J. ugric. Engng Res.

(1978) 23, 169-188

Stability and Control of Two-wheel Drive Tractors

and Machinery on Sloping Ground
H. B. SPENCER*

This paper examines conditions under which the overturning stability and directional control
of two-wheeled drive tractors with mounted or towed implements are lost on sloping ground.
Theoretical methods are derived for predicting these conditions. Confirmation of the pre-
dictions by experiments on full size machines and models was obtained.
The theoretical methods are used to examine the suitability of some frequently used tractor/
implement combinations for use on sloping ground.
It is concluded that loss of wheel/ground adhesion, rather than the likelihood of overturning,
limits the slope on which most combinations can safely operate.

1. Introduction
The stability of a tractor against overturning on sloping ground has received much attention.
Overturning does occur on such land but it is unlikely that lack of inherent stability is the primary
cause of accidents.
It is the author’s contention that accidents on sloping ground are likely to originate from loss of
control of the tractor/implement combination followed by an increase in speed. On sloping
ground rear wheel adhesion is likely to be lost, especially during descent, and, with retention of
front wheel steering control, a dynamically unstable situation arises. If the machine slews an
overturn due to centrifugal force can occur due to a high rate of turn.’
This contention that overturning stems in the first instance from control loss is based on an
examination of the stability and control of machines operating on sloping ground. The exam-
ination, described here, was carried out by the construction of polar diagrams.
Polar diagrams were used by Reichmann and Daskalov to show combinations of slope angle,
p, and heading angle, a (Fig. 1) at which instability sets in. *s3v* The diagrams have hitherto been
confined to vehicles not acted on by external loads and to stability loss, which occurs when the
normal to ground reaction of one of the machine’s wheels becomes zero. This paper extends the
diagrams to cover instability resulting from external loading and also to take account of wheel/
ground adhesion being inadequate to withstand braking, side or traction forces. Inadequacy
results in the driver being unable to drive the tractor on an intended path and is referred to as a
control loss. The problems examined are restricted to those arising in steady state straight line
motion.
Control loss is dependent on the ground conditions. In the absence of sufficient data to provide
the general traction/side force/braking characteristic of tyres the work described here is based on
friction concepts. This approach is not unduly restrictive since serious control loss problems occur
with hard ground conditions for which friction concepts apply.5 The mathematical model
describing the control loss boundary, i.e. the critical combinations of slope and heading angles,
can easily be extended to cover soft ground conditions once wheel behaviour under these con-
ditions can be described. One feature of the polar diagram depicting the stability and control loss
boundaries of a machine is that, in the limit of infinite coefficient of friction, the two are identical-
This is readily seen if one considers that under these conditions control will only be lost when the
wheel normal to ground load becomes zero, which corresponds to the stability limit.
Extensive use is made of vector algebra to determine expressions for the forces acting on the
wheels.* For a vehicle, this technique allows simple formulation of the equilibrium equations for
‘ScottishInstitute of Agricultural Engineering, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, Scotland
Received 16 September 1977; accepted in revised form 8 January 1978
169
OOZI-8634/78/0601~169 $02.00/O Q 1978 The British Society for Research in Agricultural Engineering
170 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

Fig. 1. Definition of heading angle a and slope angle /I

any geometric configuration, such as a conventional two-wheel drive tractor with a pivoted front
axle beam. The equations when solved for the wheel forces, from which the prediction of stability
and control loss are made, give rise to lengthy expressions which are evaluated by a computer
program.
Theoretical predictions of control loss are confirmed by limited tests on two full size tractors and
by model experiments on a variety of tractor configurations. The agreement is good enough to
warrant use of the techniques for examining circumstances under which control of some com-
monly used tractor/implement combinations is lost.

2. Prediction of stability and control loss

The prediction of combinations of slope /I and heading angle a at which a control or stability
loss occurs requires the consideration of the force and moment equilibrium of the tractor-
implement combination. This enables wheel ground reactions to be evaluated from which
predictions can be made of the machines stability and control loss boundaries.
The methods used in determining the wheel ground reactions and criteria for the occurrence of a
stability or control loss are given in detail in Appendix A. A general configuration of a two-wheel
drive tractor with trailed implement is considered in Fig. 2. The prediction techniques make use
of a computer to evaluate the reactions at a fixed heading angle. The slope /3 is increased from
zero by small steps until a stability or control loss occurs. By varying the heading angle from 0”
to 360” complete stability and control loss diagrams can be determined.

3. Experimental results
Experimental confirmation of predicted safety limits on machines poses investigators with
problems. Tests on full scale machines to determine limits of safe performance on sloping ground
H. B. SPENCER 171

KEY TO SYMBOLS
A
B
denotes tractor wheels
C
D
BT denotes trailer wheels
CT i
Qr
br vector position of wheel/ground contact points of tractor, m
Cl
d, I
vector position of wheel/ground contact points of trailer, m
:;: I-
Pt vector position of drawbar hitch point on tractor, m
Ptl vector position of drawbar hitch point on trailer, m
Ai
Br
vector component of tractor wheel forces acting at wheel/ground contact points, kg
Ci 1
D, J
CT, vector component of trailer wheel forces acting at wheel/ground contact points, kg
Pk vector component of drawbar hitch load, kg
component of unit vector describing the hinge axis of the front axle, m
;: component of a position vector defining a point on the front axle hinge axis, m

weight of front axle inclusive of ballast carried by axle or wheels, kg

weight of tractor aft of front axle beam pivot, kg

component of the vector giving the position of the centre of gravity of the front axle, m

component of the vector giving the position of the centre of gravity of tractor excluding
front axle, m
Sl component of the vector giving the position of the centre of gravity of the complete
tractor, m
heading angle, degrees
; slope of land (% slope = 100 x tan /?), %
P coefficient of sliding friction
& permutation symbol
i,i, k subscripts taking values 1, 2, 3
G, vector component of gravity force for tractor, kg
CT, vector component of gravity force for trailer, kg

6, vector component of gravity force for front axle, kg

R rolling resistance, kg

have a high probability of severe accidents occurring involving irreparable damage to expensive
machinery or endangering life and limb of operators. Previous investigators have used only one
full scale machine in their trials.6 Some investigators have restricted testing to small scale models
in order to obtain confirmation of their mathematical models.‘* * The approach used here is to
use limited full size trials supplemented by a wide range of tests with small scale models.

3.1. Experiments on full scale tractors

By their nature stability and control loss boundaries are not easy to determine experimentally
172 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

Tractor co-ordinate system

k7;
Troller co-ordinate system
Fig. 2. Co-ordinate system for conventional tractor, with hinged front axle, and trailer

for full size machines. Full size manually controlled experiments to determine control loss can
only be conducted in safety for the direct descent case. The requirements are that the slope should
not be very long and that a long flat run out area be available at the bottom.
Trials were made with two different medium horse power tractors, X and Y, to determine the
gradient on which control was lost during direct descent of hard grass slopes. One of the tractors
was in the unballasted condition (X). The other (Y) was abnormally ballasted so that control was
lost on a relatively moderate slope. Dimensions of tractors X and Y used in these trials are given
in Appendix B. The tractors were driven down successively steeper slopes until control was lost.
Engine braking, not wheel braking, was used and when wheel/ground adhesion was insufficient
for equilibrium the tractor slid bodily downhill with the drive wheels rotating. The suddenness
of the loss of control was a feature of these failures. The driver reported that no warning signs
were available, such as noticeable wheel slip. This was confirmed from films taken during the
trials.
It would therefore appear that under hard ground conditions the increase in braking wheelslip
attributable to increase in slope under constant engine braking is so small as to be not noticeable
by the driver until wheel ground adhesion is insufficient for equilibrium and control is lost. This
observation, no noticeable slip, is confirmed by results obtained from testing automobile tyres on
hard surfaces.* In the idealized case of a pure friction model with a rigid wheel on hard ground
there is no slip at the wheel/ground contact point until the friction force necessary for equilibrium
exceeds the maximum available. The dangers inherent in this wheel behaviour are obvious.
H. B. SPENCER 173

Fig. 3. Theoretical control and stability loss diagrams for tractor X (lef) (- , control loss: - --
stability) and tractor Y (right) (- - - - -, control loss; - - -, stability). Experimentally determined control,
loss points at a = 180”; ?? , tractor X; x , tractor Y

3.2. Polar diagram representation of stability and control loss

The computed stability and control loss boundaries for the two tractors, X and Y, are shown
in Fig. 3 together with the experimentally determined control loss points for direct descent. This
information is portrayed on a polar diagram with a0 as the circumferential and /I% as the radial
co-ordinate. The use of /3 expressed as a ‘A (8% = 100 x tar@) in the polar stability diagram
follows Reichmann who showed that the stability boundaries consisted of straight lines in this
co-ordinate system which obviously eases construction of such diagrams.2 No such pronounce-
ment on the shape of the control loss boundaries is yet possible but for the sake of a common
notation the use of 8% as a measure of the slope is continued.
The stability diagrams shown consist of straight lines. A conventional rectangular Cartesian
plot gives rise to curved lines and so simplicity and ease of interpretation are achieved by using
polar diagrams.
Fig. 3 (left-hand part) shows a polar stability and control loss diagram which is typical of those
obtained for two-wheel-drive tractors. The line marked BS corresponds to a stability loss at the
front wheel B, i.e. B, = 0 (Fig. 2). The point B,/C, is the occurrence of a simultaneous stability
loss for wheels B and C, i.e. B, = C, = 0. The line B,/C, to P corresponds to the rear wheel C
stability failure, i.e. C, = 0. The extension of line B,/C, to P projected into the quadrant a = 90
to 180” corresponds to the condition C, = 0. Any further increase in /I from the values on this
extended line does not result in overturning but merely increases the velocity of descent of what is
now a freely rolling three-wheel machine. It is assumed that the differential lock is not engaged.
The extended line is the control loss boundary for an infinite coefficient of friction. As a conse-
quence of the tractor being a freely rolling body, with constant acceleration, tipping will not take
take place until the condition corresponding to a = 90”, 270” occurs, which is indicated by the
174 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

line PP’. Further details and examples of the stability of freely rolling bodies are given by
Reichman. Their stability limits are usually of only academic interest as uncontrollable condi-
tions arise before these limits are reached. This can be seen in Fig. 3 where the control loss
boundaries, for tractors X and Y, lie well within the stability boundaries. In general, control loss
boundaries are not straight lines. The points on the control loss boundary represent conditions
for which controlled straight line motion is not possible and a condition can be any one of those
given in Appendix A.
The predicted control loss boundaries for the two tractors agree reasonably well with the
experimentally determined points at a = 180”, the direct descent direction. The values of
p (0.725) and R (0.05 x tractor weight) used in the predictions were measured by considering the
equilibrium of the tractors when towed over the ground in a locked and unlocked wheel condition.
One feature these diagrams reveal is the ability of the tractors to make controlled ascents of
slopes they cannot safely descend.

3.3. Experiments using model tractors

Usually the minimum safe operating slope is in the direct descent direction, a = 180”. To
examine control loss in any other direction would require driving on slopes steeper than the
minimum safe one. This was considered too hazardous so recourse was made to models. This
procedure has the advantage that limiting conditions of control and stability can be observed in
safety.
A model was constructed which completely simulated a four- and a two-wheel drive tractor.
The model had a pivoted front axle beam and gear boxes to provide the torque equalization of the
differential on each axle. The artificial slope on which it was used consisted of a table with an

Fig. 4. Model tractor and trailer having variable geometry

H. B. SPENCER 175

aluminium surface which could be angled to the horizontal plane. The model tyres were manu-
factured from a silicone rubber which gave them a friction coefficient of the order of 0.7 on the
table. The model was about & full size but no attempt was made to represent any particular
tractor to scale although centre of gravity locations relative to ground and rear axle were geo-
metrically similar to those on full size machines. The prime purpose was to see how well the
theory of tractor behaviour could predict model behaviour.
Experiments on the tilting table were carried out by placing the model at successive heading
angles a and at each steadily increasing the slope of the table surface /I until sliding or overturning
occurred. The friction coefficient was determined by measuring /? for a = 180” with all wheels
locked, since p = tan j? at onset of sliding. The value of R was determined by towing the model
with the surface level.

3.4. Details of model

The general arrangement of the model can be seen in Fig. 4 in which it is shown representing a
four-wheel drive tractor, a special front axle with torque equalizing gear box being used to simu-
late the front axle drive differential. This differential can be disconnected when a two-wheel
drive machine has to be represented. The design is such that wheel base and track are variable
and, by the addition of weight, the centre of gravity position can be altered. A model trailer
built along similar lines was also used and is shown attached to the tractor. With the four-wheel
drive configuration no attempt was made to simulate the torque transmission across the front
axle beam pivot that occurs on some full size designs.

Fig. 5. Comparison of experimentally determined control loss conditions and theoretical predictions for the model
tractor with same dimensions but (left) high centre of gravity and (right) lower centre of gravity. 0, x , experimental
observations; -, theoretical control loss boundaries: ~ - -, theoretical stability boundaries
176 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

3.5. Results from model experiments on two-wheel drive machines

The results from some model experiments, together with the corresponding theoretical pre-
dictions, are shown in Figs 5,6 and 7. The models are of four different tractor configurations and
two different tractor/trailer combinations. The agreement is typical of that obtained between
model experiment and theory. The polar diagrams show the theoretical control and stability
boundaries for the tractors. A diagram only shows results for 06a<180” as it is the mirror
image of that for 180”<a<360”. It is easily seen that, unless unrealistic restraints are placed on
the model, tests for static stability are not usually possible since wheel adhesion is lost on slopes
with lower gradients than those on which tipping occurs.
Fig. 5 shows the experimentally determined control loss boundaries for two different con-
figurations of the model two-wheel drive tractor. The dimensions of the tractor were the same
but the centre of gravity positions were different. The left-hand part of the figure shows results
from the model with the higher position. The higher position was achieved by simply adding

Fig. 6. Comparisons of experimentally determined control loss conditions and theoretical predictions for the model
tractor having a forward centre of gravity position but (left) with a wide wheel track and (right) a narrow wheel track.
0, X, experimental observations: -, theoretical control loss boundaries; - - -, theoretical stability
boundaries

weights above the centre of gravity position. Both configurations had rearward centre of gravity
positions. It is typical, for these configurations, that the control loss and stability boundaries
coincide at a = 0”. On this heading the front wheel loads become zero on theoretical slopes of
58 % and 68 % respectively.
Fig. 6 shows experimentally determined control loss boundaries for the two-wheel drive
configuration model having a forward position of centre of gravity but with two different track
widths. The left-hand part of the diagram is for a configuration with a wide track and the right-
hand part a narrow track, otherwise dimensions are the same. With the wide track configuration
no stability problems occur at a = go”, as evidenced by the slope on which sliding occurs, i.e.
H. B. SPENCER 177

/l = 68 %, and stability loss occurs, i.e. p = 93 %. The configuration with the narrow track loses
stability at a = 90” as evidenced by the coincidence of the control loss and stability boundaries
where /3 = 50 %. For both configurations the minimum safe operating slope occurs for a = 180”.
The slight difference between the control loss boundaries for a = 0” and 180”is due to differences
in the measured value of ,u at the times the experiments were conducted. The safe descent slope,
for these models is of the order of 25 %, whereas they have the ability to climb slopes of 42-45 %.
Fig. 7 shows control loss boundaries determined experimentally for the model two-wheel drive
tractor with trailer. The tractor configuration was the same as for Fig. 5, right-hand part. The
trailer had the same weight and dimensions for each experiment but the left-hand part of Fig. 7
is for a forward position of the trailer centre of gravity and the right-hand part for a rearward

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimentally determined control loss conditions and theoretical predictions for the model
tractor and trailer. Tractor dimensions as for Fig. 5 (right). Trailer with forward centre of gravity position (left) and
rear centre of gravity position (right). ??
, x , experimental observations: -, theoretical control loss boundaries;
--- , theoretical stability boundaries

position. As can be seen from the figure the effect of the forward centre of gravity of the trailer
is to transfer load to the tractor draw bar causing a stability loss at a = O”, occasioned by both
tractor front wheels leaving the ground. The rearward movement of the trailer centre of gravity
removes the stability loss at a = 0” but it decreases the safe descent slope of the combination, at
a = 180”, from /I = 32 % to j? = 24 %, as shown in Fig. 7, right-hand part.

4. Examples of control and stability loss diagrams

Control loss boundaries obtained by observation of the model are in reasonable agreement with
those predicted in each of the 6 experiments. In general a predicted stability boundary lies well
outside a control boundary, hence the former has no physical significance and its location cannot
be confirmed by experiment. However, on slopes on which prediction indicates that overturning
178 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

in pitch or roll is as likely to happen as sliding the instability of the model was observable.
Control and stability boundaries calculations for the full size tractors (Fig. 3) have the same
forms as those established for the model (Figs 5, 6 and 7) and, in addition, the single observed
value available for each tractor agrees with that predicted. The calculating methods used to
obtain the boundaries are considered to be validated to an extent sufficient to allow them to be
used to study, at least descriptively, the effects of slope on tractor/implement combinations.
Four cases are examined, typical of tractor/implement combinations with which incidents have
been known to occur. The cases examined are a two-wheel drive tractor with
(1) a flat roller,
(2) a rear mounted bale handler,
(3) a fully mounted fertilizer spreader, and
(4) a single axle silage trailer.
In each of the cases examined ~1was taken to be 0.7 and R equal to O-05x tractor weight.
A comparison is also made between a two- and a four-wheel drive tractor.

4.1. Tractor withjlat roller

For this combination the control loss situation is critical. Fig. 8 shows the control loss bound-
aries of the tractor alone and the tractor plus a flat roller for tractor X (left-hand part) and tractor
Y (right-hand part). In addition the effect of ballasting tractor Y is shown. The addition of a flat
roller, to a tractor, markedly reduces the safe descent slope of the machine. The tractor X safe
descent slope is reduced from p = 38 % to a = 18 %, at a = 180”, by addition of a 3 ton flat
roller. Tractor Y with a 4 ton flat roller suffers a reduction from 39% to 17%. The large

Fig. 8. Control loss diagrams for tractors with rollers. Left, tractor X: - - -, tractor alone; -
tractor with 3 ton roller and no ballast. Right, tractor Y: - - - (I), tractor alone; - - - - -, tractor witi
4 ton roller and no ballast; - - - (2), tractor alone with rear wheel ballast; -, tractor with 4 ton roller
and rear wheel ballast
 H. B. SPENCER 179

reduction in a safe descent slope is due to a roller not increasing tractor rear wheel normal to
ground reaction by load transfer to the tractor draw bar, whilst increasing the overall mass to be
braked during descent. The lack of load transfer suggests that rear wheel ballast is required to
improve the safe descent slope. The effect of adding rear wheel ballast is shown in Fig. 8 (right-
hand part). On tractor Y alone it improves the safe descent slope from 39 % to 50% and on
tractor Y with the 4 ton roller 17 % to 29 %. A roller also reduces the ascent slope which can be
climbed but this effect is less of a safety hazard than the descent cases, in which a dangerous
increase of speed occurs. The magnitudes of the reduction in an ascent case, a = 0”, are easily
read off Fig. 8. At heading angles other than a = 0” or 180” the situation improves and steeper
slopes can be negotiated. For safety, however, operation should be restricted to slopes less than
the minimum safe operating slope.

4.2. Tractor with rear mounted bale handler

Tractor Y with this implement behaves in a manner that is characteristic of tractors with heavy
fully mounted loads. Fig. 9 (left-hand part) shows the control loss boundary of tractor Y
unloaded and unballasted together with (right-hand part) that of the tractor with standard front
ballast carrying (1) a 21 bale and (2) a 42 bale, rear mounted bale handler. As can be seen from
the diagram the 42 bale handler is far too large for this tractor, it gives poor longitudinal stability,
with p = 10% at a = 0”. The control loss diagram for this configuration, for O”<a<W, is
practically indistinguishable from the stability diagram. The situation improves markedly for
the 21 bale handler, the minimum safe operating slope for this configuration being fi = 38 % at a
heading angle of a = 150”. One further characteristic of the machine is the stability failure at
u = 90” for both the 21 and 42 bale loading conditions.

Fig. 9. Tractor Y with fully mounted bale handler. Left, control loss diagram for tractor alone; right, control loss
diagram with front end ballast and loaded with 42 bales (- - ---), control loss diagram for 21 bale load
(- - - - - -) and stability boundary where different from control loss boundary (-)
180 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

4.3. Tractor withfully mountedfertilizer spreader

The stability (left-hand part) and control loss boundaries (right-hand part) for tractor Y with a
typical spreader are shown in Fig. 10. The minimum safe operating slope is determined by the
control loss boundary. For the spreader empty this is 39 y0 at a = 150”, whereas fully laden it is
38% at a = 30”. One characteristic that is especially dangerous is the reduction in safe direct
descent slope, a = 180” between empty and full. The safe descent slope when full is 49% and
when empty 41%. This change in safe descent slope is due to the forward movement of the centre
of gravity position during emptying. One danger this emphasizes is that during the spreading
operation the safe descent slope is reducing all the time and a slope that was safely descended with
the spreader fully loaded may be unsafe when it is empty. This case illustrates the dangers
involved in using a machine whose characteristics change during operation.

a= 9o” : 90”

Fig. 10. Tractor Y with fully mounted fertilizer spreader. L.ef, stability boundaries; right, control loss boundaries;
- - -, fully laden spreader: -, empty spreader

4.4. Tractor with towed single axle trailer

Fig. 11 shows the static stability boundary of tractor Y with a single axle trailer and that for
the trailer alone. Also shown is the control loss boundary for the tractor/trailer combination. In
this instance the diagram from a = 0” to 360” is shown as an example of a complete diagram.
This diagram relates to the case met in practice of a nearly fully loaded silage trailer, e.g. 70 %
of volume filled. It shows the minimum safe operating slope to be 27 % at a = 15”. 1The
safe descent slope a = 180” is only slightly greater at 29%. The feature of the diagram is the
indication of a trailer stability loss when travelling across slope, i.e. on heading a = 90, 270”.
This is indicated by the intersection of the trailer stability boundary and the control loss bound-
ary. This failure boundary j3 = 50% will only be of consequence if attempts are made to
negotiate slopes steeper than the minimum safe operating slope. The diagram illustrates how
operating boundaries are found for tractor-trailed implement combinations.
H. B. SPENCER 181

Fig. 11. Tractor with 70% full siiage trailer. --“- -, stability boundary of tractor with trailer:
---- .-- , stability boundary of trailer; -, control loss boundary of tractor with trailer

Fig. 12. Experimental demonstration of dtyerence be#ween two-wheel drive andfour-wheel drive configurations. Left:
0, four-wheel drive tractor alone; IJ, tractor with trailer. Right: x , two-wheel drive tractor alone; + , tractor with trailer
182 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

4.5. Comparison of a two- and a four-wheel drive tractor

A comparison of the control boundary for a two-wheel drive tractor with that for the machine
differing only in that the front wheels are driven (Fig. 12) shows the descent of slopes to be much
safer with the four-wheel drive arrangement. The comparison was made by model experiments.
Prediction of control and stability boundaries was not attempted because of the difficulty of
proportioning engine torque between front and rear wheels. A tractor has no differential to
equalize the distribution. The two- and the four-wheel drive versions of the model were tested
with and without the model trailer that was kept identical for each test. The left-hand part of
Fig. 12 shows the control loss boundaries of the four-wheel drive tractor with and without the
trailer. The right-hand part shows the same for the two-wheel drive machine. The four-wheel
drive tractor increases the safe descent slope, a = 180”) from p = 42 % to 68 % for the tractors
alone and from /I = 37 % to 50 % for the tractors with trailer. The coincidence of the control loss
boundaries for both tractors with trailers for the direct ascent, a = O”, is indicative of the
condition being a stability loss as identical two- and four-wheel drive tractors cannot have the
same adhesion limited ascent slope at a = 0”. The superior safety characteristics of the four-
wheel drive arrangement demonstrated by the experimental results is obtained by utilizing the
retarding potential of the front wheels so enabling steeper slopes to be descended.

5. Conclusions
A tractor will lose stability and start to overturn when the normal to ground component of a
wheel load becomes zero. The driver will also lose control when the wheel/ground adhesion is
insufficient for equilibrium, in the ground plane, to be maintained. The combinations of slope
and direction of travel which result in these occurrences can be calculated by vector mechanics
and the boundaries of safe operation represented by polar diagrams. The validity of the method,
applied to a two-wheeled tractor, was checked, in the first instance, by reference to downhill
slopes on which rear wheel adhesion was insufficient for equilibrium for two different tractors.
A more extensive comparison was made by calculating the complete control loss boundaries for
6 different model tractor configurations and comparing these with boundaries obtained by
experiment. Operation on hard ground, to which friction concepts apply, was assumed through-
out. Reasonable agreement between predicted and observed results was obtained.
The methods were used to examine the behaviour on slopes of four widely used tractor and
implement combinations. For all the cases examined a control loss limited the slope on which
operation was safe, except for the case of the 42 bale handler which so grossly overloaded the
tractor that loss of stability occurred on very low slopes.
Operation on slopes steeper than the minimum safe operating slope is possible by travel along
the contour, e.g. a = go”, 270”. For this direction of travel stability loss may occur before
control loss particularly with equipment having a high centre of gravity, e.g. a nearly full silage
trailer. Turning from the direction a = 90” or 270” to a downhill direction can be a dangerous
manoeuvre. In general the safe descent slope decreases between a = 90”, 270” and a = 180
with the minimum value occurring at a = 180”. This reduction can be very large for some tractor
implement combinations of which a tractor with a heavy roller is a common example.
The stability boundaries computed take no account of rough ground so it is to be expected that
the actual boundaries will occur at smaller values of /I than are indicated in the diagrams.
Other risks identified with a two-wheel drive tractor are:
(a) the ability to climb slopes it cannot safely descend, and
(b) the decrease in the safe descent slope with a fully mounted fertilizer spreader as emptying
proceeds.
Limited experiments with a model four-wheel drive tractor demonstrated their capability of
operating on steeper slopes than those of comparable two-wheel drive machines.
H‘. B. SPENCER 183

REFERENCES

Ellis, J. R. Vehicle Dynamics. London: Business Books Ltd., 1969

Reichmann, E. Hangstabilitcit. landwirtschaftlicher Fahrzeuge. ForschungsberichtederBundesversuchs-
und Prufungsanstolt fur Iandwirtschaftliche Maschinen und Gerate, Wieselburg, Austria, November
1972
Spencer, H. B. Tractor and implement stability on slopes. Scottish Inst. Agric. Engng, Dept. Note
SIN/193, August, 1975 (unpubl.)
DaskaIov, A. On the dynamic stability of tractors against overturning. Selskostop. Tekh., 1971 8 5
(N.I.A.E. Translation 330)
Gilfillan, G.; Spencer H. B. A hazard associated with the braking of two-wheel drive tractors on sloping
land. Scottish Inst. Agric. Engng, Dept. Note, SIN/lSO, January 1975 (unpubl.)
Smith, D. W.; Liljedahl, J. B. Simulation of the rearward overturning behaviour of a farm tractor.
Paper presented at the Midwestern Simulation Council, Moline, Ill., 2 February, 1969
Davis, C. D.; Rebkugler, G. E. Agricultural wheel-tractor overturns-Part II. Mathematical model
verifications by scale model study. Trans. A.S.A.E., 1974 484492
KaIoyanov, A.; Stoichev, S.; Sredkov, D. On the static stability of wheeled tractors. Selskostop. Tekh.
(Farm Machinery), 1974 11(7) 45-51
Holmes, J. E. Braking force/braking slip measurements over a range of conditions between 0% and
100% sbp. Ministry of Transport Road Research Laboratory Report LR 292, August 1970

Appendix A
Methods of determining wheel loads
A. 1. Wheel loads on tractor with no external imposed loads
The method of determining the wheel loads on a two-wheel drive tractor not acted upon by
external loads (Fig. 2) is given by Reichmann .2 His expressions for the wheel loads are the basis
of the work reported and are tabulated here for reference.
The notation for wheel loads and the tractor geometry used in this paper is identical to that
used by Reichmann. The co-ordinates are a body fixed rectangular Cartesian system with the
three axes denoted by the numbers 1, 2 and 3 (Fig. 2). Forces are denoted by capital letters, i.e.
the vector force on wheel A is denoted by Al where the three components of the force are AI, A,,
A,. Position vectors are denoted by lower case letters, i.e. the position of the wheel-ground
contact point for wheel A is a, (i = 1, 2, 3).

A, = (a2_d2) &lei (bj_a,) {hkei (bj-li)(sk-dk)

- * &fjlei (aj- II) (cl-4W2

1
‘3 = (d2_dz) Et,9el (d,_cj) {[‘%ikel Wr-~,) bkmak)

- ii Qjkei (aj- lj) [(dk- ak) + (Ck-ak)llG2

+(d2-d %kef (~,-~j)
ck-(s2-a2) et V.,-lj) Gk},
184 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

{h,k bj-$) Gk- 4 (G-d,) GA

Assuming that there is no rolling resistance and that the differential lock is not engaged:
A,=B,=O,Cz=D,= -$G,.
On the assumption that Al, B,, Cl and D1 are directly proportional to the normal loads on the
wheels, then
B = (Al+Bl)B
’ (A,+B,) ”
C = (C,+Ddc D = (CI+DI)D
’ (C*+D,) ” ’ (C,+ D3) ”
To determine the effect of a trailer or implement on the stability and control of the tractor the
additional wheel loads due to a generalized loading Pk of the tractor at a point pk needs to be
derived.

A.2. Wheel loads due to generalized loud Pk

Due to the linearity of the equilibrium equations giving the wheel forces, the effect of a general
force Pk can be found by simply adding the wheel forces due to Pk alone to those of the tractor
without external imposed loading.
The system of forces requiring solution is shown in Fig. 2 with

G1=O,&=O,;il=O.
The equation of force equilibrium is
Ai+B1+Ci+D1+Pt = 0.
Moment equilibrium is expressed by
a&,-‘& + si,kbj& + ‘%,k@k + QkdJDk + EtJkhPk = 0.

The moment equation of the rear body about the hinge is

&llkel (Cj - II> Ck + &JkeI 6-4-b) Dk + &iJkel (Pj - 1~) pk = 0.

Solution of the above equations for the wheel loads due to PI, follows that of Reichmann.a
After manipulations solutions for the wheel loads are
H. B. SPENCER 185

A3= @z-c,) 1P3 (C2-P2)+~2P3~-~3~

C, = Dz = -0.5 Pz, A, = B, = 0.
C, = D, as a consequence of the action of the differential unit.

(A,+BJ =
(d,!a,)
-
1P,(P,--d,)+P, (qy -P2Pl},

A, = (A + 4) A B = (Al+B,lB
(A,+B,) 3’ ’ (A3+B3) 3’

(Cl+ D3 =
2
&-a3),
&) ($,+d,)-PA+&
D, = e2 (c:_dl) ieel b2-l2) p3-p2 (P3-l3)1

+ e2 G-5 - &I p3 -PI (p3 - Ml

-e3[(P1-1,)P,-P,(p,-1,)1
+ (A,+ B3+P3)PI (c2- 12)--e2h- 01
+;[e,(c,+d,-21,)+e,(2Z3)]

-(C,+DJ [e2(c,-~3)-e3(c2-~2)l,
c3 = -P,-A3-B,-D,,

c = (c,+DJc D = (c,+WD
’ (C,+D,) 3’ ’ (C,fD,) 3’
To determine the total wheel forces the above forces due to P, are simply added to those for the
tractor without external imposed loading.

A.3. Drawbar loads due to trailer

In order to solve the equations of the previous section it is required to know the components
of Pk acting at the location pk.
Considering the equilibrium of the trailer (Fig. 2)
P,+BT,+CT,+GT, = 0,
erjrpt,Pk+ ellkbt,BTk+ q,kct,CTk+ e,,kst,GTk = 0.
From these two equations we get
&ijk(bt, - Ct,) (ptj - Ctj) Pk + &Jk (bt, - Ct,) (St,- Ct,) GT, = 0. . ..(l)
Neglecting rolling resistance
BT, = CT, = 0.
For conventional trailers bt, = ctg, bt, = ct,. Thus expansion of Eqn (1) gives values of P,.
Substitution of the values Pk into the equations derived in section A.2 enables one to find expres-
sions for the wheel forces, N,, N = A, B, C, D, when the forces due to Pk are added to those due
to gravity. The expressions are lengthy and computer programs have been written to evaluate the
forces.
186 STABILITY AND CONTROL ON SLOPING GROUND

A.4. Evaluation of stability and control boundaries

Stability loss occurs when the normal to ground force betweenawheelandthegroundvanishes.
The values of the wheel forces N,, N = A, B, C, D are used to determine the stability loss points
defined by
N3 = 0.
Control loss occurs when
(i) steering control is lost,
(ii) rear wheel side slip occurs,
(iii) the trailer slides sideways, and
(iv) uncontrolled downslope acceleration occurs or uphill travel ceases.
When steering control is lost the front wheels are no longer capable of producing the side force
necessary for directional equilibrium of the tractor. The condition for steering control loss is

Similarly, rear wheel side slip occurs when

where p1 is the effective friction coefficient in direction 1. The coefficient is evaluated using
friction circle c0ncepts.l Sideways slide of a trailer occurs when
(BT,+CT,)3p(BT,+CT,).
Uncontrolled down slope acceleration occurs when wheel ground adhesion is insufficient at
one of the rear wheels for maintenance of equilibrium in the co-ordinate direction 2 during an
engine braked descent. Account must be taken of the rolling resistance, R, for this control loss
situation. This resistance represents losses occurring during tyre rolling and motion of the
differential unit during such control loss situations. Fig. 13 shows diagrammatically the situation

Backward spinning wheel

/7

Fig. 13. Criteria of failure. Control loss with engine braking

occurring during such a control loss, with down slope acceleration, under engine braking. Due
to the action of the differential, the wheel on which the adhesion is insufficient starts to rotate
backwards. If D is the rolling wheel and C the wheel on which there is insufficient adhesion then,
equating work done,
G,dx = Rdx+ 2puadxC,.
Thus the criteria for control loss on wheel C is
G&R+2p&
H. B. SPENCER 187

Similarly, if D is the wheel with insufficient adhesion

G,>R+~/L,D~.
Similar arguments apply to uphill travel but the machine is unlikely to slide backwards down-
hill. Control loss is likely to be characterized by forward motion ceasing as a drive wheel spins.
A computer program has been developed to determine the combinations of a and /? at which a
control or stability loss occurs. It considers the machine at a fixed heading angle a and increases
p in small increments until one of the loss criteria is encountered. To find conditions for control
loss the value of p used is that for the ground conditions being studied. To evaluate a stability
point the program is re-run with ,U = 106, which effectively represents an infinite coefficient of
friction. By taking heading angles between 0” and 360” the complete polar diagram can be
constructed. For economy most of the diagrams in this paper are only reproduced for heading
angles O”<a~180” as the symmetry of most machinery combinations produces polar diagrams
symmetrical about the a = O”, 180” line. The minimum value of B, on these diagrams, at what-
ever heading angle this occurs, is called the minimum safe operating slope.
For soft soils the failure conditions would have to be written in a form describing the tyre/soil
failure mechanics

Fig. 14. Schematic diagram of tractor showing disposition of ballast and mounted implements

Appendix B
Details of tractor, implements and ballast used in the stability and control loss examples
A schematic diagram of a two-wheel drive tractor indicating the disposition of loads is shown
in Fig. Z4. Dimensions and values of loads are given in Table 1.
W = weight of body,
D = distance of centre of gravity of body in horizontal plane from rear axle centre line, and
H = height of centre of gravity of body from ground measured normal to ground plane.
Subscripts refer to body, e.g. W, = weight of body 1.

Subscript dejinitions
1 = tractor alone without ballast,
2 = mounted implement, unloaded e.g. bale handler unloaded or for trailed implement centre
of gravity position aft of hitch point in a horizontal plane,
3 = mounted implement, loaded e.g. bale handler loaded or for trailed implements position of
wheels or rollers aft of hitch point,
4 = ballast on front wheels,
5 = ballast mounted on frame at front of tractor, and
6 = rear wheel ballast consisting of weights and water.
 TABLE I
-
WI Dl HI W, Wa De 08 HZ W4 D4 DS Ha W, HB
--
Tractor X* 2245 0.722 0.773 1.925
Tractor Yt 2425 0.739 0.841 195 2.083 (MO6 255 2.083 1.052 2677 0.840
Balehandler (21 bales)* 152.5 572 0.965 1.219 1.613 2.133
Balehandler (42 bales)* 305 1144 0.94 1.702 1.613 2.133
Tractor Y !j 3400 1.346 0.840 2.083
Fertilizer spreader (empty) 136 1.226 0.72
Fertilizer spreader (full) 543 1.226 1.177
3 ton roller 3000 2.0 20 0.38
4 ton roller 4000 2.0 2.0 0.38
Silage trailer 6245 3.9 4.7 1641
- -
*Hitchpointtakento be 0.641 m behind rear axle and 0.387m above ground
tHitch point taken to be 0.775 m behind rear axle and 0464 m above ground
tBaIeweiahtsof 27.2 kg (60 lb): from N.I.A.E. Test Report No. RT 445(1965)
$Abnormally ballasted to produce a forward centre of gravity position
All dimensions in m, and weights in kg