Soil & Tillage Research 126 (2013) 34–41

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

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

A discrete element model for soil–sweep interaction in three different soils

Ying Chen a, Lars J. Munkholm b, Tavs Nyord c,*
a
Department of Biosystems Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
b
Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
c
Department of Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Soil–tool interactions are at the centre of many agricultural field operations, including slurry injection.
Received 3 February 2012 Understanding of soil–tool interaction behaviours (soil cutting forces and soil disturbance) is important
Received in revised form 23 August 2012 for designing high performance injection tools. A discrete element model was developed to simulate a
Accepted 24 August 2012
slurry injection tool (a sweep) and its interaction with soil using Particle Flow Code in Three Dimensions
(PFC3D). In the model, spherical particles with bonds and viscous damping between particles were used
Keywords: to simulate agricultural soil aggregates and their cohesive behaviours. To serve the model development,
Sweep
the sweep was tested in three different soils (coarse sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam). In the tests, soil
DEM
cutting forces (draught and vertical forces) and soil disturbance characteristics (soil cross-section
PFC3D
Force disturbance and surface deformation) resulting from the sweep were measured. The measured draught
Disturbance and vertical forces were used in calibrations of the most sensitive model parameter, particle stiffness.
Calibration The calibrated particle stiffness was 0.75  103 N m1 for the coarse sand, 2.75  103 N m1 for the
Validation loamy sand, and 6  103 N m1 for the sandy loam. The calibrated model was validated using the soil
disturbance characteristics measured in those three soils. The simulations agreed well with the
measurements with relative errors below 10% in most cases.
ß 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In this work, a modelling approach was used to study soil–tool

Many studies on soil–tool interaction have been carried out in
the past with the intention of improving the design of soil engaging
tools. Soil–tool interactions are usually characterised by two
phenomena: forces arising at the soil–tool interface (draught and
vertical forces) and displacement of soil particles (soil disturbance)
(Conte et al., 2011). They are the two most important performance
indicators of a slurry injection tool. High draught force require-
ment is the major limitation that prevents producers from using
large implements for slurry injection. Soil cross-sectional area
disturbance is one of the key factors which determine the amount
of slurry which can be injected into the soil without overflowing to
the soil surface (Mckyes et al., 1977; Chen and Tessier, 2001). Soil
disturbance also affects how well the injected slurry is spread in
soil. Slurry spreading in a larger soil volume promotes better
aerobic condition and may decrease denitrification losses. The
resultant soil surface profile of an injection tool is a measure of
injection quality, as it affects how well the injected slurry is
covered by soil (Rahman et al., 2005), and thereby how effectively
ammonia and odour emission is reduced (Chen and Tessier, 2001;
Hansen et al., 2003).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 87157637.
E-mail address: Tavs.Nyord@agrsci.dk (T. Nyord).
interaction, as measurements of soil dynamic behaviours are costly
and time consuming. Analytical models based on the passive soil
failure theory for predictions of soil cutting forces and the amount
of soil disturbed were among the first attempts in the literature.
This method was developed and modified by several researchers
(Hettiaratchi et al., 1966; Godwin and Spoor, 1977; McKyes and Ali,
1977) and later summarised by McKyes (1985). The analytical
method has proved to be simple to use and fairly accurate.
However, its applications are limited to simple blades and assumed
soil failure patterns. Although the analytical theory was extended
to more complicated shapes of tools (disc and mouldboard plough)
more recently (Godwin and O’Dogherty, 2007), the assumption of a
soil failure pattern still remains a limitation. Numerical models,
such as Finite Element Method (FEM), have also been used to
model soil–tool interactions for more complex tool shapes and soil
behaviours in the literature (Shen and Kushwaha, 1998; Plouffe
et al., 1999; Abo-Elnor et al., 2004). A thorough review on the use of
the FEM for soil–tool interaction has been done by Upadhyaya et al.
(2000). Soil particles in the FEM were connected and acted like one
object, while in reality large soil fractures may form and particles
may move independently with a large displacement during a field
operation. In such cases, there may be numerical convergence
problems with the FEM (Abo-Elnor et al., 2004). The common
limitation of the analytical method and FEM is that they cannot
predict soil behaviours at particle levels. The analytical method

0167-1987/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2012.08.008
 Y. Chen et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 126 (2013) 34–41
describes soil failures in forms of soil body (e.g. a crescent or a
wedge) and the FEM accounts for total deformation not only, in
individual soil particles.
This study used a newer numerical method, the Discrete
Element Method (DEM), in dealing with discontinuous soil
particles. It aims at modelling soils at particle levels without
limitations on magnitudes of particle displacement and shapes of
tool. In the DEM, soil is treated as an assembly of individual
particles and each particle interacts with its neighbouring particles
under external forces, such as tillage action. As a result, forces arise
at the contact points between particles, causing displacement of
particles. The magnitude of the contact force is determined by the
particle properties (such as stiffness) and the overlap between
particles in contact. The motion of a particle follows Newton’s
second law. To produce dynamic attributes of each particle in every
calculation cycle, additional computation time is needed to store
and compute the information as compared with the FEM.
To date there are only a few studies in DEM simulations of soil–
tool interaction in applications of bulldozing (Momozu et al., 2003;
Franco et al., 2007; Shmulevich et al., 2007; Obermayr et al., 2011).
These studies dealt with simple earth moving tools (wide blades)
operated in cohesionless soils. Whereas agricultural soil engaging
tools are of more complicated shapes and agricultural soils are
cohesive. Among the few literature studies on agricultural soil, van
der Linde (2007) simulated a powered subsoiler using a commer-
cial DEM code, Particle Flow Code in Three Dimensions (PFC3D)
(Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis, MN). That study dealt with
only one type of soil (a sandy soil). Later, Mak et al. (2012)
simulated a simple soil engaging tool (a narrow blade) using PFC3D.
That study dealt with two contrasting soils (coarse and fine soils),
and the model was not calibrated with measurements but with
predictions of draught forces from an analytical method. In
addition, the model was not validated in that study. All the
aforementioned soil–tool interaction simulations, regardless of
applications, focused on soil draught forces of simple tools, and
presented only limited qualitative information on soil disturbance.
Calibration of model particle properties (termed as micro-
properties) is the major challenge of DEM simulations. Asaf et al.
(2007) calibrated PFC2D (two dimensional) model parameters for
soil tillage applications. Soil particles were modelled by clumps of
two discs and soil was assumed as cohesionless. Calibrations were
based on in situ field sinkage tests using different soil penetration
tools. The calibrated model parameters and similar particle shape
were used by Shmulevich et al. (2007) in simulation of interaction
between soil and a wide cutting blade using PFC2D. In simulating a
powered subsoiler, van der Linde (2007) calibrated PFC3D model
parameters for a sandy soil using laboratory direct shear and
compression tests. Sadek et al. (2011) calibrated PFC3D parameters
for a sandy soil with different moisture contents and bulk
densities. In reviewing the general concepts of the DEM and
Fig. 1. Equipment for tests: (a) sweep and force transducer; (b) toolbar set up.
35
modelling of soil–tool interactions, Shmulevich et al. (2009) and
Shmulevich (2010) pointed out that although the literature
reported good correlations between simulations and measure-
ments, there is still a lack of robust methods for DEM model
parameter calibrations.
The objectives of this study were to (1) develop a discrete
element model to simulate soil–sweep interaction using PFC3D, (2)
inversely calibrate a model parameter using experimental data of
soil cutting forces from three soils, and (3) validate the model
results using experimental data of soil disturbance from those
three soils.
2. Methodology
2.1. Experiment
2.1.1. Description of the equipment
The sweep tested (Fig. 1a) was 180-mm wide with a sweep
angle of 808. The sweep and shank (46 mm wide) were mounted on
a toolbar at a rake angle of 158. A force transducer was installed
between the shank and the toolbar to measure the soil cutting
forces of the sweep. The toolbar was specially designed for testing
soil engaging tools. It consisted of a three-point hitch and two
trailing wheels (Fig. 1b). The trailing wheels were adjustable to
control the tool working depth. Nyord et al. (2010) provided a
detailed description of the toolbar.
2.1.2. Description of the testing facility
The testing facility for sweep tests included outdoor soil bins
(Fig. 2), located at the Foulum Research Centre (DK-8830 Tjele,
Denmark). The bins contained three types of Danish soils: coarse
sand soil from Jyndevad [Ortic Haplohumod, texture: 4% clay
(<0.002 mm), 5% silt (0.002–0.063 mm), 17% fine sand (0.063–
0.2 mm), 72% coarse sand (>0.2 mm), and 2.0% organic matter],
loamy sand soil from Foulum (Typic Hapludult, texture: 9% clay,
24% silt, 32% fine sand, 33% coarse sand, and 2.5% organic matter),
and sandy loam soil from Rønhave (Typic Agrudalf, texture: 18%
clay, 31% silt, 29% fine sand, 20% coarse sand, and 2.5% organic
matter). The soil bins were 40 m long, 2.7 m wide, and 1.5 m deep.
For the past 13 years, the soils were cultivated with conventional
tillage and seeded with mainly cereal crops. All bins had barley
stubble (height: 60–70 mm) at the time of the experiment. The
automatic open–close roof of the facility allowed controlling the
amount of rain which the soils were receiving.
2.2. Sweep tests
The sweep was tested on September 22, 2011. Each soil bin was
divided into three plots (0.7 m wide) along the entire length of the
bin (Fig. 2). To allow for replications of treatment and comparisons
36 Y. Chen et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 126 (2013) 34–41
Fig. 2. The testing facility showing soil bins, roofing system, soil surface conditions
prior to the tests, and the layout of the test plots within a bin.
among the soils, a constant working depth (100 mm) and a
constant tractor travel speed were used for all plots. This gave
three replicates within each soil bin. During the tests, the tractor
wheels travelled on two metal rails outside the bin (Fig. 1b),
allowing for a precise control in the spacing of sweep paths within
the bin.
2.3. Measurements
At the time of the sweep tests, soil cores (60 mm diameter and
100 mm long) were taken from undisturbed areas in the bins. A
total of 30 soil cores were taken in three soil bins at random
locations with 10 cores from each soil bin. Soil cores were brought
to the laboratory, weighed, oven-dried at 105 8C for 24 h, and
weighed again to measure the soil moisture content (dry basis) and
dry bulk density.
In situ soil frictional angle and cohesion were measured using a
torsional shear box (shear ring diameter: 100 mm and height:
50 mm). Before the measurements, the top 0–25 mm soil layer was
removed; then the ring was inserted into the soil at a depth of
75 mm below the original soil surface, so that the shear ring was
positioned in the middle of the tillage layer. A test was performed
for five different normal loads in the range of 7.3–32.3 kPa. Tests
were performed at two random locations in each soil bin, giving a
total of 6 measurements in three bins.
In situ soil shear strength was measured using a vane shear
tester (vane diameter: 33 mm and height: 50 mm). The vane tester
was inserted into the soil at 75 mm depth. A total of 30
measurements were performed at random locations in three bins
with 10 measurements per bin.
Fig. 3. Soil disturbance measurement: (a) the profile meter in an excavated furrow; (b) traced profile on a paper.
Draught and vertical forces of the sweep were measured using a
transducer (Fig. 1a) (extended octagonal ring) with rated capacities
of 62.0 kN and 85.2 kN for draught and vertical forces, respectively.
A radar mounted on the toolbar monitored the travel speed. Forces
and speed were recorded using a MGCplus datalogger (Hottinger
Baldwin Messtechnik) at a sampling rate of 600 Hz. Nine sets of
force and speed data were obtained for the nine plots.
Soil cross-section disturbance by the sweep was measured
following the tests using a 390 mm wide profile meter consisting of
130 free-dropping wooden pins. The measurement followed the
steps: (1) excavation of loose soil in a furrow by hand; (2)
placement of the profile meter across the furrow; the pins
automatically adjusted for their vertical positions in accordance
with the contour of the furrow (Fig. 3a); and (3) tracing of the
profile of the pins on a paper (Fig. 3b). The soil surface profile was
measured using the similar procedure, except that the first step
was omitted. Measurements were performed at four random
locations for soil cross-section and six random locations for surface
profile in each plot. In total, 36 soil cross-section profiles and 54
surface profiles were obtained. Profiles were later analysed for
characteristics of soil disturbance.
2.4. Data processing and analysis
Fig. 4 shows a typical data set from the force transducer and
speed radar sensor. Data points between 0 and 3 s were taken as
offsets which were subtracted. Data points for the draught force,
vertical forces, and speed were taken from 10 to 45 s, and the
averages of those data points (21,000 data points) were used in
statistical analyses to examine effects of soil type on the cutting
forces and in model calibrations as well.
Soil profiles were characterised using cross-sectional area,
width, and soil surface profile. Soil cross-sectional area disturbed
was the area under the soil surface (A) (Fig. 5a) and it was
measured using a Digitizing Area-line Meter (Model: Super PLANIX
b, Tamaya Technics Inc., Japan). The disturbance width (W) was the
furrow opening width at the soil surface level. Soil surface profiles
were quantified by areas above and below the soil surface, as
illustrated in Fig. 5b, The total area above the soil surface ðAþ ¼
P þ
ai Þ was named as positive disturbed area and that below the
P 
surface ðA ¼ ai Þ was named as negative disturbed area, and
they were measured also using the Digitizing Area-line Meter.
2.5. Development of the discrete element model
2.5.1. Model particles
Model particles were an assembly of balls, basic PFC3D
elements, representing soil particles. Note that the terms of ball
and particle are used interchangeably hereafter. The contacts
between model particles were considered to follow the behaviours
described by the PFC3D parallel bond model (PBM) (Potyondy and
 Y. Chen et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 126 (2013) 34–41 37

4
Force (kN) or speed (m/s)

3
Travel spee d
2
Draught force
1

0
Vercalforce
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time (s)

Fig. 4. A typical data set recorded during a test run of the sweep in the sandy loam;
the negative vertical forces indicate the downward direction.

Cundall, 2004). In the PBM, particles are bonded together with a Fig. 6. Cylindrical bond between two balls in the PFC3D parallel bond model (PBM).
cylindrical ‘‘cementicious’’ material (Fig. 6). The bond can
withstand forces and moments; their magnitudes depend on the
micro-properties (e.g. shear and normal strengths) of the bond.
Determination of these micro-properties is described later in the
paper. Particles connected with bonds form clusters of particles,
which mimics soil aggregates and the cohesive soil forces between
soil particles. Bonds can break when external forces exceed the
strengths of the bonds, which mimics the tillage action of a soil
engaging tool. Although irregular particle shapes can be con-
structed using balls in PFC3D, it is less important when the PBM is
used, as balls exist in forms of clusters in the PBM (van der Linde,
2007).

2.5.2. Soil domain and virtual sweep
Dimensions of the soil domain were set as
0.4 m  0.3 m  0.9 m (width  depth  length). Particles were
generated in the domain and were confined in a box built using
five PFC3D walls (Fig. 7). Given the fixed dimension of the soil
domain and the computing time limitation, the model particle
sizes were chosen to follow a uniform size distribution between 6
and 16 mm, meaning that all particle sizes between 6 and 16 mm
were generated with an equal probability. This size range is in
accordance with the aggregate size range of 1–32 mm measured in
several Danish soils by Munkholm and Kay (2002), Munkholm
et al. (2002), and Munkholm et al. (2007). Discrepancies caused by
the particle shape and size would be compensated with calibra-
tions of particle micro-properties. This compensation approach
seems acceptable at the stage of the DEM development today
(Shmulevich, 2010).
A virtual sweep (Fig. 7) was constructed with seven PFC3D walls
to represent the sweep used in the soil bin tests. The basic
geometry of the virtual sweep was developed to closely match that
of the actual sweep. There were two major differences between the
virtual sweep and the real one. The virtual sweep did not have
curved surfaces and corners, and its shank was approximated by
small segments of walls. The key features maintained included the
sweep length, width, sweep angle, rake angle, and shank width.
The virtual sweep was initially positioned at one end of the soil
domain at the desired working depth, prior to simulation. PFC3D
allows specifying a speed to walls. This feature was used to move
Fig. 7. The discrete element model developed using PFC3D: particles, box, and
sweep.
the sweep through the particle assembly to simulate the operation
of the sweep in soil.
2.5.3. Micro-properties of model particles
The PFC3D PBM requires eight particle micro-properties as
model inputs for simulations. They are the ball friction coefficient:
m, the ball normal and shear stiffness: Kn and Ks (N m1), the bond
normal and shear stiffness: K̄n and K̄s (Pa m1), the bond normal
and shear strength: s̄ and t̄ (Pa), and radius multiplier of bond: R̄m
(dimensionless). The radius multiplier is the ratio of the diameter
of cylindrical bond and that of the smaller ball of two balls in
contact. The value of R̄m varies from 0 (no bond at all) to 1 (the bond
radius equal to the diameter of the smaller ball in contact). In this
study, some model parameters were related with measured
fundamental soil properties, which is an important approach for
determinations of DEM model parameters (Shmulevich, 2010). The
particle friction, m was considered as the soil internal friction
coefficient measured in the soil bins, and the bond shear strength, t̄
of model particles was considered as the vane shear strength
measured in the soil bins. To reduce the number of parameters to
be calibrated, the following assumptions were made: s̄ ¼ t̄ ; K̄s ¼
K̄n ; K s ¼ K n ; and R̄m ¼ 0:5 (Asaf et al., 2007; van der Linde, 2007).
Thus, only Kn and K̄n were required to be determined for the model.

Fig. 5. Soil disturbance characterisation: (a) soil cross-section disturbed by the sweep (A = cross-sectional area; W = width at the soil surface); (b) soil surface disturbance
(a+ = positive disturbed area; a = negative disturbed area).
38 Y. Chen et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 126 (2013) 34–41

Preliminary simulations showed that model particle behaviours The experimental results provide important information for
were not sensitive to K̄n , but very sensitive to Kn. Therefore, a producers, regarding the performance of the sweep working in
constant value of 5  107 Pa m1 (van der Linde, 2007; Sadek et al., these soils. Positive soil surface deformation may favour slurry
2011) was used in simulations in this study, while Kn was being covered by soil, if the disturbed areas are located above the
calibrated. injected slurry. In contrast, negative soil disturbed area may pose a
risk for slurry being exposed to the air due to a lack of soil cover.
2.5.4. Damping of the model particles Based on the measured soil cutting forces, producers can
In PFC3D, users can choose either or both of local damping and determine the ballasting for appropriate sweep penetration and
viscous damping, to introduce energy dissipation to particles, so the number of sweeps which can be pulled by a given tractor.
that particles become more stable. The damping formulations are
described in detail in Itasca (2008). Basically, the local damping 3.2. Model results
acts to suppress motion of particles, and the viscous damping acts
at contacts between particles to oppose relative motion of two In generating particles, particle porosities were matched to the
particles. The local damping coefficient (a) ranges from 0 to 1, The measured soil bulk densities (Table 1) with an average soil particle
viscous damping coefficient (b) is specified by the ratio of damping density of 2.65 mg m3 (Campbell, 1985). With these porosities
constant to the critical damping constant b (a function of mass and the model generated between 10,266 and 13,665 balls within the
natural frequency of undamped system). A system is said to be specific soil domain dimensions, depends on the soil. Additional
underdamped when b < 1, overdamped when b > 1, and decays to model inputs included stiffness of the virtual sweep (assumed as
zero at the most rapid rate when b = 1. The default values are the stiffness of steel: 1  109 N m1) and friction coefficient
a = 0.7 and b = 0. Damping effects are relevant to both soil between particles and the virtual sweep which was assumed to
disturbance and cutting forces. Selections of damping coefficients be 0.41, a typical value for the friction between soil and an
are discussed in the section of model results. engaging tool (Godwin, 2007). The porosities and other model
inputs for three different soils are summarised in Table 2.
3. Results and discussion
3.2.1. Model behaviours as affected by damping coefficients
3.1. Experiment results Model behaviours were examined under different damping
coefficients which affect the model dynamics in soil cutting forces
Significantly lower soil bulk density was found for the loamy and soil particle displacement. Under assumed particle stiffness,
sand soil than for the other soils (Table 1). The moisture content of the model was run first using the default the PFC3D damping
the sandy loam was two times that of the coarse sand, and that of coefficients (a = 0.7; b = 0). PFC3D allows monitoring forces acting
the loamy sand was intermediate. This statistical trend also held on walls in both horizontal and vertical directions. This feature was
true for the results of soil vane shear strength and soil cohesion. used to monitor soil cutting forces of the virtual sweep. Typical
Soil internal friction coefficients did not correlate to soil type. The outputs of draught and vertical forces from the model are shown in
average tractor speed was 0.89 m s1 (3.19 km h1). Operating the Fig. 8a. As the sweep enters the soil domain, draught and vertical
sweep at this speed in the coarse sand required 0.292 kN draught forces increase rapidly, and then fluctuate about a fairly constant
force. Comparatively, the draught force was 50% higher in the value. Forces decrease to zero as the sweep comes out of the soil
loamy sand, and twice as high in the sandy loam. The vertical force domain. The fluctuating forces reflect breaking of bonds between
also followed the same statistical trend. These results may imply individual particles as the sweep travels. A bond breaks when
that soil with higher shear strength resulted in higher draught external forces (from the sweep) exceed the strengths of the bond,
force. In all three soils, the sweep disturbed similar cross-sectional and the forces between particles become zero when the bond is
areas. However, the disturbed width at the soil surface was broken, resulting in fluctuating of the force, which in turn affect the
significantly smaller for the coarse sand soil. Results of the positive total forces arising at the soil–tool interface. The phenomenon of
disturbed area showed that the sweep threw more soil above the force fluctuation reflects the dynamic nature of soil particles
surface in the sandy loam soil. Conversely, in this soil a lower observed in the soil bin tests (Fig. 4).
negative disturbed area was observed. With the PFC3D_EV (Enhanced Visualisation) used in this study,
one can examine many dynamic attributes of particles at any given
time, including position, translational and rotational velocities,
Table 1 mass, and which neighbouring particles are in contact with the
Means of soil properties, cutting forces, and disturbance characteristics measured in
the soil bin tests.
particle. The attributes of particle translational velocities are of
interest as they reflect soil disturbance resulting from the sweep.
Variable Soil type As the sweep travels, individual particles are being impacted,
Coarse sand Loamy sand Sandy loam resulting in variable velocities of those individual particles. This
Soil property was captured by screenshots of velocity contours (Fig. 8b). The
Dry bulk density (kg m3) 1.41aa 1.33b 1.41a contours show that the highest particle velocities are at the
Moisture content (d.b.) (%) 8.98c 14.84b 18.20a interface of the sweep (from the tip to the shank) and particles.
Vane shear strength (kPa) 9.12c 15.22b 21.68a Particles are dislodged over the top of the domain. Over time,
Cohesion (kPa) 15.7c 25.2b 36.0a
Internal friction coefficient 0.51a 0.67a 0.63a
impacted particles settle down behind the sweep and velocities of
Soil cutting force particles eventually decrease to zero as the calculation continues.
Draught force (kN) 0.292c 0.430b 0.585a However, with the default values of damping coefficients, model
Vertical force (kN) 0.101c 0.152b 0.178a particles move higher or farther than expected according to the
Soil disturbance
authors’ experience, as illustrated in Fig. 8b. This occurred
Cross-sectional area (mm2) 24600a 26300a 25400a
Disturbance width (mm) 339b 359a 358a regardless of the Kn value.
Positive disturbed area (mm2) 5140b 13390b 57440a To minimise the excessive particle movement, viscous damping
Negative disturbed area (mm2) 2299a 1722ab 884b was added to the model particles. Trials showed that with smaller
a
Means followed with different letters within the same row are statistically viscous damping coefficient, particles were less stable, while with
different at P < 0.05 according to Duncan’s multiple range tests. larger viscous damping coefficient, particles moved as large
 Y. Chen et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 126 (2013) 34–41
Table 2
Inputs for simulations of three soils using the discrete element model.
Parameter Coarse sand
Porosity of particle assembly 0.47
Particle friction coefficient 0.51
s̄ and t̄ (Pa) 9120
clusters and became less realistic. Therefore, both underdamping
and overdamping should be avoided. Trials also showed that it was
necessary to reduce the local damping in order for the sweep to
disturb a realistic volume of particles. Through numerous
preliminary trials, one observed that a local damping coefficient
a = 0.5 and a viscous damping coefficient b = 1.0 appeared to be
the best possible combination to reflect realistic dynamic
behaviours of soil particles. This is demonstrated in Fig. 9a where
particles are more stable when compared to those in Fig. 8b. It was
noticed that changing these damping coefficients also changed the
magnitudes of forces. When compared Fig. 9b with Fig. 8a, one
found that adding viscous damping doubled the draught forces.
3.2.2. Model calibrations
With the selected damping coefficients (a = 0.5; b = 1.0), the
particle stiffness (Kn) was inversely calibrated through matching
the soil cutting forces between simulations and measurements. For
each soil, a series of assumed Kn were used in running the model to
predict soil cutting forces. Predicted soil cutting forces of each
simulation run were averaged over the stable portion of the curve
(Fig. 9b). Table 3 demonstrates how the value of Kn affects the
predicted soil cutting forces. Draught force increases at larger Kn
value for all soils. In general, effects of Kn on the vertical force
follow the same trends, but less pronounced. The increasing trend
is more obvious in the case of the coarse sand, followed by the
loamy sand, and then the sandy loam. This correlates inversely to
the bond strength. The sandy loam had the highest bond strength,
which may have suppressed the sensitivity of particle stiffness on
the forces. In contrast, the coarse sand had the lowest bond
Fig. 8. Simulation results with the PFC3D default damping coefficients: (a) an
example of simulated draught force (top curve) and vertical force (bottom curve;
direction: downward); X-axis is calculation step; Y-axis is force in N; (b) particle
assembly (side view) showing instantaneous particle velocity contours as the
sweep travels; the velocity unit is m s1.
39
Loamy sand Sandy loam Source
0.50 0.47 Derived from bulk density
0.67 0.63 Soil friction coefficient
15,200 21,680 Soil shear strength
strength, making the effect of particle stiffness on the forces more
dominant.
To find the particle stiffness which results in the best match
between simulations and measurements, the agreement between
simulations and measurements was assessed using the relative
errors defined as follows:
 
100 jM d  Sd j jM v  Sv j
REf ¼ þ (1)
2 Md Mv
where REf is relative average error for soil cutting force (%); M
stands for measurement and S stands for simulation; subscripts d
and v stand for draught and vertical respectively.
Table 3 also demonstrates the calibration process. For example,
under the coarse sand, with a series of assumed values of Kn from
5.0  102 to 1.75  103 N m1, the predicted values vary from
0.245 to 0.395 kN for draught force, and 0.088 to 0.127 kN for
vertical force. When comparing these predicted values to the
experimental data in Table 1, the relative errors vary from 4 to 31%.
The calibrated Kn is taken as 0.75  103 N m1 as it causes the least
relative error. Similarly, the calibrated Kn are 2.75  103 and
6.0  103 N m1 for the loamy sand and sandy loam respectively.
3.2.3. Model validation
The calibrated model was validated through comparing
simulated soil disturbance characteristics with measured ones.
To catch the soil cross-section disturbance, the particle assembly
was ‘‘sliced’’ along the sweep travel direction at different
simulation times (Fig. 10). Over the course of a simulation run,
the impact from the sweep on particle velocities is a progressive
Fig. 9. Simulation results with modified damping coefficients: (b) instantaneous
particle velocity; the velocity unit is m s1; (a) draught force (top curve) and vertical
force (bottom curve; direction: downward); X-axis is calculation step; Y-axis is
force in N.
40 Y. Chen et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 126 (2013) 34–41

Table 3
Calibration process and effects of particle stiffness (Kn) on soil cutting forces.

Soil type Assumed Draught Vertical REfa (%)

Kn (N m1) force (kN) force (kN)

Coarse sand 0.50  103 0.245 0.088 14

0.75  103 0.297 0.099 2
1.00  103 0.299 0.095 4
1.25  103 0.365 0.119 21
1.50  103 0.389 0.124 28
1.75  103 0.395 0.127 31

Loamy sand 2.00  103 0.412 0.128 10

2.25  103 0.413 0.130 9
2.50  103 0.436 0.131 8
2.75  103 0.449 0.141 6
3.00  103 0.452 0.128 10 Fig. 11. Screenshots of simulation showing the resultant cross-section disturbed by
Sandy loam 5.00  103 0.561 0.184 4 the virtual sweep.
5.50  103 0.575 0.185 3
6.00  103 0.584 0.185 2
6.50  103 0.598 0.187 4
examined when all particles settled (particle velocities became
7.00  103 0.605 0.195 6
zero). An example of soil surface profile is illustrated in Fig. 11. The
Bold values represent the calibrated value with the lowest relative error between simulated soil deformation is not quite the same. For example, the
measured and simulated forces.
a
REf = relative error between measured and simulated forces.
virtual soil seems to be more plastic, and simulations give more
pronounced negative disturbed area than the positive disturbed
process. As the sweep travels, particles which initially in rest near area. Numerical values of soil disturbance were obtained also using
the tip of the sweep are pushed (Fig. 10a); then the velocity field is the PFC3D_EV measurement tools.
extending to the surroundings of the sweep as it advances (Fig. 10b Simulated soil disturbance characteristics in three soils were
and c), and soil disturbance reaches a stage when there is no more compared with those measured in the soil bins (Table 1). The
expending in the number of impact particles (Fig. 10d). At this agreement between simulations and measurements was evaluated
stage, the impact area is considered to be equivalent to the soil with the relative error defined as:
cross-sectional area measured in the soil bins. Impact areas are of a
 
trapezoid shape that was also observed in the soil bins (Fig. 5). To jM  Sj
REs ¼ 100 (2)
obtain the simulated soil cross-sectional area, the model was run M
for three soils and particle velocity contours were captured at the
stage as shown in Fig. 10d. The boundary of the impact area was where REs is relative average error for soil disturbance character-
identified on the velocity contour through the differences in istics (%); M is measurement; S is simulation. The simulated cross-
particle velocity. The area of the boundary was obtained using the sectional areas and widths were in close agreement with those
PFC3D_EV measurement tools of Distance and Area. Similarly, the measured in the soil bins, as indicated by the low relative errors (1–
simulated soil disturbance width at the soil surface was obtained 4%) (Table 4). Higher relative errors (5–26%) were found for soil
from the top view of the particle velocity contour (Fig. 10e). surface deformation between simulations and measurements. The
Both cross-sectional area and width were taken from instanta- discrepancies may be attributable to several facts. As the
neous particle velocity contours. However, soil surface profile was calibration was done through matching the cutting forces, not

Fig. 10. Particle assemblies showing instantaneous particle velocity field as the sweep travels: (a–d) side view; (e) top view.
 Y. Chen et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 126 (2013) 34–41
Table 4
Simulated soil disturbance characteristics for three soils and errors relative to the experimental data.
Soil disturbance characteristics Coarse sand
Value REsa (%)
Cross-sectional area (mm2) 24,900 1 26,500
Disturbance width (mm) 327 4 348
Positive disturbed area (mm2) 65 26
Negative disturbed area (mm2) 210 9 180
a
REs = relative error between simulated and measured soil disturbance characteristics.
the soil disturbance characteristics; the model calibrated using soil
cutting forces may not fully reflect the soil disturbance behaviours;
also, the damping coefficients of the model were selected through
qualitative (not quantitative) observations of particle dynamics.
The discrepancies may also be attributable to the limitation of the
accuracy of PFC3D_EV measurement tools for highly variable
surface profiles. In reality, soil surface disturbance is highly
variable in nature as well.
4. Conclusions
The discrete element model developed using PFC3D closely
simulated the operation of a sweep and its interaction with soil.
Spherical particles with bonds between particle contacts can
realistically mimic cohesive behaviours of agricultural soils.
Viscous damping between particles is necessary to reflect the
dynamic behaviours of soil resulting from the sweep operation. In
determining PFC3D model parameters, particle friction can be
interpreted as soil friction, and particle bond strength can be
considered as soil shear strength. The calibration of the particle
stiffness was achieved using experimental data of draught and
vertical forces which are easy to measure, as compared to other
dynamic behaviours, such as soil disturbance characteristics. The
calibrated particle stiffness was 0.75  103 N m1 for the coarse
sand, 2.75  103 N m1 for the loamy sand, and 6.0  103 N m1
for the sandy loam. The calibrated model was able to predict soil
disturbance characteristics resulting from the sweep with relative
errors under 10% in most cases. Simulation of soil disturbance is
more challenging than simulation of soil cutting forces. Continuing
efforts are required towards understanding relationships between
dynamic behaviours and micro-properties of DEM particles.
Acknowledgements
The research was funded by Aarhus University Research
Foundation and the Danish Ministry for Food, Agriculture and
Fisheries. Authors wish to acknowledge technicians: Peter Nielsen,
Stig Rasmussen, Henrik Mortensen, and Jens Kristensen for their
assistance in field work and measurements. Thanks are given to Jay
Mak for his assistance in computer programming.
References
Abo-Elnor, M., Hamilton, R., Boyle, J.T., 2004. Simulation of soil–blade interaction for
sandy soil using advanced 3D finite element analysis. Soil & Tillage Research 75
(1), 61–73.
Asaf, Z., Rubinstein, D., Shmulevich, I., 2007. Determination of discrete element model
parameters required for soil tillage. Soil & Tillage Research 92 (2), 227–242.
Campbell, G.S., 1985. Soil physics with basic transport models for soil–plant
systems. Development in Soil Science 14, 1–11 Elsevier, New York.
Chen, Y., Tessier, S., 2001. Criterion for the design and selection of injection tools to
minimize liquid manure on the soil surface. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers 44 (6), 1421–1428.
Conte, O., Levien, R., Debiasi, H., Stürmer, S.L.K., Mazurana, M., Müller, J., 2011. Soil
disturbance index as an indicator of seed drill efficiency in no-tillage agrosys-
tems. Soil & Tillage Research 114, 37–42.
41
Loamy sand Sandy loam
Value REs (%) Value REs (%)
1 26,100 3
3 346 3
139 14 605 25
5 75 15
Franco, Y., Rubinstein, D., Shmulevich, I., 2007. Prediction of soil–bulldozer blade
interaction using discrete element method. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 50 (2), 345–353.
Godwin, R.J., 2007. A review of the effect of implement geometry on soil failure and
implement forces. Soil & Tillage Research 97, 331–340.
Godwin, R.J., O‘Dogherty, M.J., 2007. Integrated soil tillage force prediction models.
Journal of Terramechanics 43, 3–14.
Godwin, R.G., Spoor, G., 1977. Soil failure with narrow tines. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research 22, 213–228.
Hansen, M.N., Sommer, S.G., Madsen, N.P., 2003. Reduction of ammonia emission by
shallow slurry injection: injection efficiency and additional energy demand.
Journal of Environment Quality 32 (3), 1099–1104.
Hettiaratchi, D.R.P., Witney, B.D., Reece, A.R., 1966. The calculation of passive
pressure in two-dimensional soil failure. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research 11 (2), 89–107.
Itasca. 2008. PFC3D-Particle flow code in three dimensions, theory and background.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Mak, J., Chen, Y., Sadek, M.A., 2012. Determining parameters of a discrete element
model for soil–tool interaction. Soil & Tillage Research 118, 117–122.
McKyes, E., 1985. Soil Cutting and Tillage. Elsevier, New York.
McKyes, E., Ali, O.S., 1977. The cutting of soil by narrow blades. Journal of Terra-
mechanics 14 (2), 43–58.
Mckyes, E., Negi, S., Godwin, R.J., Ogilvie, J.R., 1977. Design of a tool for injecting
organic waste slurries in soil. Journal of Terramechanics 14 (3), 127–136.
Momozu, M., Oida, A., Yamazaki, M., Koolen, A.J., 2003. Simulation of a soil loosening
process by means of the modified distinct element method. Journal of Terra-
mechanics 39, 207–220.
Munkholm, L.J., Kay, B.D., 2002. Effect of water regime on aggregate-tensile
strength, rupture energy, and friability. Soil Science Society of America Journal
66, 702–709.
Munkholm, L.J., Schjønning, P., Debosz, K., Jensen, H.E., Christensen, B.T., 2002.
Aggregate strength and mechanical behaviour of a sandy loam soil under
long-term fertilisation treatments. European Journal of Soil Science 53,
129–137.
Munkholm, L.J., Perfect, E., Grove, J., 2007. Incorporation of water content in the
Weibull Model for soil aggregate strength. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 71 (3), 682–691.
Nyord, T., Kristensen, E.F., Munkholm, L.J., Jørgensen, M.H., 2010. Design of a
slurry injector for use in a growing cereal crop. Soil & Tillage Research 107,
26–35.
Obermayr, M., Dressler, K., Vrettos, C., Eberhard, P., 2011. Prediction of draft forces
in cohesionless soil with the Discrete Element Method. Journal of Terramecha-
nics 48 (5), 347–358.
Plouffe, C., Richard, M.J., Tessier, S., Laguë, C., 1999. Validations of moldboard plow
simulations with FEM on a clay soil. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 42 (6), 1523–1529.
Potyondy, D.O., Cundall, P.A., 2004. A bond-particle model for rock. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 41, 1329–1364.
Rahman, S., Chen, Y., Lobb, D., 2005. Soil movement resulting from sweep type
manure injection tools. Biosystems Engineering 91 (3), 379–392.
Sadek, M.A., Chen, Y., Liu, J., 2011. Simulating shear behavior of a sandy soil under
different soil conditions. Journal of Terramechanics 48 (6), 451–458.
Shen, J., Kushwaha, R.L., 1998. Soil–Machine Interactions. Marcel Dekker Inc., New
York.
Shmulevich, I., 2010. State of the art modeling of soil–tillage interaction using
discrete element method. Soil & Tillage Research 111 (1), 41–53.
Shmulevich, I., Asaf, Z., Rubinstein, D., 2007. Interaction between soil and a
wide cutting blade using the discrete element method. Soil & Tillage Research
97, 37–50.
Shmulevich, I., Rubinstein, D., Asaf, Z., 2009. Discrete element modeling of soil–
machine interactions. Advances in Soil Dynamics, vol. 3. ASABE, St. Joseph, MI,
chapter 5, pp. 399–433.
Upadhyaya, S.K., Rosa, U.A., Wulfshon, D., 2000. Application of finite element
method in agricultural soil mechanics. Advances in Soil Dynamics, vol. II.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers Monograph, ASABE, St. Joseph, MI,
chapter 2.
van der Linde, J., 2007. Discrete Element Modeling of a Vibratory Subsoiler.
Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Stel-
lenbosch, Matieland, South Africa.