ANALYSIS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

FOR SHREDDING MESQUITE

by

RICHARD L. ECHOLS, B . S .

A THESIS

IN

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Approved

Accepted

IDe^n ofluie Graduate School

May 1973
80 b
T3
(373

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the guidance of Dr.

Thomas G. Carpenter, my committee chairman and
project director, for his tireless help during my
research, I would also like to thank Dr. W. L, Ulich,
Dr. W. M. Lyle, and Dr. H. Y. Lee for their helpful
criticism.

-11-
 CONTENTS
/ PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Objectives ..• 2
II. LITERATURE REVlEl'/ 4
Related Work 4
Brush Pvelated Research • 7
III, PROCEDURAL PLAN 10
Static Test Procedure e. 11
Dynamic Test Procedure ..•.,• H
Instrumentation ..,,.. 12
Theory of Operation .,,.,, 12
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS .... 17
Feed Speeds 19
Log Diameter, Blade Tip Speed,
and Blade Sharpness 28
Applications of Results 43

111-
 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 47
Summary • 47
Conelusions .•...•..,..,••.,,••• 50
Recommendations for Further Study 51
REFERENCES 52
APPENDICES
Appendix I •••,,,• , •.•••.•••• 53
Appendix II ...•••••• 57

-iv-
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
1. Energy ratios 20-22
2. Total energy, energy per area, and
energy per diameter .•,,,••••,,. 25-27
3. Energy ratio for diameter ratio for
a given blade tip speed ••,.,,•••• 33
4. Summary of dynamic test data obtained
after data reduction and analysis ...... 40
5. Summary of static test data obtained
after data reduction and analysis ...... 41

«v-
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
1. Dynamic cutting test apparatus 13
2. Belt driven carriage table 13
3. Counterweight and blade ...,., , 14
4. Rotating shaft torque transducer ,.,. 14
5. Energy ratios at equal blade tip speeds
but different feed speeds 24
6. Blade tip speeds vs. total energy 29
7. Blade tip speeds vs. energy per square
inch of cross-sectional area ,.,..., 30
8. Blade tip speed vs. energy per inch
of diameter ••.••,., •• •«.•• 32
9. Diameter ratios vs. energy ratios for
sharp blade dynamic tests 35
10. Diameter ratios vs. energy ratios for
dull blade dynamic tests 36
11. Blade tip speed vs. slope for dynamic
sharp blade tests .•••,•••• 37
12. Blade tip speed vs. slope for the
dynamic dull blade tests 38
13. Relationship between energy, diameter,
and speed for sharp and dull blades 42

-vi-
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Great strides have been achieved in agriculture in

the past few years. Farming has advanced from mule or
horse drawn shares to highly mechanized, high speed, high
horsepower equipment. During this period of advancement,
however, the Texas rancher has allowed mesquite brush to
invade and infest his ranchland and choke out the native
grasses on an estimated 88 million acres (8). This
infestation has spurred research towards the development
of methods for controlling mesquite and other undesirable
brush growth with the ultimate objective of killing out
the brush infestation.
A simple brush control method advocated by some
researchers is shredding. Shredding which has been a
popular method of weed control, highway right-of-way
maintenance, and lig^t brush control for many years
appears to offer a rapid, effective, and economical
approach to brush control. A number of researchers are
currently involved in research programs pertaining to the
various aspects of shredding as a brush control method.
From an engineering viewpoint, additional information is
needed pertaining to machine requirements and shredder
design. ^-^^
 -2-

Increased use of shredding might be realized for

mesquite control if power and energy requirements for
shredding can be determined and this information is
subsequently used in shredder design. Instrumented
laboratory cutting tests in combination with limited
field information was thought to supply the needed
design information.

Statement of the Problem

Shredding appears to be a very realistic and
practical method of mesquite control, but basic design
information pertaining to or defining the power and
energy requirements of shredding brush is not available,
and is needed. Because of this need, a laboratory study
was conducted to define the power and energy requirements
of a blade when cutting mesquite.

Objectives
The objectives of this study were to determine the
energy requirements for cutting mesquite under various
conditions. More specific objectives were as follows:
1, To determine the energy requirements of a
blade for a relatively static cutting
condition. This requires the determination
of the energy required to cut restrained
mesquite logs with a slov; speed blade.
 -3-
2. To determine the energy requirem.ents of a
blade for a relatively dynamic cutting
condition. That is, a blade traveling at a
speed equivalent to blade tip speeds of a
field machine,
3. To determine the energy requirements of a
dull blade for breaking or crushing mesquite
at both high and low speeds.
The information obtained will be analyzed on a
comparative basis and utilized to more accurately
define optimum conditions and requirements for shredding
mesquite.
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEIV

Since shredding has not been a widely used method

of mesquite control, very little information has been
reported in literature concerning shredder designs for
large brush. Information relating to brush shredding
consists primarily of field and laboratory tests of
forage harvesters. One series of brush shredding tests
was reported by Smith (9), A personal interview with
1^. Charlie Fisher (6), head of the brush control program
at the Texas Agricultural Experiment and Research Station
at Lubbock, Texas, provided the outlook that all shredders
used in brush were adaptations of crop shredders V7ith no
additional engineering. Mr. Fisher believes that shredders
will become a more important tool for the initial treat-
ment of brush when a shredder unit is designed for the
purpose of shredding brush.
Related V>'ork
Laboratory Tests
Feller's (5) research consisted of a pendulum type
apparatus designed to cut standing stalks and to measure
the energy required for cutting. The apparatus permitted
observations of the effect on the stalks after one pass
-4-
 -5-
of the knife. Alfalfa and Sudan grass stalks, fixed in
a holder, were cut at relatively low velocities up to
1900 feet per minute. Angles between the knife edge and
the direction of motion were varied from 7 to 90 degrees.
A sharp knife and a dull knife were used in the tests.

The results of these tests showed that the sharp

knife cutting was best at about 60 while the dull knife
performance was best at 90°. The cutting quality of the
dull knife v/as very poor and the energy requirement v/as
high. Feller further reported that knife angles below
60° had little effect on cutting. Also the velocity of
the knife did not have any effect on the energy of cutting
for short alfalfa and Sudan, but had a great effect on tall
plants. High speed cameras showed that the stalks were
pushed about one inch before cutting took place.
Feller gives the energy requirements for cutting
alfalfa V7ith a conventional shredder as 0.125 to 0.223
ft.-lb. per stalk. This energy was determined on the basis
of the speed loss of the pendulum after the cut.
Bosworth and Yoerger (2) report in their research
that improved design for flail knives vjould decrease
power and maintenance requirements and result in a
machine that was safer to operate. The/designed and
built a laboratory test stand that consisted of a rotor
 -6-

assembly with tV7o flail knives, counter v/eights, and a

carriage table. One Icnife v/as strain gauged for torque
measurements and the other blade carried a linear variable
differential transformer for a knife deflection measure-
ment. Rotor speeds used were 820, 1145, 1359, and 1640
revolutions per minute.

Corrugated cardboard vzas cut in an attempt to give

a good simulation of a crop and maintain a constant
medium. The forward speed of the feed table was 4 miles
per hour. The samples required an average energy of
0.80 ft.-lbs. per stem with a density of 100 stems per
square foot.
Field Tests
Hephard and Hebblethwaite (7) field tested forage
harvesters in England. Of the harvesters tested, tv7o
were direct-throw flail type. They stated that ground
speeds from 2 to 5 miles per hour had no visible differ-
ences on the length of cut. The report states that the
flail machines had a higher power requirement than
conventional type machines, even though the flail type
results in a longer length of cut. The researchers
concluded that the higher power requirement of the flail
type machine V7as due to laceration during cutting. The
researchers also stated that the basic simplicity of the
 -7-

flail design is bound to have advantages as far as

mechanical reliability is concerned.
Bockhop and Barnes (1) ran a series of tests on a
Lundell forage harvester (flail type) to analyze the
power requirements, to acquire information on the peak
torques, and to establish the requirement for a power
unit for flail type forage harvesters.
Power requirements vrere determined by using strain
guages to measure torque on the rotor shaft. Their
research revealed an energy requirement of one horse-
power per 14.5 Ib./min. which is equal to 2.3 Hp.-Hr. per
ton. It was concluded that the flail type machine re-
quires more horsepower than a conventional harvester,
especially at full capacity.

Brush Related Research

As previously mentioned, the only series of tests
conducted for determining machine requirements for flail
shredding of brush were reported by Sm.ith (9), To deter-
mine the energy of cutting. Smith dropped a v/eighted
knife a known distance. He measured the depth of cut and
multiplied this depth times the stem diameter. This
product was called the effective area. The given energy
was then divided by the effective area and the results
were assumed to be the energy required to cut mesquite.
 -8-

Smith further states that the energy requirement for

cutting was found to be 1210 in.-lbs. per sq. in. of
effective area. The results would appear to be
questionable, however, because his effective area and
the actual area of cut are not proportional except for
a complete cut or when the log is cut exactly half-way
through. Smith further stated that he found that a
1307o to 250% increase in energy v/as required for a dull
knife.

In additional work conducted by Smith, it was

reported that 10 horsepower per foot of shredder width
appears to be a good rule of thumb for the power re-
quirements for shredding brush. Smith further judges
that the flail shredder should contain approximately
40,000 ft.-lbs. of kinetic energy when running at rated
speed. This estimate he bases upon field observation of
a heavy flail shredder operating over a range of rotat-
ional speeds in various size brush. The 40,000 ft.-
Ibs., he states, is not all available for shredding
large intermittent loads, but an acceptable rotational
speed drop of 35% would result in utilization of
approximately 23,000 ft.-lbs. of energy per foot of v/idth.
Smith also found through field observations that the
energy requirements for shredding mesquite could be
 -9-

expressed as approximately 3.4 Hp,-Hrs, per ton of

material shredded. This is equivalent to approximately
3400 ft,-lbs, of energy per pound of mesquite. Comparing
this value against the available 23,000 ft.-lbs, per foot
of v/idth and assuming a 10-foot wide shredder, one could
shred an almost instantaneous intermittant load of
approximately 70 pounds. Actually, the load could no
doubt be significantly higher than this because the load
is not shredded instantaneously which results in energy
contribution from the engine pov/er source itself.
In summary. Smith's findings were:
(1.) The power requirement for shredding mesquite

is 3.4 horsepov/er per ton per hour.

(2.) A guideline for designing a flail shredder
for brush appears to be 10 horsepower per
foot of width.
(3.) A kinetic energy level of approximately
40,000 foot-pounds per foot of width appears
most desirable.
A summary of Smith's v/ork by Carpenter (3) states
that exceptionally high blade tip speeds are not nec-
essarily desirable for brush shredding because of a finer
degree of shredding and a higher power requirement. Blade
tip velocities within the range of 10,000 to 14,000 feet
per minute were judged to be most desirable.
 CHAPTER III

PROCEDURAL PLAN

Since engineering data on power and energy require-

ments of a shredder for mesquite appears to be limited
to Smith's work, laboratory tests were undertaken to
determine the energy required to cut or break mesquite
over a range of blade cutting speeds with both sharp
and dull blades. This required the use of two distinctly
different laboratory machines. The first laboratory
tests v/ere conducted with a relatively slov/ moving blade
which was weighted and dropped from a height v/hich was
just sufficient enough to sever the log.
The other laboratory set-up involved a high speed
rotating blade v/hich v/as traveling at velocities in the
range of 7,000 to 16,000 feet per minute. These
velocities generally encompass the range of blade speeds
encountered in existing shredders and suggested by
Carpenter, Special instrumentation was constructed to
measure speed-torque relationships and integrate these
measurements into a total energy value required for a
particular cut.
Both machines were equipped v/ith first a sharp
blade and then a dull blade to obtain a comparative
energy requirement. Both blades were 0.5 inch thick
-10-
 -11-

steel. The sharp blade was ground to 45°angle on both

sides and the dull blade was rounded on a 0,25 inch
radius. The mesquite logs used in these tests were
obtained from a local ranch. Sam.ples were selected at
random from several locations on the ranch.

Static Test Procedure

Relatively static or slow speed tests were performed
by placing a mesquite log on a block and dropping a
blade of a given mass a kno\7n distance. By trial and
error, a correct distance was found that cut the mesquite
log. Calculations of the energy required to make the cut
was accomplished by assuming the kinetic energy of the
blade at impact was equal to the potential energy prior
to release.
Therefore, Energy = % IW^ = WD
Where, W = total weight of blade and
the attached mass
D = height of drop

Dynamic Test Procedure

The d3''namic cutting tests v/ere performed with a
single counterweighted rotating high speed blade. The
entire cutting apparatus consisted of a 36-inch square
box constructed of ^-inch steel plate. The blade was
mounted to a 2'2-inch diameter shaft which was driven by
a six-cylinder industrial engine. The complete setup
 -12-

is shown in Figure 1. A belt driven carriage table , as

sho\^ in Figure 1 and 2, was used to move the mesquite
log into the blade. The count erweighted blade is shov/n
in Figure 3. Special instrumentation was assembled to
measure the energy of cutting.
Instrumentation

A strain-gauged rotating shaft torque transducer,

as shown in Figure 4, was mounted in the driveline between
the cutter and the engine and a counter type digital speed
pickup with an analog converter was connected to the
ignition system of the engine to monitor torque-speed
relationships. Since it was assumed that engine speed
v/ould vary somewhat during the cutting process, a
special multiplier-integrator circuit was constructed
to integrate the product of torque and speed with
respect to time. The results produces the total energy
required for cutting a given mesquite log.
Theory of Operation
The torque transducer available for use on this
project v/as a four leg, self nulling bridge with
sensitivity of 0.181 mv/1000 in.-lb./volt across bridge.
From a study by Passmore (8) it was found for an input
voltage of 10 VDC, the resulting sensitivity is 1.81
mv/1000 in.-lbs. In order to increase the sensitivity of
the transducer to a usable level, an operational
amplifier was connected across the output legs of the
 -13.

Figure 1. Dynamic cutting test apparatus

Figure 2, Belt driven carriage table

 -14-

Figure 3. Counterweight and blade

Figure 4. Rotating shaft torque transducer

 -15-

bridge. The amplifier has an adjustable gain of

approximately 552 which gives an output sensitivity
of 1,0 volt/1000 in,-lbs, torque.

The offset null of the operational amplifier v/as

used to null the steadystate error introduced by
frictional losses within the shredder,
A peak reading volt meter was used to measure the
peak torque from the transducer. The peak reading volt
meter follov/s the bridge amplifier v/ith unity gain.
This provides an output of 1 volt/1000 in.-lbs, torque.
The output is displayed on a 100 UA meter calibrated in
1000 in.-lbs./units.
In order to measure the total energy required v/ith
a variable speed engine, the integral of the product of
the engine speed and the instantaneous torque with
respect to time must be computed. The speed of the
engine was determined by a digital to analog converter
being driven by the points of the engine. The sensitiv-
ity of this measurement was 1 volt/300 RPM.
The digital to analog conversion was performed by
one-shot triggered b}'' the signal from the points. The
one-shot v/as averaged by a high speed integrator. Follow-
ing the integrator, an inverting amplifier which determines
the sensitivity of the measurement was used.
An analog multiplier was used to perform the multipli-

cation. The gain of the multiplier was determined to be

 -16-

XY/10. This provides an output sensitivity of 0.1

volt/300 RPM/1000 in.-lbs. torque.
Following the multiplier, an integrator v/ith a
selectable time constant was used. The output of the
integrator was set 0.10 volts. The sensitivity depends
upon the value of the multiplier selected and is 1
volt/3 X 10"^ multiplier in.-lbs.
The reset function sets the total torque and peak
torque indicators to zero by discharging the storage
capacitors holding the required charge to produce the
output. This is equivalent to setting zero initial
conditions into the instrument.
The basic formula used in the calculation of power
and energy requirement in the dynamic situation is as
follows:
Energy = 2 ^ \^2 (n)(T) dt

^1

V/hen speed and torque do not vary with respect to

time, this equation reduces to:
Energy = 2rr nTt
Where; E = energy in ft.-lbs.
t = time in minutes
T = torque in lb,-ft.
n = revolutions per minute
The wiring diagram for the instrumentation set-up is
shown in Appendix I.
 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS

The data obtained in this study is presented in

Appendix II. This data shows the energy values required
for cutting mesquite logs over a range of diameters,
blade speeds and feed speeds for moving the log into
the cutter blade for the dynamic tests.
The maximum size log which could be cut in the static
type tests was found to be three inches in diameter.
This was for a sharp blade. For the dull blade tests,
the maximum log size was a two-inch diameter. Larger
logs could have been cut, but the amount of weight re-
quired becomes difficult to hoist by hand with the
arrangement used. The maximum energy for these tests
was 1190 ft,-lbs, which was developed by dropping a
total weight of 170 pounds from a drop height of seven
feet.
Trial tests utilizing a number of different weight
and drop heights were conducted to determine the amount
of energy which would consistently result in complete
cutting of the log.
During the course of the high speed tests, a
drive line failure was experienced while trying to

-17-
 -18-

cut a 4-inch diameter log. Although the drive line

was then repaired and strengthened, subsequent tests
were restricted to logs of 4-inch diameter and smaller.
The results of these tests consist of data for 2, 3,
and 4-inch diameter logs, cut at blade tip speeds
ranging from 7540 ft./min. to 15,910 ft./min. and
at feed speeds of 2, 4, and 6 MPH. Three data points
are shown for each combination of test conditions and
the average energy value was calculated for these
three points.
This average energy value was then used in
the subsequent data analysis. Some scatter was evident
in the data, but this could be attributed to different
strengths in the mesquite log samples.
The strength of the mesquite logs seemed to vary
with the time of year when they were cut, with the
moisture conditions when they were cut, and with the
length of time they were allowed to season before the
sample was used. These conditions, however, will be
present in the field situation, so no attempt was
made to hold them constant.
The results of the dynamic tests were analyzed
 -19-

to deteirmine significant relationships between the

energy levels required for cutting and the other
variables which include; feed speed, log diameter,
blade tip speed, and blade sharpness. The results
of the slov/ speed tests were then compared to the
high speed test results.

Feed Speeds
The ratio of the energy requirements for cutting
equal size logs at equal blade tip speeds but at
different speed rates were calculated and tabulated
to determine if feed speed is a significant factor
affecting the total energy requirements. These ratios,
which are summarized for all log diameters in Table 1
indicate a slight increase in energy requirement as the
diameter of the log increases, but the average value
of this increase for the 2 inch to 4 inch log is only
8.237o, For the 2 inch to 6 inch log the increase is
8,58%, and for the 4 inch to 6 inch log the increase
is only 0,3%, Thus, this indicates that the energy
level was slightly lower for the 2 MPH feed speed but
that there is essentially no difference between 4 and
6 MPH. The relationship involved is shown graphically
 -20-

Table 1. Ratio of energy requirements for cutting

selected size logs at selected blade tip
speed but at different feed speeds

Blade
Speed ^l-k Average
(Ft./min.) ^2^<" ^3^^

2 Inch Diamet er S h a r p Blade

7540 .741 ,654 ,883 .759
9210 ,844 ,844 1,000 .896
10855 ,732 ,667 ,912 .770
12560 ,700 ,913 1,304 .972
14230 ,736 ,855 1.162 ,917
15910 ,785 ,861 1.097 .914
Avg. .756 .799 1.050 .817

2 Inch Diameter Dull Blade

7540 m» mm •• .. ,. ^ •» a>

9210 1.162 1.078 .928 1.055

10855 1.086 1.003 .923 1.004
12560 1.074 .926 .862 .954
14230 1.056 .870 .824 .917
15910 .946 .822 .869 .879
Avg. 1.061 .940 .881 .962

*A. Ratio of energy at 2 MPH to energy at 4 HPK.

'VA/ Ratio of energy at 2 MPH to energy at 6 >'LPH.
^'A. Ratio of energy at 4 MPH to energy at 6 MPH.
 -21-

Table 1. (continued)

Blade
Speed A1* ^2* ^3''^ Average
(Ft./min.)

3 Inch Diameter Sharp Blade

7540 .887 .598 .675 .720
9210 1.033 .852 .824 .903
10855 1.211 1.090 .900 1.067
12560 1.046 .978 .934 .986
14230 1.002 .913 .911 .942
15910 .933 .969 1.038 .980
Avg. 1.109 .900 .880 "T933

3 Inch Diameter Dull Blade

7540 •D «• -• .. ..
9210 .984 1.005 1.021 1.003
10855 .927 1.000 1.079 1.002
12560 .930 .899 .966 .932
14230 .920 .891 .969 .927
15910 .933 .919 .985 .946
Avg. .939 .943 1.004 .962
 -22-

Table 1. (continued)

Blade
Speed ^IVc Average
^2''f ^3^>
(Ft./min.)

4 Inch Diameter Sharp Blade

7540 1.376 1,010 1.734 1.040

9210 ,905 1.094 1.208 1.009
10855 ,743 1.141 1.536 1.140
12560 ,782 1.109 1.418 1.103
14230 ,697 1.080 1.549 1.109
15910 .698 1.073 1.537 1.103
Avg. ,867 1.084 1.330 1.084

4 Inch Diameter Dull Blade

7540 .912 .824 .903 .880

9210 .919 .868 .944 .910
10855 .912 .849 .931 .897
12560 .949 .899 .947 .932
14230 .927 .868 .936 .910
15910 .930 .874 .939 .914
Avg. .925 .864 .933 .907

O v e r a l l Averages .924 .921 .997 .947

Overall %
Increase 8,23% 8,58% 0,3%
 - 23-

in Figure 5 where the energy at a given feed speed

for one diameter is plotted on the ordinate and the
corresponding energy value at a different feed
speed is plotted on the abscissa. This plot provides
a visual comparison of the scatter involved. If
feed speed has no effect on energy requirement, then
all values should fall on the 45° line shovm, or
due to random error the values should be evenly
distributed on either side of the line. This graph
helps to verify that the effect of feed speed upon
energy is relatively unimportant. Therefore, the
energy values obtained at the three different feed
speeds were averaged together for further analysis of
the effect of the other variables involved. These
average energy values are summarized in Table 2, for
each log diameter and blade tip speed included in the
study. Values of energy per inch of log diameter
and energy per square inch of cross-sectional area
were calculated and included in this table for further
analysis of log diameter and blade tip speed effects.
 -24-

V) 01 (0
60 bO <xO
0 O 0
r-t r-4 r-1

U ^ U
(D 0) 0
4J 4J +J
0 0) 0
oj B e E
td cd CO
fi n-« •H
TJ TJ ft CQ

^ ^,
-o o •H ^
-P 0
•* •• ^ o 0
CVJ CO <J- o
H-
^sl
0 PH
1 1 1 'd CQ
cd
y^ O <
r-{ 'd
rO 0
0
rH «H
Cd
o 0 •P
o a" C
o
ro, 0 0

-P 0
cd
CM
CO •H
o 'd
O OJT^
O P>
^ cd
o
OJ ?H rQ

!>i CQ
bD ' d
^ 0
0 0
P^ ft
H CQ
o
o
o i
LA
0
U
bD
•H
O
o o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
OJ H
 -25-

CM i n IT) O <}• O N r > . r ^ r H 00 < f o r>» CM 00 i n r^ <j-

C3N vD CM CM vl- f-< CO fv. <J- ,—I LT) CM r*^ vD CM vD C3N < t
f - t CM CO <t- m vD cMco <Hr> i n VD CO <J- i n i n i n vD

u
0
*j
0
e
<d
'TA td ^
•d 0 • ''-N
S-< w •
u -< ^ c
0 •H
^ ^ T H
ft >> 1 1
60 • •
CM CJN r^ CO vD < f
CM vD O r^ < t C3N CM o r ^ o i n c o or^ oooo in
CM <^ vo CO cjN o
>^ U P cr tn r H 1—1 CM CM CO CO CM vD 00 CM C^; vD
r H r H I-H t—I I-H CM
60 0 ^A to p »H »-H f-H CM CM CM
u C ^ to
0
Dynamic Te

c w
0

c
«d

cd
0 >^
(^ 60/^ 0
td J-) • xi <j- cjN i n t-H 0 0 C7N CM CMON < f CMn o c o r^ vD <?• CM
0 to td 0 0 CM r^ vD 0 0 CO vo inco r^inin o <i- I-H i n 00 00
u C ^ rH CO m vD 00 O CM 0 0 f-H CO CO JD 0 0 i n 00 rH CM CO i n
0 W rH CQ rH rH CM CM CM CM
ft J
1-4 • ft
>^ td P }-<
60 P En td
U O^-^ ^
0 H r>0
c
0

60
u o omo o o o o m o o o
oo in oo o
0 •l-J <t t-t i n vc ro rH
c •d e <t rH in VO CO I—I in CM CO i n CM ON < f r H i n VD CO I—I
0 0"^ i n CM CO i n CM C3N r^ c j v o CM < t i n i n CM CO i n CM cjN
0 • r^ C3N o CM < M n r>. ON o c^j < M n
ft p
cd
O
H

CM
td C CM CO
0
f-l

td
H
 -26-

00 O VO CO r H CJN 00 C3N 00 CJN O ON m m c M i n c o <f

tD^ 0 0 vO 1 ^ r ^ i n VD CM CO i n CM r>. CO r^ CO COCM vD
i n VD r ^ o o ON o i n vo vo r^ 00 CO vo vci r^ r^ 00 00

r H CO CO VO CO < t 1—I r ^ CM CM CO CO C M m CO O CM CM
00 CO CO m r H r > . < t v o CJN CM < t r > . o rH CO m vD r>.
CO <}• <t- m vO vD CM CM CM CO CO CO CM CM CM CM CM CM

m CM CM r^ o r^ o r ^ c o CO o CO r > . o v o m m <t
CJN VO CO < t < f r H o CO r^ r*. vD CO CO o CM <^ CJN m
I-H CO m r ^ CJN r H r^ COO CM <)- vD m r ^ ON r H C M < t
1-H f-H f-H r H f-H CM t-H rH CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CO CO CO

td P :3
p
o
H

o o m o o o o o m o o o
o omo oo < t r H m VO CO r H vJ- f-H m vO CO r H
0 <t rH m VD CO rH m CM CO m CM CJN m CM 00 m CM CN
^J m CM 03 m CM CJN r ^ CJN o CM < f m r ^ CJN o CM < f m
0 0^^ r>. CJN o c M <t m
•f-» 0 •
P ftp
G
O
O

CNI
td c CM CO

td
H
 -27-

m CM CO r-^ CO CM vD m CO CO m
r^ r^ < t vD o CO ON r-. v^m r^
CM CM CM CO oo CO tHCMCO

m f-H m r H f ^ < t CO m f-H CO C7.

ONco m m m m vo CJN CM CO CO
CM r H r H f-H r H r H to r H I-H CM
P
to
0
H
O O
•H
p P
td td
p P
CO en
0 0
60^-N
u • td td
0 to r-l m CM r- o o o o mmo o
pq r^ r H CO O r^ r H ON
r-4
CQ
r^ rnm m
r-< C M m hx
I ft <}• < t vo r^ CJN f-H
U
td P td
p
o CO
H

0 .r4 o o omm c^ m o oom

0 CO CM CM r^ vD vD vO
00 CO CM r>.
v f CO r H r H
•rJ 0 « <}• rH CM rH CM CM CM
P ftp
o
o

m m m
CM
td C o m o CMm r^ o omr^ o
• • • • • • • • • • •
0 I-H f-H r H CM
r-l r H r H CM CM CM CM CO

td
H
 -28-

LoR Diameter, Blade Tip Speed, and Blade Sharpness

The relationships between log diameter, blade tip
speed, and blade sharpness is sho^-m graphically in
Figure 6, As one might expect the energy required for
cutting increases with log diameter and increased blade
tip speed. The higher energy values for a dull blade
are also to be expected. The energy values obtained
in the static type tests were also plotted in Figure 6,
but these values appear to be rather inconsistent.
Although definite patterns are evident v/hen energy
versus blade speed for various diameters was plotted,
further analysis appears to be needed in an attempt to
develop a meaningful and useful general relationship
between the variables,
A reasonable expectation is that the required
energy would vary with the cross-sectional area of the
log. Thus, energy per square inch of cross-sectional
area v/as calculated and plotted as shown in Figure 7,
Hov/ever, the figure does not result in a satisfactory
collapse of the data. This graph indicates that the
increase in energy v/ith increased diameter is less than
the corresponding increase in area. This is apparent
because the energy per unit area is lowest for the
larger diameter.
 -29-
o
o
o
^ H

O
O
O
^

o
o
\
o^.
OJ
H
\

O
O
O
\ ,>
o
r-l

0
•H >^
O B hD
O \
-p u
0
o
CO CM fi
*^—' 0
P rH
w
^
Cd
-P
o P^ o
o m p
o
kD
peed vs
CQ
•P
u 0u u0
0
to
P 0
CQ -p -p +^ (0 T) 0
0 0 0 0 0 <xi TJ
EH H r-l cd O CQ
0 s s s
0 f d cd cd cd CQ r-< O
O f d cd T-i T-i -H O CQ ft
o
ti;

•H C6 r-i 'Tli Tli ^ •H ft ^

Hpq P ^1 rH
e
cd m ft o^ o^ ^ td td r-4
fi o p Xi 3
lade

i>i H PH a fi S CO (fi Q
n rH cd ' H -r-l
^ ^
TH
* n
PCOOJ K^cJ- PQ
o
1 o
1 xo<i o
OJ I
1
* * >
» «« 0

o % •H
X X X o pq

o a o o o
o o o o
o o o o
OJ H
( s q i - M ) iCSjceua IB^OJJ
 -30-

O
O
\ 4O
^
V
Cd
0
^1
\ cd
0 rH
0 Cd
. 0 fi
0
\ K
h^ •H
P
0
\ 0
CQ
0 1
0 CQ
0 CQ
\ -C\J 0
V u
0
\
<H
0
0 ^
\ 0 0
O-N fi
•H
\
• c'T+H
^
0
\
s fH
\ EH td
Pq :=i
\ V ' &
CQ

\
oO W« PH
0
cw
COPH ft
V CO
?>:.
H bD
FH
<aj 0
0-^ fl
opq 0
tO
VD CQ
>
'd
0 0
J-i ^^ M 0
•d 0 0 0 0
PH
td TJ P p P CQ
f-4 0 0 0 0 CQ
td -P 0
CQ r-4 g B
CQ td e
td td 0
CQ 0 ft
^ •H
ft •H •rl •H •P
U r-l TJ •d -d -P
td r-4 O
jd S s •a> 0
^3 •H
to Q CM CO <^ 'd
-P Cd
1
1 Cd H
-p 0 pq
1 X O ^ 02 0
1 0
OJ 1
[N
0
lil Q
19 U
g)
•H
0 pq

o O O o O O
o
»D
O
Lf\
O
^
oKA O
OJ
O
V-
o

vanv iVNOiioag ssoao -MI -bs Had XDEWK

 -31-

An additional consideration is the possibility

that energy varies directly with diameter. Thus, the
energy/diameter ratio was calculated and plotted as
shown in Figure 8, The resulting relationship
between energy/diameter versus blade tip speeds appear
to be much better than the previous relationships,
because the values tend to fall closer to one average
line, but this graph indicates that perhaps blade tip
speed also influences the magnitude of energy increase
with increase in log diameter.

One approach to analyzing the data is to examine

energy ratios at given diameter ratios for given values
of blade tip speed. In keeping with this approach,
energy ratios were calculated for the possible diameter
ratios of 2.00, 1.50, and 1.33. These values are shown
in Table 3. for each blade tip speed and for both the
sharp and dull cutting blade. It should be pointed out
that diameter ratio of 1.0 also results in an energy
ratio of 1,0. If energy ratios are subsequently
plotted versus diameter ratios, then this forces the
plot through coordinates of (1,1). The energy ratios
at a given diameter ratio are not constant, thus this
indicates that energy and diameter are not independent
of blade tip speed.
A plot of energy ratio versus diameter ratio is
 -32-

0
0 -d
'd cd
cd
H
,0
PH
H U 0
H cd

,00
1^ f^
P CO 0

dia met
vD
rH

000
\

inch
000
^
OJ
fl
H 0
ft
0 fi
0 -H

nergy
0 e
0 p
rH Pq
0
P CQ
0 H >
0 H
0 PH
CO CO
0

spe
P^
0 P
(3) 0 <
•d 0 u J^ $-1 0 Hi
td •d 0 0 0 ft
iJ
CQ <^ pq •H
t-i td P p -P
CQ r-l 0 0 0 p
CQ
CQ g
e tde 0
Blade
. 4000

ft td td -P
5-i r-i •rl •rl •rl
td r-l Ti TJ 33
^ w
«* «^ O
Xi :i •H
CO CM CO <}•
-P
1
1 Cd
>« 0 4 -P
0 1
1 CO 0 CXD
0 0
CVJ
^ ^ " ^ P3
bD
® e •H
PR
JL.^.m.
0 0 0 0 0 0 o
0 0 0 0 0 0
OJ 0 00 <X) ^ OJ o
rH H

Haiawvia ^0 HOMI Had lonaMa ao sao: sa

 -33-

Table 3. Energy Ratio for diameter ratio at a given

blade tip speed.

Diameter Ratio
Speed 2.00 1,50 1.33 1.00
(Ft./min.)

harp Blade
7540 3,91 2,24 1.74 1.00
9210 3,48 2,18 1.59 1.00
10855 3,14 1.98 1.58 1.00
12560 2,62 1.60 1.64 1.00
14230 2,19 1.52 1.43 1.00
15910 2,08 1.50 1.39 1.00

Dull Blade

7540 2,12 1.42 1.49 1.00

9210 1,98 1.39 1.43 1.00
10855 1.91 1.36 1.41 1.00
12560 1,80 1.30 1.38 1.00
14230 1,70 1.27 1.34 1.00
15910 1,63 1.24 1.31 1.00
 -34-

shown in Figure 9 and 10 for the sharp and dull

blade, respectively. This results in an equation of
the form,

Ej/E2 = (dj/d2)^
where, K is the slope of the line or effectively
the exponent to which the diameter must be raised to
result in a collapse of the data. The slope or K-
values shown directly in Figures 9 and 10 range from
0.70 to 1.97. Each value is for a given blade tip speed
with the larger values corresponding to the slower
speeds.
Plots of K-values versus blade tip speed are shown
in Figures 11 and 12. An excellent linear relationship
is shown and the equations for K were found to be as
follows:
Sharp Blade: kg = 2.840 - 0.000113 S
Dull Blade: kj^ = 1.420 - 0.000045 S
where, S is blade tip speed in feet per minute and
k and kp. are exponents to be used for collapsing the
data. In other words, the following plots should
result in a single relationship for the sharp blade
and another for the dull blade.
Sharp Blade: E/d^s Vs. Speed
Dull Blade: E/d^D Vs. Speed
 -35-

K values
4 ^

K
3 . E-^/E^ = (d-^/d^)
where K is slope
c\j
of the line

a 2 -
H u
EH I
< I i

C5
P4

Pxl

DIAMETER RATIO d^/d^

Figure 9- Diameter ratios vs energy ratios

for the sharp blade dynamic tests
 -36-

CVJ K values
r-i
1.08
CO
O
0.99
H 0.95
0.85
0.77
cr> 0.70
p:;

H E^/E^ = ( d j / d ^ ) K
where K is slope
of the line

DIAMETER RATIO d^/d^

Figure 10- Diameter ratios vs energy ratios

for the dull blade dynamic tests
 -37-

ft
Cd
u
o ^
o CQ
o
KD

or the dynamic
14000
2000
rH

min
0
O \ ft
O •
T? O -p r^
o
0 pq CQ
0 or-^ N—^

ft CQ
to P >
O
o
^ ft O w
CO w
PM
^
0
•
•r^
p o
CO CO 0
OJ ft
0 CQ CQ
Xi P*
+ cd
CO rH o ft
•H 0
CQ

K> Jd o
r-i o
KD
P> P>
r-\ to 0 0
•H
a TZi ^
Cd cd
o to
o• o rH rH
pq ,o
I 0 o
o
li u0 1
1
CQ Xi rH
1^ 15 H
O
Figure
200

00 *D C\J o
o• •
^
* t o
OJ H iH r-^
o
(:^) OiMawodxa «io aaoas
 -38-

H
rH
o 0
o ^d
o
KD
H

mic
O cd
O fl
73 O t>5
0 ^ T:^
0 H
ft 0
oj to
O -P
ft O
•H O U
P CVJ
rH o
«H
0
CO TI ^ 0
td O H ft
O S O
O >^ rH
O o EH CQ
O to o
rH pq
O •H '""^ CQ
>
I C/5 O P
o pq 'd
H 0
It
0
o
00 P4 0
'd u CO ft
0 CQ CQ
X ft P>
CQ
o •H 0
o P P
o
VD
0 0
-d^
Cd cd
O rH H
O pq rO
O
^
1
OJ
rH
o 0
o U
o
Figu

OJ

o
(X) VD CVJ
C\J
•
o• • •
^
• •
H
r-{
o

W Mawodxa J^O aaoas

 -39-

Values of K and E/d^ were calculated for data

points and tabulated in Table 4. An inspection of
this data shows that the E/d^ values are very nearly
constant for all diameters at a given speed. The
equations for k^ and k^ were also used to calculate
values of E/d for the slow speed tests. The re-
sulting values for the slow speed tests are shov/n in
Table 5.

The graphs of the average E/d versus blade speeds

are shown in Figure 13. Two separate relationships
are shown; one for the sharp blade and one for the
dull blade. The slow speed test results are also
plotted to form a continuous relationship with the
dynamic or high speed tests. The dull blade tests
are somewhat erratic at the lov/ speeds.
The analysis appears to result in an excellent
reduction of the data obtained and all data points
with the exception of the energy for slow speed cutting
of a 1,5 inch diameter log are represented very well
by the graphs in Figure 13,
The results obtained indicate the importance of
utilizing a sharp blade if possible, even though this
may not be practical in field application. The
results also indicate a significant increase in
energy as blade speeds are increased. In fact, this
 -40-

(0
•H
(0 vD vO vO 0 0 r ^ CM r H CM m <}• Cy» CO
60 ^ c> m CM o <i- o
>s >W -d
m vo CO <f o r^
r-^
•-< CM CO < t VO m vo r^ o rH CM
<d
td
td
TJ

td -d
m <1- r>. m C7N CM c o m vo 00 CM 00 0
C3N m CM t-H CO r H
c W I TJ «-H CMCO <t- vO
vo r>* o vo CO o
m VD 00 CTk r H CO
0
o X r H t-H
ft
to
o
p
o
c ft
•rl
I C» VD CM VO CO CM t ^ o CO m r H <i- p
•d r>. C7N CO r H <J- CM <^ O vD CM CJN VO
0 ^ • • • « « • • • • • • • 0
u TJ

s blad
m f - ( C3M^. m < t - d - < t CO CO CM CM
td
p
td
TJ
to r^ f-H cjN C3N <j" CO to 0 0 O \ vD m vO C7N
u 4:i w I ' d P CJv vO CM CO CO CfN p r H CM < t CA m T-\
p
to
0 u to rH CM CM < t m to m vo r^ 00 f-H
rH r-i
CM U
P 0 0 0
<w
td
a H H >
I O m VD vO CMCO u c o o 00 <1-C0 vD
O '^
-d CO M c^ i-< CO r^ CO rH •H C M O r^ m c o r H
0 •rl
g MH
c td CO r ^ m < t CO CO td CO CO CM CM CM CsJ O
•rl f! C
td >^ N P
P Q Q O
X r*«. CM T H r H 1 ^ CM VD r H CM r H f-H r^ r-{
•d 0 (TV m CM CM VO o 0 VD CO o r ^ < t o ft
o O TJ f-< CMCO •^t vD •d m vD 00 Crv r H CO
td td td r-\ T—i
p •rl rH rH •H c
td I cq cq
•d CM r>> VD m CO CO vo f H O r H O O CM Xl
ft O < t O vD CO O rH r H O CJV CO t ^ VD 0
p U rH
to td CO CO CO CM CM CM :3 CM CM r H r-« r H f-H •Hc
0 X
n obta
Q
p
o
g 'd
td
a
0
0
e o omo OO oo m oo o
<}• r H m VO CO r H •rl
o
ft < f I-H m VD Ol rH
>^ m CM o o m CM c^ mcM oom CM CJN p
-d CO p r^ cjv o c M < ^ m r>. cjv o CM <j- m td
om equ

t-H r H r H r H
pq
<4H

U 0 ON Cr\ rH CM CM <f oooco m r ^ o u

rH P ^{ CJV f ^ vO < t CM O o o ON oor^r-«. ^
td td
culated

r H t-\
O »-H

<!- o
y-^ P
0 o r-. C3N vD (3v <t m 00 cjN CO m r ^ o rH
f-H g rH v> CTv r^ vO CO r H o O C3N C3N CO t ^ r>» td
X O Oi o
1-\
td $-1
pq ^
H
 -41-

Table 5, Summary of static test data obtained after

data reduction and analysis.

Dia, Speed Energy Vi* d^

d^^

Sharp Blade
1,0 480 75 2,786 1,00 75,0
1,5 1120 412 2,713 3.00 137.3''«v

2,0 1220 487 2.702 6.51 74.8

2,25 1175 600 2.707 8.98 66.8
2,5 1265 770 2.697 11.84 65.0
2.75 1269 910 2,697 15.31 59.4
3,0 1265 1190 2.697 19,36 61,5

Dull Blade

1.0 480 75 1,398 1,00 75.0

1.5 830 215 1.383 1.75 122.9

1.75 1120 550 1.370 2.15 255.0

2.0 1175 750 1.367 2.58 290.7

^'«"Calculated on basis of equation obtained in dynamic

tests.
*'^ This value is unusually high and, therefore, was
not included in the subsequent analysis.
 -42-

o
o Ti
0 3 o
VD fi
' r-\ cd nd
0
-fi
PH-H
a 0 cd
o p> p
o
4- 0 rO
f-\ B O
cd CQ
• H CQ p>
Ti (D r-i
o Tzf :ii
o -cd CQ
oVJ
C {>:,rH 0
H bDX fH
^-^
fH
^ 0 rH -P
O H f l rH CQ
O 0 f5 0
O s
\ ' d -P
O EH fi
H pq <D Ti fH
v_^ 0 fl O
15 Cd
O p p CQ
O p^ 0 ft-H
O ^ ^ PH CQ
00 PH cd >,
CO ftrCj rH
•H CQ cd
-^ fl
O CQ PH cd
O fi o
O^ X
o
VD •H bD

cd 0 o
O rH 0 PH
\ O 0 ftrd
O O ft; CQ p
r-i ^
\
CO
1
\
r-\
o
\ o 0
oVJ
Figur

<f--*r~
* ^

o o a o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
^f^ OJ H O CJN CX) !>- VD LTv 4- K^ OJ H
H r-\ rH rH

(p) / a
 -43-

indicates that a roller chopper type device would be

most effective from the standpoint of energy require-
ments ,

From a practical viewpoint for shredding, however,

the shredder blade must be traveling at some reasonable
speed in order to maintain rotary motion and to provide
kinetic energy for smooth continuous power flow.

Application of Results

Although field application of the results of

the cutting tests was not outlined as an objective of
this study, some consideration of the usefulness of the
information obtained appears to be in order. Some of
the trends or implications of the results were pointed
out in the previous section, but meaningful application
methods must include an additional detailed study of the
size distribution of shredded brush for various field
situations.
The results of this study can be compared with the
recommendations as presented by Smith. He shows that
the results of his static cutting tests produce a range
of energy for cutting mesquite of 101 to 161 ft. lbs.
per square inch of cross-sectional area. Thus, the
maximum energy required for cutting a 3-inch diamioter
log should be 1139 ft.-lbs. In addition to this. Smith
assumes that 258 ft.-lbs, of energy would be dissipated
 -44-

due to collision of the flail with the wood and an

additional 96 ft.-lbs. of energy would be required
to accelerate the wood mass. This then yields a total
of approximately 1500 ft.-lbs. of energy to cut the
3-inch diameter log.

The energy requirement for cutting a 3-inch

diameter log based upon the results of this study
can be determined as follows:
Assuming a blade tip speed of 10,000 ft./min.
and a dull flail blade;
From Figure 13: E ^^c
— ^ = 725
d^
For a dull blade,
K = 1.42 - .000045(s) = 1.42 - .000045(10000)
Therefore,
K = 0.97
Thus, the energy requirement can be expressed as,
E = 725d^ = 725d^'^^
Therefore, for a 3 inch diameter log,
E = (725) (3)'^^ = 2105 ft.-lbs. of energy
This value is approximately 40% higher than the
maximum value obtained by using recommendation from
earlier work. The values obtained in this study would
appear to be more reliable since it is based upon actual
dynamic cutting tests.
 -45-

Another example of how one might use the infor-

mation obtained in this study is as follows:
For a typical field situation:
Assume:

10,000 ft./min. blade tip speed

16 blades per foot
10 foot cutting width

8 blades per foot under maximum load

Then:

(8)(10) = 80 blades under full load

For a dull knife and a 4 inch diameter log the
energy required for one cut is:
E = 725d-^^ = (725)(4)-^^ = 2781 ft.-lbs.
Therefore:
(80)(2781) = 222,549 ft,-lbs, of energy
If a 357o speed reduction can be tolerated then
this corresponds to using 587o of the total energy
available.
Thus, the total energy stored in the machine must
be:

^^^^33^ = 383,705 ft,-lbs.

This indicates approximately 38,000 ft,-lbs, of

energy per foot of width would be needed for the machine
to handle 4 inch diameter logs. As larger logs are
 -46-

encountered, this energy requirement would go up.

Smith concluded from field observations that
approximately 40,000 ft,-lbs. of energy per foot of
shredder width is an appropriate design value.
The method of analysis presented is valid for the
range of variables used in this study, but caution
should be exercised in trying to extrapolate energy
values for higher blade speeds and larger log diameters<
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

Shredding appears to be a very realistic and

practical method of mesquite control, but basic design
information pertaining to the energy requirements
needed for shredding was lacking. This study determined
the energy requirements for dynamic cutting and static
cutting of mesquite for both sharp and dull blades.
After a review of pertinent literature, it was
decided that a weighted blade would be dropped on
restrained mesquite logs for the static tests to
determine by trial and error an appropriate energy
for a consistent cut, A rotor with one blade and
counter weight was used in the high speed tests. The
blade speed was varied between 7000 and 16,000 feet
per minute. The energy required was measured by means
of a torque transducer mounted in the driveline and a
multiplier-integrator circuit, which integrated the
product of speed and torque with time.

The maximum size log cut with the static tests was

-47-
 -48-

3 inches in diameter with a sharp blade and 2 inches in

diameter with a dull blade. In the dynamic tests, a 4
inch diameter log was the largest to be cut.
The results of the dynamic tests were analyzed
to determine the relationship between feed speed, log
diameter, blade tip speed, and blade sharpness. The
results of the slow speed tests were then compared to
the high speed test results.
Very little effect of feed speed upon the required
energy was found when the feed speed was kept in the 2
to 6 mile per hour range. A graphical relationship
between the log diameter, blade tip speed, and blade
sharpness was established. This relationship yields
values of energy required for cutting mesquite logs up
to 4 inches in diameter, through a range of blade speeds
up to 16,000 ft./min. Extrapoluted values for larger
log diameters or higher blade speeds would be question-
able.
A large increase in the required energy between
sharp blade and dull blades was found. However, it
is very reasonable to expect the dull blade to require
more energy. In fact, when designing a shredder, one
probably should use the dull blade values because most
shredders operate with dull blades due to the adverse
conditions of use and the operator's lack of service to
the machine.
1 1

•49-

The investigation yielded results which agree

reasonably well with values previously observed in
the field by Smith and Carpenter.
 -50-

Conclusions

Specific conclusions drawn from this study are as

follows:
(1) Although the relative energy requirements
of a dull versus sharp blade varies consid-
erable with speed and brush size, energy
requirements are significantly higher for
the dull blade. For a given blade speed,
the percent increase in energy required
for a dull blade is greatest for small
diameter logs.
(2) There is a significant increase in energy
requirements cutting as the speed of the
blade or flail increases.
(3) The effect of log size upon energy require-
ment becomes less significant at higher
blade speeds.
(4) In the design of a brush shredder, the lowest
practical blade speed should be utilized
because of the lower energy requirement at
slow blade speeds.
 -51-

Rec_o.mmendations for Further Study

The following is presented as suggestion for

additional study:

(1) A detailed study of the size distribution

of shredded brush for various field
situations,
(2) A study of the energy required to cut
mesquite logs of 5 inch to 8 inch diam-
eter,
(3) Further study in defining the duration of
load on a shredder when shredding brush,
(4) A field study with shredders using
different knife shapes and rotor speeds,
(5) A field study with roller choppers.
 REFERENCES

1, Bockliop, C, W, and Barnes, K, K,; "Power Distri-

bution and Requirements of a Flail-Type
Forage Harvester," Agricultural Znpaneerin.q;.
Vol, 36, July 19^5, Pg, 455-457,
2, Bosworth, D, L, and Yoerger, R, R,, "Dynamic
Considerations for Flail Knives," American
Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper
Number 65-613, A.S.A.E., St. Joseph, Michigan,
1965.

3, Carpenter, Dr. T, G,, Personal Interview, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, Texas, Sept. 1971, Dec. 1972.
4, Eshbach, 0, V/., Handbook of Sn.Q;ineering. Fundamentals,
New York: John \/iley and Sons, Inc., 1965.
5, Feller, R,, "Effects of Knife Angles and Velocities
on Cutting of Stalks without a Conter-edge,"
The Journal of Agricultural Engineering; Research.
British Society for Research in Agricultural
Engineering, Volume 4, Number 4, 1959,
6, Fisher, Charlie, Personal Interview, Texas Agricultural
Experiment and Research Station, Lubbock, Texas,
June, 1972,
7, Hepherd, R, Q, and Hebblethwaite, P,, "A Comparison
of Fielci Performance of Forage Harvester
Mechanisms," The Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research, British Society for Research
in Agricultural iingineering. Volume 4, Number 1,
1959,
8, Passmore, P, M., Personal Interview, Lubbock, Texas,
January, 1972,
9 Smith, Clayton, C,, "Analysis and Design of Mechanical
Shredders for the Control of Noxious Brush." M.S.
Thesis, Texas Tech University, May, 1971

-52-
 APPENDIX I

Electrical Diagram of Instrumentation

tilIII

-53-
 -54-

Wiring Symbols

Rl Gail offset for transducer

^2 Offset adjust
^^ 3000 RPM peak set
^^ 0 RPM null set
R5 X-offset null
R6 Y-offset null
R7 X-Y = 0 null
Kl Power on-off
K2 Null set
K3 Reset
K4 Gail select
AlA Transducer amplifier
AlB Peak voltmeter amplifier
A2A RPM signal conditioner
A2B RPM signal conditioner
A3A Multiplier gain set
A3B Integrator
Ml Null meter
M2 Peak torque indicator
M3 Total energy indicator
 -55-
OH
OJ
ft

HI—-»

M
P

k..xj
!bfl«RN«nMP«
LJjTti<»wmTfnMiPl
•At,^W-\,,A

11 I I III I III • III i M i i I II I I I m w i i II

 -56-

vw<g)-* S
K^

Ti
0

P
fi
o
o

CD
<
i-H
P
a
M
III
 APPENDIX II

Results of Tests

-57-
 -58-

DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS

Sharp Blade

Log Blade Feed Measured Energy Required

Dia, Speed Speed (Ft.-lb.)
(in,) (Ft./min,) (MPH) Replication
Average

7540 2 262 209 419 297

4 314 471 419 401
6 366 471 524 454
9210 2 366 471 576 471
4 576 471 628 558
6 628 471 576 558
10855 2 628 419 524 524
4 628 733 785 716
6 681 785 890 785
12560 2 681 942 576 733
4 890 1152 1099 1047
6 734 786 890 803
14230 2 890 1047 838 925
4 1309 1257 1204 1257
6 1204 1100 943 1082

15910 2 942 1099 1204 1082

4 1361 1518 1257 1379
6 1204 1310 1255 1256
 -59-

DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS

Sharp Blade

Log Blade Feed Measured Energy Required

Dia. Speed Speed (Ft.-lb.)
(in.) (Ft./min.) (I4PH) Replication
1 Average

7540 2 944 628 472 681

4 785 942 576 768
6 995 785 1099 1138
9210 2 944 944 1411 1100
4 1099 890 1204 1064
6 1361 1308 1291
1204
10855 2 1570 1411 1411 1569
4 995 1257 1308 1209
6 1309 1361 1343
1361
12560 2 1570 1411 1727 1569
4 995 1257 1308 1209
6 1361 1309 1361 1343
14230 2 1580 1727 1520 1609
4 1623 1466 1728 1605
6 1675 1885 1728 1762

15910 2 1832 1623 1937 1797

4 1937 1832 1990 1920
6 1728 1832 1990 1849
 -60-

DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS

Sharp Blade

Log Blade Feed Measured Energy Required

Dia. Speed Speed (Ft.-lb.)
(in.) (Ft./min.) (MPH) Replication
1 Average

7540 2 1623 1832 1518 1657

4 1675 1361 576 1204
6 1832 1623 1466 1640
9210 2 1885 1780 1728 1832
4 1832 1728 2513 2024
6 1675 1675 1518 1675

10855 2 1990 1937 1990 1971

4 2670 2513 2775 2652
6 1728 1832 1623 1727

12560 2 2147 2042 2199 2128

4 2880 2722 2565 2722
6 1832 1937 1990 1919

14230 2 2042 1990 2356 2128

4 2932 3036 3194 3053
6 1990 2042 1885 1971

15910 2 2147 2153 2251 2303

4 3455 3194 3246 3298
6 2251 2147 2042 2146
 -61-

DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS

Dull Blade

Log Blade Feed Measured Energy Required

Dia, Speed Speed (Ft.-lb.)
(in,) (Ft,/min.) (MPH) Replication
Average

7540 2
4 995 1099 1361 1150
6 1152 1308 1256 1240
9210 2 1414 1623 1361 1465
4 1257 1152 1361 1260
6 1204 1518 1361 1360
10855 2 1675 1518 1623 1575
4 1414 1414 1518 1450
6 1571 1518 1623 1570
12560 2 1780 1623 1832 1740
4 1728 1518 1623 1620
6 1728 1990 1832 1880
14230 2 1885 1832 1937 1880
4 1675 1780 1885 1780
6 2251 2042 2147 2160
15910 2 1990 2199 1990 1940
4 1990 2042 2147 2050
6 2356 2408 2251 2360
 -62-

DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS

Dull Blade

Log Blade Feed Measured Energy Required

Dia, Speed Speed (Ft.-lb.)
(in.) (Ft./min.) (MPH) Replication
Average

7540 z Ml wm

4 1832 1728 1623 1670

6 1728 1623 1832 1730
9210 2 1780 1937 1832 1880
4 1788 1937 2041 1910
6 1885 1885 1832 1870
10855 2 1937 2147 2042 2020
4 2094 2304 2147 2180
6 1990 1937 2147 2020
12560 2 2199 2356 1937 2140
4 2251 2303 2408 2300
6 2304 2408 2460 2380

14230 2 2356 2251 2408 2300

4 2565 2618 2461 2500
6 2565 2513 2670 2580

15910 2 2513 2565 2461 2500

4 2670 2513 2775 2680
6 2775 2565 2827 2720
 -63-

DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS

Dull Blade

Log Blade Feed Measijred Energy Required

Dia. Speed Speed (Ft.-lb.)
(in.) (Ft./min.) (MPH) Replication
1 2 3 Average

4 7540 2 2356 2461 2147 2300

4 2461 2670 2513 2520
6 2775 2670 2932 2790
9210 2 2565 2513 2461 2500
4 2617 2879 2670 2720
6 2722 2872 3089 2880
10855 2 2723 2775 2565 2680
4 2932 3037 2827 2940
6 3194 3298 2984 3158

12560 2 3037 2880 2775 2980

4 3089 3141 3246 3140
6 3089 3298 3560 3315

14230 2 3089 3141 2984 3060

4 3455 3351 3194 3300
6 3560 3508 3403 3525

15910 2 3403 3246 3037 3220

4 3508 3613 3298 3460
6 3612 3822 3612 3682
 -64-

SLOW SPEED TEST RESULTS

Sharp> Blade

Log Drop Total Total Comment

Dia. Height Weight Energy
(in.) (ft.) (lb.) (ft.-lb. )

1.00 0.50 75 37.5 Not a complete cut

1.00 0.75 75 56.2 Not a complete cut
1.00 1.00 75 75.0 Complete cut
1.50 3.00 75 225.0 Not a complete cut
1.50 4.00 75 300.0 Not a complete cut
1.50 5.00 75 375.0 Not a complete cut
1.50 5.50 75 412.0 Complete cut
2.00 6.00 75 450.0 Not a complete cut
2.00 7.00 75 525.0 Complete cut
2.00 6.50 75 487.0 Complete cut

2.25 5.00 100 500.0 Not a complete cut

2.25 5.50 100 550.0 Not a complete cut
2.25 6.00 100 600.0 Complete cut

2.50 6.00 no 660.0 Not a complete cut

2.50 6.50 110 715.0 Not a complete cut
2.50 7.00 110 770.0 Complete cut

2.75 6.00 130 780.0 Not a complete cut

2.75 6.50 130 845.0 Not a complete cut
2.75 7.00 130 910.0 Complete cut

3.00 7.00 150 1050.0 Not a complete cut

3.00 7.00 160 1120.0 Not a complete cut
3.00 7.00 170 1190.0 Complete cut
 -65-

SLOW SPEED TEST RESULTS

Dull Blade

Log Drop Total Total Comment

Dia. Height Weight Energy
(in.) (ft.) (lb.) (ft.-lb. )

1.00 0.50 75 37.5 Not a complete cut

1.00 1.00 75 75.0 Complete cut
1.50 2.00 75 140.0 Not a complete cut
1.50 2.50 75 187.5 Not a complete cut
1.50 3.00 75 215,0 Complete cut
1.75 4.00 100 400,0 Not a complete cut
1.75 5.00 100 500,0 Not a complete cut
1.75 5.50 100 550,0 Complete cut
2.00 5.00 75 375,0 Not a complete cut
2.00 6.00 75 450,0 Not a complete cut
2.00 5.00 100 500,0 Not a complete cut
2.00 6.00 100 600,0 Not a complete cut
2.00 6.00 125 750,0 Complete cut