• Korean Journal of Agricultural Science
• /
• v.49 no.4
• /
• pp.771-783
• /
• 2022

In this study, the feasibility of alternative tractor Roll Over Protective Structure (ROPS) designed to evaluate conditions required for testing was confirmed. In accordance with Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) code 4, the required load energy of the tractor ROPS was determined. First, the tractor ROPS test was performed and a repeated test was performed using a simplified ROPS as an alternative tractor ROPS. The test procedure is first rearward, second lateral, and last forward based on ROPS. The load test device consists of a load cell that measures force and a LVDT that measures deformation. Precision was confirmed by calculating the relative standard deviation of the simplified ROPS repeated test. Accuracy was analyzed by calculating the mean relative error between the mean measured values in the simplified ROPS test and the tractor ROPS test. As a result, the relative standard deviation was less than 2.5% for force and 3.3% for maximum deformation overall, showed the highest precision in lateral load. The mean relative error value for force measured at the lateral load of simplified ROPS was 0.5%, showing the highest accuracy. In the front load test, the mean relative error of maximum deformation was 20.5%, showing the lowest accuracy. The mean relative error (MRE) was high in the forward load test was because of structural factors of the ROPS. The simplified ROPS model is expected to save money and time spent preparing tractors.

• Korean Journal of Agricultural Science
• /
• v.50 no.2
• /
• pp.307-307
• /
• 2023

• Journal of Biosystems Engineering
• /
• v.39 no.3
• /
• pp.158-165
• /
• 2014

Purpose: The objective of this paper was to compare test standards regarding the performance and safety of agricultural tractors to identify the differences in test conditions, measurement tolerances, and test procedures. Based on the comparison, some recommendations were proposed for possible revisions or improvements to current tractor test standards. Methods: The test standards and codes of major standards development organizations (SDOs), such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), EC type approval, and the board of actions of the Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratories (NTTL), were selected and analyzed. Comparison of the test standards: The ISO provides references for fuel and lubricants for tractor tests, and the OECD provides additional measurements for calculating fuel consumption characteristics during the power take-off (PTO) tests. The ISO, EC type approval, and the ASABE provide PTO protective device and the safety requirements. During drawbar power tests, seven transmission ratios are selected for fully automatic transmissions, according to the OECD. In case of hydraulic lift tests, ISO 789-2 and OECD Code 2 advise the use of a static lift force, while SAE J283 advises the use of additional dynamic lift capacity tests for a better representation of in-field operations. The OECD, the ISO, and EC type approval determine the seat index point (SIP), whereas the ASABE determines the seat reference point (SRP) for roll-over protective structure (ROPS) tests. Diversified measurement tolerances were among the braking performance test standards. The European Union (EU) has developed daily limits for vibration exposures with adaptations from ISO 2631-1. Electromagnetic compatibility evaluations are emerging of high-efficiency tractors due to the long-term conformance to electromagnetic emissions and interferences. Comparisons of tractor test standards discussed in this paper are expected to provide useful information for tractor manufacturers and standards development personnel to improve the performance and safety test standards of tractors.