Furthermore, Payne reasoned that shear failure surfaces
must exist which pass along the sides of the tool as well as the bottom
of the tool. Such surfaces will interrupt the bottom curved failure
surface shown in figure 88, -a, and these surfaces will be at Í ~7" — "^ )
to the principal stress. In narrow tools, Payne further reasoned
that the vertical shear surfaces would intersect each other as well
as the bottom curved surface. Thus, a wedge of soil immediately
adjacent to the tool would be isolated from the rest of the soil block
that was sheared from the soil mass. In wide tools, the vertical
shear surfaces would not intersect each other so that the wedge
would never be formed. The wedge changes the boundary condi-
tions for the Rankine theory so that the failure zone of soil can be
Visualized ^ as shown in figure 89. Payne observed the failure sec-

tions quahtively as shown in figure 89, B in various soil conditions.
He argued that the foregoing analysis explained the reasons for the
observed action.
WING
WEDGE
WING
(B)
FIGURE 89.—The nature of soil failure for soil reacting to a narrow vertical
tillage tool. (Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. (52P).)
An additional complicating factor was that the isolated wedge did

not remain stationary but moved slowly up the face of the vertical
tool. Payne concluded that the curved surface on the bottom of the
wedge was so inclined that the forces acting on the bottom would
cause the movement. He described the formation of the sheared
block of soil as follows : As a narrow tool advances, it pushes forward
and upward a triangular wedge-shaped block of soil {ahcdef in fig.
^^' ^.)/ "T^® wedge, m turn, pushes sideways and upward two blocks
oí soil on each side of the center line of the tool in the direction of
travel. He termed the soil broken loose but not part of the wedge
as the crescent. The knifelike action of the wedge causes the sym-
metrical formation of four blocks of soil adjacent to the wedge in the
crescent (fig. 89, B), One half of the crescent is shown in figure
/ '^zT?,x^^^\^fAi^^^ i^s î^g section (bcdejk) and front section
{Gdtij ). All five sections are identified in figure 89, B,
With the identification of the failure zone, a basis was available
on which to describe the forces acting during failure and, ultimately,
to develop a mechanics. Since the wedge is the only block of soil
m contact with the tool, a description of the forces on the wedge is
sufficient to determine the forces on the tool.
Payne used two behavior equations to describe the forces on the
wedge: soil failure by shear (equation 18) ; and soil-metal friction,
which included adhesion (equation 47). He used the behavior out-
puts to specify the nature and location of the forces acting on the
wedge m the same fashion as did Soehne and Kawamura. Both be-
havior equations represent failure conditions; thus, his first task was
to describe the shape of the wedge since the wedge was formed by
the failure surfaces. The sides of the wedge {acdf and Icde in fig.
89, A) were formed by shear failure, and they were assumed to be
plane and not curved. Observation of the shape and action of the
wedge on a narrow vertical tool during movement confirmed the
validity of the assumption. The bottom of the wedge {def in fig.
89, A) must be slightly curved; but, since such a small portion of
the total curved surface is contained in the wedge, the bottom sur-
face can be assumed to be plane. Payne defined the angle between
the shear surfaces on the sides of the wedge and the direction of
travel as X, and the angle between the bottom shear surface and the
direction of travel as r.
Eight forces (a total of 10, since the wedge has two vertical sides)
were envisioned as acting on the wedge. Figure 90 shows the direc-
FORCES LIE IN THE PLANES

PROJECTIONS LIE IN THE PLANES
DA andW
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
(A) (B)
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
FIGURE 90.—Orientation of forces acting on soil wedge in A, horizontal plane,

and B, vertical plane. (After Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. (329).)
tion of the eight forces and their inclinations to various reference

directions. Two forces act on the back side of the wedge (soil-tool
interface, aief in fig. 89, A) : (1) an adhesion force Z>^ acts tangen-
tially; from symmetry, it must lie in a vertical plane as shown m
figure 90, B; (2) the resultant of the normal and frictional forces DR
acts on the back side of the wedge. From symmetry, the force must
lie in a vertical plane containing the direction of travel ; and it will
be inclined to the direction of travel by the angle of soil-metal fric-
tion 8. Thus, DB is oriented as shown in figure 90, i?. .
A cohesive force Be and the resultant of the normal and frictional
forces BB act on the bottom surface of the wedge. The cohesive force
a<;ts tangentially to the surface; and, from symmetry, it must lie m a
vertical plane containing the direction of travel. BG IS shown in-
clined at an angle r to the direction of travel in figure 90, B, Because
of symmetry, the force BR also must lie in a vertical plane contain-
ing the direction of travel. The force will make an angle (f) (angle
of internal soil friction) with the normal to the surface on which it
acts, so that BB is inclined {(j) + r) to the vertical direction, as shown
in figure 90, B, ^ ^ ^ ^ _ .
Forces similar to those on the bottom of the wedge must also act
on the sides of the wedge. Because of the relative movement be-
tween the wedge and each wing of the crescent, the orientation of
the forces is not as simple as for those on the bottom of the wedge.
A cohesive force Sc on the side of the wedge acts tangentially to the
surface; its projection in a horizontal plane will parallel the sides of
the wedge and will make an angle X with the direction of travel, as
shown m figure 90, J..
Payne defined the angle between a horizontal plane and Sc as ß,
so that the projection of Sc in a vertical plane containing the direc-
tion of travel will be inclined to the direction of travel as shown in
figure 90, B, The resultant of the normal and frictional force SR
also acts on the sides of the wedge. eJust as B^ acts at an angle ó
to the normal of the surface on which it acts, so SR acts at an angle ó
to the normal of the side of the wedge. Because of the upward
movement of the wedge relative to the wings of the crescent, .S^^ will
also be inclined at some angle to a horizontal plane just as was Sc.
1 o represent the orientation of SR, Payne defined 6 as the angle SR
makes with a horizontal plane; its projection in a vertical plane con-
taining the direction of travel will make an angle 0 with the direction
ot travel, as shown in figure 90, B, In the horizontal plane, Payne
denned the angle between the normal to the side of the wedge and the
horizontal projection of SR as a. Thus, the projection of SR in a
horizontal plane is oriented, as shown in figure 90, A,
Payne envisioned a force resulting from the shear failure of the
two fronts of the crescent (fig. 89, B) that acts on the leading edge
ot the wedge. From symmetry, the force must lie in a vertical
plane containing the direction of travel. Payne designated the
torce as T and reasoned that it could be considered to act at some
average angle (9„, to the direction of travel, as shown in figure 90, B,
1 he final force that Payne considered was the weight of the wedge
resulting from its mass. The weight, of course, acts in a vertical
direction, as shown in figure 90, B.
The components of the forces acting on the wedge in horizontal
and vertical planes (the latter containing the direction of travel)
can be determined from figure 90, and these components are shown in
of^^^ ^ ""i ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ î ^^^ wedge, and figure
90, B shows that DR will have the components shown in figure 91.
Be has components modified by the angle r, whereas BR has com-
ponents modified by the angle (cf) + r) (fig. 90, B) ; and the respec-
tive components are located as shown in figure 91. Similarly T
has components modified by the angle 6^, The vertical components
ot the torces on the sides of the wedge can be seen directly from
figure 90,^. Since both ß and 0 are angles between the respective
torces and a horizontal plane, the vertical components will be SR sin
e and Sc sm ß for the side forces SR and Sc. These components
are shown m figure 91, B, Similarly, the projections of the two
torces m a horizontal plane will be given by the cosine of the respec-
tive angles so that the projections of Sc and SR shown in figure 90, B
have a magnitude of Sc cos ß and SR COS 0. The components of the
two torces m the direction of travel can thus be determined from
figure 90,^; they are SR cos 0 sin (a + r) and Sc cos ß cos X, as
shown in figure 91, A, The weight of the wedge W acts only in the
vertical direction, as shown in figure 91, B.
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
. ^
DR Sin 8
1 t. Sin^M
SRCOSÖ Sin(a+X)
1
Sc Cos ß Cos X
DRCOS 8 SpSinö ScSm)3
< T COSÖy
Se Cos^ CosX BcSinr
S-Cosö Sln(a + X)
B^ COS(<^ + T)
(A) (B)
HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
FIGURE 91.—Location and direction of forces acting on a soil wedge: A, Hori-

zontal plane; ß, vertical plane. (After Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. {329).)
The forces in figure 91 can be placed in equilibrium. From

ngure 91, A,
figure A^
DR COS 8 = 5c cos T + BR sin (<^ + r) + T cos tfm
+ 2 [SR COS 0 sin (a + X) + Sc cos ß cos X]. (72)
There are two vertical sides of the wedge, and the vertical forces can
be
UÜ placed
piaucu. in
Ill equilibrium
cîûiiiuiiuiii so
oKj that
vxíKxv from figure 91, 5,
W + DR sin S-^DA-^
A + Be sin r = Tsin 0^.
BcSiiiT
+ BR COS (<^
(é + T) + ^ [/S'A sin 6 + Sc sin )8]. (73)
From equilibrium of forces on the tool (not shown), DR COS 8 will
be the draft. One unknown can be eliminated in a simultaneous
solution of equations 72 and 73. The angles 8 and <^ are dynamic
soil parameters that can be measured, but the remaining unknowns
must be determined from other relations. Equations 72 and 73, how-
ever, are a basis for developing a mechanics of narrow vertical tools.
The angles X and r that describe the shape of the wedge are de-
termined by the angles of soil-metal friction and internal soil fric-
tion. Soil-metal friction acts on the back side of the wedge (soil-tool
interface), since the wedge moves up the tool. The adhesive com-
ponent of equation 47 is small compared to the friction component
so that the principal stress acting on the back of the wedge can be
assumed to act in the direction of DR, Since the principal stress is
compressive, it will be algebraically the smallest principal stress; as
shown in figure 42, the shear surface will be inclined \~T"^~£~)
to the principal plane—a plane perpendicular to DR. Note that the
shear surface will be inclined i~T~2) ^^ ^^® direction of the
principal stress—the direction of DR. Thus, in figure 91, 5,
144 AGRICULTURE HA]SLDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
where r = angle between a horizontal plane and bottom

failure surface,
0 = angle of internal soil friction,
Similarly, in the plane in which the algebraically smallest principal
stress lies (a plane containing DR that is inclined to a horizontal
plane by the angle 8), the shear surfaces of the sides of the wedge
must also be inclined \~T~~2) ^^ ^^^ principal stress or, as indi-
cated earlier, i^^ + -^j to the principal plane. The projection

of this angle in a horizontal plane, however, is a function of the
angle 8 and trigonometric relations give
tanf-^-A\
tanX = \-±-^-L /75y
cos 8 ' ^'^^
where X = angle between the direction of travel and sides
of the wedge in a horizontal plane.
The angles X and r are indicated in figure 91. Equations 74 and 75

thus permit calculating the angles defining the shape of the wedge.
The adhesion force Dj^ is easily calculated by multiplying the ad-
hesion parameter Ca by the area over which it acts. Thus
T>A. = CJa, (76)

where I = depth of operation of tool,
a = width of tool,
Oa = soil-metal adhesion.
Similarly, the cohesive force on the bottom surface of the wedge is
the product of soil cohesion and the area over which it acts. Geo-
metrical relations give
^ 2 ^ tan X COST ^ tan X COST' ^^^^

where C — soil cohesion at failure.
BR was eliminated from equations 72 and 73 so that its components
did not need to be determined. The cohesive force on the sides of
the wedge is also a function of the area. Because of the vertical
relative movement, the sides of the wedge were considered to be "old"
failure surfaces so that residual cohesion {Cr) rather than failure co-
hesion (sec. 3.2.1.1) would be acting. From the geometry shown in
figure 91,
_ Crd r, atanrl
(78)
° ~ ß sin X L ~^tanxj'
where I = depth of tine,
a = width of tine,
Cr = residual cohesion of soil.
The weight of the soil wedge can be computed from its volume and
is given by
[atanr]
atanr'
W (79)
^tanX ~^tanxj'
where W = total weight of wedge,
7 = wet bulk density of soil.
By eliminating BR with a simultaneous solution and by using equa-
tions 74 through 79, all terms in equations 72 and 73 are determined
except the forces T and SR and the angles Ö, j3, a, and dm- These six
unknowns could not be. determined directly, but Payne was able to
use passive earth pressure techniques to evaluate them.
The details of applying passive earth pressure theory will not be
repeated here since they are lengthy and are reported in various
sources, such as Terzaghi and Peck ( 4^7 ). The theory is based on
one behavior equation, yield by shear, and the theory could be termed
a mechanics as mechanics is defined here. Payne applied the theory
to the problem by Qonsidering that a wing of the crescent (fig. 89, B)
is held by the side of the wedge ; thus, the side of the wedge becomes
a "retaining wall." In principle, Payne calculated the resultant
passive earth pressure on the wing of the crescent and resolved it into
the components acting on the wedge defined in figures 90 and 91.
The resultant pressure usually cannot be determined directly, but
techniques permit calculating when the pressure is a minimum. In
such a state, the shape of the wing (its failure surface) and the
magnitude of the desired forces can be determined.
Figure 92 shows the forces acting on the wedge and their locations.
WING
DRCOSS cos dp ^
SR COS 6
p cos op
¡c COS)ö
F cos ß
(A) (B)
FIGURE 92^.—Forces and their location while acting on a wedge of soil formed
by a narrow vertical tool: A, Horizontal plane; B, vertical plane. (Payne,
Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. {329 ).)
Figure 93 shows the forces on the side of the wedge in perspective as

well as on a cross section of the wing. From figure 93, J., Payne
obtained four equations relating the angles and forces associated
SIDE OF WEDGE
Sc SIN ß
(A) (B)
FIGURE 93.—Forces acting on the side of a wedge of soil: A, In perspective; B,

on a cross section of the wing. (Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. ( 329 ).)
with the sides of the wedge. Determination of the direction of the

resultant of the minimum passive earth pressure on the side of the
wedge by a series of trial computations specified enough values so
that the four equations could be solved.
The same techniques were applied to the fronts of the crescent to
determine the directional angle öm and the force T, An allowance
had to be made because of the shape of the fronts since they form a
sector that meets at the leading edge of the wedge. The wings were
assumed to have a constant width, as shown in figure 89, 5, whereas
the fronts do not have a constant width. The minimum passive
earth pressure for the fronts was determined ; this, in turn, specified
the values for T and öm. Applying passive earth pressure theory
to the wings and fronts of the crescent and including equations 74
through 79 reported here gave Payne 13 equations to use in determin-
ing the required unknowns in equations 72 and 73. The complex
arrajr of equations tends to compromise his mechanics for the narrow
vertical tool. The essential difference between the soil reaction de-
scription for the operation of narrow and wide vertical tools lies in
the description of the wedge. For wide tools, the resultant passive
earth pressure was considered to act directly on the tool; the tool is
the "retaining wall." For narrow tools, however, the wedge becomes
the "retaining wall" for each of the segments of the crescent.
Payne carried out a series of experiments to determine the validity
of his mechanics when a narrow vertical tool was used. Measure-
ments were made under field conditions rather than in a laboratory
where a soil bin might have provided better control of the conditions.
He used four soil conditions including sandy loam, silty loam, and
clay loam types. Tool widths ranging from % inch to 4 inches were
used while the depth of operation was maintained approximately
constant at 5 inches. As a result, a reasonably wide range of both
tool and soil parameters was used in an attempt to verify the me-
chanics.
Equations 72 and 73 may be used to predict the draft of a narrow
vertical tool at the instant of failure of the shear surfaces; hence,
the predicted draft value will be a maximum. As the tool continues
to advance, the draft should be at some lower value until another
failure state has been built up. Numerous researchers have noted
variations in measured drafts, which may be explained by a series of
shear failures as the tool advances. Some measure of the variation
should be taken into account. An analysis of the results showed
that the draft could be assumed to be nearly proportioned to cohe-
sion. Since Kîohesion ranged from a low of Cr to a high of È/, an
estimate of the minimum draft could be calculated from the relation
where Bâx — maximum draft as determined from equations

72 and 73,
Dmin — minimum draft.
Payne analyzed his measured drafts in such a manner that he
could determine their frequency distribution. It was then possible
to construct a diagram that showed the percentage of time the draft
was at a certain value. When this distribution was compared with
the predicted range of draft {Bmax and Dîn)^ the measured draft
that fell within the predicted range varied from 6 to 78 percent.
The apparent discrepancy between measured and calculated results
does not completely prove or disprove the validity of the mechanics.
The measured range of values was always greater than the calculated
range, so that a low percentage of agreement was observed when-
ever the measured range was much greater than the calculated range.
The measured range should have been larger because it included the
random variation in the soil strength—the variation in dynamic soil
parameters. The calculated range given by equation 80, however,
was based on average values for C and Cr without regard to their
distribution. If the largest value of C and the smallest value of Or
had been used, a much larger predicted range would have resulted
and the percentage of measured draft falling within the predicted
range would have been much larger.
To better determine the validity of the mechanics, the arithmetic
mean of the predicted range of draft was compared with the mean
of the measured draft as determined from the frequency distribution
diagrams for all of the tools in all soil conditions (fig. 94). The
correlation is highly significant, but the fitted regression is also sig-
nificantly different from one. Thus, the arithmetic mean correlates
with the measured mean but gives a value that is higher than the
measured mean. Payne pointed out that he assumed that the true
mean oJE the predicted range was equal to the arithmetic mean—that
is, a normal distribution. Nothing justifies the assumption of a
normal distribution so that the arithmetic mean may be higher than
the true mean. This remains to be established, however, so at the
present time (1965) it is considered that the arithmetic mean does
Y
95% œNFIDENCE LIMITS
o
500
tr, FITTED REGRESSION-
o (bxY =0.7516) /
o
Lu
400
fe
o REGRESSION
UJ
a: (b = l)
o. 300
ü.
o
<
UJ 200
Ü
I-
UJ
2 100
100 200 300 400 500 ' "

MEAN MEASURED DRAFT (lb)
FIGURE 94.—Relations between predicted and measured mean drafts for nar-
row vertical tillage tools operated in several soil conditions. (Payne, Jour.
Agr. Engin. Res. {329 ).)
not accurately predict the average draft of a narrow vertical tool.

In its present form, the mechanics is not completely accurate. The
wide range of tools and settings (ratio of depth to width ranging
from 1:1 to 15 :1) and the range of soil conditions (cohesion ranging
from % to 3 p.s.i.) was satisfactorily represented by the mechanics.
Since the mechanics predicted a fairly constant excess of 25 percent
in draft, hope exists that the mechanics can be improved. In addi-
tion to the possible errors discussed in this section, others mentioned
in section 4.3.1 may also have been present. The dynamic soil pa-
rameters may not have been measured accurately, the behavior equa-
tions may not have been applied correctly, or the behavior equations
themselves may not be accurate. Nevertheless, Payne has clearly
demonstrated the principles for establishing a mechanics for narrow
vertical tools.
4.3.3 Cutting of Soil
Cutting of soil may be defined as the complete severing of the soil
into distinctly separate bodies by a slicing action that does not result
in any other major failure such as shear. Figure 95 shows the effect
on soil cutting of using cutters with two heights of soil lift and two
depths of operation. In situation A in figure 95, the lift height of
the cutter is sufficient to cause shear failure surfaces that reach the
//4i?^//^// ^my/^y/M'w^^/^ ^^/^/m//^^^^//^//^
(A) (B)
FIGURE 95.—Soil cutting as influenced by the height of lift of the cutter and
depth of operation.
surface of the soil. In situation B, however, the lift height of the

cutter is not sufficient to displace the soil enough to cause major shear
failure. In situation B, the soil mass separates with little evidence
of any other action. Presumably, the soil was capable of absorbing
the imparted strain without reaching shear failure. Thus, in situa-
tion C in figure 95, the soil is capable of absorbing the strain even
though the same lift height as in situation A is used.
To a certain degree, therefore, cutting as an action distinct from
other failure of soil is determined hj the degree of confinement in
the neighborhood of the cutter. Obviously, the size of the required
neighborhood for a specific cutter will be influenced by the condition
of the soil. A wet plastic soil may cut in situation A of figure 95,
whereas a dry brittle soil may create shear failure even with a low
lift height as shown in situation B.
Cutting as affected by degree of confinement was further demon-
strated by Kostritsyn ( 230 ). He studied vertical rather than hori-
zontal cutters. The cutters could be described as thin knives, and
he observed the soil movement caused by the cutter. The results of
his observations are shown in figure 96. He noted that near the
surface, soil would rupture or move upward (fig. 96,^); but at
deeper depths, the movement was parallel to the direction of travel
of the cutter. Figure 96, B shows the measured draft of the cutter
versus the depth of the operation. Below a critical depth, a linear
relation existed between draft and depth. The critical depth gen-
erally coincided closely with the observed depth where soil movement
became horizontal. Kostritsyn reported that the critical depth was
20 to 25 centimeters for cutters approximately 3 centimeters thick.
Thus, at deeper depths confinement of the soil causes pure cutting,
whereas at shallower depths other types of soil failure also may
occur.
Kostritsyn described the soil movement near the surface as a
AP ^
V \
JC
<
Î
\
'h
(A) (B)
FIGURE 96.—A, Soil movement caused by a thin vertical cutter; B, relation of
cutting force to depth of operation for a vertical cutter. (Kostritsyn {2S0 ).)
crumbling action with the formation of crescent-shaped sliding bodies

of soil. The description is similar to that used by Zelenin and Payne
for vertical tools. Thus, although cutting can be clearly defined, in
tillage tool operations it is not always clearly and independently in-
volved. Obvîously, a gradual transition from pure cutting to some
complex action occurs as the depth of operation of a vertical cutter
is decreased. A similar transition must occur when the depth of
operation of a horizontal cutter is decreased or its lift height is in-
creased at a constant depth of operation. Similarly, if soil condi-
tions change from plastic to brittle, a transition from pure cutting
to a complex action may occur. This lack of isolation of cutting has
probably delayed its study, and no behavior equations have been de-
veloped to represent cutting. As a consequence, no dynamic proper-
ties of soil associated with cutting have been identified, so none were
discussed in chapters 2 and 3.
Detailed studies of pure cutting have been made in the U.S.S.E.,
and Kostritsyn ( 230 ) continued the studies to a point where he de-
veloped a mechanics of cutting. His work followed the efforts of
several earlier researchers, and he relied heavily on their findings.
An interesting difference exists between the development of the me-
chanics of cutting and the development of the mechanics of inclined
and vertical tools. In the latter mechanics, the reaction of the soil
to a tool was visualized to result from simple behaviors that had been
identified and were quantitatively defined. Thus, such factors as
shear failure and soil-metal friction were used as the basis on which
to establish a mechanics. Kostritsyn, on the other hand, directly an-
alyzed the action and in the process developed a mechanics. He did
not begin with behavior equations, but his mechanics implied the
existence of a simple behavior equation.
Kostritsyn's success in developing his mechanics hinged on evaluat-
ing the implied behavior equation. While he recognized the be-
havior, he proceeded to evaluate it by indirect means rather than by
a direct study of the behavior itself. Thus, he did not develop a
simple behavior equation that, in turn, identified behavior properties
of the soil. Kostritsyn did, however, manage to assess cutting of
soil in empirical terms—that is, numbers that are some composite of
the overall action involved in cutting rather than a clearly defined
independent dynamic parameter. On this basis, he was able to con-
struct his mechanics so that he could represent the action of cutting.
To illustrate the mechanics of cutting, Kostritsyn's analysis is pre-
sented in detail.
Kostritsyn restricted his attention to situations where only pure
cutting was involved. In developing his mechanics he did not con-
sider that any major failures other than separation were present.
He considered two basic shapes of cutters (fig. 97). The leading
(A) (B)
FIGURE 97.—Forces on and shape of two soU cutters. (Kostritsyn (230).)
angled edge of the cutters he designated as the wedge of the cutter

while the parallel edges he called the sides. He reasoned that the
forces acting on a cutter could be separated into several components
and these components must be in equilibrium so that
p = p, + P, + P,3^ (81)
where P total force (draft) on the cutter,
Pi component of resistance resulting from the normal
force on the wedge of the cutter,
Pn component of resistance resulting from the tangential
force on the wêdge of the cutter,
Ps component of resistance resulting from the tangential
force on the side of the cutter.
The forces are shown in figure 97, where N represents normal
forces and T represents tangential forces. For a cutter shaped as
shown in figure 97, A, obviously P3 in equation 81 will be zero. If

the simple behavior of soil-metal friction is recognized, the tangential
forces can be expressed in terms of the normal forces and friction is
identified as the source of the tangential forces. Figure 98 shows
fî=2{Nsin-f-) f| = 2(N^'cosf) P, =2(N,/*')

(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE 98.—The components of force on a soil cutter. (Kostritsyn (230).)
the resistance forces resolved into horizontal components so that

equation 81 can be written
P = £ N sm-j- + ^ ^ f^' 00s ~ -^ £ Ni fi% (82)
where a = wedge angle of the cutter,

ft' = coefficient of sliding friction,
N = normal force on the wedge of cutter,
Ni = normal force on the side of cutter.
With equation 82, Kostritsyn could calculate the cutting force for
a particular cutter if he could specify the magnitude of the normal
forces. By reasoning that these normal forces resulted from the
resistance of the soil to deformation, he defined measures of the re-
sistance so that
N = Ki F, (83)
where Ki = specific resistance to deformation,
Ft = area of the wedge of cutter,
and Ni = K2F2 (84)
where K2 = specific pressure of soil,
F2 = area of the side of cutter.
K2 differs from Ki in that Ki goes to zero when movement of the
tool is stopped. K2, on the other hand, continues to press on the
sides of the cutter even though the cutter is stopped ; it reflects an
elastic type of restoration property in the soil. With equations 83
and 84, equation 82 can be rewritten to give
P = 2 Kt Ft sin -^ + 2 Kt Ft fJi' cos -^ -^ £ K2 F2 fJi\ (85)

Equation 85 provides a means for experimentally studying cutting.
For a specific cutter, the values of «, Fi^ F2^ and /x' are known or can
be determined and only Ki and K^ are unknown. By measuring P
for a cutter shaped as shown in figure 97, A, Ki can be evaluated
from equation 85 since F2 will be zero. If a similar cutter, but shaped
as shown in figure 97, B is also used, the value determined for Ki and
equation 85 are sufficient to evaluate ^2. Figure 99 shows the differ-
26.5
S (mm)
FIGURE 99.—The influence of thickness on the force on two shapes of cutters.

(Kostritsyn, {2S0).)
ence in force on cutters of several thicknesses measured by Kostritsyn.

Having introduced the concepts of specific resistance and specific
pressure {Ki and Z^, respectively) that originate because the cutter
causes the soil to deform, Kostritsyn took steps to evaluate the
amount of soil deformation caused by a given cutter. He accepted
as a working hypothesis the results of earlier Russian researchers who
demonstrated that the path of movement of a particle of soil follows
the direction of the resultant force—that is, the path of motion and
line of action of the resultant force will coincide.
Figure 100 shows the paths of deformation for specific circum-
stances. If no friction occurs between the wedge of the cutter and
the soil, a particle originally situated on the center axis of the direc-
tion of travel of the cutter will follow the path a'a shown in figure
100. During the forward movement of the cutter, the particle
initially located at a' will be moved along line a'a to a. Where soil-
metal friction is involved, the resultant force is inclined to the wedge
by the angle of soil-metal friction 8. In this case, a particle is
moved along the line a''a, as shown in figure 100. The maximum
displacement of soil thus is not equal to the width of the cutter S.
Because of the interaction between the wedge angle and the soil-metal
friction angle, the actual path length is something greater than AS'.
Having established the direction of soil movement, Kostritsyn
could calculate the maximum deformation for a given situation. The
154 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OE AGRICULTURE
i ï
y4 4-^
y ^2
s / /
b" b' b <
] '
FIGURE 100.—The direction of specific resistance, specific pressure, and the

associated paths of deformation of soil particles. (Kostritsyn {2^0).)
maximum occurs when point a in figure 100 reaches the widest part
of the wedge section of the cutter. The maximum deformation is
shown in figure 100 in the triangle Wh'' ' where geometry indicates
that the angle VW ' is (a/2 + 8) so that the length Vh is given
by the equation
J-^max — (86)
^ cos {aß + 8)
where S = width of cutter,
8 = angle of soil-metal friction,
a = wedge angle of cutter,
Lmaw = maximum deformation.
The soil deformation along the wedge will vary from zero at the tip
to the maximum shown in equation 86, so that average soil deforma-
tion Lo can be calculated by the relation
0 + Ln S
Lo = (87)
^ COS (a/2 + 8) •
Equation 87 applies to the deformation caused by the wedge portion
of a cutter. Kostritsyn reasoned that no additional deformation
occurs along the sides of the cutter, and the average deformation
will be constant and numerically equal to that given for half of the
maximum deformation occurring on one side of the cutter and ex-
pressed by equation 86.
Kostritsyn argued that a relation must exist between soil deforma-
tion, specific pressure, and specific resistance. In reality, specific
pressure and specific resistance are the normal stresses acting be-
tween the soil and the cutter. The value of specific resistance is the
stress required to cause a given deformation. Kostritsyn recognized
that such behavior is stress-strain be^havior (uniaxial compressive
stress-longitudinal strain), but he also recognized that no suitable
relation existed. Such a relation can be represented by a simple be-
hayior equation that would define dynamic parameters of the soil.
With the direction of strain movement specified as discussed (the
behavior output of the equation) the mechanics of cutting could be
developed in a manner similar to that used by Soehne, for example.
Recognizing the behavior equations involved and specifying the be-
havior outputs establishes a method by which to locate and orient the
forces involved. Kostritsyn, however, by analyzing the cutting re-
action, has worked backwards and shown the need for a specific
simple behavior equation. The difference that was discussed earlier
between the methods for establishing a mechanics thus should be
apparent.
Kostritsyn did not study a stress-strain relation directly, but rather
indirectly through his mechanics. For a given cutter he could cal-
culate Lo for the respective K values from equations 86 and 87. He
could evaluate experimentally the magnitude of the two K values
from equation 85 by using two cutters with different shapes. An
example of the relation between Ki and K^, and their respective
average deformations is shown in figure 101 for one soil in one
condition.
23.2 Lo(mm)-K2
FIGURE 101.—Relation between specific resistance K^ and specific pressure K^

and the respective average soil deformations. (Kostritsyn ( 230).)
Several important conclusions by Kostritsyn are based on the gen-

eral nature of the curves shown in figure 101. First, the two K
values were not constant, so that they were not parameters assessing
the soil. Since they represent stresses, constant values probably
should not be expected. For the mechanics, however, a parameter
must be found that is constant for a given soil condition. Second,
the reversed trends for the two K values as the average deformation
was increased indicate that some interaction between the soil and
cutter must be occurring. If not, the trends should have been the
same—th^y should both either increase or decrease as the average de-
formation increases. Third, the low value of K2 suggests that some-
how the normal stress on the sides of the cutter is reduced during
the soil reaction. To illustrate, we might reason that the maximum
stress caused by the wedge of the cutter remains acting on the sides
of the wedge as long as the soil is forced to remain deformed. In
such circumstances, Ki and K2 should be related by the cosine of the
angle of the wedge. As the data in figure 101 indicate, the implied
angle of the wedge ranges from approximately 150° to 180°. Since
these angles are completely unrealistic, a logical conclusion is that
the stress on the sides of the cutter represented by K2 is reduced by
some type of relief.
Based partly on the foregoing reasoning and partly on other ob-
servations, Kostritsyn proposed that the specific resistance and the
specific pressure come from elastic and plastic deformations of the
soil. He thus defined
K, = Kei-^Kpi, (88)
where Kei = stress from elastic deformation,
Kpi = stress from plastic deformation.
He further considered that K2 represented only the elastic deforma-
tion. These definitions imply that the soil deforms plastically and
elastically as the wedge of the cutter advances. On the sides of the
wedge, however, the soil has "adjusted itself" by plastic now so that
only the elastic rebound of the soil causes the stress. As figure 100
shows, the lines of action of the hypothesized stresses are not parallel
but are related by the geometry of the cutter. Since the directions
of Ki and K2 do not coincide, K2 cannot be equated directly to the
elastic component of stress in equation 88. From the geometry
shown in figure 100, the magnitude of K2 in the Ki direction gives
Kei = K2 ^. (89)
cos a/2 ^ '
With equations 88 and 89, the elastic and plastic components of
stress can be calculated from the values of Ki and ^g. Figure 102
shows the respective values plotted against deformation, as deter-
mined by equation 87. Kostritsj^n determined the relation shown in
figure 102 for several soils in various conditions. He concluded that
the general shape of the curves was the same for all soils and then
proceeded to obtain a mathematical expression for the curves. He
noted that the relation between Kî and LQ was very close to that of
an equilateral hyperbola so he used the equation
Kpi = ~-, (90)
to express the relation. Close observation of the experimental data

indicated that as Lo approached zero, the relation in equation 90 did
not hold. This suggested that a minimum value for Lo existed and
that it was equal to one or possibly several particle diameters. The
minimum value Loo represents a small distance that reflects the unde-
formable nature of individual soil particles.
X VALUE OF Kpi ACCORDING TO

THE THEORETICAL FORMULA
10 II 12
( mm)
FIGURE 102.—Calculated and experimental values of elastic and plastic stresses

as related to deformation. (Kostritsyn {230 ).)
Associated with this minimum deformation is the constant Ko

given by
Ko = -^, (91)
where Loo = diameter of soil particles,

Ko = maximum stress to cause deformation.
Equation 90 was reasonably accurate as long as Lo was greater than
Loo^ To overcome the restriction placed on equation 90, Kostritsyn
used an equal area technique to evaluate the shape of curves and
obtained the equation
T> r û)T 1
5 r.. ^ 7 ^Loi (92)
where B = coefficient of plasticity.

Kostritsyn then defined
Kei = Ko-K,i, (93)
and by using equation 90 and the equal area technique he obtained
the equation
K,^ = -^ \KO (ßU - Uo) -Inî (94)
where A = coefficient of soil elasticity.

Equations 92 and 94 take into account the restriction observed in

equation 90. Coefficients Ä and B represent empirical constants that
permit a more accurate representation of the relations between Kei,
Kpi^ and Z^. Note that in equations 92 and 94, Ä and B represent
constants for a given soil condition, as do Lô and Ko- Thus, in a
sense they are composite soil parameters. They are not, however,
parameters of a behavior equation but rather of a mechanics for
cutting.
Kostritsyn evaluated constants A and B for several conditions.
For the soil represented in figure 102, he assumed Loo was approxi-
mately 0.5 millimeter. The coefficient B can be evaluated only from
experimental data so that the value for Kpi at some arbitrary Lo is
required Given the value for B, Kî can be determined for other
values of Lo by using equation 92. The theoretical points shown in
figure 102 were calculated from equation 92. Table 10 gives meas-
ured and calculated values for Kî and Kî for a different soil condi-
tion. Kostritsyn stated that the large percentage of error at 1-milli-
meter deformation was due to the inaccuracy of experimental ap-
paratus for such small forces and deformations. As figure 102 and
table 10 show, however, the experimental and calculated values agree
remarkably well. Although Kostritsyn did not show data to com-
pare the actual draft of the cutters, agreement of the soil stresses
implies that the calculated and experimental drafts would have
agreed just as well. Thus, the mechanics of cutting as developed by
Kostritsyn is reasonably accurate and complete.
TABLE y),—Experimental and commuted values of the clastic and

elastic stresses to deformation during cutting
Mean soil K,i Kel

deformation Experi- Com-
(miUi- Differ- Experi- Com-
mental puted mental puted Differ-
meters) values values ence ence
values values
Kg./cm^. Kg./cm^. Percent Kg./cm^. Kg./cm^. Percent
1 7.3 5.60 -2.5 0.212 0.330 +35
3 5.4 7.00 +3.5 .390 .405 +4
5 __ 4.1 4.05 +1.0 .440 .440 0
10 2.5 2.50 0 .465 .465 0
SOURCE : Kostritsyn ( . ).
In order to determine parameters A and B, the forces on an actual

cutter must be measured experimentally. Therefore, the mechanics
of cutting may seem to be a hoax. Such is not the case, however, if
the means required to assess the magnitudes of A and B are recog-
nized. As has already been implied, the parameters are defined by
the mechanics rather than by a behavior equation. Kostritsyn
argued that a stress-strain behavior equation must exist, but it is
unknown. He proceeded to establish a relation indirectly through
his mechanics where cutting is involved rather than a direct relation
where the stress-strain behavior was isolated. His mechanics of
cutting IS thus the mathematical model that represents the situation
under observation. The mathematical model defines parameters A
and B; hence, they are parameters of the mechanics, not of stress-

strain behavior.
As was discussed in chapter 3, some method is always required
to assess the magnitudes of parameters. Eecall that the usual pro-
cedure involves simulating the mathematical model and measuring
the appropriate quantities in order to calculate the desired param-
eters. In this case, the mechanics is the model and hence an actual
cutter is required. Once A and B have been specified, however, they
can be used and applied to that soil condition just as independent
parameters such as cohesion can be applied. The mechanics of
cutting thus differs from the earlier mechanics only in the method
required to assess the respective soil parameters.
While the mechanics seems to be very accurate as presented by
Kostritsyn, caution should be used in its application. Stress-strain
behavior is probably inaccurately represented because of the indirect
manner in which it was studied. No distribution of stress is ad-
mitted to exist on the cutter when a distribution would seem logical.
Whether the average stress and deformation accurately represent the
implied behavior has not been determined.
Kostritsyn apparently confined his experiments to wet dense soils.
Experience tells us that such soils tend to be plastic and therefore
probably only pure cutting was involved in the experiments. In
many soil conditions plastic behavior may be less evident and the
relation expressed in equation 90 may be drastically different. If
a difference occurs, equations 92 and 94 may no longer accurately
represent the situation. Even further, this possibility raises the
question as to whether pure cutting will be present. As soil condi-
tions change so that plastic behavior is less dominant, other types
of failure may also be present and increase in importance. Kostrit-
syn's mechanics applies only to pure cutting and would not represent
such situations. Considerations of this kind limit the situations
where the mechanics can be applied.
A final consideration of the forces on a cutter suggest a possible
component of resistance along the leading edge of the cutter. Such
a force is present if large hard particles are visualized as being cut
by an infinitely thin cutter, as shown in figure 103, A. In order for
(A) (B)
FIGURE 103.—The effect of boundary conditions on cutting.
the cutter to move from A to B along the projected path (fig. 103,
A), several of the large particles would have to be sliced and sep-
arated. Contrast this action to the actions implied in Kostritsyn's
mechanics for cutting, where particles presumably smaller than the
cutter are merely displaced but not sliced. A possible fourth term
could thus be included in equation 81. This term might be extremely
useful when evaluating the cutting resistance of materials in the soil,
such as roots.
Figure 103 also shows the effect a boundary condition might have
on cutting. If a pile of coal were being shoveled from the top
(a situation similar to fig. 103, A) rather than from a smooth floor
(a situation similar to fig. 103, 5), the force to push the shovel into
the pile would obviously be different. In the latter case, the bound-
ary condition becomes orderly so that cutting is not required.
Shoveling from the top requires deforming the aggregate of coal in
an action similar to that represented by Kostritsyn's mechanics. The
individual aggregates are displaced but not cut. Presumably an
action could occur wherein the coal aggregates themselves would be
severed so that an additional force would be required. Cutting per
se is thus simply envisioned and easily defined, but its involvement
with other actions compound and confuse the practical application
of cutting. Getzlaff ( U2 ) has measured the effect of stones on the
draft of plows and it appears that cutting or displacing rigid bodies
can require considerable force.
4.3.4 Conclusions
The examples of partial mechanics discussed in section 4.3 are the
only examples presently available. They are restricted, occasionally
based on questionable assumptions, and, as experimental evidence
shows, not satisfactorily accurate. These shortcomings are acknowl-
edged but do not detract from the fine efforts that have been made by
Kostritsyn, Soehne, Kawamura, and Payne. Their analytical con-
tributions have demonstrated the methods for developing a mechanics
that integrates the soil and tool into a system that can be analyzed.
Demonstrating that the actions involved m tillage can be represented
by rigorous mathematical treatment is more significant than the
practical usefulness of their mechanics. Even though the examples
discussed here are not a complete solution, the scholarly approaches
must be acknowledged as a break from traditional methods. Follow-
ing the principles illustrated will lead to the development of a com-
plete mechanics that will provide an understanding of soil-tillage tool
reactions and that will ultimately have practical usefulness.
4.4 Soil Behavior in Simplified Systems
Actual examples of soil-tillage tool mechanics have just been
discussed. In each example, the mechanics was based on one or more
behavior equations. The mechanics combined the active contribu-
tion of each behavior to the total action so that the whole reaction of
the soil was represented. In chapters 2 and 3, a number of behavior
equations that have been identified were discussed. In equation 18,
two soil parameters 0 and (f) were identified, and ample evidence was
cited to show their nature and importance. Not all behaviors have
been so well studied.
One principle for developing a mechanics is to identify the various
forms of behavior that are present. Each identified form of behavior
requires an accurate descriptive equation. One method for develop-
ing such equations is to separate the various forms of behavior that
occur in the soil and study each behavior individually. Examination
SOIL DYNAMICS IK TILLAGE AND TRACTION 161
of a total dynamic soil-tillage tool system indicates soil must always

slide on the tool. In addition, sharp edges of a tool cut the soil ; and
inclined surfaces lift, shear, or accelerate the soil. Each of these
separate behaviors may be isolated from the others and studied m
simplified systems. It may be recalled that the cutting component
h was eliminated from equation 57 so that this type of behavior was
neglected. In addition, no attempt was made to utilize friction ex-
cept in an elementary form where the coefficient was considered to
be a constant. Both of these behaviors are extremely important in
tillage. So little is known about some behaviors that their intelligent
inclusion in a mechanics is not possible. A discussion of examples
of behavior study will show that attempts have been made to relate
force inputs to soil reaction outputs.
4.4.1 Soil-Metal Sliding
The importance of soil-metal sliding can be quickly grasped by
anyone who realizes that all tillage tools have a sliding action. This
action may not be the major action of the tool, but sliding occurs
along some surface of the tool and consumes energy. Where control
of soil movement is the major desired action, the kind of surface and
its orientation govern the path of movement of the soil. Sliding be-
havior has not been exactly determined ; therefore, accurate behavior
equations or simplified mechanics of the action have not been de-
veloped. Some of the principles were discussed in sections 3.2.1.5
and 3.2.1.6, but more accurate definitions of the individual relations
and parameters are required.
The basic equation that has been used in studies of sliding be-
havior is equation 29
F_
^' z:. ^ = tan 8 (29)
N
The accuracy of this equation is determined by the assumptions in-
volved. These include the concepts that the soil surface does not
change during movement and that the normal force acting on the
sliding surface is due to the weight or the mechanical forces applied
to the surface. On the basis of past research, neither of these as-
sumptions appears to be valid. Since actual behavior cannot be
mathematically described at present, descriptive data to illustrate the
complex behavior are presented.
4.4.7.7. Nieasuremenf of SUd'mgs Actions
One method of determining whether the soil surface changes is to
determine whether continued sliding over a given increment of soil
causes a change in the coefficient of soil-metal sliding friction /x'. If
a short slider is drawn over the surface of the soil, undisturbed soil
is continuously renewed at the front of the slider. As the slider
passes over a specific point on the surface, the surface may be
changed by pressing and smearing so that the last increment of the
slider passes over a soil surface quite different from that which the
leading edge encountered. This fact may be experimentally de-
termined by measuring with sliders of different lengths or by con-
tinuously rotating an annulus-shaped slider on the same spot. The
basic question then becomes whether the change in the sliding resist-
ance is due to a change in ¡JL' or whether it is due to the extra loading

of the frictional surface by adhesive forces.
The basic behavior equation uses an input force, N, and an output
force, F, Unless the equation is revised, the factor affecting the
change m sliding resistance cannot be determined. In theory, fric-
tion should be independent of the area of contact; adhesive forces
are not. A change in the adhesive attraction between the soil and
the metal surface may therefore cause a change in the apparent
normal load along the sliding surface and consequently result in a
change in the sliding resistance. Adhesion may be increased through
a change in the suction in the water of the moisture films or through
an increase in the area of contact of the adhesive bonds. The action
of these two factors must be separated and included in an evaluation
of the sliding resistance between soil and metal. Sliding resistance
may be visualized as a composite of friction and adhesive factors in
the form
R = u'N + ii'AF, (95)
where B = sliding resistance,
u' = coefficient of soil-metal sliding friction,
N = normal load due to weight or mechanical forces,
A = suction load due to water,
F = area of the adhesive films.
Attempts to evaluate equation 95 have been relatively few ; in most
studies of friction the presence of the adhesive component fi'AF has
not been recognized. In order to evaluate equation 95, the two terms
must be separated and measured.
Considering first the frictional term fju'N, the normal load may be
determined from a knowledge of the weight of the material or by
using pressure transducers to determine the normal pressure on the
sliding surface. Tillage tools may be operated at high speeds, and
the soil may be accelerated by the sliding surface of the tool. When
the soil is being accelerated by the sliding surface, the additional
force must be added to that of the weight of the soil. This force
will be properly evaluated by the pressure transducer. Since the
sliding resistance R can be measured accurately, fju' can be computed
when the adhesive term is neglected. The actual value of N, how-
ever, IS still relative, since the pressure is not exerted through a con-
tinuous surface, but rather through a granular medium. Thus, for
an assumed unit pressure based on the assumption of a continuous
material, the actual area of contact may be very small and the gran-
ular pressure very high, or the area may be large and the pressure
low. These details will not be detected by the pressure transducers.
JNevertheless, for a given soil, there is a distinct relation between the
average granular pressure measured by the transducer and that ap-
plied to the metal surface. This relation permits an empirical cor-
relation between the normal load and the sliding resistance. The
relation reflects the influence of such factors as the sharpness, hard-
ness, and number of particles by lumping them in the coefficient ¡JL'.
The adhesion term ¡JL'AF in equation 95 must also be isolated and
each of the basic components measured.
The term A may be considered to be the actual suction in the soil
moisture, but it may also include other forces such as magnetic at-
tractions that might occur between the two materials. Some ano-
malies that have been encountered in this assumption were discussed
in chapters 2 and 3, and apparently additional work will be required
to obtain a clear picture of the importance of the moisture suction
term. A consideration of the attraction between the soil and the dia-
phragm of a pressure transducer shows that no deflection of the
transducer occurs regardless of the magnitude of the attraction.
Thus, the normal load detected by the pressure transducer does not
and cannot measure this attraction. The suction in the moisture film
may be measured by tensiometers, but they would have to be inserted
into the sliding surface and have all of the characteristics of the
sliding surface to provide reliable measurements. Formerly these
instruments could be utilized only at low moisture suctions, but recent
improvements have extended their range considerably ( 365 ). A
major difficulty in dynamic sliding actions is the lag time inherent
in tensiometers.
The term F must represent the actual area over which the water
films are effective. This area might be observed when glass models
are used, but the area of the films within the soil is normally an un-
known quantity. The extent to which approximations of the area,
as might be deduced from measurements of bulk density, void ratio,
and moisture content, can meet this need is not encouraging. When
the entire normal load is applied by means of adhesion (sec. 2.9.3),
the magnitude of the suction is known, the area of contact of the
film is known, and the sliding force can be measured. Under such
conditions the coefficient of friction ft' can be computed in the same
manner as when the load is applied by a mechanical load.
In practice, both mechanical and suction loads are operating on
the soil so that the coefficient determined by equation 29 is an ap-
parent coefficient and wdll be identified as />(.". It may be visualized
as having the form
R = ¡x'N.^-ixfN, = />t'W„ (96)
where Ni — the load due to mechanical force,
N2 — the load due to moisture suction,
/x'' = the apparent coefficient of soil-metal friction.
When N2 cannot be measured, the coefficient is determined on the
basis of the applied load rather than the effective load, and the net
effect of the second term of the equation, /xW^, is lumped into /x".
The physical interpretation of this action has been to assume that an
increase in the sliding force is due to an increase in the apparent
coefficient of sliding friction /x'', and not due to an increase in the
normal load (by factor N2) which results from adhesion. That the
components of ft'' are not precisely known does not render equation
96 useless. The apparent coefficient />t" has been found to be a very
useful soil parameter, but methods for determining /x' should be
improved.
Equation 96 implies that /x' as defined by equation 29 is not an in-
dependent parameter but is a composite parameter. As was dis-
cussed in section 3.2, independent parameters may become composite
parameters as additional knowledge is obtained. Furthermore,
where no means is available to measure independent parameters, com-

posite parameters must be used. Such is the case here, so that of
necessity /A' and /i." are used interchangeably in the literature. The
important point is to recognize that fi' is known to be a composite
parameter. When used in a mechanics or applied to some situation,
its composite nature should be acknowledged and appropriate caution
used.
Despite its vagueness, the concept of ¡J,' may be used to study the
sliding action that smears the soil and changes the sliding resistance.
One can determine the change in fi' that accompanies each succes-
sive increment of metal sliding over a fixed point m the soil. Soehne
( 397 ) used an annulus-shaped slider to study this type of soil
reaction. Depending on the size of the ring and the number of
revolutions, the length of the metal path that passed any point in
the soil could be accurately controlled. Unlike a simple rectangular
slider, which encountei-s new soil at the leading edge, all points under
the sliding ring are subjected to approximately the same sliding dis-
tance. When the normal load on the slider is known and the sliding
resistance is measured, the coefficient of .sliding resistance can be com-
puted as a function of the actual sliding distance. Sliding rings
of this type may be coated with materials such as rubber or poly-
tetrafluoroethylene so that their respective values of fj.' can be de-
termined (fig. 104).
Soehne (fig. 105) found that fi' increased with an increase in the
FIGURE 104.—Simple sliders: Left, steel; right, polytetrafluoroethlyene; bottom,

serrated steel.
8 12 16 20 24 28 16 20 24 28
SOIL MOISTURE {%)
(A) (B) (0
FIGURE105.—Effect of the length of the sliding path on the coefficient of soil-

metal friction for steel at different moisture contents: A, In sand; B, m
loam; C, in clay soil. (Soehne, Grundlagen der Landtechnik (397 ).)
length of the sliding path in sand A, loam B, and clay soil G, The
increase in /x' resulting from an increase in the sliding distance was
greatest at low moisture contents. Under the wettest conditions,
the lesser influence of the length of the sliding path on the coefficient
of soil-metal friction for steel was probably due to the low strength
of the soil. When wet, complete puddling presumably occurred with
the slightest movement and no further change was possible. Ad-
hesion was probably not altered to any appreciable extent with ad-
ditional movement.
In contrast to a sliding surface of steel, rubber sliding over the
soil presented a different relation. As shown in figure 106, little
influence of the length of the sliding path appears in either sand A
or loam soil B. In clay soil 0^ however, the coefficient increased
0.7 0.7 1 I.In
'0.6 0.6 1.0
0.5- 0.9-1
0.5-
0.4- O8
^04
0.3 03 0.7 H
0.2-1 0.6
02
O.l 0.5
0.1- o = 30 cm
A = 60 cm 04
0 -T r- 0
2 3 4 6 10 14 18 22 26 8 12 16 20 24 28
SOIL MOISTURE (%)
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE 106.-Effect of the sUding path of the coefficient of ««iV'^^}>^^^,f^^^^^^^^^

at different moisture contents: A, In sand; B, m loam; 0, m clay soil.
(Soehne, Grundlagen der Landtechnik {397 ).)
under dry conditions and decreased sliglitly under wet conditions.

If the coefficient of soil-metal friction changes with the distance of
sliding, it follows that the coefficient of friction expressed in equation
95 is an average coefficient when computed on the basis of a slider
of finite length. The coefficient fi' represents a coefficient that lies
midway between the initial coefficient /*'„ and the final coefficient /x'^,
which are found respectively at the front and rear of the slider. The
coefficient of sliding friction as determined by means of a slider is,
therefore,
Ä = M'XA^, (97)
where x = the point along the slider of length L where
the average fi' is found.
According to Soehne, this average coefficient appeared to be located
at approximately 04L along the sliding distance. This relation
assumes that a uniform normal load exists on the slider.
When the load along the sliding interface varies, the slider may
be considered to be made up of n small segments each having an area
Fi, an average unit pressure Pi, and a coefficient of friction fi'i, so that
E = X fi'iPiFi. (98)
<=j
Sliding resistance has not been calculated in this fashion and it can-
not be determined from studies utilizing simple sliders. The distri-
bution of normal pressure might be determined by means of pressure
transducers. If pressure transducers were imbedded in a tool as
shown in figure 107, the pressure at each of the small segments of
interest could be determined.
Mayauskas ( £95 ) used simple pressure transducers to determine
the normal distribution along plowshares during actual field opera-
tions. The results are discussed in section 6.4.1.
FIGURE 107.—Pressure transducers for measuring stress distributions on slid-

ing surfaces of tools.
A device is needed that will measure the tangential sliding resist-

ance at the sliding surface. Taylor, at the National Tillage Machin-
ery Laboratory ( 311 ), is among those who have attempted to de-
velop such a transducer, but a successful model has not yet been
produced. Many refinements are needed such as miniaturization,
ability to separate movements in the various directions, and means
for properly mounting the transducers in the sliding surface so that
they measure the actual boundary conditions. The sensing element
of the electrical strain gage can determine small stresses with insig-
nificant strains. This permits an evaluation of the stress of the
surface in order to get a detectable electrical signal for measurement.
Care has to be taken that the exposed portion of the sensing element
has the same characteristics as the surrounding material or the meas-
urements may not reñect the desired forces. Figure 108 shows
-Tin^^^T^Tmñ, ^"
CELL CELL CELL CELL

HIGH ROUGH LOW CORRECT
FIGURE 108.—Effect of placement of stress transducers (ceUs) on the soU

flow pattern.
several situations that might be encountered if the transducers are

improperly placed. Eecall that these devices would not measure the
adhesive component of the normal force, but they would measure the
tangential components of sliding resistance. Consequently, [x! as
computed would be a composite value.
An additional deviation from equation 29 is that \x! may change
under loading so that it is a function of the normal force N. Ample
evidence is available to show that the coefficient of sliding friction \i!
is not independent of the normal load. In metals, McFarlane and
Tabor ( 265 ) have shown that as the normal load increased the co-
efficient decreased until it reached a fairly low and constant value.
In soil, decreases in the coefficient due to increases in the normal load
have also been reported ( 9S^ ^65 ). Vetrov, using high normal loads
and a simple slider on soil (fig. 109), showed that a constant value
does not result from an increase in the normal load up to 7 kilograms
per square centimeter (98 p.s.i.) ; hence, a value of ft' cannot be used
with any degree of certainty unless the actual normal stress along the
sliding surface is known.
A word of caution is in order concerning the change in (xf with the
sliding distance. Although Soehne ( 397 ) has proposed that this
change be considered in the analysis of sliding forces on a plow,
sufficient information is not available to determine whether this con-
dition exists in practice. If the change in /x' is due solely to the
smearing action of the soil, probably this condition would exist as
indicated. On the other hand, if the change in ¡x' represents a tran-
sition stage when the metal changes from a clean surface to a dirty
surface, only a conditioning of the surface to some new state may
be represented. The end point—the stabilized value of /x'—would
0.6 -
""■""•- LOAM
0.4
0.2 "^ "''"•'=:ic:::^LAY LOAM
^"""-^^ CLAY
1 1 1 1
LOAD (Kg/cm^)
FIGURE 109.—The influence of the normal load on the coeflScient of sliding
friction. {Vetrov (465).)
depend on the soil materials that are deposited along the tillage tool
surface. These coating materials might be waxes, moisture, fine clay
particles, or other materials in soil. Surface coatings would account
for the change in jx^ ; however, /¿' might be expected to remain fairly
constant after equilibrium is established on the surface. After a
plow travels far enough to coat the entire surface, a uniform value
of /x' might be found for the entire surface. In a final analysis, both
the soil surface and the metal surface may change.
Physical reality must accompany raathematical representation of
pressure distributions along sliding surfaces. The few pressure
measurements that have been made along the sliding surfaces of tools
indicate that wide variations may occur. If detailed studies are to
be realistic, cognizance must be taken of interactions. Values of /x'
must be determined for the entire range of pressures distributed over
sliding surfaces. The extent to which this type of information may
alter the concepts of theory or design is not known. As an example,
it has been suggested ( 106 ) that a uniform pressure is required to
produce a uniform acceleration of the soil. Actually, a uniform
movement of soil across the face of the tool is desired ; and this may
conceivably be obtained with different normal pressures along the
surface of the tool.
Let us imagine a distribution of pressure that might occur along
a plow surface when shear failure occurs as visualized in the Nichols
model (fig. 110). If all blocks of soil are to be accelerated with a
uniform force, the resistance to movement of all blocks must be
the same. This is not the case, since the shear force along the bound-
ary between block A and the soil mass M is very large compared to
that between any of the other blocks of soil. Theory then must
FIGURE 110.—Primary shear failure in front of a inoldboard plow.
recoenize that the forces on the share of a plow are different from
those on other parts. Equation 107 (sec. 4.4.1.3) incorporates this
principle by keeping forces on the share separate from those ot the
sliding surface. Little or no twisting of the furrow slice occurs at
the forward part of the plow, but as the individual blocks progress
up along the plow surface the forces on the plow vary considerably
Indeed, the twisting action of a moldboard may pull the blocks apart
so that gravitational forces actually cause overhanging segments to
be placed in tension, as shown in figure 111. Obviously, the pressure
on the surface of the tool goes to zero where the cracks appear.
There seems to be little value in making additional theoretical
FIGURE 111.—Shear blocks spread by twisting of furrow slice. (Reed, Soil

Sei. Soc. Amer. Troc. (S51 ).)
analysis of the movement of soil on tools until additional measure-

ments provide a better basis on which to assign pressure distributions.
As will be shown later (fig. 169), the pressure is not uniform so that
this assumption no longer appears to be valid.
4.4.1.2 The Sliding Path
In section 4.4.1.1, the direction of the sliding path was determined
by the direction of movement of the metal surface. The actual slid-
ing path over a surface is determined by the forces on the soil and
the shape of the tool. The actual path of soil movement may be
determined from the scratches that soil particles make on the surface
of tools. If a tool is coated with a thin coat of varnish or some
similar material, scratches can be easily detected (84), These
scratches can represent the path of the soil only for the soil con-
ditions and speed at the time the tool is operated.
Kaburaki and Kisu ( W4 ) have identified and defined angles of
sliding with reference to the direction of travel, as shown in figure
112. The angle S is measured between a horizontal line in the plane
ASCENDING ANGLE - ^
SLIDING ANGLE - S
PATH OF SLIDING PARTICLE
HORIZONTAL LINE
FIGURE 112.—Sliding and ascending angles of a soU sUding path. (Kaburaki

and Kisu, Kanto-Tosan Agr. Expt. Sta. Jour. ( 204 ). )
of the sliding surface and the path of the sliding particle. A sec-
ond angle, the ascending angle i//, was identified. It was measured
from a horizontal line in the direction of travel and the path of the
sliding particle. This angle might be utilized to compute the work
done against gravity.
A number of factors, such as the frictional and adhesive character-
istics of interface systems, may be expected to affect the location of
the sliding path. With the exception of the speed and the shape of
the tool, few of these have ever been studied. As shown in figure
113, both the particle size and the angle of inclination of a plane tool
surface influence the angles of ascent and sliding. A knowledge of
90
ASCENDING X X
80 SLIDING
70
60
^ 50
UJ
á 40
z
<
30
20
10
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
DIAMETER OF SOIL PARTICLE (mm)
FIGURE 113.—Effect of size of the soil particle and inclination of the tool on
the sliding and ascending angles. (Kaburaki and Kisu, Kanto-Tosan Agr.
Expt. Sta. Jour. {20Jf).)
the factors that govern the movement of soil particles will be helpful
in the design of tools, since it becomes important to be able to direct
the sliding of soil along predetermined paths. These paths may-
direct the movement of the soil so that a minimum energy may be
required for the movement or so that shearing strains will break up
the soil. One of the more generally recognized directive actions is
the inversion or movement of soil to some specific location at the
boundary of a tool.
4.4.1.3 Mechanics for Draff force of Sliding Actions
The foregoing material has been presented to describe soil be-
havior in sliding. The failure zone is predetermined by the interface,
since any coupling between the slider and the soil results in shear
or soil-soil sliding rather than soil-metal sliding. In the sliding ac-
tions that have been discussed, only fiat surfaces have been considered.
The research that was reported was directed mainly toward deter-
mining the basic behavior equation and identifying the input and
outputs of the equation. In addition, studies were directed toward
identifying the basic parameters of the equation. The studies indi-
cate that more basic relations must be considered before the data can
be used effectively in developing a mechanics. The alteration of the
soil physical condition as a result of the sliding stresses creates a
condition in which an interaction becomes operative. The import-
ance of interactions of this type can be determined only by a more
detailed examination.
^ Some progress has been made in developing simplified mechanics
for sliding surfaces. In each instance, however, the coefficient of
sliding friction was considered to be independent of the area of
contact and adhesion. In addition, the ultimate goal of the me-
chanics was to evaluate the sliding resistance of the tool that was
being considered. The basic behavior equation for sliding (equation
29) was accepted, and suitable boundary conditions were applied so
that the inñuence of realistic force inputs could be evaluated.
The first attempt to write a simple raechanics for soil sliding on a
curved surface was by Doner and Nichols {106). They were con-
cerned with the action of the curved surface of a moldboard plow on
the forces on the sliding interface. (3rientation of the surface in
some direction other than horizontal would alter the normal load
because of gravity. The forces to be expected on a uniformly curved
surface and on a variable curved surface wêre determined. They
considered that the force normal to the sliding interface of a co-
hesionless soil and the curved surface was determined by three dis-
tinct components: the weight of the soil, the acceleration force, and
a buckling force which was a component of the tangential force that
causes the soil to slide.
The first of these three forces—the weight of the soil on an area, A
—IS a function of the inclination as shown in figure 114. The force
due to the weight of the soil was calculated from the relation
Wn = AhD^ cos a (99)
in which Ah = V = Acosa ,
and A = unit area of contact,

V = volume of soil,
a = inclination of surface from vertical,
Dw = wet bulk density of soil,
h = height of soil layer,
Wn = weight component normal to surface.
The second force on the surface was calculated from the equation
mv^
= mv^k, (100)
where r = radius of curvature of the surface,

m = mass of soil,
V = velocity in the tangential direction,
k = 1/r,
I — inertia force normal to the surface.
With a large radius of curvature and a slow speed of operation, the
mertia force would be small compared to the weight, and it might be
neglected.
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION
FIGURE 114.—Effect of inclination on the normal force due to weight of soil.

(Doner and Nichols, Agr. Engin. {106).)
The third force normal to the surface results from the resistance
to motion along the surface and is called a buckling force (fig. 115).
This force might increase or decrease the normal force on the surface,
depending on the direction of the curvature. The buckling force
may be calculated at any point on a curved path from the tangential
and normal forces. At any distance S along the path, the forces
may be resolved into a tangential force Ft, and a normal force Fn^
At a more distant point S +dS, the two forces would be correspond-
ingly Ft + dFt and Fn + dFn^ Simultaneously with an increase m
the distance S, there would be a change in direction of the normal
force because of the curvature of the surface and the buckling eftect
would be
F,da = Ft^ds = Ftkds = Ftf{S)ds, (101)
The three forces were combined into a differential equation which

has the form
dFt = u'[P + f{S)Ft]ds, (102)
where P = pressure on surface.
Applied to a uniform curvature ä solution of equation 102 gives
Ft = j^{e-'^' 1). (103)

FIGURE IW.—Left, The path of soil on a plow; upper right, the force on a
small increment of soil; lower right, the buckling force on soil. (Doner
and Nichols, Agr. Engin. {106).)
or to a surface that had no curvature

Ft = Pu'S, (104)
When a variable curvature was introduced, f{S) had to be deter-
mined from the geometry of the surface. It was qualitatively de-
termined that the curvature should be less at the share of a plow than
at the wing in order to minimize the sliding force along the interface.
The basic behavior relation described by equation 29 was thus
utilized in a mechanical system in which the inputs and outputs were
related to parameters of the physical system—the plow and the soil.
The total force on a strip of the sliding surface was determined by
equation 103, but no attempt was made to integrate the total sliding
resistance of soil on an actual plow. Nothing in equation 103 indi-
cates the optimum path that soil should follow on the surface of a
plow. Eough approximations of shapes that provided paths giving
minimum values of Ft were determined by trial and error for two
hypothetical cases.
Kawamura ( 207 ) analyzed the shape and action of a sod plow in
which the normal forces were assumed to be constant on the sliding
interface. In heavy sod soils, the plow inverts the soil in a con-
tinuous unbroken furrow. The movement is determined by the
shape of the plow and the forces on the soil. Kawamura tried to
determine the optimum path that the soil should follow to require
the minimum sliding force. The incremental frictional force on an

elemental area results from the normal pressure and a component
of the frictional force itself that is normal to the area due to the
curvature so that equilibrium gives
dR = -¡Ji' (PdS + Rde), (105)
where B = sliding resistance,
Jjf = coefficient of soil-metal friction,
S = element of sliding path,
6 = angle of surface,
P = normal pressure on surface.
The path element dS may be expressed in terms of the radius of
curvature r and the direction angle Ö, dS = rdO which upon substi-
tution in equation 105 and integration gives the relationship
B = e-'" (/ - fJL'Pre'"dO-hc), (106)
If the sliding resistance E varies uniformly with increases in the
length of the sliding path, there will be no pressure concentrations
that would cause soil to stick to the plow\ The logarithmic spiral
expresses a curve in which the radius of curvature varies with path
length and when expressed in polar coordinates it has the form
r = a6-^^ The minimum draft resistance of R of equation 106
would be attained when 6 = 0. Then a could be evaluated, and
r =z roe-^\ Substituting this relation into equation 106 and integrat-
ing permits evaluating the constant of integration from conditions at
the share where 6 = 0, S = 0^ and Ro is the resistance due to the
share so that
R = e-^'' I Ro + -—^ (1 - e ('"-*=>'') (107)
where R = draft of plow,

Ro = resistance due to share,
P = normal pressure on surface,
0 = angle of sliding surface with horizontal,
^' = coefficient of soil-metal friction,
k = constant.
To — radius of path of travel.
Evaluation of this equation with the aim of obtaining a minimum
value of R indicates that k should be (9, which occurs when r = n
and the path of the furrow slice is a circle. The sliding resistance
R-Ro would be of varying importance depending on the conditions
of the soil.
Since part of the total resistance of the sod plow would be attri-
butable to energy necessary for the deformation of the soil, Kawa-
mura ( W8 ) introduced soil strength parameters into the analysis
of the forces on a plow. Again, he considered the furrow slice to
be continuous. Without further discussion of the methods he em-
ployed, the comprehensive equation he developed for the prediction
of draft resistance for a plow having a circular path of soil move-
ment had the form
176 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U:S, DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
COS 20 ^^ M.sinÔ
Jeo I \fJi ht sin
SI Q COS d ii^htL
Wr cos Ö cos ^ H J (sin 6 + f/ cos 6) +
Tl^r sin 6 cos Ö cos </> 6?^, (108)
and utilized parameters in terms which included :

B = total plow draft,
0 = angle of soil twist in vertical direction,
(j) ^ angle of twist in lateral direction,
¡uf = coefficient of soil-metal friction,
L = radius of rotation of bottom of furrow slice,
W = weight of furrow,
g = acceleration of gravity,
ht — distance from plow sole to neutral axis during bending,
r = radius of curvature of plow,
V = speed of plow,
Mz = torsional couple,
k = compressibility factor.
Inherent in this equation is the consideration that the normal
pressure on the sliding interface is a function of a weight term, an
acceleration term, and a soil resistance term. Since experimental
verifications of the relationship were not attempted, the accuracy of
the mechanics is unknown. Like Doner and Nichols, however, Kawa-
mura attempted to consider variations in the normal load on the
sliding surface. A more detailed approach was made in this instance
to specifically identify the origin of resistance in the soil. The
couple Mg includes measures of the dynamic properties of soil. The
bending moment is computed from shear stress-strain relations, the
modulus of elasticity E^ the compressive stress CTC, and the tensile
stress (Tt based on the size and degree of deformation of the furrow
slice. Thus, we see that an attempt has been made to relate into a
single mechanics the deformation and movement of the soil, the
dynamic soil properties, and the forces required to cause soil move-
ment.
4.4.7.4 Scouring
One of the most important aspects of sliding action of soil is scour-
ing of a tool while it is being operated. Since the coefficient of soil-
metal friction of nonadhesive soil is normally less than that of soil-
soil friction, less force is required to move a tool through soil if
sliding occurs along the metal surface. Scouring is defined as the
shedding or self-cleaning of the soil through a sliding action; but
scouring also requires that the soil moves fast enough so that "too
much congestion" does not occur. Thus, scouring is a relative term,
rather than an exact term that designates the exact point where
sliding begins. In normal operation where scouring is adequate, soil
flows over a tool along a path that is determined by the shape of
the tool. In adhesive soils, when sticking occurs, a layer of soil may
build up along the surface of the tool so that soil flows over a layer
of soil attached to the surface of the tool. Figure 116 shows non-
scouring and scouring surfaces.
FIGURE 116.—Surface of tools after plowing a sticky soil : A, Steel ; B, poly-

tetrafluoroethylene.
In incipient cases of sliding, the soil moves across the tool so slowly
that the soil on the tool acts as a rigid body which is driven through
the soil mass. Soil does not flow smoothly across the plow \yhen this
occui-s. Figure 117 shows the action of two plows shown in figure
116 in the same soil. The polytetrafluoroethylene-covered plow
FIGURE 117.- -Soil after plowing: Left, With good scouring; right, with poor
scouring.
scoured and the steel plow essentially pushed the soil aside. The
problem of handling a nonscouring so-called "push soil" is of general
interest. As a rule, the adhesion between the tool and the soil is
greater than that of the cohesion within the soil so that failure takes
place withm the soil to cause nonscouring.
Doner and Nichols ( 106 ) defined the scouring S at any point on a
sliding surface as being approximately equal to the tangential force
of the sliding added to the shear resistance of the soil F^ minus the
trictional force at the same point ¡x'Fn. They concluded from their
studies that plow curvature at the wing rather than at the share
would reduce soil sticking.
Payne and Fountaine ( 381 ) studied the mechanics of scouring
along simple surfaces and concluded that the following factors affect
the scouring of a tool in soil :
1.
^ The coefficient of soil-metal friction
2. The coefficient of soil-soil friction
3. The angle of approach of the tool
4. The soil cohesion
5. The soil adhesion
They analyzed the equilibrium conditions at the point of scouring
tor a simple system in which they considered only forces along the
sliding surface. Figure 118 shows the forces as seen from above at
OPEN FURROW
COULTER CUT
FIGURE 118.—The geometry of a simple tool at incipient scouring. (Payne
and Fountaine, Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin. {S31),)
incipient scouring of a vertical tool operating at an angle a to the

direction of travel. The situation represents the case where the
wedge of soil sticks to the tool; scouring does not occur. The forces
at incipient scouring (thé wedge block of soil ABF just ready to
move) will be R and Ä„ where the vertical plane BF has been sep-
arated by means of a tool such as a coulter. Since no tension forces
perpendicular to the plane BF can exist, R and R^ must be equal and
colinear. They therefore constitute the maximum principal stress,
and the minimum principal stress will be zero. Two possible soil
failure planes can occur, and each will be oriented at (7r/4 +(/)/2) to
a plane perpendicular to R. The worst situation for scouring is the
formation of the plane AF, Presumably, once scouring begins, a
failure plane originating from B in figure 118 will form and AF will
not form so that the soil will be displaced and move along the tool
surface AB, For the block of soil ABF to move, however, one of
the failure planes in the soil must form. Since the criterion for fail-
ure is the same for both possible planes, the state of stress in the
block of soil can be determined. The stress conditions may be repre-
sented in a Mohr diagram, as shown in figure 119.
FIGURE 119.—Mohr diagram of stresses on a simple tool at scouring when

son-sou failure determines the stress. (Payne and Fountaine, Nati. Inst.
Agr. Engin. {SSI).)
The strength envelope represented by the line LM can be drawn

with a knowledge of ^, the angle of internal friction, and Í7, the co-
hesion of the soil. Since the minimum principal stress is zero, only
one circle can be constructed that is tangent to the line LM and yet
pass through Ö. Thus, the circle OG2R1 in figure 119 represents the
state of stress in the block of soil ABF. Furthermore, the circle will
represent the stress state at any incipient soil failure (failure by
shear) whether or not scouring occurs. The one exception is if the
angle a is large enough so that the failure plane AF is not permitted
to form—if AB is parallel to AF, This exception is discussed m
connection with figure 120.
With the stress state determined by the soil shear failure, the
stresses on the tool surface can be determined. By using adhesion
and soil-metal friction as defined by equation 47, the condition for
incipient scouring can be represented in figure 119 by the line HJ,
Soil adhesion Ca is analogous to ¿7, and angle of soil-metal friction
is represented by 8.
For scouring to occur on the surface AB,, a stress state must be
present so that a tangential stress overcomes the resisting movement.

Thus, stress states above the line HJ in figure 119 are the only stress
states where scouring can occur. As already shown, the circle OGJRi
represents the stress on any plane oriented with respect to the direc-
tion of R and Ri m figure 118. Thus, for a at zero in figure 118, the
stress state on the tool surface will be Rt (zero tangential stress) in
figure 119. As a is increased, the stresses on the surface AB change;
the tangential stress increases so that at T in figure 119, the condi-
fi^^frî incipient scouring are represented. From the principles of
the Mohr circle, the angle TXR^ is 2a so that the minimum value of
a tor which scouring will occur can be determined from figure 119
^ IS further increased, the stresses on the tool will be those repre-
sented by a point on the circle, such as G. The stresses are above the
tailure line HJ so that the soil will slide on the surface AB, The
limiting relations between a, Ca, C, cf) and 8 thus are shown in figure
119 Obviously, if line HJ remains below LM, scouring can occur.
It, however, S increases so that HJ is tangent between O and G2 and
crosses LM between L and G2, scouring cannot occur for anv value
of ce. -^
A special situation exists if 2a is greater than 90° + (^. The fail-
ure plane AF (fig. 118) will not be permitted to form; hence, R and
/i*! will be determined not by soil shear failure but by the soil-metal
tailure surface. Thus, the stress circle will be tangent to the soil-
metal failure line, as shown in figure 120. For nonscouring in such
FIGURE 120 —Mohr diagram of stresses on a simple tool at scouring when

A¿;'Âin (^î determines the stress. (Payne and Fountaine, Nati. Inst.
a Situation, the sticking soil (block ABF) must be a thin layer paral-
lel to AB and the same normal stress must act on both the soil-soil
surface and the soil-metal surface. To satisfy all conditions (circle
through Ö tangent to HJ and also soil shear failure so that soil
IS separated from the soil mass) the point of tangency must also be
the point of intersection of the lines HJ and LM, as shown in figure
120. For any other circumstances, either the metal must fail in shear
or a situation as shown in figure 119 will be in effect. Thus the re-
lations between the factors governing scouring can be determined
from the principles illustrated in figures 119 and 120.
4.4.2 Penetration
Penetration is an action that may be described by a composite be-
havior since the soil usually fails by some combination of cutting,
shearing, compacting, and ño wing (plastically) as a cutter or a
probe is forced into the soil. As was discussed in section 3.2.2.1,
failure during penetration is usually considered to occur in the im-
mediate vicinity of the tip of the probe! Penetration is thus often
termed cutting since cuttmg usually implies a localized soil failure
in the neighborhood of the cutter (sec. 4.3.3). Although they were
not discussed in section 4.3.3, Kostritsyn developed equations pre-
dicting the cutting force for cone-shaped cutters. Many so-called
penetrometers are cone-shaped so that distinguishing between cutters
and penetrometers is perhaps not realistic. In studying the behavior,
researchers have used probes, cutters, penetration, and cutting rather
loosely and interchangeably. Localized failure rather than the mode
of failure is the common basis for discussing the behavior. Intui-
tively, it appears that a penetrometer assesses soil strength, and the
inherent simplicity of the measurement contributes to its practical
usefulness. Thus, in spite of its composite nature, penetration be-
havior has been studied in some detail and has even been incorporated
into a partial mechanics.
The geometry of cutters or penetrometers is important because
of its influence on the stress distribution in the soil near the tool.
Consequently, the effect of geometry on penetration behavior has re-
ceived considerable attention. The geometry may determine whether
a tool acts as a knife-type tool that slides through the soil without
soil sticking to its surface or whether it creates a compacted body of
soil that sticks on its surface. As shown in figure 121, a compacted
(A) (B) (C) (D)
FIGURE 121.—The shape of compacted soU bodies on tools having different

shapes. (Zelenin (515).)
mass of soil may gather on a blunt tip and move with the tool as an
intricate part of the tool. At this time, primarily soil-soil friction
is active since most sliding is between soil and soil. Even though
a point is blunted or rounded, it may have little influence on the
external appearance of the compacted soil body or core and on the
force required to move the tool in the soil. \s the shape of the tip
approaches that of the shape of the soil body, the tendency for the
soil to slide from the tool increases and ultimately the frictional
resistance along the surface of the tool is reduced to where sliding
begins. At this time, primarily soil-metal friction is active so that
the force to move the tool may be less than when soil-soil friction is
present. According to Zelenin (516), the compacted core appears
when the angle of the tip exceeds 50°.
Attempts have been made to determine whether the presence of the
compacted body of soil influences the resistance to penetration.
Data reported by the Waterways Experiment Station ( 472 ) indi-
cate that the shape of the tip of the probe may have only a small
influence on the resistance to penetration (ñg. 122).
Ü 200
abc
fe 100
V)
UJ I5»C0NE
oc CONE
a: 2in FLAT
UJ ■ 45» CONE
Ui
O 10 ,<^>''n CONE
45» CONE
^lin HEMISPHERE de f
37* 30' GONE
a.
UJ
§
10 100 10 10
RESISTANCE TO PENETRATION (psi) PENETRATION (¡n) PENETRATION (In)
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE 122.—Penetrometer resistance as influenced by shape: A, 30° static

cone versus various-shaped static cones; B, 30° static cone versus various
impact penetrometers at constant input energy; (7, 30° static cone versus
various impact penetrometers with various input énergies. (Waterways
Experiment Station (472).)
Figure 122, Ä compares a 30° right circular cone with flat and
hemisphere-shaped tips. The measurements were made on slowly
moving penetrometers and, with the exception of the cone, a com-
pacted body should have been present. The data indicate little dif-
ference due to the presence of such a body.
Figure 122, B shows the influence of cone angles of impact
penetrometers. The impact measurement was made on a 1-inch cone,
driven with one blow from a 1^-pound hammer dropped 4 inches.
Figure 122, 0 shows the relation between a 30° static cone penetro-
meter and a 45° impact cone penetrometer where 5 inch-pound of
energy (see curve a) and 8 inch-pound of energy (curve i) were
used. For the 15° cone, 5 inch-pound (curve c)^ 7.5 inch-pound
(curve d), 8 inch-pound (curve e), and 30 inch-pound (curve /)
were used. At the higher energies and lower cone angles, deeper
penetration resulted; but in all relations the slope was constant.
Since the slopes remained nearly constant over a considerable range

of soil strength (from cone penetrometer readings of 10 p.s.i., which
is soft, to more than 200 p.s.i., which is fairly hard for the clay
soil used), it appears that either an impact or a static penetrometer
could be used to measure penetration. Furthermore, interactions
between the soil and the probe must remain constant for the various
soil conditions, which tends to indicate that shape is not of great im-
portance. Presumably, failure was restricted to the immediate
neighborhood of the probe tip and the soil reaction was independent
of the shape of the probe.
Kostritsyn ( 230 ) extended his studies of cutting by investigating
the effect of a fixed tool thickness on the cutting force while varying
the angle of the cutter. With a triangular cutter, the forces on the
cutter are as given in equation 85 except that F2 is zero because no
sides are present. Thus, the forces on the triangular cutter are
P = 2Kt Fi sin a/2 '\-2KiFt ¡i' cos a/2, (109)
Avhere P — total force (draft) on cutter,
Xt = specific resistance of the soil.
Ft — area of wedge of cutter,
a — wedge angle,
^' = coefficient of soil-metal friction.
The area of the sliding surface can be calculated from the equation
p ^ —^^—-^ (110)
^' ^sina/^' ^ ^
where 8 — thickness of cutter,
e — length of cutter.
As Kostritsyn demonstrated (sec. 4.3.3), Ki is a function of the
deformation of the soil. The deformation is, in turn, a function of
the wedge angle and the soil-metal friction angle, as shown in equa-
tion 87. For a constant tool thickness he thus proposed that
^1 = cos {a/2
T^^X^'
-^ oy (111)
where Z) = a constant,
Equations 110 and 111 can be substituted in equation 85 and, recalling
that fji = tan 8, the equation becomes
/.= " - [i+cot -^tansl, (112)

cos(a/^ + 8) L 2 y
where G — DSe, a constant.
Equation 112 does not represent a mechanics since no rneans is
available to determine the magnitude of C; hence, the magnitude of
P cannot be determined. Kostritsyn reasoned, however, that an opti-
mum wedge angle should exist and equation 112 implies that such
an optimum will occur independent of the magnitude of 0 since it
is a constant for a given soil and thickness of cutter. He thus as-
sumed C - 1 and calculated P versus a relationships at various soil-
f riction angles.
Figure 123 shows the relation for three angles of soil-friction;
UJ
o
Q:
o
e>
z
3
Ü
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
an
FIGURE 123.—Computed cutting force as a function of wedge angle for a con-
stant thickness of cutter at 3 angles of soil friction. (Kostritsyn {2^0),)
45°50' and 29° are angles of soil-soil friction i//, and 40°30' is the
angle of soil-metal friction 8. The data indicate that a minimum
force occurs at a wedge angle at approximately 45° regardless of the
type of the angle (i// or 8). Thus, even if soil sticks to the cutter so
that soil-soil friction becomes active, nearly the same optimum wedge
angle results. The 45° friction angle shown in figure 123 is a typical
soil-soil friction angle, according to Kostritsyn. He reported ex-
perimental data that tended to confirm his calculated results. A
minimum cutting force would thus appear to result regardless of
the magnitude of the cutting force, and this minimum occurs at a
wedge angle of approximately 45°.
Perhaps the most thorough study of the influence of the geometry
of penetrometers on resistance to penetration was made with di-
mensional analysis techniques by Kondner and associates {85-87,
223-227), While Kondner envisioned his tools as model footings,
their cross-sectional area was less than 3 square inches. Dimensional
analysis gives the functional relationship between tool and soil
variables as
where QG = penetration,
t — time,
F — total force,
G = perimeter of tool,
A = cross-sectional solid area,
0 — tip angle of tool,
T = maximum unconfined compressive strength of soil,
7) = viscocity of soil.
The dimensionless terms were interpreted by Kondner to reflect
certain physical characteristics of the system. The dimensionless
terms in equation 113 reflect, respectively, penetration (the dependent
W G^ .
variable) ^, strength ratio of soil -j-^ shape effect of tool ^, tip
characteristics Ö, and rate of penetration as influenced by viscous
creep of the soil —. By allowing time for equilibrium during
a static test and by maintaining a fixed tip angle, the last two terms
in equation 113 are constant so that the relation simplifies to
Kondner proceeded to investigate the relations implied by equation

114. He first used circular footings (Ö = 180°)
o
of varying cross
sections. For circular footings, the term j^ is a constant value
equal to 47r, so that equation 114 reduces to the first two terms.
Figure 124 shows data for one soil condition. The scatter m the
dimensionless plot may have been due to experimental error or pos-
sibly to an oversimplification in that the creep term was assumed to
remain constant. Even with the error, however, the dimensionless
terms collapse the data very effectively. Kondner also conducted
laboratory experiments in which he varied r, and the dimensionless
relations again agreed well. He also reduced field data reported by
a highway research board, and the dimensionless relations agreed
well. In the latter, circular plates ranging from 1 to 7 feet m
diameter were used. The relations between the terms shown m the
dimensionless plots of figure 124 thus appear to be reasonably ac-
curate.
To study the shape factor ^, Kondner used models having a solid
cross-sectional area of 2 square inches but varying perimeters. A
circular footing gives the lowest possible ratio for any geometrical
section. By using squares, rectangles, and crosses he was able to
yaj.y _Ç from 16 to 136. A dimensionless plot of the relation indi-
cated in equation 114 resulted in a good collapse of the data. When
plotted as shown in figure 124, the data grouped about lines of con-
2 4 6 8 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

F (Kg) _F
AT
FIGURE 124.—Force-sinkage relationships for circular footings: Left, Plotted
in conventional terms; right, plotted in dimensionless terms. (Kondner,
Waterways Experiment Station ( 22Jf ). )
0.100
0.075
^ = CONSTANT = G
x|^ 0.050-
0.025
FIGURE 125.—Dimensionless plot of x/c versus c^/A for constant F/AT.

(Kondner, Waterways Experiment Station {22Jf ).)
g^g^^l- ^^ Figure 125 shows the data plotted against the shape
factor -Ç. The data indicate that greater penetration occured for a
load as the ratio of perimeter/area approached a minimum. The
consistent collapse of data about lines of constant terms (terms m
equation 113) confirmed the implied functional relation. Kondner
attempted to investigate the viscous creep term ^, which is import-
ant in a dynamic situation such as the vibratory cutting of soil. He
made some progress but concluded that the relation was complex
because the viscosity appears to be a function of the stress level.
For static situations, however, the term could be considered essentially
constant if the test were conducted slowly with time allowed tor
equilibrium. Kondner thus concluded that equation 113 could be
reasonably simplified to
(115)
when applied to slowly moving or static penetration.

Kondner attempted to determine the functional relation repre-
sented by equation 115. Figure 126 shows a series of experimental
-y^
£ = 4tr 273 42.1 97,6 371
FIGURE 126.-Experimental footings having constant cross-sectional areas but

varying perimeters. (Kondner, Waterways Experiment Station ( 22^ ).)
footings used in these studies. He also used a series of circular foot-

ings of constant diameter having tip angles of 15 ,30 , 45 , bU , yu ,
120° 140°, and 180° and hemispherical shape. The results ot the
varying shape factor on x/c are shown in figure 127- The exponent-
ial nature of the curve shown at the left m figure 127 suggested the
logarithmic relation indicated at the right. The^ intercepts and
slopes of the logarithmic relation are functions of the strength term
F ¡AT, SO that the slopes and intercepts could be related to the
strength term. The relations were simple enough so that an equa-
tion could be developed as follows:
FIGURE 127.—Dimensionless plot of x/c versus c^/A for various geometrical

shapes: Le/i, Arithmetic relation; rigU, Log-log relation. (Kondner, Water-
ways Experiment Station {22Jt).)
where h = constant,
d = constant,
S = constant.
The magnitudes oih, d, and S are determined by the specific rela-
tions of the intercepts and slopes to the strength term. Figure 128
shows the results of the varying tip angle upon — when expressed
G
5r;c, C2 C3 C4 c, C«C
'6 ^7
^= CONSTANT =C
Í2 I
FIGURE 128.—Dimensionless relation between tip angle and Denetratinn fnr

circular penetrators. (Kondner, Waterways ExpSnt StaCn [Ä ).
in a logarithmic relation. The slopes and intercepts of the con-

stant strength term could be related to the term to give an equation
-^ = /(lOÖ)-^/^ (IIT)
G
where / = intercept,
Q — angle in radians,
m = slope.
The relation between / and m and the strength term was not as
simple as for the data shown in figure 127. Equation 117 could not
be made as descriptive as equation 116, since the intercept and slope
are not constants. Equations 116 and 117 are not presently useful
since they are restricted to the soil conditions Kondner mvestigated.
Furthermore, equation 117 is restricted in application to circular
shapes where c^/A is a minimum and equation 116 applies when Ö
has a constant value. If equations 116 and 117 could be combined
into one expression, i\\<^ latter restriction would be eliminated.
The most important contribution by Kondner is the accuracy ot
the combination of variables indicated in equation 113. They per-
mitted him to consistently collapse data to an acceptable degree.
Furthermore, he demonstrated techniques for actually determining
the behavior equation describing the composite behavior, penetration.
The geometry of cutters must be studied further to reconcile the
differences that appear to exist. As an example, occurrence of a
minimum cutting force as determined by Kostritsyn is not reflected
in the data of either the Waterways Experiment Station or Kondner.
The occurrence of minima such as those due to the circular shape
and the cutting angle must be sought and verified because of their
importance in the design of practical tillage tools.
Zelenin {51S) has developed empirical relations between the
draft force of a cutting tool and physical conditions of the soil
as measured by a penetrometer. The relation was developed to the
point Avhere it constituted a partial mechanics. Zelenin conducted
a large number of experiments in which he used horizontal cutters
of the type shown in figure 77 and measured the draft and depth ot
cutting. The size of the cutting tool and depth of operation were
such that pure cutting as defined by Kostritsyn (sec. 4.3.2) was not
the only quantity being measured. Thus, types of soil taiLure m
addition to pure cutting were involved. Zelenin observed that the
draft and depth were parabolically related according to the relation
p = M^ (118)
where P - cutting force (draft) of a horizontal blade,
h — coefficient of soil resistance,
h — depth of operation,
fi = coefficient.
Based on a wide range of soil and moisture conditions, the value for
n was found to be approximately a constant whose value was 1.35.
Zelenin further observed that the coefficient Jc was directly propor-
tional to 0, the number of blows of an impact penetrometer (sec.
3.2.2.1), when a specific blade was used. He thus proposed that

equation 118 could be written as
P ^ ACh'-'^, (119)
where G = number of blows to penetrate a depth of 10 centimeters,
A = tool geometry factor.
With numerical values of O available for assessing the soil under
consideration, the possibility exists that the draft force could be
calculated if A could be evaluated for a particular cutting blade.
Zelenin proceeded by first investigating the effect of the length of
the cutting blade. He used a series of cutting blades where all fac-
tors were constant except their length Z, and from equation 119 he
was able to show that
A=l-h2.6L. (120)
The angle of inclination of the blade a also influences the cutting
torce. Zelenm showed that the cutting force varied with a accord-
mg to the following relation
P = Pi (1-h 0.0075a), (121)
where Pi = cutting force at a = 20°,
a = angle of inclination
Equation 121 holds for values of a greater than 20°. For values
of a less than 20°, Zelenin stated that equation 121 would have the
constant value of P,. He also reasoned that if cutting was done on
side walls (those parts of the tool that reach from above the soil sur-
lace to support the horizontal blade), the angle of sharpening and
the thickness of the sides would also affect the total cutting force
Again from measured data he was able to show that with all other
factors constant the cutting force varied as
P = Pi {1 +QMS), (122)
where Pi = cutting force at AÎ = 1 cm.,
S = thickness in cm.
The effect of angle of sharpening was small so that it could be
given by a coefficient ß^ whose value depended on the angle of sharp-
ening Zelenin observed that the value of ß^ for angles of sharpen-
ing of 45°, 60°, 90°, and 180° was, respectively, 1.0, 1.01, 1.03, and
1.05. Equations 120, 121, and 122 can be combined with their re-
spective restrictions to generalize equation 119 so that it becomes
P = Oh'-''{l + 2.6L) {1 +0.0075a) {l-\-0.03S) ßo. (123)
A comparison of measured and calculated (by equation 123) values
tor various cutting tools as reported by Zelenin is given in table 11
The data agree reasonably well and show that a composite soil pa-
rameter can provide practical usefulness.
Eeaves, at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory ( 311 )
studied the accuracy of the basic coefficients in equation 123. He
found that the exponent 1.35 may vary considerably with depth and
soil type, so that care must be exercised when utilizing equation 123.
While empirical, new techniques and refinement may improve the

accuracy of equation 123 so that its usefulness will be greatly ex-
tended. Certainly the methods followed by Zelenm are to be recog-
TABLE 11,—Experimental and calculated results of the cutting force

on a simple tool
Measured Computed
draft Difference
draft
(kilograms)
Kilograms Percent
305 290 -4.9
260 258 - .8
620 580 -6.5
1400 1,470 + 5.0
1 200 1,130 -6.0
700 747 + 6.7
SOURCE: Zelenin {515).
nized as valid and practical even though the approach is based on

composite behavior.
4.5 Geometry of Soil-Tool Systems
The mechanics of soil reactions to tillage tools cannot be developed
fully until the inputs and outputs of the equations of dynamic be-
havior are identified. The principles by which this may be done
were discussed in section 4.2, and specific examples showing how these
principles have been applied were discussed m section 4.3. It is
evident, however, that soil reactions in general have not been char-
acterized to the point where they may be adequately described. In
view of this, a number of studies and observations have been under-
taken for the purpose of identifying the specific forms of behavior
that are of interest (sec. 4.4). The lack of definition can be resolved
only by additional information concerning the actions. Eventually,
sufficient detailed information concerning each behavior should be
available so that either additional or more accurate behavior equa-
tions can be established for incorporation into the mechanics.
The exploration of the action of soil-tillage tool systems has shown
that variation of tool geometry factors may be associated with the
behavior output. In the qualitative phase of the development ot a
mechanics (fig. 76), the inputs and outputs may be associated with
overall causes and effects of complex tillage tool actions on the soil.
Changes in the inputs may be associated with the methods by which
forces are applied to the soil rather than associated with the torces
themselves. . .. .î . i ^ i^ ;^
Variations in the geometry of soil-tillage tool systems result m
different draft requirements for tillage and in different soil reactions.
The influence of changing boundary conditions is so great that it has
provided a means by which to study tillage actions of the system.
Usually the tool is introduced into the soil and all failure occurs m
the soil rather than in the tool. Therefore, the mode of soil action
can be controlled by varying the geometry of the soil-tool system so
that forces, their distribution, and the soil reactions vary. The exact
nature of forces altered by such changes is not known, even though

It IS recognized that they may be varied. Eventually the soil reaction
should be predictable from the strength of the soil as characterized
by dynamic parameters and from the boundary conditions imposed
by the tool as characterized by its forces and distributions. This
will not be possible, however, until the action is identified and quan-
titatively described. At that time the tool can be eliminated from
the soil system and represented by a series of forces.
4.5. T Alterafion of Tool Geometry by the Formation and Ad-
herence of Soil Bodies
Buildup of soil along the sliding surfaces of tillage tools may
alter their shape. Soil adhering to the tool can form a body of soil
that acts as a part of the tool. The presence of this soil body on the
forces and soil reactions is of great importance. Any description
of the shape of a tool that does not include the geometry and action
?i aô ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ represent the true system. Workers in the
U.b.S.K. have described a number of these soil bodies {515), It
was this type of soil body that Payne identified as a wedge in figure
89. Since he observed the wedge to move, he needed two behavior
equations—one using î' and the other using ¡x. Had the wedge not
moved, he would have needed only the behavior equation using /x.
The shape and size of the soil mass that sticks to the tool is deter-
mined by the direction and movement of the tool and the eroding
action produced along the sides of the soil body. The absence of
scouring (sec. 4.4.1.4) creates the situation in which soil bodies are
formed. Probably the soil in the soil body is replaced either piece-
meal or en masse from time to time, but its presence as an integral
part of the tool is definitely established. If the coefficient of soil-soil
friction /x IS greater than the coefficient of soil-metal friction /¿' along
the tool, the draft of the tool will increase. In addition, however,
the draft of the tool may increase because the adhering soil increases
the size of tool. Soil bodies also change the geometry of tools to the
extent that the flow of soils may be directed into undesirable direc-
tions. Figure 129 shows the shape of soil bodies that were formed
on simple chisels operating at a constant depth with different rake
angles. The rake angle is defined as the angle between the face of
ÜiQ> tool and the horizontal line of travel. These compact wedges
were formed on the surface of the tools and were so tightly bound to
the tool that they could be removed intact with the tool. Similar
bodies have been observed on subsoilers (see fig. 131) and other tools.
A first step in the study of this geometrical factor has been to iden-
tify and describe the soil bodies found on tillage tools. Dinglinger
{103 ), Rathje ( 3J^2 ), Zelenin ( 515 ), Payne {329), Tanner {^19),
Kaburaki and Kisu {205), and Nichols, Reed, and Reeves {32^)
have observed and reported different types of soil bodies. Beyond
these initial studies, which have established the fact that such soil
bodies are present, little quantitative research has been conducted.
No doubt the main reason is that soil bodies are formed beneath the
surface of the soil under dynamic—sometimes transient—conditions
so that they are difficult to observe and evaluate.
Since the forces operating on a soil body tend either to form or to
remove the body, its shape is probably extremely variable. Figure
130 shows compacted soil bodies that were formed on the surface of
a tool at two speeds. The photographs are frames from a movie
film of the tool operating in a clay soil. One side of the soil bin was
FIGURE 129.—The shape of soil bodies formed on a straight chisel operating

in sandy loam at vario>is rake angles: A, 20°; B, 45°; C, 76°; O, 90°; E,
104° ; F, 135°.
Pioi-RE 130.—Soil body formed at two tool .speeds: Left. O.Ol.'i in.p.Ii. ; right,
O.r» m.p.h.
glass, and formation of tlie soil body could be observed by operating

the tool adjacent to the glass. Thus, at least one visual technique is
available by which to study the formation and efl'ect of soil bodies.
While it is not evident from figure 1.'50, in the movies tlie body ap-
jieared to be sliglitly smaller and more compact at the higher speed.
Payne {329) used soil tracers to follow flie path of soil into the
wedge.
Simple geometrical tool parameters siich as length, width, depth
of operation, and rake angle cannot be' used in a soil-tillage tool
mechanics without caution. These values may be of little physical
significance when soil bodies are formed. Indeed, formation of soil
bodies may have limited the succe.ss of the principles of dimensional
analysis and similitude in a study of the dynamic action of tillage
tools. An actual soil body formed on a subsoiler is shown in figure
131. The presence of a soil body of tliis type would prevent one
from determining the coefficient of soil-metal friction when utilizing
vertical and horizontal forces as measured on a simple tool ( 332,
465). On the other hand, the ])rinciples of scotiring (sec. 4.4.1.4)
might indicate that polj-fetrafluoroethylene coatings, small angles of
approach, and nonadhesive soils could eliminate the formation of soil
bodies and permit a more accurate analysis of tool reactions.
Kaburaki and Kisu ( 205 ) appear to be the only workers who
have studied the strength of soil bodies. They have reported that
large flat sheets of soil which covered moldboard plows had a greater
resistance to penetration near the share than higher on the mold-
board. The compaction ¡¡attern they observed may be logically
explained on the basis that pressures are higher on the share of the
plow than on the moldboard.
4.5.2 Alteration of Tool Geometry Because of Wear
The forces on tools remain constant only as long as the geometric
conditions of the tools are maintained. It may not be possible to
maintain constant conditions in a tillage tool oi)erating under field
conditions. Rock, roots, or layering in nonhomogeneous soil may
cause point loading. In addition, wear of a tool may change its
geometry. The amount of metal lost through abrasion may not be
as important as the manner in which it is lost. If abrasion changes
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TIIXAGE AND TRACTION 195
FIGURE 131.—A soil body formed on a subsoiler during tillage of a dry clay
soil. (Nichols and Reaves, Agr. Engin. ( 322 ).)
the geometry of the tool, the forces on the tool may not remain fixed.
In most cases the wear of a tool beyond the point where a refined
degree of polish promotes scouring results in an undesirable situ-
ation.
An analytical study of the alteration in forces due to the change
of geometry by wear was made by Gavrilov and Koruschkin ( HO).
Based on the observation that wear occurs along the underside of the
tool, the angle of change in sliarpness of the tool a was visualized as
shown in figure 132. As wear increases on the underside of the edge,
the clearance angle y decreases to the point where it could become
negative and in fact become an angle of approach. When it becomes
an angle of approach, there is no longer clearance under the tip and
X-^
FURROW BOTTOM
(A)
FIGURE 132.—Edges of tillage tool: A, Sharp; B, worn. (Gavrilov and Ko-

ruschkin, Selkhozmashina (I40).)
a larger area of the tool is in contact with the soil. Under severe
wear conditions, the angle can increase to the relative magnitude
shown m figure 132, B so that a normal force B develops on the front
oí the worn surface Ä0. Soil-metal friction changes the direction
ot the resultant force to Ä, = A/cos S. With a forward movement
ot the tool, a horizontal resistance P^ develops in front of the tool.
Ihis resistance is related to both Ri and R in the form
Pi = Risin (8 + 7), (124)
orPi=R sin (^\ (125)
\COSÔ/
Equation 125 can also be expressed in the form
Pi - R (tan 8 cos 7 +sin y). (126)
Since tan 8 represents the coefficient of soil-metal friction, it should
be possible to determine relations between P^ and y for a fixed value
of 8. By equating the first derivative of equation 126 to zero, a
relation can be obtained where
P' — R (cos y - tan 8 sin 7) = 0. (127)
When P' becomes a maximum (fig. 133), it is possible to establish a
relation between 8 and y having the form
cosy
tan 8 (128)
sin y tan y*
Thus, when Pi becomes a maximum, there is a reciprocal relation be-
tween the angle of sliding friction 8 and the approach angle y. In
practical situations, this relation might determine the final shape of
the wear pattern at equilibrium.
The frontal pressure that is applied to the underside of the tool
for a unit of width would cause a moment M^ about the point O
which would tend to lift the tool out of the ground (fig. 132).
150
rn
FIGURE 133.—Relation of the clearance angle 7 and the force P^ when 5 is
25°. (Gavrilov and Koruschkin, Selkhozmashina {I4O).)
(129)
where Ri = ^,
cos Ô
L =
cos (8 + 7) *
On a small increment of the surface along AC,
R xdx (130)
dM = coso COS (8 + 7) '
and when x = B cos y,
R B^ cos y (131)
M = 2 cos^ 8 - sin ^ 8 tan y
The moment M results in an upward component of force so that

vertical stability of the tool may be reduced because of the worn
edffe
Wear occurs over the entire surface of the tool, but this type of
wear normally changes geometry less than wear at a tip or cutting
edfi-e Areas over which surface wear is most severe may be esti-
mated by a technique used by Pfost (334), Varnish covering the
surface of the tool will be worn away by soil abrasion. As shown
in figure 134, the progress of wear, as determined by the loss o±
40 Ft. 80 Ft. 200 Ft.
FIGURE 134.—The progressive pattern of surface wear as affected by the dis-

tance plowed. (Pfost, Auburn Univ. (334).)
varnish with the distance of travel, indicates the leading edge to be
the zone of high pressure and wear. The relative importance of
other areas becomes evident as the distance the plow travels is in-
creased. Ihis technique may be used to qualitatively determine the
relative importance of wear on different areas of a tool. Unfortu-
nately, until the behavior equations of wear are developed, a mechan-
ics of wear cannot be developed.
Areas of wear can also be determined by measuring changes from
the original profile of the tool, but the measurements are laborious.
A number ot workers have measured this in terms of weight loss.
Koopman ( ß28 ) built a small apparatus with which thi profile
could be measured at any time without having to resort to laborious
measurements.
Wear is a most important practical consideration in maintaining
proper microtool geometry. Data are not available to indicate
the extent to which geometrical changes caused by wear affect soil
reactions or forces on tools. Until data of this type are available
be determSed™^^'"*''''''^ °^ maintaining geometry of tools cannot
4.5.3 Soil-Tool Geometry
While tillage tools may have fixed shapes, their geometrical rela-
tions with the soil they contact may be altered with respect to the
surface of the soil, and to their direction of travel and mode of oper-
ation. As a consequence, the forces applied to the soil by the tool
may vary considerably as does the soil reaction. In many cases,
altering the soil-tool geometry provides a means of studying complex
tillage actions. By determining the influence of various geometrical
arrangements on the draft force or the nature of soil breakup, in-
dividual types of behavior can possibly be isolated within a gross
tillage reaction. Many studies have been directed toward establish-
ing relations between orientation of the tool and the draft force.
Zelenin ( 5J5 ) has measured the forces on narrow cutting tools
operating with nonsymmetrical soil boundary conditions. Eesults
show that the perimeter of cut per se is not sufficiently definitive to
describe the soil-tool system (table 12). The degree of confinement
ot the soil as induced and controlled by the geometry of the cut
materially affects the draft force of the tool. A perimeter 39 centi-
meters long that IS cut at a depth of 15 centimeters with no sidewall
cuts requires a force 40 percent larger than a perimeter 38 centimeters
Jong that is cut at a depth of 7.5 centimeters and includes two side-
wall cuts. Thus, interactions between the soil and the tool that are
manitestations of the geometry prevent the use of any simple relation
between the length of the soil-tool perimeter and the draft force,
btudies ot cuts of various depths and widths, such as the one re-
ported here, give an insight into the contributions of depth and
width to the cutting force.
The discussion of soil cutting in section 4.3.3 and the nature of soil
movement shown in figure 96, A demonstrate that soil near the sur-
tace moves upward when subjected to forces by a vertical tool At
greater depths the degree of confinement increases to the point where
soil moves laterally around the tool rather than toward the surface,
i he studies of Kostritsyn were based on data obtained at a depth
SOIL DTNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 199
TABLE ll.—Efect of the geometry of the soU-tool system on the

cutting forces on a simple blade
Draft force required
Depth of cut Geometry of Walls when width of cut was—
(centi- cut cut
meters) 22 cm. 39 cm. 90 cm.
Kilo- Kilo- Kilo-
Numl)er grams grams grams
3 300 325 530
190 270 480

7.5 — _ ■ 2
1 110 190 420
w/zw 3 700 740 —
2 450 550
15 0 "W/ZÁ
1 240 415
J//A
where the surface influence did not exist. While these studies served
a purpose, the need remains to examine the soil-tool relations near
the surface where the variable boundary conditions exist.
Zelenin attempted to explore the soil confinement along a vertical
boundary that was essentially an open furrow wall ( 515 ). âta m
table 13 show that the cutting resistance of the soil adjacent to the
wall was considerably less than it was farther from the wall where
the confinement was greater. Eegardless of the thickness, shape, or
angle of operation of a tool, enough soil must be displaced to permit
patsage. ^Consequently, for the conditions m table 13, c^tsjnade
m excess of 35 centimeters from the wall required an ultimate cutting
force of about 75 kilograms. The actual distance reflects the intlu-
ence of geometric characteristics of the soil and the tool boundary
and dyntmic behavior patterns of the soil. The distance from the
open wall where the ultimate draft resistance is reached reflects the
point where the total displacement or strain required to cause ade-
quate failure is absorbed within the mass of the soil. At lesser dis-
tances from the wall, the soil is probably detached and moved into
an open furrow as a rigid body in order to provide ™om for pas-
sage of the tool; hence, the forces required for displacement are
reduced. Data are not available of side.forces on tools operating
in these conditions but they should provide information that would
be of assistance in evaluating the influence of geometry in such a
^^Nothini in Sie previous discussion implies that the specific strength
of the soil was cliianged by the different soil-tool boundary condi-
tions The change in draft of the tool was due to the different
TABLE IZ.—Influence of distance from a cutting wall on the cutting

resistance of a simple tool 12 millimeters thick when operatinq in
a vertical position
Distance from
open wall Cutting
(centimeters) resistance!
Kilograms
5 2.8
10 10.1
15 22.1
20 31.3
25 47.6
30 73.3
40 75.0
1 Cutting depth, 15 cm.
SOURCE : Zelenin {515).
amounts of soil brought into failure. Different types of failure may

also be caused by changes in the shape of a tool irrespective of the
sou-tool boundary conditions.
When a soil is strained by the passage of a tillage tool, the soil
may react by compacting or by some type of failure that causes de-
tachment ot the soil. When the soil is compacted, its strength may
be increased and larger draft resistances of tools should result.
Zelenin {515) conducted a series of experiments using cutters of
dînèrent geometries to explore this type of situation. Figure 135
shows a series of tools used to cut soil. Notice that the degree of
soil confinement is different for each tool. When the resistance of
the soil IS not sufficient to immobilize the tool, the draft of the tool
depends on the degree of coincidence between the direction of forces
URROW WALL
FIGURE 135.~Plan view of different soil-tool systems in which the soil reaction
IS essentially the same. (Zelenin {515),)
applied by the movement of the tool and the direction of maximum

resistance of the soil (table 14). The magnitude ^fd/i^f/^^^^^^f/
soil resistance arrows R (fig. 135) explam the magnitude of the cut-
ting resistance that is measured. Thus, it has been demonstrated
that the geometry of a tool is important even when the tool is
operated near an open wall.
TABLE 1^.—Effect of geometry of an umymmetrical soil-tool system
on the resistance of soil to cutting
Projected Cutting
Type of Cutting width
Codei angle resistance^
cutter of path
Degrees Millimeters Kilograms
7.5 + 7.5 11.2 33.0
Symmetrical A 15.6
B 20 15.2
Unsymmetrical- 19.0 24.0
Do C 25
30 22.5 31.3
Do D
1 Shape of cutters is shown by designated letters in figure 135.
2 Tools operated 15 cm. deep in loam soil.
Soil reactions associated with the overall orientation f too^^have

been studied with simplified systems. Generally, mclmed planes
have been forced through the soil to determine the force relations
tVint nre associated with different tool orientations.
SoTarîicS soil behavior has been characterized in these studies
but thê experimental data have been useful m both design and use
cons deraSns. Figure 136 shows the influence of orientation on
95.9 Kg
70.0 Kg
45* 30« 30» 45»
- ^^
" -45» -30' 0^ +30* +45*
INCLINATION
Found. Engin. Procs., Butterworths, London (i67).)

the maximum force required to move an underground plate (15 centi-

meters square) horizontally through the soil. The orientation was
measured with respect to a plane perpendicular to the line of travel
In each case the depth to which the top of the plate was initially
buried was equal to the projected vertical height of the plate ( 187 ).
Movement of the plate and maximum draft were accompanied by a
simultaneous rupture of the soil surface. The nonagreement of draft
torces between the inclined pairs of angles was apparently caused by
the method of loading. The depth of operation was not maintained
during measurement; hence, the plates that were inclined forward
probably tended to slide upward into an area of lesser resistance
even though movement was very slight. With the exception of cer-
tain underground cutting tools such as sweeps, most tools operated
with a large portion of the tool having a surface-tool boundary.
Vertical orientation of such tools has been studied more than lateral
orientation ( 138, 322, 332, 398, 615 ).
Simple tools have been observed and measured when they were
swept back laterally {398), but theories have not been applied in an
attempt to analyze their reactions. Kaburaki and Kisu ( 20A )
measured the influence of the lift angle a of a simple inclined tool
when It was swept back laterally with a side angle ß. The projected
area of the tool m the direction of travel was maintained rectangular
and constant for all variations studied, and soil was moved laterally
into an open furrow. The draft was influenced to a greater extent
by the lift angle than by the side angle (fig. 137). The draft was
1.5
UJ
o
z
1.0
</)
UJ
û:
o
0.5
z>
o
-L
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
CUTTING ANGLE ß (*>)
FIGURE 137.-Effect of the side angle on the draft of a simple inclined tool
(Kaburaki and Kisu, Kanto-Tosan Agr. Expt. Sta. Jour. Uö^^ )
essentially doubled when the lift angle was increased from 20° to 90°.
Increases in the side angle ß decreased draft until an angle ot ap-
proximately 40° to 50° was attained. After that pomt, dratt be-
came essentially constant for each value of a. In no case did the
decrease in draft exceed 25 percent. For one special case, where
a = ß = 45°, a parabolic increase in draft was found to be due to
an increase in the width of cut regardless of the depth of cut. This
relation has an important effect on the design and use of tools when
optimum draft relations are of interest. The results of the influence
of other orientations on the draft of a tool are shown m table 3b,
where increases in the angle of approach result m increases m the
draft force. This orientation is easily described m a simple tool sys-
tem, but we shall see that much research is needed with regard to the
orientation of tools having more complex shapes.
When the main tillage action is cutting, the size of the isolated soil
mass is determined by the size of cut of the tool. In a number ot
cases, however, the final projected area of disturbed soil is not the
same as the projected area of the tool. Because of this, tools may be
located and oriented so that their sphere of influence includes all
of the area to be tilled even though the tools do not intercept all ot
the periphery. Kostritsyn ( 230 ) reported data of Dalm and Pav-
lov, who measured the area of soil disturbance of small cylindrical
tines (table 15). The data show that either soil bodies must form on
tools or the arching effect in the soil results in a disturbed zone ot
soil considerably larger than the projected area of the tool.
TABLE 15.—Sphere of influence of cylindrical tiries in soil
Diameter of tine Width of sphere of
(millimeters) influence
Millimeters
7.5 150
12.4 176
17.4 193
28.9 210
SOURCE : Kostritsyn ( ¡
Certain geometric characterizations of soil-tool systems have

evolved as important indicators of soil-tool reactions. Included m
this group are such characteristics as length-width ratios, depth-
width ratios, and perimeter-area ratios. While these ratios are
often dimensionless, they reflect the general nature of soil reactions.
If a tool acts as a long narrow tool, it tends to cut the soil rather
than to cause failure by shear. i i i. •
Payne ( 329 ) has classed tines operating below an extended hori-
zontal surface as being wide if the depth-width ratio exceeds 1.5.
The ratio designates the portion of the tool that is m contact with the
soil rather than the absolute dimensions of the tool. The 1.5 ratio
apparently roughly determines the point where ih^ frontal portion
of the crescent or shell just becomes flat, as shown in figure 138, B,
Kaburaki and Kisu ( 20^ ) found that a minimum m the total
draft force occurred for a vertical tool at a depth-width ratio of 0.5
(fig. 139, A), Measurements were made on small inclined tools
(A) (B) (C)

FIGURE 138.—Action of tines, as evidenced by their characteristic soil reaoHnn •
(A) (B)
FIGURE 139.-Effect of depth-width ratios of simple tools on draft force

(Kaburaki and Kisu, Kanto-Tosan Agr. Expt Sta. Jour ( Tof).)
operating adjacent to an open furrow wall. The minimum became

more pronounced as the area of the tool A increased. The length of
the cutting perimeter was also minimum at this point. When the
of° hl^nir?'''''^«*^ *^'jr*^'^^ ^'^'^ ?^*^™"y t«^'^^d the open side
of the cut (a = ^ = 45°), a decreasing depth-width ratio resulted
n a decrease m total draft. In this case a constant low value was at
tamed so that a minimum as such did not occur (ñs 139 B) This
fnlf îwï *^ ^°.- ^""í^ber of cases in which the profected'area of the
i?ptU« *h.^, ^^^tical plane F was varied from 10 to 30 square centi-
meters. The wide ranê of depth-width ratios through which this
low value of draft resistance is found is indeed fortunate for de-
fn^XT fi,"'®''!^^ "ôldboard plows; wide changes may be made
the tool without increasing the specific draft of
Geometric characterizations such as depth-width ratios cannot be
considered fundamental for describing tillage tools, since such para-

meters are meaningful only insofar as they represent the mterrela-
tions of the soil-tool system. Figure 140 shows a soil reaction
mwrnim/u
RUPTURE ZONE
TOOL
SOIL BODY
FIGURE 140.—SOU reaction to narrow, long tillage tools. (Zelenin (515).)
characteristic of very long, narrow tools. Soil near the surface

yields along the line of least resistance.
Eathie ( S4ß ) placed layers of colored sand m his test sand media
to serve as markers for the movement of soil by the tool. Excava-
tion of the test media after tillage established the final position of the
marker layers so that the soil reactions could be established Alter
studying the soil body that formed on tools ranging from 15 to 100
millimeters in width, certain repetitive patterns could be established.
In general, a horizontal section cut through the soil body showed tliat
an essentially semicircular soil body was formed at moderate depths.
The tool having a width of 100 millimeters and operating at a depth
of 300 millimeters became completely enclosed in the soil body. At
the surface, the soil body extended about 90 millimeters forward ot
the cutter and had a maximum width of about 175 millimeters i his
size tapered with depth to the bottom of the tool where the width was
reduced to the width of the tool and the body extended forward a
distance of 50 millimeters. In addition, a thin layer of soil (about
13 mm thick), formed on the bottom of the tool. Thus the tillage
was performed by a body of soil, and movement occurred on a
soil-soil rather than soil-tool interface. • v^ 4.
A number of basic soil reactions that have resulted from difterent
methods of force applications as controlled by the orientation ot the
tool have been explored. As shown in this section, additional in-
formation is required before the specific forms of behavior can be
defined to the point where they may be used m a rigorous mechanics.
4.5.4 Orientation of the Soil-Tool System
The mechanics of soil-tool systems has generally been based on a
simple coordinate system convenient for the experimental apparatus.
As a result, little thought has been given to the influence ot the
actual slope of terrain where a tool may be operated. The orienta-
tion of the soil-tool system cannot be considered as an abstract rela-
tion The orientation must be linked into some standard and well-
established frame of reference. As a rule, orientation with respect
to the horizontal plane and the line of travel should be indicated
since this will orient the direction of gravitational force. While the
slope of terrain has been recognized as being important in vehicle
studies (475), few quantitative studies have been made in coniunc-
tion with tillage.
Martini (293) studied the movement of soil caused by plows
operated at different speeds and moving in different directions on a
slope. Thus, while the soil-tool geometry was maintained constant,
the overall orientation of the system was not. Since the influence of
gravity and the direction of the forces applied by the plow varied
considerably, the movement of soil differed for the different direc-
tions of travel. Figure 141 shows the displacement of the center of
SPEED
0.4 m/sec
—— 1.6 m/sec
FIGURE 141.—The movement of the center of gravity S of SL plow furrow caused

by plowing in different directions along a 15° slope at two speeds. (Martini
Rocz. Nauk. Roln. ( 293 ). )
gravity /S' of a unit of the plow furrow slice when plowing was done
on a 15° slope with a right-hand plow at two speeds. The initial
location S is shown at the center of the direction rays. The final
location of the center of gravity of the plow furrow is shown by S^j
where n is the numbered direction in which the plow traveled. The
experiment demonstrates a method by which the soil reaction was
described in a simple quantitative manner. Since the minimum
movement of the centroid of the soil mass represents the minimum
expenditure of energy commensurate with the work accomplished,
perhaps this technique can be used to partly evaluate the performance
of plows.
4.5.5 Geometry of Interacting Tools

The concept of a tool operating independently in a semi-infinite
mass of soil is a physical unreality in actual tillage machmes. Until
now, each tool has been discussed as being isolated. The mechanics
of a combined tool system can be approached on a rationalized basis
only when any interaction is identified and characterized. Little
progress has been made in this direction except for general observa-
tions of interactions. In the development of a mechanics for inter-
acting tools, the state of knowledge remains in the recognition stage
(fig 76) and more qualitative information is required. The import-
ance of interactions due to geometrical relations is discussed m
chapter 5 in connection with design considerations.
Kathie ( 3JÍ2 ) conducted studies concerning the interaction ot two
vertical straight tools. The interactions of the soil reactions are
illustrated in figure 142, where two tools may be visualized as op-
TOP VIEW
FRONT VIEW
'>&/Mj^ ^pmr yjaM ^}&UW
/\
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE 142.—Interaction of the rupture zones of two UHage tools: ^» acting

independently; i?, interacting; 0, essentially constituting a new tool of
greater width.
crating with different degrees of interdependence. The importance

of the geometry of the system is clearly evident, not only m terms
of soil reaction but also in terms of draft force. The draft resistance
of two tools, each 15 millimeters wide, was found to depend on the
ratio of the distance between tools d and the depth of operation t.
Wlien the tools were close together, a common compression wedge
was formed similar to that in front of a single tool of the same over-
all width. When the tools were gradually moved apart, the resist-
ance for a given depth increased and reached a maximum for the
system where d = 0.043#. As the tools were moved farther apart,
the compression wedge that had bridged over the gap between the
two tools was broken through at the bottom and soil flowed between
the two tools. The draft force dropped rapidly with an increase m
the spacing between the tools and reached a minimum value when
d = 0 34# At that point the draft force was only 10 percent higher
than that of a single tool. As the distance between the tools was
increased still further, the draft increased until the point d = '2.6t
was reached and the cutters were acting independently.
Zelenin ( 515 ) repeated experiments of this type at several depths
and found a similar relation (fig. 143). At the shallow depths, the
DEPTH (cm)
18
5 10 15 20 25
DISTANCE BETWEEN TOOLS (cm)
FIGURE 143.—Eftect on the draft force of the distance-of-spacing interaction

between two simple vertical tools. (Zelenin ( 515 ).)
distance between tools at which the minimum draft occurred was

only slightly influenced by the depth of operation. The minimum
draft increased only from a point where the spacing between the
tools was 5 centimeters to a point where the spacing between tools
was 7 centimeters as the depth increased from 9 to 18 centimeters.
Additional research is needed for tools operating at greater depths.
Investigations such as those just discussed indicate the possibility
of designing tools so that their maximum effective zone of influence
(soil disturbance) will be commensurate with acceptable power re-
quirements. The shape of the disturbed area is further complicated
when the tools are not vertical. The shapes of areas disturbed by
these types of tools have been studied by Payne and Tanner (382),
and several examples of failure patterns are shown in figure 184.
4.5.6 Conclusions
It is indeed unfortunate that observations of Jenkin (201 ) con-
cerning the mechanics of tillage tools were not heeded at an early
date. They might have guided research into more rigorous and
profitable findings. Eathje (342) established the nature of soil
reactions to tillage tools in 1932. In addition, he measured the stress
distributions m the soil by means of pressure transducers. Love
( 256), on the other hand, developed a mathematical model for cal-
culating stress distributions in 1929. Having read the work of
Eathje and Love, Jenkin ( 201 ) wrote in 1932, 'The rounded shape
of the 'Staukorper' or dead sand carried in the front of the cutter
may be compared with the figures on page 419 of Professor Love's
paper on The Stresses Produced in a Semi-Infinite Solid by Près-
sure on Part of the Boundary' * * *. These researches might well

form a starting point for a research into ploughing, which is urgently-
needed now that farming is being mechanized." Thus, the keen per-
ception of this civil engineer led him to suggest a rigorous method by
which to approach the mechanics of plowing. This is remmiscent of
Van't Hoff, who associated Pfeffer's osmotic pressure with the funda-
mental aspects of the gas laws. Glasstone ( 153 ) has recorded the
historical sequence of these developments. Attempts must be made
to tie the physical system of the tillage tool into a known theoretical
system or to devise a new theory for such a purpose. Chapter 4 was
developed with this point in mind.
4.6 Mechanics of Complex Reactions
The simplified actions discussed in section 4.3 could be represented
with rudimentary forms of mechanics in which the various types of
soil behavior were identified. Sufficient knowledge was available so
that the simple behavior equations that were utilized represented a
main segment of the total action that was of interest. As more and
more complex soil reactions become of interest, additional forms of
behavior will have to be considered. In some instances these specific
forms of behavior are not available.
Cutting as a soil separating action is not completely defined by any
of the mechanics that have been discussed previously because its exact
nature and importance have not been established. Soehne proposed
ih^ use of a cutting term kl for roots but neglected it m his me-
chanics. Kawamura observed that the sharp edge of an inclined
tool pried blocks of soil loose so that they failed along a line ex-
tending below the lowermost part of the tool ; obviously they were
not cut loose. Kostritsyn neglected a frontal cutting component m
his cutting mechanics.
The question might then arise as to whether a pure cutting action
of tools really exists in soil. The lack of definition of a pure cutting
component and the nonrepetitive soil reaction might tend to support
this contention. A closer examination of the available data, how-
ever, indicates that this point must be explored in greater detail
before any final conclusion can be reached.
The shapes of the curves for mean deformation Z«, and for resist-
ance to deformation Kî (fig. 102) indicate that resistance increases
in importance as the size of the cutter decreases. This also means
that the percentage of total resistance on a long cutter face must
reflect the same situation and that a relatively important component
in the total resistance is associated with the tip of a cutter. This may
be explained most easily when the size of the particles are large as
contrasted to the thickness of the cutting edge. In this case the par-
ticles must be severed before the tool can pass. A unique situation
may exist when the def ormability of the soil is low and a thick cutter
enters the particle or clod. The large lateral strains may propagate
a crack in front of the cutting edge so that the soil is torn apart just
as a block of wood is split by an axe. ,
Marshall and Quirk ( 292 ) reported data obtained by cutting dit-
ferent sizes of aggregates with a steel wedge-shaped cutter. They
ôund that the total cutting force was proportional to the size of the
aggregate but that the mean load per unit of active cutting edge was
fairly constant for any given soil condition. Even with small aggre-
gates (22, 8, and 3 mm.), failure occurred along the path of the cutter
and not along natural cleavage surfaces. Thus, cutting is a directed
action and the concentrated force causes a failure in the immediate
vicinity of the tool so that other failures must be due to forces ap-
plied by other non cutting segments of the tool. The observation by
Kawamura that the soil may fail below the cutting edge follows from
the condition where deformation of the mass by a rearward portion
of the tool strains the mass to a progressive failure at some point
m front of the cutting edge. The total strain induced by the tool
was not absorbed by the soil ; hence, the soil was displaced as a rigid
body and the shear block formed. Not all shear blocks fail in this
manner, and m some the edge did cut soil as the tool moved. Thus,
conceivably, there will be instances where no continuous pure cutting
action occurs since the soil may be intermittently torn apart by in-
ternal stresses or cleaved apart by a soil body which is formed on
the tool. Kostritsyn's restriction of theory to the zone of the hori-
zontal soil deformation in figure 96 does not imply that no cutting
action IS taking place in the upper part of the soil profile. The
action was neglected to simplify the definition of forces within the
system he had undertaken to study.
The mechanics of a complex reaction that includes cutting can be
developed only when a pure component of cutting is envisioned and
described m quantitative terms by a behavior equation. The pure
cutting behavior equation must be included with shear, tension, fric-
tion, adhesion, and acceleration equations to form the mechanics.
Until this IS done, the intermittent influence of cutting will cause
discrepancies between measured and calculated values of perform-
ance.
Complex reactions will be exceedingly difficult to describe by a
mechanics. If the action to be described is simple, the mechanics
will probably be simple since fewer behavior equations will be re-
quired. The mathematics of the mechanics must fit the observed
action, or the incorporation of mathematical rigor into the mechanics
will be of no avail. The principles discussed in section 4.2 should
provide a means of developing the mechanics for complex tools.
5. DESIGN OF TILLAGE TOOLS
5.1 Introduction
Tillage is the manipulation of soil by mechanical forces. The
purpose of tillage tool design is to create a mechanical system, that is,
a tillage machine or a series of machines capable of controllmg the
applied forces in order to achieve a desired soil condition As a
matter of definition, a tillage tool will be considered a single soil-
working element whereas a tillage implement or machine will be
considered a group of soil-working elements. A tillage implement
or machine will include the frame, wheels, or other structural units
that are needed for guidance and support. Although tillage is
nearly always effected with an implement, the emphasis here will be
on the design of tillage tools rather than implements.
The pressing need for design information has demanded that
methods for design be developed. In fact, the need is so great that
qualitative procedures have been and still are widely used. The
qualitative procedures have often been based on art rather than
science (121, 269). That these procedures must be changed it
progress is to be made in tillage tool design is clearly demonstrated
by the history of tillage tools. , • -^ .
Basic tools such as the forked stick date back into antiquity; yet,
they are still found in their original form in many parts of the
world. Even in more advanced societies, today, the moldboard plow
is designed by empirical methods. Generally, these empirical meth-
ods are trial-and-error attempts; the tool is varied m some manner
and acceptable designs are identified when the resulting soil condi-
tion is adjudged to be satisfactory. Quantitative descriptions or
representations of the final soil condition are seldom used and, m
addition, the forces required to move the tool are frequently not
quantitatively assessed. Generally, no effort is made to describe the
reaction of the soil. Consequently, design today merely accepts
what occurs; it does not control what occurs. Thus, even though the
need for design is great, design in the true sense of the word is not
accomplished and probably will not be accomplished until quantita-
tive information is available. .
To illustrate the pressing need for design information, consider
the economic possibilities of the results of better design. In the
United States, more than 250 billion tons of soil are estimated to be
stirred or turned each year (268). To plow this soil once requires
500 million gallons of gasoline costing $105 million. If proper de-
sign could decrease the draft of the plow only 1 percent, a savings
in direct operating cost of $1 million per plowing would result. It
soil manipulation can be controlled by proper design so that subse-
quent operations may be minimized or even eliminated, additional
211
savings would result. Control cannot be assigned realistic dollar

values today because its economic effects are not known. The bene-
fits of control in road building, land leveling, and plant growth,
however, must be considered.
5.2 The Design Equations

In tillage tool design, a limited number of abstract factors become
of primary importance. In order to utilize the capability of soil
for some specific purpose, the soil must be manipulated (changed,
moved, or formed) to a desired condition. The manipulation is ac-
complished with a tillage tool by moving the tool through the soil.
To obtain different final soil conditions, only the shape of the tool
and the manner of moving the tool can be varied.
Three abstract design factors define the manipulation: the initial
soil conditions, the shape of the tillage tool, and the manner of mov-
ing the tool. The factors are abstract because each is not clearly
defined in a quantitative sense although qualitatively they represent
distinct and complete elements in tillage tool design. Two other de-
sign factors are important, namely, the forces required to move the
tillage tool through the soil and the results of the manipulation—
that it, the final soil conditions, unlike the other design factors, the
forces can be quantitatively defined. Note that the forces are not
those that are applied to the soil; they are those that must be
applied to the tool to move it. The tool, in turn, applies equal but
opposite forces to the soil. The five design factors represent the five
elements that are of direct concern and, hence, of importance to a
tillage tool designer.
Eelations between the various design factors provide a means for
designing a tillage tool. These relations can be qualitatively de-
termined from available knowledge of the physical action of a tool
that is manipulating soil. The concept of a mathematical function
is useful in representing the relations. Two real variables are math-
ematically defined to be functionally related within some range if a
definite single value of one of the real variables corresponds with a
definite single value of the other variable according to some rule.
The rule that prescribes the corresponding value is the functional
relation.
The concept can be extended to several variables. A functional
relation exists if a definite single value for each independent variable
corresponds to a definite single value for a dependent variable ac-
cording to some rule. For example, if a dependent variable is a
function of four independent variables, specifying the value of each
of the four independent variables determines the value of the de-
pendent variable. Consider the number of single value correspond-
ence rules possible for the five design factors. If tool shape is phys-
ically varied but the manner of movement and the initial soil
conditions are kept constant, the forces required to move the tool and
the resulting soil conditions vary as tool shape is varied. Further-
more, for each "value" of tool shape, a definite "value" of the forces
and final soil condition exists. If a definite value does not exist,
no unique law of nature exists. Available knowledge indicates that
some kind of law does exist and tool shape does affect tool forces and
the resultant soil condition. Thus, in mathematical terms, shape,
forces, and final soil condition are functionally related.
Consider the situation where the tool shape and manner of move-
ment are kept constant but soil conditions are physically varied.
Available knowledge indicates that for each initial soil condition (a
single "value"), definite tool forces are required and a definite final
soil condition results. A functional relation between initial soil
condition, tool forces, and resultant soil condition represents the situ-
ation. By similar reasoning, the manner of tool movement, tool
forces, and resultant soil condition are also functionally related.
Consider the possibility of physically varying tool forces for con-
stant tool shape, manner of movement, and initial soil condition.
Available knowledge indicates that in a constant initial soil condi-
tion, the forces cannot be varied unless tool shape or manner of
movement is changed. If a tool is operated in a soil whose condi-
tion is constant and the tool forces are not sufficiently large, the
tool cannot be moved. If the forces are too large, the tool will be
accelerated or its path of movement changed. Tool shape, manner
of movement, and the initial soil condition, therefore, completely
determine the magnitude of the forces required to move the tool.
In a similar manner, tool shape, manner of movement, and the initial
soil condition completely determine the resultant soil condition.
Mathematically, tool shape, manner of movement, and the initial
soil condition are independent variables. The tool forces and result-
ant soil condition are each dependent variables, and they are mathe-
matical functions of the same independent variables.
The implied relation >êtween design factors is schematically repre-
sented in figure 144. The generalized tillage relation can be mathe-
matically represented by the two equations
F = f{Ts,Tm,S,), (132)
Sf = g{Ts,Tm,S,), (133)
where F — forces on the tool to cause movement,
Ts = tool shape,
Tm = manner of tool movement.
Si — initial soil condition,
/ — functional relation between F^ Ts-, Tm^ Si,
Sf — final soil condition,
g = functional relation between A/, Ts^ Tm-, Si-
The two equations—the force tillage equation and the soil condi-
tion tillage equation—represent the most general situation because,
as written, the functional relations / and g are completely arbitrary.
Furthermore, the two functions may or may not be different. The
independence of the functional relations is of interest because of a
possible higher order functional relation between F and Sf, If F
and Sf are functionally related, equations 132 and 133 can be com-
bined so that the relation between the design variables is represented
by only one equation. Available knowledge does not conclusively
indicate whether F and Sf should be related. The possibility thus
exists that two separate equations inaccurately represent the general-
ized relations between the design factors. Available mathematical
214 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DBPT. OF AGRICULTURE
INITIAL
SOIL CONDITION FINAL
SOIL CONDITION
TOOL SHAPE
^í;;íííí;.soiLí;íí;ir;rí
»^;',MANIPULATION;í;;
TOOL MOVEMENT mmmm TOOL FORCES
FIGURE 144.—Relation between soil and tool factors in design.
knowledge helps to resolve the situation. Available mathematical

theorems prove that F and 8f will be related only if the nature of /
and p' is such that their Jacobian is zero. Furthermore, the mathe-
matics provides a means for determining the higher order relation
if it exists. Thus, no mathematical restrictions are imposed on the
possible functional relations if two equations are used. Two equa-
tions actually simplify the situation since each can be studied in-
dependently, although physically both equations operate simul-
taneously. Available knowledge assures that F and Sf are both
dependent variables of the same independent variables. Equations
132 and 133 represent that knowledge. The general relation be-
tween the five design factors is, therefore, accurately represented bv
equations 132 and 133. ^
A study of the design factors and of the relations between them
represent a change in our scope of interest. In chapters 2, 3, and
4 our attention was concentrated only on what happens to soil when
it IS subjected to dominant force systems. Intuition, observation,
and experience all indicate that dominant forces cause and control
manipulation of soil. Our scope of interest thus was concerned with
quantitatively describing the reaction of soil to forces, and forces and
soil behavior were of primary importance.
When designing a tillage tool for the purpose of establishing a
new soil condition, our interest is no longer concentrated on the dy-
namic progress of the reaction of soil per se but rather on a soil-
tillage tool system and on the results of the reaction—the final soil
condition. In design, an accurate description of how soil reacts is
not essential. But the results of the reaction and what can be done
to control the reaction are essential. Therefore, for design, our scope
of interest must be concentrated on a quantitative description of the
final soil condition and on how the manipulation can be controlled.
The design factors and their relations indicated by equations 132
and 133 represent the desired quantitative descriptions for a scope
of interest concerned with design.
The circle (fig. 144) hypothetically illustrates a change in our
scope of interest. Inside the circle, the soil may be visualized as

being manipulated. Forces cause the manipulation, so our scope
of interest centers on describing the reaction of soil to forces. Out-
side the circle, the results of the final soil condition and the control of
the manipulation are of primary concern. The design scope of in-
terest is thus represented by quantities operating outside the circle.
The relation between the two scopes of interest was implied in section
4.2.2; more is said concerning their relation later in this section.
The procedural framework for designing a tillage tool is contained
in equations 132 and 133. Knowledge of the functions represented in
the equations would permit a designer to use equation 133 to deter-
mine the resulting soil condition and equation 132 to determine the
forces required to move the tillage tool. By simultaneously consider-
ing both equations, the possible tool shapes and movements could be
optimized to effect the desired manipulation with minimum force.
Since the functions are not yet known, the equations cannot be used
directly for design. Even in their generalized functional form,
however, they inherently establish guidelines for empirical design
procedures.
The total differential of equation 132 is
als 01 m 0^>i
and similarly the total differential of equation 133 is
dSf = ^ dTs + jf dT,, + ^ dS„ (135)

' dis olni OK>i
Equations IM and 135 give the reasoning behind qualitative design

procedures. For example, the shape of a tillage tool can be varied
and the tool in each of its various shapes can be operated in a soil
of uniform condition. If the movement of the tool is not changed
(depth, width, speed, etc.), any change in the forces required to
move the tool or any change in the results of the manipulation must
come from the change in its shape. The conclusion is valid be-
cause equations 134 and 135 become, respectively,
dF = (S-) dTs, (136)

\0l s /Tm,Si
dS, = (-If) dT,, (137)

since dTm and dSi are both zero for the conditions of the observa-
tions. If one particular shape produces a soil manipulation that is
judged to be superior, a description of that shape provides useful
design information. Only the shape would need to be quantitatively
described; the forces and the resulting soil change would not. The
tool with the selected shape could be operated in various soil condi-
tions to verify its action. If the required forces and the resultant
soil manipulation were judged satisfactory, it could be concluded
that the selected shape is an acceptable design for these soil condi-
tions. Describing the soil conditions even in qualitative terms pro-
vides additional design information that can be associated with the

description of the shape. Such procedures have led to the develop-
ment of sod bottoms, general purpose bottoms, and slat bottoms for
moldboard plows. The procedures were qualitative because numer-
ical descriptions of all of the design factors were not necessarily used
and no attempt was made to relate the design factors.
Quantitative design procedures involve numerically relating the
design factors to each other. If F and T^ are measured (numerically
assessed) in circumstances that are accurately represented by equa-
tion 136, a unique relation between F and T^ must exist. The rela-
tion can be represented graphically by plotting the variables against
each other. The plot results in a curve that represents the relation,
and the equation for the curve is the solution of the differential equa-
tion in equation 136. The relation between 8^ and T^ could be de-
veloped in a similar manner. Eepeating the measurements in differ-
ent soil conditions results in the development of a family of curves
with each curve representing a constant soil condition. If the soil
conditions are quantitatively described, relations between F and 8%
and Sf and Si for constant tool shape can be obtained. The equations
that describe the relations provide the solutions to equations 134 and
135 when only the soil is varied. In a similar manner, tool move-
ment can be varied when tool shape and initial soil conditions are
constant to again provide equations to describe the indicated rela-
tions. Conceivably, all of these equations could be simultaneously
considered or combined so that ultimately equations 132 and 133
could be developed. Quantitative design procedures, therefore, can
lead to the development of the functions / and g in the tillage equa-
tions.
A system of soil and tool description equations such as discussed
in section 4.2.2 can be shown to provide the means to derive a tillage
equation. A certain group of tillage tools can be described geo-
metrically by one equation or more. For example, all disks made
from sections of spheres can be described by the equation for a
sphere. The radius of the sphere and the limits that describe the
section of the sphere from which the disk is made (diameter of the
disk) become parameters of the geometrical description equations.
Specifying a particular disk fixes the parameters of geometrical
description equations just as specifying a particular soil condition
fixes the parameters of dynamic property equations. The system of
equations forms a mechanics, and the solution of the system of equa-
tions can be obtained in terms of the parameters of both the soil (dy-
namic parameters) and the tool (geometrical parameters). The
solution will be a tillage equation. From such a generalized solu-
tion, the effects of varying either the soil conditions for a specific tool
or the tool for a fixed soil condition could be determined.
Another possible application of a general solution would be to
consider only one specific tool. The path of motion could be ex-
pressed by equations, then mathematically varied, and the results
determined. An elementary example of this approach would be in
varying width and depth of operation. A generalized solution of the
system of equations in terms of the parameters of soil (dynamic
parameters) and path of motion parameters thus provides another
tillage equation. In this instance the effects of varying either the
soil path in fixed soil conditions or the soil conditions for á fixed soil
path could be determined. The general procedure described here
provides a means for determining tillage equations to form a soil-
tillage tool mechanics.
Two approaches for developing the tillage equations have been dis-
cussed. The approach based on experimental observation is empiri-
cal. Calculating the equations in the manner discussed in section
4.2.2 is not empirical ; it is derived. The tillage equations are based
on behavior equations, and each behavior equation represents a
scientific principle. One might justifiably argue that each behavior
equation is itself empirical. Such is the case unless each principle
behavior equation is calculated from subbehavior equations. In
reality, every behavior equation probably is empirical at some period
of its development. Once the relation has been verified and is ac-
cepted, it may be called a law and hence represents a scientific prin-
ciple. Any action that is described by equations developed from
established principle-behavior equations is not empirical. An action
that is described by equations developed from experimental observa-
tion, however, is empirical.
Several examples of equations based on empirical observations and
also based on scientific principles exist. Charles and Boyles' Laws,
which are concerned with the behavior of confined gases, were
empirically developed. Kinetic Theory and Statistical Mechanics
were developed later, and both provide principles and methods that
permit calculating the empirical gas laws. Kepler's Laws of Motion
were based on observation, and they describe the motions of the
planets about the sun. Newton's Law of Gravitation provides a
single principle behavior equation that permits calculating Kepler s
Laws of Motion. Many other examples could be given.
If both the empirical and the derived approaches have been fully
developed, the descriptions of an action will not differ in accuracy.
In fact, an empirical development and a derived development could
lead to the same equation. On the other hand, different but equally
accurate equations could be developed because, as was discussed in
section 4.2.1, no unique organized system of behavior equations exists.
The important difference between the empirical and derived ap-
proaches is their intrinsic understanding. Empirical equations can
describe only the action. While the description may be accurate,
no knowledge is inherent in the description as to how or why the
action occurs. Kepler's Laws of Motion are accurate, but Newton]s
Law of Gravitation explains why planets move as they do. Simi-
larly, Kinetic Theory explains how and why the behavior of many
individual gas molecules create the pressure volume relations de-
scribed by Charles and Boyles' Laws. The questions how and why
can be answered only when principal and even subordinate behaviors
have been isolated, identified, quantitatively described, and finally
combined into a mechanics to represent an action.
Since many design equations must exist, a technique for represent-
ing a design factor may aid in developing tillage equations. Recall
that behavior equations were said to contain parameters, and these
parameters assessed the contribution of the material to the behavior.
In a similar manner, parameters of tillage equations can be used to
represent one of the independent design factors.
To illustrate the technique, consider a situation where equation 136
is applicable. Assume that a relation between F and T^ is experi-
mentally obtained and is graphically represented. The resulting
curve represents the relation between F and T^ at a constant soil
condition and a constant manner of miovement. If the measurements
are repeated in a different soil condition the resulting curve prob-
ably will be different. By repeating the measurements in several
soil conditions, a series of curves can be developed. The difference
between curves reflects the difference between initial soil conditions.
Assume that the curves are all similar and that an equation can be
developed that represents \h^ curves. The equation that describes
all of the curves can be said to be a general equation. To be a gen-
eral equation, rather than a specific equation, it must contain para-
meters. These parameters will numerically assess the initial soil
condition. For example, if the relation between F and T^ is linear,
the intercept and slope are parameters of the equation and they
would numerically assess S^ in the tillage equation. Each different
soil condition will have a different slope and intercept. If the
manner of tool movement were changed, rather than initial soil
conditions, a different family of curves would result. Developing a
general equation to represent the curves again will define parameters.
In this case they will assess the manner of movement rather than the
initial soil condition. In short, the technique provides a means to
numerically define and assess one of the independent variables in the
tillage equation.
The technique has one serious limitation. Just as behavior equa-
tions define behavior parameters so tillage equations define design
parameters. Consequently, the design parameters are defined by
the soil-tillage tool system. In order to assess the parameters, a par-
ticular tool must be physically operated in a manner that simulates
the system being represented. Once the parameters have been
assessed, all similar tools can be described by the equations. The sit-
uation IS exactly analogous to the cutting parameters discussed in
section 4.3.2. The cutting parameters were defined by the mechanics
of cutting rather than by a behavior equation. The limitation could
possibly be minimized if the design parameters could be related to
some other defined factor in the system. For example, if the design
parameters assess the soil, they must be determined by the material
and state properties of the soil just as dynamic behavior parameters
must be determined by these same soil properties. Establishing the
relation would overcome the limitation of the technique.
The need for design information and the complexity of the rela-
tions involved between the design factors clearly indicate that both
the empirical approach and the derived approach should be simul-
taneously followed. Each approach requires certain facilities and
interests. The empirical approach requires facilities for keeping soil
condition constant and for producing various shapes of tools and
equipment for controlling the manner of movement. As equations
134 and 135 indicate, control must be sufficient so that any change
m F or 8f can be attributed to the correct design factor. In the de-
rived approach, soil behavior can often be studied with small samples
of soil and rather simple apparatus. A mechanics based on behavior
eiquations can be developed with only a pencil and paper. Facilities
and personal interest, therefore, should partly determine the ap-

proach to follow. In the empirical approach, however, emphasis
must be placed on establishing quantitative relations. Only when
design information must be immediately available should qualitative
empirical procedures be followed. Qualitative procedures can never
lead to the information needed for design where control of soil
manipulation is possible. Finally, one should recognize that a com-
plete understanding of the general behavior of soil reacting to a
tillage tool can be obtained only from knowledge based on scientific
principles. Such principles can never be deduced from an empirical
description of general behavior. Therefore, the derived approach
will ultimately have to be fully developed before a complete under-
standing of the soil-tillage tool system can be attained.
5.3 Shape
Of the three design factors incorporated in equations 132 and 133
(shape, manner of movement, and the initial soil condition), the
designer has complete control only over shape. The user of a tillage
tool may vary the depth or speed of operation and may use the
tool through a wide range of initial soil conditions. The shape of
tillage tools, therefore, has received considerable emphasis since
the ideal tillage tool should perform satisfactorily over wide ranges
of soil conditions and depths and speeds of operation. Tool shape
cannot be considered independently of its manner of movement or the
initial soil condition. A description of tool shape must also be
oriented with respect to the direction of travel of the tool, or its
operating geometry will be ill defined. Likewise, different initial
soil conditions sometimes require different shapes. This situation
has resulted in the development of various configurations of mold-
board plows for different soils and conditions. Since shape is the
only design factor over which the designer has complete control, it
must be given primary consideration in tool design.
When considering shape as a design factor, one of the first steps
is to describe the shape of a tool. A description is required for the
design equations as well as for construction purposes. Many tillage
tools have complex shapes, and these shapes cannot easily be repre-
sented in mathematical form. Therefore, the shape description of a
tool is almost exclusively restricted to the surface that comes in
direct contact with the soil. Generally, no attempt is made to rep-
resent other surfaces of the tool mathematically, except when clear-
ance is required to prevent undesirable contact with the soil.
A mathematical description of the shape of a tool is the most ver-
satile means of representation. For some simple shapes, a plane ade-
quately represents the surface ; and the plane along with its orienta-
tion is relatively easy to describe mathematically. As more complex
surfaces have evolved, however, standard mathematical equations
often no longer represent the surfaces. Attempts have thus been
made to find other ways to describe the complex shapes. These at-
tempts often employed graphic representations of shapes that can-
not easily be represented by mathematical equations. Some repre-
sentations of tool shapes have been carried to the extreme so that the
shape is described only by the pattern or mold used in its manu-
facture. The development of means to adequately describe the shape
of tillage tools is still a major area of concern in the design of tillage
tools.
A second step associated with shape as a design factor requires
identification of the variables that represent the shape design factor
Ts in equations 132 and 133. A third step is the establishment of the
equations themselves. Unfortunately, these last two steps may have
to be combined. To illustrate, the"^ shape variables in the design
equations should be the parameters that are identified by mathemati-
cal descriptions of shape. Probably, however, geometric parameters
will not be independent of each other in the design equations. Any
dependence must be represented in the functional relation and the
design equations will not be simple. On the other hand, a transition
equation might be developed in which the shape description para-
meters are combined to define new variables that will be independent
in the design equations. With independent variables, the design
equations should be simpler and easier to develop. Thus, identify-
ing the variables and developing the equations may not be separate.
In essence they are separate, since independent variables could be
identified ; but the functional relations could be so complex that they
could not be established.
Describing the shape, identifying the shape variables in the design
equations, and developing the equations themselves are the three
elements involved with shape as a design factor.
5.3.1 Soil Loosening and Turning Tools
Tillage tools apply dominant forces to soil and cause the soil to
yield in such a manner that it usually results in a loosening or turn-
mg of the soil. Although these actions usually are the intended pur-
pose of tillage, they are involved any time a tool is moved through
the soil regardless of the intent. Loosening and turning tools thus
comprise a large category of soil manipulating tools.
As a group, soil loosening and turning tools are widely used in
agriculture. In 1925, approximately 28 percent of all energy ex-
pended on farms in the United States was used to operate soil loosen-
ing or turning tools. In 1961, approximately 60 percent of the trac-
tor power that was utilized on farms was expended for comparable
operations, and required more than 2 billion gallons of fuel costing
$323 million. These figures do not include the energy used to oper-
ate planting equipment, which also does a certain amount of turnmg.
The figures do show not only the economic importance of the group
of tools but also the reason for emphasis on equation 132 of the de-
sign equations. The forces are directly involved in the energy
required to operate the tillage tools.
When human and animal power were used to operate tillage tools,
the limiting factor in tillage was available power. Emphasis had
to be on getting the job done as long as the resulting manipulation
was satisfactory even though it was not controlled. Only with the
advent of mechanization and the high-powered modern tractor has
available power not been the dominating factor in tillage. Even
where power is not limited, economic importance still brings pres-
sure to bear on minimizing forces required to operate the soil loosen-
ing and turning tools.
In the following sections we shall see that available information
concerned with shape has been concentrated on describing the shape.
Only qualitative design information concerning shape is available
in equations 132 or 133.
5.3.T.7 Macroshape
The surface over which soil moves as a tillage tool is operated
constitutes the shape that is of concern in design. Any finite surface
has a boundary or edge whose "shape" is independent of the shape
of the surface itself. A tillage tool is finite and has boundaries that
are generally referred to as edges. The shape of edges in contact
with soil affects the forces required for soil manipulation just as
does the shape of the finite surface. Since the area of the edges of
a tool is generally much smaller than the area of the surface itself,
the term edgeshape is used to refer to the shape of edges while the
term macroshape is used to designate and emphasize the shape of the
gross surface.
The moldboard plow is perhaps the most widely used tillage tool
today. Its ancestor is, of course, the forked stick. While its history
is long, descriptions of the macrosurface of a moldboard plow did
not receive much emphasis until metals were used to construct the
plow. Even then, the first descriptions of the surface were devel-
oped so that the plow could be constructed. Very little emphasis
was placed on determining a relation between force and shape or
between soil condition and shape that could be used to evaluate de-
signs. Any emphasis that was placed on design resulted in informa-
tion that could be utilized in equations 132 and 133 only in a qualita-
tive sense {160), The usefulness of descriptions of shape, however,
does not hinge on their utilization in design equations, since the
first requirement in shape design is a description.
One of the first methods for accurately describing the surface of a
moldboard plow was developed by Thomas Jefferson in 1788 {199),
It was a physical method that could be used for constructing a plow.
A description was inherent in the method he proposed since it in-
volved generating a surface with a rigid framework (fig. 145). The
FIGURE 145.—Jefferson's framework for designing a moldboard plow, (Jeff er-

son, Proc. London Philos. Soc. { 199 ).
surface was generated by using lines e-m and o-h as directrixes and
by moving a straight edge from g-e to m-h in such a manner that
the straight edge remained and rotated within the vz plane. The
surface generated by the straight edge as it moved was considered
to be the surface that would invert the soil with the least possible
resistance. Jefferson did not determine the mathematical descrip-
tion of the surface ; he merely devised the framework and the method
of its use to represent a plow surface.
A number of models of this type of framework have been used in
constructmg moldboard plows. Whereas Jefferson used straight
lines to represent both the generator (the moving line) and the
directrixes (fixed lines), others have used catenaries, arcs of circles,
cycloids, and helices. Never has the choice been based on more
than intuition. The method does, however, provide a means of
generating a vast number of different surfaces applicable to mold-
board plows.
A mathematical analysis of a surface generated by this method
can be made to determine an equation that describes the surface.
White ( 502, 503 ) analyzed a number of plows, including the Jeffer-
sonian plow. He established equations for the surface in a cartesian
coordinate system oriented as shown in figure 145. The surface
equations were derived from the equations of three different lines
that were passed through the surface. Upon a rotation of the refer-
ence coordinate system, the equations of the Jeffersonian plow could
be reduced to those of hyperbolic paraboloids. White was able to
obtain equations to describe other plow surfaces that were not hyper-
bolic paraboloids. He was unable, however, to relate these equations
to either the forces or the resultant soil condition except in a general
qualitative way. Nevertheless, his work is of merit because he
demonstrated that an existing plow shape could be mathematically
represented.
Graphical descriptions of shape have been used by various re-
searchers including White ( 502, 503 ), Ashby ( 18,19 ) and Krutikov
and others {231), They used graphical methods both to describe
the shape and to try to establish design equations. In one com-
monly used method for graphically determining macroshape, an ap-
paratus similar to that shown in figure 146 is employed. The
gridded plane on the right in figure 146 is used to position a measur-
ing rod. The tool whose shape is to be described can be oriented
so that the gridded plane represents a plane perpendicular to
the direction of travel of the tool. If the gridded plane is a yz
plane, the œ and y axes are so oriented that the xy plane is a hori-
zontal plane and the xz plane is a vertical plane ; both contain the
direction of travel. To describe the shape of a properly oriented
tool, the distance x that the rod extends through the yz plane is re-
corded at each grid location in the yz plane. A two-dimensional
graph can be made by plotting the x and y values at a constant z and
by connecting the plotted points with a smooth curve. The curve
represents the intersection of a horizontal plane and the surface
being described. By superimposing a series of such contour lines
m one plane and connecting the ends of the contour lines (the edges
of the surface), a two-dimensional representation of the surface is
constructed.
FiouKE 146.—An apparatus for describing the macroshape of tillage tools.
Representations of moldboard plow surfaces prepared by this

method are sliown in figure 147. Soehne ( 40^, ^03 ) used an optical
means to expedite the preparation of descriptions by this procedure.
He projected a slit of light onto moldboard plows that were painted
white and recorded the reflected light trace photographically. The
technique provides a rapid and accurate means of obtaining descrip-
tions of shape (fig. 148). The slit of light could be projected either
vertically or horizontally so that contours could be obtained in either
direction. Accuracy was assured since both the projector and the
camera were fixed and only the plow bottom moved. Soehne labeled
the photograph contours alphabetically from the bottom to the top
and from the front to the rear, as shown in figure 149. Contour
representations of the type shown in figures 147 and 149 generally
have not been mathematically described. They have been useful,
however, for comparing shapes and for manufacturing purposes.
■ ■ ■—I i »—I »
(A)
FIGURE 147.—Contour descriptions of two moldboard plows. (Reed, Agr.

Agr. Engin. (350 ).)
71
SLIT LIGHT
PROJECTOR
CAMERA
FIGURE 148.—Arrangement for photographically recording the shape of tillage

tools. ( Soehne, Grundlagen der Landtechnik ( Jf02 ). )
(A)
i*Pô
I 1 \f\oc///y/' 4^.0 y
\j^/v/ y\y
Jl^/y^y / X
■ú^î^ /i A. X
^yyx^ / /
' ^ ^^^^ //
1 ^ "^y^ \/^ X
^^^ \ \/
\ \*'5LÍ!^^/^
\ V<fc■^/l^r\o
b
^ 1
\ ^ TX:
VPIOJ
(B)
FIGURE 149.—Graphical representation of plow macroshape : A, Projections
into a vertical plane of vertical contour lines formed by the intersection of
the moldboard surface and a vertical slit of light; B, projections into a
horizontal plane of horizontal contour lines formed by the intersection of
the moldboard surface and a horizontal slit of light. ( Soehne, Grundlagen
der Landtechnik ( ^ö^ ).)
One of the first attempts to relate shape to newly created soil con-
ditions (equation 133) was made by Ashby (19), He utilized
graphical representations from which he defined parameters ot the
shape of plow bottoms. He attempted to correlate the shape para-
meters with observations of plow performance. His measure ot
performance was primarily the covering of plant residues during
actual plowing. Ashby defined a slope coefficient that was identified
with the "full cut section" of a plow (fig. 150). This section is
FURROW WALL
FIGURE 150.—Ashby's "fuU cut section" (A—B) of moldboard plow.

(Ashby (19).)
located in a vertical plane drawn perpendicular to the cutting edge

of the share. The vertical plane is drawn to intersect the share at
a distance from the furrow wall equal to the width of cut of the
plow. The intersection of the plow surface and the vertical plane
forms a curved line AB, which is used to define the slope coefficient.
The curved line is shown in profile in figure 151, A along with its
"I
D'
>
7
i t
(A) (B)
FIGURE 151—A, Profile of fuU cut section of plow; B, profile of twist section
of plow. (Ashby (19).)
' 226 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
projected distances ¿7, H, and X. Ashby defined the slope coefficient

as follows:
TJ
Slope coefficient = xT2C^' ^^^"^^
where H - height of the plow,
X — projected width of the plow,
C - distance the top of mohiboard departs from the vertical
line tangent to the curved profile.
When the moldboard has considerable twist, the slope coefficient has
to be modified by a correction factor. Another section of the plow,
identified as the twist section DC in figure 150, lies parallel to the
full cut section but is two-thirds of the distance from the full cut
section to the wing tip. The profile of the twist section CD^ shown
m figure 151, 5, was used to determine the slope coefficient correction
factor. The correction factor was computed from the equation
Correction factor = (-^-0.20^ ^~^^"^^, (139)
where TF, 7, E, and Hjy are distances identified in figure 151, B,

The correction factor was applied only when the ratio E/V was
greater than 0.20. The slope coefficient as modified by equation 139
thus becomes
Slope coefficient - ^^-(.^-o.2o) ^~^^ + ^.

(140)
Ashby used equation 140 to calculate the slope coefficient of a
number of moldboard plows. The plows were operated in a series
of field experiments during which the covering performance of the
plows was judged according to a standardized rating system. A
multiple correlation was made between the covering performance
and the number of plow shape factors believed to affect the covering
performance. The correlation resulted in the following equation:
X = 0M65A - 0.055^ - 0.644(7 - 0.118Z> - 0.0357^ + 4.072,
(141)
where X = subjective rating of covering performance,
A = size of the plow,
B = horizontal clearance of the plow,
O = slope coefficient,
D = width of plow at waist,
E = relation of height to width of wing.
As the regression coefficient in equation 141 indicates, the slope co-
efficient G appears to be the most important factor considered.
Ashby's work illustrates one of the principles discussed in the
empirical development of design equations. A parameter of the
shape description is used as a variable in a design equation. Al-
though this particular slope coefficient is probably a poor parameter
and inadequately reflects the shape, it nevertheless is commendable
as a first attempt. One hopes that more than covering can be in-
cluded as a measure of the newly created soil condition. In addi-
tion, a quantitative description of the covering should be developed
to replace the standardized rating system. Although equation 141
is inadequate and probably inaccurate in terms of design needs for
today, its weakness should serve as an impetus to seek improvement.
In principle this rudimentary equation demonstrates that design
equations can be developed.
Soehne ( 402^ ^03 ) defined a number of parameters of shape de-
scriptions and attempted to relate them to plow performance. He
used the light slit technique to represent shape along grid lines 1-11
and a-m, spaced 40 millimeters apart (fig. 149). And he selected the
following angles as parameters:
= share cutting angle,
<}>10a to (^lOj - lateral directional angle of the moldboard upper
edge,
</>5a to <f)si = lateral directional angle of the horizontal shape line
5 at the intersection with vertical shape line a to ^,
8al to 8« = share intersection angle at the vertical shape line
a to h^
8a5 to 8(5 = angle of the vertical shape line a to i along the hori-
zontal shape line 5,
8A, 8B = angle of the vertical shape line at A and B.
The performance of the plow was judged by draft resistance, and

coverage and movement of the soil. He correlated the performances
of 25 shapes with the list of parameters and concluded that certain
parameters were important and had optimum values. Since he was
considering high-speed plowing, the optimum values were for a
speed of 9 kilometers per hour. The most important parameters and
their optimum values are:
1. The best share intersection angle dai is about 15° to 17° at the
share point and 8° to 10° at the share end.
2. The share cutting angle î should be about 35° to 38°.
3. The lateral directional angle <j^ at a height of 160 to 200 milli-
meters (approximately elevation 5 in fig. 149, B) should be equal to
the share cutting angle of the land side and should decrease toward
the end of the moldboard to 23° to 27° ; the horizontal shape lines
must have a convex curvature.
4. A strong twist, as reflected by increasing values of 8 in the wing
area i-j-k^ is required for inversion at high speeds.
5. The upper edge of the moldboard should be raised higher
toward the furrow side so that soil is not sprayed over it at high
speeds.
Soehne's parameters should not be considered as the ultimate
parameters for describing a moldboard plow. While his optimum
values are useful, they represent an initial qualitative approach to
obtain design information. Quantitative values (the parameters)
describe shape, but these values have not been related either to forces
or to the resulting soil condition. Soehne has demonstrated, how-
ever, that more than one parameter of shape description can be ob-
tained.
An indirect approach toward describing the macroshape of a plow,
which is closely allied with the surface shape, has been used to
develop design equations. In this approach, actual path of travel
of soil over the macroshape surface is determined. One technique
for determining the actual path is to paint a thin coat of lacquer on
the tool surface prior to operation ( sl^ 33J^^ Iß2 ). Scratches on the
surface made by the soil trace the path of travel. Figure 152 shows
that the path of travel is straighter and steeper at 7.75 miles per
1.75 mph 7.75 mph
FIGURE 152.—The sou sliding path at two speeds of plow operation. (Soehne,
Grundlagen der Landtechnik ( 1^02 ).)
hour than at 1.75 miles per hour. The path of travel is related to
the acceleration that is imparted to the soil ; this, in turn, affects the
acceleration force that contributes to draft. After examining a
number of plows, Soehne concluded that so-called high-speed plows
accelerated the soil less than did so-called standard-speed plows.
Carlson ( 60 ) reached the same conclusion from a study of two
plow shapes in which he used a digital computer to calculate the
acceleration characteristics of each shape. Even though the mathe-
matical representation of acceleration is simple and fully developed,
acceleration has not been quantitatively incorporated into design.
Nichols and Kummer ( 319 ) developed a tracing apparatus that
could provide empirical equations to describe the path of soil move-
ment over a moldboard plow (fig. 153). The principle of the ap-
paratus was similar to that of Jefferson {199)', he used a predeter-
mined physical path along which to establish plow shape. The
apparatus of Nichols and Kummer used the plow shape as the
"directrix" to determine the orientation of the generator. Kecall
that Jefferson prescribed the orientation of the generator which
thus swept out the shape.
The tracing method was based on the observation that most plow
shapes represent a section of cylindrical surface. Therefore, a se-
lected test arc may be fitted to the surface of a plow and swept across
the plow along a hypothetical path of travel. As shown in figure
153, a measurement carriage rolling on guiding rails permits the
test arc to be moved along the plow. At various increments of
travel, which can also be considered to be units of time, the rotation
ARC
ROTATION
ANGLES.
FIGURE153.—Apparatus for tracing the path of soil movements and the shape
of moldboard plows. (After Nichols and Kummer, Agr. Engin. { 319 ).)
angles (f) and 0 can be simultaneously measured. The variations m

the vertical and horizontal rotation angles were plotted as functions
of the carriage movement distance. The results combined cartesian
and polar coordinates into a single graphical system that could be
used to compare different plow shapes. A mathematical expression
for the functional relation provides a description of shape. Al-
though mathematical characterization of the curves indicates differ-
ences between shapes, the characterization provides no rigorous in-
formation that can be utilized in plow design. In spite of this lack
of design information, the device established a physical link between
soil and plow because the path measured by the device and the
actual paths of soil moved by the standard speed plows used at that
time fortuitously coincided. -,. , , T«. .
Pfost (334), using the same apparatus m a slightly different
fashion, simplified the procedures. He described the path of only
one point at a radial distance R (fig. 153), whereas the horizontal
rotational angle (f> was maintained perpendicular to the direction
of travel. Only the values of the inversion angle 0 were recorded
for each increment of S. As shown in figure 154, the constructed
and the actual paths of soil travel for two plows agreed very well
for one speed of plowing. Unfortunately, the speed at which the
lines agree cannot be predicted, so that the usefulness of the method
is limited to a descriptive role. Thus, while a description of actual
path of soil travel is useful for calculating acceleration imparted
to soil during movement over the surface, the description per se is no
more useful for design purposes than a geometric description.
Eegardless of the means by which macroshape is described, the
description must ultimately be related quantitatively to forces and
100 -
CALCULATED VALUE
c^--o MEASURED VALUE
20 30 40
S (cm)
FIGURE 154.—Constructed and actual paths of soil movement on moldboard
plows. (Pfost, Auburn Univ. {334).)
final soil conditions as implied by equations 132 and 133. Until such
relations are effected, quantitative design information will have to
originate from trial-and-error procedures.
Gross descriptions of shape, even though nondetailed, can be useful
for design. Qualitative descriptions such as can be developed by
the Jeffersonian technique have contributed greatly to the develop-
ment of moldboard plows. The "use of one such gross description
was reported by Kaburaki and Kisu (205), Modifications made in
the shape of moldboard-type plows have resulted in better scouring
characteristics for Japanese conditions. These developments have
led to an elliptical-shaped plow (fig. 155). The exact nature of the
superior f rictional relations was not determined ; but the tool had a
smaller width of cut, which may have produced lower normal forces.
Even though the design relations have not been established, the
elliptical description permits a convenient shape characterization.
Since the tool is symmetrical, it could also serve as a two-way plow,
as shown in figure 155.
Moldboard plows are the most widely used soil loosening and turn-
ing tools, but subsoilers require the largest draft force to move them
through the soil. Thus, it is not surprising that the force-shape re-
lation has received emphasis in subsoiler studies whereas the man-
ipulation-shape relation has received emphasis in studies of the mold-
board plow. The large draft requirement of subsoilers is the domi-
nant characteristic that determines the extent to which it can be
operated. Thus, the extent of soil breakup is of secondary import-
ance, even though it is the reason for operating the subsoiler.
Nichols and Eeaves ( S£2 ) measured the draft of a series of sub-
soilers with macroshapes that ranged from the normal straight con-
figuration to a deeply curved configuration (fig. 156). Draft was
measured in several soil conditions, and the results indicated that
/ /Í'AW/'A*,
/^î^^^
SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
FIGURE 155.—An elliptical-shaped moldboard plow.
FIGURE 156.—Experimental curved subsoilers. (Nichols and Reaves, Agr.

Engin. (322 ).)
the subsoiler with the most curve required the least draft (table 16).
In a highly compacted and cohesive soil the curved tool required
from 7 to 20 percent less draft than did the straight tool Ihis
decrease is substantial, and crude observations indicated tlmt the
resultant soil breakup was approximately the same tor all tool
shapes The curved subsoiler presented an operational ditticulty,
however, since its greater length made turning and guiding the tool
while it was in the ground difficult. Xo effort was made to describe
the shape or to relate shape to draft except in the qualitative manner
indicated in table 16. ,. , i i *,.
Improper operation can defeat the advantage of decreased draft
with a curved subsoiler. Unless the curved tool is operated at its
intended depth, all advantages of the curve may be lost. Presum-
ably, the curved subsoiler gains its advantage from the direction in
which it applies forces to the soil and the direction in which these
forces cause the soil to move (fig. 157). The advantage of the
proper use of the design ( fig. 157, A ) is lost if operation is too deep;
TABLE 1^.—Effect of shape on the draft of mhsoilers operating at

a depth of 12 inches and a speed of i% miles per hour in various
soils
Draft force Reduction in

Soil type Straight draft due to
Curved
subsoiler subsoiler curved shape
Pounds Pounds Percent
Hiwassee sandy loam 890 890 0
Davidson clay __ __ _ 930 860 7.5
Decatur silty clay loam__ 1,825 1,415 22.4
Sharkey silty clay 2,000 1,820 9.0
Hurricane clay _ _ _ 2,120 1,820 14.2
Houston clay_ __ _ _ 2,040 1,660 18.5
SOURCE : Nichols and Reaves (, ).
the curved subsoiler operates as though it were straight (fig. 157,

B), Figure 157, G depicts an obvious solution by design if opera-
tion at deeper depth is required.
5.3.7.2 Microshape and Friction
Soil slides over the surfaces of tools which, as we have seen, may
be described by the macroshape. Clearly, friction between the soil
and the surface must be present so that two identical shapes could
produce different results because of different soil-metal frictional
relations at the interface. Consequently, the microshape on the
surface may influence shape-design relations. Surface roughness
caused by rust, polish, scratches, or small depressions is an example.
Frictional resistance may be such a small proportion of the total
draft that large changes in the microshape and, consequently, the
coefficient of friction may cause only a very small change in total
draft. On the other hand, microshape could affect other aspects of
FIGURE 157.—A, Curved subsoilers operated at design depth; B, curved sub-

soUer operated deeper than design depth ; (7, curved subsoiler scaled in size
to operate at increased depth.
soil movement such as scouring so that it is important even if draft

is essentially unaffected. As a general rule, frictional resistance
should always be minimized and control of microshape is the mest
practical way to do this. , ^ i .i .i x i A
As discussed in section 2.9.2, the properties of both the tool and
the soil affect friction at the sliding interface. Unfortunately, only
the properties of the tool may be altered since the properties ot soil
usually cannot be controlled. Eare situations may occur where
properties of the soil can be changed. For example, m a layered
soil one horizon may offer lower friction than another and the tool
can'be operated in that horizon. Shallow plowing to enhance scour-
ing is common. Choosing the proper time for tillage so that the
moisture content of the soil is suitable is another possibility tor
"changing the properties of the soil." Generally, however, the tool
must be altered to minimize frictional resistance.
Efforts have not been made to incorporate soil-tool friction into
empirically developed design equations. Examples in chapter 4
showed how friction can be handled in the derived approach, in
the empirical design equations, soil-tool friction does not appear
directly; rather, it appears indirectly through some expression o±
microshape. Consequently, in all studies associated with soil-tool
friction, shape has been kept constant and the coefficient of friction
or microshape has been varied. In equations 132 and 133, micro-
shape will have to appear as an integral part of Ts. Presumably, re-
lationships can be quantitatively established by first relating the
macroshape aspects of Ts to their respective dependent variables.
At constant levels of macroshape descriptions, microshape can then
be varied to establish the relations. Variation of soil frictional
properties caused by soil conditions will be directly assessed by bi m
equations 132 and 133.- Thus, although friction has not been quali-
tatively incorporated into design equations, there is no reason tor
not doing so. . ^ P • x- i • 4.
One of the most direct methods of reducing the frictional resist-
ance of a tool is to improve the microshape—that is, to decrease
surface roughness. Considerable effort has been made to achieve
and maintain smooth sliding surfaces on tools. Initial polish re-
quired on a surface depends on whether scouring occurs. It scour-
ing occurs, the abrasiveness of soil soon establishes an equilibrium
surface roughness on the sliding surface of the tool. Depending
on the soil and the initial polish of the tool, the polish of the equil-
ibrium surface may be higher or lower than the initial condition.
In some soils, however, self-polishing does not readily occur. In
these soils, the polish of the surface must be established and main-
tained. Bacon ( 24 ) has reported that scouring may be poor m
some soils if, after plowing, the tool is exposed to air drying tor
a short time. Apparently the conditioning of the surface is lost
through drying. The chemical and physical surface reactions that
cause the difficulties have not been studied. In these soils, protect-
ing films of oil or other preservatives are required when the tool
is not in use. /v. • ^ ü V^-
The inñuence of surface roughness on the coetticient ot sliding
friction is indicated in table 17. While the magnitude of the rough-
2M AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
ness is not known, it is apparent that polishing a surface is a means
of reducing soil-metal friction.
Another aspect of microshape lies in the irregularities in a sur-
TABLE 17.—Effect of the surface condition of a tool on the coefficient

of soil-metal friction in several soils'
Coefficient of soil-metal
Sou friction for surface with—
High polish Ordinary polish^
Sand — 0^
Sand (%) and Cecil
clay (%)_ jai
Cecil clav M 3A
Siisaiic^hanna clav - .48 .59
Tîifkin clav .48 .51
1 Summarized from 1,000 measurements.
2 Surface normally i)r()vided by manufacturers of tillage tools.
SOURCE : Nichols ( 3/6 ).
face. Pits or other low spots, sharp changes in surface direction, or

even shapes having different radii of curvature without a gradual
transition may "trap" soil. The trapped soil forms soil bodies on
localized areas of the surface (fig. 158). Generally, the low spots
tend to protect the soil bodies so that tangential forces cannot move
FiouBE 158.—Soil bodies formed along the sliding surface of a tool because
of minor surface Irregularities.
them along the surface. The effect on draft performance of these
nonscouring spots depends on the area of the spots as compared to
the total surface.
Friction is greatly modified by adhesion. As discussed m section
2.9.3, adhesion results primarily from moisture films that increase
the perpendicular attractive forces between soil and the sliding
surface of a tool. Adhesion may be reduced by using a material
that does not readily wet with water. Polytetrafluoroethylene and
polyethylene, which have nonwetting characteristics, are currently
being used as coatings on moldboard plows and other tools ( 81^ 336),
The coefficient of friction of these materials can be as much as 50
percent less than that of smooth steel {93, 133), When lack of
scouring is a problem, polytetrafluoroethylene can improve scouring
so that the full draft may be reduced as much as 25 percent (table
18). Once applied to a sliding surface the material remains effective
until it is worn away by the abrasive action of soil.
TABLE l'è,—Effect of folytetrafiuoToetliylene flow coverings^ on the

draft force of plows operating at two speeds in clay soils
Draft force
Plow surface Decatur clay Davidson clay
1 m.p.h. 3.5 m.p.h. 1 m.p.h. 3.5 m.p.h.
Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds
Steel 450 490 480 575
Polytetrafluoroethylene-
covered moldboard
and steel share 390 485 420 530
Polytetrafluoroethylene-
covered moldboard
and share 365 430 310 440
SOURCE : Cooper and McCreery {81 ).
Lack of abrasive resistance is the biggest drawback to most non-

wetting materials. Kummer and Nichols ( 235 ) and Bacon ( 23 )
studied the adhesion of soil with a number of materials such as wood,
steel, and iron. Each material is limited by its wettability or its
lack of resistance to abrasion. Some of the recentl}^ developed
plastic materials appear to be the best materials available. For
example, in a relatively abrasive soil a plow covering of polytetra-
fluoroethylene 0.2 inch thick appears to last for at least 50 acres and
a plow covering of high-density polyethylene 0.2 inch thick lasts
for at least 20 acres {81), In less abrasive soils, both materials
last considerably longer. The requirements for a nonadhesive abra-
sion-resistant material are known, but no material available at this
time (1965) is completely suitable. The high cost and short wearing
life of available materials are the main limiting factors.
The adhesion between soil and the tool has been reduced by heat.
Experiments utilizing this approach have been reported by Bacon
{23)^ but no practical method has been developed. Heat require-
ments have not been studied thoroughly, but in any study of heat
requirements new energy sources would have to be considered in
order to determine whether the required heat could be economically

produced. Nichols ( 312 ) has reported the only quantitative data
concerning the influence of heat on adhesion. As shown in table
19, the coefficient of friction of a hot slider was considerably less
than that of a wetted slider. Unfortunately, no details are available
as to the temperature used or the quantity of heat lost from the
slider during the operation. As an application, this method of
reducing adhesion remains essentially untried.
TABLE 19.- -Effect of heat on adhesion^ as measured hy the coefficient

of friction of steel sliders on dry sand
Slider Slider condition

weight (grams) Dry Wet Hot
1,500 0.266
/^'
0.333 0.250
3,000 .266 .333
4,500 _ .250
.266 .333 .244
SOURCE: Nichols ( n2).
When the moisture content of soil is increased to the saturation

point, the adhesion between soil and the tool may be eliminated.
Adding water to the surface through small holes has increased the
scouring qualities in clay soils {311), but the amount of water that
IS required has not been accurately determined. Less water might
be required than first appears likely, since only the sliding surface
needs to be wetted. Indeed, the sliding surface may be saturated
while the general soil mass is maintained at a low moisture content
m which good pulverization is obtained. Within the range of field
inoisture conditions, increases in soil moisture may increase the draft
ot the tool even though the mechanical strength of the soil remains
the same ( 376), Table 20 indicates the draft differences that can
be attributed to increases in soil moisture. While one may choose
to operate a plow m a saturated soil with the idea of reducing draft,
the loss of traction and the possibility of dangerously compacting
soil may preclude this approach as a solution to the adhesion
problem.
Bertelsen (.^0, 1^1 ) has proposed that an airblast be used to re-
duce the frictional resistance of a moldboard plow. Conceivably,
TABLE 2^,—Effect of the mmsture content of soil on the draft force

of a moldboard plow in Houston clay soil
Moisture
content! Pore Bulk Draft force
(percent) saturation density of plow
Percent Qm./cc. Pounds
15.9_ 29.9 1.23
17.4_ 689
34.2 1.30 776
20.1_ 21.2 1.18 806
ercenf^^^^^^^^ percentage is 33.0 percent ; 15 atmosphere percentage is 22.5
the action of the air could eliminate any friction between a tool
and soil. Figure 159 shows a scheme for introducing a cushion of
air between the soil and the tool surface. The effectiveness of this
scheme is influenced by the permeability of soil to airflow, since.a
SOURCE OF
COMPRESSED AIR
FIGURE 159.—Reducing sliding friction with an air cushion.
resistance to airflow is required in order to build up pressure and,

hence, the air cushion. With a film of air between the soil surface
and the tool, the coefficient of friction should be greatly reduced.
Bigsby ( 42 ) was unable to reduce the draft of model tools with
airflows up to 70 cubic feet per square foot per minute at a pressure
of 1.0 pound per square inch. He passed air through various con-
figurations and sizes of holes. In one arrangement, holes 0.028
inch in diameter drilled approximately 0.07 inch apart trapped
grains of soil and made a rougher surface so that the draft was in-
creased rather than decreased. Measurements reflecting the imped-
ance to airflow were not reported, nor were they correlated with the
draft data. Until further studies have been made, the use of an
air cushion to reduce friction must be classed as an idea rather than
a useful development.
Providing either a moving or a smaller surface, or a combination
of both, is another means of reducing friction. Skromme {S90)^
Kummer {231t,), Getzlaff ( lU, H5 ), Dufour, as reported by Getz-
laff \lU), Gantt {137), and Gordon ( 159 ) are among those who
have substituted belts, rollers, and rotating disks and colters for a
stationary sliding surface. In these approaches, the moving parts
in contact with the soil actually transport the soil so that little
sliding occurs. Moving parts in contact with soil are undesirable
because of mechanical requirements, but this limitation should not
preclude utilization of the principle.
The slatted moldboard plow is an example of a tool that provides
a smaller surface. By decreasing the area of contact between the
tool and the soil, adhesion is decreased. At the same time, the
tangential forces available to move the soil along the surface are in-
creased. Both effects are directly proportional to the ratio of the
area of slats to the area of open space between the slats. Japanese
manufacturers reportedly have found that in certain instances
^f?^ .^ -^^^^^ ^'""^ ''^t*®^ ^®s"^ts than fixed slats. Success of the
slatted plow IS greatly influenced by the speed of operation. Figure
152 shows how the path of soil changes with speed. Unless the path
of movement parallels the direction of the slats, the benefits of
reduced area will probably be lost. Most of the techniques and pro-
cedures tor reducmg friction have practical value only when there is
slîdfr^fricfioï' ^^^"^ *^^ *'*^''^ '^'"''** '^ appreciably affected by
The soil-niampulating characteristics of a tool are specified by the
terms i, and i „in the soil manipulation equation 133. The terms
are, in turn defined by macroshape descriptions, but nothing in
either the relation or the description indicates why the various
shapes were selected. Most shapes have been developed by inven-
tion. Ihe tillage action required to create a desired soil condition
IS envisioned and then developed by trial and error. In drawn
tools, in which the path of movement T^ is a straight line, design
emphasi^ is almost exclusively placed on the influence of the shale
íd^ttme^^y^tMsêlhoS:""' '"^^ ''°''" ™^^ "^ qualitatively
The amount of strain induced into the soil by the movement of a
tool ot any shape determines in part the amount of shear and move-
ment in the soil reaction. The depth of operation and the lift of the
r^ÍT^ adjusted to obtain the desired effect. Unfortunately,
most tillage tools have a fixed ratio in these respects so that the
optimum soil reaction may not always be obtained. Chase ( 67 )
and othere have studied lift angles in the design of subsurface tiller
blades. Iwo distinct actions have been observed (fig. 160). The
'^'^^.^
^¡mmW'
FiGTJKE leO.-Effect of height of lift on the soil surface produced by a sub-

surface tillage blade. (Chase, Agr. Engin. (07).)
low approach angle (16°), which accented soil cutting, controlled

weeds much better tlian the higher approach angle, which accented
the lifting action. By keeping the lift angle at approximately 16°,
the surface of the soil was essentially level at the termination of
the operation. Since the tool was designed to cut weed roots, shatter
of the soil and soil movement were not particularly desirable. A
simple straight tool operating at right angles to the direction o±
travel is seldom used. The blades are usually swept back at angles
of 20° to 50°. This permits self-cleaning of the blade.
Any alteration of the orientation of a sweptback tool with respect
to a horizontal plane has a secondary effect on the depth of cutting
(fig. 161). An increase in the approach angle of the tool shank ot
2:^
FIGURE 161.—Effect of tüting a sweptback blade on depth of tiUage. (Chase,

Agr. Engin. ( 67 ).)
a drawn tool essentially constitutes a means of changing tool shape.

In a number of applications, the elevation of the outer ends ot the
blade may be undesirable because the cut cannot be kept at a uniform
depth. The depth of cutting is frequently dictated by the location
of plant roots ( 17S ) and only by prior excavation of the soil can
the desired depth be determined.
The upheaval of soil around a deeply operated tillage tool gener-
ally is similar to that of soil reacting around a tool having a large
depth-to-width ratio. As shown in figure 96, there is a point below
which the soil does not move upward. Below this point the soil
moves laterally so that it passes around the sides of the tool without
any upward movement, and the resulting soil condition is a deep
vertical slot. These slots are frequently so narrow that they may be
bridged over when a load is applied to the surface {321), Be-
cause of this bridging, the lower part of the channel may remain
open, as shown in figure 162. This characteristic bridging of the
soil has been utilized in the design and operation of mole dram
plows. These plows penetrate the soil to some depth and open a
small drainage channel. The design of the mole has been achieved
by trial and error; it is not based upon any theoretical considera-
tions. According to Schwab, in the American Society of Agro-
nomy's monograph on drainage ( ^ ), the size of moles varies con-
FIGURE 162.—Channels formed by a narrow tool operated in a wet clay soil.

(Nichols and Reaves, Agr. Engin. ( 32Í ).)
siderably. Most of the emphasis in mole drainage has been on con-

trolling grade level, since the drains may become ineffective if the
grade level is misât isfactory.
A number of attempts have been made to increase the volume of
soil that is shattered during deep tillage operations. Shattering is
satisfactory only when the soil is dry and brittle. Under these
conditions, the tool may create a general shear throughout the soil
mass; but if the soil is hard aiul tough, the action of the tool may
create large clods that are very difficult to handle in any subsequent
tillage operation.
The addition of wings to a deep tillage tool increases the volume
of soil that is lifted and shattered. As a residt, a larger volume of
soil is broken up (fig. 163). These wings or lateral blades have
normally been attached near the bottom of the tool. Several forms
of these tools have been studied, but much infornuition is still lack-
ing.
FiouBE 163.- -Soil volume disturbed by : A, A simple chisel ; B, a cliisel

with wings.
The importance of the length and lift angle of the point of deep
tillage tools has not been fully determined. These factors contribute
to the vertical forces that hold the tool at the desired depth ni the
soil without additional weight and still provide an optimum draft
force. Preliminary results indicate that point angles in excess of
35° should be studied. Small differences in the width of points on
narrow chisels have little influence on the draft of the tool when it is
in a soil where shatter takes place. The major consumption of
energy is the shear of the soil rather than the subsequent displace-
ment required for passage of the tool.
In addition to wings, novel designs utilizing large attachments
have been developed to increase shatter of the soil. One of these
designs used a spinner that was free to rotate and grind the soil into
a finer condition (fig. 164). No real evidence of this action has
— ^
FIGURE 164.—Deep tillage tool with a freely rotating spinner intended to cause
greater pulverization of the soil.
been found, and the spinner increased the draft of the tool approxi-
mately 8 percent. No attempt has been made to introduce power
into the soil by driving the spinner during operation; possibly this
would have a pronounced granulating effect.
There are instances when intuition indicates that a particular
movement of soil might be accomplished more readily by the inde-
Eendent action of several shapes than by a single shape. Soil may
e inverted by a moldboard plow, but some mixing within the furrow
slice usually occurs. Where a thin surface layer is to be completely
covered, it might be expedient to use two decisive actions. The
first cuts the layer loose and deposits it in the bottom of the furrow-
while the second covers the deposit without mixing. This might be
desired when radioactive dust or some other material must be buried.
Figure 165 shows the actions accomplished by plowing a deep furrow
and using a small skimmer blade or plow to push the surface ma-
terial into the bottom of the previously created furrow. Depending
FIGURE 165.—Simple soil-covering motions.
on the size of cut, depth of placement may be accurately controlled.

When large areas are to be decontaminated or when radioactive ma-
terial IS withm a zone where it could be retrieved by plant roots,
complete excavation and removal of the material may be necessary
( 297 ). An example of cultivation where inversion is not desired
IS the Mal'tsev system of cultivation in the U.S.S.E. {W). An-
other example is dryland farming in the semiarid Western United
btates where a moldboardless plow induces a shearing action through-
out the soil, but the action does not result in inversion of the soil.
This type of tool design does not expose moist soil to the atmosphere
and the design has a useful purpose—to conserve moisture. Thus,
üie shape of tools as represented by T, may be guided by intuition,
ihe extent to which these shapes represent ideal or optimum shapes
can be determined only after establishing shape-performance re-
lations.
5.3.7.3 Edgeshape and Wear
As defined in section 5.3.1.1, edgeshape refers to the shape of edges
of the finite tool surface that comes in contact with the soil. Usually
the overall tool shape has no relation to its edgeshape. For example,
figure 166 shows how the basic form of several spherical disks is
REVERSE SPHERICAL CONE NOTCHED WAVY

CURVATURE
FIGURE 166.—Disk tool shapes.
modified by notched and wavy edges. Thus, the same macroshape of

the tool may be modified by different edgeshapes. On the other
hand, the macroshapes of reversed curvature, spherical, and cone
disks are basically diiferent but the disks could have the same edge-
shapes. Figure 167 shows how sharpening disk edges can produce
diflerent edgeshapes.
In spite of the small area of the edge as compared to the total area
o± the tool, the shape of the edge can affect the total draft of the
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
(E) (F)
FIGURE 167.—Edgeshapes commonly used on disks. (McCreery, Amer. Soc.

Agr. Engin. {262).)
INSIDE BEVEL
400
OUTSIDE BEVEL (A)
200
OLHI-
(B)
Ö -2001-
£
_J -400 •
L-Hh
-200
-400
L. "20^ 30
DISK ANGLE i")
tional Tillage Machinery Laboratory {311 ).)

disk (262). Figure 168 shows the effect of sharpening on the forces
of a disk.
Chase ( 67 ) reported that the angle of the approach edge is im-
portant. Figure 169 shows how an upper and a lower bevel on the
edge of a plane tool affected soil movement. When the bevel was on
the upper surface, a "low pressure area" caused the soil to adhere to
the surface as shown at the right in rigure 169. Soil adherence in-
FIGURE 169.—The influence of edgeshape on soil movement over a tool.

(Chase, Agr. Engin. ( 67 ).)
creased the draft of the tool. When the bevel was on the lower side
of the surface, sticking was not observed. Chase also reported that
tools needed sharpening more frequently when the bevel was on the
top.
The forward edge of a tool, such as the share of a moldboard plow,
can cause soil compaction if it becomes blunt. Figure 170 shows how
compaction is caused through the movement of the soil. The blunt
edge shown simulates a dull share except that the edge is approxi-
mately 10 times thicker than that of a normal share. Thus, the
effect was exaggerated so that movement of soil particles along a
glass plate coated with powdered aluminum could be photographed
to indicate the effect. The blunt edge Ä caused a buildup of soil,
which in turn forced some soil to move downward and cause com-
paction at G. Soil in areas B and C moved upward into a zone of
less confinement. Vertical cracks in the bottom of a furrow of a
moldboard plow, similar to those seen at area H, have also been ob-
served with earth-moving equipment {338). Forces resulting from
a blunt edge applied to the soil in the direction of travel cause the
soil to pull apart. The number and size of the cracks depend on soil
conditions.
The compacted zone may be very thin and consequently of little
significance. In wet soils, however, the smearing action could con-
ceivably close the soil pores completely so that no air or water could
be transferred across the layer. A practical example of the detri-
mental effect of compaction was reported by workers at the Eoad
Research Laboratory {370). They found that in making small cuts
with a rotary tiller the cutting blade had to pass through an area
FIGURE 170.—The compaction of soil by a blunt-edged tool. (Nichols, Reed,

and Reaves, Agr. Engin. ( 32i ).)
compacted by the previous blade. Figure 171, A shows how a zone

compacted by a i)i'evioiis cut of a dull blade (shaded area) can lie
brought into the zone of cutting of a subsequent blade when a small
cut is used. A greater cutting force is required if a dull blade causes
compaction and subseijuently is operated in the compacted zone.
Measurements of power required as compared witli size of cut con-
firmed tliose observations.
Soil compaction caused by a dull blade usually occurs because
wear has modified the edge shape. The edges of a tool surface are
usually the first element of the tool to encounter the .soil and as a
result they are subjected to greater forces and wear. Furthermore,
M^//¿^//
(A) (B)
FIGURE 171.—Location of soil compacted by a dull rotary cutter, and area of

cut: A, Small cuts; B, large cuts.
because of their small area and the concentration of wear, edges tend
to change their shape rapidly. The macroshape of the entire tool
generally remains relatively unchanged as wear progresses. Edge-
shape, on the other hand, is greatly changed with wear so that wear
and edgeshape must be considered simultaneously,
î."^^^ radical change in edgeshape that can occur in plowshares and
the change m forces required to operate the plow bottom are shown
m table 21. Change m edgeshape due to wear can produce a signifi-
cant eflect on forces on both rolling and rigid tools (fig. 162). A
TABLE 21.-—Effect of worn shares on the forces on a plow
Measured forces on plow

Type of share
Draft Vertical Side
Pounds Pounds Pounds
New- 317 25 73
Worn_ 333 -92 49
New__ 266 51 66
Worn_ 333 -74 57
New. 290 33 64
Worn_ 435 -164 60

<^
SOURCE : Nichols, Reed, and Reaves, Agr. Engin. { S2Ji. ).
negative vertical force, as shown in table 21, indicates that the bot-
tom had to be held m the soil to operate at the designated depth A
positive vertical force indicates that the plow had to be held upward
to prevent it from going deeper. In normal operations the mold-
board plow IS free to float and seek its natural depth as a result of the
balance of forces. Gavrilov and Kofuschkin ( 1^0 ) determined the
coeliicient of depth variation for new and worn plowshares. They
deñned the width of chamfer as the length of the line A and C shown
Í? uPin -^1^^' ^1^^^ ^^®^ ^^^ increasing width as a criterion of wear,
iable 22 shows how the coefficient of variation increased as the width
o± chamfer increased and the average furrow depth decreased
beveral researchers have demonstrated that wear occurs rapidly
Cjayrilov and Koruschkin {UO) showed that wear increased draft
resistance as much as 30 percent (table 23), and that nearly half of
the increase had occurred after only a few acres of land had been
TABLE 22.—Effect of the width of chamfer on the average depth of
furrow in a sandy loam soil
Width of Coefficient of
Average depth variation in
chamfer
of furrow furrow depth
(millimeters)
Centimeters Percent
0 21 8.7
9 _ - 20 9.9
12 20 11.4
15 18 16.0
SOURCE : Gavrilov and Koruschkin mO ).
plowed. Figure 172 shows how the specific resistance of new and
worn shares increased with hours of operation. The rapid increase
in total draft detected after a few hours of operating time indicates
significance of wear.
^ 0.56
g 0.54
WORN-^
u, 0.52
o
§ 0.50
CO 520
UJ
a: o 18 WORN-
0.46 t
NEW
g 044
' ' I »
£8 '^ -I I L—J
^ 0.42 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
18 20 22 24 26 28 30
TIME (hr) TIME (hr)
FIGURE 172.—Effect of wear on specific plow resistance and fuel consumption.

(Karatish {206).)
Karatish ( 206 ) studied the rate of wear from a different perspec-

tive. In irrigated areas the resistance of the soil can be altered by
changes in soil-moisture content. He found that the life of plow-
shares varied with soil-moisture content. For a sandy loam soil,
the share life increased from 4 acres at a moisture content of 6 to 7
percent to 6 acres at 12 to 13 percent ; and further to 16 acres at 16 to
18 percent. . .
Any factor that increases the normal force along the sliding sur-
face increases friction and wear. On tillage tools, leading edges are
generally subject to the highest wear rates. The effect of normal
force explains the rapid wear of tools or portions of tools that follow
load-bearing wheels. These load-bearing wheels compact the soil
and increase soil strength so that the force required to displace the
soil increases and, hence, the normal force on the edges increases.
Figure 173 shows the accelerated wear that occurred on the portion
TABLE 22,.—Effect of wear on the angle of sharpness and specific

draft resistance of plows
Soil type Angle of Specific Increase in

and sharpness of draft draft
area plowed plow share resistance resistance
(acres)
Degrees Kg./em'. Percent
Loam :
0 15 0.50 0
4.9 30 ..59 18
12.0 36 .63 26
17.0 42 .66 32
Sand :
0 _ - - 15 .31 0
6 . 28 .35 13
14 . 32 .37 19
30 40 .40 29
SOURCE: Gavrilov and Koriischkin ( ///O ).
of a blade operating behind a wheel. The area to the extreme left

of the figure shows accelerated wear due to a wheel track. Gangs of
disks also illustrate the increased normal force that causes increased
wear. The end disks are subjected to larger soil forces because of
their physical location in a gang of disks. The larger forces on end
'^ké^Ê^ ^
FIGURE 173.—Accelerated wear of flat blade by compacted wheel track.

(Photograph courtesy of Kansas State University.)
disks are caused by the soil they must move because of their position
and because they tend to operate deeper than the center disks of a
gang. Data from field experiments (table 24) indicate that end disks
wear nearly three times faster than center disks {353), Position,
therefore, affects normal force and thus affects wear and changes m
tool shape.
TABLE 2^,—Weight loss of disks operating at different positions in

a disk gang
Weight loss per
Disk position 100 hours of use
Pounds
End disk- 1.58
2d disk- .96
ed disk- .83
4th disk- .57
Wear is a complicated process that involves not only the properties

of the tool material but also those of soil {8, 59, 336, 360, 368),
Furthermore, available data indicate that the rate of wear is ]ust as
important as the amount of wear. Little has been done to study
wear except to use wear-resistant materials. So-called hard surface
materials are often expensive; consequently, they are applied only
to leading edges of tools and other areas that wear rapidly.
Much more research is required to unravel the wearing process.
Quantitative relations that result in wear behavior equations ulti-
mately will have to be developed. Empirically, wear can perhaps
be quantitatively described in terms of altered shape. Since wear
appears to change edgeshape so rapidly, perhaps only worn edge-
shapes should be used as variables of macroshape m design equations.
Efforts have not been made to include edgeshape or wear into tiie
design equations; however, for design to be complete, these special
shape factors must be included. Edgeshape must first be described
qualitatively and then quantitatively, and the description must be re-
lated to its functionally dependent factors. Probably a more realistic
approach would represent edgeshape and wear as modifiers o± the
macroshape design equations in a manner similar to that done tor
friction in section 5.3.1.2.
5.3.2 Soil Transporting Tools
All soil manipulating tools apply dominant forces that produce
compacting, loosening, or turning of soil, or some combination ot
these. In many instances the purpose of soil manipulation is simply
to transport soil from one location to another and any loosening or
turning that occurs is incidental. Land leveling and road building
are two obvious examples where movement may be more important
than soil breakup. Soil transporting tools comprise a second large
category of soil manipulating tools because their purpose is different
from that of soil loosening or turning tools.
Soil is transported by two basic methods. For short distances, soil
is literally pushed or rolled over itself in a process often called bull-
dozing. For longer distances, soil is usually loaded into self-loading

Sf%h *^'* '' T ^ ^'^''^^''^ carriedâther than pushed ovef
itselt Ihe macroshape, microshape, and edgeshape of tool surfaces
tooT te?.-*'"^ ""'^ ^''^'i^ ^"^"«^ «™" performance of tL
;^. V, J?î^ des gn purposes, shape should be quantitatively related to
he functionally dependent variables indicated in equations 132 and
Sfiii -"i ' ''^ '""'^ manipulation in transporting tools can be
relativelj^ easily expressed when the volume or mass of soil moved
IS the primary factor of importance. Thus, all that has been slid
concerning the empirical development of des gn equations appUes to
vto^d^Trâ.^ f^\ Only limited efforts Íave\een ¿adTto dí
yelop design equations for soil transporting tools, but available auali-
tatîve mformation may be used to Sevelof basic' trends aperCm-
T.iiíi""^'!^'"^■' ^ ?'"^'''^^ ^^^^^.'^ "^«^^*i thô'igh soil to loosen and

Ar ""^^^^'^ transport soil over short distances. For most
effective performance, the blade should be filled to its maximum
capacity and require the least force to be moved. Moving sou bv
rollmg requires less force than moving it by sliding. sLe sous
such as sods or plast c soils can be rollfd up In frontôf a Sade in
causL Sy s"llin,f i^^^^ble flow of soilln front of a blade thlí
causes rolling is illustrated on the right in figure 174. Unless a roll
"iSAÏl*" --.Î'??..-ASä.'^^'^S-Ä
IV^^f^' rolling is not efficient; a flattened roll tends to slide and
KÍ rÄlfT "^""fr' rr^ periodically as the roll flops over
Kuhn ( mß, m ) and Garbotz and Drees ( 138 ) studied the effect
of the shapes of blades on their ease of filling and their draft requiS
W .n ^^'' Parabolic blade (fig. 174) permitted a collapse of IS so
ttiat some pushing rather than rolling was necessary. The two in
volutes resulted m good rolling. The force required to operate thê
Th« rLTu "V^^s^red m two soil types at one speed and one deX
Se TtabfetT '41.."^^°^'?^/? '\^ ^"^^^ «^ inclination of^the
do i^îSfilV ,^lthough the data show no consistent trend, they
do indicate that shape can be extremely important. In the sandv
silt soil, the angle of inclination changed draft by a factor of two foî
toUe
volute AtwrÎ^^Î^:,
I and the other two blades^Y also ^^^«^^^«^
accounted i^
for«hape between
a change in-
in draft
of a factor of two In other data not reported here, a mofe ncHned
Sn.f^ a smaller draft at varying speeds and depths. No con-
sistent trend was apparent between depth and blade shape. The
F^RABOLA INVOLUTE I INVOLUTE 31
FIGURE 175.—Detailed shapes of blades shown in figure 174. (Garbotz and

Drees, Westdeutcher Verlag GMBH {138).)
possibilities of improved design through the development of equa-

tions 132 and 133 should stimulate a continuation of this type ot
Characteristic shapes of blades that have been developed for bull-

dozing (fig. 176) have been identified in terms of their mfluence on
performance. An increase in filling resistance caused by an unde-
sirable flow of soil may result from adhesion of soil at some low
place along the blade. A recess behind the cutting edge (ñg. 176, A )
creates a pocket in which soil adheres; this soil can mcrease frictional
resistance along the surface of the blade. Soil may also stick when
the radii of curvature between two adjacent sections o± blade ditter
TABLE 26.—Draft force as affected ly the angle of inclination of a

leveling Uade operated at a depth of k centimeters and at a speed
of 2 hilometers per hour
Sou type Draft force for a blade
and angle of2 3_
shape of
tooli -15° -8° 0° +10*»
Kg./mß Kg./mß Kg./m.^ Kg./m.^

Medium sand: 3,430
Parabola 2,500 2,850
Involute I 2,830 2,800 3,500
Involute II 2,620 2,540 3,640
Sandy silt: —
Parabola - 5,500 7,000 10,400
Involute I 3,150 3,350 4,150
Involute II 6,780 8,100 11,200 -
1 Blades were 100 cm. long and 450 cm. high. Shapes are shown in figure 175.
2 Blade angle was measured between a Une drawn between the upper ana
lower edges of the blade and the vertical. When tUted back the angle was
nesrative j
3 Draft force measurements are based on the volume of soU on the blade.
SOURCE : Garbotz and Drees, Westdeutscher Verlag GMBH {138).
FIGURE 176.—Soil reactions as influenced by blade shape. (Kuhn, Ztschr

Ver. Dtsch. Inge. ( 233 ).
by a factor of more than 1.5 (fig. 176, B and O). In sticky soils, an
accumula,tion of soil at the top of the blade (fig. 176, Z?) may ¿re-
vent the blade from filling. If the top of the blade is tilted Kar
forward, (fig. 176, F) soil will again adhere. A good shape, similar
to that m figure 176, E, will fill completely and permit good soil
movement. A good or practical shape is really a compromise of
fnTfi "lî^liêd shapes that serve special purposes. When used as
an isolated specific blade for one type of soil manipulation, the
number of specialized shape characteristics may be limited, and an
actual desim may overemphasize one particular characteristic.
Jîgure 177 indicates several idealized shape characteristics as-
sociated with specific soil handling functions. An integration of ap-
propriate features from the idealized shapes provides a start for
designing a blade for some particular purpose.
When soil must be transported over distances that make bulldozing
W.T™'''^ •' "r""^?,^""u. ""î"^ "'^^- L^y«^« «Í soil are generally cut
ôse by an mclmed blade and the separated soil is collected in a
wheeled device for transportation. Figure 178 shows a general ar-
X?îrV*/A '^**-"^
Wl t J. •
^1^1*^^' '^°^^ *^ ^«"««t soil' and^ transport
«1^^? problems in designing a scraper so that a full
aï(2) fh^shipe'Ä bo^wl.^'^ *'^ '^''^ ^' '^^ «"^*-^ ''^'^
Garbotz and Drees ( 138 ) studied the influence of angle of inclina-
üon and depth of cut on the draft force of large indined blades
The blades were 1,000 millimeters wide and were 450, 308, and 218
millimeters long, respectively, for blade angles of 20°, 30°, and 45°
Eesults show that an angle of approximately 30° is opt mum foi^
minimum draft (fig. 179). The minimum draft coincideT^^th a
PENETRATING CUTTING PILING HOLDING
EMPTYING LEVELLING CARRYING ROLLING
FIGURE 177.—Idealized functional shapes for bulldozer blades. (Kuhn, Ztschr.

Ver. Dtsch. Inge. (232).)
FIGURE 178.—Paths of succeeding loading increments in a large scraper.
depth-of-cut to height-of-lift ratio of 1:3 and a depth-of-cut to

length-of-knife ratio of 1: 9. While these data provide definite de-
sign information, any recommendations should be considered only as
first approximations of the information required for complete de-
sign. . . . ,
Perhaps the most difficult problem m designmg a scraper is to
insure filling the bowl. When a large volume of soil must be moved
by sliding, the weight of the soil itself adds to the normal load and
hence increases the tangential force required to slide the soil. In a
scraper, the weight can become so great that the force required to
push soil into the bowl may confine the movement of any new soil that
attempts to enter the bowl. In such instances, soil is bulldozed in
o
6000
3
^4000 100 mm
p
Ö
z 2000
I
20* 30*» 45*»
BLADE ANGLE (•)
FIGURE 179.—Effect of depth of cut and angle of inclination on the draft

of an inclined blade. (Garbotz and Drees, Westdeutscher Verlag GMBH
( 138 ).)
front of the cutting blade with no further filling {338), Increasing

the depth of cut may supply somewhat greater force to move the
accumulating soil. But confining resistance will again be reached
and bulldozing will start when the forces involved come into equi-
librium. While still deeper cuts will continue to provide more shov-
mg force for filling, more force must be applied to the scraper so
that traction or engine stall soon becomes a limiting factor. Shape
of the bowl, so as to obtain a smooth flow of soil while the bowl
fills, thus becomes an important design consideration.
One of the first possibilities of shape design is to have the bowl
conform to the reaction of the soil. For example, areas designated
A and B in figure 178 usually will not fill ; therefore, their size may
be decreased if the saving in material and weight is significant. A
short distance from the cutting blade to the back of the bowl to de-
crease the distance that soil must be pushed seems imperative. A
shallow bowl to minimize the height of soil buildup also is desirable.
Since practical limitations on width are self-evident, short lengths
and shallow depths restrict the volume of soil that a bowl can hold.
Consequently, size, shape, and orientation influence the filling resist-
ance of a bowl. Unfortunately, these factors have not been studied
sufficiently to indicate optimum values.
Use of an inverted elevator is a positive means of obtaining better
filling. The elevator minimizes the need to force soil through and
over soil in order to fill the bowl of a scraper (fig. 180). By mini-
mizing the need to push soil into the bowl, forces on the cutting blade
are also reduced. This reduction decreases the cutting force required
to operate the cutting blade, and the total draft of a scraper is
greatly reduced. The manufacturer of a scraper employing an
inverted elevator reports that the total power required is divided
equally between the elevator and the drawbar.
5
FIGURE 180.—An inverted elevator to assist in filling scrapers.
5.3.3 Conclusions
Macrosurface and edgeshape are important in the design of soil
loosening and turning tools and soil transporting tools. Consider-
able effort has been made to obtain design information; however,
much remains to be done in terms of developing design equations.
Only Ashby (equation 141) has tried to develop a design equation
that will permit quantitative designs to be effected, and this he did
in 1931. All other studies have related shape to design only in a
qualitative way. Admittedly, qualitative information is needed. On
the other hand, striving to develop design equations can provide
the same information and also lead to the equations. The goals are
clear and the path is direct so that only the work remains to be done.
5.4 Manner of Movement
Once the shape of a soil manipulating tool has been selected, only
the manner in which the tool is moved through soil can be altered to
effect different manipulations. Manner of movement involves orien-
tation of the tool (angle of approach), its path through soil (depth
of cut), and its speed along the path. Shape of a tool is usually
determined when the tool is manufactured. Once fabricated, the
shape is usually not easily altered, so that the manner of movement
is generally changed during actual use in order to effect the best
performance ( 122 ). Shape is primarily controlled by the designer,
who is associated with the manufacturer. Manner of movement, on
the other hand, is primarily controlled by the user. But each tool has
inherent limitations in its practical method of operation that limit
variation in manner of movement.
The problems encountered when considering the manner of move-
ment in design are essentially the same as those encountered when
considering shape. First, the manner of movement must be de-
scribed ; second, the description must be quantitatively related to the
dependent functional factors—forces and results of soil manipulation.
Just as shape is meaningless without specifying manner of move-
ment, so manner of movement is meaningless without specifying
shape. Neither can be considered to the exclusion of the other. In-
deed, this is the crux of the design problem. Each abstract design
factor influences the operational performance of the tool. Only
from quantitative data on all factors to be considered is it possible

to develop an optimum design for some intended soil manipulation.
In order to develop the required information, each factor must be
isolated and studied independently so that its effect can be quantita-
tively assessed and related to resultant forces and soil manipulation,
as implied by equations 132 and 133. After quantitative informa-
tion is available, it can presumably be mathematically combined to
permit true design. Until such information is available, however, a
researcher needs to simplify the system of interest in order to gain
an understanding of it. The factors involved in both shape and
manner of movement must be isolated and investigated in order to
accomplish this simplification.
5.4.1 Orientation
Orientation must be specified before it can be incorporated into
design. Mathematically, the specification is usually simple. Orien-
tation relates the shape of a tool to its direction of travel. Since
shape must be quantitatively described with respect to some coordi-
nate system, orientation can be described by specifying the shape
coordinate reference system with respect to the direction of travel.
For example, as long as a plane tool is operated horizontally the ori-
entation of its inclined plane is given by one angle—the angle between
its surface and the direction of travel. Even with complex-shaped
tools, shape reference axes can be orientated by specifying only two
Other convenient means may also be used to specify shape orienta-

tion. For simple shapes, angles that refer to a mounting device,
a straight side or the bottom of the tool, or any other convenient
plane or line can be used. For a curved surface, the orientation may
be described with respect to a diameter, a line of symmetry, or an axis
of rotation. Figure 181 illustrates some angles that may be used to
specify orientation. Although angles such as these are convenient
for many purposes, orientation of a shape reference system will prob-
CLEARANCE ANGLE
(SPECIFY PLANE) LIFT ANGLE
/APPROACH ANGLE\
\ VERTICAL PLANE/
DIRECTION OF
TRAVEL
SIDE ANGLE
APPROACH ANGLE \
.)
^HORIZONTAL PLANE/
TILT ANGLE
SLANT ANGLE \
RPENDICULAR PLANE/
FIGURE 181.—Convenient orientation angles for tillage tools.

ably offer the simplest means of incorporating orientation into de-
sign equations, ni j
Orientation of shape has many obvious effects. Move a moldboarcL
plow sideways or to the rear, and orientation will completely defeat
its intended purpose. Orientation also has some less obvious effects
that influence performance of a tool. For example, McCreery and
Nichols ( 263 ) found that orientation affected the rotation of a
free-rolling spherical disk (fig. 182). Minimum rotation occurred
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
ANGLE OF TRAVEL (•)
FIGURE 182.—Effect of orientation on the free rotation of a disk. (McCreery

and Nichols, Agr. Engin. {262).)
when the vertical disk was operated at an approximate angle of 20

to the direction of travel. The significance of the rotation has not
been explored so that the meaning or even the desirability of mini-
mum rotation is not known. Since rotation obviously affects the
amount of sliding between the disk and soil, friction and wear must
be affected by the rotation. • ^' ^ ^
The approach angle (lift angle in fig. 181) of an inclined plane
greatly affects both the normal pressure on the tool and the amount
of soil disturbed by the tool. Figure 183 shows the average normal
pressure on the sliding surface of a straight chisel operated 6 inches
deep for all angles of inclination. A 90°-angle of inclination repre-
sents the tool operated in a vertical position. The decrease m average
normal pressure with decreasing angle is also associated with reduced
total draft. The reduced draft cannot be attributed entirely to the
reduced frictional force involved in sliding soil across the chisel.
Payne and Tanner ( 332 ) showed how the approach angle of a
straight chisel affects the shape and volume of soil disturbed (fig.
184). They did not report on the amount of soil breakup (average
clod size). If soil breakup is the intended purpose of the manipula-
tion, the volume disturbed does not necessarily reflect the breakup.
Payne ( 332 ) reported that the draft of a straight chisel 4 inches
CO
Û-
SANDY LOAM
^ 40
CO
CO
UJ
Of 30
<
i 20H
O
2
SAND
UJ CLAY
10
LÜ
20 40 60 80 100 120 140

INCLINATION OF TOOL (<»)
FIGURE 183.—Average normal pressure on a straight chisel as affected by the

approach angle. (Computed from Tanner, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. (419).)
FIGURE 184 —Shape and volume of soil disturbed by a straight chisel as

i? f?oo ^ *^^ approach angle. (Payne and Tanner, Jour. Agr. Engin.
xCes. ( odd ). )
wide ranged^from 425 pounds at an approach angle of 160° to 90

pounds at 20°. These were mean values for several agricultural soils
and indicate the effect of approach angle on draft. Orientation of
a straight chisel thus can have varied effects.
Orientation is sometimes used to control depth of tools, particularly
moldboard plows, through the concept of "suction." A tool that has
good suction is considered to penetrate well—it is sucked into the
soil.
Eesearchers in the past ( 27, 392 ) have defined suction in terms
o± clearance angle (fig. 181). The clearance angle can be correlated
with penetrating characteristics because of the inherent fixed re-
lation between the lift angle and the clearance angle for any tool.
In reality, however, penetration is determined by the magnitude and
direction of the vertical forces acting on the tool. Within limits,
these forces can be altered by increasing the lift angle or clearance
angle tor a specific tool in order to increase suction. Hence, orienta-
tion, which determines the lift angle, can be used to increase or de-
crease suction. This principle was used to control depth of walking
plows. By altering the hitch point, the orientation of the plow was
changed so that the downward force of suction and the upward com-
ponent of the line of pull came into equilibrium, and the plow
"floated" at the depth that produced equilibrium. Even m some
mounted plows today, the principle is used. .-..-, .. m
Tanquary and Clyde {m) designed a special hydraulically
actuated plow hitch that increases the approach angle of a tool as
the tool enters the surface of the soil. The approach angle decreases
as the plow penetrates soil and thereby decreases suction while the
vertical component of the line of pull simultaneously increases.
When the forces reach equilibrium, the plow floats and maintains
the equilibrium depth. ^ .T, •
Often the linkage system used to position a tool aflects both orien-
tation and depth. Three commonly used linkages are radial, trape-
zoidal, and parallelogram. In a parallelogram linkage, orientation
is essentially independent of depth, whereas in a radial linkage
orientation changes as depth is changed. The trapezoidal Imkage
system has intermediate characteristics. When penetration is difti-
cult, a linkage system that does not permit a tool to quickly seek
its operating depth may leave large areas at edges of fields that are
tilled too shallow. Sineokov ( 388 ) calculated roughly the length ot
path required for radial and parallelogram linkage hitch systems to
reach operating depth. While studying simple chisels and sweeps,
he secured fair agreement between the theoretical and experimentally
determined path lengths obtained for the trapezoidal linkage system.
The path required for a 27-centimeter sweep to reach operating depth
decreased significantly as the suction increased. Sineokov suggested
the following equation to express penetration relations observed for
the sweep :
S = acot(^), (142)
where S = distance required to reach depth,

a — final equilibrium depth,
€o = initial clearance at the time of entry into soil,
€ = clearance angle during operation.
Narrow chisels did not appear to be affected as much as the sweep

was. Additional studies will be required before the distance of travel
to reach operating depth can be determined in a rigorous manner.
Another aspect of depth control-orientation interaction is shown
in figure 185, where a radial linkage system is applied to a spring
tpoth harrow. Not only is the angle of approach a changed with
depth, but the volume of disturbed soil is also changed (fig. 184).
Consequently, the distance between harrow teeth probably should
be changed as depth is changed in order to manipulate the soil most
effectively. Obviously, compromises must be made in these situa-
tions, or else entirely new principles of positioning will be needed
for linkage systems. The possible interactions of orientation and
depth or position control contribute to the difficulty and complexity
M^///j^///^/ \////^///A^j//^/ I M^m^///Âm
a = 0* a = 45** a = 90*
FIGURE 185.—Approach angle as influenced by depth adjustment with a radial
linkage system.
of tillage tool design. The interaction should also stimulate the

desire for quantitative relations to represent the interaction, so opti-
mum designs can be developed ( 4^4 ).
5.4.2 Path of Motion
Path of motion or travel is the second element involved in specify-
ing the abstract design factor, manner of movement T^. Path of
motion is the path the tool travels when passing through soil. Fol-
lowing the approach used for the description of orientation, an ob-
vious means of description is to specify the path of travel in mathe-
matical terms. The path of the shape coordinate system may be
followed in a fixed coordinate system in which the tool is considered
to move. A logical choice for a fixed coordinate system is the so-
called earth system, which is fixed with respect to the planet earth.
Although the simultaneous mathematical specification of two co-
ordinate systems seems complicated, the path of motion description
usually simplifies to a statement of the depth and width of cut of
a tool. All tools that travel in straight lines can be described by
this technique. Only rotating and oscillating tools have paths of
travel that require relatively complex mathematical descriptions.
Because of the simplicity of specifying the path of motion of tools
traveling m a straight line and because of the difference between
these tools and rotating or oscillating tools, only straight line path
of motion tools are discussed in this section.
For a tool that operates in a straight line the path of motion
through soil is usually specified completely by the depth of cut and
width of cut. Both depth and width are readily changed, and they
are the means used most often to "adjust" design when the force re-
quired to move the tool is greater than can be easily supplied. Most
tools can be operated in a specified range without too greatly affect-
ing their manipulation of soil. Forces have been studied because
they have often been the limiting factor when a tool is used. Thus,
considerable data are available concerning the effect of the depth and
Avidth of cut on draft ( i^ ). Their effect on resulting soil condi-
tions has not been studied in nearly as great detail.
In a uniform soil condition, the draft of a tool almost universally
increases with increasing depth or width of cut. Data in table 26
reported by Kynazev ( 236 ) are typical. Since most tillage tools
are designed to operate in a specified range of depth and width of
cut, the specific draft (draft per unit of cross-sectional area) is often
used to reflect the effects of path of motion on draft. The specific
iraft of a 14-inch moldboard plow in several soil conditions is shown

in figure 186 ( SU, 350 ). The data indicate that depth of operation
3an be increased up to 5 inches in most soil conditions without an
appreciable increase in specific draft.
24 HOUSTON CLAY
20 ^-SHARKEY CLAY
16 OKTIBBEHA CLAY
VAIDEN CLAY
Û
SHARKEY LOAM
I
Ü
8
ÜJ NORFOLK SAND
OL
if)
DEPTH (in)
FIGURE 186.—Effect of operating depth of a moldboard plow on specific draft.

(Randolph and Reed, Agr. Engin. {SU).)
Table 27 shows the effect of varying width of cut while maintain-

ing constant depth on the specific draft of a moldboard plow bmce
the shape of a moldboard plow is complex, varying its width o± cut
changes the path soil takes as it moves over the surf ace of the plow.
Thus, the shape of the tool is also changed as the width ot cut is
varied. Limited data indicate that only a slight change in specific
resistance occurs. More data are required before any definite trend
can be established.
TABLE 2^,—Increase in draft of a ftve-hottom chisel plow due to

increases in depth of operation
Depth of Draft per unit

operation Draft force width of disturbed
(centimeters) soil
Kilograms Kilograms/Centimeter
507 5.1
8.3- 13.3
18.3- 1,259
2,159 21.3
28.3- 30.4
33.6- 3,264
3,338 33.2
35.2-
4,334 39.6
40.6- 42.1
43.8- 5,200
SouRE : Kynazev ( 2S6 ).
AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
TABLE 27.—Effect of width of cut of a 12-inch moldhoard plow on

the specific draft in a sandy soil
Width of cut by plow Specific draft
(inches)! of I)1()\V
P.s.i.
8 2.0
10 2.1
12 2.1
14 2.1
16 2.2
1 Depth of cut wa.s constant.
SOURCE: Randolph and Reed ( SU ).
No indication of effect of path of motion on the results of soil

manipulation (ñnal soil condition) were reported for eitlier of these
studies. (îill and McCreery ( H9 ) reported on the amount of soil
breakup as affected by widtli of cut. Fisrure 187 sliows sections of
FIGURE 187.—Sections of a nioldboard plow u.sed to vary the width of cut.

(Gill and McCreery, Agr. Engin. ( IJ,!) ).)
a moldboard plow that were used to vary width of cut. Shape was
inadvertently varied to the extent that different finite areas of the
same shape were used to vary width of cut. Thus, there may be an
unavoidable interaction between sliape and manner of movement in
the results.
Table 28 shows that as width of cut increased, clod size also in-
creased. The data also show that specific draft generally tended to
decrease as size of cut increased. Since lower specific draft indicates
a lower force per unit of cross-sectional area, the increase in width of
cut would appear to be advantageous. On the other hand, if a high
degree of pulverization is desired, the smaller width of cut is ad-
vantageous. The separate yet simultaneous nature of equations 1.32
and 13,3 is revealed in the results of this study.
Gill and McCreery proposed a way to consider the two contradic-
tory trends by calculating the energy api)lied to the soil for each
width of cut. They calculated the energy from draft and speed
TABLE 2^,—Effect of size of cut on the utilization of energy in
pulveHzing soil
Equivalent
Clod Energy energy
mean- Specific Size of applied to required to Efficiency
weight draft cut soil by tool cause soil of tool
diameter (WJ breakup
(inches)
P.s.L Inches Ft.-lh./cu. ft. Ft,-lh./cu. ft.

1.47 . 27.7 1 2,256 1,790 0.79
3.55 16.0 2 1,302 855 .65
6.46 10.8 4 876 290 .33
7.07 _ _ -. 11.7 6 946 239 .31
8.61 12.1 8 979 137 .14
SOURCE : Gill and McCreery {149 ).
measurements on a unit volume basis, as indicated in table 28. They

also determined the equivalent energy required to cause soil breakup
by using a drop-shatter technique (sec. 3.3.1). A large continuous
block of soil was dropped, and the potential energy involved m the
drop (mass and height of drop considerations) was termed the
equivalent energy that produced the resulting soil breakup. The
mean weight-diameter clod size was determined after measuring clod
sizes with a rotary sieve. Following a succession of drops, a mean
weight-diameter clod size-equivalent energy curve could be con-
structed for the soil condition being considered. The equivalent
energy for any clod size produced by a particular width of cut could
be determined from such a curve. The ratio af the equivalent energy
to the energy applied to the tillage tool can be considered a measure
of the efficiency of the tool. As the data in table 28 indicate, the
small width of cut was much more efficient than the larger width of
cut. Consequently, the high specific draft of the small width of cut
is not a penalty if the soil must be further tilled to produce a small
clod size.
The conclusions reached by Gill and McCreery cannot, o± course,
be considered final. Their work does indicate, however, the im-
portance of path of motion on the resulting soil manipulation.
Furthermore, the work clearly demonstrates the necessity of simul-
taneously considering both design equations. If only the relation
between force and path of motion were considered in table 28, a
large width of cut would seem to be superior. Simultaneous con-
sideration of soil breakup provides information that completely re-
verses the apparent trend. Certainly more work is required to verify
or to modify the conclusions of Gill and McCreery.
5.4.3 Speed
If the orientation and path of motion of a tool are known, the
manner of movement will be completely determined if speed is
specified. Specification of speed is simply describing the velocity
of the tool or, in a more general sense, the velocity of the shape
frame of reference along its path of motion. When the path of
motion is a straight line, speed is easy to express. The mathe-
matical representation of speed for rotating and oscillating tools
is also simple if the path of motion is simple. When velocity is
not uniform, it must be quantitatively expressed at each point along
the path of travel. Because of the considerable difference between
tools traveling in straight lines and those traveling in more compli-
cated paths, only straight line paths of travel will be discussed in
this section.
When sufficient power is available, speed is the easiest design factor
to vary. In practice, speed often is varied. The effect of speed for
straight paths of travel has been widely studied. Unfortunately,
nearly all researchers have considered only the relations between
force and speed. Since the effect of speed on draft is large, it is of
practical importance. As one might suspect, an increase in speed
increases draft ( 4^5 ). This trend has been sufficiently consistent so
that quantitative relationships between speed and draft have been
obtained. McKibben and Keed ( 278 ) have generalized this trend
trom a considerable amount of data in an approximate equation
D = k{v-3y-^, (143)
where D = draft in pounds,
V = speed in m.p.h.,
k = coefficient varying from 5 to 15 depending upon tool.
Others ( 27 ) have expressed the same type of data in the form
^ = 0.83 + 0.0189 ^2^ (144)
where D^ = draft at speed v,

Z>3 = draft at 3 m.p.h.,
V = speed in m.p.h.
Garbotz and Drees ( 1S8 ) have concluded that an approximate rela-
tion might be m the form
^ = Dov, (145)
where D = draft.
Do = base draft for a specified speed and soil condition,
V = speed.
Soehne {40S ) recently used an equation of Goryachkin's to express
draft and speed relations of tillage tools. The equation is
D = Do + €v^, (146)
where D — draft.
Do = basic draft independent of speed,
V = speed,
€ = a constant.
The quantity €v^ was considered to be a dynamic component of the
relation. The component has the same general form as the fluid
dynamic factor pv^ where p is fluid viscosity. While the components
may be analogous, e and p probably are not analogous. For mold-
board plows, Soehne found the magnitude of e ranged from 0.95 for
hehcoidal-shaped plows to 3.67 for digger-shaped plows
SOIL DYNAMI<:S IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 265
The draft-speed relations expressed in equations 144 through 146

show that quantitative design equations can be developed. Obvi-
ously, these three equations are highly restricted. As discussed m
section 5.2, however, even design equations developed from basic be-
havior equations ( 213 ) will be restricted by the assumptions and
limitations that are incorporated. ^ - ^ A
When empirically developing design equations, a logical order
for study seems apparent. Since shape is the most difficult abstract
design factor to vary, perhaps that factor should be the first to be
quantitatively developed rather than some other, such as speed.
Although speed can obviously be quantitatively related at least to
draft, the relation is probably not the most useful one for design
purposes. ^ xi x i.
The manner in which tillage tools are used suggests that shape is
the most important design factor to be considered. The ideal tool
produces the desired soil manipulations in a variety of soil condi-
tions. The user can most easily control soil manipulation by chang-
ing the manner of movement of the tool, such as depth, speed, and
width of cut. Furthermore, he usually has a certain limited range
within which the tool must be operated. A practical range tor
plowing may be from 5 to 8 inches deep and from 3 to 5 miles per
hour. If quantitative shape-design equations were developed tor
depth of operation and speed within this range, shape could be truly
designed for these restricted conditions. The effects of depth and
speed for a suitable shape could then be determined or, as a stopgap
measure, the effect could be expressed as modifiers of shape. Ulti-
mately, equations 132 and 133 must be fully developed. In empiri-
cally developing these equations, certain priorities seem logical.
From a practical standpoint, quantitative shape-design equations
would seem to be more useful than manner of movement equations.
Hence, shape should receive first priority even though speed or depth
relations can be more easily obtained.
5.5 Multipowered Tools
Multipowered tools as defined here are tools that obtain the energy
required to move them through soil in more than one manner. Ihe
power need not be supplied by more than one source of energy ; but
the energy, regardless of the source, must be applied to the tool m
more than one manner. The first means of applying power to tillage
tools, and the one still most widely used, is simply to draw or pull
the tool through soil. Tools mounted on modern tractors are
powered by this method.
Kotating and oscillating tillage tools are examples of multipowered
tools. Draft energy and rotating energy are applied to these tools.
Two primary reasons exist for using the more complex mechanisms
required for multipowered tools. First, draft requirements are gen-
erally reduced. In fact, under some circumstances rotary tools
actually propel themselves through the soil. Among the many ad-
vantages of reducing draft is the important one of reducing traction
requirements of the associated prime mover. The second reason tor
using multipowered tools centers on their ability to manipulate
soil in a desired manner. A rotary tool of suitable design offers a
wide range of possibilities for changing the path of motion. Changes
in movement greatly affect the final soil conditions that can be
created. While many other subtle effects may be considered when
comparing drawn and multipowered tools, most can be roughly
categorized under one of these two reasons.
From a soil dynamics standpoint, the principles of design for a
multipowered tool are no different from those for a simple drawn
tool. Shape, manner of movement, and initial soil condition are
the three independent abstract design factors that control the forces
required to manipulate the soil and create the final soil condition.
Use of different shapes and vastly different manners of movement,
which are possible only with multipowered tools, will result in
different forms for equations 132 and 133. The forms of these equa-
tions will reflect the differences that are due to descriptions of shape
and manner of movement but not a difference in principles. The
differences originate from the restrictions or limited application of
the particular design equations that are imposed by the shape and
manner of movement, not from the manner of powering the tool.
Consequently, all design principles discussed in sections 5.3 and
5.4 will also apply to multipowered tools. Several types of multi-
powered tools have been developed and examples will be discussed.
5.5.1 Electro-osmosis
Many years ago it was established that water moves from a positive
to a negative pole when an electrical potential is applied across a
finite volume of soil. Under certain circumstances, some soils re-
spond in >n opposite manner and water moves to the positive pole
( ^4 ) ; In either case, the phenomenon has been termed electro-
osmosis, and the possibility of moving water that is present in soil
to the soil-tool sliding surface suggests the possibility of changing
the frictional resistance offered to sliding. Obviously reduced draft,
better scouring, and reduced wear make the application of electro-
osmosis to tillage tool design worthy of consideration. The princi-
ples of electro-osmosis are understood ( 6i, 153 ), but the principles
of how water movement affects friction and hence tillage tool designs
are not known. Lack of fundamental knowledge of soil behavior
rather than of the phenomenon of electro-osmosis prevents incor-
porating electro-osmosis into quantitative design equations.
One of the concerns about using electro-osmosis to reduce sliding
friction is the amount of electrical power required to move significant
amounts of water. The value of the power in transferring water,
however, depends on how the water affects sliding friction ; the fric-
tion, in turn, depends on several soil factors. Thus, the situation
is somewhat analogous to a heat pump, where its effectiveness de-
pends more on the temperature difference between the sink and the
source than it does on the energy required to physically transfer the
heat. Figure 188 shows that the amount of electricity required to
move water through soil can vary considerably ( 260 ). Because of
the question of the amount of energy involved, the total energy
supplied to tillage tools utilizing electro-osmosis has been studied.
Shirokov ( 385 ), using electro-osmosis on a disk plow under field
conditions, reduced total power approximately 15 percent (table 29).
Weber ( 499 ) and later Wu Hung-Chein ( 513 ) also reported that
400-1
E
o
5:^300-
^ 200
H
O
UJ
100
20 40 60 80
CLAY CONTENT {%)
FIGURE 188.—Effect of clay content on the energy required to move 1 cubic

centimeter of water through soiL (Maclean and Rolfe, Philos. Mag. (260).)
the process may be utilized effectively on tillage tools operating under

field conditions. Shirokov also demonstrated that mcreased speed
reduces the effectiveness of electro-osmosis, particularly at speeds
above 1.5 meters per second (fig. 189). Paired curves at pomts A
and B represent two soil conditions. The data m table 29 and m
figure 189 indicate that electro-osmosis can produce practical de-
creases in draft. • v i. j
Not all studies of electro-osmosis on tillage tools have mdicêd a
sis-nificant response under field conditions. Crowther and Hames
( 89 ) were unable to obtain a field response, but they were able to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the process on simple sliders.
Since electro-osmosis affects only sliding friction, several ^^search-
ers have concentrated on relations between electro-osmosis and sliding
friction. Dano ( 93 ) found that simple relations do not exist be-
tween soil conditions and the effectiveness of electro-osmosis. He
utilized a slider to supply the frictional interface and reported that
low normal loads (1 p.s.i.) do not provide sufficient contact between
the soil and the sliding surface. At normal loads of 2 and 3 pounds
TABLE 29.—Effect of a 100-volt electrical potential on the foioer

requirement of a dish j)loiö operating at 2.6 kilometers per hour
Mechanical power
Mechanical power plus electrical Savings
Son used for plowing in
moisture power used for
without electro- plowing with power
(percent) osmosis electro-osmosis
Horsepower Horsepower Percent
28.8 24.6 14.0
26.6- 16.2
24.5_ 23.4 19.6
18.0 16.1 10.4
17.9-
SOURCE : Shirokov {385 ).
1000
<
Q
800
600 —1—
.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
SPEED (M/sec)
FIGURE 189.—Influence of speed on the effectiveness of electro-osmosis in re-
ducing plow draft. Solid lines, Draft values without electro-osmosis ; dotted
lines, draft values with electro-osmosis. ( Shirokov, Zhur. Tekh. Fiz. ( S85 ). )
per square inch, friction was more effectively reduced with electro-
osmosis. Dano concluded that the volumetric moisture content of the
soil was ih^ measurement that most closely indicated the effectiveness
of electro-osmosis.
Mackson ( 286 ) used a simple slider to investigate electro-osmosis
through voltage ranges of 50 to 300 volts and speeds of 2.5 to 300 feet
per minute. He determined an equation for a clay loam soil that
related the influence of various factors on the draft of the slider.
The equation had the form
D = 2.83 + OmUS - 0.00708F - OMIM + 0.514P, (147)
where D draft of slider in pounds,
S speed in feet per minute,
V potential in volts,
M soil moisture content in percent,
P normal force in pounds.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the various studies of
electro-osmosis. Its effectiveness in reducing draft seems to hinge
on the following conditions :
1. Sufficient electrical potential must be applied to cause water
movement.
2. The soil must be permeable enough for rapid water movement.
3. Sliding must occur at the soil-tool interface.
4. Good contact must exist through the soil.
5. Sufficient time must be allowed for w\ater to move.
6. The ratio of friction to total draft force must be large so that
the ehmmation of friction would be significant.
These conditions are sufficiently restrictive so that the application
of electro-osmosis will have to be specialized rather than general.
Available data indicate, however, that there are large areas in the
world where the principle may be expected to work. Nearly all
studies have been concentrated on reducing draft; but, an indirect
^ctor that must also be considered is reduced traction requirements.
Even when draft can be reduced only with an increase in total power,
traction requirements may make electro-osmosis practical or econom-
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND 'ÏRACTION 269
ical. Keduced traction requirements may reduce expensive traction

equipment requirements, particularly since electro-osmosis seems to
be most effective in moisture ranges where traction capacity is
severely limited. More knowledge, however, is required before elec-
tro-osmosis can be quantitatively included in design so as to predict
its effectiveness.
5.5.2 Rotating Tools
Three reference systems are needed to describe paths of motion of
rotating tools: (1) The earth reference system is a logical and most
convenient fixed system; (2) the implement reference system is fixed
with respect to the framework and mechanism that permits thé rotary
motion; (3) the shape reference system is the coordinate axis m
which the shape is described. Thus, the shape reference system
moves in a circular path in the implement reference system (sec.
5.4.1), and the implement reference system moves (usually in a
straight line) in the earth reference system. In this publication
a tillage tool that moves with circular motions is defined as a rotating
The designed control of the manner of movement of a tool through

soil is the most outstanding characteristic of a rotating multipowered
tool. Energy is applied to the implement to cause movement of the
shape reference system in the implement reference system as well as
in the earth reference system. In this manner, draft energy as well
as rotary energy is supplied to the implement. Control of manner ot
movement results from the independent control of the movement o±
the shape and implement reference systems. Their combined paths
of movement give the actual path of movement of the tool through
soil. The actual path of travel is, of course, the path that is ob-
served in the earth system. Figure 190 shows two paths of travel
that can result from varying either the speed of the implement ref-
erence system or the rotating speed of the shape reference system
{i05). The action shown in figure 190, B inverts the slice after it
is cut loose since not only the path of movement but also the shape of
a tool can be varied. Rotating tools offer many possible means for
increasing control to obtain the desired soil manipulation.
(A) (B)
FiGUKE 190.—Effect of two paths of tool travel on soil manipulation. ( Soehne

and Eggenmüller, Grundlagen der Landtechnik (^Ö5).)
Many arrangements and configurations have been used for multi-

powered rotating tools. Davidson and Collins built a number of
multipowered machines and described them as early as 1929 {9^),
A nuniber of movements were reviewed by Fischer-Schlemm and
Moser in 1953 ( 118 ), and the extreme versions are shown in figure
191. Most of the machines whose principles are illustrated were
invented or designed from intuition rather than from basic prin-
ciples; nevertheless, some have been successful tillage tools.
FIGURE 191.—Various configurations of rotating tiUage tools. (Fischer-

Schlemm and Moser, Landtechnische Forsch. {118).)
Magazines such as Farming Mechanization ( 115 ) contain many

designs of multipowered tools that provide motions other than those
shown m figure 191. Because a circular path is easily described
mathematically and is simple to obtain from a mechanical stand-
point, rotary systems are identified as a widely used special cate-
gory. This section is restricted to a discussion of rotating tools,
since the principles involved in describing the action are the same
regardless of the particular path that the shape reference system
makes in the implement reference system.
Design equations for rotating tools must be based on the same
principles used in developing equations 132 and 133. Shape of the
tool and manner of movement must be described and quantitatively
related to the appropriate dependent functions F and Sf (sees. 5.3
and 5.4). Shape must be mathematically described along with orien-
tation, path of travel, and speed. These last three quantities require
more definition for rotating tools than they do for tools that travel
m a straight line. For the latter, the shape and implement reference
systems coincide so that they can be reduced to one reference system.
For rotating tools, the two reference systems do not coincide; and the
orientation, path of travel, and speed of each reference system must
be individually specified. Since the implement reference system
usually travels in a straight line, the added complexity of the mathe-
matical description is not as great as it first appears, and the simul-
taneous consideration of three reference coordinate systems is prac-
Of the various proposed systems of rotating tools, those similar

to the one shown in the upper left of figure 191 appear to be most
successful. In this arrangement, the axis of rotation of the shape
reference system is a line perpendicular to a vertical plane containing
the direction of travel. The implement is made up of a number of
similarly shaped tines appropriately spaced along and around the
axis of rotation. Tool macroshape refers to the shape of an indi-
vidual tine rather than the ''shape" of the implement. Since numer-
ous tines are used on a rotary tiller (the implement), a detailed de-
scription of macroshape of tines has not seemed to be too important.
Also, when used at high speeds of rotation, shape probably has not
been as important as other factors such as arrangement of the tmes
on the implement. Nevertheless, shape ultimately will need to be
quantitatively described.
Adams and Furlong ( 1 ) have studied several macroshapes tor
rotary tillers. They did not describe the shapes mathematically, but
depicted them graphically (fig. 192). They determined power re-
B
HOE SLICER PICK
FIGURE 192.—Typical shapes of rotary tiUer tines. (Adams and Furlong, Agr.
Engin. {!).)
quirements, in terms of both rotary and draft energy, for each shape
as well as qualitative results of soil manipulation. Thus, they con-
sidered both design equations even though sometimes they used
qualitative characterizations. A summary of their findings is shown
m figure 193. Of the three tine shapes, the so-called hoe seems to
be superior in nearly every consideration. The dotted lines m figure
193 represent the range of power requirements for small changes ot
the macroshape with no change in the basic configuration Many
workers have established the apparent superiority of the hoe tme.
ROTOR HORSEPOWER
4 -
3
2
I
HOE SLICER
I
PICK
TRACTOR HORSEPOWER
fl! H H
-I
400
I
AVERAGE HORIZONTAL 200
i1
FORCE (FORWARD)
AVERAGE VERTICAL
FORCE (UPWARD)
-200
"400
-600
-800
I I
4
1
PULVERIZATION
(AVERAGE CLOD SIZE) 2
DISPERSION OF MOSTLY IN UPPER

SURFACE RESIDUE FAIRLY EVEN FAIRLY EVEN HALF OF BED
CHOPPING a WINDING GOOD CHOPPING FAIR CHOPPING POOR CHOPPING
OF SURFACE RESIDUE NO WINDING NO WINDING SEVERE WINDING
FAIRLY HARD FAIRLY LOOSE LOOSE WITH
SUB-BED CONDITION
AND SMOOTH WITH RIDGES SPACED FURROWS
FIGURE 193.—The effect of shape of rotary tiller tines on various measures

of performance. (Adams and Furlong, Agr. Engin. ( 1 ).)
and it IS widely used on rotary tillers. Japanese manufacturers have

utilized curved-knife, or so called Nata-Tume, tines to an increasing
degree {U5), For special purposes, special shapes may be superior
to the hoe-shaped tine.
The configuration and arrangement of tines about the rotor create
restrictions as well as possibilities regarding the manner of move-
ment of an individual tine. Drawn tools traveling in straight lines
pass through the soil in a series of consecutive parallel paths. A
moldboard plow inverting soil into the furrow created by its previous
passage is an example. This path arrangement is not always prac-
tical, or even possible, for the tines on a rotary tiller.
Soehne ( 399, 4,06 ) has studied some of the implications of tine
arrangement. ^ Figure 194 shows some boundary conditions an indi-
vidual tme might encounter when the tines are viewed just as they
enter the soil. Only D, E, and G are practical types of cuts since the
others require either varying lengths of tines or immobility of the
implement. The comparative torque requirements indicate that the
energy requirements depend on either the geometry of cut or the
shape of an individual tine.
Soehne conducted studies of these boundary conditions by using
a special apparatus with which a single tine could be revolved and
passed once through soil at a controlled speed. By measuring the
torque required to till soil in each of the various boundary conditions
(fig. 194), he was able to separate the torque requirements into cut-
ting and shearing components. The ''piece" of soil that is separated
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G)
2.0 KgM 3.0 KgM 3.0 KgM 3.8 KgM 4.2Kg^fl 5.2 KgM 6.5 KgM
FiGUKE 194.—The effect of the geometry of cut on the average torque required
to move a hoe-shaped tine through soil. (Soehne, Grundlagen der Land-
technik ( 399 ).)
from the soil mass is very nearly the same size for each soil-tool
boundary condition. The proportion of the total area that is cut by
the hoe and the proportion of the total that is sheared from the soil
mass differs for each condition. Condition A, for example, has no
shear and it has the least area requiring cutting of all the conhgura-
tions Condition F, on the other hand, has no shear but it does have
the maximum area requiring cutting. Condition B has the same
area requiring cutting as condition A in addition to maximum shear.
Condition G, on the other hand, has both maximum cutting and
maximum shear. A comparison of the average torques m figure 194
indicates that shearing requires less energy than cutting. Cuttmg
is constant in conditions C, D, and E; but shearing increases progres-
sively from zero in condition 0 to the maximum possible in condition
E and the average torque decreases as shearing area decreases, ihe
same conclusions may be reached by comparing conditions A with
B and F with G. Furthermore, as the ratio of shearing area to
cutting area decreases, the etfect of shearing on the total required
torque decreases. Even though the lateral shearing area in condition
B is much greater than the cutting area, data m figure 194 show that
torque values in A are approximately only 67 percent of those m B.
The cutting area is greater than the shearing area in condition O-
yet the torque in condition F, which has no shear, is approximately
80 percent of that in G. A comparison of conditions B and £", where
the ratio of shearing area to cutting area is nearly equal, shows that
the torque in B is approximately 71 percent of that in A. it the
cutting and shearing components of the total torque were equal, con-
dition B should require more than twice the torque ot condition A.
Similarly, shearing should have a greater influence m the other con-
ditions if shearing and cutting were equal. Thus, shearing soil
appears to require less energy than cutting. .. . A +;„oa
Soehne also studied macroshape and orientation of hoe-shaped tmes
with the same experimental apparatus. He expressed measured
torque values on the basis of the volume of disturbed soil (size ot the
piece) in order to evaluate the energy requirements on a specific work
basis. He calculated the specific work by dividing the average torque
by the volume of disturbed soil. Figure 195 shows some of the tool
parameters that he studied. He did not describe the exact shape ot
each tool; but the radius R and width W are parameters that reflect
CUTTING ANGLE
R = RADIUS .RAKE ANGLE
O O
(A) (B) (C)

FIGURE 195.—Shape and orientation parameters of hoe-shaped rotary tiller
tines. (Soehne, Grundlagen der Landtechnik { 399 ).)
shape characteristics. He described the orientation of the shape with

respect to its path of travel by the angles identified in figures 195,
B and 0.
Data in table 30 show the effect of the shape parameters W and
R on the specific work required to make two types of cuts (for condi-
tions D and 7^ in fig. 194). The total area of soil to be separated
IS the same for both conditions. In D, however, the total area was
equally divided between shearing and cutting, whereas in F the total
area was for cutting. Shearing required less energy than cutting.
As the width of the tine was increased, the specific work required
to pass the tme through the soil decreased. Since no measure of
soil breakup withm the detached mass of soil was reported, the
extent of the total work on the soil is unknown. The importance of
simultaneously considering both design equations in greater detail is
thus emphasized. Eesults in table 30 indicate that changes in radius
above 30 millimeters appear to have little effect on the specific work
required, but changes in radius below 30 millimeters can signifi-
cantly increase the specific work required. As a result, trends be-
tween the shape parameters IÎ and W and work requirements are
clearly indicated.
The effect of orientation parameters on specific work requirements
was also studied by Soehne. He used single hoe-shaped tines, which
TABLE SO.—Effect of the loidth and the radius of curvature of a tine

on the specific work performed on the soil, for two types of cut
Tine measurement Type of cuti

(millimeters)
(D) (F)
Width (TF)2 Kg, -m./dmß Kg.-m./dmß
85. 9.0 12.0
55_ 7.5 10.3
75___ _ 6.2 9.6
95_ 6.0 9.5
Radius of curvature
15__ 9.0 10.2
30_ . _ 7.0 8.0
50 _ 6.5 8.0
— —
1 Types of cuts (D) and (F) are shown in figure 194.
2 Width (W) and radius (R) are shown in figure 195.
SOURCE : Soehne (399 ).
he passed through the soil once. The rake angle (fig. 195, B) has
no significant eíTect on specific work over a range from 50° to 80 ,
whereas the cutting angle (fig. 195, C) seems to have considerable
effect Data in table 81 indicate that minimum energy is required
at approximately 20°. The cutting angle 8 (fig. 195, G)_ cannot
be considered by itself since the clearance between the tine and
the soil is also present.
Figure 196 shows the relation between the clearance angle a and
the cutting angle 8 for a rotating tool. The tine angle of sharpness
/
/
I
/
\
\
\
\
N
B
FIGURE 19G—A, Relation between clearance angle a and the cutting angle 8 of
a rotary tine; B, cutting and clearance angle correction associated with
forward implement velocity u,.
was 10° SO that a cutting angle of 15° provided a clearance angle of

5° Soehne concluded that the increase in specific work occurring at
low cutting angles results from added friction along the back side
of the tine He further pointed out that because of forward move-
ment of a rotary tiller implement (Soehne's experimental apparatus
did not move forward), both the cutting and the clearance angles
are decreased since the tool actually travels in a cycloid path rather
than in a circle. The path is circular in the implement reference
system where the angles 8 and a exist as shown m figure 196, ^y but
the path is cycloidal in the earth reference system. Since velocities
in moving reference systems add vectorially, the two velocities (tool
velocity in the implement reference system v«, and the velocity ot
the implement reference system in the earth systeni vj) can be added
to give the tangent to the actual path of travel. Figure 196, tí
shows the decrease in clearance and cutting angles A8 tor a single
position of a tine in a forward-turning rotary tiller. Since the tool
velocity vector changes direction as the tool moves m its circular
path, the relation between the actual cutting angle and the angle
correction factor A8 ranges from zero where the implement and tool
velocities are parallel to a maximum where they are perpendicular.
The relation shown in figure 196 can be used in either graphical or
analytical methods to determine true cutting and clearance angles
for any combination of speeds and depths of operation.
TABLE ?>1.—Effect of the cutting angle of a tool on the specific work

required for cutting soil loith two types of cuts
Cutting angle Type of cut2
of tool
(degrees)! (D) (F)
Kg.-m./umß Kg.-m./äm.^
15 9.5 8.5
19 7.0 7.6
25 7.0 8.2
30 _ _ _ 8.2 9.2
1 Cutting angle (ô) is shown in figure 195.
2 Types of cuts (D) and (F) are shown in figure 194.
SouKCE : Soehne {S39).
Soehne also investigated the influence of speed on average torque

as the tool passes through the soil. Single hoe-shaped tines were
compared when cutting in conditions D and F, as shown in figure
194. A definite trend was established between decrease in average
torque and decrease in circumferential speed. A reduction in cir-
cumferential speed from 5.2 to 2.6 meters per second reduced the
average torque 23 percent in condition F and 42 percent in condition
D. Over the range in which Soehne varied speed, the decrease in
average torque with decreases in speed was nearly linear. As shown
m section 5.4, the force required to move a tool through soil always
decreases with decreased speed so that the tool should be moved
through the soil as slowly as is practical. In a rotary tiller, how-
ever, decreased peripheral speed at a constant forward speed de-
creases the actual cutting angle so that compromises must always be
eiiecteci.
^ Soehne's work concerning design factors of individual hoe-shaped
tmes is to be commended. He has quantitatively related descriptive
parameters of shape and manner of movement to forces in a form
compatible with design equation 132. No equations were actually
developed, but quantitative relations are established by the data.
All measurements were made in one soil condition that was obtained
m a laboratory soil bin.. The soil was described as a fine sandy loam
with an average moisture content of 16.5 percent and an average
pore space of 49 percent. Until additional results are determined
tor a variety of other soil conditions, the trends indicated by these
data cannot be generalized. As a result, equations based on avail-
able information would be too highly restricted to have practical
value. Also, Soehne's report does not reflect a relation with final
soil conditions (tillage equation 133). Until such information is
also available^, only part of the required design information is avail-
able. Thus, Soehne's work contributes significantly to the attainment
of design information, but it is just a beginning upon which much
more must be built. . . •n 11
The torque on an individual rotating tme varies considerably as
the tine cuts a slice of soil. Figure 197 shows typical torque curves
Umax'ZB6Mm
1+2'
r+2 r+2
1 + 2'
90» 180«
FIGURE m.-Effect of number and location of tmes «", tofX " 2 HnP roíor
rotor with tines operating as pairs in tlie same row ; bottom, 12-tine rotor
with Tines equally spaced around the rotor. (Soehne, Grundlagen der
Landtechnili (399).)
for one tine 31 and two tines 231 passing through soil. For a rotor
of the usual diameter operating at the usual depth, all soil resistance
is encountered in a 90°-angle of rotation. As figure 197 shows,
peak torque 31„a. and average torque J/,„ for an implement can diner
greatly because of the arrangement of the tmes about the rotor.
Proper spacing can decrease the variation in amplitude of torque to
provide a smooth and desirable torque pattern. Increasing the
number of evenly spaced tines on a rotor produces a snioother
torque curve. Also, with more tines on a rotor, the peripheral speed
can be reduced while, the size of the soil slice is maintained tor a
given forward speed. On the other hand, spacing tmes too closely
causes clogging, and slower rotating speeds decrease cutting and
clearance angles. Any final arrangement and spacing of tmes, there-
fore, becomes a compromise. . í . ^;n<,^
Figure 198 shows the effect of three arrangements of rotary tiller
tines on cut and torque patterns. The technique shown m figure 198
is one means of evaluating the geometry of cut for any particular
tine arrangement. Careful examination of figure 198 shows that
individual tines can have different boundary conditions, depending
on the arrangement. For example, in some tine arrangements, the
180°-,
^ 90
T 1 r-
12 3 4 5
r Mmax = 1.22 Mm rl.l7Mm
,V'/v\^^^vV^v\
FIGURE 198.—Effect of arrangement of rotary tiller tines on cut and torque

pattern. (Soehne, Grundlagen der Landtechnik ( ^9P ).)
actual size of the soil slice differs for different tines. Even if the
size of the slice is constant, the nature of soil failure along the
boundary may vary. Detailed consideration of soil-tool geometries
shown m figure 198 shows that the cutting and shearing areas of a
soil slice vary from tine to tine. Unless the rows of tines run pa-
rallel to the rotor axis, the cutting and shearing areas for individual
tmes cannot be made to be identical. Interior tines shown in the
flat spiral arrangement at the left of figure 198, for example, have
shearing areas of soil slices that alternate between 40 and 60 percent
of the length of cut—that is, the shearing area of an external tine.
Ine steep spiral arrangement at the center has a shearing area that
alternates between 20 and 80 percent of the length of cut. The
unbalanced arrangement at the right, which lets the two external
tmes strike at the same time, should be avoided. In spite of the
variation m shearing area for the steep spiral, its arrangement is a
suitable compromise of all factors.
In addition to the gross arrangement of tines around and along
the length of a rotor, the "microarrangement" of tines is important.
± igure 199 illustrates how the microarrangement of individual tools
may be varied to control overlapping and to improve performance
Arrangement C requires the least power; arrangement A, the
greatest. A careful examination of the geometry of cuts in figure
199 shows that arrangement G tends to minimize the drag between
an individual tme and the soil slice that is cut loose. The frictional
drag IS minimized because the overlapped tine moves along an area
where the soil slice has already been largely formed by the passage
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE 199.—Overlapping of rotary tiller tines to minimize drag. (Soehne

and Thiel, Grundlagen der Landtechnik { 406 ).)
of the previous tine. The overlapping of cuts is just one of many

microarrangement factors that must be considered when tmes are
arranged as a group on rotary tillers. ,
Soehne ( 399) formulated the following general requirements tor
arranging tines on a rotary tiller: .
1. The angular distance between tines as they successively pene-
trate soil must be kept constant, and no two tines should strike the
soil simultaneously. . ^ .. ^ ^ j
2. To prevent clogging, the circumferential distance between aa-
iacent tines should be maximized. « , i
3 Tines located to the right and left of the center of the longi-
tudinal rotor axis must strike the soil more or less symmetrically
to minimize unequal mom.ents. P . T -i i x-
4. The area of shearing and cutting surfaces of individual tmes
must be balanced with the idea of creating equal torques.
The best design of a rotary tiller will be the one that eftects the
best compromise of these four requirements.
In closing the discussion of rotating tillage tools, recognition
must be made of the wealth of information in Japanese literature.
Fundamental studies of rotary tillers have been published by -Doctors
M. Tsuchiya and M. Matsuo of Yamagata University ; Dr. N. Ka-
wamura. University of Osaka Prefecture; Dr. S. Umeda, Kyoto
University; and others; but the difficulty of securing translations tor
the Japanese language has prevented thorough use of the material.
5.5.3 Oscillating Tools
Oscillating multipowered tillage tools are tools that move the
shape reference system in a path that swings within the implement
reference system. Any distinction between rotating and oscillating
multipowered tools is only in the path of motion, not m the method
or principle of energy application. Interest in oscillatmg tools has
risen because of reports that the use of oscillations has reduced draft
requirements of tools. Paths of oscillation may be controlled by
mechanical means such as eccentrics, cams, or crankshaft and con-
necting rod arrangements. These mechanisms provide the means
for applying oscillating energy to the tool as it is being drawn
through the soil. Design information for oscillating tools will be

similar to that for rotating tools. Parameters of the manner of
movement and shape need to be related quantitatively to forces and
final soil conditions.
A spring tine is a practical oscillating tool that is not multi-
powered and that has uncontrolled oscillations {303, 424,), The
oscillations are induced by variations in soil resistance. When high
resistance is encountered, the tine displaces; when resistance de-
creases, the restoring force of the spring returns the tine to its
original position. Presumably, oscillation of a flexible tine permits
the tool to take advantage of minor irregularities in soil strength.
Möller ( 303 ) found that the draft of spring tines may be 20 to 30
percent less than the draft of rigid tines. The two types of tines
were equally effective in breaking up soil. The extent to which the
depth of operation may be affected must also be considered in evalu-
ating performance. Although a spring tine is not a multipowered
tool, it shows how an oscillating path can reduce draft.
The exact reasons why a controlled oscillating tool may require
less draft are not known. All tillage tools that have been discussed
so far have had reasonably uniform paths of motion through the
soil. Furthermore, the speed of the tool along the path of motion
has been uniform. Even rotating tools have had uniform motion.
The very nature of the swinging motion of an oscillating tool re-
quires changes of both acceleration and speed. Thus, the force re-
miirements of a tool used on a specified path of travel may change
if an oscillating motion is superimposed on the basic path. Kondner
( 226 ) demonstrated this fact by vibrating small cutters as they
penetrated soil. He expressed the results in terms of the force re-
quired to cut through soil in relation to the rate of cutting. Figure
200 shows how the average force required for equal cutting rates
decreased when the cutter was vibrated.
Kondner also studied the effect of the frequency of oscillation on
cutting rate, and he concluded that low frequencies were better than
high frequencies. Figure 201 shows general trends observed for
two shapes of cutters. Kondner's apparatus used a centrifugal
driver so that the applied force could be altered by changing the
unbalance of weights. The centrifugal driver thus provided a means
ot applying and controlling the oscillation. Unfortunately, the
natural frequency of the system of driver and cutter also influences
the force actually applied to the soil. The effect of the natural fre-
quency as resonance or a harmonic of resonance was approached
probably accounts for the peaks of 2,000, 4,000 and 8,000 cycles per
minute. The general trend, however, is clearly established even with
the occurrence of these peaks. Cowin, Kondner, and Ayre ( 85-87 )
have published a comprehensive review of literature concerning
cutting and penetrating soil. While the review sheds no light on the
reasons why oscillation reduces force requirements, it does point out
the need to study simple systems where variables can be easily identi-
fied and controlled.
Eggenmüller (110) considered that reduction in draft may be
caused by the reduction of friction along the surface of the cutting
(B)
< 3
er.
<
3
O
10 15 20 25 30 35
TOTAL FORCE (lbs)
FIGURE 200.—Effect of oscillations in the direction of movement on the force

required to cut soil. (Kondner, Waterways Experiment Station {^¿b ).)
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
FREQUENCY (CPM)
FIGURE 201.—Effect of oscillation frequency on the rate of cutting soil. (Kond-

ner, Waterways Experiment Station, 1960 ( 226 ). )
tool As shown in figure 202, after accelerating soil in one direction

a change in the direction of movement of the tool unloads the tool
of soil Only the new block of soil to be cut loose by the forward
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE 202.^Reduction in soil sliding by rapidly oscillating movement. (Eg-

genmuller, Grundlagen der Landtechnik {110 ).)
thrust of the tool (fig. 202, B) will have to slide along the surface
of the tool. Gunn and Tramontini ( 167 ) have clearly demonstrated
that the total energy (draft energy plus oscillating energy) can
be reduced. Figure 203 shows the total energy requirements for a
rigid tool and the same tool when oscillated. Even when total
12 3 4 5 6
TRACTOR VELOCITY-FT/SEC.
FIGURE 203.—Total horsepower requirements for a tillage tool when rigid and
when oscillating. (Gunn and Tramontini, Agr. Engin. {161).)
energy is not reduced, a reduction of the draft energy required to

pull the oscillating tool can be of advantage. The manner in which
the tool can best be oscillated is therefore worthy of investigation
even if the exact reason for the reduction is not presently known.
Describing the path of motion is an important requirement in
developing design equations for oscillating tools. The path of motion
in the earth system is relatively easy to' describe for a rotating
tool, but it can be mathematically more complex for an oscillating
tool. Eggenmüller (HO) reported a relatively simj)le means for
describing a swinging motion superimposed on a linear motion.
Figure 204 illustrates a typical oscillation in which any point on
PATH OF
CUTTING TIP
A B
FIGURE 204.—A, The direction of oscillation of an inclined oscillating tillage
tool; B, the path of the cutting tip. (After Eggenmüller, Grundlagen der
Landtechnik {110).)
the path of the tool is described by the arc of a circle. For small
amplitudes, the arc can be considered to approximate a straight
line. Figure 204, B shows the actual path the tip of the tool makes
when amplitude, direction of oscillation, and forward speed are
fixed.
Eggenmüller developed mathematical equations that describe the
path of motion where the oscillating motion lies in a straight line
m the implement reference system. The position of a chosen point
in the implement reference system, such as the tip of the tool,
could be easily described at any time t if the oscillation is sinu-
soidal. The position of the tip at an}^ time t lies on the path of
motion BD (fig. 205). The line of oscillation he is oriented in the
implement reference system at the angle j) with the horizontal, and
the position of the tip at any time t is given by the relationship A
sin Cut where A^ o), and t are, respectively, amplitude, angular fre-
quency of oscillation, and time. The implement reference system
moves with velocity v in the earth reference system during oscilla-
tion; when the tip is at point a in the implement system, it is
simultaneously at point B in the earth system. Disregarding oscilla-
tions, point a will move to point C in the earth system at time ^,
and the distance B — 0 \& equal to v t. During time t the tip will
have moved from a to c m the implement system, but point a in the
implement reference system will have moved from B to C in the
earth system. The combined motions thus result in the tip moving
from B to D m the earth system. The distance B — D is the vector
Y
IMPLEMENT REFERENCE
SYSTEM
EARTH REFERENCE
SYSTEM
FIGURE 205.—Descriptions of oscillating movements in the earth coordinate

reference system.
sum of the two displacements and is easily determined. If point

a in the implement system is assumed to coincide with the origin
of the earth system at time t — 0^ the position of the chosen point
in the earth system at any time t is given hj the equations
X — V t + Ä cos ip sin 0) t^ (148)
y — — J. sin (/) sin (út. (149)
A plot of X and y values from equations 148 and 149 will produce
a periodic curve of the form shown in figure 204, B where each
chosen point x^y corresponds to a point on the path of the tip of
the tool. Equations 148 and 149, therefore, represent the means
for determining the path of motion of a point subjected to sinusoidal
oscillations constrained along a straight line and superimposed on a
path of linear motion. The parameters of the path of motion equa-
tions are v^ Ä^ (f) and ca, and they should be the variables that
appear in any design equations.
Eggenmüller used an experimental apparatus that produced the
type of oscillation indicated in figure 204, A to measure the inñuence
of the path of motion parameters identified in equations 148 and
149. He used soil in an indoor soil bin, which he described as a fine
sandy loam with an average moisture content of 16 percent and an
average porosity of 48 percent. A fixed cutting angle (6 in fig.
204, A) of 20° and a working depth of 9 centimeters was maintained
for all studies.
Figure 206 summarizes experimental results indicating the influ-
ence of various oscillation parameters on draft. The draft of the
oscillating tool is expressed as a percentage of that of the same
tool operated without oscillations; therefore, all of the experimental
treatments shown are directly comparable.
The data indicate that oscillation decreased draft in every instance
6 9 12 .4 .6 .8
AMPLITUDE (mm) DIRECTION OF SPEED Vo(m/8)
OSCILLATION (*»)
FIGURE 206.—Effect of oscillation parameters on the draft of an inclined tillage

tool. (Eggenmüller, Grundlagen der Landtechnik {110).)
—often more than 50 percent. Over the ranges of values of para-

meters studied, amplitude had little effect after it exceeded 6 milh-
meters whereas changes in the direction of oscillation gradually
decreased draft as the direction was increased from 0 to 30 degrees.
In every instance, draft was reduced as frequency of oscillation was
increased. Frequency had the largest effect in reducing draft and
forward speed the least, whereas amplitude needed only to exceed
a certain threshold value of approximately 6 millimeters.
These conclusions should be applied to other soil-tool systems
with caution, since only one soil condition was mvestigated. iSêver-
theless, this work demonstrates the principle of identifying^ experi-
mental variables for design equations from the parameters of mathe-
matical equations that describe path of motion. If similar results
can be obtained in other soil conditions, it may be possible to develop
general equations to express the relations shown m figure 206.
Eggenmüller measured the power required for oscillating the
experimental tools and qualitatively assessed the final condition ot
the tilled soil. Since power was measured in the form of the elec-
trical input to an inefficient motor that was used to drive the oscil-
lating mechanism, the energy measurements must be considered only
as trends. The direction of oscillation and working depth had little
effect on the oscillation power requirement. Increasing the ampli-
tude increased power requirements, and doubling the frequency ot
oscillation nearly doubled power requirements. From these experi-
ments Eggenmüller concluded that low amplitudes and frequencies
286 AGFICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
would be most practical. Power reductions due to draft reductions

were increasingly offset by increases in oscillation power require-
ments. With regard to the final soil conditions, Eggenmüller con-
cluded that the oscillating tool produced somewhat smaller clod
sizes and appeared to turn the clods over rather than allowing them
to fall back into their original position. No quantitative measure-
ments were made, but difference between clods produced by rigid
and by oscillating tools could be detected visually.
Shkurenko ( 386 ) studied the effect of oscillation on the draft
of a blade. He used a simple system where controlled oscillation
and linear motions were possible. Shkurenko conducted his experi-
ments in one soil condition, which he described as a compact clay
with a moisture content of 26 percent. The blade was a thin metal
plate that had the leading or cutting edge sharpened. The plate
was positioned in one test so that the plane in which the blade was
situated was vertical and contained the direction of travel. This
orientation is designated parallel to the direction of travel. In
another test the blade was positioned so that the cutting edge was
perpendicular to the direction of travel. The plane of the blade
was maintained at an angle of 45° with the horizontal plane to
simulate a simple inclined-plane tillage tool. This orientation is
designated perpendicular to the direction of travel. Two directions
of sinusoidal oscillation were used; they are designated as vertical
and horizontal. These directions constitute values for <¡) of 90° and
0°, respectively (fig. 205). Eclations were established between the
reduction in draft force and the amplitude of oscillation for the
limited experimental conditions. The relation had the form
Ô = yAO''\ (150)
where 8 = ^^^^^ (non-oscillated) - draft (oscillated)
draft (non-oscillated)
A — amplitude of oscillation,
7 = a constant of proportionality depending on the fre-
quency and direction of oscillation, depth and angle of
cutting, and soil properties.
Table 32 lists evaluations of y (cm)-o83 that were determined for
various specific operating conditions. The influence of the oscilla-
tion of the blade was 1.6 times greater when applied in the hori-
zontal direction than when applied in the vertical direction.
Shkurenko also obtained a relation between the change in draft
and a quantity he termed oscillating speed. The quantity was pro-
portional to the frequency of oscillation and speeds of 140 to 170
centimeters per second were required to reduce draft from 50 to 60
percent. This trend of increasing speed of oscillation to decreasing
draft substantiates Eggenmüller's data. Figure 207 shows the effect
of forward speed on the draft of an oscillating and rigid tool. For
the conditions studied, forward speed did not have a large effect on
draft, since a sixfold decrease in speed produced only a 25-percent
decrease in draft.
Dubrovskii ( 107 ) and others have studied other aspects of oscil-
lating tools. Dubrovskii reported that the length of the oscillating
RIGID
^ 800 O
o
- 600
OSCILLATED
< 400
(r
Q
200
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

VELOCITY (M/S)
FIGURE 207.—Effect of forward speed on the draft of oscillating and non-

oscillating (rigid) tillage tools. (Shkurenko {386).)
motion was increased by increasing velocity, so that larger sections

of soil were broken loose. Hendrick and Buchele ( 180 ) reported
that the reduction in draft of an inclined-plane tillage tool was rapid
until the frequency of oscillation approached the frequency ot the
formation of shear surfaces. When Garbotz and Drees {1J8)
vibrated a bulldozer blade, the force required to move the blade was
reduced. An eccentric weight rigidly attached to the blade was
rotated to cause the blade to vibrate. The actual path of motion
was not controlled since it would vary, depending on the torces
acting at any instant of time. Nevertheless, draft was I'.educed.
Practical difRculties are encountered when massive tools are vibrated,
but Eggenmüller ( 111 ) succeeded in vibrating segments ot a mold-
board plow. . ^ .^^ . ..^ , .
Thus, considerable evidence exists that oscillating a tillage tool
can increase the effectiveness of the tool—for example, it reduces
draft and increases soil breakup. But little information has been
accumulated to explain how and why an oscillating tool is more
effective than a rigid tool. Although design equations can be em-
pirically developed for oscillating tools, so many types of oscillation
TABLE m,—Effect of the direction and frequency of oscillations on

the coefficient for a simple Hade operating at a speed of 0.3
meter per second
Direction of
Orientation of Oscillating oscillation
blade frequency
Vertical Horizontal
c./s. 7(cm)-ö.83 7(cm)-ö.83

Perpendicular to direction
of travel and inclined
at 45° from the hori-
zontal _ - -- 100 0.42 0.60
210 .75 1.19
Parallel to direction of
travel and vertically
inclined _ _ _ - 100 .38 .59
210 .70 1.10
SOURCE : Shkurenko {S86).

are possible that basic studies will eventually be needed to properly
evaluate the principle. Most modes of oscillation studied have been
sinusoidal, but many additional types may be used. Hence, the
possibility of optimizing the effect of oscillating a tillage tool by
empirical observation seems doubtful until knowledge that explains
why oscillation is effective becomes available. For example, Eggen-
müller's direction of oscillation of 0° moved the tool forward and
backward through the soil without any up or down movement. One
might consider that this is no different from a rigid tool except that
the speed of forward movement is much greater. But such is not
so, since higher forward speeds require higher drafts for a rigid
tool. The reduction in draft observed for oscillating tools must
have its origin from some action such as the reduction of friction
or the coincidence of movements and shear failures. Probably new
behavior equations concerning oscillating forces will be required
to explain the phenomenon. Until the reason for response to oscilla-
tion IS established, the design of oscillating tools must be largely
inventive.
5.6 Implements
Individual tillage tools cause soil reactions that extend a finite
distance beyond the edge of the tool (fig. 142). If two tools are
simultaneously operated sufficiently far from each other, the tools
can be considered to be operating independently. When the two
tools are brought close to each other, however, they begin to influ-
ence each other. Design equations available for a tool can be used
only when a tool acts independently. When two tools begin to in-
teract, the interaction cannot be represented by design equations
developed for individual tools. The interactions must be recognized
and quantitatively described in order to be incorporated into design.
Fortunately, interactions often can be utilized to control or to
better effect the desired type of soil manipulation. Interactions
also frequently reduce the forces required to move the combined
system of tools through the soil. Optimizing all effects of an inter-
action, therefore, becomes a major challenge to the tillage tool de-
signer. To provide quantitative information that designers can use
to develop proper designs is the challenge for the researcher. Pre-
sumably, the interaction can be quantitatively described with be-
havior equations that are combined to form a mechanics. The
solution of the system of equations will inherently include a descrip-
tion of the interaction. For example, incorporating two tools into
the mechanics involves not only specifying the nature and action
of the two tools but also specifying their position with respect to
each other. The position description can be general since it con-
tains parameters. If a general solution of the mechanics can be
obtained, the resulting design equations can be used to optimize
the effect of the interaction. In the derived approach, developing
a quantitative description of the interaction is the only further step
required, and it involves no new principles.
The development of a quantitative description of interactions for
use in empirical design equations can be undertaken in several ways,
abstract design factor in equations 132 and 133. As such, initial
For example, the interaction may be viewed as a fourth controlling
soil condition Si, shape Ts, manner of movement Tm, and interaction
/ would be the independent design factors. On the other hand, the
two or more individual tools may be considered to be one new
shape, and the interaction can be incorporated into the shape de-
scription. It is also possible to describe the interaction as a modifier
of the design equations applicable to an individual tool. Finally,
the interaction may be considered to be a variation in the manner
of movement of the tool.
While each approach is plausible, none seems to be particularly
superior to any other when all combinations of individual tools are
considered. Probably, one approach will be preferred for certain
circumstances. Any one or all of the approaches may, therefore, be
used in developing design equations by empirical methods.
Implement design as considered here is concerned with the inter-
action between a group of two or more tools and the soil. Struc-
tural arrangements and limitations are important, and in some in-
stances they may override the possibility of utilizing interaction.
Nevertheless, only the interaction, so far as it affects soil manipula-
tion and tool forces, is considered here. The location of individual
rotary tiller tines about the axis of rotation produces a different
effect from the simultaneous interaction now being discussed. In
the rotary tiller, a change in the location of a tine changes the
boundary condition for a subsequent tine. Tines can be spaced far
enough apart so that they do not pass simultaneously through the
soil and interact. The boundary condition created by one tool, how-
ever, may greatly inñuence the action of a tool that operates in the
same vicinity at a later time. Interaction as used here refers to the
simultaneous operation of tools near each other. Both simultaneous
TABLE Z3.—Effect of the type of coulter on the draft of a ploio-coulter

combination
Operating Draft force

Soil tvDe and
moisture content speed Disk-jointeri Coulter-jointer
M.p.h. Pounds Pounds
Norfolk sand :
ñ 6 Deroent 3.0 203 369
7 5 Deroent 3.0 214 241
9 0 Deroent 3.0 311 332
ñ 6 nercent 4.5 350 417
7 ,5 nercent 4.5 268 283
9 0 nercent 4.5 311 401
Hiwassee sandy loam :
8 0 Dercent 3.0 504 562
9 7 Dercent 3.0 501 608
8 0 nercent 4.5 560 663
9 7 Dercent 4.5 559 687
Decatur clay:
13 7 Dercent 3.0 675 824
16.1 percent 3.0 875 938
Average 444 571

iThe disk jointer was a 17-inch concave disk operated 10°-12° from the
direction of travel. Both coulters were operated 31/2 inches deep, with the plow
cutting a furrow 14 inches wide and 7 inches deep.
interactions and boundary condition interactions must be considered

in implement design.
Interactions can occur between tools of different types that are
part of the same tillage implement. The draft of a plow and coulter
combination varies as the position of the coulter relative to that of
the plow varies. Because of the interaction, the draft of the plow
and coulter combination may differ from the sum of the two com-
ponents measured separately. This effect has been demonstrated by
experiments in which different types of coulters were used. Table
33 compares the implement draft of a moldboard plow used in con-
junction with two types of coulters. Berry ( 39 ) found that use
of a disk jointer reduced total implement draft. Apparently, the
disk jointer created a condition so that the combination of tools
reduced total draft force an average of 15 percent. The extent to
which this reduction in draft is desirable depends on the comparative
covering characteristics of the two tool systems. When the per-
formances are equal, there may be an economic basis on which to
select the disk coulter.
The interaction in a double-cut plow is more apparent. Figure
(B)
FIGURE 208.—A, A double-cut plow ; B, the tillage action of a double-cut plow.
(Domsch, V.E.B. Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin {lOJ^).)
208 indicates the principle of a double-cut plow that was designed
to break up a dense layer below the normal plowing depth. The
double-cut plow is also useful when infertile or wet material should
be kept separate from the surface soil. Figure 208 B shows how the
lower share may loosen and pulverize the soil but leave it in the
furrow bottom without any appreciable mixing with the surface
layer. Notice that the lower cut moves soil upward into an uncon-
fined area. As a result, the same volume of soil can be tilled in
layers with less energy than is required to till it in a single cut.
Table 34 shows how draft force is reduced by using the double-cut
principle {357), The same volume of soil was tilled by the two
types of plows; however, the double-cut plow required 25 to 30 per-
cent less draft force than the conventional plow. Notice also that
the various depth settings of the double-cut plow produced different
total drafts for the combination. While the interaction appears to
be small, the effect can be truly evaluated only when each portion of
the double-cut plow is measured simultaneously.
TABLE 34.—Comparison of conventional and double-cut plows loith

respect to the draft force required to ploio a furrow H inches ivide
to several depths
Depth of operation Draft force
Type of Double-cut Conventional

Conventional plow2
soil moldboard moldboard Double-cut
Main Lower plowi plow2
plowi share share
Inches Inches Inches Pounds Pounds
8 5 3 335 235
Norfolk 10 6 2 335 270
sandy 10 6 4 473 356
10 6 4 473 350
Hiwassee 8 5 3 653 513
sandy loam 8 6 2 653 520
1 standard 14-inch moldboard plow.

2 The double-cut plow was similar to the one shown in figure 202. The
main plow was a 12-inch moldboard that was symmetrical with the 14-inch
plow, but it was equipped with two 10-inch shares.
SOURCE : Reed and Berry {351 ).
How much of the reduction in draft of the double-cut plow, as

compared with the conventional plow, was the result of optimizing
the tool interaction (the two shares) was not determined. The
overall dimensions of the double-cut plow were smaller than those
of the conventional plow. Thus, the sphere of influence of the
double-cut plow was utilized in breaking out rather than cutting the
soil. When tearing or shearing force is less than cutting force,
draft should decrease. One additional consideration is that the two
plows probably performed different amounts of work on the soil.
If both were satisfactory, the double-cut plow would have an eco-
nomic advantage.
Another aspect of the interaction concerns the amount of soil dis-
turbed by individual tools on an implement. In section 4.5.5, the
effect of straight tines was discussed and figure 142 illustrates the
effect. Thompson and Kemp ( Í29 ) have developed a graphical

procedure that provides a rapid and precise means for determining
disk spacing and depth of operation in order to best utilize the
capabilities of disks (fig. 209).
(A)
(B)
(C)
FIGURE 209.—Graphic analysis of disk cuts. (Thompson and Kemp, Agr.

Engin. ( Jt29 ).)
In figure 209, J., B^ and 0 illustrate the effect of changing the

distance between two adjacent disks on the area of soil cut when
the disk is oriented at an angle of 45° with the direction of travel;
Z>, E^ and F show the effect on the area of soil cut as the angle of a
gang of disks with a fixed disk spacing increases from 30° to 60°.
The aspect of interaction covered by the method is the changing of
boundary conditions. The possibility that adjacent disks may in-
fluence each other because of simultaneous operation has to be evalu-
ated by other means.
One of the best studies of interaction, reported in the U.S.S.E.
( 515 ), concerned teeth on a cutting blade. A common example of
this kind of tool is a dragline scoop. Some of the research efforts
in the U.S.S.E. were directed toward evaluating the scoop, but
others used simple experimental tools to study the interaction.
Figure 210 shows an experimental arrangement where a single tooth
was fitted on a cutting blade. Three widths of teeth each 5 centi-
meters long were studied (table 35). The area of the soil slice
cut off by the tool is the product of width of cut {Wc) (fig. 210) and
depth of cut. The work expended is proportional to the force re-
quired to move the blade, and data indicate that the narrow tooth
required the least force. On a work-to-area basis, the narrow
tooth was only 70 percent of the wide tooth—a 30-percent increase
FIGURE 210.—An experimental cutting blade with a tooth. (After

Zelenin ( 515 ).)
in the effectiveness of the cutting blade. The results of the soil

manipulation can be expressed by the area of soil cut loose, so that
the work-area ratio simultaneously considers both design equations.
These data clearly indicate an interaction between the tooth and
cutting blade.
Zelenin ( 615 ) also studied teeth on an experimental dragline
scoop. The scoop had a volume of 0.38 cubic meter and was oper-
ated at various angles of inclination to the horizontal. Figure 211
shows the shape of the teeth and the parameters that define the
shape of the teeth. The depth of the cutting blade was kept con-
stant for the scoop but the teeth on the blade were extended below
the cutting blade a distance X, as shown in figure 211, A, The
teeth used were simple wedges with an angle of sharpness, ß,
k<H kb-l
(A) (B)
FIGURE 211.—A, Parameters describing the shape and orientation of teeth

attached to a cutting blade; B, parameters describing the width and spacing
of teeth on a cutting blade. (Zelenin ( 515 ).)
of 16° and a width of 15 millimeters. The scoop was operated in

clay and loam soils. Teeth reduced draft force, (table 36). The
reduction occurred even though the teeth actually operated somewhat
deeper; they added a distance X to the cutting depth. Thus, teeth
clearly decreased the force required to move the scoop through soil.
TABLE 35.—Effect of the width of teeth on the work required to

cut a path of soil
Width of Width of Area of Ratio :
teeth cut Depth of Work
cut expended soil work/
slice area
Centi- Centi- Centi-
meters meters meters Kg.-m. Sq.dm.
3 10 16.1 8.35 1.61 5.18
7 10 17.0 11.52 1.70 6.70
10 10 16.5 12.22 1.65 7.40
SOURCE: Zelenin { 515 ).
TABLE 36.—Effect on the draft force required to cut soil hy model

dragline scoops equipped with teeth
Depth of Lift angle of scoop

Tool
cut 7° 18° 42°
Centimeters Kilograms Kilograms Kilograms
Scoop (no
teeth) 10 420 420 535
Scoop (with
teeth) 10 315 328 400
Percent Percent Percent
Saving in draft
force 25 22 25
SOURCE : Zelenin {515 ).
The spacing and width of teeth along the cutting blade were also
investigated by Zelenin. In a series of experimental arrangements,
the ratio h/a shown in figure 211, B was varied. The results are
shown in figure 212. The data indicate that a definite minimum
occurs at a h/a ratio of approximately 2.5. The curve is based on a
limited number of points, however, so that the exact magnitude of
values may be questioned. Since a ratio of zero indicates an in-
finite number of teeth and a ratio of infinity indicates no teeth, the
data do not appear too unreasonable in light of the data included
in table 35. An interaction between teeth on a cutting blade is
clearly demonstrated by these data.
Length of teeth on cutting blades was also investigated by Zelenin.
For a given orientation (angle of cutting a in fig. 211, Ä), an in-
crease in tooth length results in a greater clearance distance X below
the cutting blade. Added length was detrimental because it de-
creased the strength of the tooth, increased resistance to cutting, and
increased "littering" (some of the loosened soil slipped between the
1.0 ■
X X
h- K
UJ U
UJ LU
1- h-
X O
§ 1 0.8
UJ LÜ
(y fy
Q Q
ü- U.
O O
2 Z
h- H
h-
Z5
t
3
Ü O 0.6
FIGURE 212.—The relation between spacing-to-width ratio of teeth on a cutting

blade and draft of the blade. (Zelenin ( 515 ).)
teeth and was not placed in the scoop). Based on these premises
an equation of the form
(151)
X = L sin
{yî}
where X — clearance distance,
L — tooth length,
y — cutting clearance,
ß = angle of sharpness of tooth,
expressed relations that affected a suitable design. Based on ex-
perience, Zelenin reported that the optimum cutting angle a should
be about 20° for most conditions. A maximum angle of sharpness
is thereby specified, since a minimum cutting clearance angle of 5°
is considered essential. An angle of cutting of 30° was considered
to be maximum, so that a compromise between strength (large
angle of sharpness) and lowest draft (20° angle of cutting) has to
be effected.
A final point may be made about tillage implements. Figure 213
shows an example of a drawn tool whose action is modified by the
dynamic action of a power-driven rotor. Endless possibilities exist
for developing multipowered implements, particularly since engine
power ceases to be a limiting factor. Interactions between complex
tool systems of this type are essentially unexplored.
5.7 Principles of Force Application
To design, by definition, is to conceive a scheme or plan. Since
design implies intent, it becomes important to judiciously choose
FiGUKE 213.—Combination drawn and rotating tillage implement. (Davidson

and Collins, Agr. Engin. (94 ).)
and vary design factors in order to obtain the best possible design.
Two tillage equations described in section 5.2 can be used in develop-
ing optimum designs or in determining the influence of various de-
sign factors on performance. Nothing about the factors to be
selected can be determined from these equations. As a result, it
becomes necessary to choose design factors which, by experience or
intuition, seem to be of basic importance and study them. It is
within the scope of soil dynamics research to provide information
that will ultimately assist in identifying and selecting design factors.
At present (1965), little information is available; however, the
general nature of information that will be required can be foreseen.
To have the skill necessary to design tillage tools that will operate
in the most efficient and most effective manner, the basic principles
of the tillage actions must be identified, developed into distinct
concepts, and properly used. These principles should be used as a
guide to direct the application of forces and movements of tools
in order to achieve the desired soil conditions. Following are illus-
trations of several basic principles of force application:
1. Forces should be applied to the soil in the direction that re-
quires the minimum force to cause the desired action. When only
a cutting action is desired a flat blade can be used to cut the soil
without applying force to lift and loosen it.
2. The mechanical rigidity of the soil mass should be used as a
holding body. The application of force in the desired location and
direction can be controlled when the soil is rigidly held. The direct
fragmentation to the desired clod size may be better achieved by
using the inherent strength of the undisturbed soil mass as a holding
body than by disrupting the mass and then reducing the size of
granules by repeated operations. .
3. The soil-tool geometry should be designed so that the confining
action of the soil is either minimized or utilized in conjunction with
the direction of force application of the tool. Small cuts may reduce
the total force on a tool due to reduced soil confinement or due to the
lesser weight of soil on the tool. The removal of soil from the
cutting areas of augers, ditchers, etc., prevents binding and the need
to displace soil against a high mechanical resistance. The direction
of force may be controlled to utilize the confining action of the
soil mass. In packing or crushing operations with rollers, a large-
diameter roller traps surface clods more successfully than a small-
diameter roller, which tends to roll them in front of the roller.
4. The rate at which force is applied should be controlled. Im-
pact forces may be applied to detached soil fragments in order to
exploit soil inertia and build up stresses in the fragments. Brittle
clods may be broken without entrapment and confinement by the
soil mass.
5. The sphere of influence of an application of force should be
controlled. Changes in strength caused by strain hardening result-
ing from soil compaction may be undesirable or they may influence
the reaction of the soil to subsequent tillage actions. Extraneous
forces such as those imposed by secondary forces—that is, subse-
quent machine operations—frequently undo the work done on the
soil by primary tillage forces. The size and shape of tools also
govern the sphere of influence of the tool.
6. The force applications should be directed to control the size
and shape of detached soil blocks. The shape and path of move-
ment of the tool may be used to influence the size and possibly the
stability of soil blocks.
7. Balanced force applications should be used for multiple tool
units. The controlled movement of several tools can insure or-
der and regularity in the action of the tool on the soil and result
in a more uniform and efficient use of the power input.
8. A sequence of forces should be applied to execute complex ac-
tions. The use of a coulter preceding a plow cuts plant material and
establishes order in a randomly spread plant material so that effec-
tive covering can be accomplished by the plow.
9. The time of force applications in a system should be controlled.
Breaking clods immediately after plowing will preclude the develop-
ment of high strength by drying before breakdown is effected.
Waiting for drying, on the other hand, increases strength so that
compaction is resisted.
There should be a continued search for other principles since they
provide a sound basis not only for the design of tillage tools but
also for the subsequent development of methods by which they
should be used. The development and use of principles for design
will permit a more direct and accurate selection of design factors for
study in the design equations. Unless this is done, pertinent factors
may not be introduced as quickly as possible.
6. PERFORMANCE OF TILLAGE TOOLS
6.1 Introduction
Design was discussed in chapter 5 without regard to use of tillage
tools. Disregarding application was convenient because it simplified
the study of design. Application cannot always be ignored, be-
cause the ultimate purpose of design is not to build tools but to
change undesired soil conditions into new soil conditions that will
better serve some specific intended use for the soil.
Performance is defined by Webster as the act of performing. To
perform is to accomplish, or to carry on to the finish. Performing
implies action; and performance can have almost as many specific
meanings as there are specific actions. In tillage, the obvious action
is the manipulation of the soil into a different condition. Perform-
ance of a tillage tool thus may be defined as the production of a
change in soil conditions by manipulation of the soil. Performance
includes two distinct and separate factors of interest : the amount of
soil manipulation, and the magnitude of forces required to cause
the manipulation. These factors must be quantitatively assessed in
order to measure tillage tool performance.
Each factor of tillage tool performance is fixed, since it does not
vary for a fixed manipulation. As indicated by tillage equations
132 and 133, in chapter 5, the use of a given tool in a given soil
condition results in a fixed change in soil condition. The difference
between the initial soil condition Si and the final soil condition Sf is
a measure of soil manipulation. Similarly, the forces required to
cause the manipulation do not vary for a fixed manipulation. Given
the necessary information and the idealized type of complete mech-
anics discussed in chapter 4, tillage performance could be calculated.
Similarly, if the tillage equations were fully developed, they could
be used to calculate performance. Tillage performance, when de-
fined in this sense, is a fixed and determinable entity that can be
used to express the performance of a soil-tool system.
Performance embraces more than just changing the soil to a new
condition. First, the tillage tool should perform efficiently ; that is,
soil conditions should be altered with the smallest expenditure of
energy required to operate the tool. Second, the final soil condi-
tion must be acceptable. A tillage tool may manipulate soil very
efficiently, but the soil condition it produces may not be suitable
for the intended use of the soil. Performance, in terms of suitability
of soil conditions, must be evaluated by comparing the final soil
conditions that are produced with those that are desired. Perform-
ance, in terms of forces, must be evaluated by comparing forces
required for manipulation with available or acceptable forces.
The soil conditions that are to be produced by tillage must be
expressed in criteria that characterize the soil in terms associated
298
with its intended use. These criteria are specifically determined by

the intended use for the soil and not by anything intrinsic m a til-
lage tool or even the soil itself. The physical condition or state of
soil determines the degree to which it may be utilized for a specific
purpose. The term soil conditions, as used here, includes all physical
characteristics of the soil that may be pertinent to its use. Soil
in a specific condition may be suitable for one intended use but not
another. The difference here is not in the condition of the soil but
in the requirement that must be met by the soil for each intended
use.
Evaluation is a measure, or an estimate if quantitative descriptions
are not used, of how close the actual performance is to the intended
performance. Evaluating the performance of tillage tools requires
broadening the scope of interest to include the purpose of tillage.
This broadening of the scope of interest completes the cycle of in-
terests encompassed in soil dynamics. The need for soil dynamics
comes from the need to understand how to manipulate soil. The
types of manipulation that are required are determined by the in-
tended use of the soil. In the development of soil dynamics, interest
was first vested in the dynamic properties of soil as defined by soil
behavior equations. This interest stems from the fact that the soil
is placed in motion during a manipulation and its dynamic behavior
becomes of importance. The soil behavior equations are basic to a
soil-tool mechanics; mechanics is basic to design; and design is basic
to performance. Evaluation of performance takes into considera-
tion the intended use of the soil as well as the performance of a tool,
and the scope of interest of soil dynamics is completed.
Evaluation of performance requires (1) measures of soil condi-
tions to determine when and how much a condition is changed by a
manipulation and (2) measures of the forces required to cause the
manipulation. Generally, soil conditions cannot be controlled with-
out tillage, so that all changes must come from the use of a tool. To
change the performance of a tool, there must be a change in its shape,
manner of movement, or constructional material. Changes of
this type are effected by the design of a tillage tool. Obviously,
the designer must consider evaluation of performance so that
there can be an interplay of design, performance, and evalua-
tion. Because of the need for this interplay and because of the
complexity of the various factors involved, quantitative descrip-
tion is required for each of these factors. With quantitative de-
scriptions of design, performance, and evaluation, mathematical
principles can be employed.
Quantitative descriptions of performance are difhcult because no
method has been developed for describing soil conditions adequately.
Tool forces can be readily measured and reported in representative
terms, so that the force aspect of performance is relatively easy to
describe. Mathematical representations of force systems are well
developed. Quantitative descriptions of soil conditions, on the
other hand, are not well developed. In fact, at present (1965),
specific conditions usually cannot be quantitatively described with
regard to the intended use of the soil. Some of the problems of
describing soil conditions with respect to tillage tool performance are
discussed in section 6.2.
In retrospect, we can see how inability to characterize both actual

and desired performance has hampered the evaluation of perform-
ance and has influenced the design of tillage tools. Lack of quanti-
tative descriptions of soil conditions precludes establishing an ac-
curate performance goal for a particular tool. As a result, in
seedbed preparation, that portion of the required soil manipulation
not accomplished by a moldboard plow, for example, is completed
by subsequent harrowing, levelling, or packing. Without a specific
performance goal, the inadequacies of the moldboard plow go un-
noticed and are compensated by additional tillage operations. The
development of methods by which to describe performance of tillage
tools and to evaluate performance in quantitative terms will ma-
terially improve the means available to better design tillage tools.
6.2 Description of Soil Conditions
A description of soil conditions that can be successfully used
within the framework of soil dynamics must meet two criteria.
First, the description must be quantitative and, second, it must be
easily interpreted in terms associated with the behavior implied
in the intended use of the soil. For example, electricity is known
to flow in accordance with Ohm's Law, If a soil is to be used as
a ground return in an electrical circuit, a description of the soil
condition should specify the electrical resistance of the soil. This
is the only means by which the soil condition can be interpreted in
terms compatible with Ohm's Law. If the condition is not described
by resistance but by specifying the percentage of clay in the soil,
its moisture content, porosity, temperature, and similar factors, the
description cannot be interpreted in terms of resistance and hence
has limited value. Thus, while the material and static state de-
scriptions of soil may be quantitative, they do not reflect the role
of the soil in the behavior of interest and the descriptive parameters
are not compatible with the requirements of the behavior equation
(Ohm's Law).
To be compatible, a description of soil conditions must physically
represent the parameters inherent in a behavior equation that reflects
the behavior of soil in its intended use. Soil to be used for some
specific purpose is subjected to a force system. Whenever soil is
placed in use, the soil acts ; the applied forces cause the action. For
example, in constructing roads, dams, or building foundations, me-
chanical forces are applied to the soil ; the soil is expected to resist.
The mechanical resistance is the soil action, since the soil is not just
occupying space and doing nothing. In tillage, the soil is also sub-
jected to mechanical forces, but it is expected to fail and yield. The
movement of the soil is the action. When electricity is transmitted
through soil, electricity applies force to the soil; when the soil is
used as a medium for plant growth, air, water, and plant roots
apply forces to the soil. All of these examples illustrate the fact
that whenever man uses the soil for some purpose, the soil is sub-
jected to forces.
As discussed in section 3.1 and illustrated in figure 39, the soil
responds to applied forces in one of two distinct reactions. The soil
may resist and enter into a passive behavior relation, or it may yield
and enter into an active behavior relation. These reactions are theo-
retical but are separate and distinct. That the reactions can and
often do occur simultaneously does not negate the principle of their
independence; it merely complicates the situation. The important
point, however, is that any use of soil involves either an active or a
passive behavior of the soil. These behaviors can be represented by
suitable behavior equations. As was discussed in section 3.1, the
equations contain parameters and the parameters provide a means
for numerically describing the role of the soil in the behavior.
Since the parameters are defined by a behavior equation that repre-
sents the specific behavior associated with some intended use, be-
havior parameters provide the mechanism by which to describe soil
conditions in terms that are compatible with the intended use.
Examples of active behavior equations and various means for
assessing the parameters were given in chapters 2 and 3. Active
soil behavior is relatively easy to visualize because the soil itself
actively participates in the behavior. This active participation is
the movement and yield of the soil. Passive soil behavior is dis-
tinctly different from active behavior. In spite of this distinct dif-
ference, the parameters of the equations that represent the respective
behaviors serve the same function, namely, they assess the role
the soil plays in each respective behavior. j, r\^ j
To visualize passive behavior, consider the application of Ohms
Law to soil. In this application, the soil acts as a "conduit"^ or a
"conductor" for the now of electrons; it serves as a transmitting
medium. During this behavior, the soil itself is not active ; that is,
it is not moving. Eather, by its rigidity it is guiding and con-
trolling the active material, the electrons. Also when air or water
moves through soil, the soil without motion guides or controls the
flow of the active material. Thus, in passive soil behavior the
transmitted material is the active material, whereas in active soil
behavior the soil itself is the active material. Furthermore, passive
behavior of soil always involves two materials—the soil and the
material being transmitted. These two materials may be envisioned
to be a combined system, and an overall behavior equation will
represent the behavior of the system. This same type of relation
applies to the soil-tool system where the soil is the active material
and the tool guides and controls the flow of soil. The functional
relation provided by equation 132 (discussed in ch. 5) thus might
serve as a passive behavior equation of a tillage tool.
It is important to separate soil behavior into active and passive
reactions. Theoretically no conflict exists, since the separation is a
mental model of the physical behavior; in practice conflict does
exist, however, because active and passive reactions can and do
occur simultaneously. Furthermore, force systems can and do
vary continuously in magnitude. Whether the same force system
causes the soil to enter into a passive or an active reaction depends
on the magnitude of the forces. In other words, there is no way to
look at forces and separate them into those that will cause passive
behavior and those that will cause active behavior. In practice,
however, a separation can be made. To illustrate, consider water
flowing through a pipe. Characteristics of the pipe such as size,
shape, length, and roughness guide and control the flow of the water
through the pipe—that is, they determine the role of the pipe m the
pipe-water system. In this role, the pipe enters into a passive

behavior relation. Actually, the pipe itself is subjected to the pres-
sure forces of the water and the pipe material enters into an active
behavior relation. From a practical standpoint, the active relation
can be ignored as long as the pipe is strong enough to withstand
the pressure. Stress-strain and yield equations are the active be-
havior equations of the pipe. If the water pressure is large enough,
the pipe will fail and in a sense be ''"manipulated."
Somewhat the same separation of reactions can be visualized for
soil. One big difference, of course, is that soil is a three-dimensional
semi-infinite material whereas a pipe contains a finite amount of
material. This difference complicates the separation of the reactions
for soil but does not negate the principles of similarity. Thus,
from a practical standpoint, soil behavior can be separated into two
reactions. In tillage, we are usually interested in only one behavior
at a time and the other can be ignored.
Two problems are associated with selecting and using soil behavior
equations to describe soil conditions. First, soil conditions are not
constant with time. In other words, soil conditions can change even
though tillage forces are not being applied. Changes are caused
by forces so ill defined that they are generally called weathering,
wetting, or drying.
In tillage, we are primarily interested in the immediate effect of
tillage on soil conditions. Tillage cannot control soil conditions
after tillage has been completed. Since a tillage operation is usually
completed m a very short time when compared to forces involved
m weathering, soil conditions before and after tillage are essentially
constant. Therefore, with regard to tillage performance and its
evaluation, changes m soil conditions that are associated with time
can be ignored. Changes associated with time are separate and in-
dependent of tillage and may be studied by themselves. Ultimately,
of course, m a system of wider scope, the effect of both tillage and
time on soil conditions must be considered. Kepeated determinations
of the parameters of the behavior equations provide the means by
which to follow changes in soil conditions regardless of the applied
forces.
The second problem is the selection of behavior equations that are
compatible with the intended use of a soil. Obviously, only be-
haviors that are involved with the intended use are of interest and
other behaviors can be ignored.
Some soil behavior equations are not directly related to the in-
tended use. A direct relation always exists if the inputs or outputs
of the behavior equations are directly related to the intended use.
For example, a direct relation exists*^ in traction, in support for a
footing, or m an electric ground return. The forces involved in
active behavior are precisely those that provide traction or support
a footing. The amount of electricity transmitted is of direct concern
when the soil is used as a ground return.
An indirect relation always exists if the soil behavior equation
represents only a subsystem of an overall system of interest. An
indirect relation exists when complete control of the overall system
is not totally vested in a soil condition and particularly a soil con-
dition created by tillage. One complex system of interest involves

the influence of tillage on the growth of plants.
At least four systems are interrelated in tillage and plant growth.
These are the soil-machine, soil-water, soil-air, and soil-plant sys-
tems. Plant growth itself is a form of biological behavior that
depends on the environment of the surrounding atmosphere as well
as of the soil. The oxygen and water required by a plant is deter-
mined by the plant but may be influenced by the ambient environ-
mental conditions. Only the soil conditions are affected by tillage,
and these conditions control the rate at which oxygen and water are
transmitted through the soil to the plant roots. Consequently, the
only behavior associated with the soil-machine system is the produc-
tion of different soil conditions. These different soil conditions con-
trol the movement of oxygen and water—that is, the soil-air and soil-
water systems. The availability of oxygen and water influences but
does not control plant growth. Thus, plant behavior cannot be
directly related to the type of tillage tool or even to forces applied to
the soil by the tillage tool because of the influence of intervening
systems. Performance of the soil-plant system must be separated
from the soil-machine system. Thus, while in plant growth the
growth is of interest, this behavior is neither directly related to the
soil nor controlled by it. Soil conditions must be described in terms
that are directly related to the soil, namely, the transmission rates
of oxygen and water, rather than in terms that are directly related
to plant growth, the behavior of interest. Thus, selecting behavior
equations to describe soil conditions is not always simple or easily
achieved. Lack of simplicity, however, does not negate their use-
fulness in describing soil conditions.
In principle, the establishment of quantitative descriptions of soil
conditions by using soil behavior equations is simple; in practice,
however, it is complex. The complexity results primarily from lack
of identified behavior equations. Passive soil behavior equations
are few. They have not been developed for various reasons. First,
there have been no concentrated efforts to establish passive behavior
equations. Second, there has been a failure to separate situations
where soil has direct control of the intended use from situations
where soil has indirect influence. Unless this distinction is made,
there will be little progress toward developing adequate behavior
equations. In a direct relation such as traction, soil conditions con-
trol the performance of a specific device. In an indirect relation
such as plant growth, soil conditions do not control; they only in-
fluence. Indirect relations do not provide a one-to-one correspond-
ence rule between soil conditions and use; therefore, quantitative
relations cannot be established. A third reason why development
of passive behavior equations, in particular, has lagged is that soil
conditions change with time. Internal movements due to the appli-
cation of forces that cause swelling and shrinking change soil condi-
tions. Changes of this type make the development of passive be-
havior equations very difficult. The method by which soil conditions
can be described in terms of the intended use is clear, but it cannot
presently be implemented because the necessary behavior equations
are not available.
Meaningful descriptions of soil conditions and, hence, of tillage

performance hinge on the establishment of soil behavior equations.
Once established, however, the parameters of the equations must be
assessed. One means of assessing the parameters is by direct mea-
surement. While straightforward, this means has one serious limi-
tation. The limitation is not that a measurement must be made,
but that a different measurement is required for each behavior equa-
tion. An assessment of soil from which all behavior parameters
could be determined is desirable. Intuitively, we know such an
assessment is possible since the various properties of a material pre-
cisely determine what it is and how it behaves. Some information
about the implied relations as well as about the means for analyti-
cally deriving behavior equations themselves can be gained by con-
sidering the soil as the granular material that it is.
Soil is a granular material composed of air, water, and solids.
The solid matrix of the soil is built up from stable groups of pri-
mary particles (sand, silt, clay) called aggregates or peds. Ag-
gregates, or in some instances the primary particles, are arranged
in a porous matrix occupied by the air and water. The geometric
arrangement of the solid material is generally called soil structure
{325). Structure is an independent entity—the fortuitous arrange-
ment of aggregates as influenced by total past history; therefore,
structure will have to be measured or identified.
A quantitative description of structure probably will be geometric.
The description will not be a behavior equation, since structure
represents part of the static state of a soil and involves no action.
Since structure is an independent entity, its description cannot be
calculated from behavior equations, material properties, or any
other aspect of soil characterization. Yet structure, together with
the mtegrated influence of the material properties of soil, completely
determines the specific active and passive behavior of soil when it is
subjected to force systems.
To illustrate the control that soil structure and material properties
have on soil behavior, consider the soil-air system where air is being
transmitted through the soil. Obviously, air flows through the
porous portion of the soil matrix, and structure determines the
size, shape, length, and tortuosity of the pores. Thus, a description
of structure will describe the conduits for the air. Since air is the
active material of the system, active behavior equations of the air
come into play. Air is a fluid, and these equations are embodied
in the principles of fluid mechanics. The material properties of
the soil also may affect the flow of air.
If the structure and material properties of the soil and the active
behavior equations of the air were all available in quantitative form,
a system of equations would exist. This- system of equations would
form a mechanics, as was discussed in chapter 4. The solution of
the system of equations would describe the behavior of the soil-air
system and provide parameters of the passive role of the soil con-
cerned with air flow. Since the properties of air remain essentially
constant, its behavior is essentially constant. Control of the flow of
air thus is vested in the structure and material properties of the soil
—that is, its condition.
Theoretically, any passive behavior role could be calculated in
this way. A mechanics is formed from the active behavior equations
of the transmitted material and a description of soil structure and
soil material properties. The solution of the mechanics is the de-
sired behavior equation of the system, and certain parameters will
describe the passive behavior of the soil.
An active soil behavior equation can be calculated in a similar
fashion although the calculation is considerably more complicated.
The analogy can perhaps most easily be seen by considering soil
structure as though it were a bridge truss. The strength of a bridge
is determined by the strength of the elements of the truss and their
geometric arrangement. The active behavior is the stress-strain and
yield behavior of the elements of the bridge. To calculate the
strength of a bridge, the geometry of the truss is described and the
appropriate yield conditions of the elements are considered. For
soil, the active behavior equations of the aggregates (stress-strain,
yield) constitute the active behavior equations of the material m
motion. These equations have a function comparable to the trans-
mitted material active behavior equations where the soil participated
in passive behavior. When active soil behavior occurs, the action
changes the structure. Thus, the structure description will be
changing while the active behavior is occurring. It is this changing
structure that complicates the calculation of active soil behavior
equations. The complication can be seen by again considering the
bridge analogy. Unless the bridge truss changes in an orderly
fashion as yield occurs, the entire structure will have to be studied
as each member fails. A similar situation applies to the soil. The
mathematics appears to be highly complex and involved. Thus,
while soil behavior equations can theoretically be calculated, the
mathematical complexity makes the method seem impractical.
The foregoing hypothetical considerations serve two purposes.
First, they illustrate the difficulty of making one assessment of soil
from which all behavior equation parameters can be calculated.
Second, they illustrate the importance of structure and the relation
between it and the behavior equation parameters.
The relation between soil structure, material properties, and pas-
sive soil behavior can be further illustrated by considering water
flowing through soil. When water flows through soil, the practical
influence of the material properties may be represented by the angle
of wetting of the soil. If one assumes that the soil particles are
represented by uniform-sized spheres, the radius of the spheres
would reflect not only their size but also the surface area of tlie
spheres. When the spheres are closely packed, measuring the size
of the tetrahedra of the spheres would provide a parameter of struc-
ture and size, so that all flow behavior associated with the radius
would be reflected by the new parameter. As the soil particles
become smaller, the pores and the tetrahedra also become smaller
and retard movement of the water through the soil. Since both
the size of particles and the structure arrangement of the soil vary,
the size distribution of particle radii or pores may be used to describe
soil structure. Marshall ( 291 ) has reported encouraging agreement
between calculated and measured permeabilities (Darcy's k) of soil
based on pore size distribution. Thus, structural descriptions may
be used to calculate a behavior equation parameter. Considering
additional factors should improve the accuracy of the description
reported by Marshall.
The foregoing oversimplified situation illustrates the fundamental
relation between behavior equation parameters and structure and
material property parameters. Even though a real situation is much
more complex, the fundamental relation is the same ( 239, 2JfO ).
Eecognition of this relation is extreraely important, because it indi-
cates some characteristics of soil behavior equation parameters. At
first glance, soil behavior parameters would seem to be related to
each other since they are nonvarying for nonvarying soil conditions.
This implied relation, however, is not directly to each other; rather
the relation between behavior parameters is indirectly to each other
through the structure and material properties of the soil. Thus,
the behavior parameters probably are not related to each other in
one-to-one correspondence rules. Eather, they are dependent vari-
ables determined by the same independent variables, and these inde-
pendent variables represent structure and material properties.
Unique independent functional relations can exist for the same
independent variables, but a unique relation may or may not exist
between variables dependent on the same independent variables.
The situation is analogous to the one discussed in section 5.2 with
regard to the tillage equations.
Lack of a direct relation between two parameters greatly restricts
the apparent usefulness of behavior equation parameters. Since the
parameters are probably not related to each other, one behavior
paranieter indicates little about another. In other words, the active
behavior parameters will not indicate anything about a passive be-
havior parameter. In fact, one active behavior parameter probably
will not indicate anything about another active behavior parameter.
Thus, if only one assessment of soil is to be made, it will have to
include the quantities that control the behavior parameters, namely,
the integrated effect of structure and material properties. The
foregoing discussions indicate not only that the measurements them-
selves will be difficult to make (measurements of structure, for ex-
ample) but also that the calculations required to determine the para-
meters will be even more difficult.
^ The relation also shows that behavior equation parameters cannot
indicate anything specific about structure or material properties ; the
calculation is not reversible. This nonreversibility is not unique to
soil behavior equations. For example, the electrical resistance of a
piece of wire does not in any way indicate the size, length, tempera-
ture, or material of the wire. Yet these factors precisely determine
Its resistance. Thus, the deductive value of behavior equation para-
meters IS extremely restricted and limited.
Behavior equation parameters do assess soil conditions by a means
that IS compatible with intended use. When using soil, we are not
interested m the structure of the soil or its material properties per
se. Eather, we are interested in how these factors affect the be-
havior involved m our use. Behavior parameters accomplish this
one objective. They measure the combined integrated effect of
structure, material properties, and any other characteristics that
affect the behavior under consideration. In short, behavior para-
meters assess the function of soil in the behavior regardless of how
the function is effected.
Each parameter or set of parameters is associated with its own
behavior and can indicate nothing about another behavior or about
the soil itself. The parameter assesses only the factors that are
important to the behavior and ignores all other factors. This dis-
regard of factors limits the extrapolation of one behavior parameter
to other factors that may be of interest. But this same limitation
simplifies the situation so that a useful representation is possible.
Behavior parameters thus provide a means for simplifying the com-
plex relation that exists between a material and how it behaves.
No easy or convenient means is available for accurately assessing
soil conditions. Directly measuring behavior parameters is a simple
but not a convenient means unless the intended use of a soil involves
few behaviors. When many behaviors are involved, direct measure-
ment becomes inconvenient because each behavior must be individu-
ally measured. When the number of measurements is not too cum-
bersome, direct measurement may be the most expedient method for
assessing soil conditions. The limitation of direct measurement is
overcome if behavior parameters are related to each other. In the
foregoing illustrations, behavior parameters were shown to be in-
directly related to each other; consequently, relations cannot be es-
tablished that would permit measuring one behavior and from it
determining the parameters of some other behavior. Behavior para-
meters were shown to be directly related to structure and material
properties. Soil conditions thus can be described in terms of struc-
ture if the appropriate relations can be established.
Two difficulties limit this approach. First, as the hypothetical
illustrations pointed out, the mathematical complexity of the re-
quired calculations may make the approach impractical. Second^,
even without the mathematical limitation, the measurements required
to define a particular structure would be extremely difficult to make.
In fact, such measurements could be more difficult and time consum-
ing than numerous direct measurements of many behaviors. Since
behavior parameters are related to structure and structure compli-
cates the situation, simplification can be obtained only by simplifymg
the description of structure. Composite structure parameters offer
a means for simplifying its description.
Composite parameters always lack definition and impose a limit
on accuracy; consequently, relations between structure and behavior
parameters can be determined only by empirical methods. But
the representation of structure by composite quantities will simplify
the description so that practical relations can be established. Mar-
shall's work is an example. Bulk density, percentage of pore space,
pore size distribution, and particle size distribution are examples ot
composites that are presently used. Perhaps other parameters will
need to be identified, isolated, and assessed before satisfactory quan-
titative measures of structure can be related to behavior parameters.
Establishment of composite parameters appears to be the only
practical Avay to assess soil conditions other than by direct measure-
ment of behavior parameters. n i j j
Since few passive behavior equations have been developed and,
lience, few parameters are available, the relations between structure

and the parameters are not available. Consequently, at present
(1965), soil conditions are assessed by composite parameters of
structure even though the assessments cannot be quantitatively re-
lated to the intended use. However, they can be qualitatively re-
lated by experienced judgment, and such judgment can indicate the
desired magnitude of a composite structure parameter. Thus, the
combination of qualitative experienced judgment and quantitative
composite structure parameters provides a practical means for de-
termmmg tillage tool performance. By these procedures an ex-
tremely complex system is simplified at a sacrifice in accuracy.
Hopefully, such simplified procedures can be improved and devel-
oped step by step until soil conditions can be adequately described
and tillage tool performance can be accurately determined and evalu-
ated by quantitative procedures.
6.3 Objectives of Tillage

For each use of soil, a separate and distinct soil property or
condition may be required. This required soil condition may be
modified by circumstances such as climate or economics. Thus, it
may become necessary to produce an infinite number of soil condi-
tions by tillage if we are to meet all foreseeable requirements. Be-
cause of the infinite number of possible required soil conditions and
the lack of quantitative descriptions for these conditions, the reasons
for tillage have been used to describe the objectives of tillage.
Qualitative terms such as eradication of weeds, pulverization, and
smoothing are used to describe the reason for performing a particu-
lar soil manipulation. In other words, the kind and degree of
changes m the soil—that is, the bases of performance—are not
specifically stated as tillage objectives.
Qualitative descriptions of tillage objectives will continue to be
very useful, but their general nature imposes limitations on their
usefulness (SS). They have been useful in developing very special-
ized tillage tools, each capable of performing some type of spe-
cialized soil manipulation. Specialized, yet restricted, descriptions
of soil conditions and tools have provided the means for selecting
the proper tillage tool to perform a desired manipulation. Just
as a craftsman selects a different type of saw for each material he
cuts, so must a tiller select a different tool for each soil condition
he^ encounters or wishes to establish. In reality, only one objective
exists and that is to produce a desired soil condition. The develop-
ment of quantitative descriptions of soil conditions will enhance the
establishment of criteria of performance.
In the absence of accurate descriptions generalized purposes of
tillage may be classified for use as objectives of tillage. A summary
of the common objectives of tillage follows:
1. CONDITIONING OF SOIL: Tillage is performed to loosen, granulate,
or otherwise condition soils. Often this is done to promote plant
growth. Soil may be cut, loosened, or broken up so that it may be
moved or so that water and air may move more freely through it.
Soil may also be loosened to promote drying or to reduce the me-
chanical strength of the soil mass.
2. ERADICATION OR CONTROL OF PLANTS OR PLANT MATERIALS : Tillage
is frequently performed to control weeds during the production of
crops. Sometimes weeds are controlled by chemical means. On
the other hand, the complete removal of plant materials—as m the
creation of a firebreak—may be required. Plant thinners that
operate in the soil control plant growth. Not all mulching opera-
tions involve soil tillage; some operations merely process plant
residue.
3. ESTABLISHMENT OF SOIL BOUNDARIES AND SURFACE CONFIGURA-
TIONS: In planting (listing and bedding), irrigation, drainage, and
landscaping, the soil often is tilled to create some special soil con-
figuration on or in the soil profile. These tillage operations would
generally fall in the class of land forming, but this would not pre-
clude the inclusion of a ditch cleaner since its action would be to
restore a desirable boundary by moving the soil (^5). Transient
boundaries may be used to inñuence soil-handling operations. For
example, a coulter or jointer may be used to establish a clean or
straight boundary to promote good plow action. The boundary is
transient since it may be removed within a few seconds after it is
established.
4. INCORPORATING, COVERING, OR HANDLING FOREIGN MATERIALS IN
SOIL: Fertilizers, plant residues, mulch papers, soil amendments,
ñexible pipes, communication wires, military mines, and many other
materials may be inserted into the soil by tillage. Often these
materials are distributed in specific portions of the soil profile so
that the designs and principles of use of tillage tools may vary con-
siderably. The inversion of soil by tillage in order to cover ma-
terials such as crop residues or radioactive dust may serve no other
useful purpose even though granulation and other effects of the
operation may be obtained as a byproduct of the primary action.
5. SEGREGATION: Tillage may be used to move soil or other ma-
terials from one layer of soil to another. This occurs when deep
tillage is used to create clods and to move these clods to the surface
in order to minimize wind erosion. Segregation may also involve
the removal of materials from the soil. Kock picking and root
harvesting are included in this category.
6. MIXING: When incorporating materials into the soil, some type
of mixing is frequently needed. This may be done to promote dry-
ing of the soil, to mix moisture throughout a depth of soil, or to
distribute amendments such as soil conditioners, fertilizers, or soil-
stabilizing materials. In special cases, several layers of soil may
be mixed to form a different, more desirable soil texture.
7. COMPACTION OR FIRMING: There are a number of situations
such as in the construction of foundations where the strength of the
soil must be increased by compaction. In addition, compaction niay
be used to decrease the permeability of the soil to water m order
to make water-retaining structures such as ditches, terraces, or dams.
The manipulation of soil by means of a roller or tamper is a widely
used form of tillage. Firming operations are needed to gam good
contact between seeds and the soil in seedbed preparation. In this
case the mechanical strength increase may be detrimental while
the added contact is desirable.
6.4 Measuring Performance

The specific performance of a specific tillage tool cannot be
calculated at present; sufficient knowledge has not been developed.
But limited aspects of performance can be measured, and these
measures have been used in developing tillage tools that can effect
acceptable changes in soil conditions.
As indicated in section 6.1, the tool forces and the change in
soil conditions are the two basic aspects of tillage tool performance.
Tool forces are relatively easy to measure. The change in soil con-
ditions can be easily described in some situations. Such a situation
occurs when soil is to be rotated or moved en masse into a new
location or position. Another occurs when a plant residue on the
soil surface or a surface layer of soil is to be placed at a different
position m a soil profile. When soil conditions can be simply
described, changes in conditions can be easily described and per-
formance can be measured.
Even though soil conditions cannot be easily described, tool forces
can usually be measured. Soil conditions in these situations are
usually determined only in a qualitative sense; often no measurement
IS made. Considerable data have been reported dealing with forces
measured on tools during tillage. Often nothing is reported to indi-
cate that the soil condition was changed. The reader can only
assume that the tool, say a moldboard plow, was qualitatively noted
to be manipulating the soil in a satisfactory manner while the tool
torces were being measured. Presumably,^ until quantitative descrip-
tions of the change m soil conditions are identified and can be
measured, measures of performance will have to remain quantitative
m some aspects and qualitative in others.
Some of the devices and techniques that have been used to measure
performance are discussed in this section. Measurements of per-
formance are, of course, based on the same measurements that need
to be made for empirical studies of tillage tool design. This occurs
because criteria of performance reflect precisely the same quantities
that are used m tillage tool design. Measurements discussed in
this chapter illustrate methods and techniques that are useful in
descriptions of performance rather than design. Improving present
metiiods and techniques and developing new ones provide formidable
challenges for future research.
6.4.1 Forces
A tillage tool is subjected to three independent force systems,
i hese systems are the weight acting at the center of gravity of the
tool, the soil forces acting on the tool, and the forces acting between
the tool and the prime mover. These force systems are in equi-
librium if no acceleration is involved. Since the soil forces are
determined by the soil-tool system (the forces represented in equa-
tion 132), and tool weight can be considered constant, the forces
acting between the tool and the prime mover "adjust" so that equi-
librium IS maintained. If the prime mover is replaced by a dynamo-
meter, and the weight of the tool is appropriately considered, soil
forces on a tillage tool can be measured.
Although the principle of measuring soil forces is direct, actually
obtaining meaningful measurements is not. Soil conditions, tool

shape, and manner of tool movement directly alïect soil torces
(equation 132). Except for wear, tool shape remains essentially
unchanged for a tool; but the manner in which the tOT)l is moved
through the soil is controlled by the dynamometer. Iheretore, a
dynamometer must not only be able to measure the forces between
itself and a tool, it must also be able to hold the tool m position so
that the tool's depth, width, and orientation do not change during
operation. Because the condition of soil at any particular location
cannot be quantitatively expressed with accuracy, and because ot
the wide variability in soil, soil conditions must also be controlled
by soil preparation techniques. Variations between two areas within
one field may cause greater ditïerences in measured forces than the
difference caused by two different tools. Experience has shown that
control of soil conditions is essential; hence, elaborate facilities ot
the type described in chapter 1 have been devised and constructed.
In these facilities bins of uniform soil material are maintained to
provide more uniform plots of soil than can be found naturally m
the field. , , ^ -, -,
One of the early recording tillage tool dynamometers was devel-
. i/=
v = V4=5:(v,.v,.av8)
Vsb
X » VALUE OF COUPLE = Va
T(V| ±V2)
(A)
FIGURE 214.—Designation and reduction of forces on a tillage tool. (Clyde,

Pa. Agr. Expt. Sta. (77).)
312 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 31«. U.S. DEI'T. OF AGRICULTURE
oped by Keen and Haines at Rothamsted Experiment Station in

Entrlund {215). Most of the early dyiianionieters were hydraulic
units, but many of tliese have been replaced by units employing
electric resistance strain gages. A number of dynamometers have
been described in detail ( 75. IJ4. 3.^7. .¡81. .i82 ).
Clyde ( 76. 77 ) pioneered nuich of the early research in the Ignited
States in measuring forces on tillage tools. lie used a portable
g>üde rail 240 feet long to control the path of a tool, and he
measured the six forces reipiired to restrain the six degrees of free-
dom of a tool. The location of the restraining forces and the
method for vectorially combining the forces and for locating the line
of action of the resultant force is shown in ligure iil4. The physical
locations of sensing devices used by Clyde were at the apices of the
horizontal equilateral triangle. Distances h and c in figure 214, A
are schematic, btit they represent the lai'ge physical distance between
sensing elements in many hydraulic dynamometers. T'se of electric
resistance sti'ain gages has conveniently reduced distances h and r
by a factor of approximately 10, so that nioi'e comi)act dynamo-
meters can be developed. Figure 21.") shows one short-distance ar-
rangement developed at the National Tillage ^fachinery Laboiatory.
No one method has been widely accepted oi- considei-ed to he
superior for reporting forces on tillage tools. Figuie 21() shows a
convention proposed by Clyde that orders and identifies forces and
"%flT
FIGURE 215.—A dynamometer employing .«train gages for measuring soil forces
on tillage tools.
TRAVEL
SOIL FORCE ON TOOL COUPLE OR MOMENT
DESIGNATION SYMBOL ô^'^'^^s '^'^ ^^^^^^ ^^^•'^^^^ DIRECTION

^ ^ CUXKWISE
LONGITUDINAL L X X MX Z Y, LOOKING AHEAD
_ ^ CLOCKWISE
SIDE S Y Y MY Z X, LOOKING LEFT
w v/ CLOCKWISE
VERTICAL V Z Z MZ X Y, LOOKING DOWN
FIGURE 216.—Designation of forces and moments on tillage tools. (Clyde, Pa.

Agr. Expt. Sta. ( 77 ).)
moments with respect to a coordinate axis. The convention avoids

confusion, and there appears to be no cogent reason tor changing
it except that it is not compatible with principles of vector ana ysis.
A right-handed coordinate system is required by vector ana ysis,
and the direction of the moment designated MX m figure 216 is
reversed in a right-handed coordinate system.
Rogers ( Sll ) reports that five methods have been used to express
forces on a tillage tool. These methods are :
1. A wrench—that is, a force with a couple m a plane perpen-
dicular to the force. -VA
2. A force through a chosen point and a couple m a plane mclmea
to the force.
3. Two forces, one on a chosen line.
4. Three forces on mutually perpendicular axes and three couples
in the planes of intersection of the axes.
5. Three forces in three major planes.
Results may be accurately reported by any of these methods, mt
one method may be more desirable than the others, depending on the
intended use of the data. If, however, one is mterested m the
location of the resultant forces, only one method accurately locates
the resultant force. The resultant force does have a unique line ot
action; this location should be known for research and design pur-
^^Vanden Berg ( ^55 ) has used vector analysis to show that reduc-
ing forces to a wrench determines the unique line of action, i he
true line of action of a resultant force represents the mmimum
couple for a system of distributed forces and, hence, the wrench is
independent of any arbitrary reference point or reference plane.
Any of the methods of reporting can be reduced to a wrench to
locate the unique line of action.
314 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. QF AGRICULTURE
Because of the lack of well-defined criteria of performance, meas-

urements of the distribution of forces over the surface of a tool
have been used to reflect performance. If the distribution is uni-
form or constitutes some pattern that is believed to be desirable, the
performance of the tool is considered to be desirable. Measurement
of the distribution of forces over the surface of a tool also provides
knowledge that is needed to understand the interaction of tool and
soil. Little research has been done to determine distribution, but
this has been due in part to the lack of adequate instrumentation.
One of the earliest attempts to measure surface pressures on a tool
was made by Mauer ( 294 ) in 1933, when he embedded a small pres-
sure transducer m a chisel. He measured the pressure at only
one location and showed that it correlated with the total draft re-
quired to pull the chisel through the soil. Figure 217 shows the cor-
iC
UJ
(T
(/)
(/)
UJ
cn
a.
ÜJ
o
¡2
01
DISTANCE (in)
FIGURE 217.—Draft and surface pressure of an inclined chisel as related to

distance of travel. (Mauer, Auburn Univ., ( 294 )•)
relation of pressure near the tip and the draft. The cyclic nature
of the curves coincided with the development of major shear failures
m the soil. Mauer also investigated the relation between the lift
angle of the chisel and the maximum measured unit pressure as
affected by soil preparation factors, moisture content, and the pres-
sure used to compact the soil.
The data in figure 218 show that any factor that increases the draft
of the tool also increases the pressure on the surface of the tool.
Instrumentation techniques have improved considerably since Mauer's
work, but even recent studies ( 332, ^19 ) have not produced detailed
information about the distribution of pressure on the surface of a
chisel.
Mayauskas ( 295 ) has determined the pressure distribution on the
surface of a plowshare. A series of pressure transducers were placed
m a pattern so that simultaneous measurements could be made (fig.
218), and a series of experiments were conducted in which the instru-
PRESSURE OF
10 SOIL COMPACTION
10 /"^ 7psi
Q. 8 - 3 8
UJ
LÜ a: 5psi
£r
(/) 6 (/) 6
UJ
UJ a:
Q_
Q.
2 4 3psi
S 4
3
X
< <
2 2
S 2
15 25 35 45 18 22 26 30
ANGLE n MOISTURE (7o)
FIGURE 218.—Effect of lift angle, moisture content, and pressure to compact

soil on the maximum pressure in the tip of an inclined chisel. (Mauer,
Auburn Univ., ( 294 )•)
mented plowshare was used. The results (fig. 220) show the man-
ner in which the factors investigated inñüence the magnitude and
distribution of pressure on the surface of a share. No information
is available to indicate what magnitude or distribution ot pressure
can be considered to be good performance. Certainly, however,
criteria could be developed and performance measured m terms ot
the distribution and magnitude of pressure on the soil-engagmg sur-
face of tillage tools. Measurements of this type have been made
in several countries. . .
In another approach directed toward measuring performance, an
attempt was made to separate the draft of a moldboard plow into
FIGURE 219.—Position of pressure transducers in a plowshare used to determine

pressure distributions. (Mayauskas, Traktory i Selkhozmashiny (295).)
316 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, US. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
SPEED (m/sec) DEPTH (cm)
^-0.8 1—17 I-KNIFE COULTER
^"'•' 2—22 2-DISC COULTER
^'"'•'^ 3—27 3-NO COULTER
4 4 -^ 4
■
-^
-ß
\
3 3 -^ 3 I\\
2 2 2 - vvsii^^y^
1 1 I P^^ô o 1
—1—1—1—1—1—1—I 1 1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 ^0 3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.(
PRESSURE (Kg/cm*)
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE220.—Average pressure at locations 1, 5, 8, and 11 in figure 219, as

SoLthfny^^^^^^^^ '^^^' '• ^' ''^' ^^ ^^^^^^^^- (Mayauskas, Traktory i
portions required to cut, pulverize, and invert soil. This was done
by cutting a plow into sections and measuring the draft of the sec-
tions as they were progressively added together (table 37). The data
indicate that the final one-fourth of the moldboard did not materially
add to the draft at either of the two speeds studied. This final sec-
tion, however, may have been of paramount importance in obtaining
adequate inversion of the soil. Pounds of draft per se, therefore,
cannot be used as the sole criterion for performance. As was the
case tor surface pressure distributions, no standards are available to
indicate whether the performance indicated in table 37 is desirable
At the very least, however, the data are useful for a qualitative
understanding of the interaction of tool and soil.
A tool inclined 3°, together with a wire, has also been used in an
attempt to separate cutting, sliding, and shearing actions for a simple
TABLE Z1 ,—Contribution of différent segments of a plow to the

draft force
Speed of plowing
2 m.p.h. 3 m.p.h.
Segment of tool Fraction Fraction
Draft of Draft of
force total force total
draft draft
Pounds Perceyit Pounds Percent
Wire (to repre-
sent plow edge)_ 44 23 59 26
Half share 97 51 101 44
Full share 154 81 181 79
Full share + 3/4
moldboard 187 99 212 92
Complete plow 191 100 230 100
tool (352), The draft force required to pull a wire through soil,
as shown in figure 77, may be interpreted as being the force required
to cut or separate the soil slice from the semi-mfinite undisturbed
mass of soil. The thin, ñat blade operated at a lift angle ot 3
separates a mass equal to the mass of soil separated by the wire.
The total force both cuts the soil and overcomes the friction ot the
soil sliding over the upper surface of the blade. The 3° lift angle
provides clearance so that friction does not occur on the lower sur-
face of the blade. . i p^ j! î.
The difference between the draft of the wire and the dratt ot the
inclined blade was assumed to be due to soil-metal friction. It the
blade is operated at a lift angle of 221/2° or 45% the ridge of soil will
not only shear but also pulverize. The draft of the blade may be
thought to be composed of forces required for cutting, sliding (fric-
tion), shearing, and accelerating the soil. on-. j
The difference between the drafts of the wire, the 3 blade, and a
blade with a higher lift angle permits separation of the draft com-
ponents required for cutting, sliding, shearing, and accelerating the
soil. Figure 221 shows the measured forces as a function ot speed
500
400
300
<
a:
Q
200
100
SPEED (mph)
FIGURE 221.—Effect of speed on the draft of a wire and a flat inclined plate.
as the wire and blade were operated in a clay soil. These forces may
be separated into the relative contributions of cutting, sliding fric-
tion and shear plus acceleration. Visual observation indicated that
the amount of soil breakup was nearly the same when the blade was
inclined 22i/4° and 45°. Figure 222 shows the contributions ot the
various actions when the draft of the 221/2° blade was assumed to
represent the total required draft. It appears that speed greatly in-
fluenced the relative contributions of the origins of resistance, ihe
high percentage of draft that can be attributed to cutting is also
significant. Cutting represented a large component of the dratt ot
the moldboard plow reported in table 37.
CUTTING
SHEAR + ACCELERATING
SPEED (mph)
FIGURE 222.—Relative contributions of cutting, sliding friction, and shearing

plus acceleration to the draft of an inclined tool operating in a clay soil.
Many measurements with various types of dynamometers have

been made of soil forces on tillage tools, and the measurements are
readily available to tillage tool designers ( 98,171,179, 202, 237, 262,
387-389, 506 ). Each force measurement represents a limited meas-
urement of the performance of the particular tool for the particular
conditions under which it was operated. In a similar manner,
measurements of pressure distribution and of the separation of draft
into components are measures of tillage tool force performance for
the situations studied. In general, the smaller the forces or pres-
sures the better the performance. But the amount of soil manipula-
tion must also be considered because it may alter any conclusions that
are based on forces alone. Future measurements of force perform-
ance will probably be made with techniques and equipment similar
to those reported here.
6.4.2 Soil Conditions
Soil conditions cannot presently be quantitatively described. In
the past, the reasons for tillage have emphasized the manner in
which soil conditions should be changed rather than a description of
the conditions that should be changed. Some attempts have been
made to describe objectives of tillage in more quantitative terms.
Soil breakup, segregation, and mixing are the three objectives that
have been measured and used to determine the performance of tillage
tools. ^
Quantitative descriptions of soil based on what is done to the soil
are useful in measuring performance. Such descriptions are a stop-
gap procedure, however, and they should be used only as a last resort.
Their limitation is not that they cannot be developed to provide an
accurate description; rather, their limitation is that they usually
cannot be directly related to the intended use. While soil breakup
is certainly important for plant growth, describing the amount of
breakup will not directly describe soil conditions in terms compatible
with plant growth needs. Terms compatible with plant growth are
defined by the soil behavior equations that influence plant growth.
Unless an objective of tillage is measured in terms that are directly
related to an intended use of a soil, the measurement will have
limited usefulness.
6.4.2.1 Breakup
The amount of soil breakup by tillage tools can be determined by
a sieve separation of the soil. Sieving provides a simple means for
measuring the range of clod sizes and the relative amount of soil
in each size class ( 101, 130. 452 ).
Figure 223 shows a rotary sieve for separating clod sizes of a
FIGURE 223.—Rotary sieve for separating fragmented soil into various sizes.
fragmented soil. Slowly rotating the cylindrical sieve provides a

gentle sieving action so that any breakup of the soil due to the siev-
ing action is minimized. The relative amount of each size group
can be determined either by weight or by volume, and some average
or modulus can be calculated to represent the distribution. One
representation often used, for example, is the mean weight diameter
of the clods. The mean weight diameter can be calculated by con-
structing a graph of clod size versus an accumulative percentage by
weight of the clods found in increasing size classes. The area under
the resulting curve can be obtained by a polar planimeter or some
other means, and the mean weight diameter is calculated by dividing
the area by the range of clod size that was considered.
A number of similarly determined averages have been used by
various researchers. Yoder ( 514. ) ^vas one of the first to use this
technique to measure breakup.
These techniques give only a relative measure of soil breakup. An

absolute measure of change can be obtained by determining the clod
sizes before and after a manipulation. Many times soil cannot be
sieved before manipulation since it is a semi-infinite cohesive mass
that IS essentially one clod. Since types of manipulation are usually
compared m the same soil condition, the initial clod size can be as-
sumed to be constant even though it is not known. Final clod size
thus IS a relative measure of the amount of breakup, and performance
can be measured and assessed on a comparative basis.
The sieve separation of clod sizes has been used by several workers
to measure breakup performance of tillage tools of different designs.
Gill and McCreery ( IJß ) have shown that the size of cut is an im-
portant factor for drawn tools, whereas Frevert {135), Adams and
Furlong ( 7 ), and Umeda ( U5 ) have reported its importance for
rotary tools.
The size of cut of a tool may be altered by changing either the
width of the tool or its depth of operation. Figure 187 shows the
experimental tools used by Gill and McCreery to vary the width
of the tool and hence the size of cut. For a compacted clay soil, the
data indicate the general trend that the smaller the cut, the smaller
the resulting clods (table 38). Figure 224 shows the clod sizes that
3r
< 2
o
Z5
UJ
<
a:
ÜJ
12 3 4 5 6 7
DEPTH OF CUT (in)
FIGURE 224.—Effect of depth of cut of a rotary tiller on the size of clods in a

silt loam soil. (Adams and Furlong, Agr. Engin. { 1 ).)
resulted when the depth of a rotary tiller was varied. The data
appear to contradict those in table 38, since clods were smaller at
deeper depths of operation. Because the movement of drawn and
rotary tools differs, the data may not be in conflict. The depth of
operation of a rotary tool may be changed without greatly altering
the size of cut. A change in either forward speed or rotor speed
materially changes the size of cut. Furthermore, a vertical gradient
usually exists in moisture and strength in a soil profile. Soil at the
deeper depths may fragment easier so that smaller clods result. In
TABLE 38.—Effect of the size of cut on the mean weight diameter
of clods produced in a compacted clay soil
Size of cut Clod size in mean
Tool by tool weight diameter
Inches Inches
Plow and coulter 1 1.47
2 3.55
4 6.46
6 7.07
8 8.61
Disk plow 1 1.76
2 3.66
4 4.49
6 4.19
8 4.15
1 SOURCE : Gill and McCreery {IJ^d ).
any case the importance of size of cut on soil breakup is demonstrated

and the technique of sieving provides a useful measure of breakup.
Soil breakup as measured by sieving has been used to study the
effect of impact on breakup. Tillage tools can and do impart con-
siderable energy to soil through impact. If the transfer of impact
energy is great enough, fragmenting of clods may result. To isolate
the effect of impact, the size of cut must be maintained constant.
Maintaining constant size of cut is relatively easy with drawn tools,
4r
tr 3
LÜ
<
Û
UJ
û:
ÜJ
200 600 IODO 1400

ROTOR PERIPHERAL SPEED (Ft/min)
FIGURE 225.—Effect of increased impact energy on clod size for various sizes
of cut of a rotary tiUer. (Adams and Furlong, Agr. Engin, (i).)
but rotor speed and forward speed must both be carefully controlled
with rotary tools. By increasing the forward speed in accordance
with the rotor speed, a uniform size of cut can be maintained with a
rotary tiller. Figure 225 shows the results oï an experiment where
the depth of operation was 4 inches and several sizes of cut were
used. As the rotor speed increased, the cutting speed of individual
tmes increased so that they passed through the soil in less time.
Higher speeds produced greater impacts. The data show that as
the impact increased, the average clod sizes decreased even though
the size of cut was constant. Table 39 shows .a similar trend for
drawn tools. The change in speed and, hence, change in impact is
much less for the chisels reported in table 39. The change in
breakup is also less, but the data show that increased impact causes
increased breakup.
TABLE WI.—Effect of speed on the size of clods produced hy chiseling

Clods greater than
19.2 millimeters in diameter
Percent
31.7
30.8
28.2
8.3
5.8
5.3
SOURCE : Woodruff, Chepil, and Lynch {511).
6.4,2.2 Segregation
Nothing in section 6.4.2.1 describes the final location or position
of soil clods in the soil profile ; emphasis was on a description of the
change of clod size. Tillage is sometimes undertaken to control the
distribution of clods within the profile. For example, large clods
may be placed on the surface of a soil because they tend to prevent
wind erosion ( 510, 511 ). On the other hand, small clods are usually
desired in the vicinity of seed to provide an optimum environment
for germination. In such instances tillage tries to segregate soil
according to clod size or some other criterion that will improve the
condition of soil. Sieving distinct layers of the soil profile provides
a means for measuring the segregation performance of tillage tools.
The action of narrow tines on tillage tools such as harrows segre-
gates clod sizes. Winkelblech ( 507 ) used the sieving technique to
study the effect of several common tools on the distribution of clods
in a soil profile that was uniform before tillage. He used a pulveri-
zation modulus proposed by Yoder ( 5H ) to express clod size. The
modulus is essentially a weighted average ; the average is so weighted
that the resulting modulus reflects an average clod size in a sample.
Winkelblech used size classes li/4 to % inch, % to % inch, % to %6
inch, %g to %2 inch, and less than %2 inch. To calculate the pul-
verization modulus, the percentage of soil in each size class is multi-
plied by an ordered weighting factor. Winkelblech used zero for
less than %2 inch, 1 for %6 to %2 inch, and on up to 5 for the
largest size. The weighted percentages were summed and divided
by 100 to give the pulverization modulus. Thus, if all the clods were
in the largest size, the calculated modulus would be 5. On the other
hand, if all the clods were less than %2 inch, the modulus would be
zero.
Winkelblech determined the pulverization modulus for 1-inch
increments of depth in an experimentally prepared soil after it was
tilled to a depth of 4 inches. The untilled soil had a uniform modu-
lus at all depths. Figure 22^6 shows the segregation of clod sizes that
PULVERIZATION MODULUS
SPRING TOOTH
z 1-2-
DISK 18*»
DISK 28**
Q. SWEEPS, 10"
ÜJ
O
2-3
-UNTILLED
COARSER
FIGURE 226.—Segregation of clod sizes by various tiUage tools in an experi-

mentally prepared soil. (Winkelblech, Ohio State Univ. {507 ).)
resulted from the soil manipulation caused by two passes of various

tools. The larger clods moved to the surface while the smaller clods
concentrated in the deeper layers. A significant point is that all
tools had essentially the same sorting action.
Factors that affect mixing and sorting of solids have been studied
by Fischer (117) and Weidenbaum (500), but the factors have
not been applied to the actions of tillage tools. Possibly the original
distribution of clod sizes determines the segregation that will occur,
regardless of the type of tillage. In Winkelblech's experiment, es-
sentially no additional breakup occurred because of the harrowing;
the range of clod sizes before and after tillage was essentially the
same. The effect of tillage was merely to rearrange the distribution.
If the original distribution determines the nature of resulting seg-
regation, then the original distribution (the breakup) will have to
be controlled in order to control segregation.
A different principle of segregation of soil is illustrated m figure
227. A tool of this type was specifically designed by Boetha as cited
by Nichols and Keaves (322)^ to operate in a soil that had a sandy
surface underlain by a clay subsoil. By controlling the depth of the
tool, the wedge action described in section 4.3.2 moved a wedge of
clay soil upward along the surface of the tool so as to deposit the clay
on the surface of the soil. By controlling spacing and depth of
penetration, a predetermined amount of subsoil can be transported
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FIGURE 227.—Segregation of subsoil to the surface to permit soil renovation.
to the surface. Clay transported to the surface is then mixed into

the surface with conventional tillage tools to complete the renovation
of the soil. Segregation is essential in order to effect this type of
soil renovation.
Two means of segregating soil have been discussed. They lack the
positive control that is possible with sieves. Sieves not only provide
a means to measure segregation performance, but they also are a
means for effecting segregation. They have not been used much
because of the difficulty of obtaining a large output. The principle,
however, is sound and its lack of use in the past should not be a
deterrent to further consideration.
Johnson ( 203 ) has designed a plow-type sieving device to demon-
strate that sieves can be practically used. With this device, soil is
lifted with a simple blade and then moved by an auger through
slotted troughs. The slots are sized so that small clods pass first
and larger clods are retained. The troughs are angled as shown
in figure 228, so that fine soil is retained in a row to provide a
CLOD
ARRANGEMENT
AUGERS
LIFTING BLADE
^SIEVE SLOTS
FIGURE 228.—Device for separating sizes of clods.

seedbed while large clods are placed between rows where control of
erosion is important. The device utilizes small clods that are already
present to form a seedbed so that additional energy is not required
to further break soil into small clods. The principle of segregation
of clod sizes may save more work in tillage than any other principle
that has been proposed. The positive control permitted by sieving
may make the principle practical. Sieving thus is not only a means
for measuring segregation performance ; it is also a means for effect-
ing the performance.
6,4,2,3 Mixing
Often an objective of tillage is to mix the soil to obtain uniform
distribution of moisture or clods—that is, a nonsegregated soil con-
dition. In other instances, granulated material similar to soil ag-
gregates, such as fertilizer, needs to be mixed with soil. Uniformity
of mixing is a measure of mixing performance.
Tracer materials have been used to measure mixing performance.
Wooten, McWhorter, and Eanney (512) used fluorescent materials
that could be photographed to obtain a graphic representation of the
degree of mixing. These workers reported that at least three disk-
ings are required to adequately mix material that is applied to the
surface. Hulburt and Menzel ( 188 ) used grain sorghum and radio-
active phosphorous as tracer materials. The tracer material was
located by excavating to expose a vertical profile of the soil for
observation or sampling.
Figure 229 shows the results of two tillage treatments in which
grain sorghum was used as a tracer material. Eotary tilling should
be done at least twice, according to Hulburt and Menzel, to obtain
adequate mixing. Tracer materials provide a convenient means for
measuring mixing performance.
GROUND
c I -.
¿SURFACE
t 5-
7
K 30in •
FIGURE 229.—Distribution of grain sorghum tracer materials : Left, After

plowing and harrowing; right, after rotary tilling. (Hulburt and Menzel,
Agr. Engin. (188).)
Attempts have been made to express the distribution of mixing in

some mathematical form so that the degree of mixing can be evalu-
ated. Graphical representation does not quantitatively represent the
degree of mixing (fig. 229). Smith {39S) has used a mixing co-
efficient R to express the degree of mixing. He defined this coeffi-
cient as the ratio of the standard deviation at zero mixing to the ob-
served deviation. The definition is particularly appropriate where,
in the initial condition, one layer of material is located over another
SO that a sharp boundary exists between them. The coefficient in

this situation is 1, and it represents no mixing. The coefficient ap-
proaches infinity as the mixing becomes more uniform. The coeffi-
cient R is defined as :
(152)
2 {Xi-ü,y
where N - number of spot samples taken from a mix containing a
mean fraction of additive JJa^
Xi = indicated content of any sample,
CTn theoretical standard deviation at zero mixing,
V¿Va(l-¿/„),
standard deviation at any time,
{x,-üay
n
This coefficient may be useful when fertilizer or some similar gran-
ular material is to be mixed in soil. The approach can be modified
to suit other situations. The concept, however, provides a means for
expressing mixing by a single number and so provides a means to
determine mixing performance.
6.4.3 Specialized Tillage Actions
In section 6.4.2, several means were discussed of measuring tillage
perforniance where emphasis is placed on the condition of the soil.
Often tillage involves a specific action where condition of the soil is
of secondary importance. Since these actions are usually highly
specialized, they are classed here as specialized tillage actions. Ex-
amples are handling plant residue, inserting foreign materials such
as dram tile or electric cable into soil, and separating root crops such
as potatoes or sugar beets from the soil.
Since soil condition is of secondary importance, performance is
concerned with forces required to operate the specialized tillage tool
and with the completion of the intended action. Often the action
does not require a numerical description of the degree of completion;
either the action is performed, or it is not. For example, either an
electric cable is buried in a suitable operating position, or it is not.
Measuring performance of specialized tillage actions is often rela-
tively simple when compared with measuring performance where
soil condition is of interest. If desired, degrees of success might be
introduced m terms of the number of cable breaks per mile, the
number of points of inadequate depth of placement, or some other
limiting condition.
6.4.3.7 Handling Plant Residue
Tillage is often performed where plant residues are encountered.
In some instances the residue must be handled only to prevent its in-
terference with the operation of the tillage tool. Usually, however,
the residue is to be incorporated into soil and handling requires more
than just preventing interference.
Plant residues are occasionally handled by auxiliary devices used
with a tillage tool. The most widely used attachment is probably the
coulter that is associated with a moldboard plow. The use of auxil-
iary devices is a departure from the philosophy that a single tool
can be pulled through soil to accomplish everything that is desired.
When soil conditions are to be changed, such a philosophy can prob-
ably be applied without any theoretical limitations. When special-
ized tillage actions are involved, however, theoretical as well as prac-
tical limitations suggest that a multistage action is required to
accomplish the intended change. In such instances, multiple tools
probably will best meet the requirements.
The performance of auxiliary devices has received considerable
attention. One reason is that the performance can be assessed with-
out measurements. Coulters, for example, perform a definite cutting
action that severs plant residue. Cutting changes the dimensions of
the residue so that its maximum width is the width of a furrow slice.
With the plant material cut, the natural action of lifting and turn-
ing a furrow slice by a moldboard plow is not hindered, and the resi-
due is covered by the soil. Performance of the coulter, therefore,
can be easily determined without measuring by observing how effec-
tively the material is cut.
A number of variations of coulters have been used. Knives,
notched coulters, and disks have been designed for use with mold-
board plows. Notched coulters have been powered to act as a saw,
and it has been reported that they are effective in cutting heavy
trash {390), The unpowered notched coulter traps the plant ma-
terial so that it is cut as the coulter attempts to force it into the soil.
This trapping action minimizes the bulldozing of the residues that
decreases the cutting effectiveness of a coulter. For effective cutting,
the soil conditions must be firm ; otherwise, instead of being cut the
material will be crushed into the soil. The crushing action has been
utilized with blunt tools to anchor plant residue to the surface of
soil in order to minimize wind erosion {73), Disk packers with
spaces of 4 to 6 inches were effective in pressing plant materials into
soil to control erosion.
A jointer is another auxiliary device that has been used in hand-
ling plant residue. A jointer moves a portion of the surface residue
toward the open furrow. This detached residue is literally thrown
into the bottom of the furrow and covered. A jointer also tends to
break up the soil it contacts, but its primary purpose is to aid m
handling plant residue. A combined coulter and jointer handles
plant residue effectively. Plant material that is extremely long or
that lies parallel to the direction of travel, so it is not cut by the
coulter, can often be oriented by means of a wire or trash guide.
These devices guide the material along an intended path or press
the material tightly against the soil so that it is covered by the soil
during plowing. Performance of devices for handling plant residue
usually is not measured; it is determined by the effectiveness with
which the residue is handled.
Figure 230 shows how three plowing techniques place surface resi-
FIGURE 230.—Location of plant residue In soil after tillage: A, With a mold-

board plow equipped with coulter and wire, plowing 8 inches deep ; B,
with a low-speed moldboard plow, plowing -ly^ inches deep; and C, with
a disk plow, plowing 4% Indies deep.
due in tilled soil ( 348 ). One must decide on the desired placement
before the appropriate technique can be chosen. In situation A^
the plant material is placed in thick isolated bands so that continuity
of the soil is retained through the profile. In- situation B. the plant
residue essentially isolates the plowed layer from the subsoil. In
situation C, the plant residue is inclined vertically so that the residue
is in continuous contact from the surface to the subsoil through the
tilled layer. This increases the rate at which water infiltrates both
the soil and the plant residue. Jamison ( W^ ) has reported that
complete isolation of the tilled layer by a continuous mat of plant
material in the bottom of the furrow may impede the movement of
moisture through soil. Thus, the intended use of soil must be con-
sidered before the desired condition can be created by selecting and
using tillage tools.
(ôvering plant materials is one of the important requirements of
tillage. The covering requirement establishes the need for a tool
that inverts soil ; the moldboard plow is superior to all other tools in
this respect. Recently an attempt has been made to improve the
coverage capabilities of disks. A disk with a recurved center (fig.
231) has been developed for this purpose. The recurved center in-
duces a turning movement to the surface of the disturl)ed soil, which
improves coverage. To be eifective, the recurved disk must be
FiQUBE 231.—A recurved disk designed to improve inversion of soil.

operated at such a depth that the recurved center influences soil
movement.
An interesting sidelight of plant residue is its potential effect on
the strength of soil ( 327, il6 ). unfortunately, few measurements
of this tj^pe have been made, but the data in table 40 clearly indicate
that the influence can be significant.
TABLE 40.—Increase^ in soil strength caused ly the incorporation

and compression of various plant materials in the soil
Plant Compressive Increase in
material strength strength
P.s.i. Percent
Oat strawi 485 49
Flax straw _ _ »_ __ 473 45
Grass sod 357 9
None_ _ 325
This material was chopped into pieces 5 inches long and added to the soil
until It began to bunch up in the soil and reduce strength.
SOURCE : Patty and Minium {S21 ).
6.4.3.2 Insertion of Foreign Materials Into Soil

Foreign materials frequently need to be inserted into the soil in
a continuous form rather than in the more common discontinuous
form used to insert fertilizers, plant residues, or soil amendments.
Eecent technological developments have created the need to place
communication wires and irrigation or drainage pipes underground
quickly and economically. As an example, the use of robot agricul-
tural tractors that can be controlled electrically from underground
wires would permit a higher degree of automation. In the past, a
trench was excavated so that large underground lines could be prop-
erly installed. Today, many current requirements can be met with
small-diameter lines (^6), These materials can be inserted into the
soil by special tillage tools that have a wide shank containing a
channel through which the material is lowered to the desired depth.
Performance is easily determined where continuous materials are
inserted into soil. For a wire, which does not require the precision
type of elevation control that a gravity drain system requires, the
passage of the tool at some designated depth below the surface in-
sures satisfactory placement. Only the conductivity of the inplace
wire need be measured. Forces that cause the tool to pass through
the soil are, of course, measured and are important. In several
studies the performance of specialized tools designed to place com-
munication wires underground has been measured.
Much communication wire is laid in occupied residential areas
where there is a need to leave the soil in an essentially undisturbed
condition. The direction in which forces are applied to soil deter-
nimes the soil reaction (fig. 232). A tool operated with an angle
of approach of less than 48° usually results in an upheaval of the
soil and an unsightly appearance after the operation (fig. 232, A).
If the approach angle is increased above 132°, the main reaction of
the soil is directed downward so that a relatively undisturbed ap-
CGMMUNICATKDN
"^ WIRE
(A) (B)
FIGURE 232.—Soil reaction resulting from the use of a chisel operated : A, With
a small approach angle; and B, with a trailing approach angle.
pearance results. Unfortunately, when one attempts to operate the

tool at an angle of 132°, a very large force is required to draw the
tool through the soil. Table 41 shows the influence of the angle of
approach of simple chisels on the draft force ( 332, 515 ). Since the
desired soil reaction can be obtained only at the expense of greater
energy, the problem becomes one of balancing the greater expense of
tillage against landscape repairs that would otherwise be required.
Performance may therefore be reduced to economic terms without a
specific measurement of soil conditions. ^ , .
The performance required of special tillage tools for placing irri-
gation or drainage pipes differs from that required of special tillage
tools for placing communication wires. The stability of some soils
is low, and mole drainage channels do not remain open. Lightweight
liners help to keep channels open and prolong their useful life ( 132,
287, 288, m ). Janert ( 191 ) and Busch ( 56 ) have designed ma-
chines to install drain liners. Two of the most difficult performance
requirements are to maintain a predetermined grade and to place
TABLE à^l,—Effect of the approach angle on the draft force of simple

tillage tools in sandy loam soils
Tool
Rake or Draft Source
Depth force
Width of lift angle
Type
operation
Inches Inches Degrees Pounds
Vertical
blade 0.3 8 45 1,250 Zelenin
90 1,470 {515).
135 1,650
Tine 2 6 20 100 Payne and
48 177 Tanner
76 325 {332 ).
90 449
104 513
132 564
the lines without any blocks in the channel. A diameter gage ( 57 )
has been developed to measure the size of installed channels so that
the blocking aspect of the performance can be determined. The cor-
rect grade usually has to be attained while the tillage action is being
completed. Attaining the proper grade and open channels usually
outweighs draft requirements. Thus, again, the intended purpose or
use for the soil, and hence the tillage, determines what should be
considered m measuring performance. Difficulties in maintaining
grade are associated with positioning and guiding the tool rather
than with any soil dynamics limitations.
6.4.3.3 Separating
Highly specialized tillage actions are required for separating root
crops such as potatoes and sugar beets from soil. These actions
include not only removing the plants from the soil but also removing
soil that may stick to the crop and separating the crop from clods of
soil. Separating soil and clods from crops may be classed as cleaning
and IS often performed after the crop has been removed from the soil.
Highly specialized equipment and techniques have been used to
make the desired separations. Maack ( 284, 285 ) summarized 29
methods by which separations have been made. Tillage before har-
vesting and tillage action during harvesting can greatly affect the
amount of required separation. For this reason, separation studies
are often conducted in connection with tillage. While these studies
are an essential part of the total use of a soil, they are not directly
related to information concerned with manipulation of soil. Con-
sequently, these studies will not be discussed ( 22, ^6, 152, 16^, 222,
379, Jf.15 ).
Performance of tillage tools in harvesting root crops is based pri-
marily on effectively separating the crop from the soil. Of second-
ary importance is the force required to move the tool. A quantita-
tive measure of the effectiveness of separation is usually not needed
and IS not made. As in other specialized tillage actions, either the
root crop is harvested or it is not, so that a measured degree of har-
vesting IS not very helpful. The suitability of a harvesting tech-
nique could be investigated, perhaps, in terms of percentage of
lifted, mangled, or damaged roots.
Attempts have been made to lift a plant directly from soil without
excavating or disturbing the soil to any great extent. The force re-
quired to lift a plant must overcome the strength of both the root
and the soil. These two materials are stressed when a plant is
pulled from soil; failure may occur in the plant, in the soil, or in
both.
Some information is available regarding the forces required to pull
plants from soil {183). Hülst, Gohlich, and Sochting ( 189 ) have
shown that the force required to vertically extract sugar beets varies
considerably with soil type (fig. 233). Extraction is much easier in
wet soil than in hard dry soil. In dry soils the relative strength of
the root and the soil becomes important because of possible damage
to the root during extraction. To prevent damage, the extraction
force has been reduced by partially excavating the root ( 189, 255 ).
The partial excavation also entails severing certain lateral roots that
bind the main root to the soil. As shown in figure 234, a steeply
110
LOAMY CLAY
100
HEAVY CLAY
90
HUMIC LOAM
^ 70
uj 60 SAND
o
g 50
11.
40
o
z 30
t 20
10
O
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
ROOT LENGTH (cm)
FIGURE233.—Effect of soil type on the force required to vertically extract

sugar beets from soil. (Hülst, Gohlich, and Sochting, Zucker {189).)
inclined lifter disturbs more soil around a sugar beet and therefore
may decrease breakage of the beet. If a significant portion of the
beet is left in the soil, the method becomes economically impractical.
A wide angle between the lifting blades was reported to leave enough
soil in front of the beet so that soil resistance prevented the beet
from bending and breaking during extraction. The energy require-
ments of a steeper lifter may be greater, but a more effective extrac-
tion could justify the increased expenditure of energy.
V-/7777777.
(A)
FIGURE 234.—Partial excavation and Ufting of roots. (Hülst, Gohlich, and
Sochting, Zucker ( 189 ).)
6.5 Evaluating Performance

To evaluate the performance of a tillage tool, the desired perform-
ance as well as the actual performance must be known. The de-
sired performance and the actual performance are completely inde-
pendent of each other, a fact that should be clearly kept in mind.
Actual performance is controlled and determined by initial soil con-
ditions, tool shape, and manner of tool movement. Desired perform-
ance is completely controlled and determined by the intended use of
the tilled soil. Economic and other aspects associated with the in-
tended use may temper the acceptable level of desired performance.
The only relation between desired and actual performance is that
the ratio of the two is an evaluation of performance ; when the de-
sired performance is attained, the ratio is one. The most compli-
cating factor in evaluation is that no unique relation exists between
forces applied to a tool and the resulting soil conditions. Eotary and
drawn tools may produce the same soil condition, yet different forces
are required to operate them. Or two drawn tools may require the
same forces, yet produce different soil conditions. As a result, no
common denominator exists on which to base a comparison of tillage
tools. The use of energy concepts may help to overcome this diffi-
culty.
The desired performance determines the level that should be at-
tained m actual performance. As indicated in section 6.1, descrip-
tions of soil conditions are determined by the intended use of the soil.
Desired and actual soil conditions must be represented by the same
numerical quantities if they are to be compared. Performance also
includes tool factors such as the rate of performing tillage or the
capacity of a tillage machine. Tillage machine capacity, when ex-
pressed m terms of miles per hour, acres per hour, or cubic feet per
hour, IS not directly represented in the soil-machine mechanics or in
the design equations. But the capacity of a tool is fixed for a given
manner of operation ; hence, capacity is a useful measure of produc-
tivity. Expressions of desired performance generally include other
factors of interest. Mechanical efficiency or power requirements are
frequently incorporated into expressions of performance. Quantita-
tive expressions of desired and actual performance must be stated
m compatible terms to permit valid comparisons. Compatability is
particularly hard to achieve when different tillage machines requiring
different expressions for characterization are to be evaluated. The
performance factor provides a concept by which compatability can
be achieved.
A performance factor is a term used to express the composite effect
of measures of performance. A suitable performance factor for
a drawn tool might be the change in soil conditions divided by the
draft. The expression may be interpreted as an assessment of tillage
efficiency. This performance factor can be combined with other
performance factors, such as the capacity of the tool to do work, to
obtain a different performance factor. Maximizing the product of a
capacity factor and the performance factor that assesses efficiency
would be one possible-optimum expression of performance that would
have a significant meaning. If capacity were judged to be more im-
portant than efficiency—for example, because of the cost of labor—
the two factors could be weighted in the combined term. This con-
cept has no limitations as to what constitutes a performance factor
other than that the factor can be interpreted in a meaningful manner.
Obviously, extreme care has to be used in devising a performance
factor so that its physical significance is clear. Performance factors
are often necessary when no clear-cut performance measure can be
made, and they can be extremely useful in developing terms that can
be evaluated.
Maximizing or optimizing a performance factor does not indicate
whether the performance is acceptable or even desirable. That de-
cision can be made only by evaluating the performance factor. The
difference between the numerical values of actual and desired per-
formance evaluates performance. If the values differ widely, the
performance may be judged to be poor even though the particular
factor may be maximum for the situation. The complete independ-
ence of performance and evaluation of that performance must be
recognized in order to fully utilize the concept.
The concept of evaluating performance by comparing desired and
actual performance is simple and direct. Unfortunately, desired
performance cannot always be expressed in meaningful, finite terms.
For example, the capacity of a tillage machine is usually desired to
be as high as possible ; only in unusual circumstances will a definite
capacity be desired. Similarly, the power requirements of a tillage
machine are usually desired to be as low as possible. Since an in-
crease in the capacity of a tool can be secured only with an increase
in power requirements, a practical balance between the two factors
must be attained.
One means of overcoming the limitation in evaluation when de-
sired performance does not have a fixed value is by using an evalua-
tion factor. The evaluation factor is an extension of the concept
of the performance factor. An evaluation factor is a term used to
express the composite effect of individual performance factors. Eval-
uation factors must be devised so that meaningful interpretations can
be made; this requirement for interpretation is the only rule that
guides or limits the development of a specific evaluation factor.
The following general guidelines can facilitate the development of
an evaluation factor. Each available fixed value of desired per-
formance should be used as a separate term in the evaluation factor.
Each term can be the desired performance divided by (the desired
performance plus the absolute value of the difference between the
desired performance and the actual performance). This technique
produces a term that has a maximum value of 1 when the desired
performance and the actual performance are equal. The term ap-
proaches a value of zero as the difference between the actual perform-
ance and the measured performance approaches infinity. If several
such terms can be devised, the product of the terms would provide
a meaningful evaluation factor. A value of 1 indicates that all
actual and desired performance factors are equal and that the de-
sired performance was attained. A value of less than 1 indicates
that the desired performance was not attained by one or more of the
individual performance factors measured. When individual per-
formance terms are not of equal importance, they can be weighted to
reflect their relative importance. Weighting depends on a knowledge

and judgment of factors other than performance. Consequently, a
subjective judgment is required to assign the weighting factors.
A second guide may be used when no fixed value can be assigned
to desired performance. In such situations either a maximum or a
minimum value of a performance factor is desired. If a maximum
is desired, the performance factor can be one complete term of the
evaluation factor. If a minimum is desired, the reciprocal of the
performance factor can be a term. The combining technique permits
development of an evaluation factor as the product of individual
terms. When the evaluation factor includes either the performance
factor or its reciprocal, the numerical scale of the evaluation factor
IS determined by the units used in expressing the performance factor.
Care must he taken that only evaluation factors having like units be
compared. More desirable performance is indicated by larger values
of the performance factor. Weighting the individual factors may
also be required when either the performance factor or its reciprocal
IS used. By using these two guides evaluation factors that facilitate
the interpretation of performance of tillage tools can be developed.
The concepts employed in evaluation are illustrated in the follow-
ing example: The performance of three tillage implements (fig. 235)
was measured during their operation in a firm clay soil; the efficiency
of soil breakup was determined by using the drop shatter and sieving
technique described in section 3.3.1 ; draft, torque, speed, and depth
of operation were measured. These data are summarized in table
42; any data reported in the separate columns can be considered a
performance factor.
The desired level of performance was based on the following re-
quirements :
1. Tillage must reduce clods to the desired size.
2 The energy applied to the soil by the tool must be efficiently
utilized in breaking up the soil.
3. The power requirements per unit of soil tilled must be low.
4. The capacity of the machine must be high.
Each requirement can be assessed by one or more of the perform-
ance factors listed in table 42. Clod size assesses the first require-
ment. The efficiency of soil breakup based on the drop-shatter
energy assesses the second requirement. The product of forward
speed and input energy per cubic foot of soil assesses the third re-
quirement. The capacity of the tool, as expressed in terms of acres
per hour, assesses the last requirement.
To evaluate the overall performance, arbitrary values of perform-
ance to be attained by the tillage must be selected as the basis for
comparisons. Clod size is the only term that can be expressed in a
smgle^ definite value of desired performance; the three remaining
quantities must be incorporated into the evaluation factor in the
form of maxima or minima. Any one term can be taken out of the
evaluation factor and plotted against the remaining terms to provide
an evaluation relation. In the example being considered, the ca-
pacity term was isolated for this purpose. Three terms remain in
the evaluation factor, and they were assumed to be of equal import-
ance. When the first clod size (0.69 inch) is selected from table 42,
FIGURE 235.—Three types of tillage implements: A, Spading machine; B, con-

ventional moldboard plow; and C, vertically rotating plow. (Thotograph B,
courtesy of International Harvester Company.)
clod size can be evaluated for an assumed desired size of 1 inch by

the computation
LOO
1.00+11.00-0.69 I'
Since power is to be a minimum and efficiency a maximum, and clod
size can be compared with a desired value, the evaluation factor is the
product of tlie clod size factor, tlie efficiency, and the reciprocal of
fe ^ J::^ r^ ^'^ (M lO o rH o (N 00 00
í^ O
Tfi Tt^ ÍO b- (N
ÇOTHTHrHC^_ OOrHrH Ci Oi 00 (M (M
Ö TA Oi (M* CO rH (TÍ (M*
fO ÇDTt^CO00t^ OOOOO 05 05 t- O 00
■^ iO 00 rH r-l CO t^ CO CO OOOrH rH
^- rHOib-l>rí^ t-t-t> O O rH Ci 05
iO O O 00 lO
»O C l> lO CD
O O lO
g (Xi CO
»OOOOO
b- O ^ 05 TÎ<
CD (Tî CO CO (M 05 "^05 (M^ CO rH 05^ CO
'^ Ö f^ 4J "•^'
•"• a> 0) o ^ c6 oi (M" c<r
ap
r-> rO iO p lO o lO »o o o OOOOO
c^ t- CO 00 ^ CO rH CO 00 t^ lO 00 CO
'^^ '^ '^ ^^ "^ CO o^co i> CO CO^ K5 t^
»O TîT TiT ïo Ttn" co'~(ríoíoí(M"
OOOOO
TtH 00 CO T+( (M
CO^ rH o 00 05
iO Tfl Tt^ »o Tfl CO'cîC^'^rH rH
íís o o OOOOO
c^ o i> o t> CO rH CO -" 05 <N Tti T«
^ TtH (M TH CM CO O CO ^ rH CO t> 00
^ lOCOOOO ooo t-O O O O

<^ C000CM^COO5 COCOTf t> lO CO rH 00
*¿ Ö ' rH TH rH CO CO 05 * rH (M' CO CO
'?
rH CM 05 05 CO 05 00 TH TfH CO
CM iO CO 05 rH O TH CM Tt^ CO
Ö ' • 'rH
fcJD Co
a^ n3 o
KÎ Q,
Pi ^ o P<
m 1^ tí
the power requirements. These computations were made on the data
in table 42 for three hypothetical cases in which desired clod sizes of
14, 1, and 2 inches were selected. The evaluation plotted as a func-
tion of the tool capacity factor is shown for the three implements in
figure 236.
DESIRED MEAN
WEIGHT DIAMETER
.5 IN.
1.0 IN.
2.0 IN.
o
2
z
o
I-
<
z> /V
(A) (C)
L. -L- -I L- -L. J. _L. -L. J

0.001
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10 1.2
CAPACITY (ACRES/HOUR)
FIGURE 236.—Evaluation of the performance of three types of tillage imple-

ments at various capacities of work for desired clod sizes of %, 1, and Z
inches mean weight diameter: A, Spading machine; B, moldboard plow;
0, a vertically rotating plow.
The performance and evaluation factors used in this illustration

should not be considered as the only ones or even the best ones for
evaluating tillage tools. The factors are suggested as a means tor
implementing the concept that performance and evaluation are two
separate entities. They also illustrate the factors that can be de-
veloped from general principles which reflect the intent of the evalu-
ator. New performance factors can be developed and tillage imple-
ments evaluated more precisely as soil conditions can be more
accurately assessed. Until better definitions of the forces and soil
conditions are available, evaluation will have to remain highly sub-
jective and often comparative.
7. MECHANICS OF TRACTION AND TRANSPORT
7.1 Introduction
Traction may be defined as the force derived from the interaction
between a device and a medium that can be used to facilitate a de-
sired motion over the medium. The usual traction device converts
rotary motion derived from an engine into useful linear motion.
Anchor devices such as winch sprags are exceptions to the usual
concept, but they are traction devices since they provide traction by
interacting with a medium—usually soil. Although the basic soil
reactions are similar, the continuous rolling action of a wheel or
track requires a different analysis than the stationary action of a
sprag.
The traction and transport devices considered here operate off the
road and are construed to be wheels and tracks—that is, parts of
vehicles rather than complete vehicles such as tractors. The number
of off-the-road vehicles is rapidly increasing for agriculture, military,
and construction purposes. The total engine power available for
conversion into useful pull is generally in excess of the traction ca-
pacity that can be developed between the traction device and the soil.
In other words, the limitations of the vehicle in respect to off-the-
road movement are usually the limitations of the traction device.
Furthermore, the efficiency with which a traction device converts
energy into pull is usually extremely poor when the device is oper-
ating on soil. Work at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory
shows that a pneumatic tire operating on a concrete surface has an
average power efficiency of approximately 75 percent. The same tire
operating on various soils has an average efficiency of less than 50
percent. Nebraska Tractor Test results indicate that pneumatic-
tired tractors operating on concrete lose approximately 5 percent
more in thermal efficiency when the useful work output is expended
through the drawbar than when it is expended through the power
takeoff. Obviously, loss in thermal efficiency on soil will be even
greater. Based on this minimum loss in thermal efficiency, some 152
million gallons of gasoline valued at $42 million are lost anually be-
cause of the inefficiency of the pneumatic tire.
There are soil conditions where adequate traction and satisfactory
efficiency can be obtained ; but, because of economic, social, and politi-
cal pressures, such tasks as pest control, crop harvests, and military,
mining, and construction operations are performed on extremely
poor soil conditions where adequate traction cannot be attained.
With the exception of loose dry soils, volcanic ash, or sand, most of
the adverse conditions are associated with wet soils. Some of the
land conditions on which operations must be conducted are so ex-
treme that entirely new principles of vehicle design may be required.
340
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 34:1
Much military research has been concentrated on these extreme con-

ditions. Amphibious vehicles (Swamp Buggy, Amphibious Jeep,
Bare), low ground pressure vehicles (Weasel, Polecat, Kolligon) and
airborne vehicles (Aeromobile) represent traction and transport
designs that were developed to improve performance under adverse
conditions.
The expanded requirements of traction have increased research
directed at solving the problems of traction. Of notable importance
have been the efforts of the Army Mobility Eesearch Center (sec.
1.2.2) and the Land Locomotion Laboratory (sec. 1.2.3). The ap-
proach of these research agencies has been to evaluate the perform-
ance of the entire vehicle. Eecently, greater emphasis has been
placed on the basic aspects of traction mechanics—that is, the inter-
action between a traction device, such as a wheel or track, and the
soil. The broad aspects of their research programs have been pub-
lished {35, 37, 488, 495 ). The formation of the International So-
ciety for Terrain-Vehicle Systems indicates the interest in efforts to
secure better traction. .
The term soil trafBcability was developed in connection with off-
the-road vehicles. Trafficability may be defined as the ease with
which terrain may be traversed. In the broadest sense, it includes
the inñuence of all features such as vegetation, soil conditions, or
slopes and includes barriers such as chasms or rivers. In traffic-
ability, the primary interest is in the movement of the vehicle over
the soil with little regard for the soil conditions produced by the
movement. In agricultural operations, however, the effect of the
vehicle on the soil may be more important than the maximum trac-
tion capacity that can be developed. A traction device that develops
the desired pull at high efficiency may not be useful for agricultural
purposes if, in the process, the device compacts the soil or ruts it so
severely that excessive erosion, mechanical impedance, lack of mois-
ture, or poor aeration drastically curtails the subsequent growth of
plants. A device with a much lower efficiency and lower drawbar
pull may be more suitable if the soil conditions created by the
passage of the vehicle do not adversely affect plant growth. ^
Trafficability, in the broad sense, is not considered here since it
includes such things as vehicle morphology, vegetation, and driver
skill, in addition to soil trafficability. Instead, a restricted concept
of soil trafficability embracing a simplified, relatively root-and-rock-
free soil on ñat terrain is used. Soil trafficability is, therefore,^ con-
sidered in the light of soil conditions where slipperiness, stickiness,
sinkage, and general loss of traction will limit traction. Vehicle mo-
bility and trafficability may express the same quantity since the soil
is not trafficable unless the vehicle is mobile.
7.2 Mechanics of Traction Devices
A solution of the traction problem—that is, obtaining adequate
traction at a suitable speed in a practical manner and at a reasonable
cost—lies in an understanding of (1) the manner m which stresses
are applied to the soil and (2) the reaction of the soil to the applied
stresses. The general nature of the knowledge that will be required
to solve the problem is known so that a direction of approach may
be established. Just as a soil-tool mechanics can be outlined (ch. 4),

SO a soil-traction mechanics can be outlined.
To simplify and examine the problem, let us assume that a rigid
wheel IS operating on a deformable soil. As the wheel is placed on
the soil, sinkage occurs and a known deformation of the soil results.
With accurate stress-strain relations and parameters to describe the
dynamic properties of the soil, the boundary condition on strain
(which must coincide with the shape of the wheel) and the boundary
condition on stress (which must be equal to the weight on the wheel)
can be imposed and a solution can be obtained. Torque can then be
applied to rotate the wheel ; now, given the yield criteria for the soil
and the new boundary condition on stress, the new problem can be
solved. Thus, the stress-strain equations for the soil, the dynamic
properties of the soil, the yield criteria for the soil, and a mathemati-
cal description of the geometry of the rigid wheel are all required to
solve the traction problem; all of these factors must be considered
simultaneously to obtain a realistic and accurate solution.
Consider now what happens in the same situation if a flexible
wheel such as a pneumatic tire replaces the rigid wheel. The geome-
try of the wheel is no longer constant in the contact area and stress-
strain relations describing the deformation of the flexible tire must be
solved simultaneously with the boundary conditions that exist in
the mutual contact surface during dynamic operation. No satis-
factory equations of this type are available for either the soil or
flexible traction devices. Even if they were available, they would
probably be so complex that a solution would be difficult; conse-
quently, simplifying assumptions have been made to assist in solving
practical problems. As a result, the practical solution of problems,
even though based on theory, may have limited accuracy.
7.2.1 Nonrolling Traction Devices
To obtain a traction mechanics, both the soil and the device can
be assumed to act as rigid bodies. This assumption provides a basis
for a convenient mathematical model, but it sacrifices considerations
about what happens to the soil. The simplest rigid traction device
model utilizes frictional resistance to obtain the traction force. As
shown m figure 237, the frictional force between a device and the
soil can be expressed in simple equation form as
^ = i^y, (153)
where H - the force available for traction,
¡x — the coefficient of friction between the rigid device and
the soil,
F = the normal load on the device.
This representation expresses traction in terms of one dynamic prop-
erty /x and assumes that all of the traction force is developed at the
boundary. The representation adequately describes traction capa-
bilities m several slippery traction conditions (wet grass, saturated
clay, ice).
One complicating aspect in the use of frictional forces as a means
of computing traction is that the coefficient of friction may change
with a change in the normal load (figs. 105 and 106). Load transfer
^ä b
FIGURE237.—The traction force íT in a simple rigid body system as related to
the normal force V when the traction force originates from friction.
resulting from drawbar j)ull and from the torque reaction of the trac-
tion vehicle itself may significantly change the normal load at any
specific point in the contact area. Thus, alterations in the normal
load must be expected. Eegardless of the magnitude of the co-
efficient of friction, the limiting factor in traction where equation
153 applies is friction. The solution is very simple since the con-
cept implies rigid body behavior.
If the surface of the traction device is indented by sharp grains
of soil or if adhesion occurs between the soil and the device, inter-
locking may result. Under these circumstances, failure occurs not
by sliding friction along the soil-device interface but rather by shear
within the ground medium as shown in figure 238 (34,), When
FIGURE 238.—The formation of a soil body (facl)) under a simple traction

device permits utUization of shear strength of the soil in developing trac-
tion. (Bekker, Land Locomotion Laboratory (34).)
failure is due solely to friction, failure occurs along the line /-&. For
a load 7, the force available for traction H can be increased until the
angle of sliding friction is exceeded. The force that causes failure
(sliding movement) is the maximum force that can be developed for
traction for that situation. With the equipment shown in figure 239,
the traction force that can be developed by simple traction devices
can be determined for varying H/V ratios. In addition, Bekker
observed through the glass side of the apparatus box an apparently
rigid soil body that formed and adhered on the bottom of the device
{fach in fig. 238). Under these conditions, failure occurred in the
soil rather than at the soil-device interface so that traction resistance
originated from cohesive as well as frictional components of soil
strength. The shear pattern that developed in the soil at failure was
considered analogous to the pattern that developed under an imagi-
///////////////////////
FIGURE 239.—A simultaneous loading device with which desired H/Y ratios
can be controlled in the study of traction by simple devices. (Bekker, Land
Locomotion Laboratory ( ^^ ). )
nary continuous footing. Although later studies have shown that

the concept of the continuous footing is probably not entirely correct,
the important point is that a different type of failure occurs and that
more than frictional resistance is involved. The failure surface
is within the soil itself, and a logical assumption on which to predict
failure is the Coulomb relation (equation 18). Bekker ( 35 ) re-
ports that this approach was proposed by Micklethwait in 1944 where
the relation has the form
H = AC+Vtanct}, (154)
where A = area of contact,
V = normal load,
O = cohesion of soil,
(f) = angle of internal friction of soil.
The possibility of causing failure deeper in the soil where a greater
traction force can be developed suggests the use of lugs or grousers
on traction devices. Breaking through a thin surface with a sharp-
ened grouser where /x is the limiting factor may permit the device
to engage soil with a greater strength so that failure occurs at a
higher value of H. A different situation occurs when rubber tires
are operated on rough concrete. The concrete may penetrate into the
rubber and cause the rubber to fail as it is cut or ground off the tire.
For the successful use of both equations 153 and 154, the traction
device and the medium are assumed to behave as separate rigid
bodies.
7.2.2 Rolling Traction Devices

Equations 153 and 154 serve only to predict the maximum value
for the traction force R, In reality, Z? is a function not only of the
vertical load Y and the dynamic properties of the soil, but also of
the displacement between the device and the soil. In assuming rigid
body behavior, the flat plate or a combination of the plate and an
attached rigid mass of soil (fig. 238) moves in relation to the larger
mass of the ground medium. Figure 240 shows ^^-displacement
-CRACKS APPEAR
SURFACE MOVES
SAND
.03 .04 .05 .06 .08 .09

DISPLACEMENT (In)
-CRACKS APPEAR
DISPLACEMENT
FIGURE 240.—S^-displacement curves in two media. (Bekker, Land Locomo-

tion Laboratory ( ^4 )•)
curves for a constant Y in two media. The limiting values for B

as given by equations 153 and 154 predict the highest values of K
shown by the fi^-displacement curves. In nonrolling devices the value
of H at any displacement may be easily determined, since the dis-
placement distribution between the device and the soil is uniform.
Thus, if the leading edge of a rigid plate moves 1 inch in relation to
the ground, so must all other points on the plate. In a rolling de-
vice, however, the displacement distribution between the device and
the soil is not uniform. The actual displacement is a function of
the slip that occurs between the traction device and the soil and the
length of contact between the device and the soil.
Let us examine this point by considering the familiar form of an
endless track, as shown in figure 241. The vehicle has a fixed co-
Y'i
FIGURE 241.—The respective coordinate reference systems of a vehicle com-

posed of an idealized rolling track.
Ordinate system (vehicle system) designated by a?'/. This vehicle

coordinate system is moving at a velocity v with respect to a fixed
earth coordinate system (earth system) designated by xy. Point Ä
on the track has some velocity in the earth system, depending on the
amount of slip between the track and the soil ; but at zero slip, by
definition point A will have zero velocity in the earth system. In
the vehicle system, however, point A has some finite velocity Vo that
IS determined by the rate of angular rotation of the driving sprocket.
Thus, for a constant angular rotation at zero slip, point A will have
zero velocity in the earth system but will have velocity Vo in the
vehicle system; consequently, the vehicle system must also have
velocity Vo in the earth system at zero slip. At any positive finite
slip, the velocity of the vehicle system v will be less than Vo. At
100-percent slip, the velocity of the vehicle system (v) will be zero
with respect to the earth system (xy). Point A on the track will
still have velocity Vo in the vehicle system and will also have velocity
Vo in the earth system (xy).
Slip is generally expressed as the ratio of decreased velocity to
the initial velocity by
Vo '
where v = velocity of the vehicle system,
Vo = initial velocity,
S = slip,
and by rearranging terms,
V = Vo (l-S), (155)
Equation 155 gives the velocity of the vehicle system—that is, the
vehicle velocity—with respect to the earth system in terms of an
initial velocity and slip. Using a unit vector i in the positive direc-
tion along the x and x' axes, the velocity of point A in the vehicle
system is
and the velocity of the vehicle system in the earth system is

vi = Vo (l-S) i (156)
These quantities can be combined to determine the velocity of point

A in the earth system, and this velocity is designated Va.^ From the
laws of moving reference frames, the velocity of point A in the earth
system is the vector sum of Vo i and v i. Since the unit vectors are
in the same direction
Vai = -Voi + Vo{l-S)i = -SVoi. (157)
While equation 157 appears obvious from the definition of slip, the
fact that two reference systems are involved, one moving in relation
to the other, must be taken into account.
In the earth system, by definition
^ = va^ -Svo. (158)
If point A is Sit X = Xo at time t = (9, equation 158 can be inte-

grated between the appropriate limits giving
dx — — Svo dL
Jxo Jo
or
^x = x-Xo = - Svot, (159)
where t^x — the actual displacement of point A in the earth
system during time t..
In the vehicle system, point A is at some point x\ at time t = 0
and point A is at some other point x' at time t - t. If Z is a
measure of the distance between x'o and x\ then, since point A has
velocity Vo^ the time required for point A to move distance L is
By neglecting the effects of special relativity, time is the same in both

reference systems so that
^x= -Svo— = -SL. (160)
Equation 160 thus gives the displacement of point A in the earth

system with respect to a distance measured in the vehicle system and
slip.
Eecall that the objective of the analysis was to determme the dis-
tribution of displacements in the mutual contact surface of the
rolling track and soil. The distribution of displacement in the
vehicle system provides the desired information since it depicts the
instantaneous situation in the earth system. No distribution of dis-
placement is seen in the earth system after passage of the device;
only the total displacement is evident. A distribution does occur m
the contact surface but this surface is moving. Expressing the dis-
tribution in the moving vehicle system thus is a simple way to rep-
resent the situation. For a given slip, displacement starts from the
point where the track and soil first come in contact and increases
along the track while it is in contact with the soil. Distance L
should, therefore, be measured from the point of initial contact.
Equation 160 will give the relative displacement at any distance L
from the point of initial contact. The equation thus implies that
the displacement for a given slip is zero at the point of initial con-
tact and increases linearly to a maximum at the trailing edge of the
mutual contact surface.
A similar analysis can be made with the same results for other
rolling devices such as a wheel; thus, equation 160 can be used to
calculate the displacement at any point in the contact surface be-
tween a device and a medium.
The exact location and amount of movement of the soil may not
coincide with the relative movement of the device as represented by
the displacement of point A in the earth system in the foregoing
discussion. For example, if the relative movement occurs in a sur-
face immediately adjacent to the device, no soil movement may occur.
A form of grip failure is then said to exist, and equation 153 describes
the behavior. On the other hand, some of the soil may adhere to the
device because of a large coefficient of friction or because of grousers
so that the movement occurs within the soil mass, and equation 154
approximates the situation. Equation 160 does not indicate where
the relative movement occurs. Additional information is required
to indicate which type of failure is involved or perhaps even some
intermediate type of failure. As long as rigid body behavior must
be assumed, only the relative movement between two reference sys-
tems can be described.
An obvious complication for a traction theory for a rolling device
thus is that even for uniform distribution of F, a nonuniform distri-
bution of H is present because of the varying displacement. The
first attempt to handle this problem was to ignore it. Micklethwait's
equation 154 applied to tracked vehicles, and it was considered to
give the maxinium horizontal force obtainable. The oversimplifica-
tion does not give suitable results because it assumes a uniform nor-
mal load under the device and because it ignores the behavior of
failure, as depicted in figure 239. The ^^-displacement curves and
equation 160 imply that a rolling traction device must slip in order to
FIGURE 242.—The soil-vehicle geometry of an idealized tracked vehicle operat-

ing in a compactable soil.
obtain a traction force. Such behavior has been observed in measure-

ments on actual traction devices.
The general problem can be solved by determining the stress acting
between the device and the soil at each point along the device and by
summing the stress over the area on which it acts. Bekker ( SJf, ) re-
viewed how Gamalski outlined a graphical-analytical method for
determining the traction force under a rolling track as a function of
slip.
With slight modifications, which better illustrate the principles
involved, the method is as follows : Figure 242 shows a hypothetical
tracked vehicle in operation. By using the soil values proposed by
Bekker (sec. 3.2.2.2) and the Bernstein sinkage equation 51 P^ =
KzJ" the vertical pressure can be equated to the vertical load so that
Y = 2& I Pdx = 2bK I ôTdx, (161)

Jo Jo
where i = track width,
L = track length.
Pa; = pressure at point x^
Za, — sinkage at point x.
Because of the existing relation between sinkage and track length
^x X
or a. - [-j-y
^0 L
By substitution, equation 161 becomes
V = 2bK \ i-^] dx =
Jo \L ) ""^ n+1
and solving for s„ gives
[ yiiLi^r" (162)
With So known from equation 162 and using the Bernstein equation
along with the relation between z¡c and Zo we can write
= K{^): (163)
which provides a relation between the distance along the track and
vertical pressure in terms of the vehicle parameters F, 6, and L and
dynamic soil parameters K and n. Figure 243, A shows such a pres-
sure distribution where n is less than 1. The average vertical pres-
sure on each quarter section of the track can be used with the Cou-
lomb relation shown in figure 243, B to determine the maximum stress
that could be attained by the midpoint of each track section.
Since not all points along each track section have been displaced
enough so that the maximum stress is attained, stress H versus dis-
placement j curves must be used to determine the average stress devel-
oped for each section. These relations can be conveniently measured
for loadings that correspond to the average normal load under each
track section (fig. 243 A) or be interpolated from a family of curves
P (p»i) ■ ■ ■
(A) lr>^1 I I I
(D) J <in)
FIGURE 243.—Graphic determination of the traction force of a tracked vehicle :

A, The hypothetical distribution of normal pressure under the track; B,
shear stress versus normal load relations for the soil; G, shear stress H
versus displacement relations for the average normal load found in each
section of the track; D, íT-displacement curves for different track sections.
that bracket the average normal loads. Figure 243, 0 shows such
¿^-displacement curves. These curves, and others for natural soils
in the field, generally appear to have the shape of type B in figure 41.
The curves representing average iï-displacement relations for each
quarter section of the track are shown separately in figure 243, D.
When the length of the track is known, equation 160 can be used
to determine displacement at any point along the track. Thus, the
portion of each ¿^-displacement curve between displacements at the
beginning and end of the respective track sections can be determined
for a given slip. Figure 243, D shows the appropriate sections of
the ¿i'-displacement curves that have been computed for the four
quarter sections of the track for slips of 10 and 15 percent. The
shaded areas beneath the appropriate portions of the curves may be
divided by the displacement range for each area to give the average
stress developed by each section. Multiplying the average stress by
the area of the track section over which it acts and then summing the
individual track sections gives the total traction force for each magni-
tude of slip. By using a number of slip values, a complete slip-trac-
SOIL DYNAMICS IK TILLAGE AND TRACTION 351
tion curve can be constructed for a given vehicle in a given soil con-
dition.
The foregoing procedures accomplish what must ultimately be
done mathematically. The graphical analysis approximates the tan-
gential stress distribution beneath the traction device by discontinu-
ous distributions. To be correct, the distribution must be represented
continuously so that an analytical correct summation by mathematical
integration can be accomplished. Janosi ( 198 ) has extended the
principle to a track and a wheel so that a rigorous solution can be
obtained. The method may give erroneous results, however, if the
equations representing soil behavior are incorrect. Thus, both the
Bernstein and Coulomb equations may give erroneous results even
though the mathematics is logical and rigorous. The method does,
however, demonstrate the essential requirements of a traction me-
chanics for a rolling device.
Until this point only methods of analysis that provide estimates
of traction force available to facilitate motion have been considered.
Not all of the traction force in a rolling device is available for useful
work. Some energy is required to deform the soil—that is, to over-
come the rolling resistance of the device. Thus, the net drawbar
effort will be the difference between the traction force and the rolling
resistance. Several attempts have been made to calculate rolling
resistance, but no method seems satisfactory at present (1965).
Eolling resistance has many visible forms : sinkage or compaction,
drag on the sides of the device, and a buildup of soil in front of the
device above the original soil level. Building of soil is often termed
bulldozing. These complex forms of rolling resistance are difficult to
represent by mathematical models, which partly explains the in-
ability to calculate resistance. When further considering that the
forces involved in rolling resistance occur in the same area as the
traction forces, it must be recognized that the traction devices do not
distinguish between traction forces and rolling resistance forces;
rather, the devices sense one distribution of forces. The concept of
two separate force systems is thus useful for understanding and for-
mulating the problem, but probably does not represent the physical
situation.
Steinbruegge ( Ji.ll ) proposed a concept of ideal traction efficiency
of soil that might provide a useful addition to a traction mechanics.
The concept employs the basic stress-deformation data, which can be
obtained from measurements of S'-displacement curves such as those
shown in figure 240. Since no traction force H is available until
some displacement occurs, no traction force is available until some
work has been done on the soil. The area under the ¿f-displacement
curve represents work that has been done on the soil since a force H
was moved through a distance j—the displacement.
Figure 24e3, D shows the average work that would be done by each
quarter section of a track operating at a given slip in the assumed
soil condition. The area under an ^^'-displacement curve is not the
only work done on the soil since, as sinkage occurs, the product of
vertical force and vertical displacement also represents work. Stein-
bruegge's concept is to maximize the ratio of traction force developed
to the total energy lost—that is, the work done on the soil. This
maximum he termed the ideal efficiency of the soil. Figure 244

shows a method by which to determine the ratio.
If a unit area supporting a vertical load Vi is placed on the soil
in a given physical condition, some initial sinkage probably would
100%
IDEAL TRACTIVE
EFFICIENCY
0%—
TOTAL ENERGY LOSS
FIGURE 244.—The ideal traction eflaciency of the soil as determined from the
energy lost in deformation. ( Steinbruegge, 1st Internatl. Conf. Meeh. Soil-
Vehicle Systems ( îi ).)
occur. The product of Vi and the sinkage represents work done so

that some energy is lost even though no traction is yet available. As
horizontal displacement is begun, a traction force becomes available
while additional energy is lost from both vertical and horizontal dis-
placement. For an infinite horizontal displacement, infinite energy
is lost, yet the traction force remains finite so that the curve shown in
figure 244 for load Vi has the shape indicated. If a second area
loaded with V2 were used, the curve shown for V2 in figure 244 might
result. Since a traction force available at no energy loss represents
100-percent efficiency and no traction force at any finite energy loss
represents zero efficiency, a uniformly divided circular scale can be
constructed, as indicated in figure 244. A line drawn through the
origin and the point of tangency to a given curve defines the maxi-
mum S'-energy loss ratios for a particular vertical load on a soil.
The intersection of the tangent line with the circular scale gives the
ideal efficiency value.
The most favorable ratio for the conditions represented is at the
point of tangency. If the vertical load and horizontal displacement
associated with the maximum ratio could be applied to the soil, use of
the potential soil reaction should be optimum since the rolling device
must supply the energy in order to obtain the traction force. If less
horizontal displacement than the optimum is used, the traction force
H will have a low value and the ratio will not be at the maximum
value. Increasing displacement (increasing either slip or length of
contact area) will increase the ratio. On the other hand, if more
horizontal displacement than the optimum is used, energy loss in-
creases faster than H so that the ratio is again less than the maxi-
mum. Steinbruegge concluded that the ideal efficiency gave the most
effective loading of the soil to obtain traction.
Obviously, an infinite number of possible loadings exists. A roll-
ing device does not first apply the vertical load and then begin a
horizontal displacement ; rather, the vertical load and horizontal dis-
placement are simultaneously changed. Therefore, families of H-
energy loss curves should be determined either at various constant
vertical loads'or at various rates of increasing vertical loads. The
maximum ratios attained by these families would represent the most
suitable combinations of loadings and displacements for the given
soil condition. From such information, a traction device designer
could determine the combinations of normal loads and displacements
that give the maximum ratio. As nearly as possible he could then
design the length and size of contact area and the distribution of
vertical load within the contact area to give the desired combinations.
In other words, the device could be designed from the standpoint of
the soil.
The ideal efficiency concept can be generalized even further than
indicated by Steinbruegge. He implied that the lost energy was
absorbed by the soil; hence, the term ideal efficiency of soil. In
reality, no assumption concerning the energy loss is necessary for
the concept to be accurate. The unit area may be visualized as a
rigid body; traction is obtained by the device thrusting against the
area. That the unit area is physically a part of the traction device
is not important. What is important is that the unit area moves
both vertically and horizontally, that this movement reñects energy
or work done on the unit area^ and that this work was necessary to
obtain traction.
The conservation of energy theorem states that the energy put into
the unit area must be either stored or transferred. Steinbruegge
considers the case where the energy goes into the soil. On ice, how-
ever, the energy can go into heat in the friction surface instead of
permanently deforming the soil and the approach is still valid.
Thus, in a generalized approach, the concept considers only the
movement of the unit area necessary to obtain traction. Where the
energy goes need not be considered. The device and medium are
considered as two separate rigid bodies and their combined behavior
as a system is described. The description might result in three-
dimensional plots rather than two-dimensional plots, as shown in
figure 244. For example, if H^ energy loss, and displacement were
shown in three-dimensional space, a constant vertical load would
describe some surface. The surface would represent the system be-
havior of the unit area represented (such as rubber, steel, or steel with
grousers) and the medium. For a different vertical load, a different
surface would probably result. Ultimately there must exist some
envelope of all possible surfaces, and this envelope could be maxi-
mized for various effects. For example, maximum 5^-energy loss
ratios could be determined for best efficiency of the medium or
maximum ¿"-displacement ratios could be determined for minimum
disturbance. Sinkage could replace displacement in the three-dimen-
sional space to obtain ratios where sinkage is important. To maxi-
mize S'-energy loss, the circular scale could be retained as a cylindri-
cal surface or perhaps other statistical techniques could be used.
Thus, by generalizing the ideal efficiency concept the behavior of a
system composed of a traction device and medium could be optimized
for a particular effect (maximum efficiency, minimum sinkage). The
conditions reflected at the optimum would represent the best condi-
tions at which to operate. Where some limitation restricts the range
of possible vertical loads, the optimum within the restriction can be
obtained. Where no limitation exists, the ultimate optimum (the en-
velope surface) can be obtained. The concept thus provides a method
for obtaining information useful in design. While much effort is
still required and many techniques still need to be developed before
practical results can be obtained, the potential of the generalized
ideal efficiency concept warrants the urgent efforts of future re-
searchers.
The assumption that rigid body behavior applies to both the soil
and the traction device provides a basis for developing a traction
mechanics. The assumption permits a development where stress-
strain equations of the soil are not required since the forces and
motions between the two bodies describe the desired behavior. While
an assumption of rigid body behavior eliminates any possibility of
describing behavior within the soil medium, it does adequately de-
scribe traction behavior. Thus, where only traction is to be con-
sidered, assumption of rigid body behavior is logical. Under such
an assumption, a description of the forces acting between the rigid
traction device and the rigid soil is adequate.
For a given device in a given soil condition, the method of Gamal-
ski ( Si ) demonstrated the principles of calculating the traction
force. Steinbruegge's concept goes even farther; he proposed that
an optimum loading can be determined for a given soil condition. A
traction device can then be designed to provide as nearly as possible
the desired loading for any situation. Ultimately, the methods could
be extended to optimize the design for a group of different soil con-
ditions.
Attainment of these goals is not at hand, but is a challenge to the
researcher. Accurate mathematical representations of the distri-
buted forces between a traction device and a medium are required.
A means of measuring ¿^-displacement curves that accurately repre-
sent the desired behavior or a means of calculating ZT-displacement
curves from dynamic soil properties is required. Better methods for
calculating rolling resistance are also required More accurate
methods for determining energy loss in developing traction forces
are needed. The attainment of these goals will provide a basis for a
suitable traction mechanics.
7.2.3 Transport Devices
A number of devices used to transport payloads over soil are not
powered; they must be pulled. These devices range from rigid
sliders such as sled runners to free-rolling wheels. The mechanics
of these transport devices is not discussed here. Skids or runners
operate by sliding, and the mechanics of sliding surfaces was dis-
cussed in section 4.3.1 The free-rolling wheel is a special case of the
wheel in which the torque is zero. The forces on towed wheels are
discussed later in this chapter (sec. 7.4.1.1).
SOIL. DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION 355
7.3 Characterizing Traction and Transport Devices

Calculating the total traction and transport capabilities of a vehicle
requires a knowledge of the forces that are transmitted through the
mutual contract area between the vehicle and the soil. Without being
restrictive, this contact area may include sites on the vehicle where
lack of clearance above the soil causes drag resistance. Equations
154 and 162 can be used in estimating traction only when a repre-
sentative value of the distribution of the horizontal and vertical
forces is available. In the graphical-analytical method illustrated
in figure 242 a hypothetical distribution of forces was used to solve
the problem. At present (1965), such distributions cannot be ac-
curately calculated, so it is necessary to determine them by experi-
mental methods. Given these measurements it would be possible to
verify equations that have been developed for computing traction
and transport capabilities. In addition, it may be possible to iden-
tify more basic parameters that can be used to characterize the
method of operation of these devices. Empirical correlations may
then be made between characteristic distribution patterns and device
performance or design variables used for constructing the devices.
7.3.1 Dynarnic Stress Distributions
A number of techniques have been used to determine the stress
distributions under statically and dynamically loaded traction de-
vices ( U, ^S9, 394-396, 444, 498 ). The area of tire or track prints
has been measured, and an average unit pressure has been computed
from the total load. This simplification does not provide the dis-
tribution under the device that one normally assumes to exist.
Attempts have also been made to measure the existing pressure dis-
tribution. In one method the pressure required to force air through
small holes in a flat plate on which a tire was resting was used to
indicate the contact pressure of the tire at each opening. In another
method, small metal strips were placed beneath the loaded tire while
it was standing on a flat plate. The force required to pull the strips
from underneath the tire could be related to the normal load by
means of the coefficient of friction of the strips. Depending on the
location of the strips, the normal pressure could be estimated for
various areas under the tire. Neither of these methods, however,
actually indicates the dynamic stresses under the wheel while it is
rolling since the magnitude and distribution differ for dynamic and
static situations.
In tracked vehicles, the load carried by the individual track shoes
may differ at different points along the contact surface. Load may
be transferred from the front to the back of the vehicle, because of
the nature of the loading or because of irregularities in the terrain.
Eogers and Tanner ( 372 ) measured the ground contact pressure by
placing a stress transducer in the center of a track shoe (fig. 245).
In order to register, the grouser or track shoe must be fully seated in
the soil. A grouser plate fitted with a number of transducers of this
type would provide a means for determining the distribution of
stresses on the plate; however, this has not yet been done. Eeed
( 354, 355 ) used suspension links between the chain and the grouser
plate in a bidirectional sensing unit (fig. 246). This unit is able
CANTILEVERi ^GAUGES
TRACK PLATE
FIGURE 245.—A simplified dynamometer developed to measure the contact

pressure under a single track shoe. (Rogers and Tanner, NatL Inst. Agr.
Engin. (372).)
FIGURE 246.—A track shoe dynamometer developed to separate the horizontal

and vertical forces on an individual track shoe. (Reed, Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin. Trans. {355 ).)
to measure the horizontal and vertical forces on an individual grouser

plate during operation.
Although nothing can be inferred about the stress distribution
under the grouser, the total forces on the track can be determined.
Figure 247 shows the vertical and horizontal forces simultaneously
recorded during operation of the track in a clay soil. In a rigid
track, the peak stresses noted on the vertical axis do not necessarily
correlate with the location of the bogies of the track. Rather, fluc-
tuations in the curves seem to be correlated with the vibrations in-
duced by the driving sprocket rolling as a polygon rather than as a
circle. Thus, it is possible to measure the influence of vehicle de-
sign factors—this is, the sprocket design—on the forces applied to
VERTICAL
FORCE
HORIZONTAL
FORCE
FIGURE 247.—Vertical and horizontal dynamometer traces as measured with

a track shoe dynamometer. (Reed, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. {355).)
the soil. This dynamometer has been used to determine the forces at
all points of contact between a track of a vehicle and the soil (fig.
247). The force pattern applied to the soil may be determined from
such information.
One complicating factor is the direction of the applied forces.
When the ground is hard, the track is horizontal and the orienta-
tion of the dynamometer is known. When sinkage or bending oc-
curs, the orientation of the dynamometer in jiot known. Neverthe-
less, the lack of similarity between measured forces and those en-
visioned in figure 243 indicates the pressing need for additional
measurements.
AVERAGE
VERTICAL
PRESSURE
FIGURE 248.—Assumed average and measured distributions of pressure under

a steel wheel. (Waterways Experiment Station ( 493 ).)
868 AGRICüLTURK HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
At the Waterways Experiment Station ( ^93 ) stress transducers
were embedded in a rigid steel wheel so that the stress along the dy-
namic area of contact could be determined. Orientation of the
ti'ansducers was fixed with respect to tlie position of the wheel.
Thus, the location of the wheel could be associated witli the location
and orientation of the transducers at all times.
The distribution of stress under a rigid wheel operating in a clay
soil is shown in figure 248. An assumed average vertical pressure
may vary considerably from the measured vertical pressure; also the
maximum pressure is found in front of the center of the wheel
rather than below. In the rigid wheel, the pressure normal to its
surface can be converted to a vertical pressure since the orientation
of the transducer is known at all times.
There seems to be a slight discrepancy between the total weight ap-
plied to the wheel and the weight computed from the vertical distri-
bution. It is probable that tangential components also support the
wheel and these components are not measured by this type of trans-
FiouRE 249.—Stress transducers embedded in tlie face of a tire to determine

pressure in the contact area. (Vanden Berg and Gill, Amer. Soe. Agr.
Engin. Trans. HGO ).)
ducer. Transducers that can measure tangential as well as normal
pressures will have to be developed before this difficulty can be over-
come. Stresses must be determined along the edges of the contact
surfaces as well as along central portions. In spite of the need for
simplified methods to determine stress distributions under traction
devices, it must be concluded that realistic assumptions cannot be
made until more actual data have been obtained ( 55, 178^ 4^6 ).
The stress distributions between ñexible traction devices and the
soil are more difficult to measure. The orientation of the transducer
is rarely known when the wheel deforms ; therefore, the direction of
the forces cannot be determined.
Vanden Berg and Gill ( ^60 ) embedded transducers in the carcass
of a smooth rubber tire in order to determine the stress pattern under
a dynamically loaded wheel. Figure 249 shows the positions of the
transducers in the tire along with other pressure transducers in the
soil. Distributions were measured in both the soil and the tire.
Pressure patterns obtained from transducers in the tire in several
types of soil are shown in figure 250. The data indicate that the
^FRONT
12 6 REAR
LENGTH (in)
FIGURE 250.—Pattern of pressure measured under the center of a smooth tire
operating in several soil conditions. (Vanden Berg and Gill, Amer. Soc.
Agr. Engin. Trans. {460 ).)
pressure pattern is influenced by the soil conditions as well as by

the tire. Thus, this interaction must be studied. And in the absence
of mathematical tools, the distributions must be experimentally de-
termined.
A complete vertical pressure distribution pattern can be con-
structed from a series of measurements made across the tire. The
dynamic load on the wheel has been computed with an accuracy of
5 to 10 percent by means of a graphic integration of measured data.

Perhaps such pressure distribution patterns may be used to charac-
tenze flexible tires. That the patterns may be radically different for
different operating conditions is shown in figure 251 from data
I I I I
8 4 0 4 8
LENGTH (IN)
FIGURE 251.—Pressure distributions under a smooth 11-38 rubber tire on firm
sand when inflated: A, To 14 p.s.i. ; B, to 10 p.s.i. ; C, to 6 p.s.i. The direc-
tion of travel was toward the right. (Vanden Berg and GiU, Amer. Soc.
Agr. Engin. Trans. ( 460 ).)
measured with transducers in the soil. Note that changes in infla-

tion pressure alter the pressure distribution pattern considerably;
also, the influence of sidewall stiffness becomes evident at the lower
inflation pressures. Thus, the influence of design factors can be
measured by stress distributions.
Figure 252 shows the same distributions in three-dimensional
models where large differences are readily apparent. Due to the
rigidity of the tire carcass, the stress applied by the tire is generally
greater than the internal tire pressure. When a very flexible tire
FIGURE 252.—Perspective three-dimensional views of pressure distribution

under a smooth 11-38 tire on firm soil : A, Inflation pressure, 14 p.s.i. ; B,
10 p.s.i. ; C, 6 p.s.i. The direction of travel was toward the viewer. (Vanden
Berg and Gill, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. ( 460 ).)
such as a low-ply low-inflation pressure tire is used, the pressure dis-

tribution is quite uniform. For some soil compaction research
studies, this type of tire may be very useful because the inflation
pressure is essentially the pressure applied to the soil.
More complicated stress distributions occur under tires that have
lugs. Unlike measurements on smooth tires, measurements at the
contact surface on tires with lugs will probably have to be made on
the device rather than from the soil surface. Trabbic, Lask, and
Buchele ( 4<^1 ) have measured the contact stress patterns along the
bottom, back, front, and on the carcass between the lugs of a tire on
an agricultural tractor. The placement of the transducers is shown
in figure 253. The measured patterns (fig. 253) are the maximum
0 6 75 13 5 O 6.75 13.5 0 6.75 13 5

WIDTH OF TIRE (in) WIDTH OF TIRE (in) WIDTH OF TIRE (in)
(A) (B) (C)
FIGURE2,53.—Effect of change in inflation pressure on contact pressures meas-

ured under a powered tractor tire ; A, On the carcass between the lugs ; B,
on the face of the lugs; C, on the front of the lugs. (Trabbic, Lask, and
Buchele, Agr. Engin. (iSl ).)
values at any location along the tire during one revolution. The
patterns, therefore, do not indicate the instantaneous stress distribu-
tions that were presented in figure 251.
The stress distributions along the surface of a traction device
thus are complex and may vary continuously as soil and operating^
conditions vary. Hopefully, a better insight into the significance of
these distributions will be obtained when improved instrumentation
IS developed. Knowledge of the orientation, location, and movement
of individual points along a tire will assist in providing parameters
that can be of value in describing tires.
The orientation of the stress transducers is usually not known
when flexible tires are used. Better instrumentation, however, can
help to overcome this difficulty. The same problem exists when
transducers are placed in the soil and large soil deformations take
place, since the transducers may rotate so that their orientation is
no longer known. Corrections, however, have been applied to these
position shifts {489), Transducers capable of measuring the tan-
gential components of stress as well as the normal components must
also be developed. Transducers will have to be constructed that will
react more nearly like the surface of the material in which they are
embedded. If the transducers are hard and rigid, they may cause
stress concentrations; or, conversely, if they are soft, they may cause
a bridging over the transducers. In either case, inaccurate measure-
ments will result.
In the past, because of the fragile nature of the sensing devices,
measurements have been made only on slowly rolling, lightly loaded
wheels. The strength and durability of these devices will have to be
increased so that measurements can be made on flexible wheels hav-
ing high torque inputs and high vertical loads. Both types of
loading cause distortions and deflections in tires. Experimental evi-
dence indicates that the distributions will differ not only for different
soil conditions but also for different tires and for different degrees of
wear on a given tire. In each case the distributions will have to be
measured, after which generalized descriptions of stress distributions
between the traction device and the soil may be made. The extent
to which these descriptions can be placed in mathematical form will
determine their value in contributing to a rigorous calculation of the
traction capability of traction devices.,
7.3.2 Deflections or Movements Between Devices and the Soil
The distortion of pneumatic tires is one of the complicating factors
in the study of their action on soil. Since flexing permits the tire
to act as a nonrigid body, the direction in which stresses are applied
and the size and shape of the area of contact may not be known.
As a tire rolls over a surface, squirming or rubbing along the sur-
face of the tire results from deformations within the tire. The im-
portance of these movements on traction and wear of the tire has not
been fully examined because the movements have not been completely
measured.
Several techniques have been developed for exploring these move-
ments. Cegnar and Fausti ( 65 ) measured the movement of fixed
points on a tire with optical equipment as the tire rolled over a flat
surface. The actual movement or slippage of the lug at the center
SOIL DYNAMICS IN TILLAGE AND TRACTION
of the tire was as much as 4 millimeters, whereas at the edge of the

tire it was as little as 1 millimeter. This differential movement of
the lug has direct consequence in the loading of the soil since the
soil is not brought to simultaneous failure all along the lug. Rollo
( 373 ) used a glass plate technique similar to that shown in figure 75
to study the movement in the horizontal plane behind lugs. No
attempt has been made to use this method with a rolling flexible
wheel where a differential movement of the lug occurs.
AVann and Reed ( Jf70 ) have used a flat scratch plate technique
without soil to determine the nature of creep under tires. (The dif-
ferential movement of the tire in the contact area is defined as creep.)
Photographic results (fig. 258) indicate that the movement patterns
may be complex yet they may be indicative of design or operating
factors. Bekker ( 36 ) has studied soil movement under grousers
in the vertical plane by means of a glass-sided bin. While certain
assumptions concerning the action of the soil against the glass must
always be made, these techniques have provided an insight into the
method of soil failure under traction devices. Since creep may do
work on the soil in a direction other than the direction of travel, the
energy efficiency of the device may be reduced.
Attempts have been made to measure the gross differential slip to
determine whether this factor influences traction performance {65).
Wann and Reed ( 470 ) observed the net influence of this type of
creep in the direction of travel by using a platform made of inde-
pendent free-rolling parallel metal bars. Figure 254 shows the
FIGURE 254.—The differential slip of lateral sections of a rolling tire as

measured by a sliding bar technique.
movement of bars 1 inch wide when a tire was rolled over the bars.
Notice that the central section of the tire caused the bars to move
forward while the exterior sections caused the bars to move rearward.
Whether such measurements can be used to characterize the traction
performance of tires has yet to be determined.
External deflections recorded by scratch plates or other techniques
do not indicate the amount of vertical or lateral movement within a

tire. The Waterways Experiment Station ( ^84. ) has installed sens-
ing gages inside tires to measure such deflections in dynamically
operating conditions. Figure 255 indicates that the deflections vary
20 psi 40 psi 60 psi
_ '40» 40»
0« 0« 0«
VERTICAL CENTER LINE SECTION IN PLANE OF TIRE
VERTICAL CROSS SECTION OF TIRE
FIGURE 255.—Deformations in a flexible tire as influenced by tire pressure.

(Waterways Experiment Station (^8^).)
at different locations in the carcass of the tire. Deformations of this

type have been measured at vehicle speeds of 30 miles per hour, so
it would appear that reliable instrumentation is now being developed
for studies of this type. Additional measurements will ultimately
be needed, since only two degrees of freedom are now being evaluated
at the point of measurement. Whether the necessary measurements
can be made easily depends in some degree on the miniaturization
of the instruments, since they must be placed within the air space of
the tire. Measurements such as these may be used to characterize
flexible traction devices. Since tire design can influence these de-
formations, these measurements provide a practical link between the
deformations and design. Performance, however, still has to be
associated with the measured characteristics in some quantitative
manner.
7.3.3 The Shape of the Contact Surface
Knowledge of the shape and area of the contact surface between
a device and the soil, coupled with knowledge of the stress distribu-
tion, provides a means of calculating the total forces in the mutual
contact area. Measuring the shape of the contact area is difficult.
A common method has been to ink the tread or body of the device
and print the contact area on a flat sheet of paper. Since such a
print represents static conditions only, its usefulness is limited. An
instantaneous contact area for dynamic conditions is the only ac-

curate representation.
To obtain a dynamic contact area, devices have been rolled through
the soil and then stopped and lifted from the soil. This track may
then be filled with plaster to reproduce the shape of the device
when it was in contact with the soil ( 289, 290 ). Numerous tracer
and grid measurements have also been utilized. The difficulty with
these techniques is that the rut must be assumed to have the shape
of the dynamically loaded wheel. Since pneumatic flexible devices
try to re-form their original shape when they are unloaded, any
decrease in the load on a tire causes it to move while it is still
in contact with the soil. Thus, the pattern may be in error. One
technique that overcomes this difficulty has been to place solidifying
material inside the tire and maintain the deformation of the tire
until it has set. At this time, even though the tire may try to re-
form, the cast retains the distorted shape of the carcass.
The stress and strain indicators described in previous sections
may also be used to detect the point of contact of a tire. Stress
transducers do not register until they are in contact with the surface.
Correlating their registration with their position indicates the
mutual contact surface. The orientation of the transducers must
be known, or the shape and size of the contact area cannot be
determined. With the internal deflection indicators, any deforma-
tion from the original undistorted position indicates a change in the
shape of the tire. Knowledge that the change in shape occurs
when the indicator is in the mutual contact surface is all that is
needed to interpret the measurements. Enough measurements have
been made to establish that a dynamically loaded contact area and
a statically loaded contact area differ considerably in shape. In
evaluating devices such as condual tires {21^6), information on the
size and shape of the contact area is extremely important. Im-
proved instrumentation and techniques will thus be required to ac-
curately determine the shape and area of the contact surface between
a device and soil.
7.4 Evaluating Traction Performance
In section 7.2 it was pointed out that the distribution of stresses
required to provide optimum traction could be determined from
the stress-strain relations for soil and the dynamic properties of a
soil in a particular condition. A traction device could then be
designed to apply the desired stress distribution. The traction per-
formance of the device would be near the maximum that is possible
for that particular soil condition. The type of information re-
quired for this method of evaluation is not available at this time
(1965). Were it available, the method would probably be too com-
plicated for practical purposes. Even a mechanics based on rigid
body behavior, some of which is available at this time, is not suffi-
ciently advanced to be useful for evaluation. Evaluating traction
performance is thus complicated because the performance of a
given device, measured in a given traction condition, cannot be rated
as good or bad based solely on methods that characterize the soil.
In other words, the performance of a given device cannot be evalu-
ated in terms of a theoretical maximum performance in a manner

similar to that of comparing the actual thermodynamic efficiency
of a given engine with its theoretical maximum thermodynamic
efficiency. Consequently, traction devices have, of necessity, been
evaluated by comparing two devices under comparable operating
conditions.
7.4.1 Criteria of Performance
When comparing traction devices, the evaluation of performance
is a subjective judgment that attempts to weigh the importance of
the various desired actions of the traction devices. Certain criteria
of performance must be selected to represent the actions, and phy-
sical quantities that can be used to represent these criteria must be
measured. The first step in evaluating a traction device thus is to
establish criteria of performance.
The normal purpose of a traction device is to develop useful pull
at some finite velocity. Usually, a minimum level of both pull and
velocity can be established as a minimum satisfactory performance.
The purpose of the vehicle on which the traction device is being
utilized determines to a great extent this minimum performance
and, hence, determines the criteria of performance. As an example,
a military vehicle may only require a traction device capable of pro-
pelling the vehicle up a certain slope or across soils of poor traffic-
ability. A tractor, on the other hand, may employ the same traction
device, but the device must both propel the tractor and develop
sufficient pull for draying.
If the vehicle is to be used for extended periods of time, another
consideration in performance is the mechanical efficiency of the sys-
tem. Where unusual traction requirements are needed, such as for
travel over loose snow or for minimum soil compaction during plant-
ing operations, some factor other than pull or efficiency may be the
most important criterion of performance. In the final analysis such
factors as durability, wear, and cost of manufacture must also be
included in performance. Vehicle performance can be determined
from a knowledge of the performance of individual traction and
transport devices. Since vehicle design and requirements differ
so greatly, only the traction device is considered here. Further-
more, economy factors are not considered, and only performance
concerning traction is discussed.
7.4.7.1. Drawbar Pull
The forces that act on a rigid wheel operating on soil have been
analyzed by Vanden Berg, Eeed, and Cooper ( ^62 ) for several
special situations. The magnitudes of these forces are criteria of
performance and the relations between the forces must be clearly
understood. The forces that act on the soil and the wheel are
typical of those found on any device where rotary energy is con-
verted into translational energy in a continuous process. How-
ever, only the forces acting on the wheel are shown. The vehicle
applies forces to the wheel at the axle while the medium applies
forces in the mutual contact surface—that is, the soil-wheel inter-
face. The hypothetical distribution of forces acting on the wheel
may differ from those postulated for other traction devices but the
same principles of equilibrium are involved.
The scheme of forces shown in figure 256, A represents the wheel
acting as a transport device rather than as a traction device—that is,
the wheel is being towed over the soil. The forces in the contact
surface between the wheel and the soil represent what might be
//////
/////
FIGURE 256.—Forces acting on a rigid wheel : A, Transport wheel ; B, traction

device; C, traction device but forces are hypothetical forces of thrust and
rolling resistance; D, traction device where the pull is zero. (Vanden
Berg, Reed, and Cooper, 1st Internatl. Conf. Mech. Soil-Vehicle Systems
Proc. (462).)
considered a reasonable distribution; the lengths of the vectors rep-

resent the magnitude of the envisioned forces. From equilibrium
conditions, the pull P that is required to move the wheel must be
equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction, to the sum of the
horizontal components of all forces in the contact surface. Simi-
larly, the sum of the vertical components of all forces must be equal
in magnitude, but opposite in direction, to the total weight W. Ne-
glecting friction, the moment at the axle is zero; since no tangential
forces can exist, the line of action of all forces in the contact sur-
face must pass through the axle. The resultant B of all forces
acting in the contact surfaces, therefore, has components P and TF,

and must pass through the axle.
The scheme of forces shown in figure 256, B depicts the wheel
acting as a traction device—that is, it is developing pull. Kotary
power 7a) is applied to the axle, and the output power that is
developed is Pv where T is the torque, o) is the angular velocity,
and V is the forward speed. From equilibrium conditions, when
accelerations are assumed to be zero, the components of the resultant
force R are again precisely P and W, The moment at the axle,
on the other hand, is not zero ; R must therefore be so located that
the relation T = Rl is satisfied. The torque arm I for the force R
and its location is as indicated in figure 256, B,
The concepts of thrust and rolling resistance have been based on
the assumption that each acts as a force between the traction device
and the medium ( S61, ^62 ). Figure 256, C shows a possible inter-
pretation of this concept. All of the horizontal components of
force acting in the direction of travel shown in figure 256, B can
be summed, and their sum defined as thrust S. Similarly, the sum
of all horizontal components of force acting opposite to the direction
of travel can be defined as rolling resistance Ü. From equilibrium
conditions, thrust is equal to rolling resistance plus pull. That
physical quantities do exist seems logical when they are defined in
this manner.
However, measuring or calculating either thrust or rolling resist-
ance is extremely difficult. The length of the lever arm—the dis-
tance below the axle—where either S or Ü acts is not known and is
not easily determined {Jf62), Furthermore, the magnitude of
neither S nor Ü can be calculated or measured ; only their difference
P can be measured. -Because both thrust and rolling resistance occur
in the same physical area, they are difficult to separate. Conse-
quently, their hypothetical existence merely reflects a confusing
model of the actual forces in the contact area. Great care should
be exercised when the concepts of thrust and rolling resistance are
used as criteria of performance.
7.4,1,2 Speed and Slip
In addition to being able to develop an adequate drawbar pull,
the traction device must be able to develop enough speed so that
an adequate amount of work can be accomplished. Thus, speed is
another criterion of performance and indicates the ability to travel
a given distance in a given time. When no slip occurs between the
traction device and the soil, the size and angular velocity of the
wheel determine the velocity of the vehicle. Actually, because of
the basic soil reaction, which is characterized by ZT-displacement
curves (fig. 240), there will be relative movement between the
traction device and the soil. Slip is a measure of the relative move-
ment and it is related to velocity, as shown in equation 155. Slip is
thus important in determining forward speed. Even more im-
portant, however, is a knowledge of the actual movement between
a device and the soil since relative movement is directly related to
the traction force available for reaction, as indicated by ^-displace-
ment curves. Eelative movement itself is thus an important cri-
terion of performance. Because of the great importance of the
relative movement between a device and soil, the ramifications of

measuring the movement by slip are discussed in considerable detail.
In section 7.2.2, an idealized track was analyzed and equation 160
was derived. The equation expresses the relation between slip and
relative movement in the mutual contact surface between a device
and a medium. Recall that equation 160 was derived from the
movements of two coordinate systems—a vehicle system and an
earth system. Point A was used to represent one particle on the
surface of the track. Expressing the motion of point A m the
vehicle system was easily accomplished for the idealized track.
Based on the accurate representation of the motion of point A, a
rigorous relation between slip and the relative movement of point
A in the earth system was derived.
To illustrate the validity, consider an idealized wheel rolling on
a surface where rolling resistance is zero. By definition, zero slip
occurs when point A is in the mutual contact surface and does not
move horizontally in the earth system. When the instantaneous
center of rotation of the idealized wheel lies exactly on the circum-
ference of the wheel, the wheel rolls over the surface with no rela-
tive movement at the point of contact (267). Thus, the zero slip
condition is satisfied; and, obviously, the motion of point A m the
vehicle system is readily described from simple geometrical consider-
ations. A similar argument can be made for the idealized track or
any other device.
Visualize what happens, however, if the wheel is flexible and de-
forms in the contact area or if the track stretches or bends between
bogies. The motion of point A is no longer accurately represented
by equation 157. With enough additional information available so
that the velocity of point A could be accurately expressed m the
vehicle system, equation 157 would become more complex but it
would accurately reflect the velocity. The remainder of the deriva-
tion would proceed in the same manner, but equation 160 probably
would have a different form. Eigid body behavior is not essential
to the derivation, and stretching and flexing of devices can be
handled by the mathematics. The crux of the accuracy ot equa-
tion 160 thus rests on the accuracy of representing the motion o±
point A in the vehicle system.
The path of motion of the surface of a real traction device is
difficult to describe mathematically. This difficulty has led to the
recognition of two phenomena involved with slip ( ^62 ). The two
phenomena are associated with the two bases for defining slip.
Equation 160 suggests that a ratio j/L can be used to define slip, and
the fundamental quantity is the relative movement m the mutual
contact surface—the movement of point A in the earth system. On
the other hand, equation 155 can be used to define slip, but the
fundamental quantity is the movement of the vehicle system—the
movement of the origin of the vehicle system m the earth system.
Both fundamental quantities are important. The first is involved
in the ^-displacement phenomenon; the second, m the forward
speed phenomenon. In an ideal traction device, both definitions o±
slip will give the same magnitude for a given situation. But this
is not necessarily the case in a real traction device because, as has
been pointed out, the motion of point A may not be accurately

described in the vehicle system. In the real device, slip can and
does differ for the two definitions.
No practical method exists for measuring slip based on the defi-
nition involving relative movement. Measurement of the velocity of
the vehicle system, however, is relatively straightforward ; hence, this
definition is generally used. When the motion of point A cannot
be described, the initial velocity Vo cannot be described. Thus, even
this definition (based on vehicle motion) does not yield a straight-
forward measurement although the definition is straightforward in
concept. The solution lies in an accurate description of the path
of motion of point A. In the meantime, measurement of the move-
ment of the vehicle system is used in slip measurements. The rela-
tive movement phenomenon is introduced in attempting to define a
zero slip condition—that is, the motion of the vehicle system while
no relative movement occurs in the contact surface. The problem
of measuring slip thus becomes one of defining and measuring zero
slip.
For a flexible device such as a pneumatic tire, defining zero slip
IS very difficult. Keed (356) measured the distance the axle of
experimental tires moved forward in one revolution while the tires
were operated at the self-propelled point on a hard surface. Figure
256, D shows the forces on a wheel while it is operated in the self-
1.5 l£ 17 1.8 \3 1.7 1.8 13 2J0 2.1

LENGTH (Ft) LENGTH (Ft)
FIGURE 257.—RoUing radius of four pneumatic 11-28 tires compared to axle

height and undeflected radius : A, Smooth conventional-ply tire ; B, same tire
with lugs; C, smooth radial-ply tire; D, same tire with lugs (After Reed
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. ( 356 ). )
propelled state. Data in figure 257 show that the rolling radius
(the distance the axle moved forward divided by 2 TT) for the condi-
tion (2,0704b. load at 14 p.s.i. on concrete) was not uniquely related
to either the axle height or the undeflected radius (no load on the
tire). If the tires are operated in a soil where smkage occurs, a
different rolling radius probably will be found at the self-propelled
point. Quite clearly, no simple method exists for defining a theo-
retical rolling radius of pneumatic tires. . -...r
The deformation of flexible traction devices takes place m diöer-
ent directions {m), as illustrated in studies by Wann and Eeed
( IL70 ) The relative movement between the contact surface o± a
tire and a hard surface was studied by a flat scratch plate technique.
Carborundum particles were uniformly distributed over a polished
aluminum plate after which a tire was loaded and towed over the
surface. The carborundum particles scratched the surface ot the
plate as they were moved by the scrubbing or squirming of the tire.
A special red-base waxed paper was bonded to the surface ot the
FIGURE 258.—Scratches made by the movement of a conventional 11-28 tire

on a flat plate: Left, 2,070-lb. load and 14 p.s.i. inflation pressure; right,
1,470-lb. load and 10 p.s.i. inflation pressure. (Wann and Reed, Amer. Soc.
Agr. Engin. Trans. (^70 ).)
plate to record the scratches. Figure 258 shows the scratches pro-
duced by a tractor tire having two loads and inflation pressures.
The paths along which the individual grains of carborundum moved
show clearly that the direction is sidewards as well as rearwards in
some mstances. In addition, the scratches reveal one part of the con-
tact area may be operating at essentially zero slip while another part
has slipped considerably.
The following explanation for the action was given by Wann and
Eeed {^70). The circular cross section of the tire can be con-
sidered to be made up of an infinite number of circles of varying
circumference, which are constrained so as to rotate on one axle
and operate as a unit. As a result, differential slip between the
various circumferences and the surface must occur. To examine
this action of tires, a bar table consisting of flat bars 1 inch wide
operating on and between frictionless bearings was used. The bars
were so supported that they were free to move lengthwise even
though they were kept in alinement and restrained from lateral
motions. The use of the bar table permitted the measurement of
the cumulative relative movement in increments 1 inch wide as a
tire traveled forward on the bars in a self-propelled state (fig. 254).
Figure 259 shows the result of the measurements for several ex-
perimental tires. The data were expressed in terms of movement
relative to the center line of the tire per unit distance of travel and
show the same general effect indicated by the scratch tests.
The complexity of defining zero slip for a flexible traction device
becomes apparent in the light of the numerous movements indicated
by the data just discussed. The problem is to define, the theoretical
distance or velocity traveled at zero slip. Since no convenient method
based on relative movement is available for describing zero slip, an
alternate method is to describe the state of forces on the device. For
example, in the theoretical wheel operating at zero slip, the torque
and the pull are simultaneously zero. In the real wheel where
rolling friction (rolling resistance) is present, torque and pull are
never simultaneously zero. Phillips ( 335 ) suggested that three
methods of operation exist on which a zero slip measurement might
be based: (1) the distance traveled by the wheel in one revolution
at zero torque; (2) the distance traveled in one revolution of the
wheel in the self-propelled state; and (3) the distance traveled when
the instantaneous center of rotation of the wheel is at the undis-
turbed surface of the medium on which the wheel is operating. All
three methods of operation would predict the same rolling radius
for a theoretical wheel if no sinkage occurred.
When sinkage does occur, the third method does not seem to be
logical since it results in predicting a rolling radius that is less than
the actual radius of the wheel. Figure 260, A shows a deformable
wheel operating in a medium where sinkage occurs and B^ on a
medium where all of the deformation takes place within the wheel.
Within the contact area, the radius of the wheel varies from R^ to
Ro; however, the value R^ depends on the soil condition and the
character of the wheel. The rolling radius should logically lie be-
tween these twô extremes. The data in figure 257, obtained with a
self-propelled wheel having forces as depicted in figure 256, />,
liJ
.03r
X
o
er
Lu
CL
UJ
-.01 12 3 4
(^ DISTANCE FROM CENTER LINE (in)
FiGUBE 259.-Accumulated movement of bars relative to the center of the tire
caused by differential movement of different sections of the tire: A, conven-
tfonalDlv smooth tire; B, conventional-ply lugged tire; G, radial-ply smooth
tiref I! rfSatply lugged tire. (Reed, National Tillage Machinery Labora-
tory.)
'm^//À^/y
(A) (B)
FIGURE 260.-Limits of rolling radius of a deformable wheel: A, Deformation

in the tire and soil; B, deformation only in the tire.
clearly show that the measured rolling radius does lie between the
two extremes Ri and Ro. An interesting observation concerning the
data m figure 257 is that the rolling radius appears to be approxi-
mately halfway between the two extremes. Phillips' third method
however, suggests a value for the rolling radius that is even less
than Ro when smkage occurs. Thus the approach in which the
instantaneous center of rotation is considered to be at the surface
of the undisturbed soil can result in a rolling radius that does not
lie between the extremes.
The two choices that appear to be available for establishing a
basis oí zero slip are the towed and self-propelled states. Until
some different manner of specifying an accurate rolling radius can
be developed, one of these two bases will have to be used.
Most researchers have used the self-propelled state as a base, and
a number of arguments can be made for using this approach. The
net horizontal force in the contact area is zero. The self-propelled
state IS also the transition point between a traction device and a
transport device. This is to say, it represents the state where the
traction device provides neither a pull nor a braking force. As a
machine, its drawbar efficiency is zero at the self-propelled point
since all input energy is lost in th^ contact area. The self-propelled
state IS also rather clearly defined as a condition of operation. The
one difficulty is that the definition is based on the state of forces
and not on relative movement. Where the assumptions are applied
m an extreme case, the result can be a situation not represented by
the model. For example, when a device sinks deeply into sticky
mud and is just capable of moving itself forward so that its net
pull IS zero, the device will probably be spinning. The relative
movement between the device and the mud will obviously not be
that of a zero slip, and it is apparent that the defined condition
^^^ ^?} ^PP^^- Usually this extreme situation does not exist, and
the self-propelled state provides a logical estimate of zero relative
movement.
All present definitions of slip are based on travel and the assump-
tion IS then made that the net relative movement, in terms of dis-
placement, can be calculated by using equation 161. Since the dis-
tance traveled at zero slip must generally be arbitrarily defined, no
accurate measure of relative movement can be established until the
actual displacement distribution in the contact surface can be ex-
pressed m terms of parameters that describe the surface and the
device. Such a description must involve ih^ length of the surface
and the geometry of the device so that the path of a theoretical
point J. can be expressed mathematically. At present (1965), the
self-propelled state seems to be the most logical basis on which
to define zero slip and thus provide one of the more important cri-
teria of performance.
7.4.7.3 Energy Efficiency
The primary purpose of a traction device is to develop pull at a
reasonable forward speed. When the device is operated for long
periods of time, however, its efficiency of energy transfer becomes
important. Power efficiency is, therefore, a criterion of traction
performance. In reality, power efficiency is a specific combination
of the criteria discussed in section 7.4.1.1, namely, the forces that

act on the device. Because the combination has a definite physical
meaning, however, it is useful as a criterion.
Energy transfer is usually expressed as a ratio of output power
to input power. For a tractor pulling a load, the output power is the
product of pull and forward speed, while input power is the product
of torque and its rotational velocity. Within the range of speed of
most off-the-road vehicles, traction performance is generally assumed
to be independent of speed. A device can be operated at 10-per-
cent slip at either 1 or 10 miles per hour with the same relative
movement with the soil. The only difference in the action at these
two speeds is the time during which the movement occurs.
If two devices are required to develop a specific pull at a definite
forward velocity, the rotational velocity (throttle setting) can be
adjusted so that both pull and forward speed are at their desired
values even though the devices may be slipping at different rates.
Under these conditions, both devices may be visualized as black
boxes doing the same work—that is, their output power is the
same. The difference in the boxes, if any, is the input power re-
quired to operate them. Since forward speed can presumably be
varied by varying rotational velocity, power efficiency expresses the
efficiency of converting rotational power to translational power.
Power efficiency is thus a meaningful criterion of traction perform-
ance.
A clear understanding of power efficiency is necessary m order to
properly use it as a criterion. In section 7.4.1.1, the concept of
thrust was mentioned and the difficulty of determining the magni-
tude of thrust was pointed out. In the past, thrust was often as-
sumed to act on a lever arm equal to the rolling radius of a wheel,
an assumption that is true only for an ideal wheel operating where
no sinkage occurs. On the basis of this assumption, however, a ratio
(force ratio) of thrust to pull can be established.
The concept of travel ratio (defined as the ratio of the distance
actually traveled to the distance that would have been traveled if
no slippage had occurred) was also used in the past. Power effi-
ciency was then conceived to be the product of two factors—the
force ratio and the travel ratio. One of the shortcomings of this
approach is that power efficiency can never exceed the fraction of
travel that was lost in slip. In other words, when the wheel slips
10 percent, only 90 percent of the total power is considered to be
productive and the total power efficiency should never exceed 90
percent. In the physical system, however, power efficiency as calcu-
lated by the relation
-^ (164)
frequently exceeds 90 percent when slip is in excess of 10 percent.

The difficulty is that the energy lost in slipping the wheel cannot
be determined. Power efficiency refers only to the ratio of total
power output to total power input. That efficiency is composed
of two factors is perhaps a confused concept, particularly since the
magnitude of thrust cannot be accurately determined at this time.
The work that a given traction device can perform in a given

traction condition is also a criterion of traction performance.
Dickson ( 102 ) emphasized that the velocity at which pull is de-
veloped must be considered in addition to the magnitude of the
pull. In many traction conditions maximum pull is reached at or
near 100-percent slip, but the device may be moving forward so
slowly that it is not a very practical device. Some measure that
includes the influence of both pull and speed would therefore be
useful. The coefficient of traction (pull divided by weight carried)
multiplied by the travel ratio is one possible factor. For a constant
rotational velocity, the factor has the form
TT^;;' (165)
where Vt is the theoretical velocity, v is the actual velocity, and P
and TF are the pull and weight on the device as indicated in figure
245. Both V and Vt are a function of rotational velocity co; and in
equation 155, vt is the same as Vo for a constant w. Equation 165
can be made independent of rotational speed by substituting for
V from equation 155, giving
^(1-^). (166)
where 8 is slip.
In equation 165, since the rotational velocity co can be maintained
constant, the denominator (Wvt) will be constant. The numerator,
however, >aries from zero at zero slip (since P is zero through a
range of positive values) to zero at 100-percent slip (since v is zero).
The units of the numerator are those of work so that the expression
represents the work output of the device for certain fixed conditions
(weight and rotational velocity). The expression thus may be called
a work output, and it is an index that represents the work in di-
mensionless terms. Since the work output reaches a maximum, the
pull associated with the maximum represents the pull at which
maximum work can be performed. The denominator in equation
165 IS not work even though the term has the units of work. The
vectors Vt and Tf operate at right angles to each other so that their
product is not work in the normal sense even though a superficial
inspection would so indicate. Because the work number in equa-
tions 165 and 166 represents work done, the number is a useful
criterion of traction performance.
7.4.7.4 ioocf-carr/ing Capacity
Transport performance may be evaluated in terms other than
towing force and speed. For a self-propelled vehicle, the time
required to move a specified distance could be a criterion of per-
formance. With rare exceptions, however, the object of vehicular
travel is to move a load rather than merely to deliver the operator
from one place to another. Dickson ( 102 ) proposed a load-carry-
ing index which was suited to a vehicle with a drawbar load ; a more
general form might be
load carrying index = 7^^ +Vv ' ^^^"^"^
where Wp = payload,
T — torque,
CO = angular velocit}^,
P = drawbar pull,
V = velocity.
For a self-propelled wheel, the pull term Pv would go to zero. The
advantage of this form of load-carrying index is that it also applies
to the transport wheel. In the latter, the torque term Tœ goes to
zero and P is a minus quantity signifying a towing force. Wp
would be the load transported on level soil. If the vehicle climbs
a hill, the force parallel to the ground line will increase. The in-
crease acts as additional drawbar pull P which causes a decrease m
the load-carrying index when the vehicle operates on slopes ( ^/5 ).
Load-carrying index is thus a useful criterion for evaluating trans-
port.
7.4.2 Measures of Performance
As indicated in section 7.4.1, the first step in evaluating traction
performance is to establish fundamental criteria of performance.
Since traction devices must be compared, the second step is to quan-
titatively measure the established criteria. The criteria can then
be compared. For example, in one instance the most important
criterion may be maximum pull, whereas in another instance it may
be power efficiency. These fundamental criteria are not independent,
as has already been indicated (sec. 7.4.1.1), but are interdependent
in various complex relations. Furthermore, the relations depend
on the state of operation of the device. Therefore, to establish these
relations, the fundamental criteria must be simultaneously measured
in various states of dynamic equilibrium. Eegardless of the funda-
mental criteria chosen for comparison, certain basic measurements
are required. Pull, torque, weight carried, rate of angular rotation,
forward speed, and slip are basic measurements that describe the
state of dynamic equilibrium. Composite criteria such as power
eificiency can be calculated from the fundamental criteria, bpecial
equipment is generally required to control the operating conditions
and to make the measurements. The equipment shown m figures
2 and 3 was designed for this purpose. Figure 261 shows traction
measurement equipment at the National Tillage Machinery Labora-
tory. The control and measurement of fundamental criteria with
this type of equipment provides reliable information that can be
used to evaluate traction performance.
Traction depends on the relative displacement ot the traction
device, as demonstrated by the ¿T-displacement curves shown m
figure 240. Equation 160 shows the relation between slip and rela-
tive displacement for a rolling device; this relation was discussed
in detail in section 7.4.1.2. Figure 262 shows typical traction data
where torque and pull have been plotted against slip by using a
self-propelled state as the zero slip condition. Data on traction
378 AGRICtLTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. t)F AGRICULTURE
:SS¡BS^S^¿
FIGURE 261.—Traction measurement equipment at tlie National Tillage Ma-

chinery Laboratory, Aul)urn. Ala.
- BRAKED DRIVEN -
FIGURE 2G2.—Torque input to a wheel and drawbar pull of a rollin}; device as

affected by the slip between the device and the soil. (After Freitag, Au-
burn Univ. ( ISi ).)
measurements are usually obtained with a constant weight on the

device when it is operated on a uniform ground medium. Depend-
ing on the direction of the applied torque, the device is either braked
or driven. Where torque is zero, tlie device is a transport device
and the negative pidl represents the force required to tow the de-
vice in the medium with the carried weight. If the device is used
on an all-member drive vehicle, tlie self-proi)elIed state represents
the operating state where sufficient traction is available to overcome
the rolling resistance of the soil and to propel the veliicle. When
climbing a slope, however, the device must generate additional
tractio^t in order to overcome a component of the weight along the
direction of travel ( 37,1^75 ). The first quadrant of the axes shown
in figure 262 thus represents the operating states where the device
is providing a draying force and hence is a traction device. As
figure 262 shows, however, the device can be used for other purposes
such as braking and the total information shown is useful and
characteristic of both the device and the medium on which it is
operated. n - j-
Because of the mechanics of some types of equipment tor measur-
ing traction, weight may be transferred to the traction device as
drawbar pull is increased. Weight also varies with the slope of the
ground. These weight changes must be measured and the traction
results expressed in a form independent of the changes. Such a
form is provided by the coefficient of traction, which is defined as the
ratio of pull to the total weight carried.
Use of the coefficient, however, requires the assumption that the
coefficient is independent of the normal load. Quite clearly, such an
assumption is not justified when large variations m the vertical
load occur. For example, if a coefficient of traction-vertical load
relation is visualized, the pull capability of the device reaches a
finite maximum; and as the vertical load increases, the coefficient
must approach zero. At the other extreme, in the limit, the co-
efficient becomes undefined since it approaches the ratio zero/zero;
however, researchers ( lOß ) indicate that the coefficient approaches
infinity as the vertical load approaches zero. Approaching infinity
does not seem unreasonable; it merely indicates that the rate at
which pull and vertical load approach zero are different and the
rate of pull is slower. The important point is that the coefficient
does not express the desired information, namely, the maximum pull
for varying normal load; consequently, when trying to express the
effect on pull of varying the normal load, the coefficient of traction
is meaningless. When, however, small changes occur m the normal
load (such as caused by weight transferred withm a vehicle or
added from mounting an implement on a tractor), the coefficient
is necessary in spite of its dependence on normal load.
7.4.3 Evaluation of Performance
Evaluation of traction devices involves comparing the performance
curves of different devices with subjective levels of performance that
are required or desired. Devices may also be evaluated m respect
to each other without specification of any level or standard of per-
formance. Unfortunately, this type of comparison provides no com-
mon denominator for other evaluations. The difficulty m comparing
complete performance curves such as shown in figure 262 is that
they usually have different shapes for different traction conditions,
and the curves for two similar devices will often cross m the same
traction condition. Thus, for example, tire A may pull more than
tire B at 10-percent slip, but the reverse might be true at 50-percent
slip. The difficulty of comparing th^ curves can be greatly reduced
if a single value can be obtained to represent the overall nature ot a
particular curve H61). . ^^ ^^ ^ u
One value which might be used is the maximum pull that can be
developed. When a heavy load needs to be started or when a short
distance is to be traversed in difficult trafficable conditions, maximum
pull is perhaps the most important consideration. Maximum pull is
relatively easy to determine; unfortunately, it is often the only

basis on which traction performance is evaluated. Where no clear
maximum is attained as the percentage of slip is increased, some
arbitrary slip range may be selected as a base within which a maxi-
mum IS determined. The range 0 to 70 percent has been used with
some justification. At slips above 70 percent, excessive dig-in occurs
and forward travel is reduced to the point where the device is nearly
immobile. The maximum pull in the range from 0- to 70-percent
slip might be used as a single value that reflects one aspect of the
traction performance of a device.
Another single value to reflect traction performance would be
some average pull. In practice, maximum pull is seldom either
required or attained. When operating in a given traction condi-
tion, a specific pull is required and the slip of the traction device
adjusts until the required pull is developed. Sufficient input power
must be available and the device must have the capacity to develop
the required pull. The slip will adjust to the appropriate levels
tor different magnitudes of pull. M:ost operators try to keep slip
below some arbitrais limit, particularly when operating for long
periods of time. If excessive slippage occurs, the operators will
effect some change in operation to keep the slip under their arbitrary
^nf î^^^* ^^^^ normal range of slip thus exists where a device
will be operated most of the time. In pneumatic tires, most sharp
changes m slip-puU curves occur before 30-percent slip is attained.
Most operators would probably consider 30-percent slip excessive
and take steps to reduce it. Based on this assumption, the average
pull for the range 0- to 30-percent slip thus provides a single
member reflecting the traction performance over the actual operating
range of the'tire.
When performance is considered in terms of energy efficiency,
power efficiency-pull curves can be meaningful in evaluating per-
formance (29). Since efficiency becomes most important when the
device is operating for long periods, usually at different states of slip
and pull, an average power efficiency would probably be more useful
than a maximum. The average power efficiency for pulls developed
m the normal range of operation (0- to 30-percent slip) would
provide a single value that reflects the energy efficiency aspects of
traction performance in a range of probable operation.
When energy efficiency is important, an additional factor must
be considered. A work output-slip curve (equation 166) indicates
the operative state at which maximum work can be obtained. If
the pull associated with maximum work is the same as the pull as-
sociated with maximum efficiency, that pull would be the most suit-
able operating state. Generally, however, power efficiency maxi-
mizes at a lower pull than does work output. The possibility thus
exists that m some conditions a device may have high efficiency yet
do little work, whereas in other conditions it may do considerable
work but have poor efficiency. This possibility arises because a
device can use a given amount of input power to develop a low work
output at low slip so that the work is developed with high mechan-
ical efficiency. The device could also utilize the same amount of
energy to develop a higher work output at a high slip and, conse-
quently, operate at lower efficiency. Slip can thus be balanced

against pull with varying effects on work output and power effi-
ciency. .
The product of work output (equation 166) and power efficiency
is a dimensionless number that gives equal weight to both factors.
The number may be properly defined as traction efficiency. A trac-
tion device may be visualized as a machine that requires weight and
input power to make it operate. The purpose of the machine is to
do useful work by developing pull at some forward speed. The
number—traction efficiency—considers the influence of three factors :
weight, output power, and input power. A maximum value of
traction efficiency can be considered the optimum operating state of
the device for a particular traction condition. A traction efficiency-
pull curve would, therefore, give the traction efficiency of the device
at various pulls. The average value for traction efficiency, computed
for the range of pulls that would be anticipated in actual use, would
be a single value that reflects overall traction performance.
Traction devices can be readily compared with single value in-
dices. When the performance of a series of devices is measured
in a given traction condition, one device can be used as a stand-
ard and each device can be compared with the standard. By
dividing the appropriate single value of each device by the respective
single value of the standard, performance can be rated as a per-
centage of the standard. Each device can then be readily compared
for a specific set of soil conditions. This can be extended to differ-
ent soils. The percentage of performance of the standard for each
device in various representative conditions can be determined, and
these percentages can be averaged to give an overall comparison of
the devices. If some knowledge of the anticipated time of operation
on each soil condition can be determined, a weighted single value
average could be determined that would represent performance m
the anticipated soil conditions. These techniques provide a powerful
means for evaluating traction performance. Cost of manufacture,
adaptability to a particular vehicle, wear characteristics, and many
other factors are needed before a particular device can be selected.
Suitable traction performance, however, is one of the factors; and
the criteria and measures of performance, together with the tech-
niques outlined here, are the means for evaluating the factor of
traction performance.
7.5 Design of Traction and Transport Devices
Design implies intent or purpose; hence, designing a traction de-
vice implies that the device is to be constructed to accomplish some
specific task or tasks. The success of the design depends on the
degree to which the constructed device utilizes the ground conditions
to best attain the desired performance.
Several subtle but salient aspects are involved in traction design.
Lack of a mechanics to integrate the various aspects into reliable
mathematical expressions has caused considerable confusion. The
confusion has probably^ resulted because individual researchers were
primarily concerned with only one or two aspects of traction. The
aims of the researchers often appear, to other researchers and to per-
sons trying to interpret the research results, to be different and dis-
organized. A superficial review of technical literature confirms this
observation. In a broad and realistic sense, however, the differences
are only superficial and all efforts have had one common goal—
the design of a traction device. The aspects of design will be dis-
cussed to show that the apparent confusion results from two ap-
proaches for obtaining design inforraation.
Accurate mathematical expressions that describe the traction ac-
tion and contain the factors affecting traction provide the best
framework within which to design traction devices. Abstract trac-
tion design factors can be identified and their functional relations
to each other and to performance can be determined. These factors
are difficult to assess numerically and are similar in concept to those
included in the tillage equations (equations 132 and 133). The
factors are identified and their relations indicated in the force-
traction equation,
P = f{S,D,W,J), (168)
where P — pull,
S = soil,
D = device,
W = weight,
/ = relative movement,
/ = functional relation.
Relative movement / is usually expressed as actual displacement
for a nonrolling device and expressed as slip for a rolling device.
Available knowledge verifies the general nature of equation 168;
when a wheel carrying a fixed weight is operated on a uniform soil
condition, a unique pull results for each slip. The variables are
known to be independent because each can be varied over a reason-
able range without being restricted by the remaining variables.
Variations in S, D, W ov J will probably affect pull ; but a unique
pull will result for each value of S, D, TT, or /. Within limits, a
designer has control over factors B and TF. Thus, if a specific
form of equation 168 were available, the device and weight factors
could be optimized so that maximum pull could be obtained for
various slips. Ecjuation 168 thus represents a traction equation that
is useful for design.
Only one equation is used to represent the action of a soil-traction
device system whereas two equations are used to represent the action
of a soil-tillage tool system. The force-tillage equation represents
the input required to cause the action. The soil condition-tillage
equation represents the output of the action that is of interest. In
traction, equation 168 represents the output of the action that is of
interest. A second force-traction equation that represents the input
to cause the action is
r = g{S,D,W,J), (169)
where y represents the torque required to operate a rolling device.
Equations 168 and 169 identify and represent the principal factors
of interest in traction design. The relations between P and T are
analogous to the relations between F and Sf for tillage equations.
P and T are dependent variables of the same independent variables
and, hence, they may not be uniquely related. Available knowledge
indicates that P and T are probably not uniquely related to each
other.
The action of a soil-traction device system is not intrinsically
simpler than the action of a soil-tillage tool system. Changes m
soil conditions are not normally of interest in the action of a soil-
traction device system. Thus, they are not included in traction
equations. A third traction equation Sf - k{Si, Z>, Tf, /) can be
written when necessary, because the resulting soil conditions are
precisely determined by S, D, W, and /. D in a traction equation
IS roughly equivalent to Ts in the tillage equation and / and W are
roughly equivalent to Tm. For a tillage tool, 7"^ inherently con-
tains W since W influences the manner of movement (depth, for
example) in a floating tillage tool such as a disk harrow.
The independent variables in tillage and traction equations are
very similar. The primary difference between the equations is our
interest in the results of the action they describe. In tillage, the
result of interest is the final soil condition and this is difficult to
describe. In traction, the quantity of interest is usually the pull
developed, and this can be measured directly. Soil-traction device
systems have an additional simplifying aspect because the output
described by the traction equation physically represents the limiting
traction conditions. Seldom does available torque (the input that
causes the action) limit pull. Usually pull is limited by other soil
and machine factors represented in equation 168. Thus, efforts m
traction research have been primarily concentrated on the factors
represented in equation 168. _
Two methods are used to develop traction equations. Iîrst, trac-
tion equations can be derived from basic forms of behavior (sec. 7.2).
Active behavior equations of soil quantitatively describe the soil
action. Geometric equations and, in flexible devices, flexibility equa-
tions quantitatively describe the devices. Equation 160 expresses rel-
ative movement as a percentage of slip ; weight and pull are expressed
as forces. The system of equations forms a mechanics, and the
mechanics can be solved to describe traction. ^ _
A second method for developing traction equations is empirical
and based on measured observations. The utility of the empirical
approach is apparent when it is realized that many traction equa-
tions must exist. Every time different geometric equations, flexi-
bility equations, or soil-behavior equations are used, a different
traction equation probably will result. The parameters of the geo-
metric, flexibility, and behavior equations assign numbers to^ the
design factors. The parameters, in effect, become variables m a
traction equation. A logical procedure is to relate pull to para-
meters of soil behavior and traction device description equations ( 36,
37 125 ).
Equation 168 can be used as a guide to empirical approaches.
The coefficient of traction is often calculated and graphically plotted
in relation to slip to represent traction performance. Traction per-
formance is, therefore, represented by a curve and the techniques
discussed in section 7.4.3. are used to evaluate performance. Equa-

tion 168 then simplifies to a performance equation
TP = h{S,D), (170)
where TP — traction performance,
S — soil,
D — device,
h = functional relation.
The total differential of equation 170 can be written to indicate that
changes in traction performance must come from a change in either
the soil or the traction device. As a result, factors that inñuence
traction performance can be compared to obtain design information.
Comparisons have been widely used to obtain much useful traction
design information.
In comparative procedures, performance criteria are measured
for one or more devices in a soil condition selected to represent ex-
pected operating conditions. Generally, no attempt is made to de-
scribe the soil condition in detail ; measurements are made to insure
that the condition is identical for all devices. The performance of
the devices is comparable only for that one condition. A direct
comparison of the influence of factors on performance is valid since
any change can be due only to differences in the devices. The
superiority of one device indicates that the traction potential of the
soil was more effectively utilized by that device than by the others.
If comparisons in other representative soil conditions also show
the device to be superior, it must have a better design than the
others. Device descriptions can be used in manufacturing the new
design.
Comparative procedures can be used to identify suitable numerical
representations of the design factor Z>. The geometry and flexi-
bility of a device can usually be described in more than one way;
therefore, numerical representation of the device is not always easy.
Devices that are similar except in one identifiable difference can be
directly compared; differences in performance can be attributed to
the identified difference (for example, diameter). Comparisons
can also provide data that indicate the importance of differences
being studied. For instance, wheel diameter may affect traction
niore than wheel width. If several diameters are compared, the
diameter that gives the maximum pull (performance) can be con-
sidered an optimum. If the performance monotonically increases
or decreases, a trend is established. Trends verified for several soil
conditions provide the designer a choice of diameter sizes that he can
use to meet the desired level of performance. Trends can be estab-
lished for any design factor.
Comparative procedures have limited use. They can never be
used to predict the magnitude of performance. Also they lack the
means for identifying soil behavior parameters. Since only mini-
mum efforts are made to characterize soil in comparative procedures,
attempts to develop even rudimentary correlations between soil and
performance are impractical. Therefore, no reliable means is avail-
able to predict performance in a different soil condition. Lack of
a prediction capability does not negate the possibility of indicating

trends. If a definite trend is established by comparative data, quali-
tative but not quantitative performance can be predicted. Thus, a
trend might indicate that tire A will always pull more than tire B
even though in some traction conditions both tires will pull less
than in others. The inability to quantitatively predict performance
and the incapability of identifying soil dynamic parameters severely
limit the use of comparative procedures.
A complete traction mechanics or a simplified empirical traction
equation must include the effects on performance of both the soil
and the device. In design, it is helpful to be able to derive a simpler
specific design traction equation from the more complex soil-traction
device mechanics. The derived design eqûation cannot be accurate
unless the mechanics from which it is derived includes all pertinent
soil and machine behaviors, unfortunately, we do not yet have
this mechanics. Thus, the basic approach of developing a complete
traction mechanics provides little assistance to contemporary de-
signers.
The limited application of comparative research data raises a ques-
tion concerning its value. Research in soil dynamics is conducted
to solve problems in mobility, trafficability, vehicle design, and trac-
tion performance. Results that apply in one problem-solving area
may appear to have no application in others. When viewed m the
broad spectrum of all problems, however, each specific solution may
contribute to the solution of more general problems because of the
insight that is provided concerning the behavior involved. Little
emphasis has been placed on identifying dynamic soil parameters
in comparative procedures so that one might conclude that the data
serve no useful purpose. The direct comparison of designs has pro-
vided useful design information. Indeed, the design information
available today is largely a product of this approach. Direct com-
parison of traction devices has been instrumental m identifying new
design factors for the pool of traction knowledge. The develop-
ment of radial-ply construction of pneumatic tires illustrates this
fact. A comparison of tires demonstrated that radial-ply construc-
tion produced a traction advantage over conventional-ply construc-
tion. No traction equation could predict the improvement. Once
the radial-ply factor had been identified, corrections could be made
in both derived and empirical traction equations.
Usefulness of comparative procedures does not condone their con-
tinuation. By following the concepts presented in tillage design
equations (sec. 5.2), comparative procedures can be modified to pro-
vide data that contribute to the development of empirical traction
equations. Restricted comparative procedures should be used only
when the need for immediate information justifies their use. A
research program using both derived and empirical approaches
should provide a fundamental understanding of traction problems
and also provide practical information. The apparent confusion
one might read into traction research is not real. The ultiimte
ffoal of traction is to be able to design and use traction devices, ihe
goal is the same even though the methods followed to obtain the
goal differ.
7.5.1 Transport Devices

Transport devices are simple insofar as their purpose is to support
a load in such a manner that it can be easily moved over the soil.
Their performance is determined by measuring the force required
to pull a load over soil conditions that are of interest (sec. 7.4.2.).
Because of its simplicity and adaptability, the wheel is the most
commonly used transport device. In extreme conditions such as
loose snow or sand, skids or tracks are sometimes used. Coefficients
of shdmg resistance of 0.8 to 0.9 can be expected for steel on firm
soil, but coefficients as low as 0.16 can be found in soft ñuid condi-
tions ( .^74). Eunners can be used on snow since the coefficient
of sliding resistance rarely goes above 0.3 for steel on ice or snow
(S5), Because of the restricted uses of runners, however, most
design information pertains to wheels. This discussion is limited to
wheels and tracks.
The composite design factors of a rigid wheel include diameter,
width, and, to a limited degree, cross-sectional shape. For a pneu-
matic tire, some measure of ñexibility is also a design factor. Since
the purpose of a transport device is usually to move a load, weight
on the device is of paramount interest. The towing force required
to move a load is a single value that may be measured to indicate
transport performance. The coefficient of rolling resistance, is often
used to characterize transport performance.
Coefficient of rolling resistance = ^, (171)

TF'
where F = towing force,
W = weight carried.
The relation has the same form as equation 153. Figure 263 shows
the relation between towing force F and weight W for a pneumatic
tire and a steel wheel of similar size for operations on a plowed loam
soil (270). ^
The data show two important facts. First, since a straight line
relation did not result for either wheel, the coefficient of rolling
resistance was not a constant but varied with the load. Over small
variations in load, however, a straight line would be a reasonable
approximation of the relation. Second, the pneumatic tire could
be towed much more easily than the steel wheel. Table 43 shows
data reported by McKibben and Thompson ( 279 ) which indicate
that the force required to tow a pneumatic-tired manure spreader
was an average of 44 percent below that required for a comparable
spreader with steel wheels. The machines carried a gross weight
of 4,000 pounds and both wheels were as nearly the same size as
possible. In every traction condition studied, the pneumatic tires
required a smaller towing force than the steel wheels. In addition,
the pneumatic tires had other advantages. For example, shock loads
were reduced ( 108 ) and the tires showed less wear (96),
The effect of wheel diameter, width, and load on transport per-
formance has been analyzed by Freitag at the Waterways Experi-
ment Station ( 134,^ 496 ). His analysis was based on information
published over a period of approximately 20 years. Because of the
800 r
2000
LOAD (Lbs)
FIGURE 263.—Towing force required to roll various loads over a plowed loani
soil : A, On a 6-28 steel wheel ; 7?, on a 6-16 pneumatic tire ; C, effectiveness
of the pneumatic tire in reducing the towing force. (McKibben and
Davidson, Agr. Engin. {210).)
lack of characterization of soil conditions, only measurements on

rigid wheels operated on loose sand were considered. Wheel loads
ranged from % pound to 2,000 pounds; corresponding ranges in
wheel sizes were used.
Using ratios so that dimensionless numbers were available, Frei-
TABLE 43.—Reduction in towing force of a vehicle due to substituting

pneu?natio tires for steel tires
Decrease in
Soil condition towing force
Percent
P,nnf»rptp road - 5
Fall plowed, thawed soil 20
TîliiPfirrass sod - 30
TpTTinorflrv road on field 40
Burned sweet clover stubble 45
Wintpr rvp rousrh and frozen- 50
Sweet clover stubble and snow 60
ixravel road ^ 60
Cinder road 65
Fall-plowed, muddy soil, frozen underneath 67
Mean 44
SOURCE : McKibben and Thompson ( 219. )
tag demonstrated that the towing force was proportional to TF^/^

(coefficient of rolling resistance increased with load). He also dem-
onstrated that the towing force was inversely proportional to the
diameter and that it could be related to the load per unit of width
if a constant aspect ratio was maintained. For any wheel, the as-
pect ratio was defined as the diameter-to-width ratio. Figure 264
12 16 20 200
Y (lb/in)
FIGURE 264.—Rolling resistance-wheel parameter relations for rigid wheels on

loose sand. ( Freitag, Auburn Univ. ( 134 ) • )
shows the empirical relations plotted for measurements made on

rigid wheels of vastly different sizes operating on sand. These data
originated from the findings of various researchers using dissimilar
sands. The measurements were obtained under conditions ranging
from laboratory-controlled indoor soil bins to fields where weather
and other factors could affect the results. Nevertheless, definite re-
lations are evident. They indicate that the rolling resistance—the
towing force of towed rigid wheels operating on sand—can be re-
lated to other parameters in the form
Fd 3/2
where d diameter,
<f) (172)
b width,
F towing force (rolling resistance),
W weight on w^heel,
K proportionality factor reflecting soil conditions.
Based on Freitag's analysis, data from McKibben and Davidson
( 270 ) were analyzed by Gill and Vanden Berg as shown in figures
265 and 266. The relations indicate that the trends predicted by
equation 172 apply to conditions other than loose sand ; the reaction
to loads on concrete and bluegrass sod is considerably different than
on sand, yet the relation holds. The points representing two of the
six wheels reported in figure 266 (shown as circled crosses) appear
to be on a different line than the remaining four wheels. Since the
measurements of these same wheels did not appear to be abnormal
3600
3000
2400
1800-
1200
600
X 1000
FIGURE 265.—Rolling resistance-wheel parameter relations of various sizes of

rigid wheels on sand and freshly tilled loam soils. (Replotted from data
of McKibben and Davidson, Agr. Engin. {210),)
1200
1000-
800-
600
Ü.
400-
200
T^TPTTRF 266—Rolling resistance-wheel parameter relations of various sizes of

rTgrn ilfon bluegrass sod and concrete. (Replotted from data of
McKibben and Davidson, Agr. Engm. {210).)
in the other test conditions, some change may have occurred in the
sod while the measurements were being made. The circled points
may thus reflect a changed sod condition rather than scatter in the
measurements.
Figures 265 and 266 also show that the proportions between the
factors m equation 172 may not be as simple as first indicated,
bmce a best-fitting line does not pass through the origin, equation
172 has the form
17 \ 3/2
^=.( T) +^' (173)
where C = SL constant.
Equation 171 suggests that two dynamic properties, which are com-
mon to the steel wheel and the medium, describe the behavior. Ke-
gardless of the implications of K and G, the effects of composite
design factors can be demonstrated by rearranging terms in equation
173 to give
where the terms are the same as those previously defined. Thus,
increasing the diameter decreases the towing force and increasing
the load on the wheel increases the towing force. But the effect
of width IS not clear. Increasing the width decreases the left arm
m the bracket of equation 172 but increases the right term. For
values of i at infinity and zero, the quantity in the brackets becomes
mñnite so that some minimum value must exist at intermediate
values. Taking the partial derivative of the quantity in the bracket
with respect to b and equating the derivative to zero provides a
method for finding the minima and gives
1 5rTF3/2
2 53/2 ^ ^ - tF,
and solving for b
^ = (^) W, (175)
which indicates the value of b that gives the lowest towing force.
The effect of the shape of the wheel on the towing force cannot
be determined from available information. The wheels considered
by Freitag and by McKibben and Davidson had flat rims. One
isolated comparison of different-shaped wheels indicated that both
convex- and concave-shaped wheels required a slightly larger towing
force, on the average, than a flat wheel of the same width and di-
ameter. While the convex wheel required a larger towing force
than the concave, the difference was small. The effect of shape
appears to be much less significant than the effect of either diameter
or width ( ^7^, 274 ). If a more exact evaluation of the effect of
shape IS required, additional research is needed.
Equation 174 can be shown to be generally applicable to pneumatic
tires. Freitag demonstrated that equation 172 applies if tires op-
erating on loose sands are compared at constant deflection. Thus
for a varying load, inflation pressure or size of tire must be changed
in order to maintain a constant deflection. Deflection thus appears
to be a measure of the flexibility of a pneumatic tire. Figure 267
FIGURE 267.—RoUing resistance-wheel parameter relations of various sizes of

pneumatic wheels operating on: A, Concrete; B, bluegrass sod; C, silt loam
soil. (Replotted from data of McKibben and Davidson, Agr. Engin. {272).)
shows data replotted from McKibben and Davidson ( 272 ) where

16 pneumatic tires varying in diameter from 25 to 59 inches were
compared in concrete, bluegrass sod, and silt loam soil. Deflection
was not maintained constant during the loadings and measurements
so that some scatter in the data can be attributed to this effect. In
addition, nominal tire sizes were used so that the actual magnitudes
of d and h are not accurate and these inaccuracies might contribute
to the scatter.
Although the applicability of equation 174 to pneumatic tires has
not been clearly demonstrated, it appears to be a good first approxi-
mation of the relation. The appearance of two segregated groups
of data for the bluegrass sod again suggests that instead of reflecting
scatter in the data some change occurred in the operating conditions.
The possibility of including a flexibility factor and a correction for
the appropriate dimensions to improve the applicability of equation
174 to pneumatic tires constitutes a basis for additional research.
Tracks have also been used as transport devices. The larger area
of contact may be used to prevent sinkage and, as shown in figures
4 and 5, tracks may be used for support and control. The W^^^^*"
ways Experiment Station ( 474 ) conducted an extensive series of
experiments to measure the force required to tow tracked vehicles,
wheeled vehicles, and sleds. The forces required to pull a tracked
Athey wagon and a wheeled trailer are shown in table 44. The
Athey wagon was fitted with two steel tracks 30 inches wide and
approximately 60 inches long, whereas the wheeled trailer was fitted
with 14-20 pneumatic tires inflated to 30 pounds per square inch. As
a low-speed transport device, the tracked vehicle was superior to the
wheeled vehicle. The towing force required for the latter was at
least 100 percent larger in nearly all instances. The performance
results might be reversed if the two vehicles were operated on roads
at higher speeds. Eecent developments in rubberized flexible tracks
may overcome this limitation.
TABLE 44.—Towing force required to transport 12ß00 pounds over a

sand-clay hlend on tracked and wheeled transport trailers
Soil condition Track-laying Wheeled
(cone index) trailer trailer
1,000 pounds 1,000 pounds
20 __ _ _ 4.0
40- __ 1.8
60 1.3
80 _ 1.1 3.1
100 .9 2.4
150 .7 1.3
200 .5 .6
SouKCE : Waterways Experiment Station ( ^7^ ).
7.5.2 Driven Wheels

The powered or driven wheel is the most versatile traction device
available. Since the time pneumatic tires were adapted to the wheel
to provide a degree of flexibility, the driven flexible wheel has be-
come widely used. To illustrate, in January 1957 there were only
168,000 crawler tractors on farms in the United States but there
were 4,432,000 wheeled tractors.
Because a large number of driven wheels are used as traction
devices, considerable effort has been made to obtain design informa-
tion about wheels. Traction performance cannot be stated as simply
for a traction device as it was for a transport device (sec. 7.4).
Consequently, simple but rather complete relations such as those
expressed in equation 174 have not yet been determined for driven
wheels. In general, gross design factors describing the wheel have
been individually related to some measure of performance to show
trends in behavior. These gross parameters include width, diameter,
and lug or grouser factors for rigid wheels. In pneumatic tires,
measures of flexibility, carcass construction—that is, internal cord
arrangement—rim width, and cross-sectional shape have been used.
These parameters are not basic to traction behavior; rather, they
are geometric and flexibility^ factors that the wheel designer must
manipulate in order to obtain a practical design. Information re-
lating gross parameters to traction performance is thus useful for
general design purposes. Although the exact influence of individual
basic pararneters on traction performance cannot be predicted nor
can the optimum potential performance of a device be obtained by
means other than trial and error, vastly improved traction systems
have been developed by these techniques.
The rigid wheel is a simpler traction device than the flexible
wheel. Since the rigid wheel preceded the flexible wheel historically,
it was the first to be studied as a traction device. Unfortunately,
most of the measures of traction performance that were discussed m
section 7.3 have not been used in reporting traction data, usually,
one or two measurable quantities have been determined and perform-
ance has been expressed in those terms. Davidson, Collms, and Mc-
Kibben ( 95 ) primarily utilized power efRciency-puU relations to
characterize traction performance. Figure 268 shows the effect of
500 1000 1500 2000 1000 2000 3000 4000
PULL (Lb)
FiGUBE 268.—Efifect of diameter (inches) on the traction performance of

rigid wheels : A, On oat stubble tilled to a depth of 8 inches ¡B, on oat
stubble. (Davidson, Collins, and McKibben, Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. (äö ).)
diameter on the performance of steel wheels. As a general trend,

increasing the diameter of the wheel increases the maximum pull the
wheel can develop and also increases the efficiency with which any
specific pull can be developed. The same effect was detected m both
soil conditions studied. Possibly the trends can be generalized if
additional data are obtained.
A limited indication of the effect of lugs on traction performance
is shown in figure 269 {95). Increasing the ength of the spade
lugs increased the maximum pull that the wheel could attain, iiie
data also showed that increases in lug height were accompanied by
decreases in power efficiency below 20-percent slip. Presuniably, the
extra effort required to force the longer lug m and out of the soil
resulted in loss of energy and decreased efficiency. Although the data
reported here only indicate possible trends, they do show that the
factors investigated had a measurable effect on traction performance.
The pneumatic tire has greatly extended the versatility of the
driven wheel. The possible increase in field speeds due to their flexi-
bility alone was perhaps sufficient justification for their acceptance m
place of rigid wheels {m). Figure 270 shows that the Power
efficiency of the pneumatic tire is much greater than that of the rigid
50
5 X 12 DIAGONAL
12 LUGS TOTAL
4 X 22 DIAGONAL
g 40
Ö
5 30
4X9
4X6 SWkDE
SPADE I
20 -> ^
16 LUGS TOTAL
10
100 200 3ÖÖ 4ÖÖ 50Ö 600 TOO 800 900
PULL (Lbs)
FIGURE 269.--Effect of lug height on the traction performance of rigid wheels

in a silt loam tilled to a depth of 8 inches. (Davidson, Collins, and Mc-
Kibben, Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. {95 ).) , ^ itxc
Steel wheel ( 95). When operating on packed cinders, the pneumatic

tire could not develop a pull as high as the lugged steel wheel, but
equivalent pulls were developed in other soil conditions. Measure-
ments of wheel slip are not shown in figure 270, but they indicate
that to develop a specific pull the pneumatic tire slipped much more
than the rigid wheel. In spite of this slippage, more efficient trac-
tion was obtained, as measured by energy utilization.
Initially the gain in power efficiency was attributed to a decrease
m rolling resistance; this difference is shown in figure 268. Several
\ BLUEGRASS
SOD
UJ
o
\i¡ \ PULVERATED SOIL
ÜJ
—■ 12.75 X 28 PNEUMATIC TIRE

11.25X46 STEEL WHEEL
1000 2000 3000
PULL (FOR TWO WHEELS) (Lb)
FIGURE 270—Power efficiency of flexible and rigid wheels operating on several

soil conditions. The pneumatic tire was fitted with chevron-type lugs %
inch high; the steel wheel had 24 spade lugs 4X5 inches in size. Both
wheels carried 1,125 pounds. (Davidson, Collins, and McKibben, Iowa Agr.
üíXpt. bta. { 95 ).)
other factors may also be involved. For example, some data ( 95 )

indicate that a shorter lug height would contribute to the mcreased
power efficiency. Since the coefficient of friction between rubber and
soil is generally greater than that between steel and soil (figs. 104
and 105), much less lug or grouser action is necessary to shift from
frictional failure to failure within the soil. Thus, the lower height
of lugs on pneumatic tires may contribute greatly to the increased
power efficiency. In reality, both the higher coefficient of friction
and the lower lug height may indicate that the pneumatic tire does
less work on the soil to develop a traction force than does the rigid
wheel. The concept of optimizing the work done on the soil to
obtain traction, as proposed by Steinbruegge (sec. 7.2.2), may explain
part of the gain. Eesearch along these lines may reveal why the
pneumatic tire is superior to the rigid wheel in terms of power effi-
ciency. Whatever the reasons for the superiority of the pneumatic
tire, there is little doubt that the designers of traction devices can
attain greatly improved traction performance in most conditions by
using a pneumatic tire rather than a rigid wheel.
Of the various design factors for pneumatic tires, lugs have re-
ceived the most attention. Perhaps one reason is that radical lug
changes can be made without great changes in manufacturing costs.
When diameter or width is changed, the amount of tire material may
be increased or the method of construction may be changed so that
manufacturing costs may be increased considerably. In addition,
users have had rather inñexible requirements in terms of tire size.
The opposite is true for lug design. Indeed, it is unfortunate that
much traction research concerned with driven pneumatic tires has
been conducted on commercially available tires. Too often a series
of tires was selected for study m which more than one design factor
was varied so that one factor could not be identified. The research
results have often been a comparison or testing of two or more tires
that indicated the superiority of one or more of the tires. The re-
sults do not provide information on the effect of any single design
factor since in many cases the identity of the effective factor or
factors could not be ascertained. Definitive information can be
obtained only from a series of tires where the design factors are
varied in an independent fashion. The cost of constructing a series
of tires to meet the necessary requirements has probably deterred
research.
The most complete study of lug design factors was conducted by
Reed and Shields {362), A specially constructed series of 37 ex-
perimental tires was used; sets of tires could be selected to inde-
pendently vary lug height, lug spacing, lug angles, and other sus-
pected composite design factors. The series used basically a 4-ply
11-38 tire carrying a constant static load of 2,185 pounds at 12 pounds
per square inch inflation pressure. Measurements were made over
a period of a year at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory, and
part of this information has been published ( SS^ ).
The effect of lug height on traction performance for three soil
types is shown in figure 271. The surface of the soil was not slippery
nor was vegetation present on the surface of any of the soils.
The data indicate, almost without reversal, that lower lug height
90- LUG HEIGHT(in) SAND -jr. LOAM CLAY

SMOOTH ^^
il 13 15 II 14 17
PULL X 100 (Lb)
FIGURE 271.—Effect of lug height on the traction performance of pneumatic

tires on sand, loam, and clay soils. (Reed and Shields, National Tillage
Machinery Laboratory ( 362 ). )
gave better power efficiency. Except in sand, very little of the

difference in maximum pull can be attributed to the change in lug
height. Thus, the trend seems to be that the lower the height of
lugs, the better the power efficiency with little effect on maximum
pull. The tire with no lugs (the tire was constructed in a special
smooth mold) in the loam soil shows what would probably have hap-
pened if slipperiness had been present. The smooth tire was more
efficient until it operated near its maximum pull. Its maximum pull
was much lower than that of the lugged tires, which indicates that
some grouser action was necessary to penetrate or dig through the
surface to obtain more pull. Presumably the lug action enables the
tire to change the traction condition. The change may involve a
shift from frictional failure in the mutual contact area to failure
within the soil, or the tire may secure more suitable traction by
digging through the surface. The latter situation assumes a traction
condition where some sinkage or dig-in places the tire in a different
ground condition where more pull can be developed. The opposite
condition can be envisioned, such as snow over ice or loose soil under-
lain by a dense wet soil layer. Once the upper layer is penetrated,
the traction condition is poorer. Unless lugs or grousers are needed
to penetrate through some special surface condition, shorter lugs ap-
pear to be better than longer ones.
Lug height is obviously a composite design factor when considered
from the standpoint of the tire. As lug height increases (with no
other change in the tire), the lug becomes more flexible. The stiff-
ness of the lug can be altered by rubber compounding or other means
so that a force-deformation curve of the face of the lug relative to
the carcass will be the same for all lug heights. In the data reported
in figure 271, the tires were not adjusted to overcome the flexibility
factor so that the influence of lug stability is included in the results.
The importance of flexibility cannot be determined by an analysis
of the data. Information from other sources does not indicate the
effect of the flexibility factor. This factor must be isolated and
evaluated before conclusions concerning lug height can be made.
Spacing of lugs is a second design factor that was considered in
the extensive program of lug evaluation. The influence of lug spac-
ing on traction performance is shown for three soil types in figure
272. The spacing of lugs was indicated by reporting the number
of lug units on the fixed tire circumference. As the number of lugs
9 12
PULL X 100 (Lb)
FIGURE 272.—Effect of lug spacing (number of lug units) on traction per-

formance of pneumatic tires on sand, loam, and clay soils. (Reed and
Shields, National Tillage Machinery Laboratory (362).)
decreased, spacing between the lugs increased. The data indicate that
power efficiency increased as lug spacing increased. Until a condi-
tion is encountered where grouser action is necessary to obtain in-
creased pull, presumably the trend can be extrapolated to the condi-
tion where no lugs are present and the tire becomes a smooth tire.
Technical difficulties during the conduct of the measurements were
believed to have contributed to some of the erratic results m figure
272. The dotted extrapolation of the curve for the 26-lug tire and
the apparently different behavior of the 23-lug tire m the clay soil
cannot be fully explained. ^ . • i. ^
The data reported here do not indicate what effect lug spacing had
on maximum pull. Since power efficiency approaches zero as slip
increases, the respective curves shown in figure 272 do not give a
reliable indication of the maximum pull that was developed. Fewer
lugs, however, appear to contribute to increased power efficiency. It
is possible that reducing the number of lugs increases power efficiency
for the same reason postulated for reducing lug height. Since the
soil is disturbed less with fewer lugs, less work has to be done on the
soil to obtain traction. This line of reasoning suggests that when
tires develop comparable pull, the tire that disturbs the soil least
should be the most efficient. If such a conclusion is valid, the obvious
interaction of lug height and spacing becomes apparent and indi-
cates that they are composite design factors.
The effect of lug angle on traction performance is shown in figure

273. No general trend seems to be evident for the soil conditions
studied. The effect of angle, however, seems to be less than that of
lug height or lug spacing. The data indicate that maximum differ-
FiGURE 273.—Effect of lug angle on traction performance of pneumatic tires

on sand, loam, and clay sous. (Reed and Shields, National TiUage Ma-
chinery Laboratory ( 362 ). )
enees in power efficiency are on the order of 2 to 6 percent. The

maximum differences obtained by altering lug height and spacing
ran as high as 5 to 10 percent. No general trend in performance
seems to be related to lug angle, but there is a measurable—though
small—effect. Additional research may clarify the effect of lug
angle on traction performance.
Two other tire design factors were studied by Keed and Shields
—tread width and radius of curvature of the tread. The length of
lugs was changed so that tread width could be changed. As was true
for the other lug factors, the tire carcass was not altered. No gen-
eral trends in the relation between tread width and traction per-
formance were evident. The effect was measurable and was slightly
larger than the effect of lug angle but less than the effects of lug
spacing and height.
Changes in the radius of curvature of the tread essentially changed
lug height from one end of the lug to the other. The lugs were of
normal height at the center and gradually increased in height toward
the shoulder. The result was a natter tread profile across the face
of the tire. The results indicated a general superiority for the
rounder profile (the tire with the shorter lugs at the shoulder). The
effect was relatively small as compared to the effect of lug height.
Additional work will be needed before the effect of tread width and
radius of curvature of the tread can be fully evaluated.
Vasey and Naylor ( 46S ) used six lug designs and a smooth tire
(fig. 274) in a field study of the influence of lug design. While ad-
mittedly some lack of control of soil conditions exists in the field,
sufficient care was exercised so that a direct comparison of the tires,
except E and G on the plowed field can be made with reasonable
FIGURE274.—Designs of tractor tire lugs studied by Vasey and Naylor. A

smooth tire (G) is not shown. (Courtesy of the Tractor Testing Station,
University of Melbourne.)
confidence (^G^.). The performance of the tires on a bituminous

road, a stubble-covered clay loam, and a plowed field is shown in
figure 275. Power efficiency could not be determined from the meas-
urements, but the data do reflect the pull capabilities of the lug
designs.
Several interesting comparisons can be made to show the effect
of possible lug design factors. No generalized trend can be es-
tablished, however, since the lug factors were not varied through a
range. In the stubble-covered clay loam, the smooth tire could not
develop as much pull as the lugged tires. Tire F was an industrial
tire with a low lug and a closed center, which should be poor for
penetrating the vegetation; yet the lugs gave greatly increased pull
3iOr
FIGURE 275.—Effect of lug design on traction performance of pneumatic tires:

A, On a bituminous road ; H, on a stubble-covered clay loam ; 0, on a plowed
fleld. (Vasey and Naylor, Jour. Agr. Kngin. Res. (^6^).)
as compared to the smooth tire. On the other hand, on the plowed
field more aggressive lugs were apparently needed to obtain a large
pull. Tires A and B, which had irregular and regular lugs, respec-
tively, can be compared. The regular lugs appeared to be superior
in each condition studied. Tires A and C provide a comparison of a
straight lug with a slightly curved lug, the latter appearing to be
better. Tire D had the most aggressive lug, and its performance was
superior on the plowed field. Data in figure 275, A and a statistical
study ( 4^4^ ) indicate that significant differences iir pull can be ob-
tained by varying the lug designs on tires.
Composite carcass design factors were studied following the intro-
duction of the radial-ply tire. The concept of radial-ply construction
originated in Europe and has been of interest because of the in-
creased performance of that type of tire ( 124, ^V^-^ S78 ). Figure 276
shows sectional views of both conventional- and radial-ply construc-
tion. In the conventional tire, the cords run from one bead to the
other at an angle of approximately 45°. In the radial-ply tire, how-
ever, the cords run from bead to bead at an angle of approximately
90° with the direction of travel. Other cords in the tread base area
run circumferentially so that they intersect the direction of travel at
an angle of approximately 5°; these cords have been termed a belt.
Their function is to strengthen the radial plies circumferentially so
they can transmit torque, which is applied to the tread base.
Vanden Berg and Reed ( 461 ) studied the influence of carcass
parameters on traction performance. A series of 10 experimental
tires were used in which conventional ply, radial ply, narrow rim,
flat tread base, and various combinations of radial-ply and narrow-
rim construction could be studied (table 45). A smooth tire counter-
part was also studied for each of the 10 experimental tires so that
the effects of lugs and carcass could be separated. Pairs of tires
that differ in only one design factor can be compared. Performance
was measured with the tires operating on sand, sandy loam, silt loam,
clay, and concrete. In evaluating the tires, the maximum coefficient
of traction in the range of 0- to 70-percent slip, average coefficient of
traction in the range of 0- to 30-percent slip and the average
power efficiency for coefficients of traction in the range of 0 to 30
percent were used as measures of performance. The lugged tire
with conventional carcass was chosen as the standard, and the per-
formance for each tire was compared to the standard for each soil
condition. By expressing the comparison on a percentage basis, the
average percentage of improvement was determined for all conditions
(table 46).
The improvement attributable to individual design factors was
determined by comparing the two tires that differed by the factor in
question. Since the tires were to be used primarily for agricultural
purposes, this type of analysis was also made considering only the
sandy loam, silt loam, and clay soils. These results (table 47) show
that, except for the smooth tires, the percentage of improvement for
each factor was nearly the same as when sand and concrete were
included. The close agreement between the two tables indicates the
validity of using a limited number of traction conditions to represent
the infinite number that actually exist. The data in tables 46 and
FIGURE 276.—Construction details: A, Conventional-ply tire designed for 10-

inch rim with rounded tread base; B, radial-ply tire designed for 3Î4-inch
rim with flattened tread base. (Wann and Reed, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin.
Trans. (^,70 ).)
47 permit evaluating the composite carcass design factors of radial-

ply construction, narrow rim, and flattened tread base as well as the
removal of lugs.
TABLE 45.—Description of experimental tires
Tire Tire Cord Tread base

and Rim
No. treadi arrangement widths
carcass2
Inches
1 Smooth Conventional Rounded— 10.0
2 do Radial ply do 10.0
3 do do Flattened- 10.0
4 Lugged Conventional-__JElounded__ 10.0
5 do Radial ply do 10.0
6 do do Flattened- 10.0
7 Smooth do Rounded— 3.5
8 Lugged do do 3.5
9 Smooth do Flattened- 3.5
10 Lugged do do 3.5
1 The lugs and rubber were originally the same for all tires. Smooth tires
were obtained by grinding the lugs off.
2 Tjjg ^^gg ^f ^jj^ tveo^á and carcass were circular for both rounded and
flattened tires, but the flattened tires had a larger radius.
3 Tires were designed for the rim width indicated ; they were not stretched
or compressed to fit the two rim widths shown. Figure 276, B shows a nar-
row rim.
TABLE ^^,—Effect of design factors on average improvement in

traction performance of lugged and smooth tires in four soils and
on concrete
Maximum Average
Design coefficient of coefficient of Average power
tractioni traction^ efficiency^
factor
Lugged Smooth Lugged Smooth Lugged Smooth
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Smooth (lugs
removed) -3 26.0 24.0
Radial ply
construction-. 0 1 15 10.0 4.0 2.0
Narrow rim 2 2 6 4.5 4.5 -0.5
Flattened
tread base -1 0.5 1.5 0.5
Total improve-
ment of com-
bined factors. -1 26 41.0 10.0 26.0
1 Determined in the range of 0- to 70-percent slip.
3 For coefficients of traction in the range of 0- to 30-percent slip
SOURCE : Vanden Berg and Reed ( 46i ).
Several interesting conclusions can be drawn from the data,

blippermess was not present in any of the traction conditions, but its
elfect IS demonstrated in table 47 by the maximum coefficient of trac-
tion for smooth tires (lugs removed). The decrease in improvement
reflects the necessity for grouser action to obtain maximum pull. On
concrete and sand, grouser action is not necessary. The average co-
efficient of traction and average power efficiency clearly show that
where maximum pull is not needed, a smooth tire is much more effi-
TABLE ^1,—Effect of design factors on average^ improvement in trac-
tion performance of lugged and smooth tires in clay^ silt, and
sandy loam soils
Maximum Average Average
Design coefficient of coefficient of power
tractioni traction2 efficiency^
factor
Lugged Smooth Lugged Smooth Lugged Smooth
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Smooth (lugs
-25.0 14 21.0
Radial ply
construction- -2 1.0 16.0 11 6.0 7.0
Narrow rim -1 0.5 4.5 6 5.5 -1.5
Flattened
tread base— 2 -0.5 4.5 1 -0.5 -1.5
Total improve-
ment of com-
bined factors- -1 -24.0 25.0 32 11.0 25.0
3 For coefficients of traction in the range of 0- to 30-percent slip.
SOURCE : Vanden Berg and Reed ( 46i ).
cient in energy transfer and will even pull more at lower slips. This
confirms again the results of the lug-height study (fig. 271) and
lug-spacing study (fig. 272) for pneumatic tires and the lug-height
study (fig. 269) for rigid wheels.
The fundamental prmciple of driven wheels is clearly demonstrated
by the various studies of lugs. Except for maximum pull, no lugs
are needed and their presence reduces power efficiency. The de-
signer, thus, is faced with a compromise. Where poor traction con-
ditions are anticipated for the major use, an aggressive lug may be re-
quired and justified at the expense of power efficiency. Where rea-
sonably good traction conditions are anticipated, only a minimum
amount of lug should be used so that power efficiency is kept high, yet
a reasonable maximum pull can be attained. The information re-
quired by the future designer is the magnitude of grouser action
needed to obtain a desired increase in maximum pull for the ap-
propriate traction conditions. With such information he can effect
the appropriate compromise.
A second conclusion concerns the effect of radial-ply construction.
The design factor had no significant effect on maximum pull in either
lugged or smooth tires. However, a significant increase was obtained
in average pull and power efficiency. Since the increase was re-
flected in both smooth and lugged tires, radial-ply construction
must affect the manner in which forces are transmitted from the
rim to the soil so that traction performance is increased. The
factor, thus, is a carcass factor and suggests that considerable
knowledge is needed in two areas: first, the distribution of stresses
required by the soil for optimum traction; second, the manner in
which carcass construction affects the transmission of forces from
the rim to the soil-tire contact surface. The present state of knowl-
edge indicates that radial-ply construction will not effect maximum
pull but will increase pull in the operating range of 0- to 30-percent

slip and will also increase power efficiency in the same range.
The carcass design factors of narrow rim and flattened tread base
had varying effects on traction performance. Generally the effect
of these factors was less than the effect of radial-ply construction.
The difference in percentage of improvement between lugged and
smooth tires also indicates an appreciable interaction between the
carcass design factors and the lugs. Further work is needed to
properly evaluate the two carcass design factors. Tables 46 and 47
indicate that traction performance improved slightly for each factor
used with lugged tires. On smooth tires, the factors occasionally
decreased performance.
One final conclusion reflected in the data is the magnitude of pos-
sible traction improvement. The data in tables 46 and 47 suggest
that the quickest gain in traction performance could be attained from
a study of lugs. Presumably, lugs could be modified to retain much
of the power efficiency gain of smooth tires along with some of the
grouser action so maximum pull will not be too low for practical use.
Minimum grouser action, radial-ply construction, narrow rim, and
flattened tread base is the order in which possible improved traction
might be attained.
Several other composite factors have been studied by various re-
searchers. The results of these studies indicate that the factors do
affect traction performance in varying degrees.
Inflation pressure is the only flexibility factor that has received
more than rudimentary investigation. The general trend seems to be
that as inflation pressure is lowered traction performance is increased.
Inflation pressure is again not an independent factor. The increased
performance may result from a larger soil-tire contact area as well
as from an increase in flexibility. Certainly more research is needed
before inflation pressure can be used as a design factor.
Cleaning of traction devices, particularly lugged pneumatic tires,
has received considerable attention although very few data have been
published. Cleaning becomes a problem in sticky soil conditions
where the potential maximum pull is low. Grouser action is usually
necessary, and the adhering mud often fills up the spaces between
the lugs and prevents grouser action. Shape of lugs, flexibility of
lugs with respect to the carcass, and, recently, nonwetting agents
such as polytetrafluoroethylene have been used to improve cleaning.
No satisfactory method has been found to insure adequate cleaning
in traction conditions where cleaning is needed.
Dualing of tires is another factor that has been tried occasionally
with conflicting results. Obviously, when two tires are far enough
apart, they act as independent tires. Just as obviously, as they are
brought closer together, at some spacing an interaction will occur.
Practically no information is available on which to base any realistic
conclusions concerning the effect of dualing wheels.
Undoubtedly factors in addition to those discussed in this section
are involved in the design of driven wheels. Such factors remain to
be isolated and identified. Certainly, the effect on traction perform-
ance of many of the factors that were discussed requires more study
if they are to be used intelligently in design. Until an accurate trac-
tion mechanics is available, presumably most useful design informa-
tion will continue to come from comparison procedures where com-
posite factors and their interactions are investigated in a systematic
manner by using the best scientific methods available.
7.5.3 Tracks
The rolling track is a version of the wheel that has been used
extensively in off-the-road applications. The large area of contact
compensates for many minor irregularities in the terrain that make
wheeled vehicles less desirable. The advantages of the track com-
pared to the wheel need to be studied in the same way the advantages
of the flexible wheel compared to the rigid wheel were studied.
The composite design parameters that have been utilized to the
greatest extent have been track width, track length, grouser shape,
and grouser spacing. Only limited research has been conducted on
tracks so that a sound basis for design is not always available.
Nevertheless, in some situations the track has proved to be so superior
to the wheel that measurements have not been needed to confirm the
advantages.
As with wheels, lugs and grousers have probably been given more
attention than any other feature of tracks There are occasions
when the penetration of lugs is necessary for the device to develop
maximum pull. . 11 •
Early work by Randolph ( SJß ) constitutes the only available in-
formation for individual lugs, but it is subject to interpretation since
the measurements were made under conditions of 100-percent slip.
One of the most significant findings of these studies was the establish-
ment of a method of exploiting the so-called arch action of soil.
Following the observations of stress distribution which had been
studied earlier by Nichols and Randolph {320), designs were de-
(A) (B)
FIGURE 277.—Area of soU disturbed: A, By a single large lug; B, by several
small lugs.
veloped to give smaller and fewer lugs. The principle, which it is

suggested be henceforth called the Kandolph Principle, was later
investigated by Dinglinger ( 103 ) and Kathje ( 3^2 ) in conjunction
with studies of the action of simple tillage tools in soil (sec. 4.5.5).
Figure 277 and table 48 show that the area of soil failed by lugs can
be varied considerably by varying the size and spacing of the lugs.
Bekker ( 36, 37 ) independently utilized the Eandolph Principle in
spacing grousers along a tracked vehicle to prevent overlap of the
areas of failure and to increase the pull of the vehicle. The spacing
can be adjusted so that the grousers act independently of each other,
as shown in figure 278, to give maximum traction for the minimum
number of grousers.
Figure 279 shows the effect of a spaced-link track design on the
average pull of a tractor. The principle suggests that widening the
track is another means of increasing traction performance. One
complicating factor when widening the track is the conñict with
(A)
/^^^ W^//^ f//^^//^ ^7m
(B)
wmimmmm ^WS^' "TTTW
(C)
FIGURE 278.—Effect of spacing of grousers on the area of soil disturbed: A, A

single independent grouser ; B, multiple interacting grousers ; O, multiple
independently acting grousers.
COEFFICIENT
eCXK) 10000 14000
TRACTOR WEIGHT (Lb)
FIGURE 279.—Effect of a spaced-link design on the traction performance of a

tracked vehicle. (Land Locomotion Laboratory, Rpt. 31, 1958.)
other requirements of the makeup of the vehicle. The princij)le has
also been applied to gun spades ( 2Jf2 ) where extending the width is
not a limiting factor. In this case the spade can be collapsed dur-
ing the transport stage but can be opened for use.
These examples indicate that the Randolph Principle is one means
of increasing traction performance of a tracked vehicle.
TABLE 48.—Influence of size and lateral spacing on the traction
performance of lugged tires in sand
Dry loose sand Wet packed sand
Lugs Lug Lug Pull per Pull per
(number) 1 width spacing Total Total inch
inch pull
pull of lug of lug
Inches Inches Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds
5.0 53 10.6 67 13.4
2.5 41 16.4 51 20.4
.5 1.0 44 22.0 90 45.0
.5 1.5 35 35.0 47 47.0
1 Lugs were 1.5 inches long and were not buried when carrying a load of
90 pounds.
SOURCE : Calculated from Randolph ( 3JtO ).
Tracks are not loaded uniformly throughout their length, as was

indicated by measurements shown in figure 247. The type of loading
that should be applied along a track to obtain maximum traction is
not known. That changes in loading inñuence the pull that develops
was shown in early work by Davidson, Collins, and McKibben {95),
The height of the hitch of a 7,700-pound tractor was varied to change
the unit load applied to the soil by the tractor along the length of
the track. As shown in figure 280, an increase in the load on the rear
I 2 3 4 5 6
PULL X 1000 (Lb»)
FIGURE 280.—Effect on the power efficiency of changing the load by elevating

the hitch point on a tracked vehicle. (Davidson, Collins, and McKibben,
Agr. Engin. {95).)
of the vehicle reduced the maximum efficiency and the pull at which
it occurred. Eeed ( 35Jf ) studied the influence of varying the load
by means of changing the width of the track. As shown in table 49
increasing the normal load on a clay soil increased pull. In sand,
little influence was detected.
TABLE 49.—Drawbar full of tracks of different widths when loaded

to Sß80 founds
Sou and Drawbar pull at—

width of 10-percent 20-percent 30-percent 40-percent
tracki slip slip slip slip
Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds
Sand:
12 inches 2,010 2,150 2,150 2,010
16 inches 1,930 2,030 2,100 2,050
20 inches 1,900 2,100 2,150 2,120
Loam:
12 inches 1,700 2,100 2,400 2,500
16 inches 1,700 2,000 2,200 2,400
20 inches 1,700 2,300 2,400 2,300
Clay:
12 inches 3,100 3,500 3,520 3,520
16 inches 2,250 2,500 2,510 2,520
20 inches 2,250 2,350 2,400 2,500
1 Track length was 61 inches on a hard level surface.
SOURCE : Reed ( 354 ) -
The magnitude of the vertical load on the grouser is important be-

cause it determines whether the lug is capable of penetrating the soil.
If the lug can be fully seated in the soil, a greater pull can be de-
veloped. Eandolph ( 34Ú ), using steel wheels, demonstrated this
principle and Payne ( 330 ) designed a winch sprag based on a theory
that also utilized the principle. A lug or sprag, when fully seated
in the soil (fig. 278, A)^ constitutes a mechanical system similar to
that shown m figure 88, A for tillage tools.
If one neglects the effect of the tip, the forces on the lug of unit
width may be expressed as
T = VsyZnan^ Í^ +-|-) + 2í7Uan

(i-f). (176)
where soil bulk density,

depth of lug in soil,
coefficient of soil-soil friction,
cohesion.
and the traction or anchorage that could be expected from the device
can be computed. Based on logical assumptions, it was concluded
that the maximum traction force that could be developed by such a
device was due not only to a cohesive component of soil strength but
also to a frictional component that could be increased by maintain-
ing a higher normal load on the shearing surface. As a result, a new
sprag that permitted this type of loading was designed (fig. 281).
The sprag shown in figure 281 A utilizes a single inclined blade
to overcome a fixed soil resistance. The improved sprag shown m
figure 281, B utilizes a horizontal plate to confine the soil in the
failure area in such a manner that soil resistance may be increased
by proper loading. As shown in figure 282, any increase in traction
force T decreases tractor weight W on the soil with the weight being
transferred to the sprag along line R, R should act coincidently
with or below Ri in order to secure a deep ground failure. If the
soil does not fail, the entire tractor may be lifted from the soil and
its weight will be transferred to the sprag. Table 50 shows that
considerable increase in traction was secured by the new design.
As speed requirements have been increased, designs have been
developed to introduce flexibility into track systems. Track sus-
ÔLD SPRAG NEW SPRAG

(A) (B)
FIGURE 281.—A, Conventional sprag with inclined blade; B, improved winch

sprag designed with horizontal plate to increase traction by loading the
soil. (Payne, Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. ( SSO ).)
FIGURE 282.—The forces on an improved winch sprag designed to load the soil
faUure surface: W = weight of tractor, A-B = area of slip, s = shearing
stress Ô = angle of soil-metal friction, T = maximum traction force, a -
angle of failure (7r/4-0/2), R = resultant on sprag, <T = normal stress
on surface, R, = resultant of soU. (Payne, Jour. Agr. Engm. Res. (SSO).)
TABLE 60.—Influence of increasing the normal load on the failure

surface of a traction device on traction performance
Son Improved Conventional

condition sprag sprag
Pounds Pounds
Wet and plastic 7,000 8,000
Sandy loam 14,600 8,000
Sandy loam (grassy) 15,500 8,000
Clay loam cultivated- 14,500 11,000
Sandy loam freshly
cultivated 15,750 8,000
SOURCE : Payne (.
pensions may be nonrigid, which permits a degree of vertical flexi-
bility ; but each track shoe remains inflexible. Forrest ( 123 ), speak-
ing for the American Eubber Industry, has indicated that rubber
tracks offer great promise for agriculture since they provide low
ground pressure intensities, are lightweight, and may be operated at
much higher speeds than vehicles with metal tracks. A rigid high-
speed metal track has also been developed.
Bonmartini ( ^9 ) has designed a number of pneumatic flexible
tracks for aircraft and other vehicles. Although the specifications
and techniques of construction of flexible tracks are beyond the
scope of consideration here, these are the factors that have slowed
the development and use of flexible tracks. One of the more radical
designs is a roller track. The individual track shoes are H-shaped
and contain a roller in each of the open sides. During operation,
the center bar of the H is perpendicular to the direction of travel
and provides traction as do the rollers whose axes of rotation are
mounted parallel to the direction of travel so that they do not roll.
On turning, however, the lateral movement of the track is facilitated
by the free-rolling movement of the rollers on each of the open
arms of each H-shaped track shoe. The roller track can turn with
only 50 percent of the torque required for rubber tracks and about
30 percent of that required for a steel track. Lateral movement on
slopes is reportedly not a limiting factor of the design, and the
maximum pull that can be developed on level land equals or exceeds
the pull that can be developed by steel and rubber tracks. Slope
stability has been increased by introducing an angle of 10° between
each of the rollers and the center line of the track.
Tracks will continue to be designed through the use of composite
parameters. These parameters appear to be identical for tracks and
wheels, when allowing for variations such as the relation of the
radius to axle height. Other aspects such as vibration and soil com-
paction have been studied, and additional design information con-
cerning these points is included in chapter 8.
7.5.4 Auxiliary Devices

Conventional vehicles are designed to operate on average or normal
soil conditions. When ground conditions are so extreme that con-
ventional designs do not provide adequate traction or transport, new
principles of design may be necessary. As an example, one might
utilize the ground effects principle. An alternate to this action
would be to convert a conventional design into a new^ design by
equipping it with auxiliary devices that change the traction or trans-
port capabilities. These devices wil be termed traction aids when
they come into direct contact with the soil. Other methods of alter-
ing the design are discussed in section 7.5.5.
The form and action of traction aids must be based on a method
for overcoming some envisioned limiting traction condition. A
typical case is a slippery surface underlain by a firm base. If a grip
can be established between the traction device and the firm base,
traction can be obtained. Indeed, under special conditions, the
device is essentially geared to the soil so that a coefficient of traction
'« 4J
03 Ö ^
4-J
rS 1 Ol Pi ^•o coa t-
r«<i
S:^.
a8 r—i\ÔZJ"~* o X r-<
r-i
9^ S'^ ÛH
■1 si a (1^ ft
0) g ^:;
d 4) îi? '-gg
^ ■^ ft 1aa
<2^
>^ 4J -M
1 8 8^^
GO 3^^ ä «> vA TH (N C^
^^<o (1^ ft
53
1- a «
S g g 8 -M
r-î rAoirA
r< ^ 00
-M -»-3
5^ ci Ö ^ O CD O
8 O t' ce
Co" 3^ S'^ TH r-î T-î ci
.2 a p^ ft
Î ^1
S-"
§^l
ce
gÍ3 8 î:5g8 O Cj O
S a» TA r-î r-î C^*
1 CÖ ^ ..
•§
't:^
-4J
3^ ë^
+J
8 8g8
r-î rHr-îc4
pi
rf o «2
^ PH ft
11 « o
^2s
ga^^
8
T-Î
p looq
T-î r-î r-î
+-> 4J
CO CD 00
8 O iO CO
a« Ci^ ft
rH rH (N
'-tó %n
s- 8 ë^S
;^cá 2a »
s T-Î r-î r-î TA
•^ -M +J
1 a; ft
8 05 ÍÍ5 00
3^
pLi
Sft * r-î * r-î T-î
«ï)
1 cj 2 í3 8 8g§8
gaa TH r-î r-î r-î
•iS>
<ï) 1
1 03 Cj 02
1
-S 1
i 1 i i o'^ a
2
*o3
5 ' 1 1 P-H§12
O ft 1 1 1 o3 bu
°f 1^
d
o Oí
^P
02 œ
?>
1
1
1
1 02
1 'd'ö
o a>
-M +-»
d
0)
(D
'-M
4^2 S i 1« 03 c3 Wi
13 *-M *4-> 4J
.è ,^Qa2W r-l (N 00
H 1 <i<^
in excess of 1 may be attained. In order to operate on a slippery

surface of wet grass, soft mud, or ice, chains or strakes must often be
used to penetrate through the slippery surface to the firm layer
underneath.
The auxiliary device may be of some assistance even with con-
ventional lugs, if they are not long enough. Where sinkage is ex-
cessive, additional contact surface may be needed to obtain suitable
traction. Under these conditions, auxiliary wheels or halftracks
may be beneficial.
Southwell ( 408 ) and Bailey ( 25 ) have recently studied various
methods of improving traction by the use of traction aids. Table 51
indicates the eifect of different types of traction aids on the per-
formance of tires. Chains, which increased the penetration of the
tire without increasing the area of contact, increased average pull
5 percent. Strakes, which increased the penetration considerably
and the area of contact only slightly, increased average pull 79 per-
cent. Halftracks, which slightly increased penetration and greatly
increased the area of contact, increased pull 105 percent. It thus
becomes evident that traction aids can improve performance in cer-
tain soil conditions.
One of the most difficult aspects of traction aids is that they be-
come a hindrance on highways where they are no longer needed. As
a result, they have been designed to reduce their contact with the
highway surface. Strakes may be made retractable. Snap-tracks
( 486 ) are a form of chain in which a bar is used in place of the
cross chain. These retract tightly against the tire when not in the
soil, but they still may hamper prolonged highway travel. Cage
wheels ( 154 ) «ire widely spaced extension wheels that increase sup-
port and traction on soft ground. If their diameter is slightly
FIGURE 283.—Wires used to cut mud from a rolling wheel to prevent im-
mobilization of the vehicle.
less than the rubber tire to which they are attached, they will not
touch the highway.
Traction aids may be designed to improve the self-cleanmg quali-
ties of devices. For example, figure 283 shows the use of short
lengths of tightly stretched wires to cut mud from a rolling wheel.
While cutters or scrapers may prevent an undesirable buildup of soil,
they require an additional input of work to remove the soil. Use of
polytetrafluoroethylene or other materials on devices may prevent
soil buildup by reducing the adhesion of soil to the device.
7.5.5 Operational Control of Design Factors
A number of design factors can be modified, adjusted, or controlled
by the operator to improve the traction or transport performance of
a vehicle. Although the exact nature of their influence may not be
known, their immediate effect on performance can be observed and
adjusted. In a final analysis, the operator should be able to adjust
all parameters to meet individual operating conditions. The simplest
example of this type of control is altering the inflation pressure of a
pneumatic tire to provide different tire deflections and changes in
rolling resistance {271), Decreasing the inflation pressure may
improve traction performance in some operating conditions. As
shown in figure 284, the pull of a tire may be increased by deflating
^'205 4ÔÔ 600 8ÖÖ IOC» 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
DRAWBAR PULL (Lb»)
FIGURE 284.—Efeect of altering the inflation pressure of pneumatic tires on

traction performance in sand, clay, and concrete.
the tire when operating on sand, whereas there may be no effect on

clay. The flexing of deflated tires requires additional energy ; there-
fore, the power efficiency of a tire operating on concrete may be
decreased by deflation.
The weight on a traction device may be altered to improve trac-
tion performance. Normally, weight is added to the vehicle to
increase pull. How the weight is added should be of minor import-
ance, but practical considerations might alter this. Reed, Reaves,
and Shields ( 861 ) have reported a complete equivalence of mechan-
ical weights added on an axle and weight .added as a liquid ballast
inside the tire. The added pressure on the inside of the tire carcass
did not seem to appreciably alter the stresses or their distribution m
the mutual contact area. Powdered soil materials have also been
used as ballast in tires, but the heat generated by friction during
rolling might be objectionable. Fluid in tires had little influence on
4J -M
^H lO o JPH ^
8 (M 22
o
CO
ÍO
rH
y^
3^ g'^ TH TH TA rA ci
P-i a
Ö2 ,
<.ñ ■Sis
OS i2 i3 8 Ci ^
^ a i=^ T-î TH TA vA oi
8 rH ^ <N 00
>j
i3^ g CO TH TA
piH a
a '->
gÍ3 8 S 8 g ^
gaa TH r-Î rH rH C^*
o .-s
8 CO 8 8 S 2a-
a, TA rH rH (N
.3 a
g" 8 Ci
!§ S?
. 4-Í
CO ?1 O 5 O
^ a a T-H íH TA TA (N
,CJ Q ..
4^ 4..
ci fl ^
8 8 CO rH
a« ill a
TA rA (M*
.2 a
■gg
8-^ 8 00
S ^ S?
gÍ3 CO
âa TH r-í rH* rH rA
ci 4-2 4->
1
1 a> a
8 1
l> Ci iO
a« 1 TA rH C^
.sa
•tí ai
fil a
5 S
S-^ Mgö
3 s í3 S
1
1
ÏO
TH
rH
-^
t-
CO
ce ^ a ft TA
' TA T-î Oi
4^ 4^
8 ÏO
o
t-
Ci
rH
^
;0
CO
T-î TA rH* <N*
(>>iH
(^ a
1^
SÍ3 8 s s 5 3
lao. TH rH rH C4
TH
t3 . ^
1 1
1
1
1 pas
! 00 O Ö
c^
Oí 4-2
Á ó
73 a>
^1.^
00 00 cô
S fl 2
ga 25 (N <?;l S
M
2^ 3 rH rH 0
'S 'Ö Ö
0) Oí 0)
4J jj ûj
^ ±î '-0 4.Ï
CÖ rO Oro
çfl CO ce
ti ^^ ti
nu'î
-^ 3 CÖ- s|s
1 ^ < i-q 02 m
the inflation pressure except for completely filled tires. The infla-
tion pressure in contact area of the tire may also be altered by
changing the size of the area of contact—that is, by using larger
tires or even by using dual tires. Adding a wheel having design
features identical to those of the basic traction or transport unit on
a vehicle is not considered a traction aid. Instead, it is considered
that the available designs are being exchanged or regrouped by the
operator. As shown in table 52, the traction performance of a ve-
hicle may be improved considerably by this technique. Dual tires
may increase the average pull of wheels more than 30 percent above
that secured by a single tire.
Since the source of the load on the traction device is not significant,
it may be obtained from a component of the pull as well as by adding
wheel weights. Implement hitches have been designed to transfer
a component of pull into a vertical load on the tire {JßO), A
vertical force is automatically^ added to the wheel as the pull is in-
creased, and additional traction is obtained. The hitch is a link
between the forces on a tillage tool and the traction devices re-
quired to pull the tool. Knowledge of the soil is obviously required
to relate these two sets of forces in any quantitative terms.
In sticky soil, the lugs become filled and lose their ability to cut
through the surface conditions that limit traction. Tires with di-
rectional treads may be fitted on the vehicle so that their move-
ment in the soil tends to scour the soil from the lugs. Figure 285
o a
I- -I
o (O
LÜ
£ Ü.
5 o
(B)
FIGURE 285.—Fitting tires on a vehicle to promote cleaning. Tlie direction of

relative motion between the tire and the soil: A, may pack soU between
the lugs; or B, may scour the area clean.
shows two ways that lugs may be oriented to the direction of travel.
In figure 285 J., wheel slip packs soil between the lugs and reduces
their effectiveness. But in sand or gravel or other conditions where
there is no adhesion, fitting tires as shown in figure 285, A may pro-
vide greater traction rather than less. Traction devices may also be
cleaned by reducing the inflation pressure to the point where flexing
is sufficient to assist in dislodging compacted soil.
These few examples show how the operator can control design
factors. The examples also indicate the need for a fundamental
mechanics that will enable intelligent control of the various factors.
Changing the height of hitch (fig. 280) for tracked vehicles is an-
other example. In four-wheel-drive tractors, a change in load dis-
tribution occurs with a change in height of hitch.
The operator will need simplified instructions or a simplified means
of evaluating a situation in order to make an intelligent decision.
Obviously, the operator cannot justify running through a series of
lengthy calculations to obtain information on which to base a de-
cision. All design factors that are subject to operational control
must, therefore, be translated into simple relations in order to obtain
the best traction possible. Very little information is available in
such a form today.
While no particular point has been made of operator skill, it is
obvious that the actual manipulation of vehicles is of paramount
practical importance in securmg traction and transport in difficult
soil conditions.
7.6 Vehicle Design, Use, and Performance

The mechanics of traction and transport includes all forces acting
in the soil-vehicle system. The design of the individual components
has been considered so far, bujb in practice these components do not
always act independently. Thus, a vehicle may operate in such a
way that the forces differ on each wheel. As a result, each wheel
may require a different design or method of operation for the entire
vehicle to operate at its maximum theoretical efficiency or effective-
ness.
7.6.1 Vehicle Morphology

The actual morphology or form of a vehicle can be designed to
utilize the maximum traction performance of the individual support
and propelling devices. For example, the front and rear wheels
on the side of a vehicle may be in line so that they run in the same
track, or they may be offset so that each makes its own track. When
the wheels run in the same track, the rear tire operates on com-
pacted soil, and the pull and power efficiency of the rear tire gen-
erally differ from those of the front tire even though both may be
powered wheels ( 273^ 358 ). In addition, the amount of sinkage or
soil compaction that occurs when the wheels run in the same track is
less than when they operate in separate tracks.
The total load resistance that traction devices must overcome in-
cludes all forms of motion resistance : rolling resistance of transport
wheels, any drag resistance between the vehicle and the soil, wind
resistance, resistance by brush or other vegetation, and drawbar pull
requirements. Under conditions of operation where there is deep
sinkage in the soil or where there is passage through dense vegeta-
tion, structural parts of the vehicle may drag and cause considerable
motion resistance.
The Waterways Experiment Station ( 125^ 220 ) has developed a
mobility index to evaluate vehicle morphology in a form that can
be used to indicate a vehicle's mobility performance. Examples of
morphologic parameters included in the index for self-propelled
wheeled vehicles are as follows:
^sontact weight
pressure X factor
Mobility = 0.6 factor
+ wheelload
index tire X grouser
. factor factor
trans-
clearance X engine X mission + 20, (177)
factor factor factor
where
gross wt. (lb.)
contact pressure factor = tide width X rim diam. X No. of tires'
weight factor: greater than 35,000 lb. = 1.1
15,000 to 35,000 lb. = 1.0
less than 15,000 lb. = 0.9,
tire factor = 1.25 X tire width in inches divided by 1.00,
grouser factor: with chains = 1.05
without chains = 1.00,
wheel load = gross wt. in kips (wheels may be
No. of wheels single or dual),
clearance factor — clearance in inches,
10
engine factor: greater than 10 h.p./ton = 1.00
less than 10 h.p./ton = 1.05,
transmission factor: hydraulic = 1.00
mechanical = 1.05.
The mobility index is a specific characterization of a vehicle since
it includes only vehicle parameters. Indices have been developed for
self-propelled tracked and wheeled vehicles and for towed tracked
and wheeled vehicles. Empirical correlations have been made be-
tween the mobility index and vehicle cone index measurements.
Vehicle cone index measurements (sec. 3.3.1) were made on soil to
determine the minimum strength required for 50 passes of the vehicles
in the critical soil layer (6- to 12-inch depth zone). The mobility
indices of new and uncharacterized conventional vehicles have been
predicted with considerable accuracy by means of these relations so
they are of practical significance. Based on empirical relations such
as these, it is possible to analyze the morphologic factors that have a
pronounced influence on vehicle performance. This analysis may
be a means for detecting objectives for improved designs.
7.6.2 Vehicle Capabilities
The capabilities of vehicles may be varied by different designs to
meet certain forseeable requirements. A common example of this is
the construction of all-wheel-drive vehicles. Powering of all wheels
not only may eliminate the rolling resistance of any towed wheels but
also may add to the traction force that can be developed by the
vehicle ( 156, 358, 504),
A consideration of power efficiency-slip relations on different soil
conditions might indicate that the leading and following wheels on a
vehicle should be operated at different slips to achieve maximum
efficiency. A form of controlled wheel slip is achieved by wheel
braking or by using differential locks. Data reported by Geiger
( HI ) and Seuser ( 38^ ) indicate that use of a differential lock
prevented undesirable slip when plowing with one wheel in the plow
furrow. Control of the slip eliminated the need for wheel weights.
Individual motors on wheels provide another means of obtaining
controlled wheel slip. Depending on need, all-wheel drive may be
used to improve traction performance without adding weight or
using other traction assistance such as winches or tow vehicles.
These last two methods of securing propulsion recognize that the
traction capacity is inadequate and they also consider that the re-
quirement is very infrequent. Thus, use of a tractor to push a large
earth-moving machine while cutting and loading may represent a
more practical means of supplying power than to redesign a larger
and more powerful unit that will be used to capacity only on an in-
frequent basis.
Gross flexibility can be designed into vehicles in a similar fashion.
Articulated vehicles permit a measure of steering and climbing cap-
abilities that cannot be obtained by orthodox vehicle designs. The
Meili Flex-Trac is a six-wheel vehicle with a vertical articulation cap-
ability. Since any pair of wheels can be elevated, the vehicle can be
adjusted to conform to rough terrain so that the traction capacity of
all wheels can be brought into use. Horizontal articulation facili-
tates the steering of extremely long vehicles, especially when tracks
are used.
Kereselidze, Khukhuni, and Shkolnik ( 216 ) and Lange ( 250 )
have developed hillside tractors that can redistribute the load of the
vehicle on slopes to increase traction and stability. Soehne ( 400 )
has used a rolling disk to stabilize vehicles on slopes.
One novel capability that can be added to vehicles is lift. The in-
clusion of a fan to create a ground effects machine may reduce the
axle weight or completely lift the vehicle in nontrafficable conditions.
At the point where the complete weight of the vehicle is balanced,
the vehicle is no longer a ground-operating vehicle.
Special vehicle capabilities must be designed into the vehicle.
That is to say, information must be made available to designers to
provide a basis for the designs. The value of any particular design
must be based on a realistic assessment of its importance and fre-
quency of use. Some optimum balance between expense and need
would have to be reached to determine when any particular design
would be practical. These designs are then developed to exploit the
traction capabilities of the individual traction and transport com-
ponents of the vehicle.
7J Relative Importance of the Soil and the Vehicle

on Traction and Transport Capabilities
Traction and transport are obtained from forces transmitted
through the mutual area of contact between the soil and the vehicle.
The nature and magnitude of the forces depend on the characteristics
of both the soil and the vehicle. Such an assumption was discussed
in the introduction of section 7.4 and was expressed in mathematical
terms in equation 168. Some of the composite design factors of the
vehicle that influence traction performance were discussed in other
sections of this chapter. The fact remains, however, that the soil
has a greater influence on traction and transport capabilities than
does the vehicle. On pavement, vehicles can develop high pulls; but
when operating on soil, they may develop only a fraction of the
pull they develop on pavement because of the adverse soil conditions
( 1^22 ). For this reason, off-the-road operations represent a wide-
spread problem in design and use of vehicles.
Figure 286 illustrates the importance of traction conditions on per-
formance. The experimental tire had radial-ply construction, nar-
row rim, and no lugs, whereas the control tire was a typical agricul-
tural tractor tire. The data indicate that, except on concrete,
performance was affected much more by traction conditions than by
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
SLIP (%)
FIGURE 286.—Relative effect of traction conditions and traction dîce design
on the performance of two 11-28 pneumatic tires. (National TiUage Ma-
chinery Laboratory.)
the rather radical design changes of the experimental tire. Even
within one so-called soil type, traction conditions have a great in-
fluence on performance.
Table M shows the force required to pull two types of trailers
across a soil having various cone indexes. The cone index indicates a
combined change of various physical properties in the soil that re-
flects a change in strength. The data indicate that soil has a large
effect on towing force, certainly as large as the difference between the
tracked trailer and the wheeled trailer. For any vehicle, therefore,
the soil condition will determine the traction performance to a much
greater extent than any operational control factor or design factor.
Because of the large influence of soil conditions on traction per-
formance, predicting performance becomes extremely important when
a device is to be operated on a wide range of soil conditions. In
those circumstances (for example, military operations) a means of
predicting performance would provide a means for determining
whether the vehicle will be useful—that is, capable of accomplishing
its purpose. Even further, however, if alternate soil conditions or
paths of travel are available, a suitable path can be selected so that
in effect the vehicle is adapted to the land.
Because of the importance of predicting magnitude of perform-
ance, many attempts have been made to relate performance to soil
conditions. Two of the more successful attempts have been discussed.
As was pointed out, the relations between traction and transport per-
formance must describe the forces in the area of contact. Since this
nature is extremely complex, empirical correlations have been sub-
stituted in lieu of a more fundamental approach. The nature of the
behavior must be considered even in empirical correlations, or the
application of the correlations will be extremely limited. Truly, Sir
Isaac Newton must have seen many apples fall before he was able to
conclude the reason for falling. Similarly, the reasons for traction
and transport performance must be determined if behavior is to be
adequately described. Four aspects of design were outlined in the
introduction to section 7.4. Kesearch concentrating on these four
aspects will give insight into the reasons for traction performance and
eventually lead to a solution of the problem.
7.8 Predicting Traction Performance

Mathematical models of soil-traction device systems—that is, trac-
tion equations—have not been developed to the point where per-
formance can be predicted. The urgent need to be able to predict
performance, particularly for military mobility, has led to the de-
velopment of simplified traction equations that can predict perform-
ance with limited but acceptable accuracy. Most of these equations
have been empirically developed. Because soil and its condition
greatly influence traction, the assessment of soil conditions has been
emphasized while characterization of the traction device has been
deemphasized. These traction equations have usually applied to a
soil-vehicle system rather than to a soil-traction device system. In
other words, the vehicle is considered an entity rather than a group
of traction or transport devices, or both. These prediction equations
are not particularly useful for design because they emphasize pre-
dicting performance, because they are not sufficiently accurate, or
because they are restricted to special situations. Nevertheless, these
equations are examples of empirically developed traction equations.
Soil behavior was shown to be associated with soil physical prop-
erties in sections 3.1 and 6.1. The possibility thus exists of es-
tablishing a correlation between a classification of these properties
and vehicle performance. For a number of years soils have been
classified with respect to their formation and use for crop production
( 4,^6^ JfJf7^ JiÎß ). More recently soils have been classified for con-
struction and trafficability purposes ( 10^ 63^ 1^50^ JßJi^ ^95 ). The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( ^9^ ) and the Bureau of Eeclama-
tion ( 450^ 477 ) have unified these classifications to some extent. The
classifications are based on physical properties that are determined
by standardized methods and that indicate certain behavior charac-
teristics. The association of the physical properties and behavior
characteristics is the justification for trying to relate classification
of soil properties to vehicle performance.
Physical properties that have been measured and used as a key
or index to classification include: graduation of particle size, con-
sistency, porosity or void ratio, specific gravity, moisture content,
bulk density, penetration resistance, unconfined compressive strength,
and soluble salts ( 15, 99,18^, 258, ^50 ). With some experience and
judgment one can interpret these indexes in terms of dynamic be-
havior and relate them to vehicle performance.
Texture of soil is one method of classifying soil physical properties
into possible types of behavior reactions. Soil mapping programs
based on texture classification have been made for many soils, and
this information is readily available. One of the most widely used
is the USDA Soil Classification System (fig. 287, A), The Unified
Soil Classification System is shown in figure 287, B, As figure 287
shows, knowledge of a particular soil in one system can be translated
to the other system. Textural classifications are based on the particle
sizes of the mineral constituents of a soil. Moisture content, organic
matter, and structural condition are not reflected in a textural classi-
fication. Organic matter is usually a small fraction of the total
soil volume and remains relatively constant with time. Wlien the
organic matter is a small fraction, its presence is usually ignored.
Highly organic soils are encountered, however, and their physical
properties are often influenced more by organic content than by
mineral content. Mucks and peats are examples of organic soils,
and new classification systems are being developed for them ( 389,
U9).
Several attempts have been made to integrate soil classification and
machine factors into a scheme that would predict performance.
Often these schemes were not represented by an equation, but they
were represented graphically so that a quantitative prediction was
possible. The most widely known scheme utilized the Casagrande
( 63, Í21 ) soil classification to design airfields. The strength of
soil, determined by the California Bearing Ratio test ( 369 ) or from
soil classification data, was correlated with the thickness of pave-
ments and base materials that were required to support aircraft of
100 i
100
100
SAND (7o)
^
(A)
100
100
SAND (%)
^
(B)
FIGURE 287.—A, USDA Soil Classification System; B, Unified Soil Classifica-
tion System. (Waterways Experiment Station ( W )•)
various weights. These correlations provided a design chart for the

construction of flexible airfield pavements.
Knight and Meyer at the Waterways Experiment Station ( ^^ )
used a soil classification system to estimate the probability of a vehicle
being able to successfully cross a specific soil. The estimation is
based on comprehensive empirical correlations ( Jf9Jf ) that establish
the probability that different soil strengths will adequately support
the passage of different vehicles. The vehicles were characterized
by a vehicle cone index, which was the minimum rating cone index
required by the vehicle in order to complete 50 passes over the soil.
Soil was characterized by a rating cone index that was measured
with a cone penetrometer. The rating cone index of any soil could
be determined by direct measurement so that a means was available
to predict "go" or "no-go" for any vehicle whose vehicle cone index
was known.
Knight and Meyer extended prediction possibilities by predicting
the rating cone index of a soil from the Unified Soil Classification
system (fig. 288). As show^n in figure 288, the probable rating cone
VEHICLE CONE INDEX

SOIL 60 60 .
TYPE PREOOM ^/lEDIAN
SYM SOIL RCI
SP CLEAN SAND -
CH FAT CLAY 122
CL LEAN CLAY 85
SM SILT Y SAND 85
ML SILT 77
OL ORG. SILT 54
PT PEAT, MUCK 45
PROBABILITY OF VEHICLE "CO" ON LEVEL TERRAIN

I I EXCELLENT-GREATER THAN 90 •/•
Clî^ GOOD - 76 TO 90 «fe
F7771 FAIR-50 TO 75*7»
■■ POOR-LESS THAN 50 •7*
FIGURE 288.—Scheme, based on a textural soil classification system, for pre-

dicting the probability of a vehicle being able to cross over soil. (Knight
and Meyer, 1st Internatl. Conf. Soil-Vehicle Systems Proc. {Jt92).)
index of a soil can be estimated from knowledge of a soil's textural

classification, as shown in figure 287. Knowing the vehicle cone
index then permits determining the probable passage of a vehicle.
For example, in a soil type designated ML (silt), vehicle C would
have a 50-percent probability of passage while vehicle A would have
a 90-percent probability.
This scheme does not consider the condition of a soil ; consequently,
its accuracy is limited. The condition of a soil can vary from a ñuid
to a rigid mass, depending on its moisture content, soil type, and
previous history. Since a textural classification cannot indicate
much about a specific condition, some means for assessing a soil con-
dition offers a better means of predicting traction.
Penetrometers (sec. 3.2.2.1) have been used to assess soil conditions.
McKibben and Hull ( 277 ) used the penetration resistance of a soil
as a means of predicting the coefficient of rolling resistance (towing
force/load on wheel) of a 7.50-28 pneumatic tire. The coefficient was

expressed in the form
y = 0.06a? + 0.021, (178)
where y — coefficient of rolling resistance,
X = penetration resistance.
Nothing in this simple relation permits one to predict the rolling
resistance of any other wheel; however, the results indicate the
validity of the approach.
The most intensive program in which an attempt was made to use a
penetrometer to assess soil conditions is that of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. A cone penetrometer
was developed that utilizes a 30° right circular cone (472). The
tip is % square inch in cross section and has a smaller shaft so that
no frictional forces are built up after penetration of the tip. The
soil resistance to penetration is measured by an optically indicating
dynamometer (proving ring) as the instrument is pressed into the
soil and the resistance is expressed in units of stress (p.s.i.). Based
on this instrument, a system of evaluation has been devised to pre-
dict the trafficability of soil for 50 passages of a vehicle ( 126 ).
The repeated passage of vehicles in one path kneads and compacts
the soil, which can either increase or decrease its strength. The net
effect is to provide a new soil condition for each succeeding vehicle
and even to successive wheels on the same vehicle. Measurements,
therefore, are required to reflect both the initial and final soil strength.
These measurements are made in the following manner : a sample of
the top 12 inches of soil is collected in an undisturbed condition in a
tube, and the average penetrometer reading is determined ; this read-
ing is called the "cone index." The soil is then subjected to a stand-
ard tamping procedure during which the soil is "remolded" by 100
blows of a hammer. The remolding simulates the disturbance that
occurs with the passage of 50 vehicles. A second penetrometer read-
ing is taken after the soil has been remolded, and this value is
called the "remolding index." Based on these two soil values, a
"rating cone index" is computed for the soil where
Rating Cone Index = Cone Index X Remolding Index.
A vehicle evaluation system was developed simultaneously with the
soil^ evaluation system. Initially, the vehicle system involved ex-
perimentally determining a rating cone index for the soil condition
that would allow just 50 passages of the vehicle. In such a manner,
each vehicle could be assigned a "vehicle cone index." Any soil
condition that produced a rating cone index equal to the vehicle cone
index, or greater, would be trafficable for that particular vehicle.
Figure 289 shows typical relations between the rating cone index
of soil and the towing force of sleds and vehicles. Figure 290 shows
typical relations between the rating cone index and the predicted
maximum pull where rating cone index is expressed as points above
the vehicle cone index. Vehicle cone index defines the situation
where the vehicle is self-propelled and does not necessarily develop
useful pull.
The success of the Waterways Experiment Station approach is
gratifying and probably is due partly to the simplicity of the penetro-
100
VERY STICKY SOILS
STICKY SOILS
WHEELED VEHICLES
o
o:
O ^30,000 lbs.
P 40 80 120 160 200

RATING CONE INDEX
FIGURE 289.—Typical relations between the rating cone index and the towing
force required for sleds and vehicles. (Foster, Knight, and Rula, Water-
ways Experiment Station ( 125 ).)
meter and partly to limiting soil conditions to loose sand and wet
saturated clay. These conditions provide the poorest trafficable sit-
uations and so are logical restrictions. As figure 290 shows, more
accurate predictions are obtained than by the scheme shown m figure
288. The added accuracy results because the condition of a soil is
considered and more factors that affect traction are assessed and in-
cluded in the prediction relation.
TRACKED VEHICLES WITH ,

70|- GROUSERS LONGER THAN 1^-
WHEELED VEHICLES
+30 +40 +50 +60 +70

RATING CONE INDEX
(POINTS ABOVE VEHICLE CONE INDEX)
FiaiiRE 290-Predicted maximum puU on level ground versus rating cone

^"^ll.l%v:áTL points above vehicle cone index. (Knight and Rula, at
the Waterways Experiment Station ( Ji\)¿ ) • )
An equation to represent a curve in figure 290 would be a trac-

tion equation of the type indicated by equation 168. There is a need
to identify accurate parameters that represent the soil and the
device abstract factors and to determine the functional relations
between the parameters. Dimensional analysis is a technique that
assists m determining the functional relations. The US Army
Transportation Research Command ( Jt32, 433, ^35 ) has used this
technique to develop a traction equation for vehicles in sand. Di-
mensional analysis procedures provide a method for combining vari-
ous parameters that are believed to represent a system into a group
of dimensionless terms designated as Pi terms.
The most complete version of a dimensionless term equation had
the following form:
TF - ^ U' 0,d^^ ^'^'^' ^' -j-J.S,B,y (179)

where D =
drawbar pull,
W =
gross vehicle weight,
d =
wheel diameter,
h =
depth of sand,
Os =
precollapse structural cohesion,
Ot =
postcollapse structural cohesion,
<^ =
d3^namic postcollapse angle of internal friction,
y =
soil density,
F =
velocity of traction element of vehicle,
g =
gravity,
ß —
kinematic viscosity,
/ =
friction between traction component and sand,
S =
slip ratio (ratio of speed of traction element to speed of
advance of vehicle),
B = parameter related to development of shearing resistance
with deformation of sand,
j = movement of traction element with respect to ground in
one revolution of traction element (results from slip).
By utilizing available knowledge equation 179 was simplified to
Many factors suspected to be of importance were eliminated from

consideration when this was done, but their influence is apparently
small so that practical relations result.
By restricting considerations to sand and snow, equation 180 can
be simplified even further. The angle of internal friction can be
demonstrated to be essentially constant for sand and snow although
difterent for each. Furthermore, maximum pull is usually generated
at or near 25-percent slip in sand and snow. Thus, equation 180 is
reduced to two Pi terms if pull at 25-percent slip is considered a
measure ot performance.
The only parameter that is difficult to measure is Os. If Cs could
be suitably assessed and the other parameters experimentally meas-
ured, the two Pi terms D/W and W/Osd' should determine a unique
curve when plotted against each other. From this curve, the pull
could be predicted for any vehicle whose gross weight and wheel
diameter were known when a value for Cs (soil condition parameter)
is determined. . ^ ^ ^ ^.
In sand, the strength of soil varies with depth. Discussions m sec-
tion 3.2.2.3 pointed out that the cohesion of soil could be increased by
the application of forces as a result of induced strength. Whether
the strength variation is induced by the dynamic action of loading a
soil or whether the variation was originally present is immaterial;
both affect traction. .
The concept of relative cohesion offers a means for assessing the
induced strength. A relative cohesion-plate size relation can be
established for a soil condition in which a vehicle is to be operated by
plotting Orel versus plate diameter from measured data of the form
shown in figure 65. By assuming that the relative cohesion deter-
mined in a plate-soil system is the same as would appear m. a soil-
vehicle system, the relative cohesion in a soil-vehicle system can be
determined from a soil-plate system. In sand, a plate diameter ^5
the size of a tire diameter was arbitrarily assumed to predict the
value of Orel' Grei for any soil-vehicle system can be determined
from the experimentally determined relative cohesion-plate diameter
curve. . T^- JÍ 4.-
Eelative cohesion was used in the appropriate Pi term ot equation
180 and after some observation d^ was replaced by id (product o±
width and diameter) so that the Pi term retained its dimensionless
form. The pull of four-wheeled vehicles with all wheels powered
(designated 4X4 vehicles) was measured over a period of 3 years
(ñg. 291). Tire diameters ranged from 24 to 120 inches and wheel
loads ranged from 50 to 50,000 pounds per wheel. The scatter band
of points was not considered unreasonable in view of the variation m
soil conditions one might expect in field situations. Figure 291 thus
represents a traction equation that predicts the maximum pull ot
4X4 vehicles in sand.
0.6
• »
0.4 5ä^^==Z • »TÍ-~^. H ,
0.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
w
c,bd
FIGURE 291.—Performance of 4 X 4 vehicles in sand. (Nuttall and McGowan

at the Transportation Research Command ( 4^5 ). )
A similar representation for 4 X 4 vehicles in snow was also de-

veloped when snow was restricted to dry tree-belt snow parks.
While the relation is not completely accurate, figure 291 represents
one of the more accurate traction prediction schemes available at this
time. Because the total vehicle was considered and simplifications
were made to eliminate several Pi terms, some inaccuracy probably
should be expected.
The traction mechanics discussed in section 7.2.2 has been used to
derive traction equations. Harrison ( 176 ) used the Coulomb and
Bernstein soil behavior equations as the basis for a mechanics. The
developments reflected in equations 161, 162, and 163 and in figure
243 were modified slightly, but the principles were not changed.
Traction equations for wheeled and tracked vehicles were developed.
The equations were evaluated on a digital computer to avoid the
cumbersome graphical procedures outlined in section 7.2.2. Slip-pull
curves for the vehicles studied were measured experimentally and
compared with the computed values.
Figure 292 shows the comparison for a farm tractor in a Michigan
1500
fiD 1200
900
3
Û.
600
300
CALCULATED RANGE
0-, MEASURED .VALUES
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
SLIP (PERCENT)
FIGURE 292.—Calculated and measured pull of a farm tractor in a Michigan
farm sou. (Harrison, 1st Internatl. Conf. Soil-Vehicle Systems Proc. {116).)
farm soil. Other vehicles were also studied and the measurements
and calculations repeated in a dry sand. The difference between
calculated and measured pulls shown in figure 292 is typical of the
difference in performance predicted for other vehicles in sand soil
and is no greater than for any other prediction equation reported in
the literature.
The derived traction equation is the only scheme that attempts to
consider slip. Since moré than the maximum pull is predicted, it is
a more complicated scheme. More calculations and measurements
are required to predict a pull, and the vehicle characterization is more
complete in the derived scheme than the other empirically developed
schemes. A traction equation based on a mechanics has the inherent
means to fully represent all of the factors involved in traction. An
empirical traction equation does not inherently fully represent all

factors affecting traction. New factors can be included only by
modifying the equation. The accurate prediction of traction per-
formance^ however^ is the ultimate goal and test of both approaches.
8. SOIL COMPACTION
8.1 Introduction
In previous chapters, the complete scope of interest of soil dynam-
ics—from descriptions of the soil through its behavior and use—has
been developed. In agriculture, the compactness of soil affects the
soil physical environment for crop production (S, 31, 52, 68, ISO,
m m, 219, 257, 298, 299, 1,13, m, 516 ). Compaction reduces the
soil s permeability to water, so that runoff and erosion may occur and
adequate recharge of ground water is prevented. Compaction re-
duces aeration of the soil, so that metabolic activities of roots are
hampered. Compaction increases the mechanical strength of the
soil, so root growth is impeded. All of these effects may reduce the
quality and quantity of food and fiber grown on the soil.
Direct cause-and-effect relations appear to exist between the use
of machinery and soil compaction, between soil compaction and a
plant root environment, and between a plant root environment and
crop production. These relations are qualitative, and intuition has
led workers to try to directlv correlate the use of machinery with
crop production. Because of the complexity of this machine-plant
system, little progress has been made toward a solution. Less com-
plicated systems must be analyzed to delineate the soil behaviors that
describe and control subsystems wherein soil behavior has direct
effect. When this is accomplished, information will be available to
evaluate and control soil compaction in soil management systems.
Two problems generally arise concerning soil compaction. Soil
may be too compact to be used effectively in crop production. Pre-
vention and alleviation of compactness are the problems associated
with crop production. On the other hand, soil may not be compact
enough to be used effectively for roads, dams, or building supports.
Obtaining maximum compactness with minimum compacting effort is
one of the problems associated with construction work.
Soil compactness is a static state property of soil. Soil compaction
changes the state of compactness. For a specific soil, the material
properties generally do not change when the state of compactness
is changed; only the static state changes. Since soil material and
state properties determine behavior properties (sec. 3.1), a change
m state of compactness indicates a probable change in behavior prop-
erties. Hence, regardles of its intended use, the soil is affected by
compaction. General awareness of this fact has stimulated much
soil compaction research. The goal of the research is to solve the
two problems of compaction—to increase or decrease the state of
compactness.
Soil compaction is the action of soil becoming more compact. The
action increases the state of compactness—actions that make soil
430
less compact are normally not defined as soil compaction. Therefore,

soil compaction is a d^rnamic soil behavior by which the state of
compactness of soil is increased. Forces cause the action so that
compaction behavior equations are required to describe the action.
Forces that cause compaction originate from two general sources.
Mechanical forces applied by machines and animals are one source
( 3, 257, 369 ). These forces are usually applied for short periods,
and they can be measured without extreme difficulty. Natural phe-
nomena are the second source of forces. For example, drying and
other genetic processes cause soil compaction ( 166, 221 ). Natural
forces usually operate for long periods, are difficult to define^ and
have seldom been measured. Eegardless of the source, however, forces
cause compaction.
Compaction can occur only through movement of the soil itselt,
and active behavior occurs. Accurate compaction behavior equations
will provide a means to predict compaction. The ability to predict
compaction is the first requirement for attaining control of compac-
tion. Considerable research has been performed in attempts to
develop soil compaction behavior equations.
8*2 Compaction Behavior Equations
The inputs and outputs of compaction behavior relations are forces
and changes in compactness, respectively. Eepresenting compaction
behavior by an equation requires that both input and output be
numerically described. Ideally, forces in soil should be defined by
a stress tensor (sec. 2.2), which requires the measurement of six in-
dependent numbers.
The compaction behavior input is more difficult to describe m
numerical terms than the behavior output. The output can be ex-
pressed either as a change in the volume of the soil or as the absolute
volume itself. Each measure of volume can be represented by a single
number. Change in vôlume is the simpler output when the relation
between input and output is linear or when the absolute volume has
some constant base value at zero input. Since the observed soil com-
paction behavior does not exhibit either of these characteristics,
absolute volume has been used as a numerical description of compac-
tion behavior output.
The state of soil compactness is expressed in several ways—bulk
density (expressed on a wet or dry basis), void ratio, porosity, and
apparent specific gravity. Definitions and references for standard-
ized procedures of measurement were discussed in section 3.2.1.3.
Methods were also described for simultaneously measuring stress
and compaction; these can be used to study compaction behavior
and develop behavior equations.
Soil compaction can be considered as compression failure and rep-
resentative of a yield criterion for soil. There are two types of
compression failure. First, stress may cause compaction that is
elastically recovered when the stress is removed. In other words,
volume decreases as stress increases and volume increases as stress
decreases {281). In principle, the compaction behavior output al-
ways follows the compaction behavior input. Mathematically, these
input and output variables are uniquely related for all values over
their respective ranges. In the second type of compression failure,

compaction is not recovered when the stress is removed. The com-
paction behavior output follows the compaction behavior input only
when the input is above a threshold value and increasing. Mathe-
matically, these input and output variables are not uniquely related
for all values over their respective ranges; they are uniquely related
only for a certain subset of the complete set of their values.
The two types of compression failure are not unique to soil.
Ductile materials are also designated as elastic or plastic, depending
on whether strain is recoverable. The important point is that while
both types are observed in soil, nonrecoverable compaction is much
larger than recoverable compaction. Thus, nonrecoverable soil com-
paction is the type of compaction that is frequently studied. This
behavior is rather special, since the input and output are uniquely
related only for certain circumstances. These circumstances must be
clearly recognized and understood in order to develop and interpret
compaction behavior equations.
Figure 293 shows the large amount of nonrecoverable soil com-
MOISTURE
HIWASSEE SANDY LOAM

DAVIDSON CLAY
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PRESSURE (LB./SO. FT.)
FIGURE 293.—Soil compaction resulting from applied forces. (Reaves, at the

National Tillage Machinery Laboratory ( Sll ). )
paction behavior exhibited by loose unconsolidated soils. Forces

were applied to a plunger acting on the open end of a cylindrical
container filled with soil. The soil was confined and the compac-
tion behavior input was expressed as the pressure applied to the soil
by the plunger. Change in the volume of soil due to the plunger
movement was converted to dry bulk density, the compaction be-
havior output.
Figure 293 illustrates three characteristics of compaction behavior.
(1) Compaction behavior input and output are uniquely related, as
the continuous curves indicate. But the relation holds only as long
as the soil is not already consolidated and pressure is mcreasmg.
Nonrecoverable compaction does not occur either when the pressure
is reduced or when it is not large enough to cause additional non-
recoverable compaction. Thus, the curves in figure 293 represent the
relation between input and output at incipient nonrecoverable com-
paction failure. (2) The large change of volume is a characteristic
of compaction behavior. The change in the state of compactness
ranges from 20 to 50 percent, depending on conditions. When max-
imum compaction is desired, forces of thousands of pounds are ap-
plied to produce even greater changes than shown m figure 293.
(3) The moisture content of the soil affects compaction behavior.
Each soil material was considerably more susceptible to compaction
when it was wet.
Equations describing the curves in figure 293 would be compaction
behavior equations. If the equations could be sufficiently generalized,
parameters would be available to represent the difference in shapes
for various soils. Presumably these parameters could be related to
the soil material and moisture content.
Before undertaking such a task, however, some fundamental ques-
tions concerning compaction behavior must be answered. Soil m
its natural environment generally is not confined; it exists as a
semi-infinite three-dimensional medium. Furthermore, a compacting
force is applied not over an entire area of soil but only over a small
part of the area. Whether the compaction behavior studied m a
confined container approximates the type of compaction that occurs
in unconfined three-dimensional space may be questioned.
Soehne ( 396 ) suggested an answer to the question. Since semi-
infinite volumes of soil are loaded over small portions of their boun-
daries, distributions of forces must exist in the soil mass. Conse-
quently, distribution of behavior inputs and outputs must exist m
the soil mass. If the behavior of volume elements of soil could be
described, a description of their distribution would permit predicting
the compaction distribution. Six independent numbers define a
stress tensor compacting a volume element of soil, but they are de-
pendent on the choice of coordinate axes. An invariant (which is a
combination of the six numbers and is independent of coordinate
axes) or a combination of invariants thus must be used as the com-
paction behavior input. Soehne assumed that the largest principal
stress uniquely caused soil compaction. The pressure applied to soil
confined in a cylindrical container is the largest principal stress.
If the container is shallow compared to its diameter, the vertical
distribution of stresses within the soil will be small and the soil can
be considered a volume element. Thus, compaction behavior as rep-
resented in figure 293 can be assumed to apply to a three-dimensional
situation if the largest principal stress controls compaction.
Considerable evidence now available indicates that the largest
principal stress does not uniquely cause compaction. One of the
first indications was in data reported by Bodman and Eubin {48),
They devised a soil-compacting apparatus that had a narrow, shallow
annulus soil chamber. Soil was placed in the shallow annulus cham-
l3er and loaded with a corrugated annulus ring that fitted closely
mside the shallow chamber. The soil was confined and considered
to behave as a volume element. Normal and tangential (shearing)
forces were independently applied to the soil.
The effects of normal and shearing stress on soil compactness are
shown m figure 294. When only normal stress was applied, soil
O SHEAR BEGINS
_2.0
E
3 1.6 ^-NORMAL LOAD .118 Kg/cm*
1.4 NORMAL LOAD .2Kg/cm2

^SHEAR
1.2
1.0 ^NORMAL LOAD .737 Kg/cm*
SHEAR
üO.8 ^SHEAR
0.6
0.4
T SPECIFIC VOLUME AT SATURATION
SHEAR
0.2
Q.
< _L- -L.
100 300 500 700 900 100 200 300 400
TIME (sec) TIME (min)
FIGURE 294.—Effect of normal and shearing stress on compactness of soiL

(Bodman and Rubin, Soil Sei. Soc. Amer. ( ^8 ).)
compacted in the same manner as illustrated in figure 293. When

shear was applied by rotating the corrugated loading ring (normal
stress maintained constant), additional compaction occurred. Ap-
plying both shearing and normal stresses to the surface of the soil
not only increased the largest principal stress but also rotated its
direction so that it was no longer perpendicular to the loading ring.
They did not calculate the magnitude of the largest principal stress
to determine whether a unique relation with specific volume existed,
but they clearly demonstrated that shearing stress caused a signifi-
cant amount of soil compaction.
Additional evidence that the largest principal stress is not uniquely
related to soil compaction was reported by Soehne, Chancellor, and
Schmidt ( JfOJf ). They used lead shot to trace soil movement during
compaction. A piston was forced into a box of uniformly packed
soil. The soil and lead shot were X-rayed before and after loading.
Superposition of the photographs permitted measuring the move-
ments of the lead shot and the soil. Soil compaction could be cal-
culated from the movements (fig. 295). The significance of figure
mrnirnmiimii —I—
t
I
12.5 K»/ciii*
FIGURE 295.—Lines of equal porosity (soil compaction) caused by a rigid

plunger. (Soehne, Chancellor, and Schmidt, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. {hOk)-)
295 is that maximum compaction occurred at point x rather than im-

mediately below the surface of the plunger. This same phenomenon
was reported by Gill and Eeaves ( 160 ) under smooth tractor tires.
The phenomenon can be explained if the largest principal stress is
not uniquely related to soil compaction.
In figure 295, point x is located at approximately the intersection
of the 45° dotted lines subtended from the plunger. The area en-
closed by the dotted lines and the face of the plunger represents a
soil body (sec. 4.5.1) that acts as a portion of the plunger. Maxi-
mum shearing strain occurs at the tip of the soil body because soil
is forced to move around the body as it advances. Stresses in the
soil at different distances from the plunger must either remain con-
stant or decrease because only the plunger can originate forces ap-
plied to the soil. Hence the largest principal stress cannot be greater
at point X than it is along the lower surface of the plunger. Since
shearing strain was maximum at point x, and shear was demon-
strated by Bodman and Eubin to cause compaction, maximum com-
paction at point X indicates that the largest principal stress is not
uniquely related to compaction.
Harris, Buchele, and Malvern ( 175 ) measured both the stress
tensor and compaction on a volume element of soil. In previous
work, the complete stress tensor was seldom measured. Bodman
and Eubin measured the stresses on one surface of a volume element,
but the stresses must be measured on three mutually perpendicular
surfaces to determine the stress tensor. In making the measurements,
Harris, Buchele, and Malvern ( 116 ) used a method suggested by
Vanden Berg, Buchele and Malvern {1^59), In this method the
principle of circular symmetry is used—that is, concentric circles
located in horizontal planes below a circular load are subjected to
the same state of stress. A concentric circle thus can be considered
to represent a volume element of soil. Figure 296 shows the orienta-
LOAD
FIGURE 296.—Orientation of pressure transducers under a circular plate that

will measure the stress tensor. (Harris, Buchele, and Malvern, Amer. Soc.
Agr. Engin. (175 ).)
tion of pressure transducers that permitted measuring the complete

stress tensor. Soil-filled balloons were also placed on the circle,
and compaction was measured by changes in volume after the man-
ner of Hovanesian's volumeter method (fig. 20).
Several invariants of the stress tensor, including the mean normal
stress (equation 2) have been investigated by Vanden Berg, Buchele,
and Malvern ( 4^9 ). They concluded that the mean normal stress
may correlate better with compaction than the largest principal
stress. The invariants were separately related to compaction for
several soils in different conditions by Harris, Buchele, and Malvern
( 175 ). They concluded from a statistical comparison that all of
the invariants indicated correlation. The maximum shearing stress
had the largest coefficient of correlation although statistically it was
no more significant than any other invariant.
The use of circular symmetry has two difficulties: (1) the stress
state cannot be carefully controlled, and (2) proportional loading is
always present. Because of proportional loading, one invariant is
always nearly directly proportional to any other invariant. Vanden
Berg ( 457 ) used triaxial apparatus similar to that illustrated in
figure 45 to overcome these difficulties. Stress states could be ac-
curately controlled and widely varied. By using nonproportional
loadings, the mean normal stress was increased while the largest
principal stress decreased. Results showed that compaction always
followed mean normal stress, whereas the largest principal stress
could be decreased while compaction increased. Also, maximum
shear stress had no correlation with compaction. The mean normal
stress, however, did not uniquely correlate with compaction even
though it was the best single invariant.
The effect of shear in compaction behavior was also studied. After

the strain of the soil-volume element was measured, shearmg strain
was calculated and expressed in the natural strain system (sec. 2.3).
An expression was then empirically developed that related bulk
density to mean normal stress plus the product of mean normal stress
and maximum natural shearing strain. This relation is shown m
figure 297 for several soils. A good correlation was obtained for all
conditions except nonproportional loading. Even with nonpropor-
tional loading, however, the correlation predicted compaction with an
error of less than 10 percent.
SANDY LOAM
1.6
1.5 CLAY
ro
E
o
1.4
E
SILT LOAM
t 1.3
CO
z
UJ
Û
1.2
OADING
I.I
L LOADING
1.0
5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
(^m+ ^m/max)
FIGURE 297.—Compaction relations for several soils. (Vanden Berg, Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin. ( ^57 ).)
The compaction relation shown in figure 297 is the most accurate

available, but it is not very useful in its present form because both
stress and strain must be measured to predict compaction. Since
measurements of strain measure compaction directly, no need exists
to predict compaction. The relation shows the importance of shear
and demonstrates that no single invariant of the stress tensor con-
trols compaction. Since shearing strain is caused by stress, the
possibility exists of removing shearing strain from the input to
compaction behavior by relating shearing strain to stress.
A number of factors have been studied with respect to their influ-

ence on soil compaction even though accurate compaction behavior
equations do not exist. These studies serve to identify the general
nature of compaction behavior. Hovanesian and Buchele (186)
developed an apparatus (fig. 20) to study the effect of repetitive
cycles of impact loads on soil compactness. A mean normal stress of
27 pounds per square inch was applied for 1 second followed by a
rest stress of 1 pound per square inch. The stresses were controlled
and pneumatically applied to a sealed chamber that contained bal-
loon-enclosed soil samples. The duration of the load was approxi-
1k
1.9
y"'^ SANDY LOAM
1.8 ■f
1.7 "1
1
"eO
^
E 1.6
o»
>-
1.5 ^ ¥^ SILTY LOAM
^ /
1.4 -/
//
M
-J
3
CD
1.3
f
1.2
u.
0 5 K) 15
DUMBER OF IMRACTS
FIGURE 298.—Compaction of soil by repetitive loads. (Hovanesian and Bu-

chele, Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. ( 186 ).)
INSTRUMENTED^
DIAPHRAGM
(PORE PRESSURE)
OIL' FILLED OIL' FILLED X INSTRUMENTED
CONNECTION POROUS STONE DIAPHRAGM
(VERTICAL STRESS)
FIGURE 299.—Apparatus for measuring effective stress of saturated soil during

impact loadings. (McRae, Northwestern Univ. {283).)
mately that applied by a driving wheel on an agricultural tractor.
Figure 298 shows that compaction increased with each loading cycle,
but from 70 to 90 percent of the total compaction occurred with the
first impact.
McKae ( 283 ) used a different technique to study compaction of
saturated soil by impact loads. His apparatus (fig. 299) permitted
measuring both pore pressure and total vertical stress. Effective
stress is the algebraic difference between total stress and pore pres-
sure. Two loadings were used: (1) A kneading load that resembled
the action of a sheep's-foot packer and lasted for approximately 3
seconds, and (2) a falling weight impact load that lasted for 0.01
second. Typical examples of measured stress are shown in figure 300.
Both effective stress, as a function of type of loading, and compac-
tion were studied.
txJ
DC
S I 295 lb/in* 130016/in*
^_A»ÊC—^
kl.01,«:
4 lb/In*
IMPACT KNEADING
FIGURE 300.—Curves showing stress measured during impact and kneading

loads. (McRae, Northwestern Univ. {28S).)
Figure 301 shows the influence of moisture content on effective

stress. Since all the soils were saturated, an increase in moisture
content implies a more porous soil matrix. As the data indicate,
increases in moisture content decreased effective stress. Since the
applied stress was constant, the data imply that the stress carried by
pore water increased as moisture content increased.
Compaction was compared by noting the time required for the
soils to reach equal densities. The impact load required approxi-
mately 0.4 second ; the kneading load required from 25 to 30 seconds.
By varying time of loading, equal densities could be obtained with
equivalent stress intensities. In other words, state of compactness
was associated with level of stress, but the time required to obtain
a state of compactness varied with the manner in which the stress
was applied. Lewis ( 253 ) has also reported that loads applied by
400 r
_ 300 IMFÄCT (16 Ft. Lb.)

Q.
<0
(O
bJ KNEADING (300 PSI)
a 200
KNEADING (200 PSI)
ï 100
-KNEADING (100PSI)
10 15 20 25 30
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
FIGURE 301.—Influence of moisture content on the effective stress applied by

impact and kneading loads. (McRae, Northwestern Univ. (283).)
falling weights for 0.02 second were as effective in compacting soil

as loads applied by rollers for 2 seconds.
The importance of moisture content on compaction behavior was
illustrated in figure 293. Its effect has been studied even though an
accurate behavior equation has not been established. In lieu of a
well-defined compaction behavior input, the input has often been
expressed in terms of some constant compactive effort.
Weaver and Jamison ( 498 ) used a modified Proctor procedure
to study compaction. In the Proctor procedure, a hammer is
dropped from a fixed height onto soil in a container. Figure 302
shows the effect of moisture on compaction of a clay loam soil. The
compactive effort for the upper curve was twenty 12-inch blows of a
5.5-pound hammer to each of three 1%-pound layers of soils. The
compactive effort for the lower curve was four 7-inch blows of a
5.5-pound hammer to each of the three 1%-pound layers of soil.
The form of the curves indicates that the susceptibility of soil to
compacting varies with its moisture content. The reduced com-
pactibility (after point of maximum compaction is reached) reñects
the effect of saturation. All voids in the soil are filled with water
at saturation and water must be squeezed out of the soil as compac-
tion occurs.
A point of minimum compaction has also been reported by Rich-
ards and others ( 366 ) for several other soil types. Thus the mois-
ture content of a soil influences its susceptibility to compaction and,
depending on moisture content, either a maximum or a minimum
susceptibility can occur.
Forces other than mechanical forces also cause soil compaction.
Measuring these forces as inputs to compaction behavior relations
is extremely difficult. Little progress has been made in developing
1.90
E
^1.80
É
^1.70 H
O)
g 1-60
Û
§ 1.50 ^
1.40
"i 1 ' ^ 7Z
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
MOISTURE CONTENT (7o)
FIGURE 302.—Moisture-density relations of a clay loam soil for two levels of

compactive effort. (Weaver and Jamison, Soil Sei. { 4^íi ).)
behavior equations for forces of this type, usually the forces are
not identified directly; rather, the cause of the forces is described.
Dryins:, in which the action of soil compaction is termed shrinkage
(fig. 303), is a typical force system of this type. Note that the be-
havior input is expressed as percentage of moisture loss and not ab-
solute moisture content. The data indicate that compaction caused
bv drying can be as great as that caused by mechanical torces.
However, the losses for these soils (20 to 30 percent) require the
input of significant amounts of drying energy. Usually moisture
losses in soils are lower except at an exposed surface. Nevertheless,
natural forces can cause excessive compaction and natural torce-
compaction relations will have to be represented before compaction
can be predicted and controlled.
8.3 Compaction in Tillage and Traction
Soil compaction is important in tillage and traction because of its
effect on the intended use of a soil. The consequences of compaction
are of direct concern rather than compaction per se. These conse-
quences are manifest in terms of specific active and passive behavior
equations that are associated with use of the soil (sec. 6.2). Qualita-
tive data that set limits on the desired state of compactness are
available. Sufficient compactness to establish seed-soil contact and
enhance germination is desirable in the immediate vicinity o± seed.
Excessive compactness, on the other hand, is detrimental to maintain-
ing a good root environment. Excessive compactness also reduces
penetration of water and increases runoff and erosion. The intent
is to control compaction during tillage and traction operations and to
10 15 20 25 30 35
WATER LOSS (%)
FIGURE 303.—Soil compaction caused by drying: A and B, two clay soils;
C, a silt loam.
establish or maintain soil in a suitable state of compactness for a

specific use.
The distribution of compaction is an important concern in the
design and use of tillage and traction machines. Because the forces
applied to soil by machines have not been described, empirical
methods are used in the design of compaction machinery. Different
machines are operated on soil, and the resulting compaction is meas-
ured ( £1, 33,38, 92,150, 263, 30i, m, W, ^79, 482 ). Distributions
of compaction may be determined experimentally, but the qualitative
nature of the results essentially precludes prediction of compaction
in other situations. Section 8.2 pointed out that a soil compaction
behavior relation and the compaction distribution must both be con-
sidered. Their interaction determines the state of compactness.
Distribution of stresses is not peculiar to compaction. It also ap-
plies to the tillage and traction equations discussed in chapters 5, 6,
and 7. These equations were presented without elaboration of pos-
sible distribution of initial and final soil conditions.
Discussions here are restricted to distributions that occur in a plane
perpendicular to a soil surface on which a tool or vehicle operates.
Distributions of initial soil moisture and of compactness are usually
found in the perpendicular plane. The simplified concepts discussed
in connection with the tillage and traction equations were adequate

for nonvarying distributions. They are valid only for volumes of
soil that represent volume elements.
The description of distributions for use in tillage, traction, and
compaction equations remains a problem. Presumably the simplest
solution will be to include the distribution in the description of initial
and final soil conditions. Distributions will be inherently described
by a complete mechanics as the various equations are simultaneously
considered, if a complete mechanics is ever developed.
Since vehicular traffic often causes excessive soil compaction, studies
have been made to measure distributions caused by different traction
devices ( 196, J^l, Jf60, 485, 1^89, 4^7), In addition to density and
porosity measurements, workers have used pressure transducers to
measure force distributions under specific vehicles. Figure 304 m-
DEPTH BELOW
SOIL SURFACE
(INCHES)
0
I 2 3 4 5 6
DISTANCE - (FT.)
FIGURE 304.—Vertical stress distribution in soil under a tracked vehicle.

(Cooper and Reaves, Fifth Internatl. Cong. Agr. Engin. (82).)
dicates the general stress pattern (82), The vibration or impact

loads applied by rigid tracks produce peak stresses that are con-
siderably higher than the average stress. Typical average ground
pressures under this track are calculated to be 4 or 5 p.s.i.
Keaves and Cooper ( 344 ) compared stress distributions under a
single track and a pneumatic wheel (fig. 305). Each was loaded
to 3,600 pounds and each was operated so that 1,500 pounds of pull
was developed. The track was 12 inches wide and 5 feet long, and
the wheel was a. 13-38 rubber tractor tire. The wheel caused greater
13-38 TIRE 12 I N. TRACK

PS I
o 25
o 35
15 10 5 0 5 10 15 15 to 5 0 5 10
DISTANCE FROM CENTER LINE OF LOAD (IN)
FIGURE 305.—Mean normal stress under a track and a wheeL (Reaves and
Cooper, Agr. Engin. ( SJfJf ).)
stresses at comparable depths so that the wheel caused more compac-

tion than the track. The track applied a vibratory stress, whereas
the pneumatic wheel applied a smooth stress. The wheel operated
at a larger slip and imparted more shearing strain to soil. Thus,
even though stress measurements are reasonably accurate, the stresses
must be more completely defined and used with a compaction be-
havior relation before the distribution of compactness in soil can
be predicted.
In agricultural systems, excessive rather than inadequate com-
paction is generally the problem. Excessive compaction reduces the
suitability of soil for crop production. Attempts have thus been
made to relate state of compactness to plant growth. If such rela-
tions can be established, practical limits of permissible compaction
can be determined. The influence of compaction on root penetration
has been well studied {3, 298, 30i, I¡36, 516), Figure 306 shows
how increased compaction may decrease root penetration.
Root penetration could be retarded by several factors that are
controlled by compaction ( 195, 377, ^23 ). Growth could be inhib-
ited by mechanical resistance due to the strength of soil and by lack
of air or water. Greacen ( 162 ) studied the interactions of soil
strength, moisture tension, and void ratio for a clay soil (fig. 307).
The angular strain is a common denominator against which to com-
pare the effects of suction, shear strength, and compaction. Com-
paction increased as the angular strain increased. Soil strength and
moisture tension were increased as compactness increased. The void
ratio is a measure of compactness, and the decreased void ratio in-
dicates that less air space is available. Thus, as compactness in-
8 O.SOr
<--GALLION SILT LOAM
0.25
X
lu
t 0.00
8 »00 1.20 \30 L40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
a:
BULK DENSITY (gm/cm*)
FIGURE 306.—Effect of compaction on the penetration of sudangrass roots into

cores of several soils. (Meredith and Patrick, Agron. Jour. (298).)
creased, three important factors that affect plant growth changed in

an undesirable manner so as to limit plant growth.
Another indication of the effect of compaction on usefulness of soil
was reported by Vomocil-, Fountaine, and Eeginato ( 4^7 ). They
measured the rate at which water infiltrated soil before and after a
tractor wheel had operated on the soil. Increases in drawbar pull
were used as a means of increasing wheel slippage and increasing
compaction. Figure 308 shows that the infiltration rate was reduced
when soil compaction was increased by wheel slippage. A decreased
water-infiltration rate of the soil usually increases water run-off and
erosion, so that excessive compaction presents water and soil conser-
vation problems.
Soil compaction will receive increasing attention because it affects
the suitability of a soil for an intended use. The economic import-
ance of compaction varies because the value of soil is associated
with use. Uses for soil continually change as man's needs change.
E
u 800
t ñ
600
Z Ü
400
^ hi
200
100 200
ANGULAR STRAIN (*»)
FIGURE 307.—Relations between soil strength, moisture tension, and void

ratio as «oil compaction is varied. (Greacen, Internatl. Soc. Sei. Cong.
Trans. (162).)
100 r
g
11 % MOISTURE CONTENT
<
z
o
¡5
OC
500 1000 1500 2000

DRAWBAR PULL (lbs)
(INCREASED WHEEL SLIP) ►
FIGURE 308.—The influence of wheel slip on infiltration of water in a loam

soil at different initial moisture contents. (Vomocil, Fountaine, and Re-
ginato, Soil Sei. Soc. Amer. (^67).)
Controlling compaction during tillage and traction is the goal. This

control will require accurate stress-compaction behavior relations
that can be described by equations. These remain to be developed.
Once developed, a means for describing distributions of the state of
compactness will be available. Only after these two entities can be
numerically described will control of soil compaction be possible.
In practice today soil compaction is controlled by the soil man-
agement system. A minimum-compaction soil management will in-
crease intake of water, reduce erosion, increase aeration, and improve
root penetration. Machine design and operation will have to be
integrated into a workable soil management system before an opti-
mum degree of compaction control can be attained.
9. SOIL DYNAMICS IN SOIL-MACHINE SYSTEMS
9.1 Systems Analysis

Soil dynamics, as developed in this handbook, has been primarily
concerned with a physical system composed of the soil and a machine.
A machine may use the soil directly to serve some purpose such as
traction; or a machine may manipulate soil to change its condition
and thereby enable it to better serve some purpose—for example,
plant growth. To evaluate a particular soil-machine system, the
purpose for which the soil will be used must be considered.
Almost without exception, the purpose for which soil is used in-
volves a broader system of which the soil-machine system is only a
subsystem. Thus, in evaluating a soil-machine system it must be
considered in the context of the broader system. Methods for sys-
tems analysis will be required, particularly when the broader system
is to be optimized. This chapter attempts to orient soil-machine sys-
terms in broader systems and describe soil dynamics in such systems.
A broad system can be evaluated if the various elements of the
system can be quantitatively described, expressed in compatible
terms, assigned relative weights of importance, and compared to
standard requirements for the broad system. Unfortunately, in
broad agriculturally or industrially oriented systems, various human,
biological, economic, or agricultural policy elements cannot be quan-
titatively described.
A major aim of research should be to develop the information re-
quired for quantitative description. Until this information is de-
veloped, two approaches exist for evaluating the performance of a
system. First, the evaluation may be based on subjective determi-
nations (by the evaluator) of how well a system meets arbitrary
standards or requirements that the evaluator feels must be obtained
by the system. Second, generalized techniques of evaluation that
have been developed in areas presently identified as systems research,
systems science, and systems engineering may be applied. The first
approach has been widely used. Its success hinges on the skill and
judgment of the evaluator and so is greatly influenced by the "human
element." The second approach minimizes the influence of the
human element and is more desirable.
Five basic steps required for developing and using systems have
been described by Eckman ( 109 ) and Hall ( 170 ) and have been
applied to so-called loose systems. The five steps parallel those re-
quired for developing a rigorous mechanics. First, the problem
must be defined so that it includes all factors that govern the rela-
tions of interest. Second, suitable objectives must be selected as
goals to be obtained or as standards to be met. Third, systems are
synthesized in the form of mathematical models that represent the
447
system of interest. Fourth, the system is analyzed by exploring the

effect of alternate subsystems or of parameters in the subsystems on
the desired or acceptable goals. Fifth, the most desirable system is
then selected from the evaluation. When the degree of definition
and representation of a system are good, the results of the evaluation
will be definite. Conversely, when the representation is poor, the
results will be indefinite.
Any system consists of a hierarchy of contributing subsystems.
The performance of the system is determined by the controlling
elements of the subsystems. The accuracy of an expression of per-
formance depends on two independent aspects, namely, the inclusion
of all controlling elements and the accuracy of definition of each
element (fig. 309). In figure 309, A represents a situation where a
single element is precisely defined with a high degree of specificity.
If the element is soil-metal friction, for example, it will not represent
the performance of a soil-tillage tool system even if soil-metal fric-
tion is described with eight-place numerical accuracy. In situation
B^ most of the elements are identified but none is described with suffi-
cient accuracy to permit an accurate estimate of the performance of
CO
O
r=- >
ÛL
cc
o
CO
LU
Û
O
h-
O
<
o
>-
" i
FRACTIONAL COMPLETE
COMPLETENESS OF REPRESENTATION
FIGURE 309.—Definition of soil-machine systems.
the system. Sandy soil and moldboard plow as a description of a

soil-tillage tool system does not permit an aqcurate description of the
performance of the system even though both subsystems are repre-
sented. In situation C both the accuracy of description and repre-
sentation are sufficient to accurately describe the performance of the
system.
Most systems in which a soil-machine system is a subsystem are
like situation B in figure 309. They are typical loose systems, where
special techniques of systems analysis can be helpful. At present
(1965), even soil-machine systems are largely loose systems. For-
tunately, however, soil-machine systems are physical systems that
can be more precisely described than can economic, social, or political
systems. Most of the factors in soil-machine systems have been
identified. The tillage equations in chapter 5 and traction equations
in chapter 7 identify the abstract factors that control the systems.
The problem is to increase the accuracy of the descriptions of these
factors so that the equations do not represent generalized intuitive
relations between abstract factors ; rather, they must represent specific
relations between definite entities that can be identified by a number.
With this information, performance of the soil-machine system can
be predicted and controlled. Soil dynamics provides the concepts
and framework so that the accuracy of the descriptions of the fac-
tors in a soil-machine system can be increased.
Soil dynamics describes, and thus permits optimizing, the factors
in a soil-machine system but has limited usefulness in other than a
soil-machine system. As already pointed out, however, the soil-
machine system is almost always a subsystem of a broader system.
Soil dynamics will be useful in the broader system only insofar as the
soil-machine system inñuences the broader system. The importance
is illustrated in table 53 where a possible hierarchy of systems is
shown for an agriculturally oriented system. The importance of
soil dynamics ranges from one of interest to one of complete control,
depending on the system that is considered. In a crop production
system, for example, soil dynamics is important only insofar as the
soil-machine system inñuences the performance of the broad system.
If this inñuence is slight, the importance of soil dynamics will be
slight. The correctness of the hierarchy of systems and controllmg
subsystems selected in table 53 does not define the importance of soil
dynamics in the various systems. Since no unique structure of
matter has been absolutely defined, no absolute grouping of systems
and subsystems can be defined. Presumably several hierarchies could
be established for the same broad system, depending on how the sub-
systems are defined. Eegardless of the hierarchy, however, soil
dynamics is centered in the soil-machine system and its use is re-
stricted to that system. Thus, the bounds of applicability of soil
dynamics are clearly established.
Soil dynamics will become increasingly important in tillage and
land locomotion in the future. The increasing world population
will require a more thorough exploitation of land areas. While the
uncertainties in land locomotion caused by Ü\^ soil can be removed
by constructing durable road surfaces, it is neither possible nor de-
sirable to build roads wherever man may travel. The results of re-
TABLE 53.—Soil dynamics as a disciplinée in the hierarchy of an

agricultural system
Contributing ^ Importance of soil

Scope of system subsystems dynamics as a discipline
in broad systems
1. Crop production
2. Animal production-
Individual farm- 3. Agricultural policy LSoil dynamics is of
(price support and \ interest,
production controls ) -
.4. Marketing system—
1. Soil-machine ."^
Crop production 2. Soil-climate ] Soil dynamics influences
system 3. Soil-plant _ > performance.
4. Plant-climate ^
Soil-machine system__. {1. Soil :5 Soil dynamics describes
2. Machine f system performance.
A. Active behavior equa-^ Soil dynamics describes
Soil-force system ) tion. / active and passive be-
]2. Passive behavior equa-j havior when soil is sub-
tion. / jected to forces.
il. Soil material proper- ")
J ties. / Dynamic properties are
Soil physical system- :S 2. Soil state properties ? determined by this
(S. Soil behavior proper-] system,
ties. '^
Soil material- (Molecular, atomic, and ) Basis of all physical
~\ subatomic factors. / systems.
search in soil dynamics will be more fully exploited in agriculture,

construction, mining, and exploration in order to improve the well-
being of mankind. Thus, the soil will become an increasingly im-
portant medium on which to travel both on earth and on planets in
outer space. Based on present knowledge (1965), basic principles
developed for soils in this planet should also apply to soils of other
planets.
The extent to which the principles of soil dynamics will be de-
veloped and successfully used depends largely on future research.
9.2 Soil Dynamics as a Discipline
The phenomena in the dynamic actions of soil and machines are
so complex that they are difficult to study as complete systems. The
need has thus arisen to break the overall actions down into simpler
study units. However, these units may have interactions that can-
not be studied in isolated systems. Isolated components, once evalu-
ated, should be recombined as soon as possible so that the total sys-
tem—rather than a series of smaller, simpler, nonrepresentative sub-
systems—is the subject of research.
The foregoing chapters indicate that only a start has been made in
obtaining the broad fundamental understanding that is required to
adequately design and properly utilize tillage tools and traction or
transport devices. From the several physical concepts that have
been identified, however, there has emerged a distinct area for re-
search, study, and application. This area is soil dynamics.
As was indicated earlier, this handbook is intended to bring to-
gether and analyze the diverse aspects of many seemingly heterogene-
ous studies pertaining to soil dynamics for the purpose of establishing
a coherent body of knowledge. As a newly defined area, soil dy-
namics must be fitted into the framework of present disciplines in
order that its significance will become apparent. Figure 310 shows
PLANT REQUIREMENTS FROM SOIL
TRANSMITTED
SUPPLIES OF AIR, HEAT,
AND WATER
MECHANICAL SUPPORT,
GROWING SPACE, LOW
MECHANICAL IMPEDANCE
PREDOMINANT AREAS OF INTEREST ■■■■ SOIL GENESIS, PHYSICS ■■■ SOIL-MACHINE DYNAMICS
FOR EACH DISCIPLINE • • • • SOIL PHYSICS !•■• SOIL PLANT DYNAMICS
FIGURE 310.—Soil dynamics as a discipline, and its association with plant

growth.
how soil dynamics is associated with plant growth. Figure 310 also
shows that soil dynamics is a newly defined area or discipline con-
cerning the dynamic action of the soil in tillage. The bulk of past
work on soil mechanics has been associated with the needs of earth-
work construction and foundations for large structures. As such,
emphasis was placed on phenomena like the slow settling of soil under
buildings—phenomena that are very different from the dynamic
phenomena involved in vehicle mobility and tillage. Soil tilth also
may evolve from genetic factors, but the active behavior of the soil
under these forces is generally very slow.
A second newly defined area is soil-plant dynamics. As m soil
genesis, the active behavior of the soil is so slow that the force re-
quired to accelerate the soil is essentially zero during movement by
plant roots. Not enough work has been done to define this area, but
the scope and importance of the work is sufficient to warrant future
development. . i • i i i •
Soil physics as viewed here is generally associated with the physi-
cal transmission activities of the soil in which soil is passive. Prog-
ress in knowledge of soil physics has been largely in terms of trans-
mission of soil moisture and soil air. Thus, if an area is recognized
where the soil is active rather than passive, specialized courses can
be taught and additional research can be directed toward obtaining
basic knowledge concerning this important soil behavior.
One final word can be said concerning soil dynamics. The farmer
has effectively integrated soil relations in his system of interest by
physical operations that are qualitative rather than quantitative;
integration will not be as easy on a technical level.
Kesearch generally develops information that separates into di-
vergent areas of greater detail rather than into simpler and more
complete bodies of knowledge. This handbook provides a frame-
work m which the independent efforts of individual workers dealing
with soil dynamics can be placed into perspective. Thus, even
though some workers proceed into divergent areas in great detail,
the relation and significance of the work can be realized and utilized
by others. It is this realization that will provide common areas of
interest for coordinating efforts in accepting and utilizing data from
other sources. While some workers are developing narrow areas of
application in detail, others may be unifying the problems of broader
scope without mutual delay or interference. This unifying aspect
of the organization of soil relations needs to be stressed in imple-
menting all work in soil dynamics. Soil dynamics recognized as a
discipline can serve this function.
9.3 Soil Dynamics and Tillage
Tillage is defined as the physical manipulation of the soil; this
definition is broader than the classical concept since it includes such
operations as land forming, earth moving, and soil conditioning.
These operations may be performed with the same tillage tools and
in the same manner as classical tillage operations even though crop
production is not contemplated. The fundamentals in the actions
of various soil-machine systems are the same, and soil dynamics de-
scribes these actions. Hence, there is no need to restrict the field
of application of soil dynamics to any specific purpose for the actions.
The dynamic actions in soil-tillage tool systems are important be-
cause of the power used in tillage. McKibben ( 268 ) has calculated
that for agriculture alone, 250 billion tons of soil are stirred or turned
each year in the United States. This volume of soil represents a
ridge 100 feet high and 1 mile wide extending from San Francisco
to New York. To plow this ridge once requires 500 million gallons
of gasoline. Even small savings of liquid fuels can be significant on
a national basis.
Energy savings may be influenced by factors other than those that
govern the operating efficiency of a tillage tool itself. The efficiency
of a tool operation can be increased only to the extent that the tillage
objectives represent minimum energy requirements or expenditures.
These objectives are determined by the requirements of the broad
system in which the soil-tool system operates. A reflection on the
tillage objectives that have been advocated in the past leads to the
conclusion that a new philosophy of tillage is required. An acre
of soil 6 inches deep weighs 2 million pounds. Plowing this acre
expends energy to move each furrow slice of soil laterally. Is this

movement really necessary or is it a byproduct of our present-day
techniques ? An equally astonishing example of wasted energy is the
work expended to loosen an entire agricultural field only to follow
this action by expending additional work to recompact most of the
field. Ultimately, only a small fraction of the total field is planted.
The American Indian's practice of using a small amount of tillage
to place a fish and a seed in a hole is diametrically opposed to the
present-day routine.
Much of this apparently unnecessary tillage is actually harmful
and goes undetected. One reason is the ease with which force can be
applied to the soil with modern machinery. Machines can be oper-
ated at high speed and can apply great force to the soil without
physical discomfort to the tiller. Thus, he is able to apply a large
amount of energy to the soil in a short time without being aware that
it may be excessive. The extent to which this practice has damaged
the soil will never be known.
Much has been made of the energy released on the soil by rain-
storms and other natural forces. The sun alone releases 2 billion
kilocalories of energy per acre per day ; but this energy is frequently
dissipated in a shallow surface layer and any hardening or crusting
at the surface can be removed with a small effort. The forces ap-
plied by machines are often large, and a high percentage of these
forces compacts soil. Unfortunately, this compaction often extends
several feet deep, and a large amount of work is required to remove
the compaction. The elimination of undesirable forces in the first
place will eliminate the secondary requirements for subsoiling and
other forms of soil renovation tillage. Man with his machines is
doing more damage to the soil in terms of plant requirements than
nature can overcome.
A second reason for unnecessary tillage may be the misguided
pride of the tiller. A clean field has been considered the mark of a
"job well done." This attitude results in tillage objectives that are
pleasing to the eye even though they may not meet plant require-
ments. Finally, unnecessary tillage results from a fixed routine in
tillage operations. The same series of operations is conducted year
after year even though some of the operations are not needed.
The realization that some conventional tillage is unnecessary is re-
sulting in new practices to minimize the misuse of energy. Conduct-
ing cultural operations from roadways, as practiced by the Hawaiian
Pineapple Industry, is an example of a technique that minimizes
traffic over soil. New so-called minimum tillage operations often till
only the soil required for planting without concern about the re-
mainder of the field. Since plant yields obtained by these prac-
tices are essentially the same as yields obtained by conventional prac-
tices, it would appear that some tillage as conventionally practiced is
not necessary and that much energy may have been unnecessarily
expended. . .
Not all minimum tillage operations save energy. Some minimum
tillage operations essentially combine all tillage tools normally used
into a giant train. If the same soil manipulations are performed on
the soil as are conventionally practiced, a reduction in the number of
trips over the soil does not necessarily constitute minimum tillage.
A clear-cut example of minimum tillage is land forming. Com-
puters have been used to calculate the minimum soil that needs to be
moved to produce acceptable grades. By varying grades within
prescribed limits, a smaller volume of soil needs to be handled.
A sequence of tillage operations to achieve a desired soil condition
is not a sacrosanct practice; rather, it is a necessity dictated by avail-
able tillage tools. The apparent philosophy guiding tillage tool de-
sign today is that each type of tool shall accomplish a specific action
and that this action will be universally applicable. Such a philoso-
phy is absurd since the soils and soil conditions that must be manip-
ulated vary greatly. The tillage equations illustrate that the result-
ing soil condition is a function of the initial soil condition. For a
constant shape and constant manner of movement (a universal tool),
the resulting condition is determined by the initial soil condition ; it
is not controlled by the tillage tool. If the resulting condition is not
suitable, the tiller selects a different tool. Again, the resulting soil
condition will be primarily determined by the condition before the
operation, since shape and manner of movement are again constant.
Because today's tiller has only limited control over the shape and
manner of movement of a tool, he is forced to do sequence opera-
tions. Only by selecting different tools in a sequence can he change
either the shape or the manner of movement or both, so as to produce
the desired final soil condition.
The present necessity of sequence operations can be avoided by
two approaches. ^ Eliminating a sequence of operations means, in
effect, that the soil will be manipulated to the desired condition in a
one-step operation. Intuitively, proceeding from initial condition
to final condition as directly as possible should require the least
energy. Since many initial conditions will be encountered and many
final conditions will be desired, many tool shapes and manners of
movement will be required. For a specific situation, the tiller must
have some means of selecting the combination of shapes and manner
of movement that will accomplish the manipulation. He must have
either a large number of shapes or a shape that he can vary and
control. He must also have either a large number of mechanisms
that will vary the manner of movement or one mechanism that he
can vary and control. The two approaches for eliminating sequence
operations thus are (1) a large number of tillage machines, each
suitable for one specific circumstance; (2) a tillage machine that
the tiller can adjust for a specific circumstance.
A combination of the two possibilities may prove to be the prac-
tical solution. To give the tiller control over soil manipulation, till-
age machines will have to become more complex ; simultaneously, the
tiller will have to become a proficient technician, capable of properly
using these machines.
Other concepts of controlling soil conditions are possible. Little
attention has been given to rocks and stones other than to remove
them from the soil. With the advent of inexpensive yet powerful
sources of energy, undesirable soil conditions may be corrected by a
mechanical breakdown of particles in the soil large enough to hinder
operations. On the other hand, artificial rocks could probably be
created if they are needed. It is conceivable that soil could be

cemented and compressed into stable disks that would protect the
surface from the climate and yet could be separated from root crops.
If slowly soluble materials were used, they would gradually dissolve
in a desired period of time.
Thus, it appears that a new philosophy of tillage is needed. The
establishment of realistic tillage requirements offers more possibilities
for economy than does any other factor. Eliminating some of the
operations now being conducted may be a greater saving than im-
proving their efficiency.
Establishing realistic tillage requirements is the first step in a
system analysis. For soil-tillage tool systems, these requirements
are determined by a broader system. Kegardless of the broader sys-
tem and its specific requirements, in any soil-tillage tool subsystem
the same type of information will be required. The type of informa-
tion needed can be placed in four broad categories. First, the de-
sired soil conditions must be known. Second, the existing soil condi-
tions must be known. Third, the combinations of shape and manner
of movement that can effect the required manipulation must be de-
terminable. Fourth, the energy required to do the manipulation
must be determinable. For a system analysis to be meaningful,
each type of information must bß expressed in definitive and com-
patible terms. When fully developed, the concepts inherent m soil
dynamics will provide the mechanism for definitive and compatible
descriptions.
Parameters of behavior equations provide the means of specitymg
the first two categories. As was discussed in section 6.2, parameters
of behavior equations quantitatively describe soil conditions in terms
that are compatible with the intended use for a soil. Thus, regard-
less of the function of soil in a broad system, its desired condition
can be defined by behavior parameters.
Control of a desired soil condition by tillage stops as soon as the
tillage is stopped. Natural forces continue to operate in, on, and
around the soil and cause dynamic reactions. These forces are not
controlled by tillage, and they may change soil conditions. In fact,
a condition that is created by tillage may be so altered by a heavy
rainfall that the effect of tillage is only momentary. Such consider-
ations do not negate the concept of using behavior parameters to
define soil conditions. Kather they illustrate the complexities m op-
timizing a broad system so that meaningful requirements can be as-
signed the soil-tillage tool subsystem.
Soil dynamics as defined here does not include behavior resulting
from natural forces. If these natural forces could be defined m the
same way that mechanical forces can be defined, the present concepts
of soil dynamics could be applied. Since natural forces cannot be
so defined, soil dynamics is restricted to the soil-tillage tool subsystem
and the bounds of its applicability are clear.
The third and fourth categories of information are useful tor
meeting the requirements placed on a soil-tillage tool subsystem.
Concepts of soil dynamics provide the mechanism for defining and
expressing the information. The tillage equations in chapter 5 are
abstract expressions of the required information. Such equations
can be established by empirical means or by a rigorous mechanics.

Concepts of soil dynamics provide the foundation on which research
can be planned so that lacking information can be obtained.
9.4 Soil Dynamics and Traction
Traction and transport vehicles that utilize rolling devices are the
most widespread means of achieving land locomotion. Land loco-
motion can also be achieved by using devices that crawl, walk, or
jump. Inherent in each act of locomotion, however, is some means
for developing thrust from the ground media. When rolling takes
place on rails, highways, or even crude roads, thrust and, conse-
quently, locomotion itself can generally be predicted. In off-the-road
movement, locomotion is highly unpredictable because of unpre-
dictable soil conditions. Increased predictability of off-the-road
movement is a goal to which the results of soil dynamics research can
be applied.
Land locomotion is a big business. It is important not only to
the industry that produces traction and transport vehicles and to the
users of these vehicles but also to the industry that supplies fuel.
Farm tractors in the United States used 3.3 billion gallons of fuel in
1959. Each year at least 500 million tons of materials are transported
from farms and ranches in the United States (268), Additional
millions of tons of construction, mining, and military materials are
moved by off-the-road vehicles. Any improvements that reduce di-
rect operating costs will be of significant importance. Since traction
IS widely used to transfer power to tillage tools, improvements that
reduce operating costs become even more important.
Locomotion with vehicles is almost universally achieved in off-the-
road conditions. The soil and vehicle constitute a system, but this
vehicle system is a subsystem of a broader system that provides the
reason for or objective of the locomotion. It is in these broader
systems that terms such as trafficability and mobility have been
used. Usually these terms refer to the performance of the soil-
vehicle system and imply a requirement of a broader system. The
terms are often misleading; for example, soil trafficability when de-
fined as "go" or "no-go" implies only that a soil can or cannot be
traversed. When trafficability is further characterized by adverb
modifiers such as easily, moderately, or with difficulty, time and cost
considerations are also implied. Mobility performance is often
expressed in equally ambiguous terms that also imply requirements of
a broader system. For example, adequate mobility may imply the
successful delivery of certain payloads under stringent conditions
not imposed by the soil per se.
Perhaps the most difficult problem in traction research has been
the establishment of realistic performance requirements. One reason
for the difficulty is the varied systems in which soil-vehicle systems
are subsystems. Broadening the scope of systems places increasing
requirements on the subsystems. Expressing these broad traction
requirements in terms compatible with soil-vehicle systems is one
bottleneck of traction research. Soil dynamics can be useful in
eliminating the bottleneck by separating elements of traction per-
formance from traction requirements.
Thrust required and speed of movement are two factors basic to
all acts of locomotion. These two factors can be combined to express

how much (thrust) and how quickly (speed) locomotion can be ac-
complished. The factors represent the functional contributions the
soil-vehicle system makes to a broader system. Thus, with these fac-
tors and an expression for the energy required to achieve locomotion,
the performance of the soil-vehicle system can be interpreted in any
broad system. Economic or other considerations are determined
by the broad system and not by the soil-vehicle subsystem. Thus,
the requirement of any broad system can be made compatible with
any soil-vehicle subsystem if the requirements are expressed in terms
of thrust, energy, and speed.
Soil dynamics is useful in developing the equations from either
empirical measurements or analytical calculations. Thus soil dy-
namics in traction is analogous to soil dynamics in tillage.
Knowledge of soil dynamics is centered in the soil-vehicle system
and cannot be applied to actions beyond that system. Its influence
in broader systems is only as important as the influence of the soil-
vehicle system itself. Concepts of soil dynamics, if fully developed,
provide a means for predicting and optimizing the performance of
soil-vehicle systems. Full development of the concepts aivaits future
research, but the direction in which the research should go is clearly
established.
Expressing the requirements of a broad locomotion system in terms
of thrust, energy, and speed translates these requirements into specific
soil-vehicle subsystem requirements that must be met. Categories of
specific information needed to meet these requirements are, therefore,
identified in a manner that is independent of any broad system.
Specific items might include soil conditions to be traversed, geometry
and flexibility of the traction devices on the vehicle, and the energy
required to effect the locomotion. Soil dynamics knowledge is useful
in quantitatively expressing the information and in predicting the
performance the soil-vehicle system contributes to the locomotion
system. As in tillage, soil dynamics does not determine the re-
quirements of the system.
The thrust available for locomotion is the net pull of a vehicle as
determined by the combined pull of the traction device less the tow-
ing force of transport devices. Traction equations (ch. 7) express
only the vehicle performance of soil-vehicle systems. Soil conditions
can be expressed by behavior equation parameters for inclusion in
the traction equations. The traction equations also describe the force
requirements (torque) needed to effect traction. When speed is in-
cluded in the equations, the energy requirements of the soil-vehicle
system can be determined.
9.5 Conclusions
Soil dynamics is a discipline concerning the study and application
of soil-machine systems. When a soil-machine system is operating,
the machine moves over or through the soil and the soil moves. Soil
moves even though flexible components such as pneumatic tires apply
the forces. Thus, soil movement is part of the action of any soil-
machine system and soil dynamics describes both the movement of the
soil and the interactions of the soil and a machine as a system.
A soil-machine system is almost universally a subsystem of a
broader system of practical interest. The broad system determines
the requirements that must be met by the soil-machine subsystem.
These requirements not only are the objectives or goals of the sub-
system; they also are the reason for the objectives. For example, a
broad system determines the reason tillage is necessary as well as the
goal that the tillage should accomplish. In addition to determining
the requirements, the broad system determines the degree of import-
ance of a soil-machine subsystem. This importance is proportional
to the influence or control that the soil-machine system has in the
action of the broad system. By describing (1) the movement of soil
and (2) the interaction of soil on a machine as a system, soil dy-
namics provides the means for quantitatively describing the func-
tional contribution of a soil-machine system to a broad system. In
addition, soil dynamics provides the means for designing the soil-
machine system so that it most effectively meets the requirements of
the broad system.
The soil dynamics discipline is not fully developed today. It is
presently a discipline of concepts rather than of methods and
solutions. Methods will be available and solutions will be possible
when the discipline is fully developed. Present concepts are based
on isolated bits of information from past research. These concepts
cannot solve problems, but they do provide perspective in a nebulous
system. This perspective is useful for five reasons: (1) It defines
and delineates the soil dynamics discipline. (2) It shows how the
elements of the discipline fit together. (3) It identifies the missing
information that is a bottleneck in developing the discipline. (4) It
provides guidelines for research that will develop the missing infor-
mation. (5) It shows how the discipline can be applied to solve
practical problems.
That soil dynamics as a discipline can benefit man is clear, but it
still must be suitably developed. The development awaits the highest
degree of originality and ingenuity in research. Fortunately, new
instrumentation, new techniques, and new knowledge are constantly
becoming available. These new tools originate not only from soil
dynamics research but also from other scientific endeavors of man.
Miniaturization of transducers for industrial and national defense
needs, development of computers for data analysis, and increased cap-
ability and sensitivity of electronic amplifiers are examples of im-
proved instrumentation. These developments provide means for
conducting research that was not possible a few years ago. Accelera-
tion forces during soil movement, for example, have been measured by
placing accelerometers in the soil during plowing ( 311 ). The tech-
nique provides a means for mapping the path soil travels as it moves
over a tool. A number of workers have applied dimensional analysis
and similitude procedures to soil dynamics research ( 30^ 35, 223,
308, 3I¡S, 4,25, JiS5, 505 ). New applications and improvements of the
techniques themselves suggest that they will have increasing value in
the future.
But to benefit man, soil dynamics requires more than just develop-
ing the discipline. Soil dynamics is not implemented—if it is merely
developed and stored on the shelves of reference libraries. It must be
used. The usefulness of soil dynamics knowledge is twofold: (1) It
provides a means fof predicting performance of soil-machine systems.

(2) It provides a means for designing a soil-machine system so that
a desired performance can be attained. Inherent in design is the
concept of attaining optimum or maximum efficiency.
Generally, a specific performance can be obtained in more than one
way. For example, a soil manipulation can probably be effected with
several combinations of tool shapes and manners of movement.
Techniques will be needed to optimize the performance of soil-
machine systems.
Systems analysis (discussed brieñy in sec. 9.1) is one technique that
will be useful. In particular, systems analysis will be useful durmg
the development of soil dynamics, when it may be classified as a
loose system. Other techniques are also available. Linear program-
ing and response surface techniques have been developed and used in
economic and industrial management problems ( P7, 116^ 165).
These techniques should also be applicable to practical soil dynamics
problems. Analogs provide another useful technique. They may
be physical ( 26, Uh ^^. Û, SJß, 383, 433, m ) so that a system
can be studied, or they may only simulate the behavior of the system
(^7,^5^).
When a soil-machine system can be synthesized with equations,
analog and digital computers can be used to optimize a specific
problem. Thus, no major obstacle appears to exist to prevent apply-
ing soil dynamics to practical problems.
Man has lived on land for many years and he will continue to do
so. During past years he has made much progress and has learned
to use land without a formal discipline of soil dynamics. A critical
analysis of man's present utilization of land shows that he employs
qualitative, intuitive methods implemented by machines varying in
complexity from hand-powered to highly-mechanized. These meth-
ods "get the job done" but they do not permit control over what is
done. To obtain control, qualitative and intuitive methods must be
replaced by quantitative, exact methods. The concepts of soil dy-
namics provide the means for making the transition. The challenge
is to fully develop the soil dynamics discipline so that better control
and use of land can be obtained.
10. SELECTED REFERENCES
A few of the following references are not readily available in

all agricultural libraries. Assistance in locating specific references
can be obtained from the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory,
Auburn, Ala.
(1) ADAMS, W. J. and FURLONG, D. B.

1959. ROTARY TILLER IN SOIL PREPARATION. Agr. Engin. 40 I 600-603,
607, iUus.
(2) ALLISON, R.
1923. THE MODULUS OF RUPTURE OF SOIL AS AN INDEX OF ITS
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE. Agron. JouF. 15: 409-415, iUus.
(3) AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS.
1959. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SOIL COMPACTION. 31 pp. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin. St. Joseph, Mich.
(4) AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS-SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY
OF AMERICA.
1958. CONCEPTS, TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS OF MEASUREMENT
FOR SOIL COMPACTION. Agr. Engin. 39: 173-176.
(5) AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY.
1952. SOIL PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND PLANT GROWTH. MonOgraph,
V. II, 491 pp., illus. New York.
(6)
1957. DRAINAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. Monograph v. VII, 620
pp., iUus. Madison, Wis.
(7) AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS.
1960. RESEARCH CONFERENCE ON SHEAR STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS.
1164 pp., iUus. New York.
(8) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR METALS.
1961. METALS HANDBOOK. Ed. 8, V. I, iUus. Novelty, Ohio.
(9) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS.
1947. SYMPOSIUM ON LOAD TESTS OF BEARING CAPACITY OF SOILS.
Spec. Tech. Pub. 79, 148 pp., iUus. Philadelphia.
(10)
1950. SYMPOSIUM ON THE IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF
SOILS. Spec Tech. Pub. 113, 91 pp., iUus. Philadelphia.
(11)
1951. SYMPOSIUM ON CONSOLIDATION TESTING OF SOILS. SpCC. Tcch
Pub. 126, 109 pp., illus. Philadelphia.
(12)
1952. SYMPOSIUM ON DIRECT SHEAR TESTING OF SOILS. SpCC. Tcch
Pub. 131, 87 pp., iUus. Philadelphia.
(13)
1953. DYNAMIC TESTING OF SOILS. Spcc. Tech. Pub. 156, 261 pp.,
illus. Philadelphia.
(14)
1958. PROCEDURES FOR SOIL TESTING. 544 pp., illus. Philadelphia.
(15)
1959. SYMPOSIUM ON PARTICLE SIZE MEASUREMENT. Spec. Tech
Pub. 234, 318 pp., nius. Philadelphia.
(16)
1961. SYMPOSIUM ON SOIL DYNAMICS. Spcc. Tech. Pub. 305,
pp., illus. Philadelphia.
460
(17) ARYA, S. V., and PICKARD, G. E.
1958. PENETRATION OF LIQUID JETS IN SOIL. Agr. Engin. 39: 1^
19, 23, illus.
(18) ASHBY, W.
1931. A METHOD OF COMPARING PLOW BOTTOM SHAPES. Agr. Engin.
12: 411-412, illus.
(19)
1929. PROGRESS REPORT ON PLOW INVESTIGATIONS. U.S. Dcpt. Agr.
Bur. Public Roads, Div. Agr. Engin. Rpt., 65 pp., illus.
(20) ATTERBERG, A.
1912. DIE KONSISTENZ UND DIE BINDIGKEIT DER BODEN. lutematl.
Mitt. f. Bodenk. 2: 149-189, illus.
(21) ATTWOOD, P. R.
1957. SOME EFFECTS OF SPEED ON THE EFFICIENCY OF ROLLING. JOUR.
Agr. Engin. Res. 2: 217-221.
(22) BAADER, W.
1961. [THE SEPARATION OF SOIL IN POTATO DIGGERS EQUIPPED WITH
OSCILLATING SIEVES.] Landtechnische FoTsch. (Munich) 11:
160-165, illus.
(23) BACON, C. A.
1920. A TREATISE ON PLOWS AND PLOWING. Ed. 2, 200 pp., illUS.
South Bend, Ind.
(24)
1929. SOME PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF ORGANIC MATTER. Agr. Eugiu.
10: 83-85, illus.
(25) BAILEY, P. H.
1956. THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF SOME TRACTION AIDS. JOUr.
Agr. Engin. Res. 1: 12-22, illus.
(26) FiLBY, D. E., and TáLAMO, J. D. C
1961. PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTS WITH A METHOD OF SIMULATING
A SOIL WITH CONTROLLABLE SHEAR STRENGTH. Jour. Agr.
Engin. Res. 6: 222-224, illus.
(27) BAINER, R., KEPNER, R. A. and BARGER, E. L.
1955. PRINCIPLES OF FARM MACHINERY. 571 pp., illus. New York.
(28) BAKHTIN, P. U.
1954. [DYNAMICS OF THE PHYSICO-MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL
IN CONNECTION WITH QUESTIONS OF CULTIVATION.] PochveU.
Inst. Im. Dokuehaeva [Leningrad] Trudy. 45: 43-215, illus.
(29) BARGER, E. L. CARLETON, W. M., MCKIBBEN, E. and BAINER, R.
G.,
1952. TRACTORS AND THEIR POWER UNITS. 496 pp., iUus. New York.
(30) BARNES, K. K., BOCKHOP, C. W., and MCLEOD, H. E.
1960. SIMILITUDE IN STUDIES OF TILLAGE IMPLEMENT FORCES. Agr.
Engin. 41: 32-37, 42, illus.
(31) BATEMAN, H. P.
1954. EFFECTS OF BASIC TILLAGE METHODS AND SOIL COMPACTION ON
CORN PRODUCTION. 111. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 654, 35 pp., illus.
(32) BAVER, L. D.
1956. SOIL PHYSICS. Ed. 3, 489 pp., illus. New York.
(33) BECKER, C. F.
1959. SOIL COMPACTION PRESSURES UNDER ROLLING PRESS WHEELS.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans., 2: 63-64, 67, 70, illus.
(34) BEKKER, M. G.
1957. INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH ON VEHICLE MOBILITY. Part 1.
Land Locomotion Lab. Rpt. 22, 126 pp., illus.
(35)
1957. THEORY OF LAND LOCOMOTION. 520 pp., illus. Ann Arbor,
Mich.
(36)
1958. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT IN TRACK-TYPE TRACTORS. Agr.
Engin. 39: 630-632, illus.
(37)
1960. OFF THE ROAD LOCOMOTION, 220 pp., illus. Ann Arbor, Mich.
(38) BERNHART, R. K.
1952. STATIC AND DYNAMIC SOIL COMPACTION. Highway Res. Board
Proc. 31: 563-592, illus.
(39) BERRY, M. O.
1948. COULTER TESTS. U.S. Tillage Mach. Lab. (Auburn, Ala.)
Ann Rpt.
(40) BERTELSEN, W. R.
1960. THE AEROMOBILE : A PERIPHERAL JET VEHICLE. AffF. Engin 41 *
290-292, illus.
(41)
1960. SOMETHING BRAND NEW IN PLOWS THE AEROPLOW. DeS
Moines Register. Aug. 21, Sect. H, p. 17-H.
(42) BiGSBY, F. W.
1961. EFFECT OF AN AIR FILM ON SOIL TO TILLAGE SURFACE FRICTION.
Ph.D. thesis. Iowa State Univ., 85 pp., illus.
(43) BiKERMAN, J. J.
1958. SURFACE CHEMISTRY. Ed. 2, 501 pp., illus. New York
(44) BJORCK, G.
1958. STUDIES ON THE DRAUGHT FORCE OF HORSES. Acta Agr.
Scand. Sup. 4, 109 pp., illus.
(45) BOA, W.
1958. DEVELOPMENT OF N.I.A.E. DITCH CLEANER. Jour. AsT Engin
Res. 3: 17-26, illus.
(46) and WHYTE, P.
1960. THE DESIGN OF A PLOUGH FOR LAYING UNDERGROUND CABLES.
Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. 5: 135-140, illus.
(47) BODMAN, G. B.
1949. METHODS OF MEASURING SOIL CONSISTENCY. Soll Sci 68* 37-
56, illus.
(48) and RUBIN, J.
1948. SOIL PUDDLING. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 13: 27-36 illus
(49) BONMARTINI, G. '
1961. THE WHEEL: ROADS—THE TRACKS: NATURAL SOILS. 272 pp.
illus. Rome. '
(50) BowDEN, F. P., and TABER, D.
1950. THE FRICTION AND LUBRICATION OF SOLIDS. 337 pp., illuS.
Oxford.
(51) BowEN, H. D.
1960. SOME PHYSICAL IMPEDANCE AND AERATION EFFECTS ON PLANTED
,^^, ^ SEEDS. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Paper 60-626, 19 pp., illus.
(52) BoYD, M. M.
1959. COMPACTION AND SLIPPAGE EFFECTS OF FORAGE HARVESTING
MACHINERY. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Paper 59-102, 7 pp
illus.
(53) BROWNING, G. M.
1950. PRINCIPLES OF SOIL PHYSICS IN RELATION TO TILLAGE Affr
Engin. 31: 341-344.
(54) BRUCE, R. R.
1955. AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SOIL COMPACTI-
,^^, BiLiTY. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 19: 253-257, illus.
(55) BRU WER, J. J.
1962. THE INSTANTANEOUS TRACTIVE EFFICIENCY OF A 12-38 PNEU-
MATic TRACTOR TIRE. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 5: 114.
(56) BUSCH, C. D.
1958. LOW COST SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE. Agr. Engin. 39: 92-93
97, 103, illus. * '
(57)
1958. MECHANICAL MOUSE AIDS RESEARCH IN SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
Agr. Engin. 39: 292-293, illus.
(58) CAREW, N.
/^^^ •^^^^* ®^^^ COMPACTION. Sugar Jour. 18: 35-38, illus.
(59) CARLETON, W. M., and MARTIN, J. W.
1945. SHARPENING AND HARDSURFACING PLOW AND LISTER SHARES
Kans. Engin. Expt. Sta. Bui. 44, 40 pp., illus
(60) CARLSON, E. C.
1961. PLOWS AND COMPUTERS. Agr. Engin. 42: 292-295, 307, illus.
CABNES, A.
1934. SOIL CRUSTS METHODS OF STUDY, THEIR STRENGTH, AND A
METHOD OF OVERCOMING THEIR INJURY TO COTTON STAND. Agr.
Engin. 15: 167-171, illus.
CARPENTER, F. G., and DEITZ, V. R.
1951. GLASS SPHERES FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE
OPENING OF TESTING SIEVES. [U.S.] Nat'l. Bur. Standards
Jour. Res.. 47 : 139-147, illus.
CASAGRANDE, A.
1947. CLASSIFICATON AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS. AMER. SOC.
Civ. Engin. Proc. 73: 783-810, illus.
1955. LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF ELECTRO-OS-

MOSIS ON FINE-GRAINED SOILS. Soil Mech. Lab., Harvard
Univ. Rpt. to Bur. Yards and Docks, illus.
CEGNAR, A., and FAUSTI, F.
1961. MOVEMENTS UNDER THE CONTACT AREA OF RADIAL AND CON-
VENTIONAL TIRES. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans., 4: 224-
225, illus.
CHANCELLOR, W. J., and SCHMIDT, R. H.
1962. A STUDY OF SOIL DEFORMATION BENEATH SURFACE LOADS. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 5: 240-246, 249, illus.
CHASE, L. W.
1942. A STUDY OF SUBSURFACE TILLER BLADES. Agr. Engin. 23: 43-
45, 50, illus.
CHEMICAL RUBBER PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1950. HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS. Ed. 32, 2879 pp.
Cleveland.
CHEPIL, W. S.
1951. AN AIR ELUTRIATOR FOR DETERMINING THE DRY AGGREGATE SOIL
STRUCTURE IN RELATION TO ERODIBILITY BY WIND. Soil Sci.
71: 197-207, illus.
1951. IMPROVED ROTARY SIEVE FOR MEASURING STATE AND STABILITY

OF DRY SOIL STRUCTURE. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 16: 113-
117, illus.
1951. PROPERTIES OF SOIL WHICH INFLUENCE WIND EROSION : V.

MECHANICAL STABILITY OF STRUCTURE. Soil Sci. 72: 465-478,
illus.
1958. SOIL CONDITIONS THAT INFLUENCE WIND EROSION. U.S. Dept.

Agr. Tech. Bui. 1185, 39 pp., illus.
WOODRUFF, N. P., SIDDOWAY, F. R., and LYLES, L.
1960. ANCHORING VEGETATIVE MULCHES. Agr. Eugiu. 41: 754-755,
759, illus.
CHILDS, E. C.
1955. THE PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF SOME CONCEPTS IN SOIL MECHANICS.
Nati. Acad. Sei. Proc. (India) 24A: 86-92, illus.
CLYDE, A. W.
1936. MEASUREMENT OF FORCES ON TILLAGE TOOLS. Agr. EugiU. 17 :
5-9, illus.
1937. LOAD STUDIES ON TILLAGE TOOLS. Agr. Eugiu. 18: 117-121,

illus.
1944. TECHNICAL FEATURES OF TILLAGE TOOLS. Pa. Agr. Expt. Sta.

Bui. 465, 40 pp., illus.
COHRON, G. T.
1961. MODEL TESTING OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT. Amer, SOC. Agr.
Engin. Paper 61-113, 4 pp., illus.
1963. SOIL SHEARGRAPH. Agr. Engin. 44: 554-556.

(80) COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC and INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION.

1960. INTERP ARTICLE FORCES IN CLAY-WATER-ELECTROLYTE SYSTEM.
Univ. of Melbourne, Australia, illus.
(81) COOPER, A. W., and MCCREERY, W. F.
1961. PLASTIC SURFACES FOR TILLAGE TOOLS. Amer. Soc. Agr Engin
Paper 61-649, 8 pp., illus.
(82) and REAVES, C. A.
1960. STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN THE SOIL UNDER TRACTOR LOADS.
Fifth Internatl. Cong. Agr. Engin. 1958 Trans. (Brussels)
2: 1190-1198, illus.
(83) VANDEN BERG, G. E., MCCOLLY, H. F., and ERICKSON, A. E.
1957. STRAIN GAGE CELL MEASURES SOIL PRESSURE. Agr Engin
38: 232-235, 246, illus.
(84) CORLEY, T. E.
1949. AN ANALYSIS OF A MOLDBOARD PLOW SURFACE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF IMPROVING ITS PERFORMANCE. M. S. Thesis, Aubum Univ.,
34 pp., illus.
(85) CowiN, S. C. KONDNER, R. L., and AYRE, R. S.
1958. BIBLIOGRAPHY RELATING TO VIBRATORY CUTTING, PENETRATION
AND COMPACTION OF SOILS,. Tech. Rpt. 2 by Johns Hopkins
Univ. to U.S. Army Corps of Engin., Waterways Expt. Sta.,
Vicksburg, Miss., 37 pp.
(86) KoNDNER, R. L., and AYRE, R. S.
1958. BIBLIOGRAPHY RELATING TO VIBRATORY CUTTING, PENETRATION,
AND COMPACTION OF SOILS. Supp. 1, Tech. Rpt. 3 by Johns
Hopkins Univ. to U.S. Army Corps of Engin., Waterways
Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, Miss., 34 pp.
(87) KoNDNER, R. L., and AYRE, R. S.
1958. A CRITICAL REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE RELATING TO THE
VIBRATORY CUTTING, PENETRATION, AND COMPACTION OF SOILS.
Tech. Rpt. 4 by Johns Hopkins Univ. to U.S. Army Corps of
Engin., Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, Miss., 40 pp
(88) CRONEY, D., and COLEMAN, J. D.
1954. SOIL STRUCTURE IN RELATION TO SOIL SUCTION (üF) Jour
Soil Sei. 5: 75-84, illus.
(89) CROWTHER, E. M., and HAINES, W. B.
1924. AN ELECTRICAL METHOD FOR THE REDUCTION OF DRAFT IN PLOW-
ING. Jour. Agr. Sei. 14: 221-231, illus.
(90) CULPIN, C.
1937. STUDIES ON THE RELATION BETWEEN CULTIVATION IMPLEMENTS,
SOIL STRUCTURE AND THE CROP. III. ROLLS: AN ACCOUNT
OF METHODS EMPLOYED IN A STUDY OF THEIR ACTIONS ON
THE SOIL. Jour. Agr. Sei. 27: 432-446. illus.
(91) CYKLER, J. F., and TRIBBLE, R. T.
1961. PRINCIPLES OF INJECTION SOIL FUMIGATION. Amer Soc Agr
Engin. Trans., 4: 199-202, illus.
(92) DADAEV, G. T.
1958. [RAMMING ROLLER FOR SOIL COMPACTION.] Gidrotekhnika Me-
lioratsiya [Moscow] 10(31) : 18-25, illus. [Off. Tech Serv
Eng. Translation, 60-21158.]
(93) DANO, P. L.
1961. THE INFLUENCE OF SOIL CONDITIONS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
ELECTRO-OSMOSIS AND TEFLON IN REDUCING SLIDING FRICTION
M. S. Thesis, Auburn Univ., 115 pp., illus.
(94) DAVIDSON, J. B., and COLLINS, E. V.
1929. THE DIRECT APPLICATION OF MECHANICAL POWER TO SOIL TIL-
LAGE. Agr. Engin. 10: 165-168, illus.
(95) COLLINS, E. V., and MCKIBBEN, E. G.
1935. TRACTIVE EFFICIENCY OF THE FARM TRACTOR. lowa Agr EXDt
sta. Res. Bui. 189, pp. 258-333, illus.
(96) and MCKIBBEN, E. G.
1940. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINES. X. THE
VALUE AND COST OF PNEUMATIC TIRES. Agr. Engin. 21 * 319-
321, illus.
DAVIES, D. L.
1954. THE DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL EXPERIMENTS. 636
pp., illus. London and Edinburgh.
DAVIS, W. M.
1961. IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN RELATION TO TRACTOR DESIGN.
DAY, P. R..
1950. PHYSICAL BASIS OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS BY THE HYDRO-
METER METHOD. Soil Sei. 70: 363-374, illus.
and HOLMGREN, G.
1952. MICROSCOPIC CHANGES IN SOIL STRUCTURE DURING COMPRESSION.
Soil Sei. Soe. Amer. Proc. 16: 73-77, illus.
DELEENHEER, L., and DEBOODT, M.
1958. DETERMINATION OF AGGREGATE STABILITY BY THE CHANGE IN
MEAN WEIGHT DIAMETER, Intomatl. Syuipos. OU Soil Struc-
ture Proe. (Ghent, Belgium) pp. 290-300, illus.
DICKSON, W. J.
1962. GROUND VEHICLE MOBILITY ON SOFT TERRAIN. AMER. SOC. CIV.
Engin. Proc. 88 (SM4, pt. 1) : 69-83, illus.
DiNGLINGER, E.
1932. THE CUTTING OF SAND. Engineering 134: 116-118.
DOMSCH, M.
1955. [PROBLEMS OF SOIL CULTIVATION.] 140 pp., illus. Berlin.
DONER, R. D.
1936. A THEORY OF ARCH ACTION IN GRANULAR MEDIA. Agr. Eugiu.
17: 299-304, illus.
and NICHOLS, M. L.
1934. THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL. V. DYNAMICS OF SOIL ON
PLOW MOLDBOARD SURFACES RELATING TO SCOURING. Agr.
Engin. 15: 9-13, illus.
DUBROVSKII, A. A.
1956. [INFLUENCE OF VIBRATING THE TOOLS OF CULTIVATION IMPLE-
MENTS UPON DRAFT RESISTANCE.] Vsesoiuzz. Akad. Scl' skok-
hozhaistvenny k h Nauk. Zeml. Mekh. Shorn. Trudov.
(Leningrad) 3: 182-185, illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin.,
Eng. Translation 51.]
Dupuis, H.
1959. EFFECT OF TRACTOR OPERATION ON HUMAN STRESS. Agr. EugiU.
40: 510-519, 525, illus.
ECKMAN, D. P.
1960. SYSTEMS : RESEARCH AND DESIGN. 310 pp., illus. New York.
EGGEN MÜLLER, A.
1958. [OSCILLATING IMPLEMENTS : KINEMATICS AND EXPERIMENTS
WITH MODELS.] Grundlagen der Landtechnik 10: 55-69, illus.
1958. [FIELD EXPERIMENTS WITH AN OSCILLATING PLOW BODY.]

Grundlagen der Landtechnik 10: 89-95, illus.
ELIEZER, J. C.
1946. ON DIRAC'S THEORY OF QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS. Roy.
Soc. London, Proc, Ser. A, 123: 197-210, illus.
EVANS, I., and SHERRATT, G. G.
1948. A SIMPLE AND CONVENIENT INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING THE
SHEARING RESISTANCE OF CLAY SOILS. Jour. Sei. Inst. 25 :
411-414, illus.
FAIRBANKS, G. E.
1961. WEAR RESISTANCE OF TILLAGE TOOLS CUTTING EDGES. Amer.
SOC. Agr. Engin. Paper 61-122, 10 pp., illus.
FARMING MECHANIZATION.
1962. Shin Norin Co., Ltd., Tokyo.
FiCKEN, F. A.
1961. THE SIMPLEX METHOD OF LINEAR PROGRAMMING. 58 pp. NcW
York.
FISCHER, J. J.
1960. SOLID-SOLID BLENDING. Chcm. Eugiu. 67: (17) 107-128,
illus.
K
(118) FiscHER-ScHLEMM, W. E., and MOSER, E.

1958. [TRIALS WITH AN AUGER-TYPE PLOW.] Landtechnische Forsch.
(Munich) 8: 95-101, illus.
(119) FISHER, R. A.
1926. ON THE CAPILLARY FORCES IN AN IDEAL SOIL, CORRECTION OF
FORMULA GIVEN BY w. B. HAINES. Jour. Agr. Sci. 16: 492-
505, illus.
(120)
1928. FURTHER NOTE ON THE CAPILLARY FORCES IN AN IDEAL SOIL.
Jour. Agr. Sei. 18: 406-410, illus.
(121) FLEHR, F.
1953. [POSSIBILITIES OF A MORE STREAMLINED DESIGN OF AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENTS AND TOOLS.] Laudtechnische Forsch,
(Munich) 3: 53-56.
(122) FLYNN, P. F., and STRAIT, J.
1962. AN ANALYSIS OF SOIL FORCES ACTING ON THE ROTARY HOE.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Paper 62-145, 7 pp., illus.
(123) FORREST, P. J.
1958. TRANSPORT. Tillage and Traction Equipment Seminar Proc.
U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv., ARS-42-16, 54 pp., illus.
(124) REED, I. F., and CONSTANTAKIS, G. V.
1962. TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF RADIAL PLY TIRES. AmCr. SoC.
Agr. Engin. Trans. 5: 108, 115. illus.
(125) FOSTER, C. R. KNIGHT, S. J. and RULA, A. A.
1958. SOIL TRAFFiCABiLiTY. In Tillage and Traction Equipment
Seminar Proc, U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv., ARS 42-16,
pp. 35-43, illus.
(126) FOUNTAINE, E. R.
1953. A SOIL ADHESION METER. Nati. lust. Agr. Engin. Tech.
Memo. 96, 9 pp., illus.
(127)
1954. INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE MECHANISM OF SOIL ADHESION.
Jour. Soil Sei. 5: 251-263, illus.
(128) Brown, N. J., and Payne, P. C. J.
1956. THE MEASUREMENT OF SOIL WORKABILITY. 6th lutematl.
Cong. Soil. Sei.' (Paris) 6: 495-504, illus.
(129) and PAYNE, P. C. J.
1951. THE SHEAR STRENGTH OF TOP SOILS. Nati. lUSt. Agr. Eugiu.
Tech. Memo. 42, 7 pp., illus.
1952. THE EFFECT OF TRACTORS ON VOLUME WEIGHT AND OTHER SOIL
PROPERTIES. Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin. CS 17, 34 pp., illus.
1954. CAUSES OF NON-SCOURING IN SOIL WORKING IMPLEMENTS.
Fifth Internatl. Cong. Soil Sei. Trans. (Leopoldville) 2:
35-45, illus.
(132) Fouss, J. L., and DONNAN, W. W.
1962. PLASTIC-LINED MOLE DRAINS. Agr. Engin. 43: 512-515, illus.
(133) Fox, W. R., and BOCKHOP, C. W.
1962. CHARACTERISTICS OF A TEFLON-COVERED SIMPLE TILLAGE TOOL.
Amer. Soe. Agr. Engin. Paper 62-649, 10 pp., illus.
(134) FREITAG, D. R.
1962. THE PERFORMANCE OF TRANSPORT WHEELS IN SAND. Aubum
Univ. AN 604 Spec. Prob. Rpt., 29 pp., illus.
(135) FREVERT, R. K.
1940. MECHANICS OF TILLAGE. M. S. Thesis. Iowa State Univ.,
Ames, illus.
(136) FROELICH, O. K.
1934. [PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION IN FOUNDATION SOILS.] Waterways
Expt. Sta. Vieksburg, Miss. [Eng. Translation 46-11], illus.
(137) GANTT, C. W. Jr.
1962. PENETRATING ABILITIES AND POWER REQUIREMENTS OF DISK
COULTERS. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Georgia, 47 pp., illus.
(138) GARBOTZ, G., and DREES, G.
1958. [EXPERIMENTS ON THE PLAY OF FORCES WITH FLAT EXCAVATOR
CUTTING TOOLS. MEDIUM SAND AND SLIGHTLY BINDING SANDY
SILT WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE LEVELING BLADES
AND PLANE SCRAPER BUCKET CUTTING EDGES.] RcS. Rpt. 430,
illus. Min. of Trade and Com., North-Rhine Westphalia,
West Germany. [Engin. Res. Devlpmt. Lab., Ft. Belvoir,
Va., Eng. Translation T-318.]
(139) GARDNER, W. R.
1956. REPRESENTATION OF SOIL AGGREGATE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION BY A
LOGARITHMIC-NORMAL DISTRIBUTION. Soil Sci. SOC. Amer.
Proc. 20: 151-153, illus.
(140) GAVRILOV, F. L, and KORUSCHKIN, E. N.
1954 [THE UNDERSIDE CHAMFER OF PLOUGH SHARES.] SelkhOZma-
shina 3 : 18-21, illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Trans-
lation. 21.]
(141) GEIGER, M. L.
1961. VALUE OF DIFFERENTIAL LOCKS FOR FARM TRACTORS. Agr.
Engin. 42: 124-127, 139, 140, illus.
(142) GETZLAFF, G.
1953. [THE FORCES ACTING DURING THE PLOWING OF STONY GROUND.]
Grundlagen der Landtechnik 5: 7-15, illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr.
Engin., Eng. Translation 5.]
(143)
1953. [COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE FORCES ACTING ON STANDARD
PLOUGH BODIES.] Grundlagen der Landtechnik 5: 16-35,
illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation 6.]
(144)
1953. [THE FORCES ACTING ON POWER DRIVEN PLOUGH DISCS.] Grund-
lagen der Landtechnik 5: 36-41, illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr.
(145) and SOEHNE, W.
1959. [FORCES AND POWER REQUIREMENTS OF FREELY ROTATING AND
DRIVEN PLOUGH DISCS ON HARD, DRY, CLAYEY LOAM.] Grund-
(146) GiLL, W. R.
1959 THE EFFECTS OF DRYING ON THE MECHANICAL STRENGTH OF
LLOYD CLAY. Soil Sci. Soc. Amcr. Proc 23: 255-257, illus.
1959. SOIL COMPACTION BY TRAFFIC. Agr. Eugiu. 40: 392-394, 400,

402, illus.
(148)
1961. MECHANICAL IMPEDANCE OF PLANTS BY COMPACT SOILS. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 4: 238-242, illus.
(149) and MCCREERY, W. F.
1960. RELATION OF SIZE OF CUT TO TILLAGE TOOL EFFICIENCY. Agr.
Engin. 41: 372-374, 381, illus.
1956. COMPACTION PATTERNS OF SMOOTH RUBBER TIRES. Agr. Eugiu.
37: 677-680, 684, illus.
1957. RELATIONSHIPS OF ATTERBERG LIMITS AND CATION-EXCHANGE
CAPACITY TO SOME PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 21: 491^94, illus.
(152) GiLMOUR, W. D.
1960. AN ELECTRONIC POTATO SCREENER. Jour. Agr. Eugiu. Res.
5: 437-440, illus.
(153) GLASSTONE, S.
1946. TEXTBOOK ON PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY. Ed. 2, 1320 pp., illUS.
New York.
(154) GLERUM, J. C.
1954. [CAGE WHEELS.] Landb. Meeh. (Wageningen, Netherlands)
5: 18.
(155) GLIEMEROTH, G.
1953.[INVESTIGATIONS OF COMPACTION AND DISPLACEMENT PHE-
NOMENA IN THE SOIL UNDER WHEEL AND TRACK VEHICLES.]
,,^^ Ztschr. f. Acker und Pflanzenbau 96: 218-234, illus.
(156) GoHLicH, H.
1955. [INVESTIGATIONS ON A POWER DRIVEN TRAILER.] Landtechnik
10(6) : 127, illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation
(157) GOLDBECK, A. T.
1916. AN APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING SOIL PRESSURES AuiCr SOC
,,^^, ^ Testing Mater. Proc. 16: 310-319, illus.
(158) GORYACHKIN, V. P.
1940. COLLECTED WORKS, Sel'khozgiz, Moscow.
(159) GORDON, E. D.
1941. PHYSICAL REACTIONS OF SOIL ON PLOW DISKS AsT Euffin
22: 205-208, illus. * ^ *
(160) GOULD, J. S., and WATERMAN, H.
1867. REPORT ON TRIALS OF PLOWS. N. Y. State Soc. Trans 27«
385-656, illus.
(161) GREACEN, E. L.
1959. THE STRENGTH OF CULTIVATED SOIL. Jour. Agr. Engin. Res.
4: 60-61, illus.
(162)
1960. AGGREGATE STRENGTH AND SOIL CONSISTENCE. 7th Interna tl
Cong. Soil Sei. Trans. (Madison, Wis.) 1: 256-264 illus
(163) ■
1960. WATER CONTENT AND SOIL STRENGTH. Jour. Soil Soi 11'
313-333. Illus.
(164) GREEN, H. C.
1957. SOME EXPERIMENTS ON THE CLEANING OF SUGAR BEETS. Jour
(165) GREEN WALD, D. U.
1957. LINEAR PROGRAMMING. 75 pp., illus., New York
(166) GROSSMAN, R. B., and CLINE, M. G.
1957. FRAGIPAN HORIZONS IN NEW YORK SOILS : II. RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN RIGIDITY AND PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Soil Sci
Soc. Amer. Proc. 21: 322-325, illus.
(167) GuNN, J. T., and TRAMONTINI, V. N.
1955. OSCILLATION OF TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS. Agr. Engin. 36:725-
(168) HAEFELI, R.
1951. INVESTIGATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE SHEAR STRENGTH
OF SATURATED COHESIVE SOILS. Geotechnioue 2: 186-208
illus. '
(169) HAINES, W. B.
1925. STUDIES IN THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOILS. I. MECHANICAL
PROPERTIES CONCERNED IN CULTIVATION. Jour Affr Soi 1^'
178-200, illus. • ^
(170) HALL, A. D.
1962. A METHODOLOGY FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 478 DD illn«î
Princeton, N. J. ^^*' '
(171) HANAVAN, M. T., and REECE, A. R.
1961. IMPACT LOADS ON TRACTOR IMPLEMENTS. Jour Aer Enîn
Res. 6: 161-168, illus. ' ^
(172) HANKS, R. J., and HARKNESS, K. A.
1956. SOIL PENETROMETER EMPLOYS STRAIN GAGES. Agr Euirin
37: 553-554, illus. ^ J^n^m.
(173) HARDY, E. A.
1938. TILLAGE IN RELATION TO WEED ROOT SYSTEMS. Agr. Engin
19: 435-438, illus.
(174) HARDY, F.
1925. COHESION IN COLLOIDAL SOILS. Jour. Agr. Sei. 15: 420-433,
(175) HARRIS, W. L., BUCHELE, W. F., and MALVERN, L. E.

1964. RELATIONSHIP OF MEAN STRESS, VOLUMETRIC STRAIN AND DY-
NAMIC LOADS IN SOIL. Amei*. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 7:
362-364, 369, illus.
(176) HARRISON, W. L., JR.
1961. ANALYTICAL PREDICTION OF PERFORMANCE FOR FULL SIZE AND
SMALL SCALE MODEL VEHICLES. Ist IntematL Gonf. Mech.
Soil-Vehicle Systems Proc. (Turin), pp. 678-702, illus.
(177) HARROUND, D.
1953. INVESTIGATION OF FURTHER USEFULNESS MARK. II. SOIL
TRUSS. Contract Rpt. N. O. Y. 73519, Jour. Civ. Engin.
Dept, Univ. of Pa., 72 pp., illus.
(178) HAGEDUS, E.
1962. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION UNDER RIGID WHEELS. Amer. SoC.
Agr. Engin. Paper 62-647, 13 pp., illus.
(179) HEITSHU, D. C.
1952. THE KINEMATICS OF TRACTOR HITCHES. Agr. Eugiu. 33: 343-
346, 356, illus.
(180) HENDRICK, J. C, and BUCHELE, W. F.
1963. THE TILLAGE ENERGY OF A VIBRATING TILLAGE TOOL. Amcr.
(181) and VANDEN BERG, G. E.
1961. STRENGTH AND ENERGY RELATIONS OF A DYNAMICALLY LOADED
CLAY SOIL. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 4: 31-32, 36, illus.
(182) HILL, R.
1950. THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLASTICITY. 373 pp., illus.
Oxford.
(183) HoLBERT, J. R., and KOEHLER, B.
1924. ANCHORAGE AND EXTENT OF CORN ROOT SYSTEMS. Jour. Agr.
Res. 27: 71-73, illus.
(184) HOUGH, B. K.
1957. BASIC SOILS ENGINEERING. 513 pp., illus. Ncw York.
(185) HOVÁNESIAN, J. D.
1958. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF A VOLUMETRIC TRANSDUCER FOR
STUDIES OF PARAMETERS UPON SOIL COMPACTION. Ph. D.
Thesis, Mich. State Univ., 77 pp., illus.
(186) and BUCHELE, W. F.
1959. DEVELOPMENT OF A RECORDING VOLUMETRIC TRANSDUCER FOR
STUDYING EFFECTS OF SOIL PARAMETERS ON COMPACTION.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 2: 78-81, illus.
(187) HUECKEL, S.
1957. MODEL TESTS ON ANCHORING CAPACITY OF VERTICAL AND IN-
CLINED PLATES. 4th Internatl. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found.
Engin. Proc. (London) 11: 203-206, illus.
(188) HuLBURT, W. C, and MENZEL, R. G.
1953. SOIL MIXING CHARACTERISTICS OF TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS. Agr.
Engin. 34: 702-704, 706, 708, illus.
(189) HuLST, H., GoHLicH, H., and SOCHTING, B.
1957. [INVESTIGATIONS ON LIFTING SHARES FOR SUGAR BEETS.]
Zucker 10: 535-538, illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng.
Translation 47.]
(190) JAEGER, J. C.
1956. ELASTICITY, FRACTURE AND FLOW WITH ENGINEERING AND GEO-
LOGICAL APPLICATIONS. 152 pp., illus. New York.
(191) JAMISON, V. C.
1945. THE PENETRATION OF IRRIGATION AND RAIN WATER INTO SANDY
SOILS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc 10: 25-
29, illus.
(192) and REED, I. F.
1949. DURABLE ASBESTOS TENSION TABLES. Soil Sei. 67: 311-318,
illus.
(193)
1954. THE EFFECT OF SOIL CONDITIONERS ON FRIABILITY AND COM-
PACTiBiLiTY OF SOILS. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc 18: 391-
394, illus.
(194)
1960. WATER MOVEMENT RESTRICTION BY PLANT RESIDUES IN A SILT
LOAM SOIL. 7th Internat!. Soil Sei. Trans. (Madison, Wis.)
1: 464-472, illus.
(195) and WEAVER, H. A.
1952. THE RELATIONSHIP OF MOISTURE AND MICROPOROSITY TO THE
HARDNESS OF LLOYD CLAY. AgTon. Jour. 44: 337, illus.
(196) WEAVER, H. A., and REED, I. F.
1951. THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRACTOR TIRE COMPACTION EFFECTS IN
CECIL CLAY. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 15: 34-37, illus.
(197) JANERT, H.
1955. [THE GRIEFWALDER PIPE-LAYING MACHINE AND ITS OPERATION.]
Wasserwirtschaft-Wassertechnik 5: 123-150, illus. [U.S.
Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv., Soil and Water Conserv. Res.
Div,. Eng. Translation Spec. Rpt. 79.]
(198) JANOSI, Z.
1962. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PERFORMANCE OF TRACKS AND
WHEELS OPERATING ON DEFORMARLE SOIL. Amer. SoC. Agr.
Engin. Trans. 5: 133-134, 146, illus.
(199) JEFFERSON, T.
1799. DESCRIPTION OF A MOULDBOARD. London Phil. Soc. Proc, pp
313-322, illus.
(200) JENKIN, C. F.
1931. THE PRESSURE EXERTED BY GRANULAR MATERIAL: AN APPLICA-
TION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DILANTANCY. Roy. Soc. LoudOU,
Proc, Ser. A, 131: 53-89, illus.
(201)
1932. LETTER TO THE EDITOR. Engineering 134: 151.
(202) JOHNSON, O. E.
1960. DESIGN FACTORS IN A SPRING-TRIP BEAM ASSEMBLY FOR MOLD-
BOARD PLOWS. Amer. Soc Agr. Engin. Trans. 3: 2: 61-62,
illus.
(203) JOHNSON, W. H.
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION. Agr. Engin. Dept., Ohio State
Univ.
(204) KABURAKI, H., and Kisu, M.
1959. [STUDIES ON CUTTING CHARACTERISTICS OF PLOWS.] KantO-
Tosan Agr. Exp. Sta. Jour. (Konosu, Japan) 12: 90-114,
illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation 79.]
(205) and Kisu, M.
1960. [STUDIES ON CUTTING CHARACTERISTICS OF PLOUGHS. PART II.
SOIL STICKING TO THE PLOUGH.] Kauto-Tosau Agr. Expt. Sta.
Journ. (Konosu, Japan) 16: 309-322, illus. [Nati. Inst.
Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation 108.]
(206) KARATISH, A.
1955. [THE WEAR OF THE WORKING ELEMENTS OF SOIL CULTIVATION
IMPLEMENTS.] Mashiuo-traktomdia Sta. 15: 30-32, illus.
[Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation 29.]
(207) KAWAMURA, N.
1952. [STUDY OF THE PLOW SHAPE. (1). APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF
THE SOD PLOW.] Soc Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) 13: 1-3, illus.
(208)
1952. [STUDY OF THE PLOW SHAPE. (2). ANALYSIS OF THE SOD
PLOW CONSIDERING STRENGTH OF SOIL.] Soc Agr. Mach Jour
(Japan) 13: 4-8, illus.
(209)
1952. [STUDY OF THE PLOW SHAPE. (3). STUDY ON SOIL CUTTING
AND PULVERIZATION (1).] Soc Agp. Mach. Jour. (Japan)
14 (3) : 65-71, illus.
(210)
1953. [STUDY OF THE PLOW SHAPE. (4.) STUDY ON SOIL CUTTING
AND PULVERIZATION (2.)] Soc Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan)
15(3) : 90-94, illus.
(211)
1957. [CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL RESISTANCE OF VARIOUS SHAPE
MOLDBOARD PLOWS.] Osaka [Japan] Univ. Bui. Ser. B 7:
65-75, illus.
(212)
1957. [EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF PLOW SHAPES.] SOC. Agr. Mach.
Jour., (Japan) 19: 97-100, illus.
(213)
1958. DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR OF SOIL. II. HIGH SPEED TRIAXIAL COM-
PRESSION TEST. Soc. Agr. Mach. Jour. (Japan) 20: 101-
103, illus.
(214) KEEN, B. A.
1931. THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE SOIL. 380 pp., lUUS. NCW
York.
(215) and HAINES, W. B.
1925. STUDIES IN SOIL CULTIVATION. Jour. Agr. Sei. 15: 375-406,
illus.
(216) KERESELIDZE, S. Y., KHUKHUNI, T. V., and SHKOLNIK, E. B.
1959. [INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE OPERATION OF THE AUTOMATIC
STABILIZER OF THE USG-12A HILLSIDE TRACTOR.] TraktOry Í
Sel'khozmashiny (Moscow) 3: 4, illus. [Jour. Agr. Engin.
Res. 4: 267-273, Eng. Translation.]
(217) KHAMIDOV, A.
1961. [USE OF GAMMA-RAYS IN THE STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF
WHEELS ON THE SOIL.] Trudy VIM 28: 94-107, illus. [Jour.
Agr. Engin. Res. 6: 147-152, Eng. Translation.]
(218) KiRKHAM, D., DEBOODT, M. F., and DELEENHEER, L.
1959. MODULUS OF RUPTURE DETERMINATION ON UNDISTURBED SOIL
CORE SAMPLES. Soil Scl. 87: 141-144, illus.
(219) KLIEFOTH, F.
1954. [STRUCTURE DAMAGE THROUGH THE SLIDING OF WHEELS.]
Landtechnik 9: 122-123, illus.
(220) KNIGHT, S. J. and FREITAG, D. R.
1962. MEASUREMENT OF SOIL TRAFFICABILITY CHARACTERISTICS.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans., 5: 121-124, 132, illus.
(221) KNOX, E. G.
1957. FRAGIPAN HORIZONS IN NEW YORK SOILS. III. THE BASIS
OF RIGIDITY. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 21: 326-330, illus.
(222) KOLCHIN, N. N.
1957. [COMBINED PNEUMATIC AND MECHANICAL SEPARATION OF POTATO
TUBERS FROM CLODS.] Sel'khozmashina 3 : 19-21, illus. [Jour.
Agr. ^ngin. Res. 2: 238-240, Eng. Translation.]
(223) KONDNER, R. L.
1958. A NON-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO THE VIBRATORY CUTTING,
COMPACTION AND PENETRATION OF SOILS. Tech. Rpt. 8 by the
Johns Hopkins Univ. to U.S. Army Corps of Engin., Water-
ways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, Miss., 183 pp., illus.
(224)
1959. THE VIBRATORY CUTTING, COMPACTION AND PENETRATION OF
SOILS. Tech. Rpt. 7 (Part II), by the Johns Hopkins Univ.
to U.S. Army Corps of Engin., Waterways Expt. Sta.,
Vicksburg, Miss., 51 pp., illus.
(225)
1962. A PENETROMETER STUDY OF THE IN SITU STRENGTH OF CLAYS.
Mater. Res. and Standards 2: 193-195, illus.
(226) and AYRE, R. S.
1959. STUDY OF VIBRATORY CUTTING, PENETRATION AND COMPACTION
OF SOILS. Tech. Rpt. 6 by the Johns Hopkins Univ. to U.S.
Army Corps of Engin., Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg,
Miss., 7 pp., illus.
(227) AYRE, R. S., and CHAE, Y. S.
1958. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE VIBRATORY CUTTING AND
PENETRATION OF SOILS (part 1). Tcch. Rpt. 5 by the Johns
Hopkins Univ. to U.S. Army Corps of Engin., Waterways
Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, Miss., 12 pp., illus.
(228) KOOPMAN, N. P.
1957. [RESEARCH ABOUT THE WEAR OF PLOW SHARES.] Rpt. Agr.
State Univ., Dept. Agr. Engin., Wageningen, Netherlands,
illus.
(229) KORAYEM, A. Y.
1961. FRicTiONAL PROPERTIES OF ARTIFICIAL SOILS. Unpublished M.
S. Thesis, Univ. of Calif., illus.
(230) KosTRiTSYN, A. K.
1956. [CUTTING OF A COHESIVE MEDIUM WITH KNIVES AND CONES.]
Vsesoiuzz. Akad. Sel'skokhoziaistvennykh Nauk. Zeml. Mekh.
Shorn. Trudov. (Leningrad) 3: 247-290, illus. [Nati. Inst.
Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation 58.]
(231) KRUTIKOV, N. P., SMIRNOV, I. I., STSCHERBAKOV, K. F., and POPOV, I. F.
1955. THEORY, CALCULATION AND DESIGN OF FARM MACHINERY. V, I.
MACHINERY FOR SOIL CULTIVITION, SOWING, AND PLANT CUL-
TIVATION. 690 pp., illus. Berlin.
(232) KUHN, G.
1954. [SHAPE OF BULLDOZER BLADES TO ATTAIN THE SMALLEST FILLING
RESISTANCE.] Ver. Deut. Ingen. Ztschr. 96: 373-377, illus.
(233)
1954. [SHAPE OF BULLDOZER BLADES TO ATTAIN THE SMALLEST FILLING
RESISTANCE.] Ver. Deut. Ingen. Ztschr. 96: 982-986, illus.
(234) KUMMER, F. A.
1939. THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL. VIII. THE EFFECT OF
CERTAIN EXPERIMENTAL PLOW SHAPES AND MATERIALS ON
SCOURING IN HEAVY CLAY SOILS. Agr. Eugiu. 20: 111-114,
illus.
(235) and NICHOLS, M. L.
1938. THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL, VII. A STUDY OF THE
NATURE OF PHYSICAL FORCES GOVERNING THE ADHESION BE-
TWEEN SOIL AND METAL SURFACES. Agr. Eugiu. 19: 73-78,
illus.
(236) KYNAZEV, A. A.
1957. [DRAUGHT RESISTANCE OF CHISEL PLOUGHS.] Sel'khozmash-
ina 2: 7-9, illus. (Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Transla-
tion 89.)
(237) LAL, R.
1959. MEASUREMENT OF FORCES ON MOUNTED IMPLEMENTS. Amer
(238) LAMBE, T. W.
1951. SOIL TESTING FOR ENGINEERS. 165 pp., illus. New York
(239) LAMBE, T. W.
1958. THE STRUCTURE OF COMPACTED CLAY. Ainer. Soc. Civ. Engin
Proc. 84 : Paper 1654, 34 pp., illus.
(240)
1958. THE ENGINEERING BEHAVIOR OF COMPACTED CLAY. Amer. SoC.
Civ. Engin. Proc. 84 : Paper 1655, 34 pp., illus.
(241) LAND LOCOMOTION LABORATORY, DETROIT ARSENAL, WARREN, MICH.
1956. PRELIMINARY STUDY OF SNOW VALUES RELATED TO ' VEHICLE
PERFORMANCE. Tech. Memo M02, 27 pp., illus.
(242)
1957. AN INVESTIGATION OF GUN ANCHORING SPADES UNDER THE AC-
TION OF IMPACT LOADS. Rpt. 19, 33 pp., illus.
(243)
1957. ARTIFICIAL SOILS FOR LABORATORY STUDIES IN LAND LOCOMOTION
Rpt. 20, 29 pp., illus.
(244)
1957. STUDY OF SNOW VALUES RELATED TO VEHICLE PERFORMANCE
(245)
1958. A SOIL VALUE SYSTEM FOR LAND LOCOMOTION MECHANICS ReS
(246)
1960. EVALUATION OF CONDUAL TIRE MODEL. Rpt. 60, 28 pp., illuS.
(247)
1960. THE MECHANICS OF WALKING VEHICLES. Rpt. 71, 67 pp.,
illus.
(248)
1961. BEVAMETER 100. A NEW TYPE OF FIELD APPARATUS FOR MEAS-
URING LOCOMOTIVE STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS IN SOILS.
1st Internatl. Conf. Mech. Soil-Vehicle Systems Proc, (Tu-
rin), pp. 331-361, illus.
(249)
1961. THE ANALYTICAL DETERMINATION OF DRAWBAR PULL AS A
FUNCTION OF SLIP FOR TRACKED VEHICLES IN DEFORMARLE SOILS.
1st Internatl. Conf. Mech. Soil-Vehicle Systems, Proc. (Tu-
(250) LANGE, H.
1957. [ABILITY OF PNEUMATIC TIRES TO ABSORB THE LATERAL FORCES
ACTING ON AGRICULTURAL MACHINES WHEN TRAVELING ACROSS
THE SLOPE.] Grundlagen der Landtechnik 9: 109-112, illus.
(251) LASZLO, K.
1951. [EFFECT OF TILLAGE MACHINES ON SOIL STRUCTURE.] Expt.
Inst. for Agr. Mach. ybk. (Budapest) v. II, p. 175-208, illus.
(252) LECHNER, F. G. and MCCOLLY, H. F.
1959. ABRASIVE-WEAR RESISTANCE OF HARD-FACING MATERIALS USED
ON AGRICULTURAL TILLAGE TOOLS. Amcr. SOC. Agr. EugiU.
Trans. 2: 55-57, illus.
(253) LEWIS, W. A.
1954. FURTHER STUDIES IN THE COMPACTION OF SOIL AND THE PER-
FORMANCE OF COMPACTION PLANT. [Gt. Brit.] Dept. Sei.
and Indus. Res. Road Res. Lab., Tech. Paper 33, illus.
(254)
1957. A STUDY OF SOME OF THE FACTORS LIKELY TO AFFECT THE
PERFORMANCE OF IMPACT COMPACTORS ON SOIL. 4th Internatl.
Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Engin. Proc. (London) 2: 145-
150, illus.
(255) LoRENZEN, C, JR.
1950. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MECHANICAL ONION HARVESTER. Agr.
(256) LOVE, A. E. H.
1929. THE STRESS PRODUCED IN A SEMI-INFINITE BODY BY PRESSURE
ON PART OF THE BOUNDARY. Roy. Soc. Loudon, Phil. Trans.,
Ser. A, 228: 277^20.
(257) LULL, H. W.
1959. SOIL COMPACTION ON FOREST AND RANGE LANDS. U.S. Dept.
Agr. Misc. Pub. 768, 33 pp., illus.
(258) LUTZ, J. F.
1947. APPARATUS FOR COLLECTING UNDISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES. SOIL
Sei. 64: 399-401, illus.
(259) LYSAGHT, V. E.
1947. THE KNOOP INDENTER AS APPLIED TO TESTING NON-METALLIC
MATERIALS RANGING FROM PLASTICS TO DIAMONDS. Amer. SoC.
Testing Mater. Bui. 138, 39 pp., illus.
(260) MACLEAN, D. J., and ROLFE, D. W.
1946. A LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF ELECTRO-OSMOSIS IN SOILS.
Philos. Mag. 37 : 863-873, illus.
(261) MCCLELLAND, J. H.
1956. INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING SOIL CONDITION. Agr. Engin.
37: 480-481, illus.
(262) MCCREERY, W. F.
1959. EFFECT OF DESIGN FACTORS OF DISKS ON SOIL REACTIONS. AMCR.
Soc. Agr. Engin. Paper 59-622, 6 pp., illus.
1956. THE GEOMETRY OF DISKS AND SOIL RELATIONSHIPS. Agr. Eugiu.
37: 808-812, 820, illus.
(264) MCFARLANE, J. S., and TABOR, D.
1950. ADHESION OF SOLIDS AND THE EFFECT OF SURFACE FILMS.
Roy. Soc. London, Proc, S©r. A, 202: 224-243, illus.
(265) and TABOR, D.
1950. RELATION BETWEEN FRICTION AND ADHESION. Roy. SOC. Lon-
don, Proc, Ser. A, 202: 244-253, illus.
(266) McKiBBEN, E. G.
1926. THE SOIL DYNAMICS PROBLEM. Agr. Engin. 7: 412-413, illus.
(267)
1938. SOME KINEMATIC AND DYNAMIC STUDIES OF RIGID TRANSPORT
WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT. lOWa Agr. Expt. Sta.
Res. Bui. 231, pp. 321-390, illus.
(268)
1959. ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE. Agr. Engin. 40: 385, 412,
414, illus.
(269) and BERRY, M. O.
1952. THE VALUE OF REPLICATIONS IN RESEARCH. Agr. Eugiu. 33:
792, 798, illus.
(270) and DAVIDSON, J. B.
1939. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINES. II. ROLL-
ING RESISTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL WHEELS. Agr. Engin. 20*
469-473, illus.
1940. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINES. III. EFFECT
OP INFLATION PRESSURE ON THE ROLLING RESISTANCE OF PNEU-
MATIC IMPLEMENT TIRES. Agr. Engin. 21: 25-26, illus.
1940. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINES. IV. EFFECT
OF OUTSIDE AND CROSS-SECTIONAL DIAMETERS ON THE ROLLING
RESISTAT^CE OP PNEUMATIC IMPLEMENT TIRES. Agr. Eugiu. 21 :
57-58, illus.
1940. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY. V. EFFECT
OF WHEEL ARRANGEMENT ON ROLLING RESISTANCE. Agr. Euffin.
21: 95-96, illus.
1940. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINES. VI. EF-
FECTS OF STEEL WHEEL RIM SHAPE AND PNEUMATIC TIRE-
TREAD DESIGN ON ROLLING RESISTANCE. Agr. Engin. 21 : 139-
140, illus.
1940. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINES. IX. EFFEC-
TIVE RADIUS AND SLIPPAGE. Agr. Eugiu. 21: 275-276. illus
(276) and GREEN, R. L.
1940. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY. VII.
RELATIVE EFFECTS OF STEEL WHEELS AND PNEUMATIC TIRES ON
AGRICULTURAL SOILS. Agr. Engin. 21: 183-185, illus.
(277) and HULL, D. O.
1940. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINES. VIII. SOIL
PENETRATION TESTS AS A MEANS OF PREDICTING ROLLING RE-
SISTANCE. Agr. Engin. 21: 231-234, illus.
1952. THE INFLUENCE OF SPEED ON THE PERFORMANCE CHARACTER-
ISTICS OF IMPLEMENTS. Paper, SAE Nati. Tractor Mtg.
Milwaukee, Wis., 5 pp., illus. '
(279) and THOMPSON, H. J.
1939. TRANSPORT WHEELS FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINES. I. COM-
PARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF STEEL WHEELS AND PNEUMATIC
TIRES ON TWO MANURE SPREADERS OF THE SAME MODEL. AsT
Engin. 20: 419^22, illus. *
(280) McMuRDiE, J. L.
1963. SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOIL DEFORMATION PROCESS
,^^_ Soil Sei. Soc. Amer. Proc. 27: 251-254, illus.
(281) and DAY, P. R.
1958. COMPRESSION OF SOIL BY ISOTROPIC STRESS. Soil Sci SoC
Amer. Proc. 22: 18-21, illus.
(282) and DAY, P. R.
1960. SLOW TESTS UNDER SOIL MOISTURE SUCTION. Soil Sci Soc
(283) MCRAE, J. L.
1950. A STUDY OF STRESSES IN SOIL DURING LABORATORY COMPACTION.
[Unpublished.] Dept. of Civil Engin., Northwestern Univ.,
14 pp., illus.
(284) MAACK, O.
1957. [THE MECHANICAL SEPARATION OF POTATOES AND STONES.]
Landtechnische. (Munich) Forsch. 7: 71-78, illus. [Nati.
Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation 35.]
(285)
1957. [THE SEPARATION OF POTATOES AND STONES ON THE BASIS OF
RESILIENCE AND ROLLING RESISTANCE,] Landtcchnishc. Forsch.
(Munich) 7: 106-110, illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng.
Translation 36.]
(286) MACKSON, C. J.
1962. THE EFFECT OF ELECTRO-OSMOSIS ON SOIL TO STEEL SLIDING
FRICTION AS INFLUENCED BY SPEED, VOLTAGE AND SOIL MOIS-
TURE. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Paper 62-650, 8 pp., illus.
(287) MANLEY, P. L.
1960. AN INVESTIGATION OF MECHANICAL AND PHYSICAL FACTORS
INFLUENCING THE STABILITY OF MOLE DRAINS UNDER LOAD.
M. S. Thesis, Cornell Univ., illus.
(288)
1960. PLASTIC DRAIN LINERS EVALUATED BY PNEUMATIC TEST CHAM-
BER. Agr. Engin. 41: 824, illus.
(289) MARSHAK, A. L.
1956. [SURFACE SHAPE OF PNEUMATIC TIRES IN CONTACT WITH THE
SOIL.] Sel'khozmashina 3: 22-24, illus. [Off. Tech. Serv.,
Translation 60-21084.]
(290)
1957. MACHINES.]
[ROLLING RESISTANCE OF PNEUMATIC TIRES ON FARM
Sel'khozmashina 1: 13-16, illus.
(291) MARSHALL, T. J.
1959. RELATIONS BETWEEN WATER AND SOIL. Commonwcalth Bur.
Soils (Harpenden, England), Tech. Comm. 50, 91 pp., illus.
(292) and QUIRK, J. P.
1950. STABILITY OF STRUCTURAL AGGREGATES OF DRY SOIL. Austral.
Jour. Agr. Res. 1: 226-275, illus.
(293) MARTINI, Z.
1953. [STUDIES ON SOIL MOVEMENT DURING THE PLOWING OF SLOPES.]
Rocz. Nauk Roln. 66-C(2) : 97-123.
(294) MAUER, H. C.
1933. A METHOD OF MEASURING THE PRESSURE OF THE SOIL ON PLOWS
OR OTHER TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS. M. S. ThesiS, Aubum UuiV.,
13 pp., illus.
(295) MAYAUSKAS, I. S.
1958. INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON THE SURFACE
OF A PLOW SHARE IN WORK. Traktory i Sel'khozmashiny
11: 23- illus. [Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. 4: 186-190. 1959,
Eng. Translation.]
(296) MECH, S. J., and FREE, G. R.
1942.MOVEMENT OF SOIL DURING TILLAGE OPERATIONS. Agr. EugiU.
23: 379-382, illus.
(297) MENZEL, R. G., ROBERTS, H., JR., and JAMES, P. E.
1961. REMOVAL OF RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT FROM FARM LAND. PrOg.
Rpt. II. Agr. Engin. 42: 69S-699, illus.
(298) MEREDITH, H. L. and PATRICK, W. H., JR.
1961. EFFECTS OF SOIL COMPACTION ON SUBSOIL ROOT PENETRATION
AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THREE SOILS IN LOUISIANA.
Agron. Jour. 53: 163-167, illus.
(299) MILLER, S. A., and MAZURAK, A. P.
1958. RELATIONSHIPS OF PARTICLE AND PORE SIZES TO THE GROWTH
OF SUNFLOWERS. Soil Sci. Soc. Amcr. Proc. 22: 275-278, illus.
(300) MiscENKO, N. F.
1935. METHODS OF FIXATION AND POROSITY DETERMINATION IN THE
STUDY OF SOIL MECHANICS. Agr. Eugiu. 16: 23-29, illus.
476 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, US. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
(301) MITCHELL, N. B.
1961. THE INDIRECT TENSION TEST FOB CONCRETE, MATERIALS, RE-
SEARCH, AND STANDARDS. Mater. Res. and Standards 1:
780-788, illus.
(302) MOHSENIN, N., WoMOCHEL, H. L., HARVEY, D. J., and CARLETON, W. M.
1956. WEAR TESTS OF PLOWSHARE MATERIALS. Agr. Engin. 37: 816-
820, illus.
(303) MÖLLER, R.
1959. DRAFT REQUIREMENTS AND WORKING EFFICIENCY OF RIGID AND
SPRING CULTIVATOR TINES. Grundlagen der Landtechnik 11:
85-94, illus.
(304) MOORE, P. J.
1961. THE RESPONSE OF SOILS TO DYNAMIC LOADINGS. Tech. Rpt. 7
by the Mass. Inst. Tech., to U.S. Army Corps of Engin.,
Waterways Expt. Sta., Vicksburg, Miss. 19 pp., illus.
(305) MORTON, C. T., and BUCHELE, W. F.
1960. EMERGENCE ENERGY OF PLANT SEEDLINGS. Agr. Engin 41-
428-431, 453-455, illus.
(306) MURAYAMA, S., and HATA, S.
1957. ON THE EFFECT OF REMOLDING CLAY. 4th Internatl. Conf. Soil
Mech. and Found. Engin. Proc. (London) 1: 80-82, illus.
(307) MURNAGHAN, F. D.
1951. FINITE DEFORMATION ON AN ELASTIC SOLID. 140 pp., illUS.,
New York.
(308) MURPHY, G.
1950. SIMILITUDE IN ENGINEERING. 302 pp., New York
(309) NAKAYA, U., TADA, M., SEKIDO, Y., and TAKANO, T.
1936. THE PHYSICS OF SKIING. Hokkaido ' Imper. Univ. Faculty
Sei. Jour. pp. 265-287, illus.
(310) NATIONAL INSTITUTE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, SILSOE, ENGLAND.
1954. SINGLE WHEEL TESTER. Rpt. 40, 23 pp., illus.
(311) NATIONAL TILLAGE MACHINERY LABORATORY, AUBURN, ALA.
Unpublished Data.
(312) NICHOLS, M. L.
1925. THE SLIDING OF METAL OVER SOIL. Agr. Engin. 6: 80-84, illus.
(313)
1929. METHODS OF RESEARCH IN SOIL DYNAMICS; AS APPLIED TO
IMPLEMENT DESIGN. Ala. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 229, 28 pp
illus.
(314)
1930. DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL AFFECTING IMPLEMENT DESIGN
(315)
1931. THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL. I., AN EXPLANATION OF
THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL BY MEANS OF COLLOIDAL
FILMS. Agr. Engin. 12: 259-264, illus.
(316)
1931. THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL. 11. SOIL AND METAL FRIC-
TION. Agr. Engin. 12: 321-324, illus.
(317)
1932. THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL. III. SHEAR VALUES OF
UNCEMENTED SOILS. Agr. Engin. 13: 201-204, illus
(318) and BAVER, L. D.
1930. AN INTERPRETATION OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL
AFFECTING TILLAGE AND IMPLEMENT DESIGN BY MEANS OF
ATTERBERG CONSISTENCY CONSTANTS. 2nd Internatl. Cong.
Soil Sei. Proc. (Leningrad-Moscow), pp. 175-188, illus
(319) and KUMMER, T. H.
1932. THE DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF SOIL. IV. A METHOD OF ANALY-
SIS OF PLOW MOLDBOARD DESIGN BASED UPON DYNAMIC PROPER-
TIES OF SOIL. Agr. Engin. 13: 279-285, illus.
(320) and RANDOLPH, J. W.
1925. A METHOD OF STUDYING SOIL STRESSES. Agr. EugiU 6' 134-
135, illus.
1955 SOIL STRUCTURE AND CONSISTENCY IN TILLAGE IMPLEMENT DE-
SIGN. Agr. Engin. 36: 517-520, 522, illus.
(322) and REAVES, C. A. .
1958. SOIL REACTION : TO SUBSOILING EQUIPMENT. Agr. Engin. 39 :
340-343, illus.
1934. SOIL DYNAMICS, VI. PHYSICAL REACTIONS OF SOILS TO MOLD-
BOARD SURFACES. Agr. Engin. 15: 187-190, illus.
(324) REED, I. F., and REAVES, C. A.
1958. SOIL REACTION : TO PLOW SHARE DESIGN. Agr. Engin. 39 :
330-339, illus.
(325) NIKIFOROFF, C. C. c M d .
1941. MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL STRUCTURE. SOll SCl.
52: 193-211, illus.
(326) ODELL, R. T., THORNBURN, T. H., and MCKENZIE, L. J.
1960. RELATIONSHIPS OF ATTERBERG LIMITS TO SOME OTHER PROPER-
TIES OF ILLINOIS SOILS. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 24: 297-
300, illus.
(327) PATTY, R. L., and MINIUM, L. W.
1945. RAMMED EARTH WALLS FOR FARM BUILDINGS. S.D. Agr. Expt.
Sta. Bui. 277, 63 pp., illus.
(328) PAYNE, P. C. J.
1956. A FIELD METHOD OF MEASURING SOIL-METAL FRICTION. JOUr.
(329)
1956. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF
SOIL AND THE PERFORMANCE OF SIMPLE CULTIVATION IMPLE-
MENTS. Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. 1: 23-50, illus.
(330)
1956. WINCH SPRAG DESIGNED TO UTILIZE SOIL FRICTION. JOUr.
(331) and FOUNTAINE, E. R.
1954. THE MECHANISM OF SCOURING FOR CULTIVATION IMPLEMENTS.
Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin. Tech. Memo. 116, 11 pp., illus.
(332) and TANNER, D. W.
1959. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAKE ANGLE AND THE PERFORM-
ANCE OF SIMPLE CULTIVATION IMPLEMENTS. Jour. Agr. Eugiu.
Res. 4: 312-325, illus.
(333) PEATTIE, K. R., and SPARROW, R. W.
1954. THE FUNDAMENTAL ACTION OF EARTH PRESSURE CELLS. JOUr.
Mech. Of Phys. of Solids. 2: 141-155, illus.
(334) PFOST, H. B.
1948. ANALYSIS OF GEOMETRICAL DESIGN FACTORS INFLUENCING SOIL
MOVEMENT OVER PLOW MOLDBOARD SURFACES. M. S. ThesiS,
Auburn Univ., 49 pp., illus.
(335) PHILLIPS, J. R.
1961. THE POWERED VEHICULAR WHEEL PLANE-ROLLING IN EQUILIB-
RIUM : A CONSIDERATION OF SLIP AND ROLLING RESISTANCE.
1st Internatl. Conf. Mech. Soil-Vehicle Systems Proc. (Tu-
(336) PiLLSBURY, R. D., JR.
1960. APPLICATIONS OF FLUOROCARBON RESINS IN FARM EQUIPMENT.
Agr. Engin. 41: 802-803, 825, 826, illus.
(337) PLANTEMA, G. A.
1953. SOIL PRESSURE CELL AND CALIBRATION EQUIPMENT. 3rd In-
ternatl. Conf. Soil Mech. and Found. Engin. Proc (Zurich)
1: 283-288, illus.
(338) POLLARD, W. S., JR.
1951. SOIL KNOWLEDGE CAN PROVE USEFUL TO DESIGNERS. S.A.E.
Jour. 59 (9) : 39^1, 50, illus.
(339) RADFORTH, N. W.
1961. LAND FACTORS AND VEHICLE DESIGN IN OPERATIONS ON ORGANIC
TERRAIN. 1st Internatl. Conf. Mech. Soil-Vehicle Systems
Proc. (Turin), pp. 158-170, illus.
(340) RANDOLPH, J. W.
1926. TRACTOR LUG STUDIES ON SANDY SOIL. Agr. Engin. 7: 178-
184, illus.
1938. TESTS OF TILLAGE TOOLS. II. EFFECTS OF SEVERAL FACTORS ON
THE REACTIONS OF FOURTEEN-INCH MOLDBOARD PLOWS. Agr.
(342) RATH JE, J.
1932. THE CUTTING OF SAND. Engineering 134: 116-118, illus.
(343) REAVES, C. A.
1961. SIMILITUDE OF PLANE CECISELS IN ARTIFICIAL SOILS. Amer.
(344) and COOPER, A. W.
1960. STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN SOILS UNDER TRACTOR LOADS. Agr.
Engin. 41: 20-21, 31, illus.
1955. SURFACE SOIL REACTION TO PRESSURE. Agr. Engin. 36: 813-
816, 820, illus.
(346) REDSHAW, S. C.
1954. A SENSITIVE MINIATURE PRESSURE CELL. Jour. Sei. Inst.
31: 467-469, illus.
(347) REECE, A. R.
1961. A THREE POINT LINKAGE DYNAMOMETER. Jour. Agr. EugiU.
Res. 6: 45-50, illus.
(348) REED,I. F.
1940. RESULTS OF LEGUME COVERAGE STUDIES. Agr. Eugiu 21 * 129-
130, 134, illus.
(349)
1940. A METHOD OF STUDYING SOIL PACKING BY TRACTORS. Agr.
Engin. 21: 281-282, 285, illus.
(350)
1941. TESTS OF TILLAGE TOOLS. IIL EFFECT OF SHAPE ON THE DRAFT
OF 14-INCH MOLDBOARD PLOW BOTTOMS. Agr. Eugiu. 22: 101-
104, illus.
(351)
1944. SOME FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN OF TILLAGE MACHINERY AND
PROPOSED APPROACH TO THEIR EVALUATION. Soil Sci. Soc.
(352)
1948. PLOW SECTION STUDIES. Nati. Tillage Mach. Lab. (Auburn
Ala.) Ann. Rpt.
(353)
1948. BASIC STUDIES OF DISK BLADES FOR AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.
Nati. Tillage Mach. Lab. (Auburn, Ala.) Ann. Rpt.
(354)
1958. TRACK STUDIES. Nati. Tillage Mach. Lab. (Auburn, Ala.)
Ann. Rpt.
(355)
1958. MEASUREMENT OF FORCES ON TRACK TYPE TRACTOR SHOES.
(356)
1962. THE EFFECTS OF INFLATION PRESSURE, LOAD, AND DRAWBAR
PULL ON AXLE HEIGHT AND ROLLING RADIUS OF SIX TIRES.
Amer. Soe. Agr. Engin. Trans 5: 125, 132, illus.
(357) and BERRY, M. O.
1946. TESTS COMPARING PLOW BOTTOMS. Nati. Tillage Mach. Lab.
Ann. Rpt, Auburn, Ala.
(358) COOPER, A. W., and REAVES, C. A.
1959 EFFECTS OF TWO-WHEEL AND TANDEM DRIVE TRACTION AND SOIL
COMPACTING STRESSES. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans 2-
22-25, illus. * '
(359) and GORDON, E. D.
1951. DETERMINING THE RELATIVE WEAR RESISTANCE OF METALS.
Agr. Engin. 32: 9^-100, illus.
(360) and MCCREERY, W. F.

1954. EFFECTS OF METHODS OF MANUFACTURE AND STEEL SPECIFICA-
TIONS ON THE SERVICE OF DISKS. Agr. Engin. 35: 91-94,
97, illus.
(361) REAVES, C. A., and SHIELDS, J. W.
1953. COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF FARM TRACTOR TIRES WEIGHTED
WITH LIQUID AND WHEEL WEIGHTS. Agr. Engin. 34: 391-
395, 399, illus.
(362) and SHIELDS, J. W.
1950. FARM TRACTOR TIRE TESTS. V. 2, Nati. Tillage Mach. Lab.
(Auburn, Ala.) Rpt.
(363) REEVE, R. C, BOWER, C. A., BROOKS, R. H., and GSCHWEND, F. B.
1954. A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM AND
POTASSIUM UPON THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF SOILS. Soil
Sei. Soc. Amer. Proc. 18: 130-132, illus.
(364) RICHARDS, L. A.
1953. MODULUS OF RUPTURE OF SOILS AS AN INDEX OF CRUSTING OF
SOIL. Soil Sei. Soc. Amer. Proc. 17: 321-323, illus.
(365)
1958. A THERMOCOUPLE FOR VAPOR PRESSURE MEASUREMENT IN BIO-
LOGICAL AND SOIL SYSTEMS AT HIGH HUMIDITY. ScieUCe 128 :
^ 1084-1090, illus.
(366) RICHARDS, S. J., WEEKS, L. V., and WARNEKE, J. E.
1960. COMPACTED BULK DENSITY AND HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FOB
INDICATING THE STRUCTURAL STATUS OF SOILS. 7th lutematl.
Cong. Soil Sei. Trans. (Madison, Wis.) 1: 249-255, illus.
(367) RICHARDSON, R.
1958. SOME TORQUE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON A ROTARY CULTIVATOR.
(368) RiCHEY, C. B.
1961. MOLDBOARD PLOWS. In Agricultural Engineer's Handbook,
pp. 128-137, illus. New York.
(369) ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY.
1959. SOIL MECHANICS FOR ROAD ENGINEERS. 541 pp., illUS. [Gt.
Brit.] Dept. Sei. and Indus. Res., Hammondsworth, England.
(370)
1961. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION. [Gt. Brit.] Dept. Sei. and Indus.
Res., Hammondsworth, England.
(371) ROGERS, O. J. J.
1955. SOIL LOADS ON PLOUGH BODIES. PART I. METHODS OF MEASURE-
MENT. Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Tech. Memo. 105, 12 pp.,
illus.
(372) and TANNER, D. W.
1955. MEASUREMENTS WITH STRAIN GAUGES AT THE N.I.A.E. PART I.
Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin. Tech. Memo. 106, 11 pp., illus.
(373) ROLLO, C. A.
1947. AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN FACTORS AFFECTING TRACTION OF
FARM TIRES. M.S. Thesis, Auburn Univ., illus.
(374) Ross, I. J., and ISAACS, G. W.
1961. FORCES ACTING IN STACKS OF GRANULAR MATERIALS. Part
I. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 4: 92-96, illus.
(375) RowE, R. J.
1959. EFFECT OF SPEED ON THE ELEMENTS OF DRAFT OF A SIMPLE TIL-
LAGE TOOL. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State Univ., 94 pp., illus.
(376) and BARNES, K. K.
1961. INFLUENCE OF SPEED ON ELEMENTS OF DRAFT OF A TILLAGE TOOL.
(377) RUSSELL, M. B.
1959. PLANT RESPONSES TO DIFFERENCES IN SOIL MOISTURE. Soil Sci.
88: 179-183, illus.
(378) SARCINELLI, S.
1957. [EXPERIMENTS ON FARM TRACTORS. II. THE PIRELLI PATTERN
281.] [Italy] Cent. Naz. Mece. Agr. (Turin) 2: 75-86
(1956-1957), illus.
(379) SCHäFER, E.
1961. [INVESTIGATIONS ON THE SEPARATION OF POTATOES AND STONES
BY MEANS OF ROTATING BRUSHES.] Landtechiiische Forsch.
(Munich) 11: 170-175, illus.
(380) SCHäFER, R. L. and LOVELY, W. G.
1963. AN AUTOMATIC-RECORDING SOIL SURFACE PROFILE METER. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin. Paper 63-146.
(381) SCHLESINGER, F.
1958. [FORCE MEASUREMENTS ON RIDGING BODIES.] Inst. Landtech-
nische ( Potsdam-Bornim ) PubL 12, illus.
(382) SELIG, E. T.
1962. DETECTION OF TRANSIENT STRESSES AND STRAINS IN SOIL.
Sympos. on Detection of Underground Objects, Materials
and Properties Proc. pp. 163-170, Ft. Belvoir, Va.
(383) and ROWE, R.D.
1960. A STUDY OF ARTIFICIAL SOILS. Armour Res. Found. Rpt.
8920-14, 98 pp., illus.
(384) SEUSER, K.
1955. [FOUR WHEEL DRIVE, STEERING BRAKES AND DIFFERENTIAL LOCK
FOR TRACTOR PLOUGHING ON A SLOPE.] Laudtechnische
Forsch. (Munich). 5: 1-5, illus. [Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin.,
Eng. Translation 14.]
(385) SHIROKOV, B. I.
1954. [PROBLEM OF THE UTILIZATION OF ELECTRO-OSMOSIS OF SOIL IN
PLOWING.] Zhur. Tekh. Fiz. 24: 1474-1482, illus. [U.S.
Dept. Agr. Eng. Translation A 888.]
(386) SHKURENKO, N. S.
1960. [EXPERIMENTAL DATA ON THE EFFECT OF OSCILLATION ON THE
CUTTING RESISTANCE OF SOIL. (Jour. Agr. Eugiu. Res. 5-
226-232, illus. Eng. Translation.)
(387) SILVER, W. H.
1960. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN FACTORS IN A SPRING TRIP BEAM AS-
SEMBLY FOR MOLDBOARD PLOWS. Auier. Soc. Agr Engin
Trans. 3 (2) : 63.
(388) SiNEOKOv, G. N.
1952. [MOVEMENT IN THE SOIL OF THE WORKING PARTS OF SOIL CUL-
TIVATING MACHINES IN THE INITIAL STAGE OF OPERATION.]
Sel'khozmashina 3: 5-10, illus. [Off. Tech. Serv Eng
Translation 60-21119.]
(389) SKALWEIT, H.
1955. [INFLUENCE OF THE FORCES AT THE PLOUGH ON THE TRACTOR
WITH 3-POiNT LINKAGE.] Laudtechuische Forsch. (Munich)
3: 6-11, illus. (Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation
(390) SKROMME, A. B.
1950. A BELT MOLDBOARD PLOW. Agr. Engin. 31: 387-390, illus
(391) SMERDON, E. T., and BEASLEY, R. P.
1959. THE TRACTIVE FORCE THEORY APPLIED TO STABILITY OF OPEN
CHANNELS IN COHESIVE SOILS. Mo. Agr. Expt. Sta Res
Bui. 715, 36 pp., illus.
(392) SMITH, H. P.
1948. FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT. Ed. 3. 520 pp illus
New York. '
(393) SMITH, J. C.
1955. MIXING CHEMICALS WITH SOIL. Indus. and Engin Chem 47 •
2240-2244, illus.
(394) SOEHNE, W.
1952. [THE DEFORM ABILITY OF ARABLE SOILS.] Grundlagen der
(395)
1952. [POWER TRANSMISSION BETWEEN TRACTOR TIRES AND ARABLE
SOILS.] Grundlagen der Landtechnik 3: 75-87, illus.
(396)
1953. [PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION IN THE SOIL AND SOIL DEFORMATION
UNDER TRACTOR TIRES.] Grundlagen der Landtechnik 5: 49-
63, illus.
(397)
1953. [FRICTION AND COHESION IN ARABLE SOILS.] Grundlagen der
(398)
1956. [SOME PRINCIPLES OF SOIL MECHANICS AS APPLIED TO AGRI-
CULTURAL ENGINEERING.] Grundlagen der Landtechnik 7:
11-27, illus. (Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin. Eng. Translation 53.)
(399)
1957. [INFLUENCE OF THE SHAPE AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE TOOL
UPON THE DRIVING TORQUE IN ROTARY CULTIVATORS.] Grund-
lagen der Landtechnik 9: 69-87, illus.
(400)
1957. [IMPROVEMENT OF TRACTOR STEERING ON SIDE SLOPES BY
MEANS OF DISC COULTERS.] Grundlagen der Landtechnik 9:
113-118, illus.
(401)
1958. FUNDAMENTALS OF PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AND SOIL COMPAC-
TION UNDER TRACTOR TIRES. Agr. Eugiu. 391 276-281, 290,
illus.
(402)
1959. [INVESTIGATIONS ON THE SHAPE OF PLOUGH BODIES FOR HIGH
SPEEDS.] Grundlagen der Landtechnik 11: 22-39, illus.
(Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin., Eng. Translation 87.)
(403)
1960. SUITING THE PLOW BODY SHAPE TO HIGHER SPEEDS. Grund-
Engin, Eng. Translation 101.]
(404) CHANCELLOR, W. J., and SCHMIDT, R. H.
1959. SOIL DEFORMATION AND COMPACTION DURING PISTON SINKAGE.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 5: 235-239. 1962.]
(405) and EGGENMULLER, A.
1959. [FAST-RUNNING ROTARY CULTIVATORS AND SLOW-RUNNING DIG-
GERS : INVESTIGATIONS ON INDIVIDUAL TOOLS.] Grundlagen der
Landtechnik 11: 72-80, illus. Nati. Inst. Agr. Engin. Eng.
Translation 111.]
(406) and THIEL, R.
1957. [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WITH ROTARY CULTIVATORS.] Grund-
lagen der Landtechnik 9: 39-49, illus.
(407) SOURISSEAU, J. H.
1935. [DETERMINATION AND STUDY OF PHYSICO-MECHANICAL PROPER-
TIES OF SOIL.] Organ, and Raps, du II Cong. Internatl. de
Genie Rural (Madrid), pp. 159-194, illus.
(408) SOUTHWELL, P. H.
1964. AN INVESTIGATION OF TRACTION AND TRACTION AIDS. Amer.
(409) STANILAND, L. N.
1959. FLUORESCENT TRACER TECHNIQUES FOR THE STUDY OF SPRAY
AND DUST DEPOSITS. Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. 4: 110-125,
illus.
(410) STAUFFER, L. H.
1927. MEASUREMENT OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS. SOIL
Sei. 24: 373-379, illus.
(411) STEINBRUEGGE, G.- W.
1961. THE IDEAL TRACTIVE EFFICIENCYOF SOILS. 1st Internatl. Conf.
Mech. Soil-Vehicle Systems Proc. (Turin) pp. 558-566, illus.
(412) STEWART, A.
1948. A TUMBLING TEST FOR PRESSED PELLETS. Jour. Sci. lUSt. 25 :
438-440, illus.
(413) STOCKKLAUSNER, F., and LEHMAN, W. A.

1950. [SOIL COMPACTION DAMAGE.] Tech. fur Bauern und Gartner,
Ausg. A2: 616-617, illus.
(414) STONE, A. A., and WILLIAMS, I. L.
1939. MEASUREMENT OF SOIL HARDNESS. Agr. Engin. 20: 25-26,
illus.
(415) STURENBURG, P.
1957. [INVESTIGATIONS ON AIR-INFLATED ROLLERS FOR BREAKING OF
CLODS IN POTATO HARVESTERS.] Landbauforschuug Volken-
rode 7 (2) : 42-45. [Eng. Translation Jour. Agr. Engin.
Res. 4: 88-90, 1959.]
(416) SUN, H. Y., VAVRA, J. P., and CASTER, A. B.
1961. EFFECT OF SEVERAL INORGANIC AND ORGANIC MATERIALS ON
CRUSTING OF CLAYPAN SOILS. Agrou. Abs. 53: 54.
(417) SWIETOCHOWSKI, B., BORS, J., and PRZESTALSKI, S.
1959. [TESTS ON THE MEASUREMENT OF SMALL DISPLACEMENTS IN
SOIL BY MEANS OF GAMMA RAYS.] Zesz. Nauk. Wyz. Szkol.
Roln. Breslau. Roln. 7: 107.
(418) TAKABEYA, F.
1932. THE INTERNAL MOTION OF SAND. Engineering 133: 148-149,
illus.
(419) TANNER, D. W.
1960. FURTHER WORK ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAKE ANGLE
AND THE PERFORMANCE OF SIMPLE CULTIVATION IMPLEMENTS.
(420) TANQUARY, E. W., and CLYDE, A. W.
1957. NEW PRINCIPLE IN TRACTOR HITCH DESIGN. Agr. Engin 38'
88-93, illus.
(421) TAYLOR, D. W.
1948. FUNDAMENTALS OF SOIL MECHANICS. 700 pp., illus. New York.
(422) TAYLOR, P. A., and WILLIAMS, N. Y.
1959. TRACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF 11-36 AGRICULTURAL TRACTOR
TYRES ON HARD SURFACES. Jour. Agr. Engin. Res. 4: 3-8,
illus.
(423) TAYLOR, S. A. and Box, J. E.
1961. INFLUENCE OF CONFINING PRESSURE AND BULK DENSITY ON
SOIL WATER MATRIC POTENTIAL. Soil Sci. 91: 6-10, illUS.
(424) TELISCHI, B.
1962. SPRING TOOTH PROFILE DEVELOPMENT. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin
Trans. 5: 204-206, 209. illus.
(425) McCoLLY, H. F., and ERICKSON, E.
1956. DRAFT MEASUREMENT FOR TILLAGE TOOLS. Agr. Eugiu 37 *
605-608, 617, illus.
(426) TERRY, C. W., and WILSON, H. M.
1953. THE SOIL PENETROMETER IN SOIL COMPACTION STUDIES Agr
Engin. 34: 831-834, illus.
(427) TERZAGHI, K, and PECK, R. B.
1948. SOIL MECHANICS IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE. 566 pp. illus.
New York.
(428) THEINER, J.
1958. [INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE STATIC COMPACTION PROCESSES
WITH SMOOTH ROLLERS.] Forscharb. Strwes. 37: 30-41, illus.
(429) THOMPSON, J. L., and KEMP, J. G.
1958. ANALYZING DISK CUTS GRAPHICALLY. Agr. Engin. 39* 285-
287, illus.
(430) TIMOSHENKO, S., and GOODIER, J. N.
1951. THEORY OF ELASTICITY. Ed. 2, 506 pp., illus. New York.
(431) TRABBIC, G. W., LASK, K. V., and BUCHELE, W. F.,
1959. MEASUREMENT OF SOIL-TIRE INTERFACE PRESSURES Asr
Engin. 40: 678-681, illus.
(432) TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH COMMAND, FT. EUSTIS, VA.
1958. SCALED VEHICLE MOBILITY FACTOR? (SAND). First Interim
Rpt. Proj. 9-97-40—000. House Task 4.2, 28 pp., illus.
(433)
1960. SCALED VEHICLE MOBILITY FACTORS. Second Interim Rpt.
Proj. 9R97-40-001-01, House Task 4.2, Ö4 pp., illus.
(434)
1960. VTOL DOWNWASH IMPINGEMENT STUDY SURFACE EROSION TESTS.
Transport. Res. Com. Tech. Rpt. 60-67, 174 pp., illus.
(435)
1961. SCALE MODEL OF VEHICLES IN SOILS AND SNOWS. ReS. Tech.
Memo. 33, 33 pp., illus.
(436) TROUSE, A. C, and HUMBERT, R. P.
1961. SOME EFFECTS OF SOIL COMPACTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SUGAR CANE ROOTS. Soil Sci. 91: 208-217, illus.
(436) TRUITT, T. D., and ROGERS, A. E.
1960. BASICS OF ANALOG COMPUTERS, illus., New York.
(438) TRULLINGER, R. W.
1924. RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING 1923. Agr. Engin.
5: 107-111.
(439)
1924. EVOLUTION AND PROGRESS OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AT
THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. Agr. EugiU. 5 !
276-279.
(440)
1925. SOIL COLLOIDS AND TILLAGE. Agr. Eugiu. 6: 61-63, 84-87.
(441)
1926. RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING—1925. Agr. Engin.
7: 279-282.
(442) TURNBULL, W. J., JOHNSON, S. J., and MAXWELL, A. A.
1949. FACTORS INFLUENCING COMPACTION OF SOILS. Nat'l. Res.
Council Highway Res. Board Bui. 23, illus.
(443) TYURIN, I. V.
1957. THE MAL'TSEV SYSTEM OF CULTIVATION. Soils and Fert. 20:
305-309.
(444) UFFELMANN, F. L.
1956. VEHICLE MOBILITY RESEARCH IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. Land
Locomotion Lab. (Detroit) Res. Rpt. 3, pp. 5-19, illus.
(445) UMEDA, S.
1958. CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL RESISTANCE OF ROTARY TILLAGE TINES.
Univ. Osaka [Japan] Bui., Ser. B, v. 8, pp. 9-17, illus.
(446) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
1938. SOILS AND MEN. U.S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1938. 1232 pp.,
illus.
(447)
1951. SOIL ^SURVEY MANUAL. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Handb. 18,
503 pp., illus.
(448)
1954. DIAGNOSIS AND IMPROVEMENT OF SALINE AND ALKALI SOILS.
U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Handb. 60, 160 pp., illus.
(449) , Soil Survey Staff.
1960. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. 265 pp., illUS.
(450) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION.
1960. EARTH MANUAL. 751 pp., illus. Denver.
(451) VAIGNEUR, H. O.
1959. LOADING CHARACTERISTICS OF PLASTIC LINED MOLE DRAINS.
M. S. Thesis, Clemson College, illus,
(452) VAN BAVEL, C. H. M.
1949. MEAN WEIGHT-DIAMETER OF SOIL AGGREGATES AS A STATISTICAL
INDEX OF AGGREGATION. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 14: 20-
23, illus.
(453)
1960. SOIL DENSITY MEASUREMENT WITH GAMMA RADIATION. 7th
Internatl. Cong. Soil Sci. Trans. 1: 284-289, (Madison, Wis.)
illus.
(454) UNDERWOOD, N., and RAGER, S. R.
1957. TRANSMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION BY SOILS AND SOIL DEN-
siTOMETRY. Soil Sci. Soc. Amcr. Proc. 21: 588-591, illus.
(455) VANDEN BERG, G. E,
1961. ANALYSIS OF FORCES ON TILLAGE TOOLS. U.S. Nati. Tillage
Mach. Lab. (Auburn, Ala.) Ann. Rpt.
(456)
1962. CONTINUOUS ANALOG TECHNIQUES IN EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH.
Paper presented South. A.gr. Workers Meeting, Jacksonville,
Fla., 7 pp., illus.
(457)
1962. TRIAXIAL MEASUREMENTS OF SHEARING STRAIN AND COMPAC-
TION IN UNSATURATED SOIL. Auier. Soc. Agr. Engin., Paper
62-648.
(458)
1962. REQUIREMENTS FOR A SOIL MECHANICS. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin. Trans. 4: 234-238.
(459) BucHELE, W. F., and MALVERN, L. E.
1958. APPLICATION OF CONTINUUM MECHANICS TO SOIL COMPACTION.
(460) and GILL, W. R.
1962. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN A SMOOTH TIRE AND THE
SOIL. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 5: 105-107, illus.
1962. TRACTIVE PERFORMANCE OF RADIAL PLY AND CONVENTIONAL
TRACTOR TIRES. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. Trans. 5: 126-129,
132, illus.
(462) REED, I. F., and COOPER, A. W.
1961. EVALUATING AND IMPROVING PERFORMANCE OF TRACTION DE-
VICES. 1st Internatl. Conf. Mech. Soil-Vehicle System Proc,
(Turin), pp. 402-411, illus.
(463) VASEY, G. H., and NAYLOR, I. T.
1958. FIELD TESTS ON 14-30 TRACTOR TYRES. Jour. Agr. Engin. Res
3: 1-8, illus.
(464) and NAYLOR, I. T.
1958. FIELD TESTS ON 14-30 TRACTOR TYRES. II. STATISTICAL
TREATMENT OF RESULTS. Jour. Agr. Eugin. Res. 3: 187-198,
illus.
(465) VETROV, YU. A.
1958. [FRICTION BETWEEN THE BLADE AND SOIL IN THE PROCESS OF
CUTTING.] Nauch. Dokl. Vysshei Shkoly [Stroilestro] 2:
111-124, illus. [Eng. Translation J. Crearer Lib. RTS 1445]
(466) VINCENT, E. T.
1961. PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION ON AND FLOW OF SAND PAST A RIGID
WHEEL. 1st Internatl. Conf. Mech. Soil-Vehicle Systems
Proc, (Turin), pp. 858-878, illus.
(467) VoMOciL, J. A., FouNTAiNE, E. R., and REGINATO, R. J.
1958. THE INFLUENCE OF SPEED AND DRAWBAR LOAD ON THE COM-
PACTING EFFECT OF WHEELED TRACTORS. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer
Proc. 22: 178-180, illus.
(468) and WALDRON, L. J.
1962. EFFECT OF MOISTURE CONTENT ON TENSILE STRENGTH OF UN-
SATURATED GLASS BEAD SYSTEMS. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer Proc
26: 409-412, illus.
(469) WALDRON, L. J., and CHANCELLOR, W. J.
1961. SOIL TENSILE STRENGTH BY CENTRIFUGATION. Soil Sci Soc
(470) WANN, R. L., and REED, I. F.
1962. STUDIES OF TRACTOR TIRE TREAD MOVEMENT. Amer Soc Agr
Engin. Trans. 5: 130-132, illus.
(471) WARLAM, A. A.
1946. STRESS-STRAIN AND STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF SOILS. D. SC
Thesis, Harvard Univ., illus.
(472) WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION, VICKSBURG, MISS.
1948. DEVELOPMENT OF TESTING INSTRUMENTS. Tech. Memo 3-240
Trafficability of Soils, 3rd Sup. 66 pp., illus.
(473)
1950. MISCELLANEOUS LABORATORY TESTS. Tech. Memo. 3-271, Soil
Compaction Investigation Report 5, 37 pp., illus.
(474)
1950. TESTS ON TOWED VEHICLES. Tech. Memo. 3-240, 7th Sup.
109 pp., illus.
(475)
1951. TRAFFiCABiLiTY OF SOILS, SLOPE STUDIES. Tech. Memo. 3-
240, 29 pp., illus.
(476)
1952. TORSION SHEAR APPARATUS AND TESTING PROCEDURES. Bul.
38, 76 pp., illus.
(477)
1953. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. Tech. Meuio. 3-357,
V. 1, 30 pp ; V. 2, 11 pp. ; V. 3, 9 pp.
(478)
1953. INVESTIGATIONS OF PRESSURES AND DEFLECTIONS FOR FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENTS. Tech. Memo. 3-323, Rpt. 3, 13 pp., illus.
(479)
1954. EFFECT OF SIZE OF FEET ON SHEEPSFOOT ROLLER. Tech. MemO.
3-271, Rpt. 6, 29 pp., illus.
(480)
1954. INVESTIGATIONS OF PRESSURES AND DEFLECTIONS FOR FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENTS. Tech. Memo. 3-323, Rpt. 4, Homogeneous Sand
Test Section, 60 pp., illus.
(481)
1955. PRESSURE CELLS FOR FIELD USE. Bul. 40, 33 pp., iUuS.
(482)
1955. EFFECT ON SOIL COMPACTION OF TIRE PRESSURE AND NUMBER OF
COVERAGES OF RUBBER-TIRED ROLLERS AND FOOT-CONTACT PRES-
SURE OF SHEEPSFOOT ROLLERS. Tech. Mcmo. 3-271, Rpt. 7,
41 pp., illus.
(483)
1958. STUDIES OF AERIAL CONE PENETROMETER. Tecll. Rpt. 3-462,
(484)
1959. DEFLECTION OF MOVING TIRES. Tech. Rpt. 3-516, Rpt. 1, 19
pp., illus.
(485)
1959. INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS OF 50,000-LB. WHEEL-LOAD TRAFFIC
ON A SHALLOW-BURIED FLEXIBLE PIPE. Misc. Paper 4-364,
14 pp., illus.
(486)
1959. A LIMITED STUDY OF SNAP-TRACKS. Misc. Paper 4-322, 8 pp.,
illus.
(487)
1959. PILOT STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SQUEEZE TEST FOR USE IN
VEHICLE MOBILITY RESEARCH. Misc. Paper 4-350, 15 pp.,
illus.
(488)
1960. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS. 141 pp.
(489)
1960. STRESSES UNDER MOVING VEHICLES. Tech. Rpt. 3-545, Rpt. 3,
33 pp., illus.
(490)
1960. TRAFFICABILITY OF SNOW. Tech. Memo. 3-414, Rpt. 3, 65 pp.,
illus.
(491)
1960. PETROGRAPHIC DATA ON BEACH, DUNE AND RIVER SANDS. MiSC.
Paper 6-^08.
(492)
1961. SOIL TRAFFICABILITY CLASSIFICATION SCHEME. Ist lutematl.
Conf. Mech. Soil-Vehicle Systems Proc. (Turin), pp. 567-
574, illus.
(493)
1961. TESTS WITH RIGID WHEELS. Tech. Rpt. 3-565, Rpt. 1, 35 pp.,
illus.
(494)
1961. TRAFFiCABiLiTY OF SOILS. Tech. Memo. 3-240, 16th Sup. 65
pp., illus.
(495)
1962. ABSTRACTS OF REPORTS PUBLISHED BY ARMY MOBILITY RE-
SEARCH CENTER TRAFFICABILITY AND MOBILITY RESEARCH.
22 pp.
(496)
1965.
WHEELS ON SOFT SOILS, AN ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA
Tech. Kept. 3-670, 81 pp., illus.
(497) WEAVER, H. A.
1950. TRACTOR USE EFFECTS ON VOLUME WEIGHT OF DAVIDSON LOAM
Agr. Engin. 31: 182—183, illus.
(498) and JAMISON, V. C.
1951. EFFECTS OF MOISTURE ON TRACTOR TIRE COMPACTION OF SOIL
(499) WEBER, F.
1932.
[INVESTIGATIONS ON THE INFLUENCE OF ELECTRIC CURRENT ON
THE TRACTIVE FORCE REQUIRED IN PLOWING.] Thesis, Tech-
nischen Hochscule, München, 47 pp., illus
(500) WEIDENBAUM, S. S.
/PtA-.^ TTT -^^^^\

^/^^^^ o^ SOLIDS. Adv. in Chem. Engin. 11: 209-324, illus.
(501) WELLS, A.
A.
1950.
THE DYNAMICS OF SOIL IN RELATION TO TILLAGE Ph D
/r/.ox .xr „
Thesis, Cambridge Univ., England, illus.
(502) WHITE, E. A.
1918. A STUDY OF THE PLOW BOTTOM AND ITS ACTION UPON THE
,^^^, FURROW SLICE. Jour Agr. Res. 12: 149-182, illus.
1918.
A STUDY OF THE PLOW BOTTOM AND ITS ACTION UPON THE
BURROW SLICE. Ph. D. Thesis, Cornell Univ., iilus
(504) WiENEKE, F.
1955.
THE MATHEMATICAL DETERMINATION OF THE RUNNING CHAR-
ACTERISTICS OF A POWER-DRIVEN TRAILER. Laudtechnische
Forsch. (Munich) 5: 26-29, illus. [Jour. Agr. Engin. Res
1: 101-105. 1956, Eng. Translation.]
(505) WiLLETTS, B. F.
1954. THE PERFORMANCE OF FOOTINGS ON, AND CULTIVATION IM-
PLEMENTS IN, SOILS. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. of Durham
England, illus.
(506) WILSON, R. W.
1960. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN FACTORS IN A SPRING TRIP BEAM AS-
SEMBLY FOR MOLDBOARD PLOWS. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin
Trans. 3(2): 64-65, illus. ^ ^
(507) WINKELBLECH, C. S.
1961. SOIL AGGREGATE SEPARATION CHARACTERISTICS OF SECONDARY
/^no^ ^r TILLAGE TOOLS. M. S. Thesis, Ohio State Univ., illus.
(508) WINTERKORN, H. F.
1936. SURFACE CHEMICAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ENGINEERING
^n^^r^Ti. T ^''íí: ^^^'^- ^^'- ^^^^îl' Highway Res.
S.T 1^^*^ ^^^' ^^^^ P^^^C" (Washington, D.C.) pp. 293-
301, illus.
(509) WOODRUFF, C. M.
1936. LINEAR CHANGES IN THE SHELBY LOAM PROFILE AS A FUNCTION
/^-.^x ..r ^^ ®^^^ MOISTURE. Soil Sei. Soc. Amer. Proc. 1: 65-70 illus
(510) WOODRUFF, N. P., and CHEPIL, W. S. ^. -L. OO íU, iiius.
1956. IMPLEMENTS FOR WIND EROSION CONTROL. Agr Euffin 37«
751-754, illus. & . oi .
(511) CHEPIL, W. S ., and LYNCH, R. D
1957. EMERGENCY CHISELING TO CONTROL WIND EROSION Kans
Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bui. 90, 24 pp., illus.
(512) WooTEN, O. B., MCWHORTER, C. G., and RANNEY, C. D.

1962. UNDERGROUND APPLICATION OF HERBICIDE AND FUNGICIDES.
Agr. Engin. 43: 30-32, 34, illus.
(513) Wu HUNG-CHEIN.
1959. [THE EFFECT OF ELECTRO-OSMOSIS ON A DOUBLE-WHEEL-DOUBLE-
PLOW IN PLOWING.] Acta Agr. Sinica 10: 135-137, illus.
(514) YODER, R. E.
1937. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SOIL STRUCTURE IN RELATION TO THE
TILTH PROBLEM. Soil Sei. SOG. Amer. Proc. 2: 21-33, illus.
(515) ZELENIN, A. N.
1950. [BASIC PHYSICS OF THE THEORY OF SOIL CUTTING.] 353 pp.
illus. Moscow.
(516) ZIMMERMAN, R. P., and KARDOS, L. T.
1961. EFFECT OF BULK DENSITY ON ROOT GROWTH. Soil Sei. 91 :
280-288, illus.
11. GLOSSARY
ACTION.—AU activities of an operating soil-force system.

ACTIVE SOIL BEHAVIOR.—Specific actions in which the soil matrix moves.
BEHAVIOR.—A specific action where the cause and effect (input and output)
are uniquely related.
BEHAVIOR EQUATION.—A mathematical relation that describes a specific action.
BEHAVIOR PARAMETERS.—Parameters defined by behavior equations that assess
behavior properties of soil.
BEHAVIOR PROPERTIES.—Properties exhibited by soil in a behavior.
COMPOSITE PARAMETERS.—Parameters that assess integrated rather than in-
dependent behavior properties of soil.
DESIGN EQUATIONS.—Equations expressed in terms of design factors or para-
meters that describe the action of soil-machine systems.
DESIGN FACTOR.—Geometric or operational entities that characterize machines
in the action of a soil-machine system.
DESIGN PARAMETER.—Parameters defined by design equations.
DYNAMIC PARAMETERS.—Parameters defined by active behavior equations.
DYNAMIC PROPERTIES.—Properties exhibited by soil in active behavior.
EVALUATION.—The comparison of actual performance of a soil-machine system
with desired performance or with a subjective standard.
EVALUATION FACTOR.—Empirical index characterizing the degree to which the
performance of a machine attains a desired level of performance.
VEHICLE MOBILITY.— The movement of a specific vehicle over soil and terrain
conditions in order to fulfill its intended mission.
LAND LOCOMOTION.—The movement of a vehicle over land achieved by de-
veloping thrust from soil during crawling, walking, jumping, or rolling
actions.
MACROSHAPè.—The gross shape of soil contacting surfaces of a machine in a
soil-machine system.
MATERIAL PROPERTY.—A property that characterizes a soil material.
MECHANICS.—Mathematical relations of forces and motions describing an
action.
MICROSHAPE.—The minute shape of macroshape elements of a soil-machine
system—surface roughness or edge shape.
PASSIVE SOIL BEHAVIOR.—Specific actions in which the soil matrix participates
without movement.
PASSIVE PARAMETER.—Parameter defined by a passive behavior equation.
PERFORMANCE.—The products of the action of a soil-machine system including
its efliciency.
PERFORMANCE FACTOR.—A composite term of raeasures of performance developed
for the purpose of establishing one numerical value of performance.
SOIL.—A substance composed of air, water, organic matter, rocks, minerals,
and products of their decomposition—the total soil.
SOIL PHYSICAL CONDITION.—All physical characteristics, positions, distributions
and properties of soil that are pertinent to its use.
SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES.—State and material properties of soil
SOIL MATERIAL.—Solid mineral part of soil.
SOIL PARAMETER.—A numerical quantity that describes the character or func-
tional aspects of soil.
STATE PROPERTY.—A property that characterizes the static state or condition of
soil.
SOIL REACTION.—The response of soil to application of forces.
SUBSYSTEM.—A separate and distinct system that contributes to a more
complex system.
SYSTEM.—A hierarchy of components—forces, behaviors, subsystems or facts
that are united and interdependent and form a coherent whole
488
GLOSSARY 489
TILLAGE ACTION.— The action of a soil-tillage tool system.
TILLAGE EQUATION.—An equation that describes a tillage action.
TRACTION ACTION.—The action of a soil-traction device system.
TRACTION EQUATION.—An equation that describes a traction action.
TRAFFICABILITY.—The capacity of a soil to support and withstand traffic.
TRANSPORT.—The movement of loads over soil on nontraction devices such as
runners, nonpowered w^heels, or tracks.
12. INDEX
Abrasion, by airborne soil, 106, 107 ; described, 52 ; factors affecting, 110, 112 ;
mechanism, 109; of plastic plow covers, 235; parameters, 52; relation with
modulus of rupture, 106 ; standard test for soil. 111 ; see also wear
Acceleration, contribution to draft force, 318 ; in plow mechanics, 176 ; of soil
by blade, 317 ; of soil in soil-tool mechanics, 130 ; see also speed
Acceleration, soil, by moldboard plows, 228
Acceleration, tool, by increased forces, 213
Action, described by complete mechanics, 123; described by mechanics, 120;
determined by interest, 120; influenced by soil-tool geometry, 191; param-
eters deñned by mechanics, 218
Active behavior, basis for use, 300 ; caused by dominant forces, 55 ; empirical,
102; measured, 334
Adhesion, apparent, 40; defined by equation, 90; description, 42; effect of
angle of wetting, 48 ; effect of moisture tension, 45 ; effect of surface tension
on, 44; effect of temperature on, 48; effect of wetting plow, 236; effect of
sliding force, 162 ; effect on machine performance, 91 ; effect on tool filling,
252; equivalence of stress, 90, 162; equivalence of weight, 50; factors gov-
erning, 91; in soil-tool mechanics, 132, 141; interaction with friction, 49;
measurement of, 44; Nichols' phases of friction, 51; on bulldozer blades,
252 ; on moldboard plows, 48, 176 ; on tires, 412 ; on tool edges, 244 ; related
to physical properties, 89 ; scouring of plows, 91 ; soil body formation, 192 ;
stickiness, 89
Aeration, required for plant growth, 303
Aggregates, behavior under stress, 305
Aggregate size, and cutting force, 209; see also clods
Aggregate stability, method to assess, 105
Agricultural operation, cause compactness, 452
Agricultural system, hierarchy, 450; influenced by soil dynamics, 447
Air blast, to manipulate soil, 237
Air displacement, measure of volume strain, 30
Air plow, design, 236
All wheel drive, vehicles, 418
Analogs, applied to soil dynamics research, 458
Anchor, plant material in soil, 327 ; sprag in soil, 408
Angle, for minimum penetration resistance, 184; of soil body, 143; of shear
surface, 131; of tool orientation, 256; penetrometer and relations, 187
Angle, ascending, defined, 170
Angle of bulldozing blades, effect on draft, 251
Angle of cutter, effect on soil deformation, 154
Angle of internal friction, determination of, 67-68
Angle of sharpness, effect on plow draft, 248 ; for tiller tines, 275
Angle of sliding friction, of soils, 51
490
INDEX 491
Angle of tool, effect on scouring, 178; soil confinement, 200
Angle of wetting, effect of surface roughness, 49; measurement, 48; soil
solutions on metals, 49
Apparent coefficient of sliding friction, measurement, 49
Arch action, around stress transducers, 28; in compression chambers, 81; in
granular materials, 24; in soil channels, 239; in tool action, 203; inñuence
on traction performance, 405 ; observed in glass-sided box, 114
Artificial soils, to stabilize strength, 22
Area of contact, effect on adhesion, 47, 49 ; effect on penetrating force, 183 ;
effect on plow performance, 237 ; effect on sticking, 93 ; measured for tires,
364 ; of cutters, 152 ; of tires, 365 ; tire footprint, 364
Area of influence, of grousers, 405
Auxilliary traction devices, performance, 410
Balloon, in soil volumeter, 30 ; to confine soil, 438 ; to measure soil compaction,

435 ; to measure soil rupture strength, 105
Bearing strength, estimated sinkage, 96; plate bearing test, 98
Behavior, active-passive interaction, 303; described for use, 120; effected by
force application, 101 ; integrated influence, 304 ; interactions, 58 ; passive,
55 ; reduced to basic laws, 208 ; role of sub-behaviors, 120 ; subjective nature,
121 ; used in mechanics, 120
Behavior equations, as basic laws, 217 ; as integrating mechanics, 304 ; com-
plexity, 120 ; determined by intended use, 306 ; developed for mechanics, 121 ;
disregard in limited cases, 121 ; for compaction, 431 ; in tillage tool mechan-
ics, 140; input-output, 57, 61; interactions in real systems, 301; initially
empirical, 217 ; method to develop, 61 ; purpose, 59 ; represent behavior, 53 ;
separation of mechanics, 62 ; to describe soil conditions, 301 ; use in mechan-
ics, 117-118
Behavior parameters, effected by soil conditions, 61; identification, 64
Behavior properties, described by basic laws, 57 ; identified in mechanics, 119 ;
related to material properties, 56 ; related to physical properties, 59 ; selected
for interest, 300; study of, 60
Behavior relations, direct and indirect, 302
Bending failure, assumptions, 75
Bending moment, in furrow slice, 176
Bernstein equation, analysis for parameter, 99 ; for sinkage, 98 ; in vehicle
mechanics, 348
Blade angle, changing in rotary tillers, 275 ; effect on bulldozer-draft force, 251
Blast mechanism, 108
Blast erosion, by fluids, 108; described, 105
Blast penetration, influence of energy on depth, 109
Blast stream, depth of penetration, 108
Braking action, of wheel, 371
Bulldozer blades, draft forces, 251
Bulldozing, soil transport, 250
Bulldozing resistance, of wheels, 351
Cage wheels, auxilliary traction devices, 412

Capacity of work, influence on performance, 336
Carcass, tire, stress distribution on, 361
Cells, pressure, see stress transducers
Cemented soil, shear curve, 66
Center of gravity, of plow furrow, 206
Channels, formed by tools, 239
Characteristics, of compaction behavior, 432
Characterization(s), by soil parameters, 53; fundamental and independent
quantities, 54; of physical properties, 56; of tool edge shapes, 242; of tool
shape, 219; of traction and transport devices, 355; of vehicle morphology,
416
Characterization of soil, in traction performance, 384
Chisel angle, and soil disturbance, 257
Chisel plow, draft and depth of operation, 261
Chisel speed, effect on clod size, 322
Clay, sliding friction, 50
Cleaning, effect of teeth on cutters, 294 ; of rotary tillers, 277 ; of tire lugs, 415
Clearance angle, effect on tool penetrations, 258; effect on tool forces, 197
Clod(s), effect of tool speed, 322; energy required to reduce size, 104; for
erosion control, 322 ; measurement of strength, 73 ; movement in soil profile,
323; segregated by tillage tools, 323; sieve for separating, 319
Clod shatter, conditions influencing, 104
Clod size, and tool performance, 103 ; effect of size of cut, 263, 320, 338 ; effect
of tillage speed, 322; efficiency of tillage tools in changing, 104; measured
following plowing, 321; measure of pulverization, 103; method to express,
319; reduced by oscillating tools, 285
Clod strength, method to determine, 103
Coefficient of friction, equation, 40; in plow mechanics, 147; in traction
equation, 408
Coefficient of sliding friction, average value, 166; composite parameters, 163;
effect of moisture on, 236; effect of normal stress, 167; effect of sliding
distance, 167; effect of scouring, 178; for polished tools, 234
Coefficient of traction, device to measure, 342; of radial-ply tires, 402; on
ground materials, 386
Cohesion, defined by Coulomb's equation, 35; determination of, 67-68; effect
on wind erosion, 106 ; estimated from vane shear data, 70 ; in tension failure,
38; in soil-tool mechanics, 141, 143; in situ measurement of, 75; measured
in soils, 72; pre and post collapse, 101; residual, 71; to assess induced
strength, 101; use in traction equation, 408
Cohesive parameter (K^), defined, 99
Compact soil, effect on plant roots, 444
Compaction, by machinery, 441 ; due to shrinkage, 442 ; effect on soil strength,
445; tillage objective, 309; see also compression
Compaction behavior, characteristics of, 432, described, 431 ; of loose soils, 437
Compaction distribution, described, 442; see also stress distribution
Compactive effort, influence on compactness, 440
Compatibility, behavior equations, 123, 302
Composite behavior, Bernstein equation, 100
Composite design factors, tire lugs, 396
Composite parameters, coefficient of friction, 163; defined, 63; development,
64; examples, 94; for wheels, 386; measurement of, 93; of tracks, 405; to
simplify descriptions, 307
Complete mechanics, idealistic, 123
Complex behavior, description, 210
Compression, description of, 80-81
Compression failure, definition, 36; elastic and plastic, 432; in soil, 36; not
independent of shear, 37 ; principle of measurement, 37
INDEX 493
Compressive strength, in penetration mechanics, 185
Compressive stress, effect on type of sample failure, 77
Condition of tool, effect on friction, 233
Conditioning of soil, tillage objective, 308
Cone index, measurement, 424
Cone penetrometer, to measure cone index, 424
Contact area, see area of contact
Continuum model, to describe granular materials, 23-24
Continuum theory, applied to stress, 14
Control facilities, for soil dynamics research, 5-13; required for force meas-
urements, 311
Control of plants, tillage objective, 309
Conventional small strain, definition, 17
Coordinate system, for rotary tools, 269; for tillage tools, 223; for vector
analysis, 313; for vehicle slip, 346
Cost, of design, 418; of tillage, 211
Coulomb equation, deñned, 35 ; for soil friction, 40 ; in traction equation, 344 ;
to describe adhesion parameters, 90
Coulomb theory, of shear, 34
Coulter, effect in interaction, 283; effect on stress distribution, 316; to handle
plant materials, 327
Creep, soil, 185 ; tire deflection, 363
Crop production, effect of soil conditions, 430
Crop production management, nature of tillage operations, 454.
Crushing, of soil particles. 111
Cutting, components of force, 151 ; definition of behavior, 209 ; described, 148 ;
importance in torque requirements, 273; in soil-tool mechanics, 126-133;
interactions, 150
Cutting angle, during rotary movement, 275 ; effect on work input, 276
Cutting force, effect of aggregate size, 209; effect of soil-tool geometry, 199;
method of study, 190; reduced by oscillation, 280
Cutting resistance, effect of tool geometry, 201
Deflection, of tires, 362, 364

Deformability of apparatus, effect on sample strain, 77
Deformation modulus (K), defined, 72
Degree of confinement, effect of geometry, 199; effect on cutting resistance,
198; effect on soil cutting, 149
Dense soil, shear curve, 66
Depth control, parallel linkage, 259 ; radial linkage, 259
Depth of chiseling, effect on draft, 261
Depth of cut, effect of tool orientation, 239 ; effect on draft, 134, 291 ; effect on
scraper performance, 254; to control weeds, 238
Depth of operation, effect on cutting force, 189, effect on draft force, 261;
effect on shear surface angle, 136
Depth of plowing, effect of edge shape, 247; effect of stress distribution, 316
Depth : width ratios, effect on daft, 204 ; of tillage tools, 148 ; utilitarian value,
63
Design, based on force measurements, 318 ; evaluation of, 299 ; flexible tracks,
410; inadequacies, 300; interplay with performance, 299; optimizing inter-
actions, 288; scraper bowls, 254; soil reactions, 208; soil-tool friction, 233;
stress transducers, 27-28; subsoiler shapes, 231; tillage tools, 211; to effect
4:94 AGRICULTURE HANDBOOK 316, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
soil reaction to blades, 251; to improve beet extraction, 333; to improve
scraper bowl filling, 255 ; tool wear, 249 ; traction and transport devices, 381 ;
transport devices, 386; winch sprags, 409
Design equations, evaluation of relations, 217 ; interactions, 289 ; microshape,
233; need, 265; tillage tools, 212; tool descriptions, 255
Design factors, in design equations, 212, 276 ; operational control for traction,
416; wheels, 392
Design parameters, defined by equations, 218; for moldboard plows 227-
identified, 385
Design principles, applied to multipowered tools, 266
Design variables, elements of classification, 4 ; in tillage relations, 212
Desired performance, based on use, 334; effect on evaluation, 336
Deviator stress, described, 16
Differential lock, effect on traction, 418
Differential slip, method to measure, 373
Digger plow, scouring, 92
Dimensional analysis, penetrometers, 185 ; soil dynamics research, 485 ; vehicle
performance, 426
Direct shear, principles of measurement, 41 ; rock fragments, 68 ; soil truss,
68; typical relations, 66
Disk(s), position and wear, 249
Disk packers, anchor plant residues, 327
Disk wear, measured by weight loss, 249
Disturbed soil, by chisels, 261
Dominant forces, active behavior, 55 ; mechanical forces, 59 ; soil manipulation,
214
Double-cut plow, described, 290
Draft, calculated, 131 ; calculated and measured for cutter, 191 ; chisels, 331 ;
cyclic nature, 314; different plows, 338; double-cut plow, 291; effect of
cutting depth, 189 ; effect of depth of operation, 208 ; effect of oscillation,
284 ; effect of spacing of tools, 208 ; effect of tool angle, 330 ; effect of teeth
spacing, 294 ; effect of wear, 247 ; equation for electro-osmosis, 268 ; flexible
tines, 280; interactions in double-cut plow, 291; limiting in tool use 230;
model bulldozer blades, 250; predicted by mechanics, 147; reduced by electro-
osmosis, 267 ; reduced by multipower designs, 265 ; relation with unit stress,
314 ; soil-tool mechanics, 126-133, 143 ; subsoiler, 231 ; tillage tool 138 • tool
interactions, 289 ' '
Dragline bucket, model study, 294
Drain liners, methods to install, 331
Drain opening, method to measure, 332 ; see also channel
Drawbar pull, average performance, 380; calculated, 428; effect of hitch point,
407; maximum and slip, 380; measure of performance, 366; performance
equation, 382; wheels, 371
Driven wheels, widespread use, 392
Drop-shatter, techniques described, 103 ; use in plow study, 338
Dual tires, performance, 414
Dyes, to study soil mixing, 325
Dynamic behavior, Bernstein equation, 98 ; see also active behavior
Dynamic parameters, dependence on models, 62; determined by behavior
equations, 60; in tillage equations, 216; in traction mechanics, 342- of
induced strength, 101 ; of soil strength, 22
Dynamic properties, abrasion, 52; assessment, 63,- definition, 14; described,
INDEX 495
53, 55, 61 ; elements of classification, 4 ; in gross behavior, 102 ; in mechanics,
123 ; in soil movement, 113 ; parameters, 14 ; principles to study, 61
Dynamic resultants, elements of classification, 4
Dynamic tools, defined, 270
Dynamometer, described, 312 ; tool forces, 318 ; track shoe forces, 351
Edgeshape, design, 249 ; described, 242 ; effect of wear, 245 ; effect on plowing
depth, 247 ; effect on tool force, 243 ; effect on soil movement, 244 ; of tillage
tools, 221
Effective stress, during impacts, 439; in shear tests, 73-74
Efficiency, different plows, 338 ; tillage tool cuts, 272 ; tractive devices, 374
Elastic deformation, during cutting, 158
Elastic theory, restricted to small strain, 20-21
Elasticity, coefficient, 157
Elasticity equations, to calculate stress distributions, 26
Electrical power, see power
Electro-osmosis, to reduce adhesion, 269; requisite conditions, 268
Empirical behavior equations, development role, 217
Empirical mechanics, need, 63
Energy, basis of tool performance, 263; conserved by tool design, 325; effect
of worn shares, 247 ; impacts on clod size, 321 ; in U.S. tillage, 220 ; in U.S.
traction, 340 ; multiple sources for tools, 265 ; of blast streams, 109 ; possible
savings in tillage, 452 ; required for actions, 298 ; required for traction, 374 ;
to breakup soil, 263, 338 ; to shatter clods, 104
Environmental forces, effect on soil compactness, 431 ; effect on soil conditions,
302
Evaluation, based on desired performance, 336 ; basis for vehicle performance,
381; feedback for design, 299; of tillage for plant growth, 303; of tire
performance, 400 ; of traction performance, 365, 379 ; of vehicle performance,
381
Evaluation factors, described, 337
Evaluation of performance, described, 334-339; principles, 299
Evaluation of tillage,* plow performance, 338
Evaluation of traction, comparative techniques, 385
Failure, complexity in soil, 32 ; criterion, 37 ; definition, 32 ; in traction device,

344 ; mechanics of in abrasion, 53 ; represented by models, 64 ; representative
test devices, 64 ; surfaces, 34-35 ; see also yield
Final soil conditions, in tillage equations, 213 ; produced by tillage, 212
Flexibility, of vehicles, 418
Flexible wheels, stress distribution under, 358
Fluid mechanics, in passive behavior, 304 ; to describe transmission actions, 58
Force(s), balance in implements, 297; defined by the wrench, 313; designation,
311 ; direction of resultants, 142, 153 ; disks in gangs, 249 ; effect of approach
angle, 257 ; effect of plow share wear, 196 ; environmental, 302 ; evaluation of
performance, 298; hypothetical thrust, 367; in behavior equations, 57; in
soil-tool mechanics, 126-133; measured for performance, 310; measured on
tillage tools, 318; methods of expressing, 313; methods of reporting, 311;
methods to measure, 310-318; minimized by geometry, 184; minimum
required, 296; on penetrometer, 183; on rigid wheels, 367; on segmented
plow, 316; on sliding surface, 171-174; on sod plow, 174-176; on soil
cutters, 151 ; on traction devices, 342, 409 ; on wheels, 352, 378 ; penetration
resistance, 185; resultant on tire, 367; sequences in tillage, 297; to compact

soil, 432; to cut soil, 191; to extract root crops, 333; to manipulate soil, 212-
traction equation, 382 ; see also draft, drawbar pull, thrust, weight
Force(s), tool, contributions by shear, friction, acceleration, 318
Force application, control by design, 297; principles of, 295; timed for man-
ipulation, 297
Force systems, applied to soil, 55
Four wheel drive, see all wheel drive
Friction, effect of polytetrafluoroethylene, 235 ; effect of weight, 51 ; effect on
sample compaction, 81; equation, 40; in soil-tool mechanics, 126-133 141-
in soil reactions, 86; incipient failure, 41; measures, 88; Nichols' phases'
51; observed behavior, 41; on blades, 317; see also sliding friction
Friction angle {\p), principles of measurement, 87
Friction apparatus, description, 88
Friction models, for soil, 41
Frictional parameter (K0), defined, 99
Full cut section, plow shape parameter, 225
Functional relations, design equations, 212, 220
Furrow wall, soil confinement, 200
General purpose plow, scouring, 92

Geometric parameters, for tillage tools, 216; for traction devices, 349 364 388
Geometry, of penetrometers, 184
Glass-sided box, method for measuring movement, 114 ; to observe shear 36 •
to observe soil bodies, 194; to observe soil movement under tire lugs,'363,'
to observe stress concentrations, 29
Graphical description, of disks, 292
Grip failure, in traction, 348
Gross behavior, importance of, 102
Ground conditions, effect on towing force, 387 ; effect on traction, 399
Ground effects machine, to reduce wheel loads, 418
Ground failure, in traction, 344
Grouser spacing, effect on traction, 405
Half tracks, effect on vehicle performance, 411

Hardness, to reduce tool abrasion, 53
Harrowing, to mix soil, 325
Hierarchy, of systems, 450
High speed plows, soil acceleration, 228
Hitch (es), linkage systems, 259; to control plow angle, 259; to transfer load
to tire, 415
Hitch point, effect on tractive efficiency, 407
Ideal tractive efficiency, method to determine, 352

Identification of parameters, by direct observations, 385
Identification properties, material properties, 56
Implement, combined actions, 295; described, 288; shape description, 271
Implement design, effect on rotary tiller torque, 277
Implement geometry, graphical description, 292, rotary tiller, 272
Incipient failure, in triaxial shear, 71
Inclined tools, mechanics, 126
Independent parameters, coefficient of friction, 163; defined, 63; measurement,
64
INDEX 497
Indirect tension measuring, method, 76
Induced strength, described, 100
Inflation pressure, effect on stress distribution, 360 ; effect on tire deformation,
370; effect on tire performance, 413
Initial soil conditions, in tillage equations, 213
Instrumentation, for soil dynamics research, 485
Intended use, interacting systems, 303
Interactions, in design equations, 289; in double-cut plow, 290; mixed force
system, 214; of behaviors in a mechanics, 119; of grousers, 406; of speed
and oscillations, 286 ; of teeth on blades, 292 ; of tillage tools, 207 ; of tire
design factors, 395 ; of tools in implements, 288, plow and coulter, 316 ; soil
traction device, 343
Internal friction, angle defined by shear equation, 35
Jointers, to handle plant residue, 327

Jourgenson squeeze test, to measure shear stress, 85
Kneading compaction, shear and vibrate soil, 83; stresses, 439
Land forming, minimum tillage, 453

Land locomotion, agricultural requirement, 456
Largest principal stress, effect in soil compaction, 81, 433
Lift angle, effect on blade draft, 254; effect on chisel draft, 315; effect on
draft, 134, 202, 317; effect on model dragline bucket draft, 294; effect on
shear surface angle, 136; effect on soil reaction, 238
Limit analysis, to calculate stress distributions, 26-27
Lineal strain, measurement, 30
Load, effect on soil-metal contact, 93 ; load carrying index of vehicles, 376
Loading cycle, effect on soil compaction, 438; effect on soil strength, 86
Locomotion, objectives, 456
Loose soil, shear curve, 66
Lubrication, Nichols' phases of friction, 52
Lug(s), stress distribution on, 361
Lug angle, effect on tire performance, 398
Lug curvature, effect on traction, 398
Lug design, effect on tire performance, 393 ; studies, 395 ; field studies, 399
Lug direction, to promote cleaning, 415
Lug height, effect on tire performance, 396 ; effect on wheel performance, 394
Lug size, effect on traction force, 407
Lug spacing, effect on performance, 407; effect on tire performances, 397
Macroshape, of rotary tiller tines, 274; of tines, 271

Management techniques, applied to soil dynamics systems, 458
Material(s), installed in soil, 330
Material handling, tillage objective, 309
Material properties, and soil use, 300; described, 56; effect on behavior, 304
related to behavior properties, 56; role in compaction, 430
Mathematical descriptions, for design equations, 270 ; of moldboard plow, 222
of tool shape, 219
Mathematical model, determines behavior parameters, 62; for cutting, 158
representative of action, 64
Mathematical property, hypothetical values, 39
Maximum compaction, location under tires, 435
Maximum shearing stress, effect on soil compactness 436
Mean normal stress, effect on compactness, 436; effec't on volume strain 82-
invariant of stress tensor, 16; under moving vehicles, 443
Measuring device, model simulation, 64
Mechanical forces, action in compaction, 430; separated and defined 59
Mechanical impedance, of plant roots, 444
Mechanics, analysis of inadequacy, 131; for sliding actions, 171- of cutting
150-160; of traction devices, 341; phases of development, 121; principles
for development, 120, 160; representative of behavior, 119; role in use of
soil, 304; to calculate draft, 134; to define parameters, 218; use of behavior
equations, 125
Metals, abrasion, 53, 109; adhesion, 93; hardness and wear. 111- wetting
angle, 49 » > ^
Metals theory, model for soil yield, 31-32
Microshape, and wear, 198; effect on soil reaction, 252
Minimum tillage, goals, 453
Mixed force systems, behavior interactions, 57 ; interaction 214
Mixing, by harrowing, 325; effect of initial size, 323; method to study 325-
tillage objective, 309 ^» »
Mixing coefiicient, equation, 326
Mobility index, calculated for vehicles, 417
Model, to describe plow shape, 221
Modulus of elasticity, in assessment of bearing strengths, 97
Modulus of pulverization, to assess soil movement, 322
Modulus of rupture, equivalence to tensile test, 78; method to determine 75-
relation with abrasion, 106 ' *
Mohr circle, in evaluating shear stress, 67-68; to describe shear, 34-35
Mohr diagram, stresses during scouring, 179
Mohr stress theory, applied to tensile failure, 78
Moisture content, effect on electro-osmosis, 267; effect on tool interaction, 289
Moisture now, effect by soil compaction, 445
Moisture movement, effect on adhesion, 49
Moisture suction, see moisture tension
Moisture tension, correction for effective shear stress, 74; effect on adhesion
45; effect on friction, 51; effect on soil strength, 444; equivalent soil
strength, 85; equivalence to mechanical stress, 74; equivalence of strength,
80; linear relation with soil strength, 84; measurement during sliding 162-
used to control normal stresses, 50 ' '
Moldboard plow, draft, 261; historical tests, 221, oscillated, 287; performance
measured, 336
Mole channels, size, 239
Momentum, soil breakup, 40
Mulch, anchored on soil surface, 327
Multi-powered tools, see powered tools
Natural strain, definition, 18-20

Nonhomogeneity, of soil clods, 322
Nonrigid body movement, interactions, 40
Nonrolling traction devices, equations, 342
Normal stress, distribution on plow surface, 68; due to adhesion, 49; effect on
abrading soil, 110; effect on friction, 40, 41; effect on sliding force, 162-
effect on soil compaction, 434; effect on wear, 247; in Coulomb shear
INDEX 499
equation, 34; interpreted as adhesion, 90; measurement, 27; on sliding
surface, 166
Off-the-road, locomotion, 340

Operational control, of traction design factors, 413
Orientation, effect on blade angles, 239; method to express, 256; of rotary
tiller tines, 274 ; of rotating tools, 269 ; stress transducers, 27, 362
Orientation of soil-tool system, effect of slope, 205
Oscillations, reviewed, 280; see also vibrations
Oscillating tools, described, 279 ; effect on clod size, 285 ; power requirements,
282, 285
Oscillation frequency, effect on rate of cutting, 280
Oscillation parameters, relation with draft force, 286-287
Parameters, abrasion, 52 ; for soil-tool mechanics, 123 ; see also cohesion, fric-
tion, tool, tire
Partial mechanics, development, 125; utility, 160
Particle size, coefficient of friction, 112 ; effect on abrasion, 106 ; effect on blast
penetration, 108-109 ; effect on mixing, 323 ; effect on sliding path, 171 ; effect
on wind erodability, 106
Passive behavior, basis for soil use, 300 ; transmitted force systems, 55
Passive earth pressure theory, in sprag equation, 408; in tillage tool me-
chanics, 139
Path of motion, drawn tools, 260 ; oscillating tools, 283 ; rotary tools, 275
Path of soil sliding, apparatus for tracing, 229 ; method to describe, 229
Path of tool travel, description, 269
Penetration, composite behavior, 181
Penetration force, calculated, 184
Penetration resistance, a composite property, 94; influenced by geometry, 182
Penetrometer(s), aerial, 95; impact parameter c, 94; recording, 95; static
parameter, 94 ; tilting plate, 100 ; to assess soil conditions, 189 ; to character-
ize soil, 94 ; to predict plow draft, 96 ; to predict rolling resistance, 96, 424 ;
to predict seedling emergence, 96; types, 94
Performance, based on clod size, 103 ; based on soil conditions, 336 ; calculated
with mechanics, 298; criterion for tractive devices, 366; defined, 298; de-
scribed, 298; measures, 377; measuring soil condition, 310; of material
placement machines, 330; of moldboard plow, 336; of rotating plow, 336; of
rotary tillers, 271; of spading machine, 336; of tillage tools for plant
growth, 303; of traction devices, 365; of winch sprags, 409; qualitative
descriptions, 299; specific goals, 300
Performance criterion, soil factors, 298
Performance factors, described, 337
Permanent deformation, as a yield criterion, 32 ; of soil, 21
Philosophy, for tillage, 454
Photo elasticity, use in soil, 29
Physical properties, changes described by mechanics, 304; circumvented by
behavior equations, 63; effect on abrasion, 106; related to behavior prop-
erties, 59; relation with behavior, 30^308
Pi-terms, in dimensionless equations, 426
Pipe, installed by tillage, 331
Placement of plant residue, by plowing techniques, 328
Plant growth, complex behavior relations, 302; so;l physical requirements,

300; soil plant dynamics, 451
Plant material, effect on soil strength, 330
Plant residue, anchored in soil by tillage, 327; effect on water movement, 328-
handled by tillage, 326-330 '
Plant roots, effect of soil conditions, 57 ; impeded by compact soil, 444 ; severed
by tillage, 238
Plastic deformation, during cutting, 158
Plastic flow, described, 39, 83
Plastic limits, related to soil strength, 83-85 ; to determine shear force, 84
Plastic theory, to describe stress-strain relations, 21
Plasticity, coefficient, 157
Plastics, see polytetrafluoroethylene
Plows, descriptions, 221; force distribution on, 316; interaction with coulter
316; measurement of wear, 197; movement of soil, 114-115; sliding forces,'
Plow coulter, interactions, 289

Plow covering, plastic, 235
Plow description, graphic, 223-224; Jefferson's model, 221; White's analy-
sis, 222
Plow design, equation, 226; single and double-cut, 291; to wet moldboard, 236
Plow draft, effect of edge shape, 248; effect of electro-osmosis, 268- effect of
plowing depth, 260; effect of polytetrafluoroethylene, 235; effect of stones
160; effect of vibrations, 287; effect of width of cut, 262; equations for speed
effects, 263.; mechanics for calculating, 175; reduced by moisture, 236-
related to soil resistance, 96 ' *
Plow furrow, center of gravity, 115; movement, 113
Plow orientation, controlled by hitching, 259
Plow parameters, for high speed plows, 227; in performance equations, 226
Plow performance, equation, 226
Plow scouring, effect of soil conditions, 233
Plow setting, effect on clod size, 321
Plow shape, analyzed by computer, 228; apparatus to measure, 223; correlated
with use, 229; descriptive parameters, 227; photographic apparatus, 224;
related to soil manipulation, 225
Plow share, apparatus for measurement, 198; effect of wear, 196; forces on,
316; method to study wear, 111; wear, 246
Plow speed, effect on path of soil travel, 228
Plow surface conditions, prevents scouring, 233
Plowing, effect of wear on depth, 247 ; to mix soil, 325
Pneumatic tires, effect on towing force, 387
Poisson's ratio, in assessment of bearing strength, 97
Polytetrafluoroethylene, as plow covering, 235; to'eliminate soil bodies 194-
to reduce adhesion, 88 ' '
Porosity, effect of compaction, 435
Post-collapsed cohesion, deflned, 101
Power, for electro-osmotic plowing, 267; for oscillating tools, 282, 285- in
draft equations, 267; limiting for tillage, 220; required for electro-
osmosis, 266
Power efficiency, average for performance, 380; criterion of tire performance,
374; of radial-ply tires, 402
INDEX 501
Powered tools, design principles, 266 ; multipowered tools described, 265 ; oscil-
lating, 279
Pre-collapsed cohesion, defined, 101
Prediction, vehicle performance, 420
Pressure transducers, see stress transducers
Proportional loading, in compaction, 436
Pulverization, mechanism of failure, 103-104
Pulverization modulus, expression of clod size, 322
Pure cutting, not continuous action, 210 ; of rigid bodies, 159
Pure shear, determination of, 86
Push soil, described, 178
Radial-ply tires, described, 400; improved performance, 403

Radioactivity, to detect soil movement, 115, 242 ; to study wear, 111 ; to trace
soil mixing, 325
Rating cone index, described, 424
Recurved disk, designed for coverage, 329
Relative cohesion (Crei), defined, 101; in soil-tool mechanics, 143
Remolding index, described, 424
Research, facilities for soil dynamics research, 5-13 ; for tractive devices, 395 ;
goal in soil dynamics, 123 ; in soil dynamics, 447 ; in traction, 385 ; of tool
interactions, 288; on increase for traction, 341
Residual cohesion (C^), defined, 71; measured in soils, 72
Rigid body movement, described, 39; displacement by cutters, 160; of soil in
traction, 354
Rigid wheel, stress under, 357
Ring shear, determination of shear work, 72 ; equation for analysis of, 69-70 ;
to measure friction, 164; to minimize errors, 69
Ring slider, to measure friction, 88
Rolling moldboards, to reduce adhesion, 237
Rolling radius, of deformable wheel, 372; of wheels, 370
Rolling resistance, coefficient of, 386; described, 351; effect of wheel parame-
ters, 391; of flexible wheels, 386; of rigid wheels in sand, 388; of wheels
on field soils, 389, prediction by penetrometer, 96, 424
Rolling tires, defiection, 364
Rolling traction devices, reference systems, 345
Root crops, force to extract, 333; separation from soil, 332
Rotary tiller, design factors, 269-279 ; effect on soil breakup, 321, Japanese, 279
Rotary tilling, to mix soil, 325
Rotating disks, effect on soil movement, 237
Rotating plow, performance, 338
Rotating tools, configurations, 270; described, 269; performance, 271
Rubber, coefficient of sliding friction, 165
Rudimentary mechanics, simplified actions, 209
Rupture, effect of soil texture, 105; in gross behavior, 103; measured by
balloon technique, 105
Sand, sliding friction, 50

Scouring, definition, 176; effect of soil conditions, 233; factors affecting, 178;
improved by electro-osmosis, 266 ; improved with plow covering, 194 ; on tool
surface, 176 ; production of soil bodies, 192 ; stresses on surface, 179
Seedling emergence, by soil rupture, 105
Seedling emergence energy, estimated by penetrometer, 96
Segregation, by sieving, 324 ; by tillage tools, 323 ; method to determine, 322 •
of subsoil, 324; tillage objective, 309
Semidigger plow, scouring, 92
Scrapers, filling with soil, 253
Self propelled point, basis for rolling radius, 374; described, 371
Separation, crop from soil, 332
Shape, effect on cutting force, 153; effect on penetration, 185; in design equa-
tions, 255; of disks, 242; of soil rolling blades, 250; oriented in path of
travel, 269
Shape of plows, empirically described, 228
Shape parameters, plow performance, 225; rolling resistance, 387; tractive
performance, 400
Shear, by simple blade, 317; contributions in total draft, 318; contribution
in total torque, 273, description by Mohr's circle, 32; effect on compaction,
83; in soil-tool mechanics, 126-133, 141; measurement, 65; measurement
in situ, 68; observed in glass-sided box, 36; to assess induced strength, 101
Shear angle, measurement, 135
Shear blocks, on moldboard plow, 169 ; see also soil disturbance and soil block
Shear device, misrepresentation, 65
Shear failure, dynamic behavior, 62; effect of soil conditions, 65; in brittle
soil, 33; in plastic soil, 33; to describe plastic flow, 39
Shear force, computed from plastic properties, 83-84
Shear measurement, interaction of apparatus, 66
Shear parameters, principle of measurement, 36
Shear plane, see shear surface
Shear stress, and soil compaction, 434 ; and tensile stress, 38 ; behavior equa-
tion input, 62; compact soil, 72; effect of confinement, 66; equation for vane
shear, 70; experimental determination of, 66; maximum, 33-34; measured
by squeeze test, 85
Shear surface, angle, 131; change of angle, 136; logarithmic nature, 139;
measurement of angle, 135; shape, 134
Shear vane, in situ measurements, 70
Sheargraph, in situ measurements, 69
Shearing cycles, effect on soil weakening, 86
Side angle, effect on disk rotation, 257 ; effect on draft force, 202 ; of blades, 238
Similitude, effect of soil bodies, 194 ; see also dimensional analysis
Simulation, by test devices, 64 ; of soil-machine systems, 459
Sinkage, of circular footing, 186; of large plates, 97; predicted by Bernstein
equation, 349 ; related to track length, 349 ; soil parameters, 98
Size of cut, effect on blade draft, 254; effect on clod size, 320 338- effect
on plow draft, 261, 262; effect on input requirement, 245; path of motion 216
Sleds, towing force, 392
Sliders, to measure sliding friction, 164
Sliding, on plow surfaces, 168
Sliding angle, defined, 170
Sliding distance, effect on draft force of blades, 254
Sliding force, equation, 163
Sliding friction, contribution to draft force, 318; effect of moisture on 49-
effect on path of soil deformation, 153; equation, 49; in soil-tool mechanics!
126-133; method of measurement, 49
Sliding path, described, 170
Sliding path length, smearing soil, 164 ; effect on sliding force, 165
INDEX 503
Sliding stress, in adhesionless model, 90

Slip, basis, 369; defined, 346; description, 369; differential on tire, 366, 373;
effect on performance, 368 ; effect on sinkage, 380 ; in traction equation, 382 ;
of traction device, 345 ; of tractor tires, 370 ; under tires, 362
Slip lines, at incipient soil failure, 136
Small strain theories, limitations of, 18
Smooth tires, power efíiciency of, 402
Soil, a physical system, 55; atomic attraction and properties, 3; cleaning,
332; complex mechanical properties, 3; composite properties, 3; described,
3, 304; dynamic parameters, 60-61; dynamic properties, 14-53; simple
behavior, 160 ; simple mechanical properties, 3 ; tensile strength of, 38 ; use
of static properties, 57; working or shaping properties, 3
Soil acceleration, by high speed plows, 228 ; measurement during plowing, 485
Soil adhesion, effect on scouring, 178; effect of belt plows, 237; reduced by
heat, 236
Soil aeration, decreased by compaction, 430
Soil anchor, equations, 408; for plant residues, 327
Soil behavior, basis for use, 299; effect of soil-tool geometry, 191; in empiri-
cal mechanics, 158, in simple systems, 160; in soil-tool mechanics, 126-133,
141; in specific use, 300; in traction performance, 384; on moldboard plow
surface, 174 ; relation with physical properties, 306 ; subsystems, 121, 450 ;
understanding, 55
Soil bending, in plow mechanics, 176
Soil block, effect of size of cut, 203, 297 ; shape controlled by design, 297
Soil bodies, alteration of tool shape, 192; and edge shape, 244; effect on soil
movement, 244; formation and nonscouring, 179; formed by adhesion, 192;
hardness, 194 ; on model plowshare, 244 ; on narrow tool, 139 ; on penetrome-
ters, 181; on rough surfaces, 234; on subsoiler, 194; on traction device,
343; types, 129
Soil boundaries, tillage objective, 309 ; see also soil-tool geometry
Soil breakup, effect of size of cut, 262 ; measure of performance, 319
Soil characteristics, of wear. 111
Soil characterization, for behavior equations, 57
Soil classification, for construction and trafiicability uses, 421 ; systems, 422
Soil cleaning, from tires, 412; from root crops, 332
Soil cohesion, effect on scouring, 178; see also cohesion
Soil compactibility, included in plow mechanics, 175
Soil compaction, agricultural problem, 446; bevahior equation, 431; by blunt
tools, 244 ; by kneading action, 440 ; by rotary tiller, 245 ; causes, 431 ; effect
on crop production, 430; factors affecting, 431-441
Soil compactness, described, 430 ; effect of compacting force, 432 ; effect on tool
wear, 248
Soil conditions, attained by tillage, 298; change with time, 302; changed by
climate, 23; changed by forces, 55, 305; changed by tillage, 298; changed
by vehicles, 341, 383; changed during manipulation, 101; changed for
plant growth, 451; changes described by behaviors, 124; complex descrip-
tions, 303; criteria of performance, 298; description for use, 300; effect
of tillage forces, 213; effect on lug effects, 396; effect on power efficiency,
393; effect on scouring, 233; effect on soil reactions, 125; effect on stress-
strain relations, 20; effect on subsoiler draft, 232; effect on tillage per-
formance, 213 ; effect on tire performance, 403 ; effect on towing force, 392 ;
effect on traction performance, 414; final, 213, 298; fixed for design studies,
215; in plow performance equation, 226; initial, 213, 298; interaction with
inflation pressure of tires, 413; limitations of direct measurement, 307;
measured by cone penetrometer, 424 ; measured for performance, 310 ; modi-
fication by new energy sources, 454; persistence of channels, 239; product
of past history, 58; role in design equation, 212; role in mobility index,
417 ; role in vehicle performance, 419 ; specific descriptions, 318 ; uniformity
for measurements, 311
Soil confinement, by tillage tools, 200 ; use in designs, 297
Soil cores, measurement of strength, 76
Soil covering, typical movements, 241
Soil crusts, measurement of strength, 76 ; method to evaluate strength, 105
Soil cutting, analysis, 184 ; with wire, 317
Soil deformation, by wheel slip, 370; described, 153-155; during cutting, 152,
158; effect of tool geometry on, 153; in glass-sided box, 36; in shear box!
69; path of movement 153; under vehicles, 30
Soil descriptions, based on use, 299 ; for design evaluation, 211 ; simplified by
elimination of behaviors, 306
Soil displacement, effect on energy loss, 351; under vehicle, 346
Soil disturbance, effect of chisel angle, 257, 330; evaluated by excavation,
240; residual effects, 239; tool analysis, 292
Soil dynamics, basic research, 124; basic role, 449; classification of variables,
4 ; definition, 1 ; describing subsystems, 450 ; factors affecting, 3 ; history of,'
1-3; key problems, 63; Nichols as a leader, 2; practical role, 458; role in
applications, 447 ; role in soil-tool mechanics, 123 ; role in solving problems,
5; role in traction, 456; scope of interest, 299; separate discipline, 450;
to define vehicle performance requirements, 456; use in analyzing sys-
tems, 458
Soil erosion, increased by compaction, 430
Soil factors, elements of a classification, 4
Soil failure, effect on draft force, 314; see also failure
Soil internal geometry, see structure
Soil location, methods to determine, 113
Soil manipulation, agricultural importance, 211 ; and transport, 249 ; by tillage
tools, 298; controlled by multipowered tools, 265; defined by soil condi-
tions, 298; in U.S., 452; relation with forces, 214; specific tillage objec-
tives, 308
Soil mechanics, use in tillage-tool mechanics, 136-138
Soil mixing, degree of, 326 ; soil renovation, 324
Soil moisture, and plowshare life, 247; conserved by tillage practice 242-
effect of barriers, 329; effect on chisel draft, 315; effect on compaction,
440; effect on effective stress, 439; effect on plow draft, 236; effect on
sliding force, 165; for plant growth, 303
Soil movement, and wheel slip, 382; around soil body, 244; by bulldozing, 250-
by oscillating tools, 282; by plow on slope, 115; 206; by plows, 114- by
special blade designs, 253; by tillage tool, 135, 149; by wind, 105; descrip-
tion, 113; effect of tool edge shape, 244; in large scrapers, 253; in relation
to vehicle, 348 ; methods to observe, 29, 36, 114, 194
Soil parameters, abrasion, 112; compatibility, 300; dynamic, 60-113, for pene-
tration mechanics, 184; for sliding mechanics, 172; in plow mechanics 147-
in tillage equation, 213; in traction equation, 426; independence,' 306i
requirement, 455; to assess behavior for plant growth, 303
Soil particles, abrasion characteristics, 53; action in blkst stream, 108-109
and minimum soil deformation, 157; crushed by loading stress. 111; hard-
ness, and wear. 111; method to sort, 112
INDEX 505
Soil path of travel, on moldboard plow, 228
Soil physics, discipline, 451
Soil properties, characterization, 53; effect on -scouring, 233; effect on traf-
ficability, 341
Soil reaction, described by mechanics, 117, 208; effect of blade shape, 251;
effect of chisel angle, 257; effect of geometric interactions, 207; effect of
lift angle, 238; effect of scouring, 177; effect of soil conditions, "129; effect
of tool angle, 331 ; of narrow tools, 139, 205 ; of wide and narrow tines, 204 ;
related to tool oscillations, 286 ; separation of active and passive, 57 ; simpli-
fied, 57; to evaluate design, 214
Soil resistance, effect of deformation, 154; to deformation, 158
Soil rigidity, as holding body, 297 ; during movement, 39
Soil rolling, blade design for, 250
Soil rupture, method to measure, 262 ; see also rupture
Soil sliding path, method to determine, 228
Soil solution, surface tension, 47; wetting angle on metal, 48
Soil strength, and passive behavior, 303 ; and soil-tool geometry, 199 ; bearing,
96; changed by vehicles, 101; definition, 22; described by mechanics, 304;
effect on plant material, 330; effect on wear, 112; increased by compac-
tion, 430; induced, 100
Soil structure, calculation from behavior, 306; effect on behavior, 304; effects
integrated in behavior, 306; relation with water permeability, 306; role in
passive behavior, 304
Soil surface, change during sliding, 161; sinkage, 97, 98, 186, 349
Soil surface profile, method to measure, 116
Soil texture, effect on rupture, 105; in soil classification, 421; material
property, 57
Soil tilth, see soil physical conditions
Soil truss, for in situ strength measurements, 68
Soil transport, and tillage, 249 ; by large scrapers, 253 ; by tillage tool, 324
Soil use, to determine performance, 298
Soil water stress, effect on shear values, 73-74 ; see also moisture tension
Soil wedge, see soil body
Soil weight, effect on wear, 112
Soil viscosity, in penetration mechanics, 185
Soil volume, disturbed by tools, 130, 240, see also soil compactness
Soil-force systems, classification, 57
Soil-machine dynamics, a discipline, 451
Soil-machine mechanics, to describe physical actions, 56
Soil-machine relations, goal of soil dynamics, 63
Soil-machine systems, as a subsystem, 457; controlled by soil dynamics, 450;
factors required, 448
Soil-metal adhesion, method to measure, 46
Soil-metal friction, effect on penetration, 183; effect on scouring, 178; equa-
tion for, 161; in soils, 234, methods to measure, 87; principle of measure-
ment, 42 ; see also sliding friction
Soil-plant dynamics, a discipline, 451
Soil-tool friction, and design, 233 ; effect of surface conditions, 232
Soil-tool geometry, described, 191 ; effect on cutting, 149, 159 ; effect on forces,
198, 200, 272; effect on scouring, 178; effect on soil movement, 115, 206,
importance, 198; of penetrometers, 181; of unsymmetric tools, 201; to
exploit soil confinement, 297
Soil-tool mechanics, complete, 122; development, 117; for cutting, 159; princi-
ples for development, 118
Soil-vehicle geometry, idealized, 348
Soil-vehicle system, description of performance, 457
Solution filled tires, as ballast, 414
Space link track, performance, 406
Spading plow, performance, 338
Special tillage actions, described, 326
Specific soil resistance, effect of soil deformation, 155
Speed, and effectiveness of oscillations, 286; criterion of traction performance,
368; effect on clod size, 322; effect on cutting angle, 275; effect on draft
force, 317; effect on electro-osmosis effectiveness, 266; effect on friction,
40; effect on plow draft, 316; effect on plow performance, 338; effect on
rotary tiller torque, 276; effect on sheer, 73, 133; effect on slider draft,
268; effect on soil body, 194; effect on soil movement, 206; effect on tool
draft, 263; effect on tool interactions, 289; effect on vehicle performance,
375; in plow mechanics, 176; loading time, 440; locomotion performance,
456; of soil movement on tillage tool, 130
Speed, chisel, effect on clod size, 322
Speed of plowing, effect on stress distribution, 316
Sphere of infiuence, controlled by design, 297
Sprag, equation, 408
Static state properties, changed by active behavior, 57; changed by compac-
tion, 430; changing during actions, 53; described, 53, 55; effect on behavior
304; use, 57
Steel, coeflicient of sliding* friction, 165
Steel wheels, effect on towing force, 387 ; stress distribution on, 357
Stickiness, effect of loading pressure on, 92 ; measurement of, 91 ; not equiva-
lent to adhesion, 91; soil on root crops, 91
Stones, artificial, 455; effect on plow draft, 160
Strain, absorbed in soil mass, 210 ; as a basis for yield conditions, 29 ; defini-
tion, 17-20; induced by tools, 238; measurement, 29-^0; observed in glass-
sided box, 114
Strain distribution, instrumentation requirements, 31
Strain gages, for tire defiections, 364 ; in the design of transducers, 27, 310-318
Strain gage dynamometer, dynamic measurements, 312
Strain hardening, in soil, 23
Strain measurements, in tension testing, 80
Strain tensor, definition, 17
Strakes, effect on vehicle performance, 411
Stress (es), calculated for soil cutting, 158; calculated for soil deformation
156; controlled in shear device, 70; deviator, 16; effect cycles on compact-
ness, 438 ; measured by track shoe dynamometer, 356 ; on scouring surface,
179; on slip line, 137; on tractive devices, 351; under moving tracked
vehicle, 443
Stress concentration, observed in glass-sided box, 28-29
Stress concentration factor, Froehlich's formula, 25
Stress distribution, in granular materials, 23 ; on tools, 314 ; point load theory,
25; to describe soil reactions, 24-25; under circular plates, 25; under
flexible wheel. 358; under rigid wheel, 357; under tractive devices, 355-
under tractor tires, 26, 361 '
Stress envelope, linear nature in soil, 35; to characterize shear stress 34
Stress indicators, visual, 28-29
INDEX 507
stress in soil, description, 14-17
Stress in tool, effect of soil deformation, 156
Stress sensing diaphragm, location, 27
Stress tensor, application to stresses in soil, 15; effect on compactness, 435;
measurement, 436; use in compaction, 431
Stress transducers, diameter-thickness ratios, 28; disturbance of soil, 28; in
flexible tires, 358, 361 ; in moldboard plow, 315 ; in track shoe, 356 ; move-
ment during measurement, 27; movement under loading, 362; on chisel,
314; on sliding surfaces, 162, 167; requirements, 362; to determine contact
area, 365; to measure distributions on sliding surface, 166; to measure
stress distributions, 27, 436, 443
Strength, effect on soil rupture, 103; measured tensile and compressive
strength of soil, 37; see also soil strength
Stress-strain relations, as behavior equations, 62; as indicators of yield, 32;
description, 20; to describe compression, 37; to represent soil behavior, 21-22
Strength of materials, an approach for soils, 22
Structure, relation with behavior equation parameters, 305
Structure failure, orderly fashion, 305
Subsoiler, soil bodies on, 194
Subsoiler draft, measured values, 232; reduced by design, 232
Subsoiler shape, effect on draft, 231
Surface area, effect on friction, 41
Surface curvature, in plow mechanics, 147; description 219-232
Surface roughness, effect on angle of wetting, 49; effect on sliding friction,
234; of soil profile, 116
Surface tension, effect of compounds, 47; effect of temperature on, 47; of
materials on glass, 46; of soil solutions, 47; role in adhesion, 42
Systems, development of, 447
Systems analysis, role of soil dynamics, 447
Teeth, on cutting edges, 292; size, number and draft, 295

Temperature, effect on abrasion, 53; effect on adhesion, 48
Tensile failure, at small strains, 80; in plow furrow, 244; measured values
for soils, 38; method to study soil factors, 39
Tensile strength, measured in centrafuge, 78 ; methods to measure, 78 ; princi-
ple of measurement, 39; principle of method, 74
Tensile stress (es), analysis of, 80; equation for analysis, 75; in a granular
model, 38; in Mohr circles, 38
Tetrafluoroethylene, see polytetrafluoroethylene
Thrust, description of performance, 457 ; hypothetical force, 367
Tillage, aim, 117; an art, 117; for plant growth, 303, 453; implement, 211;
in U.S., 220; objectives, 308, 452; sequence of operations, 454; timed to
improve performance, 233 ; tool factors that control, 213 ; without soil inver-
sion, 241
Tillage equation(s), defined, 213; for moldboard plows, 264; principles for
development, 217; similarity with traction equation, 383
Tillage forces, based on reasons, 308; defined, 211; energy expended in, 220;
immediate effects, 302; sequences, 454
Tillage performance, of different plows, 338; past objectives, 452
Tillage speed, effect on clod size, 322
Tillage tool(s), defined, 117, 211; effect on clod segregation, 323; efficiency
of soil breakup, 104; interactions, 289; technique for design, 215; to loosen
and turn soil, 220; wear. 111
Tillage tool design, empirical, 211; governs use, 454
Tillage tool mechanics, empirical development, 218
Tillage tool movement, role in design equation, 212
Tillage tool shape, role in design equation, 212
Time dependence, viscoelastic soil in penetration, 185
Tine arrangement, guide for rotary tiller, 279
Tine construction, effect on performance, 400, 402
Tine design, to reduce drag, 278
Tine parameters, effect on work input required, 274
Tine shape, for rotary tillers, 271
Tine size, sphere of influence, 203
Tire carcass parameters, effect on performance, 400
Tire chains, effect on vehicle performance, 411
Tire deflections, measured, 370; methods to measure, 363
Tire descriptions, conventional and radial-ply, 402
Tire design factors, interactions, 395
Tire loads, increased by hitching, 415
Tire lugs, effect on power efliciency, 403
Tire parameters, described, 404
Tire performance, power efliciency as a criterion, 374
Tire size, effect on performance, 414
Tire tread, effect on traction, 398
Tires, solution filled, 414
Tool(s), interactions, 207; sphere of influence, 203
Tool angle, changing on rotary tillers, 275 ; effect of oscillation, 286 ; effect on
chisel forces, 257; effect on penetration, 259; effect on soil reaction, 331;
effect on soil-tool geometry, 292
Tool depth, travel distance to penetrate, 259
Tool descriptions, for design, 216 ; principles for development, 219
Tool design, based on soil reactions, 296 ; consistent with use, 231 ; equations
needed, 265; for specific soil handling, 253; principles for study, 215; to
cover surface material, 242; to increase soil disturbance, 240; to segregate
soil, 324
Tool edge, effect on soil compactness, 244 ; see also shape and wear
Tool efliciency, effect on tool shape, 263; performance, 298
Tool forces, dependent on soil conditions, 213 ; effect of edge shape, 243 ; effect
of soil-tool geometry, 272; effect of wear, 246; method to measure, 312
Tool friction, reduced by air blast, 236; reduced by plastics, 235
Tool geometry, effect of wear, 194; inclusion in mechanics, 154; length : width
ratio, 203; penetrometers—shape and resistance, 182
Tool macroshape, described, 221; empirical development, 238; qualitatively
described, 230
Tool material, and tool wear, 249
Tool mechanics, objective, 117
Tool microshape, and soil body formation, 234; described, 232; effect on
performance, 233
Tool movement, coordinates for description, 260; described, 255; equations
for oscillating tool, 284; of rotary tools, 275; required for penetration, 259
Tool operation, consistent with use, 231
Tool orientation, complex nature, 256; effect on forces, 201; effect on per-
formance, 257
Tool oscillations, effect on cutting force, 280; relation to soil failure 288-
spontaneous, 279 ' '
INDEX 509
Tool parameters, effect on cutting force, 190; effect on draft of chisel, 315;
effect on oscillated tool draft, 284; effect on wear, 112; fixed for design
studies, 215 ; for cutting teeth, 293 ; in plow draft equations, 264 ; in tillage
equation, 213; penetrometers, 184; relation with torque, 274; rotary tiller
tines, 273
Tool path, rotating tool, 275
Tool penetration, increased by suction, 259
Tool performance, calculated by mechanics, 121; governed by judgment, 308
Tool shape, and soil-tool geometry, 261; design factor, 219; functional con-
cepts, 253; mathematical description, 219
Tool sharpness, effect on cutting resistance, 248
Tool spacing, effect on cleaning, 277; effect on geometry of cut, 278
Tool suction, effect on depth control, 259
Tool symmetry, effect on forces, 201
Tool wear, accelerated in wheel track, 248
Torque, effect of tine arrangement, 277 ; effect on tine spacing, 278 ; of rotary
tiller tines, 272; of rotating plows, 338; optimized by design, 276; require-
ment for traction, 382; tire input, 367
Torsion shear, equation of stresses, 68
Towed point, basis for rolling radius, 374 ; of wheel, 371
Towing force, effect of weight, 386; equation for, 390; of sleds, 425; of
tracked vehicles, 391, of trailers, 392; of wheeled vehicles, 425; predicted
by rating cone index, 425; reduced by pneumatic wheels, 387
Tracers, to determine soil movement, 113; to measure soil mixing, 115; to
study mixing, 325
Tracks, design, 405; flexible design, 410; towing force, 392
Tracks (half tracks), effect on vehicle performance, 411
Track width, effect on pull, 408
Traction, defined, 1, 340 ; effect on soil condition, 383 ; grip and ground failure,
348; work done on soil, 353
Traction design factors, identified by measurement, 384; operational con-
trol of, 413
Traction device(s), characterization, 355; design, 381; dynamic stress dis-
tribution imder, 355; forces on, 409; power efficiency low on soil, 340
Traction efficiency, ideal, 351
Traction equation(s), described, 382; for lugs, 408; method of development,
383; similarity with tillage equation, 383
Traction force, determined analytically, 350
Traction in U.S., annual cost, 340
Traction measurement, NIAE apparatus, 9; NTML apparatus, 378
Traction mechanics, described, 385
Traction performance, empirical equation, 384; evaluation by comparison
methods, 384; improved by traction aids, 411; of powered wheels, 393; of
radial-ply tires, 402; prediction of, 420
Tractor tires, stress distribution on, 361
TraflScability, defined, 341; related to soil conditions, 57
Trailers, towing force, 392
Transmission activities, a basis for soil use, 301; in soil behavior, 55
Transmitted force system, in passive behavior, 55; in tillage evaluation, 303
Transport devices, characterization, 355; design, 381, 386; nonrolling, 342;
rolling, 354
Transport performance, evaluated, 388
Triaxial shear, in measuring compaction behavior, 83; modified for volume
strain measurements, 70
Ultimate stress, in compression, 36; in tension, 37

Use, basis for evaluation, 366
Vector analysis, to define force resultants, 313

Vehicle(s), and traction, 340; effect of slope of terrain, 206; effect on soil
strength, 102, 424 ; weakening of soil by, 86
Vehicle action, simulation by plate penetrometer, 100
Vehicle capabilities, role of design, 417
Vehicle cone index, described, 424
Vehicle design, for different soil conditions, 341 ; interactions, 416
Vehicle morphology, effect on performance, 416
Vehicle parameters, in traction equation, 426; in traction mechanics, 342
Vehicle performance, predicted by dimensionless terms, 426; predicted in
sand, 427
Vehicle stability, on slopes, 418
Vehicle traflicability of soil, prediction system, 423
Velocity, see speed
Vertical tool, mechanics, 139-148
Vibrations, of track vehicle tracks, 356; see also oscillations
Viscoelasticity, applied to stress-strain relations, 21
Viscosity, effect on adhesion, 49; in plow draft equation, 264; in traction
equation, 426
Volume strain, in compaction, 437, measurement, 30
Volumeters, to measure air displacement, 30; to measure soil compaction, 435
AVater, see moisture

Water conservation, decreased by soil compaction, 430
Water movement, effect on adhesion, 91; by electro-osmosis, 266; effect of
wheel slip, 445; energy required in electro-osmosis, 266
Wear, accelerated in wheel tracks, 248; alteration of forces by, 196; and
tool stability, 197 ; assessment, 197 ; effect on depth of plowing, 247 ; effect
on soil condition, 245; effect on tool geometry, 194; factors affecting, 112-
laboratory-field correlations, 111; methods to assess, 110; of disks in ganes'
249 ; of metals, 53 ; rate, 246
Weight, compensation by differential lock, 418; effect on coefficient of trac-
tion, 379; effect on towing force, 386; effect on friction, 51; effect on tire
deformation, 371; effect on traction performance, 382; to improve per-
formance, 413
Weight transfer, to tractive device, 379
Wettability, and soil adhesion, 47; angle of wetting, 48; effect on sliding
actions, 167
Wheel, effect on tool wear, 248 ; towing force, 392
Wheel diameter, effect on rolling resistance, 388
Wheel performance, effect of lugs, 394
Wheel shape, effect on towing force, 390
Wheel size, effect on rolling resistance, 389
Wheel slip, effect on water infiltration, 445
Wheel width, effect on rolling resistance, 388
Width of cut, effect on plow draft, 262
Winch sprag, design, 409
INDEX 511
Wind, effect on soil movement, 105
Wings, to increase soil disturbance, 240
Wire, installed in soil, 330; to clean mud from tires, 412; to cut soil, 317;
to handle plant residue when plowing, 327
Work, by tools on soil, 104; done to soil, 263, 337, 353; effect of cutting
angle, 276, effect of teeth on, 294; measure of vehicle performance, 380;
performed by tractive device, 375; required for tiller tines, 274; to break
up soil, 274; to cause shear, 72
Work hardening, compaction hardening of soil, 23, 100; see also strain
hardening
Yield, as a terminal soil behavior, 31; definition, 32

Yield criterion, a subjective quantity, 32
Zero normal stress, in cohesion model, 38

Zero slip, location of, 371 ; methods to describe, 372
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1967 O - 222-179

G 3 28 7

Soil Dynamics in Tillage and Traction: Agriculture Handbook No. 316

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Dynamics in Tillage and Traction: Agriculture Handbook No. 316

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soil Dynamics in Tillage and Traction: Agriculture Handbook No. 316

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the scope of soil dynamics discussed in the document?

What is the scope of soil dynamics discussed in the document?

What are the two approaches mentioned to obtain existing knowledge on a specific subject?

What are the two approaches mentioned to obtain existing knowledge on a specific subject?

î4%

Agriculture Handbook No. 316

Agricultural Research Service

GLEN E. VANDEN BERG

Agricultural Research Service

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

One of the most difficult problems of research workers, teachers,

Soil dynamics is defined as the branch of knowledge that con-

as practical alternates. When properly developed, these equations

4. MECHANICS OF TILLAGE TOOLS 117

7.2.2 Rolling Traction Devices 345

1 Italic numbers in parentheses refer to Selected References, p. 460.

The initial flourish of research in soil dynamics that was started

ducted at the Kothamsted Experiment Station, England. The imagi-

These mechanical properties may be determined by more or less

Not all research utilizes full-scale equipment; smaller bins are

FIGURE 1.—Soils varying in composition from sand to clay are contained

dynamics research. Research at the Center has covered many phases

of research in the dynamic relations between vehicles and soil. Arti-

FIGURE 5.—The single-wheel tester at the National Institute of Agricultural

tools. Depth is controlled by small outrigger tracks, and this method

apparatus is arranged so that the forces can be measured on a

FIGURE 7.—The Institute for Agricultural Mechanization is equipped with six

of the bins at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory, Auburn,

FIGURE9.—A simple model apparatus at the National Tillage Machinery

by the Caterpillar Tractor Company, Peoria 111. (78). The unit is

continuum, however, has been successfully applied to metals and

FIGURE 10.—Normal and shearing stresses on a volume element.

toric. In theories of elasticity and plasticity, spherical stress is gen-

€ = 4^, > (4)

symmetric tensor. Thus, a strain tensor similar to the stress tensoi

where I and lo are defined as in equation 4. Solving for l/lo from

FIGURE 12.—A bar of material whose original length L was first

AC and AD represent two additional lengths to which the bar is

each of the six components of stress at every point is a linear function

can be studied with the assurance that strength is constant. Until

the actions of the same phenomenon are based on different models—

FIGURE 13.—A, Idealized nature of arching; B, vertical stress distribution for

The importance of the phenomenon is clearly demonstrated in a

FIGURE 14.—Stresses on a volume element from a point load as defined in

plane is perpendicular to r—that is, a polar coordinate system—re-

Soehne ( ^01 ) assigned different values to v for soils in various

FIGURE 15.—Calculated principal stress distributions (cr) in soil under tires:

distributions contain the inherent assumptions of linearity between

^ INSTRUMENTED DIAPHRAGMJP^sJ^ INSTRUMENTED DIAPHRAGIiM^

FIGURE 16.—Stress transducers instrumented on A, secondary and B, primary

force applied over a known area is transferred uniformly to an

The main problem in designing stress transducers has been to

FIGURE 17.—Possible interactions that give erroneous stress readings.

FIGURE 18.—Stress concentrations inferred from soil reactions observed

2.7 Strain Distribution

soil. Woodruff ( 509 ) buried a simple elevation rod in the soil to

fwh-n DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

FIGURE19.—Path of displacement of a soil particle under a vehicle recorded

FIGURE20.—Volumeter provides a measure of soil compaction by measuring