J. ugric. Engng Res.

(1970) 15 (3) 236-243

Tractor Behaviour during Motion Uphill

II. Comparisons of Rehaviour
G. GILFILLAN*

The behaviour of a farm tractor moving directly uphill is considered in terms of longitudinal
stability, steering control, maximum slope climbable and the D.B. pull which it can provide.
Graphical methods of assessing machines are suggested and used for theoretical comparison
of a rear and a four-wheel drive tractor. Reasons for behaviour differences among machines
and the scope for their improvement are discussed.

1. Introduction
Differences in behaviour among tractors moving with uniform velocity directly uphill have been
accounted for in terms of the normal to ground components of the total wheel/ground reactions, l
termed here the “wheel loads”. These differences are now further considered on a theoretical
basis. The reduction in front-wheel load from the static value on level land is a measure of the
extent to which stability against overturning is lost and there is a minimum value needed to
retain steering control. Hence tractors can be compared by plotting front-wheel load change
against slope. Forward motion may, however, be stopped by wheelspin on a slope lower than
that on which the machine would overturn. This slope can be found provided there is a known
relationship between wheel loading and tractive force. Here motion with negligible sinkage on
firm land is assumed and friction concepts are used. These concepts are also used to find the
extent to which maximum sustained D.B. pull on level land is diminished by operating up slope.
The differences between two conventional tractors, a rear and a four-wheel drive machine are
found. The extent to which differences exist among tractors and the scope for improvement are
discussed.

2. Theoretical considerations
2.1. Wheel load changes
The general equations for the changes in wheel loads from the static values for a tractor
moving up slope are’ :
F,=--f;-l,ff,+ff3-ffD-f" ...(1)

~~=L,+“L--f,,+f,o+f,“. . . (2)

It is assumed (i) there is no external loading (ii) wheel sinkage is negligible (iii) operating con-
ditions are not unusual, i.e. x is negligible and l/E is nearly unity. Eqns (1) and (2) become:
-F”=(h,/L,) sin o +( 1-cos a) (3)

F,.=(h,/L,) sin a+(cos a-l). . . (4)

These are the basic equations relating wheel load changes and slope. No terms associated with
movement enter into Eqns (3) and (4) which therefore give the amounts by which front and rear-
wheel static loads on level ground are changed if a tractor is lifted bodily and placed on a slope
inclined at angle a to the horizontal plane. Overturning occurs when a has a value which makes
-F equal to unity unless at a smaller angle adhesion between wheels and ground is lost and
forward motion stops. The total normal to ground load W cos a is carried by the rear wheel
when stability is on the point of being lost.
*N.I.A.E. Scottish Station, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian

236
G. GILFILLAN 237

KEY TO SYMBOLS

C ~~ point of intersection of wheel p mu D/W

periphery and line normal to P =- gross propulsive or tractive force
ground through axle mid-point of wheel
when tractor is standing on a
R = wheel motion resisting force
horizontal plane
,’ : VI w
D parallel to ground component of
D.B. load resistance, i.e. D.B. V :- normal to ground component of
pllll D.B. load resistance

E I +(xJ.~-~x,)/L W =~ weight of tractor

h, moment arm of force D about C, wli wheel load during motion

11~ ~~ height of centre of gravity above W, = static wheel load
line C,C, x distance parallel to ground sur-
f’ = coefficient of rolling resistance face from C to line of action of

.fr, 3 ~-~ load change factor (defined in W,

Part I) a angle between ground and hori-
zontal planes
F fractional change in wheel load,
i.e. (W,- WJ W, p coefficient of adhesion between
wheel and ground
L -: wheel base length, i.e. distance
C&r Subscripts
Lf, L, lengths into which C& divided f and r relate, respectively, to front and
by its perpendicular through the rear wheels
tractor centre of gravity D and V relate, respectively, to relevant
LV =~: moment arm of force V about C, force

2.2. Perjbrmance
2.2.1. General
The maximum gross tractive effort of tractor driving wheels is:
Pm,,-p w,. r . (5)

The same coefficient of rolling resistance is assumed for front and rear wheels. The total
wheel motion resisting force is then:
R= R, f R,= ff W,,~+fr W,,z-:f W cos a.
The gross tractive effort must overcome the sum of the rolling, slope and load resistances there-
fore :
P=f W cos a+ W sin a t D. .I. (6)

2.2.2. Rear-wheel drive

The driving wheel load is:
wll,= wsr+hI WW-C.fiD WW Lfi” WV. . . (7)
It has been shown’ thatf,,=(D/W) (h,/L,) and frv=(V/W) (l/L,) (L,+L), therefore Eqn (7)
becomes, substituting also from Eqn (4) and putting W,,- W LJL:

W,,= W/L{h, sin a+Lf cos a+ph,+v(L,+L)j. . . (81

238 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION UPHILL

Substituting in Eqn (5) from Eqns (6) and (8):

PL, -Lf P(L--CLAd PGf~)
tan urnax=----- . (91
L -ph, (L -ph,) cos a+ (L -ph,) cos a

where amax is the inclination of the slope on which forward motion ceases due to wheelspin.

2.2.3. Four-wheel drive

The full tractor weight is assumed utilized in producing traction, i.e. front- and rear-driving
torques and hence tractive forces are assumed distributed in the ratio of wheel loads during
motion. Eqn (5) becomes:
P max‘Pf m,+P, ,,x=~(Wlf.fS WC+). . . . (10)

The front-wheel load is:

Wdf’ KY-.., ws*-ffD Wsf-ff"ws,. ...(11)

It has been shown’ that ffD=(D/ W) (h,/L,) andj&=(V/ W) (LJL,). Adding Eqns (7) and (1 l),
substituting for fD and fv and putting W,, and W,, equal respectively, to W L,/L and W LJL:
Wd,+W,,=Wcosa+V. . . . (1-a

Substituting in Eqn (10) from Eqns (6) and (12):

tana,,,= (p-f)-- P+E- . . . (13)

cosa cos a’

3. Procedure and assumptions

Tractor behaviour was studied with reference to published N.I.A.E. reports on 11 rear and 3
four-wheel British tractors tested during the last few years. The tractor having the highest
value of h,/L,, i.e. 1.26 was compared with that having the lowest value, i.e. O-70, these machines
being respectively rear and four-wheel drive. Details of the machines are given in Table 1.

TABLE I
Details of tractors

Weight(Ib) Dimensions (ft )

Tractor --__ --__-
W Wf L LY h, Lv hD
---____- ~~
Rear-wheel drive 5658 2022 6.66 4.45 2.92 2.97 1.08
1.80
Four-wheel drive 9123 5754 5.96 2.27 2.60 2.58 1.12
2.08 1.46

Front-wheel load changes were found from Eqn (1) and are plotted against slope in Fig. I for
motion with (i) no load resistance (ii) drawbar pull (iii) vertical loading on the drawbar. Slopes
on which wheelspin occurred and forward motion ceased were calculated from Eqns (9) or (13)
for coefficients of adhesion 0.3, O-5 and 0.7. Three values of front-wheel load change at which
tractor behaviour is affected were found. The “stability limit” was the value at which there was
no front-wheel load and overturning occurred. Limit A denoted the load change at which
440 lb,* the minimum necessary for steering control, remained on the front wheels. In the absence
 Stobihty
Llmlt A
Limit Et ---- 13 5lrl
%
--- 1751n I
---- 131n
ho
---2I751n
I I
S10pe.a idegrees)
Fig. I. Relutionship herween decrease in ,front-tvheel load and slope showing eflkcts of drawbar prtll (top) and normal
to ground drawbar loading (bottom) for rear-wheel (left) and four-wheel (right ) drive tractors
240 7RAC‘TOR BEHAVIOUR IIUKINC; MOTION I!t’tlIl I

of further data this figure was assumed for both tractors. Limit B denoted the load change at
which, depending on the nature of the ground, steering difficulties might be occasioned by front-
wheel load reduction to 440 lb brought about by forward displacements of the normal to ground
components of total wheel/ground reactions. A 6 in displacement on either front or rear wheels
of the four-wheel drive tractor and on the driven rear wheels of the other machine was assumed.
Load changes-O.08 and 0.15, respectively, had negligible effect on the maximum slope which
could be ascended.

4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison of tractors
Eqns (3), (9) and (13) indicate that in the absence of load resistance the behaviour of each
tractor is independent of weight and depends on its geometry and the ground conditions. The
maximum slope which each can ascend, indicated in Fig. 2, depends largely on the coefficient
of adhesion between wheel and ground and a low value severely limits their use. The four-wheel
drive machine has, especially under poor conditions, the better tractive ability. It can climb, if
u=O*3, a slope of 15” compared with the corresponding slope of 1I” for the rear-wheel drive
tractor. Neither machine can ascend, if 1-1is equal to the rather high value of 0.7, the slope on
which overturning occurs, i.e. 54” for the four- and 38” for the rear-wheel drive tractor. However,
the lower value of h,/L, possessed by the former results in this machine having the greater margin
of safety on any slope on which the tractors can move. This margin is represented by the further
load reduction which must take place before the limiting value of -1 is reached and stability
lost. Such change can be brought about, for example, by D.B. pull or reduced front-wheel
loading occasioned by transient effects. The greater static front-wheel load of the four-wheel
drive tractor results in steering control being retained on higher slopes. Steering difficulties
will be encountered with this machine, if allowance is made for forward displacement of the
normal to ground components of total wheel/ground reactions, at 48” and, if there is no such
displacement, at 50”. Corresponding slopes for the rear-wheel drive machine are 26” and 3 I”.
The change in rear-wheel load on the four-wheel drive tractor, given by Eqn (4) is the greater.
The D.B. pull which can be developed, limited by wheelspin, decreases from the maximum
sustained value on level land to zero on the maximum slope which can be climbed. On this slope
all the tractive force is required to overcome rolling and slope resistances, i.e. D in Eqn (6) is zero.
The stability of each tractor is, as shown in Fig. 2 (top). least on the maximum slope but is re-
duced by the D.B. pull available on any lesser slope from the value it would otherwise have, the
effect being least on the heavier four-wheel drive machine. The effect of alteration in D.B. height
on front-wheel load change is also least for the heavier machine and less important on the higher
slopes. The maximum slope which can be climbed is much reduced if D.B. pull is required and
is shown, in Fig. I, for D/W values of 0.1 and 0.2 and p==O.3. The heavier machine can provide
the higher D.B. pull on any slope but, due to its greater slope resistance, this advantage tends to
disappear, as shown in Fig. 2, on higher slopes. The relationship between pull and slope, given by
Eqns (9) and (13) can be written in the form D-= -m sin a+c cos a where m and c are constants.
Sin a- a and cos a- 1 over the range of interest. hence the near linearity of a curve of Fig. 2.
the gradient of which depends on tractor weight.
The effect of vertical load on the drawbar is to (i) displace the basic curve derived from Eqn
(3) upwards in the direction of the -F axis, thus reducing the margins of safety and control
on any particular slope and (ii) increase the maximum slope which can be climbed, thus making it
practicable for a tractor to be operated on one nearer to that on which overturning occurs. The
curves of Fig. I (bottom) show that the lighter rear-wheel drive tractor with its rearward centre
of gravity location is more affected. A value of V/W=O.2 reduces the slope on which this machine
overturns to 29”, which can be climbed with relatively poor wheel/ground adhesion, and reduces
Limits A and B to, respectively 21” and 16”. This value of V/W is small compared with that of
0.8 which is permissible in terms of tyre strength.
0. GILFILLAN 241

Rear wheel drive

------ho ~21 75~.

Fourwheel drive

Slope, a (degrees)

Fig. 2. Relationship between maximum D.B.pull and slope for a rear- and a fixwwheel drive tractor when forward
motion is limited by wheel.spin

4.2. Safety
The safety of a tractor on a slope depends primarily on the ratio h,/L, in Eqn (3) being small.
The rear and four-wheel drive tractors studied have values in ranges, respectively 0.91 to 1.26
and 0.70 to 0.83, if the lightest rear-wheel drive machine with a value of 0.78 is excluded. The
differences among the tractors, in terms of front-wheel load change, are therefore appreciable
on even quite low slopes. This can be seen by reference to F@. 1 in which curves for the highest
and lowest of these values are plotted. In general terms the rear is unlikely to be as safe as the
four-wheel drive configuration and can be much less safe. The scope for improvement of
each type can be examined by considering the best values of h, and L, which seem feasible.
Rear-wheel drive tractors have values of h, and L, in ranges, respectively, 25.2 in to 34.9
in and 26.7 in to 33.8 in. Association of highest and lowest values gives h,/L,=O-75. This,
however, in terms of load reduction on a 20” slope represents a load change only 0.05 below that
corresponding to the ratio 0.91. The relatively low values of h,/L, for the four-wheel drive
tractors are attributable to high values of L,, in the range 38.4 to 43.2 in, the values for h, being
in the upper half of the range for the rear-wheel drive machines. Association of the highest value
of L, for the former type with the lowest value of h, for the latter gives h,/L,=0.59. This, however,
in terms of load reduction on a 20” slope represents a load change only 0.04 below that correspond-
ing to the ratio 0.70. There does not, therefore, seem to be much scope for improving the best
of each type. However, it may be possible to reduce the values of h, at present used without
interfering unduly with ground clearance, the former being at least twice the latter which is in
the range lo-17 in.

4.3. Steering
Steering control is lost once front-wheel load has fallen below a particular value. A light tractor
is therefore likely to become difficult to steer on quite small slopes since Limits A and B, based
on static front-wheel weight, do not allow much load reduction to be incurred. The lightest rear-
242 TRACTOR BEHAVIOUR DURING MOTION LJPHILL

wheel drive machine, for example, has low value of h&L,, i.e. 0.78 but its small static front-wheel
load results in Limit A being placed at 28”.

4.4. Maximum dope

The maximum slope which can be climbed by a tractor not subjected to load resistance depends,
as shown by Eqns (9) and (13) on wheel characteristics if it is four-wheel drive and these, to-
gether with its dimensions, if it is rear-wheel drive. Dimensions do not, however, have much
effect and maximum slopes calculated for the rear-wheel drive machines are between 18”and 21’.
However, if a stipulated D.B. pull is to be provided then maximum slopes differ considerably
and, as shown in Fig. 3, depend mainly on weight, the lightest machine considered being unable
60001 J

0 c
5000 - ”
a
0
h 0
i 4000-
;P __/
2
3000

2oooo1 IO
Slope.
a max (deg)

Fig. 3. Relationship between tractor weight and slope on which movement is limited by wheelspin (D.B.pull=lOOO lb;
j.l=o.5-)

to provide the pull stipulated on level ground. The curve reflects the behaviour of that for y= 1/I+’
previously discussed.’ Minimum drawbar height was assumed and the scatter of points is attribu-
table to differences in this and other dimensions. On maximum slope the change in front-wheel
load permissible before Limit A is exceeded differs widely among the tractors and is in the range
044 to 0.60.
Ballasting has no effect on the maximum slope which can be climbed provided there is no
load resistance. This is shown by Eqns (9) and (13) which are weight independent if p==r=O.
Ballasting has small effect on the safety of a tractor developing maximum D.B. pull on slope when
pull is limited by wheelspin. Front wheel load is:
-l$=(h,/L,) sin a+( I -cos a)+p(h./L,).
The highest value of p which can be developed on a particular slope is given by equation (9) or
(13) and, if v==O,is the same for the ballasted and unballasted condition, hence any change in
-Ff is due only to small centre of gravity displacement.

5. Conclusions
The theoretical studies indicate that for motion of a tractor uphill with uniform velocity under
tractive conditions determined by wheel/ground friction concepts :
(1) The maximum slope which can be climbed is independent of weight, provided there is no
load resistance, and depends mainly on wheel/ground adhesion. Its value does not differ much
among conventional machines of the same type, i.e. four- or rear-wheel drive, and these have
quite a large margin of safety even on steep slopes, e.g. 20”. The four is appreciably better than
the rear-wheel drive machine.
(2) D.B. pull decreases the maximum slope which can be climbed and reduces safety, these
effects for a given pull depending mainly on tractor weight and differing widely among conven-
tional machines. Diminishing advantage is to be gained by increasing tractor weight.
G. GILFILLAN 243

(3) D.B. pull available is directly related to slope. Its value falls from that of maximum sus-
tained pull on level land to zero on the maximum slope which can be climbed. Safety is least
on this slope.
(4) The most dangerous loading condition, particularly on slope, is that in which normal to
ground load is imposed behind the rear axle. This can substantially reduce or eliminate the
margin of safety before stability is lost, the extent of the danger being related to the steepness
of the slope.
(5) The slope on which steering control deteriorates depends on centre of gravity position and
static front-wheel weight. The slope is reduced by forward displacement of the line of action of
the normal to ground component of wheel/ground reaction.
(6) The possible advantages for use on slopes possessed by medium weight tractors and self-
powered equipment over conventional implements which require high D.B. pull or impose high
normal to ground loading on the rear of a tractor merit examination. In addition theoretical
studies of motion down and across slope are needed to supplement the present work.

REFERENCES

’ Gilfillan, G. Tractor behaviour during motion uphill: I. Factors aficting behaviour. J. agric. Engng Res.
1970, 15, 221.
2 Meyer, H. Zur problematik des sattelanhangers fur acker-schlepper. Landtech. Forsch. 1956, 6, 99.