Traction and Energy Indicators of Propellers of Wheeled Mobile Energy Vehicles for Agricultural Purposes

Introduction. The key task facing the agricultural workers of the Russian Federation is to ensure the national food security based on effective competitive agro-industrial production and successful integration into the global agricultural market. In solving this problem, a special place is given to the technical re-equipment of the agro-industrial complex through equipping it with new and modernized wheeled mobile agricultural machinery with propellers set on pneumatic tires providing greater mobility and productivity. Aim of the Study. The study is aimed at finding the dependence of the tire energy indicators during the general case of rolling the wheel of a mobile agricultural vehicle. Materials and Methods. When studying the energy parameters of the leading pneumatic wheels of mobile equipment, there was used a theoretical and experimental method. As objects for field tests on “tire tester”, there were used series-produced tire models F-81, FD-12 and F-85 applied to equip the running systems of the tractors of the traction class 5. Results. As a result of theoretical and experimental studies, there was found the dependence of the traction coefficient of the driving wheels on pneumatic tires during the general case of motion. Discussion and Conclusion. In the course of analytical and experimental studies during the general case of motion of the driving pneumatic wheels of mobile energy vehicles of the fifth traction class, there was found that: a decrease in the traction properties of pneumatic wheels when they move with directional troubles, even at minor slip angles (1.5...2.5°), slipping increases to 25%; resistance to self-movement of the driving pneumatic wheel with increasing the side-slip angle when rolling with a nominal load is greater both in magnitude and in the rate of its growth than of а the driven wheel; power losses for slipping when rolling a wheel with the tire 30.5R-32 in driving are to 37...46%, and for resistance to self–movement – 54 ...63% of all energy costs.