Parameterizing and grounding the bionic nonsmooth drag-reduction design model for subsoiling: the recovery acceleration a, the fluctuation correction index k, and the bulge height-spacing-speed relation

The bionic nonsmooth drag-reduction model of Wu et al. (2021) gives a mathematical design relation for patterning the surfaces of soil-engaging tools: bulge altitude $h$ should scale as $k^2aS^2/(2v^2)$, where $S$ is the spacing between surface bulges, $v$ the tool's travel speed, $a$ the effective acceleration at which disturbed soil particles recover their packed state, and $k\ge1$ a fluctuation correction index tied to the nonsmooth morphology. Field tests of model-designed subsoiler tips in one loam soil cut draft resistance by 24.6-33.7% versus smooth tips, but the model's physical content was never established: $a$ was back-calculated from antlion body morphometrics rather than measured in soil, $k$ is only qualitatively characterized, the derivation borrows a fluid-riblet analogy together with a constant-acceleration assumption, and validation covered a single site, one implement family, and no wear of the nonsmooth features. The later literature (2023-2026) reports no measurement or predictive model for $a$ or $k$, no granular-dynamics derivation or test of the constant-acceleration assumption, and no cross-soil validation of the design relation. The problem of making the relation predictive and mechanistically grounded remains open.

Background

Subsoiling is a deep-tillage operation in which a chisel-like implement (a subsoiler) is drawn through the soil to break the plow pan — the compacted layer that forms beneath repeatedly tilled topsoil — without inverting the soil profile. The dominant cost of the operation is the draft force, the horizontal pull the tractor must exert, which grows sharply with working depth and drives fuel consumption. One established route to reducing this force is bionic nonsmooth surfaces: instead of polishing a tool flat, its faces are patterned with millimeter-to-micron-scale ridges, bumps, or scales, imitating soil-dwelling animals (dung beetles, pangolins, earthworms, antlion larvae) that move through granular media with little resistance.

The source (Wu et al., 2021, Applied Bionics and Biomechanics) builds on the companion study of Tong et al. (2020), which used scanning electron microscopy to document the body surface of antlion larvae (Myrmeleon sagax) — efficient burrowers in sandy soil — carrying nonsmooth structure at three scales (submillimeter protrusions and bristles, 50-150 μm setae — fine bristle-like hairs — and submicron grooves), and argued that drag reduction occurs when bulge height grows with the square of the bulge spacing. The mechanism proposed by Wu et al. is that as a nonsmooth surface slides, soil particles near it are periodically disturbed ("fluctuate") rather than dragged along as a coherent mass, so the near-surface layer stays loose — quantified in the underlying granular-mechanics literature by a loose index, a measure of how much the packing of a granular medium has been loosened — and adhesion and friction against the tool drop. For the effect to persist, the soil must be disturbed again before it reconsolidates. Modeling the recovery of a disturbed soil particle as motion under a constant net acceleration $a$ lasting a recovery time $t_r$, writing $T=S/v$ for the time the tool takes to advance one bulge spacing $S$ at speed $v$, with $h$ the bulge altitude, the paper sets $h=\frac{1}{2}a\,t_r^2$ and $t_r=kT$, where $k\ge1$ is the fluctuation correction index, associated with the nonsmooth morphology. Eliminating $t_r$ yields the design relation

$$h=\frac{k^2a}{2}\cdot\frac{S^2}{v^2},$$

i.e. the bulge altitude should be proportional to the square of the bulge spacing and inversely proportional to the square of the travel speed. This is a soil-mechanics echo of the "prominent height" theory of riblet drag reduction in fluids (riblets are tiny streamwise grooves that reduce turbulent skin friction; the theory compares their effective protrusion heights for streamwise and crossflow velocity fluctuations), whose formalism the authors explicitly borrowed. Field experiments at a single loam site (Gongzhuling, Jilin, China) with flat and curved subsoiler tips patterned according to this relation showed 24.6-33.7% lower draft resistance than smooth tips, supporting the model in that setting.

What the paper does not supply is the physics behind the relation. The parameters $a$ and $k$ are only qualitatively characterized: $a$ was back-calculated from antlion body morphometrics via the model equations (giving 0.34-4.11 m/s^2 across the three body-surface scales) rather than measured in soil, and $k$ is constrained only by $k\ge1$ and a stated association with the kind of nonsmooth structure. The derivation adopts the fluid analogy and the constant-acceleration idealization as simplifying assumptions, and the validation covered one soil type, one implement family, one manufacturing scale, and no long-term wear of the nonsmooth features. The discrete element method (DEM — numerical simulation of granular media as large numbers of individual particles interacting through contact forces) was not applied to this model by the source, and has not been applied to it since.

Problem Statement

The open problem is to convert the bionic nonsmooth drag-reduction design relation of Wu et al. (2021) into a predictive, mechanistically grounded design tool for nonsmooth soil-engaging surfaces. In the relation

$$h=\frac{k^2a}{2}\cdot\frac{S^2}{v^2},$$

$h$ is the altitude (height) of a surface bulge on the tool face, $S$ the spacing between adjacent bulges, $v$ the tool's travel speed, $a$ the effective net acceleration at which a soil particle disturbed by the passing tool recovers its packed state, and $k\ge1$ the fluctuation correction index — the ratio of the particle recovery time $t_r$ (the time a disturbed soil particle needs to return from its loosened state to its original packed condition) to the time $T=S/v$ that the tool takes to advance from one bulge to the next. Concretely, three jointly supporting parts, all left open by the source and untouched by the subsequent literature:

1. Parameter identification and prediction: measure, or build predictive models for, the effective soil-particle recovery acceleration $a$ as a function of soil class, moisture content, and particle-size distribution, and the fluctuation correction index $k$ as a function of nonsmooth morphology. The paper's own definitions supply the measurement path — $k=t_r/T$ and $a=2h/t_r^2$ — but no published measurements of $t_r$, $a$, or $k$ for any soil have been reported; today a designer applying the relation to a new soil must guess the composite factor $k^2a$, and a solution must also confront the identifiability issue that only the composite $k^2a$ enters the design relation.

2. Mechanistic foundation: replace or justify the two borrowed assumptions — the fluid "prominent height" riblet analogy (an analogy to drag-reduction theory for microscopic streamwise grooves in turbulent fluid flow) and the constant net acceleration during particle recovery — by a treatment of the disturbed granular layer from soil mechanics or granular dynamics, either recovering the $h\propto S^2/v^2$ scaling from first principles or establishing a corrected scaling together with the regime in which the constant-acceleration idealization is acceptable.

3. Generalization: validate the resulting parameterized design relation for soil-engaging tools beyond the original single-site loam conditions of Gongzhuling, Jilin — across other soil types and moisture ranges, other tillage implements and nonsmooth feature scales, and the degradation of drag-reduction performance as the nonsmooth features wear.

The three parts are jointly required and remain open: a designer can compute a drag-reducing bulge geometry (an altitude-spacing pair at a stated operating speed) for a specified soil and tool from measured or predicted parameters; the scaling's assumptions are either derived from granular dynamics or empirically bounded; and the predicted geometries are confirmed experimentally to reduce draft across other soil types and moisture ranges and other tillage implements and feature scales, with the degradation of that drag reduction under progressive feature wear also characterized.

References

1. Wu, Baoguang; Zhang, Ruize; Hou, Pengfei; Tong, Jin; Zhou, Deyi; Yu, Haiye; Zhang, Qiang; Zhang, Jinsong; Xin, Yuelin (2021). Bionic Nonsmooth Drag Reduction Mathematical Model Construction and Subsoiling Verification. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, vol. 2021, article 5113453. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5113453. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5113453
2. Tong, Jin; Wu, Baoguang; Song, Zelai; Gao, Zibo; Sun, Jiyu; Ma, Yunhai; Zhuang, Jian (2020). Research on the drag reduction mechanism of antlion (Myrmeleon sagax) larvae nonsmooth structural surface. Microscopy Research and Technique 83(4):338-344. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.23419. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23419
3. Zhou, Deyi; Hou, Pengfei; Xin, Yuelin; Wu, Baoguang; Tong, Jin; Yu, Haiye; Qi, Jiangtao; Zhang, Jinsong; Zhang, Qiang (2021). Resistance and Consumption Reduction Mechanism of Bionic Vibration and Verification of Field Subsoiling Experiment. Applied Sciences 11(21):10480. DOI: 10.3390/app112110480. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112110480
4. Li, Jinguang; Qi, Hongyan; Ma, Yunhai; Gao, Peng; Wu, Baoguang (2024). Investigating Soil Adhesion and Antiadhesion Performance of Nonsmooth Subsoiler Surfaces. Journal of Engineering, vol. 2024, article 7019756. DOI: 10.1155/2024/7019756. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7019756
5. Wang, Xuezhen; Zhang, Shihao; Du, Ruizhi; Zhou, Hanmi; Ji, Jiangtao (2024). Recent Advances in Biomimetic Methods for Tillage Resistance Reduction in Agricultural Soil-Engaging Tools. Agronomy 14(9):2163. DOI: 10.3390/agronomy14092163. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092163
6. Wang, Xuezhen; Zhou, Hao; Wang, Shengsheng; Zhou, Hanmi; Ji, Jiangtao (2023). Methods for reducing the tillage force of subsoiling tools: A review. Soil and Tillage Research 229:105676. DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2023.105676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2023.105676
7. Xu, Zihe; Qi, Hongyan; Gao, Peng; Wang, Shuo; Liu, Xuanting; Ma, Yunhai (2024). Biomimetic Design of Soil-Engaging Components: A Review. Biomimetics 9(6):358. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics9060358. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9060358
8. Xu, Zihe; Qi, Hongyan; Wang, Lidong; Wang, Shuo; Liu, Xuanting; Ma, Yunhai (2025). DEM Study and Field Experiments on Coupling Bionic Subsoilers. Biomimetics 10(5):306. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics10050306. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10050306
9. Xu, Lingfeng; Feng, Tiantao; Song, Yuepeng; Li, Fade; Song, Zhanhua (2019). Research on Drag Reduction Mechanism of Bionic Rib Subsoiling Shovel Based on Discrete Element Method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 267:032049. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/267/3/032049. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/267/3/032049
10. Xu, Zihe; He, Miao; Liu, Xuanting; Wang, Shuo; Gao, Peng; Li, Min; Ma, Yunhai (2026). Biomimetic Design and Validation for Drag Reduction of Agricultural Soil-Engaging Components Based on Population Mean Abdominal Contours of Antlion Larvae. Agriculture 16(12):1337. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture16121337. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16121337
11. Chu, Peichen; Zhang, Honglei; Ding, Zhao; Fang, Meng; Su, Zhan; Tang, Zhong (2026). Research Progress on Wear Mechanisms and Surface Engineering of Agricultural Soil Contact Components for Tillage and Seeding. Lubricants 14(8):293. DOI: 10.3390/lubricants14080293. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants14080293
12. Wu, Baoguang; Ye, Junting; Zhou, Deyi; Zhang, Jinsong; Liu, Yuping; Huang, Zeshe; Hou, Pengfei; Shang, Yushi (2026). Application research on the mechanism of antlion vibration for reducing resistance and energy consumption in subsoiler. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 253, article 112214. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2026.112214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2026.112214
13. Wang, Longlong; Zheng, Changjiang; Li, Mingke; Mi, Tongtong; Li, Songze; Yi, Xuemei (2024). Drag reduction design and experiments for the chisel-shaped shovel tip. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, article 1576. DOI: 10.4081/jae.2024.1576. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2024.1576