Journal

of
Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222
Terramechanics
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Dynamic load and inflation pressure effects

on contact pressures of a forestry forwarder tire
Hyung-gyu Jun a, Thomas R. Way b,*, Bj€orn L€ofgren c,
om c, Alvin C. Bailey b, Eddie C. Burt b,
Mats Landstr€
Timothy P. McDonald d
a
Department of Bio-Mechatronic Engineering, Sung-Kyun-Kwan University, Suwon 440-746, Korea
b
USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, 411 S. Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36832, USA
c
SkogForsk, Glunten, S-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden
d
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA

Available online 6 May 2004

Abstract

A Trelleborg Twin 421 Mark II 600/55-26.5 steel-reinforced bias-ply forwarder drive tire at
inflation pressures of 100 and 240 kPa and dynamic loads of 23.9 and 40 kN was used at 5%
travel reduction on a firm clay soil. Effects of dynamic load and inflation pressure on soil–tire
contact pressures were determined using six pressure transducers mounted on the tire tread.
Three were mounted on the face of a lug and three at corresponding locations on the un-
dertread. Contact angles increased with decreases in inflation pressure and increases in dy-
namic load. Contact pressures on a lug at the edge of the tire increased as dynamic load
increased. Mean and peak pressures on the undertread generally were less than those on a lug.
The peak pressures on a lug occurred forward of the axle in nearly all combinations of dy-
namic load, inflation pressure, and pressure sensor location, and peak pressures on the un-
dertread occurred to the rear of the axle in most of the combinations. Ratios of the peak
contact pressure to the inflation pressure ranged from 0 at the edge of the undertread for three
combinations of dynamic load and inflation pressure to 8.39 for the pressure sensor on a lug,
near the tire centerline, when the tire was underinflated. At constant dynamic load, net
traction and tractive efficiency decreased as inflation pressure increased.
Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of ISTVS.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-334-844-4753; fax: +1-334-887-8597.
E-mail address: tway@ars.usda.gov (T.R. Way).

0022-4898/$20.00 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of ISTVS.

doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2004.03.002
210 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222

Keywords: Soil–tire interface; Soil compaction; Tractive performance; Tractive efficiency; Net traction;
Stresses

1. Introduction

Recent research on logging machines and self-loading forwarders in forests has

been focused on improving profitability and forest environment care. Problems that
may result from deep rut formation include reductions in tree growth and the dis-
ruption of ecosystems. Forwarders to transport logs from the forest to the roadside
travel many times, empty or loaded, on the same striproad. The number of forestry
machine passes is a significant factor influencing rut formation (McDonald [1]).
Raper [2] found that one of the factors that influences rut formation is soil–tire
interface pressures. Raper [2] measured rut width, contact length, rut cross-sectional
area, contact area, and soil–tire interface pressures on a radial-ply R-1 agricultural
tractor drive tire and showed that the effects of inflation pressure and dynamic load
on these measures of rut formation were statistically significant. Increased inflation
pressure at constant dynamic load decreased rut width, total contact length, and
total contact area of the tire, but caused the soil–tire interface pressures to increase
overall. Increased dynamic load at constant inflation pressure increased rut width,
rut cross-sectional area, and soil–tire interface pressures.
Typical forwarder tires such as the Trelleborg 421 tire, have a tread pattern with
rounded shoulders to reduce damage to the root mat and a large diameter rim to
improve the side stability and reduce the risk of slippage between the rim and the tire
at maximum torque (Mellgren [3]). The rounded shoulders avoid cutting the surface
layer of the soil. Myhrman [4] compared the ground pressure calculated according to
the Swedish formula for contact area on soil (radius of tire
width of tire) and the
rut depth for eight-wheeled forwarders. At ground pressures less than about 75 kPa,
the rut formation was generally independent of both ground pressure and gross
vehicle weight. Rut formation increased rapidly as the ground pressure rose above
75 kPa. Wider tires reduce ground pressure, soil compaction, and rut formation
considerably in spite of their greater weight (Hassan [5], McDonald [1], Mellgren [3]).
Effects of inflation pressure and dynamic load on soil compaction for a forwarder
tire were investigated by McDonald [6]. Reductions in inflation pressure at a given
dynamic load tended to decrease bulk density, soil cone index, and rut depth. De-
creases in these variables tended to be affected more by dynamic load than inflation
pressure.
Soil–tire interface stresses were determined for a radial-ply R-1 agricultural
tractor drive tire by Burt [7]. The normal stress distribution on loose and firm soil
overlying a hardpan was found to be extremely non-uniform across the tire width
and along the soil–tire contact arc. In general, the normal stress at the soil–tire in-
terface varies with changes in dynamic load. Other research has shown the effects of
inflation pressure and dynamic load on soil–tire interface pressures for agricultural
tractor tires (Jun [8], Raper [9], Burt [10], Wood [11]).
 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222 211

Magnitudes and distributions of soil–tire interface pressures affect the soil com-
paction and tractive performance characteristics of tires. Therefore, an experiment
was developed with the following objectives:
1. To determine effects of dynamic load and inflation pressure on soil–tire interface
pressures for a forwarder tire.
2. To determine effects of dynamic load and inflation pressure on net traction and
tractive efficiency for a forwarder tire.

2. Methods

A Trelleborg Twin 421 Mark II 600/55-26.5 steel-reinforced bias-ply forwarder

drive tire 1 was used in the experiment (Figs. 1 and 2) (Trelleborg Industri AB,
Trelleborg, Sweden). Six Sensotec Model F pressure transducers with diaphragm
diameters of 9.7 mm (Sensotec, Inc., Columbus, OH, USA) were mounted on the
tread of the tire. The pressure transducers were 500-ohm semiconductor strain gage
transducers and were able to measure only pressures that were normal to the trans-
ducer diaphragm. Each transducer was 16 mm long, 10.8 mm wide, and 2 mm thick,
and had four electrical leads extending from the transducer body. A woodworking
router with a 12.7 mm diameter bit was used to cut a groove 2 mm deep in the tread at
each location where a transducer was to be mounted. Gel-type super glue (cyano-
acrylate) was applied to the base of each transducer to glue the base to the bottom of
the groove that was cut in the tread. The electrical leads of each transducer were
inserted in a 1.6 mm diameter heat shrink tubing. The heat shrink tubing was glued,
using super glue, into a 2 mm depth groove which had been cut in the tread using a
modeling knife. The heat-shrink tubing was heated using a heat gun to shrink the
diameter of the tubing, and a rubber adhesive was applied to the tubing and groove to
fill the voids to give a surface that approximated the original shape of the tread.
Three transducers were mounted on the lug face: near the centerline of the tire
(LC), the middle of the lug (LM), and the outer edge of the lug (LE) (Fig. 3). The
remaining three transducers designated UC, UM, and UE were mounted on the
undertread at lateral locations corresponding to the lug transducers. The experiment
was conducted using the Traction Research Vehicle (TRV) in a soil bin at the USDA-
ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory in Auburn, AL. The TRV operates a tire
under computer control and measures variables needed to determine tractive per-
formance, as described by Burt [12] and Lyne [13]. All analog transducers, including
the pressure transducers on the tire tread, were connected to analog-to-digital con-
verters of an instrumentation system housed in an instrumentation vehicle which was
towed by the TRV. A Modcomp 7870 minicomputer (Modcomp, Inc., Ft. Lauder-
dale, FL, USA) in the instrumentation vehicle recorded all of the data.
The tire was operated at two dynamic loads (23.9 and 40 kN), each at two
inflation pressures (100 and 240 kPa), resulting in four treatment combinations
1
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing
specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of
Agriculture.
212 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222

Fig. 1. Trelleborg 600/55-26.5 forwarder tire.

One lug

Rim

0 100 200 Undertread

mm

Fig. 2. Circumferential projections of lugs and undertread of unloaded tire section onto a cross-sectional
plane.

(Table 1). The 23.9–100 and 40–240 treatments had correct inflation pressures cor-
responding to the dynamic loads. The 23.9–240 treatment overinflated the tire. The
40–100 treatment underinflated the tire and is not recommended by the manufac-
turer. Four replications of each combination of dynamic load and inflation pressure
were used. The experiment was conducted on a Davidson clay (Rhodic Paleudults)
 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222 213

13 mm
UE
UM

UC

LE
LM

2
LC 288 cm

0 100 200 280

mm
Fig. 3. Lug pattern and locations of pressure transducers (LE, LM, LC, UE, UM, and UC) on tire.
Shoulders of tire were rounded, so lug area calculation is based on the assumption that the ends of the lugs
at the shoulders were where the ends of the lugs blended in with the tire sidewall, which was 135 mm
radially inward, toward the axle centerline, from where the central plane of the tire intersected a lug face.

Table 1
Dynamic load and inflation pressure combinations specified for soil containing rocks or stones that may
damage tirea
Treatment Dynamic load (kN) Inflation pressure (kPa)
23.9–100 23.9 100b
23.9–240 23.9 240c
40–100 40 100d
40–240 40 240b
a
Maximum speed ¼ 10, or 30 km/h for short distance road service.
b
Correct inflation pressure to match load.
c
The tire was overinflated in this treatment.
d
The tire was underinflated in this treatment. This combination of load and inflation pressure is not
recommended by the tire manufacturer.

soil with a composition of 25% sand, 31% silt, and 44% clay. The soil was prepared
by first rotary tilling to a depth of about 300 mm. A hardpan was then formed across
the bin using side-by-side passes of a single moldboard plow followed by a weighted
cylindrical steel wheel operating in the plow furrow. The soil above the hardpan was
compacted and the surface leveled with a scraper blade. The depth to the top of the
hardpan beneath the untrafficked soil surface was 270 mm. Initial physical properties
of the soil are shown in Table 2. The mean soil cone index in the 76–127 mm depth
range was greater than that in the top 40 mm of the hardpan because the soil above
214 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222

Table 2
Mean initial conditions of soil
Depth beneath Water contenta Dry bulk densitya (Mg/m3 ) Soil cone indexb (MPa)
untrafficked surface (% dry basis) Mean Standard Mean Standard
(mm) deviation deviation
0–51 11.7 1.35 0.092 0.10 0.07
76–127 15.2 1.43 0.082 2.22 0.77
a
Each bulk density and each water content is the mean from 30 soil samples. The lower plastic limit, the
lower liquid limit, and the sticky point for the soil were 22.2, 31.3, and 23.0% dry basis, respectively
(Batchelor [14]).
b
Base area of cone penetrometer ¼ 323 mm2 . Each cone index is the mean of 24 cone penetrations.
Depth of top of hardpan beneath untrafficked soil surface was 270 mm. Mean soil cone index in top 40 mm
of hardpan was 2.12 MPa and standard deviation was 0.15 MPa.

the hardpan was compacted substantially when the soil was prepared (Table 2).
When the tire was operated in each plot of soil, the computer control of the TRV
maintained constant inflation pressure, constant dynamic load, a constant travel
reduction of 5%, and a forward velocity of 0.15 m/s. Zero conditions for travel re-
duction calculations consisted of the tire operating on concrete at zero net traction.

3. Results

The soil–tire interface pressure data were used to develop graphs showing dis-
tributions of the contact pressures along the contact patch, and the peak contact
pressures as the transducers passed through the contact patch (Figs. 4 and 5). For
each of the dynamic load and inflation pressure treatments, the four data sets, one
for each replication, were examined. Each data set contained pairs of angular po-
sition and contact pressure data of each transducer as the tire made one revolution.
Within each data set, the contact arc for each pressure transducer was designated as
the range of transducer angular positions over which the contact pressures were
greater than zero. The forward and rearward angular limits of each arc were de-
termined, and means of the four forward angles and the four rearward angles were
determined for each transducer, for each treatment. Each mean was the mean of the
four replications. These mean angle limits are the farthest forward and farthest
rearward lines for each transducer (Figs. 4 and 5). Each contact arc was then divided
into 5° intervals forward and rearward from the bottom center position, which was
the position at which the transducer was directly below the axle. The mean contact
pressures of these 5° intervals were calculated for each transducer for the four rep-
lications of each treatment. The 5° intervals were used for averaging because the
angular position values of the four replications were not necessarily the same. Data
at positive angular positions in Figs. 4 and 5 represent pressures forward of the axle
and data at negative positions represent pressures to the rear of the axle. For each
transducer within each data set, the peak contact pressure and the angular position
 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222 215

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Lug face interface pressures. Mean distributions of contact pressures on the lug face for four
replications at each combination of dynamic load and inflation pressure for a Trelleborg 600/55-26.5
forwarder tire. (a) Load ¼ 23.9 kN, correct inflation pressure of 100 kPa, (b) load ¼ 23.9 kN, overinflated
inflation pressure of 240 kPa, (c) load ¼ 40 kN, underinflated inflation pressure of 100 kPa, (d) load ¼ 40
kN, correct inflation pressure of 240 kPa. Arrows indicate mean magnitudes and positions of the peak
pressures for the four replications. IP is inflation pressure, LE, LM, and LC are lug interface pressures at
the edge of the tread, at the middle of the lug, and near the centerline of the tire, respectively. The X-axis
angles are the angular positions of the pressure sensors about the axle (zero angle indicates sensor was
directly beneath axle).

of the transducer at the peak pressure were determined. The arrows in Figs. 4 and 5
represent the means of the peak contact pressures for the four replications. The
magnitude of each arrow is the mean of the peak contact pressures from the four
replications and the angular position of the arrow is the mean angular position of the
peak contact pressures from the four replications.
216 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5. Undertread interface pressures. Mean distributions of contact pressures on the undertread for four
replications at each combination of dynamic load and inflation pressure for a Trelleborg 600/55-26.5
forwarder tire. (a) Load ¼ 23.9 kN, correct inflation pressure of 100 kPa, (b) load ¼ 23.9 kN, overinflated
inflation pressure of 240 kpa, (c) load ¼ 40 kN, underinflated inflation pressure of 100 kPa, (d) load ¼ 40
kN, correct inflation pressure of 240 kPa. Arrows indicate mean magnitudes and positions of the peak
pressures for the four replications. IP is inflation pressure, UE, UM, and UC are undertread interface
pressures at the edge of the tread, at a position corresponding to the middle of a lug, and at the centerline
of the tire, respectively. The X-axis angles are the angular positions of the pressure sensors about the axle
(zero angle indicates sensor was directly beneath axle). Pressures for sensor UE were zero for the treat-
ments shown in a, b, and d.

Distributions and peak values of the contact pressures on the lug are presented in
Fig. 4. In all treatments, the greatest contact arc for the transducers on the lug oc-
curred near the centerline of the tire, which was the LC sensor. In the 23.9–100
properly inflated treatment, the lug contact pressures near the centerline of the tire
 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222 217

were greater than those on the middle of the lug or edge of the lug (Fig. 4(a)). In the
23.9–240 overinflated treatment, the mean pressures and the peak pressure were
small at the outside edge of the tire and the greatest means and peak occurred at the
middle of the lug (Fig. 4(b)). The greatest contact angle for the 23.9–240 treatment
was 32.2° which was 80% of the 40.2° maximum contact angle in the 23.9–100
treatment.
The greater inflation pressure of the 23.9–240 treatment, relative to the 23.9–100
treatment, likely caused less deflection of the tire sidewall. This resulted in decreased
contact pressures on the lug at the edge of the tread at the higher inflation pressure.
In the 40–100 underinflated treatment, the contact pressures near the centerline of
the tire and at the middle of the lug were greater than those at the edge of the lug, but
the pressures were substantially greater than inflation pressure for nearly all of their
contact lengths (Fig. 4(c)). For the four treatments, the only peak lug contact
pressure that occurred to the rear of the axle was for the sensor near the tire cen-
terline (LC) in the 40–100 underinflated treatment (Fig. 4). The maximum contact
angle of the three lug sensor locations for the 40–100 treatment was 54.6° and oc-
curred for the sensor near the tire centerline. The contact pressures on the lug in the
40–240 properly inflated treatment were more uniform across the tire width than in
the other treatments (Fig. 4(d)). Contact pressures on the lug near the centerline of
the tire (LC) and at the middle of the lug (LM) for the 40–240 treatment were less
than those of the 40–100 treatment. Magnitudes of the peak contact pressures at the
three transducers on the lug for the 40–240 treatment were nearly equal (Fig. 4(d)). A
comparison of the lower inflation pressure at a given load with the higher inflation
pressure at the same load (comparing Fig. 4(a) with Fig. 4(b) and comparing Fig.
4(c) with Fig. 4(d)) shows that the contact angle was greater at the lower inflation
pressure, similar to results for radial-ply tractor drive tires presented in Way [15],
Raper [2], and Raper [9]. A decrease in inflation pressure of a radial-ply tractor drive
tire operating on a loose sandy loam soil was found by Raper [2] to result in a
concentration of lug contact pressures near the edge of the tire. For this steel-rein-
forced bias-ply forwarder tire operating on a firm clay soil, this was true at the 23.9
kN load, but at the 40 kN load, a decrease in inflation pressure generally did not
increase the lug contact pressures at the edge of the tire.
When the inflation pressure was maintained at 100 kPa and the load was in-
creased from 23.9 kN (Fig. 4(a)) to 40 kN (Fig. 4(c)), the contact angles increased
and the contact pressures at the edge and middle of the lug increased. The lug
contact pressures near the centerline of the tire generally increased rearward of the
axle but decreased forward of the axle. In both treatments, the peak pressures in-
creased from a minimum at the edge of the lug to a maximum near the tire centerline.
The fact that angular position of the peak pressure in the 40–100 treatment occurred
to the rear of the axle (Fig. 4(c)) indicates a movement of the portion of the contact
patch that supported a substantial part of the load, from the middle of the lug at the
forward part of the contact patch for the properly inflated 23.9–100 treatment, to
near the tire centerline at the rearward part of the contact patch in the underinflated
40–100 treatment. Within an inflation pressure, as dynamic load increased, the
contact pressures became more uniform across the tire width and the contact angles
218 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222

increased. Dynamic load affected soil–tire contact pressures differently for the dif-
ferent transducer locations. Results from previous research for radial-ply tractor
drive tires indicate that on firm soil, an increase in dynamic load caused a decrease in
normal stresses on lugs at the lug middle and tire centerline positions and an increase
in normal stress at the outside edge of the lug (Burt [7]). For this forwarder tire,
however, an increase in dynamic load at the 100 kPa inflation pressure caused
greater contact pressures at all three transducer locations. An increase in dynamic
load at the 240 kPa inflation pressure caused a decrease in the pressure at the middle
of the lug, and increases in the pressures near the tire centerline and outside edge of
the lug.
Distributions and peak values of contact pressures on the undertread for each
combination of dynamic load and inflation pressure are shown in Fig. 5. Contact
pressures and peak pressures on the undertread were less than those on the lug, and
in the two 23.9 kN load treatments (Fig. 5(a) and (b)), were close to 0 kPa. In
treatments other than the 40–100 treatment (Fig. 5(c)), undertread contact pressures
on the edge of the tire were zero. The peak pressures occurred to the rear of the axle
in most treatments, whereas peak pressures on the lug occurred forward of the axle
in 11 of the 12 combinations of sensor location and treatment. In the 40–100 un-
derinflated treatment, the greatest mean pressures and the peak pressures on the
undertread at the edge of the tire (Fig. 5(c)) were greater than those on the lug at the
edge of the tire (Fig. 4(c)). In the 40–240 properly inflated treatment, the peak
pressure on the undertread midway between the tire centerline and edge (UM), ex-
ceeded the 240 kPa inflation pressure (Fig. 5(d)). The mean and peak undertread
pressures were nearly zero for the 23.9 kN dynamic load, but for the 40 kN dynamic
load, they exceeded the inflation pressure at some transducer locations.
The sensor on the undertread, near the tire centerline (UC), was relatively shel-
tered compared to the other sensors because it was on the undertread depression and
was relatively close to the three lugs nearest the sensor. Therefore, the UC pressures
were expected to generally be smaller than the other pressures and this was generally
true (Fig. 5). The 26 mm lateral overlap of lugs on the left side of the tire with those
on the right side (Fig. 3) was expected to reduce pressures on the LC sensor, which
was the lug sensor closest to this overlap region, relative to lug face sensors near the
tire centerline on tires having less lateral overlap of lugs. This expectation of rela-
tively low LC pressures was exhibited for the overinflated 23.9–240 treatment (Fig.
4(b)), but was not exhibited in the 23.9–100 correctly inflated and 40–100 underin-
flated treatments (Fig. 4(a) and (c)), as these two treatments had relatively high LC
pressures relative to inflation pressure.
Ratios of the peak contact pressure to the inflation pressure ranged from 0 for the
UE sensor in three of the four treatments to 8.39 for the LC sensor in the 40–100
underinflated treatment (Table 3). The greatest ratios occurred for the 40–100 un-
derinflated treatment and the ratios were generally the least for the 23.9–240 over-
inflated treatment.
Tractive efficiency and net traction data were analyzed to determine tractive
performance characteristics of the forwarder tire. The two levels of dynamic load,
23.9 and 40 kN, used in the experiment at a constant travel reduction of 5% resulted
 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222 219

Table 3
Peak soil–tire interface pressures and ratios of peaks to the tire inflation pressure
Sensora Treatment
23.9–100 23.9– 240 40–100 40–240
b c
Peak Ratio Peak Ratio Peak Ratio Peak Ratio
LE 185 1.85 103 0.43 285 2.85 399 1.66
LM 300 3.00 635 3.06 681 6.81 417 1.74
LC 600 6.00 328 1.37 839 8.39 469 1.95
UE 0 0 0 0 486 4.86 0 0
UM 11 0.11 19 0.08 60 0.60 302 1.26
UC 75 0.75 20 0.08 36 0.36 131 0.55
a
LE, LM, and LC are the interface pressure sensors at the edge of the tread, at the middle of the lug, and
near the centerline of the tire, respectively. UE, UM, and UC are undertread interface pressures at the edge
of the tread, at a position corresponding to the middle of a lug, and at the centerline of the tire, re-
spectively.
b
Mean of the peak interface pressures for the four replications.
c
Ratio of mean interface pressure to the inflation pressure.

Table 4
Mean net tractions and tractive efficiencies at 5% travel reduction
Treatment Dynamic load Inflation pressure
(kN) (kPa)
23.9–100 23.9–240 40–100 40–240 23.9 40 100 240
Net traction 7.0 5.8 13.4 10.9 6.4 12.1 10.2 8.3
(kN)
Tractive 75.0 68.9 78.4 71.6 71.9 75.0 76.7 70.2
efficiency (%)

in considerable differences in net traction at the various combinations of dynamic

load and inflation pressure (Table 4). An analysis of variance showed that tractive
efficiency was significantly affected by dynamic load (p ¼ 0:0002) and inflation
pressure (p ¼ 0:0001). The tractive efficiency of 75.0% at the 40 kN dynamic load
was significantly greater than the tractive efficiency of 71.9% at the 23.9 kN load. The
inflation pressure results showed that the tractive efficiency of 76.7% at the 100 kPa
inflation pressure was significantly greater than the tractive efficiency of 70.2% at the
240 kPa inflation pressure.
The analysis of variance for net traction showed that the interaction between
dynamic load and inflation pressure significantly affected net traction. The method
described by Cody [16] for handling a significant interaction was used, so net traction
was graphed as a function of inflation pressure (Fig. 6). The graph shows the net
traction has a greater slope at the greater dynamic load. Two subsequent analyses of
variance were conducted, one at each dynamic load. At the 23.9 kN dynamic load,
the net traction of 7.0 kN at the 100 kPa inflation pressure was significantly greater
than the net traction of 5.8 kN at the 240 kPa inflation pressure (p ¼ 0:0002)
220 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222

Fig. 6. Interaction of dynamic load and inflation pressure for net traction.

(Table 4). At the 40 kN dynamic load, the net traction of 13.4 kN at the 100 kPa
inflation pressure was significantly greater than the net traction of 10.9 kN at the
240 kPa inflation pressure (p ¼ 0:0026).
The four soil–tire contact arcs were 40.2° for the 23.9–100 treatment, 32.2° for the
23.9–240 treatment, 54.6° for the 40–100 treatment, and 41.8° for the 40–240
treatment. An interesting pattern was revealed when ratios of net traction (Table 4)
to contact arc were calculated. The ratios at the 23.9 kN dynamic load were close to
0.18 kN/°, as the ratios were 0.17 kN/° for the 23.9–100 treatment and 0.18 kN/° for
the 23.9–240 treatment. Ratios at the 40 kN dynamic load, however, were greater,
and were close to 0.25 kN/°, as the ratios were 0.25 kN/° for the 40–100 treatment
and 0.26 kN/° for the 40–240 treatment. The undertread had greater contact with the
soil for the 40 kN dynamic load than for the 23.9 kN load, as evidenced by the
greater undertread interface pressures at the 40 kN load (Fig. 5(c) and (d)), com-
pared to the pressures at the 23.9 kN load (Fig. 5(a) and (b)). This greater contact of
the undertread at the higher load means the lugs penetrated deeper into the soil and
the undertread was able to apply greater frictional forces to the soil at the higher
load than at the lower load, and these factors likely contributed to the greater ratio
of net traction to contact arc for the greater load.

4. Conclusions

The following conclusions were drawn from the experiment:

1. As inflation pressure decreased at constant dynamic load, the contact angles of the
forwarder tire on a firm clay soil increased. As dynamic load increased at constant
inflation pressure, the contact angles increased. Contact pressures on a lug at the
edge of the tire increased as dynamic load increased. The mean pressures and peak
 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222 221

pressures on the undertread generally were less than those on a lug and were close
to zero when the dynamic load was 23.9 kN. The peak pressures on a lug occurred
forward of the axle in nearly all treatments and peak pressures on the undertread
occurred to the rear of the axle in most treatments.
2. Net traction and tractive efficiency of the forwarder tire decreased with increasing
inflation pressure at constant dynamic load. At constant inflation pressure, net
traction and tractive efficiency increased with increasing dynamic load. For the
tire and conditions used in this experiment, ratios of net traction to the soil–tire
contact arc were approximately 0.18 kN/° at the 23.9 kN dynamic load and
0.25 kN/° at the 40 kN load.
In summary, the contact pressure data show the transition of load that occurs
when inflation pressure or dynamic load changes. These results show that in the
overinflated treatment, the distributions of contact pressures across the tire width
were highly non-uniform and the pressures were concentrated at the middle of the
lug. In the underinflated treatment, the contact angles and the contact pressures were
large. When two correct combinations of dynamic load and inflation pressure were
used, however, the distributions of contact pressure were relatively uniform. Soil–tire
interface pressures and resulting compaction of the surface soil are expected to be
less if the tire inflation pressure is set according to manufacturer specifications for the
load supported by the tire than if the tire is overinflated or underinflated.

References

[1] McDonald T, Stokes BJ, Vechinski CR, Aust WM. Rut formation potential of wide-tire-equipped
skidders. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the International Society for
Terrain-Vehicle Systems, Vol. II. Incline Village (Nevada, USA); 1993. p. 724–733.
[2] Raper RL, Bailey AC, Burt EC, Way TR, Liberati P. Inflation pressure and dynamic load effects on
soil deformation and soil–tire interface stresses. Trans ASAE 1995;38(3):685–9.
[3] Mellgren PG. Trials on muskeg with high flotation forestry tires. In: Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference of the International Society for Terrain-Vehicle Systems, Vol. II. Calgary
(Alberta, Canada); 1981. p. 737–753.
[4] Myhrman D. Factors influencing rut formation from forestry machines. In: Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference of the International Society for Terrain-Vehicle Systems. Kobe, Japan;
1990. p. 467–475.
[5] Hassan AE. Study of soil machine systems under forestry condition. In: Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference of the International Society for Terrain-Vehicle Systems. Kobe, Japan;
1990. p. 487–498.
[6] McDonald T, Way T, L€ ofgren B, Seixas B, Landstr€
om M. Load and inflation pressure effects on soil
compaction of forwarder tires. In: Proceedings of the of the Joint IUFRO P3.07/CWF/CPPA/FERIC
Conference, Quebec City (Quebec, Canada); 1996. p. E67–E70.
[7] Burt EC, Wood RK, Bailey AC. Effects of dynamic load on normal soil–tire interface stresses. Trans
ASAE 1989;32(6):1843–6.
[8] Jun H, Taniguchi T, Kishimoto T, Yoshida M, Tamari T. Measurement of tire-lug contact stresses by
a three-dimensional stress transducer. J. Jpn Soc Agric Mach 1997;59(6):3–10.
[9] Raper RL, Bailey AC, Burt EC, Way TR, Liberati P. The effects of reduced inflation pressure on soil–
tire interface stresses and soil strength. J Terramech 1995;32(1):43–51.
[10] Burt EC, Wood RK, Bailey AC. Some comparisons of average to peak soil–tire contact pressures.
Trans ASAE 1992;35(2):401–4.
222 H. Jun et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 41 (2004) 209–222

[11] Wood RK, Burt EC. Soil–tire interface stress measurements. Trans ASAE 1987;30(5):1254–8.
[12] Burt EC, Reaves CA, Bailey AC, Pickering WD. A machine for testing tractor tires in soil bins. Trans
ASAE 1980;23(3):546–7, 552.
[13] Lyne PWL, Burt EC, Jarrell JD. Computer control for the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory
single wheel tester. ASAE Paper No. 83-1555. St. Joseph (Michigan, USA): ASAE; 1983.
[14] Batchelor, JA. Properties of bin soils at the National Tillage Machinery Laboratory. Unpublished
memo. Auburn (Alabama, USA): USDA-ARS; 1984.
[15] Way TR, Kishimoto T, Burt EC, Bailey AC. Soil–tire interface pressures of a low aspect ratio tractor
tire. In: Horn R, van den Akker JJH, Arvidsson J, editors. Subsoil compaction: distribution, processes
and consequences. Advances in geoecology, 32. Reiskirchen, Germany: Catena Verlag GMBH; 2000.
p. 82–92.
[16] Cody RP, Smith JK. Applied Statistics and the SAS Programming Language. 3rd ed. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall; 1991. pp. 150–53.