a study on fuel consumption and work performance of ...

Prog. Agrlc. 10 (2) : 270-274 (2010)

&

Society for Recent Development In Agriculture

A STUDY ON FUEL CONSUMPTION AND WORK PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT TRACTORS WITH TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS S.K. Goyal, Samsher and Suresh Chandra Deptt. of Agril. Engg. & Food Tech., SVPUA&T; Meerut-250 110 (U. P.)

ABSTRACT A study was conducted to evaluate fuel consumption and work performance with disc harrow and cultivator In sandy loam soli. Three soli cover conditions viz. unploughed soli, stubble soli and tilled Irrigated soli surface were taken to determine the better performance of tractor-Implement system and fuel economy. Three tractors were used of 55, 35 and 30 bhp, at three speed control setting of the tractors, viz. 1/3rd , 213rd and full throttle positions. The disc and cultivator combination were found most economical to be operated 213rd speed control position. Maximum fuel consumed 4.1 l/h In tilled Irrigated soli with cultivator and disc harrow 3.6 I/h at 213rd throttle position because of Increased depth of operation. Almost In all soli cover conditions, cultivator gave maximum field capacity. Fuel consumption for cultivator was higher than disc harrow due to higher depth of ploughing. Tractor, specific fuel consumption, irrigated soil, stubble soil, unploughed soil,

Downloaded From IP - 117.239.18.98 on dated 29-Jun-2012

Key words:

www.IndianJournals.com

Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

Tractors are the basic need' of Indian agriculture. Growth of tractor industries (from 881 tractor in 1961 to above 3, 50,000 tractors in the year 2007) is an indicator of needs, importance and use of it in Indian agriculture. During last three decades the demand and use of tractor drown machineries have increased substantially due to increased awareness about usefulness of tractor machinery system on custom-hiring. About 45-60% tractor owners are used disc harrow and majority of farmers used cultivators. lnfact these two. tillage implements are widely used with tractors. Even in case of tillage tractor implement system is used in varying field conditions at different levels of ~oad. It is desirable to have a tractor implement system which is both fuel and work efficient (2).

However, both these tractor performance indicators are dependent on various factors like type of soil, soil cover condition, type of operation, age of tractor, technical knowledge and skill of tractor operator. It has been observed that due to lack of awareness on these accounts a number of tractor become diesel guzzlers. Engine power and speed requirements for 19 operations was also studied (4). Horsepower requirement for starting the implement and for average operation through the field were reported in absolute values and as part loads of maximum power of the tractor. Keeping above views, a study was conducted on work performance of tractor-implement-system, fuel economy in different soil cover conditions, different tractor models and recommended proper method for use of trac-

tillage implements

tor-implement system for better performance and fuel economy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Study was conducted in sandy-loam soil. Three different soil cover conditions selected for the experiments were unploughed soil, stubble soil with mustard root residues and tilled irrigated soil. The experiments performed at three tractors of 55, 35 and 30 bhp and three setting and of throttle position Le. 1/3rd , 2/3rd and full in first high gear. However, 1/3rd speed control operation was not accepted to the farmers due to slow speed (1.51 km/h) and field capacity (0.26 hath). Before operation, the fuel tank of tractor was filled with fuel upto brim. Tractor were operated with disk harrow and cultivator in stubble soil with unploughed soil, mustard root residues and tilled irrigated soil with different throttle positions. At each throttle position in every soil under operation, fuel was filled again in tank after 15 minutes of operation. The additional fuel which was filled at this time was measured. Thus, fuel consumption was computed in litre per hour. Fuel consumption was measured in the field simultaneously with the measurement of speed, time, field capacity, depth and width of cut of implements used. For an overall comparison of fuel efficiency, the specific fuel consumption, Le. fuel consumed (gIbhp-h) was evaluated. Specific Fuel Consumption is a most useful parameter of the tractor-implement system, because it includes the actual work output to fuel ratio.

A Study of FwI Con.umptlon _nd Work Perlorm.nce of Different TnJCfore with TIII_ge Implement.

Jpeclflc fuel consumption Fuel consumed In gram per unit of rated power per hour was calculated (3) as SFC (glbhp - h) _ Fuel consumption (cc) x Specific Gravity of HSD Rated BHP of tractor

efficiency The field efficiency of the implements used In the study computed by operating cultivator and dick harrow on area which was observed about 73 per cent. Thus, per cent field efficiency was used in computing all the field capacities.

Field capacity




Field capacity was calculated with the help of standard method given by (1) as : SW Ef C=1"Qx 100

where, C= effective field capacity (hath),

S = speed of travel (kmlh), W= rated width of implement (em), and

Ef = field efficiency (%)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

271

CUltivator, respectively. For tilled irrigated condition at full load, the fuel consumption for 55,35 and 30 bhp was 5.0, 4.6 and 4.9 Vh for cultivator. These were 4.0, 4.0 and 4.1 Vh for disc harrow, respectively. Fuel consumption was minimum at 1/3rd part load for all the three tractor-implement systems. The same increased with in~rease in load. Although, tractor gave the best work performance at full load but, the field capacity at 2/3rd and full load setting was not commensurate with increase in fuel consumption I at these loads setting. At 2/3rd part load setting the tractors gave optimum work performance and efficient fuel consumption (Fig.' 1).

Fuel consumption versus tillage Implements In case of cultivator the average depth of operation in unploughed, stubbled and tilled irrigated soil were 15.33, 8.17 and 18.17 em and for disc harrow 8.6, 6.0 and 14.5 em, respectively. Consistently the depth of cultivator was higher at all throttle position and in all soil conditions than disc harrow. At 2/3rd throttle position average fuel consumption of 30 bhp tractor with the cultivator in unploughed, stubble and tilled irrigated soil were 3.2, 3.3 and 3.7 I/h, respectively, corresponding fuel consumption 3.2, 2.9 and 3.4 1111 were recorded for disc harrow. At full load condition in tilled irrigated soil hourly basis fuel consumption with cultivator by 55, 35 and 30 bhp were 5.0, 4.6 and 4.9 I/h, respectively, whereas the same was appreciably low in case of disc harrow (Fig.1). It showed, this implement caused higher variation in fuel consumption at full load.

tractor

Fuel consumption pattern for different soli cover condition

The tractor of 55 bhp consumed maximum fuel on hourly basis at all the three load settings, because it was expected as this tractor had higher horsepower. In case of unploughed soil at 2/3rd load setting the fuel consumption by 35 and 30 bhp were 3.2 I/h and 2.9 1111 for cultivator and 3.2 Vh and 2.7 I/h for disc harrow, respectively (Table 1 and 2). At the same time corresponding specific fuel consumption for cultivator was 88.53, 68.77 glbhp-h and ,for disc harrow was 88.53, 64.03 glbhp-h, respectively. At the same load setting data showed that specific fuel consumption decreased with increased in tractors horsepower. Similarly in stubble soil at full load condition the fuel consumption on hourly basis for 55, 35 and 30 bhp were 4.3, 3.8 and 4.0 Vh for cultivator and 3.5, 3.4 and 3.8 1111 for disc harrow, respectively. Specific fuel consumption in unploughed condition were 55.84, 90.17 and11.067 glbhp-h ,for disc harrow and 72.44, 101.97 and 127.27 glbhp-h for

The fuel consumption pattern for different soil cover conditions are shown in Table 1 and 2. Stubble soil permitted average depth of cut of 6.00 em for disk harrow and 8.17 em for cultivator. In case of cultivator the fuel consumption by the tractor of 55 bhp at 2/3rd load were 3.9, 3.9 and 4.1 Vh for unploughed, stubble and tilled irrigated soil, respectively. Tilled irrigated soil showed higher fuel consumption for both cultivator and disc harrow in all tractor implement systems. The average depths of cut with the cultivator and disc harrow in tilled irrigated soil were 18.17 em and 14.50 em, respectively. Thus, the tilled irrigated soil consumed maximum fuel due to higher depth of ploughing.

Fuel consumption pattern of Implement-system at part loads

different

Field capacity versus part load operation Almost in all the soils, cultivator gave the maximum field capacity at all the three speed controls followed by disc harrow. At 1/3rd throttle position in stubble soil field

Goya' et .,.

272

capacities of disc harrow (12 discs) and cultivator (9 tynes) The disc harrow and cultivator combination were the with 55 , 35 and 30 qhp test tractors were 0.29 and 0.32, most economical to be operated at 2/3rd speed control. The 0.28 and 0.30, 0.26 and '0.30 halh, respectively. The cor- tilled irrigated soil required maximum fuel consumption for responding values were '0.84 and 0.93, 0.76 and 0.72,0.80 all tractor-implement systems because of increased depth and O. hath at full speed. In unploughed soil the cor- of operation. Tillage equipment used in field operations responding field capacities at 2/3rd throttle speed control of • consumed fuel differently. Almost in all the soil cover cultivator and disc-harrow were 0.57 and 0.58, 0.56 and conditions, cultivator gave maximum field capacity. In un0.45, 0.56 and 0.48 hath, respectively. Generally field ploughed soil field capacity at 2/3rd throttle setting. of 55, capacities were slightly higher in stubble soil. The field 35 and 30 bhp test tractors were 0.57 and 0.58, 0.56 and capacity was the maximum at the maximum' speed. In- 0.45, 0.56 and 0.48 hath for both tractor-implement systems. creased in field capacity due to increase in load setting Fuel consumption for cultivator was higher than disc harrow from 2/3rd to full, was not appreciable as increased in fuel due to higher depth of ploughing. consumption due to same change in setting (Table 3). In case of tilled irrigated soil for cultivator with 30 bhp tractor ACKOWLEDGEMENT the increase in field capacity form 2/3rd to full load setting Author is thankful to Prof. M. R. Verma (Ex-Dean) Dr. was observed as 13.2 % whereas, with same change fuel B. R. Ambedkar College of Agril. Engg. & Tech., Etawah consumption was enhanced by 22%. Similar trends were (U.P.) and Dr. Indra Mani (Senior Scientist) Division of Agril. observed for other tractor models with these two implements Engg. IARI, New Delhi for their help and guidance provided under various soil conditions. during course of investigation.

n




/

Table 1: Fuel consumption pattern at different throttle position, load setting and soli conditions of different test tractors with cultivator. S. No.

Soli Condition

1. Unploughed soil

2. Stubble soil

Throttle position

F.C. (Uh) 1/3rd

213

rd

Full

1/3rd rd

213

Full

3. Tilled irrigated soil

1/3rd rd

213

Full

35 bhp

55 bhp S.F.C. (glbhp-h)

F.C. (Uh)

30 bhp

S.F.C. (glbhp-h)

F.C. (I/h)

S.F.C. (glbhp-h)

2.5 3.9 . 4.8

37.73 58.85 72.44

1.6 2.9 4.3

37.94 68.77 101.97

2.1 3.2 4.6

58.10 88.53 127.27

1.6 3.9 4.3

24.5 58.85 64.89

1.2 2.8 3.8

28.45 66.4 90.11

1.5 3.3 4.0

41.5 92.3 110.67

3.7 4.1 5.0

55.84 61.87 75.45

2.9 3.4 4.6

68.77 80.63 109.09

3.3 3.7 4.9

91.3 102.37 135.52

FC : Fuel Consumption, SFC : Specific Fuel Consumption. Note: SFC was calculated on tractor engine rated BHP at different setting.

273

A Study of Fuel Consumption and Work PerformIInce of Different Tractors with Tillage Implements

Table 2: Fuel consumption pattern at different throttle position, load setting and soil conditions of different. test tractors with disc harrow. S.

Throttle position

Soil Condition

'No.

55 bhp F.C. (11h)

35 bhp

S.F.C. (g/bhp-h)

30 bhp

S.F.C. (g/bhp-h)

F.C. (11h)

S.F.C. (g/bhp-h)

F.C. (I/h)

1. Unploughed soil

1/3rd 2/3rd Full

2.0 3.2 3.7

30.18 48.29 55.84

1.5 2.7 3.8

35.57 64.03 90.11

1.9 3.2 4.0

52.37 88.53 110.67

2. Stubble soil

1/3 rd 213 rd Full

1.7 3.1 3.5

25.65 46.78 52.82

1.2 2.8 3.4

28.45 59.29 80.63

1.4 2.9 4.0

21.13 88.23 105:13

3. Tilled irrigated soil

1/3rd 2/3 rd Full

2.1

31.69

2.7

64.03

3.0

83.00

3.6

54.33

2.9

68.77

3.4

94.07

4.0

60.36

4.0

94.86

4.1

113.43

FC: Fuel Consumption, SFC : Specific Fuel Consumption. Downloaded From IP - 117.239.18.98 on dated 29-Jun-2012

Note: SFC was calculated on tractor engine rated BHP at different setting.



Table 3: Field capacity (ha/h) for different tractor-Implement system In different soli cover conditions of different 'test tractors. S. No.

1.

2.

3.

Implement

Tractor

Stubble soli

Tilled Irrigated soli rd

1/3rd

213

Full

rd

1/3

213

rd

Unploughed soil rd

Full

1/3

2/3

rd

Full

55 bhp

Cultivator Disc harrow

0.296 0.268

0.596 0.600

0.700 0.720

0.292 0.320

0.660 0.608

0.836 0.928

0.298 0.270

0.574 0.580

0.684 0.620

35 bhp


0.290 0.260

0.570 0.490

0.610 0.620

0.280 0.300

0.570 0.420

0.760 0.720

0.290 0.260

0.560 0.450

0.670 0.540

30 bhp


0.290 0.260

0.570 0.510

0.650 0.640

0.260 0.300

0.630 0.430

0.800 0.770

0.300 0.260

0.560 0.480

0.650 0.560

FC : Fuel Conumption, SFC : Specific Fuel Consumption Note: SFC was calculated on tractor engine rated BHPat different setting.

_ 4.5

~

.c

=. 4.0 S 3.5

:g,

3.0

I8 ~~ j

!

.

1.5 ] 1.0

... 0.5 t55 bhPl 35 bhp-i 30 bhp f55 bh;-r35 bhp I

Unploughed soil

Stubble soil

30 bhp f55 bhp

r-

35 bhp

Tilled irrigated soil

Fig. 1: Fuel consumption (1Ih) at 213rd throttle position (1300 rpm), different soil conditions and

tract~rs with

cultivator and harrow.

Goy.' .t

274

.1.

i

1.

Kepner, A.A., Baine, A. and Bager, E. L. 2000. Principles of farm machinery. C.B.S. Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 26 p.

2.

Mani, Indra 1989. Pattern of tractor energy utilization in different agricultural operations. Division of Agricultural Engineering, IARI, New Delhi.



J;


REFERANCES : 3.

Mani, Indra and Panwar, J.S. 1990. Tractor-implement· system performance at part loads. Paper presented In the International Agricultural Engineering Conference, 3-6, Dec. 1990; Bangkok, Thailand.

4.

Ricketts, C.J. and Weber, J.A. 1961. Tractor engine loading. Agricultural Engineering Today, 42: 236-239.