MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157066544

MODELLING OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BY A NARROW TILLAGE TOOL

2006· article· en· W2157066544 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashrafi Zadeh, Seyed Reza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinTillageEnergy requirementWater contentEnvironmental scienceEnergy (signal processing)Available energySoil scienceAgricultural engineeringMathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringStatisticsRegressionAlgorithmAgronomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amount of energy consumed during a tillage operation depends on three categories of parameters: (1) soil parameters (2) tool parameters and (3) operating parameters. Although many research works have been reported on the effects of those parameters on tillage energy, the exact number of affecting parameters and the contribution of each parameter in total energy requirement have not been specified. A study with the objectives of specifying energy consuming components and determining the amount of each component for a vertical narrow tool, particularly at high speeds of operation, was conducted in the soil bin facilities of the Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering, University of Saskatchewan. Based on studies by Blumel (1986) and Kushwaha and Linke (1996), four main energy consuming components were assumed: (1) energy requirements associated with soil-tool interactions;(2) energy requirements associated with interactions between tilled and fixed soil masses;(3) energy requirements associated with soil deformation; and (4) energy requirements associated with the acceleration of the tilled soil. Energy requirement of a vertical narrow tool was calculated based on the draft requirement of the tool measured in the soil bin. The effects of three variables, moisture content, operating depth and forward speed, were studied at different levels: (1) moisture content at 14% and 20%; (2) depth at 40, 80, 120 and 160 mm; and (3) speed at 1, 8, 16 and 24 km h-1. Total energy requirement was divided into these four components based upon the procedure developed in the research. Regression equations for different energy components were developed based on experimental data of two replicates and then validated by extra soil bin experiments conducted at same soil and tool but different operational conditions. The set up of energy components data in the model development showed good correlation with the available experimental data for all four components. Coefficients of all regression equations showed a first order energy-moisture content relationship best applicable to those equations of energy components. For the acceleration component, energy-depth relationship at all speed levels resulted in an equation which included first and second orders of depth. In contrast, if only two higher levels of speed were used in the regression model, the relationship between acceleration energy and depth resulted in the second order of depth. When experimental data of acceleration energy at 8, 16, and 24 km h-1 speeds were used in the regression equation, the acceleration energy-speed relationship resulted in both linear and quadratic relationships. It was concluded that for the tool and soil conditions used in the experiments, 8 km h-1 speed resulted in only linear relationship. On the other hand, 16 and 24 km h-1 speeds resulted in a quadratic relationship. Therefore, for all 3 speeds used in experiments, both linear and quadratic relationships were obtained. Considering that the tool was operating at high speeds, this…

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207