Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124

A nonlinear 3D finite element analysis of

the soil forces acting on a disk plow
Nidal H. Abu-Hamdeh a,∗ , Randall C. Reeder b
a Postal Code 21110, P.O. Box 422, Irbid, Jordan
b The Ohio State University, Agricultural Engineering Bldg., RM 228C,
590 Woody Hayes Drive, Columbus, OH 43210-1057, USA
Received 6 June 2002; received in revised form 7 May 2003; accepted 19 May 2003

Abstract
This study aimed to compare predicted soil forces on a disk plow with measured forces within the tillage depth of clay
(90 g kg−1 sand, 210 g kg−1 silt, 700 g kg−1 clay) and sandy loam (770 g kg−1 sand, 40 g kg−1 silt, 190 g kg−1 clay) soils. The
model assumed the effects of both tilt angle and plowing speed. Two plowing speeds (4 and 10 km/h) at three tilt angles (15◦ ,
20◦ and 25◦ ) were compared and the draft, vertical, and side forces determined. A 3D nonlinear finite element model was used
to predict the soil forces while a dynamometer was used to measure them on a disk plow in the field. An incremental method
was used to deal with material nonlinearity and the Trapezoidal rule method was used to analyze the dynamic response of
soil during tillage. Field tillage experiments were conducted to verify the results of the finite element model. It was found that
increasing the tilt angle of the plow increased the draft and vertical forces and decreased the side force. Increasing plowing
speed increased the draft and side forces and decreased the vertical force. Generally, the results from the finite element model
were found to be compatible with the experimental results in clay soil, while in sandy loam the differences between predicted
and measured data were probably due to problems of measuring soil mechanical characteristics in the triaxial test.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tillage; Finite element model; Soil forces; Disk angle; Plowing speed

1. Introduction or mixing soil to incorporate amendments. Soil tillage

Tillage, a process of applying energy to the soil to
change its soil physical condition or to disturb soil
for some other purpose, is one component in any sys-
tem of soil management for crop production. Tillage
processes are used in crop production for several pur-
poses, such as loosening soil to create a seedbed or a
rootbed, moving soil to change the microtopography,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +962-79-5614261;
fax: +962-2-7095018.
E-mail addresses: nidal@just.edu.jo (N.H. Abu-Hamdeh),
reeder.1@osu.edu (R.C. Reeder).
has always been a major research area in agriculture.
As a tillage operation is a procedure for breaking up
soil, soil failure depends mainly upon the soil prop-
erties, tool geometry, and cutting speed. Almost all
of the soil cutting tools used in agriculture have been
developed by field experiment and by trial and error
(Kepner et al., 1978).
Experimental and theoretical analysis techniques
are essential to develop efficient tillage or soil cutting
tools which will require less energy and still pro-
vide a satisfactory soil condition for crop emergence
and growth. The field experiment allows prototype
verification with specialize instrumented equipment

0167-1987/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00152-1
116 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124
(McLaughlin et al., 1993). Theoretical analysis is
growing in popularity to accelerate the production
process requirements and the desire to decrease pro-
totype construction and verification. Analytical and
empirical models are still used to solve soil–tool inter-
action applications (McKyes, 1985), but many of these
models are 2D and are theoretically suitable only for
very wide tools (Osman, 1964; Siemens et al., 1965;
Hettiaratchi et al., 1966). A few 3D models to pre-
dict narrow tillage tool behavior in soils are available
(Payne, 1956; Hettiaratchi and Reece, 1967; McKyes,
1978; Perumpral et al., 1983). The majority of these
models, however, are for slow-moving tools and do
not take into consideration the speed effects. Most
tillage operations, on the other hand, are performed at
speeds in the range 4–10 km/h, where the soil forces
on the tillage tools are expected to vary with tool
speed. The latest advances in computer performance
are proving to be promising for numerical approaches
to tool design such as the finite element method. Much
work has been reported on the static analysis of tillage
problems using the finite element method (Konder and
Zelasko, 1963; Yong and Hanna, 1977; Liu and Hou,
1985; Zeng and Fu, 1985; Xie and Zhang, 1985; Chi
and Kushwaha, 1990; Wang and Gee-Clough, 1991;
Plouffe et al., 1998a,b). This method was shown to
be capable of simulating different tool shapes and
the dynamic effect of travel speed. Simulations, how-
ever, must always be performed in conjunction with
experimental tests to verify their validity.
The objectives of this study were to: (1) use a 3D
finite element model for predicting the soil forces on a
disk plow as affected by tilt angle and plowing speed;
(2) measure soil forces on a disk plow in the field
experiments in clay and sandy loam soils at different
speeds and tilt angles, and (3) compare and evaluate
the predicted soil forces against actual field measure-
ments of these forces.
2. Materials and methods
The finite element model and the program devel-
oped during this study have the capability to predict
the effect of plow tilt angle, plowing speed, and soil
type on the soil forces acting on a disk plow. The de-
tails of these analyses are included in the following
sections.
2.1. Constitutive relationships
The hyperbolic model developed by Duncan and
Chang (1970) to represent a typical stress–strain rela-
tionship was used in this study. The model represents
the nonlinear elastic behavior of soil and the tangent
modulus of elasticity in this model is expressed as
a function of soil stress level and soil strength. This
model was selected for its generality as well as for
the convenience involved in the determination of the
model parameters using triaxial tests. The hyperbolic
model is given by:

n

σ3 Rf (σ1 − σ3 ) 2
Et = KPa 1− (1)
Pa (σ1 − σ3 )f
where Et is the tangent modulus of elasticity, Pa the
atmospheric pressure, σ 1 the major principal stress
in soil, σ 3 the minor principal stress in soil, (σ1 −
σ3 )f = (σ1 − σ3 ) at soil failure, Rf the failure ratio
defined as the ratio of ultimate deviatoric stress to
the soil strength, and K, n the dimensionless numbers
determined from triaxial test results.
In Duncan’s equation, the tangent modulus, Et , of
soil was expressed as a function of the major and minor
principle stresses. Qun and Shen (1988) established a
relation between soil strain rate and shear stress by
means of statistical mechanics as follows:
ln ξ̇ = α + β( 21 (σ1 − σ3 )) (2)
where ξ̇ is the actual strain rate in soil and α, β are
the equation coefficients.
The following expression for a modified tangent
modulus based on Eqs. (1) and (2) was proposed by
Shen and Kushwaha (1993) to account for loading rate
effects:

n
2
σ3 Rf (σ1 − σ3 )
Et = KPa 1−
Pa (σ1 − σ3 )fo [1 + Bt ln(ξ̇/ξ̇o )]
(3)
where ξ̇o is the maximum strain rate at conventional
triaxial apparatus, (σ1 − σ3 )fo = (σ1 − σ3 ) at soil
failure from conventional triaxial apparatus and Bt the
coefficient relating to the stain rate effect.
The draft and vertical forces of a tillage tool are af-
fected by adhesion and friction between the soil and
the surface of the tillage tool and hence an interface
 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124 117

element needs to be introduced to study their resis- Table 1

tance effect in the finite element method. The tangent Soil parameters used for the finite element analysis
modulus used was derived from Clough and Duncan Terms Soil type
(1971) hyperbolic model as: Clay Sandy

ni
 loam
σn Rif τ 2
E t = Ki P a 1− (4) Parameters of initial modulus of soil
Pa τf Angle of internal friction (φ), ◦ 17.30 31.80
Cohesion (c), kPa 59.00 10.10
where Et is the tangent modulus of soil–tool interface, K 41.87 21.58
Pa the atmospheric pressure, σ n the normal stress at n 0.00 0.55
soil–tool interface, Rif the failure ratio of soil–tool Failure ratio (Rf ) 0.77 0.76
interface, Ki , ni the parameters obtained from tests, a 0.15 0.10
b 0.32 0.34
τ the actual shear stress at soil–tool interface, τ f the
shear stress at soil failure. Parameters of interface of soil–tool
The shear stress at soil failure is given by: Soil–tool friction (θ) 22.6 22.6
Adhesion (Ca ), kPa 27.01 5.05
τf = Ca + σn tan θ (5) Ki , kPa/cm 4.71 4.71
ni 0.81 0.81
Failure ratio (Rif ) 0.88 0.87
where Ca is the adhesion between soil and cutting tool,
σ n the normal stress, and θ the friction angle between
the soil and tool.
The dynamic interface model was obtained from where ν is the Poisson’s ratio, and a, b are the soil
Eqs. (2) and (4) as follows (Shen and Kushwaha, parameters obtained from the regression analysis.
1993):

ni
2 2.2. Boundary conditions applied
σn Rif τ
E t = Ki P a 1− (6)
Pa τfo [1 + Bi ln(γ̇/γ̇o )] The soil-cutting model considered in the analysis
was idealized with tetrahedral constant strain elements
where τfo is the shear stress at soil failure obtained
because of their simplicity and convenience for nonlin-
from direct shear-box test, γ̇ the actual shear strain
ear material. Fig. 1 illustrates the finite element mesh
rate at soil–tool interface, γ̇o the maximum strain rate
for a disk plow. The region of influence considered
on direct shear-box apparatus, and Bi the coefficient
in the analysis had a length in the longitudinal direc-
relating to the sliding rate effect.
tion of seven times the tool operating depth, a depth
Laboratory tests were conducted in a modified shear
of three times the tool operating depth and a width in
box to study the characteristics of the soil–tillage tool
the lateral direction of twice the tool diameter. A total
interface (Chi and Kushwaha, 1990). The estimated
of 1500 nodes and 6000 elements were generated for
parameters for the interface element are listed in
each meshing. The boundary conditions applied were
Table 1.
as follows:
Duncan and Chang (1970) stated that two material
properties, namely the tangent modulus and Poisson’s
1. The nodes on bottom surface were fixed vertically
ratio are necessary to completely describe the me-
(z-direction).
chanical behavior of any material under a general sys-
2. The nodes on front and rear surface were fixed
tem of changing stresses. The tangent modulus can be
longitudinally (x-direction).
calculated from Eqs. (3) or (4). The following equa-
3. The nodes on right and left side surface were fixed
tion proposed by Chi et al. (1993) calculates values of
laterally (y-direction).
Poisson’s ratio, ν, as a linear function of stress ratio;
4. The nodes on blade–soil interface had a specified
it is written in terms of stress level and soil strength:

 longitudinal (x-direction) displacement during each
(1 − sin φ)(σ1 − σ3 ) increment and were constrained from movements
ν =a+b (7)
2c cos φ + 2σ3 sin φ and rotations in all other directions.
118 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124

Soil surface

Disk blade

Fig. 1. Finite element mesh of disk plow.

5. The nodes on side wall of furrow were fixed later-
ally (y-direction).
6. All other nodes were free in three directions.
2.3. Finite element formulation
The general matrix differential equation for time de-
pendent problems can be expressed as follows (Cook
et al., 1988):
M ä + Cȧ + Ka + f = 0 (8)
where f is the external load vector, ä, ȧ, a are the nodal
acceleration, velocity, and displacement vectors, re-
spectively, and M, C, K the mass, damping and stiff-
ness matrix, respectively.
For tillage problems, the soil forces are determined
by the f vector which can be considered to comprise
of three components: acceleration, damping, and static
equilibrium.
Since soil is a nonlinear elastic material, the incre-
mental method was implemented into the finite ele-
ment program to solve the nonlinear behavior of soil
and the interaction between the soil and tool surface
in order to obtain information at every stage of the
soil-cutting process. The total load was applied in sev-
eral increments. This allowed the linear elastic theory
to be used because the calculated strains and stresses
for each increment were small. During each increment
the soil tangent modulus at each Gauss point was up-
dated according to the current stress status. The load
was continued until the soil structure collapsed. Closer
approximations to the exact solution are obtained as
the load increment is decreased and the number of
load steps is increased.
The Trapezoidal rule integration method was used
to simulate the dynamic response of soil (Cook et al.,
1988). The time interval corresponded exactly to the
load interval. During each time step the acceleration
at each node and the velocity at each Gauss point
were calculated, and the soil tangent modulus at each
Gauss point was updated continuously according to
the present speed value and stress status.
It was assumed that only shear and tensile stresses
cause failure in agricultural soils. Shear failure oc-
curred at one Gauss point when the difference between
the major and minor principal stresses at this point ex-
ceeded the maximum shear strength, and the tangent
modulus was modified to a small value (10−6 times
the initial modulus). Tensile failure occurred at one
Gauss point if a tensile stress at this point was larger
 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124 119

than five times the soil cohesion determined from lab-

oratory triaxial tests, and the tangent modulus was
modified to a very small value (10−6 times the initial
modulus). This tensile stress value was used because
the value of cohesion prevailing in the field is usually
several times greater than that determined from labo-
ratory tests, thus, the fivefold cohesion was selected
as a threshold (Shen and Kushwaha, 1993).

2.4. Disk plow and field measurements

of soil forces

Disk plowing has always been the most popular

primary tillage practice in Jordan. Its ability to cut
through crop residues, roll over roots and other ob-
structions, and control weeds mechanically, even in
wet soil conditions, is probably the major reason for
its popularity. The disk is tilted backward at an an-
gle of 15–25◦ from the vertical (Fig. 2). Blades on
disk plows are concave, usually representing sections
of hollow spheres. The action of a concave disk blade
is such that the soil is lifted, pulverized, partially in-
verted, and displaced to one side.
The net effect of all the soil forces acting on a disk
blade resulting from its cutting, pulverizing, elevating,
and inverting action, plus any parasitic forces acting
on the disk, can be expressed in terms of three forces, Fig. 3. Soil forces acting upon a disk blade; longitudinal or draft
namely longitudinal (draft) force, lateral (side) force, force (L), lateral or side force (S), and vertical upward force (V).
and vertical upward force, L, S, and V (Fig. 3).
Field experiments were conducted to compare the
Tilt angle predicted force values with the measured force values.
The influence of tilt angle and plowing speed upon soil
reactions were investigated experimentally in a series
Vertical of field tests. Two typical soils in Jordan were used,
namely a sandy loam soil (770 g kg−1 sand, 40 g kg−1
silt, 190 g kg−1 clay) at an average moisture content
of 13.6% and a clay soil (90 g kg−1 sand, 210 g kg−1
silt, 700 g kg−1 clay) at an average moisture content of
10.9%. Several core samples were taken from different
locations in the test fields for soil density and moisture
content measurement. The average soil density and
moisture content were used in laboratory tests to deter-
mine the soil parameters for the constitutive equations.
The average soil parameters obtained from the labora-
Ground line
tory triaxial tests on field samples are listed in Table 1
for the sandy loam and clay soils. Details of the labora-
tory triaxial tests can be found in Shen and Kushwaha
Fig. 2. Identification of tilt angle for a plow disk. (1994). In these tests, the size of the soil specimens
120 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124
was 52 mm in diameter and 106 mm in length, test rate
of soil samples was set to be 0.1 mm/s, and stress levels
were controlled around four values: 20, 40, 60, 80 kPa.
The field tests were with a 610 mm diameter plow
disk having a 55.8 radius of curvature working at a
depth of 18 cm with a width of cut of 21 cm. A pre-
liminary run with the disk plow to leave an open fur-
row for the actual test run was performed before each
test run. The analysis was conducted for four different
cases to observe the effects of tilt angle and plowing
speed. They were:
1. Plowing speed of 4 km/h at three tilt angles
(15◦ , 20◦ , and 25◦ ) in clay.
2. Plowing speed of 10 km/h at three tilt angles
(15◦ , 20◦ , and 25◦ ) in clay.
3. Plowing speed of 4 km/h at three tilt angles
(15◦ , 20◦ , and 25◦ ) in sandy loam.
4. Plowing speed of 10 km/h at three tilt angles
(15◦ , 20◦ , and 25◦ ) in sandy loam.
Tillage forces were measured using a force trans-
ducer mounted on the plow frame and consisting of
six load cells to measure draft force, side force, and
vertical force. Signal conditioners with second-order
low pass filters adjusted at 100 Hz were connected on
each load cells. A custom application created under
the LabView v5.0 environment (National Instruments)
monitored input signals, displayed, and saved the re-
sults in data files. A transformation matrix was used to
convert the six load cell forces into forces along all or-
thogonal axes. The operating speed was measured by a
wheel with a magnetic signal and an ultrasonic sensor
was used to measure the operating depth. Data were
collected with a data logger (Model CR7X, Campbell
Scientific Inc., Logan, UT). The results reported for
these tests include values of L, S, and V at the differ-
ent tilt angles and plowing speeds. For each case, four
test replicates were used and the average force values
were used for comparison with the force predictions.
2.5. Finite element analysis
A finite element program, written in FORTRAN,
was developed using all the techniques and equations
previously discussed.
For the finite element analysis, appropriate boun-
dary-condition information and nodal and elemental
data were inputted as required. The initial modulus of
elasticity was computed for each element using Eq. (3)
for soil elements and Eq. (6) for soil–tool interface el-
ements. The total load was applied in increments. For
each incremental load, the displacement of each nodal
point and the stresses and strains within each element
were computed. Soil reaction forces were calculated
from a small displacement assigned to the nodes on the
interface at each increment. The modulus of elasticity
and Poisson’s ratio values for each element were then
computed and updated based on the current state of
stress. This process was continued until the total load
was applied. Average predicted values of draft, side,
and vertical forces were calculated from the summa-
tion of the nodal forces on the soil-interface elements
in the longitudinal, lateral, and upward directions, re-
spectively. All four cases studied in this research were
analyzed using the same procedure; tilt angle, plow-
ing speed, and soil parameter values being changed
for the case under consideration.
3. Results and discussion
Results of the finite element analysis included the
calculation of the reaction forces from the summa-
tion of the node forces on the interference at each
displacement increment. Average measured values ob-
tained from the force transducer and predicted values
of draft, side, and vertical upward forces at 4 km/h
plowing speed are shown in Figs. 4 and 6 for the clay
and sandy loam soils, respectively. The same reaction
forces on the disk blade at 10 km/h plowing speed are
shown in Figs. 5 and 7 for the clay and sandy loam
soils, respectively.
Increasing the tilt angle of the disk blade in clay
soil, within the 15–25◦ range, increased the measured
draft (L) and the measured vertical upward force (V)
but decreased the measured side force (S) as shown in
Figs. 4 and 5. Thus, penetration is better at the smaller
tilt angles.
When in the clay soil the speed was increased from
4 to 10 km/h, Figs. 4 and 5 show the draft force (L) in-
creased 40%, the side force (S) increased because the
soil was thrown farther to the side and the vertical up-
ward force (V) decreased. Thus, with the blade tilted,
increasing the speed would improve soil penetration
under these soil conditions. The forces calculated at
the soil–tool interface do increase with speed due to
 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124 121

Draft measured

3
Draft predicted
Soil Reactions, kN

Vertical measured
2
Vertical predicted

1 Side measured

Side predicted

0
10 15 20 25 30
Tilt Angle, degrees

Fig. 4. Measured and predicted soil reactions versus tilt angle for a 61 cm disk having a 55.8 cm spherical radius of curvature at 4 km/h
in clay soil.

greater soil acceleration. The dynamic algorithm in
the analysis considered soil acceleration and translate
that into higher soil stresses.
The relationships between both the predicted and
measured reaction forces in the clay soil and the tilt
angle and speed are similar, see Figs. 4 and 5. A com-
parison of the reaction forces shows that the finite
element model predicted the forces relatively accu-
rately; in general, the predicted values tending to be
lower than the measured. The relative error between

Draft measured

3
Draft predicted
Soil Reactions, kN

Vertical measured
2
Vertical predicted

1 Side measured

Side predicted

0
10 15 20 25 30
Tilt Angle, degrees

Fig. 5. Measured and predicted soil reactions versus tilt angle for a 61 cm disk having a 55.8 cm spherical radius of curvature at 10 km/h
in clay soil.
122 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124

Draft measured

3
Draft predicted
Soil Reactions, kN

Vertical measured
2
Vertical predicted

1 Side measured

Side predicted

0
10 15 20 25 30
Tilt Angle, degrees

Fig. 6. Measured and predicted soil reactions versus tilt angle for a 61 cm disk having a 55.8 cm spherical radius of curvature at 4 km/h
in sandy loam soil.

the finite element model and field tests values ranged
from 0.9 to 9% for draft force, from 1.5 to 8% for ver-
tical upward force, and from 2 to 8.5% for side force.
Chi and Kushwaha (1991) found a relative error in the
draft force between their finite element model and soil
bin test ranging from 0.8 to 10.5% for a simple tillage
tool.
Figs. 6 and 7 show both the test data and finite
element simulation for the disk plow in the sandy
loam soil at speeds 4 and 10 km/h, respectively. The

Draft measured

3
Draft predicted
Soil Reactions, kN

Vertical measured
2
Vertical predicted

1 Side measured

Side predicted

0
10 15 20 25 30
Tilt Angle, degrees

Fig. 7. Measured and predicted soil reactions versus tilt angle for a 61 cm disk having a 55.8 cm spherical radius of curvature at 10 km/h
in sandy loam soil.
 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124
variations in measured soil forces with tilt angle were
similar to those obtained in the clay soil. Increasing
the tilt angle increased the draft and vertical upward
forces but decreased the side force. When the speed
was increased from 4 to 10 km/h, the draft and side
forces increased with speed while the vertical force
decreased as the speed was increased. In the soil–tool
interaction model, the terms containing tool speed are
the accelerational force terms. Large variations in re-
action forces were observed to occur over the speed
range used, yet the prediction error (difference be-
tween predicted and measured values) did not vary as
a function of plow speed. This would appear to be due
to the accelerational force terms accounting for a large
portion of the variation in plow forces.
The predicted reaction forces were not as close to
the experimentally measured values in the sandy loam
as in the clay. In sandy loam soil, the finite element
model under-predicted the draft force by an average
of 21%, the vertical upward force by an average of
19%, and the side force by an average of 17%. This
greater prediction error is probably caused by the fact
that the sandy loam soils have a low cohesion and it
is not easy to collect undisturbed samples from the
test fields for laboratory triaxial compression tests.
This certainly introduced some errors into determin-
ing the soil constitutive parameters to simulate field
conditions.
The results indicated that soil type and tilt angle
have the most pronounced effect on soil reactions, as
evidenced by the comparative results for the two soils
in Figs. 4–7. It should be kept in mind that these results
were obtained in soils that had not been subjected to
the effects of plant growth and other field environment
conditions.
4. Conclusions
The effects of soil type, tilt angle, and plowing speed
on soil reaction forces were investigated through the-
oretical predictions and field measurements. Based on
the results from this study, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
• Increasing the tilt angle of the disk plow increased
the draft and vertical upward forces and decreased
the side force.
123
• Increasing plowing speed increased the draft and
side forces and decreased the vertical upward force.
The amount of increase and decrease was affected
by soil type.
• The finite element analysis gave a relatively accu-
rate prediction of the reaction forces on the disk
plow blade in the clay soil. The relative prediction
error of the finite element model ranged from 0.9
to 9%.
• The finite element analysis under-predicted the re-
action forces in the sandy loam soil. This was due
to some errors in determining the soil constitutive
parameters to simulate field conditions.
• The accelerational force terms in the model can ac-
count for a large portion of the variation in reaction
forces observed to occur with an increase in plow
speed.
References
Chi, L., Kushwaha, R.L., 1990. A non-linear finite element analysis
of soil failure with tillage tools. J. Terramech. 27 (4), 343–366.
Chi, L., Kushwaha, R.L., 1991. Three-dimensional, finite element
interaction between soil and simple tillage tool. Trans. ASAE
34 (2), 361–366.
Chi, L., Tessier, S., Lague, C., 1993. Finite element prediction
of soil compaction induced by various running gears. Trans.
ASAE 36 (3), 629–636.
Clough, G.W., Duncan, J.M., 1971. Finite element analysis of
retaining wall behavior. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 97,
1657–1673.
Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., Plesha, M.E., 1988. Concepts and
Applications of Finite Element Analysis. Wiley, New York.
Duncan, J.M., Chang, C.Y., 1970. Nonlinear analysis of stress
and strain in soils. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 96 (5),
1629–1653.
Hettiaratchi, D.P., Reece, A.R., 1967. Symmetrical three-
dimensional soil failure. J. Terramech. 4 (3), 45–67.
Hettiaratchi, D.P., Witney, B.D., Reece, A.R., 1966. The calculation
of passive pressure in two-dimensional soil failure. J. Agric.
Eng. Res. 11 (2), 89–107.
Kepner, R.A., Bainer, R., Barger, E.L., 1978. Principles of Farm
Machinery, 3rd ed. AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport,
CT.
Konder, R.L., Zelasko, J.S., 1963. A hyperbolic stress–strain
response: cohesive soil. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE
89 (SMI), 115–143.
Liu, Y., Hou, Z.M., 1985. Three-dimensional nonlinear finite
element analysis of soil cutting by narrow blades. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil Dynamics,
vol. 2, Auburn, AL, USA, pp. 8–347.
McKyes, E., 1978. The calculation of draft forces and soil failure
boundaries of narrow cutting blades. Trans. ASAE 21 (1), 20–
24.
124 N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, R.C. Reeder / Soil & Tillage Research 74 (2003) 115–124
McKyes, E., 1985. Soil Cutting and Tillage. Elsevier, New York.
McLaughlin, N.B., Heslop, L.C., Buckley, D.J., St.-Amour, G.R.,
Compton, B.A., Jones, A.M., Van Bodegom, P., 1993. A general
purpose tractor instrumentation and data logging system. Trans.
ASAE 36 (2), 265–273.
Osman, M.S., 1964. The mechanics of soil cutting blades. J. Agric.
Eng. Res. 9 (4), 313–328.
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), 23–50.
Perumpral, J.V., Grisso, R.D., Desai, C.S., 1983. A soil–tool model
based on limit equilibrium analysis. Trans. ASAE 26 (4), 991–
995.
Plouffe, C., Lague, C., Tessier, S., Richard, M., McLaughlin, N.,
1998a. Moldboard plow performance in a clay soil: simulation
and experiment. ASAE Paper No. 98-1066. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI.
Plouffe, C., Lague, C., Tessier, S., Richard, M., McLaughlin, N.,
1998b. Validation of moldboard plow simulation with FEM on
a heavy clay soil. ASAE Paper No. 98-1065. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI.
Qun, Y., Shen, J., 1988. Research on the rheological properties of
wet soils. Part I. Flow characteristics. In: Proceedings of the
Second Asia-Pacific Conference of ISTVS, pp. 23–40.
Shen, J., Kushwaha, R.L., 1993. Three-dimensional non-linear and
dynamic finite element analysis of tillage. ASAE Paper No.
93-3580. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Shen, J., Kushwaha, R.L., 1994. Numerical simulation of large soil
deformation and strain during tillage and traction operations.
ASAE Paper No. 94-1048. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Siemens, J.C., Weber, J.A., Thorburn, T.H., 1965. Mechanics of
soil as influenced by model tillage tools. Trans. ASAE 8 (1),
1–7.
Wang, J., Gee-Clough, D., 1991. Deformation and failure in wet
clay soil. II. Simulation of tine soil cutting. In: Proceedings
of the IAMC Conference, Beijing, China, Session 2, pp. 219–
226.
Xie, X.M., Zhang, D.J., 1985. An approach to 3D nonlinear
FE simulative method for investigation of soil–tool dynamic
system. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil
Dynamics, vol. 2, Auburn, AL, USA, pp. 322–327.
Yong, R.N., Hanna, A.W., 1977. Finite element analysis of plane
soil cutting. J. Terramech. 14 (3), 103–125.
Zeng, D., Fu, Q., 1985. An approach to the analytical prediction in
a rotary soil cutting process. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Soil Dynamics, vol. 2, Auburn, AL, USA,
pp. 428–442.