Bl-LEVEL SUBSOILER PERFORMANCE USING TANDEM SHANKS

L. N. Mielke, R. D. Grisso, L. L. Bashford, A. M. Parkhurst

MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
ASAE ASAE ASAE

ABSTRACT. A subsoiler was modified by mounting a shallow shank ahead of a conventional subsoil shank. Wings with a
total effective width of 300 mm (12 in.) were attached to the foot of the shallow shank. The surface soil was lifted by the
winged foot of the leading shallow shank before the soil below the shallow shank was fractured and lifted by the deeper
shank. Power requirements and soil eruption were used to evaluate the effect of treatments of the bi-level subsoiler.
Treatments consisted of the following shank combinations: 1) conventional shank at 457-mm (18-in.) depth with variable
shallow winged shank depths and 2) shallow winged shanks set at 229 mm (9 in.) above the conventional shank and deep
shank depths of 356, 406, and 457 mm (14, 16, and 18 in.). Tandem shanks have the potential for increasing tillage
efficiency. Keywords. Tillage, Tillage tools, Subsoiling, Soil cone index, Agricultrual machinery.

C
umulative effects of heavy field equipment have
become more apparent in the past decade with
increased frequency of soil compaction problems.
Subsoilers of different designs have been
developed and used in attempts to reduce compaction.
Whatever the benefits may be, subsoiling is a high energy
tillage operation and should be done only after carefully
considering all management options.
Draft and time requirements usually dictate the size of
power units required on a given farm. Since the power unit
represents a major capital investment, knowledge of draft
requirements is necessary in making machinery
management decisions. Draft requirements are also needed
for decisions that will be used in future energy
management of agricultural machinery. Optimum use of
energy is an important design criterion for any agricultural
machine.
Quantitative evaluation of tillage implement
performance requires a measurement of induced forces
from the soil-tool interaction and a measure of soil
conditions to determine when and how much change
occurred in the soil. Generally, quantitative descriptions of
implement performance are difficult because no standard
methods exist for adequately describing soil conditions.
Article was submitted for publication by May 1993; reviewed and
approved for publication by the Power and Machinery Div. of ASAE in
December 1993. Presented as ASAE Paper No. 92-1527.
Contributions from the USDA-Agricultural Research Service and
Depts. of Agronomy and Biological Systems Engineering. Has been
assigned Journal Series No. 10212, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Mention of a trade name or product does not constitute a recommendation
or endorsement for use by the USDA or the University of Nebraska,
Lincoln.
The authors are Lloyd N. Mielke, Soil Scientist/Professor, Depts. of
Agronomy and Biological Systems Engineering, Robert D. Grisso,
Associate Professor, and Leonard L. Bashford, Professor, Dept. of
Biological Systems Engineering, and Anne M. Parkhurst, Professor,
Biometry Dept., University of Nebraska.
However, forces applied to a tillage implement produce a
given effect on the soil that can be readily measured.
The purposes of our research effort were to:
• Evaluate power requirements of a bi-level subsoiler
with a shallow winged shank leading a conventional
subsoil shank at various depths.
• Evaluate the soil eruption effectiveness of tandem
shanks at various operating depths.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Spoor and Godwin (1978) measured draft forces and
area disturbed by a subsoiler with a conventional shank and
different wings operated at 350 and 420 mm (13.8 and
16.5 in.) depths. The different wings tested had two widths,
the first (Wl) was 300 mm (12 in.) and the second (W2)
was 420 mm (16.5 in.). At an operating depth of 350 mm
(13.8 in.), the soil disturbance area was 0.098, 0.184, and
0.200 m 2 (1.05, 1.98, and 2.15 ft2) for a conventional
subsoiler (no wings), Wl, and W2 wings, respectively. At
the deeper depth [420 mm (16.5 in.)], the area of
disturbance was 0.087, 0.250, and 0.263 m 2 (0.9, 2.70, and
2.83 ft2) for a conventional subsoiler (no wing), Wl, and
W2 wings, respectively. They observed a critical tillage
depth below which soil flowed around the shank,
compaction occurred and little soil disturbance was
observed. When all shanks were operated above the critical
depth, the conventional subsoiler had a significantly lower
draft than the winged shanks. In these cases, the addition
of the wings to the subsoiler foot increased draft by 30%.
For the 30% draft increase, however, the total soil
disturbance area was doubled, giving a significant
improvement in tillage effectiveness. At the deep working
depth [420 mm (16.5 in.)], the conventional subsoiler was
below its critical depth. Both winged shanks were still
above their critical depth and soil disturbance was
significantly increased. At this depth, the winged shanks
had only marginally greater draft than the conventional

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

VOL. 10(3): 345-349 1994 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 345
shank, but the increase in total soil disturbance area was
threefold.
Several methods have been used to reduce the power
requirements for subsoil tillage. Araya (1985) injected fluid
from the tip of the chisel point to break down the soil
structure in front of the subsoiler. He found that draft
reduction was affected by the travel speed, the flow rate of
injected fluid (in this case sludge) and the base draft when
no fluid was injected. In one case, the base power
requirement was 2.08 kW (2.79 hp) and the power required
to inject the fluid was 43.3 W (0.03 hp), which resulted in a
total energy savings of 30%.
Garner et al. (1987) measured energy requirements for
subsoiling coastal plain soils. They measured draft, travel
speed, engine speed, wheel slip, and fuel consumption in
five different soil conditions. They found draft values in
the range published in the ASAE Standards (1990a), but in
the lower portion of the range. They observed an increase
in all force components, wheel slip and fuel consumption
with increasing subsoiling depth. Garner and Wolf (1981)
reported that the draft for a subsoiler and subsoiler bedder
in a loamy sandy soil was a positive linear function of
subsoiling depth.
Smith and Williford (1988) examined the forces and
power requirement differences of conventional, parabolic,
and triplex subsoil shanks. Results indicated that a single
parabolic subsoil shank required 10 to 16% less draft to
operate than a single conventional or triplex subsoiler.
Draft requirements were similar for the conventional and
triplex subsoil shanks, but the triplex was slightly higher in
both respects. They concluded that subsoil shank shape has
a significant impact on power requirement.
Owen (1989) investigated the effect of travel speed on
draft forces and soil disturbance associated with subsoiling.
The subsoiler was operated at a depth of 450 mm (17.7 in.).
The subsoil shank had a wing mounted behind the share
with an overall width of 260 mm (10.2 in.). He found that
the draft force was significantly correlated with the square
of travel speed. However, travel speed had no significant
effect on soil disturbance.
McKyes (1985) listed several factors that are important
in soil structural alteration. These included a change in soil
volume and density, alteration in structural unit sizes, and
new physical properties of the soil matrix. He defined a
swell factor (SF) as a percentage increase in soil volume
over the original volume such as:
Yo
SF = ( - f l - 1 | x l 0 0 % = .7Tf xl00% (1)
where
tff = soil volume after tillage
$ 0 = original soil volume
Yf = soil density after tillage
y 0 = original soil density
Desir (1981) conducted a series of field tests in two
soils with tillage tools ranging from 62.5 to 200 mm (2.5 to
8.0 in.) wide and operating at depths from 150 to 250 mm
(6.0 to 10 in.). Soil densities were measured before and
after tillage by a Troxler 2401 gamma ray probe. Final soil
surface elevations were recorded from fixed reference
points and the cross-sectional area of soil that was
346
disturbed was measured by hand excavation. His results
showed three trends. First, the larger rake or approach
angle caused a greater rise of soil and the swell factor was
increased. Secondly, tillage tools with larger depth to width
ratio (slender tillage blades) loosened soil to a greater
extent. Finally, the soil water content influenced soil
disturbance from a tillage pass. Drier soil allowed more
soil loosening for all tool geometries, increased friability,
and reduced the plasticity of the soil following tillage.
Ahmed and Godwin (1983) examined the significance
of wing position on soil disturbance. The shank used had a
share with a 20° rake angle and a right angle shank. The
wings were swept and sloped and the working depth was
300 mm (12 in.). Wing position was found to have no
significant effect on the area of soil disturbance. However,
the no-wing configuration produced a significantly smaller
disturbed area.
Owen (1988) examined the soil disturbance associated
with deep subsoiling in compact soils. The subsoiler was
operated with and without wings at depths of 320, 520, and
720 mm (12.6, 20.5, and 28.3 in.). The results confirmed
the existence of a critical depth, below which little soil
loosening occurs. When operated above the critical depth,
the results showed that a 260-mm (10-in.) wing had no
advantage over the 75 mm (3.0 in.) share in terms of soil
disturbed. The wings significantly increased the critical
depth and reduced the bulk density.
Bernier et al. (1989) studied the soil disturbance of a
winged subsoiler in a sandy loam and clay loam soil. The
subsoil unit consisted of four shanks spaced 1 m (3.3 ft)
apart. Each shank had a wing 100 mm (4.0 in.) long in the
direction of travel which extended 200 mm (8.0 in.) from
the shank center and was angled for soil lift. Disturbance
patterns caused by the passage of the subsoiler showed that
one-pass loosening of the sandy loam soil was more evenly
distributed laterally than in clay soil. The dry bulk density
profiles indicated that passage of the subsoiler compacted
the topsoil while loosening the subsoil. They concluded
that the effects of tillage on soil physical properties could
not be satisfactorily interpreted by conventional statistics.
Small differences were undetected due to other sources of
variation. They suggested that initial conditions prior to
tillage needed to be closely defined to permit accurate
measurement of soil change following tillage.
METHODS
SITE DESCRIPTION
Soil and machine measurements were made at the
Roger's Memorial Farm located in Lancaster County,
12 km (7.5 mile) east of Lincoln, Nebraska. The soil is silty
clay loam, Kennebec, fine silty, mixed, mesic Cumulic
Hapludoll. The surface was smooth with a uniform slope
less than 1%. An oat crop was harvested 14 days prior to
field tests for the experiment. Soil water content was
uniform across the test site. Weed growth was controlled
after the oat crop harvest.
SUBSOILER
The subsoil machine was made from a toolbar with a
three-point hitch built by Blue Jet Manufacturing
Company, Thurston, Nebraska. The straight shanks were
made of rigid steel with dimensions of 28.6 x 154 mm
APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
(1.1 x 6 in.). The shanks were mounted with a forward
angle of 15°. The replaceable foot plates were 100 mm
(4.0 in.) wide at the lead edge and were designed with
approximately 30° rake angle of lift. The subsoiler was
modified by mounting a shallow winged shank in front of
the trailing deep shank (fig. 1). The shallow shank was of
the same design as the deep shank except for the foot plate.
The foot plate on the shallow shank was 75 mm (3 in.)
wide. Wings made from a steel plate 9.5 mm (0.37 in.)
thick were welded to the foot plate. Total width of wings
was 300 mm (12.0 in.). The wings were 150 mm (6.0 in.)
long with a 30° foot plate angle of lift. The soil moving
over the wings was lifted a minimum of 75 mm (3.0 in.).
Two sets of shanks in tandem were mounted on the tool
bar 0.66 m (26 in.) on either side of the center line 1.32 m
(52.0 in.) apart. Gage wheels with mechanical adjustment
for depth control were mounted with the wheels on each
side and trailing the tool bar. Another set of gage wheels
was mounted ahead of the tool bar so as not to interfere
with the tractor drive wheels.
The shallow lead shanks were designed to be adjustable
for depth by raising or lowering the shank in 50-mm
(2.0-in.) increments. The deeper shank depths were
changed by adjusting the gage wheels in 50 mm (2.0 in.)
depth increments. Other shank options were deep shanks
without shallow winged shanks and shallow winged shanks
without the conventional shanks.
POWER MEASUREMENTS
Data for draft, vertical force, torque and travel speed
were collected with a data acquisition system
(Lackas et al., 1991). The main components of the system
were a laptop computer, a Daytronic analog/digital (A/D)
signal conditioning unit, a three-point hitch dynamometer
and a fifth-wheel ground speed sensor. The A/D unit and
the laptop computer were small enough to be placed in the
tractor operator's cab.
The subsoiler power requirements were determined
from 8 to 10 individual observations of draft and travel
speed. Data from each plot were averaged. Each replicated
plot observation was then analyzed using the analysis of
variance and contrasts for various treatments.
Figure 1-The bi-level subsoiler using tandem shanks. The shallow
shank has a wing with a total width of 300 mm (12.0 in.) leading a
conventional subsoil shank.
VOL. 10(3):345-349
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The experimental plots were divided into two treatment
areas. Tested in the first treatment area were combinations
with the deep shank fixed at 457 mm (18 in.) and the
shallow winged shank set at soil depths of 76, 127, 178,
and 229 mm (3.0, 5.0, 7.0, and 9.0 in.). As a control, the
conventional (deep) shank was operated at 457 mm (18 in.)
without the shallow winged shank. Then the shallow
winged shank was operated as a single shank for all depths
except at the 76 mm (3.0 in.) depth where lack of draft
sensitivity was a concern. The second set of tests was
conducted with the deep shank set at 356, 406, and
457 mm (14, 16, and 18 in.) and the shallow winged shank
set at 229 mm (9 in.) above the deep shank. Again each
shank was operated separately for the depth under
investigation. Each treatment area was completely
randomized and each treatment was replicated four times.
The treatment plots were 3 x 23 m (10 x 75 ft) in size and
at the end of each plot, a 12.2-m (40-ft) alley allowed for
tractor turns and acceleration areas.
SOIL MEASUREMENTS
Soil water content was determined at the time of draft
measurements at 0 to 75, 75 to 150, 150 to 300, and 300 to
600 mm (0 to 3, 3 to 6, 6 to 12, and 12 to 24 in.) depths.
Four replications were measured across the test area.
Effects of the subsoil shanks on soil disturbance were
evaluated by measuring the amount of soil lifting or
surface eruption from a shank pass. This was determined
by measuring the rise of the soil surface at 50 mm (2.0 in.)
horizontal increments using a reference beam positioned
300 mm (12 in.) above the undisturbed soil surface. Three
replications were obtained along each field plot.
Soil resistance was determined with a tractor mounted
cone penetrometer. Four probes were made in a
representative area of a treatment area. The cone base was
3.2 cm 2 (0.5 in.2) and procedures were followed according
to ASAE Standard S313.1 (ASAE, 1990b). The
penetrometer included a load cell, a depth position
indicator, and a data logger. Signals from the load cell and
position indicator were received by the data logger and a
program was used to convert the signals to penetration
resistance force and position. A computer program
processed the resistance data and calculated the average
cone index for the depth ranges of 0 to 75, 75 to 150, 150
to 300, and 300 to 600 mm (0 to 3, 3 to 6, 6 to 12, and
12 to 24 in.) for each site.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Illustrated in table 1 are the soil water content and cone
penetrometer resistance measured before tillage. Soil water
content at time of measuring draft was fairly dry in the
surface 0 to 75 mm (0 to 3 in.) depth and considerably
wetter from 75 to 600 mm (3 to 24 in.) depth. Soil
resistance measurements were made within hours of the
draft measurements allowing only minimal changes in the
soil water content due to evaporation.
The average power measurements are shown in tables 2
and 3 for the two test sequences. The results showed that
the winged shallow shank operating alone had very low
power requirements for 127 and 178 mm (5.0 and 7.0 in.)
depth. However, for the next increment in depth, 229 mm
347
 Table 1. Soil water content (dry basis) and cone
penetrometer resistance before tillage
Soil Profile Depth Soil Water Content Cone Index
mm (in.) % SD* kPa (psi)
0-75 (0-3) 13.6 0.4 1193 (173 0)
75-150 (3-6) 22.6 1.7 1526 (221.3)
150-300 (6-12) 28.5 3.2 1346 (195.2)
300-600 (12-24) 27.8 3.8 1590 (230.6)
* Standard deviation.

Table 2. Power measurements from deep shank at 457 mm (18 in.) 6

depth with shallow winged shanks at 76,127,17, and
299 mm (3,5,7, and 9 in.) depths ^>*>«fr «$,V*\$*,^ *\#-,«r\*V$*
,r^*\ ,9-i^
«\<«
0''

Shallow Winged Deep Shank Average Shallow Winged/Conventional Shank Subsoiler

Shank Depth Depth Speed Power
Figure 2-Power measurements from deep shank at 457-mm (18-in.)
mm (in.) mm (in.) Km/h (mile/h) kW (hp) depth with shallow winged shanks at 76,127,178, and 299 mm (3, 5,
127 (5.0) ( ) 7.4 (4.6) 6.4 (8.6)c* 7, and 9 in.) depth. The cross-hatched bars are obtained by summing
7.4 (4.6) 7.3 (9.8)c individual power requirements for each shank (single passes).
178 (7.0) ( )
229 (9.0) ( ) 7.4 (4.6) 15.0 (20 l)b
( ) 457 (18) 7.1 (4.4) 50.0 (67.0)a (9 in.), the power requirements more than doubled. The test
76 (3.0) 457 (18) 7.1 (4.4) 516 (69.2)a sites were previously cropped to oats, which was double-
127 (5.0) 457 (18) 7.1 (4.4) 56.8 (76.2)a disked approximately four months prior to sampling and
178 (7.0) 457 (18) 7.1 (4.4) 51.4 (68.9)a the upper 150 mm (6 in.) of soil was drier than the soil in
229 (9.0) 457 (18) 7.1 (4.4) 52.6 (70 6)a the profile deeper than 150 mm (6 in.). The top 75-mm
(3-in.) surface layer was not consolidated except for
* Treatment means with same letter are not significantly different
(LSD, p > 0.05). rainfall and thus had low soil strength. The cone resistance
results (table 1) also indicate that soil strength for the soil
Table 3. Power measurements from deep shank at 356,406, in the 75- to 600-mm (3- to 24-in.) profile was higher than
and 457 mm (14,16, and 18 in.) with shallow winged for the 0- to 75-mm (0- to 3-in.) profile section.
shank spaced 229 mm (9 in.) above the deep shank No significant difference in power requirements
Shallow Winged Deep Shank Average between the conventional subsoil shank at 457 mm (18 in.)
Shank Depth Depth Speed Power depth and the conventional subsoil shank led with the
mm (in.) mm (in.) km/h (mile/h) kW (hp) shallow winged shank were found (table 2). However,
127 (5.0) ) 7.4 (4 6) 5.6 (7.5)f* when contrasted with the sum of power requirements of
178 (7.0) ) 7.4 (4.6) 7.2 (9.6)f single shanks during two separate passes (table 4), there
229 (9.0) ) 7.4 (4 6) 18.0 (24 l)e was significant savings in power by running tandem shanks
356 7.2 (4.5) 33.3 (44.7)d in a single pass (fig. 2). Even though no increase in power
( ) (14)
7.2 (4 5) 43.3 (58.0)c
requirements was observed when the shallow winged
( ) 406 (16)
shank was added, the amount of soil eruption or soil
( ) 457 (18) 71 (4.4) 47.5 (63.7)b
disturbance was significantly increased (table 5).
127 (5.0) 356 (14) 7.2 (4.5) 42.5 (57.0)c
178 (7.0) 406 (16) 7.2 (4 5) 50.0 (67.0)ab
229 (9.0) 457 (18) 7.1 (4.4) 51.4 (68.9)a
Table 5. Mean soil eruption for shank combinations
Treatment means with same letter are not significantly different in both test sequences*
(LSD, p > 0.05).
Shallow Winged Deep Shank Mean Soil
Shank Depth Depth Eruption
Table 4. Power measurement between tandem shanks from (in.) im (in.) (in.2)
single pass vs. the sum of the individual shanks mm
from two separate passes 127 (5.0) ( ) 6,600 (10.2)ef
Shallow Power for 178 (7.0) ( ) 12,500 (19.4)e
Winged Deep Tandem Power for 229 (9.0) ( ) 32,300 (50.1)d
Shank Shank Shanks of Sum of Contrast
Depth Depth Single Pass Two Passes Statistics ( ) 356 (14) 45,400 (70.4)c

mm (in.) mm (in.) kW (hp) kW (hp) Pr>F

( ) 406 (16) 46,200 (71.6)c
( ) 457 (18) 49,600 (76.9)c
127 (5.0) 356 (14) 42.5 (57.0) 38.9 (52.2) 0.0001
127 (5.0) 356 (14) 52,700 (81.7)bc
178 (7.0) 406 (16) 50.0 (67.0) 50.4 (67.6) 0.0001 127 (5.0) 457 (18) 72,200 (111.9)a
178 (7.0) 406 (16) 60,400 (93.6)b
229 (9.0) 457 (18) 51.4 (68.9) 65.5 (87.8) 0.0407
178 (7.0) 457 (18) 74,300 (115.2)a
127 (5.0) 457 (18) 56.8 (76.2) 56.1 (75.2) 0.0001 229 (9.0) 457 (18) 59,000 (91.5)b
178 (7.0) 457 (18) 51.4 (68.9) 57.3 (76.8) 0.0001 * Averaged from three profile measurements within each of the four
replications.
229 (9.0) 457 (18) 52.6 (70.6) 65.0 (87.1) 0.0001 t Treatment means with same letter are not significantly different
(LSD, p > 0.05).

348 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

 120
100 Q-
I demonstrating that additional soil disturbance is possible
Shallow Winged/Conventional Shank Subsoiler
Figure 3-Power measurements from deep shank set at 356, 406, and
457 mm (14, 16, and 18 in.) with shallow wing shank spaced at
229 mm (9 in.) above the deep shank. The cross-hatched bars are
obtained by summing individual power requirements for each shank
(single passes).
Significant power was required by the shallow winged
shank (table 3). The addition of the shallow winged shank
required 9.2, 6.7, and 3.9 kW (12.3, 9.0, and 5.2 hp) more REFERENCES
than the conventional subsoil shank at depths of 356, 406, Ahmed, M. H. and R. J. Godwin. 1983. The influence of wing
and 457 mm (14, 16, and 18 in.), respectively. This data
indicates that the power needed for the addition of a
shallow winged shank decreases as tillage depth increases
(fig. 3). The benefit of using the shallow winged shank
could be greater on deeper tillage operations, but the ASAE Standards, 37th Ed. 1990a. D497. Agricultural machinery
approach is less beneficial at shallow depths. Similar
results concerning a critical working depth were found by
other researchers (Owen, 1988; Desir, 1981; Spoor and
Godwin, 1978).
The addition of the shallow winged shank increased the
soil eruption (fig. 4) when compared to a conventional
shank alone. For example, when adding a 127-mm (5.0-in.)
shallow winged shank to a conventional subsoil shank
operating at 356 m m (14 in.) deep, the soil eruption was
increased by more than 16%.
These findings support McKyes (1985) statement that
"it is feasible to change the critical depth of an instrument
Shallow Conventional
Winged Subsoil Shank
Shank
m 60,000
3 40,000
w CD
<s 20,000
ra
to
CD
3 „ J_
A^ . ^ . . , \ ^ . A ^ . ^
Shallow Winged/Conventional Shank Subsoiler
Figure 4-Mean soil eruption for shank combinations in both test
sequences. Averaged from three profile measurements within each of
the four replications of all treatments.
VOL. 10(3): 345-349
in a given soil type by altering some of the geometrical
parameters of the tool. An increase in the effective tool
width, for example, will increase the critical depth for a
fixed critical depth ratio, as well as improve the volume of
soil lifted."
CONCLUSION
In all cases, the addition of the shallow winged shank to
a conventional subsoiler increased the soil eruption,
with the shallow winged shank and in some cases without
increasing energy required.
The influence from the shallow winged shank was not
conclusive. In some cases, the power requirements were
not increased due to the shallow winged shank. However,
as the bi-level subsoiling depth increased, the additional
power requirement for the shallow winged shank
decreased. This indicated that there is a critical depth
beyond which the addition of the shallow winged shank
could increase the tillage efficiency as indicated by soil
eruption.
position on subsoiler penetration and soil disturbance. J. Agric.
Eng. Res. 28(5):489-492.
Araya, K. 1985. Soil failure by introducing fluid underpressure. In
Int. Conf. Soil Dynamics, Procs. Vol. 3, 457-470, Office of
Continuing Education, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala.
management data. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
. 1990b. S313.1. Soil cone penetrometer. St. Joseph,
Mich.: ASAE.
Bernier, H. G. Bostock, G. S. V. Raghavan and R. S. Broughton.
1989. Subsoiling effects on moisture content and bulk density
in the soil profile. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 5( 1 ):24-
28.
Desir, F. L. 1981. A field evaluation of the wedge approach to the
analysis of soil cutting by narrow blades. M.S. thesis, McGill
University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Garner, T. H. and D. Wolf. 1981. Tillage energy versus hardpan
configuration and tillage depth. ASAE Paper No. 81-1572.
St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Garner, T. R , W. R. Reynolds, H. L. Musen, G. E. Miles, J. W.
Davis, D. Wolf and U. M. Peiper. 1987. Energy requirements
120 for subsoiling coastal plain soils. Transactions of the ASAE
30(3):343-349.
100 Lackas, G. M., R. D. Grisso, M. Yasin and L. L. Bashford. 1991.
Portable data acquisition system for measuring energy
80 requirements of soil-engaging implements. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 5(4):285-296.
60 McKyes, E. 1985. Soil cutting and tillage. New York: Elsevier.
o Owen, G. T. 1988. Soil disturbance associated with deep
40 w subsoiling in compact soils. Can. Agric. Eng. 30(l):33-37.
D)
. 1989. Subsoiling forces and tool speed in compact
CO
20 <5
>
<
soils. Can. Agric. Eng. 31(1): 15-20.
Smith, L. A. and J. R. Williford. 1988. Power requirements of
conventional, triplex, and parabolic subsoilers. Transactions of
rteASAE31(6):1685-1688.
Spoor, G. and R. J. Godwin. 1978. An experimental investigation
into the deep loosening of soil by rigid tires. J. Agric. Eng. Res.
23(3):243-258.
349