search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
LEEA | EXPERT COLUMN


Technical Committee


THE LIFE OF A CRANE


Understanding of the Design Working Period is crucial if age-related crane failures are to be avoided, writes Ben Dobbs, head of technical services at the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association.


I


n-service failure of cranes and other lifting gear has many causes, from criminal negligence downwards. One recurrent theme


is the failure of equipment that appears to be operating well within its ‘safe working load’ and ‘design life’. Such incidents are seen both in ageing and in relatively new equipment and suggest that those responsible for safe maintenance and operation do not always fully understand the ‘life cycle’ of the crane and its implications for safety. To concentrate directors’ minds it is worth noting that crane- related accidents can have severe consequences not just for those involved, but also those responsible. Age-related failures are entirely


avoidable provided everyone in the chain of responsibility performs their role, and understands that the modern, finely engineered crane does not necessarily last for ever. They need to be looked after. Part of the problem may be that the whole approach to the design of cranes has changed in relatively recent times and the simple concepts of ‘design life’ and ‘safe working load’ are not really valid in modern practice. Greater understanding, combined with the ability of computer aided engineering to enable a less conservative evaluation of stress and strain calculation, allows engineers to design close to the ‘limit state’, not just in terms of static loads but in terms of cyclical or fatigue loading, and in the effects of wear and tear. That has yielded great benefits in terms of initial cost, ease of transport and assembly, and indeed the giant tower cranes seen on construction sites today would not have been possible under the old design approach. However, this also means that


cranes are designed, and classified, for particular patterns of duty. Structures are designed for a lifetime measured not in calendar years but in working cycles, and mechanisms similarly for a life in running hours. Working cycles are related to


Ben Dobbs.


the load spectrum – the average load handled by comparison with the nominal rated load. So, for example, a crane rated at 10t


and intended to perform occasional maintenance tasks will be designed differently, and have different vulnerabilities, from a 10t crane intended for continual use on a production line. If the inspection, maintenance and use of the crane takes due account of what is now a quite complicated specification – not a ‘design life’ but a ‘design working period’ (DWP) – all should be well, but there is little margin for error. This does not just apply to structures


– there are similar considerations around motors, brakes, wire ropes and other elements. Various components and assemblies may have DWPs, which are not the same as that of the crane as a whole. It is easy to see how things can go


wrong. The intended usage may have been inadequately defined when it was bought or hired; usage may change, perhaps because production increases;


it may be used for purposes it wasn’t intended for. It becomes very important to maintain a history of usage and to relate that to the design parameters: that may not be easy – for example, with a hired crane, or when a new owner takes over a site or factory with cranes already installed. It isn’t enough to depend on the periodic inspections and examinations specified under Loler (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations) – incipient failure, whether in structural members or, for example, in wire rope cores, may not be readily visible. ‘BS ISO 12482 Cranes – monitoring for


crane design working period’ describes a method of monitoring the actual duty of bridge and gantry cranes relating it to the original duty envisaged in the classification. That then enables the prediction of when design limits are being approached and, in turn, the timely targeting of special inspections, maintenance and refurbishment. The philosophy of BS ISO 12482 should apply to all cranes.


www.hoistmagazine.com | November 2023 | 23


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83