See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248301090

Calculating the contact area of trailer tyres in

the field

Article in Soil and Tillage Research · May 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2008.10.020

CITATIONS READS

18 557

1 author:

Etienne Diserens
Agroscope
23 PUBLICATIONS 75 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Reduction of fuel consumption by farming, a new practice-oriented Tool View project

Machine weight and soil compaction by farming View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Etienne Diserens on 24 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 302–309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/still

Calculating the contact area of trailer tyres in the field

E. Diserens *
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station, ART, Tänikon, CH-8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The spectacular increase in the weight of self-propelled harvesters since the early 1980s also applies to
Received 9 January 2008 trailed implements such as slurry spreaders, compost spreaders, cutter-blowers and general farm trailers.
Received in revised form 26 September 2008 With axle loads exceeding 10 tonnes/axle (tandem 20 tonnes, tridem 27 tonnes), risks of severe
Accepted 23 October 2008
compaction can now be expected, not only in field crops but also in grassland. Calculation tables for
accurately evaluating contact surfaces of transport tyre, given their properties, load and inflation
Keywords: pressure, are insufficient at the present time. Equations for traction tyres are not suitable for trailer tyres.
Trailer tyre
To overcome this deficiency, contact areas in the field were recorded on 19 sites, from soft to hard
Contact area
surfaces, using 24 different trailer tyres, with varying loads and inflation pressures. The regression
Wheel load
Tyre width calculations for evaluating the contact area apply to a total of 143 measurements.
Tyre diameter The dimensions of the tyre (width  unladen diameter), the load on the wheel and the inflation
Inflation pressure pressure are all highly significant variables for evaluation of the soil contact area. Considering the average
Soil hardness residual standard deviation for each regression calculation, the best approximations are achieved by
Soil compaction taking into account the tyre structure (cross-ply and radial), the width of tyre for cross-ply tyres and the
type of tyre, in the case of a radial tyres (low profile or terra profile).
Moreover, contrary to expectations, observations show that with low levels of load, reducing inflation
pressure can also reduce the contact area.
As regards soil hardness, observations show that there is no direct link between a hard soil and a
reduced contact area; this relationship does not appear to be linear. The calculations are considered to be
reliable on semi-firm to firm soil, frequently found on temporary grassland or natural grassland
(penetration resistance 6.5–25.0 MPa).
ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The contact area is a key parameter in evaluating physical,
environmental loads such as compaction. It appears in (i)
calculation of surface pressures (Döll, 2001; Keller, 2004), (ii)
models of load stress propagation in the soil (Söhne, 1953; Smith,
1985) and (iii) for final estimation of severe risks of compaction
(van den Akker, 1998; Defossez and Richard, 2002; Diserens
et al., 2003). Compaction affects the supply of air, water,
nutrients and heat to the soil (Tobias et al., 1999), as well as
affecting crop yield (Alakukku and Elonen, 1995; Heinonen et al.,
2002) and the environment (Soane and van Ouwerkerk, 1994). In
addition, measurements of the contact area of the tyre on
farmland or on the road affect the forces acting on the wheel
(traction force, rolling resistance, braking force), determining the
vehicle’s grip, wear on the rubber and fuel consumption
(Eichhorn, 1999). As the contact area increases due to the use
* Tel.: +41 52 368 33 53; fax: +41 52 365 11 90.
E-mail address: etienne.diserens@art.admin.ch.
of broad or twin and the correct setting of the inflation pressure,
not just the floor loading but also the rolling resistance is reduced
and this saves fuel consumption (Döll, 1999). The contact area
also depends on the rolling resistance. Rempfer (1998) differ-
entiated between internal and external rolling resistance. The
internal resistance relates here to the dissipated energy within
the tyre that is mainly dependant on the hysteresis of the
material used and therefore the tyre deformation. The external
rolling resistance, however, results on the one hand from the
floor compaction caused by the tyre and on the other from the so-
called ‘‘bulldozing effect’’. Here it should be said that the internal
rolling resistance of trailer is lower than that of traction. Due to
the stronger carcass in particular at the flanks, the implement can
be operated at higher inflation pressures to carry higher loads.
The higher net to gross of the implement tyre tread pattern is
designed for a free-rolling application.
There are many algorithms available for calculating the contact
area of tyres on farmland. Studying the shape of the contact area,
Grecenko (1995) suggested multiplying the product of the length
and the width of the contact area by a coefficient c between 0.8 and
0.9, with the contact area being elliptical in shape, neither circular

0167-1987/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.still.2008.10.020
 Author's personal copy
E. Diserens / Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 302–309
nor a perfect rectangle. Hallonborg (1996) used a super ellipse
model, with half-axes a and b, as well as a positive variable
exponent to determine the shape of the ellipse. Studying the
influence of soil rigidity, Inns and Kilgour (1978) and McKyes
(1985) on firm soil, and McKyes (1985) on soft soil offered simple
formulae that take account of the diameter and width of the tyre.
For a hard surface, Steiner (1979) developed various algorithms for
cross-ply and radial tyres taking into account the wheel load, tyre
diameter and inflation pressure. O’Sullivan et al. (1999), in their
Compsoil model used the same independent variables (overall
width and diameter of tyre, wheel load and inflation pressure) to
calculate the contact area, although they modified the proportion-
ality factors for soils with varying hardnesses (soft and firm), with a
more precise evaluation available by also taking into consideration
the apparent soil density at the surface. The model then weights
these two equations according to the apparent soil density. For
small tyres with little distortion, O’Sullivan used McKyes’
simplified model, in the form A = a  W  D (A, W, D for contact
area, width of the wheel and outer diameter of the wheel,
respectively). Komandi’s approach is similar (1990). His formula
includes a variable ‘‘soil’’ coefficient (loose soil, load-bearing soil
and sandy soil). Diserens (2002) suggested equations that take
account of the type of tyre (standard, low profile and terra), width
and diameter of the tyre, wheel load and inflation pressure, for
large dimension tyres (diameter >1.3 m) valid for moist, sedate
soil after periodically soil loosening older soil by ploughing. Keller
(2004) without distinguishing between tyres, reduced the contact
area to an ellipse – as described by Hallonborg (1996) – whose
dimensions are the width of the tyre and the length of the ellipse,
the latter correlated with the diameter of the tyre and the pressure
quotient (measured tyre pressure divided by recommended
pressure for a given load and speed, 10 km/h for self-propelled
harvesters, 30 km/h for tractors and trailers). Grecenko (1995) on
the other hand used as his correction factor not the pressure
quotient by the wheel load (actual load divided by maximum load
at a given inflation pressure), and also includes the radius under
load and the diameter of the wheel rim. It should be noted that the
distribution of the vertical stress on the contact area is varied
(Keller et al., 2006). The relative stress is generally at its highest in
the middle of the tyre in relation to the driving direction.
Perpendicular to the driving direction, the maximum relative
stress depends on the form parameter for stress distribution
according to Schjønning et al. (2008). Mohsenimanesh and Ward
(2007) observed an increase of soil–tyre interface stress near the
centre of the tyre when inflation pressure was increased and near
the edge when load was increased. They showed too that as soil
strength decreases, the soil–tyre interface pressure on the lug faces
decreases while the pressure on the undertread increases.
Finally, other writers manage to describe the contact surface on
the basis of the contact dimensions and the rut depth (Bolling,
1987) and the unladen tyre radius (Schwieger, 1996). Considering
the contact dimensions, it is possible to obtain quite precise results
but they are only reliable with specific cases. Empirical model
accuracy depends on one hand on the reliability of the dependent
variables and on the other hand on the extension of the data base
which is often somewhat limited.
All the studies referred to here enable the contact area of lugged
traction tyres to be determined.
A recent study (Godin et al., 2006) compared six models with
tyres used for farming and wine-growing tractors, and trailer tyres.
The best results were obtained with the Compsoil model for traction
tyres. For tyres fitted to trailers, however, no model was appropriate.
The purpose of this study is to overcome this deficiency. Using
parameters easily available to the farmer (tyre width and diameter,
wheel load, inflation pressure, soil penetration resistance), it will
303
propose suitable equations for detailed determination of the contact
area on the ground, and also for a more accurate estimate of load
stresses on the soil and risks of compaction from movement of
trailers on agricultural soils.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Soils, machines, tyres, loads, inflation pressures and
contact area measurements
The data relating to the soil, machines, tyres, loads, inflation
pressures and contact area measurements are given for cross-ply
tyres, for low-profile radial tyres and for terra tyres (Table 1). It
should be noted that the ratio k (tyre height/width) for a standard
tyre is 0.8, for a low-profile tyre 0.6 < k < 0.8 and for a terra tyre,
k  0.6.
19 sites distributed across the central plateau and the Rhine
valley above Lake Constance, 10 in open land and 9 plots in
permanent grassland were selected for the measurements. Any
value for penetration resistance of less than 6.5 MPa (very soft soil)
or above 25 MPa (very hard soil), measured at a depth of 0.1 m was
discarded. The measurements were made mainly on semi-firm to
firm soils, most commonly on temporary or natural grassland. The
field measurements were performed on different soils with a wide
range of texture (Table 1).
Penetration resistance or hardness of topsoil was measured
with the aid of a Pesol penetrometer (20 daN, a screwdriver head,
bar width 6  103 m, bar thickness 1  103 m, stem length
20  102 m, stem diameter 4  103 m). A minimum of 25
measurements distributed over 5 sectors was made on each plot.
The value noted down is the maximum value recorded at a depth of
between 0 and 0.1 m. Except for the integral beet harvester, and
the self-propelled forage harvesters, all the machines used in the
measurements were trailed implements working either in field
crops or forage production. Thirteen cross-ply farming trailer tyres
(rim dimensions 15.3, 15.5, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22.5, 26, 26.5, and 30.5)
and ten radial farming trailer tyres (rim dimensions 18, 20.5, 22.5,
26.5, and 30.5) formed the initial database. Most of the tyres are
subjected to different loads (laden weight, unladen weight) with
inflation pressure, as recommended for speeds of 10 and 30 km/h
(according to the technical data of the manufacturers) (Table 1).
To compare contact areas for farming trailer tyres with traction
tyres, 89 further measurements using standard radial traction
tyres (22), low-profile traction tyres (42) and terra traction tyres
(25) all with a total diameter of more than 1.3 m were made on the
same plots, from which an equation is derived for traction tyres.
While evaluating the effects of soil hardness on contact surface
areas, one traction tyre and one trailer tyre were selected for the
first comparison between a loosely harrowed surface and a cover
layer with barley stubble. A second comparison was performed
with six traction and three trailer between a natural meadow and
another cover layer with barley stubble (Table 2).
The load was measured with mobile, flat-bed wheel-load scales
(type Haenni WL 103) that can record loads of up to 104 daN
(accuracy 13 daN, sensitive surface 0.66  0.38 m, height 0.017 m).
Inflation pressures were measured with a pressure-meter (type
MotoMeter W-Germany) 450 kPa (accuracy of 2 kPa).
The tyre/ground contact area was measured using photometry.
On grassland, the plant cover was first cut using a grass mower,
followed if necessary by a second cut with a lawn mower. The edge
of the tyre on the ground was first sprinkled with lime. Bellows
were used to distribute the powder in the crevices in the ground
and in the tyres so as to fill the maximum free space around and
below the tyre. By way of a benchmark, a folding rule or the tip of a
peg was placed at the edge of the contact area, once the load has
 Author's personal copy

304 E. Diserens / Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 302–309

Table 1
Data of soil, tyres types, load of wheel, inflation pressure and contact area for cross-ply, radial low size and for radial terra farming trailer tyres.a.

Crops Soil type, Penetration Machine Tyre Tyre Outer Wheel load Inflation Number of
0.0–0.10 m resistance of description width diameter range (daN) pressure measurements
topsoil (incl. S.D.), (m) (m) range
0.0–0.10 m (MPa)

Cross-ply farming tyres 56

Permanent meadow Clay loam 19.00 (2.64) Self-loading trailer 11.5/80-15.3 0.29 0.87 1619–1648 175–300 2
Permanent meadow Clay loam 24.42 (2.59) Trailer 500/55-15.5 0.50 0.94 2609–2835 130–220 2
Permanent meadow Clay loam 14.98 (1.75) Slurry Spreader 4.5 m3 13.0/75-16 SL 0.33 0.9 1344–1805 150–300 4
Permanent meadow Clay loam 24.42 (2.59) Self-loading trailer 15.0/55-17 0.38 0.85 863–1059 170–260 4
Permanent meadow Clay loam 19.00 (2.64) Self-loading trailer 19.0/45-17 0.48 0.87 1187–1315 110–240 4
Permanent meadow Clay loam 15.53 (1.85) Manure spreader 500/50-17 0.50 0.94 2482–2541 130–220 2
Winter barley Loam 11.69 (1.52) Manure spreader 500/50-17 0.50 0.94 1128–2874 130–230 4
Straw of maize Loamy sand 16.93 (3.92) Slurry spreader 4.0 m3 14.5/80-18 0.37 1.05 2330 170–300 2
Artificial meadow Sandy clay loam 13.59 (1.50) Slurry spreader 4.0 m3 16.0/70-20 0.41 1.08 2345 180–350 2
Winter wheat Loam 8.85 (0.77) Slurry spreader 4.0 m3 16.0/70-20 0.41 1.08 2060 180–240 2
Straw of maize Loamy sand 16.93 (3.92) Compost spreader 12 m3 550/45-22.5 0.55 1.07 2629–2722 100–290 8
Permanent meadow Clay loam 14.98 (1.75) Forage trailer 600/50-22.5 0.60 1.17 3630–3679 80–200 2
Oats Clay 7.18 (1.20) Slurry spreader 11.0 m3 28L-26 0.71 1.62 981–3286 150–200 8
Permanent meadow Clay loam 15.53 (1.85) Slurry spreader 8.0 m3 800/40-26.5 0.80 1.35 4650–5160 110–220 2
Winter barley Loam 11.69 (1.52) Slurry spreader 8.0 m 800/40-26.5 0.80 1.35 1609–4993 115–225 4
Straw of barley Loam 16.12 (3.24) Slurry spreader 8.0 m3 800/40-26.5 0.80 1.35 4964 210 1
Sugar beet Clay loam –(–) Harvester sugar beet 800/45-30.5 0.80 1.5 5641–8682 137–145 3

Radial low size tyres 41

Straw of maize Loamy sand 16.93 (3.92) Trailer Tandem 335/65 R 18 0.34 0.89 1898–1991 100–500 4
Straw of maize Loamy sand 16.93 (3.92) Trailer 340/65 R 18 0.34 0.90 2330–2600 150–300 4
Winter barley Loam 11.69 (1.52) Trailer 340/65 R 18 0.34 0.90 530–2246 310–510 8
Permanent meadow Loam 21.06 (4.71) Multibenne Tridem 24 R 20.5 0.60 1.38 1236–7083 168–400 8
Permanent meadow Loam 23.55 (2.97) Compost spreader, Tandem 15R22.5 0.38 1.07 667–2256 160–368 6
Permanent meadow Loam 19.17 (2.74) Farming container Tridem 560/60 R 22.5 0.56 1.25 1324–5881 125–350 7
Permanent meadow Sandy loam 24.58 (3.34) Slurry spreader 7.5 m3 560/60 R 22.5 0.56 1.25 981–4513 130–290 4

Radial terra tyres 46

Artificial meadow Loam 23.55 (2.97) Compost spreader Tridem 620/55 R 26.5 0.62 1.36 1373–4375 105–400 10
Artificial meadow Silt loam 17.50 (1.40) Compost spreader Tandem 710/50 R 26.5 0.71 1.40 1785–5454 105–350 8
Artificial meadow Sandy loam 17.94 (3.87) Slurry spreader 15 m3 Tandem 800/40 R 26.5 0.80 1.35 1923–5886 113–250 8
Permanent meadow Clay loam 24.62 (1.72) Slurry spreader 16 m3 Tandem 710/50 R 30.5 0.71 1.48 2207–6180 110–380 8
Artificial meadow Sandy loam 14.06 (2.37) Slurry spreader 24 m3 Tridem 750/60 R 30.5 0.76 1.68 2315–6396 113–410 12
a
A complete data sheet of soil and machine properties incl. contact area for each measurement can be obtained by the author.

Table 2
Selected tyres with loading and inflation pressure data to compare the contact area between soils of different hardnesses.

Soil type, 0.0–0.10 m Penetration resistance Machine Tyre Tyre Outer Wheel load, Inflation Number of
of topsoil (incl. S.D.), description width diameter right/left pressure, measurements
0.0–0.10 m (MPa) (m) (m) (daN) right/left (n)
(kPa)

Barley stubble/versus loose harrowed soil 8

Loam/loam 14.63 (3.16)/5.16 (1.26) Tractor 74 kW 540/65 R 38 0.54 1.67 1432/2865 133/135 4
rear tyre
Loam/loam 14.63 (3.16)/5.16(1.26) Slurry spreader 800/40-26.5 0.80 1.35 1638/4944 190/210 4
8.0 m3

Natural grassland/versus barley stubble field 40

Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Tractor 70 kW 420/70 R 24 0.42 1.24 814/824 80/165 4
front tyre
Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Tractor 70 kW 520/70 R 34 0.52 1.64 2428/2453 85/165 4
rear tyre
Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Tractor 81 kW 420/70 R 24 0.42 1.24 1099/1118 60/160 4
front tyre
Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Tractor 81 kW 460/85 R 34 0.46 1.66 1550/1702 70/170 4
rear tyre
Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Tractor 110 kW 540/65 R 28 0.54 1.41 1427/1413 60/145 4
front tyre
Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Tractor 110 kW 650/65 R 38 0.65 1.84 2229/2222 65/150 4
rear tyre
Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Manure spreader 500/50-17 0.50 0.94 2683/2678 130/220 4
Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Trailer 340/65 R 18 0.34 0.90 2190/2202 385/435 8
Clay loam/loam 15.53 (1.85)/11.69 (1.52) Slurry spreader 800/40-26.5 0.80 1.35 5077/4738 120/225 4
8.0 m3
 Author's personal copy
E. Diserens / Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 302–309
been removed. One or two photographs per contact area were
taken. The contact area was then analysed by photometry with the
Adobe Photoshop Elements software (Version 2.0) (Diserens,
2002).
2.2. Statistics
The equations were obtained by multiple linear regressions
made with linear transformation in the form (Y = aX1 +
bX2 + cX3 + dX4 + C) with independent influencing factors: width
of tyre times diameter of tyre (X1), wheel load (X2), inflation
pressure (X3), penetration resistance (X4). The Software used was
Statistica (Version 5.0). Statistical analysis covers a total of 143
contact area measurements of farming trailer tyres.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Farming trailer tyres versus traction tyres
Because of the various functions of the farming trailer tyre
taken into account by the manufacturers (focus: raised load-
bearing and adherence at high speed, lateral stability on wet
roads, increased contact area, self-cleaning profile) with respect
to the traction tyre (focus: raised traction force, raised working
speed), the farming trailer tyre has a different composition. Its
carcass (heavier cable) on the side transmitting the braking forces
and change of direction forces of the wheel on the ground is
reinforced, a belt with thicker textile layers and steel layers on the
tread exerts a further stabilizing effect when the tyre is subject to
heavy loads.
Fig. 1 gives a comparison of 72 contact area values, measured on
the ground for farming trailer tyres (18 measurements with cross-
ply tyres, 8 measurements with low-profile radial tyres and 46
measurements with terra radial tyres), all having a diameter
greater than 1.3 m with the corresponding values calculated from
an equation derived from a data sheet of traction tyres with the
same soil conditions. Most of the points are below the line 1:1
(Fig. 1). This can be explained by the size of the trailer which is
generally smaller than the traction. With a similar loading but
generally smaller diameters and lower maximal loads (comparing
the full loads from self-propelled harvester), the values for the
trailer will be underestimated after introducing the data in the
equation derived for the traction. The stiffness of the tyre does not
play a role here. The equation derived for traction tyres is therefore
not suitable for farming trailer tyres.
Fig. 1. Calculated values for contact area of traction tyres and measured values for
contact area of trailer tyres with a line 1:1 on comparable soil conditions.
305
3.2. Multiple regressions – summary table
All the statistical results are shown in summary form in Table 3.
All the algorithms, of type Y = aX1, type Y = aX1 + bX2 + . . . + C for all
the trailer tyres, given their structure (cross-ply or radial), or type
(low-profile or terra profile) are included in the same table, with
their independent variables and their respective thresholds of
significance. For Eqs. (1)–(5), in the simplified form A = a  WD, the
weak coefficients of determination R2 vary between 0.23 and 0.61.
The calculation of R2 is deliberately made for a set of points for
which the regression line does not pass through the origin (C 6¼ 0),
in order not to modify the variability of the measurements by
‘‘forcing’’ the line to pass through a distant fixed point. The
dimensions of the tyre, while important in the calculation are not
sufficient alone to provide a precise assessment of the contact
surface area when loads were increased to 200% (500/50-17), to
300% (28L-26), or even to 400% (340/65 R 18, 24 R 20.5) of normal
(Table 1). Moreover, the average residual standard deviation
(average difference between measured values and calculated
values) is higher. Even when separating tyres by radial or cross-ply,
or by type (low size profile or terra profile), the average standard
deviation hardly changes, since coefficients vary only slightly. For
traction tyres, McKyes suggests a coefficient of 0.25 for hard soils.
For a coefficient of 0.30, an initial, rough evaluation of the surface
area for a rather firm, rigid soil surface, load-bearing, as seen on
well-established grassland, is possible, using only the overall
width and diameter of the trailer tyre as independent variables.
Using load and inflation pressure as further independent
variables, average residual standard deviation falls, as the
coefficient of determination R2 and its significance index (F-value)
increases. Taking the structure and type of tyre into account, the
average residual standard deviation falls even more (Eqs. (7), (11)
and (12)). In Eqs. (9) and (10), the theoretical line passes through
the origin (C = 0). For low-profile and terra radial trailer tyres,
nevertheless the optimum adjustment is obtained by integrating a
constant C into the equations. The independent variables
(significance thresholds p < 0.05) are all significant. Only the
constant in Eq. (12) has a value of p greater than 10%. Its
significance index is lower.
Taking the hardness of the soil into account and also measuring
the maximum resistance to penetration of a rod between 0 and
0.1 m, assessment is significantly improved (Eqs. (14), (16) and
(17)). Average residual standard deviations reduce slightly, and the
share of the distribution of contact area measurements that can be
explained by the independent variables (dimension of tyre, load,
inflation pressure, soil hardness) increases (R2), without at the
same time ensuring the soil factor significance thresholds
(Eqs. (14), (16) and (17), p > 0.05). This factor is correlated either
positively (Eqs. (13), (14) and (16)) or negatively (Eqs. (15) and
(17)) with the contact surface area. Given the base materials
sampled (Table 1), it has not yet been possible to establish a
reliable relationship between soil hardness and the contact surface
area. Two separate cases illustrating the effect of soil hardness on
the contact surface area are described below (Figs. 7 and 8).
3.3. Cross-ply implement tyres
The statistical analysis (Eq. (7), Table 3) includes 56 measure-
ments on 13 tyres of widely different sizes, from dimensions 15.3
to dimensions 30.5, taken over 11 sites. Most of these plots are
medium-firm to firm, 2 of them, with 10 measurements, are soft,
with penetration resistance values at 0.1 m less than 9.0 MPa
(Table 1).
Despite the variation in tyre dimensions and increased soil
hardness, there is significant correlation between the contact
 Author's personal copy

306
Table 3
Synoptic representation – multiple regression. Formulae for calculating the contact area in wet stale arable soil for farming trailer tyres with corresponding statistics—A (m2): contact area, W (m): width of tyre, D (m): total
diameter of tyre, F (daN): load of tyre, Pi (kPa): inflation pressure, R (MPa): penetration resistance in 0.1 m depth, C: constant; Rd: radial, l.p.: low-profile, tr.: terra, undif.: undifferentiated, res.: residual.

Tyre structure Equations Statistics

n res. S.D. R2 (C 6¼ 0) F-value (C 6¼ 0) Value p

WD F Pi R C

A = (a  WD)

Undif. A ¼ ð0:2969  WDÞ 143 0.0584 0.5672 184.82 0.0000

Cross-ply A ¼ ð0:3127  WDÞ 56 0.0614 0.5249 59.65 0.0000

E. Diserens / Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 302–309

Rd undif. A ¼ ð0:2893  WDÞ 87 0.0562 0.6076 131.64 0.0000

Rd l.p. A ¼ ð0:2895  WDÞ 41 0.0441 0.4650 33.89 0.0000

Rdtr. A ¼ ð0:2928  WDÞ 46 0.0672 0.2320 13.29 0.0007

A = (a  WD) + (b  F) + (c  Pi) + C

Undif. A ¼ ð0:1757  WDÞ þ ð4:5  105  FÞ  ð18:0  105  P i Þ 143 0.0356 0.8679 304.30 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Cross-ply A ¼ ð0:1174  WDÞ þ ð6:6  105  FÞ  ð18:3  105  P i Þ 56 0.0237 0.9365 255.54 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

C W < 0.5 A ¼ ð0:1728  WDÞ þ ð3:5  105  FÞ  ð1:32  105  P i Þ 20 0.0120 0.7029 12.62 0.0029 0.0043 0.8437

C W > = 0.5 A ¼ ð0:1360  WDÞ þ ð6:7  105  FÞ  ð32:2  105  P i Þ 36 0.0250 0.9331 148.79 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002

Rd undif. A ¼ ð0:1586  WDÞ þ ð3:4  105  FÞ  ð28:8  105  P i Þ þ 0:0718 87 0.0332 0.8645 176.49 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003

Rd l.p. A ¼ ð0:0691  WDÞ þ ð3:1  105  FÞ  ð19:3  105  P i Þ þ 0:0919 41 0.0215 0.8587 74.97 0.0166 0.00 0.0001 0.0000

Rd tr. A ¼ ð0:1775  WDÞ þ ð4:2  105  FÞ  ð42:4  105 P i Þ þ 0:0633 46 0.0311 0.8296 68.72 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.1553

A = (a  WD) + (b  F) + (c  Pi) + (d  R) + C

Undif. A ¼ ð0:1690  WDÞ þ ð3:9  105  FÞ  ð20:0  105  P i Þ þ ð13:97  104  RÞ 140 0.0327 0.8632 212.91 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0106

Cross-ply A ¼ ð0:1250  WDÞ þ ð5:8  105  FÞ  ð20:6  105  P i Þ þ ð10:94  104  RÞ 53 0.0209 0.8936 100.83 0.0000 0.0000 0.0032 0.1774

Rd undif. A ¼ ð0:1556  WDÞ þ ð3:5  105  FÞ  ð32:2  105  P i Þ  ð32:38  104  RÞ þ 0:1420 87 0.0306 0.8776 147.05 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .0039 0.0000

Rd l.p. A ¼ ð0:0688  WDÞ þ ð3:1  105  FÞ  ð19:3  105  P i Þ þ ð0:26  104  RÞ þ 0:0914 41 0.0215 0.8587 54.708 0.0380 0.0000 0.0007 0.9870 0.0139

Rdtr. A ¼ ð0:1362  WDÞ þ ð4:2  105  FÞ  ð42:1  105  P i Þ  ð19:63  104  RÞ þ 0:1433 46 0.0305 0.8325 50.95 0.0382 0.0000 0.0000 0.4051 0.1787
 Author's personal copy
E. Diserens / Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 302–309
Fig. 2. Calculated values and measured values for the contact area of cross-ply
farming trailer tyres with values from Godin (2005) – line 1:1 and regression
equation.
surface area and the three independent explanatory variables (tyre
dimensions, wheel load and inflation pressure). For tyre dimen-
sions up to 20 in. (diameter of the rim) and tyre width <0.5 m,
values are grouped mainly along the line 1:1 (Fig. 2). The relative
average of the residual standard deviation for rims greater than
20 in. (22.5, 26, and 26.5) and tyre width 0.5 m does not however
exceed 11% of the surface areas measured. Here two equations for
tyres with width <0.5 m (higher recommended inflation pressure
by full weight) and 0.5 m (lower recommended inflation pressure
by full weight) are proposed (Eqs. (8) and (9)).
Introducing the values from Godin (2005) to the corresponding
Eq. (7), comparison of the values measured and calculated for two
cross-ply implement tyres (17/80-20 - 20 PR and 19.5/80-20 - 12
PR) is considered satisfactory. Two points (tyre 17/80-20, load of
6009 daN, inflation pressure 390 and 470 kPa) deviate significantly
from the line 1:1. For this dimension, the load and the inflation
pressures are particularly high, given the smaller dimensions of the
tyre and according to the technical recommendations of the
manufacturers, respectively (max. 400 kPa). This is an exception to
our data. The values measured for contact areas when fully loaded
(6009 daN) scarcely differ from measurements when unladen
(1226 daN). It should be noted that the maximum recommended
inflation pressure values for our tyres do not exceed 350 kPa, and
that significant loads exceeding 4000 daN are only noted on very
large tyres (dimensions 26.5 and 30.5).
3.4. Radial, low-profile implement tyres
The statistical analysis (Eq. (11), Table 3) includes 41
measurements on 5 tyres of different sizes (dimensions 18, 20.5
and 22.5), taken over 6 sites. The plots are medium-firm to firm
consistency, with penetration resistance values varying between
11.5 and 15.0 MPa at a depth of 0.1 m (Table 1). There is a small
range of tyres, having loads and inflation pressures reaching
maximum values of 7000 daN and 500 kPa, respectively, for which
the maximum contact area values here do not exceed 0.4 m2.
Close correlation is noted between measured values and
calculated values; no point deviates significantly from the line
1:1 (Fig. 3). The coefficient of determination is greater than 0.85,
with an average relative residual standard deviation of less than
15%.
Introducing the values from Godin (2005) to the corresponding
Eq. (11) (Table 3, Fig. 3), the calculated values match the
measured values for tyre 425/65 R 22.5 empty (2482 daN) and
full (8093 daN). This is a trailer truck tyre.
307
Fig. 3. Calculated values and measured values for the contact area of radial farming
trailer tyres (low-profile) with values from Godin (2005) – line 1:1 and regression
equation.
3.5. Radial, terra trailer tyres
The statistical analysis (Eq. (12), Table 3) includes 46
measurements on 5 tyres from dimensions of the rim 26.5 and
30.5, taken over 5 sites. The plots are medium-firm to firm
consistency, with penetration resistance values varying between
14.0 and 25.0 MPa at a depth of 0.1 m (Table 1). These are mainly
large tyres, likely to support 4000 daN and more at full load.
Maximum inflation pressures are 410 kPa.
Close correlation is also noted between measured values and
calculated values; no point deviates significantly from the line 1:1
(Fig. 4). The coefficient of determination is over 0.82. The average
residual standard deviation is less than 11%.
Introducing the values from Godin (2005) to the corresponding
Eq. (12) (Fig. 5), the calculated values match the measured values
for tyre 550/60 R 22.5 empty (1319 daN) and full (6359 daN) at
inflation pressures of 230 and 350 kPa. The significant negative
deviation of a point from the line comes from the fact that at a low
load (1319 daN), instead of reducing the contact surface area when
inflation pressure increases, the surface area has conversely
increased when inflation pressure varies from 230 to 380 hPa.
This reversed phenomenon has also been noted several times
during our study (see below).
Introducing the values from Weissbach (2003) into the
corresponding Eq. (12) (Fig. 5), then comparing the calculated
values with previously measured values gives a grouping of points
above the line 1:1. The measured surface areas are smaller than the
Fig. 4. Calculated values and measured values for the contact area of radial farming
trailer tyres (terra tyres) – line 1:1 and regression equation.
 Author's personal copy
308 E. Diserens / Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 302–309
Fig. 5. Calculated values and measured values for the contact area of radial farming
trailer tyres (terra tyres) with values from Godin (2005) and from Weissbach (2003)
– line 1:1.
values calculated with Eq. (12). This concerns 15 tyres from
dimensions 22.5 and 26.5, all subject to the same load (4415 daN)
and to two different inflation pressures. These tyres, provided by
importers, were tested on a uniform sedate, dry soil, consisting of
loose silt clay for the 0–0.05 m depth. The values measured for
loose surface soil (average residual relative deviation 38%) only
deviate slightly from those measured for temporary or permanent
grassland (Fig. 7), with a hard consistency. The different
consistency of the soil, the vegetation coverage (see below) and
the varying quality of the rubber of the tyres (new or used rubber),
can explain this divergence.
3.6. Inflation pressure, load level and contact surface area
Several writers note an increase in contact surface area when
inflation pressure falls for traction tyres (Keller, 2004; Komandi,
1976, 1990; O’Sullivan et al., 1999; Steiner, 1979). For farming
trailer tyres, however, a variation in inflation pressure alone is not
in itself enough to determine whether the contact area increases or
diminishes. Tyre loading plays a part here (Fig. 6). For a cross-ply
tyre (28L-26) under a low load, if its inflation pressure varies from
150 to 180 kPa (+20%), the contact area increases (+9%). With a 70%
higher loading rate, however, and the same pressure variation, the
contact surface area is smaller (10%). When the tyre is under a
light load, the volume of the tyre subject to increased inflation
pressure increases (balloon effect), and the contact area increases.
Above a particular load threshold, the inflation pressure is
insufficient to counter the load, so the tyre distorts under the
weight and the contact area increases. For 15 loads, this
phenomenon is observed six times (for cross-ply tyres 500/50-
Fig. 6. Influence of loading on farming trailer tyres contact area assessment.
Example: 28L-26 (slurry spreader, 11 m3).
17, 16.0/70-20, 28L-26; for low-profile radial tyres 340/65 R 18, 24
R 20.5, 15 R 22.5). In the same way, the influence of the load on the
inflation pressure depends on the initial inflation pressure and on
the volume of the tyre too. The greater the tyre volume and initial
inflation pressure, the smaller the inflation pressure variation for
loads will be. In comparison with the contact area variation or the
mean contact pressure variation, the variation of the inflation
pressure following the loads stays negligible according to recent
measurements (results still unpublished).
In order not to attenuate the effect of inflation pressure when
calculating contact areas, normally made for higher loads, low load
values resulting in an increased contact surface area when inflation
pressure rises have been discarded from the basic calculation data.
This phenomenon does not have any serious implications for
evaluating risks of severe compaction, given that the wheel loads
are fairly small.
3.7. Soil penetration resistance, soil hardness and contact surface area
Observations on ploughed, harrowed soil (penetration resis-
tance 5.2 MPa) and soil covered with barley stubble (penetration
resistance 14.6 MPa) with identical loads and inflation pressures
for a farming trailer tyre (800/40-26.5) and a traction tyre (540/65
R 38) (Table 2), showed logically that on very loose soil, the contact
surface area at the bottom of a rut is greater than the contact area
on firm soil with no ruts (Fig. 7). At same loads and inflation
pressures, the contact areas of 3 other farming trailer tyres and 6
other traction tyres, giving a total of 20 contact areas, were
measured for 2 other soils, 1 on natural grassland (15.5 MPa) and 1
on winter barley stubble (11.7 MPa) (Table 2). On harder, natural
grassland, larger surface areas were measured. Two points only lie
below the line 1:1 (Fig. 8). Comparing distortion of the internal
contour of a traction tyre 520/70R34 on concrete and on a sandy
silt soil, using a laser device placed inside the tyre, Schlotter and
Kutzbach (2001) note greater flattening of the tyre on concrete; on
a flexible soil, tyre distortion is less marked. This feature may then
explain the fall in the contact area size noted by Weissbach (2003)
on slightly loose soil (Fig. 5). On a hard soil, the contact surface area
mainly depends on the tyre flexibility, while in the open field, the
plasticity and elasticity of the soil combine with that of the tyre,
and as the two elements adapt to each other, the distortion of the
tyre is reduced. The empirical equations offered by McKyes (1985)
for traction tyres, allowing for tyre width and diameter, and the
maximum rut depth remain valid, however.
Contact areas are higher on loose soil. At the other extreme, on
very hard soil, the tyre rests only on its lugs, and scarcely touches
the soil. Its contact area is minimal. In this wide range we have
observed the inverse too (Fig. 8). There is no linear relationship
between soil hardness and contact area. Coefficients linked to
penetration resistance are either positive (Eqs. (13)–(15)) or
Fig. 7. Influence of penetration resistance on contact area.
 Author's personal copy
E. Diserens / Soil & Tillage Research 103 (2009) 302–309
Fig. 8. Influence of penetration resistance on contact area.
negative (Eqs. (15) and (17)). These Eqs. (13)–(17) cannot be
offered for a reliable evaluation of contact areas, taking into
account penetration resistance.
If a direct link cannot be established between the contact area
and soil hardness, the latter may easily be integrated into the
calculation of soil stress propagations to evaluate the risks of
severe compaction (Diserens and Steinmann, 2002; Diserens et al.,
2003).
4. Conclusions
The best evaluations from multiple regression calculations
(minimum residual standard deviations) are derived from sets of
measurements that identify tyre structure (cross-ply or radial),
tyre width for cross-ply set and the type of tyre for the radial set
(low-profile or terra profile). Independent, easily accessible
variables such as tyre dimension (product of width and overall
diameter), wheel load and inflation pressure are highly significant.
The positive effect of a reduction in inflation pressure on an
increase of the contact area, and hence on the calculation of the
mean pressure is only guaranteed for high load potentials. A
farming trailer tyre under a small load may have an increased
contact area when its inflation pressure increases, when the tyre
will behave somewhat like a balloon.
The contact area depends simultaneously on the elasticity and
plasticity of the ground, as well as the elasticity of the tyre. Under a
given load and inflation pressure, the harder the surface, the more
the tyre will deform and flatten out, and the contact area will
increase as long as the inter-tread bar area remains in contact with
the ground. There appears to be no linear relationship between the
contact area and the penetration resistance of the soil. The
equations offered here are suitable for semi-firm to firm, consistent
soils, usually found on temporary pasture or natural grassland.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges contributions of all the
agricultural contractors who were disposed to lend their machines
for the measurements of the contact area.
References
Alakukku, L., Elonen, P., 1995. Long-term effects of a single compaction by heavy
field traffic on yield and nitrogen uptake of annual crops. Soil Till. Res. 36,
141–152.
Bolling, I., 1987. Bodenverdichtung und Triebkraftverhatlen bei Reifen–Neue Mess-
und Rechenmethdoden–Forschungsbericht Agrartechnik des Arbeitskreises
Forschung und Lehre der Max-Eyth-Gesellschaft (MEG) 133. Dissertation,
München.
View publication stats
309
Defossez, P., Richard, G., 2002. Models of soil compaction due to traffic and their
evaluation. Soil Till. Res. 67, 41–64.
Diserens, E., 2002. Ermittlung der Reifen-Kontaktfläche im Feld mittels Rechenmo-
dell. FAT-Berichte Nr. 582, 12.
Diserens, E., Steinmann, G., 2002. Calculation of pressure distribution in moist
arable soils in eastern Switzerland: a simple model approach for the practice. In:
Vulliet, L., Laloui, L., Schrefler, B. (Eds.), Environmental Geomechanics, Monte
Verita. EPFL Press, pp. 413–421.
Diserens E., Spiess E., Steinmann G., 2003. TASC: A new practical computer tool to
prevent soil compaction damage in arable farming. An International Conference
on Geo-Environmental Engineering, 9–10 December 2003, Singapore, pp.
85–92.
Döll, H., 1999. Lohnen Zwillingsräder an Mähdreschern? Landwirtschaft ohne Pflug
Sonderaufgabe Agritechnica 6–8.
Döll, H., 2001. Deformation-characteristics farm-tyres—effect on the soil-pressure
and the plant-stress. In: Proceedings of the Conference Agricultural Engineer-
ing VDI-MEG. p. 8.
Eichhorn, H., 1999. Landtechnik 7. Auflage Ulmer Verlag, p. 688.
Godin, T., 2005. Evaluation des contraintes engendrées par les engins dans les
systèmes de grande culture, viticoles et forestiers français. Mémoire de fin
d’étude. Ecole d’Ingénieurs de l’Esitpa.
Godin, T., Defossez, P., Leveque, E., Le Bas, C., Boizard, H., Debuisson, S., Bartoli, M.,
2006. Evaluation des contraintes engendrées par les engins dans les systèmes
de grandes cultures, viticoles et forestiers français. In: Proceedings of the 69th
congress - Brussels, February 15 and 16.
Grecenko, A., 1995. Tyre footprint area on hard ground computed from catalogue
value. J. Terramech. 32 (6), 325–333.
Hallonborg, U., 1996. Super ellipse as tyre-ground contact area. J. Terramech. 33 (3),
125–132.
Heinonen, M., Alakukku, L., Erkki, A., 2002. Effects of reduced tillage and light tractor
traffic on the growth and yield of oats. In: Pagliai, M., Jones, R. (Eds.), Sustain-
able Land Management-Environmental Protection. Advances in Geoecology,
vol. 35. Catena Verlag, Reiskirchen, pp. 367–378.
Inns, F.M., Kilgour, J., 1978. Agricultural Tyres. Dunlop, London, p. 69.
Keller, T., 2004. Soil Compaction and Soil Tillage—Studies in Agricultural Soil
Mechanics. ACTA Agraria 489. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Keller, T., Défossez, P., Weisskopf, P., Arvidsson, J., Richard, G., 2006. SoilFlex: a
model for prediction of traffic-induced soil compaction including a synthesis of
analytical approaches. In: International Soil Tillage Research Organisation 17th
Triennal Conference, Kiel, Germany, pp. 332–337.
Komandi, G., 1976. The determination of the deflection, contact area, dimensions,
and load carrying capacity for driven pneumatic operating on concrete pave-
ment. J. Terramech. 13 (1), 15–20.
Komandi, G., 1990. Establishment of soil-mechanical parameters which determine
traction on deforming soil. J. Terramech. 72 (2), 115–124.
McKyes, E., 1985. Soil Cutting and Tillage, vol. 7. Developments in Agricultural
Science Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, p. 217.
Mohsenimanesh, A., Ward, S.M., 2007. On-the-move monitoring of soil–tyre inter-
action on soft soil using wireless data acquisition. Trans. ASABE 50 (6),
1919–1925.
O’Sullivan, M.F., Henshall, J.K., Dickson, J.W., 1999. A simplified method for esti-
mating soil compaction. Soil Till. Res. 49, 325–335.
Rempfer, M., 1998. Grundlagen der automatischen Reifenluftdruckverstellung bei
landwirtschaftlichen Fahrzeugen. Agrartechnische Forschung 4 (1), 46–55.
Schjønning, P., Lamandé, M., Tøgeersen, F.A., Arvidsson, J., Keller, T., 2008. Modelling
effects of tyre inflation pressure on the stress distribution near the soil–tyre
interface. Biosys. Eng. 99, 119–133.
Schlotter, V., Kutzbach, H.D., 2001. Innenkontour eines Traktorreifens auf festem
und nachgiebigem Boden. Agrartechnische Forschung 7, 23–27.
Schwieger, H., 1996. Untersuchung neuartiger Laufwerke und lasergestützte Erfas-
sung der Reifen-/Bodenverformung. Forschungsbericht Agrartechnik des
Arbeitskreises Forschung und Lehre der Max-Eyth-Gesellschaft Agrartechnik
(VDI-MEG). Dissertation Kiel, p. 165.
Smith, D.L.O., 1985. Compaction by wheels: a numerical model for agricultural soils.
J. Soil Sci. 36, 621–632.
Soane, B.D., van Ouwerkerk, C., 1994. Soil compaction problems in world agricul-
ture. In: Soane, B.D., van Ouwerkerk, C. (Eds.), Soil Compaction in Crop
Production. Elsevier, pp. 1–21.
Söhne, W., 1953. Druckverteilung im Boden und Bodenverformung unter Schlep-
perreifen. Grdlgn. d. Landtechn. 5, 49–62.
Steiner, M., 1979. Analyse, Synthese und Berechnungsmethoden der Triebkraft-
Schlupf-Kurve von Luftreifen auf nachgiebigem Boden. Forschungsbericht
Agrartechnik des Arbeitskreises Forschung und Lehre der Max-Eyth-
Gesellschaft (MEG) 33. Dissertation München, p. 190.
Tobias, S., Schulin, R., Schaub, D., Weisskopf, P., Buchter, B., Zimmermann, S., Borer,
F., Vökt, U., 1999. Physikalischer Bodenschutz. Bodenkundliche Gesellschaft der
Schweiz BGS Dokument 9, p. 32.
van den Akker, J.J.H., 1998. Development, verification and use of the subsoil
compaction model Socomo. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop of the
Concerted Action on Subsoil compaction, May 28–30, Wageningen, The Nether-
lands, p. 17.
Weissbach, M., 2003. Radiale für Kipper. dlz-Reifen-Vergleichstest, dlz-Traktoren-
heft 2003, pp. 8–16.