S e ptember, 1935 Research Bulletin No.

189

Tractive Efficiency of the

Farm Tractor
BY J . BROWNLEE DAVIDSON, EDGAR V . COLLINS
AND EUGENE G . McKIBBEN

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

IOWA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
AND MECHANIC ARTS

R. E. BUCHANAN, DffiECTOR

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING SECTION

AMES, IOWA
 258

CONTENTS
Sur.nr.nary ------______________________________________________ 259
Concerning steel tractor wheels ___________________________ 259
Concerning low pressure pneumatic tires ___________________ 260
Concerning tracks _______________________________________ 260
The source of power used in agriculture ________________________ 261
The use of power _____________________________________________ 262
Sources of mechanical power__________________________________ 262
Methods of applying mechanical power _________________________ 264
By belt _________________________________________________ 264
By power take-ofL _______________________________________ 264
By drawbar _____________________________________________ 266
Other means of applying mechanical power _________________ 266
By automatic means ______________________________________ 266
Tractive efficiency ___________________________________________ 266
Factors influencing tractive efficiency ______________________ 267
Transmission losses __________________________________ 267
Rolling resistance ___________________________________ 268
Energy loss in obtaining adhesion _____________________ 268
Losses due to steering________________________________ 269
Grade resistance _____________________________________ 269
Relation between speed and drawbar puIL ______________ 269
Height of hitch __________ __ __________________________ 270
Types of tractors ___________________________ _________________ 271
~

Conventional four wheel tractor ___________________________ 271

Two track tractor ________________________________________ 271
Front wheel drive tractor _____________________________ --_272
Four wheel dtive _______________________________________ --273
Factors in the design of traction members _____________________ 274
Tractor drive wheel characteristics ________________________ 274
Diameter of the traction wheeL ___________________________ 274
Width of tim ____________________________________________ 275
General condition of traction surfaces _____________________ 276
Types of devices for obtaining adhesion ________________________ 276
Lugs __ ___ ____________________ ___________________________ 276
Open wheels _____________________________________________ 278
Pneumatic tires _________________________________________ 278
Tracks ____________________________________ - _____________ 278
Special apparatus ___________________________________________ 279
Single wheel traction apparatus ___________________________ 280
Dynamometer car _______________________________________ 280
Tractor drive input apparatus _____________________________ 283
Reaction apparatus for a track tractor _____________________ 284
Results of tests ______________________________________________ 286
Effect of length of lug ____________________________________ 287
Effect of angle lugs and extension tims ____________________ 291
Effect of additional weighL ________________________________ 294
Effect of traction surface _________________________________ 299
Tests of a rimless wheeL _________________________________ 301
Tests of a tractor wheel euipped with pneumatic tires ______ 304
Influence of the diameter of tractor drive wheeL ___________ 310 ·
Rolling resistance ________________________________________ 313
Tests of a track tractor __________________________________ 330
 SUMMARY
1. Of the total power used in agriculture, about one-
half is used for field work and one-fifth for hauling.
2. Of the total primary power used in Iowa (1930) in
farm operations, tractors comprise 39.4 percent and trucks
20 percent.
3. The maximum tractive efficiency of tractors tested
under various conditions varied from 40 percent for soft
field conditions to 84 percent for smooth hard sod.
CONCERNING STEEL TRACTOR WHEELS
4. The rolling resistance of tractors over the tractive
surfaces was the principal cause for low efficiency.
5. Lugs or grousers of excessive length used to increase
adhesion on a firm surface or turf may cause considerable
loss in efficiency. With a wheel tractor weighing 5,620
pounds, the power required to overcome rolling resistance
at a speed of 3 miles per hour varied from 2.45 horse power
with drive wheels without lugs to 6.3 horse power with
drive wheels equipped with 4-inch spade lugs. Because of
the lugs, rolling resistance on oat stubble did not differ
greatly from that on freshly plowed land.
6. On a loose soil of uniform texture, an increase in
length of spade lugs from 4 to 7 inches increasingly lowered
tractive efficiency.
7. On a loose soil of uniform texture, an increase in
. the width of the tire by use of an extension rim gave higher
tractive efficiency.
8. On soil with a loose surface, but firm subsurface,
a spade lug 9 inches long reaching firm soil resulted in a
slightly increased efficiency over 6 and 7-inch lugs but was
less than for 4 and 5-inch lugs.
9. Five-inch angle lugs mounted on a wheel 42 inches
in diameter with a rim 12-inches wide gave higher tractive
efficiency than spade lugs on freshly prepared loose soil.
10. Extension angle iron lugs increased tractive effi-
ciency on loose soil materially, about one-fifth to one-fourth.
11. Angle iron lugs extending over wheel rims were
advantageous on sticky soil, because the soil did not pack
in between the lugs.
12. Increasing the weight from 1,750 to 2,250 pounds on
a 12 x 42-inch traction wheel equipped with spade lugs in-
creased the drawbar pull 75 to 100 pounds at maximum
efficiency. The drawbar pull was increased approximately
200 pounds when the wheel was equipped with extension
rims and angle lugs.
 260

13. Angle iron lugs gave slightly better results with a

6-inch rim extension than without on freshly prepared loose
soil.
14. Open type traction wheels performed practically
the same as 12-inch rim wheels with lugs on firm traction
surfaces of cinders or sod. The rim did not function, as the
weight was carried entirely on the lugs.
15. On loose freshly prepared soil where the sp:lce
between the lugs did not fill with soil, the rim wheel gave
slightly higher tractive efficiency than open wheels.
16. The tractive efficiency of steel drive wheels was
progressively raised by increasing the diameter from 38 to
58 inches by 4-inch increments.
17. The effect of wheel diameter is more marked on
less firm traction surfaces.
CONCERNING LOW PRESSURE PNEUMATIC TillES
18. The rolling resistance of a wheel tractor. defined
herewith as drawbar pull or its equivalent required to move
the tractor over a given surface, was materially reduced by
low pressure pneumatic tires for all conditions observed.
19. On a smooth hard surface the maximum tractive
efficiency of a tractor equipped with pneumatic tires was
84 percent.
20. The maximum drawbar pull of a tractor equipped
with low pressure pneumatic tires was materially reduced
on stubble and loose soil.
21. The maximum drawbar pull of tractors equipped
with low pressure pneumatic tires can be increased by addi-
tional weight, chains or lugs.
22. The maximum tractive efficiency was increased
progressively with a decrease of inflation pressure from 20
to 16, 12 and 8 pounds per square inch.
CONCERNING TRACKS
23. The tractive efficiency of a track tractor as ob-
served is not materially influenced by normal variations of
traction surfaces.
24. On freshly prepared loose soil maximum tractive
efficiency of a track was lowered by increasing the height
of hitch.
 Tractive Efficiency of the
Farm Tractor 1
By J . BROWNLEE DAVIDSON, EDGAR V. COLLINS
and EUGENE G. McKIBBEN2

This pUblication treats specifically the application of

tractor power to a towed machine or to a load pulled by a
drawbar, but farm power is treated briefly in a broad way
to establish relationships. The investigational work re-
ported has been directed toward the determination of trac-
tive efficiency, or the ratio between power delivered for
. useful work at the tractor drawbar and power developed
by a mechanical motor under the influence of such variable
factors as traction equipment (steel wheels, pneumatic tires,
tracks, etc,), weight, height of hitch and traction surface,
In the tests reported in this publication the power was
measured as it was delivered to the traction members; and
the input so obtained was not actually the power .supplied
by the motor (see p. 266).
THE SOURCE OF POWER USED IN AGRICULTURE
The use of power in agriculture is a very important
factor in present day crop production, and the increase in
the size of the power units used has brought about many
important changes. The substitution of power for muscular
effort has greatly changed the character of labor and large-
ly eliminated drudgery. The application of power to farm
operations in general reduces the amount of labor required
for each unit of production by increasing the labor output.
The remarkable influence of the application of power is
indicated by a reduction to one-half, during the last 30 years,
of the labor required in growing several important crops.3
At present the cost of power is a large item in produc-
ing most agricultural crops. Although varying widely with
IProject Nos. 29 and 403 of the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station.
2The authors wish to acknowledge valuable assistance in apparatus con-
struction and the testing received from the following graduate students in
Agricultural Engineering at Iowa State College: Ralph W. Baird, Harold T .
Barr, M. W . Bloom, J. Fletcher Goss, F. R. Jones , Garland D. Kite, H . W.
LeMert, D . W. Teare,Ben G. Van Zee, Byron T . Virtue, Ira L . Williams and
A . L. Young. The following organizations and firms assisted with the investi-
gation by furnishing apparatus and equipment: Bureau of Agricultural Engi-
neering, U. S. Department of Agriculture, J. 1. Case Company, Caterpillar
Tractor Company, John Deere Tractor Works, Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, International Harvester
Company and Oliver Farm Equipment Company. The Caterpillar Company
contributed a research fellowship for one year.
3Power and machinery in agriculture, U. S. Dept. of Agr., Misc. Pub.
157. Apr. 1933.
 262

the crop and conditions, the cost of power is usually from

25 to 40 percent of the operating costs (costs exclusive of
fixed charges such as a charge for the use of land) of pro-
duction. 4 Efficiency and economy in the use of power,
therefore, have an important influence upon the total pro-
duction cost because of their influence upon the cost of the
power itself and upon the cost of labor.
The table (page 263) indicates the source of power used
in agriculture in terms of primary horse power for the
United States and Iowa:
THE USE OF POWER
The principal uses of power in agricultural operations
are for field work, road hauling, farm hauling and s'£
ary work. Of the total about one-half is used for field work
and 9-bout one-fifth for hauling. Preparing the seedbed by
plowing or listing consumes much of the power used for
tield work, or about one-third of the total power so used. 6
In Iowa about one-third, or 11 million acres, of the cul-
tivated land is planted to corn, a crop requiring intertillage
while growing. The introduction of the general purpose
tractor, with adequate clearance for cultivating corn plants
up to the time they may be "laid by," greatly extended the
use of mechanical power in Iowa agriculture. 7 As long as
the conventional type of tractor prevailed, it was necessary
to use animals or a special motor cultivator for cultivation;
and if a tractor were used at all, it represented, in part at
least, a duplication of power plants.
SOURCES OF MECHANICAL POWER
The principal source of mechanical power in Iowa agri-
culture is the gas tractor S of which there were, according
to the 1930 Census, 66,285 in the state. The gas engine is
also used extensively in the farm truck, totalling 32,699 in
the state according to the 1930 Census. Over one-half the
farms are equipped with small gas engines, numbering 114,-
977. Electric motors at present furnish only a small part of
the farm powel1 used, and the units are usually small. The
use of steam traction engines, although extensive at one
time for heavy stationary work, is being gradually discon-
tinued. It is estimated that there are at present 1,000 steam
traction engines still in use, averaging about 40 horse power
4Costs and utilization of corn in seven Iowa counties. Iowa Agr. Exp.
Sta., Bul. 289.
6An appraisal of power used on farms in the United States. U. S. Dept.
Agr. , Farmer's Bul. 1348. 1925.
7The Tractor Field Book. Page 47. The Farm Implement News Co.,
Chicago. 1934.
SThe term "gas tractor" as here used includes tractors equipped with
internal combustion engines burning liquid fuel.
 TABLE 1. SOURCES OF POWER IN AGRICUL
Primary Horse Power

United States

Number Average Total Percent Number

of
units
size of
unit
Primary
H. P. I of
total I of
units

Horses and mules _____ 18161386 .95 17171322 25. 1079681

Gas tractors ___________ 920021 23.9 22000662 31.3 66258

Stationary gas engines 1131108 2.68 3035891 4.4 114977

Trucks ________________ 900385 25. ;22509625 32. 32669

Electric motors _______ 386191 3.58 1383216 I 2. 27801

Electric light plants __ 270303 3. 810909 I .1 20893

I
Combined
harvester-thresher ___ 60803 37.2 2260170
I
3.3 350
I
Steam engines and
windmills -_ .. _------ 1.9 1330000

Total ---------------
--
70501795
I
100.0 I
• Estimated 50,000 windmills % H.P. each and 1000 steam tractors, 40 H.P. each.
5Power and Machinery in Agriculture. U . S. Dept. Agr., Misc. Pub. 157, 1933.
 264

each. The steam traction engine was impractical for field

work except on the firmest soil surfaces or sod. At its high-
est state of development it weighed about 800 pounds per
drawbar horse power, while the present gas tractor weighs
from one-fourth to one-half as much. 9

METHODS OF APPLYING MECHANICAL POWER

BY BELT
The simplest and customary way of applying power of
a mechanical motor delivered to stationary machines from
a shaft rotating at a relatively high speed is by pulleys and
a belt (fig. 1). Under normal conditions the efficiency of a
belt transmission should be from 90 to 95 percent depending
upon internal resistance and belt slippage. 1o A roller or si-
lent chain is sometimes substituted for the belt to eliminate
slippage but it is limited, however, to short drives and slow-
er speeds. It is now customary with some field machines
such as the combined harvester-thresher, and in some in-
stances with the grain binder, to drive the machine with an
engine mounted on the machine which may be particularly
efficient in the application of power.
BY POWER TAKE-OFF
One of the later developments in the gas tractor is the
use of a shaft with universal joints and a telescoping section
to connect the driven machine to a power take-off shaft ex-
tending out conveniently from the tractor (fig. 2). The effi-
ciency of this means of applying power may be as high as
95 percent depending upon the number of bearings, the
number of gear reductions used in reducing the speed and
the angularity of the universal joints. l l If the shaft can
be used to form a straight line, very little energy is lost in
the universal joints. The standard speed adopted by the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers for the power
take-off is 536 revolutions per minute. The power take-off
not only provides for an efficient application of mechanical
power but eliminates the serious loss of power which occurs
in field machines driven from a master ground wheel. In
the case of the binder, therefore, two sets of gears are re-
quired to increase the speed of the master wheel to that of
the pitman shaft, resulting in a serious loss due to friction.
The transmission of the motor power of a tractor to a draw-
9Nebr aska t r actor tests . N e b. Agr. E x p . Sta., Bu!. 277. 1933.
l OMachinery Handbook. The Industrial Press, N e w York, 8th Edition,
1931.
Kimball, Dexter S ., and Baer, John H . Elements of Machine Design.
John Wiley & Sons . 1923.
llMechanical Engineers' Handbook . Page 1668, lOth Edition. John Wiley
and Sons.
 265

BELl:

Fig. 1. Power of a tractor transmitted by a belt.

Fig. 2. Power of a tractor transmitted by power take-off drive.

Fig. 3. Power of a tractor transmitted by drawbar.

 266

bar and, in turn, from the ground wheel of a field macrine

to the mechanism of the driven machine, therefore, is
particularly inefficient.
BY DRAWBAR
For most field uses a tractor delivers the power of its
motor through a drawbar and is used as a direct substitute
for the animal in drawing field machines. (Fig. 3.) This
bulletin deals primarily with the application of power by
this means. Various factors influencing efficiency will be
treated in some detail.
OTHER MEANS OF APPLYING MECHANICAL POWER
Some mechanical power is applied to field work by
means of cables and drums driven by a motor. Application
of power by this means may be very efficient; but the equip-
ment is inconvenient and requires much labor for handling.
This method is used for plowing under unusually severe
conditions.
Experiments have been conducted in applying mechan-
ical power by electric transmission and electric motors.
Such use has been very limited. The principal difficulty
with electric transmission is in the handling of the cables
and other parts of the electric transmission equipment.
BY AUTOMATIC MEANS
It has been suggested that power might be applied to
field work under favorable conditions by automatic equip-
ment largely eliminating labor. Experiments at Iowa State
College with an automatically controlled plow, operatin5
back and forth across the field, guided by the previous
furrow and reversed by contact with the fences, gave some
promise; but it appears such development will need to wait
for some time.
TRACTIVE EFFICIENCY
Tractive efficiency may be defined as the ratio of power
delivered from the drawbar to motor power. Thus, if P 1
equals motor power and P 2 the drawbar power, tractive ef-
ficiency equals P 2 / P 1 • In measuring either drawbar power
or the power supplied to traction members the forces
acting and the distances through which the forces act in an
interval of time must be determined. If, in determining the
tractive efficiency of a traction member under certain con-
ditions influencing its performance, the interval of time for
observing distances is the same for output and input, the
tractive efficiency becomes a relationship between work
output and input for the specified interval or time. Since
work is represented by the product of force times the dis-
 267

tance through which the force acts, a tractive efficiency test

for a certain interval of time becomes a relationship be-
tween the output and input forces and the distance through
which they act. In the tests reported in this bulletin power
delivered to the final drive of the tractor was measured, and
losses in transmission between the motor and final drive
and the losses from directional control were not included.
It is convenient, therefore, in making tractive efficiency
tests, to resolve tractive efficiency into two factors, a force
ratio and a travel ratio, the tractive efficiency being the
product of the two. The force ratio, F R, is the ratio of the
force, F 2 , delivered to the drawbar, to the force, F l , which
would be delivered to the drawbar if there were no losses.
These losses are almost entirely those required to obtain
adhesion and overcome rolling resistance. Staled in terms
of the symbols used, F r = F 2 / F l .
The travel ratio is the ratio between the distance ac-
tually traveled and the distance which would be traveled
if there were no slippage. In determining force and travel
ratios, it is necessary to assume some normal circumference
or length of the traction member.
In most of the tests reported in the bulletin the travel
ratio was determined by using the circumference at the rim
of the tractor drive wheels or the actual length of tracks as
the base, for determining travel ratio. By adding lugs or
grouters to the wheels, the effective circumference of the
wheel is increased to the point where for light drawbar
pulls a travel ratio greater than one is actually obtained.
The assumption of a circumference of wheel or length of
track does not introduce error in the tractive efficiency ob-
tained, for the same assumption is used in determining the
force ratio. Any error in travel ratio is compensated for in
the force ratio when the two are multiplied together.
If T 1 equals the circumference (jf the tractor drive
wheel at the rim or the length of track, as the case may be,
and T d the actual distance traveled in one revolution, then
travel ratio= T r=T d / T 1
Furthermore,
tractive efficiency= T e=F r x T r
FACTORS INFLUENCING TRACTIVE EFFICIENCY
Part of the motor energy of a tractor is lost in many
ways in delivery to the drawbar. These losses may be
classified as follows:
Transmission Losses
To reduce the speed of the rotating shaft of the motor
to a suitable linear speed for the tractor, three speed reduc-
 268

tions are usually required

which are obtained with
gears or roller chain and
o _ _ sprockets. Four pairs of
gears are sometimes requir-
ed, while the use of a worm
and gear may reduce the
Fig. 4. Rolling resistance is due to number to two pairs. Fric-
the sinking of the wheel into the sur-
fac e . compelling the wheel to roll up tion in the gears and bear-
a virtual grade (G)
ings causes considerable
loss of energy, although
hardened steel gears running in oil have a fairly high trans-
mission efficiency. An estimate of the overall transmission
efficiency, that is, the ratio of power delivered to the drive
wheel to that furnished by the motor, based on data from
tests of gears, indicates an efficiency between 85 and 95
percent. 12
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance, in this bulletin, is represented by
drawbar pull or its equiv-
alent required to move the
tractor over a given sur-
face. The tractor in field
work passes over soft trac-
tion surfaces. (Fig. 4.) The
wheels or tracks, in sus-
..
t alnlng th e welg
. ht 0 f th e traFig. 5. Energy is consumed by
ct or lugs in compacting and dis-
tractor, sink into the sur- turbing the soil in securing traction .
face, therefore the tractor
is virtually climbing an incline as it moves forward. In ad-
dition, rolling resistance as here used includes resistance
due to friction in traction members and losses incurred in
obtaining adhesion. (Fig. 5.)
Energy Loss in Obtaining Adhesion
Tractors with steel wheels are equipped with lugs to in-
crease the adhesion between wheels and traction surface.
On soft ground surfaces, for maximum adhesion, long and

Fig. 6. The soil disturbance may vary with the shape of the lug.

12Machinery Handbook 1931. The Industrial Press . American Civil Engi-

neers' Handbook 1930. John Wiley & Sons.
 269

sharp lugs are desirable to penetrate well into the soil.

These long lugs cause considerable energy loss due to
soil disturbance. (See fig. 6 and table 4.) Tractors with
smooth faced steel wheels have little loss from adhesion
which, however, depends wholly upon friction between the
tractor wheel and the ground. Adhesion for field conditIons
is inadequate. With rimless traction wheels practically all
the adhesion is obtained by the penetration of the lugs into
the surface and compaction of the soil back of the lugs. De-
sired traction or adhesion without some compression of the
soil below and back of the lugs is impossible in soft soils.
Where adhesion is not good, slippage or failure of the trac-
tor to travel a distance equal to the circumference of the
drivers for each revolution may occasion serious loss.
Losses Due to Steering
In most types of tractors some of the power of thp
motor is used in providing directional control or in steering
the tractor. The conventional four wheel tractor with two
driving wheels and two front wheels requires some energv
for pushing the front wheels. A tractor should be designed
so that no more weight is carried upon the front wheels
than necessary, but there should be enough adhesion be-
tween the front wheels and the ground to insure directional
control. With tractors having two tracks for the driving
members, losses are due to friction resulting from use of
brakes in obtaining directional control and side shifting of
tracks over the ground surface.
Grade Resistance
When a tractor is called upon to travel up an incline
or grade, part of the motor power must be used in lifting
the tractor. (Fig. 7.) The power required for lifting the
tractor is in proportion to the steepness of the grade. Thus,
for all practical purposes, a tractor ascending a grade hav-
ing a rise of 10 feet in 100 is exerting the equivalent of a
drawbar pull amounting to 10 percent of the weight of the
tractor. When descending, the tractor is assisted similarly
in proportion to steepness of grade.
Relation Between . Speed and Drawbar Pull
The power delivered to the drawbar by a tractor is
represented by the product of the drawbar pull times the
rate of travel. An economic problem in design is at once
introduced in regard to the relationship between rate of
travel and drawbar pull. Because of the lightness of the
internal COMbustion motor, a tractor may be constructed
much too light to deliver its power at a normal field speed,
 270

b
r
~~------~~----~G ,

Fig, 7. Grade resistance. r is rise in distance R. grade= r / R . W equals

weight of tractor. G equals grade resistance=W x r / R (approximately since
ac is approximately equal ab) .

inasmuch as weight is a factor in determining adhesion or

traction. Since the cost of building tractors varies some-
what with the weight, there is an economic advantage in
increasing the speed as much as practicable. The norma]
rate of travel for the horse in performing field work is from
2 to 2% miles per hour, averaging around 21h miles per
hour; and formerly all field machines were designed for
such speeds. Owing to economy of higher speeds, tractor
field speeds have been increasing generally during the past
decade, until 3 miles per hour is recognized as normal speed.
and 4 miles per hour and higher are possible, particularly
with pneumatic tires.
Height of Hitch
When a tractor is exerting drawbar pull, the front of
the tractor tends to be lifted owing to the moment of the
force representing drawbar pull about the contact point of
the tractor drivers with the ground. This transfers some of
the weight from the front wheels to the drivers in the con-
ventional wheel tractor; while with the track tractor, it is
transferred to the rear portion of the tracks. The torque
required to overcome rolling resistance also shifts some of
the weight from the front to the rear of the tractor. (Fig. 8.)
The standard height for the drawbar has been established at
14 inches by the American Society of Agricultural Engi-
neers and the Society of Automotive Engineers. A vertical
adjustment for the drawbar is commonly provided to facili-
tate hitching to certain implements and to partly control
shifting of weight from front wheels to rear. The drawbar
must extend to the rear of the rear axle so that, in case the
front end of the tractor le aves the ground, the point of hitch
 271

A.FORCES ACTING ON TRACTOR B. CHANGE. OF pOReES ACTING ON

AT RE5T. TRACTOR DUE TO ROLLING RESISTANCE..

W= WEIGHT OF'" "TRACTOR

F,= FORCE ACTING ON FRONT WHEELS
Fo = FORCE. ACTING ON DRIVE WHEELS

-p
P = DRAWBAR PULL

C. CHANGE OF F012CE5 DUE TO

ADDIT ION OF DI2AWBAJ2. PULL.

Fig 8. The ttansfcr of weight due to the force acting on the tractor
under load.

is automatically lowered to prevent overturning backward.

The tractor design should distribute the weight so that the
tractor when exerting its maximum pull, for normal condi-
tions will still have sufficient weight on the front wheels to
insure control.
TYPES OF TRACTORS
CONVENTIONAL FOUR WHEEL TRACTOR
Most tractors now manufactured have two rear trac-
tion wheels and two front wheels. (Fig. 9.) The purposes
of the front wheels are to provide directional control anc'l
to furnish a mobile self-contained unit. The power used in
pushing the front wheels represents, in a sense, a loss of
energy. A good design so distributes the weight between
the drivers and front wheels that with the length of wheel
base and height of hitch used there will be sufficient weight
on the front wheels to give good control under working con-
ditions. On some tractors independent brakes are used on
the drive wheels to assist in making short turns. A modifica-
tion of this type of tractor consists of placing the front
wheels so close together that the machine becomes virtually
or in fact a three-wheel tractor.
TWO-TRACK TRACTOR
Most of the track tractors depend upon the tracks for
traction and directional control. (Fig. 10.) The center of
gravity is set well ahead to counteract the tendency of the
 272

FQONT
WHEEL
WHEE.L

Fig. 9. Conventional four-wheel tractor with two traction or drive wheels

and two front wheels.

I===========':=~ [[[ [[ [ [[[[[[[[

Fig. 10. Conventional track laying tractor.

front end to rise. Directional control is obtained by varying

the rate of travel of one track with respect to the other.
This may be obtained either by independent clutches and
brakes which may be applied to the drive for each track
or by brakes acting upon drums attached to either side of a
conventional differential or to a special planetary type of
differential.
FRONT WHEEL DRIVE TRACTOR
A type 0.£ design with two drive wheels placed at the
front was used extensively at one time but now is confined
largely to small garden tractors. (Fig. 11.) In this type of
 273

tractor a pivoted connection to the rear truck, or the drawn

implement, provides directional control. In this type of
tractor the torque required to overcome rolling resistance
and the moment due to the drawbar pull tend to transfer
some weight of the tractor to the rear truck, reducing the
weight on the drivers.

Fig. 11 Front wheel drive tractor.

FOUR WHEEL DRIVE

The four wheel drive tractor overcomes some of the
losses in the conventional tractor and makes possible a
higher drawbar pull for a given weight by driving the front
wheels. (Fig. 12.) To give the front wheels sufficient ad-
hesion, the weight is placed well forward. This type of
tractor is particularly resourceful on soft and uneven
ground surfaces because of the traction provided by the
four drive wheels.

Fig. 12. Four Y1heel drive tractor. front wheels used for guiding.
 274

FACTORS IN THE DESIGN OF TRACTION

MEMBERS
The design of the traction wheel or other traction mem-
ber should obtain the greatest possible adhesion to the trac-
tion surface and also keep the expenditure of power to the
surface as low as possible. The farm tractor operates over
a soft surface much of the time, and the power expended
in propelling the tractor itself over these surfaces is an
important consideration.
To make clear the situation under which a tractor must
operate, a comparison may be made with the traction con-
ditions of a railroad locomotive. In the latter case rolling
resistance is very low on account of the steel surface. ·
Weight, therefore, in the locomotive has a minimum in-
fluence upon the loss due to rolling resistance but is needed
for obtaining adequate adhesion between drive wheels and
rail. With the tractor, on the other hand, weight greatly
adds to the rolling resistance; and the traction member
must be designed not only to reduce rolling resistance but
to increase, as much as practicable, the adhesion between
the traction wheel and the ground surface.
TRACTOR DRIVE WHEEL CHARACTERISTICS
Independent of facilities for increasing adhesion, the
tractor wheel has three characteristics: Weight, or force
supported by ground surface under the wheel; height, or
diameter; and width of rim. The friction between a plain
wheel and dry traction surface, for practical purposes,
varies with the weight. Ground surfaces are often wet or
covered with vegetative growth which may occasion a very
low coefficient of friction. At present no dependence is
placed upon friction solely for adhesion. Rubber tired trac-
tion wheels give high adhesion on dry surfaces, but the tire
surface in contact with the ground is roughened to increase
adhesion.
DIAMETER OF THE TRACTION WHEEL
Other factors being equal, the greater the diameter of
a steel traction wheel the greater will be the area of the
wheel rim surface in contact with the ground and the less
the depth the wheel will sink. (Fig. 13.) This reduces roll-
ing resistance and energy loss. At one time, particularly
with large tractors, drive wheels of large diameter, 8 feet
or more, were commonly provided. Extremely large drive
wheels have practical disadvantages, however:
1. It is more difficult to change the direction of travel.
2. The height may be an objection in orchards where
the wheel must pass under trees.
 275

-------
I<\---D'AME.TE.~ - D ---1>1

Fig. 13. A wheel of large diameter supports a given load with less sinking
into the surface.

3. The expense is greater because the amount of ma-

terial required for adequate strength increases faster than
the diameter.
4. If rubber tires are used, the increased diameter
means additional expense for tires.
5. The number of gear reductions increases.
6. The tractor is less stable in passing over obstruc-
tions.
WIDTH OF RIM
A wide rim is effective in reducing the rolling resist-
ance of a traction wheel over a mellow ground surface such
as is found in cultivated fields. (Fig. 14.) Tractor wheels are
customarily equipped with extension rims for such
conditions.

WIDTH
l D=-T.,..Hc+-.L+j EXTEN SION
r-:W:-=--c
OF 121M OF 121M

Fig. 14. An increase in width of wheel rim supports a given load with less
sinking to the surface.
 276

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF TRACTION SURF ACES

As it is desirable to keep the weight of the farm tractor
low, much attention has been given to the wheel equipment
for increasing the adhesion. In general three classes of trac-
tion surface conditions have been observed in fields as
follows:
1. With a deep layer of loose soil of a uniform texture,
as freshly plowed soil or sand, and a sub surface soil for
a considerable (I~pth not much firmer nor of much great-
er resistance to disturbance, long lugs or grouters will ac-
complish little unless long enough to reach the firm soil
under the loose layer. Rolling resistance, however, on such a
surface is high and can best be reduced by using wheels of
large diameter with wide rims. Figures 31 to 35 illustrate
how, under such ground conditions, maximum tractive ef-
ficiency was lowered with an increase of length of lugs until
tbe lugs were long enough to reach firm soil, as in fig. 36.
Figures 41 and 49 show that highest tractive efficiency
for the ground condition described is obtained by use of
extension rims.
2. With a thin upper layer of loose, pliable or crumbly
soil or a layer of soft vegetation with firm soil underneath,
devices on the traction wheel to penetrate through the sof1
surface to the firmer soil are most practicable to obtain
traction. Figures 36 and 46 illustrate this principle when
compared with figs. 35 and 45.
3. With sticky soil (found often at certain seasons)
satisfactory wheel equipment to obtain additional adhesion
must be self cleaning. Sticky soil often fills in between the
conventional tractor lugs on the rim of the traction wheel
forming a smooth surface.
Studies reported herewith, as well as practicalobserva-
tions, indicate that wheel equipment suitable for one con-
dition of ground surface may not be satisfactory for others.
TYPES OF DEVICES FOR OBTAINING ADHESION
LUGS
Devices applied to the face of traction wheel rims to
increase adhesion to the traction surface vary widely and
are unstandardized as to names. Cleats, lugs, grouters,
grousers, spade lugs, spikes and spuds are terms used. These
devices may be described as follows: Angle lugs or cleah
are blunt or sharp ribs extending across the face of the
drive wheel rim. To provide a smoother riding wheel for
hard surfaces, angle lugs are given a helical shape or are
placed diagonally across the face of the wheel rim. With
sticky soils cleats may extend beyond the rim to remov e
support for soil filling it: between lugs. (Fig. 15.) The !Spade
 277

A B
Fig. 15. Traction wheels equipped with cleats to increase adhesion to soil.
Those at A are called extension cleats and have self-cleaning characteristics.

A B
Fig. 16. Traction wheels equipped with spade lugs.

Fig. 18. Traction wheel of the

Fig. 17. Traction wheel equipped open type which has self-cleaning
wi th spikes. characteristics.
 278

lug is usually a wedge-shaped device on the face of the

tractor wheel rim having a length or depth as great or
greater than the width, varying in length from 4 to 8 inches.
(Fig. 16.) Spikes are narrow lugs used where the soil is
particularly firm beneath the surface or where there is a
tough turf. Spikes usually do not disturb the surface as
much as spade lugs or cleats. (Fig. 17.)
OPEN WHEELS
The open wheel of which the rimless wheel is a type,
is used where it is necessary to penetrate several inches to
reach firm soil for adequate adhesion or to prevent packing
between lugs on sticky soil. (See figs. 18 and 55.) Observa-
tions in tests reported herewith indicate considerable wasted
energy in soil disturbance by the lugs and other devices
used to obtain adhesion, therefore, the type of lug giving
the required adhesion with the least soil disturbance should
be the most efficient. Figure 6 indicates how the shape of
the lug may influence the amount of soil disturbance, as
the soil is compacted by the lug.
PNEUMATIC TIRES
In recent years manufacturers have made pneumatic
tires for tractors which may materially reduce rolling re-
sistance. (Figs. 19 and 59.) They may not, however, provide
the adhesion of steel wheels with suitable lugs, and, there-
fore, with pneumatic tires,
the drawbar pull for a giv-
en weight on the tractor
wheel may be reduced. The
cushioning effect of the
pneumatic tires permits
higher speeds, thus, field
speeds should be modified
to take advantage of their
special characteristics. Tire
chains and special detach-
able lugs may add gratly to
the adhesion of pneumatic
tires under wet slippery Fig. 19. The pneumatic tire or air
conditions. wheel used on tractors.

TRACKS
For many years the track has been used to reduce roll-
ing resistance and to increase adhesion. (Figs. 20 and 29.)
This type of traction member may be looked upon either
as a wheel with a flat side or as a rail made up of links and
supported by pads over which the tractor carriage rolls.
 279

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Fig. 20. The track laying tractor virtually travels over rails supported by
shoes.

The track provides a large area of contact with the ground

and is eminently successful on soft ground surfaces. The
advantages in reducing rolling resistance and obtaining ad-
ditional adhesion are in part counterbalanced by internal
track friction and greater first cost and maintenance.

SPECIAL APPARATUS
In making tractive efficiency studies special apparatus
has necessarily been designed and constructed. The more
important pieces will be described briefly. The pieces de-
scribed have usually had several preliminary designs; and
the designing, construction and testing has extended over
several years beginning as early as 1922.

Fig. 21. Apparatus for determining the tractive efficiency of a single

traction wheel. The lug equipment, the weight on the wheel and the travel
ratio or slip are under control.
 .280

SINGLE WHEEL TRACTION APPARATUS

This apparatus, shown in figs. 21, 22 and 23, was de-
signed to study the traction wheel as an isolated unit and
was used in tests reported in figs. 31 to 49. A tractor wheel
is mounted in a frame attached to a tractor by rocker arms.
The power supplied to the wheel is furnished by the motor
of the tractor to which the frame is attached. The power to
the wheel is transmitted from the tractor motor through a
variable speed drive and a shaft with universal joint to the
final chain and sprocket drive on the frame. The wheel
under test cannot have a forward speed greater than the
tractor to which it is attached; but by means of interchange-
able sprockets, a relative rotative speed provides for a pre-
determined amount of slip.
The torque delivered to the wheel under test is
measured by the pressure developed in a cylinder in which
a piston receives the force required to turn the wheel by a
torque arm. The pressure produced in the cylinder is
transmitted through suitable tubing to a recording device on
the tractor. The output of the wheel under test is determ-
ined by measuring the pull which tends to cause the frame
in which the wheel is mounted to pull away from the trac-
tor. A standard recording and integrating traction dynam-
·ometer was used for measuring this pull, thus it was possible
to measure the input of energy to the wheel under test
and the output of energy from the wheel.
It is possible in this apparatus to vary the lug equip-
ment, predetermine the amount of slip and vary the weight
on the wheel by adding suitable weights to the frame.
These weights were placed on the frame at a distance from
the wheel axis equal to the distance from the wheel axis to
the rocker arm. Thus, one pound added to the frame adds
two pounds to the wheel. It was necessary to make a cor-
rection for the torque due to application of power to the
frame. This apparatus was used in the tests reported in
Figs. 31 to 49.
DYNAMOMETER CAR
In making drawbar tests, some form of resistance or
drawbar load which could be varied and controlled to a con-
stant magnitude was necessary. The dynamometer car il-
lustrated in fig. 24 furnished a constant, automatically regu-
lated resistance or load and consisted essentially of:
1. A chassis with tracks connected by suitable trans-
mission to a hydraulic pump.
2. A hydraulic pump to furnish extra resistance in
addition to the operating resistance of the apparatus.
 281

Fig. 22. The torque arm and pressure cylinder used for measur!ng the
force applied to the traction wheel and the instrument for measurmg and
recording the draw-bar pull of the wheel. (Details of the apparatus shown
in fig. 21.)

I2.(:VOI.UT!ON Cot..t"u.
CON'T""T PoIN"~

Fig. 23. Plan and elevation of the apparatus shown in figs. 21 and 22,
showing arrangement of parts.

•
 282

~ . L

-~--. l

Fig. 24. An absorption dynamometer car. This apparatus furnishes a

consta nt resistance or load of any desired magnitude from 1000 to 5000
pounds. A . main rotary pump for furnishing resistance in addition to the
initial operating resistance of the car; B . discharge valve for varying the
resistance of the rotary pump ; C. linkage for connecting the piston in the
m a in p ressure c y linder to the discharge valve on main pump; ' D and E.
supply tanks ; F. small rotary pump for maintaining desired pressure in
main c y linder ; G . pressure gauge indicating pressure in main cylinder; H.
main pressure cylinder containing the piston which receives the full draw-
bar pull ; I. adjustable relief valve for regulating the pressure in main cylin-
d e r; J . y oke around cylinde r and attached to piston cylinder from rear.
~
fIE-
3. A hydraulic cylinder equipped with a piston to
which the pull of a tractor under test is applied.
4. A small pump with an adjustable relief valve for
maintaining pressure in front of the piston at such a magni-
tude as to furnish the desired load.
In operation the relief valve is set to maintain a pres-
sure which, acting over the area of the piston, will give the
desired drawbar pull. The piston is connected througb
suitable linkage to the discharge valve on the main hydraulic
pump controlling the resistance furnished by the pump.
The forward movement of the piston gradually opening
the discharge valve of the main pump and thereby reducing
its resistance, or a backward movement gradually closing
the discharge valve and increasing its resistance provides
an automatic regulation of total resistance of the dynamo-
meter car. A uniform resistance can be maintained at any
magnitude within the limits of tne apparatus or the re-
sistance can be regulated manually by the discharge valve
of the main pump.
A large test gauge indicates the pressure within the cyl-
inder. The pressure unit to which the drawbar pull is
applied has an area of 50 square inches. If a pressure of

•
 283

Fig. 25. Tractor equipped with apparatus for measuring the force delivered
to the traction wheels. Also shown in fig. 26.

40 pounds, for instance, is maintained in the pressure unit

by the pressure regulating valve on the discharge side of
small pump, the total resistance supplied by the apparatus is
50 x 40 or 2,000 pounds. The resistance furnished hy the
apparatus is independent of the road surface and grade
when various parts are functioning properly.
TRACTOR DRIVE INPUT APPARATUS
The tractor drive input apparatus measures the torque
delivered to the tractor drive wheel through the final drive
in a conventional tractor. The principle used is the
measurement of the tension in the driving side of the final
roller chain drive and is illustrated in figs. 25 and 26. By
mounting an additional sprocket on a suitable arm, it is
possible to determine the pull in the driving side of the
chain drive. This pull is measured by means of suitable
linkage with a standard integrating and recording dynamo-
meter. No means are provided for measuring the power
delivered to the front wheels, and the tests made with this
input dynamometer are necessarily of the tractor and not
of the inder-cndent traction wheel.
 284

DYI\JAMOMETER

.. FeONT

VER.TIC;?£. SuPPOR T ~op

IDLeR I'lIi!M

_ _ -.J __ ~ _ _ _

L liRe E FiIV~L D~/vE SPI<OC <£T

5€CrON"I A

Fig. 26. Drawing of the apparatus used in the tractor shown in fig . 25.

REACTION APPARATUS FOR A TRACK TRACTOR

The torque delivered to the tracks was measured by
determining the reaction or lifting moment developed in the
tractor by the motor while exerting drawbar pull. (Fig.
27.) A type of tractor was selected which delivered the
power to the rear sprocket of the tracks through a sleeve
concentric with the axis on which the tracks were pivoted.
 Fig. 27. Track laying tractor equipped with apparatus for measuring the
force applied to the tracks . The apparatus as shown is being calibrated.
Note that the drawbar is attached to the track frames and not to the
tractor chassis.

Fig. 28. Drawing of the apparatus used in the tractor shown in fig. 27 for
measuring the reaction or tendency of the front end of the tractor to rise
when exerting a drawbar pull.
 286

--1

Fig. 29. The tractor shown in fig . 27 being tested on sod with the dyna -
momet er car shown In fig. 24 furnishing the load.

~~~--L-7-:r- ...::.t --.-.

When the motor power is delivered to the tracks through
such a sprocket, there is a tendency to lift the front end of
the tractor independent of the tracks. In the testing appa-
ratus suitable linkage was placed under the front end of
the motor unit to measure the weight carried on the track
support while at rest and under load (Fig. 28.) The weight
supported by the tracks was measured by a standard inte-
grating dynamometer. The drawbar was attached to a suit-
able frame attached to the tracks in such a manner that the
drawbar pull did not affect the tendency of the driving
sprocket torque to lift the front end of the tractor. In
computing the power applied to the tracks, a correction
for the shifting of the center of gravity of the tractor unit
as the front end is raised must be made. The apparatus
along with tl'le dynamometer car previously described is
shown in use in fig. 29.
RESULTS OF TESTS
The results of tests reported herewith represent a sum-
mary of the investigations made to date. So many import-
ant variables are involved in traction or the application of
drawbar power that anyone phase of the subject well justi-
fies extended study. No one phase of the subject has been
treated adequately or exhaustively. Additional and more
extensive investigations are being planned.
To eliminate the effect of grade, all tests were either
run on surfaces so nearly level as not to introduce any ap-
preciable error or were made in opposite directions over the
test plots and the results averaged.
•
 287

Fig. 30. Type of spade lugs used in tests reported in figs. 31 (2A). 32 (2B).
and 33 (2C).

The speed in all of the tests was 3 miles per hour or

less.
The results of all tests are shown graphically; however,
in table 2 data are given from which the graphs shown in
fig. 31 were plotted. The individual observations are given
on the charts for all series of tests and should be given pre-
ference over the graphs which represent the authors' esti-
mate of the average of the individual observations.

EFFECT OF LENGTH OF LUG

The tests reported in figs. 31 to 36 were conducted to
determine the effect of spade lug length upon tractive
efficiency of a conventional tractor wheel operated on a
freshly prepared field. The tractor wheel was 42 inches
in diameter and had a rim 12 inches wide. The lugs shown
in fig. 30 were of the spade type, 4 inches wide and from
4 to 9 inches long. The single wheel testing apparatus
previously described on page 280 and shown in figs. 21 and
22 was used. To obtain uniform ground condition, test plots
were prepared with a pulverator or plow with a power
driven rotor for pulverizing the soil. The moisture con-
tent of the soil in all tests furnished a good condition for
tilling. It was observed in the tests that slight variations
in soil conditions matenally influenced drawbar pull when
a definite travel ratio was maintained. A comparison of
the graphs in figs. 31 to 35 indicates that maximum tractive
efficiency with a load of 1,750 pounds on the wheel was re-
duced as the length of the lug was increased from 4 to 7
inches. When a 9 inch lug was used, the maximum effi-
ciency was increased over the efficiency obtained with 6 and
7 inch lugs and the drawbar pull was larger (fig. 36).
 288

IGO
a.....
100 ~""
"""-.. 0.....
"U-...
50
- - - - x T~QctivG Effic.i~nc':i ~ f--

60
--- OT~Qv<z1 k?a+io
[\,
0\\ C
40
::""~ ~
--. .............
Xx
,\

20

o
o ZOO 400 600 500 1000
Dk2.AWBAIC. PULL (LbS.)
Fig. 3l. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 4-inch spade lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 1725 pounds; apparatus used, single wheel,
fig. 21; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared
with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.43 at 580
pounds drawbar pull.

+s: 120

~
~

~' IOO
0-
--- P- <J
-"0."

o
r--,
''\
~ 80 u~
x Tractive Effici~ncy
Cl
-l - - - o Travel lGatio 'v 0

W GO \
~
F
0\
\
I 40
>-
U ~ ~
2 ~
w X'"
U 20
•
o
o 200 400 GOO 800 1000
DI2AWBAI2. PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 32. Efficiency test of traction wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 5-inch spade lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 1750 pounds; apparatus used, single wheel,
fig. 21; soil, Carrington silt loam; ~oil surface condition, freshly prepared
with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficieJ;lcy, 0.43 at 510
pounds drawbar pull.
 289

TABLE 2. LOG OF TESTS SHOWN IN FIGURE 31

Kind of Soil-Carrington Loam Wheel ' Rim Width-12-in.
Soil preparation-Pulverated 8-in. Total Weight-l,725
Wheel Equipment-4-in. Spade lugs Weight per inch Width-144
Wheel Diameter-42 -in Date
Input Output
I
Integrator Integrator Per-
I Travel Read- Corr. Ft. lbs. Read- Ft. lbs.
cent
effi-
- No.
-- ratio ~g - reading _per f!: .. ing per ft. ciency
1 108.9 23.20 24.65 510 19.05 175 34.35
2 105.5 27.00 27.90 705 20.05 220 31.20
3 100.9 30.50 30.64 855 21.50 285
I 33.40
4
5
98.7
92.5
I 33.25
36.20
32.72
34.97
990
1110
23.00
24.65
350
425
35.40
38.20
6 88.1 38.70 36.56 1210 25 .55 I 465 38.50
7 80.0 41.82 38.54 1330 28.10 582 43.70
8 76.3 43.25 39.37 1375
I 28.35 595 43.25
60.1
9
10 53.3
46.15
I 41.35 1490 28.75 610 41.00
53.70 46.10 1780 29.33 638 35.90
11 48.3 56.50 48.03 1890 30.55 690 36.10
12 40.0 59.6 49.80 1995 29.80 665 32.80
RR 116.3 ----
I 22.70
I 330 -- .... --- I ----

'+ 120
s::
~

~ ~- 1-<>..-
~IOO ......,-::
....... 0
o .........
~ 80
~
Ol
--1
W
- - - . Troctive Efficiency
---0 Travel l2.otio
\\ 0
GO
~ '\,
02
r- --"
I 40
>- I..--'" .~
U l.<- ~
Z
w 2.0
1"""'-
U
lL.
lL.
W o
o ZOO 400 GOO 800 1000
DI2AWBAI2. PULL (LbSJ
Fig. 33. Efficiency test of traction wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 6-inch spade lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 1740 pounds: apparatus used, single wheel,
fig. 21; soil, Carrjngton silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared with
pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficIency, 0.41 at 560 pounds
drawbar pull.
 290

Fig. 34. Wheel equipped with sixteen 6-inch spade lugs of the type u sed
in the tests reported in figs. 31, 32, 33, 35 (2D) and 36 (2E) .

,q::- 120
t:
~ 0-
~ ~- ....;
~IOO
0.......
'-"
~~
o ~
~ 80 ~,
Ci. x Tractive Efficiency
-1 --- o Trav<21 Ratio 0\
W GO
~
~ ...
1
f!.I 40
,........, ~
>-U ~
2
W 20
U
I.&..
I.&..
lJJ o
o 200 400 GOO 800 1000
DI2.AWBAI2. PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 35. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions : Diameter of wheel,
42 inches ; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 7-inch spade lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 1750 pounds; apparatus used, single wheel,
fig . 21 ; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface conditions, freshly prepared
with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.40 at 570
pounds drawbar pull.
6~ '20 ' 0-.. _
"'0._.
~,OO
p.-"'l?

~
a
~
02 80
, Tr-Qc.tive Effic.i~nc':l 0 1',
.J
W
--- o Tr-ovel l2otio
0 -\
~ GO
0.1
l-
I 40 x
'" ,,~
>- ~
U
Z "~
w 20
\J
~
L....
l1..J a
a 200 400 GOO 800 1000
D 12 AW BAI2 PUL\,.. (Lbs.)
Fig. 36. Efficiency t est of tractor wheel. Conditions : Diameter of wheel ,
42 inches ; width of rim, 12 inches ; wheel equipment, 12, 9-inch spade lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 1725 pounds ; apparatus used, single wheel,
fig. 21; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared
with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.42 at 650
pounds drawbar pull.

EFFECT OF ANGLE LUGS AND EXTENSION RIMS

In figs. 38, 40 and 41 the test wheel was equipped with
angle lugs, extension lugs and angle lugs with an extension
rim. The soil conditions were the same as in tests reported
in figs. 31 to 36. A comparison of the results of the tests
with those of former tests shows that the tractive efficiency
was definitely higher.

Fig. 37. Wheel equipped with twelve angle iron lugs 5 inches high and
14 inches long as used in the tests reported in fig . 38.
 292

+: 12.0
s: ~
--- f-o.... ....
~
U o-. _ ~
\... 100 ----
~ 10,
'-'

80 '« b.
",
- - - - x Tr-oct ivlZ Efficiency
---0T..-ovel l2otio
GO

40 ,. .---..- v

~.~ :"
~

20

o
o 200 400 GOO 800 1000
DI2.AWBAI2. PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 38. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 5x12 inch angle lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 1750 pounds; apparatus used, . single wheel,
fig. 21 ; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared
with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches ; maximum efficiency, 0.505 at 525
pounds drawbar pull.

Fig. 39. Wheel equipped with 16 angle iron lugs, 4 inches high and 22
inches long. In the tests reported in fig . 40 the extension rim ihown was not
used but was used in the tests reported in fig. 41.
 293

~ 120
~
~

~ <>-- --0.._
~IOO ..........
=o .....
~ 80
_ _ _ _ x Tr-octive Efficiency
" "I
02
-1
\JJ GO
---0 Tr-ovel l2atio
,\
~ \0
.--- .
~

2
W
!
>-
lJ
40

20
-- ~
d

.
lJ
~
lL
W o
o 200 400 1000 800 1000
DI2.AWBAI2. PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 40. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 4x22 inch angle lugs
extending beyond rim; total weight of wheel and load , 1745 pounds; apparatus
used , single wheel, fig. 31 ; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface, freshly
prepared with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.48 at
550 pounds drawbar pull.

0.;,. _0
-
~,
'0."
.~
- - - - . Tractjve Efficiency
-- - 0 T,.ave! 120tio \ 0
\
..... 'f
".
~ • ~ ~. 0\ '-
~

ZOO 400 1000 800 1000

DI2.AWBAI2. PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 41. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 4x22 inch angle lugs
with 6-inch rim extension; total weight of wheel and load, 1750 pounds; ap-
paratus used, single wheel, fig. 31; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface,
freshly prepared with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency,
0.52 at 525 pounds drawbar pull.
 294

EFFECT OF ADDITIONAL WEIGHT

In the tests reported in figs. 42 to 49, the tests of figs. 31
to 41 were repeated under similar conditions except the
weight on the test wheel was increased from 1,750 to 2,250
pounds. A study of the test data when shown graphically
indicates that the drawbar pull was definitely increased at
the point of maximum efficiency 75 to 250 pounds by adding
500 pounds. Drawbar pull at maximum efficiency, however,
cannot be accurately determined, and the above data are
approximate. The tractive efficiency was not materially
affected by adding weight.

'+' 1 2.0
c
'>l
V
~ 100
e:-
0 -..... -£l.
C
- -0..... ..:
.. ~
o
~ BO
0.1 ---x Trovel Efficienc.y 'G
0 '\
- - - 0 Travel 12.otio
-1
W GO
~
~ \
~
C>I
.
>-V
40
...,--- .~
2 /
w 2.0
v
L..
L..
W o
o 2.00 400 GQO 800 1000

DI2.AWBAI2. PULL (Lbs.)

Fig. 42. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel.
42 inches; width of rim. 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 4-inch s pade lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 2250 pounds; apparatus used single wheel.
fig. 21; soil, Carrington s ilt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepare d
with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.42 at 600
pounds drawbar pull. /
I
 295

P--- --- ~-.

I-"b-_
0 ---'Q",
o "
~"
~ 80 ____ x
Tr-ac.tiva. EfficiLnc~
''\:,
01
..J
LJ
--- 0 Tr-av" I l2atio \
100
~
01
l-
I 40 ...-
~
~--....:
>-
U ~
Z
LJ
20
~
U
u..
u..
W o
a 200 400 1000 800 1000
DI2.AWBAe PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 43. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 5-inch spade lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 2250 pounds; apparatus used, single wheel ,
fig. 21; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared
with pulverator to depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.42 at 650 pounds
drawbar pull.

,+=,120
c
~
u
'-0- 1---
1..
100 ~--
~ -""1:)

~~Q.
"--"
o
~ 80
OJ. \
d <00

~
- - - - ~ Tractiva. EfficiLncy

----
r
I 40
- - - 0 Tr-avel l2atio
.,
>-
U
~
Z
LJ ~
20
U
~
lL.
W a
o '2.00 400 GOO 800 1000
DI2AWBAIG PULL (LB5.)
Fig. 44. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches ; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 6-inch spade lugs ;
total weight of wheel and load , 2250 pounds; apparatus used, single wheel,
fig . 21 ; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared
with pulverator to depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.38 at 675 pounds
drawbar pull.
/
 - -- .- -
~

296

':;:'120
c:
~
vL P---- b - -
p--- ~.
~ 100
'-' r"'b ....
0 0 "0,
~ 80

~b
01
-.J
w
GO
~ x Troctiv~ Effici~nc'oi
01
,
-
I-

-
--- 0 Trav.. ' Rotio

>-
40
.
--
u ~
Z
LJ ~
20
U
u..
LL
W o
a zoo 400 ((,00 800 1000
DI2.AWE>AR.. PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 45. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel.
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 7-inch spade lugs:
total weght of wheel and load, 2250 pounds; apparatus used, single wheel.
fig. 21; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared
with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.37 at 725
pounds drawbar pull. .

0.
1---
-~ r--%--....
0 ""'C

____ x
T,....qctive Effici"nc~
''b
..J
W
--- 0 Trav~1 J2atio

~ 00
01
l-
I
>-
U
Z
w
40

20
... -
. -,
U
1.-
LL
LLJ o
o 200 400 000 800 1000
DR.AWBA\2., PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 46. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of wheel,
42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 9-inch spade lugs;
total weight of wheel and load, 2250 pounds; apparatus used, single wheel, '
fig. 21; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared
with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.41 at 775
pounds drawbar pull.
 297

,......,
+-
12.0

~ '00
0-- f--o- ---10-_ \

tl. ""-0...
~,
~

80 ~
• Troctive Effici",ncy
___ 0 Trovel l2otio
60
..
40
I~
..... . ~ ""'"-

2.0

o
o 2.00 400 000 800 1000
DR.AWBAf2. PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 47. Tractive efficiency of tractor wheel. Conditions : Diameter of
wheel, 42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 5-inch angle
lugs; total weight of wheel and load, 2250 pounds; apparatus used. single
wheel, fig . 21 ; soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly pre -
pared with pulverator to a depth of 8 inches; maximum efficiency, 0.48 at
775 pounds drawbar pull.

....<:
"'" 12.0

'"
V <f-- _
~
L
100 ~--
"-' "'00."" I'-~
0
"'''~o
~ 80
Ol • Troc.tive Effici.:ncy ~
...J - - - 0 Trow:1 l2otio
W
60
~
Ol
r- .~
..,..,;...,
I 40

l V ~
>-
U
Z
W
20
f U
LL
lL
W o
o 2.00 400 GOO 800 1000
DIGAWBAIG PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 48. Tractive efficiency of tractor wheel. Conditions : Diameter of
I wheel, 42 inches; width of rim, 12 inches; wheel equipment, 12, 4x22 inch
angle lugs extending over rim; total weight of wheel and load, 2250 pounds ;
d soil, Carrington silt loam; soil surface condition, freshly prepared with
pulverator to a depth of 3 inches maximum efficiency, 0.47 at 700 pounds
drawbar pull.
 298

120
0-
--- ..l4_ 1--
100
<1'-
-o...~
......
~

o 80 ~.
~
02
- - - - ~ Trac.t ive Efficiency
---0 Travel !actio
~\ 0
...J 10 0
~ \
01
,
- "
.. --......
~

---
~ ~
40
>- .,.
u
z
uJ 20

a
o 2.00 400 1000 800 1000
D~AWBAf2. PULL (Lbs.)
Fig. 49. Tractive efficiency of tractor wheel. Conditions: Diameter of
wheel. 42 inches ; width of rim. 12 inches; wheel equipment. 12. 4x22 inch
angle lugs with 6-inch extension rim; total weight of wheel and load. 2250
pounds; apparatus used. single wheel. fig. 21; soil Carrington silt loam; soil
surface condition. freshly prepared with pulverator to depth of 8 inches;
maximum efficiency. 0.48 at 725 pounds drawbar pull.

Fig. 50. Tractor drive wheel equipped with 5-inch spade lugs as used in
tests reported in figs. 44. 45 and 46. In tests reported in fig. 47. the lugs were
removed.
 299

EFFECT OF TRACTION SURFACE

The effect of condition of ground or traction surface
upon tractive efficiency was determined in tests reported
in figs. 51, 52, 53 and 54. The apparatus used for measuring
the energy input, figs. 25 and 26, consisted of a dynamometer
applied to the final drive to the tractor. The output was
measured by the dynamometer car shown in fig. 24. The
traction surfaces were well packed cinders, blue grass sod,
loose mellow soil freshly prepared with a pulverator and
bare concrete pavement. Tractive efficiency obtained for
firmer tractive surfaces was materially greater than for
mellow field. The drawbar pull for the concrete floor was
low. On the bluegrass sod the tractor motor was stalled
with an increase in drawbar pull before the traction wheels
slipped appreciably.

120 -. --....!-.

100
-----. r-__

--.,
-----
+-
c
~
u 80
L
~
Q.
'-'

>- 60

~
tJ ~~
z
~
~~

w
u 40 /' ;;

k
k
UJ
V:," /
---0 Tractive
-----.
r orce
Efficiency'
Ratio
h - - - x Travel ",-otio

V/
/
20

.
o
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
DQ.AWBAQ LOAD (LbS.)
TYPE OF WHEEL: John De"re
TR.ACTIVE. SURFACE: Cinders

Fig. 51. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions : Diameter of wheel,

46 inches; width of rim, 1l~4 inches; wheel equipment, 24, 5-inch lugs (each
wheel); total weight of wheel and load, 1555 pounds (each wheel); appara-
tus used, dynamometer attached final drive figs. 25 and 26; traction surface,
cinders packed.
 120 -- --I- I- --'-- --- ' - - -

100

~
>-
U
GO
/ ................ ....- .
2
lLJ
\3 40 V. .... .... -i

L:;::
L.. ~/ o Tractive Efficit:ncy
- - - - - - . force l1.atio
ILl
~ ~....
---x Travel l2atio
20

o
I. .
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
DI2AWBAI2 LOAD (Lbs)
TVPE OF WHEEL. John Deere, 5" Lug
TI2ACTIVE SUBFACE ' Blueqrass Sod
Fig. 52. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions : Diameter of wheel,
46 inches ; width of rim. 11% inches; wheel equipment, 24. 5-inch lugs (each
wheel); total weight of wheel and load, 1555 pounds (each wheel); apparatus
used, dynamometer attached final drive figs. 25 and 26; traction surface, blue-
grass sod.

120
;--- r-_ ... x
100
- 1' ......
~

+- x .....
C 1' .....
.....
.~ ~
80 ......
I:>
-e:.
.......
>-
................
60
u I
z·
lLJ " ....... 4
\3 ~ ....

W
4: 40
L..

/'
r ~

___ 0
______ e Forclt. 120tio
Trac.+ive Efficiency
----'-
20 ",
- - -x Travel l2atio

o
o
/ 1000 2000 3000
j j j I
4000
DI2AWMR- LOAD (Lbs.)
TYPE OF. WHEEL: John Deere 5 in. Lug I"
TI2ACTIVE 5Ul2fACE: Pulverat<l:d Soil 102, D,z;ep
Fig. 53. Same as above except traction surface.
 301

120

100 ...... , ---0 T,-ac tive E fficienclj

~, -----. Force 120tio
, . '\.. ----x Travel l2atio

/
/t,
(j 60
I
0\
V~\\I
z
UJ

~ 40
,f
u...
w
20
!I
o
a 1000 2000 3000 4000
DIGAWBAI2 LOAD (Lbs)
TYPE OF ·WHEEL. John Deel"e. No Lugs
Ti2ACTIVE SU12FACIi; Concre te
Fig. 54. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions : Diameter of wheel.
46 inches; width of rim. 11% inches; wheel equipment, smooth rims; total
weight of wheel and load, 1550 pounds (each wheel); apparatus used, dyna-
mometer attached final drive, figs . 25 and 26; traction surface, concrete
floor.

TESTS OF RIMLESS WHEEL

Tests reported in figs. 56, 57 and 58 were of a rimless
wheel. The traction surfaces were the same as tests of flgs .
51, 52 and 53, or, on well packed cinders, bluegrass sod and
soil freshly prepared with a pulverator. The adhesion of
the tractor wheel to the surface of bluegrass sod was suffi-
cient to stall the tractor motor. Note that the tractive effi-
ciencies obtained with the rimless wheel differ little from
those of a conventional wheel and spade .lugs.
 302

Fig. 55. Tractor drive wheels equipped with a rimless wheel as used in
tests reported in figs. 49, 50 and 51.

120
-
--
.......
r--'t<_
100 .....
..........
'
~

+- .....
c
"-
~
u
L
~
80 " \
0.
'-'
\
__ --oi
0 ---'
>- 00
U
2
;;-r-/
/e ~~
4.l
40
/, /
S:!

f
u..
u..
u.J
20 1 - - -- .
I Tractive Effici .. ncy
. 0
~
-------. Force ~otio
- - - x Travel ~otio
o
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
DQAWBA12 LOAD (Lbs.)
TypE. OF WHE.EL F Ii. H. Open
T/2ACTlvE. SUR-FACE. Cinders
Fig. 56. Efficie ncy tests of tractor wheel. Conditions: Type of wheel .
rimless , see fig. 55; diameter of wheel, 46 inches, wheel equipment, 20 spade
lugs; total weight of wheel and load, 1550 pounds (each wheel); apparatus
u sed, dynamometer attached to final drive, figs. 25 and 26; traction surface,
cinders well packed .
 12.0
1---_ ---t
f-.-_
-- ~-- r--_
..--.,100
... ~-
+-
C
t:J
~ 80
~
.Q,.
>- 60
_k--- ---- -""4 --
~~'-
~,-
U
Z ... ~,
i.J
.... ... "
':::! 40
u.
u.
---

~ "'--- -- - - - ---- -
o Tractive Efficiency
------. For c e "'-o ti o
'--~
L
LJ ---- x Travel ~atio
--
20

o
o
V' 1000 2000 3000
--
4000
(LbS)
T YPE .o F WHE.EL: F <t
H Open Wheels
T I2AC TlVE. Su., FACE.: Bluegrass Sod
Fig. 57. Efficiency tests of tractor wheel. Conditions: Type of wheel,
rimless , see fig. 55; diameter of wheel, 46 inches; wheel equipment, 20 spade
lugs; total weight of wheel and load, 1550 pounds (each wheel); apparatus
used, dynamometer attached to final drive, figs . 25 and 26; traction surface,
bluegrass sod,

120

+-
c
~
u
100
~-- 1- _
- ........ ,
r-- ........"""
~
t:I
80 ....... ,
n..
~

>- 60
'.
V
Z t:--'--
LJ
V
u.
40
~
- ----- ---...,
lL

4V
v
i.J
20
o Tractive Efficiency
------. Force Ratio
- - I x T ravel Qotio I

o 1000 2000 3000 4000

D12AW 5 A12. LOAD (L bs.)
TypE. .of WH EEL; F. ¢.H
TRACTIVE SURFACE: Pu Iverote.d 50i I Gi" Deep
Fig. 58. Same as above except traction surface.
 304

TESTS OF A TRACTOR EQUIPPED WITH PNEUMATIC TIRES

Figures 59 and 60 show a tractor equipped with 28 by
12.75-inch pneumatic tires for test under the same traction
conditions reported by figs. 51 to 54 and figs. 56, 57 and 58.
Tests reported in figs. 61, 63, 65 and 67 were made without
chains on the tires, and tests reported in figs. 62, 64 and 66
were made with chains. The high tractive efficiency may
be credited to reduced rolling resistance afforded by pneu-
matic tires. On firmer traction surfaces, much energy is
evidently consumed by the lugs disturbing the surface.
Chains on pneumatic tires very effectively increase adhesion
on slippery surfaces, but on dry surfaces rolling resistance
slightly increases.
Figures 68 and 69 report the effect of varying inflation
pressure from 8 to 20 lbs. The lower pressure gives a de-
cidedly higher tractive efficiency on a field prepared with
the pulverator.
Figure 70 shows the effect on tractive efficiency of add-
ing weight to a tractor with pneumatic tires. The tests
indicated that the drawbar pull is materially increased; part
of the increase is no doubt due to the shifting of weight to
the drive wheels due to the increase in drawbar pull.

Fig. 59. Tractor equipped with 12.75X pneumatic tires as used in tests
reported in figs. 53. 56, 58, 60, 61, 62 and 63.
 305

Fig. 60. Tractor equipped with pneumatic tires as in fig. 52 but equipped
with chains and used in tests reported in figs. 55, 57 and 59.

IZO

--'- ~-;......
100 ......
.-..
+-
C ' ......
I>l
L
U
80 " '...-.,"
a
~
~ 0 .... .....
b
>-U 60 ~
Z
li1
\J 40
I'
IJ..
IJ..
u.J
ZO
/' o Tractive Efficiency
------efor..ce Q.otio
- - _ ·x Travel ~atio

o
1/
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
D12.AWBA12. LOAD (LbS.)
TYPE. OF WHEEL: Tires-12 Ibs. P.
I ~40 Ibs. Per Wheel
T~.AC. TIVE SUI2.FAC.E.: Cinders
Fig. 61. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Wheel equipment,
28 by 12.75 inch pneumatic tire; weight of wheel and load, 1518 pounds; in-
flation pressure, 12 pounds; apparatus used, dynamometer attached to final
drive, figs. 25 and 26; traction surface, cinders well packed; maximum effi-
ciency, 0.73 at 600 (1200 total) pounds drawbar pull.
 120

1'--- -~- ---: ......

,..... 100
+-
x
...... ,
C
~
u
80
..ttL..,-- "K~·
,
L
~
~' ~
a..
'--'
)-
U
GO ?
l-f.
1\\
Z ~'
uJ
-
u 40
j 0

w
u..
u..
20
j' a Tractive Effici ency
- - - - - - . For-ce l2.otia
- - - x Tr-ovcz I \2.ot io

o
IIo 1000 2000 .300 0 4 0 00
D QAWBAk?- LOAD ( L bS.)
TYPE. OF WH E EL Tir-es 12.lbs P
Cha i ns On
TI2ACT IVE. SUR-FACE . <.i n der-s
Fig. 62. Conditions same as in fig. 61 except chains attached .

120
1'-- _ _
r- -~ 1----
100
r--.
+-
--,
C
\>l
U 80
. ~----; ~~.
L

V
~
\>l
a..
'-"

>- GO
~
~.
u
z
~
u 40 I
L1..
lo...
UJ
20
I -- -
a Tractive E fficie ncy .
------eFo rce 120t io
x T ravel l2.o tio

o Io 1000 2000 .3000 4 000

D I2AW BM2 LOAD (Lbs.)
T Y PE. OF WHEEL: Tinzs IZlbs . P.
340 Ibs. W t . p e r- Wheel
TI2A CTIVE. SUR- FAC E : Bluearas5 50d

Fig. 63. Conditions same as fig. 61 except traction surface.

 126
1'-- _ _
f--xr- --
,-..
-+-
100
1---- .,.
-- :t~,
C

~
I>l
~ 80
~.."
- .........

:r
g ~ ....

U
2
i.LI
<30
1//
0 j;
40
LL
LL
uJ
20
7 o Tr-active Uficiency
-----e For-ce l2.atio
- - - x Tl'avel l2atio

o
o
11 1000 2000 3000 4000
Df2AWBAf2. LOAD (Lbs.)
TypE. OF WHEEL: Tires, 12Ibs.P.. 340Ibs.Wt. pel' Wheel
Chains Attached .
TI2ACTIVE 5UI2FACE: Blueara55 Sod ·
Fig. 64. Conditions same as in fig. 63 except chains attached.

120

100
1'---1-- ...
i--~ OTI"activ<z Effic iency
~ '
c
~
...
\J
<».
80
' ., ,
... 1'-. - - - - - eFor-ce l2atio
- - - x Tr-avel 12.atio

...... -- ~~-!I
Q.
'-'

:ru
2
60
~ .. , ........
\.
i.LI
Ci 40 / ",\p
lA'
lL
lL
"
W
20 /
o
[7
a 1000 2000 3000 4 000
D12.AWBA12. LOAD (Lbs)
TypE. OF WHEEL: Tires 12. Ibs. P.
340 Ibs. Wt. per Wheel
TI2ACTIVE: SUI2FACE.: Pulver-ated Soil cO r Deep

Fig. 65. Conditions same as in fig. 61 except traction surface.

 120

100
f--_
- ....
~

-t-
C " o Tractive Efficiency
- - - - - e Force ~atio
t>l
V
\... 80 " - - - 'Travel '2atio

~
""
0..
'--'

>- 60
--- .....
v
z
.,..:/ \
lIP

"" \
uJ
V 40 /
~ ~~
LL

~
LL
UJ
20 ~ \
o V'
o 1000 2000
~
3000 4000
D12AWBAI2 LOAD (Ll)s.)
TYPE OF WHEEL: Tires. 12 Ibs. P. 340 Ibs. wt per Wheel
Chains Attached. ..
T~ACTIVE 5UBFACE; Pulverated Soil G~ Deep
Fig. 66. Conditions same as in fig. 65 except chains attached.

/20
(

f--- - ~- r--- '---

/00
-~ ~
:;:::. ...../
~
~ 80 ,.,.,.--- ---......... ~;
~
~\ ~
~
Q.. . , -'
).. 60
~"
/
\J ~x
<:
l...J
....
\J 40
.... I ---0 Tractive
~

,l
t... £fficienct,l
~ - - - - - . Force 1201';0
- - -x Travel 120tia
20

o
o /000 2000 3000 4000
DI2AWBAIZ LOAD (Lbs.)
TYPE OF WHEEL: 12.75 X 28 Firestone Tire
12 Lbs. Pressure
reACTIVE SueFAcE: Concrete

Fig. 67. Conditions same as in fig. 61 except traction surface.

 309

r '2 0 , ) ,
Tires BibS
I
P.
r--_ Tirll" 12. Ibs p .
io--
100 -.
80 - .
t'.
\,-, , •
'1'. . . ,-
,l o T~octive Efficiency
------ • Force ~otio
'~" .•
\--

-~~"'
S/ , Tra vel ~atio \
GO "
~ • ~"
1\\\
':.-
// 0
/'
40
j/
'/ 1 1 0
20

o
~' II
o G 3 o Z 3
DI2AWBAI< LOAD (In Thousands of Lbs)
Fig. 68. Efficiency test of tractor wheel. Conditions: Wheel equipment,
28 by 12.75 inch pneumatic tire; weight of wheel and load, 1518 pounds
(one wheel); inflation, 8 and 12 pounds; apparatus used, dynamometer
attached to final drive, figs. 25 and 26; traction surface, silty loam soil,
freshly prepared with pulverator 6% inches in depth; maximum efficiency,
0.57 for 8 pounds inflation and 0.54 for 12 pounds.

2 120 , , I
T"Ir-¢S '''' \bs. P. Tires 20 L.Ps.p.
~ r--. . . . . .,
01
.J
100 ~ ....
" """ ~,
.
w
~ 80
~,
01
r-,.,.., .~/,\
"\..-..: oT~activ~ Efficiil ncy
------eForce l2otio
~
\
~1: GO
---XTrov., ll2atio \
w
01
~
u U
~ 40 . j; ~
,
.S-
J:--
~~ 0 0
'\
I
>-
U
20 f /
:z
w
iJ o
II 1/
~ o 2. :3 0 I 2. :3
u..
W D12AWBAR. LOAD (In Thousands of Lbs.)
Fig. 69 Efficiency tests of tractor wheels. Conditions: Wheel equipment,
28 by 12.75 inch pneumatic tire; weight of wheel and load, 1518 pounds
(one wheel); inflation, 16 and 20 pounds; apparatus used, dynamometer
attached to final drive, figs. 25 and 26; traction surface. silty loam soil,
freshly prepared with pulverator 6% inches in depth; maximum efficiency.
0.52 for 16 pounds inflation and 0.44 for 20 pounds.
 310

I 2 0 r---,-----r-----;----,---,----,---r----,
9
~ lOa
o.!
...J
~ 80 r-----I--"'..-----+----+--"'-rr---+---i--~po..=__t
~r-.
1-+
'<T . ~ 60 1--------1::-
w~
~d:401----A"---+-O--,~-l--~-+---~-"----I----.:!~--t----'\<'Y
f2'--'
1
>-
V
2
w
o 2 o 2. 3
(;:
"-
o 3
ILl DI2.AWBAI2. LOAD (In ThOusands of Lbs.)
T y PE. OF WHEEL . Tires 12 I bs . P.
T."ACTIVE SUI2.FACE.: Pulv<zrotltd Soil Gf De,,-p

Fig . 70 . Efficiency tests of tractor wheels. Conditions: Wheel equipment,

28 by 12.75 inch pneumatic tire; inflation, 12 pounds; apparatus used, dyna-
mometer attached to final drive, figs. 25 and 26; traction surface, silty loam
s oil, freshly prepared with pulverator to 6~~ inches in depth; weight on
wheel, 1178, 1518 and 1858 pounds.

INFLUENCE OF THE DIAMETER OF TRACTOR

DRIVE WHEEL
A series of tests, fig. 73 to 90, were conducted on three
traction surfaces to determine the influence of the diameter
of tractor drive wheels upon tractive efficiency under uni-
,f orm conditions except for tractive surfaces, as follows:
Apparatus used: The tractor equipped with apparatus
for measuring the power delivered the final drive, fig. 25,
was used for making the tests. The front wheels were
equipped with 7.5 by l8-inch pneumatic tires. The weight
on the front wheels at rest was 1,730 pounds; and on the
rear wheels, 3,890 pounds including operator. These were
maintained uniformly throughout the tests by adding or re-
moving additional weights for individual tests. The dyna-
mometer car in fig. 24 provided the drawbar load.
Test wheels: Six sets were used ranging by 4-inch in-
crements from 38 to 58 inches in diameter. (See fig. 72.)
Wheel equipment: Four-inch spade lugs equally spaced
were used on all wheels. The dimensions and lug spacing
are given in table 3.
Drawbar: A special adjustable drawbar adjusted to a
uniform height of 9 inches above the traction surface was
used.
 311

TABLE 3. WHEEL DIMENSIONS AND LUG EQUIPMENT

Lugs
Diameter Width Tread
inches Inches inches Distance • Distance· •
Number between between
lugs lug rows
38 12
•••
(l2~~) 61 20 11.92 8.50
42 12 (12~~) 53 22 1l.94 9.00
46 12 (ll~~) 53 24 12.04 7.25
50 12 (l2~~) 61 26 12.08 8.50
54 12 (l2~~) 61 28 12.12 8.50
58 12 (l2~~) 61 30 12.15 8.50
-- - - --~

* Center to center of lugs in same row measured along rim.

•• Center to center. •
• •• Nominal width 12 inches; actual width in parenthesis .

Fig. 71. Tractor of fig. 25 equipped with 58 inch wheels used in tests to
determine influence of wheel diameter on tractive efficiency.

Traction surfaces: Tests were made on a silty clay

loam under as uniform conditions as possible. Soil moisture
was determined to check soil conditions. Tests were made
under three soil conditions, namely: (1) oat stubble pre-
pared with the pulverator to a depth of 8 inches, (2) oat
stubble and (3) bluegrass sod.

•
 Fig. 72. Wheels used in tests to determine the influence of wheel diameter
These wheels are 38. 42, 46, 50, 54 and 58 inches in diameter with 12-inch
rims and equipped with 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30 4-inch spade lugs, respectively.

100

00
"\ .
80 1\
Trawl JGat~
'To

e;:-
r: 00 1\
\
t:l
\)
!...

~ 50
'-'
0
~ 40
\
~\
Oo! J
Forc~-r
l2.atio
,30

ZO
II ~1\\
fEffiCienc';3 \ \
10

o
II \~
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
DRAWBAIG LOAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 73. Efficiency of 38-inch tractor wheel on soil prepared with pulver-
tor. See p. 310 for conditions.

•
 313·

,
100

~ II
90
TrCV~I?\
IGctio./ II
b.
80

70
\
,......
+
GO 1\

~
c
~
0
~
50
\
'-'
0
Force
I
~ctiOo)\
~ 40

~:°1
02

30

20
\\
l-Effi6ienClj~
•

10
/ I • .\

o
V
o 500 1000
1
1500
Dk:?AWBAR. LOAD
2.000 2.500
(L bs.)
3000 3500 4000

Fig. 74. Efficiency of 42-inch tractor wheel on soil prepared with pulvera-
tor. See p. 310 for conditions.

Travel ratio and force ratios: These factors were cal-

culated on the basis of effective rolling diameter of each
wheel for each soil condition as determined by rolling the
wheel over the surface under no load and observing the
distance traveled per revolution. This distance varied with
the surface firmness.
Rolling Resistance
Rolling resistance or drawbar pull required to move the
tractor was determined for soil prepared with the pulver-
ator and oat stubble under the same conditions as for the
tests reported in figs. 73 to 84.
 314

100
~
90 ~
\ '\
80

Tr-Qv~1 0t;0'\
12
70
\
'+c
~ 00
U
l...
~
Q.
\..J
50
0
~
D2 40
0/ ~
For-ci~
J2atio -.,
\
30

20
Je \
10
(EffiC ienc,:;
\
0
V
0 500 1000
\
1500- ZOOO 2500 3000 35004000
DIGAWBAIG LOAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 75. Efficiency of 46-inch tractor wheel on soil prepared with pulvera-
tor. See p. 310 for conditions.

The rolling resistance recorded in table 4 makes it pos-

sible to calculate the power required to move the tractor
over the two ground surfaces. This was found to be from
2.45 to 6.3 horse power at 3 miles per hour. The above ob-
servations are the averages of four trials each. Variations
in soil conditions were charged with the irregularities.
With bare wheels rolling resistance is markedly reduced
on oat stubble compared with pulverated soil. When lugs
are used, however, differences are slight and, with one ex-
ception, favor the softer ground surface. More power is
required to force the lugs into the hard surface and remove
them than into the softer surface.
 315

100

"'0
~ r-...
6~
80
TrQv~1 !20tiO\
70

,-...
+c
~

~
<DO
\l
~
~ ~I\
50
0
I-
« 40
) ~1
\
Cl1
FOrCe~
Qat io
r'\ \
30

20
;; V· ~)
Efficiency I
~\
10 f \\
o
o
/ 500 1000 1500
~
2000 2500 3000 35004000
Dr2AWBAR · LOAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 76 . Efficiency of 50-inch tractor wheel on soil prepared with pulvera-
tor . See p. 310 for conditions.

TABLE 4. ROLLING RESISTANCE IN POUNDS

Pulverated Oat
Wheel diameter soil
inches - - - stubble
Bare 4-inch Bare 4-inch
wheels __ lugs_ _ wheels lugs_ _
38 655 789 362 777
42 610 734 359 746
46 615 690 337 720
50 585 658 313 688
54, 528 642 323 660
58 561 628 308 654
 316

100
~
90
~
'\
80
1\
TrQv~1 l2atio \

70

r--
+
s:: IDO
\
\
~
tJ
~
~
n.. 50
'---'
0

~~
0

~ 40
t:- r.!
0\
1
30
rone"
R.atio
I \ -, , \

20 1 Efficiencl.:l

)\ \
10
I \\
\\ - - - Estimated; IZn{iniZ

I :~C~i'l'~h:"~1
o
~ 'V.~ fide"'

a 500 1000 1500 2.000 2.500 3000 3500 4000

DQAWBAR. LOAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 77. Efficiency of 54-inch tractor wheelan soil prepared with pulvera-
tor. See p . 310 for conditions.
 317

100

90

'80
'" TraV~~
fGot io
~

4 I 4
i\.
4\
70

+'
\
s: roo 1\
~
v
I...
~
4\
t-.
0..
'-'
0
50
Fo r c e .,
~ --- o \

f=
fG o t i O Y
• \
« 4 0
01

Y. .\
\. \
\

30

20
j) / Eff iGi<z n G ~,....J
) ~
~\
\ ,
I \, --
1\
Estimate d; Engine
Torqu£ Not Sufficient
t o Slip Wheels.
10 \,
V
"
o
o 5 00 100 0 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4600
DI2AW BAR. LOA D (L.b s.)
Fig. 78. Effi ciency of 58-inch tract or wheel an soil prepared with p u lvera-
tor. See p. 310 for conditions .
 318

100 -=::::::.
~~
~O
~
Trove' Qatj~
80
\
70

~ GO /. /
s:
~
~
& Force 120ti~
v:
~icienCY
tv \
'--' 50
0
~
02 40
~ W
30 I
w
j \
20

10
7
~ 500 1000 1500
August 1,8,)934
2.000 Z500 3000 3500 4000

DI2AWBAfG LOAD (Lbs)

Fig. 79. Efficiency of 38 inch tractor wheel on oat stubble. See p. 310 for
conditions.
 319

100

90
- ~
Trave) R.atio
---- "r-:....... ........."

eo 1\
70
0
-+:-
~
1>1 force R.otio/ V--~

Jr
k: GO o •

~
~
'-' •
0 50

h~
tn2
40
Effici~nclj
\
30 If \\
1.'.0 I
10 I
o
o
/ 500 1000 1500 2.000 2500 300 0 35004000
DR.AWBA'2. LOAD (Lb5~
Fig. 80. E ffic ie ncy of 42-inch tractor wheel on oa t stubble. See p . 310 f or
conditions.
 320

100

90
-- r-- ~
t----. r--...
IS"

80
Trow I J2,ati 0
1\
70
'+:'
c
~ Force l2atio/ Vp
~ GO
t1.
'-'

'0 50 ~ V •
1\
~~ \
I
f=
'<l Efficit:ncy
n2
40

30 IIf \
20 II
10
I
o V
o 500 1000 1500 '2.000 2500 3000 35004000
Df2.AWBAf2. LOAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 81. Efficiency of 46-inch tractor whe el on oat stubble. See p . 310 for
conditions .
 321

100
-~
90

80
-- ""'b<l,.

70 ill
~
Force I2.Qti~
~
r-. 60 I'
-+-
/'

le-
I:
\:I
~ Efficienc~
~ 50
'--'
0
i=
« 40 I
02

$0
J,
f
20 /
(0 /
o
/
o 500 (ODD 1500 2.000 2.500 3000 35004000
DI2.AWBAI2. LOAD (lbs.)
Fig. 82. Efficiency of 50-inch tractor wheel on oat stubble. See p. 310 for
conditions.
 322

100

90
---- ~ ~ f--..6
Travel Batio l>

80

__ e
70
~

~
'+'
s::
~
\J ~
!.... 60
~
'-' ForGe
~a~ Efficj~nclj

0 50

~Dol j~
40

30 f
'20 J
10 /
o /
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
DI2.AWBAI2. LOAD (Lbs.)
F ig. 83. Efficiency of 54- inch t ract or w h eel on oat stubble. See p. 310 for
condi tions.
 323

100

Trav~1
I -k---- "'4--
12atio '----;.
90

80

70 ~
V.
~
-:;::- Force 12atio
s:::
t::l
\] 100
•
~
L
t::l
Q.
[ffjcj~nc':l
'--'
0 50

~
,01 I
40

30
~
w
20
7
10
7
o
~
o 500 1000 1500 2.000 2.500 3000 3500 4000
DQAWBAQ LOAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 84. Efficiency of 58-inch tractor wheel on oat stubble. See p. 310 for
conditions.
 324

100 t.
I I ~

9 0
Tr-ave l R. tio ~6
---- r--......
-........, 6 6

80

70 0
0
V
~
---~l ...........
~O

Rati~# r~
+-c
~ GO
fo rce

V
c- Effic.i ~nc.1:J1

\\
~
V
l...
~

50
j \\
0
i=
<:(
4 0
f .\\
Cl!

30 ! \
20
f
10 II \

o
o 500 10 00 15 00 20 0 0 2.500 3000
\
3500 4000
DI2.AW BAf<.. L OAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 85. Efficiency of 38-inch tractor wheel on bluegrass sod. See p . 310
for conditions.
 325

lao
r 1 •
Trov.zl l2otlo~ ~ "
90 " r-- f.-.
"
.......
'"
0
"............
80 /,.
"" . .....

70
/. ~ ~
'+
c
. Force J2.oti~y: ~;fiCict.nC.~ •
~
GO
V
~

~
'-' 50
W
0
J-
<t 40
lJ
02

30
If
20
f
10 I
o
o
V 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 35004000
D£AWBArG LOAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 86. Efficiency of 42-inch tractor wheel on bluegrass sod. See p. 310
for conditions.
 326

100
I
12a1~ r----.
90
TravlZ.l

"
r--- Ie- ~

eo

70 ~~
~

~
~.
Force l2otio_
~ t- Effie ienclj
s:: GO " J

W-
~
V
l...
~
0... .'
:-....- 50
0
F
<{ 40
j
02

30
I
,2.0
I
10
/
o V
o 500 1000 1500 2.000 2.500 3000 35004000
DI2AWBARLOAP (Lbs,)
Fig, 87, Efficiency of 46-inch tractor wheel on bluegrass sod, See p, 310
for conditions,
 327

-
·100 T
o~

I:>
Travel 12otio
I:>
00
I:>

80
0

/
0
V-
.."..-
° 0.
'T
h
~

'+c
70

GO
Force 120tiW KEffiCienCIJ
•

V
~
V
\...
6:
'--' 50
§
0
t-
<t: 40
W
Ql

30
1
2.0
1
10
I
a
~
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3 5 00 4000
DR.AWBAtG LOAD (Lbs.)
F ig. 88. Efficiency of 50-inch tractor wheel on b luegrass sod. See p. 310
for conditions.
 328

100
i..-ovel 12.0+10)'
H
90 ""

eo

/
0V; --- -•
0

+:s::
70
----
For-c.1Z !20tIO!& KE.fficienC!:/

v GO
~
V
L
~
(L
'--' 50
f
0
~
.« 40
If
J~
c1

30

2.0
I
10
7
a V
a 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 35004000
Df2.AWBAR. LOAD (Lbs.)
Fig. 89. Efficiency of 54-inch tractor wheelan bluegrass sad. See p . 310
for conditions.
 329

10.0

90
Travel R.~tioJ
/I

- /I

/I
/I

80

0 ;/ r--:
V.
70
~.
r---
Force R.o+:Z Effidenc;.!j
.
+ GO
!:

J~
~
·u
!...
ct
'--' 50 -
0
;::
«
:oJ.
.4 0
I
30
f
I
\

,
20

10 I
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000 ZSOO 3000 35004000

DIGAWBAIG LOAD (Lbs.)

Fig. 90. Efficiency of 58-inch tractor wheel on bluegrass sod. See p. 310
for conditions .
 330

TESTS OF A TRACK TRACTOR

The main purpose of tests reported in figs. 91 to 95 was
to determine tractive efficiency of a track-laying tractor
on three conditions of traction surfaces, but additional tests
were made to determine the influence of the height of hitch
on tractive efficiency.
The tractor: The tractor shown in figs. 27, 28 and 29,
used in the tests has been selected because of construction
features partially described on p. 284. Partial specifications
of the tractor are given in table 5.
The tractor was equipped with tracks that had been
well worked in.
Drawbar: A special adjustable drawbar was bolted
directly to the track members permitting the engine ·and
transmission assembly to pivot freely about the center line
of the drive sprockets. The points of attachment to the
drawbar were 8, 12, 16 and 20 inches above a concrete floor
and 23% inches to the rear of the center line of the sprockets.
An inclinometer was devised to measure the angle
of rise of the tractor frame with the horizontal. Track slip
was determined by comparing the distance the tractor trav-
eled per revolution of track with the length /of the track.
Traction surfaces: The tractor was tested under three
traction surface conditions, namely: well-packed cinders,
bluegrass sod and fallow silty loam soil freshly prepared
with a pulver at or to a depth of 8 inches. The moisture con-
tent of the last traction surface gave a good tillable condi-
tion.
Tests to determine the effect of height of hitch: Height
of hitch had a pronounced influence upon tractive efficiency
on soft ground surfaces. With a high hitch and heavy
drawbar pull, the tractor was inclined backward so the
tracks did not have full contact with -the traction surfaces.
To determine more accurately the effect of height of hitch
on tractive efficiency, a series of tests, reported in figs. 94
and 95, were made on ground freshly prepared with a
pulver at or.
 331

TABLE 5. SPECIFICATIONS OF TRACK TRACTOR

Rated drawbar H. P . ______ _______ _____ ___ ______ ____ _____ __ __ ________ .. ______ 20
Rated brake H . P. ________________________ __ ______ _____ _____ .. _____ __ ______ _25

Rated drawbar
first speed pull. pounds
_________________________ ____ __ __ ________________ __________ 4180
second speed ______ __ ______________________ __ ________________________ 2900
third speed _________________________ ___ ___ __ _________________ __ .. ___ ___ 2070

Speed in miles
first per hour
___ ________________ _________ ___ ______ ______ _____ ____________ ___ ___ 1.8
second ______ __ __________________ _________ ___________ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___ 2.6
third ____ _______________ ____ __________ ___ ______ __ ____ ____ __ __ __ ________ 3.6

Tracks
links p e r track ____ ______ __ ___ ___ ___ _________ ________ _______ _________ 29
link pitch inches ________________________ __ ______ _____ _______ ______ ___ 6.735
track l ength fee t ___________________ _____ ______________ ___________ ___ 16.275
track shoe width inche s ____ ____ _______ ___ ___ ____ __ ___ ___ ___ __ ____ __ 11.
lug length inches _________________________ ______ _____________________ 1.9
are a ground contact in square ________ ___ ______ ___ ______ _____ ________ 2151
cente r to center of tractor inches ___________________ _________________ 42
w e ight a s tes ted _________________________ _____ __ _______ ______________ 7700

--.,
--~

~---

/
V
/
/
oT.-active Eff ic iency
--------. Fore.: .Ratio
- - - . Trav e l R.otio

V 2. 3 4 5 G 7
DI2.AWBAI2. LOAD (I n Thousands of Lbs)
Fig. 91. Efficiency of track laying tractor. Conditions : Traction equip-
ment. track; width of tracks. 11 inches; weight on tracks 7700 pounds;
traction surface. cinders . well packed; maximum efficiency. 0.78 at 3400
pounds drawbar pull.
 332

120

100 ~

80
~
GO /
/
V
40

/
T ....active Efficiency
-------eo Force l2.otio
---~ Travczl l2atio I
20

o V
o I 2 :3 4 5 (0 ,7
DIGAWBAR. LOAD On Thousands of Lbs.)
Fig. 92. Efficiency of track laying tractor. Conditions: Traction equip-
ment. track; width of tracks. 11 inches; weight on tracks. 7700 pounds;
traction surface. bluegrass sod; maximum efficiency. 0.79 at 4000 pounds
drawbar pull.

..
--r--_...I'''-:l
_-iI

,/ -....:
t--o
..
./
"
I' o Tractive Efficiczncy
--------eForccz Retio
/ - - - < T r o v e l )2atio

V 2- 3 4 5 G 7
DI2AWBAR. LOAD (In Thousands of Lbs.)
Fig. 93. Efficiency of track laying tractor. Conditions : Traction equip-
ment, track; width of tracks, 11 inches; weight on tracks, 7700 pounds;
traction surface. silty loam soil, freshly prepared with pulverator ; maximum
efficiency, 0.74 at 3700 pounds drawbar pull.
 333

120 - - - 0 TroctivlZ Effici ,znc.y

-,
- - - - - . rorc.,z Rotia
o
~ 100 -....,
- - - 1:1 TrovlZ J R.atio

'"
1'"_.
ni
~- I~
ro d ---""-0 ~~
~
/ . /~ :---0
/ /
/ /
/ Height of Hitch 8in.
:/ Height of Hitch IZin.

V I

23450 12. 34 5
DI2AWBAR. LOAD (In Thousands of Lbs.)
Fig. 94. Efficiency of track-laying tractor with varying height of hitch.
Conditions: Traction equipment, track; width of tracks, 11 inches; weight on
tracks, 7700 pounds; traction surface, silty loam soil, freshly prepared with
pulverator; maximum efficiency, 0.77 at 3800 pounds drawbar pull for 8-inch
height of hitch and 0.74 at 3700 pounds drawbar pull for I2-inch height of
hitch.

120 --- 0 Iractive Efficiency

------- • Force 2.otio
o - - - 6. Trovel l2.otio
~
01
100
- .....
"
-, - ..........

'"
/
V
..... /'"
-~
- "
----- -oIP
~

I
v.
,-~
.-.? ~
.... --• ----- rr,-!e
-....... 1\

'\
! H<:ight of Hitch lID In.
II Height of Hitch 2.0in.

2 3 4 5 o 4 5
DI2AWBAIG LOAD (In Thtlusands of Lbs.)
Fig. 95. Efficiency of track-laying tractor with varying height of hitch.
Conditions: Traction equipment, track; width of tracks, 11 inches; weight on
tracks, 7700 pounds; traction surface, silty loam soil, freshly prepared with
pulverator; maximum efficiency, 0.73 at 3600 pounds drawbar pull for I6-inch
height of hitch and 0.70 at 3500 pounds for 20-inch height of hitch.