Chisel-cultivator test results with elastic stands

Fig. 1. Chisel - cultivator with elastic tines
METHODS
Tests of the experimental chisel-cultivator were carried out in comparison with ChKU-4A during the period of pre-sowing tillage in the optimal agrotechnical terms in the fields of the experimental farm according to the background after leaching irrigation.
The soil of the experimental plot is moderately saline, gypsum, medium loamy in terms of mechanical composition.
The work of the compared implements was evaluated according to such criteria as traction resistance, quality of soil crumbling, uniformity of the depth of processing, ridgedness of the soil surface and the bottom of the furrow, clogging of the working bodies with plant debris and weeds.
The agrotechnical parameters of the implements were determined according to OST 70.4.2.-80.
“Machines and tools for surface tillage. Program and test methods”, and their traction resistance was determined by strain measurement using a mobile strain gauge station UTL (DL-10) based on a GAZ-66 car.


RESULTS
The test results (table 1) showed that within the speed limits of 2.05-2.37 m/s, the traction resistance of the experimental chisel-cultivator is 25.83-27.13 kN, and the serial one is 31.93-37.6.
Table 1
Agrotechnical and energy performance indicators of the chisel-cultivator

T/R	Indicators	serial	experimental
1.	Movement speed, m/s	2.37	2.37
2.	Traction resistance, kN arithmetic mean М avg specific, kN/m standard deviation	37.6 9.4 2.04	27.13 6.78 2.26
3.	Soil crumbling quality,% lumps 100 mm 100-50 50-25 25-10 10-1 1-0.25 0.25	7.17 10.31 13.17 13.17 33.07 9.96 6.47	3.77 5.25 1 4.10 14.10 39.24 11.35 7.00
4.	Uniformity of processing depth, cm Arithmetic mean М avg standard deviation	18.29 1.63	17.84 1.58
5,	Ridgeness of the soil surface, mm arithmetic mean M cf standard deviation	33.5 13.48	31.75 10.41
6.	Combing of the bottom of processing, mm Arithmetic mean М avg standard deviation	17.3 59.8	18.34 40.1
7.	Mass of plant residues and weeds enveloping the working bodies, on the length of the rut 100 m, kg arithmetic mean М avg standard deviation	2.72 0.16	0.29 0.12

The decrease in traction resistance in the experimental chisel-cultivator by 19.1-27.9% is facilitated by the fluctuations of its working bodies, their lower clogging with plant residues and soil sticking.

Table 2 Technical characteristics of the chisel-cultivator with elastic tines

T/R	Indicators	Based parameters
1.	Gun type	Trailed
2.	Aggregated with a tractor	T-4A
3.	Working width, m	4
4.	Gun weight, kg	1600
5.	Depth of processing, cm	Before 18
6.	rack type	Elastic-spiral
7.	Number of rows of paws	3
8.	Spacing of loosening paws, mm	160-180
9.	Distance, mm -between rows of ripping paws -between ripping paws in a row	700-800 480-540
10.	Working speed, m/s	up to 3.0

The quality indicators of soil crumbling in the experimental chisel-cultivator are also better than in the serial one. After its passage, the yield of agronomically valuable fractions (less than 50 mm) of soil increases by 8.47% compared to ChKU-4A, and the content of large soil clods (more than 50 mm in size) decreases by 8.46%. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that that in the experimental chisel, due to vibrations of the working bodies, the soil layer is destroyed into smaller fractions, due to which the quality of its crumbling improves.

The uniformity of the soil tillage depth for both serial and experimental chisel cultivators is approximately the same and corresponds to agrotechnical requirements.
The indicators of the ridgedness of the soil surface and the bottom of the furrow for both tools are also almost the same, which is due to the operation in an aggregate with tooth harrows.
Racks and working bodies of a serial chisel-cultivator are often enveloped in plant residues, as a result of which the quality of tillage worsens, its traction resistance increases.
During the operation of the experimental chisel-cultivator, the self-cleaning of the working bodies from plant residues occurs due to their fluctuations, and thereby the increase in traction resistance and the deterioration in the quality of tillage are excluded, the productivity of the tool increases by 20-25%.