Tower Crane Incidents Worldwide: WWW - Hsl.gov - Uk

Tower Crane Incidents Worldwide
Ian Simpson – Principal Specialist Inspector, HSE
www.hsl.gov.uk
www.hsl.gov.uk
AnAn Agency
Agency of theof the Health
Health and
and Safety Safety
Executive Executive
OBJECTIVES
• To identify worldwide Tower Crane

accidents 1989 to 2009
• Obtain where possible the cause(s) of
each accident identified
• Use the information to advise/guide the
UK Tower Crane industry to help improve
safety
An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

CRANE TYPES
• Confined to tower cranes commonly found on UK

construction sites.
• Only major accidents resulting in the collapse of the

crane considered
• Does not include

– Mobile Cranes
– Self Erecting Tower Cranes
– Tracked Crawler Cranes
– Dockyard Cranes – Gantry Cranes & Container Cranes

CRANE TYPES
CONVENTIONAL
TOWER CRANE
LUFFING JIB CRANE

SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Internet
Websites of trade/industry magazines
craneaccidents.com & towercraneaccidents.blogspot.com

Websites of private individuals with some connection with
the industry (both U.S. based)
Websites of media local to the accident e.g. New York

Times

LIMITATIONS/DIFFICULTIES
• No single source of accurate information identified
• “Trade” websites tend to be Ok for the initial report & will

follow up with further detail when available
• The two private websites often inconsistent with the

“trade” websites and are prone to (usually well meaning)
speculation.

• Not all the websites have knowledge of all the accidents.

Some accidents are given on one website but not
another.
• Local media usually reports in the immediate aftermath

of the incident and details can be vague & inaccurate
• Geographic locations. Remote countries with less

developed health & safety cultures tend not to be as well
reported (investigated ?) as U.S.A. & Europe

This can be frustrating
Zibo City, China Battersea

• Visually similar accidents. Top of the crane has parted
from the mast section at the slewing ring joint. Lack of
detailed information from the China accident prevents
accurate comparison
RESULTS
• 54 accidents resulting in the collapse of the tower crane

involved identified since 1999.
– Information prior to 1999 very scarce

RESULTS
• These split into the following categories:

– Erection/Dismantling or Extending (climbing) the
crane
– Strong Winds or Extreme Weather
– Foundation Problems
– Mechanical Issues (including safety & control
systems)
– Misuse of the Crane, e.g Overload, Collision etc
– No details verified in the research to explain the
collapse

RESULTS
Erection/Dismantling/Extending
3 20 Extreme Weather
Foundation Issues
6
Mechanical Issues
Misuse
Cause Unidentified
7
10
54 TOTAL
EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENTS
• Erection/Dismantling or Extending
New York – March 2008


• Cause of accident focused on the number and condition of the

lifting slings used to lift/support the tie in collar
• Four slings were used instead of eight recommended by the

manufacturer.
• Old slings were apparently used with no prior inspection

despite four new slings being offered by the construction
manager to the rigging crew
• Sling protection not used

DAMAGED/FAILED SLING
TIE IN COLLARS

• Nothing technically wrong with the crane itself
• Accident centred on competence, procedural, communication

issues & condition of lifting equipment in use
• These factors not confined to Tower Cranes or foreign

countries

• Foundation Issues
Seattle – November 2006

• Crane mast section severed approximately 15 feet from the

base
• The foundation was an uncommon design consisting of steel I

section cross beams supported by four concrete pillars
• Site workers raised issues concerning the crane before the

accident. They reported that the foundation “creaked &
groaned far more than usual”.
• Photographs of the crane taken

before the accident show that the
crane appeared to be leaning
• Accident attributed to failure of

welded/bolted joints in the foundation
steelwork
• This resulted in the crane leaning

and overstressing the bottom of the
mast section


• Accident centred on design & manufacturing issues of the

foundation itself and communication issues
• Had the concerns raised by the site workers been acted
on could the accident have been avoided ?
• Again, these issues not unique to the tower crane industry or

foreign countries

• Foundation Issues MAST SECTION LEG
Singapore – February 2008

PIN
GROUND ANCHOR
ATTACHED TO
CONCRETE
FOUNDATION
BLOCK
• More conventional foundation arrangement. No accurate

details concerning the root cause. It appears as if the ground
anchors have failed and the pins have pulled through them.
• Mechanical Issues
New York – May 2008

• Crane involved was a “Kodiak” at least 24 years old
• Production of Kodiak cranes ceased prior to the accident
• Investigation showed that the accident was due to failure of a

welded repair to the slewing ring support structure at the top
of the mast section.

• Accident raised issues of use & maintenance of aged plant:-
• Why did the slewing ring support structure require repairing

in the first place ?
• Who technically evaluated/authorised the welded repair

technique and inspection criteria/standards (if any) ?
• Was the repair carried out to the required standards ?
• These sort of issues not confined to the tower crane industry

or foreign countries
• Mechanical Issues (Control System)
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

• Mechanical Issues (Control
System)
• Prior to the accident the hook

block saddle was stationary in
position along the jib and under
control of the mechanical saddle
travel motor brake

• Under these conditions the crane was leaning forwards
• The crane controls were operated to bring the load in

towards the mast section for final positioning of the load
• Instead of moving towards the mast the load ran away to

the outer end of the jib
• The hook block saddle travel motor control system was a

sophisticated modern PLC/Inverter electronic system
• The accident was attributed to settings of the control system
• When the controls were operated the hook block saddle travel
motor mechanical brake was released (solenoid operated)
before the electric motor had built up sufficient current to hold
the load against the downward slope of the crane jib

• Since the crane was leaning forwards, the hook block and load
started to move towards the outer end of the jib
• The electric braking of the motor was not sufficient to stop the
load once it had gathered momentum
• The mast section suffered structural failure close to the edge of

the building


• Extreme Weather
Utrecht, Holland – January 2007
Katowice, Poland – January 2007
Liverpool, UK – January 2007
Utrecht
Liverpool
• Extreme Weather
• Speaks for itself really, no firm details concerning the Utrecht &
Katowice accidents other than the Katowice crane reportedly
“literally snapped in half”
• Common issues associated with high winds (above 72 km/hr,

20 m/s) can include:
– The jibs of luffing cranes being blown backwards
– Structural failure of jibs, counter jibs and mast sections
– Prevention of the cranes ability to free slew or weathervane
• Slew brake left on
• Advertising boards along the jib and counter jib acting as sails

SUMMARY
• Causes of tower crane accidents in other countries have
common recurring themes with the UK and other industry
sectors and include (in no particular order)
• Poor design
• Improper or not sufficiently thorough maintenance/inspections
• Inappropriate modifications or repairs and failure to implement
these to sufficiently high standards
• Human Factors
– Training/Competency
– Miscommunication/Misunderstandings
– Failure to follow procedures (shortcuts)
– Failure to act if something is not right

Tower Crane Incidents Worldwide: WWW - Hsl.gov - Uk

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Tower Crane Incidents Worldwide: WWW - Hsl.gov - Uk

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Tower Crane Incidents Worldwide

Ian Simpson – Principal Specialist Inspector, HSE

• To identify worldwide Tower Crane

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• Confined to tower cranes commonly found on UK

• Only major accidents resulting in the collapse of the

• Does not include

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

LUFFING JIB CRANE

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

craneaccidents.com & towercraneaccidents.blogspot.com

Websites of media local to the accident e.g. New York

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• No single source of accurate information identified

• “Trade” websites tend to be Ok for the initial report & will

• The two private websites often inconsistent with the

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• Not all the websites have knowledge of all the accidents.

• Local media usually reports in the immediate aftermath

• Geographic locations. Remote countries with less

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

Zibo City, China Battersea

• 54 accidents resulting in the collapse of the tower crane

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• These split into the following categories:

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• Cause of accident focused on the number and condition of the

• Four slings were used instead of eight recommended by the

• Old slings were apparently used with no prior inspection

• Sling protection not used

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• Nothing technically wrong with the crane itself

• Accident centred on competence, procedural, communication

• These factors not confined to Tower Cranes or foreign

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• Crane mast section severed approximately 15 feet from the

• The foundation was an uncommon design consisting of steel I

• Site workers raised issues concerning the crane before the

• Photographs of the crane taken

• Accident attributed to failure of

• This resulted in the crane leaning

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• Accident centred on design & manufacturing issues of the

• Again, these issues not unique to the tower crane industry or

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

Singapore – February 2008

• More conventional foundation arrangement. No accurate

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• Crane involved was a “Kodiak” at least 24 years old

• Production of Kodiak cranes ceased prior to the accident

• Investigation showed that the accident was due to failure of a

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive

• Accident raised issues of use & maintenance of aged plant:-

• Why did the slewing ring support structure require repairing

• Who technically evaluated/authorised the welded repair

• Was the repair carried out to the required standards ?

• These sort of issues not confined to the tower crane industry

An Agency of the Health and Safety Executive