agronomy
Article
Investigating the Effect of the Tractor Drive System Type on
Soil Behavior under Tractor Tires
Abdolmajid Moinfar 1, *, Gholamhossein Shahgholi 1, *, Yousef Abbaspour-Gilandeh 1 ,
Israel Herrera-Miranda 2 , José Luis Hernández-Hernández 3, * and Miguel Apolonio Herrera-Miranda 4






Citation: Moinfar, A.; Shahgholi, G.;
Abbaspour-Gilandeh, Y.;
Herrera-Miranda, I.;
Hernández-Hernández, J.L.;
Herrera-Miranda, M.A. Investigating
the Effect of the Tractor Drive System
Type on Soil Behavior under Tractor
Tires. Agronomy 2021, 11, 696.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy11040696
Received: 9 March 2021
Accepted: 1 April 2021
Published: 6 April 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040696
1 Department of Biosystem Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of
Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 56199-11367, Iran; abbaspour@uma.ac.ir
2 Government and Public Management Faculty, Autonomous University of Guerrero,
Chilpancingo, Guerrero 39087, Mexico; israelhm@uagrovirtual.mx
3 National Technological of México/Campus Chilpancingo, Chilpancingo, Guerrero 39070, Mexico
4 Faculty of Mathematics, Autonomous University of Guerrero, Acapulco 39650, Mexico; 07088@uagro.mx
* Correspondence: majid.mf93@gmail.com (A.M.); shahgholi@uma.ac.ir (G.S.);
joseluis.hernandez@itchilpancingo.edu.mx (J.L.H.-H.)
Abstract: To determine the effect of the tractor driving system type on the soil compaction and soil
behavior a series of tests was conducted using Goldoni 240 tractor with a power rate of 30.8 kW
and included four similar tires at three different driving systems (4WD, rear-wheel drive (RWD)
and front-wheel drive (FWD)). To evaluate these systems’ effects on soil compaction, tests were
conducted at three soil moisture contents (10, 15 and 20% d.b.), three tire inflation pressures (170, 200
and 230 kPa), and three tractor speeds (1.26, 3.96 and 6.78 km/h). Soil bulk density was measured at
three average depths of 20, 30 and 40 cm. To evaluate soil compaction, cylindrical cores were used
and to assess soil behavior during this process, the soil displacement in a three coordinate system
was measured using three displacement transducers. It was found that the 4WD system created the
least bulk density of 1155 kg/m3 , while the FWD system led to the highest density of 1241 kg/m3 .
Maximum vertical soil compression of 55 mm occurred for the FWD system and it declined to 43
and 36 mm in RWD and 4WD systems, respectively. Soil displacement in the horizontal and lateral
directions was larger for the FWD system in comparison to the other systems. With increment of
speed and depth soil compaction decreased. Minimum bulk density of 1109 kg/m3 was occurred at
velocity of 6.78 Km/h using the 4WD system, also with this system at the depth 40 cm density was
1127 kg/m3 . While at velocity of 1.26 Km/h and depth of 20 cm soil density was 1190 kg/m3 .
Keywords: soil compaction; soil displacement; tractor driving system
1. Introduction
Agricultural management practices on a large scale require using of heavy machines
for planting and harvesting. These are often associated with the destruction of soil struc-
ture and increasing soil density. Increasing heavy machine use causes a high stress on
soil up to deeper depths and therefore, great subsoil compaction has been reported in
comparison to the past [1–3]. In order to enhance productivity in the agricultural sector,
farms should be large enough, which their productivity can be enhanced by using more
efficient machines [4]. For many years, the trend in agriculture has been towards increasing
the tractor size and weight, which increases the risk of soil compaction [5]. To eliminate
created hard layers of soil that limit the root growth and proper drainage of the soil [6,7],
deep plowing is often necessary and plowing with such intensity increases required energy
and imposes heavy costs on farmers [8].
Soil compaction is a form of physical degradation of soil that causes compacting and
approaching solid particles of soil near each other or reducing porosity and reducing soil
permeability, which appear as an increase of dry soil bulk density [9]. Soil compaction
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 2 of 21

can significantly reduce soil productivity [10], based on information from seven countries
in Europe and North America, a 14% yield reduction in the first year after the passing
of machines has been reported [11]. Disadvantages of soil compaction such as reduced
water infiltration rate and reduced air permeability in soil affect soil chemical properties.
Soil compaction reduces oxygen release and can lead to suffocation in compacted soils if
oxygen consumption is faster than release. At the same time, due to the reduction of the
water infiltration rate, soil compaction can lead to flooding. Flooding of surface soil in
turn leads to a decrease in oxygen. As a result of this phenomenon, there is no necessary
potential for the formation of various metal ions that can be absorbed by plant organs, and
consequently the plant will suffer from micronutrient deficiencies [12]. Soil compaction
leads to limited root growth, reduced access to nutrients, and increased loss of soil nutrients
by leaching, runoff, and loss of gases in the atmosphere, which can affect plant growth. Soil
density increment affects the ability of roots to penetrate due to increased soil resistance
and decreased number of macropores [13]. One of the most important effects of soil density
on plant growth is the lack of germination and emergence of plant seedlings to the soil
surface. Due to the fact that young seedlings have little energy, dense soil consumes
their energy and prevents the emergence of seedlings. In general, soil compaction greatly
reduces crop yields [14].
Increasing load on the agricultural machinery wheels is the main cause of soil com-
paction in the deeper layers of the soil. Topsoil of arable land is loosened by plowing every
year, however, the soil layer beneath the plow layer often remains intact. This means that
every time the maximum load carrying capacity on tires, soil moisture exceeded the normal
limit, additional soil compaction will occur at deeper depths of soil. Moreover, these effects
are long lasting, and the results of natural and artificial soil compaction are destructive [15].
In the first step, all effort it should be conducted to prevent from soil compaction occurring,
and one of the most effective solution is reducing the load on the wheel. Soil compaction
can be avoided by adjusting tire size, tire inflation pressure and contact pressure of the
loaded wheel [16].
Contact area between the drive tires and soil and their basic dimensions such as
width and length affect traction properties of machines and changes in soil physical
parameters [17]. In addition, the compaction considerably is influenced by tire operating
parameters, wheel slip, forward speed and number of passes [18]. In order to study the
effects of soil moisture on soil compaction, tests were carried out in Sweden in the moisture
content range between 11 and 35% (d.b.) with load of 2, 3, 5 and 7 Mg on tires. The results
showed that compaction occurs much less in dry soil but with rising soil moisture (less
than the critical limit) and increasing load, soil compaction increased significantly [19]. Soil
stress was measured under vehicle traffic by placing a pressure transducer in the soil and
soil stress data have been used to calculate soil pressure including octahedral stresses and
principal stresses. However, the relationship between soil stress and strain has not been
well-defined [20]. In another study, a computational tool for simulation of compaction
induced by agricultural field traffic based on soil physical and soil mechanics principles was
presented. It includes the calculation of contact stress, stress propagation in the soil profile,
simulation of bulk density variation in response to the applied stress and assessment of the
risk of compaction through readily available soil properties and machinery parameters.
The model was computationally implemented as a set of R functions (R software), and on
an interactive web page, named PredComp. The results of this simulation have acceptable
accuracy [21]. Hence, predicting strain by the stress data may significantly differ from the
actual soil strain. A simple stress–strain relationship based on linear elastic theory cannot
precisely predict soil compaction from stress. Therefore, measuring soil strain in different
directions of the vertical, lateral and longitudinal will be useful [22]. Erbach [20] used a
rectilinear potentiometer to measure soil vertical strain. Soil compaction was measured
using six soil-strain gages under tires of a tractor with a mass of 6000 kg, where 4200 kg
was distributed on the rear axle. Four gages were positioned vertically and spaced 150 mm
apart and with extended endplate distances of 250 mm. Their top endplate was 50, 100, 150
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 3 of 21

and 200 mm beneath the soil surface. Two gages also were placed 150 and 300 mm laterally
away from the tire centerline from the centerline of the rear tire with their top endplates
50 mm beneath the soil surface. The result of field tests showed that soil strain decreased
with the depth increment. The maximum natural strain of 17.6 and 3.2% occurred under the
rear tire when the top endplate of strain gages were 50 and 200 mm under the soil surface,
respectively. In a study [23] the effect of two tractors with different tire sizes and axle loads
on the motion resistance and soil cone index on three soil conditions: direct sowing systems,
ploughed and seedbed was investigated. They determined the relationship between the
motion resistance and pressure parameters of the ground and the tire sinkage. Their results
showed that the single differential tractor with less axle load generated more compaction
in the topsoil in comparison with two differential tractor, which included more axle load.
However, in subsoil the tractor equipped with two differentials has generated greater
compaction than the 2WD tractor [23]. In a study in Sweden, researchers compared the
compaction and slip caused by a rubber track tractor, a tractor with a single tire (two tires
on rear axle) and a dual tire tractor (4 tires on rear axle). Measured stress and compaction in
all depths for the track and dual wheel tractors were about the same but were considerably
higher for the single wheel tractor. Slip for tractors with dual and single wheels was
significantly higher than for the track tractor [5]. The effect of passing of tires and a rubber
track at high axle loads on soil compaction investigated by Asnsorage and Godwin [24].
After the passage of a track the effect of the rear tire size was insignificant, but the rear
tire size had a significant influence on soil density when following a leading tire. This
was due to a higher strength layer at the soil surface created by the track, which was able
to withstand the load of the subsequent passes and protect the soil below from further
compaction. A field experiment on an alluvial sandy loam was conducted to determine
the compaction of the subsoil layers resulting from multiple passes of a 4WD tractor
was performed with changing normal loads [25]. Normal loads on both rear tires and
the number of passes were 4.4, 4.6 and 4.8 kN and 1, 6, 11 and 16, respectively. Cone
penetration resistance and bulk density were measured each 5 cm down to a depth of
60 cm. The effect of the number of passes and normal loads decreased with increasing
depth. Practically at depths greater than 45 cm, the effect of pass and normal loads were
not significant. In a study the effects of soil moisture, depth and speed of the tractor on
soil compaction in three main directions of transducers were investigated [26]. In the
trial tests displacement transducers and cylindrical cores were used for measuring soil
displacement and compaction. The results showed that compaction increases considerably
as speed decreased and moisture increased. Soil was compressed in the vertical direction
and was stretched in the lateral direction. The results showed that the soil is compacted
with approaching the tire to the transducer in the longitudinal direction and then was
stretched as the tire was on top of the sensor and after passing tire it compressed again.
Similar results were reported by Way [27]. In a study, the effect of traffic of high-mass potato
combines and low-mass autonomous harvesters on soil compaction was investigated. The
results of this study showed that the use of high-mass combines causes the soil compaction
to exceed the critical limit. Additionally, the disadvantages of increasing the weight of
the combine on the soil were more severe in wet conditions. The study suggested that
the integration of controlled traffic farming and low-mass autonomous machinery can
be used as a viable alternative to high-mass combines for preventing soil compaction
phenomenon [28].
Efforts that were begun to eliminate soil compaction have been expanded to com-
pletely manage traffic-induced soil compaction. Controlled traffic is a compaction man-
agement concept that can provide the conditions desired for crop production systems.
Antille et al. [29] conducted a literature review to collate best practice techniques for soil
compaction management within cotton-farming systems in Australia. Universally negative
effects of traffic-induced soil compaction on the whole-farm system and the wider envi-
ronment include reduced fertilizer-use and water efficiency and increased tillage intensity.
Knowledge gaps that merit research priority, and research strategies, are suggested. These
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 4 of 21

include: identifying wider impacts on farm economics to guide decision-making and de-
velopment of decision support systems that capture the effects of compaction on fertilizer,
water and energy use efficiency and predicting risks at the field and implementing precision
management of traffic compaction to investigate the role of controlled traffic farming (CTF)
in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and loss of soil organic carbon, and enhancing
fertilizer and water-use efficiencies. Catchment-scale modeling incorporating changes in
arable land-use, such as increased area under CTF coupled with no- or minimum-tillage,
and variable rate technology is suggested. Such modeling should assess the potential of
CTF and allied technologies to reduce sediment and nutrient losses, and improve water
quality in intensively managed arable catchments. Resources must be efficiently managed
within increasingly sophisticated farming systems to enable long-term economic viability of
cotton production. Key to managing soil compaction appears to be encouraging increased
adoption of CTF.
Sidhu and Duiker [30] showed that soil compaction decreased crop yield as they
studied maize plant population, its height and yield from 2002–2005 in a no-tillage/in-
row tillage study on silt loam soil. Soil was compacted annually with a three-axle truck
with 10-Mg axle load mounted with road tires (700 kPa inflation pressure) or flotation
tires (250 kPa). Remediation treatments were deep (40 cm) in-row tillage before or after
compaction with road tires and shallow (10 cm in 2002–2003 and 22 cm in 2004–2005) in-
row tillage after compaction. Significant yield reductions of 17% in 3 years were observed
for compaction with road tires compared with control (no-tillage without compaction).
Compaction with flotation tires reduced yield significantly in the first year only. Yield
reductions due to compaction disappeared after 1 year. Deep tillage after compaction
increased yield (17%) in the first year, whereas shallow tillage did not affect yield. Deep
tillage and no-tillage showed similar yields in the first 3 years, but no-tillage had higher
yield in the next year. It was found that little need for in-row tillage to manage compaction
in long-term of no-tillage when axle loads are less than 10 Mg and flotation tires with
inflation pressure of less than 250 kPa were used. Martínez et al. [31] found Mediterranean
climate region are characterized by highly degraded and compacted soils in Chile, which
require the use of conservation tillage systems to mitigate water erosion. An oat and
wheat crop rotation was established under the following conservation systems: no tillage
(Nt), Nt + contour plowing (Nt + Cp), Nt + barrier hedge (Nt + Bh) and Nt + subsoiling
(Nt + Sb), compared to conventional tillage (Ct) to evaluate their influence on soil water
content (SWC) in the profile (10–110 cm depth), the soil compaction and their interaction
with the crop yield. Experimental were established in 2007 and lasted 3 years until 2009 in
a compacted Alfisol. Soil water content had a significant (p < 0.05) interaction with tillage
system and depth; Nt + Sb showed lower SWC between 10 and 30 cm, but higher and
similar to the rest between 50 and 110 cm except for Ct. No tillage + subsoiling reduced
soil compaction and had a significant increment of grain yield. These findings show us that
the choice of conservation tillage in compacted soils of the Mediterranean region needs to
improve soil structure to obtain higher yields.
The objective of these tests was to evaluate the effect of different drive systems of
tractors (four-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive and front-wheel drive) on soil compaction at
different depths. Additionally, the effects of soil condition and machine operating factors
on soil deformation in three orientations of the transducers of longitudinal, transverse and
vertical orient were investigated.

2. Materials and Methods

Experiments were carried out in a loamy soil with sand, silt, clay and organic matter
content of 46%, 29%, 25% and 0.29% respectively. The soil structure was granular. A four
wheel drive (4WD) Goldoni model 240 tractor equipped with single front and rear tires was
used for conducting tests (Figure 1), and technical characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Agronomy 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 2

Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 5 of 21

was used for conducting tests (Figure 1), and technical characteristics are presented i
Table 1.

Figure1.1.AA
Figure four
four wheel
wheel drive
drive (4WD)
(4WD) Goldoni
Goldoni modelmodel 240 tractor.
240 tractor.

Table Tractor
Table1. 1. characteristics.
Tractor characteristics.
Specifications Specifications Unit ValueUnit Value
Engine power Engine power kW 30.8 kW 30.8
Dynamic weight on each front tire kg 554
Dynamic weight Dynamic weight
on each rear tire on each front tire
kg 511 kg 554
Dynamic weight on each rear tire
Wheelbase m 1.055 kg 511
Center-to-center lateral spacing of Wheelbase
front tires m 0.75 m 1.055
Center-to-center lateral spacing of rear tires m 0.75
Center-to-center lateral spacing of front tires m 0.75
Center-to-center lateral spacing of rear tires m 0.75
In four-wheel drive tractors, unlike two-wheel drive tractors, to achieve the best
pulling performance and to reach the maximum tire’s draft capacity the tractor’s weight
shouldInbefour-wheel drive tractors,
distributed equally unlike
on both axles. Thetwo-wheel
static weightdrive
on thetractors,
front andto achieve
rear axle of the bes
pulling
the tractorperformance and3.53
was 6.92 kN and to reach the maximum
kN, respectively. tire’sduring
However, draftpulling
capacity the tractor’s
operations, the weigh
dynamic weight on the tires was the important factor. The dynamic weight on the axle is rear axl
should be distributed equally on both axles. The static weight on the front and
of the
the totaltractor was
of static 6.92 on
weight kNthe
and 3.53
axle kN,
and therespectively. However,
transferred weight due toduring pulling operations
the application of
the
thedraft force computed
dynamic weight onbythe
Equations (1) and
tires was the(2) [32].
important factor. The dynamic weight on th
axle is the total of static weight on the axle andH the transferred weight due to the appl
cation of the draft force computed =W
Wdr by sr + P ( )(1) and (2) [32].
Equations (1)
X
H 𝑃(𝐻 )
Wd f = 𝑊 = P𝑊
Ws f − ( +) 𝑋 (2) (1
X
where: 𝐻
𝑊 = 𝑊 − 𝑃( ) (2
Wsr = the static load on rear tires, N; 𝑋
H = the drawbar height, m;
where:
X = the wheel base, m;
W df = 𝑊 = the static
the dynamic loadload on tires,
on rear rear tires,
N; N;
𝐻 = the drawbar height, m;
Ws f = the static load on front tires, N;
W dr = 𝑋
the=dynamic
the wheel base,
load m; tires, N;
on front
W =
P = draft, N.
df the dynamic load on rear tires, N;
𝑊 = thetostatic
According load on front
the transferred tires,during
weight N; tests, the calculated dynamic weight
w = the dynamic load on front tires,
percentage on the front and rear axle of the tractor
ds N; was 48 and 52 percent, respectively
(TableP1).= draft, N.
It was equipped with 7.5R-16 Goodyear agricultural tires, which were almost new.
According to the transferred weight during tests, the calculated dynamic weigh
The front and rear differential of tractor were disabled in turn for related experiments, so
percentage on the front and rear axle of the tractor was 48 and 52 percent, respectively
that the tractor could operate as front- or rear-wheel drive. A fuel tanker was hitched to
(Table 1).
drawbar of the tractor to create a pull of 8 kN. The tanker equipped with two driven tires
withoutIt was
powerequipped
and pulledwith 7.5R-16
by the Goodyear
tractor. It was notagricultural tires,
equipped with whichbrakes
separate were and
almost new
The front and rear differential of tractor were disabled in turn for related experiments, s
that the tractor could operate as front- or rear-wheel drive. A fuel tanker was hitched t
drawbar of the tractor to create a pull of 8 kN. The tanker equipped with two driven tire
Agronomy 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 2

without power and pulled by the tractor. It was not equipped with separate brakes an
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 6 of 21
stopped together with the tractor. To prevent the effect of braking on the soil compaction
hence it braked after passing the test plot. Additionally, the tractor-tanker was drive
about 20 m ahead of test plot so that the velocity and draft on pulling toolbar stabilized
stopped
in additiontogether with the
the draft tractor.
value To prevent
checked in allthetesteffect
and ofnobraking on the
significant soil compaction,
variation was observed.
hence Theit braked after passing the test plot. Additionally,
experiments were conducted in a completely randomized design the tractor-tanker was drivenwith thre
about 20 m ahead of test plot so that the velocity and draft on pulling toolbar stabilized, in
replications. To create a homogenous environment and also to exclude the effect of cro
addition the draft value checked in all test and no significant variation was observed.
residue the field was tilled by a moldboard plow before experiments and the soil wa
The experiments were conducted in a completely randomized design with three
quite loose.ToThe
replications. treatments
create included
a homogenous differentand
environment tractor forward
also to exclude speeds
the effectofof1.26,
crop 3.96 an
6.78 km/h,
residue tirewas
the field inflation pressures
tilled by a moldboardof 170,
plow 200 and experiments
before 230 kPa, soil andmoisture content
the soil was quitevalues o
10, 15The
loose. and 20% (d.b.)
treatments and different
included three drive systems
tractor forwardof tractor
speeds (four-wheel
of 1.26, 3.96 and 6.78drive,
km/h,rear-whee
drive
tire and front-wheel
inflation pressures of 170, drive). Soil230
200 and compaction was evaluated
kPa, soil moisture in theofdepth
content values of 10, 20, 3
10, 15 and
20%
and(d.b.)
40 cm and three drive
relative to thesystems of tractorsoil
untrafficked (four-wheel
surface. drive, rear-wheeltire
To investigate drive and front-
inflation pressure
wheel
inflation pressure values of 170, 200 and 230 kPa were selected. Inflation relative
drive). Soil compaction was evaluated in the depth of 10, 20, 30 and 40 cm pressure of 20
to the untrafficked soil surface. To investigate tire inflation pressure 3 inflation pressure
kPa was the standard pressure recommended by a manufacturer manual, which is ap
values of 170, 200 and 230 kPa were selected. Inflation pressure of 200 kPa was the standard
plicable in standard tire’s dynamic load to achieve maximum tire life and optimum
pressure recommended by a manufacturer manual, which is applicable in standard tire’s
pulling draft.
dynamic load toRecommended
achieve maximum pressure
tire lifedid
andnot consider
optimum soil compaction,
pulling draft. Recommendedhence to find a
pressure did not consider soil compaction, hence to find an inflation pressure effectkPa
inflation pressure effect on the soil compaction overinflated value of 230 on and un
derinflated
the value of
soil compaction 170 kPa were
overinflated valuestudied.
of 230 kPa and underinflated value of 170 kPa
In order to compare compaction caused by different treatments, changes in bul
were studied.
In order
density wastoused
compare
as a compaction
benchmarkcaused by different treatments,
of comparisons. In order tochanges
obtaininsoil
bulk density
bulk density, so
was used as a benchmark of comparisons. In order to obtain soil
samples from different depths were taken by using standard cylinders (diameter 5 cmbulk density, soil samples
from
heightdifferent
5 cm)depths were taken
and after drying byinusing
an standard
oven soilcylinders (diameter
bulk density and5 cmsoil×moisture
height 5 cm)were deter
and after drying in an oven soil bulk density and soil moisture were determined. To eval-
mined. To evaluate the accuracy of the values obtained from the cylinder samples, thre
uate the accuracy of the values obtained from the cylinder samples, three displacement
displacement
sensors were placedsensors
in thewere placedlateral
horizontal, in theandhorizontal, lateral and
vertical direction, along vertical direction,
a sampling path along
sampling path the distance of transducers midpoint from
the distance of transducers midpoint from soil surface was 30 cm. The distance between soil surface was 30 cm. Th
distance
vertical between endplates
transducers’ vertical transducers’
was 210 mm and endplates was
lateral and 210 mm and
longitudinal oneslateral
were 170 andmm longitud
nal
in anones wereposition
extended 170 mm in an2).extended
(Figure The path of position
the tires(Figure 2). Theover
that trafficked paththeoftransducers
the tires that tra
was directly
ficked overabove the initial center
the transducers was of each transducer.
directly above the initial center of each transducer.

Figure2.2.Placement
Figure Placement of strain
of strain transducers
transducers including
including endplates
endplates inside
inside the soil the soilinprofile
profile in longitudina
longitudinal,
lateraland
lateral and vertical
vertical directions.
directions.

ToTomeasure
measure soilsoil
displacement, threethree
displacement, displacement transducers
displacement with linear
transducers withvariation
linear variatio
(model DHL-A-70), sensitivity of 3.64 mV/V and a maximum capacity of 70 mm were
(model DHL-A-70), sensitivity of 3.64 mV/V and a maximum capacity of 70 mm wer
used. Two plates were connected at the end points of the transducer to transfer soil forces
used. Two plates were connected at the end points of the transducer to transfer soil force
to the transducer to measure soil displacement accurately. Data was recorded to a laptop
to the
via transducer
a data to measure
logger. Initial soil displacement
bulk density of the loose soilaccurately. Data
was measured bywas recorded
cylindrical to a lapto
cores
via was
and a data logger.
1102 kg/m Initial
3 bulk density
. To determine of the loose
the changes in soilsoil was using
density measured by cylindrical core
the displacement
and was 1102 kg/m3. To determine the changes in soil density using the displacemen
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 7 of 21

transducers, the mass of soil located inside an imaginary cube with dimensions consistent
with the three transducers was calculated from Equation (3).

m = ρ1 V = ρ1 lx1 ly1 lz1 . (3)

where
m = soil mass, kg.
ρ1 = initial soil density, kg/m3 .
lx1 = initial length of longitudinal transducer, m.
ly1 = initial length of lateral transducer, m.
lz1 = initial length of vertical transducer, m.
A constant mass of soil between the end plates installed on the displacement gauges
was assumed, final soil density was computed from Equation (4).
m m
ρ2 = = (4)
V lx2 ly2 lz2

where:
ρ2 = final soil density, kg/m3 .
lx2 = final length of longitudinal transducer, m.
ly2 = final length of lateral transducer, m.
lz2 = final length of vertical transducer, m.
All of the tests were performed in a pit with dimensions of 3 m long, 1 m deep and
1.5 m wide. To maintain uniformity in testing and prevent errors caused by variations
in soil texture after each test, after each test, the soil was removed from the pit and was
sieved to eliminate compaction caused by previous tests and return to it’s original density
at the beginning of the test. To reach the required soil moisture by weighing water spray
at different times of mixing operation the required water was sprayed on the soil during
mixing and then was filled into the pit again. To prevent moisture evaporation, all tests
were related to a determined value of moisture were conducted consecutively at a definite
time period in a day. Additionally temperature was 17–20 ◦ C and the soil surface kept
covered with a plastic sheet to minimize soil moisture loss when we were not working
on that particular part of the soil, hence no significant evaporation was observed. Finally,
obtained data were analyzed using Minitab version 16.2 statistical software (Minitab, Inc.,
State College, PA, USA). Additionally, mean comparisons were performed based on the
Tukey method using Minitab software (post-hoc test).

3. Results
The analysis of variance results of soil compaction are presented in Table 2. The results
indicated that all of the main effects and two-way interaction effects of experimental factors
were significant at a probability level of 1%. According to the analysis of variance three-way
interaction effects of moisture × depth × speed, moisture × speed × motion system and
motion system × inflation pressure × speed were significant at 1%. Among four-way
interactions effects only the effect of moisture × depth × motion system× inflation pressure
was significant at 1%. According to the results, five-way interaction effects of factors were
not significant.
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 8 of 21

Table 2. ANOVA statistics for the effect of moisture, speed, inflation pressure, motion system and depth on soil density.

Factor DOF Sum of Squares Mean Square F p

Treatment 242 5,360,000 22,150 1148 ** 0.001
Depth 2 2,284,633 1,142,317 59,202.95 ** 0.001
Drive system 2 966,291 483,145 25,040.03 ** 0.001
Moisture 2 434,886 217,443 11,269.43 ** 0.001
Inflation pressure 2 165,116 82,558 4278.74 ** 0.001
Speed 2 1,047,324 523,662 27,139.89 ** 0.001
Depth × drive system 4 329,490 82,373 4269.13 ** 0.001
Depth × moisture 4 7445 1861 96.46 ** 0.001
Depth × tire 4 48,786 12,196 632.11 ** 0.001
Depth × speed 4 1474 368.584 19.10 ** 0.001
Drive system × moisture 4 131,69 3292 170.62 ** 0.001
Drive system × Inflation pressure 4 3183 795.638 41.24 ** 0.001
Drive system × speed 4 1220 30.893 15.80 ** 0.001
Moisture × Inflation pressure 4 8277 2069 107.25 ** 0.001
Moisture × speed 4 6530 1633 84.61 ** 0.001
Inflation pressure × speed 4 18,741 4685 242.82 ** 0.001
Depth × drive system × moisture 8 5268 658.546 34.13 ** 0.001
Depth × drive system ×Inflation pressure 8 5786 723.222 37.48 ** 0.001
Depth × drive system × speed 8 548 68.456 3.55 ** 0.001
Depth × moisture × Inflation pressure 8 2659 332.324 17.22 ** 0.001
Depth × Inflation pressure × speed 8 752 93.99 4.87 ** 0.001
Drive system × moisture × Inflation pressure 8 2267 283.41 14.69 ** 0.001
Moisture × Inflation pressure × speed 8 732 91.555 4.75 ** 0.001
Depth × drive system × moisture × Inflation
16 4844 302.733 15.69 ** 0.001
pressure
Error 486 9377 19.295
Total 728 5,369,700
** means highly significant.

Due to the large number of main and interaction effects of parameters we attempted
to investigate the effect of the tractor drive system and its interaction with other parameters
based on the hypothesis of the study that they have high influence on soil compaction.

3.1. The Main Effects

According to the F value obtained from Table 2 the most effective factors on soil
compaction were depth, driving system type, soil moisture, tractor speed and tire inflation
pressure. Soil compaction is reduced with increasing depth, which has also been reported in
the work of other researchers [33]. By changing the drive system significant changes in soil
compaction occurred, the lowest and highest compaction were respectively corresponding
to 4WD and front-wheel drive (FWD) systems (Figure 3). The similar trend has been
reported by Botta [23].

3.2. The Two-Ways Effects

Among the two-way effects, the most important was interaction between drive system
and depth. Figure 4 shows that the impact of the drive system on soil compaction decreased
with increasing depth and in a depth of 40 cm all three drive systems produced densities
that are close together whereas at the depth of 20 cm, there was a noticeable difference
between the 4WD system and the other two systems. The reason for this could be stress
that wheels apply to the surface soil but the rate of transmission of the stress to the subsoil
is negligible. Maximum soil density of 1331.5 kg/m3 occurred at the depth of 20 cm for the
FWD system while it declined to 1190 kg/m3 at the same depth for the 4WD system.
 According to the F value obtained from Table 2 the most effective factors on soil
compaction were depth, driving system type, soil moisture, tractor speed and tire infla-
tion pressure. Soil compaction is reduced with increasing depth, which has also been
reported in the work of other researchers [33]. By changing the drive system significant
changes in soil compaction occurred, the lowest and highest compaction were respec-
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 9 of 21
tively corresponding to 4WD and front-wheel drive (FWD) systems (Figure 3). The sim-
ilar trend has been reported by Botta [23].

Agronomy 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1260 9 of 21

A
1240
B

Bulk density, kg/m3

1220
3.2. The Two-Ways Effects
Among
1200 the two-way effects, the most important was interaction between drive sys-
tem and depth. Figure 4 shows that the impact of the drive system on soil compaction
1180 with increasing depth and in a depth of 40 cm all three drive systems pro-
decreased
duced densities that C are close together whereas at the depth of 20 cm, there was a no-
1160
ticeable difference between the 4WD system and the other two systems. The reason for
this could
1140 be stress that wheels apply to the surface soil but the rate of transmission of the
stress to the subsoil 4WD BWD
is negligible. Maximum FWD of 1331.5 kg/m3 occurred at the
soil density
depth of 20 cm for the FWD system while it declined to 1190 kg/m3 at the same depth for
Figure 3. Changes in bulk density due to changes in the drive system (different letters shows
Figure
the 4WDChanges
3. system.in bulk density due to changes in the drive system (different letters shows sig-
significant difference between treatments).
nificant difference between treatments).

1350
4WD
rear-WD
1300 front-WD
Bulk density, kg/m3

1250 y = -8.75x + 1482.2

y = -8.525x + 1496.8
1200

1150
y = -3.15x + 1249.8

1100
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Depth, cm

1350 A
4WD rear-WD front-WD
B

1300
Bulk density, kg/m3

1250
C
D
1200 E

F
G
1150 H
I

1100
20 30 40
Depth, cm

Effectsofofthe
Figure4.4.Effects
Figure thedrive
drivesystem
systemon onsoil
soilcompaction
compactionatatthreethreedepths
depthsandanddepths
depthshere
hereare
aredepths
depths
fromthe
from theuntrafficked
untraffickedsoilsoilsurface
surfacetotothe
thecenters
centersofofthe
thesoil
soil cores
cores (different
(different letters
letters shows
shows significant
significant
difference
differencebetween
betweentreatments).
treatments).

The interaction between the drive systems and soil moisture is shown in Figure 5.
For all three drive systems soil compaction increased with increasing soil moisture.
Maximum compaction occurred at a moisture of 20% (d.b.), which was below the proc-
 Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 10 of 21
Agronomy 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21

The interaction between the drive systems and soil moisture is shown in Figure 5. For
tor density
all three moisture
drive systemscontent of 22% (d.b.)
soil compaction determined
increased by thesoil
with increasing standard proctor
moisture. test. The
Maximum
important
compaction occurred at a moisture of 20% (d.b.), which was below the proctor densitytwo
point is there is large difference between the 4WD system and the other
systems.
moisture In termsofof22%
content moisture range it canbybetheconcluded
(d.b.) determined for all agricultural
standard proctor operations
test. The important
using
point isthethere
4WD is system will reduce
large difference soil compaction
between the 4WD system significantly in comparison
and the other to the
two systems.
other systems.
In terms of moisture range it can be concluded for all agricultural operations using the
4WD system will reduce soil compaction significantly in comparison to the other systems.

1280
1260
1240
Bulk density, kg/m3

4WD
1220 rear-WD
1200 front-WD

1180
1160
1140
1120
8 13 18 23
Moisture, %(d.b.)

1300
4WD rear-WD front-WD
1280 A

1260 B
C
Bulk density, kg/m3

1240
D
1220 E
1200 F
G
1180
H
1160
1140 I

1120
1100
10 15 20
moisture(%)
Figure 5.
Figure Effects of
5. Effects ofthe
thedrive
drivesystem
systemonon
soilsoil
compaction at three
compaction soil moisture
at three contents
soil moisture cores (different
contents cores (dif-
lettersletters
ferent shows shows
significant difference
significant betweenbetween
difference treatments).
treatments).

Figure 6 shows that with increasing travel speed in all three drive systems soil com-
Figure 6 shows that with increasing travel speed in all three drive systems soil
paction decreased linearly. In all speeds the 4WD system created the lowest bulk density
compaction decreased linearly. In all speeds the 4WD system created the lowest bulk
and the FWD system imposed the highest density that reflects the advantage of 4WD
density
systemsand the FWD
in creation system imposed
of compaction in the the
soil.highest
Minimum density that reflects
soil density of 1109thekg/m
advantage
3 was of
4WD systems
occurred at thein creation
forward of compaction
velocity of 6.8 km/h infor
thethe
soil.
4WD Minimum soil density
system, while of 1109 kg/m
it was increased to
3

was
1192 occurred at the
kg/m3 at this forward
velocity whenvelocity
the FWD of system
6.8 km/h wasfor theresulting
used, 4WD system, while
in a 7.5% it was in-
decrement
creased to 1192
in soil density. kg/m 3 at this velocity when the FWD system was used, resulting in a 7.5%

decrement in soil density.

Agronomy 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 11 of 21

1320
4WD
1280 rear-WD

Bulk density, kg/m3

front-WD
1240

1200

1160

1120

1080
0 2 4 6 8
Speed, km/h

1300 A
4WD back-WD front-WD
1280 B
1260 C
Bulk density, kg/m3

1240
D
1220
E
1200 F

1180 G
H
1160
1140
1120 I
1100
1.26 3.96 6.78
Speed, km/h
Figure 6.
Figure Effects of
6. Effects of the
the drive
drive system
system on
on soil
soil compaction
compactionatatthree
threetractor
tractorforward
forwardspeeds
speeds(different
(different
letters shows significant difference between treatments).
letters shows significant difference between treatments).

Finally the two-way effect of the drive system and tire inflation pressure on soil com-
Finally the two-way effect of the drive system and tire inflation pressure on soil
paction was investigated (Figure 7). For all drive systems soil compaction was increased
compaction was investigated (Figure 7). For all drive systems soil compaction was in-
linearly with tire inflation pressure. The difference between the 4WD system and two other
creased
systemslinearly
was very with tire
high. inflation
The highestpressure. Theofdifference
soil density 1261 kg/mbetween the 4WD
3 was occurred system and
at inflation
two other systems was very high. The highest soil density3 of 1261 kg/m 3 was occurred at
pressure of 180 kPa and soil density dropped to 1172 kg/m as the 4WD system was used,
inflation
resultingpressure of 180 kPa
in a compaction and soilofdensity
decrement dropped
4.4%. This to 1172
difference kg/m3 the
between as the 4WD was
systems system
was used,atresulting
constant in a compaction decrement of 4.4%. This difference between the sys-
all pressures.
tems was constant at all pressures.
Agronomy
Agronomy 11, 696
2021,2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21 12 of 21

1280

1260

Bulk density, kg/m3

1240

1220
4WD
1200 rear-WD

1180 front-WD

1160

1140

1120
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
Inflation pressure, kPa

1280 4WD rear-WD front-WD

A
1260
B B
Bulk density, kg/m3

1240
C
D
1220
E
1200

1180 F

1160 G
H
1140

1120
140 160 180
Inflation pressure, kPa

Figure Effects
Figure 7.7.Effects of drive
of the the drive
systemsystem on soil compaction
on soil compaction at three tireat three pressures
inflation tire inflation pressures (different
(different
letters shows
letters shows significant difference
significant between
difference treatments).
between treatments).
3.3. The
3.3. TheThree-Way
Three-WayInteraction EffectEffect
Interaction of Parameters
of Parameters
The most important triplet interaction effect in this study was the interaction be-
The most important triplet interaction effect in this study was the interaction between
tween drive systems × depth × moisture. The mutual binary effect of drive system and
drive systems × depth × moisture. The mutual binary effect of drive system and depth
depth showed that the effect of the drive system declined by increasing depth. According
showed
to Figure 8that the effect of
the compaction thesubsoil
in the drive increased
system declined by increasing
with increasing moisture. Thedepth.
tripletAccording to
Figure
effect of8 inflation
the compaction
pressure in the subsoil
× depth increased
× moisture showedwith increasing
a similar trend.moisture.
To achieve Thea triplet effect
of inflation
clearer pressure
understanding of × depth
these ×the
effects moisture
best fittedshowed
equationaofsimilar trend.
the curves To achieve
together with a clearer
the slope of the curves
understanding at alleffects
of these depthsthearebest
presented
fittedinequation
Tables 3 and 4. Changes
of the of in curvewith the slope
curves together
slope
of theincurves
higher moisture was less
at all depths areand so the effect
presented inofTables
the drive
3 andsystem was transferred
4. Changes of in to
curve slope in
the subsoil but changes of the curve slope in lower moisture were high and practically all
higher moisture was less and so the effect of the drive system was transferred to the subsoil
the curves of drive systems were close to each other in subsoil and this showed that the
but
effectchanges of the
of the drive curve
system slope inAccording
diminished. lower moisture
to Figurewere
8, at ahigh andcontent
moisture practically
of 10%all the curves
of drive systems were close to each other in subsoil and this
and depth of 20 cm, the difference in bulk density between the drive systems was 10.2%,showed that the effect of
the
whiledrive
with asystem diminished.
depth increase to 40 cm,According
this differenceto decreased
Figure 8,toat2.2%.
a moisture
This trendcontent
shows of 10% and
that increasing
depth of 20 cm, thethe
depth reduced the
difference effect density
in bulk of the drive system.the
between According to Figure was
drive systems 8, at 10.2%, while
with a depth increase to 40 cm, this difference decreased to 2.2%. This trend shows that
increasing the depth reduced the effect of the drive system. According to Figure 8, at a
moisture content of 20% and depth of 20 cm the difference in bulk density between the
drive systems was 11.2% and with a depth increment of 40 cm, this difference decreased to
3.9%. Then it can be concluded that the effect of increasing the depth on reducing the effect
of the drive system at a moisture content of 10% was greater than at a moisture content of
20%. Figure 8 shows at a depth of 20 cm, the change in the drive system indicated a greater
effect on bulk density than the increment of moisture content (black arrows). In contrast, at
 Agronomy 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

a moisture content of 20% and depth of 20 cm the difference in bulk density between the
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 13 of 21
drive systems was 11.2% and with a depth increment of 40 cm, this difference decreased
to 3.9%. Then it can be concluded that the effect of increasing the depth on reducing the
effect of the drive system at a moisture content of 10% was greater than at a moisture
content of 20%. Figure 8 shows at a depth of 20 cm, the change in the drive system indi-
the depth
cated aof 40 cm,
greater increasing
effect moisture
on bulk density thancontent showed
the increment a greater
of moisture effect(black
content on bulkar- density
thanrows).
changingIn contrast, at the depth of 40 cm, increasing moisture content showed a greater Table 4
the drive system (green arrows). By a careful review of Figure 9 and
it caneffect
be realized that inthan
on bulk density lowchanging
inflation thepressure,
drive systemmoisture changesByhad
(green arrows). a negligible
a careful review impact
on theof Figure 9 and Table
bulk density 4 it can be
of topsoil. Therealized
effectthat in low inflation
of moisture changespressure, moisture
in subsoil changes
is highlighted and
had a negligible
a considerable impact in
difference on the
the bulk
bulk density
densityofoftopsoil.
the soilTheappeared.
effect of moisture
However, changes
when in inflation
subsoil is highlighted and a considerable difference in the bulk density of the soil ap-
pressure was higher than the recommended limits, also significant differences in the bulk
peared. However, when inflation pressure was higher than the recommended limits, also
density of the soil arose in topsoil as a result of moisture changes. Figure 9 indicates that
significant differences in the bulk density of the soil arose in topsoil as a result of mois-
at the depth
ture changes.of 20 cm 9and
Figure a moisture
indicates that at thecontent
depth ofof2010% with
cm and increasing
a moisture inflation
content of 10% pressure
fromwith170 increasing
to 230 kPainflation
bulk density
pressureincreased
from 170 to by230
3.9%,
kPaalso
bulkat a depth
density of 40 cm
increased and moisture
by 3.9%,
content
also of
at a10%
depthwith
of 40increasing inflation
cm and moisture pressure
content of 10% at the
with same range
increasing bulk
inflation density
pressure at increase
was the
1%.same range bulk
Therefore, density
it can increase wasthat
be concluded 1%. with
Therefore, it can be
increasing concluded
depth, that with
the effect of inflation
increasing
pressure depth, the At
was reduced. effect of inflation
a depth of 20pressure
cm andwas reduced.
moisture At a depth
content of 20%,of 20the
cm bulk
and density
moisture content of 20%, the bulk density increment due to inflation pressure increase
increment due to inflation pressure increase was 6%. Finally at the depth of 40 cm and
was 6%. Finally at the depth of 40 cm and moisture content of 20%, with increasing in-
moisture
flationcontent
pressureoffrom
20%, 170with
to 230increasing
kPa, the bulkinflation
densitypressure
increasedfromwas 170
3%. to 230itkPa,
Then, was the bulk
density increased
concluded waseffect
that the 3%. ofThen, it was
increasing theconcluded
depth on the that the effect
reduction ofinflation
of the increasing the depth on
pressure
the reduction of the inflation
effect at moisture content of pressure
10% was more effectthan
at moisture
a moisturecontent
contentof of 10%
20%. was more
Figure 9 than a
showscontent
moisture at a depthof of 20 cm,
20%. the increase
Figure 9 shows in tire
at ainflation
depth of pressure
20 cm,showed a greater
the increase ineffect
tire inflation
on bulk
pressure density athan
showed the moisture
greater effect content
on bulkincrement
densitychange
than the (green arrows). content
moisture In contrast,increment
at the depth of 40 cm, increasing moisture content indicated a greater effect on bulk den-
change (green arrows). In contrast, at the depth of 40 cm, increasing moisture content
sity than increasing inflation pressure (black arrows).
indicated a greater effect on bulk density than increasing inflation pressure (black arrows).

1400
Moisture 10% Moisture 15% Moisture 20%
Bulk density, kg/m3

1350 4WD
rear-WD
1300 front-WD
1250

1200

1150

1100
Agronomy 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
15 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40
Depth, cm

Figure 8. Changes of bulk density relative to the depth, moisture (d.b.) and driving system type. (different letters shows
Figure 8. Changes of bulk density relative to the depth, moisture (d.b.) and driving system type. (different letters shows
significant difference betweenbetween
significant difference treatments).
treatments).

1350 inflation pressure 170 KPa inflation pressure 200 KPa inflation pressure 230 KPa
Moisture 10%
1300 Moisture 15%
ty, kg/m3

Moisture 20%
1250
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 14 of 21

Table 3. Equations that fitted the curve bulk density relative to the depth, moisture (d.b.) and driving system type (the
slope is obtained using a derivation).

Fitted
Moisture Motion System Slope at Point 1 Slope at Point 2 Slope at Point 3 R2
Equation
y = 0.2785x2 −
Front-WD −14.8 −9.24 −3.67 1
25.955x + 1718.3
y = 0.268x2 −
10% Rear-WD −12.9 −7.61 −2.25 1
23.69x + 1637.4
y = 0.2195x2 −
4WD −8.07 −3.69 −0.69 1
16.835x + 1425.2
y = 0.1195x2 −
Front-WD −12.1 −8.39 −4.69 1
13.385x + 1517.7
y = 0.106x2 −
15% Rear-WD −13.9 −8.67 −3.44 1
13.11x + 1496.8
y = 0.326x2 −
4WD −4.23 −3.01 −1.79 1
27.07x + 1674.9
y = 0.2255x2 −
Front-WD −10.9 −8.49 −6.05 1
21.115x + 1678.1
y = 0.1915x2 −
20% Rear-WD −12.5 −8.99 −5.5 1
19.215x + 1617.1
y = 0.318x2 −
4WD −3 −2.66 −2.32 1
27.06x + 1692.6

Table 4. Equations that fitted the curve bulk density relative to the depth, moisture (d.b.) and inflation pressure.

Fitted
Inflation Pressure Moisture Slope at Point 1 Slope at Point 2 Slope at Point 3 R2
Equation
y = 0.026x2 −
10% −5.85 −5.34 −4.82 1
6.9x + 1392.9
y = 0.0245x2 −
170 KPa 15% −6.34 −5.85 −5.36 1
7.325x + 1387.5
y = 0.1795x2 −
20% −9.62 −6.02 −2.43 1
16.795x + 1492.5
y = 0.1195x2 −
10% −8.6 −6.2 −3.82 1
13.385x + 1517.7
y = 0.106x2 −
200 KPa 15% −8.87 −6.75 −4.63 1
13.11x + 1496.8
y = 0.326x2 −
20% −14.0 −7.51 −0.99 1
27.07x + 1674.9
y = 0.2255x2 −
10% −12.1 −7.58 −3.07 1
21.115x + 1678.1
y = 0.1915x2 −
230 KPa 15% −11.5 −7.72 −3.89 1
19.215x + 1617.1
y = 0.318x2 −
20% −14.3 −7.98 −1.62 1
27.06x + 1692.6
 Figure
Agronomy 8. 11,
2021, Changes
696 of bulk density relative to the depth, moisture (d.b.) and driving system type. (different letters shows15 of 21
significant difference between treatments).

1350 inflation pressure 170 KPa inflation pressure 200 KPa inflation pressure 230 KPa
Moisture 10%
1300 Moisture 15%
Bulk density, kg/m3

Moisture 20%
1250

1200

Agronomy 2021, 11, x1150

FOR PEER REVIEW 15

1100
15 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40
Depth, cm

Figure 9. Changes of bulk density relative to the depth, moisture (d.b.) and inflation pressure (different letters shows
significant difference between treatments).
Figure 9. Changes of bulk density relative to the depth, moisture (d.b.) and inflation pressure (different letters shows
significant difference between treatments).
3.4. Soil Behavior in Three Coordinate Directions under the Tractor Wheels
In order to more accurately illustrate the causes of soil compaction as a result of
Table 3. Equations that fitted the curve
applied bulk density
treatments, soil relative to thevariation
displacement depth, moisture (d.b.) and
curves measured by driving system
transducers type (the
were
slope is obtained using a derivation).
drawn. Curves were drawn in such a way that their starting point are one meter before
reaching the front wheel center to the position of sensors and the end point of the curve are
Moisture Motion System Fitted
after the Equation
complete Slope
pass of the rear wheel at Point
through the1sensor Slope
as soilatdisplacement
Point 2 Slope at Point 3
reached
Front-WD y to
= 0.2785x 2 − 25.955xFigure
a stable condition. + 1718.3 −14.8
10 shows soil displacement −9.24(z) for three cases−3.67
in the vertical of
10% Rear-WD 4WD, RWD and FWD
y = 0.268x − 23.69x + 1637.4
2 drive systems. By comparing
−12.9 and more accurately
−7.61 surveying these
−2.25
curves a clear understanding of the causes of differences in created compaction in different
4WD y = 0.2195x − 16.835x + 1425.2
2 −8.07 −3.69 −0.69
cases can be reached. In the case of the 4WD system in which wheel slip was less than
Front-WD y others
= 0.1195x 2 − 13.385x
conditions + 1517.7
during −12.1
the front tire pass the −8.39of 34 mm took place
large soil displacement −4.69
15% Rear-WD yand
= 0.106x 2 − 13.11x + 1496.8 −13.9 −8.67
when passing the rear wheel since the soil has been compacted already due to front −3.44
4WD ywheel
= 0.326x
pass −
2 and27.07x + 1674.9
the rear wheel movement on −4.23
a firm surface, since−3.01 −1.79
the rate of slip was low
Front-WD and only little displacement
y = 0.2255x − 21.115x + 1678.1
2 of 2 mm occurred in
−10.9 the soil. In the case
−8.49of RWD the soft soil is
−6.05
displaced 2and compacted by passing the front wheel, which is non-slip, but the value of
20% Rear-WD y = 0.1915x − 19.215x + 1617.1 −12.5 −8.99 −5.5
the soil displacement was 30 mm, which was less than the 4WD system in which the front
4WD ywheel
= 0.318x 2 − 27.06x
included more +slip.
1692.6
When the rear wheel −3 passes over the sensor,
−2.66which has more −2.32slip
than the rear wheel of the 4WD mode, a more severe displacement of 14 mm happened in
Table 4. Equations that fitted
the the
soil curve
and the bulk
finaldensity relative
compaction to the
caused by depth,
passingmoisture
both wheels(d.b.) andcase
in this inflation pressure.
was greater
than in the 4WD mode. The mode of FWD had more slip relative to the previous modes
Inflation Pressure Moisture Fitted Equation Slope at Point 1 Slope at Point 2 Slope at Point 3
10% y = 0.026x2 − 6.9x + 1392.9 −5.85 −5.34 −4.82
170 KPa 15% y = 0.0245x2 − 7.325x + 1387.5 −6.34 −5.85 −5.36
20% y = 0.1795x2 − 16.795x + 1492.5 −9.62 −6.02 −2.43
 compacted already due to front wheel pass and the rear wheel movement on a firm sur-
face, since the rate of slip was low and only little displacement of 2 mm occurred in the
soil. In the case of RWD the soft soil is displaced and compacted by passing the front
wheel, which is non-slip, but the value of the soil displacement was 30 mm, which was
less than the 4WD system in which the front wheel included more slip. When the rear
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 16 of 21
wheel passes over the sensor, which has more slip than the rear wheel of the 4WD mode,
a more severe displacement of 14 mm happened in the soil and the final compaction
caused by passing both wheels in this case was greater than in the 4WD mode. The mode
of FWD the
because haddrive
morewheel
slip relative to the with
was in contact previous modes
the soft soil, because
thereforethe drive
a high wheel was of
displacement in
contact with the and
54 mm occurred soft left
soil,a profound
therefore ainfluence
high displacement of 54 mm
on soil compaction, occurred
after passingand
the left
fronta
profound
wheel, with influence
passing on
the soil
rearcompaction, afterdisplacement
tire a particular passing the did
front wheel,
not occurwith
in thepassing
soil thatthe
is
rear tire ahowever
non-slip, particular displacement
a total did notcreated
of displacement occur inin the
this soil
casethat
wasismore
non-slip, however
than both of thea
previous
total modes.
of displacement created in this case was more than both of the previous modes.

-1 0 Time, s 1 2
10
rear-WD front-WD 4WD
0
Soil displacement, mm

-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60

Figure 10. Soil strain along the vertical (z) direction.

Figure 11
Figure 11 shows
showsthethelateral
lateraldisplacement
displacementofof soil
soilforfor
three drive
three system
drive systemmodes. In the
modes. In
case of 4WD with approaching the front tire to the transducer axis, its
the case of 4WD with approaching the front tire to the transducer axis, its displacement displacement started
uniformly,
started with more
uniformly, approach
with of the front
more approach tire front
of the it stayed
tire at a constant
it stayed at avalue of 5 value
constant mm, until
of 5
mm, until the rear tire approached the transducer and the soil extended uniformlystayed
the rear tire approached the transducer and the soil extended uniformly again and again
constant
and stayed forconstant
the rest offortime. TheofRWD
the rest time.system
The RWD almost showed
system a similar
almost showed trend to the trend
a similar 4WD
to the 4WD drive system. However its displacement was 1 mm less than the 4WD first
drive system. However its displacement was 1 mm less than the 4WD system in the sys-
stageininthe
tem which
first the front
stage tire approached
in which the approached
the front tire transducer and the soil reactionand
transducer wassoil
more to the
reaction
rear tire
was more andto itthe
elongated
rear tireabout
and it6 elongated
mm as the about
rear tire was as
6 mm on the
the rear
transducer
tire was axis.
on Inthegeneral
trans-
soil extension in the RWD system was 3 mm more than the 4WD system. For the FDW
ducer axis. In general soil extension in the RWD system was 3 mm more than the 4WD
system maximum soil extension of 12 mm occurred as the front tire was on top of the
system. For the FDW system maximum soil extension of 12 mm occurred as the front tire
Agronomy 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21
transducer and rear wheel effect was negligible. Its lateral displacement was more than
was on top of the transducer and rear wheel effect was negligible. Its lateral displace-
two other systems.
ment was more than two other systems.

15
13
Soil displacement, mm

11
9
7
5
3
rear-WD front-WD 4WD
1
-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time, s

Figure11.
Figure 11.Soil
Soilstrain
strainalong
along the
the lateral
lateral (y)(y) direction.
direction.

Figure 12 shows longitudinal soil displacement for different driving systems. For
the 4WD mode by approaching the front tire soil compressed and as the tire center was
close to the related sensor, it started extending and the maximum extension was when
the tire center was on top of the sensor. After passing the front tire soil extension ended
at that moment the rear wheel was approaching the sensor, hence it started compression
 1
-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time, s

Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 Figure 11. Soil strain along the lateral (y) direction. 17 of 21

Figure 12 shows longitudinal soil displacement for different driving systems. For
the 4WD mode by approaching the front tire soil compressed and as the tire center was
Figure 12 shows longitudinal soil displacement for different driving systems. For the
close to the related sensor, it started extending and the maximum extension was when
4WD mode by approaching the front tire soil compressed and as the tire center was close
the tire center was on top of the sensor. After passing the front tire soil extension ended
to the related sensor, it started extending and the maximum extension was when the tire
at that moment the rear wheel was approaching the sensor, hence it started compression
center was on top of the sensor. After passing the front tire soil extension ended at that
again and because soil was compacted by the front tire already therefore rear tire com-
moment the rear wheel was approaching the sensor, hence it started compression again
pression was a little less than the front tire. Again when the rear wheel center was quite
and because soil was compacted by the front tire already therefore rear tire compression
close to the sensor it was elongated and when the rear wheel center was on top of the
was a little less than the front tire. Again when the rear wheel center was quite close
sensor
to maximum
the sensor it waselongation
elongatedoccurred.
and whenAfter passing
the rear wheelthe tire it
center was
was oncompressed again
top of the sensor
and then stayed constant for the rest of time. In the RWD system
maximum elongation occurred. After passing the tire it was compressed again and then the soil reaction rela-
stayed constant for the rest of time. In the RWD system the soil reaction relative to sys-
tive to the front tire was similar to 4WD except that it was 1 mm less than the 4WD the
tem due
front to lower
tire was similarslippage
to 4WDand soilthat
except engagement.
it was 1 mm However,
less thansoil
the compression
4WD system due by ap-
to
proaching
lower the rear
slippage wheel
and soil was a highHowever,
engagement. value of 10 soilmm. When thebyrear
compression tire was on
approaching thetop of
rear
the transducer
wheel was a high thevalue
soil elongated
of 10 mm. andWhen after
thepassing
rear tirethe
wastire
on ittop
was
of compressed
the transducer again and
the soil
leveled off. The point should be mentioned that there was a phase
elongated and after passing the tire it was compressed again and leveled off. The pointlag between the 4WD
and RWD
should system curves
be mentioned related
that there wastoathe rearlag
phase tires. It wasthe
between because
4WD and of the
RWD rearsystem
tire slippage
curves
of 21% in the RWD system. Hence the soil displacement curve was
related to the rear tires. It was because of the rear tire slippage of 21% in the RWD delayed relative
system.to
the 4WD system, which average slippage was 14%. This delay also
Hence the soil displacement curve was delayed relative to the 4WD system, which average can be seen in Figure
10.
slippage was 14%. This delay also can be seen in Figure 10.

Time, s
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
5

0
Soil displacement, mm

-5

-10

-15
rear-WD front-WD 4WD
-20

-25
Figure 12. Soil displacement along the longitudinal (x) direction.
Figure 12. Soil displacement along the longitudinal (x) direction.

In the case of the FWD system by approaching the front wheel, which was the sole
drive tire that included more slippage of 24% and had more engagement with the loose
soil and as a result a more dynamic load was on that, more soil compression was created in
comparison to the 4WD mode. Additionally, more soil elongation was observed relative
to the 4WD case when the front tire was on the sensor. The rear wheel did not show any
significant effect on longitudinal soil displacement.
It appears an interesting issue with comparing soil displacement in vertical direction
curves (Figure 13) that correspond to the mode of FWD in soil moisture of 10% and 20%,
respectively. At a moisture content of 10% after passing each wheel over the soil, the soil
returned a few millimeters upward and thus the resulted soil compaction reduced, but at a
moisture content of 20% soil recursion did not occur because soil particles stick to together
due to the presence of moisture and causes the soil layers to remain constant in their places.
 It appears an interesting issue with comparing soil displacement in vertical direc-
tion curves (Figure 13) that correspond to the mode of FWD in soil moisture of 10% and
20%, respectively. At a moisture content of 10% after passing each wheel over the soil,
the soil returned a few millimeters upward and thus the resulted soil compaction re-
duced, but at a moisture content of 20% soil recursion did not occur because soil parti-
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 18 of 21
cles stick to together due to the presence of moisture and causes the soil layers to remain
constant in their places.

Time, s
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
-45
-47
Moisture 10 Moisture 20
-49
Soil displacement, mm
-51
-53
-55
-57
-59
-61
-63

Figure13.
Figure 13. Soil displacement
displacementalong
alongthe
thevertical
vertical(z)(z)
directions in mode
directions of FWD
in mode at different
of FWD soil soil
at different
moisturecontents
moisture contents(d.b).
(d.b).

4.4.Discussion
Discussion
Increasing
Increasingcompaction
compactionbybychanging
changing the driving
the drivingsystem
systemcancan
be beattributed
attributedto the differ-
to the dif-
ent slippage level in each of these systems. The 4WD system included
ferent slippage level in each of these systems. The 4WD system included the lowest the lowest slippage of
14%, which was less than two other systems, hence a minimum bulk density of 1155 kg/m 3
slippage of 14%, which was less than two other systems, hence a minimum bulk density
was generated
of 1155 kg/m3 wasin this system [34].
generated in this On the other
system [34].hand,
On thedue to the
other movement
hand, due to the of movement
the drive
wheels on the undisturbed soil in the mode of FWD, the slip of
of the drive wheels on the undisturbed soil in the mode of FWD, the slip of the the drive wheels in drive
this
mode
wheels wasingreater
this3 modethanwas
the rear-wheel
greater than drive
the (RWD) mode.
rear-wheel Hence
drive (RWD)a maximum bulk density
mode. Hence a max-
ofimum
1241 bulk
kg/m density of 1241 kg/m was generated. A similar result was reported on the by
was generated. A 3 similar result was reported on the soil compaction soil
Battiato [35] and Raghavan [36]. For all systems with depth increment soil compaction was
compaction by Battiato [35] and Raghavan [36]. For all systems with depth increment soil
decreased. Arvidsson [5] reported that the stress was altered by increasing the applied load
compaction was decreased. Arvidsson [5] reported that the stress was altered by in-
on the drive wheel and reflects the fact that the force applied on the soil has the greatest
creasing the applied load on the drive wheel and reflects the fact that the force applied on
impact on compaction in subsoil. In other words the compaction of the topsoil to a large
the soil has the greatest impact on compaction in subsoil. In other words the compaction
extent depends on the ground pressure but the compaction of the subsoil is related to the
of the topsoil to a large extent depends on the ground pressure but the compaction of the
applied load on the drive wheel [37]. In all driving systems with travel speed increment soil
subsoil is related to the applied load on the drive wheel [37]. In all driving systems with
compaction decreased. This is due to the issue that wheel slip was reduced by increasing
travel speed increment soil compaction decreased. This is due to the issue that wheel slip
speed and loading time on the soil reduced and these two together had a greater impact
was reduced by increasing speed and loading time on the soil reduced and these two
on the soil compaction decrement. Such a phenomenon was reported by Taghavifar and
together had a greater impact on the soil compaction decrement. Such a phenomenon
Mardani [38]. For all drive systems soil compaction was increased linearly with tire infla-
was reported by Taghavifar and Mardani [38]. For all drive systems soil compaction was
tion pressure. Low tire inflation pressures proved to be very effective in preventing subsoil
increased linearly
compaction. Arvidssonwith tire
andinflation
Keller [39]pressure. Low tire
found there wasinflation
a direct pressures
relationshipproved to be
between
very effective in preventing subsoil compaction. Arvidsson and Keller
tire inflation pressure and soil stress at different depths and this was more significant in [39] found there
topsoil layers. Van den Akker [40] showed that compaction and deformations under the
low pressure tire were limited to the topsoil, where the bearing capacity was sufficient for
bearing inserted pressure. While inserted pressure exceeded the bearing capacity of the
topsoil under the tire, then compaction and deformations reaches into the subsoil layers.
Soil compaction increment due to increasing moisture can be attributed to increment
adhesion between soil particles, soil particles are pressed together due to applied pressure
and the moisture makes their position to be maintained after pressure removal. Increasing
the soil moisture under critical values resulted in a high soil compaction because the water
in the soil acts as a lubricant. This phenomenon was very important in heavy and cohesive
soils in soil compaction increment [40]. Additionally, at a low moisture content of 10%
after passing each wheel the soil returned a few millimeters upward and thus the final soil
compaction reduced, but at a moisture content of 20% soil recursion did not occur because
of an increment of soil cohesion, then the presence of moisture decreases soil recursion after
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 19 of 21

removing inserted pressure. The effect of moisture on the increasing soil compaction and
its effect in subsoil compaction in the work of other researchers has been reported [41–43].
Maximum soil displacement and soil compaction occurs when the soil is loose and
with an increasing number of passes the rate of soil compaction decreases. Soil displace-
ment in the vertical direction showed that in both 4WD and FDW systems the front wheel
was passed on loosed soil, then maximum compression occurred after its passage and rear
tire effect on the soil compaction was less than the front wheel

5. Conclusions
It was concluded that the 4WD system is the optimum driving system in terms of
reducing soil compaction and preventing destroying its destruction. The using this system
for conduction heavy duties where slip is high is recommended. For conduction relatively
light works with considering energy management using the RWD system is a better option.
It was found at all systems soil moisture was very significant in soil compaction. To mange
soil compaction in different agricultural operations it is recommended that the operation
is conducted at a relatively low tire inflation pressure of less than 250 kPa and optimum
moisture with regard to soil texture. Additionally, the interaction of inflation pressure and
load on tire should be such that topsoil could have inserted pressure. In case of exceeding
pressure to sublayers permanent compaction will occur, which limits crop growing. To elim-
inate that subsoil must be performed, which require high energy. For proper managing
agriculture operations with minimum compaction, conduction of conservative tillage and
controlled traffic systems and adding organic materials are recommended. Since existence
of organic material are very important in recursion compacted soil to initial situation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.S.; methodology, A.M.; software, A.M.; validation,

Y.A.-G.; formal analysis, A.M. and G.S.; investigation, A.M.; resources, M.A.H.-M.; data curation,
Y.A.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.; writing—review and editing, J.L.H.-H.; super-
vision, G.S.; project administration, I.H.-M.; funding acquisition, I.H.-M., J.L.H.-H. and M.A.H.-M.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study does not involve any human or animal testing.
Informed Consent Statement: Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
Data Availability Statement: Data available on request due to restrictions.
Acknowledgments: Authors are grateful to the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, the Autonomous
University of Guerrero and National Technological of México/Campus Chilpancingo for supporting
this work. This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Keller, T.; Défossez, P.; Weisskopf, P.; Arvidsson, J.; Richard, G. SoilFlex: A model for prediction of soil stresses and soil compaction
due to agricultural field traffic including a synthesis of analytical approaches. Soil. Till. Res. 2007, 93, 391–411. [CrossRef]
2. Zink, A.; Fleige, H.; Horn, R. Load risks of subsoil compaction and depths of stress propagation in arable Luvisols. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 2010, 74, 1733–1742. [CrossRef]
3. Keller, T.; Sandin, M.; Colombi, T.; Horn, R.; Or, D. Historical increase in agricultural machinery weights enhanced soil stress
levels and adversely affected soil functioning. Soil. Till. Res. 2019, 194, 104293. [CrossRef]
4. Ansorge, D.; Godwin, R.J. The effect of tyres and a rubber track at high axle loads on soil compaction, Part 1: Single axle-studies.
Biosyst. Eng. 2007, 115–126. [CrossRef]
5. Arvidsson, J.; Westlin, H.; Keller, T.; Gilbertsson, M. Rubber track systems for conventional tractors–Effects on soil compaction
and traction. Soil. Till. Res. 2011, 117, 103–109. [CrossRef]
6. Horn, R.; Holthusen, D.; Dorner, J.; Mordhorst, A.; Fleige, H. Scale-dependent soil strengthening processes–what do we need to
know and where to head for a sustainable environment? Soil. Till. Res. 2019, 195, 104388. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 20 of 21

7. De Lima, R.P.; Keller, T.; Giarola, N.B.; Tormena, C.A.; da Silva, A.R.; Rolim, M.M. Measurements and simulations of compaction
effects on the least limiting water range of a no-till Oxisol. Arid. Soil Res. Rehabil. 2020, 58, 62–72.
8. Barik, K.; Aksakal, E.L.; Islam, K.R.; Sari, S.; Angin, I. Spatial variability in soil compaction properties associated with field traffic
operations. Catena 2014, 120, 122–133. [CrossRef]
9. Veronesi, F.; Corstanje, R.; Mayr, T. Mapping soil compaction in 3D with depth functions. Soil. Till. Res. 2012, 124, 111–118.
[CrossRef]
10. Li, H.; Schindler, C. Analysis of soil compaction and tire mobility with finite element method. Proc. IMechE Part K J. Multi-Body
Dyn. 2013, 227, 275–291. [CrossRef]
11. Håkansson, I.; Reeder, R.C. Subsoil compaction by vehicles with high axle load—Extent, persistence and crop response. Soil. Till.
Res. 1994, 29, 277–304. [CrossRef]
12. De Moura, M.S.; Silva, B.M.; Mota, P.K.; Borghi, E.; de Resende, A.V.; Acuña-Guzman, S.F.; Araújo, G.S.S.; Silva, L.D.C.M.D.;
De Oliveira, G.C.; Curi, N. Soil management and diverse crop rotation can mitigate early-stage no-till compaction and improve
least limiting water range in a Ferralsol. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 243, 106523. [CrossRef]
13. Rabot, E.; Wiesmeier, M.; Schlüter, S.; Vogel, H.J. Soil structure as an indicator of soil functions: A review. Geoderma 2018, 314,
122–137. [CrossRef]
14. De Moraes, M.T.; Debiasi, H.; Franchini, J.C.; Mastroberti, A.A.; Levien, R.; Leitner, D.; Schnepf, A. Soil compaction impacts
soybean root growth in an Oxisol from subtropical Brazil. Soil. Till. Res. 2020, 200, 104611. [CrossRef]
15. Voorhees, W.B. Long-term effect of subsoil compaction on yield of maize. Adv. Geoecol. 2000, 32, 331–338.
16. Van den Akker, J.J.H. SOCOMO: A soil compaction model to calculate soil stresses and the subsoil carrying capacity. Soil. Till.
Res. 2004, 79, 113–127. [CrossRef]
17. Bekker, M.G. Theory of Land Locomotion; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1956.
18. Marsili, A.; Servadio, P. Compaction effects of rubber or metal-tracked tractor passes on agricultural soils. Soil. Till. Res. 1996, 37,
37–45. [CrossRef]
19. Trautner, A.; Arvidsson, J. Subsoil compaction caused by machinery traffic on a Swedish Eutric Cambisol at different soil water
contents. Soil. Till. Res. 2003, 73, 107–118. [CrossRef]
20. Erbach, D.C.; Kinney, G.R.; Wilcox, A.P.; Abo-Abda, A.E. Strain gage to measure soil compaction. Trans. ASAE 1991, 34, 2345–2348.
[CrossRef]
21. De Lima, R.P.; da Silva, A.R.; da Silva, Á.P. Soilphysics: An R package for simulation of soil compaction induced by agricultural
field traffic. Soil. Till. Res. 2021, 206, 104824. [CrossRef]
22. Kinney, G.R.; Erbach, D.C.; Bern, C.J. Soil strain under three tractor configurations. Trans. ASAE 1992, 35, 1135–1139. [CrossRef]
23. Botta, G.F.; Tolon-Becerra, A.; Tourn, M.; Lastra-Bravo, X.; Rivero, D. Agricultural traffic: Motion resistance and soil compaction
in relation to tractor design and different soil conditions. Soil. Till. Res. 2012, 120, 92–98. [CrossRef]
24. Ansorge, D.; Godwin, R.J. The effect of tyres and a rubber track at high axle loads on soil compaction—Part 2: Multi-axle machine
studies. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 99, 338–347. [CrossRef]
25. Patel, S.K.; Mani, I. Effect of multiple passes of tractor with varying normal load on subsoil compaction. J. Terrramech. 2011, 48,
277–284. [CrossRef]
26. Shahgholi, G.; Abuali, M. Measuring soil compaction and soil behavior under the tractor tire using strain transducer. J. Terrramech.
2015, 59, 19–25. [CrossRef]
27. Way, T.; Erbach, D.; Bailey, A.; Burt, E.; Johnson, C. Soil displacement beneath an agricultural tractor drive tire. J. Terrramech. 2005,
42, 35–46. [CrossRef]
28. McPhee, J.E.; Antille, D.L.; Tullberg, J.N.; Doyle, R.B.; Boersma, M. Managing soil compaction—A choice of low-mass autonomous
vehicles or controlled traffic? Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 195, 227–241. [CrossRef]
29. Sidhu, D.; Duiker, S. Soil Compaction in Conservation Tillage: Crop Impacts. Agronomy J. 2006, 98, 1257–1264. [CrossRef]
30. Martínez, G.I.; Ovalle, C.; Del Pozo, A.; Uribe, H.; Valderrama, V.N.; Prat, C.; Sandoval, M.; Fernández, F.; Zagal, E. Influence of
conservation tillage and soil water content on crop yield in dryland compacted alfisol of central chile. Chil. JAR 2011, 71, 615–622.
[CrossRef]
31. Antille, D.L.; Bennett, J.M.; Troy, A.; Jensen, T.A. Soil compaction and controlled traffic considerations in Australian cotton-farming
systems. Crop Pasture Sci. 2016, 67, 1–28. [CrossRef]
32. Liljedahl, J.B.; Turnquist, P.K.; Smith, D.W.; Hoki, M. Tractors and Their Power Units; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1979.
33. Stafford, J.V.; Mattos, P. The effect of forward speed on wheel induced soil compaction: Laboratory simulation and field
experiments. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1981, 26, 333–347. [CrossRef]
34. Moinfar, A.; Shahgholi, G.; Gilandeh, Y.A.; Gundoshmian, T.M. The effect of the tractor driving system on its performance and
fuel consumption. Energy 2020, 202, 117803. [CrossRef]
35. Battiato, A.; Alaoui, A.; Diserens, E. Impact of Normal and Shear Stresses Due to Wheel Slip on Hydrological Properties of an
Agricultural Clay Loam: Experimental and New Computerized Approach. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 7, 1–19. [CrossRef]
36. Raghavan, G.S.V.; McKyes, E.; Chase, M. Effect of Wheel Slip on Soil Compaction. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1977, 22, 79–83. [CrossRef]
37. Botta, G.G.; Jorajuria, C.D.; Draghi, T.L. Soil compaction during secondary tillage traffic. Agro-Ciencia 1999, 15, 139–144.
38. Taghavifar, H.; Mardani, A. Effect of velocity, wheel load and multipass on soil compaction. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2014, 13,
57–66. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2021, 11, 696 21 of 21

39. Arvidsson, J.; Keller, T. Soil stress as affected by wheel load and tyre inflation pressure. Soil. Till. Res. 2007, 96, 284–291. [CrossRef]
40. Van den Akker, J.J.H. Prevention of subsoil compaction by defining a maximum wheel load bearing capacity. Soil Compact.
Compress. Relat. Sugar Beet Prod. 1998, 1, 43–54.
41. Ishaq, M.; Hassan, A.; Saeed, M.; Ibrahim, M.; Lal, R. Subsoil compaction effects on crops in Punjab. Pakistan I. Soil physical
properties and crop yield. Soil. Till. Res. 2001, 59, 57–65. [CrossRef]
42. Smith, C.; Johnston, M.; Lorentz, S. Assessing the compaction susceptibility of South African forestry soils. I. The effect of soil
type, water content and applied pressure on uni-axial compaction. Soil. Till. Res. 1997, 41, 53–73. [CrossRef]
43. Saffih-Hdadi, K.; Defossez, P.; Richard, G.; Cui, Y.; Tang, A.; Chaplain, V. A method for predicting soil susceptibility to the
compaction of surface layers as a function of water content and bulk density. Soil. Till. Res. 2009, 105, 96–103. [CrossRef]