A Comparative Study of Actual Fuel Consumption and the Predicted Fuel Consumption of the Tractor with Chisel Plow
Author(s)
Ayman Hassan Suliman , Amir Bakheit Saeed , Moayad Mohamed Balel ,
Download Full PDF Pages: 48-53 | Views: 408 | Downloads: 143 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4625351
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during December 2019, at the Demonstration Farm of the Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Alsalam. The objective was to compare the actual fuel consumption and the predicted fuel consumption of tractor with chisel plow. Randomized complete block design with three replications was used in this study. Three operating speeds of 3.41 km/h, 5.52 km/h and 8.4 km/h were set as treatments. Three methods of calculating fuel consumption were used namely, refilling (direct) method, first estimation and second estimation methods. The effective field capacity and field efficiency were also determined. The results showed there was a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) between refilling method and first estimation method in the first speed. The first estimation method showed an increase the rate of fuel consumption by 33% over the refilling method. However, in the second speed, the difference was a significant between the refilling method and the second estimation method. The rate of fuel consumption was increased by 28% over the refilling method. In the third speed, the difference was significant among the methods of calculating fuel consumption. The second estimation method increased the rate of fuel consumption by 14% over the refilling method, while the first estimation method decreased the rate of fuel consumption by 49%.The results showed that increasing in the operating speed resulted in increase the rate of fuel consumption in refilling and second estimation methods. However, in the first estimation method the rate of fuel consumption remained constant in all operating speeds. The results also showed increasing in the operating speed led to a significant increase in effective field capacity and field efficiency. It can be concluded that the second estimation method could be used because it gave closer results to the refilling method at different operating speeds.
Keywords
Fuel consumption; predicted fuel consumption; refilling method; estimation method
References
i- Al-jubory, R.A. (2010). Effect of two plows, soil moisture and practical speed on some performance parameters and soil physical properties. Babel Journal.Vol, 16.
ii- ASABE Standard, 2011. ASAE EP496.3, Agricultural machinery management. < www.asabe.org >.
iii- ASABE. (2015b). D497.7: Agricultural machinery management data. St. Joseph, MI: ASABE.
iv- ASABE. 2006. ASABE Standards: Agricultural Machinery Management Data. ASAE EP496.3 FEB2006. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE. http://asae.frymulti.com/standards.asp.
v- ASABE. 2009. ASABE Standards: Agricultural Machinery Management Data. ASAE D497.6 JUN2009. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE. http://asae.frymulti.com/standards.asp (accessed Dec. 29, 2009).
vi- Grisso, R. D., Kocher, M. F., & Vaughan, D. H. (2004). Predicting tractor fuel consumption. Appl. Eng. Agric., 20(5), 553-561. https://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.17455.
vii- Grisso, R. D., Vaughan, D. H., & Roberson, G. T. (2008). Fuel prediction for specific tractor models. Appl. Eng. Agric., 24(4), 423-428. https://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.25139.
viii-Grisso, R., Perumpral, J.V., Vaughan, D., Roberson, G.T. and Pitman, R. (2010). Predicting Tractor Diesel Fuel Consumption. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Publication 442-073.
ix- Hanna, H. M. (2001). Fuel required for field operations. Iowa State University, University Extension.
x- Howard, C. N. (2010). Testing fuel efficiency of tractors with both continuously variable and standard geared transmissions. Unpublished MS thesis. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. Retrieved from http://digitalcomons.unl.edu/biosysengdiss/10/.
xi- Howard, C. N., Kocher, M. F., Hoy, R. M., & Blankenship, E. E. (2013). Testing the fuel efficiency of tractors with continuously variable and standard geared transmissions. Trans. ASABE, 56(3), 869-879. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/trans.56.10222.
xii- Kepner, R.A.; Bainer, R. and Barger, E.L. (1982). Principles of farm machinery, 4th edition.AMI. Publishing company, Inc. West port, connection.
xiii-Muhsin, S.J. (2017). Performance study of moldboard plow with two types of disc harrows and their effect on some soil properties under different operating conditions.Basrah J. Agric.sci., 30 (2): 1-15.
xiv- Smith, B. J. (2015). Fuel consumption models for tractors with partial drawbar loads. Unpublished MS thesis. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/biosysengdiss/56/.
xv- Taha, F.J. (2011). Performance of Chisel Plow under Tillage Depths and Tractor Speed. The Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences 42 (5):67 - 72.
xvi- Thakare, S. H. and Deshmukh, M. M. (2009). Fuel consumption of different tractor operated agricultural operations. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 2(1), 110-112.
Cite this Article: