See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229351288

Tractive characteristics of radial ply

and bias ply tyres in a California soil

Article in Journal of Terramechanics · December 1988

DOI: 10.1016/0022-4898(88)90019-5

CITATIONS READS

26 178

3 authors, including:

Dvoralai Wulfsohn W.J. Chancellor

Geco Enterprises Centro de I+D, El… University of California, Davis
79 PUBLICATIONS 1,002 CITATIONS 77 PUBLICATIONS 580 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pronofrut View project

Geochilly View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dvoralai Wulfsohn on 22 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal ofTerramechanics, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 111-134, 1988. 0022-4898/8853.00+0.00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press Plc.
© 1988 ISTVS

TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF R A D I A L PLY A N D BIAS PLY

TYRES IN A CALIFORNIA SOIL

D . WULFSOHN*, S. K. UPADHYAYA* and W. J. CHANCELLOR*

Summary--Four tyres (18.4-38, 18.4R38, 14.9-28, 14.9R28) were tested using the UCD single wheel
traction tester. Each tyre was tested at two different inflation pressures and three different vertical
loads at each inflation pressure. All tests were conducted in a well tilled Yolo loam soil. A
dimensional analysis procedure was used to design and analyse the experiment. Two models were
considered: (A) using inflation pressure as a variable, and (B) using tyre deflection as a variable. The
effect oftyre type, tyre size, tyre inflation pressure and dynamic load on (1) net traction ratio at 20%
slip and (2) average tractive efficiency in the 0-30% slip range were investigated using an ANOVA
technique. An estimate of the possible energy savings due to the use of radial ply tyres instead of bias
ply tyres in California agriculture was made.

NOTATION
a,c,a',b',c" Traction equation coefficients, dimensionless
A Contact area [L 2]
b Tyre unloaded section width [L]
B Track width [L]
b Constant in traction equation for data with slip offset, dimensionless
C Cone index [FL -2]
C~ Wismer-Luth wheel numeric, dimensionless
CRR Coefficient of motion resistance, dimensionless
Cs Soil cohesion [FL -2]
c~ Coefficient of traction, dimensionless
d Tyre outer diameter [L]
D Net traction IF]
(3/I41)2o Net traction ratio at 20% slip, dimensionless
G Cone index gradient, dimensionless
h Tyre unloaded section height [L]
H Gross traction IF]
J Shear deformation [L]
k Generic term for traction constant, dimensionless
k Rate constant, dimensionless
K Soil shear modulus [L]
l Contact length ILl
m,m~y,m,~,d Mobility numbers, dimensionless
Nsey Sand tyre numeric, dimensionless
P Inflation pressure [FL -2]
P Normal pressure [FL -2]
r Rolling radius [L]
r' Unmodified experimental rolling radius [L]
5 Slip, dimensionless
5' Unmodified experimental slip, dimensionless
So Slip offset, dimensionless
l Tyre construction type, dimensionless
T Torque [FL]

*Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A.

lll
112 D. WULFSOHN, S. K. UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

TE Tractive efficiency,dimensionless
(TE)0-30 Average TE over 0-30% slip range, dimensionless
Va Actual forward velocity[LT-I]
Vt Theoretical forward velocity[LT t]
w Dynamic load [F]
X Distance along track [L]
~,/3,~,~',/3',~' Constants in generalisedWills traction equation, dimensionless
6 Tyre deflectionILl
0 Soil dry moisture content, dimensionless
p Soil dry bulk density [FT2L-4I
7" Shear stress [FL-2I
Soil angle of internal shearing resistance, dimensionless
OO Rotational velocity[T-I]

INTRODUCTION
A WIDE range of agricultural operations are carried out using tractors to provide pull and
propulsion. Over the past few decades tractor sizes have increased steadily. As tractors
increase in power, the main limitations to performance are limitations of the traction device
(wheels or tracks) imposed by the terrain over which they operate. The power efficiency of
pneumatic tyres ranges from about 90% when operating on concrete to less than 50% when
operating in loose or sandy soils [ 1-5]. A conservative estimate of the annual fuel loss due to
the poor tractive efficiency (ratio of drawbar power to axle power) of agricultural tractors in
the U.S. alone is 575 million litres [2]. Since the drawbar is the most commonly used power
outlet of agricultural tractors, the ability to provide draft to pull various types of implements
is a primary measure of a tractor's effectiveness. The tractive efficiency (TE) with which the
pull is achieved is also of importance.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Factors influencing tyre performance
The tractive characteristics o f a tyre depend on the type and condition of the soil, the tyre
physical parameters, and tyre loading. Traction is obtained from forces transmitted through
the soil-tyre interface. Experimental evidence indicates that the soil has a greater influence
on the traction capabilities than the tyre design features (e.g. [6]). On pavement, vehicles can
develop high pulls; but when operating on soil, they may develop only a fraction of the pull
they develop on pavement because of the adverse soil conditions [7]. However, within a given
soil type and condition, tyre design has a significant effect on the tractive performance. Gill
and Vanden Berg [2] showed traction curves demonstrating the relative effect of soil
conditions (concrete, silty clay, sand) and tyre design on the performance of two 11-28
pneumatic tyres: a radial ply tyre with narrow rim and no lugs, and a typical agricultural
tractor tyre. The data indicated that, except on concrete, performance was affected much
more by traction conditions than by the tyre design changes. The effect of soil type and
condition on tractive performance is complex and interrelated with the other parameters
(dynamic load, tread configuration, inflation pressure etc.).
Tread design has considerable influence on the performance of off-road tyres. Lug height,
lug spacing and lug shape have been shown to affect performance [8-11]. Lug angle and lug
width were shown to have negligible effect on performance in studies by Taylor [12] and
Reed and Shields [8]. In soft cohesive soils the main physical effect of lugs is to increase the
effective tyre radius, since the spaces between the lugs tend to clog with soil [13]. In dry
frictional soils treads tend to degrade tyre performance, particularly at high slip rates. On
firm dry surfaces smooth tyres seem to develop as much drawbar pull as lugged tyres.
 TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICSOF TYRES 113

However, when traction conditions deteriorate due to the presence of moisture, loose soil,
surface vegetation etc., then lugged tyres develop more pull than smooth ones. When surface
moisture is very high, even lugged tyres do not develop sufficient traction [14] and traction
aids may be needed.
Various researchers have compared the tractive performance of radial ply and bias ply
tyres. Radial ply tyres were found to obtain significant increases in average pull when run in
the 0-30% slip range [15, 16]. The radial ply tyres obtained slight increases in tractive
efficiency. A report from the National Swedish Testing Institute for Agricultural Machinery
[ 17] claimed higher pull at any given slip for radial ply tyres in all conditions tested except in a
very cohesive clay soil. Thaden [18] found that the tractive advantage of radial ply tyres
drops off at higher slip values. Gee-Clough et al. [19] and Burt et al. [20] found that the
benefits of radial ply construction tended to disappear as tyre inflation pressure increased.
Taylor et aL [21] compared the tractive performances of a radial ply and a bias ply tyre of
the same size and shape in a range of soil conditions. They concluded that the radial ply tyre
had its greatest advantages on firm surfaces where most of the soil-tyre deformation took
place in the tyre, and that this advantage was gradually lost as the soil became softer, causing
more of the total soil-tyre deformation to take place in the soil. Burt et aL [20] tested radial
and bias ply tyres with various inflation pressures and static loadings in two soil conditions.
On the wetter, higher bulk density soil the bias ply attained higher tractive efficiency. The
radial ply tyre had a greater mean tractive efficiency on the drier, less dense soil.
Hausz [22] stated that the tractive advantages of radial ply tyres over bias ply tyres result
from their deflection characteristics and resulting pressure distribution. Radial ply tyres
usually yield a larger footprint than the same size bias tyre at the same load and inflation
pressure. Even when the footprint of the radial ply tyre is not significantly greater than that
of the bias, tests show improved traction for the radial ply tyre. This is because the lugs on the
radial ply tyre (near the center of the tread) have a much more uniform pressure distribution
on them, and so will bite into the soil more uniformly. Plackett [23] found that radial ply
tyres gave a more even distribution of ground pressure than bias ply tyres, with a 15%
decrease in the peak value of ground pressure. The importance of contact area geometry was
shown by the equations for gross traction developed analytically by Wills [24]. To get higher
longitudinal soil displacement (and thus greater traction) for a given contact area, a larger
contact length/width ratio is needed.
Taylor et aL [6] conducted experiments to determine the effects of diameter on the tractive
performance of tyres. At the same normal load and inflation pressure, increasing tyre
diameter in general led to increased pull and tractive coefficient. Increasing the applied
vertical load led to increased pull. Pneumatic tyres showed the greatest benefit from
increasing the diameter when the additional vertical load, which the larger tyre is capable of
carrying at the same deflection, was added. Moreover, they found that increasing inflation
pressure for constant vertical load and diameter led to decreased pull.
Dwyer et aL [25] tabulated data of predicted values of tractive performance of tyres for
different soil conditions. They found that in good traction conditions the drawbar pull
developed can be increased by increasing the dynamic load on the driving wheels and that the
increase in inflation pressure needed to accommodate the increased load will not lower
performance. In poor traction conditions, on the other hand, the increase in pull obtained by
increasing the dynamic load needs to be accompanied by increased tyre size to keep the
inflation pressure down [26].
Burt et al. [27] investigated the role of both dynamic load and slip on tractive performance.
The results of this study showed that at low values of slip, large changes in performance
114 D. WULFSOHN, S. K. UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

occurred with small changes in slip. However, at higher slip changes in dynamic load had a
greater effect on performance than changes in slip. At constant slip, tractive efficiency
increased with increases in dynamic load on compacted soil. On the soils with an
uncompacted subsurface, tractive efficiency decreased with increased dynamic load. Input
power increased linearly with respect to dynamic load and non-linearly with respect to slip.
Output power changed in a non-linear way with respect to changes in either dynamic load or
net traction.

The empirical modelling of tyre performance

The most commonly cited empirical approach to modelling soil-wheel performance
evolved from the trafficability analysis of the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station (WES) based on the cone penetrometer technique, which was developed originally to
provide a simple means to assess vehicle trafficability and mobility. Freitag [28] extended the
approach to predict the tractive performance of treadless pneumatic tyres on soft soils. Two
dimensionless ratios based on cone index, termed mobility numbers, one for sand and one
for clay, were developed:

. ( Cbd ) 6 ,/2
. w

G (b d) 3/2 6
M~and' -- W ( T ) (2)

where C = cone index, G = cone index gradient, b = tyre unloaded section width, d = tyre
outer diameter, W= dynamic load, 6 = tyre deflection, h = tyre unloaded section height. He
then empirically correlated tyre output parameters (pull, towed force, torque and sinkage)
at 20% slip, to the mobility numbers.
Turnage [29] amended Freitag's relationships to account for a wider range of tyre
parameters. He introduced a non-linear wheel numeric for clay

. c e. ),J2 b )_,
M= 7 ( l+ 2d

and reported an empirical equation for estimating net traction. Turnage [30] reassessed the
original methodology and proposed a new sand-tyre numeric, N~ey,which takes into account
the effects of moisture content, compactibility, before-tyre-pass relative density and sand
grain median diameter. He reported that the new methodology can accurately predict tyre
performance in a wide range of soil types and conditions.
Dwyer et al. [31] and Wismer and Luth [32], derived empirical relationships for the
tractive performance of tyres on agricultural (cohesive-frictional) soils. Wismer and Luth
[32] developed empirical equations for the traction characteristics of towed and driven
wheels. The following equation for net traction of the driven wheel was proposed

D 1.2 (4)
- = 0.75 (1 - e -°~ c 0 , ) _ ( + 0.04
\ I
W cn
 TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICSOF TYRES 115

where D = net traction, W = dynamic load, s = slip, and C, = (Cbd/W). Tractive efficiency
was calculated using the equations for gross traction and motion resistance as

1.2/Cn + 0.04
TE = [ 1- 0 . - ~ - - e -k'-S~') ] ( 1 - s). (5)

Dwyer et al. [31 ] used equation (3) to examine the results of field tests on a range of tractor
tyres at different loads and inflation pressures in various field conditions. Empirical
equations were developed relating the coefficient of traction at 20% slip, the coefficient of
rolling resistance, maximum tractive efficiency, coefficient of traction at maximum
efficiency, and slip at maximum efficiency to the wheel mobility number. Later, these results
were re-analysed [33] and the mobility number related to three performance parameters:
coefficient of rolling resistance, CRR, maximum coefficient of traction, (Cx) .... and a rate
constant, k, defined by

CT ----(CT)max(1-e-ks). (6)

Leviticus and Reyes [34], Clark [35], and Ashmore et al. [36] proposed more generalised
forms of the Wismer-Luth model. To account for the effects of dynamic load, Ashmore et al.
[36] introduced a dimensionless ratio describing the dynamic load on the tyre as a percentage
of the tyre's rated load as a modelling variable.
The predictive traction equations in most common use today, are those given in the ASAE
Standards [1]. These empirical equations are limited to bias ply tyre performance with 20%
tyre deflection, in the range of soil conditions for which they were developed. Therefore, the
effect of tyre dimensions, inflation pressure and soil shear properties are not explicitly
included. The applicability of these equations for tyres in California soil conditions is not
known.

OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are:
(1) To investigate the tractive ability of various agricultural tractor tyres operating in a
California soil with respect to tyre type (radial versus bias ply), tyre geometry (such as its
overall diameter, section width) and tyre loading (axle load, inflation pressure).
(2) To develop quantitative relationships between the tyre performance (net traction,
torque quotient, slip) and the tyre and soil parameters.

EXPERIMENTALDESIGN
Tyre performance depends on tyre geometry, on the physical properties of both the tyre
and the soil, and on the loading applied. The pertinent soil-tyre variables are presented in
Table 1. Cone index is assumed to represent soil type (e.g. clay, sand) and condition (e.g. bulk
density, moisture content etc.). Tyre geometry is represented by the section width and roiling
radius. The zero conditions used are zero net traction when slip of the tyre is zero on the test
surface. Although both inflation pressure and tyre deflection are included in Table 1, only
one of the two terms is required to describe tyre stiffness. In our study we have developed two
models: (A) Using tyre inflation pressure as a variable, and (B) Using tyre deflection as a
116 D. WULFSOHN, S. K. UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

TABLE 1, PNEUMATICTYRE--SOILSYSTEMVARIABLES

Variable Symbol Basic dimension

Soil: Cone index C [FL-2I

Tyre: Section width b [LI
Overall diameter d ILl
Rolling Radius r [k]
Inflation pressure p [FL-2]
or
Tyre deflection 8 ILl
System: Dynamic load W IF]
Net Traction D IF l
Torque T [FL]
Slip s [ ]

variable. Model B is expected to be more general because the tyre deflection not only
accounts for inflation pressure, but possibly includes the influence of tyre construction type
(radial or bias ply).

Model A
In this study we planned to use the single wheel traction tester developed at the University
of California, Davis [37]. The single wheel tester allows vertical load and either draft or slip
to be controlled. The system outputs are torque and either slip (draft controlled) or net
traction (slip controlled). These parameters are not independent, leading to two coupled
equations describing the functional relationships between the variables.

T=f(W, D, p, b, d, r, C, s) (7)
D=g(W, T,p, b, d, r, C, s). (8)

Using dimensional analysis the following pi terms were selected:

(i) C b r / W (ii) p b r / W (iii) D / W (iv) T / r W (v) b/r (vi) b / d (vii) s

giving the following functional relationships:

T / r W = f (D/W, pbr/W, b/r, b/d, Cbr/W, s) (9)

D / W = g (pbr/W, b/r, b/d, Cbr/W, T/rW, s) . (lO)

By conducting controlled tests it is possible to evaluate the above relationships. In our

experiments the value of b/dwas similar for all tyres (about 0.2). For a given test the values of
Cbr/W, p b r / W and b/r are all constant. Thus, we can establish the relationships

T / r W = f ~ (D/W, s) (11)

D / W = f2 (T/rW, s) . (12)
 TRACTIVECHARACTERISTICSOF TYRES 117

These equations are coupled, so we can derive T/rW and D / W as functions of slip alone:

T/rW =f3 (s) (13)

D / W =f4 (s). (14)

Once the relations in equations (13) and (14) have been established, the data can be analysed
as follows. Consider all tests which, for a given value of b/r, have the samepbr/Wratio. Any
change in the traction coefficients will be caused by variation in Cbr/W. Similarly, if there
are tests in which Cbr/Wis constant, then any changes in the traction coefficients depend on
pbr/W. In this way we should be able to determine the effect of these parameters on the
tractive performance of the tyre.

Model B
Another approach is to characterise the tyre by its deflection characteristics. Using the
single wheel tester we can find the relationship between tyre deflection and loading (vertical
load, inflation pressure) for a given tyre (i.e. given construction type and geometry).
Let 6 be the deflection of the tyre.

6 =f(tyre stiffness, loading)

=f(b, r, t, p, W) (15)

where t = tyre construction type. For a given inflation pressure, 6 is expected to vary linearly
with vertical load. Thus, we expect the relationship to be of the form

6 = f ' (b, r, t,p) W (16)

where f ' (b, r, t, p) represents the effective tyre stiffness. This approach would simplify the
analysis since 6 incorporates stiffness related tyre terms. We now need to establish the
functional relationships

T=f(6, C, b, r, at, D, W, s) (17)

D=f(6, C, b, r, d, D, W, s) (18)
or, in dimensionless form

T/rW=f (6/b, r/b, d/b, D/W, Cbr/W, s) (19)

D / W = f (6/b, r/b, d/b, T/rW, Cbr/W, s) . (20)

The development of these relationships would follow the same methods as in the first
analysis technique.

TEST PROCEDURE
Experiments were conducted in a heavily tilled Yolo loam soil. Four tyres were tested: an
18.4R38, 18.4-38, 14.9R28 and 14.9-28. All were 8 ply rating except the small radial tyre
118 D. W U L F S O H N , S. K. U P A D H Y A Y A a n d W. J. C H A N C E L L O R

which had 10 ply rating. The two smaller tyres are of a size usually used on the front axle of a
front wheel assist tractor. Each tyre was tested at two inflation pressures and at three vertical
loads within each inflation pressure. The tests were designed in an attempt to obtain several
constant values of the dimensionless ratiopbr/W--within the limitations of loads that can be
applied to any given tyre at a given inflation pressure, Tests were fully randomised between
tyres and between applied vertical loadings within tyres as shown in Fig. 1.

~ W2 WI t %
tit ¢ "

tO

Wl ,#." 1 ~ t~Ir ~'~.~

I I i I
I ,oo I'-.
",-.. /
/
1 W3 ii II '~% WI 7

7 6

* Number of test
t W3>W2 >Wl
Each segment : 30 °

FIG. 1. A typical l a y o u t of the field experiment.

Preliminary field tests using the single wheel tester indicated that the tyres should be tested
in a constant draft or a constant slip mode, or a combination of the two to obtain meaningful
results (less scatter in the experimental data). The test procedure used was as follows: The
first few test runs were conducted in a slip-control mode. The first run was conducted with
slip set to near zero, and for each of the next few runs, slip was increased successively to
produce higher drafts. The remaining runs were conducted in draft-control mode, such that
draft output was increased by fixed increments each run, up to the maximum power
capability of the traction tester. An average value of slip was calculated for each run. This
procedure allowed tests to be conducted over the maximum possible slip range for a given
tyre within the capabilities of the traction tester. Tests were conducted at a forward speed of
2 k m / h . After every test run the tyre test stand was pivoted about the rear support wheels by
an angle of about five degrees so as to stand over an undisturbed stretch of soil. Thus, each
test area occupied a sector of approximately 30 ° (see Fig. 1). The input torque, dynamic load,
 TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYRES 119

net traction, actual and theoretical forward speeds (giving slip) were recorded on a digital
data acquisition system and processed using a microcomputer.
F o r each tyre at each inflation pressure, two sets of readings of variation of cone
penetration resistance with depth were taken so that the cone index of the soil could be
determined. Each set contained six readings taken at approximately equidistant positions
along the test track. In addition, a neutron probe strata gauge was used to get density and
moisture data in the test locations. Five sets of bulk density readings were obtained at depths
of 50, 100 and 150 mm. Values of moisture content in the top 75 m m were also measured.

DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

The experimental data were analysed using a non-linear regression technique to obtain the
best fit values of the coefficients (a, c) in a generalized form of the Wismer-Luth traction
equation,

D
-- = a(l -e-C~).
g, (21)

Note that equation (21) assumes by definition zero net traction at zero slip. During the field
tests zero slip was not necessarily achieved, causing the traction data to be offset along the
slip axis. In this case the net traction can be described by

D
- - = a(1 - e -cts'+~°))
W (22)

where
S" ~ - S - SO (23)

and So is the offset from true zero slip. Equation (22) can be rewritten as

D__ = a(1 - e ..... e -c ~') = a(1 -/~ e-c s,)

W (24)

where

/~= e-CS0 (25)

A nonlinear regression program was written which uses an iterative scheme during curve
fitting to determine the coefficients a, b and c. The slip offset, so was computed from equation
(25) and used to correct the experimental slip data to obtain the true slip. Since we have the
true slip values, s, and the values of the coefficients a and c (21), is completely
described.
Once the slip data have been corrected the program then determines the rolling radius (at
zero slip) as follows:
Slip can be expressed as

I.'t - Va rto-va Va
S-- - - -- --1
vt r to r to (26)
120 D. WULFSOHN, S. K. UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

Similarly, the uncorrected slip, s', is given by

Va
s,=l_ __
r' co (27)

where r' is the unmodified rolling radius. Combining equations (26) and (27) and rearranging
the terms, we can determine the corrected rolling radius

v,, = (1 - s) r o~ = (1 -s')r'co (28)

r' 1- s
r 1 - s' (29)
Therefore

r=r' ( l - s ' ,~
1- s ~ (30)

and at zero unadjusted slip

r = r ' / ( 1 - s). (31)

In effect the p r o g r a m determines the "true rolling radius" that is specific to the tyre for a
given loading and soil condition.
The torque data behaved in a similar fashion to the net traction data except that, unlike net
traction, input torque is not zero at zero slip because of tyre m o t i o n resistance and the zero
condition used (i.e. zero net traction when slip is zero on the test surface). Therefore, the
torque data were analysed using a similar non-linear scheme to obtain the best fit values o f
the coefficients in the equation

T
-a'(1 - b ' e -C'~)
rW (32)

where s is the corrected or true slip.

E q u a t i o n s (21) and (32) were then used to predict the tractive efficiency (TE) as follows:

D va x 100
TE=
ToJ

W
• (1 - s ) " 1 0 0 (33)

a (1 - e -cs)
(1 - s) x 1 0 0 .
a' (1 - e-C'9
 TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYRES 121

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

T a b l e 2 s u m m a r i s e s the soil a n d l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n s f o r the tyres tested in the tilled Y o l o

l o a m soil. T h e r o l l i n g r a d i i given are those d e t e r m i n e d b y the a n a l y s i s p r o g r a m as d e s c r i b e d
a b o v e . T h e soil p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s s h o w n a r e for the t o p 150-mm layer. T h e soil was l o w in
m o i s t u r e , with low d r y b u l k d e n s i t y a n d cone index values. These values indicate t h a t the soil
was overtilled giving p o o r t r a c t i o n conditions.

TABLE2. EXPERIMENTALCONDITIONS

Tyre Dynamic load Inflation pressure Rolling radius Soil physical conditions
W p r C p e
(kN) (kPa) (m) (kPa) (kg/m 3) (%)

11.2 0.844 1242,

14.2 100 0.849 242 1275, 4.5
22.7 0.844 1334
18.4R38
13.5 0.850 1188,
16.1 125 0.851 362 1260, 4.8
27.1 0.840 1232

10.8 0.844 1219,

13.6 110 0.845 305 1308, 5.3
22.5 0.838 1346
18.4-38
12.9 0.853 1236,
17.2 135 0.847 320 1349, 5.3
26.0 0.830 1378

ll.1 0.642 1167,

14.9 180 0.644 329 1232, 4.4
21.8 0.638 1298
14.9R28
12.7 0.653 1123,
17.1 205 0.639 308 1206, 4.2
24.4 0.639 1286

9.4 0.633 1184,

12.5 180 0.638 267 1291, 5.6
16.5 0.634 1385
14.9-28
11.1 0.631 1138,
15.1 220 0.640 278 1223, 4.8
18.5 0.639 1291

Notes: C = cone index; p = dry bulk density at depths of 50, 100, and 150 ram*; 0 = dry basis moisture content*
*Obtained using neutron probe. Usually reliable as a relative indicator of density and moisture content.

T h e p r e d i c t e d t r a c t i o n e q u a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s a r e given in T a b l e 3. F i g u r e s 2 a n d 3 s h o w
t y p i c a l p l o t s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l a n d p r e d i c t e d (D/W), (T/rW) a n d T E vs slip. F r o m these
figures a n d the R 2 values r e p o r t e d in T a b l e 3 it is clear t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a fit
e q u a t i o n s (21) a n d (32) very well.
 122 D. W U L F S O H N , S. K. U P A D H Y A Y A and W. J. C H A N C E L L O R

TABLE 3. TRACTION PARAMETERS OBTAINED STATISTICALLY, BY FITTING EXPERIMENTAL DAIA TO STANDARD

EQUATION FORMS

Tyre Test Inflation Dynamic Net traction equation Torque equation

date pressure load
(1986) (kPa) (kN) a c R~ a" b' c' R2

11.2 0.3906 0.0745 0.972 0.6563 0.812 0.0510 0.978

100 14.2 0.3849 0.0958 0.987 0.5910 0,852 0.0720 0.982
22.7 0.4382 0.1183 0.994 0.589 0.868 0.1045 0.986
18.4R38 10/12
13.5 0.4002 0.0961 0.950 0.6653 0.797 0,0472 0.963
125 16.1 0.4045 0.0937 0.990 0.5585 0.864 0,0896 0,974
27.1 0.3962 0.1233 0.993 0.5522 0.842 (/.1148 0.988

10.8 0.3062 0.0916 0.973 0.5681 0.760 0.0733 0.968

110 13.6 0.374 0.0870 0.982 0.6104 0.822 0.0597 0.979
22.5 0.4299 0.0817 0.992 0.5795 0,887 0.0736 0.981
18.4-38 10/7
12.9 0.3891 0.0619 0.968 0.6588 0.828 0.0451 0.984
135 17.2 0.3954 0.0833 0.989 0.6101 0.855 0.0627 0.985
26.0 0.3850 0.1236 0.993 0.5487 0.872 (/.1019 0.980

11.1 0.3181 0.0771 0.976 0.6433 0,767 0.0529 0.988

180 14.9 0.3281 0.0743 0.986 0.6464 0.709 0.0587 0.991
21.8 0.3286 0.1013 0.990 0.5822 0.737 0.0831 0.983
14.9R28 10/16
12.7 0.3133 0.0715 0.967 0.6202 0.758 0.0497 0,989
205 17.1 0.2917 0.0989 0.967 0.5682 0.713 0.0731 0.961
24.4 0.3334 0.0973 0.954 0.5878 0.706 0.0784 0.959

9.4 0.2980 0.0760 0.976 0.7086 0.664 0.0482 0.984

180 12.5 0.2865 0.0843 0.978 0.6299 0.680 0.0605 0.979
16.5 0.3415 0.0857 0.988 0.6811 0.739 0.0595 0.980
14.9-28 10/14
11.1 0.3204 0.0667 0.943 0.7559 0.684 0.0421 0.985
220 15.1 0.2635 0.0993 0.987 0.5555 0.689 0.0986 0.978
18.5 0.2945 0.0858 0.995 0.6299 0.710 0.0619 0.977

Note: Net traction equation: D/W = a( I-e-"s); Torque equation: T / r W = a'.( 1-b'.e-'"~); s = slip in %

DISCUSSION
Analysis of traction performance parameters
In order to compare the tractive characteristics of different tyres with varying inflation
pressures and dynamic loads, the following parameters were investigated:
(1) Maximum tractive efficiency (TE) and the slip at which it occurs;
(2) Average TE over the 0-30% slip range; and
(3) D / W at 20% slip.
The values of these parameters are given in Table 4.
The results for the large tyres ( 18.4-38, 18.4R38) show that at the lower inflation pressures,
increasing the dynamic load led to increased maximum net traction ratios. At the higher
inflation pressures, the tyres developed similar maximum D / W values at all three dynamic
loads tested. The small tyres (14.9-28, 14.9R28) showed a markedly inferior performance in
this soil condition. Maximum values of D / W were mostly in the order of 0.3 as opposed to
about 0.4 for the large tyres. Peak tractive efficiencies were in the 35% to 50% range. The
radial ply tyre achieved higher peak TE's. Generally the peak values of TE occurred at higher
 T R A C T I V E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF TYRES 123

-., Experimentot D/W *,, Experimentot T/rW e,, Experirnentot. TE

e-, Preclictecl. D,/W, ":, Predictecl' T/rW . . . . *:,Predicteel TE

08 t
07

1 !,I = i I

F-
g
03

O2

°i
o, " ; " ,b " ,g " 2'o " g " 3'o " .~s " ~ " &' " 5b " gs " 6o
Stip (%)

FIG. 2. Traction characteristics of 18.4-38 tyre with 13.6 kN dynamic load and 110 kPa inflation
pressure in Yolo loam soil.

slip values for the small tyres than for the large tyres. For the large tyres the peak TE was
attained at approximately 10% slip. The maximum TE for the small tyres occurred on
average at about 14% slip. The maximum TE occurred sometimes at slightly lower slip
values for the higher loadings and at slightly greater slip at low loads.
Tables 5 and 6 give the results of a two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on
the parameters (1) average TE over 0-30% slip range, (TE)0_30, and (2) D/W at 20% slip,
(D/W)20, respectively. The tyres (18.4R38, 18.4-38, etc.), dynamic load level (low/medium/
high) and the level of inflation pressure (low/high) were treated as factors in these additive
models. The results of the ANOVA show that the physical tyre differences and the dynamic
load significantly influence (TE)o-30and the value of(D/W)20. A Duncan's multiple range test
was performed to detect the differences between the three factors. The analysis for (TE)0_30
indicates that the large tyres performed better than the small tyres, and that radial ply tyres
had superior performance. The large tyres developed significantly higher (D/W)2o than the
small tyres. Although there was a significant difference between the large radial and bias ply
tyres, the small tyres formed a homogeneous group. In both these analyses, increased
dynamic load led to better performance. Moreover, inflation pressure had no effect on either
(TE)0-30 or (D/W)2o. In view of this, an analysis of variance was performed for (TE)0-30 and
(D/W)2o where the two levels of inflation pressure were considered as replications, and the
tyre-load interaction was included as a factor (Tables 7 and 8). The results for both these
analyses showed that there was no interaction between the physical tyre features and load.
124 D. W U L F S O H N , S. K. U P A D H Y A Y A and W. J. C H A N C E L L O R

o81
O7
x, Experimental D/W
e', Predicted D/W
+., Experimental T/rW
m:, Predicted l l r W
v.. Experimental TE
*;. Predicted TE

06

Cl

O2

OI

5 I0 15 20 2~ 50 55 40 45 50 55 60

SLip (*Io)

FIG. 3. Traction characteristics of 14.9R28 tyre with 12.7 kN dynamic load and 205 kPa inflation
pressure in Yolo loam soil.

Implications for energy use

In our experiments, the large radial tyres achieved an average tractive efficiency of 27.23%
vs 25.37% for the large bias ply tyres, over the 0-30% slip range*; an increase of 6.8%. It is of
interest to determine the implications of this in terms of energy savings.
To estimate the energy savings which would arise by using machinery equipped with radial
ply tyres rather than bias ply tyres, the following assumptions were made: (a) The annual
energy use in California agriculture amounts to 47.34 million barrels of oil equivalent [38];
(b) of this, 17.7% represents energy used in field operations [38]; (c) half of this energy (i.e.
approximately 9% of the total) was consumed in performing field operations in tilled soil
conditions; (d) the reported energy data was for power units equipped with bias ply tyres; (e)
rear wheel drive tractors are used for field operations; and (f) the data for the tilled Yolo
Loam condition is typical for other tilled California soils. Thus, we have:

Energy saved = 0.068 × 0.09 × 47.34

= 0.29 million barrels of oil equivalent.

In December 1986 the cost of crude oil was $11.11/barrel [39], so a 6.8% increase of
(TE)0_30 amounts to a saving of approximately $3 million per annum! This is a conservative
estimate since it uses a very low crude oil price.

*These are very low because of the poor traction conditions.

 TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYRES 125

Statistical analysis: model A

The values of the experimental dimensionless parameters (pi terms) used in both models A
and B for analysing the traction coefficients (a, c, a', b', c') are given in Table 9. The results of
the analysis aimed at relating the traction equation coefficients to the dimensionless
parameters are given in Table 10 (For the complete analysis refer to ref. [40]). Based on these
results, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed to relate a given traction
coefficient with the dimensionless terms which significantly influence that parameter, The
"best" fit equations based on a high correlation coefficient and significant slopes are given in
Table 11.

Statistical analysis: model B

In the second model considered, the tyres were characterised by their deflection
characteristics. Instead of inflation pressure, p, tyre deflection, tS, was used as a variable. It
was hoped that this would allow the pooling of the radial and bias ply data.

TABLE4. SUMMARY OF TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TEST TYRES IN YOLO LOAM SOIL CONDITION

Tyre Inflation Dynamic Tractive efficiency (%) D/W

pressure load at 20%
(kPa) (kN) Maximum Average over slip
0-30% slip
Value Slip (%)

11.2 55.3 12 24.0 0.303

100 14.2 61.7 10 26.8 0.328
22.7 66.9 l0 29.5 0.398
18.4R38
13.5 66.5 10 28.1 0.342
125 16.1 61.3 10 27.3 0.342
27.1 62.4 10 27.7 0.363

10.8 46.2 12 20.2 0.257

110 13.6 58.5 10 25.3 0.308
22.5 64.8 10 28.7 0.346
18.4-38
12.9 52.6 13 23.0 0.276
135 17.2 60.7 10 26.4 0.321
26.0 66.0 8 28.6 0.352

1I. 1 43.3 14 18.6 0.245

180 14.9 41.0 16 17.8 0.253
21.8 48.6 12 21.4 0.288
14.9R28
12.7 42.9 14 18.5 0.234
205 17.1 43.7 12 20.1 0.251
24.4 47.8 12 20.8 0.287

9.4 35.9 16 15.3 0.233

180 12.5 38.3 14 16.5 0.233
16.5 44.4 12 19.3 0.280
14.9-28
11.1 34.2 18 14.5 0.227
220 15.1 39.4 12 16.9 0.227
18.5 39.7 14 17.2 0.240
126 D. WULFSOHN, S. K. UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

TABLE 5. ANALYSISOF VARIANCEOF TRACTIONPARAMETER. AVERAGETE OVER0-30% SkIP RANGE. FOR TESTTYRO:
IN YOLOLOAMSOIL

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Computed

variation squares freedom square f value

Tyre 441.586 3 147.20 71.50"*

Inflation 1.343 1 1.34 0.65
Load 59.774 2 29.89 14.52"*
Error 34.999 17 2.06

Total 537.702 23

Homogeneous subsets predicted by Duncan's multiple range test+.

Tyre$ T3 T4 T1 T2
treatment means 16.63 19.52 25.37 27,23

Inflation pressure§ PI P2
treatment means 21.95 22.42
I ................................ i

Loadll WI W2 W3
treatment means 20.27 22.15 24.14

TABLE 6. ANALYSISOF VARIANCEOF TRACTIONPARAMETER,D/W A1 20% SLIP, FOR TESTTYRESIN YOLOLOAMSOIk

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Computed

variation squares freedom square f value

Tyre 0.04183 3 0.0139 52.00"*

Inflation 0.000006 1 0.000006 0.02
Load 0.01236 2 0.0062 23.05 * *
Error 0.00456 17 0.00027

Total 0.05875 23

Homogeneous subsets predicted by Duncan's multiple range testt.

Tyre$ T3 T4 T1 T2
treatment means 0.240 0.259 0.310 0.346
I ................................ I

Inflation pressure§ P1 P2
treatment means 0.289 0.288
I ................................ I

Loadll WI W2 W3
treatment means 0.265 0.283 0.319

**significant at 1% level.
t I ................................. I indicates homogeneous subset.
STI = 18.4-38, T2 =- 18.4R38, T3 = 14.9-28, T4 = 14.9R28.
§PI = low inflation pressure; P2 = medium inflation pressure; P3 = high inflation pressure.
llWl = low load; W2 = medium load; W3 = high load.
 TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYRES 127

TABLE7. ANALYSISOF VARIANCEOF TRACTIONPARAMETER,AVERAGETE OVER0-30% SLIPRANGE.FORTESTTYRES

IN YOLOLOAMSOIL,WHENTHE TWO LEVELSOF INFLATIONPRESSUREARECONSIDEREDAS REPLICATIONS

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Computed

variation squares freedom square fvalue

Tyre 441.586 3 147.20 87.10"*

Load 59.775 2 29.89 17.68"*
T y r e x load 16.061 6 2.68 1.58
Error 20.280 12 2.06

Total 537.702 23

Homogeneous subsets predicted by Duncan's multiple range test.

Tyre* T3 T4 TI T2
treatment means 16.63 19.52 25.37 27.23

Loadt Wl W2 W3
treatment means 20.27 22.15 24.14

**Significant at 1% level.
*TI = 18.4-38, T2 = 18.4R38, T3 = 14.9-28, T4 = 14.9R28.
t W l = low load; W2 = medium load; W3 = high load.

TABLE 8. ANALYSISOF VARIANCEOF TRACTIONPARAMETER,D/W AT 20% SLIP. FOR TESTTYRESIN YOLOLOAMSOIL.

WHENTWO LEVELSOF INFLATIONPRESSUREARECONSIDEREDAS REPLICATIONS

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Computed

variation squares freedom square f value

Tyre 0.04183 3 0.01394 52.00"*

Load 0.01236 2 0.00618 23.05 * *
Tyre x load 0.00190 6 0.00032 0.02
Error 0.00267 12 0.00022

Total 0.05876 23

Homogeneous subsets predicted by Duncan's multiple range test.

Tyre* T4 T3 T2 T1
treatment means 0.240 0.259 0.310 0.346

Loadt Wl W2 W3
treatment means 0.265 0.283 0.319

**Significant at 1% level.
*T1 = 18.4-38, T2 = 18.4R38, T3 = 14.9-28, T4 = 14.9R28.
t W l = low load; W2 = medium load; W3 = high load.

In order to quantify the relationship between tyre load and deflection, a load-deflection
test w a s c o n d u c t e d with t h e 18.4-38 tyre at s e v e n levels o f i n f l a t i o n p r e s s u r e . A m u l t i l i n e a r
regression was conducted between the tyre deflection, the vertical load and the tyre pressure
f o r t h e 18.4-38 t y r e . T h e r e s u l t i n g e x p r e s s i o n ~

8 = 0.02 + 0.006 XW- 1 . 3 5 X 1 0 -~ X (Wp) (34)

:~The units are 8 (m), W(kN),p (kPa).

128 D. WULFSOHN, S. K. UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

has a correlation coefficient of 0.993. Different constants would be expected for each tyre
depending on size and construction type. The tyre deflection, therefore, can be completely
explained by the vertical load and pressure.
The traction coefficients can be expressed by the relationship

k = f ( Cbr b b
W ' r ' 6 ) (35)

TABLE 9. VALUESOF DIMENSIONLESSRATIOSUSED tN ANALYSES

Tyre Inflation Dynamic 7r t e r m s

pressure load
(kPa) (kN) pbr/W Cbr/W b/r ( 6/b )-I

11.2 3.52 8.52 0.554 9.82

100 14.2 2.79 6.76 0.551 7.74
22.7 1.74 4.20 0.554 4.84
18.4R38
13.5 3.68 10.66 0.550 8.55
125 16.1 3,09 8.94 0.549 7.17
27.t 1.81 5.24 0.556 4.26

10.8 4.02 11.13 0.554 8.88

110 13.6 3,19 8.85 0.553 7.05
22.5 1.91 5.31 0.558 4.50
18.4-38
12.9 4.17 9.88 0.547 8.15
135 17.2 3.11 7.36 0.552 6.11
26.0 2.01 4.77 0.563 4.04

11.1 3.94 7.20 0.590 7.58

180 14.9 2.94 5.38 0.588 5.65
21.8 1.99 3.64 0.593 3.86
14.9R28
12.7 3.99 5.99 0.580 6.88
205 17.1 2.90 4.36 0.592 5.11
24.4 2.03 3.05 0,592 3.58

9.4 4.59 6.80 0.598 10.09

180 12.5 3.48 5.16 0.593 7.59
16.5 2.62 3.83 (I.597 5.75
14.9-28
11.1 4.74 5.99 0.599 8.89
220 15.1 3.53 4.46 0.592 6.53
18.5 2.88 3.64 0.592 5.33

TABLE 10. RELATIONSHIPSBETWEENTRACTION

COEFFICIENTSAND PI TERMS

Traction Cbr/W pbr/W b/r

coefficient

a no no yes
c no yes no
a' no yes no
b' no yes yes
c' no yes no
 T R A C T I V E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F TYRES 129

TABLE l 1. SELECTED RESULTSOF ANALYSISUSINGTYREINFLATIONPRESSUREAS AN INDEPENDENTVARIABLE

Traction Parameter Radial ply Bias ply

Coeff. Intercept Slope R2 Intercept Slope R2

a b/r 1.59 -2.148"* 0.827 1.36 -1.773"* 0.526

c pbr/W 0.14 -0.179"* 0.697 0.12 -0.011"* 0.389

a" pbr/W 0.51 0.033** 0.462 0.49 0.043** 0.433

b/r -5.822** -4.209**

b' pbr/W 4.14 -0.606* 0.912 3.33 -0.299 0.941
(gbr/140 (b/r) 1.040t 0.446

c' pbr/W 0.14 -0.234** 0.741 0.10 -0.124"* 0.504

**Significant at 1% level.
*Significant at 5% level.
~'Significant at 10% level.

where k = traction coefficient (a, c, etc.). Various dimensionless terms incorporating t5other
than (~/b) were attempted (e.g. (r/d)-l); however, of these only the term (b/8) was found to
correlate with the traction coefficients. From the previous analysis it is known that (Cbr/BO
is not important. Therefore, only combinations of the terms (b/r) and (b/tS) were analysed.
Various combinations of these two parameters were investigated. The proposed "best"
relationships are summarised in Table 12. Three criteria for selection were used: (1) high
correlation coefficient; (2) level of significance of coefficients (slopes); (3) magnitude of the
coefficients. When two or three models had similar correlation coefficients, the model which
led to similar coefficients between radial ply, bias ply, and combined data with all
coefficients significant, was selected. In some circumstances this may have resulted in the
selection of a model with a slightly lower R 2 value if the latter criteria were better satisfied.

TABLE 12. SUMMARYOF STATISTICALANALYSISOF TRACTIONCONSTANTSUSINGTIRE DEFLECTION AS A

CHARACTERISTIC(MODELB)

Traction Parameter Combined data Radial ply Bias ply

Coeff.
Intercept Slope R2 Slope R2 Slope R2

~/(b/~5) 0.397** 0.541 ** 0.266t

a 0.43 0.663 0.874 0.578
x/(b/tS)'(b/r) -0.748** -0.101 ** -0.551 *

x/(b/8) 0.604** 0.674** -0.440**

b' 0.93 0.810 0.780 0.942
x/(b/~)'(b/r) -0.116"* -0.122"* -0.970"*

a' x/(b/6)'(b/r) 2 0.37 0.304** 0.590 0.263** 0.548 0.310"* 0.578

c x/(b/8)'(b/r) 0.17 -0.052** 0.442 -0.061"* 0.512 -0.042* 0.339

c' x/(b/8)'(b/r) 0.17 -0.068** 0.546 -0.083** 0.596 -0.050* 0.695

**Significant at 1% level.
*Significant at 5% level.
tSignificant at 10% level.
130 D. WULFSOHN, S. K. UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

Interpretation of ( ~ )
The term x/(b/6) seems to be related to all the traction parameters. It is therefore of
interest to interpret the meaning of this parameter. Consider the simplistic model of a tyre
deforming shown in Fig. 4. From the geometry we can write

(l/2) 2 = ( d - 6) 6

d× 6 [since d >> 3]

• l/2 ,/(d

where/---contact length [40]. Thus,

d/l ~ 2 xf(d/66)
-- = 2~ VC(d/b) (36)

The term xf(b/6) is proportional to the reciprocal of the contact length. In fact this same
relationship can be derived for a toroidal tyre having an elliptical contact area. The model
parameters have terms relating to tyre size (b/r) combined with this deflection term.

I- t vI

FIG. 4. Simplemodel of a tyre deforming.

Wills traction equation

The correlation coefficients associated with the traction coefficients (Tables 11 and 12)
indicate that a soil related parameter is missing. Unlike the W i s m e r - L u t h equations [32]
the term (Cbr/W) did not relate to the traction coefficients. Wills [24] developed expressions
 T R A C T I V E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F TYRES 131

for traction due to soil-track interaction using more fundamental soil parameters. He used
the integral equation for gross traction proposed by Janosi and Hanamoto [41]:

H= B rdx
/

= Bfo (c~ + P tan 4)) (1 - e-j/K) dx (37)

where B = track width, r = shear stress,j = soil deformation beneath the tractive device, 0 =
soil angle of internal shearing resistance, K = soil shear modulus and Cs= soil cohesion. The
term (cs + P tan ~b)is the Micklethwaite equation for the maximum soil shear strength. If the
normal pressure under the contact area is constant, and shear deformation increases linearly
from the front of the contact area to the rear, then for a rectangular contact area the gross
traction developed becomes

K
H=(Ac,+Wtan~b) [ 1+ (e-'v/<-l) ]
sl (38)

where A = contact area, l = contact length.

Although the above assumptions are nbt entirely true for soil-tyre interaction we
investigated whether our experimental data fitted this form of equation well. We performed
an iterative regression technique to develop equations of the form

O /3
l+- (e-'- 1) ]
W s (39)
~t
T ~ o/t
rW [l+--(e-'/¢sl) ] (40)

where a,fl,~,a',B',g' are constants. A typical plot of the experimental and predicted curves
obtained is shown in Fig. 5. The resulting traction coefficients and correlation coefficients
are given in Table 13. The results indicate that the experimental data fit the equation very
well. Moreover, the values of the coefficients B and g in the net traction equation are similar
to each other at each load level, further supporting the validity of the Wills equation (since
both fl and g correspond to K/I). The equation indicates that a shear related soil parameter is
required.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The regressed traction data fit the following equations for net traction coefficient and
torque quotient:

D / W = a(1 - e-C0
T / r W = a" (1 - b' e -es)

where a, c, a', b', c' are traction coefficients. R 2 values ranged from 0.96 to 0;995.
(2) Two models were developed using dimensional analysis to model the traction
132 D. WULFSOHN, S. K, UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

x,, Experimental. D/W +., Experimental. T/rW o,, Experimental TE

0.8 , *'.Predicted D/W u:, Predicted T/rW . . . . *:,,,Predicted TE

07
e
•0 It
. ÷

06 1

w o5
i..-

~ 04

e-
03,

02.

o l

5 I0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Stip (%)

FIG. 5. Traction characteristics of 18.4R38 tyre with 14.2 kN dynamic load and 100 kPa inflation
pressure in Yolo loam soil, obtained using Wills [24] traction equation.

equations. One model used tyre inflation pressure as an independent variable. This resulted
in two equations for each parameter: an equation for radial ply tyres, and an equation for
bias ply tyres. The second model used tyre deflection to represent tyre type and inflation
pressure. In this model the use of the term ~ / ( b / 6 ) to represent tyre loading allowed pooling
of the bias ply and radial ply data to give one set of equations. This term seems to be
proportional to the reciprocal of the contact length.
(3) The traction data fitted the Wills [24] equation very well for the cases investigated, with
R 2 values ranging between 0.96 and 0.995.

TABLE 13. WILI,S TRACTION EQUATION COEFFICIENTS FOR 18.4R38 T Y R E IN Y O L O L O A M S O I L

Inflation Dynamic Net traction equation Torque equation

pressure load
(kPa) (kN)
11.2 0.432 6.072 7.178 0.977 0.745 7.743 10.418 0.982
100 14.2 0.431 4,963 5.687 0.987 0.645 6.013 7.647 0.985
22.7 0.492 3.723 4.368 0.995 0.670 4.115 5.303 0.988

13.5 0.432 4.247 5.621 0.963 0.751 7.631 10.527 0.969

125 16.1 0.460 4.977 6.201 0.992 0.638 4.327 6.130 0.976
27.1 0.470 3.937 4.676 0.993 0.654 3.994 5.531 0.988

Note: Net traction equation: D / W = a-t1 + B/s (e-S/C-l)]

Torque equation: T / r W = c¢'.[1 + f f / s (e-S/~'-l)] with slip in per cent.
 TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYRES 133

(4) None of the traction coefficients related to cone index. However, ourR 2 values for a', c,
and c' indicate that a soil related parameter is needed. Based on (3) above, that parameter is
expected to be soil shear modulus.
(5) Two performance characteristics of the Lyres were compared: (1) Average tractive
efficiency in the 0-30% operating slip range, and (2)D/Wat 20% slip. It was found that in the
tilled Yolo loam soil condition:
(a) The large Lyres performed better than the small tyres,
(b) The radial ply Lyres performed better than the bias ply tyres,
(c) Increased dynamic load led to increased performance,
(d) Tyre inflation pressure did not influence performance.
(6) The large radial ply tyres resulted in an average tractive efficiency of 27.23%, vs 25.37%
for the large bias ply Lyres, over the 0-30% slip range; an increase of 6.8%. On an energy
basis, this increase is equivalent to a $3 million per annum saving in California alone.

REFERENCES
[1] ASAE Standards, Agricultural Machinery Management Data, ASAE Data D230.4. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI 49085 (1987).
[2] W. R. GILL and G. E. VANDENBERG,SoilDynamics in Tillage and Traction. Agricultural Handbook 316., U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1968).
[3] M.J. DwYERandG. PEARSON,A field comparison ofthe tractive performance oftwo-and four-wheeldrive
tractors. J. agric. Engng Res. 21(1), 77-85 (1976).
[4] M.J. DWYERand G. PEARSON,A field comparison of the tractive performance of two-and four-wheel drive
tractors. J. agric. Engng Res. 21(1), 77-85 (1976).
[5] H. STEINKAMPF,Problem of power conversion through the driving wheels of large tractors. Grundlagen der
Landtechnik 27(5) [NIAE Translation 425] (1977).
[6] J. H. TAYLOR,G. E. VANDENBERGand I. F. REED, Effect of diameter on performance of powered tractor
wheels. Trans. ASAE 10(6), 838-842 (1967).
[7] P. A. TAYLORand N. Y. WILLIAMS,Traction characteristics of 11-36 agricultural tractor Lyres on hard
surfaces. J. agric. Engng Res. 4(1), 3-8 (1959).
[8] I. F. REEDand J. W. SHIELDS,The effect of lug height and of rim width on the performance of farm tractor
tires. Soc. Automotive Engrs J. 58(12), 40-41 (1950).
[9] G. H. VASEYand I. T. NAYLOR,Field tests on 14-30 tractor Lyres. J. agric. Engng Res. 3(1), 1-8 (1958).
[ 10] J.H. TAYLOR,Lug spacing effect on traction performance of pneumatic tires. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engrs 17,
195-197 (1974).
[11] D. GEE-C~UGH~ M. M~A~Is~ER and D. w . EvERNDEN~Tractive perf~rmance ~f tract~r drive tyres_~. The
effect of lug height. J. agric. Engng Res. 22(4), 373-384 (1977).
[12] J. H. TAYLOR,Lug angle effect on traction performance of pneumatic tires. Trans. ASAE 16(1), 16-18 (1973).
[13] M. G. BEKKER, Off-the-Road Locomotion: Research and Development in Terramechanics. University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1960).
[14] J. L. SMITH, A study of the effects of wet surface soil conditions on the performance of a single wheel. J.
Terramechanics 3(2), 9-24 (1966).
[15] G. E. VANDENBERGand I. F. REED, Tractive performance of radial ply and conventional ply tires. Trans.
ASAE., St. Joseph, MI 49085 (1962).
[16] P.J. FORREST,I. F. REEDand G. V. CONSTANTAKIS,Tractive characteristics of radial ply tires. Trans. ASAE
5(2), 108, 115 (1962).
[17] National Swedish Testing Institute for Agricultural Machinery, Traktordack, Pirelli Cinturato. Report No.
1663, Ultuna, Uppsala, Sweden (1963).
[18] T. J. THADEN,Operating characteristics of radial-ply tractor tires. Trans. ASAE 5(2), 109-110 (1962).
[19] D. GEE-CLOUGH,M. MCALLISTERand D. W. EVERNDEN,Tractive performance of tractor drive tyres--II. A
comparison of radial and cross-ply carcass construction. J. agric. Engng Res. 22(4), 385-395 (1977).
[20] E.C. BURT, P. W. L. LYNEand J. F. KEEN,Ballast and inflation pressure effects on tractive efficiency. ASAE
Paper No. 82-1567. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085 (1982).
[21 ] J.H. TAYLOR,E. C. BURTand A. C. BAILEY,Radial tire performance in firm and soft soils. Trans. ASAE 19(6),
1062-1064 (1976).
[22] F.C. HAUSZ,Traction characteristics of radial tractor tires. Proc. Int. Conf. SoilDynamics, Auburn, Alabama.
Vol. 4, pp. 723-729 (1985).
[23] C.W. PLACKETT,The ground pressure on some agricultural tyres at low load and zero sinkage. Z agric. Engng
Res. 29(2), 159-166 (1984).
 134 D. WULFSOHN, S. K. UPADHYAYA and W. J. CHANCELLOR

[24] B. M. D. WILLS,The measurement of soil shear strength and deformation moduli and a comparison of the
actual and theoretical performance of a family of rigid tracks. 3. agric. Engng Res. 8(2), 115-131 (1963).
[25] M.J. DWYER, D. W. EVERNDENand M. MCALLISTER,Handbook of Agricultural Tyre Performance (2nd. edn.).
NIAE Report No. 18, National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, Bedford, England (1976).
[26] M. J. DWYER, The tractive performance of wheeled vehicles. J. Terramechanics 21(1), 19-34 (1984).
[27] E.C. BURT, A. C. BAILEY,R. M. PATTERSONand J. H. TAYLOR, Combined effects of dynamic load and travel
reduction on tire performance. Trans. ASAE 22(1), 40-44 (1979).
[28] D. R. FREtTAG, A dimensional analysis of the performance of pneumatic tires on soft soils. Tech. Rpt. 3-688,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS (1965).
[29] G. W. TURNAGE, Using dimensionless prediction terms to describe off-road wheeled vehicle performance.
ASAE Paper No. 72-634, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085 (1972).
[30] G. W. TURNAGE, Prediction of in-sand tire and wheeled vehicle drawbar performance. Proc. 8th. Int. Conf.
Soc. Terrain-Vehicle Systems, 1STVS, Cambridge, England, Vol. 1, pp. 121-150 (1984).
[31] M.J. DWYER, D,R: COMELYand D. W. EVERNDEN, Field measurement of agricultural tyre performance at the
National Institute of Agricultural Engineering. Proc. 4th. Int. Conf. Int. Soc. Terrain-Vehicle Systems,
Stockholm, Sweden, Vol. 1, pp. 39-60 (1972).
[32] R. D. WISMER and H. J. LUTH, Off-road traction prediction for wheeled vehicles. Z Terramechanics 10(2),
49-61 (1973).
[33] D. GEE-CLOUGH, M. MCALt.IS'rER, G. PEARSON and D. W. EVERNDEN, The empirical prediction ot"
tractor-implement field performance. ,I. Terramechanics 15(2), 81-94 (1978).
[34] L. 1. LEVITICUSand J. F. REYES, Traction on concrete--I, dynamic ratio and tractive quotient. ASAE Paper
No. 83-1558, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085 (1983).
[35] R. L. CLARK, Tractive modeling and field data requirements to predict traction. ASAE Paper No. 84-1(155,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085 (1984).
[36] C. ASHMORE,E. C. BURTand J. L. TURNER, Predicting tractive performance oflog-skidder tires. ASAE Paper
No. 85-1597. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085 (1985).
[37] S. K. UPADHYAYA,J. MEHLSCHAU, D. WULFSOHNand J. L. GLANCEY,The development of a unique, mobile
single-wheel traction testing machine. Trans. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085 (1986).
[38] W.J. CHANCELLOR, V. CERVINKA, P. K. AV1ANI,N. J. RuPP, N. C. THAI and E. Q. YEE, Energy Requirements
for Agriculture in California ( 1978 Data Base), Vol. I. Report, Joint Study by University of California, Davis,
and California Department of Food and Agriculture (1981).
[39] California Energy Commission, Quarterly Oil Report, Third Quarter (December 1986),
[40] D. WULFSOHN,Tractive characteristics of radial ply and bias ply tires in a California soil. Unpublished M.S.
Thesis, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. (1987).
[41] Z. JANOSl and B. HANAMOTO,The analytical determination of drawbar pull as a function of slip for tracked
vehicles in deformable soils. Paper No. 41, 1st. International Conference on Mechanics of Soil-Vehicle
Systems, Torino, Italy (1961).

View publication stats