, urn fi’ln“

"-77-:

 

4. ‘ r-
;‘iw‘ué '
: . . _
-d-v.5 §‘<,;‘p'. .

: ." ‘

A

9"

 

4M‘s' - ”v

V ‘4.
5;; —.. ‘x- --«-
_. '_ .

z , 3:9
arm-.27 ‘fl‘RTg-r
., ...

up

x-
‘2.

5 ~.
, .n
‘ 1" “I
._ v
. . . ‘l -
‘ if}. f‘ viljyh ..
- "101‘. (1.344“,
v‘v— .. .;:
,1 . “‘1

run- ‘
a! H

F

Ar . "kit:
,n. I- 7
9211?“...
‘ '1...

D

r

‘1

q .15» .;:r

i; —.’}’€u

.‘ 3.
4n—

.

My” n
d 1

,_
7—.

a: m.

{.7111

,. .
...
.~:'

 

W '1' '

SITY LI IBRARIES

lllll‘llllll \lllll llllll

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Evaluation of Energy Requirements for Conservation
Tillage Systems in Michigan

presented by

George S N Mungai

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. Ag. Tech.&Sys. Mgt.

degree in

 

 

(74%“ Mimi

Major professor

Date 7//3/ 7/

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

" A

*-

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before one due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

ml IL—
LJL
T

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
___l____ l
II‘jl—T

MSU Ie An Affirmative ActIoNEquel Opportunlty Institution
ammo-m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation of Energy Requirements for Conservation

Tillage Systems in Michigan

by

George S N Mungai

A THESIS

Submitted to the
Michigan State UniverSity
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Agricultural Technology and Systems Management

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1991.

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of Energy Requirements for Conservation Tillage
Systems in Michigan
by

George S N Mungai

Evaluation of three tillage systems was performed in Michigan
to determine the relative performance of conventional and
conservation tillage systems from the stand point of fuel and
energy consumption. The three systems included: moldboard
plow-based tillage system, chisel plow-based tillage system,
and nc-till tillage system. The tests were carried out in
Owosso-Marlette sandy loam soil, Metamora-Capac sandy loam
soil, Capac loam. soil and. Palms :muck. soil. Primary’ and
secondary tillage as well as planting operations were
conducted during the Summer and Fall of 1989 and 1990.

The data obtained 'using a inicrocomputer based. data
acquisition system showed that the moldboard plow-based
conventional tillage system demanded higher fuel (L/ha and
L/kWh) and energy (kWh/ha) input than the chisel plow-based
conservation tillage system. However, the chisel plow required
higher draft than the moldboard plow for the same width of
operation. The chisel plow would therefore require a larger
tractor than the moldboard plow for the same width. The no-
till tillage systems using row crop planters and grain drills
provided the most fuel and energy savings when compared with

the conventional tillage and conservation tillage systems.

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Evaluation of Energy Requirements for Conservation
Tillage Systems in Michigan

presented by

George S N Mungai

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MLS. degree in Aqric. Tech. & Systems Mgt.

QZM #WM

Major Professor
Date 7//’Z/7’/

M50 is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

To my beloved wife Anne
and daughters, Catherine, Caroline,

Lilian and Pauline.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author expresses his very sincere appreciation to the
following persons and institution for their contributions and
invaluable support during the course of this study:

To Dr. Thomas H Burkhardt, research team leader and major
academic and research adviser for his professional guidance
and timely advice during the whole two year period of this
study.

To Dr. Robert H Wilkinson, co-maj or adviser for his
support and advice during the research period.

To Dr. John B Gerrish, research committee member for his
positive evaluation.of the research.project and serving in the
academic committee.

To Mr. Wan Ishak Wan Ismail, a fellow graduate student
under the guidance of Dr. Burkhardt. The joint research work
conducted with him would have been a great ordeal without him.
His encouragement, criticism, companionship, assistance and
positive evaluation of the field and laboratory work
contributed immensely to the success of this study.

To Dr. Milton M.Mah, whose support in the initial set up
of the instrumentation package and the subsequent advice and
availability during the research work contributed

significantly toward the success of the research.

To Mr. James A. Squires, the Clinton County soil
conservationist, for arranging for the availability of the
fields and equipment in St. Johns.

To the technical personnel in Agricultural Engineering
Department.athichigan State University for the assistancerand
advice provided.

To Dale Devereaux (St. Johns farmer) who spared his
precious time, energy, equipment and land for the experiments
in St. Johns.

Special thanks go to the University of Nairobi for
authorizing the author’s study leave ‘without which. this
valuable academic experience would not have materialized.

To my dear family for their moral support and
understanding during the demanding periods of the study.

Lastly and most important, glory to God for enabling me

to complete my training successfully.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..........................................

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................
2.1 Conventional versus Conservation Tillage

Systems .......................................

2.2 Alternative Energy Sources ....................

2.3 Energy and Power Consumption in Tillage .......

2.4 Fuel and Draft Measurements ...................

2.5 Instrumentation ...............................

2.6 Summary .......................................

3. OBJECTIVES ..........................................

4. EQUIPMENT ...........................................

4.1 Specifications ................................

4.2 Tractor .......................................

4.3 Conventional Tillage Implements ...............

4.3.1 Moldboard Plows ........................

4.3.2 Disk Harrows ...........................

4.4 Conservation Tillage Implements ...............

4.4.1 Chisel Plows ...........................

4.5 Field Cultivator ..............................

4.6 Planting Implements.. .........................

4.6.1 Row Crop Planter .......................

vii

xi
xii
1
3

3

7

9

1O
12
15
17
19
19
19
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
23

4.6.2 Grain Drills ........................... 23

4.7 The Instrumentation System .................... 25
4.8 Data Acquisition System ...................... , 28
4.9 The Signal Sensors ............................ 31
4.9.1 DjTPMII ................................ 31
4.9.2 Ground Speed Measurement ............... 31
4.9.3 Engine Speed Measurement ............... 32
4.9.4 Front Wheel Speed Measurement .......... 32
4.9.5 Rear Wheel Speed Measurement ........... 33
4.9.6 Implement Draft Measurement ............ 33
4.9.7 Fuel Consumption Measurement ........... 34
4.9.7.1 Calibrator/Run Simulator... 37
4.9.7.2 Fuel Meter Verification.... 37
4.10 Calibration of the Signal Conditioners ....... 41
4.11 Calibration of Transducers ................... 41
5. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE .............................. 46
5.1 Verification of Instrumentation ............... 46
5.1.1 Verification of the Engine Speed ....... 46
5.1.2 Verification of Wheel Speeds ........... 46
5.1.3 Verification of the Ground Speed ....... 47
5.1.4 Verification of the Fuel Flow
Measurement ............................ 47
5.2 Test Sites and Description of Experiments ..... 48
5.2.1 Field 1 ................................ 48
5.2.2 Field 2 ................................ 49
5.2.3 Field 3 ................................ 49

viii

5.2.4 Michigan State University Field ........

5.3 Data Collection Procedure .....................
5.3.1 Soils Data ........ . ...... ..... .........
5.3.2 Field Experimental Methodology .........
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..............................
6.1 Field Conditions. ........................
6.2 Equipment and Instrumentation
Performance ..............................
6.3 Data Retrieval ...........................
6.4 Parameter Calculations ...................
6.5 Comparative Performance of Tillage
Systems ..................................
6.5.1 Owosso-Marlette Sandy Loam
Soil .........................
6.5.2 Metamora-Capac Sandy Loam
Soil .........................
6.5.3 Capac Loam Soil ..............
6.6 Discussion .................................
7. CONCLUSIONS .........................................
8. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................
9. APPENDIX A: Tractor Specifications .................
APPENDIX B: Implement Specifications ...............

APPENDIX C: Specifications and Calibration of

Transducers ............................
APPENDIX D: Soil Characteristics ...................
APPENDIX E: Data Transfer Procedure ................

ix

51
52
52
54
58
58

58
59
6O

65

65

75
81
82
85
87
9O
93

97
105
108

APPENDIX F: Sample of Data Statistics Summary ...... 111
APPENDIX G: Raw Field Data Printout ................ 116

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 133

Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

4.1

5.2

5.4

LIST OF TABLES
Calibration Response Equations .............. 43
Experiments Performed on Field 2a near
St.Johns ..... ................ . ........ 50
Experiments Performed on Field 2b near
St . Johns ................................... 50
Experiments Performed on Field 3 near
St . Johns ................................... 51
Conservation Tillage Experiments
Performed at MSU ............................ 52

Conventional Tillage Experiments

Performed at MSU ............................ 52
Summary of the Tillage Data ................. 61
Implement Field Efficiency .................. 62
Specifications of the Tractor Tire Size ..... 64

Fuel and Energy Requirements for Tillage
Implements .................................. 66

Specific Fuel and Energy Requirements ....... 83

xi

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

LIST OF FIGURES
The Modified no-till Row Planter in
Field 1. ..... ...... ........ ..... .......
The Signal Conditioner Rack and the
Voltage Converter in the Tractor Cab...
The Apple IIe Computer and Monitor
in the Tractor Cab ........ . ............
Block Diagram of the Data Acquisition
System Hardware ............ ...... ......
Fluidyne PDP1 Fuel Flow Meter Mounted
on the Tractor ........... . .............
Correction of PDP1 Fuel Measurement....
Regression of Corrected Fuel
Measurement ............................
Soil Auger and Soil Sample Can .........
Manual Proving Ring Cone Penetrometer..
Comparative Fuel and Energy
Consumption in Owosso-Marlette Sandy
Loam Soil ........ . ......... . ...........
Estimation of Fuel Consumption for
Moldboard Plow in Owosso-Marlette
Sandy Loam Soil ........................
Estimation of Fuel Consumption for
Chisel Plow in Owosso-Marlette Sandy

Loam Soil ..............................

xii

26

27

30

36
39

4O
53
55

70

71

72

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.8

6.9

6.10

Estimation of Energy Consumption for
Moldboard Plow in Owosso-Marlette Sandy
Loam Soil ..... . ........................
Estimation of Energy Consumption for
Chisel Plow in Owosso-Marlette Sandy
Loam Soil ......... . ....................
Comparative Fuel and Energy
Consumption in Metamora-Capac Sandy
Loam Soil ..............................
Estimation of Fuel Consumption for

the Chisel Plow in Metamora-Capac
Sandy Loam Soil ........................
Estimation of Energy Consumption for
Chisel Plow in Metamora-Capac Sandy
Loam Soil ..............................
Estimation of Fuel Consumption for

the 18 Row no-till Grain Drill in
Metamora-Capac Sandy Loam Soil .........
Estimation of Fuel Consumption for

the 10 Row No-till Grain Drill in

Metamora-Capac Sandy Loam Soil .........

xiii

73

74

76

77

78

79

80

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

For about two decades, research efforts in tillage have been
directed to either using renewable energy resources or
increasing the efficiency of using fossil fuels to reduce crop
production costs. Developing new fuel resources for farm
machinery has not been technically or economically successful;
therefore, diesel fuel may continue as the dominant fuel for
many years. Much.work in tillage energy research.has been done
using fuel consumption.and_draft requirement as the indicators
of performance. While these measurements give a valid
indication of energy used for a particular combination of
equipment and soil conditions, they are limited to a regional
application. It is difficult to transfer the results to the
general case (Smith and Barker, 1982) and therefore, it is
necessary to conduct experiments in various areas toiestablish
the local tillage energy needs.

Tillage has been considered as one of the major energy
and power consumers at the farm level. Farmers often use the
drawbar power requirement of tillage to determine the size of
the largest tractor for the farm. The moldboard plow has
traditionally been used as the basic implement for primary
tillage followed by several secondary tillage operations.

Moldboard. plow-based. tillage systems have generally' been

2

considered to have a high energy consumption level. This has
lead to research efforts being directed to collecting energy
data to verify this assumption. These efforts are aimed at
formulating alternative energy-saving systems. Conservation
tillage systems, which have the potential to reduce tillage
energy requirements, field.time, labor input, soil compaction,
degradation of environment, and soil and water loss have been
considered as an alternative approach to conventional tillage.
The research conducted for this project was designed to
evaluate conventional, conservation, and no—till tillage
systems from the perspective of energy and power demand.

Many factors contribute to the energy used in tillage.
The soil type and condition, depth of tillage, speed of
operation, and hitch geometry are some of the important
factors (Kepner et al., 1980). Draft and energy requirements
of tillage tools are an important consideration in selecting
optimal tillage systems (Khalilian et al., 1988). The research
conducted during the last two summers by the Department of
Agricultural Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU)
and near St. Johns in Clinton County, Michigan, compared the
energy and power requirements of a moldboard plow-based,
chisel plow-based and no-till tillage systems. Tractor fuel
consumption and implement draft were the primary data
collected using an in—field microcomputer data acquisition

system.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conventional versus Conservation Tillage Systems

The amount of energy expended in preparing a suitable seedbed
depends on the tillage system used. Field operations can be
achieved.with.various combinations ofinachines which result in
different basic energy requirements. (Frisby and Summers,
1978). In conventional tillage practices, the farmer usually
plows, disks twice, spring tooth harrows, plants the crop and
cultivates at least twice (Hansen et al., 1958). This amounts
to about 6 to 10 trips across the field resulting in excessive
soil compaction and high cost in time and money. This system
of tillage has evolved over the years since human.beings first
opened the soil to plant seeds, without a sound scientific
basis to justify it. Bowers and Bateman (1960) in their
research studies on minimum tillage questioned the necessity
of each additional tillage on the basis of its contribution to
weed control, soil and.wind erosion, crop yield.and.production
cost.

Stone and Heslop (1986) compared three tillage systems;
they observed that the use of moldboard plow-based tillage
systems resulted in gradual deterioration of soil structure.

Cook et al. (1958) in their research on minimum tillage
conducted since 1946 showed that secondary tillage was not

necessary as plow-planting or wheel-track planting were

4

successful in establishing crop stands that needed only two
weed control cultivations after planting. With the advent of
chemical weed. control, experiments ‘with. no-till planting
(direct drilling) have shown that mechanical manipulation of
the soil can.be eliminated under some field conditions without
adversely affectimg the crop yield. No-till planting also
offers other generally obtainable advantages: improved water
conservation, reduced soil erosion, reduced machinery cost,
lower labor input and in some instances increased yields
(Smith and Etmnstrom, 1980). Erbach (1982) concluded that
tillage systems did not significantly affect yields of either
corn or soybeans in a corn soybean rotation research study.

Zhengping et al. (1986) conducted research on machine
width for time and fuel efficiency and concluded that
conservation tillage systems reduced machinery cost. This view
is further supported by Kushwaha et al. (1986) who asserted
that minimum tillage systems have considerable potential for
saving energy and time as well as controlling wind and water
erosion. In his research on a comparison of the energy input
in some tillage tools, Reid (1978) found out that no-till or
reduced tillage is often promoted because these methods
usually require about one-third to one-half of the fuel used
in conventional tillage.

Bolton and Booster (1980) carried out research on strip-
till planting system from which they concluded that grain

yields compared favorably with those obtained using

5
conventional bare fallow and stubble mulch tillage systems,
each of which involved four times as many field operations.

Due to the changing trends of energy cost and
availability during the last two decades, the need for
reviewing energy input in agricultural production has become
an important issue. Rotz et al. (1982) developed a multiple
crop machinery selection algorithm through which they
concluded that the cost per hectare for conservation tillage
was always less than that of conventional tillage. It was also
shown that due to less competition for time, conservation
tillage implements were often smaller and thus better matched
to the farm.

Conservation tillage systems have been experimented with
to establish methods that are less energy demanding and more
environmentally sound while providing agronomically acceptable
seedbeds. Smith et al. (1980) assert that though there are
many areas where today’s farmer could conserve energy, a very
important one is energy consumed in field operations. The
availability of more efficient herbicides as well as the
rising fuel and labor costs have given conservation tillage
systems a big boost during the last few years (Khalilian et
al., 1988). Hamlett et al. (1983) in their research on the
economic potential of conservation tillage in Iowa concluded
that conservation tillage practices in crop production save
soil, lower energy consumption, and reduce machinery

investment.

6

The moldboard plow is the most widely used primary
tillage implement. Various researchers have carried out field
tests to compare the energy requirements of moldboard plow-
based tillage systems with. conservation tillage systems.
Michel et al. (1985) used the hypothesis that the chisel plow
requires less time and energy per unit area than does the
moldboard.plow'when they were comparing the performance of the
two plows. They took this premise because the chisel plow does
not move and invert the soil as the moldboard plow does. They
concluded that the chisel plow-based system produced equal
yields with approximately 40 per cent less fuel and less time
for pre-plant tillage operations when working in irrigated
sugarbeets, dry beans and corn. Similar experiments conducted
by Smith et al. (1989) showed that reduced tillage systems can
substantially reduce the total fuel and energy requirements
for field operations as compared to the conventional moldboard
plow tillage system. They found that a minimum tillage system
which was designed to have minimal preplant field operations,
used almost 70 percent less fuel and energy than the moldboard
plow system.

Heavy duty tandem disk harrows have recently been tested
for use as primary tillage implements because of the reduced
labor and energy requirements and the high. work rate
associated with.the:disk.harrow systems (Krishnan et al. 1988;

Singh Jai, 1978).

7
2.2 Alternative Energy Sources

According to Stout (1990) the energy required for production
agriculture is about 3 per cent and 5 to 6 per cent of the
national energy needs in developed and developing countries,
respectively. Stout (1977) has also shown that about 20 per
cent of this energy is used in field operations. The energy
used on farms is predominantly petroleum based. Although
testing ethanol use in spark-ignition. engines has shown
positive results, a.majority of farms are equipped.with diesel
powered farm machinery and this trend is increasing (Shannon,
1982; Yahya and Goering, 1977).

Efforts to find effective renewable sources of energy to
replace diesel fuel for farm machinery have not met with much
success (Boruff et al., 1980). Shropshire et al. (1982)
performed research on the injection of anhydrous ethanol into
a diesel engine. The experiment resulted in degradation of
qualities of diesel fuel such as cetane number, viscosity, and
volumetric energy content. Although up to 20 per cent of
ethanol could be tolerated, the major problemrwas one of water
tolerance as small amounts of water caused ethanol and
petroleum fractions to separate. They also observed that the
use of diesel engines is not likely to change quickly since
diesel fuel is presently available and is cheaper than
ethanol. Marcio Cruz et al. (1981) in their research on dual-
fueling' turbocharged <diesels *with. ethanol concluded. that
ethanol can be used successfully to displace a portion of the

normal fuel requirements for a diesel tractor. Their findings

8

were not without reservations as they recommended that further
testing was required to determine the long term effect on
engine wear and durability. Fumigation is another method of
blending ethanol with diesel fuel resulting in diesohol. This
involves keeping the ethanol in a separate tank on the tractor
and injecting it into the airstream of the engine (Goering and
Wood 1982). This approach implies major changes in the design
of the tractor fuel system.

Shannon et al. (1982) experimented with butanediol, a
biomass-derived alcohol, 1x3 determine the» possibility of
complete displacement of No. 2 diesel fuel in tractors. Their
results showed that a large portion of energy escaped through
the exhaust as unburned fuel. In conclusion, butanediol was
found to be an unacceptable substitute for diesel fuel for
various reasons which included reduction in engine power.

The feasibility'of replacing fossil fuels inhagricultural
production in order to reduce energy cost appears to be a
distant solution which requires more research.work. The use of
diesel fuel in farm machinery may continue for many years to
come. Therefore, the most viable proposition in curtailing
energy use in field operations is to reduce the number of
field trips by using conservation tillage systems to obtain
high energy-use efficiency. This approach is supported by
Summer et al. (1986) who observed that recent escalation of
fuel prices and reduction of farm income has stimulated
renewed interest in proper selection and operation of tractor

implement systems that provide maximum energy efficiency.

9

2.3 Energy and Power Consumption in Tillage

Energy consumption for crop production takes many forms. A
complete catalogue of energy used in crop production includes:
labor, machinery manufacturing, fuel, nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, seed, irrigation (if required), insecticides,
herbicides, grain drying, electricity, and transportation
(Clark and Johnson 1974). Clark and Johnson (1974) emphasized
that evaluation of crop production systems should be based on
energy use and power consumption among other factors. The
direct consumption of petroleum based fuels by farm machinery
has been the subject of considerable study. This has been done
through instrumenting a tractor to measure draft, fuel flow,
and other parameters under controlled conditions (Schrock et
al. 1984).

The design of this research was to compare conventional,
conservation and no-till tillage systems from the point of
view of energy and power requirements. Some of the early
research work in this area conducted by Hansen et al. (1958)
showed that the fuel and power consumption in conventional
tillage practice required 55 per cent more fuel and 58 per
cent more drawbar energy per unit area than the minimum
tillage practice of the day. Plow-planting required 31 per
cent less fuel and 27 per cent less drawbar energy than
minimum tillage.

Selection of a tillage system should take into account
the draft and energy requirements of the tillage tools.

Summers et al. (1986) emphasized this fact and further stated

10

that the determination of a tractor size is better when good
draft and power requirement data exists for desired.implements
in the specific soil types. In their experiments on draft
relationships for primary tillage in Oklahoma soils, they
measured draft and ground speed in four different soil types.

In earlier experiments Summers et al. (1985) developed a
method.for estimating implement power requirements fromuengine
fuel consumption. Output measurements of the system during
field operation were engine speed, elapsed time, accumulated
fuel consumption, fuel temperature, and machine forward
velocity. According to-Stephens et al. (1981) the use of
implement energy to compare different implements is valuable
because it is not influenced by the tractor i.e. power train,

rolling resistance and slip.

2.4 Fuel and Draft Measurements
Experiments on energy and power measurement for field
machinery require that the fuel flow and the draft force
generated by the implements be monitored. Conflicting results
have been reported by previous researchers on the energy used
by moldboard plow-based and chisel plow-based tillage systems.
Chaplin.et al. (1988) conducted research.on.drawbar energy use
for tillage operations on loamy sand. Draft force and speed of
three tillage systems were measured. These systems included:
1. Moldboard plowing and planting
2. Chisel plowing and planting and

3. No-till planting

11
They concluded that time reduced tillage systems involving
chisel plowing as the primary tillage, used 62 per cent more
drawbar energy per acre than the conventional tillage system.

Grevis-James and Bloome (1982) measured drawbar power,
wheelslip, drawbar pull and ground speed with a tractor power
monitor. They disregarded fuel measurement and regretted doing
so after they realized its significance later.

Similar tests were conducted by Michel (1985) in which a
chisel plow required one half of the fuel used by a moldboard
plow and covered almost three times the area in the same
amount of time. Vaughan (1977) also documented savings of 13
and 38 liters of diesel fuel per hectare for reduced tillage
and no-till systems, respectively, when compared to a
conventional tillage system. Experiments done by Zwilling and
Hummel (1988) have shown that the fuel requirements (L/ha)
were greater for moldboard plowing than for chisel plowing.
Disking after moldboard plowing required more fuel than after
chisel plowing. Fuel requirements for conventional tillage
systems ranged from 25.8 to 45.7 IJha and nunimum tillage
systems ranged from 17.2 to 25.3 L/ha. Other researchers have
documented that a moldboard plow requires more fuel and time
per hectare than any other tillage implement (Bowers et al.
1986, Summers et al. 1986).

Various fuel flow meters have been used to monitor fuel
consumption. Lin et al. (1980) used a volumetric paddle wheel
flow meter; a 2-terminal integrated circuit (IC) temperature

transducer was used to monitor temperature. Both measuring

12

devices were inserted between the fuel filter and injection
pump. A 3-way valve was used in the return fuel line to bring
the surplus fuel back to the injection pump. Smith, et al.
(1981) used a Fluidyne model 1250 fuel meter which uses a
positive displacement sensing device 1x: measure fuel
consumption.toithe2nearest cubic centimeter. Fuel temperature,
fuel pressure and time were measured separately.

In determining the energy and power required for tillage

implements, operating parameters that are frequently'monitored

include:
1. Fuel consumption
2. Draft force
3. Engine speed
4. Actual ground speed
5. Drive wheel speed

From these measurements, drawbar power (kW), fuel consumption
(L/ha), specific fuel consumption (L/kWh), drawbar energy
(kWh/ha), draft/unit width (kN/m), draft/tool (kN/row;
kN/shank) and wheel slip (per cent) can be analytically
determined (Tompkins et al. 1982, Grogan et al. 1987 and

Zwilling et al. 1988).

2.5 Instrumentation

The standard tractor is usually equipped with only a
tachometer as a guide in operation of the tractor and
implement. The need to monitor various parameters that affect
the performance of a tractor and implement combination
requires extra instrumentation. Various instrumentation

systems have been developed. These vary in complexity and

13

sophistication from :measuring' one or two ‘parameters and
recording display readings by hand (Williford, 1981) to on—
board microcomputer-based monitoring of several operating
parameters (Adsit and.Clark, 1981; Wendte anleozeboom, 1981).
Luth et al. (1978) documented that recent advances in
instrumentation, radio telemetry and digital computers now
allow engineers to collect and analyze large amounts of data
in order to :monitor tractor/implement energy needs. The
instrumentation package which they developed was capable of
collecting data on 31 channels, transmitted it up to 8 km to
a "powered" receiving station where the data were conditioned
and sampled by a computer.

The need for collecting data to determine energy
requirements has resulted in several complex on-board
microprocessors and Data Acquisition Systems (Summers et al.,
1986). The current state of the art in in-field data
collection enables collection of large amounts of data on-
board without using remote support equipment. Advances in
technology have revolutionized methods for collecting data on
mobile equipment in agricultural research (Upchurch et al.,
1987). The ability to record and display several channels of
data on the computer monitor enables immediate checking of the
performance of the transducers (Marshall and Buckley, 1984).
Lin et al. (1980) designed a microprocessor-based
instrumentation system to measure field data. The system was
based on a Heath H8 8080-A based microcomputer. An Analog

Devices RTI-1200-016 board. was used. in. the computer to

14

interface the analog signals for each parameter to the
microcomputer bus. Other computer configurations have been
used to measure tractor related parameters. Stange et al.
(1982) used a Hewlett Packard (HP) data acquisition system, HP
Microcomputer, HP 3455A. digital voltmeter and HP 34590A
scanner to collect data on tractor work. Bandy et al. (1985)
developed a Motorola 6800 microprocessor-based data
acquisition system to monitor the performance of a tractor in
the field.

Vandoren (1982) defines data acquisition system (DAS) as
an electronic instrument or group of interconnected hardware
items, dedicated.to the measurement and.quantization.of analog
signals for digital analysis or processing. The DAS functions
as an analog interface to the digital domain. Green et al.
(1984) assert that research emphasis in recent years has been
in the development of performance monitors and computer-based
data acquisition systems.

Various DAS’s have been developed to monitor energy
related field data. Harter et al. (1979) used a MOS
TECHNOLOGY’S 6502 microprocessor capable of addressing 64
Kilobytes of memory with an Analog Devices model DAS1128
consisting' of analog input multiplexer, sample and. hold
amplifier and a 12 bit Analog to Digital (A/D) converter; The
system was designed for experiments on tractor tillage.

Carnegie et al. (1983) used an Apple IIe microcomputer
for collecting tractor performance data. The system *was

operated by a 12V tractor battery system. Their report

15

confirmed that the computer operated well. Recent literature
shows work by other researchers that have used highly
sophisticated DAS’s. McLaughlin et al. (1989) conducted field
data collection for energy requirements using a tractor
equipped with factory installed transducers for measuring
engine speed, wheel and ground speeds and three-point hitch
height and draft as part of an electronic monitor and control
system. The 110V power for the system was supplied by a 4.0
kVA generator. Operation of the set-up required two other
persons besides the driver, one to coordinate the experiment
and the second to operate the data logger. Accommodation of
the instrumentation equipment and the operators on the tractor
required an extension of the left hand side of the tractor
cab.

Tembo (1986) performed field research using an Apple IIe
microcomputer-based instrumentation system at MSU. He used six
transducers for force measurement and four transducers for
speed measurement. Experiments were also conducted by Mah
(1990) using the same instrumentation package. The two

researchers collected the field data successfully.

2.6 Summary

The literature available on research for tillage energy
requirements indicates that fuel requirement is an important
consideration. Given that renewable sources of energy for
field machinery are not feasible yet, energy-use efficiency

needs to be pursued using the current fossil fuels. The

16
current method (n3 data collection involves on—board
microcomputer-based DAS’s which have been found to withstand
harsh field conditions. The systems are capable of collecting
large data sets at time intervals which can be varied to meet
particular research needs.

The results of tractor/implement performance experiments
that have been done elsewhere are applicable to specific
geographic areas, conditions and implement combinations. The
energy related research cited shows that the parameters
monitored in field data collection include draft, ground
speed, wheel speed, engine speed and fuel flow. The
microcomputer-based DAS that was used for experiments at MSU
by preceding researchers included all of the above parameters
except the fuel flow and drawbar draft measurement which were

incorporated into the present research.

CHAPTER 3

OBJECTIVES

The energy and power requirements for tillage operations are
useful in evaluating the efficiency of tractor fuel
consumption. In order to reduce fuel consumption in tillage,
efficient management of field equipment is a primary
consideration. Minimal implement usage, combining' of
operations, regulating ground speeds to match implement size
and keeping tillage depth to an allowable minimum are some of
the avenues through which fuel costs can be curtailed.

The available literaturerdocuments research.that has been
carried out in this area of energy and power utilization in
tillage. However, the results of this work have been limited
to application in the specific geographic areas of research.
It was desirable, therefore, to conduct similar experiments in
Michigan in order to establish the energy and power needs of
various combinations of conventional and conservation tillage
implements.

The specific objectives of this study were to:

1. Instrument a tractor for use in
determining' energy' and. power
required for conventional and
conservation tillage systems.

2. Determine the relationship
between fuel consumption and

the energy requirement of
tillage systems.

17

18

Compare the energy and power
requirement of conventional,
conservation and no-till
tillage systems.

The following parameters were monitored in the

experiments:

(DQONUWsDWNA

Engine speed

Operational ground speed
Wheel.speeds

Fuel consumption

Implement draft.

Tillage depth

Soil moisture content

Soil cone penetrometer index

CHAPTER 4

EQUIPMENT

4.1 Specifications

The experiments were conducted using the same tractor for all
tests. A total of 14 implements including two moldboard plows,
two chisel plows, one field cultivator, four disk.harrows, one
row crop planter and four grain drills were experimented with
at two field sites. Detailed specifications for the tractor
and the field implements are provided in Appendices A and B,
respectively. A brief description of each machine used,
instrumentation set up, the data acquisition system and the

transducers is presented in this chapter.

4.2 Tractor
The tractor utilized for all tests for this research project
was a 65kW’(86HP) Ford7,:model 7610 that was used previously
for other similar research at MSU. The tractor was equipped
with front wheel assist and.with a standard fully enclosed.cab
that protected the instrumentation system from bad weather and
dusty conditions.

The transmission of the tractor consisted of 16 forward
and 8 reverse gear combinations giving a range of 2.2 to 30.6

Km/h forward ground speeds in four wheel drive mode. This

 

lTrade names are used in this thesis solely to provide specific information. Mention of a product name
does not constitute an endorsement of the product by the author to the exclusion of other products not
rmmmmai

19

20
range of speed was achieved using 18.4 by 34 tires on the rear

wheels and 13.6 by 24 tires on the front wheels.

4.3 Conventional Tillage Implements

For the conventional tillage system, the moldboard plow was
used for the pmimary tillage operations. Disk harrows and
conventional grain drills followed the conventional primary
tillage operation both at St. Johns and MSU sites. The field
cultivator was used only at the MSU field as there was none

available with the farmers at St. Johns.

4.3.1 Moldboard Plows

Traditionally the moldboard plow has been used for primary
tillage. Secondary tillage implements including disk harrows
and field cultivators among others, are used to refine the
seedbeds. This research was designed to test a moldboard plow-
based tillage system and to compare it with a chisel plow-
based conservation tillage system and a no-till system. The
experiments performed near St. Johns were conducted with a 0.4
m six-bottom pull type moldboard plow covering a theoretical
width of 2.4 m. The implement had two hydraulic remote
controlled transport wheels.

The MSU experiments were done with a fully mounted three
point linkage moldboard plow which had three 0.4 m bottoms
with an overall theoretical width of 1.2 m. Since the
instrumentation was designed for pull type implements, the

data collected. with this plOW' was limited to the fuel

21
consumption, and. engine, ground. and. wheel speeds. Draft

measurements were not monitored.

4.3.2 Disk Harrows

Four sizes of tandem disk harrows measuring 4.3 m, 3.9 m, 3.0
m and 3.2 m were used for the secondary tillage trials. The
first one was used at the MSU farm while the others were used
in St. Johns fields. All four had hydraulic remote controlled
transport wheels. The size of the disk blades varied between

0.50 m and 0.60 m in diameter.

4.4 Conservation Tillage Implements

Implements used for conservation tillage included a chisel
plow for primary tillage, disk harrow for shallow primary
tillage and disk harrow following chisel plow as reduced
tillage tools. No-till experiments were performed with a no-
till row crop planter and no-till grain drills. The no-till
row crop planter used near St. Johns was a conventional one

that the farmer improvised for no—till system.

4.4.1 Chisel Plows

Two chisel plows were used, one in each experimental site. At
St. Johns the chisel plow had 7 spring loaded tines with 3
tines in the front row and 4 tines in the back row with a
spacing of 38 cm between them along the row. It was provided

with four transport wheels operated through a remote hydraulic

22
control. The overall theoretical width of the implement was
2.5 m.
The chisel plow used at MSU had 8 tines mounted on three
rows of 2, 3, and 3 tines each for the front, middle, and rear
rows, respectively. The overall theoretical width of the plow

was 2.2 m.

4.5 Field Cultivator

The field cultivator tested had three rows of tools. The rows
had 8 tines in the front row, 8 tines in the second row and

9 tines in the third row. The cultivator sweeps had a width
of 15 cm across the widest section and were spaced 50 cm
apart. This gave a theoretical width of 4.3 m. The shanks were
spring loaded. Transporting the implement was facilitated by
two hydraulically operated wheels which were also used for
depth regulation. The implement was also provided with
spraying equipment which included a plastic chemical tank and

a sprayer boom mounted at the front.

4.6 Plgntinq Implements

The planting implements experimented with at both sites
included conventional, conservation and no-till grain.drills.
The no-till row crop planter was used at St. Johns only.

Conventional row crop planters were not available for testing.

23

4.6.1 Row Crop Planter

The improvised row crop planter used near St. Johns was
equipped.with seed and fertilizer hoppers as well as two drums
for liquid ballast needed.during no-till planting. The planter
had six rows (78 cm apart) that covered a width of 3.8 m. A
furrow opener placed fertilizer ahead and about 5 cm to the
side of the seed. The knife edge furrow opener for fertilizer
placement had a corrugated disk coulter that cut a strip into
the ground ahead of the knife furrow opener to reduce draft.
The coulter also cut plant residue to reduce clogging.
Similarly the furrow opener for the seeds had a fluted disk
coulter ahead of a double disk furrow opener which was also

used for minimizing implement draft (See Fig. 4.1).

4.6.2 Grain Drills

Four grain drills were tested in various conditions, two at
each experimental site. The smallest grain drill which had 10
rows spaced 20 cm apart with an overall width of 1.83 m was
tested near St. Johns. An 18 row grain drill with a row
spacing of 18 cm and an overall width of 3 m was the second
grain drill used near St. Johns.

One of the grain drills used at MSU had 15 rows spaced 23
cm apart and had 2.84 m overall width. It was equipped with
spring loaded wavy disk coulters at the front of the double
disk furrow openers. Two liquid ballast drums were provided

for use in direct drilling operations. The second grain.drill

24

1‘

x». ‘
\x'\- . 3
. ‘ ,. 73': . .
', .43).. $1 .4 \ .n
1‘ {0'14“} ..“

[i .»

 

Figure 4.1 The modified no-till row planter on field 1.

25
had 21 rows spaced 18 cm apart to give an overall width of

3.56 m.

4.7 The Instrumentation System

The initial instrumentation of the tractor was installed by
earlier researchers (Tembo, S. 1986 and Mah, M. 1990: Michigan
State University). Elaborate description of the system is
available from both the above authors. For this research,
however, the system had to be reassembled and the fuel
measurement meter incorporated to meet the stated objectives.
The modified instrumentation.package and the transducers will
be described in this section. The specifications of the
transducers were well documented by Tembo (1986). The
specifications have been reproduced in Appendix C.

The instrumentation was reassembled in the summer and
fall of 1989. The system consisted of a Dickey john Tractor
Performance Monitor II (DjTPMII), Fluidyne PDP1 piston fuel
flow meter, signal conditioner rack, DC to AC voltage
converter, analog to digital (A/D) converter, microcomputer-
based data acquisition system and an accessory battery. The
signal conditioner rack, voltage converter and the A/D
converter were secured in a foam padded wooden box that was
attached to the right hand side of the tractor cab. A similar
wooden box was fastened to the left hand side of the cab to
accommodate the microcomputer and the monitor. The computer
and monitor were secured to the box with rubber fasteners for

ease of removal (See Fig. 4.2 and 4.3).

26

 

Vii???
' <’-I=.-.;.-u:vm~"

 

Figure 4.2 The signal conditioner rack and the voltage
converter in the tractor cab.

2.7

 

Figure 4.3 The Apple IIe computer and monitor in the
tractor cab.

28

The accessory battery was fastened to the tractor at the
rear side of the cab, behind the driver’s seat. It was
connected to the tractor battery terminals via a double pole,
double throw switch to facilitate recharging when the system
was not collecting data. The tractor cab side windows were
removed.and replaced.by transparent plastic sheets because the
wooden boxes required extra space. The computerized console
of the DjTPMII and the fuel flow meter calibration/run switch
were mounted on the tractor dash board. Only three components
of the system were mounted outside the tractor cab, i.e. the
fuel flow meter box, the radar speed detector unit, and the
strain gages on the drawbar. The fuel flow meter box was
secured on the right hand side of the tractor below the fuel
filters and the radar unit was attached at the same side but
on the underside of the tractor.

Each transducer was calibrated in order to derive
regression equations (Appendix C). Preliminary field tests
were conducted on the MSU farm during October 1989 to verify
the accuracy of the transducers and to develop the procedures
for operating the DAS. imme instrumented tractor was then
stored indoors until summer 1990 when the actual experiments

were conducted.

4.8 Data Acggisition System
The central feature of the in-field DAS was an Apple IIe

microcomputer that was capable of operating at high speeds in

rugged field conditions. The system consisted of an AI13 A/D

29

converter (Interactive Structures Inc) and a 65C02
microprocessor based microcomputer (Apple IIe, Apple Computer
Co.). Six of the 16 channels of the DAS were utilized to
collect data sequentially from six transducers and to store
the data in the Random—Access-Memory (RAM) of the
microcomputer in ASCII form. Data were transmitted through
M1000 series (Data Capture Technology) signal conditioners
which conditioned the analog signals prior to conversion by
the A/D converter which provided the interface between each
analog signal and the microcomputer as shown in Figure 4.4.
The AC power required for the system was provided by the extra
battery connected to a 12VDC-120Vac, 60Hz, 500 Watt sinusoidal
voltage converter (model 20-500, Venner Corporation, Ohio).

The conversion of the continuous data obtained from the
transducers to discrete values was performed by the DAS. The
transfer function for the 12-bit Binary (4096-level)

quantisizer was of the following form:

 

where:
a = Quantum interval

Vf3 = Fullscale voltage input

2 Number base for binary

n Number of bits (binary digits)

2n = Number of quantisizing intervals.

30

gag—3G9

2.32.: gm 8:355. :5 as 3 .553 v8:. v... 2.55

 

bosom See A

 

 

 

RS 2 use
852: Bio.—
o<> as 25.8
m _ _.me... as. is... .8... :

 

 

 

 

 

 

and are are S

 

 

LE... Yam 3:» .8... a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LE... ESTES”. a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I7... Range 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1212:2111

16m I15... Sagan”... e

 

tied Esau 88:88 83:5. 28.55 2.52
o: 3%... Rex—smog :55 .0535

31

The experiment’s DAS had the following transfer function:

1am

212
=122nfl’

a =5Vx

 

(After Vandoren, 1982)
Each step of the digital system represented 1.22 mV.

4.9 The Signal Sensors

4.9.1 DjTPMII

The DjTPMII is a commercial computerized system that is used
to monitor various tractor and implement in—field parameters.
The system consists of a computerized control console, engine
RPM sensor, radar ground.speed sensor, implement status switch
and a wheel speed sensor. Information on the engine speed,
ground speed, percentage wheel slip, distance travelled and
area covered can.be selectively displayed.on the console. This
enables an on-the-run checking of these parameters. For this
experiment the ground, wheel and engine speeds were monitored

through the DjTPMII console during the field tests.

4.9.2 Ground Speed Measurement

The radar unit used for ground speed measurement was mounted
on the underside of the tractor at an inclination toward the
rear of the tractor. The measurement of the ground speed was
through frequency generated by a sensor which emitted a beam

of microwave energy onto the ground surface. The microwave

32
energy was reflected.back to the sensor. The comparison of the
reflected frequency to that emitted to the ground would give
a measure of the ground speed. Movement by the sensor caused
a shift of the comparative frequencies which was proportional
to the speed of the tractor.

The DjTPMII console received the frequency output from
the radar unit and channelled it through an M1080 10KHz
frequency to voltage (F/V) converter and hence to the A113
analog 1x) digital converter. The digital value was
subsequently transmitted to the microcomputer through the

digital multiplexer.

4.9.3 Engine Speed Measurement

The engine speed sensor was mounted between the existing
mechanical drive sender and the tachometer cable, and then
routed to the DjTPMII console on the dashboard. The rotation
of the sensor generated a frequency proportional to the engine
speed. The frequency signal was sent through an M1080, 10KHz
F/V converter prior to transmission through the AI13 A/D

converter for conversion to the digital domain.

4.9.4 Front Wheel Speed Measurement

The tractor was used in four wheel drive mode throughout the
experiments. Determinatituiof the front.wheel rotational speed
was necessary in order to calculate the slippage of the
wheels. This measurement was accomplished by using magnetic

(inductive) pickups that generated voltage pulses. A 60 tooth

33
sprocket accurately machined and mounted on the external
diameter of the innerside of the right front wheel hub, was
used to generate the pulse signals. A cylindrical pole magnet
pickup (model 60-0198"G"--2.5 inches threaded reach) mounted
perpendicular to the sprocket teeth counted the number of
teeth passing as the wheel rotated. The analog signal in
frequency form was transmitted to the F/V converter of the

signal conditioner and hence to the A/D converter.

4.9.5 Rear Wheel Speed Measurement
The rear wheel rotational speed was also useful in the
determination of the wheel slippage. The set-up for measuring
rear wheel speed was similar to that used to determine the
front wheel speed. The rear wheel sprocket had 80 teeth and
was mounted on the right hand side of rear axle housing in a
manner similar to the front wheel one. The magnetic pick-up
was identical to the one for the front wheel one and was
mounted in a like manner.

After the conversion of the frequency signal to voltage
value by the F/V converter, the A/D converter transformed it
to a digital form for the DAS to sample and enter into the RAM

of the computer.

4.9.6 Implement Draft Measurement
The measurement of the implement draft was of primary concern
in the experiments as it was used to determine the energy and

power requirement of the various implements. All of the

34
implements used except the moldboard plow at MSU were pull
type. The tractor drawbar was therefore instrumented with
strain gauges to measure the longitudinal pull force generated
by the implements. The strain gages were mounted on the right
and left hand sides of the drawbar. Lateral movement of the
drawbar was checked by an improvised stopper on which the far
end of the drawbar rested to prevent the gauges from

contacting the drawbar mounting bracket as it swung sideways.

4.9.7 Fuel Consumption Measurement

In.order to accomplish the primary objectives of this project,
a dependable fuel consumption measuring meter was a crucial
requirement. The meter selected for this important aspect of
the experiment was a Fluidyne positive displacement Piston
Flowmeter, model PDP1 obtained from Emco Engineering
Measurements Company, Colorado. The primary features of this
device include:

. High accuracy and repeatability.

. Extreme low flow capability.

. Wide liquid flow range.

. Wide liquid viscosity range.

. High pressure and temperature rating.

. Explosion proof housing for safe operation.in.hostile
environment.

1
2
3
4
5
6

The meter’s linearity deviation from average ranges
between -0.59 per cent to +0.28 per cent depending on the
nominal flow rate which varies between.1 cc/min to 1200 cc/min
(See Appendix D). The flowmeter was mounted vertically in a
sealed weatherproof metal box which was attached to the

tractor on the right hand side below the fuel filters

35

(Fig. 4.5). Three access holes were drilled into the side of
the box for in and out fuel flow lines and the signal
transmission wiring. Two three-way valves were installed to
provide metering and bypass mode possibilities. Overflow from
the metering system was channelled back to the injection low
pressure fuel line (between the meter and the injection pump)
to ensure that all metered fuel was consumed by the tractor.
The connection of the meter to the tractor fuel system was
done using quick couplers for ease of removal at the end of
the research.

The positive displacement piston flowmeter utilizes four
pistons, driven by the flow of the liquid to be measured,
which in turn drive a crankshaft through connecting rods in a
fashion similar to a radial internal-combustion engine. The
rotational velocity of the crankshaft is proportional to the
volumetric flowrate through the flowmeter. The crankshaft is
equipped with a magnetic element which in turn causes an
external transmitter magnet disk to rotate with the same
angular velocity. This rotational velocity is then converted
to pulses using an optical encoder.

The output from the transmitter is a 12 vgp square wave
with a frequency range of 0—2500 Hz. The square wave output of
the transmitter is converted to a sine wave by the signal
conditioner. The frequency generated by the piston flowmeter
and the associated electronic signal are proportional to the

flow rate of the fluid according to the following equation:

36

 

Figure 4 . 5 Fluidyne PDP1 fuel flow meter mounted
on the tractor.

37
Q = (F/Kf) x 60

Flow rate in cubic centimeters per minute

where Q

F

Frequency output in pulses per second (Hz)

1% = Meter calibration factor in pulses per cc

The Kf factor for this meter which was provided by the

factory is 119.87.

4.9.7.1 Calibrator/Run Simulator

A calibrator/run device (frequency simulator) was
designed and fabricated for the flow meter. This device was
used for calibration of the meter in the calibrator mode and
to transmit signals to the signal conditioner in the run.mode.
Its purpose was to expand the narrow signal obtained from the
sensor to one that the signal conditioner could read. It
consisted of a preamplifier through which the flow meter
signal was directed in order to increase its resolution to the
0 to 5 volts range. The simulator had four preset levels of
frequency (100, 250, 500 and 1000 Hz) that were used for the

calibration of the DAS.

4.9.7.2 Fuel Meter Verification

In order to ascertain that the values of the fuel consumption
obtained from the PDP1 meter were accurate, the system was
tested manually in the laboratory using a gravity fuel feed
system that was devised to measure the rate of fuel

consumption with the tractor at a stationary position. The

38

fuel consumption rate was measured at various engine speeds
and the data were manually recorded» .Algraduated cylinder was
filled with fuel and the time taken by the tractor to consume
100 or 200 cc of fuel, depending’ on engine speed, was
recorded. Simultaneous monitoring of the fuel consumption was
done with the PDP1 using the DAS for a direct comparison.

The tractor was then connected to a PTO dynamometer and
the tests were repeated for loads ranging between 7 kW and 65
kW (full load). The fuel consumption rates measured by the
manual system and the PDP1 were compared with values
calculated using the ASAE standard fuel consumption formula.
The PDP1 registered lower values by a constant factor of
1.1296 as compared to the manual values (see Fig. 4.6). Figure
4.7 shows the comparison of the manual fuel measurement and
the regression line of the corrected fuel measurement. This
indicates that the regression line can.be used to estimate the
fuel consumption of the tractor using the equation:

Y = 0.215168 * X + 3.776305

R2 = 0.9987

4.10 Calibration of the Signal Conditioners

The signal conditioners were: M1000 series (Data. Capture
Technology). Each of them was calibrated prior to the
calibration of the transducers. The signal conditioners used
for the five frequency generating sensors were the M-10805.
The strain gage transducer used the M-1060 signal conditioner

which is designed to sense forces.

39

 

 

 

170 H PDP1 flow meter fuel measurement
' o—o Manual fuel measurement
‘ G—B Corrected fuel measurement

g 15.04
i
A 4
E 1&0-
.9
4—0
a. 1
E
3 1L0~
U)
c
o
o
3 9.0-
3
u. .

7nd

1
50° * r f I ' 1
1m 25.0 35.0 «in 55.0 a:

 

Figure 4.6 Correction of PDP1 fuel measurement.

Horsepower, kW

 

4O

 

0—0 Manual fuel measurement

17.0. ,
D Regressuon of corrected fuel measurement

15.0 -

13.0 ..

11.0-

9.0 d

Fuel consumption. L/hr

 

 

 

 

5.0 25.0 ' 35.0 ' 43.0 ' 55.0 - «.0
Horsepower, kW

Figure 4.7 Regression of corrected fuel measurement.

41
4.11 Calibration of Transducers
Calibrations of the transducers were carried out prior to the
preliminary field experiments conducted in summer 1989. The
strain gages on the drawbar were calibrated using a Universal
Tension Machine with a maximum load of 44,927 N (details in
Appendix C). The DAS channels were calibrated in the
laboratory to receive data from the speed measurement
transducers. The calibration. was done using a frequency
generator, and an oscilloscope. The frequency generated was
directed through. the DAS for the computer to ldevelop .a
regression equation. The calibration of the fuel meter DAS
channel was done using the calibrator/run simulator to provide
the signal in calibration mode instead of the frequency
generator. The calibrator was capable of emulating the
transducer signals and hence providing the required frequency
for calibration.

The frequency generator was connected to the appropriate
channel of the signal conditioner using cables that had a
provision for intercepting the signal and directing it to the
oscilloscope for an accurate frequency count. The dials on the
frequency generator were not accurate enough for obtaining the
actual frequency. The signal conditioner converted the signal
to voltage before sending it to the DAS. The gain code of each
transducer was determined and logged into the computer program
together with the respective channel number.

The maximum loads expected from respective transducers

were determined (i.e. rpm, ground speed, etc.) and converted

42

to frequencies. The frequency generator was set to provide the
maximum frequency for a particular transducer. This was
directed to the signal conditioner to obtain an analogous
voltage. The maximum voltage obtained was used to determine
the gain code of the sensors. The range of all six transducers
was 0 to 5 volts. The gain code was therefore set at O for all
of them.

The calibration subroutine of the AI13 program was used
to receive the signal generated by the frequency generator
directly from the signal conditioner. The frequency generator
was used to generate 10 to 12 frequencies depending on the
determined range. The oscilloscope was set to provide a
suitable sine wave on the screen to determine the accurate
frequency settings. The actual frequency was logged into the
computer for each of the frequencies. The computer then
provided the slope and intercept for a regression equation to
calculate the load (frequency) that would be used to convert
the DAS output to the analog frequency. The equations for each
of the transducers are provided in Table 4.1. Details of the
calibration procedure are provided in Appendix C.

The transducer loads (frequencies) were converted to the
respective parameters using the factors provided. by' the
supplier of each.device. The factors are shown.below. The only
exception was the draft load whose calibration equation

converted the load to units of force (N).

 

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmm.o omw.o + vom.o x >E n am 30am Hash 0 PF
Pmmm.o nmm.NF 1 Aooo_\vmo.ooovm x >EV u 2 ocean ammuo 0 OP
33.0 024 + 08.0 x >5 u am 8QO Home: scone o m
mmmm.o bmb.m + mmo.o x >E H mm pmmdm Homes poem 0 m
33.0 RUN + 30.0 x >2 u am 000% 88.6 o a.
wmmm.o voo.r + mmo.o x .>.E H mm pomam maflocm o m

aofiuasgm manaaum> mpou qu652

mm uncommom aoHuaunaaaO GHMO Hmccanu

 

 

 

 

 

.ma0aumsgm uncommmm cofluaunfiamu F.v manna

 

44
1. Engine speed (RPM):
The engine speed transducer registers 4 pulses per
engine revolution. The conversion equation of the

load (Hz) to engine speed was:

= Load(Hz) x GOsec
4puus mm

RPM

 

2. Ground speed (Km/h):
The conversion factor used for the radar ground
speed sensor was 100Hz/m/sec. The conversion
equation of the load (Hz) to ground speed (Km/h)

was:

3. Rear wheel speed (Km/h):
The rear wheel sprocket had 80 teeth. Hence 80
pulses were equivalent to one revolution of the
wheel. The load (Hz) was converted to wheel
revolutions per minute (RPM) and then to peripheral
speed (Km/h) as follows:

REMI-umdoh)x law. xtmun
mummy run

 

45

tfimflm)x le xemumi

KmM==RHWx
My lawn: lHr

 

4. Front wheel speed (Km/h):
The front wheel sprocket had 60 teeth and therefore
60 pulses were equivalent to one wheel revolution.
The equations for converting the load (Hz) to the

peripheral speed were as follows:

1nw ‘XGOuc
Gumbu' 1am:

 

RHM=Ludek)x

cruomhtlxn zrflth

'=RHM1
‘nfi hem lanai IHr

 

The rolling radius of each.wheel was used.to compute

the circumference.

5. Fuel flow measurement:
The conversion factor provided by the suppliers of

PDP1 was 119.87 pulses per cc of fuel flow.

LMr-lhaflfldx 16

Rx x
HSSUmbu

CHAPTER 5

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

5.1 Verification of Instruments

This research was carried out jointly with Wan Ismail (1991)
who was working on a machinery selection simulation model.
Prior to the collection.of data in the field, preliminary data
collection was conducted to verify the accuracy of the

instrumentation and the transducers.

5.1.1 Verification of the Engine Speed

The engine speed was verified using a photo-tachometer, the
DjTMPII and the tractor’s tachometer. The engine was operated
at various speeds and measurement by the photo-tachometer
carried out at the cooling system sheave off the crankshaft.
The data from the two measuring devices were compared for
accuracy. The data measured by the DjTMPII was found to be

accurate and satisfactory within 3 per cent.

5.1.2 Verification of Wheel Speeds

Verification of the wheel speeds was performed by first
elevating the tractor off the ground. The tractor was operated
at several speeds and the wheel revolutions for the rear and
front wheels counted. A count of 10 revolutions of the rear
and 15 of the front wheel were noted and the time taken

measured. Meanwhile the DAS was receiving and recording the

46

47
data generated by the magnetic pick-up transducers. A
comparison of the wheel speeds using the two methods of wheel
speed measurement verified that the transducers were

performing with an accuracy of 2 per cent.

5.1.3 Verification of the Ground Speed

The ground speed.was verified.by measuring the actual distance
covered on a concrete surface at various speed settings . The
time taken was recorded and the speed computed. Simultaneous
ground speed data was recorded by the DAS for comparison with
the manual measurements. The transducer ground speed
measurement was compared with the manual measurement. The
transducer data was accurate within 1 per cent of the manual

data.

5.1.4 Verification of the Fuel Flow Measurement

The fuel flow meter was tested for accuracy as discussed in
section 4.9.7.2 of chapter four. The test showed that the fuel
flow meter had a discrepancy of 12.96 per cent as compared
with the manual measurement. This factor was used to correct
the fuel flow measurements. The variation could have been due
to the difference between the liquid used for the initial
calibration of the meter and the fuel used.by the tractor. The
specification of the liquid used was:

Liquid spec: SAE 967d

Visc. (100E): 2.5-3.5
Sp. Gr.: 0.820-0.830

48

5.2 Test Sites and Description of Experiments
The experiments were conducted on two sites between the months
of May and September 1990. The selection 6f the first site
which consisted of three farmers’ fields was done in
collaboration. with the local district conservationist in
Clinton.County, Michigan. Efforts were made to obtain two soil
types, course and fine texture. The three fields used were
located near St. Johns. The second experimental site was on
the MSU farm located south of the campus at the northwest
corner of College and Jolly roads.

The experiments performed on each field are described in
this section. Altogether, 210 field runs were conducted; 148
at St. Johns and 62 at MSU. The summary statistics for some of
the files have been reproduced in Appendix F. The
characteristics and other information of the soils are

provided in Appendix D.

5.2.1 Field 1

Field 1 was located at the southeast corner of Price and
Chandler roads about 8 kilometers southeast of St. Johns. The
field had alfalfa and rye grass for a continuous three year
period. The soil type was predominantly Capac loam (CaA 0-4
per cent slope). The remnant of the preceding sod stubble was
sprayed with Roundup beforehand as a weed control measure. The

field tests on this site were conducted on May 29, 1990.

49
Six tests were done with a modified six row conventional
row crop planter to achieve no-till planting which was done at

three speeds: 4.8, 6.4 and 8 Km/h replicated twice.

5.2.2 Field 2

Field.2 had two sections, one on either side of Townsend road,
about 8 kilometers north of field 1. The field on the northern
side of the road was designated as 2a. The soil type was
Granby loamy sand (Gr) and was relatively flat. It was not
cultivated the preceding year and.had.grass stubble. A section
of the field was moldboard plowed before the tests. Five
experiments were replicated twice and were conducted on this
field as shown in Table 5.1.

The field on the south side of Townsend road was
designated as field 2b. The soil was predominantly Palms muck
(Pa, 0-2 per cent slope). The soil had high organic matter
content and was dark in color. Six experiments, replicated

twice, were performed on this field as shown in Table 5.2.

5.2.3 Field 3

Field 3 was located between the first two at the southeast
corner of Taft and Watson roads about one kilometer from
Chandler road. The field had two soil types: Owosso-Marlette
sandy loam (2-6 per cent slope) and Metamora-Capac sandy loam
(0-4 per cent slope) separated in the middle by a grass

drainage waterway grown with grass.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.1 Experiments Performed on Field 2a near St Johns.
Width-m Tillage Preceding
Implement (Rows)-# System Implements
Disk harrow 3.9 Conventional Moldboard plow
Disk harrow 3.0 Conventional Moldboard plow
Grain drill 1.8(10) Conventional Moldboard plow
Disk harrow
Grain drill 3.0(18) Conventional Moldboard plow
Disk harrow
Grain drill 1.8(10) No-Till None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.2 Experiments Performed on Field 2b near St Johns.
Width-m Tillage Preceding
Implement (Rows)- # System Implements
Disk harrow 3.9 Conventional Moldboard plow
Disk harrow 3.0 Conventional Moldboard plow
Row crop Moldboard plow
planter 3.8(6) Conventional Disk harrow
Grain drill 1.8(10) Conventional Moldboard plow
Disk harrow
Row crop
planter 3.8(6) No-Till None
Grain drill 3.0(18) No-Till None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The tests in this field were done after the harvesting of
winter wheat. The parts of the field that had a significant
gradient were avoided to minimize the effects of slope on
draft. The field.had been used for no-till crop production for
eight years continuously. The crop preceding wheat was
soybeans that followed corn grown the year before. A section

of the harvested wheat crop had been planted by aerial

51
seeding. The field tests were done on 13, 15 and 16 August,
1990. Six conventional and conservation tillage experiments
were conducted in each soil type as shown in Table 5.3 below.

The tests were replicated two times at the same speed.

5.2.4 MSU Field

The MSU field tests were performed on 28 and 29 August and 1st
eumi 4 September 1990 after the July ‘wheat. harvest. The
experiments were restricted to the flat sections of the field.
The field.had predominantly Capac loam soil with a slope of 0-
4 per cent. Ten experiments were performed for the
conventional and conservation tillage systems as shown in
Tables 5.4 and 5.5. Each experiment was replicated twice. No-
till tillage experiments were performed.with.the no-till grain

drills.

Table 5.3 Experiments Performed on Field 3 near St Johns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Width-m Tillage Preceding
Implement Tools/Rows-# System Implements
Moldboard
plow 2.4(6) Conventional None
Chisel plow 2.5(7) Conservation None
Disk harrow 3.2 Conventional Moldboard
plow
Disk harrow 3.2 Conservation Chisel plow
Grain drill 1.8(10) Conventional Moldboard plow
Disk harrow
Grain drill 1.8(10) Conservation Chisel plow
Disk harrow

 

52

Table 5.4 Conservation Tillage Experiments Performed at MSU.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Width-m Preceding
Implement Tools/Rows-# Implements
Chisel plow 2.2(8) None
Disk harrow 4.3 Chisel plow
Field cultivator 4.3(25) Chisel plow
Grain drill 2.8(21) Field cultivator
Grain drill 3.6(21) Chisel plow
Disk harrow

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.5 Conventional Tillage Experiments Performed at MSU.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Implement Width-m Preceding
Tools/Rows-# Implement
Moldboard plow 1.2(3) None

Disk harrow 4.3 Moldboard plow
Field cultivator 4.3(25) Moldboard plow
Grain drill 2.8(15) Moldboard plow

Disk harrow
Grain drill 3.6(21) Moldboard plow

lField cultivator
Disk harrow

 

 

 

 

 

5.3 Data Collection Procedure
5.3.1 Soils Data

In each of the fields, soil moisture and soil strength data
were collected before the implements were tested. At least ten
soil samples each with three depth levels were obtained for
each field. The sampling points were randomly selected over
the whole field. The sampling depths were at the surface, 10

cm and 20 cm into the ground. The soil auger used (Fig. 5.1)

53

 

Figure 5.1 Soil auger and soil sample can.

54
was suitable for obtaining the three soil levels in one
penetration. The soil samples were oven dried at 105 degrees
Celsius for twenty-four hours and the moisture content (dry
basis) determined.

The soil shear strength measurement was done with a
manual proving ring cone penetrometer (Fig 5.2). This is a
suitable tool for rapid determination of the penetration
resistance of soils. The cone point had a base area of 6.34
cmz. About ten readings were obtained randomly across the
field at each test site. These readings were used to obtain
the cone index values from the calibration chart provided by

the manufacturer of the instrument.

5.3.2 Field Experimental Methodology

The experiments performed near St. Johns were conducted.as the
farmers did their regular land preparation and planting. All
the experiments were, however, done with the instrumented
tractor driven by the research personnel. The implements used
were not in any way tampered with to suit the research.
Instead, the farmers carried out all the required adjustments
to suit their seedbed and planting requirements.

The initial calibration of the data acquisition system
was done in the laboratory and preliminary tests were
conducted to verify the accuracy of each of the transducers.
The preliminary experimental tests were conducted in the
summer and fall of 1989. During the field tests, the field

runs were conducted on the longest and flattest side of the

55

 

Figure 5.2 Manual proving ring cone penetrometer.

56

field. This enabled either 500 or 1000 data sets to be
collected. The rate of data sampling was 20 data sets per
second. Each data set contained one measurement for each of
the six channels. Hence for a run performed at 8 Km/h, 6000
data points were collected in 50 seconds over a distance of
about 110 m. When the field length was limiting, the tractor
was stopped at the end of the field before full data was
collected. This was the case particularly at the higher range
of ground speeds (above 9.6 Km/h). However, in all cases at
least 500 data sets were obtained.

The preparation for-data collection in the field included
adjustment of all signal conditioners to an initial zero. This
was done with all transducers at no load, tractor engine off,
and the implement disconnected from the drawbar. The A113
program was initiated for data acquisition by entering the
number of data sets to be collected and the rate of
collection. The program was then ready to receive data. Before
engaging the implement, the engine speed was set at 2100 rpm
and the appropriate transmission gear selected. The tractor
was engaged to work. The ground speed and the draft force were
allowed to stabilize before the DAS was started. When the
steady state condition was achieved, data collection was
started by striking the "Return" key on the computer keyboard.
Meanwhile the accessory battery was disconnected from the
charging circuit to isolate it from the tractor’s electrical
system to avoid current flow through the strain gages to

ground.

57

When the DAS completed taking the required data sets (or
at the end of the field), the tractor was stopped while the
data were transferred from the RAM to a file on floppy disk
for storage. Checking of the data for the first few runs of
the day prior to transfer from RAM was done on the computer
monitor to ensure that all the transducers were functioning as
expected. During the data dumping process, the tractor engine
was left running and the recharging circuit for the accessory
battery was switched on. The process of data transfer took
about five minutes (compared with between 25 and 50 seconds

required to collect it).

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Field Conditions

The weather during the period of the experiments was ideal.
There were no extreme cold or hot conditions that would have
affected the performance of the transducers or the DAS. Dusty
conditions were also limited. The tractor cab was sealed well
with plastic sheets to keep the dust out. The field at MSU and
field 3 near St. Jahns had some straw on the surface. The
straw did not inhibit the performance of the tractor or the

implements.

6.2 Equipment and Instrumentation Performance
The experiments were performed with implements that were
available from.farmers.near'St. Johns and with.implements that
were available from.the MSU farms. None of the implements were
specially designed.or adapted for test purposes. In.all of the
operations, the experiments were conducted as part of the
farmers’ field work as they prepared the seedbeds and later
planted. In all cases, the testing operations were performed
with the instrumented tractor.

The success of the experiments was dependent on the
accuracy of the transducers and the reliability of the DAS.
The ground speed, front and rear wheel speeds and the engine

speed were verified in the field to assess the consistency of

58

59
the calibration equations. In all cases it was established
that the system was working accurately.

The data were sampled by copying from the computer
monitor for checking the accuracy and performance of the
transducers and the DAS. After each day’s experiments a block
of twenty data sets from each experiment was read from the
computer monitor. Subsequent preliminary analysis provided an
indication of how the system was running. In each case the
system was found to be performing satisfactorily.

After the first phase of the experiments, all of the data
were retrieved into an IBM compatible computer system for
further preliminary analysis. This was necessary to establish
if there was need for repeating any of the tests before

proceeding to the next phase. None of the tests was repeated.

6.3 Data Retrieval

In order to facilitate data processing and analysis,
transferring the data to an IBM compatible computer system was
desirable. This process was done by using two programs, one
for each of the computer systems. The Apple IIe used an ASCII
Express program that communicated with a Modern 7 PC IBM
compatible communications package. This process was possible
because the data were stored in ASCII form. The physical
connection.between the two computers was done with.a crossover
cable-R8232 that was connected through the serial ports of the
two computers. The detailed data transfer procedure is

available in Appendix E.

60

The initial processing of the data.was performed.with the
Lotus 123 program. All data were then converted to the
respective values using the regression equations and the
conversion factors for each transducer. Basic statistics of
each data file were computed and summarized as in Appendix F.
These statistics consisted of the maximum value, minimum
value, average and standard deviation for each variable.

Appendix G lists a complete printout of one typical raw
data file. The list includes all of the 500 data sets
consisting of 3,000 data points for the 6 transducers. The
units of the data are in millivolts (mV). The first column
shows the time intervals as the DAS sampled the data at the

rate of 20 data sets per second.

6.4 Parameter Calculations

The average value of each transducer output was used to
compute the various parameters used for the experimental
analysis. Details of the calculations performed for each
tillage system are provided here. Table 6.1 provides a summary
of the mean values of the soils data (cone index and moisture
content) for each of the fields. The mean engine speed, mean
wheel slip and the mean effective field capacity for each of
the implements used in the tillage systems are also shown in
the table according to the soils worked on. The mean fuel and
energy consumption values (derived from the primary data) are

summarized here too.

61

0300 mo honesz c

 

00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00000
v0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00000
00 00 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 000 0000000 :00 0000102
00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 000 0000 00000 00000 00:0
00 00 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 000 300000 0000 .>000 00000
00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00000 0000102
00 00 0.00 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.00 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 000 0000 00000 00000
00 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 000 0000 00000 00000 0000
00 00 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 000 300000 0000 00000
3009 p0eon00o: .>coo 0n000o
00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 000 0000 00000 00000 0000102
00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 00000 00000
00 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 000 300000 0000
00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 3000 000000 .000000
00 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 00000 00000
00 00 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0000 0.00 000 300000 0000 00000
00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 3000 00000000: .>000 00000002
1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0000 0.00 000 0000 00000 00000
0000006 30000: x000
00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.00 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 3000 000000 .000000
EMOH
1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0000 0.00 000 0000 00000 00000 00000
00 0 00 0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 1 0000 300000 0000 0000000:
00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.00 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 3000 00000000: .>0oo 1000030
00 0 0.00 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 000 000 0000000 :00
0000 0000 00000 00000
00 00: 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00000 0000102
00000000 00000020
00 00: 0.0 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 300000 0000
00 00: 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00000
00 00: 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00000
00 00: 0.0 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 300000 0000
00 00: 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.00 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 3000 000000
00 00: 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000>00000 00000 .000000
00 00: 0.0 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000 00000 00000
00 00: 0.0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0000 0.00 0000.0000 00000 00000
00 00: 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 300000 0000
1 00: 1 1 1 1 0.00 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 3000 00000000: 0000
00 00: 0.0 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0000 0.00 0000 0000>00000 00000 .>0oo 00000
0 0000 00\0zx 30 20 0zx\0 00\0 0\00 o 0\00 000 o 000 000000000 000000 0009
00 00000 000000 00300 00000 00000000000 0000 000 0000 00000 00000 .o.z x0000 0000000 0000
M0008 HQEH u6n3m .00 MONA; 00:00 .00 . OCH H 00m OCOO

 

.0000 0000009 on» no 00eeeam

0.0 00909

62

The chisel plow registered the highest wheel slip (27 per
cent) in Owosso-Marlette sandy loam soil when.operating at 6.6
Km/h and demanded the highest mean drawbar power (35.1 kW).
The grain drill recorded the lowest wheel slip in Capac loam
soil (2 per cent). The field cultivator, operating in Capac
loam soil, had the highest tractive efficiency of 74 per cent.
The moldboard plow fuel consumption in Capac loam soil was
rather high at 21.2 L/ha. This could have been caused by the
dry field condition as the mean moisture content was 12.3 per
cent. The computations of the parameters summarized in Table

6.1 are described as follows:

(i) The effective field capacity (EFC) for each implement was
calculated using the optimum field efficiency as provided by
the ASAE D497, Standards (1990), the implement width (W) and
the operational speed (S). Table 6.2 shows the values of field

efficiency used for the computation of EFC.

 

EFC .. 3 (1011/1110: W") x 517. (den)

Table 6.2 Implement Field Efficiency

 

Field Efficiency

 

Implement (per cent)
Moldboard plow 80
Chisel plow 85
Field cultivator 85
Disk harrow (Tandem) 85
Row crop planter (No-till) 65

Grain drill 7O

 

63
(ii) The implement energy requirement (kWh/ha) was calculated

using the drawbar power and the EEC as shown here:

Implement energy, kWh/ha:

infi==HVx 1

ha ETC

(iii) The fuel consumption was computed using two methods

based on the EFC, the measured fuel consumption per hour and

the drawbar power, thus:

Liters per hectare. L/ha:

‘—

1
ENC

2‘15

1:
ha

§pecific fuel consumption, L/kWh:

L ha

kWfi kWfi

 

1.1:.
ha

(iv) Calculation of the tractive efficiency (TE) for each
implement and field condition was performed using the cone
index (CI) values, the wheel slip, draft force and the dynamic
weight on each tractor axle. The dynamic weight was computed
using the draft force of the implement, the tractor’s static

weight, the tractor’s hitch geometry and the height of the

drawbar.

64
This calculation was done for the respective axles. The
mean of the two was used as the overall TE. The calculation
was done using the ASAE D497 Standards (1990) equation shown
below. The tractor data used in computing the TE is provided

in table 6.3.

.132 +0.04

Cu

m= 1- 1-
( m Qua-#390)

 

where:
s = slip (decimal)
C0: Clxbxd
W
CI = Cone index, N/cm2
b = Unloaded tire section width, cm.
<i==Unloaded.overall tire diameter, cm.
W = Axle dynamic weight, N.

The static weight of the tractor was 44,200 N.

Table 6.3 Specifications of Tractor Tire Size.

 

Unloaded Tire Size

Drawbar Height

 

b (cm) d (cm) cm
Rear 34.5 131 30
Front 36.0 100 --

 

65

6.5 Comparative Performance of Tillage Systems

The data on the different soil types used for experiments were
analyzed to determine the variation of the energy and fuel
consumption and the power demand for various tillage systems
and. implement combinations. Three: of the soils that. had
complete data for comparison are shown in Table 6.4 with the
summary of fuel and energy requirement data. This summary
provides the total fuel and energy needs for the three tillage
systems including planting. The fuel and energy requirements
for the conventional tillage system were higher than that of

the conservation tillage system for all the three soil types.

6.5.1 Owosso-Marlette Sandy Loam Soil
The data summary in Table 6.4 shows that the fuel consumption
for the conventional tillage system required 4.7 liters of
fuel per hectare more than the conservation tillage system.
Similarly 40 per cent more implement energy (kWh/ha) was
required by the conventional tillage system as compared to the
conservation tillage system. Specific fuel requirements also
indicated 22.9 per cent more L/kWh for the moldboard plow-
based system as compared to the chisel plow-based tillage
system. The row crop planter required 5.1 L/ha of fuel and 4.6
kWh/ha of energy for the single field operation of no-till
planting. The fuel and energy required for weed control was
not accounted for in any of the three tillage systems.

A 2.5 m chisel plow required about 18 per cent more

drawbar power than a 2.4 m moldboard plow. The chisel plow

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0b.? III m.w w.v v.0 v.v op.F N.m N.m zouumz xmao
oo.F mw m.m P.FN ~.PN m.vw mm.o m.FP m.PP 30am Unmom\z
“anneauao>coo
om.P III m.h m.v N.b m.m mo.F F.m m.b HHAHU Gamnw
om.w III w.v P.FP m.m— m.m Fm.o m.m m.oP Housman 30%
. fivm Fm.~ fimm Tom a
Nb.o III m.m —.b P.m m.m mm.o m.w w.w HHHHQ cdmuw
mm.P III o.> m.m m.N— o.m Pw.o 0.0 m.m zouums xmfio
mm.w m? m.w —.om m.wm v.mp mm.o m.op m.m~ Soda Hmmfinu
4%
0.2. $.m «1mm m.mm Iugdrmmuau.
v5.0 III w.m m.m 0.5 v.v om.o w.m w.m Haauv camuw
om.w III 0.5 m.m m.oP v.m om.— m.m v.m 3ouumn xmao
vb.o m— m.m N.mm m.om F.wP mm.o m.m~ m.bp 30am UHmom\2
«Han—Ofiuflfixrfiou
mmoH mono» ouuommmmummmoso fl
un\mn so n\sx mn\gzx xx zx g3x\q m:\q ug\q unmsmaosH
0mm gamma cowam
GofiumE:mcoo munmam coHuQEdmcoo Hmsm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mucmEmHQEH momHHfiB new mucmEmnflsvmm houmcm 6cm dosh v.0 manna

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~.bv om.m m.om s.vm uq<aos
vm.P III m.n a.w m.o. oo.m m~.P m.m m.m Hangs cacao
mm.F III v.m m.m m.bF _.~F mm.o v.m m.m sauna: xmfio
.o.P III v.m m.om m.om m.o~ mm.o m.mp m.o. 30am Ammano
u:o«0m>u0n:ou
F.6m mo.~ m.m~ s.Pv uq¢eoa
om.F III o.b m.s m.PP «.m sm.o m.w m.m Hangs cacao
om._ III ~.m ~._P h.m_ n.m_ nm.o m.P m.P_ zouums xmflo
wm.o ml m.m III III III III m.mP m.m 30am numom\z
.o.o III m.o v.h «.mP >.> Fo.o >.v s.__ Heum>.o 6Hmfim
u H MCOM HGO>COU
smog wmmww
mm.o III m.v m.v n.~ m.~ nv.m F..P P.o Adana cfimuo
"HHMBIoz
n.mm m..~ m.m~ v.m~ uq¢aos
om.o III >.m m.n P.o m.m mm.o o.» ~.n Haauc cacao
ms.l III o.n P.h m.mp v.6 ms.o o.m m.m souumn xmao
mP.P mp v.m m.m. m.~m m.¢P mm.o v.0. m.~. 30am Hmmfiso
Immm«uuumwMHMMI
o.mm mm.~ m.m~ m.m~ «mammmu
mo.o III o.o n.m F.> o.¢ om.o m.m m.n Haaun cacao

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Aosucouv v.w manna

 

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ms.o e.m m.~ m.F P.F mm.m m..m m.m adage :fimuo
mm.P o.m m.n v.o_ 5.6 vm.o m~.m b.m umucmao 30m
a
m._m om.~ m.mP m.bm mwmmwwl
Pm._ n.m ~.m >.o_ v.6 m>.o v.6 v.m “magmaa 30m
m~.F s.m ~.o o.» m.v mm.o m.m m.» Adana cfimuo
mm.l ..m v.5 m.v_ m.o No.0 _.6 m.FF saunas xmfia
3
mm._ m.s m.v ~.n m.m mo.F _.m m.» Hanan mango
o~._ m.v P.PP m.ml m.m Fm.o m.m m.op umucman 30m

 

 

3.3 ”308 v . m manna

 

69
was operated at 15 cm depth while the moldboard plow was
working at 13 cm.depth. These results are shown in Figure 6.1.

From the data on ground speed and fuel consumption,
prediction equations for estimating the fuel and. energy
consumption.for both.moldboard.and.chisel plows in.theeOwosso-
Marlette soil type ‘were derived. using' PLOTIT' regression
analysis. The prediction graphs and their equations are shown
in Figures 6.2 through 6.5. Figures 6.2 and 6.3 are used to
determine the fuel requirement (L/hr) for the moldboard and
chisel plow respectively using the ground speed as the
independent variable.

The energy prediction for the same implements are shown
in Figures 6.4 and 6.5. The energy consumption (kWh/ha) is
correlated against tflma fuel consumption (L/ha). The
coefficient of correlation in the two sets of predictions
ranged between 0.999 and 0.989. This implies that there are
other factors that affected the relationships that were not
taken into account and.hence the variation.of the coefficient.
For instance the soil moisture content, the soil shear
strength and the wheel slip were variables that could have
influenced.the results. The:mean.moisture content was 14.9 per
cent while the mean cone index value was 1695 kPa and 1787
kPa for the moldboard and chisel plow respectively. The mean
wheel slip for the moldboard plow was 15 per cent while that

of the chisel plow was 27 per cent (Table 6.1).

70

 

55.0. Conventional tillage system
‘ 02:21 Conservation tillage system
22 No-till tillage system

40.04
32.0 4
24.0 q
1 8.0 -I

8.0 -

 

 

 

0.0

 

Total Total Primary tillage
fuel implement drawbar
consumption energy power

(L/ha) (kWh/ha) (kw)

Figure 6.1 Comparative fuel and energy consumption in
Owosso-Marlette sandy loam soil.

71

 

 

 

24.0% Y = 2.462 ‘ X
_ /’

L , Ra - 0.989 //
i: 200 . ,/ '
._J T . /
6 /’
.9 1&0- //// .
*a "//
g 12.01
(D
C I
O
U 8.0-4
'5
3
LL 4.0-I

0.0 - I a , - , - 1 -

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 1 0.0

 

Ground speed, Kph

Figure 6.2 Estimation of fuel consumption for moldboard plow
in Owosso-Marlette sandy loam soil.

72

 

 

 

 

2°~°~ Y - 2.241 I x _ y/'
1 R2 = 0.976 /
L /’
{ 160-1 /
_J ' ,/ '
e //
.9 / n
45- 12.01 /
g ‘ ',///
g an« ’
o
o
'6
If 40«
{
Q0 I I I I I
mo 20 «0 no no 1&0
Ground speed. Kph
Figure 6.3. ZEstimation of fuel consumption for chisel plow in

Owosso-Marlette sandy loam soil.

73

 

 

 

o Y'= L7431=X

32.0‘
1: =
\ R’ 0.999
i

I

x /.
~ 24.04 /
c /’
o
1.3 /
o. v
E
3 100‘
[D
C
o
o
5‘. 0.0«
L
II)
c
LI.I

0.0 ' I V 1 v r ' v I v

0.0 4.0 0.0 11.0 10.0 20.0 24.0

 

Fuel consumption, L/ha

Figure 6.4 Estimation of energy consumption for moldboard
plow in Owosso-Marlette sandy loam soil.

74

 

 

 

200
I Y'= L868I=X
o /4
i 24.0-I R’ = 0.989 /
. I /
.c
3: ' //
x 20.0 /‘ I
e // I
o
:: 1&0I .//
o. /
E
m 12.0"
c
o 1
° 00‘
>.
0’ l
B
c 40-
uJ
000 V ' l' f T r T r I ' ' I '
00 20 to so so 100 110 140 1L

Figure 6.5 Estimation of energy consumption for chisel plow

Fuel consumption, L/ha

in Owosso-Marlette sandy loam soil.

 

75

6.5.2 Metamora-Capac Sandy Loam

A similar trend was observed in the Metamora-Capac sandy loam
soil. The conventional moldboard plow-based tillage system
required about 5 per cent more implement energy per hectare
(kWh/ha) and 2.2 L/ha more fuel than the chisel plow-based
conservation tillage system. The results of the demand of the
specific energy requirements also showed about 16 per cent
more fuel per kilowatt-hour (L/kWh) for the conventional
tillage system.

The no-till grain drill required 12.2 L/ha less fuel than
the conservation tillage system for the planting operation
only. Fuel and energy used for the weed control was not
accounted for. The power demand showed that the chisel plow
demanded 0.9 kW more than the moldboard plow operating at the
same depths as in the Owosso-Marlette sandy loam soil. These
comparative results are shown in Figure 6.6.

Figure 6.7 represents the regression analysis of the fuel
consumption for the chisel plow-based tillage system based on
the ground speed as the independent variable. The coefficient
of correlation. was 0.990. The regression. of the energy
consumption for the moldboard plow is shown.in Figure 6.8 with
a coefficient of correlation value of 0.985. The mean moisture
content for the soil was 14.5 per cent while the mean one
index was 1666 kPa and 1839 kPa for the conventional and
conservation tillage system respectively (Table 6.1). Figure
6.9 shows the prediction for the fuel consumption for the 18

row no-till grain drill using the ground speed as the

76

 

 

 

 

 

4&0
Conventional tillage system
4 cm Conservation tillage system
40.0- m No—till tillage system
320‘
240~
1
100-
8.0d
0.0
Total Total Primary tillage
fuel implement drawbar
consumption energy power
(L/ha) (kWh/ha) (kw)

Figure 6.6 Comparative fuel and energy consumption
in Metamora-Capac sandy loam soil.

Fuel consumption. L/hr

Figure 6.7

77

 

 

 

 

mo
Y'= LQQZS'X
- _ /‘
R’-0390 // .
' //
120< ' //
/’
/’
1 / II
_ /’
5.0‘ a/
40-
00 - . - , i .f
00 10 «0 00 00
Ground speed, Kph
Estimation of fuel consumption for chisel

plow in Metamora-Capac sandy loam soil.

78

 

 

 

20.0

o Y = 1.76:5 I x ' j
1
< R’ = 0.985 - /
/

.C 16.0-I
3 . /
x I / . '
E
.9 120~
.0.)
Q.
E I
I3
: 801
O
U
>\
E’ 40«
I)
C
LL] I

000 j I V T ' I v I ' I ' I V

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 1 2.0 14.0

 

Fuel consumption, L/ha

Figure 6.8 Estimation of energy consumption for chisel plow
in Metamora-Capac sandy loam soil.

79

 

 

 

 

m0
1'= L27BIIX /{

_ R’ = 0.992 . . //
i 8.0? / I
_I z’
. /
c ' ,/
:2 60~ //
o. /’
E //
3
8 40~
o
o
73
[L 20«

00 . I - I - , -

00 10 «0 mo 00

Ground speed, Kph

Figure 6.9 Estimation of fuel consumption for the 18 row no-
till grain drill in Metamora-Capac sandy loam
soil.

80

 

 

m0
Y = 1.067 I X
_ R3 = 0.974
.C 0.0-I
/’
) //- _
S - // '
.; 50~ . //
o. /’
E /
3 /
[g 4.0+
o
o
73’
lL 20-
J
0.00.0 7 210 f 410 ' 0T0 ' 0.0

 

 

Ground speed, Kph

Figure 6.10 Estimation of fuel consumption for the 10 row no-
till grain drill in Metamora-Capac sandy loam
soil.

81

independent variable. The value of the coefficient of
correlation was 0.992 for a mean soil moisture content of 14.5
per cent and a mean cone index value of 658 kPa. Figures 6.9
and 6.10 represent the prediction of fuel consumption for an
18 row and a 10 row no-till grain drills operated in the same
soil. The coefficient of correlation for the 18 row grain
drill was 0.992 whereas that of the 10 row grain drill was
0.974.

The variability of the coefficients of correlation for
the regression analysis were due to other variables affecting
the fuel and energy consumption. These variables which
included the soil moisture content, soil shear strength, and
tractor wheel slip were measured but not accounted for in the

regression analysis.

6.5.3 Capac Loam Soil

The experiments performed in the Capac loam soil did not
include the draft measurement for the moldboard plow. The
results showed that the conservation tillage system demanded
about 56 per cent more implement energy than the conventional
tillage system without the moldboard plow. Similarly the fuel
requirement for the conservation tillage was 1.9 L/ha more
than that of the conventional tillage system. The specific
fuel consumption showed 0.25 L/kWh more was demanded by the
conservation tillage system as compared to the conventional
tillage system. These results are shown in Table 6.4 referred

to earlier.

82
Table 6.5 was extracted form Table 6.4 and it provides a
summary of the specific fuel and energy requirements for the
three soil types. In two of the soils (Owosso-Marlette and
Metamora-Capac sandy loam) the conventional tillage system
resulted with higher values of the fuel and energy requirement
than the conservation tillage system. The Capac loam soil

showed contradicting results due to lack of draft force data.

6.6 Discussion

The results obtained from.the data.collected show'consistently
that the fuel and energy requirements for the conventional
tillage system were higher than those of the conservation
tillage systems. These observations are in agreement with what
was documented in the literature cited. In the experiments
performed by Zwilling and Hummel (1988) , the conclusions drawn
were that the conventional tillage system requirements ranged
from 25.8 to 45.7 L/ha as compared to minimum tillage
requirement that was between 17.2 and 25.3 L/ha.

On average the no-till tillage system used for the
experiments provided a saving of 23.7 L/ha in comparison with
conventional tillage system. Conservation tillage system also
provided a saving of 4.7 L/ha as compared to the conventional
tillage system. Vaughan (1977) documented similar savings. In
his experiments on tillage systems he obtained savings of 13
L/ha for the reduced tillage and 38 L/ha for the no-till

tillage system.

Table 6.5 Specific Fuel and Energy Requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soil Type

Marlette Capac Capac

Tillage System
(kWh/ha)
Conventional 48.0 35.6 26.1
Conservation 34.1 33.7 47.2
No-Till:
Row planter 11.1 --- 4.
Grain drill 4.6 4.9 7.8
(L/ha)
Conventional 28.4 25.5 30.8
Conservation 23.7 23.3 28.9
No-Till:
Row planter 8.8 --- 8.8
Grain drill 5.1 11.1 .1
(L/kWh)

Conventional 2.84 2.55 2.05
Conservation 2.31 2.19 2.30
No-Till:
Row planter 0.81 --- 0.81
Grain drill 1.09 2.47 1.09

 

 

84

The implement combinations determine the amount of energy
used for tillage. In the summary of energy and fuel use data
shown in Table 6.4, only one disk harrow operation was taken
into account. If the farmer chose to perform several disk
harrow operations, it is expected that the energy used for the
subsequent disking would not differ significantly from that
used in the first disking. In both conventional and
conservation tillage systems, the first.disk.harrow'operations
required about the same amount of fuel in Owosso-Marlette and

Metamora-Capac soils as shown in Table 6.4

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

The field experiments performed on three tillage systems in
three soil types were analyzed and the results showed that the
following conclusions could be made with regard to the fuel

and energy consumption:

1. The fuel consumption measurements done with the PDP1 fuel
flow meter and the draft force measured with the drawbar
instrumentation can be used to predict the energy requirement

of implements for various ground speeds.

2. The fuel and energy requirement per hectare basis for the
moldboard plow-based tillage system was found to be
consistently higher than for the chisel plow-based tillage
system. This implies that moldboard plow-based tillage system
would require a higher energy level input than the chisel

plow-based tillage system.

3. The drawbar power requirement for the chisel plow was
higher than that of the moldboard plow in Owosso-Marlette and
Metamora-Capac soils for the same width.of implement. This was
for a depth of 13 cm for the moldboard plow and 15 cm for the

chisle plow.

85

86
4. The specific energy requirement (kWh/ha) for the
conventional tillage system was higher than that of the

conservation tillage system.

5. The chisel plow'has a higher effective field capacity (EFC)
than the moldboard plow. Hence, though the chisel plow would
require a larger tractor to operate than the moldboard plow,
the rate of work.would.be higher and the overall energy demand

to operate it would be less.

CHAPTER 8

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

During the course of the experiments, some observations that
would improve future research in this area were made. The
following are some useful recommendations to be noted in

conducting similar experiments:

1. There is need to establish the fuel equivalent value for
the chemical energy used in the weed control for the tillage
systems. This would enable a comprehensive comparison of the
total fuel and energy use to be made.

2. Measurement of the left hand wheel speeds was not done.
This could be computed by using the known speed of the right
hand wheels. The gear ratio of the transmission, differential
and the final drive would provide the required relationship
given that the differential speed is the mean of the final
drive speeds. The overall wheel slip for the respective axles
in front wheel assist mode would then be the mean of the right
and left hand wheel slip.

3. The depth of tillage was not used as a variable in the
experiments. Varying this factor would enable comparison of
the tillage systems to be made at various ground speeds and

depths.

87

88

APPENDICES

89

APPENDIX A

90

APPENDIX A

TRACTOR SPECIFICATIONS

 

 

Item Specification
Make and model Ford 7610
Power rating 65 kW (PTO)

Engine

Rated engine speed
High idle speed
Transmission

Rear tires
Front tires
Static weight
Wheel base

Cylinders : 6
Displacement: 4393 cc
2100 rpm

2600 rpm

Ranges: 2

Gears : 8

18.4 x 34

13.6 x 24

44200 N

2.25 m

 

91

APPENDIX B

92

IMPLEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

A total of six implement types were used for the experiments.
These consisted of two moldboard plows, two chisel plows, one

field cultivator, four disk harrows, one row crop planter and
six grain drills.

The specifications for each of these is
provided here.

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2302 08.. 603802 F m w.m och 0000a anon no.8 30m
coanmso
mxmflp CHMHQ m .Empcmfi_ am: I m.v cyan mumma anon 3ouums xmfln
mxmflp aflmHQ m .EmUGMB m I N.m mama oz zouums xmfla
am
meflU CHMHQ m .Empame row I o.m mummo snow 3ouumn meQ
am
868 :83 m .8603 .3 I m.m 305.08 9.32 3803 x36
naum>fluaso
033 so m; 300% mm: mm m4. com 08:08 303
pamemflsqm
0.06%.. so 3. mafia mm: m ~1m sums BE: 330 335
0.08... 8 mm mmcfl. m e m.m 42mm 330 9035
mEOuuon
Ea ow Cabanas madpm om: m N.P omv HmcoflumcumucH .30HQ pumonoaoz
I 9:833 so 3 083 :5 m m Tm 83% com 00:02 303 6080.302
J m pamEEOU momma wBOm E
303 308. 5on 382 cam 982 0.5835
m0 *

 

mZOHB<UHhHUmmm BZMSWAQSH

m XHQZMQQ<

 

94

 

 

 

 

 

oaflomam 300 EU mm mm: m? m.m m>e HHAHU aflmuw

oaflommm zou so n.>_ sz Fm m.m mumma anon HHHHU Gamma

oaflommm 300 E0 m.>— 2m we o.m bop umafium> HHAHU Gamma
M .9m ummmmam

oaflomam 300 So om .MN or m.F medummm owe HHHHG aflmnw

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aptucoov m xflccmmm<

 

95

APPENDIX C

96

SPECIFICATIONS AND CALIBRATION
OF TRANSDUCERS

The specifications of the transducers used for obtaining the
signals from the six data sources are provided here. The trade
names and the sources from which they were obtained are also
provided. The six transducers included the following:

Radar ground speed sensor
Engine RPM sensor

Front wheel speed sensor
Rear wheel speed sensor
Draft force strain gages
Fuel flow meter sensor

ONUTAUJNA
I

97

APPENDIX C

SPECIFICATIONS AND CALIBRATION
OF TRANSDUCERS

Appendix C.1: Radar ground speed sensor

Sensor Origin: Dickey john Corporation.

Velocity range: 0 to 80 Km/h

Accuracy (Typical): i1% at 35 degrees mounting
angle.

Recommended mounting angle: Beam center to plane of earth.
should be 35 degrees :2 degrees.

Supply Voltage: Unregulated battery voltage, 11
to 18 VDC.

Supply Current: 300 mA.

Output Signal: Output frequency 100 Hz/m/sec

(44.7 Hz/mph).
Output voltage amplitude maximum
low level 6 volts, minimum.high
level 7 volts.

Calibration procedure:

1.

Determine the maximum ground speed of operation:

12.8“; lmx 1hr xloomx sac . 355.56Hz

hr Rh 3finmc m

 

Connect the transducer to the signal conditioner and the
frequency generator.

Select the ground speed channel on the signal conditioner.
Select the calibration mode on the signal conditioner.
Boot the computer and run AI13 software for calibration.

. Determine the gain code for the transducer depending on the

signal conditioner output in mV.

Generate at least ten frequencies with the frequency
generator within the above maximum level of 355.56 Hz.
For each frequency, compute the accurate reading from the
signal conditioner and log the reading into the computer.
After logging ten or more frequency readings, run the
calibration program for the calculation of the regression
formula.

Calibration response equation:

Hz = mV x 0.098 + 2.278

98

Appendix C.2: Engine RPM sensor

Sensor Origin: Dickey john Corporation.
Specifications: 30 to 4000 Hz.
3 VP“?

4 pulses per engine revolution.
Calibrationgprocedure:

1. Determine maximum rotational engine speed:

Zunrnwx_1:'35nw

um: 60 an

2. Determine frequency at maximum engine speed:

2ND“V"";;‘umb‘;glnm‘.Iymm2
1mm lamnw aka:

3. Connect the transducer to the signal conditioner and the
frequency generator.

4. Select the engine speed channel on the signal conditioner.

5. Select the calibration mode on the signal conditioner.

6. Boot the computer and run A113 software for calibration.

7. Determine the gain code for the transducer depending on the
signal conditioner output in mV.

8. Generate at least ten frequencies with the frequency
generator within the above maximum level of 140.00 Hz.
preferably in steps of 10 or 20 Hz.

9. For each frequency, compute the accurate reading from the
signal conditioner and log it into the computer.

10.After logging ten or more frequency readings, run the

calibration program for the calculation of the regression“

formula.
Calibration response equation:

Hz = mV x 0.089 + 1.694

99

Appendix C.3: Front and rear wheel rotational speed.

Sensor Origin: Wabash Inc.

Type and Model: Magnetic pick up (cylindrical pole piece
60-0198"G", 2.5 inches reach).

Specification: 14 V p-p at 30 inches per second.

0.050" air gap.
Calibration procedure:

1. Establish desired resolution: 12.8 km/hr.

2. Determine the front and rear wheel rolling radii:
-front wheel rolling radius, R.f = 0.55 m.
-rear wheel rolling radius, RT== 0.70 m.

3.Gear/sprocket size:

-front wheel sprocket = 60 teeth
~rear wheel sprocket = 80 teeth
4. Determine wheel rotational circumference:

-front wheel circumference, Cf== 2 * 0.55 m * a
= 3.46 m / rev.
-rear wheel circumference, Cr = 2 * 0.70 m * a
= 4.39 m / rev.
Velocity, V C * N ( N = wheel speed)
Wheel rotational speed, N V/C

12.8Km x 111D»: 1hr 1m

 

 

N w IKIII 1‘ 3600s» ’ can)
N, = 1.028 rev/sec.
N; = 0.809 rev/sec.
Frequency output, F} = No. of teeth * N, / 60

= 60 * 1.028 rev/sec
= 61.68 Hz.

E} = 80 * 0.809 rev/sec
= 64. 72 Hz.

. Connect the transducer to the signal conditioner and the
frequency generator.
. For each of the wheels select the signal conditioner
channel.
Select the calibration mode on the signal conditioner.
Boot the computer and run AI13 software for calibration.
Determine the gain code for the transducer depending on the
signal conditioner output in mV.
10.Generate at least ten frequencies with the frequency
generator within the above maximum level.
11.For each frequency, compute the accurate reading from the
signal conditioner and log it into the computer.
12.After logging ten or more frequency readings, run the
calibration program for the calculation of the regression
formula.

\00)\) ON U'l

100

Calibration response equations:
Front wheel:

Hz = mV x 0.090 + 1 110
Rear wheel:

HZ = mV x 0.083 + 2.757

Appendix C.4: Draft force.

Sensor Origin: Micromeasurements Inc.

Specifications: Four arm 350 ohm full bridge
assembly, bonded onto the sides
of the drawbar.

Calibration procedure:

Calibration of the drawbar was done using the following
equipment: .
-Instron Testing Machine for the loading.
-Oscilloscope for reading the voltage
-Signal conditioner
-DAS
1. Ensure that the load selector is in neutral.
2. Ensure that the speed selector is set to a minimum.
3. Select the desired loading range (50 kN)
4. Turn on the power and allow to warm.up for 5 to 10 minutes.
5. Turn the speed selector to LOW loading speed.
6. Connect the drawbar to the Instron Testing Machine.
7. Connect the strain gages cables to both the signal
conditioner.
8. Prepare the computer for the calibration.
9. Load the drawbar by using the loading switch.
10.Read the load during the loading and relaxing of the
drawbar.
11.Enter the readings in the computer for the calculation of
the regression equation.

Calibration response equation:

N = (mV x 24000.664/1000) - 12.587

Appendix C.5:Fuel flow meter

Sensor Origin: Emco Engineering Measurements
Company.

Make and Model: Piston Flowmeter, PDP1

Meter Type: Positive Displacement.

Size: 1/8" NPTF

Piston Operating Ranges:

Flow rate:
Max Pressure:

Max Temperature:
Max Pressure drop:
Nominal k-factor:
Filtration:

Calibration procedure:

N _I
o o

101

1—1,200 cc/min
Standard: 1000 psig
Optional: 3000 psig
500 deg F

20 psid

111 pulses/cc

420,181 pulses/gallon
10 micron.

Determine the maximum fuel consumption expected.
Switch "Run/Cal" to "Run" and set "Range" to handle maximum

frequency on the signal conditioner.

“>00
no

Connect the pulse calibrator to rear DIN socket.
Adjust "Fine" to display analog voltage equivalent to the

calibrator setting. e.g 1v for 1 Khz.
5. Adjust "Tape" in a clockwise direction to obtain a larger
voltage on LED display. Switch display to 19.99v range if

necessary.

6. Switch "Run/Cal" to "Cal" momentarily and note voltage.

Appendix C.6: Strain Gage amplifier

Origin:

Specifications:
Input Configuration:
Input Impedance:
Input Mode:

Input Range:
Maximum Input:
CMR:

Noise:

Drift:

Bandwidth:
Gain:

Output (voltage):
Output Impedance (voltage):
Output (current):
Ouput Impedance (current):

Data Capture Technology Inc.

High Gain Differential

1 Megaohm Differential
Resistive bridge in 1,2 or 4 arm
connectionuwith.internal.bridge
completion.

Up to 500 mV

30 v DC

90 dB (DC to 60 Hz)

Less than 5 microvolts r.m.s. at
max gain.

Less than 2 microvolts/C at max.
gain.

DC - 10 KHz.

20 - 5000 in switched steps with
interpole control.

Up to :2 V DC
0.5 Ohms

:10 mA into
250 Ohms

120 Ohms

Appendix C.7: AI13 Analog to Digital Converter.

Origin:
Analog Specifications:

Interactive Structures Inc.
Input Full Scale Ranges

102

Available (millivolts):

Gain Code Size of Range Amplification Used
0 0 to 5000 None
1 0 to 1000 5 to 1
2 0 to 500 10 to 1
3 0 to 100 5 to 1 and 10 to 1

Extended to negative values as:

4 -5000 to +5000
5 -1000 to +1000
6 -500 to +500
7 -100 to +100

Input Impedance:
Crosstalk from unselected
channel:

Conversion Specifications:
Resolution:

Coding:

Overrange Processing:

Deviation from the ideal
step size:
Deviation from the
straight line:

ideal

Conversion Timing:

Selection and sampling:
Hold and conversion:
Total Conversion Time:
Sampling aperture:
Setting Time Delays:

Channel switch, 5V or 1V scales:

Range switch, 5V or 1V scales:
Channel switch, 0.5V or
0.1V scales:

Range switch, 0.5V or 0.1V scales:

Electrical Regpirements:
Internal Power:

External Power:
External Trigger:

10 Megaohms

-95dB
12 Bits, 4096 steps
Binary, 0 to 4095 full scale.
Values greater than max.
will appear as 4095.
Values less than min. will

appear as 0.
0.024% max.

0.024% typical.

6 microseconds
13 microseconds
20 microseconds
125 nanoseconds

None
None

45 microseconds
45 microseconds

Drawn from Apple Supply,
5V at 45mA, 12V at 19mA,
-12V at 16mA.

None required.

Positive or Negative Edge
TTL.

103

APPENDIX D

104

SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Five soil types were used for the experiments. These included:

Capac loam

Granby loamy sand
Owosso-Marlette sandy loam
4. Metamora-Capac sandy loam
5. Palms muck

1
2
3

The characteristics of these soils are specified here.
The details include the depth of the soil, the USDA texture
classification and the suitability of the soil for cropping.

105

.mOA>Hmm aofium>ummcou HHom .4Qms "mousom

 

 

THU .HO «Ev EMS :OWUOV
In: no nos smoa swan 0:690 =ov-mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32
.oafiaaouo Haw pwuflzqmu mandamuo Ho HOV EMOH wpcmm >>mmx :NMImN
.EmHQOHQ same may ma oaauumz Hmaommmm .Aum Ho ZmV
moo m.vao «EmoH wpmmm omamuImHOEMumz Comm >EmoH pan EmoH anamm :mNIo 402 am
xazIao 00 nov awed >>mmm :ooIvm
.Emanoua same may ma GOAmOHM .wpamm AAUV EnoHI>mHU :vMImN
muuwaumz w oe cam EmoH apcmmIowwozo wmm AZmIOmV EmoH wpcmm >>mwm :oNImm
macaw we M «EmoH >pcmmImuumHuszommoso “umIva EMOH apamm :mmIo mzo am
.HMARmuME oacmouOIWm wuflHwQMum Room AASIAOV EmoH uaam :owIPv
macaw wmIo Imoss.msamm 0H0 Acauammo x092 :FvIo mm am
Azmv “vb—mm :O©|©N
.oafiEHmm How poufism wamumumpoz .pmmomxm Atmv pawn hemoq :wNINN
ppm Sup can: pcfiz an aonn adammm AZmV pamm :NNIvP
.pamm NEmoH >namuw AZmV pawn xenon :epIo HO 0N
.oaflmaouo Ham Uwuwsm Ham: .mmmum Ago Ho ASL Emoq :omIpm
OGHQon xauawo aw Undue: a ma codmoum AAUV Egon meU :PmIm 9m:
0 Cam avIo EmoH am 00 A40 00 sz Ewan :mIo <00 can P
:ofiumfiuommo Capac: 0Q>B *
pmawammmHo muzuxwe «om: Haom pamam

 

 

 

 

mUHBmHmM604m<mU AHOm

D xHozmmm4

106

APPENDIX E

107

DATA TRANSFER PROCEDURE

The method described here was used to transfer the field data
to an IBM compatible computer. The Apple IIe computer and an
IBM compatible computer were physically connected together
using the R8232 crossover cable. As the transfer proceeded
from one computer to another, the data was displayed on both
monitors. After completion of the transfer the data was saved
on a floppy using the same file name as that used in the

field.

108
APPENDIX E

DATA TRANSFER PROCEDURE

1. Connect the crossover cable-R8232 to the serial ports of
the Apple and IBM compatible computers.

2. Boot the two computers.

3. With ASCII Express disk in drive 1 and the data disk in

drive 2:
3.1

P.

0
q ax LHAI GIN-45

AAAU)

A A AA
0 0

4.8

4.9

to

Press <Ctrl> <Q> <1>
Press <Ctrl> <Q> <2>. This opens menu 2.
Type <N> <1> to change delay from 0 to 1.
Type <K> to make terminal chat ON.
Press <Ctrl> <Q> <1> to go to menu 1.
Type <S> and press <RETURN KEY>.
Type filename to be transferred.
Before pressing <RETURN KEY) following prompt
ensure that IBM is set to receive incoming file.

Modem 7PC program in the IBM:

Type <Ctr E). Type <4800> to change the baudrate.

Type <T B> and "name of incoming file".

Type <Ctr Y> to turn the save option on. No change
in display.

The transfer procedure is ready.

Initiate the process on the Apple by pressing the
<RETURN KEY>.

The data should appear on both screens as it is
being transferred.

After the file is transferred save the file thus:

4.7.1 Press <Ctr Y>.

4.7.2 Type <Ctr E>.

4.7.3 Type <WRT>.

4.7.4 Press <RETURN KEY>.

After the file is saved repeat the process from 3.5
and 4.2 for the Apple and IBM computers
respectively to transfer other files.

Type <E> to exit the program.

109

APPENDIX F

110

SAMPLE OF DATA STATISTICS SUMMARY

A sample of the data statistics summary is provided here. The
calculations were performed using Lotus spreadsheet program
and then imported into WordPerfect. The data file coding
represented:

CPMSU3A:

CP Chisel plow

MSU = Field
3 Ground speed (Mph)
A Replication

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vwm.r bhw.w who.P mVSIF mom.o hmo.vm >00 Cum
FmVIvF Smm.om mom.m onm.m mmm.m ob.mbmw womum><
mmv.N— wmm.m~ mmh.v mem.v va.v mn.vrhr ESEHCHS
mvm.or www.mm mvn.m ove.m mom.w mmIMNom EdEmez mvpmzmo
Pom.~ mmm.m Fmr._ munIP OCPIO mbv.vv >00 Cum
mbw.m nmm.mr mo>.m mmw.w mmm.m ov.move womuw><
mvo.b 0mm._P Fom.v enm.m vwm.m mA.—vFF Edeflaflz
vmv.m_ Nm—.hm mv>.m vmv.m OVSIm mVIOSmF Edeflxmz «vbmzmo
mnm.o mem._ who.P mmh.F wmm.o Smm.nm >09 Cum
mmh.rr mmo.NN mvm.v th.v mwaM mw.mwmr womnm><
vvv.o— vvm.bp vmm.m Nwm.m vv>.N or.hmh— ESEHCHS
mFN.mfi m—mIFm moOIS nmn.o wa.v mm.vmom Edeflxmz mmDmZmU
Fhm.o mNN.F mmo.F mvm.— mmo.o va.om >wo Cum
mom.m me.mr bvm.m Noo.m mvo.v No.Nvap womuw><
mmv.m mwm.vF wmo.m mvn.m bom.m mm.mmbp ESEHCHZ
vvm.__ mn—.mm mvv.n mnv.b ovv.v mo.mmom Essflxmz «mbmzmu
:51: :sz 2:5: :35: 2:5: 265 oEmESm msmz
.maoo wouom pmwam pwQO pwwmm pwmam wHHm
Hash ummuo Hmmn3\m Hmmzz\m pcaouw mafioam
mqmfiHm¢>

 

 

Mmdzzbm mUHBmHfidfim <B¢Q ho mqmz<m

m NHQmem<

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

606.6 660.6 660._ 066.6 666.6 066.66 >06 060
660.6 066.0 066.0 6mv.6 606.6 066.0m0 06060><
066.6 660.6 066.0 600.0 660.6 666.606 6666662
066.6 660.66 600.66 060.66 060.6 060.m66 asefixmz 4060260
006.6 660.6 606.6 660.m 6NN.6 06m.06 >06 060
0F0.0_ 000.06 660.06 6m6.0r mmmum 60.6666 06000><
06m..e 066.6 666.66 66N.m6 666.0 lgnpmmp .6656662
606.66 66..Pm 006.NN. 000.mm_ 066.66 m6.F06~ enefixmz 0060260
666.6 666.6 666.6 600.6 0mm.6 066.m0 >06 060
Fem.66 66m.rr 666.6 600.6 6mv.6 66.0m66 06000><
600.6 666.0 mom.6 666.6 6mm.0 06.060, 6666662
666.m6 060.0N Fmsurr. 606.66 666.6 m0.0666 _essflxmz 0060260
006.6 660.6 066., 006.6 06~.6 6m6.00 >06 000
600.06 600.66 606.0 666.0 60m.0 06.N666 06060>¢
000.m_ 0m0.06 606.0 ms6.0 600.0 m6.0666 6666662
N06.06 666.0m 006.0 606.6 mom.0 M6.mmom easflxmz. 0660260

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amo‘uaoov .m XHDmeg

 

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000.0 600.0 000.0 000.0 000.6 060.00 >06 000
000.0 000.00 000.0 000.0 006.0 60.0000 00060><
006.0 600.00 000.0 000.0 006.0 660.000 2620202
000.00 000.00. 000.0 000.0 600.0 00.6000 2620202 0606206
000.6 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.6 000.00 >06 060
000.0. 000.00 000.00 600.00 000.60 00.0060 00060>¢
000.00 000.0 000.60 000.60 00.0 60.000 2620202
600.00 000.60 000.00 060.00 000.00 00.0000 2620x02 0606206
000.6 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.6 000.00 >06 660
000.00 000.00 000.00. 600.00 000.60 00.0060 00000><
000.00 000.0 000.60 000.60 000.0 60.0000 0320602
600.00 000.60. 000.00 060.00 000.00 00.0000 2620002 006206
006.0 000.0 006.0 600.0 006.6 000.00 >06 000
000.00 600.00 000.0 000.0 000.0 06.0000 00000><
000.00 000.00 000.0 000.0 000.0 00.0000 2620202
000.00 000.00. 000.60 006.00 000.0 00.000. 2620002 0060206

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

06.66666 0 20620000

 

APPENDIX G

RAW DATA PRINTOUT

This printout shows the raw field data in millivolts for the
six channels used to collect the data. The file number printed
out was CPMU7S which had 500 data sets. Each data set was
saved in a separate file which.was imported to Lotus 123R3 for
analysis. This printout was subsequently imported to
WordPerfect 5 .1 which converted it to the present grid tabular
form. The analysis of the data was done by calculating the
mean and the standard deviation for each channel. The means
were converted to hertz (Hz) using the calibration response
equations. The individual transducer’s load conversion factor
was used to obtain the value of the reading in the appropriate
units (e.g L/hr for fuel flow).

116

APPENDIX G

RAW DATA PRINTOUT

 

TRANSDUCER OUTPUT (mV)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Engine Ground R/Wheel F/Wheel Fuel
(mSec) Speed Speed Speed Speed Draft Flow
0 1204 2381 498 530 622 3006
50 1201 2384 480 531 660 3009
100 1177 2355 458 492 538 3020
150 1187 2381 469 504 545 3033
200 1176 2404 461 465 526 3042
250 1178 2370 490 483 524 3036
300 1142 2369 469 519 505 3007
350 1147 2409 436 456 602 2970
400 1177 2374 441 462 601 3002
450 1221 2414 446 472 523 3037
500 1185 2395 454 485 544 3072

550 1242 2453 482 519 620 3101
600 1212 2426 489 526 579 3069

650 1201 2499 508 508 550 3051

700 1233 2480 478 532 687 3011

750 1249 2483 493 510 513 2971
800 1234 2491 489 515 513 2993

850 1239 2510 503 513 436 3021
900 1269 2525 478 510 498 3073
950 1229 2508 449 528 456 3092
1000 1250 2561 508 508 427 3083
1050 1239 2545 483 527 496 3086
1100 1240 2530 460 484 576 3014
1150 1246 2559 486 542 555 2991
1200 1260 2583 502 530 742 2966
1250 1238 2547 482 501 478 2938
1300 1322 2632 567 562 522 3020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1350 1292 2599 500 517 506 3032
1400 1257 2591 487 505 492 3056
1450 1313 2641 520 542 553 3075
1500 1281 2620 551 545 630 3057
1550 1270 2652 517 542 624 3022
1600 1266 2637 508 568 558 2983
1650 1284 2659 511 611 616 2968
1700 1233 2664 516 539 572 2938
1750 1247 2652 505 505 531 2955
1800 1272 2681 536 553 -556 2999
1850 1272 2665 498 498 551 3036
1900 1257 2662 511 583 543 3078
1950 1221 2687 512 507 742 3030
2000 1286 2686 511 558 770 3011
2050 1270 2670 496 538 737 3012
2100 1267 2685 505 530 682 2982
2150 1287 2712 512 537 752 3019
2200 1277 2686 537 511 698 3019
2250 1287 2701 510 534 656 3041
2300 1279 2693 500 495 731 3053
2350 1299 2727 543 579 810 3052
2400 1329 2750 526 556 746 3052
2450 1241 2672 474 511 816 3076
2500 1300 2763 568 584 810 3135
2550 1294 2716 549 590 624 3138
2600 1288 2700 494 548 590 3123
2650 1272 2704 506 525 694 3049
2700 1292 2704 524 551 667 3023
2750 1300 2702 521 542 606 3075
2800 1244 2693 508 513 676 3099
2850 1234 2645 486 521 588 3043
2900 1191 2606 434 480 707 2987

 

 

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2950 1266 2648 485 524 698 2982
3000 1209 2652 478 497 629 2984
3050 1244 2645 496 510 732 3057
3100 1185 2591 423 504 775 3050
3150 1290 2650 487 513 658 3036
3200 1191 2592 438 451 551 2987
3250 1267 2649 497 529 578 3071
3300 1210 2608 444 466 550 3059
3350 1209 2641 485 492 542 3095
3400 1252 2561 490 515 547 3007
3450 1181 2581 449 502 624 2958
3500 1246 2625 467 493 576 2950
3550 1174 2590 456 464 572 2990
3600 1249 2623 462 486 459 3013
3650 1289 2672 534 569 460 3043
3700 1233 2619 498 516 452 2974
3750 1235 2620 477 524 504 2941
3800 1261 2639 522 527 598 2972
3850 1285 2671 552 575 649 3036
3900 1234 2633 509 531 686 3049
3950 1302 2648 498 526 580 3058
4000 1228 2596 504 527 537 3039
4050 1244 2609 505 503 504 3025
4100 1232 2621 525 492 546 3030
4150 1236 2615 478 504 476 3079
4200 1235 2601 474 484 564 3098
4250 1241 2612 469 505 652 3137
4300 1249 2610 460 485 593 3123
4350 1212 2600 480 496 582 3079
4400 1232 2615 468 492 529 3043
4450 1254 2639 496 510 561 3044
4500 1248 2625 470 504 425 3047

 

 

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4550 1217 2623 487 508 482 3110
4600 1243 2608 455 515 523 3108
4650 1194 2611 491 510 583 3135
4700 1241 2626 483 531 616 3118
4750 1274 2637 497 550 575 3103
4800 1235 2608 463 514 578 3089
4850 1238 2621 467 533 614 3086
4900 1310 2654 511 527 574 3071
4950 1293 2652 480 530 574 3128
5000 1253 2645 482 519 606 3113
5050 1273 2659 497 492 582 3112
5100 1287 2665 509 529 551 3087
5150 1264 2651 481 499 552 3032
5200 1274 2654 520 510 615 3038
5250 1240 2654 461 539 586 3008
5300 1242 2651 455 515 673 2968
5350 1309 2735 490 519 518 2971
5400 1246 2698 480 516 455 2972
5450 1253 2761 494 522 611 3026
5500 1272 2763 526 538 659 3001
5550 1279 2759 519 537 583 2937
5600 1288 2770 507 556 454 2901
5650 1302 2775 517 543 450 2884
5700 1297 2784 518 534 440 2828
5750 1267 2771 503 538 446 2835
5800 1297 2817 519 547 571 2822
5850 1326 2837 528 558 644 2859
5900 1246 2780 472 547 600 2852
5950 1321 2842 536 571 661 2876
6000 1303 2837 517 544 657 2800
6050 1265 2810 515 522 704 - 2718
6100 1323 2849 540 559 705 2646

 

 

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6150 1298 2838 516 552 608 2583
6200 1303 2839 517 581 476 2593
6250 1345 2855 522 537 497 2603
6300 1273 2835 529 553 638 2679
6350 1342 2866 561 593 678 2725
6400 1298 2840 520 536 673 2756
6450 1338 2876 549 601 671 2769
6500 1298 2839 504 523 639 2655
6550 1359 2889 551 575 584 2629
6600 1321 2867 536 552 438 2574
6650 1347 2881 548 609 463 2638
6700 1335 2880 555 598 550 2693
6750 1260 2811 491 510 696 2733
6800 1333 2877 551 605 662 2806
6850 1310 2831 534 568 673 2788
6900 1311 2878 524 548 631 2738
6950 1299 2827 585 572 614 2736
7000 1299 2846 527 564 524 2676
7050 1319 2825 521 532 518 2657
7100 1370 2883 626 607 590 2723
7150 1329 2853 549 580 733 2691
7200 1368 2866 608 582 707 2643
7250 1368 2862 570 595 744 2625
7300 1319 2832 536 552 799 2583
7350 1345 2850 555 594 656 2553
7400 1304 2806 537 563 585 2522
7450 1340 2849 542 564 613 2617
7500 1250 2798 522 526 693 2616
7550 1305 2822 508 531 764 2541
7600 1294 2810 506 552 632 2445
7650 1297 2814 562 553 640 2406
7700 1327 2842 538 568 627 2390

 

 

121

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7750 1268 2775 497 519 734 2464
7800 1279 2784 487 515 700 2520
7850 1268 2795 530 524 774 2561
7900 1335 2830 551 581 710 2597
7950 1283 2772 506 528 548 2585
8000 1324 2816 541 566 614 2639
8050 1272 2765 510 537 606 2663
8100 1295 2797 527 523 683 2760
8150 1281 2809 561 583 713 2799
8200 1290 2791 542 555 551 2809
8250 1338 2785 515 545 620 2789
8300 1262 2751 494 505 624 2762
8350 1266 2783 567 562 582 2854
8400 1271 2733 475 486 627 2840
8450 1305 2785 530 530 657 2891
8500 1233 2727 486 510 703 2884
8550 1367 2786 533 544 708 2922
8600 1262 2742 490 527 618 2903
8650 1297 2787 530 540 540 2931
8700 1278 2786 546 550 664 2977
8750 1304 2773 525 561 752 3021
8800 1307 2771 545 579 844 3011
8850 1334 2786 554 572 828 2936
8900 1318 2787 574 582 854 2847
8950 1289 2748 516 546 679 2787
9000 1289 2777 521 521 614 2785
9050 1326 2789 555 587 736 2883
9100 1334 2790 565 562 625 2930
9150 1326 2775 528 548 612 2941
9200 1311 2744 531 536 608 2886
9250 1283 2743 521 543 574 2885
9300 1283 2736 519 -523 653 2841

 

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9350 1311 2750 559 592 825 2890
9400 1353 2789 590 613 817 2926
9450 1296 2730 550 562 747 2866
9500 1312 2737 532 600 721 2863
9550 1296 2763 545 547 796 2830
9600 1262 2700 496 531 689 2822
9650 1276 2794 542 524 679 2908
9700 1335 2731 534 568 576 2942
9750 1264 2687 550 554 700 2955
9800 1248 2697 546 560 711 2910
9850 1338 2741 546 568 707 2878
9900 1264 2706 529 550 710 2870
9950 1298 2717 551 553 568 2910
10000 1265 2686 510 546 642 2959
10050 1299 2703 530 558 543 2983
10100 1248 2705 524 510 625 2955
10150 1326 2725 560~ 568 654 2929
10200 1216 2640 508 526 721 2933
10250 1275 2674 492 524 638 2941
10300 1268 2643 494 506 664 3029
10350 1225 2630 461 550 632 3081
10400 1261 2661 510 515 697 3040
10450 1272 2682 480 512 528 2998
10500 1290 2681 545 550 528 2943
10550 1265 2648 485 518 624 2936
10600 1238 2631 488 506 774 2919
10650 1265 2700 480 549 755 2967
10700 1237 2659 513 518 734 2939
10750 1298 2663 500 514 663 2949
10800 1219 2606 470 522 672 2919
10850 1288 2646 513 530 658 2873
10900 1238 2671 563 564 634 2885

 

 

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10950 1241 2612 468 498 646 2837
11000 1242 2613 481 496 742 2858
11050 1234 2616 477 538 760 2847
11100 1239 2623 494 564 815 2793
11150 1255 2662 506 528 770 2728
11200 1246 2615 537 527 547 2734
11250 1299 2687 543 570 531 2744
11300 1261 2623 480 504 569 2813
11350 1262 2662 510 536 611 2851
11400 1225 2624 486 506 622 2835
11450 1273 2667 533 588 628 2761
11500 1281 2657 515 518 516 2718
11550 1297 2689 526 538 575 2727
11600 1223 2611 457 473 622 2767
11650 1318 2681 527 538 636 2839
11700 1254 2659 511 535 604 2871
11750 1237 2701 505 528 639 2838
11800 1239 2655 474 486 728 2815
11850 1241 2651 441 474 637 2755
11900 1242 2717 465 478 768 2761
11950 1228 2654 460 490 745 2807
12000 1248 2710 531 529 720 2809
12050 1281 2750 504 520 701 2845
12100 1233 2656 480 535 547 2822
12150 1313 2707 508 524 609 2796
12200 1255 2703 475 514 592 2769
12250 1265 2714 492 506 636 2808
12300 1274 2691 479 515 699 2793
12350 1283 2712 529 540 719 2846
12400 1274 2724 529 565 741 2774
12450 1273 2691 508 521 767 2723
12500 1254 2693 483 -541 654 2755

 

 

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12550 1353 2734 533 540 554 2818
12600 1276 2696 504 552 578 2882
12650 1304 2765 543 571 625 2924
12700 1268 2710 522 542 695 2892
12750 1262 2769 555 558 678 2833
12800 1322 2702 524 544 771 2790
12850 1321 2738 554 577 762 2850
12900 1256 2682 508 560 658 2895
12950 1297 2716 511 532 688 2919
13000 1268 2705 561 569 662 2957
13050 1220 2665 486 554 610 2943
13100 1294 2689 496 537 694 2908
13150 1289 2691 526 548 735 2901
13200 1244 2663 481 582 764 2994
13250 1240 2647 457 480 755 2921
13300 1282 2718 545 560 720 2946
13350 1257 2675 511 521 641 2899
13400 1292 2711 524 542 595 2902
13450 1244 2625 476 497 654 2969
13500 1255 2686 584 574 670 3041
13550 1229 2629 476 496 677 3055
13600 1225 2629 462 584 673 3057
13650 1255 2643 502 521 726 2981
13700 1340 2703 537 555 676 2962
13750 1296 2695 566 579 647 2981
13800 1319 2717 556 574 619 3014
13850 1285 2675 550 559 648 3041
13900 1272 2661 488 518 617 3059
13950 1261 2672 519 511 583 3042
14000 1262 2748 562 566 647 2972
14050 1274 2683 530 569 726 2929
14100 1293 2697 537 584 658 2921

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14150 1270 2658 539 544 670 2908
14200 1264 2662 528 564 729 2961
14250 1238 2654 520 547 619 2898
14300 1254 2646 492 546 605 2928
14350 1277 2687 547 558 588 2829
14400 1264 2658 486 519 576 2798
14450 1262 2649 490 502 638 2769
14500 1240 2645 490 531 718 2786
14550 1244 2642 504 515 660 2762
14600 1246 2654 479 504 734 2801
14650 1223 2636 458 478 600 2712
14700 1289 2697 509 562 602 2686
14750 1223 2646 466 516 547 2621
14800 1274 2686 502 526 608 2668
14850 1215 2653 470 490 598 2659
14900 1211 2670 532 546 718 2722
14950 1222 2631 454 465 644 2677
15000 1252 2674 478 496 643 2649
15050 1231 2654 476 494 606 2608
15100 1291 2692 462 496 568 2642
15150 1230 2657 484 478 617 2672
15200 1194 2637 427 462 622 2732
15250 1258 2687 508 540 659 2782
15300 1272 2695 490 502 598 2725
15350 1230 2673 481 499 566 2686
15400 1207 2707 444 540 583 2701
15450 1281 2718 523 561 567 2723
15500 1209 2686 475 481 615 2746
15550 1264 2703 524 517 599 2839
15600 1208 2599 472 519 563 2798
15650 1255 2696 489 534 673 2791
15700 1260 2693 501 529 559 2771

 

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15750 1215 2672 481 502 654 2750
15800 1214 2656 476 519 634 2805
15850 1232 2633 486 492 561 2856
15900 1235 2657 478 491 597 2861
15950 1228 2663 455 486 688 2808
16000 1281 2683 496 492 642 2806
16050 1254 2690 515 578 588 2822
16100 1270 2665 499 519 542 2812
16150 1276 2710 506 553 588 2862
16200 1240 2655 486 508 579 2899
16250 1272 2683 501 525 545 2903
16300 1223 2646 530 522 595 2862
16350 1264 2697 534 551 609 2887
16400 1235 2648 486 520 644 2897
16450 1257 2663 507 517 542 2902
16500 1266 2685 526 554 591 2957
16550 1271 2708 480 519 583 2955
16600 1268 2686 498 514 578 2923
16650 1208 2618 449 472 652 2889
16700 1266 2681 494 521 636 2860
16750 1267 2713 522 518 790 2932
16800 1299 2723 564 600 705 2991
16850 1253 2641 486 492 505 2991
16900 1352 2716 542 560 520 2997
16950 1258 2697 561 564 485 2969
17000 1282 2674 518 556 620 2928
17050 1285 2675 548 560 667 2918
17100 1271 2671 554 608 700 2958
17150 1297 2664 497 527 781 2895
17200 1283 2671 591 597 689 2915
17250 1300 2659 528 572 540 2855
17300 1279 2652 528 534 576 2870

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17350 1250 2627 494 523 619 2955
17400 1342 2697 606 600 563 2995
17450 1271 2638 551 565 560 3011
17500 1325 2658 524 547 625 2970
17550 1210 2578 461 478 790 2869
17600 1235 2624 513 521 762 2931
17650 1233 2588 475 504 729 2975
17700 1192 2585 492 526 806 3016
17750 1240 2596 504 513 574 3009
17800 1199 2547 457 471 572 2906
17850 1248 2584 488 500 492 2860
17900 1217 2569 462 475 596 2902
17950 1255 2582 507 532 662 2930
18000 1238 2591 556 572 615 2950
18050 1281 2611 560 610 844 2909
18100 1238 2577 569 543 592 2887
18150 1212 2553 485 502 738 2938
18200 1293 2593 508 538 626 2983
18250 1248 2572 519 537 606 2956
18300 1257 2590 531 533 726 2911
18350 1223 2563 473 487 609 2890
18400 1217 2535 501 489 687 2902
18450 1233 2552 534 524 731 2941
18500 1283 2564 504 523 758 2879
18550 1179 2512 455 489 739 2823
18600 1199 2518 480 502 519 2923
18650 1215 2523 500 498 654 2995
18700 1214 2540 487 517 612 2995
18750 1218 2525 492 571 633 2960
18800 1191 2507 498 508 646 2945
18850 1226 2503 478 498 666 2949
18900 1200 2506 469 480 678 2936

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18950 1215 2503 496 524 698 2838
19000 1191 2491 462 464 612 2796
19050 1195 2485 473 492 670 2879
19100 1229 2497 510 506 696 2881
19150 1225 2503 490 514 728 2847
19200 1226 2503 531 535 611 2869
19250 1168 2459 451 467 725 2869
19300 1186 2478 499 499 655 2951
19350 1190 2493 506 544 631 2856
19400 1191 2457 467 504 684 2800
19450 1178 2458 463 511 672 2856
19500 1201 2473 503 511 626 2880
19550 1183 2473 516 499 675 2786
19600 1217 2476 518 539 684 2829
19650 1224 2489 527 560 624 2887
19700 1209 2515 518 532 615 2897
19750 1214 2478 536 545 651 2829
19800 1177 2453 495 514 702 2829
19850 1160 2456 492 511 590 2857
19900 1220 2511 524 536 569 2882
19950 1206 2467 476 500 412 2787
20000 1183 2451 456 490 505 2816
20050 1118 2458 494 498 609 2894
20100 1156 2444 472 538 636 2876
20150 1171 2429 472 482 656 2821
20200 1182 2457 456 488 646 2862
20250 1108 2421 414 489 586 2886
20300 1124 2450 462 470 506 2882
20350 1107 2439 455 465 530 2817
20400 1183 2447 430 460 500 2813
20450 1158 2447 481 508 531 2899
20500 1201 2496 496 521 504 2849

 

 

 

 

 

 

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20550 1114 2419 425 463 577 2787
20600 1148 2490 462 478 627 2801
20650 1131 2425 417 .455 493 2815
20700 1107 2408 426 459 566 2840
20750 1089 2425 470 462 508 2800
20800 1123 2424 422 445 552 2743
20850 1123 2430 397 432 580 2823
20900 1116 2413 434 460 594 2874
20950 1113 2463 472 508 623 2862
21000 1144 2433 432 454 641 2777
21050 1134 2425 452 462 632 2784
21100 1127 2409 480 480 614 2845
21150 1167 2459 466 518 560 2883
21200 1158 2460 480 511 566 2848
21250 1134 2418 444 438 616 2789
21300 1243 2496 496 518 654 2851
21350 1182 2462 472 499 670 2912
21400 1159 2430 455 506 652 2887
21450 1212 2497 559 552 661 2874
21500 1222 2509 508 526 600 2839
21550 1212 2481 508 522 595 2876
21600 1217 2503 518 550 548 2955
21650 1181 2453 470 478 630 2912
21700 1169 2456 509 543 633 2902
21750 1219 2491 478 511 610 2899
21800 1138 2434 442 440 618 2917
21850 1149 2446 446 555 599 2970
21900 1176 2462 462 515 570 2960
21950 1186 2468 483 489 569 2869
22000 1150 2437 444 473 589 2864
22050 1142 2449 452 460 597 2928
22100 1142 2442 472 523 572 2966

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22150 1222 2502 454 478 600 3009
22200 1144 2447 460 479 596 2934
22250 1137 2445 417 495 639 2936
22300 1139 2488 442 451 505 2931
22350 1187 2489 497 488 565 2993
22400 1186 2462 446 460 572 3019
22450 1161 2475 441 436 595 3017
22500 1128 2451 398 433 638 2951
22550 1177 2489 460 441 643 2905
22600 1172 2485 439 473 528 2938
22650 1150 2489 448 488 496 2925
22700 1203 2517 493 496 487 3022
22750 1126 2464 448 446 531 3029
22800 1222 2532 499 498 476 3044
22850 1170 2510 472 492 574 2981
22900 1196 2509 451 476 636 2928
22950 1176 2499 456 474 526 2918
23000 1220 2529 468 542 509 2992
23050 1175 2518 475 491 498 2977
23100 1240 2546 465 485 544 2945
23150 1198 2521 444 441 532 2872
23200 1178 2505 463 472 588 2857
23250 1196 2552 462 474 574 2825
23300 1187 2547 436 467 592 2847
23350 1212 2565 482 492 487 2883
23400 1212 2555 454 485 536 2909
23450 1221 2575 487 543 532 2829
23500 1249 2607 532 535 550 2789
23550 1192 2544 490 487 679 2728
23600 1226 2593 480 505 594 2745
23650 1261 2604 508 526 645 2767
23700 1249 2609 509 519 578 2831

 

 

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23750 1227 2608 496 510 579 2783
23800 1248 2608 494 508 572 2768
23850 1225 2622 482 501 540 2716
23900 1246 2628 494 492 586 2712
23950 1223 2608 468 533 712 2762
24000 1262 2652 534 542 696 2793
24050 1234 2622 497 516 718 2729
24100 1294 2672 534 542 617 2709
24150 1242 2623 472 496 654 2662
24200 1315 2684 514 542 661 2692
24250 1244 2641 515 515 606 2755
24300 1269 2645 502 510 670 2831
24350 1239 2639 526 527 639 2778
24400 1284 2692 515 554 639 2751
24450 1230 2634 463 496 715 2723
24500 1268 2679 538 550 556 2782
24550 1278 2679 521 544 568 2858
24600 1260 2713 559 558 689 2886
24650 1246 2645 478 544 649 2854
24700 1254 2657 506 519 572 2784
24750 1251 2672 536 572 744 2799
24800 1273 2677 512 539 659 2859
24850 1253 2707 477 492 558 2880
24900 1257 2665 515 566 611 2974
1 24950 1231 2625 478 496 619 2874
Maximum 1370 2889 626 613 854 3138 W
Mhfimmn 1089 2355 397 432 412 2390
Average 1247.59 2636.35 500.50 524.17 622.57 2886.8
SUiDeV 52.22 116.75 35.61 35.22 81.97 132.58

 

132

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adsit , A. H. and R. L. Clark. 1981. Tractive and Energy
Performance of Small Four-Wheel Drive Tractor. ASAE Paper
No. 81-1042. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Bandy, J. M., W. A. Babacz, J Grogan, S. W. Searcy and B. A.
Stout. 1985. Monitoring Tractor Performance with a Three-

Point Hitch Dynamometer and an On-Board
Microcomputer. ASAE Paper No. 85—1078. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI 49085.

Bolton, Floyd E and Dean E Booster. 1981. Strip Till Planting
in Dryland Cereal Production. ASAE Paper No. 79-1530
ASAE. St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Boruff, P. A., A. W. Schwab, C. E. Goering and E. H. Pryde.
1980. Evaluation of Diesel Fuel-Ethanol
‘Microemulsions. ASAE Paper No. 80-1523. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI 49085.

Bowers, Wendell and H. P. Bateman. 1960. Research Studies of
Minimum Tillage. Transactions of the ASAE Vol. 3 (2) :1-3.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Carnegie, E. J., E. R. Grinnel and N. A. Richardson. 1983.
Personal Computer for Measuring Tractor Performance.
ASAE Paper No. 83-1065. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Clark, S.J. and W. H. Johnson. 1974. Energy Cost Budget for
Grain Sorghum Tillage System. ASAE Paper No. 74-1044.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Cook, R. L., H. F. McColly, L. S. Robertson and C. M. Hansen.
1958. Save Money-Water-Soil With Minimum Tillage.
Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University,
East Lansing. Extension Bulletin 352.

Chaplin, Jonathan., Chakib Jenane and Michael Lueders. 1988.
Drawbar Energy Use for Tillage Operations on Loamy Sand.
ASAE Paper No. 14-965. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Clark, 8. J. and W. H. Johnson. 1974. Energy-Cost Budgets for
Grain Sorghum Tillage Systems. ASAE Paper No. 74-1044,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Erbach, Donald C. 1982. Tillage for Continuous Corn and Corn-
Soybean Rotation. Transaction of ASAE Vol. 25 (4) :906-911 .
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Frisby, James C. and James D. Summers. 1978. Energy-Related

133

134

Data for Selected Implements. ASAE Paper No. 78-
1515, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Goering, C. E. and D. R. Wood. 1982. Overfueling a Diesel
Engine with Carbureted Ethanol. ASAE Paper No. 81-1048.
ASAE. St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Green, Malcolm K., B. A. Stout and Stephen W. Seary. 1984.
Instrumentation Package for Monitoring Tractor
Performance. ASAE Paper No. 83-1562. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI

49085.

Grevis-James, I. W. and P. D. Bloome. 1982. A Tractor Power
Monitor. Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 25(3):595-597.

Grogan, J., D. A. Morris, 8. W. Searcy and B. A. Stout. 1987.
Microcomputer-Based Tractor Performance Monitoring and
Optimization System. Journal of Agricultural Research
Vol. 38. 227-243. The British Society of Agricultural
Engineering.

Hamlett, C. A., T. S. Colvin, A. Musselman. 1983. Economic
Potential of Conservation.Tillage in Iowa. ASAE Paper No.
81-2514. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Hansen, C. M., L. S. Robertson and B. H. Grigsby. 1958.
Results of Research on Plow-Plant Equipment Designed for
Corn Production. Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of
the ASAE at Chicago, Illinois. Paper No. 58-616.

Harter, Donald D. and Kenton R. Kaufman. 1979. Microprocessor-
Based Data Acquisition System for Tractor Tillage
Measurements. ASAE Paper No. 79-5026. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI 49085.

Kepner, R. A., Roy Bainer and E. L. Barger. 1980. Principles
of Farm Machinery. AVI Publishing Company, Inc.
Westport, Connecticut.

Khalilian, A., T. H. Garner., H. L. Musen., R. B. Dodd and 8.
A0 Hale. 1988. Energy for Conservation'Tillage:in.Coastal
Plain Soils. Transactions of the ASAE. Vol. 31 (5) 1333-
1337.

Krishnan, P., L. J. Kemble, T. H. Williams and N. E. Collins.
1988. ASAE Paper No 88-1504, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Kushwaha, R- L., A.S. Vaishnan and G. C. Zoerb. 1986. Soil Bin
Evaluation of Disk Coulter Under No-Till Crop Residue
Conditions. ASAE Paper No. 82-1517. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI
49085.

Lin, Tzu-Wei, R. L. Clark and A. H. Adsit. 1980. A
Microprocessor-Based Data Acquisition System to Measure

135

Performance of a Small Four Wheel Drive Tractor. ASAE
Paper No. 80-5525. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Luth, H. J., V. G. Floyd and R. P. Heise. 1978. Evaluating
Energy Requirements of Machines in the Field. ASAE Paper
No. 78-1588. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Mah, Mintshong Milton. 1990. Analysis of Front Mounted Three-
Point Hitch Geometry on Front-Wheel Assisted Tractors.
Unpublished Ph D dissertation. Michigan State University.

Marcio, J. Cruz., C. Alan Rotz and Duane H. Watson. 1982.
Dual-Fueling Turbocharged Diesels with Ethanol. ASAE
Paper No. 81-1052. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Marshall, D. and IL.J} Buckley. 1984. Design, Development and
Testing of a Magnetic Bubble Based Tractor Data
Acquisition System. ASAE Paper No. 84-1628. ASAE, St.
Joseph, MI 49085.

McLaughlin L. C., D. J. Heslop, G. R. Buckley, B. A. St.
Amour, Compton and P. Van Bodegom. 1989. A Tractor
Instrumentation. and. Data. Logging' System. for 'Tillage
Research. ASAE Paper No. 89-1041. ASAE, St. Joseph,

MI 49085.

Michel, James A. Jr., K. James Fornstrom and John Borrelli
1985. Energy Requirements of Two Tillage Systems for
Irrigated Sugarbeets, Dry Beans and Corn. ASAE Paper No.
83-1033. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Reid, J. T. 1978. A Comparison of the Energy Input in Some
Tillage Tools. ASAE Paper No. 78-1039. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI 49085.

Rotz, Allan C., Hannibal A. Muhtar and J. Roy Black. 1982. A
Multiple Crop Machinery Selection Algorithm. ASAE Paper
No. 82-1031, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Schrock, M. D., J. A. Kramer and S. J. Clark. 1985. Fuel
Requirements for Field Operations in Kansas. Transactions
of the ASAE Vol. 28(3):669-674.

Shannon Vinyard, John S. Goodling and Elmo Renoll. 1982.
Butanediol as a Substitute for Diesel Fuel. ASAE Paper
No. 81-1056. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Shropshire, G.J. and C. E. Goering. 1982. Ethanol Injection
into Diesel Engine. ASAE Paper No. 81-1051. ASAE, St.
Joseph, MI 49085.

Singh, Jai., Purnima Ganguly, K. N. Singh. 1978 Effects of
Soil and Implement Parameters on Depth of Penetration 6
a Disk Harrow. Transactions of ASAE. Vol. 21 (4):620-

136
622, 627. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Smith, J. A., C. D. Yonts D. A. Biere and M. D. Rath. 1989.
Tillage System Energy Requirements for Corn, Dry Edible
Bean, and Sugarbeet Rotation. ASAE Paper No. 89-1508.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Smith, J. A. and K. James Fornstrom 1980. Energy Requirements
of Selected Dryland Wheat Cropping Systems. ASAE
Transactions Vol.??(2) 822-825, 830.

Smith, L. A. and G. L. Barker. 1982. Equipment to Monitor
Field Energy Requirements. ASAE Paper No. 81-1043. ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Smith, L. A., G. L. Barker and R. F. Colwick. 1981.
Instrumentation Used to Monitor Energy Requirements for
Agricultural Field Operations. ASAE Paper No. 81-1043.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Stange, K., L. L. Christenson, B. Thoreson, R.Alcock and B.
Vick. 1982. A Portable Instrumentation Package for
Measuring Tractor Work. ASAE Paper No. 82-5516. ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Stephens, Lyle E., Alvin D. Spencer, Vandorn G. Floyd and
William W. Brixius. 1981 . Energy Requirements for Tillage
and Planting. ASAE Paper No. 81-1512. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI 49085.

Stone J. A. and L. C. Heslop. 1986. Blade Cultivation, Ridge,
and Moldboard Plow Tillage Comparison on a Poorly Drained
Soil. ASAE Paper No. 86-1011. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Stout, B. A. 1977. Energy use in agriculture: Now and for the
future. Council of Agricultural Sciences and Technology
(CAST). Report No. 66. Ames, IA.

Stout, B. A. 1990. Handbook of Energy for World Agriculture.
Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10010, U S A.

Summer, H. R., R. E. Hellwig and G. E. Monroe. 1986. Measuring
Implement Power Requirements from Tractor Fuel
Consumption. ASAE.Paper No. SER 84-202. ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI 49085.

Tembo, S. 1986. Performance Evaluation.of the Power Disk-A PTO
Driven Disk Tiller. Unpublished M. S. Thesis. Michigan
State University.

Tompkins, F. D. and L. R. Wilhelm. 1982. Microcomputer-Based,
Tractor Data Acquisition System. ASAE Paper No. 81—1575.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

137

Upchurch, B. L. and D. L. Peterson. 1987. Microprocessor-Based
Data Acquisition System for Mobile equipemnt. ASAE Paper
No. 87-1059. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Wrage, K. E., and C. E. Goering. 1979. Technical Feasibility
of Diesohol. ASAE Paper No. 79-1052. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI
49085.

Wendte, K. W. and H. Rozeboom. 1981. Data Acquisition for
Tillage Energy Evaluation. ASAE Paper No. 81-1045. ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Vandoren, Arnold. 1982. Data Acquisition Systems. Reston
Publishing Company, Inc., Reston, Virginia.

Wan Ismail, Wan Ishak. 1991. Simulation. Model for Crop
Production Machinery System. Unpublished Ph D
Dissertation. Michigan State University.

Yahya, R. K. and C. E. Goering. 1977. Some Trends in Fifty-
Five Years of Nebraska Test Data. ASAE Paper No. MC-77-
503, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Zhengping, Wu., William. L. Kjelgaard and Sverker P. E.
Persson. 1986. Machine Width for Time and Fuel
Efficiency. ASAE Paper No. 84-1021 Vol. 29(6):1508-1513.
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Zwilling, E. L. and J. W. Hummel. 1988. Draft and Energy
Requirements for Midwest Tillage Operations. ASAE Paper
No. 88-1615. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.