Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Effect of Fundamental Specification of Tractor

on the Tractive Performance on Soft Paddy Field


By MASAYUKIKISU
Tractor and Tillage Machinery Laboratory, Institute of Agricultural Machinery

The trafficability of tractor on wet paddy Table 1. Test condition


field is a serious problem and various meas- l. Front and rear axle load ratio is changed
ures for improving trafficability has been (Rear tire 8-24, total weight 934kg)
tried since the beginning of manufacture of .
Test No.
tractors in Japan. Axle
The development of steel wheels and other 1- 1 1- 2 1- 3
traction aids is remarkable, but the effects Front 324kg(34. 7%) 384kg(4l. 1%) 444kg(47. 6%)
of fundamental specifications such as front Rear 610kg(65. 3%) 550kg(58. 9%) 490kg(52. 4%)
and rear axle load ratio, total tractor weight, Total 934kg 934kg 934kg
and tire size have not been clarified. Their
effects are significant in some soil conditions 2. Total weight is changed
but are not so significant in others. (Rear tire 8- 24, Front and rear axle load ratio
It was considered necessary to clarify how 41.l: 58. 9)
their effects differ by soil conditions and to
what extent they affect, and field tests were Test No.
Axle
carried out on concrete and soft wet soil. 2- 1 2- 2 2- 3
Front 344kg(41. 2%) 384kg(4l. 1%) 424kg(4l. 0%)
Test method Rear 490kg(58. 8.$!6') 550kg(58. 9%) 610kg(59. 0%)
Total 834 kg 934kg 1034kg
The specification of tractor used for the
test is as follows.
3. Tire size is changed
Engine : 15 PS, 4 stroke cycle, 2 cylinder,
(Total weight 980kg, Front and rear axle load ratio
kerosene
39.2: 60.8)
Weight: Total 814 kg, Front 324 kg,
Rear 490 kg Test No.
Tire: Front 4.00-15, Rear 8- 24 Axle
3- 1 3- 2 3- 3
Wheelbase: 1225 mm
Hitch height: 330 mm Tire Jl- 28 8 -24 6 - 22
When the front and rear axle load ratio Front 384kg(39. 2%) 384kg(39. 2%) 384kg(39. 2%)
was changed, the 8-24 tires were used and Rear 596kg(60. 8%) 596kg(60. 8%) 596kg(60. 8%)
tractor weight was kept 934 kg in each case. Total 980kg 980kg 980kg
When the tractor weight was changed, 8- 24
tires were used and axle load ratio was kept maintained at 2 km/h (0.56 m/s) . The tire
constant ( 41.1 : 58.9). When the tire size inflation pressure was 2.0 kg/cm 2 in front and
was changed, the tractor weight and axle load 0.8 kg/cmt in rear. The test plots were con-
ratio were kept constant (Table 1) . crete test course and outdoor soil bins. The
The travelling speed during the test was soi l in the latter is wet clayey loam (wate~·
126 JARQ Vol. 10, No. 3, 1976

content was 22-24% on dry basis) , and cone 100


index measured by the SR-2 Soil Resistance
Tester devised in our institute (cone base s:1.1kg ..........._
11
I ,
area is 2 cm 2 ) was 3 to 3.5 kg/cm 2 throughout 80 93-lkg I I I
the test.
l
1034k~~ lJ
I •
I
I
I

Test results .g 60 - I . ' I


II
~

1) Eb'ect of front and rea1· axle load 1·atio


1.; c;.oncrctt• road
I . I/
As shown in Fig. 1, the drawbar pull is
~ 40
!-- // I
I. /.
Wet soil

'/,//
larger when the front axle load is less on
//
100
20

~
p
-~
o,i-0::::::;;:::::2.J.o_o_ _. J-101..o_ _.Jo1..-_ ____,.2.1..oo---...1-oo
-
80
Draw bar pull (kg)

l Fig. 3. Effect of tractor weight


C GO
-~
=
-0
concrete road, though the difference is not
e much. The tendency is the same on wet soil
.;
;. 40
~ but the difference is t·emarkable. There is a
following linear relationship between the
20 maximum drawbar pull and the rear axle load
(Fig. 2).

0
F=19. 6Rr - 835
200 -100 0 200 400 where, F : Maximum draw bar pull (kg)
D,·awbar 1>ull (kg)
Rr : Rear axle load (percent of
Fig. 1. Effect of front and rear wheel axle load total weight)
ratio
When the front and rear axle load ratio is

600
_')(_')(_ small on wet soil, the drawbar pull is large
as the travelling resistance of front wheel
is small and thrust of rear wheel is large.

.
-,<
500 The front axle load should be as little as
possible, provided the steering stability is
C, 400 .,.,<:, not lost.
-;
0. ~J,
... v:.~
"'
.,:,

"e
300
~ ..:-..°'' • 2) Effect of trnctor weight
As well known, the heavier the tractor, the
-0

" 200 • larger the drawbar pull on concrete road .


"'
;:;;:
Wet soil
However, lighter tractor shows better per-
100 x--x. Concrete road formance on soft soil as shown in Fig. 3.
The driving force increases in proportion to
I
the driving axle load, but travelling resist-
0 50 55 60 65 ance increases exponentially with tractor
Percentage of rear axle load(%) weight especially on soft wet soil. Con-
Fig. 2. Percentage of rear axle load vs. maximum sequently, drawbar pull is less when the
drawbar pull tractor is heavy.
127

600 800 • - • Concrete road

~
~ x-x Wet soil
.
i

500 600
.,, Concrete road
x - x Wet soil
,;
..
et.

'.:: 400 •
,;
et.
1 400
+~0
,9
,"1, .,,~
] 300
:< ~
.,,~ '/
+~ ,;{';,
::E 200

...)( 200 ~
~

100 0 6-.22 8-24 11-28


Tire size
Fig. 6. Tire size vs. maximum drawbar pull
0
1. 50 60 70
Weigh! per horsepowcr(kg/PS)
tractor shows better performance.
800 900 1,000 I, LOO The relationships between tractor weight
Tractor weight (kg)
W (kg) and maximum drawbar pull F ( kg)
Fig. 4. Tractor weight vs. maximum drawbar pull on concrete and wet soil are shown in Fig. 4
100
and are expressed by the following equations.
I\
, I
Concr~te road
Wet soil
F=0.51 W + 45
F = - 0.92 W + 1,147
80 • / I
. I 3) Effect of tire size
g
..,
C
0
60
II
. I
When the tire size is changed on concrete
road, the drawbar pull at 100 % travel reduc-
~ /. I tion is not changed, but the maximum draw-
~
1
~
40 Concrete r():ul _,,//
.
Wr1 soil
bar pull is larger when the tire is large.
However, the difference is not so significant
... /
/

as shown in Fig. 5. On wet soil, in contrary,


20
the maximum drawbar pull is fairly larger
when tire is large. It can be said that the
broader contact area is effective only on soft
Drowbar pull (k~l
soil.
The relation between tire size and maxi-
Fig. 5. Effect of tire size mum drawbar pull is shown in Fig. 6.
The reason that the travel reduction of
lighter tractor on no load travelling is high Reference
on wet soil is considered that the weight on
the driving axle is not enough. When the 1) Kisu, M. et al.: Studies on trafficability,
tractive and rotary tilling performance of
drawbar load is applied, the driving axle load tractor. Technical Report, Inst. of Agt·. Ma-
increases by the effect of weight transfer, chinery, p. 48-56 (1966) [In Japanese with
reaching optimum weight, and the lighter English summary).

Anda mungkin juga menyukai