ROUNDTABLE


equipment is fit for purpose, hence the name “Proof Load Test”.


OCH: How do these differences effect your business? WD: Something I have noticed in the US that I have never seen in Europe is one of our manufacturers going the extra mile and actually filming the test on camera for the ultimate peace-of-mind and solid record of proof, making that footage available to the purchaser as well as holding a copy on file, and to me it makes complete sense because quite simply anyone can produce a fake test certificate or attest that it was subjected to the correct procedures, but “seeing is believing” as one wise customer once told me. I am a huge advocate for this procedure and think it’s time more manufacturers integrate this type of absolute proof into their testing regime, not only does it protect the manufacturers from falsely being held responsible for an equipment failure, it also holds to account those members of the team who are responsible for carrying out the test to the appropriate standard.


One thing that does surprise many though, is the differences in design factors (safety factors to the Europeans reading) in the US Vs. Europe, for example; a Web Sling is in Europe is required by BS EN 1492-1 standard to have a 7:1 design factor, yet in the US under ASME B30.9 this is lowered to 5:1. Leaning in on culture differences and data-driven decisions might be where we uncover the answer to what on the surface appears as a ‘lesser’ requirement- ASME B30.9 requires that all slings are proof load tested prior to their initial use whereas in Europe the BS EN 1492-1 standard does not require that each and every sling is proof load tested, simply being manufactured to the standard is deemed sufficient, and since operating stateside I am not sure I agree wholeheartedly with that process, I feel it could benefit from a little stateside inspiration. However, with that said, having played the role on both sides of the


pond, I do recognize the complexities this poses on distributors that stock this type of product in Europe including extended lead times and investment in to testing equipment, but we do have a responsibility to uphold in this industry, and going above and beyond should be the norm. Having held this discussion with fellow Europeans in my network, the debate often holds strength on both sides with those who oppose the B30.9 guidance pushing back and voicing that proof load tests often exceed the working load limits and by doing so could be thought to impact the strength of the sling, but I politely rebuttal the suggestion and show them the OSHA website: “Proof testing at 200% SWL repeated every 90 days will have no detrimental effect on the strength of the sling. Tests conducted by Boeing have shown that nylon web slings can withstand severe and frequent repeated tests at loads of over 550% SWL with a strength loss of less than 2%” (OSHA standard interpretations 1988-07-19). The debate tends to come to a grinding holt at this point either in acceptance or disbelief of the facts. The bottom line is that regulation and


standards in manufacturing in the US Vs. Europe are very similar in my opinion, they take different approaches with common goals revolving around safety and protection, with the US leaning towards an area of absolute proof and Europe leaning towards a more initially cost- effective trust and honesty-based system with additional ‘padding’ to protect against breaches. I think it’s obvious, but personally I am in favor of the US-system.


Will Dunn, president, Lifting Equipment Store (LES) USA


OCH: Mark Yerse, CMCO, what changes in US standards and regulations have you seen recently? MY: We’ve been actively involved in updating ASME and ISO standards, which enhance the safety and competitiveness of lifting, chain, and rigging products. We've also been adapting to the Department of Energy's revisions to motor efficiency standards. Additionally, there have been significant updates to environmental regulations, including the Toxic Substances Control Act and the European REACH regulations, along with global efforts to eliminate Persistent Organic Pollutants. Cybersecurity standards are also rapidly evolving, presenting both challenges and opportunities for us to deliver a premium customer experience by leveraging Industry 4.0 technologies These changes align closely with our commitment to creating safer, more productive, and sustainable products and solutions. They also support our mission to develop intelligent motion solutions that move the world forward and improve lives. Adapting our products to meet these new regulations requires investment, but it


also drives meaningful progress in environmental stewardship, workplace safety, and community engagement.


OCH: How does this differ from other regulations outside the US? MY: While other countries and regions have standards and regulations similar to those in the US, they do differ in some respects. Columbus McKinnon is actively involved in developing these standards worldwide and ensures that our products meet the requirements in every market. In the US, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) publishes the B30 standards titled “Safety Standard for Cableways, Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Jacks, and Slings,” which set safety requirements for hoists, cranes, and related equipment. These standards are widely accepted across all states. In addition to complying with mandatory


standards and regulations in each country— which include essential design rules and required verification tests—Columbus McKinnon has developed robust internal design practices. Over the years, we've refined our analytical and experimental modeling techniques and established evidence-based processes to ensure our products perform at a superior level. We've also embraced best-in-class continuous improvement methods to regularly evolve our products and processes.


OCH: When launching new products, what processes do you have to go through to ensure your equipment is safe and ready to be installed? MY: At Columbus McKinnon, product safety is our top priority. During the new product development process, each part and assembly undergoes rigorous testing to ensure it will perform safely under conditions that exceed those it will encounter in the field. We also subject final assembly prototypes to similar testing, ensuring they meet both our internal standards and all applicable codes and regulations. A new product


Mark Yerse, director, Global Product Management, CMCO ochmagazine.com | Fall 2024 11


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