See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341795941

Soil compaction management: Reduce soil compaction using a chain-track

tractor

Article  in  Journal of Terramechanics · June 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.jterra.2020.02.002

CITATIONS READS

8 142

5 authors, including:

Salavat Mudarisov Ilshat Gainullin

Bashkir State Agrarian University Bashkir State Agrarian University
33 PUBLICATIONS   169 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ildar Gabitov E. Khasanov

27 PUBLICATIONS   129 CITATIONS   
Bashkir State Agrarian University
16 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation of stress distribution in front of the working bodies of tillage machines using a hydrodynamic model of tillage View project

Modeling the technological process of tillage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ilshat Gainullin on 20 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Terramechanics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Soil compaction management: Reduce soil compaction

using a chain-track tractor
Salavat Mudarisov ⇑, Ilshat Gainullin, Ildar Gabitov, Eduard Hasanov, Ildar Farhutdinov
Federal State Budgetary Educational Establishment of Higher Education, Bashkir State Agrarian University, Ufa, Russia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Modern agricultural production requires research for new design and layout plans of the track-chained
Received 12 June 2019 mover, providing a reduction in soil compaction. One of many ways to improve the efficiency of
Revised 28 November 2019 machine-tractor aggregate (MTA) use is to improve the geometry of the support part of the chain-
Accepted 4 February 2020
track tractor. Flat geometry of the support part of a chain-track tractor with a semi-rigid suspension cre-
Available online 15 February 2020
ates maximum pressure on soil with the first and last track rollers, which causes increased soil com-
paction. Research objective is to ensure the uniform pressure on soil from the tractor with a semi-rigid
Keywords:
suspension by justifying the geometry of the supporting part of the track-chained mover.
Agricultural machinery
Support rollers
Based on experimental and theoretical studies a model of pressure distribution along the length of the
Pressure on soil support part was developed. Thus, the geometry of the support part of a track-chained tractor with a
Strain gauge sensor semi-rigid suspension was substantiated. Pressure decrease on soil and compaction reduction are
Machine-tractor aggregate (MTA) achieved by changing the geometry of the support part and rational location of the tractor mass center.
Draw bar power To achieve the elliptical geometry of the support part of a track-chained tractor with a semi-rigid suspen-
Soil density sion lower track rollers were placed at different heights.
To test the formulas and to study the influence of the support part geometry, of the hitch height and the
force on the hook of a track-chained tractor on soil compaction, experiments were conducted. As a model
for experiment, the tractor actively used in agriculture was modernized; chain-track tractor T-170M1.03-
55 with flat and elliptical caterpillar bypasses. The pressure was measured directly by pressure sensors
that were placed into the ground. Soil density in the track left by a track-chained tractor mainly depends
on mover pressure and the number of impacts per pass. Track-chained mover makes two impacts on soil
with the flat support part. If the support part geometry is changed, the number of impacts on soil is
reduced to one. To create typical working conditions for T-170M1.03-55 track-chained tractor the third
and fourth support rollers should be lowered by 9.5 ± 1.5 mm, the second and fifth-by 4.5 ± 0.5 mm rel-
atively, which leads to a decrease in the maximum pressure on soil and reduces its compaction in the
track left by the mover by 15–25%.
Ó 2020 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cultivation of agricultural crops is associated with multiple
passes of machine-tractor units over the field. Soil becomes com-
pacted when movers pass on it. This leads to the deterioration of
the basic physical and physical-mechanical properties of the sub-
soil and topsoil layers, reducing crop yields and increasing energy
consumption during agricultural operations (Ksenevich and
Rusanov, 2000; Gainullin, 2001; Ksenevich et al., 2003; Hamza
and Anderson, 2005; Holtkemeyer, 2005; Okunev and Kuznetsov,
2016; Aipov et al., 2018).
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mudarisov.salavat@bk.ru (S. Mudarisov).
The surface of a track chain is much bigger than the wheel sur-
face contact area. Hence, the specific pressure that a track exerts on
the soil is lower, compared to wheels, and even lower compared to
the human foot. For agricultural tractors, the pressure range is
between 0.045 and 0.060 MPa. In reality, however, the pressure
is distributed unevenly: under the track rollers, it can be 2–3 times
higher than the average pressure. The described effect depends on
the type of suspension, namely, on the distance between the track
rollers and on how uniform the tractor’s weight distribution across
the track rollers is. This work aims to identify a track mover design
such that helps avoid pressure unevenness and minimize the
ground pressure.
During assessment of the effectiveness of MTAs (machine-
tractor aggregates) in the performance of technological operations,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2020.02.002
0022-4898/Ó 2020 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12
it is significant that their movers meet the requirements of ensur-
ing acceptable pressure on soil (Cueto et al., 2016; Edwin et al.,
2018; Paulson et al., 2018).
Various theoretical approaches and experimental methods are
used to study the processes of interaction between tractor movers
and the compaction of soil.
Much attention is currently paid to improve the technical level
and off-road capabilities of the undercarriage, reducing metal con-
sumption and compacting effects on the soil. The issue of the
mover pressure on soil was carefully analyzed. Using the results
of the analysis, we developed new methods. These methods helped
us to determine maximum scaled pressure of wheeled and chain-
track movers on soil. We also proposed calculating methods to
determine the indicators of wheeled and metal chain-track movers
providing the allowed influence on soil caused by machinery.
Moreover, the indicators of the strain–stress soil state were calcu-
lated (Ksenevich and Rusanov, 2000).
The level of soil compaction depends on the mass of the tractor,
the type of mover used on the tractor, the type of soil and the tech-
nology of agricultural cultivation (Ksenevich and Rusanov, 2000;
Gainullin, 2001; Hamza and Anderson,2005; Holtkemeyer, 2005;
Gainullin et al., 2010; Taheri et al., 2015; Okunev and Kuznetsov,
2016; Paulson et al., 2018; Edwin et al., 2018) One of the main
ways to reduce the compacting effect on soil is to improve the
movers of MTAs. It is advisable to mainly use chain-track tractors
in spring, during pre-sowing soil treatment and sowing.
Studies of (Taheri et al., 2015) cover the most commonly used
models of wheel interaction with deformed soils developed for
wheeled vehicles. Janulevičius et al. (2018) studied the influence
of air pressure in the front and rear tires on the rolling coefficient
of the wheeled tractor and fuel consumption during wheat cultiva-
tion. El-Sayegh et al. (2018) presented an improved model of tire
interaction with soil based on FEA-SPH modeling. In studies of
Farhadi et al. (2018) a method for assessing the three-
dimensional (3D) track of pneumatic agricultural tires was devel-
oped. It is based on the formation of tire track with liquid plaster
and the conversion of these forms to three-dimensional models
using a 3D scanner. The work of Padmanabhan et al. (2018) pro-
posed a model with the use of particle filtering to estimate ter-
ramechanichal parameters of wheel interaction with the ground.
The proposed models of the wheel’s interaction with soil and
the results of studies that were done by authors (Taheri et al.,
2015; Janulevičius et al., 2018; El-Sayegh et al., 2018; Farhadi
et al., 2018; Padmanabhan et al., 2018) can be used to model the
interaction of rubber-reinforced tracks with the soil. However, they
are not fit to be used with metal track movers.
Bekker (1982) proposed methods of analysis ‘‘terrain-machine”
in relation to the assessment of the off-road capabilities of vehicles.
Vong (1982) studied the basics of the theory and design of wheeled
and track-chained vehicles, as well as air cushion vehicles. Yang
et al. (2016) proposed a method for calculating the traction of a
track on soft ground. In the work of Edwin et al. (2018) the inter-
action with the soil tracked vehicle’s tracks is studied. A simple
and general method for calculating the deformations of soil in
the trail of tracked vehicles has been proposed (Edwin et al.,
2018). In studies of Wang et al. (2016) the estimation of traction
characteristics of marine tracked vehicles on the basis of laboratory
mechanical tests has been made.
In studies of (Bekker, 1982; Yang et al., 2016; Edwin et al., 2018;
Wang et al., 2016), the interaction of the metal-tracked mover with
soil, uneven distribution of soil reactions to the mover’s surface,
traction characteristics and calculations are studied. Although the
cited works consider the shift of the tractor weight relative to
the axis of symmetry of the supporting surface, which is due to
the traction force on the hook and the point of its application,
the influence of the geometry of the supporting part of the tractor
caterpillar on soil compaction is not taken into account. Zakhmatov
et al. (1982) also tried solving the problem of choosing a rational
geometry of the support surface of the tracked mover, however,
these studies were incomplete.
Comparative experimental studies have shown that pressure on
soil caused by T-150 K, T-170M1.03-55 and K-701 tractors is 1.8. It
is 2.6 and 3.5 times higher than pressure on soil that is caused by
T-150 track-chained tractor. Further reduction of soil compaction
and wear of T-170M1.03-55 tractor track chains is possible by jus-
tifying the geometry of the support part (Gainullin and Zaynullin,
2017; Gainullin, 2019).
Thus, the problem of reducing soil compaction requires the
search for new design and layout schemes of the tractor chassis,
which will reduce soil compaction. They will also increase traction
and pull force indicators. One of the ways to improve the efficiency
of the MTA is to improve the geometry of the support part of the
tracked tractor.
To reduce the maximum pressure and the multiplicity of effects
it is preferable to use a uniform distribution of pressure over the
contact area of the support surface. Firstly, the uniform distribu-
tion does not create areas with extreme pressure, and secondly,
the absence of areas with extreme pressure reduces the number
of impacts to a minimum (to one). The pressure distribution can
be significantly smoothed out by changing the geometry of the
tractor support part.
Research objective: ensuring uniform pressure on soil from the
tractor with a semi-rigid suspension by justifying the geometry of
the supporting part of the track-chained mover.
2. Research methods
2.1. Theoretical justification for the track-chained tractor’s support
part geometry
At Limited Liability Company ‘‘ChTZ-UralTRAK” for a number of
years a chain-tracked tractor T-170M1.03-55 is being produced.
This tractor is actively used in the main operations related to soil
treatment and sowing of cereals, as well as road construction
and agricultural operations. Experimental studies on the impact
of tractor T-170M1.03-55 movers on soil showed, that the maxi-
mum pressure reaches 0.166 MPa. The diagram of pressure distri-
bution along the length of the support surface has two local
extremes in the zone of the 1st and 6th support rollers (Fig. 1,
Table 1). This causes a double impact on soil in a single pass with
a pressure exceeding the average pressure value, which causes
increased in soil compaction and a decrease in tractor traction
properties. The experiments were carried out in 2015–2017 at
the test base of Cheliabinsk tractor factory (Gainullin, 2017).
Fig. 1 is the diagram showing the main parameters of a track-
chained mover and of normal pressure distribution p(x) in the lon-
gitudinal section of the supporting surface of T-170.M1.03–55 trac-
tor: P is the load on a single mover, H; Phk is the pressure on the
tractor hook, N; e is the eccentricity, m; L is the length of the sup-
port surface, m; |±a| is the half length of the support surface, m; hf
is the displacement of the longitudinal component of the rolling
force Pf from the reaction of the soil; C is the distance from the cen-
ter of contact to the vertical component Phk. m; c is the angle
between the force acting on the hook and the horizontal plane; v
- tractor speed in m/s; hhk is the height of the trailer as relating
to the support surface, m.
Reduction of the maximum pressure from the track of the trac-
tor on soil can be achieved by ensuring a uniform distribution of
pressure on the contact area of the support surface of the mover
with the soil. Based on the contact task of elasticity theory, the
equation for geometry of the support part of a track-chained trac-
 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12 3

Fig. 1. The main parameters of a track-chained mover and of normal pressure distribution p(x) in the longitudinal section of the supporting surface of T-170.M1.03–55
tractor.

Table 1
Normal pressure on soil from tractor movers T-170M1.03-55.

Mode of exposure Normal pressure (load) in soil, kPa

h = 20 cm h = 50 cm h = 80 cm
A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3
Without load 162.7 12.7 166.6 133.3 30.0 137.2 36.3 18.6 42.1
With an 80 kN load on the hook 127.4 61.7 117.7 96.5 36.3 97.0 25.5 8.8 21.6

Note: Point A1 is the zone of the first support roller, point A2 is the middle of the support surface of the tractor; Point A3 is the zone of the sixth support roller.

tor with a semi-rigid suspension, which provides a uniform pres-
sure distribution along the support surface is obtained by Eq. (1)
(Gainullin and Zaynullin, 2017):
f ðxÞ ¼ 0; 5pav pbfxarcsinðx=aÞ þ A  ðB½xA=a2 þ arcsinðx=aÞg þ C
ð1Þ
where pav is the average pressure on soil caused by the tractor, kPa.
pav = Ge/(2bL); Ge is the operating tractor weight, N. L is the length of
the support surface of the tractor, m. b is the width of the track;
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b ¼ t1 þ t2 t1 ¼ ð2ð1  l21 Þ=pE1 ; t2 ¼ ð2ð1  l22 Þ=pE2 ; ¼ a2  x2 .
E1 is the soil elasticity modulus, Pa. l1 is the Poisson’s soil ratio. E2
is the steel elasticity module of a track shoe, Pa. l2 is the Poisson’s
ratio of the track shoe steel; a = L/2-is a contact half -width, m. x is
the horizontal coordinate of the point of the support surface, m;
 
B ¼ P e þ uhk ðhhk coscþ ¼ csincÞ þ fhf . P ¼ Ge þ P hk cosc is the
load on the single-piece mover, kN. Phk is the force on the hook,
N. c is the angle between the force on the hook and the horizontal
plane. uhk ¼ Phk=P is the coefficient of use of the hitch weight. e is
the longitudinal coordinate of the tractor gravity center as relating
to the length of a track on ground, m. hhk is the height of the trailer
as relating to the support surface, m. f is the coefficient of resis-
tance to the tractor movement, f = 0.07 0.15. . ... . . hf is the shift
of the longitudinal component of the displacement force provoked
by soil reaction, hf = 0,015...0,029, m. C = 0,027 ± 0,003, m is the
coefficient, equal to the initial soil deformation determined
empirically.
The geometry of the support part depends on the following:
tractor mass, length of the support part, mass center position, drive
force and the point of its application, track material properties and
soil type. During the research the following parameters were used:
drive force (40–80 kN), bearing surface length (2,88 m), trailer
height (0.4 m); eccentricity e = 0,165 m; track material which is
carbon steel (steel 20, steel 45); loam soil; soil moisture (12–24%).
If we calculate the pressure p(x) along the contact line of the
supporting surface is constant and equal to the average pressure
of the tractor T-170M1.03-55, the dependence (1) can be repre-
sented by a curve (Fig. 2). This curve shows the removal of points
of the supporting surface of the tractor relative to the OX axis. The
distance between each lower track wheel to be set is determined
by measuring the height along with OY axis at the level of the
lower track wheel along with OX axis (Fig. 2).
The solution of the Eq. (1) allowed us to establish that for the
chosen operating conditions of the chain-track tractor T-
170M1.03-55 with a semi-rigid suspension, the third and fourth
support rollers should be lowered by 9.5 ± 1.5 mm, and the second
4 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12
Fig. 2. Removing points of the supporting surface of T-170M1.03-55 tractor from the horizontal axis along the contact length.
and fifth rollers should be lowered by 4.5 ± 0.5 mm. This will
reduce soil compaction in the track by 15–25%.
The mover consists of a track-chain 1 covering the drive wheel
2, the guide wheel 3, the supporting rollers 4, the middle 5, the
intermediate 6 and the outer 7 support rollers. The middle 5 and
intermediate 6 support rollers should be lowered according to
the expression (1) by placing plates 8 and 9 that are h5 and h6 in
thickness respectively. The plates should be placed under the axes
of the support rollers (Fig. 3). Thus, less loaded intermediate rollers
are located at different heights from the horizontal plane, after
which the crawler will take an elliptical shape. Thus, less loaded
intermediate rollers are located at different heights from the hori-
zontal plane, after which the track-chain bypass will take an ellip-
tical shape.
2.2. Models of pressure distribution on soil and justification for the
horizontal coordinate of a chain-track tractor’s center of mass
The pressure distribution equations p(x) for the plane (2) and
elliptic (3) geometry of the support surface along the contact line
are determined by the following equations (Gainullin, 2015):
 
xðeþuhk ðhhk coscþcsincÞþfhf Þ
P 1þ2 a2
pðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p a2  x2
Fig. 3. Elliptical track-chain bypass of T-170M1.03-55 tractor.
pcp
pðxÞ ¼ xðeþuhk ðhhk coscþcsincÞþfhf Þ
ð3Þ
1þ2 a2
The curve of pressure distribution was made using Eq. (2), 3 and
was based on the assumption of the contact patch length and the
length of the contacted body: b = ka, where b is the half-length
of the contact patch, b = 1.5 m; a is half the length of the body
(mover support part), a = 1.44 m, k is the correction factor,
k = 1.041 (Gainullin, 2015). At that, the interval of point coordi-
nates was set within the following limits: x = b, b + 0,01b.
Within the range of real pressures preal exerted on the steering
wheel by the tractor, the linear relationship between preal and hhk
can be described by the Heidecker’s formula, with some reserva-
tions. Thus, if the track stiffness is assumed high, the depth of
the groove can be determined as a functional dependence that is
transformed by reflecting the pressure in the ground through the
contact pressure, the rolling surface area, and the tensile strength
of the soil under the unconfined compression, with the pressure
distribution
The value of the eccentricity e which provides a uniform distri-
bution of pressure along the support surface is determined by the
following dependency:
 
ð2Þ e ¼  uhk ðhhk cosc þ csincÞ þ fhf ; m ð4Þ
For tractor T-170M1.03-55 with a pulling force on the hook of
80 kN (aggregation with a plow type PTC-12-40) and a trailer
height of 0.4 m, the eccentricity value will be 0.165 m. Then the
pressure distribution along the contact line of the support surface
described by equation (1), with different forces on the hook
according to the equation, will take the form of Fig. 4. As shown
Fig. 4. The pressure distribution of the elliptical support surface of T-170 M1.03–53
tractor.
 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12 5

in Fig. 4 in the form of a track chain bypass, in the longitudinal sec-

tion described by the Eq. (1), the nature of pressure distribution
along the support surface varies, but does not exceed the maxi-
mum pressures than with a flat support surface (Fig. 5).

2.3. Experimental unit and measurements

Measurement of ground pressure caused by the mover of the

tractor was carried out using a force measuring sensors 20 State
All-Union standard 15077-71 with special made attachments.
Force-measuring strain-gauge sensors C 20 (hereinafter sensors)
are designed to convert static and dynamic forces in the measured
physical value (analog electrical signal). Sensors box frame is of a
cylindrical form. The main sensors node is an elastic part of the
box frame located inside of it. Strain gauges are attached to the
elastic element and are connected to make a bridge circuit. The
electrical circuit contains temperature-compensated elements
which influence the output signal. The sensors were connected to
the amplifier with a shielded wire to reduce extraneous electrical
interference. The amplifier signals are received on the recording
equipment. A portable multichannel measuring system MIC-
400D was used as a registration and measuring instrument. The
MIC-400D measuring system is designed to register static and
dynamic signals and to make express analysis of quick-changing
analog signals going through independent measuring channels.
The pressure sensors and strain gauges were calibrated before
and after the measurements. The calibration characteristics
approximated by a straight-line with the use of the least square’s
method.
A trench was made on the chosen site. At the bottom of the
trench along its longitudinal axis, three sensors were installed. Fig. 6. Installation of pressure sensors into soil.
The first sensor was installed at a depth of 0.2 m, the second sensor
was installed at a depth of 0.5 m and the third sensor at a depth of
which is based on DET-250 tractor through a tensor with the out-
0.8 m (Fig. 6).
put of the parameters to the recording equipment (Fig. 7).
Distance between neighboring sensors:
The longitudinal axis of the track coincided with the longitudi-
Ls ¼ Kt t þ 0:25tt ¼ 3  0:203 þ 0:25  0:203 ¼ 0:66m ð5Þ nal axis of the sensors. The line for installation of the sensor was
traced with contrast flexible cord.
where tt is the track chain step, K is one of natural numbers (1,2, 3), Parameters registration started when the first lower track
which is chosen according to Ktt > 0.5. wheel was 1 m from the first sensor. After the last lower track
In the course of research, the distribution of tractor pressure on wheel passed 1 m from the sensor, the registration finished. During
soil was determined depending on the geometry of the support the repeated experiments, there were five passes with not chang-
surface, the magnitude of the pulling force on the hook and its ing tractor’s direction and the tractor speed was 0.7–10.2 km/h.
height of application. To make measurements sensors were changed at least three
Loading of a moving tractor was done with the force of 40, 80 times. There were used such transport and operating modes as idle
kN. This force was applied to the lifting trailer-type device with motion and the mode when the towed load is 40 kN and 80 kN.
the help of a self-propelled dynamometer laboratory SDL-30, Operating modes were tested while the tractor drove directly with
stable thrust loading, created by the SDL-30 laboratory. A research
test engineer gives a command from the SDL-30 laboratory to a
tractor driver who begins movement and speeds up the tractor,
placing the control lever to a setting of maximum fuel supply. After
stabilizing the tractor’s engine speed, a research test engineer cre-
ates resistance to the tractor movement using the loading device of
the SDL-30 laboratory. The control of the load is carried out accord-
ing to the M-906 milli-ampermeter readings and to the calibration
schedule of the strain gauge. When the time of the experience is
over, a research test engineer gives a command to stop the tractor.
In order to obtain an empirical model, the method of mathe-
matical planning of the experiment was used (Lvovskiy, 1988;
Lee et al., 2016). Its main task is to obtain a multifactor model of
the object of study in the form of a regression equation. Levels of
input factors and their variation intervals, coded designations were
established based on theoretical studies and analysis of literature
(Gainullin, 2001; Lee et al., 2016; Gainullin and Zaynullin, 2017b;
Gabitov et al., 2018; Rakhimov et al., 2018) and are shown in
Fig. 5. Pressure distribution of the flat support surface of T-170M1.03-55 tractor. Table 2.
6 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12

Fig. 7. Spot for strain-gauge link placement on self-propelling dynamometric
laboratory SDL-30.
The main purpose of the factorial experiment is to obtain an
empirical dependence of the tractor’s support surface pressure to
soil on the ellipse parameter h, and the dependence of the trailer
relative height to the support surface of hhk on the force generated
on the hook Phk. Based on the obtained model, the influence level of
the support surface shape was studied to assess the correction of
the hypothesis proposed in the theoretical part. Reduction of soil
compaction by a chain-track chassis with semi-rigid suspension
is possible due to a more uniform distribution of pressure along
the length of the support surface. This is achieved by changing
the shape of the support surface. The ellipse parameter was struc-
turally realized using the following method: with the unchanged
position of the 1st and 6th support rollers, the second and fifth
support rollers were lowered by 5 mm, the third and fourth sup-
port rollers-by 10 mm. The rollers were lowered with the help of
plates relative to the support surface of the trailer frame at zero
variation levels, at variation levels +1: without changes in the posi-
tion of the 1st and 6th support rollers, the second and fifth support
rollers were lowered by 10 mm, the third and fourth support
rollers-by 20 mm.
As the plan of experiment, the plan for three factors of Box–
Behnken experimental design was developed. Box–Behnken
designs are experimental designs for response surface methodol-
ogy, devised by George E. P. Box and Donald Behnken in 1960, to
achieve the following goals: Each factor, or independent variable,
is placed at one of three equally spaced values, usually coded as
1, 0, +1. (At least three levels are needed for the following goal.)
The design should be sufficient to fit a quadratic model, that is, one
containing squared terms, products of two factors, linear terms and
an intercept. The ratio of the number of experimental points to the
number of coefficients in the quadratic model should be reason-
able (in fact, their designs kept in the range of 1.5–2.6). The estima-
tion variance should more or less depend only on the distance from
the centre (this is achieved exactly for the designs with 4 and 7 fac-
tors), and should not vary too much inside the smallest (hyper)
cube containing the experimental points. (Gainullin and
Zaynullin, 2017, 2017b). The experiment plan is presented in
Table 3. With three factors, the plan suggests a conduction of 15
experiments, including 3 in the centre of the experiment. Accord-
ing to the plan, the first experiment N = 1 was realized according
to the following factors: X1 = 1 is the bypass shape (support part
geometry) 0,02 m; X2 = 1 is the hinge height 1050 m; X3 = 0 is
the force on the hook 40 kN. The second experiment N = 2 was real-
ized according to the following factors: X1 = 1 is the bypass shape
(support part geometry) 0,02 m; X2 = -1 is the hinge height
1050 m; X3 = 0 is the force on the hook 40 kN. The remaining 3
to 15 experiments were implemented in accordance with Table 3.
After all experiments and data processing, the regression coeffi-
cients of the second order were determined:
X
3 X
3 X
Y ¼ b0 þ bi xi þ bij xi yj þ bij x2i ; ð6Þ
i¼1 ij¼1
where E is the variable characterizing the object of study; xi is the
first factor; b0, bi, bij, bii are the regression coefficients; j is the factor
number, which is deferent from i.

Table 2
Levels and intervals of factor variation.

Factor names Notation Variation levels Interval

Nominal Coded 1 0 +1
Shape of the bypass h, v X1 0 0,01 0,02 0,01
Suspension height hhk, v X2 220 635 1050 415
Force on the hook Phk, kNr X3 0 40 80 40

Table 3
The experiment plan.

Experience number
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Factors X1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
X3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12 7

Average value and root-mean-square regression of optimization 3. Results of experimental studies

parameters in every experiment were calculated by the following
formulas: Based on the realization of the plan and processing of the exper-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi imental results, the pressure dependences on the factors for the
P n


Pm 2
ðY jðeÞ Y ij Þ front, center and rear points of the reference surface are obtained
Yi
Yj ¼ ;S¼ ð7Þ
1 1
m1
(points A1, A2, A3 are shown in Fig. 1).
m After elimination of major errors, calculations of regression coef-
where m is the repeating of sampling; e is the number of repeti- ficients of the second-order model, which characterize the influ-
tions; Y j the average value of the optimization criterion; S is the ence of the accepted factors (according to the experimental plan)
root-main-square regression. on the pressures at three points are carried out. Regression equation
Gross errors were eliminated from the condition for the front edge of the mover’s support surface (point 1):
 P 1 ¼ 68;6  30;05  x1  12;19  x2  27; 54  x3 þ 15;77  x1 2 þ 1;4  x2 2 þ
Y jðeÞ  Y j
>t ð8Þ þ1;55  x3 2 þ 32; 12  x1  x2 þ 19;37  x1  x3  4; 7  x2  x3 ;
S
ð11Þ
where t is the Student’s criterion for the significance of 0.95.
Regression equation for the center part of the mover’s support
Regression coefficients for Boks-Benkin plan were calculated:
surface (point 2):
 
Pn0 X
n
Y0 P2 ¼ 78 þ 27; 9  x1 þ 3; 45  x2 þ 5; 65  x3 þ 15;05  x21 þ 22;05  x22 
b0 ¼ Y 0 ; Y 0 ¼ 1
; bi ¼ A xij Y j ; ;
n0 j¼1 2;95  x23  23; 75  x1  x2  10  x1  x3 þ 1; 95  x2  x3

X
n  X
p X
n
Y0 ð12Þ
bij ¼ B x2ij Y j þ C 1 x2ij Y  ð9Þ
j¼1 j¼1 j¼1
p Regression equation for the tail part of the mover’s support sur-
face (point 3):
X
n
P3 ¼ 86;2  24;6  x1 þ 10;44  x2 þ 47;44  x3 þ 48;76  x21 þ 32;49  x22 
bik ¼ D1 xij xkj Y j ð10Þ
j¼1
0;26  x23  15;3  x1  x2 þ 9;55  x1  x3 þ 6;12  x2  x3
ð13Þ
where i is the factor number; p is the number of factors; j is the
experiment number; k is the experiment number that is not equal The significance of regression coefficients was tested using Stu-
to i (k – i). dent’s t-criterion by determining the confidence interval for each
The values of the coefficients are presented in Table 4. Experi- type of coefficients at the significance level of 0.95. The coefficient
ment is carried out when the Kochren criterion is Gcalc < Gtabl. is considered statistically significant provided that the absolute
value of the coefficient is greater than the confidence interval:
2.4. Soil compaction test tSyh
jbi j < Dbi ¼  pffiffiffiffi : ð14Þ
N
The experiments were conducted on a field prepared for sow-
Main evaluation results are presented in Table 6.
ing. The characteristics of the research conditions are presented
in Table 5. After installation of the sensors, the uniformity of the Taking into account the results of evaluating the significance of
the regression coefficients, the equations will take the following
soil layer was restored. Soil hardness is controlled by Reviakin’s
hardness meter. Moisture content and density were determined form
by the gravimetric method. P1 ¼ 68; 6  30; 05  x1  12; 19  x2  27; 54  x3 þ 15; 77  x21 þ
;
þ32; 12  x1  x2 þ 19; 37  x1  x3  4; 7  x2  x3
Table 4 ð15Þ
Constant coefficients from Box-Benkin’s calculation formulas plan (Gainullin and
Zaynullin, 2017, 2017b). P2 ¼ 78 þ 27; 9  x1 þ 5; 65  x3 þ 15; 05  x21 þ 22; 05  x22
; ð16Þ
A B C1 D1 q D 23; 75  x1  x2  10  x1  x3
1/8 1/4 1/16 1/4 2 1/4
P3 ¼ 86;2  24;6  x1 þ 10;44  x2 þ 47;44  x3 þ 48;76  x21 þ 32;49x22 
;
15;3  x1  x2 þ 9;55x1  x3
ð17Þ
Table 5 Equations (15), (16), (17) show the system, which describes the
Condition characteristics of laboratory and field experiments.
distribution of pressure on soil in three spots depending on factors
Condition indicator Value x1, x2, x3:
Relief of the field, angle of the slope, degrees 3° 8
> P1 ¼ 68; 6  30; 05  x1  12; 19  x2  27; 54  x3
Salt washed, medium-humic >
>
>
> þ15; 77  x21 þ 32; 12  x1  x2 þ
Soil type >
>
>
> þ19; 37  x1  x3  4; 7  x2  x3
Soil moisture level in a layer, % 12–24 >
>
In a layer from 0 to 30 cv, % >
>
> P
< 2 ¼ 78 þ 27; 9  x1 þ 5; 65  x3 þ 15; 05  x21
Soil hardness, MPa 0.5. . .1.4
In a layer of 0–30 cm þ22; 05  x22  23; 75  x1  x2  ð18Þ
>
>
Metrological conditions 20. . .26 >
> 10  x1  x3
>
>
Air temperature, °C 72. . .92 >
> P3 ¼ 86; 2  24; 6  x1 þ 10; 44  x2 þ 47; 44  x3
>
>
Relative air humidity, % >
>
>
> þ48; 76  x21 þ 32; 49  x22 
Note: The soil type was determined according to the tractor operating conditions, :
the Ural region, Russian Federation.
15; 3  x1  x2 þ 9; 55  x1  x3
8 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12

We transform these equations in decoded form, replacing the change in pressure on soil only in a specific section of the support
variables x1, x2 and x3 in the system of equations (18) with the cor- surface, to find out the parameters, (ensuring stable pressure along
responding expressions. the length of the support surface) total pressure difference at the
outer points relative to the central section was accepted (point2)
h  h0 a  a0 Pkp  P0kp (look at Fig. 2).
x1 ¼ ; x2 ¼ ; x3 ¼ : ð19Þ
Dh Da DPkp This criterion is determined by the expression:
After reorganization the equation system takes the following
form DP ¼ jP2  P1 j þ jP2  P3 j: ð21Þ
8
>
> P1 ¼ 221; 93  13010; 3  h  95; 46  hhk  0; 99  Phk To determine the nature of influence of the height of the trailer
>
> hhk on the pressure difference DP, we take the specific values of the
>
>
2
þ157700  h þ 7740; 92  hhk  hþ
>
> ellipse parameter - h and the force on the hook Phk. The height of
>
> þ48; 42  h  Phk  0; 282  hhk  Phk
>
>
>
> the trailer relative to the reference surface is taken as an argument
>
> P ¼ 64; 76  4413; 75  h  105; 36  hhk þ 0; 391  P hk
< 2 of function with the limits of variation according to the experiment
2 2
þ150500  h þ 128; 1  hhk  ð20Þ plan: hhk = 0,635 ± 0,415 m. Nature of the change in pressure dif-
>
>
>
> 5723; 75  h  hhk  25  hhk  Phk ference is shown in Fig. 8.
>
>
>
> The nature of influence of the trailer’s height on the pressure
>
> P ¼ 157; 72  10766; 1  h  177; 42  hhk þ 0; 945  Phk
>
>
3
difference when changing the parameters h and Phk is similar. This
>
> þ48760
2 2
 h þ 188; 77  hhk  3687; 3  h  hhk þ
>
> is obvious because as the height of the trailer increases, the torque
:
þ23; 87  h  Phk
where h is the thickness of the plate in the middle of the tractor’s
support surface, m; hhk is the height of the trailer in relation to
the support surface, m; Phk is the force on the hook of the tractor,
kN.
To check the adequacy of the equations obtained, calculations of
the Fisher criterion were made. These calculations were compared
with table values at the significance level of 0.95:

– for equation 1 (point 1): F calc ¼ 0; 57 < F table ¼ 2; 5;

– for equation 2 (point 2): F calc ¼ 1; 07 < F table ¼ 2; 5;
– for equation 3 (point 3): F calc ¼ 0; 22 < F table ¼ 2; 5.

The study of dependencies in the presence of three variables is

very difficult. Therefore, we considered each of the parameters sep-
arately. It is obvious that the pressure of the support surface is
influenced by the force on the hook and the height of the trailer rel-
ative to the support surface. At the same time, the height of the
trailer is a design parameter that has a specific value. The goal of
the research was to determine this design parameter - hhk and
the ellipse parameter (plate thickness) - h, which provides a stable
pressure of the tractor’s support surface along its entire length. Fig. 8. Dependence of pressure differences DP on the height of the trailer: with
Since each of the obtained empirical equations characterizes the h = 0, Phk = 0.

Table 6
Evaluation of the significance of regression coefficients by t criterion.

In point 1
Empirical equation of points Regression coefficients
b0 b1 b2 b3 b11 b22 b33 b12 b13 b23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Coefficient value 68.6 30.05 12.2 27.5 15.78 1.4 1.55 32.13 19.37 4.7
Confidence interval 6.07 3.72 6.07 2.02
Assessment of the importance important not important not important important
In point 2
Coefficient b0 b1 b2 b3 b11 b22 b33 b12 b13 b23
Coefficient value 78 27.9 3.45 5.65 15.05 22.1 2.95 23.8 10 1.95
Confidence interval 5.65 3.35 5.65 4.89
Assessment of the importance important important not important important not important
In point 3
Empirical equation of points Regression coefficients
b0 b1 b2 b3 b11 b22 b33 b12 b13 b23
Coefficient value 86.2 24.6 10.44 47.4 48.76 32.5 0.26 15.3 9.55 6.125
Confidence interval 8.12 4.97 8.12 7.03
Assessment of the importance important not important important not important
 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12 9

acting on the frame of the tractor is also being increased. This helps P1 þ P2 þ P3
Pav ¼ ð24Þ
to increase the pressure of the back of the support surface on the 3
soil; the lower the height of the trailer, the more even the pressure
or
on soil along the support surface. However, the height of the trailer
is limited by the design features of the tractor, the working condi- 2
Pav ¼ 120; 245  6018; 46  h þ 265266; 67  h ð25Þ
tions and the design of the hinged mechanism of agricultural
machines. Further decrease in height requires changes in the Graphically, the dependence (25) is shown on Fig. 10. Let’s dif-
design of the hinged mechanism of agricultural machines, but this ferentiate the Eq. (25):
is not acceptable. Thus, we take the height of the trailer relative to dh
the support surface equal to 0.35 m. Pav ¼ 6018; 46 þ 530533; 34  h ð26Þ
h
At a trailer height of 0.35 m. the system of Eq. (20) after conver-
sion will take a simplified form: Equating the derivative to zero, we determine the ellipticity
8 parameter h:
2
>
< P 1 ¼ 188;52  10300; 98  h  1;09  P hk þ 157700  h þ 48;42  h  P hk
dh
2
P 2 ¼ 43;57 þ 2410;44  h þ 0;391  P hk þ 150500  h  25  h  P hk Pav ¼ 0  6018; 46 þ 530533; 34  h ¼ 0 h ¼ 0; 0113M
>
: 2 h
P 3 ¼ 118;75  12056; 65  h þ 0; 945  P hk þ 487600  h þ 23; 87  h  P hk
ð27Þ
ð22Þ
Thus, the ellipse parameter, which provides a stable pressure
This system of equations characterizes the influence of the distribution along the support surface, is equal to h = 0.0113 m.
ellipse parameter h and the force on the hook-on pressure at points This is confirmed by theoretical studies, according to the results
1, 2 and 3. The dependence for the average force on the hook of which the optimal parameter should be 0.011 m.
(Phk = 40 kN) is shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 10 shows that the proposed geometry of the crawler track
The figure shows that the ellipse parameter significantly drive when the tractor works on a medium loam soil field prepared
impacts the amount of pressure. In this case, the pressure at point for sowing reduces the maximum pressure on the soil from
1 decreases when parameter h is increased, at point 2 - increases, 120 kPa to 85 kPa.
and at point 3 - has a pronounced minimum in the vicinity of the Substituting the accepted values h = 0,011 m (ellipticity param-
values: h = 0.01–0.013. eter) and hhk = 0,35 m (trailer height) into the equation (22), after
For further calculations, we simplified the system of equations the reorganization we obtain a system of equations with parame-
(22), taking the force on the hook Phk = 40 kN, which corresponds ters. These parameters provide a more stable distribution of pres-
to the average value (this is due to the fact that the main techno- sure on soil along the support surface of the tractor:
logical operations are performed at a force of 40. . .50 kN. The max- 8
imum force on the hook – 70. . .80 kN and it is created only when < P1 ¼ 94; 29  0; 556  Phk
>
performing energy-intensive operations, such as plowing). Given P2 ¼ 88; 301 þ 0; 116  Phk ð28Þ
the value Phk = 40 kN the Eq. (22) takes the following form:
>
:
P3 ¼ 45; 124 þ 1; 21  Phk
8 2
>
< P1 ¼ 144; 97  8364; 18  h þ 157700  h After approximation of the equation system (28) when the force
P2 ¼ 59; 22 þ 1410; 44  h þ 150500  h
2
ð23Þ on the hook is known, we take as an argument the longitudinal
>
:
P3 ¼ 156; 55  11101; 65  h þ 487600  h
2 coordinate of the point on the support surface X with respect to
the center of coordinates 0, i.e. the center of the reference surface
Since the system of equations characterizes the impact on soil (Fig. 1). Then the equations characterizing the pressure at each
at different points of the support surface, it is very difficult to esti- point will take the form:
mate how even the pressure is with one or another value of the
ellipse parameter. In order to determine the most preferred value with Phk ¼ 0 kN p ¼ 63; 09 þ 49; 795  X  18; 594  X 2 ;
of the ellipse parameter, which provides a more stable distribution
with Phk ¼ 40 kN p ¼ 30; 755 þ 51; 497  X  10; 202  X 2 ;
of pressure on the support surface, we take the criterion of the
average pressure on the soil: with P hk ¼ 80 kN p ¼ 1; 58 þ 53; 2  X  1; 81  X 2 ;

Fig. 9. The dependence of pressure on soil in the front (point 1), center (point2) and
rear (point 3 parts of the support surface from ellipse parameter h, with a force on Fig. 10. Dependence of the maximum pressure of the tractor’s support surface on
the hook of Phk = 40 kN. soil from the ellipticity parameter h where Phk = 40 kN.
10 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12

where p is the amount of pressure in soil, kPa; X is the longitu- with a stable pressure distribution soil compaction value is
dinal coordinate of the support surface point, m (U ¼ 1; 44M ). reduced by 15. . .25%. The change in soil density in the trail of T-
The nature of pressure distribution corresponds with the theo- 170M1.03-55 tractor depending on uhk (under the conditions
retical results obtained earlier, which confirms the assumption t = 0.3; E0 = 16 MPa; q0 = 0.95 g/cm3; H = 0.30 m) has the following
that it is possible to reduce the pressure on soil by changing the form shown on Fig. 11. Experimental values of soil density after the
geometry of the tractor’s support surface. T-170M1.03-55 tractor, with regard to the soil depth, are shown in
Density in the track of T–170.M1.01–55 tractor with a flat and Fig. 12. To make the experiments, we used a field prepared for sow-
ellipse support part calculated the following dependence, which ing. Before the experiment, the field was subjected to harrowing
takes into account the characteristics of the soil, the mover type, and pre-sowing cultivation to the depth of 16–18 cm with soil
the number of impacts on soil from variable loads: moisture ranged between 31.7. . .37.5%. T–170.M1.01–55 tractor
with flat and elliptical support part was loaded by flat and elliptical
qt ¼ q0 H=ðH  hÞ ð29Þ crawler rim which force is 42. . .44 kN. With a load of 80 kN, the soil
where pt, p0 is the soil density, respectively, after compaction and density difference at the depth of 0.30 m along with the track was
before it, g/cm3; H is the distance from the soil surface to the solid 25%. The same value at idle motion of the tractor was 15%.
bedding layer (is the depth of deformation) H = 0.30 m; h is the
depth of the track (soil settlement), m.
The depth of the track h was figured out using the following 4. Discussion
equation (for the conditions of the Ural region of the Russian
Federation): Soil compaction caused by a tractor mover depends on not only
the tractor average pressure on soil, but also more on the design of
h ¼ x  b  pmax  ð1  t2 Þ  ð1 þ v  lgNÞ=E0 ; ð30Þ the mover and the contact stresses generated in the support parts
during the interaction. The maximum pressure can exceed the
where t and E0 are accordingly the coefficients of lateral expansion
average pressure of the tractor by two or more times. In particular,
and the volume expansion module. x is the coefficient, which
the T-170M1.03-55 tractor reaches up to 0.166 MPa and extreme
depends on the size and shape of the mover’s support surface:
pressure values are offset to the edges of the contact points. The
- ¼ ð0:92 þ 0:3L=bÞ2=3 ; for a track-chain mover with L/b < 7, and solution of the modeling problem was obtained using the theory
L/b > 7 x = 2.15, forT-170M1.03-55 tractor the relation L/b = 2.88/ of elasticity methods, when interacting with a perfectly homoge-
0.51 = 5.65 it follows herefrom - ¼ ð0:92 þ 0:3  5:65Þ2=3 ¼ 1:9. b neous and elastic environment. In this case, such an assumption
is the width of the mover, m. L is the tractor’s support surface may seem unjustified, since the soil does not belong to materials
lenght, m. pmax is the maximum pressure on soil. kPa; v is the coef-
ficient of accumulation intensity of irreversible deformation under
repeated loads which is figured out by the next dependency:
v ¼ tgbð1=ðq1  q0 ÞÞ, where b is the angle of inclination of the linear
function q ¼ f ðlgNÞ. q1 is the soil density after a single load is
applied. Usually 0:2 6 x P 2:5, if the v value is not determined, in
approximate calculations it is recommended to take v = l,0. N is
the number of repeated loads caused by the mover (it corresponds
to the number of sections with increasing pressure on the pressure
distribution of the mover).
In order to take into account the uneven pressure over the con-
tact area, the depth of the trace (30) was presented as the sum of
deepening values of the trace after each mover passes sequentially
the one after the other.
h ¼ h1 þ h2 þ ::: þ hi ð31Þ
where h1, hi is the track depth after the 1st passage of the i- Fig. 11. Change of soil density in the trail of T-170M1.03-55 tractor: h is a flat
track-chain bypass; h is an elliptical track-chain bypass.
moveror after conversion

xbð1  v 2 Þ X
N
h¼  ðp1 þ v fpiþ1 ½lgði þ 1Þ  lgðiÞgÞ ð32Þ
E0 iþ1

After reformation of the Eq. (29) with (32) we obtained:

H
qt ¼ xbð1m2 Þ
 q0
H E0
 ðp1 þ v  p2  lg2Þ
 for a flat support surface ð33Þ

H
qt ¼ m Þ
 q0
H  xbð1
2

E0
 ðp1 Þ
 for and elliptical support surface ð34Þ

p1, pi+1 is the maximum pressure of the first and the following
mover (according to the pressure distribution, Pa.
Comparative calculations of soil density using formulas (33,34)
on the trail and experimental studies of T-170M1.03-55 tractor
with an elliptical bypass for different types of soil showed that
Fig. 12. Statistics for soil density along the furrows after the T-170M1.03-55
tractor: h – flat track-chain bypass; h – elliptical track-chain bypass; 4 – out of the
tracks.
 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12 11

having such characteristics. However, the complications connected extreme pressure. For a chain-track mover with a semi-rigid sus-
with the soil structure heterogeneity do not change the general pension and flat support part there are two effects on soil. When
nature of the conclusions obtained using the theory of elasticity. changing the geometry of the support surface with a pressure dis-
There are no elastic elements between the track-chain trolley tribution with one extreme value, the number of impacts is
and the support rollers. Thus, the rigidity of the ‘‘mover-soil” con- reduced to one. The influence of multiple passes on soil com-
tact is almost completely determined by the soil properties taking paction and its structure is established for wheel movers (Pulido-
into account the rigidity of the chain track. Moncada et al., 2019).
To describe pressure distribution along the support surface of a
chain-track mover with a semi-rigid suspension we propose to use
5. Conclusion
the mathematical model obtained based on the elastic contact
problem. This model can be used to calculate the pressure distribu-
Experimental studies on the impact of T-170M1.03-55 tractor
tion along with the contact length, when changing the pulling force
movers on soil determined that the maximum pressure reaches
on the hook, the height of the trailer, the displacement of the cen-
0.166 MPa. Expressed extreme pressure diagrams in the zone of
ter of gravity of the tractor.
the 1st and 6th support rollers, cause a double impact on soil in
By changing the geometry of the support surface of the chain-
one pass along the track of the mover, which causes increased soil
track mover with a semi-rigid suspension and during the rational
compaction with a corresponding decrease in traction properties of
location of the center of mass of the tractor relative to the axis of
the tractor. To achieve the elliptical geometry of the support part of
symmetry of the support surface, it is possible to reduce the pres-
a crawler tractor with a semi-rigid suspension, lower track wheels
sure of the mover on soil. The elliptical geometry of the support
were set at different heights. To provide typical working conditions
surface f(x) depends on the following parameters: the weight of
of the T-170M1.03-55 crawler tractor with semi-rigid suspension,
the tractor, the length of the support surface, the location of the
the third and the fourth lower track wheels should be placed 9.5
mass center, the magnitude of traction force and its application
± 1.5 mm lower, and the second and the fifth ones 4.5 ± 0.5 mm
point, the material properties of the chain-track and of soil. The
lower. When a crawler tractor is on the medium loam soil field pre-
elasticity parameter obtained from the experimental data and
pared for sowing, the elliptical geometry of its track drive reduces
which provides stable pressure distribution along the support sur-
both the maximum pressure from 120 to 85 kPa, and the load on
face equals to h = 0.0113 m. This confirms the results of theoretical
outer lower track wheels by evenly distributing pressure on the
studies. As a result of these studies the optimal parameter was
soil. The elliptical geometry of the support surface of a chain-
obtained and it is 0.011 m.
track tractor with semi-rigid suspension is achieved by installing
Elliptical geometry of the chain-track tractor’s support part
support rollers at different heights.
with a semi-rigid suspension is achieved with the installation of
Based on the contact problem of the elasticity theory, a model of
support rollers at different height, this is the main advantage of
pressure distribution under the support surface of the mover is
this method.
developed. It takes into account the influence of the mover’s geom-
The uneven distribution of pressure along the length of the sup-
etry the, the location of the center of mass, the magnitude and
port part is influenced by the tractor equal weight displacement
point of application of traction resistances acting on the tractor.
(eccentricity - e) caused by the pulling force on the hook as relating
An Eq. (1) to describe the geometry of the support part of a
to the symmetry axis of the support surface. For a chain-track trac-
chain-track tractor with a semi-rigid suspension is proposed. It
tor designed to work with the pulling resistance on the hook dur-
provides a stable distribution of pressure along the support
ing the engineering process, it is necessary to put the mass center
surface.
in front of the middle of the length of the support surface. In par-
The location of the tractor’s center of mass from the load mode
ticular, this value for T-170M1.03-55 tractor is 0,165 m. The
and the geometry of the support surface of the mover is justified.
obtained eccentricity equation is consistent with the well-known
For T-170M1.03-55 tractor with a pulling force of 80 kN and a trai-
expressions for determining the horizontal coordinate of the trac-
ler height of 0.4 m, the mass center should be located at 0.165 m
tor’s center of mass (Bekker, 1982; Vong, 1982; Ksenevich et al.,
forward from the middle of the support surface.
2003).
Laboratory and field tests showed that the proposed geometry
The nature of pressure distribution on soil of the experimental
of a chain-track mover when the tractor is working on a field pre-
studies is consistent with the theoretical results, which confirms
pared for sowing, with medium-loamy soil reduces the maximum
the assumption that it is possible to reduce the pressure on soil
pressure on the soil from 120 kPa to 85 kPa. It also reduces the load
by changing the geometry of the tractor’s support part. The ellipti-
on the extreme support rollers by evenly distributing the pressure
cal geometry of the crawler mover reduces the maximum pressure
on soil.
from 120 kPa to 85 kPa when the tractor is working on a field pre-
The influence of T-170 M 1.03.55 tractor’s support surface
pared for sowing with medium-loamy soil.
geometry on soil compaction was determined. With the justified
Numerous studies of soil density effect on crop yields have
knowledge of the above, stable pressure distribution across the
shown that density is one of the important agrophysical character-
track rollers was ensured and the soil compaction in the groove
istics of soil that determine its fertility (Ksenevich and Rusanov,
was reduced by 15. . .25%.
2000; Gainullin, 2001; Ksenevich et al., 2003; Hamza and
Thus, the mover pressure on soil, and consequently reduction in
Anderson, 2005; Holtkemeyer, 2005; Gainullin et al., 2010;
compaction can be achieved by changing the geometry of the sup-
Khaliullin et al., 2010; Elaoud and Chehaibi, 2011; Nawaz et al.,
port part of a track-chain tractor with a semi-rigid suspension, as
2013; Elaoud et al., 2014; Cueto et al., 2016; Okunev and
well as by the rational location of the tractor’s center of mass rel-
Kuznetsov, 2016; Edwin et al., 2018; Gabitov et al., 2018;
ative to the support part.
Paulson et al., 2018; Rakhimov et al., 2018; Pulido-Moncada
et al., 2019).
The soil density in the track left by a chain-track tractor mainly Declaration of Competing Interest
depends on the magnitude of the pressure of the mover and the
number of impacts in one pass. With each pass of the chain-track The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
mover, the number of effects on each elementary track pad will cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
be the same as the number of sections of the support part with to influence the work reported in this paper.
12 S. Mudarisov et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 89 (2020) 1–12

References wheel-drive. J. Terramech. 77, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jterra.2018.02.002.
Khaliullin, K.Z., Kiyekbayev, T.I., Lukyanov, S.A., Gainullin, I.A., 2010. Resource –
Aipov, R.S., Yarullin, R.B., Gabitov, I.I., Mudarisov, S.G., Linenko, A.V., Farhshatov, M.
saving technologies of crops of step cultivated lands of the Republi of
N., Khasanov, E.R., Gabdrafikov, F.Z., Yukhin, G.P., Galiullin, R.R., 2018.
Bashkortostan. Agro-Ind. Complex Achiev. 1, 34–35 (in Russian).
Mechatronic system linear swing vibrating screen of a grain cleaner. J. Eng.
Ksenevich, I.P., Goberman, V.A., Goberman, L.A., 2003. Land traction and transport
Appl. Sci. 13 (8), 6473–6477. https://doi.org/10.1166/jctn.2019.8121.
systems. Moscow, pp. 743 (in Russian).
Bekker, M.G., 1982. An introduction to the theory of the ‘‘locality-machinery”
Ksenevich, I.P., Rusanov, V.A., 2000. Soil impact problem: some reserch results.
systems. Agricultural engineering. Moscow, pp. 520.
Tract. Farm Mach. 1, 15–20. in Russian.
Cueto, O.G., Coronel, C.E.I., Bravo, E.L., Morfa, C.A.R., Suárez, M.H., 2016. Modelling in
Lee, J.W., Kim, J.S., Kim, K.U., 2016. Computer simulations to maximise fuel
FEM the soil pressures distribution caused by a tyre on a Rhodic Ferralsol soil. J.
efficiency and work performance of agricultural tractors in rotovating and
Terramech. 63, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2015.09.003.
ploughing operations. Biosyst. Eng. 142, 1–11. 10.1016/j.
Edwin, P., Shankar, K., Kannan, K., 2018. Soft soil track interaction modeling in
biosystemseng.2015.11.012.
single rigid body tracked vehicle models. J. Terramech. 77, 1–14. https://doi.org/
Lvovskiy, E.N., 1988. Statistical methods of empirical formula constructing. Sudy-
10.1016/j.jterra.2018.01.001.
guide for higher technical educational institutions. High school, pp. 239 (in
Elaoud, A., Chehaibi, S., 2011. Soil compaction due to tractor traffic. J. Fail. Anal.
Russian).
Prev. 11 (5), 539–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-011-9479-3.
Nawaz, M.F., Bourrie, G., Trolard, F., 2013. Soil compaction impact and modelling. A
Elaoud, A., Chehaibi, S., Abrougui, K., 2014. Simulation of soil behavior following the
review. Agron. Sustainable Develop. 33 (2), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/
passage of tractors. Int. J. Curr. Eng. Technol. 4 (1).
s13593-011-0071-8.
El-Sayegh, Z., El-Gindy, M., Johansson, I., Öijer, F., 2018. Improved tire-soil
Okunev, G.A., Kuznetsov, N.A., 2016. The influence of average class tractors on soil
interaction model using FEA-SPH simulation. J. Terramech. 78, 53–62. https://
and its consequances. Assessment of tractor use efficiency. Agro-Ind. Complex
doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2018.05.001.
Russia 75 (1), 53–59. in Russian.
Farhadi, P., Golmohammadi, A., Sharifi, A., Shahgholi, G., 2018. Potential of three-
Padmanabhan, C., Gupta, S., Mylswamy, A., 2018. Estimation of terramechanics
dimensional footprint mold in investigating the effect of tractor tire contact
parameters of wheel-soil interaction model using particle filtering. J.
volume changes on rolling resistance. J. Terramech. 78, 63–72. https://doi.org/
Terramech. 79, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2018.07.003.
10.1016/j.jterra.2018.05.003.
Paulson, I.W., Dolovich, A.T., Noble, S.D., 2018. Development of a dynamic
Gabitov, I., Mudarisov, S., Gafurov, I., Ableeva, A., Negovora, A., Davletshin, M.,
simulation model of a towed seeding implement. J. Terramech. 75, 25–35.
Rakhimov, Z., Khamaletdinov, R., Martynov, V., Yukhin, G., 2018. Evaluation of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2017.10.006.
the efficiency of mechanized technological processes of agricultural production.
Pulido-Moncada, M., Munkholm, L.J., Schjønning, P., 2019. Wheel load, repeated
J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 13, 8338–8345.
wheeling, and traction effects on subsoil compaction in northern Europe. Soil
Gainullin, I.A., 2001. Decrease in the compacting stress on soil when using a chain-
Tillage Res. 186, 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.11.005.
tracted tractor. Tract. Farm Mach. 9, 19–22. in Russian.
Rakhimov, Z., Mudarisov, S., Gabitov, I., Rakhimov, I., Rakhimov, R., Farkhutdinov, I.,
Gainullin, I.A., 2015. Simulation of pressure distribution of the crawler tractor on
Tanylbaev, M., Valiullin, I., Yamaletdinov, M., Aminov, R., 2018. Mathematical
the ground. Sci. Almanac 7 (9), 613–615. in Russian.
description of the mechanical erosion process in sloping fields. J. Eng. Appl. Sci.
Gainullin, I.A., 2017. Experimental study of track-type tractor speed influence on
13, 6505–6511.
soil sealing. Int. Res. J. 3–4 (57), 29–31. in Russian.
Taheri, S., Sandu, C., Taheri, S., Pinto, E., Gorsich, D., 2015. A technical survey on
Gainullin, I.A., 2019. Influence of the operating conditions on the wear intensity of
Terramechanics models for tire–terrain interaction used in modeling and
the T-170M1.03-53 chain-track tractor. Messenger of the Bashkir State Agrarian.
simulation of wheeled vehicles. J. Terramech. 57, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/
University. Ufa 1 (49), 121–126. in Russian.
j.jterra.2014.08.003.
Gainullin, I.A., Zaynullin, A.R., 2017. Improvement of energetic and ecological
Vong, Dzh, 1982. Land Transport Theory. Agricultural Engineering, Moscow, p. 284.
indicators of the T-170M1.03-55 tractor’s mover. Scientific and technical
Wang, M., Wang, X., Sun, Y., Gu, Z., 2016. Tractive performance evaluation of
achievements of the agro-industrial complex 31(2), 69–72 (in Russian).
seafloor tracked trencher based on laboratory mechanical measurements. Int. J.
Gainullin, I.A., Zaynullin, A.R., 2017b. Influence of movers’ parameters and loading
Nav. Archit. Ocean 8 (2), n177–n187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
regimes on soil. Fundam. Res. 2, 31–36. in Russian.
ijnaoe.2016.01.005.
Gainullin, I.A., Khisametdinov, R.R., Efimov, A.V., 2010. Work efficiency of seedbed
Yang, C., Cai, L., Liu, Z., Tian, Y., Zhang, C., 2016. A calculation method of track shoe
combination units. Farm Mech. Electrif. 3, 10–12 (in Russian).
thrust on soft ground for splayed grouser. J. Terramech. 65, 38–48. https://doi.
Hamza, M.A., Anderson, W.K., 2005. Soil compaction in cropping systems A review
org/10.1016/j.jterra.2016.02.001.
of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 82, 121–145.
Zakhmatov, I.P., Shatalov, V.T., Razuvayev, F.S., 1982. Geometry of the chain-track
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009.
tractor’s support unit with a semirigid casing suspension. Scientific papers.
Holtkemeyer, V., 2005. Messung der Reifenverformung bei verschiedenen Radlasten
Chelyabinsk Institute of Mechanization and Elictrification of Agriculture.
und Luftdrucken. Landtechnik 60 (2), 76–79.
Chelyabinsk, pp. 25–32 (in Russian).
Janulevičius, A., Damanauskas, V., Pupinis, G., 2018. Effect of variations in front
wheels driving lead on performance of a farm tractor with mechanical front-

View publication stats