| Literature DB >> 27019583 |
Mo Li1, Yuwang Yang1, Li Guo1, Donghui Chen1, Hongliang Sun2, Jin Tong1.
Abstract
Praying mantis is one of the most efficient predators in insect world, which has a pair of powerful tools, two sharp and strong forelegs. Its femur and tibia are both armed with a double row of strong spines along their posterior edges which can firmly grasp the prey, when the femur and tibia fold on each other in capturing. These spines are so sharp that they can easily and quickly cut into the prey. The geometrical characteristic of the praying mantis's foreleg, especially its tibia, has important reference value for the design of agricultural soil-cutting tools. Learning from the profile and arrangement of these spines, cutting blades with tooth profile were designed in this work. Two different sizes of tooth structure and arrangement were utilized in the design on the cutting edge. A conventional smooth-edge blade was used to compare with the bionic serrate-edge blades. To compare the working efficiency of conventional blade and bionic blades, 3D finite element simulation analysis and experimental measurement were operated in present work. Both the simulation and experimental results indicated that the bionic serrate-edge blades showed better performance in cutting efficiency.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 27019583 PMCID: PMC4745428 DOI: 10.1155/2015/471347
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Bionics Biomech ISSN: 1176-2322 Impact factor: 1.781
Figure 1Praying mantis's foreleg.
Figure 2(a) Reference blade A, (b) bionic blade B, (c) bionic blade C, and (d) bionic blade D (mm).
Soil property parameters required in the FEM model.
| Bulk density, | Young's modulus, | Poisson's ratio, | Friction angle, | Stress ratio, | Dilation angle, | Soil moisture, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.79 | 1.14 | 0.3 | 12.21° | 1 | 0° | 20.03 |
Figure 3Stress-strain curve of the sample soil: A is theoretically considered as the yield point; B is theoretically considered as the failure point.
Figure 4Soil-cutting model dimensions.
Dimensions of the three-dimensional soil-cutting model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 260 | 200 | 150 | 100 | 12 |
Figure 5A schematic diagram of the testing device.
Particle distribution of testing soil.
| Particle size ( | <4 | 4~30 | 30~75 | 75~250 | >250 |
|
| |||||
| Content (%) | 1.56 | 27.31 | 12.88 | 58.25 | 0 |
Simulation result.
| Blade | Maximal values of the von Mises stresses (MPa) | |
|---|---|---|
| Initial cutting moment | Final cutting moment | |
| A | 0.2102 | 0.2506 |
| B | 0.3003 | 0.2531 |
| C | 0.2625 | 0.2255 |
| D | 0.2649 | 0.2663 |
Figure 6Reaction force of 4 blades along the z-axis.
Figure 7Experimental results of the maximum soil-cutting resistance.
F test results—dependent variable: cutting force.
|
| Sig. | |
|---|---|---|
| Cutting speed | 0.255 | 0.783 |
| Blade type | 17.306 | 0.002 |
Figure 8Soil-cutting work of 4 blades.
F test results—dependent variable: work.
|
| Sig. | |
|---|---|---|
| Cutting speed | 3.661 | 0.091 |
| Blade type | 40.949 | 0.000 |