An ASABE Meeting Presentation Paper Number: 061089

Method for Fuel Prediction for Specific Tractor Models

Robert D. Grisso, PE David H. Vaughan
Professors Biological Systems Engineering Virginia Tech, 200 Seitz Hall (0303) Blacksburg, VA 24061-0303 540-231-6538; rgrisso@vt.edu

Gary T. Roberson, PE
Associate Professor & Extension Specialist North Carolina State University Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering Campus Box 7625, 3110 Faucette Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625

Written for presentation at the 2006 ASABE Annual International Meeting Sponsored by ASABE Portland Convention Center Portland, Oregon 9 - 12 July 2006
Abstract. Several methods for fuel consumption prediction have been used: some methodologies are generally based on power and others are for individual engines which require extensive engine testing to verify. Grisso et al. (2004) reviewed the current fuel consumption data from ASAE Standards and compared it to 20 years of Nebraska Tractor Test Lab (NTTL) data. They also developed a generalized model that predicted fuel consumption during full and partial loads and under conditions when engine speeds were reduced from full throttle. Generalized models are very useful for budget and management scenarios, but may not have the ability to compare fuel consumption for several potential configurations such as turbocharging and air densification models. The objective of this paper is to develop a method that uses the NTTL data for a specific model to predict fuel consumption for full and partial loads and for reduced throttle conditions. These equations can be used demonstrate the fuel savings for different operating and loading conditions. This method was compared with the generalized model and actual NTTL fuel consumption data. The results showed that 88% of the fuel comparisons had an improved prediction with the new methodology over the generalized model. An example will be applied to a farmer operated tractor. Keywords. fuel consumption, machinery management, tractor standardized tests
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed. Technical presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASABE editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an ASABE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2006. Title of Presentation. ASABE Paper No. 061089. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please contact ASABE at rutter@asabe.org or 269-429-0300 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).

Method for Fuel Prediction for Specific Tractor Models

R.D. Grisso, D.H. Vaughan, G.T. Roberson1 Generalized models for fuel consumption are very useful for budget and management scenarios but may not have the ability to compare fuel consumption for several potential configurations such as turbocharging and air densification models. The objective of this paper is to develop a method that uses the NTTL data for a specific model to predict fuel consumption for full and partial loads and for reduced throttle conditions. Using these equations, they can demonstrate the fuel saving for different operating and loading conditions. This method will be compared with the generalized model and actual NTTL fuel consumption data. The results showed that about 88% of the tractor had an improved prediction with the new methodology An example will be applied to a farmer operated tractor.

Introduction
The primary purpose of agricultural tractors, especially those in the middle to high power range, is to perform drawbar work (Zoz and Grisso, 2003). The value of a tractor is measured by the amount of work accomplished relative to the cost incurred in getting the work done. Drawbar power is defined by pull (or draft) and travel speed. Therefore, the ideal tractor converts all the energy from the fuel into useful work at the drawbar. Efficient operation of farm tractors includes: (1) maximizing the fuel efficiency of the engine and mechanical efficiency of the drivetrain, (2) maximizing tractive advantage of the traction devices, and (3) selecting an optimum travel speed for a given tractor-implement system. This paper focuses on fuel efficiency. According to Siemens and Bowers (1999), depending on the type of fuel and the amount of time a tractor or machine is used, fuel and lubricant costs will usually represent at least 16 percent to over 45 percent of the total machine costs Most cropping and machinery budgets developed by state Extension specialists and others contain estimates from the ASAE Standards (ASAE Standards, 2005a; ASAE Standards, 2005b). Recently, several managers of these budgets questioned whether the fuel estimates were reflective of the new engine designs. Several methods have been developed for predicting fuel consumption; some methodologies are generalized based on power and others are for individual engines requiring extensive engine testing for verification. Grisso et al. (2004) reviewed the current fuel consumption data from ASAE Standards and compared it to 20 years of Nebraska Tractor Test Lab (NTTL) data. They also developed a generalized model that predicted fuel consumption during full and partial loads and under conditions when engine speeds were reduced from full throttle. The objective of this paper is to develop a method that uses the NTTL data for a specific model to predict fuel consumption for full and partial loads and reduced throttle conditions.
The authors are Robert Bobby Grisso, ASABE Member Engineer, Professor, and David H. Vaughan, ASABE Life Member Engineer, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA; and Gary T. Roberson, ASABE Member Engineer, Associate Professor & Extension Specialist, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625. Corresponding author: Robert Bobby Grisso, 200 Seitz Hall (0303), Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061; phone: 540-231-6538; fax: 540-231-3199; e-mail: rgrisso@vt.edu. Mention of trade and company names are for the reader and do not infer endorsement or preferential treatment of the products by Virginia Tech or NCSU.
1

Terminology
Tractor manufacturers specify power output from several sources on the tractor (PTO (powertake-off), drawbar, hydraulic outlets and electrical outlets). Each tractor model has a rated power measured at rated engine speed. Typically this power is measured at the PTO and is referred to in the remainder of this paper as rated PTO power. For most modern tractors, the rated power will not be the maximum power. With modern engine designs, operating engines at speeds other than rated speed often produces more power. Standardized tractor test codes specify power and fuel consumption measurements at rated engine speed, standard PTO speed (either 540 or 1,000 RPM) and at engine speed and load conditions that produce maximum PTO power. The Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory (NTTL) has a long history of testing tractors and dissemination of power and fuel consumption data. During standardized tests, the power is calculated and the corresponding fuel consumption is measured. The power at the PTO is calculated from the PTO torque and the PTO speed. Drawbar power is calculated from the drawbar pull (or draft) and the forward speed of the tractor. Fuel consumption is measured by the amount of fuel used during a specific time period. The most common measure of the energy efficiency of a tractor is referred to here as specific volumetric fuel consumption (SVFC), which is given in units of L/kWh (gal/hph). SVFC is generally not affected by the engine size and can be used to compare energy efficiencies of tractors having different sizes and under different operating conditions. SVFC for diesel engines typically ranges from 0.24 to 0.57 L/kWh (0.0476 to 0.111 gal/hph). For ease of computation, the reciprocal of SVFC is often used and is referred to here as specific volumetric fuel efficiency (SVFE) with units of kWh/L (hph/gal) with corresponding ranges from 2.36 to 4.1 kWh/L (12 to 21 hph/gal). The NTTL reports the SVFE for several drawbar load tests, rated PTO speed and varying PTO power tests. Figure 1 shows a sample NTTL Report. The SVFE for this test is shown under the columns labeled with units of Hph/gal (kWh/L). Grisso et al. (2004) compared fuel efficiency improvements at the reduced engine speed during the 50% and 75% drawbar load tests to the maximum power test. The decreases in SVFC and engine speed were based on percentages as follows:

SVFC F SVFC R Decrease in SVFC = SVFC F

RPM F RPM R N Red = RPM F
Where:

100

(1)

100

(2)

SVFC is the specific volumetric fuel consumption at full throttle (F), and reduced throttle (R), during the 50% and 75% drawbar load tests, respectively, in L/kWh (gal/hph); NRed is the percentage engine speed (RPM) reduction during the 50% and 75% drawbar load tests at reduced throttle (R), compared to full throttle (F), respectively, in %. The data measured in NTTL Report 1725 (shown in Figure 1) will be used to demonstrate the computation for equations (1) and (2). For the drawbar performance at 75% of Pull at Maximum Power, the engine speed was 2190 RPM and the SVFE was 2.52 kWh/L (12.80 hph/gal). The corresponding test during reduced throttle setting had an engine speed of 1665 RPM and a SVFE of 2.88 kWh/L (14.63 hph/gal). The SVFC was calculated as 0.397 L/kWh (0.078 gal/hph) for full throttle and 0.347 L/kWh (0.068 gal/hph) for the reduced throttle test.

Using equations (1) and (2), the decrease in SVFC was 12.6% while the engine speed was reduced (NRed) by 24%. Similarly, the 50% of Pull at Maximum Power tests resulted in a reduction of engine speed of 24% and a decrease of SVFC of 15.8%. The percentages calculated in equations (1) and (2) were used to predict the changes in fuel consumption based on engine speed reduction. It was expected that the fuel consumption could be predicted from reduced engine speed percentage and the fuel consumption predicted from full throttle data (along the governor response power curve). Grisso et al. (2004) developed a generalized fuel consumption equation: Q = (0.22 X + 0.096) (1 (-0.0045 X NRed + 0.00877 NRed)) * Ppto Q = (0.0434 X + 0.019) (1 (-0.0045 X NRed + 0.00877 NRed)) * Ppto (SI) (English) (3) (4)

Where: Q is diesel fuel consumption at partial load and full/reduced throttle, L/h (gal/h); X is the ratio of equivalent PTO power to rated PTO power, decimal; NRed is the percentage of reduced engine speed for a partial load from full throttle, %; and Ppto is the rated PTO power, kW (hp). The predicted results of equations (3) and (4) were plotted versus the actual fuel consumption as reported by NTTL. Each tractor evaluated had fuel consumption for varying PTO runs (100%, 85%, 65%, 45%, 20% and 0% of PTO power), and most tractors tested had a full drawbar complement of 100%, 50% and 75% drawbar loads at full throttle setting and 50% and 75% drawbar loads at reduced engine throttle setting. The Pearson correlation coefficient for over 8,000 comparisons was 0.989, showing excellent agreement. These equations are useful to predict fuel consumption for diesel engines during full and partial loads and under conditions when engine speeds are reduced from full throttle.

Methodology for Fuel Prediction for Specific Tractor Models

The method for developing the generalized model (Eq 3 & 4) was used to develop specific coefficients for specific tractor models. The coefficients used the Nebraska Tractor test results and the defining locations of the various parameters can be seen in Figure 2. The equation for a specific tractor is defined as: Q = (a X + b )[1 + (c X NRed - d NRed)] Ppto Where the coefficients are defined as: a = [ Q75F Q50F ] / [ Ppto { X75F X50F}] b = [ Q75F / Ppto ] a X75F c = [f/h - e/g] / { X75F X50F} d = c X50F - f/h e = 1 [{X75F Q75R} / {X75R Q75F}] f = 1 [{X50F Q50R} / {X50R Q50F}] g = { RPM75F RPM75R} 100 / RPM75F h = { RPM50F RPM50R } 100 / RPM50F The major factors from the NTTL reports are: (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (5)

Q is diesel fuel consumption, L/h (gal/h) X is the ratio of equivalent PTO power to rated PTO power, decimal RPM is the engine speed for partial loads from full and reduced throttle, RPM Ppto is the rated PTO power, kW (hp) The specific subscript refers to the location of the test, where the tractor tests were conducted at full throttle (F), and reduced throttle (R), during the 50% and 75% drawbar load tests. The method used the fuel consumption data, power levels and engine speed from 4 part-load drawbar load tests and the PTO and drawbar power at rated engine speed. The equivalent power ratios (at the 4 test points) were computed from maximum drawbar power at rated engine speed and the current power level. These coefficients were generated for individual tractors tested between 1979 through 2004. Over 535 tractors with complete drawbar tests (both 50 and 75% pull tests) were considered. The predicted results from this method were compared to the results from generalized model shown in equations (3) and (4) for each tractor. In this manner, significant improvement in accuracy can be seen from calculating the coefficients for each individual tractor.

Results
The coefficients were developed in a spreadsheet for the 535 tractors. Table 1 gives a summary of the coefficients found using this method. These average values are close in value to the coefficients resulting from the general model (a=0.0434, b=0.019, c=0.0045, and d=0.00877). Table 1. Summary of the coefficients determined from the Nebraska Tractor Test Report (n=535). a Average Stand Dev Maximum Minimum
0.041696 0.149438 0.005172 0.008847

Statistical Inference for Coefficients b c

0.019653 0.054299 -0.072617 0.007625 0.008158 0.075966 -0.067802 0.008680

d
-0.012341 0.036147 -0.061537 0.006493

As an example, below are the coefficients developed for the Nebraska OECD Tractor Test 1725 Summary 225 (shown in Figure 1): a = [5.92 4.78 gal/h] / [115.9 hp {0.787 0.536}] = 0.390 b = [5.92 gal/h / 115.9 hp] 0.390 0.787 f = 1 [{0.535 4.03 gal/hr} / {0.536 4.78 gal/hr}] g = {2190 1665 rpm} 100 / 2190 rpm h = {2221 1685 rpm} 100 / 2221 rpm d = {0.0052 0.536} {0.158 / 24} = 0.0203 = 0.158 = 23.9 = 24.1 = 0.0093 e = 1 [{0.787 5.19 gal/hr} / {0.788 5.92 gal/hr}] = 0.125

c = [{0.158 / 24.1} {0.125 / 23.9}] / {0.787 0.536} = 0.0052

Using these four coefficients and equation (5), predictions can be made for several operating conditions. Table 2 shows the comparisons of the individual and general model with the measured test results. The individual coefficients show excellent agreement. Table 2. Fuel consumption measured and predicted by the individual coefficients and the generalized model for Nebraska OECD Tractor Test 1725 Summary 225 (shown in Figure 1). Fuel Consumption (gal/hr) Actual Individual General
PTO Power Test, Rated Drawbar Test, Maximum Pull, Rated Drawbar Test, 75% Pull, Full Throttle Drawbar Test, 75% Pull, Red Throttle Drawbar Test, 50% Pull, Full Throttle Drawbar Test, 50% Pull, Red Throttle 6.821 6.714 5.916 5.185 4.776 4.031 6.882 6.882 5.916 5.185 4.776 4.031 7.236 7.236 5.978 5.176 4.719 3.977

The comparison of the general and individual coefficients to the measured fuel consumption during PTO and maximum drawbar test run at rated engine speed indicated that 70% of the comparisons showed improved prediction with the individual coefficients and 33% of those improved were greater than 6 percent more accurate. For all of the tractors compared at the partial loads-full throttle drawbar tests showed improved prediction over the generalized model; 45% of individual coefficients improved the prediction by more than 6% over the generalized equation for the full throttle-partial pull drawbar tests. Also, 94% of the individual coefficients improved the agreement over the general equation for the reduced throttle, partial load drawbar tests. Over 80% of those predictions improved were by more than 6 percent. The frequency distribution of the improved method is shown in Figure 3 for all of the operating conditions. The method brings significant improvement to the prediction of fuel consumption of tractors in all operating conditions. Figure 4 also shows good agreement between the measure and predicted fuel consumption using individual coefficients. The Pearson correlation coefficient for over 3,000 comparisons was 0.996, showing excellent agreement. Farmer application When farmers use this model or the generalized model described by Grisso et al. (2004), the Nebraska Tractor Test report would be a very useful resource. As shown in the previous example, the coefficients can be defined directly using the NTTL reports. The main objective of using this procedure is to determine the engine operating speed under field conditions. Compare the tractor engine speed at high-idle (full throttle, no-load) with the engine speed shown in Varying Power and Fuel Consumption section of the NTTL report. In the example (Figure 1), the high-idle engine speed is 2267 rpm. If the users tractor speed is significantly different than the NTTL reported speed, errors using this approach can be significant. Record the high-idle engine speed (HI) and rated engine speed (Rated). The rated engine speed is typically found on the tractor tachometer, operators manual, or NTTL report. The main objective is to find the engine speed during load in a field operation (FES). Assure that the engine speed is recorded when the throttle is fully open. This engine speed gives an estimate of the amount of rated power being used. Record the common engine speed for other field operations and tasks. Using the relationship below, determine the estimated ratio of rated power that is being used: X = {HI - FES} / {HI Rated} (14)

Where: HI is the high-idle engine speed, rpm; Rated is the rated engine speed for the tractor being considered, rpm; and FES is the field speed experienced during field operations, rpm. For example, suppose that a JD 7610 is being used for primary tillage and the common engine speed is 2150 rpm. From the test report (Figure 1) and field testing, the high-idle speed is 2267 rpm and the rated engine speed is 2100 rpm. The equivalent power (calculated from equation 14) being used for this operation is 0.7 and using the coefficients from the pervious example, the fuel use equation becomes: Q = (0.039 X + 0.0203) (1 + (0.0052 X NRed 0.0093 NRed)) 115.9 hp At full throttle, the estimated fuel consumption for the field operation becomes: Q = (0.039 0.7 + 0.0203) 115.9 = 5.517 gal / h Now if the operator wishes to review the saving from employing the practice Gear-Up and Throttle Down, the operator can look at several engine reduction schemes and match the most appropriate. If the tractor engine is reduced by 10 and 20%, respectively, the following results will be seen: D10 = (1 + (0.0052 0.7 10 0.0093 10)) D10 = 0.944 or a 5.6% fuel saving for reducing the throttle by 10%. Likewise: D20 = 0.887 or an 11% fuel saving for reducing the throttle by 20%. In terms of fuel consumption rate: Q10 = 5.517 0.94 = 5.186 gal/h or a saving of 0.33 gal/h Q20 = 5.517 0.88 = 4.89 gal/h or a saving of 0.6 gal/h The easiest way to reduce the engine speed is from the no-load condition (at high-idle). A 10 and 20% engine speed reduction would require moving the throttle at high idle from 2267 rpm to 2040 and 1813 rpm, respectively.

Conclusion
A new method for predicting fuel consumption for individual tractors was developed. Improvements over the general model as described by Grisso et al. (2004) are significant. The results showed that about 88% of the tractors tested had an improved prediction with the new methodology. The method is able to calculate the coefficients from the complete drawbar tests and rated PTO power tests. These equations are useful to predict fuel consumption for diesel engines during full and partial loads and under conditions when the engine speeds are reduced from full throttle. Examples were applied to farmer operated tractors.

Acknowledgements
Authors would like to acknowledge Teresa Grisso and Joshua Graham for their data entry and proofing of database created from the Nebraska Tractor Test Reports.

References
ASAE Standards, 52nd ed., 2005a. EP496.2FEB03. Agricultural machinery management. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. ASAE Standards, 52nd ed., 2005b. D497.4 FEB03. Agricultural machinery management data. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. Bowers, W. 2001. Personal correspondence by email. Grisso, R.D., M.F. Kocher, and D.H. Vaughan. 2004. Predicting tractor fuel consumption. Applied Eng. in Agric 20(5):553-561 Grisso, R.D. and R. Pitman. 2001. Gear up and throttle down - saving fuel. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 442-450, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442-450/442-450.pdf Kotzabassis, C., H.T. Wiedemann and S.W. Searcy. 1994. Tractor energy conservation. Texas Agricultural Extension Service Publication L-5085, Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX. Siemens, J.C. and W.W. Bowers. 1999. Machinery management: how to select machinery to fit the real needs of farm managers. Farm Business Management (FMB) series, John Deere Publishing, East Moline, IL. Zoz, F. and R.D. Grisso. 2003. Traction and Tractor Performance. ASAE Distinguished Lecture Series #27. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.

Figure 1. Example of a tractor test report. The sections show the PTO performance tests (top), the varying power (middle) tests, and the drawbar performance test (bottom) results. This is taken from the report of Nebraska OECD Tractor Test 1725 Summary 225 for John Deere 7610 PowerShift.

Figure 2. Engine map with the tractor test information and notations described (adapted from Kotzabassis et al. 1994).
0.30

0.25 Frequency of Im provem ent

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
-1 >0 -3 >1 -6 >3 -9 >6 2 -1 >9 5 -1 12 > 0 -2 15 > 5 >2

Improved Fuel Prediction (% range)

Full Load Part load, Full Throttle Part Load, Reduced Throttle

Figure 3. Frequency of improved prediction from the individual coefficients as compared to the general model.

30

25 Predicted Fuel Consumption (gal/hr)

20

15

10

0 0 5 10 15 Actual Fuel Consumption (gal/h)

1-to-1 Full Power Part-Load, Full Throttle Part-Load, Reduced Throttle

20

25

30

Figure 4. Comparison of actual and predicted fuel consumption for all rated PTO power and drawbar tests. The fuel consumption was predicted using equation (5) (3,210 comparisons, Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.996).

10