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

net/publication/305776735

THE PERFORMANCE OF FARM TRACTORS AS REPORTED BY CAN-BUS

MESSAGES

Conference Paper · July 2016

CITATIONS READS

15 8,974

4 authors, including:

Firas Salim
Iowa State University
31 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Firas Salim on 11 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering
Conference Proceedings and Presentations

2016

The performance of farm tractors as reported by

CAN-BUS measures
Firas Salim Al-Aani
Iowa State University, fsalim@iastate.edu

Matthew J. Darr
Iowa State University, darr@iastate.edu

Benjamin Ross Covington

Iowa State University, shoreman@iastate.edu

Levi John Powell

Iowa State University, ljpowell@iastate.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_conf

Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons
The complete bibliographic information for this item can be found at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
abe_eng_conf/473. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
howtocite.html.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It
has been accepted for inclusion in Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Conference Proceedings and Presentations by an authorized administrator
of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact digirep@iastate.edu.
The performance of farm tractors as reported by CAN-BUS measures
Abstract
Tractors and agricultural machinery have been designed specifically for land preparation, tillage, and other
agricultural operation’s tasks. Tractors are the primary source of power in farms and fields. Thus, to obtain the
optimum output from them, proper management and utilization is needed. Agricultural machinery performance has
been studied over the past three decades and optimum results have been obtained for different kinds of agricultural
machinery. In general, the evaluation of agricultural machinery using traditional methods is problematic as they are
time consuming and labor intensive. Moreover, by using the common evaluation methods it is typically difficult to
obtain accurate and instant results. Accurate measurements of field performance parameters are required for
monitoring machinery performance and management decisions. Recently, the improvement in the electronics
technology has made field operational management easier to monitor. Controller Area Network (CAN) Bus
technology is being used as a communication system in tractors and allows connections between Electrical Control
Units (ECU). CAN Bus technology broadcast unique electronic messages which contain continuously updated
information about the engine, power train, equipment, power take off, hydraulic system, and other parts of the
machines. To evaluate the performance of agricultural machinery, there is no longer a need for myriad measurement
instruments producing widely varying output to individually measuring fuel consumption for each speed, gear shift
and the whole operation. As a result, this study was conducted to evaluate tractor performance by CAN Bus
technology as a simple to use, easy to install, high speed data collection, and convenient to retrieve the stored data.
These techniques allow for substantial saving of money and time, reducing our workload and eliminating training
necessary for specialized measurement tools.

Keywords
CAN Bus, Field efficiency, Fuel consumption, Tractor Slippage percentage

Disciplines
Agriculture | Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering

Comments
This paper is from 2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Paper No. 162461746, pages 1-18 (doi:
10.13031/aim.20162461746). St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.

This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_conf/473

 An ASABE Meeting Presentation
DOI: 10.13031/aim.20162461746
Paper Number: 162461746
1

THE PERFORMANCE OF FARM TRACTORS AS REPORTED BY

CAN-BUS MESSAGES

Firas Salim Al-Aani, Graduate Student

Iowa State University, Elings Hall, Ames, IA 50011 fsalim@iastate.edu
University of Baghdad, Iraq
Dr. Matthew J. Darr, Professor
Iowa State University, Elings Hall, Ames, IA 50011 darr@iastate.edu
Benjamin Ross Covington, Engineer Designer II
Iowa State University, Elings Hall, Ames, IA 50011 bcoving@iastate.edu
Levi John Powell, Program Coordinator
Iowa State University, Elings Hall, Ames, IA 50011 ljpowell@iastate.edu

Written for presentation at the

2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASABE
Orlando, Florida
July 17-20, 2016
ABSTRACT. Tractors and agricultural machinery have been designed specifically for land preparation, tillage,
and other agricultural operation’s tasks. Tractors are the primary source of power in farms and fields. Thus, to
obtain the optimum output from them, proper management and utilization is needed. Agricultural machinery
performance has been studied over the past three decades and optimum results have been obtained for different
kinds of agricultural machinery. In general, the evaluation of agricultural machinery using traditional methods
is problematic as they are time consuming and labor intensive. Moreover, by using the common evaluation
methods it is typically difficult to obtain accurate and instant results. Accurate measurements of field
performance parameters are required for monitoring machinery performance and management decisions.
Recently, the improvement in the electronics technology has made field operational management easier to
monitor. Controller Area Network (CAN) Bus technology is being used as a communication system in tractors
and allows connections between Electrical Control Units (ECU). CAN Bus technology broadcast unique
electronic messages which contain continuously updated information about the engine, power train, equipment,
power take off, hydraulic system, and other parts of the machines. To evaluate the performance of agricultural
machinery, there is no longer a need for myriad measurement instruments producing widely varying output to
individually measuring fuel consumption for each speed, gear shift and the whole operation. As a result, this
study was conducted to evaluate tractor performance by CAN Bus technology as a simple to use, easy to install,
high speed data collection, and convenient to retrieve the stored data. These techniques allow for substantial
saving of money and time, reducing our workload and eliminating training necessary for specialized
measurement tools.

Keywords. CAN Bus, Field efficiency, Fuel consumption , Tractor Slippage percentage

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this meeting presentation. The presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an endorsement of views which
may be expressed. Meeting presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASABE editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be
presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an ASABE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author’s Last Name, Initials.
2016. Title of presentation. ASABE Paper No. ---. St. Joseph, MI.: ASABE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a meeting
presentation, please contact ASABE at http://www.asabe.org/copyright (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).1
ASABE Annual International Meeting 1
1.0 Introduction

Agricultural machinery plays an important role in improving performance, productivity, and

reducing costs of agricultural operations. During the recent decades, agricultural machines have been

developed to reduce labor costs as well as improve the timeliness of field operations (Schäfer-Landefeld

et al., 2004). Moreover, agricultural machine efficiencies have a significant effect on the yield which in

turn impact the overall cost of production (Pitla et al., 2014).

Tillage is among one of the most important operations in agriculture. It is defined as “the changing

of soil condition for the enhancement of crop production” (ASAE Standards, 2009). Tilling the soil

produces ideal soil conditions by improving the relationship between air and water for crop growth

(Osunbitan et al. 2005, Busscher and Bauer, 2003, Gill and Vander berg, 1967). However, many studies

show tillage consumes at least half of the engine power to operate the implement and around 30 percent

of the total power consumption in the agricultural operation (CAST, 1984), This has led many farmers

to become more concerned about tillage and seek new method to reach optimum production by

substituting human power with mechanical power (Ahaneku et al., 2011). Tillage can be classified as

primary or secondary. Primary tillage constitutes the initial major soil working operation. It is normally

designed to reduce soil strength, cover plant materials, and rearranges aggregates. While, secondary

tillage is a shallower depth than primary tillage implements to provide additional pulverization, mix

pesticides, and fertilizers into the soil, level and firm the final secondary tillage operation(ASABE

Standards, 2005). The best examples of secondary tillage is a field cultivator for seedbed preparation,

weed eradication, or fallow cultivation subsequent to some form of primary tillage. (ASABE Standards,

2009).Hence, studying field parameters during tillage help the operator to manage their machines.

Tractors and agricultural machinery have been designed as a standard for land preparation, tillage,

and other agricultural operational tasks. Tractors are the primary source to provide a mechanical power

to farms and fields (Kepner et al., 1978). Thus, to obtain the optimum output from them, good

management and utilization should be applied. Tractor performance has been studied over the past three

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 2

decades and optimum results could be obtained for different agricultural machinery (McNeill et al.,

2008). It is always desired to have the most power converted from the engine to traction power which

results in lower energy loss during the agricultural operation (Ahaneku et al., 2011). The study

conducted by Sabanci (1997) found that 12.0 to 18.0% of the engine power was consumed before

starting the operation. In addition, another 20.0 to 40.0% of power is lost between the axles and the

ground (Mowitz and Finck, 1987). Improper selection of tractor size can cause excessive operating

costs. So, knowing the parameters that affecting efficiency would improve the performance of an

agricultural machinery (Summer and Williams, 2007).

Moreover, despite the type of soil condition, and tire design, other important parameters that affect

the tractor performance include implement size, practical speed, and depth of operation. These

parameters can be easily be managed and controlled by the operators to obtain the optimum

performance. In addition, proper tire inflation pressure and setting up ballasting weight and are essential

for evaluating and managing the performance. According to Sumer and Sabanci, (2005), in order to

obtain the best performance with least cost, proper ballasting, and correct tire inflation must be adjusted.

Improper adjusting leads to fuel waste, tire wear, and drive train damages, and decrease productivity

and efficiency (McNeill, 2008). Wulfsohn and Way (2009) found that ballasting and tire inflation

pressure played a significant role in tractor fuel consumption and tractive performance. A tractive

efficiency improvement of about 4% to 7% was obtained while using correct ballast with low-correct

tire inflation pressure as compared to overinflated tires (Zoz and Turner, 1994). Likewise, as reported

by Lancas et al. (1996), 18% to 20% of fuel was saved when they used low-correct inflation pressure

with regard to axle load.

Furthermore, the main performance indicators in tillage operations are fuel consumption, slippage

percentage, engine percent load, engine cooling systems and fuel temperature. Fuel consumption is

considered most important factor for research in agricultural operations, testing and assessing the

performance of the machines. According to Hanna (2001) and Thakare and Deshmukh (2009), fuel

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 3

consumption is affected by a numbers of factors such as soil types and moisture, the users, tractor design

(two wheels or four wheels), tractor size, equipment width, working depth and speed of operation.

Likewise, mentioned by Bukhari and Baloch (1982) fuel consumption depends on different variables

such as width and depth of cut, and speed and kind of operation. Fuel consumption can be measured

with either a direct or indirect method. The direct method is accomplished by measuring the level of

fuel in the tank before and after the operation and indirect is determined by using a graduated cylinder

located between the tank and the fuel injection pump to measure the consumed fuel (Natsis et al., 1999).

Moreover, field efficiency is the ratio of effective field capacity to theoretical field capacity, expressed

in percent. Further, it is the comparison between the amount of power consumed by the machine to the

amount that should be consumed (ASABE Standards, 2011).

In addition, to measure and monitor the mechanization unit performance, enumerated systems

have been developed to determine tractor performance monitoring and optimization (TPMO). However,

the majority of these systems were not fully adequate. The best example of this system is Controller

Area Network (CAN) Bus technology developed by Mercedes Corporation (Voss, 2005). This

technology is a communication system in vehicles and allows connections between multiple Electrical

Control Units (ECU). Currently, the improvement in electronics technology has made field operations

management easier to monitor. This new CAN Bus technique is becoming the most widely used

applications in agriculture to help farmers determine and improve field efficiency while decreasing

equipment costs using the data obtained from tractors (Darr, 2012). CAN messages depend on the

broadcast system and can filter the required messages. These messages are continuously updating

information about the engine, power train, equipment, power take off, and hydraulic system (Darr,

2012).

According to The United Nations, the Gross Domestic Production (GDP) for some of Middle

East countries has declared and has been moved towards the negative annual growth. This degradation

in agricultural production system address the unique challenges to increase agricultural machinery

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 4

performance. Efficiency and accuracy of works are best required solution in order to reduce the shortfall

in food production system and as an essential element to maximizing machinery performance. The fact

that there is a limited progress in agricultural mechanization sector impact the agricultural production

in a significant portion. Testing and evaluation of agriculture machinery using updated technologies and

techniques is a key contribution in farm production. The technology like CAN bus will help to increase

efficiency by monitoring machine performance and reduce production costs in the Middle East region.

a b

c
d
Figure 1. Traditional method

(a) Measuring speed (b) Measuring Slip percent (c) Fuel consumption measurement

(d) Traditional cultivation (ICRC, 2011). .

Objectives
The objective of this study was to demonstrate the capabilities of a CAN bus based evaluation system

for quantifying key performance indicators for an agricultural tillage operation. Results will be

demonstrated through a case study analysis of field cultivation under multiple tractor and implement

configurations.

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 5

2.0 Materials and methods

Field Equipment and Data Collection

This study was conducted in a field in Ames, Iowa, United States (March 2016). The field was

approximately 41 hectares and the previous crop was soybeans (Figure 2a). The field soil type was

Webster clay loam with 0.00 to 2.0% slopes. CAN bus data were obtained from the International

Standard Organization (ISO) diagnostic port of a four-wheel drive (4WD) tractor (John Deere 9430) to

collect and monitor the performance of the unit. The tractor static weight distribution was 53.20% front

and 46.45% rear and all tires were Firestone Dual 710/70 R42. The implement used an all testing was

15.54 m (51 ft) wide field cultivator (John Deere 2210) which is representative of the tillage implements

most commonly used for seedbed preparation in the region (Figure 2b).

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) A 41 hectare Soybean field (b) John Deere (9430) and field cultivator.

A CAN bus analyzer (Vector VN 1610) was used to collect messages from the tractor using a

laptop through Universal Serial Bus (USB). Data were logged in an American Standard Code for

Information (ASCI) file in real –time during field operations. In addition, a backup data set was

recorded by using Vector (GL1000) data logger for backup.

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 6

 (a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) VN1610 Vector CAN Card (b) 9 Pins diagnostic to serial port

The tractor bus was configured at 250 kb/sec and messages were recorded in hexadecimal format.

The Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) J1939 database protocol was used to decode the

structure of the CAN message into PGN and data byte values. After collection the raw ASCII CAN logs

were uploaded to a Structured Query Language (SQL) database for data interrogation and management.

Figure 3 demonstrate the Parameter Group Number (PGN) used for Engine Fuel Rate was PGN 0xFEF2

and for Engine Speed was PGN 0xF004. Moreover, the tractor was connected with John Deere StarFire

3000 GPS receiver to provide geospatial position and GPS based speed information during the test. The

field key performance indicators of the combination unit are fuel rate, slip percentage, and effective

field capacity.

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 7

 Figure 4. Message identifier and Parameter Group Number (PGN) Message (Darr, 2012)

Figure 5. CAN Bus signals recorded during the test

2.1 Key Performance Indicators

Field capacity (FC) is the rate of a machine’s performance that could be measured depending on the

type of the machine as either ha/h or kg/h. The field capacity is an important parameter to determine

the machine selection and cost evaluation. Field efficiency can be classified as the ratio of Effetive field

capacity (EFC) to Theoretical field capacity (TCF). The TFC is described as the maximum rate of

machine performance achieved by forward speed and complete implement width expressed as ha/h

(Equation 1). (ASABE Standards, 2006).

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 8

 (W∗S)
TFC = (1)
10

Where

TFC = Theoretical Field Capacity (ha/h).

W = Implement width (m)

S = speed (km/h)

Effective Field Capacity (EFC) is the actual rate of machine performance in regard to field efficiency,

actual working width, and practical speed expressed as ha/h. The EFC can be determined using equation

2. (ASABE Standards, 2006).

S ∗ W ∗ Ef
EFC = TFC ∗ Ef = (2)
10 ∗ 1000

Where

EFC = Effective Field Capacity (ha/h)

S = Practical speed (km/h)

W = Rated width of implement (m)

Ef = Field efficiency (%)

Field Efficiency (FE) is the ratio of the effective field capacity to theoretical field capacity. Field

efficiency can be improved by reducing lost time during operation, such as filling, unloading, turning,

blocking, checking, repairing, and resting (Helsel, 2015). FE can be calculated using equation (3)

(ASABE Standards, 2006).

2.2 Experimental Design

The study was arranged in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four factors, two

levels of each factor (explanatory variable), and three blocks per treatment. The field designated for the

combination of tractor and field cultivator to perform the secondary tillage was divided into three blocks

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 9

with 16 strips (treatment) per block for a total of 48 strips (one strip per treatment). The four factors are

tractor weight, tractor tire inflation pressure, tillage depth, and percentage of engine power usage. The

tire inflation pressure were set for 21- 22 psi (all tires) in the first level and 10- 11 psi for the front tire

and 7-8 Psi for the rear tire in the second treatment level. Two levels of tractor weight was used including

the static weight (19750 kg) and 2120 kg added weight (tractor weight). Tillage depth treatment

included 7.62 cm and 12.7 cm respectively and the engine power was controlled at two levels of 100%

engine power usage and 70% engine power usage as determined by the transmission gear selection.

Each treatment was a unique possible combination of each level of the four factors. The data were

analyzed using SAS version 9.4.

3.0 Results and Discussion

Table 1 show the descriptive statistics of the results of fuel consumption rate, slippage percentage,

Effective Field Capacity (ha/h).

3.1Fuel consumption rate

The fuel consumption of the tractor was determined for standard weight and added weight in relation

to engine power, tillage depth and the tire inflation pressure. The results are shown in Table 1 and Figure

6. The results show there was a significant difference (P<0.05) due to engine power, tillage depth, tire

inflation pressure and the interaction between tillage depth and engine power. After adjusting for

multiple comparison, there was no significant difference (P<0.05) between depth 7.62 and 12.7 cm

(86.21 L/h and 87.05 L/h respectively) on maximum power. In contrast, there was a significant

difference observed at low power for depth 7.62 and 12.7 cm as shown in Table 1.

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 10

Table 1. Descriptive data for fuel rate, slippage percentage, and effective field capacity.

Additionally, a significance difference within depth was observed between maximum and 70% power,

for instance at depth 7.62 cm, the fuel rate for the maximum power was 86.21 L/h while 70% power

was 67.58 L/h. Increasing tillage depth associated with increasing soil disturbed volume and that leads

to increase tractor load and fuel consumption to pull the implement (Moitzi et al., 2006 and Flipovic et

al., 2004).

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 11

Figure 6. Mean fuel rate of tractor with standard and added weight.

In addition, at the standard weight the maximum fuel consumption (87.24 L/h) was observed at

maximum power at maximum depth (12.7 cm) and maximum tire pressure. Likewise, for the same

weight, the low fuel consumption (67.04 L/h) was observed at 70% power in low depth (7.62 cm) at

low tire inflation pressure. Moreover, in adding weight the maximum fuel rate was observed at

maximum power and higher depth (12.7 cm) at high tire inflation pressure and low fuel consumption

was observed at low power in low depth (7.62 cm) and low tire inflation pressure as shown in Table 1.

3.2 Slippage Percentage

The slippage percentage is the key indicator of the efficiency of the tractor operation. It is used as a

measure to indicate whether the right combination of tire inflation pressure, overall tractor weight, and

operating speed are resulting into optimal fuel usage (NSW, 2013). The results show the slippage

percentage range from 8.59% to 24.24%. The high slippage percentage (24.24%) in standard weight

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 12

was observed at a maximum tire inflation pressure at high tillage depth (12.7 cm) and 70% power. The

result also shows that the engine power usage is not significant on fuel rate consumption. Additionally,

the higher slippage percentage occurred at lower power usage and higher tillage depth. Moreover, for

the added weight, the highest slippage percentage (19.80%) was observed at maximum tire inflation

pressure, higher depth (12.7 cm) and low power (70%). While the lowest slippage percentage was

observed at low tire pressure, low tillage depth and 70% power usage shown in Table 1 and Figure 7.

According to Raheman and Jha (2006), the optimal slippage percentage lies between 8% and 15%.

Increasing the tillage depth from shallow to deep increases the slip percent for low engine power and

maximum engine power by 46% and 71% due to the increases in load of extra soil disturbed volume

(Al-Ani et al., 2005).

Tractor Slip Percentage

25 Power
70%
Max

20
Mean of S%

15

10

0
Weight (Kg) 19750 21000 19750 21000 19750 21000 19750 21000
Depth (cm) 7.62 12.70 7.62 12.70
Tire Pressure( PSI) 10-7 21.5

Figure 7. Mean slippage percentage of tractor with standard and added weight.

3.3 Effective Field Capacity

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 13
 Effective field capacity is the actual productivity of a field machine considering field efficiency and

field speed in addition to the effective working width of an implement (Roberson, 2008). Table 1 shows

descriptive values of effective field capacity. A significant difference was observed in weight (standard

and added), tire inflation pressure (low and high), tillage depth (7.62 and 12.7 cm), and engine usage

power (70% and 100%). Also, significant difference was observed on the interaction between depth and

engine usage power (depth * power). The effective field capacity for standard weight range from 5.83

ha/ h to 10.47 ha/h. On the other hand, the effective field capacity for added weight was between 6.18

ha/h to 10.82 ha/h. Overall, the highest effective field capacity (10.82 ha/h) was observed at added

weight, low tire inflation pressure, shallow tillage depth (7.62 cm) and maximum engine usage power.

Likewise, the lowest effective field capacity was observed in standard weight, higher tire inflation

pressure, deep tillage depth and 70% engine power usage as shown in Figure 8.

Effective Field Capacity ( ha/hr )

12 Power
70%
Max
10
Mean of EFC ha/hr

0
Weight (Kg) 19750 21000 19750 21000 19750 21000 19750 21000
Depth (cm) 7.62 12.70 7.62 12.70
Tire Pressure 10-7 21.5

Figure 8. Mean effective field capacity of tractor with standard and added weight.

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 14

4.0 Conclusions

Field performance parameters are used to monitor agricultural machinery performance. The

technique like CAN Bus enable operators to monitor agricultural machinery such as tractor in the field

operation. In this study, CAN Bust was used to collect data and measure the tractor implement

performance parameters such as fuel rate, wheel based speed, and GPS speed. The use of CAN Bus

technology indicates reliable future use to improve and evaluate agricultural machinery. Changing input

variables impact performance parameters. The input variables examined were total tractor weight, tire

inflation pressure, tillage depth, and engine power usage. There was no significant difference between

standard weight and added in many parameters assessed. The study shows the minimum fuel

consumption rate and wheel slip percentage with the utmost field efficiency occurred when a tractor-

implement at 70% engine usage power for either low or high tillage depth and at an optimum tire

inflation pressure when extra weight were added. Thus, operator needs to choose a proper set up to

achieve optimum performance and correct decision.

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 15

5.0 References

Ahaneku, I. E., Oyelade, O. A., & Faleye, T. (2011). Comparative field evaluation of three models of
a tractor. Proceedings of Nigerian Branch of the International soil tillage Research Organization
(ISTRO):(93).

Al-Ani, A. N, Al-Ani, F. S., & Al-Jasim ,A. (2005). Influence of Soil Moisture and Plowing Depth on
the Performance of a DT-75 Crawler Tractor with a Mold- Board Plow. Arab Authority for
Agricultural Investment and Development.Vol.3, 70-74.

ASABE Standard, 2009. ASAE D497.6, Agricultural machinery management data.

< www.asabe.org >

ASABE Standard, 2011. ASAE EP496.3, Agricultural machinery management.

< www.asabe.org >

ASABE Standard, 2005. ASAE Terminology and Definitions for Soil Tillage and Soil-Tool
Relationship. < www.asabe.org >

Bukhari, S. B., & Baloch, J. M. (1982). Fuel consumption of tillage implements. AMA, Agricultural
mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Bukhari, S. B., & Baloch, J. M. (1982). Fuel consumption of tillage implements. AMA, Agricultural
mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Busscher, W. J., & Bauer, P. J. (2003). Soil strength, cotton root growth and lint yield in a southeastern
USA coastal loamy sand. Soil and Tillage Research, 74(2), 151-159.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1984. ISSN 0194-4088. http://www.cast-
science.org/

Darr, M. (2012). CAN Bus technology enables advanced machinery management? Resource
Magazine, 19(5), 10-11.

Filipovic, D., Kosutic, S., & Gospodaric, Z. (2004, June). Energy efficiency in conventional tillage of
clay soil. In Proceedings (pp. 83-91).

Gill, W. R., & Berg, G. E. V. (1967). Soil dynamics in tillage and traction (No. 316). Agricultural
Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.

Hanna, H. M. (2001). Fuel required for field operations. Iowa State University, University Extension.

Helsel, Z. R. (2015). Farm Energy IQ. Saving energy in field operation. Available online at:
https://articles.extension.org/sites/default/files/Field%20Crop%20Production%20-
%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Saving%20Energy%20in%20Field%20Operations.pdf (accessed
on May 22, 2016).

ICRC, International Committee of the Red Cross. 2011.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/feature/2011/feature-eritrea-2011-10-03.htm

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 16

 Kepner, R. A., Bainer, R., & Barger, E. L. (1978). Principles of farm machinery.

Lancas, K., Upadhyaya, S., Sime, M., & Shafii, S. (1996). Overinflated tractor tires waste fuel, reduce
productivity. California Agriculture, 50(2), 28-31.

Moitzi, G., Weingartmann, H., & Boxberger, J. (2006). Effects of tillage systems and wheel slip on
fuel consumption. The Union of Scientists-Rousse: Energy Efficiency and Agricultural
Engineering, 7(9), 237-242.

Mowitz, D., & Finck, C. (1987). Putting power back into tractor performance, machinery management
issue. Successful Farming, the magazine of farm management, February. Paper, (9-15).

Natsis, A., Papadakis, G., & Pitsilis, J. (1999). The influence of soil type, soil water and share sharpness
of a mouldboard plough on energy consumption, rate of work and tillage quality. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 72(2), 171-176

Osunbitan, J. A., Oyedele, D. J., & Adekalu, K. O. (2005). Tillage effects on bulk density, hydraulic
conductivity and strength of a loamy sand soil in southwestern Nigeria. Soil and Tillage
Research, 82(1), 57-64.
Pitla, S. K., Lin, N., Shearer, S. A., & Luck, J. D. (2014). Use of controller area network (CAN) data
to determine field efficiencies of agricultural machinery. Applied Engineering in Agriculture
30(6), 829-839.

Raheman, H., & Jha, S. K. (2007). Wheel slip measurement in 2WD tractor. Journal of Terramechanics,
44(1), 89-94.

Roberson, G. T. (2008). Selection and efficient operation of farm and tractors and their implements.
Available online at: https://www.bae.ncsu.edu/extension/ext-publications/ag-operations/ag-
458-farm-tractors.pdf (accessed on May 22, 2016).

Sabancı, A. (1997). Tarım Traktörleri [Agricultural Tractors]. Ç.Ü. Ziraat Fakültesi Ders Kitapları
Genel Yayın No: 46, Adana, Turkey s: 113-167.

Schäfer-Landefeld, L., Brandhuber, R., Fenner, S., Koch, H. J., & Stockfisch, N. (2004). Effects of
agricultural machinery with high axle load on soil properties of normally managed fields. Soil
and Tillage Research, 75 (1), 75-86.

Sümer, S. K., & Sabanci, A. (2005). Effects of different tire configurations on tractor performance.
Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 29(6), 461-468.

Summer, P. E., & Williams, E. J. (2007). What size Farm Tractor do I need? Cooperative Extension
Service. University of Georgia college of Agriculture, Athens, G. A. Miscellaneous Publication
No. ENG 07 – 003.

Thakare, S. H., & Deshmukh, M. M. (2009). Fuel consumption of different tractor operated agricultural
operations. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 2(1), 110-112.

Tim, S., Scott, S., John, W, & Sam, M. (2008) .Proper Ballast and Tire Inflation. University of
Kentucky College of Agriculture, Lexington, KY, 40546

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 17

 Voss, W. (2005). A comprehensible guide to controller area network. Copperhill Media.

Wulfsohn, D., & Way, T. R. (2009). Chapter 2: Traction mechanics; Part VII: Factors that influence
tractive performance of wheels, tracks, and vehicles. In Advances in Soil Dynamics, Vol. 3:

Zoz, F. M., & Turner, R. J. (1994). Effect of “correct” pressure on tractive efficiency of radial-ply tires.
ASAE Paper No. 941051. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.

ASABE Annual International Meeting Page 18

View publication stats