You are on page 1of 17

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010

An Empirical Model for Tractive Performance of Rubber-tracks in Agricultural Soils


Robert Grisso, John Perumpral and Frank Zoz Professor, William Cross Jr. Professor and Head Emeritus, Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA and Retired Engineer, John Deere Product Engineering Center, Waterloo, IA, USA Corresponding Author: Dr. Robert Grisso, Biological Systems Engineering, 200 Seitz Hall (0303), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0303, 540-231-6538, FAX: 540-231-3199, rgrisso@vt.edu

Abstract: Mathematical models capable of describing the interaction between the traction devices and soils have been effective in predicting the performance of off-road vehicles. Such a model capable of predicting the performance of bias-ply tires in agricultural soils was first developed by Brixius [1]. When the soil and vehicle parameters are known, this model uses an iterative procedure to predict the tractive performance of a vehicle including pull, tractive efficiency, and motion resistance. Al-Hamad et al. [2] modified the Brixius equations to predict the performance of radial tires. Zoz and Grisso [3] have demonstrated that the use of spreadsheet templates is more efficient than the original iterative procedure used to predict the performance of 2WD and 4WD/MFWD tractors. As tractors equipped with rubber-tracks are becoming popular, it is important that we have the capability to predict the performance for off-road vehicles equipped with rubber-tracks during agricultural operations. This paper discusses the development of an empirical model to accomplish this goal and its validity by comparing the predicted results with published experimental results. Keywords: Rubber-tracks, Traction Mechanics; Traction Prediction, Traction Model

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 INTRODUCTION Through out the world, farm tractors are used extensively to carry out different agricultural operations. During the last five decades tractors used in agricultural operations have undergone many changes. Selected examples of these changes include increased horsepower ratings, tractor configuration (2WD and 4WD/ MFWD), and use of different types of tractive devices such as (bias-ply tires to radial tires to rubber-tracks). Production capabilities of these tractors depend heavily on tractor configuration, type of tractive devices used and terrain conditions. Ability to predict and optimize the performance of these tractors during field operations has been of great interest to scientists, manufacturers, and users. In an effort to meet this need, Zoz [4] developed a set of graphs based on field tests conducted in three types of soils: firm, tilled and soft or sandy, and on concrete with 2WD tractors. He demonstrated that the set of graphs developed could be used to predict the drawbar pull, travel speed, drawbar horsepower and travel reduction of 2WD tractors under different soil conditions. Wismer and Luth [5] studied the single wheel behavior in an indoor soil-bin facility. Using dimensional analysis and the results of carefully planned tests, they developed equations to predict the pull and tractive efficiency of tractors under different slip when certain conditions are satisfied. Similar sets of equations were developed by Zoz and Brixius [6] to predict the performance of tractors on concrete. Nebraska tractor test results were used to develop these relationships. Based on these equations, they have also developed a computer program to predict the vehicle performance on concrete.

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 In 1987, Brixius revised the relationships originally developed by Wisner and Luth [5]. Using the data from approximately 2,500 field tests involving 121 soil-tire combinations and improved curve fitting techniques, Brixius [1] came up with a revised set of traction equations. In addition to providing better predictions, these equations developed for bias-ply tires, extended the range of applications. Al-Hamad et al. [2] modified the relationships developed by Brixius to predict the performance of vehicle equipped with radial tires. A review of literature has revealed that a great deal of experimental studies have been conducted to assess the tractive performance of rubber-tracks in different soils and to compare it with the performance of other types of tractive devices ([8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24]). However, to our knowledge, only limited studies have dealt with the development of mathematical models to predict the performance of rubber tracks in agricultural soils. Upadyaya et al. [8] and Zoz [9] have tested rubber-tracks and developed regression equations to predict net-traction, motion resistance, and tractive efficiency as a function of travel reduction or slip. They used regression analysis to minimize data scatter and developed useful relationships for specific test conditions. The limitation of these relationships, however, is that they may be useful only for the field and vehicle conditions that existed during the collection of experimental data. Therefore, the overall objective of this study was to develop an empirical model specifically to predict the tractive performance of rubber-tracks in a variety of agricultural soils and to establish its validity by comparing the predicted results with the experimental. Rubber-Track Mechanics In many respects, the mechanics of the rubber-tracks and wheel systems are very similar, and a brief discussion of mechanics of rubber-tracks is included in this section. A more detailed review of the same is available in Zoz and Grisso [3]. Figure 1 shows the forces on a rubber-

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 tracks system. The torque input (T) to the axle develops a gross thrust (GT). Part of the gross thrust is used to overcome the motion resistance (MR). The remainder is the net traction (NT) or pull available for useful work. Though there are similarities between tires and rubber-tracks, the dynamic load distribution on rubber-tracks is significantly different. For example, the location of the dynamic load resultant (eh) depends on the static weight distribution, the design of the suspension system supporting the bogie wheels, and the vehicle weight transfer characteristics [7]. To maximize the tractive performance and to minimize the soil disturbance, ideally the pressure distribution on a rubber-track should be uniform and, the dynamic weight distribution in the front and rear should be equal. The dynamic weight distribution on rubber-tracks depends on factors such as static weight, tractor dimensions, location of center of gravity, angle and the magnitude of pull. Unlike in the case of tires, both the magnitude and uniformity in dynamic load distribution are important during the testing of rubber-track systems. Traction Equations for Rubber Tracks Since our goal was to develop a traction model with the capability to predict the rubber-track performance in a variety of agricultural soils and for different track systems, we decided to modify the following original equations developed for tires by Brixius[1]. Brixius expressed GTR (Gross Traction Ratio) and MRR (Motion Resistance Ratio) as a function of mobility number (Bn) and wheel slip (s). He determined the dimensionless numbers in the equations using a curve-fitting technique and the following are the generalized equations he developed:

CI b d 1 + K 1 h B = n W 1 + K b d 2

( ) ( )

(1)

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010

GTR =

C B T = C 1 e 2 n 1 r W C s M C5 MRR = = +C + 6 4 W B B n n NT NTR = = GTR MRR W

C s 1 e 3 + C 4

(2)

(3)

(4)

Where, Bn Mobility numbers b unloaded tire section width r tire rolling radius h tire section height s Wheel slip NT Net traction or pull T Axle Torque

CI Cone Index d unloaded tire diameter tire deflection W Dynamic load on the tractive devices M motion resistance NTR Net traction ratio

Equations 1-3 include six coefficients (C1-C6) and two tire constants (K1 & K2). These constants and coefficients may change depending on the type of tractive devices. For bias-ply tires, values of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, K1, and K2 are 0.88, 0.1, 7.5, 0.04, 1.00, 0.5, 5 and 3, respectively [1]. Zoz [25] created a Lotus 1-2-3 template for Brixius equations. This template helped the users to predict the performance of tractors or different configurations equipped with bias-ply or radial tires in different agricultural soils. As radial tires became popular, there was interest in models capable of predicting performance of tractors equipped with radial tires. Al-Hamed et al. [2] modified the Brixius equations to meet this need. Using experimental data and curve fitting techniques, a new set of coefficients C1 thru C6 and K1 & K2 to represent the radial tires was generated. They are 0.88, 0.08, 9.5, 0.032, 0.90, 0.5, 5 and 3, respectively.

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 When spreadsheet use, became more common, Zoz and Grisso [3] employed the spreadsheet for predicting the tractive performance of tractors. This spreadsheet has the capability to handle tractor configuration, bias-ply, radial tires, and different agricultural soil conditions. Recognizing the advantages of pneumatic tires and tracks, more and more farm tractors are now being equipped with rubber-tracks. Even though field studies have been conducted to compare the performance of rubber-tracks and MFWD tractors in different soils [11 and 12], to date very little has been done to develop a mathematical model to predict the tractive performance of rubber-tracks. In order to develop a generalized model for rubber-tracks, first we used a trial and error procedure to determine the values of the coefficients (C1 C6) and constants (K1 and K2) for rubber-tracks. Using the test data collected with rubber-tracks in different soils, we determined the coefficients and constants that provided the best fit and developed the following relationships: a) Gross-traction-slip, b) Motion resistance-slip, and c) Tractive efficiency-slip For comparison purposes, the values of the constants and coefficients for bias-ply tires, radial tires, and rubber-tracks are included in Table 1. The following are the modified relationships for predicting the tractive performance of rubber-tracks:
B = n W CI TW TL 5 CI/0.698 TW 1 - e 1 + 6 TL

(5)

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010

0.025 B 0.03 n GTR = 1.10 1 e 1 e 17 s + (DWI ) 1.75 0.03 0.5 s + + MRR = B (0.7 DWI ) (DWI ) B n n NTR TE = (1 s ) GTR
Where, TW and TL are track width and track length respectively.

(6) (7)

(8)

Since the dynamic weight ratio (DWR), the ratio between dynamic loads on the rear and front, play a significant role in the overall performance of rubber tracks, it is necessary to express the coefficients C4 and C5 in terms of dynamic weight index, DWI, and,
0.7 (DWR 1) DWI = 1 ABS (DWR + 1)

(9)

The tractive efficiency is its maximum when the DWI reaches it maximum value of one. DWI is maximum when the weight distribution is equal in the front and the rear (DWR = 1). The values for C4 and C5 shown in table 1 are assuming equal weight distribution in the front and rear. Validation of the Model The validity of the model developed was examined by comparing the predicted and experimental results. Net Traction Ratio (NTR), and tractive efficiency (TE)-slip relationships were developed for 44 cases based on field tests [9, 13, 14, and 15] conducted in sandy loam, silt loam, clay and clay loam soils under tilled and untilled conditions and in subsoiled sandy loam with four different track widths (406, 457, 635, and 813 mm) and compared against predicted. In order to assess the closeness between the two, the Pearson Correlation Coefficients and the Average absolute differences at 30 different track slips in the range of 1-30% were determined

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 and the average for each of the 44 cases considered is presented in table 2. High correlation coefficient and low absolute difference values indicate good agreement between the predicted and experimental results except in clay soils. In order to further illustrate the agreement between the predicted and experimental results, the NTR and TE were plotted as a function of track slip for four different cases (Fig. 2). Curves for two different track widths 813 mm (case 44), and 406 mm (case 40) are shown in Fig. 2a. As expected wider track widths provided better performance in terms of net traction developed and tractive efficiency. Even though case 44 provided high correlation coefficient and low absolute difference values for both NTR and TE, the model seems to under predict the NTR at higher track slips. Figure 2b compares the performance of 406 mm rubber-track in untilled (case 9) and tilled (case 5) sandy loam. In general, there is good agreement between the predicted and experimental results. As expected the track performance in untilled soil with higher CI is slightly better than in tilled soil with lower CI value. The maximum tractive efficiencies (TEmax) in both cases occurred at slips between 6-7 percent. The predicted TEmax values are 0.831 and 0.815 for untilled and tilled soils, respectively. To further illustrate the validity of the model, we determined the maximum tractive efficiencies from predicted and experimental results and the corresponding net traction and track slip values at TEmax and plotted these ratios against each other as shown in Fig. 3 for each of the 44 cases in Table 2. The fact that most points for all three ratios clustered around 1:1 line, once again illustrates very good agreement between predicted and experimental results.

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 Model Application The model developed can be used effectively for a number of different applications. Figure 4 is included to demonstrate one such use. The horizontal and vertical axes of this figure represent Net Traction Ratio and traction performance ratios such as TE and track slip, respectively. Plots include predicted TE, and slip curves for different mobility numbers. For a given mobility number (Bn), the figure provides the information on the maximum TE possible and the corresponding Net Traction ratio and track slips at which the vehicle has to operate to obtain these ratios. For example, for Bn = 40, to attain a maximum TE and a Net Traction ratio of 0.43 the vehicle must operate at a track slip of approximately 7.1%. In the same soil (which provided a Bn value of 40), if higher TE and NTR are desired, one could select wider and or longer track to provide a higher Bn number. This model together with the spreadsheet [3] will provide the user the flexibility to determine the influence of different parameters on Bn values and develop similar performance curves quickly for different Bn values. This model can also be used effectively to compare the performance of vehicle with rubber-tracks or tires and for conducting parametric studies as illustrated in Zoz and Grisso [3]. Conclusion An empirical model to predict the tractive performance of vehicles equipped with rubbertracks has been developed. Comparison of predicted and experimental results shows that the model developed is effective in predicting the performance of rubber-tracks during agricultural operations.

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 References


[1] Brixius, WW. Traction prediction equations for bias-ply tires. ASAE Paper No. 871622. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE, 1987. [2] Al-Hamad, SA, Grisso RD, Zoz FM, Von Bargen K. Tractor performance spreadsheet for radial tires. Computers and Electronics in Agric, 1994:10(1):45-62. [3] Zoz, FM, Grisso RD. Traction and Tractor Performance. ASAE Distinguished Lecture Series #27. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE, 2003. [4] Zoz, FM. Predicting tractor field performance. Trans. ASAE, 1972:15:249-255. [5] Wismer, RD, Luth HJ. Off-road traction prediction of wheeled vehicles. ASAE Paper No. 72619. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE, 1972. [6] Zoz, FM, Brixius WW. Traction prediction for agricultural tires on concrete. ASAE Paper 79-1046, 1979. [7] Corcoran, PT, Gove DS. Understanding the mechanics of track traction. In Proc. Int'l Conference on Soil Dynamics, 4:664-678, 17-19 June. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Office of Continuing Education, 1985. [8] Upadhyaya, SK, Chancellor WJ, Wulfsohn D, Glancey JL. Sources of variability in traction data. J. Terramechanics, 1988:25(4):249-272. [9] Zoz, FM. Rubber and tire tractive performance. SAE Technical Paper Series 972731. Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1997. [10] Culshaw, D. Rubber tracks for traction. J. Terramechanics, 1988:25(1): 69-80. [11] Shell, LR, Zoz FM, Turner RL. Field performance of rubber rubber and MFWD tractors in Texas soils. In Rubber and Tire Traction in Agricultural Vehicles, 65-73. SAE SP-1291. Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1997. [12] Turner, RJ, Shell LR, Zoz FM. Field performance of rubber rubber and MFWD tractors in southern Alberta soils. In Rubber and Tire Traction in Agricultural Vehicles, 75-85. SAE SP-1291. Warrendale, PA: SAE, 1997. [13] Bashford, LL, Kocher MF. Rubbers vs tires, rubbers vs rubbers, tires vs tires. Applied Engng in Ag, 1999:15(3):175-181. [14] Esch, JH, Bashford LL, Von Bargen K, Ekstrom RE. Tractive performance comparisons between a rubber rubber track and four-wheel-drive tractor. Trans. ASAE, 1990:33(4):1109-1115. [15] Upadhyaya, SK, Rosa UA, Josiah MN, Koller M. Effects of rubber width and grouser wear on the tractive characteristics of rubber-tracked vehicles. Trans. ASAE, 2001:17(3):267-271. [16] Okello, JA, Dwyer, M.J, Cottrell, FB. The tractive performance of rubber tracks and a tractor driving wheel tyre as influenced by design parameters. J. agric. Engng Res. 1994:59(1):33-43.

10

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010


[17] Okello, JA, M Watany, DA Crolla. A theoretical and experimental investigation of rubber track performance models. J. agric. Engng Res. 1998:69(1):15-24. [18] Okello, JA. Prediction and experimental validation of the field tractive performance of a rubber track. J. agric. Engng Res. 194:59(3):163-171. [19] Marsili, A, Servadio, P, Pagliai, M, Vignozzi, N. Changes of some physical properties of a clay soil following passage of rubber- and metal-tracked tractors. Soil and Tillage Research, 1998:49(2):185199. [20] Blunden, BG, McBride, RA, Daniel, H., Blackwell, PS. Compaction of an earthy sand by rubber tracked and tyred vehicles. Australian Journal of Soil Research 1994:32:1095-1108. [21] Dwyer, MJ; Okello, JA; Scarlett, AJ. Theoretical and experimental investigation of rubber tracks for agriculture. J. Terramechanics, 1993:30(4):285-298. [22] Ma ZD, NC Perkins. Modeling of track-wheel-terrain interaction for dynamic simulation of tracked vehicle systems. Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences September 12-15, 1999, Paper DETC99/VIB-8200, Las Vegas, Nevada [23] Rahman, A, Yahya, Mohd. Zohadie, Wan Ishak and Desa Ahmad. Design parameters optimization simulation of a prototype segmented rubber track vehicle for Sepang peat in Malaysia. American Journal of Applied Sciences 2005:2(3): 655-671. [24] Sandu, C, Freeman, JS. Connectivity algorithm for an extended rubber-band track model. Heavy Vehicle Systems, A Series of the Int. J. of Vehicle Design, 2002:9(4):334355. [25] Zoz, FM. Predicting tractor field performance (updated). ASAE Paper No. 871623. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE, 1987.

11

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 Captions: Table 1. Comparison of constants and coefficients in the generalized traction model for bias-ply tires, radial tires, and rubber-tracks.
Table 2. Comparison of predicted and experimental results from 44 cases with a range of soil and track width conditions. Figure 1. Rubber-tracks drive nomenclature and mechanics. Figure 2. Comparison of predicted (lines) and experimental (symbols) Net Traction Ratio and TE Slip relationships. (a) Effect of track width on track performance in wet untilled loam soil (Solid & Diamonds - 813 mm ; Dash & Square - 457 mm.) (b) Effect of soil condition on the performance 406 mm rubber track (Solid & Diamond - untilled soil with CI = 1.31 MPa; Dash & Square - tilled soil with CI = 1.10 MPa)

Figure 3. Predicted and experimental performance ratios plotted against each other.
Figure 4. Tractive Efficiency and Slip curves for three Mobility Numbers as a function of Net Traction Ratio.

12

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010 Table 1. Comparison of constants and coefficients in the generalized traction model for bias-ply tires, radial tires, and rubber-tracks.
Coefficients & Constants K1 Bias-Ply Ties Brixius [1] 5 Radial Tires Al-Hamad et al. [2] 5 3 0.88 0.08 7.0 0.03 1.20 0.5 Rubber-tracks 5 6 1.10 0.025 17.0 0.031 1.751 0.5

K2 3 C1 0.88 C2 0.10 C3 7.5 C4 0.04 C5 1.0 C6 0.5 1 DWR is assumed to be one.

13

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010

Table 2. Comparison of predicted and experimental results from 44 cases with a range of soil and track width conditions.
Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Soil Conditions Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Silty Loam Silty Loam Silty Loam Silty Loam Silty Loam Silty Loam Silty Loam Silty Loam Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Loam Loam Loam Loam Loam Loam Loam Loam Loam Loam Loam Loam Subsoiled Subsoiled Subsoiled Subsoiled Tilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Tilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Untilled Bn 46.3 56.1 61.0 46.3 49.0 59.3 64.6 49.0 54.7 66.1 72.0 54.7 35.9 36.6 35.5 44.1 37.5 36.1 39.4 46.2 53.7 39.1 51.1 44.2 68.2 42.9 54.5 41.5 62.4 52.0 67.9 55.2 44.7 43.5 57.5 51.1 51.3 57.5 54.5 48.7 62.4 60.3 67.9 73.1 Brixius parameters TW TL mm mm 406 2261 635 2261 813 2261 406 2261 406 2261 635 2261 813 2261 406 2261 406 2261 635 2261 813 2261 406 2261 457 2261 635 2261 635 2261 813 2261 457 2261 635 2261 635 2261 813 2261 457 2261 457 2261 635 2261 635 2261 813 2261 813 2261 457 2261 457 2261 635 2261 635 2261 813 2261 813 2261 457 2261 457 2261 635 2261 635 2261 813 2261 813 2261 457 2261 457 2261 635 2261 635 2261 813 2261 813 2261 CI MPa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.31 1.31 1.31 1.31 0.34 0.45 0.40 0.34 0.41 0.43 0.57 0.41 1.01 0.48 0.69 0.46 1.04 0.28 1.03 0.57 1.03 0.72 1.03 0.68 0.69 0.65 0.89 0.69 0.56 0.74 1.03 0.83 1.03 0.97 1.03 1.17 Pearson Correlation TE NTR 0.997346 0.999905 0.996561 0.99798 0.994104 0.999924 0.997324 0.997768 0.998363 0.996981 0.950108 0.980163 0.999352 0.999738 0.975066 0.99996 0.990594 0.996663 0.978403 0.9994 0.994029 0.999663 0.998466 0.996467 0.951008 0.942627 0.78922 0.991682 0.913543 0.925394 0.682614 0.991732 0.945927 0.947026 0.905658 0.95606 0.872817 0.985759 0.958382 0.973264 0.820267 0.792466 0.60586 0.754862 0.797113 0.85587 0.828185 0.939957 0.936452 0.853057 0.726106 0.811423 0.905086 0.996594 0.672038 0.84052 0.901489 0.914425 0.850327 0.926415 0.967229 0.995113 0.917268 0.946129 0.740461 0.832527 0.854858 0.981217 0.915002 0.923621 0.785959 0.758413 0.881195 0.930607 0.896175 0.905043 0.923889 0.997448 0.980841 0.999865 0.94936 0.988319 0.9512 0.99077 0.926902 0.981142 0.994844 0.998042 Average Absolute Difference TE NTR 0.0472663 0.02014116 0.0282443 0.04510789 0.0285734 0.02813827 0.0335123 0.04185892 0.0129518 0.03853785 0.0113751 0.06809252 0.0104614 0.03490425 0.009508 0.04693027 0.0063653 0.02009918 0.0097118 0.01749651 0.0093409 0.01409025 0.0094774 0.03528276 0.0218614 0.16603619 0.0300104 0.15334806 0.0758524 0.08257325 0.0367875 0.07466717 0.0316202 0.17535906 0.0223477 0.13643306 0.0372502 0.02778831 0.0101703 0.09209565 0.0151746 0.15879987 0.0277168 0.0991268 0.0307369 0.12043289 0.0296629 0.05800577 0.0190983 0.197039 0.0393161 0.07126382 0.0263013 0.03134426 0.0450066 0.11782215 0.0124913 0.11090144 0.0208519 0.06013871 0.0069084 0.09847739 0.0092776 0.05634723 0.0262387 0.07627296 0.0384508 0.06026457 0.010294 0.11262731 0.0169448 0.08446186 0.0165314 0.07695967 0.0106538 0.07261524 0.0232292 0.02364217 0.0255197 0.02022895 0.0088979 0.05442887 0.0095515 0.03012802 0.0176778 0.09050577 0.0068254 0.05062752

Experimental cases [9, 13, 14, and 15].

14

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010


W = Weight, static Wd = Weight, dynamic slr = Loaded radius, static rr = Rolling radius rt = Torque radius Vt = Velocity, theoretical Va = Velocity, actual T = Axle torque GT = Gross traction (theoretical pull) NT = Net traction (actual pull) MR = Motion resistance

Va W1

W2 NT rr slr rt T

W3

W4 W5

Dh
GT

Ground Line
MR

eh

Wd

Figure 1. Rubber-tracks drive nomenclature and mechanics.

15

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010

(a) Effect of track width on track performance in wet untilled loam soil (Solid & Diamonds - 813 mm ; Dash & Square - 457 mm.)

(b) Effect of soil condition on the performance 406 mm rubber-track (Solid & Diamond - untilled soil with CI = 1.31 MPa; Dash & Square - tilled soil with CI = 1.10 MPa) Figure 2. Comparison of predicted (lines) and experimental (symbols) Net Traction Ratio and TE Slip relationships.

16

Journal of Terramechanics JT05-010

Figure 3. Predicted and experimental performance ratios plotted against each other.

Figure 4. Tractive Efficiency and Slip curves for three Mobility Numbers as a function of Net Traction Ratio.

17

You might also like