Why don’t Americans GET high reach…?
Low recycling rates and high accident levels highlight US demolition’s failure to innovate.
I have spent more than 25 years writing about construction, demolition, and the equipment used across these demanding sectors. And for the most part, it was like casting my carefully crafted and finely honed words and phrases to the four winds, as even the most controversial – and in some cases, idiotic – statements were greeted with a stony silence from the readership of whichever trade magazine was paying me at the time.
This, in truth, was one of the reasons for producing Demolition News in a weblog (or blog) format. One of the most gratifying things about running and contributing to this site is not checking the web statistics to see how many people looked at the previous day’s articles. Nor is it calculating the revenue secured from the advertising which, let’s face it, is not sufficient for me to retire any time soon.
No, the most gratifying thing about running this site is the dialogue that it attracts, whether it’s about an issue of the day or how stupid I look in a kilt. And as a result, I find myself writing in a totally new way. I no longer preach and rehash the wisdom of someone far more knowledgeable. Instead, I like to throw a spotlight upon a specific subject, ask a question, and see where that takes us.
So, as the headline above suggests, the question for today is: Why have US demolition contractors failed to grasp the high reach excavator concept?
Now before I sign off and leave you, our loyal readers, to suggest why the single greatest advance in recent industry history is still anathema to most US demolition contractors, let’s take a quick look at the facts.
The high reach excavator as we would understand it today has been around in Europe for something like 20 years. During that time, it has been honed, enhanced and refined, and the machines themselves have slowly got bigger and bigger.
But the growth in the size of the machines – with the current record holder standing at a previously unimaginable 90 metres – hides the true, industry-defining magnitude of the contribution made these highly specialised machines.
For one thing, their arrival and subsequent growth has served to reduce the number of demolition workers required to get “up close and personal” with the more hazardous areas of the demolition task. The machines have also benefited from huge strides in operator comfort and protection.
Together, these developments have led to a significant drop in the number of work-related incidents, accidents and fatalities on UK and European demolition sites.
And let’s not forget that, at the time of writing, high reach demolition excavators have yet to be linked directly with a single on-site fatality, despite the fact that only the UK has (so far) a set of guidance notes on the safe use of these monster machines.
In short, as these machines have gone up, so accident levels have gone down.
Now take a quick scoot through YouTube and search for the term “demolition accident” and you’ll be astounded at just how many feature a US contractor undercutting a structure with an excavator that is clearly way too small for the task. A bit like this one that we showed you yesterday, in fact.
And the story doesn’t end there. Indeed, the decline in demolition accidents and fatalities is mirrored almost perfectly in the decline in materials sent to landfill, since the arrival and almost universal adoption of high reach machines this side of the Atlantic spearheaded a move away from demolition and towards deconstruction.
The result is that UK and European sites are achieving 90%+ recycling rates with such regularity these days that we no longer talk about it. Our American counterparts, meanwhile, speak with some pride about achieving 45%!
The other bizarre thing – and you’ll have to bear with me because I am about to sail very close to the wind of racial stereotyping – is that Americans traditionally have a fascination with anything, well, big. Look at their cars, their skyscrapers, their food! And this applies in industry too. If Caterpillar took it upon themselves to build a 1,000 tonne dozer capable of leveling an entire town in a single afternoon, you just know that an American contractor is going to be the first to buy one and will probably take it with the extra counterweight option!
So before I hand this question over to you, our loyal readers, let’s recap.
Since the UK and Europe adopted high reach excavators, recycling rates have gone up and accident levels have gone down. And the only major First World nation that has failed to adopt these machines – and which still has a laughable recycling record and a lamentable safety record – is the mighty US of A.
So, after what must seem like an age, here’s that question again. Why have US demolition contractors failed to grasp the high reach excavator concept?
We look forward to reading your contributions and suggestions.
Posted: August 14th, 2009 under General, News.
Tags: Equipment, high reach, UHD
Comments
Comment from admin
Time August 14, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Let me start by saying that we’re delighted to have received a comment from the man behind the world’s largest high reach machine. I can think of few people better equipped to answer this question, so thanks Ruud.
Judging by some of the offline feedback that this article has generated, there is a lot of agreement out there for all of your points Ruud, particularly in relation to training.
I am looking forward to this topic hotting up once the American contractors come on line!
Comment from RobertKulinski
Time August 14, 2009 at 4:03 pm
As an American Contractor who performs a lot of work abroad I look at this issue from multiple angles. Europe has always been years ahead of the US when it comes to recycling. I remember back in the ’80’s when I saw my first concrete crusher on a project for Ogdens. When I returned to the states and told people about it they looked at me like I had 2 heads. I think the thing which pushes recycling is the amount of available land. I just returned form Hong Kong. The demolition contractor I work for there probably achieves a 99% recycling rate because there is no space for landfills In America we have lots of space, so the stuff gets dumped. The market for recycled concrete isn’t all that great because we still have a lot of rock quarries. I don’t think the market for recycled concrete has still been fully embraced by the engineering community either.
In regards to the steel issue, I think that is driven by our legal industry. Everything is over engineered and overbuilt in America because of the fear of a lawsuit. What’s the British term for that? Ass Plaster?
Comment from Mark Anthony
Time August 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Many thanks for your input Robert; I’m delighted to have a comment from the other side of the pond.
This story has now been picked up by the US magazine Construction Equipment (http://www.constructionequipment.com/article/CA6676785.html) and I have also emailed the guys at the US’ National Demolition Association, so I am hopeful that this one will rage throughout the weekend and the coming week.
Comment from Austrian
Time August 14, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Hello everyone
I d say this is a two point discussion, at one point the money/profit issue, and the safty discussion on the other side.
Where i am from the buildings are smaller, but we also have very less high reach excavators, while the german and swiss behind the boarders use this machines very often.
A hrd-excavator is a very expensive machine, that needs a very trained operator, and a lot of work an hours a year to be paid. The cheapest gets the job. In Germany and Switzerland for example the saftey police is very strict, the have no other choice, we only get trouble when something gets broken, or someone gets injured. But in Germany you ll be in trouble when only someone sees an a little unsafe operation and turns you in.
Talking about saefty, i don’t think that a high reach excavator brings a lot of saefty, when the operator, crew and company are not intersted in safe work.
When you look at the video a “demoliton stick”, maybe a simple steel beam witch brackets or a quick hitch on one side would have done the job, to tear the house down from a save distance.
Greets Austrian
Comment from Oliver James
Time August 14, 2009 at 9:39 pm
What a fascinating debate. I must admit, having seen some of the implosion footage from the US, I’d have expected them to embrace big machines.
It would be interesting though to get some more feedback from some US contractors to see precisly why they’re largely ignoring this development.
Pingback from Why don’t US contractors GET high reach excavators? – Demolitionforum.com Forums
Time August 15, 2009 at 1:53 am
[...] "The Debate" ……Demolition News Why don
Comment from admin
Time August 15, 2009 at 9:51 am
Just a very quick update to say that this debate is continuing elsewhere:
http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=177526#post177526
The conversation is also continuing at http://www.demolitionforum.com, although their servers are currently down.
Comment from admin
Time August 15, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I could do with some UK, European or Scandinavian input on this if anyone’s willing or able: http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=177665&posted=1#post177665
Comment from mark
Time August 15, 2009 at 2:12 pm
for one thing addressing the Cat equipment comment. the highest reach excavator in the world is built on a Cat plaltform. Why don’t Demo Contactors across the pond in the states really inbrace this technology? it comes down to price. I worked in the UK for a couple of months and I can say this a Demo Contractor from across the pond would not make it in the US. I know people that have come over from Europe and opened Demo Companies here they are not doing Demo like they did in Europe they are doing it the way we do it. We may be crude and rude by European standards but we get the job done and safely. I have seen plenty of videos of European demo contractors getting into trouble also.
Comment from John Woodward
Time August 17, 2009 at 7:34 am
I think that USA do not use high reach because historically they have used explosive demolition on taller structures and tend to use conventionally configured machines on smaller jobs.
I am concerned that most of the “demolition gone wrong” Utube footage, from Europe and USA, is where a building is undercut by a machine that cannot reach the top. There is also a lack of use of ramps to get the machine to reach higher and work safer.
The footage is of jobs that went wrong where no one was killed and so it is viewed as a lucky escape, and if “we got away with it this time” is the thinking then nothing will change for the next time they consider undercutting a structure.
It is difficult for a UK contractor to make it in the USA as the perception of risk is greater in UK and if that is translated onto a USA tender then the UK contractor will not be competitve.
I watch, as we all do, Discovery channel shows of USA blowdowns and sit there whilst they run skidsteers on the 10th floor without a barrier or watch the driller working alongside an open edge 15 floors up and cannot believe that people are not killed or that enforcement is not applied. The shows also show a simple police roadblock at blast time, something that the UK would never allow.
I fully accept that USA will not recycle as we do because they have large areas of landfill and no incentive to reuse materials, so there is no driver to encourage recycling. Also USA does not Greenpeace or similar lobbying government to reduce co2 and think sustainabilty so recycling is not on the agenda in the USA. If, for example, USA did not have vast oil reserves they would probably buy more Toyota Prius but why go green if you have unlimited oil reserves to run your 6 litre Camaro?
Eventually USA will “get ” High Reach but it will take some time as market forces and site locations in UK dictated how our industry advanced and those two forces are vastly differnet in USA to UK.
In the meantime perhaps we Brits should go over to USA to discuss how we do things here and try to see if there is common ground.
The IDE are actively seeking to recruit members in USA so that could be a way to spread the word.
Comment from Lindsay Gale
Time August 17, 2009 at 11:53 am
The impression I have got in reporting on the sector is that high reach is coming of age in the USA. While they may not match their European counterparts in height, they are beginning to get there.
Jewell Equipment, the US equivalent of Kocurek in Europe cartainly seems to think so. Mark Ramun told D&Ri in January 2008 that the company had seen a 400% growth in orders over 2006 levels and at that time he expected to see further growth in 2008 of 25-30%.
It is my understanding that there is less of a requirement for such equipment given the nature of most US cities and towns – more spread out, less high rise than typically you see in Europe – but demand is nevertheless growing.
Comment from admin
Time August 17, 2009 at 11:58 am
Thanks for your input Lindsay; great to get some feedback from someone with a more global perspective.
Comment from James Richardson
Time August 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm
A very interesting debate.
Its worth highlighting, before sharing an opinion, that approaching the USA as one market can often create misunderstanding as nearly every state has its very own economic, geographic and demographic characteristics which influence the way they do things regionally .
Its my sense that there are a number of factors influencing the general trend (the majority already highlighed by other bloggers);
- Culture, the mind set in the USA is still very objective and often focused on getting the job done in the quickest and most convenient method. Explosive demolition is therefore preferred.
- Resource, despite all the negaitive press about the credit crunch the USA is still the richest country in the world with more space and resources. Up until now there has been little pressure to recycle or reuse in the way there has been in Europe.
Building Design, there is a major divide between how buildings are constructed in cicties vs suburbs / countryside. Whilst skyscrapers dominate the imagery of the USA the majority of buildings outside of the CBD of major cities are often low rise and /or constructed of timber all of which can be dealt with by a standard excavator.
Money; I have worked in many markets and in almost every one (there were sometimes other drivers in China) the bottom line is the major factor to how things are done. The USA will be no exception and there are no doubt underlying commecial reasons to why they prefer to do it their way.
All this said its worth noting that there are companies in the USA, albeit a minority, using high reach excavators ,as featured by the world press during the twin towers clear up. Which concludes there are many ways to skin a cat and when the circumstances are right high reach is still seen as an important method, even in the USA.
Comment from admin
Time August 17, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Welcome to the debate James (and sorry if we bothered you during your annual shutdown). Always good to get some input from a manufacturer that supplies the world market.
Pingback from Can open, worms eveywhere… |
Time August 18, 2009 at 2:07 am
[...] There was an initial (and ongoing) flurry of comments here on Demolition News (click here to read the story and then hit the word comments in blue at the foot of the article to follow the [...]
Comment from Jeffrey Pittman
Time August 18, 2009 at 9:26 pm
First, high reach excavators are very expensive and specialized. I face issues every time I move a piece of equipment with the DOT Police, overwidth, overweight, etc.
We are a small contractor most jobs are less than a month in duration, so you have to look at the cost associated with mobilization of large equipment to do a smaller project. Plus our excavator has to serve many functions, besides getting the building on the ground, it has to load trucks. Try to load a large dump trailer with a 60 foot long reach. My little JD 135 RTS can run circles around a long reach.
Plus when I finish the building, I have to remove the unsuitable soil. We have to have machines that can perform a variety of projects, not just hoist a grapple or crusher attachment 60 feet in the air.
I would love to own a long reach excavator, but I am not going to spend 350k to buy one. I can buy 5 good low hour used JD 330’s for that kind of money.
Plus we are located in Louisiana, have to mat many times when you use a 100,000+ lbs machine.
Comment from Mick Goodhind
Time September 1, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I have to agree with Jeffrey Pittman when he states that the cost of the equipment is the most relevant factor. In Arizona there are very few high reach projects that would warrant the purchase of such a machine, and the price of the work in this economic climate, would not support the rental or purchase. We are therefore looking for other ways to achieve our objectives safely. Just as it was twenty years ago, here in the States, when no excavator had a thumb, high reach excavators will become more common when used ones begin to appear on the market. Until that time, small businesses such as ours will continue with our innovative, and to some primitive, ways of completing the demolition of our few tall structures.
Comment from admin
Time September 1, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Thanks for your input Mick; it’s much appreciated. Interestingly, I have just learned that the US’ National Demolition Association is about to adopt the NFDC’s High Reach Guidance Notes (which, incidentally, I co-wrote) so it seems that the NDA think that high reach machines are on the way: http://www.demolitionnews.com/2009/09/01/exclusive-video-stateside-view/
Comment from jimkottar
Time October 6, 2010 at 10:20 am
I came across your site when this site is very help full. ,I’m very interested in this story. Thanks for this information.
Comment from Ruud Schreijer
Time August 14, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Americans can best give answer to the question of course, because for us it is only guessing. We have seen however the same in the mobile crane industry where at first it was very difficult to sell the new types of cranes who could do more but where less in seize. Especially the thickness of the steel was a concern of the American companies. The thicker the better was their opinion. The thought is that America is leading in everything, but in mechanical technology they have lost the battle ages ago. Caterpillar is a great product but can not match a Liebherr or a Hitachi in complexity. That could also be their success of course. The machines are “simple”, always work or can be easily repaired.
The use of high tensile steel is maybe another matter. America was the first to introduce the T1 steel with a yield of 690 N/mm2 a lot better than the European steel with a yield of 355 N/mm2. The European steel manufacturers have taken up the challenge (SSAB and Thyssen) and with the demand of the mobile crane industry that is mainly focussed in Germany they developed 690, 770, 890, 960 till 1100 N/mm nowadays and 1300 is on its way. Even in Japan they do not go higher than 890 N/mm2.
Welding these high tensile steels is not difficult but, as with all, you have to know what you are doing. I don’t think there are not many companies in America who can deal with welding high tensile steels.
Another thing is that, in our opinion, High Reach Machines needs special operators. These machines are designed to the limit and can not be used for a “try to see how far we can get” attitude of work. I have no knowledge on the safety awareness in the US but I know it is high in the UK and on the mainland of Europe. If you see some of the films with accidents in the US you could believe there is another training scheme for operators on the other side of the ocean. For me there could be three reasons to the question:
American companies have a conservative approach to new machines. (so eventually they will come)
For repair of these machines they are depended on European companies, which is not desirable
They would like to have machines everyone can operate, rather than a dedicated expert.
It has become a bit of a story and of course it is just my opinion.