HSEHealth & Safety

Executive

Methods for optimising the effectiveness of roll-over protective systems

Prepared bySilsoe Research Institute

for the Health and Safety Executive

CONTRACT RESEARCH REPORT

425/2002

HSEHealth & Safety

Executive

Methods for optimising the effectiveness of roll-over protective systems

A D Stockton, D H O’Neill and C J Hampson

Silsoe Research InstituteWrest Park

SilsoeBedford MK45 4HS

United Kingdom

This report discusses the evolution of ROPS standards and analyses the current application ofstandards. A review of the similarities and differences between standards forms the basis of adiscussion on assessing the opportunities for combining or rationalising ROPS standards to facilitatetheir interpretation and use by manufacturers and testing organisations. In the last 40 years, more than50 ROPS standards have been developed for different machine types in different sectors. In the lastdecade, there has been a major expansion in the market of dedicated equipment, particularly in the‘Amenities’ sector. In general, this equipment tends to be small and is not well served by existingROPS standards.

Through the analysis of a stakeholder survey, the report also discusses the scope for computerisingthe design and testing of ROPS and considers what alternative methods of protecting operators fromroll-over hazards may be emerging. Recommendations are made for re-packaging and rationalisingROPS standards and, thereby, ensuring their appropriateness for use with contemporary machineconcepts and the anticipated needs of the industry in the 21st century.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive. Its contents,including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do notnecessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE BOOKS

ii

© Crown copyright 2002Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

First published 2002

ISBN 0 7176 2330 0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the priorwritten permission of the copyright owner.

iii

CONTENTS SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale and background 1.2 Objectives 1.3 Methodology 1.4 Definitions 1.5 History and development of test standards 1.6 Evolution of ride-on machinery 2. SURVEY 2.1 Development of database 2.1.1 Survey questionnaire 2.1.2 Database format 2.1.3 Information processing and analysis 2.1.4 Canvassing industrial opinions 2.2 Summary of questionnaire responses 2.3 Analysis and interpretation of the responses 2.3.1 Question 1 2.3.2 Questions 2a and 2b 2.3.3 Question 3 2.3.4 Question 4 2.3.5 Question 7 2.4 Unsolicited responses 3. APPLICABILITY OF STANDARDS TO DIFFERENT MACHINE TYPES 3.1 Machine types 3.2 Technical requirements 3.3 Similarities and differences between standards 3.4 Current practices 4. ALTERNATIVES TO ROPS 5. USE OF COMPUTERS 5.1 Literature review 5.2 Results from survey 5.2.1 Question 5 5.2.2 Question 6 6. GENERAL DISCUSSION 7. CONCLUSIONS 8. RECOMMENDATIONS 9. REFERENCES 10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDICES 1. Questionnaire Survey Responses 2. ROPS Standards 3. Machine Types

iv

SUMMARY

The evolution of machinery is outpacing the development of ROPS standards. This is a world-wide situation but the associated problems require solutions at both the international and national levels, with appropriate levels of integration. From the manufacturers' point of view, it would be desirable to design and test for only one set of roll-over protection criteria, independent of sector, but should not to lose sight of why the different standards have evolved. Key definitions associated with ROPS testing were given to avoid ambiguities. Information from the major stakeholders, gathered through personal contacts, a confidential questionnaire survey and a dedicated web site, was analysed using relational database and interpreted to provide clear, unbiased statements on the subject area from its evolution through to future trends. The survey responses and contacts identified 51 standards directly associated with ROPS testing and more than 40 machines that lacked defined approaches to the fitment of ROPS. The multiplicity of standards and the differences between them are a source of annoyance and frustration. Some of the underlying reasons are discussed in sections 3.2 and 3.3 and the Tables in these two sections provide much clarification on the relationships between most of the key standards. Potential opportunities to combine ROPS standards across market sectors appear strongest for tractors in the construction and agricultural sectors. The principles established for this machine type would be expected to have potential for application to other machine types which are marketed and sold across sectors. Alternatives to the traditional fitting of ROPS have been summarised by categorising them into two approaches, prevention and protection, together with their suitability and commercial status for current application. A number of opportunities are evident, based on GPS and safe cell technologies, for example, but the latter tend to be more suitable for smaller machines. The use of computers in ROPS development is increasing, particularly for design using finite element methods. However the outputs of mathematical or simulation models, irrespective of their power and hence cost, do not always correlate well with data acquired in the real world. Amongst the major stakeholders, the manufacturers were less confident about computer certification of ROPS than the others. The general discussion, conclusions and recommendations for developments within ROPS design development and certification are dealt with in chapters 6, 7 and 8. Any illustrations of equipment in this report which do not show a safety frame fitted does not imply that suitable protection is not available.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND Hitherto, roll-over protective systems have relied almost exclusively on surrounding the operator (driver) by a frame or cab strong enough to absorb the impact energy of an overturning vehicle without violating the DLV (Deflection Limiting Volume). This frame or cab is known as a ROPS (roll-over protective structure). The strength of the ROPS must be related to the weight of the vehicle (although different conditions apply in different sectors). Consideration must also be given to whether the protection is needed for partial (i.e. 90�) or full roll-overs. Currently, basically similar vehicles are tested to different standards (e.g. ISO 3471:1994(E)/SAE J1040 May 1994, EEC/79/622, ISO 8082:1994), according to the different purposes for which they are used. For example, the same chassis, engine and cab assembly might be finished and equipped for work in the construction, agricultural or forestry industries. All mobile machinery is at risk of rolling over (depending on machine characteristics, working environment and terrain) and a risk assessment process should assess the probability of such an event occurring. As more ride-on mobile machinery is being designed and developed for dedicated tasks (e.g. path sweepers, sprayers, culvert cleaners), the interpretation and application of roll-over protection legislation, as detailed in the Machinery Directive and therefore subject to CE marking, is becoming more difficult, particularly in the “amenities” sector. In some cases, the appropriateness of a ROPS may be questioned (e.g. for quad bikes - Anon, 1998). Light-weight mobile machinery (e.g. small tractors and grass cutters) fitted with a frame around the operator’s workplace would have their centres of gravity changed, probably making the machine less stable and more likely to roll over. In such circumstances, would it be preferable to find an alternative solution to reduce the risks of either roll over or injury, in the event of a roll over? It seems that the evolution of machinery is outpacing the development of standards. This is a world-wide situation but the associated problems require solutions at both the international and national levels, with appropriate levels of integration. From the manufacturers' point of view, it would be desirable to design and test for only one set of roll-over protection criteria, independent of sector, unless these were so stringent for one particular application that it raised production costs significantly for another. The possibility of combining test standards should therefore be investigated, but it is important not to lose sight of why different test standards have evolved. The increasing demand in the market place for machinery not covered by current test standards is making manufacturers look for alternative methods of risk and ROPS assessments. It would, therefore, be desirable to assess the feasibility of applying computer technology in the development of alternative methods of designing and verifying equipment. 1.2 OBJECTIVES The objectives of the research were as follows. 1.2.1 To assess the technical feasibility of combining current ROPS testing standards across

all sectors. (This excludes consideration of the legislative and political implications.) 1.2.2 To produce a definitive list of machinery types covered by current ROPS standards,

together with typical examples of machinery not covered, but for which a ROPS may be a requirement for CE marking.

2

1.2.3 To review circumstances when it may not be appropriate to fit a ROPS to mobile machinery and to consider alternative approaches, taking particular note of industry opinion.

1.2.4 To summarise the current use of computers in assessing both roll-over characteristics and the performance of protective structures for mobile machinery.

1.3 METHODOLOGY The research was divided into five phases:

�� a survey to elicit stakeholders' views on the current principles, practices and difficulties of applying ROPS Standards;

�� analytical review of ROPS Standards, their areas of applicability and other relevant information;

�� assessment of means of protection other than structures and suitability; �� assessment of the benefits of computer technology to roll-over risk analysis and

protection; �� compilation of all the findings into a research report.

1.4 DEFINITIONS In several market sectors, the test standards have accompanying machine definitions which are internationally agreed and accepted. In this report, the term "mobile machinery" may be regarded as an abbreviation for self-propelled machinery with a ride-on driver and possibly ride-on operators1. In the example above and in the definitions given below, text in italics indicates that the terminology is being quoted directly, usually from the published standard. 1.4.1 Earth-moving machines ISO 3471:1994 – refers to ISO 6165:1997, Earth-moving machinery – Basic types – Vocabulary. This International Standard establishes the hierarchy, terminology and definitions of earth-moving machinery designed to perform the following operations: excavating, loading, transporting, spreading and compacting of earth and other materials.

Earth-moving machinery is sub-divided into MACHINE FAMILIES (i.e. machines designed for the same type of operation e.g. backhoe loader, dumper, excavator, grader, landfill compactor, loader, pipelayer, roller, scraper, tractor-dozer and trencher). These MACHINE FAMILIES are further sub-divided into MACHINE MODEL/TYPE (which is the manufacturer’s designation of a machine family – which may have several different models/types within that family). Earth-moving machinery is defined in general terms as self-propelled or towed machines on wheels, crawler or legs, having equipment and/or attachment (working tool), primarily designed to perform excavating, loading, transporting, spreading, compacting or trenching of earth, rock or similar materials. Earth-moving machinery is normally controlled by a ride-on operator but can also be remote- or pedestrian-controlled. Further refinement of these terms for specific model/types can include reference to operating mass limits, motive power and type of machine construction Wheeled industrial tractor: Self-propelled machine designed to provide drawbar and/or PTO power to implements for landscaping and site services at earth-moving job sites. 1.4.2 Self-propelled machinery for forestry ISO 8082:1994 – refers to ISO 6814:1983, Machinery for forestry – Mobile and self-propelled machinery – Identification vocabulary. 1 Machinery - Guidance notes on UK Regulations, May 1995. Department of Trade and Industry, p42

3

This International Standard defines terms and gives guidance on the classification of mobile forestry machines. This standard is applicable to machines designed for use in forestry for site preparation, planting, harvesting, processing and transporting wood and wood fibre. It is not applicable to machines designed to be used exclusively in sawmills or wood yards, or to on-highway transport vehicles and aerial vehicles. Mobile forestry machines definitions are based on operations for site preparation, planting and maintenance; operations for forest harvesting; ability to perform one or several functions. Further refinement of these terms for specific models/types can include reference to mobility method, mode of operation, harvesting system and type of steering. 1.4.3 Agricultural and Forestry Tractors OECD Codes2 (March 2000) include a general definition as follows. Self-propelled wheeled vehicles, having at least two axles or with tracks, designed to carry out the following operations, primarily for agricultural and forestry purposes – to pull trailers, to carry, pull or propel agricultural and forestry tools and machinery and, where necessary, supply power to operate them with the tractor in motion or stationary. The EEC 74/150 definition is as follows. Agricultural or forestry tractor means any motor vehicle, fitted with wheels or caterpillar tracks, having at least two axles, the main function of which lies in its tractive power and which is specially designed to tow, push, carry or power certain tools, machinery or trailers intended for agricultural or forestry use. It may be equipped to carry a load or passengers. This directive shall apply only to tractors defined above which are fitted with pneumatic tyres and which have two axles and a maximum design speed between 6 and 40 km/h. Further refinement of these terms for specific model/types can include reference to track width limitations, position of driver’s seat, direction of travel, mass limitations. 1.4.4 Wheeled agricultural tractors SAE standard J2194 – a traction machine designed and advertised primarily to supply power to agricultural implements and farmstead equipment. An agricultural tractor propels itself and provides a force in the direction of travel to enable attached soil-engaging and other agricultural implements to perform their intended function per SAE J1150 (Terminology for agricultural equipment). 1.4.5 Compact tractors OECD (taken from Code 7, March 2000) – self propelled wheeled vehicles, having at least two axles, or with tracks, designed to carry out the following operations, primarily for agricultural and forestry purposes:

- to pull trailers - to carry, pull or propel agricultural and forestry tools or machinery and, where

necessary, supply power to operate them with the tractor in motion or stationary These tractors, as defined above, shall have the following characteristics:

- ground clearance of not more than 600 mm beneath the lowest points of the front and rear axles, allowing for the differential

- fixed or adjustable minimum track width with one of the axles less than 1150 mm fitted with tyres of a larger size. It is assumed that the axle mounted with the wider tyres is set at a track width of not more than 1150 mm. It must be possible to set the track width of the other axle in such a way that the outer edges of the narrower tyres do not go beyond the outer edges of the tyres of the other axle. When the two axles are fitted with rims and tyres of the same size, the fixed or adjustable track width of the two axles must be less than 1150 mm

2 Some standards are referred to as Codes (or Test Codes) by their originators. In this report, use of the term standard includes such codes.

4

- mass greater than 600 kg unladen but including the roll-over protective structure and tyres of the largest size recommended by the manufacturer. For tractors with a reversible driver’s position (reversible seat and steering wheel), the mass shall be less than 3000 kg

- roll-over protective structure of the rear-mounted rollbar, frame or cab type having a zone of clearance whose upper limit is 900 mm above the seat reference point in order to provide a sufficiently large area or unobstructed space for the protection of the driver

SAE (taken from ANSI/ASAE S478 Jun 2000) – small agricultural tractor equipped with a 540 rpm rear PTO (ASAE S203.13) and a three-point hitch designed for Category 1 (ASAE S217.1) implements only. These tractors generally have a mass of, as defined in section 3.3, less than 1800 kg, have less than 30 PTO kW and are primarily designed and advertised for use with mowers and light duty material-handling equipment 1.4.6 Amenity machines These are machines designed primarily to maintain open areas, e.g. parks, golf courses and public areas. 1.4.7 Industrial trucks These are machines designed primarily for use in commercial production. They are used for transporting, storing and retrieving materials and goods in industry and commerce associated with manufacturing, warehousing, processing and retail sales facilities. 1.4.8 Forklift trucks are machines designed primarily to lift and carry materials, which have a vertical mast and/or variable reach boom to carry forks. 1.4.9 Mining machines These are machines designed primarily to undertake digging, excavating and tunnelling operations and the handling and transportation of earth, ores, coal and other mineral substances. 1.5 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF TEST STANDARDS ROPS standards have been developed because of a need to protect the operator. The rapid increase in the use of ride-on mobile machinery in the 1950s led to safety problems, in particular deaths due to machinery overturning. These deaths were attributed to a variety of factors including operator error, lack of operator training and steepness of terrain. Various attempts were made to develop devices that would prevent overturns by sensing an imminent instability and activating a mechanism to stabilise the machine. However, with the very short time taken for an overturn to happen, typically 3-5 seconds, activation of the stabilisers proved to be too slow. Education and training have been tried but it can be difficult for the operator to sense or be aware that conditions have changed sufficiently to affect stability and compromise safety. These include, for example, changes in amount of fuel carried, changes in the amount of payload carried and the drying action of the sun on the terrain. All these factors can change subtly and, in combination, can lead to a major overall change in stability conditions. It was, therefore, decided by various national authorities that the fitting of ROPS (Roll-over Protective Structures) was the only tenable option, as this would eliminate both the judgement of the operator and the uncertainty of a safety device operating both quickly and correctly. The first country to acknowledge the benefits of the ROPS approach was Sweden. The development of ROPS for agricultural tractors started in Sweden in the early 1950s and the first tests of "anti-crush" structures were undertaken in 1955 (see Moberg, undated). In the construction industry (earthmoving), the USA made the first moves to protect operators from overturns and to develop the associated testing procedures.

5

It should be noted that the introduction of roll-over protective structures was not expected to prevent all deaths. Such a design would be almost impossible to design and also prohibitive in terms of cost. The intention was rather that the structure should prevent or minimise the effects of the majority of typical accidents yet also provide protection against the more severe but less frequent accidents. The key steps that can be identified in the development of test procedures are shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 for the construction and agricultural sectors respectively. The ROPS standards that were later developed for the forestry sector were based on the early earthmoving machine standards (e.g. ISO 3471) rather than those for agricultural machines. Thus, the early development of the agricultural standards was not integrated with those for earthmoving, mining and forestry machines. Information on the development of standards from year to year is summarised in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 for the construction and agricultural sectors respectively. More discussion on the content of the more significant standards is given in section 3. Initial studies, both in construction and in agriculture, were made with overturns of real machines on a variety of slopes and terrains to establish the amount of energy that would need to absorbed by the ROPS. Various parameters were considered to simulate the loading on the machine. The level of ballast for a machine is a topic where there have been differences in the standards developed because countries were not consistent in their selection of possible combinations, ranging from the heaviest option to standard configurations with factors to take account of differing loadings and conditions. Throughout the period of controlled overturn testing, data were also collected from real accidents to validate the parameters chosen and the performance levels underlying the development of the test standards. The data from real accidents included the incidence of overturns, type of machine, location, condition of terrain, activity being carried out, injury to the operator, weather conditions and damage to the machine. All these sources of information enabled researchers to formulate design criteria and test standards for an effective safety structure. Some key research activities supporting the development of ROPS standards for the agricultural sector are shown in Table 1.3. Early uncertainties and problems with the repeatability of overturns with real machines led to the development of laboratory tests. Initially these were based on dynamic methods but latterly static methods were devised which are currently in use. More history on the introduction and use of ROPS in the USA agricultural sector can be found at www.tractorlaw.com/Pages/danger.html.

SAE

ISO

EE

C1950 - 54 1955 - 59 1960 - 64 1965 - 69 1970 - 74 1975 - 79 1980 - 84 1985 - 89 1990 - 94 1995 - 99 2000 - 04

KEY - SAE machine types (J1040:1994)

KEY - ISO machine types (3471:1994)

SAE J320 - Minimum performance criteria for Roll-

over protective system for rubber-tired, self-propelled

scrapers

SAE J320a - Minimum performance criteria for Roll-over protective structure for rubber-tired, self-propelled

scrapers

SAE J394 - Minimum performance criteria for

Roll-over protective structure for Rubber-tired front-end loaders and Rubber-tired

dozers

SAE J395 - Minimum performance criteria for

Roll-over protective structure for Crawler tractors and

Crawler-type loaders

SAE J396 - Minimum performance criteria for Roll-over protective structure for

Motor graders

SAE J394a - Minimum performance criteria for Roll-over protective structures for Wheeled front-end loaders

and Wheeled dozers

SAE J320b - Minimum performance criteria for Roll-over protective structures for

Prime movers

SAE J395a - Minimum performance criteria for

Roll-over protective structures for Track-type

tractors and Track-type front-end loaders

SAE J396a - Minimum performance criteria for Roll-over protective structures for

Motor graders

SAE J1040b - Performance criteria for Rollover

Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction,

Earthmoving, Forestry and Mining machines

ISO 3471:1980 - Earth-moving machinery - Roll-over Protective structures -

Laboratory tests and performance requirements

EC agree “New approach to Technical Harmonisation and Standards” 89/392 Machinery

Directive

ISO 3471/1:1986 - Earth-moving machinery - Roll-over Protective structures -

Laboratory tests and performance requirements -

Part1 : Crawler, wheel loaders and tractors, backhoe-loaders,

graders, tractor-scrapers, articulated-steer dumpers

J1040 Apr88 - Performance criteria for Rollover

Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction,

Earthmoving, Forestry and Mining machines

UK adopt 89/392/EC Machinery directive

UK adopt amendments to Machinery Directive

J1040 May94 - Performance criteria for Rollover

Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction,

Earthmoving, Forestry and Mining machines

ISO 3471:1994 - Earth-moving machinery - Roll-over Protective structures -

Laboratory tests and performance requirements

ISO 8082:1994 - Self-propelled machinery for

Forestry - Rollover Protective structures - Laboratory tests

and performance requirements

Compliance with single market requirements now

compulsory

Machinery Directive consolidated to include

amendments and published as 98/37/EC

ID Description

1 Crawler tractors and loaders2 Graders3 Wheel loaders, wheel tractors, and their modified versions used for rolling or compacting, dozer equipped wheel tractors, wheel log skidders, skid steer loaders and backhoe loaders4 Wheel industrial loaders5 Tractor portion (prime mover) of tractor scrapers, water wagons, articulated steer dumpers, bottom dump wagons, side dump wagons, rear dump wagons, and towed fifth-wheel attachments6 Rollers and compactors7 Rigid frame dumpers with full mounted bodies

ID Description

1 Crawler tractors and loaders2 Graders3 Wheel loaders, wheel tractors, and their modifications used for rolling or compacting, dozer equipped wheel tractors, wheel log skidders, skid steer loaders and backhoe loaders4 Wheel industrial loaders5 Tractor portion of semi-mounted scrapers, water wagons, articulated steer dumpers, bottom dump wagons, side dump wagons, rear dump wagons, and towed fifth-wheel attachments6 Rollers and compactors7 Rigid frame dumpers with full mounted bodies

Standards history and development - ConstructionTable 1.1

6

SAE

ISO

EE

C1950 - 54 1955 - 59 1960 - 64 1965 - 69 1970 - 74 1975 - 79 1980 - 84 1985 - 89 1990 - 94 1995 - 99 2000 - 04

Oth

ers

Not

esStandards history and development - Agriculture

Investigations started in Sweden, Norway and New

Zealand

Lab tests developed in sweden

Live tests carried out in UK

Regulations introduced in Sweden

First OEEC test code (later to become OECD)

UK patent on rear rollover horns

UK visit sweden to look at lab tests

Lab tests carried out in Norway

BS 4063:1966

OECD Code 3 - Official testing of Protective

structures on agricultural and forestry tractors (dynamic

method) introduced

BS 4063 introduced in UK - testing not compulsory

OECD code being developed

US code being developed - ROPS developed for John

Deere tractors?

Fritzmeir cab introduced in UKNorway adopt OECD code

Denmark introduce legislation

ISO test procedure (based on OECD ?)

Finland introduce legislation

ISO 3463

Germany introduce legislationIreland introduce legislation

UK introduce legislationNew Zealand introduce

legislation

AGE/9 report - need to modifiy rear impact energy requirements

et al Manby

US introduce legislation ?Chisholm paper producedBS 4063 standard revised

OECD code revisedNIAE open day - current tests not suitable for larger tractors, research program to include:

modelling ; overturning and lab tests (dynamic/static)

SAE J333a, Operator Protection for Wheel-Type Agricultural and Industrial

Tractors (July 1970)

SAE J168 - Protective Enclosures, Test Procedures,

and Performance Requirements

J334a - 1970, entitled “Protective Frame Test

Procedures and Performance Requirements”

BS 4063:1973

ASAE S306.3-1974 entitled “Protective Frame for

Agricultural Tractors -- Test Procedures and Performance

Requirements”

ASAE Standard S336.1-1974, entitled “Protective

Enclosures for Agricultural Tractors - Test Procedures

and Performance Requirements”

Spain introduce legislation

Chisholm report to EC working group on static tests

for agriculture

SAE J1194 replaces SAE J168a ; SAE J333a and SAE

J334b

Switzerland introduce legislation

ISO 3471 - Rollover protective structures - Laboratory test and

performance requirements

Draft ISO 5700

SAE J1194, “Roll-Over Protective Structures (ROPS)

for Wheeled Agricultural Tractors”

Draft OECD Code 4 - Official testing of Protective structures on agricultural and

forestry tractors (static method) introduced

SAE standard J1194, “Roll-Over Protective Structures

(ROPS) for Wheeled Agricultural Tractors”

ISO 3463:1989 - Wheeled tractors for agriculture and

forestry -- Protective structures -- Dynamic test

method and acceptance conditions

ISO 5700:1989 - Wheeled tractors for agriculture and

forestry -- Protective structures -- Static test method and acceptance

conditions

EEC 86/298 directive for Rear mounted ROPS on

narrow tractors

EEC 87/402 directive for Front mounted ROPS on

narrow tractors

OECD Code 6 - Official testing of Front-mounted

Roll-over protective structures on Narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry

tractors introduced

OECD Code 7 - Official testing of Rear-mounted

Roll-over protective structures on Narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry

tractors introduced

OECD Code 8 - Official testing of Roll-over protective structures on agricultural and forestry tracklaying tractors

introduced

UK adopt EEC ROPS directives

SAE J2194SEP 97 - Roll-Over Protective Structures

(ROPS) for Wheeled Agricultural Tractors

Amendment 1 to ISO 3463:1989

Amendment 1 to ISO 5700:1989

ANSI/ASAE S478 JUN00 - Roll-Over Protective

Structures (ROPS) for Compact Utility Tractors

ASAE S383.1 JAN01Roll-Over Protective

Structures (ROPS) for Wheeled Agricultural

Tractors

EEC 77/536 directive for dynamic testing

EEC 79/622 directive for static testing

Table 1.2

7

Eng

lish

Am

eric

anO

ther

s1950 - 54 1955 - 59 1960 - 64 1965 - 69 1970 - 74 1975 - 79 1980 - 84 1985 - 89 1990 - 94 1995 - 99 2000 - 04

Standards history - Research papers

Energy absorbed by protective frames for drivers

when tractors overturn rearward. T C D Manby

A survey of 114 tractor sideways overturning

accidents in the UK – 1969 to 1971. C J Chisholm

Structural strength tests for protective cabs for

agricultural tractors using static methods. H D Sullivan

The correlation between damage to rollover protective

structures in tractor overturning accidents and in standard tests. C J Chisholm

Aspects of design and tetsing of tractor safety frames.

J E Ashburner

A comparison of standards for static tests on rollover protective structures for agricultural tractors and earthmoving machinery.

C J Chisholm

The prediction of tractor safety cab deformation: Part I

– a preliminary study. C J Chisholm

The prediction of tractor safety cab deformation: Part

II – The NIAE Mk II experimental frame.

C J Chisholm

Durability of tractor safety cabs. C J Chisholm

A mathematical model of tractor overturning and

impact behaviour. C J Chisholm

Experimental validation of a tractor overturning

simulation. C J Chisholm

The effect of parameter variation on tractor

overturning and impact behaviour. C J Chisholm

Experimental investigation about impacts on the soil

and application in calculating the overroll behaviour of a

vehicle. H Schwanghart

Side load energies on tractor-ROPS. Comparison of loads in pendulum tests, static tests,

overturning tests and in calculation. H Schwanghart

Cold weather performance of ROPS (in Italian).

Gasparetto E; Pessina D

Protective structures. Comparison of different

testing formulae.Gasparetto E; Febo P;

Pessina D

Additional impact tests for dynamic tested narrow tractor

protective structures.Gasparetto E; Bentini M;

Guarnieri A

The problem of tractor protective structures standard

standardisation.Gasparetto E; Febo P;

Pessina D

ROPS Design, Construction and Testing for Pre-ROPS

Tractors. Paul Ayers

Engineering Control Strategies Based on Tractor

Stability. Paul Ayers; Juhua Liu

Rollover Protective Structure (ROPS) Field Testing for Pre-

ROPS Tractors. Paul Ayers

Tractor stability and information processing

system. S Loke; D J Murphy

Off-road vehicle rollover and field testing of stability index.Juhua Liu (1); Paul Ayers (2)

Application of Tractor Stability Index in

Development of Control Strategies for Protective

Structures.Juhua Liu; Paul Ayers

Development of Stability Index for Tractors. Paul Ayers

Interactive Smart standard J1040 ROPS. SAE Strategic

Alliance

ASAE X547 (will be ASAE S547 when approved) - self propelled front wheel drive

turf and landscape equipment. ASAE

Finite element modellling of ROPS in Static tetsing and

Rear overturns. Victor Mucino; John Etherton; Karl

Snyder; Ken Means

Initial rollover effectiveness evaluation of an alternate seat

belt design for agricultural tractors. G C Rains

Prevention effectiveness of rollover structures - Part II:

decision analysis. M L Myers; R Pana-Cryan

Prevention effectiveness of rollover structures - Part 1:strategy evolution. M L

Myers; R Pana-Cryan

Prevention effectiveness of rollover structures - Part Part

III : Economic analysis.M L Myers; R Pana-Cryan

Agricultural tractor overturning and impact

behaviour. C J Chisholm

ROPS test procedures for tractors with mass below 600 kg and track width

below 1150 mm. B B Harral

Table 1.3

8

9

1.6 EVOLUTION OF RIDE-ON MACHINERY The differences, over a period of about 30 years, between earthmoving machines in the construction sector are illustrated in Figures 1.1 to 1.6. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show some of the changes that have affected dump trucks. The machines are in different configurations but are doing the same job. It is also evident that the nature of the tasks in which they are involved is also changing, as technology provides more options.

Figure 1.1 Dump truck c. 1960s

Figure 1.2 Dump truck c. 2000

10

Figures 1.3 and 1.4 show wheeled loaders separated by about 30 years of development. The differences are readily observable but both machines are derived from the basic tractor.

Figure 1.3 Wheeled loader c. 1960s

Figure 1.4 Wheeled loader c. 1990s

11

Figures 1.5 and 1.6 show examples of relatively modern materials-handling vehicles which may be used in the construction or agriculture sectors. These are also likely to be derived from the same base power unit but have been given different configurations to do a similar job.

Figure 1.5 Compact articulated loader

Figure 1.6 Telescopic loader ("teleporter")

12

The evolution of the agricultural tractor is illustrated in figures 1.7 and 1.8. Figure 1.7 shows a John Deere 4020, introduced in the early 1960s. In 1966, this model was offered with a "Roll-Guard", the first tractor in USA to incorporate a ROPS.

Figure 1.7 Agricultural tractor c. 1960s

Figure 1.8 shows a typical modern tractor incorporating many of the latest design features. Some standards seem to be acknowledging the conceptual design changes that are taking place. The speeds at which tractors are driven tend to be increasing and this may have implications for the energy absorption requirements of ROPS. This was the prime consideration in a small research project funded by the HSE around 10 years ago. From the evidence available, it was concluded that raising the design speed of agricultural tractors from 32 km/h to 40 km/h would not require any change to the existing ROPS standards (Harral, 1992). Notwithstanding this relatively minor change in design specification, the basic agricultural standards formulated around 40 years ago can not readily accommodate recent commercially-driven engineering design developments, such as those relating to cab ergonomics, structure and styling.

Figure 1.8 Modern agricultural tractor

A new generation of ride-on machinery for specialised applications, such as golf courses, park management, local council operations is evolving at a very rapid rate. Advances in these types of machines have outpaced any standards development for ROPS or other forms of protection. Nevertheless, it is the need for risk assessments, and any consequent actions, that have demanded scrutiny of existing ROPS legislation and has brought into question its suitability and revealed certain inadequacies. (see Fig. 2.15 & 2.16)

13

2. SURVEY 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF DATABASE 2.1.1 Survey Questionnaire In order to obtain responses from industry concerning problems with ROPS on typical machines, a questionnaire was prepared. Careful consideration was given to the nature of the information needed and the most appropriate method of eliciting this information whilst ensuring the anonymity of the responses and respecting the need to maintain confidentiality. (This was particularly important when an employee was offering a personal response rather than an official company response.) Conducting the survey and analysing the responses were essential steps in the achievement of objective 1.2.2. The questionnaire targeted specialists within the international ROPS network (of which the project leader is a prominent figure), primarily in engineering positions, who are involved in ROPS applications (e.g. design, fabrication, manufacture, testing, safety assessment or inspection, certification, production of standards or servicing the needs of end users). Five main market sectors were identified for respondents to associate themselves with: Forestry, Agriculture, Earthmoving, Amenities and Industrial – an additional option of Other was added for any category which did not clearly fit into the first five or was rather specialised but still required testing, such as Mining. This approach, through the network of ROPS stakeholders, enabled penetration of all sectors throughout the world and led to the expectation of a high level of confidence in the responses. The quality and quantity of the responses indicates that this expectation has been realised. The following questions were posed in the survey.

Q1. Please list published ROPS standards that are used by or known to your organisation.

Q2a. Please list research papers that are used by or known to your organisation. Q2b. Please list draft standards that are used by or known to your organisation. Q3. Do you or does your organisation have information on work undertaken to develop

any of the standards/documents identified in questions 1 and 2? If so, can you please supply a contact name and a telephone number etc.

Q4. Are you aware of machine types or specific machines which are not covered by

current published ROPS standards, but the fitment of ROPS type structures is required? (Photos or technical literature would be appreciated.)

Q5. Please summarise your current experiences on the use of computers for evaluating

the design/testing of ROPS. Q6. What contribution do you see computers contributing to the design and/or testing

of ROPS in the future? Q7. Any other information or points you wish to raise.

14

2.1.2 Database Format This project comprises, essentially, collection and processing of quantitative and qualitative information. A widely used relational database, Microsoft Access™ was used to store and manipulate the information from the survey and the other sources that the project would draw from. The structure and versatility of "Access", through its use of "Tables", "Fields" and "Identifiers", facilitate the manipulation and processing of the qualitative nature of the information necessary for the conduct of the project. When the common links between the information in fields have been established, comparisons, analyses and summaries based on any field can be carried out. The general availability of Access and its ability to interact with other Microsoft™ software make it suitable for generating output reports which can then be exported to other computers or other users. One aim of the project was to compare test standards for nominally identical machines (i.e. machine types) in different sectors to identify how closely they matched objective 1.2.1). When different standards for the same machine-types had been identified, further examination could determine what test criteria had been used and why the criteria varied between different market sectors. Access allows the user to set queries (cross-tabulation is facilitated), to make specific searches (by simply highlighting a sequence of characters) and to generate reports. This flexibility to quickly produce "what-if" scenarios, which may be kept or abandoned, renders Access particularly suitable for this type of research. The master tables are always available for interrogation and may be kept to deal with queries which may arise in the future but which may, as yet, be unidentified. 2.1.3 Information Processing and Analysis The survey requested information on existing test standards and "Access" facilitated the linking and comparison of the different standards identified by questionnaire respondents. Relevant details of each referenced test standard – current and draft – were entered into the database and allocated to separate tables. Every effort was made to ensure consistency and commonality with terms used in these tables. The tables contained the definitive information such as Market Sector, Identifier, Reference Title, Machine Type, Machine Mass, Mass Notes, Details of Loading Force and Energy Requirements, Loading Sequence, Any Additional Requirements, Test Notes and Type of Deflection Limiting Volume (DLV) to be used. The field through which all the test standards may be linked is machine type. For certain test standards there are additional definitions which give details of specific machine types and sub-categories covered by that test standard. Every effort was made to standardise on machine definition terms and to use only pre-defined terms (see section 1.4 on definitions) in order to make the search procedures more reliable. The ability to search for common machine types across different standards can reveal which may be used in more than one market sector, each of which may have slightly different test and acceptance criteria. This particular feature facilitates examination of the reason(s) for certain acceptance criteria being developed within or for that particular market sector. The opportunities that the database provides to examine and cross-tabulate standards and sectors is likely to be particularly useful to those stakeholders who are responsible for selecting the most appropriate form of roll-over protection. Typical procedures that are currently used for achieving this are outlined in section 3.4. There are cases of the same machine type existing in different market sectors and, therefore, being subject to different standards. The use of Access, through its filtering options, facilitated the analysis of the technical details and acceptance criteria and the identification

15

of the technical differences between market sectors. Having identified the differences, the reasons for them can be investigated. 2.1.4 Canvassing Industrial Opinions The main source of information from anyone with a commercial interest in ROPS was the survey and these responses are dealt with in section 2.2. The information gleaned from other sources is discussed below. 2.1.4.1. Literature review (including internet) The majority of the literature concerning ROPS is related to health and safety issues in both the conventional publishing and electronic domains. Little seems to have been published, or otherwise made available, on the design and use of ROPS and there is almost nothing on ROPS standards (except the standards themselves - see summaries in Appendix 1). There is some literature on the testing of ROPS, with inevitable references to standards, particularly regarding the computerisation of test procedures. This subject warrants special attention and is dealt with in section 5. 2.1.4.2. Web site One of the project activities was to develop a web site with the dual purposes of promulgating the existence of the project and inviting interested parties to communicate with the authors. The survey letter and questionnaire were made available on the web site for any stakeholders not previously identified to enable them to respond (through e-mail, fax or postal services) in the same way as our known stakeholders. However, communication arising from a visit to the web site was not restricted to completion of the questionnaire as visitors were able to respond in any way that they felt appropriate. To encourage interested parties to visit the web site, the project has provided, and continues to provide, a feedback section which is periodically updated. The web site is accessed via the Institute site (<www.sri.bbsrc.ac.uk>) and the project has its own dedicated e-mail address (sri.rops@bbsrc.ac.uk). The web site has generated about 100 responses and continues to attract interest. 2.1.4.3. Personal contacts The personal contacts of the project leader were probably the most valuable sources of information outside the questionnaire survey. These enabled specific concerns that arose to be pursued in greater depth and to add value to this report. The favourable attitude of the industry towards the improvement of ROPS standards, particularly through the investigation of commonalities and possible rationalisation, led to an opportunity for presenting the purpose of the project and the aims of the questionnaire to the European Community experts at the Vertical Group Committee VG12 (Madrid, May 2000). Discussing the project at this forum has advertised further that this research is being undertaken. This should raise interest in the final report and the network will greatly assist in the dissemination of the project's findings.

16

2.2 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES The questionnaire was sent out to 160 people and, to date, 31 survey responses (19.4%) from 13 countries have been received. The complete set of responses, edited to preserve anonymity, is included as Appendix 2. All questions elicited comments, but the questions relating to research and draft standards (Q2a and Q2b) generated less information than the others. The numbers of comments received on each of the questions (see section 2.1.1) are shown in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 also shows how many respondents did not submit any answers to the questions.

Fig 2.1 Analysis of ROPS survey responses

The best response rate (87%) was for Question 1. The complete list of ROPS standards nominated is given in Appendix 1. Question 3 elicited 15 responses referring to work on the development of standards. Further details on these contacts has been withheld to protect the anonymity of the sources. For Question 4, nearly 70 % of the respondents stated that they were aware of machine types or specific machines which are not covered by current published ROPS standards, but the fitment of ROPS type structures is required. More details of these are given in section 2.3 below. Questions 5 and 6 regarding the use of computers were "open" and elicited responses that could be approximately categorised six ways. The analysis of these responses is dealt with separately in section 5.2. Question 7 was also open and prompted 39% of the respondents to comment. 2.3 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESPONSES 2.3.1 Q1. Please list published ROPS standards that are used by or known to your organisation.

0

10

20

30

Q1 Q2a Q2b Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7Question

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

Comments receivedNo comments received

17

Fig 2.2 Standards in each market sector

Details of the number of standards referenced and their corresponding market sectors are shown in Figure 2.2. Sixty four different test standards were given in the responses, but these included some which were only associated with ROPS (such as FOPS, DLV and SIP). The number that were specifically ROPS was 51. These were distributed across the sectors as shown in figure 2.2. The sum of the columns in fig 2.2 exceeds 51 because some standards apply in more than one sector. For example, the 14 standards in the earthmoving sector include four which are also applicable to the mining sector. Two draft standards were mentioned - one for earthmoving and one for amenities. Summaries of the 51 ROPS standards are given in Appendix 1. 2.3.2 Q2a. Please list research papers that are used by or known to your organisation. The lack of responses to this question suggests that not many organisations are involved in research papers or there is not much research currently taking place. Q2b. Please list draft standards that are used by or known to your organisation. The lack of responses to this question suggests that not many organisations are aware of draft standards or there is not many standards being revised at present. 2.3.3 Q3. Do you or does your organisation have information on work undertaken to develop any of the standards/documents identified in questions 1 and 2? If so, can you please supply a contact name and a telephone number etc. Fifteen responses included reference to work on the development of standards. These contacts were pursued for more detailed information about test standard development. However, further details of these contacts cannot be given to protect the anonymity of the data.

0

10

20

30

Agriculture Forestry Earthmoving Amenities Industrial Mining

Sector

Num

ber o

f sta

ndar

dsDraft standardsStandards

18

2.3.4 Q4. Are you aware of machine types or specific machines which are not covered by current published ROPS standards, but the fitment of ROPS type structures is required? (Photos or technical literature would be appreciated) Sixty five percent of the responses identified machines that were not covered by current standards from the Forestry, Agriculture, Earthmoving and Amenities market sectors. There was only one reference to problems within the Industrial market sector. The distribution across market sectors of machines considered to be not covered by current standards is shown in Figure 2.3.

Fig 2.3 Incidence of machines not covered by current standards

2.3.4.1 Forestry Market Sector: Two main types of machine were listed within the Forestry market sector – those of excavator type or based harvesters and tractor harvesters. In addition specialised feller bunchers and general purpose All Terrain Vehicles were listed. Four responses did not specify a machine type. Categories of machines in the Forestry market sector are shown in Figure 2.4

Fig 2.4

Machine types not covered in the forestry sector

0

1

2

3

4

Excavator harvester Feller buncher ATV Tractor harvester

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

0

4

8

12

Agriculture Forestry Earthmoving Amenities Industrial Other

Sector

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

19

2.3.4.2 Agriculture Market Sector Three main types of machine were listed within the Agriculture market sector – those of tractor type: mainly compact tractors but also high-speed tractors and All Terrain Vehicles. Two responses did not specify a machine type. One respondent provided a diagram of a small rear-engined tractor for which it had been difficult to identify a suitable ROPS standard. Categories of machines in the agricultural market sector are shown in Figure 2.5.

Fig 2.5 Machine types not covered in the agricultural sector

2.3.4.3 Earthmoving market sector Three main types of machine were listed within the Earthmoving market sector. These were dumper type, mainly small site dumpers but also rigid frame dumpers, and excavators with 360º rotation. Categories of machines in the Earthmoving market sector are shown in Figure 2.6.

Fig 2.6 Machine types not covered in earthmoving / construction sector

0

2

4

Compact tractors ATVs High speed tractors

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

0

2

4

6

8

Excavators Small site dumpers Rigid frame dumpers

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

20

2.3.4.4 Amenities Market Sector Two main types of machine were listed - grass-cutters (primarily) and sweepers. Three responses did not specify a machine type. Categories of machines in the Amenities market sector are shown in Figure 2.7.

Fig 2.7

Machine types not covered in the industrial and amenities sectors 2.3.4.5 Industrial market sector Only one type of machine was listed –forklifts. Categories of machine in the Industrial market sector are also shown in Figure 2.7. 2.3.4.6 Discussion The survey revealed several respondents, assumed to be knowledgeable within their sectors, to be ignorant of published standards applicable to their machines. For example, a number of respondents seemed unaware that high-speed and compact tractors (e.g. see fig 2.8) could be tested and approved in accordance with the relevant OECD Codes. This somewhat surprising finding is attributed to the number and complexity of standards associated with the testing of ROPS. A summary of the machine types reported to be not covered by ROPS standards is shown in Table 2.1. Three machine types occur in more than one sector. This may be attributable to the same basic machine type being adapted for use in different sectors. An example of this is given in fig 2.9, showing an industrial machine working in a forest.

Table 2.1 Types of machine in each sector not covered by current standards

Machine Type Forestry Agriculture Earthmoving Amenities IndustrialExcavators X X Compact tractors X X ATVs X X Dumpers X Ride-on equipment X Forklifts X

0

2

4

6

R id e - o nla w n m o w e r s ( A m )

R id e - o n s w e e e p e r s( A m )

F o r k l i f t ( I n d )

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es

21

Design information for machines types in Table 2.1:

Excavators - tractor-based machines with 360-degree rotation used in Earthmoving and Forestry applications (e.g. see fig 2.10). Tractors - both compact and high-speed versions used in agriculture and agricultural tractors fitted with harvesting equipment for use in forestry. All-Terrain Vehicles - used in both forestry and agricultural applications (e.g. see fig 2.11).

Dumpers - both compact and rigid-frame versions used for earthmoving (e.g. see figs 2.12 and 2.13). Ride-on equipment - both grass-cutters and sweepers, used in the Amenities sector (e.g. see figs 2.14 and 2.15). Forklifts - used in the Industrial sector (e.g. see fig 2.16).

2.3.5 Q7. Any other information or points you wish to raise. Most of the information that was received related to the difficulties of using ROPS standards, as already indicated above (e.g. see figs 2.2 and 2.3), and the possible loopholes that can result. Difficulties of interpreting the standards inhibit their correct application and may, therefore, defeat their aims. There were implicit and explicit requests for the procedures to be simplified and / or rationalised. Two of the respondents raised the need for better operator training and better guidance in the PUWER regulations concerning the use of machines on slopes. From the responses given, the Forestry sector seems to have the greatest percentage of machine types for which respondents find difficulty in identifying a suitable test standard. Looking at common machines across different market sectors, three types are evident: tractors (which are similar in construction but are used in different applications - e.g. see fig 2.9), excavators and ATVs – the last two being very different in construction but still requiring some form of operator protection.

Figure 2.8

Compact tractor

22

Figure 2.9 Tractor base unit used in forestry

Figure 2.10 Excavator

Figure 2.11 All-terrain vehicle (ATV)

23

Figure 2.12 Compact dumper

Figure 2.13 Site dumper

Figure 2.14 Grass-cutter

24

Figure 2.15 Sweeper

Figure 2.16 Forklift

2.4 UNSOLICITED RESPONSES One respondent submitted information on the theme of the questionnaire but the points he wished to raise did not match the questions. He commented in general that standards do not take sufficient account of users' experiences and that, furthermore, there is not a suitable framework or procedure to enable this to happen. He then drew attention to specific problems that he had encountered with roll-over protection on machines used in the forestry sector. The effectiveness of ROPS will be reduced when they do not inhibit multiple roll-overs (e.g. if they contribute to a more rounded profile). In other words, when the combined shape of cab and basic machine permits the vehicle to continue rolling over. A second point that he made was that ROPS seem to offer a reduced level of protection when there is a component of forward motion. The importance of longitudinal loading is a subject that is currently being addressed in a research project funded by the HSE. In a more reflective tone, the respondent expressed views on the relevance of ROPS for certain types of equipment. He felt that really small or really large machines should be

25

subject to more thorough risk assessments which should lead to the identification of alternative means of providing operator safety. These include assessing (and increasing, if necessary) operator competence or merely finding another way of doing the task. Although specific reasons were not given, the authors' interpretation is that very large plant would be unlikely to roll over and the fitting of a structure to a small machine could considerably increase the possibility of its overturning. Nevertheless, most ride-on equipment, particularly excavators, should be constructed so that a ROPS can be fitted (or retro-fitted). Excavators and excavator-based harvesters may be regarded as a special case because the boom could offer some roll-over protection. This, however, depends on a number of factors and there is evidence from Japan showing that the boom can contribute to cab damage, particularly when the cab hits the ground first in a roll-over. The whole issue of ROPS protection on excavators and their derivatives warrants further research. The issue of more thorough risk assessment implies a degree of site specificity. When a ride-on machine is expected to work on and travel across a site, the site features (ridges, water courses, marshy areas, overhead power lines) should all be considered as well as the machine characteristics and average gradients. Operator controlled variables such as speed, angles of approach to gradients, position of boom etc should also be considered. All these variables can be analysed and then should be combined in such a way that the risk of the machine overturning, either when stationary or when travelling along the selected route, is minimised. There may be scope for an electronic intervention here to provide warnings to the operator or, maybe, to delineate "no go" areas.

26

3. APPLICABILITY OF STANDARDS TO DIFFERENT MACHINE TYPES

3.1 MACHINE TYPES In order to generate a list of machine types, to meet objective 1.2.2), several processes were used. These included: �� known definitions using standard terminology from published sources (see section 1.4) �� a group of engineers being assembled at SRI and asked to list types of machines of

which they had experience or knowledge �� trawling through trade brochures and magazines for details of exotic or less well known

machines. The following market sectors were identified: Agriculture, Forestry, Earthmoving, Amenities, Industrial and Mining. The machines were listed using the hierarchy shown below, given in the ISO 6165:1997 standard for earthmoving machinery (see section 1.4 Definitions, for further explanation).

Machine - family Machine - mode Machine - type

The numbers of machine families in each market sector are shown in Table 3.1

Table 3.1 Machine Families within each Market Sector

Market Sector Number of Machine Families

Agriculture 28 Amenities 14

Earthmoving 10 Forestry 26 Industrial 15 Mining 16

There are 89 machine types identified in the preceding sections. Of these 89, only 45 machine types are directly associated with specific standards or draft standards. These are given in figures 3.1a to 3.1c, showing the numbers of standards in each sector applicable to each machine type (objective 1.2.2). Note the different scale for the ordinate on Figure 3.1c. This is to accommodate the large number of standards, 36 across all sectors, applicable to tractors. However, the 15 standards associated with the forestry tractor sector apply also to the agricultural tractor sector. The numbers shown on figure 3.1c for the industrial and agricultural sectors are applicable in their respective sectors only. A listing of the standards applicable to tractors for each sector is given in Table 3.2. This gives an idea of the potential confusion that may occur in identifying or selecting appropriate protection, even for a single sector. It should be noted that, in the most rapidly growing sector - amenities, no directly applicable published standards have been identified. Furthermore, if an amenity vehicle is regarded as being similar to a tractor, which of the many possible standards should be applied?

27

Fig 3.1a Machine types with associated standards

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Backh

oe-lo

ader

Bucke

t-bun

cher

Cable

crane

/yarde

rChip

per

Cleane

r

Compa

ct tra

ctor

Compa

ctor

Crossc

utter-

bunc

her

Crushe

rDeli

mber

Delimbe

r-bun

cher

Dozer

Dump t

rucks

Dumpe

rExc

avato

r

Machine types (1 -15)

No.

of s

tand

ards

acc

ordi

ng to

sec

tor

AgricultureAmenitiesEarthmovingForestryIndustrialMining

28

Fig 3.1b Machine types with associated standards

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Feller

Feller/

bunc

her

Feller-

bunc

her/fo

rward

er/s

Rough

terra

in for

k-lift

Forward

erGrad

erHarv

ester

Hydrau

lic sh

ovels

Limbe

rLo

ader

Log l

oade

r

Materia

l han

dler

Mower

Proces

sor

Pruner

Machine types (16 - 30)

No.

of s

tand

ards

acc

ordi

ng to

sec

tor

AgricultureAmenitiesEarthmovingForestryIndustrialMining

29

Fig 3.1c Machine types with associated standards

0

10

20

30

40

Regen

eratio

n equ

ipmen

tRoll

erScra

per

Shuttle

-car

Site pr

epara

tion e

quipm

ent

Skidde

r

Skidste

er loa

der

Slashe

r/buc

ker/c

rossc

utter

Slashe

r-bun

cher

Stump g

rinde

rTrac

torTran

sport

erTren

cher

Walking

mac

hine

Wheele

d loa

ders

Machine types (31 - 45)

No.

of s

tand

ards

acc

ordi

ng to

sec

tor

AgricultureAmenitiesEarthmovingForestryIndustrialMining

30

Table 3.2 Standards applying to tractors according to sector of use

Sector Standards Notes / comments

Industrial AS 2294.1; AS 2294.2; EN 13510:2000; CSA B352.0; CSA B352.1; CSA B352.2; ISO 3471; JIS A8910; OSHA 1926:1000; OSHA 1926:1001; OSHA 1926:1002; SAE J1040

A total of 12.

Agricultural AS 1636.1; AS 1636.2; AS 1636.3; ASAE S519; ASAE S383.1; CSA B352.0; CSA B352.1-95; EEC 77/536; EEC 79/622; EEC 86/298; EEC 87/402; ISO 122003-1; ISO 12003-2; ISO 3463; ISO 5700; OECD Code 3; OECD Code 4; OECD Code 6; OECD Code 7; OECD Code 8; OSHA 1928.51; OSHA 1928.52; OSHA 1928.53; SAE J1194; SAE J2194

A total of 25, most of which are also applicable in the forestry sector, but no agricultural standards are explicitly applicable in the earthmoving / construction sector.

Forestry CSA B352.0; CSA B352.2; EEC 77/536; EEC 79/622; EEC 86/298; EEC 87/402; ISO 122003-1; ISO 12003-2; ISO 3463; ISO 5700; OECD Code 3; OECD Code 4; OECD Code 6; OECD Code 7; OECD Code 8

A total of 15, all of which also apply in the Forestry sector.

Not specified ASAE S478 Three Russian standards were reported by the survey respondents, but the machines and sectors to which they applied were not identified. Similarly, four of the five Japanese standards were reported without machine types and sectors being specified. Subsequently, these were found to be taken directly from the OECD Codes (Standards). ASAE S478 applies to "compact utility tractors" (i.e. mass less than 1800 kg) but the sector is not specified. The machine types for which there appears to be no standard or draft in any sector are listed in Table 3.3 (objective 1.2.2).

Table 3.3 Machine types across all sectors with no associated standards or draft standards

ATV (quad bike)* Field gantry Shunter Blower Floater Skip loader Bolting machine Floor cleaner Snow-mobile Bucket-chain excavator Fullface borer Sprayer Cable-operated mining

shovels Go-kart** Spreader

Cherry picker Golf buggy Stripping shovels Chewing gum remover Line-marker Sweeper Combine harvester Longwall shearer Tanker Compost turners Mantrips(personnel carriers) Tow truck Container handler Mixer waggon Tunnel borers Crane Paver Turf cutter/harvester Cutting head borers Personnel carrier Utility vehicle Die puller Piste former Verge cutter Digging arm loaders Planer XER Dragline excavator Rotary blast drilling rig

* ATVs have been the subject of a considerable amount of research work (e.g. see Allinson and Crichton, 1997) but, as yet, no standard has been published. ** Go-karts are included in Motorsport Directives.

31

3.2 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS In principle, all ROPS standards aim to protect the operator's working volume by providing a structure which, in the event of an overturn, ensures this volume is not violated, thereby preventing the operator from being crushed between the machine and the ground or from being compromised by deflection of the structure. The key demands on a ROPS are, therefore, that it is sufficiently strong to both withstand the impact forces and absorb the energy which the impact generates without undue deflection. ROPS tests are conducted to observe the behaviour of the structure on impact, or simulated impact, and the standards set out the procedures which must be followed and the pass / fail criteria upon completion of these procedures. Because the impact forces will depend on the size of the machine and the energy absorption will depend on the speed and direction of travel, the test procedures take these variables into account. However, the relatively small number of design variants that standards needed to accommodate when they were being developed (as discussed in section 1) and, as indicated by the survey respondents identifying many cases when the selection of ROPS standard was not self-evident (section 2.3.4), these test procedures and criteria need to be reviewed in the light of current needs. It is not the purpose of this report to examine or summarise the details of these procedures or criteria, but, as indicated by objective 1.2.1, to provide an overview of application of the standards might be clarified or rationalised. A full listing of all the ROPS standards found is given in Appendix 1. However, nearly all of these have been produced as a derivative or an offshoot of some previous standard, as reference to Tables 1.1 and 1.2 verifies. To understand how the 51 standards given in Appendix 1 came into being and how they may be inter-related, it would be helpful to introduce the concept of foundation and derivative standards and, thereby, get a better grasp of their evolution. Some standards are, in fact, identical and others are very closely based on their precursors. As discussed in section 1.5, the earliest recognition of the need for ROPS, and hence the development of testing standards took place, virtually independently, for earthmoving machines in the USA and for agricultural tractors in Scandinavia. In USA the process was driven by the needs of the construction industry, leading to standards primarily for earthmoving machines, and steered by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers). In Sweden and Norway, closely followed by the UK and New Zealand and then other European countries, it was the agricultural sector that dominated ROPS standards development, mainly for tractors. The need for ROPS in the agricultural sector was not formally recognised by most of the agricultural equipment manufacturers until some years later (Gehlhausen, 1991). The foundation standard for the construction industry may be regarded as SAE J320, published in 1967 for scrapers. This provided the basis for four standards two years later for scrapers (SAE J320a), wheeled front-end loaders/dozers (SAE J394), crawler tractors/loaders (SAE J395) and graders (SAE J396). These have then been developed further through the process of revisions to SAE J1040b in 1974 which stipulated performance criteria for ROPS for construction, earthmoving, forestry and mining machines. SAE standards have also been used by other standards organisations as bases for their own standards. The international standard ISO 3471:1980 for earthmoving machinery, specifically, was derived from the earlier SAE standards but could now be considered a foundation standard itself. Meanwhile, SAE J1040 has continued to be revised and still applies to the types of machine listed above. The forestry standard ISO 8082 is also derived from ISO 3471:1986/1. In the agricultural sector, after tractor roll-over experiments in Europe (and New Zealand), the first OEEC (now OECD) test code (standard) was produced, and adopted by Sweden in 1959. In 1966, the UK introduced BS 4063 but testing was not compulsory. In 1970,

32

several European countries adopted OECD Code 3 (testing of ROPS on agricultural and forestry tractors using the dynamic method) and SAE produced a test procedure for operator protection on agricultural and industrial tractors. In 1974 the SAE published standards for agricultural tractors and the process of revising OECD Code 3 commenced. In 1976, a year after ISO 3471 first appeared, OECD Code 4, official testing of ROPS on agricultural and forestry tractors by the static method was introduced. 3.3 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STANDARDS The relationships between standards can be seen from the cross-tabulations given in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 below, referring to static and dynamic test standards respectively. For convenience of presentation, the relationships are coded into roughly equivalent categories. The key codes are explained in Table 3.6. BS Standards have not been listed because the UK takes international standards and renumbers them as appropriate. This practice is also followed in other countries. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 must be read from left hand column only because certain standards have statements identifying other standards that are technically equivalent (foundation standards) but the arrangement is not reciprocal (i.e. foundation standards do not refer to their derivatives). 3.3.1 Static Test Standards The relationships between the main static test standards are summarised by the codes shown in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Cross-tabulation of static test standards

Static test codes

ISO

5700

AS

1636

.1-1

996

ASA

E S

519

NFU

02-

050

SS IS

O 5

700

OE

CD

Cod

e 4

SAE

J21

94

CSA

B35

2.1-

95

NFU

02-

049

79/6

22/E

EC

Japa

nese

Cod

e IV

ISO5700 - C NC NC LP TE TE C NC TE NC 1AS 1636.1-1996 I - NC NC I TE I NC NC TE NC ASAE S519 TE NC - NC NC TE TE NC NC TE NC NFU 02-050 NC NC NC - NC NC NC NC NC NC NC SS ISO 5700 LP - OECD Code 4 TE C NC NC TE - TE C NC TE NC SAE J2194 I E TE NC NC TE - TE NC TE NC CSA B352.1-95 TE TE NC NC NC NC TE - NC TE NC NFU 02-049 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC - NC NC 79/622/EEC TE C NC NC NC TE TE C NC - NC Japanese Code IV NC NC NC NC NC TE NC NC NC NC -

1Any one test is deemed to comply together with ISO 3741-1 and SAE J1040

33

3.3.2 Dynamic Test Standards The relationships between the main dynamic test standards are summarised by the key codes shown in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Cross-tabulation of dynamic test standards

Dynamic test standards

ISO

346

3

OE

CD

C

ode

3

77/5

37/E

EC

Japa

nese

C

ode

III

SS IS

O

3463

1ISO 3463 - TE TE NC OECD Code 3 TE - TE NC 77/537/EEC TE TE - NC Japanese Code III NC NC NC - SS ISO 3463 LP -

See static table above for information on AS 1636.1 and B352.1-95

Table 3.6 Explanation of key codes in Tables 3.4 and 3.5

Key code

Explanation

I Standards are identical and declared so within the standard, or are deemed to comply TE Standards which have been declared by Silsoe Research Institute or major stake-holders to

offer technically identical test methods and performance levels E Standards are equivalent in terms of intent but differ on technical grounds C Combined static and dynamic codes

NC No comparison possible LP Common numbering of standards s Static test d Dynamic test

Testing to equivalent dynamic or static standards detailed above produces the same level of safety. The dynamic test precedes the static test (see Table 1.2). The numbers of OECD dynamic and static tests performed during the 12-month period ending 31.12.1998 were 3 and 74 respectively. It would be neither appropriate nor justifiable to remove the option to undertake dynamic testing until such a time that no dynamic tests are being undertaken. Or, preserved rights should be offered to the test standards, which are currently affected, for an agreed period (e.g. 10 years). 3.3.3 Alternative Static And Dynamic Standards There are two further groups of test standards, which have been developed for specific or more specialist applications, and are independent of the sets of static and dynamic standards shown in Tables 3.4 and 3.5 above. 1. ASAE S383.1 DEC99 and SAE J1194:1994 are linked together but differ technically

and may thus be classified by relationship ‘E’. The differences occur in the way the test mass is established and in the fact that they utilise only one crush, with no limits on the size of the load distribution device. Thus it has been deemed inappropriate to include them in the tables above. These standards were produced to cover tractor designs for which it was felt that the standard static or dynamic tests were not appropriate

34

2. ASAE 1636.3-1996, OECD Code 6, 87/402/EEC and draft ISO 12003-1 are standards that detail test methods for agricultural tractors fitted with front mounted ROPS. The term front mounted means a frame mounted forward of the drive. Frames mounted in this position tend to be utilised on tractors working on specific areas of agriculture e.g. vineyards, orchards. These standards use a number of base set-up and test parameters of the root static and dynamic list in the Tables above but also have a stability test element, that is unique to this family of standards, and some different performance levels. They are thus classified as ‘E’.

3. SDAS 1636.2-1996, SDOECD Code 7, SD86/298/EEC and draft SDISO 12003-2 are standards that detail test methods for agricultural tractors having a narrow track width. These standards are linked together but differ technically and have thus been classified as ‘E’.

3.3.4 Other Potentially Relevant Test Standards These are standards that have not already been referred to in this section (3.3) but which may interact with the ROPS standards above or which have been nominated by the survey respondents. The details are summarised in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Other potentially relevant test codes / standards

Code Title Equivalents Notes ISO 12117 Earth-moving

machinery Tip over protection structure (TOPS) for compact excavators – laboratory tests and performance requirements

NEN ISO 12117, NF ISO 12117 and SS 12117 are identical

This standard is for the testing of safety structures fitted to compact excavators (operating mass 1000-6000 kg). Due to the maximum speed of the machines and their design it was established within Japan what degree of stability and performance levels a ROPS would need to withstand in the event of an accident. Two tests are required - the side loading being identical to that in ISO 3471 (crawler tractor and loaders). The second loading is optional and is applied from the rear. Other machines outside the earthmoving sector could benefit from this type of standard, when machine characteristics and working environment identify tip-over type accidents only e.g. path sweepers.

OECD Code 8

OECD Standard Code for the official testing of protective structures on agricultural and forestry tracklaying tractors

This standard is based on the ISO 3471:1986 document and includes only side and vertical loadings. These two standards are linked but differ technically and have thus been classified as ‘E’.

ANSI/ASAE S478 JUN00

Roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for compact utility tractors

Compact utility tractor: A small agricultural tractor equipped with a 540rpm rear PTO (ASAE S203.13) and three-point hitch designed for Category 1 (ASAE S217.1) implements only. These tractors generally have a mass as defined in 3.3 less than 1800 kg, have less than 30 PTO kW and are primarily designed and advertised for the use with mowers and light duty material-handling equipment. This standard has been classified as ‘TE’ to SAE J2194. ANSI/ASAE S478 JUN00 has attempted to take the standard agricultural tractor performance requirements and combine them with a different DLV that takes account of seat travel, one of the major problems with small machines.

ASAE X547 draft

ASAE draft standard: X547 Tip-over protective structure (TOPS) for front wheel drive turf and landscape equipment

This standard in its present form has taken much from the ISO5700 type standard and combines it with SAS 1636.2-1996 and the principles established within ISO 12117, in the fact that not all machine are capable of full (360�) rolls. The standard has been classified in category ‘E’.

35

3.4 Current practices Figure 3.2 outlines the process involved in ensuring that a machine has adequate roll-over protection. The process itself is straightforward (although each box may imply a significant amount of effort) when the machine is of a clearly defined type (see definitions, section 1.4) and is clearly associated with a ROPS standard. When this is not the case, i.e. commonality does not exist, the process has to follow a different path and becomes less straightforward.

Fig 3.2 Outline of ROPS certification process

Although, for convenience, there is strong motivation to establish commonality, the expansion in the number of small, purpose-built machines, is causing an increasing number of manufacturers going down the "commonality does not exist" branch (or loop).

36

Failure to make the correct decision when determining commonality can bring about a number of undesirable situations, as indicated below. �� Safety system is over-engineered and thus unnecessarily expensive. �� Manufacturers may have problems in justifying a reduction in protection performance

(in order to be commercially competitive) even if safety is not jeopardised. �� Even when an adequate safety system has been fitted and tested, it may not be

acceptable because of prejudices (e.g. ROPS being the only legally defensible solution) or insurance stipulations.

In cases where there is no commonality, the system may have been designed and tested to pass the criteria set down, but the criteria could have been flawed.

37

4. ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT ROPS ROPS originated through the desire to prevent drivers being crushed when their vehicles overbalanced or overturned. As can be seen from the history of standards and the evolution of machinery sections (1.5 and 1.6 respectively), the vehicles at risk of overturning whilst the use of protective structures was becoming established as the recognised form of safety device, were all very similar in design and resembled an old industrial or agricultural tractor. In this context a metal structure fixed to a relatively heavy vehicle with a fairly high centre of gravity was an obvious and workable solution. However, the range of vehicles which may need operator protection in the event of a roll-over has expanded enormously over recent years and the variety of designs, especially of lighter mobile machinery, has grown almost exponentially. This brings into question whether the fitting of a ROPS is now the panacea it was once considered. The question will become increasingly pertinent as alternatives to the conventional structure find their way into the market-place, usually through other applications. A considerable list of alternatives, at various stages of commercial development, has been compiled partly through discussions with SRI staff and partly from the authors' prior knowledge. The alternative concepts (objective 1.2.3), based on prevention from overbalance and protection after overbalance, are listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 respectively, together with some qualifying information. The picture that emerges from these two Tables is that more opportunities seem to exist for vehicles at the smaller or lighter end of the spectrum. There may be several (interacting) reasons for this: �� there is now a greater variety of smaller machines outside the jurisdiction of the

Machinery Code for which protective devices are required; �� it is easier (i.e. less structurally demanding) to engineer protection for a smaller

machine than a bigger machine; �� where a conventional ROPS might formerly have been used, the market now demands

greater sophistication (e.g. Mercedes and Volvo, C70, sports cars3); �� air bag technology has been developed for the automobile sector.

The concept of the pop-up ROPS, similar to the current application in sports cars, for a tractor (agricultural) has been investigated (Powers et al, 2001) by the Division of Safety Research at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). They have developed a (prototype) automatically deploying, telescoping ROPS intended primarily for low-clearance situations. If an imminent overturn is sensed, the retracted ROPS will deploy and lock in position before ground contact. The AutoROPS, which depends on the use of two sub-systems (a ROPS that is normally latched in its lower position and a sensor that monitors the operating angle of the tractor), has been tested, with some success, in accordance with SAE J2194. Liu (1988)4 also did some work along similar lines by developing a stability index. The index was derived from three axes of potential instability (both static and dynamic) - lateral, longitudinal and lateral turning. It was evaluated in 35 field tests, some in accordance with ASAE S519. He commented that his findings should be beneficial to the development of deployable ROPS. Difficulties may be foreseen in pursuing some of these prevention and protection concepts. In the case of an air bag, for example, the operator could be put at serious risk because a bag that would be effective in the case of a roll-over would almost certainly prevent operator control of the machine. Other concerns include the speed with which a device could be activated and the consequences of a false activation. In the 1960s, in New Zealand, resistance to the fitting of safety frames led to research into anti-roll devices, particularly devices triggered by angle-sensitive switches. This research was abandoned when it was felt the time for effective action was too short (i.e. trigger too slow) and the view that excessive angle was seldom what initiated an overturn (Garden, personal communication). However, 3 <www2.car.volvo.se/vpc/press/releaser/980303e9.htm> 4 see http://lamar.colostate.edu/~jhliu/abstract.html

38

this preceded the work by Powers et al (op. cit.) by three decades and advances in technology may now provide sufficiently fast triggering devices and protection mechanisms. There is also the non-engineering approach to roll-over protection - that is to examine the risk(s) and devise a safe method of working to avoid or minimise the risk. This must include a full risk assessment with due consideration of the competence of the operator. The supervisor, preferably accompanied by the operator, should examine the terrain and identify any obvious risks (e.g. wet / soft areas, rocky outcrops, undulations / ridges, water-courses etc) and agree how to deal with them. These may include safe speed of travel, angle of approach, effect of attachments or trailed equipment etc. The New Zealand Approved Code of Practice for Roll Over Protective Structures on Tractors (Anon, 2001) lays considerable emphasis on the management of the risk and not exclusively on the fabrication and fitting of a protective device. The management actions include: i) restricting the use of the machine on the basis of operator competence, ii) using a different machine, iii) restricting how the machine is used, or iv) undertaking the task in a different way. Although compliance is not mandatory, the Approved Codes of Practice embody current good practice and can serve as legal reference documents. The New Zealand Approved Code of Practice recommends that all tractors for agricultural operations should have a ROPS (performance standards acceptable in New Zealand are given in an Appendix) and the wearing of seat belts is also recommended. The risk management oriented approach has also been strongly advocated by one of the survey respondents (from UK). Another approach, operational with an engineering component, might be to undertake a risk assessment identifying different levels of risk in different locations of the work area. If the results were used in conjunction with a location monitoring device, the operator could be warned, for example, when moving from a low risk to a high risk area. This would not necessarily have to be machine-specific if stability factors were entered into the software, enabling the “black box” to be moved from machine to machine. It should be possible for the operator to be prompted to enter variables, such as weather conditions, if certain variables could affect the stability index. Incorporating a "risk map" into a GPS (geographical positioning system) should not present any major difficulties and, in an extreme case, could be linked to an engine cut-out to prevent entry to a very high risk area. Such a system would be well suited to mowing a golf course, for example, where the topography was fully charted (if not pre-designed). In the "no go" areas (likely to be small), the operator could use a walk-behind mower. All-terrain vehicles (ATV) are a special case of ride-on machinery and roll bars are not recommended for sit-astride ATVs (i.e. quad bikes), although they are for sit-in ATVs (Anon, 2000a). However, even for sit-in ATVs, PUWER may not require roll bar protection where it may increase the overall risk, such as for amphibious use. For sit-astride ATVs the most important form of operator protection is a helmet. The most appropriate type is a motorcycle helmet (to BS 6658:1985), giving top and side protection but other forms of headgear (e.g. equestrian, cyclist helmets) would be better than nothing. Recent research, commissioned by the HSE has indicated, through the use of mathematical modelling, that the disadvantages of fitting ROPS to sit-astride ATVs outweigh the advantages (Tyler-Street, 1999). In situations such as these, where providing (mechanical) protection is proving so problematic, training, as a means of prevention is strongly advocated, in addition to the use of helmets (Anon, 2000b). Despite the value of training, it should not be regarded as a panacea. Gehlhausen, (1991) expressed the view very clearly that education is not the answer, stating that " Education has done more to hurt our cause than to help it, as it convinces people that much is being done to reduce safety and the underlying hazards or causes are not attacked. Education in the last 50 years has not decreased our death rate."

39

Table 4.1 Methods of preventing overbalancing

Concept Existing application Potentially suitable for: Commercial status Comments

Chassis suspension system - springs, dampers, tyre selection

All road and some off-road vehicles.

All machines (but cost-effectiveness may be questioned).

Widely adopted Would make only marginal improvement; further protection would be required. May introduce other problems.

Active suspension system A few road and off-road vehicles.

All machines (but cost-effectiveness may be questioned).

Commercially proven. Suspension could be tuned to extend safe working range e.g. accommodation of pot-holes.

Stability aids, e.g. outriggers (solid or air-bags)

Usually for stationary machines, rarely for moving machines (except in drag racing).

Most machines, but may be difficult to accommodate in smallest machines.

Trials on tractors but not adopted (ref - New Zealand research). Recent results from USA promising

Could be activated by operator or automatically. Solid outriggers could be extended (and controlled) by operator on risky terrain.

Design machine with very low centre of gravity.

Location of batteries in fork-lift trucks. (Ship counterbalance)

Most machines not requiring good ground clearance (but rarely applicable).

Adopted but not in all machine sectors.

Lowering C of G by strategically adding mass may make machine unnecessarily heavy. Attached equipment modifies overturning risk.

Traction control Road and off-road vehicles. Most machines. Commercially proven. Would make only marginal improvement; further protection would be required. Research into combined benefits of traction control and active suspension may suggest promising options.

Operator training Widely but inconsistently used and to varying levels of competence and formality.

All machines. Commercially proven. Difficult to evaluate. Training should include ability to assess risks as well as control of machinery. Hands-on tuition or reference to handbook (self-training)

Mapping risks on to a positioning system

"Patch" spraying All machines in charted areas Commercially proven Use of GPS Research required to integrate machine stability assessment with location.

40

Table 4.2 Methods of protection after overbalancing

Concept Existing application Potentially suitable for: Commercial status Comments

Structural protective devices incorporated into operator's seat to give specific, localised protection

Motor sports Light machines; strength of device would have to be related to machine mass (as for ROPS).

Needs development to market. Research required to ascertain level of protection afforded.

Air bag around seat Cars - air bags in front of (or beside?) seats.

Small ride-on machines (ref machine mass).

Widely adopted but for protection in one direction only.

Beneficial in automobile sector. Research required for suitability for ride-on machines without cabs Durability in multiple roll-overs may be an issue.

Break-away cab Not known Medium to large size machines Not known Force required to effect break-away could be as harmful as roll-over impact. Cab could travel further and faster; could be more vulnerable in isolation. May introduce bystander risks.

Use of other energy-absorbing components that reduce demands on cab specification.

No specific devices but integrated into machine design

All machines Accepted concept Account for energy absorption in standards. Test codes may consider cab as separate unit, but considering cabs in isolation may result in over-testing.

Pop-up protective guard High performance cars Small to medium size machines Adopted - e.g. Mercedes-Benz , Volvo sports cars.

In effect, a ROPS but not permanently in place.

Remote control Many types of vehicle. Most machines Widely adopted in hazardous environments

Introduces different risks which may be far more costly to control (especially for larger machines).

Helmets Many occupations All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) Widely adopted where head injury an accepted risk.

Marginally reduces risk of severe head injuries but most other types of injury hardly affected.

Explosive devices Not known -- Trialed but not proven. Could cause other safety problems

41

5. USE OF COMPUTERS 5.1 LITERATURE REVIEW The development of computer technology, particularly in relation to memory and processing speed, has both permitted and encouraged many engineering applications which would not have been imagined when the Standards were being formulated. Computer-aided design and finite element analysis packages would appear to lend themselves well to ROPS design, analysis and testing but, to date, computers have been used extensively for design and analysis only. This section, which briefly reviews the use of computers associated with ROPS, addresses objective 1.4. An International Conference held at the time when static deflection tests were beginning to replace pendulum tests (Anon, 1979) concluded inter alia that satisfactory analytical procedures were available for the computer design of safety structures. Hopkins and Walters (1979) reported the use of two computer programs based on elastic and plastic theories to predict deflections. One reported shortcoming was the inability of the programs to account for cold weather embrittlement. Wardill (1979) described the application of a finite element program to predict the behaviour of a collapsing structure with particular attention to large, non-linear displacements. However, Wardill also warned that a purely theoretical approach to large displacement analysis was not satisfactory. In the same Proceedings, Chisholm (1979) reported on research combining mathematical modelling and full-scale experiments with the aim of developing a design and strength test criteria for ROPS. The subsequent computer program handled the simulation of overturns down steep banks and multiple rolls, based on force and displacement equations for the ground surface, ROPS and other relevant parts of the tractor. Rehkugler et al. (1975) reported use of the SIMTRAC device to adequately simulate tractor overturning. It is not clear from the Abstract whether this was achieved through mathematical / computer modelling or through similitude modelling (e.g. see Srivastava et al., 1978). The use of elastic-plastic behaviour models incorporated into software programs was discussed by Easter (1977). Applying the models required a fairly high level of engineering knowledge and usually gave reasonable correlations with experimental results. As experience of using such techniques increases, correlations were expected to improve. Hunckler et al. (1985) reported the use of non-linear finite element analysis (NASTRAN) to assist the designer in optimising the balance between stiffness (to meet the force requirement) and flexibility (to meet the energy requirement). The authors recommended investing in software development because, in a five to ten year period, the experience gained and the lower demand for physical tests would reduce the cost of cab / ROPS development substantially. Hunckler et al. (1985) recommended explicitly that physical testing should not be eliminated. Ayers et al. (1994) developed a mathematical model to predict specified deflections on one- and two-post ROPS from various tractor and ROPS parameters. The authors concluded that the model met their objectives but that the results were less conservative than those from laboratory tests. Their model could be used in conjunction with a finite element analysis to generate force vs deflection data to assist with ROPS design. The use of computer simulation to assess the performance of roll-bars for earth moving machinery, particularly in retrofit situations, has been reported by Altamore et al. (1996).

42

They concluded that static or dynamic computer models (in their case ABAQUS and MADYMO with the example of a crawler dozer) offered accurate methods for assessing ROPS performance criteria against Australian Standard AS 2294. It could be inferred that the authors were suggesting that compliance may be achieved / achievable through computer simulation. Kawakami and colleagues from Kubota also advocate the use of computer assistance to reduce the time and costs involved in the development of ROPS (Kawakami et al., 1998). A project carried out in 1999, commissioned by the EU, examined options for technical safeguards against mobile plant roll-over (Elbracht et al., 1999). This involved use of the ADAMS multibody simulation program and used a tilting fork-lift truck as an example. In their evaluation of the simulation results, the authors stated that ADAMS allowed accurate statements of velocity and time values to be made, but they were unable to determine forces at the moment of impact without experimental data. The Fiat Research Centre also uses computer technology to reduce development time and costs. As reported by Montiglio and Blarasin (2000), the design of tractor and earth moving machinery cabs are represented in finite element analysis (FEA) firstly to check the structural stiffness and then a dynamic test is carried out, also using FEA, to generate time-history responses of structural loads. This can be extended to dynamic simulations using the ADAMS software. Elsewhere in the light commercial vehicle sector (c 1 tonne), Honiball and Niekerk (2001) have reported that a finite element analysis contributed towards establishment of criteria for a pendulum test. The authors concluded that both FEA and physical testing were viable qualification procedures in the assessment of the structural integrity of commercially manufactured canopies. Harris et al (2000), pursuing concerns over the performance criteria for rearward roll-over in SAE J2194, used FEA techniques for plastic deformation to derive maximum stress values for simulated static and dynamic rear roll-over scenarios. Comparing these scenarios, the static results for maximum stress values in the uprights ranged from 132 % to 93 % of those in the dynamic simulation. The authors concluded that there was a need for further experimental work to characterise ROPS stress levels associated with SAE J2194. Other examples found in the literature relating to the use of mathematical or computer modelling to improve operator safety in an overturn situation include two HSE commissioned research projects on the use of lap-belts (Edwards and Neale, 2000) and on all-terrain vehicles (see section 4) by Tyler-Street (op cit). Ayers (1996) has been using FEA to help determine the suitability of older tractors for the retro-fitting of ROPS. This was one of a number of NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) funded projects involving computer analysis in the design and testing of ROPS in the USA5. Some of these projects also contributed to the "Strategic Alliance" mentioned below. The SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) has recently (no date given) embarked upon an initiative, with industry partners in its "Strategic Alliance", to produce a smart interactive Standard which will eventually fulfil the role of SAE J10406. As the simulation side develops, analysis procedures will progressively displace laboratory testing. It is anticipated that compliance testing will be 50% computer-based within five years and 75% within eight years.

5 for NIOSH web site, go to www.cdc.gov/niosh/toplst.html and then search on "ROPS" 6 www.sae.org/technicalcommittees/j1040rops.htm

43

5.2 RESULTS FROM SURVEY 5.2.1 Question 5 Please summarise your current experiences on the use of computers for evaluating the design/testing of ROPS. This open question generated 36 responses (some respondents covered more than one point) which grouped be categorised six ways. The common themes were as follows. i. Do not use computers (or no response given). ii. Use computers for data processing/analysis/presentation. iii. Use computers as a design tool (Computer-Aided Design). iv. Use computers as an evaluation tool (Finite Element Analysis). v. Use for administration of testing procedure. vi. Computers are not able to meet needs. The distribution of the responses to Question 5 is shown in figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1

Distribution of responses to Question 5

Computers not used / no comment

42%

For data processing etc

11%

As a design tool - CAD8%

As an evaluation tool - FEA

22%

For administration3%

Inadequate to meet needs

14%

44

5.2.2 Question 6 What contribution do you see computers contributing to the design and/or testing of ROPS in the future? This open question generated 34 responses which could be characterised five ways, as follows. i. General use of computers will inevitably increase. ii. Their use as an aid to designers will increase. iii. Can foresee or look forward to computerised accreditation in the near future. iv. Do not foresee computerised accreditation for some time v. No comment The distribution of the responses to Question 6 is shown in figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2

Distribution of responses to Question 6

Computerised certification NOT

foreseen18%

Computerised certification

foreseen9%

Aid to designers will increase

31%

General use will increase

18%

No comment24%

45

6. GENERAL DISCUSSION 6.1 CHAPTER 1 Definitions have been given to minimise ambiguity and to indicate to readers where to find further explanations of specific terms used in ROPS standards. There is very little available history of earthmoving or construction industry standards as most of the development was undertaken in-company and would have been classified as confidential. Contributions to the development of these standards would have been through company representatives' inputs to committees. On the other hand, the early work on ROPS in the agricultural sector was based in countries that had overturning problems due to steep terrain, for example, UK, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. In this small group of countries, the pioneering work in Europe was done in Sweden, with the New Zealand efforts proceeding largely independently. In USA, interest in ROPS in the agricultural sector lagged that in Europe by about 10 years. For the construction sector, however, all the pioneering work was done in USA and this probably explains why standards in the forestry sector tend to be derived from the construction rather than the agricultural sector. The illustrations in section 1.6 have shown some of the changes that have occurred over the last 30 to 40 years. There are imminent technical and commercial developments, such as self-levelling and suspended cabs, which have not been illustrated but which may have even greater repercussions for the application of current ROPS standards. (1.6) Current commercial trends are demanding that a small number of basic machines have a common base designs which are not sector-specific. These are then enhanced to satisfy specific needs within a given sector - for example, a wheeled-loader may be fitted with forks for construction, a bucket for agriculture and log handling equipment for forestry. Currently, these all have different ROPS implications. 6.2 CHAPTER 2 The use of "Access" has provided a very flexible investigative tool. The master tables remain available for interrogation and for clarifying "what if?" scenarios such as: “What if I want to market a wheeled telescopic loader into agriculture, forestry and construction?” The creation of a website has generated contacts previously unknown to SRI. These contacts have been a useful source of additional information for the project. Visits to the website have been encouraged by including and updating information relevant to ROPS design and testing. It is hoped that the website can be maintained after the end of the project. It could provide a link to the published report but, more importantly, offer a feedback route to encourage comments on the report and, subsequently, a world-wide discussion forum. It should aim to promote technical advances and current working practices as the focal point of an international network. The survey revealed a surprising level of ignorance amongst ROPS experts outside their manufacturer's core business, implying how valuable the database is to identify relevant standards.

46

6.3 CHAPTER 3 It was possible to identify 89 machine types, across all sectors, that could be at risk of overturning. Of these, very nearly half were not associated with specific standards or draft standards (see Table 3.2). Although some of these might be regarded as highly specialist or obscure, such a large number which includes increasingly popular machines such as ATVs, cranes, floor cleaners, golf buggies, skip-loaders, sprayers and sweepers, indicates the depth and breadth of the ROPS identification problem. The multiplicity of standards and the differences (sometimes slight) between them for different sectors and, maybe, for different countries are a source of annoyance and frustration. Some of the underlying reasons are discussed in sections 3.2 and 3.3 and the Tables in these two sections provide much clarification on the relationships between most of the key standards. One part of the problem with the development of standards is the ability to keep up with technical progress of machines. Typically, ISO standards have a 5 year review period and the mechanism for modifying the standard to cater for new types of machines is difficult, whereas other approval systems such as OECD have an annual review policy which means that is easier to adapt to technical progress. Another part of the problem is the multiplicity of standards for specific machine types (see Fig 3.1). Information has come to light from specific country standards (e.g. Australia) that are taking ROPS testing standards into the 21st century by trying to rationalise across sectors. However, we have not investigated the technical details involved in adopting this approach. 6.4 CHAPTER 4 It could be fortuitous that the alternatives to ROPS tend to favour smaller machines because fitting a ROPS to relatively light machine will alter its weight distribution. By virtue of its location, a conventional ROPS will almost certainly raise the centre of gravity of the machine, thereby increasing the likelihood of an overbalance or an overturn. However, it would seem that for the heavier vehicles, a ROPS based on the conventional approach would be the most appropriate and effective. The approach of mapping risks on to a computerised positioning system would seem to offer great versatility for protecting not only operators but machines of all sizes. Depending on the location and the topography, in particular, the principal dedicated machine(s) for a task would probably be able to service, say, 90% of the work area, leaving only a very small proportion requiring specialised alternative attention. 6.5 CHAPTER 5 Approximately half the respondents in the survey did not use computers for ROPS work, or declined to comment about their use of computers. Five said that computers did not meet their needs but this may reflect as much on the respondents' resources (both financial and human) as on the state-of-the-art in computing. It is clear that state-of-the-art computing can deliver benefits to designers and manufacturers. For example, Hunckler et al. (1985) recommended that FEA software would be a wise investment and, more recently, two major manufacturers, Kubota and Fiat, have reported this to be the case (see Kawakami et al., 1998 and Montiglio and Blarasin, 2000).

47

Basing the certification process solely on the use of computers was generally not favoured by the respondents or the authors of reports referred to above. Even those advocating or anticipating the wider use of computers did not believe that they could satisfactorily replace the final physical test. About half the respondents could be readily identified as being from manufacturing or testing. The possibility that background might influence the responses to Questions 5 and 6 was examined. With such a small sample, interpretation must somewhat conjectural but the findings suggested that manufacturers use computers more than testers, and the manufacturers use them more for modelling (FEA) whilst the testers use them more for data processing. Despite the manufacturers' greater use of computers, they seemed less confident about computerised certification in the future than did the testers. The current practice of physical testing is a very effective pass / fail technique for certification but is a slow and expensive way of arriving at a successful design. The information provided by finite element methods reduces the time and costs of attaining an acceptable design. However the use of mathematical models and the results of simulation models do not always correlate well with data acquired in the real world. It would seem that more experimental work is required to provide empirical inputs to enable static models to predict the dynamic behaviour of structures during overturning incidents.

48

7. CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Definitions of machines in specific industrial sectors have been given but, with the increasing tendency of manufacturers to diversify from their traditional market sectors, strict adherence to these definitions can be problematic. There are problems with the classification of machines for ROPS testing, especially when a basic machine has been developed for, and marketed in, more than one sector. The most common examples are tractors and telescopic handlers for the agricultural, earthmoving or forestry sectors. 7.2 The compilation of a complete record of test standards, as they have evolved has not been possible because there is no central archive and no formal documentation process. Despite this poor traceability, it is clear that in the early years (1960s), standards for the agricultural sector were developed independently of the other sectors. This remains largely true today. The evolution of standards has been sector-specific and relationships between similar, or “equivalent”, documents are not always easily identified. Some clarification has been possible in certain cases as shown in chapter 3. Further efforts to compare and contrast would be of value to both engineers and legislators but would be difficult to present succinctly. There may be some merit in devoting a world-wide-web page for information and discussion on this topic. 7.3 The evolution of machinery and equipment has outpaced the development of machine classification within the standards as well as across sectors and, hence, the standards themselves. Integrating advances in machine design into the classifications and definitions given within the standards, including between their statutory revision periods, would help rectify this. This is expected to present a greater challenge across sectors than within sectors. 7.4 A questionnaire survey, targeted at key stakeholders, was conducted and the responses held in a relational database. A response rate of nearly 20% ensured that the quality and quantity of information received represented world-wide views and has, therefore, yielded valuable findings. 7.5 The database can be interrogated, responding to queries and re-arranging the information held according to the users' requirements. Thus, any number of "what if" scenarios regarding applicability of standards, technical details, differences between standards can be investigated. 7.6 The survey respondents identified a total of 51 ROPS standards (summarised in Appendix 1), the technical content of which was examined. Comparing the standards revealed various cross-relationships including some that were “identical”. It did, however, become apparent that figures and diagrams within the standards seem to have been selected on the basis of expediency (e.g. borrowed from another, often previous, standard), rather than on accuracy. Amongst the difficulties that have now arisen from this short-cut is how to deal with the shapes of modern cabs, which have evolved from the simple box type structures to rounded and styled designs. The simplistic rectangular representations do not provide sufficiently accurate information on, for example, where measurements should be taken from or load application parameters. 7.7 Types of machines believed not to be covered by current standards were identified by 65% of the respondents. In total there were 44 types of machine thus identified, the majority being relatively small and lightweight. On the other hand, tractors were found to be covered

49

by a total of 36 standards. Such a situation inevitably leads to confusion and difficulties. These numbers are a matter of concern in at least two ways: a. Of these 65%, some of the machine manufacturers or users may have discovered

from their risk assessments that there is no risk of roll-over. If, nevertheless, the fitting of a ROPS is demanded (for example, by Insurance Companies), there may no immediately applicable standard, which leads to uncertainty over the best course of action.

b. The 36 tractor standards include 25 for the agricultural sector. Whilst, in theory, these all offer adequate operator protection in many different circumstances, in practice selection of the most appropriate standard may be hindered by the large number of options. Several standards are "identical" or “equivalent” but there must be scope for further rationalisation. If not, the reasons why they are regarded as not amenable to rationalisation should be clearly stated.

7.8 Examination of the technical requirements (chapter 3) clearly revealed that the tractor provides a link across all sectors, because of the versatility of the base machine. Although the construction and agricultural standards evolved separately, on paper they appear to have strong technical similarities. Further investigation would determine, in practice, whether the operator protection afforded in either sector could be regarded as equivalent. If a link could be established, this would provide sound technical evidence to support the principle of a combined market sector standard. 7.9 The process of securing ROPS certification for a new machine is relatively straightforward if the machine type readily matches the standards’ definitions. The procedure(s) for the test and the pass/fail criteria are specified, although not always clearly and unambiguously. For other machines, the process is more complicated, and this may encourage the adoption of a standard for an inappropriate machine type. Simplification of this process, especially through the development of a new, more versatile test standard, would be of great benefit, particularly to manufacturers, operators and operator safety. The priority for such a development should be for the smaller machines, but not to the exclusion of larger machines. 7.10 Alternatives to the traditional methods of operator protection have been considered. Various options have been identified and their merits and feasibility summarised. At present, many stakeholders regard the only acceptable method of protecting the operator to be the fitting of a ROPS frame, but this approach may be stifling the development of new ideas. With the introduction of new machine designs and advances in other technologies, it is now appropriate to investigate which ideas have genuine potential and to produce evaluation criteria providing stakeholders with independent means of validating the suitability of different means of protection. This would be particularly applicable to manufacturers of small machines, which constitute the majority of machine types not covered by ROPS standards, but should not exclude larger machinery. 7.11 The use of computers in ROPS development is increasing, particularly for design using finite element methods. However, accurate use of finite element analysis (FEA) can be validated only by extensive physical testing together with adjustments to the FEA package. This is possible only for better resourced organisations. As structures become more complicated, the scope for computer-based tests alone to provide certification diminishes. There was considerable reluctance amongst the survey respondents to accept an exclusively computer-based procedure without any associated physical tests.

50

8 RECOMMENDATIONS

The order of presentation is not intended to imply priority. 8.1 The classification of machine types needs to be reconsidered by all ROPS standards committees. The committee structure should be revised to not be sector-specific, thereby leading to a common approach to all machine types across all sectors. 8.2 The use of modern communications (e-mail, world-wide-web) would facilitate the information exchanges required for recommendation 8.1 The web site set up as part of this project could be a starting point but would require management inputs to maintain it. 8.3 More than 40 machine types have been identified that are not explicitly covered by current ROPS standards. The stakeholders (particularly manufacturers and testing organisations) must be assisted in dealing with this wide range of machinery. Implementation of recommendation 8.1 would help address this need. 8.4 Potential opportunities to combine ROPS standards across market sectors exist. Relationships between the tractor standards within the construction (earthmoving) and agricultural sectors appear strongest on paper and should be investigated first. Success in this area would set a strong precedent for extension to other machine types and sectors. 8.5 The use of GPS and associated technology to alert operators to roll-over hazards, or to prevent their machines from entering high risk areas should be investigated. 8.6 The use of the "safe cell" technology offers a number of imaginative approaches as alternatives to traditional structures, particularly for smaller machinery, and should not be overlooked. Their contribution could be invaluable if relevant techniques were validated and became legally acceptable. 8.7 The use of computers in the design and testing of ROPS will increase and should underpin the implementation of the above recommendations, but certification exclusively from a computerised procedure is not yet feasible. 8.8 The above recommendations are based on engineering considerations. Despite the many benefits to the major stakeholders, there may be political influences acting to inhibit implementation of some of the recommendations.

51

9. REFERENCES

Allinson, D and Crichton, O, 1997. ATV roll-over protection feasibility and development. Health and Safety Laboratory, Sheffield, UK Altamore, P, Tomas, J A, Tran, H, Aljundi, B, and Skidmore, M, 1996. Static and dynamic simulation of ROPS for earth moving machinery. SAE Paper 96 -1286, New York Anon, 1979. Summary Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering of Tractor Protective Structures. (Held at Strathmore Hotel, Luton, 18-20 May 1978) Report No. 31, National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, UK. ISSN 0077 4804 Anon, 1998. Safety helmets and training a “must” for TV use says HSE Chief Agricultural Inspector. Press release E261:98 – 30 November 1998, HSE Anon, 1999. Fatal injuries in farming, forestry and horticulture 1998-1999. HSE (C12 7/99) Anon, 2000a. Safe use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) in agriculture and forestry. Agriculture Information Sheet No 33, HSE Anon, 2000b. HSE aims to cut deaths on ATVs with new hard hitting video. Press release E134:00 – 25 July 2000, HSE Anon, 2001. Approved Code of Practice for Roll Over Protective Structures on Tractors in Agricultural Operations. Occupational Safety and Health Service (Department of Labour), Wellington, New Zealand. ISBN 0-477-03630-9 Ayers, P D, Dickson, M and Warner, S, 1994. Model to evaluate exposure criteria during roll-over protective structures (ROPS) testing. Transactions of ASAE 37 (6), 1763-1768 Ayers, P D, 1996. ROPS design for pre-ROPS tractors. Journal of Agromedicine 4, 309-311 Chisholm, C J, 1979. NIAE research in sideways overturning. Paper No. 4 in " Summary Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering of Tractor Protective Structures". (Held at Strathmore Hotel, Luton, 18-20 May 1978) Report No. 31, National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, UK. ISSN 0077 4804 Easter, R G, 1977. Analytical prediction of ROPS static elastic-plastic behavior. Experimental Mechanics, February 1977, 77-80 Edwards, M J and Neale, M, 2000. The effectiveness of lap straps on tractors in the event of overturning. HSE Contract Research Report 310/2000, HSE, UK Elbracht, D, Witt, G, Pfeiffer, G, Weiner, U, Haring, R and Sauer, A, 1999. Erarbeitung technisher Losungen zum Schutz vor den Risiken durch Uberrollen oder Kippen mobiler Arbeitsmittel. (Development of technical safeguards against risks arising from roll over of mobile plant.) Eine Untersuchung des FTL Duisburg im Auftrag der Europaischen Kommission (A study carried out by the FTL Duisburg for the European Commission). FTL, Gerhard Mercator Universitat, Duisburg. EMPL-2000-00070-00-00-EN-TRA-00(DE)

52

Gehlhausen, P C, 1991. Danger in the fields: tractor rollovers. TRIAL MAGAZINE, November 1991. (Can also be read on www.tractorlaw.com/Pages/danger.html) Harral, B B, 1992. ROPS test procedures for tractors with mass below 600 kg and track width below 1150 mm. Contract Report Number CR/461/92/8921 (Commercial in Confidence), Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe, UK. Harral, B B, 1992. ROPS test criteria for 40 km/h agricultural and forestry tractors. Contract Report Number CR/460/92/8920 (Commercial in Confidence), Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe, UK. (HSE Reference: E A Burnill, Bootle) 10pp Harris, J R, Mucino, V H, Etherton, J R, Snyder, K A and Means, K H, 2000. Finite element modeling of ROPS in static testing and rear overturns. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 6 (3), 215-225 Honiball, E J and van Niekerk, J L, 2001.The development of a test specification to determine the rollover protection of passengers in light commercial vehicles fitted with canopies. Accident Analysis and Prevention 33 (5), 621-628 Hopkins, R B and Walters, F C, 1979. Comparison of rollover protective structures (ROPS) test codes for wheeled agricultural tractors. Paper No. 6 in "Summary Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering of Tractor Protective Structures". (Held at Strathmore Hotel, Luton, 18-20 May 1978) Report No. 31, National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, UK. ISSN 0077 4804 Hunckler, C J, Purdy, R J and Austin, R D, 1985. Nonlinear Analysis of the Terex Scraper Rollover Protective Cab. SAE Paper 850788 Kawakami, M, Ishida, E, Yoshida, T and Iwata, K, 1988. Non-linear large deformation analysis of tractor ROPS. Kubota Technical Report No. 34,74-80. Japan. Male, G, 1998. A survey of standards and accidents associated with earthmoving machinery. Specialist Inspector Reports Number. 53, HSE (C5 2/98), UK. 26pp Moburg, H A, (undated). Tractor safety cabs. Test methods and experiences gained during ordinary farm work in Sweden. National Swedish Testing Institute for Agricultural Machinery, Uppsala. 35pp Montiglio, M and Blarasin, A, 2000. Nuovo metodologie per lo sviluppo del trattore del futuro (New methodologies to develop the tractor of the future). MMW no. 10, 2000, 48-50 Powers, J R, Harris, J R, Etherton, J R, Snyder, K A, Ronaghi, M and Newbaugh, B H, 2001. Performance of an automatically deployable ROPS on ASAE tests. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 7 (1), 51-61 Rehkugler, G E, Kumar, V and Davis, D C, 1975. Simulation of tractor accidents and overturns. Transactions of ASAE 19 (4), 604-609/613. ASAE Paper No. 75-1047 Srivastava, A K, Rehkugler, G E and Masemore, B J, 1978. Similitude modeling applied to ROPS testing. Transactions of ASAE 21 (4), 633-645. ASAE Paper No. 75-1047 Tyler-Street, M D, 1999. Mathematical modelling of an ATV and rider in an overturn. Contract Research Report CR222/1999, HSE Wardill, G A, 1979. The use of a large deflection finite element program in cab impact calculations. Paper No. 8 in " Summary Proceedings of the Symposium on Engineering of Tractor Protective Structures". (Held at Strathmore Hotel, Luton, 18-20 May 1978) Report No. 31, National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, UK. ISSN 0077 4804

53

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The contribution of the major stakeholders who responded to the questionnaire survey is acknowledged for providing the information and leads which enabled the authors to collate the history and current working practices of the industry. The support given by the personal contacts to make this report as representative and in-depth as possible is also gratefully acknowledged. The authors also thank the world-wide standards organisations for their efforts to provide historical information and copies of standards, where relevant.

54

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – ROPS Standards Appendix 2 – Questionnaire Survey Responses Appendix 3 – Machine Types

55

Appendix 1 - ROPS Standards ID 56 Identifier AS Reference 2294.2 Equivalent Identical to ISO3471-

Description Earth Moving Machinery - Protective Structures - Laboratory Tests and Performance requirements for Roll-Over Protective Structures

Machine type ref Operator test volume 3164 Year 1997 Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Same list as ISO 3471 - Crawler, wheel loaders and tractors, backhoe loaders, graders, tractor scrapers, articulated steer dumpers

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 1 of 51

56

ROPS Standards ID 55 Identifier AS Reference 1636.3 Equivalent Based upon EEC/87/402 (as amended) HOWEVER SECTION 1.6 EQUIVALANCE SAYS ROPS COMPLYING WITH 86/298 SHALL BE DEEMED TO COMPLY WITH THIS STANDARD

Description Tractors-RollOver Protective Structures-Criteria and test-Mid-Mounted for Narrow-Tracked Tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume AG Year 1996 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 A theoretical analysis of roll-over protective structures, which would provide equivalent performance to physical testing is included

Notes 2 Tractors used for agriculture or horticulture covered as follows: Ground clearance less than 600mm ; Track width less than 1150mm ; mass less than 6000kg

Notes 3 Not intended to apply to machinery whose primary purpose is earthmoving (see AS 2294)

Action Page 2 of 51

57

ROPS Standards

ID 54 Identifier AS Reference 1636.2 Equivalent Based on but not equivalent to EEC/86/298 (as amended by 89/682). HOWEVER SECTION 1.6 EQUIVALANCE SAYS ROPS COMPLYING WITH 86/298 SHALL BE DEEMED TO COMPLY WITH THIS STANDARD

Description Tractors-Roll-Over Protective Structures - Criteria and test - rear-mounted for narrow tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume AG Year 1996 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 A theoretical analysis of roll-over protective structures, which would provide equivalent performance to physical testing is included

Notes 2 Tractors used for agriculture or horticulture covered as follows: Ground clearance less than 600mm ; Track width less than 1150mm ; mass less than 6000kg

Notes 3 Not intended to apply to machinery whose primary purpose is earthmoving (see AS 2294)

Action Page 3 of 51

58

ROPS Standards

ID 58 Identifier ASAE Reference S519 Equivalent Corresponds to ISO 3463, ISO 5700 and SAE J2194

Description Agricultural Equipment - Roll-over Protective Structures (ROPS) for wheeled Agricultural Tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume AG Year 1994 Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 4 of 51

59

ROPS Standards

ID 63 Identifier ASAE Reference X547 Equivalent

Description self propelled front wheel drive turf and landscape equipment

Machine type ref Operator test volume OECD less 50mm Year Draft Yes Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities Yes

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 draft American TOPS standard for lawnmowers and sweepers ?

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 5 of 51

60

ROPS Standards

ID 27 Identifier ASAE Reference S383.1 Equivalent Corresponds to ASAE S383

Description American Society of Agricultural Engineers standard S383.1-Dec99, "Roll-Over Protective Structures (ROPS) for Wheeled Agricultural Tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 1993 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 DEC 1999

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 6 of 51

61

ROPS Standards ID 28 Identifier ASAE Reference S478 Equivalent

Description Roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for compact utility tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume ? Year MARCH96 Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2 This Standard does not apply to tractors with mass as defined in 3.3 greater than 1800 kg.

Notes 3 This Standard does not apply to tractors generally designed for mowing lawns and gardening work as defined in ASAE S323.

Action Page 7 of 51

62

ROPS Standards ID 29 Identifier ASAE Reference S547 Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 No trace of this standard

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 8 of 51

63

ROPS Standards ID 49 Identifier Australian Reference AS 2294.1 Equivalent None

Description Earth-moving machinery - Protective Structures - Geraral

Machine type ref Operator test volume N/A Year 1997 Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Requirements are given for roll-over protective structures and falling-object structures that are in addition to those given in AS2294.2 & AS2294.3

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 9 of 51

64

ROPS Standards ID 48 Identifier Australian Reference AS 1636.1 Equivalent Identical to ISO 3463 and ISO 5700

Description Tractors - Roll-Over Protective Structures, Criteria and Tests

Machine type ref Operator test volume AG Year 1996 Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Specifies the test procedures and minimum performance criteria for evaluating roll-over protective structures fitted to tractors having a rear track width generally greater than 1150mm.

Notes 2 A theoretical analysis of roll-over protective structures, which would provide equivalent performance to physical testing is included

Notes 3

Action Page 10 of 51

65

ROPS Standards ID 33 Identifier BS Reference EN 13510:2000 Equivalent BS 6912-14:2000 & ISO 3471:1994 including Amendment 1:1997

Description Earth-moving machinery - Roll-over Protective Structures - Laboratory tests and performance requirements(ISO 3471:1994, including Amendment 1:1997 modified)

Machine type ref Operator test volume 3164 Year 2000 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Taken from ISO 3471 - Crawler, wheel loaders and tractors, backhoe loaders, graders, tractor scrapers, articulated steer dumpers

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 11 of 51

66

ROPS Standards ID 25 Identifier CSA Reference B352.2 Equivalent ISO 3471:1994 and SAE J1040 April 88 (Info from Troy PAMI)

Description Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for Agricultural, Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, Industrial and Mining Machines, Testing Requirements for ROPS on Construction, Earth moving, Forestry, Industrial, and Mining Machines

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 1995 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial Yes Primary - Other Mining

Market sector

Amendment 1 confirmed 1999

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Taken from ISO 3471 - Crawler, wheel loaders and tractors, backhoe loaders, graders, tractor scrapers, articulated steer dumpers

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 12 of 51

67

ROPS Standards

ID 24 Identifier CSA Reference B352.1-95 Equivalent ISO 5700, ISO3463 and SAE J2194 (Info from Troy PAMI)

Description Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for Agricultural, Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, Industrial, and Mining Machines Testing Requirements for ROPS on Agricultural Tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume AG Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 ROPS testing for wheeled ag. Tractors with a mass greater than 800kg. Min rear track width 1150mm. For some tractor designs, this standard may not be appropriate, however, B352.1 or B352 may be used until appropriate standards are developed.

Notes 2 This standard may also be used as an alternative to CSA standard B352.2 for testing ROPS on general-purpose industrial tractors.

Notes 3

Action Page 13 of 51

68

ROPS Standards ID 57 Identifier CSA Reference B352.0 Equivalent

Description Roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for Agricultural, Construction, Earth Moving, Forestry and Mining Machines - General requirements

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 1995 Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial Yes Primary - Other Mining

Market sector

Amendment 1 Confirmed 1999

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 General requirements, the standard is a companion to other standards in the B352 series and must be used in conjunction with these.

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 14 of 51

69

ROPS Standards

ID 12 Identifier EEC Reference 87/402 Equivalent

Description Council Directive 87/402/EEC[9] relating to the roll-over protection structures mounted in front of the driver's seat on narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 89/681

Amendment 2 2000/22

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 82/890; 97/54

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 15 of 51

70

ROPS Standards ID 11 Identifier EEC Reference 86/298 Equivalent

Description Council Directive 86/298/EEC[8] relating to the rear-mounted roll-over protection structures of narrow-track wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume OECD less 50mm sides Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 89/682

Amendment 2 2000/19

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 82/890; 97/54

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 16 of 51

71

ROPS Standards

ID 10 Identifier EEC Reference 79/622 Equivalent

Description Council Directive 79/622/EEC[5] relating to the static testing of the roll-over protection structures of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors, as amended by Council Directive 87/354/EEC and as adapted to technical progress by Commission Directives 82/953/EEC[6] and 88/413/EEC[7]

Machine type ref Operator test volume OECD Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 82/953

Amendment 2 87/354

Amendment 3 88/413

Amendment 4 1999/40

Amendment 5

Notes 1 82/890; 97/54

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 17 of 51

72

ROPS Standards

ID 9 Identifier EEC Reference 77/536 Equivalent

Description Council Directive 77/536/EEC[3] relating to the roll-over protection structures of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors, as amended by Council Directive 87/354/EEC[4];

Machine type ref Operator test volume OECD Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 87/534

Amendment 2 89/680

Amendment 3 1999/55

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 82/890; 97/54

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 18 of 51

73

ROPS Standards

ID 13 Identifier EEC Reference 86/295 Equivalent

Description Roll-over protective structures as referred to in Article 1 of Council Directive 86/295/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member States relating to roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for certain construction plant

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 91/368

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Same list as ISO 3471 - Crawler, wheel loaders and tractors, backhoe loaders, graders, tractor scrapers, articulated steer dumpers

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 19 of 51

74

ROPS Standards

ID 7 Identifier ISO Reference 12003-2 Equivalent

Description Agricultural and forestry tractors -- Narrow-track wheeled tractors -- Part 2: Rear-mounted roll-over protective structures

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 20 March 2000 Draft Yes Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 ISO TC23 - SC3 working group

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 20 of 51

75

ROPS Standards

ID 6 Identifier ISO Reference 12003-1 Equivalent

Description Agricultural and forestry tractors -- Narrow-track wheeled tractors -- Part 1: Front-mounted roll-over protective structures

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 20 March 2000 Draft Yes Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 ISO TC23 - SC3 working group

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 21 of 51

76

ROPS Standards ID 64 Identifier ISO Reference 12117 Equivalent

Description Earth-moving machinery - Tip-over protection structure (TOPS) for compact excavators - laboratory tests and performance requirements

Machine type ref Operator test volume ISO 3164 Year 15 March-1997 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Applies to TOPS compact excavators with swing type boom, having an operating mass of 1000 to 6000kg

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 22 of 51

77

ROPS Standards

ID 5 Identifier ISO Reference 8082 Equivalent BS ISO 8082 and SS ISO 8082

Description Self-propelled Machinery for Forestry-Roll-Over Protective Structures-Laboratory Tests and Performance Requirements

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 1994(revised 2001) Draft Yes Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 10-Feb-2001

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 The current standard has no longitudinal loading, however the standard is up for amendment the proposal being to add a longitudinal loading

Notes 2 forwarders, skidders, feller-bunchers, processors, harvesters and loaders

Notes 3 IT DOES NOT APPLY TO MACHINES WITH A CAB AND BOOM ON A ROTATING PLATFORM

Action Page 23 of 51

78

ROPS Standards ID 4 Identifier ISO Reference 3463 Equivalent Identical to AS 1636.1, NFU 02-049 & SS ISO 3463. Corresponds to ASAE S519.

Description Wheeled tractors for agriculture and forestry -- Protective structures -- Dynamic test method and acceptance conditions

Machine type ref Operator test volume Ag Year 1984 Draft No Static method No Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1 Amd 1:1998

Amendment 2 1989

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Summary sheet talks about SIP

Notes 2 Applicable to standard tractor rear track width more than 1150mm and mass of between 800 -6000KG

Notes 3

Action Page 24 of 51

79

ROPS Standards

ID 3 Identifier ISO Reference 80982 Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 1994 Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 25 of 51

80

ROPS Standards ID 2 Identifier ISO Reference 5700 Equivalent Identical to AS1636.1, BS 5947(1992), NFU 02-050, SS ISO 5700. Corresponds to ASAE S519

Description Wheeled tractors for agriculture and forestry -- Protective structures -- Static test method and acceptance conditions

Machine type ref Operator test volume AG Year 1984 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 1998

Amendment 2 89AMD1 98

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Applies to tractors with or without track attachments, having at least two axles , and a tractor mass not less than 800kg and not over 15000kg

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 26 of 51

81

ROPS Standards ID 1 Identifier ISO Reference 3471 Equivalent Identical AS 2294.2, BS EN 13510, BS6914-14(2000). Tech equivalent to JIS-A8910 and NFE 58-053

Description Earth-moving machinery - Roll-over protective structures - Laboratory tests and performance requirements - Part 1: Crawler, wheel loaders and tractors, backhoe loaders, graders, tractor scrapers, articulated steer dumpers

Machine type ref ISO 6165 Operator test volume DLV: ISO 3164:1992 Year 1986 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 3471/1:1986

Amendment 2 3471:1994

Amendment 3 3471:1997

Amendment 4 Cor 1 2000

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Crawler, wheel loaders and tractors, backhoe loaders, graders, tractor scrapers, articulated steer dumpers

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 27 of 51

82

ROPS Standards ID 65 Identifier ISO Reference N536 Equivalent

Description Test report- study on tip-over protective structures (TOPS) for hydraulic excavators having an operating mass of larger than 6 tonnes

Machine type ref Operator test volume ISO 6165 ?\ Year 15-sep-2000 Draft Yes Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Study which uses existing TOPS criteria for compacts and applied to larger machines, typically 12 to 45 tonne

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 28 of 51

83

ROPS Standards ID 37 Identifier Japanese Reference Code I Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 29 of 51

84

ROPS Standards ID 38 Identifier Japanese Reference Code II Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 30 of 51

85

ROPS Standards ID 39 Identifier Japanese Reference Code III Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 ASAE S383

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 31 of 51

86

ROPS Standards ID 40 Identifier Japanese Reference Code IV Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 OECD Code 8

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 32 of 51

87

ROPS Standards ID 41 Identifier JIS Reference A8910 Equivalent Technically equivalent to ISO 3471

Description Earth-Moving Machinery - Roll-Over Protective Structures-Laboratory Tests and Performance Requirements

Machine type ref Operator test volume ISO 3164 Year 1984 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 1989

Amendment 2 1995

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Same list as ISO 3471 - Crawler, wheel loaders and tractors, backhoe loaders, graders, tractor scrapers, articulated steer dumpers

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 33 of 51

88

ROPS Standards

ID 17 Identifier OECD Reference Code 7 Equivalent

Description CODE 7 - OECD STANDARD CODE FOR THE OFFICIAL TESTING OF REAR MOUNTED ROLL-OVER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES ON NARROW TRACK WHEELED AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TRACTORS

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 SELF-PROPELLED WHEELED VEHICLES, HAVING AT LEAST TWO AXLES, DESIGNED TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS, PRIMARILY FOR AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY PURPOSES - PULL TRAILERS; CARRY, PULL OR PROPEL AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TOOLS

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 34 of 51

89

ROPS Standards

ID 16 Identifier OECD Reference Code 6 Equivalent

Description CODE 6 - OECD STANDARD CODE FOR THE OFFICIAL TESTING OF FRONT MOUNTED ROLL-OVER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES ON NARROW TRACK WHEELED AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TRACTORS

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 35 of 51

90

ROPS Standards ID 18 Identifier OECD Reference Code 8 Equivalent

Description CODE 8 - OECD STANDARD CODE FOR THE OFFICIAL TESTING OF PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES ON AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TRACKLAYING TRACTORS

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 SELF PROPELLED TRACK-LAYING VEHICLES DESIGNED TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS, PRIMARILY FOR AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY PURPOSES - PULL TRAILERS; CARRY, PULL OR PROPEL AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TOOLS

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 36 of 51

91

ROPS Standards ID 14 Identifier OECD Reference Code 3 Equivalent

Description CODE 3 - OECD STANDARD CODE FOR THE OFFICIAL TESTING OF PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES ON AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TRACTORS (DYNAMIC TEST)

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 SELF-PROPELLED WHEELED VEHICLES, HAVING AT LEAST TWO AXLES, OR WITH TRACKS, DESIGNED TO CARRY OUT THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS, PRIMARILY FOR AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY PURPOSES - PULL TRAILERS; CARRY, PULL OR PROPEL AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TOOLS

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 37 of 51

92

ROPS Standards ID 15 Identifier OECD Reference Code 4 Equivalent

Description CODE 4 - OECD STANDARD CODE FOR THE OFFICIAL TESTING OF PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES ON AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TRACTORS (STATIC TEST)

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 38 of 51

93

ROPS Standards ID 53 Identifier OSHA Reference Std - 29 CFR Equivalent

Description Part 1926 Subpart W - Rollover Protective Structures

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 This regulations lists the relevant test codes 1926.1000, 1926.1001 and 1926.1002

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 39 of 51

94

ROPS Standards

ID 26 Identifier OSHA Reference 1928.51 Equivalent

Description Roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for tractors used in agricultural operations.

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 see ASAE S383, see interpretation notes in file

Notes 2 refers to ASAE S306-3(1974), SAE J334(1970)[29 CFR 1928.52], ASAE S336-1(1974), SAE J168(1970)[29 CFR 1928.53], OSHA 1926.1002. FOOTNOTE {ASAE 383 - CONTAINS ASAE S306, S336 AND S305}

Notes 3 It has been determined that ROPS which meet the requirements of ANSI/SAE J2194 or ASAE S519 are superior to the existing OSHA requirements for this type of equipment and therefore are in compliance with the OSHA standards

Action Any ROPS meeting the performance requirement of ISO Page 40 of 51 5700 or ISO 3463 would meet the SAE standard; if the

95

ROPS Standards

ID 59 Identifier OSHA Reference 1926.1000 Equivalent

Description Rollover protective structures (ROPS) for material handling equipment

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial Yes Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 General requirements for machines manufactured before September 1,1972 and after that date tests shall be undertaken against 1926.1001 and 1926.1002.

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Action to be followed up Page 41 of 51

96

ROPS Standards ID 60 Identifier OSHA Reference 1926.1001 Equivalent

Description minimum performance criteria for rollover protective structures for designated scrapers, loaders, dozers, graders and crawler tractors

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 derived from SAE J320a , SAE J394, SAE J395, SAE J396

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 42 of 51

97

ROPS Standards ID 61 Identifier OSHA Reference 1926.1002 Equivalent

Description PROTECTIVE FRAMES (known as ROPS) for wheel-type agricultural and industrial tractors used in construction

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 agricultural tractor means a wheel-type vehicle of more than 20 engine horsepower, used in construction work, which is designed to furnish the power to pull, propel or drive implements

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 43 of 51

98

ROPS Standards

ID 31 Identifier OSHA Reference 1928.52 Equivalent

Description Roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for tractors used in agricultural operations

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J334-1970, entitled "Protective Frame Test Procedures and Performance Requirements" (formerly codified in 29 CFR 1928.52)

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 44 of 51

99

ROPS Standards ID 32 Identifier OSHA Reference 1928.53 Equivalent

Description Roll-over protective structures (ROPS) for tractors used in agricultural operations

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 SAE J168-1970, entitled "Protective Enclosures - Test Procedures and Performance Requirements" (formerly codified in 29 CFR 1928.53)

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 45 of 53

100

ROPS Standards ID 45 Identifier Russian Reference Gost 12.2.120-88 Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 46 of 51

101

ROPS Standards

ID 47 Identifier Russian Reference Gost 12.2.002.2-91 Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 47 of 51

102

ROPS Standards ID 46 Identifier Russian Reference Gost 12.2.002.1-91 Equivalent

Description

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year Draft No Static method No Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 48 of 51

103

ROPS Standards ID 21 Identifier SAE Reference J1040 Equivalent NONE

Description Society of Automotive Engineers standard SAE J1040, "Performance Criteria for Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining Machines."

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 1994 - 16/5/1994 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method No

Primary - Earthmoving Yes

Primary - Agriculture No

Primary - Forestry Yes

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other Mining

Market sector

Amendment 1 APR88

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1 CRAWLER TRACTORS AND LOADERS; GRADERS; WHEEL LOADERS, WHEEL TRACTORS AND THEIR MODIFICATIONS USED FOR ROLLING OR COMPACTING; DOZER EQUIPPED WHEEL TRACTORS; WHEEL LOG SKIDDERS; SKID STEER LOADERS; BACKHOE LOADERS; WHEEL INDUSTRIAL TRACTORS

Notes 2 TRACTOR-PORTION OF SEMI-MOUNTED SCRAPERS, WATER-WAGONS, ARTIC-STEER DUMPERS, BOTTOM DUMP WAGONS, SIDE DUMP WAGONS, REAR DUMP WAGONS, TOWED FIFTH WHEEL ATTACHMENTS; ROLLERS & COMPACTORS; RIGID FRAME DUMPERS

Notes 3 MACHINES WHOSE USE IS PRE-DOMINANTLY OR ENTIRELY IN MANF PLANTS OR WAREHOUSES ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED IE ROUGH TERRAIN FORKLIFTS, 360 DEGREE EXCAVATORS AND EXCAVATOR-BASED MACHINES

Action Page 49 of 51

104

ROPS Standards ID 20 Identifier SAE Reference J2194 Equivalent ASAE S519

Description SAE standard J2194, "Roll-Over Protective Structures (ROPS) for Wheeled Agricultural Tractors"

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 1997-1/9/1997 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 DEC87

Amendment 2 JUN93

Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 50 of 51

105

ROPS Standards ID 19 Identifier SAE Reference J1194 Equivalent

Description SAE standard J1194, "Roll-Over Protective Structures (ROPS) for Wheeled Agricultural Tractors"

Machine type ref Operator test volume Year 1999-Nov 1999 Draft No Static method Yes Dynamic method Yes

Primary - Earthmoving No

Primary - Agriculture Yes

Primary - Forestry No

Primary - Amenities No

Primary - Industrial No Primary - Other No

Market sector

Amendment 1 Jul 83

Amendment 2 May 89

Amendment 3 Sep 94

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

Notes 1

Notes 2

Notes 3

Action Page 51 of 51

106

Appendix 2 - Survey Responses

Earth moving sector

Agriculture sector

Forestry sector

Amenities sector

Industrial sector

"Other" sector Q1: known ROPS Standards Q2a: known or used r's'ch papers

No Yes Yes No No SAE J1040; SAE J2194; ISO 3471; ISO 5700; ISO 3463; ISO 8082; OECD Codes 8/4/3; ISO 12117; AS 1636.1 - 1996; AS 2294 - 1990

Various

No Yes No No No EU; OECD; ISO

No Yes No No Yes OECD Code 4 Static ROPS; CSA B352 Static ROPS; SAE J2194 Static ROPS; SAE J1040 Static ROPS; EEC;

No No No No No Lawn tractors

No No No No No ROPS testing OECD Codes 3,4,6,7,8; EEC/EC:77/536[89/680, 99/55], 79/622 [82/953, 88/413, 99/40; 86/295<>91/368; 86/298 [89/682], 87/402[89/681]; EN ISO 3164; EN ISO 5353; ISO 3164 (DLV);ISO 3463 (dyn); ISO 3471; ISO 5353; ISO 5700; ISO 8082; ISO 12117; OSHA PART 1928; ANSI/ASAE S 318.13 NOV 98; ASAE S 383.1 DEC98 (SAE J1194 MAY 89) SAE J2194 SEP97; ANSI/ASAE S 478 MAR96

OECD WG on new Code 8

No Yes No No No OECD Annex IV; 79/622/EEC; 82/953/EEC; 87/534/EEC; 88/413/EEC; 88/413/EEC; BS 5527:1987 (ISO 3471/1:1986(E)); BS 5526:1985 (ISO 3449:1984); EEC/86/295; EEC/86/296; SAE J10040:Apr88; SAE J231:Jan1981

No Yes No No No Commercial mowing equipment

ASAE S383; SAE J1194; OSHA1928.51, .52, .53 (pre 1995); SAE J1042; SAE J2194; ASAE S547

No No Yes No No

No No No No No Commercial turf maintenance equipment

ASAE S383; ASEA S478; ASAE S547; SAE J1040; SAE J1194; SAE J2194; ASHA1928.51, .52, .53 (pre 1995); SAE J1042; ISO XXX; CSA

ASAE X547 (will be ASAE S547 when approved)

No Yes No No No OECD Codes 3,4,6,7,8 ; ISO 3463; ISO 5700; ISO 3471; ISO 3164; ISO 8082; ISO/DIS 12003-1; ISO/DIS 12003-2; 77/536/EU; 79/622/EU; 86/298/EU; 87/402/EU

Yes No No No No Earthmoving machinery ROPS BS EN 13510:2000; BS 6912-14:2000; DLV specification BS En ISO 3164:2000; BS 6912-7:2000

Yes No No No No ISO 3471; SAE(ANSI) J1040; SAE(ANSI) J1084

107

Q2b: known or used draft standards Q3a: involved in development of

standards

Q3b: if yes, contact name Q4a: machines or types (1) not currently covered

Q4b: machines or types (2) not currently covered Q4c: machines or types (3) not currently covered

Yes contacts given Excavators (Forestry) Feller Bunchers

No Dutch legislation is not clear on ROPS for mobile machinery

Yes contacts given -

No -

4 publications by Gasparetto et al - see hard copy

Yes contact given All self-propelled machinery with an overturning risk (ISO 8082)

For standard tractors M<800 and narrow tractors M<600, ROPS are not foreseen

Yes contacts given -

Yes contact given Their "Exmark" branded machinery: see www.exmark.com

If ROPS are requested, they design to SAE J1042 or OSHA 1928.51 (pre 1955) as these are closest

SAE J1042 applies to general purpose machines; OSHA1928.51 applies to ag tractors

No

No Commercial turf mowers are not specifically covered

ASAE X547 attempts to address out front mowing decks and tip over

ISO/DIS 12003-1; ISO/DIS 12003-2 Yes contact given -

No Ride on lawnmowers/grass cutters used on embankments/gradients

Quad bikes - 4 wheel vehicles with handlebar type steering

No ISO 3471 does not properly cover small site dumpers

108

Q5a: computer experience (1) Q5b: computer experience (2) Q5c: computer experience (3) Q6a: potential for computers (1)

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) useful in design FEA yet to displace testing FEA will give more cost-effective designs

- Should be possible for testing ROPS and would save money

At Portage, use computers for data display and analysis; At Humboldt, FEA used for design work on ROPS

Greater application as for Q5a&b

- -

See paper by Pessina & Radovan (1994) - details in hard copy Possible substitution of lab test with FEA calculations

All cab structures are designed on CAD 3-D solid models Eventually all cab models will be computer analysed for strength and energy absorption

Use CAD 3-D software for shape / mounting / clearance configurations All structural evaluations done by ROPS vendor

Will continue with current CAD system

-

CAD systems used for design and some structural evaluation Computers used as data loggers when testing

Not aware of compliance tests done by computer

Help with more detailed design analysis

-

Testing - verify/confirm performance criteria achieved Design - more accurate analysis of simulated performance prior to destructive testing

- Useful tool for testing during design process

109

Q6b:potential for computers (2) Q7a: further points (1) Notes

Standards should be developed with FEA in mind Manufacturing and material variations must be accounted for in design evaluations

Has very little to do with ROPS

ROPS testing is more complicated than it needs to be: Surely some standards can be combined / rationalised: We need to get rid of obsolete standards

No experience of ROPS; Machinery Directive is main concern see Q7a

When an accredited analysis package is approved, all aprovals can be done by computer analysis alone

For designers the analysis process must be fully specified by the approving authorities: Before the method is accepted, the results must be subject to comparative testing.

Computer evaluation is not yet ready to replace lab testing (continue to rely on vendor's expertise)

Greatest difficulty is deciding applicable standards: As mowers have developed they have become less like ag tractors, so it is more difficult to apply these standards: Maybe OPEI will develop standards for the newer machines?

This response has been circulated to colleagues for comment / editing

No qu'aire response by 06/04/01, only notes of relevant experiences

Simulation tests for components Lack of specific standards results in divergence of use: International differences between standards and misunderstanding of equipment definitions reduce consistency of application: ROPS vendors help rationalise application of standards

Not all manufacturers of ROPS test to the same criteria: Varying levels of protection for identical equipment tested to differing criteria: Commercial advantage to those who exploit ambiguous wording of standards

110

Earth moving sector

Agriculture sector

Forestry sector

Amenities sector

Industrial sector

"Other" sector Q1: known ROPS Standards Q2a: known or used r's'ch papers

No No No Yes No 86/298/EEC; OECD code 4; OSHA regulations (Standards-29 CFR, formerly SAE J 1194)

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No Yes No No No 77/536/EEC; 79/622/EEC; 86/298/EEC; 87/402/EEC; OECD CODES 3,4,6,7,8; SAE J1194, SAE J2194, CAN-B352-1; ISO 5700; ISO 3463

Yes Yes Yes No No Testing station OECD CODES 3,4,6,7 AND 8; ISO 3471:1994 (plus amendment 1:1997); UNE-EN 13510; ISO 8082:1994; 77/536/EEC; 89/680/EEC; 1999/55/EEC; 79/622/EEC; 82/953/EEC; 88/413/EEC; 1999/40/EEC; 86/298/EEC; 89/682/EEC; 2000/19/EEC; 87/402/EEC; 89/681/EEC; 2000/22/EEC

No Yes No No No OECD CODES 3,4,6,7,8; RUSSIAN STANDARDS: GOST 12.2.120-88; GOST 12.2.002.1-91; GOST 12.2.002.2-91

No Yes Yes No No OECD CODES 3,4,6,7,8

No No Yes No No ISO 3471:1994; ISO 80982:1994; SAE J1040:1994

Yes Yes No No No Testing station Japanese national agricultural tractor test codes: Code I (based on oecd code 3,4) ; Code II (based on oecd static code 7); Code III ( based on ASAE S383); Code IV (based on oecd code 8); JIS A8010-1995; ISO 3471:1994

No Yes No No No 77/536/EEC; 79/622/EEC; 86/298/EEC; 87/402/EEC; OECD Codes 3,4,6,7,8; ISO 3164/79; ISO 3471/86; ISO 3449/84; Romanian standards: SR ISO 3463/95; ISO 5700/94

Yes Yes No No No ISO 3471; ISO 3463; ISO 5700; ISO 8082

Yes Yes Yes Yes No ISO 8082; ISO 3471

111

Q2b: known or used draft standards Q3a: involved in development of

standards

Q3b: if yes, contact name Q4a: machines or types (1) not currently covered

Q4b: machines or types (2) not currently covered Q4c: machines or types (3) not currently covered

BS EN 836 Yes contact given Use earthmoving TOPS standard for ride-on sweepers

lawnmowers , ride-on sweepers

Yes contact given Excavators need to have ROPS as an option

No Ride on mowers

Yes high speed agricultural tractors (60+ kph)

agricultural tractors with harvesting equipment

Yes contact given agricultural and forestry tractors, see GOST 12.2.120-88 section 1.7

No U.T.V.

ISO/DIS 8082 Yes contact given

Yes transport vehicles, see fig 2 and 3 very small rear engine tractors, see fig 1

Yes contact given forklift (fops applicable) small dumpers

No compact dumpers rigid frame dumpers up to 20 tonnes (24 death accidents between 1995 & 1999)

ISO/DIS 8082 Yes contact given machines with a cab and boom on a rotating platform

excavators used/converted to forestry harvesters

ride-on mowers

112

Q5a: computer experience (1) Q5b: computer experience (2) Q5c: computer experience (3) Q6a: potential for computers (1)

Deflection of ROPS depends on strength of ROPS and mountings Difficult to simulate chassis effects More as technology advances

-

Computer analysis of complex structures during design stage to eliminate weak links, contact M Shelcher 01268-292911

Computer simulation of static ROPS testing could minimise need for development and certification testing - a long way off !

Static equipment measures all data most failures occur due to faulty welding

cannot see how computers can simulate faulty welds

can be used to design cabs but not to replace real tests

use to evaluate power of ROPS and results of tests

Programs like PRO/Engineer and mechanica do not give good results their significance is increasing

- ROPS manufacturer is using FE method to develop ROPS

using ANSYS we have an automated approach to part stress analysis use of CATIA platforms generative part structural analysis and CATIA genrative assembly part stress and vibration analysis

suitable for simulation and hence cost reduction

113

Q6b:potential for computers (2) Q7a: further points (1) Notes

See separate Forestry machine consultancy paper, ref: 14A See separate consultancy document, ref: 14A

Cab test facilities in 2 regions

FAO concerned with standards, potential user rather than contributor

Drawings supplied on vehicles mentioned in Q3

PUWER (reg 26) does not give clear guidance for ROPS requirements of machinery used on limited slopes: manf have been slow to provide adequate ROPS or meaningful information on slope limitations: Would like a joint iniative for further studies of these problems with the HSE

114

Earth moving sector

Agriculture sector

Forestry sector

Amenities sector

Industrial sector

"Other" sector Q1: known ROPS Standards Q2a: known or used r's'ch papers

Yes No No No No EN 13510; ISO 3471; ISO 8082; SAE J1040

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Mining CSA-B352-M1980:1980; 77/536/EEC:1997; 79/622/EEC:1979; ISO 3463:1989; ISO 3471:1994; ISO 8082:1994; ISO 5700:1989; SAE J1040:1994; SFS-ISO 3449:1988; OECD CODE III 1998; OECD CODE IV 1998; OECD CODE VIII 1998

No Yes No No No Education ISO 3463-1981

No No No No Yes OECD CODE 4; OECD CODE 7; 79/622/EEC:1979; 86/298/EEC:1986; ISO 3471:1994; BS ISO 8082:1994; ISO 10262:1998; ISO 6055:1997; ISO 12117:1997; BE EN 13510:2000

No Yes No No No 79/622/EEC; 86/298/EEC; 87/402/EEC

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sport/Leisure(Forensic engineering)

Our Group Practice investigates accidents. We refer to all ROPS standards and related standards current in the UK at the time of accident

Pugh, H.R.; "Use of burst-proof locks on tractor cabs" - AEAT/13/411/01, Issue

Yes Yes No No Yes ISO 3471; SAE J1040; OECD Code 4; 79/622/EEC; ISO 5353; ISO 3164; EN 13510

No No No No No MOD BS ISO 8082, BS 5947, BS 6912, RAC MSA Yearbook 1999

115

Q2b: known or used draft standards Q3a: involved in development of

standards

Q3b: if yes, contact name Q4a: machines or types (1) not currently covered

Q4b: machines or types (2) not currently covered Q4c: machines or types (3) not currently covered

No no rops requirement for hydraulic excavator

No Excavators; excavator-based forestry machines; excavator-type forestry machines

ATV's

No

99/715085DC(BS ISO 12003-1); 99/715085DC(BS ISO12003-2)

No

No

No

No Tracked excavators

No Yes - but details cannot be given

116

Q5a: computer experience (1) Q5b: computer experience (2) Q5c: computer experience (3) Q6a: potential for computers (1)

- -

At the end of the 1980’s, I undertook some work concerning - the possibility of evaluating the strength of ROPS by finite element method - the dynamic behaviour of cabs. Some papers were published about that subject. (Noted elsewhere)

I think that - finite element method is a useful tool in the design of ROPS - ‘multibody’ software (for example ADAMS or DADS) can be used to improve the filtering of vibration transmitted to cabs.Computers will be increasingly used.

Several ANSYS Analyses have been performed on ROPS structures, but we find correlation with testing to be poor. This is probably due to complexity of the structures during plastic deformation. Also the interaction of the chassis around the cab mounting area.

If enough resource is directed at this problem, I’m sure good correlation could be obtained.

We do not get involved in this area as it is the prime contractor/suppliers responsibility

More accurate predictions and repeatable test results

117

Q6b:potential for computers (2) Q7a: further points (1) Notes

side loading location on ISO 3471: curved structures/keeping the load distribution device at the right location:SEE attached comments re ISO 3471, ref: 25a

As accident investigators, we tend to see only system failures including frames, seat belts, door locks and, most commonly a failure to train.

The standard should be reviewed regarding fitting of booms to telehandlers for ROPS tests.

Some of the specialist equipment that is procured does not fall into a specific vehicle category requiring a ROPS frame. However, under "Duty of Care" to reduce risk to operators, some form of ROPS frame is fitted.

118

119

Appendix 3 - Machine Types (Query1 report) Market Sector Machine Family Machine Model Machine Type

Agriculture Agriculture Mower Agriculture Harvester Pea Agriculture Harvester Blackcurrant Agriculture Harvester Apple Agriculture Harvester Apple-shaker Agriculture Harvester Forage Agriculture Harvester Brassica Agriculture Material handler Agriculture Harvester Maize Agriculture Wheeled loader Agriculture Skidsteer loader Agriculture ATV (quad bike) Agriculture Compost turners Agriculture XER Agriculture Tractor Agriculture Harvester Coffee Agriculture Compact tractor Agriculture Sprayer Agriculture Harvester Tea Agriculture Combine harvester Agriculture Field gantry Agriculture Mixer waggon Agriculture Spreader Fertiliser Agriculture Spreader Lime Agriculture Tanker Slurry Agriculture Harvester Potato Agriculture Utility vehicle Kawasaki mule Agriculture Utility vehicle Kawasaki mule Agriculture Harvester Sugar beet

120

Market Sector Machine Family Machine Model Machine Type

Amenities Amenities Turf cutter/harvester Amenities Trencher Amenities Chewing gum remover Amenities Golf buggy Amenities Blower Amenities Verge cutter

Amenities Roller Amenities Piste former Amenities Mower Amenities Snow-mobile Amenities Sweeper Amenities Go-kart Amenities Line-marker Ride-on, electric

Amenities Mower Self-propelled Ride-on brush cutter

121

Market Sector Machine Family Machine Model Machine Type Earthmoving Earthmoving Dozer wheeled/crawler Earthmoving Grader Earthmoving Compactor self-propelled/towed Earthmoving Trencher Earthmoving Loader Wheeled/crawler Standard/compact/skidsteer Earthmoving Scraper self-propelled/towed Earthmoving Backhoe-loader wheeled/crawler Earthmoving Excavator wheeled/crawler/walker standard/compact Earthmoving Roller self-propelled/towed dead-weight/vibrating/rubber-

tyred Earthmoving Dumper wheeled/crawler articulated-frame / rigid- frame / compact

122

Market Sector Machine Family Machine Model Machine Type Forestry Forestry Pruner Forestry Cable crane/yarder Forestry Feller/buncher Forestry Skidder Forestry Forwarder Forestry Processor Base unit/purpose built/excavator based Forestry Chipper Forestry Walking machine Forestry Transporter Forestry Crosscutter-buncher Forestry Limber Forestry Log loader Forestry Stump grinder Tracked Forestry Feller Forestry Regeneration equipment Forestry Slasher/bucker/crosscutter Forestry Site preparation equipment Forestry Harvester Forestry Feller-buncher/forwarder/

skidder Forestry Slasher-buncher Forestry Bucket-buncher

Forestry Rebarker Forestry Crusher Forestry Cleaner Forestry Delimber-buncher Forestry Delimber

123

Market Sector Machine Family Machine Model Machine Type

Industrial Industrial Personnel carrier Industrial Die puller Industrial Skip loader Industrial Shunter Industrial Container handler Industrial Roller Industrial Paver Industrial Floater Industrial Tow truck Industrial Floor cleaner Industrial Planer Industrial Crane Industrial Cherry picker telescopic Industrial Fork-lift Industrial Cherry picker straight lift

124

Market Sector Machine Family Machine Model Machine Type Mining Mining Digging arm loaders Mining Shuttle-car Mining Longwall shearer Mining Bolting machine Mining Mantrips (personnel carriers) Mining Wheeled loaders Mining Dump trucks Mining Rotary blast drilling rig Mining Dragline excavator Mining Stripping shovels Mining Tunnel borers Mining Cutting head borers Mining Fullface borer Mining Bucket-chain excavator Mining Cable-operated mining shovel Mining Hydraulic shovels

Printed and published by the Health and Safety ExecutiveC30 1/98

Printed and published by the Health and Safety ExecutiveC1.25 05/02

CRR 425

£30.00 9 780717 623303

ISBN 0-7176-2330-0