EFFECT OF BELT WIDTH AND GROUSER WEAR ON THE TRACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF RUBBERTRACKED VEHICLES

S. K. Upadhyaya, U. A. Rosa, M. N. Josiah, M. Koller

ABSTRACT. Extensive field tests were conducted using a Caterpillar Challenger 45 rubbertracked tractor to study the effect of belt width and grouser wear on tractive characteristics of rubbertracked tractors. The results of this study indicated that belt width does not significantly influence traction characteristics of a belted tractor whereas grouser wear significantly influences both the maximum net traction coefficient and the maximum gross traction coefficient. However, grouser wear did not influence the maximum tractive efficiency significantly. Moreover, the results indicated that maximum gross traction coefficient is linearly related to the maximum net traction coefficient with a coefficient of determination of over 98%. Keywords. Tractive efficiency, Gross traction, Net traction, Rubber track, Belt width, Grouser wear.

ver the past few decades, tractor sizes have steadily increased. With the increase in power, performance is restricted mainly by the limitations of the traction device (wheels or tracks) imposed by the terrain over which the tractors operate. The tractive efficiency (ratio of drawbar power to axle power) ranges from 90% while operating on pavements to less than 50% on loose or sandy soils (Wulfsohn et al., 1988). A conservative estimate of annual fuel loss due to the poor tractive efficiency of agricultural tractors in the United States alone is about 600 million L (Gill and VandenBerg, 1968). Even an increase in tractive efficiency by a percentage point amounts to over $25 million saved annually in the United States alone. Since the drawbar is the most commonly used outlet on agricultural tractors, the ability to provide drawbar pull to pull various implements is one of the performance measures of a tractor. Both the pull developed and the tractive efficiency depends on the axle load, type of traction device (i.e. wheel or track), soil type, and conditions (Upadhyaya and Wulfsohn, 1993; Wulfsohn et al., 1988; Gill and VandenBerg, 1968). Tractive characteristics of pneumatic wheels depend on tire type (bias vs. radial), tire geometry, inflation pressure, and tread pattern whereas those of tracks depend on track type (steel vs. rubber), track geometry, and tread pattern. Domier et al. (1971), Taylor and Burt (1973), and Brixius and Zoz (1976) compared the performance of steel tracked

Article was submitted for review in April 2000; approved for publication by the Power & Machinery Division of ASAE in January 2001. Mention of a make and/or model does not constitute approval of this make and/or model over similar products by the authors or the University of California. The authors are Shrinivasa K. Upadhyaya, ASAE Member Engineer, Professor, Uriel A. Rosa, ASAE Member Engineer, Staff Research Associate, Malcolm N. Josiah, ASAE Student Member, Graduate Assistant, and Michal Koller, ASAE Student Member, Graduate Assistant, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, University of California, Davis, California. Corresponding author: S. K. Upadhyaya, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Dept., 3036 Bainer Hall, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; phone: 5307528770; fax: 5307522640; email: skupadhyaya@ucdavis.edu.

crawlers to twowheel or fourwheeldrive tractors equipped with pneumatic tires and found that tracks had higher tractive efficiencies than pneumatic tires. However, slow travel speed and high track maintenance cost of steel tracks were serious concerns in agricultural applications. The advent of rubber tracks during the mid1980s marked a major achievement in overcoming some of the limitations of steel belts. Evans and Gove (1986) found that rubber belt tracked vehicles developed higher dynamic traction ratios and tractive efficiencies compared to fourwheeldrive tractors. Esch et al. (1990) conducted comparative tests between rubber belt tracks and pneumatic tires over a range of soil conditions and found that rubber belt tracks developed higher drawbar pull and tractive efficiency than rubber tires under all test conditions. In general performance differences were greater under softer soil conditions. Zoz (1997) tested belted tractors equipped with 400, 630, and 810mm belts and a wheeled tractor equipped with 20.8R42 dual tires. Under firm untilled conditions, he did not find much performance differences between the four treatments when the net traction coefficients generated by these tractors were in the normal field range of 0.4 to 0.5. At higher values of net traction ratio, performance of dual tires tended to drop off and wider belts provided higher pulls. Moreover, belts performed better than tires on soft and loose soils. Bashford and Kocher (1999) conducted field tests to compare tractive characteristics of belts versus tires, belts versus belts, and tires versus tires. They found that maximum tractive efficiencies were higher for rubber belts than for radial tires and the differences increased at higher dynamic traction ratios and for softer soil conditions. Rubber belt tracks developed higher dynamic traction ratios compared to radial ply tires at a given level of slip. Rubber belt tracks also developed higher tractive efficiency over a wide range of dynamic traction ratios compared to pneumatic tires. Moreover, they found that tractive performance differences between two rubber belt tracks of different widths were minimal. Very little literature exists on the effect of rubber belt tread wear on tractive characteristics of rubbertracked vehicles. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of belt width and grouser

Vol. 17(3): 267271

Applied Engineering in Agriculture E 2001 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 08838542

267

wear on the tractive performance of a rubbertracked vehicle in two distinct California soils over a range of soil conditions.

EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
Two series of tests were conducted using a Caterpillar Challenger 45 rubber belted tractor. The weight of the tractor equipped with 635mm width belts was approximately 117.9 kN of which 57.6 kN was on the rear wheels and 60.3 kN was on the front wheels as determined by a calibrated truck scale. The result was a static center of gravity located at 51.1% of the track wheel base rearwards from the center of front idler wheels. The tractor was instrumented with a 222.4kN drawbar dynamometer that included an angle sensor. The purpose of the angle sensor was to assist in resolving the drawbar pull into horizontal draft force and vertical load. The drive axles of the tractor were equipped with torque strain gages to measure input torque. The drive wheels were instrumented with optical encoders to measure wheel angular velocity during tests. In addition, a radar ground speed sensor was attached to the tractor chassis to obtain travel speed. All of these sensors were calibrated to check for linearity and obtain calibration equations. These sensors were interfaced to a data acquisition system and all experimental data were obtained at a sampling rate of 5 Hz. The first series of tests were conducted to determine the effect of rubber belt track width on their tractive performances. Three different belt widths with similar tread design were chosen for this study (457, 635, and 813 mm). Two different fields with distinct soils were chosen to conduct field tests. One of the fields had a Capay clay soil with 8% sand, 59% silt, and 33% clay. The other field had a Yolo loam soil with 31% sand, 52% silt, and 17% clay. In each field, three 1ha plots were marked off. Two of these plots were irrigated to create moist soil conditions. The irrigated plots were termed wet plots and unirrigated plots were called dry plots. One of the wet plots was left undisturbed and the remaining two were disked four times with a disk harrow to create a tilled soil condition. The unpaved, dry surface in the vicinity of test plots provided the dry, untilled condition for these tests. Each plot was divided into nine subareas that were the experimental units of this study. There were 36 such experimental units in each soil that received experimental treatments randomly. Treatments consisted of (belt width soil condition) combinations that were replicated three times (i.e. 3 belt widths 4 soil conditions 3 replicates). Each test consisted of 10 runs and a static test. The static test was conducted before commencing each test to obtain zero readings for the drawbar dynamometer and torque strain gages. The very first run during a test was the noload run or zero slip run. The test tractor was operated with no drawbar load on the test surface that was defined as the zero condition. This run was used to compute the rolling radius of the drive wheels (i.e. rear wheels). A loader was used to load the tractor during the remaining nine runs. Each run was approximately 30 m long. One of the runs involved simply towing the loader by putting the loader transmission in neutral. The loader was towed by the test tractor using a long cable that was maintained approximately horizontal during tests. (Conducting field tests with the tow cable almost horizontal turned out

to be a good decision since the angle sensor malfunctioned during field tests.) During the other eight runs, the loader was operated at various combinations of reverse gears and engine speeds so that successively increasing levels of draft load were applied to the tractor drawbar resulting in increasing levels of slip. The loader was equipped with a torque converter so the loader could be towed forward and, while in a reverse gear, the loader applied increasing draft to the Challenger as the loader was throttledup. These experimental data were used to compute gross traction coefficient, net traction coefficient, slip, and tractive efficiency. The second series of tests were similar to the first series of tests except that these tests focused on the effect of belt tread wear on tractive characteristics. Three 635mm wide belts with different levels of tread wear (new, half worn, fully worn) were used in these tests. The treads heights were 64, 38, and 0 mm for the new, half worn, and fully worn belts, respectively. The experimental design employed in the belt wear tests was similar to the design employed in the belt width tests except that the belt wear factor was used in the second series of tests instead of the belt width factor. Soil conditions during these tests were quantified using dry bulk density, soil moisture content, and cone index values. Three core samples were taken in each test track (i.e. beneath the centerline of a track imprint following traffic applied by the Challenger 45 tractor for each replicate) to determine dry bulk density and moisture content. This technique resulted in 27 soil samples for each soil condition (3 soil cores per test 3 belt width or belt wear factor levels 3 replicates of each test). In addition, we obtained eight cone index values using a hydraulically operated, selfrecording, circular 30_ steel cone with a base area of 323 mm2 (ASAE, 2000) in each test track resulting in 72 cone index values to quantify each soil condition. Neither soil cores nor cone index values were obtained in untilled dry conditions since the soil was too hard to sample.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 lists the cone index values, soil moisture content, and dry bulk density values in the test sites. All traction data were processed to obtain net traction coefficient, gross traction coefficient, tractive efficiency, and slip. Following Upadhyaya et al. (1989) a nonlinear regression technique was used to curve fit net traction coefficient to slip using an equation of the form: mnt = a(1 ecs) (1) where mnt is the net traction coefficient (NT/W), a and c are soil, belt, and loading dependent traction parameters, NT is net traction coefficient, W is dynamic axle load, and s is slip which is given by: s = (1Va/rw) 100 (2)

where Va is forward speed, r is the rolling radius, and w is angular velocity. The equation fitted the data well in all test conditions (i.e. coefficient of multiple determination, R2 > 0.85 in all cases). Upadhyaya et al. (1989) and Wulfsohn et al. (1988) found the following empirical relationship between gross traction coefficient and slip based on extensive field tests:

268

APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

mgt = a (1 b ecs)

(3)

Table 2. Traction parameters obtained during belt width tests.[1]

where mgt is gross tractive coefficient (T/rW), T is input axle torque, and a and b are additional soil, belt, and loading dependent empirical parameters like a and c. From equations 1 and 3 we obtain, mgt = RR + m mnt (4)

where m is equal to (ab/a), and RR is coefficient of rolling resistance and is given by a(1b). Equation 4 suggests a linear relationship between gross traction coefficient and net traction coefficient. Equation 4 fitted test data very well (i.e. coefficient of determination > 0.98 in all cases). Moreover, the tractive efficiency, TE, is given by : TE = nt (100 s) gt (5)

The coefficients a and a were both much higher for belts compared to past tire tests we conducted under similar soil type and condition. Moreover, maximum tractive efficiency was higher and coefficient of rolling resistance was lower for belts compared to tires under similar conditions. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA Analysis of variance (ANOVA) studies were conducted to determine the effect of belt width and belt wear on traction parameters. Tables 2 and 3 list the effect of various factors (soil, belt width, and soil condition in belt width study; soil, belt wear, and soil condition in belt wear study) on means and variances of traction coefficients, maximum TE, slip at maximum TE, and coefficient of rolling resistance. BELT WIDTH STUDY Soil type (Capay vs. Yolo loam) influenced only maximum net traction coefficient and maximum gross traction coefficient significantly. It did not influence any other traction parameters listed in table 2. Soil condition
Table 1. Soil moisture content, dry bulk density, and cone index values after soil was trafficked. Moisture Dry Bulk Cone Index Content Density [1](kPa) (% dry basis) (kg/m3) Soil Soil Test Type Condition[2] Mean Std[3] WT 648 285 Yolo WU 876 248 DT 194 113 WT Capay WU DT Yolo Belt wear Capay
[1]

influenced all traction parameters significantly. The results of Duncans New Multiple range test conducted on significant traction parameters are indicated in table 2. The interaction between belt width and soil condition did not have a significant effect on any one of the traction parameters. Figure 1 shows the interaction effects graphically. BELT WEAR STUDY Once again,soil type influenced maximum net traction coefficient, maximum gross traction coefficient, traction
Table 3. Traction parameters obtained during belt wear tests.[1].

Mean 15.0 19.3 4.4 13.7 19.0 5.2 18.7 21.6 4.9 16.3 20.2 4.3

Std 3.1 1.4 1.3 4.1 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.0 0.4 3.1 1.1 0.7

Mean Std 1267 104 1381 116 1381 145 1377 140 1364 117 1368 162 1131 1261 1299 1160 81 83 85 79

Belt width

371 658 197 856 481 166 351 505 171

323 187 113 298 125 96 206 194 67

WT WU DT WT WU DT

1294 143 1271 122

The mean cone index values refer to the average values obtained in the top 150mm soil layer. [2] DT = dry tilled, WT = wet tilled, WU = wet untilled. [3] Std = standard deviation.

Vol. 17(3): 267271

269

Maximum Net Traction Coefficient

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Maximum Net Traction Coefficient 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

N M W DT DU WT WU

DT DT

DU WT WU Maximum Gross Traction Coefficient DU WT WU

N H B

Maximum Gross Traction Coefficient

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

N M W DT DU WT WU

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

DT

N H B

88 86 84 82 80

0.06 0.04 0.02 0

N M W DT DU WT WU

Maximum Tractive Efficiency,%

Maximum Tractive Efficiency,%

88 86 84 82 80

Coefficient of Rolling Resistance at Zero Slip

Coefficient of Rolling Resistance at Zero Slip

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0

N M W

DT

DU

WT

WU

DT

DU WT WU DU WT WU

N H B

N H B

Figure 1. Effect of belt width and soil condition on traction parameters. Here N is the 457mm belt, M is the 635mm belt, W is the 813mm belt, DT is dry tilled soil, DU is dry untilled soil, WT is wet tilled soil, and WU is wet untilled soil.

Figure 2. Effect of belt wear and soil condition on traction parameters. Here N is the new belt, H is the half worn belt, B is the bald or fully worn belt, DT is dry tilled soil, DU is dry untilled soil, WT is wet tilled soil, and WU is wet untilled soil.

parameters, b and c, and slip at maximum TE significantly (table 3). However, it did not affect maximum TE and coefficient of rolling resistance significantly. Belt wear significantly affected maximum net traction coefficient, maximum gross traction coefficient, and traction coefficient b. However, grouser wear did not influence the maximum tractive efficiency significantly. Soil condition influenced all traction parameters listed in table 3 significantly. The results of Duncans New Multiple range test conducted on significant traction parameters are indicated in table 3. Interactions between belt wear and soil condition was not significant for any one of the traction parameters. Figure 2 shows the interaction effects graphically. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAXIMUM GROSS TRACTION COEFFICIENT AND MAXIMUM NET TRACTION COEFFICIENTS Upadhyaya et al. (1997) found that the maximum gross traction coefficients of radial ply tires were linearly related to respective maximum net traction coefficients (i.e. a = 0.878 a +0.187, R2 = 0.82). Figure 3 shows the relationship between maximum gross traction coefficient and maximum net traction coefficient for rubber tracks. The relationship

between these two parameters is linear (i.e. a = 1.009a + 0.06) with a coefficient of determination of 0.981. These results indicate an excellent linear relationship between input torque and output net traction. Moreover, Upadhyaya et al. (1997) reported that the coefficient b has a nearly constant value of 0.91 for radial ply tires. The results of this study showed that for rubbertracked tractors also the coefficient b is relatively constant with a mean value of 0.933 and a standard deviation of 0.021. It is interesting to see from tables 2 and 3 that even small differences in this coefficient b are often significant depending on the soil type, belt tread wear, and soil condition.

CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of this study we reached the following conclusions for a rubbertracked tractor: 1. Soil type (Capay clay vs. Yolo loam) influenced the maximum gross traction coefficient and maximum net traction coefficient significantly, but did not affect other traction parameters significantly. 2. Belt width did not significantly influence the traction parameters.

270

APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

0.95

REFERENCES
Y = 0.06 + 1.009 * X; R^2 = 0.981

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70

0.65

0.60

0.55

0.50 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90

Maximum Net Traction Coefficient

Figure 3. Relationship between gross traction coefficient and net traction coefficient for rubbertracked tractor.

3. Belt wear significantly affected maximum net traction coefficient, maximum gross traction coefficient, and traction coefficient, b. However, grouser wear did not influence the maximum tractive efficiency significantly. 4. Soil condition influenced all traction parameters significantly. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to Caterpillar Inc. for their financial support for this project. We are also thankful to Mr. Mark Mattson, Pedro AndradeSanchez, Ramesh Perera, Marco Lorenzzo Cunali Ripoli, and Mr. Leonardo Afonso Angeli Menegatti for their assistance in collecting field data.

ASAE Standards, 47th Ed. 2000. S 313.3. Soil cone penetrometer. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. Bashford, L. L., and M. F. Kocher. 1999. Belts vs. tires, belts vs. belts, tires vs. tires. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 15(3): 175181. Brixius, W. W., and F. M. Zoz. 1976. Tires and tracks in agriculture. SAE Paper No. 760653. Warrendale, Pa.: SAE. Domier, K. W., O. H. Friesen, and J. S. Townsend. 1971. Traction characteristics of twowheel drive, fourwheel drive, and crawler tractors. Transactions of the ASAE 14(3): 520522. Esch, J. H., L. L. Bashford, K. Von Bargen, and R. E. Ekstrom. 1990. Tractive performance comparisons between a rubber belt track and a fourwheel drive tractor. Transactions of the ASAE 33(4): 11091115. Evans, W. C., and D. S. Gove. 1986. Rubber belt tracks in agriculture. ASAE Paper No. 861061. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. Gill, W. R., and G. E. VandenBerg. 1968. Soil dynamics in tillage and traction. Agr. Handbook No. 316. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Taylor, J. H., and E. C. Burt. 1973. Track and tire performance in agricultural soils. Transactions of the ASAE. 18(1): 36. Upadhyaya, S. K., D. Wulfsohn, and G. Jubbal. 1989. Tractive prediction equations for radial ply tires. J. Terramechanics 26(2): 149175. Upadhyaya, S. K., and D. Wulfsohn. 1993. Traction prediction using soil parameters obtained with an instrumented analog device. J. Terramechanics 30(2): 85100. Upadhyaya, S. K., M. Sime, N. Raghuwanshi, and B. Adler. 1997. Semiempirical traction prediction equations based on relevant soil parameters. J. Terramechanics 34(3): 141154. Wulfsohn, D., S. K. Upadhyaya, and W. J. Chancellor. 1988. Tractive characteristics of radial ply and bias ply tires in a California soil. J. Terramechanics 25(2): 111134. Zoz, M. Z. 1997. Belt and tractive performance. SAE Technical Paper Series. 972731. Warrendale, Pa.: SAE.

Vol. 17(3): 267271

Maximum Gross Traction Coefficient

271

272

APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE