J. agric. Engng Res.

(1986) 35, 97-113

A Comparison of the Wear of Ceramic Tipped and

Conventional Precision Seed Drill Coulters

A, G. FOLEY*; V. A. MCLEES~

The ability of a precision seed drill coulter to retain its cutting edge is an important factor
determining drill performance. Abrasive soil particles cause wear and when using conventional
metal coulters, frequent interruptions are necessary to check and adjust depth settings and to
replace worn coulters. The effectiveness of alumina ceramic in reducing wear on other soil
engaging components led to the investigation of its use as the cutting edge on precision seed drill
coulters.
Two designs of ceramic tipped coulter were used alongside conventional coulters to drill more
than 1900 ha of sugar beet seed in a range of soil types and conditions. Profiles of the coulters
were taken before and after use and the change in effective depth of their cutting edges was used
as a measure of wear. Qualitative assessments of the change in cutting edge profile were also
made. Mean wear ratios for each drill (wear of all conventional coulters/wear of all ceramic
coulters) ranged from 1.5 : 1 to 6.4 : 1, with a mean of around 3 : 1. Reasons for the variability in
relative performance are discussed. The reliability of both designs of coulter was very good. No
failures of the adhesive bond joining the ceramic to the coulter body occurred, and only a limited
amount of impact damage was noted.

1. Introduction
1.1. Abrasive wear in soil
Wear of components contacting soil during cultivation and sowing operations occurs by
the action of natural abrasives in the soil. In British soils Richardson found that these
abrasives are mainly forms of silica (quartz, flint, chert). This is also likely to be true in other
parts of the world since silica constitutes 60% by weight of the continental crust.*
Richardsonlt3 has shown that the abrasive nature of the soil is related to the types of
abrasive present (size and hardness) including stones, and to its strength. Volume wear of a
material is significantly reduced when its hardness, H,, exceeds about 80% of that of the
abrasive, H,,lV4 since deterioration of the abrasive particles then commences. The hardness
of silica abrasives is about 1100 and so H, should be >900 for significantly reduced wear
(Vickers diamond pyramid hardness, H,, , numbers are used throughout, the units being
kgf/mm2).
1.2. Wear resistance of materials
The materials commonly used in soil working tools, steels and cast irons, are not in
general hard enough to satisfy the above criterion for improved wear resistance. This arises
from the need for a compromise between hardness (wear resistance) and toughness
(resistance to impact); the properties are incompatible in a single material. Hardfacing
materials, consisting of hard phases dispersed in a softer tougher matrix, are widely used
in the search for increased component life. However, work at the National Institute of
Agricultural Engineering (NIAE) has shown that their wear resistance varies with both soil
type and application. Furthermore, it was considered that the savings obtained by
* PERA, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire
i Machine Dynamics and Reliability Group, National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Wrest Park, Silsoe

Received 7 August 1985; accepted in revised form 16 November 1985

97
OOZI-8634/86/100097+ 17 SO3.00/0 0 1986 The British Society for Research in Agricultural Engineering
98 WEAR OF PRECISION SEED DRILL COULTERS

increasing component life using hardfacing were unlikely to exceed the extra cost of
materials and labour involved, though savings in downtime were possible.6
In seeking materials with suitable hardnesses, the NIAE turned its attention to
engineering ceramics and in particular to alumina (aluminium oxide) because of its high
wear resistance/cost ratio. Alumina is the generic name of a family of materials with grades
ranging in purity from 85% to 99.99x, each developed for specific applications and
properties. Alumina is relatively inexpensive and certain grades are widely used for their
abrasion resistance in sandblasting nozzles, textile thread guides and materials handling
applications in power stations and mining. Typical hardnesses of alumina are in the range
1200-1500 (H,), conforming to the wear resistance criterion for silica containing soils.
Despite its inherent brittleness, alumina has already been used in a number of soil engaging
applications and several components are now commercially available.

1.3. Precision seed drill coulters

In operating a precision seed drill, the coulter forms a V-shaped channel in the soil into
which seeds are dropped. For successful drill performance, particularly when drilling sugar
beet for example, a good coulter profile must be maintained. In addition, consistent depth of
drilling ensures both maximum emergence and an even rate of emergence, leading to an even
rate of plant development. However, in common with other soil engaging parts, drill coulters
suffer wear with the following results:
consistent depth control requires that frequent adjustment be made;
the furrow widens and seeds can roll and bounce, adversely affecting seed distribution;
good contact between the seed and the soil is not achieved with wide furrows;
penetration is reduced.
The success of alumina in reducing wear on other soil engaging parts led to an
investigation of its possible use in improving drill coulter performance. The conditions in
which coulters are used for drilling sugar beet, in a well-prepared seedbed, at shallow depths
of 30 to 35 mm, and at relatively low speeds of 1 to 1.5 m/s, are near ideal for alumina, with
a very low probability of impact damage.
Initially, a short field experiment was carried out in 1982 to determine the amount of
alumina needed and its optimum position, using a modified version of the Suffolk-type
coulter. It was evident that more alumina was required to protect the cutting edge
adequately. A larger scale experiment (Trial A) was carried out during Spring 1983 on an
improved design.* The success of that trial led to field evaluations of two commercial
prototypes; the Suffolk coulter (Trial B) and a general purpose coulter (Trial C) during
Spring 1984. Trial A was also continued9 during Spring 1984 to examine the wear
characteristics and reliability of the ceramic coulters over an extended drilling period.

2. Experimental methods
2.1. Coulter construction
2.1.1. Sufolk type
The body of the conventional coulter (Fig. 1, top) is in grey cast iron, with its cutting edge
chilled to increase its hardness and wear resistance. A pair of mild steel wings are welded to
either side to complete the assembly. The design of the ceramic tipped coulter involved
replacing the chilled cutting edge with one of identical profile but in alumina. All the coulters
used in Trial A had a two-piece cutting edge in 97.5% pure alumina (Deranox 975) as shown
in Fig. 1 (middle). The commercial prototype used in Trial B was very similar to that used in
A. G. FOLEY; V. A. McLEES 99

Fig. I. (Topi A conventional Suffolk-type seed drill coulter. (Middle) The ceramic tipped &folk c
used in Trial A. (Bottom) The ceramic tipped SujQolk coulter used in Trial B
100 WEAR OF PRECISION SEED DRILL COULTERS

Fig. 2. (Top) A conventional general purpose seed drill coulter. (Bottom) The ceramic tipped general
purpose coulter used in Trial C

Trial A except that the cutting edge was in a single piece of the same grade of alumina
(Fig. 1, bottom). In both trials the ceramic cutting edge was bonded to the coulter body
using a high performance thermosetting epoxy resin adhesive, XD981, manufactured by
Ciba-Geigy. The bonding faces of both the coulter and the ceramic insert were grit blasted
prior to assembly to improve the final bond strength.
2.1.2. General purpose type
The conventional version of this coulter, Fig. 2 (top), is a welded steel fabrication, and in
use, it is inclined downwards at about 2 to the soil surface to aid penetration. Although
most wear is concentrated over the first 50 mm of the bottom edge of the coulter, significant
material loss occurs along the whole of the length, A in Fig. 2 (top). Furthermore, material is
removed from the flanks of the coulter, B in Fig. 2 (top). Consequently, it was decided to
truncate the coulter body and attach a solid ceramic nose to protect the highest wearing
areas at the leading edge as shown in Fig. 2 (bottom). Complete protection of the bottom
edge was thought unnecessary since the improved wear characteristics of the ceramic nose
A. G. FOLEY; V. A. McLEES 101

Direction
of travel
t

I
Cl S6 c2 s5
I
c3
!
s4 ( c4 s3
I
c5 52
I
C6 Sl

I
Mid-IJne of
toolbar

Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of the layout of conventional and ceramic coulters on a 12-row drill. C.
ceramic coulter; S: conventional coulter

would significantly reduce material loss from the remainder of the underside as indicated in
earlier work. The same 97.5% pure grade of alumina (Deranox 975) was used as for the
Suffolk coulters and again the ceramic was bonded to the coulter body using the
thermosetting epoxy resin adhesive, XD98 1. Conventional and ceramic tipped general
purpose coulters were compared in Trial C.

2.2. Field trials

Trial A was carried out using two 1Zrow drills each fitted with six ceramic and six
conventional coulters of the Suffolk type shown in Fig. 1 (top and middle). The two types of
coulter were fitted in alternate positions across both toolbars so that each ceramic coulter
had a conventional coulter on the other half of the toolbar and in a symmetrical position
about the centre, to act as a control. The schematic layout is shown in Fig. 3. During the
course of the trial, additional conventional coulters were used to replace those which had
worn out. The two drills were mainly operated together in the same fields drilling sugar beet
and coulters were adjusted and replaced by the operators according to normal practice at
the farm where the trial was being held. The main soil types encountered during drilling were
Isleham 2, NEWPORT 4 and NEWMARKET 1 (see Table 1). During the 1983 season
366 ha were drilled in total, drill Al was used for 202 ha and drill A2 was used for 164 ha. In
1984, drill Al covered 198 ha and drill A2 covered 155 ha, a total of 353 ha.
Trial B also involved toolbars fitted with Suffolk coulters, but the ceramic coulters were of
the commercial prototype design (Fig. 1, bottom). The distribution of coulters on each
toolbar again followed the schematic layout shown in Fig. 3. Details of the seven test sites
are given in Table 2. At site W7, where a five-row toolbar was used, the middle row unit

Table 1
Description of soil types-the Soil Association classification of the Soil Survey of England and Wales

Soil Association
classification Soil characteristics

Isleham 2 Deep permeable sandy and peaty soils

NEWPORT 4 Deep well-drained sandy soils
NEWMARKET 1 Shallow well-drained calcareous sandy and coarse loamy soils over chalk
BARROW Deep well-drained coarse loamy, coarse loamy over clayey and sandy soils, variable flint
Newmarket 2 Shallow well-drained calcareous coarse loamy and sandy soils over chalk rubble
BECCLES 2 Slowly permeable fine and coarse loamy over clayey soils
CUCKNEY 1 Well-drained sandy and coarse loamy soils, often over soft sandstone
BLACKWOOD Deep permeable sandy and coarse loamy soils
ELMTON 1 Shallow well-drained brashy calcareous fine loamy soils over limestone
102 WEAR OF PRECISION SEED DRILL COULTERS

Table 2
Test sites for trials B and C

Drill size, Area drilled, Main soil type (Soil Association)

Couller type* row units ha andgrid reference

Wl S 12 42 CUCKNEY 1
SK 614793
w2 S 12 190 BARROW/Newmarket 2
TF 780234
w3 S 12 142 BARROW
TF 820250
W4 S 12 112 BARROW
TF 900407
w5 S 12 73 BARROW
TF 895215
W6 S 12 93 BECCLES 2
TF 995330
WI S 5 36 ELMTON 1
SK 997028
Sl GP 12 142 CUCKNEY l/BLACKWOOD
SK 6487 11
s2 GP 6 40 CUCKNEY 1
SK 575580
s3 GP 12 91 BARROW
TF 905337
s4 GP 12 36 BARROW
TF 830280
s5 GP 12 138 BARROW
TF 785416
S6 GP 10 69 Newmarket 2
TF 729400

* S: Suffolk; GP: General Purpose

coulter was not included in the trial. The drills were again all used for sugar beet drilling and
adjustment and replacement of the coulters took place when the drillmen considered it to be
necessary.
Trial C involved toolbars fitted with the general purpose coulters (Fig 2, top and middle)
and the details of the six test sites are given in Table 2. The trial was carried out to the same
format as the other two trials, with each ceramic coulter having a conventional coulter
acting as a control. Drilling at site SS was peculiar because the ceramic coulters completed
the full 138 ha, but the steel control coulters were used only for the first 24 ha. Non-standard
metal coulters, with deliberately built-up keels, were fitted in place of the original metal
coulters which were considered by the operator to be providing insufficient penetration in
the soils at that site. The non-standard coulters are not included in the results in Table 5.

2.3. Wear measurements

Wear of each coulter was monitored by taking profiles of the cutting edge before and at
the completion of the trial, using a pantograph and follower system with a magnification
factor of 2. Typical profiles for both types of coulter are shown in Fig. 4. Coulter wear (loss
of depth) was measured at four positions along each cutting edge as indicated, and from
these, a mean wear value w was calculated for each coulter thus:
A+B+C+D
w= (1)
4 .
A. G. FOLEY; V. A. McLEES 103

Q 0
Dimensions in mm

AECD Reference
position

Dimensions in mm

Reference position

Fig. 4. Typical unworn and worn projiles of (top) the Sufsolk coulter and (bottom) the general purpose
coulter indicating positions of wear measurements. Shadded areas represent the ceramic inserts

In some cases more than one coulter was required on a drill unit during the course of the
trials. Here the wear at each of the four measurement positions (A-D) was totalled for all the
coulters used before finding the mean value over all four positions, thus:

iA+fB+iC+iD
1 1 1
w,= l 3 (2)
4
where II is the number of coulters used successively on each drill unit (= 1 for ceramic;
= 1, 2, 3 for conventional).
104 WEAR OF PRECISION SEED DRILL COULTERS

Measurements were made to the nearest 0.5 mm, giving a true resolution of 0.25 mm of
wear.

2.4. Hardness measurements

Three hardness measurements were made on the bottom of the cutting edge of each
conventional Suffolk coulter using a Vickers diamond pyramid hardness tester, with a 294 N
(30 kgf) applied force on the indenter. The measurements were taken to check for possible
variations in hardness arising from the casting and chilling processes used in manufacture.
Such hardness variations would affect the wear resistance and life of the cutting edges.
Additional measurements were made to assess the extent of hardening of the cutting edge
induced by the chilling process. Since cooling rates are higher near the surface than in the
bulk during chilling, it was anticipated that the cutting edge would become progressively
softer as material was removed during use. Transverse sections were taken through the
cutting edge of two unused coulters, one of recent manufacture and the other from an earlier
source of supply, so that hardness variations could be determined.
Hardness measurements were also made on a random sample of the conventional general
purpose type coulters to assess the extent of variability in a fabricated rather than a cast
cutting edge.

3. Results
The results for all three trials are summarized in Tables 3 to 5. Table 3 shows the results
from Trial A for each drill in each year of use, together with the combined results for each
drill for the whole trial period. The mean wear value per drill quoted in the tables has been
averaged over all units on the drill fitted with the particular type of coulter:

Mean wear per drill, W = $ z,

where m is the number of units on the drill with either ceramic or conventional coulters
(usually m = 6) and w, is given by Eqn (2).
Consequently, although for a twelve-row drill for example, one is comparing six units
fitted with ceramic coulters and six with conventional coulters, the number of each type of
coulter contributing to the mean wear figure was often quite different (see Tables 3 to 5). The
mean wear rate figures were derived by dividing the mean wear per drill by the distance that
each unit travelled during the course of the trial.
At site S5 a true comparison of coulter performance was not possible since non-standard
metal coulters were used for much of the work. The mean wear for the ceramic coulters after
138 ha was only slightly higher than that for the steel controls which had completed only
24 ha (see Table 5). The average wear ratio quoted at this site was calculated from the mean
wear rates of the two types of coulter but is less reliable than the ratios quoted for the other
sites.
Although a ten-row drill was used at site S6, the wear results only apply to eight of the
units (see Table 5) since one of the steel controls was lost prior to final measurement.

4. Discussion
4.1. Trial A
The mean wear on the conventional coulters was both much higher and more variable (as
measured by the standard error of the mean) than on the ceramic coulters. The extra wear
suffered by all the coulters used on drill Al arose from the extra distance travelled through
 Table 3
Summary of wear results for Trial A

No. of coulters used T Mean wear* for drill, mm Mean wear rate, mm/km r Mean wear ratio
Distance travelled :onventional/ceramic
Year Drill per drill unit, km Conventional Ceramic Conventional Ceramic Conventional Ceramic for drill

1983 Al 335 11 6 14.9 2.8 0.044 0.008 5.3

(0.84) (0.12)
A2 271 9 6 10.8 2.0 0.040 0.007 54
(1.17) (0.08)
,
19x4 Al 315 13 6 16.8 4.6 0.053 0.015 3.7
(1.33) (0.12)
A2 257 9 6 13.8 3.4 0.054 0.013 4.0
(1.97) (0.16)

1983 AI 650 19 6 31.7 7.3 0.049 0.011 4.3

+ (0.78) (0.16)
1984 A2 528 14 6 24.6 5.5 ox)47 0.010 4.5
(1.74) (0.16)

* Mean (and standard error of the mean in parentheses) of w, [Eqn (2)]

 Table 4
Summary of wear results for Trial B

r No. of coulters used Mean wear* .for drill, mm Mean wear rate, mm/km Mean wear ratio
Distance travelled conventional/ceramic
Site for drill unir, km Conventional Ceramic Conventional Ceramic Conventional Ceramic for drill

Wl IO 6 1.1 1.0 0.024 0.014 1.1

(0.12) (0.08)
w2 315 18 20.6 I.2 0.065 0,023 2.9
(1.25) (0.33)
w3 235 12 10.2 4.2 0.043 0.018 2.4
(0.40) (0.24)
w4 186 15 18.1 5.9 0.097 0.032 3.0
(0.34) (0.08)
w5 121 12 8.8 4.1 0.073 2.2
(0.14) (0.16)
W6 154 6 5.1 3.3 0.033 1.5
(0.45) (0.04)
WI 144 2 3.4 0.5 0.024 64
(0.03) (0.03)

* Mean (and standard error of the mean in parentheses) of w, [Eqn (2)]

 Table 5
Summary of wear results for Trial C

No. of coulters used T Mean wear* for drill. mm Mean wear rate, mm/km Mean wear ratio
Distance travelled conventional/ceramic
Site per drill unit, km Conventional Ceramic Conventional Ceramic Conventional Ceramic for drill

Sl 235 6 6 6.4 2.1 0.027 0.009 3.0

(0.37) (0.12)
s2 133 6 6 4.6 1.4 0.034 0.010 3.4
(0.29) (0.04)
s3 151 6 6 1.3 0.030 0.008 3.7
(&8S) (0.24)
S4 60 6 6 0.6 0.036 0.011 3.4
$2) (0.20)
SS 40/228t 6 6 3.6 0.091 0.020 4.61
(0.33) (E6)
S6 136 4 4 5.3 1.0 0,039 0.007 5.3
(0.10) (0.05)

* Mean (and standard error of the mean in parentheses) of w, [Eqn (2)]

t Conventional coulters each travelled 40 km; ceramic coulters each travelled 228 km
$ Based on ratio of mean wear rates
108 WEAR OF PRECISION SEED DRILL COULTERS

Position
5
a4 9

6k
1

Vickers hardness, 30 kgf load Vickers hardness, 30 kgj load

Position Specimen A Specimen B Position Specimen A Specimen B

1 639 572 6 618 590

2 618 540 I 618 554
3 598 446 8 531 523
4 451 381 9 579 371
5 312 290

A: coulter from batch used in 1984

B: coulter from earlier batch used in 1983

Fig. 5. Variations in the hardness of chill cast cutting edges on conventional Su#olk coulters

the soil rather than from higher wear rates. The wear rates for the two drills were in fact very
consistent when considering each year separately.
The variability in wear of the conventional coulters was due largely, it is believed, to
variations in the hardness of individual coulters and from coulter to coulter. Such variations
arose from differing rates of cooling during casting of the coulter bodies. Deliberate
enhancement of cooling rates over the cutting edge area was achieved by chilling the
casting, leading to increased hardness. In older coulters, mainly used in 1983, only one flank
of the cutting edge was chilled. The effect on cutting edge hardness of single and double
flank chilling is demonstrated by the examples in Fig. 5. It is clear that cutting edges become
softer as wear takes place and that preferential wear can occur on one side of the cutting
edge of older coulters. Such preferential wear was clearly observed on many of the older
coulters leading to a poorly shaped channel in the soil. The mean hardness on the bottom
edge (corresponding to position 1) of newer coulters was significantly higher (p < 0401)
than for coulters of older manufacture, where only one flank was chilled. It is expected that a
similar increase in hardness would be found within the bulk of the cutting edge as at position
3 in Fig. 5.
These improvements in the hardness of the conventional coulters are thought to be
responsible for the lower wear ratios determined from the 1984 part of the trial. It is clear
from Table 3, however, that the wearing conditions were more severe in 1984 as indicated by
the large increase in mean wear rate for the ceramic coulters. Although the mean wear rate
for the conventional coulters also showed an increase in 1984 it was a much smaller
proportion than for the ceramic coulters, presumably reflecting the increase in hardness of
the newer conventional coulters.

4.2. Trial B
One of the aims of this trial was to evaluate the relative performance of the conventional
and ceramic coulters in aggressive soils and this is reflected by the range of mean wear rates
found at the various sites (Table 4). The mean wear ratios for conventional/ceramic coulters
when averaged over each drill varied from 1.5 : 1 to 6.4 : 1. An example of the condition of a
worn ceramic coulter and the three controls at the end of the trial at site W2 is shown in
A. G. FOLEY; V. A. McLEES 109

Fig. 6. A worn ceramic coulter and its three controls used at site W2 to drill 190 ha

Fig. 6. The variations in relative performance have been attributed to changes both in soil
type, and hence abrasiveness and in coulter shape due to wear. It is suggested that the results
from sites W2 and W4 reflect the typical relationship between the wear of steel and ceramic
coulters. Furthermore, it is proposed that the relatively poor performance of the ceramic
coulters at sites Wl and W6 was caused by the low amounts of overall wear and that had
work continued, a more favourable wear ratio would have ensued. Site W7 apparently
contradicts the suggestion and it is thought that here other factors such as soil texture and
stone and moisture contents played a more significant role in determining coulter
performance.
The relative improvement in ceramic coulter performance with an increase in the overall
amount of wear is explained by considering the change in loading on the cutting edge
occurring with changes both in soil type and in coulter shape when modified by wear. When
the shape of the cutting edge is considered (an inverted triangular section) it is clear that the
load bearing area is small when new, but gradually increases with use due to wear. The load
on the coulter is supported by soil particles, the number of which varies with both their size
and the area of the cutting edge. Hence for a given particle size, the load on each particle
reduces as the area increases; conversely for constant area the load on each particle increases
with particle size, since fewer particles support the load. Furthermore, it should be
remembered that the magnitude of soil particle loading plays a large part in determining
wear rate; higher loading giving higher wear rates and vice versa.
Studies of the material removal mechanisms in brittle solids such as alumina, have shown
that volume wear increased with applied load per unit area. Both fracture and plastic
deformation processes can cause material loss during abrasive wear, with fracture giving rise
to much higher wear rates. Fracture processes are favoured at high abrasive particle loadings
(early in coulter life) and with coarse abrasives, whereas low particle loadings and fine
abrasives favour plastic deformation. An added complication arises from the fact that the
conventional coulters effectively become softer as wear occurs, so that higher wear rates are
experienced in the later stages of use.
It is clear then that changes in both soil type (abrasive type and size) and cutting edge
profile can affect the relative performance of conventional and ceramic coulters. In a given
soil type, the wear rate of ceramic coulters might reasonably be expected to decrease with
distance travelled. On the other hand, that for conventional coulters would be expected to
stay constant or possibly increase as the effect of increased cutting edge area is counteracted
110 WEAR OF PRECISION SEED DRILL COULTERS

Fig. 7. Impact damage sufered by a Sufolk coulter at site W4

by the reduction in hardness. The relative benefits of the ceramic coulters are likely to
increase as more wear is suffered by the conventional coulters.
The large quantities of flint in the soil at the North Norfolk sites (W2 to W6) caused little
significant impact damage to the ceramic coulters. The most common occurrence was
chipping of the ceramic at the joint on the leading edge of the casting (A in Fig. 7). It is
envisaged that such damage was caused by stones lying on or just below the soil surface. The
integrity of the bonded joint between the ceramic tip and the coulter body was excellent, no
failures occuring in use.

4.3. Trial C
The mean wear ratios for conventional/ceramic coulters when averaged over each drill
varied from 3.0 : 1 to 53 : 1. An example of a worn ceramic coulter and its control at the end
of the trial at site Sl is given in Fig. 8. Lower wear ratios for individual coulter pairs were
found when the ceramic insert had chipped on the bottom edge. Although the chipping did

Fig. 8. A worn ceramic coulter and its control used at site Sl to drill 142 ha
A. G. FOLEY; V. A. McLEES 111

Fig 9. Impact damage suffered by a general purpose coulter at site S6

not prevent continued use of the coulter, it significantly increased the measured wear. This is
highlighted at sites S3 and S4 where the standard errors of the mean were higher for the
ceramic coulters than for the controls.
At site S5 where the trial was disrupted by the introduction of non-standard controls, the
ceramic coulters eventually travelled more than five times as far as the original controls had
done when they were removed, but their mean wear was only 25% higher. A comparison of
the mean wear rates in Table 5 emphasizes the benefit of ceramic protection. However, a
wear ratio based on different distances travelled must be viewed with caution since there is
no certainty that replacement conventional coulters would have continued to wear at the
same rate as the originals if soil conditions varied.
There was no obvious trend relating the relative performance of the ceramic and
conventional coulters to distance travelled as there was for the Suffolk coulters. A reduction
in wear rate of the ceramic coulter with distance travelled might be expected by an
analogous argument. However, the hardness of the cutting edges on the conventional
coulters revealed little variation and the coulters tend to be replaced or rebuilt before their
keel is completely worn away.
In general, the ceramic coulters suffered little impact damage, but that which did occur
was in more critical areas than for the Suffolk coulters. Chipping of the bottom edge of the
ceramic insert may have been caused either by stone contacts during drilling or when the
drill was lowered to the ground after work. More serious damage occurred at site S6, where
a triangular wedge of ceramic was removed from each of two coulters (Fig. 9). However, the
location and nature of the damage was more consistent with the coulters having been
dropped onto a hard object rather than having occurred during travel through the soil. The
general purpose coulter is more prone to this type of damage than the Suffolk coulter since
the ceramic tip is angled downwards for use and so contacts the ground first. As with the
other coulters, the adhesive bond proved totally reliable, and no failures occurred in service.

5. Conclusions
(1) In trials with both the Suffolk and general purpose designs, the wear of ceramic tipped
coulters was much less than that of the conventional metal type, typically by a factor of
about 3 to 4.
(2) In addition, the wear of ceramic tipped coulters was more uniform and consistent,
112 WEAR OF PRECISION SEED DRILL COULTERS

leading to more accurate depth control and improved drill shape. Fewer interruptions were
required to check, adjust and replace ceramic coulters than for the metal type.
(3) With the Suffolk design, the mean wear ratios for conventional/ceramic coulters taken
over each drill varied from 1.5 : 1 to 6.4 : 1, while for the general purpose design the mean
wear ratios varied from 3-O: 1 to 5.3 : 1.
(4) Although some variability in the relative performance of ceramic and metal coulters
would be expected due to changes in soil type and stone content, the low wear ratios with
the Suffolk design were found at sites with low overall wear. The experimental results
indicate that the wear ratios for the Suffolk coulters increase with the amount of wear, and
this has been attributed to a reduction in cutting edge hardness as the metal coulters wear,
and changes in the load bearing area of the cutting edge during use which influence material
removal rates.
(5) Impact damage on both designs of ceramic coulter was limited. In the case of the
Suffolk design slight chipping was noted at the joint between the ceramic tip and the coulter
body on the leading edge. As such it did not affect coulter performance and its incidence
would probably be lessened by the use of soil deflectors since the damage was attributed to
stones lying on the soil surface. The slight chipping on the bottom of the ceramic tip on the
general purpose coulter was probably caused by stone contact in use. The larger chips were
thought to have occurred when the drill was lowered too forcefully onto the ground.
(6) None of the ceramic coulters of either design suffered from adhesive bond failure.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr C. Casburn (British Sugar plc) for bringing the problem of
drill coulter wear to their attention. They would also like to acknowledge the collaboration of Mr
S. Holland (Hestair Farm Equipment Ltd) and Mr C. Fletcher (British Sugar plc) in organizing and
carrying out Trials B and C. The help and cooperation of the farmers, drillmen and British Sugar plc
fieldsmen is also gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are due to Morgan Matroc Ltd (Anderman
Division) who supplied the alumina used in Trial A, and to Hestair Farm Equipment who supplied
both the ceramic and the conventional coulters used in Trials B and C. Finally, the contributions of
Mr P. Lawton and Mr J. Thompson (NIAE) to the running of the trials is gratefully acknowledged.
This work is published by kind permission of the Director of the NIAE and Hestair Farm
Equipment Ltd, for whom part of the work was carried out under contract.

References
1 Richardson, R. C. D. The wear of metal shares in agricultural soils. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
London, 1969
2 Mason, B. Principles of Geochemistry. New York: John Wiley, 1966
3 Richardson, R. C. D. The wear of metal cutting edges in stony soils. DN/ME/21/69, National
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, 1969 (unpubl.)
4 Richardson, R. C. D. The wear of metals by relatively soft abrasives. Wear 1968, 11: 245-275
5 Moore, M. A. The abrasive wear resistance of surface coatings. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research 1975, 20: 167-169
6 Moore, M. A.; McLees, V. A.; King, F. S. Hardfacing soil-engaging equipment. Agricultural
Engineering 1979, 34: 15-19
7 Foley, A. G.; Lawton, P. J.; Barker, A. W.; McLees, V. A. The use of alumina ceramic to reduce
wear of soil engaging components. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1984, 30: 37-46
a. Foley, A. G.; McLees, V. A. Comparative wear measurements on cast iron and ceramic sugar beet
seed drill coulters (Suffolk type). Divisional Note DN 1208, National Institute of Agricultural
Engineering, Silsoe, October 1983
A. G. FOLEY: V. A. McLEES 113

g McLees, V. A.; Foley, A. G. Comparative wear measurements on cast iron and ceramic sugar beet
seed drill coulters (Suffolk type). Part II, 1984. Divisional Note DN 1253, National Institute of
Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, November 1984
lo Lawton, P. J.; Barker, A. W.; Thompson, J. Testing of ceramic-steel bonds by a torsional shear
method. Divisional Note DN 1152, National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe,
January 1983 (unpubl.)
l1 Moore, M. A.; King, F. S. Abrasive wear of brittle solids. Wear 1980, 60: 123-140