See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286314859

Comparison of the energy requirements of an experimental plow, a moldboard

plow and a disk plow

Article  in  Philippine Agricultural Scientist · June 2007

CITATIONS READS

13 3,078

3 authors, including:

Ahmet Çelik
Ataturk University
45 PUBLICATIONS   650 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

conservation agriculture View project

hasan kaan View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmet Çelik on 23 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparison of Energy
THE PHILIPPINE Requirements of an SCIENTIST
AGRICULTURAL Experimental Plow ISSNA.0031-7454
Celik et al.
Vol. 90 No. 2, 173-178
June2007

Research Note
Comparison of the Energy Requirements of an Experimental Plow, a Moldboard
Plow and a Disk Plow
Ahmet Celik*, Mustafa Gokalp Boydas and Nihat Turgut

Ataturk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Machinery, 25240 – Erzurum, Turkey.
*Author for correspondence; phone: +90 442 231 2552; fax: +90 442 236 09 58; e-mail: ahcelik@atauni.edu.tr

Field experiments were conducted on a wheat stubble field to compare specific draft and energy
uses of three different plows with three bottoms: an experimental plow (EP), a disk plow (DP) and
a moldboard plow (MP). Plow draft, forward speed and fuel consumption measurements were
made with a test tractor equipped with fuel transducer, three hitch point transducers, ground
speed radar and data logger. The experiments were carried out at a constant depth (20 cm) and
at three tractor forward speeds (4.5, 5.4 and 6.3 km h-1).
The results indicated that the specific draft, drawbar power and fuel consumption were
affected significantly by plows and speeds. Lowest draft and drawbar power were obtained for
the moldboard plow (5.73 kN, 8.39 kW). Lowest specific draft and fuel consumption were obtained
for the experimental plow (2.30 N cm-2, 14.96 L ha-1). Highest draft, specific draft, drawbar power
and fuel consumption were obtained for the disk plow (9.59 kN, 4.15 N cm-2, 14.43 kW and 17.31
L ha-1, respectively). Draft, power and fuel consumption increased with increasing forward speeds.
Overall energy efficiency of all plows ranged from 10–20%. The experimental plow was found to
have the highest field efficiency.

Key Words: disk plow, draft, fuel consumption, moldboard plow, soil tillage

optimize the overall performance in different working

INTRODUCTION
In agricultural practice, primary tillage is considered the
largest power and time-consuming operation, which is
generally based on the use of the moldboard plow
(Shrestha et al. 2001; Bowers 1989). The moldboard plow is
the most common tillage implement in the world, ranging
from the simplest type for animal traction, up to the highly
advanced, large plows for tractors. This type of plow is not
completely proper for every field condition, desired tillage
quality and low fuel requirements. The disk plow was
developed as an alternative to be used in soil conditions
where the moldboard plow would not work well such as
heavy and sticky soils, excessively dry soils, soils too hard
to penetrate and in very loose or stony soils.
Many studies have been conducted to optimize the
performance of plows in numerous different ways, primarily
using a trial and error method under specific operating
conditions. Optimizing a plow for every soil condition in
this manner is a time-consuming and difficult task as there
may be any number of different field conditions. To design
an energy efficient plow for different operating conditions,
it is necessary to consider the interactive effects of plows,
soil types and operational parameters. A rigorous study is
needed to describe the interaction of these factors and to
conditions (Shrestha et al. 2001).
Draft and power requirements are important parameters
for measuring and evaluating performance of tillage
implements and therefore are considered to be essential
when attempting to correctly match a tillage implement to a
tractor (Grisso et al. 1996; Al-Janobi and Al-Suhaibani 1998).
Much research has been done to measure draft and energy
requirements of plows under various conditions. In some
studies, mathematical models have been developed to
predict plow draft (Arvidson et al. 2004; Grisso et al. 1996;
Taniguchi et al. 1999; Perfect et al. 1997; Bowers 1989).
The drawbar energy requirement is dependent on
tillage depth, forward speed, soil conditions and implement
geometry (Upadhyaya et al. 1984). The effects of speed on
draft depend on the soil and implement type. It has widely
been reported that the draft forces on implements increase
significantly with speed and the relationship varies from
linear to quadratic (Grisso et al. 1996; Kheiralla et al. 2004).
Results showed that the draft of moldboard and disc plows
increased by the square of speed while the increase of
draft of many other tillage implements was linearly related
to speed (Kushwaha and Linke 1996).
The objectives of this study were to design an
effective plow as a combination of both a moldboard and

The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 90 No. 2 (June 2007) 173

Comparison of Energy Requirements of an Experimental Plow
disk plow to produce better soil conditions and minimize
energy requirements; and compare an experimental plow
with a moldboard plow and a disk plow with respect to
draft, power, fuel requirements and field capacity at different
tractor forward speeds.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Setup
The experiment was performed in a wheat stubble field at
the Ataturk University, Faculty of Agriculture Farm. Stubble
length was approximately 15 cm. The soil texture of the
experimental field was classified by Akgul (1987) as silty
loam (26.8% clay, 52.2% silt and 21.0% sand). Average soil
moisture content, bulk density and cone index of the
experimental field were 8.85 % d.b., 1.19 Mg m-3 and 2.32
MPa, respectively. Tillage operations and soil sampling
were carried out in October 2004.
The experimental design was a complete randomized
block design with three replications. Treatments were three
different types of plows – a moldboard plow (MP), a disk
plow (DP) and an experimental plow (EP; Zade Baharat-
Bakliyat- Tohumculuk, Kayseri, Turkey) – and three tractor
forward speeds: 4.5, 5.4 and 6.3 km h-1. Tractor forward
speeds were achieved by selecting appropriate gears and
by adjusting engine throttle at engine speeds (1700–1900
rpm). The adjusted tillage depth was 20 cm. The size of the
plots was 4 m × 50 m. A Ford 5000 S Model tractor (49.4 kW
2100 min-1) was used to pull plows (Anon. 1972).
Plow Configuration
Three different fully mounted types of plows with three
bottoms were used in this experiment to evaluate their
energy requirement over different tractor forward speeds.
Dimensions and other properties of the moldboard plow
(MP), disk plow (DP) and experimental plow (EP) are given
in Table 1. The experimental plow had been designed as a
combination of both a moldboard and a disk plows.
The experimental plow consisted of three main parts:
a share, a piece of moldboard breast and a concave disk,
Table 1. General specifications of plows.
Specifications Experimental
Plow
Number of bottom 3 3
Total height (mm) 1250
Total length (mm) 2220
Total width (mm) 1050
Down suction (mm) 25
Side suction (mm) 5 -
Share form pointed
0
Tilt angle ( ) 0 18
0
Disk angle ( ) 28
Disk diameter (mm) 550
Total working width (mm) 915
174
A. Celik et al.
which forms the main body of plow (Fig. 1). The disk, which
was assembled on a bearing as it is on a disk plow and
placed on the body of the experimental plow, was 5 cm
high from ground level. The edge of the disk followed the
edge of the moldboard breast on a line as if it were an
extension of its surface.
Plow Draft and Fuel Consumption Measurements
During tilling, the draft force, fuel consumption and forward
speed of the plows were measured. The draft force was
measured by using draft pins, connected with the top and
lower links of three point linkage. 68 kN capacity draft pins
sensed the horizontal component of the link forces as
voltage. The three draft pins were calibrated prior to the
experiments by using a specially built calibration rig. All
draft recordings were started after the tractor ran in one of
three forward speeds and finished at the end of each plot.
The recorded length was changed from 30–35 m and the
frequency of readings was 10 per second. The measured
draft data were recorded on a notebook computer and later
evaluated.
Tractor forward speed was measured by a DJRVS II
type radar unit mounted on the left side of the tractor.
Three different forward speeds were achieved by selecting
appropriate gears and by adjusting engine throttle at engine
speeds (1700–1900 rpm). Fuel consumption was measured
by a flow meter (0.001 L accuracy), which was located in
the fuel line between the fuel filter and the injection pump
of the tractor. During tillage, starting and finishing values
of the flow meter were recorded. Fuel consumption of a
pass was determined by the subtracting starting values
from the finishing ones.
Tillage draft and fuel consumption data taken during
the field tests were then processed to determine the
average and standard deviation of draft, forward speed,
tillage depth, fuel consumption and effective working
width.
Disk Plow Moldboard
Plow
3
1160 1190
2200 1850
1200 1040
- 25
15
- pointed
-
50 -
660 -
990 820
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 90 No. 2 (June 2007)
Comparison of Energy Requirements of an Experimental Plow A. Celik et al.

V f * w * fe
Fc =
c
where
Fc = Effective field capacity (ha h-1)
Vf = Forward speed (km h-1)
w = Effective working width (m)
fe = Field efficiency (%)
c = Constant (10)
Field efficiency is described as the ratio of the time when
the plows are tilling at an optimum forward speed and
performing over its full width of action to the total time
spent in the field (Hunt 1983). During tilling, effective
working time, turning time and working width were
recorded, and then field efficiency was calculated according
to the above definition.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The average of the measured effective working width,

Fig. 1. Front (a) and top (b) views of the experimental plow
The average values of all the data obtained were used
in the statistical analyses. The significance of differences
among means was determined using Duncan’s multiple
range test. The level of probability value was set at 0.05 for
all comparisons.
The effective field capacity of the plow was determined
in ha h-1 by using the following equation (Hunt 1983;
Srivastava et al. 1993):
working depth, forward speed and field capacity for all
treatments is shown in Table 2. To compare the performance
of the selected plows, an analysis of variance was performed
on these values. The effective working depth of the plows
changed between 21.98–24.10 cm. Working depth was
generally close to the set depth, 20 cm, for the moldboard
plow and was more than the set depth for the experimental
plow.
The effective working width of the plows changed
between 0.97–1.1 m. The widest working width was obtained
with the experimental plow and the narrowest was obtained
with the moldboard plow. The effect of forward speed on
the effective working width was not statistically important.
As a result of effective working width, the effective field
capacity of plows was statistically significant (P<0.05). The
highest effective field capacity was obtained with the
experimental plow and the lowest one was obtained with
the moldboard plow (Table 2).

Table 2. Average of effective working depth, working width, field capacity and forward
speed.
Working Working Field Forward
Factors Depth Width Capacity Speed
-1 -1
(cm) (m) (ha h ) (km h )
MP 21.98 a 0.97 a 0.43 a 5.26 a
Plows DP 22.82 a 1.02 ab 0.46 ab 5.29 a
EP 24.10 b 1.10 b 0.49 b 5.29 a
Forward 4.5 22.35 a 1.00 a 0.38 a 4.43 a
speeds 5.4 23.05 ab 1.06 a 0.47 b 5.26 b
-1
(km h ) 6.3 23.49 b 1.03 a 0.54 c 6.12 c
Values followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different according to Duncan’s
multiple range tests.

The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 90 No. 2 (June 2007) 175

Comparison of Energy Requirements of an Experimental Plow A. Celik et al.

The average forward speeds were approximately 1.5–
3% lower than the set values. The effect of plows on
changing of the set forward speed was not significant.
Average speed for the moldboard plow was 5.26 km h-1 and
was 5.29 km h-1 for the disk and experimental plow.
A summary of the variance analyses performed on the
draft and power data for the various plows and forward
speeds is shown in Table 3. The moldboard plow, disk plow
and experimental plow revealed significant differences for
draft and power (P < 0.01).
The draft, drawbar power, specific drawbar power and
specific energy were statistically significant (P < 0.05) for
plows. Lowest specific draft, drawbar power, unit drawbar
power and specific energy were obtained for the
experimental plow, and the highest was for the disk plow.
The average specific energy of the experimental plow and
the moldboard plow were 18.18 and 19.44 kW h ha-1,
respectively, approximately 37–41% less than that of the
disk plow (Table 3).
The mean fuel consumption of the moldboard plow,
disk plow and experimental plow were 15.89 L ha-1, 17.31 L
ha-1 and 14.96 L ha-1, respectively. The fuel consumption
of the disk plow was 16% higher than that of the
experimental plow and 9% higher than that of the moldboard
plow. Fuel consumption per hour increased with increasing
forward speed, but fuel consumption per hectare decreased
with increasing forward speed (Table 4).
The result obtained for the experimental plow was
approximately the same as that for the moldboard plow.
The experimental plow had the smallest specific draft and
energy use for soil tilling. This may be attributed to the
geometry and other specification of the plow bottom, which
consisted of a share, a moldboard and a disk.
The overall energy efficiency (OEE) includes the load
matching of the tractor and implement, the draft efficiency
and the engine/power train operating conditions. Overall
energy efficiency values presented in Table 4 for plows
were calculated by the equation given below (Bowers 1985).
(3.6MJkW −1 h −1 ) * PDB
OEE =
(38.7 MJL−1 ) * FC * C
where
OEE = overall energy efficiency (%)
PDB = drawbar power (kW)
38.7 = heating value of the diesel fuel (MJ L-1)
FC = fuel consumption rates required (L ha-1)
C = theoretical field capacity (ha h-1)

Table 3. Average draft, specific draft, drawbar power, specific drawbar power and specific
energy.
Draft Specific Drawbar Specific Specific
Factors (kN) Draft Power Drawbar Power Energy
-2 -1 -1
(N cm ) (kW) (kW m ) (kW h ha )
MP 5.73 a 2.71 a 8.39 a 8.70 a 19.44 a
Plows 31.03 b
DP 9.59 b 4.15 b 14.43 b 14.19 b
EP 6.08 a 2.30 a 9.07 a 8.32 a 18.18 a
Forward 4.5 5.99 a 2.74 a 7.38 a 7.51 a 19.94 a
speeds 22.83 ab
-1 5.4 7.25 b 3.04 a 10.63 b 10.24 b
(km h )
6.3 8.16 b 3.37 a 13.88 c 13.45 c 25.87 b
Values followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different according to Duncan’s
multiple range tests.

Table 4. Average fuel consumption and overall energy efficiency.

Fuel Fuel Overall
Factors Consumption Consumption Energy
-1 -1
(L h ) (L ha ) Efficiency (%)
MP 8.01 a 15.89 ab 11
Plows 17
DP 9.18 c 17.31 b
EP 8.61 b 14.96 a 12
Forward 4.5 7.54 a 17.14 a 11
speeds 13
-1 5.4 8.48 b 15.54 a
(km h )
6.3 9.77 c 15.49 a 15
Values followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different according to
Duncan’s multiple range tests.

176 The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 90 No. 2 (June 2007)

Comparison of Energy Requirements of an Experimental Plow
The normal range for OEE is 10–20%, and this can be
used as a quick check for the validity of fuel consumption
measurements. A tractor-implement combination having an
overall energy efficiency below 10% indicates poor load
matching and/or low tractive efficiency, while a value above
20% indicates a good load match and/or high tractive
efficiency (Bowers 1985). Table 4 shows that the overall
energy efficiencies of the plows for various forward speed
combinations were between 10% and 20%.
Based on the results of this experiment, the
experimental plow was the most energy efficient plow in
terms of draft, drawbar power, fuel consumption per hectare
and specific energy, followed by the moldboard plow and
disk plow.
Plow share and concave disk may be the main reasons
why the experimental plow was the most energy efficient.
Plow shares could cut and penetrate into the soil easily
and disks could turn over the soil with their concave
surface. For disc plows the disc angle ranges between 400
and 450 and the tilt angle of the disc ranges between 15–
250 (O’Dogherty et al. 1996). For the experimental plow, the
disk angle was reduced to 280 and the tilt angle was reduced
to 00. Along with reduced tilt and disk angles, smaller disk
size and shallower disk concavity reduced vertical and
horizontal pressure areas on the disk surface (O’Dogherty
et al. 1996). These may be the main reasons for the lower
energy requirements of the experimental plow.
The effects of the experimental plow on soil physical
conditions, such as mixing, breaking, producing straight
furrow, producing smooth tillage bottom and covering plant
residue, were not part of this particular investigation, but
should be studied in the future to be sure if the experimental
plow can improve soil conditions at lower energy
consumption.
CONCLUSION
Summaries of power and energy requirements have been
reported for the moldboard plow, the disk plow and the
experimental plow. The experimental plow was the most
energy efficient implement in terms of draft, drawbar power,
fuel consumption per hectare and specific energy, followed
by the moldboard plow and disk plow. The specific draft
was generally the highest for the disk plow and the lowest
for the experimental plows. The differences can probably
be explained by differences in the plow’s geometry and the
tilt angle of disk plow (Abu-Hamdeh and Reeder 2003).
Increasing forward speed increased specific draft, power
and fuel consumption as expected.
The results also showed that the experimental plow is
the best for energy efficiency in soil tillage and should be
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 90 No. 2 (June 2007)
A. Celik et al.
improved by considering the obtained results and their
effects on the soil. If the experimental plow can provide the
best effect on soil properties then its energy efficiency will
be more significant.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Zade Baharat-Bakliyat-
Tohumculuk, Kayseri, Turkey for the supply and the use
of the experimental plow, Mr. Matt Lawrence from the
Agricultural and Biological Engineering of the
Pennsylvania State University for the technical review and
valuable suggestions.
REFERENCES CITED
ABU-HAMDEH NH, REEDER RC. 2003. A nonlinear 3D
finite element analysis of the soil forces acting on a
disk plow. Soil & Tillage Res 74:115-124.
AKGÜL M. 1987. A research on the occurrence of plow
pan on the soil of Ataturk University, Faculty of
Agriculture’s Farm. [Masteral Thesis]. Erzurum:
Ataturk University Institute of Natural and Applied
Sciences. (Available at the AU Library). 45 p.
AL-JANOBI AA, AL-SUHAIBANI SA. 1998. Draft of
primary tillage implements in sandy loam soil. Appl
Eng Agric 14 (4): 343-348.
ANONYMOUS. 1972. Agricultural Engineers Yearbook of
Standards. St. Joseph, MI , U.S.A.: American Society
of Agricultural Engineers.
ARVIDSSON J, KELLER J, GUSTAFSSON K. 2004.
Specific draft for moldboard plow, chisel plow and
disc harrow at different water contents. Soil & Tillage
Res 79: 221–231.
BOWERS Jr. CG. 1985. Southeastern tillage energy data
and recommended reporting. Trans ASAE 28 (3): 731-
737.
BOWERS Jr CG. 1989. Tillage draft and energy
measurements for twelve southeastern soil series.
Trans ASAE 32 (5): 1492–1502.
GRISSO RD, YASIN M, KOCHER MF. 1996. Tillage
implement forces operating in silty clay loam. Trans
ASAE 39(6): 1977-1982.
HUNT D. 1983. Farm Power and Machinery Management.
8th ed. Iowa, U.S.A.: The Iowa State University Press.
KHEIRALLA AF, YAHYA A, ZOHADIE M, IHSAK W.
2004. Modelling of power and energy equirements
for tillage implements operating in Serdang sandy
clay loam, Malaysia. Soil & Tillage Res 78: 21-34.
KUSHWAHA RL, LINKE C. 1996. Draft-speed relationship
of simple tillage tools at high operating speeds. Soil
& Tillage Res 39: 61-73.
177
 Comparison of Energy Requirements of an Experimental Plow
O’DOGHERTY MJ, GODWIN RJ, HANN MJ, Al-Ghazal
AA. 1996. A geometrical analysis of inclined and
tilted spherical plough discs. J Agric Eng Res 63:
205 -218.
PERFECT E, MCLAUGHLIN NB, KAY BD. 1997. Energy
requirements for conventional tillage following
different crop rotations. Trans ASAE 40(1): 45-49.
SHRESTHA DS, SINGH G, GEBRESENBET G. 2001.
Optimizing design parameters of a moldboard plow.
J Agric Eng Res 78 (4): 377-389.
178
View publication stats
A. Celik et al.
SRIVASTAVA AK, GOERING CE, ROHRBACH RP. 1993.
Engineering Principles of Agricultural Machines.
ASAE Textbook No. 6, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph,
Michigan 49085-9659, U.S.A.
TANIGUCHI T, MAKANGA JT, OHTOMO K,
KISHIMOTO T. 1999. Draft and soil manipulation by
a moldboard plow under different forward speed and
body attachments. Trans ASAE 42(6): 1517-1521.
UPADHYAYA SK, WILLIAMS TH, KEMBLE LJ, COLLINS
NE. 1984. Energy requirement for chiseling in coastal
plain soils. Trans ASAE 27 (6): 1643-1649.
The Philippine Agricultural Scientist Vol. 90 No. 2 (June 2007)