Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Executive summary
Between July and August 2005 a compliance campaign focusing on safety in the tower
crane industry in Queensland was undertaken by Workplace Health and Safety
Queensland. In total, 108 audits of tower cranes on construction sites across the state
were undertaken. In addition to the enforcement activity associated with unsafe cranes
and their use, tower crane operators were interviewed and asked about a number of
key safety issues. At the end of the compliance campaign a total of 343 individual noncompliance items were identified in relation to safety. As a result, 94 directions were
issued to obligation holders.
The tower crane compliance campaign has identified the following as key safety issues
requiring attention:
Responses from the crane industry indicate the tower crane compliance campaign has
been a success. As a result of the actions of inspectors during the compliance
campaign, safety associated with tower cranes has achieved a greater profile.
Significant data has also been collected through the tower crane operator survey
administered during the compliance campaign, which will allow the industry and
government in partnership to plan future safety improvements.
1. Table of contents
Section
Page
Introduction
Background
Strategy
Results
Discussion
13
Conclusions
18
Recommendations
20
Introduction
Between July and August 2005 a compliance campaign targeting tower cranes was
undertaken by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ). In the two months
prior to this, a compliance campaign focusing on mobile cranes was also undertaken
by WHSQ. Both crane compliance campaigns were in response to an increasing
number of serious crane incidents in Queensland and form part of a WHSQ strategy to
reduce the number of these incidents.
During the tower crane compliance campaign 108 tower cranes around the state were
audited by WHSQ inspectors and the results of this compliance campaign are included
in this report. In addition to the application of compliance instruments, the compliance
campaign also included interviewing tower crane operators to gain greater insight into
the safety issues related to this industry. A number of conclusions and
recommendations relating to the tower crane industry are included in this report.
Background
Cranes are an integral part of construction work in Queensland. This is particularly
evident in the commercial construction sector, where the construction of multi-storey
structures is achieved through the extensive use of tower cranes. The construction of
larger, more complex structures has only been possible through the development of
larger, more complex cranes.
Since the late 1990s there has been a boom in Queensland construction and a
proliferation of cranes of all types and configurations. All types of cranes used in the
construction industry are being exposed to more frequent and sustained use than ever
before. There has also been a corresponding increase in serious crane incidents.
Table 1 shows the number of crane incidents from the beginning of 1999 through to
August 2005.
Period
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
(up to
20
August )
*Number of
Qld crane
incidents
10
12
15
12
20
23
Total
100
*Reported to Workplace Health and Safety Queensland
Table 1: Total number of serious crane incidents in Queensland, 1999
20 August 2005
At the time of writing this report, most crane incidents reported to WHSQ have not
resulted in fatalities or serious injury to persons. This fact should not signal
complacency within industry. Due to their physical size and mass, and their propensity
to be used in built up areas, any adverse event has the potential to result in a
catastrophic outcome.
From the events notified to WHSQ, the total number of serious crane incidents for both
mobile and tower cranes can be further broken down into incident types as indicated
by Table 2 below.
Incident type
Number of incidents
Percentage of total
Crane overturn
(mobile cranes only)
44
44%
20
20%
8%
13
13%
Crane collapse or
structural damage
15
15%
Total
100
100%
Falling object
Other types of
operational incidents not
included above
Strategy
Audit criteria
Incident data on cranes reported to WHSQ indicates that operational issues are one of
the primary causes of crane incidents in Queensland. In recognition of this information,
the compliance campaign addressed operational issues in addition to the condition and
safety features of the crane itself. Items to be audited were divided into two primary
groups: the crane itself and the crane use. Tower cranes were inspected at
construction sites whilst involved in actual crane operations.
For the actual crane, the key issues for consideration were:
structural integrity boom, tower, A-frame, slew ring bolts, welding etc
foundation integrity traditional crane bases and self erecting crane support
mechanical integrity drive systems, wire ropes, hydraulic systems etc
safety systems load indicators, rated capacity limiters, limit
switches etc
documentation load chart, operators manual, maintenance records and log book.
For crane operations, the key operational issues for consideration were:
An audit checklist was developed for the compliance campaign to reflect both crane
and crane use issues and a copy is included in Appendix 1.
The following Australian Standards were used as a reference for the audit criteria
employed during the compliance campaign:
AS 1418.4 Cranes, hoists and winches - Tower cranes
AS 2550.1 Crane, hoists and winches - Safe use: General requirements
AS 2550.4 Safe use: Tower cranes.
In addition, the WHSQ document, Tower Crane Industry Compliance Guidelines
dated 28 June 2005, was used by inspectors (see Appendix 2). This document
provides guidance on a number of key safety issues associated with tower cranes and
also indicates benchmarks that are to be applied to older crane models manufactured
before the current series of Australian Standards. It should be noted that Queensland
workplace health and safety legislation is not retrospective and not all current
requirements in Australian Standards can be applied to older cranes. However, in a
number of high risk situations the principles are applied to older cranes. An example is
the provision of rated capacity limiters on tower cranes, in comparison to load
indicators that only provide the operator with an indication of how much load is
suspended on the hook. Due to high level of risk associated with the operation of tower
cranes, rated capacity limiters have been a standard feature of tower cranes operating
in Queensland for a number of years.
A goal of 96 state-wide tower crane installations was nominated and the audits were
carried out on building and construction sites. Based on plant registration statistics,
there were approximately 180 tower cranes in use in Queensland at the time of the
compliance campaign. The final sample size of 108 therefore equates to more than 50
percent of all tower cranes in Queensland, and provides an accurate indication of the
safety performance of the tower crane industry.
Crane operator questionnaire
Most safety initiatives carried out by regulatory authorities tend to focus on the
workplace health and safety inspectors observations, relating to both plant and work
systems. While such information is important, feedback from workers in the industry
can also be invaluable. Therefore the tower crane compliance campaign also obtained
feedback from the crane operators about their views on crane incidents they were
aware of. This is considered an important tool because crane operators as a group
have a wealth of knowledge regarding the culture and constraints that have an impact
on safety in this industry. A questionnaire was developed which, in addition to
obtaining data on the views of operators, also obtained crucial information with respect
to the experience of, and training received, by crane operators (see Appendix 3).
Inspectors
A total of 12 WHSQ inspectors were involved across the state. Inspectors were
selected based on their competency and knowledge of the tower crane industry and
their ability. This was supported by an extensive information and learning session
delivered by in-house technical and construction experts. The following subject matter
was canvassed:
maintaining consistency of
approach
crane maintenance
crane use
Results
Compliance issues
A total of 108 tower cranes were audited across the state. Table 3 shows the total
number of cranes audited and non-compliances for the various regions in Queensland.
Region
North
Queensland
Wide Bay
(incl.
Sunshine
Coast)
Brisbane
North
Brisbane
South (incl.
Gold Coast)
South West
Total
No.
audits
targeted
No.
audits
carried
out
30
14
14
17
34
10
36
42
154
32
34
35
112
31
13
96
108
343
89
* Noted non-compliance describes the number of non-compliance issues with respect to the audit
criteria used during the compliance visits. Each noted non-compliance did not necessarily result in an
inspector issuing a written direction because the non-compliance may have been remedied during the
visit.
ACCESS
A-frame access
OPERATIONAL
ISSUES
Proximity other plant
SAFETY
FEATURES
Crane cabin
CRANE
DOCUMENTATION
Documentation
9.9%
8.8%
4.2%
11.8%
12.6%
ladders
platform
condition
Tower access
type
corrosion
torque
9.3%
Other structural/
mechanical
Machine deck
access
hydraulic leaks
general
lubrication
- counterweight
bolts
Rope sheaves
2.4%
ladders
platform
condition
Other access
-
3.3%
-
boom
saddle bag
condition
rotation
wear
pads/rollers
rope keeper
bar
provided
suitable
Load handling
- sling type
- sling condition
- wind effect
Power lines
1.8%
5.7%
ladders
platform
condition
6%
STRUCTURAL AND
MECHANICAL
Bolt
7.5%
-
1%
-
seating
visibility
noise
fire extinguisher
clean (not
slippery)
location
control measures
0.3%
correctly labelled
operable
deadman levers
and pedals
radius gauge
boom angle
indicator
hoist limit
luff (upper limit)
operators
manual(Engl
ish)
- NDT reports
- logbook
provided
- commission
report
- major
inspect-10yr
load charts
3.6%
-
supplied
correct for
crane
comply with
AS 1418
legible and
in English
visible
4.5%
Crane structure
2.1%
straightness
deformation
cracks
corrosion
welds
play
operable
calibrated
cut out
operational
Guarding
2.7%
-
Ropes
sheaves
exists
adequate
1.6%
-
damage
wear
lubrication
0.9%
-
located
split pins
wear
ACCESS
STRUCTURAL AND
MECHANICAL
OPERATIONAL
ISSUES
SAFETY
FEATURES
CRANE
DOCUMENTATION
Total : 28.5 %
Total: 21.5 %
Total: 7.3 %
Total: 26.5 %
Total: 16.2 %
10
audited are included in Table 5. To simplify the data, the age of cranes audited has
been divided up into seven different categories ranging from less than one year old to
more than 25 years old. This information is depicted in Table 6.
Region
No. tower
cranes
audited
Luffing
North
Queensland
Non-luffing
(hammerhead)
Self erecting
17
11
42
18
20
35
18
17
108
47
54
Brisbane South
(incl. Gold Coast)
South West
Total
Crane age
Percentage
9%
2 5 years
6%
6-10 years
11 %
11-15 years
12 %
16 20
24 %
21 25
12 %
26 %
11
12
Discussion
The information gathered during the tower crane compliance campaign provides
insight into the nature of the industry and key safety obstacles that exist. This section
of the report discusses compliance issues and the results of the survey questionnaire.
Compliance issues
A total of 343 non-compliances were recorded during the compliance campaign.
Feedback received from inspectors during the campaign alluded to the poor condition
of some tower cranes in the industry. This comment often focused on the older tower
cranes in service.
To assist in drawing conclusions from the data, it is necessary to group the noncompliance issues into major groups and this is illustrated in Figure 1.
Tower crane non compliance
Percentage
35
30
28.5
26.5
21.5
25
16.2
20
15
7.3
10
5
0
Access
Structural &
Mechanical
Operational
Issues
Safety Features
Crane
Documentation
Issue
The highest level of non-compliance was in the area of access issues at 28.5 percent.
Access issues related to a number of areas including tower, machine deck, A-frame
and boom access. Many of the cranes audited were manufactured in the 1960s and
early 1970s when safety features on ladders and platforms, such as guardrails and
landings, were simply not provided by the crane designer and manufacturer. The
ability of workers not to fall to their death was largely left up to their skill and not being
in the wrong place at the wrong time. Over the last three decades safety standards
have progressively improved and additional features have been added to the access
systems. However, the additions have often been less than ideal and have not been
consistent from crane to crane. The results of the tower crane campaign illustrate this
later point.
13
Most of the newer tower cranes have excellent safety provisions on ladders and
platforms and require very little reliance on fall arrest systems. However, one
exception to this general rule is on tower cranes with narrow, slender towers. Some of
these do not have adequate room for the ladders to be staggered such that ladder
landings will prevent a person falling for more than 4 to 6 metres. Instead these
cranes have continuous vertical ladders and it is feasible that a person could fall for the
entire length of the tower. Considering that the total fall distance could be in excess of
40 metres, there would be very little chance of a person surviving such a fall. Some
tower crane manufacturers and owners have attempted to remedy this issue by
providing trapdoors at landings to limit a persons fall. However, trapdoors are
unacceptable in this application for the following reasons:
1. Trapdoors can increase the risk of a person falling off the ladder because
they regularly require the person to hold the trapdoor open as they are
climbing or descending the ladder.
2. A closed trapdoor can impede the rescue of a person from the tower crane.
This is especially the case if the worker is unconscious on top of a closed
trapdoor.
3. Persons climbing a tower may be tempted to leave the trapdoors open and
hence will not reduce the potential fall distance.
In view of the above, trapdoors should not be provided in tower crane towers, except at
the crane cabin. Where there is no alternative for a continuous vertical ladder to be
provided on a tower crane, vertical rail or steel wire rope fall arrest systems may be
used. These systems lock in the event of a person falling from a ladder and only
permit a minimal free fall distance (i.e. less than 600 mm).
The next key area of non-compliance is related to the provision and operation of safety
features, and this makes up 26.5 percent of the total. Included within safety features
is the provision of indicators, motion limiters and crane controls. While the newer,
state of the art, tower cranes have comprehensive operating and monitoring systems
the safety features in older cranes are more prone to breakdown and malfunction.
While some older tower cranes are maintained in excellent condition and have been
upgraded with newer control systems, this is generally not the case. This serves as
a reminder to the tower crane industry to ensure safety features are both provided on
the cranes and their continued operation is monitored.
Structural and mechanical issues accounted for 21.5 percent of the total number of
non-compliances. A large proportion of the structural and mechanical issues applied to
hydraulic oil leaks and corrosion on the towers and booms of the cranes. In some
cases it appears that the tower cranes have been sent from job to job without being
sent back to the crane yard for adequate inspection and maintenance. It should be
noted that the time that a tower crane can be located on site may be in excess of two
years in some situations, although the average is generally about 10 months. Most
examples of structural and mechanical non-compliances were not enough to justify
stopping the operation of the crane. However, the results of the compliance campaign
demonstrate there is a need for the industry to ensure structural components and
hydraulic systems are regularly checked and maintained.
14
Figure 1 shows that crane documentation issues accounted for 16.2 percent of noncompliance. Crane documentation includes commissioning paperwork, non-destructive
testing records for critical crane components and 10 year major inspection reports.
While the percentage is not particularly high, it indicates that there is room for
improvement in this area and not all crane owners are applying the safety inspection
instructions of the crane manufacturer and Australian Standard AS 2550. In particular,
there was a lack of 10 year major inspection reports on some of the older tower
cranes.
Operational issues had a relatively low percentage (7.3 %). When taken at face value,
this is not consistent with the data in Table 2, which indicates that most crane incidents
in Queensland are attributed to operational issues. However, it must be noted that the
data in Table 2 applies to both mobile and tower cranes. In the case of mobile cranes,
most incidents relate to operational issues and specifically to incidents where the
mobile crane has overturned. Tower cranes are nearly always anchored to their
supporting structure and instances of the tower crane overturning are extremely rare.
Incidents with tower cranes are more likely to relate to non-operational issues, such as
mechanical failure or malfunction of a safety system. The low percentage of noncompliances relating to operational issues during the tower crane compliance
campaign is therefore reasonable.
The data obtained on tower crane age is of interest. The data on crane age has been
categorised into three main groups and these are illustrated in Figure 2. Only 15
percent of tower cranes audited are less than 6 years old. A large percentage (62%)
of cranes are more than 15 years old. Of this latter group, Table 6 shows that 26
percent of cranes audited are more than 25 years old. This group is mainly made up
of the Favco type hydraulic luffing cranes manufactured during the 1960s. The
sample size of more than 100 cranes audited shows that this data gives an accurate
picture of the age of tower cranes operating in Queensland. The information illustrates
the need for increasing levels of maintenance on older cranes. While the older tower
cranes have given many years of safe operation, some of these cranes are beginning
to show their age and are nearing the end of their practical design life. While it is
possible to upgrade the older cranes by replacing mechanical and structural
components, this option is becoming increasingly impractical with the introduction of
newer, more sophisticated tower cranes.
15
15%
23%
62%
under 5 years
6 to 15 years
over 15 years
Pressure from customers to complete jobs with the wrong size or type of crane - 10%
Total: 47%
16
The combined total of customer related issues (47%) indicates that this is an extremely
important issue that needs addressing. It demonstrates operators concerns that they
consider customers not only have a poor understanding of safe crane operation but
that crane customers are also applying considerable pressure to the tower crane
industry to get the job done without considering the correct type of crane for the task.
The second most common response to the above question was lack of experienced
operators in the industry and accounted for nearly one in five responses. This was
followed by the statement operators dont receive adequate training (12%). Both of
these responses relate to operator competency and when combined (31%), it is
evident these issues are one of tower crane operators primary concerns and deserve
further consideration.
The large percentage of responses relating to operator competency also helps to
dispel the misconception that operators do not care about the safety performance of
their industry. The response is an excellent indication of the candidness of the crane
operators and, more importantly, their desire for the level of operator competency to be
raised and consequently, safety within the industry increased.
What do you believe is the main reason for ther increase of crane incidents over the last few years?
40
35
35
30
Percentage
25
19
20
15
12
10
10
6
5
1
0
Lack of
Large amount
of work in the experienced
crane industry operators in
the industry
Operators
dont receive
adequate
training
17
Conclusions
The tower crane compliance campaign was successful for the following reasons:
The campaign has enhanced the safety of the industry by improving the safety
of tower cranes themselves and the safety systems associated with crane use.
The data received, particularly from the tower crane operator survey
questionnaire, has given an excellent indication of where further attention is
required in this industry to help reduce the potential for future crane incidents.
A number of specific safety issues have been raised by the campaign. While the tower
crane industry in general is safety conscious, there are a number of areas where
improvement can be made. The key areas below summarise the most important issues
highlighted by the campaign.
Safe access on cranes: safe means of access on tower cranes is required for a
variety of workers including operators, maintenance workers and crane erection crews.
The latest tower cranes generally provide a very high level of safety in relation to falls
from heights issues and a very low reliance on personal fall arrest equipment (i.e.
safety harnesses). However, many of the older tower cranes have relatively poor
access systems and require a high reliance on fall arrest equipment, particularly for
maintenance and crane erection crews. In addition, some of the newer tower cranes
with slender towers have poor access provisions on the tower ladders. There is a
need for continual improvement on access provisions in the tower crane industry.
Crane condition and safety features: Limiting and indicating devices on a
considerable number of older cranes were either not operational or required
calibration. A large percentage of older cranes also had hydraulic leaks, rusted
structural components, and worn mechanical parts. In some relatively rare situations,
it appears that the tower cranes have been sent from job to job without being sent back
to the crane yard for adequate inspection and maintenance. There is an ongoing
requirement for tower crane owners to ensure their cranes are supplied with all
relevant safety features required by Australian Standards and to ensure that cranes
are regularly and adequately maintained.
Crane safety documentation: Crane documentation on some tower cranes was
found to be lacking. This included, commissioning paperwork, non-destructive testing
records and 10 year major inspection reports. While the percentage is not particularly
high, it indicates that there is room for improvement in this area and not all crane
owners are applying the safety inspection instructions of the crane manufacturer and
Australian Standard AS 2550. Particular improvement is required in the area of 10
year major inspection reports. This issue has been addressed in recent amendments
to the Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 1997. The Regulation require the
mandatory submission of a yearly statement from tower crane owners stating the
crane has been inspection and maintained so as to be in safe condition. Further
18
amendments to the Regulation, due to take effect in February 2007, will prescribe 10
yearly major inspections for tower cranes and these are to be overseen by a
Professional Engineer. The Tower Crane Code of Practice will provide further
guidance on this issue.
Crane customer input: 48 percent of crane operators consider that crane customers,
including principal contractors, have had a direct influence on the increase in crane
incidents in Queensland. This feedback indicates that the issue requires further
investigation and that crane customers may be unknowingly contributing to crane
incidents. It is considered that the construction industry requires further education
regarding the safe operation of cranes and the need to comply with guidance provided
by the crane owner and operator.
Operator training and competence: Crane operators have highlighted the need for
improving their competency as a group and consider this to be a major factor in the
increase of crane incidents. It is considered that training systems, in addition to those
addressed by the National Certification System, need to be introduced in the crane
industry. This issue has already been identified by both the Tower Crane and the
Mobile Crane Code of Practice Reference Groups and the codes identify the need for
both familiarisation and refresher training of crane operators. It should also be noted
that recent amendments to the Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 1997
prescribe a separate, specific type of tower crane certificate for operators of self
erecting tower cranes.
Workplace Health and Safety Queensland greatly appreciated the support of the tower
crane industry and welcomes future industry cooperation to promote a safer industry.
19
Recommendations
A number of recommendations have been provided in the Mobile Crane Compliance
Campaign 2005 Report, previously prepared by WHSQ. These recommendations
generally apply to both the mobile and tower crane industries and have largely been
implemented. In view of this the only recommendation remaining to be implemented is
as follows:
The level of understanding of tower crane customers, with respect to safe crane
operation, be investigated to determine if there is a deficiency in this area. If this
is the case, it is recommended that an effective education initiative be
undertaken.
It should be noted that the Mobile Crane Compliance Campaign 2005 Report includes
an identical recommendation to the above. The strategy to address both
recommendations can apply to both the tower crane and mobile crane industries.
It is intended that WHSQ will enter into discussion with all parties within the industry
with the intention of implementing the recommendation above.
Appendices
20
APPENDIX 1
CRANE
Date:
Item
Inspector:
Time:
(1) Type
(luffing, hammerhead,
self erector)
Manufacturer & model
Comments
Hoist
a) condition
b) lubrication
Serial No.
No. of towers
c) condition
Boom length
d) lubrication
Counterweight
e) condition
f) lubrication
Crane owner
(4) Pins
Crane Driver
Cert. No.
a) Correctly located
Dogger
Cert. No.
b) Split pins
c) Cheek plates
(where required)
d) Wear
1
Item
(7) Bolts
Comments
Tower
a) Tightened
a) Tower
b) Correct type
Slew ring
b) Boom
c) Tightened
c) A-frame
d) All of one type
e) Washers
(8) Counterweights
b) Sheaves rotate
c) Wear pads/rollers
(boom/jib protection)
b) Moving connecting
bolts
(10) Guarding
areas)
(accessible
(13) Limiters
a) Hoist limiter
a) Provided
b) Trolley limiter
b) Fixed
c) Luff limiter &
buffers
a) Load indicator
operational
b) Visibility
b) Load indicator
calibrated
c) Noise
c) Cut-off operates
d) Fire extinguisher
d) Other means of
verifying cut-off
e) Controls labelled
f) Controls deadman
(15) Load charts
c) Legible
c) Wind indicator
a) Ladders
a) Walkway
b) Static line
c) Platform guardrail
c) Trolley platform
(larger hammerheads)
(21) NDT
a) Edge protection
a) Boom crack testing
b) Clean
b) Chord thickness
c) Trip hazards
c) Slew ring bolts
(18) A-frame access
d) Tower bolts
a) Ladder cage
e) Other NDT
b) Ladder
(22) Other Documentation
c) Trapdoor opens
a) Base drawing
d) Edge protection
b) Logbook provided
complete
c) Plant registration
b) Guardrail
d) Commissioning
documentation
4
CRANE USE
a) Documented system to
prevent contact
b) Clearances adequate
(during audit)
b) Slings adequate
capacity
c) Safety observer
(where required)
d) If warning devices
(adequate reliability)
d) Sling condition
(26) Wind (if greater than 15
m/s used on site)
e) Slings tagged
f) Sling hooks
a) Written procedures
g) Materials restrained
b) Co-ordinator listed
(27) Crane climbing
a) Procedures exist
a) Documented system to
prevent collision
b) Risks addressed
c) Co-ordinator listed
a) Adequate number
d) If warning devices
b) Communication
(adequate reliability)
5
APPENDIX 2
Page
Introduction
2
Structural and mechanical issues
Rope wear
Pivot pin wear Luffing cranes
Structural damage, modifications & repairs
Pin restraint Provision & use
Correct towers in use Favcos & Favelles
Correct towers in use Liebherrs
Tower bolts - Torque
Tower bolts - Identification
Slew ring bolts - Torque
Indicators and motion limiters
Load indicators: Non-self erecting tower cranes
Load indicators: Self erecting tower cranes
Rated capacity limiters: All tower cranes
Radius indicator
Hook height indicators
Wind speed indicators (anemometer)
Upper hoist limit
Luffing buffers & limit switches Rope luffing tower
cranes
Trolley limits all tower cranes with horizontal jibs
Access issues
Tower ladders: Non-self erecting tower cranes
Tower ladders: Self erecting tower cranes
Internal guardrail on tower landings
External fall protection (primarily older Liebherr towers)
Guardrail on machine deck & A-frame platform
A-frame ladder cage
Saddle bag access Favcos
Crane jib access: Non-self erecting tower cranes
Non-destructive testing
Boom crack testing: All non-self erecting booms
Boom crack testing Favco & Favelle booms
Band brakes Favcos
Chord thickness testing all tower cranes lattice booms
Slew ring bolts - NDT
Tower bolts
1
3
3
4
5
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
17
17
18
18
18
19
Other documentation
Design and plant registration
Crane base certification
Verification of tower bolt torque Liebherrs
Commissioning documentation All tower cranes
Operational Issues
Cabin glass
Operational wind speed
Avoiding collision
Proximity to overhead power lines
19
19
20
20
21
21
21
22
Note: this document does not discuss all safety issues on tower cranes
Introduction
This document provides guidance to industry on the standards implemented by
Workplace Health & Safety inspectors when performing tower crane audits. This
document does not discuss all issues relating to tower cranes and their safe
operation, but highlights the principal issues that can be audited during tower crane
audits. It focuses on more obvious safety issues that can be audited during an
inspector visit to a site. This document is intended to be a guide and an inspector
may issue other directions based on considerations at the time of the inspection. This
document applies to all tower cranes that are used on construction sites in
Queensland including self erecting tower cranes.
The information in this guide is based largely on information detailed in Australian
Standards, principally in AS 1418.4, AS 2550.1 and AS 2550.41. The Plant Code of
Practice 2005 lists AS 1418 and AS 2550 and states that these standards should be
applied. Both standards are periodically revised and the requirements of the
standards are gradually increasing. The newer requirements of the standards are
not always applied retrospectively. However, where the newer requirements are
considered to be important safety issues, WHSQ has required compliance. One
example is the provision of rated capacity limiters systems on early model Favco
tower cranes. This requirement did not exist when these cranes were introduced but
was retrospectively applied in Queensland a number of years ago.
Where a
requirement of the current standard is considered to be an important safety item, this
document will generally advise the provision of that item on both older and newer
cranes.
Note: AS 1418.4-2004 and AS 2550.1-2002 have been used in the preparation of this
document.
71 EC towers.
120 HC towers (90 ECs are used on these towers).
185 HC towers (in USA - 200 HC).
256 HC towers (in USA - 290 HC. 280 EC-H used on 256 HC
towers).
The towers for the 185 HC and 256 HC have similar external dimensions, but the
chord thickness on the 256 HC tower sections is much greater. Where different
towers are used they should at least have the same or greater strengths than the
original towers designed for that crane, if a professional engineer provides written
certification.
2. Action: Tower sections should be clearly and permanently identified with their
model type (Liebherr uses symbols). Only tower sections of the correct model or
a model of greater strength should be used. Where Favco towers are used this
should be clearly identified on the engineers crane base drawing for the particular
installation. Note: Liebherr 120 HC and 185 HC tower cranes may be erected
on Favco STD 350 or stronger tower sections.
Tower bolts - torque
1. Issue: Tower bolts serve a very important function and should be tightened to the
manufacturers specification. Tapping the bolts with a small hammer will give an
indication of whether the bolts are loose this is an indicator only, it will not verify
that bolts have been tightened to the specified torque. When tapped, loose bolts
will give a lower or duller pitch than tighter bolts. However, the tone will also be
effected by the amount of steel or around the bolt the more material, the duller
the tone.
Favco and Favelle: Favco towers generally have six bolts on each corner of the
tower. On these cranes it is fairly common to find at least one tower bolt loose on
an installation.
Tower bolts serve a very important function and should be
tightened to the manufacturers specification. Tapping the bolts with a small
hammer will give an indication of whether the bolts are loose this is an indicator
only, it will not verify that bolts have been tightened to the specified torque. When
tapped, loose bolts will give a lower or duller pitch than tighter bolts.
Liebherr: On Liebherr towers it is extremely rare to find a loose bolt but if ever
found it is much more critical because there are only two bolts on each corner.
Impact wrenches (rattle guns) are used to tighten bolts on both Favcos and
Liebherrs. However, bolts on Liebherr towers should be tightened with a torque
multiplier because the required torque is usually higher than the maximum
achieved with a rattle gun (see testing and documentation section).
7
2. Action:
Favco and Favelle: All tower bolts should be tightened. As a general guide it
becomes critical when more than two bolts on any one corner of a Favco tower
are loose. In these critical situations occur the crane should not be operated until
the bolts have been tightened. In other situations, the crane may continue to be
operated but the loose bolts should be tightened as soon as possible.
Liebherr: If there are any obviously loose bolts on a Liebherr tower, operation of
the crane should cease until bolts are checked and tightened to the
manufacturers torque specification.
Tower bolts - identification
1. Issue: Sometimes different types of bolts are used to connect the tower sections
this is generally only an issue on Favco towers. Favco type bolts can be clearly
identified with the word favco or FAV.L marked on the head. Other bolts can
also be used but there should be some verification or marking available to show
the bolts are at least grade equivalent to the grade specified by the manufacturer.
Liebherr tower bolts are generally grade 10.9 bolts although grade 12.9 bolts are
often used on the tower base (Liebherr 256 HC crane towers require grade 12.9
bolts throughout).
2. Action: Tower bolts of the correct type and grade should be used. The mixing
and matching of bolts on any one corner should be discouraged. Any bolts used
should be long enough to protrude through the nut so that all threads of the nut
are engaged. Tower bolts with extensive damage from hammering on the bolt
head should not be used.
Slew ring bolts - Torque
1. Issue: Slew ring bolts are extremely important because they ensure the machine
deck and boom do not fall off the crane tower. Tapping the bolts will give an
indication of whether the bolts are loose this is an indicator only, it will not verify
that bolts have been tightened to the specified torque. Slew rings can have more
than 50 bolts on the upper and lower parts of the slew ring. This gives a high
number of bolts over which the load is distributed. However, when one bolt fails
or is loose, this places additional load on the bolts adjacent to this bolt and
increases the likelihood of other bolts failing.
2. Action: All slew ring bolts should be torqued to within the manufacturers
specification. An audit will not be able to quantitatively verify this but it should
locate any loose or failed bolts in the slew ring. Note: not all slew ring bolts can
be tapped because they are not easily accessible. Where a bolt has failed in the
slew ring, it can indicate that the slew ring bolts have not been installed correctly
or are damaged in this situation all of the slew ring bolts should be removed and
checked for cracks by NDT or be completely renewed.
Radius indicator
1. Issue: A radius indicator displays the radius of the suspended load generally
measured from the centre of the slew ring.
2. Action:
Tower cranes with cabins: Operational radius indicators should be fitted and be
displayed in metres. The indicator is to be accurate to + 10%, -3%. It should be
noted that if the radius indicator is not providing accurate readings, the rated
capacity limiter may be malfunctioning if this is the case the radius indicator is to
be repaired immediately. Note: on luffing tower cranes the radius indicator will
generally be connected to the capacity limiter on hammerhead type Liebherr
tower cranes the overload system is usually separate from the radius indicator.
Tower cranes with remote control only: Provided the jib can only be operated
horizontally and all of the jib is clearly visible to the operator the indicator may
consist of 1 metre graduations marked on the jib with numbers written at intervals
that are not excessive (eg every 5 metres).
Hook height indicators
1. Issue: Hook height indicators usually display the height of the hook above
ground level and are particularly useful where the operator is lifting blind (cannot
see where the hook is). These devices are important on high rise buildings. The
devices are also known as rope payout gauges.
2. Action: Hook height indicators should be provided on high rise jobs where the
hook is regularly outside of the operators view. These devices should also be
provided where a job exceeds 5 -10 floors, or if loads are lowered below ground
level. However, hook height indicators should always be provided where the
crane operator considers that absence of the indicator may make the crane
operation unsafe.
Wind speed indicators (anemometer)
1. Issue: Wind speed indicators are provided as an aid to tell the operator when to
use caution when moving a load that is susceptible to wind loading. These
devices also indicate to the operator if the wind speed is excessive and the
decision can be made to shut the crane down.
2. Action:
Non-luffing tower cranes (non-self erecting): Operational wind speed indicators
should be provided and mounted where a true wind speed will be obtained.
However, because there is not a large power pack on hammerhead cranes, it is
generally acceptable to position the wind gauge on the guardrail above the
operators cabin. On these cranes it is not necessary to mount the wind gauge on
top of the A-frame.
Luffing tower cranes: On luffing tower cranes the wind gauge should be mounted
on top of the A-frame. If mounted on the machine deck, the power pack can
cause substantial wind shielding and the wind speed reading will be inaccurate.
10
11
Access Issues
Tower ladders: Non-self erecting tower cranes
1. Issue: The type of ladder access in tower cranes is often determined by the
amount of available space in the tower. AS 1418.4 provides information on
minimum requirements for the ladders. However, it may be impractical to comply
with the design principles in AS 1657, Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and
ladders. The provision of landings, with changes in direction of the ladder,
should be provided where there is available space. This system will minimise the
injury to workers, in the event of them falling off the ladder. It will also allow
workers to take rest breaks.
AS 1418.4 states that the first ladder in the tower shall not exceed 12.5 m in
height and subsequent ladders shall not exceed 10 m. However, the standard
also permits the use of longer vertical ladders where there is a control that
provides at least an equivalent level of safety. Favco and Favelle type tower
cranes are generally provided with vertical ladders with landings at 4 m intervals
although this can increase to 6 m on some towers. Liebherr tower cranes, other
than the 71 EC towers, are generally provided with sloping ladders with landings
and the ladders change direction every 4 m. Potain City cranes, and smaller
Liebherr cranes are often fitted with a continuous vertical ladder.
2. Action:
Larger towers (Favco, Kaiser, Liebherr larger than 71 EC).
Favco, Favelle and the larger Liebherr type tower cranes are to be provided with
ladders and landings that complying with the principles in AS 1418.4 and the
manufacturers specifications. AS 1418.4 permits the use of 12.5 m high and 10
m high ladders for the first and other towers respectively however, where
practicable the distance between landings should not exceed 6 m.
12
13
14
15
16
Non-destructive Testing
The information listed below does not replace the need for tower crane erectors to
comply with the commissioning requirements of AS 2550.4 and to provide
documentation that verifies the crane is safe to operate. This documentation should
include a comleted inspection checklist finalised after the crane has been erected but
prior to commissioning and load test results for the particular installation.
AS 2550.4-2004 provides guidance on non-destructive testing (NDT) that is to take
place prior to erection of the crane. Specific areas for non-destructive testing include
the following:
Tower bolts.
Other vital components such as jib, jib connectors and butt heal bosses.
2. Action: NDT crack testing of the following parts of Favco and Favelle booms is to
be performed prior to erection:
a. Counterweight sheave bracket welds.
b. Welds in the cruciform area.
c. Butt heal bosses.
Band brakes Favcos
1. Issue: The older designed Favco tower cranes are provided with band brakes.
On some of these cranes the steel band is welded to an end fitting, that in turn
has a pin passing through it. These welds have been known to crack.
2. Action: All Favcos fitted with band brakes are to have the weld between the
band and end fitting tested by NDT each time the crane is erected(note: on some
brake bands there may be no weld).
Chord thickness testing all tower cranes with lattice booms
1. Issue: Chords on boom can be attacked both by internal and external corrosion
and this can greatly reduce the strength of the boom. In addition abrasive
blasting of the boom can reduce chord wall thickness.
Ultrasonic thickness
testing is one method of verifying there is adequate strength in the chords of the
boom.
2. Action: All main chord sections on booms of all tower cranes should be
thickness tested at intervals not exceeding 8 years (based on section 8.3(c) of AS
2550.4-1994).
Slew ring bolts - NDT
1. Issue: The integrity of slew ring bolts is critical because this ensures that the
machine deck and boom remain attached to the tower. Slew ring bolts can
become damaged, and their effective life is reduced if the bolts are either under or
over torqued.
In addition the prescribed amount of applied torque will vary
depending on the type of lubricant that has been used.
2. Action:
a. All tower cranes: all slew ring bolts are to be non-destructively tested at least
every five years. The preferred system is to remove the bolts completely and
examine the bolts by magnetic particle NDT. This applies to both self erectors
and non-self erecting tower cranes. Note: if selected bolts are removed, all of
the bolts should be removed from the slew ring, unless the crane
manufacturer states otherwise.
b. Where the slew ring is separated: on some tower cranes the slew ring must
be split when the each time the crane is moved (e.g. Favco 1500). Where
slew ring bolts are disturbed, 10% of slew ring bolts are to receive NDT crack
testing. The bolts to be crack tested shall be selected from the slew ring at
18
random locations, and the locations of the bolts marked. If any cracked bolts
are found, all bolts are to be tested.
Tower bolts
1. Issue: Tower bolts are a critical part of the crane and permit the effective transfer
of load from the crane boom to the crane base. Slew ring bolts can become
damaged from job to job, and their effective life shall be reduced if the bolts are
either under or over torqued. While all tower bolts are high tensile bolts some
bolts are of extremely high steel grade and may be more susceptible to cracking.
2. Action: a minimum of 10% of tower bolts to be checked for cracks by NDT. The
tested bolts should be identified by marking on the bolt head by a method that
does not damage the bolt.
Other Documentation
Design and Plant Registration
1. Issue: The Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 1997 requires all tower
cranes to be design registered and the cranes should preferably comply with
Australian Standard AS 1418.4, Cranes: Tower cranes. The original crane
design requires registration on a one off basis. However, the crane base design
must be registered for each installation other than for static bases where there is
no moment connection between the tower and base (i.e. the crane relies on
weights placed on the tower base for stability). All tower cranes are also required
to have plant registration and this is to be renewed on a yearly basis.
2. Action: The tower crane should not be operated until design and plant
registration from WHSQ are obtained. However, the absence on these items
alone does not demonstrate risk.
Crane base certification
1. Issue: The size and design of tower crane bases will vary depending on factors
such as tower height, wind speed and terrain type, ground type and bearing
capacity, boom length and crane lifting capacity. Bases may consist of static
bases that rely on dead weight only, re-enforced concrete that is buried in the
ground and may be anchored to piers, or structural steel that is anchored to a
structure. All tower crane bases should be designed by a suitably qualified
engineer and are to be design registered with WHSQ.
2. Action: For every tower crane installation the crane base configuration is to be
certified by a professional engineer and a signed drawing showing the tower
crane configuration and the crane base specification is to be available. The
design registration number should be noted. Concrete strength test results,
verifying the base has achieved its design strength, should also be available. The
base should be inspected by a competent person, prior to concrete placement, to
verify steel content is as specified. Note: Static crane bases do not require
19
design registration, but engineering input is required for the design of the
foundations underneath the crane.
Verification of tower bolt torque Liebherrs
1. Issue: Bolts on Liebherr towers should be torqued up with a torque wrench or
multiplier because the required torque is usually higher than the maximum
achieved with a rattle gun (impact wrench). Liebherr specifies that torqing bolts
up with an impact wrench can lead to a dangerous situation. The torque specified
by the manufacturer is very high and this can usually only be achieved with a
torque multiplier or other calibrated device (i.e. M 45 10.9 grade bolt torque is
4693 Nm).
2. Action: The toque of Liebherr tower bolts should be checked with a torque
wrench or torque multiplier to the manufacturers torque specification. Note: the
nut can be initially done up with a rattle gun.
Commissioning documentation All tower cranes
1. Issue:
Commissioning documentation helps to verify that the crane has been
correctly assembled and tested in accordance with the manufacturers
specifications.
The commissioning process requires input from riggers,
technicians, engineers and electricians (for electric cranes with lethal voltage).
Guidance on the process is provided in AS 2550.4.
2. Action: Prior to use, commissioning documentation is to be completed for each
tower crane installation. The sign off pro-forma in Appendix A of AS 2550.4
should be completed. The person signing off the certificate is to be competent
while the person does not have to be a professional engineer, he or she needs to
have experience in commissioning tower cranes. Where commissioning of the
tower crane requires electrical work with lethal voltages (i.e. for Liebherr tower
cranes), the electrical installation is to be signed off by a qualified electrician.
A commissioning checklist should be completed for the tower crane and be
appropriate for the type of tower crane. AS 2550.4 1994 includes a checklist
that may be used as guidance.
20
Operational Issues
Cabin glass
1. Issue: The operator should be provided with clear vision from the cabin. Any
glass that is cracked or shattered may interfere with the operators vision and
should be replaced. Damaged glass may also pose a risk to persons located
below the crane if it falls out.
2. Action: Any cracked or otherwise damaged glass in operators cabin should be
removed and replaced.
Operational wind speed
1. Issue: On crane base drawings a maximum permissible wind speed of 15
metres/sec (54 km/hour) is generally specified for crane operation by the design
engineer. The operator may choose not to operate the crane at wind speeds less
than those specified on the crane base drawing if the operation is hazardous (ie
when lifting formwork shutters in strong winds). Note: a number of tower crane
installations are now basing the maximum operational wind speed on 20 m/s (72
km/hour) as specified in AS 1418-2004. While the designer may design the tower
crane base and ties to the high operational wind speed, this should not be used
as a means of forcing crane operators to operate the crane in wind speeds that
they consider to be unsafe.
2. Action: The crane should never be operated in wind speeds exceeding those
specified on the crane base drawing. Irrespective of this, the decision when to
stop lifting operation rests with the crane operator and no party should apply
pressure on the operator to alter his or her opinion. The operator may also
decide to vary the loads to be lifted in consideration of the wind speed (i.e. pick up
smaller loads instead of wall shutter systems). Note:
The general industry
standard in Queensland for tower cranes is not to operate tower cranes in winds
of more than 15 m/s.
Avoiding collision
1. Issue: One of the primary hazards associated with the use of tower crane is the
risk of collision with other tower cranes, plant and structures. This risk is greater
where the regular working zone of the crane is next to another structure. Other
moving plant can also pose a greater risk than a fixed structure because its
position may be constantly changing. Collision of tower cranes can result in
crane collapse, falling objects, or direct contact of the crane with other workers. It
may be difficult to eliminate the risk of collision due to the number of cranes
operating on site and the need for the cranes to operate in another cranes
operating radius.
A particularly high risk of collision can exist where the crane crew is not in direct
communication with operators of other plant and/or where there the operators
have different tasks to perform. Two examples are where there is a concrete
placement boom in close proximity to the tower crane or where another tower
crane is being operated on an adjacent construction site.
21
2. Action: Where collision with other plant is possible (i.e. other plant can be within
the cranes operating radius), a documented procedure is to be completed that
discusses control measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of collision. The
procedure is to nominate a person responsible for co-ordinating implementation of
the procedure and all workers involved are to clearly understand their role. The
procedure is to address the following issues:
The communication method between the crane crew and the operator on the
other item of plant.
Siting of the cranes or concrete placement booms so that it is not possible for
counterweights to collide.
Work scheduling to minimise the time both items of plant are required to work
in the same area or at the same height.
If the job is a high rise job, a climbing procedure to ensure the tower crane
remains as far above the jump form as practicable (the maximum freestanding height of the tower crane will be a relevant factor).
The minimum clearance is the distance from the closest part of the crane
or suspended load to the power line.
Allowances for sag and sway of the overhead lines should be made and
added to the minimum clearances. Sway is usually caused by wind and
sag occurs with temperature change of the line.
The principal contractor and crane company should be able to demonstrate what
systems are in place to effectively prevent the crane contacting power lines.
Reference should be made to the Working Near Exposed Live Parts Code of
Practice. The inspector may consider the systems to be reasonable or may think
otherwise depending on observations and feedback received on site (ie from the
crane crew).
In some situations it may be necessary to fit the crane with approach limit
switches on the slew function that warn the operator visually and audibly that
power lines are being approached. If the control measure relies on limit switches
or warning devices to help prevent power line contact, the reliability of the circuitry
is to be a minimum of category 4 reliability in accordance with AS 4024.1 or EN
954-1.
23
APPENDIX 3
Tower Crane blitz Operator questionnaire
Crane type and model: ____________________________
Date:
Answer
b) 1 week 4 weeks
c) 5 weeks - 12 weeks
d) 13 weeks - 1 year
e) 13 months - 2 years
f)
21 25 years
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Issue
Answer
a)
b)
c)
d)
0 to 25%
26 to 50%
51 to 75%
76 to 100 %
Yes
Other reason
No