FIELD COMPARISON OF THE TRACTIVE PERFORMANCE OF TWO- AND FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE TRACTORS

M. J. DWYER G. PEARSON

Presented by: Shweta Singh Roll no. : 13AG61R07 Department: Agricultural and food engineering

OVERVIEW
Introduction Objective Experimental procedure Results and discussion Conclusions References

INTRODUCTION

Initially tractors of relatively low hp were developed, but this has been increased gradually upto 100 hp over the years. At increasing engine horsepower the decision becomes more important on whether and when a tractor should be equipped with rear-wheel or fourwheel drive.

CONTINUED In case of 4 WD tractors: entire weight of the tractor is utilized as load on the driven axles Front wheels compact the soil, reduce the rolling resistance and lead to better transmission of power by the rear wheels.

CONTINUED
P= COT
where, P=Drawbar pull COT = coefficient of traction = dynamic weight on axles

OBJECTIVE

To compare the tractive performance of a twowheel drive tractor, a four-wheel drive tractor with front wheels smaller than rear and with equal-sized wheels.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Three tractors were used in the experiment fitted with same engine giving 63 KW at the p.t.o: two-wheel drive four-wheel drive with equal-sized front and rear wheels and four-wheel drive with front wheels smaller than rear. Three conventional non-reversible ploughs 14 inch wide and a harrow was used.
7

CONTINUED
The p.t.o. power was measured and the power available at the driving axles was measured by a D.B. test on concrete after the field work had been completed. During the field work the tractors were ballasted to the weights recommended by the manufacturers. Ploughing was carried out in twelve different fields and a drawbar test was made on ploughed ground to simulate disc harrowing in one field

Table 1: TRACTOR DETAILS Four wheel drive Two wheel drive p.t.o power, kW Front tyre size Rear tyre size Front axle weight, kg Fields l-3 Fields 4-l 2 Field 13 62 7.50-18 16.9-34 1450 1910 980 3050 2820 3030 Unequal size wheels 62 11.2-24 16.9-34 1820 2260 1500 2820 2660 3030 Equal size wheels 62 16.9-34 16.9-34 3510 3510 2910 1760 1760 1980

Rear axle weight, kg Fields l-3 Fields 4-12 Field 13

Table 2 : FIELD DETAILS

Field no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Soil Clay Clay Clay Clay Sandy loam Sandy clay loam Clay sandy clay loam Sandy clay loam Sandy clay loam Moisture Plough rersistance Content % (KN/m) 50 20 39 31 N.R. 21 21 24 14 26 80 70 110 90 40 70 40 50 60 N.R. Cone penetrometer resistance (KN/m) 920 700 710 840 1100 740 1030 1070 690 1030

11 12
13

Clay loam Sandy loam

Sandy loam

45 19
19

120 60
N.R.

910 1080
320
10

Cone penetrometer resistance was measured with a hand-operated cone penetrometer fitted with a 30 cone of 0.5 in. base area. Measurements were made at the soil surface and at depths of 3, 6 and 9 inches. In fields 1-12 they were made at ten positions on the unploughed land. In field 13 measurements were made at ten positions on the ploughed land.

11

In fields l-12 No-slip travel distance per revolution of the driving wheels was measured for unploughed land with the plough raised. Measurements under load were made with the tractors ploughing in the normal way. The time and distance travelled during 7 revolutions of the rear wheels was measured for a range of ploughing depths and gears. The draught force or D.B. pull was measured by means of a three-point linkage dynamometer.

12

Table 3 : PULL AT 20% SLIP AND MAXIMUM DRAWBAR POWER Field no. 1 2 3 Pull at 20% slip in (KN) 2wd 30 23 22 Unequal size wheel 32 24 30 Equal size wheel 34 31 34 Maximum drawbar power(KW) 2wd 43 40 31 Unequal size wheel 42 40 39 Equal size wheel 48 44 40

4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

21 24
26 22 21 19 N.R. 21 25 12

28 29
32 26 27 24 23 28 26 16

34 30
36 28 25 27 24 32 29 22

35 41
41 38 37 40 N.R. 29 47 25

40 41
42 41 37 41 38 36 49 34

44 43
43 38 46 38 46 42 47 35
13

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The average pull at 20% slip of the four-wheel drive tractor with unequal-sized wheels was 17% higher than that of the two-wheel drive tractor and the average pull at 20 % slip of the four-wheel drive tractor with equal-sized wheels was 33 % higher than that of the two-wheel drive tractor. The average maximum drawbar power of the fourwheel drive tractor with unequal-sized wheels was 7 % higher than that of the two-wheel drive tractor and that of the four-wheel drive tractor with equalsized wheels was 14% higher than that of the twowheel drive tractor.

14

15

Fig. 1. Variation of theoretical maximum rate of ploughing with plough resistance

MOBILITY NUMBER

where c = cone penetrometer resistance, b = tyre width, d = tyre diameter w=load carried by tyre = tyre deflection and h = tyre section height.

16

17

Fig. 2. Relationship between coefficient of traction at 20 % slip and mobility number

18

Fig. 3. Relationship between maximum tractive efficiency and mobility number

19

Fig. 4. Relationship between coefficient of traction at maximum tractive efficiency and mobility number

20

Fig. 5. Relationship between slip at maximum tractive efficiency and mobility number

CONCLUSIONS
The investigation showed that four-wheel drive tractor with equal sized wheels is capable of producing approximately 14% more D.B. power in the field than a two-wheel drive tractor of similar power. Maximum rate of work is generally achieved at a coefficient of traction of approximately 0.4 and a slip of approximately 10%.

21

REFERENCES

Osborne, L. E. A field comparison of the performance of two- and four-wheel drive and tracklaying tractors. J. agric. Engng Res., 1971 Dwyer, M. J.; Comely, D. R.; Evernden, D. W. Development of the NIAE handbook of agricultural tyre performance. 5th Int. Conf. of the I.S.T.V.S., Detroit, 1975 Soil penetrometer. A.S.A.E. recommendation R 313, 1968 Scholtz, D. C. A three-point linkage dynamometer for restrained linkages. J. agric. Engng Res., 1966

22

23