prediction of tractve performance on soil surface
TRANSCRIPT
A
Seminar On
THE PREDICTION OF TRACTIVE PERFORMANCE
ON SOIL SURFACES
Presented by
Mr. Yogesh Dilip Sawant (13AG61R15)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD ENGINEERING
IIT, KHARAGPUR.
Introduction:
DRIVE TVRES for agricultural tractors are required to
provide traction on agricultural soils, to support the vehicle,
and to provide a minimum resistance to movement over the
surface in the intended direction of travel.
Different approaches have been suggested for predicting
tractive performance, however, they all rely on some soil
strength parameter and generally assume a uniform
distribution of shear stress between the tyre and the soil.
A new approach to the traction prediction equation is
described.
To develop a new approach to the traction prediction
equation.
To compare prediction equation with the widely used
Wismer and Luth equation and measured data obtained by
Wittig.
Objectives:
Bekker was one of the first to suggest such a relationship:
Janosi and Hanamoto proposed a simpler equation to describe the
asymptotic curves of shearing stress versus soil deformation
where K is a soil deformation modulus
Wismer and Luth suggested an equation for traction
They used cone index (based on cone penetrometer resistance) as a
measure of topsoil strength properties
Gee-Clough suggested a similar empirical equation for
traction. The principal terms CT and (CT)max were defined in
terms of the vehicle mobility number.
Mobility number is based on cone penetrometer resistance, tyre
dimensions and tyre deflection.
Brixius developed several prediction equations for bias ply tyres
operating in cohesive-frictional soils.
These equations contained more wheel parameters and were a
result of testing that was conducted in a wide range of soil
types.
However, they also depend on cone index which seems to be an
insufficient parameter for defining soil strength for traction
prediction purposes.
Prediction using cone index showed poor correlation between
measured data and predicted values for traction coefficient at 20%
slip.
However, a similar comparison using data obtained from plate
sinkage tests gave better correlations.
The investigation suggested that soil shear strength and soil rubber
friction were likely to be important variables in predicting
coefficient of traction.
Dwyer et al. conducted traction tests in which they used a cone
penetrometer as well as a soil shear meter to measure soil
parameters
Wittig proposed the use of a single wheel tester (SWT) for
determining a soil strength parameter in predicting tractive
performance
Different normal loads were applied to the SWT and the
maximum torque that could be developed was measured.
The general form of the equation used was:
where a and b are empirical constants.
This method was shown to give more accurate predictions on
Vienna loam soils than the cone penetrometer approach of
Wismer and Luth.
Upadhyaya and Wulfsohn developed a fully instrumented device
capable of measuring soil sinkage and shear
It was employed to conduct in situ sinkage and shear tests
They had conducted field tests for three different types of radial
tyre on five different soils with three axle loads.
They obtained a prediction equation for different soils and
loading conditions and concluded that soil conditions had the
greatest effect on the outcomes of their study.
Another interesting approach suggested by Janosi and Hanamoto
whereby the thrust is assumed to act similar to the shear force, in a
horizontal plane under the traction device:
Where,
F is the maximum shear force
P is pull
Ravi Godbole etal proposes a modified form of previous equation,
For uniform normal pressure a is independent of x and is equal to
W/bl
where bl = A, the contact area, assuming a rectangular contact
patch.
The final form of the equation is
Material and Methods:
Thus for the contact patch length,
The tyre numeric was defined as follows,
where p is inflation pressure
Krick established the following empirical prediction equation for
deflection, f:
For the purposes of this investigation, Krick's equation was re-evaluated
using the section height S instead of tyre section width B
Krick proposed his equation based upon the experimental data of
the most commonly used agricultural tyres.
For Small tyres:
Final equation for small tyres:
Final equation developed for prediction of traction:
Soil Testing•
The shear tests conducted can be categorized as consolidated
undrained tests.
Soils were collected from two sites. Four samples of each soil
were used for testing. Each sample was tested at five levels of
normal stress.
Fig.Shear displacement curves for different normal stress levels.
Fig. Plot of shear stress vs normal stress for soil 1.
Fig. Plot of shear stress vs normal stress for soil 2.
Deflection calculations:
Contact length and deflections were calculated at a given axle
load from the formulae given earlier.
The validity of these calculations was checked with the
empirical equation suggested by Painter.
This equation is of the form,
f is the tyre deflection, p tyre inflation pressure
ao ,a2 etc. are empirical constants.
Using Painters equation the value of deflection is f= 0.102 m.
This compares quite well with the deflection value of 0.0969
m determined from the equation for the deflection give earlier.
Using this equation gives an area A = 0.2252 m2 which compares
reasonably well with our calculated value of A = 0.2985 m 2.
Contact area calculations:
Area calculations were made using the formulae developed in
the earlier section assuming a rectangular contact patch.
Painter has suggested a similar empirical equation for contact
area,
D is the outside diameter of the tyre,
C is the tyre cross section equivalent diameter of curvature,
f is the tyre deflection
Results and discussion:
The difference between the P/W values obtained by actual measurement
and those obtained by using the modified equation can be explained as
follows:
(1) The testing conducted by Wittig was done in 1990 whereas the
authors conducted their soil tests from samples collected in 1992 at
the same locations
(2) Changes in the conditions of the soil and crop residue may have
resulted in different Tmax valúes.
(3) The contact area A is either calculated by formulae or checked using
empirical relationships. This may differ from the exact value for
contact area. In addition, effects such as soil wall build up around the
tyres and soil topography may affect the area term
(4) The contact length term used in the prediction equations may
differ from actual values.
Conclusions:
The equation predicts traction coefficient more accurately than
some other methods and justifies the use of the soil deformation
modulus in traction studies.
Soil deformation modulus is a good estimator of soil strength and
has relationship with normal stress levels.
Expressions developed for contact lengths and area provide results
that are consistent with other models.
References:
M. BEKKER, Off the Road Locomotion. The University of
Michigan Press (1960).
Z. JANOSl and B. HANAMOTO, The analytical determination
of drawbar pull as a function of slip for tracked vehicles in
deformable soils. First Int. Conf. Mechanics of Soil-Vehicle
Systems, Torino-St. Vincent (1961).
R. WISMER and H. LUTH. Off-road traction prediction for
wheeled vehicles. Trans. ASAE 17 (1), 8-14 (1974).
V. Wlx'rlG, Prediction of tractor drawbar pull on agricultural
soils. M.S. Thesis, Dept of Agricultural Engr, South Dakota State
University, Brookings, SD 57007, unpublished (1990).
THANK YOU