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 forreasons 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.