See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237714112

Predicting Tractor Fuel Consumption

Article · September 2004

DOI: 10.13031/2013.17455

CITATIONS READS
98 1,470

3 authors, including:

Robert D Grisso Michael F Kocher

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Nebraska at Lincoln
171 PUBLICATIONS   1,499 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   939 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance measurement of three-point mounted implement guidance systems View project

Biomass Logistics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert D Grisso on 29 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Biological Systems Engineering

Biological Systems Engineering: Papers and

Publications
University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 

Predicting Tractor Fuel Consumption

Robert D. Grisso∗ Michael F. Kocher†
David H. Vaughan‡

∗ Virginia Tech
† University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]
‡ Virginia Tech

This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosysengfacpub/164
 PREDICTING TRACTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION
R. D. Grisso, M. F. Kocher, D. H. Vaughan

ABSTRACT. Reports from the Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory (NTTL) show improved fuel efficiency during the past 20 years.
A 4.8% decrease in average annual specific volumetric fuel consumption for the data used in theASAE Standards was shown.
Using fuel consumption and power data from the NTTL reports, new equations for fuel consumption were established that
predict fuel consumption for diesel engines during full and partial loads and under conditions when engine speeds are reduced
from full throttle.
Keywords. Fuel consumption, Machinery management, Tractors, Standardized tests.

T
he primary purpose of agricultural tractors, espe- estimates from reduced engine speed operations were
cially those in the middle to high power range, is to developed.
perform drawbar work (Zoz and Grisso, 2003). The
value of a tractor is measured by the amount of
work accomplished relative to the cost incurred in getting the
work done. Drawbar power is defined by pull (or draft) and
TERMINOLOGY
Manufacturers specify the power output from several
travel speed. Therefore, the ideal tractor converts all the ener-
gy from fuel into useful work at the drawbar. sources [power take−off (PTO), drawbar, or hydraulic
outlets]. Each tractor model has a rated power that has been
Efficient operation of farm tractors includes: (1) maximiz-
measured at the rated engine speed. Typically this power is
ing the fuel efficiency of the engine and mechanical
measured at the PTO and is referred to in the remainder of this
efficiency of the drive train, (2) maximizing tractive
article as rated PTO power. For most current tractors, the
advantage of the traction devices, and (3) selecting an
rated power will not be the maximum power. With new
optimum travel speed for a given tractor−implement system.
engine designs, operating engine speeds, other than rated
This article focuses on fuel efficiency.
speed, produce more power. Standardized tractor test codes
According to Siemens and Bowers (1999), “depending on
specify power and fuel consumption measurements at rated
the type of fuel and the amount of time a tractor or machine
engine speed, standard PTO speed (either 540 or 1000 rpm),
is used, fuel and lubricant costs will usually represent at least
and at engine speed and load conditions that produce
16 percent to over 45 percent of the total machine costs…”
maximum PTO power.
Most cropping and machinery budgets developed by state
Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory (NTTL) has a long
Extension specialists and others contain estimates from the
history of testing tractors and disseminating power and fuel
ASAE Standards (2002a; 2002b). Recently, several managers
consumption data. During standardized tests, the power is
of these budgets questioned whether the fuel estimates were
calculated and the corresponding fuel consumption is
reflective of the new engine designs. This article reviews
measured. The power at the PTO is calculated from the torque
tractor test data over the past 20 years and examines the
and the PTO speed. Drawbar power is calculated from the
accuracy of the ASAE Standards for predicting fuel consump-
drawbar pull (or draft) and forward speed of the tractor.
tion. New equations and the inclusion of fuel consumption
Fuel consumption is measured by the amount of fuel used
during a specific time period. The most common measure of
the energy efficiency of a tractor is referred to here as specific
Article was submitted for review in June 2003; approved for volumetric fuel consumption (SVFC), which is given in units
publication by the Power & Machinery Division of ASAE in March 2004.
Presented at the 2003 ASAE Annual Meeting as Paper No. 031107 . of L/kWSh (gal/hpSh). SVFC is generally not affected by the
A contribution of the University of Nebraska Agricultural Research engine size and can be used to compare energy efficiencies
Division, Lincoln, Nebraska, Journal Series No. 14185. Mention of trade of tractors having different sizes and under different operat-
and company names are for the reader and do not infer endorsement or ing conditions. SVFC for diesel engines typically range from
preferential treatment of the products by Virginia Tech or University of
0.244 to 0.57 L/kWSh (0.0476 to 0.111 gal/hpSh). For ease of
Nebraska, Lincoln.
The authors are Robert “Bobby” Grisso, ASAE Member Engineer, computation, the reciprocal of SVFC is often used and is
Professor, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, called specific volumetric fuel efficiency (SVFE) with units
Blacksburg, Virginia; Michael F. Kocher, ASAE Member Engineer, of kWSh/L (hpSh/gal) with corresponding ranges from 2.36
Associate Professor, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Department of to 4.1 kWSh/L (12 to 21 hpSh/gal). The NTTL reports the
Biological Systems Engineering, Lincoln, Nebraska; and David H.
Vaughan, ASAE Member Engineer, Professor,Department of Biological SVFE for drawbar load tests, rated PTO speed and varying
Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia. Corresponding PTO power tests. Figure 1 shows an example NTTL Report
author: Robert “Bobby” Grisso, 200 Seitz Hall (0303), Biological Systems and the SVFE for these test are shown under the columns
Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061; phone: labeled with units of “hpSh/gal (kWSh/L).”
540−231−6538; fax: 540−231−3199; e−mail: [email protected].

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Vol. 20(5): 553−561 E 2004 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0883−8542 553
Figure 1. Example of a tractor test report. This section shows the PTO performance tests (top), the varying power (middle) tests, and the drawbar per-
formance test (bottom) results. This report is taken from Nebraska OECD Tractor Test 1725 – Summary 225 for John Deere 7610 PowerShift.

CURRENT ASAE STANDARDS operation such as plowing, the fuel requirement should be
The fuel consumption estimates used in cropping and based on the actual power required.”
machinery budgets are based on the average annual fuel “6.3.2.1.1. Average annual fuel consumption for a specific
consumption from Agricultural Machinery Management make and model tractor can be approximated from the
engineering practice (ASAE Standards, 2002a). According to Nebraska Tractor Test Data. Average gasoline consumption
the respective sections 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.1.1, and 6.3.2.1.2 of the over a whole year can be estimated by the following formula:
ASAE EP496.2, fuel consumed over the year for a tractor is Qavg = 0.305 × Ppto (SI) (1)
characterized by the following definitions and equations:
“6.3.2.1. Average fuel consumption for tractors. Annual where
average fuel requirements for tractors may be used in Qavg = average gasoline consumption, L/h;
calculating overall machinery costs for a particular enter- Ppto = maximum PTO power, kW;
prise. However, in determining the cost for a particular or
Qavg = 0.06 × Ppto (English) (2)

554 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

where Clause 3 mentioned above is found in the Agricultural
Qavg = average gasoline consumption, gal/h; Machinery Management Data, D497.4 (ASAE Standards,
Ppto = maximum PTO power, hp.” 2002b) and states:
(The unit specifications and equations numbers have been “3.3 Fuel efficiency varies by type of fuel and by percent
added to highlight unit differences and ease of reference. This load on the engine. Typical farm tractor and combine engines
information is not part of the quotation.) above 20% load are modeled by the equations below. Typical
“6.3.2.1.2 A diesel tractor will use approximately 73% as fuel consumption for a specific operation is given in L/kWSh
much fuel in volume as a gasoline tractor, and liquefied (gal/hpSh) where X is the ratio of equivalent PTO power
petroleum LP gas tractors will use approximately 120% as required by an operation to that maximum available from the
much.” PTO. These equations model fuel consumptions 15% higher
Since most tractors tested and used for agricultural than typical Nebraska Tractor Test performance to reflect
purposes in the last 25 years have had diesel engines, the loss of efficiency under field conditions. To determine the
above equations converted for diesel engines become: average fuel consumption of a tractor operating under a range
of load conditions, over a period of time, refer to ASAE
Qavg = 0.305 × 0.73 × Ppto = 0.223 × Ppto (SI) (3)
EP496.
Qavg = 0.06 × 0.73 × Ppto = 0.044 × Ppto (English) (4)
Gasoline: 2.74X + 3.15 − 0.203 697X (SI) (6)
These equations were used by Siemens and Bowers (1999,
pg. 65 and 153). Bowers (2001) stated that these average fuel
consumption data were estimated from the varying PTO (0.54X + 0.62 − 0.04 697X ) (English) (7)
power tests from the NTTL Reports. The fuel consumption
over the varying PTO power tests (approximately 100%,
85%, 65%, 45%, 20%, and 0% of rated PTO power) were Diesel: (SI) (8)
averaged and then the average was divided by the rated PTO 2.64X + 3.91 − 0.203 738X + 173
power. This calculation was a line at the bottom of the
varying PTO power data in the Nebraska Tractor Test Reports (0.52X + 0.77 − 0.04 738X + 173 ) (English) (9)
prior to 1970. One implication of this method is that the
estimated annual fuel consumption is based on operation of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas):
the tractor for equal amounts of time at each of these partial (SI) (10)
2.69X + 3.41 − 0.203 646X
loads.
It is interesting to note that the reciprocal of the
coefficients in equations 3 and 4 have the same units as (0.53 X + 0.62 − 0.04 646 X ) (English) (11)”
SVFE, however, these values are not the same because of the
These equations are estimates of specific volumetric fuel
differences in the way these values and the SVFE values are
consumption, SVFC [L/kWSh (gal/hpSh)] along the full
determined. The reciprocal of the coefficients in equations 3
throttle or governor response curve. They do not provide
and 4 yield 4.48 kWSh/L (22.7 hpSh/gal), which are higher
estimates of the fuel consumption during reduced engine
than the normal range of SVFE, which is 2.36 to 4.1 kWSh/L
speed settings that are often recommended for partial load
(12 to 21 hpSh/gal).
applications (Kotzabassis, et al. 1994; Grisso and Pitman,
Some budgets use the estimated fuel consumption for a
2001). Thus, the volumetric fuel consumption for a diesel
specific operation given by ASAE EP496.2 (ASAE Stan-
engine at partial loads and full throttle can be calculated as:
dards, 2002a):
“6.3.2.2 Fuel consumption for a specific operation. Q = (2.64X + 3.91 − 0.203 738X + 173 ) × X × Ppto (SI) (12)
Predicting fuel consumption for a specific operation requires
determination of the total tractor power for that operation
(see clause 4). The equivalent PTO power is then divided by Q = (0.52X + 0.77 − 0.04 738X + 173 ) × X × Ppto
the rated maximum to get a percent load for the engine. The
fuel consumption at that load is obtained from ASAE D497, (English) (13)
clause 3. Fuel consumption for a particular operation can be where
estimated by the following calculation: Q = diesel fuel consumption at partial load, L/h (gal/h)
Qi = Qs × PT (5) X = the ratio of equivalent PTO power (PT) to rated PTO
power (Ppto), decimal
where Ppto = the rated PTO power, kW (hp)
Qi = estimated fuel consumption for a particular
operation, L/h (gal/h)
Qs = specific volumetric fuel consumption for the given
tractor, determined from ASAE D497, clause 3,
DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
L/kWSh (gal/hpSh) A spreadsheet was used to develop a database of fuel
PT = total tractor power (PTO equivalent) for the consumption from the NTTL reports from 1979 through
particular operation, kW (hp) 2002. The databases were separated in two files; one each for
A fuel consumption of 15% above that for Nebraska drawbar loads of 50% and 75%. The fuel consumption and
Tractor Tests is included for loss of efficiency under field power data for PTO and drawbar tests were compiled along
conditions.” with engine and chassis configurations including tractor
weight during testing and unballasted weights. The fuel

Vol. 20(5): 553−561 555

consumption data from the varying PTO power tests were 2.52 kWSh/L (12.80 hpSh/gal). The corresponding test
entered but the power levels were assumed to be 100%, 85%, during reduced throttle setting had an engine speed of
65%, 45%, 20%, and 0.1% of the rated PTO power. From 1665 rpm and SVFE of 2.88 kWSh/L (14.63 hpSh/gal). The
these data the specific volumetric fuel consumption [SVFC, SVFC is calculated as 0.397 L/kWSh (0.078 gal/hpSh) for full
L/kWSh (gal/hpSh)] was calculated. throttle and 0.347 L/kWSh (0.068 gal/hpSh) for the reduced
To compare the average annual fuel consumption data throttle test. Using equation 14, the decrease in SVFC was
with the estimates as presented in equation 3, the fuel 12.6% while the engine speed was reduced (NRed) by 24%.
consumption data for the varying PTO tests were divided by Similarly, the “50% of Pull at Maximum Power” tests have
the estimated power level and then averaged over 720 trac- a reduction of engine speed of 24% and a decrease of SVFC
tors. During this analysis, specific volumetric fuel consump- of 15.8%.
tion at rated engine power was developed by dividing the fuel The percentages calculated in equations 14 and 15 were
consumption at each power level of the varying PTO test by used to predict the changes in fuel consumption based on
the rated PTO power and a simplified regression equation engine speed reduction. It was expected that the fuel
was developed. consumption could be predicted from reduced engine speed
To compare fuel efficiency improvements of the reduced percentage and the fuel consumption predicted from full
engine speed during the 50% and 75% drawbar load tests, the throttle data (along the governor response power curve).
decrease in SVFC and engine speed were based on percent-
ages as follows:
 SVFC F − SVFC R  RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Decrease in SVFC =   × 100 (14) COMPARING NTTL DATA TO ASAE STANDARDS
 SVFC F  The results have some interesting implications. The data
from 20+ years of tractor testing were averaged for SVFC for
 RPM F − RPM R  the varying PTO power tests and shown in figure 2 along with
N Red =   × 100 (15)
 RPM F  results from equations 8 and 9 of the ASAE D497.4 (ASAE
Standards, 2002b). The data from the NTTL report were
where entered without the corresponding power so the SVFC was
SVFC = the specific volumetric fuel consumption at full estimated by dividing the fuel consumption by the power at
throttle (F), and reduced throttle (R), during the estimated load percentage (100%, 85%, 65%, 45%, and
50% and 75% drawbar load tests, respectively, 20%). The results were averaged for each load and then
L/kWSh (gal/hpSh) graphed along with 115% of the averages. The 15% increase
NRed = the percentage engine speed (rpm) reduction curve accounted for field operations and wear of the engine
during the 50% and 75% drawbar load tests at as stated in the ASAE D497.4. The data from the varying
reduced throttle (R), compared to full throttle power were in good agreement with equations 8 and 9. A
(F), respectively, % slight decrease is shown for the SVFC data, which indicates
The data measured in NTTL Report 1725 (shown in fig. 1) that some improvement in engine efficiency has been gained
will be used to show the computation for equations 14 and 15. over the last 20 years as predicted by ASAE D497.4.
For the drawbar performance at “75% of Pull at Maximum
Power,” the engine speed was 2190 rpm and SVFE of

0.25
1.2
ASAE D497.4
1 2.64 X + 3.91 − 0.203 SQRT(738 X + 173) 0.2
( 0.52 X + 0.77 − 0.04 SQRT(738 X + 173) )
SVFC (gal/hp−hr)

0.8
SVFC (L/kW−h)

0.15

0.6
0.1
0.4

0.05
0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
X − Ratio of Equivalent PTO Power to Rated PTO Power
ASAE D497.4 NTTL Data NTTL+ 15%

Figure 2. Comparison of the specific volumetric fuel consumption (SVFC) predicted by equations 8 and 9 (from ASAE D497.4) and the averages from
the varying PTO power at each load level. A curve is shown of the averages, which is increased by 15% to account for field losses.

556 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

NEW FUEL CONSUMPTION RELATIONSHIP power data were compared. The Pearson correlation coeffi-
AT FULL THROTTLE cient was 0.989 for over 4900 comparisons.
Equations 8, 9, 12, and 13 are complex since SVFC is
calculated using the ratio of equivalent PTO power for a FUEL CONSUMPTION DURING REDUCED ENGINE SPEEDS
particular load to rated PTO power. Then specific volumetric Equations 16 and 17 predict fuel consumption for any load
fuel consumption and the equivalent PTO power at the at full throttle. The only fuel consumption data from the
particular load are used to calculate the fuel consumption NTTL reports, with reduced engine speed, are taken during
(eqs. 3 and 4). While working with the data, instead of the drawbar power tests. Figure 4 was developed to establish
dividing the fuel consumption by the equivalent PTO power, the relationship between fuel consumption during the PTO
the fuel consumption at each load level was divided by the power tests and the drawbar power tests at full load. This
rated PTO power for each tractor and then averaged for each figure shows that the fuel consumption during the PTO power
load level for all tractors. The resulting graph is shown in tests and the drawbar power tests are almost identical. Thus,
figure 3. The points are linear and result in a simpler equation the varying PTO power fuel consumption data should apply
than using equations 12 and 13. The resulting equation for to the drawbar load data as well as to the PTO load data if the
fuel consumption for full− and partial−load tests (with load factor is known. During the drawbar test, losses occur
full−throttle) is: due to tire/surface interface and transmission; thus, the SVFE
decreases due to these losses, as shown in figure 5.
Q = (0.22 X + 0.096 ) × Ppto (SI) (16)
The SVFE data for full throttle and reduced throttle
settings during 50% and 75% drawbar loads are compared in
Q = (0.0434 X + 0.019 ) × Ppto (English) (17) figure 6. Increased scatter of the data is evident due to less
where controlled conditions of the track surfaces, ambient condi-
Q = diesel fuel consumption at partial load, L/h (gal/h) tions, test tractor configuration and tractor setup; including
X = the ratio of equivalent PTO power to rated PTO tire types, ballast amounts, axle weight distributions and
power, decimal engine speed/gear selection. But the data do show that
Ppto = the rated PTO power, kW (hp) reducing the throttle while maintaining travel speed and pull
The statistical fit for equations 16 and 17 using the average by gearing up will save an average of 21% and 13% (fig. 6)
values was excellent (R2 = 0.998). Figure 3 shows the for 50% and 75% drawbar loads, respectively.
maximum and minimum (dashed lines) for each load level as In order to predict the savings in fuel consumption for
well as one standard deviation above and below the average. reduced engine speeds, the data were analyzed and graphed
The statistical fit for equations 16 and 17 using the average using the definitions in equations 14 and 15. The equations
values was excellent (R2 = 0.998). Figure 3 shows the in figure 7 were developed by dividing the decrease in SVFC
maximum and minimum (dashed lines) for each load level as by the engine speed reduction to normalize the decrease in
well as one standard deviation above and below the average. SVFC for the reduction in engine speed. While the R2 values
Using the above regression equation, the predicted fuel for the relationships at 50% and 75% loads were low due to
consumption and the actual measurements from the varying the scatter of the data, the linear relationship gave the
following surface equation:
0.09
0.45

0.40 0.08
y = 0.220X + 0.096 (SI)
0.35
y = 0.0434x + 0.019 (English) 0.07
Fuel Use (gal/Rated PTO hp−h)
Fuel Use (L/Rated PTO kW−h)

R2 = 0.9982
0.30 0.06

0.25 0.05

0.20 0.04

0.15 0.03

0.10 0.02

0.05 0.01

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
X − Ratio of Equivalent PTO Power to Rated PTO Power
Figure 3. Predicted fuel use based on rated PTO power. Data shown are averaged for all tractors at each power level for the varying PTO power tests.
The dashed lines are the maximum and minimum for each load level and the bars surrounding the averages (circle) show one standard deviation above
and below the mean.

Vol. 20(5): 553−561 557

 D = (−0.0045 X NRed + 0.00877 NRed) (18) 100%, 50%, and 75% drawbar loads at full throttle setting,
and 50% and 75% drawbar loads at reduced engine throttle
where
setting. The Pearson correlation coefficient for over 8000
D = diesel fuel SVFC decrease between full and reduced
comparisons was 0.989, which shows excellent agreement.
engine speed, decimal The relationship between the ASAE D497.4 equations 12
X = the ratio of equivalent PTO power to rated PTO
and 13 and the new equations 16 and 17 was compared in
power, decimal
figure 9 at various equivalent and rated PTO power levels.
NRed = the percentage of reduced engine speed for a partial The results of equations 16 and 17 were increased by 15% as
load from full throttle, %
suggested by the ASAE Standards to compensate for field and
Combining equations 16 and 17 with 18, the fuel consump-
wear losses. The differences between the two equations are
tion equations become: small in the midrange and at low rated PTO power levels;
Q = (0.22 X + 0.096 )(1 – (−0.0045 X NRed however, as the power levels increased, differences also
increased. Also, increased deviations occurred at the low
+ 0.00877 NRed)) × Ppto (SI) (19) equivalent and near full power levels. The average annual
specific volumetric fuel consumption from the NTTL data
Q = (0.0434 X + 0.019 )(1 – (−0.0045 X NRed was 0.213 L/kWSh (0.042 gal/hpSh), which is a 4.8%
+ 0.00877 NRed)) × Ppto (English) (20) decrease over the ASAE EP496.2 estimates given in
equations 3 and 4.
where
Q = diesel fuel consumption at partial load and full/
reduced throttle, L/h (gal/h)
NRed = the percentage of reduced engine speed for a partial CONCLUSIONS
load from full throttle, % During the past 20 years of tractor testing, improved fuel
X = the ratio of equivalent PTO power to rated PTO efficiency from NTTL reports was shown. A 4.8% decrease
power, decimal in average annual specific volumetric fuel consumption, for
Ppto = the rated PTO power, kW (hp) the data used in the ASAE Standards, was estimated. New
The predicted results of equations 19 and 20 were plotted equations for fuel consumption were established using fuel
versus the actual fuel consumption as reported by NTTL in consumption and power data from the NTTL reports. These
figure 8. Each tractor has fuel consumption for varying PTO equations are useful to predict fuel consumption for diesel
runs (100%, 85%, 65%, 45%, 20%, and 0% of PTO power), engines during full and partial loads and under conditions
and most tractors tested have a full drawbar complement of when engine speeds are reduced from full throttle.

Fuel Consumption PTO (gal/h)

0 4 8 12 16 20

80
20
70 y = 1.0004x

Fuel Consumption Drawbar (gal/h)

Fuel Consumption Drawbar (Ll/h)

R2 = 0.9951
60 16

50
12
40

30 8

20
4
10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fuel Consumption PTO (L/h)
Figure 4. Fuel consumption at rated engine speed for PTO and drawbar power tests at full load.

558 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

 SVFE PTO (hp−h/gal)
9 11 13 15 17 19

19
3.75

100% Load − PTO vs Drawbar 17

SVFE Drawbar (hp−h/gal)

SVFE Drawbar (kW−h/L) y = 0.8604x
3.25 R2 = 0.7434

15

2.75
13

2.25
11

1.75 9
1.75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75
SVFE PTO (kW−h/L)
Figure 5. Specific volumetric fuel efficiency (SVFE) related at rated engine speed for the PTO and drawbar power tests at full load (The solid line is
an 1:1 relationship and the dash line is the linear regression.).

SVFE − Full Throttle (hp−h/gal)

7 9 11 13 15 17 19
3.88
19
Drawbar Tests
3.38

SVFE − Reduced Throttle (hp−h/gal)

17
SVFE − Reduced Throttle (kW−h/L)

15
2.88

13
2.38

11
50% Drawbar Load 75% Drawbar Load
y = 1.2144x y = 1.1305x
1.88 R2 = 0.4894 R2 = 0.7052
9

1.38 7
1.38 1.88 2.38 2.88 3.38 3.88
SVFE − Full Throttle (kW−h/L)

50% Load 75% Load 1:1 Linear (50% Load) Linear (75% Load)

Figure 6. Specific volumetric fuel efficiency (SVFE) at full and reduced engine speeds for 50% and 75% drawbar load tests.

Vol. 20(5): 553−561 559

 40
50% Drawbar Load
y = 0.6522x
35
R2 = 0.4296

30 75% Drawbar Load

Decrease in SVFC (%) y = 0.5399x
R2 = 0.2366
25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Reduction in Engine Speed (%)
50% Drawbar 75% Drawbar 1:1 Linear (50% Drawbar) Linear (75% Drawbar)

Figure 7. The relationship between the decrease of specific fuel consumption (SVFC) and reduction of engine speed during the 50% and 75% drawbar
load tests.

Actual Fuel Consumption (gal/h)

0 4 8 12 16 20

80

Predicted Fuel Consumption (gal/h)

20
Predicted Fuel Consumption (L/h)

70

60 16

50
12
40

30 8

20
4
10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Actual Fuel Consumption (L/h)
100% Load Full Thottle 85% Load Full Throttle 65% Load Full Throttle
45% Load Full Throttle 20% Load Full Throttle 0% Load Full Throttle
100% Load Full Throttle 85% Load Full Throttle 65% Load Full Throttle
45% Load Full Throttle 20% Load Full Throttle 0% Load Full Throttle
100% Load DB 50% DB Load Full Throttle 50% DB Load Reduced Throttle
75% DB Load Full Throttle 75% DB Load Reduced Throttle 1:1

Figure 8. Comparison of actual and predicted fuel consumption for all the varying PTO and drawbar power tests. The fuel consumption was predicted
with equations 19 and 20 (8140 comparisons, Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.989).

560 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

 25
90
ASAE D497.4
(2.64 X + 3.91 − 0.203 SQRT(738 X + 173)) * X * Ppto
80 ( 0.52 X + 0.77 − 0.04 SQRT(738 X + 173) * X * Ppto)
20
NEW − Equations

Fuel Consumption (gal/h)

70 (0.220 X + 0.096) * Ppto
Fuel Consumption (L/h) ( (0.0434 X + 0.019) * Ppto )
60
15
50

40
10

30

20 5

10

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
X − Ratio of Equivalent PTO Power to Rated PTO Power

56 kW 112 kW 186 kW 56 kW New 112 kW New 186 kW New

Figure 9. Fuel consumption as predicted by equations 12 and 13 (from ASAE D497.4) and by equations 16 and 17 at different equivalent and rated PTO
power levels. The fuel consumption values predicted by equations 16 and 17 shown above reflect a 15% increase as suggested by the ASAE D497.4
(which is also incorporated into equations 12 and 13).

REFERENCES Kotzabassis, C., H. T. Wiedemann, and S. W. Searcy. 1994. Tractor

energy conservation. Texas Agricultural Extension Service
ASAE Standards, 49th
Ed. 2002a. EP496.2. Agricultural machinery
Publication L−5085, Texas A&M University System, College
management. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Station, Tex.
ASAE Standards, 49th Ed. 2002b. D497.4 JAN98. Agricultural
Siemens, J. C., and W. W. Bowers. 1999. Machinery management:
machinery management data. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
How to select machinery to fit the real needs of farm managers.
Bowers, W. 2001. Personal correspondence by email.
Farm Business Management (FMB) series. East Moline, Ill.:
Grisso, R. D., and R. Pitman. 2001. Gear up and throttle down −
John Deere Publishing.
saving fuel. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication
Zoz, F., and R. D. Grisso. 2003. Traction and tractor performance.
442−450, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va.,
ASAE Distinguished Lecture Series #27. St. Joseph, Mich.:
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442−450/442−450.pdf .
ASAE.

Vol. 20(5): 553−561 561

 562 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

View publication stats