EAEF 6(1) : 7-12, 2013

*1 JSAM Member, JSPS Postpostdoctoral Fellow in University of the Ryukyus, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty
of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Muang, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand
*2 JSAM Member, National Agricultural and Food Research Organization, 496 Izumi, Chikugo, Fukuoka, 833-0041, Japan
*3 JSAM Member, Corresponding author, Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyus, 1 Senbaru Nishihara, Okinawa,
903-0213, Japan; ruenom@agr.u-ryukyu.ac.jp
*4 JSAM Member, Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyus, 1 Senbaru Nishihara, Okinawa, 903-0213, Japan
I Introduction
Precise prediction of the ground contact stresses on a
wheel during travel enables us to not only analyze drawbar
pull, torque and traveling resistance in detail but also obtain
useful information for practical applications such as design.
Conventionally, ground contact stress is discussed in terms
of normal stress and tangential stress. The former
component is normal (perpendicular) to the wheel-ground
contact surface and the latter is parallel to it. If these
components can be calculated, wheel traveling performance
parameters, such as drawbar pull, can be estimated by their
integration. Therefore, the measurement of these stress
components is important to any study of traveling
performance. Further, the results can be applied practically
to establish a mathematical model of the stress components.
Normal stress has been predicted using Bekkers model
(1956), which describes the relations between sinkage of a
plate and ground contact pressure as a parabolic function.
Tangential stress, on the other hand, has been predicted
using Janosis model (1962). However, the accuracy of the
predicted ground contact stresses remains low due to
insufficient clarification of the influence of soil
deformation. Therefore, the following steps were
established to obtain new models of the ground contact
surface: (1) measurement of stress distribution at and under
the ground-wheel contact surface (hereafter referred to as
GWCS), and (2) application of Gaussian functions to form
a mathematical model of soil stress distribution.

II Method
1. Experimental conditions
A sophisticated soil-bin test apparatus (Nohse et.al.,
1991) was used for the experiment. Net traction, torque,
sinkage, rotation angle and traveling distance of the wheel
were recorded simultaneously at one-second intervals along
a traveling distance of 200 mm under the test conditions
shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Experiment conditions
Wheel type Rigid wheel with rubber
Peripheral speed 0.12 mm/s
Dynamic load 217 N
Traveling Slip ratio 5 %, 10 %, 20 %
Soil Air-dried Toyoura sand
Void ratio 0.64
Thickness of soil layer 170 mm

2. Measurement of normal stress distribution
The test apparatus was able to measure the ground
contact stress using a strain gauge-based, T-shaped sensor.

Prediction of Wheel Traveling Performance Using Ground Contact
Stress Models

Khwantri SAENGPRACHATANARUG
*1
, Koichiro FUKAMI
*2
, Masami UENO
*3
and Eizo TAIRA
*4


Abstract
In order to analyze the traveling performance of a wheel from the distribution of ground contact stresses, Gaussian
functions were applied to the modeling of the respective normal and tangential stresses. The two functions were superposed
to fit the distorted shape of the normal stress curve at a high slip ratio. The previous model over-predicted the tangential
stress at low slippage and modifications in the proposed model were developed through consideration of relative slip at the
contact surface. Unknown coefficients in the model can be expressed by linear and cubic functions of wheel sinkage. Based
on the results, the stress model was extended to apply to arbitrary sinkage. The new model fitted very well to measured
tangential and normal stresses. Drawbar pull, torque and rolling resistance could also be estimated with high accuracy.
[Keywords] soil bin test, stress distribution, traveling performance, Gaussian function, mathematical model
Research Paper

Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food Vol. 6, No. 1 (2013)
8
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
20%
5%
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
20%
5%
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
20%
5%

+
A
ma
A
mb
u
a
u
b
w
a
w
b
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
20%
5%
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
20%
5%
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
-18 -12 -6 0 6 12
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Slippage 3.9%
42.3%

Gauss fitting
Direction of travel
2
2
( )
exp
2
a
ma
a
A
w
u u

`

)
=
2
2
( )
exp
2
b
mb
b
A
w
u u

`

)
=
20%
5%

+
A
ma
A
mb
u
a
u
b
w
a
w
b
Moreover, a set of pressure sensors was added to the test
apparatus to obtain the stress distribution in the soil under
the GWCS. Two types of pressure sensor were employed to
measure normal stress at each specified soil layer. The first,
with a capacity of 200 kPa, was placed at the bottom of the
soil bin, as shown in Fig. 1 (a). The thickness of the sensor
was 10 mm, and the stress measurement depth was 160 mm.
The other was a small-sized pressure sensor with a capacity
of 50 kPa (Fig. 1 (b)). Due to their light weight (4.8 g) and
small diameter (5.5 mm), the sensors were placed in the
soil at depths of 30, 70 and 110 mm without disturbing the
soil profile. All sensors were placed in the center of the soil
bin. Rolling and pitching of the small-sized pressure
sensors was negligible (less than 1 %). Fig. 1 (c) illustrates
the positions of the pressure sensors for the measurement of
normal stress
























Fig. 1 Stress measurement. (a) Pressure sensor with a 200
kPa capacity. (b) Small-sized pressure sensors with a 50
kPa capacity. (c) Positions of pressure sensors for the
measurement of normal stress in the soil layer

3. Modeling of ground contact stresses using Gaussian
functions
The authors showed that the displacement increment of
the soil under the wheel could be expressed using Gaussian
functions to describe the position of the soil particles
(Fukami et al., 2003a; 2003b). The model could be used to
evaluate the soil displacement at the GWCS, which
suggested that Gaussian functions were applicable to the
modeling of ground contact stress distribution. The single
Gaussian model fitted well with the normal ground contact
stress under low traveling slip, but could not be fitted with
those under high slip (Fig. 2 (a)) or tangential stress. Thus,
in this study, the following equation in which two Gaussian
functions were superposed was assumed to describe the
distribution of normal stress and tangential stress, and its
validity was examined. Geometrical representations of the
stress distributions are shown in Fig. 2 (b).

(a)








(b)











Fig. 2 (a) Shapes of the measured normal ground contact
stress and single Gaussian model. (b) Shape of the 2
Gaussian functions in combination.


(1)

where () is the normal stress of a target point at the
GWCS. A
ma
and A
mb
are peak stress values,
a
and
b
are
peak angles, and w
a
and w
b
are values representing one-half
the width of angle range of each Gaussian function. is the
(a) (b)

(c)
Wheel
Pressure sensor
(Normal stress in
soil layer)
T-shaped sensor
(Ground contact stress)
L-shape
sensor
(Draw bar
pull)
Soil
layer
Initial soil surface
3 mm depth
7 mm depth
11 mm depth
16 mm depth
150 mm
25
Pressure
sensor
T-shape sensor
Wheel surface
Traveling direction
Wheel
Pressure sensor
(Normal stress in
soil layer)
T-shaped sensor
(Ground contact stress)
L-shape
sensor
(Draw bar
pull)
Soil
layer
Initial soil surface
3 mm depth
7 mm depth
11 mm depth
16 mm depth
150 mm
25
Pressure
sensor
T-shape sensor
Wheel surface
Traveling direction
30 mm depth
70 mm depth
110 mm depth
160 mm depth
u
Pressure
sensors

(c)
Wheel
Pressure sensor
(Normal stress in
soil layer)
T-shaped sensor
(Ground contact stress)
L-shape
sensor
(Draw bar
pull)
Soil
layer
Initial soil surface
3 mm depth
7 mm depth
11 mm depth
16 mm depth
150 mm
25
Pressure
sensor
T-shape sensor
Wheel surface
Traveling direction
Wheel
Pressure sensor
(Normal stress in
soil layer)
T-shaped sensor
(Ground contact stress)
L-shape
sensor
(Draw bar
pull)
Soil
layer
Initial soil surface
3 mm depth
7 mm depth
11 mm depth
16 mm depth
150 mm
25
Pressure
sensor
T-shape sensor
Wheel surface
Traveling direction
30 mm depth
70 mm depth
110 mm depth
160 mm depth
u
Pressure
sensors
2 2
2 2
( ) ( )
( ) exp exp
2 2
a b
ma mb
a b
A A
w w
u u u u
o u

= +
` `

) )
SAENGPRACHATANARUG, FUKAMI, UENO, TAIRA:
Prediction of Wheel Traveling Performance Using Ground Contact Stress Models
9




- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
2 2


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
(a) 5% slip
(c) 10% slip
(c) 20% slip


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
100 60 0 -60 -100
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
2 2


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
(a) 5% slip
(c) 10% slip
(c) 20% slip


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
100 60 0 -60 -100
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative horizontal distance, D (mm)
D
e
p
t
h
,

z

(
m
m
)

Traveling direction


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
2 2


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
(a) 5% slip
(c) 10% slip
(c) 20% slip


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
100 60 0 -60 -100
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
2 2


- 1 0 0 - 8 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
- 1 6
- 1 4
- 1 2
- 1 0
- 8
- 6
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
2 0
(a) 5% slip
(c) 10% slip
(c) 20% slip


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20


-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
100 60 0 -60 -100
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relative horizontal distance, D (mm)
D
e
p
t
h
,

z

(
m
m
)

Traveling direction
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160
0
40
80
120
160
60 -60 -100 100 0
0
10
20
0
10
20
0
10
20
(c) 20%
(b) 10%
(a) 5%
Relative horizontal distance, D (mm)
angle from the vertical centerline to the contact point on
wheel surface. The incidence angle
1
, leave angle
2
, and
peak angles of normal stress
max()
and tangential stress

max()
were recorded.

III Results and Discussion
1. Distribution of normal stress at various depths
Both normal and tangential ground contact stresses were
measured using a T-shaped sensor located at the wheel
surface, and normal stresses at depths of 30, 70, 110 and
160 mm were successfully measured by pressure sensors
located in the soil layers under the GWCS.
Fig. 3 shows the normal stress distribution along the
relative horizontal distance D to the wheel center line at
various depths for travel at a 5 % slip ratio. A positive D
value indicates a distance forward of the wheel, while a
negative value indicates a distance to the rear of the wheel.

Fig. 3 Normal stress distribution observed at each soil
layer at 5 % slip

Fig. 4 Maximum normal stress at the observed depth at
traveling slip ratios of 5 %, 10 % and 20 %

The normal stress curves had a Gaussian distribution for
all observed layers. The point of maximum normal stress
was near the wheel axis for soil particles near the GWCS,
but was shifted forward of the wheel with increased depth.
The magnitude of the normal stress decreased markedly
from the GWCS to 70 mm in depth. For the layers below
70 mm, normal stress only slightly decreased with depth.
The normal stress distribution measured for travel at
10 % and 20 % slippage showed a similar trend, but
differed in terms of magnitude of the stresses observed.
However, small fluctuations were found at the soil layers
under the GWCS in the case of travel at a 20 % slip ratio.
Fig. 4 shows a comparison of the maximum normal
stress at various depths at different slip ratios. At the 30
mm in depth, the magnitudes of normal stress at higher
travel slip ratios were smaller than those at lower slip ratios.
This can be explained by the fact that the wheel buried
itself more deeply into the soil when traveling at a high slip
ratio, thereby increasing the contact area at a constant
dynamic load of 217 N and reducing the ground contact
normal stress. In contrast, the stresses for layers below 70
mm in depth under high slip ratios showed larger values
than those under lower slip ratios. It can, therefore, be said
that traveling at a higher slip ratio disturbs the soil more at





Fig. 5 Normal stress distribution under the first travel of
the wheel at 5 %, 10 % and 20 % slip.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-100 -50 0 50 100
Relative horizontal distance, D (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s
,




(
N
/
m
2
)
Contact Surface
3 mm
7 mm
11 mm
16 mm
o
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-100 -50 0 50 100
Relative horizontal distance, D (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s
,




(
N
/
m
2
)
Contact Surface
3 mm
7 mm
11 mm
16 mm
o
Traveling direction
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-100 -50 0 50 100
Relative horizontal distance, D (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s
,




(
N
/
m
2
)
Contact Surface
30 mm
70 mm
110 mm
160 mm
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

o

(
k
P
a
)

Relative horizontal distance, D (mm)
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum normal stress, (N/m2)
D
e
p
t
h
,

z

(
m
m
)
5%
10%
20%
o
max
(kPa)
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum normal stress, (N/m2)
D
e
p
t
h
,

z

(
m
m
)
5%
10%
20%
o
max
(kPa)
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum normal stress, (N/m2)
D
e
p
t
h
,

z

(
m
m
)
5%
10%
20%
o
max
(kPa)
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum normal stress, (N/m2)
D
e
p
t
h
,

z

(
m
m
)
5%
10%
20%
o
max
(kPa)
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum normal stress, (N/m2)
D
e
p
t
h
,

z

(
m
m
)
5%
10%
20%
o
max
(kPa)
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maximum normal stress, (N/m2)
D
e
p
t
h
,

z

(
m
m
)
5%
10%
20%
o
max
(kPa)

Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food Vol. 6, No. 1 (2013)
10
the deeper levels. As the soil was prepared so
homogeneously and the traveling of the wheel was slow
and uniform, the normal stress recorded continuously at the
instant relative horizontal distance can be considered as the
instantaneous stress distribution under the traveling wheel.
The contour of the measured normal stress distribution can
be plotted using the measured normal stresses at every 1
mm at depths of 30, 70, 110, 160 mm and at the contact
surface, as shown in Fig. 5.

2. Gaussian function model
(1) Relations among the geometrical parameters and
sinkage
It is necessary to understand the range of the predicted
stress distributions, which can be expressed as an incidence
angle
1
and a leave angle
2
with respect to the vertical
center line. The values for these angles vary with sinkage h
(mm) of the wheel. Stress distribution can be expressed
empirically by a linear function of slip s as follows:

h = 0.11s + 0.47 (R
2
= 0.979) (2)


Fig. 6 Relationships between sinkage and its characteristic
angles

Fig. 6 shows changes in incidence angle
1
, leave angle

2
, and peak angles of normal stress
max()
and tangential
stress
max()
with respect to sinkage h. The incident position
shifts forward and the leave position moves backward with
increased sinkage h. An increase in sinkage causes
increases in both
1
and
2
. The value of
1
can be
approximated using the following geometrical relation,
although the value is affected by the small upward
movement of the soil:
{ }
1
cos ( ) /
g
r h r u

=
(3)
where
g
is the geometrical angle in deg and r is the radius
of the wheel in mm. Values of
g
were plotted (dashed line)
in Fig 6. The values of
g
were smaller than those measured
for
1
, especially when the sinkage h was small. This means
that the upward and forward displacement of the soil in
front of the wheel was not negligible at a low slip ratio,
which corresponds to a low sinkage. However,
g
shows
high correlations with
1
,
2
and
max()
. Thus, these values
can be approximated using
g
as follows. The peak angle of
the tangential stress
max()
can be expressed as a linear
function of
max()
in Eq. (7), and values calculated from
these relations are shown using solid lines in Fig. 6.
1
0.50 7.67
g
u u =
(R
2
= 0.952) (4)
2
1.03 3.17
g
u u =
(R
2
= 0.855) (5)
max( )
0.73 1.11
g o
u u = +
(R
2
= 0.972) (6)
max( ) max( )
0.90 1.60
t o
u u =
(R
2
= 0.933) (7)

(2) Fitting of the ground contact stresses
The measured ground contact stresses in the normal and
tangential directions were modeled using Eq. (1). Fig. 7 (a)
and (b) show the results of fitting in comparison with the
measured curves for 5 % and 20 % slip, respectively.






















Fig. 7 Results of curve fitting for ground contact stresses.
The validity of the proposed models was confirmed by the
very close fit to the measured curves.
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage(mm)
A
n
g
l
e
(

)
(Calculated)
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
a
v
e
l
g
u
Incidence angle
Leave angle
Peak angle
2
u
1
u
Peak angle
max( ) t
u
max( ) o
u
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage(mm)
A
n
g
l
e
(

)
(Calculated)
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
a
v
e
l
g
u
Incidence angle
Leave angle
Peak angle
2
u
1
u
Peak angle
max( ) t
u
max( ) o
u

-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage(mm)
A
n
g
l
e
(

)
(Calculated)
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
a
v
e
l
g
u
Incidence angle
Leave angle
Peak angle
2
u
1
u
Peak angle
max( ) t
u
max( ) o
u
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage(mm)
A
n
g
l
e
(

)
(Calculated)
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
r
a
v
e
l
g
u
Incidence angle
Leave angle
Peak angle
2
u
1
u
Peak angle
max( ) t
u
max( ) o
u

0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Direction of travel
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
<Slippage 3.9%>
<Slippage 42.3%>
Measured value
Parabolic model

Normal stress
Tangential stress
Gaussian model
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Direction of travel
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
<Slippage 3.9%>
<Slippage 42.3%>
Measured value
Parabolic model

Normal stress
Tangential stress
Gaussian model

5%
20%
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Direction of travel
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
<Slippage 3.9%>
<Slippage 42.3%>
Measured value
Parabolic model

Normal stress
Tangential stress
Gaussian model
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Direction of travel
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
<Slippage 3.9%>
<Slippage 42.3%>
Measured value
Parabolic model

Normal stress
Tangential stress
Gaussian model

5%
20%
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Direction of travel
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
<Slippage 3.9%>
<Slippage 42.3%>
Measured value
Parabolic model

Normal stress
Tangential stress
Gaussian model
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Direction of travel
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
<Slippage 3.9%>
<Slippage 42.3%>
Measured value
Parabolic model

Normal stress
Tangential stress
Gaussian model

5%
20%
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Direction of travel
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
<Slippage 3.9%>
<Slippage 42.3%>
Measured value
Parabolic model

Normal stress
Tangential stress
Gaussian model
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
Direction of travel
0
10
20
30
40
-16 -8 0 8
Angle(
G
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
P
a
)
<Slippage 3.9%>
<Slippage 42.3%>
Measured value
Parabolic model

Normal stress
Tangential stress
Gaussian model

5%
20%
(a)
(b)
SAENGPRACHATANARUG, FUKAMI, UENO, TAIRA:
Prediction of Wheel Traveling Performance Using Ground Contact Stress Models
11
(3) Expansion of the stress model
The proposed models contain some parameters, shown in
Eq. (1), that need to be determined for each curve fitting. It
is desirable for the establishment of general models to
describe the parameters in terms of sinkage or slip ratio. In
order to do this, the relationships between the unknown
coefficients in Eq. (1) and sinkage were examined (Figs. 8
and 9). Fig. 8 shows that each unknown coefficient in the
normal stress model can be approximated using the
following linear function with sinkage h, where A is an
arbitrary unknown coefficient in Eq. (1), and A
1
and A
2
are
constants. The values of A
1
and A
2
are shown in Table 2.
Therefore, the distribution of normal stress can be
calculated with respect to an arbitrary sinkage as

A = A
1
h + A
2
(8)


Fig. 8 Relationships between sinkage and the unknown
coefficients ()

On the other hand, two unknown coefficients relating to
the peak value of the Gaussian functions for the tangential
stress can be approximated by sinkage (Fig. 9).
The following cubic function of sinkage was chosen due to
it having the largest R
2
value:
3 2
1 2 3
B B h B h B h C = + + +
(9)
Table 2 List of coefficients in the model.
Coefficient of linear
function
A
1
A
2
R
2

Coefficient in the
model
A
ma()
-1.8 28.4 0.94
A
mb()
0.2 3.2 0.96

a
-1.2 -3.0 0.96

b
-0.5 -1.3 0.75
w
a
-0.1 2.5 0.83
w
b
0.6 2.7 0.75

Fig. 9 Relationships between sinkage and the unknown
coefficients ()

where B is an arbitrary unknown coefficient related to the
peak values, and B
1
, B
2
, B
3
and C are coefficients of the
cubic function (shown in Fig. 9). In addition, as the normal
and tangential stresses were considered within the same
range of contact surface of the wheel, the unknown
coefficients
a
,
b
, w
a
and w
b
can be the same as those for
normal stress.

3. Predicted results for drawbar pull and torque
Fig. 10 shows the measured and predicted results for
drawbar pull and torque. The predicted results, using the
Gaussian function model extended using Eq. (1), agreed
well with the measured results. On the other hand, the
values estimated using the original Janosis model were
markedly higher, particularly at low slip ratios. The values
decreased gradually with increased slip ratio and converged
similarly to the measured one. Wanjii et al. (1997) and
other researchers reported a similar tendency.
The values obtained from the modified model using the
revision coefficient coincided very well with the measured
values. Thus, the ground contact stresses can be predicted
with high accuracy using the proposed models. A Gaussian
function that takes into account the soil deformation near
the GWCS can be used to estimate the drawbar pull, torque
and other indices of traveling performance. Although the
0
10
20
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
n
)
,

A
m
b
(
n
)

(
k
P
a
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
w
a
,

w
b

(

)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)

a
,

b

(

)
( ) ma n
A
( ) mb n
A
b
w
a
w
b
u
max( ) a
u u =

0
10
20
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
n
)
,

A
m
b
(
n
)

(
k
P
a
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
w
a
,

w
b

(

)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)

a
,

b

(

)
( ) ma n
A
( ) mb n
A
b
w
a
w
b
u
max( ) a
u u =

A
ma
A
mb
0
10
20
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
n
)
,

A
m
b
(
n
)

(
k
P
a
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
w
a
,

w
b

(

)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)

a
,

b

(

)
( ) ma n
A
( ) mb n
A
b
w
a
w
b
u
max( ) a
u u =

0
10
20
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
n
)
,

A
m
b
(
n
)

(
k
P
a
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
w
a
,

w
b

(

)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)

a
,

b

(

)
( ) ma n
A
( ) mb n
A
b
w
a
w
b
u
max( ) a
u u =

A
ma
A
mb
A
m
a
(
o
)
,


A
m
b
(
o
)
0
10
20
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
n
)
,

A
m
b
(
n
)

(
k
P
a
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
w
a
,

w
b

(

)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)

a
,

b

(

)
( ) ma n
A
( ) mb n
A
b
w
a
w
b
u
max( ) a
u u =

0
10
20
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
n
)
,

A
m
b
(
n
)

(
k
P
a
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
w
a
,

w
b

(

)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)

a
,

b

(

)
( ) ma n
A
( ) mb n
A
b
w
a
w
b
u
max( ) a
u u =

A
ma
A
mb
0
10
20
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
n
)
,

A
m
b
(
n
)

(
k
P
a
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
w
a
,

w
b

(

)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)

a
,

b

(

)
( ) ma n
A
( ) mb n
A
b
w
a
w
b
u
max( ) a
u u =

0
10
20
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
n
)
,

A
m
b
(
n
)

(
k
P
a
)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
w
a
,

w
b

(

)
-16
-12
-8
-4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)

a
,

b

(

)
( ) ma n
A
( ) mb n
A
b
w
a
w
b
u
max( ) a
u u =

A
ma
A
mb
A
m
a
(
o
)
,


A
m
b
(
o
)
Ama (t) = 0.0667h
3
- 1.086h
2
+ 5.4555h + 0.3383
R
2
= 0.708
Amb (t)
= 0.0343h
3
- 0.5761h
2
+ 3.1778h - 2.7113
R
2
= 0.8053
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
t
)
,

A
m
b
(
t
)

(
k
P
a
)

A
m
a
(
o
)
,


A
m
b
(
o
)
A
ma(t)
= 0.0667h
3
-1.086h
2
+5.4555h+0.3383
A
mb(t)
= 0.0343h
3
-0.5761h
2
+3177h-2.7113
Ama (t) = 0.0667h
3
- 1.086h
2
+ 5.4555h + 0.3383
R
2
= 0.708
Amb (t)
= 0.0343h
3
- 0.5761h
2
+ 3.1778h - 2.7113
R
2
= 0.8053
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sinkage h (mm)
A
m
a
(
t
)
,

A
m
b
(
t
)

(
k
P
a
)

A
m
a
(
o
)
,


A
m
b
(
o
)
A
ma(t)
= 0.0667h
3
-1.086h
2
+5.4555h+0.3383
A
mb(t)
= 0.0343h
3
-0.5761h
2
+3177h-2.7113

Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food Vol. 6, No. 1 (2013)
12
stress model mentioned above can be replaced by
numerical methods, such as FEM, it is expected that the use
of the model for verification of the numerical methods or
basic data will lead to breakthroughs in the study of
traveling performance.


Fig. 10 Relationships between slip ratio, mean drawbar
pull and mean torque.

IV Conclusion
Soil stress was measured from the soil surface to a depth
of 160 mm to reveal the normal stress distribution during
traveling. The ground contact stress was measured as two
components; normal stress and shear stress. The normal
stress decreased with depth at all travel slip ratios and all
repetitions. The maximum stress measured at 30 to 110 mm
in depth increased with increased travel slip ratio. The
results show that traveling at a higher slip ratio disturbed
the soil more at the deeper levels. The distributions of the
ground contact stress were then modeled using Gaussian
functions. The main results were as follow:
1) Test results revealed the relationship between ground
contact stress distribution and sinkage, and the incidence
angle, leave angle, and peak angles required to predict the
ground contact stress can be described by the geometrical
characteristics of the ground contact surface.
2) Unknown parameters in the normal and tangential stress
models were approximated using a linear function and a
cubic function with respect to sinkage, and an extended
model is proposed to account for arbitrary sinkage.
3) The accuracy of prediction can be markedly improved by
the introduction of a revision coefficient in relation to the
soil deformation near the ground contact surface.
4) The drawbar pull and torque can be predicted with high
accuracy using the Gaussian model.

References
Bekker, M. G. 1956. Theory of land locomotion. Ann Arbor, USA:
The University of Michigan Press.
Fukami, K., M. Ueno, K. Hashiguchi and T. Okayasu. 2003a. Soil
deformation beneath a rigid wheel on the sandy ground -
Characteristics of displacement increments of soil and
modeling -. Journal of the Japanese Society of Agricultural
Machinery 65(3):93-99. (Japanese).
Fukami, K., M. Ueno, K. Hashiguchi and T. Okayasu. 2003b. Soil
deformation beneath a rigid wheel on the sandy ground -
Extension of the displacement increments model and
prediction of the soil strains -. Journal of the Japanese Society
of Agricultural Machinery 65(3):100-106. (Japanese).
Janosi, Z. 1962. Theoretical analysis of the performance of tracks
and wheels operating on deformable soils. Transactions of the
ASAE 5(2):136-146.
Nohse, Y., K. Hashiguchi, M. Ueno, T. Shikanai, H. Izumi and F.
Koyama. 1991. A measurement of basic mechanical quantities
of off-the-road traveling performance. Journal of
Terramechanics 28(4):359-370.
Wanjii, S., T. Hiroma, Y. Ota and T. Kataoka. 1997. Prediction of
wheel performance by analysis of normal and tangential stress
distribution under the wheel-soil interface. Journal of
Terramechanics 34 (3):165-186.
(Received: 9. April. 2011, Accepted:18. June. 2012)

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

Janosi model
Janosi model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

Janosi model
Janosi model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model

0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model
0
30
60
90
120
150
0 20 40 60 80
Slippage(%)
D
r
a
w
b
a
r

p
u
l
l
(
N
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80
Sl ippage(%)
T
o
r
q
u
e
(
N

m
)
Measured value
Gaussian model
Janosi model (revise)
Janosi model
Janosi model
Gaussian model