Models for predicting frictional properties of rapeseed
Qian Xu 1
Xuduo Cheng 1, 2  
Xue Chen 1, 2
More details
Hide details
Department of Food Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, Nanjing, China
Collaborative Innovation Centre for Modern Grain Circulation and Safety, Nanjing, China
Publish date: 2019-02-13
Acceptance date: 2018-06-12
Int. Agrophys. 2019, 33(1): 61–66
By using rapeseed as a model material, we deter- mined the internal friction angle and the friction coefficient against different surface types, by means of direct shear apparatus. We also established predictive models by fitting the experimental data. The internal friction angle of rapeseed ranged from 23.91±0.28 to 34.99±1.08°. It decreased with normal stress (25 to 100 kPa), and increased with the moisture content (6.58 to 11.16% wet basis). The friction coefficient against a surface of stainless steel, wood and concrete ranged from 0.25±0.01 to 0.50±0.03, 0.34±0.00 to 0.56±0.00, and 0.40±0.00 to 0.56±0.06, respectively. A decrease in the friction coefficient was observed with increased normal stress (25 to 100 kPa). The friction coefficient tended to increase when the moisture content grew from 6.58 to 11.16% (a wet basis). When it comes to comparing the values of the friction coefficients of different friction materials, stainless steel had the lowest friction, followed by wood and concrete. Models were developed based on the obtained data, and the simulated values agreed well with the experimental data. These models can quickly predict the internal friction angle and friction coefficient values.
ASAE, 2001. ASAE S352.2 APR1988 (R2001). Moisture measurement-unground grain and seeds. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., 567-568.
Bagheri I. and Dehpour M.B., 2011. Effect of moisture content and loading rate on mechanical strength of brown rice varieties. World Academy of Science, Eng. Technol., 59, 1385-1391.
Balasubramanian D., 2001. PH-Postharvest technology: physical properties of raw cashew nut. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 78(3), 291-297.
Deshpande S.D., Bal S., and Ojha T.P., 1993. Physical properties of soybean. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 56(2), 89-98.
Fitzpatrick J.J., Barringer S.A., and Iqbal T., 2004. Flow property measurement of food powders and sensitivity of Jenike’s hopper design methodology to the measured values. J. Food Eng., 61(3), 399-405.
Horabik J. and Molenda M., 2002. Physical properties of granular food materials. Acta Agrophysica, 74, 1-89.
Izli N., Unal H., and Sincik M., 2009. Physical and mechanical properties of rapeseed at different moisture content. Int. Agrophys., 23(2), 137-145.
Johanson J., 1972. Modeling flow of bulk solids. Powder Technology, 5, 93-99.
Kieselbach R., 1997. Bursting of a silo. Eng. Failure Analysis, 4(1), 49-55.
Mavrot G., Sochet I., Bailly P., and Moisescot M., 2003. Silo vulnerability: structural aspects. J. Loss Prevention Process Industries, 16(2), 165-172.
Molenda M., Stasiak M., Moya M., Ramirez A., Horabik J., and Ayuga F., 2006. Testing mechanical properties of food powders in two laboratories: degree of consistency of results. Int. Agrophysics, 20(1), 37-45.
Moya M., Aguado P., and Ayuga F., 2013. Mechanical properties of some granular agricultural materials used in silo design. Int. Agrophys., 27(2), 181-193.
Rankine W.J.M., 1856. On the stability of loose Earth. Philosophical Trans. Royal Society, 147(0), 9-27.
Shankar U. and Abrol D.P., 2012. Integrated Pest Management in Stored Grains. Book, Integrated Pest Management, 386-407.
Suthar S.H. and Das S., 1996. Some physical properties of karingda [Citrullus lanatus (Thumb) Mansf] seeds. J.Agric. Eng. Res., 65(1), 15-22.
Unal H., Sincik M., and Izli N., 2009. Comparison of some engineering properties of rapeseed cultivars. Industrial Crops and Products, 30(1), 131-136.