Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compag

Numerical simulation and field tests of minimum-tillage planter with straw T

smashing and strip laying based on EDEM software
Shi Yinyana,b, Xin (Rex) Sunb, Wang Xiaochanc, Hu Zhichaoa, David Newmanb, Ding Weiminc
a
Nanjing Research Institute for Agricultural Mechanization, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Nanjing 210014, China
b
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102, USA
c
College of Engineering, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210031, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The advanced and comprehensive utilization and entire burning prohibition of fully covered crop straw in
Inter-row stacking farmlands have become significant in modern agriculture. Considering the high straw-returning yields, com-
Clean-area planting plicated operating procedures, and tight crop-stubble rotation, as well as high power consumption, poor
Discrete element method smoothness shun, and low multiple-seed index obtained using traditional compound operation machines for rice
Field validation test
and wheat rotation regions in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River, this study extends the concept
of the new ‘clean-area planting’ pattern. A minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip laying was
developed for full straw mulching fields. In a single pass, the planter could complete multiple operation pro-
cesses, including straw-stubble smashing, seed-belt cleaning, inter-row stacking, seed-bed treatment, fertilization
sowing, and soil covering and suppression. A mechanical model for the straw particle was established using the
discrete element method (DEM) and EDEM software, and DEM virtual simulation tests and numerical analysis
were conducted. A quadratic rotating orthogonal center combination test was implemented by setting the
smashing spindle speed n′(A), machine ground speed v(B), and rotation tilling spindle speed n(C) as the influence
factors, with the straw mulch uniformity ε1 and the coefficient of straw ridge disturbance ε2 as the evaluation
indices. Response surface optimization analysis was performed to obtain the optimal combination of operational
parameters affecting the planter working performance. The results indicated that the most significant factors
affecting the straw mulch uniformity, ε1, and coefficient of straw ridge disturbance, ε2, were: smashing spindle
speed, n′, > machine ground speed, v, > rotation tilling spindle speed, n, and rotation tilling spindle speed,
n, > machine ground speed, v, > smashing spindle speed, n′. The optimal combination of these operational
parameters was n′ = 2042.35 r/min, v = 0.99 m/s, and n = 440.93 r/min, providing a maximum ε1 = 94.30%
and minimum ε2 = 9.67%. Field verification test results indicated that the optimized minimum-tillage planter
achieved mean values of ε1 = 86.25% and ε2 = 9.75%, with average relative errors of 8.51% and 10.27%
compared to the simulation tests, respectively. The accuracy and effectiveness of the DEM simulation model
were verified. Moreover, the stipulated industry standards and operation requirements of no-tillage planter
machinery with a straw-returning field can be satisfied, and technical support can be provided for follow-up
studies of similar conservation tillage equipment.

1. Introduction
As the normalized operation model for implementing conservation
tillage, no-tillage and minimum-tillage sowing technology, with the
core control aim of protecting the ecological environment in cultivated
land, plays an important role in reducing the frequency of equipment
working in the field, decreasing soil erosion and structural damage,
preventing desertification and soil compaction, and improving pro-
duction efficiency and economic benefits. This is the main existing
production pattern among grain-producing areas in the middle and
lower reaches of the Yangtze River (Zhao et al., 2019; Zeng and Chen,
2018). However, the serious problem of huge straw quantities arises
during the large-scale planting process in the Jiangsu rice and wheat
rotation areas. This phenomenon has hindered the smooth operation of
fertilizer and seeder machines, destroyed favorable growth environ-
ments for planted crops, and restricted the powerful promotion and
applications of no-tillage planting technology. Moreover, there is lack
of technology and equipment for straw smashing and returning sa-
tisfying local agronomic requirements (Li, 2016; Liu et al., 2017; Hu
et al., 2019). All of these factors seriously affect the entire process of the
mechanization development of crop cultivation and grain production
safety. Therefore, reasonable mechanized smashing and returning
technology, as one of the most effective methods for dealing with straw,
not only can improve the soil organic matter structure, enhance the
agricultural ecological benefits, and increase fertilization, thereby also
increasing production and efficiency, but may also provide an

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.105021
Received 19 July 2019; Received in revised form 18 September 2019; Accepted 21 September 2019
0168-1699/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Shi, et al.
important link for practicing the beneficial concept of conservation
tillage (Fu et al., 2016; Gratton et al., 2003). As the focus of attention
from domestic and foreign agricultural scientists, corresponding me-
chanized equipment for straw smashing and returning has been rapidly
emerging (Jia et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2002; Khokan et al., 2016).
Elfatih et al. optimized and improved the developed feeding-type
straw-smashing device to enable crop-stubble to be reused as com-
posting material, thereby improving the straw-smashing efficiency and
productivity (Elfatih et al., 2010). A homologous nine-line turbo-
charged no-tillage planter was developed by Sidhu et al. for straw
smashing and returning in rice stubble fields, which reduces the fuel
consumption costs, optimizes the optimal sowing time, and promotes
direct-sowing wheat production in rice stubble fields (Sidhu et al.,
2015). In recent years, numerous studies on straw smashing and re-
turning equipment have been carried out by domestic scholars in rapid
succession (Jia et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017).
Based on the urgent issues of existing straw and stubble smashing
machines under the protective tillage system, Jia et al. developed a
machine combining straw-stubble smashing and burying, and tests
verified that the comprehensive machine performance can meet the
operational requirements (Jia et al., 2010; 2017). Aimed at addressing
the problem of large maize and rice straw yields and the high frequency
of traditional agricultural machinery working in the field, Zheng et al.
developed multiple adjustable compound machines incorporating
smashing, scattering, and burying for straw returning. Simulation
analyses and corresponding field tests were conducted to evaluate the
operational effects (Zheng et al., 2016, 2017). Straw deep-burying and
returning machines with different structural forms were developed by
the study team of Tian, Wang et al., and the discrete element method
(DEM) was applied to conduct numerical simulation and dynamic
analysis of the motion process of the main devices, following which
bench and field tests were performed to verify the operation perfor-
mance (Tian et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017).
With the continual and powerful promotion of straw resource uti-
lization and land rotation fallow strategies advocated by the Chinese
government, an increasing number of scholars locally and globally have
focused on the study and development of key technologies and equip-
ment for no-tillage sowing and straw returning to the field (Niu et al.,
2017; Liu et al., 2018), with substantial research progress having been
achieved in recent years. Matin et al. optimized and improved the
feeding straw-smashing device designed by his research team, studied
the influences of the geometric parameters and rotation speed of the
cutting blade on the torque consumption and operational quality of
zonal rotary tillage, and analyzed the operation characteristics of rotary
tillage blades with different structures to improve the effects of straw
smashing and returning to the field (Matin et al., 2014, 2015, 2016).
Aimed at the problems of the high requirements and poor adaptability
of corn seeds, Zhao et al. developed an air suction-type no-tillage corn
planter used for direct sowing following wheat harvesting, which can
achieve stubble breaking, fertilization, ditching, sowing, soil covering
and suppression, and other operations at one time to field (Zhao et al.,
2012; Zhang et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016a,b). Lin et al. designed a
lightweight, no-tillage seeder and matching monitoring system for seed
metering performance, suitable for ridge planting in northeast China
(Tian et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2016a,b). Moreover, a
simulate study on the cavitating performance of the cavitation fertili-
zation control device was carried out, the particle system simulation
software EDEM was applied, and the key components were optimized.
A series of 2BMFJ type precision no-tillage sowing machines with full-
width straw mulching for great-row fields with primary corn stubble
were developed by Chen and his team (He et al., 2018; Chen et al.,
2018, 2016). Optimization testing and research on the structure and
operational parameters affecting the performance of the stubble-re-
moving and anti-blocking devices were also carried out, so as to ef-
fectively solve the problems of stubble blocking and the slow recovery
of ground temperature that may arise in the no-tilling and sowing
2
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021
process.
The majority of the existing technological achievements in terms of
straw-returning fields and no-tillage planting have focused on the de-
velopment of complete smashing and deep burying, full-width
spreading and mulching, side-shifting and returning, and other no-til-
lage sowing equipment for regional crop straw, as well as the ex-
ploration and analysis of deep operation mechanisms for straw
smashing (Jia et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; He et al., 2018; Matin
et al., 2016). However, few studies have investigated the key tech-
nology and equipment of minimum-tillage sowing operation patterns
with full straw smashing and inter-row stacking for application to the
southern rice wheat rotation areas. Moreover, there is a lack of related
reports regarding the influence of the equipment parameters of the
corresponding machine core components on the operational effects, and
the relationships between the machine parameters and performance
have not been documented.
This study continues the design concept of the novel ‘clean-area
planting’ pattern proposed by our research team, combined with pre-
viously developed equipment for straw smashing with strip laying and
seed-belt classification with cleaning under full straw mulching (Gu
et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2018, 2019). Moreover, in response to the urgent
problem of the complex structure, high power consumption, poor
trafficability, and low working efficiency of the traditional no-tillage
planter, a minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip laying
for full rice straw mulching fields was developed. The planter can
complete the multiple operation processes of straw-stubble smashing,
seed-belt cleaning, inter-row stacking, seed-bed treatment, fertilization,
sowing, and soil covering and suppression at one time in the field.
Optimization design of the key structural components was conducted,
and an experimental analysis of the working performance and opera-
tion effect was carried out to obtain the optimal combination of
working parameters when the planter exhibits its best performance. All
of these research efforts contribute to providing new equipment for
realizing the no-tilling sowing operations with high quality and
smoothness, without straw obstacles, as well as the development of the
conservation tillage concept.
2. Planter structure and working principle
2.1. Machine structure
Fig. 1 illustrates the overall structure of the developed minimum-
tillage planter with straw smashing and strip laying for a full rice straw
mulching field. The planter consists of a frame, suspension system,
straw-smashing device, straw-guiding device (inter-row straw-stacking
control device), band rotary tillage device, fertilizer and sowing device,
and drive system, along with other key components.
2.2. Working principle
The developed minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and
strip laying has a double-suspension traction system, which is con-
nected to the straw-smashing and fertilizer-sowing devices using trifilar
suspension, and exhibits a high degree of integration. Fig. 2 illustrates
the working principle of the planter. According to the planting re-
quirements of the next crop, the corresponding working mode with the
structure and form of the fertilization and sowing device (drill or
broadcast) should be established prior to field operation. Furthermore,
the height of the depth-limiting and straw-pressing roller must be ad-
justed appropriately to ensure smoothness of the straw smashing, strip
laying, and seed-belt classification, according to the soil properties and
straw mulching yield in the rice-stubble paddy.
The tractor power output is connected to the reducer power input to
provide an adequate running drive for the planter, while the necessary
power for the smashing and rotary tilling shafts is matched and deliv-
ered through multi-stage wedge belt transmission. The fully mulching
Y. Shi, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021

1. Frame; 2. Trifilar suspension system; 3. Speed-adjusting mechanism; 4. Drive system; 5. Fertilization device; 6. Soil

covering and suppressing device; 7. Sowing device; 8. Band rotary tillage device; 9. Rear suspension system; 10. Straw-

guiding device; 11. Straw smashing device; 12. Depth-limiting roller

Fig. 1. Structural diagram of the minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip-laying.

straw in the rice-stubble field enters the smashing cavity smoothly corresponding seed-belt clean area, and complete the necessary soil
under the action of the pressing of the depth-limiting roller. The moving covering and pressing processes, so that high-quality and smooth
smashing blades with a high reverse rotation speed successfully pick up minimum-tillage planting with straw smashing and strip laying can
the straw in the full width by virtue of the inertial airflow, and then ultimately be realized for the full rice-stubble mulching field.
smash the straw in cooperation with the fixed array blades on top of the
cavity. The smashed straw is sprayed backwards and downwards with
2.3. Structural design of critical component
the rotary blades, and under the effective control of each guiding de-
vice, it is regularly organized into two sides in a strip style, thereby
As a key component of the minimum-tillage planter with straw
forming four sowing belts without straw obstacles and five straw-
smashing and strip laying for realizing the process of seed-belt straw
stacking zones with even paving. Seed-bed arrangement occurs only
cleaning and inter-row straw mulching, the structure and parameters of
between the straw-stacking rows (sowing belt), where fertilizer treated
the broken straw guiding device have a direct affection on the effect of
by the guiding device will be pre-applied. This is achieved by the band
seed-belt classification and the quality of broken straw strip laying.
rotary tillage device, and the work proceeds in an independent space
Therefore, according to the agronomic requirements of crop cultivation
obstructed by the barrier plate to reduce the interference of the rotary
in the rice wheat rotation area of Jiangsu province, four groups of
tillage blades on the straw-mulching belt. The matched fertilizer and
broken straw guiding devices were arranged along the full width of the
sowing device is used to open ditches and sow seeds in the
effective operation at an interval of 320 mm and fixed on the supporting

1. Sowing belt; 2. Straw-stacking area; 3. Soil covering and suppressing device; 4. Ditch opener; 5. Band rotary tillage

blade; 6. Barrier plate; 7. Straw-guiding device; 8. Straw-smashing device

Fig. 2. Working principle diagram of the minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip-laying.

3
Y. Shi, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021

1. Straw-pressing roller; 2. Smashing spindle; 3. Smashing blades; 4. Straw-guiding device; 5. Supporting beam; 6.

Installation hole; 7. Seed fertilizer mouth; 8. Guiding plate; 9. Fixed plate; 10. Side panel
Fig. 3. Structural diagram of smashed-straw guiding device.

beam using adjustable bolts, so as to form a straw-stacking region with
a width of 320 mm (the spacing can be adjusted according to actual
requirements). The spatial arrangement and structure are illustrated in
Fig. 3. With reference to the previous research (Shi et al., 2018, 2019)
and combining the actual operational requirements of the test site, the
width of the developed straw guiding plate was set to 240 mm; that is,
the corresponding seed-belt width of the clean zone was 240 mm.
minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip laying, in
combination with similar studies (Fu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017;
Liu et al., 2018), as well as to avoid a large number of cumbersome
manual repeatability tests and reduce the labor intensity, the DEM was
applied to conduct virtual simulation tests of the straw smashing and
strip laying. In this manner, reasonable and optimal working para-
meters of the minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip
laying under full straw mulching could be obtained.

3. Materials and methods

Numerous comparative analyses following field trials have demon-
strated that the previously designed equipment for straw smashing with
strip laying and seed-belt classification with cleaning can achieve im-
proved straw-smashing and stubble-cleaning rates under optimized
operating conditions. Further research revealed that uneven inter-row
mulching was identified within the same straw strip, with straw piled
up in certain areas and not in others, where the effect of heat pre-
servation and moisture conservation were poor, and the fertilizer nu-
trients were not uniform after the rot, which leads to uneven growth of
crops. In addition, the equipped banding rotary tillage device disturbed
the straw ridge shape mulching inter-rows following the assembly of
the minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip laying work
(as illustrated in Fig. 4), then the straw scattered over the sowing belt,
which was easy to generate the seeds planted on the straw, and leading
the seeds cannot be covered by soil, causing low survival rate and low
emergence rate of seeds, finally affecting the crop yield. Therefore, to
improve the uniform consistency of the inter-row straw mulch and re-
duce the disturbance of the straw ridge shape when using the
3.1. Simulation model creation and parameter setting
As an effective and mature numerical computation approach, the
DEM is increasingly being applied to the interaction between discrete
units and mechanisms in agricultural mechanization production. The
discrete element analysis software EDEM 2018 was used in this study.
The simplified solid assembly model of the minimum-tillage planter
with straw smashing and strip laying was imported into the software
preprocessing module (PreCAST), which is illustrated in Fig. 5. Multi-
spherical polymerization was selected considering the diverse char-
acteristics of rice straw shapes, and to describe the motion feature of the
straw smashing and strip laying accurately. A total of 15 soft sphere
models with diameters of 12 mm, at a center distance interval of 8 mm,
were connected to construct the straw particle model for the long ir-
regular shape, and the diameter was generated by the normal random
distribution method to accord with the realistic irregularity of actual
straw.
Considering that the studied straw model was approximately a soft
sphere particle, the Hysteretic Spring plastic deformation contact model

Fig. 4. Existing problems of straw smashing and strip-laying.

4
Y. Shi, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021

Fig. 5. Simulation model and simulation process.

Table 1 et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017), and after multiple test results, the main
Material physical and contact mechanical properties parameters. working parameters affecting the stubble motion process and planter
Parameters Straw Soil Steel
operation performance, namely the smashing spindle speed n, working
forward speed v, and rotary tilling spindle speed n, were selected as the
Poison ratio 0.4 0.39 0.3 test factors. Furthermore, the straw mulch uniformity ε1 was set as
Shear modulus/MPa 1.0 1.0 7.90 × 104 evaluation index 1 to characterize the straw strip-laying effect, while
Density/(kg·m−3) 0.24 × 103 1.80 × 103 7.86 × 103
the coefficient of straw ridge disturbance ε2 was set as evaluation index
Contact mechanical Elastic restitution Straw to straw 0.28 2 to characterize the seed-belt treatment quality. Virtual tests on the
parameters coefficient Straw to soil 0.26
quadratic rotating orthogonal center combination with three factors
Straw to steel 0.30
Rolling friction Straw to straw 0.05 and five levels were carried out to evaluate the working performance of
coefficient Straw to soil 0.03 the complete minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip
Straw to steel 0.01 laying. Referring to similar research (Chen et al., 2018; Li, 2016; Niu
Static friction Straw to straw 0.54
et al., 2017; Shi et al., 2018, 2019; Tian et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017),
coefficient Straw to soil 0.30
Straw to steel 0.42 for conservation tillage and no-tillage sowing machines, the operating
ground speed is usually 0.6–1.4 m/s, the smashing spindle speed is
Average equivalent diameter of particle/mm 12
usually 1600–2400 r/min, and the rotary tilling spindle speed is usually
250–650 r/min. Therefore, based on a combination of previous ex-
in EDEM was used for the simulation analysis, and with reference to perimental studies and actual practical experience, the appropriate le-
relevant literature (Wang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016; Tian et al., vels of the test factors were established as indicated in Table 2, and the
2018), the contact mechanical characteristics of the straw particles 23 groups of testing schemes are presented in Table 3.
measured by means of random sampling are presented in Table 1. Ac- During the tests, the minimum-tillage planter was adjusted with
cording to the actual amount of field rice straw mulching and operating different operation parameters (smashing spindle speed, working for-
conditions, the particle factory was statically generated, the amount of ward speed, and rotary-tilling spindle speed), and after waiting for its
straw particles was 2.2 kg/m2, the straw mulching width was 2400 mm calibration and stable condition to be reached, the planter passed
(consistent with the planter working width), the smashing spindle through the virtual straw mulching test area to ensure test accuracy in
speed ranged from 1600 to 2400 r/min, the rotary tilling spindle speed the determination region. Thereafter, the mass of the inter-row straw
ranged from 250 to 650 r/min, the planter working ground speed and width of the straw mulching ridge were measured to study the
ranged from 0.6 to 1.4 m/s, and the fixed time step was set to 20% of influences of the operation parameters on the straw mulching effect and
the Rayleigh time step (6.23 × 10−5 s). To ensure continuity of the seed-belt quality. Following the completion of each single test, 10
straw particle simulation movement, a single simulation was run for collection points with an area of 100 × 100 mm from each straw
20 s, and only the test results from 12 s in the stable working interval mulching row (five rows in total) were randomly selected by means of
were extracted for subsequent statistical analysis. diagonal equidistance within the effective working breadth (2.4 m). A
total of 50 collection points were constructed, and a virtual collection
box with an area of 110 × 110 mm was set for each collection point.
3.2. Scheme and method of simulation test Then, the straw mass (wi) in each collection point was weighed suc-
cessively by the post-processing module of the EDEM software.
Necessary operating motion parameters based on actual working Similarly, 10 collection points were randomly selected from each straw
conditions for the imported discrete model of the minimum-tillage
planter were set. Thereafter, simulation experiments on the straw
Table 2
smashing, strip laying, and seed-belt treatment were conducted in the
Factors and levels of virtual test.
virtually generated straw mulching area (2.4 × 5 m), according to the
operational specifications and requirements provided in the Chinese Test factors Coded value Interval Δi
National Standard GB/T 24675.6 2009 ‘Conservation tillage equipment
(−γ) (−1) 0 (+1) (+γ)
– Smashed straw machine’ and Agriculture Industrial Standard NY/T
500-2002 ‘Operating quality for crop straw returning-back-to field A Smashing spindle 1697.73 1800 1950 2100 2202.27 150
machine’. speed n′ (r/min)
According to the previous theoretical analysis of the straw guiding B Working forward 0.66 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.34 0.2
speed v (m/s)
control device and seed-belt rotary tillage device (Gu et al., 2016; Shi
C Rotary-tilling spindle 231.82 300 400 500 568.18 100
et al., 2018, 2019), referring to the research literature of similar no- speed n (r/min)
tillage seeders (Fu et al., 2016; Jia et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2002; Jia

5
Y. Shi, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021

Table 3 3(PRO758Q)). The straw coverage was approximately 1.6 kg/m2, the
Test schemes and results. moisture content was 30–40%, the average straw length was
Test Factors Straw-mulch Coefficient of 400–450 mm, and the average stubble height was 100–150 mm. The
number uniformity ε1/% straw-ridge soil type in Sihong County is Shajiang black soil (loamy clay), the soil
A B C disturbance ε2/% moisture content is > 20% (0–150 mm depth), and the average bulk
density is approximately 1.36 g/cm3.
1 −1 −1 −1 91.74 14.58
2 0 0 1.682 91.27 10.67
The minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip laying
3 0 0 0 93.83 9.64 was hoisted by a CHANGFA CFK1504 wheeled tractor with three-point
4 0 0 0 93.15 8.05 suspension, and the test process was carried out in strict accordance
5 0 1.682 0 91.06 11.26 with the operating specifications and performance requirements pro-
6 1 1 1 94.58 12.43
vided in the Chinese Agriculture Industrial Standard NY/T 500-2002
7 1 1 −1 94.12 14.37
8 −1 −1 1 91.64 12.69 ‘Operating quality for crop straw returning-back-to field machine’ and
9 0 −1.682 0 92.72 13.72 Chinese Mechanical Industry Standard JB/T 8401.3-2001 ‘Smashed
10 0 0 0 94.01 10.57 root-stubble machine,’ Prior to each single test, the planter machine
11 0 0 0 95.16 10.43
operating parameters were adjusted and calibrated to achieve the op-
12 −1 1 −1 92.23 15.66
13 1 −1 1 93.34 10.16
timal parameter combination determined from the response surface
14 −1.682 0 0 86.95 12.54 optimization of the above simulation tests: smashing spindle speed
15 0 0 −1.682 92.28 14.29 n′ = 2040 r/min, working forward speed v = 1.0 m/s, and rotary tilling
16 −1 1 1 88.72 10.47 spindle speed n = 440 r/min. The data acquisition method was con-
17 1.682 0 0 94.76 11.76
sistent with that detailed in Section 4.2. The straw mass and ridge width
18 0 0 0 93.57 9.62
19 1 −1 −1 94.43 13.95 of each collection point in the effective working breadth were measured
20 0 0 0 91.95 10.82 by an electronic balance and a Vernier caliper, respectively, following
which the straw mulch uniformity ε1 and coefficient of straw ridge
disturbance ε2 were calculated. The tests were repeated three times for
mulching row within the effective working breadth (with a total of 50 each group and the mean values were obtained. A total of six groups of
collection points), and a virtual scaleplate was set to measure the linear tests were carried out, and the length of each test was 100 m.
distance of each collection point successively; that is, the width of the
straw ridge Wj. Each group test was repeated three times and the re-
4. Results and discussion
sulting values were averaged. The corresponding test evaluation indices
of the straw mulch uniformity ε1 and coefficient of straw ridge dis-
The simulation test results based on the design scheme presented
turbance ε2 were calculated by following formulae:
above are displayed in Table 3, including 14 analysis factors and 6 zero-
ni point tests for estimating the error. Quadratic multiple regression
⎧ ∑ | wi − w¯|
⎪ ε1 = 100\% − i=1
× 100% analysis of the results in Table 4 was performed using the Design-Expert
ni
⎪ ∑ wi 8.0.6 software, and the regression models between the influencing
i=1
⎨ ni
factors and evaluation indices were established as follows:
⎪ 1
⎪ w¯ = ni ∑ wi (i = 1, 2, 3, ...,ni )
⎩ i=1 (1) ⎧ ε1 = 93.57 + 1.85A − 0.31B − 0.43C + 0.42AB + 0.37AC
⎪ − 0.23BC − 0.72A2 − 0.35B2 − 0.39 C 2
S
W ⎨ ε2 = 9.84 − 0.28A − 0.19B − 1.38C + 0.48AB + 0.17AC
⎧ ε2 = W¯ × 100% ⎪
⎪ ⎩ − 0.18BC + 0.92A2 + 1.04B2 + 1.04C 2 (3)
1
⎪ nj 2
⎪ S = ⎧ ∑ [(W − W ¯ ) 2]/(n − 1) ⎫
W j j
⎨ ⎨ j=1 ⎬
⎩ ⎭ 4.1. Variance analysis and discussion
⎪ nj
⎪W ¯ = 1 ∑ Wj (j = 1, 2, 3, ...,nj )
⎪ nj
⎩ j=1 (2) The F-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on the
regression coefficients in the regression models of the evaluation in-
where ε1 is the straw mulch uniformity coefficient, calculated by re- dices ε1 and ε2, and the results are presented in Table 4. According to
ferring to the Christiansen uniformity coefficient (%) (Shi et al., 2018); the significance values P of the lack of fitting in the regression models of
ε2 is the coefficient of straw ridge disturbance, calculated by the dis- the objective functions ε1 and ε2 in Table 4, PL1 = 0.2533 > 0.05 and
tribution coefficient of variation (%); wi is the straw mass at test point i, PL2 = 0.3226 > 0.05 (both were not significant), indicating that no
g; w̄ is the mean straw mass at each test point in a single test, g; Wj is the loss factor existed in the regression analysis, and the regression model
straw ridge width at test point j, mm; W̄ is the mean straw ridge width exhibited a high fitting degree. The P values of the model regression
at each test point in a single test, mm; and SW is the standard deviation items, PM1 = 0.0051 < 0.01 and PM2 = 0.0062 < 0.01, were both
of the straw-ridge width at the test points, mm. extremely significant, indicating that the regression results were reli-
able to a certain extent.
3.3. Field test conditions and method According to the ANOVA, the significance values P of each influ-
encing factor in the test could be determined. For the evaluation index
The field test of the no-tillage sowing of wheat in a rice-stubble ε1, the factors A, AB, and A2 had extremely significant influences, while
paddy was conducted at the Sihong Modern Agriculture (Rice and the factor C2 had a significant influence. For the evaluation index ε2, the
Wheat) Science and Technology Comprehensive Demonstration Base of factors C, BC, and C2 had extremely significant influences, and the
the Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, from November to factor A2 had a significant influence. The F-value analysis of each factor
December 2018. The test area was approximately 2.5 hm2, the pre- in Table 4 demonstrated that a greater F-value resulted in a higher
ceding rice variety was Nanjing 9108 hybrid rice, the average grass- impact of the factors on the test evaluation index. Therefore, the pri-
grain ratio was 1.5, and the average grass-grain mass was approxi- mary and secondary orders for the influences of each test factor on the
mately 2.4 kg/m2. The straw and stubble were fully returned to the field straw mulch uniformity ε1 and coefficient of straw ridge disturbance ε2
after being harvested by the KUBOTA Combine Harvester (4LZ- were: smashing spindle speed n′ > forward working speed v > rotary

6
Y. Shi, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021

Table 4 uniformity ε1 would gradually be strengthened. However, when the

ANOVA of regression model. working forward speed was excessively high; that is, when v was
Indicator Source of Sum of Freedom Mean F P significant greater than 0.9 to 1.1 m/s, the broken straw couldn't flow to both sides
variance squares square of the guiding plate in a very short time, but was pushed to slip forward
by the guiding device, thereby destroying the straw mulch uniformity.
ε1 Model 63.49 9 7.05 4.40 0.0051 **
Further analysis demonstrated that the response surface for ε1 changed
A 46.78 1 46.78 29.15 0.0003 **
B 2.58 1 2.58 1.61 0.2333
more rapidly in the direction of the smashing spindle speed than in that
C 1.35 1 1.35 0.84 0.3808 of the machine forward speed, indicating that the smashing spindle
AB 1.41 1 1.41 10.88 0.0074 ** speed n′ had a more significant influence on the straw mulch uniformity
AC 1.11 1 1.11 0.69 0.5050 ε1 than the machine forward speed v. Importantly, in this case, the
BC 0.43 1 0.43 0.27 0.6150
rotary tilling spindle speed n had no significant effect on ε1.
A2 7.41 1 7.41 4.62 0.0072 **
B2 1.78 1 1.78 1.11 0.3176 As can be observed from the response surface analysis for the
C2 2.21 1 8.21 1.38 0.0276 * coefficient of straw ridge disturbance ε2 in Fig. 6b, under the condition
Residual 16.05 10 1.60 that the smashing spindle speed n′ remained constant, along with the
Lack of fit 10.47 5 2.09 1.88 0.2533
increase in the rotary tilling spindle speed n, the coefficient of straw
Pure Error 5.58 5 1.12
Cor Total 79.53 19
ridge disturbance ε2 exhibited an obvious trend of first decreasing and
then increasing, indicating that a certain rotary tilling spindle speed n
ε2 Model 66.14 9 7.35 5.63 0.0062 **
A 0.49 1 0.49 0.38 0.5538
could reduce the coefficient of straw ridge disturbance ε2. When n was
B 1.06 1 1.06 0.81 0.3891 in the range of 400–500 r/min, the minimum value of ε2 appeared,
C 26.15 1 26.15 20.03 0.0002 ** because, as the rotary tilling spindle speed gradually increased, it
AB 1.83 1 1.83 1.40 0.2634 achieved an improved soil-crushing effect in the inter-row seed-belt,
AC 0.23 1 1.23 1.17 0.4068
and the finer soil particles resulted in less coefficient of straw ridge
BC 0.26 1 0.26 0.20 0.0066 **
A2 12.19 1 12.19 9.33 0.0121 * disturbance. However, as n increased, the vibration inertia of the entire
B2 15.58 1 1.58 1.93 0.4762 machine also increased gradually, and if n exceeded a certain limit
C2 15.48 1 15.48 11.85 0.0063 ** value, the larger vibration inertia of the seed-bed treatment device
Residual 13.06 10 1.31 would disturb the broken straw that was strip-laid on both sides,
Lack of fit 7.92 5 1.58 1.54 0.3226
Pure Error 5.13 5 1.03
causing damage to the mulched straw ridge shape. When the working
Corrected 79.20 19 forward speed v was gradually increased, the shearing velocity of the
Total barrier plates on both sides of the rotary tilling blades on the side wall
of the straw mulching ridge became increasingly higher, and the dis-
Note: ‘**’ means the test is highly significant, when P is less than 0.01. ‘*’ means turbance of the straw ridge shape was reduced, so the coefficient of
the test is significant, when P is less than 0.05. When P is greater than 0.05, that
straw ridge disturbance ε2 was gradually decreased. However, once v
means the test is non-significant.
reached a certain value, the shearing velocity of the barrier plates on
the broken straw was basically saturated, and the coefficient of straw
tilling spindle speed n, and rotary tilling spindle speed n > working
ridge disturbance ε2 also tended to become stable, with the gentle re-
forward speed v > smashing spindle speed n′, respectively.
gion of ε2 appearing after v > 0.85 m/s. Similarly, further analysis
demonstrated that the changing speed of the response surface for ε2 in
4.2. Interactive analysis and discussion the direction of the rotary tilling spindle speed was superior to that in
the direction of the planter forward speed, indicating that the influence
To express the interactive influence of each factor on the straw of the rotary tilling spindle speed n was more significant in this inter-
mulch uniformity ε1 and coefficient of straw ridge disturbance ε2, the action, and therefore, n was the main factor affecting the coefficient of
above two quadratic regression equations of the evaluation indices straw ridge disturbance ε2, and the smashing spindle speed n′ was not
were subjected to dimensionality reduction treatment. One of the fac- significant for ε2 in this case.
tors was set to level 0, while the other two underwent interaction effect
analysis (by removing the insignificant items: AC and BC in index ε1, 4.3. Comprehensive optimal design
and AB and AC in index ε2) to study the influence law on the evaluation
indices ε1 and ε2, and the corresponding response surfaces were gen- Based on the above-mentioned response surface analysis of the two-
erated, as illustrated in Fig. 6. factor interaction, the multi-objective variable optimization method
According to the response surface analysis for the straw mulch was adopted to determine the optimal working parameter combination
uniformity ε1 depicted in Fig. 6a, it can be observed that, when the under which the minimum-tillage planter could exert superior perfor-
rotary tilling spindle speed n was constant, the straw mulch uniformity mance in terms of straw smashing, strip laying and mulching, and seed-
ε1 increased with the increase in the smashing spindle speed n′, but to a bed treatment. According to the principle of the maximum straw mulch
certain value, following which ε1 tended to decrease gradually, and uniformity ε1 and minimum coefficient of straw ridge disturbance ε2, in
when n′ was within the range of 2000–2200 r/min, the maximum value combination with the agronomic requirements of local crops, the ob-
of ε1 appeared. This is because a higher smashing spindle speed resulted jective and constraint functions were established as indicated in Eq. (4)
in improved straw gathering and smashing performance of the planter, to complete the optimization design of the response surface ridge
stronger liquidity of the broken straw in the smashing cavity, and more parameters.
uniform straw strip mulching under the shunt action of the guiding-
control device. However, when n′ increased to a certain extent, turbu- ⎧⎧ max F (A, B, C ) = ε1
lent flow of the broken straw in the smashing cavity occurred under the ⎪⎨ s. t . G (A, B, C ) = ε2 ⩽ 10%
⎪⎩
higher centrifugal inertial force, following which parts of the straw
⎨⎧1697.73 ⩽ A ⩽ 2202.27
were pressed against each other and clustered together, leading to a ⎪ 0.66 ⩽ B ⩽ 1.34
decrease in the straw mulch uniformity. As the machine forward speed ⎪⎨ 231.82 ⩽ C ⩽ 567.18
⎩⎩ (4)
v increased, the flow time of the broken straw on the guiding plate was
reduced and the flow speed increased, which was beneficial to the straw The Design-Expert 8.0.6 software was applied to optimize and solve
strip laying on both sides of the guiding plate, and the straw mulch the above mathematical model. The optimal combination of working

7
Y. Shi, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021

Y1= f (X1, X2, 0) Y2= f (0, X2, X3)

Fig. 6. Effect of interaction between factors on straw-mulch uniformity and coefficient of straw-ridge disturbance.

parameters affecting the straw mulch uniformity ε1 and coefficient of Table 5

straw ridge disturbance ε2 of the minimum-tillage planter were ob- Results and comparison of field validation test.
tained as follows: smashing spindle speed n′ = 2042.35 r/min, forward Test Straw-mulch Relative Straw-ridge Relative
working speed v = 0.99 m/s, and rotary tilling spindle speed uniformity ε1/% error/% disturbance ε2/% error/%
n = 440.93 r/min, yielding straw mulch uniformity of ε1 = 94.30% and
coefficient of straw ridge disturbance of ε2 = 9.67%. Simulation Test Simulation Test
value value value value

1 94.30 83.63 11.30 9.67 10.24 5.89

4.4. Comparisons with field measurements 2 85.27 9.57 8.39 13.23
3 82.46 12.55 10.78 11.47
To verify the accuracy of the DEM simulation model for the 4 88.75 5.89 9.06 6.31
minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip laying, as well 5 91.39 3.08 8.74 9.62
6 86.01 8.69 11.13 15.09
as to evaluate the rationality of the working parameter combination
optimized by the virtual experiment, field performance verification Average / 86.25 8.51 / 9.75 10.27
tests were carried out on the minimum-tillage planter. Fig. 7 illustrates
the field test and working effect.
The verification test results are summarized in Table 5. When conservation tillage machines.
comparing and analyzing the test data in the table, it can be observed
that the developed minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and 5. Conclusions
strip laying exhibited superior performance when using the optimized
combination of operation parameters. The average relative errors of the In this study, a minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and
straw mulch uniformity ε1 and coefficient of straw ridge disturbance ε2 strip laying for a full straw mulching field was developed and modeled
between the field and simulation test results were only 8.51% and based on the new concept of ‘clean-area planting.’ The DEM model of
10.27%, respectively, indicating that the established DEM simulation the developed minimum-tillage planter was validated using virtual si-
model and virtual test analysis provided certain accuracy and effec- mulation and field tests in loamy clay soil to examine the interaction
tiveness. Further analysis revealed that the evaluation index of the effects between the machine operation parameters and working per-
straw mulch uniformity ε1 had a maximum value of 91.39%, minimum formance. The following conclusions can be drawn based on the re-
value of 82.46%, and mean value of 86.25%. Moreover, the coefficient sponse surface optimization design and ANOVA.
of straw ridge disturbance ε2 had a maximum value of 11.13%,
minimum value of 8.39%, and mean value of 9.75%. These investiga- (1) The primary and secondary factors that affect the straw mulch
tions demonstrate that the optimized combination of operation para- uniformity, ε1, and coefficient of straw ridge disturbance, ε2, of the
meters for the minimum-tillage planter with straw smashing and strip minimum-tillage planter were: smashing spindle speed (n′) >
laying offers rationality and feasibility, and the operation quality can working forward speed (v) > rotary tilling spindle speed (n) and
meet the specification requirements of relevant industry standards for rotary tilling spindle speed (n) > working forward speed (v) >

Fig. 7. Picture of field validation test and sowing effect.

8
Y. Shi, et al.
smashing spindle speed (n′), respectively. Moreover, the optimal
operating parameter combination of the planter was:
n′ = 2042.35 r/min, v = 0.99 m/s, and n = 440.93 r/min, which
yielded ε1 = 94.30% and ε2 = 9.67%.
(2) The field verification test results demonstrated that the average
straw mulch uniformity, ε1, was 86.25% and the coefficient of straw
ridge disturbance, ε2, was 9.75% under the optimized operation
parameter combination. The mean relative errors of the simulated
test values were 8.51% and 10.27%, respectively, indicating the
accuracy and effectiveness of the established DEM simulation
model and virtual test analysis.
We note that the developed minimum-tillage planter with straw
smashing and strip laying has been demonstrated in Jiangsu Sihong,
Xuzhou, Henan Zhumadian, Liaoning, Xinjiang, and Russia, among
other typical regions. The crop growth has been continuously tracked
and compared to ensure that we have achieved satisfactory planting
effects. However, our methods and device require the analysis of more
planting effects for different crops with multiple rounds to verify op-
erational performance, which will be the focus of future studies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the
Jiangsu Agriculture Science and Technology Innovation Fund (Grant
No. CX(17)1002) and Projects funded from special funds of the National
Modern Agricultural Industry and Technology System (Grant No. CARS-
14-Mechanized equipment). The authors would like to thank the tea-
cher’s and supervisor’s technical support. We also appreciate the as-
sistance provided by brothers and sisters during the tests, and we would
like to thank Editage for providing English language editing. We are
also grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers for providing
helpful suggestions to improve the quality of the present paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.105021.
References
Chen, H.T., Hou, L., Hou, S.Y., Li, Y., Min, S.Y., Chai, Y.D., 2018. Design and optimization
experiment of anti-blocking mechanism of no-tillage planter for grand ridge with raw
corn stubble. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 49 (8), 59–67 (in Chinese).
Chen, H.T., Zha, S.H., Dun, G.Q., Cong, G.B., Li, A., Feng, Y.N., 2016. Optimization and
experiment of cleaning device of 2BMFJ type no-till precision planter. Trans. Chin.
Soc. Agric. Mach. 47 (7), 96–102 (in Chinese).
Elfatih, A., Arif, E.M., Atef, A.E., 2010. Evaluate the modified chopper for rice straw
composting. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 6 (8), 1125–1131.
Fu, Q.K., Jian, S.C., Jia, H.L., Zhao, W.G., Lv, A.M., Wei, G.J., 2016. Design and experi-
ment on maize stubble cleaning fertilization ridging seeder. Trans. CSAE 32 (4), 9–16
(in Chinese).
GB/T 24675.6-2009, 2009. Conservation Tillage Equipment-Smashed Straw Machine.
Gratton, J., Chen, Y., Tessier, S., 2003. Design of a spring-loaded downforce system for a
no-till seed opener. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 45 (2), 29–35.
Gu, F.W., Hu, Z.C., Chen, Y.Q., Wu, F., 2016. Development and experiment of peanut no-
till planter under full wheat straw mulching based on 'clean area planting'. Trans.
Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 32 (20), 15–23 (in Chinese).
He, J., Li, H.W., Chen, H.T., Lu, C.Y., Wang, Q.J., 2018. Research progress of conservation
tillage technology and machine. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 49 (4), 1–19 (in
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 166 (2019) 105021
Chinese).
Hu, J.S., Fan, J., Fu, W., Wang, H., Hao, D.M., 2019. Effect of conservation tillage mea-
sures on soil water and NO3-N leaching and accumulation in dryland maize cropland.
Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 50 (3), 59–67.
Jia, H.L., Jiang, X.M., Yuan, H.F., Zhuang, J., Zhao, J.L., Guo, M.Z., 2017. Stalk cutting
mechanism of no-tillage planter for wide/narrow row farming mode. Int. J. Agric.
Biol. Eng. 10 (2), 26–35.
Jia, H.L., Wang, L.C., Li, C.S., Tan, H.J., Ma, C.L., 2010. Combined stalk-stubble breaking
and mulching machine. Soil Tillage Res. 107 (2), 42–48.
Khokan, K.S., Xu, C.L., Wang, X.Y., Li, M.J., Li, L.H., Liu, G.M., 2016. Band tillage with
fertilizer application for unpuddled transplanting rice in northeast of China. Int. J.
Agric. Biol. Eng. 9 (4), 73–83.
Li, J.H., 2016. The Core Components Analysis of Mechanical Type no Tillage Precision
Sowing Machine and the Experimental Study on Performance. Shihezi University.
Liu, H.X., Wen, H.N., Gai, G.W., Tang, S.F., 2017. Design and experiment on passive
drum-type no-till planter cavitation mechanism. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 48
(9), 53–61.
Liu, J.X., Wang, H., Wang, Q.J., Li, S.H., Li, H.W., He, J., 2018. Design and experiment of
strip cleaning device of no and minimum-tillage corn planter. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric.
Mach. 49 (s1), 132–140 (in Chinese).
Liu, Y.F., Lin, J., Hao, B.Y., Li, B.F., Ma, T., 2016a. Design and experiment on lightweight
maize ridge planting no-tillage planter. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 32 (17), 24–31
(in Chinese).
Liu, Y.Q., Liu, F., Zhao, M.Q., Dong, S., Zhang, X., 2016b. Analysis of vibration test and
vibration theory of air-suction no-tillage planter. J. China Agric. Univ. 21 (10),
109–116 (in Chinese).
Matin, M.A., Desbiolles, M.A., Fielke, J.M., 2016. Strip-tillage using rotating straight
blades: effect of cutting-edge geometry on furrow parameters. Soil Tillage Res. 155
(8), 271–279.
Matin, M.A., Fielke, J.M., Desbiolles, J.M.A., 2014. Furrow parameters in rotary strip-
tillage: effect of blade geometry and rotary speed. Biosyst. Eng. 118 (1), 7–15.
Matin, M.A., Fielke, J.M., Desbiolles, J.M.A., 2015. Torque and energy characteristics for
strip-tillage cultivation when cutting furrows using three designs of rotary blade.
Biosyst. Eng. 129 (1), 329–340.
Niu, Q., Wang, Q.J., Chen, L.Q., Li, H.W., He, J., Li, W.Y., 2017. Design and experiment on
straw post-covering wheat planter. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 48 (11), 52–59.
NY/T 500-2002, 2002. Operating Quality for Crop Straw Returning-Back-to Field
Machine.
Shi, Y.Y., Chen, M., Wang, X.C., Morice, O.O., Li, C.G., Ding, W.M., 2018. Design and
experiment of variable-rate fertilizer spreader with centrifugal distribution cover for
rice paddy surface fertilization. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 49 (3), 86–93 (in
Chinese).
Shi, Y.Y., Luo, W.W., Hu, Z.C., Wu, F., Gu, F.W., Chen, Y.Q., 2019. Design and test of
equipment for straw crushing with strip-laying and seed-belt classification with
cleaning under full straw mulching. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 50 (4), 58–67 (in
Chinese).
Sidhu, H.S., Singh, M., Singh, Y., Blackwell, J., Lohan, S.K., Humphreys, E., Jat, M.L.,
Singh, V., Singh, S., 2015. Development and evaluation of the Turbo Happy Seeder
for sowing wheat into heavy rice residues in NW India. Field Crops Res. 184 (7),
201–212.
Smith, J.A., Wilson, R.G., Binford, G.D., Uonts, C.D., 2002. Tillage systems for improved
emergence and yield of sugar beets. Appl. Eng. Agric. 18 (6), 667–672.
Tian, Y., Lin, J., Li, B.F., Zhang, T.J., Qi, L., Wang, J.Q., 2018. Design and test of pneu-
matic 1JH-2 style straw deep burying and returning machine. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric.
Eng. 34 (14), 10–18 (in Chinese).
Wang, W.W., Zhu, C.X., Chen, L.Q., Li, Z.D., Huang, X., Li, J.C., 2017. Design and ex-
periment of active straw-removing anti-blocking device for maize no-tillage planter.
Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 33 (24), 10–17 (in Chinese).
Wu, N., Lin, J., Li, B.F., 2018. Design and test on no-tillage planter precise hole fertili-
zation system. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 49 (7), 64–72 (in Chinese).
Zeng, Z.W., Chen, Y., 2018. Performance evaluation of fluted coulters and rippled discs
for vertical tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 108 (6), 93–99.
Zhang, T., Liu, F., Zhao, M.Q., Liu, Y.Q., Li, F.L., Chen, C., Zhang, Y., 2016. Movement law
of maize population in seed room of seed metering device based on discrete element
method. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 32 (22), 27–35 (in Chinese).
Zhang, Z.Q., He, J., Li, H.W., Wang, Q.J., Ju, J.W., Yan, X.L., 2017. Design and experi-
ment on straw chopper cum spreader with adjustable spreading device. Trans. Chin.
Soc. Agric. Mach. 48 (09), 76–87 (in Chinese).
Zhao, M.Q., Hu, Y.W., Liu, Y.Q., 2012. Measurement and analysis on vibration char-
acteristics of pneumatic seed metering device of no-till seeder. Trans. Chin. Soc.
Agric. Eng. 28 (Supp. 2), 78–83.
Zhao, S.H., Wang, J.Y., Yang, C., Chen, J.Q., Yang, R.Q., 2019. Design and experiment of
stubble chopper for interaction with subsoiler. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 50 (3),
59–67.
Zheng, Z.Q., He, J., Li, H.W., Diao, P.S., Wang, Q.J., Zhang, X.C., 2016. Design and ex-
periment of straw-chopping device with chopping and fixed knife supported slide
cutting. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 47 (S1), 108–116 (in Chinese).