A client has some large steel moulds specifically for producing precast concrete products such as stairs.  In order to remove the stairs after curing, the moulds are tiltable to an angle of around 80 degrees.  This is achieved by both hydraulic and mechanical means which then allows the cured product to be lifted out using cast in lifters installed in the side of the unit.  Basically the mould support frame is fixed to the ground and the mould part of the structure is hinged at one side.

My take on this is that as the equipment is effectively lifting and supporting the precast unit as well as the weight of the mould itself that it would be subject to LOLER thorough examination.  Also for cleaning / maintenance purposes, employees sometimes require access to the rear of the tilted mould.  Again, my take is that this would require thorough examination every 6 months due to the fact that persons are potentially in a hazardous area should there be a catastrophic failure of the lift/support mechanism.

Any thoughts,  I have considered whether this would be more applicable to PUWER due to the equipment tilting, but as you will appreciate, there is a bit of a crossover here.

client does not necessarily think that LOLER applies here due to the tilt only.

thanks in advance.

The following link shows a similar set up (note the photograph was taken from the rear of the structure.  on the other side would be a concrete stair unit weighing approx 2 - 4 tons.

https://www.construx.eu/sites/CONS/uploads/prijzen/big/pg50-achterzijde-regeling.jpg

a clearer photo may be this one - before it is tilted.

https://www.construx.eu/sites/CONS/uploads/prijzen/big/pg50-zijkant-mal.jpg

My take would be:

PUWER for the mechanical/hydraulic lift/tilt mold

LOLER (obviously) for the equipment lifting the precast unit out of the mold

An engineered design and Design Check Certificate for the lifting eyes, (Size, SWL and fixing within the precast unit) etc,

And Temporary Works for the operation as a whole, (I could be convinced otherwise on this bit, I'm only putting this in cos we have TW for lifting Rebar cages from the horizontal to the vertical for installation)

But a tipper truck is not covered by LOLER according to the HSE web page

ACOP L113, page 12 figure 1 can you answer yes to Q3? I would say no

But I would say no to a car transporter also!

Lots of companies use insurance companies ( not necessarily the one they are insured with), who are probably the best people to advise, you must be using someone for the equipment that lifts the concrete out ( though from your description is seems more pull it out sideways if its at 80 degrees).

Out of nothing but curiosity, when pouring the concrete is the side of the steps facing up or the underside facing up, with the step shape facing down.

Some people are able to post pictures on this site, but I’m not one so can’t tell you how to do it.

Chris

Originally Posted by: Pirellipete

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

For me this sounds more like PUWER than LOLAR - the best similar example i can think of is a winch on the back of a car recovery vehicle which pulls the car up the ramp. The HSE do not consider that lifting so only

Brian,

Quick sense check here,

ACOP L113, Safe use of Lifting equipment, Guidance Paragraph 28, section (s),  Car transporter or vehicle recovery equipment is listed as LOLER.... (who knew) ???

ACOP L113, Safe use of Lifting equipment, Equipment and operations not covered by LOLER Guidance Paragraph 29 (b) winching a load where the load does not leave the ground;

I think the difference here is the "hydrolics" that lift the bed is LOLAR - the winch that pulls up the car up teh slope is PUWER

But there again it used to be on the list of equipment which looks like Lifting equipment but is not - along with dentist chairs, pallet trucks etc, but its not there any more. So who realy knows - dont you just love H&S? LOL

Edited by user 17 August 2022 07:09:39(UTC)  | Reason: Missed half a sentance

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

Originally Posted by: Pirellipete

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard

For me this sounds more like PUWER than LOLAR - the best similar example i can think of is a winch on the back of a car recovery vehicle which pulls the car up the ramp. The HSE do not consider that lifting so only

Brian,

Quick sense check here,

ACOP L113, Safe use of Lifting equipment, Guidance Paragraph 28, section (s),  Car transporter or vehicle recovery equipment is listed as LOLER.... (who knew) ???

ACOP L113, Safe use of Lifting equipment, Equipment and operations not covered by LOLER Guidance Paragraph 29 (b) winching a load where the load does not leave the ground;

I think the difference here is the "hydrolics" that lift the bed is LOLAR - the winch that pulls up the car up teh slope is PUWER

But there again it used to be on the list of equipment which looks like Lifting equipment but is not - along with dentist chairs, pallet trucks etc, but its not there any more. So who realy knows - dont you just love H&S? LOL

Found it.

OC 803/69::Application of the provision and use of work equipment regulations 1998 and the lifting operations and lifting equipment regulations 1998 to motor vehicle repair (hse.gov.uk)

Recovery vehicles and associated equipment

28 Some recovery vehicles will have lifting devices which are very obviously cranes and should be treated as such under LOLER. Moveable beds and ramps will not normally be subject to LOLER, nor will winches as their main purpose is dragging the casualty vehicle over level ground or onto the bed of the recovery vehicle.

Originally Posted by: Pirellipete

LOLOL Brian,

So it is LOLER, unless it's PUWER

Or it might not be either, or it might be both... 

Either way we'll get you if it goes wrong.   lol

Yep!

i remember  when i was an inspector being asked by a care home if LOLAR and PUWER applied to a stair lift which residents operated themselves - to which i said no as the regs only apply to employees (yes it realy does matter who presses the button). They said great that meant they did no have to do a six month inspection. Which i told them was fine until an incident occured then i would prosecute them under section 3 HASWA for not doing enough to protect none emplyees.

 So what did i recomend? A 6 month thorough examination.

As Peter says sometime we get a bit wound up with actual regulations that the idea behind HASAW, which is doing what we need - so far as is reanonably practicable- to keep people safe.

Edited by user 17 August 2022 09:07:09(UTC)  | Reason: two may beings!

What is the primary designed function of the equipment?

I am with the client this is PUWER as the main function is moulding concrete