GUEST COLUMN
The chain of safety
Jim Jota is an industry professional specialising in crane safety and compliance, supporting assurance programmes across industrial, marine and offshore lifting environments with Unique Group and the Crane Certification Association of America (CCAA). He combines regulatory knowledge, engineering awareness and operational insight to help manage life cycle risk and strengthen confidence in critical lifting systems.
O
verhead cranes are fundamental to industrial production, but their safety cannot be judged solely by whether
they pass an annual inspection. Compliance confirms performance at a specific point in time. Risk, however, continues to evolve with every lift. For overhead crane owners and operators, the challenge is not only meeting regulatory requirements but also ensuring that safety decisions reflect how cranes behave in service, under real loads and in changing environments. OSHA 1910.179 and the ASME B30 series have long shaped what compliance looks like in the US. Globally, harmonised standards provide additional guidance on degradation mechanisms, load stability, hook design and runway tolerances. These standards establish a foundation, but incident data shows that many crane-related failures originate in areas not fully addressed by minimum inspection requirements. “Compliance verifies a moment. Safety protects the moments that follow,” says Jim Jota of Unique Group and Crane Certification Association of America (CCAA).
Inspection, testing and compliance responsibilities Frequent and periodic inspections required by OSHA and ASME ensure that hoists, rigging components, brakes, limit switches and supporting structures continue to function within a safe operating envelope. They validate what is visible, measurable and testable. As long as inspection remains periodic and not continuous, the time between inspections leaves room for change. A crane’s duty cycle is central to understanding its ongoing risk profile. A Class D or E crane operating multiple shifts at high utilisation rates has significantly more fatigue than a crane built to the same standard but operating at lighter service. ASME B30 recognises this disparity and directs owners to align inspection and maintenance practices with actual operational demand. Yet many facilities rely on static schedules, unintentionally creating blind spots when equipment is pushed beyond original assumptions.
56 Winter 2025 |
ochmagazine.com
Minimum compliance confirms minimum known conditions. Risk grows where conditions are unknown.
Critical components and material degradation
Every component in a load path has its own fatigue story. Wire ropes accumulate internal wire breaks that concentrate stress away from surface view. ISO 4309 provides detailed guidance for rope retirement based on degradation mechanisms, but many ropes are still replaced only after external signs meet discard criteria. Hooks experience stress redistribution over time, especially near the saddle and shank transition. Sheaves and bearings show delayed consequences after lubrication gaps or abrasive environments accelerate wear. Steel structures develop micro-cracks at stress risers that may not appear until well after the initiating event. Material behaviour under repeated load cycles is complex. Corrosion pitting creates sharp geometric features that accelerate crack initiation. Cold temperatures reduce toughness and increase the potential for brittle fracture if loads change quickly. Even relatively small shock loads multiply internal stress far beyond static weight. Safety improves when deterioration is understood as a rate, not just a condition. A major steel fabrication facility recently identified advanced internal rope damage on a primary hoist, despite an outward appearance of compliance. Years of near-capacity lifting had altered the rope core in ways no traditional surface inspection would have revealed. Recognising damage before it appeared externally prevented operational downtime and significantly reduced the potential for incidents. “Understanding how components age during
real operations strengthens confidence in what they will do next,” explains Jota.
Structural interactions and system health Cranes operate as part of a larger structural system. ISO 12488-1 describes tolerances for runway alignment, because even small deviations
increase horizontal loading on wheels and bearings. Over time, wheels begin to lead or lag in travel as components self-correct misalignment, shifting stress to motor couplings and braking systems. These conditions may not show up during inspection but can be observed through changes in current draw, vibration and abnormal temperature rise. One industrial site reported recurring brake issues on a main production crane. Investigation revealed progressive runway misalignment due to settlement on one side of the bay. Brake repairs were treating a symptom; the root cause resided in geometry. System health depends on understanding both equipment condition and the environment in which it operates.
Human performance and operational safety culture
Advanced engineering controls cannot remove people from lifting operations. Operators and riggers work through variable load behaviour, communication challenges, reduced visibility and production priorities. Human factors contribute to most crane incidents, but they also offer the greatest opportunity for improvement when properly understood. ASME B30 emphasises personnel competence and supervision because consistent decision- making directly influences safety. Situational awareness, clear communication protocols and the ability to suspend a lift when conditions change are all grounded in human judgment. Safety culture is not measured by documentation. It is demonstrated by whether people are willing and able to act when something is not right. “The safest processes are those designed with real human behaviour in mind,” says Jota.
Technology supporting smarter decisions New assurance technologies are reshaping safety expectations. AI-enabled vision systems can detect proximity risks between cranes, personnel and structures faster than human perception alone. Load data transmitted through
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 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87
