A MOBILITY MODEL

FOR TRACKED VEHICLES

by

Karl H. Gleason

A PAPER

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of

Master of Forestry

Completed May 2, 1985

Commencement June 1985

 AN ABSTRACT OF THE PAPER OF

Karl H. Gleason for the degree of Master of Forestry in

Forest Engineering presented on May 2, 1985

Title: A Mobility Model for Tracked Vehicles

Abstract approved

Dr /Julian Sessions

A semi-empirical mobility model is presented which

predicts tracked vehicle performance in timber harvesting

applications. The interactions between the log load and the
terrain, the log load and the vehicle, and the vehicle and
the terrain cause resistances for the vehicle. The mobility
model calculates these resistances, comparing them to both
the power limitations of the vehicle and the tractive
limitations of the soil, to determine if the vehicle is

immobilized. If not, then the vehicle speed is calculated

based on available drawbar pull. The timber harvesting

productivity of the vehicle in the given terrain is

calculated as a function of the vehicle velocity, non-travel

time, and delays.

The mobility model can be used to analyze either

flexible track or rigid track vehicles. Soil strength is

measured by rating cone index.

 R-A-F-T-S, a user-interactive computer program of the
mobility model, is presented. R-A-F-T-S is an acronym for
'1rigid and flexible track skidding'1. The program is written

in HP 97050A version of the BASIC language. Documentation

for using the program is included.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is with sincere appreciation that the author

remembers Dr. Julian Sessions for his guidance, inspiration.
ard help in the development of this project, and for his
help in editing this paper. I would also like to thank the
other members of my committee, Dr. Eldon Olsen and Dr.

Marvin Pyles, for their support and expert guidance.

I wish to thank the U. S. Forest Service for funding
travel and research.

I am greatly indebted to the following personnel from

the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station in

Vicksburg, Mississippi for their help in explaining the NATO

mobility model, and their willingness to supply documents
and reports which otherwise would have been yery difficult
to obtain:

Clifford J. Nuttall
Charles E. Green
Bart G. Schreiner
Gerald W. Turnage
Richard B. Ahlvin
I would also like to thank Judith Sessions for the

excellent typing of this paper.

Special thanks to Cyrilla, my wife, for her support and

love throughout our years together.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

OBJECTIVES 4

JUSTIFICATION 5

SCOPE 6

LITERATURE SEARCH 8

OVERVIEW OF THE MOBILITY MODEL 14

COMPONENTS OF THE MODEL 18

Log Skidding Force Models 18

Vehicle Characteristics 25
Vehicle Limited Tractive Effort 29
Soil Characteristics 31
Soil Limited Tractive Effort 34
Motion Resistance 41
Ground Pressure Distribution 51
Grade Resistance 62
Slip 63
Cycle Time 67
Productivity 69

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 71

VERIFICATION 80

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY 88

BIBLIOGRAPHY 91

APPENDICES 94
Glossary 95
Sample Program Run 108
Vehicle Characteristics 114
R-A-F-T-S Computer Program Listing 118
Soil Measurement Procedure 135
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1 Macro flowchart of R-A-F-T-S. 17

2 Geometry of tree-length log during skidding. 21

3 Geometry of log-length log during skidding. 21

4 Drawbar pull versus speed curves, for a

Caterpillar D6D. 26

5 Vehicle dimensions. 26

6 Uniform pressure distribution under a track. 43

7 Pressure distribution under a track for

elastic soils. 43

8 Pressure distribution under a track for

inelastic soils. 54

9 Track divided into segments. 54

10 Three cases of pressure distribution for an

elastic soil. 56

11 Sinkage of track when contact length is less

than the track length and Pr > Pf. 58

12 Procedure to find values of R1 and RBk. 61

13 Typical gross tractive effort versus

slip curve. 65

14 The effect of vehicle cone index type on soil

limited tractive effort for fine-grained soil. 72

15 The effect of grousers on soil limited

tractive effort for fine-grained soil. 72

16 The effect of vehicle cone index type on

compaction resistance for fine-grained soil. 74

17 The effect of track type on compaction

resistance for coarse-grained soil. 74

18 The effect of track type on gross tractive

effort for coarse-grained soil. 77
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Percent differences between R-A-F-T-S calculated

travel times and actual measured travel times. 87

2 Percent differences between R-A-F-T-S calculated

travel times and actual measured travel times,
after adjustment by regression equation. 87
 INTRODUCTION

Mobility, in the context of timber harvesting with

skidders, is concerned with the performance of the skidder

in relation to these interactions; the vehicle with the

soil, the log load with the vehicle, and the log load with
the soil.

The current state of development of the analysis of

mobility falls into three general categories:

Empirical

Semi-empirical

Analytical.

The first category, empirical, is limited in scope and

application. Regression equations, which are an example of
the empirical method, are generally concerned with only one
or two aspects of vehicle behavior, such as speed or

production. Regression equations have the further

disadvantage of being limited in application. This is due

to the regression equation's inaccuracy when applied to

conditions different from the field-conditions originally

used to derive the regression equation. The experience and

behavior of the skidder operator generally has a large

influence on the derivation of regression equations for

skidder production.
 2

Use of the analytical method for the modeling of soil-

track interaction requires a complex open solution to a set

of differential equations and, therefore, has seen limited

development (Dooley and Turner 1983). This avenue of

research has the potential for development of some very

accurate mobility models which could have broad application.

One problem, which may be solved in the future, is the

complex and difficult set of field measurements needed as

input to the mathematical model.

The other category of analysis, the semi-empirical, is

a combination of the empirical and analytical methods.

Bekker (1956) combined theoretical soil mechanics concepts

with empirically derived °pressure-sinkage" relationships
for soil (Dooley and Turner 1983). Bekker's equations

require the field measurement of six soil parameters by

means of a bevameter. Measurements with a bevameter require

a high degree of skill and knowledge. For this reason, it

would be difficult to apply the Bekker equations in a

working environment where the highly trained specialists

needed to make the bevameter readings are not available.

An alternative form of measuring soil strength, the

rating cone index, is used in the semi-empirical mobility

equations for tracked vehicles developed by the Army Corps
Waterways Experimental Station (WES). These equations are
presented in the NATO Reference Mobility Model (Haley et.

aL, 1979), referred to in this paper as NATO.

 3

R-A-F-T-S uses equations from NATO to estimate the

tractive force available from the soil, the resistance to

movement acting on the tracks, and the slip of the tracks on

the soil. NATO was developed for conditions where the

pressure distribution under the tracks is somewhat uniform.

In logging operations, a non-uniform pressure distribution

caused by the skidding of log loads and/or travel on steep
grades often occurs, R-A-F-T-S modifies NATOts equations
for motion resistance to account for a non-uniform pressure
distribution.

The terminology used in this paper is identical to that

used in R-A-F-T-S, so that this paper can serve as a user's
manual for the computer program. All of the variables used
in the equations are defined in the Glossary, Appendix A.

The more important variables are also defined in the text.

R-A-F-T-S is intended to be used as a tool for

estimating the cost and productivity of a given tracked

vehicle in a given log harvest setting. It can also be used

to compare the productivities of several different tracked

vehicles, thus helping the user to select the best tracked

vehicle for the given set of conditions.
 4

OBJECTIVES

To develop a mobility model for rigid and flexible

tracked skidders which estimates the pressure distribution
under the tracks, occurrences of a "no-go" situation9 timber
harvesting cycle round trip time, and timber harvesting

cycle production.

To compare the model results with field results.

To develop a user-interactive program of the

mobility model.
 5

JUSTIFICATION

The R-A-F-T-S mobility model, through the use of semi-

empirical relationships of the soil, the vehicle, and the

log load, can estimate vehicle speed and behavior over a

wide range of conditions.

R-A-F-T-5 is not intended to replace regression

equations as a means of predicting track vehicle speed,

performance, or productivity. R-A-F-T-S is useful as a

companion or supplement to regression equations. It will be

particularly useful for analysis of field conditions beyond

the scope of existing regression equations. The interactions
of the tracks and the soil, the payload and the soil, and
the payload and the vehicle, are complex, requiring many
simplifying assumptions to allow for workable mathematical
modeling and field measurement limitations. Thus, any

broadly applicable mobility model may be less accurate than

a site-specific regression equation, assuming that the

regression equation is being used within its allowable range

of application.

R-A-F-T-S will also be useful for analyzing conditions

not addressed by a given regression equation. As an example,

the maximum pressure under the tracks can be estimated using

R-A-F-T-S, which may be useful in assessing impacts from

soil compaction due to skidding with tracked vehicles.

 6

SCOPE

R-A-F-T-S is designed to estimate the velocity and

performance of flexibleand rigid tracked vehicles in timber

harvesting applications. The timber harvesting cycle

consists of the vehicle travelling empty from the landing to

the log load hook-up point in the woods; the vehicle

returning "loaded" (i.e. skidding the log load); the

hooking, unhooking, and decking of the log load; and delays.

R-AF-T-S is a combination of empirical and semi-

empirical methods of analysis. Soil strength is measured

empirically using the rating cone index (Rci) or, for some

soil types, the cone index (Ci). Log-soil and log-vehicle

interactions are modeled using semi-empirical methods, which
are a combination of field tests and mathematical

relationships. The vehicle-soil interaction is modeled

using semi-empirical relationships from NATO to calculate

motion resistance, soil-limited tractive effort, and slip of

the tracks on the soil. Track sinkage into the soil is not

calculated.

Limited verification of the model is accomplished using

data from Seifert (1982). The Seifert data does not include
soil information, A rating cone index of 200 psi is assumed

for the verification, based on conversations with Seifert.

Gibbons (1982) used a cone index of 200 psi for comparison
of Seifert's data to a rubber tired skidder mobility model.
 7

Soil types are limited to inorganic soils, fine-grained

or coarse-grained. Travel on organic soils, defined as

muskeg or peat, are not analyzed. Also, travel on snow

and/or frozen soils is not modeled.

Ground conditions not modeled include surface
irregularities and vegetation, soil stickiness, and soil

surface slipperiness caused by water on the surface.

This paper is limited to rigid or flexible tracked,
self-powered vehicles. Towed vehicles are not analyzed.

Vehicle motion is restricted to straight, unaccelerated

forward motion at full throttle in the most efficient gear,

with equal weight on each track. Operator discomfort or

inefficiency is not modeled.

Skidding includes tree-length and log-length log loads

which are approximated by a single composite log. Log

skidding is by chokers. Grapple skidding is not modeled.

 8

LITERATURE SEARCH

The two main components of the mobility model are the

interaction of the log load with the ground and the vehicle,

and the interaction of the vehicle and the soil, including

the pressure distribution under the tracks. Log skidding

studies, vehicle-soil models, and other related topics were

reviewed.

The log skidding studies fall into three major

categories:

log-length,

tree-length, and

whole tree versus tree-length.

Semi-empirical equations by Herrick (1955), with later

modifications by Fiske and Fridley (1975), were developed
for skidding with or without an arch. Herrick's equations
are largely empirical, derived from observations of the

skidding of 12-foot long black oak logs, and are, there-

fore, of limited value when predicting skidding forces for

logs much longer than 12 feet.

An analytically derived set of equations, for logs

skidded with an arch, was presented by Lysne and Burditt

(1983). Lysne and Burditt's model is derived from a static
force balance on an arch skidded log load in contact with
the ground at only one point. An analytical model for
estimating skidding forces in tree-length logs was developed
by Perumpral (1977) and later modified by Gibbons (1982).

Perumpral's model, unlike Lysne and Burditt's, assumes that

the logs are curved due to deflection from their own weight,
causing the logs to be in contact with the ground for a

substantial portion of their length.

A search of the literature indicates that there is no

consensus in the modeling of the skidding forces involved in

skidding whole (or full) trees. Hassan and Gustafson (1981)
provide a literature review of forces due to log skidding
and also present the results of experiments they conducted
measuring the skidding forces involved in skidding whole
trees as compared to tree-length logs. The species tested
was loblolly pine. The whole tree average length was 79.11
feet with an average butt diameter (inside bark) of 12.55

inches. The tree-length logs had an average length of 67.17

feet, and an average butt diameter (inside bark) of 12.58

inches. The study results showed the average coefficient of

skidding (Cs) for whole trees ws 0.55 and for tree-length
logs was 1.50. The coefficient Cs is applied to the total
payload weight (Wi).

Bennett (1962) performed a study which indicates,

unlike the study by Hassan and Gustafson (1981), that the

average coefficients of skidding are greater for tree-length
logs than for whole trees. In Bennett's st'idy, several tree
species were tested, but not loblolly pine. Almost all of
 10

the species-trail combinations studied resulted in larger

skidding coefficients for whole trees than for tree-length

logs, with an average ratio of 1.24:1. The only exceptions

were the skidding of mixed species loads on hard-packed

snow, and the skidding of balsam fir on saturated soft

organic/loam with a cone index of 4 psi. The balsam fir on

organic/loam mush is the only evidence of a species effect

within Bennett's study.

Another study of the skidding forces of whole trees

versus tree-length logs is from Garlicki and Calvert (1969).
As in Bennett's study, the coefficients of skidding for

whole trees were found to be higher than for tree-length

logs. Calvert observed an average reduction of 36% in power
requirements when skidding equal-weight loads of tree-length

logs versus whole trees. The species tested was red pine.

Hassan and Gustafson (1981) concluded that further

study of whole-tree skidding is needed, based on the

incomplete nature of their study and previous studies by

others. The studies by Bennett (1962) and Garlicki and

Calvert (1969) did not include data on the effect that

whole-tree versus tree-length skidding has on the proportion

of log load weight transferred to the vehicle. This

information is needed to determine the coefficient of

friction between the log and the ground, referred to as i in

much of the literature. The coefficient i is applied only

 11

to the portion of the log weight transferred to the ground

(Q).

The log skidding studies reviewed generally describe

the log load in terms of pounds, rather than board-feet.
Mann and Lysons (1972) presented a method for converting

board-feet to pounds for a single log of given length and

diameter.

An early semi-empirical approach for calculating the

interaction of the vehicle with the soil was presented by

Bekker (1965). Bekker's equations predict the performance

of wheeled and tracked vehicles. The equations have been
modified by the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command (USATACOM)
Land Locomotion Division (LLD) as reported in Rula and

Nuttall (1971), on the basis of experimental data. Six soil

values measured by means of a bevameter are used in Bekker's

equations.

In 1945, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways

Experiment Station (WES) undertook research which led to the
development of two vehicle-soil models; the WES vehicle cone
index system, and the WES mobility number system. The WES
models use the cone index (Ci) and rating cone index (Rci)

as a measure of soil strength. Frietag was instrumental in

the development of the WES mobility number system for rubber

tired vehicles, also known as the Frietag Numeric System
(Frietag, 1965). Frietag's work is the basis for equations
for tractive pull developed by Wismer and Luth (1974).
 12

Several mobility models for rubber tired log skidders have

been developed using the Wismer and Luth equations (Gibbons
1982, 1ff et aL, 1982, Hassler et aL, 1983, and Olsen and
Gibbons, 1983). A time and production study of crawler and
rubber tired skidders by Seifert (1982) was used by Gibbons
(1982) for comparison with the rubber tired skidder mobility
model.

The U. S. Army Corps Waterways Experiment Station (WES)

equations for tracked vehicle interaction with the soil, as

originally presented in Rula and Nuttall (1971), use the

Vehicle Cone Index (Vci) System. The Vci is defined as the

minimum soil strength in terms of rating cone index (Rci)

required for a vehicle of given dimensions and

characteristics to travel on a soil. The WES model was

modified by Turnage (1973) so that tracked vehicle mobility

on coarse-grained soils is estimated using dimensionless

numerics, similar in concept to the Frietag numeric system.
Tracked vehicle mobility on fine-grained soil is estimated
in the WES model using the vehicle cone index system. The

WES model is incorporated into the NATO Reference Mobility

Model (Haley et al., 1979).

The NATO model assumes a uniform rectangular pressure

distribution under the tracks. This pressure distribution
model is inadequate for timber harvesting applications
because of the non-uniform pressure distribution created
when towing or skidding loads or when travelling on steep
 13

slopes, as reported by Guskov (1968) and Lysne and Burditt

(1983). Wills (1963) reported on the effect of non-uniform
pressure on the gross tractive effort and the compaction

resistance. Equations presented by Bekker (1969) model the

effect of soil elasticity on pressure distribution.
 14

OVERVIEW OF THE MOBILITY MODEL

RAF-T-S is a mobility model which predicts vehicle

performance of rigid and flexible tracked vehicles given

soil, vehicle, and log loading information. The activities

modeled in R-A-F-TS are illustrated in Figure 1 and

described as follows.
The procedure begins with a description of the

vehicle, the log load characteristics, and a set of terrain

and soil data for each segment of the travel path. The

terrain and soil data includes grade, rating cone index,

soil type (i.e. fine-grained or coarse-grained), and whether

single or multiple passes over the same route are expected.

R-A-F-T-S calculates the steady state forces acting on

the vehicle, tending to slow or impede the motion of the

vehicle. Forces acting along the line of travel, which the

vehicle must overcome, include:

the resistance from the log load;

the motion resistance on the track, which is

the sum of the soil compaction resistance and

the internal track resistance caused by the

mechanical workings of the track;

the resistance or assistance due to the slope of

the ground in the direction of travel. The normal

component of the log payload weight transfer to

the vehicle is also estimated by R-A-F-T-S.

 15

Next, R-A-F-T-S compares the vectorial sum of the

resistances to:

the power limitation of the vehicle; and

the maximum tractive force available from the soil.

If either the maximum possible vehicle power or the

maximum possible tractive force' available from the soil are

determined to be inadequate to overcome the resisting forces

acting on the vehicle, then the vehicle is immobilized.

If the vehicle is not immobilized, then the theoretical

velocity of the vehicle is calculated using full throttle

drawbar pull versus speed curves.

Next, the slip required to build up sufficient tractive

force in the soil to overcome the sum of the resistances is

calculated. The slip reduces the theoretical velocity

previously calculated, resulting in a slower "actual"

vel ocity.

The travel time is calculated using the actual

velocity. The total round trip travel time is obtained by

summing the round trip travel times calculated for each

discrete segment of the travel path. The non-travel time

required for the hooking, unhooking, and decking of the log

load is then added to the total round trip travel time,

resulting in the total harvesting cycle time. The cycle

 16

time is used to calculate productivity and cost per volume

of timber.

R-A-F-T-S output includes:

Maximum pressure occurring under the tracks.

Actual velocity on each path segment.

Travel and non-travel time.

Productivity in cunits per hour or MBF per hour.

Cost per cunit or cost per MBF,

 17

19
Calcu ate:
Theoretical velocity

20
Soil 21
liuited tractive
effort ) sum
of resistanc
Stop
)
Yes
22
Input .-Fine-grained -.
non-travel or coarse-grained
tiae per ... soil _-
logging cycle Coarne-graifled
Fine-grained 24
23 J,
or
Calculate:
Slip of tracks
on the ground
Rigid Flesible
25 .i 26 ,

Calculate: I Calculate:
Slip of tracks Islip of tracks
Fine-grained on the ground [on the ground
yr coarse-grained
sot 1 *
Calcu ate: 27
Fine-grainy4 Actual elocity f
10 Coarse-grained 4
Calculate: Change sign
Orawbar pull of ground slope 28
coefficient. NOTE: Blocks
aot ion 4
res istance Calculate:
coefficicent. Log load
29 9 through 32
and soil forces
halted tractive are repeated
effort 4
for all
Repeat blocks
9 thru 21 for 30 segments of
loaded crawler
Calculate: Calculate: the skid
Orawbar pull Drawbar pull Calculate:
coefficient. coefficient. 31 trail.
ant ion ot ion Cumulative travel
resistance time
res i stance
coefficicent. coefficicent.
and soil and soil Add non-travel
1aited tractive li.ited tractive time to the 32
effort effort cummulative travel
time
'V
Calcu ate: 14 Calculate:
Grade resistance Productivity 3

Calculate: Stop 34
Notion resistance 15

Calculate: 16
Su. of resistance

V.hicls 17 18
liaited tractive
ffOrt ) su.
of r.gigtanc
Stop
)
Yes

Figure 1. Macro flowchart of R-A-F-T-S.

 18

COMPONENTS OF THE MODEL

A. Log Skidding Force Models

R-A-F-T-S contains three log skidding force models.

The model chosen depends on whether the log is log-length"

or tree-length, and whether an arch is being used for

skidding.

The log skidding force models assume:

The logs in a payload are approximated by a single

composite log with a weight equal to the total payload

(Olsen and Gibbons, 1983).

All of the logs are hooked up at one location in

the woods, i.e. the load is of constant size.

Due to the lack of a general model, whole-tree skidding

is hot included in R-A-F-T-S.

The log skidding force models require average log

length and either the payload weight in pounds, or the

payload volume in MBF. A conversion factor (Z1) must be

entered for converting cunits to pounds. One source is the

Caterpillar Handbook (Edition 14). If the payload volume in

units of MBF is entered, then the average number of logs

per payload (Nlog) must also be entered.

If the payload volume in units of MBF is entered, it is

converted to pounds using Equations (1) through (3).

 19

Ds = f 2 [ 16.64 + (50560)(Vb)/Lp/Nlog ].5 }/1.58 (1)

Equation (1) is the Scribner formula rule for a single

log, solved for Us, where:

Ds = scaling diameter (in.), which is one-half inch

less than the actual small end diameter (U)
measured inside the bark.

Lp = scaling length (ft.), which is the actual log

length (L3) minus 8 inchs.
Vb = Scribner log volume (MBF) for the total payload.
The volume of one log in board-feet is equal to
1000 Vb/Nlog.

Nlog = Number of logs in the payload.

Equation (1) is obtained by rearranging the Scribner

formula from Mann and Lysons (1972) for Vb.

Vb = [ 0.79 (Ds)2 - 2(Ds) - 4 ] (Lp/16) (Nlog/1000)

The volume in cubic feet per log (Vc) is calculated by

Equation (2) which follows Raprager's rule and is from Mann

and Lysons (1972).

Vc = it [ D + (L3)/16 ]2 (L3) (2)

576

where:

L3 = Lp + 8/12

D = Ds + 0.5
 20

The cubic foot volume for the entire payload is then

converted to pounds using Equation (3).

Wi = (Vc) (Zi) (Nlog) (3)

where

Wi = weight of the log payload. lb.

Zi = cubic feet to3pounds conversion

factor, lb/ft

Another factor, Z2, which converts pounds to MBF, is

calculated by Equation (4) for later use when productivity

is calculated.

Z2 = Vb / Wi (4)

Additional information required is for the type of log:

tree-length, or log-length, and whether skidding is being

done with an arch.

A description of the log skidding force models follows.

Tree-length Model

This model was developed by Perumpral (i977) with later

modifications by Gibbons (i982), and is useful for tree-

length logs where a portion of the trailing end of the log

is in contact with the ground (Figure 2).
 21

Figure 2. Geometry of tree-length log during skidding.

(After Olsen and Gibbons, 1983)

Figure 3. Geometry of log-length log during skidding.

(After Lysne and Burditt, 1983)
 22

The tree-length model assumes

The distance from the center of gravity to the

leading end of a log is the average of all the logs in

the load (Perumpral, 1977).

The height (Yp) from the ground to the point of

choker attachment on the log is the average of the

heights of all of the logs, measured perpendicular to

the ground (Perumpral, 1977).

Equations (5) through (8) are used for the tree-length

model:

X = L3-L1-L2 (5)

Q = Wi { [ 1 - (H/X)2]5 (C8-L1) COS(T)

+ [ H SIN(T) (L3-L2-C8)/X -
( 1) ] }

/ [ (IJ)(H) + (L2)/2 + (X)(Q1) ] (6)

P1 = Wi COS(T) - Q (7)

P2 = Wi SIN(T) + (U)(Q) (8)

where: X = suspended stem length9 ft.

L3 = log length, ft.

Q = normal component of the portion of the log

weight transferred to the ground, lb.

C8 = distance from leading end of log to center

of gravity, ft.

T = groundslope in loaded direction, radians.

Ii = Coefficient of friction between the logs
and the ground, decimal.
P1 = component of winchline tension normal to
the ground, lb.

P2 = component of winchline tension parallel to

the ground, lb.
 23

The remaining variables are defined in the

Glossary, Appendix A.

The log to soil coefficient of friction (U) is assumed

to be equal to 1.0 for the log-length model. The program
allows the user the option of entering a different value for
U. The default value of 1.0 is the upper limit of the range
o.f values used by Perunipral (1977).

Lo-lenth Model
This model was reported by Lysne and Burditt (1983).

It is applicable for logs which are in contact with the

ground only at one point (Figure 3). Lysne and Burditt

recommend a soil-log friction coefficient (U) value of 0.6

-'-.1, based on work by Falk (1979) and Henshaw (1977).

R-A-F-T-S has a default value of U = 0.7, but allows the

option of entering a different value for U.

The log-length model assumes:

The logs are straight and rigid.

The distance from the center of gravity to the

leading end of a log is the average of all of the logs
in the load (Perumpral, 1977).

Equations (9) through (14) are used for the log-length

model:

C8 = .4 (L3)(T8)

Beta = 3 (ir/180)
 24

Q = (C8-1)(W1) COS(T+Beta)
/ {(L3-1)[ COS(BETA) + U SIN(Beta) ] } (11)

Alpha = Tan1{ [ Wi - Q COS(T) + (U)(Q) SIN(T) ]

I [ (U)(Q) COS(T) + Q SIN(T) ] } (12)

Tens = [ Wi - Q COS(T) + (U)(Q) SIN(T) ]

/SIN(Alpha) (13)

P2 = (Tens) COS (Alpha - T) (14)

P1 = (Tens) SIN (Alpha - T) (15)

where: Beta = log to ground angle, radians.

Alpha = angle of the skid line with respect

to the horizontal, radians.
Tens = winchline tension, lb.

The remaining variables are defined in the

Glossary, Appendix A,

Skidding Without Arch Model

The log skidding force model developed by Herrick

(1955), and later modified by Fiske and Fridley (1975), for

ground skidding without an arch (ground lead) consists of
Equations (15) through (17).

C7 = .9 + 1.667 [ TAN(T) ] (15)

P1 = (N7)(W1)[ COS(T) ] (16)

P2 = (1 - N7)(C7)(W1)[ C0S(T) ] + (W1)[ SIN(T) ] (17)

where: N7 = portion of log weight transferred to the

vehicle, equal to 0,2

C7 = coefficient of resistance to skidding.

 25

The test logs used by Herrick were 12-foot black oak,

grouped by diameters of 12, 14, and 18 inches.

Breakout Pull

The breakout pull is the log skidding resistance caused

when the vehicle begins to skid a log load from a stationary

position without the use of a winch. The breakout pull does
not include resistance caused by hang-ups of the log on

stumps or ground surface irregularities. The skidding

resistance due to breakout pull is approximately ten percent

greater than the skidding resistance occurring when the

vehicle is already in motion (Ferguson and Sinclair, 1981).

The winchline tension (Maxtens) occurring at breakout is

given by Equation (18).

Maxtens = {[1.1(P2-(W1)SIN(T) )+(W1)51N(T)]2+P12} (18)

R-A-F-T-S also checks whether the net soil limited

tractive effort or the net vehicle limited tractive effort
is great enough to overcome the breakout pull.

B. Vehicle Characteristics

The following vehicle parameters are required.

1. Vehicle limited drawbar pull versus speed curves.

For a vehicle with multiple discrete forward gears, the

drawbar pull versus speed curves are similar to Figure 4.

 26

kilogTams pounds
(in 1000s) (in )000s)

'7r 0
24r
50

21- Drawbar Puti

45 vs.
Ground Speed
40

35
3 1st gsr

k
30k

I 12L

10
3rd gs
I L-_
5

;L 0
1 2 3 4 5 6
07 mph

0 2 4
s
6 8 10 12
km/h

Figure 4. Drawbar pull versus speed curves, for a

Caterpillar D6D.
(After Caterpillar D6D specification sheet)

Note: User defined coordinates are shown as

Figure 5. Vehicle dimensions.

(After Lysne and Burditt, 1983)
 27

The number of curves corresponds to the number of forward

gears.

In R-A-F-T-S, the drawbar pull versus speed curves are

simulated by straight line segments connecting the user

defined coordinates. The velocity coordinates are stored in

the numerical array V, and the drawbar pull coordinates are

stored in the numerical array Dp. Each array has Nfg +1

elements, where Nfg is the number of forward gears. For a

vehicle with three forward gears, each array would have 4

elements in the form of a one by four array. A maximum of

eight forward gears is allowed. Reverse gears are not

considered in the model.

The coordinates (Xc, Yc) of the vehicle center of

gravity in inches (Figure 5).

The coordinates (Xp, Yp) of the point of payload

line attachment to the vehicle, in inches.

Vehicle weight (W) in lbs. This is the operating

weight, including operator, fuel, cables, extra equipmen.t

such as winches, etc. For fine-grained soils, minimum and

maximum allowable vehicle weights are 4,000 lbs. and 100,000
lbs., respectively. For coarse-grained soils, minimum and
maximum allowable vehicle weights are 5,960 and 95,420 lbs.,
respectively. These limits correspond to the range in

weights of the test vehicles used to derive the NATO

equations (Turnage, 1973).

 28

Flywheel horsepower (Hp), at the manufacturer's

rated engine speed.

Whether the vehicle has an automatic transmission

(i.e. power shift) or a direct drive transmission,

The nominal ground contact length of one track

(Trakln), inches.

Width of one track (Trakwd), inches,

Whether or not there are grousers9 and the grouser

height (Gh), inches.

10, Area of a track shoe (Ashoe), square inches.

Type of track: "rigid" or "flexible". A "rigid"

track is a track supported on a rigid suspension in which

the track rollers are constrained against vertical movement

with respect to each other. A "flexible" track is a track

supported on a flexible suspension in which the track

rollers or wheels are allowed to move up and down with

respect to each other. An example of a rigid track vehicle

is the Caterpillar D6D. An example of a flexible track

vehicle is the FMC 200.

For a rigid track, the number of rollers on

one track, excluding the end wheels. For a flexible track,

the number of road wheels on one track.

13, Minimum clearance (Clrmnin) from the underside

of the vehicle to the ground, in inches.

14. For rigid tracks, the p.itch diameter (Rdia) of the

track drive sprocket, inches. If this measurement is not

 29

known, then a default value of Rdia = (0.346) (Trakln) is

used. For flexible tracks, it is assumed that Rdia =

Trakln/ (No. of road wheels on one track).

The vehicle characteristics can be found in

manufacturers' handbooks or specification sheets. Vehicle

characteristics for two models of rigid track skidders, the

Caterpillar D6D and the International Harvester TD-8E,

without arches, and the flexible track FMC-210 CA, are

listed in Appendix C. When performing analysis of the

Caterpillar D6D and the International Harvester TD-8E

equipped with arches, the values of Xc, Yc, Xp, Vp and W

have to be changed.

C. Vehicle Limited Tractive Effort

The amount of force available to overcome the

resistances acting upon the vehicle is limited by either the

vehicle's power or the soil strength. The vehicle limited
tractive effort is the power delivered from the drive train

to the track, available to overcome the resistances acting

upon the vehicle, including motion resistance, grade
resistance, and resistance from the payload being skidded.
It is often referred to as rimpull, usually in reference to
wheeled vehicles. Vehicle limited drawbar pull is the

vehicle limited tractive effort minus the motion resistance

(Fr). Motion resistance in this model is the sum of the

compaction resistance (Cr) and the internal track resistance

 30

(Rs). Motion resistance is analogous to rolling resistance

for a rubber tired skidder.

Vehicle limited drawbar pull =

Vehicle limited tractive effort - Fr (19)

where: Fr = Cr Rs

The drawbar pull curves shown in the Caterpillar

Handbook (Edition 14) were developed by measuring the

drawbar pull for a test vehicle operating at various speeds

and gears on a hard compacted surface with negligible

compaction resistance. A typical set of drawbar pull

versus speed curves is shown in Figure 4. Because the

compaction resistance is negligible for the Caterpillar

drawbar pull curves, the curves can be transformed into

vehicle limited tractive effort versus speed curves by

adding only the internal track resistance (Rs) to the

drawbar pull.

In R-A-F-T-S, the theoretical velocity which a vehicle

can attain when overcoming a set of resistances is given by

the vehicle manufacturer's drawbar pull versus speed curves.

The theoretical velocity attainable corresponds to the point

on the curves where available drawbar pull, read on the Y

axis (Figure 4), is equal to the sum of the compaction

resistance, grade resistance, and payload resistance. The

sum of resistances does not include the internal track

resistance (Rs) because it has already been subtracted from

 31

the drawbar pull curves. In R-A-F-T-S, the vehicle is

assumed to be operating at full throttle, so that the gear

which delivers the highest velocity for a given available
drawbar pull is always used.

0. Soil Characteristics

R-A-F-T-S analyzes three categories of soil as defined

below. Soil types are limited to inorganic soils. Travel on
frozen soils, snow, and organic soils (i.e. muskeg or peat)
cannot be analyzed.
1. Fine-grained soil. "A soil of which more than 50
percent of the grains, by weight, will pass a No. 200 sieve
(smaller than 0.74 mm diameter)" (Rula and Nuttall, 1971).

Sand with fines, poorly drained. A coarse-grained

soil, of which more than 7% but less than 50% of the grains,
by weight, will pass a No. 200 sieve, and is slow draining
when wet. This type of coarse-grained soil behaves similarly
to wet, fine-grained soils under vehicular traffic.
Therefore, the fine-grained soil mobility equations should
be used for sands with fines, poorly drained.

Coarse-rained soil. "A soil of which more than 50

percent of the grains, by weight, will be retained on a

No. 200 sieve" (Rula and Nuttall, 1971).

 32

Measurement of the Soil

The soil measurements which must be taken are (Rula and

Nuttall, 1971):

1, Cone index (Ci). An index of the shearing

resistance of a soil, as measured in the critical

layer, by penetration of a 30 degree cone with a

0.5 sq.-in. circular base, measured in units of pounds

of force on the handle per square inch of the base

area. In the equations from NATO, the cone index is

considered to be an index only, with no direct meaning

assigned to ts numerical vlue.

2, Remolding index (Ri). The ratio of the soil

strength before vehicular traffic to the soil strength

during or after vehicular traffic. The ratio is

determined from cone index measurements of a 6-inch

long soil sample before and after remolding. The

remolding test for fine-grained soil is different from

the procedure for sands with fines, poorly drained, as

described in Appendix E., Paragraph No. 15. The

remolding index measurement is required for the

following soils:

a. Fine-grained soil with cone index less

than 150 psi.

 33

b. Sands with fines, poorly drained, with a

cone index less than 150 psi.

The remolding index measurement is not needed for the

following soils:

Fine-grained soil with a cone index greater

than 150 psi.

All freely draining or clean, coarse-grained

soil.

Sands with fines, poorly drained, with a

cone index greater than 150 psi.

3. Sieve test. To determine whether the soil is

fine-grained or coarse-grained, the soil must be passed

through a No. 200 sieve.

For fine-grained soil and sands with fines, poorly

drained, the equipment and procedure for field

measurement of the cone index (Cfl and the remolding

index (Ri) is presented in Appendix E.

For coarse-grained soils that are freely draining

or clean, the cone index (Ci) value entered into

R-A-F-T-S is the average of the cone indexes measured

at depth of 0, 3, and 6 inches from the soil surface.
The rating cone index (Rci) is calculated using

Equation (20).

Rci = (Ci)(Ri) (20)

 34

Both the cone index and the remolding index

measurements must be made from the same layer, referred to

as the critical layer. The depth of the layer may vary with
weight and type of vehicle and soil strength profile. Rula

and Nuttall (1971) define the critical layer as follows:

1. For freely draining or clean sands, it is

usually 0 to 6 inches deep.

3. For fine-grained soils and sands with fines,

poorly drained, it is usually 0 to 6 inches deep for

onepass of a vehicle, or 6 to 12 inches deep for

multiple passes of a vehicle.

E. Soil Limited Tractive Effort

The soil limited tractive effort is the maximum gross

tractive pull available from the soil at a slip of 100%,

where slip is the percentage reduction in the theoretical

velocity due to slipping of the tracks. Generally, higher

slips create higher soil tractive pull, according to

equations from NATO (Rula and Nuttall, 1971) and Bekker

(1969).

NATO's equations for soil limited tractive effort are

used in R-A-F-T-S. NATO has separate equations for fine-

grained and coarse-grained soils. These are described below

(Rula and Nuttall, 1971).

 35

1. Fine-grained soils, and sands with fines, poorly

drained.

St e 1: Determine the mobility index.

Mobility index (Xmi) is a dimensionless number

that is a function of certain vehicle

characteristics, and is found using

Equation (21).

Xmi = [ (Cpavg)(Wf/Tf/Gf) + Wlorf - Clf ](Ef)(Tfx) (21)

where:

Wf: Gcw <50,000 = 1

50,000 < Gcw < 69,999 = 1.2

70,000 < Gcw < 99,999 = 1.4

100,000 < Gcw = 1.8

If = Trakwd/100 (22)

Gf: Grousers < 1.5 in. high = 1.0

Grousers > 1.5 in. high = 1.1

Wlorf = Gcw/10/Nbogie/Ashoe (23)

Clf = Clrmin/10 (24)

Cpavg, the average pressure on the tracks, is

calculated using Equation (25).

Cpavg = Gcw/[ 2(Trakwd)(Trakln) ] (25)

The gross combined weight (Gcw) is found using

Equation (26).

Gcw = (W)[COS(T)] + P1 (26)

The vehicle descriptor variables: Wf, Tf, Gf,

Wlorf, Clf, Ef, Tfx, Trakwd, Trakln, Nbogie,
 36

Ashoe, and Clrmin are defined in the Glossary,

Appendix A,

SteQ2: Determine the vehicle cone index (Vci).

Vci is the minimum soil strength in the critical

soil layer in terms of Rci required for a vehicle

to make a specified number of passes, usually one

pass (VCI1) or 50 passes (VC150).

VCI1 = 7 + (,2)(Xmi) - 392/(Xmi + 56) (27)

VC150 = 19.27 + (43)(Xmi) - 125.79/(Xmi + 7O8) (28)

It must be specified whether the vehicle will make

single or multiple passes. This determines whether Equation

(27) or (28) is to be applied.

Ste.23: Calculate the excess cone index (Rcix)

using Equation (29).

Rcix = Rci Vci (29)

Ste.24: Calculate the net drawbar pull coefficient on

level ground (Dowpb) as a function of the excess

cone index (Rcix) and average ground pressure on

the tracks (Cpavg), using one of Equations (30),
(31), (32) or (33).

For Cpavg < 4 psi

For Rcix <0

 37

Dowpb = .076(Rcix) (30)

For Rcix

Dowpb = .544 +.0463(Rcix) - ([.544

+ .0463 (Rcix)]2 - .0702(Rcix)} (31)

For Cpavg 4 psi

For Rcix < 0

Dowpb = .056(Rcix) (32)

For Rcix

Dowpb = .4554+ .0392(Rcix) - { [.4554 1

+ .0392 (Rcix)]2 - .0526(Rcix) } (33)

SteQS: Calculate the motion resistance coefficient

(Rtowpb), as functions of the excess cone index

(Rcix) and average ground pressure on the tracks

(Cpavg), using one of Equations (34), (35), or

(36).

For Rcix < 0

For Cpavg < 4

Rtowpb = .4 - .072(Rcix) (34)

For Cpavg

Rtowpb = .4 - .052(Rcix) (35)

For Rcix

Rtowpb = .045 + 2.3075/(Rcix + 6.5) (36)

SteQ6: Calculate the slip curve correction factor (Cf).

Cf is the difference between the drawbar pull

coefficient measured at 20% slip at a soil
 38

strength of 300 Rci and the drawbar pull

coefficient measured at 20% slip at the Rci of

the soil being analyzed. Cf is calculated using

either Equation (37) or Equation (38).

Cf = Dowpb - .758 + Rtowpb , for Cpavg < 4 (37)

Cf = Dowpb - .671 + Rtowpb , for Cpavg > 4 (38)

Ste2 7: Calculate the soil limited tractive effort

(Tfor), using either Equation (39) or (40).

Tfor = (Cf + .82)(Gcw) for Cpavg < 4 (39)

Tfor = (Cf + .71)(Gcw) for Cpavg > 4 (40)

2. Coarse - grained soils

Step 1: Calculate the coarse-grained soil penetration

resisting gradient (G), using Equation (41).

G = (Ci)(.8645/3) (41)

Ste22: Calculate the pressure distribution factor (Pit)

for coarse grain soil, using either Equation

(42) or (43).

For rigid tracks:

Pit = (1)(G)[(Trakwd)(Trakln)]'5/(Gcw/2) (42)

For flexible tracks:

Pit = (0.63)(G)[(Trakwd)(Trakln)]'5/(Gcw/2) (43)

 39

In Equation (43) the number 0.63 is equal to the square

root of Gcw/Wmax, where Gcw is the gross combined weight and

Wmax is the maximum weight on the tracks due to the flexible

suspensions. For rigid tracks, this ratio is

equal to 1, as in Equation (42).

Calculate the net drawbar pull coefficient on

level ground (Dowpb) as a function of the

pressure distribution factor (Pit), using one of

Equations (44) through (47).

For Pit 25:

Dowpb = .121 + .258[Log10(Pit)] (44)

For 25Pit100:
Dowpb = .339 + .109[Log10(Pit)] (45)

For 100Pit1000:
Dowpb = .481 + .038[Log10(Pit)] (46)

For Pit>1000:

Dowpb = .595 (47)

Calculate the motion resistance coefficient

(Rtowpb), using Equation (48).

Rtowpb = .6 - Dowpb + .045 (48)

Step 5: Determine the slip curve correction factor

(Cf), using either Equation (49) or (50).

Cf = 0.074 for rigid track. (49)

 40

Cf = 0.1 ,
for flexible track. (50)

SteR5: Calculate the soil limited tractive effort

(Tfor), using either Equation (51) or (52).

Tfor = (Cf + .568)(Gcw) 9for rigid track. (51)

Tfor = (Cf + .695)(Gcw) 9for flexible track. (52)

The soil limited tractive effort (Tfor) for fine-

grained soils is a function of the weight on the tracks,

track dimensions, and soil strength. For coarse-grained soil
the soil limited tractive effort is a function only of the
weight on the tracks.

Equation (53) from Bekker (1956) and Equations (49)

through (52) from NATO agree in concept if the soil angle of

friction (0) is assumed to be a constant, and the soil

cohesion (C) is zero.

Hm = (A)(C) + W [TAN(0)] (53)

where: Hm = the soil limited tractive effort.

A = the ground contact area.
C = the soil cohesion.
W = the normal component of the force acting
upon the tracks.
0 = the soil angle of friction.

Fine-grained soils generally have high values of C and

low values of 0, which would result in Hm being more

dependent on the track dimensions than on the vehicle

weight. Coarse-grained soils generally have high values of

 41

O and low values of C, which would result in Hrn being more

dependent on vehicle weight.

The effect of vertical pressure distribution on the

soil limited tractive effort generated at large slips is not

significant, as concluded by Wills (1963), for long rigid

tracks.

F. Motion Resistance

The motion resistance (Fr) from NATO is made up of two

components: compaction resistance from the soil, and

internal track resistance due to the mechanical workings of

the tracks. The motion resistance (Fr) is calculated using
Equation (54).

Fr = (Rtowpb)(Gcw) (54)

where: Fr = motion resistance, lb.

Rtowpb = the dimensionless motion resistance
coefficient from Equation (34), (35),
(36), or (48).
Gcw = the gross combined weight acting on
the tracks.

NATO's equations for motion resistance were empirically

derived from load cell measurements of test vehicles towed,
with the transmission disengaged, at a speed of 2 mph in

undisturbed material. The motion resistance is independent

of the slip of the tracks on the soil. Sinkage is not

calculated in NATO.
 42

The motion resistance (Fr) from Equation (54) assumes a

uniform pressure distribution and that both tracks are in

contact with the ground for their entire length (Figure 6).

The assumption of uniform pressure distribution is

acceptable only for tracked vehicles with a center of

gravity near the midpoint of the vehicle as measured

longitudinally, which are not towing or skidding a payload,

and are not travelling on steep slopes. Guskov (1968)

reported that the forces acting on the drawbar cause

redistribution of pressure under the tracks. In logging

applications, a large difference between the pressures on

the leading and trailing edges of each track can develop due

to the moments created by the transfer of the payload

weight to the vehicle, and the ground slope. These

conditions can also result in one end of the tracks losing

contact with the ground, thus reducing the ground contact

area of the tracks. Lysne and Burditt (1983) modeled these

occurrences for an elastic soil, (Figure 7) which is a soil

with an exponent of deformation N = 1.

 43

Figure 6 Uniform pressure distribution under a track.

Figure 7. Pressure distribution under a track for

elastic soils.
(After Lysne and Burditt, 1983)
 44

As mentioned previously, the motion resistance (Fr)

from NATO is made up of two components: compaction

resistance from the soil, and internal track resistance due

to the mechanical workings of the tracks. In order to modify

NATO's motion resistance (Fr) to take into account a non-

uniform pressure distribution, an increase factor (Crinc)

was developed which modifies the compaction resistance

component.

The procedure used to calculate the compaction

resistance (Cr) consists of the following steps.

Calculate the average pressure under the tracks, using

equation (25).

Cpavg = GcwI[2 (Trakwd)(Trakln)] (25)

Using the average pressure (Cpavg) found in Step 1,

calculate the compaction resistance index (Rcun) for a

uniform pressure distribution, using equation (55), which

is from Wong (1978).

Equation (55) was derived by Wong (1978) from the

equation for work required to sink a rectangular plate

vertically into the soil, given by

Iz
Work = (Trakwd)(Trakln) J
(Cpavg)(dZ)
0
 45

where: Cpavg = average normal pressure

Trakwd = width of the plate
Trakln = length of the plate
Z = sinkage

If the pressure sinkage equation from Bekker (1969),

which is

Cpavg = (Kcbkø)(Z)N

is substituted into the work equation, then

N
Work = (Trakwd)(Trakln) J (Kcbk®)(Z) (dZ)
0

w h e r e: KcbkO = K0 + Kc/Trakwd
K = cohesive modulus of d9formatjon
K = frictional modulus of deformation

Integrating the work equation yields

Work = (Trakwd)(Trakln) (Kcbkfl(Z)1/(N+1)

Wong (1978) states that the vertical work performed to

sink the plate is equal to the horizontal work performed to

overcome the compaction resistance (Rcun) when the track

moves forward a distance of one track length. This equality
is expressed as

(Rcun)(Trakln) (Trakwd)(Trakln) (Kcbkø)(Z)/(N+1)

 46

Dividing through by Trakln, multiplying by 2 to account

fr a pair of tracks and substituting into Bekker's pressure

sinkage equation, which is

1/N
Z Kcbk1Cavg
results in Equation (55).

)/N1
Rcun {2(Trakwd) (KcbkO)[Cpavg/Kcbkø] /(N+1) (55)

The derivation by Wong (1978) described above does not

take into account the increased sinkage which occurs in the
rear portion of the tracks when the vehicle is moving This

increased sinkage at the rear occurs even when the pressure

distribution is nominally uniform (Figure 6). The shear

stresses developed in the soil by the slipping of the

horizontally moving track cause this increase in sinkage

(Karafiath et al., 1978).

Karafiath et al. (1978) suggest a procedure for solving

the compaction resistance and gross tractive effort

simultaneously, using an iterative process. The procedure

takes into account the effect that the increased sinkage due
to shearing of the soil has upon the magnitude and direction
of the compaction resistance force, the gross tractive

force, and the grade resistance force. Karafiath's procedure

is not used in R-A-F-T-S because it requires calculation of
 47

the track sinkage, which is not possible using the equations

from NATO.

Rcun = 2 (Trakvd) (Kcbkø) [Cpavg/Kcbkø] N}/(N+l) (55)

where: Trakwd = width of one track, in.

Cpavg = average pressure on the tracks, lb.

Use of Equation (55) requires that the soil parameters

K and K0 be known. These soil parameters cannot be

determined using the rating cone index method of soil

measurement. Therefore, average values of Kc K0, and N are

used. For fine-grained soil, values of Kc = 17, K® = 12, and

N = 0.40 are used. For coarse-grained soil, values of Kc =

20.0, K® = 16.0, and N = 0.66 are used. The soil parameter

values are from Bekker (1969). R-A-F-T-S allows the user the

option of entering a different value for N. The compaction

resistance index (Rcun) found using Equation (55) is an

index only, and is not equal to the actual compaction

resistance (Cr) determined by R-A-F-T-S.

3. Find the non-uniform pressure distribution (Figure 8),

for an inelastic soil.

 48

4. Using the pressure distribution found in step 3,

calculate the compaction resistance index (Rcnu) for a non-

uniform pressure distribution, using Equation (56).

Equation (56) was obtained using a similar procedure as

was used in deriving Equation (55). The applicability of

using this procedure for non-uniform presssure distributions

was suggested by Wong (1978) but not demonstrated. The

procedure used to derive Equation (56) is as follows. The

work done to overcome the compaction resistance (Rcnu) when

the track moves forward one track length is equal to the sum

of the work required to sink each discrete segment of the

track can be expressed as:

17inc
)N
Workinc = (Trakwd)(Linc) (Kcbkø)(Z Inc dZ
J
0

where: L = seriment of the track length, in,

Inc
Inc subscript which designates a segment of
the track.

A derivation similar to the one for Equation (55) yields

Workinc = (Trakwd)(L1 ) (Kcbkø)(Z

nc Inc

Total work is the sum of the work performed on each tr.ck

segment

Bck
Work = E (Trakwd)(Linc) (Kcbkø)(Z1nc)'/(N+1)
I nc=1

where: Bck = total number of track segments.

 49

Setting work equal to (Rcnu)(Trakln) yields

Bck
(Rcnu)(Trakln)= (Trakwd)(L )
(Kcbkø)(Z1)N'/(N+1)
Inc
Inc=l

Dividing by Trakln, multiplying by 2 to account for a pair

of tracks, and substituting in Bekker's pressure-sinkage

equation, which is

Z
n c = I n c

results in Equation (56).

Bck
Rcnu=2(Trakwd) (Kbkø)
N-'-1 Inc 1
nc)/b' / Nr
Inc/Tranj (56)

where: = pressure on a segment of the track, psi.

Inc

5. Divide the index (Rcnu) found in Step 4 by the index

(Rcun) found in Step 2. This gives the compaction

resistance increase factor (Crinc). Expressed as an

equation:

Crinc = Rcnu/Rcun (57)

The compaction resistance increase factor (Crinc) is

independent of the values used for K0 and Kc because they

cancel out when Rcnu is divided by Rcun. The compaction
resistance increase factor is a function only of the

exponent of deformation (N), and the pressure on the tracks.

 50

6. Calculate the internal track resistance (Rs), the

compaction resistance (Cr), and the theoretical velocity

(Vt).

The internal track resistance (Rs) is found using an

equation from Bekker (1969) for modern lightweight tracked

vehicles, Equation (58).

Rs = (Gcw/2000) [30 .i-9(Vt)] (58)

In R-A-F-T-S, a theoretical velocity (Vt) of 4 mph is

assumed for calculation of an initial estimate of Rs, using

Equation (58). This value of Rs is then used in Equation

(59) to calculate an initial estimate of the compaction

resistance (Cr).

Cr = [(Rtowpb)(Gcw) - Rs](Crinc)(Surff) (59)

Using the drawbar pull versus speed curves, the

theoretical velocity (Vt) is calculated as a function of the

sum of the compaction resistance (Cr), the grade resistance

(Fgrade), and the log load skidding resistance (P2). This

new value of Vt is then entered into Equation (58), a final

value of Cr is calculated using Equation (59), and a final

value of Vt is then calculated, using the drawbar pull

versus speed curves.

The procedure for determining the non-uniform pressure

distribution for inelastic soils is described below.
 51

G. Ground Pressure Distribution

The linear ground pressure distribution model

(Figure 7) for tracked vehicles reported by Lysne and

Burditt (1983) was derived for an elastic soil, which is a

soil with an exponent of deformation N equal to 1. For an

inelastic soil, the exponent of deformation N is not equal

to 1, and thus the pressure distribution is non-linear. A

non-linear pressure distribution model (Figure 8) using

equations from Bekker (1969) was developed. The track is

assumed, as in Lysne and Burditt's model, to act as a rigid

beam, so that the sinusoidal pressure distribution case

(Wong, 1978) is not modeled.

The sinkage (ZInc) at any point along the track is

linear for both elastic and inelastic soils, if the track is

assumed to act as a rigid beam. The relation between

pressure and sinkage is given by Equation (60) from Bekker

(1969).
 52

]1/N (60)
Z1 = [ (PInc)(Kcbkø)
where: = pressure on a discrete segment of
the track. The subscript Inc denotes the

track segment.

KbckO is calculated in Equation (61) using a

relationship from Bekker (1969).

Kcbkø = Kc/Trakwd + K0 (61)

where: Kc = cohesive modulus of deformation.

K® = frictional modulus of deformation.

Calculation of the pressure distribution under a track

for elastic soils can be made directly because all of the

equations are linear. Lysne and Burditt (1983) present the

equations used to calculate the pressures at the leading and

trailing ends of the tracks (Pf and r

respectively) for

elastic soils (N = 1).

In R-A-F-T-S, the soil is assumed to have N values of

O4O for fine-grained, and O66 for coarse-grained soil,

unless otherwise specified by the user. Therefore, the

equations reported by Lysne and Burditt for soils with N = 1

cannot be used, except to generate preliminary estimates of

 53

pressure. A new set of non-linear equations had to be

developed, which calculate the pressures exerted on the soil

by each discrete seqment of the tracks, assuming that the

track acts as a rigid beam. For this case, the sinkage is

linear, but the pressure distribution under the track is

non-linear (Figure 8).

The procedure to calculate the pressure distribution

under the track for inelastic soils consists of the
following steps:

1. Divide the track into discrete areas (Figure 9), SO

that each wheel or roller is represented by its own segment

of the tracks, according to Equations (62) through (66).

Definitions of the variables are in the Glossary,

Appendix A.

Segs = Nbogie/2 -1 (62)

Sproc = Rdia/2 + (Trakln - Rdia)/[(Segs - 1)/2] (63)

Roll = [Trakln - 2(Sproc)]/(Segs-2) (64)

The segment of the tracks for the front wheel is:

Ainc1 = (Sproc /2)(Trakwd) (65)

The track areas of the front and rear wheels are

assumed equal

AincBck = Ainc1
 54

Figure 8. Pressure distribution under a track for

inelastic soils.

Figure 9. Track divided into segments.

 55

The track areas of the rollers immediately adjacent to

the front and rear wheels are:

Ainc2 = AincBCk_l = (Trakwd)(Sproc + Roll)/2 (66)

Calculate the distances X2, X3, . . .

XBck measured
along the track from the front wheel to each of the

rollers and rear wheel (Figure 8).

Determine whether the maximum ground contact pressure

occurs at the leading edge or the trailing edge of the

track. This is initially approximated by the Lysne and

Burditt pressure distribution model, assuming an exponent of

deformation N = 1. The components of the winchline tension

(P1 and P2) are entered into Equation (67) to determine Xr.

Xr = {
(W)(Xc)[COS (T)] + (W)(Yc)[SIN (T)]
+ (P1)(Xp) + (P2) (Vp) }/Gcw (67)

where Xp, Vp, Xc, and Yc are vehicle dimensions

defined in the Glossary, Appendix A

The location of the pressure distribution resultant

(Re) under the tracks is at a distance Xr from the front

wheel, measured along the track. The pressure distribution
resultant may be located in one of three cases with respect
to track length (Figure 10).
 56

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

Tra kIn

DIRECTION OF TRAVEL DIRECTION OF TRAVEL

Re

O
Pt

I LcI
Lc
Trakin
Trakin-
©
Figure 10. Three cases of pressure distribution for an elastic soil.
(After Lysne and Burditt, 1983)

Note: Case A, Xr/Trakln 1/3

Case B, 1/3 Xr/Trakln 2/3
Case C, Xr/Trakln> 2/3
 57

Having determined where the maximum pressure occurs on

the track, using Lysne and Burditt's model, the pressure
distribution must be recalculated for an inelastic soil. For
fine-grajned soils, R-A-F-T-S uses an N = 0.40, and for
coarse-grained soils, N = 0.66 is used, unless otherwise
specifed by the user.

4. This step calculates the pressure distribution under

the tracks for an inelastic soil. It is assumed that the
track acts as a rigid beam, with linear sinkage. That is,
the sinkage at the mid-point of t.he track length is the
average of the sinkage of the leading and trailing ends of
the track length in contact with the ground.
The sinkage Z1 of a segment of track Aincinc can be
expressed in terms of the sinkages of the end points of the
track by equation (68).

Z
Inc = [(ZBk - Z1)ITrakln](X Inc ) + z1 (68)

The sinkage at any point along the track is

negative if the track is not in contact with the ground at

that point (Figure 11).
 58

DIRECTION OF TRSVEL

ZI

z
( C)
z4
z5
z6
LcI IZBCk
Trakin

Figure 11. Sinkage of track when contact length

is less than the track length, and
Pr>Pf.
Where: Trakln = nominal ground
contact length.
Lcl = actual ground
contact length.
 59

In the case illustrated in Figure 11, the sinkages of

the front wheel and the first roll-er (Z1 and Z2,
respectively) are negative because the track is not in
contact with the ground at these points.
In order to use Equation (68), the values of the
sinkages Z1 and ZBck must first
calculated, which be

requires that the reactions under the front and rear wheels,
R1 and RBck be found. The sinkages Z1 and ZBck at the
leading and trailing edges of the tracks are related to the
reactions R1 and RBck respectively by Equations (69) and

(70).

Z1 = { R1 I [(Ainc1)(Kcbkø)] i1 (69)

}1/N
ZBck = { RBk I [(AincBck)(Kcbkø)] (70)

If values for R1 and RBck are assunied, then the

intermediate reaction points R2, R3, . . , which
occur under each track roller can be related to the end

reactions and RBck using Equations (68) through (71).

Rinc = (ZiN)(Aincj)(Kcbkø) (71)

where Inc = 2 through Bck-1.

In addition to satisfying equations (68) through (71),

the reactions under the tracks, R1, R2 .....R3ck plus all
of the other static forces on the vehicle, ntust satisfy
static equilibriunt. That is, the sunt of the forces
 60

perpendicular to the ground (Sum) acting on the vehicle must

equal zero, and the sum of the moments of the forces (Prod)
acting on the vehicle must equal zero. Equation (72) sums

the forces perpendicular to the ground.

Bck-1
Sum = (W)[COS(T)] + P1 - R1 - RBck - R (72)
Inc
I nc=2

For static equilibrium to exist, Sum must equal zero.

Equation (73) sums the moments about the front track wheel:

Prod = - (W)[COS(T)](Xc) - (W)[SIN(T)](Yc) - (P1)(Xp)

Bck
(P2)(Yp) + Z[(R
Inc
)(XI)] (73)
I nc=2

For static equilibrium to exist, Prod must equal zero.

Equations (68) through (71) can be substituted into

Equations (72) and (73), resulting in two non-linear

equations in two unknowns, R1 and RBck To find the values

of R1 and RBck which drive both Prod and Sum to zero, a

binary search is used to find one of the unknowns, and a

secant method is used concurrently to find the other

unknown. Figure 12 shows a flow chart of this procedure.

 61

Prodold - 0

Initialize minimum. aximua

liiiits Of REck

Initialize R1

Use secant method to find the value of RBCk which

results in Sum being zero, given the value of R1 set
by the binary search method in the outer loop

No

Use binary search method

Yes instead of the secant
method

"V
Calculate Prod using the values of Rj and
found above.

No
No

Figure 12. Procedure to find values of R1 and RBck

 62

With the values of R1, R2, R3,. . , and RBck identified,

the next step is to calculate the pressures P1, P2, P3,

acting on each track segment:

Bck

Inc = R1/Ainc1
where: Inc is a subscript which designates the track

segment.

These values of are then entered into Equation

1Inc
(56) for calculation of the compaction resistance index

(Rcnu) for a non-uniform pressure distribution on inelastic

soil.

H. Grade Resistance

The grade, or slope, of the line of travel of the

vehicle adds a resisting force which must be overcome if the

vehicle is climbing an adverse grade, or an assisting force

if descending on a favorable grade, calculated by Equation

(74).

Fgrade = (W)[SIN (T)] (74)

where: Fgrade is a force parallel to the ground acting

along the line of travel. Fgrade is negative in

sign if it is a resisting force, and positive in

sign if it is an assisting force,

W is the vehicle operating weight.

 63

T is the groundslope in radians. T is positive

in sign if the slope is adverse, and negative in

sign if the slope is favorable, in the direction

of travel.

The grade or slope of the line of travel reduces the

magnitude of the force acting perpendicular to the tracks,
as shown in Equation (75).

Gcw = (W)[COS(T)] + P1 (75)

where: P1 = portion of the log load weight transferred

to the vehicle, perpendicular to the ground.

I. Slip

A reduction of the theoretical speed (Vt) of the

vehicle is caused by slip of the tracks on the soil. The

effect of slip on the theoretical speed (Vt) of the vehicle

is shown in Equation (76).

Va = Vt(1 - Slipx) (76)

where: Va = actual velocity of the vehicle, as

modified for slip.

Slipx = slip expressed as a decimal.

The tractive force which develops in the soil will

generally increase as slip increases, for a given set of

conditions. The maximum soil limited tractive force (Tfor)

occurs at 100% slip. The asymptotic shape of the soil
 64

limited tractive effort (Tfor) versus slip curve

(Figure 13) indicates that nearly maximum tractive effort

can be generated by the soil at values of slip far less than
100%.

NATO's equations for slip, used in R-A-F-T-S, are

empirically derived, based on measurements obtained from a

slip ring attached to the drive shaft of the test vehicles.
Curves of soil limited drawbar pull versus slip were

developed by NATO, similar to Figure 13. In NATO's

equations, as in Bekker's, compaction resistance is

independent of slip. The curve shown in Figure 13 can be

transformed into a soil limited drawbar pull versus slip

curve by subtracting the compaction resistance. Using the

soil limited drawbar pull versus slip curves, NATO's

equations calculate the slip required for the soil to

generate the required drawbar pull (Yx). Yx is a

dimensionless ratio, found using Equation (77).

Yx = (Cr + Fgrade + P2 + Rs)/GCW - Cf (77)

The slip curve correction factor (Cf) allows for the

adjustment of the original slip curves, derived from tests

on soils with an Rci of 300 psi, so that the curves can be
used for soils with values of Rci <300 psi. The correction
factor (Cf) has the effect of lowering the slip curve by a

uniform amount (Figure 13), since Cf is a constant

independent of slip, given a set of soil and vehicle
 65

0 Slip, % > 100

Figure 13. Typical gross tractive effort versus

slip curve.

legend: slip curve at a rating

cone index = 300 psi.

slip curve at some lesser

rating cone index.

where: Yx = sum of resistances / Gcw

Cf = dimensionless correction
factor.
 66

conditions. For a coarse-grained soil, Cf is a constant

independent of soil strength and all other variables.

The soil limited drawbar pull versus slip curves are

expressed in Equations (78) through (81). For fine-grained

soils, and sands with fines, poorly drained, NATO has two

curves; one for vehicles with an average pressure on the

tracks of less than 4 psi, and another for vehicles with an

average pressure of 4 psi or greater, represented by

Equations (78) and (79)9 respectively.

For Cpavg < 4

Slipx = .0257(Yx) -.0161 +.O1519/(8353-Yx) (78)

For Cpavg > 4

Slipx = O733(Yx) .0063 +.00734/(.7177-Yx) (79)

where: Cpavg is the average pressure on the

tracks.

Slipx is the slip expressed as a decimal.

For coarse-grained soils, NATO has separate slip curves

for rigid track vehicles and flexible track vehicles,

represented by Equations (80) and (81), respectively.

For rigid tracks:

Slipx = -.0083 + ,O05312/(.573Yx) (80)

 67

For flexible tracks:

]O.5
Slipx = Yy + [ (Yy)2 + (.09)(Yx) + QQ9 (81)

where: Yy = 1.704(Yx) - .72

Unlike the Bekker equation for slip, NATO's equations

do not relate slip to the contact length of the track on the

ground. NATO is based on the assumption that the entire

length of the tracks is in contact with the ground.

J. Cycle Time

The travel time (T2) is the time that it takes for the

vehicle to complete one round trip from the landing to the

payload hook-up point, and then back to the landing, not

including delays, or hooking, unhooking, and decking time.

The inbound and outbound actual velocities for each

terrain segment are converted to units of feet per minute,

using Equations (82) and (83), respectively.

V3 = 88 (Va) (82)

V2 = 88 (Va) (83)

where: Va = actual velocity corrected for slip, mph.

V3 = actual velocity of the vehicle, running

empty, ft/mm.
V2 = actual velocity of the vehicle, skidding a

payload, in ft/mm.
 68

The round trip travel time (T2) for a terrain segment

is found using Equation (84).

T2 = A2/V2 A2/V3 (84)

where: A2 = one-way skidding distance for a terrain

segment, ft.

The total round trip travel time is found by summing

the round trip travel times found for each terrain segment.

To obtain the total cycle time, the non-travel time

(T3) must be added to the round trip travel time (T2). The

non-travel time is the sum of the hook, unhook, and deck

time. It does not include delays. Delays are accounted for

when productivity is calculated. The non-travel time (T3) is

calculated using a regression equation from Ohmstede (1977),

presented in Equation (85).

T3 = 4.45 1.31(Nlog) (85)

where: Nlog is the number of logs in the load.

The ranges of field conditions from which Ohmstede

developed Equation (85) are:

skid distance: 100 to 1550 feet.

skid trail slope: 10 to 50 percent.

logs per turn: 1 to 6.

payload volume per turn: 18 to 2673 board-

feet.
 69

5, measured non-travel time: 0.7 to 26.4

minutes.

6. FMC model 210 CA skidder.

R-A-F-T-S allows the user to specify a non-travel time

as an alternative to Ohmstede's equation.

The total round trip time is then calculated by adding

the non-travel time (T3) to the round-trip travel time

(T2), so that T2 becomes the total round-trip time, in

minutes, using Equation (86).

T2 = T2 + T3 (86)

K. Productivity

Productivity (El) is calculated in units of pounds per

minute, using Equation (87).

El = (Wl/T2)(E/l00) (87)

where:

E = utilization, percent.
Wi = turn weight, lb.

T2 = total turn time, minutes.

Productivity is also calculated in cunits per hour

using Equation (88), or MBF per hour using Equation (89).

Cunits per hour = 60 (El) / [(l0O)(Zl)] (88)

MBF per hour = 60 (El)(Z2) (89)

 70

where:

Z1 is a conversion factor in units of lb/ft3.

Z2 is a conversion factor in units of MBF/lb.

The cost per cunit is found using Equation (90). The

cost per MBF is found using Equation (91).

Dollars per cunit = 100(F2)(Z1) / [60(E1)] (90)

Dollars per MBF = F2 / [60(E1)(Z2)] (91)

where:
F2 = dollars per hour to operate the tracked
vehicle.
 71

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Sensitivity analysis illustrates the relation of one

variable to another while all other variables are held

constant. Sensitivity analysis was performed for the

following set of conditions: an International Harvester

TD-8E, without an arch, skidding a 2,521 lb. log load (2

logs, each 39.8 ft. long) down a -10.67 percent grade.

For values of cone index greater than 150 psi, the

curves for soil limited tractive effort (Figures 14 and 15)

and compaction resistance (Figures 16 and 17) are relatively
flat. This would suggest that the accuracy of the cone

index measurement is less critical for soils with a cone

index greater than 150 psi than for soils with a cone index
less than 150 psi.

The relationship between the soil limited tractive

effort (Tfor) and rating cone index (Rci) is shown in

Figures 14 and 15, The effect of the type of vehicle cone

index: single pass travel (Vci1) or fifty pass travel

(Vci50), is shown in Figure 14. The vehicle is equipped with

grousers. From Figure 14, it is apparent that a fine-

grained soil is capable of delivering more tractive pull

when travelled on only once, than when travelled on fifty
times, when rating cone index is low.
 72

16000

14000

12000

j 10000
'-I
8000
E
- 6000

4000

-
'-I
2000
0

50 100 150 200 250 300

Rating Cone Index, psi

Figure 14. The effect of vehicle cone index type on soil

limited tractive effort for fine-grained soil.

legend: Vci1
Vci50

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

00 50 100 150 200 250 300

Rating Cone Index9 psi

Figure 15. The effect of grousers on soil limited tractive

effort for fine-grained soil.
legend: with grousers
without grousers
 73

Bekker (1969) reports that the soil parameters (Kc,

K0,C,ø) may change with multiple passes of a vehicle over

the soil. Bekker relates gross tractive effort (Hm) to

these soil parameters using Equation (92).

(92)
Lcl
Hm=2(Trakwd) (C +(PL)TAN(Ø)} [leSP(/ ]dL
0

where: dL = incremental segment of the track

= pressure on track segment dL
K' = shear deformation modulus

L = distance from the front of the

contact area.

The other variables are defined in the Glossary,

Appendix A.

The effect of track grousers on the amount of tractive

effort in fine-grained soil is shown in Figure 15. For the

given set of conditions, the use of grousers has, only a

slight effect on the soil limited tractive effort, even at

low rating cone indexes (Rci).

For coarse-grained soil, the soil limited tractive

effort (Tfor) is a function only of the gross combined

weight, and seems to be independent of cone index, according

to the NATO equations. A plot of Tfor versus cone index for

a particular vehicle would consist of a horizontal line.
 74
10000

_ 8000
a)
C.)

. 6000
Ci)
a)

2000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Rating Cone Index, psi

Figure 16. The effect of vehicle cone index type on

compaction resistance for fine-grained soil.
legend: Vci1
Vci50

16000

14000

.. 12000
a,
C)

10000

8000
a,

6000

4000

3 2000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Cone Index, psi

Figure 17. The effect of track type on compaction

resistance for coarse-grained soil.
legend: rigid track
flexible track
 75

The effect of soil strength on the compaction

resistance (Cr) is shown in Figures 16 and 17. Figure 16

compares the effect of soil strength on compaction

resistance for the single (Vci1) and multiple pass (Vci50)

vehicle cone indexes for fine-grained soil. For low soil

strength (Rci), compaction resistance is greater for fifty

pass travel than for single pass travel. Bekker (1969)

reports that the soil parameters (Kc K0, C, 0) may change

with multiple passes of a vehicle over the soil. Bekker

relates Kc and K0 to compaction resistance in

Equation (93).
For fine-grained soils, the effect of grousers on

compaction resistance was found to be negligible for the set

of conditions analyzed.

R-A-F-T-S calculates compaction resistance on fine-

grained soil using Equations (34) or (36), and (59) when

average ground pressure is less than 4 psi, or Equations

(35) or (36) and (59) when average ground pressure is

greater than or equal to 4 psi. Dividing the compaction

resistance (Cr) by the total weight on the tracks (Gcw)

gives a dimensionless ratio (Cr/Gcw). Gcw is the sum of the

vehicle operating weight and the portion of the log load

weight transferred to the vehicle.

For the conditions tested, it was found that the ratio

Cr/Gcw is greater when average pressure is greater than 4

psi than when average pressure is less than 4 psi. The

 76

equations for pressure greater than or equal to 4 psi were

tested for various values of Rci using a vehicle with an

average pressure of 7.78 psi. A vehicle with half the

weight, but with identical track area, with an average

pressure of 3.76 psi was used to test the equations for

pressure less than 4 psi.

Like the equations in R-A-F-T-S, it was found that

Bekker's equation for compaction resistance gives a lower

ratio of compaction resistance to vehicle weight for a

lightweight vehicle than for a heavier vehicle with the

same track area. Bekker's equation is:

Rc = {2(Trakwd)(KcbkO)[Cpavg/KcbkO].(N )/N} /(N+1)

(93)

where: KcbkO = K0 + Kc/Trakwd

For coarse-grained soils, the compaction resistance for

flexible tracked and rigid tracked vehicles is shown in

Figure 17. The flexible track creates more compaction

resistance for a given cone index. This comparison was made

with an International Harvester TD-8E for both the flexible

track and rigid track cases, so that the vehicle geometry
and weight distribution are identical, except for the track
type.
 77

18000

16000

14000

12000
Ii
0
iOcurn

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 30 90 100
Slip, %

Figure 18. The effect of track type on gross tractive

effort for coarse-grained soiL

legend: rigid track

flexible track
 78

Like the equations from R-A-F-T-S, Equation (93) from

Bekker (1969) calculates a higher compaction resistance for

flexible tracks than for rigid tracks, if vehicles of

identical weight and geometry are compared. This is because

the flexible track causes much of the load on the track to

be directly under the road wheels, resulting in a higher

maximum pressure for a flexible track than for a rigid

track,

The slip needed to generate a gross tractive effort on

fine-grained soil is calculated by R-A-F-T-S using Equation
(78) when average ground pressure is less than 4 psi, or

equation (79) when average ground pressure is greater than

or equal to 4 psi. Dividing the gross trãctive effort by

the total weight on the tracks gives the dimensionless ratio

Yx,

For the conditions tested, it was found that Yx is

higher when average pressure is less than 4 psi than when

average pressure is greater than or equal to 4 psi.

Again, like the equations in R-A-F-T-S, it was found

that Equation (92) from Bekker gives a h_igher value of gross

tractive effort (Hm) per unit of weight on the tracks for a

lightweight vehicle than for a heavier vehicle with

identical track area.

Slip curves for rigid and flexible tracks on coarse-

grained soil are shown in Figure 18. This comparison was

made with an International Harvester TD-8E for both the
 79

flexible tracked and rigid tracked cases, so that the

vehicle geometry and weight distribution are identical,

except for the track type. For rigid tracks, the slip curve

rises sharply at low soil strength so that a gross tractive

effort near the soil limited maximum can be generated at a

slip of only 10%. The slip curve for flexible tracks does
not rise as sharply at low values of slip as does the rigid
track slip curve. Therefore, for slips less than 50% there

is less gross tractive effort generated with a flexible

track than with a rigid track. The soil limited tractive

effort (Tfor) for flexible tracks is higher than for rigid
tracks. Thus, in order to reach the soil limited tractive
effort at 100% slip, the flexible track slip curve must

cross the rigid track slip curve at some point. In the NATO

model, this occurs at approximately 50% slip. For slips

greater than 50%, there is greater gross tractive effort

generated for a flexible track than for a rigid track.

Field observations of track slippage (personal

communication, Bart Schreiner, Waterways Experimental

Station) indicate that the flexible track spans between the

road wheels tend to curve upwards at low slip, thus reducing
the area of the soil shear plane. This results in less

gross tractive effort for a given slip, according to

Equation (92) from Bekker. The upward curving of the

flexible track spans reduces the contact length (Lcl).

 80

VERIFICATION

To verify RA-F-T-S, calculated travel times were

compared to field data from Seifert (1982).

Seifert's data includes field measurements of the

travel times of rubber tired and tracked skidders in a

timber harvesting operation. The portion of Seifert's data

used to verify R-A-F-T-S consists of the following:

Type of vehicles: Caterpillar D6D and

International Harvester TD-8E crawler tractors.
Harvesting system: Skidding of tree-length logs
over designated skid trails.
Two operators per vehicle.

The portion of Seifert's data used for validation was

obtained during the logging of an area 22.4 acres in size,

Payload weights range from 259 lbs to 13,915 lbs and

skidding distances range from 48 feet to 1542 feet. The

field study was conducted on Potlatch Corporation's land in

northern Idaho during the summer of 1981,

The following information from Seifert's field data was

entered into R-A-F-T-S, for eachturn:

skid distance,

slope of the skid trail,

weight of the log payload,
 81

average log length in each load,

number of logs in each load.

The vehicle dimensions and weights are also required.

R-A-F-T-S then calculatedtravel times for each of the

260 turns in Seifert's data. The difference was then taken
between Seifert's mneasured travel timnes and R-A-F-T-S'
calculated travel timnes for each turn. This difference can
be expressed as a percent (D%). using Equation (94).

= [ (At - Mt) / At ](100) (94)

where:
At = mneasured travel time, for turn j.
Mt = R-A-F-T-S' travel timne calculated, for turn j.

The average percent differences (D°h) shown in Table 1

are positive, which indicates that the average measured

travel time is greater than the average calculated travel
time. Expressed in terms of speed, R-A-F-T-S overestimated
the vehicle's speeds by the values of D% shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that, for the data analyzed, R-A-F-T-S
underestimated the loaded inbound travel time by a greater
amount than the unloaded outbound travel time. Stated
another way, R-A-F-T-S underestimated the slowing effect of
the skidded log payload. If the average calculated speed of
the loaded vehicle were reduced by 33%, then D% for the
 82

loaded vehicle would be the same as D% for the unloaded

vehicle,

Some possible reasons why, in this case, the average

calculated travel time is smaller than the average field

measured travel time, when a log load is being skidded, are:

Perumpral 's log-skidding model was used, which

assumes that the leading ends of the logs are clear of the
ground, with no bulldozing, In Seifert's study, however,

the tracked skidders were not equipped with arches, and some

log bulldozing occurred. A high value of 1.3 for the soil-

log coefficient of friction was tried to account for some of

the slowing effects due to log bulldozing. Herrick's model

for no-arch skidding was also tried, but did not improve the
prediction. In addition, it is felt that Herrick's model

was not applicable because it was developed using 12 foot

logs, whereas the logs in Seifert's field data were tree-
length, in the range of 21 to 102 feet in length.

For all of the turns analyzed, the slope in the

loaded skid direction was favorable (negative), and the

slope in the empty direction was adverse (positive).

Operators, at least the ones in Seifert's study, tended to

operate more cautiously when skidding a log load downhill

than when travelling empty uphill, for reasons of safety

(personal communication Cedric J. Clark).

The operators in Seifert's study were not

accustomed to skidding tree-length logs. At that time,

 83

the usual practice in northern Idaho was to skid whole-

trees, rather than tree-length logs.

R-A-F-T-S overestimated the vehicle speed for the

outbound empty condition, though to a lesser degree than for

the inbound loaded condition. Possible reasons for the

overestimation, which apply to the inbound loaded condition

as well as to the outbound empty condition, are:
Operator experience. Table 1 shows the effect of

the operator on vehicle speed for the International

Harvester TD-8E. Operator 1 operates at a faster speed than
does Operator 2.

Curves in the skid trail alignment cause the

operator to slow the vehicle.

Rises and dips in the skid trail grade not

indicated in Seifert's field measurements would cause the

vehicle to travel at a slower speed than if travelling on a

uniformly increasing or decreasing grade.

Reress ion Anals is

To determine which factors affected the magnitude of
the differences (D%) between Seifert's measured travel

times and R-A-F-T-S' calculated travel times, a regression

analysis was performed.

Only the factors measured in the field by Seifert could

be included in the regression analysis. These factors are:

skid distance, slope of the skid trail, weight of the log

 84

load, average log length in each load, and number of logs in

each load. Other factors, such as skid trail curvature,

operator proficiency, surface irregularities, and log

bulldozing were not measured in the field, and thus cannot

be analyzed quantitatively.

A random sample consisting of 50% of the data of 260

turns was used to establish a regression equation. The

remaining 50% was used for subsequent validation of the

regression equation.

To determine the factors which affect the accuracy of

R-A-F-T-S' calculation of outbound unloaded travel time, the

percent difference (D%) of outbound travel time for each

turn j was regressed against the two independent variables:

travel distance outbound for turn j, and skid trail slope

outbound for turn j. It was found that skid trail slope did

not significantly affect the variability of D%. The

regression analysis showed a significant relationship

between outbound and L. the travel distance outbound

for turn j. An R2 value of 0.20 resulted when outbound

was regressed on L. The R2 value indicates a reduction of

20 percent in the variability of attained by the use of
information about L3. The regression analysis yielded the
following regression equation.

= 391898 - (O301436) (Li) (95)

where:
 85

= the predicted percent difference between

the field measured travel time and
R-A-F-T-S' calculated travel time, for the

outbound unloaded direction, for turn j.

L = the outbound travel distance for turn j, ft.

The regression analysis indicates that R-A-F-T-S is

more accurate for longer skid distances. However,

examination of the data for individual turns reveals that

there are large values of D% (up to 35%) for distances of

1000 feet. This suggests that the magnitude of D% is not

due solely to acceleration and deceleration effects.

If Equation (94) is combined with Equation (95), with
Mt's substituted for At. then Equation (96) results.

Mt's = Mt/[1 - 39.1898/100 + (.O301436)(L)/1OO] (96)

where: Mt = the travel time calculated by

R-A-F-T-S for turn j.

Mt's = the travel time predicted, using

the regression equation, for turn

3.

Equation (96) has the effect of increasing the

calculated travel time. Equation (96) was temporarily

incorporated into R-A-F-T-S, and new values of D% calculated

(Table 2). The application of Equation (96) to the

calculated inbound and outbound travel times resulted in a

 86

reduction of 0% for both, as can be seen by comparing Table

1 to Table 2.

Comparison of Tables 1 and 2 shows an average reduction

of 16.67 for 0% outbound, and an average reduction of

12.48 for 0°h inbound, indicating a relationship between

the accuracy of R-A-F-T-S and the length of skid distance.
In conclusion, it was found that there is a tendency

for R-A-F-T-S to calculate the travel time more accurately

as travel distance increases, for the set of conditions
analyzed. This is due, in part, to the lessening effect of
acceleration and deceleration as distance increases. Also,

at longer travel distances a larger portion of the trip is

made on well-travelled, familiar skid trails, due to the

generally fan-shaped harvest area.

 87

TABLE 1. Percent differences between R-A-FT'S calculated travel ti.es and

actual .easured travel ti.es.

Vehicle Operator Number of Percent Difference in Travel

(I or 2) Turns Times
(Di)
Outbound from Inbound to
Landing, Empty Landing, Skidding
a Log Payload

Caterpil lar 1 62 11.09 39.54

D6D 2 48 14,38 35.51

International
Harvester 1 44 15.48 31.55

TD-8E 2 106 34.48 49.05

Weighted Average 21.98 41.32

Note: Non-modified Mobility Model is used.

TABLE 2. Percent differences between R-A-F-T-S calculated travel ti.es and

actual .easured travel ti.es, after adjustuent by regression
equation.

Vehicle Operator Number of Percent Difference in Travel

(1 or 2) Turns Times
(Di)
Outbound from Inbound to
Landing, Empty Landing, Skidding
a Log Payload

Caterpillar 1 24 2.51 34.01

D 6D 2 28 1. 78 28.50

International
Harvester 1 21 -0.03 11.92

TD-8E 2 50 10.88 33.66

Weighted Average 5.31 28.84

 88

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

Many of the equations and relationships presented in

this paper require further development and field

verification, particularly in regard to timber harvesting

applications. Suggested areas for future study are:

1. Lo load/soil and Lo load/vehicle relationshi2s.

a. The model for ground-lead (no-arch) skidding by

Herrick is largely empirical based on observations of

logs 12 feet in length. A new analytical model derived

from a static force balance, valid for logs of any

length, needs to be developed and field verified. The

log-to-ground coefficient of friction would have to

include resistance caused by the bulldozing of the

front of the logs.

b. A generalized whole-tree skidding model needs to

be developed and field verified. The model should

include calculation of the log-to-ground coefficient of

friction, and the portion of the log load transferred

to the vehicle. A static-force balance approach similar

to Perumpral (1977), but also including slope effects,

is needed.
 89

c. The effect of the skidded log load on the vehicle

speed needs furthur study. The dynamic interaction of
the log load with the moving vehicle creates an

additional slowing effect, beyond what is modeled in

the static force analyses by Perumpral (1977) and Lysne

and Burditt (1983).

2. Track/soil relationships.
a. The slip of flexible tracks on coarse-grained
soil needs improvement. The Waterways Experimental

Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi is currently developing

a new equation which will be available in the near

future.

Develop an interactive track performance model

similar to the concept of rigid track-soil interaction
described in Karafiath et al. (1978). This should

include improvement of Equations (55) and (56) to take

into account the effect that the forward motion of the

track has on motion resistance.

The non-uniform pressure distribution model for

inelastic soils, Equations (60) through (73), needs to

be field verified, particularly on soils with low cone
indexes. A pressure measuring device such as one

developed by Dooley and Turner (1983) would be helpful.

The equations for tracked vehicles on fine-

grained soil use the NATO vehicle cone index system. A

 90

track numeric system could be developed, based on

dimensional analysis, similar in concept to the wheel

numerics from Frietag (1965), and Wisner and Luth

(1973) and to the track numerics for coarse-grained

soil from Turnage (1973).

3. Operator/vehicle relationshiQs.
R-A-F-T-S assumes that the operator is running the

vehicle at full-throttle. This is often not the case

depending on many factors, including operator experience and

discomfort. The effect of operator behavior on vehicle

speed should be field tested, and possibly incorporated into

RA-F-T-S.
 91

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bekker, M. G. 1956. Theory of Land Locomotion. University

of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Bekker, M. G. 1969. Introduction to Terrain-Vehicle

Systems. University of Michigan Press. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.

Bennett, W. D. 1962. Forces Involved in Skidding Full-Tree

and Tree-Length Loads of Pulpwood.. Pulp and Paper
Magazine of Canada - Woodlands Section. August,
1962.

Caterpillar Performance Handbook. 1983. Edition 14.

Caterpillar Tractor Company. Peoria, Illinois.

Dooley, Helana A. and John L. Turner. 1983. Development of

Techniques and Procedures for Conducting Vehicle
Mobility Studies Relevant to Wetland Harvesting in
the South. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station. Auburn, Alabama.
Falk, Gary D. 1980. A Study of the Lateral Yarding Forces
in a Cable Thinning. M. S. Thesis. Oregon State
University, Corvallis. 107 p.

Fiske, Preston M. and R. B. Fridley. 1975. Some Aspects of

Selecting Log Skidding Tractors. Transactions of
the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
18(3): 497-502.

Frietag, D. R. 1965. A Dimensional Analysis of the

Performance of Pneumatic Tires on Soft Soils.
U. S. Army Corps Waterways Experiment Station.
Technical Report no. 3-688.

Garlicki, A. M. and W. W. Calvert. 1969. A Comparison of

Power Requirements for Full-Tree Versus Tree-
Length Skidding. Pulp and Paper Magazine of
Canada. July 18, 1969. pp. 83-86.

Gibbons, Daniel J. 1982. Predicting Skidder Productivity:

A Mobility Approach. M. F. Paper, School of
Forestry. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
51 p.
 92

Guskov, V. 1968. The Effect of Drawbar Pull on the Rolling

Resistance of Track-laying Tractors. Journal of
Terramechanics. Vol. 5, No. 4, pp 27-32.

Haley, Peter W., M. P. Jurkat, and P. M. Brady. 1979 NATO

Reference Mobility Model, Edition I Users Guide.
Technical Report no. 12503. U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive Research and Development. Warren,
Michigan.

Hassan, A. E. and M. L. Gustafson. 1981. Factors Affecting

Skidding Forces. Paper No. 81-1586. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Hassler, C. C., S. A. Sinclair, and D. J. Ferguson. 1983.

Skidlog---An Interactive Skidding Model. Journal
of Forestry. September, 1983: 610-612.

Henshaw, J. R. 1977. A Study of the Coefficient of Drag

Resistance in Yarding Logs. M. S. Thesis, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, OR. 122 p.

Herrick, D. E. 1955. Tractive Effort Required to Skid

Hardwood Logs. Forest Products Journal 5(4): 250-
255.

1ff, R. H., J. L., Koger, E. C. Burt, and E. W. Culver. 1982.

C-A-R-T-S: Capacity Analysis of Rubber Tired
Skidders (A Progress Report). Presented at the
Winter Meeting of the America.n Society of
Agricultural Engineers. Paper 82-1594.

Karafiath, Leslie L. and Edward A. Nowatzki. 1978. Soil

Mechanics for Off-Road Vehicle Engineering. Trans
Tech Publications. Clausthal, Germany.

Lysne, D. H. and A. L. Burditt. 1983. Theoretical Ground

Pressure Distributions of Log Skidders.
Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 26(5): 1327-1331.

Mann, Charles N. and H. H. Lysons. 1972. A Method of

Estimating Log Weights. USDA Forest Service
Research Paper PNW-138. Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR.

Ohmstede, R. H. 1977. Production Rates and Skidding Cost of

the FMC 210 CA High-Speed Skidder. M. F. Paper.
School of Forestry, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
 93

Olsen, Eldon D. and D. J. Gibbons. 1983. Predicting

Skidder Productivity: A Mobility Model. Research
Bulletin 43. School of Forestry, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.

Perumpral, J. V. 1977. Skidding Forces of Tree Length Logs

Predicted by a Mathematical Model. Transactions
of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
20(6): 1008-1012.

Rula, A. A. and C. J. Nuttall, Jr. 1971. An Analysis of

Ground Mobility Models (ANAMOB). Technical Report
M-71-4. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Seifert, Jon Carl. 1982. Production Rates and Residual

Stand Impact for Four Skidding Machines During
Overstory Removal. M. S. Thesis. School of
Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Turnage, Gerald W. 1973. Using Dimensionless Prediction

Terms to Describe In-Soil Tracked Vehicle
Performance. Paper No. 73-1508. American Society
of Agricultural Engineers.

U.S. Dept. of Army. 1959. Soils Trafficability. Department

of the Army Technical Bulletin, TB ENG 37.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. Washington,
D.C.

Wills, B. M. D. 1963. The Measurement of Soil Shear

Strength and Deformation Moduli and A Comparison
of the Actual and Theoretical Performance of a
Family of Rigid Tracks. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research. VolumeS, No. 2.
Wismer, R. D. and H. J. Luth. 1973. Off-road Traction
Prediction for Wheeled Vehicles. Transactions of
the American Society of Agricultural Engineers
17(1): 8-10, 14.

Wong, J. Y. 1978. Theory of Ground V9hicles. Wiley

Interscience.
 94

APPENDICES
 95

APPENDIX A.

Glossary
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

A Array which contains the slope percent

of each segment of the skid trail.

Al Indicator variable, which denotes in which units 1 or 2

the payload is measured. If Al = 1, then pounds
are used. If Al = 2, then MBF are used.

A2 One way distance for a given segment of the skid ft.

trail.

Ainc Array which contains the discrete areas sq. in.

which each track is divided into. Each roller and
wheel has a corresponding Ainc.

Alpha Angle of the skid line with respect to the radians

horizontal.

Another S String variable which designates whether another alpha

logging turn is to be analyzed.

Ashoe Area of one track shoe. sq. in.

B Numeric array which contains the one way distance ft.

of each segment of the skid trail.

Bck A subscript which indicates that the subscripted integer

variable is at or near the trailing end of the
track.

Beta Log to ground angle. radians

C The apparent cohesion of the soil. Psi

VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

C Array which contains the rating cone index psi

of each segment of the skid trial.

C7 Coefficient of resistance to skidding used in decimal

Herrick's and Fiske and Fridley's log force model.

C8 Distance from leading end of log to center of gravity. ft.

Cf Slip curve correction factor. This is the dif- decimal

erence between the drawbar pull coefficient at
20% slip at maximum soil strength (i.e. rating cone
index of 300 psi) minus the drawbar pull coefficient
at 20% slip at the rating cone index of the skid trail
segment being analyzed.

Clf Clearance factor, which is a function of the vertical psi

distance from the ground to the trunnion.

Clrmin Minimum clearance under vehicle, taken as the vertical in.

distance from ground to the trunnion.

Cntr Variable used to count the number of secant method integer

iterations.

Cpavg Average pressure on tracks. psi

Crinc Factor used to increase the compaction resistance decimal

from NATO.

0 The actual small end diameter of the log (inside bark). in.

Dowpb Drawbar pull coefficient, as limited by the soil decimal

strength.
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

Dp Array which contains the drawbar pull lb.

coordinates of the drawbar pull vs. speed curves.

Ds The scaling diameter of the log. Ds is one-half in.

inch less than the actual small end diameter (inside
bark).

E Utilization factor used to calculate productivity. percent

Et Alpha string variable used to designate whether or alpha

not the cost per log volume is to be calculated.

El Productivity in pounds per minute. lb./min.

Ef Engine factor, which is a function of flywheel

horsepower.

Fgrade Resistance or assistance due to slope of ground along lb.

direction of travel.

Fr Motion resistance. lb.

Ftrack Track type indicator, either 0 or 1, for rigid or

flexible track, respectively.

G Coarse-grained soil penetration resisting gradient. psi

Alpha string variable used to designate whether the alpha

non-travel time is user specified or estimated
by R-A-F-T-S.

Gcw The gross combined weight, which is the sum of the lb.
component of the vehicle weight perpendicular to the
ground, and the winchline tension component P1.
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

Gf Grouser factor, which is a function of grouser height.

Gh Grouser height. in.

Ght$ Alpha string variable which indicates whether or not alpha

there are grousers on the tracks.

U Distance from ground to hook point of the winchline ft.

on the logs, measured perpendicular to the ground.

Up Net flywheel horsepower at manufacturers rated engine hp

speed.

Upt Net flywheel horsepower per ton of Gcw. hp/ton

I Number of distinct terrain segments in the skid trail, integer

one way only.

Inc Subscript which designates the track segment. integer

3 Subscript which designates the terrain segment. integer

K Log type indicator.

K Cohesive modules of deformation. Note: N is the lb./in,

c
exponent of deformation.
N+2
K0 Frictional modulus of deformation. lb./in.

Kcbkø A factor which is a function of the soil sinkage

parameters Kc and K0, and the track width.
LI Distance measured along the log from the leading end ft.
to the choker hook point.
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT
L2 Average length of contact of logs and ground, used in ft.
Perumpral°s log model.

L3 Log length. ft.

LcI Actuol contoct length of one track on the ground. in.

Lp The scaling length, which is the actual log length ft

minus 8 inches.

M Slope of a function, used in the secant method of decimal

solving an equation.
Maxtens Tension in the winchline occurring when vehicle begins lb.
to move from a stationary position.
N The exponent of deformation of the soil.
N$ Alpha string variable which indicates whether or alpha
not there is arch skidding.
N7 Portion of log weight transferred to the vehicle, decimal
Used in Herrick's and Fiske and Fridley's log model.
Nbogie Total number of road wheels on both tracks. For integer
rigid tracks, Nbogie = 4 + 2 (no. of rollers on
one track).

Newmach $ Alpha string variable which indicates whether or not alpha

a different type of vehicle is to be used for the next
execution of R-A-F-T-S.
Nfq Number of forward gears. integer
0
0
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

Ngear $ Alpha array which prompts the user to enter the alpha
coordinates of the drawbar pull vs. speed curves.

Nlog Average number of logs in the payload

P1 Component of winchline tension perpendicular to the lb.

g r o u nd.

P2 Component of winchline tension parallel to the ground. lb.

Pf Pressure on the leading edge of each track only when psi

the exponent of deformation N is equal to 1.

Pit Pressure distribution factor for coarse-grained soiL -

Pmax Maximum pressure occurring on the tracks. psi

Pr Pressure on the trailing edge of each track only when psi

the exponent of deformation N is equal to 1.

Prod The sum of the moments of the forces acting on the lb. - in.
vehicle, about the leading edge of the tracks.

Prodold Value of Prod from the previous iteration, used in lb. - in.
a binary search technique.

Prtadd The printer address number.

Q The normal component of the portion of the log weight lb.

transferred to the ground.

Q1Q29Q3,Q4 Alqebriic substitution in Perumpraltms log model as

modified by Gibbons and Olsen.
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

R Array which contains the point reactions of the lb.

ground under each tratk.

Re Pressure distribution resultant for an elastic soil. lb.

Ri Point reaction of the ground under the front wheel lb.

of the tracks. This value is negative if the track is
not in contact with the ground at this point.

RU, R12 Old and new values of Ri, respectively, used to generate lb.
the slope of the function, for use in the secant method
of solving an equation.

Rimax Upper limit of Ri used when iterating Ri. lb.

P1mm Lower limit of Ri used when iterating Ri. lb.

Rbck Point reaction of the ground under the rear wheel lb.
of the tracks. This value is negative if the track is
not in contact with the ground at this point.
Rbcki,Rbck2 Old and new values of Rbck, respectively, used to lb.
generate the slope of the function, for use in the
secant method of solving an equation.

Rbckmax Upper limit of Rbck used when iterating Rbck. lb.

Rbckmin Lower limit of Rbck used when iterating Rbck. lb.

Rci The rating cone index, which is the product of the Psi
cone index and the remolding index.

Rcnu An index of the compaction resistance, calculated with

Bekker's equations using the non-uniform pressure
distribution.
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

Rcun An index of the compaction resistance, calculated with

Bekker's equations using the average pressure.

Rdia For a rigid track, the pitch diameter of the track's in

drive sprocket.

Resist The sum of compaction resistance, grade resistance, lb

and log payload resistance.

Roll The distance along the track, between the centers of in.
the track rollers.

Rs The resistance due to the internal workings of the lb.

track and the associated suspension system, caused
mostly by frictional losses in track pins, driving
wheel, and wheel hub and road wheel bearings.

Rtowpb Motion resistance coefficient including the internal decimal

resistance Rs of the tracks.

S Slip of the tracks on the ground, when the vehicle is decimal

towing a log load.

Si Slip of the tracks on the ground, when the vehicle is decimal

not towing a load.

Segs Number of spans between road wheels on one track. integer

For a rigid track, road wheels include end wheels.

Slipx Slip of the tracks on the ground decimal

VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

Soil Soil type indicator. Soil = 1 if fine-grained soil.

Soil = 2 if coarse-grained soil.

Sproc For a rigid track, the distance from the centerline in.
of the front or rear track wheel to the centerline
of the adjacent track roller.
Sum The sum of the static forces acting on the vehicle in lb
the normal direction (i.e. perpendicular to the ground.)

Suml ,Sum2 Old and new values of Sum, respectively, used to lb.
generate the slope of the function, for use in the
secant method of solving an equation. lb.

Sum old Value of Sum from the previous iteration, used in a lb.
binary search technique.

Surff Surface roughness factor, equal to 1.

T Slope of ground in loaded direction. radians

T2 Slope of ground in loaded direction. percent

T3 Cumulative travel time. mm.

T8 Variable which designates whether or not the logs are -

being skidded butt first. T8 = 1 if logs are skidded

butt first. Otherwise T8 = 1.5.

Tens Winchline tension after vehicle is moving. lb.

Tf Track factor, which is a function of the track width, -

and is used to figure the mobility index.

Tfor Soil limited gross tractive effort at 100% slip. lb.

VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

Tfx Transmission factor, Tfx = 1 if there is a power

shift, else Tfx = 1.05.

Tq$ Power shift Indicator variable. Tq$ = V If there Is alpha.

a power shift transmission, else Tq$ N.

Trakln The nominal ground contact length of one track. in.

Trakwd The width of one track, generally the width of the in.
track shoe.

Trip Variable which indicates whether the direction of in.

travel is outbound or inbound from the landing.
Trip=O for the outbound direction. Tripl for the
inbound direction.

U Coefficient of fiction between the log and the ground. decimal

Up,Upl Incremental values by which Ri or Rbck is decreased in lb.

each iteration of a binary search processes.

V Array which contains the speed coordinates of mph.

the drawbar pull vs. speed curves.

V2 Actual velocity in the loaded direction. ft./min.

V3 Actual velocity in the unloaded direction. ft./min

Va Actual velocity. mph.

Vb The Scribner log volume (mbf) for the total payload,

which is the sum of the volumes of the individual logs. mbf,

Vc The cubic foot volume for one log. ft3.

VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

Vcifg Vehicle cone index for fine-grained soil. psi.

Vt Theoretical velocity, without slip. mph.

W Vehicle operating weight. lb.

Wi Weight of the log load. lb.

Wf Weight factor, which is a function of Gcw.

Wlorf Bogie load range factor, which is a function of the

number of track wheels and rollers, the gross
combined weight, and area of one track shoe.

x Array which contains the distances, as measured along in.

the track, from the front track wheel to each or the
trck rollers and to the rear wheel.
x Suspended stem length. The length of the log measured ft.
from the choker attachment point to the ground contact
point.

Xc Distance parallel to the ground from the centerline of in

the front track wheel to the vehicle center of
gravity.

Xmi Mobility index. A number that results from a

consideration of certain vehicle characteristics.
Xp Distance parallel to the ground from the centerline of in.
the front track wheel to the point where the choker
is attached to the vehicle.
VARIABLE DEFINITIONS UNIT

Xr Distance along the track from the centerline of the decimal

front wheel to the resultant of the pressure
distribution acting along the bottom of the tracks.

Yc Distance, perpendicular to the ground, measured from in.

the ground to the vehicle center of gravity.
Yp Distance, perpendicular to the ground, measured from in.
the ground to the point where the choker is attached
to the vehicle.

Yx Corrected drawbar pull coefficient. decimal

Yy Corrected drawbar pull coefficient for coarse-grained decimal

soil, which isa function ofYx.
Z Array which contains sinkage indexes of points along In.
the track. The sinkage indexes do iiot represent
actual sinkage.

z A numeric variable which is the maximum sinkage in.

index along the tracks. This does not represent
the actual sinkage.

zi Factor to convert cubic feet to pounds. lb/ft3.

Z2 Factor to convert pounds to mbf. mbf/lb.

zs Alpha string variable which indicates whether or not alpha

productivity is to be calculated.
 108

APPENDIX B.
Sample Program Run
 109
APPENDIX B

Sample
Visual prompter on display keyboard Explanation
response

Enter the printer address 401

number.

Enter number of forward 3 Vehicle is the

gears. International
Harvester TD-8E,
Enter maximum drawbar pull 33000 without an
(lbs.) in first gear at arch.
zero mph.

Enter drawbar pull (lbs.) 12000

at intersection of first
and second gear curves.

Enter speed (mph) at 1.5

intersection of first and
second gear curves. The "full-
throttle"
Enter drawbar pull (lbs.) 6000 drawbar vs.
at intersection of second speed curves,
and third gear curves. simplified into
straight line
Enter speed (mph) at 2.75 segments.
intersection of second and
third gear curves.

Enter fastest speed 5 74

(where drawbar pullzero)
for the highest gear in mph.

Enter coordinates Xc,Yc of 38.68, 25.7

the vehicle center of
gravity (in.).

Enter coordinates Xp,Yp of 102.7, 30.0

point of payload line
attachment to vehicle (in.).
 110

Sample
Visual prompter on display keyboard Explanation
response

Enter vehicle weight (lb.). 18617 Operating

weight of
Enter flywheel horsepower 78 vehicle plus
(hp). operator

Does the vehicle have a Y

power shift (y/n) ?

Length of one track on the 74.8

ground (in.).

Width of one track (in.). 16.0

Do the tracks have grousers Y

(yin) ?

Enter grouser height (in.). 2.11

-Enter area of one track 99Z1

shoe (sq. in.).

Is track rigid or flexible? 0

If track is rigid then enter
'0', if flexible enter'l'.

Enter number of rollers 5 If flexible

(excluding end wheels) on track, enter
one track only. number of road
wheels on one
track

Enter minimum clearance from 14.60

vehicle underside to ground
(in.).

Enter pitch diameter of 2598 If flexible

drive sprocket (in.). track, this
prompt is not
Enter average log length 17 displayed.
(ft.).

Enter 1-turn weight in lbs, 2

or 2-turn volume in
board-feet.

Enter turn volume in 300

board-feet.
 111
Sample
Visual prompter on display keyboard Explanation
response

Enter cunits to pounds 38

conversion factor
(lb./cu.ft. ).

Enter number of logs in the 3

payload.

Enter '1' for treelength or 2 Determines

'2' for log-length, which type of
log model to
Skidding with arch (yin) ? N use.

Butt first skidding Y

Hookunhook user N
Estimate (y/n) ?

Enter if of segments in skid. 2 In one

direction
only.

Enter % slope for section 1. -15 Favorable

slope loaded,
is negative.

Enter one way distance for 495 Feet.

section 1,

Enter rating soil type for 1 Fine-grained

section 1. soil.

Enter the exponent of deformation

of the soil, N. If not known,
then press 'RETURN' with no entry.

Enter cone index for 200

section 1.

Will there be single or

multiple trips on section
1?
If single trip enter '1',
if multiple trips, press
return' with no entry.
 112

Sample
Visual prompter on display keyboard Explanation
response

Enter % slope for section -10

2?
Enter one way distance 730
for section 2.

Enter soil type for section 2

2.

Enter the exponent of deformation

of the soil, N. If not know, then
press 'RETURN' with no entry.
Enter cone index for section 2. 200

Calculate productivity Y
(yin) ?

Enter utilization in %. 75

Would you like cost per Y

MBF (y/n) ?

Enter S/hr to operate vehicle. 38.99 Includes

operator
wages.

Do you want to run the program N Program

again (y/n) ? terminates.
 113

LO LOAD DATA

CUBIC FEET TO POtfr4DS COI4UERSION FACTOR 38.00 LB. PER CU. FT.

LOG LOAD VOLIIE (BOARD-FEET) 300.00 BOARD-FEET

LOG LOAD WEIGHT 2149.17 LBS.

SKIDDING SEC1EHT 1: IJLTIPLE TRIPS EXPECTED

SLOPER -15,0, DISTANCE 495, RATING CONE INDEX 200, FIE-RAIHED SOIL

IIAXItIIJII PRESSURE OH TRACKS, UNLOADED 10,53 PSI

LOG LO) EIGHT 014 GRO(J14) 1700.31 LBS. LOS RESIST10E 786.31 LBS.

WINCHLINE TENSION DURING BREAKOUT 992.46 LBS.

IIAXIMLRI PSSURE 014 TRACKS, LOED 8.54 PSI

UELOCITY LOADED 5.74 MPH VELOCITY UNLOADED 3.78 MPH

SLIP LOADED -p00 % SLIP UI&O)ED 2.02 %

SKIDDING SENT 2:
SL(FE -10.0, DISTANCE 730, CONE INDEX 200, COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

MAX DIUtI PRESSE ON TRACKS, IJtILDADED 10.39 PSI

LOG LOAD WEICHT ON ROUHD 1710.80 LBS. LOG RESISTANCE 1040.68 LBS.
WINCHLINE TENSION DURING BRE(OUT 1242.09 LBS.

MAXIIUl PRESSURE ON TRACKS, LOADED 9.54 PSI

UELOCITY LOADED 5.61 tIPH VELOCITY UNLOADED 4.25 MPH

SLIP LOADED .03 % SUP LJNLO)ED .30 %

TOT.. ROUND TRIP TURN TIlE 14.28 MINUTES 111TH NO DELAYS

UTILIZATION IN PERCENT 75.0 PERCENT

PRODUCTIVITY 1?8 C1JHITS PER HOUR

,9SMBFPERHOIJR

8/I1 TO OPERATE VEHICLE 38.99 PER HOUR

41.25
8/CUNIT 21.88
 114

APPENDIX C.

Vehicle Characteristics
 APPENDIX C

Vehicle characteristics for two rigid tracked skidders, not equipped with
an arch.

Vehicle Variable Name and model

characteristic name Caterpillar International FMC units
D6D Harvester TD-8E 210 CA

No. of forward gears. Nfg 3 3 4

Maximum drawbar pull

in 1st gear at zero
mph. Dp(l) 56,500 33,000 49,125 lb.

Drawbar pull at
intersection of first
and second gear curves. Dp(2) 17 ,500 12,000 19,000 lb.

Speed at intersection
of first and second gear
curves. V(2) 1.80 1.50 200 mph

Drawbar pull at
intersection of second
and third gear curves, Dp(3) 9,200 6,000 11,000 lb.

Speed at intersection
of second and third gear
curves, V(3) 320 2.75 37 mph

Drawbar pull at inter-

section of third and
fourth gear curves. Dp(4) 6,000 -
 Vehicle Variable Name and model
characteristic name Caterpillar International FMC units
D6D Harvester TD-8E 210 CA
Maximum speed in third
gear, where drawbar pull
equals zero. V(4) 6.70 5.74 mph

Speed at intersection
of third and fourth
gear curves V(4) - 6.70 mph

Maximum speed in fourth

gear, where drawbar pull
equals zero. V(S) - 14.50 mph

Distance, parallel to
the ground, to the
center of gravity. Xc 41.78 3968 40.00 in.

Distance, perpi nd i cular

to the ground, to the
center of gravity. Yc '31.02 25.70 40.00 in.

Distance, parallel to
the ground, to the point
where the skidline is
attached to the vehicle. Xp 1183 102.7 80.0 in.

Distance, perpi ndicular

to the ground, to the
point where the skidline
is attached to the vehicle. Vp 41.1 30.0 96.0 in.

Operating weight of the

vehicle. W 33,610 18,617 32,140 lb.
 Vehicle Variable Name and model
characteristic name CaterpTTTar TnternationaT FMC units
06D Harvester TD-8E 210 CA

Net fly wheel horsepower

at manufacture's rated
engine speed. Hp 140 78 200 hp.

Power shift. Tq$ Y Y Y YIN

Nominal ground contact Trakln 93.3 74.8 113.0 in.

length of one track.

Width of one track. Trakwd 18.0 16.0 22.0 in.

Grousers. Ght$ Y Y Y Y/N

Grouser height. Gh 2.38 2.11 1.00 in.

Area of track shoe. Ashoe 139.5 99.71 146.0 in.

Number of rollers (rigid

track) or number of road-
wheels (flexible track). 6 5

Type of track (rigid0

flexible=1). Ftrack 0 0 1

Minimum clearance
under vehicle. Clmin 12.2 14.6 19,0 in.

Pitch diameter of track

drive sprocket. Rdia 32.1 26.0 in,
 118

APPENDIX EL

Program Listing
 119

10 OPTION BASE 1
20 DIM Dp(8) V(8),Soil(20),A(20),B(20),C(20),N(20),Kc(20),K0(20)
30 PRINTER I 1
40 PRINT LIN(3)
50 PRINT 'IRTANT'
60 PRINT
70 PRINT 1) FAVORABLE (LOADED DOWNHILL) IS NEGATIVE % SLOPE"
80 PRINT
90 PRINT ' 2) ENTER VEHICLE DIMENSIONS IN INCHES'
100 PRINT
110 PRINT 3) ENTER VEHICLE AND TuRN hEIGHT IN POuNDS"
120 PRINT
130 PRINT ' 4) ENTER STEM LENGTH IN FEET (IF ASKED FOR)'
140 PRINT ' '
150 PRINT LIN(3)
160 PRINT
170 PRINT 'ENTER THE PRINTER ADRESS NIJIBER"
180 INPUT Prtadd
190
200 !***"CALL SUBROUTINE TO INPUT VEHICLE SPECIFICATIOHS****"
210 GOSUB 3330
220
230 !*HCALL SUBROUTINE TO INPUT LOS LOAD DATA**
240 GOSUB 4500
250
260 !4*H****HIHPUT OR CALCULATE 13, THE NON-TRAVEL TIME******14**
270 PRINT PACE
280 PRINT LIN(1)
290 PRINT 'ENTER YOLR OWN HOOK, UNHOOK AND DECK TIME ESTIMATE ('i/N)';
300 INPUT CS
310 IF G5'Y' OR C$z'N' THEN 360
320 EP
330 PRINT
340 PRINT 'ENTER 'Y' OR 'N"
350 COTO 290
360 IF C5='r THEN 430
370 IF Al2 ThEN 410
380 PRINT LIN(1)
390 PRINT 'ENTER AVERAGE WMBER OF LOGS IN THE LOAD";
400 INPUT Niog
410 T3z4.45+1.3lHlog
420 COTO 480
430 PRINT LIN(1)
440 PRINT 'ENTER AVERAGE (HOIJK + UNHOOK + DECK) TIME (MINUTES)';
450 INPUT T3
460!
470 ! ***************I NPUT TERRAIN DATA*******H*H***H**HH****
480 PRINT LIN(2)
490 PRINT 'ENTER N(IIBER OF SEGMENTS IN SKID, IN ONE DIRECTION (20 MAX.)';
500 INPUT I
510 FORJ1 TO I
520 PRINT PAGE
530 PRINT LIN(1)
540 PRINT 'ENTER PERCENT SLOPE FOR SECTION ";J
550 PRINT
560 PRINT 'NOTE: FAVORABLE SLOPE (LOADED DIRECTION DOWNHILL) IS NEGATIVE";
570 INPUT A(J)
580 PRINT LIN(1)
590 PRINT 'ENTER ONE WAY DISTANCE (FT.) FOR SECTION";J;
600 INPUT 8(J)
610 PRINT LIN(3)
620 PRINT 'ENTER SOIL TYPE FOR SECTION";J;
630 PRINT LIN(1)
640 PRINT FOR FIHE-GRAINED SOIL ENTER 111,11
650 PRINT
660 PRINT " FOR COARSE-GRAINED SOIL ENTER '2''
670 INPUT Soil(J)
680 IF Soil(J)'l OR Soi1(J)2 THEN 710
 120

690 SEEP
700 GOTO 640
710
720 !HIHPtJT BEKKER SOIL PARAIIETERS,,,,,,""*'
730 IF Soi1(J)1 THEN I FINE-GRADED SOIL
740 N(J)-.40
750 Kc(J)17
760 K0(J)'12
770 ELSE !SOIL(J)2 COARSE-GRAINED SOIL
780 14(])-.66
790 Kc(J)20
800 K0(])16
810 Et IF
820 PRINT LIN(2)
830 PRINT 0ENTER THE EXPONENT OF DEFORMATION OF THE SOIL, N."
840 PRINT
850 PRINT "IF HOT KNOWN, TEEN PRESS 'RETURN' WITH NO ENTRY";
860 INPUT N(J)
870 IF Soi1(J)2 THEH 920
880 PRINT LIN(3)
890 PRINT EHTER RATING CCI INDEX (PSI) FOR SECTION;J;
900 }NPUT C(J)
910 GOTO 960
920 PRINT LIN(3)
930 PRINT 'ENTER CONE INDEX (PSI) FOR SECTION";J;
940 IlfUl C(J)
950 GOlD 1020
960 PRINT LIN(2)
970 Skid(J)0
980 PRINT 9JILL THERE BE SINE OR MULTIPLE TRIPS OH SECTION t;J;?'
990 PRINT
1000 PRINT "IF SINGLE TRIP, ENTER '1', IF MULTIPLE TRIPS,PRESS 'TU4' WITH
NO ENTRY.;
1010 I*UT Skid(J)
1020 PRINT LIN(1)
1030 PRINT SkIDOING SECIIHTH;J;N:hl
1040 PRINT
1050 PRINT USLOPE. ii.
1060 IF Soil(J)2 THN 1100
1070 PRINT USING "SDOD,13A,DDDDO 20A,D000 22A";A(J),", DISTANCE ,8(J),",
RATING CONE INDEX ',C(J),", FD-RAINED S61L
1080 PRINT
1090 GOTO 1120
1100 PRINT USING 0S00.D 13A,D0000 13A DDDD,24A;A(J),', DISTANCE =H,8(J),,
CONE INDEX ,C(J),, CORSE-lRAIID SÔILN
1110 PRINT
1120 tEXT 3
1130 PRINTER IS Prtadd
1140 PRINT 'L( LOAD DATA:
1150 PRINT
1160 IF A1-2 THEN
1170 PRINT UCIJBIC FEET TO POUNDS CONVERSION FACTOR
1180 PRINT USING DOoO.DO,X,15AN;Z1,L8. PER CU. FLN
1190 PRINT
1200 PRINT ULOG LOAD UOLUME (BOARD-FEET)
1210 PRINT USING DOOOO.DO,X,10A;M1'Z2'1000,8OARD-FEP
1220 ELSE
1230 PRINT
4;
1240 PRINT ULOG LOAD UOLIJtIE (CUNITS)
1250 PRINT USING MD0000.DO,X,7A';W1/Z1/100,'ClJNITS
1260 END IF
1270 PRINT
1280 PRINT NLOG LOAD WEIGHT
1290 PRINT USING NoOOOO.DO,X,4N;W1,NLBS.N
1300 PRINTER IS CRT
1310 I
1320 I******4**H*CALCULATE FORCES AND VELOCITIES FOR EACH TERRAIN SE(1ENT*"
1330
 121

1340 "*INITIALIZE CIJ1IULATIUE TRAUEL TINEN*

1350 T20
1360 I

1370 '"LOOP FOR EACH TERRAIN SEGt1ENTN

1380
1390 FOR J1 TO I
1400 PRINTER IS Prtadd
1410 PRINT
1420 PR INT
1430 PRINT
1440 IF SoiI(J)2 THEH PRINT 'SKIDDING SEG1ENT";J;M:"
1450 IF SoiI(J)2 THEN 1480
1460 IF Skid(J)-1 TEEN PRINT SKIODINS SEGIIENT";J;": SINGLE TRIP PECTEDN
1470 IF Skid(J)-0 TEEN PRINT TMSKIDDING SEGENTu;J;N: MILTIPIE TRIPS EXPECTEDN.
1480 PRINT
1490 PRINT
1500 IF SoiI(J)-2 TH.N 1530
1510 PRINT USING "SDD.D,13A,00DDO 20A,DDDO 22Au;A(J),u, DIST4CE ,8(J),M,
RATING CUtE INDEX .N,C(J),N, FIF-lRAllED SãIL
1520 GOTO 1540
1530 PRINT USING "SOD 0 13A,D0000 13A 0000 24A1;A(J) Il DISTANCE " 8(J)
CONE INDEX C(J) CORSE-GRAIND SãILN ' ' '
1540 PRINTE IS
1550 T1-A(J)
1560 A2-6(J)
1570 RciC(J)
1580 T=ATN(T1'lOO)
1590!
1600 !*4TRIP-0 FOR UNLOADED DIRECTION, 1 FOR LOADED DIRECTION*"
1610
1620 WIJP&OAOED DIRECTIONH
1630
1640 Trio-0
1650 T.T1(-1)
1660 P1-0
1670 P2-0
1680
1690 'Ca.L SUBROUTINE TO FIGURE PRESSURE 0ISTRIBUTIOt4**
1700 GOSIJB 5920
1710!
1220 !'$CALL SIJBRO1JTINE TO FIGURE VELOCITY IN UNLOADED DIRECTIOH'**
1730 GOSUR 8090
1740
1750 IHtJHLOADED VELOCITY V3 (FT./MIN.)***
1760 (J3Ue*88
1770 SlSIipx
17801
1790 '"LOADED DIRECTION"
1800 I
1810 Trio-i
1820 T.Tb(1)
1830
1840 !'Ca.L SUBROUTINE TO FIGURE LOS LOAD FORCES'*
1850 IF W1-0 THEN
1860 P1-0
1870 P2-0
1880 GOTO 1940
1890 SE
1900 GOSLIB 5340
1910 END IF
1920
1930 WCALL SUBROUTINE TO FIGURE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIOH'**
1940 GOSIJB 5920
1950 I
1960 "CFtL SuBROUTINE TO FIGURE VELOCITY IN LOADED DICTIUN
1970 GOSUB 8090
1980 I
1990 !*LOADEO UOCIT? V2 (FT/MIN.)"*
 122

2000 U2Va*88
2010 SSlipx
2030 I
2040 I,cIJt11LATIVE TRAUEL TIME T2"S
2050 T2A2/V2+A2/J3.T2
2060 PRINT LIN(1)
2070 PRINT 'VELOCITY LOADED
2080 PRINT USING Ie000DD.D0,X,3A,7X,20A,DD000.D0,X,3AU ;U2/88,9IPH' ,UELOCITY UN
LOADED ' 1)3/88 'MPH'
2090 PRITER I Prtadd
2100 PRINT
2110 PRINT 'VELOCITY LOADED
2120 PRINT USING "OD000.DD,X,3A,7X,20A,00DOD.D0,X,3A' ;U2/88,9IPH' ,'VELOCITY UN
LOADED ' 1)3/88 ISfl9HI
2130 PRIATER I CRT
2140 PRINT LIN(1)
2150 PRINT 'SLIP LOADED
2160 PRINT USING 'DOD DD,X 1A 21X 16A DOD DO X,1A';S*lOO,"%','SLIP UNLOADED
',Sl*lOO '%' ' ' ' '
2170 PAINTER IS Prtadd
2180 PRINT
2190 PRINT 'SLIP LOADED U5J
2200 PRINT USING "OOO.DD X 1A 13X 18A 000.00 X 1A';SSlOO d%N UNLOADED
S1*100 '%"
210 NEXf
2220 I
2230 I*S,*,H*,,**,,,,*AO0 HUH-TRAVEL TIME TO ThE CIJIIJLATIUE TRAVEL TIME**S*
2240
2250 T2T2T3
2260 PRINTER IS CRT
2270 PRINT LIN(5)
2280 PRINT 'TOTAL ROUND TRIP TURN TIME
2290 PRINT USING 'DD0.00,X,22A';T2,'MINUTE WITH NO DELAYS'
2300 PRINTER IS Prtadd
2310 PRINT
2320 PR INT UH*t**,**H***S,,**,S*,,*,**,*S*,,**1********H*W*H****'
2330 PRINT
2340 PRINT 'TOTAL ROUND TRIP TURN TIME
2350 PRINT USING '000.00,X,22A';T2,'MINUTES WItH NO DELAYS'
2360 PRINT
2370
2380 1 I*WHS*SIPROOtJCT 11) ITY,,,,,,**,fl**,,**1,,,,*****SSSflH**
2390
2400 PLNTER IS CRT
2410 PRINT LIN(1)
2420 PRINT 'CALCULATE PRODUCTIVITY (Y OR N)';
2430 DFIJT Z$
2440 IF Z$a'Y' OR Z$aN" THEN 2490
2450 BEEP
2460 PRINT
2470 PRINT 'ENTER 'Y' OR 'N"
2480 GOTO 2420
2490 IF Z$"N' THEN 3110
2500 I
2510 !SCALCULATE PRODUCTIVITYSSS'
2520 PRINT LIN(1)
2530 PRINT 'ENTER UTILIZATION IN PERCENT";
2540 DFUT E
2550 E1W1/T2'E/100 IPROOIJCTIVITY IN LBS PER MINUTE
2560 PRINT LIN(2)
2570 PRINT 'PRODUCTIVITY
2580 PRINT USING 'ODD0O.DD,X,15A';E1'60/(Z1100),'CUHITS PER HOUR'
2590 PRINT LIN(1)
2600 IF A1'2 THEN PRINT USING '0000D.DD,X,13A';E1S6O*Z2,'MBF PER HOUR
2610 PRINTER IS Prtadd
2620 PRINT 'UTILIZATION IN PERCENT
2630 PRINT USING '000.D.X.8A';E." PERCENT'
 123

2640 PRINT
2650 PRINT "PROOIJCTIUITY
2660 PRINT USING '00000.DD,X,15A';Ei*60/(Z1*106),'CUHITS PER HOUR'
2670 IF Al-2 THEN PRINT
2680 IF Al-2 THEN PRINT USING '00000.DD,X,13A';Ei,60*Z2,'llBt PER HOUR '
2690 PRINTER IS CR1
2700 PRINT LIN(i)
2710 IF Al-i THEN 2740
2720 PRINT "WOULD YOU LIKE COST PER IIBF (YIN)";
2730 GOTO 2750
2740 PRINT "WOULD YOU LIKE COST PER CUNIT (Y/N)';
2750 INPUT ES
2760 IF EI-'Y' OR EI-'N' THEN 2810
2770 BEEP
2780 PRINT
2790 PRINT 'ENTER 'Y' OR 'N"
2800 GOTO 2710
2810 IF E$-'N' THEN 3060
2820
2830 *********'CALCULATE I PER MBF OR I PER CUNIT*****"**'*'*****"
2840!
2850 PRINT LIN(l)
2860 PRINT 'ENTER I/HR TO OPERATE UEHICLE;
2870 INPUT F2
2880 IF Al-i THEN 2920
2890 PRINT LIN(i)
2900 PRINT '$/MBF -'
2910 PRINT USING '3DD';F2/(Ei'60'Z2)
2920 PRINT LIN(i)
2930 PRINT 'I/CUNIT -
2940 PRINT USING "3D02D;F2/(Ei60/(Zi'i00))
2950 PRINTER IS Prtadd
2960 PRINT
2970 PRINT '$4 TO OPERATE VEHICLE - I';
2980 PRINT USING '40.2D,X,8A";F2,"PER HOUR'
2990 IF Al-i THEN 3030
3000 PRINT
3010 PRINT "5/MOF -
3020 PRINT USING '3D.2D';F2/(Ei60'Z2)
3030 PRINT
3040 PRINT '5/CUNIT - ";
3050 PRINT USING '3D.2D';F2/(Ei'60/(Zi'iOO))
3060 PRINTER IS CR1
3070 PRINT LIN(2)
3080
3090 I 44*******HUSER SETS UP THE NEXT RUN*,***********,**4***************
3i00 I

3iiO PRINT LIN(i)

3120 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO RUN THE PROGRAII AGAIN? (Y/N)';
3130 INPUT Anothert
3140 IF Another$-'Y' OR Another$"N' THEN 3190
3150 BEEP
3160 PRINT
3i70 PRINT 'ENTER 'Y' OR 'N"
3180 GOTO 3120
3190 IF Another$O"Y' THEN 3300
3200 PRINT LIN(i)
32i0 PRINT "DO YOU WANT TO USE A DIFFERENT VEHICLE? (YIN)';
3220 INPUT Newsacht
3230 IF Newmach$"Y' OR Newmach$-'N' THEN 3280
3240 BEEP
3250 PRINT LIN(i)
3260 PRINT 'ENTER 'Y' OR 'N"
3270 SOlO 3210
3280 IF Newsach$'Y' THEN 210
3290 5010 240
3300 PRINT PAGE
3310 PRINT 'GOOOOYE'
3320 END
 124

3330
3340
3350 *******,*********SIJBROIJT I NE TO INPUT VEHI CIE DATA*********************H
3360 I
3370 PRINT LIN(1)
3380 PRINT "***********ENTER DRAUBAR PIlL US. SPEED CURUES****4**,,,,'
3390 PRINT LIN(3)
3400 PRINT "ENTER NUMBER OF FORWARD GEARS (MAXIMUM NUMBER = 8)";
3410 INPUT Nfq
3420 Ngear$(1"FIRST"
3430 Ngear$(2)="SECOND'
3440 Ngear$(3)"THIRD'
3450 Ngear$(4)="FOIJRTH'
3460 Ngear$(5)"FIFTH"
3470 Ngear$(6)"SIXTH'
3480 Ngear$(7)="SEUEHTH'
3490 ear$(8)"EIGHTH"
3500 PRINT LIN(1)
3510 PRINT "ENTER XIMUI1 DRAUBAR PULL (LBS.) IN FIRST GEAR AT ZERO MPH.";
3520 INPUT Dp(1)
3530 V(1)=0
3540 ILOOP FOR EACH GEAR
3550 FOR Ngears2 TO Nfg
3560 PRINT LIN(1)
3570 PRINT "ENTER DRAUBAR PILL (LBS.) AT INTERSECTION OF ";Ngear$(Ngear-l);" A
ND'Ngear$(Ilnear);' GEAR CURVES';
35ó0 INPtiTp(Nqear)
3590 PRINT LIN(I)
3600 PRINT "ENTER SPEED (MPH) AT INTERSECTION OF ";Ngear$(Ngear-l);" AND ";Nge
ar$(Nnear)' GEAR CURVES';
361 INPOT V(Ngear)
3620 NEXT Nqear
3630 PRINT LIN(1)
3640 PRINT "ENTER FASTEST SPEED (WHERE DRAUBAR PULL ZERO) FOR THE HIGHEST GE
AR IN PH'
3650 INPOT V(Nf+1)
3660 Dp(Nfg+1).0
3670 I
3680 I H****INPUT VEHICLE GEOIIETRYU******
36901
3700 PRINT PAGE
3710 PRINT LIN(1)
3720 PRINT "ENTER VEHICLE DIMENSIONS"
3730 PRINT LIN(2)
3740 PRINT "ENTER COORDINATES Xc,Yc OF THE VEHICLE CENTER OF GRAVITY (IN.)";
3750 INPUT Xc Yc
3760 PRINT LIfI(1)
3770 PRINT "ENTER COORDINATES Xp,Yp OF POINT OF PAYLOAD LINE ATTACHMENT TO VEH
ICLE (IN.)'
3780 INPIJf Xo,Yo
3790 PRINT LIN(1)
3800 PRINT "ENTER VEHICLE WEIGHT (LB.)";
3810 INPUT W
3820 PRINT LIN(1)
3830 PRINT "ENTER FLYWHEEL HORSEPOWER (If.)";
3840 INPUT I
3850 PRINT L1N(1)
3860 PRINT "DOES THE VEHICLE HAVE A POWER SHIFT (YIN)";
3870 INPUT Tq$
3880 IF Tq$.dYu OR Tq$="N' THEN 3930
3890 BEEP
3900 PRINT
3910 PRINT "ENTER 'Y' OR 'N"
3920 GOTO 3860
3930 PRINT LIN(1)
3940 PRINT "LENGTH OF ONE TRACK ON GROUND (IN.)';
3950 INPUT Trakin
 125

3960 PRINT LIN(1)

3970 PRINT "WIDTH OF ONE TRACK (IN.)";
3980 INPUT Trakwd
3990 PRINT LIN(1)
4000 PRINT "DO THE TRACKS HAVE GROUSERS (YIN)";
4010 INPUT Ght$
4020 IF Ght$Y" OR Ght$"N" THEN 4070
4030 BEEP
4040 PRINT
4050 PRINT "ENTER 'Y' OR 'N"'
4060 GOTO 4000
4070 IF Ght$*"Y" THEN 4100
4080 Gh-0
4090 GOTO 4130
4100 PRINT LIN(1)
4110 PRINT "ENTER GROUSER HEIGHT (IN.)";
4120 INPUT Gb
4130 PRINT LIN(1)
4140 PRINT "ENTER AREA OF ONE TRACK SHOE (SQ. IN.)";
4150 INPUT Ashoe
4160 PRINT LIN(1)
4170 PRINT "15 TRACK RIGID OR FLEXIBLE"'
4180 PRINT
4190 PRINT "IF TRACK IS RIGID THEN ENTER THE NUMBER 0, IF FLEXIBLE ENTER 1 ";
4200 INPUT Ftrack
4210 IF Ftrack0 OR Ftrack*1 THEN 4260
4220 BEEP
4230 PRINT
4240 PRINT "ENTER '0' OR '1"'
4250 10T0 4190
4260 PRINT LIN(1)
4270 IF Ftrack0 THEN !RIGID TRACK:
4280 PRINT "ENTER NuMBER OF TRACK ROLLERS (EXCLUDING END WHEELS) [IN ONE TPACI<
ONLY"
4290 INPUT Thogie
4300 ltoqie4ogie*2+4
4310 ELSE FLEXIBLE TRACK:
4320 PRINT ENTER NUMBER OF ROAD WHEELS ON ONE TRACK ONLY";
4330 INPUT Nbogie
4340 ogeNbogie*2
4350 END IF
4360 PRINT LIN(1)
4370 PRINT "ENTER MINIMUM CLEARANCE FROM VEHICLE UNDERSIDE TO GROUND (IN.) ";
4380 INPUT Clr.in
4390 PRINT LIN(1)
4400 IF Ftrack"0 THEN
4410 Rdia,346*Trak1n
4420 PRINT "ENTER PITCH DIAMETER OF TRACK DRIVE SPROCKET (IN.)
4430 PRINT
4440 PRINT "IF NOT KNOWN, THEN PRESS 'RETURN', WITH NC) ENTRY";
4450 INPUT Rdia
4460 ELSE
4470 Rd ia*2*Trak ln/Nbogie
4480 END IF
4490 RETURN
4500 I

4510 I

4520 I *I***IH****SUBROUT INE TO INPUT LOG LOAD DATA,,,***,****H*****H**

4530 I

4540 I

4550 PRINT PAGE

4560 PRINT LIN(1)
4570 PRINT "*********IINPIJT LOG LOAD DATA'""""
4580 PRINT LIN(1)
4590 PRINT "ENTER AVERAGE LOG LENGTH (FT.)"
4600 INPUT 13
4610 PRINT LIN(1)
4620 PRINT "ENTER 1-TURN WEIGHT IN LBS, OR 2-TURN VOLUME IN BOARD-FEET"
 126

4630 INPUT Al
4640 IF All OR Al2 THEH 4690
4650 BEEP
4660 PRINT
4670 PRINT "EHTER 1 OR 2
4680 SOlO 4620
4690 IF Al2 ThEN 4740
4700 PRINT LIN(l)
4710 PRINT "ENTER TURN WEIGHT IN LBS ";
4720 DFtJT Wl
4730 GOTO 4780
4740 PRINT LIN(l)
4750 PRINT "ENTER TURN VOLUME IN BCARD-FEEr;
4760 INPUT %
4770 UbVb/l000
4780 PRINT LIN(l)
4790 PRINT "ENTER CUBIC FEET TO POUNDS CONVERSION FACTOR (LB/CU.FT)';
4800 INPUT Zl
4810 IF All THEN 4930
4820 PRINT LIN(l)
4830 PRINT "ENTER AVERAGE NUII8ER OF LOSS IN THE LOAD0;
4840 INPUT Nb
4850 LpL3-8/l
4860 Ds-(2+(16.64+50560Ub/(Lp*NIog) )A.5)/l.58
4870 DDs+.5
4880 VcPI/576*(D+U/16)2L3 !V011itlE PER LOG IN CUBIC FEET
4890 UlVc*Z1*t4bog
4900 Z2Vb/W1 !CCNUERSICN.FACTOR FOR LBS TO MBF
4910 I

4920 "'TYPE OF LOGS OR STEMS**'

4930 PRINT LIN(1)
4940 PRINT "ENTER '1' FOR TREELENGTH, OR '2' FOR LO-LEHGTH'
4950 INPUT K
4960 IF K1 OR K-2 THEN 5010
4970 BEEP
4980 PRINT
N
4990 PRINT RENTER 1 OR 2
5000 GOTO 4940
5010 I

5020 I***ARCH OR NO ARCH**'

5030
5040 PRINT LIN(1)
5050 PRINT SKIDOING WITH ARCH (Y OR N)N;
5060 INPUT N$
5070 IF N$-f' OR N$_NNN THEN 5120
5080 BEEP
5090 PRINT
5100 PRINT "ENTER 'Y OR 'N'
5110 GOTO 5050
5120 IF N$_HNU THEN 5200
5130 !***INPiJT SOIL-LOG CEFFICIENT OF FRICTIUN***
5140 FINT LIN(1)
5150 IF K-i THEN U1.0 !TREELENGTH
5160 IF K2 THEN U0.7 !LOGLENGTh
5170 PRINT EHTER THE LO TO GROUND COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION."
5180 PRINT 'IF NOT KNOWN, PRESS 'RETURN' WITh NO ENTRY';
5190 INPUT U
5200 PRINT
5210 I

5220 !***T8-i IF BUTT-FIRST SKIDDING ;T8-l.5 IF HOT BUTT-FIRST*"

5230 PRINT LIN(i)
5240 PRINT "81.111 FIRST SKIDDING (Y/N)';
5250 INPUT T$
5260 IF T$_YN OR T$NN THEN 5310
5270 BEEP
5280 PRINT
5290 PRINT "ENTER 'V' OR fNIU
5300 613TU 5240
 127

5310 T81.5
5320 IF T1.uYu THEN T81
5330 RETURN
5340
5350
5360 ! '**"*"***"SUBROIJTINE TO CALCULATE LOG FORCES"*"
5370 I

5380 IF N$"H0 THEN 5570

5390 IF Kz2 THEN 5640
5400 I

5410 "ARCH SKIDDING TREE LENGTH LOGS"

5420 I*Yo/12-1.4
5430 Lizi
5440 L2.2't.3
5450 C8.4'I_3'T8
5460 XzL3L1L2
5470 Q1.(1_(H/X)A2)A.5
5480 Q2-SIN(T)'H'( (L3-L2-C8)'X-l)
5490 U3U1'(C8-L1)'COS(T)
5500 Q4U'HL2/2X'O1
5510 QiW1(Q3+Q2)/Q4
5520 P1DW1*COS(T)Q
5530 P2W1'SIN(T)+U*O
5540 GOlD 5740
5550
5560 !"GRO!JNO SKIDDING WITHOUT ARCH"
5576 N7-.2
5580 C7z.9+1.667TAN(T)
5590 P1N7'W1'COS(T)
5600 P2(1-N7)C7W1'COS(T)+W1'SIN(T)
5610 Q(1-N7)'Ul'COS(T)
5620 GOTO 5740
5630 I

5640 I**'LOGLENGTH WITH ARCH'H

5650
5660 C84'L3'T8
5670 Beta3(2*PI/360)
5680 Q(C8-1)*W1COS(T+Beta)/((L3-1)'(COS(Beta)+U'SIN(8eta)))
5690 AlphaATN((W1-Q*COS(T)+U*1SIN(T))/(U*QSCOS(T)+QSIH(T)))
5700 Tens(W1QOS(T)+U'Q'SIN(T))/SIN(Alpha)
5710 P2Tens'COS(A1pha-T)
5720 P1Tens'SIN(A1pha-T)
5730!
5740 I

5750!
5760 "WINCHLINE TENSION DURING BREAKOUT tiaxtens
5??0 axtens.S((1.1*(P2_W1*S1N(T))+W1*SIN(T))A2+P1A2)
5780 PRINT LIN(1)
5790 PRINT "WINCELINE TENSIOH DURING BREAKOUT s 'I;
5800 PRINT USING H00000.DO X 4A";Naxtens,9..BS."
5810 HLOG WEIGHT OH RJND
PRINT
H
5820 PRINT USING "DD iDD OOx4A 4x 1AxODODUUDx4A° ;Q;"LBS. RESISTAN
CE ,P2
NjsH
5830 PRINTER IS Prtadd
5840 PRINT
5850 PRINT. HLOG LOAD WEIGHT ON GROUND '

5860 PRINT USING b00000.DO,X,4A,4X,17A,X,à0000.DO,X,4AH;Q;HLBS.1,HLOG RESISTAN

CE u,p2 II5N
5870 PRINT
II.
5880 PRINT " WINCHLINE TENSION DURING BREAKOUT
5890 PRINT USING b00000.DO,X,4A;Naxtens,NLBS.N
5900 PRINTER IS CRT
5910 RETURN
5920
5930 I

5940 !"''*"SlJ8ROUTINE FOR PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION "

5950 I

5960 Gcu'WCOS(T)+P1
I

128

5970 Xr(W*Xc*COS(T)+U*Yc*SIN(T)+P1*Xp+P2*Yp)/Gcw
5980 IF THEN 6050
5990
6000 '***PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION CASE 1 '**
6010 Pr0
6020 Pfcw/(3*Trakwd*Xr)
6030 Lc13*Xr
6040 GOTO 6180
6050 IF (Xr/Trakln))(2/3) THEN 6140
6060 I
6070 *"PRESS1JRE DISTRIBUTION CASE 2
6080 Pr.(3*Gcw/(Trakwd*Trakln) )*(Xr/Trakln-1/3)
6090 )*(2/3-Xr/Trakln)
6100 Lclalrakln
6110 GOTO 6180
6120
6130 '***PRESStJRE DISTRIBUTION CASE 3'
6140 Pf-0
6150 Prcw/(3*Trkwd*Trak1n*(1_Xr/Trak1n))
6160 Lc1Trak1n_3*Trak1n*(Xr/Trak1n_2/3)
6170
6180 I*"TEST IF CONTACT LENGTH IS ZERO OR NEGATIVE
6190 IF LcI>O THEN 6240
6200 BEEP
6210 PRINT LIN(1)
6220 PRINT "UEHICLE IS IMIIOBILIZED'
6230 GOTO 3110
6240 CpavgGcw/(2*Trakwd*Trak1n) !Cpavg AUG. PRESSURE UNDER TRACKS
6250 Kbk0KcC])/Trakwd+K0(J)
6260 I*S*OIVIDE TRACK UP INTO SES1IENTS*U
6270 SeQ5Nbogie/2_1 ISeus = NO. OF SPANS BETWEEN ROLLERS ONE TRACK
6280 Bc"Segs+1 !Bc NO. OF REACTION POINTS, ONE TIACK
6290 IF Seas)1 THEN 6350
6300 Ainc(I)Trak1n*Trakid 'Ainc".AREA FOR REACTION POINT, BOTH TRACKS
6310 Ainc(2)Ajnc(1)
6320 X(l)= IX=DISTANCE ALONG TRACK FRUit FRONT IDLER TO REACTION POINT
6330 X(2)Trakln
6340 GOTO 6600
6350 IF SeQs)2 THEN 6430
6360 X(1)=0
6370 X(2)Trakln/2
6380 X(3)Trakln
6390 Ajnc(1)Trak1n*Trak/2
6400 Ainc(2)2IAinc(1)
6410 Ajnc(3)Ainc(1)
6420 GOTO 6600
6430 SprocRdia/2+(Trakln-Rdia)/(Segs-1)/2
6440 RolI=(Trakln-Sprac'2)/(Segs-2)
6450 FOR Inc3 TO (Bck-2)
6460 Ainc (Inc )TrakwdRa 11*2
6470 NEXT Inc
6480 Ainc(1)=(Sprac/2)*Trakwd'2
6490 Ainc(2)(Sproc+Roll)'Trakwd
6500 Ainc(Bck-1)Aiflc(2)
6510 Aj(ck)Ajnc(1)
6520 X(1)=0
6530 X(2)Sproc
6540 X(Bck-1)=Trakln-Sprac
6550 X(Bck)"Trakln
6560 FOR Inc3 TO (Bck-2)
6570 X(Inc)"SprocRo11'(Inc-2)
6580 NEXT Inc
6590 I
6600 I*USTART ITERATION TO FIND REACTION POINTS AT EACH END OF THE TRACKS"
6610 Prodold0
6620 IF Pf>Pr THEN 7140
6630 I
6640 Rbckin( (PrPf )/2*1.28*Trakln/Lcl-1 )*Ainc(Bck)
 129

6650 RbckrftaxzRbckmin+2000
6660 RlIDaxzPr*Ainc(Bck)
6670 lIo--1000
6680 R1R1max
6690 F1aq0
6700 cg:Rckax
6710 SOSIJS 10280
6720 Rbckl:Rbck
6730 SumlzSum
6740 RbckRbckin
6750 GOSUB 10280
6760 Rbck2Rbck
6770 Sum2agu.
6780 Cntral
6790 Ma(Sun,2Sui1)/(Rbck2Rbck1)
6800 RbcklaRbck2
6810 Su.lSum
6820 Rbck2Rbck2-Sum2/?1
6830 ON ERROR SOlO 6900
6840 RbckaRbck2
6850 GOSU8 10280
6860 Sua2aSu.
6870 IF A8S(Su.)<1 THEN 7020
6880 CntraCntr+1
6890 IF Cntr(25 THEN 6790
6900 Su.old'O
6910 Up1a1000
6920 RbckPr*Ainc(8ck)*10
6930 SOSIJB 10280
6940 IF SumSu.old(0 THEN 6980
6950 Sumo1dSu.
6960 RbckaRbck+Upl
6970 GOTO 6930
6980 IF ABS(Sum)<10 THEN 7020
6990 RbckzRbckUp1
7000 JolaUpl/2
7010 SOTO 6930
7020 GOSIJS 10490
7030 IF Flaqal THEN 7640
7040 IF Prod*Prodold<0 THEN 7080
7050 Prodoldaprod
7060 R1aR1+Up
7070 GOTO 6700
7080 IF A8S(Prod)<100 THEN 7640
7090 IF ABS(Prodold)<100 ANI) Prodold<>0 THEN Flagzl
7100 R1=R1_Up
7110 L4Ip/2
7120 GOTO 6700
7130 *Uf > Pr***+*********************************
7140 R1.ina((Pr+Pf)/2*1.28*Trakln/Lcl_1)*Ainc(1)
7150 R1axR1.in+2000
7160 Rbck.axaPfsAinc(1)
7170 IJpa1000
7180 ockRbcksx
7190 FlaqaO
7200 RlaRlmax
7210 GOS1JS 10280
7220 R11aR1
7230 Suml'Su.
7240 RiaRluin
7250 GOStJ8 10280
7260 R12aR1
7270 Suii2iiSu.
7280 Cntral
7290 Ma(Sum2_Su,1)/(R12_R11)
7300 R11aR12
7310 Sui1Sum
7320 R12aR12_Sum2/M
 130

7330 ON ERROR GOTO 7400

7340 R1R12
7350 GOSUB 10280
7360 Sum2'Su.
7370 IF ABS(Sum)<1 THEN 7520
7380 CntrCntr+1
7390 IF Cntr<25 THEN 7290
7400 Sumo1d0
7410 UO1=_1000
7420 R1=Pf*Ainc(1)*10
7430 GOSIJB 10280
7440 IF Sum*Suinold<0 THEN 7480
7450 Sumo1dSum
7460 R1R1+IJp1
7470 GOTO 7430
7480 IF ABS(Sum)<10 THEN 7520
7490 R1R1-,1
7500 Up1Jp1/2
7510 SOlO 7430
7520 GOSUB 10490
?30 IF Flacil THEN 7640
7540 IF Proa'Prodold<O THEN 7580
?50 ProdoldProd
7560 Rbck'Rbck+Up
7570 GOTO ?2oo
7580 IF ABS(Prod)<100 THEN 7640
7590 IF ABS(Prodold)<100 AND ProdoldO0 THEN FIg1
7600 bckRbck-,
7610 Up-LJp/2
7620 GTO 7200
7630 ******HEND I TERAT ION*************,*,********,,*,**,,,*,,*************
7640 R(1)-R1
7650 R(Bck)=Rbck
7660 IF R(1))IR(Bck) THEN PmaxR(1)/Ainc(1)
7670 IF R(Bck))R(1) THEN PmaxR(Bck)/Ainc(Bck)
7680 PRINTER IS 1
7690 PRINT LIH(2)
7700 IF Trip0 THEN PRINT IIAXIt1UII PRESSURE ON TRACKS, UNLOADED =
7710 IF Tripl THEN PRINT 9IAXIFUI PRESSURE ON TRACKS, LO)ED
7720 PRINT USING u0000.oO,X,3AN;Pmax,hIPSIl
7730 PRINTER IS Prtadd
7740 PRINT
77O IF Trip0 THEN PRINT 'MAXIMUfl PRESSURE ON TRACKS, UNLOADED
I;
N;
7760 IF Trip1 THEN PRINT NMAXIMUtI PRESSURE ON TRACKS, LOADED
7770 PRINT USING HOOOOD.DO,X,3AN;Pmax,1SIhI
7780 PRINTER IS 1
7790
7800 !"SFIND INTERfIEDIATE REACTION POINTS**************
7810 Z(1)(A8S(R1)/(AinC(1)IKcbk0))A(1/N(J))
7820 IF RP-0 THEN 7850
7830 Z(1)Z(1)*(-1)
7840 R(1)0
7850 Z(Bck)(ABS(Rbck)/(Ainc(Bck)*Kcbk0) )"(1/P4(J))
7860 IF Rbck>-0 TIN 7890
7870 Z(Bck)Z(Bck)*(-1)
7880 R(Bck)0
7890 IF Z(1)*Z(Bck)<0 THEN 7920
7900 LclTrakln
7910 GOTO 7950
7920 IF Z(1)<Z(Bck) THEN ZZ(8ck)
7930 IF Z(1)>Z(Bck) THEN ZZ(1)
7940 Lc1Z/((A8S(Z(1))+ABS(Z(Bck)))/Trk1n)
7950 FOR 1nc2 TO (Bck-1)
7960 R(Inc)O
7970 Z(Inc)((Z(Bck)-Z(1))/Trak1n)*X(1nc)+Z(1)
7980 IF Z(Inc)<0 THEN 8000
7990 R(Inc)'Z(Inc)i(J)*Ainc(tnc)*Kcbk0
8000 NEXT Inc
 131

8010 Rcnu0
8020 FOR Inc-i TO Bck
8030 P(Inc)-R(Inc)/Ainc(Inc)
8040 Rcnu_Rcnu+2*Trakwd*Kcbk0*(P(Inc)/Kcbk0)A((H(J)+1)/N(J))/(N(J)+i)*AInc(Inc
)/(2*Trakwd)/Trak in
8050 NEXT Inc
8060 Rcun_2*Trakwd*Kcbko*(Cpavg/Kcbko)A((N(J)+1)/N(J))/(N(J)+1)
8070 Cr incRcnu/Rcun
8080 RETURN
8090
8100
8110 !**SIJBROIJTINE TO FIGURE VELOCITY USING NATO MODEL ALGORITHt1S**H*HHH
8120 I
8130 !***GRI3SS CO1I8INED WEIGHT***
8140 GcwW*COS(T)+P1
8150
8160 !*UHORSEPOIJER PER TON OF GCW'**
8170 ft4/(Gcw/2000)
8190 "WEIGHT FTOR'*
8200 Wf-1
8210 IF Gcw)50000 THEN (Jf1.2
8220 IF Gcw)70000 THEN Wf-1.4
8230 IF Gcw)100000 THEN Wf-i8
8240
8250 I *HTRAO( FACTOR"
8260 TfTrakwd/100
8270
8280 !*"ROUSER FACTOR"
8290 Gf-11
8300 IF Gh(1.5 THEN Gf-1
8310 I
8320 '"ENGINE FACTOR"
8330 Ef-1
8340 IF Hpt(10 THEN Ef-1.05
8350
8360 I"'TRAHS1IISSION FACTOR**'
8370 IF Tq$'Y THEN Tfxl
8380 IF Tq$N THEN Tfxl.05
8390 I

8400 "AVERAGE PRESSURE ON TRACKS"

8410 CpavgGcw/(2'Trakwd'Trakin)
8430 IF Soii(J)-2 THEN 8810
84401
8450 I *'**'*FIHE-GRAINED SOIL"""
8460!
8470 "BUGlE LO RANGE FACTOR"
8480 WlorfGcw/10/Nbogie/Ashoe
8490 I
85001 "CLEARANCE FACTOR"
8510 Clf.(Clrmin/10)
8520 I
8530 "MOBILITY INDEX"
8540 Xai(Cpavg'Wf/Tf/Gf+Wlorf-CIf)'Ef'Tfx
8560 "VEHICLE CONE INDEX FOR FINE-GRAINED SOIL"
8570 I UCI FOR PASS
8580 IF Skid(J)1 THEN Vcifg-7+.2'Xmi-39.2/(Xmi+5.6)
8590 I UCI FOR 50 PASSES
8600 IF Skid(J)'0 THEN Vcifg19.27+e43*Xmi-i25J9/(Xmi7.08)
8610 I
8620 !*'IEXCESS COHE INDEX FOR FINE-GRAINED SOIL"
8630 RcixRci-Vcifg
8640 I
8650 !"ORAWBAR PULL COEFFICIENT OOWPB FOR FINE-GRAIHED SOIL"
8660 IF Cpav)4 ThEN 8700
.8670 IF Rcix0 THEN Dowgb.076'Rcix
 132

8680 IF Rcix>:0 THEN Dopba.544+.0463*Rcix_((.544+.0463*Rcix)A2_.O?02*Rcix)A.5

8690 GOb 8720
8?00 IF Rcix<0 THEN Oowpb'.056*Rcix
V10 IF Rcix>0 THEN Oowpbl.4554+.0392*Rclx_((.4554+.0392*Rclx)A2_.0526*Rclx)A
.5
8720!
8730 "tIOTIUN RESISTANCE COEFFICIEHT RTOWPB FOR FIHE-GRAINED SOIL"
8740 IF Rcix)iO THEN 8780
8?0 IF Cpavg<4 ThEN Rtowpb.4-. 0?2Rcix
8760 IF Cpavq)i4 THEN Rtowpb.4-.052*Rcix
8770 OTO 9110
8780 Rtowpb..045+2.30?5/(Rcix+6.5)
8790 OTO 9110
8800
8810 ****H****COARSE-GRAINED SOIL*********
8820 I

8830 '"ORAWBAR PULL CCEFFICIEHT DOWPB FOR COARSE-GRAIHED SOIL"

8840 GRci*.8645/3
8850 IF Ftrack'l THEN 8920
8860
8870 !*'*RIGID TRACK"
8880 Pital*G*(Trakwd*Trakln)A1.5/(Gcw/2)
8890 6010 8940
8900
8910 !"ftEXIE TRX"
8920 PitlO.63*G*((Trakwd*Trakln)A1.5)/(Gcw/2)
8930 I

8940 IF Pit)25 THEN 8970

8950 Dowgb.121+.258'LGT(Pit)
8960 SOlD 9040
8970 IF PitlOO TFEH 9000
8980 Dowpb.339+.109'LGT(Pit)
8990 SOlO 9040
9000 IF Pitl000 THEH 9030
9010 Dowgb.481+.038'LGT(Pit)
9020 5010 9040
9030 Dowpb-.595
9040
9050 "MOTION RESISTAHCE COEFFICIENT FOR COARSE-GRAIHED SOIL"
9060 Rtowpb.6-Dowpb+. 045
9070 GOT0 9200
9080
9090 ,'. FD-GRAINED SOIL CORRECTION FACTOR, AHO SOIL LIMITED TRACTIVE EFFOR
1'
9100 I

9110 IF Cpavg)4 THEN 9150

9120 Cf Dowg6- ?8+Rtowpb
9130 Tfor(Cf+.82)'Gcw
9140 GOT0 9300
9150 CfDowpb- .671+Rtowpb
9160 Tfor(Cf+.71)*Gcw
9170 6010 9300
9180
9190 !"COARSE-GRAINED SOIL CCRRECTION FACTOR, AHO SOIL LIMITED TRACTIVE EFFCR
I
9200 IF Ftrack'l THEN 9250
9210 IRIGID TRACK
9220 Cf-.074
9230 Tfor(Cf+.568)*cw
9240 6010 9300
9250 !ftEXIBLE TRACK
9260 Cf0.1
9270 Tfor(Cf+.695)'Gcw
9280
9290 '"GRADE RESISTANCE"
9300 FgradeWSSIN(T)
9310
9320 "PAYLOAD RESISTANCEP2"
 133

9330
9340 I*HCOIIPACTION RESISTANCE CR***
9350 Surff1
9360 RsGcw/2000*(30+.94)
9370 Cr.Surff*(Rtowpb*Gcw-Rs)Crinc
9380 I
9390 !"*SIJII OF RESISTANCES"
9400 ResistCr+FgradeP2
9410 IF Resist<0 THEN ReststiQ
9420
9430 !**STIEORETICAL VELOCITY Vt *
9440 GOSU8 10050
9450 RsGcw/200O*(30+.9)t)
940 CrsSurff*(Rtowpbcw-Rs)CrinC
9470!
9480 I'SUtI OF RESISTANCES"
9490 Re5istCr+Fgrade+P2
9500 IF Resi5t<0 THEN Resist0
9510
9520 !**STHEORETICAL VELOCITY Vt *1*
9530 GOSUB 10050
9540!
9550 !*HTEST IF THERE IS ENOUGH SOIL TRACTIIJE EFFORT AVAILABLE TO OVERCOME
9560 I THE RESISTANCESH
9570
9580 IF Tfor)(Cr+Fgrade+P2+Rs) THEN 9700
9590 BEEP
9600 PRINT
9610 PRINT "NOT ENOUGH SOIL TRACTIVE FORCE AVAILABLE TO OVERCOME RESISTANCES"
9620 GOTO 3100
9630 IF (Tfor_Cr_Fgrade-Rs))(1.1*(P2-W1*SIN(T))W1'SIN(T)) THEN 9700
9640 BEEP
9650 PRINT
9660 PRINT "NOT ENOUGH SOIL TRACTIIJE FORCE AVAILABLE TO OVERCOME BREAKOUT FORC

9670 PRINT
9680 GOTO 3100
9690
9700 !******'S*CALCULATE SLIP OF TRACKS ON GR!)JNO****
9710 I
9720 IF (Cr+Fgrde+P2+Rs))0 THEN Yxs(Cr+Fgrade+P2+R5)/Gcw-Cf
9730 IF (Cr+Fqrede+P2+Rs)<0 THEN Yx-Cf
9740 IF Soil(3)2 THEN 9840
9750!
9760 !'*"'SLIP FOR FINE-GRAINED SOLL**"*****
9770 IF Cpavg<4 AND Yx-.71 THEN 9970
9780 IF Cpavg)4 AND Yx).82 THEN 9970
9790 IF Cpavg<4 THEN Slipx..0257*Yx-.0161+.015l9/(.8353-YX)
9800 IF Cpavq>z4 THEN SlIpxs.0?33*Yx-.0063+.00734/(.71?7-YX)
9810 GOTO 10020
9820!
983! !*H****SLIP FOR COARSE-GRAINED SOIL'***"
9840 IF Ftreckl THEN 9910
9850 I
9860 !**'RIGID TRACK***
9870 IF Yx).5677 THEN 9970
9880 SI ipx- .0083+. 005312/ ( . 573-Yx)
9890 GOTQ 10020
9900
9910 t*ftFLEXIBLE TRACK***
9920 IF Yx)0.6950 THEN 9970
9930 Y,r1.704Yx-.72
9940 S1ipx_Yy+((Yy2)+.09*Yx+.O09)Ao5
9950 GOTO 1OU1O
9960 I

9970 BEEP
9980 PRINT LIN(1)
9990 PRINT "TRAO(S SPIN OUT AT 100% SLIP"
10000 GiB 311U
 134

10010 '*'ACTUAL VELOCITY Va

10020 Ua-Vt'(l-SIipx)
10030 IF Slipx<0 THEN VaVt
10040 RETU4
10050
10060 I
10070 !*USUBROUTINE TO GET THEOR. VELOCITY FRIJII DRAWBAR PULL US SPEED CURUES
10080
10090 IF Resist>Dp(1) THEN 10220
10100 IF (Dp(1)-Cr-Fgrade)>(1.1'(P2-W1'SIN(T))+W1'SIN(T)) THEN 10160
10110 BEEP
10120 PRINT
10130 PRINT "NOT ENOuGH VEHICLE POWER AUAILB1E TO CUERCOME BREAKOUT FORCE"
10140 PRINT
10150 GOTO 3100
10160 FOR Ngear1 TO Nfg+1
10170 IF Resist<Dp(Ngear+1) THEN 10200
10180 UtV(Ngear)+(U(Ngear+1)-U(Ngear))/(Dp(Ngear)-Dp(Hgear+1))'(Dp(Ngear)-Re51
st)
10190 GOTO 10260
10200 NEXT Nqear
10210 GOTO 10260
10220 PRINT LIN(1)
10230 PRINT VEHICLE DOES NOT HAUE ENOUGH POWER TO OUERCCIIE RESISTING FORCESU
10240 PRINTER IS CRT
10250 GOTO 3100
10260 RETURN
10270
10280 !**SU8ROIJTINE TO CALCULATE THE SUM OF FORCES NORMAL TO THE GROUND
10290 I
1030 R(1)aRl
10310 R(Bck)ck
10320 Z(1)a(A8S(R1)/(Ainc(1)*Kcbk0)Y(1/P4(J))
10330 IF R1s0 THEN 10360
10340 Z(1)Z(1)'(-1)
10350 R(1)0
10360 Z(Bck)(A8S(Rbck)/(Ainc(Bck)*Kcbk0)V(1/N(J))
10370 IF Rbck0 THEN 10400
10380 Z(Bck)Z(Bck)'(-1)
10390 R(Bck)-0
10400 SumaWCOS(T)+P1_R(1)_R(Bck)
10410 FOR Inc2 TO (Bck-1)
10420 Z(Inc)a((Z(Bck)_Z(1))/Trakln)*X(Inc)+Z(1)
10430 IF Z(Inc)<'0 THEN 10460
10440 R(Inc)aZ(IncVP4(J)*Ainc(Inc)*Kcbk0
10450 SumSum-R(Inc)
10460 NEXT Inc
10470 RETURN
10480
11)490 *****SUGROUTINE TO CALCULATE THE SUM OF M1ENTS ABOUT FRONT WHEEL
10500 I

10510 R(1)aRl
10520 R(Bck)-Rbck
10530 Z(1)(A8S(R1)/(Ainc(1)*Kcbk0)V(1/N(J))
10540 IF RD0 THEN 10570
10550 Z(1)aZ(1)*(_1)
10560 R(1)0
10570 Z(8ck)(A8S(Rbck)/(Ainc(Bck)*Kcbk0))A(1/N(J))
10580 IF Rbck)0 THEN 10610
10590 Z(Bck)aZ(Bck)*(_1)
10600 R(8ck)0
10610 Prod.-UCUS(T)*Xc-W*SIN(T)'Yc-P1'Xp+R(1)'X(1)-P2*Yp+R(Bck)'X(Bck)
10620 FOR Inc2 TO (Bck-1)
10630 Z(Inc)((Z(Bck)-Z(1))/Trak1n)'X(Inc)Z(1)
10640 IF Z(Inc)<aO THEN 10670
10650 R(Inc)aZ(Inc)AN(J)*Ainc(Inc)*Kcbk0
10660 ProdProd+R(Inc)*X(Inc)
10670 NEXT Inc
10680 RETURN
 135

APPENDIX E.

Soil Measurement Procedure


Reprinted verbatum from Soils Trafficability.
Department of the Army Technical Bulletin. TB ENG 37.
Headquarters, Department of the Army.
Washington, D.C. pp. 4-8, 10-19.
INSTRUMENTS AND TESTS
Test Set, Soil Trafficability. Trafficabil-
ity measurements areinade with the aid of Test
Set, Soil Trafficability. This set comprises the
following items: One canvas carrying case, one
cone penetrometer with an aluminum staff and
0.5-square-inch cone, one soil sampler, remold-
ing equipment (includes %-in. steel staff and
0.2-sq-in, cone. %-in. steel staff with foot
handle and hammer, cylinder and base with
pin), a bag of hand tools, and a copy of this
technical bulletin. The items are shown in their
proper places in the carrying case in figure 1.
The set is carried on the back, as shown in fig-
ure 2. The weight of the complete set is 19
pounds.
Cone Penetrometer. The cone pene.
trometer (figs. 3 and 4) is the principal instru-
ment used in evaluating soils traificability.. It
consists of a 30-degree cone of ½-&uare-inch
base area, an aluminum staff 19 inches long and
% inch in diameter, a proving ring, a microme-
ter dial, and a handle. When the cone is forced
into the ground, the proving ring is deformed
in proportion to the force applied. The amount
of force required to move the cone slowly
through a given plane in indicated on the dial
inside the ring. This force is considered to be
an index of the shearing resistance of the soil
and is called the cone index of the soil in that
plane. The range of the dial is 0 to 300 (150
Ib). The proving ring and handle are used with
a steel staff for remolding test in sands with
fines, poorly drained (par. 15c).
Use of Penetrometer. a. Inspection.
Inspect before using to make sure all nuts,
bolts, and joints are tight and that the dialgage
stem contacts the proving-ring bearing block.
b. Zeroing. Allow the penetrometer to hang
vertically from its handle and rotate the dial
face until 0" is under the needle. Note that
when the instrument is kept vertical between
136
the fingertips and allowed to rest on its cone
the dial will register about 4, or 2 pounds, the
total weight of the instrument.
c. Operation.
Place the hands over each other on
the handle, palms down and approxi-
mately at right angles as shown in
figure 4, to minimize eccentric loading
of the proving ring and to help keep
the staff vertical.
Apply force until slow, 8teady down-
ward movement occurs.
Take a dial reading just as the base
of the cone is flush with the ground
surface. To do this, watch cone de-
scend until an instant before the cone
base is expected to be flush with the
ground surface, then immediately
shift the vision to the dial face. Con-
tinue the slow, steady downward
movement and take successive dial
readings at appropriate intervals,
usually at 6-inch intervals (see pars.
17-23 for guidance on proper inter-
vals). If it is necessary to stop the
downward progression of the cone
penetrometer for any reason, the pro-
gression may be resumed with no ad-
verse effects on cone penetrometer
readings. For example, when only one
man is on the trafficability reconnai8-
sance he may find it convenient to
make two cone pentrometer readings,
stop the penetration to record the
readings, resume the penetration to
obtain two additional readings, stop
and record. etc.
Note. The use of in wistant to the op-
erator Incrwes the speed with which me.
ment5 c*n b made and recorded and usually
diminishes the likelihood of errors. Some
two-man twns prefer that the auigtant
merely record the va1ue the operator
AGO 1UA
 137

Figur 1. Teat ut. aoil trafficabiigv.

AGO 1K I

\;7c
" .t,., ';.;f
.
Figsr I. Cavvifisg teat ut, soil trafficability.
verbsily rarami, whils other teams prefer
that the assistant announce the proper depth
to th. operator as well as record the reading
immediately responded.
d. Cautions.
Keep the instrument vertical.
Do not attempt to make readings that
are higher than, the capacity of the
dial since this might overstresa the
proving ring.
If dial capacity is exceeded at less
than 18 inches of penetration make
another penetration nearby because
the cone might be striking an isolated
rock fragment or other hard small
object.
138
Do not withdraw the instrument by
the ring but always by the staff or the
handle.
Be very careful to read the cone index
at the proper depth. If readings are
actually made as little as one-quarter
inch from the proper depth and re-
corded as being at the proper depth,
an average of such readings will not
accurately reflect the average strength
at that depth. Carelessness in making
proper depth deisrmination is proba-
bly the greatest source of error in the
use of the penetrometer.
12 Training Penetrometer Operators. Op-
erators should be in an area of uniform soil
conditions. The instructor should take approxi-
mately 50 sets of readings spaced equally over
the area. The average cone ir.dexes for 6-inch
layers should be computed and used as stand-
ards or references. The trainee should be in-
structed in all the proper techniques of opera-
tion and made to practice penetrations under
the eye of the instructor until he has become
familiar with the techniques of operation. He
then should make about 50 sets of readings
using an assistant to record them. The average
cone indexes obtained by a trainee should then
be compared to the standard. If the trainee's
readings deviate widely, the causes for the
deviation should be sought and corrected. In
a uniform area, 5 percent deviation is con-
sidered wide. The most probable cause of error
is carelessness in deermining the proper depth.
The rate of progression recommended is such
that 4 readings (surface, 6, 12, and 18 in.) can
be measured in 15 seconds in a continuous pene-
tration in a soft soil. Much slower or faster
rates of penetration will reflect lower or higher
values, respectively, but the discrepancies will
not be larger. Effects on cone index of varia-
-
tion in rate of penetration for the same operator
or even between experienced operators are in-
significant. The possibility of mechanical im-
perfections of the cone penetrometer should be
investigated if deviations are persistent. Some-
-
times a needle sticks on a loose dial face or slips
on its shaft. Sometimes dial faces are jarred
or otherwise rotated around the shaft of the
dial causing an improper zero setting. A dam-
aged or overstressed ring might even require
 139

HANDLE

S-IN. GRADUATIONS

BEARING
BLOCK

MICROMETER
DIAL
STAFF.

PROVING RING

1-IN. GRADUATIONS

e
1/2 sQ IN. END
AREA

CONE

Fig,ie 1. Cone ;,,ncf,orneiei.

AGO 7
 140

4ti..
Figir. 4. Co,,.. p.,i.tromet.r ui ,a..

AGO IN&

recalibration. The micrometer dail stem may
not have been in good contact with the proving-
ring bearing block when the instrument was
zeroed.
Care and Adjustment of Penetrometer.
13.
a. General Care. Little care Is required beyond
keeping the instrument free from dirt and rust,
keeping all parts tight, and frequently checking
and, if necessary, rezeroing the instrument.
Particular care should also be taken to see that
no grit is caught between the stem of the dial
and the lower mounting block.
Dial. The micrometer dial is a sensitive
instrument which should be protected against
water and rough usage. It should never be im-
mersed in water and should be wiped dry as
soon as possible after its use in rainy weather.
When transported by truck the dial should be
cushioned by wrapping It in paper or cloth.
Bearing-Block Adjustments. If either or
both bearing blocks should become loosened and
moved, they should be adjusted so that they lie
on the same diameter of the ring, retightened.
and the proving ring recalibrated. Calibration
while on reconnaissance is not feasible. All
readings made in the field after bearing blocks
have had to be moved should be noted and cor-
according to the calibration made later.
Cone Replacement. Considerable use of
the same cone may result in a rounding of its
point. This will not affect the accuracy of the
instrument, but if the base of the cone has had
excessive wear or is deformed by hard usage,
the cone should be replaced.
Provmg-Ring RecaiibraUon. Unless the
bearing blocks are actually moved or the ring
Is severely overstressed, deformed by a hard
knock, or subjected to extreme changes in tem-
perature or other unusual strains, the calibra-
tion will remain true for the life of the instru-
ment. If the ring needs recalibration, the fol-
lowing steps should be taken:
Remove handle and staff.
Place lower mounting block of the
ring assembly on a smooth, horizontal
surface.
Check bearing-block alinement and
tightness. Both blocks should be on
the same diameter of the ring. A
drafting triangle or a carpenter's
10
141
square may be used in this operation.
The bolts should be snug.
(4) The stem of the dial should bear firmly
on lower block with sufficient travel of
the arm available for the full range
(approximately %0-in. deflection) of
the proving ring. The dial can be
moved up or down by adjusting the
two nuts on the threaded stud which
holds the gage in position. Both nuts
should be tight when in final position.
(5) Zero the dial by rotating its face so
that "0" is under the needle (par, llb).
(6) Add load in 10-pound increments up
to 150 pounds, marking or noting the
position of the needle on the dial after
the addition of each load increment.
Any of the following loading methods
may be used:
Dead weights may be added to the
top of the ring assembly. If a plate
Is used to hold the weights, its
weight should be considered In the
first 10-pound load.
Any of the load machines commonly
used in laboratory work may be used
to apply the load.
The ring assembly may be placed
on a set of platform scales and the
load increments applied by a jack
and measured with the platform
scales.
(7) Load should be removed in 10-pound
increments, noting the position of the
needle after the removal of each incre-
ment.
(8) The load run should be made at least
twice, using the average of the needle
position for each increment as the
final point.
(9) Some variation in needle position will
occur, but will not be significant.
(10) When 10-pound intervals have been
established on the face of the dial, they
may be marked 20, 40, and so on, to
300. Each interval may then be sub-
divided into four subintervals. Each
interval should be subdivided sepa-
rately since the arcs for various 10-
pound intervals are not necessarily
the same.
AGO lilA
 142

IT ICNCW

LOCKING fKNUNLCD

1:
000

U :

LEAT lIEN WAIHEN

V
V PIllOW NINE

IF
IWO TUUE

Figur. 5. Soil sim pier.

AGO IUA U
 143

14. Soil Sampling. A piston-type 8oil Sam-

pler (fig. 5) is used to extract soil samples for
remolding tests (par. 15).
U8e. Hold the disk at the top of the pi5ton
rod rmy with one hand to prevent vertical
movement of the piston, and force the sampling
tube into the soil with the other hand (top
photograph, fig. 6). In firm 5oils two men often
are needed to force the sampler into the soil.
After locking the piston rod by turning the
knurled handle, twi5t the instrument slightly
and withdraw. Deposit the sample directly into
the remolding cylinder (par. 16b). The bottom
photograph of figure 6 shows the technique for
using the sampler in a prone position. While it
is preferable to hold the disk stationary with
one hand, in a prone position two hands are
usually needed to force the 8ampler into the
soil.
Care. It is essential to keep the inside of
the sampling tube, the piston ring, and leather
washer reasonably clean. After 5 to 25 sam.
plings, depending upon the type of soil, immerse
the tube first in water and then in fuel oil.
working the piston up and down five or six
times in each liquid. Wipe off the excess fuel
oil, then squirt light machine oil into the tube.
If the instrument becomes stiff and hard to
work, remove the tube, disassemble and thor-
oughly clean the piston, and oil the leather
washer. Tube walls and cutting edges are com-
paratively soft so they should be handled with
some care.
Adjustment. The effective piston-rod
length should be adjusted to keep the face of
the piston flush with the cutting edge of the
tube when the piston rod handle (disk) is fully
depressed. This is done by loosening the set-
screw on the handle, screwing the handle up or
down to the correct position, and retightening Up.4,ht pIU.
the setscrew. Figure 1. Soil sampler in use.

15. Remolding Test. a. Equipment. The
equipment for the remolding test, shown in
detail in gure 7 and in use in figure 8, con5ists
of a steel cylinder approximately 2 inches in
diameter and 8 inches long mounted on an
aluminum base, a 2V2-pound steel drop hammer
sliding on an 18-inch steel staff with handle,
and a cone penetrometer. The cone penetrome-
ter may be equipped with either the aluminum
Rhaft with the O.5-square-nch cone (for fine-
12
grarned soils) or the alenderer steel shaft with
the 0.2-square-inch cone (for sands with fines,
poorly drained). The penetrometer is used to
measure soil strength in the cylinder before and
after remolding. The sampler (par. 14) is used
to obtain the soIl 8ample and place it in the
remolding cylinder.
b. Te8t Procedure for Fine-Grained SoiLs.
Take a 5ample with the eampler (fig. 8A), eject
it directly into the remolding cylinder (fig.
AGO ZI4A

8B), and push It to the bottom of the cylinder
with the foot of the drop hammer staff. Meas-
ure the strength with the penetrometer (alumi-
num staff) by taking cone Index readings as
the base of the cone enters the surface of the
soil sample and at each successive inch, to a
depth of 4 Inches (fig. SC). Next, apply 100
blows with the drop hammer falling 12 inches
(fig. SD) and measure the remolded strength
at each 1-inch depth to 4 inches, as was done
before remolding (fig. SC). Occasionally a
sample is so hard that it cannot be penetrated
the full 4 inches. In such cases the full capacity
of the dial (800) is recorded for each Inch
below the last reading obtained. The sum of
the five cone Index readings after remolding
144
divided by the sum of the five cone Index read-
ings before remolding gives the remolding
index.
c. Test Procedure for Sands With Pitacs,
Poorly Drained. The procedure is generally the
same as that for fine-grained soils except that
the cone Index measurements are made with
the slender staff and small cone, and the sample
is remolded by dropping it (along with cylinder
and base) 25 times from a height of 6 inches
onto a firm surface. Procedures for Identifying
sands with fines, poorly drained, are described
In paragraph 20.
16. Other Soil Tests. Shaking test, plastic-
Ity test, and other field Identification tests are
described fully In TM 5-580.
18
 145

HANDLE

HAMMER

BASE

3'S-IN. STEEL
STAFF
S/S-IN.
ALUMINUM
STAFF

se-lN.
STEEL
STA F F

FOOT

F'iqure 7. Remolding test equipment.

14 ACO 166A
 146

U l,.,l.n rrncidi,, llfld,.

A takin, sample

C Mmsorins cone Inden 1,.

remoldin, cylinder
Figure 8. Remolding fret operations.
AGO LIlA
r)

C

CHAPTER 2
TRAFFICABILITY PROCEDURES
SECTION I
MEASURING TRAFFICABILITY
General. In those cases in which recon-
naissance teams can enter an area to make
measurements, data can be obtained to permit
determination of the number and type of vehi-
cles that can cress the area, the loads they can
tow, and the slopes they can climb on fine-
grained soils and sands with fines, poorly
drained. The procedures for measuring traffic-
ability are described in this section. It should
be remembered that measurements are only
valid for the time of measurement and short
periods thereafter, provided no rain occurs.
Range of Cone Indexes. The range in
cone Indexes in the critical layer (par. 22) that
Is of maximum interest is between 30 to 200.
Only the most mobIle of military vehicles (M29
weasel, M76 Otter, and Canadian snowmobile
type) can travel on soils with a cone index as
low as 30, and only a few special vehicles re-
quire cone indexes over 200 (before application
of traffic). These limits usually make it possi-
ble, in gathering data for trafficability evalua-
tion, to classify large areas as above or below
the critical range without extensive testing.
Number of Measurements. The number
of measurements to be taken is determined by
available time tempered by judgment as to the
range of soil strengtha and the general uni-
formity of the area. Only a few readings are
needed in an area with cone indexes above or
below the critical range of 30 to 200, but if cone
indexes are within this critical range or. more
particularly, between about 30 and 160, many
readings should be taken to assure complete
and accurate coverage of the area. The traffic-
ability measuring instruments have been de-
signed to facilitate rapid observations and the
accuracy of the average of any series of read-
ings increases with the number included. It
has been found, for example, that the variations
in a typical soft soil are such that about 15
readings are needed to establish a true average
cone index at any particular spot at a given
AGO l4A
148
depth, and that if 15 readings are made within
a radius of 3 feet in a uniform-appearing area,
the addition of another reading will not signifi-
cantly change the average. It is not anticipated
that time will be available for this large num-
ber of measurements and judgment should be
used to reduce the number, in accordance with
instructions in the following subparagraphs.
Where cone indexes are above 200, a very
few penetrometer readings normally will suffice
to verify the extent of the area. Two profile
sets of readings at each of a few locations
should be adequate, and remolding tests on soil
from the critical layer should be made at the
first two or three locations. If these show a
remolding index of 0.80 or more, no additional
remolding tests need be made. Sufficient tests
should be made to establish the range for, the
area if the remolding index is below 0.80, and
especially if it it is much below. Generally this
can be established with tests at about four
locations.
Where cone index readings range from
150 to 200, sufficient locations should be selected
to verify the limits of the area as established
by visual inspection. Three or four sets of read-
ings should be made at each location. Remold-
ing tests should be made at the first two or
three locations; if these show a remolding index
of 0.90 or more, no additional remolding tests
need be made. If the remolding index is below
0.90, and especially if it is much below, suffi-
cient remolding tests should be made to estab-
lish the range for the area. Generally this can
be established with tests at about six locations.
The most readings are required in areas
where. the cone index ranges from 30 to 150.
Readings should be made at enough locations
to establish the boundaries of the area and the
average cone index within fairly close limits.
At least three sets of readings should be made
at each location. Remolding tests should also
be run at a sufficient number of locations to
establish the range of remolding indexes. In

addition, if a tentative route can be selected in
the field, penetrometer and remolding readings
should be made at closely spaced intervals along
It to locate any soft spots.
d. Where cone indexes are below 30, readings
should be limited to the number needed to
establish the limits of the nontrafficable area.
No remolding tests are required.
Remolding Teat. Since remolding test
techniques for fine-grained soils differ some-
what from those for sands with fines, poorly
drained, the operator should be able to recog-
nize the two types of soil for conditions where
remolding tests must be made. If squeezed and
rolled between the fingertips, the fine-grained
soil will feel soft and smooth because fine- For a tracked vehicle weighing less than
-
grained soil particles are small and fiat in shape.
The other soil type will have a definite abrasive
feel because of the presence of the larger,
rounder particles of sand. However, there will
be many cases in which the operator cannot
confidently distinguish the two types. In such
eases, both types of remolding tests should be
made and the remolding indexes obtained corn.
pared. If the lower remolding index is the one
obtained with the remolding test for sand with
fines, poorly drained, it may be assumed that
the soil is a sand with fines, poorly drained, and
the test for this soil type should be employed
throughout the area under Investigation. It is
emphasized that a good rule to follow in all
cases of doubt is to run both types of tests and
use the lower remolding Index.
RatIng Cone Index. The rating cone
index (par. 4f) is the cone index that will result
under traffic, and Is the final cone index evalua-
tion of a given area. Assume that the cone
index for an area is 85 and the remolding index
is 0.80, the rating cone index then would be
85 X 0.80 = 68.
CritIcal Layer. As indicated in para-
graph 4g, the depth of the critical layer varies
with the soil's strength profile and the vehicle
type and weight.
a. Variations With Vehicle Type and Weight.
The depths of the critical layer for various
vehicle types and weights are as follows:
18
149
Tip. if ,.kd. 0.,,,.f
.'ui.& See.. i,..
Sled. OtoS
M29; MIS; Canadian snowmobile 3 to 9
Wheeled, up to 50.000 lb 6 to 12
Tracked, up to 100,000 lb Sto 12
Wheeled, over 50,000 lb 9 to 15
Tracked, over 100.000 lb 9 to 16
Normal Strength Profile. In a soil with a
normal strength profile, the cone index readings
either increase or remain constant with each
increment of depth. Cone indexes should be
measured at 6-inch increments down to 18
inches in the early stages of reconnaisance in
an area. If these measurements consistently
reveal that the profile is normal, thereafter only
readings in the critical layer need be recorded.
100,000 pounds, such as the M47 tank, readings
are recorded for the 6- and 12-inch depths. In
a normal profile, remolding tests will be run
only on samples taken from the critical depth
for the vehicle in question, since a decrease in
remolding Index with Increasing depth is not
common. The rating cone index for this layer
is used as the criterion of trafficability for this
particular vehicle.
Abnormal Strength Profile. In an abnor-
mal strength profile, at least one cone index
reading is lower than the reading immediately
preceding it. When it has been established that
an abnormal strength profile exists, cone index
readings should be made and recorded at 6-inch
increments from the top of the critical layer
(6-inch depth for the M47 tank) to 6 inches
below the bottom of the critical layer (18 inches
for the M47 tank). Remolding tests must be
run on samples taken from the critical layer
and also on the 6-Inch layer below. The lower
raing cone index is used as the measure of
trafficability. Sleds are an exception to this
rule. The 0- to 3-inch layer is always used as
the critical layer.for these vehicles.
Interpolating Values. Intermediate values
for the 3-, 9-, and 15-inch depths can be inter-
polated whenever the vehicle types under con-
sideration require them.
Example. It is desired to investigate the
following soil areas for trafficability of vehicles
which are of such type and weight that the 6-
to 12-inch depth is the critical layer.
AGO SIA

D,,tA
-. c,
A A (w&)
R..Zd.9 C.
'.a,.
A 5 (I)
R.di.g
Snrfser 30 30
6 50
0.90 (6 to 12 in.) 0.90 (6 to 12 In.)
12 70 0.90 (12 to 18 In.)
80 35
18
24 90 50
Since Area A In the tabulation has a normal
profile, a remolding test was run only for the 6-
to 12-inch layer. The rating cone Index for
Area A is 60 (average of 50 and 70) x 0.90
= 54. In Area B, remolding tests were neces-
sary for both the 6- to 12-inch and 12- to 18-
inch layers. In this area, the rating cone index
of the 6- to 12-Inch layer Is 60 (average of 75
and 4b) X 0.90 = 54 and of the 12- to 18-inch
layer is 40 x 0.90 = 86. The rating cone Index
of the 12- to 18-inch layer, 86, is the governing
value for trafficability In Area B.
23. Other Factors. in addition to the cone
indexes of an area, other factors should be con-
sidered in evaluating trafficability, as discussed
below.
Slope. The steepest slope, or ruling grade,
that must be negotiated should be measured,
or may be determined from study of a contour
map. The effect of slope can be expressed as
an increase In cone Index requirements for level
terrain. Detail procedures for determining
slope effects are contained In paragraphs 24-
28.
Stickiness. No instrument for measuring
the effects of stickiness on the performance of
vehicles has been devised. Stickiness will occur
in all line-grained soils when they are compara-
tively wet. The greater the plasticity of the
soil, the more severe are the effects of sticki-
ness. In general, stickiness will have adverse
effects on the speed and facility of travel and
steering of all vehicles, but will not In itself
150
cause the Immobilization of any vehicle except
small tracked vehicles like the M29 weasel.
Even the worst conditions of stickiness are
nothing more than a nuisance to the lirger,
powerful military vehicles. Removal of fenders
will reduce stickiness effects on some vehicles.
c. Slipperiness. Like stickiness, the effects of
slipperiness cannot be measured quantitatively.
Soils which are covered with water or a layer
of soft mud usually are slippery and often cause
steering difficulty, especially to rubber-tired
vehicles. Immobilization can occur in many in-
stances. linmobilizations occur frequently when
slipperiness is associated with low bearing
capacity. Slipperiness effects assume greater
significance on slopes, and sometimes slopes
whose soil strength is adequate may not be
paatsble because of slipperiness. The use of
chains on rubber-tired vehicles usually will be
of benefit in slippery conditions. The following
three categories are used to rate slipperiness.
C..dffi..
Not slippery under any eondition__
5- N
Slippery when wet P
Slipperyat all thuen S
P and S conditions should always be approached
with caution.
d. Nonsoil Areas. Terrain in northern lati-
tudes Is generally covered by a layer of mixed
roots, mosses, and other vegetation. The cone
penetrometer and remolding tests will not
measure trafficability of nonsoil materials.
Limited tests have shown that If a mat of vege-
tation is 6 inches or more thick, it will support
40 to bO passes of very light vehicles (e.g. M29,
M76), but will not permit more than 2 or 3
passes of a heavier vehicle before vehicle breaks
into soil below.
e. MisceUaneous. Tra4licability of a given
area must include items such as forests, rivers,
ditches, boulder fields, and hedgerows.