ROPS Design Evolution with Respect to the Requirements of the

Strength Test Procedures

Valda Rondelli*, Enrico Capacci, Bruno Franceschetti, Adriano Guarnieri
Department of Agricultural Economics and Engineering, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin
50, Bologna, 40127 Italy
*Corresponding author. E-mail: valda.rondelli@unibo.it
Abstract
A standardised strength test for Rolling Over Protective Structures (ROPSs) fitted on
agricultural tractors was first introduced in 1967 and was based on a dynamic procedure
(OECD Code 3). A static test procedure for protective structures, currently adopted
worldwide, was added in 1983 (OECD Code 4) in order to resolve some limitations of the
dynamic procedure. The advent of narrow track tractors required the adoption of ad hoc
ROPS standardised static testing procedures for these special tractors (OECD Codes 6 and
7, 1991).
Static ROPS tests provide a sequence of loadings, determined on the basis of the tractor
reference mass while ensuring a survival volume for driver protection in the event of a tractor
rollover.
Over the years, the procedure requirements in terms of force and energy applied and
clearance zone to be respected have remained substantially unchanged. In the meantime,
agricultural tractors have undergone a deep technological evolution in design and normal
operation in the field.
In this context, it was considered appropriate to assess if, over the years, the ROPSs tested
according to the static procedure have undergone a similar evolution in design and in the
mountings on the tractor chassis to evaluate if the modifications affect the performance and
the requirements of the testing procedure.
The ROPSs fitted on standard and narrow track tractors tested at the University of Bologna
in the last twenty-five years according to OECD Codes 4 and 7 were analysed. The ROPSs
considered were the four-pillar frame and the cab types.
The evolution of the ROPS design over time was evident. Cabs in both standard and narrow
track tractors normally replaced the four pillar frames. In standard tractors, the ROPS cabs
were progressively integrated to the tractor platform and the rear mudguards, and the latest
application seems to be represented by cabs which were suspended on the rear of the
tractor chassis.
In narrow track tractors, a similar trend in terms of progressive integration of the cab to the
tractor platform and the rear mudguards was observed but low profile highly rounded cabs
exemplify the most modern approach.
Different behaviour of the ROPSs was observed during the official strength tests. The cabs
integrated to the tractor platform showed a shift in the vertical reference plane during lateral
loading, affecting survival volume evaluation. Difficulties in identifying the loading points, in
the case of low profile highly rounded cabs, were evident with respect to specific Code
provisions.
Key words: ROPS, OECD Codes, Tractor, Design, Energy.
1. Introduction
In Europe, the first method for testing Rolling Over Protective Structures (ROPSs) fitted on
agricultural tractors was developed in Sweden in 1959 as a result of research activity carried
out by Moberg (1973) in the early 1950s as a consequence of the high number of fatal
accidents involving tractors overturning sideways or backwards.

In 1967, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation

Co operation and Development (OECD) took the
Swedish test method into consideration and developed the first normalised ROPS Code
(OECD Code 3, 1967), with a dynamic procedure designed to simulate,
simulate, in the laboratory, the
loadings sustained by the ROPS during a tractor rollover while in normal operation in the
field. Fifteen years later, a static test procedure for the tractor protective structures was
added (OECD Code 4, 1983) in order to resolve
resolve some limitations of the dynamic procedure,
such as poor repeatability and the frequent complete destruction of the tractor chassis.
The advent of narrow track tractors required the adoption of ad hoc ROPS standardised
static testing procedures for these
these special tractors (OECD Codes 6 and 7, 1991).
Over the years, the static method has replaced the dynamic procedure worldwide and, in
many countries, in the world, such as European countries, the ROPS tests have become
mandatory (EC Directive 2003/37, 2003).
2003). The static procedure foresees a sequence of
loadings on the ROPSs in which an energy or a force based on the tractor reference mass
suggested by the ROPS/tractor manufacturer, have to be absorbed or sustained (Fig.1).
A clearance zone for driver protection in the event of a tractor rollover has to be preserved
during the tests.

FIGURE 1: Protective structure with the points of application of the loadings and the
clearance zone (Codes
(
4 and 7, 2012)
1.1.

The concept
oncept of clearance zone

The ROPSs are normally designed to absorb most of the energy applied as frame/cab
deformation, but this deformation is limited with respect to preventing the trapping or
crushing of the driver in case of tractor rollover. To this end, the OECD ROPS Codes
introduced the term clearance zone to limit the maximum deflection permitted to the ROPS
during the tests (Fig. 2). The reference plane and the Seat Index Point (SIP), determined
according to the standard ISO 5353:1995 (ISO, 1995), are used for designing the zone. The
reference plane is a vertical plane, longitudinal to the tractor, and passing through the SIP
and the centre of the steering wheel. Normally the reference plane coincides with the
longitudinal median plane of the tractor. The reference plane is assumed to move
horizontally with the seat and the steering wheel during loading but to remain perpendicular
to the tractor or the floor of the ROPS. During the tests no piece of equipment must enter the
clearance zone or strike the seat. In addition the clearance zone
zone shall not be outside the
protection of the ROPS which happens if any part of the structure comes in contact with flat
ground when the tractor overturns towards the direction from which the test load is applied.

FIGURE 2: Shape and dimensions of the clearance zone (Codes 4 and 7, 2012)
1.2.

Aim of the evaluation

Over time, agricultural tractors have undergone a technological evolution in design and
normal operation in the field. The tractors have gradually been improved by the performance
of the engine, the efficiency of the transmission, the fuel consumption economy and the
matching of the tractor and its implements. At the same time, special attention has also been
devoted to the safety and comfort of the driver by introducing air conditioning systems,
reducing noise and adding suspension systems to decrease the whole body vibration
perceived (Day et al., 2009).
In the light of this evolution, it seemed logical to verify whether the changes have also
concerned the protective structures fitted, bearing in mind that the fundamental requirements
of the ROPS static method has remained substantially unchanged with respect with the
original test approach (Jaren et al., 2009; Guzzomi et al., 2009, Rondelli & Guzzomi, 2010).
For the purpose of this investigation, tractor ROPS in four pillar frames and cabs tested
according to the static procedure since 1986 at the University of Bologna were assessed,
and the changes in design, mainly in terms of mountings to the tractor chassis and ROPS
shape, were considered for evaluating whether these modifications produced any effects on
test performance and/or test results so as to influence the safety level provided for the tractor
driver.
2. Material and methods
Tractor ROPSs tested according to the OECD static procedure over a period of twenty-five
years at the OECD Official Test Station of the Department of Agricultural Economics and
Engineering (DEIAgra), University of Bologna, were analysed considering the shape of the
ROPSs and the mountings to the tractor chassis. Only tests with positive results were
considered in the assessment. Sixty test reports for Code 4 and sixty for Code 7 were
evaluated. In terms of ROPS shape, the analysis considered whether the protective structure
was designed in a rectangular form, as originally considered in the static testing method (Fig.
1), or whether round outlines were progressively introduced. Concerning the mountings to
the tractor chassis, the types of mountings were considered together with assessing whether
portions of the tractors contributed to the strength of the ROPSs during the test. The ROPS
test reports analysed concerned the four pillar ROPS frames and cabs (Table 1). The
ROPSs were fitted on agricultural standard and narrow-track tractors (Rondelli & Guzzomi,
2010). In the case of standard tractors, the tests were carried out according to the
prescriptions of Code 4 while, in the case of narrow track tractors, the tests were carried out
according to Code 7, even if the first ROPS tests of the latter tractor type, carried out before
the introduction of the ad hoc testing procedure, were carried out according to Code 4.

TABLE 1: Test reports analysed

Tractor
type

Test
reports

Standard

60

Narrowtrack

60

Years
19872012
19892012

Mass range
(kg)

Test
Procedure

2400-8000

Code 4

1120-2410

Codes 4/7

ROPS
Four pillar frame /
Cab
Four pillar frame /
Cab

2.1. Static testing procedure

The protective structures tested were attached to the tractor chassis in the normal manner
used in field; the tractor chassis included attaching brackets and all parts of the tractor
affected by the loads imposed on the protective structure, as required by the ROPS Codes
(OECD, 2012).
Any component of the tractor, such as the tractor platform and the mudguards contributing to
the strength of the ROPS, was described in the test reports.
The tests were conducted according to the sequence of loadings foreseen by Codes 4 and 7.
The longitudinal loadings were stopped when the structure absorbed a predefined level of
energy E (J), determined on the basis of the tractor reference mass Mref (kg) and, according
to the Code 7, the wheelbase of the tractor L (mm). The force F (N), in the crushing test, was
applied until five seconds after cessation of any visually detachable movement of the
protective structure.
Four static loads were applied to the ROPSs tested according to the OECD Code 4
provisions. The first longitudinal loading, on the rear or on the front of the protective
structure, depending on the 50 % mass of the tractor on the rear or front axle, was applied
according to the equation in Table 2.
TABLE 2: Force and energy equations
CODE

Longitudinal load

= 1.4
Rear

= 2.165 10

Crushing

Lateral Load

= 20

= 1.75

= 20

= 1.75

Front

= 500 + 0.5

The first crushing test was carried out at the same end of the protective structure as the
longitudinal loading (Table 2). The loading from the side followed and then the second
crushing test, applied at the opposite end of the protective structure and equal in force to the
first one (Table 2).
According to OECD Code 7, a sequence of five static loads on the protective structure was
required: loading at the rear, first crushing at the rear, loading at the front, loading at the side
and second crushing test, with a force equal to the first crushing test, applied at the front of
the protective structure (Table 2).
The horizontal loadings were applied using a hydraulic cylinder fitted with a load cell and a
linear displacement transducer to measure the loading force and the ROPS deflection under
load. The crushing force was exerted by means of a beam connected at the ends with two
hydraulic cylinders and fitted with two load cells.
During the tests, it was verified that the protective structure did not infringe on the clearance
zone or leave the clearance zone unprotected.

3. Results and discussion

Analysis of the test reports showed interesting results which were summarised in Table 3.
Four cases were considered as representative of the general trend in ROPS design evolution
for four pillar frames and cabs.
TABLE 3: ROPS design evolution over twenty-five years
Case

ROPS

Code

Four pillar frame

Cab

Four pillar frame

Cab

ROPS design
1987-1995 years

ROPS design
2008-2012 years

The ROPS four pillar frames, case A in Table 3, retained the original shape and the structural
characteristics which were substantially unchanged over the years, albeit with some
modifications in the section of the tubular steel used in the construction. These frames
remained typical structures for rollover protection.
Case B represents a typical ROPS cab fitted on standard tractors. The test reports
corresponding to the years 1987-1995 showed more complex structures regarding design
over the years with respect to the ROPS frames in the same period of time. The structural
components of the cabs were fixed to the tractor chassis through the interposition of elastic
elements (silent-blocks) in order to reduce the vibration and noise levels. Over the years, the
cab evolved structurally and was integrated into the tractor platform, with the driver's seat
positioned on it. The complex cab-platform-mudguards were thus fixed on the tractor chassis
via silent-blocks and, in some cases, replacing the rear silent-blocks with hydraulic shock

absorbers; as shown in Table 3, case B was tested in the years 2008-2012. This technical
approach in ROPS cab design demonstrated some lack in the testing procedure related to
the assessment of the clearance zone during the loadings; indeed, the reference plane
considered in the zone definition, passing through the SIP and the centre of the steering
wheel, followed the movement of the platform and did not remain coincident with the
longitudinal median plane of the tractor.
A similar trend was seen in the ROPSs fitted on narrow-track tractors (case C in Table 3).
Over the years, this tractor type, in relation to normal use in the field, showed a general
replacement of the four pillar frames with cabs, together with the progressive integration of
the platform into the cab design, and a strong adaptation of the cab shape to operational
needs in orchards and vineyards. The most modern approach (case D in Table 3) was
represented by cabs providing an internal volume close to the limits of the clearance zone
and then designed with very rounded outlines and greater overall stiffness. During the official
strength tests, these cabs caused significant problems in identifying the points of application
of the loads because the normalised procedure referred mainly to protective structures with a
square shape (Fig. 1).
Analysis of the test reports showed that the evolution of the tractor also concerned the ROPS
cab design so that today these are no longer just an element of driver protection in case of
tractor rollover, but respond to the needs of comfort and well-being of the operator.
These changes affect the behaviour of the ROPS cabs during the loadings. On the contrary,
the test procedure remained unchanged over time; it is therefore arguable whether the
behaviour of these modern cabs in a dynamic event of tractor rollover is still simulated by the
sequence of loadings foreseen in the normalised codes as it was in the original test
approach.
Reference list
Day W., Field L.,& Jarvis A. (2009). The Wrest Park Story 1924-2006. Biosystems
Engineering,103, Supplement 1., Chapter 3, 36-47.
EC Directive 2003/37/EC (2003). Available at. http//eur-lex.europe.eu
Guzzomi, A. L., Rondelli, V., Guarnieri, A., Molari, G., & Molari, P. G. (2009). Available
energy in the rollover of narrow track wheeled agricultural tractors. Biosystems Engineering,
104(3), 318323.
ISO 5353:1995. Earth-moving machinery, and tractors and machinery for agricultural and
forestry Seat index point. International Organization for Standardization. www.iso.org
Jaren, C., Alfaro J.R., Arazuri, S., Ponce de Leon, J. L., & Arana, J. I. (2009). Assessing rollover safety provided by ROPS tests SAE J1194 Standard versus OECD Code 4.
Transactions of the ASABE, 52(5), 14531459.
Moberg, H. A. (1973). Dynamic testing of tractor protection cabs: development of method,
practical experiences. SAE paper 730761, Society of Automotive Engineers, INC, N.Y.
OECD Code 3 (1967). OECD Standard Code for the official testing of protective structures
on agricultural and forestry tractors (dynamic test). Paris, France. www.oecd.org
OECD Code 4 (1983). OECD Standard Code for the official testing of protective structures
on agricultural and forestry tractors (static test). Paris, France. www.oecd.org
OECD Code 6 (1990). OECD Standard Code for the Official Testing of Front Mounted
Rollover Protective Structures on Narrow Track Wheeled Agricultural and Forestry Tractors.
Organisation for the Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. www.oecd.org
OECD Code 7 (1990). OECD Standard Code for the Official Testing of Rear Mounted
Rollover Protective Structures on Narrow Track Wheeled Agricultural and Forestry Tractors.
Organisation for the Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. www.oecd.org
Rondelli V., & Guzzomi A.L. (2010). Selecting ROPS safety margins for wheeled agricultural
tractors based on tractor mass. Biosystems Engineering, 105 (3), 402-410.