J. agric. Engng Res.

(1970) 15 (3) 221-235

Tractor Behaviour during Motion Uphill

I. Factors Affecting Behaviour
G. GILFILLAN*

Reasons for differences in hehaviour on sloping land among wheeled tractors are sought.
Relevant aspects of behaviour, e.g. safety and tractive ability, depend largely on the values of
the normal to ground components of the wheel/ground reactions. Equations are presented
from which to find these values when a tractor is moving with uniform velocity directly uphill.
Reasons for the changes from the static values on level land occasioned by slope and other
factors are discussed. It is concluded that differences in these changes among tractors attribut-
able to features of the machines are sufficient to result in differences in their hehaviours on slopes.

KEY TO SYMBOLS
C -= point of intersection of wheel V == normal to ground component of
periphery and line normal to D.B. load resistance
ground through axle mid-point W : weight of tractor
when tractor is standing on
W, wheel load during motion
horizontal plane
W, : static wheel load
C’ ~-= point of intersection of wheel
periphery and line normal to x :~ distance parallel to ground sur-
ground through axle mid-point face from C or C’ to line of action
when front and rear wheels are on of w,
different parallel planes Y distance normal to ground surface
D == parallel to ground component of from C or C’ to line of action of
D.B. load resistance, i.e. D.B. pull P or R
G my centre: of gravity position V
-0 distance between planes through
C,, and C, parallel to ground sur-
h, == moment arm of force D about C,
face, i.e. height of obstacle
h, = height of centre of gravity above
u angle between ground and hori-
line CrC,
zontal planes
L = wheelbase length, i.e. distance
B angle between wheel base C,C,
C&r
and ground plane
L,, L, == lengths into which C& is divided
by its perpendicular through the Superscripts
tractor centre of gravity ’ and ” refer to projections of L, Lf and L,,
L, == moment arm of force V about C, respectively, onto a plane parallel to the
P ~-y gross propulsive or tractive wheel ground surface through C,’ and onto the
force horizontal plane
P, = net tractive wheel force, i.e. P-R Subscripts
R =-: wheel motion resisting force f and r relate, respectively, to front and rear
r = radius of wheel wheels D, P, R, V relate to relevant force.

* 1vI.A.E. Scottish Station, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian

221
222 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION UPHII.1.

1. Introduction
Most farm tractors have to be used on sloping land since, even in nominally flat areas, much
agricultural land cannot be said, from the point of view of vehicle operation, to be level. Discus-
sions with farmers and tractor drivers revealed that on slopes which could be worked in safety
tractor performance, evidenced for example by available drawbar pull, travel speed and fuel
consumption, was poor and that steering difficulties often arose on side slopes, particularly when
trailed equipment was used. Steeper slopes gave rise to braking difficulties and the likelihood of
overturning by rearing or rolling. Rearing was said to be often initiated by a front wheel moving
over an obstacle. Accounts of tractive difficulties, particularly on grass slopes, and of rearing or
incipient rearing suggested that it would be worthwhile, in the first instance, to examine behaviour
when moving directly uphill. This was done, on a theoretical basis, to identify factors affecting
operating efficiency and safety. Since drivers asserted that some machines were “good” and others
“bad” for use on slopes but could give no reasons for their subjective assessments the factors
were examined to see if these beliefs were explicable.

2. Basis of study
Aspects of behaviour considered were longitudinal stability, steering control and tractive
ability. These, like most others, depend mainly on the values of the normal to ground compon-
ents of the total wheel/ground reactions at front and rear wheels. These components, termed
here the “wheel loads”, were found from conditions for moment equilibrium. The tractor was
considered to be moving uphill at uniform velocity with the front wheels passing over an obstacle,
as shown in Fig. 1 (bottom). Front and rear wheels were assumed driven and to have unequal
diameters. Tyre deflection was ignored and wheel peripheries assumed circular. Properties
of the pneumatic tyre were accounted for by conventional assumptions concerning lines of action
of the components of wheel/ground reaction under tractive conditions, i.e. the normal to ground
component was assumed to act forward of the trace of the axle on the ground and tractive and
motion resisting components to have lines of action passing through the wheel/ground interface
on hard land and parallel to and below ground surface if there was wheel sinkage. Wheel loads,
derived in Appendix I, were expressed in a form enabling the effects of operating conditions, e.g.
slope and design factors, e.g. wheelbase length to be identified and their individual contributions
to total load to be readily found.
It is, however, changes in wheel loads during motion which occasion changes in tractor be-
haviour. The magnitude of a wheel load change was specified with reference to the static load on
the appropriate wheel when the tractor was standing on hard level ground, i.e. it was expressed
as the fractional load change:
F=wrws
~. .
W.5

Substitution of the expressions for W,, and W,, from Appendix I enabled F to be written as the
algebraic sum of a number of factors which are defined in terms of operating conditions and design
factors in Appendix II:
F,= -ff1-fsz+ff3-fY~-f~ . . . (21

F,=.L,+.f,,~fr~+.L+.Lv~

The value of Ff is a measure of longitudinal stability, a negative value of unity denoting complete
removal of front-wheel load. The value of F, is related to tractive performance, a value of unity
indicating that static rear-wheel load has been doubled, Hence the importance of each factor
and each term in a factor is indicated by its algebraic value, i.e. the amount it contributes to the
total value of F.
G. GILFILLAN 223

Fig. 1. Forces and moments on tractor moving on level ground (top), over front-wheel obstacle (centre) and uphill
over front-wheel obstacle (bottom)

3. Procedure and assumptions

The effects on wheel loads of different tractor operating conditions, particularly changes in
ground slope, were examined by substituting numerical values for the terms comprising the
factors of Eqns (2) and (3). Tractor dimensions were obtained from published N.I.A.E. reports
on eleven rear- and three four-wheel British tractors tested during the last few years and all
references to values found in practice relate to these. The term I/E, defined in Appendix II,
which entered into all factors was assumed unity. This simplified the studies, particularly that
off,, since each term, e.g. ax,, could be directly equated to load change. The error introduced was
not large enough to alter seriously the numerical values of factors and invalidate comparisons of
their magnitudes.
224 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION liPHILL

The magnitudes of the wheel load changes to be expected in practice and the relative importance
of each factor were found by calculating these changes for three hypothetical tractors having
dimensions arbitrarily chosen but within the ranges found in practice, a procedure equivalent
to making a few observations from within the range of possible variation. The tractors were
compared when moving on a horizontal plane and on one inclined to this at 20”. Also, in each
case for movement with the front wheels passing over a flat-topped ridge 1 ft high such that front
and rear wheels moved on parallel planes. Wheel sinkage was assumed negligible. Four-wheel
drive tractor A was assumed to develop the same net tractive force on front and rear wheels.
Fairly gross divergencies from this assumption do not invalidate conclusions. Tractors B and C
were rear-wheel drive. It was assumed for each tractor that h,, h, and L, were, respectively,
2 ft, 1 ft, 2+ ft and D= V= 1000 lb. Also x= 1 in for all drive wheels and # in for front wheels
of tractors B and C for which R,-40.7 lb. Changes of the order of an inch or so and fairly large
changes in R, do not invalidate conclusions. Other details are given in Table 1. Some additional
calculations were made for particular tractors to assess the importance of other operating con-
ditions.

TABLE I
Details of tractors
- -
Tractor A B
__I
W lb 8000 3000 4200
13,000 h 1000”
4500 1300 1600
7300 b 2260 b
L ft 6 6 7
Ly ft 2.62 3.40 4.34
2.63 b 4.06 b
rf ft 2 1 1
r, ft 2 2 2
- -
b denotes ballasted condition.

The total wheel load resulting from a combination of effects was assumed to be the sum of the
loads which the separate effects would produce if each acted singly. This implied heights of
centre of gravity and lines of action of drawbar pull were unaffected by tyre deflection and that
change in wheel load had negligible effect on X.

4. Study of factors
4.1. Angle p
The relationship between j? and L, given by Eqn (12), is plotted in Fig. 2 for a tractor with equal
sized wheels. However, change in rf-r, over the range 0 to 2 ft has negligible effect on /I for

15

IO
yo = lhff
8
Q Ift
5

krt
b

O-0
L (ft)

Fig. 2. Relationships between wheelbase length and its inclination to the groundfor diffkrentfront wheel obstacle heights
G. GILFILLAN 225

given values of L and yO, therefore the figure is generally applicable and Eqn (12) simplifies to
sin p-y,,/L. The value of /I, for a given front wheel obstacle, does not differ much among con-
ventional tractors and has very small effect on differences in their behaviours.

4.2. Factor .f;

4.2. I. Terms xf arid x,
Values of x, based on rolling resistances, are likely to be in ranges 0.5 in to 5 in and 0.5 in to
6 in for, respectively, small undriven front wheels and large driving wheels. Values of L are in
range 5.4 ft to 7.3 ft for rear-wheel and are about 5.9 ft for four-wheel drive tractors. Coefficient
a, i.e. l/L, is independent of slope and front wheel obstacle. Highest values of coefficient b occur
on level land, in the absence of an obstacle and for short wheel base length. Since slope has little
effect b - (l/L) (L,/L,), its value being in ranges 0.22 to 0.29 and 0.10 and O-14, for, respectively.
rear and four-wheel drive tractors. Reductions in front-wheel load axf and bx, are plotted in
Fi<q. 3. Since x<4 in on many surfaces load reduction under normal operating conditions is

03
r

I&&
02

+
Q
0 I

01 I I / 1 I 0
5 6 7 8 3 IO 0 01 02 03 04
L (ff) WL)(L,/L,)
Fig. 3. Front-wheel loud decrease due to displacement of normal to ground component of total wheel/ground reaction
at front (left) and rear (right) wheels (1 /E- I)

small. However, a partly buried stone or rock outcrop might result in xw 10 in, which, associated
with the front wheels of a four-wheel drive tractor, would result in load reduction of 0.12 and,
with the rear wheels of a rear or four-wheel drive machine, would result in load reductions,
respectively, 0.15 <and O-10. Values of ax, and bx, are not greatly altered by differences among
tractors in L and L,, the latter being in ranges 2.1 ft to 2.8 ft and 3.2 ft to 3.6 ft for, respectively,
rear and four-wheel drive tractors. High values of bx, may, however, arise if the former type is
ballasted since L, can then be small. Load increases on rear wheels may also be studied with
reference to Fig. -3. These, under normal operating conditions, are small since values of (l/L)
(L,/L,) are in ranges 0.07 to 0.11 and 0.19 to 0.27 for, respectively, rear and four-wheel drive
tractors.

4.2.2. Terms h, and r

Centre of gravity height and wheel radii have no effect on wheel loads if land is level and there
is no front wheel obstacle. On slope, in the absence of an obstacle, load decrease on the front
and increase on the rear wheels is given by, respectively, sin crh,/Lr and sin ah,/L,. Values of
h,/L? are in ranges 0.95 to 1.26 for rear and 0.70 to 0.83 for four-wheel drive tractors. Corres-
ponding values of h,/L, are in ranges 0.51 to 0.67 and 0.99 to 1.14. Load changes are therefore
high on slopes over, say, lo” and differences between rear and four-wheel drive types can be
large. The effect of an obstacle on level or sloping land is small.
226 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION UPHILL

4.2.3. Terms f and m

Termsf and m are zero on level land. Values, representing decrease in front and increase in
rear-wheel loads, are small for slopes below, say lo” but thereafter increase rapidly, particularly
if there is a front wheel obstacle. Values do not differ much among tractors on a particular slope.

4.3. Factor fi
The factor, zero if front and rear wheels are on the same plane, is studied by making simplifying
assumptions and substituting numerical values. It is assumed y,,= 1 ft, L,=3.25 ft and 2.25 ft
for, respectively, four- and rear-wheel drive tractors, L=6 ft, x= I in, D/ FQO.6.
(i) Four-wheel drive: Assume Pnf=Pnr= D/2

-&2=(1/2) (D/W) ML,) (2x,/L’--1)

N -(l/2) (Di W) (Y,/L,)

j& N 0.09.
Similarly f,,mO.lO.

(ii) Rear-wheel drive: Assume R,= -P,,==O

-.z=(Dl W) &i/L,) (x,/L) N 0.003.

Similarly f,,-0.16.
The front-wheel load on a four-wheel drive tractor is therefore increased by a front-wheel
obstacle provided wheel/ground adhesion is retained. The relationship between load change and
height of obstacle is shown in Fig. 4 for L,=3 ft from which it can be seen that the effect is
o/w= 0 8
02
06

w
e 0 I 0 4 (23”)

0 2 (II01

0
0 05 IO I 5

Fig. 4. Relationsh@ between height of obstacle and approximate value offactorf,, i.e. (4) (D/W) (yO/L,), for L,=3 ft

associated with high values of D/W and yQc6 in, say. Substitution of gradient resistance W sin a
for D shows that values of D/W of 0.2 and 0.4 correspond, respectively, with slopes of about 11’
and 23”, hence an obstacle on a steep slope results in a relatively large increase in front-wheel
load. The corresponding load change on the front wheels of a rear-wheel drive tractor is negligible
but this machine has the higher rear-wheel load change.

4.4. Factor f3
The factor, zero if there is no wheel sinkage, is studied by arbitrarily assuming y,=2 in and
y,=4 in. A four-wheel drive tractor is considered with P,=P,, R,=R,, L,==2*2 ft, L,=3*6 ft,
R/ W=O*O9, D/ W=O.6 and, hence, A=0.166P-O.333R.
(i) No drawbar pull, i.e. P=R
.&=(A/ W) U/L,)== -0*004
&=(A/ W) (l/L,)=-O+IO6.
G. GILFILLAN 227

(ii 1 High drawbar pull, i.e., P= D and R considered negligible

&,=0+027 and f,,==O.O45.
The numerical orders of values for f are unchanged if the tractor is considered as rear-wheel
drive, i.e. P,=O and an appropriate value of L, used. Hence wheel load changes due to sinkage
are small if drawbar pull is high and are otherwise negligible.

4.5. Factor fD
Load change is greatest in the absence of an obstacle when -.ffD-(D/ W) (h,/L,) and .hD=l
(D/W) (h,/L,). Values of D/W, ho/LrC,,h,/Lf are in ranges, respectively, 0.2 to 0.6, 0.3 to 0.8 and
0.2 to O-6 therefore front and rear-wheel load changes, in ranges 0.06 to 0.43 and 0.04 to 0.36,
can be high. The considerable change in front-wheel load, for a given value of D is shown in
rig. 5 which indicates that there is a value of W above which incremental change in weight is
associated with a progressively smaller improvement in &,. The value of L,, within the range
found in practice, is unimportant.

01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14.000 16,000

W (lb)

Fig. 5. Relationship between approximate value of factor fro, i.e. (D/W) (h,/f.,) and tractor weight (f/E- I)

4.6. Factor fv
Load change is greatest in the absence of an obstacle when -fv=( V/ W)(L,/L,) and&-(I’/ W)
( I /Lf) (L,+L). The effect of taking x into account is small unless V/W and x exceed respectively,
0.4 and 6 in. Data for I/ are few but, for a value of 1323 lb which has been cited for a trailer,’
I’/ W, Lv/L,, (L,+L)/L, are in ranges, respectively, 0.14 to 0.34, 0.6 to 1.2 and 1.9 to 3.7. Front
and rear-wheel load changes, in ranges 0.1 to 0.4 and 0.2 to 1.3 can therefore be high. These
can be studied by reference to Fig. 5.

4.1. Reciprocals of L,, L and W

The values of L,, L and W differ among machines. Wheel load changes, given by Eqns (2) and
(3), involve reciprocals of these quantities therefore the effect on the reciprocal of a change in
value of the appropriate quantity is of interest in assessing the effect of L,, L or Won behaviour.
Fig. 6 shows that for a low value an incremental change in the quantity results in a large incre-
mental change in its reciprocal but for a large value the corresponding change is small. A “critical’
value beyond which increase in the quantity gives diminishing return can be found by equating
the total change in the quantity over the range of interest and the corresponding change in its
reciprocal each to lOOa% and finding the value of the quantity at which the relationship ceases
to be more than proportional. L, and L over ranges, respectively, 0.25 ft to 4 ft and 6 ft to 10 ft
have “critical” values at, respectively, 1.5 and 7.5 ft, below which 70 % of the change in l/L, and
507/, of that in l/L take place. Therefore the value of L, or L. within the range used in practice:
228 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION UF’Hll.1

05-
I

04

0 I-

O. / I I ,
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 l0,000

W(lb) L and L, (ft)

Fig. 6. Relationships between tractor weight W (left) and dimensions L and L, (right) and their reciprocal values

does not greatly alter the value of its reciprocal. Weight, over the range 2000 to 10,000 lb has
critical value at 4400 lb below which 70 % of the change in l/W takes place. The value of W used
can therefore affect the value of the reciprocal to a considerable extent since the critical value is
within the range used in practice. The relationship between Wand its reciprocal is reflected in
the curves of Fig. 5.

5. Sample numerical results

5. I. No load resistance
Wheel load changes on tractors A, B and C running light are small on level land but high on
the slope. Those for the front wheel are detailed, by way of example, in Table II. Changes on
level land on front or rear wheels do not exceed 0.06 but on the slope the decrease in front and
increase in rear-wheel load are in ranges, respectively, 0.28 to 0.34 and 0.11 and 0.23. The obstacle
on the slope has negligible effect on four-wheel drive tractor A but alters wheel loads on the
others by about 5% in the same senses as caused by the slope. Longitudinal stabilities are not
endangered since about 65 to 70 % of static front-wheel load remains to be lost and steering control
is unlikely to be affected since front-wheel loads exceed the value of 440 lb cited as necessary for
its retention.2 Rear-wheel load changes due to slope for tractors A, B and C are respectively,
805, 270 and 294 lb. These change wheel tractive force: slip characteristics to different extents,3
hence the slope will have a different effect on the motion of each machine. The largest single
contribution to wheel load change is due to the h, term. Displacements x contribute less than
0.03 but if these increased, under unusual operating conditions, to, say, 10 in then total front-
wheel load reduction would be 0.40 for tractor A and 0.50 for the others, thus substantially
reducing margins of safety by different amounts.

5.2. Load resistance and other effects

Stability is less affected by D.B. pull than by normal to ground load and the heaviest tractor A
is least affected. On slope the proportions of static front-wheel load remaining on A, B and C
are 68,53, and 57% for D.B. pull and 62, 32 and 43% if load acts normal to ground. The front-
wheel load of tractor B in the latter case is reduced to 419 lb, too low for steering control. The
rear-wheel load on each tractor is higher when load acts normal to ground than when it is applied
as D.B. pull, the largest change being on the lightest tractor B for which the static value is doubled.
Ballasted tractors A and B moving upslope experience smaller front and larger rear-wheel load
changes than when unballasted. Front-wheel load changes for tractor A decrease from O-28 to
O-15 and for B from O-34 to O-04. Rear-wheel load changes for tractor A increase from 0.23 to
1.00 and for B from O-15 to 4.14. Load changes due to inclination of the wheel base at a particular
G. CILFILLAN 229

TABLE II
Fractional load change on front wheels
-
Operatitq conditiom
- -_ __---
Level Slope
Tractor Factor Term Level + Slope i-
obstacle ol~rtacle
-..-- -_
A xJ 0.013 0,014 0.013 0.014
XV 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.007
f II h, N.A. 0.100 0,202 0,296
rr N.A. - 0.044 N.A. ~ 0.034
rf N.A. - 0.056 N.A. .- 0,056
f N.A. N.A. 0.060 0.118
Total 0.023 0,024 0.284 0.345
-_ ____ ____
f f-2 N.A. OGOO N.A. 0.050
Ff 0.023 0,024 0.284 0,295
_-
B -YJ 0.005 om5 oml5 oGO5
x, 0.018 0.018 0.016 0.014
f II 11, N.A. 0.125 0,264 0.376
r, N.A. -0.071 N.A. ~ 0.06 1
'J N.A. .0.027 N.A. ~ 0.027
f N.A. N.A. 0.060 0.115
Total 0.023 0.050 0.345 0.422
.__ -- -_ -- ___ -- -___
f f2 N.A. 0,005 N.A. 0,007
-_ --. -_ ___- --
0.023 0.055 0.345 0.429
-_ -_ -__ ____
< OGM 0.004 00I4 0.004
0.019 0,019 0.017 0.015
N.A. 0.108 0.260 0.356
N.A. --0.067 N.A. 0.058
N.A. - 0.020 N.A. ~~~
0.020
N.A. N.A. 0.060 0.109
0.023 0.044 0,341 0,406

N.A. 0.003 N.A. 0.004

-- _____~ ____~
0.023 0.047 0,341 0.410
- - -
A positive entry denotes decrease in static weight. N.A. denotes
“not applicable”.

angle to the horizontal differ according to whether this results from (i) slope or (ii) slope and
front-wheel obstacle. The former is the more severe case. Differential wheel sinkage due to
motion on soft ground results in front- and rear-wheel running on levels a few inches apart. This
has, however, little effect on wheel loads. Values of fi and fiare smaller than those for the
obstacle 1 ft high given in Table II. Additional factor.f, is small, for example for tractor B run-
ning light and with loo0 D.B. pull,ff, is, respectively, --04002 and 0.020.

6. Conclusions and summary

The theoretical studies indicate that the wheel loads on a tractor and hence its behaviour when
moving directly uphill with uniform velocity depend primarily on the ratio of the centre of gravity
230 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION UPHI1.I.

height to the location of this point on the longitudinal axis of the machine. Other factors,
however, influence behaviour, particularly stability. D.B. load has considerable effect, a light
machine, in particular, being endangered by a relatively small load. Normal to ground load on
the drawbar of a conventional tractor is potentially more dangerous than D.B. pull since the
moment arm is longer and the force acts to preserve traction and not induce wheelspin which
might occur before safety is endangered. Stability is appreciably reduced by large displacement
of the line of action of a drive wheel load forward of the trace of the axle on the ground. The effect
however, depends on ground conditions, is fortuitous, and does not occur under normal operating
conditions. Wheel sinkage has small effect. Reduction in front-wheel load due to these wheels
passing over an obstacle is negligible if they are driven but is high if they are free rolling and the
machine is on a steep slope or providing high D.B. pull. Addition of ballast to a tractor moving
upslope results in rear-wheel loads which are high compared to those of the unballasted machine.
The studies also indicate that differences in behaviour among tractors are sufficiently large for
some machines to be accounted more suitable for use on slope than others.

REFERENCES
Feldman, F. Possibilities and sphere of action of a power driven trailer axle. Transl. 118, N.I.A.E.,
Silsoe, Beds., p. 6
Meyer, H. Zur problematik des zattelanhangers fur ackerschlepper. Landtechnische Forschung, 1956,
6, 99
Manby, T. C. D. Somephysicalproperties of the N.I.A.E. tractor test tracks. Report No. 50 N.I.A.E..
Silsoe, Beds., 1955, p. 5, Fig. la

APPENDIX I
Wheel loads
Forces other than weight are resolved into components normal and parallel to the ground
surface and a moment arm is specified with reference to the point at which the periphery of a
front or rear wheel intersects the line through an axle mid-point normal to the ground. Forces
acting downwards or in the direction of travel are positive. Clockwise moments are positive.
Wheel loads can readily be specified in terms of wheelbase length and drawbar location if the
tractor is moving, as shown in Fig. I, top, on a horizontal plane. Moment arms involve distances
L’, L’,., L’,, hlD, h’“, shown in Fig. I, centre if the front wheels are on a parallel but higher plane.
Distances L”, L’>, L”,, shown in Fig. I, bottom, are involved if the land slopes. Taking moments
of the forces shown in Fig. I, bottom about points C’, and C> gives:
W(L,‘IL’-L”x,)+ A
wd~=L’(L’+x,--x,) L’Sx,-x,

(Clf(L’-xx,)--P,, xJ Y0
+I L’+x,-x, I I?
D(h,‘L--y,x,) V(L’,L’+L’x,)
. ..(4)
_L’(L’Sx,-x,)_ L’(L’+x,-x,)
w = w(L,“L’+L”x,) A
dr L’(L’Sxy-x,) -L’+x,-x,

+ ~“r(L’+x,)+K,x_r\ Y0
i L/+x,-x, (F

- D{():,-h’,)L’+y,x~}+ V(L’~L’I-L’~+L’X~)
. . . (5)
L’(L’+x, -x,) L’(L’Sx,-x,)
G. GILFILLAN 331

A=P,y,.+Pfyf,--R,y,~--Rfyf,.
It is immaterial whether h.sy,.
L”, L’ and associated lengths can be expressed in terms of basic tractor dimensions L, L, and
L, by means of the geometrical construction shown in Fig. 7. The construction lines are normal
0; parallel to wheelbase C,C,, slope C’,A or the horizontal plane.

\ YO

Fig. 7. Geometry of tractor on slope with front wheels moving over obstacle

L’=C,‘A=BC,+C,D-C,O
hence L’=L cos P+(r?-rf) sin p (6)

L’,=C,‘I=BC, +C,K-QP
hence L,‘=L, cos P+(rr--h,) sin p . .. (7)

L;=IA=PQ+QR-C,O
hence L,‘=L, cos P+(h,--r,) sin p . . . (8)

L”=C,‘E=C,‘F-FE=C,‘A cos a-AH

hence L”=L’ cos a-y, sin a . . (9)

232 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION UPHILL

L,“=C,‘L=C,‘M-ML=C,‘Icos u-NS.
Now NS=Nt cos a and NI=G/ tan a=(GP+PJ-t-J/) tan ct
where GP= h, cos p, PJ= QK= L, sin p and JI= BC,’ -r, (1 -cos p).
Hence L,“=L,’ cos a-{Lr sin P-+h, cos p+rr (I -cos p)} sin a . . (10)

L,“=LE=NSfST=NS+SU-UT.
Now NS= NI cos a as before, SU= I W= Lf ’cos a, UT= A H=y, sin a
hence L,“=L,’ cos a+{L, sin P+h, cos p+rr (1 -cos 0)) sin a-y,, sin a. (11)

The angle p can be found from the tractor dimensions and the obstacle height.
C,.D OC,‘+C,‘A-AC
sin P==c,c,=
CJC, .
Now OC;=r, (1 -cos p), C;A=y,, AC=C,‘B=r, (1 -cos b)
hence sin p_(l 40s P)(rf --rJ+yo . .
L (12)

Distances h’, and L’” can be expressed in terms of those locating the point of application of
the load resistance when the machine is on level ground by means of the geometrical construction
shown in Fig. 8. The construction lines are normal or parallel to wheelbase C,C, or the hori-
zontal plane :
L,‘=AD=EC,-C,F.

Fig. 8. Geometry of druwbar when front wheels ore moving over obstacle

Now EC,=C,C cos p and C,C=CB+BC,=AB tan P+BC,==h, tan P+b.

Therefore EC,=(h, tan p+Ly) cos p.

Also C,F=O,C, sin P=r, sin p,
hence Lv’=(hD-rr) sin P+Ly cos j3 . (13)
G. GILFILLAN 233

iID’ =HG-+FC:‘= HB-BG+FC,‘.

Now HB: -/I,, cos p, BG=LV sin p, FCr’=rr (1 -cos p)
hence hD’ -h, cos [!&I!,,, sin p+rr (I -cos f3). (14)

Analogous expressions can be derived if the point of application of the force is forward of the
front wheel.

APPENDIX II
Wheel load change equations
Equations for changes in loads on wheels from the static values on level land are formed by
substituting in Eqn (1) from either Eqn (4) or Eqn (5). The static load is properly associated
with the first term in each equation since the others are zero under static conditions.
W(L,I L’-L” x,) \P”f(L’--x,)--P,, x,)\ y0
F+
I L’(L’Lx,-x,) $1 L’+x, -x, I z;-‘L’--,-x,

1
D(h,’ L-y, x,) V(L,’ L’+L’ x,) WL, L
L’(L’+x,-x,) - L’(L’+ Xf ---x,) L WL,’

( i) Denote the first term& :

1
consider
L’Sx,-x,

substitute from Eqn (6) and rearrange terms

I----- xf -x, (r, -rJ \

where E= 11 +L cos p -TVL cos p sin B ps P

LL”
consider
L,L’ -l*

Substitute first from Eqn (9) then from Eqn (6) and rearrange terms:
L cos a y, L sin a
-=L,-*- L,{L cos P-+-(rr---rf) sin p}

L’ -LL,”
consider
L,
Substitute from Eqn (10) and rearrange terms:
LL,’ cosa +LL, sin p sin a+L sin a cos j3 h, L sin a rr L sin a cos p rr
-L’- L
r L L, -+ L, - L, .

Substitute from Eqns (6) and (7) and rearrange terms

LL, cos a cos p L cos a sin p rr L cos a sin p h,
-L cos P--r? sin p-rf sin p- A
L, I-r L,
234 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION UPHILL

L sin a cos p h,&L sin a r, L sin a cos p rr

+L sin a sin p-t
L, L, - L,

L{sin (a + P)lh, _ L{sin(a+p)-sin a)}-L, sin p

Tr- sin pry --L{cos (a+ p) ---cos p;.
L, L, I
Hence :
_&,=-;(a x,+b x,+c h,-d--e rf-f)
where
1
a=-
L

L cos a-L, y, sin a

b= LL * -L,{L cos P+(r, -rf> sin 81

C=
sin(a+P>
Li-
d=L{sin (a+ p)-sin a}-L, sin p
LL,
sin p
e=-
L

f=cos (a+P)-cos f3.

(ii) Denote the second term&,:

(iii) Denote the third term ff3:

&=(A) ($1 ($)a

(iv) Denote the fourth term ffD:

f’D=-(i) ($1 (h’D-L cos p$:-rf) sin p) i

where hfD is given by Eqn (14).

(v) Denote the fifth term ffy :

where Ly ’is given by Eqn (13).

Similarly :
Al= ; (gxf+hx,+ih,+jr,--krf+m)
Ct. GILFILLAN 235

where
L cos a -Lf y. sin a
g=
LLf Lf {L cos fi+(rr-rf) sin p}

i= sin (a+‘)
Lf
L(sin a-cos p sin a)-L, sin f3
.i=
LLf

k=L sin f3 cos a-Lf sin p

LLf

sin j3 sin a L, sin a y,

m==cos p (cos a-l)+ _~
Lf Lf

frs=-(k)($) (&)
1
‘6D=‘( +) (4) [h’D-)‘o(l+L cos p+(t-r,) sin p)] (1L,
1
b(;) (;) ( L’,+xf -tL cos P+(rr-rf) sin p I
I c LJ, 1 .