arxiv: 2605.07657 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Recognition: no theorem link

Electric Axle and Wheel Module Driveline Concepts for Self-propelled Agricultural Machinery and Equipment Carriers

Timo Oksanen , Karl Th. Renius

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords electric drivelineagricultural machineryaxle modulewheel moduleself-propelled vehiclesmechatronic unitsvehicle designfour-wheel drive

0 comments

The pith

Electric axle modules and wheel modules present different trade-offs in freedom, cost, and rigidity for agricultural vehicle drivelines.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper explores how direct electric drivelines without power-split mechanisms create new options for designing frames and suspensions in self-propelled agricultural machinery such as harvesters and equipment carriers. It defines two main ways to package the electric motors: as two axle modules or as four wheel modules, where each is a complete unit including power electronics, control systems, and steering capability. These are evaluated against practical needs like handling loads, energy efficiency, steering ability, braking, and production costs. Understanding these options matters because electric systems can cut energy losses and allow more flexible vehicle layouts compared to conventional mechanical drivetrains.

Core claim

The authors establish that for a typical four-wheel driven vehicle, the wheel module concept delivers the highest levels of design freedom, built-in redundancy, and precise controllability. In contrast, the axle module approach delivers advantages in lower manufacturing costs, greater structural stiffness, automatic load distribution via the differential, and straightforward integration into vehicles that already exist. Both module types incorporate distributed intelligence and steering functions internally, so the rest of the vehicle needs only to supply DC power and a communication link.

What carries the argument

Axle module and wheel module driveline concepts defined as self-contained mechatronic units that combine electric motors, power electronics, distributed control intelligence, and steering for use in agricultural machinery.

If this is right

Direct electric drivelines enable greater freedom in vehicle frame and suspension design.
Wheel modules support higher redundancy and better individual wheel control in four-wheel drive agricultural vehicles.
Axle modules can be fitted into existing vehicle designs while providing automatic load sharing.
Both module types require only a DC power bus and communication interface from the main vehicle controller.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Vehicle designers could combine axle modules on standard platforms with wheel modules on custom high-maneuverability machines.
Independent wheel control from modules may improve traction and reduce soil compaction in variable field conditions.
Over time these modular electric units might standardize across different types of self-propelled farm equipment.

Load-bearing premise

Qualitative judgments about loads, efficiency, steerability, controllability, braking, suspension, structural support, asymmetric loading, and manufacturing cost provide a sufficient basis for comparing the two module concepts.

What would settle it

Building and testing physical prototypes of both axle-module and wheel-module equipped vehicles, then measuring and comparing their real-world performance in energy use, handling, durability, and total cost under agricultural operating conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07657 by Karl Th. Renius, Timo Oksanen.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Hydraulic pressure distribution measured on a Claas combine harvester over 1,124 hours of operation to test alternative hydraulic oils [6]. The combined distribution reflects a superposition of typical working conditions (50–200 bar, broken curve) and high-pressure events up to about 450 bar, however, 450 bar during less than 0.1% of total operating time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Full load efficiency target (axle output/gearbox input) for tractor CVTs of nominal engine power above about 100 kW, details see Renius [1] 3 6 12 4 5 10 20 km/h 40 Vehicle speed (at rated engine speed ) Full load transaxle efficiency ( Axle output/ gearbox input ) 75 80 85 % 90 0 82 80 84 8 © Re nius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Direct variable hydrostatic ground drive by NIAE at Silsoe in 1954 [1] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Electric wheel drive with two power-shifted ranges. Proposal of Karl Th. Renius in 2020 [1] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The Module, developed for unmanned operations by Modulaire in 1990; later refurbished and automated by Oksanen [11],[12]. This tractor prototype has fixed displacement radial piston motors in each wheel hubs and driven by four variable displacement pumps, each separately controllable. Radial piston motors are the hydrostatic realisation of wheel hub motors [9] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Axle module 2009 [13] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: shows a possible internal drive arrangement using widely available components. Replacement of the bevel gearing with spur gears improves efficiency, compensating for the additional planetary stage. 5.2. Modular axles for on-road vehicles Although not directly relevant for agricultural machinery, electric e-axle modules for on-road trucks have a structure that is architecturally similar to possible solution… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: ZF AxTrax2 for trucks (2023) [14] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Basic final drives of driven front axles: only one side plotted and differential not shown. Design 1 is the most important [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Single wheel suspension by double wishbone linkage, combined with a king pin connection [1] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Direct electric drivelines without power-split open new design freedom for frame and suspension design, along with often lower energy losses. This paper focuses on self-propelled agricultural machinery (combine and forage harvest-ers, root crop harvesters), equipment carriers, propelled trailers and field robots. For a typical vehicle with four driven wheels, the electric motors can be packaged as two axle modules or four wheel modules, both defined herein as self-contained mechatronic units with integrated power electronics, distributed control intelligence and steering. Axle module and wheel module concepts are compared in detail against engineering requirements including loads, effi-ciency, steerability, controllability, braking, suspension, structural load support, asymmetric wheel loading and manu-facturing cost. The wheel module offers maximum design freedom, redundancy and controllability, while the axle module provides lower cost, structural rigidity, automatic load sharing through the differential and the ability to be used in existing vehicle structures. Both concepts are defined such that distributed control intelligence and steering are integral to each unit, requiring only a DC power bus and communication interface from the vehicle.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper gives a clear qualitative comparison of axle versus wheel electric modules for ag machinery but rests on engineering judgment without numbers or tests.

read the letter

The punchline is that this paper provides a useful conceptual framework for comparing electric axle and wheel modules in agricultural machinery, but its conclusions depend on untested qualitative judgments. The work is new in its focused definitions and comparison for self-propelled ag equipment, extending general electric driveline ideas to account for things like asymmetric wheel loading and use in existing structures. It does well by systematically listing engineering requirements—loads, efficiency, steerability, controllability, braking, suspension, structural support, and manufacturing cost—and explaining how each module type meets or falls short on them. The emphasis on both being self-contained with integrated electronics and control is a practical touch that simplifies vehicle integration. The main limitation is the absence of any quantitative support or examples. The central claims, such as wheel modules giving maximum design freedom, redundancy, and controllability versus axle modules providing lower cost, rigidity, and automatic load sharing, are plausible based on general principles but not demonstrated with data, simulations, or specific vehicle applications. This leaves the comparison open to the critique that real-world integration effects could change the picture. This paper is for engineers and designers working on electric drivelines for harvesters, carriers, and field robots. Readers looking for an organized discussion of trade-offs in this niche will get value from it as a reference point. It deserves a serious referee because the ideas are relevant to current trends in agricultural electrification and the analysis is straightforward, even if it calls for more depth. I recommend sending it to peer review, with feedback to include some basic quantitative estimates or case studies to strengthen the trade-off arguments.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript defines two self-contained electric driveline module concepts for four-wheel-drive self-propelled agricultural machinery (harvesters, equipment carriers, field robots): axle modules (two units) and wheel modules (four units). Both integrate electric motors, power electronics, distributed control intelligence, and steering, requiring only a DC power bus and communication interface from the vehicle. The paper qualitatively compares the concepts against requirements including loads, efficiency, steerability, controllability, braking, suspension, structural load support, asymmetric wheel loading, and manufacturing cost. It concludes that wheel modules provide maximum design freedom, redundancy, and controllability, while axle modules provide lower cost, structural rigidity, automatic load sharing through the differential, and compatibility with existing vehicle structures.

Significance. If the qualitative trade-off assessments are accepted, the work offers a useful conceptual framework for evaluating architectural choices in electric drivetrains for agricultural vehicles, emphasizing how module packaging affects frame/suspension design and energy losses. The explicit integration of distributed control and steering into each module is a clear strength that could support future modular vehicle architectures. However, the absence of any quantitative modeling, cost estimates, simulation results, or vehicle-specific examples (e.g., for a combine harvester) substantially limits the immediate engineering utility and falsifiability of the claimed advantages.

major comments (2)

[Comparison section (as summarized in the abstract and body)] The central comparison of axle versus wheel modules against the listed engineering requirements (loads, efficiency, steerability, controllability, braking, suspension, structural support, asymmetric loading, manufacturing cost) is conducted entirely through qualitative enumeration without parametric estimates, packaging studies, efficiency calculations, or cost models. This renders the specific advantage claims (e.g., 'maximum design freedom' for wheel modules and 'lower cost' plus 'automatic load sharing' for axle modules) dependent on untested assumptions about integration effects.
[Introduction and comparison sections] No concrete vehicle examples or scaling analysis are provided to illustrate how the modules would integrate into typical self-propelled machinery such as combine harvesters or forage harvesters, leaving open whether the asserted compatibility of axle modules with 'existing vehicle structures' or the redundancy benefits of wheel modules hold under realistic load and packaging constraints.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract contains minor typographical issues (e.g., 'harvest-ers', 'manu-facturing') that should be corrected for clarity.
[Definitions of axle and wheel modules] Notation for module interfaces (DC power bus and communication) is introduced but not elaborated with interface specifications or block diagrams, which would aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. The comments correctly identify the conceptual and qualitative nature of the work, which we address point by point below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional explanatory text and illustrative examples while preserving the original scope as a high-level architectural comparison.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Comparison section (as summarized in the abstract and body)] The central comparison of axle versus wheel modules against the listed engineering requirements (loads, efficiency, steerability, controllability, braking, suspension, structural support, asymmetric loading, manufacturing cost) is conducted entirely through qualitative enumeration without parametric estimates, packaging studies, efficiency calculations, or cost models. This renders the specific advantage claims (e.g., 'maximum design freedom' for wheel modules and 'lower cost' plus 'automatic load sharing' for axle modules) dependent on untested assumptions about integration effects.

Authors: We acknowledge that the comparison relies on qualitative reasoning grounded in fundamental mechanical and control principles rather than numerical models. For instance, the automatic load sharing in axle modules follows directly from the differential's mechanical properties, and the redundancy in wheel modules stems from independent actuation. To strengthen the presentation, we will expand the comparison section with further justification of these principles, references to related electric drivetrain implementations, and explicit discussion of the underlying assumptions. However, full parametric studies, efficiency calculations, or cost models would require vehicle-specific data and detailed engineering analysis that exceed the conceptual scope of this paper. revision: partial
Referee: [Introduction and comparison sections] No concrete vehicle examples or scaling analysis are provided to illustrate how the modules would integrate into typical self-propelled machinery such as combine harvesters or forage harvesters, leaving open whether the asserted compatibility of axle modules with 'existing vehicle structures' or the redundancy benefits of wheel modules hold under realistic load and packaging constraints.

Authors: We agree that concrete examples would improve clarity. In the revised version, we will add illustrative integration scenarios to the introduction and comparison sections. These will describe, for example, how axle modules could interface with the existing chassis of a combine harvester by replacing a conventional axle while preserving structural load paths, and how wheel modules enable novel suspension geometries in equipment carriers or field robots. The additions will include qualitative scaling considerations based on typical vehicle mass and load ranges for the targeted machinery classes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely qualitative comparison of driveline module concepts

full rationale

The paper defines axle and wheel modules as self-contained mechatronic units and enumerates their relative advantages (design freedom/redundancy for wheel modules; cost/rigidity/differential load sharing for axle modules) against a list of standard engineering requirements. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or mathematical predictions appear. The comparison is descriptive and relies on established vehicle engineering principles rather than any self-referential reduction, self-citation chain, or ansatz smuggling. The central claims are therefore independent of the paper's own inputs and do not reduce by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is conceptual and relies on established domain knowledge of vehicle loads and costs rather than new postulates or fitted values.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard engineering assumptions about typical loads, efficiency, steerability, and manufacturing costs for self-propelled agricultural vehicles hold for the comparison.
Invoked to evaluate the two module concepts against listed requirements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5498 in / 1260 out tokens · 54524 ms · 2026-05-11T02:04:25.815351+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Renius. Karl. Th. 2020. Fundamentals of Tractor Design, Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-32803-0

work page 2020
[2]

and Ehrl, M

Pichlmaier, B. and Ehrl, M. 2025. Battery Electric Tractor Development. ASABE Lecture Series No. 45. St. Joseph, MI, USA: ASABE

work page 2025
[3]

The Nexat System

Nexat GmbH. 2022. "The Nexat System." Available: https://www.nexat.de/en/the-system/. Accessed 27 April 2026

work page 2022
[4]

CLAAS KGaA mbH. 1997. CLAAS Xerion series tractors. Harsewinkel, Germany

work page 1997
[5]

Gallmeier, M. 2009. Vergleichende Untersuchungen an hydraulischen und elektrischen Baugruppenantrieben für landwirtschaftliche Arbeitsmaschinen. (Comparative investigations on hydraulic and electric component drives of agricultural working machines). Ph.D. thesis, TU München

work page 2009
[6]

Wendorf, J. 1995. Daueruntersuchungen von Hydraulik- ölen auf Rapsölbasis in Mähdreschern und selbstfah- renden Feldhäckslern. (Long-time test of hydraulic bio oils in combines and self-propelled forage harvesters.) Seminar Technische Akademie Esslingen. 1–3. Feb 1995

work page 1995
[7]

Heckmann, M. 2016. Vergleichende Untersuchungen an hydraulischen und elektrischen Achsantrieben für mobile Arbeitsmaschinen unter Berücksichtigung betriebstypi- scher Einsatzbedingungen. (Comparative analysis of hydraulic and electric axle drives for mobile working machines considering typical conditions of application). Ph.D. thesis, TU München

work page 2016
[8]

Bernhard, B. 2011. Untersuchungen zur Bewertung stufenloser Fahrantriebe für Mähdrescher. (Investigations for the evaluation of continuously variable drives for combine harvesters). Dissertation, Universität Hohenheim. Shaker Verlag, Forschungsbericht Agrartechnik 499. ISBN 978-3-8440-0296-6

work page 2011
[9]

and Rintanen, K

Mononen, J., Nieminen, T. and Rintanen, K. 1995. Development of control system for autonomous land vehicles. SAE Transactions on Commercial vehicles. 104(2), 369–375

work page 1995
[10]

and Ojala, M

Rintanen, K., Mäkelä, H., Koskinen, K., Puputti, J., Sampo, M. and Ojala, M. 1996. Development of an autonomous navigation system for an outdoor vehicle, Control Engineering Practice, 4(4), 499–505

work page 1996
[11]

Oksanen, T. 2012. Embedded control system for large scale unmanned tractor. 5th Automation Technology for Off-road Equipment Conference (ATOE), Valencia, Spain, July 8–12, 2012. 3–8

work page 2012
[12]

and Linkolehto, R

Oksanen, T. and Linkolehto, R. 2013. Control of four wheel steering using independent actuators. In Proceedings of the fourth IFAC International Conference Agricontrol 2013, Espoo, Finland, 28–30 August 2013

work page 2013
[13]

and Tamminen, P

Kemppainen, T., Koski, T., Hirvelä, J., Lillhannus, J., Turunen, T., Lehto, J., Koivisto, V., Niskanen, M., Oksanen, T., Kostamo, J. and Tamminen, P. 2009. Robot Brothers EasyWheels and ReD in Field Robot Event

work page 2009
[14]

In Proceedings of 7th Field Robot Event. 37–63

work page
[15]

AxTrax 2 – Next Generation Electric Axle Drive for Commercial Vehicles

ZF Friedrichshafen AG. 2023. "AxTrax 2 – Next Generation Electric Axle Drive for Commercial Vehicles." Press release, ACT Expo 2023

work page 2023
[16]

Dana Launches Production of Spicer Electrified eS9000r e-Axle for Class 4 and 5 Commercial Vehicles

Dana Incorporated. 2022. "Dana Launches Production of Spicer Electrified eS9000r e-Axle for Class 4 and 5 Commercial Vehicles." Press release

work page 2022
[17]

Allison Transmission Laun- ches eGen Power, Its New Zero Emission Electric Axles for Medium and Heavy-Duty Commercial Trucks

Allison Transmission. 2020. "Allison Transmission Laun- ches eGen Power, Its New Zero Emission Electric Axles for Medium and Heavy-Duty Commercial Trucks." Press release

work page 2020
[18]

BorgWarner's eAxle iDM Takes Electric Propulsion to a New Level

BorgWarner Inc. 2019. "BorgWarner's eAxle iDM Takes Electric Propulsion to a New Level." Press release

work page 2019
[19]

930E-5 Electric Drive Mining Truck

Komatsu Ltd. 2024. "930E-5 Electric Drive Mining Truck." Product specification. Peoria, Illinois, USA

work page 2024
[20]

795F AC Mining Truck

Caterpillar Inc. 2024. "795F AC Mining Truck." Product specification. Peoria, Illinois, USA

work page 2024
[21]

T 264 Mining Truck

Liebherr-Mining Equipment Colmar SAS. 2024. "T 264 Mining Truck." Product specification. Colmar, France

work page 2024
[22]

and Bernhardt, H

Heckmann, M., Gallmeier, M., Auernhammer, H. and Bernhardt, H. 2010. Lasten im Fahrantriebsstrang eines selbstfahrenden Feldhäckslers. (Loads in the traction drive of a self-propelled forage harvester). Landtechnik 65 (2010), No. 1, 38–41

work page 2010