agronomy

Article
Prediction of Specific Fuel Consumption of a Tractor during the
Tillage Process Using an Artificial Neural Network Method
Saleh M. Al-Sager 1 , Saad S. Almady 1 , Samy A. Marey 2 , Saad A. Al-Hamed 1 and Abdulwahed M. Aboukarima 1, *

1 Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University,
P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] (S.M.A.-S.); [email protected] (S.S.A.);
[email protected] (S.A.A.-H.)
2 Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In mechanized agricultural activities, fuel is particularly important for tillage operations.
In this study, the impact of seven distinct parameters on fuel usage per unit of draft power was
examined. The parameters are tractor power, soil texture index, plowing speed, plowing depth, width
of implement, and both initial soil moisture content and soil bulk density. This study investigated
the construction of an artificial neural network (ANN) model for tractor-specific fuel consumption
predictions for two tillage implements: chisel and moldboard plows. The ANN model was created
based on the collection of related data from previous research studies, and the validation was
performed using actual field experiments in clay soil using a chisel plow. The developed ANN model
(9-22-1) was confirmed by graphical assessment; additionally, the root-mean-square error (RMSE)
was computed. Based on the RMSE, the results demonstrated a good agreement for specific fuel
consumption per draft power between the observed and predicted values, with corresponding RMSE
values of 0.08 L/kWh and 0.075 L/kWh for the training and testing datasets, respectively. The novelty
of the work presented in this paper is that, for the first time, a farm machinery manager can optimize
Citation: Al-Sager, S.M.; Almady, S.S.; tractor fuel consumption per draft power by carefully controlling certain parameters, such as initial
Marey, S.A.; Al-Hamed, S.A.; soil moisture content, tractor power, plowing speed, implement width, and depth of plowing. The
Aboukarima, A.M. Prediction of
results show that the input parameters make a significant contribution to the output over the used
Specific Fuel Consumption of a
data with different percentages. Accordingly, the contribution analysis showed that the implement
Tractor during the Tillage Process
width had a high impact on tractor-specific fuel consumption for both plows at 30.13%; additionally,
Using an Artificial Neural Network
Method. Agronomy 2024, 14, 492.
the chisel and moldboard plows contributed 4.19% and 4.25% in predicting tractor fuel consumption
https://doi.org/10.3390/ per draft power. This study concluded that practical useful advice for agricultural production can
agronomy14030492 be achieved through optimizing fuel consumption rate by selecting the proper levels of affecting
parameters to reduce fuel costs. Moreover, an ANN model could be used to develop future tractor
Academic Editors: Muhammad
fuel-planning schemes for tillage operations.
Sultan, Yuguang Zhou, Redmond
R. Shamshiri and Muhammad Imran
Keywords: moldboard plow; chisel plow; modeling; tillage
Received: 11 February 2024
Revised: 26 February 2024
Accepted: 27 February 2024
Published: 28 February 2024 1. Introduction
Tractors are among the most crucial pieces of equipment for carrying out the majority
of agricultural tasks and activities [1,2]. Tractor use has led to a notable improvement in
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
agricultural production [3]. In agricultural fields, the tractor serves as a power source for
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. various farm implements [4]. For various reasons, a number of agricultural operations are
This article is an open access article necessary, including cultivating, spraying, seeding, and plowing. Specialist equipment is
distributed under the terms and also required for various activities. Thus, a range of agricultural operations are reflected
conditions of the Creative Commons in the tractor-oriented test procedures that are commonly used to evaluate tractor energy
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// inputs [2]. However, modern techniques to establish field experimental procedures with
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ tractors and agricultural machinery and assess their performance and obtain results are
4.0/). now performed through computer simulations and mathematical models [2,5,6].

Agronomy 2024, 14, 492. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030492 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 2 of 20

Tillage is the process of mechanically treating soil and creating an environment that
is conducive to seed germination. Primary tillage is the initial mechanical disturbance of
the soil following harvest, and this is usually carried out when the soil is sufficiently damp
to permit plowing and robust enough to provide adequate and effective traction [7]. The
terms for the tools involved in primary tillage operations are moldboards, disks, chisels,
rotaries, and subsoiler plows [8]. As a result, an agricultural tractor equipped with such
tools plays a vital role in agricultural production [7].
The quantity of fuel consumed by tractor engines throughout the tillage process
depends on several factors. It is influenced by a number of factors, such as plow type,
depth of plowing, and tractor forward speed [7,9]. The hourly fuel consumption raise
in the course of tillage operation is caused by soil–implement–machine parameters such
as draft, tillage speed, tillage depth, width of cut, soil bulk density, and soil moisture
content [10]. Other parameters that have an effect on fuel consumption were shown by
Kolator [2]. Furthermore, a tractor’s fuel consumption is affected by the local climate,
tractor chassis, texture and structure of the soil, tractor size, and the combination of
a tractor’s implements [11]. There are different results in research studies concerning
the effects of specific parameters on fuel consumption due to the varying levels of such
parameters [1,12]. Therefore, it is evident that the amount of fuel consumption fluctuates
according to the levels of these parameters. In addition, fuel costs have a big impact on
agricultural production’s input costs, particularly during primary tillage.
A key component of a tillage operation’s decision-making process when using opti-
mization models is determining how to utilize fuel to maximize profit [11]. Farmers in
developed countries have made significant use of models to budget tractor fuel consump-
tion. Accurately measuring fuel consumption in the field is a very costly and challenging
task. Although computer simulations are more effective, there remains a need for a uni-
versal technique to predict fuel consumption under various work conditions [13]. Since
plowing is the initial tillage operation performed on the soil, the majority of investigations
into modeling development for estimating tractor–implement combined fuel consumption
focus on this particular process [14]. In the literature, numerous prediction models of tractor
fuel consumption for tillage operations have been developed [11,14]. The relationship be-
tween the model response variable, such as fuel consumption, and other parameters found
to be influencing tractor fuel consumption during the tillage process has been established
using a variety of modeling techniques such as the multiple linear regression method, a
category of regression analysis [14]. For example, Ekemube et al. [11] demonstrated that
for the prediction of the quantity of fuel consumed during the harrowing process in a tilled
area based on tillage speed and depth, the coefficient of determination (R2 ) was 100%,
demonstrating that the predictable multiple linear regression (MLR) model formed for
tractor fuel consumption per tilled area clarified 100% of the inconsistencies in the dataset.
Therefore, an MLR algorithm was employed to develop a prediction model to estimate
fuel consumption [14]. The study discovered that the predictive model developed for the
harrowing process had an R2 -value of 0.477, showing tractor power rating as the only
operational factor contributing to the model they had established [14]. Almaliki et al. [15]
applied MLR to predict the specific fuel consumption in units of kg/kWh, signifying the
amount of fuel consumed during a specified time during a tillage process on the basis of
the available drawbar power. The independent parameters were tillage depth, inflation
pressure of a tractor tire, soil cone index, soil moisture content, engine speed, and tillage
speed. The amount of fuel consumption could be estimated with an accuracy of about 95%.
Previous authors have investigated alternative modeling techniques to test the capability
of nonlinear mapping between multiple input and output parameters in order to achieve
better results in comparison with MLR modeling techniques because the MLR models were
unable to predict the fuel consumption needed for tillage implementation [16].
Various techniques have been employed by researchers to predict fuel consumption.
All researchers’ attentions have been focused on artificial intelligence due to its development
over the past ten years [17]. The artificial neural network (ANN) is a popular nonlinear
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 3 of 20

model. The original design of the ANN was derived from the structure of the human
biological neural system. Intelligent systems that can adapt and find nonlinear relationships
between input and output datasets are known as ANN models. Future research can
use a trained ANN based on accessible observation data in similar scenarios. Because
of this exceptional quality, the ANN model has been used recently in a wide range of
agricultural research domains. The literature contains extensive information on the ANN
modeling technique’s development aspects [16,18–20]. An examination of some published
papers revealed applications of the ANN in predicting fuel consumption requirements
based on various field conditions. Shafaei et al. [16] used an ANN model to predict
specific volumetric fuel consumption as a function of plowing depth and speed with a
disk plow implement. The statistical descriptor parameters used to evaluate simulation
environments revealed that the best ANN simulation environment could perfectly predict
fuel consumption. They proposed that the devised ANN model could be used to develop
future tractor fuel-planning schemes during tillage operations. Küçüksarıyıldız et al. [21]
used an ANN model to calculate the precise fuel consumption at various axle loads, the
inflation pressure of tractor tires, and the drawbar force for a 60 hp tractor. By experimenting
with various transfer functions, the hidden-layer neuron count, and training algorithms,
they discovered the most effective ANN model. Jalilnezhad et al. [17] used an ANN model
for estimating the fuel consumption rate of a farm tractor. They calculated specific fuel
consumption (L/kWh) by dividing temporal fuel consumption (L/h) by draft power. The
inputs were soil texture components, soil moisture content, forward speed, working depth,
number of passes of the tractor on the soil surface, tire inflation pressures, soil cone index,
and dynamic load on the tractor’s rear tires. In spite of the intricacy of the variables and
the lack of a clear correlation between the parameters, the developed ANN model has the
potential to predict fuel consumption with a high degree of precision and minimal error.
The use of predictive models to estimate fuel consumption to budget the amount of
tractor fuel required for a specific farm makes a significant contribution to farm machinery
management and agricultural production. Soil tillage is the initial operation executed
on the soil, and the common research papers on modeling development for tractor fuel
consumption emphasize this process. Therefore, the current study was directed to assess
the predictive ability of an ANN model for the direct prediction of tractor fuel consumption
per draft power of a moldboard plow and a chisel plow under different working, tractor and
implement, and soil conditions. The best model with the highest predictive ability offered
in this study’s outcomes would be able to assist in agricultural machinery management to
optimize fuel consumption rate by selecting the proper levels of affecting parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Information Needed to Model Tractor-Specific Fuel Consumption
For tillage experiments, the required data included initial soil moisture content, initial
soil bulk density, soil contents of sand, silt, and clay, as well as tractor power, and implement
width for the chisel and moldboard plows. All previous research studies have provided
information on the amount of fuel used during the tillage process. Furthermore, the force
needed for implements pulled in the tractor’s path of travel is known, as the draft or
drawbar pull and these figures are provided and used in these studies.
The soil texture in this study is presented as the soil texture index as described in
Dahham et al. [22], as follows:
 
log CaSi + Sa
STI = (1)
100
where STI represents the soil texture index (dimensionless); Sa displays the percentage
of sand in the soil. The percentages of silt and clay in the soil are denoted by Si and Ca,
respectively. The STI varies depending on the proportions of sand, silt, and clay in the soil
and shows the effects of all three soil fractions.
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 4 of 20

The drawbar power is determined as follows:

F×S
DBP = (2)
3.6
where DBP is drawbar or draft power (kW); F is drawbar pull or draft force (kN); S is
plowing speed (km/h); and 3.6 is the conversion unit.

2.2. The Validity of Fuel Consumption and Draft Measurements in the Collected Dataset
The tractor’s overall energy efficiency (OEE) is one of the primary factors influencing
energy consumption [23]. Many researchers believe that higher OEE values are achieved
when the tractor and tillage implements are used correctly [24]. Comparing the draft power
and fuel consumption of a farm process is essential when evaluating the tractor–tillage–
implement mechanization unit’s performance [25].
OEE incorporates load matching between a tractor and a plow, and it can be computed
by dividing the draft power by the total energy present in the fuel volume used [26]. Fuel
consumption measurements can be verified for validity using the OEE, which has a normal
range of 10–20% [27]. An OEE of less than 10% for a tractor–plow combination indicates
either poor load matching or low tractive efficiency. A value greater than 20% indicates
either high tractive efficiency or a good match between loads. Equation (3) was used to
calculate the overall fuel efficiency of a tillage system, and considers the tractive efficiency,
engine/power train operating conditions, and load matching of the tractor and implement.
This was executed by dividing the net energy used for the tillage operation in kilowatts by
the energy formed by the net volume of fuel used in kW. A method that was similar to this
suggestion appeared in Kazemi et al. [23] and Ranjbarian et al. [28]:

DBP (kW)
OEE = × 100 (3)
Pf
where Pf is the fuel corresponding power (kW) and can be calculated as follows:
     
kg kg
FC Lh × HV kJ × DD L  
L
Pf (kW) = = 10.21 × FC (4)
3600 h

where HV is the heating value of diesel fuel in the range of 42–46 MJ/kg. In this study, this
value is assumed to be 44 MJ/kg for diesel fuel according to Uddin et al. [29]. FC is fuel
consumption (L/h) and 3600 is the conversion unit. The density of diesel fuel is given by
the symbol DD in Equation (4), which is affected by temperature [30], and in this study it
assumed to be 0.835 kg/L [31].
Equation (5) was used to calculate the values of specific fuel consumption for different
combinations (SFC, L/kWh). When an engine is running at maximum power, specific
fuel consumption is the amount of fuel used per unit of time and power. It is primarily
√
dependent on the kind and efficiency of the engine and is often represented in kg/(kW h).
The range for diesel engines is 0.21 to 0.26 kg/kWh, where older, less technologically
advanced, and worn-out engines are represented by larger values, and new, low-aged
engines by lower values [32]. Specific fuel consumption is the quantity of fuel used over a
given period of time (FC, L/h), based on the drawbar power available at the drawbar.

FC
SFC = (5)
DBP
The workflow for the research steps to attain values of specific fuel consumption from
the literature data is shown in Figure 1. However, Tables 1 and 2 depict the statistical
criteria of the collected dataset from previous research studies for chisel and moldboard
plows, respectively.
 Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

Agronomy 2024, 14, 492

criteria of the collected dataset from previous research studies for chisel and moldboard 5 of 20
plows, respectively.

Figure 1. The
Figure 1. The workflow
workflowfor
forresearch steps
research to attain
steps values
to attain of specific
values fuel consumption
of specific from the
fuel consumption literature
from the data.
literature data.
Table 1. Statistical criteria of the collected dataset for chisel plow.

Statistical Criteria
Parameters Standard Coefficient of
Average Maximum Minimum Kurtosis Skewness
Deviation Variation (%)
OEE (%) 16.77 19.92 11.49 2.53 15.11 −1.12 −0.46
Plowing speed (km/h) 3.62 6.30 2.24 0.77 21.21 0.74 0.46
Draft force (kN) 11.09 19.52 6.88 3.00 27.05 0.15 0.85
Plowing depth (cm) 13.87 23.00 10.00 3.64 26.27 0.60 1.08
Fuel rate (L/h) 16.13 17.61 11.36 1.39 8.64 4.06 −1.92
Drawbar power (kW) 10.70 17.84 6.96 1.98 18.49 2.40 0.83
Specific fuel consumption (L/kWh) 1.57 2.42 0.64 0.35 22.22 0.55 0.03
Tractor power (kW) 79.50 86.79 56.00 6.87 8.64 4.06 −1.92
Initial soil moisture content (db, %) 16.47 20.50 6.80 3.83 23.26 −0.39 −0.98
Initial soil bulk density (g/cm3 ) 1.35 1.40 1.20 0.06 4.19 1.01 −1.39
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 6 of 20

Table 1. Cont.

Statistical Criteria
Parameters Standard Coefficient of
Average Maximum Minimum Kurtosis Skewness
Deviation Variation (%)
Soil texture index (-) 0.30 0.66 0.10 0.16 53.29 0.80 0.87
Implement width (m) 2.09 3.85 1.75 0.72 34.39 2.25 2.00
No. of data points 89 89 89 89 89 89 89

Table 2. Statistical criteria of the collected dataset for moldboard plow.

Statistical Criteria
Parameters Standard Coefficient of
Average Maximum Minimum Kurtosis Skewness
Deviation Variation (%)
OEE (%) 18.76 20.00 14.43 1.10 5.88 −0.52 −0.82
Plowing speed (km/h) 4.05 5.25 2.57 0.59 14.68 0.52 0.17
Draft force (kN) 14.12 18.63 8.23 3.17 22.44 −0.15 −0.51
Plowing depth (cm) 16.93 21.00 7.30 2.61 15.40 2.81 −0.85
Fuel rate (L/h) 13.27 21.19 9.84 4.85 36.50 1.32 1.70
Drawbar power (kW) 16.06 21.73 7.89 4.66 28.99 −1.06 −0.51
Specific fuel consumption (L/kWh) 1.04 2.69 0.45 0.78 74.82 1.59 1.71
Tractor power (kW) 65.42 104.44 48.49 23.88 36.50 1.32 1.70
Initial soil moisture content (db, %) 14.56 19.80 8.26 2.98 20.44 −0.97 0.25
Initial soil bulk density (g/cm3 ) 1.27 1.52 1.08 0.10 8.25 −0.73 0.40
Soil texture index (-) 0.67 0.84 0.37 0.12 17.87 0.44 −1.28
Implement width (m) 1.04 1.35 0.80 0.16 15.04 5.24 −1.90
No. of data points 408 408 408 408 408 408 408

2.3. Structure of Tractor-Specific Fuel Consumption Prediction ANN Model

Monitoring farming operations is crucial for raising farm economic indicators and
lowering pollution levels in the environment, particularly when it comes to the fuels used
by machinery [33]. The modeling field of tractor fuel consumption has been led by ANNs,
a well-liked machine learning technique, for the past few years [34]. ANNs are dependable,
quick computing methods that produce precise predictions even with noisy, incomplete
data, which are frequently seen in nonlinear problems [35,36]. Moreover, ANNs can be
quickly developed using minimal quantities of experimental data and can approximate
any complex nonlinear system [37]. However, a number of variables, such as the transfer
function, the form of network architecture, and the learning algorithms employed, affect
how well an ANN model performs. When compared to statistical models, ANNs trained
with a backpropagation algorithm are said to have strong generalization capabilities [37].
The three main layers of a typical ANN model are the input layer, hidden layer, and
output layer. Simple processing units, also referred to as neurons or nodes, are found at
these levels. Weighted connections, which vary based on the needed ANN model designs,
are used to connect the nodes to one another [38]. The particular challenges of this study
are in determining how many hidden layers and how many nodes there are. According to
a number of research studies [39,40], the most popular technique for determining the ideal
number of hidden layers and their nodes is trial and error. Additional information about
the ANN model and its uses can be found in Montesinos López et al. [38].
Given that ANN learning algorithms need numerical data, the one-hot encoding
technique is used to convert categorical data (such as plow type, which in this study can
be either a moldboard plow or a chisel plow) into integer data. Each input marker is
represented by a binary vector (i.e., 0 or 1). According to Zheng and Casari [41], this
method works well with categorical data when the categories are unrelated to one another.
However, inputs containing numerical data are given to models exactly as they are. Given
that choosing a network design and its parameters is typically performed empirically, using
commercial software (Qnet v2000 for Windows), as described in Silva et al. [42], developed
by Vesta Services makes it easy to find the optimal ANN model.
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 7 of 20

In this study, the network configurations, such as the multilayer perceptron (MLP) net-
work model for modeling fuel consumption, were approached empirically, and the model that
performed well with the training dataset was selected based on the coefficients of correlation
and training error. The input layer of a typical MLP receives the signal from the inputs that
need to be processed. Typically, the software in use employs the backpropagation learning
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWalgorithm to gradually construct an ANN model. To create an ANN model,8several
of 22 parameters
are related. The regulated ANN model parameters are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Steps to build, test, and validate an ANN model.

Figure 2. Steps to build, test, and validate an ANN model.
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 8 of 20

We obtained 497 data points for data collected from the literature for chisel and moldboard
plows, which were randomly separated into training and testing datasets by our chosen software
in a ratio of 80:20. In the study of Dahham et al. [22], the ANN model to predict the draft force of
a disk plow was formed based on 375 samples reserved from field experiments. Using Equation
(6), the data of input and output parameters were normalized into a range of 0.15 to 0.85:

(v − vmin )
NV = × (0.85 − 0.15) + 0.15 (6)
(vmax − vmin )

where NV is the input or output normalized vector (however, NVmax is 0.85 and NVmin is
0.15), and V, Vmax, and Vmin are the original data, the maximum value, and the minimum
value of input or output data. The initial weights and biases of the neurons were chosen at
random by the algorithm. There were 397 patterns in the training dataset, 100 data points
in the testing dataset, and 3 data points in the validation dataset.
Using Qnet v2000, simulations were run. Differential attempts led to the selection of
MLP with a single hidden layer as the ANN architecture. The input layer was composed
of nine nodes (tractor power, initial soil bulk density, soil texture index, plowing depth,
plowing speed, implement width, initial soil moisture content, chisel plow, and moldboard
plow). During the ANN model development process, the number of neurons in the hidden
layer was set to a range from one to thirty. The activation functions of neurons were sigmoid
and hyperbolic tangent. Initial weights and biases of neurons were chosen randomly. The
developed ANN model training speed was 85,761 K after being trained 100,000 times.
During the ANN learning cycle, the network data were trained in order to ascertain the
number of neurons and modify the weight coefficients in each neuron [43]. The final
network included one hidden layer that included 22 neurons, 9 neurons for the input layer,
and 1 neuron for the output layer, and the activation function was sigmoid. These values
were achieved after multiple attempts to change the network topology and 7295 iterations.
In this study, the best ANN model structure was created by nine inputs in the input
layer, one hidden layer with twenty-two nodes, and one input layer with one node (9-22-1).
The training error was 0.020675, which was achieved after 7295 iterations, and the sigmoid
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22
transfer function with training mode standards is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Network definition and training control data as obtained using the employed software
Figure 3. Network definition
(Qnet v2000) and training
for the developed control
ANN model data
to predict as obtained
specific using the employed software
fuel consumption.
(Qnet v2000) for the developed ANN model to predict specific fuel consumption.
The matrices and vectors W1 and B1, and W2 and B2, respectively (Equation (7)),
indicate the biases and weight coefficients associated with the ANN model’s hidden and
output layers [43]. Matrix notation can be used to depict the ANN model. Equation (7) is
used for computing the neural network’s output data [43]:

Y = f1(W2⋅f2(W1 · X + B1) + B2) (7)

where X is the input layer matrix; Y is the output value; and f1 and f2 are the transfer or
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 9 of 20

The matrices and vectors W1 and B1, and W2 and B2, respectively (Equation (7)),
indicate the biases and weight coefficients associated with the ANN model’s hidden and
output layers [43]. Matrix notation can be used to depict the ANN model. Equation (7) is
used for computing the neural network’s output data [43]:

Y = f1(W2·f2(W1·X + B1) + B2) (7)

where X is the input layer matrix; Y is the output value; and f1 and f2 are the transfer or
activation functions in the hidden and output layers (in this study, it was sigmoid).

2.4. Calculating the Importance of Variable Contributions

ANNs are often seen as a “black box” when utilized for predictive modeling. Because
there are many different types of ANN models, their structures are unpredictable and con-
nection weights are randomly initialized which, among other factors, makes it challenging
to choose the best one. However, researchers have recently offered a number of ways of
ascertaining the contribution of each independent input variable in an ANN model. The
present study employs the techniques that were introduced by the utilized software Qnet
v2000 to calculate the importance of variable contributions.

2.5. Field Experiments for Verifying the Developed ANN Model

To create a validation dataset, field experiments were conducted using a locally made
chisel plow at a research farm owned by the Rice Mechanization Center, Meet El Deeba,
Kafer El Sheikh Governorate, Egypt (latitude: 31◦ 06′ 59.3′′ N; longitude: 30◦ 51′ 17.6′′ E).
The chisel plow was 175 cm wide and weighed 460 kg (4.51 kN). It was divided into two
rows of seven shanks. The soil texture was clay soil; therefore, a tractor power of 67 kW
was used to pull the plow. The study assessed the draft force and fuel consumption rate
at varying plowing speeds (three levels) and one plowing depth. However, the plowing
speeds were achieved by shifting the tractor’s gears. The whole set of data, consisting of
3 points and gathered from the field experiment, is displayed in Table 3. Using a cylindrical
core sampler, soil samples were taken at five different random places at each site from a
30 cm topsoil layer. The samples were then dried in an electric oven for 24 h at 105 ◦ C to
determine both the initial soil bulk density and soil moisture content.

Table 3. Range of inputs and outputs used as a validation dataset obtained from the field experimental site.

Parameters Value 1 Value 2 Value 3

Sand content (%) 28.6 28.6 28.6
Silt content (%) 17.7 17.7 17.7
Clay content (%) 53.7 53.7 53.7
Soil texture index (-) 0.306 0.306 0.306
Tractor power (kW) 82 82 82
Plowing depth (cm) 16 16 16
Plowing speed (km/h) 3.7 4.7 6.9
Initial soil moisture content (%db) 19.8 19.8 19.8
Initial soil bulk density (g/cm3 ) 1.36 1.36 1.36
Implement width (m) 1.75 1.75 1.75
Draft force (kN) 18.76 19.67 21.68
Drawbar or draft power (kW) 19.28 25.68 41.55
Fuel consumption (L/h) 15.18 16.15 21.81
Specific fuel consumption per draft power (L/kWh) 0.787 0.629 0.525
Overall energy efficiency (%) 12.44 15.57 18.66

Draft force data were obtained in certain places using a locally constructed hydraulic
pull meter. Through the dynamometer, the front tractor guided the rear tractor equipped
with the chisel plow at the appropriate depths and plowing rates. Throughout the plowing
pass, the chisel plow was kept in the lift position to record the draft. To achieve the plowing
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 10 of 20

depth, the tractor’s three-point linkage height lever was randomly positioned to obtain a
plowing depth of 16 cm. A single pass of the chisel plow was achieved on the soil surface.
Steel tape was used to check the depth of the plowing from the soil’s surface to the furrow’s
bottom. For every plowing speed, ten measurements were taken.
A graded 500 cm3 glass cylinder was utilized to measure the tractor–chisel plow
combination’s fuel usage. The diesel fuel cylinder was completely filled and set aside. The
tractor’s fuel tank was filled with diesel fuel up to a specific level before each test run, or
first speed. After that, the tillage equipment was used 50 m away. The fuel level in the fuel
tank dropped by a particular amount as a result of the tractor engine’s fuel consumption
during field operations. The fuel stored in the graded cylinder was used to fill the fuel tank
to the prior level once more. The graded cylinder’s ultimate level was subtracted from its
initial level to determine the fuel usage. In addition, the time required to complete the run
was recorded. Equation (8) was utilized to compute the volumetric fuel consumption rate
(FCv, cm3 /s) [44]:
V
FCv = (8)
T
where T is the time needed to move the tractor over 50 m (s) and V is the amount of fuel
used in each test run (cm3 ).

2.6. Evaluation of the Developed ANN Model’s Performance

Several evaluation statistical criteria, including mean absolute error (MAE) and root-
mean-square error (RMSE), were used to assess and compare the outcomes of the created
ANN model in this work. Also, the coefficient of determination (R2 ) was determined. This
gauges how accurately the model predicts the result. It expresses the percentage of the
dependent variable’s variance that the model explains and also evaluates the goodness of
fit [45]. The following are the formulae for these statistical criteria [45,46]:

1 N
∑


MAE = i = 1
Yi − Ŷ (9)
N
r
1 N
2
RMSE =
N ∑ i = 1
Yi − Ŷ (10)

where Yi refers to the observed value; Ŷ denotes to the predicted value; and N is the total
number of data in testing and training datasets.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Statistical Data Analysis
The relationships among the investigated seven distinct parameters were analyzed for
fuel usage per unit of draft power. The parameters were operation parameters (plowing
speed and plowing depth), tractor and implement parameters (tractor power and imple-
ment width), and soil parameters (soil texture index, initial soil moisture content, and
initial soil bulk density), as shown in Tables 1 and 2. However, all investigated parameters
have an impact on fuel usage, as reported in the literature. On the other hand, the aver-
age, maximum, minimum, standard deviation, coefficient of variation (%), kurtosis, and
skewness for performance parameters are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2 for the chisel and
moldboard plows, respectively. Moreover, it is clear that the coefficient of variation was in
the range of 4.19% to 34.39% for the chisel plow data and in the range of 8.25 to 36.50% for
the moldboard plow data. However, the high variation in some data may be attributed to
the data being collected from different sources.
The average values of OEE, draft, fuel consumption rate, and drawbar power for the
plowing unit of a tractor and a chisel plow were 16.77%, 11.09 kN, 16.13 L/h, and 10.70 kW,
respectively, as shown in Table 1, under different conditions of plowing speeds and depths,
considering both initial soil moisture contents and soil bulk densities, and tractor powers.
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 11 of 20

However, these values were 18.76%, 14.12 kN, 13.27 L/h, and 16.06 kW, respectively, as
shown in Table 2, for the plowing unit of a tractor and a moldboard plow.
The range of OEE was assessed by other studies; however, when the tractor–implement
combination’s OEE is less than 10%, it suggests either poor load matching or low tractive
efficiency. When the number is greater than 20%, it suggests either strong load matching
or high tractive efficiency [27]. In the study of López-Vázquez et al. [26], OEE for a disk
plow/disk harrow/planter as a tillage system resulted in 18.23%; for a chisel plow/disk
harrow/planter as a tillage system, it was 6.88%; and for no-tillage, it was 4.77%. Other
research produced similar findings; for various tillage implements, the OEE ranged from
11% to 20.08% [28]. Kim et al. [47] assessed the range of draft force for a moldboard plow,
finding that the overall mean draft force was 8.1 ± 1.4 kN (5.6–9.5 kN) in sandy loam soil,
10.1 ± 2.5 kN (6.4–13 kN) in loam soil, and 13.9 ± 2.5 kN (10.4–17.7 kN) in clay loam soil.
Loam and clay loam soils displayed 1.24 and 1.71 times higher overall mean draft forces,
respectively, than sandy loam.
According to Chenarbon [48], for moldboard plow, tillage fuel consumptions at 10, 20,
and 30 cm depths were 12.29, 14.78, and 17.22 L/h, respectively; however, the soil texture
was silty clay (45% clay, 25% sand, and 30% silt), and the soil moisture contents were 11.25,
12.86, and 13.68 db %. In general, as the tractor draft, plowing speed, plowing depth, soil
moisture content, soil bulk density, and implement width increased, an increase in the
value of tractor fuel efficiency also occurred [10].
In passive soil tillage, operations with primary tillage implements are dependent
on the drawbar power of the amount of fuel consumption during the use of a specific
implement. However, the fuel consumption for soil tillage is correlated with the intensity of
soil tillage [49]. The range of draft power was evaluated by other researchers using different
tillage implements; for example, Askari et al. [50] reported that a maximum drawbar power
value of 9 kW was recorded with a subsoiler tine at a plowing speed of 3.5 km/h and a
depth of 50 cm. However, a change in plowing speed and implement type affected the
tractor drawbar power. The maximum drawbar power occurred in chisel plowing with a
plowing speed of 4 km/h, the minimum occurred in disk plowing with a plowing velocity
of 1.5 km/h, and the range was from 4 to 14 kW for chisel, disk, and moldboard plows in
the plowing speed ranges of 1.5, 2.3, 3, and 4 km/h with 23 cm as the plowing depth [28].
Kurtosis and skewness were used to assess the outliers in the experimental data and
determine the distribution’s most important points. Kurtosis describes the extent to which
outliers are present in the data distribution, whereas skewness is the degree of asymmetry
seen in a probability distribution that departs from the symmetrical normal distribution of
data [51]. All of the datasets gathered for this study had flatter kurtosis and symmetrical
skewness. However, the node-shoot dataset showed a high peak kurtosis and positively
high skewness, indicating a higher likelihood of outlier values in this dataset than in others.
The normal distribution, which is symmetrical and has zero skewness, is compared to the
skewed distribution [52]. Negative skewness demonstrates that extra data are dispersed
on the left side of the data mean, while positive skewness discloses that extra data are
scattered on the right side of the mean. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the values of skewness
reflect the mark of data asymmetry to be positive for the specific fuel consumptions for
chisel and moldboard plows of 0.03 and 1.71, respectively; however, there was an impact
of data skewness on prediction accuracy, as most machine learning techniques frequently
accept that variables follow a normal distribution [52]. In this study, the kurtosis value was
in the range of −0.39 to 4.06 for chisel plow parameters and in the range of −0.52 to 5.24
for moldboard plow parameters, as shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

3.2. Analysis of the Developed ANN Model Using Training and Testing Datasets
On a farm, the tractor and plow used for soil tillage are thought to be the main energy
users and cost factors [53,54]. Thus, for power savings, the tillage unit (tractor and plow)
must be used in proper combination [55]. As a result, users and manufacturers alike need
to have access to information about the behavior and activity of plowing units [56,57].
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 12 of 20

However, gathering information from the variables influencing a plowing unit’s fieldwork
via a field study is an arduous, expensive, and time-consuming task [58]. Therefore, to
ascertain the impact of these variables—which include operation (plowing speed and
depth), soil conditions, and the specifications of tillage tools and tractors—researchers,
designers, and manufacturers can benefit from computer predictions and mathematical
models [59]. Along with choosing the best plowing unit combination, it is important to
assess the tillage tool and tractor’s performance to make the best use of the power units
that are available in the field [15].
The results of the prediction performance of fuel consumption per draft power based
on the testing dataset using the developed ANN model show that it provides high pre-
diction accuracy compared to field measurements, as it gave the best performance with
the coefficient of determination (R2 ) for all testing datasets of 0.983, as shown in Figure 4.
Also, for the prediction of fuel consumption per draft power, R2 was 0.947 and 0.986 for
the chisel and moldboard plows, respectively, using testing datasets, as shown in Figure 5.
Close scattering around the regression line emphasizes the satisfactory performance of
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14
the developed ANN model. Table 4 illustrates the best results obtained from the ANN
model for fuel consumption per draft power in this research with statistical criteria (RMSE,
MAE, and R2 ). The results show that the ANN model had an acceptable performance for
predicting fuelpredicting fuel consumption
consumption per unit draftper unit under
power draft power under
different fielddifferent fieldThe
conditions. conditions.
results are
results are consistent withconsistent with reported
the findings the findings reportedetinal.
in Almaliki Almaliki
[60] andetAlgezi
al. [60]and
and Algezi
Almaliki [61].Almaliki [61].and
The biases Theweights
biases and weights
of the of the
developed developed
ANN model ANN model for tractor-spe
for tractor-specific
fuel consumption prediction (applying Equation (7)) are shown in Tables 5 and 6.inFrom
fuel consumption prediction (applying Equation (7)) are shown Tablesthe5 and 6. F
the biases and weights, a mathematical model can be derived to
biases and weights, a mathematical model can be derived to predict tractor-specific fuel predict tractor-spe
consumptionfuel consumption
(L/kWh) for chisel(L/kWh) for chiselplows.
and moldboard and moldboard plows.

Figure 4. The relationship between observed and ANN predictions of fuel consumption per draft
Figure 4. The relationship between observed and ANN predictions of fuel consumption per
power for both chisel and moldboard plows (all testing datasets).
power for both chisel and moldboard plows (all testing datasets).
 Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 13 of 20

Figure 5. The relationship between observed and ANN predictions of fuel consumption per draft
Figure 5. The relationship between observed and ANN predictions of fuel consumption per
power for chisel and moldboard plows using testing datasets.
power for chisel and moldboard plows using testing datasets.

Table 4. Comparison
Table between training
4. Comparison and testing
between datasets
training for ANN
and testing modelfor
datasets (9-22-1)
ANNperformance.
model (9-22-1) performa

Statistical Criteria Training Dataset

Statistical Criteria Training Dataset Testing
TestingDataset
Dataset
RMSE (L/kWh)RMSE (L/kWh) 0.080 0.080 0.075
0.075
MAE (L/kWh) MAE (L/kWh) 0.057 0.057 0.054
0.054
R2 0.985 0.983
R 2 0.985 0.983
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 14 of 20

Table 5. The weights (W1) between inputs and the hidden layer of the established ANN model for
tractor-specific fuel consumption prediction (applying Equation (7)).

W1 = Weight between Inputs and Hidden Layer

Hidden- Initial Soil
Moldboard Soil Texture Plowing Plowing Initial Soil Implement
Layer Chisel Plow Tractor Power Moisture
Plow Index Depth Speed Bulk Density Width
Neurons Content
(-) (-) (kW) (-) (cm) (km/h) (db, %) (g/cm3 ) (m)
1 0.19035 0.19717 −0.066 −0.35153 −0.08198 −0.39646 −0.04227 −0.08694 −0.15066
2 −0.85962 0.72751 −0.40716 −0.03638 1.50896 1.0031 0.50304 0.16612 0.08197
3 0.00233 0.02025 −0.05847 0.26385 0.26267 0.38647 0.11467 0.18132 0.18917
4 0.38077 −0.21469 −0.26129 −0.502 −0.34415 −0.91834 −0.07168 −0.19367 −0.15324
5 −0.06246 −0.01446 −0.31216 0.57808 0.73648 1.168 −0.11966 −0.47513 0.96697
6 −0.19697 −0.07868 −0.16973 0.43001 0.58962 0.8332 −0.23802 −0.46489 0.83826
7 −0.33345 0.27957 −0.39279 0.4924 0.8537 0.33519 −0.05576 −0.15482 0.64401
8 −0.01909 −0.31904 −0.09156 −0.08692 −0.7128 −0.51896 0.17518 0.23999 −0.56896
9 −0.41839 −0.11352 −0.33347 0.34396 1.00388 0.98626 −0.14585 −0.10698 0.9686
10 −0.41947 −0.10327 −0.17008 0.08392 0.53608 0.55534 0.05861 −0.387 0.75625
11 0.43118 −0.29121 0.14553 −0.67883 −0.52845 −0.46833 −0.08864 0.31176 −0.42124
12 −0.22067 −0.0067 −0.45759 0.50522 1.02118 0.52727 0.25051 −0.47065 0.68776
13 0.13672 −0.09198 0.19434 −0.555 −1.1652 −0.8032 0.09824 0.46372 −0.5922
14 0.35919 −0.11701 0.00218 0.00115 −0.09005 −0.05033 −0.14423 0.04469 −0.07174
15 0.09815 0.08976 −0.33991 0.36695 0.12448 0.61201 0.1112 −0.45562 0.40137
16 −0.00078 −0.37508 −0.20905 0.01447 −0.51086 −0.67855 0.20613 −0.21273 −0.39427
17 0.03141 0.13665 −0.28487 −0.13061 0.28313 0.01639 −0.04468 0.1166 −0.2194
18 0.06939 0.24756 −0.50143 0.02617 0.16886 0.29653 0.12143 0.06383 0.12486
19 0.43712 −0.08713 −0.08521 −0.1167 −0.11657 −0.88368 −0.15611 −0.28614 −0.40588
20 −0.20107 −0.20741 −0.28109 0.14172 0.09101 −0.25293 0.21062 −0.08701 −0.23752
21 0.15758 −0.26284 −0.19279 −0.35602 −0.30383 −0.25393 0.01294 −0.22675 0.03401
22 −0.89838 0.0991 1.16689 1.44052 −0.29635 0.63546 −0.02438 −0.47725 −5.30476

Table 6. The hidden-layer biases (B1), weight between output and the hidden layer (W2), and output-layer
biases (B2) of the established ANN model for tractor-specific fuel consumption prediction (applying Equation (7)).

W2 = Weight between Output and

Hidden-Layer Neurons B1 = Hidden-Layer Biases B2 = Output-Layer Biases
Hidden Layer
1 0.16048 0.77215
2 0.11971 −1.52163
3 −0.16271 −0.16302
4 0.29622 1.29996
5 −0.37419 −1.55898
6 −0.14713 −1.13387
7 −0.20668 −0.95499
8 0.21623 1.28453
9 −0.04239 −1.46011
10 0.08792 −0.8132
11 0.11282 1.46147 0.85011

12 0.0023 −1.14313
13 0.0854 1.85898
14 0.3168 0.5853
15 −0.19352 −0.53014
16 0.14068 1.10854
17 −0.19475 0.31311
18 −0.19155 −0.09952
19 0.10089 1.20881
20 −0.16293 0.40959
21 −0.19571 0.64424
22 −0.72726 4.84614
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 15 of 20

3.3. Analysis of the Developed ANN Model Using Validation Dataset

Volumetric measurements of fuel usage were taken for every field run. As demon-
strated in Table 3, the results indicate that the chisel plow’s plowing speed increased from
3.7 km/h to 6.9 km/h by a percentage of 86.5%, as shown in Figure 6. Additionally, the
fuel consumption (L/h) increased by 43.7%, the draft force (kN) by 15.6%, the drawbar
power (kW) by 115.5%, and the OEE (%) by 50%. In contrast, the specific fuel consumption
(L/kWh) decreased by 33.3%; however, consuming less fuel (L/kWh) is imperative and
vital to decrease input costs for agricultural production processes (the data are shown in
Table 3). On close examination of Figure 5, we discover the linear behavior of the specific
fuel consumption with a determination coefficient higher than 0.95 for both datasets, ob-
served and predicted using an ANN model after analyzing the impact of plowing speed on
the specific fuel consumption (L/kWh) under investigation. In the study of Zimmermann
et al. [62], they determined a second-order polynomial for specific fuel consumption per
draft power through harrowing operations in the range of a forward speed of approxi-
mately 5.5 km/h to approximately 9.5 km/h, with a coefficient of determination greater
than 99%. While the other examples in the study used less energy and did not differ among
themselves, the slower speed required more energy for each produced potency. By using a
chisel plow at 6.90 km/h, the lowest recorded specific fuel consumption (0.525 L/kWh)
was achieved. The findings agree with the data obtained by Ranjbarian et al. [28]. The
values observed and the predicted specific fuel consumption in this study compared to
the range obtained by Klanfar et al. [32], who used a diesel fuel density of 0.850 kg/L
(0.235–0.245 L/kWh) for given engine powers, perhaps due to the draft power being dif-
ferent to the implement-equivalent tractor power take-off. However, to assess the energy
efficiency of tractors with various engine sizes and operating conditions, specific volumetric
fuel consumption is utilized, as it is typically unaffected by engine size. The standard
range of SVFC for diesel engines is 0.0476 to 0.1110 gal/hp-h [63]. In general, it is clear
that the observed tractor-specific fuel consumption per draft power was a lower amount
compared to the ANN prediction value with an average error of −0.349 L/kWh. However,
this difference may be attributed to the values of draft power; thus, this demonstrates the
ability of the created ANN model to predict tractor-specific fuel consumption per draft
power. However, for professionals to evaluate the vehicle’s economy and to provide precise
information regarding fuel utilization, an accurate fuel consumption model is essential [64].

3.4. Contribution Analysis of the Affecting Parameters on Predicted Specific Fuel Consumption
The independent variable made different contributions to the tractor-specific fuel
consumption prediction of tractor–chisel and –moldboard combinations using the ANN
model of 9-22-1. As clearly shown in Figure 7, monitoring the implement width occupies
the largest percentage of contribution (30.13%), showing the importance of using suitable
implement width at selecting a plow for soil tillage. Additionally, the chisel and moldboard
plows contributed 4.19% and 4.25% in predicting tractor fuel consumption per draft power
(Figure 7). Moreover, plowing depth and speed were 22.39% and 18.54%, respectively
(Figure 7). The two factors are important and have different effects on fuel consumption
and draft force, as indicated in different research papers. Increasing the plowing speed from
0.51 to 1.45 m/s led to a decrease in fuel consumption per unit draft power of 135% [61].
This is due to the fact that an increase in plowing speed leads to an increase in traction
requirements; thus, the amount of fuel consumed based on traction power decreases.
The soil texture index contributed by 4.07% to specific fuel consumption predictions;
however, Kim et al. [47] reported that draft forces were different and consequently so was
fuel consumption.
 Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 16 of 20

Figure 6. Regression of plowing speed in relation to tractor-specific fuel consumption per draft power
Agronomy 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(L/kWh)
Figure 6.for chisel plow
Regression using observed
of plowing speed inand ANN-predicted
relation values.
to tractor-specific fuel consumption per19draft
of 22
power (L/kWh) for chisel plow using observed and ANN-predicted values.

3.4. Contribution Analysis of the Affecting Parameters on Predicted Specific Fuel Consumption
The independent variable made different contributions to the tractor-specific fuel
consumption prediction of tractor–chisel and –moldboard combinations using the ANN
model of 9-22-1. As clearly shown in Figure 7, monitoring the implement width occupies
the largest percentage of contribution (30.13%), showing the importance of using suitable
implement width at selecting a plow for soil tillage. Additionally, the chisel and mold-
board plows contributed 4.19% and 4.25% in predicting tractor fuel consumption per draft
power (Figure 7). Moreover, plowing depth and speed were 22.39% and 18.54%, respec-
tively (Figure 7). The two factors are important and have different effects on fuel con-
sumption and draft force, as indicated in different research papers. Increasing the plowing
speed from 0.51 to 1.45 m/s led to a decrease in fuel consumption per unit draft power of
135% [61]. This is due to the fact that an increase in plowing speed leads to an increase in
traction requirements; thus, the amount of fuel consumed based on traction power de-
creases. The soil texture index contributed by 4.07% to specific fuel consumption predic-
tions; however, Kim et al. [47] reported that draft forces were different and consequently
so was fuel consumption.

Figure
Figure 7. 7. Independentvariable
Independent variableimportance
importance for
for tractor-specific
tractor-specificfuel
fuelconsumption
consumptionof of
a tractor–chisel
a tractor–chisel or
or –moldboard combination using the ANN model of 9-22-1.
–moldboard combination using the ANN model of 9-22-1.
4. Conclusions
Compared to other agricultural implements, primary tillage implements consume
more energy, highlighting the need to optimize fuel consumption to reduce agricultural
production costs. Tillage operations utilize a large amount of energy to create a suitable
seed bed for planting crops. In order to maximize fuel consumption, it may be useful to
predict tractor-specific consumption for a tractor–implement combination that is influ-
enced by the tractor’s power, the soil’s texture, the depth and speed of the plowing pro-
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 17 of 20

4. Conclusions
Compared to other agricultural implements, primary tillage implements consume
more energy, highlighting the need to optimize fuel consumption to reduce agricultural
production costs. Tillage operations utilize a large amount of energy to create a suitable seed
bed for planting crops. In order to maximize fuel consumption, it may be useful to predict
tractor-specific consumption for a tractor–implement combination that is influenced by the
tractor’s power, the soil’s texture, the depth and speed of the plowing process, both the
initial soil moisture content and soil bulk density, and the implement width. The developed
model of an artificial neural network with topology 9-22-1 and a backpropagation training
technique was found to be suitable for predicting tractor-specific consumption (L/kWh)
based on our findings. Furthermore, the training and testing datasets were used to assess
the ANN prediction performance using RMSE and MAE, which were 0.080 L/kWh and
0.075 L/kWh for the training dataset and 0.057 L/kWh and 0.054 L/kWh for the testing
dataset, respectively. According to the contribution analysis, the width of an implement
has a significant impact on how much fuel moldboard and chisel plows use with tractors.
The findings indicate that a farm machinery manager who effectively operates farming
tillage equipment by selecting the appropriate range of parameters using this model
would minimize fuel consumption and boost drawbar power. Furthermore, the developed
ANN model showed promise in precisely predicting fuel usage per unit draft power for a
plowing–tractor unit across a range of soil types. The developed ANN model had good
potential to assist real-world decision making for agricultural machinery management and
fuel use optimization.

Author Contributions: S.A.A.-H., S.M.A.-S. and A.M.A. designed and carried out the experiments,
while S.S.A., S.M.A.-S., A.M.A., S.A.M. and S.A.A.-H. conceptualized the work, developed the
methodology, evaluated the data, created figures and tables, obtained funding, wrote and reviewed
drafts of the paper, and approved the final version. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2024R752),
King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Adewoyin, A.O.; Ajav, E. Fuel consumption of some tractor models for ploughing operations in the sandy-loam soil of Nigeria at
various speeds and ploughing depths. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2013, 15, 67–74.
2. Kolator, B.A. Modeling of tractor fuel consumption. Energies 2021, 14, 2300. [CrossRef]
3. Alhassan, E.A.; Asaleye, J.A.; Biniyat, J.K.; Alhassan, T.R.; Olaoy, J.O. Tractor acquisition and agricultural performance among
Nigerian farmers: Evidence from co-integration modeling technique. Heliyon 2024, 10, e24485. [CrossRef]
4. Janulevičius, A.; Šarauskis, E.; Čiplienė, A.; Juostas, A. Estimation of farm tractor performance as a function of time efficiency
during ploughing in fields of different sizes. Biosyst. Eng. 2019, 179, 80–93. [CrossRef]
5. Dahab, M.H.; Kheiry, A.N.O.; Talha, T.H.A. A computer model of fuel consumption estimation for different agricultural farm
operations. Int. J. Environ. Agric. Res. 2016, 2, 77–85.
6. Kim, W.S.; Kim, Y.J.; Chung, S.O.; Lee, D.H.; Choi, C.H.; Yoon, Y.H. Development of simulation model for fuel efficiency of
agricultural tractor. Korean J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 43, 116–126. [CrossRef]
7. Kareem, K.I.; Peets, S. Effect of ploughing depth, tractor forward speed, and plough types on the fuel consumption and tractor
performance. Polytech. J. 2019, 9, 43–49. [CrossRef]
8. Moitzi, G.; Wagentristl, H.; Refenner, K.; Reinhardtian, H.; Piringer, G.; Boxberger, J.; Gronauer, A. Effects of working depth and
wheel slip on fuel consumption of selected tillage implements. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2014, 16, 184–190.
9. Tayel, M.Y.; Shaaban, S.M.; Mansour, H.A. Effect of plowing conditions on the tractor wheel slippage and fuel consumption in
sandy soil. Int. J. ChemTech Res. CODEN 2015, 8, 151–159.
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 18 of 20

10. Ekemube, R.A.; Nkakini, S.O.; Igoni, A.H.; Akpa, J.G. Evaluation of tractor fuel efficiency parameters variability during ploughing
operations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Views in Engineering and Technology (Icnet) Maiden Edition,
Port Harcourt, Nigeria, 27 October 2021; pp. 111–122.
11. Ekemube, R.A.; Atta, A.T.; Ndirika, V.I.O. Optimization of fuel consumption for tractor-tilled land area during harrowing
operation using full factorial experimental design. Covenant J. Eng. Technol. 2023, 7, 21–31.
12. Tihanov, G.; Ivanov, N. Fuel consumption of a machine-tractor unit in direct sowing of wheat. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2021, 13, 40–42.
[CrossRef]
13. Lee, J.W.; Kim, J.S.; Kim, K.U. Computer simulations to maximise fuel efficiency and work performance of agricultural tractors in
rotovating and ploughing operations. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 142, 1–11. [CrossRef]
14. Oyelade, O.A.; Oni, K.C. Modelling of tractor fuel consumption for harrowing operation in a sandy loam soil. Arid. Zone J. Eng.
Technol. Environ. 2018, 14, 8–19.
15. Almaliki, S.; Alimardani, R.; Omid, M. Fuel consumption models of MF285 tractor under various field conditions. Agric. Eng. Int.
CIGR J. 2016, 18, 147–152.
16. Shafaei, S.M.; Loghavi, M.; Kamgar, S. A comparative study between mathematical models and the ANN data mining technique
in draft force prediction of disk plow implement in clay loam soil. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2018, 20, 71–79.
17. Jalilnezhad, H.; Abbaspour-Gilandeh, Y.; Rasooli-Sharabiani, V.; Mardani, A.; Hernández-Hernández, J.L.; Montero-Valverde,
J.A.; Hernández-Hernández, M. Use of a convolutional neural network for predicting fuel consumption of an agricultural tractor.
Resources 2023, 12, 46. [CrossRef]
18. Taghavifar, H.; Mardani, A.; Karim-Maslak, H.; Kalbkhan, H. Artificial neural network estimation of wheel rolling resistance in
clay loam soil. Appl. Soft Comput. 2013, 13, 3544–3551. [CrossRef]
19. Taghavifar, H.; Mardani, A.; Hosseinloo, A.H. Appraisal of artificial neural network-genetic algorithm-based model for prediction
of the power provided by the agricultural tractors. Energy 2015, 93, 1704–1717. [CrossRef]
20. Çarman, K.; Çitil, E.; Taner, A. Artificial neural network model for predicting specific draft force and fuel consumption requirement
of a mouldboard plough. Selcuk. J. Agric. Food Sci. 2019, 33, 241–247. [CrossRef]
21. Küçüksarıyıldız, H.; Çarman, K.; Sabancı, K. Prediction of specific fuel consumption of 60 HP 2WD tractor using artificial neural
networks. Int. J. Automot. Sci. Technol. 2021, 5, 436–444. [CrossRef]
22. Dahham, G.A.; Al-Irhayim, M.N.; Al-Mistawi, K.E.; Khessro, M.K. Performance evaluation of artificial neural network modelling
to a ploughing unit in various soil conditions. Acta Technol. Agric. 2023, 26, 194–200. [CrossRef]
23. Kazemi, N.; Almassi, M.; Bahrami, H.; Shaykhdavoodi, M.; Mesgarbashi, M. Analysis of factors affecting the management of
overall energy efficiency of tractor-implement by real-time performance monitoring. J. Agric. Mach. 2015, 4, 214–225.
24. Far, A.S.; Kazemi, N.; Rahnama, M.; Nejad, M.G. Simultaneous comparison of the effects of shaft load and shaft positions on
tractor OEE in two soil conditions (cultivated and uncultivated). Int. J. Farming Allied Sci. 2015, 4, 215–221.
25. Pitla, S.K.; Luck, J.D.; Werner, J.; Lin, N.; Shearer, S.A. In-field fuel use and load states of agricultural field machinery. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 2016, 121, 290–300. [CrossRef]
26. López-Vázquez, A.; Cadena-Zapata, M.; Campos-Magaña, S.; Zermeño-Gonzalez, A.; Mendez-Dorado, M. Comparison of
energy used and effects on bulk density and yield by tillage systems in a semiarid condition of Mexico. Agronomy 2019, 9, 189.
[CrossRef]
27. Askari, M.; Abbaspour-Gilandeh, Y.; Taghinezhad, E.; Hegazy, R.; Okasha, M. Prediction and optimizing the multiple responses
of the overall energy efficiency (OEE) of a tractor-implement system using response surface methodology. J. Terramech. 2022,
103, 11–17. [CrossRef]
28. Ranjbarian, S.; Askari, M.; Jannatkhah, J. Performance of tractor and tillage implements in clay soil. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2017,
16, 154–162. [CrossRef]
29. Uddin, S.M.A.; Ahamed, J.U.; Alam, M.M.; Azad, A.K. Performance comparison of di diesel engine by using esterified mustard
oil and pure musatrd oil blending with diesel. Mech. Eng. Res. J. 2013, 9, 104–109.
30. Schaschke, C.; Fletcher, I.; Glen, N. Density and viscosity measurement of diesel fuels at combined high pressure and elevated
temperature. Processes 2013, 1, 30–48. [CrossRef]
31. Osman, S.; Stefaniu, A. Density, viscosity, and distillation temperatures of binary blends of diesel fuel mixed with oxygenated
components at different temperatures. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15460. [CrossRef]
32. Klanfar, M.; Korman, T.; Kujundžić, T. Fuel consumption and engine load factors of equipment in quarrying of crushed stone. Teh.
Vjesn. 2016, 23, 163–169. [CrossRef]
33. Damanauskas, V.; Janulevicius, A. Validation of criteria for predicting tractor fuel consumption and CO2 emissions when
ploughing fields of different shapes and dimensions. AgriEngineering 2023, 5, 2408–2422. [CrossRef]
34. Niazian, M.; Niedbała, G. Machine learning for plant breeding and biotechnology. Agriculture 2020, 10, 436. [CrossRef]
35. Zhang, Q.; Deng, D.; Dai, W.; Li, J.; Jin, X. Optimization of culture conditions for differentiation of melon based on artificial neural
network and genetic algorithm. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3524. [CrossRef]
36. Sharma, P.; Said, Z.; Kumar, A.; Nižetić, S.; Pandey, A.; Hoang, A.T.; Huang, Z.; Afzal, A.; Li, C.; Le, A.T.; et al. Recent advances
in machine learning research for nanofluid-based heat transfer in renewable energy system. Energy Fuels 2022, 36, 6626–6658.
[CrossRef]
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 19 of 20

37. Gosukonda, R.; Mahapatra, A.K.; Ekefre, D.; Latimore, M., Jr. Prediction of thermal properties of sweet sorghum bagasse as a
function of moisture content using artificial neural networks and regression models. Acta Technol. Agric. 2017, 2, 29–35. [CrossRef]
38. Montesinos López, O.A.; Montesinos López, A.; Crossa, J. Fundamentals of Artificial Neural Networks and Deep Learning. In
Multivariate Statistical Machine Learning Methods for Genomic Prediction; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [CrossRef]
39. Sheela, K.G.; Deepa, S.N. Review on methods to fix number of hidden neurons in neural networks. Math. Probl. Eng. 2013,
2013, 425740. [CrossRef]
40. Abdipour, M.; Younessi-Hmazekhanlu, M.; Ramazani, M.Y.H.; Omidi, A.H. Artificial neural networks and multiple linear
regression as potential methods for modeling seed yield of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 27, 185–194.
[CrossRef]
41. Zheng, A.; Casari, A. Feature Engineering for Machine Learning: Principles and Techniques for Data Scientists; O’Reilly Media, Inc.:
Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2018.
42. Silva, F.A.N.; Delgado, J.M.P.Q.; Cavalcanti, R.S.; Azevedo, A.C.; Guimarães, A.S.; Lima, A.G.B. Use of nondestructive testing of
ultrasound and artificial neural networks to estimate compressive strength of concrete. Buildings 2021, 11, 44. [CrossRef]
43. Brandic, I.; Pezo, L.; Bilandžija, N.; Peter, A.; Šuri’c, J.; Vo´ca, N. Artificial neural network as a tool for estimation of the higher
heating value of miscanthus based on ultimate analysis. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3732. [CrossRef]
44. Hensh, S.; Chattopadhyay, P.S.; Das, K. Drawbar performance of a power tiller on a sandy loam soil of the Nadia district of West
Bengal. Res. Agric. Eng. 2022, 68, 41–46. [CrossRef]
45. Tsae, N.B.; Adachi, T.; Kawamura, Y. Application of artificial neural network for the prediction of copper ore grade. Minerals 2023,
13, 658. [CrossRef]
46. Sammen, S.S.; Kisi, O.; Ehteram, M.; El-Shafie, A.; Al-Ansari, N.; Ghorbani, M.A.; Bhat, S.A.; Ahmed, A.N.; Shahid, S. Rainfall
modeling using two different neural networks improved by metaheuristic algorithms. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2023, 35, 112. [CrossRef]
47. Kim, Y.-S.; Lee, S.-D.; Baek, S.-M.; Baek, S.-Y.; Jeon, H.-H.; Lee, J.-H.; Kim, W.-S.; Shim, J.-Y.; Kim, Y.-J. Analysis of the Effect of
Tillage Depth on the Working Performance of Tractor-Moldboard Plow System under Various Field Environments. Sensors 2022,
22, 2750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Chenarbon, H.A. Effect of moldboard plow share age and tillage depth on slippage and fuel consumption of Tractor (MF399) in
Varamin region. Idesia 2022, 40, 113–122. [CrossRef]
49. Moitzi, G.; Haas, M.; Wagentristl, H.; Boxberger, J.; Gronauer, A. Energy consumption in cultivating and ploughing with
traction improvement system and consideration of the rear furrow wheel-load in ploughing. Soil Tillage Res. 2013, 134, 56–60.
[CrossRef]
50. Askari, M.; Abbaspour-Gilandeh, Y.; Taghinezhad, E.; El Shal, A.M.; Hegazy, R.; Okasha, M. Applying the response surface
methodology (rsm) approach to predict the tractive performance of an agricultural tractor during semi-deep tillage. Agriculture
2021, 11, 1043. [CrossRef]
51. Said, Z.; Sharma, P.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Tiwari, A.K.; Rathod, M.K. Exploring the specific heat capacity of water-based hybrid
nanofluids for solar energy applications: A comparative evaluation of modern ensemble machine learning techniques. J. Energy
Storage 2022, 54, 105230. [CrossRef]
52. Chen, H.; Bu, Y.; Zong, K.; Huang, L.; Hao, W. The Effect of Data Skewness on the LSTM-Based Mooring Load Prediction Model.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1931. [CrossRef]
53. Ahmadi, I. A draught force estimator for disc harrow using the laws of classical soil mechanics. Biosyst. Eng. 2018, 171, 52–62.
[CrossRef]
54. Oduma, O.; Ehiomogue, P.; Okeke, C.G.; Orji, N.F.; Ugwu, E.C.; Umunna, M.F.; Nwosu-Obieogu, K. Modeling and optimization
of energy requirements of disc plough operation on loamy-sand soil in South-East Nigeria using response surface methodology.
Sci. Afr. 2022, 17, e01325. [CrossRef]
55. Gebre, T.; Abdi, Z.; Wako, A.; Yitbarek, T. Development of a mathematical model for determining the draft force of ard plow in
silt clay soil. J. Terramech. 2023, 106, 13–19. [CrossRef]
56. Fawzi, H.; Mostafa, S.A.; Ahmed, D.; Alduais, N.; Mohammed, M.A.; Elhoseny, M. TOQO: A new tillage operations quality
optimization model based on parallel and dynamic decision support system. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 316, 128263. [CrossRef]
57. He, C.; Guo, Y.; Guo, X.; Sang, H. A mathematical model for predicting the draft force of shank-type tillage tine in a compacted
sandy loam. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 228, 105642. [CrossRef]
58. Badgujar, C.; Das, S.; Figueroa, D.M.; Flippo, D. Application of computational intelligence methods in agricultural soil-machine
interaction: A review. Agriculture 2022, 13, 357. [CrossRef]
59. Cviklovič, V.; Srnánek, R.; Hrubý, D.; Harničárová, M. The control reversing algorithm for autonomous vehicles with PSD
controlled trailers. Acta Technol. Agric. 2021, 24, 187–194. [CrossRef]
60. Almaliki, S.; Alimardani, R.; Omid, M. Artificial neural network-based modeling of tractor performance at different field
conditions. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2016, 18, 262–273.
61. Algezi, A.; Almaliki, S. Prediction of fuel consumption criteria of tractor using neural networks and mathematical models. Ann.
For. Res. 2022, 65, 8902–8922.
62. Zimmermann, G.G.; Jasper, S.P.; Savi, D.; Francetto, T.R.; Cortez, J.W. Full-powershift energy behavior tractor in soil tillage
operation. Eng. Agrícola 2023, 43, e20230054. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2024, 14, 492 20 of 20

63. Grisso, R. Predicting Tractor Diesel Fuel Consumption. Virginia Cooperative Extension; Publication 442-073; Virginia Tech: Blacksburg,
VA, USA, 2020; 11p.
64. Nagar, H.; Rajendra Machavaram, A.; Soni, P.; Mahore, V.; Patidar, P. Cloud-driven serverless framework for generalised tractor
fuel consumption prediction model using machine learning. Cogent Eng. 2024, 11, 2311810. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.