Operational and energy performance of the tractor-scarifier assembly: Tires, ballasting and soil cover

Abstract

The heights of tire claws, tractor ballasting and soil cover can influence the operational and energy performance of the tractor-scarifier assembly. The objective of this study was to analyze the operational and energy performance of the tractor-scarifier assembly as a function of the heights of the tire claws, ballasting and rolling surface. The experiment was conducted at the experimental area of the Fazenda Experimental do Vale do Curu of the Universidade Federal do Ceará in Pentecoste municipality, CE, Brazil. The experiment was carried out in a randomized block in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial arrangement with four repetitions. The treatments comprised two tire claw heights (T1-28% and T2-100%), two ballasts (B1-100% of solid and 75% liquid weights and B2 - 0% of solid and liquid weights), and two soil surfaces (S1 - soil with 4200 kg of straw ha-1 and S2 - mobilized soil). Worn tires provided a lower bar force (12.88 kN) and power requirement (20.06 kW) and a greater effective and operative field capacity of the tractor-scarifier assembly. The lowest slippage of the front wheels of the tractor was recorded for the worn tires (4.81%).For the rear wheels, slippages were found on the new tires (10.96%), and a higher speed of displacement was found for worn tires (5.54 km h-1). Lower specific fuel consumption was found for the mobilized soil (534.68 g kWh-1); furthermore, the hourly consumption of fuel and the consumption per area were not significantly affected by the treatments analyzed.

OPERATIONAL AND ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF 250 kW DOUBLE WHEELED VERSUS RUBBER HALF-TRACKED TRACTORS IN THE SOYBEAN SOWING

“…The highest SLIP indices provide higher HFC and lower OS, directly interfering with the operational performance of the moto-mechanized set, as described by Molari et al (2015) and Lopes et al (2019). The variable SLIP showed no statistical difference regarding the tested gears.…”

“…A slippage index higher than 15% can provide intensive soil degradation, interfering with the operating speed and the hourly fuel consumption. These parameters act directly or indirectly in the operational and energy performance of agricultural tractors, affecting the power and efficiency in the drawbar, specific fuel consumption, and engine thermal efficiency, thus lacking experiments to determine the most efficient drive wheel during the field operation (Smerda & Cupera, 2010;Moitzi et al, 2013;Battiato & Diserens, 2017;Janulevičius et al, 2018;Lopes et al, 2019;Oiole et al, 2019).…”

Interference of the Number of Remote Control Valves in Use on the Energy Performance of an Agricultural Tractor With Productivity Management

“…The results obtained in the experiment described in Table 1 showed a significant difference for the parameters ES, FDB, OS, PDB, and EDB. The lowest number of activated remote control valves (1 RCV) provided high FDB, OS, and PDB, which directly interfere with the energy and operational performance of the agricultural tractor (Gabriel Filho et al, 2010;Farias et al, 2017a;Schlosser et al, 2017;Martins et al, 2018;Lopes et al, 2019), with no statistical difference in SLP and HFC.…”

“…The variable OS for 1 RCV in use was 11.17 and 13.71% higher than 2 and 3 RCVs, respectively, proving the interference of the higher demand for hydraulic flow, requiring a high power from the engine that would be used to maintain OS. A reduction in OS directly implies a lower operational (Lopes et al, 2019) and energy performance (Macedo et al, 2016) of the mechanized set.…”

Energy demand of a mechanized unit for the implementation of common bean crops

“…The process combining sowing and fertilizer application is one of the main agricultural practices, since it affects the crop development and grain yield (Gabriel Filho et al, 2010). Several factors affect the energy demand of a tractor-planter-fertilizer unit, such as crop type (Bertolini & Gamero, 2010;Bertolini et al, 2012), tractor operation strategy (Silveira et al, 2013;Farias et al, 2019), tractor wheelset condition (Montanha et al, 2011;Lopes et al, 2019), seed/fertilizer placement depth (Rinaldi et al, 2009;Compagnon et al, 2013), and soil water content (Cepik et al, 2005;Lacerda et al, 2014).…”