The adoption in the OECD Tractor Codes of a testing procedure on protective structure against risks of falling object on the driver station of a tractor is fully supported by us. This paper does not discuss the technical problem concerning alternative uses of sphere or cylinder as falling object, and adoption of SRP with its clearance zone in alternative to the SIP with its deflectionlimiting volume. These two points will no doubt be dealth with during the meeting. The position regarding two points on the proposal of a new OECD Standard Code for the official testing of falling object protective structure as described in AGR/C/T(2004)25 are underlined below: 1. It should be used to "... allow the addition of the FOPS results to a ROPS report as an option", as quoted in point 7.1 on page 7 of AGR/CA/T/M(2005)1. Only the testing station that has performed the ROPS test is allowed to perform the FOPS test. In order to make this procedure clearer it would be better to included in any ROPS Code the FOPS procedure as an option. In this way: (a) The testing station can track all the history of Minor Modifications and Extensions (with all the variety of meanings and contents they have) that can follow the original ROPS and FOPS test report and can appreciate the effect on the strength and protection against falling object of the modifications proposed on the tested protective structure. (b) In case of subsequent addition of a FOPS fitted, for example by a different manufacturer, on an already approved ROPS, the testing station has all the elements to take into account the effect of addition of the FOPS on the results of the ROPS test. Example. A manufacturer C wants to test an overhead protection of the driver to fit on a rear two post protective structure manufactured by A approved in accordance with Code 7 that equipped an orchard tractor (track narrower than 1150 mm) manufactured by B. In order to fit the FOPS, the manufacturer C make 2 holes with a diameter of 13 mm on the top part the protective structure without informing manufacturers B and A. This is a very probable operation in the Italian market where there are a lot of small manufacturers. We have to implement a very strict procedure so that all the steps of the modification of the original protective structure can be followed in order to guarantee the safety of the operator in all conditions. 2. I agree with the three levels of energy proposed in the new OECD Standard Code for the official testing of falling object protective structure as described in AGR/C/T(2004)25. (a) A structure intended to be defined as an overhead protective structure has to pass a FOPS test with a level of energy of 1365 J. In this case it can protect the operator and minimize the injury due to falling object encountered in the normal operation of a wheeled agricultural tractor. (b) Tests with higher level of energy, 5800 J or 11600 J, could be requested by the manufacturer of the FOPS in case the manufacturer intends to protect the operator against specific and significant risks of falling object different from that of the normal operation of wheeled agricultural tractors.
OECD AGR/CA/T/RD(2005)18 OECD Standard Codes for the Official Testing of Agricultural and Forestry Tractors - FOPS CODE PROPOSAL: COMMENTS FROM ITALY/TURIN
Cavallo Eugenio
2005
Abstract
The adoption in the OECD Tractor Codes of a testing procedure on protective structure against risks of falling object on the driver station of a tractor is fully supported by us. This paper does not discuss the technical problem concerning alternative uses of sphere or cylinder as falling object, and adoption of SRP with its clearance zone in alternative to the SIP with its deflectionlimiting volume. These two points will no doubt be dealth with during the meeting. The position regarding two points on the proposal of a new OECD Standard Code for the official testing of falling object protective structure as described in AGR/C/T(2004)25 are underlined below: 1. It should be used to "... allow the addition of the FOPS results to a ROPS report as an option", as quoted in point 7.1 on page 7 of AGR/CA/T/M(2005)1. Only the testing station that has performed the ROPS test is allowed to perform the FOPS test. In order to make this procedure clearer it would be better to included in any ROPS Code the FOPS procedure as an option. In this way: (a) The testing station can track all the history of Minor Modifications and Extensions (with all the variety of meanings and contents they have) that can follow the original ROPS and FOPS test report and can appreciate the effect on the strength and protection against falling object of the modifications proposed on the tested protective structure. (b) In case of subsequent addition of a FOPS fitted, for example by a different manufacturer, on an already approved ROPS, the testing station has all the elements to take into account the effect of addition of the FOPS on the results of the ROPS test. Example. A manufacturer C wants to test an overhead protection of the driver to fit on a rear two post protective structure manufactured by A approved in accordance with Code 7 that equipped an orchard tractor (track narrower than 1150 mm) manufactured by B. In order to fit the FOPS, the manufacturer C make 2 holes with a diameter of 13 mm on the top part the protective structure without informing manufacturers B and A. This is a very probable operation in the Italian market where there are a lot of small manufacturers. We have to implement a very strict procedure so that all the steps of the modification of the original protective structure can be followed in order to guarantee the safety of the operator in all conditions. 2. I agree with the three levels of energy proposed in the new OECD Standard Code for the official testing of falling object protective structure as described in AGR/C/T(2004)25. (a) A structure intended to be defined as an overhead protective structure has to pass a FOPS test with a level of energy of 1365 J. In this case it can protect the operator and minimize the injury due to falling object encountered in the normal operation of a wheeled agricultural tractor. (b) Tests with higher level of energy, 5800 J or 11600 J, could be requested by the manufacturer of the FOPS in case the manufacturer intends to protect the operator against specific and significant risks of falling object different from that of the normal operation of wheeled agricultural tractors.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
