19 views

Uploaded by Željko Livaja

Onwualu_SoilTillage1998

- Comportamento de Solo Reforçado...
- FrictionAnglesAggregates-FHWATechBrief2013.pdf
- Boulanger & Idriss_2003
- Understanding SAR ADC
- 2N3879
- Temp-Txr
- 232861246-Dilatancy-for-Cohesionless-Soils-DAFALIAS.pdf
- [Hoyos, Laureano R.; Zhang, Xiong; Puppala, Anand
- D-59-542-548.pdf
- Tesis Comparacion de Metodos Puc
- D Internet Myiemorgmy Iemms Assets Doc Alldoc Document 953 EC7
- 01085291
- Soil characterization
- Zace Cam Clay and Cap
- Pad Base Bearing and Stability
- Science
- Seasonal Bias for Shallow Focus Earthquakes in Indian Tropics
- Calculation Foundation T2 (1)
- Write_UP.
- Boss GT-3 Service Notes

You are on page 1of 15

A.P. Onwualu

a,*

, K.C. Watts

b

a

Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

b

Agricultural Engineering Department, Technical University of Nova Scotia, P.O. Box 1000, Halifax NS B3J 2X4, Canada

Accepted 29 January 1998

Abstract

An understanding of the relationship between tool forces and speed is important in evolving management strategies for optimum

performance. The effect of speed on tillage tool forces were studied experimentally for wide (width=25.4 cm, depth=15 cm) and

narrow (width=5.1 cm, depth=22.9 cm) plane tillage blades operating in a Dystric Fluvisol (silty sand texture) in a soil bin. The

tools were tested at two depths (10 cmand 15 cmfor wide blade, 11.4 cmand 22.9 cmfor narrowblade), two rake angles (458 and

908) and eight speed levels (0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75 and 2.00 m/s). The variables were combined in a 228 factorial

experiment with three replications. The performance of three theoretical models based on the trial wedge approach in predicting

the experimental results was evaluated. The rst model (Model 1), based on Soehne's approach (with modication for the three-

dimensional analysis) assumes that the soil fails in a series of shear planes, forming a wedge that is trapezoidal in shape. The

equilibrium of the wedge boundary forces produce the force required for failure. The second model (Model 2), based on Mckyes'

approach assumes that soil failure is by the formation of a centre wedge anked by two side crescents. Equilibriumof the boundary

forces on the wedge and crescents produce the forces as a function of an unknown failure angle which is obtained by minimizing

the weight component of the total force. Model 3, based on Perumpral's approach assumes the same failure wedge as Model 2

but the total cutting force is minimized instead. Experimental results show that the tool force (draught and vertical force) is a

function of the speed and the square of speed whereas the three models assume it to be a function of the square of speed only.

The models were not very accurate in predicting the experimental results. The average percent deviation of the predicted forces

fromthe observed values were 43%, 40%and 66%for Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Thus, Model 2 had more general agreement

with experimental observations. The models were better in predicting the forces (draught and vertical force) for the narrow tool

with average percent deviations of 33%, 28% and 46% for Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively, as compared to 53%, 51% and 85%

for the wide blade. #1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tillage; Soil-tool interaction; Soil bin; Draught; Vertical force

1. Introduction

One of the main aims of a good farm manager is to

prepare the soil for planting in the shortest possible

time. This can be accomplished by maximizing the

eld capacity of the tillage implement. The eld

capacity, which is the rate of eld coverage, is the

product of the width and speed of operation. The

choice is, therefore, between operating large equip-

ments at low speed or smaller equipments at higher

Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253

*Corresponding author.

0167-1987/98/$ see front matter # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PI I : S0 1 6 7 - 1 9 8 7 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 2 7 - 5

speed. The combination that accomplishes the task in

the shortest time and keeps the power requirements

and accompanying xed and operating costs at a

minimum is usually selected. In making this decision,

the relationship between tool force and speed must be

known.

The relationship between draught and speed has

been reported as linear, second-order polynomial,

parabolic and exponential (Rowe and Barnes, 1961;

Siemens et al., 1965; Stafford, 1979; Swick and

Perumpral, 1988; Gupta et al., 1989; Owen, 1989).

These differences occur as a result of the inertia

required to accelerate soil, effect of shear rate on

shear strength and effect of shear rate on soil-metal

friction, all of which vary with soil type and condition.

For sandy soils, the effect of the inertial forces is more

signicant (Luth and Wismer, 1971). Since inertial

forces increase as the square of the speed, draught

increases as the square of the speed for such soils

(Terpstra, 1977; Owen, 1989). For clay soils, the effect

of shear rate on shear and adhesive strength is more

signicant (Rowe and Barnes, 1961; Wismer and

Luth, 1972). For such soils, draught increases expo-

nentially with speed (Stafford, 1979).

The usefulness of these relationships is in the

development of models which can be used in estimat-

ing draught and hence, power requirement. The sim-

plest of such approaches is the use of regression

equations. Such equations are given by ASAE Stan-

dards D230.4 for a limited range of soil and tool

conditions (Hahn and Rosentreter, 1989). For other

soil and tool conditions not given in this standard, new

regression equations must be developed empirically.

Semi-empirical approaches involve experimental stu-

dies on the effect of shear rate on soil strength.

Relationships developed are then used in the static

theoretical models to scale soil strength instead of

using constant strength parameters (Rowe and Barnes,

1961). Most theoretical models for predicting

dynamic soil-tool interaction are based on the addition

of a velocity component to the static wedge approach.

For both two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimen-

sional (3-D) analyses, this involves equations that

describe the acceleration of the wedge from zero to

a velocity that enables it to slide up the interface. This

is based on an analysis by Soehne (Gill and Vandern

Berg, 1968) and has been used in different forms for

the 2-D analysis (Rowe and Barnes, 1961; Mckyes,

1985) and the 3-D analysis (Owen, 1989; Gupta et al.,

1989).

Different models based on the wedge approach for

soiltool interaction have been evaluated in the past

for narrow blades operating at very slow speeds, the

so-called passive case (Plasse et al., 1985; Grisso and

Perumpral, 1985). A comparison of their performance

in predicting dynamic soiltool interaction for both

wide and narrow blades has not been done in an

integrated manner. Yet such information is required

for modeling of soiltool interaction.

The objectives of this work were: to develop regres-

sion equations relating the draught and vertical force

of plane wide and narrow tools to speed; modify the 2-

D model of Soehne ( Gill and Vandern Berg, 1968) to

include the 3-D analysis; develop computer pro-

grammes for analysis of soiltool interaction based

on the above model and that by Mckyes (Mckyes and

Desir, 1984) and Swick and Perumpral (1988); and

compare the performance of the models in predicting

experimental observations with respect to the effect of

speed on tool draught and vertical force. Since the

main interest of the study was on the effects of speed,

and in order to keep the experiments within manage-

able limits, it was limited to one soil type (Dystric

Fluvisol) and one soil moisture content (140 g kg

1

).

The moisture content was chosen to coincide with the

normal moisture level for tillage operations for this

soil type.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Soil bin equipment

The experiments were conducted in the soil bin

facility of the Department of Agricultural Engineer-

ing, Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax,

Canada. The facility consisted of a stationary bin,

common carriage that supports either the tool and

penetrometer carriage or the soil processing carriage,

an integrated hydraulic power system, instrumenta-

tion, computer based data acquisition and control

system (Onwualu and Watts, 1989a, b).

The bin was a stationary soil box 7.32 m long,

1.23 m wide and 0.6 m deep, with two rails on top,

one on either side, on which the common carriage was

made to ride. Either the tool carriage or the soil

240 A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253

processing carriage could be placed on top of the

common carriage for any of the operations. The

common carriage and hence any of the carriages

placed on it was pulled in either direction by two

chains driven by the hydraulic power system.

The tool/penetrometer carriage consisted of a frame

with a mounting plate on which a dynamometer,

penetrometer and the tillage tool were mounted.

The soil processing carriage consisted of a frame,

sprayer, rotary tiller, levelling blade and roller. The

motion of all these were powered by the hydraulic

system and controlled through the computer.

The instrumentation consisted of: three rotary

optical encoders attached to the drive shafts for

measurement of the X, Y, Z displacements and

velocities of the tool and penetrometer, an extended

octagonal ring dynamometer for measurement of

draught, vertical force and moment and a penetrom-

eter load cell. The data acquisition and control system

consisted of a personal computer which controlled

ve input/output (I/O) modules through a high speed

digital interface board. The I/O modules included

two encoder interface cards equipped with 20 bit

digital counters, a 12 bit successive approximation

register analog to digital converter (ADC), a 12 bit

digital to analog converter (DAC), and a digital I/O.

The computer acquired data from the penetrometer

load cell and the extended octagonal ring dynam-

ometer through the ADC and that from the encoders

through the encoder interface cards and drove the

actuators through the DAC and the digital I/Os. The

measurement and control system was driven by a

software developed in Quick Basic which ensured

simultaneous acquisition of data and motion control

at a sampling rate of 2.3 kHz.

2.2. Soil description and soil preparation

The soil used for the study was taken from the

Stewiacke area of Nova Scotia, Canada. It has been

classied as Dystric Fluvisol under the FAO/UNESCO

classication system (FAO/UNESCO, 1990). Under

the Canadian system, it is classied as Stewiacke Soil

Series (Webb et al., 1989). Some physical properties

of the soil are shown in Table 1. For each test, a 0.5 m

depth of soil was maintained in the bin. For all tests,

the soil was prepared to an average dry density of

1.5 g/cm

3

, cone index of 0.31 MPa and moisture

content of 140 g kg

1

. These values were averaged

over 25 cm of soil depth. The choice of these values

was informed by the actual average values of soil

properties in the eld during normal eld tillage

operations in the area. The soil was prepared to the

desired density and moisture status by using the

soil processing carriage. To accomplish this, the tiller

was used to pulverize the soil while spraying water

as desired. Then the soil was levelled with the level-

ling blade. Following this, the roller was used to

compact the soil to the desired density in layers. A

special procedure was developed to ensure uniformity

of soil along and across the bin after each soil

preparation.

At the end of each soil preparation, a hydraulically

powered, computer controlled penetrometer mounted

on the tool/penetrometer carriage was used to check

for uniformity at three designated locations on the bin.

The cone index readings were taken every 0.5 cm up

to 30 cm. In addition, soil bulk density and soil

moisture content were measured at these locations

(at 10, 20 and 30 cm soil depth). The locations were

2 m apart along the bin and were selected to check the

soil condition near the entrance of the bin, at the

middle and towards the far end. At each of these

locations, two samples were taken across the bin

(60 cm apart). The locations were chosen so as not

to interfere with actual tillage tests. In checking for

soil uniformity, the soil preparation was repeated if the

Table 1

Soil description

Soil type Stewiacke soil

(Agriculture Canada)

Dystric Fluvisol

(FAO/UNESCO)

Soil texture Silty sand

Clay content (<0.002 mm) 2.5%

Silt content (0.0020.05 mm) 5.0%

Sand content (>0.05 mm) 92.5%

Cohesion (C) 2 kPa

Angle of internal friction 308

Adhesion (C

a

) 7.66 kPa

Angle of soil-metal friction 15.228

Optimum moisture content (dry basis) 122 g kg

1

Maximum dry density 1.73 g/cm

3

Dry density for tests 1.5 g/cm

3

Moisture content for tests 140 g kg

1

A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253 241

soil properties were signicantly different from each

other. More details of these are given elsewhere

(Onwualu and Watts, 1993).

2.3. Treatments and experimental procedure

Tillage tools can generally be classied as wide and

narrow. When the depth of the tool is large compared

to the width, soil movement is in two directions: ahead

and to the sides, and the soil failure problem becomes

three dimensional. Tools in this category (narrow)

include chisels, subsoilers, tines and cultivators. For

other tools, the depth is small compared to the width

and they are called wide blades. Soil movement is only

ahead and so is a 2-D problem. Tools in this category

(wide) include mouldboard ploughs, disc ploughs, and

disc harrows. Based on the works of Payne and Tanner,

1959, a wide blade is dened in this study as that with

aspect ratio (AR) (depth/width) less than 1 and a

narrow tool is dened as that with AR equal to or

greater than 1. The size (depth and width) of the plane

blades used in this study were chosen based on these

principles in order to cover the different classes of

tools.

Tests were conducted using a wide blade (width=

25.4 cm, depth=15 cm) and a narrow blade (width=

5.1 cm, depth=22.9 cm). For the wide blade, the

treatments were two depths (10 and 15 cm), two rake

angles (45 and 908) and eight speeds (0.25, 0.50, 0.75,

1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00 m/s). For the narrow blade,

the treatments were two depths (11.4, 22.9 cm), two

rake angles (458 and 908) and eight speeds (0.25, 0.50,

0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00 m/s). The speeds

were chosen to include actual eld speeds for tillage.

The variables were combined in a 228 factorial

experiment with three blocks or replications. For each

experiment, the desired rake angle, depth and speed

were selected and maintained by the control system.

As the tool carriage and hence the tool moved through

the soil, the measurement system acquired displace-

ment and speed data (X, Y, Z) from the three optical

shaft encoders mounted on the drive shafts. In addi-

tion, force data (draught, F

x

, vertical force, F

y

and

moment, M

y

) were simultaneously and continuously

acquired from an extended octagonal ring dynam-

ometer on which the tool was mounted. Details of

the measurement and control system were given by

Onwualu and Watts, (1989b) and other aspects of the

procedure were given by Onwualu and Watts (1989b)

and Onwualu (1991)

2.4. Simulation models

Different models have been developed for analysis

of soiltool interaction. These include those based on

the trial wedge approach, the stress characteristics

approach, the critical state soil mechanics approach

and the nite element method. Of the four approaches,

the trial wedge approach is the simplest (mathemati-

cally) and so was chosen for this study. Three models

based on the trial wedge approach were selected for

evaluation in this study based on their ability to handle

the effect of speed, simplicity, and ease of program-

ming. The other models based on the same approach

(Osman, 1964; Hettiaratchi et al., 1966; Godwin and

Spoor, 1977) assume curved failure boundary and are

for static analysis (slow moving tools). In addition,

part of the solution depends on the use of charts and

separate experiment for the rupture distance. The three

models were: Model 1 based on Soehne's approach

with some modications (Gill and Vandern Berg,

1968); Model 2 based on McKyes' approach

(Mckyes and Desir, 1984) and Model 3 based on

Perumpral's approach (Swick and Perumpral, 1988).

The soil failure pattern for Model 1 is shown in

Fig. 1(a). The soil is assumed to fail in a series of shear

failure planes which can be approximated to a trape-

zium as shown in Fig. 1(b). For the two-dimensional

case (Fig. 2(a)) as presented by Soehne ( Gill and

Vandern Berg, 1968) and modied by Rowe and

Barnes (1961), the forces acting on the soiltool

system include the weight of the soil wedge (W),

cohesive force on the failure surface due to shearing

(CF

1

), normal component of soil reaction on the fail-

ure surface (N

1

), tangential component of soil reaction

on the failure surface (j

1

N

1

), adhesive force on the

interface (AF

0

), normal component of soil reaction on

the soiltool interface (N

0

), tangential component of

soil reaction on the tool (j

0

N

0

), acceleration force

(F

a

), vertical force (V) and draught (H). The coef-

cient of soilmetal friction (j

0

) is equal to tan c where

c is angle of soilmetal friction while the coefcient of

soilsoil friction (j

1

) is equal to tan c where c is angle

of internal friction of the soil.

Modications were made to the model to enable

it handle 3-D analysis. The concept of the formation

242 A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253

of the centre wedge anked by two side crescents

was used (Mckyes, 1985). The crescents were

assumed to be bounded by straight lines instead of

curves. As the tool moved, a passive condition was

created in the side crescents and so Rankine passive

earth pressure (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967) was

applied to replace the crescents. This resulted in

three forces, namely the normal component of soil

reaction on the side wedge (N

2

), soilsoil frictional

resistance (SF) and resistance to cohesion (CF

2

) as

shown in Fig. 2(b). Each of these forces acts on

both sides of the centre wedge. The force N

2

was estimated according to Rankine's earth pressure

theory as

N

2

=

K

p

dA

2

3

(1)

K

p

=

1 sin c

1 sin c

(2)

SF = j

2

N

2

= N

2

tan c (3)

CF

2

= CA

2

(4)

where K

p

is the coefficient of passive earth pressure,

the bulk density, d the depth of operation, A

2

the

area of the side crescent and j

2

the coefficient of

soilsoil friction or tangent of the angle of internal

friction.

With these additions, by summing forces vertically

and horizontally and equating to zero and eliminating

the normal components of the reactions (N

0

, N

1

), the

draught force was shown (Onwualu, 1991) to be

H =

W

Z

CA

1

2CA

2

2N

2

tan c F

a

Z(sin u tan ccos u)

C

a

A

0

Z(sin c tan c cos c)

(5)

The vertical force (V) becomes

V =

H(cos c tan c sin c)

sin c tan c cos c

(6)

where

Z =

cos c tan c sin c

sin c tan c cos c

cos u tan csin u

sin u tan ccos u

(7)

Fig. 1. Two-dimensional soil failure in front of a tillage tool: (a)

wedge (b) geometrical relationships (Rowe and Barnes, 1961; Gill

and Vandern Berg, 1968) See Table 6 for symbols.

Fig. 2. Free body diagram of the soil tool system for Soehne's

approach (a) 2-D analysis and (b) 3-D analysis. See Table 6 for

symbols.

A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253 243

where: c is rake angle of tool, u is failure angle as

shown in Fig. 1(b), C is cohesion, C

a

is adhesion, Wis

weight of soil wedge, F

a

is acceleration force and A

0

,

A

1

, A

2

are cross sectional areas dened below.

The acceleration force (F

a

) is equal to the resistance

required to bring the block of soil initially at rest to a

speed that ensures that it travels over the tool. This

force is a function of the soil bulk density (), tool

width (b), tool depth (d), tool velocity (v), rake angle

(c) and failure angle (u):

F

a

= bdi

2

sin c

sin(c u)

(8)

The weight of the soil wedge is

W = V

0

(9)

where V

0

= bA

2

is the volume of the wedge.The

failure angle is obtained from passive earth pressure

theory as

u = 45

c

2

(10)

From Fig. 1(b), the various areas are obtained as

A

0

=

bd

sin c

(11)

A

1

=

bd

sin u

(12)

A

2

= d

+

L

0

L

1

L

2

2

(13)

d

+

=

d sin(c u)

sin u

(14)

L

o

=

d

sin c

(15)

L

1

=

d cos(c u)

sin u

(16)

L

2

= d

+

tan c (17)

This model as presented is for 3-D analysis for narrow

tool. To use it for wide blade (2-D), N

2

, SF and CF

2

are

set to zero.

The failure wedge for Model 2 which is credited to

Mckyes is shown in Fig. 3 to consist of a plane centre

wedge, anked by two circular crescents (Mckyes and

Ali, 1977; Mckyes, 1985). The forces involved include

the weight of the soil wedge (), surcharge (q), soil

reaction (R

1

), cohesion (C), adhesion (C

a

) and cutting

force (P). The cutting force (P) per unit width of blade

is given in the form of the universal earth moving

equation, UEE (Reece, 1964) with a dynamic term to

account for speed:

P = gd

2

N

CdN

c

QdN

q

C

a

dN

ca

i

2

dN

a

(18)

where the N-factors are given as:

N

=

r,2d 1 (2r,3b)sin , [ [

cos(c c) sin(c c)cot(u c)

(19)

N

c

=

1 cot u cot(u c) 1 (r,b)sin , [ [

cos(c c) sin(c c) cot(u c)

(20)

N

q

=

(r,d) 1 (r,b)sin , [ [

cos(c c) sin(c c) cot(u c)

(21)

N

ca

=

1 cot ccot(u c)

cos(c c) sin(c c) cot(u c)

(22)

N

a

=

[tan u cot(u c)[ 1 (r,b) sin , [ [

[cos(c c) sin(c c)cot(u c)[[tan u cot c[

(23)

The rupture distance r is given as

r = d(cot c cot u) (24)

The cutting force is obtained by solving the

Fig. 3. Three-dimensional soil failure in front of a tillage tool: (a)

failure wedge (b) force analysis (Mckyes, 1985). See Table 6 for

symbols.

244 A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253

equation

dN

du

= 0 (25)

to obtain the required failure angle u to minimize the

N-factor for weight N

to obtain the other N-factors and hence P. The draught

(H) and the vertical force (V) are obtained by combin-

ing P with force of adhesion:

H = [Psin(a c) C

a

d cot c[b (26)

V = [Pcos(c c) C

a

d[b (27)

In using the model for 2-D analysis, the angle sub-

tended by the side failure crescent (,) is set to zero.

Model 3 which is based on the approach presented

by Swick and Perumpral (1988) assumes the same

failure wedge and force system as Model 2. An equili-

briumanalysis of the forces actingonthewedge (Fig. 3)

produced the expressions for the cutting force for the

centre wedge (P

1

) and that for the side crescent (P

2

):

where

F

cal

=

C

a

bd

sin c

(30)

W

1

=

bdr

2

(31)

W

2

=

1

6

dr

2

(32)

F

q1

= qbr (33)

F

q2

=

1

2

qr

2

(34)

F

c1

=

cbd

sin u

(35)

F

c2

=

Cdr

2 sin u

(36)

F

a1

= bdi

2

sin c

sin(c u)

(37)

F

a2

=

2

dri

2

sin c

sin(c u)

(38)

where F

ca

is the force of adhesion on the centre

wedge, W the weight of the soil wedge, F

q

the

surcharge force, F

c

the cohesive force, F

a

the

acceleration force. The subscripts 1 and 2 refer to

the centre wedge and the side crescents, respectively.

The angle subtended by the side failure wedge is

obtained from geometrical considerations as

, = sin

1

s

r

(39)

Instead of obtaining s from geometrical considera-

tions, Swick and Perumpral (1988) recommended an

empirical equation which was found to be adequate

after experimental verication:

S = 6.03 0.46r 0.90c (40)

To obtain the failure angle, u the total force P is

minimised with respect to u:

dp

du

= 0 (41)

where

P = P

1

2P

2

(42)

Once the failure angle is obtained, the cutting force is

obtained and hence the draught (H) and vertical force

(V) as before. The model as presented is a 3-D one for

narrow tools. In order to use it as 2-D model, the angle

subtended by the side failure crescent is set to zero.

2.5. Computer implementation

An interactive computer programme was developed

in Microsoft Fortran 77 for simulation of dynamic

soiltool interaction using the three models presented

above. It allows the user, through a menu to analyze 2-

D or 3-D soil failure using any or all the three models.

Results can be obtained in terms of draught and

vertical force as functions of speed for any chosen

tool or soil parameters. The programme was used to

P

1

=

F

cal

cos(c c u) (W

1

F

q1

sin(c u) (F

c1

F

a1

)cos c

sin(c c u c)

(28)

P

2

=

(W

2

F

q2

)sin(c u) sin , F

c2

cos csin , F

a2

cos c[(,,2) sin(,,2)[

sin(c c u c)

(29)

A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253 245

predict the experimental results. Details of the pro-

gramme are given by Onwualu (1991).

2.6. Data analysis

Draught and vertical force data obtained from the

experiments were subjected to analysis of variance

(ANOVA) to determine treatment effects. The

ANOVA was done according to procedures outlined

by Steel and Torrie (1960). Following this, regression

analysis was done to develop the relationships

between the force and speed. Regression models

considered include linear, parabolic, second-order

polynomial and exponential.

The performance of the models in predicting the

experimental results was evaluated by plotting graphs

of the forces (draught and vertical force) vs. speed for

different values of depth and rake angle for the two

blades. In addition, the deviation (%) of the theoretical

results from the experimental ones was obtained as

Deviation(%)

=

Experimental force Theoretical force

Experimental force

100

(43)

For each depth and rake angle combination, the aver-

age deviation was obtained over the eight speed ranges

used in the study. These averages were calculated

using absolute values of the individual deviations.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Experimental results

Draught and vertical force were signicantly

affected by depth, rake angle and speed at P

0.05

as

shown in Table 2. The interactions were not generally

signicant, showing that the effect of speed did not

depend on depth or rake angle. The main interest in

Table 2

Analysis of variance for tool force

Source of variation df Draught Vertical force

MS F ratio MS F ratio

Wide blade

Block 2 1 395 713 254

*

58 689 41

*

Depth 1 3 959 719 721

*

97 857 69

*

Angle 1 30 554 138 1000

*

32 742 544 1000

*

Speed 7 673 704 123

*

16 836 12

*

Depthangle 1 191 441 35

*

639 450 451

*

Depthspeed 7 1680 0.3 n.s. 1675 1 n.s.

Angle speed 7 55 946 10

*

124 414 88

*

Error 51 5488 1419

Total 95

Narrow blade

Block 2 290 117 104

*

20 000 42

*

Depth 1 12 611 375 1000

*

356 510 75

*

Angle 1 6 017 513 1000

*

7 392 600 1000

*

Speed 7 174 373 63

*

33 590 7

*

Depthangle 1 479 544 171

*

1 008 600 213

*

Depthspeed 7 14 028 5 n.s. 2348 0.5 n.s.

Anglespeed 7 7047 3 n.s. 12 722 3 n.s.

Error 51 2791 4731

Total 95

MS = Mean square.

df = degree of freedom.

*

Significant at P_0.05.

n.s. = Not significant.

246 A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253

this study is speed and so subsequent discussions are

on speedforce relationships.

The forces generally increased with the speed of

operation. Of the possible regression models evalu-

ated, the best model that describes the relationship is a

polynomial of the second degree of the form:

Y = u

0

u

1

i u

2

i

2

(44)

where Y is the draught or vertical force (N), v the tool

speed (in m/s), u

0

, u1 and u

2

the regression coef-

cients given in Tables 3 and 4. The Tables show that

the R

2

values for the model were very high (>0.9) for

both the wide and narrow blade. The relative con-

tribution of v

2

to the model was small as shown by the

coefcients of v

2

compared to v. The results obtained

in this study agree with some earlier reports (Siemens

et al., 1965; Luth and Wismer, 1971; Stafford, 1979;

Owen, 1989) but are at variance with the linear

relationship reported by others (Payne, 1956; Rowe

and Barnes, 1961). The polynomial relationship is

attributed to the combined effect of inertial forces

(square of speed) as the soil slides over the tool and the

effect of rate of shear on tool forces (linear).

3.2. Model prediction: draught

The effect of speed on draught for the wide blade is

shown in Fig. 4 for the two rake angles and two depths

studied. The error bars in the gures refer to 95%

condence intervals for the mean of three replications.

The average percent deviation of the predicted values

from experimental observations are shown in Table 5.

For the wide blade, the average deviation was 62%,

40% and 64% for Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The

corresponding values for the narrow blade were 46%,

21% and 37%. For the 458 rake angle, the gure shows

that the models predicted the correct response for

draughtspeed relationship but the values predicted

were generally lower than the experimental results for

the 458 rake angle. This under-prediction at low rake

Table 3

Regression coefficients for the model H=u

0

u

1

vu

2

v

2

for draught force

Depth (cm) Angle (deg.) u

0

P

0.05

u

1

P

0.05

u

2

P

0.05

R

2

Wide blade

10 45 416 0.000 324 0.000 30 0.054 0.99

15 45 721 0.000 280 0.004 9 0.043 0.99

10 90 1029 0.000 878 0.000 153 0.013 0.99

15 90 1683 0.000 630 0.000 78 0.009 0.99

Narrow blade

11.4 45 116 0.000 68 0.023 11 0.079 0.99

22.9 45 553 0.000 195 0.000 13 0.165 0.99

11.4 90 346 0.000 212 0.002 10 0.054 0.99

22.9 90 1110 0.000 308 0.002 13 0.097 0.99

Table 4

Regression coefficients for the model V=u

0

u

1

vu

2

v

2

for vertical the force

Depth (cm) Angle (deg) u

0

P

0.05

u

1

P

0.05

u

2

P

0.05

R

2

Wide blade

10 45 111 0.000 138 0.000 21 0.041 0.99

15 45 141 0.000 261 0.000 65 0.003 0.99

10 90 454 0.000 344 0.001 43 0.105 0.99

15 90 701 0.000 372 0.000 75 0.010 0.99

Narrow blade

11.4 45 38 0.005 91 0.002 21 0.032 0.97

22.9 45 192 0.000 117 0.001 17 0.089 0.99

11.4 90 186 0.000 28 0.055 15 0.028 0.99

22.9 90 378 0.000 166 0.012 49 0.048 0.99

A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253 247

angles may be attributed to at least three reasons,

namely, the assumption that the failure line below the

soil wedge is a straight line instead of a curve, the

bulldozing effect of plane tools at low rake angles,

which is not accounted for by the models and the

assumption that the cutting resistance of the soil is

negligible as assumed by all the models.

For the 908 rake angle, the model based on Soehne's

approach (Model 1) over-predicted the draught while

those based on McKyes' approach (Model 2) and

Perumpral's approach (Model 3) under-predicted the

draught force. The over-prediction by Model 1 actu-

ally starts from about 708 rake angle and that was

probably why Siemens et al. (1965), in using it for

passive analysis recommended that it should not be

used beyond 708. The over-prediction by Model 1 is

attributed to the geometry of the soil wedge assumed

(trapezium) which results in the expressions for the

tool forces having tangent of the rake angle. Since the

tangent of any angle gets abnormally large near 908,

the forces become too large. The present results

reafrm that this model should be used for rake angles

less than 708.

It is noted that although Model 2 assumes the same

failure wedge as Model 3, the results show that the

prediction by Model 3 was lower in magnitude. This

is attributed to the fact that the solution techniques

are different. In Model 2, the failure angle is obtained

by minimising the N-factor for weight while in

Model 3, the failure angle is obtained by minimising

the total cutting force instead of the component for

weight.

The models performed better in predicting draught

for the narrow blade, compared to the wide blade as

shown in Fig. 5. Table 5 shows that whereas the

overall average deviations were 33%, 28% and 46%

for Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively, for the narrow

blade, the corresponding values were 53%, 51% and

85% for the model wide blade. For the 458 rake angle,

Model 2 was generally good in predicting the draught

speed relationship and the other two models predicted

values a little too low. For the 908 rake angle, as was

the case with the wide blade, over prediction of the

draught by Model 1 was obtained. The other two

models had moderate agreement with the experimen-

tal results.

Fig. 4. Effect of speed on draught, wide blade, width=25.4 cm. Soil type= Dystric Fluvisol (silty sand texture), bulk density=1.5 g/cm

3

,

moisture content=140 g kg

1

.

248 A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253

The proportional increase of draught with tool

speed was higher for the narrow tool as predicted

by Models 2 and 3 (Fig. 5). This is obvious from the

relative curvature of the lines in Fig. 5 compared to

Fig. 4. This is attributed to the additional acceleration

force from the side failure crescent in these models.

Since Model 1 does not account for the side failure

crescent even for 3-D analysis, the proportional

increase in draught is similar for wide and narrow

blades.

The three models assume that draught is a function

of the square of speed. The experimental results, as

discussed earlier, indicated that, while this can be

acceptable, a more correct assumption would be that

it is a function of both the speed and the square of the

speed. The conclusion from this is that the accelera-

tion forces in the models should be modied to include

not only the square of the speed but also the speed.

3.3. Model prediction: vertical force

Vertical force prediction by the models as compared

to experimental data for the wide blade is shown in

Fig. 6. The percent deviations are shown in Table 5.

For the wide blade, the average deviations were 44%,

62% and 106% for Models 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

The corresponding values for the narrow blade were

21%, 34% and 56%. For the 458 rake angle and wide

blade, Model 1 predicted values that have moderate

agreement with experimental results although the

model values were generally higher. As was the case

with draught, Models 2 and 3 under-predicted the

vertical force. They were so low for the 458 rake

angle (wide blade) that they were negative instead

of positive. This could be attributed to the nature of the

soil (sandy). Thus for very low rake angles, the

contribution from the weight of the soil wedge was

Table 5

Average percent deviation of predicted forces from experimental observation

a

Blade type Force type Depth (cm) Rate angle (deg) Average % deviation from experiment

b

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Wide Draught 10 45 38 48 62

15 45 17 30 56

0 90 57 34 77

15 90 137 48 62

Average for draught force 62 40 64

Wide Vertical force 10 45 47 87 160

15 45 56 93 159

10 90 47 34 56

15 90 16 42 49

Average for vertical force 44 62 106

Average for wide blade 53 51 85

Narrow Draught 11.4 45 25 6 39

22.9 45 25 8 38

11.4 90 26 25 50

22.9 90 106 46 19

Average for draught force 46 21 37

Narrow Vertical force 45 27 46 99

45 13 19 58

90 40 24 44

90 4 47 24

Average for vertical force 21 34 56

Average for narrow blade 33 28 46

Overall deviation 43 40 66

a

Each value is the average of eight speed levels used in the study.

b

Figures are absolute values of the deviations.

A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253 249

smaller than that from adhesion. For the same rake

angle and for the narrow tool, the models showed

moderate but consistently lower agreement with

experimental results (Fig. 7). The vertical force was

no longer negative as obtained with the wide blade

because of the added weight due to the side crescent.

For the higher rake angle (908), the vertical force

was negative for both experimental and model pre-

diction results for the wide and narrow tools (Figs. 6

and 7). The values were negative because as rake angle

increases, vertical force decreases, until at about 608

when it is zero. Beyond this, the tool tends to pull itself

into the soil (suction), thus making the vertical force to

change sign. The models predicted lower values

except for Model 1 which was good in prediction in

some of the cases shown in the gures (wide blade:

d=15 cm, c=908 and most of the predictions for the

narrow tool). Model 2 had moderate agreement with

experimental results for two cases for the narrow tool

(c=458, d=11.4, 22.9 cm) as shown in Fig. 7.

As noted for draught, the prediction of pattern of

variation was not exactly the same for the models and

experimental results. While the experimental results

showed vertical force as a function of the speed and

the square of the speed, the models show it as a

function of the square of the speed only. As noted

earlier, the acceleration equations in the models need

to be modied to account for this.

Table 6. Definition of symbols used in the Figs. 13.

Figure No. Symbol Definition

1 d Tool depth (m)

u Soil failure angle (deg)

d

*

Apparent height of the trapezoidal soil wedge (m)

L

0

Part of length of trapezoidal soil wedge equal to the tool length (m)

L

1

, L

2

Length of leading and failing edge of trapezoidal soil wedge (m)

2 AF

o

Adhesive force on interface (N)

CF

1

Cohesive force on failure surface due to shearing (N)

CF

2

Resistance to cohesion on the side of wedge (N)

F

a

Soil acceleration force (N)

H Draught (N)

SF Soilsoil frictional resistance (N)

V Vertical force (N)

W Weight of soil wedge (N)

j

1

Coefficient of soilsoil friction

N

0

Normal component of soil reaction on the soiltool interface (N)

N

1

Normal component of soil reaction on side wedge (N)

R

0

Soil reaction on the tool surface (N)

N

2

Normal component of soil reaction on the side of the wedge (N)

3 w Tool width (m)

C Cohesion (kPa)

C

a

Adhesion (kPa)

d Tool depth (cm)

P

1

Soil cutting force for centre wedge (N)

P

2

Soil cutting force for side crescent (N)

Soil bulk density (g/cm

3

)

q Surcharge (kPa)

R

1

Soil reaction on the failure plane for centre wedge (N)

R

2

Soil reaction on the failure plane for side crescent (N)

S Width of side failure crescent (m)

r Rupture distance (m)

o Angle of soil metal friction (deg)

c Rake angle (deg)

, Angle subtended by side failure crescent (deg)

c Angle of internal friction of soil (deg)

u Failure angle (deg)

250 A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253

Fig. 5. Effect of speed on draught, narrow blade, width =5.1 cm. Soil type = Dystric Fluvisol (silty sand texture), bulk density=1.5 g/cm

3

,

moisture content=140 g kg

1

.

Fig. 6. Effect of speed on vertical force, wide blade, width=25.4 cm. Soil type = Dystric Fluvisol (silty sand texture), bulk density=1.5 g/

cm

3

, moisture content=140 g kg

1

.

A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253 251

3.4. Overall model prediction

The average deviations of the predicted values from

the experimental ones varied from 6% to 160% as

shown in Table 5. The overall performance of the

models in predicting the experimental results for

draught and vertical force taken together is reected

in the overall deviations shown in Table 5 to be 43%,

40% and 66%, respectively. Thus, Model 2 had more

general agreement with the experimental observa-

tions.

4. Conclusions

Based on the experimental observation, tool force

(draught and vertical force) is a function of speed and

the square of speed. However, the three models eval-

uated in this study assume that the tool force is a

function of the square of the speed only. The models

should be modied to account for this. The three

models under-predicted the tool forces vs. speed

relationship for the wide blade. Moderate agreement

between the predicted and observed values were

obtained for the narrow tool in general for all the

three models. However, Model 1 (based on Soehne's

approach) tends to over-predict draught at 908 rake

angle for both 2-D and 3-D analysis. Model 3 (based

on Perumpral's approach) generally under-predicted

the relationship between tool forces and speed. Model

2 (based on McKyes' approach) had more general

agreement with experimental observations, especially

for the narrow tool when compared with the other

models.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the technical staff of

Department of Agricultural Engineering, Technical

University of Nova Scotia for equipment fabrication.

These include J. Visers, J. Godwin, C. Wade and A.

Murphy. The wiring of electrical and electronic com-

ponents of the soil bin was by G. Jollimore and G.

Yourick. Funding for the project is by the CIDA-

TUNS-UNN Linkage agreement.

Fig. 7. Effect of speed on vertical force, narrow blade, width=5.1 cm. Soil type = Dystric Fluvisol (silty sand texture), bulk density=1.5 g/

cm

3

, moisture content=140 g kg

1

.

252 A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253

References

FAO/UNESCO, 1990. Soil Map of the World, Revised Legend.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

(FAO) and United Nations Educational and Scientific Organi-

zation (UNESCO).

Gill, W.R., Vandern Berg, G.E., 1968. Soil dynamics in tillage and

traction. Agriculture Handbook No. 316. Agricultural Research

Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). pp.

126140.

Godwin, R.J., Spoor, G., 1977. Soil failure with narrow tines. J.

Agric. Eng. Res. 22(4), 213228.

Grisso, R.D., Perumpral, J.V., 1985. Review of models for

predicting the performance of narrow tillage tools. Trans.

Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. (ASAE). 28(4), 10621067.

Gupta, P.D., Gupta, C.P., Pandey, K.P., 1989. An analytical model

for predicting draft forces on convex-type cutting blades. Soil

Till. Res. 14, 131144.

Hahn, R.H., Rosentreter, E.E. (Eds.), 1989. ASAE Data D230.4.

Agricultural machinery management data. In: American

Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Standards. 36th

ed., ASAE, St. Joseph MI 49085. 61 pp..

Hettiaratchi, D.R.P., Witney, B.D., Reece, A.R., 1966. The

calculation of passive pressure in two-dimensional soil failure.

J. Agric. Eng. Res. 11(2), 89107.

Luth, H.J., Wismer, R.D., 1971. Performance of plane cutting

blades in sand. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. (ASAE) 14(2),

255262.

Mckyes, E., 1985. Soil Cutting and Tillage. Developments in

Agricultural Engineering, vol. 7, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Mckyes, E., Ali, O.S., 1977. The cutting of soil by narrow blades. J.

Terramech. 14(2), 4358.

Mckyes, E., Desir, F.L., 1984. Prediction and field measurements

of tillage tool draft and efficiency in cohesive soils. Soil Till.

Res. 4, 459470.

Onwualu, A.P., 1991. Tillage tool factors affecting sandy soil

interaction with plane blades in a soil bin. Ph.D Thesis,

Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada.

Onwualu, A.P., Watts, K.C., 1989a. Development of a soil bin test

facility. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper No.

89-1106, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659.

Onwualu, A.P., Watts, K.C., 1989b. Control system for a

hydraulically powered soil bin. American Society of Agricul-

tural Engineers Paper No. 89-1570, St. Joseph, MI, 49085-

9659.

Onwualu, A.P., Watts, K.C., 1993. Real time measurement of cone

index in a soil bin. Comput. Electron. Agric. 9, 143157.

Osman, M.S., 1964. The mechanics of soil cutting blades. J. Agric.

Eng. Res. 9(4), 313328.

Owen, G.T., 1989. Subsoiling forces and tool speed in compact

soils. Can. Agric. Eng. 31(1), 1520.

Payne, P.C.J., 1956. The relationship between the mechanical

properties of soil and the performance of simple cultivation

implements. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1(1), 2350.

Payne, P.C.S., Tanner, D.W., 1959. The relationship between rake

angle and the performance of simple cultivation implements. J.

Agric. Eng. Res. 4(4), 312325.

Plasse, R., Raghavan, G.S.V., McKyes, E., 1985. Simulation of

narrow blade performance in different soils. Trans. Am. Soc.

Agric. Eng. 28(4), 10071012.

Reece, A.R., 1964. The fundamental equation of earth moving

mechanics. Proc. Symp. on Earthmoving Machinery, Institution

of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 1622.

Rowe, R.J., Barnes, K.K., 1961. Influence of speed on elements of

draft of a tillage tool. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 4, 5557.

Siemens, J.C., Weber, J.A., Thornburn, T.H., 1965. Mechanics of

soil as influenced by model tillage tools. Trans. Am. Soc.

Agric. Eng. 8(1), 17.

Stafford, J.V., 1979. The performance of a rigid tine in relation to

soil properties and speed. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 24, 4157.

Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H., 1960. Principles and Procedures of

Statistics With Special Reference to the Biological Sciences.

McGraw-Hill, NY.

Swick, W.C., Perumpral, J.V., 1988. A model for predicting soil-

tool interaction. J. Terramechanica 25(1), 4356.

Terpstra, R., 1977. Draught forces of tines in beds of glass spheres.

J. Agric. Eng. Res. 22, 135143.

Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering

Practice. Wiley, NY, pp. 192206.

Webb, K.T., Duff, J.P., Langille, D.R., 1989. Soils of the Cobequid

Shore Area of Nova Scotia. Report No. 23, Nova Scotia Soil

Survey. Agriculture Canada and Nova Scotia, Department of

Agriculture and Marketing.

Wismer, R.D., Luth, H.J., 1972. Performance of plane soil

cutting blades in a clay. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 15(2),

211216.

A.P. Onwualu, K.C. Watts / Soil & Tillage Research 48 (1998) 239253 253

- Comportamento de Solo Reforçado...Uploaded byEloi Angelo Palma Filho
- FrictionAnglesAggregates-FHWATechBrief2013.pdfUploaded byicabullanguero
- Boulanger & Idriss_2003Uploaded bysuazolog
- Understanding SAR ADCUploaded bykothari_rubin
- 2N3879Uploaded byMarco Frigerio
- Temp-TxrUploaded bymanips
- 232861246-Dilatancy-for-Cohesionless-Soils-DAFALIAS.pdfUploaded bytamlb0507
- [Hoyos, Laureano R.; Zhang, Xiong; Puppala, AnandUploaded byNam
- D-59-542-548.pdfUploaded bylambanaveen
- Tesis Comparacion de Metodos PucUploaded bybaltazar_54
- D Internet Myiemorgmy Iemms Assets Doc Alldoc Document 953 EC7Uploaded byHoo Yen How
- 01085291Uploaded byanna_garcia_mq
- Soil characterizationUploaded byLuis Vélez
- Zace Cam Clay and CapUploaded bybiles1234
- Pad Base Bearing and StabilityUploaded byPrajeeth R Krizz
- ScienceUploaded bySantan Kelapa
- Seasonal Bias for Shallow Focus Earthquakes in Indian TropicsUploaded bySujit Dasgupta
- Calculation Foundation T2 (1)Uploaded bySaiful Hoque Sohel
- Write_UP.Uploaded byNagendra Shete
- Boss GT-3 Service NotesUploaded byFernando Gómez
- Planning for SI Works by Dr Ir GueUploaded byKatheresan Murugan
- 02 - SCAGROP014-2016 - 367_376Uploaded bypeterpps
- Ch2b Data Converter v2Uploaded bysadyehclen
- Characteristic Shear Strength Values for EC7Uploaded byBrian Conner
- fourUploaded byapi-340425056
- Solar Panel Trackintg SystemUploaded byJiiva Gopi
- Mechanism of Limit Equillibrium ProcedureUploaded byMustafiz Mohiuddin Sherif
- report of wlcUploaded byTrupti Desai
- Boss GT-3 Repair ManualUploaded byPete Maxwell
- DEFCON-24-Plore-Side-Channel-Attacks-On-High-Security-Electronic-Safe-Locks.pdfUploaded byMohamed Nabil

- Metode_sterilizacije_2014_II(1)Uploaded byRis Doris
- Solid-Works 2013Uploaded byŽeljko Livaja
- Termicka obrada celikaUploaded byVojkan Damjanović
- 1-42 Fortran 77Uploaded byŽeljko Livaja
- Binko Musafija - Obrada metala plastičnom deformacijomUploaded byZdravko Grbić
- Binko Musafija - Obrada metala plastičnom deformacijomUploaded byZdravko Grbić
- Solidworks 2006 Za Masinske Inzenjere KompletUploaded byIzudin Zemanić
- Mehatronicki sistemiUploaded byŽeljko Livaja
- D4K2_XL_LGP 1Uploaded byŽeljko Livaja
- AutodizaliceUploaded byŽeljko Livaja
- Trakasti transporteriUploaded byŽeljko Livaja
- TR-2010-01Uploaded byŽeljko Livaja
- Prediction of Soil Cutting Forces.Uploaded byŽeljko Livaja
- 6. TAHOGRAFIUploaded byŽeljko Livaja

- Lectures_8_9_10Uploaded byAzmiHafifi
- The Relationship Between Novice and Experienced EFLUploaded byNoorleha Mohd Yusoff
- 2009 Corneal Refractive Power Estimation and Intraocular Lens Calculation After Hyperopic LASIKUploaded byHanna_R
- 44 1 One Way AnovaUploaded byEbookcraze
- 55(1)Uploaded bynavketsharma6280
- Aplicacion de Un Control Por Modos DeslizantesUploaded byStefania IgnemSpirit
- 621_F08_Final_Exam_indicator.pdfUploaded byron
- Empirical Propagation Model for Wimax at 3.5 Ghz in an Urban EnvironmentUploaded byMatthew Carter
- Shrout-Fleiss-ICCUploaded bygalltywenallt
- lms notesUploaded byHamid Ullah
- Survey WorksUploaded bymkrun2007
- Fixed Income > Yield Curve Building With BondsUploaded byapi-27174321
- Basics Using Matlab Fuzzy ToolboxUploaded bydieu_ag2
- Panel Data AnalysisUploaded by3rlang
- Freedman; Pisani - Statistics 4th EditionUploaded byLuiz Eduardo De Alencar Bion
- Assignment TodayUploaded byharis
- STA301 - Final Term Solved Subjective With Reference by MoaazUploaded byAdnan Khawaja
- CH5 Unit Roots and Cointegration in PanelsUploaded byHafizAhmad
- MA EconomicsUploaded byARUPARNA MAITY
- Stat7055 l05 Samp-distUploaded byMuneeb Jasim
- MS 08 - Solved AssignmentUploaded byAdarsh Kalhia
- Ceragon radioUploaded byEmmanuel Mupinga
- An Empirical Analysis of Inventory Turnover Performance Within a Retail FirmUploaded byjaykhan85
- growth debt.pdfUploaded bySamia Omran
- scm_ch05Uploaded byHasan Raza
- - A Fractal Forecasting Model for Financial Time SeriesUploaded byAmine Tounsi
- Ch20 ExercisesUploaded byamisha2562585
- 2011-04-05_072001_statistics2Uploaded byLastri Junedah
- elengegbeleyeUploaded bydeepashaji
- Quantile RegressionUploaded byhdascapital