Figure 1.
Locusta migratoria manilensis’s feeding process (female adult).
Figure 1.
Locusta migratoria manilensis’s feeding process (female adult).
Figure 2.
Overall measurement of Locusta migratoria manilensis dimensions.
Figure 2.
Overall measurement of Locusta migratoria manilensis dimensions.
Figure 3.
Measurements of incised teeth of locusta migratoria manilensis.
Figure 3.
Measurements of incised teeth of locusta migratoria manilensis.
Figure 4.
Reconstruction process of locusta migratoria manilensis cutting teeth.
Figure 4.
Reconstruction process of locusta migratoria manilensis cutting teeth.
Figure 5.
Specific flow chart of the extraction of the cutting blade’s contour.
Figure 5.
Specific flow chart of the extraction of the cutting blade’s contour.
Figure 6.
Cutting profile curves of locust incisors.
Figure 6.
Cutting profile curves of locust incisors.
Figure 7.
Bionic cutting blades and general cutting blades. Note: I. the edge of the left tooth of the locusta migration manilensis blade; II. the edge of the right tooth of the locusta migration manilensis blade; III. a smooth-edge blade; IV. a serrated-edge blade. a means the blade width, mm; b means the blade length, mm; c means the blade thickness, mm; h means the blade width, mm; l means the blade length, mm; m means the tooth pitch, mm; n means the tooth height, mm; k means the diameter of the positioning hole, mm; α means the blade angle; A is an enlarged view of the serrated blade edge.
Figure 7.
Bionic cutting blades and general cutting blades. Note: I. the edge of the left tooth of the locusta migration manilensis blade; II. the edge of the right tooth of the locusta migration manilensis blade; III. a smooth-edge blade; IV. a serrated-edge blade. a means the blade width, mm; b means the blade length, mm; c means the blade thickness, mm; h means the blade width, mm; l means the blade length, mm; m means the tooth pitch, mm; n means the tooth height, mm; k means the diameter of the positioning hole, mm; α means the blade angle; A is an enlarged view of the serrated blade edge.
Figure 8.
Particle model of rice straw (l2 = 150 mm, d2 = 5 mm, d = 0.5 mm).
Figure 8.
Particle model of rice straw (l2 = 150 mm, d2 = 5 mm, d = 0.5 mm).
Figure 9.
Simplified straw-cutting device.
Figure 9.
Simplified straw-cutting device.
Figure 10.
Process of cutting rice straw (a. bionic blade; b. smooth blade).
Figure 10.
Process of cutting rice straw (a. bionic blade; b. smooth blade).
Figure 11.
Process of chopping rice straw.
Figure 11.
Process of chopping rice straw.
Figure 12.
Force of cutting rice straw using a bionic blade and a smooth blade.
Figure 12.
Force of cutting rice straw using a bionic blade and a smooth blade.
Figure 13.
Contact condition of straw when being cut by bionic and smooth blades.
Figure 13.
Contact condition of straw when being cut by bionic and smooth blades.
Figure 14.
Cutting blades with different curves used in the experiment. Note: (a) is the right tooth bionic blade, ratio: 1, 0.75, 0.5; (b) is the left tooth bionic blade, ratio: 1, 0.75; (c) is the general smooth blade; (d) is the general serrated blade.
Figure 14.
Cutting blades with different curves used in the experiment. Note: (a) is the right tooth bionic blade, ratio: 1, 0.75, 0.5; (b) is the left tooth bionic blade, ratio: 1, 0.75; (c) is the general smooth blade; (d) is the general serrated blade.
Figure 15.
Rice straw for the cutting test.
Figure 15.
Rice straw for the cutting test.
Figure 16.
Cutting force test using rice straw (1. physical property tester; 2. self-made stem-clamping device; 3. blade; 4. self-made tool-clamping device).
Figure 16.
Cutting force test using rice straw (1. physical property tester; 2. self-made stem-clamping device; 3. blade; 4. self-made tool-clamping device).
Figure 17.
The display interface of physical tester.
Figure 17.
The display interface of physical tester.
Figure 18.
Trend chart of factors affecting the average cutting force applied to rice straw.
Figure 18.
Trend chart of factors affecting the average cutting force applied to rice straw.
Figure 19.
Force of cutting straw with different blades.
Figure 19.
Force of cutting straw with different blades.
Figure 20.
Combined cutting test of bionic blades.
Figure 20.
Combined cutting test of bionic blades.
Figure 21.
Scatter distribution of rotating–fixed blades and the rice-straw-cutting force.
Figure 21.
Scatter distribution of rotating–fixed blades and the rice-straw-cutting force.
Figure 22.
Force–time curves of cutting rice stems. ((a) smooth blade; (b) serrated blade; (c) left-tooth locusta migration manilensis blade; (d) right-tooth locusta migration manilensis blade). Note: I, II and III mean the first cutting stage, the second cutting stage and the third cutting stage, respectively.
Figure 22.
Force–time curves of cutting rice stems. ((a) smooth blade; (b) serrated blade; (c) left-tooth locusta migration manilensis blade; (d) right-tooth locusta migration manilensis blade). Note: I, II and III mean the first cutting stage, the second cutting stage and the third cutting stage, respectively.
Figure 23.
Incisions in straw stems after cutting using different types of blades.
Figure 23.
Incisions in straw stems after cutting using different types of blades.
Figure 24.
Slip splitting while cutting rice straw.
Figure 24.
Slip splitting while cutting rice straw.
Figure 25.
Operating principle of DH5905 torque test and analysis system.
Figure 25.
Operating principle of DH5905 torque test and analysis system.
Figure 26.
Installation layout drawing of a wireless torque sensor and bionic cutting blades. (1) Installation and fixing the torque sensor bracket; (2) installation positions of the wireless sensor and strain gauge; (3) installation instructions for cutting blades; (4) WIFI installation location.
Figure 26.
Installation layout drawing of a wireless torque sensor and bionic cutting blades. (1) Installation and fixing the torque sensor bracket; (2) installation positions of the wireless sensor and strain gauge; (3) installation instructions for cutting blades; (4) WIFI installation location.
Table 1.
Parameters of six-term fitting equation of left cutting tooth in
Figure 6a.
Table 1.
Parameters of six-term fitting equation of left cutting tooth in
Figure 6a.
Left Cutting Tooth (Color) | p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 | p5 | p6 | p7 | R2 |
---|
curve1 (Black) | −9.05 × 10−7 | 9.42 × 10−5 | −0.003835 | 0.07832 | −0.8751 | 5.011 | 0.04764 | 0.9929 |
curve2 (Red) | −1.07 × 10−7 | 1.74 × 10−5 | −0.00111 | 0.0349 | −0.5628 | 4.164 | 2.293 | 0.9460 |
curve3 (Blue) | 1.38 × 10−8 | −8.65 × 10−7 | −4.22 × 10−5 | 0.004329 | −0.1172 | 1.281 | 4.956 | 0.9614 |
curve4 (Green) | 1.24 × 10−7 | −1.62 × 10−5 | 0.0007379 | −0.01304 | 0.03569 | 0.96 | 3.612 | 0.9720 |
curve5 (Purple) | −3.98 × 10−10 | 3.88 × 10−8 | 7.91× 10−6 | −0.00119 | 0.04198 | −0.06342 | 3.276 | 0.9324 |
curve6 (Cyan) | −1.56 × 10−8 | 3.23 × 10−6 | −0.0002594 | 0.01036 | −0.2217 | 2.252 | 5.059 | 0.9987 |
Table 2.
Parameters of six-term fitting equation of right cutting tooth in
Figure 6b.
Table 2.
Parameters of six-term fitting equation of right cutting tooth in
Figure 6b.
Right Cutting Tooth (Color) | p1 | p2 | p3 | p4 | p5 | p6 | p7 | R2 |
---|
curve1 (Black) | 4.46 × 10−9 | −1.36 × 10−6 | 0.0001525 | −0.007798 | 0.1569 | 1.459 | 0.4654 | 0.999 |
curve2 (Red) | −2.20 × 10−7 | 1.10 × 10−5 | −1.05 × 10−5 | −0.007484 | 0.1038 | 0.213 | 79.3 | 0.9974 |
curve3 (Blue) | 1.20 × 10−7 | −2.14 × 10−5 | 0.001447 | −0.04584 | 0.6451 | −1.68 | 79.2 | 0.9913 |
curve4 (Green) | 4.40 × 10−9 | −1.75 × 10−6 | 0.0002267 | −0.0119 | 0.2322 | −0.781 | 84.7 | 0.9975 |
curve5 (Purple) | 8.75 × 10−10 | −3.15 × 10−7 | 4.31 × 10−5 | −0.00281 | 0.0760 | −0.0932 | 79.2 | 0.9989 |
Table 3.
Parameters of rice stems in Hertz–Mindlin contacting model.
Table 3.
Parameters of rice stems in Hertz–Mindlin contacting model.
Bonding Radius (mm) | Normal Bond Stiffness (N/m3) | Tangential Bond Stiffness (N/m3) | Normal Critical Stress (Pa) | Tangential Critical Stress (Pa) | Source |
---|
0.55 | 1.5 × 1010 | 1 × 1010 | 5 × 108 | 5 × 108 | [12,21] |
Table 4.
Material parameters.
Table 4.
Material parameters.
Simulation Material | Poisson’s Ratio | Shear Modulus (MPa) | Density (kg/m3 ) | Source |
---|
Rice stem | 0.4 | 1 | 215 | [23,24] |
Steel | 0.3 | 206,000 | 7800 |
Table 5.
Contact parameters between materials.
Table 5.
Contact parameters between materials.
Contact Parameter | Restitution Coefficient | Static friction Coefficient | Rolling Friction Coefficient | Source |
---|
Rice stem—rice stem | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.01 | [23,24] |
Rice stem—steel | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.01 |
Table 6.
Test-related factors and level table.
Table 6.
Test-related factors and level table.
Level | Cutting Angle A (°) | Loading Speed B (mm/s) | Supporting Distance C (mm) |
---|
1 | 20 | 4 | 20 |
2 | 25 | 7 | 30 |
3 | 30 | 10 | 40 |
Table 7.
L9(34) orthogonal test results and range analysis.
Table 7.
L9(34) orthogonal test results and range analysis.
Test Serial Number | Cutting Angle A(°) | Loading Speed B (mm/s) | Supporting Distance C (mm) | Error Column D | Average Cutting Force (N) |
---|
1 | 20 | 4 | 20 | 1 | 17.6963 |
2 | 20 | 7 | 30 | 2 | 18.3657 |
3 | 20 | 10 | 40 | 3 | 15.4077 |
4 | 25 | 4 | 30 | 3 | 17.0060 |
5 | 25 | 7 | 40 | 1 | 16.9963 |
6 | 25 | 10 | 20 | 2 | 15.0533 |
7 | 30 | 4 | 40 | 2 | 15.0550 |
8 | 30 | 7 | 20 | 3 | 17.9768 |
9 | 30 | 10 | 30 | 1 | 14.8603 |
k1 | 17.1566 | 16.5858 | 16.9088 | 16.5177 | |
k2 | 16.3519 | 17.7796 | 16.7440 | 16.1580 | |
k3 | 15.9640 | 15.1071 | 15.8197 | 16.7968 | |
Range value | 1.1925 | 2.6725 | 1.0891 | 0.6388 | |
Optimal level | A3 | B3 | C3 | | |
Optimal combination | B3 A3 C3 |
Table 8.
Analysis of variance for orthogonal test results.
Table 8.
Analysis of variance for orthogonal test results.
Source | Sum of Squares | Freedom | Mean Square | F | p-Value |
---|
A | 0.7400 | 2 | 0.3700 | 3.6078 | 0.2170 |
B | 3.5846 | 2 | 1.7923 | 17.4757 | 0.0541 |
C | 0.6893 | 2 | 0.3446 | 3.3603 | 0.2293 |
Error | 0.2051 | 2 | 0.1026 | | |
Total | 5.2190 | 8 | | | |
Table 9.
ANOVA results of a single-factor test of rice straw (α = 0.05).
Table 9.
ANOVA results of a single-factor test of rice straw (α = 0.05).
Source of Differences | The Average Cutting Force/N | The Maximum Instantaneous Cutting Force/N |
---|
Interblock Parameters | Interclass Parameters | Total | Interblock Parameters | Interclass Parameters | Total |
---|
SS | 43.740 | 29.864 | 73.604 | 40.460 | 183.962 | 224.422 |
df | 6 | 14 | 20 | 6 | 14 | 20 |
MS | 7.290 | 2.133 | | 6.743 | 13.140 | |
F | 3.418 | | | 0.513 | | |
p-Value | 0.027 | | | 0.789 | | |
F crit | 2.848 | | | 2.848 | | |
Table 10.
The result of the test of combined bionic blades.
Table 10.
The result of the test of combined bionic blades.
(The Average Cutting Force/N) | Types of Fixed Blade |
---|
Types of Rotating Blade | R1 | R0.75 | L1 | L0.75 |
---|
R1 | 7.110 | 8.908 | 10.959 | 10.644 |
R0.75 | 9.583 | 11.047 | 10.707 | 11.611 |
L1 | 11.750 | 9.690 | 14.090 | 14.810 |
L0.75 | 11.519 | 10.589 | 10.681 | 9.694 |
Table 11.
Dimensional parameters of straw chopper affecting cutting force.
Table 11.
Dimensional parameters of straw chopper affecting cutting force.
Design Parameters of Blade | The Maximum Tooth Height/mm | The Maximum Tooth Interval/mm | The Minimum Tooth Interval/mm |
---|
smooth blade | 0 | | |
serrated blade | 1.5 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
Right-tooth bionic blade (ratio 1) | 3.39 | 8 | 3.5 |
Right-tooth bionic blade (ratio 0.75) | 2.54 | 6 | 2.625 |
Right-tooth bionic blade (ratio 0.5) | 1.70 | 4 | 1.75 |
Left-tooth of bionic blade (ratio 1) | 1.43 | 6 | 1 |
Left-tooth of bionic blade (ratio 0.75) | 1.07 | 4.5 | 0.75 |
Table 12.
Torque and power consumption results in field trials.
Table 12.
Torque and power consumption results in field trials.
Number | General Cutting Blades | Bionic Cutting Blades |
---|
Measured Torque (N·m) | Average Power (kW) | Measured Torque (N·m) | Average Power (kW) |
---|
1 | 30.6765 | 9.637 | 31.7085 | 9.961 |
2 | 31.02175 | 9.745 | 30.936 | 9.718 |
3 | 31.7225 | 9.965 | 33.60425 | 10.556 |
4 | 34.33625 | 10.786 | 29.95375 | 9.410 |
5 | 34.15675 | 10.730 | 32.03125 | 10.062 |
6 | 33.3745 | 10.484 | 30.92675 | 9.715 |
7 | 33.75325 | 10.603 | 29.798 | 9.361 |
8 | 32.64325 | 10.254 | 28.3955 | 8.920 |
Average value | 32..711 ± 1.426 | 10.276 ± 0.448 | 30.919 ± 1.587 | 9.713 ± 0.499 |
Table 13.
Variance analysis of the average power consumption of smooth and bionic blades.
Table 13.
Variance analysis of the average power consumption of smooth and bionic blades.
Source | Sum of Squares | Freedom | Mean Square | F | p Value |
---|
Inter group | 1.26664 | 1 | 1.26664 | 4.60011 | 0.03239 |
Intragroup | 3.14403 | 14 | 0.22457 | | |
Total | 4.41067 | 15 | | | |