Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference

Modelling and Simulation (AfricaMS 2014)

September 1 - 3, 2014 Gaborone, Botswana

CONFIGURATION MODELLING CONCEPT FOR IMPACTING MOTION ON

SOIL TILLAGE FOR HEAPING OPERATION USING FOUR BAR
MECHANISM
1*
Michael K. Adeyeri; 1Khumbulani Mpofu and 2Oluwadara C. Afolabi
1*, 1
Industrial Engineering Department, Tshwane University of Technology,
Private Bag X680, Pretoria, South Africa
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Federal University of Technology,
PMB 704, Akure, Ondo State Nigeria
1*
adeyerimk@tut.ac.za; 1mpofuk@tut.ac.za , 2afdac4x@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT various implements and machines for this purpose. Farm

Farm mechanisation is a practice of doing work on
agricultural farms by means of machinery instead of
human or animal labour. Land preparation, tillage,
planting and harvesting operations are all farm practices
that have been mechanized. Three forms of bed
preparation are commonly used in farming namely; flat,
heaps and ridges. Ridge-making has been mechanised,
leaving heaping to be done manually using the locally
fabricated hand-made hoe.
In this research work, an attempt is made to design a four-
bar mechanism to give the required working part motion
for soil heaping operation. The angles and distance of the
four positions were obtained and specified as input for the
synthesis of the four-bar mechanism using four-position
synthesis programmed in MATLABTM and the link
lengths calculated were input to Automated Dynamic
Analysis of Mechanical Systems (ADAMS) to simulate
the behaviour of the mechanism from which the best
design was selected.
Results suggested that the method of four-position
synthesis could be used to design an appropriate
mechanism for the heaping operation. The mechanical
advantage of the mechanisms obtained was in the range
0.5 – 2.1. Different parameters of interest like the output
force were also obtained for each of the mechanisms.
KEY WORDS
Model simulation, Soil Heaping, Configuration, Four bar
Mechanism.
1. Introduction
Agricultural practices had been a global profession from
time of creation to the very present age. Farming which is
a sector under this has been an operation which requires
tilling of the soil for planting operations. Its role in
economy, wealth creation and most importantly food
provision cannot be over-emphasized. With the passage of
time, technology began the quest of making farming
easier and more productive leading to inventions of
mechanisation is the process of making farm tasks to be
done using machinery instead of human or animal labour
as practised in the stone and iron age. Various attempts
had been made to research into getting machinery to work
on farms, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
conducted several trials on small farm implements in the
1950s.
Several attempts are being made till date by different
countries, in Ethiopia, the Institute of Agricultural
research (IAR) began testing and modification of farm
implements in 1976 (Melesse et al., 2001). Also, in 1985
Agricultural Implements Research and Improvement
Centre (AIRIC) was as well established to coordinate
research nationally in Ethiopia. In 1967, the International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture was established in
Nigeria for this same purpose of research for Agricultural
development. The results from these research efforts
formed the basis for various inventions.
Tillage is the manipulation or alteration of the soil to
provide a condition favourable for crop growth and
development (Adetayo et al., 2004; ASAE standards,
2002). According to Onwualu et al. (2006), tillage is soil
manipulation for the purpose of providing enriching
conditions necessary for crop growth. Tillage according to
Davies (1983) is a terminology that is applied to the
creation of enabling environment for the germination and
growth of crops. Technically according to Makanjuola
(1983), tillage refers to the mechanical stirring of soil to
provide a suitable soil environment for growth of crops.
Ohu (1997) summarized that tillage has become more
important as a conservation measure, covering a variety of
activities, from simple soil tilling to complex soil
preparation techniques. Over the years, different kinds of
tillage operations and implements have evolved in order
to give the soil the best tilt for crop production. Tillage is
an inevitable part of soil management and crop
production. A good tillage operation should provide a
suitable soil pulverisation. Ridging is a tillage operation
aimed at heaping up of tilled soil from two sides to form
long stripes of mounds bounded by furrows in between

DOI: 10.2316/P.2014.813-027 192

while heaping although similar to ridging only forms
rounded piles bounded with circular furrows. Mechanised
ridging is always done after ploughing and harrowing
operations (Nkakini et al., 2008). As in ridging,
mechanised heaping can be done after ploughing and
harrowing operations. This tillage operation is
accomplished with the aid of tillage implement called disc
heaper.
FAO (2005) asserted that two changes occurred to
hand-tool technology in the last decade, viz:
improvements in the quality of materials used to make the
tools; and increased diversity in the range of tools.
In Africa, farmers still embrace traditional methods of
planting rather than the mechanized methods. Although
some aspects of the traditional method of farming are
being modified or replaced by the technological
improvements, there are still practices that the farmers
have kept on with. One of these practices is the use of
heaps rather than ridges in planting crops especially the
tuber crops. Tubers planted on heaps are believed to bring
about better productivity as compared to ridge-making
which has been mechanised by the invention of the disc
ridge. The process of heap-making is done manually using
hoe, a very laborious and time-consuming task, hence, the
need to mechanise this process. This paper gives a report
on an attempt concept to initiate the reconfiguration of the
same feat as in ridge-making for heap-making through the
design of four bar mechanism in carrying out its
operation. Equations models are used and simulated to get
the various motions and their corresponding mechanical
advantage. The concept of the whole work is as sketched
in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Design Concept of Four bar Mechanism
193
2. Methods
In achieving the aim of this research, the following points
were taken into consideration: adoption of models
equations for the four bar mechanism for heaping
operation; designing of mechanism model;and integration
of model equations into MATLAB for Burmester curve
generation and ADAMS modelling kit for simulation of
motion impact.
2.1 Adoption of Model
Four bar mechanism propounded by (Erdman and Sandor,
1984) was adopted as means for designing configuration
concepts for the impact motion needed for heaping
operation. Some model equations derived by Erdman and
Sandor were applied in generating the four motions
through varying design concepts on the link lengths,
coupler links and input torque.
Figure 2 shows a four-bar linkage in one general position
with a coupler point located at its first precision position
P1. Second, third and fourth precision positions (points P 2,
P3 and P4) are also shown.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the required Four-bar
Mechanism (Erdman and Sandor, 1984)
The four positions are to be achieved by the rotation
of the input rocker, Link 2, through as yet unspecified
angles β2, β3 and β4. The angle of the coupler link 3 at
each of the precision positions is defined by the angles of
the position vectors Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4. The unknown
linkage dimension will be found through the synthesis
technique. Placing the global coordinate system XY at the
first precision point P1 would make the resolution of the
system easier. By defining the other three desired
precision positions in the plane with respect to the global
system as shown. There are position difference vectors δ2
drawn from P1 to P2, δ3 drawn from P1 to P3, δ4 drawn
from P1 to P4. (Sandor and Erdman, 1991).
The position difference vectors δ2, δ3 and δ4 from
point 1 to 2, 1 to 3 and from 1 to 4 respectively will define
the displacements of the output motion of point P. The
dyad W1Z1 defines the first half of the linkage while dyad
UIS1 describes the second half of the linkage. Vectors Z1
and S1 are both embedded in the rigid coupler (Link 3)
and both will undergo the same rotations, through angle
α2 from position 1 to position 2, through angle α3 from
position 1 to position 3 and through angle α4 from
position 1 to position 4. The pin-to-pin length and angle
of Link 3 (vector V1) is defined in terms of vectors Z1 and
S1. To simplify this task, the left side of the linkage
(vectors W1 and Z1) is first solved and later use the same
procedure to solve for the right side (vectors U 1 and S1).
To solve for W1 and Z1, the two vector loop equations are
formed, one around the loop which includes positions P1
and P2, while the second one is looped around positions P 1
and P3 and the third around the loop which includes
positions P1 and P4 going clockwise (Sandor, 1991;
Erdman and Sandor, 1984).
Since the model equations adopted are from (Erdman and
Sandor, 1984), few of the ones applicable for actualizing
the research are as stated:
W2 + Z2 - δ2 – Z1 – W1 = 0 (1)
W3 + Z3 - δ3 – Z1 – W1 = 0 (2)
W4 + Z4 – δ4 – Z1 – W1 = 0 (3)
+ = (4)
W +Z = (5)
[ ][ ]=[ ] (6)
Det M = Det [ ] = 0 (7)
+ + + =0 (8)
Where =- - - (9)
(Erdman and Sandor, 1984)
Where the notations used are as defined below:
m: vector representing the centre point (ground pivot)
k1: vector representing circle point (moving pivot)
Z: vector representing floating link of first dyad
194
W: vector representing crank of first dyad
R1: vector representing the first prescribed position
(position 1) of the working part with respect to the origin
V1: vector representing coupler link
Z1: Vector representing floating link of second dyad
W1: vector representing crank of second dyad
Power (P) = Torque (T) Angular velocity ( )
Pin = Tin = Tout = Pout (10)
Pin = Force (F) Velocity (V)
Pin = Fin. Vin = Fout .Vout = Pout (11)
((Erdman and Sandor, 1984)
Where Tin and Fin are torque and force exerted on the
linkage, and Tout and Fout are those exerted by the linkage;
where Vin and Vout are the velocities of the points through
which Fin and Fout respectively, act. From equation (10),
By definition, mechanical advantage (M.A.) is the ratio of
the magnitudes of the output force to the input force
M.A. = (12)
(Erdman and Sandor, 1984)
2.2 Designing of the Mechanism Model
The research work as well made use of Adams Modelling
kit in designing the model approach. This modelling
process comprises:
a) creating the parts of the model;
b) testing and validating of the model;
c) refining of model and iterating; and
d) optimizing
2.3 Selection of Burmester Curves
The moving pivots (k) and ground pivots (m) are the
Burmester point pairs which are obtained from the
MATLAB™ program, the Burmester point pair values are
written to the output file and these values are used in
calculating the link lengths W and Z of the mechanism.
The m and k points are not independent but they are
conjugate pairs and a set of m and k values form half of a
mechanism.
The Burmester curves, which are also obtained as
the output of the program, are used in selecting the ground
pivots (m) to obtain a suitable mechanism. As different
values of k and m give different mechanisms, there should
be a way of selecting the points.
The ground pivots are selected in such a way that most of
the ground pivot points lie along the reference plane.
All of these are used for eleven concepts, out of which for
were having reasonable outcome which are to be
discussed in subsequent section.
3. Discussion and Results
Initially, eleven designs were considered and their link
lengths calculated. However, on simulation in ADAMS,
seven of them failed. Finally, four designs were left. The
results for these are presented in this section.
3.1 Design Concepts for the Four Design
Configuration Concepts
The four configurable feasible designs were considered
under design specifications (first dyad and second dyad),
the link lengths, output force, coupler link and mechanical
advantage.
Table 1 shows the design concept specifications
calculations for the four concepts using the first and
second dyad with their corresponding link lengths.

Table 1
Design Specifications for the Four Concepts with their respective Link Lengths
Concept Design Specification The Link Lengths

First dyad, where R= 8 - i Second dyad

m = 7.8849 + 3.1940i
k1 = 7.0933 + 2.8046i
1 Z = R1 – k1 = 0.9067 – 3.8046i
W = k1 – m = -0.7916 – 0.3894i
m = 3.9854 + 4.4563i
k1 = 5.0348 + 4.6596i
Z1 = 2.9652 – 5.6596i
W1 = 1.0494 + 0.2033i
Now, V1 = Z – Z1
V1 = -2.0585 + 1.8550i
Link 2(input link):
| | = 0.8822m
Link 3(coupler link):
| | = 2.7710m
Link 4(output link):
| | = 1.0689m

m = 7.0541 + 3.9348i m = 5.4703 + 4.4596i Link 2(output link):

2 k1 = 6.6308 + 3.6601i
Z = R1 – k1 = 1.3692 – 4.6601i
W = k1 – m = -0.4233 – 0.2747i
k1 = 5.7225 + 4.4168i | | = 0.3595m
Z1 = 2.2775 – 5.4168i Link 3(coupler link):
W1 = 0.2522 – 0.0428i | | = 0.5966m
Now, V1 = Z – Z1 Link 4(input link):
V1 = -0.9083 + 0.7567i | | = 0.1235m

m = 6.7042 + 4.1212i m = 5.9098 + 4.3853i Link 2(output link):

3 k1 = 6.4248 + 3.8950i
Z = R1 – k1 = 1.5752 – 4.8950i
W = k1 – m = -0.2794 – 0.2262i
k1 = 5.9645 + 4.2746i | | = 0.3595m
Z1 = 2.0355 – 5.2746i Link 3(coupler link):
W1 = 0.0547 – 0.1107i | | = 0.5966m
Now, V1 = Z – Z1 Link 4(input link):
V1 = -0.4603 + 0.3796i | | = 0.1235m

m = 8.4464 + 1.2734i m = 6.3219 + 4.2721i Link 2(output link):

4 k1 = 7.0506 + 0.8189i
Z = R1 – k1 = 0.9494 – 1.8189i
W = k1 – m = -1.3958 – 0.4545i
k1 = 6.2007 + 4.1004i | | = 1.4679m
Z1 = 1.7993 – 5.1004i Link 3(coupler link):
W1 = -0.1212 – 0.1717i | | = 3.3898m
Now, V1 = Z – Z1 Link 4(input link):
V1 = -0.8499 + 3.2815i | | = 0.2102m

The corresponding configuration of this four
concepts under the four bar mechanism as obtained from
ADAMS is given in Table 2. For space minimization and
clarity of purpose in distinguishing between the behaviour
of the motion generated, the distance moved by the
coupler link when the mechanism moves and the resulting
output forces and torque input were tabulated in Table 2
and Table 3.
From Table 2, the variation of the input torque with
time for the first concept design shows that the input
torque varies with time and has its maximum value of
730.5Nm at the start of simulation. The output force
varies non-linearly with time, with a maximum value of
1740N and has the minimum value of 890.9N

195
 Table 2
Comparative view of the four Configuration Concepts based on Input Torque and Output Force through simulation
Concept Design Configuration Variation of input torque Variation of output force for
Number Concepts for design Design

196
 Table 3
Comparative view of the four Configuration Concepts based on Distance Covered by the Coupler Link when the Mechanism
moves through simulation
Concept Design Configuration Concepts Distance moved by the coupler link
Number when the mechanism moves

197
For the second concept, the input torque varies with time
and has its maximum value of 140.9Nm. The output force
varies non-linearly with time, with a maximum value of
417.3N and has the minimum value of 290.5N. In the
third concept, the input torque varies with time and has its
maximum value to be 28.35Nm, while the output force
varies non-linearly with time, with a maximum value of
281.6N and has the minimum value of 149.2N. The fourth
design concept has the input torque to vary with time as
its maximum value is 97.35Nm and the output force
varies non-linearly with time, with a maximum value of
376.3N and has the minimum value of 268.3N. While
their respective distances travelled are shown in Table 3
The Mechanical advantage resulting from the four design
concepts is as displayed in Table 4

Table 4
Range of Mechanical Advantage (M.A.) obtained for the four Design Concepts Configuration

Design Force Fout (N) Fin (N) Mechanical Advantage

Concept (M.A)

Maximum 1740.0 828.04 2.1

1 value
Minimum 890.9 - 1.1
Value
Maximum 417.3 550.82 0.8
2 value
Minimum 290.5 - 0.5
Value
Maximum 281.6 229.55 1.2
3 value
Minimum 149.2 - 0.6
Value
Maximum 376.3 463.13 0.8
4 value
Minimum 268.3 - 0.6
Value

In summary, the four feasible designs considered 4. Conclusion

vary in characteristics; the best mechanism from the
mechanical point of view might not be the best from the
position point of view, i.e. how well the required motion
is generated. Hence there should be a way to identify the
characteristics of each of these four mechanisms. From
the mechanical point of view, design number 1 offers the
best, with a mechanical advantage of 2.1. This is followed
by design number 3 with mechanical advantage of 1.2 and
design numbers 2 and 4 both with a mechanical advantage
of 0.8. However, in the view of position displacements
and motion, design number 4 offers the best, followed by
design number 1, then design number 2 and lastly design
number 3. The most preferred given the conditions of use
can be selected on these considerations.
As outlined in the introductory and in the materials and
methods sections of this work, the objective was to come
up with suitable designs for a four-bar mechanism that
will carry out the motion needed for heaping operation.
This involved calculating the link lengths and angles
necessary. Four position syntheses were utilized to
achieve this objective. The general-purpose matrix and
vector manipulation program, MATLAB was used in
creating the Burmester curves for the simulation. These
values were then input to the mechanical dynamics
simulation software, ADAMS to get the link lengths. The
mechanical advantage was used to pick the best design.
The mechanical advantage of the mechanisms was found

198
to be in the range of 0.5 – 2.1. Four different design
alternatives were considered out of which the best, design
number 1 is selected.
However, this research work is suggesting the followings
for future work:
i. Design work including the mobility of the four-
bar mechanism about the vertical axis for it to be
able to complete the heaping operation needs to
be considered.
ii. Introduction of hydraulic links for retraction by
fluid pressure to perform the same way as the
four-bar mechanism with the introduction of
gears.
[10] J.O. Ohu,., Tillage for Soil and water conservation,
Tillage Research and development in sub-Saharan Africa,
Proceedings of the Nigerian branch of ISTRO, NCAM,
Ilorin, 1997, 14-20.
[11] A.P. Onwualu; C.D. Akubua & I.E. Ahaeku,
Fundamentals of Engineering Agriculture, Immaculate
Publications Limited, 1st Published 2006 Enugu-Nigeria,
2006, 79 – 127.
[12] G.N. Sandor, & A. Erdman, Mechanism design,
Analysis and Synthesis, Second edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1991.

References
[1] A.O. Adetayo, F.S. Ogundare & O.K. Ogundero,
Effect of Harrow passes on growth and yield of Soybean
(Glycine max), Proceedings of The 5th International
Conference and 26th Annual General meeting of the
Nigerian Institution of Agricultural Engineers, 26, 2004.
[2] P.O. Aina, R. Lal & G. S. Taylor, Soil and crop
management in relation to soil Erosion in the rainforest of
Western Nigeria, SCSA Special Publication, 21, 1977, 75
- 82.
[3] J.H. Davies, Tillage Research and Development in
Nigeria, Proceedings of the first National Tillage
Symposium of the NSAE, 1983, 15-20.
[4] A. Erdman & G. Sandor, Mechanism design; Analysis
and Synthesis, Prentice – Hall, New Jersey. 1984.
[5] FAO, Contribution of farm power to small-holder
livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa, Natural Resources
Management and Environment department, FAO, Rome,
2005.
[6] G.A.Makanjuola, Appropriate machines for tillage in
Nigeria, Proceedings of the first National Tillage
Symposium of the NSAE, 1983, 21-34.
[7] T. Melesse, G. Kidane, G. Shilima & A. Hirut
Development and evaluation of tillage implements for
maize production in the dry land areas of Ethiopia,
Seventh eastern and southern Africa regional maize
conference, 2001, 308-312.
[8] National Academy of Engineering, History of
agricultural mechanization, assessed from
http://www.nae.edu.
[9] S.O Nkakini,, A. J. Akor, J.J Fila I.J., & J.
Chukwumati J, Investigation of soil Physical property and
Okra emergence rate potential in sandy loam soil for three
tillage practices, Journal of Agricultural Engineering and
Technology (JAET), 16, 2008.

199