Accepting our differences

10 December 2007

Print Page

Throughout the global crane market there is all kinds of debate and debacle where standards are concerned, most of the time involving a struggle to conform to one ideal.


A local manufacturer could still be using traditional domestic methods, while his competitor up the road could be committed to ISO practice.  In between is the customer who's just not sure which to specify on his tender sheet or which to work to when the gear gets on site.  The authorities sometimes wear a different hat altogether.

As the industry continues to tie itself in knots, one Canadian is dedicated to finding common ground with the rest of the world. But will the industry ever conform to one true international standard?

"We want to bring awareness to the industry for the need to have standards that are applicable worldwide, rather than every country having their own," say KOLO Hoisting and Rigging Handbook co-author and industry guru Judy Mellott.

Canada has made its intentions clear by revising the CSA B167 overhead crane standards and has adopted the ISO international world standard for cranes, and used this standard to develop a document entitled 'Part 5 overhead travelling and portal bridge cranes,' which are instructions unique and applicable across Canada. The final revision, CSA B167, has been completed but has experienced delay after delay and is yet to receive industry approval prior to publication.

In truth, the industry is a long way away from a world standard to which everyone conforms.

Derrick Bailes, chief executive of UK-based Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (LEEA), explains where problems can occur regarding even the simplest rigging techniques: "US practice used to be to measure angles to the horizontal whereas in the UK and Europe and now in all international standards we measure included angles and angles to the vertical."

He adds: "Terminology is not universal. For example, he explains, what is a bridle? What is turning hitch?  Perhaps understood in north America but not in Europe or other parts of the world and not used in standards," he adds.

In 2000 the world recognised ISO 9000 quality management standards revised the existing standards and introduced standardisation. Throughout North America, government, provinces, states, industry and multi-site organisations have until now operated totally independent of each other.

I had the pleasure of visiting CERN (the European Organisation for Nuclear Research) a while ago, on the Franco-Swiss border. This underground scientific research laboratory is an example in many ways to the rest of the crane industry.  Down there in the labyrinth, standards, for example, never seem to cause problems - despite the potential complexity of the situation.

There are a series of applicable standards at CERN which in general are added to the technical specification of a crane.  They are a mix of EN, FEM and what are known onsite as "CERN norms".

CERN itself has to adhere to both Swiss and French legislation, depending on which side of the border on which it is working, and Switzerland is not in the European Union (EU), which could add all kinds of complications.

Consider a dozen workers in a single lift shaft, none of which share a single universal word, working on a multi-million dollar project.  It should be a recipe for disaster.  But CERN finds a way to make it work.

In 2005 alone, for example, CERN handled 5,950,000,000 Swiss Francs (nearly Euros 3,769m) worth of equipment.

Is this example one to follow?

What do you think of CSA B167?

Drop me a line at the usual address...

Richard Howes, Editor

rhowes@wilmington.co.uk