ESTA A4versie DEFdigitalHR-pages
ESTA A4versie DEFdigitalHR-pages
ESTA A4versie DEFdigitalHR-pages
FOR
SELF-PROPELLED
MODULAR
TRANSPORTERS
PREFACE
Established in 1976, the Europaische Schwertransport Automobilkran group (ESTA) was initially founded by a
small group of Transport and Crane associations from Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland,
in order to share their experiences and to discuss the problems that all parties faced when operating internationally
across borders. Now, still with ESTA as acronym, the organisation is known as the European Association of
Abnormal Road Transport and Mobile Cranes and membership is open to all European countries.
One of the purposes of ESTA is to promote and represent the industry in which we work, with the aim of creating
a safe and more efficient working environment. It was with this purpose in mind that ESTA in 2009 accepted the
challenge to establish guidelines for the use of SPMTs. A number of ESTA members joined forces in a working
group made up of stakeholders from within the industry of SPMT operations. Participating parties ranged from
manufacturers, operators, government permit authorities to representatives from the clients of these operators.
The process has taken time and it has been challenging throughout. ESTA is proud however to be able to now present
to you this Best practice guide. The document is offered for free distribution and use and it is the intention that this
document will be adopted as a world standard.
It should be noted that the document has been produced and should be read with the view that such a complex
subject as the use of SPMTs means it cannot be prescriptive, or offer engineering calculations due to the many
complex possibilities for this unique transport method. The objective of this document is to correlate the chain of
responsibility for all stakeholders involved with SPMT operations, to recommend best practice and to serve as
a baseline starting point for the use of SPMTs from where the more complex transport engineering jobs can
then go forward.
Finally I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the members of the working group who had the patience and
ability to put this document together; without them it would never have happened.
Yours sincerely
David Collett, ESTA Chairman
SELF-PROPELLED
MODULAR
TRANSPORTERS
Country
Type of player
United Kingdom
Operating company
Fagioli S.p.a.
Italy
Operating company
Goldhofer AG
Germany
Manufacturer
Mammoet B.V.
The Netherlands
Operating company
RDW
The Netherlands
Sarens N.V.
Belgium
Operating company
Germany
Manufacturer
The Netherlands
Industrial client
Aruba
The Netherlands
Operating company
The following stakeholders support this Best Practice Guide and will work according to the guidelines that are
outlined in this document.
The list above is subject to change. An up-to-date overview can be found online on the website of the ESTA
(www.estaeurope.eu).
If you or your company would like to support this Best Practice Guide too and if you intend to work according
to the guidelines as outlined in this document, please contact the ESTA via info@estaeurope.eu. You or your
company/organisation will then be included in the online overview and will be added to the list in this document
as soon as a new issue is released.
LEGAL NOTE
This publication is only for guidance and gives an overview regarding to the assessment of risks related to the
use of Self-Propelled Modular Transporters. It neither claims to cover every aspect of the matter, nor does
it reflect all legal aspects in detail. It is not meant to, and cannot, replace own knowledge of the pertaining
directives, laws and regulations. Furthermore the specific characteristics of the individual products and the
various possible applications have to be taken into account. This is why, apart from the assessments and
procedures addressed in this Best Practice Guide, many other scenarios may apply.
CONTENTS
Preface
APPENDICES
23
Legal note
23
Contents
24
Terminology
Appendix 3: Checklists
25
2. The equipment
3. The load
30
32
4. Training
10
5. Engineering a transport
13
L I ST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Responsibility triangle .....................................................................5
Figure 2: Competence as a function of experience and skill .................10
Figure 3: Incremental development .............................................................11
Figure 4: Top view SPMT with three and four point
suspension set-up............................................................................13
Figure 5: A ssumed height of stability area for transporter
5.4 Engineering16
6. Preparation of a transport
17
L I ST OF TABLES
Table 1: Overview of players supporting the BPG......................................2
7. The transport
20
TERMINOLOGY
Term/abbreviation
BPG
Client
COG
ESTA
Load
Any object that is transported on an SPMT, including, if applicable, load-spreading equipment and
packaging of the load.
Longitudinal
Manufacturing company
Operating company
As in the stability of the transporter in the longitudinal direction; the stability in the forward and backward
direction of the transporter, at a steering angle of 0 degrees (see Appendix 1 for clarification).
Any company or person that manufactures SPMTs
Any company or person who has access to an SPMT and executes
a transport with it
Route
The environment through which a transport will travel from any point A to any point B
SPMT
Transverse
Definition/Explanation
As in the stability of the transporter in the transverse direction; the stability in the sideways direction of the
transporter, at a steering angle of 0 degrees (see Appendix 1 for clarification).
OPERATING
COMPANY
MANUFACTURERS
CLIENT
Although the manufacturer and the operating company will do all they can to ensure that a transport is
executed safely, it is the client who has to give them the opportunity to do so. Only if the client provides the right
information and gives an operating company the opportunity to do its work professionally can the safety of a
transport be guaranteed. Any company or person who has a particular load and requests an operating company
to transport this load from any point A to any point B, is referred to in this document as the client.
In addition to the three stakeholders mentioned above, many other stakeholders can be listed that have a role in the safe
execution of a transport with an SPMT, e.g. road authorities, industry associations and engineering companies, to name
but a few. However, the three stakeholders mentioned in the responsibility triangle all have a direct stake in ensuring
that any executed transport is safe and that a load is transported without problems. The direct (safe) execution of a
transport revolves around these three stakeholders, which is the reason why this document focusses on the roles these
stakeholders play and the responsibilities they have.
1.2 THE LINES OF COMMUNICATION
The responsibility triangle not only reflects who the main stakeholders are in the safe execution of a transport,
but also indicates the lines of responsibility and communication. The two main relationships that can be
identified are:
The mutual responsibility and communication relationship between the manufacturers and the operating
companies. The manufacturers have certain responsibilities towards the operating companies and the
operating companies have certain responsibilities towards the manufacturers.
The mutual responsibility and communication relationship between the operating companies and their
clients. The operating companies have certain responsibilities towards the clients and the clients have certain
responsibilities towards the operating companies.
The third relationship that can be identified in the triangle is the responsibility and communication relationship
between the client and the manufacturers. Although this relationship is present to a lesser extent than the
aforementioned relationships, and this kind of responsibility and communication will primarily go through or via
the operating company, the manufacturers and clients can support each other directly in order to improve the
safety standards in the industry.
2. THE EQUIPMENT
2. THE EQUIPMENT
3. THE LOAD
Nothing is impossible
Risks associated with the transport of abnormal loads can be reduced when in the design phase of a load
it is taken into account that the load needs to be transportable. In order to enable an operating company to
safely transport each load, sufficient and adequate information about this load has to be provided. This is the
responsibility of the client.
3.1 DESIGN OF THE LOAD
With respect to the fact that it might be necessary to transport any object at a certain moment in time the client,
either directly or indirectly through the designer of the load, has to make sure that:
Any load will, for as far as is necessary and reasonably possible, be designed with sufficient support points
to ensure the load can be transported safely. The maximum allowable force on each support point has to be
indicated at, or in close proximity to, these points. All support points should be reachable without the risk of
entanglement or entrapment.
Any load will, for as far as is necessary and reasonably possible, be designed with sufficient lashing and
securing points to ensure the load can be transported safely. The maximum allowable force on each lashing or
securing point has to be indicated at, or in close proximity to, these points. All lashing and securing points should be
reachable without the risk of entanglement or entrapment.
3.2 DOCUMENTATION AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOAD
The client has to provide at least the following information about the load to the operating company:
4. TRAINING
Currently there is no widely applicable training program available in the world of self-propelled modular
transporters. Setting up such a program is outside the scope of this Best Practice Guide. Instead this guide
offers operating companies a training framework, providing them with a method to assess the competence
of their employees in an objective way.
4.1 SKILL, EXPERIENCE AND COMPETENCE
The training framework is based on the concept of competence. Competence can be considered to be a
combination of skills and experience; skills are what one learns through studying or any other active pursuit of
knowledge. Experience cannot be learned, but has to be gained through time by applying ones skills in practice.
The more skills and experience any person has with respect to any kind of job, the more competent he or she can
be considered to be. Figure 2 shows how experience and skill combine into competence.
In practice nobody develops competence in a linear line as sketched in the figure above. Instead this process is
likely to be incremental; it all starts with acquiring some skills, such as basic education. Once these skills have
been learned, they can be applied to gain the first experience. Over time this results in a certain competence
level (e.g. level 1). After a while the skill set one has learned in the initial stage is no longer sufficient to further
develop ones competence by gaining more experience. So more skills will have to be learned, which can then
be applied in order to reach the next competence level. Increasing ones competence is a continuous process of
combining skills and experience, as shown in the figure below.
4.2 T
RAINING FRAMEWORK FOR OPERATORS
It is the primary responsibility of the operating company to ensure their operators are adequately trained to
perform their duties. The framework described below offers operating companies a method to assess whether the
operator is competent to perform specific jobs.
pet
enc
Skill
Co m
Experience
Figure 2: Competence as a function of experience and skill
10
4. TR AINING
Level 5
Co m
pet
enc
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Skill
Level 1
Experience
Figure 3: Incremental development
11
4. TR AINING
12
5. ENGINEERING A TRANSPORT
Figure 4: Top view SPMT with three and four point suspension set-up
13
5. ENGINEERING A TR ANSPORT
Figure 5: Assumed height of stability area for transporter with pendulum axle (dotted line)
14
5. ENGINEERING A TR ANSPORT
Without this information it is not possible to perform any accurate engineering. If this information is not known,
it is the clients responsibility to determine the correct information.
5.3.2 Work environment/route
Clear and accurate information concerning the work environment and the route over which the transport
will travel is required for the engineering process. More information can be found in section 6.1.1. From the
perspective of engineering the most important factors are:
Inclines and/or declines in the route.
Road camber.
Allowable ground bearing pressures.
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
15
5. ENGINEERING A TR ANSPORT
5.4 ENGINEERING
This section describes how to determine whether first or second degree engineering is required, followed by the
basic guidelines that need to be taken into account at the respective levels of engineering.
5.4.1 Required degree of engineering
The required degree of engineering can be determined on the basis of the following flow chart. It will be clear
that for any complex operation second degree engineering will be required.
5.4.2 First degree engineering and restrictions
In case of first degree engineering, the following minimum calculations should be performed:
V
erification that the intended transporter configuration has sufficient capacity for the intended transport.
Verification that the intended transporter configuration provides sufficient stability by means of static
stability calculations.
If first degree engineering is applied, the following restrictions need to be taken into account:
T
he maximum transporter capacity for calculation purposes should be set at 75% of the theoretical
maximum capacity as indicated by the manufacturer.
All road cambers or inclinations along the transport route should be increased by 2 degrees, so a minimum
of 2 degrees camber and/or inclination must always be taken into account.
The minimum tipping angle that is acceptable with first degree engineering is 7 + 2 = 9 degrees, where the
additional 2 degrees is to be taken into account as a safety margin.
L ashing and securing requirements must be thought through.
5.4.3 Second degree engineering and restrictions
In case of second degree engineering, the following additional calculations compared to first degree engineering
must be performed:
D
ynamic forces such as wind, inertia and slopes must be taken into consideration.
Deflection and/or deformation of the transporter configuration must be taken into consideration.
Effects and requirements with regard to lashing and securing must be thought through.
If second degree engineering is applied, the following restrictions must be taken into account:
T
he maximum transporter capacity for calculation purposes should be set at 90% of the theoretical
maximum capacity as indicated by the manufacturer.
All road cambers or inclinations along the transport route should be increased by 2 degrees, so a minimum
of 2 degrees camber and/or inclination must always be taken into account.
The minimum tipping angle that is acceptable with second degree engineering is 5 + 2 = 7 degrees, where
the additional 2 degrees is to be taken into account as a safety margin. After careful consideration, the
aforementioned minimum tipping angle may be deviated from if with engineering and work preparation
documentation it can be proven that a lower tipping angle can be deemed acceptable for a specific
transport.
5.5 CENTRE OF GRAVITY
For the purpose of this best practice guide the centres of gravity of the transporter and the load are not
considered to be combined. The centres of gravity can be combined if required, provided that adequate measures
are taken, showing that the combination of centres of gravity does not introduce additional risk.
16
6. PREPARATION OF A TRANSPORT
17
No transport is without risk. Risks deemed unacceptable are to be mitigated by appropriate precautions until
they are deemed acceptable by all parties involved.
6.2.2 Method statement
If deemed necessary a method statement may be created for a transport. Such method statement could include,
but is not necessarily limited to:
18
19
7. THE TRANSPORT
Hard hat
Safety shoes
High-visibility jacket (where necessary on site)
Gloves (where necessary on site); the operator who is in control of the hand-held control of the transport
should not be hindered by gloves.
Safety glasses (where appropriate)
7.1.4 Training
Nobody should be allowed to transport a load without being adequately trained. For more information on training
schemes see section 4.
20
7. THE TR ANSPORT
21
7. THE TR ANSPORT
Driving Direction
22
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Top view SPMT; Longitudinal and transverse stability (example)25
Appendix 2: Responsibility matrix
26
Appendix 3: Checklists
27
32
34
23
SPMT
Manufacturer
Operating company
Client
Design
Primary
Secondary (input)
Tertiary (input)
Maintenance
Secondary (instruct)
Primary
Primary
Design to be transportable
Secondary (input)
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Secondary (input)
Primary
Route survey
Permits
Risk assessment
Primary
Secondary (input)
Method statement
Primary
Secondary (input)
Toolbox talk
Primary
Secondary (input)
Personnel
Primary
Communication
Primary
Primary
Secondary
(verification)
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
EQUIPMENT
THE LOAD
ENGINEERING
PREPARATION
Primary
(mutual agreement)
OPERATION
TRAINING
24
APPENDIX 3: CHECKLISTS
On the following pages a number of checklists can be found.
Checklist A: Route survey checklist
Checklist B: Engineering checklist
Checklist C: Pre-mobilisation equipment checklist
Checklist D: Pre-operations checklist
25
Route survey
Operating company
Upon completion of route survey
Check/component
Yes
No
N.A.
Remarks/values
OFF-SITE
General route inspection performed
Bridges on route (if yes, note maximum capacity)
Culverts on route (if yes, note maximum capacity)
Overhead powerlines on route (if yes, note location and height)
Note gradients and cambers on route
(Site) Specific attention points
Swept-path analysis to be performed
Swept-path analysis performed (note date)
OFF-SITE
Test transport to be performed
Test transport performed (note date)
Lowest permissible axle pressure on route (note value and location)
ON-SITE
General route inspection performed
Bridges on route (if yes, note maximum capacity)
Culverts on route (if yes, note maximum capacity)
Overhead power lines on route (if yes, note location and height)
Note gradients and cambers on route
(Site) Specific attention points
Swept-path analysis to be performed
Swept-path analysis performed (note date)
Test transport to be performed
Test transport performed (note date)
Lowest permissible axle pressure on route (note value and location)
26
............ ..........................................
- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Performed by:
..............................................................................................................
Signature:
..............................................................................................................
............
Check/component
Ok
Not ok N.A.
Remarks/values
THRESHOLD VALUES
Total payload (note value)
Longitudinal tilt (note value)
Transverse tilt (note value)
ENGINEERING RESULTS
Maximum payload capacity of the transporter set-up
Stability angle longitudinal direction
(note value, ok if > longitudinal tilt)
Stability angle transverse direction
(note value, ok if > transverse tilt)
Strength of additional components
Deflection
Dynamic forces taken into account
Gradient forces (note max.)
Acc./deceleration (note max.)
Centrifugal forces (note max.)
Wind force (note max.)
ON-SITE
Transport configuration and set-up as determined
during engineering
Maximum payload (note value)
Maximum transporter speed (note value)
Maximum wind speed (note value)
Maximum longitudinal tilt (note value)
Maximum transverse tilt (note value)
............ ..........................................
- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Performed by:
..............................................................................................................
Signature:
..............................................................................................................
............
27
Equipment
Operating company
Before mobilisation of equipment
Check/component
Ok
Not ok N.A.
Remarks/values
TRANSPORTER
Checked transporter (note ID)
General condition (visual)
Hydraulics (visual, leakage)
Tyres (visual, pressure)
Connector bolts (visual)
Protection plates (visual)
POWER PACK(S)
Checked power/power packs (note ID)
General condition (visual)
Fuel level (note level, ok if sufficient)
Engine oil level
Clean air filter
Hydraulics (visual, leakage)
Hydraulic oil level driving system (note level, ok if sufficient)
Hydraulic oil level lifting system (note level, ok if sufficient)
28
............ ..........................................
- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Performed by:
..............................................................................................................
Signature:
..............................................................................................................
............
Operations
Operating company
Before start of operations
Check/component
Ok
Not ok N.A.
Remarks/values
SUPPORTING CHECKLIST
Route survey checklist available and complete
Engineering checklist available and complete
Pre-mobilisation checklist available and complete
WORK AREA
Work area clear from obstacles
Work area clear from non-authorised persons
............ ..........................................
- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Performed by:
..............................................................................................................
Signature:
..............................................................................................................
............
29
APPENDIX 4: C
OMPETENCE ASSESSMENT FORM FOR OPERATORS
Part I: From level 0 to level 3
Operating company:
...................................................................................................................................
Operator name:
..................................................................................................................................
Started as operator:
............ ..........................................
Assigned mentor:
..................................................................................................................................
Criteria
- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Ok
Signed by
30
................................
Date
Remarks
...................................................................................................................................
Operator name:
..................................................................................................................................
Started as operator:
............ ..........................................
Assigned mentor:
..................................................................................................................................
Criteria
- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Ok
Signed by
................................
Date
Remarks
31
APPENDIX 5: C
OMPETENCE ASSESSMENT FORM FOR ENGINEERS
Part I: From level 0 to level 3
Operating company:
...................................................................................................................................
Operator name:
..................................................................................................................................
Started as operator:
............ ..........................................
Assigned mentor:
............ ..........................................
- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . :
................................
- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . :
................................
Criteria
Ok
Signed by
32
Date
Remarks
33
34