The forklift testing dilemma continues…

It is scary that almost 7 years since I first raised concern with the way in which LMI’s and LME’s are conducting “performance tests” on forklifts in South Africa. The major concern in 2019, was the methodology that was utilised to conduct such a “performance test”, with slings and a load cell to generate a “static load test”.

It is apparent some individuals from recent interaction on a WhatsApp Group either do not have knowledge of The Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993, Driven Machinery Regulation 18, section 44 (1) of the act and or the incorporated standard relevant to Lift Trucks Inspections and Load Testing, which is SANS 10388:2019.

It evident that Some LMI’s are still making use of a made-up “static test” method – to test forklift trucks. This involves the LMI using a sling and a load cell to perform the test.

This method is not correct as it does not test the unit as per SANS 10388:2019 which is an incorporated standard and legally binding. SANS 10388:2019 makes mention of the unit being tested functionally with no load applied and statically with the load being applied at the units rated capacity through the full range of motion.

The static test seems to be the most misconstrued. It does not mean a static load application. If you read 7.2.1 in SANS 10388:2019, it states “The test shall be performed in the stationary position on level ground. Static is referring to the unit being stationary while undergoing the performance test. This is not referring to someone trying to test a forklift using a “made up static method”, with a sling and a load cell.

The reason LME’s and LMI’s continue to utilise these methods is simply to cut costs because the do not own the equipment that is required, being solid test weights to conduct a dynamic performance test. This is because solid weights are expensive to procure and also expensive to transport. This is not a justified argument for not testing correctly.

While solid calibrated test weights are the most desired equipment needed to test. We must also think about it logically. If a client has a forklift of a particular capacity, it is usually because they lift loads close to that capacity.

This means the client has a combination of items to simulating the load with on site. Check the COG and never exceed your load chart. The above is the perfect illustration of why measuring equipment is in the referred to in SANS 10388:2019.

In SANS 10388 2019 - 7.1 the standard refers to the lift truck undergoing an inspection according to inspection criteria. 7.2.1 refers to the test being performed in a stationary position. 7.2.2 – refers to the load being acceptable to the manufacturer.

In SANS 10388:2019 – 7.2.3 refers to the criteria that shall be evaluated for compliance, which are as follows;

a) that the lift truck remains stable;

b) creep (natural drop) when loaded; and

c) ability of lift truck to sustain the rated capacity through the full working range as per load chart.

The question was posed by me – “How can you one achieves the performance testing criteria as per 7.2.3 a, b, c, when utilising a load cell and a sling to generate the load. The response was – “With a load cell”. This is evidently not the correct answer and shows that perhaps the individual does not have the correct comprehension of the Act or standards. Another common way to see if one fully comprehends SANS 10388:2019 is to see if an LMI applies 110% instead of 100% of the rated capacity during the performance test. Many LMI’s still put 110% on their certificates when testing lift trucks because they do not comprehend DMR 18(5).

With regards to 7.2.3 –

a) How is one able to assess the stability of a forklift when the performance test is being conducted with a sling and loadcell anchored to the forks and the mast or forks and an anchor point? It is impossible to assess stability when the machine is pulling against itself statically.

b) How are you to assess natural creep (Cylinder Creep) when you are pulling against the forks and an anchor point. Logically when natural creep starts to occur and tension comes off the slings, the creep will start to become less until none is apparent. It will also be apparent by observing the load cell that the tension is not constant and the simulated load will decrease as creep occurs. This means that it is impossible to accurately assess natural creep of the forklift with a sling and a load cell pulling against itself.

c) How does one assess “the ability of the lift truck to sustain the rated capacity through its full working range, as per load chart?” By utilising slings and a load cell you cannot assess the machines ability to sustain its full rated capacity, through full working range, as per load chart. This is because you are restricted by the length of your slings and cannot work through the full working range.

The definition of “rated capacity” is maximum load given in kilogram by the manufacturer based on component strength and truck stability that the truck can carry, lift and stack to a standard lift height, at a standard load centre in normal position. This is important in this context as it refers to a standard load centre, when utilising slings and a loadcell one cannot achieve a standard load centre, as slings will slip and end up on the fork heal, meaning the load centre was never achieved.

Therefore it is evident that only way to assess any of the above 7.2.3 a, b, c, is with a dynamic test load (calibrated test weights or a known weight on site).

It was also stated when advice was offered on the correct way to conduct performance testing as per, The Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993, Driven Machinery Regulation 18, section 44 (1) of the act and or the incorporated standard relevant to Lift Trucks Inspections and Load Testing, which is SANS 10388:2019 that The Department of Employment and Labour, not accepting this “static” methodology was speculation. I assure all members that this is not speculation. LEEASA has trained and made The Department of Employment and Labour Inspectors on Lift Trucks, and this was specifically covered as a no go. Therefore, this is not speculation and has been discussed with the directorate of electrical and mechanical engineering at the department.

To add to all the above – if one were to apply for the forklift scope at ECSA and they were to apply a made up “static load test” in their methodology. I can assure you the individual will not be found competent and even one’s mentors’ competency will be brought into question. Perhaps this is necessary to address the continued forklift testing dilemma we face.

From the above this dilemma should be addressed with all LME’s or LMI’s, that are cutting corners by testing forklifts incorrectly. This is as the methodology is incorrect and does not comply with legislative requirements. LEEASA and The Department of Employment and Labour shall be on the lookout for LME’s and LMI’s that are not conducting testing correctly.

The saddest and more important part is that this “cost saving” exercise is that the exact same methodology is, and have been for years, applied to several other lifting machines that lends itself to be being tested statically by saving costs. Some that jump to mind are Vehicle Hoists, Chain Hoists, Lorry Loader Cranes, Jacks, Electric Hoists on Crawl Beams and many others.

This is a practice that, like in the Forklift, scenario does not put the entire machine and all operational parts under the required load as intended and well detailed in DMR 18.5.a. Often clients are included in the cost saving the faster, cheaper static test is accepted with open arms. This topic will roll out in following publications until such time that all the practioners can openly admit the mistake made.

LEEASA,

+27 (0) 83 231 4371,

kyle@leeasa.co.za,

www.leeasa.co.za