Load and Inflation Pressure Effects on Tires
E. C. Burt, A. C. Bailey
MEMBER
ASAE
ABSTRACT
RACTIVE efficiency was experimentally optimized
T for a radial-ply tractor tire. Results show that tractive
efficiency can be significantly improved by selecting ap-
propriate levels of inflation pressure and dynamic load
for a particular soil condition. The potential gains in
tractive efficiency which could result from the applica-
tion of automatic controls to field traction situations are
explored.
INTRODUCTION
Energy efficiency has become an increasingly impor-
tant consideration in American agriculture. National
goals for energy conservation as well as economic pres-
sures on the farmer have created the need for a reassess-
ment of some agricultural systems from the perspective
of energy availability and costs. Changes in the economy
together with advancements in technology have caused
systems which offered no economic advantage in the past
to now be economically desirable.
Young and Schafer (1977) discussed the application of
automatic controls to the traction system. They empha-
sized that the transducers, control elements, and micro-
computer technology are currently available to provide
control of dynamic load and inflation pressure of existing
pneumatic tires. Control of these variables perhaps could
be utilized to optimize tractive performance.
The effects of inflation pressure and dynamic load on
tire performance have been recognized for many years.
McKibben and Davidson (1940) reported that inflation
pressure was one of the most important factors affecting
motion resistance of unpowered pneumatic tires.
Kliefoth (1966) and Zombori (1967) investigated the ef-
fects of inflation pressure on the performance of bias-ply
tractor tires. Results from these studies showed that a de-
crease in inflation presure resulted in an increase in
drawbar pull at constant travel reduction. Zombori's re-
sults showed that at a constant drawbar pull a reduction
in inflation pressure resulted in a significant reduction in
travel reduction, which caused a significant increase in
tractive efficiency.
Czako (1974) discussed the uses of central inflation
pressure systems on military vehicles throughout the
world. He reported results of drawbar pull tests which
showed increases in drawbar pull on loam soil of up to 20
Article was submitted for publication in October 1981; reviewed and
approved for publication by the Power and Machinery Division of
ASAE in February 1982. Presented as ASAE Paper No. 81-1537.
Terminology used in this paper is defined in ASAE Standard S296.2
The authors are: E. C. BURT and A. C. BAILEY, Agricultural
Engineers, National Tillage Machinery Laboratory, USDA-ARS,
Auburn, AL.
Acknowledgment: The authors express their appreciation to
Mr. J. M. Hooper, B. F. Goodrich Company, for his advice and
technical contribution to this study.
1982—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE
MEMBER
ASAE
percent when the inflation pressure was reduced from
240 to 103 kPa. He concluded that the central inflation
pressure system on military vehicles offered a definite in-
crease in mobility with a relatively small increase in vehi-
cle complexity.
With modern microcomputer and control technology,
it seems that feasible systems could be developed which
would optimize a performance parameter of pneumatic
tires, such as tractive efficiency, by automatically con-
trolling dynamic load and inflation pressure. Algorithms
could be developed which would allow the determination
of optimum tractive efficiency by evaluating tractive effi-
ciency over a range of dynamic load and inflation pres-
sure values and then selecting the most efficient
operating condition. This optimum condition would be
applicable to a particular soil condition and drawbar
load. Changes in either the soil condition or the drawbar
load would require re-evaluation of the operating condi-
tion. The possibilities for such a concept prompted us to
conduct an investigation to determine the interactive ef-
fects of dynamic load, inflation pressure, and soil condi-
tions on the performance of a radial-ply tractor tire.
PROCEDURES
The tire used in this study was a 20.8 R-38, 8-ply-
rating tire with R-l tread and radial-ply construction,
furnished by B. F. Goodrich Company.* A radial-ply tire
was selected because of its reported ability to resist rim
slippage and its ability to operate at high torque and high
tire deflection without sidewall buckling.
All tests were conducted in the soil bins at the National
Tillage Machinery Laboratory, using the single-wheel
tester described by Burt et al. (1980). The single-wheel
tire tester is a soil-bin vehicle with the capability of
measuring the variables needed to determine net trac-
tion, travel reduction, dynamic load, inflation pressure,
and tractive efficiency.
The rolling radius of the tire was determined on a rigid
surface at net traction equals zero. To determine the roll-
ing radius for this study, the tire was run on concrete at
zero net traction over a range of dynamic loads and infla-
tion pressures. The data obtained were used to define
rolling radius as a function of dynamic load and inflation
pressure. Later, when the tire was operated on soil, this
rolling radius function was used in travel reduction cal-
culations.
Soil bins containing Davidson clay loam and Congaree
clay loam were chosen for the study. Each soil was used
twice, once with a loose and once with a compacted sur-
face condition. All soils and conditions had a compacted
layer between 300 and 400 mm below the surface.
*Use of a company or product name by USDA does not imply ap-
proval or recommendation of the product to the exclusion of others
which may also be suitable.
881
 TABLE 1. SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

Mean moisture Mean bulk density,

Cone index, kN/m content, % at g/cm3
Soil at depths of depths of at depths of
Soil Surface
type condition code 30 mm 250 mm 30 mm 250 mm 30 mm 250 mm
Congaree Compacted 4-1 250 560 16.3 18.3 1.23 1.33
Congaree Uncompacted 4-2 100 400 15.5 19.4 1.08 1.29
Davidson Compacted 6-1 650 2100 15.8 19.1 1.29 1.37
Davidson Uncompacted 6-2 75 450 16.0 19.3 1.10 1.44

Characteristics of the test soils are presented in Table 1.
Two types of tests were conducted in this study. In one
test, the dynamic load was continually and slowly in-
creased from zero to a value which showed obvious, ex-
cessive tire deflection. During each of these individual
tests, both travel reduction and inflation pressure were
held constant. These varying dynamic load tests were run
at nominal inflation pressures of 28, 55, 83, and 110 kPa
(4, 8, 12, and 16 psi) at both 10 and 20 percent travel
reduction on each soil type and condition. The second
type of test was run by slowly and continuously increas-
ing the inflation pressure in the test tire during a test
run. Dynamic load was held constant at either 16 or 28
kN (3597 and 6295 lbs) during these runs. Travel reduc-
tion was constant at nominal values of either 10 or 20
percent. The minimum inflation pressure at the start of
each test was such that tire deflection was reasonably
high. When the test ended at maximum inflation pres-
sure, the dynamic load was either 60 or 100 percent of
Tire and Rim Association rated static load.
The authors recognize that some of the tire loads and
inflation pressures used in this study are well beyond the
limits recommended by the Tire and Rim Association.
These tests were run under highly controlled conditions
to explore the potential of a concept, and results should
not be taken as a recommendation that the load limits
established by the Tire and Rim Association be ignored.
RESULTS
Fig. 1, (a) and (b), shows typical curves of net traction
(NT) expressed as a function of dynamic load (DL) for 10
and 20 percent travel reduction (TR), respectively. These
results are from tests run on Congaree clay loam with a
loose surface condition (soil code 4-2). The effect of infla-
tion pressure (IPr) on the NT is shown by the differences
between the four constant IPr curves on each plot. While
INFLATION
(a) (b)
25 PRESSURE
r
28 kPa
55
20 83
110
all soils and conditions displayed the general trend of
higher NT at lower IPr, the relative differences in NT
caused by IPr were not consistent. For example, on un-
compacted Davidson clay, the 28- and 55-kPa curves
were reasonably close together. The 82 and 110 kPa
curves were also grouped together. The difference be-
tween the two groups was similar to the total data range
shown in Fig. 1(a). By contrast on the compacted David-
son soil, the 55- and 83-kPa curves at 20 percent TR were
grouped together. These results show that soil condition
has an important effect on the NT, IPr, DL relationship.
Fig. 1, (c) and (d), shows the effect of DL on tractive
efficiency (TE) at four levels of IPr. These curves show
relatively small differences in TE resulting from changes
in either DL or IPr. These differences are typical of those
found in each of the soil conditions tested.
Fig. 2 shows results from a test in which the IPr was
continuously varied over a range while DL and TR were
held nominally constant. These results were from a test
on Congaree clay loam with a loose surface condition
(same soil condition as shown in Fig. 1). In general, the
trend for NT shown in Fig. 2(a) is representative of
trends found for all soil conditions tested. The trend for
TE to increase with decreasing IPr, as shown in
Fig. 2(b), is representative for tests run on loose surface
soils. On soils with a compacted surface, the IPr had a
somewhat greater effect on TE than is shown in
Fig. 2(b).
The effect of DL on TE when IPr and TR are constant,
as well as the effect of IPr on TE when DL and TR are
constant, is important but relatively small. However,
changes in either DL or IPr at constant TR cause im-
10 r
z
z
o
H-
o
<
* 0
1.0

Slg 0.8
o o
cr £ 0.6

0.0 JL_ _L_

50 100 150
DYNAMIC LOAD. kN DYNAMIC LOAD. kN
I N F L A T I O N P R E S S U R E , kPa
FIG. 1 Effects of dynamic load, inflation pressure, and travel reduction
on net traction and tractive efficiency (soil 4-2). (NTML Photo No. FIG. 2 Effects of inflation pressure on net traction and tractive efficien-
P10,319) cy (soil 4-2, TR = 10 percent). (NTML Photo No. P10,315e).

882 TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1982

 TABLE 2. TRACTIVE EFFICIENCY RESULTING FROM SELECTED VALUES
OF TRAVEL REDUCTION, INFLATION PRESSURE, AND DYNAMIC LOAD

Net Travel Inflation Dynamic Net Travel Inflation Dynamic

traction, reduction, pressure, load, SLR,* Tractive traction, reduction, pressure, load, SLR,* Tractive
kN % kPa kN % efficiency kN % kPa kN % efficiency
4-2 Soil — Uncompacted surface 6-2 Soil — Uncompacted surface
10 10.1 35.0 18.4 128 0.72 10 9.8 35.5 19.2 134 0.73
10 9.0 63.0 21.2 104 0.73 10 9.4 60.0 20.0 101 0.74
10 8.6 75.0 22.0 98 0.74 10 9.3 82.0 22.8 95 0.72
10 9.4 118.0 23.7 80 0.71 10 9.8 118.0 23.4 79 0.70
10 18.4 34.0 16.4 115 0.68 10 18.5 36.8 18.6 127 0.66
10 18.6 63.0 18.3 90 0.66 10 19.0 61.0 19.7 98 0.66
10 17.9 73.0 19.4 87 0.66 10 18.4 79.0 20.0 86 0.66
10 19.0 119.0 20.0 68 0.64 10 17.9 120.0 21.4 72 0.65
14 10.5 38.0 24.6 148 0.72 13 10.4 38.0 24.8 164 0.72
14 9.4 65.0 28.0 135 0.74 13 9.5 61.0 25.0 125 0.75
14 8.4 77.0 29.6 129 0.75 13 9.2 84.0 28.8 119 0.74
14 9.5 119.0 32.2 109 0.73 13 10.2 119.0 29.6 100 0.71
14 18.1 38.0 23.0 150 0.68 13 18.6 39.0 23.4 152 0.67
14 18.4 65.0 25.1 121 0.67 13 19.0 63.0 24.9 122 0.67
14 17.8 75.0 26.4 117 0.67 13 18.6 80.0 25.4 108 0.66
14 19.5 121.0 28.2 94 0.65 13 18.2 123.0 27.2 90 0.66
18 9.6 68.0 34.8 163 0.74 18 9.7 65.0 34.0 164 0.74
18 8.2 80.0 36.6 154 0.76 18 9.0 87.0 37.7 153 0.75
18 9.6 122.0 39.8 132 0.73 18 10.4 122.0 38.7 129 0.72
18 18.4 68.0 31.8 149 0.67 18 19.5 67.0 32.6 157 0.66
18 17.6 78.0 33.3 144 0.68 18 19.0 83.0 34.2 143 0.66
18 19.5 123.0 37.5 124 0.69 18 18.6 128.0 35.8 116 0.66

4-1 Soil — Compacted surface 6-1 Soil — Compacted surface

9 9.5 32.5 20.6 149 0.74 8 9.8 31.0 16.6 125 0.76
9 9.0 60.0 23.0 116 0.75 8 9.6 56.0 19.0 100 0.73
9 9.4 73.0 24.4 110 0.75 8 9.6 70.0 19.6 90 0.74
9 9.2 112.0 24.2 85 0.75 8 11.0 113.0 21.8 76 0.70
9 18.0 28.0 18.5 147 0.69 8 18.5 33.0 15.0 108 0.68
9 18.2 57.0 20.5 106 0.67 8 18.6 55.0 15.2 81 0.67
9 18.3 71.0 20.5 94 0.65 8 18.5 69.0 15.6 73 0.68
9 18.7 111.0 21.5 76 0.65 8 18.4 112.0 16.3 57 0.66
11 9.3 35.0 25.0 174 0.73 13 9.6 34.0 24.0 168 0.74
11 8.1 62.0 28.0 138 0.75 13 9.4 59.0 27.3 139 0.74
11 9.2 74.0 28.5 123 0.75 13 9.2 84.0 28.8 133 0.74
11 9.2 114.0 29.0 100 0.75 13 10.2 119.0 29.6 113 0.71
11 18.0 29.5 21.6 165 0.69 13 18.6 39.0 23.4 155 0.67
11 18.2 58.0 24.0 123 0.67 13 19.0 63.0 24.9 123 0.67
11 18.2 72.0 24.0 109 0.66 13 18.6 80.0 25.4 110 0.66
11 18.6 111.0 25.4 89 0.66 13 18.2 123.0 27.2 91 0.66
16 6.6 66.0 36.8 176 0.76 16 9.2 60.0 31.6 159 0.74
16 8.6 77.0 37.2 162 0.76 16 9.0 75.0 34.6 152 0.74
16 9.1 116.0 39.5 135 0.76 16 8.9 117.0 39.3 134 0.73
16 18.0 61.0 31.2 156 0.68 16 18.2 60.0 28.4 143 0.69
16 17.8 75.0 32.3 143 0.67 16 18.2 73.0 28.4 128 0.69
16 18.4 114.0 34.0 118 0.67 16 18.2 115.0 31.5 109 0.68

* SLR = Static load ratio

portant changes in NT. In an actual field situation where
a tractor is performing a given operation, an increase in
NT can be used to effect an important change in the TR
level. At a particular soil condition and implement set-
ting, a particular level of NT is required. If an increase in
NT from the tires resulting from the selection of different
DL and IPr values becomes available, the increased trac-
tion capability will result in reduced TR. This reduction
may result in a corresponding increase in TE. This effect
can be seen in Fig. 1. For purposes of illustration, as-
sume that the implement draft requirement will be 14 kN
per tire and that the engine throttle will be adjusted to
maintain constant forward velocity. As shown by the
14-kN line drawn on the NT curves of Fig. 1, this value of
NT can be reached at either 10 or 20 percent TR. At a
NT of 14 kN, there are four combinations of DL and IPr
that result in tire operation at 20 percent TR and four
combinations that result in tire operation at 10 percent
TR. The TE for each combination can also be determin-
ed from Fig. 1. Table 2 (4-2 soil) shows the TR, IPr, DL,
and TE values for each of these combinations at a NT of
14 kN as well as results from similar analyses at NT
values of 10 and 18 kN. Results from Table 2 at a NT of
14 kN are presented graphically in Fig. 3. Table 2 and
Fig. 3 show that, on this particular soil condition, selec-
tion of the appropriate levels of DL and IPr can cause the
TE to range from 0.65 to 0.75.
This procedure was used on data from each of the re-
maining soil conditions, and the results are presented in
Table 2. The range of the differences in efficiency be-
tween the least efficient and the most efficient conditions
was 0.06 to 0.10. The magnitude of the range was depen-
dent on the soil type and condition.
In order to provide an indication of the relationship
between the actual tire loads used in this experiment and
the Tire and Rim Association load ratings, we defined a
term called static load ratio (SLR) as
Actual DL
SLR = x 100.
LR
The LR (load reference) value used in this equation was
from the relationship used by the Tire and Rim Associa-

1982—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 883


FIG. 3 Effects of inflation pressure and dynamic load on travel reduc-
tion and tractive efficiency (soil 4-2). (NTML Photo No. P10,315b).
tion to determine load ratings at a given IPr. SLR is
equivalent to percent of rated load from the Tire and
Rim Association ratings only within the inflation pres-
sure range given in the Tire and Rim Association Year-
book. SLR values for each actual DL and IPr condition
are shown in Table 2. The maximum TE for each of the
NT values and soil conditions presented in Table 2 oc-
curred at SLR values of 154 or less. Zoz (1970) states
that, for integral mounted implements, the load transfer
to the rear tractor wheels is typically 0.65 times drawbar
pull. If the tires on a tractor are loaded to 100 percent of
Tire and Rim Association rated static load and operated
in traction conditions such that the tires reach Tire and
Rim Association tangential pull values, then the load
transfer (0.65 x tangential pull) will cause the dynamic
load to be greater than 154 percent of the rated static
load. Therefore, a SLR value of 154 is perhaps not un-
usually high since the LR value is also based on static
rather than dynamic load.
The IPr at the maximum TE values were in most cases
below values listed in the Tire and Rim Association Year-
book. Although the SLR values indicate that the load on
the tire at these IPr values was not unusually high, there
could be a concern about tire durability at extremely low
IPr values. Maximum TE occurred at IPr values of at
least 60 kPa (8.7 psi) on all conditions except the com-
pacted Davidson (soil 6-1). For that particular soil condi-
884
tion, maximum TE of 0.76 occurred at 31 kPa (4.5 psi).
However, the TE would have only been reduced to 0.74 if
the IPr had been increased to 70 kPa (10 psi). Safeguards
against either dangerously low IPr or dangerously high
SLR values could easily be programmed into the
algorithm which selects the DL and IPr conditions for
maximum TE.
The largest improvement in TE obtained in these tests
resulted from selecting levels of dynamic load and infla-
tion pressure that caused a reduction in TR from 20 to 10
percent. The 10 percent TR level is not necessarily the
most efficient operating condition for a particular soil. If
measurement and control systems were available so that
a true optimum TE could be reached, the TR level that
corresponds to the true optimum would be selected, and
TE levels higher than those shown by this study could be
possible.
CONCLUSIONS
1 Tractive efficiency at constant net traction can be
maximized by selecting appropriate levels of dynamic
load and inflation pressure.
2 The magnitude of the increase in tractive efficiency
is dependent on soil conditions. The difference in tractive
efficiency obtained in this study from the least efficient to
the most efficient condition was found to be from 0.06 to
0.1.
3 Maximum tractive efficiency was found to occur at
dynamic load values which were not unusually high when
compared to typical field operations.
References
1 Burt, E. C , C. A. Reaves, A. C. Bailey, and W. D. Pickering.
1980. A machine for testing tractor tires in soil bins. TRANSACTIONS
of the ASAE 23(3):546-547, 552.
2 Czako, T. F. 1974. The influence of the inflation pressure on
cross-country performance. J. Terramechanics 11(3 & 4): 13-23.
3 Kliefoth, F. 1966. The determination of traction-coefficient
curves for synthetic farm tractor field tests. J. Terramechanics
3(2):71-84.
4 McKibben, E. G. and J. B. Davidson. 1940. Transport wheels
for agricultural machines III. Effect of inflation pressure on the rolling
resistance of pneumatic implement tires. Agricultural Engineering
21(l):25-26.
5 Young, R. E. and R. L. Schafer. 1977. Autotraction: How
automation can improve traction. Agricultural Engineering
58(2):15-18.
6 Zombori, J. 1967. Drawbar pull tests of various traction devices
on sandy soils. J. Terramechanics 4(1):9-17.
7 Zoz, F. M. 1970. Predicting tractor field performance. ASAE
Paper No. 70-118, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1982