Why don’t Americans GET high reach excavators…?

[thodob]

i think its from a demo project in oslo, large industry facility

[Jack Westwood]

From A UK Point of veiw I think its lazynes and Cost. There Are HRD Machines Out there in america, CAT Build them out of their factorys and I Know theres companys that are the US equivulent of Kocurek like Jewell but contractors would rather buy a bog standard 20 tonner with a thumb to knock a building down.
But there are companys out there that are not using Specialised equipment or cab gaurds that are'nt Required by law like in the UK which i think is appualing, We have all seen pictures of how they have saved lives and some companys in america work with out glass in the cab let alone a gaurd, Only the other day on mega structures an old CAT With no cab Glass was pulverisng an old building with concrete flying everywhere. But tjose companys are getting the Job done with out millions of pounds worth of High reach excavator.

my 50p's worth

[Hendrik]

Originally Posted by Jack Westwood

But tjose companys are getting the Job done with out millions of pounds worth of High reach excavator.

and getting workers killed in the process.

[Jack Westwood]

Originally Posted by Hendrik

and getting workers killed in the process.

Oh, Believe me, I wasnt enouraging this, I was stating the facts.

[digger242j]

Originally Posted by Hendrik

and getting workers killed in the process.

I'm assuming you're saying that demolition work in the US is measurably more fatal than elsewhere. Do you have a source that says that?

The reason I ask is that I just went googling around for any sort of statistical comparison, and statistics on demolition-specific fatalities are kind of hard to find. It at least doesn't seem to stand out from the rate of fatalities in the construction industry in general...

[demolitionnews]

Unfortunately, here in the UK (and in most European countries) the accident statistics for demolition and construction are combined to it is difficult to compile firm figures.
What I can tell you is that members of the UK's National Federation of Demolition Contractors (who are responsible for around 90% of all the UK's demolition work) have seen a steady decline in serious accidents and fatalities that has been almost continuous for the past 10-15 years.
Interestingly, however, the growth in recycling and sustainability has been mirrored by a growth in minor (but resportable) accidents. But that is a new article in itself!

[thodob]

Originally Posted by demolitionnews

Interestingly, however, the growth in recycling and sustainability has been mirrored by a growth in minor (but resportable) accidents. But that is a new article in itself!

and so has the profit... (before the financial crisis tho)

[John C.]

I can't provide statistics but anecdotally I can say from the news reports I see in my area we have far more accidents in construction than in demolition.

After rereading all the posts in this thread it occurs to me that we are trying to compare apples to oranges. Europe and the British Isles have history going back a couple of thousand years. The US goes back maybe three hundred. The land is different, the people are different and many if not most of the construction methods are different.

The initial impression I got from the question was that somehow the writer thinks or puts forth that the demolition methods employed in Europe were better than used here. Increased use of high reach machines and greater percentage of salvage and recycling were seen as a better way of accomplishing that type of work and a back hand slap at how we do things here. What I didn't see were numbers making actual comparisons of the cost of demolition. Is it possible that government mandates proscribe those methods? Already mentioned was safety records. Reviewing photos of extremely long reach machines reminds me of crane disasters. Just how are those long reach machines rated when it comes to loading. Can they let go of a bite on a building fast enough to prevent a rollover?

The method of construction or demolition is an engineering function. All the inherent characteristics of the project have to be considered and costs calculated. All the methods considered for all the variables and the most cost effective one chosen for the desired outcome of the project. In other words what works on the continent is not necessarily going to work in the states to the same degree. What works in the states also may not work in other parts of the world.

Apples and Oranges

[thodob]

death of the high rise

as previous mentioned, the skills of the operator is important. This video is one the worst I've seen, cause this show total lack of understanding on how weaking of structures work... But you cant blame the UHD for the accident.

the best reason for UHD being more safe is that, the method enable the machine being longer away from the demo object, as the picture below shows, and thus falling debris is no problem.

[digger242j]

This video is one the worst I've seen, cause this show total lack of understanding on how weaking of structures work... But you cant blame the UHD for the accident.

That's simply an example of a "not quite high enough reach" demolition machine. You could get the same results trying to bring down a 4 story building with a regular excavator. The machine has to be capable of doing the job...

[Turbo21835]

HRDs are not the rule around here, but they are not uncommon. But there are also other ways to wreck a building.

The last photo shows the result of an HRD machine not having the tool carrying capability for heavy steel structures. The cat 385UHD carries a tool that is also carried by a cat 320. That shows you capability in cutting steel. The 385 operator was chewing away at the column trying to cut it. The column and truss collapsed, pinching the shear, and damaging it. So with help with a torch man, and 375 with a third member shear, this section was removed. The following post will show how the rest of the structure was dealt with

[Turbo21835]

The remaining portion of this structure was dealt with in an old school way. Since the HRD did not have the ability to cut the heavy steel, it was used to remove any remaining sheet metal, and loose items. Then, a 375 with 3rd member shear removed everything that could be reached. Then the rest of the structure was set up by a torch man. Reason this was done this way was due to the structure being close to an active railroad, and high tension power lines

[bigblueox]

I think it has alot to do with the population density around the structure to be demolished. maybe?

[demolitionnews]

Just one quick point; can anyone tell me indicative US landfill costs, ie, the cost per tonne to dump unwanted, inert materials (excluding transport).

[thodob]

Originally Posted by digger242j

That's simply an example of a "not quite high enough reach" demolition machine. You could get the same results trying to bring down a 4 story building with a regular excavator. The machine has to be capable of doing the job...

yes, of course... but my point was for the first having an UHD machine not necassary include safe demo. Second the importance of having an understanding of how weaken structures behave (I ment that machine is placed in the worst position, e.g. he could have pushed or pulled the remaining part down... ).

Rural areas comment: In Norway we have at least 20 high reach machines (as I know about) and we have approximately 5 million inhabitans, compared to the US it should be like 1200 high reach machines over there
Still HRD is special equipement and should just be bought of demolition contractors which is working over a larger area.