Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gary T. Roberson, PE
David H. Vaughan
Professors
Biological Systems Engineering
Virginia Tech, 200 Seitz Hall (0303)
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0303
540-231-6538; rgrisso@vt.edu
Introduction
The primary purpose of agricultural tractors, especially those in the middle to high power range,
is to perform drawbar work (Zoz and Grisso, 2003). The value of a tractor is measured by the
amount of work accomplished relative to the cost incurred in getting the work done. Drawbar
power is defined by pull (or draft) and travel speed. Therefore, the ideal tractor converts all the
energy from the fuel into useful work at the drawbar.
Efficient operation of farm tractors includes: (1) maximizing the fuel efficiency of the engine and
mechanical efficiency of the drivetrain, (2) maximizing tractive advantage of the traction devices,
and (3) selecting an optimum travel speed for a given tractor-implement system. This paper
focuses on fuel efficiency.
According to Siemens and Bowers (1999), depending on the type of fuel and the amount of
time a tractor or machine is used, fuel and lubricant costs will usually represent at least 16
percent to over 45 percent of the total machine costs Most cropping and machinery budgets
developed by state Extension specialists and others contain estimates from the ASAE
Standards (ASAE Standards, 2005a; ASAE Standards, 2005b). Recently, several managers of
these budgets questioned whether the fuel estimates were reflective of the new engine designs.
Several methods have been developed for predicting fuel consumption; some methodologies
are generalized based on power and others are for individual engines requiring extensive
engine testing for verification. Grisso et al. (2004) reviewed the current fuel consumption data
from ASAE Standards and compared it to 20 years of Nebraska Tractor Test Lab (NTTL) data.
They also developed a generalized model that predicted fuel consumption during full and partial
loads and under conditions when engine speeds were reduced from full throttle.
The objective of this paper is to develop a method that uses the NTTL data for a specific model
to predict fuel consumption for full and partial loads and reduced throttle conditions.
1
The authors are Robert Bobby Grisso, ASABE Member Engineer, Professor, and David H. Vaughan, ASABE
Life Member Engineer, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA; and Gary
T. Roberson, ASABE Member Engineer, Associate Professor & Extension Specialist, Department of Biological and
Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625. Corresponding author:
Robert Bobby Grisso, 200 Seitz Hall (0303), Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
24061; phone: 540-231-6538; fax: 540-231-3199; e-mail: rgrisso@vt.edu. Mention of trade and company names are
for the reader and do not infer endorsement or preferential treatment of the products by Virginia Tech or NCSU.
Terminology
Tractor manufacturers specify power output from several sources on the tractor (PTO (powertake-off), drawbar, hydraulic outlets and electrical outlets). Each tractor model has a rated
power measured at rated engine speed. Typically this power is measured at the PTO and is
referred to in the remainder of this paper as rated PTO power. For most modern tractors, the
rated power will not be the maximum power. With modern engine designs, operating engines at
speeds other than rated speed often produces more power. Standardized tractor test codes
specify power and fuel consumption measurements at rated engine speed, standard PTO speed
(either 540 or 1,000 RPM) and at engine speed and load conditions that produce maximum
PTO power.
The Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory (NTTL) has a long history of testing tractors and
dissemination of power and fuel consumption data. During standardized tests, the power is
calculated and the corresponding fuel consumption is measured. The power at the PTO is
calculated from the PTO torque and the PTO speed. Drawbar power is calculated from the
drawbar pull (or draft) and the forward speed of the tractor.
Fuel consumption is measured by the amount of fuel used during a specific time period. The
most common measure of the energy efficiency of a tractor is referred to here as specific
volumetric fuel consumption (SVFC), which is given in units of L/kWh (gal/hph). SVFC is
generally not affected by the engine size and can be used to compare energy efficiencies of
tractors having different sizes and under different operating conditions. SVFC for diesel engines
typically ranges from 0.24 to 0.57 L/kWh (0.0476 to 0.111 gal/hph). For ease of computation,
the reciprocal of SVFC is often used and is referred to here as specific volumetric fuel efficiency
(SVFE) with units of kWh/L (hph/gal) with corresponding ranges from 2.36 to 4.1 kWh/L (12 to
21 hph/gal). The NTTL reports the SVFE for several drawbar load tests, rated PTO speed and
varying PTO power tests. Figure 1 shows a sample NTTL Report. The SVFE for this test is
shown under the columns labeled with units of Hph/gal (kWh/L).
Grisso et al. (2004) compared fuel efficiency improvements at the reduced engine speed during
the 50% and 75% drawbar load tests to the maximum power test. The decreases in SVFC and
engine speed were based on percentages as follows:
SVFC F SVFC R
Decrease in SVFC =
SVFC F
RPM F RPM R
N Red =
RPM F
100
100
(1)
(2)
Where:
SVFC is the specific volumetric fuel consumption at full throttle (F), and reduced throttle (R),
during the 50% and 75% drawbar load tests, respectively, in L/kWh (gal/hph);
NRed is the percentage engine speed (RPM) reduction during the 50% and 75% drawbar load
tests at reduced throttle (R), compared to full throttle (F), respectively, in %.
The data measured in NTTL Report 1725 (shown in Figure 1) will be used to demonstrate the
computation for equations (1) and (2). For the drawbar performance at 75% of Pull at
Maximum Power, the engine speed was 2190 RPM and the SVFE was 2.52 kWh/L (12.80
hph/gal). The corresponding test during reduced throttle setting had an engine speed of 1665
RPM and a SVFE of 2.88 kWh/L (14.63 hph/gal). The SVFC was calculated as 0.397 L/kWh
(0.078 gal/hph) for full throttle and 0.347 L/kWh (0.068 gal/hph) for the reduced throttle test.
Using equations (1) and (2), the decrease in SVFC was 12.6% while the engine speed was
reduced (NRed) by 24%. Similarly, the 50% of Pull at Maximum Power tests resulted in a
reduction of engine speed of 24% and a decrease of SVFC of 15.8%.
The percentages calculated in equations (1) and (2) were used to predict the changes in fuel
consumption based on engine speed reduction. It was expected that the fuel consumption
could be predicted from reduced engine speed percentage and the fuel consumption predicted
from full throttle data (along the governor response power curve).
Grisso et al. (2004) developed a generalized fuel consumption equation:
Q = (0.22 X + 0.096) (1 (-0.0045 X NRed + 0.00877 NRed)) * Ppto
Q = (0.0434 X + 0.019) (1 (-0.0045 X NRed + 0.00877 NRed)) * Ppto
(SI)
(English)
(3)
(4)
Where:
Q is diesel fuel consumption at partial load and full/reduced throttle, L/h (gal/h);
X is the ratio of equivalent PTO power to rated PTO power, decimal;
NRed is the percentage of reduced engine speed for a partial load from full throttle, %; and
Ppto is the rated PTO power, kW (hp).
The predicted results of equations (3) and (4) were plotted versus the actual fuel consumption
as reported by NTTL. Each tractor evaluated had fuel consumption for varying PTO runs
(100%, 85%, 65%, 45%, 20% and 0% of PTO power), and most tractors tested had a full
drawbar complement of 100%, 50% and 75% drawbar loads at full throttle setting and 50% and
75% drawbar loads at reduced engine throttle setting. The Pearson correlation coefficient for
over 8,000 comparisons was 0.989, showing excellent agreement. These equations are useful
to predict fuel consumption for diesel engines during full and partial loads and under conditions
when engine speeds are reduced from full throttle.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
d = c X50F - f/h
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Results
The coefficients were developed in a spreadsheet for the 535 tractors. Table 1 gives a
summary of the coefficients found using this method. These average values are close in value
to the coefficients resulting from the general model (a=0.0434, b=0.019, c=0.0045, and d=0.00877).
Table 1. Summary of the coefficients determined from the Nebraska Tractor Test Report
(n=535).
a
Average
Stand Dev
0.041696
0.019653
0.008158
-0.012341
0.149438
0.054299
0.075966
0.036147
Maximum
0.005172
-0.072617
-0.067802
-0.061537
Minimum
0.008847
0.007625
0.008680
0.006493
As an example, below are the coefficients developed for the Nebraska OECD Tractor Test 1725
Summary 225 (shown in Figure 1):
a = [5.92 4.78 gal/h] / [115.9 hp {0.787 0.536}] = 0.390
b = [5.92 gal/h / 115.9 hp] 0.390 0.787
= 0.0203
= 0.158
= 23.9
= 24.1
= 0.0093
Using these four coefficients and equation (5), predictions can be made for several operating
conditions. Table 2 shows the comparisons of the individual and general model with the
measured test results. The individual coefficients show excellent agreement.
Table 2. Fuel consumption measured and predicted by the individual coefficients and the
generalized model for Nebraska OECD Tractor Test 1725 Summary 225 (shown in Figure 1).
Fuel Consumption (gal/hr)
Actual
Individual
General
PTO Power Test, Rated
6.821
6.882
7.236
6.714
6.882
7.236
5.916
5.916
5.978
5.185
5.185
5.176
4.776
4.776
4.719
4.031
4.031
3.977
The comparison of the general and individual coefficients to the measured fuel consumption
during PTO and maximum drawbar test run at rated engine speed indicated that 70% of the
comparisons showed improved prediction with the individual coefficients and 33% of those
improved were greater than 6 percent more accurate. For all of the tractors compared at the
partial loads-full throttle drawbar tests showed improved prediction over the generalized model;
45% of individual coefficients improved the prediction by more than 6% over the generalized
equation for the full throttle-partial pull drawbar tests. Also, 94% of the individual coefficients
improved the agreement over the general equation for the reduced throttle, partial load drawbar
tests. Over 80% of those predictions improved were by more than 6 percent.
The frequency distribution of the improved method is shown in Figure 3 for all of the operating
conditions. The method brings significant improvement to the prediction of fuel consumption of
tractors in all operating conditions. Figure 4 also shows good agreement between the measure
and predicted fuel consumption using individual coefficients. The Pearson correlation
coefficient for over 3,000 comparisons was 0.996, showing excellent agreement.
Farmer application
When farmers use this model or the generalized model described by Grisso et al. (2004), the
Nebraska Tractor Test report would be a very useful resource. As shown in the previous
example, the coefficients can be defined directly using the NTTL reports. The main objective of
using this procedure is to determine the engine operating speed under field conditions.
Compare the tractor engine speed at high-idle (full throttle, no-load) with the engine speed
shown in Varying Power and Fuel Consumption section of the NTTL report. In the example
(Figure 1), the high-idle engine speed is 2267 rpm. If the users tractor speed is significantly
different than the NTTL reported speed, errors using this approach can be significant. Record
the high-idle engine speed (HI) and rated engine speed (Rated). The rated engine speed is
typically found on the tractor tachometer, operators manual, or NTTL report.
The main objective is to find the engine speed during load in a field operation (FES). Assure
that the engine speed is recorded when the throttle is fully open. This engine speed gives an
estimate of the amount of rated power being used. Record the common engine speed for other
field operations and tasks.
Using the relationship below, determine the estimated ratio of rated power that is being used:
X = {HI - FES} / {HI Rated}
(14)
Where:
HI is the high-idle engine speed, rpm;
Rated is the rated engine speed for the tractor being considered, rpm; and
FES is the field speed experienced during field operations, rpm.
For example, suppose that a JD 7610 is being used for primary tillage and the common engine
speed is 2150 rpm. From the test report (Figure 1) and field testing, the high-idle speed is 2267
rpm and the rated engine speed is 2100 rpm. The equivalent power (calculated from equation
14) being used for this operation is 0.7 and using the coefficients from the pervious example,
the fuel use equation becomes:
Q = (0.039 X + 0.0203) (1 + (0.0052 X NRed 0.0093 NRed)) 115.9 hp
At full throttle, the estimated fuel consumption for the field operation becomes:
Q = (0.039 0.7 + 0.0203) 115.9 = 5.517 gal / h
Now if the operator wishes to review the saving from employing the practice Gear-Up and
Throttle Down, the operator can look at several engine reduction schemes and match the most
appropriate. If the tractor engine is reduced by 10 and 20%, respectively, the following results
will be seen:
D10 = (1 + (0.0052 0.7 10 0.0093 10))
D10 = 0.944 or a 5.6% fuel saving for reducing the throttle by 10%.
Likewise:
D20 = 0.887 or an 11% fuel saving for reducing the throttle by 20%.
In terms of fuel consumption rate:
Q10 = 5.517 0.94 = 5.186 gal/h or a saving of 0.33 gal/h
Q20 = 5.517 0.88 = 4.89 gal/h or a saving of 0.6 gal/h
The easiest way to reduce the engine speed is from the no-load condition (at high-idle). A 10
and 20% engine speed reduction would require moving the throttle at high idle from 2267 rpm to
2040 and 1813 rpm, respectively.
Conclusion
A new method for predicting fuel consumption for individual tractors was developed.
Improvements over the general model as described by Grisso et al. (2004) are significant. The
results showed that about 88% of the tractors tested had an improved prediction with the new
methodology. The method is able to calculate the coefficients from the complete drawbar tests
and rated PTO power tests. These equations are useful to predict fuel consumption for diesel
engines during full and partial loads and under conditions when the engine speeds are reduced
from full throttle. Examples were applied to farmer operated tractors.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to acknowledge Teresa Grisso and Joshua Graham for their data entry and
proofing of database created from the Nebraska Tractor Test Reports.
References
ASAE Standards, 52nd ed., 2005a. EP496.2FEB03. Agricultural machinery management. St.
Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
ASAE Standards, 52nd ed., 2005b. D497.4 FEB03. Agricultural machinery management data.
St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Bowers, W. 2001. Personal correspondence by email.
Grisso, R.D., M.F. Kocher, and D.H. Vaughan. 2004. Predicting tractor fuel consumption.
Applied Eng. in Agric 20(5):553-561
Grisso, R.D. and R. Pitman. 2001. Gear up and throttle down - saving fuel. Virginia Cooperative
Extension Publication 442-450, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA,
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442-450/442-450.pdf
Kotzabassis, C., H.T. Wiedemann and S.W. Searcy. 1994. Tractor energy conservation. Texas
Agricultural Extension Service Publication L-5085, Texas A&M University System,
College Station, TX.
Siemens, J.C. and W.W. Bowers. 1999. Machinery management: how to select machinery to fit
the real needs of farm managers. Farm Business Management (FMB) series, John
Deere Publishing, East Moline, IL.
Zoz, F. and R.D. Grisso. 2003. Traction and Tractor Performance. ASAE Distinguished Lecture
Series #27. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Figure 1. Example of a tractor test report. The sections show the PTO performance tests (top),
the varying power (middle) tests, and the drawbar performance test (bottom) results.
This is taken from the report of Nebraska OECD Tractor Test 1725 Summary 225
for John Deere 7610 PowerShift.
Figure 2. Engine map with the tractor test information and notations described (adapted from
Kotzabassis et al. 1994).
0.30
Frequency of Improvement
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-1
>0
-3
>1
-6
>3
-9
>6
2
-1
>9
15
21
>
20
51
>
5
>2
Figure 3. Frequency of improved prediction from the individual coefficients as compared to the
general model.
30
25
20
15
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Full Power
Figure 4. Comparison of actual and predicted fuel consumption for all rated PTO power and
drawbar tests. The fuel consumption was predicted using equation (5) (3,210
comparisons, Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.996).
10