Terex-Demag’s new four-axle AC 100/4, to launch at Bauma
Terex-Demag’s new crane is the AC 100-4. This 13.10m-long four-axle crane is almost 1m shorter than its established five-axle version, the AC100. As Sascha Scholz, product manager for telescopic boom cranes claims however, ”The AC 100-4 is a completely new development, not just a four-axle version of the older crane. It features a narrower, 2.55m body, the same width as a standard truck. This gives advantages in accessing tight spaces, but also means it can pass toll gates on European motorways, rather than having to use special gates.”
As David Slack, managing director of Nationwide Crane Hire in the UK notes, “More and more, 100t is the standard AT crane. If you’re buying a four axle crane, you get a lot more flexibility with a 100t crane than a 50t.” Frank Bardonaro, general manager of AmQuip in the USA, agrees: “Typical in-and-out jobs are now being run by 110 US ton cranes, rather than larger cranes, or the 70 US ton cranes we used to use.” Some customers, such as Bardonaro and Erkki Hanhirova of Havator, have expressed a preference for higher-capacity truck cranes (on commercial chassis). But with the notable exception of Chinese manufacturer XCMG, no manufacturer seems to make a 100t truck crane. So all terrain cranes dominate the Western market.
These cranes are used for general construction, industrial installations, and petro-chemical refinery jobs, among other tasks. Mediaco of France, among others, uses them for erection of small top-slewing city-class tower cranes popular in Europe. However, Bardonaro says: “They are not big enough for dismantling most of the tower cranes we use. Generally, we try to eliminate the extra labour costs associated with climbing tower cranes, so we use bigger towers, and need bigger ATs to dismantle them.”
The 500th GMK 5100 produced by Grove
The top-slewing city-class tower cranes are smaller, and easier to erect. You can use a 100t AT to erect one of our 250tm-capacity Topkit MD 485 B cranes, but because it is a bigger crane you will not be able to erect it as tall as one of our 200tm-capacity Topkit MD 238A or MDT 192 cranes which are smaller and lighter,” says Francois Czerwinski, Potain product manager for top slewing tower cranes.
Wolfgang Beringer, Liebherr-Werk Ehingen head of sales promotion explains the appeal of ATs: “On one side customers want strong and compact cranes, on the other they want cranes, which can drive on public roads with as much counterweight as possible. The regulations (axle loads, axle distances, total weight, etc.) vary from country to country.”
Beringer continues, “With the four-axle 90t-100t cranes we offer compact and strong lifters. The five-axle 95t and100t cranes are used as taxi-cranes, because they can carry more counterweight within the legal axle loads and they do many jobs in this configuration. Most of the customers have both models, as it can happen that a strong crane is needed for some jobs, but construction sites requires a short crane.”
Slack comments, “Originally, customers wanted cranes as compact as possible. To get 100t capacity more counterweight is needed, so manufacturers added an extra axle. Once, 45t was considered normal, now 100t is.”
Tadano’s 110t rated (at 3m over the rear) ATF110G-5 has a maximum main boom of 52m and a maximum hook height of 83m
For some rental companies, the choice of fine gradations of capacity is more of a problem than a benefit. Erkki Hanhirova, managing director of Havator complains, “I’m a little bit concerned that the manufacturers have got into a race and are producing too many models. We don’t need a new model for every 10t. There are too many components and maintenance costs. We would prefer more standardisation. It would be cheaper for us to have fewer models, in greater quantities.”
Grove, Liebherr, Terex-Demag and Tadano Faun all produce cranes in this 100t capacity class, offering a choice of boom lengths and axle configurations (see details in table). It’s not just the major manufacturers with fully globalised sales forces that compete here though. In Italy, Autogru Rigo, Marchetti, and Ormig all produce ATs of around 100t, as does Spain’s Luna, Japan’s Tadano and Kato, the US’s Link-Belt, and China’s XCMG and Puyuan Zoomlion.
A key element of the attraction of these cranes is their ability to bring some pretty hefty lifting power to a jobsite, in one piece, without using additional vehicles. Additionally, in different configurations, and with counterweight being carried separately, large loads can be lifted to great heights using relatively short cranes.
Key to this flexibility of uses is the choice of axle configurations on offer, and consequently the amount of counterweight that can be carried within axle weight restrictions. Grove, Liebherr and Terex Demag all offer cranes of around 100t capacities in both four or five axle configurations, and Terex Demag even offers a modular sixth axle.
A Sarens-owned Terex-Demag AC100, fitted with a modular sixth axle.
Nationwide’s David Slack comments, “It’s important to have the ability to carry counterweight on the crane, but you can’t always take the longer, five-axle, cranes on to a site. When you can, it cuts the expense of using additional transport.”
For Frank Bardonaro the issue of working without a support vehicle is the key driver behind AmQuip’s choice of crane: “We have a mix of 110t Grove and Liebherr AT cranes, almost all of them five-axle. In the US, to get the right axle weight we need to use five-axle cranes. On the four axles, we generally need to use a support vehicle, not just for counterweight, but also for support plates and so on. Typically, we can use these five-axle cranes with what is on board, in terms of counterweight, boom length and swingaway jib.”
Bardonaro continues, “The main reason for choosing these cranes is availability. We’ve had good reliability from both manufacturers. Grove has been competitive on pricing, especially with the current Euro exchange rate. In Tennessee, we generally use Liebherrs. Elsewhere the mix is around half and half. This depends on the service engineers we have available.” Bardonaro explained that AmQuip’s choice of crane is often driven by local axle weight restrictions, with those in the Midwest favouring Groves.
Another issue for AmQuip is the manufacturers’ stated axle capacities: “We have a major problem with the maximum axle ratings on cranes from European manufacturers - and I’m including the newer, European-built, Groves here. European machines carry plates with maximum ratings of 26,400 lbs (12t), but permits in the US are issued at 32,000 lbs (14.5t). Local state departments of transport are saying that we are breaking the manufacturers rated capacities, and imposing heavy fines. The manufacturers are trying to fix this, but until they put US-specific plates on their cranes, the departments of transport will keep saying the cranes are illegal. This is a major problem in the north east of the US.”
Terex-Demag’s Sascha Scholz points out that his company produces other AT cranes with the US market in mind, particularly the 140t (170 US ton) AC-140.
In France, Mediaco managing director Christian-Jacques Vernazza, has chosen to focus on four axle cranes such as the LTM 1095, LTM 1100 4.1 and the new GMK 4100L. As he explains, “In France, our unique axle spacing regulations make five axle cranes difficult to use. We’re pushing the ministry of transport to harmonise France’s regulations, but it is currently a problem. For that reason, almost all of our cranes in this class are four axle.”
As well as working in France, almost half of Mediaco staff are based in North Africa, including Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania. In these territories though, AT cranes are not appropriate: Vernazza comments, “We’re not using this sort of crane in North Africa at the moment: they are too expensive, and the market in North Africa is not there yet.”
Havator, based in Finland, but also working in Norway, Sweden and Russia, mainly uses five-axle 100t cranes, but needs a five-axle 110t AC110 Demag, with a longer wheel base, for Norway. Erkki Hanhirova explains, “Road regulations are much tougher there: axle weight limits are 10t on some roads, and as low as 8t on others.”
Size matters
Another important area of competition in this sector is boom length, and jib configuration. The standard boom length has stood at around 50-52m. However, Liebherr’s new LTM 1095 features a 58m boom, and Grove is heavily marketing the new 60m boom that is available on its recently launched GMK 4100L and its forthcoming GMK 5095.
Michael Preikschas at Grove explained that the longer boom had been designed with tower crane erection and dismantling in mind. Despite only being launched in late 2006, almost all of the planned production capacity for the GMK 4100L in 2007 has already been sold. At the time of writing, the first six of the cranes are out working, and Grove is planning on building two or three a week.
Christian-Jacques Vernazza, managing director of Mediaco, says, “Longer booms, like on the GMK 4100L and the newer Liebherrs are the future. We will look to buy longer booms on all our new cranes.” Asked about older 50-52m boom models, Bardonaro agrees, “Any new crane we buy will have to have the longer booms. The shorter booms no longer have the reach we need.”
David Slack of Nationwide expands on this: “The bigger boom is a big issue, in terms of saving rigging space that would be used for a fly jib. Space, time to rig, and environmental issues restrict using a fly jib: would you want us mounting a fly jib outside your window early in the morning? Again, it’s increasing our flexibility to use the crane.”
Terex-Demag has promoted its modular sixth axle, available for the five-axle AC-100 and AC120. Scholz explains: “This was originally requested by a group of Dutch customers. They faced strict 12t per axle weight restrictions, but wanted to bring large amounts of counterweight to job sites, and needed heavy outrigger support plates, because the ground there is often soft. Using the sixth axle meant that they could transport all of the counterweight and the mats they needed, without using support vehicles. This isn’t an option we sell hundreds of a year - it’s more like five to ten per year.”
For rental companies working in congested city areas however, this is not a big draw. Frank Bardonaro says, “We wouldn’t use a sixth axle - I don’t see what you would gain. The key issue for us is the gross weight of the crane, not carrying extra counterweight. The modular axle would have to be removed each time, adding a day’s work to the job. It’s not much use in metropolitan areas.”
David Slack agrees, “The sixth, modular, axles make the crane longer again. You also have issues of maintenance and of what to do with it once you get to a site. It’s not something we see a need for, and it is very expensive to add to the crane.”
Many European manufacturers work on a sales pitch that promotes additional features, such as advanced steering systems or improved driver cabs. Erkki Hanhirova, for one, is sceptical about this: “All the European manufacturers’ cranes are too sophisticated. There are too many features, they are for nothing. Forget this nonsense with extra features, we don’t get paid for features, we need cranes that are workhorses.”
For Hanhirova, this scepticism over excessive high technology is prompting a new attitude to where he buys his cranes: “I’m waiting for the currencies to move to favour the Japanese manufacturers. Production costs are much cheaper there, and Japanese cranes are much more reliable. We have ten Tadano GR700 rough terrain cranes, and we haven’t needed to buy a single spare part in the first three years. They’ve never broken down: we don’t even know where the Tadano service centre is.” Hanhirova also noted that he may consider buying AT cranes from China: How long will it be before Chinese manufacturers are ready to meet this demand?
