Raising a storm
4 May 2000
When hurricanes hit France last December, it did more
than physical damage. It also fanned the flames of the
intense rivalry between Potain and Liebherr and ignited a
technical debate about standards
When 20 or more tower cranes blew over during the
hurricanes that hit France in late December, it was
inevitable that questions were going to be asked. Are the
standards rigorous enough to protect public safety?
Alongside the most serious and overriding issue of safety
lies the pursuit of profit and market share. Potain
absolutely dominates the tower crane industry in France,
and Liebherr wants a bigger bite. We should not be
surprised, therefore, that the two companies view the
lessons from the storms rather differently. When it comes
to any kind of standards, there is always plenty of room
for disagreement about the relative merits of the German
DIN, French NF and European FEM standards.
Liebherr points out that not one of its cranes in France
were toppled by the storms on 26 and 28 December. And
in Germany where storms “raged with similar high
speeds to those in France across certain regions”, to
quote Liebherr, “no incidents have been reported for
cranes erected correctly and capable of turning into the
wind’
Liebherr continues: “The reason for this satisfactory
situation may lie in the fact that Liebherr tower cranes
have higher stability due to complying with the DIN
15019 stability standard.
Liebherr always applies the safety check in accordance
with DIN 15019 - this standard is still valid in Germany —
to Liebherr tower cranes used in France. In contrast to
the European calculation regulation FEM 1.001 (similar
to the French regulation NF 52081) which is generally
applied in France, DIN 15019 calls for a higher level of
stability when exposed to storm loads. Furthermore,
additional evidence of safety has to be provided.” Potain
hits back by pointing out that, statistically, it it is hardly
surprising that its cranes were the most affected by the
storms in France. It says that 15 cranes fell in the Paris
area out of a total of 1,000 erected. Two of them fell forreasons unconnected to the storms. Given that 90% of
the cranes in the area are Potain, and the nearest
competitor has 50 cranes, statistically one would expect
less than one crane of any other manufacturer to have
fallen over. Outside of the Paris area, only two out of
3,000 cranes fell. “Some of the cranes that fell [in the
Paris area] were in conformity with the DIN standard. In
the meantime, and under a less violent storm, five cranes
erected in Germany fell. Those five cranes were built to
the DIN standard.” Presumably those five are covered by
Liebherr’s rider about being “erected correctly and
capable of turning into the wind”.
Potain also points out that none of the cranes that fell in
Germany were made by Potain but admits that we
conclude nothing from this, “given the Potain fleet in
Germany’
Potain says that as it is a French manufacturer, it used to
use the NF standard, which was compulsory in France
until 1996, but now uses the FEM standard “which is
almost similar to NF, which gives almost the same ballast
values as the NF standard”
In Germany, though, (where it has manufactured since
acquiring BKT in 1997) Potain uses the DIN 15019
standard, so it should be well placed to understand the
differences and relative merits. It summarises thus: “The
NF and DIN standards are not equivalent, but are still
very close. The DIN standard is slightly more severe than
the NF. The NF and FEM standards are less penalising
on the operation (ballast and working height) than the
DIN standard.” Potain also points out: ‘Nowadays,
Liebherr is also using the FEM standard for some of its
data, which allows them to show bigger free standing
heights with identical ballast than the DIN standard.”
Liebherr sees things differently, and this is where it starts
to get technical: "When making a comparative calculation
with, for instance, a Liebherr 200 ECH/170 tower crane
such as is frequently used in France, the following
difference occurs: the Liebherr tower crane 200 ECH/170
with a jib length of 60m and a free-travel hook height of
about 50m requires, according to the Liebherr DIN 15019
stability calculation, central ballast which is 45% heavier
than with FEM calculation, resulting in higher crane
stability.
“For tower cranes it is mandatory for the crane jibs to be
able to move freely in the wind. in general the crane
concept features a negative dead weight moment.Unfavourable stress exerted by the working load can
thus be compensated to half its value. In the event of
wind load this also results in better stability, since due to
the jib turning into the wind the dead load moment acts in
opposition to the storm load
“In this case the FEM 1.001 calculation requires 1.1-fold
stability. In contrast, DIN 15019 calls for 1.2-fold stability.
“In addition, a safety load situation with 0.8-fold stability
is required to resist storm loads from the front. Basically
this standard evidence of safety is the decisive load
situation for standard crane erecting heights (height
shown on the dimensional data sheet of Liebherr tower
cranes) since the dead weight moment is overlapped by
the storm load moment.
“Despite the higher central ballast required in contrast to
an FEM calculation, Liebherr does not intend to deviate
from this calculation practice in France. Liebherr cranes
thus have a higher central ballast in most cases than
competitors’ cranes.
“The additional safety load helps to protect against the
possible short-term occurrence of gusts of wind before
the jib can move into the wind, Furthermore the possible
short-term diagonal wind force exerted on the jib and
counter-jib, resulting in an enlarged surface exposed to
the wind, is safeguarded against. Short-term diagonal
wind exposure can also occur if the wind changes
direction rapidly.
“Assuming the wind speed (DIN and FEM identical) of
151kmh quoted in the standards (for erecting heights up
to 100m), the crane according to DIN will retain its
stability up to a wind speed of 177kmh with the jib
aligned with the direction of the wind. According to FEM
1.0-fold stability criteria, only wind speeds of a maximum
158kmh are possible. There is no linear connection
between wind speed and wind load.” Potain says that it is
not enough just to follow existing standards - any of
them. “The basic respect of existing standards is not
enough. The phenomena causing accidents are complex
and not well known: site effect, swirling winds. Over-
ballasting is an incomplete solution to the problems
faced.” The French company promises that it will not let
the issue drop, however, and it will continue to strive for
improved safety. “We will scientifically analyse those
phenomena, in partnership with other professionals of
tower cranes, in order to better anticipate and fight them.We will get our recommendations and the standards to
evolve accordingly. Our after sales service is able to give
all details regarding erection of our tower cranes under
special conditions.” It should be stressed, however, that
this is not an argument about whether Liebherr or Potain
designs and manufactures the better cranes. The real
dispute is among the bodies that set the standards. Then
again, we can assume that as leading manufacturers,
Liebherr and Potain both had their fair share of input into
the drafting of the standards to which they adhere.