Aarhus University Seal / Aarhus Universitets segl

Mogens Humlekrog Greve

Risk assessment of soil compaction in Europe – Rubber tracks or wheels on machinery

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Standard

Risk assessment of soil compaction in Europe – Rubber tracks or wheels on machinery. / Lamandé, Mathieu; Greve, Mogens Humlekrog; Schjønning, Per.

I: Catena, Bind 167, Nr. August, 2018, s. 253-362.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{b08332674f384b748e6a298f8c3bff0a,
title = "Risk assessment of soil compaction in Europe – Rubber tracks or wheels on machinery",
abstract = "Subsoil compaction is persistent and affects the wide diversity of ecological services provided by agriculturalsoils. Efficient risk assessment tools are required to identify sustainable agricultural practices. Vehicles shouldnot transmit stresses that exceed soil strength. Wheel load is the primary source of high stress in the subsoil.However, very low contact stress without reduction of wheel load would also help reduce stress in the subsoil.The aims of our study were to: (i) test experimentally the use of tracks instead of tires as a technical solution toincrease contact area and reduce the magnitude of contact stresses, (ii) compare effects of traffic on soil physicalproperties using tires or tracks, and (iii) evaluate a state-of-the-art method for risk assessment of soil compactionbeneath tracks or tires at the European level. We measured contact stress below a fully-loaded sugar beet harvesterequipped with either a large tire or with a rubber track in a realistic harvest situation. Seventeen stresstransducers were installed across the driving direction at 0.1m depth and covered with loose soil. Dry bulkdensity and air permeability were measured at 0.35m depth after traffic. The contact area was larger and themaximum and vertical stress smaller beneath the rubber track than beneath the tire. Nevertheless, stress distributionbeneath the rubber track was far from uniform, presenting high peak stresses beneath the wheels androllers. Dry bulk density was similar after traffic for the two undercarriage systems, but air permeability waslower after traffic using the rubber track. Measured stress distributions beneath the tire and the track were usedas input to calculate the soil profile vertical stress for comparison with soil strength at 0.35m depth. Wheel loadcarrying capacity was calculated for European soils for assessment of subsoil compaction risk when using thetire, the rubber track, and the rubber track assuming an even stress distribution. As expected from the contactarea and stress measurements, the rubber track could carry higher loads than the tire. However, the air permeabilityresults are interpreted as soil distortion due to high shear forces under the rubber track. This calls for afurther development of the risk assessment method.",
author = "Mathieu Lamand{\'e} and Greve, {Mogens Humlekrog} and Per Schj{\o}nning",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1016/j.catena.2018.05.015",
language = "English",
volume = "167",
pages = "253--362",
journal = "Catena",
issn = "0341-8162",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "August",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk assessment of soil compaction in Europe – Rubber tracks or wheels on machinery

AU - Lamandé, Mathieu

AU - Greve, Mogens Humlekrog

AU - Schjønning, Per

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Subsoil compaction is persistent and affects the wide diversity of ecological services provided by agriculturalsoils. Efficient risk assessment tools are required to identify sustainable agricultural practices. Vehicles shouldnot transmit stresses that exceed soil strength. Wheel load is the primary source of high stress in the subsoil.However, very low contact stress without reduction of wheel load would also help reduce stress in the subsoil.The aims of our study were to: (i) test experimentally the use of tracks instead of tires as a technical solution toincrease contact area and reduce the magnitude of contact stresses, (ii) compare effects of traffic on soil physicalproperties using tires or tracks, and (iii) evaluate a state-of-the-art method for risk assessment of soil compactionbeneath tracks or tires at the European level. We measured contact stress below a fully-loaded sugar beet harvesterequipped with either a large tire or with a rubber track in a realistic harvest situation. Seventeen stresstransducers were installed across the driving direction at 0.1m depth and covered with loose soil. Dry bulkdensity and air permeability were measured at 0.35m depth after traffic. The contact area was larger and themaximum and vertical stress smaller beneath the rubber track than beneath the tire. Nevertheless, stress distributionbeneath the rubber track was far from uniform, presenting high peak stresses beneath the wheels androllers. Dry bulk density was similar after traffic for the two undercarriage systems, but air permeability waslower after traffic using the rubber track. Measured stress distributions beneath the tire and the track were usedas input to calculate the soil profile vertical stress for comparison with soil strength at 0.35m depth. Wheel loadcarrying capacity was calculated for European soils for assessment of subsoil compaction risk when using thetire, the rubber track, and the rubber track assuming an even stress distribution. As expected from the contactarea and stress measurements, the rubber track could carry higher loads than the tire. However, the air permeabilityresults are interpreted as soil distortion due to high shear forces under the rubber track. This calls for afurther development of the risk assessment method.

AB - Subsoil compaction is persistent and affects the wide diversity of ecological services provided by agriculturalsoils. Efficient risk assessment tools are required to identify sustainable agricultural practices. Vehicles shouldnot transmit stresses that exceed soil strength. Wheel load is the primary source of high stress in the subsoil.However, very low contact stress without reduction of wheel load would also help reduce stress in the subsoil.The aims of our study were to: (i) test experimentally the use of tracks instead of tires as a technical solution toincrease contact area and reduce the magnitude of contact stresses, (ii) compare effects of traffic on soil physicalproperties using tires or tracks, and (iii) evaluate a state-of-the-art method for risk assessment of soil compactionbeneath tracks or tires at the European level. We measured contact stress below a fully-loaded sugar beet harvesterequipped with either a large tire or with a rubber track in a realistic harvest situation. Seventeen stresstransducers were installed across the driving direction at 0.1m depth and covered with loose soil. Dry bulkdensity and air permeability were measured at 0.35m depth after traffic. The contact area was larger and themaximum and vertical stress smaller beneath the rubber track than beneath the tire. Nevertheless, stress distributionbeneath the rubber track was far from uniform, presenting high peak stresses beneath the wheels androllers. Dry bulk density was similar after traffic for the two undercarriage systems, but air permeability waslower after traffic using the rubber track. Measured stress distributions beneath the tire and the track were usedas input to calculate the soil profile vertical stress for comparison with soil strength at 0.35m depth. Wheel loadcarrying capacity was calculated for European soils for assessment of subsoil compaction risk when using thetire, the rubber track, and the rubber track assuming an even stress distribution. As expected from the contactarea and stress measurements, the rubber track could carry higher loads than the tire. However, the air permeabilityresults are interpreted as soil distortion due to high shear forces under the rubber track. This calls for afurther development of the risk assessment method.

U2 - 10.1016/j.catena.2018.05.015

DO - 10.1016/j.catena.2018.05.015

M3 - Journal article

VL - 167

SP - 253

EP - 362

JO - Catena

JF - Catena

SN - 0341-8162

IS - August

ER -