ARTICLE IN PRESS

BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286 – 296

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/15375110

Research Paper: PM—Power and Machinery

Tractor energy requirements in disc harrow systems

João M. Serrano, José O. Pec- a, J. Marques da Silva, Anacleto Pinheiro, Mário Carvalho
Engineering Department, University of Évora, ICAM, Núcleo da Mitra, Apartado 94, 7002-554 Évora, Portugal

ar t ic l e i n f o Soil-working operations in conventional farming systems involving the use of the tractor
are some of the operations that incur the highest energy costs. The sustainability of such
Article history: systems requires a strictly controlled management of resources leading to a significant
Received 6 August 2006 reduction in crop-production costs derived from savings in fuel consumption. The
Received in revised form configuration of the tractor-harrow combination, based on the measurement of the
1 August 2007 draught required under operational conditions, provides the manufacturers with a reliable
Accepted 1 August 2007 indication of the recommended power required for each model of harrow produced. With
Available online 20 September 2007 this type of information farmers can take decisions regarding the selection of a suitable
tractor–implement combination for their farms. As a consequence there is improved
tractor-harrow productivity and field efficiency.
This study centred on the validation of the mathematical models used to estimate the
draught of disc harrows in medium-textured soils presented by ASABE.
A 3-year research project was developed to study tractor–implement dynamics in tillage
operations. The field tests were performed under real working conditions, using more than
20 four-wheel-drive tractors and trailed disc harrows combinations, in different soil types.
The tractors were instrumented and the measured parameters were as follows: forward
speed, slip, engine speed, draught and fuel consumption per hour. The tractors were also
submitted to dynamometer tests measuring PTO power and speed, and engine fuel
consumption.
The results led to the development of a quadratic equation, that corresponds to an
adaptation of the linear model of ASABE, to estimate the draught of the disc harrows in
undisturbed loamy soils, not only as a function of implement mass and soil type, but also
as a function of speed, working depth and soil conditions. Under these conditions, a ratio of
tractor power to implement width of 25–33 kW m1 is suggested. The data also show the
existence of a linear relationship between the fuel consumption per hectare and the
specific draught, for the range of 4–9 kN m1, valid for dry, undisturbed loamy soils.
& 2007 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction for the performance of work and propelling the tractor to

Historically, the efficient use of energy in agriculture did not
have a high priority. However, taking into consideration the
diminishing supply of fossil fuels, efficiency was taken more
seriously. Fuel is the source of energy for the tractor providing
overcome implement draught (Smith, 1993).
Soil-working operations in conventional farming systems
involving the use of the tractor are some of the operations
that incur the highest levels of energy cost. The sustainability
of such systems requires a strictly controlled management of

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jmrs@uevora.pt (J.M. Serrano).
1537-5110/$ - see front matter & 2007 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.08.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Nomenclature
Ch fuel consumption per hour, l h1
Cha fuel consumption per hectare, l ha1
Cs specific fuel consumption, g kW 1 1
h vt
d working depth, cm
m implement mass, kg
n engine speed under load, min 1
Ne engine power, kW
Nerec recommended engine power, kW
P drawbar power, kW
r rolling radius, m
s slip, %
resources leading to a significant reduction of crop-produc-
tion costs derived from savings in fuel consumption.
Many studies have been conducted to measure draught,
power requirements and fuel consumption of tillage imple-
ments under various soil conditions (ASAE, 1995; Harrigan &
Rotz, 1994; Al-Suhaibani & Al-Janobi, 1997).
The draught (draft or drawbar pull) is the force required to
propel an implement in the direction of travel (ASABE, 2006a).
The availability of data relating to draught requirements is an
important factor in selecting tillage implements for a
particular situation. Farm managers and consultants use
draught and power requirements of tillage implements in
specific soil types to evaluate implement performance, energy
requirements, and to determine the size of tractor required
(Al-Suhaibani & Al-Janobi, 1997). Mathematical models have
been developed to predict draught of some tillage tools, but
the heterogeneity of the soil, coupled with the complex
manner in which soil fails, make the understanding of the
complex interactions between a specific tillage tool and the
soil medium difficult (Grisso et al., 1994). Draught is primarily
a function of the width of the implement and the speed at
which it is pulled (Harrigan & Rotz, 1994). However, draught
also depends upon operating depth and geometry of tillage
tool (Upadhyaya et al., 1984). Tillage draught is further
influenced by site-specific conditions including soil type,
moisture, density and residue cover (Harrigan & Rotz, 1994).
Disc harrows are among the most commonly used tillage
implements (Harrigan & Rotz, 1994). Many factors affect disc
harrow draught including gang angle, mass per blade, blade
type and spacing, operating depth and forward speed
(Sommer et al., 1983). Draught data for disc harrows were
reported by ASAE (1995) with draught expressed as a function
of implement mass and type of soil. More recent studies by
Harrigan and Rotz (1994) updated the ASAE data report by
including disc harrow draught as a function of speed, working
width, working depth and soil conditions (ASABE, 2006b).
The ratio between draught per unit of implement width, or
specific draught, I, to tractor fuel consumption per hectare,
Cha, is a parameter describing tillage energy spent per unit
fuel. This parameter is not solely influenced by implement-
specific draught, but also by tractor losses. Tractor losses
(motion resistance and tractive efficiencies) alter under
different loading conditions but in a non-mobilised soil the
98 (2007) 286– 296 287
T draught, kN
Test draught estimated, kN
Tmeas draught measured, kN
va actual forward speed, km h1
theoretical forward speed, km h1
w working width, m
wr work rate, ha h1
y power take-off (PTO) utilisation, %
I specific draught, kN m1
Zm transmission efficiency
Zt tractive efficiency
Zf field efficiency
tractive efficiencies, Zt, presents a rather small variation
(ASABE, 2006b), although the transmission efficiency, Zm, is
considered to be almost constant for recently manufactured
tractors. PTO tests show that the specific fuel consumption,
Cs, inverse function of the motor efficiency, is predictable in
certain work conditions. Considering these conditions we can
accept, with a certain degree of trust, that the ratio Cha =I is
predictable.
According to Smith (1993), a single line, representing the
relationship between the draught and the net fuel consump-
tion per hectare (difference in fuel consumed with and
without implement) for various implements at various
combinations of gear and speed, suggests that a measure-
ment of draught could be used to estimate fuel consumption.
This recorded an exponential increase of the net fuel
consumption per hectare with the implement draught.
Bowers (1985) and Riethmuller (1989) also carried out tillage
field tests in several conditions (implements and soils), and
suggested linear relationships between the draught per unit
of implement width and fuel consumption per hectare, Eqs.
(1) and (2), respectively. These equations are used to validate
the results obtained in this paper
Cha ¼ 1:2774I, (1)
Cha ¼ 1:1306I, (2)
where Cha is the fuel consumption per hectare in l ha1; and I
is the specific draught in kN m1
These equations, valid for different implements and soil
conditions, consider several theoretical approaches influ-
enced by information given in ASABE standards. These
standards have evolved since 1989, namely on total tractive
efficiency when we consider Zt with a break of about 10%
(Zt ¼ 0.76).
The absence of data means that decisions concerning the
choice of implement and tractor–implement working set-up
are taken on the basis of empirical knowledge or on limited
scientific information. Tractors are normally selected accord-
ing to the power needs of the implement used for heavy
tillage operations, usually the mouldboard plough, leaving the
tractor over-sized for superficial tillage implements (disc
harrows and cultivators). Furthermore, with a general trend
towards higher horsepower tractors, implements sized for
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
288 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
smaller tractors are now being used with larger, more
powerful tractors. The questions of correct matching are real,
but difficult to answer concerning the variability of soil
conditions. In dry farming systems of Southern Portugal,
offset disc harrows are very popular among farmers. Within
the usual 3-year crop rotation of winter wheat/winter wheat/
sunflower, disc harrows are used as primary and secondary
cultivation tools (Serrano et al., 2003).
Worldwide research on engines, tyres and fully instrumen-
ted tractors has build up a package of valuable information.
However, the practical impact of some of these results is
difficult to assess due to the particular conditions of the
experiment. Tractor Performance Monitors (TPMs) are in-
creasingly being supplied as standard tractor electronic
equipment, or factory-fitted option. They provide information
to assist tractor drivers and farm managers, and an excellent
base to perform experiments in real working conditions. TPMs
can be used to gather data and validate the importance of the
different variables influencing the dynamics of tractor–soi-
l–agricultural implement. TPMs have the fundamental advan-
tage of being operated by the end user of the research results,
making possible, inclusively, to perform demonstration
experiments at the farmer’s own premises.
The specific objectives of the study of the tractor–imple-
ment dynamics in tillage operations, based on the TPMs,
were:
 to validate the ASABE model estimates of the draught
(draft or drawbar pull) of disc harrows;
 to evaluate the overall efficiency of different combinations
of tractor weight/implement width, building up a matched
set and use of gathered data to validate the relation
between the fuel consumption per hectare and the specific
draught.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Tractors and implements
In field trials, various models of trailed offset disc harrows
ranging from 20 to 36 discs, 1300 to 3500 kg in mass, were
pulled behind four-wheel-drive tractors, ranging from 59 to
134 kW engine power. These tractors were factory equipped
with TPMs (‘Datatronic’) providing relevant information such
as engine speed, forward speed, slip, and fuel consumption
per hour, described by Serrano et al. (2003). The disc harrows
had a hydraulic actuator to regulate the angle between disc
gangs. Table 1 presents the individual set angle of each gang.
The discs of the front gang were notched and the discs of the
rear gang were plain. Details of the different tractor–imple-
ment combinations are presented in Table 1.
These implements were chosen according to the following
criteria:
 very popular among farmers as primary and secondary
cultivation tool;
 important implement within the strategy for reduced
cultivations;
98 (2007) 286 – 296
 well represented within the local farm machinery industry
(Serrano, 2002).
2.2. Data acquisition system
The information provided by the TPMs is volatile. To over-
come this limitation a portable computer-based record
system was developed (Pec- a et al., 1998) which diverted the
signals from the tractor TPMs sensors and also the informa-
tion from a load cell-based pull sensor. The portable
computer was equipped with a data acquisition board capable
of handling up to eight single-ended channels, 12 bit
resolution and 100 000 samples per second and a terminal
board providing the appropriate connection and the voltage
excitation for the 50 kN capacity load cell. As the inputs to the
terminal board had to be less than 1 V, resistor voltage
dividers were used where appropriate.
An LabVIEW application was developed to control the data-
acquisition process. The following as measured in the field
tests (Fig. 1): the actual tractor forward speed, va in km h1;
the theoretical forward speed, vt in km h1; the engine speed,
n in min1; the fuel consumption per hour, Ch in l h1; and the
draught, T in kN.
An approximate rolling radius was introduced in the data-
acquisition system, DAS, in order to compute slip. The value
used was the average of the values of the static tyre radius
measured with and without vertical load obtained from the
tyre manufacture catalogue for the rear tyre.
In each soil condition and tractor ballast, the slip measured
by DAS was compared with the slip obtained from the
comparison of the distances travelled in classic load/no load
slip tests. The results were so close that no corrections on the
rolling radius were necessary. With the input of the tyre
rolling radius, r in m, and the working width of the
implement, w in m, the following performance parameters
were calculated on the basis of ASABE standards (ASABE,
2006a): average slip, s in %, Eq. (3), drawbar power, P in kW,
Eq. (4), work rate, wr in ha h1, Eq. (5) and fuel consumption
per hectare, Cha in l ha1, Eq. (6).
ðvt  va Þ
s¼  100, (3)
vt
Tva
P¼ , (4)
3:6
va wZf
wr ¼ , (5)
10
Ch
Cha ¼ , (6)
wr
where s is the slip in %; vt is the theoretical forward speed in
km h1; va is the actual forward speed in km h1; P is drawbar
power in kW; T is the draught in kN; wr is the work rate in ha h
1
; w is the working width in m; Zf is the field efficiency; Cha is
the fuel consumption per hectare in l ha1 and Ch is the fuel
consumption per hour in l h 1
2.3. Soils
Field tests were conducted on soil textures ranging from
sandy loam soils to clay loam soils, with moisture content,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286– 296 289

Table 1 – Tractor/disc harrow combinations used in field trials

Site Tractor Maximum Work Disc Disc Disc Number Set Maximum Working
model engine power, conditiona harrow harrow diameter, of discs angle, working depth,
kW model mass, kg mm degb width, m m

1 MF3680 134 M2 Galucho 3500 660.4 36 12.5 3.95 0.085

GLHR
1 MF3680 134 M2 Galucho 3500 660.4 36 17.0 3.95 0.105
GLHR
2 MF3095 81 M1,M2 Galucho 1870 660.4 24 26.5 2.93 0.180
GLHR
2 MF3095 81 M1,M2 Galucho 1870 660.4 24 15.5 2.93 0.180
GLHR
2 MF3060 59 M1 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.07 0.180
HPR
2 MF3060 59 M1 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 18.5 2.10 0.180
HPR
3 MF3095 81 M1, M2 Premetal 2700 660.4 26 22.0 3.01 0.180
PLHR
3 MF3095 81 M1, M2 Premetal 2700 660.4 26 16.5 3.13 0.150
PLHR
3 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.06 0.180
HPR
3 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 18.5 2.13 0.166
HPR
4 MF3650 110 M1, M2 Galucho 2000 711.2 24 22.0 2.89 0.180
GSM
4 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.08 0.190
HPR
5 MF8130 114 M1 Premetal 2700 660.4 26 21.5 3.19 0.180
PLHR
5 MF8130 114 M1, M2 Premetal 2700 660.4 26 13.5 3.31 0.180
PLHR
5 MF3060 59 M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.17 0.165
HPR
5 MF3060 59 M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 18.5 2.10 0.165
HPR
6 MF3095 81 M1, M2 Galucho 1460 660.4 24 27.0 2.43 0.145
A2CP
6 MF3095 81 M1, M2 Halcon 1650 609.6 28 21.5 3.30 0.132
6 MF3095 81 M1, M2 Halcon 1650 609.6 28 18.5 3.36 0.156
6 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.07 0.182
HPR
6 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 18.5 2.11 0.158
HPR
7 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Galucho 1460 660.4 24 27.0 2.52 0.170
A2CP
7 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Galucho 1460 660.4 24 19.0 2.60 0.130
A2CP
7 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Galucho 1180 609.6 22 27.0 2.20 0.140
A2CP
7 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.08 0.190
HPR
8 MF3060 59 M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.18 0.170
HPR
9 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.09 0.220
HPR
9 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Fialho 1300 609.6 20 25.5 2.20 0.220
RTM
10 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.34 0.160
HPR
11 MF3060 59 M1, M2 Herculano 1300 609.6 20 23.0 2.14 0.165
HPR

a
M1—engine at the rated speed and selecting the highest gear; M2—engine at 80% of the rated speed and selecting the highest gear.
b
Set angle of each gang.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
290 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286 – 296

Consumption
per hour
Forward
speed
En gine Transmission
(Engine (Gear)
speed)
Implement
(Width;
Tractor Tyr e (Drawbar pull) depth)
(Slip)

Soil
(Type, density; moisture)

Fig. 1 – Performance parameters measured in field tests.

Table 2 – Soil physical parameters obtained at the test location in the 200 mm top layers

Site Soil Sand, Silt, % Clay, % Classificationa Moisture content (d.b.), % Bulk density,
condition % kg m3

1 Grazed 48 23 29 Clay loam 4.0 1.648

2 Crop stubble 68 13 19 Loam 11.5 1.326
3 Grazed 73 9 18 Sandy loam 15.0 1.592
4 Crop stubble 49 23 28 Clay loam 12.0 1.394
5 Crop stubble 73 10 17 Sandy loam 19.0 1.286
6 Grazed 69 13 18 Loam 8.0 1.528
7 Grazed 65 10 25 Clay loam 8.0 1.560
8 Grazed 75 9 16 Sandy loam 14.0 1.498
9 Grazed 64 20 16 Loam 15.0 1.543
10 Grazed 61 15 24 Clay loam 17.0 1.492
11 Grazed 39 24 37 Clay loam 17.0 1.476

a
International Soil Science Society.

dry basis, of 4–19%. Undisturbed soil, grazed and crop stubble
were the soil conditions used in the field tests. Soil details are
presented in Table 2.
Test sites were chosen according to the utilisation of the
disc harrow in primary cultivation systems.
The average depth of the mobilised soil layer was obtained
from at least eight values, obtained along the run, being each
value, in turn, the average result from three measurements
taken across the width of each run. Average working width
was obtained from at least six direct measurements across
each harrowed path.
2.4. Test procedure
The experimental layout included different field tests and
power take-off dynamometer tests.
The field tests were conducted on private farms, in real
conditions of work with 80–100 m-long runs with two
replications, either using the farmer’s own equipment and
operator or using similar equipment supplied by the uni-
versity. The results obtained in the tests are the average of the
two replications, which correspond to 80–100 sensor readings.
Prior to each test, various settings were tested concerning the
angle between disc gangs, which guaranteed the soil resis-
tance alignment with the working direction, avoiding side
pull, and the combinations of engine regime/gear selection
that would allow the establishment of the following two work
conditions:
 settings aiming to maximise the work rate (M1 in Table 1):
engine at the rated speed; and selecting the highest gear in
the transmission at which the work could be performed
with the required quality (tilth, buried stubble), within
accepted comfort and safety for the operator, and without
engine overcharge (no decrease in engine speed of more
10% of the rated speed);
 settings aiming to compromise between fuel consumption
and working rate (M2 in Table 1): engine at 80% of the rated
speed; and selecting the highest gear in the transmission
at which the work could be performed with the required
quality (tilth, buried stubble), within accepted comfort and
safety for the operator, and without engine overcharge (no
decrease in engine speed of more 10% of the rated
speed).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286– 296 291

In dynamometer tests, the tractors were tested on a power-
take-off (PTO) dynamometer (Tractor Test Centre XT200)
equipped with a strain-gauge torque meter and digital read-
out for measuring PTO power and speed. The tractor engine
was loaded by the dynamometer and the engine governor was
set to obtain the desired power output and engine speed.
When engine temperature stabilised (after 15–20 min of the
operation before each test) the test was begun. Engine speed
and torque were held constant during each test by adjusting
engine governor control lever position and PTO load. Data
recorded included PTO power and speed as well as fuel
consumption per hour measured from the TPM’s sensor.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Field tests
T ¼ 0:000002 m2 þ 0:016 m. (8)
where T is the draught in kN and m is the disc harrow mass
in kg.
The construction of a model for the configuration of the
tractor-harrow combination, based on the measurement of
the draught required under actual operational conditions,
provides the manufacturers with a reliable indication of the
recommended power required for each model of harrow
produced, and providing farmers with the information
required for selecting suitable tractor–implement combina-
tions for their farms. The configuration of the tractor-harrow
combination has a great impact on productivity and field
efficiency.
Under these conditions, a ratio of recommended tractor
power to implement width of 25–33 kW m1 is suggested, on
the basis of the following assumptions (Fig. 3):

The results obtained are the average of the two replications.

They show a satisfactory approximation (R2 ¼ 0.68) to the
ASAE simplest model (ASAE, 1995), Eq. (7), for forecasting the
draught on the basis of the disc harrow mass, under normal
dry-field-crop conditions on soils with an average texture
(Fig. 2). In Fig. 2 it should be noted that a quadratic equation,
Eq. (8), provided a better draught estimation on the basis of
the disc harrow mass (R2 ¼ 0.80).
T ¼ 0:0117 m,
30
20
Draught, kN
(a) The relation between disc harrow mass and the imple-
ment width presented in Table 1, for disc harrows with
60–100 kg per disc and with discs with a diameter between
609.6 and 711.2 mm, allows the establishment of the
following equation (R2 ¼ 0.80).
m ¼ 965:71 þ 1041:9 w, (9)
where m is the disc harrow mass in kg and w is the
(7) implement width in m
(b) Eq. (8), draught estimation considering the harrow disc
mass;
(c) 6–8 km h1 is the typical working speed considering
harrows discs in a primary mobilisation (Serrano, 2002);
(d) Total traction efficiency (product of the transmission
mechanical efficiency by the tractive efficiency) between
0.65 and 0.70 agrees with the standards of ASABE (ASABE,

2006b);
(e) the following equation defines engine power as a function
of drawbar power;
10
P
Ne ¼ , (10)
Zm Zt
where Ne is the engine power in kW, P is the drawbar
0 power in kW, Zm is the transmission efficiency and Zt is the
0 1000 2000 3000 tractive efficiency;
Implement mass, kg (f) the engine power degree of use is 0.80. This guarantees
Fig. 2 – Comparison of disc harrow draught data relevant to a certain range of power for slope zones or areas
medium-textured soils with the ASAE (1995) predictions: (J) with compacted soil. Eq. (11) defines the recommended
measured data; - - - - Eq. (7); —— Eq. (8).

Eqn (9) Eqn (8) Eqn (4) Eqn (10) Eqn (11)

Implement Implement Draught Drawbar Engine Recommended

width mass power power engine power

2−4 m 1000−3500 kg 6−8 km h−1

Fig. 3 – Recommended engine power diagram according to implement width.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
292 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286 – 296

engine power 3.2. Power take-off dynamometer tests

Ne
Ne rec ¼ , (11) Tractors were also subjected to tests using a dynamometer
0:80
brake connected to the power source (PTO). The results in
where Nerec is the recommended engine power in kW and
terms of engine speed, torque and hourly rate of fuel
Ne is the engine power in kW
consumption, were processed by means of triangulation and
linear interpolation of data and engine performance curves
were developed. It was shown that specific fuel consumption,
Fig. 4 presents the results of the field tests performed in
the conversion efficiency of the fuel chemical energy into
typical dry conditions on medium-textured soils with the
mechanical energy as power at the PTO, is a predictable
model more recently presented by standards of the ASABE
parameter and has a relatively low variability under certain
(ASABE, 2006b), Eq. (12), that reports disc harrow draught as a
operational conditions. Those conditions are for a single
function of speed, working width, working depth and soil
regime of engine operation, between intervals of power use
conditions. The comparison of draught data measured to
above 60% (Table 3, Fig. 5), as is usual with traction operations.
medium-textured soils with this ASABE predictions also
It is therefore possible to forecast the value of this variable for
verify a good approach. The best fit (R2 ¼ 0.79) is obtained by
two typical regimes of use associated with soil-working
a non-linear equation, Eq. (13).
operations:
T ¼ 0:88ð364 þ 18:8va Þwd, (12)

where T is the draught in N; va is the speed in km h1; w is the  a regime of around 80% of the nominal regime, used for
working width in m; and d is the working depth in cm. operations that does not require full tractor power and
where the aim is to optimise fuel consumption without
Test ¼ 0:019 T2meas þ 1:3481 Tmeas , (13) adversely affecting work rate, where a minimum and
relatively stable specific fuel consumption is obtained
where Test is the draught predicted by Eq. (12) in kN; and Tmeas (which, for the range of tests carried out, was
is the draught measured in kN. 270710 g kW1 h1);
 a nominal regime, used in operations that are demanding
in terms of power or where the aim is to optimise work
rate, with a lower degree of efficiency in terms of specific
30 fuel consumption (which, for the range of tests carried out,
was about 300715 g kW1 h1).
Draught estimated Test, kN

25

20 Two regression equations between the specific fuel

consumption and the PTO power for six Massey-
15
Ferguson tractors, 3060, 3065, 3085 and 3095 models were
obtained: Eq. (14) to 80% of the nominal engine speed and
10
Eq. (15) to nominal engine speed. These equations pre-
sented, respectively, a determination coefficient of 0.97 and
5
0.98.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Cs ¼ 266:4 þ 884:5 eðy=12:4Þ , (14)
Draught measured Tmeas, kN

Fig. 4 – Comparison of disc harrow draught data measured Cs ¼ 289:8 þ 1166:3 eðy=15:97Þ , (15)
to medium-textured soils, Tmeas with the ASABE (2006b)
where: Ch is the fuel consumption per hour in l h1 and y is
predictions, Test : (J) measured data; - - - - Eq. (12); ——
the PTO power utilisation, % of maximum power.
Eq. (13).

Table 3 – Specific fuel consumption of Massey–Ferguson tractors (3060, 3065, 3085 and 3095 models) (Serrano, 2002)

Engine speed relative to PTO power relative to Average specific fuel Standard deviation of specific fuel
rated engine speed, % nominal PTO power, % consumption, g kW1 h1 consumption, g kW1 h1

80 60 270 10
90 266 9

100 60 316 21
90 294 11
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286– 296 293

600
575
550

Specific fuel consumption, g kW−1 h−1

525
500
475
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PTO power, % maximum power

Fig. 5 – Specific fuel consumption of Massey–Ferguson tractors (3060, 3065, 3085 and 3095 models): (J) 80% of the nominal
engine speed, 1750–1800 min1; (W) nominal engine speed, 2200–2250 min1.

3.3. Fuel consumption per hectare: indicator of the overall
energy efficiency
The overall energy efficiency is the ratio of the specific energy
transferred from the tractor for operating the implement to
the energy equivalent of the fuel consumption required to
perform the operation (Smith, 1993).
The efficiency of the energy transformation of the fuel
supplied to the tractor engine under operational conditions
involving the use of the harrow can be related to the pertinent
variables, namely tractor engine, power transmission, inter-
action of tyres with soil and interaction of the moving parts
of the harrow with the soil, by Eq. (16). Each of these
performance factors is dependent on the efficiency of the
operator. The interaction of tyres with the soil implies the
definitive influence of the soil as a major factor on the overall
energy efficiency. This is the reason as to why different
authors (Bowers, 1985; Riethmuller, 1989; Smith, 1993) were
cautious concerning the domain of application of their results
Cs I
Cha ¼ ,
360Zm Zt
where Cha is the fuel consumption per hectare in kg ha1; Cs is
the specific fuel consumption in g kW1 h1; Zm is the
efficiency of tractor transmission; Zt is the tractive efficiency
and I is the specific draught in kN m1.
In Eq. (16), the ratio (Zm Zt/Cs) represents the overall
efficiency of the conversion of fuel into useful work (Serrano
et al., 2003).
The measurement of the following parameters: draught,
tractor forward speed and hourly rate of fuel consumption, in
field tests involving the use of tractors and disk harrows
under different operational conditions combined with the
measurement of specific fuel consumption in tests carried
out at the power source for a range of operational conditions
enabled the calculation of overall energy efficiency. The mean
value of 0.7070.05 for the total tractive efficiency (ZmZt) was
obtained considering 100 observations in undisturbed soils
(Serrano, 2002). These values confirmed the ASABE stan-
dards (ASABE, 2006b) of 0.76 for the tractive efficiency (Zt)
and assume a range of 0.85–0.90 for the transmission
efficiency (Zm).
Assuming that the ratio (ZmZt /Cs) is maintained somewhat
constant and is predictable, the tractor fuel consumption per
hectare can be determined by its disc harrow draught
requirement. Two regression equations between these vari-
ables were obtained: Eq. (17) to 80% of the nominal engine
speed and Eq. (18) to nominal engine speed. These equations
presented coefficients of determination of 0.87 and 0.90
respectively.
Cha ¼ 1:2097I  0:2474, (17)
Cha ¼ 1:4350I  0:5939, (18)
1
(16) where Cha is the fuel consumption per hectare in l ha and I
is the specific draught in kN m1.
The general relationship between fuel consumption per
hectare and the effort required by the harrow depends on the
overall energy efficiency of the transformation of the energy
supplied to the engine during harrow operations. Maximum
overall energy efficiency corresponding to minimum con-
sumption per hectare can be used as a guide in the
assessment of the configuration of the tractor-harrow combi-
nation. Maximum overall energy efficiency will occur when
firstly the minimum specific fuel consumption of the engine,
secondly the maximum mechanical output of transmission
from the engine to the wheels and thirdly the maximum
traction output of the tyres interacting with the soil are all
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
294 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286 – 296

Table 4 – Minimum specific fuel consumption of tractors in DLG tests at 60% of the maximum power PTO and 60% of the
nominal engine speed (Serrano, 2002)

Tractor model, maximum PTO power Specific fuel consumption, g kW1 h1 Profi International reference

John Deere 6910, 99 kW 223 12/98 (No. 12, December 1998, p. 15)
New Holland TN75S, 53 kW 236 1/00 (No. 1, January 2000, p. 15)
Massey Ferguson 6290, 99 kW 225 4/00 (No. 4, April 2000, p. 17)
Lamborghini Champion 150, 110 kW 228 5/00 (No. 5, May 2000, p. 15)
John Deere 5500, 59 kW 234 6/00 (No. 6, June 2000, p. 14)
Valtra-Valmet 8350 HiTech, 99 kW 236 8/00 (No. 8, August 2000, p. 15)
Deutz-Fahr Agrotron 120 MK3, 88 kW 246 11/00 (No. 11, November 2000, p. 15)
Fendt Favorit 712 Vario, 92 kW 223 12/00 (No. 12, December 2000, p. 15)
New Holland TM150, 104 kW 235 3/01 (No. 3, March 2001, p. 15)
Deutz-Fahr Agroton 110 MkIII, 79.7 kW 252 5/02 (No. 5, May 2002, p. 15)
Landini Mythos DT100, 66.7 kW 235 6/02 (No. 6, June 2002, p. 15)
Case IH CS150, 98.4 kW 242 7/02 (No. 7, July 2002, p. 14)
Case IH CVX150, 106.9 kW 242 7/02 (No. 7, July 2002, p. 15)
Renault Ares 715 RZ, 102.9 kW 232 8/02 (No. 8, August 2002, p. 15)
Fendt Farmer 309 C, 73.1 kW 246 10/02 (No. 10, October 2002, p. 17)
McCormick MTX 125, 82.6 kW 240 12/02 (No. 12, December 2002, p. 16)

10
Fuel consumption per hectare, l ha−1

achieved simultaneously. With regard to the first, the mini-

mum specific fuel consumption was 23679 g kW h1 (Table 4).
With regard to total traction efficiency for four-wheel drive
tractors on undisturbed soil, ASABE (2006b) indicate a
maximum value of 0.76 for the tractive efficiency (Zt) and
assume a range of 0.85–0.90 for the transmission efficiency
(Zm) as mentioned above. The expected maximum overall
energy efficiency for soil-working operations under these
optimised conditions provides the consumption per hectare
reference value (the reference line in Fig. 6). Any operating
tractor-harrow combination will produce higher fuel con-
sumptions per hectare the further it is away from the
reference value. The less the tractor-harrow combination is
suitable, and the more it is out of correct adjustment.
Following adjustment of the tractor and the harrow, it was
possible to obtain reference equations that relate fuel
consumption per hectare to the specific draught. These
enabled a comparison of different soil-working systems,
with a range of different traction requirements, correspond-
ing to a range of energy costs, translated in terms of fuel
consumption per hectare. It was expected that soil-working
systems for the sowing of crops based on soil-working
operations that require traction force should be associated
with high levels of fuel consumption per unit of area worked
as compared with superficial soil-working operations or soil-
working operations carried out for the purposes of soil
conservation.
Fig. 6 shows the relationship between fuel consumption per
hectare and the specific draught based on the results of field
tests carried out, with the reference line corresponding to
maximum overall output. It should be remembered that the
particular soil conditions from which the relation resulted are
dry, undisturbed loamy soils presented in Table 2, as
commonly found in primary cultivations with trailed disc
harrows in Southern Portugal. Heavier clay soils, particularly
in wetter conditions, may not fit into the present results,
since the expected higher slip in the interaction of tyres with
9
8
7
6
5
4
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Specific draught, kN m−1
Fig. 6 – Relationship between fuel consumption per hectare
and specific draught in undisturbed medium-textured soils:
(J) measured data 80% of the nominal regime; (W)
measured data nominal regime; —— reference line;- - -
Bowers (1985); Riethmuller (1989).
soil will affect negatively and to a greater extent the overall
energy efficiency.
Results also confirm the models presented by Bowers (1985)
and Riethmuller (1989), who reported that fuel consumption
per hectare as a linear function of specific draught.
Furthermore, the results (Figs. 5 and 6) still confirm the
advantage of setting engine speed towards the maximum
torque regime, approaching a more favourable range of
engine thermal efficiency, and therefore improving the overall
fuel efficiency of the tractor. As would be expected, the test
situation with an operational engine regime 80% of the
nominal regime presents results that are nearer maximum
overall output, the reference line, than the nominal regime
test situation.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286– 296 295

Disc harrow model

Implement mass Working width

(m in kg) (w in m)

T = −0.000002m2 + 0.016 m (R2 = 0.80)

Draught Specific draught

(T in kN) ( ℑ in kN m−1)

P = Tva / 3.6 80% of the nominal engine speed

Cha = 1.2097 ℑ −0.2474 (R2 = 0.87)

Ne = P/(m t )
Nominal engine speed
Nerec = Ne /0.80
Cha = 1.4350 ℑ −0.5939 (R2 = 0.90)

Recommended Fuel consumption

tractor engine power per hectare
(Nerec in kW) (Cha in l ha−1)

Fig. 7 – Scheme for calculating the recommended engine power and fuel consumption per hectare in tractor-disc harrows
systems, valid for undisturbed loamy soils.

Fig. 7 summarises, step by step, a qualitative outline,
including the equations proposed and the expectable accu-
racy levels, for predicting the recommended engine power
and fuel consumption per hectare in tractor—disc-harrows
systems, valid to undisturbed loamy soils. More field tests are
recommended in several soil conditions to extend the ASABE
model of draught prediction to forecast fuel consumption.
4. Conclusions
If we consider the objectives of this study, validate the
mathematical model presented by ASABE to estimate
the draught of disc harrows in medium-textured soils and
the relation between fuel consumption per hectare and the
specific draught, the results allow us to define a quadratic
equation that corresponds to an adaptation of the linear
model of ASABE to estimate the draught of the disc harrows
to undisturbed loamy soils, as a function of implement mass
and soil type. Under these conditions, a ratio of tractor power
to implement width of 25–33 kW m1 is suggested. This
provides the manufacturers with a reliable indication of the
recommended power required for each model of harrow
produced, thus providing farmers with the information
required for taking decisions concerning the selection of a
suitable tractor–implement combination for their farms. The
data demonstrate that fuel consumption in tillage operations
can be minimised by selecting an engine speed approxi-
mately 70–80% of the nominal speed, and using a higher gear.
The degree to which this can be done depends upon
implement draft requirements and adequate pull from the
tractor. The results also show the existence of a linear
relationship between the fuel consumption per hectare and
the specific draught, for the range of 4–9 kN m1, valid for dry,
undisturbed loamy soils. This relation, representing various
tractors and disc harrows models, various combinations of
gear and engine speed, various tractor ballasts and tyre
pressures, suggests that a measurement of draught could be
used to estimate fuel consumption, to demonstrate correct
tractor–implement set-up and to select the crop production
system.
Although a step by step calculation scheme for predicting the
recommended engine power and fuel consumption per hectare
for tractor-disc harrows systems that is valid for undisturbed
loamy soils has been developed, more field tests are recom-
mended in several soil conditions to extend the ASABE model
of draught prediction to forecast fuel consumption.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the funding provided by the
programme supporting the modernising of Portuguese agri-
culture and forestry-PAMAF-8.140.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
296 BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING 98 (2007) 286 – 296

R E F E R E N C E S Pec-a J O; Serrano J M; Pinheiro A; Carvalho M; Nunes M; Ribeiro L;

Santos F (1998). Tractor performance monitors optimizing
tractor and implement dynamics in tillage operations—
one year of field tests. EurAgEng Paper No. 98-A-131,
Al-Suhaibani A S; Al-Janobi A (1997). Draught requirements of
International Conference on Agricultural Engineering—
tillage implements operating on sandy loam soil. Journal of
AgEng98, Oslo
Agricultural Engineering Research, 66, 177–182
Riethmuller G P (1989). Draft requirements of tillage equipment in
ASAE (1995). Agricultural machinery management data. Amer-
the Western Australian wheatbelt. Agricultural Engineering
ican Society of Agricultural Engineers Standard ASAE D497.2,
Australia, 18(1 and 2), 17–22
pp 335–341, January 1995. ASAE, St Joseph, MI, USA.
Serrano J M P R (2002). Optimizac-ão do sistema dinâmico tractor-
ASABE (2006a). Agricultural machinery management data. Amer-
alfaia em mobilizac-ão do solo. [Optimizing tractor and
ican Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Standard
implement dynamics in tillage operations], 219p. Unpublished
ASAE EP496.3, pp 385–390, February 2006. ASABE, St Joseph,
PhD Thesis, University of Évora, Portugal.
MI, USA.
Serrano J M; Pec-a J O; Pinheiro A; Carvalho M; Nunes M; Ribeiro L;
ASABE (2006b). Agricultural machinery management data. Amer-
Santos L (2003). The effect of gang angle of offset disc harrows
ican Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Standard
on soil tilth, work rate and fuel consumption. Biosystems
ASAE D497.5, pp 391–398, February 2006. ASABE, St Joseph, MI,
Engineering, 84(2), 171–176
USA.
Smith L A (1993). Energy requirements for selected crop
Bowers C G J (1985). Southeastern tillage energy data and
production implements. Soil & Tillage Research, 25,
recommended reporting. Transations of the ASAE, 28(3),
281–299
731–737
Sommer M S; Chen S H; Bierl J F (1983). Disk blade performance.
Grisso R D; Yasin M; Kocher M F (1994). Tillage implement forces
ASAE Paper No. 83-1537. ASAE, St Joseph, MI.
operating in silty clay loam. ASAE Paper No. 94-1532. ASAE, St
Upadhyaya S K; Williams T H; Kemble L J; Collins N E (1984).
Joseph, MI.
Energy requirements for chiselling in coastal plain soils.
Harrigan T M; Rotz C A (1994). Draft of major tillage and seeding
Transations of the ASAE, 27(6), 1643–1649
equipment. ASAE Paper No. 94-1533. ASAE, St Joseph, MI.