East Anglia Construction Safety Group

Health and Safety Day 22nd April 2010

Tower Crane Safety Update

Tim WatsonTim Watson Consulting

Topics

■

An overview of the latest advances in tower crane standards and design

■

Some recent accidents and the lessons learned

■

Planning for the safe and effective installation and use of tower cranes on site

■

The Tower Crane Register

Latest Advances in Tower Crane Standards and Design

Old and New Standards

■

National Standards ► DIN 15018► NF E 52-081► FEM 1.001

■

EN 14439:2006 + A1:2010► One standard across Europe► Adopted by manufacturers

from January 2010

What's New in EN14439

■

Improved Safety in Service ►

Compulsory anemometer►

Anti-collision and zoning devices►

Improved cab visibility■

Improved Operator Comfort►

Requirements for cab heating and control station layout■

Improved Safety for Erection and Maintenance Personnel►

Reduction of crushing hazards►

Improved access►

Specifications for climbing systems■

Increased Requirements for Out-of-service Wind

Out-of-service Wind

European Storm Wind Map CPA TIN 027

Example

Out-of-service Wind Accidents

Common Requirements for Access – EN 13586

Common Requirements for Access Ladders

Zoning Systems

Standardised Minimum Requirements

Requirements for Operator’s Cabs

Some Recent Tower Crane Accidents and the Lessons Learned

Tower Crane Accident Survey

■

May 2000 – July 2009

■

At least 51 Serious incidents ►

8 in the UK

►

6 in China

►

5 in the USA

►

4 in Russia

►

4 in Netherlands

►

3 in South Africa

►

2 in Germany

►

2 in Malta

►

2 in Switzerland

►

1 in Bahrain

►

1 in Canada

►

1 in Irish Republic

►

1 in Israel

►

1 in Malaysia

►

1 in Philippines

►

1 in Poland

►

1 in Qatar

►

1 in Saudi Arabia

►

1 in Spain

►

1 in Singapore

►

1 in South Korea

►

1 in Taiwan

►

1 in Tokyo

►

1 in Vietnam

Service Condition

Service Condition Quantity

In-service 22

Climbing 7

Dismantling 6

Erection 6

Out-of-service 6

Not known 3

Under test 1

Failure AreaFailure Area QuantityFoundation/Base 11Jib 7Tower /Base 5Slew section 4Tower 4Crane top and climbing frame 3Falling tower section 2Jib pendant & luffing ropes 2Suddenly moving jib section 1Tower tie 1Not known 11

Causes

19

9

7

5

3

8Erection/Dismatling/ExtendingExtreme Weather

Foundation Problems

Mechanical Issues

Misuse

Not Known

Total 51

Canary Wharf – May 2000

Canary Wharf – May 2000

■

Crane was being climbed by a six man crew

■

Collapse occurred as the last mast section was being added on the Sunday

■

Three men fatally injured as result of the 120m fall

■

Debris over wide area of Canada Square

■

Issues:►

Training►

Long hours of work►

Inadequate planning►

Faulty equipment►

Manufacturer’s instructions not being followed

Worthing – February 2005

■

Two men killed■

One seriously injured

Worthing – February 2005■

De-rigging prior to dismantling

■

The two erectors fatally injured working on the jib removing hoist and trolley ropes

■

Third Erector had de-torqued tower bolts on one side of the mast

■

Jib was slewed■

Slackened bolts failed and crane collapsed

■

Crane owner prosecuted and fined £389,000 for not managing the dismantling process effectively

■

Issues►

Training►

Planning

Battersea – September 2006

■

BPR 222 Crane ■

Crane had been in use for a number of weeks

■

Joint below slew ring failed■

Jib fell across site into an adjacent road

■

Crane Driver + Member of public killed

■

Slew ring bolts had been replaced shortly after erection

■

Investigation concentrating on method used to replace bolts.

Seattle – November 2006

Seattle – November 2006

■

Official enquiry blamed inadequate design of foundation

■

Fatigue failure■

Lack of maintenance and inspection

■

Issues:►

Planning►

Base design►

Maintenance►

Thorough examination

Liverpool - January 2007■

JASO Luffer►

3 years old►

CE marked ►

DOC to EN 14439■

Crane was in use►

Light load►

Close to minimum radius►

Wind near maximum in- service limit

■

Jib fell backwards across the site during a lifting operation

■

1 Construction worker killed

Liverpool – Investigation Findings

■

Jib at small angle to the vertical■

Wind from the front held the jib up and caused the luffing rope to go slack

■

Luffing rope jammed in the sheaves■

Operator tried to lower off and paid out rope from the luffing winch, which looped down the back of the crane

■

Luffing rope became free allowing the jib to drop until the slack rope arrested its fall

■

Large dynamic load caused the jib to fail and the slewing section and counter jib became detached from the top of the tower at the slew ring

■

One of the counterweights fell on a construction worker causing fatal injuries

■

Issues:►

Crane design standard

Liverpool Animation

Croydon – June 2007

Croydon – June 2007

■

Climbing team had not used the equipment before and had not had any specific training on its use

■

Crane owner fined £100,000 + £33,196 costs

■

Issues►

Training ►

Planning►

Not following manufacturer’s instructions

New York – March 2008

■

Favelle Favco Luffing Jib Tower Crane

■

3 Fatalities■

Being climbed

■

Fabric lifting sling failed, causing tie to fall

■

Top of crane demolished building two blocks away

■

Issues►

Planning►

Selection of equipment

Miami – March 2008

■

Libeherr luffing jib crane

■

Climbing operation■

Tower section fell

■

2 Fatalities ■

Issues:-►

Planning►

Selection of equipment

Miami – March 2008

New York – May 2008

■

Kodiak luffing tower crane■

In-service but not lifting

■

2 Fatalities■

Slew ring support failed

■

Said to be 24 years old■

Same owner as March incident

■

Issues:-►

Maintenance ►

Thorough examination

Rotterdam – July 2008■

The crane was lifting a heavy load within its rated capacity close to the mast.

■

It was required to slew the crane & manoeuvre the load along the jib such that the load was very close to the maximum permitted at the required radius

■

During final positioning of the load it “ran away” down the jib, overloading the crane and causing it to fail at the mast section

■

Failure due to incorrect setting of the PLC/Inverter trolley motor control system

Common Issues

■

Inadequate Planning■

Inadequate Training

■

Maintenance Issues■

Through Examination Issues

■

Not Following Manufacturer's Instructions■

Poor Selection of Equipment

■

Poor Base Design■

Design Standard Issues

Planning for the Safe and Effective Installation and Use of Tower Cranes

on Site

Planning for Installation

■

Choose your tower crane supplier with care■

Maintain same key personnel from Crane Provider and Principal Contractor/Hirer throughout the process from initial enquiry to dismantling

■

Initial meeting on site to establish►

Site restrictions and hazards►

Temporary works requirements►

Responsibilities for liaison■

Detailed risk assessments and method statements

■

Method statement sign off■

Pre activity site inspection and meeting

■

Checks on day of operation■

Permits to erect, climb or dismantle

■

Keep Talking!!

Guidance on the Management of Installation Process

Guidance on the Management of Installation Process

Guidance on the Management of Installation Process

Guidance on Design of Foundations

Guidance on the Management of use of Tower Cranes

Guidance on the Management of use of Tower Cranes

Guidance on the Management of use of Tower Cranes

Guidance on Maintenance, Inspection and Thorough Examination

All Construction Plant-hire Association (CPA) and Strategic Forum Plant Safety Group

Guidance Documents can be downloaded free at

http://www.cpa.uk.net/p/Tower-Crane-Interest-Group

The Tower Crane Register

The Tower Crane Register

■

Aims to improve tower crane safety and public confidence in their safety

■

Register required by the Notification of Conventional Tower Crane Regulations 2010

■

Came into effect 6th April 2010■

Only affects conventional top slew tower cranes on construction sites – Not SETCs or Truck Mounted

■

Responsibility for ensuring notification is made rests with the user (hirer) of the crane

The Tower Crane Register When Notification must be Made

■

Notification must be carried out with 14 days of the date of any through examination:-►

following the crane’s installation and before being put into use for the first time on a particular site;

►

when the crane is reconfigured on site, eg when the height of the mast is altered;

►

when the crane stays on-site long enough for the existing thorough examination to expire;

►

if exceptional circumstances liable to jeopardise the safety of the crane have occurred.

The Tower Crane Register Information to be Notified

■

The name and address of the company providing the crane for use on the site.

■

The address of the construction site at which the crane has been installed;

■

Information sufficient to identify the crane including, where known, its date of manufacture.

■

The date of the thorough examination;■

The name and address of the employer for whom the thorough examination was made;

■

Whether the thorough examination revealed any defects involving imminent risk of serious personal injury.

The Tower Crane Register Method of Notification and Cost

■

Two ways to notify HSE► Online at http://www.cranesregister.org.uk;► By post by completing a form which can either

be downloaded from the above website, or by contacting HSE’s Infoline for a form and returning it to:

•

HSE Cranes Register, Health and Safety Executive, Field Operations Division, London Divisional Administrative Office, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS

■

Cost► £20 per Notification

Further Information

■

The Crane Register Website► www.craneregister.org.uk

■

HSE Guidance Leaflet INDG 437

Thank You