





























1 

 

In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

  

African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN: 2375-1061 Vol. 12 (1), pp. 001-011, January, 2024. Available 
online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 

 

Full Length Research Paper 

 

Analyzing the resistance factors in pneumatic 
bicycle wheels for optimal performance 

 
F. B. Akande1*, D. Ahmad1, O. B. Jamarie1, S. Sulaiman1 and A. B. Fashina2

 
 

1
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, DE. Malaysia. 

2
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria. 

 
Accepted 12 November, 2023 

 
Four pneumatic bicycle wheels of diameters 405 mm (16"), 510 mm (20"), 610 mm (24") and 660 mm 
(26") were tested on three different test surfaces (paved surface, grass field and tilled (sandy-clay loam) 
soil at selected tyre inflation pressures of 276 kPa (40 psi), 337.5 kPa (50 psi) and 414 kPa (60 psi) with 
varied (added) dynamic loads of 98.1 N (10 kg), 196.2 N (20 kg), 392.4 N (40 kg) and 588.6 N(60 kg) 
respectively. The motion resistances of these wheels at various dynamic loads and the selected 
inflation pressures were compared, to identify the wheel with the lowest motion resistance. On all the 
test surfaces, the 660 mm diameter recorded the lowest motion resistance measured with an average of 
16 out of the 36 total number of test outcomes. The 660 mm diameter wheel, if used, has the potential to 
increase the pull (draft) and can be used in the development of simple, easy to maintain and low-cost 
agricultural machines with narrow wheels; as traction member for the low-income farmers and the rural 
dwellers to boost their agricultural productivity. 

 
Key words: Motion resistance, test surfaces, pneumatic bicycle wheel, narrow wheel, inflation pressure, 
dynamic loads. 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
Agricultural mechanisation is the bedrock of any 
developing and the underdeveloped countries’ economy, 
to take care of their teeming population in terms of food 
production and to provide employment in the rural areas 
where the largest population resides. However, the 
agricultural mechanisation strategies of developing and 
the developed countries are not identical and the 
adoption of such by the developing nations has failed 
because of the misplaced strategies and wrong adoption 
processes. Some of the reasons are unavailability of 
funds to procure agricultural equipment, land 
fragmentation and lack of technical know-how on 
maintenance and repair of such equipment. Therefore, 
simple and low-cost appropriate machines will help to 
increase the agricultural productivity of the agricultural  

 
 
mechanisation development in developing countries is a 
key solution to increased agricultural productivity and 
economic survival (Akande et al., 2008).  

Narrow wheels are defined as wheels with sectional 
width ranging from 35 mm to 100 mm. These include 
bicycle wheels, motorcycle wheels and motor scooter 
wheels. These narrow wheels could be pneumatic, rigid, 
pneumatic-lug, rigid lug or the non-lug rigid and 
pneumatic wheels within the category. In the tractive 
performance of off- road vehicles, motion resistance 
otherwise called rolling resistance is a major factor in the 
determination of the drawbar pull of agricultural vehicles. 
Therefore, vehicle designers will like to minimise the 
motion resistance, in order to reduce the energy wasted 
to overcome the motion resistance with a view to 
achieving higher pull according to Equation 1 (Macmillan,  
2002) (Macmillan, 2002): 
 

*Corresponding author. E-mail: fbukkyakande@yahoo.com. PH−R 
(1)    

 



2 

 

 
 
 

 

P is the drawbar pull (N), H is the tractive force (N) and R 
is the motion resistance (N). 

 

Motion resistance is defined as the force opposing the 
motion of a free rolling wheel in contact with a surface. 
Motion resistance also refers to the resistance to motion 
of a wheel caused by the absorption of energy in the 
contacting surfaces of the wheel and the soil upon which 
the wheel rolls (Plackett, 1985; Macmillan, 2002). Motion 
resistance may be described as, the total drag opposite 
to the steady motion of a free rolling wheel across a 
horizontal surface. Usually, the motion resistance is 
expressed in terms of motion resistance ratio. Thus, 
mathematically, the motion resistance ratio is as 
expressed in Equation 2 (Arregoces, 1985) 
 

R 
   

Q 
(2)   

 

 

R is the motion resistance force suffered by the wheel 
and Q is the normal (dynamic) load on the wheel. The 
performance characteristics of a towed wheel are 
described usually by a towing force (motion resistance), 
sinkage and skid. The most pertinent parameter of the 
towed pneumatic wheel is the rolling (motion) resistance, 
which is influenced by the tyre design, system 
parameters and terrain characteristics. In studying the 
soil-wheel interaction, the behaviour of the soil and the 
most important design parameters of the wheel form the 
basic inputs and need to be quantitatively defined 
(Pandey and Tiwari, 2006).  

Traditionally, design parameters of the tyre include 
overall diameter of the wheel, section width, section 
height, tyre inflation pressure and load-deflection 
relationship. All these are considered to have varying 
degrees of influence on the tyre-soil interaction (Wong, 
1984). The terrain characteristics include the type of soil, 
soil moisture content and its compaction level. The 
system parameters comprise the dynamic load on the 
wheel and the forward velocity (Tiwari and Pandey, 
2008).  

This paper is aimed at identifying the wheel with the 
lowest motion resistance out of the four test wheels on all 
the test surfaces under consideration when all the wheels 
are subjected to the same conditions of inflation 
pressures and dynamic loads. It will also suggest the best 
inflation pressures and dynamic loads at which the 
minimum motion resistance can be achieved on all the 
test surfaces, and which of the surfaces has the lowest 
motion resistance. 

 

The rolling (motion) resistance test rig 

 

A motion resistance test rig for traction studies  on  towed 

 
 

 
 

 

narrow wheel has been developed to investigate the off-
and on- road performances of narrow wheels with 
emphasis on motion resistance. The test rig is relatively 
simple, portable and suitable for both laboratory and field 
motion resistance studies for narrow wheels. It has the 
following features: 

 

1. It is portable and collapsible (assembling and 
dismantling) for ease of movement to the field and in the 
laboratory.  
2. It is made from readily available materials such as 
hollow pipe, angle iron and mild steel that make it simple 
to construct, repair or replace.  
3. It can accommodate various narrow wheels in the 
specified categories without any modification.  
4. The data acquisition system can easily and readily be 
powered by batteries which can last for 48 runs (tractor 
travels) before being recharged. 

 

The motion resistance rig was designed to measure the 
towing force of a single test wheel when towed by a 
tractor. The towing force is equal to the motion resistance 
of the wheel. The motion resistance of different narrow 
wheels can easily be measured with this device on 
various terrains to obtain new design information for 
narrow wheels especially the non-lug type under the 
specified categories.  

The test rig (Figure 1) is hitched to the tractor via the 
three-point hitch connecting links and the tractor towed 
the test rig over the selected test surface at a 
predetermined velocity of 4.44 km/h. This velocity is 
assumed to be the optimum velocity at which bicycle can 
be operated in off-road condition and this was used 
throughout the tests.  

The test rig comprises the frames and the data 
acquisition systems. The frame is divided into two parts, 
the first part holds the test wheel and the second part is 
hitched to the tractor three-point hitch on top of which is 
placed the Mecmesin Basic Force Gauge (model BFG 
2500) (Newton House, Spring Copse Business park, 
Stane Street, Slinford, West Sussex, RH 13 7SZ) for data 
acquisition for onward signal transfer to the notebook PC. 
 

 

The data acquisition system 

 

The data acquisition system for the test facility comprised 
the Basic Force Gauge (BFG) that is RS-232 interfaced 
to Hewlett Packard (HP) dv6000 notebook personal 
computer with installed Mecmesin data plot software. The 
complete data plot software is capable in real time to 
record the measured compression or tension forces per 
unit time as specified and a plot of the graph showing the 
forces measured in desired units against time intervals.  

The average towing force over time  is read from  the 



3 

 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 1. The complete test rig with the data acquisition system on paved 
surface. 1-Test wheel, 2-Load hanger, 3- Added load, 4- The basic force gauge, 
5- Three-point hitch frame, 6- Connecting cable and 7- Notebook PC. 

 

 
Table 1. Specifications of pneumatic bicycle wheels.  
 
 Tyre size Overall diameter Sectional 
 designation mm (in.) width mm (in.) 

 26" x 1.9" 660 (26) 48 (1.9) 

 24" x 1.9" 610 (24) 48 (1.9) 

 20" x 1.9" 510 (20) 48 (1.9) 

 16" x 1.9" 405 (16 ) 48 (1.9) 
 

 

graph (plot). 
 

 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
Tyre selection/tyre parameters 

 
Four pneumatic bicycle wheels of different sizes were selected for 
this study. The tyre dimensions are as shown in Table 1. The 
inflation pressure range according to the manufacturer’s 
specification is between 240 kPa (35 psi) to 450 kPa (65 psi). 

 

Test surfaces 

 
The test surfaces considered in this study were the paved road 
(Figure 1), grass field (Figure 2) and the tilled sandy-clay soil 
(Figure 3). The first two test surfaces represent the available road 
for rural dwellers and farmers, for the transportation of their farm 
produce from the farm to the house or directly from the farm to the 
market. The tilled sandy- clay- loam soil is considered for the off-
road performance to obtain design information for simple 
agricultural machinery and or equipment with these narrow wheels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 2. Test on grass field.  
 

 
at affordable price for low- income farmers to boost their agricultural 
productivity. The three test surfaces were located within the 
premises of the Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). 



4 

 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 3. Test on tilled sandy- clay-loam soil. 
 

 
Table 2. Analysis of total dynamic loads.  

 
Wheel diameter Weight of wheel 

Dynamic loads levels (N) Total vertical loads (N)  

inches ( mm) and the frame (N)  

        
 

16" (405) 21.88 (214.64) 98.1 196.2 392.4 588.6 312.74 410.84 607.84 803.24 
 

20" (510) 22.18 (217.59)     315.69 413.79 609.99 806.19 
 

24" (610) 22.50 (220.73)     318.83 416.93 613.13 809.33 
 

26" (660) 22.52 (220.92)     319.02 417.12 613.32 809.52 
 

 

 
Table 3. Test treatments on each surface.  

 
D1 D2 D3 D4  

D1P1L1 D2P1L1 D3P1L1 D4P1L1 

D1P1L2 D2P1L2 D3P1L2 D4P1L2  
D1P1L3 D2P1L3 D3P1L3 D4P1L3  
D1P1L4 D2P1L4 D3P1L4 D4P1L4 

D1P2L1 D2P2L1 D3P2L1 D4P2L1 

D1P2L2 D2P2L2 D3P2L2 D4P2L2  
D1P2L3 D2P2L3 D3P2L3 D4P2L3  
D1P2L4 D2P2L4 D3P2L4 D4P2L4  
D1P3L1 D2P3L1 D3P3L1 D4P3L1  
D1P3L2 D2P3L2 D3P3L2 D4P3L2  
D1P3L3 D2P3L3 D3P3L3 D4P3L3 

D1P3L4 D2P3L4 D3P3L4 D4P3L4  
 
 
 
Test variables 

 
The test variables as stated earlier are: (1) the pneumatic bicycle 
wheel of diameters, 405 mm (16"), 510 mm (20"), 610 mm (24") and 
660 mm (26"). (2) Considering the manufacturer’s specification on 
the inflation pressure and knowing fully from past researchers that, 
tyre life will be shortened by under-inflation as well as 

 

 
over-inflation (Elwaleed, 1999). Therefore, three levels of inflation 
pressures of 276 kPa (40 psi), 345 kPa (50 psi) and 414 kPa (60 
psi) were selected. (3) Dynamic loads acting on the test wheel and 
(4) the three test surfaces.  

The weight of the frame with each test wheel was measured with 
multi-function bench scale (model AND HW -100K) and recorded. 
Four levels of loads of 98.1 N, 196.2 N, 392.4 N and 588.6 N were 
used during the investigative studies. Each of these levels of load 
was added to the weight of the frame, holding the test wheel 
making up the vertical loads under consideration and the summary 
of the dynamic (vertical) loads for each of the test wheels in Table 
2.  

The added dead weights (dynamic load levels) are designated as 
L1, L2, L3 and L4 corresponding to 98.1 N, 196.2 N, 392.4 N and 
588.6 N respectively. The tyre inflation pressures of 40 psi (276 
kPa), 50 psi (345 kPa) and 60 psi (414 kPa) were respectively 
denoted as P1, P2, and P3. While, D1, D2, D3 and D4 represent 
16" ( 405 mm), 20" (510 mm), 24" (610 mm) and 26" (660 mm) test 
wheels, respectively. On each test surface, there were 48 treatment 
combinations, 12 per wheel and a 2 x 2 factorial design was 
followed, in which the surface and the wheel size were constant and 
the dynamic load and the tyre inflation pressure were varied, to 
measure the motion resistance. Table 3 shows the treatment 
combinations on each test surface. Prior to the tests, preliminary 
tests were done to determine the average towing speed to be used 
for the tests. A tractor (Fiat 640 2WD) was used to determine the 
average speed by varying the low and the high gear at the selected 
engine rpm over a measured distance of 40 m and with a Mitutoyo 
stop watch of 0.01 s resolution (sensitivity) until the desired velocity 



5 

 

 
 
 

 
(speed) of 4.44 km/h, was achieved which was used for all the 
tests.  

Tilled soil properties, some physico-mechanical properties of the 
undisturbed soil at 20 cm depth were determined before the tests 
were carried out on the loose soil, in accordance with the ASTM 
D4318 ( 2005). The following are the summary of the properties of 
the soil: 
 
Textural classification – Sandy- clay-loam (60 sand, 32 clay, 8% 
silt)  
Soil bulk density – 1.48 to 1.72 kg/m

3
 (mean = 1.55 kg/m

3
 

d.b) Liquid limit – 28.06% db  
Plastic limit – 11.14 to 24.26% (mean = 17.09% db).  
Moisture content range- 10.75 to 28.95% wb  
Cone Index (CI) range of the test tilled surface – 0.6 to 1.8 MPa 
(mean CI = 1.1 MPa). 

 

Test surface preparation 

 
The preparation for data acquisition on the different test surfaces 
differ. The paved surface was located within the Faculty of 
Engineering, UPM, at the same surface where speed tests were 
carried out. A test area of 60 x 2 m was demarcated and the start 
and the end points were marked out. The tests were conducted in 
one direction only.  

On the grass field located at Taman Pertanian Universiti (TPU), 
the test area of 45 x 4 m was demarcated for the tests and the 
same travel direction was used for all the test wheels and the test 
variables. The starting and the end points were also marked as for 
the paved surface. The undisturbed soil of 45 x 20 m was first 
ploughed and after 48 h, the rotavator was used to break the large 
clods into smaller soil clods similar to soil bed preparation ready for 
planting operation. The loose soil was left for another 3 days before 
the tests commenced. Fifteen (15) Echo dielectric aquameter were 
buried randomly on the test plots for at least 18 h before taking the 
moisture contents of the field prior to motion resistance tests 
(traction data acquisition) for that day. The average soil moisture 
content was then calculated and the range was as stated above. 
Since it was difficult to get a large area of land for this test, 
considering the number of test runs, after the completion of two 
pressure levels (experimental runs at 276 and 344 kPa), the field 
was re-prepared by using a rotavator, to make the soil surface even 
and loose, to ensure uniform test conditions. The distance of tractor 
travel during the test from the starting to the end point was set as 
35 m, for all the tests conducted on the loose soil. 
 
 
Procedure for data acquisition 

 
The tractor towing the test rig was prepared to be in a very good 
condition for the test. The test rig was assembled (that is, the test 
wheel was fixed to the test rig). The first level of vertical load (10 kg) 
was screwed to the load hanger and the first level of inflation 
pressure (276 kPa) was maintained. The data acquisition system 
was put on, to facilitate real time data transfer to the data plot 
software installed on the notebook for data acquisition. The 
distance of the test (starting and the end point) was marked. The 
tractor was allowed to attain a steady speed of 4.44 km/h, as stated 
above before the starting point and the start icon on the data plot 
environment was also initiated and the real time data acquisition of 
measuring the towing force (N), against the time taken (seconds) in 
the form of Force –Time graph, was taken progressively until at the 
end point when the stop icon was also clicked, to stop the data 
transfer and the plot. The minimum, maximum and the average 
towing force (motion resistance) was obtained from the data plot. 

 
 
 
 

 
Each of the treatments was replicated three times and the average 
was taken, at least 95% of the measured data, around the mean (µ 
± 2δ). 

 

Statistical analysis 

 
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test whether there is 
significant difference between the means of the measured motion 
resistance on the three test surfaces (factor 1) and the four 
pneumatic wheels of different sizes (factor 2) and the interactions 
between the two factors. This test was divided into three 
categories,, based on the 3 levels of tyre inflation pressure and four 
levels of added dynamic loads per pressure level. 
 

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

 

The analysis of variance at 95 to 99% confidence levels 
showed that, there are significant differences between the 
mean of the motion resistance measured on all the three 
test surfaces, under the three levels of inflation pressures 
and the four levels of dynamic loads. However, at 95% 
confidence level, there were significant differences 
between the observed means of motion resistance 
among the different wheel sizes tested but no significant 
difference exists between the means of the different 
wheel sizes and their interactions with test surfaces at 
196.2 N (added load) and 276 kPa (tyre inflation 
pressure) and at 98.1 N, 392.4 N (added loads) and 345 
kPa (tyre inflation pressure).  

At all levels of added loads and 414 kPa tyre inflation 
pressure, there were significant differences between the 
means of the motion resistance on the test surfaces and 
within the test wheels and their interaction. Based on the 
ANOVA, 9 out of 12 outcomes showed significant 
differences between the two factors (test surfaces and 
the wheel sizes) and out of this 9, 67% of the lowest 
motion resistance was recorded against the 660 mm (26") 
while the remaining 33% was recorded against the 610 
mm (24"). This implied that, the larger the diameter the 
smaller the motion resistance as the smaller wheels 
recorded the highest motion resistance. Figures 4 to 12 
show the graphical representations of the motion 
resistances of the four wheel sizes, according to the 
diameter of the wheels as 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the three test 
surfaces, under three levels of inflation pressures and 
four levels of additional loads. 
 

 

Motion resistance on paved surface 

 

Figures 4 to 6 show the motion resistances obtained on 
paved surface at inflation pressures of 276 kPa (40 psi), 
345 kPa (50 psi) and 414 kPa (60 psi), respectively. The 
measured motion resistance ranged from 3.6 N to 20.4 N 
being the minimum and the maximum motion resistances 
on that surface. The 3.6 N corresponds to the motion 



6 

 

  
 
 
 
 

 
M

o
ti
o

n
 r

e
s
is

ta
n
c
e

 (
N

) 

 
 
 

 
 

98.1 N 196.2 N 392.4 N 588.6 N 

20    

15    

10    

5    

0    

405 510 610 660  
  

Overall wheel diameter (mm) 

 
Figure 4. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 276 kPa pressure and 4 added loads on paved 
surface. 

 

 
  

98.1 N 
 

196.2 N 
 

392.4 N 
 

588.6 N 
 

     
 

     
 

         
  

 

M
o

ti
o

n
 r

e
s
is

ta
n
c
e

 (
N

) 

 
 
20 
 

15 
 

10 
 

5 
 

0 
 

405 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

510 610 660 

Overall wheel diameter (mm)    
  

Figure 5. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 345 kPa pressure and 4 added loads on paved 
surface. 

 
 
 

  

98.1 N 
 

196.2 
 

392.4 
 

588.6 N 
 

     
 

     
 

           

 

M
o

ti
o
n
 r

e
s
is

ta
n
c
e
 (

N
) 

 
 

20 

 

15 

 

10 

 

5 

 

0 
 

405 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

510  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

610 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

660 

 

Overall wheel diameter (mm) 
 
Figure 6. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 414 kPa pressure and 4 added loads on paved surface. 



7 

 

     
 
 

 

98.1 N  196.2 N  392.4 N  588.6 N  

   
  

(N
) 20    

 

    
 

re
s

is
t

an ce
 

10    
 

 15    
 

M
o

ti
o

n
 

5    
 

     

 0    
 

 405 510 610 660 
 

  Overall wheel diameter (mm)  
  

 
Figure 7. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 276 kPa pressure and 4 added loads on grass 
field. 

 

 
  

98.1 N 
 

196.2 N 
 

392.4 N 
 

588.6 N 
 

     
 

     
 

           
 

M
o

ti
o

n
 r

e
s
is

ta
n
c
e

 (
N

) 

 

 

20 
 
15 
 
10 
 

5 
 

0  
405 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

510 610   
Overall wheel diameter (mm) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

660 

 

Figure 8. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 345 kPa pressure and 4 added loads on grass field. 
 

 

resistance of 510 mm (20") wheel at 276 kPa (40 psi) 
inflation pressure when a load of 98.1 N was added to the 
test rig frame, making a total dynamic load of 315.69 N. 
The motion resistance of 20.4 N corresponds to the 
motion resistance of 405 mm (16") at 345 kPa (50 psi) 
inflation pressure when a load of 588.6 N (60kg) was 
added (total dynamic load of 803.24N). Fifty-eight percent 
of the outcome revealed that, the 660 mm (26") wheel 
had the lowest occurring motion resistance, most of 
which occurred at higher inflation pressure (415 kPa) and 
higher added loads (588.6 N).  

This implies that more pull can be achieved using a 
larger wheel at higher vertical (dynamic) loads (Taylor et 
al., 1967) and higher pressure in narrow wheels; 
although, the higher pressure may not be advisable in 
broader or wider wheels. Seventeen percent of the 
outcomes showed that, the 510 mm (20") wheel had the 
lowest occurring motion resistance, taking place at low 
level of inflation pressure but at lowest level of vertical 
load of 98.1 N (10 kg). The remaining twenty-five percent 

 
 

 

were observed from the 610 mm (24") wheel occurring at 
higher pressure level and average dynamic loading. No 
lowest motion resistance was recorded for the smallest 
405 mm (16") wheel, considering the outcomes closer to 
the least occurring ones, the 660 mm (26") diameter was 
found to be closer in values to the other two wheels. 
Hence, it can be concluded that on this surface, at higher 
inflation pressure the larger the wheel, the lower the 
motion resistance at higher loads. 
 

 

Motion resistance on grass field 

 

The motion resistances measured on the grass field 
under the same test, as on the paved surface, are as 
shown in Figures 7 to 9 in increasing levels of inflation 
pressures. The values of the motion resistances on the 
grass field ranged from 4.1 N to 15.7 N, being the 
minimum and the maximum motion resistances obtained 



8 

 

 
 
 

 
  98.1 N  196.2 N  392.4 N  588.6 N  

     
 

         
  

 

M
o

ti
o

n
 r

e
s
is

ta
n

c
e

 (
N

) 

 

 

20 
 
15 
 
10 
 

5 
 

0 
 

405 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

510 610  
 
Overall wheel diameter (mm) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

660 

 

 
Figure 9. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 414 kPa pressure and 4 added loads on grass field. 

 
 
 

 

M
o

ti
o
n
 r

e
s
is

ta
n
c
e
 (

N
) 

 
 

 
 

  

98.1 N 
 

196.2 N 
 

392.4 N 
 

588.6 N 
 

     
 

       

 

200    

150    

100    

50    

0    

405 510 610 660 

 Overall wheel diameter (mm)   
  

Figure 10. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 276 kPa pressure and 4 added loads 
on tilled sandy-clay-loam soil. 

 

 

on the grass field. The minimum corresponds to the 
measured motion resistance of 510 mm (20") wheel at 50 
Psi when an additional load of 98.1 N was placed on the 
test rig, making a total dynamic load of 315.69 N, while 
the 405 mm (16") wheel had the maximum motion 
resistance at 414 kPa (60 psi) and 588.6 N (60 kg) 
additional load (total dynamic load of 803.24 N).  

On this surface, 42% of the lowest occurring motion 
resistance was measured with the 510 mm (20") wheel 
occurring at all levels of inflation pressure and at the first 
two levels of additional loads while wheels 610 mm (24") 
and 660 mm (26") had 33 and 25%, respectively of the 
lowest occurring motion resistances at all levels of 
inflation pressure but at higher 392.4 N (40 kg) and 
highest 588.6 N (60 kg) of additional loads. The 
closeness of the motion resistance values of wheels 610  
mm (24") and 660 mm (26") to the 510 mm (20") wheels 
values was also 40:60. This indicates that, the motion 
resistance decreases with increase in diameter, as no 
lowest motion resistance was measured against the 405 

 
 

 

mm (16") wheel. From this surface, it cannot be 
generalised that, the larger the diameter the smaller the 
motion resistance, but it can be concluded that, as in the 
case of the first surface, that at higher inflation and higher 
vertical loads, the larger wheels give low motion 
resistances. 
 

 

Motion resistance on tilled soil 

 

Motion resistances measured on the tilled sandy-clay-
loam soil for all the four pneumatic wheels under the 
same test variables of inflation pressures and vertical 
loads used on the first two test surfaces, are as illustrated 
in Figures 10 to 12. The motion resistances measured on 
this surface ranged from 23.9 N to 176.9 N, being the 
lowest and the highest motion resistance recorded on this 
surface. The minimum motion resistance was measured 
with 660 mm (26") wheel, at 414 kPa (60 psi) and 98.1 N 
additional loads (total dynamic load of 319.02 N). 



9 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

(N
) 

 
 
 

 
 

  

98.1 N 
 

196.2 N 
 

392.4 N 
 

588.6 N 
 

     
 

     
 

         
  

 
200  
 

M
o

ti
o

n
 r

e
s
is

ta
n
c
e
  

150 
 
100 
 

50 
 

0  
405 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

510 610 
 
Overall wheel diameter (mm) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

660 

 
 

Figure 11. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 345 kPa pressure and 4 added loads 
on tilled sandy-clay-loam soil. 

 
 
 

  

98.1 N 
 

196.2 N 
 

392.4 N 
 

588.6 N 
 

     
 

     
 

         
  

 

200  
 

M
o

ti
o

n
 r

e
s
is

ta
n
c
e

 (
N

) 

 

 

150 

 

100 

 

50 

 

0 

405 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

510 610 660 
 
Overall wheel diameter (mm) 
 

Figure 12. Motion resistance of pneumatic bicycle wheels at 414 kPa pressure and 4 added loads on 
tilled sandy-clay-loam soil. 

 

 

Fifty-eight percent of the lowest occurring motion 
resistance were measured against the 660 mm (26") 
wheel at 345 kPa (50 psi) and 414 kPa (60 psi) inflation 
pressures and at all levels of additional loads except at 
P3L3, where the 610 mm (24") wheel had the lowest 
motion resistance, making a total of 42%, the lowest 
motion resistance measured against the 610 mm (24") 
wheel. The bulk of these lowest motion resistances were 
measured at 276 kPa (40 psi) and all load levels of 
additional loads. The 660 mm (26") wheel had values 
close to the 610 mm (24") wheel and vice-versa. This 
implies that on the tilled sandy-clay-loam soil, the lowest 
motion resistances were measured in larger wheels at 
almost all levels of test variables, as the 405 mm (16") 
and 510 mm (20") wheels had the highest motion 
resistances. 

 
 

 

Summary of results 

 

There were 12 outcomes per test wheel per surface as 
shown in Table 3; each of these treatments was present 
in all the wheels on each test surface. Hence, a 
comparison was made among each corresponding 
treatment in each wheel. On each test surface, there 
were 12 outcomes representing the single wheel with the 
lowest motion resistance and this has been identified in 
previous subsections on the three test surfaces. Figure 
13 shows the frequency (degree) of occurrence of lowest 
motion resistances by all the test wheels in all the test 
surfaces. There were 36 outcomes from the three test 
surfaces and the 660 mm (26") wheel has the highest 
degree (frequency) of occurrence in the combined test 
surfaces. It has the highest on surfaces 1 and 3. The 510 



10 

 

 
 
 

 

 405 mm     510 mm     610 mm     660 mm  

 

170.48%  
0, 0%  

 
 

 

70.19% 
70, 19% 

 
170.48% 

 
170, 48% 

120
120,

.33%
%

 

 
 
 
 

 
Figure 13. Degree of occurrence of lowest motion resistance of 
test wheels. 

 
 

 

mm (20") and 610 mm (24") wheels had the same 
frequency (degree) of lowest occurring motion 
resistances on the test surfaces but the 510 mm (20") 
wheel had the highest on surface 2, but the 610 mm (24") 
wheel was closer to the 660 mm (26") wheel on surface 
3. It can be inferred that the larger wheels have the 
lowest occurring motion resistances in all the test 
surfaces which shows that, the larger the diameter, the 
smaller the motion resistance especially on off-road 
condition.  

Reducing the average motion resistances (outcomes) 
to 12 by finding the averages in the three test surfaces, 
75% of the lowest occurring motion resistances were 
recorded against the 660 mm (26") wheel while the 
remaining 25% were recorded against the 610 mm (24") 
wheel. This showed that the lager wheels have lowest 
occurring motion resistances. The motion resistances 
measured on the paved and grass field were within the 
same range of less than 20 N with the highest on the 
paved surface. However, the minimum on the tilled soil 
was just 24 N and the maximum was 176 N, which 
implies that the motion resistance on the tilled soil is 
almost 10 times greater than those obtained on the grass 
field and the paved surfaces. This could be as a result of 
the deformable nature of the loose soil which resulted in 
more energy in the contacting surfaces between the 
wheel and the soil upon which the wheels roll.  

Generally, with increase in added dynamic load, the 
motion resistance also increases; this could be seen in 
Figures 4 to 12. It was observed that with the smallest 
wheel which had the highest motion resistance in all the 
tested surfaces, the motion resistance at higher 

 
 

 
 

 

pressures and highest dynamic load (additional load) 
reduced because at low pressures and higher loading, 
the tyre flexing could contribute to higher motion 
resistance. The inflation pressures may not have any 
effect on the motion resistance in most cases because as 
the inflation pressures increased, the motion resistance 
either increased or decreased without a constant pattern.  

Previous findings as reported by Macmillan (2002), Inns 
and Kilgour (1978) and Taylor et al. (1967) showed that 
for wider agricultural tyres of different sizes on different 
terrains, the rolling resistance (now motion resistance) 
and the motion resistance ratios (then coefficient of rolling 
resistance) of the wheels decreased with increase in 
overall wheel diameter. This shows that, the results 
obtained from this study are not at variance with their 
findings. However, the motion resistance obtained on 
freshly cultivated loam was higher than those obtained on 
concrete and grass field. Motion resistances of wider 
tyres on grass and concrete were very close, although, 
higher on grass field than on the concrete surface (Inn 
and Kilgour, 1978). Gee-Clough (1980) in his studies on 
the selection of tyre sizes for agricultural vehicles found 
out that, the tractive performance of agricultural tyres 
increases with increase in wheel diameter. A similar 
result was also obtained from the studies with narrow 
wheels. As it could be observed from this study, the 
added dynamic loads had a direct relationship with the 
motion resistances obtained on all the test surfaces and 
at every level of tyre inflation pressure, a similar finding 
was also reported by Arregoces (1985) and Burt et al. 
(1989). 
 
 

Conclusions 

 

The motion resistances of the four pneumatic bicycle 
wheels have been measured on paved surface, grass 
field and tilled sandy-clay-loam soil with the minimum on 
the paved surface and the maximum on the tilled sandy-
clay-loam soil. The motion resistances measured on the 
paved and the grass field were in the same range. 
However, motion resistance on the tilled sandy-clay-loam 
soil was about 10 times greater than those obtained on 
the two other surfaces. The 660 mm (26") wheel has 
been identified to have the highest frequency of lowest 
motion resistance compared to the other wheels (610 and 
510 mm) with 33 and 19% respectively, of lowest 
occurring motion resistances while 660 mm (26") wheel 
had 48%. The 405 mm (16") wheel had the highest 
occurring motion resistances in all the surfaces tested. 
The 510 mm (20") wheel had the highest occurring 
motion resistances on the grass field.  

The 660 mm (26") wheel had the lowest occurring 
motion resistances at higher inflation pressures of 345 
kPa (50 psi) and 414 kPa (60 psi) and at higher dynamic 
loads on all the tested surfaces while the 510 mm (20") 



11 

 

 
 
 

 

wheel has the lowest occurring motion resistances at all 
inflation pressure levels and lower vertical loads.  

From the conclusions, design information for low-cost, 
easy to maintain agricultural machinery with narrow 
wheels as traction members for off- and on-road usages 
can be obtained. 
 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

This research project is classified under Institute of 
Higher Learning, IHL (FRGS-Fundamental Research 
Grant Scheme) 1/ 2007 KOS 55235435.ihlrm7 IRPA 
Project No. 01-02-04. The authors are very grateful to the 
authority of the Universiti Putra Malaysia for granting the 
fund for this research project and the technical staff in the 
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering 
central workshop, for their contribution and assistance 
during the process of developing the test rig. 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Akande FB, Ahmad D, Hadi S, Samsuddin S, Fashina AB (2008). 

Status of research on Narrow wheels. Paper presented at Malaysian 
Scientist and Technologist Conference (MSTC, 2008), 16-17th 
December, 2008, at KLCC, Malaysia.  

Arregoces A (1985). Rolling resistance of bicycle wheels: Measurement 
and trends investigation. Unpublished master thesis. Silsoe College, 
Silsoe, Bedfordshire. UK.  

ASTM D 4318 (2005). American Society for testing and Material, 
Standard test methods for Liquid Limit. Plastic Limit, and Plasticity 
Index of Soils Dodrecht- London: Kluwer Academic Pub. 

 
 
 
 

 
Burt EC, Wood RK, Baily, AC (1989). Effects of dynamic loads on the 

normal soil-tyre interface stresses. Trans. ASAE. 32(6): 1843-1846.  
Elwaleed AK (1999). Motion resistance, Net traction ratio, and tractive 

efficiency of riceland type tyre. Unpublished master thesis, Biological 
and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering., Universiti Putra 
Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. 

Gee-Clough D (1980). Selection of tyre sizes for agricultural wheels. J. 
Agric. Engr. Res., 25: 261-278.  

Inns FM, Kilgour J (1978). Agricultural tyres: Principle of off highway 
mobility. Dunlop Limited, pp. 26-36.  

Macmillan RH (2002). Mechanics of tractor-implement performance; 
Theory and Worked examples. A textbook for Students and 
Engineers. http://www.eprints.unimelb.edu.au (accessed 
03/07/2009).  

Pandey KP, Tiwari G (2006). Rolling resistance of Automobile 
Discarded Tyres for Use in Camel Carts in Sand. Paper presented at 
2006 Annual international meeting of ASABE, 9-12 July, 2006, at 
Oregon Conventional Centre Portland, Oregon.  

Plackett CW (1985). A review of force prediction methods for off-road 
wheels. J. Agric. Engr. Res., 31(1): 1-29.  

Taylor JH, Vanden BGE, Reed IF (1967). Effect of diameter on the 
performance of powered tractor wheels. Trans. ASAE 10(6): 838-842.  

Tiwari GS, Pandey KP (2008). Performance prediction of animal drawn 
vehicle tyres in sand. J. Terramech., 45(6): 193-200.  

Wong JY (1984). The study of wheel-soil interaction. J. Terramech., 
21(2): 117-131. 


