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

net/publication/271434423

Discrete Element Modeling of Soil-Implement Interaction Considering Soil

Plasticity, Cohesion and Adhesion

Conference Paper · January 2013

DOI: 10.13031/aim.20131618800

CITATIONS READS

2 229

3 authors:

John M. Fielke Mustafa Ucgul

University of South Australia University of South Australia
63 PUBLICATIONS   720 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   289 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chris Saunders
University of South Australia
56 PUBLICATIONS   463 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Minimising the impact of soil compaction on crop yield View project

Optimising high speed no-till seeding with bentleg furrow openers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mustafa Ucgul on 29 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An ASABE Meeting Presentation

Paper Number:
131618800

Discrete Element Modeling of Soil-Implement

Interaction Considering Soil Plasticity, Cohesion and
Adhesion

John Fielke, Mustafa Ucgul, and Chris Saunders

Barbara Hardy Institute, School of Engineering, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA,
5095, Australia
Written for presentation at the
Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASABE
Kansas City, Missouri
July 21-24, 2013

Abstract. Modeling of soil-implement interactions is a complex process due to the variability of the soil profile,
non-linear behavior of the soil material and the dynamic effect of the soil flow. An approach that gives a further
insight is the technique of discrete element modeling (DEM). Although ample eminent research has been
conducted regarding modeling of the soil-implement interaction in 2D, there is just a few studies regarding to
3D modeling of the soil-implement interaction. Although cohesion was taken into account in the available 3D
DEM studies, there is no study that considers both soil adhesion and cohesion. Additionally, in the available 3D
DEM studies soil particle contacts were assumed as pure elastic, which is not realistic. As such most of the
available literature has been focused on draft forces with no satisfactory prediction of the vertical forces. In this
study a DEM model is presented that considers the plasticity, cohesion and adhesion of the soil. The approach
to determine the required DEM parameters was to firstly model a non-cohesive soil with elastic/plastic contacts
that does not adhere to the tool and to then include cohesion and adhesion to the model. The DEM parameters
for a non-cohesive soil were determined by performing and then simulating an angle of repose and two
penetration tests. Cohesion and adhesion was added to the model using cohesive energy density values
between particle/particle and particle/tool, respectively. The validation of the model for a cohesive soil was
carried out using shear box tests and simulations in terms of three different levels of moisture contents of 4, 8,
and 12% for a sandy loam soil. The parameters; namely coefficient of friction, coefficient of rolling friction, and
integration time, were determined using a trial and error approach for a 10 mm radius spherical particle. EDEM
software was used in the simulations. As a last step of the study, the interaction between the soil and a sweep
tool which was experimentally studied by Fielke (1988) was simulated. A good correlation was obtained
between the measured and predicted draft and vertical forces showing that the method proposed is valid.
Keywords. DEM, draft force, simulation, sweep, vertical force.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this meeting presentation. The presentation does not necessarily reflect the official
position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an
endorsement of views which may be expressed. Meeting presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASABE
editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an
ASABE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2013. Title of Presentation. In 2013 ASABE International Meeting 2013.
St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a meeting presentation, please contact
ASABE at rutter@asabe.org or 269-932-7004 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).
1. Introduction
The accurate modeling of soil-tool interaction is important to design energy efficient tillage tools. However,
optimization of a tillage tool requires expensive and time consuming field tests which may only be undertaken
at certain times of the year. Therefore precise modeling of the soil-tool interaction would be very useful to
provide fast, cheap, and accurate prediction of performance. Commonly used methods to model the soil-tool
interaction are; analytical (McKyes and Ali, 1977 and Godwin et al., 2007), empirical (Hendrick and William
1973 and Zhang and Kushwaha, 1999), and continuum numerical methods (Kushwaha and Shen., 1995;
Fielke, 1999; Karmakar and Kushawa, 2005; and Karmakar et al., 2009). Analytical methods can model the soil
failure but not the soil movement due their quasi-static assumptions. Even though empirical methods provide
practical information; performing experiments for each field and operation condition is not viable (Raji, 1999).
The continuum numerical methods are based on an assumption of continuity and can be used to predict tillage
related forces when a proper constitutive law is used. However, there is always a change in the soil structure,
with tillage creating soil translocation, deformation and separation. Mixing of soil layers cannot be modeled
using continuum numerical methods (Asaf et al., 2007). To overcome the deficiencies of the analytical,
empirical and continuum numerical models, the Discrete Element Modeling (DEM) which is a dis-continuum
numerical method used for modeling the mechanical behavior of granular materials, can be employed. In DEM,
interactions between the particles are calculated by using contact models governed by physical laws. After
calculating forces acting upon a particle, the position and orientation of the particle is then calculated by
integrating Newton’s second law of motion. An explicit scheme is used for the computation. The calculation
cycle is repeated until the system reaches balance or a specified total simulation time (EDEM, 2010). DEM
simulations can be run in 2D or 3D. Ideally, to get accurate results, the size and shape of the particles used in
the DEM simulations should be as close as possible to actual particle shape and size. However, as the number
of particles studied increases, more calculations and simulation time is required. In the case of 3D modeling of
soil-tool interaction, the use of actual soil particle sizes in DEM simulations is not viable due to the extremely
large number of particles. Therefore, the particle sizes used in the simulation must be larger than that of the
actual particle size (to decrease the number of the particles) and in this case the physical properties of the
large particles must be adjusted.
Much research has been carried out to model the soil-tool interaction in 2D DEM (Tanaka et al., 2000; Momozu
et al., 2003; Zhang and Li, 2006; Zhang et al., 2008; and Shmulevich et al., 2007), however, just a few studies
were carried out to model the soil-tool interaction in 3D DEM (Obermayr et al., 2011; Tsuji et al., 2011; Mak et
al., 2012; and Chen et al., 2013). The cohesion was considered in some of the available 3D DEM studies but
there was no 3D DEM study to date that has considered the soil cohesion and adhesion simultaneously. To
date, the DEM particle contacts were assumed as purely elastic without considering the plastic deformation
behavior of the soil. In addition, the main motives of the available studies were to predict and calibrate the draft
forces while no accurate prediction was achieved for the vertical forces. In the current study, a 3D DEM model
that considers the plastic deformation behavior (Hysteric Spring Contact Model) of the soil, the cohesion, and
adhesion was proposed to model the soil-tool interaction. The approach to determine the required DEM
parameters was to firstly examine a non-cohesive soil that did not adhere to the tool and to then include
cohesion and adhesion to the model. To validate the determined DEM parameters the interaction between the
soil and a sweep tool which was experimentally studied by Fielke, (1988) in a range of soil conditions was
simulated.

2. Contact model used in the simulations

In this study, in order to model the plastic behavior of the soil the hysteric spring contact model (HSCM), which
is based on the study of Walton and Braun (1986), was used (EDEM, 2011). In the model the normal contact
force (Fns) was defined as,
K1·Uabn loading
Fns=- K2· (Uabn-U0) unloading/ loading (1)
0 unloading
where Uabn is the relative displacement in the normal direction, Uo is the residual overlap, K1 is the loading
stiffness, and K2 is the unloading stiffness. K1 was calculated by Walton (2006) as,
K1= 5· req· min (ϕa, ϕb) (2)
where ϕ is the yield strength and req is equivalent radius, defined as per EDEM (2011) as,
1/req=1/ra+1/rb (3)
2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper Page 1 of 9
where r is the radius for the individual particles a and b, respectively. K2 was also defined by Walton and Braun
(1986) as,
K2= K1 / e2 (4)
where e is the coefficient of restitution of the particles. The residual overlap was updated in each time step as,
Uabn· (1-(K1/K2)) loading
U0= U0 unloading/ loading (5)
Uabn unloading
The tangential contact force (Fts) was calculated as per EDEM (2011) as,
Fts= nk · K1 · Uabt (6)
where Uabt is the tangential component of the relative displacement and nk is the stiffness factor which was
defined as the ratio of tangential stiffness to normal loading stiffness (EDEM, 2011). nk was taken as 0.95, as
per EDEM (2011). The normal and the tangential damping forces (Fnd and Ftd) were calculated as;
.
Fnd=- nc· ((4· meq· K1) / (1+( π / ln e)2))1/2·Uabn (7)
.
Ftd=- 2 1/2
((4· meq· nk· K1) / (1+( π / ln e) )) ·Uabt (8)
. .
where Uabn and Uabt are the normal and tangential relative velocities, respectively. nc is the damping factor
which controls the amount of velocity dependent damping. nc was taken as 0.05, as per EDEM (2011). meq is
the equivalent mass, defined as per EDEM (2011) as,
1/meq=1/ma+1/mb (9)
where m is the mass for the individual particles a and b, respectively. After calculating the normal and
tangential components of the contact and damping forces, the total normal (Fn) and the total tangential (Ft)
forces were calculated as,
Fn= Fns+ Fnd (10)
Ft= Fts+ Ftd (11)
The total tangential force cannot exceed the maximum force caused by friction as stated by Coulomb’s law of
friction,
Ft if Ft < µ·Fn
Ft= (12)
µ·Fns if Ft ≥ µ·Fn
where μ is the friction coefficient. The resultant force (Fres) is also calculated as,
Fres= Fn+ Ft (13)
The total tangential force causes a moment effect (M). The magnitude of this moment effect was calculated as,
M= rcon+ Ft (14)
where rcon is the perpendicular distance of the contact point from the centre of mass. Besides the tangential
force, the rolling resistance causes another moment effect and the magnitude of the moment effect caused by
rolling resistance was calculated as,
Mr= -µr · Fns· rcon· λθ (15)
where μr is the coefficient of rolling friction, and λθ, is the unit vector of angular velocity at the contact point. The
resultant moment (Mres) was calculated as,
Mres= M+ Mr (16)
After calculating the Fres and Mres the new position of the particle was calculated by integrating Equations 17
and 18.
Ü=Fres/ m (17)
..
θ= Mres/ I (18)
..
where Ü, θ , and I are the translational acceleration, the rotational acceleration, and the moment of inertia of
the particle, respectively.

2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper Page 2 of 9

3. Determination of the DEM parameters for a cohesionless soil
The DEM parameters required to run a simulation can be examined under two categories namely material and
interaction properties. Material properties are defined as the intrinsic characteristics of the particle while
interaction properties are the characteristics exhibited by the particle in relation to its contact with boundaries,
surfaces, and other particles. Although material properties can be measured or taken from the literature,
interaction properties needed to be adjusted for the particle size used in the simulation. To run a simulation six
interaction properties namely, coefficient of restitution of sand-sand, coefficient of restitution of sand-steel,
coefficient of friction of sand-sand, coefficient of friction of sand-steel, coefficient of rolling friction of sand-sand,
and coefficient of rolling friction of sand-steel must be determined. However, it is very difficult to determine all
six interaction properties independently. Therefore by keeping the coefficient of restitution of sand-sand,
coefficient of restitution of sand-steel, coefficient of friction of sand-steel, and coefficient of rolling friction of
sand-steel constant, the other two interaction properties (coefficient of friction and coefficient of rolling friction
between sand-sand) were calibrated. In addition, the integration time step which is also a particle size
dependent parameter was determined using the calibration process. The material and interaction properties
used in the simulations are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Material and interaction properties used in the simulations

Property Value Source

3
Density of sand particles (kg/m ) 2600 Das (1997)
4
Shear modulus of sand (MPa) 4.3 x 10 Asaf et al. (2007)

Poisson’s ratio of sand 0.3 Asaf et al. (2007)

3
Density of steel (kg/m ) 7,865 Budynas and Nisbett (2012)
4
Shear modulus of steel (MPa) 7.9 x 10 Budynas and Nisbett (2012)

Poisson’s ratio of steel 0.3 Budynas and Nisbett (2012)

Yield strength of sand (MPa) 0.588 measured

Particle size distribution 0.95-1.05 selected

Coefficient of restitution of sand-sand 0.6 Das (1997)

Coefficient of restitution of sand-steel 0.6 Das (1997)

Coefficient of friction sand-steel 0.5 measured

Coefficient of rolling friction sand-steel 0.05 measured

The calibration process was carried out by performing an angle of repose and two penetration tests, and
matching the simulation results using a modeled spherical particle with radii of 10 mm to test results. A trial and
error method was used to match the simulation to actual tests. The simulations were performed by using a
DELL Precision T7500 Intel (R) Xeon (R) CPU X5667 @ 3.07 GHz and 48GB RAM computer. EDEM 2.4
software was used for the simulations.

3.1 Angle of Repose Test

The angle of repose of a granular material is the steepest angle of the slope of material at rest measured
relative to the horizontal plane. The funnel method is a practical technique to determine the angle of repose
(Train, 1958). In the test, the dry material was poured through a funnel to form a cone of deposited material. In
the current study, tests were conducted using an MT-LQ compression test device fitted with a funnel (Figure.
1a). For the test 0.00037 m3 of dry beach sand that passed through a 600 μm sieve was used. The angle
measured of the sand pile was 31.5° (Figure 1b). The angle of repose test was simulated using the same
volume of particles and porosity as for the actual test using particles with spherical radii of 10 mm (Figure 1c).
By using the parameters shown in Table 1 and varying the three factors of time step, soil-soil coefficient of
friction and soil-soil coefficient of rolling friction, the measured angle of repose of 31.5° was achieved by the
simulation (Figure 1d).

2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper Page 3 of 9

 (a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1. (a) Angle of repose test equipment, (b) Typical discharge pile, and (c)-(d) Simulation of angle of repose test
using EDEM.

3.2 Penetration Test

Two penetration tests were performed with similar soil to that of the angle of repose test, using an MT-LQ
machine and a quasi-static penetration rate of 0.01 m/s (Figure 2a). For the test, a 100 mm cube (0.001 m3)
was filled with beach sand and then a 15.88 mm diameter circular disc on a rod (Figure 2b) was inserted into
the sand and the compression force was measured with increasing displacement. The test was repeated using
a 30° cone (Figure 2c). By using the parameters shown in Table 1 and varying the three factors of time step,
soil-soil coefficient of friction and soil-soil coefficient of rolling friction, the measured energy versus depth
results were achieved by the simulation (Figures 2d and 2e).

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Figure 2. (a) Penetration test equipment, (b) Tool dimensions of the circular disc, (c) Tool dimensions of the cone, and
(d)-(e) Simulation of penetration test using EDEM.

3.3 Results for Interaction Parameters

The best-matched contact parameters for particles with a 10 mm nominal radius using the Hysteric Spring
Contact Model (HSCM) were determined as 0.407 for coefficient of rolling friction of sand-sand, 0.57 for
coefficient of friction of sand-sand and 0.00008 s for the integration time step. A comparison of simulation and
test results for the angle of repose and cumulative penetration energy test are shown in Figure 3.
80 2.5 2.5
Vertical distance (mm)

60 2 2
Energy (J)
Energy (J)

1.5 1.5
40
1 1
20
31.5° 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Horizontal distance (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. (a) Pile profile results for angle of repose test, (b) Cumulative energy versus penetration for disc, and (c)
Cumulative energy versus penetration for cone
------Experiment, - - - -Simulation
2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper Page 4 of 9
4. Integration of cohesion and adhesion with the HSCM
In order to model the cohesion and adhesion, their forces were added to the total normal contact forces in the
HSCM. The friction was assumed to restrict the tangential element motion in the governing equations (HSCM
equations), so the adhesion and cohesion forces were not added in the tangential direction. The magnitude of
the adhesion or cohesion forces were calculated, as per EDEM (2011) as,
Fa/c=ξ·Ac (19)
where ξ is the cohesion energy density which is defined as the energy needed to remove a particle from its
nearest neighbors divided by the total volume of the removed particle. In the current study the cohesion energy
density was assumed as the cohesion strength. Ac is the contact area which is calculated as,
Ac=π·rc2 (20)
where rc is the contact radius, defined by Hertz (1882) as,
rc=((3·req·Fns) / (4·Eeq))1/3 (21)
where req, Eeq, and Fns
are the equivalent radius, equivalent Young’s modulus, and normal contact force,
respectively. Eeq is defined as per EDEM (2011) as,
1/Eeq= (1-υa2)/Ea+ (1-υb2)/Eb (22)
where E and υ are the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the individual particles a and b, respectively.
After calculating the contact, damping, and adhesion/cohesion force, Equation 10 becomes,
Fn=Fns+ Fnd+ Fa/c (23)
Fielke (1988) conducted a series of direct shear tests to measure the cohesion of his soil samples (sandy loam
soil taken from UniSA Tillage Test Track – 85% sand, 3% silt and 12% clay). In order to validate the contact
model, Fielke (1988)’s experimental work was simulated using EDEM 2.4 software. For the simulations the
DEM parameters determined for a beach sand (100% sand), as detailed in Table 1 were used. The simulations
were made using 10 mm nominal spherical radii particles with an actual radii varying randomly from 0.95 to
1.05 x the nominal size in a shear box of 60 x 60 x 40 mm. The particles were placed in a face centered cubic
packing arrangement with the particle spacing chosen so as to achieve the desired bulk density. In order to
apply the desired normal stress, the top wall of the shear box was designed as a servo wall as suggested by
Sadek et al. (2011). The vertical velocity of the top wall was changed automatically to achieve the desired
normal stress as set by Fielke (1988). The shearing process was simulated by keeping the upper shear box
stationary and moving the lower shear box horizontally at 0.020 mm/s. The shear stress was predicted as the
total force on the opposing wall of the lower shear box divided by the area of the sheared section (Figure 4).
Simulations were carried out for 53, 97.4, and 364.1 N normal forces and the results were compared to the test
results in Figures 5a to 5c. A comparison of the results in Table 2 of the measured and predicted values of
cohesion are plotted in Figure 5d and this shows there was on average an 18% lower value for cohesive
strength for the simulation results when using the beach sand DEM parameters, actual bulk density and the
cohesive energy density equal to the measured cohesive strength. By refining the DEM parameters to more
closely represent the wider mix of particle sizes of the Tillage Teat Track soil should improve the correlation.

(a) (b)

Figure 4. DEM simulation of direct shear test (a) Start and (b) End

2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper Page 5 of 9

 Table 2. Measured and predicted cohesion values

Moisture Content Density Measured Predicted

3
(%) (kg/m ) Cohesion (kPa) Cohesion (kPa)

Sample 1 1 1316 3 1.5

Sample 2 15 1780 15 12
Sample 3 13 1880 22 18

120
120
Shear stress (kPa)

120 30

Shear stress (kPa)

100

Simulated cohesive
Shear stress (kPa)
100 100

strength (kPa)
80 80 80 20
60 60 60
40 40 10
40
20 20 20
0
0 0 0 0 10 20 30
0 20 40 60 80 100120 0 20 40 60 80 100120 0 20 40 60 80 100120
Measured cohesive
Normal stress (kPa) Normal stress (kPa) Normal stress (kPa) strength (kPa)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

3 3 3
Figure 5. Normal stress vs. shear stress graphs (a) Sample 1 (1316 kg/m ), (b) Sample 2 (1780 kg/m ), (c) Sample 3 (1880 kg/m ),
(d) Comparison of measured vs simulated cohesive strength

------ Experiment, - - - -Simulation

5. Validation of the parameters for soil-tool interaction

The interaction between the soil and a 400 mm wide, 32 mm lift height, 10° rake angle, 70° sweep angle, and 3
mm cutting edge height tool was experimentally examined at the compaction levels created by a 1 tonne roller
at 3 different soil moisture contents by Fielke (1988). A sketch of the share wing used in the experiments is
shown in Figure 6a. The tests were carried out in the UniSA Tillage Test Track, with a 2.5 m wide and 300 mm
deep sandy loam soil. To measure the tillage forces an extended octagonal ring transducer was used (Godwin,
1975). The typical values for the properties of the soil used in the experiments are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Tillage Test Track soil properties for compaction levels created by a 1 tonne roller of Fielke (1988)

Moisture Content Soil depth Bulk Density Cohesion Adhesion

3
(%) (mm) (kg/m ) (kPa) (kPa)
4 75 1338 4.9 0
8 75 1605 5.3 0
12 75 1781 4.6 3

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. (a) Definition of the share wing geometry (Fielke, 1988), and (b) and (c) Screen captures of soil-tool simulation taken
from EDEM

In the current study, Fielke (1988)’s experimental work was simulated for 4, 8, and 12 km/h tool speeds. For
the simulations the HSCM plus cohesion/adhesion and the DEM parameters provided in Table 1 were used. A
nominal 10 mm radius spherical particle was used in the simulations. Simulations were run in a virtual soil bin
whose dimensions were 2,500 mm long x 1,500 mm wide x 300 mm deep (Figures 6b and 6c). Each simulation
was repeated three times as there was a variation in results and the averages of the simulation results were
2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper Page 6 of 9
taken as the final result.
The effect of the tool speed on tillage forces (draft and vertical downward force) at varying moisture contents
for 75 mm operation depth are given in Figure 7. As shown in Figure 7 (at all moisture content levels), the
predicted draft forces increased linearly with the increase of the tool speed while predicted vertical forces
increased non-linearly with the increase of the tool speed. The results presented in Figure 7 show that the
simulation results for the draft and vertical forces were closely correlated to the Fielke (1988)’s experimental
results, as shown in Figure 8.

1200 300

Vertical down force (N)

1000
Draft force (N)

800 200
600
400 100
200
0 0
0 4 8 12 0 4 8 12
Speed (km/h) Speed (km/h)

(a) (b)

Figure 7.Effect of the tool speed on (a) Draft and (b) Vertical forces at varying moisture contents

Fielke (1988) 4% mc, Fielke (1988) 8% mc, Fielke (1988) 12% mc

Simulation 4% mc, Simulation 8% mc, Simulation 12% mc

800 300
Predicted draft force (N)

Predicted vertical force (N)

R² = 0.91 R² = 0.9176
600
200
400

100
200

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 100 200 300
Measured draft force (N) Measured vertical force (N)

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Correlation of predicted and measured (a) Draft and (b) Vertical forces

6. Conclusion
This study used a Hysteric Spring Contact Model to simulate particle-particle interactions in a plastic manner
and include soil cohesion between particles and adhesion of particles to implements as cohesive energy
density values. In order to run a timely 3D tillage simulation, 10 mm spherical radius particles were chosen and
appropriate DEM parameters were developed using an angle of repose, penetration of disc and cone and
direct shear test. By changing the particle packing density to achieve the actual soil density and setting the
cohesive energy density value to the soil’s measured cohesive strength, simulations were able to match the
measured values of soil cohesive strength within 18%. Simulation results were compared to test results of
Fielke (1988) for a 400 mm wide sweep tool operating at 75 mm depth at a range of speeds and soil
conditions. A close correlation was found for the measured draft and vertical forces showing that the DEM
method proposed to account for larger particle size, plasticity, cohesion and adhesion was valid.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the University of South Australia for granting of a post graduate
scholarship to Mustafa Ucgul and the Australian Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC)
project USA00005 for funding the computer and software.

2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper Page 7 of 9

 References
Asaf, Z., D. Rubinstein and I. Shmulevich (2007). Determination of discrete element model parameters required for soil tillage.
Soil and Tillage Research. 92(1-2): 227-242.
Budynas, R. G. and K. J. Nisbett (2012). Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill Education
Chen, Y., L. J. Munkholm and T. Nyord (2013). A discrete element model for soil-sweep interaction in three different soils. Soil
and Tillage Research 136: 34-41.
Das, B. M. (1997). Advanced Soil Mechanics Taylor&Francis.
EDEM (2010). EDEM user guide. Edinburgh, UK, DEM Solutions.
EDEM (2011). EDEM theory refrence guide. Edinburgh, UK, DEM Solutions.
Fielke, J. M. (1988). The influence of the geometry of chisel plough share wings on tillage forces in sandy loam soil. Master of
Engineering, University of Melbourne.
Fielke, J. M. (1999). Finite element modelling of the interaction of the cutting edge of tillage implements with soil. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research 74(1): 91-101.
Godwin, R. J. (1975). An extended octagonal ring transducer fro use in tillage studies. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 20 pp 347-353.
Godwin, R. J., M. J. O’Dogherty, C. Saunders and A. T. Balafoutis (2007). A force prediction model for mouldboard ploughs
incorporating the effects of soil characteristic properties, plough geometric factors and ploughing speed. Biosystems
Engineering 97(1): 117-129.
Hendrick, J. G. and R. G. William (1973). Soil reaction to high speed cutting. Transaction of the ASAE16(3): 401-403.
Hertz (1882). Ueber die berhunsfester elatischer korper. J. renie Angew Math 92: 156-171
Karmakar, S. and R. L. Kushawa (2005). Simulation of soil deformation around a tillage tool using computational fluid
dynamics. Transactions of the ASAE 48(3): 23-32.
Karmakar, S., S. R. Ashrafizadeh and R. L. Kushwaha (2009). Experimental validation of computational fluid dynamics
modeling for narrow tillage tool draft. Journal of Terramechanics 46(6): 277-283.
Kushwaha, R. L. and J. Shen. (1995). Finite element analysis of the dynamic interaction between soil and tillage tool.
Transactions of the ASAE 37(5): 1315-1319.
Mak, J., Y. Chen and M. A. Sadek (2012). Determining parameters of a discrete element model for soil-tool interaction. Soil
and Tillage Research 118: 117-122.
McKyes, E. and O. S. Ali (1977). The cutting of soil by narrow blades. Journal of Terramechanics.14(2): 43-58.
Momozu, M., A. Oida, M. Yamazaki and A. J. Koolen (2003). Simulation of a soil loosening process by means of the modified
distinct element method. Journal of Terramechanics 39(4): 207-220.
Obermayr, M., K. Dressler, C. Vrettos and P. Eberhard (2011). Prediction of draft forces in cohesionless soil with the Discrete
Element Method. Journal of Terramechanics 48(5): 347-358.
Raji, A. O. (1999). Discrete element modeliing of the deformation of bulk agricultural particles. PhD, University of Newcastle
upon Tyne.
Sadek, M. A., Y. Chen and J. Liu (2011). Simulating shear behavior of a sandy soil under different soil conditions. Journal of
Terramechanics 48(6): 451-458.
Shmulevich, I., Z. Asaf and D. Rubinstein (2007). Interaction between soil and a wide cutting blade using the discrete element
method. Soil and Tillage Research 97(1): 37-50.
Tanaka, H., K. Inooku, Y. Nagasaki, M. Miyzaki, O. Sumikawa and A. Oida (2000). Simulation of soil loosening at subsurface
tillage using a vibrating type sub-soiler by means of the distinct element method. 8th Eur. ISTVS Conf. Umea: 32-37.
Train, D. (1958). Some aspects of the properties of Starch Powders and mixtures. J. Pharmcol 10(73).
Tsuji, T., Y. Nakagawa, N. Matsumoto, Y. Kadono, T. Takayama and T. Tanaka (2011). 3-D DEM simulation of cohesive soil-
pushing behavior by bulldozer blade. Journal of Terramechanics 49(1): 37-47.
Walton, O. (2006). Elastic-plastic contact model. Company Report, DEM Solutions.
Walton, O. R. and R. L. Braun (1986). Stress calculations for assemblies of inelastic spheres in uniform shear. Acta Mechanica
(63): 73-86.
Zhang, R., B. Chen, J.-q. Li and S.-c. Xu (2008). DEM Simulation of clod crushing by bionic bulldozing plate. Journal of Bionic
Engineering 5(Supplement 1): 72-78.
Zhang, R. and J. Li (2006). Simulation on mechanical behavior of cohesive soil by Distinct Element Method. Journal of
Terramechanics 43(3): 303-316.
Zhang, Z. X. and R. L. Kushwaha (1999). Operating speed effect on the advancing soil failure zone in tillage operation.
Canadian Agricultural Engineering 41(2): 87-92.

2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting Paper Page 8 of 9

View publication stats