Modeling and Predicting the Forces on Moldboard Plough by using Response Surface and Artificial Neural Network

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 5, Volume 10, Issue 2 - Serial Number 20, 2020, Pages 169-185   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v10i2.75672

Authors

M. Rahmatian¹; R. Yeganeh^{* 2}; M. A. Nematollahi³

¹Department of Biosystems Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

²Department of Mechanical Engineering of Biosystems, Faculty of Agriculture, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran

³Department of Biosystems Engineering, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Tillage is a very important operation that influences the growth and productivity of agricultural products. It is necessary to introduce some conditions to improve soil physical properties, aeration, permeability and root development in tillage operations. However, in primary tillage, especially when moldboard ploughs are used, this may be time consuming and costly for researchers to use it in their research. Some researchers use physical experiments to perform the work, which the accuracy of the results is dependent on the measuring instruments precision. However, some other researchers use simulation and mathematical modeling to reduce the time and costs and increase the relative accuracy of the research results. Many studies have also shown that modeling the forces involved in tillage is a good way to estimate the performance of different tillage tools and improve their geometry. However, the key to success in numerical simulation of tillage operations is to simulate the exact instrumentation, based on the correct assumptions as well as the proper methods. The prediction of the forces involved in tillage tools has an important role in their design. Collecting data on the forces involved in tillage tool under different farm conditions is a time consuming and costly task. Therefore, the prediction of a tillage tool forces is very important for the designer and the user in order to achieve better performance of the tool.
Materials and Methods
In this study, a cylindrical moldboard made by Alpler Company in Turkey was used to simulate the moldboard. A measuring device was designed and constructed to measure the various points of the desired moldboard. Then, the spatial points obtained by the measuring device were presented to the SolidWorks 2016 software and the desired moldboard was modeled. The finite element method by Abacus 2016 was then used to simulate the interaction between soil and moldboard. Treatments used in simulated tillage operations included tillage depths (5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 cm) and forward speed (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3 millimeters per second). The independent variables were considered as tensile, vertical and lateral forces (Kilo newton). After simulating the tillage operations, tensile, vertical and lateral forces were obtained. These forces were modeled using response surface and artificial neural networks techniques. Then, the obtained models were compared using R2, RMSE and MRDM statistical indices and the best model was selected.
Results and Discussion
When using the response surface method, the quadratic model was selected by using the maximum value of the statistical indices R2, R2a and R2p, among the linear, two-factor and quadratic models. Then, the significance of model variables was evaluated by using variance analysis. The forces were also modeled by using the neural network method. According to the fitting curves and statistical indices of R2, RMSE and MRDM for the tensile, vertical and lateral forces, it is revealed that both methods could well predict the forces but artificial neural network was more suitable than the response surface method. Moreover, by investigating the interactions of tillage treatments and forward speed on the forces in this research, it was observed that by increasing the depth of tillage and velocity, tensile, vertical and lateral forces were increased nonlinearly by 66.55%, 68.47%, and 64.76%, respectively.
Conclusion
Regarding all the results obtained from this study, it can be concluded that the developed models using the artificial neural network in this research was a good and powerful tool for predicting the forces involved in moldboard ploughs both in the field operations and in related studies. It is also recommended that the developed models in this study can be used to manage the tillage operations, such as selecting the proper tractor. However, it is also suggested that other affecting factors, such as moldboard angles, should be included in future models to increase the ability of the model to predict the forces involved in moldboard plows.

Keywords

Artificial neural network; Finite Element Modeling; Mouldboard plough; Response surface methodology; simulation

References

1. ABAQUS. 2016. ABAQUS User’s Manuals Version 6.12.1. ABAQUS Inc. Providence, RI.

2. Abo-Elnor, M., R. Hamilton, and J. Boyle. 2004. Simulation of soil-blade interaction for sandy soil using advanced 3D finite element analysis. Soil and Tillage Research 75 (1): 61-73.

3. AISI Standard. 2011. S905-08: Test methods for mechanically fastened cold-formed steel connections.

4. Akbarnia, A., A. Mohammadi, R. Alimardani, and F. Farhani. 2014. Simulation of draft force of winged share tillage tool using artificial neural network model. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal 16 (4): 57-65.

5. Al-Suhaibani, S., and A. E. Ghaly. 2010. Effect of plowing depth of tillage and forward speed on the performance of a medium size chisel plow operating in a sandy soil. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science.

6. Arvidsson, J., T. Keller, and K. Gustafson. 2004. Specific draught for moldboard plough, chisel plough and disc harrow at different water contents. Soil and Tillage Research 79: 221-231.

7. Bentaher, H., A. Ibrahmi, E. Hamza, M. Hbaieb, G. Kantchev, A. Maalej, and W. Arnold. 2013. Finite element simulation of moldboard–soil interaction. Soil and Tillage Research 134: 11-16.

8. Bishop, C. 2006. Pattern recognition and machine learning. USA: Springer.

9. Chen, Y., L. J. Munkholm, and T. Nyord. 2013. A discrete element model for soil–sweep interaction in three different soils. Soil and Tillage Research 126: 34-41.

10. Durairaj, C., and M. Balasubramanian. 1997. A method for dynamic measurement of soil failure patterns caused by tillage tools. Soil and Tillage Research 41: 115-121.

11. Godwin, R. J., M. J. O'Dogherty, C. Saunders, and A. T. Balafoutis. 2007. A force prediction model for mouldboard ploughs incorporating the effects of soil characteristic properties, plough geometric factors and ploughing speed. Biosystems Engineering 97 (1): 117-129.

12. Hosseini, M., S. A. Movahedi Naeini, A. A. Dehghani, and Y. Khaledian. 2016. Estimation of soil mechanical resistance parameter by using particle swarm optimization, genetic algorithm and multiple regression methods. Soil and Tillage Research 157: 32-42.

13. Ibrahmi, A., H. Bentaher, M. Hbaieb, A. Maalej, and A. Mouazen. 2015a. Study the effect of tool geometry and operational conditions on mouldboard plough forces and energy requirement: Part 1. Finite element simulation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 117: 258-267.

14. Ibrahmi, A., H. Bentaher, E. Hamza, A. Maalej, and A. Mouazen. 2015b. Study the effect of tool geometry and operational conditions on mouldboard plough forces and energy requirement: Part 2. Experimental validation with soil bin test. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 117: 268-275.

15. Jafari, R., and T. TavakoliHashjin. 2016. Performance evaluation of modified Bentleg plow using finite element approach. Iran Agricultural Research 35 (1): 63-72.

16. Li, B., Y. Chen, and J. Chen. 2016. Modeling of soil–claw interaction using the discrete element method (DEM). Soil and Tillage Research 158: 177-185.

17. Maran, J. P., and B. Priya. 2015. Comparison of response surface methodology and artificial neural network approach towards efficient ultrasound-assisted biodiesel production from muskmelon oil. Ultrason Sonochem 23: 192-200.

18. Mckyes, E. 1985. Soil Cutting and Tillage. Elsevier Science Publishing Company Inc., 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.

19. Miron, R., D. Hrimiuc, H. Shimada, and S. V. Sabau. 2002. The geometry of Hamilton and Lagrange spaces. Kluwer academic publishers.

20. Mostafaei, M., H. Javadikia, and L. Naderloo. 2016. Modeling the effects of ultrasound power and reactor dimension on the biodiesel production yield: Comparison of prediction abilities between response surface methodology (RSM) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Energy 115: 626-636.

21. Rahmatian, M., S. H. Karparvarfard, and M. A. Nematollahi. 2018. Prediction for optimizing performance of chisel blade used in combined tillage to obtain suitable effectiveness. Iranian Journal of Biosystem Engineering, 49 (1): 73-82. (In Farsi).

22. Roul, A. K., H. Raheman, M. S. Pansare, and R. Machavaram. 2009. Predicting the draught requirement of tillage implements in sandy clay loam soil using an artificial neural network. Biosystems Engineering 104: 476-485.

23. Salar, M. R., and S. H. Karparvarfard. 2017. Modeling and optimization of wing geometry effect on draft and vertical forces of winged chisel plow. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 7 (2): 468-479. (In Farsi).

24. Sahu, R. K., and H. Raheman. 2006. Draught prediction of agricultural implements using reference tillage tools in sandy clay loam soil. Biosystems Engineering 94 (2): 275-284.

25. Sarve, A., S. S. Sonawane, and M. N. Varma. 2015. Ultrasound assisted biodiesel production from sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) oil using barium hydroxide as a heterogeneous catalyst: comparative assessment of prediction abilities between response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN). Ultrason Sonochem 26: 218-28.

26. Shafaei, S. M., M. Loghavi, and S. A. Kamgar. 2018. Comparative study between mathematical models and the ANN data mining technique in draft force prediction of disk plow implement in clay loam soil. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. (In press).

27. Shafaei, S. M., and S. Kamgar, 2017. Comprehensive investigation on static and dynamic friction coefficients of wheat grain with the adoption of statistical analysis. Journal of Advanced Research 8 (1): 51-61.

28. Shmulevich, I., Z. Asaf, and D. Rubinstein. 2007. Interaction between soil and a wide cutting blade using the discrete element method. Soil and Tillage Research 97 (1): 37-50.

29. Srivastava, A. K., C. E. Goering, R. P. Rohrbach, and D. R. Buckmaster. 2006. Soil tillage. Chapter 8 in Engineering Principles of Agricultural Machines, 2nd ed., 169-230. St. Joseph, Michigan: ASABE.

30. Taghavifar, H., A. Mardani, H. Karim-Maslak, and H. Kalbkhani. 2013. Artificial Neural Network estimation of wheel rolling resistance in clay loam soil. Applied Soft Computing 13 (8): 35-51.

31. Taghavifar, H., and A. Mardani. 2014a. Application of artificial neural networks for the prediction of traction performance parameters. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Science 13 (1): 35-43.

32. Taghavifar, H., and A. Mardani. 2014b. Wavelet neural network applied for prognostication of contact pressure between soil and driving wheel. Information Processing in Agriculture 1 (1): 51-60.

33. Ucgul, M., C. Saunders, and J. M. Fielke. 2017. Discrete element modeling of tillage forces and soil movement of a one-third scale moldboard plough. Biosystems Engineering 155: 44-54.