Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.38 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) BIBECHANA A Multidisciplinary Journal of Science, Technology and Mathematics ISSN 2091-0762 (Print), 2382-5340 (0nline) Journal homepage: http://nepjol.info/index.php/BIBECHANA Publisher: Research Council of Science and Technology, Biratnagar, Nepal Traction and drawbar performance characteristics of power tiller attached cage wheel Piyush Pradhan1*, Ajay Verma2, Rajesh Naik3, Prabhat Guru4 Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering SVCAET & RS Faculty of Agricultural Engineering IGKV Raipur-492012 Chhattisgarh, India *E-mail: piyushpradhan202@gmail.com Article history: Received 28 July, 2015; Accepted 11 August, 2015 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/bibechana.v13i0.13351 Abstract The study was carried out in the research farm of Indira Gandhi Agricultural University Raipur Chhattisgarh in June 2014. To evaluate drawbar and tractive power of 4.85kW of power tiller cultivator attached with two different types of cage wheel of half width (C1) and angle type wheels (C2) for a small power tiller operated in clay soil of wet land and flood condition. It was found that the maximum draft values of C1 and C2 were 1192N and 1039N in flood condition and 1318N and 1225N in wet condition. The results showed that maximum tractive efficiency was for cage wheel C1 and C2 values were 72.91% and 69.86% in puddle soil. The maximum field capacity was 0.084 ha/h for cage wheel C2 in puddle soil. ©RCOST: All rights reserved. Keywords: Draft; Tractive efficiency; Field capacity; Fuel consumption; Wheel slippage; Cage wheel. 1. Introduction Power tiller is walking tractor mostly used for rotary cultivation in puddle soil. Cage wheel have proved one of the important traction devices for wetland cultivation. Physical conditions of the soil in poorly drained paddy fields were also defined to distinguish it from the general wetlands. The efficiency with which a Power tiller converts energy into pull is extremely poor when operating on wet soil. The top layer of wet soil has low shear strength so that sufficient thrust cannot be developed [1]. Due to the slippage, stickiness and sinkage limit in driving wheel affect the available pull and forward speed of a power tiller. In such situations the middle layer of the soil bears the traffic load of agricultural machinery. Studies conducted to test a 7.46 kW power tiller for drawbar pull, fuel consumption and wheel slip by Alvi and Pandya [2], have revealed low drawbar pull and power and high specific fuel consumption. The testing of http://nepjol.info/index.php/BIBECHANA mailto:piyushpradhan202@gmail.com http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/bibechana.v13i0.13351 Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.39 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) a 4.10 kW power tiller for drawbar performance with three-bottom mouldboard plough and 5-tyne cultivator, revealed that use of 60 kg ballast weight could develop a maximum pull of 1333.75 N with cage wheels under field conditions [3]. In wet fields, with a hard pan at considerable depth, the utility of agricultural machines is limited due to their bogging down in the soil. Verma [4] revealed that cage wheel exerted 3 times more pull in comparison with tyres in flooded soil conditions. In agricultural operations, the effect of the vehicle on the soil is more important than the maximum traction that can be developed. A tractor that develops the desired pull at high efficiency may not be useful if it makes ruts in the soil so severe that subsequent cultural operations are adversely affected. Application of a drawbar load improves the performance of lighter tractors on wet soil because it increases the driving axle load by the effect of weight transfer [5]. Traction problems in the saturated paddy soils have a major limitation to the adaptation of agricultural mechanization in rice producing Asian countries. Sinkage of agricultural machinery has been the topic of intensive research in the past and will continue to be in the future. The main problem in mechanizing paddy cultivation is the development of a suitable traction device for operation in the saturated soils. Soft soils with low trafficability have resulted in excessive sinkage of agricultural machinery. Considerable time and energy are lost in attempting to cultivate in soft soils. Because of the extra time necessary to remove sunken machinery from the fields. 2. Material and Method The experiments were conducted in the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya research farm Raipur in clay soil. Two replications were taken for testing each set of cage wheel in wet and puddle soil condition. The average values of soil properties are shown in (Table 1). Small power tiller of Greaves Ltd. of 4.85kW engine power were used to test both cage wheels of C1 and C2 (Fig.1) attached with five tynes cultivator in wet and puddle soil to comparing the performance of power tiller in terms of tractive efficiency and drawbar pull. The field was prepared by cultivator and rotavator for creating a puddled soil conditions. Specification of both cage wheels for testing is given in Table 2. For evaluating performance of both cage wheel following points are taken. Effective Field Capacity It is the actual average rate of area covered by the implement. The total time required to complete the operation was recorded and effective field capacity was calculated as follows, Actual field capacity (ha⁄h) = A/T Where, A = actual area covered, ha. T = total time required to cover an area, hr. Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.40 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) Field Efficiency This gives an indication of the time lost in the field and the failure to utilize the full working width of the machine. It is calculated as follows, Field efficiency (%) = (Effective field capacity) / (Theoretical field capacity) ×100 Fuel Consumption It was measured with fuel fill top-up method. Before operating, the tank of power tiller was filled completely with fuel and after the operation was performed, the fuel tank refilled up to same level. The total quantity of fuel needed to refill the fuel tank up to the same mark was recorded and total time was taken in test plot. Fig. 1: Half width C1 and angle type C2 cage wheel. Measurement of Draft A loading car was used to measurement of draft of the power tiller. A commercially available proving ring type of load cell with strain gauges (Novatech, UK Model TR150) with a capacity of 0-4900 N, was used in the loading device for measurement of draft. The two ends of the load cell were mounted through articulated eye joints. The loads on the power tiller were varied by moisture content and were taken in load and no load conditions. The output of the load cell was connected to the digital indicator unit [6]. The indicator unit directly indicated the draft of the power tiller Fig 2. Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.41 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) Measurement of Drawbar Power: For measuring drawbar power is calculated by the following formula. 𝐷𝑝 = 𝑃 × 𝑉 1000 where, Dp is a drawbar power (kW) V is the actual forward speed (with load) (m/s), and P is the pull generated (N). Tractive Efficiency (TE) Tractive efficiency is defined as output power / input power. It can also be expressed as the product of pull ratio and velocity ratio. From a power tiller drawbar power standpoint, tractive efficiency (TE) is the most important of the traction parameters. It measure efficiency, with which the traction device transmit torque, acting on the axle to the linear drawbar pull. T. E. = Driving force Tractive Force = Drawbar Power Axle Power Fig. 2: Measurement of draft of both cage wheel C1 and C2 by load cell. Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.42 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) Axle Power = 2ᴫNT 6o × linear speed Wheel Slip The distance of the power tiller moves in a given number of revolutions of the drive wheel decreases when wheel slip. A simple method of determining the amount of wheel slip is to make a mark on the power tiller drive cage wheel with coloured tapes and the distance of power tiller covered at load and no load. Following formula are used to compute wheel slip- Wheel slip, S = N1 − N2 N1 where, N1 = speed at no load m/s N2 = speed at load m/s Puddling Index Soil water suspension samples volume of 500 ml were collected during puddling from different spots behind the puddling equipment with the help of 1.25 cm diameter steel pipe. The soil water suspension was allowed to settle for 48 hours and the volume of soil settled was recorded. Puddling index was determined by the following relationship [7]. Puddling index (PI) = Vs V x 100 where, Vs = Volume of settled soil, ml V = Total volume of the sample, ml Soil Sticking It was measured with suitable scale on lug surface of cage wheel during operation in wet and puddle soil Fig 3. Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.43 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) Table 1: Experimental setup and soil condition. rpm of cage wheel C1 17 rev/min Linear speed 0.62 m/s rpm of cage wheel C2 20 rev/min Linear speed 0.87m/s Clay soil 53% Silt 32% Sand 15% Soil Moisture 47% Internal friction angle 26.14º Fig. 3: Sticking of soil on lug surface in puddle and wet soil condition. Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.44 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) Table 2: Parameter of cage wheels S.N. Angle type C1 Half width C2 Wheel diameter 600 mm 700 mm Wheel width 240 mm 120 mm No of lug 20 8 Lug width 200 mm 210mm Lug length 50 mm 130 mm Lug angle 30º 45º Lug thickness 5mm 4mm Lug height 50 mm 30 mm 3. Result and Discussion The experiment was carried out in IGKV Raipur farm in two replications, where cage wheel C1 and C2 were used to evaluate field performance and tractive performance in wet and puddle soil condition. Cage wheels were tested by power tiller attached with five tines of cultivator in the field were investigated for wheel slippage, effective field capacity, and fuel consumption, sinkage, sticking and puddling index. The obtained results are given in Table 3. Table 3: Performance of Half width and Angle type cage wheel. S. No Operation Wet condition Puddle condition C1 73 cm C2 68 cm C1 73 cm C2 68 cm 1 Time of operation (h/ha) 16.66 14.49 13.88 11.90 2 Effective width of implement (mm) 1500 1500 1500 1500 3 Field capacity (ha/h) 0.06 0.069 0.072 0.084 4 Field efficiency % 72 86 68 77 5 Working speed 1.04 1.22 1.33 1.58 6 Fuel consumption lit/ha 15.36 13.62 11.57 09.83 7 Puddling index - - 23.47 30.91 8 Soil sticking in cage wheel (cm) 6.2 4.8 2.92 1. 79 9 Sinkage (cm) 9.12 7.29 8.56 6.31 10 wheel slip % 22.37 18.56 16.95 13.43 From the Table 3 it was observed that field performance of angle type cage wheel C2 was highest than half width cage wheel C1. Maximum time of operation required in wet lad operation in half width cage wheel of 16.66 h for per ha. Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.45 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) 1. Effect of draft on tractive performance and drawbar power of the half width and angle type cage wheel in wet soil The maximum tractive efficiency with minimum wheel slip of the angle type cage wheel (lug size: 200×50 mm2, 30º lug angle and 20 lugs on a wheel) in clay soils were relatively good as compared with the results obtained by half width cage wheel (lug size 210×130 mm2,45º lug angle and 8 lugs). Due to 20 lugs and 240 mm wheel width greater interaction of soil and wheel caused more tractive efficiency of angle type cage wheel C2 in wet land was maximum 66.96,62.60, and 60.82 % at 18.56 % wheel slip as compare C1 of attached 8 lugs and wheel width 120 mm produce tractive efficiency with 63.41,59.32 and 56.26 at 22.37% slippage. From this study, it was also revealed that, half width cage wheel C1 of tractive and drawbar performance was poor as compare with angle type cage wheel C2. Fig. 4: Effect of draft on drawbar power on wet soil. From the Fig.4 It was found that as draft and slippage increase the drawbar power also increases. Maximum drawbar power was 710.56 W for angle type cage wheel at 1225 N while minimum 635 W at 1270 N draft as given in Table 3. 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 1340 D ra w b ar P o w e r (W ) Draft (N) Half width C1 angle type C2 Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.46 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) Fig 5: Effect of draft on tractive efficiency on wet soil. From the Fig 5 it was resulted that as the draft increases tractive power increases till a maximum point than further decreases. The maximum tractive efficiency was observed 66.96% with draft 1188 N at 18.56 % slippage for angle type cage wheel C1. It was also revealed from the study that as draft increases, working speed reduced due to increase in sinkage and slippage. The maximum tractive efficiency 63.41 % for half width cage wheel C2 at 1296 N whereas minimum tractive efficiency was observed 53.74% at 1318N draft (Table 3). Table 3: Performance of cage wheel in wet soil. S.No Half width cage wheel C1 Angle type cage wheel C2 Draft (N) Drawbar power (W) Tractive efficiency (%) Draft (N) Drawbar power (W) Tractive efficiency (%) 1 1270 635 56.26 1162 673.96 60.82 2 1286 643 59.32 1176 682.08 62.60 3 1296 648 63.41 1188 689.04 66.96 4 1310 655 56.02 1207 700.06 58.31 5 1318 659 53.74 1225 710.56 55.44 40 50 60 70 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 1340 Tr ac ti ve e ff ic ie n cy ( % ) Draft (N) Half width C1 Angle type C2 Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.47 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) Table 4: Performance of cage wheel in puddle soil. S.No Half width cage wheel C1 Angle type cage wheel C2 Draft (N) Drawbar power (W) Tractive efficiency (%) Draft (N) Drawbar power (W) Tractive efficiency (%) 1 1130 565 62.12 987 651.42 65.76 2 1148 574 64.53 996 657.36 68.59 3 1166 583 69.86 1011 667.26 72.91 4 1181 590.5 61.29 1024 675.84 63.33 5 1192 596 54.17 1039 664.96 60.73 2. Effect of draft on tractive efficiency and drawbar power in puddle soil The increase in soil moisture content caused a decrease in the peak values of pull and lift forces. The peak values of pull and lift forces at 24% soil moisture content were much higher than those at 30, 35 and 44% soil moisture contents [8] from study it was found that increasing moisture content in field drawbar pull decrease but drawbar power efficiency increases because greater interaction of soil and wheel. As increasing of draft up to 1166 N in cage wheel tractive efficiency increases maximum at 69.86% and then further decreases but draft increases continuous increases to 1192 N Fig (6&7). Minimum tractive efficiency obtained 29.24% at 136 N. Keuther [9] concluded in soil bin that the continuous use of machines in flooded field conditions increased the hard pan depth and bogging problems become so serious from the fifth crop season. Salokhe [10] studied soil wedge formation on a single lug by conducting experiments in a laboratory soil bin in Bangkok clay soil. Fig. 6: Effect of draft on drawbar power in puddle soil. 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 D ra w b ar P o w e r (W ) Draft (N) Angle type C2 Half width C1 Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.48 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) Maximum drawbar 675.84 W was obtained at 1024N draft where tractive efficiency was 63.33%.maximum tractive efficiency was 72.91% at 1011N for angle type cage wheel C2. Increasing draft, tractive efficiency increases, but with the increase draft it again falls, Fig 7. Fig. 7: Effect of draft on tractive efficiency on puddle soil. 4. Conclusions It was concluded that as increasing the pull of power tiller drawbar power increases in both cage wheel and tractive efficiency increases at point than further decreases. This study showed that increasing the moisture strongly affects the wedge formation over the lug plates of the cage wheel operated on clay soil. References [1] M.S. Abubakar, D. Ahmad, J. Othman, and S. Sulaiman, Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 5(4) (2009) 489-497. [2] S. A. A. Alvi and A. C. Pandya, The Harvester, IIT, Kharagpur, India, 10 (1) (1968) 51-61. [3] J. S. Panwar, S. K. Tondan and N. P. S. Sirohi, Performance evaluation of power machine systems for tillage and traction, Annual Report, Division of Agricultural Engineering, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India, 1984. [4] S. Verma, Development and testing of refractive lugged cage wheels, Asian Institute of Technology, M. Eng Thesis no. AE-84–12, 1984 (Unpublished). 50 55 60 65 70 75 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 Tr ac ti ve E ff ic ie n cy ( % ) Draft (N) Half width C1 Angle type C2 Piyush Pradhan et al./ BIBECHANA 13 (2016) 38-49 : RCOST p.49 (Online Publication: Dec., 2015) [5] M. J. Baloch, B.A. Mirani and S. Bukhari, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 22(4) (1991) 21-24. [6] Suresh Narang and A. C. Varshney, Journal of Terramechanics, ( 32) (2) (1995) 91-97. [7] B. Baboo, Effect of lug angle of cage wheel on traction and puddling performance of dual wheels, M. Tech. Diss., Dept. of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, G. B. Pant Univ. of Agriculture and Technology. Pantnagar, India, 1976. [8] Wawan Hermawan, Journal of Terramechanics, (33) (2) (1996) 91-101. [9] D.O. Keuther, Soil compaction and wetland rice tillage system, Am Soc. Agric. Engrs. Paper no. 77-1021, 1977. [10] V. M. Salokhe and D.Gee-Clough J. Agric. Engg Res., 38 (1987) 113-125.